On Jan 18, 8:15 am, Doug Mentohl <doug_ment...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
[quoting Jim Alchin]
> "One that I thought of while on the trip that I used dealt with the fact
> you need to recompile your apps, etc when a new release of Linux comes out"
> Wha'..
This was one of the key objectives of LSB 3.0 - to address
incompatibilities between versions of C++ libraries. C++ applications
represent a very small percentage of Linux applications, but the issue
was legitimate - IIRC, it was fixed just before the memo was
written. It was a known issue within the Linux community and had been
hotly discussed.
> "We need someone to tear down the indemnification offered from RedHat
> and IBM to customers. We need to understand exactly the risk a customer
> is under if a patent lawsuit happens and Linux is challenged. I’d like
> Dan to own this. There MUST be risks to customers that are being passed
> on. I want this understood precisely. We need to get the license from
> IBM given to customers and investigate."
IBM and Red Hat both had substantial patent networks, and had
Microsoft attempted to exercise patents against Red Hat or IBM
customers, both companies had more than a few patent claims against
Microsoft - including nullification of Microsoft's patents. Notice
that even though that tactic was proposed 7 years ago, Microsoft has
not dared to touch either company. Furthermore, they negotiated cross-
licensing agreements with Novell and Red Hat to assure that patents
held by those companies weren't pressed against Microsoft.
Meanwhile, Microsoft has lost several patent lawsuits, often paying
huge penalties because they had not cross-licensed patents to give
them an umbrella against OSS technology. Many OSS "devices" are
patented but the publisher agrees to license the patent use -
specifically with regard to the Open Source version. If another
company tries to use the same "device" in proprietary software, they
have to license or cross-license the patent.
The strategy backfired - and now Microsoft is establishing a defensive
umbrella, which included cross-licensing that permits OSS licensees
unrestricted use.
> When does normal business competition cross the line into outright
> criminal activity?
Microsoft has already been found guilty of criminal acts, which is
what happens when a judge rules against you in a civil suit.
Microsoft has a history of settling early and often, getting immunity
for it's employees, having the records sealed so that they can't be
used in future cases, and trying to keep information out of the public
domain.
In the Ohio vs Microsoft case, the prosecutor knew the ultimate
outcome, so, during the trial, he published all of the exhibits on a
public government owned web site, putting all unsealed exhibits in
public domain. Microsoft tried to have the records sealed, but the
Judge ruled that anyone who had copied the exhibits had copied public
domain information - and therefore could publish with impunity.
Notice that Microsoft has been avoiding further cases of this type?
Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson told a reporter that he really didn't
want to impose divestature, but he also felt that Microsoft's top
executives, especially those who testified in his court, were
criminals and should face criminal prosecution.
It's possible that Judge Jackson deliberately made those statements to
make sure that he did NOT establish court ordered forced divestiture
as a legal precedent.
Jackson expected Microsoft to appeal, which is why he published his
findings of fact, and rulings of law, before his rather bizarre
handling of the actual remedy stage of the case. He may have imposed
his "Interim sanctions" as a way of attempting to make sure that an
appeal and/or future settlement would contain these remedies rather
than the forced divestiture.
I don't think even Judge Jackson expected the Bush administration to
choose a Compliance Officer who was pro-microsoft AND have him
assigned to the marketing department - where bonuses based on revenues
and profit would not be considered a bribe.
I don't think he expected the Bush Administration to dismiss over
4,000 public complaints by OEMs, Retailers, Customers, and Corporate
Customers - as without merit - after 10 minutes of "investigation".
I don't think he expected the Bush Administration to protect
Microsoft's monopoly by blocking mergers and aquisitions of Microsoft
competitors who publicly supported Linux (Oracle, Google, Yahoo).
Under the Bush Administration, Microsoft showed that it was above the
law. The end of the Bush administration has shown that, for big
monopolies and monopolistic banks - there was no law. Regulators
didn't do their jobs, compliance officers were replaced with do-
nothings assigned to the marketing department, brokerages had their
records sealed, and people all over the world lost $trillions to
Bush's buddies.
The biggest problem for Obama is that there are so many fires to be
put out, to prevent a catastrophic GLOBAL DEPRESSION caused by the
same tactics used in the Microsoft case to help corporations pocket
$trillions into wildly speculative loans, mortgages, and investments.
The biggest Winners - Haliburton, Exxon, BP, and Microsoft.
> http://edge-op.org/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/7000/PX07168.pdf
|
|
