.comment: Your Voice

By: Dennis E. Powell
Wednesday, December 26, 2001 02:27:10 PM EST
URL: http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reviews/3973/1/

A Remarkable Response

Two weeks ago, I encouraged readers to take advantage of the public comment period in the U.S. v. Microsoft case.

I am not as a rule a tinfoil hatter -- conspiracy theories are, to me, more a matter of amusement than conviction. Having said that, I must admit that I'm truly puzzled that the contact information provided in the Federal Register was erroneous in two out of the three methods listed. The third, regular mail, carried a warning that it might not arrive.

Here is the correct information. Bear in mind that if you choose to comment -- and you should -- it must arrive before January 27. The correct e-mail address is microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov while the correct fax numbers are 1-202-307-1454 or 1-202-616-9937.

That bit of business out of the way, I must take my (non-tinfoil) hat off to the readers of this column, who I have come to learn are among the most logical and reasoned people it is my privilege to know. I learned this because a number of you were kind enough to send me copies of your comments in the case. It is too often too easy to forget that there is more to the Linux user base than the free-for-all discussion, flames, humor, and communications from another (distant and undiscovered) dimension that we all know from the various online fora.

This week I thought I'd excerpt some of those comments, to give those of you who haven't yet written a sense of what your fellow Linux users are saying to the Department of Justice and the judge. In that I do not have specific permission to use them, I will not quote people by name, nor will I repeat anyone's comment in its entirety. Due to the fact that this column will probably be very long anyway, there will be some that I don't quote at all; I hope that their writers do not take this as an appraisal of their contributions, because it's not. Without exception, the comments I've seen have been well-reasoned, well-put, and appropriately respectful. I'm proud to know their writers.

Before I start, let me give the best answer I can to a question I received from numerous people. I do not know whether comments from outside the United States would, as a matter of law, be given any weight. I do know, however, that as a practical matter international commerce is what fuels the world's economy, and a growing part of that economy is computers and software and the uses to which they are put. It is inconceivable to me that a strong representation of interested parties outside the U.S. could do any harm, and I strongly suspect that it might do a great deal of good.

What You Said

My column had scarcely been posted when a California system administrator sent me his two-page comment:

"As the Network Administrator . . . it is my responsibility oversee the deployment of new technologies to our company. My position gives me ample freedom to implement whatever software or hardware I see necessary to keep the company network running smoothly and to satisfy user requests. Unfortunately, though my position may give me that freedom, the current software economy cannot. . . .

"I would dearly love to replace all Microsoft technology in my office with Open Source software, and if the software economy give me as much freedom as my job did, I would do just that. However, the most defeating problem is what Microsoft chooses to keep secret -- it's network protocols, the layout of it's Office files, and the precise technology needed to migrate from their email server. . . . I am asking the court to force Microsoft to publish these protocols in detail.

"I am also urging to court to act on future technologies as well. Microsoft is now planning to add vast pieces of the Internet to it's web of interdependencies. With it's initiative .Net, whole portions of the web would be cut off from non-Microsoft technologies. We have seen a glimpse of the monopolist's vision of the future with the UK and MSN portal, designed by Microsoft and accessible only with Microsoft technology. . . ."

From a Canadian university, a very specific analysis with which there can be no cogent argument, because it raises the issue of the user's right to his or her own data:

"Because the most successful competitors in recent years in product markets in which Microsoft holds a true or de facto monopoly (eg. personal computer operating systems, Internet browsers, and office productivity software) have arisen from the open source software community, I believe it is of extreme importance that any settlement protect and enhance this community's ability to produce products that provide end-users with viable choices.

"In my reading of the proposed settlement, such protection is not provided. On the contrary, the settlement will serve to allow Microsoft to continue to hinder the open source software community's efforts.

"The proposed settlement speaks of disclosure of APIs and licensing of intellectual property. I fear that any information disclosed by Microsoft will only be licensed to vendors or developers under conditions of a non-disclosure agreement, thus preventing the implementation of such protocols in an open source project or product.

"This settlement, if implemented as proposed, will serve to entrench Microsoft's monopolies further, by allowing it to exclude the open source software community from any future technologies and APIs it develops. As this community is currently one of Microsoft's most serious competitors, it seems unbelievable that the proposed settlement will aid Microsoft in eliminating this 'threat' to their monopolies.

"As an example of the current 'problem' of Microsoft's monopoly in the OS and office productivity software markets, I point to the ubiquitous '.doc' file. This one proprietary file format I believe is one of the cornerstones of Microsoft's OS/productivity suite monopoly. Many people I know in the academic and business communities regularly purchase updated versions of Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office for the sole reason that their correspondents send them .doc files as e-mail attachments. The options for importing these files into 3rd party applications are many; however, having personally tried a large number of such programs, both free and commercial, I can safely say that many work well some of the time, none work well all of the time. The continuing cycle of forced upgrades to maintain compatibility with correspondents lies at the heart of Microsoft's monopoly.

"As a solution to this kind of problem, I believe that Microsoft should be compelled to disclose the specifications of the file formats used by its products to anyone who sends or receives files in such formats and requests the information.

"Left unsolved, this problem is bound to be more severe in the future. It has been widely reported recently that Microsoft is considering moving to a yearly licensing-fee system for its OS and Office software. In this case, files created with licensed software and saved in proprietary formats may be permanently unavailable to the creator or owner of the data in the file if a user or company chooses to terminate its license. I may own the copyright of the work I create, but that is of little value if the only copy of the work in existence is one saved in a format to which I do not have access.

"Of course the .doc file format is not the only proprietary file format Microsoft products use, and the arguments above apply equally well to other products and file formats. The .doc format is likely the most important however, because text-based documents appear to be the most commonly shared and transmitted.

"A second cornerstone of Microsoft's monopoly is the fact that many computer manufacturers will not sell computer hardware without a Microsoft OS. I understand that the proposed settlement will prevent Microsoft from entering into exclusive arrangements with vendors, but I believe that stronger protections are required.

"If Microsoft's agreements with computer vendors forced the vendor to disclose to the computer purchaser the price of the Microsoft products included, it would help consumers choose products and vendors that were appropriate to their needs. As an example, I point to Dell which will, as far as I can tell, not sell a computer without a Microsoft OS and office productivity suite. If purchasers knew that without these products they could save some number of dollars, that now often amounts to a sizable percentage of the computer package purchase price, they could apply pressure to the vendor to provide alternative (likely less expensive) products. Microsoft has stated concerns that selling computers without operating systems equates to software piracy. This assertion is absurd, and has become irrelevant with Microsoft's newest release of Windows XP, which requires license activation.

"Having consumers and end-users with more information is clearly in the public interest. All of what is suggested here concerns supplying information that enables computer users to make informed decisions, and to access their own work on their own computer.

"In summary, I believe the proposed settlement is seriously lacking, and will, if implemented as proposed, aid Microsoft in its efforts to hinder its most viable competitors. Any successful settlement must protect the rights of computer users to choose the products they desire to access their data."

If much of the legal profession is about finding loopholes (it is), then accountancy is about closing them. So it's not surprising that a certified public accountant found a glaring and terrible loophole in the proposed settlement and argued that it should be eliminated:

"Another issue I have with the proposed settlement is the restrictions that are placed on the entities with which Microsoft must share their API's. In the explanations I have seen of the proposed settlement these entities are restricted to 'commercial' ventures, implying for-profit status. This is simply wrong and way too restrictive. I believe that to be truly effective the parties with whom Microsoft should share their API's and the like should be broadly defined, maybe something like 'any party or entity that could potentially benefit from such information'. In other words this information should essentially be in the public domain."

And More

I've received notes from people who say they do not feel qualified to engage in a lengthy and legalistic dissection of the proposed settlement -- that they are simply harmed by Microsoft's business practices. But such accounts by themselves can add tremendous weight to the sense that there is something wrong with the government's having caved in. From Microsoft's own back yard, Seattle, a commentator does consider the specifics of the settlement, but she provides a compelling illustration of how she is personally damaged by the Microsoft monopoly:

"Microsoft has been determined guilty of violating anti-trust laws and the penalty phase just seems to miss the mark. I am hearing comments on the street that the U.S.Government is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Microsoft. I will admit that I find the 'penalties' somewhat perplexing in that they certainly seem to miss the mark rather completely.

"I personally think that is probably a little radical, but then I see demo copies of Microsoft's XP operating system on all the workbenches of my local post offices and I do wonder what is going on here. I do not see any other vendors product demos available there. This seems to indicate implicit approval of Microsoft products and no other by a government entity?

"The following are the flaws that I see in the 'penalties' that essentially seem to leave Microsoft better off than they were before the trial.

"I do not see that Microsoft is penalized in any way in that there is no separation of integrated software that harms and stifles competition to the Microsoft operating system. Further I see no provisions for computer manufacturers to be able to offer other and more viable operating systems in a fair and price competitive atmosphere - essentially nothing has changed.

"I do not see that the proprietary protocols for the operating system, networking and other elements are to be made public in order that others may have equal opportunity to develop applications in a spirit of healthy competition and to encourage innovation. Microsoft appears to be allowed to maintain the closed, proprietary and monopolistic systems that started this process. Again it appears that nothing has changed and it will be business as usual for Microsoft.

"In Washington State, Microsoft continues with its obnoxious and heavy handed practices only now in a new area. Their handling of their Internet Service Provider (ISP) business seems to be following the same basic marketing strategy that they used with their operating systems. This has even been noted in the Seattle Times newspaper in a city where normally Microsoft can do no wrong: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134378212_qwest14m0.html

"Again, it appears to be business as usual for Microsoft.

"Thus I am perplexed at the current 'penalties' being 'imposed' on Microsoft. They seem to be more of an encouragement for Microsoft to continue in the same ways it has been and those are the very same ones that brought this issue to the DOJ in the first place. If these are implemented as currently stated then fair business practices, innovation and competition are DEAD in the computer field.

"I do use Microsoft products; a very few are reasonably decent but I am forced to use others because the only option I have for them is other Microsoft products. Because of this my time is considerably less efficiently used in repairing and working to keep the systems going rather than accomplishing work that I need to do. If one does not expect much from the computers running Microsoft products then they are not the absolute worst products on the planet. If you expect much from them and / or use them heavily then you are going to rather constantly going to have them fail to the loss of time, effort and money. On days when I am working hard it is common to have to reboot my machine to recover my working ability at least several times. As time goes on from the initial (or subsequent complete re-install of the operating system) the situation grows steadily worse. The overall cost of running Microsoft products is incredibly high and far higher than it ever should be were Microsoft concerned with more than creating a market for the next version of its products. Bluntly, quality is not job one.

"In order that Microsoft be brought into line and with any hope of curbing their horrid business practices, it will take REAL penalties and serious oversight. With the obscene amounts of money that Microsoft has managed to accumulate through its less than fair business practices (to be kind) there is some doubt as to whether that can actually be accomplished. It has become quite obvious to anyone working in the field that there is no honor or integrity in Microsoft, only the search for more money in complete disregard for the good of the industry, the users and at this point in time it becomes rather blatantly obvious that national security is at risk due to the poor quality and serious lack of attention to security that is epidemic in their products. That alternatives are few is a direct result of the issues that DOJ is supposed to be addressing in this matter.

"I've been told that I am wasting my time here in that Microsoft can pay people to submit positive comments for this business enhancing solution that has been proposed as a 'punishment'. They have done the same things in the past; that is pretty much common knowledge. I can only hope that DOJ will prove wise, not be bought out by Microsoft and free the industry for the good of the consumer and the country."

A computer professional who has a long list of certifications -- including some from Microsoft -- makes the point that competition is the only assurance of high quality:

"Microsoft products, by virtue of being a monopoly, have been designed without concern for security or reliability. I can prove that the design of Microsoft products leads to the spread of countless virii in the computer industry. They (Microsoft products) are the perfect products to use to send damaging virus from many groups like the terrorists from Afghanistan, Israel, Palestine, Egypt.... And do not imagine that these places have not already done damage.

And it is not only because Microsoft products are in such wide use, but the real problem is that the products have been very poorly designed. It seems Microsoft has enough money to do the job right, so the remaining reasons why the products are so poorly written is that there is currently no need to be 'best of breed' when you are the only option.

"It will not be long till they (the terrorists) discover that they can inflict hundreds of billions of dollars in damage. All this because Microsoft has a virtual monopoly, and instead of actually writing well designed programs, they spend all the energy they have to simply maintain that monopoly.

"Often I give speeches to information technology groups that state, 'Without Microsoft in the industry, we would be at least 10 years ahead of where we are today'. But because of the constrictive designs and monopolizing practices of Microsoft, no possible competitive products have been able to get a start.

"As just one example: IBM wrote a fine operating system called OS/2 in 1992. Only today, some 9 years late,r is Windows XP beginning to catch up to the technical capability of OS/2. In fact it still has a long way to go to catch up to OS/2 in security and reliability. What happened? IBM could not get any hardware vendors to carry the software because Microsoft had tied up all manufacturers of computers to include with each and every computer, a copy of Windows. This in spite of the fact that many wanted to use OS/2 instead of Windows. What happened to anyone who decided to use OS/2 was they also paid and received a copy of Windows that they did not desire.

"The only way to get the marketplace back in order is to separate the computer hardware from the operating system. When you go to a store to buy a computer, you should be able to buy any computer available without having to also purchase an operating system. That choice should be made at the time of purchase rather than included in the cost of the computer. . . .

"It is much akin to buying a car, and with that car purchase also comes a coupon for gasoline from the Microsoft gasoline company. We agree that the car uses gasoline, and we all buy gasoline, but what if we prefer to buy gasoline from Shell rather than prepay for gasoline from the Microsoft gasoline company? Should we not have the option of not prepaying for fuel from the Microsoft gas company? . . ."

Some Things I Hope Are Comments

From Rick Hohensee of the cLIeNUX distribution comes a substitute remedy. He does not make it clear whether he has submitted this to the government; if he hasn't, he should:

"The Court declares Microsoft operating system products 'criminally compromised intellectual property'. This is a special state of copyright protection vacancy, under which Microsoft operating system products lose their patent and copyright protections exactly five years after their release dates. . . .

"First off, it has one essential characteristic of anything that will be effective upon Microsoft, simplicity. They feed on loopholes. There are none in the above. There's nothing they can do about the Fed not protecting the copyrights thier existence depends upon.

"There is nothing for them to cooperate with.

"This doesn't require any cooperation or good faith from Microsoft, which is also crucial. (They may actually favor this remedy, however.) . . .

"It does actually partially break thier monopoly. The AOLs and Oracles and Rick Hohensees of the world can produce thier own alternatives to Windows, based on older versions of Windows. (I personally have to be very well paid to look at a Windows desktop, but distastes vary. I use Linux.)

"The focus is on the software others are dependant on, operating systems. This leaves Microsoft untouched as to application products such as Office. . . .

"What goes in an OS, where they expend thier energies, all product design decisions and so on remain with Microsoft. Federal micromanagement of Microsoft is avoided, to everyone's benefit. . . ."

Another correspondent, from England, commented to me, and those comments ought to go to Washington:

"MS is desperate to stop Linux from competing in the client /server market by enforcing an MS client/MS server strategy. An example of this is the recent non-standard extensions to Kerberos so that if companies have MS clients they will find the encryption protocols may only work properly when they're talking to MS servers. This is to be expected from the company that continuously muddied the waters on SMB.

".NET is really an extension of the same principle, though the spinmeisters at Redmond make sickening paeans to Open Standards with their 'XML Foundations' nonsense.

"Let me give you an example of Microsoft's commitment to XML as an open standard for data exchange - taken from the December 2001 issue of Linux User in an interview with OperaSoft's Haakon Lie:

"MS office claims to support XML but it writes the XML tags inside HTML comments so that they can not be found (by non-MS software). Even if the software then knew how to find the XML tags it would not know how to interpret them as the format used for the tags is proprietary!

"I think this tells you all you need to know about Microsoft's conversion to

XML.

"What about those of us who do not live in the US? Microsoft's policies affect the entire world - how do the rest of us try and have a say in this? I speak as someone who lives in a country whose government has decided to hive off the public sector IT infrastructure lock, stock and barrel to Microsoft, and whose leader, Tony Blair, goes weak-kneed in the presence of Bill Gates. Britain is about to become the first reference site in the world for .Net, if Gates gets approval from the government to roll out a multi-billion dollar 100% MS solution for the tax authorities. In the last month it has been

announced that the National Health Service and the Ministry of Defence have signed deals to put *all* of their desktops under one MS licensing contract. In three years time, if they want to carry on using the software they will have to pay whatever amount MS demands (the joys of software rental). The lion's share of government contracts (in pound sterling terms) have gone to EDS, a company which makes no secret of the fact that it is little more than a value added reseller for Microsoft (all of EDS's costly 'solutions' are 100% MS)."

Again, I think that overseas residence or citizenship should not be a bar to commenting during the current period. The U.S. government has made much of globalization, and it is a good idea for the government to understand that in cases such as this one, which have a global impact, this means responsibility for one's companies. Additionally, parties injured by the actions of American companies, which actions took place in the U.S., have standing by every standard I can find.

Another Approach

From Florida a careful dissection of Microsoft's attempts to maintain its monopoly and to create new ones:

"I am a Software Developer who has worked in the industry for almost 10 years. I have used many Microsoft products, and have enjoyed the increasing abilities of software systems developed by Microsoft. I also enjoy using other operating systems, but as a software developer, I have to follow market trends to keep myself fed - regardless of the market trends.

"However, it is apparent that Microsoft has attempted to maintain a monopoly on the Internet Web Browser market to any casual software user. It is more apparent to a software developer who work within Microsoft operating systems. The technical aspects involved in the operating system itself, specifically, development with the Microsoft Foundation Classes and use of '.Net' technology marries the software developer (happily or unhappily so) to Internet Explorer, and the operating system.

"Furthermore, specific training programs such as MCSE (Microsoft Certified Software Engineer) and MCSD (Microsoft Certified Solution Developer) are geared towards maintaining the Internet Browser market by way of gearing Microsoft Certified individuals (who pay for courses and tests!) to use only Microsoft Products. Operating Systems. Software. Software Development. In an Internet enabled world, these are the tools for maintaining a monopoly on the Internet Browser Market.

"One could argue that nobody else has attempted these things on the level that Microsoft Inc. has. Yet that is my point. Nobody should. Freedom of Choice.

"The newer versions of Windows have the Internet technologies wrapped in them. This IS an obvious attempt to maintain a monopoly on the Internet Browser market. They may be able to prove that they did not do it 'on purpose', but they have done it. If I run over a man with my car, and I broke a traffic law while doing so, the offense is manslaughter. It I planned to do it (premeditated), it's Murder 1. The fact remains that a man would be dead.

"Odds are that when this is read, it will be read on a Windows NT 4.0 machine. Why? Because the U.S. Government has certified Windows NT 4.0 as a secure operating system. Furthermore, this mail message will probably be read through another one of Microsoft's applications.

"The U.S. Government, for lack of any other 'secure' operating system, has gone with the highest bidder. Neil Armstrong quipped about going to the moon on everything built by the lowest bidder, and here the United States states that we'll go with the ONLY software manufacturer that creates an operating system. This seems counterintuitive. Freedom of Choice. If you need more proof than the software that the reader of this document is using, and my ability to predict that, I'm at a loss.

"These two points highlight the fact that the average American consumer is paying more than once for the same software - first as consumers, then as taxpayers. When banks charge twice for ATM withdrawals, we cringe and say that it may be legal, but it is obviously immoral. Given, the hardware manufacturer is hiding the price of the operating system on new computer systems, the fact remains the same.

"This is a sticky situation, but legal recourse in the interest of the people of the United States (and the rest of the world!) should contain the following items:

"(1) Microsoft products - or products of any software manufacturer - must be sold as separate items by computer vendors. Users can then make a CONSCIOUS choice. Other software manufacturers then also have a chance to compete. Installation of the USER SELECTED software can remain free.

"(2) Any Microsoft networking protocols must be published in full and approved by an independent network protocol body. This would prevent Microsoft from seizing de facto control of the Internet.

"(3) The specifications of Microsoft's past, present and future document and network formats must be made public, so that documents created in Microsoft applications may be read by programs from other makers, on Microsoft's AND other operating systems. This is in addition to opening the Windows Application Program Interface ('Windows API', the set of "hooks" that allow other parties to write applications for Windows operating systems), which is already part of the proposed settlement.

"(4) The level Microsoft is certified by the Software Engineering Institute must be made public to the consumer, as well as insight into their development process for Operating Systems. SEI level 3 is required by the United States Government for software companies that supply software to it (or that was coming in 1999). This certification was created to protect the government from software manufacturers that had no software development process. This same certification should protect the average consumer, AND insight into the Software Development Process for creation of their operating systems would give software manufacturer's a chance to keep up with Microsoft.

"(5) Device Driver information for new operating systems MUST be made public prior to the release of the operating system by a minimum of 6 months. This is VERY important when dealing with future web enabled embedded devices. This is also very important to the average consumer - they get a better product!

"This judgment is not only of import to the United States, where it is a national issue. It is in fact an INTERNATIONAL issue, since the monopoly itself extends to all corners of the world. Judgment in this case MUST be fair to the consumer, because future cases along these lines will look toward this precedent. And, in future, it may not be as domestic an issue.

"Furthermore, if Microsoft Inc. were a foreign company, this would be seen as a security issue. It should be seen this way despite the fact that Microsoft is a domestic software manufacturer for the SAME reasons.

"Please realize that the implications in an Internet based society reach further than the next few years. They affect society ad infinitum."

Oh, that my friend in Florida were a prosecutor in the Department of Justice!

All Great, But Not Enough

When I wrote about the comment period, I didn't ask that copies be sent to me, so I assume that there are many, many more public comments, also well reasoned, respectful, and insightful, that readers have sent and that I have not seen. That is just fine. To those of you who took advantage of the ability to make comments, I am proud of you.

To those of you who haven't, I hope that the thinking of your fellow Linux users, as reflected in their words above, will spur you to action. Do not think that you need to be a lawyer, or a computer professional, or even a mere writer. There is a great deal of talk about how Linux is a manifestation of "freedom." There is even a huge body of argument about what "freedom" means. I'll not dip into that just now; instead, I'll say that "freedom" means absolutely nothing if you're unwilling to exercise it to the extent of writing to protect it when your views have been solicited by the government itself.

Whatever your view, it is your responsibility to make it known.

Do it today.

No, do it right now.