Re-opening the Possible Remedies argument.

Post #2,397 by static 7/19/01 9:19:47 PM Reply	Re-opening the Possible Remedies argument. I was catching up with an opinion site the other day that I'd let slide, [link\|http://davenet.userland.com/\|DaveNet]. Now, Dave Winer is often a good read, although you gotta take a break from him from time to time, and he works closely with where Microsoft are playing somehow managing to stay afloat. He decided to weigh in a few weeks ago about remedies to the Microsoft Anti-trust case. It was a solution I hadn't heard before and the more I think about it, the more I like it. [link\|http://davenet.userland.com/2001/07/12/restoringCompetitionToTheBrowserMarket\|Restoring Competition To The Browser Market] Here's a revised proposal to restore competition to the Web browser market. Remove the browser from Microsoft, creating an independent company, call it BrowserCo. After the split, Microsoft would not be allowed to make a Web browser, for five years, and then only if a competitive market has developed, and then only under restrictive conditions that make sure that a competitive market continues. Microsoft may, if they choose to, add APIs to Windows to allow the HTML rendering engine to be a plug-in. The user would be offered a choice of browsers, none of which would be pre-installed with Windows. The BrowserCo browser would be on the list, but it could not be the first choice. The settlement would include enough cash to fund expanded development of the browser for five years, assuming no revenue from software sales. BrowserCo would be free to merge with or acquire other companies at any time. Wade. "All around me are nothing but fakes Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
Post #2,402 by admin 7/19/01 9:46:21 PM Reply	Heh. BrowserCo would be free to merge with or acquire other companies at any time. Or, perhaps, get bought by someone like IBM or Sun? :-) Regards, -scott anderson
Post #2,403 by imric 7/19/01 9:53:08 PM Reply	AOL. Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Post #2,413 by inthane-chan 7/20/01 12:20:49 AM Reply	I bloody well hope not! An unholy combination if I ever saw one... And AOL COULD force browser choice, not just on AOL itself, but the Time-Warner cable modem network as well. Icky.
Post #2,534 by static 7/21/01 1:36:15 AM Reply	I doubt they would. Sure, I would be surprised if they didn't think about it, but since AOL currently owns Netscape, then the term Browser Monopoly would have a nice threatening ring to it... Wade. "All around me are nothing but fakes Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
Post #2,419 by Another Scott 7/20/01 7:26:28 AM Reply	To what end? Dave touches on this, but... I don't think he connects the dots. Navigator was an important product because it drove user-space development of the web. It quickly developed features which let companies do business on the web and made it, yes here comes the cliche', easierfor people to use the internet. It also might have become a software platform which could compete with Microsoft and spur innovation in that business. But what about now? Is it too late for The Browser As A Platform to be viable in competition with Microsoft? Is HTML/XML/etc. enough of a standard that the Browser As A Platform model is rather irrelevant? I think the argument can be made that that's the case. E.g. If I had a Nokia palmtop PC/phone combo I wouldn't care if it was based on Navigator or Opera or IE - I'd care if it did what I wanted it to do. 5 years ago, I would have cared if I ran Navigator or Web Explorer or Mosaic or whatever because there were differences in their capabilities, availability of expansion plug-ins, etc. Yes, there are similarities between then and now, but I hope you see the difference I'm trying to point out. In the past there were rapidly changing defacto standards set by Navigator as it had the largest usage. Now there are industry standards which (almost) anyone can meet if they choose. The pressure to be branded isn't as strong, IMO. I believe that MS should be punished for destroying the browser market. But I don't know if spinning off IE would be appropriate or would actually do anything positive to competition. It won't bring the browser back as a "platform" IMO. I don't know what an appropriate punishment for that should be either. What would help nurture a platform competitor to MS? I don't know. Unlike Doug, my gut doesn't tell me that XML is going to be the next wave which drives innovation. XML is "just" a file format (and a lot of other things tied to it). My gut tells me it's going to be ubiquitous wireless communications and computing. Handspring recently decided to dramatically cut the cost of its wireless phone add-on to the Visor. I think if they'd have done that 2-3 years ago they'd be in much better shape now.... 3G wireless, cheap chips which lets companies add wireless networking and communications to almost any product, and (this may be more important) imposing restrictions on what MS can do to control wireless software development would seem to me to be much more likely to lead to a new hardware and software boom than XML (not discounting how important it is to business-to-business computing, etc.). Remember when transistors took off? It was driven by things like portable radios which could run on small batteries. It helped make Sony into an electronics powerhouse. Ubiquitous, cheap, wireless networking and communications could have the same jump-start effect on the electronics and communications industry. Cheers, Scott.
Post #2,467 by Don 7/20/01 1:22:04 PM Reply	In order to restore competition... 1. In the browser market: MS must dump IE into the trash can and cannot release any new browser for 3 years. Netscape must break away from AOL and MS must provide the funds to make this possible and they must license netscape for WinXP (for a decent price) until their new browser comes out (which must be built from scrach). MS must also include Sun's JVM in WinXP (maybe license it from Sun for a price for a year,free thereafter). MS must provide an open, fully documented API so that any browser can be hooked into 3rd party apps. 2. In the O/S market: MS must document all API's used externally to the O/S (e.g. all undocumented Win32 API calls used in MS Office). To restore competition quicker, MS must make a significant contribution to the Linux Wine project (help implement the API calls in Wine) with a 3 month deadline. Any future API calls must be documented immediately and the Wine project notified 6 mos before any code is released into the market. That aught to do it. What do you think? -Don
Post #2,470 by jake123 7/20/01 1:35:41 PM Reply	I think we should nuke them from orbit. It's the only way... ... to be sure. -- ---------------------------------------------------------- * Jack Troughton jake at jakesplace.dhs.org * * [link\|http://jakesplace.dhs.org\|[link\|http://jakesplace.dhs.org\|http://jakesplace.dhs.org]] [link\|ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org\|[link\|ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org\|ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org]] * * Montr\ufffdal PQ Canada [link\|news://jakesplace.dhs.org\|news://jakesplace.dhs.org] * ----------------------------------------------------------
Post #2,527 by Ashton 7/21/01 12:02:19 AM Reply	I said that.
Post #2,483 by addison 7/20/01 3:02:43 PM Reply	Can't do that. Well, at least you shouldn't. "No one's life, liberty, or property is safe, while the court is in session" Netscape must break away from AOL Netscape is owned by a competing company, one that has no interest in this judgement. So you can't do something to them as a penalty to Microsoft. Also, the "consumer" would be greatly harmed by IE being stopped cold like that. To restore competition quicker, MS must make a significant contribution to the Linux Wine project This wouldn't help, actually. It would help lockin Win32, not break it. Additionally, the time frame isn't enough, and its not a "good" remedy. How will you judge the "success" of it? It will be impossible to tell if its as good as they can do, or just good enough to slide. Merely opening the API calls would likely be enough. Any future API calls must be documented immediately and the Wine project notified 6 mos before any code is released into the market. I think 90 days would work, fine, myself. Addison
Post #2,541 by Don 7/21/01 3:08:47 AM Reply	Why not? The reason to break netscape away from AOL is to seperate the browser from web content and restore netscape as a standalone company as they were before MS destroyed them. The fact that this punishes MS for their crimes is a side-affect (a rather good one :-) ). The real goal here is to compensate netscape for damages. If IE is dumped (from WinXP and forward, and new development stopped) in favor of netscape (has better support for standards), are the consumers really harmed? There is no "lock" to use win32 api calls on linux, only to use MS products on a free operating system. This DOES help! Quite a bit in fact. Just think if the vendors can preinstall linux (a free, stable OS) with either staroffice or "Wine and MS office", at the choice of the users. MS would no longer be able to control the vendors using the OS monopoly to get into other markets. At least MS would not get paid for the OS if the user doesn't want it. If nothing else, it would give the users a choice of OS to use, in case they insist on using MS office. You said the timeframe is not good enough. What do you mean by that? Which timeframe and why? -Don
Post #2,552 by addison 7/21/01 1:42:49 PM Reply	Because its illegal? AOL bought Netscape. So they have the liabilities and abilities of Netscape, they get the benefit (one wonders if that's why they did it?) You can't force AOL to to something, they're not a defendant in the lawsuit. The fact that this punishes MS for their crimes is a side-affect And you have a side effect for an innocent bystander. If IE is dumped (from WinXP and forward, and new development stopped) in favor of netscape (has better support for standards), are the consumers really harmed? Yes. First, you have all the consumers who have built tools for Internet Explorer. Not IE. IE is trademarked by someone else entirely, BTW. Netscape is likely not going to be replaceable for them, costing THEM money, and it wasn't THEM doing somethign wrong. (Dumb perhaps, but dumb's legal). There is no "lock" to use win32 api calls on linux, only to use MS products on a free operating system. This DOES help! Quite a bit in fact. Does OS/2 (and Win/OS/2) Ring a bell? Addison
Post #3,361 by Don 8/1/01 4:47:44 AM Reply	which part is "illegal"? Part of the deal would be for MS to compensate AOL to "undo" the netscape buy-out. Then there is no harm to AOL. Consumers don't build tools, they use them. Consumers don't have WinXP yet. All the web site developers would have to make sure their web sites work with netscape (most already do) in order to support an IE free WinXP, preferably before it was shipped - I am still hoping it is delayed another year while all the new antitrust concerns are addressed. If you don't like forcing the web developers into standards, fine, make it the user CHOICE to use either IE or netscape (or both or neither). The user can then pick what works best for the sites they visit. For this to work, netscape has to be delivered with WinXP and one of the initial install questions is "Which browser do you want to use? (Netscape, Internet Explorer, Both, Neither)". If both is chosen, then the installer would ask "which one do you want to be the default browser?". OS/2 is a completely different beast than Linux, so the result would not be the same. OS/2 was not open-source and was not free. It also depended on proprietary code licensed from MS for compatibility with windows programs. The solution I am proposing for Linux is basically to open-source the win32 api in Wine. So Linux would not fall in the same trap OS/2 fell in. -Don
Post #3,416 by addison 8/1/01 10:35:36 AM Reply	Most of it. Part of the deal would be for MS to compensate AOL to "undo" the netscape buy-out. And you think the CURRENT court case is convoluted enough? Then there is no harm to AOL. Currently, netscape.com is (IIRC) one of the top portals. That would change. AOL bought netscape (for whatever reason). Ripping it away from (a company (who in this case) is innocent of monopoly behavior) isn't a legal thing to do. OS/2 is a completely different beast than Linux, so the result would not be the same. Irrelevant. OS/2 was doomed [not entirely but] because it ran Windows apps "good enough". So who would bother with an OS/2 port? Just make sure it runs under Win/OS/2 (if you care). Then. Um. What's the real point of running OS/2, so you can have more problems with support? So merely makinng WINE "perfect" has the same problem. Why write anything but a Windows binary? The solution I am proposing for Linux is basically to open-source the win32 api in Wine. So Linux would not fall in the same trap OS/2 fell in. But you've defined the exact same role. "Open sourcing the api" is somewhat meaningless. The Win32 API is so convoluted that merely documenting it isn't enough. (but it would be a nice start). Microsoft has historically documented much of Win32 - but kept "secrets" as to the "best way" to do things. The only way to prevent that, would be to force all of Winddows to be released (not likely) And then it still has the possibility of changing every patch release. Sure, Ok, here's the source, have fun. You've got to deal with that possibility - merely forcing documentation of the API isn't enough. Either you need a structural remedy such to force prompt and efficient documentation and explanation, or you need a conduct remedy for that. But you're still outlying the [one of] same problem that befell OS/2..... Free/non-free is irrelevant. Put Linux in the same spot OS/2 was, with the same situation, and it'll be exactly the same. If you don't like forcing the web developers into standards, "Web developers" aren't part of the defense. So you can't mandate that they use standards (as part of the remedy). (Hrm. Wonder how well a law mandating HTML standard code would fly? :)) The user can then pick what works best for the sites they visit. Why just Netscape? Other browsers were harmed, as well. Plus, right now, Netscape isn't really a viable alternative. Increasing the user's workload and frustrations won't help, either. If both is chosen, then the installer would ask "which one do you want to be the default browser?". Right now, that's not [totally] possible. Because the Win32 API calls Internet Explorer for HTML. But you can't decide on a "fair" price for Netscape, and especially rip it out of AOL, since AOL's not a defendant in the lawsuit. Addison
Post #3,650 by Ashton 8/2/01 6:11:11 PM Reply	Perhaps all these points underscore the need for simultaneous overhaul of patent and \ufffd concepts along with fitting a remedy for the Billy n'Bally syndrome. Somehow their endless cash cow must be curtailed: it is the source of their power to create harm, just as endlessly. Call it a 'fine'. But a real one proportional to the harm done and brewing. For the reasons you mention and others - forcing any sort of 'orderly compliance' by known weaselers, in such arcane techno constructs - does appear unenforceable. Who could possibly be a referee (fairwitness) ? (Not that the above appears any more likely now.. we haven't allowed reason to dictate review of many other broken procedures of the legal system. Of course the immediacy of $ consequences might.. galvanize more effort here. Speed isn't often of a catalyst for wise planning) I don't see anything like, 'an Answer'. :[ A.
Post #3,655 by Don 8/2/01 7:37:58 PM Reply	You keep missing the point re: linux Sure, all programs would continue to be written for the Win32 API. So what?? Here's the catch... you can run it on a free operating system! Guess what happens then... MS looses their ability to force OEMs to install MS Windows and MS Office together on all PC's. Then bingo - no way to maintain monopolies in other markets by leveraging the monopoly in the OS market. They might even loose the OS monopoly. And if users don't want windows, they can choose Linux. If they don't want MS Office, they can run any alternative like StarOffice. And guess what... MS can't do anything about it. They want to raise the price of windows if the OEMs don't install MS Office? No problem, the OEM switches to linux and offers a lower priced PC! They can pass the cost of MS Windows to the customers that choose it. THAT's the difference between Linux and OS/2. If OS/2 was free, and free of MS proprietary licensed code, we'd all be running OS/2 now most likely, or MS Windows would also be free, or A LOT CHEAPER to be sure. Perhaps this one thing would be all the remedy we need. But you've defined the exact same role. "Open sourcing the api" is somewhat meaningless. The Win32 API is so convoluted that merely documenting it isn't enough. (but it would be a nice start). Microsoft has historically documented much of Win32 - but kept "secrets" as to the "best way" to do things. The only way to prevent that, would be to force all of Winddows to be released (not likely) And then it still has the possibility of changing every patch release. Sure, Ok, here's the source, have fun. You've got to deal with that possibility - merely forcing documentation of the API isn't enough. Either you need a structural remedy such to force prompt and efficient documentation and explanation, or you need a conduct remedy for that. I think you also forgot part of my remedy proposal: "Any future API calls must be documented immediately and the Wine project notified 6 mos before any code is released into the market." -Don
Post #3,694 by pwhysall 8/3/01 2:53:18 AM Reply	Info : Excerpt from IE's "About" Box "Based on NCSA Mosaic. NCSA Mosaic(TM); was developed at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Distributed under a licensing agreement with Spyglass, Inc. Contains security software licensed from RSA Data Security Inc. Portions of this software are based in part on the work of the Independent JPEG Group. Contains SOCKS client software licensed from Hummingbird Communications Ltd. Contains ASN.1 software licensed from Open Systems Solutions, Inc. Multimedia software components, including Indeo(R); video, Indeo(R) audio, and Web Design Effects are provided by Intel Corp. Unix version contains software licensed from Mainsoft Corporation. Copyright (c) 1998-1999 Mainsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Mainsoft is a trademark of Mainsoft Corporation." -- Peter Shill For Hire
Post #2,535 by static 7/21/01 1:56:45 AM Reply	It's a risky move, undoubtedly. The prime risk I see about forcibly removing the browser from Microsoft is that suddenly Microsoft has no reason to pursue a browser-centric Internet. So what will they do? They'll marginalize it. They'll find something else on the 'net, buyt it up, make it their's, hype it up and do their utmost to elbow (amd knee and groin) the HTTP protocol into the annals of dusty history. It is noble to want strong, healthy competitors to Microsoft, but aiming for that should not be the aim of the Remedy. Its purpose is a punishment for past mis-deeds. So the remedy needs to divide Microsoft into three, not two: 1. The Browser (and only the browser), as already mentioned. 2. The OS. 3. Everything Else. This must include Office. All of it. Anything else that can be potentially argued one way or the other - the Media Player is the obvious example, but there are others - Microsoft must make a choice; if it is an OS component, it cannot be sold in stores, offered for download, or developed for any other OS - but if it is not, then it must be removed from all OS installation images and the Applications company can do with it as they see fit (including licensing it back to the OS company). I wouldn't put any other restrictions on the company other than the fact that collusion for the purposes of destroying the HTTP/HTML market is also forbidden (how, I'm not sure). Oh, and I would forbid certain current Senior Management of Microsoft to be in the management of either BrowserCo or ApplicationsCo. This would have the goal of making Microsoft endure a punishment of having its products taken away from it because it has been using them to maintain a monopoly. Or, to put it another way, they have been using a monopoly in one product (the OS) to build a monopoly in another product (the browser), so we will take away all products except their existing monopoly so they can't do that anymore. Wade. "All around me are nothing but fakes Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
Post #2,746 by jb4 7/24/01 2:09:54 PM Reply	Agree, and Disagree So the remedy needs to divide Microsoft into three, not two: 1. The Browser (and only the browser), as already mentioned. 2. The OS. 3. Everything Else. This must include Office. All of it. Agreed. But then you say: Anything else that can be potentially argued one way or the other - the Media Player is the obvious example, but there are others Yes, it is the obvious example...of their attempt to do to RealNetworks what they did to Netscape. This MUST be nipped, so I would propose that all these "add-ins" be treated just like the browser: Make BrowserCo. deal with them, following the exact same rules that they must follow for the browser. I don't want to have to do this again (and again and again).... jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #2,840 by static 7/25/01 11:04:44 PM Reply	Trying to do that creates a bigger problem. Which is this: it means the legal system ends up dictating to Microsoft what constitutes an Operating System and what doesn't. That is a super-sized Pandora's Box. OTOH, forcing Microsoft to make the decision themselves for all these "almost out-of-scope" items means they have choose between two extremes. To wit: If Windows Media Player is now an OS component, then they only way they are now allowed to provide it to customers is on OS installation media. That means no free downloads, no magazone CD-ROMs, etc. It must be no more than an Installation Checkbox Option, just like the Screen Savers. The only way for Microsoft to upgrade WMP on installed PCs is via a proper, legitimate OS upgrade. As sold in boxes. But it also means the Applications company can create a competing product that is most definitely not an OS component. :-) Wade. "All around me are nothing but fakes Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
Post #2,843 by Ashton 7/25/01 11:32:29 PM Reply	We've heard many suggestions re the dilemma by now. But it seems unprecedented - and unfit for most concepts of government control: Govt. must be 'conservative' (in the former un-spun meaning, not the New spun excuse for a 'reactionary' mindset in all things). G. must move slowly, yet no previous "industry" has ever moved - and so often scurrilously - on such a scale as.. toy computers everywhere. Not surprising that any idea of hobbling these barbarians is very like that Gordian knot. This plot has everything! Vast wealth for the terminally $-besotted, vast chicanery for those who imagine that success is unrelated to means.. and the omnipresent fear that the current illusion of 'prosperity' (esp. in US-centric circles) might be tied to 'more of the same'. {sigh} I suspect that no consensus shall emerge re hobbling these twerps - until more attention is paid to the Corp slavery of 24/7, two-working for salary of one -- and the other tens of millions of people which comprise the largest growing segment: "The working poor". Dunno how that plays out in Oz, of course. Here it is intertwined with our antediluvian idea of Corp medical 'care' for profit - all too inaccessible to 30-ish% of the population + the growth of mainly junk-wage jobs / no med, vacation or other perks. Stress: the growing windfall for Pharm-Chem Corps everywhere! Somehow the M$ dilemma is at the heart of all these huge social blunders -- and the increasing adversarial position of Corporate VS humans. (This even without examining the entire inane idea of, "The Information Economy"! -- as if #$!@^#^$ infotainment: can cook the rice, rebuild the bridges and such!) No, I have no 'solution' either. Viscerally it's easy: nuke from orbit* since.. so much of the dilemma involves a concentration of sociopaths in a convenient locale. :-) Ashton (Yeah - just a few rule changes re Corporations as special a-social 'entities' could alleviate much - but in Murica, the people who buy the laws are the ones benefitting from the status quo) Ever thus. It was a fine experiment though - til Capitalism became our actual National Religion.
Post #2,841 by static 7/25/01 11:04:44 PM Reply	Trying to do that creates a bigger problem. Which is this: it means the legal system ends up dictating to Microsoft what constitutes an Operating System and what doesn't. That is a super-sized Pandora's Box. OTOH, forcing Microsoft to make the decision themselves for all these "almost out-of-scope" items means they have choose between two extremes. To wit: If Windows Media Player is now an OS component, then they only way they are now allowed to provide it to customers is on OS installation media. That means no free downloads, no magazone CD-ROMs, etc. It must be no more than an Installation Checkbox Option, just like the Screen Savers. The only way for Microsoft to upgrade WMP on installed PCs is via a proper, legitimate OS upgrade. As sold in boxes. But it also means the Applications company can create a competing product that is most definitely not an OS component. :-) Wade. "All around me are nothing but fakes Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"

Welcome to IWETHEY!