which part is "illegal"?

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

Welcome to IWETHEY!