The proposed settlement in the Microsoft antitrust trial will probably be accepted by the judge unless a lot of people complain soon, even though it lacks any useful enforcement provisions and fails to prohibit many of Microsoft's anticompetitive practices.
I've drafted an open letter to the Department of Justice to explain why the proposed settlement should not be accepted; it's at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html I'd be honored if you would read it, and consider signing it with me, or submitting your own comment to the DOJ.
Either way, the federal deadline for public comment is Monday the 28th. For more information, see http://www.kegel.com/remedy/ See also Jeremy White's page http://www.codeweavers.com/~jwhite/tunney.html
Sincerely, Dan Kegel
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Dan Kegel wrote:
I've drafted an open letter to the Department of Justice to explain why the proposed settlement should not be accepted; it's at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
Just read it - I like it, but IMO it's missing a couple of important points:
* Opening the APIs and some file formats will not help at all if they are protected by restrictive patents. It is vital that Microsoft must be prevented from using those patents against potential competitors. This applies in particular to the "ASF" format Microsoft is pushing as a standard format for video distribution, but preventing anyone else from using through patent #6,041,345.
* Microsoft uses OEM deals that prevent OEMs from shipping computers pre-loaded with a "dual boot" configuration that would allow users to use both Windows and a competing operating system, such as Linux.
If you think having a non-US citizen signing the letter, feel free to add me (Software Developer, Red Hat, Inc.).
LLaP bero
Bernhard Rosenkraenzer wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Dan Kegel wrote:
I've drafted an open letter to the Department of Justice to explain why the proposed settlement should not be accepted; it's at http://www.kegel.com/remedy/letter.html
Just read it - I like it, but IMO it's missing a couple of important points:
- Opening the APIs and some file formats will not help at all if they are protected by restrictive patents. It is vital that Microsoft must be prevented from using those patents against potential competitors. This applies in particular to the "ASF" format Microsoft is pushing as a standard format for video distribution, but preventing anyone else from using through patent #6,041,345.
The proposed settlement does provide for some access to patents on a 'reasonable and non-discriminatory basis'. The States' proposal goes further, and proposes a 'royalty-free' basis. I regret that I have not yet had time to dig into this interesting issue. I encourage individuals to mention it in their own notes to the DOJ, though.
- Microsoft uses OEM deals that prevent OEMs from shipping computers pre-loaded with a "dual boot" configuration that would allow users to use both Windows and a competing operating system, such as Linux.
The proposed settlement actually does prohibit that particular practice, so I didn't need to cover it. (I did cover the related one of discriminating against OEMs who ship *non-windows* computers, though.)
If you think having a non-US citizen signing the letter, feel free to add me (Software Developer, Red Hat, Inc.).
I don't think it would carry any weight in this case, but thanks, otherwise I'd love to! Maybe you could discuss this with your coworkers in the US, though.
- Dan
-
Bernhard Rosenkraenzer -
Dan Kegel