[ my comments in square brackets ]
Rivals Say Microsoft Flouts Deal
Jonathan Krim, June 13 2003.
Microsoft Corp. is trying to license key pieces of its technology at
inflated rates and under onerous conditions, according to competitors
who charge that the software giant is thwarting its antitrust settlement
with the federal government.
The actions are discouraging rivals from participating in the licensing
program, which is an important element of the agreement that Microsoft
struck with the Justice Department and several states 18 months ago.
After federal courts found that Microsoft used a variety of illegal
tactics to squelch software competition in the mid-1990s, the Justice
Department negotiated the deal, that it said would restore competition
and prevent future anti-competitive conduct.
".. One unusual provision, however, allows Microsoft to license ..
communication protocols -- to outside companies ... The protocols are
specifically designed to help non-Microsoft server systems interact with
Windows at individual workstations."
[ this probabily explains Microsofts' need to re-invent Internet
Protocols, in order so they can 'license' them back to the customers.
This is both sinister and humerous. See the halloween documents for an
indept analysis of the Microsoft stratagy behind this. It is interesting
as to what they said, at the time, they were going to doc and what they
in fact did afterwords do.
Among the terms: Companies must put up $100,000 just to see the
technical information about the 133 protocols, which helps a potential
licensee determine if it wants or needs any of them. But if the company
chooses not to license, it gets back only $50,000.
[ $50,000 just to look at a spec sheet. Easy money ain't it.
They will also probabily have to keep 'extending the protocols so as
they can re-license them to the same companys over and over again. You
know something like they keep changing the Office file formats so you
have to keep 'upgrading when someone elses sends you a document. ]
Officials from the rival companies argue that not only is this unfair,
but some of the protocols are already in the public domain -- a charge
Microsoft denies. Moreover, the rivals say, Microsoft is not providing
sufficient information about the protocols before a decision to license
must be made.
[ That is the point of this whole exercise, to*mony out of you
mugs, er customers. There is no technical reason for poluting the
protocols this way. Of course they are not going to provide the
information. How fcuking nieve are you people ? ]
Microsoft requires companies that license the protocols to be audited --
at their own expense, by a third-party auditor selected by Microsoft --
to ensure that they are only using them for appropriate purposes. This
raises the possibility of the auditor learning about the company's new
product and its source code, but companies say they have no information
on how much the auditor could then pass on to Microsoft.
[ :) oh god, I can't take this anymore, I'm busting a rib here :)
"O Oysters, come and walk with us!"
The Walrus did beseech.
"A pleasant walk, a pleasant talk,
Along the briny beach:
We cannot do with more than four,
To give a hand to each."
"O Oysters," said the Carpenter,
"You've had a pleasant run!
Shall we be trotting home again?'
But answer came there none--
And this was scarcely odd, because
They'd eaten every one.
some more quotes: ]
"Patch of Sun Microsystems said that the royalty rates for his company's
most expensive servers could exceed $200,000 per unit."
"There is something fundamentally wrong with requiring Novell to pay
large sums of money to access information that the court determined
Microsoft illegally withheld, Microsoft breaks the law and Novell pays
for the remedy." Ryan Richards, deputy general counsel, Novell vice
"Sadly, DOJ seems too intimidated by Microsoft to force them to do
anything the company finds inconvenient in the least," Mike Pettit,
president of ProComp.
"We have worked hard in developing an unprecedented program and
establishing reasonable rates, But the intellectual property in these
protocols is the result [of] years of research and billions of dollars
invested in it. We believe the rates are very reasonable.", Jim Desler,