[ale] petition

[Kevin Krumwiede]

Opening the file formats was one of the key points I brought up in my
comments to the DOJ regarding the Microsoft settlement.  (The deadline for
comments is now long past, BTW...)  I hope mine was one of the 3,000 or so
letters they considered "substantial."  I'll let you decide for yourself:


To: microsoft.atr at usdoj.gov
Subject: Microsoft Settlement

I am a student and independent software developer.  Though I am not
well-versed in legal matters, I found the provisions of the proposed
Microsoft settlement fairly easy to understand.  However, as an independent
software developer, I believe I have a much better understanding of their
implications than the average person.

I do not believe the provisions of the proposed settlement will
significantly affect Microsoft's stranglehold on the market, for the reasons
I have outlined below.

It is important to remember that Microsoft basically invented the industry
they dominate.  Microsoft's rise to power was contemporary and symbiotic
with the invention and widespread adoption of personal computers.  Prior to
that time, computers were not consumer products.  It was largely a hardware
market, and software was something that just came with the hardware.  Much
of the software in use was independently developed and freely distributed.
Microsoft cunningly exploited the growing PC market to gain a monopoly on
the operating systems and software that runs them.

Today, the only significant threat to Microsoft's monopoly is the same kind
of independently-developed, freely-distributed software that existed before
it -- software developed by people like me.  Perhaps as a blacklash against
Microsoft's business practices, and spearheaded by the operating system
known as Linux, free software has made a significant comeback in limited
areas of the market.  However, it has been unable to gain a foothold on the
desktop -- the market for operating systems and applications currently
dominated by Windows 98/ME/XP, Microsoft Office, and Internet Explorer --
for reasons not sufficiently remedied by the proposed settlement.

The settlement wisely recognizes the ubiquity of Microsoft's proprietary
APIs and protocols and the necessity of making them available to developers
who can't compete without them and often can't (legally) reverse-engineer
them (sections III.D and III.E).  Conspicuously lacking is a similar
provision concerning proprietary file formats, which are crucual to any
interoperability with Microsoft's Office products.  To its credit, the
settlement also prohibits many of the anti-competitive practices that
Microsoft has used to maintain its monopoly.

But here is the key shortcoming of the proposed settlement: none of its
provisions benefit Microsoft's real competition, the free software
developers.  We are not officially-recognized ISV's, IHV's, IAP's, ICP's, or
OEM's; we are a loose-knit organization of individuals around the world,
working on countless independent projects in our free time and with no
expectation of monetary retribution.  Few of us would ever "[have] a
reasonable business need for the API, Documentation or Communications
Protocol for a planned or shipping product" (section III.J.2(b)) or "[meet]
reasonable, objective standards established by Microsoft for certifying the
authenticity and viability" of our development efforts (section III.J.2(c)).
Few of us would meet the "reasonable and non-discriminatory" terms of the
provisions (particularly section III.I.1) and thus would not benefit from
sections III.D and III.E.  Likewise, few of us can afford to "submit, at
[our] own expense, any computer program using such APIs, Documentation or
Communication Protocols to third-party verification" (section III.J.2.(d)).

The solution, as I see it, is to require that Microsoft publish the
specifications of its proprietary APIs, protocols, and file formats, making
them available not just to qualifying competitors, but to all competitors.
This would ensure interoperability of all independently-developed software
with Microsoft's products, eliminating the single greatest obstacle
Microsoft has employed to keep upstart competitors out of the market.

Thank you for considering my comments.

Kevin J. Krumwiede

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geoffrey [mailto:esoteric at 3times25.net]
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 8:43 PM
> To: ALE
> Subject: [ale] petition
>
>
> I've come to the conclusion that we need to get the word out. I've heard
> that the hold out states on the Microsoft trial want Microsoft to port
> Office to Linux.  I don't know about you, but I don't want Office taking
> my Linux box down.  I think the proper solution is for Microsoft to
> publish their file formats.  What do you folks think?  I want to get a
> petition going.  I've dead serious about this.
>
> Anyone know how you would go about this, from the legal standpoint?  I
> can throw up a site for this purpose on no time, but how do I get it to
> the right people, so that it can be 'heard?'
>
> --
> Until later: Geoffrey		esoteric at 3times25.net
>
> "...the system (Microsoft passport) carries significant risks to
> users that
> are not made adequately clear in the technical documentation available."
> - David P. Kormann and Aviel D. Rubin, AT&T Labs - Research
> - http://www.avirubin.com/passport.html
>
>
> ---
> This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
> See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info.
> Problems should be
> sent to listmaster at ale dot org.
>


---
This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be 
sent to listmaster at ale dot org.