Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on May 30, 2005 01:28 AM
> You can't entirely blame commerce for the sins of law-makers and the justice system.
On that we agree 100 percent. I am a big believer in Capitalism. But Capitalism requires a framework of law -- it doesn't work if my neighbor can "compete" with me by blowing up my factory.
> If one accepts the concept of competition then one must also accept that competitors are forced to do whatever they can to the limits of the law - even testing those limits - to survive and ultimately to win the race.
Yes and no. Even when the law is deficient, unscrupulous competitors will eventually run into the limits of what their suppliers, partners, customers, and employees will tolerate.
Still, those groups won't know everything unless they make it their business to know. And, even then, they can't learn as much on their own as a legal investigation would reveal. So, as you said, there is still the need for a proper legal framework.
> And yes I know that MS was found guilty of going beyond those limits...
Again, yes and no. The antitrust laws are very fuzzy, and their effect is to punish success, as much as any real crimes.
Thus, Microsoft was found guilty of doing something, but it was never really clear what that was, nor what it is they should stop doing. As a result (along with, perhaps, corruption on the part of the officials), Microsoft was never really punished, nor was their behavior properly limited.
I would much rather see the law go after Microsoft for specific things that can be defined, and limited. These might include:
1. Fraud:
Examples include spreading FUD, such as MS used to defeat DR-DOS; lying about your own products, such as MS claiming that J++ was cross-platform, and compatible with Java, when it was actually designed to lock users into Windows; and falsified studies, such as MS is currently using against Linux.
2. Extortion:
The main example of this, rampant throughout the computer industry, is locking up customers' data in secret file formats. The law would say something if a bank refused to give me back my money, or a parking garage refused to give me back my car, but encoding my data, and refusing to give it back (all of it, including formatting, formulas, and links) is deemed to be okay.
This form of extortion then leads to others, such as when MS threatened to drop MS Office for the Mac, if Apple didn't drop Netscape, or when MS forces customers to upgrade, by not supporting older file formats.
Note that Microsoft's next strategy is more of the same, i.e. locking up customers' data on central servers, where it can only be access via secret<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net protocols.
3. Sabotage:
Examples include when MS changed DOS to cause Geoworks to break; when MS changed Windows to cause it to not work on DR-DOS; and when MS made J++ incompatible in order to "pollute" Java.
If the law went after the specific things, when they occur, then there would be no need for the antitrust laws, which are a very blunt instrument. Unfortunately, we live in badly-educated times, where the lawyers, judges, and politicians have learned the mechanics of the law, but not the philosophy. Thus they fail to understand that my PC, my applications, and my data are all property, deserving just as much protection as my car. If the law was based on a rational philosophy, then there would be no need, for example, for new anti-phishing laws, which should already be covered by the anti-fraud laws, or anti-spyware laws, which should already be covered by the anti-trespassing laws.
While we're on the subject, of course, the other thing that needs to be fixed is the patent system.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Capitalism, the Law, and Microsoft
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 30, 2005 01:28 AMOn that we agree 100 percent. I am a big believer in Capitalism. But Capitalism requires a framework of law -- it doesn't work if my neighbor can "compete" with me by blowing up my factory.
> If one accepts the concept of competition then one must also accept that competitors are forced to do whatever they can to the limits of the law - even testing those limits - to survive and ultimately to win the race.
Yes and no. Even when the law is deficient, unscrupulous competitors will eventually run into the limits of what their suppliers, partners, customers, and employees will tolerate.
Still, those groups won't know everything unless they make it their business to know. And, even then, they can't learn as much on their own as a legal investigation would reveal. So, as you said, there is still the need for a proper legal framework.
> And yes I know that MS was found guilty of going beyond those limits...
Again, yes and no. The antitrust laws are very fuzzy, and their effect is to punish success, as much as any real crimes.
Thus, Microsoft was found guilty of doing something, but it was never really clear what that was, nor what it is they should stop doing. As a result (along with, perhaps, corruption on the part of the officials), Microsoft was never really punished, nor was their behavior properly limited.
I would much rather see the law go after Microsoft for specific things that can be defined, and limited. These might include:
1. Fraud:
Examples include spreading FUD, such as MS used to defeat DR-DOS; lying about your own products, such as MS claiming that J++ was cross-platform, and compatible with Java, when it was actually designed to lock users into Windows; and falsified studies, such as MS is currently using against Linux.
2. Extortion:
The main example of this, rampant throughout the computer industry, is locking up customers' data in secret file formats. The law would say something if a bank refused to give me back my money, or a parking garage refused to give me back my car, but encoding my data, and refusing to give it back (all of it, including formatting, formulas, and links) is deemed to be okay.
This form of extortion then leads to others, such as when MS threatened to drop MS Office for the Mac, if Apple didn't drop Netscape, or when MS forces customers to upgrade, by not supporting older file formats.
Note that Microsoft's next strategy is more of the same, i.e. locking up customers' data on central servers, where it can only be access via secret<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net protocols.
3. Sabotage:
Examples include when MS changed DOS to cause Geoworks to break; when MS changed Windows to cause it to not work on DR-DOS; and when MS made J++ incompatible in order to "pollute" Java.
If the law went after the specific things, when they occur, then there would be no need for the antitrust laws, which are a very blunt instrument. Unfortunately, we live in badly-educated times, where the lawyers, judges, and politicians have learned the mechanics of the law, but not the philosophy. Thus they fail to understand that my PC, my applications, and my data are all property, deserving just as much protection as my car. If the law was based on a rational philosophy, then there would be no need, for example, for new anti-phishing laws, which should already be covered by the anti-fraud laws, or anti-spyware laws, which should already be covered by the anti-trespassing laws.
While we're on the subject, of course, the other thing that needs to be fixed is the patent system.
#