From: Rick Hohensee <humbubba@smarty.smart.net>
Message-Id: <200107090839.EAA14883@smarty.smart.net>
Subject: Microsoft's word
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 04:39:58 -0400 (EDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

This is what my earlier rant was about. I wasn't clear. Sorry. I do
believe this pertains to linux-kernel.


From: Rick Hohensee <humbubba@smarty.smart.net>
Message-Id: <200107090816.EAA13193@smarty.smart.net>
Subject: Microsoft's word
To: letter.editor@wsj.com
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 04:16:18 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: humbubba@smart.net
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Status: RO

I get the impression that parties tasked with remedying the Microsoft
situation may be receptive to suggestions such as this one, the opinion of
an independant programmer, on the matter of what is likely to work.
Possible actions I've seen mentioned are variously flawed, for example
providing relief to narrow sectors for damage that has been quite difuse.
Simply taking Microsoft at thier word would be appropriate, and would
probably be appropriately massively remedial.

 I suggest that Microsoft operating system products be surrendered to the
 public domain, including all sourcecode required to verifiably build
 exact copies of the entire operating system products, no more than five
 years after thier market release dates, on a continuing permanent basis.

This is what a remedy to be asserted upon a Microsoft must be; simple.
Rather than interfering with Microsoft innovation, this mechanism would
mandate the birth of it. This may actually be relatively attractive to
Microsoft. This avoids government micromanagement, mecrifully sparing
Microsoft of the sorts of stupifying effects they themselves have lavished
on so many others. This puts Microsoft in competition with thier own past,
without a breakup or other questionable complications.

Parties that are otherwise distinct from Microsoft may have contributed
components to Windows or MSDos under non-disclosure agreements. Any such
parties should be expected to comply with the remedy immediately, having
been part of and parcel to the problem being remedied. It is questionable
whether non-disclosure agreements with the habitually unlawful are
supportable. Similar questions pertain to software patents in such
cirrcumstances. If any such parties have a grievance, it is with
Microsoft.

A five year window is more than ample for a great innovator, and more than
Microsoft deserves. Nobody uses five year old Linux, for example, which
has changed a lot in five years, despite being based on UNIX, which
existed twelve years before MSDos. A competent software company can easily
thrive under such conditions. 3M, as another example, maintains a business
strategy of turning over it's product lineup by 20% a year, in much less
flexible industries than software. Assuming timely enforcement, Windows 95
and I believe early versions of Windows NT would become public property
immediately. The on-going involvement of the government would be fairly
constrained, assuming timely compliance by Microsoft. The government would
maintain the initial distribution site for the surrendered software,
verify that the surrendered sourcecode builds the products exactly as they
were sold, and verify that surrendered software reflects the entirety of
the operating system products as sold five years earlier.

Rick Hohensee
Maryland
www.clienux.com

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/