[CLUE-Talk] Legal breaking of the MS monopoly WAS:Re:[CLUE-Tech] HP laptop

[Kevin Cullis]

Hey Ed,

Ed Hill wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 2002-01-30 at 12:40, Kevin Cullis wrote:
> > Ed,
> >
> > Saw this and I think I'l reconsider my analogy some:
> >
> > Reiser Says MS Settlement Reflects Deep Failure To Understand
> > Implications of "Patching" Technology
> >
> > http://linuxpr.com/releases/4445.html
> >
> > Apple's and oranges are like cars and computers ....
> >
> > Kevin
> 
> Hi Kevin,
> 
> Yeah, I read it and don't entirely agree with Hans.  Like "Zonker", I
> think companies do have a right to copyright binaries and hold the
> source back.  I just think (or is it hope?) that such behavior will, in
> the long run, prove to be a competitive disadvantage in many markets
> since the buyers will eventually realize that they *DO* have a better
> option--free/open source!

Same here!!!

> 
> And, though Hans doesn't talk about it, Namesys could (in theory at
> least) arrange to license the necessary parts of the WinNT/2K/XP source
> code (or *just* the binary API) from MS so that they could build and
> sell a Windows-compatible version of the ReiserFS.  This could all be
> done without ever distributing any source-code patches as Hans
> discusses.  Others have done it.  For example, there are third-party
> Windows drivers for NFS and ext2.

I emailed Hans and about his article and had a question which I assumed
and he answered yes to: if I had his ReiserFS and wanted to add it to my
Windows OS, can I?  He stated and I assumed that we can't (both
technically and license wise), MS will refuse to allow it, and that's
their choice.  However, if you bought a car and wanted to replace the
so-so radio with another and better one, you can and it doesn't void the
warrantee (I'm not a lawyer, I'd have to check).  But with Linux, it can
be done, but not with a Windows OS.  Unless, of course, you pay MS for
the info, etc., etc., etc. In the car situation, I don't have to (that
I'm aware of) and can do it at my choosing and timeframe. This to me is
being anti-competitive. This is an issue which needs to be discussed and
talked about more and more to get it through CIO's and other Executive's
heads.

> 
> I think Hans' other points about the zero-marginal-cost of software,
> component tying, compatibility-leveraging, and the ramifications for
> monopolists are more compelling if not terribly original.  Lessig and
> others have harped upon these concepts and why they make it difficult to
> compare software to physical goods like cars or tires or gasoline.

Go to the Linuxtoday.com site and post your remarkes, get the word and
your ideas out there!!!!  Besides, I'd like to see your name in lights
;-) (not flames, for sure)

> 
> So like you said, apples and oranges!  ;-)

I'd be curious how many OEMs are around to support the auto industry
with third party add ons compared with Windows and software vendors.
While, yes, the auto industry has been around a lot longer, there can be
some analysis that can be gleaned from the info.

> 
> Ed
> 
> ps - I want to see free and open source software win (or loose)
>      through brutal head-on competition.  And I want the current
>      anti-trust laws enforced so that, in some practical sense,
>      the playing field is approximately level.

You bet!!!  Read the "Software Conspiracy" by Mark Minasi and you'll be
even more mad!!

Kevin