[Fwd: Re: [CLUE-Talk] Copyright of SCO source code] (Forward from another list)

[Kevin Cullis]

This has some interesting thoughts.

Fwd: [discuss] SCO suit and Palladium to delay growth of OOo]

-----Forwarded Message-----

> From: Christian Einfeldt <einfeldt at earthlink.net>
> To: discuss at openoffice.org, dev at marketing.openoffice.org
> Subject: [discuss] SCO suit and Palladium to delay growth of OOo
> Date: 24 Jul 2003 17:26:47 -0700
> 
> I'm a lawyer, and so I asked myself what I thought that SCO would hope 
> to achieve by filing its suit against IBM.  I'm sure that SCO would 
> say that they want to get paid for the "rights" which they supposedly 
> purchased, whatever those "rights" might be.
> 
> Of course, most people immediately think of a forced buy-out by IBM as 
> a way for SCO to increase its stock value, or a lucrative settlement 
> by IBM, which would allow SCO to then go bully SuSE, Red Hat, etc.
> 
> Those might be effective reasons for SCO to sue IBM.  But as I 
> considered the case from a legal procedural perspective, it occurred 
> to me that if I was the attorney for IBM, I would try to end the suit 
> quickly by filing a "motion for summary judgment" (or MSJ  for short).  
> This MSJ motion is like a mini-trial on the documents.  It is a way of 
> getting a case over quickly.  If IBM can prove to a judge that the 
> case stinks and doesn't deserve to go to a full trial, then a judge 
> might grant their MSJ, and stop the case right there.  
> 
> But in a big case like this case, there will be lots of depositions 
> (depos for short), lots of paper discovery, etc.  I am sure that the 
> paper file in this case would have to reach several filing cabinets 
> worth before IBM's attorneys would have enough documents to move 
> successfully for an MSJ, because that MSJ motion is very document 
> intensive.  You need lots of proof to win and get the case kicked out.
> 
> Lots of documents means lots of time.  How much time?  Oh, 18 to 24 
> months, easily.  Then I asked myself, what other significant event in 
> the computer world is going to happen in 18 to 24 months?  Answer:  
> Palladium-enabled Longhorn Windows is going to come out some time in 
> the spring or summer of 2005, which is just about 18 to 24 months from 
> now.  
> 
> Ooops, I thought,  this is not good.  Remember, MS is going to have to 
> persuade a whole lot of people to stop using non-Palladium computers, 
> because Palladium will only work on Palladium enabled computers.  
> Think of all the operating systems which won't run Palladium:  Win 95, 
> 98, 2000, XP, Unix, Linux, Solaris, Tron, and Mac OS X and lower.  In 
> order for those operating systems to view any Palladium "protected" 
> (read locked) file, those operating systems will, themselves, need to 
> run Palladium.  
> 
> Well, okay, so what if MS doesn't make Palladium able to run on those 
> operating systems?  Answer:  IT WILL BE A WAR OF NUMBERS.   Whoever 
> has the widest shipments and /or install base wins.  If Linux reaches, 
> say, 50% of the desktop install base by 2005 (not realistic) then MS 
> will not be able to ignore that much of the desktop market.  
> 
> However, say that Linux only reaches 7% of the desktop market, which, 
> according to Bart Decrem's scholarly July 10 2003 article, is still 
> perhaps not realistic.  MS won't hestitate to lock out 7% of the 
> desktop market.  They can afford ignore that much of the market.
> 
> And yet.  Won't MS also have to win over all the users of Win 95, 98, 
> 2000, etc, etc?  Sure.  That's a huge percentage of the market.  But 
> MS is already making noises about stopping support for old MS 
> software, and refusing to guarantee backwards compatibility for its 
> old MS software.  MS is planning ahead, preparing the market to get 
> ready for the Brave New World.  After all, in 2005, Win 95 will be 10 
> years old!  
> 
> In 2005, MS will be better poised to say to Harry Homeowner, "come on 
> guy, get with the program!  Win 95 is OLD OLD OLD!  Don't hang on to 
> that old software?  And Win 98 ain't much better!  Time to update!"
> 
> We can count on MS making a major push to celebrate 10 years since Win 
> 95.  Remember the huge MS media blitz for Win 95?  They bought the 
> rights to use "Start Me up" by the Rolling Stones, and the Stones 
> ain't a cheap date.  Count on the media blitz for Longhorn Windows to 
> dwarf the Win 95 rollout.
> 
> How much money will MS spend to blitz Longhorn?  Plenty.  Even the 
> conservatives over at Barron's Weekly aren't laughing any more at the 
> huge pile of cash which MS has hoarded.  Barron's June 30 edition took 
> MS to task for not issuing a signficant dividend.  MS says that they 
> can't issue a huge dividend yet because they have too many lawsuits 
> against them, and the European Community is still considering its 
> anti-trust actions.  Barron's was non exactly buying MS's excuse for 
> not paying dividends, and not-so-subletly suggested that MS needs to 
> act like a more "mature" stock market giant and issue dividends, ala 
> General Electric, etc. 
> 
> So just why _is_ MS hoarding all that cash?  I don't buy the lawsuit 
> excuse either.  I think that, as Barron's said, in the worst case 
> scenario MS could buy its way out of all its combined lawsuits with $5 
> billion easily, and the Wall Street Journal just this week said that 
> MS has nearly $50 billion socked away as of June 30, 2003.  If that's 
> true, MS could pay all its outstanding lawsuits with only one-tenth 
> its cash reserves.  So just what _is_ MS waiting for? 
> 
> Well, the Superbowl is now held in February.  How about a Superbowl 
> blowout for Windows Longhorn in February 2005?  How much did MS spend 
> on the Win 95 rollout?  According to this article linked below, it was 
> HALF of what they spent on Win XP, and that was only hundreds of 
> millions of dollars.  In other words, less than $1 billion, by far.  
> So even if MS _doubled_ the amount that they spent on launching Win 
> XP, it will still only reach about $1 billion, or a mere one-fiftieth 
> of what they have in the bank right now.  (See following link).
> 
> http://www.thestandard.com/article/0,1902,24334,00.html
> 
> MS plans to spend $5.2 billion in 2003 on "R & D" on issues including 
> Longhorn.  See link below.  If they're willing to spend that much on 
> so-called "R&D", how much would they be willing to spend to move the 
> market to accept Longhorn?  Plenty.  
> 
> MS to spend $5.2 billion on "R&D" including Longhorn:
> 
> http://www.epasaule.lv/article/articleview/555/1/61/
> 
> So we know that the SCO suit will last easily 18 to 24 months, AT 
> LEAST.  We know that MS has been a substantial financial backer of the 
> SCO suit.  We know that Palladium-enabled Longhorn is coming out about 
> 18 to 24 months from now.  It looks to me as if the SCO suit and 
> Palladium are turning out to be MS's one-two punch to try to keep 
> Linux off the desktop and to then take market share away from all 
> servers not Palladium-enabled.  
> 
> The hope is that Harry Homeowner will somehow be able to understand 
> Palladium, and that he will not be tickled by the power Palladium 
> gives to MS.  The excerped NY Times article below might at least get 
> Harry's mind off of baseball long enough to then read Ross Anderson's 
> famous faq, linked below above the NY Times article.
> 
> http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
> 
> Here are portions of the NY Times article on Palladium:
> 
> Microsoft pushes `trusted computing'. It says new system needed to
> protect security and privacy. But criticsquestion whether consumers
> should trust Microsoft. JOHN MARKOFF. NEWYORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE.
> SANFRANCISCO. Your next personal computer may well come with its own
> digital chaperone.
> 
> As PC makers prepare a new generation of desktop computers with 
> built-in
> hardware controls to protect data and digital entertainment from 
> illegal
> copying, the industry is also promising to keep information safe from
> tampering and help users avoid troublemakers in cyberspace.  Led by
> Microsoft and Intel calls the concept ``trusted computing."
> 
> The companies, joined by IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Advanced Micro Devices
> and others, argue that the new systems are necessary to protect
> entertainment content as well as safeguard corporate data and personal
> privacy against identity theft. Without such built-in controls, they
> say, Hollywood and the music business will refuse to make their 
> products
> available online.
> 
> But by entwining PC software and data in an impenetrable layer of
> encryption, critics argue, the companies may bedestroying the very
> openness that has been at the heartof computing in the three decades
> since the PC was introduced. There are simpler, less intrusive ways to
> prevent illicit file swapping over the Internet, they say, than girding
> software in so much armour that new types of programs from upstart
> companies may have trouble working with it. "This will kill 
> innovation,"
> said Ross Anderson, a computer security expert atCambridge University,
> who is organizing opposition to the industry plans. "They're doing this
> to increase customer lock-in. It will mean that fewer software
> businesses succeed and those who do succeed will be large companies.''
> 
> Critics complain that the mainstream computer hardware andsoftware
> designers, under pressure from Hollywood, are turning the PC into
> something that would resemble video game players, cable TV and
> cellphones, with manufacturers or service providers in control of which
> applications run on their systems. In the new encrypted computing 
> world,
> even the most mundane word-processing document or e-mail message would
> be accompanied by a software security guard controlling who can view 
> it,
> where it can be sent and even when it will be erased. Also, the secure
> PC is specifically intended to protect digital movies and music from
> online piracy.
> 
> But while beneficial to the entertainment industry and corporate
> operations, the new systems willnot necessarily be immune to computer
> viruses or unwanted spam messages, the two most severe irritants to PC
> users."Microsoft's use of the term `trusted computing' is a great piece
> of doublespeak," said Dan Sokol, a computer engineer based in San Jose,
> Calif., who was one of the original members of the Homebrew Computing
> Club, the pioneering PC group. "What they're really saying is, `We 
> don't
> trust you, the user of this computer'.''
> 
> The advocates of trusted computing argue that the new technology is
> absolutely necessary to protect the privacy of users and to prevent the
> theft of valuable intellectual property, a reaction to the fact that
> making an identical digital copy is almost as easy as clicking a mouse
> button. "It's like having a little safe inside your computer," said Bob
> Meinschein, an Intel security architect. "On the corporate side the
> value is much clearer," he added, "but over time the consumer value of
> this technology will become clear as well" as more people shop and do
> other business transactions online.
> 
> Industry leaders also contend that none of this will stifle innovation.
> Instead, they say, it will help preserve and expand general-purpose
> computing in the Internet age. "We think this is a huge innovation
> story," said Mario Juarez, Microsoft's group product manager for the
> company's security business unit. "This is just an extension of the way
> the current version of Windows has provided innovation for players up
> and down the broad landscape of computing.''
> 
> The initiative is based on a new specification for personal computer
> hardware, first introduced in 2000 and backed by a group of companies
> called the Trusted Computing Group. It also revolves around a separate
> Microsoft plan, now called the Next Generation Secure Computing Base,
> that specifies a tamper-proof portion of the Windows operating system.
> 
> The hardwaresystem is contained in a set of separate electronics that
> are linked to the personal computer's microprocessor chip, known as the
> Trusted Platform Module, or TPM. The device includes secret digital 
> keys
> large binary numbers that cannot easily be altered.
> 
> The Trusted Computing Group is attempting to persuade other industries,
> like the mobile phone industry and the makers of personal digital
> assistants, to standardize on the technology as well. The plans reflect
> a shift by key elements of the personal computer industry, which in the
> past had resisted going along with the entertainment industry and what
> some said they feared would be draconian controls that would greatly
> curtail the power of digital consumer products.
> 
> Industry executives now argue that by embedding the digital keys
> directly in the hardware of thePC, tampering will be much more
> difficult. But they acknowledge that no security system is perfect. The
> hardware standard is actually the second effort by Intel to build
> security directly into the circuitry of the PC. The first effort ended
> in a public relations disaster for Intel in 1999 when consumers and
> civil liberties groups revolted against the idea. The groups coined the
> slogan "Big Brother Inside," and charged that the technology could be
> used to violate user privacy. "We don't like to make the connection,"
> said Meinschein. "But we did learn from it.''  He said the new TPM
> design requires the computer owner to switch on the newtechnology
> voluntarily and that it contains elaborate safeguards forprotecting
> individual identity.
> 
> The first computers based on thehardware design have just begun to
> appear from IBM and Hewlett-Packard for corporatecustomers.
> Consumer-oriented computer makers like Dell Computer and Gateway are
> being urged to go along but have not yet endorsed the new approach.
> 
> How consumers will react to the new technology is a thorny question for
> PCmakers because the new industry design stands in striking contrast to
> the approach being taken by AppleComputer. Apple has developed the
> popular iTunesdigital music store relying exclusively on software to
> restrict the sharing of digital songs over the Internet.
> 
> Apple's system, which has drawn the support of the recording industry,
> permits consumers to share songs freely among up to three Macintoshes
> and an iPod portable music player. Apple only has a tiny share of the
> personal computer market. But it continues to tweak the industry 
> leaders
> with its innovations.
> 
> Just last month, Apple's chief executive, Steve Jobs, demonstrated a
> feature of the company's newest version of its OS X operating system
> called FileVault, designed to protect a user's documents without the
> need for modifying computer hardware. Jobs argued that elaborate
> hardware-software schemeslike the one being pursued by the Trusted
> Computing Group will not achieve their purpose. "It's a falsehood," he
> said."You can prove to yourself that that hardware doesn't make it more
> secure.''
> 
> That is not Microsoft's view. The company has begun showing a
> test copy of a variation of its Windows operating system that was
> originally named Palladium. The name was changed last year after a
> trademark dispute. In an effort to retain the original open PC
> environment, the Microsoft plan offers the computer user two separate
> computing partitions in a future version of Windows.
> 
> Beyond changing the appearance and control of Windows, the system will
> also require a newgeneration of computer hardware, not only replacing
> the computer logic board but also peripherals like mice, keyboards and
> video cards. Executives at Microsoftsay they tentatively plan to 
> include
> the technology in the next version of Windows code-named Longhorn now
> due in 2005.
> 
> The company is dealing with both technical and marketing challenges
> presented by the new software security system. Forexample, Juarez, the
> Microsoft executive, said that if the company created a more secure 
> side
> to its operating system software, customers might draw the conclusion
> that its current software is not as safe to use.}\par Software
> developers and computer security experts,however, said they were not
> confident that Microsoft would retain its commitment to the open half 
> of
> what is planned to be a two-sided operating system.
> 
> "My hackles went up when I read Microsoft describing the trusted part 
> of
> the operating system as an option," said Mitch Kapor, the founder of
> Lotus Development Corp., and a longtime Microsoft competitor. "I don't
> think that's a trustworthy statement.'' One possibility, Kapor argued,
> is thatMicrosoft could release versions of applications like its Office
> suite of programs that would only run on the secure part of the
> operating system, forcing users to do their work in the more restricted
> environment.
> 
> Microsoft denies that it is hatching an elaborate scheme to deploy an
> ultra-secret hardware system simply to protect its software and
> Hollywood's digital content. The company also says the new system can
> help counter global cybercrime without creating the repressive "Big
> Brother" society imagined by George Orwell in ``1984.'' Microsoft is
> committed to "working withthe government and the entire industry to
> build a more secure computing infrastructure here and around the 
> world,"
> 
> Bill Gates, Microsoft's chairman, told a technology conference in
> Washington last week. "This technology can make our country more secure
> and prevent the nightmare vision of George Orwell at the same time.''
> 
> The critics are worried, however, that the rush to create more secure
> PCs may have unintended consequences.  Paradoxically, they say, the
> effortsto lock up data safely against piracy could serve to make it
> easier for pirates to operate covertly.
> 
> Indeed, the effectiveness of the effort to protect intellectual 
> property
> like music and movies has been challenged in two independent research
> papers. One was distributed last year by a group of Microsoft computer
> security researchers; a second paper was released last month by Harvard
> researchers. The research papers state that computer users who share
> files might use the new hardware-based security systems to create a
> ``Darknet," a secure, but illegal network for sharing digital movies 
> and
> music or other illicit information that could be exceptionally hard for
> security experts to crack.
> 
> "This is a Pandora's box and I don't think there has been much thought
> about what can go wrong," said Stuart Schechter, a Harvard researcher
> who is an author of one of the papers. "This is one of those rare times
> we can prevent something that will do more harm than good.''
> 
> `Microsoft's use of the term `trusted computing'is a great piece
> ofdoublespeak ... What they're really saying is, `We don't trust you,
> theuser of this computer' Dan Sokol, San Jose computer engineer.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: discuss-unsubscribe at openoffice.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: discuss-help at openoffice.org
>