[XCSSA] Fwd: Microsoft Settlement

[Peter M Anderson]

 Tom-

I would like to suggest that whatever final form it takes, that it be submitted to thte DOJ, either as your own brainchild or representative of the group- any Satluggers, etc out there please cross post this discussion. From what I have been reading comments submitted thusfar have been either MS FUD or from SUN.

It would be nice, IMHO, to be able to put "Published in the Federal Register" on a resume, also..

Oh- and the deadline, I think, is tomorrow...

Pete A.
--

On Thu, 24 Jan 2002 21:47:54  
 tweeks wrote:
>Interesting discussion guys.
>
>Anyone else have any experience with the way in which MS extends their
>monopoly?  I know that I do.
>
>I'm thinking about taking some of the group comments and filtering them
>down into a coherent "piece" on some of our group's thoughts on the
>subject.
>
>If anyone else has any input.. post it (and give me permission to use it
>(with full credit of course)).
>
>Tweeks
>
>Kent Polk wrote:
>> 
>> Peter M Anderson wrote:
>> 
>> > 2)Microsoft be required to publish their Application Programming
>> > Interfaces (API's) to ALL interested parties (including those in
>> > the Open Source community) and not just those parties which Microsoft
>> > recognizes as business entities. Note this is not the same as
>> > requiring them to publish their source code- only the links to
>> > programs to aid competitors in developing new and innovative
>> > products.
>> 
>> You forgot the most important one:
>> 
>> MS be required to publish their file formats and techniques for
>> reproducing documents in non-Windows environments, for all government
>> projects.
>> 
>> Until MS convinced the US government otherwise, ALL US government
>> contracts required that projects use publically documented file
>> formats for data storage and that the technology to recover data
>> be available for 20 years after the contract was let.
>> 
>> MS uses proprietary file formats to leverage their competitors out
>> of business and to force their own users to update versions of
>> Windows. This has cost *you*, just through government contracts,
>> billions of dollars. That is the primary thing you need to break.
>> 
>> > 3)Microsoft  be regulated. Due to its pervasiveness in the computer
>> > marketplace, it can legitimately be argued that Microsoft now
>> > functions more as a Utility than as a software provider. Even in
>> 
>> Government regulation virtually never works for what you intend.
>> It simply provides vast new government powers that will likely be
>> used against small companies and *for* MS and other large ones.
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> XCSSA mailing list
>> XCSSA@xcssa.org
>> http://xcssa.org/mailman/listinfo/xcssa
>_______________________________________________
>XCSSA mailing list
>XCSSA@xcssa.org
>http://xcssa.org/mailman/listinfo/xcssa
>