[XCSSA] Fwd: Microsoft Settlement

[tweeks]

Peter M Anderson wrote:
> 
>  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. 

I'm not on the SATLUG list...  

While you're free to cross post manually.. please do not permanently
cross-link our lists. 



> From what I have been reading comments submitted thusfar have been either MS FUD or from SUN.

Much of the info you've read on this list (regarding this subject) is
factual.

I know as R&D/T&I engineer at Brooks AFB.. I witnessed several MS protocol
leveraging efforts that succeeded in stealing market share of non-MS
vendors.

-Lotus
-Netscape
-Word Perfect
etc...


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

If you submitted to the K12 web petition.. you are.


Tweeks

 
> 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
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> XCSSA mailing list
> XCSSA@xcssa.org
> http://xcssa.org/mailman/listinfo/xcssa