Re: Microsoft Responds to Internal Memo Regarding the Open SourceModel and Linux

[John N Bryan <johnb@austin.rr.com>]

At 10:43 PM -0500 11/7/98, Microsoft Spinovation wrote:

>Q: The first document talked about extending standard protocols as a way
>to "deny OSS projects entry into the market." What does this mean?
>
>A: To better serve customers, Microsoft needs to innovate above standard
>protocols. By innovating above the base protocol, we are able to deliver
>advanced functionality to users. An example of this is adding
>transactional support for DTC over HTTP. This would be a value-add and
>would in no way break the standard or undermine the concept of standards,
>of which Microsoft is a significant supporter. Yet it would allow us to
>solve a class of problems in value chain integration for our Web-based
>customers that are not solved by any public standard today. Microsoft
>recognizes that customers are not served by implementations that are
>different without adding value; we therefore support standards as the
>foundation on which further innovation can be based.
>
>

Of course who gets to decide whether it adds value or not?

This is a complete obfuscation of the more important, and what I believe,
desired result. By 'innocently' adding proprietary (and I would add,
-needless- ), bells and whistles on top of, into, whatever, existing
agreed upon, PUBLIC OPEN standards, they also become coincidentally the
OWNERS of a defacto standard by virtue of their monopoly market position.
What a deliciously innocent, serendipitous consequent for Microsoft.

If you buy their justification, then I have a nice set of
Microsoft MIME-OLE standards I can sell you cheap.

John Bryan, johnb@austin.rr.com

=======
"I want to get as much mileage as possible out of our browser and JAVA 
relationship here. In other words a real advantage against Sun and Netscape.
Do we have a clear plan on what we want Apple to do to undermine Sun?"
 -- Bill Gates to staff, 8/8/97, after Apple made IE its default browser