Re: Richard Stallman's Interoperability remedies for Microsoft

["Eric M. Bennett" <ericb@pobox.com>]

Richard Stallman wrote:


>* Require Microsoft to publish complete documentation of all
>interfaces between software components, all communications protocols,
>and all file formats.
>
>To make this really stick, Microsoft should not be allowed to use an
>NDA with some other organization to excuse implementing a secret
>interface.  The rule must be: if they cannot publish the interface,
>they cannot release an implementation of it!
>
>There could be an exception permitting Microsoft to begin
>implementation of an interface before the publication of the interface
>specs, provided that they do not release the implementation until the
>specs are published.

Easy to evade without being caught.  All they need to do is introduce
intentional errors into the docs (but just try to *prove* it was
intentional).  They've already shown a willingness to do this sort of
thing, which amounts to taking the "DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run"
philosophy away from the progammer and giving it to the person who writes
the documentation.  I'm in favor of the principle behind this solution but
I'm worried about making it work in practice.


>* Require Microsoft to use all its patents for defense only, in the
>field of software.  (If they happen to own patents that apply to other
>fields, perhaps those other fields would be exempt from the
>requirement.)  They could have the option of either using self-defense
>or mutual defense.
>
>Self defense: cross-license all patents at no charge with anyone
>who asks.
>
>Mutual defense: license all patents to a pool which anyone
>can join--even people who have no patents of their own.
>The pool licenses all members' patents to all members.

What you've written under "self defense" seems to pretty much undermine the
entire point of having a patent, which is to encourage a company to make
information public instead of trying to hoard it forever as a trade secret.
Why would Microsoft ever want to file another patent if they lose the
protection a patent provides?  They'd attempt to keep everything a trade
secret instead.

My initial reaction to this is to say that patents aren't central to
Microsoft's offenses, at least not the ones being prosecuted by the DOJ.
This particular solution doesn't seem to dilute Microsoft's OS monopoly
power at all, so why bother?  I don't see the justification for doing this.


>* Require Microsoft not to certify any hardware as working with
>Microsoft software, unless the hardware's complete specifications have
>been published, so that any programmer can implement software to
>support the same hardware.

This might be on shaky legal ground... even though technically it is aimed
at Microsoft the intent would seem to be to force hardware specs to be
opened up, and this brings us back to the jurisdictional problem again.
Closed hardware specs may be undesirable, but they are not what is on trial
here.



--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Department of Chemistry & Chemical Biology, Cornell University
377 Olin Chemistry Lab

A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is
nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
-  Antoine de Saint-Exup'ery