Re: Richard Stallman's Interoperability remedies for Microsoft

[Paul Crowley <paul@hedonism.demon.co.uk>]

James Love <love@cptech.org> writes:
[quoting RMS]

> * 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!

As we've observed here before, desirable but difficult.  I've
suggested elsewhere that the way to make this one stick is to force
them to license the source and allow the licensees to publish the
docs.  This solution needs work.

> * 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.

Microsoft, compared to IBM and Apple, are relatively virtuous in the
patent field, with the striking exception of their recent style sheet
patent.  While I think something like this might be desirable it
doesn't really address Microsoft's major monopolistic practices.

It's also difficult to make mutula defence stick; if I want to make
use of the pool but don't want to join, I'll get you to join and write
the patent-using code I want and then you can license the code to me.

> * 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.

Again, the "bad docs" problem crops up.  OTOH, you could require them
to make available to the public all the information that was made
available to them.  You'd have to bar them from 'phoning the hardware
people for clarification though.
-- 
  __
\/ o\ paul@hedonism.demon.co.uk  http://www.hedonism.demon.co.uk/paul/ \ /
/\__/ Paul Crowley            Upgrade your legacy NT machines to Linux /~\