[Am-info] STATES SEEK MICROSOFT WINDOWS SOURCE CODE

[Mitch Stone]

Okay, it MIGHT be like Coke turning over their secret formula IF Microsoft'
s code was not copyrighted AND they were being required to make it public.
  Since neither are the case here, I'd still have to call it a lazy analogy.

Microsoft's position on this issue is paradoxical. They've clearly 
reserved the right to exercise complete discretion over what information 
about Windows they will release, even to a court of law, but 
simultaneously claim to provide enough information about Windows to 
competitors such that competition isn't impeded. Their answer to the court'
s question on this issue is, effectively, "trust us." The response is too 
blindingly obvious to even mention.

I don't claim to understand all the legal nuances, but it seems to me that 
secrecy is the cornerstone of Microsoft's entire defense, to the extent 
they have one. If they continue to refuse to make their code available for 
examination, at the very least to a court-appointed special master, that 
logically they no longer a leg to stand on. If the states can skillfully 
attack this premise, they perhaps can yank down Microsoft's entire 
house-of-cards defense, and the damage may go way beyond the results in 
this case.

On Friday, February 15, 2002, at 06:44 AM, Sujal Shah wrote:

> On Fri, 2002-02-15 at 02:22, Mitch Stone wrote:
> [SNIP]
>>
>> Microsoft is caught in a real logical dilemma here. How can they claim
>> that Windows is one, big trade secret, but at the same time insist that
>> Windows is also an equal-opportunity operating system -- when only they
>> really know how it works?
>>
>> On Thursday, February 14, 2002, at 01:40 PM, Erick Andrews wrote:
>>
>> "This is the equivalent of demanding of Coke that they turn
>> over the formula," said Andrew Gavil, a professor of antitrust
>> law at Howard University. "This is exactly what Microsoft
>> wanted to avoid."
>>
>
>
> I'd actually say that the premise isn't entirely faulty (though I think
> I'm saying the same thing as Mitch). It *would* be like Coke turning
> over the formula... What makes the coke scenario different is that there
> aren't a multitude of laws that protect coke from people duplicating a
> formula (you can't patent or copyright a recipe).
>
> In Microsoft's case, even if I see the source code, I don't have license
> to use it, since the source release would presumably be made under some
> sort of license.
>
> Of course, some forms of shrink wrap licensing is coming under scrutiny
> (/. had a story about a CA court or federal court overturing yet another
> license, but I don't remember the details).
>
> Sujal

   Mitch Stone
   mitch@accidentalexpert.com