for all the idealism in the post, I will simply comment that MicroSoft would only benefit themselves. They aren't around to benefit anyone else. Spyglass model or otherwise, they make more profit lieing cheating and stealing then by excercising integrity. My two cents. Rigel
On 6/6/05, Gary Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > eWeek has published a series of articles covering the recent anti trust > settlement between Microsoft and the European Union. To me the most > interesting piece is an article titled, "Microsoft's EU Proposal a Blow > to Open Source". The article can be found at: > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1824675,00.asp > > Under the current terms of the Microsoft proposal, the author of the > article, Matthew Broersma has got it right. It's an enormous blow to > Open Source. > > Measures imposed on Microsoft by the European Commission last year were > meant to restore competition in the workgroup server market. Microsoft > was forced to come up with a means of disclosing important protocols and > interfaces that connect the MS desktop productivity environment to MS > servers and MS devices. The plan Microsoft came up with is a RAND > (Reasonable and Non Discriminatory) license for access to these > communications and connectivity protocols and interfaces. Price and > licensing restrictions effectively excludes Open Source access. > > Even though Open Source alternatives are the only meaningful competition > left, the Microsoft juggernaut having crushed any and all profit > oriented corporate efforts, the European Commission is nevertheless at a > loss to do anything other than accept this measure of Redmond magnanimity. > > But fear not. There is a solution, which, as measure of our own > magnanimity, i'll call the "Spyglass Model of Fair Access and > Licensing". The model attempts to provide some structure and meaning to > the meaningless RAND. What's "reasonable and non discriminatory" to > Microsoft turns out to be a catch-22 highway to oblivion for everyone > else. To be "reasonable" we need to have a solid marker, reflecting the > marketplace, against which access rights to communications essentials > can be "reasonably" distributed. Let me try to explain. > > Clearly we need a solution to the problem of providing fair and > equitable access to these critically important interfaces and > protocols. Without access there can be no open market interoperability > worth a competitive damn. > > Lucky for us that Microsoft has already come up with a solution that has > worked very well for them in the past, and if applied to the current > situation would preserve the competitiveness of open source > alternatives. Let's call it the "Spyglass Model". > > Remember Spyglass? Faced with the prospect of the Netscape Browser > totally taking over the Internet, and having no expertise to write their > own response, Microsoft turned to Mosaic Browser expert Spyglass. The > deal was simple. Spyglass writes a competitive browser for Microsoft, > and Microsoft pays them a percentage of every browser sold. A win win > for everyone. > > Microsoft then proceeded to bolt the Spyglass browser into every Windows > distro. Since there was no break down of the Windows bundle into > specific charges for specific components like the browser, there was no > requirement to reimburse Spyglass for Herculean effort in providing > Microsoft with a competitive browser. Funny how MS Office was handled > differently, but nevertheless managed to ship bundled with most > distributions. > > What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I think the EU can > solve the interoperability problems between MS desktops and competitive > servers and services by following the Spyglass model and putting some > structure to the RAND licensing model Microsoft has proposed. Let > competitors needing totally open, clear and transparent access to these > critically important protocols and interfaces pay Microsoft according to > what they charge for components utilizing these interfaces in their > distributions. Let the regulators audit Microsoft to make certain they > provide "all" interfaces and protocols. > > It's been more than a year since Microsoft came to similar terms with > the USA Courts regarding competitive access rights to the same > interfaces and protocols. Since then only seven companies have come up > with the booty to purchase MS RAND access rights. And they did so with > no guarantee that the interfaces and protocols they were provided with > represented the whole enchilada. For all these seven know, they could > have purchased themselves into second class competitiveship for aeon's > to come. The Microsoft way has long been to provide one set of > protocols and interfaces to third parties, and reserve another, secret > and enhanced set for themselves. Why should they give up a proven, > battle tested business practice guaranteed to fill the coffers? > > The MS desktop productivity environment has a 93% plus market dominance. > What server, device or Internet service doesn't need access to this, the > most dominant computational interface the digital world knows? The > desktop interface is how most information workers access information > systems. And even as devices continue to rise in their computational > and information access capabilities, interoperability with MS desktops > remains critically important. > > The Spyglass access and pricing model would allow everyone to > participate in a competitive marketplace based entirely on the monetary > return they get for building upon and implementing Microsoft interfaces > and protocols. In fact, to help spur the growth of a truly competitive > marketplace, the EU might consider charging the Microsoft Interface and > Protocol tax at the time of purchase, instead of the pre build license > arrangement now proposed. The current MS proposal demands that > competitors finance their purchase of a RAND access license. The > financial risk involved is enormous in that the purchasers has to front > the booty, produce a marketable product, and directly compete against > the provider of those protocols, Microsoft. > > Some of this risk could be alleviated by reimbursing Microsoft for RAND > rights through a Microsoft tax collected at the point of sale. In fact, > why not have Microsoft products also collect the same Microsoft RAND > tax, calculated the same way - under the Spyglass model. > > Since Open Source solutions can be distributed without cost, there would > be no Microsoft tax collected at the point of sale. The Spyglass model > provides a means for Open Source Communities to participate in the > computational marketplace, even though they lack the profit oriented > purpose for organizing that animates Microsoft and other corporate > competitors. > > For corporations like IBM, Novell, and RedHat, if they can choose to > embed the interfaces and protocols in their services and solutions, > their products would be taxed at the point of sale based on a percentage > the sales price. If however they packaged Open Source solutions like > SAMBA, and didn't levy a charge for the SAMBA component, the Microsoft > tax wouldn't apply to their sale. > > The Spyglass model works for everyone. A fair, pay as you go system > that will encourage innovation and make possible the transition to a > competitive marketplace. And since the model was devised and perfected > by Microsoft, how could they complain or criticize their own genius? > > The Spyglass Model - it's a good thing, > ~ge~ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
