To ALL; Is this agreement as bad as it sounds or can Open Source users
still breath calmly? What I am really concerned about is if the Linux
companies, Novell being one, are even concerned about it in the
slightest? Does anybody know? :-(
Gary Edwards 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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
