[Reader-list] The Microsoft penalty that isn't - Tech News - CNET.com

[Menso Heus]

On Thu, Apr 18, 2002 at 07:55:59PM +0200, Steef Heus wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> An interesting article about the ways MS uses to exclude Open Source
> software from interoperating with their products. Thus excluding their only
> real competitor.
> 
> Steef
> 
>  http://news.com.com/2010-1075-882846.html?tag=nc.ne.dht.nl-sty.0

Quote from the article:

"While patented features in file sharing would handicap Linux from 
 being able to exchange files over an office LAN (local area network), 
 similar future efforts could ban open-source tools like OpenOffice and 
 AbiWord from operating with documents created using Microsoft Office, 
 and Web browsers like Mozilla from viewing Web sites produced with 
 Microsoft software."

The author of the article is mixing up two things: company patents and
public standards.

The SMB protocol that Microsoft uses for 'file & printer sharing' is 
something Microsoft came up with. The opensource people figured out 
how it worked and made their software compatible with it, very nice!

Now compare this to any other industry: if I invent a TV, and my 
competitor screws it open and then copies it and brings it to the 
market, is that legal or considered normal?
If I invent a car engine and my competitor buys one of my cars and 
copies the engine, is that legal or normal?

One could argue in a similair way for Office files. This is not so 
uncommon either, as far as I know Photoshop PSD files can only be 
opened by other Adobe products (though I could be wrong on this). 
If Microsoft decides that Office files should only be allowed to open
in their Office suite, then I don't think that's such a strange thing.

What the opensource movement dooes in this regard is taking a look at
what makes the Windows OS so succesfull (wide variety of applications 
like Office) and then copy this so their products do the same.
Is it strange that their competitor than decides to take action on 
this? However noble the opensource movement is, one should not forget
that Microsoft *is* a commercial company and that *it's* protocols or
standards are *not* public.

Now, coming to the other part of the quote:

"and Web browsers like Mozilla from viewing Web sites produced with
 Microsoft software."

This doesn't make any sense. The HTML standards are not controlled by
Microsoft, they are in the hands of the WWW Consortium. If Microsoft 
would take such action than their products will not be producing 
documents that meet the W3C standards anymore and thus their product 
will not be any good. 

One should not forget that the GIF file format is also still property
of (if I remember correctly) CompuServe. It is being widely used 
across the net, yet it is not a public standard either.

The statement that "patented features in file sharing would handicap 
Linux from being able to exchange files over an office LAN (local 
area network)" is also simply not true.

It would make it impossible for Linux exchange files over across a 
LAN in 'the microsoft way'. It doesn't mean that the Opensource 
movement can't come up with their own method of doing it (and that
it is then incompatible with Microsoft products is 'unfortunate'.)

This article really is bloated, which is not so surprising when you 
read that the author is a 'leader in the free software movement'.


Too bad CNET actually publishes this,

Menso


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, the :// part is an 'emoticon' representing a man with a strip 
of sticky tape across his mouth.   -R. Douglas, alt.sysadmin.recovery
---------------------------------------------------------------------