Microsoft colludes with public universities to subvert state public records laws, Dec 25, 2002

In the last few years, Microsoft has been aggressively signing up colleges to it's Custom Enterprise and Education Select licensing programs. For a yearly fee, an educational institution receives the right to sell Microsoft software at a nominal fee to it's students and employees. However, as part the of the license agreement, Microsoft has been stipulating that the terms of the contract be kept under non-disclosure. Public institutions covered by public records laws are clearly unable to abide by such terms. There are very few exemptions to the disclosure requirements of these laws. Indeed, non-competitive contracts with convicted monopolists would seem to be expressly what these laws should allow to be exposed. Surprisingly, a number of public universities have been signing off on these non-disclosure terms in apparent breach of their state's public records laws.

... Meta Group maintains that based on its projections for Linux growth -- from today's roughly 15 percent to as much as 45 percent of the market for new servers by 2006 or 2007 -- that Microsoft won't be able to resist the potential profits it could make.

Microsoft disagrees that Linux will be able to capture such a big share. And it also commissioned a study by International Data Corp. that argues the total cost of ownership of Linux-based computer servers that handle certain tasks is actually higher than Microsoft Windows 2000 server software. The reason? Largely because of the extra technical support needed to maintain a Linux system, the report says.

Microsoft, of course, has denied that it has any plans to develop software for Linux, but may be forced to rethink because of the massive penetration the open source operating system (OSOS) is making and will continue to make into the server space

Microsoft should stop denouncing open source software, such as Linux, and instead stress the benefits of its own products, according to an internal strategy document that was obtained and posted on a Web site for free software advocates.

A federal judge Friday approved most of the provisions of an antitrust settlement between Microsoft Corp. and the Justice Department, largely setting aside concerns by some states that the sanctions were too light on the software titan.

On Wednesday, the Bush administration is scheduled to publish its proposal to increase the security of the Internet. Properly titled the "National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace," it's said to talk with great earnestness about helping home users safeguard their computers, about thwarting online intrusions into business systems, and about providing better training to federal network administrators.

But, according to people familiar with the draft report, it pays scant attention to Microsoft, which has been responsible for more online security woes than any other company in history.

One explanation for the draft report's marked silence is that there is an unusually close relationship between Microsoft and the White House. Howard Schmidt, vice chairman of the White House's National Critical Infrastructure Protection Board, once worked at the Air Force and then became Microsoft's chief security officer. Schmidt's group, headed by "cybersecurity czar" Richard Clarke, is responsible for preparing this week's report. Scott Charney, Microsoft's current security officer, is another former federal official

I GUESS IT'S that time again. About once every quarter, someone circulates the story that the open-source world is cowering in fear over the possibility that Red Hat may become the next Microsoft.

The problem is that Red Hat just does not fit the bill. It is in no position to become a megalomaniacal dragon seeking to rule the IT world.

Its supporters say Linux is a much more robust, stable and secure operating system than anything else out there. In fact, universities and other large institutions have been using Linux in their big server computers for crunching large amounts of technical data, and the software powers many Web sites.

2002 could be shaping up as the Year of the Penguin, Linux's official mascot.

Yet the Australians are emerging as the most reticent bunch to adopt the new deal and the research seems to confirm our report here that the Queen's loyal subjects down under are increasingly turning to Linux to avoid getting tied up with Microsoft

The key factor we should all surely have been aware of, but which has escaped quite a number of us until now, is that: "Full operating system licenses are not available through any Microsoft Volume Licensing Program, Fact." So people who thought they were buying full operating systems via Microsoft volume licensing programs have actually been buying upgrades, and as Microsoft points out in a mailing unearthed by Linux and Main, "Some customers believe they can acquire full operating system licenses through their Microsoft Volume Licensing Program Myth."

Dell, which will not ship most of its desktop machines with a Linux preload, has announced that it now will not sell machines with no operating system. This, the company says, is due to its new contract with Microsoft Corporation. In most cases if you buy a Dell, you buy Windows.

You might be forgiven for thinking that this kind of marketing is impossible, now that Microsoft has been determined in a civil action to be a monopolist engaged in illegal promotion of that monopoly, which finding has been upheld on appeal.

Apparently not.

In a Yankee Group report, researchers noted that Apple has found a loyal, dedicated group of users that rely on its new, ultra-stable operating system for sophisticated graphics and to run production departments.

The study also noted an increase in the adoption of Linux as the "un-Windows" solution, particularly as companies become increasingly dissatisfied with Microsoft's complex and expensive licensing structure.

After our warning that Microsoft is playing a classic propaganda gambit, further proof arrives in the form of an article at LinuxWorld revealing that Microsoft has paid for a booth at LinuxWorld.

Peter Houston, Senior Director of the Windows Server Product Management Group, told LinuxWorld that "the audience that attends this show is very important to us," and "Microsoft sees their participation in this show as the first step towards forming an ongoing dialog with members of the Linux and Open Source community."

For the most part, Microsoft customers have done little more than grumble about such treatment. That's because alternatives from the likes of Apple, IBM, Novell and Sun have their own major drawbacks, and switching from Microsoft is a costly undertaking in itself. But enter Linux and the exploding number of applications that run on the open-source OS, and the competitive landscape looks more inviting. Linux is no silver bullet; its biggest downside remains the dearth of experts to support it. As the platform has matured, however, it has gained enterprise credibility.

"Microsoft has gone too far this time, and we will not be held hostage," one customer CEO recently told InternetWeek.com.

Microsoft Corp. lawyers concluded the software giant's antitrust defense by refusing to concede to any demands of the nine states suing the company, even after the judge asked them to consider compromise.

Nine states fighting to bring stronger antitrust sanctions against Microsoft cleared a legal hurdle Wednesday as a federal judge decided they have the right to seek penalties that would apply nationwide.

The Redmond, Wash.-based software giant is courting government officials, donating money to educational projects, and investing in joint ventures with local companies, said Jun Tang, president of Microsoft China. A few years back, the company was grappling with widespread piracy and with charges, brought by its former top China executive, that it price-gouged Chinese customers.

And the lure of Linux has proved especially strong for governments wary of relying too heavily on U.S.-based Microsoft. On Monday, both the German and Taiwanese governments announced serious open-source efforts. China is in the same boat.

Ralph Nader and the Consumer Project on Technology are asking the federal government to take on Microsoft via the pocketbook instead of the courts, by using its purchasing power to solve "security and competition" issues in the software market.

The letter also questions whether a lack of competition in client software markets create security risks for federal agencies, and whether office productivity tools should be required to provide "high-quality ports" to other operating systems, including Linux or BeOS.

Sure, the savings on licences would be enormous, but what of the productivity losses in retraining all the staff to use an unfamiliar interface and applications? Does the study assume everyone in the organisation could make the transition with no training, without ever having to call helpdesk or read a help file?

So it turns out that the Feds believe Microsoft, like so many other companies, has been managing its earnings.

Why in the world would a company try to make its earnings look worse than they really are? Well, when you're a monopoly, churning out what some anti-capitalists believe are obscene earnings year after year, you just might find it in your best interests to hold back a bit.

A Microsoft executive urged the company to quietly retaliate against supporters of the rival Linux operating system in an August 2000 memo that nine states still suing the software giant want admitted as evidence.

The dispute's ramifications also extend well beyond the group of self-appointed programming hobbyists who launched the open-source movement. Microsoft business partners IBM, Hewlett-Packard and others have embraced Samba and other open-source packages; Sun Microsystems is adding open-source efforts to its increasingly bitter struggle against Microsoft; and even Intel, a stalwart Microsoft ally, has invested in open-source Linux companies.

Some reports today suggest that Microsoft witness Stuart E Madnick, a computer science professor at MIT, might have made desperate claims in court that KDE and GNOME were operating systems. This, fortunately for the good prof's career, is not true, but he most certainly had a desperate and unsuccessful struggle with States' attorney Kevin Hodges, and it's worth reporting in some detail.

Applications Stallman takes Gates to task over GPL By Matt Loney ZDNet (UK) May 1, 2002, 6:00 AM PT TalkBack! Attacks by Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates on the GNU General Public License, under which much open source and free software is distributed, have been driven by a fear that the GPL creates a domain of software that Microsoft cannot privatize and control, according to GPL founder Richard Stallman. Gates' latest speech on the issue was delivered in mid-April to a Government Leaders' Conference in Seattle, where he warned developing countries against using software based on the GPL, saying those who put development time into it are denying themselves the benefits of essential taxes. Using some of his strongest language yet in his campaign against open source and free software, Gates equated the concepts to anti-capitalism. Noting that some countries that believe in the capitalist approach--"that is, that software should generate jobs...and government research and development should be generated on a basis that can be commercialized"--Gates characterized the open source and free software movements as factions against this. "The so-called (Free Software Foundation)... says that these other countries other than the U.S. should devote R&D dollars in the so-called open approach, that means you can never commercialize that software," said Gates. The Free Software Foundation is Stallman's fund-raising organization for GNU projects. But in a column for ZDNet UK, Stallman said the real reason that Microsoft attacks the GPL is that it creates a domain of software that the company cannot privatize and control. "Microsoft's approach to free software is simple: 'What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine.'" Gates, said Stallman, believes that Microsoft should be allowed to take anyone's free software and make a proprietary version, "whose source code is their secret: they will push us to run it but they, not we, will control what it does. We are supposed to be grateful to them for barging in." In his speech to the Government Leaders' Conference, Gates said countries that put money into open source deny themselves "the benefits of these high-paying jobs and the kind of taxes that let countries fund their universities, and fund general research that then goes to renew that pool of commercial R&D." Clearly, he said, "there's an ecosystem there that has worked extremely well in the United States... and there is now a recognition that it's really a question of policy of allowing the so-called capitalistic approach to win the day." Gates reeled off a number of reasons that countries should not adopt open source software. One question, he said, is: "Do you need the source code of an operating system as a user of that operating system? That is, should you be paying your people to study the intricacies of how the operating system is built and stuff like that?" The basic answer, he said, is no. "For a few percent of the price of the PC you can buy a commercial operating system, where all the work of testing it, supporting it, delivering it, is included." Microsoft, said Gates, does provide source code to universities and large companies that want it. "But 90-some percent of the time, that's more an 'okay, it's nice, I have it, you know, should I ever need it.'" So source availability, said Gates, is not the big issue.

Not so, according to Stallman. The Microsoft "shared source" program, he says, is not about sharing at all--it is just another name for a nondisclosure agreement. "Think twice before you sign, because it is not just antisocial, it is risky too," he wrote.

When government attorney Kevin Hodges asked him to name an operating system besides those made by Microsoft in which the Web browsing software could not be removed, Madnick immediately offered up KDE as an example. But KDE is a computer program designed to run on top of the Linux operating system, as Hodges pointed out. Madnick conceded that was true, and instead suggested GNOME as an example. But GNOME performs the same function as KDE on a computer equipped with the Linux operating system. Hodges was never able to get an answer to his question.

One of Microsoft's primary objections to the GPL is what it terms its "viral" nature, i.e. anything you produce with it is also subject ot the GPL. So it's a puzzle that the shared source licence says: "if you distribute derivative works of the Software in source code form you do so only under a license that includes all of the provisions of this License, and if you distribute derivative works of the Software solely in object form you do so only under a license that complies with this License."

Microsoft Corp. is ratcheting up efforts to catch companies migrating from Unix to Linux before they make the switch

Microsoft will provide millions of dollars worth of free or discount-price software, training and support over the next five years and train 20,000 technicians and engineers to set up and run hundreds of e-Mexico public computer centers across the country.

But it is the deal with Microsoft that has drawn criticism, because to many it smacks of handing the company a de facto monopoly.

Many Mexican technology companies hoped that Mr. Fox would use e-Mexico to help promote open-source software in the country. Only 4 million of Mexico's 100 million people now have Internet access, but the number is expected to grow rapidly, in part because of the Fox administration's determination to bridge the "digital divide" and have more of its citizens participate in the global economy. That presents an open field of new users with no preferences or habits to overcome

Microsoft founder and Chairman Bill Gates took the stand Monday for the first time in his company's four-year-old antitrust case, saying that the penalties being sought by nine states would set its Windows operating system back 10 years.

Microsoft is well within its rights to call for an audit. Everyone says so. Everyone has read the contract. But school officials in both states are calling the audits "untimely," "outrageous" and "typical of Microsoft: not very bright."

What would it cost Portland Public Schools, which is already facing a $36 million shortfall, to sign that Microsoft School Agreement?

"A rough number? $500,000," Robinson said, "which translates, roughly, into 10 teaching positions."

Bruce Perens writes:

In its antitrust settlement with the Justice Department and nine states, Microsoft promised to publish technology that would allow competing products to interoperate with Windows. But Microsoft has sidestepped the penalty by crafting a technology license that excludes the company's only viable competitor.

What should you do if you aren't happy about Microsoft escaping an antitrust penalty? Don't be passive about it. Since Microsoft hates the GPL so much, give them more of it to contend with: Deploy systems like GNU/Linux as Web servers and other infrastructure, and consider Mozilla, OpenOffice and Evolution for the desktop. Look around for software projects that you can place under the GPL: internal tools, research work, products that you built and then didn't sell--and get your employer to release them

The U.S. government Monday declined to back Microsoft's effort to throw out claims that nine states have made against it on grounds that a proposed antitrust settlement has already been reached with the federal government.

The legal maneuver sparked objections from many states, even some who had agreed to the settlement, as it trampled on their rights to pursue antitrust matters under federal law.

A proposed settlement of the antitrust case against Microsoft would still allow the software giant to protect its Windows operating system monopoly and boost its Internet presence, an executive from archrival America Online testified on Wednesday.

Microsoft's president and chief operating officer has unexpectedly resigned in order to start his own business.

Rick Belluzzo has only been in his current position for just over a year, causing some analysts to question the reason for his sudden departure

They want Microsoft to offer a stripped-down version of the dominant operating system, so computer manufacturers could more easily replace Microsoft browsers, media players, instant messaging and other "middleware" products with those from competitors like America Online and RealNetworks.

Microsoft sent a letter to Gateway dated Dec. 12, explaining that Microsoft would soon be changing to a uniform licensing mechanism as required by the settlement. The new terms would affect contracts written after Dec. 16 for the top 20 PC makers.

The new license "contained provisions that were more favorable to Microsoft than the previous versions of the corresponding agreements Gateway had negotiated," Fama testified.

For instance, under the two-strikes provision, Microsoft could terminate any PC maker's Windows licenses without notice after sending two default notices. The notices would not need to be for serious offenses, either, Fama said. Under its previous license, Gateway had a three-strike provision.

Dell Computer had plans to put Linux, a free operating system that competes with Windows, on some of its computers in 2000, the states' lawyers said. But Dell abandoned the plans under pressure from Microsoft, they said.

By June 2001, Dell laid off its head Linux employee and reassigned the rest of his team.

If Microsoft has tried to squash the Linux operating system by bullying computer and chip makers into snubbing it, it hasn't succeeded.

That's because Linux, the free operating system that began as a hobby of early Internet users, is more a populist movement than a vulnerable corporate target — like the Netscape browser that Microsoft has eclipsed.

In December, Microsoft sued operating-system maker Lindows.com, claiming the 6-month-old company was illegally taking advantage of its Windows trademark and potentially confusing customers.

However, in a preliminary ruling issued late Friday, U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said the suit raised "serious questions" about whether the word "Windows" is entitled to trademark protection.

Nine states and the District of Columbia return to court Monday to determine a remedy for the company's antitrust violations. But Microsoft had asked U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly to dismiss the states' litigation, arguing that the states should not be allowed to set antitrust policy over the Justice Department. The Justice Department and nine other states settled the case in November.

SBC Communications and four trade groups told a federal judge Wednesday that Microsoft's landmark antitrust settlement is not in the public interest.

Microsoft management is now threatening to stop shipping Windows completely if the next federal court decision goes against them. This is insane. If I used Windows in my business, I would be working hard to switch to Linux -- or Mac or BSD -- as fast as I possibly could, just in case Microsoft decides to make good on this threat.

Microsoft's chief executive and the top executive involved with its Windows operating system are sticking with a position the company has held since the outset of the four-year antitrust case: They cannot pull the Internet Explorer Web browser out of Windows.

He said GPL-based companies were low-margin manufacturing firms that did not have the ability to charge for software. While Microsoft was able to invest a large amount of profits in research and development, GPL businesses had little to re-invest because they had to rely on selling documents and support around their software.

In an unusual move for a general retailer, the Microtel computers are being offered without operating systems as part of a test to gauge the response among tech-oriented customers who may want to load their own operating systems, Walmart.com spokeswoman Cynthia Lin said.

"We decided to sell the computers without an operating system so those customers who didn't want Windows could load the OS of their choice," said Lin, adding that another attractive element in not offering an operation system is that eliminating Windows considerably drops the cost of PCs.

While Microsoft has cast its action as a means to assist system integrators, the announcement's timing suggests other factors may be at work.

Microsoft also faces competitive pressure from the open-source Linux operating system. Microsoft's shared-source concept permits integrators and developers to look at Windows code, but not to modify it or resell it. The open-source license covering Linux permits developers to modify the code at will, as long as the modifications are published openly.

Webmaster's note: interesting analysis from an economist about the MS settlement and how it may end up costing us money. As always, read with an open mind. If the nine litigating states get their wish, independent software vendors and consumers will be stuck with 80 Billion dollars in new costs over the next three years.

Microsoft Corp. has already used its proposed settlement with the U.S. Justice Department to impose harsher terms on computer manufacturers that buy its software, the states still pursuing the antitrust case against the company alleged Tuesday.

Microsoft's new version of its popular Media Player software is logging the songs and movies that customers play.

The company said Wednesday it was changing its privacy statement to notify customers about the technology after inquiries from The Associated Press.

The system creates a list on each computer that could be a treasure for marketing companies, lawyers or others. Microsoft says it has no plans to sell the data collected by Media Player 8, which comes free with the Windows XP operating system.

On February 14, 2002, the Department of Justice made available to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia 47 comments received during the 60-day public comment period relating to the revised proposed Final Judgment. These comments represent the comments characterized as “major” in the Joint Status Report submitted to the Court on February 8, 2002.

This page provides links to each of the 47 comments provided to the Court on February 14, 2002. The comments are listed in alphabetical order by the name of the person or entity submitting the comment.

Comments include those of

• KDE League, Inc.
• Eben Moglen
• Red Hat, Inc.

 View older news this year: Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan
 View news from other years: 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999
 View older news in category Microsoft this year: Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan
 View Microsoft news from other years: 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000