One more irrational, fact-twisting rant from Dan Gillmor.
Let's see if we can set the facts straight:
Settlement from 2001: Read the reports to the judge and the transcripts of the hearings. Microsoft has completely complied, and on more than one instance, the government praised Microsoft for being so cooperative. No one has any evidence as to whether the low number of licensses is because of the terms (which the government had a say in) or just plain lack of interest. Says it right there in the documents. But MS has been asked repeatedly to ease the terms just in case that's it. Microsoft's response: "ok". Hard to find a lot of fault with that. Once again, read the paper trail; it's all there.
SCO: Microsoft ships operating systems, including support for Unix compatibility both in Windows NT and in Services for Unix. It stands to reason that there is intellectual property in SCO's possession that might read on those products, and so Microsoft legally needs a license to that IP. Independent of whether SCO has any claim against Linux, that was a straightforward intellectual-property licensing deal from everything I can see (and all I know is what I read in the press and company's press releases). What SCO does with licensing fees is their damn business. Microsoft is following the intellectual property laws of this country and others; while there may not be a lot of case law about how they apply to open source and GPL, thee is a very large amount of case law interpreting them for proprietary products like Microsoft's, and the company is following those laws. On the BayStar thing, I have no information whatsoever on what Microsoft did or didn't do in this specific case. I can tell you, though, that people at Microsoft makes lots of introductions between VC's, investors, and tech companies all of the time. For years the VC community criticized the company for not being part of that ecosystem. So we've tried to step up that involvement and help people meet each other. So we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't... should Microsoft only make introductions between people and companies that everyone likes? In this business, that quickly brings the addressable market down to zero.
Lindows: Microsoft is suing Lindows under trademark law. The trademark laws, unlike patent laws, say that you must actively enforce your trademark, otherwise you lose it. Microsoft has no choice, it has to negotiate or litigate all of them. You can't do it selectively. Same thing with mikerowesoft.com. Ask any trademark lawyer.
I understand that Dan is going to draw whatever conclusions he can from minimal evidence to reinforce his belief that Microsoft is evil. And that view certainly attracts an audience. But I hope that Gillmor isn't on the way to becoming the next Rush Limbaugh -- loudmouthed, headline-grabbing, and willing to selectively interpret the facts to support the view that will gain him the most blindly religious following. That would be a shame, because I do sometimes agree with him, and if he gets pulled into the abyss he would lose all credibility. And no one deserves that.
10:19:34 PM  ; ;
|
|
