|
Vol.
XXVI No.
December
|
People’s DemocracyUS
Department
Of
Justice
Succumbs
To
Microsoft
Prabir
Purkayastha
ON
November
1
this
year,
US
District
Judge
Colleen
Kollar-Kotelly
approved
of
the
agreement
between
the
Justice
Department
and
Microsoft
on
its
anti-trust
case.
This
agreement,
while
admitting
that
Microsoft
was
a
monopoly
and
had
used
its
monopoly
to
squeeze
out
its
competitors
and
fleece
the
customers,
has
virtually
allowed
it
to
continue
its
past
practices.
The
plea
of
some
of
the
states
(9
dissenting
states)
that
the
agreement
did
not
address
vital
concerns
of
either
the
consumers
or
competing
software
companies
was
rejected,
virtually
in
toto.
This
brings
to
an
end
the
attempt
to
muzzle
Microsoft,
the
most
predatory
multinational
today,
and
District
Judge
Jacksons
earlier
judgement
of
separating
Microsoft
into
different
companies,
one
for
the
operating
system
business
and
the
other
for
the
rest
of
its
activity.
Judge
Jackson
wrote
in
his
opinion
that
Microsoft
used
every
trick
in
the
monopolists
world
to
crush
their
rivals.
The
major
element
in
his
judgement
was
that
if
Microsoft
would
have
to
hive
off
its
operating
system
business
from
its
other
business,
it
would
allow
all
other
competitors
to
have
a
level
playing
field.
Microsoft
used
its
monopoly
in
the
operating
system
to
bundle
other
software
and
also
build
the
interface
that
makes
it
easy
for
its
own
products
and
difficult
for
others.
The
judgement
had
also
noted
that
Microsoft
used
the
dominant
position
of
Windows
to
browbeat
all
PC
manufacturers
to
bundle
Windows
with
the
PC
and
configure
it
without
their
competitors
products.
Netscape,
which
was
pre-eminent
Internet
browser
earlier,
today
has
less
than
4
per
cent
of
the
market.
Internet
Explorer,
which
had
a
small
share
earlier,
through
Microsofts
such
practices
and
monopoly
muscle,
controls
96
per
cent
of
the
browser
market
today.
FAVOURING
MIOCROSOFT
The
current
agreement
does
not
address
any
of
the
issues
of
the
Jackson
Judgement.
Not
only
has
splitting
Microsoft
been
abandoned,
almost
all
other
measures
to
restrict
Microsoft
has
also
been
diluted
in
the
Justice
Department-Microsoft
agreement.
There
is
nothing
to
prevent
Microsofts
demand
on
the
PC
manufacturers
that
its
products
such
as
Explorer
must
be
supplied
bundled
with
the
PCs.
Secondly,
the
agreement
does
not
create
the
conditions
for
a
competitive
environment
for
the
operating
system
business.
All
it
does
is
to
force
Microsoft
to
release
some
of
its
source
code
to
allow
better
interfacing
(known
as
APIs)
so
that
other
software
vendors
can
work
better
with
Windows.
In
the
long
run,
this
only
reinforces
Microsofts
Windows
monopoly
though
it
allows
vendors
of
other
software
products
to
compete
better
with
Microsofts
similar
products.
However,
what
code
is
to
be
made
public
and
when,
is
still
left
to
Microsoft,
which
will
ensure
Microsoft
can
still
wriggle
out
of
its
commitments.
The
third
major
departure
from
the
Jackson
Judgement
is
that
the
current
agreement
only
insists
that
icons
of
Microsoft
products
can
be
removed
from
the
Desktop
(the
display
that
comes
on
when
you
boot
up
the
PC).
This
means
that
for
the
products
of
software
competitors
that
Microsoft
wishes
to
kill,
Microsoft
can
give
its
alternatives
bundled
with
Windows
and
the
PC
manufacturer
can
remove
only
the
icon:
Already,
Microsoft
is
bundling
media
players
on
Windows
and
killing
off
smaller
companies
who
had
developed
the
same.
Given
the
market
power
of
Microsoft,
it
is
unlikely
that
the
PC
manufacturers
would
ever
exercise
this
right
of
removing
just
the
icons.
In
an
on-line
discussion
in
the
Wall
Street
Journal
site,
one
of
the
comments
illustrates
clearly
the
problem
with
the
agreement.
It
says,
Sadly,
the
judge’s
ruling
is
ignorant
of
the
pervasiveness
of
control
that
selling
the
operating
system
conveys.
The
effect
of
the
final
ruling
still
means
that
small
companies
that
come
up
with
innovative
add-on
products
for
Windows
operating
system
computers
will
be
crushed
out
of
business
when
Microsoft
releases
their
own
version
of
the
products.
This
is
the
fundamental
fault
with
Microsoft’s
control,
which
is
almost
completely
ignored
by
the
DOJ
settlement
and
this
ruling.
Witness
Netscape’s
demise,
the
shaky
future
of
music
and
video
players
such
as
Real’s,
and
the
coming
dominance
by
MSN
over
AOL.
The
reality
is
that
ANYTHING
“built-in”
to
the
OS
will
dominate
over
ANYTHING
that
has
to
be
“downloaded”
or
“added
on”,
no
matter
what
the
relative
merits
are
between
the
products.
This
is
a
sad
day
for
innovation
and
a
big
thumbs
up
for
corporate
autocracy.
The
worldwide
fight
against
Microsofts
monopoly
can
no
longer
look
to
the
US
Justice
Department
for
any
succour.
It
is
clear
that
the
US
government
has
decided
that
is
better
to
allow
Microsoft
to
predate
on
the
competitors
and
consumers
in
the
US
in
order
to
rule
the
global
software
market.
A
sacrifice
that
the
US
people
should
be
willing
to
make
according
to
the
US
government
in
order
to
preserve
USs
pre-eminent
position.
Though
the
order
may
still
be
challenged,
it
is
unlikely
the
dissenting
9
states
will
take
this
route.
For
all
practical
purposes
Microsofts
monopoly
is
likely
to
continue
as
before,
with
only
cosmetic
changes.
OPTIONS
BEFORE
THE
PEOPLE
So
what
are
the
alternatives
before
the
people?
Are
we
to
surrender
before
Microsoft
and
accept
that
either
we
have
to
pay
even
more
than
the
PC
cost
in
order
to
use
software
or
take
recourse
to
what
the
current
IPR
regime
terms
as
piracy:
copying
of
software
for
personal
use.
The
global
alternative
to
Microsoft
monopoly
is
emerging
from
an
international
alliance
of
a
completely
new
kind.
Over
the
last
two
decades,
a
number
of
people
have
been
propagating
Free
Software
and
Open
Source
Software
as
a
counter
to
Microsoft
kind
of
monopolies.
The
founder
of
Free
Software
movement,
Richard
Stallman
was
in
India
recently,
ironically
at
the
same
time
the
Indian
government
was
busy
lionising
the
other
software
visitor,
Bill
Gates.
The
Free
Software
movement
proposes
that
the
current
copyright
and
patent
regime
is
fundamentally
against
the
development
of
human
society
and
science
and
must
be
set
aside.
It
uses
-
instead
of
copyright
a
term
called
copyleft:
all
products
not
only
can
be
copied
freely,
but
all
software
built
using
free
software
must
also
be
free
from
copyright:
people
should
have
the
right
to
copy
and
distribute
such
products
freely.
Stallman
identifies
free
software
not
with
its
cost
free
software
can
have
some
price
but
with
freedom
to
make
copies
and
modifications.
This
is
why
Microsoft
finds
Stallman
and
the
free
software
movements
licence
-
GNU
general
public
license
fundamentally
subversive.
The
Open
Source
movement
shares
the
vision
that
software
should
be
shared
and
copied
freely
but
advances
this
as
a
better
way
to
develop
better
software.
Thus,
the
Open
Source
Initiative
defines
the
need
for
open
source
from
a
pragmatic
standpoint
and
suggests
that
software
developed
this
way
would
be
far
superior
to
existing
commercial
software.
Linux,
developed
by
Torvald
Linus
and
his
group
are
the
major
proponents
of
this
approach.
Both
these
initiatives
have
a
common
enemy
monopoly
commercial
software
such
as
Windows.
Pooled
together,
they
offer
today
fairly
complete
solution
to
basic
computational
needs
of
the
market.
Already,
Linux
has
beaten
Windows
NT
for
the
server
market
as
the
dominant
operating
system.
The
PC
market
today
still
continues
with
the
Microsoft
monopoly
due
to
the
axis
between
the
PC
manufacturers
and
Microsoft.
Internationally,
various
governments
have
started
to
port
their
work
to
Linux,
moving
away
from
monopoly
proprietary
software
such
as
Windows.
Germany,
China,
Argentina,
Brazil,
South
Africa
are
amongst
some
of
the
countries
that
are
choosing
open
source
instead
of
Windows
and
other
proprietary
products.
MICROSOFTS
GAME
It
is
to
preserve
this
monopoly
that
Microsoft
and
Bill
Gates
is
most
active.
The
offer
to
provide
money
and
other
help
from
Microsoft
in
India
is
to
lock
educational
institutions
and
governments
to
the
Microsoft
platform.
If
this
can
be
achieved,
then
Microsofts
future
monopoly
will
also
be
intact.
This
is
the
game
that
Microsoft
is
playing.
For
those
who
may
not
know
history
of
computers
in
India,
do
not
know
that
kicking
out
IBM
from
India
is
the
basis
of
Indias
software
strength
today.
Indian
companies
used
UNIX,
then
in
the
public
domain,
to
run
their
computers.
As
a
number
of
international
computer
vendors
also
chose
Unix
subsequently
to
compete
with
IBM,
this
gave
a
unique
competitive
advantage
to
India
as
India
already
had
UNIX
trained
software
engineers.
This
is
how
the
Indian
software
engineers
broke
into
the
US
market
and
were
able
to
establish
their
reputation.
A
similar
situation
and
opportunity
exists
here
too.
There
is
a
monopoly,
which
is
being
challenged
globally.
There
is
an
emerging
platform:
GNULinux
for
all
computational
tasks.
Other
governments
are
already
climbing
onto
free/open
source
bandwagon.
The
question
that
India
has
to
answer
is
are
we
willing
to
chose
freedom
from
monopoly
in
software
now
or
are
we
going
to
succumb
to
the
siren
song
of
Microsoft?
From
the
hype
that
Gates
received
in
his
visit,
the
future
does
not
look
bright.
But
then
the
minister
for
information
technology
has
little
time
for
software.
The
stock
market
is
his
first
priority,
software
development
coming
a
distant
second.
Meanwhile,
Microsoft
is
already
partnering
18
state
governments.
Posturing
in
international
meetings
for
Intellectual
Property
Rights,
as
Arun
Shourie
did
recently,
does
not
harm
multinational
monopoly:
it
is
government
policy
and
making
the
right
choices
that
does.
But
then,
we
already
know
the
meaning
of
BJP
nationalism;
it
starts
with
the
8th
century
and
stops
with
the
coming
of
the
British
in
the
18th.
For
the
rest,
they
are
willing
camp
followers
of
imperialism.
