The recent contretemps over Northrop/EADS winning the KC-X tanker contract has led to think about the Clinton/Reno Justice Department's absurd approach to antitrust issues.
To fully understand why I view it as absurd, one needs to keep in mind two dates:
August 1st, 1997, and May 18th, 1998. Two dates that are less than a year apart. But they illustrate what the DoJ got wrong--and what they also got wrong.
On August 1st, 1997, The Boeing Company was allowed to gain a monopoly on domestic large airframe production. After that date, one had a choice of Boeing, or going to Airbus.
On May 18th, 1998, the Justice Department commenced its antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft. At that time, users had a choice of Windows, Macintosh Classic, or Linux for an affordable computer operating system. Now, one has a choice of Windows, Mac Classic, Mac OS X, BSD Unix, Solaris, Ubuntu, Red Hat, Debian, SuSE, FreeBSD, and the beat goes on . . .
Nowadays, web applications seem to be the way of the future, making the operating system less relevant than the browser, and there's plenty of choice in the browser world, too.
The Justice Department missed one fundamental point. Creating a computer program requires the following:
1. A reasonably quiet area to think
2. Skill in a computer language
3. A computer
4. Appropriate software
You can do it in your study or a public library. Get a bunch of people together with some venture capital or just a burning desire to show just how good and utterly cool y'all and y'all's ideas are, and you might end up being the next Microsoft or Google.
Creating a large commercial aircraft, in contrast, requires at least one hellaciously big factory (if not dozens of them) and a lot of expensive machinery. You can't do it in your study, or even in your garage (no matter HOW full of fancy tools your pegboard is).
So, Justice screwed everything up . . . and the fallout will likely screw a lot more things up.
Showing posts with label anti-trust. Show all posts
Showing posts with label anti-trust. Show all posts
Saturday, March 08, 2008
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
The EU and Microsoft
Greetings, everyone. Some time ago, my brother Harold invited me to contribute to this blog on an occasional basis, but I never really had the opportunity to do so until now. However, as I've often had to do in person, I need to correct my brother on some rather important points relating to Microsoft's behavior.
Before I begin, I should probably give an idea of my background. I am a computer engineer and UNIX administrator working in the DC area. My personal specialty is in computer and network security. While my primary job responsibilities involve running mostly UNIX and Linux servers, I also work with Windows servers and desktops quite a bit. At home, I have both a Linux machine and a Windows machine, and my laptop runs both Ubuntu Linux and Windows Vista Ultimate. While for day-to-day tasks, I prefer Linux (it's more productive for me), I also fully support using Windows when it's needed.
With all of that said, my brother is way off in his recent post on the EU and Microsoft. This is not akin to saying that Airbus has to hand over all of its blueprints to its competitors. In reality it is far different from that.
The EU case centers around client/server protocols that Microsoft built into Windows. The roots of the case stretch back to the early 1990s, and efforts by Microsoft to break into the server market. Since the 1970s, the server market has been mostly dominated by large mainframes and UNIX servers (with the UNIX servers growing in market share as they replace some mainframes). These servers are large, multi-user machines that would communicate with each other using various protocols (essentially languages used for one machine to talk to another).
During the 1980s, with the arrival of the PC, a new model arose, where single-user machines would also connect to the different servers using different protocols. Because of a series of savvy business deals, Microsoft rose to dominance over the single-user PC market with MSDOS, and later Windows.
In 1993, in an attempt to break into the server market, Microsoft released Windows NT. This used a brand new set of protocols to communicate between Windows desktop PCs and NT-based servers. Microsoft refused to release any information about these protocols, in an attempt to keep other companies from being able to work as easily with NT servers and Windows desktops.
Well, in 1998, SUN Microsystems filed a complaint with the EU because they refused to provide information on the protocols used by NT to communicate between servers and desktops. Essentially, they said that Microsoft was trying to use its dominance in one market (desktop PCs) to dominate another market (servers). Under European law, that is illegal.
Before we continue, it's important to note several things about protocols. As I said before, protocols are like different languages spoken between computers. If you are reading this, it's because your computer supports several different protocols, including TCP (Transmission Control Protocol), IP (Internet Protocol), HTTP (Hyper Text Transfer Protocol) and DNS (Domain Name Service). In order for a protocol to work, both the sender and the receiver have to understand the same protocol. Just like two people cannot communicate if one of them only speaks German and the other only speaks Japanese, both a server and a client (desktop) need to understand the same protocol to exchange any information.
Using a variety of tools, you can listen in on the conversations that two computers have using a specific protocol. From there, you can reverse engineer the protocol if you are given enough time. However, this is a very slow and time consuming process. Moreover, it is extremely error prone, and you never know if it is complete. How easy do you think it would be to translate a message from Japanese to English just by listening to a lot of Japanese? Over time you have to guess at what specific sounds mean, and check to see if they are correct. Even then, you never know if you've learned the entire vocabulary. How would you know the word for dog if you've never seen it? In the same way, you can figure out some of a computer protocol, but you never know if it is complete.
To make a long story short, in March 2004, the EU ruled that Microsoft had abused its dominance in the desktop market to influence the server market through refusing to release their communications protocols. Whether you agree with the principle or not, it was in violation of EU law. Microsoft was ordered to release the specifications of their protocols in order to allow their competitors to be able to communicate with their servers. This didn't require source code. It only required that they release the protocols themselves. You can see a good example of how such specifications are usually written by looking at RFC 793: TCP. Notice carefully that there is no source code, only a description of how to talk using the protocol.
Well, Microsoft released a specification for the protocols, but several groups complained to the EU that the specification that Microsoft released was so poorly written as to be almost unusable. After reviewing the complaints and Microsoft's responses, the EU agreed that the complaints were justified. Microsoft was then ordered to release the source code of their implementation so that others could use it to verify compatibility. That doesn't mean that Microsoft's competitors can use Microsoft's code in their products. It only means that they can use Microsoft's code to understand the protocol, and then they still have to write their own code to translate it.
And that is the real debate here. Microsoft broke EU law, law that was in place before Microsoft was ever incorporated. That law applies to all companies that operate within the EU, not just Microsoft. When they were told that they had violated the law, Microsoft then refused to do what was required to fix the problem. As a result, Microsoft now faces harsher penalties than it would have previously.
You don't have to agree with the law, but that doesn't mean that you have a right to ignore it. Microsoft needs to play by the same rules as everyone else, and that means that they have to fulfill their obligations under EU law.
Before I begin, I should probably give an idea of my background. I am a computer engineer and UNIX administrator working in the DC area. My personal specialty is in computer and network security. While my primary job responsibilities involve running mostly UNIX and Linux servers, I also work with Windows servers and desktops quite a bit. At home, I have both a Linux machine and a Windows machine, and my laptop runs both Ubuntu Linux and Windows Vista Ultimate. While for day-to-day tasks, I prefer Linux (it's more productive for me), I also fully support using Windows when it's needed.
With all of that said, my brother is way off in his recent post on the EU and Microsoft. This is not akin to saying that Airbus has to hand over all of its blueprints to its competitors. In reality it is far different from that.
The EU case centers around client/server protocols that Microsoft built into Windows. The roots of the case stretch back to the early 1990s, and efforts by Microsoft to break into the server market. Since the 1970s, the server market has been mostly dominated by large mainframes and UNIX servers (with the UNIX servers growing in market share as they replace some mainframes). These servers are large, multi-user machines that would communicate with each other using various protocols (essentially languages used for one machine to talk to another).
During the 1980s, with the arrival of the PC, a new model arose, where single-user machines would also connect to the different servers using different protocols. Because of a series of savvy business deals, Microsoft rose to dominance over the single-user PC market with MSDOS, and later Windows.
In 1993, in an attempt to break into the server market, Microsoft released Windows NT. This used a brand new set of protocols to communicate between Windows desktop PCs and NT-based servers. Microsoft refused to release any information about these protocols, in an attempt to keep other companies from being able to work as easily with NT servers and Windows desktops.
Well, in 1998, SUN Microsystems filed a complaint with the EU because they refused to provide information on the protocols used by NT to communicate between servers and desktops. Essentially, they said that Microsoft was trying to use its dominance in one market (desktop PCs) to dominate another market (servers). Under European law, that is illegal.
Before we continue, it's important to note several things about protocols. As I said before, protocols are like different languages spoken between computers. If you are reading this, it's because your computer supports several different protocols, including TCP (Transmission Control Protocol), IP (Internet Protocol), HTTP (Hyper Text Transfer Protocol) and DNS (Domain Name Service). In order for a protocol to work, both the sender and the receiver have to understand the same protocol. Just like two people cannot communicate if one of them only speaks German and the other only speaks Japanese, both a server and a client (desktop) need to understand the same protocol to exchange any information.
Using a variety of tools, you can listen in on the conversations that two computers have using a specific protocol. From there, you can reverse engineer the protocol if you are given enough time. However, this is a very slow and time consuming process. Moreover, it is extremely error prone, and you never know if it is complete. How easy do you think it would be to translate a message from Japanese to English just by listening to a lot of Japanese? Over time you have to guess at what specific sounds mean, and check to see if they are correct. Even then, you never know if you've learned the entire vocabulary. How would you know the word for dog if you've never seen it? In the same way, you can figure out some of a computer protocol, but you never know if it is complete.
To make a long story short, in March 2004, the EU ruled that Microsoft had abused its dominance in the desktop market to influence the server market through refusing to release their communications protocols. Whether you agree with the principle or not, it was in violation of EU law. Microsoft was ordered to release the specifications of their protocols in order to allow their competitors to be able to communicate with their servers. This didn't require source code. It only required that they release the protocols themselves. You can see a good example of how such specifications are usually written by looking at RFC 793: TCP. Notice carefully that there is no source code, only a description of how to talk using the protocol.
Well, Microsoft released a specification for the protocols, but several groups complained to the EU that the specification that Microsoft released was so poorly written as to be almost unusable. After reviewing the complaints and Microsoft's responses, the EU agreed that the complaints were justified. Microsoft was then ordered to release the source code of their implementation so that others could use it to verify compatibility. That doesn't mean that Microsoft's competitors can use Microsoft's code in their products. It only means that they can use Microsoft's code to understand the protocol, and then they still have to write their own code to translate it.
And that is the real debate here. Microsoft broke EU law, law that was in place before Microsoft was ever incorporated. That law applies to all companies that operate within the EU, not just Microsoft. When they were told that they had violated the law, Microsoft then refused to do what was required to fix the problem. As a result, Microsoft now faces harsher penalties than it would have previously.
You don't have to agree with the law, but that doesn't mean that you have a right to ignore it. Microsoft needs to play by the same rules as everyone else, and that means that they have to fulfill their obligations under EU law.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
With Apologies to Trip & Snooze . . .
You Gotta be on Google
(to the tune of "You've Gotta be in the Guard" by Dos Gringos)
A long, long time ago
Before there was A-O-L
Nobody told a Microsofty
What he could not sell
He could integrate the browser
He could put icons in the toolbar
Now I know some things had to change
But we've gone to f***ing far!
Now you can't program this
You can't program that
Some f***ing lawyer just might get upset
And I just can't believe in this lurch
You gotta be on Google to do search!
They say that we've got talent
But judgement's what we lack
Like writing that Netscape memo
Well we won't take it back
Boies said he was offended
But that only made us smile
Because we knew deep down that he loved it
And he was only in denial!
Now I don't think it could get any worse
You can't update code and you can't search recurse
And I just can't believe in this lurch
You gotta be on Google to do search!
To do search.
To do search.
I just can't believe in this lurch
You gotta be on Google to do search!
Now this antitrust correctness it must come to an end
'Cause we're in the business of business, who gives a f*** if we offend
I can code bugs by the thousands but I can't upgrade Word
Now that's the dumbest f***ing thing that I have ever heard
Now I don't think it could get any worse
You can't update code and you can't search recurse
And I just can't believe in this lurch
You gotta be on Google to do search!
(With apologies to Trip and Snooze)
(to the tune of "You've Gotta be in the Guard" by Dos Gringos)
A long, long time ago
Before there was A-O-L
Nobody told a Microsofty
What he could not sell
He could integrate the browser
He could put icons in the toolbar
Now I know some things had to change
But we've gone to f***ing far!
Now you can't program this
You can't program that
Some f***ing lawyer just might get upset
And I just can't believe in this lurch
You gotta be on Google to do search!
They say that we've got talent
But judgement's what we lack
Like writing that Netscape memo
Well we won't take it back
Boies said he was offended
But that only made us smile
Because we knew deep down that he loved it
And he was only in denial!
Now I don't think it could get any worse
You can't update code and you can't search recurse
And I just can't believe in this lurch
You gotta be on Google to do search!
To do search.
To do search.
I just can't believe in this lurch
You gotta be on Google to do search!
Now this antitrust correctness it must come to an end
'Cause we're in the business of business, who gives a f*** if we offend
I can code bugs by the thousands but I can't upgrade Word
Now that's the dumbest f***ing thing that I have ever heard
Now I don't think it could get any worse
You can't update code and you can't search recurse
And I just can't believe in this lurch
You gotta be on Google to do search!
(With apologies to Trip and Snooze)
Thursday, April 05, 2007
EU mugs Microsoft...
It seems the EU has decided that it, and it alone shall determine how much Microsoft's intellectual property is worth according to a document acquired by the Financial Times.
This is not ensuring competition. This is, for all intents and purposes, a legal mugging - and in this case, it is a foreign government doing this to an American company. It would be like the Commerce Department requiring that Airbus hand over the full design documentation of the A380 to Lockheed and Boeing. What do you think the folks at Skunk Works would be able to do with that?
This cannot be allowed to stand. Quite frankly, this sort of thing requires retaliation. The EU's also trying to push ITunes around as well.
Two can play.
This is not ensuring competition. This is, for all intents and purposes, a legal mugging - and in this case, it is a foreign government doing this to an American company. It would be like the Commerce Department requiring that Airbus hand over the full design documentation of the A380 to Lockheed and Boeing. What do you think the folks at Skunk Works would be able to do with that?
This cannot be allowed to stand. Quite frankly, this sort of thing requires retaliation. The EU's also trying to push ITunes around as well.
Two can play.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)