Letter to my AG
As a resident of Maryland and someone who has worked in the computer field for many years I was distressed to hear that the Federal AG is going to let Microsoft off the hook.
I do not say that as an uninformed person who is not aware that there are going to be consent agreements in place I speak from knowing that MS has habitually ignored them. The proposed agreement is a joke. It does nothing to restore competition or in anyway restrict Microsoft.
Any agreement needs to leave MS with an independent actor with full access to MS (business and technical) to enforce the following.
1) All protocols must be fully disclosed to anyone 90 days prior to being implemented. This includes security protocols. The idea of security through obscurity is laughed at by anyone in the computer security business. The only reason it has been allowed to stand is because of the lack of competition. Protocols must be disclosed to individuals, organizations, and companies. The current proposed agreement would require that the few (very few) protocols that MS would have to disclose would only have to be disclosed to companies with business plans that MS acknowledged. This protects MS from its biggest rival, Open Source Software. MS knows this.
2) All APIs must be documented and released according to the same conditions as protocols. This allows the drop in replacement of shoddy MS pieces by anyone who wants to write them. And keep in mind all this disclosure has to be just as complete and as timely as the documentation internal MS programmers get.
3) Document file formats (.doc, .xls, etc.) must be disclosed under the same conditions as protocols. Actions must be taken to allow inter-operation between os platforms if competition is to be restored to the industry. I need to be able to read/write MS format files by any software on any platform or the monopoly is constraining free competition.
4) MS is no longer allowed to make secret deals. They must fully disclose the nature of all deals they make. Particularly the details of their arrangements with OEMs. MS doesn’t need and shouldn’t have control over what other software an OEM ships with MS software or what parts of the os they load on a computer. OEMs shouldn’t even have to license the whole bundle. Allow OEMs to get windows without media player if they can get a better vendor for that functionality. And the idea that the monopolist MS should have any control over which icons an OEM puts on the screen is patently ridiculous. MS should be considered a vendor not a feudal lord.
5) Allow me not to support MS. When ever I buy a computer some part of what I pay goes to MS. I tried to buy a PC without a MS os, the best I could get was a computer without the os installed. I still had to buy a license for the MS os, a license I can’t transfer or sell to another and that I have no use for. I bought the computer to install Linux on yet I still had to pay MS for the right. This has to change.
6) There must be teeth. I’m talking on the order of 1% of valuation per day of violation. Jail time for executives who continue to act in this way wouldn’t hurt either. This must be overseen by a truly independent entity. This entity must be able to exert control over MS when it attempts to violate this agreement. It must also be privy to decisions made management so it can determine if a violation has occurred. Every 5 years or so allow MS to make the argument before a judge that they are not a monopoly any longer if that occurs then and only then may some of these restrictions be lessened.
MS has again and again ignored consent decrees and other remedies that depended on them agreeing. The current proposal basically says they are not allowed to do anything they don’t want to. I am not being served by that agreement.
I urge you in the strongest possible language oppose the current proposal and require real consequences for MS and the return of competition to the computer industry.
I also recommend you be wary of letters supporting the company as MS has been known in the past to pass off it’s own corporate communication under the appearance of being grassroots.
Support real Marylanders and real competition in this court case.