Might a Court Order Microsoft to GPL?

[Janina Sajka]

Interesting that the States would propose this at the top of
their list.

But, more interesting still, imho, that none of our American
press finds this newsworthy. 

				...

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1024484355955&p=1012571727242 

US states say disclosing Windows code is crucial

   By Peter Spiegel in Washington
   Published: June 19 2002 19:00 | 
Last Updated: June 19 2002 19:00

   The nine US states seeking harsh antitrust penalties against
Microsoft told a federal judge on Wednesday that their top
priority was to force the
   disclosure of broad swaths of Windows' software code to
potential competitors to ensure competition.

   Steven Kuney, the state's lead attorney, said requiring
Microsoft to disclose software interfaces - which would allow
competitors to write programs
   that interoperate directly with Windows - would fix the
central antitrust violations committed by the company. He added
it would be the remedy that
   could help spur competition in the software industry given
current market conditions.

   Surprisingly, Mr Kuney said such disclosures were more
important to the states than some of the more controversial parts
of their proposed penalties,
   including forcing Microsoft to license a stripped-down version
of Windows to competitors - a measure most observers believed was
at the core of the
   states' plan.

   Mr Kuney's prioritisation of the penalties sought by the
states came during closing arguments of a two-month trial, in
which the states have tried to
   convince Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly that Microsoft should be
restrained more severely than it would under a settlement the
company reached last year
   with the Justice Department.

   Judge Kollar-Kotelly asked both the states and Microsoft to
list the penalties they believed were most important - or most
objectionable - in an
   unusual pre-hearing order.

   The order is the first sign the judge may be seeking a
compromise set of penalties that fall somewhere in between the
strict proposals set out by the
   states and the more lenient remedies reached in Microsoft's
settlement with the Justice Department.

   If the judge does decide to approve a compromise, she would be
moving into uncharted legal ground. Currently, she is technically
handling two separate
   cases. In one, she must approve or reject the Justice
Department deal; in the other, she must decide whether the
states' proposal would effectively
   punish Microsoft and fix the software market.

   Any decision to re-combine the two cases - they were
consolidated for almost four years before the Justice Department
reached a separate settlement -
   would be unprecedented. Even the hint that she is considering
new penalties is a significant blow to the Justice Department,
which has argued it
   should be given wide deference as the prosecutor of nationwide
antitrust laws.

   Next to disclosure requirements, Mr Kuney said the states'
highest priority would be to ensure that computer manufacturers
are given wide latitude to
   decide what programs should be included on the Windows desktop
when they are shipped out to customers.

   Microsoft was found guilty of bullying PC makers into using
exclusively Microsoft products - particularly its web browser,
Internet Explorer - and Mr
   Kuney said ensuring computer groups were safe from threats
from Microsoft and able to choose from rival applications was key
to boosting competition.


-- 
	
				Janina Sajka, Director
				Technology Research and Development
				Governmental Relations Group
				American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)

Email: janina at afb.net		Phone: (202) 408-8175

Chair, Accessibility SIG
Open Electronic Book Forum (OEBF)
http://www.openebook.org

   Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
   See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html