The Microsoft antitrust trial has been settled yet not settled at all. Earlier today, US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly approved the Justice Department’s plan to correct the software giant’s monopolistic and anti-competitive behavior.
According to the settlement, Microsoft agrees to the following:
Microsoft cannot bully Original Equipment Manufacturers(OEMs) because the OEM wants to develop, distribute, promote, use, sell or license software that competes with Microsoft. Microsoft cannot bully OEMs that choose to install multiple operating systems (i.e., Solaris, Linux, et al.). Nothing, it should be pointed out, is mentioned about sabotaging companies that don’t want any Microsoft operating system on the computers they sell. Microsoft must allow users to completely remove their “middleware” garbage like Windows Media Player, Outlook Express and Internet Explorer and allow replacements, as the user wishes, to fully interface with the operating system as Microsoft middleware does. The company is required to open all APIs except in circumstances governed by section J.
There are many more requirements on Microsoft’s part but the ones above are the biggest. Reading the complete list shows a seemingly nasty judgment even without a single penalty against Microsoft.
The problem is section J. Without 12 hours passing, it is already known throughout the Internet as “the loophole clause.”
J. No provision of this Final Judgment shall:1. Require Microsoft to document, disclose or license to third parties:
(a) portions of
APIs or Documentation or portions or layers of Communications Protocols the
disclosure of which would compromise the security of a particular installation or
group of installations of anti-piracy, anti-virus, software licensing, digital rights
management, encryption or authentication systems, including without limitation,
keys, authorization tokens or enforcement criteria; or (b) any API, interface or
other information related to any Microsoft product if lawfully directed not to do
so by a governmental agency of competent jurisdiction.2. Prevent Microsoft from conditioning any license of any API, Documentation or
Communications Protocol related to anti-piracy systems, anti-virus technologies,
license enforcement mechanisms, authentication/authorization security, or third
party intellectual property protection mechanisms of any Microsoft product to any
person or entity on the requirement that the licensee:
(a) has no history of
software counterfeiting or piracy or willful violation of intellectual property
rights, (b) has a reasonable business need for the API, Documentation or
Communications Protocol for a planned or shipping product, (c) MEETS REASONABLE, OBJECTIVE STANDARDS ***ESTABLISHED BY MICROSOFT*** FOR CERTIFYING THE AUTHENTICITY AND VIABILITY OF ITS BUSINESS, (d) agrees to submit, at its own expense,
any computer program using such APIs, Documentation or Communication
Protocols to third-party verification, approved by Microsoft, to test for and ensure
verification and compliance with Microsoft specifications for use of the API or
interface, which specifications shall be related to proper operation and integrity of
the systems and mechanisms identified in this paragraph.
This entire section is an obnoxious escape clause that gives Microsoft a big, spiked metal bat to use against competitors. If Microsoft does not like a business model, particularly the open source business model, such companies can forget about even approaching them for APIs, Documentation or Communication Protocols. If Microsoft doesn’t care what a particular company is up to, they can still charge whatever they please and demand internal organs as collateral.
Any API considered to be critical in terms of security does not need to be released. Aside from the vagueness, it’s complete nonsense and an affirmation that Microsoft will continue, despite National Security needs, to create half-ass security that works only through obscurity.
Security through obscurity never has lasted long and never will. Knowing about security algorithms does absolutely nothing to diminish security. Public knowledge of these algorithms can only help. Having specific algorithm/encryption keys is what threatens security, not how something is secured.
Microsoft knows this and they know that you don’t know this. Microsoft also knows that Americans are more than willing to bend over to anyone who rallies around screaming nonsense about securing computers despite the fact that Microsoft has yet to release any application that could be considered “secure.”
This entire section is an obnoxious escape clause that gives Microsoft a big, spiked metal bat to use against competitors. If Microsoft does not like a business model, particularly the open source business model, such companies can forget about even approaching them for APIs, Documentation or Communication Protocols. If Microsoft doesn’t care what a particular company is up to, they can still charge whatever they please and demand internal organs as collateral.
Microsoft was determined to be a monopoly. Microsoft faces no civil penalties. Microsoft agreed to a nice behavioral modification sheet that nullifies itself into propaganda at the end.
The only issues settled by this agreement are the fact that operating systems will continue their stunted, nonexistent evolution and the fact that the business the US government is business.
