Key Microsoft Agreement Clause Criticized


The Judge, the DOJ, and the States Attorney Generals are all surprised that so few companies have signed on and forked over the $50,000 (plus 1-5% royalties) for a Microsoft license permitting them the privilege of competing against Microsoft.


The licensing requirement was considered central since it would prevent Microsoft from locking out rival companies developing products that compete with Microsoft's own. Under the court-approved agreement, which expires in November 2007, Microsoft must offer such licenses under "reasonable and non-discriminatory terms."


What are these clowns thinking? They seem to think they can "level the playing field" by leaving Microsoft in total control of the messaging and integration API's needed by independent developers to connect and develop on the Windows XP STack. They seem to think that the "risk" of challenging Microsoft on a platform where Redmond controls everything is simply a matter of licensing costs!


They've left Microsoft in control of the API's. They've left Microsoft in control of the licensing process, able to set permissions and favored access privileges wherever they see fit. And, they've left Microsoft able to tie, bind, and bolt anything they want to the operating system infrastructure.


Then they wonder why no one wants to invest their time, money and efforts competing against Microsoft!


I have a solution. Let Microsoft do whatever the hell they want with the entire Windows XP platform of XP OS's, XP Applications, XP Developer Tools, XP Middleware, and the XP .NET Framework.


But give users and independent developers a choice.


What kind of choice is that you ask?


The hold Microsoft has on both the user base and the developer community is that of legacy applications locked into the Win32 API, an entanglement of Win32 interdependecies, and Microsoft proprietary file formats that lock up near 70% of mankind's digitally unstructured content.


There are over 400 million Win9x users, affectionately called "The Great Herd". This is the Microsoft monopoly. And Microsoft is now asking them to spend billions migrating everything to the XP Stack.


The truth is that Microsoft is challenging the great herd to either migrate everything at great cost, or be left behind without support, security patches, and without the ability to run next generation collaborative applications or participate in the fourth wave.


The only way the DOJ and States can provide the great herd with a "choice" is to first focus in on the most basic level of choice, the omega point where the decision to migrate to the XP Stack, or hold has to be made. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to discover that the key issues facing the great herd are those of having critical legacy application investments locked into the Win32 API, and the bulk of their information assets locked into a cascading entanglement of proprietary interfaces, protocols, components and file formats.


I say give Microsoft a Hobbsian choice. Either continue support, upgrades, fixes and collaborative computing components to the Win9x installations, or, open up the Win32 API, interfaces. protocols, components and file formats of the abandoned Win9x platform so that users and developers can continue to leverage their heavily vested interests in ways that make economical sense.


If that means finally being able to port things to Linux, so be it. If that means providing the open documentation J2EE frameworks need to integrate with Win9x desktop applications, so be it.


It's insane that a free market DOJ and laissez-faire Judge would think that anyone in their right mind would risk investing in an effort to compete against Microsoft on a platform the courts have said Redmond owns with unrestricted entirety. Companies and independent developers should invest in this "competition" thinking the DOJ and Judge can control Microsoft and guarantee fairness? The very fact that Microsoft is required to "license" access to critical API's and components rather than fully disclose the interfaces speaks volumes! Competing Microsoft applications and services have privileged access to the system level that may or may not be disclosed in a licensed API. And then there's the cost of the license itself which gives Microsoft further competitive advantages. Not to mention that Microsoft continues to own the distribution channel and can shove their "competing applications" through the pipe, at will.


If the DOJ and Judge really want a level playing field, where competitors win or lose based on providing the faster, better, cheaper solutions to users, then they need to concentrate on providing users with unfettered choice. Either unlock the Win32 API and file formats, or, go back to the drawing board and split up Microsoft.


It's that simple.


~ge~

InformationWeek > Linux > HP's Big Bet > September 29, 2003

Linux
Under Lock & Key:

Comment: This InformationWeek article
champions HP's offer to indemnify HP Linux customers in response to
SCO threats. Well gee whiz, SCO also champions HP's offer and
wonders what the other Linux distros are waiting for. To me the HP
indemnification strips Linux users of all the open source “GPL”
attributes that make Linux so much better than proprietary
alternatives. HP strips out the GPL by repackaging the code under
their indemnification terms. Leaving users with Linux the operating
system ~ application host, but dependent on HP. No thanks. This is
a shallow scheme to destroy the GPL, and all the open source
communities dependent upon GPL protection. A protection from
proprietary companies bent on raping, pillaging, and plundering the
bloom of open source community efforts.

Linux with hand cuffs? You have to ask yourself
why SCO is urging Linux distributors to “indemnify” their
customers the same way HP has.

Why would SCO compliment HP for properly
protecting their customers, and in the same breath diss IBM who has
legally taken SCO to task and is defending in court the provisions of
the GPL? Something is rotten in Utah, and InformationWeek has bought
into the stink.

The HP indemnification strips the open source
freedoms from Linux, leaving HP users with a proprietary packaging
putting HP in control of Linux based information infrastructures. No
wonder SCO and Sun are rushing o indemnify. These companies are
hemorrhaging. UNiX shops are embracing Linux at the low ends of their
enterprise stacks, and the cabal of SCO, HP and Sun fully realize
that there is no way to box in Linux unless they can lock up user
access to the source code. In that way they can control the
implementation and integration interfaces so critical to keeping the
money train of their costly UNiX solutions rolling.

The simple truth is that for proprietary vendors,
the GPL transfers to users more than just the source code. It
transfers control. Control over the future of their information
systems.

Someone correct me if i'm wrong here, but the
issue of indemnification, phony as it is, is based on the thinking
that Linux users are concerned about being caught up in the SCO
extortion scheme. Indemnification from SCO extortion comes by way of
a warranty stating that the Linux distro provider will cover legal
and licensing expenses. Of course this would make it easy for SCO to
coerce protection fees. This is an easy decision for bean counters
to make. The effect of this is to officially sanction extortion for
the use of open source community efforts.

Your article makes the incredible insinuation that
somehow this legal indemnification is common with all proprietary
licenses, in stark contrast to the GPL. “.......... While it's
common for makers of proprietary software to protect customers from
intellectual-property infringement claims, such protection hasn't
been offered with open source because the software's lineage isn't as
clear cut, says Melise Blakeslee, a partner with law firm McDermott,
Will & Emery. With open source, she says, users are getting the
software "as is." HP's offer to take responsibility for any
SCO Group claims will likely reassure customers, Blakeslee
says........”

What a load of crap! It is not “common for
makers of proprietary software to protect customers from
intellectual-property infringement claims” beyond the purchase
price of the software! There is simply no equivalence between the
purchase cost refund “protection” proprietary vendors
warrant in their EULA's, and the legal – extortion licensing
scheme SCO, HP, Microsoft and Sun have hung on the GPL Linux
indemnification issue. Who in their right mind would call the
common EULA “indemnification”? Oh yeah. There are those
who seek to so totally confuse everyone so that they stop asking
questions about saving money, complying with open standards,
demanding open interfaces, and seeking end to end integration of the
many costly but disconnected sub systems that comprise their
information infrastructure.

~ge~

Microsoft
Takes on the World:

Sadly I think there is much more to this than just another hatchet
job to generate hits. I posted my reaction to Larry's latest drive
by hit piece under the title, "Conversion
of Opportunity", Did Microsoft Kill Java?
My initial thinking was that it was too too easy to turn shallow
Larry's argument around and make the exact conclusion he obviously
would rather avoid. Since then I have had some second thoughts
though. I think an all out assault on the Internet, Open Source, and
Java have been launched by Redmond.

At first I though the onslaught was perhaps an indication that
Redmond expected a most favorable ruling from the courts. However,
the shear voracity and breadth of the attack as it has now unfolded
indicates otherwise. I think Mirosoft is concerned over the upcoming
ruling and is rushing to get a number of initiatives in play, in the
hands of users and developers, before possibly draconian rulings are
announced. It would not be the first time that Microsoft seeded the
installed base so that the pain of penalites and remedies for their
illegal activities would be born by innocent by-standers. Kind of
reminds one of how Saddam Hussein hides his nuclear - biological
warfare laboratories, weapons stockpiles and command centers in
hosptials and schools. The only way to punish the perp is to
slaughter the innocents he hides behind.

My guess is that Larry and the rest of the shills will move
quickly to the next stage of the assault. The facts, the truth, the
motives and actions, will all lie buried in a heap of confused
passions. The sucker punch having been thrown, the herd will now
move loudly to the next headline blaring issue, "Will Visual
J#.Net be able to do what Java could not? ...... J#.Net
enables developers to easily create the next generation of web
applications, web services, and highly productive desktop
connectivity applications....... Is this the beginning of
the end of Java?"

The findings of Judge Jackson's court should be pasted into
conversations everywhere. Microsoft's efforts to wrest control of
Java from Sun, and now to kill it should be the introduction to any
discussion on the success, failure, or future prospects of the
platform. Instead, there's a rage ripping across the web with the
fury of oceans announcing the sudden arrival of another Yucatan
comet. What an incredible onslaught Microsoft has unleashed. So
well coordinated too. No doubt Larry is on the daily Redmond Talking
Points list.

First come the taunts with shills like Larry carrying the
disinformation load. Then, into the cloud of confusion and bickering
comes the payload, a triangulation of C4 explosives set to blow up
Java. Palladium, Visual J#.Net, and a XP JVM so old and out of date
that the entire Java enterprise could be discredited for years to
come. Once again the message goes out from Redmond that they, and
they alone sit at the gateway to the 200 million Windows desktops.
Want to get to those users? You must go through Microsoft.

What developer isn't listening carefully to this unspoken but
nonetheless blarring message?

Reading all the insightful posts that trailed Larry's effort to
slime Java, it was fascinating to see once again and be reminded
loudly that the court findings put a special emphasis on the
deceitful motives and objectives behind Microsoft's actions. Reminds
me of the gun control argument, "Guns don't kill people,
murderers kill people". Intent is the cornerstone of both
justice and, the public trust. To pull off .NET, a totally
discredited Microsoft needs people to focus on the technology, the
ease of use, and the unspoken but ever present "permission to
pass through the gateway" to the user base. They need people to
forget the past history of reprehensible business methods, or at
least lose the facts in a cloud of FUD.

So spurious accusations based on disingenuous innuendo spew out of
the MS shill machine, posturing as insightful commentary, in total
disregard for the truth. What Microsoft can't afford is to have
people asking why these efforts seem suspiciously coordinated and
well timed. The "security, technology, ease of use"
trusted computing shield they are hiding behind crumbles fast when
the true motives come under suspicion.

That this latest multi front assault on the Internet, (and those
open source, open community, open standards technologies that depend
on an open Internet), should come on the eve of the Appeals Court
penalty ruling perhaps speaks volumes as to Microsoft's confidence
that the fix is in. How else to explain the refusal of Microsoft's
to respond to U.S. District judge Colleen
Kollar-Kotelly request for prioritizing possible
compromise issues? And the near immediate release of the Palladium
embedded PassPort scheme?

Either that, or Microsoft expects the worst, and is rushing to
slip the trip hammer into wide spread public use. Making any effort
by the courts to remedy the looming MS .NET problems also an assault
on the works of independent developers. Making any ruling of
punishment and remedy itself an assault on the technological well
being of the public.

~ge~

garyedwards@yahoo.com

***Microsoft and Java: A Conversion of Opportunity ***

The Ziff Davis Director of Microsoft Marketing and Promotions,
Larry Seltzer has written another clever screed, Stop
Blaming Microsoft for Sun's Java Woes.

Some think that ZDNN publishes these inflammatory rantings just to
generate hits. For sure the talkback section attending this story is
white hot with both rage and reason. My own opinion is that these
articles are cleverly designed to achieve another purpose, that of
sowing the seeds of doubt and obscuring the facts of truth. This is
serious business for Microsoft. There is nothing more shaky than a
proprietary software vendor that can't be trusted. Code is more than
just a tool to turn our computer systems into instruments of
incredible connectivity and productive collaboration. The logic that
drives our ability to do things soon becomes as much a part of our
reason for doing things as our personal motivations for getting
involved in the first place. The computer is the first tool ever
developed to extend and multiply the mind power of man. The telephone
is a tool to extend our voice communication, but would a competing
widget manufacturer use a phone system provided and maintained by
"Big Widgets R US"? Not only do we have to trust Microsoft
with "the code", but we must also trust them not to abuse
their position as primary "code carrier".

In the aftermath of abuse and reprehensible business practices
that marked Microsoft's long march to monopoly status, a march capped
by the disclosure of incredibly incriminating evidence and findings
of fact in the deliciously named "anti trust trial",
Microsoft now faces an implacable foe, the serious lack of trust
within the developer community. So the Java story in particular must
be recast, because that's where the developers are going.

Shamelessly posing as an objective commentator, rabid promoter and
ardent Microsoft cheerleader Larry Seltzer takes on the unenviable
job of dismissing the facts of the Java story and replacing them with
unfounded accusations and disingenuous speculation. His argument is
that Java "would" have failed anyway. He goes even further,
using the old "she was asking for it" rape defense.

Of course we'll never know what might have been for Netscape and
Java since Microsoft set out to choke the baby while still in the
crib, and was later found guilty of murder. Two courts and one
appeals court have upheld the findings of guilt causing Microsoft to
settle in one, and seek settlement in the other. But Larry dismisses
all of that with a diversionary wave of the publicists hand, and
chooses to focus on those things Sun did or did not do to effectively
promote Java. Never mind that they were under an all out assault from
Microsoft, Larry tries to convince us that it was Sun's own fault,
and even if they had been somewhat inconvenienced by Microsoft's
actions, they had it coming anyway.

I posted two comments on this particularly outrageous attempt to
win back the trust of developers by smearing the competition. The
first, "Conversion of Opportunity" refers to the
legal contravention that occurs when one party to a contract acts to
subvert the expressed intent of the agreement. The second, "Shill'in
Ain't Easy", addresses the well coordinated efforts of the
Microsoft shill brigade as they span out across the globe, promoting,
of all things, "Trustworthy Computing". Developer tools
aimed directly at migrating the community from Java to .NET have been
released along with the dreadful Palladium "embedded PassPort"
security initiative. The toxic Palladium ploy would destroy the open
source movement and allow Microsoft to lay claim to the Internet. All
under the guise of "security". Talk about a conversion of
opportunity! Meanwhile, web services security measures have reached a
fevered pitch with Microsoft's WS-I, a corporate consortia that would
replace Internet open standards groups OASIS and the W3C, and allow
the Redmond led gang to substitute patented, royalty collecting,
protocols and methods for open Internet standards. Just one more way
for Microsoft to kill Java and open source. The problem is that none
of these efforts will go anywhere unless and until Microsoft can
somehow regain the trust they have squandered. Larry the leaper to
the rescue.

Conversion
of Opportunity:

Two courts and one Federal Appeals court found that Microsoft had
violated the terms of their contract with Sun with the express intent
of "wresting control of Java from Sun", (as Chairman Bill
stated in his evidentiary memo).

The courts also agreed that Microsoft had intentionally set out to
deceive developers using J++. While it was technically true that a
switch could be toggled between MS proprietary libraries and open
Java libraries, the methodology and marketing representations so
obscured the option the courts found Microsoft guilty of deception.
Legally such contraventions of contract are called "Conversion
of Opportunity". Simply put, Sun's opportunity with Java gets
converted to Microsoft's opportunity.

The fact that there was settlement without jail time does not
change the facts in evidence or the findings of the court. Microsoft
is famous for paying up and settling when their deceits are
discovered and placed in evidence. The problem is that getting caught
and having to buy their way out of law suits doesn't seem to have any
lasting impact on their behavior. They just do a better job at
obscuring their tracks so it will take more time and effort to get
caught the next time, and so that any penalty assessed will so
irreparably damage innocent users vested in Microsoft technologies
that it can't be considered. We end up with conundrums like that of
Microsoft standing up in a Federal Court saying that if they can't be
found guilty because then the US economy would collapse.

Mark Miller asks in his comment, "It's
All About Control". "What harm would it do for MS
to continue in their own directions with the JVM if they didn't call
it Java?"

Seems they have. C# is a Java language clone, the CLR is a JVM
clone, and .NET is a Java framework clone. The only "innovation"
here is that .NET will integrate and interoperate with the Windows
monopoly far beyond anything Netscape or Sun could provide. And why
is that? Well, one would think MS has technically superior insights
into the workings of their own OS, so much so that even with all
the interfaces, components, and file formats openly and fairly
exposed to third party developers, (a Chinese Wall between MS OS and
MS Apps), MS would still be able to provide technically superior
applications. But that then begs the question as to why a monopolist
need resort to such reprehensible business methods to stop
"competitors" as they routinely do. The only reasonable
conclusion one is left with is that maintaining and using absolute
control over all API's, component's and file formats to crush
competitors, choking off threats, real or imagined, while still in
the cradle, is far more profitable than playing fair. Court findings
and penalties, costly and embarrassing settlements, complete loss of
trust, tolerating the temporary loyalties of purchased "friends",
the need for armies of shameless shills and paid disinformation
artists to continually confuse the public, and the disrespectful
enmity of all competitors and colleagues- apparently the profits are
worth all this and more.

I wonder if Chairman Bill laughs at Enron, Tyco, WorldCom and the
rest, knowing full well that the one thing you don't do is screw the
shareholders. Everything else is fair game as long as the bottom line
expectations are met. Or so it seems.

The truth behind the illegal activities is perhaps that MS just
needed to buy some time to pull off the cloning. They needed time
to stop Netscape and Java on the desktop, replace them with
proprietary versions, and keep control of their monopoly. The courts
have found them guilty of the most reprehensible business practices
imaginable in this MS game of beat the clock. But beat it they did.

And after all this, the enormity of illegal actions and massive
cloning that has happened, for any chucklehead to turn around and say
that Java didn't make it on the desktop because Sun didn't cooperate
with the conversion of opportunity that was under way is astounding.
Have we become so brainwashed and weakkneed to think that competitors
must willingly turn their opportunities over to Microsoft? Is it in
the marketplace of information systems and the public's best interest
that all opportunities involving in any way the Windows monopoly,
belong to Microsoft? Microsoft is found guilty of using their
monopoly power to choke Netscape and Java off in the crib and there
are chuckleheads who wonder why anyone would complain.

Larry claims that, "It's convenient for Sun to
imply that Java is not dominant on PCs because of Microsoft's alleged
misdeeds. But, in fact, Java failed in spite of Microsoft's efforts,
not because of Microsoft."

Convenient? Well, I guess we'll never know if, in a fair and equal
competition, Java would have made it on the "client".
(although, in a network world, how one makes it on the "Server"
without also making it on the "Client" remains a mystery
that defies even the logic behind the massive MS conversion to .NET).
How can there be any doubt that at the least, Microsoft's
reprehensible efforts brought the question upon themselves? If Java
is so lame why did MS risk it all to stop Sun? And why is .NET so
eerily similar to such a lame and ill conceived design?

One thing we do know is that Judge Jackson's "Findings of
Fact" have been upheld. The "alleged misdeeds"
are not mere allegations, they are facts of law. Change a few words
in Larry's statement to reflect the true findings of the courts and
Larry's conclusion looks rather ridiculous.

It's based on the courts ruling, upheld on appeal for Sun
to imply that Java is not dominant on PCs because of Microsoft's
proven misdeeds. But, in fact, Java failed in spite of Microsoft's
efforts, not because of Microsoft.

Right. For what price does one sell their dignity and self
respect?

~ge~

garyedwards@yahoo.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Second Reply to Larry Seltzer: Stop
blaming Microsoft for Sun's Java woes.

Shill'in
Ain't Easy:

Larry takes on one tough job here. Funny isn't it that Java is
running wild everywhere that the Microsoft monopoly isn't. The one
place Java has sputtered, stalled and failed is on the desktop. Java
developers, consultants, and most importantly "J2EE users"
have found unprecedented success everywhere but on the desktop. And
that's a problem in spite of Sun's insistence that the desktop won't
matter.

The truth is that the Windows desktop is currently the user
interface to over 90% of all information, corporate, individual, or
Internet based. And while the desktop might someday be outflanked by
devices and systems beyond Microsoft's immediate control, the need to
integrate and interface with the desktop will dominate information
technology issues for years to come. 200 Million Windows users say
it will be so.

Meanwhile, everything beyond the desktop is now within Microsoft's
sights. They won't be sitting still. Magical and wondrously
cooperative devices, server systems, and middleware will find their
way into the marketplace competing against all those who can't seem
to maintain interoperability with Windows desktops, components, file
formats and interfaces. Microsoft just needs time to clone their
competition and introduce a "more" desktop compliant, .NET
friendly alternative.

This is getting old. We went through all this with the effort to
establish the Windows desktop monopoly. There are dead bodies
everywhere. All of which makes shill'in more difficult then ever.
The problem Larry faces and tries to turn around is that of proving
competitors to Microsoft failed because of technology and marketing
incompetence. Even better if he can argue competitors failed because
of "character" flaws based on greed, envy, hatred and
jealousy. Stupidity too.

In the end, platform providers live or die by the sword of trust.
Character counts.

If the rapidly expanding marketplace of Java users and developers
believe that Microsoft will go to any length to seize profitable
opportunities, those involving any connectivity whatsoever to the
desktop monopoly, it's game over for MS. If they can't regain the
trust and confidence of enterprise users and developers (and they
were trusted at one time), then sooner or later, Java will win.

The best thing Sun did was to set up an extremely inclusive and
transparent JCP, and then prove the trustworthiness of their
intentions to "agree on standards, compete on implementation".
Desktop monopoly or not, this is one hill Microsoft has no idea how
to climb, and we have every reason imaginable to doubt their
representations of sincerity.

"Trustworthy Computing?" Sounds like a fevered
Merrill Lynch boiler room pitch to buy Enron stock. However, the
sucker's list is pretty short these days. Putting lipstick on that
pig isn't likely to cover the smell of the mess he's standing in.
Suspicions that conflicts of interest abound run rampant. Larry's
best pitch would be that Java failed on the desktop because of Sun's
incompetence, greed, hatred, and envy. The courts of course disagree
with him on this. It was Microsoft's greed, hatred, fear, and envy
that compelled them to attack Java and “wrest it from Sun's
control”, as Chairman Bill had ordered. That they got caught
and are now trying to say that what they did wouldn't have mattered
anyway since Sun would have managed to kill Java on their own, is an
outrageous self proclamation of incompetance on Microsoft's part.

But somehow Larry manages to represent that these are mere
"alleged misdeeds". Alleged as in unproven and
unsubstantiated. Whoooh, damn if shill'in ain't easy! If Java failed
on the desktop, especially as a "client" for J2EE server
systems, why would C# succeed? That is, C# applications as a
"client" for installed and heavily vested J2EE server
systems? Does anyone doubt that C# opportunities on Windows XP
desktops will succeed, eventually, if .NET server systems are on the
other end?

The truth is that .NET on the client will succeed where Java has
stumbled precisely because Microsoft will enable it to succeed. Just
as Microsoft intentionally delayed and disabled any chance Java had
of succeeding. Larry has to pull off this argument that Microsoft, in
spite of court findings and rulings to the contrary, had nothing to
do with Java's problems on the desktop. No informed person in their
right mind would believe this, so the argument must become one of
even if Microsoft had done nothing, Java still would have failed.
That is one big "if".

Are we to believe that Microsoft risked it all to stop Java and
Netscape, not realizing the technologies and the companies behind
them were so incompetent and worthless that the efforts were
terminally doomed from the gitgo? Are we to believe Chairman Bill is
an idiot? That the good Chairman did risk it all, did stop Java and
Netscape on the desktop, did clone both technologies and eventually
introduce his own proprietary versions, says it all.

By their own actions Microsoft has fully validated the technology
design and promise of Netscape and Java. MS validated the concepts
and seized the opportunities for themselves. That millions of
shareholders, developers and users were defrauded and disenfranchised
along the way seems to count for nothing in these arguments.

The one message that comes out of the deliciously named anti
trust" action is that when it come to the Microsoft platform,
competing technologies and implementations need not apply, need not
participate. Microsoft owns or can take at will any and all
opportunities involving the "Windows" now come .NET
platform. This makes for an interesting problem. How to woo
developers, consultants and enterprise users to committing their
time, efforts and resources to .NET? How to do this when the suckers
list is so short, options and alternatives continue to thrive in
spite of the massive mountains of FUD and technical roadblocks
deployed, and everyone and their mother knows full well that any
profitable opportunity discovered and developed could be seized in a
heart beat by a voracious Microsoft. How do you get developers and
investors, already charred and burned by the nasty Windows campaign
to obliterate everyone on that platform, to now commit to .NET?

On the one hand Larry's answer is to blame competing platform
providers for their own lack of success at inter operating with the
Microsoft monopoly. That arguments a stretch no matter how it's
phrased. But the unspoken corollary inherent is powerful. It is
precisely because Microsoft will not hinder, block or cripple in any
way .NET based efforts that developers (and their investors) can
significantly lower the risk factors by moving from Java to .NET. The
message that Java will encounter difficulties of all sorts was sent
out a long time ago. Even the courts concur. Larry is just
reinforcing it. If you develop on .NET, you will have complete and
unfettered access to the desktop.

Very nice, but what kind of opportunities can be had? Where's the
line between what Microsoft will take for themselves, and what will
be left for .NET developers? Does anyone doubt for a moment that .NET
will be a repeat of Windows, except this time on a grand global
scale?

Early Windows developers (myself included) developed and grew new
market categories of applications. The big opportunities of the
office productivity suites and developer components went by default
to Microsoft. And it must be said that Microsoft's assistance and
support to those struggling to develop new market categories is
legendary and rightfully so. The problem is that once those "new
market categories" finally became profitable, Microsoft didn't
hesitate to swoop in and take them. And take them at what turns out
to be a fraction of the cost and effort that went into developing the
markets to the point of finally being profitable.

Sometimes, as demonstrated by the "contact management / PIM
category", Microsoft could freeze all development, all
investment, and destroy all competition, with just the mere
announcement that at some point in the future they would be releasing
their own competing application. The announcement of OutLook caused
a massive shift in strategy away from competing head to head with MS,
and towards niche's and vertical market implementations thought to be
beyond Microsoft's interest (hunger). Niche's thought not to be
profitable enough for Microsoft to seize, either today or in the
future. But profitable enough that a company could continue.
Microsoft reserved for themselves the cream, and no one dared argue.

Some think that the 1994 Internet gold rush was triggered by
Netscape's technology. I think it was triggered by Netscape's IPO.
Had nothing to do with technology and everything to do with the
opportunity. The migration of the vaunted independent Windows
Developer community began with the 1992 publication of Andrew
Shulman's, "Undocumented Windows: A Programmers Guide to
Reserved Microsoft Windows API Functions".
When Andrew demonstrated conclusively that the game was rigged
incontrovertibly in Microsoft's favor, the stage was set for a
massive migration. The Netscape IPO signaled that
investors were willing to back efforts based on an open platform
noticeably absent Microsoft. Sure the Internet was just a raw
platform of universal connectivity, but oh the possibilities. The
opportunities! Netscape harnessed the connectivity such that it was
accessible to the vast waves of Windows desktops. Java promised to
leverage that developers foothold on the enemies desktop, and turn
the Internet into a platform of universal connectivity and
collaborative computation. A real computational operating system
where Microsoft didn't own the opportunities. My first JavaONE
Conference was in 1996. It was like Homecoming Week for the
disenfranchised community of Windows Developers. The same people who
once packed the OS/2 -Windows Conference booths swarmed Moscone
Center. Necessity isn't the mother of invention. Opportunity is.

Funny how as Internet Explorer approached monopoly status as the
default user interface to the Internet, the once glorious dot-com
opportunities and the investors who farmed them, all went south. I
never had any respect for flimsy gen X business plans, first mover
advantages being about as enronic an
argument as one can come up with. Especially when the platform and
standards are open and accessible to all. With no barriers to entry,
these guys weren't just sucking their own exhaust though. The shared
financial scams that drained America's main street 401K funds are a
tragedy of deceit in their own right. Still, hard not to miss the
congruency with Microsoft's successful move to .NET, and the utter
failure of the courts to exact punishment, reconstitute damaged
entities, and restore competition. I'm willing to accept the fact
that Microsoft owns all opportunities involving the Windows desktop
monopoly, and are willing to go to great lengths to protect that.
Even as far as to commit corporate murder. I'm willing to accept
that they are not going to cooperate in any way with Java developers
or Java users. At this point it doesn't matter because J2EE
enterprises can easily replace Microsoft applications with open
source cross over applications. They can break free and move to open
interfaces, universal XML file formats, and universally accessible
components at comparatively little costs. And when they're ready to
break totally free from Microsoft's iron grip, those same open
productivity applications and file formats run beautifully on Linux.
I find it incredibly amusing that the cross over applications like
Java, Open Office.org, Mozilla and The GIMP
have effectively depleted the proprietary value of the Win32 API.
And now Microsoft must compete with .NET against the very same Win32
API they are trying to get users and developers to migrate away from.

For Java to succeed on the desktop J2EE users need only do one
thing. Get off the treadmill. Refuse to upgrade to XP. What does
bother me is all the disingenuous dissembling and misrepresentation
of a past we all know too too well. Shill'in
ain't easy. But there ought to be some self imposed ethical limits
to what people represent.

If Microsoft wants our trust and confidence, there is a way to
earn it. Do the right thing.

~ge~

garyedwards@yahoo.com