[FYI] Particular Proposals by RMS

["Axel H Horns" <horns@ipjur.com>]

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft-antitrust.html

------------------------------- CUT --------------------------------

[...]

So I propose three remedies that would help enable free software 
operating systems such as GNU/Linux compete technically while 
respecting users' freedom. These three remedies directly address the 
three biggest obstacles to development of free operating systems, and 
to giving them the capability of running programs written for 
Windows. They also directly address the methods Microsoft has said 
(in the "Halloween documents") it will use to obstruct free software. 
It would be most effective to use all three of these remedies 
together.  

1.Require Microsoft to publish complete documentation of all 
interfaces between software components, all communications protocols, 
and all file formats. This would block one of Microsoft's favorite 
tactics: secret and incompatible interfaces.  

To make this requirement really stick, Microsoft should not be 
allowed to use a nondisclosure agreement with some other organization 
to excuse implementing a secret interface. The rule must be: if they 
cannot publish the interface, they cannot release an implementation 
of it.  

It would, however, be acceptable to permit Microsoft to begin 
implementation of an interface before the publication of the 
interface specifications, provided that they release the 
specifications simultaneously with the implementation.  

Enforcement of this requirement would not be difficult. If other 
software developers complain that the published documentation fails 
to describe some aspect of the interface, or how to do a certain job, 
the court would direct Microsoft to answer questions about it. Any 
questions about interfaces (as distinguished from implementation 
techniques) would have to be answered.  

Similar terms were included in an agreement between IBM and the 
European Community in 1984, settling another antitrust dispute. See 
http://www.essential.org/antitrust/ibm/ibm1984ec.html.  

2.Require Microsoft to use its patents for defense only, in the field 
of software. (If they happen to own patents that apply to other 
fields, those other fields could be included in this requirement, or 
they could be exempt.) This would block the other tactic Microsoft 
mentioned in the Halloween documents: using patents to block 
development of free software.  

We should give Microsoft the option of using either self-defense or 
mutual defense. Self defense means offering to cross-license all 
patents at no charge with anyone who wishes to do so. Mutual defense 
means licensing all patents to a pool which anyone can join--even 
people who have no patents of their own. The pool would license all 
members' patents to all members.  

It is crucial to address the issue of patents, because it does no 
good to have Microsoft publish an interface, if they have managed to 
work some patented wrinkle into it (or into the functionality it 
gives access to), such that the rest of us are not allowed to 
implement it.  

3.Require Microsoft not to certify any hardware as working with 
Microsoft software, unless the hardware's complete specifications 
have been published, so that any programmer can implement software to 
support the same hardware.  

Secret hardware specifications are not in general Microsoft's doing, 
but they are a significant obstacle for the development of the free 
operating systems that can provide competition for Windows. To remove 
this obstacle would be a great help. If a settlement is negotiated 
with Microsoft, including this sort of provision in it is not 
impossible--it would be a matter of negotiation.  

------------------------------- CUT --------------------------------

http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=comments;sid=2001/6/29/04129/3033;cid=19#1
9

------------------------------- CUT --------------------------------

[...]

The FSF should rewrite Stallman's proposal as an Amicus Curiae Brief. 
This will be a significant amount of work for someone and their 
lawyer, but it will give the court a formal opportunity to consider 
these ideas.  

[...]

------------------------------- CUT --------------------------------