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
