Thursday, Jul 24, 2008
The open-source camp welcomes the findings of fact. But some think that Linux doesn't need the courts to beat Redmond.
Nov 6, 1999 | To advocates of open-source software, Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's finding that Microsoft unfairly wields monopoly power is less than revelatory. As open-source evangelist Eric Raymond noted while reading through the findings of fact: "If Microsoft didn't deserve this so richly I would say it was brutal -- I've seen nothing here with which I would disagree."
Except for one thing, "I think he underestimates the competitive threat of Linux," says Raymond.
Indeed -- the rise of open-source software has been one of the most intriguing sidebars to the ongoing Microsoft antitrust trial. Back in 1995, when Microsoft and Netscape began practicing their body slam moves on each other, the coinage of the term "open source" was still three years away and Linus Torvalds was hardly a celebrity. Yet, earlier this year, Microsoft repeatedly cited the growth of Linux as proof that Microsoft did not enjoy monopoly control of the operating-system market.
Judge Jackson didn't buy that argument. There are no current products that pose a threat to Microsoft Windows, decided Jackson. And why is that so? "Microsoft has demonstrated that it will use its prodigious market power and immense profits to harm any firm that insists on pursuing initiatives that could intensify competition against one of Microsoft's core products," according to the finding.
Jackson's findings, though not a final ruling, prompt a huge open-source question: What comes next? To some advocates of open-source software, the court's next step should be to impose a "remedy" that punishes Microsoft and aids the cause of free software. One suggestion is to force Microsoft to release the source code to Windows; another is to use the proceeds of a huge fine against Microsoft to fund open-source software development. But there is no consensus among open-source programmers or other observers -- even if a look back at history indicates that there is precedent for government action favoring open-source software style development methodologies.
Some hackers, most notably Raymond, believe that antitrust enforcement is fundamentally wrong-headed -- that the government has no right to punish private corporations for monopoly "crimes." That's the job of the market. To open-source pragmatists like Raymond, the open-source software development process results in technically better products than the proprietary mode. Attempts to concoct a government remedy are "old paradigm" statist foolishness.
"The whole premise of antitrust law is wrong," says Raymond. "Governments don't break up monopolies, markets do. Governments create monopolies."
And, as Raymond notes, even if Microsoft ultimately loses the trial, it will appeal, and if it keeps losing, the case will undoubtedly go to the Supreme Court. By that time, Raymond argues, perhaps just a tad optimistically, Microsoft will already have been killed off by a host of factors, not least of which will be the growth of Linux -- with or without government help.
Other open-source luminaries strike a slightly less libertarian tone, but are still skeptical of government action. Tim O'Reilly, CEO of computer book publisher O'Reilly & Associates, says "the frontier of innovation has moved beyond the sphere that Microsoft controls ... I think there is more competition for Microsoft now than there has ever been."
Of course, that doesn't mean Microsoft is bound to fail. "I don't think that it is a foregone conclusion that without government intervention Microsoft would not manage to subvert some of the future standards in ways that would put them back in the driver's seat," says O'Reilly. "It wouldn't be the first time that better software has been beaten by better marketing."
So -- should the government force Microsoft to release its source code? O'Reilly shrugs: "I think that's a terrible remedy -- no one would want it."
Get Salon in your mailbox!