Charles,
Thank you for your thoughtful response, Charles. You have covered
quite a bit of ground. Let's see here....
By PC, I'm assuming that you mean an INTEL based 8088(et al) instruction set device. If you do, you now need to extend the term
PC to include the AMDs of the world who've built instruction set
compatible CPU and companion chip sets.
Yes.
There is a limited amount of 'cloning' that occurs without the threat of litigation.
Well, right now I'm looking at a "Data Master" PC. I have no idea
who made it. It will run FreeBSD, Linux, Windows, & NT. I don't
even know who made the processors. They could be K6's or Pentiums.
From what I can see, The "Data Master" is an off-the-shelf PC.
I imagine that I could take the top off, Check out what was in
it, go down to my local Fry's and buy all those components, and
advertise it for sale on E-Bay. Who would sue me (in theory)???
BIOS code and the micro code on chip sets are indeed copyright(able).
The BIOS spec was published with the original PC back in 1980 (???)
I have the printed code @home somewhere. The interrupts are still
the same now as then, as far as I know. You could write your own
with a better way of making the instructions work, but they would
be doing the same thing as the original IBM-BIOS.
What would stop Microsoft from building a PowerPC line of computers
tomorrow.
Nothing I know of.
Microsoft now directs all of their R&D towards the power PC. Is this a good thing for the market?
I can't answer that, but I can tell you that the moribund PC
market itself would be energized by more competition in the
applications arena. Something sorely missing right now.
Let's then assume that in 5 years, that this new MS computer has 70% marketshare? Does the bundling of the OS and the hardware exempt them from antitrust litigation. No it wouldn't.
Yes it would. It's not illegal to hold a 70% marketshare of anything.
It's their computer. They are spending R&D dollars on it and
competing with everyone else. If they win the competition, they
have built the better mousetrap (and paid for it along the way).
What ultimately got Microsoft into trouble was the predatory
nature/posture they took when dealing with Sun, Netscape and AOL
I think that was just the straw that broke the camel's back. They
already had been under investigation for years.
Separating the browser from the operating system is just a red herring. It is nonsense.
From a legal standpoint, my lay opinion is that you may be right.
The problem is the tying and predatory pricing.
Did Microsoft stifle innovation in the browser market. They did not. Look at the quality of Netscape Nav, Opera etc. Did they stifle innovation in the OS market, no. Linux is an excellent operating system. Look at the Java OS.
My contention is that MSFT has an inherent conflict-of-interest
because they publish a proprietary O/S for an open system piece
of hardware in order to make money on applications programs, and
that that is the definition of their business model and has been
since the licensing argreement Gates signed w/IBM for MS-DOS
distribution. I believe they DID participate in predatory business
practices because that was what they felt they needed to do to
make a profit. Linux has gained cachet mainly because of DOJ
pressure in this lawsuit. Before that it languished in the
university because no one would push it for fear of retribution
by the boys in Redmond. As for Java, MSFT attempted to pirate
it from SUNW, in violation of Sun's copyrights.
I'm not forming my arguments because of that, however. It is
because I believe the consumer would be the ultimate beneficiary
of an open O/S for an open platform.
The reason is that the consumer secretly wants a monopoly,
defined as standard-bearer.
Because of public domain hardware this is exactly why I'm supporting
the divestiture of DOS/Windows and NT from the MSFT catalogue.
A standard O/S for a standard piece of hardware is a good idea.
cheers,
cherylw |
