Texas Sues Microsoft Over Secrecy Clauses nytimes.com
A few more details in this article, but not that much. Seems to be some difference of opinion here.
A spokesman for Morales, Ron Dusek, said the suit was filed only after Microsoft refused to voluntarily cooperate.
"We've had an investigation for a year in regard to possible antitrust violations, monopolization of the market and other things we are not willing to talk about publicly," he said. "We asked Microsoft to advise their licensees that they don't have to comply with the prior notice provision. ... They said no."
"We had to ask the court because trying to get information out of manufacturers is difficult when they are afraid to disclose information. No one will voluntarily come forth because Microsoft has such control over the market and many could be seriously injured by not being able to use Microsoft's products."
OK, seems straightforward enough.
"In the software industry, your code and the terms under which you license that code to others - those are the critical assets that any company has," Murray said. "We don't have tangible property. We don't have vast tracts of natural resources. What we have are ideas, intellectual property, and terms that we license. So making sure that there is adequate protection to that is very important."
Uh, OK, I guess, but I'm not exactly sure what this means. Microsoft owns Windows. I don't think the Texas AG is particularly interested in publishing Windows source code. Are strongarm negotiating tactics and the terms that result from them also sacred intellectual property? Seems sort of not exactly a free market kind of thing, but I don't know. I guess it's one of those ethics quandaries again.
Morales said any information he gets from computer makers about Microsoft is by law confidential and cannot be used by anyone without Microsoft's permission.
Yeah, what does he know? Obviously just another one of the nefarious ilk.
Cheers, Dan. |
