Re: Shocking news about Microsoft's ability to kill Open Source

Tom Adelstein wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I'm scheduled to speak at the Desktop Linux Consortium on November 
> 10th at Boston University. My subject relates to Linux in State and 
> Local Government, a subject about which I have some knowledge.
>
> This morning I discovered from a reliable source that we will not be 
> invited back because Microsoft offered BU a Gold Partnership agreement 
> and marketing money to never "do this again".
>
> Jsut slightly infuriated, I inquired anonymously about the situation. 
> I contacted the Department of Justice and spoke to an attorney. 
> Imagine my surprise to discover Microsoft didn't do anything wrong. 
> What they did doesn't violate the law. I couldn't believe it. 

No, they didn't. Remember, the United States pays some farmers NOT to 
grow some things. Boston University basically sold it's soul. There may 
be something regarding the Unfair Contract laws - I don't know, IANAL 
(and frankly, these days I regret it). It seems to me that it is unfair 
of Boston University to engage in a contract which can diminish the 
education of the students. I'd love to get my hands on one of these 
agreements and see what it stipulates.

However, your email indicates that Boston University is still having the 
Desktop Linux Consortium on November 10th ("...we will not be invited 
back..."). I'd say take advantage of it while you can, and use their 
facilities as a platform to find another host for the next consortium. 
Get the student body active if you can. It is, after all, their tuition 
keeping the lights on.

Personally, I see an article here. If you don't want to write it... 
somebody should. If you want, point me at some sources and I'll write it.

> Imagine, all the time spent trying to stop them from restraining trade 
> and it means nothing. They can pay companies to "not sell" Linux. They 
> can provide "marketing money" to make sure their products are put 
> ahead of others, make sure certain products don't get shelf space, 
> advertise on every page featuring Linux or Open Source Software and 
> they don't break the law. Basically, they're not considered criminals 
> as far as I can tell.

Of course they can pay companies to not sell things. This has been the 
foundation of much of the Microsoft Empire. This is how Mexico will be 
using Windows in it's cyber-whizzbangs... This is how the University of 
the West Indies (UWI) main campus is running a majority of MS products, 
and is trying to make it a focus in the curriculum (I teach at UWI's 
School of Continuing Studies, and a pack of subversives intend to 
provide GNU/Linux classes next year so maybe we can strike a balance). 
This isn't new, Tom... you're just seeing/experiencing it.

Hell, Microsoft has a deal going through with the Trinidad and Tobago 
Ministry of Education to provide software and 'training' for secondary 
school students. Nobody knows exactly *how* that happened, but there it 
is. The CIS project (http://cis.saafe.org ) is focusing mainly on 
Primary Schools right now, so I'm ronin working with my alma mater. It's 
an uphill battle all the way.

> Now, if they threaten you with bodily harm, that's different. But what 
> does one get other than maybe a settlement if they do? That's 
> something else I found out. 

Business as usual.

> I've followed Microsoft's antics for years now and seen some amazing 
> things. Some of those include what I thought were "kickbacks". But in 
> reality, they must not be kickbacks. I guess if they won a contract 
> and paid the procurement officer, that would be a kickback. But, no 
> one has accused them of that - at least not in any way about which I 
> know. Price cutting, sure they do that. Lobbying, they do that too. 
> Whining, I hear they whine and spin. Evidenttly, nothing is wrong with 
> that either. 

They aren't what you could legally call 'kickbacks'. It looks like a 
kickback, it smells like a kickback - it even spends like a kickback. 
But apparently it's not a kickback. Go figure.

> So, all I can conclude is that we shouldn't call them crooks. We might 
> wind up the subject of a defamation suit.
>
> I wonder if we could suggest a boycott?
>
> Would doing that be a violation of law? 

Actually, you may want to consider looking at whether they practice they 
are demonstrating violates their anti-trust requirements. That's about 
it. More than likely it doesn't. They have a horde of well paid legal 
talent whose job it is to assure that these things are 'legal'.

Losing one place to speak is a shame. But you didn't sign that deal... 
it's not your deal. All you can do is focus on FLOS, and it's positive 
aspects. Maybe you could help the public find out about it. A few months 
ago, Canada had an issue with Microsoft in the curriculum of one of the 
schools. I don't remember all the details, but... public opinion 
apparently helped.

Sorry. No good news from me.

Taran