[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [seul-edu] [Fwd: Fwd: Public comment]
FAX comments on the school oriented Microsoft private antitrust
settlement to Judge Motz at (410) 962-7574.
Bill's message is appropriate for the private case settlement, but
e-mail addressed to the public case settlement e-mail address.
Please note that there are two (2) main antitrust settlements,
private and public, pending against Microsoft.
1) About 100 private antitrust suits are consolidated in US Ditrict
Court before Judge Motz in Baltimore, fax comments to (410) 962-7574
heading Microsoft Private Settlement. [This is the proposed
settlement for the schools, for which Red Hat made a proposal.
Comments about money for schools should be faxed to Baltimore.
Governments, whether federal or state, are not party to the private
case settlement. See recent developments at:
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5100487,00.html?chkpt=zdnnh121001
cited in [seul-edu] the microsoft appeasment on the the settlement
and
2) The public antitrust suit by the US Deparment of Justice and state
attorneys general is in the U.S. District Court in Washington, DC.
Send comments on the public settlement to microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov In
the subject line of the e-mail, type "Microsoft Settlement".
[ The proposed public settlement has "conduct remedies" and a three
person technical oversight board. I also propose that Microsoft be
required to change the confusing and "merely descriptive" names of
its windows interface software "Windows," its database access
software "Access", it mindsharing users group program "Mindshare
Users Group Program", etc. See below at bottom.]
> > From: Bill <selinux@home.com>
> > To: seul-edu@seul.org
> > Subject: Fwd: Public comment
> >
> > This is my contribution toward a reasonable settlement of the DOJ
> v
> > Microsoft Corporation anti-trust matter.
> >
> > Since I also posted on the schoolforge site urging others to send
> > e-mail on this matter while the public comment period remains
> open, I
> > thought it proper that I demonstrate my own follow-through of my
> own
> > advice.
> > Bill
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded Message ----------
> > Subject: Public comment
> > Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001 22:54:46 -0500
> > From: Bill <selinux@home.com>
> > To: microsoft.atr@usdoj.gov
> > Cc: KLUG <members@kalamazoolinux.org>, LUGWASH
> > <linux-users@lugwash.org>, Metro Detroit Linux Users Group
> > <mdlug@radiusnet.net>, SUNCOAST LUG <slug@nks.net>
> >
> > It is my belief that the proposed antitrust settlement with
> Microsoft
> > Corporation is not in the best interests of the American people.
> It
> > does not protect against future abuses and in fact encourages the
> > spread of the Microsoft software monopoly by training a vast army
> of
> > young people to use their operating system and attendant
> application
> > programs to the exclusion of very viable software alternatives.
> > America is based on freedom of choice; but students in Americas'
> > public schools can only learn to use computers, an essential
> skill
> > for the coming generation of employees, on the products provided
> to
> > them. Today, the Dept. of Justice has an opportunity to broaden
> the
> > scope of that choice and thus empower generations yet unborn. It
> also
> > has the opportunity to cavill to Bill Gates and thus must choose
> > between greatness and ignominy.
> >
> > The Northern Territories school district in Australia, with a
> > population of just over 200,000, finds that it saved $1,000,000
> in
> > the first year alone by using Linux alongside Microsoft products
> to
> > provide computer education at all grade levels. This was enough
> to
> > allow the school district to purchase an additional 1,000
> computers
> > for distribution in the schools and as loaner units for students
> (and
> > their parents) to use at home. In a few short years their
> children
> > will be competing, very effectively, on the worldwide
> intellectual
> > marketplace against American children whose access to hardware
> was
> > hampered by the prohibitive cost imposed by the practice of using
> > Microsoft products all but exclusively in the public schools. The
> > Australian experience could have been dramatically more
> productive
> > had they used Linux as the operating system on all their
> computers
> > but it was a good initial step. The present savings represent its
> use
> > in their servers only.
> >
> > http://opensourceschools.org/article.php?story=20011207001012102
> >
> > I support the notion that Microsoft should pay its fine in
> hardware
> > donations only. It has been brought to my attention that Red Hat
> > Software of Research Triangle Park, NC, (near Durham, NC) has
> offered
> > to provide pro-bono copies of the Linux operating system
> > corresponding to a Microsoft donation of hardware. It is my
> desire
> > that any donation of software that Microsoft might choose to make
> > would not be included in the proposed settlement but must also be
> a
> > pro-bono gesture corresponding to the Red Hat Software offer.
> > Moreover, any copies of software Microsoft might donate should
> > require no payment of any sort by the schools at any forward
> point in
> > time. It must be a true donation of indefinite duration, just as
> the
> > Red Hat offer is. Otherwise, if required to pay, the schools
> would
> > eventually have to abandon their training programs for lack of
> funds
> > to re-license / upgrade their software.
> >
> > http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/011120/202744_1.html
> >
> > While Microsoft Corporation should not be excluded from
> expressing
> > generosity, such generosity, expressed as software gifts, only
> > furthers their ability to monopolize the marketplace and should
> not
> > be permitted as a part of the penalty for having followed illegal
> > practices in the establishment of their dominance in the software
> > market.
> >
> > Microsoft has painted itself the champion of choice and freewill
> > while villifying open-source software as being un-American. I
> think
> > it is time for their actions, public and private, to match their
> very
> > public words.
> >
> > Software donations should be no part of the proposed settlement.
> >
> > Sincerely
> > William G. Canaday
> > Detroit, MI.
Comment on Microsoft public case re: Microsoft's Confusing Product
Names
Trademark law is regulated by the U.S. federal government.
The public antitrust case could require Microsoft to desist from use
of its "generic" and "merely descriptive", and confusing names, such
as "Windows" for software that uses a windows interface, "Access" for
software to access a database, and Microsoft's "Mindshare" Users
Group Program, as in mindsharing used in Open Source Software
development under the GPL, etc. We should be able to refer to a
windows interface, not a graphical user interface, just as we refer
to "glass" not "transparent silica interface", or "beer" not "brewed
alcohol beverage". Company that tried to call their products "Glass
brand glass, i.e. transparent silica interface" or "Beer brand beer,
i.e. brewed alcohol beverage" would be prohited under trademark law,
and laugheded out of town --unless they were too big to fight.
See: http://www.kuesterlaw.com/goodtm.html
What Makes a Good Trademark: (1) distinctive marks; (2) suggestive
marks; and (3) not merely descriptive terms; and (4) not generic
terms.
Descriptive and generic terms should never be used as trademarks. An
effort should be made to avoid use in the trademark of terms which
have a specific meaning in the relevant industry since such terms
tend to make a mark either descriptive or suggestive.
http://www.intelproplaw.com/Trademark/Forum/msg/638.shtml :
Trademark denied as "merely descriptive" use of the word "booth".
http://www.kentlaw.edu/student_orgs/jip/trade/beer.htm : Trademark
denied to "The Best Beer in America" as generic, "merely descriptive"
puffery.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com