100% Give Away: Software Packages To Generate Massive Waves Of Traffic To Your Website http://t.co/0Q2V6E5O via @worldprofit
dotJS 2012 - Fat - What Is Open Source & Why Do I Feel So Guilty?: http://t.co/9aWqXnLP #opensource #freesoftware
¿Quien está detrás de #Linux? Hoy Thomas Gleixner http://t.co/XFf3jWLH #gnulinux #SoftwareLibre #FreeSoftware
Microsoft's airy arguments go something like this: Yes, we were a monopoly with 95% of the desktop market at the time, and yes, we reversed course after encouraging Novell to use APIs that we then decided not to support, but hey, we don't owe competitors anything. "A monopolist generally has no duty to cooperate with or assist a competitor whether the decision is 'intentional' or otherwise." We can change our business model any time we want to, as long as we are even-handed and the effect is on everyone, not just Novell. (Novell, however, was the one that Microsoft encouraged to use the APIs, and it was the one Microsoft feared, according to Novell, writing that the decision to drop support for the APIs "involved the intentional inducement of reliance.")
Besides, when Microsoft made the change, Novell had three ways to react, and it stupidly chose the worst one. That's not our fault, Microsoft argues. Novell sealed its own fate. It could have chosen differently, and it would have been better. Anyhow, it was a change to a beta product, and everybody knows you can make sudden changes in a beta. How could Microsoft know Novell was relying on that beta stuff? Because it had an employee who was working closely with Novell after Microsoft encouraged Novell to rely on the APIs, perchance? Anyhow, Microsoft says, everybody in the industry changes beta software, Novell included, so "...Novell cannot base a claim of anticompetitive conduct on a widespread industry practice." Um. Not everybody else had a 95% desktop monopoly. Capice? Novell has already said that it had three choices, but they were *all* awful.