[vox] [Fwd: Michael's Minute: Can I Answer My Phone Without Paying $124,000?]

[R. Douglas Barbieri]

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig13952177F5B1C9C86477740D
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I've always been behind Lindows--I really hope the company takes off if 
not for any other reason than to give M$ some much needed competition on 
the desktop.

In that light, the article below is a bit sobering. It goes to show how 
M$ will stop at nothing to eliminate competition. I guess the only thing 
really innovative about M$ is the approach they take to the legal 
system--foreign or domestic.

====== Forwarded Message ======

Michael's Minute: Can I Answer My Phone Without Paying $124,000?

After the revelation last week that Microsoft seems to be playing a role 
in funneling cash to SCO to attack Linux, it should be obvious to even 
the most casual observer that Microsoft will do anything to try to halt 
Linux. This shouldn't surprise anyone, given Microsoft executives' track 
record of breaking the law, and the many books chronicling their 
unethical behavior over the last two decades. Routinely we see Microsoft 
threatening companies that we interact with in the computer business who 
want to support desktop Linux by withholding technical support, 
withdrawing market development funds, threatening lawsuits, and more.

In our own battles, Microsoft is trying to shut us down using any 
tactic, and since our web site is our outlet to the world, they have 
attacked us there. Two years ago they asked a US court to shut down our 
website, and they were denied. They tried again in the US and again they 
were denied. More than a year later, they snuck off to Finland and with 
no notice to us, and asked the courts there to block the Lindows 
website. (They did not reference the US actions.) At this point, Lindows 
did not know that Microsoft had filed papers in Finland, so we were not 
able to oppose them. The Judge blocked sales of Lindows to their 
citizens, but refused to block the web site. Microsoft did not let us 
know about this ruling. They then took this ruling to Sweden and asked 
the courts there to block our web site and sales. Again the Judge 
refused to block web site, but did block sales. Once again, Lindows was 
not given any notice and was not able to oppose their actions. (When the 
rulings are made absent of the other party to oppose, this is called an 
ex-parte ruling.) Once we discovered the courts' rulings we went to both 
of those courts asking them to reconsider. These appeals are under way.

 >From there, Microsoft went to the Netherlands. Ironically, in the land 
where heroin and prostitution are legal, they found a jurisdiction to 
rule that simply viewing the Lindows.com website is forbidden and 
demanded that we block it. Microsoft knows there is no way to 
effectively block only residents of the Netherlands, short of shutting 
down our website to all visitors worldwide. They are asking the court to 
fine us $124,000 per day for every day that Dutch citizens can view our 
website, which a small company like Lindows can obviously not pay. (For 
the record, our total sales in the Netherlands are a small fraction of 
that $124,000.) Microsoft's $60 Billion in the bank provides them with a 
virtually unlimited legal budget, they can simply sue and sue again 
until they win.

This conflict has now morphed into something much larger than a 
trademark squabble and may determine who decides what consumers can see 
on the Internet. You are witnessing how an established company can 
simply sue another company that threatens it in country after country 
until they achieve the outcome they desire. Since web sites are globally 
reachable, companies have 191 countries, or 191 attempts, to get the 
outcome they desire. After 5 tries, Microsoft located a court which 
would give them what they want. Now Lindows.com is forced to not-comply 
and risk massive financial penalties or shutdown our entire website.

I want to be clear about our position. We are not disputing the 
jurisdiction of the Netherlands. I believe it's important to honor the 
rule of law. After the ruling against us, we put up a notice on every 
page of our web site. We halted both digital and physical sales from 
Lindows to the affected countries. We removed links on our website to 
our resellers in those countries. We sent out notices to our resellers. 
But the bigger question is this: just because our servers are connected 
to the Internet, does that mean that anyone else connected to the same 
wires can dictate what we do with our servers in the US?

Would it be OK for a foreign Judge to rule that if someone calls my U.S. 
office from another country that I cannot utter the word 'Lindows' when 
I answer the phone, simply because our phone lines were connected, 
making such a call possible? Worse yet, if I answered the phone would I 
incur a fine of $124,000 per day? Our phones may be connected to some of 
the same wires that a web visitor would travel when connecting to the 
Lindows.com web site. If they can insist a web site be shutdown so their 
residents cannot access it, why not the phone system as well? It sounds 
preposterous, but it is what seems to be unfolding in the Netherlands, 
and every Net citizen should be worried. We may be headed to a world 
where rich companies can shop around, looking for a friendly court and 
use that to ban content, ideas, products and choices which they may 
disagree with.

-- Michael

-- 
R. Douglas Barbieri
doug@dooglio.net
http://www.dooglio.net

--------------enig13952177F5B1C9C86477740D
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQCVAwUBQE9lvUXxnl7zCoonAQLY8QP/VfZ23AOjD2XylwaHvLoHYkSnHvB7Ipwl
xcVMgMVLf7I/eDv7pLJ3JqbNG0JrDyCwWbk5vMoLJBZThWiNqiBQGW4CojAAnRW4
0Bf6rIOtkBncIHBnyPiyDX3/Sfmd9wn7+QQ36LcySn2mFFoKkgcqInAOXa77Qiy/
7AG7Uf24VVg=
=f4rk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enig13952177F5B1C9C86477740D--