You can find the South Park “Make Love, Not Warcraft” clip here, and the first episode of Red vs Blue here.

Fred asked a question in class about whether I thought I was “being easy on Microsoft” when describing the ways in which the “software colossus” especially set out to destroy Netscape between 1995 and 1998. I probably didn’t emphasize Microsoft’s evilness enough…though to be honest, I initially wanted to depict the situation by including a picture of a playground bully pushing smaller kids to the ground. Among other exclusionary practices, Microsoft was accused of making it extremely difficult for Windows users to install and use competing browsers, or to remove Internet Explorer. When Microsoft was taken to trial in 1998, Jim Barksdale (Netscape’s CEO) testified along with representatives from Sun and other competing software companies. Do you believe these testimonies show conflict of interest and jealousy, as Microsoft execs alleged? Here’s an example of a controversial testimony from an Intel executive:

On the witness stand was Steven McGeady, an Intel vice president called by the government. He testified earlier this week that Microsoft Corp. had threatened to withhold crucial technical support from Intel if the chipmaker did not stop developing software that would compete with Microsoft’s products. He also made the dramatic allegation that a senior executive at Microsoft told him of an intent to “extinguish” rival Netscape Communications Corp. and to “cut off Netscape’s air supply.”

Do you think Microsoft (or any dominant corporation) should be able to leverage its strong hold on the market to push emergent competitors out of the picture? Do you think, as Bill Gates testified, that Microsoft just happened to better at innovation and competition in the booming technology market – a market that, at the time, had little history of government regulation? After the appellate decision, the court did not prohibit Microsoft from including future software as a default in Windows. Is it still a form of monopolization for Microsoft to bundle Internet Explorer with Windows? Even today Apple bundles its Mac OS with Safari as well.

What’s more, I personally agree with Eric Raymond’s argument to use “open source” as opposed to “free” software. Richard Stallman takes issue with this kind of looser, diluted terminology and philosophy, but I believe this divergence has done exactly what Raymond and the Open Source Initiative intended – it helped make the FOSS movement more prominent and expanded the mainstream public’s awareness of similar projects. I believe it’s important to first draw people in and get them interested in the idea of open source software before explaining more about the principles of freedom embedded in the movement (kind of like a product’s packaging/appearance can convince consumers to buy it — but maybe that’s just the marketing side of me speaking). In any case, Stallman concluded:

“The rhetoric of open source has convinced many businesses and individuals to use, and even develop, free software, which has extended our community—but only at the superficial, practical level. The philosophy of open source, with its purely practical values, impedes understanding of the deeper ideas of free software; it brings many people into our community, but does not teach them to defend it.”

Do you agree?

Instead of summarizing my presentation, I’d rather hear what you all might think about the controversy surrounding Microsoft’s role in Netscape’s downfall, the ultimate ruling of the antitrust case against Microsoft, and/or the divergent “open source” model vs. “free” software debate.

If you want more information, you can…
Read through the court documents from United States v. Microsoft here.
Read Richard Stallman’s criticisms of the NPL here.
Watch Code Rush here.