Over twenty years ago I was a making killing, hand over fist, selling a Usenet news reading add-on for Emacs. Then those anti-trust bastards included some Lisp code which does that, and I went down the tubes.
I mean, what gave them the right, you know?
It's as if not only did they disrespect my sense of entitlement, but it's like they didn't even see it, in spite of its monstrous size.
It's an interesting thought experiment to extrapolate antitrust ideas onto free software.
If Linux grew big enough could it attract antitrust lawsuits despite not being the product of any single company?
My first impression was to draw the line at organizations that make money, but that leaves the possibility for free software growing so big as to hinder progress, which isn't necessarily beneficial for the community either.
Discuss(?)
More like satirical.
I just returned to this tab 56 minutes after the fact, and wanted to delete the comment, but when I clicked the delete link, "1 point" flipped to "13 points". :)
My point is, why is something like GNU Emacs or GNU/Linux above anti-trust with regard to bundling? Suppose that GNU/Linux had only one distribution, and it was so popular that it was on 99% of the world's desktops. There wouldn't be any anti-trust hoopla regarding that distribution having a preferred web browser, no matter how deeply integrated.
Morally, the users of this platform would be just as locked in as users of Windows and IE. (Or Google Android and some Google Service app or what have you).
Anti-trust somehow only picks targets from which it can squeeze money. That's what it's about, not any morality of the situation or what is good for consumers. Those are just pretexts.
(The very fact that Russia is eagerly aping this concept speaks volumes).
Auntie Ayn on anti-trust laws: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/antitrust_laws.html
Can the linux project do exclusive dealing? I guess one could argue that the linux project did buy exclusively buy from BitKeeper, but defining that as an "supplier" seems to stretch the definition beyond nonrecognition.
Free software and open source licenses specifically forbids Refusal to deal, price fixing, and tied offering. You can't violate the law here without also infringing people's copyright.
Can linux project divide territories with other kernel projects? In theory they could do so if they offered support contracts but not by simply producing software. What would define a territory in the context of publicly offering free software to anyone?
How would that happen, exactly? Particularly with the GPL. If an author (company or otherwise) distributes their work, they're required to also provide the source for that work.
Thus, no author distributes their GPL'd software with an expectation that they will make a profit by keeping others from using that code.
So whether the main project continues to use their code or replaces it with other code of comparable functionality is irrelevant. In fact, most entities who buy into Linux do so (in part) to offload the maintenance expenses associated with that code base. So if the community picks it up, win. If the community does not, you 'break even' as you're in the same position of maintaining the code base internally as you would would have been if you'd not open sourced it in the first place.
But this is about Google.
Google said in February that device makers “are free to install the apps
they choose, and consumers always have complete control over the apps on
their devices.”
Several device manufacturers that pre-install Yandex apps notified the
company in 2014 that they were “no longer able to pre-install Yandex
services,” such as Yandex’s search and map apps on Google’s Android devices,
prompting Yandex to make a complaint to the antitrust authorities. [1]
In order to install Google Play on their devices, device manufacturers are
required to preinstall the entire suite of Google GMS services, and set
Google as the default search. In addition to that, device manufacturers are
increasingly prohibited from installing any services from Google’s
competitors on their devices… The openness of Android is now in a thing of
the past.” [Yandex' claim] [2]
[2] http://techcrunch.com/2015/02/18/yandex-google-russia-antitr...
Microsoft's hardware (e.g. Surface Pro) is less locked down than the competition's version of the same (e.g. iPad). Why must ever topic devolve into Microsoft bashing?
I'm curious How a ruling like that gels with the fact that on an iPhone (the other half of the market) all services and apps are dictated by Apple and can not be altered, while on Android not only they can be but the whole OS is free, Yandex could have commissioned their own hardware like many others do and they curiously haven't complained about Apple.
Same goes for the search allegation,the argument there is that Google should feature results from other search engines on their own site! Which is mind Boggling, no one is convinced Facebook or twitter or anyone should include content from other website but somehow Google is different. Google isn't the network layer that one must go through it to interact with the web, they are no "gatekeeper" not technically or metaphorically yet somehow politicians are convinced they are.
This seems like field distortion to me that somehow regulator were sold on to (even excluding this Russian example).
Or any other custom android; just ask Samsung, Google pressurized them to drop their own ecosystem.
This is anticompetitive if you ask me.
And the US even found merit to investigate Google, before quietly burying the case.
The Russians are always trying to create and solidify a US-free sphere of influence. That goes for US companies, US NGOs, you name it.
Edit: actually, they'd only need their own app store if I understand the terms correctly.
Not to mention $10B is probably less than the amount Google alone has spent developing and promoting Android. Please explain how their direct competitor should be entitled to piggy back on that work for free.
Edit: apparently they even have their own 'Yandex Browser' based on Chromium. Shameless.
Source for this?
http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/europe/russias-99-convi...
1. prohibit, bash, etc... foreign goods and services
2. ...
3. enjoy quality replacement by domestic manufacturers and providers.
right now the stage 1 is at full swing.