|
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' prior conduct track
record of breaking the law, and the
many books chronicling their unethical behavior over the last two decades.
Routinely, we see Microsoft intimidating companies that we interact with in the
computer business who want to support desktop Linux. These partners and
potential partners face Microsoft's threats to withhold technical support, to
withdraw market development funds, to file lawsuits, and more.
In our own battles, Microsoft is trying to shut us down using any tac
tic
possible. Because our website is our outlet to the world, Microsoft has focused
their attack there. Two years ago, Microsoft asked a US court to shut down our
website and, after a lengthy investigation and hearing, the court refused.
Microsoft tried again in the US, and again they were denied. More than a year
later, Microsoft snuck off to Finland and, with no notice to us, asked the
Helsinki District Court to block the Lindows website. (While mentioning the US
lawsuit, Microsoft conveniently left out the two US Court orders denying the
same request for an injunction.) The Helsinki court said sales should be halted
in Finland, but refused to block the website. At this point, Lindows did not
know that they had filed papers in Finland so we were not able to oppose them.
Microsoft then took this ruling to Sweden and asked the Stockholm City Court to
block our website and sales. Again, the Judge refused to block website, but
did block sales in Sweden. Once again, Lindows was not given any notice, and was
not able to oppose their actions. (This is called an ex-parte ruling, when the
court decides a request without the defendant being informed or given an
opportunity to respond.) Once we heard about the orders in Sweden and Finland,
we went to both of those courts asking them to reconsider. These appeals are
under way.
From there, Microsoft went to the Netherlands, and found a court willing to rule that simply viewing the
Lindows.com website is forbidden. The District Court in Amsterdam issued an
order that www.lindows.com must be made inaccessible to visitors from Belgium,
the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. Microsoft knows that there is no way to effectively
block only browsers from those three countries--short of shutting down our web
site to all visitors worldwide. They are now asking the court to fine us
100,000 Euro per day, for every day that the website is accessible, a sum which a
small company like Lindows obviously cannot not pay. (For the record our
total sales over the last two years in all three affected countries combined
represent a small fraction of one day's 100,000 Euro penalty.) With Microsoft's $60
Billion in the bank, they have a virtually unlimited legal budget with which
they can simply sue, and sue again, until they win.
This conflict has now morphed into somethi
ng much larger than a trademark
squabble and may determine who decides what consumers around the world can see
on the Internet. You are witnessing how an established company can simply sue a
tiny new competitor in country after country until they achieve the outcome they
desire. Because websites are reachable from virtually every one of the 191
countries around the world, companies following Microsoft's path have 191
attempts to get the outcome they desire, even after they are flatly rejected by
a United States Federal Court. After five tries over two years, Microsoft
finally located a court that would give them what they want. Now, Lindows.com
is forced to either shut down its entire website or risk massive financial
penalties.
I want to be clear about our position. We are not disputing the jurisdiction of
the Netherlands. We believe it's important to honor the rule of law, and we have
in good faith been fighting Microsoft in courts around the world for over two
years. After the Dutch court's ruling against us, we put up a notice on every
page of our website. 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. We regret the court's
decision to bar sales of LindowsOS in those countries, but we fully intend to
honor the court's order. The only outstanding question is: just because our
servers are connected to the Internet, does that mean than 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 US office
from another country that I cannot utter the word 'Lindows' when I answer the
phone, simply because our phone lines were connected? And worse, if I answered
the phone, should I incur a fine of 100,000 Euro 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 website. If they can insist a website be shut
down so their residents cannot access it, why not the phone system as well? It
sounds preposterous, but this appears to be what is unfolding in the
Netherlands, and every Net citizen should be worried. We may be headed toward a
world in which rich companies can shop around, repeatedly searching for a
friendly court that is willing to ban content, ideas, products and choices with
which they may disagree.
-- MichaelThe Michael's Minute Meter
View the Michael's Minute Meter Report
|
