<OT> [michaelr at lindows.com: Michael's Minute: Can I Answer My Phone Without Paying $124, 000?]

[Joel Hammer]

I send this along so you can see what MS is up to these
days, according to the lindows people.  Well, I use lindows
but invest in windows, so, I am conflicted. Dear me.

I note that the lindows people are blaming the courts for
being tools of the most moneyed among us. What a shabby
characterization of the courts.

However, if it be true, that any country can ban your
material and you can be fined for allowing their citizens
to see your web site, that would be interesting. I wonder
if they have courts in North Korea? Or, MS could just buy
Lichenstein. I know you can rent it for weddings.

Joel

----- Forwarded message from Michael Robertson <michaelr at lindows.com> -----

X-Received: 10 Mar 2004 10:00:01 GMT
To: joel at hammershome.com
From: Michael Robertson <michaelr at lindows.com>
Subject: Michael's Minute: Can I Answer My Phone Without Paying $124,000? 
X-UIDL: QE7nI9HkIbNWbAE

If this message is not displaying properly, go to www.lindows.com/mm to launch it in your browser.

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