W
whoever
Can I Answer My Phone Without Paying $124,000?
By Michael Robertson (Received via Email)
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
By Michael Robertson (Received via Email)
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