4 ms·

I would like to see antitrust authority focus on technology protocols / standards rather than, or perhaps in addition to, corporate mergers. Prohibit "embrace-a

I would like to see antitrust authority focus on technology protocols / standards rather than, or perhaps in addition to, corporate mergers. Prohibit "embrace-and-extend" for example. Place limitations on use of proprietary formats where there is widespread third-party reliance on a technology.

stickfigure 10y ago
Prohibit "embrace-and-extend" Errrr... like what, ban the Fork button on github?
- gpm 10y ago
  I think gp means more along the lines of applying "you must contribute back" rules to copyright law.
  - zekevermillion 10y ago
    Not exactly, no. I'm not concerned about using antitrust authority to police open source. Regular copyright law, combined with usefulness of open source project, is enough and should work (or fail) on its own. What I think does merit some review is a corporate policy to build a market or platform around a widely-used protocol (whether or not technically open source), then extend the protocol so that you break other implementations of whatever you're doing. For example, let's say you build a SIP telephony service that's extremely popular. Then you introduce some proprietary elements so that all traffic that you route uses SIP + your proprietary extension. Suddenly everyone has to pay your toll to use SIP, unless they want to give up access to most of the market.
- zekevermillion 10y ago
  No. That's a Microsoft reference. A strategy for coopting open protocols, then adding proprietary extensions so no one else can use them. It does not have anything to do with open source, and I don't think is something that Microsoft particularly does anymore. Though there are ample analogies to behavior of all large tech companies.
  - stickfigure 10y ago
    I challenge you to come up with a way to differentiate between "embrace-and-extend" and "fork-and-commit" that does not involve your personal feelings about the actor's motivation.

stickfigure 10y ago

Prohibit "embrace-and-extend" Errrr... like what, ban the Fork button on github?

gpm 10y ago
I think gp means more along the lines of applying "you must contribute back" rules to copyright law.
- zekevermillion 10y ago
  Not exactly, no. I'm not concerned about using antitrust authority to police open source. Regular copyright law, combined with usefulness of open source project, is enough and should work (or fail) on its own. What I think does merit some review is a corporate policy to build a market or platform around a widely-used protocol (whether or not technically open source), then extend the protocol so that you break other implementations of whatever you're doing. For example, let's say you build a SIP telephony service that's extremely popular. Then you introduce some proprietary elements so that all traffic that you route uses SIP + your proprietary extension. Suddenly everyone has to pay your toll to use SIP, unless they want to give up access to most of the market.
zekevermillion 10y ago
No. That's a Microsoft reference. A strategy for coopting open protocols, then adding proprietary extensions so no one else can use them. It does not have anything to do with open source, and I don't think is something that Microsoft particularly does anymore. Though there are ample analogies to behavior of all large tech companies.
- stickfigure 10y ago
  I challenge you to come up with a way to differentiate between "embrace-and-extend" and "fork-and-commit" that does not involve your personal feelings about the actor's motivation.