Simon St. Laurent wrote:
<<I'm more annoyed about the copied XHTML+SVG+XForms+whatever else
you'd like to put in the stew. XUL is the least of it to me. The
part that matters is that they appear to be reinventing for the sole reason of
making it theirs, proprietary, kicking out the NIH.>>
If Simon is correct, this may be the makings of another major lawsuit
against Microsoft for antitrust violations and/or unfair competition. This goes
beyond the Lotus case where it was charged with "borrowing" the look-and-feel of
the Macintosh operating system. This goes beyond the recently settled case
that charged the offering of a free browser with Windows for the
purpose of impeding the development of competitive browsers and related
technologies (e.g., Java). This may be an attempt to pass off as its own open
source technology developed under the aegis of W3C, the copyright to which W3C
retains (see
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/IPR-FAQ-20000620)
and which it permits to be used subject to a license (see
http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2002/copyright-software-20021231).
If Microsoft is not in compliance with this license and there is
substantial confusion in the marketplace as to the source of the technology
(i.e., is it from W3C or MSFT or whatever?), then there may be claim under
the Lanham Act. When Microsoft's support of SCO in its claims against Linux
is also taken into consideration, it appears to be open season on open
source.
