Comment Open Source useless in this and similar cases (Score 1) 206
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I agree that it would probably be too difficult to sift through even if they did choose to release the code.
The more interesting point to look at here is why they did it. I believe it was an attempt to preempt a DoJ mandate that they do it. They figure (rightly so) that if they release the code they can do it on their own terms; otherwise, they are stuck with whatever the DoJ tells them to do. The downside to this is: they showed a bargaining point too early. They were willing to release the code. If I were Microsoft, I would have bitched and whined about having to do it knowing full well that I didn't care about doing it.
What does this accomplish? It gives the DoJ a sense of accomplishment. If Microsoft is bitching and the DoJ "forces" them do give up their source, DoJ feel like they've won a battle and may let MS off with only that.
Consequences: MS will still be punished in some way, and it may be something they aren't as willing to deal with.
---Ted---
The more interesting point to look at here is why they did it. I believe it was an attempt to preempt a DoJ mandate that they do it. They figure (rightly so) that if they release the code they can do it on their own terms; otherwise, they are stuck with whatever the DoJ tells them to do. The downside to this is: they showed a bargaining point too early. They were willing to release the code. If I were Microsoft, I would have bitched and whined about having to do it knowing full well that I didn't care about doing it.
What does this accomplish? It gives the DoJ a sense of accomplishment. If Microsoft is bitching and the DoJ "forces" them do give up their source, DoJ feel like they've won a battle and may let MS off with only that.
Consequences: MS will still be punished in some way, and it may be something they aren't as willing to deal with.
---Ted---
