Politech mailing list archives
FC: Microsoft invokes contract to block database review; responses
From: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 09:54:25 -0500
[Seems to me it's not a classical case of censorship, since the reviewers (not being entirely stupid) knew that the contract prohibited reviews without consultation, etc. and nobody was forcing them to accept the deal. But I do believe that such contract terms are a bad idea, and that if they go too far -- or companies go too far in enforcing them -- that reviewers will simply ignore those products. --Declan] ********** Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 20:28:28 -0500 From: Frenchy <frenchy () tftb com> Subject: Microsoft censorship Got this from one fo my tech newsletters...I snipped out the non-related material since this guy usually covers two or three topics in a single column. I know this will probably piss off the Microslop defenders here who want to have Bill Gates' next baby...;) Frenchy ======================================================== ROBERT X. CRINGELY(R): "Notes from the Field" InfoWorld.com ======================================================== Tuesday, March 6, 2001 The Redmond menace Microsoft recently threw around its weight -- and its fat wallet -- to squash an independent testing lab from publishing benchmark results that the lab ran for InfoWorld's sister publication NetworkWorld. The test demonstrated that SQL Server 7 runs nearly twice as fast on Windows NT 4.0 than it does on Windows 2000. The lab's director of research claims that when he discovered the performance crevasse, thinking it his own fault, he contacted Microsoft and worked with them for a week to figure out what went wrong. When neither company could fix the problem, Microsoft shifted its sails, thereby changing the direction of the wind as well, and cited a SQL Server "no publication without authorization" license clause, indirectly threatening legal action. "We used to be Microsoft fans," the lab director said. "Now, I just feel like I got run over by a train. When they realized they couldn't fix the problem, they, as my son would say from Toy Story, put on their angry eyes and came after us. We have been intimidated into not going forward with our results because we don't have the pockets to battle Microsoft in court." The results were on the lab's Web site Thursday evening but had disappeared by Friday morning. Along the way, Microsoft pulled one of the tricks for which it has gained notoriety: blaming the hardware. The lab's director said that Microsoft declared a NIC (network interface card) to be at fault, which he added was a common Intel NIC -- one on the hardware compatibility list Team Redmond points to so frequently. NetworkWorld eventually overcame the Microsoft threat, however. The test results were posted on its site early last week. Send tips to cringe () infoworld com. ************* To: Frenchy <frenchy () tftb com> Subject: Re: Microsoft censorship From: Jered Floyd <jered () mit edu> Date: 08 Mar 2001 00:16:16 -0500 It's a standard clause in all database server (Oracle, Sybase, Microsoft, etc.) license agreements that you may not publish any benchmarks without the express written approval of the manufacturer. They all want only their officially released benchmarks to every be considered, because they live or die based on those (rather arbitrary) numbers. I agree that it's draconian and stupid, but such clauses are more and more common in shrink-wrap licenses these days. Many software licenses include clauses that prohibit you from publishing negative reviews of the product, for instance. Good deal, eh? --Jered ********* Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 00:46:09 -0500 From: "J. Lasser" <jon () lasser org> To: Jered Floyd <jered () mit edu> In the wise words of Jered Floyd:
It's a standard clause in all database server (Oracle, Sybase, Microsoft, etc.) license agreements that you may not publish any benchmarks without the express written approval of the manufacturer. They all want only their officially released benchmarks to every be considered, because they live or die based on those (rather arbitrary) numbers.
Well, while I don't support such clauses, it's only fair to note that most databases need an inordinate amount of tuning to behave well, and most testers simply don't have the knowledge, resources, or time to tune the databases properly. Therefore, most third-party benchmarks are just horribly wrong. It would be nice if there was a way to protect db manufacturers from this, but obviously censorship isn't really the answer. (But what is, besides perfect software?) --=20 Jon Lasser Work: jon () skynetweb com 410-558-2787 jon_lasser on Yahoo! IM Home: jon () lasser org 410-659-5333 http://www.tux.org/~lasser/ Buy my book, _Think_Unix_! http://www.tux.org/~lasser/think-unix/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if it remains intact. To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current thread:
- FC: Microsoft invokes contract to block database review; responses Declan McCullagh (Mar 08)