FC: Microsoft invokes contract to block database review; responses

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

[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/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------