[LUG-Ischia] Microsoft: "Drug-Dealing Methods"

[Linux User Group Ischia]

Microsoft: "Drug-Dealing Methods"
Date: Thursday, July 01, 2004
Topic: Linux Market 

Pedro Cadina 

Interview with Sérgio Amadeu da Silveira, the Brazilian government member 
Microsoft wanted to sue. 

In the Brazilian battle between open-source and proprietary software, 
Microsoft has threatened to go to the courts. And the company has come off 
badly. In the last two weeks, it has backed down, attempting to control the 
damage done to its image by the summons directed at the sociologist and 
professor Sérgio Amadeu da Silveira, head of the ITI (National Information 
Technology Institute), a government body charged with implementing 
open-source software here. 

Through their lawyer, Mario Panseri Ferreira, Microsoft demanded that 
Silveira explain a statement he made in the March 30 issue of the weekly 
business-focused magazine, Carta Capital. In his statement, he accused 
Microsoft of using "drug-dealing methods" by offering Windows to state and 
city governments as part of social inclusion programs. On May 14 (45 days 
later), based on the Press Law--introduced by the military dictators who ran 
the country until the 1980s--the world's leading software company demanded a 
judicial explanation. Under Brazilian law, this marks the first step in 
suing Silveira for slander. 

Support for Silveira was immediate and came from all sides--members of the 
federal and state governments, congressmen, senators and members of the Free 
Software community worldwide. Senator Sery Slherssarenko and Congressman 
Sérgio Miranda made public statements in Congress in his favor. The Brazil 
Free Software Project launched the "Brazil has the right to choose" 
campaign, backed by a digital petition that, by June 30, had received more 
than 8,600 signatures from around the globe. His supporters include Lawrence 
Lessig, Professor of Constitutional Law at Stanford University; and Richard 
Stallman, head of the Free Software Foundation (FSF); Hipatia, the Italian 
NGO; and others.
Freedom to Choose 

On the other side, Microsoft had been keeping a low profile on the affair, 
avoiding the open confrontation heralded by its summons. In fact, the 
company issued a statement to the newspaper O Estado de S. Paulo through its 
Director of Legal Affairs, Rinaldo Zangirolami, denying that there would be 
a lawsuit and insisting the firm had no intention of intimidating anyone. 
Microsoft subsequently issued an official release that appeared to signal an 
end to the affair: "Microsoft is fully aware that Brazil has the right to 
choose the best technology for its needs. The company is confident of the 
competitive merits of its technology, which any objective analysis will show 
to be both innovatory and of great value to potential clients. São Paulo, 
June 18, 2004. Microsoft Brasil." 

By June 21, the storm finally appeared to have abated. The following day, 
however, the Ministry of Science & Technology's Policy Secretary, Arthur 
Pereira Nunes, opened the country's main IT event, CONIP (Public Information 
Technology Congress) and used the occasion to voice his support for Silveira 
and attack Microsoft: 

   I am totally opposed to any attempt at intimidation. The debate on 
information technology in Brazil has been characterized by the democratic 
nature of the discussions, but the same cannot be said for some of the 
people involved in this sector. Microsoft must take a long, hard look at its 
behavior, which is simply not compatible with the building of a democratic 
society. 

The speech received a lengthy ovation. 

At the same event, Silveira and Microsoft took part in the debate over 
industrial property. The firm's representative, Nabuco Barcelos, Microsoft's 
national technology director, made no mention of the judicial summons and 
steered clear of any confrontation, merely clarifying Microsoft's position 
on the issue and playing down the economic importance of usage licenses: 
"These licenses account for only 4% of a given solution's total value."
No Explanations to Monopolies 

At the beginning of the year, Sérgio Amadeu da Silveira spoke to me in an 
exclusive interview. Recently, he shared his outlook on the case and his 
thoughts about Microsoft with journalist Renato Cruz during an open 
interview for the Brazilian press, the content of which has not been 
published yet. Below are some excerpts from our conversation. 

Question: What do you think of Microsoft? 

Silveira: Microsoft is a technology company that uses a development model 
currently being replaced all over the world--proprietary software. 

Question: Why did you decide not to reply to Microsoft's judicial summons? 

Silveira: I consulted some lawyers and the government's Sub-Department of 
Legal Affairs and learned that any reply from me also would be a reply from 
the government. What Microsoft did was so absurd that it didn't deserve an 
answer. It tried to use the Press Law against an opinion whose context it 
should have confirmed first. They wanted to intimidate us by turning a 
technological policy issue into a legal one. Besides, we don't owe 
monopolies any kind of explanation whatsoever. 

Question: Has this episode changed the government's opinion of Microsoft? 

Silveira: I cannot answer on behalf of the entire administration. What I can 
say is that Microsoft made a huge mistake. The captive market they enjoyed 
within our government is a thing of the past, and I'm sure they are well 
aware of that. We live in a democracy where there is competition. They made 
a big mistake, they appear to have an attitude problem. What they did was 
unprecedented. We're working for a free-software implementation policy, not 
against this or that company. 

Question: Can you explain the comparison you've made between Microsoft's 
license distribution policy and the Greeks' Trojan horse? 

Silveira: Microsoft's strategy is to try and change the model it doesn't 
have because it sells licenses. The open-source companies don't. So 
Microsoft does that to maintain its product stranglehold, while at the same 
time emphasizing its license donations, which is akin to presenting us with 
the Trojan horse. They want us to utilize taxpayers' money to build a 
critical mass of school teachers, who will in turn teach their students how 
to use the software of a multinational monopoly. And then a chain reaction 
sets in: drugstores, bakeries and other small businesses in small country 
towns--where information technology is accessible only in schools--will have 
to use Microsoft´s proprietary software. By using free software, we can show 
all these regions that there is an alternative, that we do not have to 
depend on a single company, because several others are participating in this 
software-use development. 

Question: What has been Microsoft do Brasil's attitude during this process? 

Silveira: A few months ago we received a visit from Microsoft do Brasil's 
CEO, who said the company was interested in contributing to the development 
of Brazilian software. We believe there is a place for Microsoft, but the 
government has an option: using free platforms. But we have never drawn up 
decrees, laws and prohibitions. On the contrary, all we've done is to hold a 
series of meetings to show ministries that open-source software is superior 
to proprietary platforms. So what matters is that when they adhere to our 
point of view, they do so because they want to, not because they were told 
to. 

Question: Among those private-sector firms using free software, we have the 
retail chain, Casas Bahia, and Petrobrás. Who is leading the way in the 
federal government? 

Silveira: Serpro (Federal Data Processing Service), Dataprev (Social 
Security Data Processing Company) and the ITI itself. In addition, the 
Cities, Arts, Navy, Air Force, Communications and Mines & Energy Ministries 
are making the change. It also is worth remembering that 58 bodies 
voluntarily have joined the Free Software Implementation Committee and are 
developing other open-source applications. Income tax return procedures, for 
example, are now multiplatform. 

Question: How are you managing to measure the expenditure and savings 
generated by the migration to free software? And how long will it take? 

Silveira: Each body requires its own meticulous planning. In general, 
though, we have laid down some guidelines to facilitate the change. First, 
is to free the workstations. Develop new free-software systems; which means 
getting the developing firm to hand over the source code and the four basic 
software rights--use for any purpose, code totally open to study, capable of 
being modified at any time and freely distributable. We have drawn up a 
strategic plan involving 140 servers in 54 public bodies, and this year we 
shall be drawing up a balance, so we will have the numbers and a process 
progress report. 

Question: How long do you think it will take to equip 300,000 government 
workstations? 

Silveira: If the ministries implant free software in desktops and servers, 
we will have a chain reaction. Without any historical basis for comparison, 
it's difficult to be precise and state, for example, that in two or three 
years 50% or more of all federal-government desktops will be using 
open-source software. What we can affirm, however, is that chain reactions 
are a feature of information technology; that is, if something works well, 
its use mushrooms. And that's the idea. 

Question: How does the government's free-software policy mesh with its 
software export policy? How can you make money exporting free software? 

Silveira: Most of the world's IT firms are not living on license fees 
anymore. Brazil's biggest one makes less than 20% of its earnings from 
licensing; most comes from the provision of solution-development services. 
The more free software we have in Brazil, the more we will be sought out to 
help companies and banks in Europe effect the change-over. In fact, this is 
happening already. 

Brazil's way forward is to take advantage of our knowledge of free software 
and its associated services to sell this expertise abroad as a competitive 
edge. Take the powerful games industry, is Brazil equipped to compete with 
the Americans? Well, we are, but there's no edge to be had with the 
proprietary software model. However, if we develop games based on 
open-source software, we can make money through the portal--users pay to 
access the portal and play the game for a determined period. In addition, 
they can download the game and access the source code. Those who are 
interested, in addition to playing the game, can join the game development 
community and contribute to new versions. 

Question: How do you see the Brazilian government's adoption of Linux? 

Silveira: We are initiating a process of cultural change. By adopting free 
software, we are in fact shifting to a new paradigm, so you have to change 
the culture as a whole, the very ideas on which development is based, of how 
to use the platforms. And this is by no means an easy task. Personally, I 
believe that by the end of this administration's mandate, several ministries 
will have made the change to the open-source platform, and I expect that to 
hold for schools and the government's social inclusion programs too. If, at 
the end of Lula's mandate, we have some ministries, plus government servers 
and schools all using free software, I believe we can set off a chain 
reaction, so that small firms here not using IT yet will adopt the free 
software model when they do so. 

Question: The Brazilian software industry always is complaining that the 
government doesn't have a clear policy, a sufficiently strong concept to 
allow for exports. 

Silveira: We intend to encourage the setting up of development centers that 
can outsource, that can attract code development here. And we intend to do 
this in an organized manner, so financing definitely will be forthcoming. We 
will build Brazil's reputation abroad by actively seeking out markets there. 
At the same time, we will be creating an enormous competitive differential 
at home by using free software. All in all, then, we aim to use the 
country's purchasing power to acquire open-source products and, at the same 
time, encourage exports. 

Question: At the global summit on the information society, Brazil pleaded 
for a flexible and broad concept of intellectual property. What exactly is 
this concept? 

Silveira: For example, to have legislation that fosters the sharing of 
knowledge and which does not attempt to transform software into something 
that can be patented, transform algorithms into something which becomes the 
property of a given economic group. Such a system is not equipped to create 
breakthroughs, to generate new developments. In fact, it blocks and freezes 
technological knowledge. We do not believe our intelligence should be 
hamstrung, that we should be prevented from participating in global software 
development, which it currently is easy to do. There are thousands of 
protective software patents filed away in US patent offices. As long as 
software can be patented, it means we cannot use a determined logical 
procedure for 20 years, which is plainly absurd. 

Question: Does proprietary software transform the public sphere into a 
private one? 

Silveira: Proprietary software is a feudal concept. In fact, the whole 
proprietary licensing model is distinctly odd. I mean, whose property? For 
example, let's say I buy package X, which has a license to use, but just 
take a look at this license. I buy the software, but I don't own it--the 
company owns it. I have a license to use it, but the money I've spent is 
like rent, it's a kind of digital unpaid labor--I pay for it, but it's not 
mine. Open-source software is in the public domain, it belongs to everybody, 
there is no private ownership. Most proprietary software users aren't aware 
of the problem. They say to themselves: "I bought this software". But did 
they? In fact, it's still the developer's property, the user doesn't own 
anything. He's only acquiring the right to use it, but he can't change it. 
In the real world, if I buy a house, it's mine. I can knock down walls, do 
whatever I like with it, as long as I remain within the law. After all, I'm 
the owner. But I can't do any of this with proprietary software. 

Pedro Cadina (pedro@vianews.com.br) is a journalist and director of the 
communications agency, Via News Comunicação 

 

########################################
......--.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
....|@_ @|   Linux User Group Ischia   ~
....|:_/ |          LUG-Ischia         ~
...//   \ \  @:. info@lug-ischia.org   ~
..(|     | ) www:.www.lug-ischia.org   ~
./'\_   _/~\  http://ischia.linux.it   ~
.\___)=(___/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~