Friday, November 5, 2010

Kinect, open source, and licenses

So Microsoft has introduced "Kinect", a competitor to the Wii game-station.

Beyond winning an award for a stupid product name, Microsoft has also become rather protective of the Kinect. Microsoft wants to keep Kinect for itself, and prevent anyone else from writing code for it. (Anyone without a license, apparently.)

The Adafruit company is offering a bounty for an open source Kinect driver. Such a driver could allow Kinect to work with systems other than the XBOX. Horrors! People actually using a Microsoft project for something they choose!

Microsoft's response includes the following: “With Kinect, Microsoft built in numerous hardware and software safeguards designed to reduce the chances of product tampering. Microsoft will continue to make advances in these types of safeguards and work closely with law enforcement and product safety groups to keep Kinect tamper-resistant.”

The interesting part of that statement is "law enforcement". Microsoft seems to be confusing breach of contract with criminal law.

In contract law, you can file a suit against someone for breach of contract. You win or lose, depending on the contract and the case you present (and the case that the defense presents). But here is the thing: a win does not condemn the accused to prison, nor do you get punitive damages. Punitive damages are not available in contract law -- the contract specifies the penalties for breach.

Unless Microsoft is counting on the DCMA, and its clause for bypassing copy-protection devices. They may win a criminal case on those grounds.

But Microsoft is missing the bigger point. They think that they must control Kinect and allow it to run only on the XBOX, therefore increasing sales for the XBOX and Windows. But its a selfish strategy, and one that will limit the growth of Kinect in the future.

Microsoft must decide the more important of two goals: sales of Kinect software or control of Kinect software.

No comments: