MS "Software Choice" Campaign: A Clever Fraud

Bruce Perens writes "Microsoft's new "Software Choice" campaign is all for your right to choose... as long as you choose Microsoft. It's too bad that Intel and the U.S. Government couldn't see through the rhetoric. Read the full story at The Register." Note that California will soon be considering - like Peru - a law to mandate open source software in government. The gloves are off - on both sides.

Comments

... "closed" software adds costs, creates risk...

[Futurepower(R)]

... "closed" software adds costs and creates security risks...

Exactly. If you work with Microsoft Windows XP every day, and you consider it thoroughly, you find that the situation is worse than people commonly say.

If you haven't seen this article about Windows XP problems before, it may interest you. I wrote it to try to show the aggressiveness behind Windows: Windows XP shows the Direction Microsoft is Going.

If you have seen the article before, and you view it again, reload your browser, because the article was recently updated.

It's wonderful that government agencies are beginning the realize the liability of using a closed, proprietary, software product from a company that seems to care more about control than about making money.

Money

[nuggz]

And think how much more money will flow into the lobbyists. I wonder if California just trys to make these laws to bring in millions for lobbying and even MORE money.

Like legislating CO2 emissions, the automakers are dumping piles of cash into the state to fight it.

Interesting idea, discuss making controversial laws, pull millions into the state economy.

Microsoft == US Goverment

[MrIcee]

Unlike Intel, the U.S. Government clearly did have a choice.

Probably not. Consider the fact that the majority of lawyers in Washington DC work for Microsoft - they have a HUGE lobby effect on our government. Combine that with their cash flow - they can pretty much buy whatever vote, or avoid whatever damages in court, they care to. We have seen this over and over again.

In order to effectivly release microsoft's strangle hold on the industry we need to do several things:

• Stop handing out patents for software and algorithms. This is simply BAD BAD BAD. I remember when XOR was patented by some sleazy lawyers in the late 80's. The patent was specifically for using XOR to draw anything to any display device, including display memory. The lawyers would then simply go from trade show to trade show and at every booth, they'd ask the developers *Wow, how did you make your cursor do that?*. When the developers proudly stated that they used XOR so that the drawing was nondestructive, BAM, they got slapped with a suit. The lawyers then also said "we will lesson the damages IF you turn in other companies you also know are doing this". The company I was working for at the time (Truevision) had to pony up just to use XOR in their graphic engines. (BTW, that patent is dead now jim).

  It's these kind of sleazy tactics that microsoft likes to use as well... case in point... NOW SUDDENLY they think they have a patent on portions of openGL - why? because SGI sold them certain IP rights (which is probably illegal to begin with to something that is open source).

  Patents and IP rights on software and algorithms simply don't make sense, and as we have seen over and over again, only result in someone trying to lock the industry and drain money from everyone and everycompany.

• Push the government on two fronts... first... we need to outlaw corporate contributions to campaign parties. Think about it... if a congressman, or president elect, receives large sums from a company, you can BET they're gonna be buddies. That should be illegal because it is NOT government for the people... it is government for itself.

  Secondly... outlaw, or EXTREMELY CURTAIL lobbies. While lobbies *might* be important, they are too dangerous. There are much better ways for the government to receive information (e.g., hauling up experts in front of congressional hearings, etc). Lobbies are funded by people who DO NOT represent te rest of us. They have self-interests at heart only, and they swing deals with government that do not help the people. This includes MICROSOFT, which has a HUGE lobby effort in DC.

• Investigate Microsofts books. With Enron / Worldcom / etal... there is no way in HELL that Microsoft is clean. Consider the fact that they have NEVER paid a dividend to ANY shareholder in their entire history (which I believe, is illegal). Consider that they time and time again use illegal practices to stiffle competition and to strongarm the industry. Let's crack those books open and let's haul BILLY GOATS to jail where he belongs. Perhaps he can teach his fellow inmates (such as Martha Stewart) how to program in Visual Basic.
• Do NOT allow a single company (such as Microshit) to dictate government policy. ESPECIALLY on things such as what software to use and security. Who are they to say what is secure and what is not. They have been unable to provide anything secure yet, so why do we expect them to now. Likewise, why should we look to Microsoft for some stupid statement on their new *open source* policy. Again, all lies so they can control the industry and kick the rest of us out. It won't be long folks, before you will have to pony up some serious cash to Microsoft JUST to be able to write your own software and get it published. Governments should be very very afraid of any corporation that wants to control them.

  Additionally, why would ANY government (especially foreign ones) in their right mind go with Microsoft. Microsoft is a US company. If I was a foreign government I would DEFINATLY want to have control over the source code so that I could be sure that Redmond isn't reading my sensitive government email. Again... think about it folks. I'm sure the US is RIGHT BEHIND microsoft in pusing their software to other countries - why? cause Bunny Pants Bush would have his ear to classified communications planet wide. I wonder who is REALLY behind the microsoft push into other countires (I can hear the meeting right now... BILLYGOATS: Say Bushie Boy... we can let you eavesdrop on russia, brittan, afganistan, but ONLY if you look the other way, forgive us our wrongs, and help us push our standards on the rest of the world. BUNNYPANTS: Sounds good... say, watch me drive this golf ball).

It's unfortunate, but the giants such as Microsoft have virtually ruined our industry. From their crap software to their crap policies and lies and their holy-bug-ridden-virus-prone *secure* software - it is all crap and they need to be slapped down seriously for trying to fuck with every industry and government out there.

Re:Lotsa sizzle, little steak

[ctid]

I think you need to consider this more carefully, if you're keen to get the best benefits out of your tax dollars. Here's a simple example: Suppose a government funded researcher creates a new approach to collaborating over the internet (call it Collaborate). This is a good thing; you paid your taxes, the govt gave some of it to this researcher, he created a new system and everyone benefits. However, if he didn't use the GPL, you could quite simply lose your benefit. Immediately after he publishes, you and Microsoft and all others who contributed taxes get the same access to the new technology. However, suppose MS decide that they really like this technology. They want to distribute it with MS Windows, but they decide to change it slightly. So they distribute CollaboratePlus! with Windows. However, the changes they made to Collaborate are closed source. So, you can continue to use Collaborate, but everyone using Windows is going to be using the non backward-compatible CollaboratePlus! Obviously, you can buy Windows if you like, but then you've paid twice for access to the technology (you paid through your taxes, remember).

Now contrast this with the situation if our researcher had GPLed Collaborate. Everyone who paid taxes (and everyone else as well, of course) benefits from the technology. MS can still distribute it with Windows, but if they want to "improve" it, they have to give the new version back to the people who paid for it.

Surely the GPL is better in this situation? I don't mean this as a rhetorical quetion, I'm genuinely interested to know whether you think there's a flaw in my argument.