Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Halloween X Author Mike Anderer Speaks Out

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the daily-dose-of-sco dept.

cdlu writes "Mike Anderer, author of the now-famous Halloween X document, has spoken out at NewsForge. Among the highlights is a prediction by Mr. Anderer that Microsoft has many more disruptive lawsuits planned up their sleeves."

54 of 424 comments (clear)

  1. Maybe because its early for me, but... by PimpBot · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Since the GPL type license agreements push the liability to the users, who do you go after?


    What exactly does he mean by this? Traditional EULAs push liability onto the user as well.

    1. Re:Maybe because its early for me, but... by linuxislandsucks · · Score: 4, Insightful

      he measn he faisl to graps what copyright law is.. no end user has liability for an author of a work infringe on someone's else work

      --
      Don't Tread on OpenSource
    2. Re:Maybe because its early for me, but... by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, I mean if Person A rips off some of Company B's source code, and includes it in a GPL'd product, which is then distributed by Person C.

      There's two obvious arguments:
      1) Person C is an IP Thief(tm) distributing Company B's copyrighted work (which they are) and must be sued and made an example of.
      2) Person C is an innocent party and received the copy in good faith, and the liability is deferred back to Person A, who actually did the nasty deed.

      Hopefully the latter argument would win, but once you get laywers involved, anything can go wrong...

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    3. Re:Maybe because its early for me, but... by spitzak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Person C definately has to stop distributing the code. Otherwise the original author's copyright is still being violated.

      If person C stops distributing the code, then your answer 2) is correct, they are not liable for anything. But, if person C starts complaining and refusing to comply then they are liable. Depending on what happens, person C could lose a lawsuit, or person C (perhaps a huge company with lots of lawyers) might haul the whole case back into court and get the original judgement thrown out.

  2. Think about how you vote this November. by Featureless · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I just know I'm going to get every partisan in the place foamed up by saying this, but the Clinton DOJ was actually pursuing the MS antitrust case, and the Bush people dropped it like a hot rock.

    IANAL but I know the industry, and so do most of you. Let's be realistic. MS basically got off with a "please don't do it again, OK?"

    And then they immediately started doing it again.

    The only way in the long run to stop this "compete with anything but quality and price" attitude is for the government to finally enforce the antitrust law. And that may only happen if you all vote .

    The Bush people seem perfectly happy with the Microsoft status quo. So, process of elimination...

    --

    Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
    1. Re:Think about how you vote this November. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So who should I vote for?

      Its not as if the Clinton DOJ hasnt had its share of questionable policy.

    2. Re:Think about how you vote this November. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Can't answer that for you, but I have to say, from where I sit the Bush people were more questionable in their first year than Clinton's whole 8.

    3. Re:Think about how you vote this November. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I disagree.

      Janet Reno and John Ashcroft have done quite well trampling on civil liberties.

      Just because the main differences between the two are that one likes Microsoft and the other doesnt, does not make one better than the other.

    4. Re:Think about how you vote this November. by lunenburg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is now, there isn't a reasonable tech saavy person around who can argue that Windows still has a monopoly hold on any market. Linux is an equal or superior product in every possible way, without exception, without question, period. There is nothing MS can do to stop its growth, and its plain as fact for everyone to see. MS is fighting a holding battle as of now. And any future action would require first that MS be proven a current monopoly. Between Linux, MacOSX, and misc. products, it is MOST highly unlikely that MS would face any significant challenge.

      This isn't necessarily directed to you, but to a misconception I've seen over and over again.

      You don't have to have 100% market share to have a monopoly.

      That's not me talking - that's the US Supreme Court. Just because Linux and MacOS exist doesn't negate the fact that Microsoft has a monopoly on desktop computer operating systems. True, one could argue that they do not have a monopoly in the server room, but they still have one on the desktop. And they use that desktop monopoly to try to extend their reach into other areas, which is what ran them afoul of antitrust laws.

      Part of having a monopoly in an area is that you get to dictate the terms in that area. Aside from the Mac, which does not by its existance negate the desktop monopoly, Microsoft names the terms by which the desktop market operates. Their browser quirks define what an acceptable webpage is, not standards. Their document formats define what people use in the office. Their media formats, increasingly, define what people listen to.

      That's their monopoly. Not the fact that Joe Hacker runs KDE at home.

    5. Re:Think about how you vote this November. by jr87 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      really Clinton trashed the economy? and I thought I heard something about the budget being balenced...I even heard some talk of a surplus... I do admit that the DMCA signing was bad but Bush IMO has done very little good for his 4 years so I say OUT.

    6. Re:Think about how you vote this November. by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 5, Insightful
      The problem is now, there isn't a reasonable tech saavy person around who can argue that Windows still has a monopoly hold on any market.

      No offence, but what mad weed are you smoking? Windows isn't a monopoly even though it runs roughly 95% of desktop computers?

      You don't have to have 100% marketshare to be a monopoly. Simply saying "now there is an alternative, kind of, for some people, if they're willing to do complex and expensive migrations means Windows doesn't have a monopoly" is one of the most incredible pieces of doublethink I've seen for along time.

    7. Re:Think about how you vote this November. by Masem · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not only is it important that MS is recognized to have a monopoly, but that there is nothing legally wrong with having a monopoly as long as you are playing fair in the market and maintain the monopoly without interferring in the market. However, once you try to use your monopoly position to prevent entry to the market or to squeeze others out of it, or otherwise use the monopoly position to maintain that position, then it's considered to be a illegal practice, which is what the cruft of the MS trial was about.

      --
      "Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
      "I can see my house from here!" - ST:
    8. Re:Think about how you vote this November. by RetiredMidn · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I just know I'm going to get every partisan in the place foamed up by saying this, but the Clinton DOJ was actually pursuing the MS antitrust case, and the Bush people dropped it like a hot rock.

      IANAL either, and I can be get pretty worked up about how much I detest Microsoft, but as much as I wanted Microsoft to lose, it was pretty obvious the antitrust case was going nowhere. The process moved way too slowly, and the business conditions were changing out from under it (i.e., the companies Microsoft strangled were all dead).

      IMNSHO, the DOJ weakened their case by trying to simplify it. They picked one or two issues to concentrate on, for somewhat rational reasons, but, as a result, failed to convey just how pervasive Microsoft's anti-competitive actions were. All Microsoft had to do was cast doubt on whether the few actions that were highlighted were all that egregious, or whether other market dynamics contributed to the result, and there was nothing left to pursue.

      Furthermore, all the stuff the DOJ omitted is now old news; it would be hard to use it in a new case, because the question would be asked as to why it wasn't brought up before.

    9. Re:Think about how you vote this November. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "And, to be fair as well, there is a high likelihood that the anti-trust action was brought as a political move, rather than one based on law. "

      Have you actually read the ENTIRE anti-trust trial transcript? Ok....maybe I have no life, but I DID read it. No intelligent person could have read that transcript and not derived from it the fact that Microsoft is one of the most corrupt, deceitful, predatory, and ILLEGAL monopolies ever in existance.

      "There is another aspect you might have missed. The DOJ was going for a breakup. Ruling after ruling the DOJ was rebuffed on this issue, at one point the judge saying basically "it ain't ever going to happen with this case". "

      Actually, the truth is a bit different. There was a STRONG probability that Microsoft would have been broken up UNTIL Bush got into office and tossed the original judge off the case because he listened to the PILES of evidence over MANY years and came to the conclusion that Microsoft a huge pile of lying dung. (ok...not in so many words) THEN Bush and Co. said that he was biased. Who in hell wouldn't build up a bias after HEARING THE FACTS and then JUDGING? Isn't that a JUDGES job? To pass judgment? He was tossed out and then Bush stuck a "bought and paid for" judge in to do his bidding. The rest is history.

      "The problem is now, there isn't a reasonable tech saavy person around who can argue that Windows still has a monopoly hold on any market."

      Oh yea? Tell that to all the people that design for the web. More and more websites are flooding the web with Active-X code that locks out any other platform except Windows. Once web standards are polluted by MS, all other platforms will be nearly powerless to demand real standards.

      I for one have been writing my state's AG and the USDOJ for the past 3 years and have gotten NO WHERE. IT IS UP FOR US to vote MS's dominance down in November.

    10. Re:Think about how you vote this November. by FauxPasIII · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > Even with respect to driver support for more recent desktop peripherals? My scanner didn't
      > come with a SANE driver on its CD, and there exists no such driver in SANE CVS either.

      Rather than just stating that it doesn't, think about why it doesn't. Is
      it because of the technical superiority of Windows? Or the superior innovation
      coming out of Microsoft? Do you think they wrote all those drivers themselves?

      Or, is it because the Windows monopoly is, like most monopolies, self-perpetuating?
      Since they have the monopoly, not only do the realities of the market make it
      more likely that Scanners, Inc. will write a Windows driver before, or perhaps
      to the exclusion of all others; it also means that Microsoft is in a position to
      illegally abuse their monopoly by REQUIRING that Scanners, Inc. play by MS's
      rules if they want their scanner to work on Windows at all.

      The playing field is not level at all, as should be obvious. Vendors bend over
      backwards to make their devices work within the bizarro world that is Windows.
      Counterwise, most of them expend no effort whatsoever, often denying even
      basic documentation that would cost them nothing to provide, to the development
      of Linux drivers. The very existence of drivers for ANY sufficiently complex
      devices is a small miracle, and should be taken as testament to the innate superiority
      of Linux and her developers.

      Once the Windows stranglehold is broken, just you sit back and watch what Linux
      turns into when the playing field is leveled.

      --
      25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
    11. Re:Think about how you vote this November. by kryocore · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Follow the crowd, my friend. At least Bush makes it clear where he stands, and sticks to it. I wouldn't have been able to buy a house if it weren't for him. If Gore was elected, I'd be paying mega$$$ in taxes and couldn't afford a down payment. I beleive that the economy will be strengthened by Bush's work, you just don't see it right away(ever excersized? You get weaker when you work out before you get stronger). Then when someone else comes in, and the economy gets good from Bush's doings, the next guy gets the credit. I think this last lul is due to Clinton's destructive habbits. Some people see the truth, and those ones will be set free.

    12. Re:Think about how you vote this November. by Alien+Being · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A candidate who would take big business to task? Easy... Ralph Nader.

    13. Re:Think about how you vote this November. by mt_nixnut · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You seem to be in the camp that believes that all corporate graft began 3 years ago. Corporations like Enron did not prosper in the Bush years but in the Clinton years. In fact the news since Martha has been a beehive of accusations against this administration for (I guess) "picking on" these high profile people. However, I have been told that these are the people that the bush administration favors. I guess this fits in the same logical framework as that Bush == evil mastermind and conspirator/village idiot paradigm I hear so much about these days.

      It has been said often that America has the best government that money can buy. If it makes you sleep better to think that Kerry represents somethings else go for it. But his record will certainly not help you prove it. Bush hatred != answer. It is simply a knee jerk and in my experience residual pouting from the last election because people actually don't like the laws regarding the resolution of close elections and the electoral college. If you don't like it try to change it but no does because we all realize that next time the same laws could work in our favor.

    14. Re:Think about how you vote this November. by Ogerman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      it's just simple market economics. i'd say driver availability pretty much follows relative market share.

      Except that the "relative market share" here was not determined by market economics. Monopoly is still the driving force even if hardware manufacturers are only doing what economically "makes sense" to them. Incidentally, there is virtually no cost in releasing complete hardware documentation so that alternative drivers can be written. And yet most hardware companies still do not do this -- many still refuse, others release partial documentation that only allows basic functionality. This is the reason why many Linux/BSD drivers are so behind. Of course, in some cases, it would be ideal for the hardware manufacturers to help out with open driver development because so much is at stake for them. Video drivers come to mind because the volume of sales is significant. (ie. just about everybody buys either ATI or NVidia chips)

    15. Re:Think about how you vote this November. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You are too wise to be posting to Slashdot...

      Also worth noting: While the Bush administration may have dropped the MS lawsuit, the Clinton gang (including SCO attorney David Boies) won a marvelouslly toothless victory. If the conservative path is paved with bad intentions, the liberal path is paved with good intentions -- the same pavement used on the proverbial road to Hell.

      And, if you're really cynical, you just might see American liberalism for what it really is: A relentless cycle of paying people a pittance to remain poor and stay ignorant. Then blame corporate greed -- not bureaucracy and poorly conceived public programs -- for the mess you make.

      Long live libertarians and other independent (and usuall logical) thinkers.

    16. Re:Think about how you vote this November. by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > It was the Supreme Court who decided that
      > Jackson was biased. It was not Bush.

      Er, the same Supreme Court that got Bush elected with a minority of the vote?

      And Jackson GOT biased by hearing Bill Gates hem and haw in his taped testimony, and watching Microsoft lawyers tamper with the videos produced as evidence in court.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    17. Re:Think about how you vote this November. by fucksl4shd0t · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's not the worst of it, either. Because if you vote for the third candidate, the front runner you disliked the most is more likely to win, because had you cast your vote for a front runner, it wouldn't have been him.

      Every time a third party candidate gets recognition for winning a lot of votes, the front runner that is least liked is the one that wins. I'm going to cast my vote for whoever Democrat is running because I really don't think the Democrats will put someone up who is as bad as Bush.

      I'm also really hoping I'm right about that, because if the Democrats put up someone who's worse than Bush, we're screwed in a big way.

      --
      Like what I said? You might like my music
  3. Master of political speak by Saven+Marek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Did anyone else read this interview and get the feeling that Anderer spoke a lot but didn't really say anything specific or all that relevant?

    nude mac desktops

  4. Re:it seems to me by platypussrex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    that he is making the tacit assumption that many of these lawsuits have merit, and that much of the liability is real. Perhaps some do, but the large majority are nothing more than extortion and should be dealt with in a summary fashion.

    A few judges with some testicular fortitude will solve the problem much more quickly than a thousand companies raising the price of their software in order to pay all the lawyers who are helping muddy the waters.

  5. This guy is such a self-promoting jackass by Featureless · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Lot of "I'm a clever entrepeneur" doublespeak, backing up the fact that he:

    • Thinks Software Patents are a great business model
    • Believes barratry will be the driving force in the OS industry's "renaissance."


    What an asshole.
    --

    Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
  6. More poor editorial by m00nun1t · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The article doesn't say anything about
    "Microsoft has many more disruptive lawsuits planned up their sleeves".

    It talk about lawsuits against Microsoft. RTFA:
    "In a world where there are $500 million dollar patent infringement lawsuits imposed on OS companies ... I suspect Microsoft may have 50 or more of these lawsuits in the queue."

    And further, how many lawsuits has Microsoft initiated (except piracy, which is justified IMHO)? There are probably some, but off the top of my head I can't think of a single one. They aren't the multi-headed legal beast attacking all over the place the /. "editors" would portray them to be.

    /. credibility: -1

    --
    Read reviews of shopping cart software
    1. Re:More poor editorial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That's a point that I think people often miss. MS likes to play hardball, but they don't like to do it in public. They'll keep things at the lower levels as long as possible, and when/if they do go after someone in a public way, it'll only be once to set the example. Then it'll be back to trench warfare so Bill can keep telling people how warm and fuzzy he is.

  7. Wrong at so many levels by GillBates0 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Choice quote from the article:
    In a world where there are $500 million dollar patent infringement lawsuits imposed on OS companies (although this is not completely settled yet), how would somebody like Red Hat compete when 6 months ago they only had $80-$90 million in cash? At that point they could not even afford to settle a fraction of a single judgment without devastating their shareholders. I suspect Microsoft may have 50 or more of these lawsuits in the queue. All of them are not asking for hundreds of millions, but most would be large enough to ruin anything but the largest companies. Red Hat did recently raise several hundred million which certainly gives them more staying power. Ultimately, I do not think any company except a few of the largest companies can offer any reasonable insulation to their customers from these types of judgments. You would need a market cap of more than a couple billion to just survive in the OS space.

    This attitude is wrong at SO many levels. New players can't enter the OS space NOT because they will have to compete against marketing schemes/ad campaigns of a richer company BUT because they'll be sued into oblivion by the competition.

    It is being assumed here that a company with $85 million in the bank won't be able to survive because they don't have money to survive a LAWSUIT...the quality of their products/service/innovation apparently doesn't even enter the equation anywhere.

    litiguous fucking bastards

    --
    An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
    1. Re:Wrong at so many levels by Monkelectric · · Score: 2, Insightful
      This is probably the doomsday scenario for linux... We in the OSS community have been saying, "Linux is good, linux is the revolution, linux is freedom and freedom is inevitable. Besides, what can MS do?" And now we have the answer to that question.

      The problem with the legal system is it's stacked against the small guy from start to finish. This is how it's stacked: Consequences. There are *NO* consequences for setting out to ruin somebody. None whatsoever. What are the consequences for MS and SCO for this fraud so far? Lots of money. The money train will end, but it will still have been a nice trip for them. We in the OSS revolution need to make sure MS and SCO get their clocks cleaned.

      If the SEC/DOJ won't step up to the plate, we need to be prepared to do real damage on our own. -- which is going to suck because there's no legal way to accomplish that -- court rooms and the halls of government are their venues.

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

  8. Musta used a spell checker this time by robslimo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do you recall reading that leaked memo (Halloween X)? A lot of us doubted its authenticity in light of the atrocious spelling and grammar.

    For this article, ol' Mikey must have used a spell checker. Heck, given his grammar problems, he must have had someone proofread it for him. Hmmm, ghostwriter?

  9. I'm RTFAing... by MyHair · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The first two sentences are already setting off my bullshit alarm.

    I will file close to 20 patents this year for companies in many spaces, including homeland security, anti-terrorism,

    He's trying to build himself up and throw in sympathetic issues. But he's doing it the wrong way to the wrong audience I think.

    (I'm not saying he didn't do those things, but when somebody starts like that they're usually about to feed you some bullshit.)

    Anyway, off to read the rest...

  10. I had thought that MS didn't... by burgburgburg · · Score: 2, Insightful
    personally tend to sue over these sorts of things. Does this mean that they're going to start openly funding their SCO strawman to keep the lawsuit queue filled with bogus IP claims for years to come? How will the Justice Department feel about this behavior from a company that has already been civilly judged to be a monopolist?

    Oh wait, I forgot who's in charge of the "Justice" Department: wrist slap, settlement, look the other way. Never mind.

  11. Re:why attack mike? by zzabur · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Perhaps being an (ex-)man of SCO and a friend of Darl McBride (in case he has real friends) is enough for many of us. But there is more in it. If you actually read the article, you will find plenty of reasons to consider this guy a major asshole. Here is a short list:

    • He fails completely to understand what the free software and open source movements are all about.
    • He seems to think that filing totally meritless bogus lawsuits to be bought out is a fair and legitimate business model.
    • He says that small companies like Redhat have no place in software business, as they cannot pay the protection money to the SCO mafia.
    • Based on the points above, he considers himself a true visionary.
    • Yet he seems to think that all the people who actually wrote the software in question, don't have any reason to disagree with his/SCO's vision to get payout for the work they didn't do.
    --
    Auferre trucidare rapere falsis nominibus imperium, atque ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
  12. Horde Ideas and sue everyone in sight? by TampaTim · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This article reminds me why (if I remember correctly) GPL was created in the first place. Some of the ideas he talks about just seem so absurd. Companies hording ideas(IP in this case), cash, resources(bright coders, etc) and creating, via lawsuits and EULA's, an artificial barrier around their 'idea pool'.

    Microsoft, et al. would very much like starve GNOME/KDE and Linux of IP and innovation it seems. Hell, I go even futher as to say starve the whole world. Is it just me or doesn't seem like that's what many US conglomorations are about. Hording resources, creating artificial scarcity and PROFIT!!!

    The GPL is the perfect antidote. In the case of software, innovations can very easily benifit everyone. Everything is shared, including ideas. Instead of starving your fellow humans so you can charge them a nice hefty check, you feed them, ... and amzingly some of them feed you back! (they take your ideas and build on them, or more directly, donate resources to you).

    As a final note, look, I know this is the real world. We all have to survive, companies want to survive, but I can't handle the amount of greed and hording that has come as a product of the "greed is good" philosophy of modern corporate culture. Too many people in this world our just customers to suck cash and vitality out of.

    Regards,
    Tim

  13. Bigger picture, friend by The+Tyro · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just offhand, I'd guess there's much larger fish on GWBush's grill than the microsoft case.

    Let's look at this from a larger perspective: the economy is just beginning to recover from the tech bust (not really bush's doing; presidents don't control the economy), there's a war and reconstruction effort going on, there's the ongoing hunt for terrorists, it's an election year... and you want Bush to focus on Microsoft?

    Microsoft has the money, and we all know that politicians can be bought... John Kerry has certainly taken his share of special interest money over the years. So who would you have us vote for? Nader? (let's be realistic... he has no chance of winning).

    Listen, if you want to take shots at Bush... have at it... that's practically required here at Slashdot. However, let's also be realistic about the bigger picture, and the lack of palatable alternatives. Kerry's no prize.

    --
    Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
    1. Re:Bigger picture, friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're right - and another poster made the same point. Money has a lot to do with politics. All I am pointing out is that there appears to be a lesser evil. Or look at it my way: when they screw up, just keep voting the bastards out... better to keep spinning the wheel than give up! If you believe our chances with Kerry might be better - even microscopically better is enough to justify it.

      It's a big government. It took political attention span to stop the antitrust case, not the other way around.

      Monopolies are terrible for the economy. Showing you're serious about economic policy might be very good for a sitting president with problems like Bush.

      You can make criticism of Bush look like a reflex on Slashdot, the same way everyone paints the readership as Linux zealots or anti-Microsoft... But pardon me for being blunt, I call it rude and ignorant.

      It seems to annoy people when a group develops a consensus on something - even when they are correct. Even when what they disapprove of is particularly egregious. Microsoft doesn't deserve scorn, here or wherever thinking people discuss things? Hello? SCO?

      You know what you sound like to me? "If you want to take shots at Hitler... have at it... that's practically required here at soc.culture.jewish."

      And we, on Slashdot, should be called "partisan" (or the same implied) as if the political developments of the last 4 years don't suitably justify it?

      Sorry, just have to get that off my chest. Snidely poking at a consensus opinion (without appearing to worry on wether it's correct) just makes you look ignorant. Say why you think Bush gets short shrift, if you feel differently.

      Don't you think there's a reason people here (and in general anywhere people are more educated than average) dislike Bush?

    2. Re:Bigger picture, friend by DF5JT · · Score: 2, Insightful

      " If you vote for Nader, you are voting for Bush."

      That's rubbish. If you vote for Nader, you vote for Nader. Whatever the final percentage is, let it be 5% of all voters, that makes roughly 6 Million people who made their voice heard. If the US's parliamentary system does not allow six Million people to be heard in the ensuing government or parliamentary representation, then that is a fundamental flaw in the system.

      And that can only be changed by showing that people want a third power, a voice that is distictly different from those two monolithic party blocks whose political identies are not differetn in their only goal: Stay in power.

    3. Re:Bigger picture, friend by Alien+Being · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I voted for Nader in 2000 and it didn't help GW one bit.

      I'm from MA. This state's electoral votes are all going to the dems. No two ways about it. I'm voting Nader again. It won't hurt the anti-Bush effort. Kerry doesn't need my help anyway. I'll be able to look myself in the mirror. And maybe, just maybe, it will improve the viability of future independent and 3rd party candidates.

    4. Re:Bigger picture, friend by Jagasian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The main problems with Bush are:

      1. He lied in order to drag our country into war (with Iraq) that has cost of almost a hundred billion dollars and will most likely cost billions more. It also resulted in over 10 thousand deaths, far more than Osama's kill count. Just imagine if Bush decided to convince the country to put hundreds of billions of dollars into rewiring our telecom infustructure with fiber to the curb? We would be having a dot-com boom that would make the 90s look like nothing!

      2. His and his VP's connections with corporate fraudsters such as Enron. Corruption, not terrorism, will be the end of this great country. Look at other countries that have turned to crap... it starts with a little corruption and that corruption slowly grows until it can no longer be handled. Then your country ends up like Haiti or some other banana republic.

      Number 1 is grounds for treason, while number 2 is grounds for impeachment. I am sorry, but I will NOT be voting for Bush this time around.

  14. Innocent my ass by theolein · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This interview left me boiling. It is so full of Microsoft PR and empty nothingness that there can be just no way thta this guy is not in this up to his ears.

    Quotes:
    I suspect Microsoft may have 50 or more of these lawsuits in the queue. All of them are not asking for hundreds of millions, but most would be large enough to ruin anything but the largest companies.

    Translation: Yeah, Microsoft is behind the lawsuit. Oops I let the cat out the bag, because I hardly mentioned SCO in the article and gushed about Microsoft for most of it. And a little theatening works wonder now and again, doesn't it, nudge ndge, wink wink, say no more.

    Since the GPL type license agreements push the liability to the users, who do you go after? I think this is a key problem. Nobody wants to be the ultimate guarantor for software that was free (or close to it). I think the dispute with SCO would have been settled a long time ago if everybody knew this was the last one. The problem is there will probably be hundreds or even thousands of these disputes in the future and the targets will be the companies with the deepest pockets. Even if the large vendors disclaim all responsibility initially, I do not think the customers will accept this from their vendors for very long. In the meantime, I don't see anybody being in a hurry to write the first big check.

    Translation: I'm just busy repeating what Darl has been pissing into the winds so I can make people worry more than they are. Yet even I am just too fucking stupid to understand the GPL and still don't get it. (hint to Mike: You and your kind of greedy money grabbing fuckwits deserve to get your assses sued out of existence for your stupidity: If there is no proprietry IP in the Linux kernel then the GPL protects us very well.)

    I have also had several long lost friends contact me. I think they thought I might need some support.

    Tranlsation: Bill and Darl have been on the phone screaming at me for that leaked letter. They have warned me to only say nice things about Microsoft and SCO. (Hint for Mike: You're gonna need that support mike, because IBM is almost certain to subpoena your ass into court, and if they don't Novell and RedHat will. After that you will know what it's like to get screwed in the butt by a big hairy Convict.)

  15. Mike Anderer is only now beginning to 'get it' by iwbcman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Firstly, I admire Mike Anderer for speaking up for himself. Although he is apparently very well known in the insider community of IP-financing he was unknown to the rest of the world prior to ESR's Halloween X release. Being catapulted into the public eye in such a way is not easy for anyone, even more so when the response of the public at large is quite venomous.
    Secondly, I get the impression that Mike Anderer is almost there, almost beiginning to fathom the changes in the software industry which he has referred to. He is not simply stuck in the old-style IP tradition which became utterly dominant in the last 20 years-no he was one of the architects of this development.
    Secondly, For people like him compatibility, exhangability and interoperatibilty means cross-licenscing. According to this view if companies want to exchange documents between various applications cross-licensing agreements must already be in place which allow for this to happen.I can imagine that for many companies, during the time frame where the IP hegemony system was comming into being(early 80's), the idea of cross-licenscing as the way to enable open exchange and interoperation was quite obvious and even common sensical.
    What people didn't realize then, and which many fail to still realize now, is that all of the problems of compatibility, exhangability and interoperatibilty are created by this IP regime to begin with. Only when one sees that these issues are contrived issues, issued which have no technical merit, and are issues which themselves promote and prolong their own very being, does one begin to see how self-servingt the IP regime really is.
    Mike Anderer has been in the buisness of creating the need for his own buisness for the last 20 years- and he is not alone. He is but one of an entire industry of IP tychoons which arose in the ecosystem of IP. HE and people like him worked to develop the IP system and these same people then provided the solutions to the self-created problems which the IP system inherently produces-one could view this as a form of autopoesis.
    Thirdly, his confusing of the GPL with public domain is pre-programmed. The notion that something can be licensced in such a way that this license itself cannot be bought or sold contradicts, in it's very roots, what licensces have always traditionally meant. The price of the GPL is priceless -and the free software community will stand forever in debt to the brilliance of this licensce. Mike Anderer cannot really grasp this concept fully without fundamentally re-evalutating what licenscing means-and this is of course the fundament of his occupation for the last 20 odd years. For him to fathom this sea-change in the software industry it is necessary for him to understand the incredibly subtle, yet profoundly deep difference between the GPL and public domain/propietary IP.
    Understanding this difference means relinquishing the defining oppsoite self-definition of IP-IP has always defined itself through it's opposition to it's other(andere)- public domain. The two notions need each other and exist for each other's benefit. The temporary evil of IP find's it's absolution in the eventual transition to public domain. The defered time, the temporary evil-to-be-covercome, constitutes the horizon of the economy of relative value which is traded in the IP system.
    The GPL is never public domain and is never to be bought or sold-it is a-economic in the strictest sense of the word. For Mike Anderer to understand this he would need to call into question the raison d'etre of his entire proffesional life and therein lies the damning self-service of the IP industry.

    1. Re:Mike Anderer is only now beginning to 'get it' by Xenographic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      [The following is from my post to this story on Groklaw.]

      Okay, I'm not a lawyer, much less one who specializes in patents. I am, however, a mathematician who has done some game theory.

      Basically, ALL companies are vulnerable to something I have dubbed an "IP Vampire." Whereas other businesses have products, which make them vulnerable to counter-suits over patents, an "IP Vampire" has no products. It has nothing but patents, lawyers, and enough capital to sue. It is NOT vulnerable to counter-suits, so they have only to weigh their case: license the patent, or settle. Either of these costs the business they sink their teeth into. Even defending themselves successfully costs them money. It's a no win situation for the business they bite. Enough of them can drain any company. Anyone who sponsors them is short-sighted. As long as it is legal, the competition can do this just as well as they can. For a monopoly to do this, one might think it could raise anti-trust issues, but I suspect a lawyer would have to make that arguement, and I am not one.

      Microsoft is every bit as vulnerable to these as the next company. It nearly got hit for 500M thanks to Eolas. They should be glad that that patent did not have so much prior art. They cannot win them all.

      If this is legal, everyone who can do this will. At some point, they will have to sponsor such suits just to stay alive (or to try to). If it's not legal, game over. I hope that someone can eventually find a way to straighten much of this out. Personally, I would end software patents for starters... software is just mathematics, and anyone who says otherwise is spouting nonsense. I do not agree that mathematics should ever be patented. We know that it is not necessary to drive mathematical innovation, after all. Ask Euclid and company. I can only wonder how much mathematical progress would have been lost if all the works of antiquity could not have been preserved... we had all too few copies of the great mathematical works to learn from for too long, after all...

      But I digress. The principle behind an "IP Vampire" is simple. Defending against them is futile. I suspect that Microsoft is thus banking on the only principle of that game to their advantage--whoever has the most money, especially if they move first, wins.

      But that would eliminate all competition. If our anti-trust regulators are that asleep at the switch, well... something will have to be done... I know all to well that if you don't like the rules, you have to change the game. I know a few other games to play. I would rather not play any of them, however. It is like the movie "WarGames" -- the only way to win is not to play.

      In the mean time, I think that publicity will probably suffice. The more people who know why they do not want to do business with Microsoft, or anyone else who promulgates these insidious "IP Vampires" the better...

    2. Re:Mike Anderer is only now beginning to 'get it' by Azureflare · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Your comment rocks, man. Kudos to you. You should write that in to an online publication before they steal it from slashdot ;)

      At any rate, I think there's something you should follow up on: Perhaps Mike Anderer DOES understand that the GPL threatens his livelihood. It could be, and I think it's very possible, that he is saying this, deliberately misrepresenting the GPL, so that he CAN save his livelihood! If the GPL becomes widely adopted, because it gets rid of all that IP muss, Anderer will be out of a job. He knows there's an avalanche falling, but he's hoping that placing a twig in such a way will stop it...

      It'd have to be a pretty strong twig, though.

  16. Re:why attack mike? by laird · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This "interview" was amazing. With any luck it will establish that this guy is a buffoon.

    Most striking was the self-aggrandizing hot air about how many wonderful "channels" and "patents" he's created. If he's that wonderful, you'd think that someone would have heard of him, or that he could name any major deal he's done.

    I particularly liked him arguing that a "small company" like Red Hat doesn't have the resources to stay in the OS business because they only had a few $100M in the bank, ignoring the comparison with SCO, also in the OS business and with much less in the bank. Of course, Red Hat also has a growing, profitable business with products, customers and revenue, while SCO pretty much only has former customers and lawsuits. By his logic, shouldn't SCO shut down because it doesn't have enough money to survive even a fraction of one settlement?

    And what was that bit about the GPL pushing liability onto the users? I thought that was what the EULA was for.

    Astounding that someone so incoherent could actually make a living.

    --
    Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
  17. Re:Misconstrued by Tim+Macinta · · Score: 2, Insightful
    No. He's clearly saying that he believes MS has 50 or more lawsuits that it will back
    I think that he's actually talking about Microsoft defending against 50 or more lawsuits, or at least being ambiguous about it. Look at how he starts the paragraph:
    In a world where there are $500 million dollar patent infringement lawsuits imposed on OS companies (although this is not completely settled yet), how would somebody like Red Hat compete when 6 months ago they only had $80-$90 million in cash? At that point they could not even afford to settle a fraction of a single judgment without devastating their shareholders. I suspect Microsoft may have 50 or more of these lawsuits in the queue.
    It sounds to me like he's talking about the Eolas suit against Microsoft in the first sentence. He leads off talking about how Microsoft has needed to defend its turf because of the nature of the OS business, says that RedHat would be crushed by a judgment of the same kind which Microsoft was handed (the fine was $500M), and then points out that the Eolas suit is not unique and that Microsoft faces suits like that quite frequently. That would seem to be how the sentence was meant given the lead-in, but maybe he intentionally phrased things ambiguously enough to be taken either way.
    --

    -----

    Free P2P Backup, Windows & Linux

  18. Re:And think about who Osama would vote for, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It is very unclear who you think he would vote for.

    Would it be Kerry, because He is scared of Bushes commertials on TV? And maybe his wide funding of militarization? (although OBL avoids the military completely when attacking)

    Would it be Bush? Because OBL wants bad things to happen to the US: The Crash of the economy, Citizens which aren't taken care of because of few social services, disapearance of natural ressources because of bad environment policies, things that make the country generally poor and leaves it in a state of chaos and fear.

    I personally think OSL would vote for Bush. He would predict that the poor state of the country would probablably make it more vulnarable to attacks and use this to his advantage. I mean remember that OSL made is attack avoiding the military altogether. All the thanks planes Nuclear missiles Bush is putting money in wouldn't do a thing to stop the type of attacks OSL does. Better intelligence perhaps, but we all know Bush has failed at that.

    But who where you referring to?

  19. SFU by Earlybird · · Score: 4, Insightful
    From the article:
    • They [Microsoft] developed some pretty incredible functionality into things like SFU 3.5 (which I just got for free with a systems magazine). [emphasis mine]

    Er. I think not.

    SFU is a bunch of half-arsed stuff cobbled together from existing licensed products, some of which could be replaced by better Free Software (such as Cygwin).

    It's designed to cater to legacy Unix environments -- sites still stuck with NIS, NFS, telnet etc. -- not modern Linux/*BSD environments.

    A proper, non-legacy "services for Unix" package would include Cygwin, OpenSSH, encrypted Samba access, CUPS support etc., and it would have the unfortunate but amusing effect of driving the customer away from Windows, not the opposite.

  20. Re:Public Domain Linux - Microsoft's Goal by Sri+Ramkrishna · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm not sure I completely agree here. Yes, there is a threat of another Unix clone that could mimic the functionality of Linux and it's APIs based on the original AT&T Unix.

    But we need to put things into perspective:

    1) Linux has an active community around it. That is hard to beat. You still cannot compete against a worldwide bunch of people continually hacking on the kernel wrt Microsoft hacking on it's own kernel.
    2) The code is still free, it's still a free product. I believe MS-Linux will cost you bucks and they are still controlled by market forces. Secondly, their attention will be split between their Windows product line and their Linux product lines. SUpporting two OS's and two different versions of Offices? I don't know sounds EXPENSIVE. THink shareholders would go for that?
    3) Eventually, you'll fragment the whole Unix market by adding this third challenger. The fight will be who will be the standard. That might be Linux vs MS-Linux. A fight I think Linux will win because of the first point.

    Overall, I just don't see how Microsoft can make money from this. You'll be throwing millions of dollars for very little gain. If the gambit fails, Microsoft will only help strengthen Linux's lead.
    sri

  21. How do you know? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "If they're terrorists"

    How did you make that determination?

    But more importantly, a US citizen on US soil has all his contitutional rights, whether you want to call him a pedophile, a terrorist, or just a meanie.

    For the supression of habeus corpus, Bush deserves to go. For his continual cow-towing to the IP lobby, for his erosion of human rights, for his bungling of the entire middle east, he deserves to go.

    I've never voted for a democrat in my life (yes, I'm OLD), this will be the first time. Bush is really awful.

  22. Feeling a bit put upon by crucini · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My impression of Mike's document is that he's gotten some angry reactions from people on the net, and is feeling a little hurt and surprised. He probably sees himself as an ambassador, one who moves freely through the Linux, Unix and Microsoft worlds, as well as navigating the murkier waters of "channels" and secretive financing. So to some extent, I guess he sees himself as a member of the "geek tribe".

    I think his conscience may be troubling him a little now that he's forced to look back on the Microsoft deal. At the time, it was probably so exciting that he rode past such considerations, as many people have done. After all, it wasn't illegal or clearly wrong - the wrongness is more visible now that SCO has become such a high profile enemy of Linux. But now that the angry mob is after him, Mike can't afford reflection. He has to dig in his heels and affirm his SCO ideology.

    Mike mentions being harrassed by an individual with five online handles, all registered as underage for extra legal protection. To what forum is he referring? Does slashdot have this underage checkbox? Did he sue the harrasser and get a subpoena, or was he forestalled by the underage status?

    Mike gives an overview of his accomplishments - the numerous companies founded and patents granted. I think the message here is that he is not simply a shady dealmaker, but a technologist who has helped to move the industry forward. So clearly, his "geek cred" is important to him. Unlike Darl, Mike isn't playing to the Wall Street Journal readers. He'd like slashdotters to, if not forgive, at least understand.

  23. Anderer expected a settlement by ppanon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think one real issue, that people are skirting, is who will be the ultimate guarantor of IP-related issues in a world that is governed by the GPL and GPL-like licenses. I could easily see IBM, HP, Sun, and many of the other large hardware players solving this problem tomorrow by settling the dispute with SCO and maybe even taking the entire code base and donating it into the public domain. I know this is what I originally thought would happen, at least the settlement part. I am not certain what people who paid tens of millions for licenses would say if what they paid for was now free, but that is a different issue.

    Anderer expected a settlement and probably so did SCO. They never counted on IBM pimp-slapping them in court 'pour encourager les autres' to not repeat the same mistake. In the long run, that's the most effective way to be a guarantor of IP-related issues. Paying off blackmail just encourages more of the same (especially if it's for doctored picts).

    However people in the computing and IT industries shouldn't be surprised that what they licenced for tens of millions of $ was now free. It's the result of the commoditization of products and is partially related to why you can get a $500 PC that is faster than a $10 million mainframe/supercomputer from 20 years ago.

    Did those companies and managers get enough ROI on those tens of millions to amortize their costs before the price dropped? After all Linux has been available for a while even if it's only been gaining mainstream commercial acceptance for a few years. The writing was on the wall for anyone smart enough to read it. If IT directors were planning on amortizing $10million+ costs over more than 5 years, they were dreaming or counting on non-existent first-mover advantages that also bit a lot of .coms.

    If somebody with that kind of purchasing power is upset, then either a) they don't know this industry or b) they are idiots to be upset that their overhead just shrunk massively. Either way, they shouldn't be holding that position and if this is what it takes to get them replaced, so much the better.

    --
    Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
  24. Calm yourself by The+Tyro · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Mr. Wright is it? I don't necessarily disagree with everything you wrote... your tone could use a bit of work.

    I'd love to see you define 'state sponsors of terrorism', 'genocidal regimes' and (especially nice) 'rogue nations pursuing WMD'

    Challenge accepted.

    State Sponsor of Terrorism: Iran (also Syria)
    Genocidal Regime: Iraq, N. Korea (primarily against its own starving people)
    Rogue nation pursuing WMD: Iran, N. Korea, (also Syria)

    You brought up a good point. Like you, I don't think the list should be only 3 countries long... there are plenty more I would add... but all in good time; we'll deal with the worst first.

    just like going round the League of Nations was right?

    The UN wasn't doing its job... somebody had to do it.

    Good thing - because you're not.

    Really? Perhaps you're a pacifist... I am not. I have no problem hunting and killing terrorists and their allies. In fact, I've personally taken part in/supported operations of exactly that type during my military service. To answer your unspoken question, yes... I sleep very well at night.

    some poor British guy (web designer) who you held hostage for 2 years, tortured, starved, and beat, ritually.

    So he says... I don't know the circumstances under which he was captured, and neither do you. As for his claims... I'm sure he has no axe to grind against his captors... If he innocent, I'm glad he was released. Yes, 2 years is a chunk out of his life he'll never get back, but at least he's free now... the system was slow, and certainly less than ideal, but it worked.

    Hating America, and Americans, is increasingly easy these days. Because of fuckers like you. We know we shouldn't, but jesus, you're loud obnoxious pricks.

    On the contrary, Mr. Wright... I've simply offered some reasoned counterpoint to some fairly over-the-top posts. I'm frankly surprised that you're so upset... that kind of vehemence in the face of this simple debate says something about you, sir.

    don't fuck with the rest of the world

    This may come as a surprise to you, but nothing would please most americans more than to simply be left alone. We didn't ask for this fight... but the Al-Queda have been targeting americans for over ten years, and it's time to deal with them, and the environment that's spawned them (radical islam and state terrorist sponsors).

    --
    Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
  25. Consistently voting for Nader... by leonbrooks · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...is one way to make him a front-runner. Not that Nader is without his faults, but he'd be a Godsend compared with his alternates.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  26. Re:Misconstrued by nathanh · · Score: 2, Insightful
    It sounds to me like he's talking about the Eolas suit against Microsoft in the first sentence. He leads off talking about how Microsoft has needed to defend its turf because of the nature of the OS business, says that RedHat would be crushed by a judgment of the same kind which Microsoft was handed (the fine was $500M), and then points out that the Eolas suit is not unique and that Microsoft faces suits like that quite frequently. That would seem to be how the sentence was meant given the lead-in, but maybe he intentionally phrased things ambiguously enough to be taken either way.

    I agree with your interpretation. Anderer is saying that litigation has become commonplace in the IT industry. Some of these lawsuits (eg, Eolas vs Microsoft) might result in judgements on the order of $500 million. He believes Microsoft is defending themselves against 50 such suits right now and he doesn't think open-source companies would have the cash reserves to defend against similar nuisance lawsuits (esp. w.r.t patents). If open-source was to dominate the landscape then the industry would be decimated in mere months by the sheer number of $500 million judgements against developers.

    He is basically saying "this is a game for the big boys and you open-sourcers are too puny to play in this arena, so go home and stop bothering us". Arrogant, true. But possibly correct. I don't personally believe his argument but I can see where he's coming from.

    Of course, the common interpretation is that Anderer is threatening open-source companies. The last line is being intepreted to mean Microsoft is initiating 50 more lawsuits like SCO vs IBM. I don't buy that argument because Anderer would have to be stupid to voluntarily tell everybody about the conspiracy. Unfortunately because certain prominent people are stating that particular interpretation as if it were fact, all other interpretations are being ignored or shouted down.