Halloween X Author Mike Anderer Speaks Out

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."

Comments

Maybe because its early for me, but...

[PimpBot]

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.

Re:Maybe because its early for me, but...

[linuxislandsucks]

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

Re:Maybe because its early for me, but...

[BiggerIsBetter]

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...

Think about how you vote this November.

[Featureless]

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...

Re:Think about how you vote this November.

[Anonymous Coward]

So who should I vote for?

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

Re:Think about how you vote this November.

[lunenburg]

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.

Re:Think about how you vote this November.

[IamTheRealMike]

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.

Re:Think about how you vote this November.

[Masem]

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.

Re:Think about how you vote this November.

[FauxPasIII]

> 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.

Master of political speak

[Saven Marek]

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

Re:it seems to me

[platypussrex]

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.

This guy is such a self-promoting jackass

[Featureless]

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.

Wrong at so many levels

[GillBates0]

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

Musta used a spell checker this time

[robslimo]

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?

I'm RTFAing...

[MyHair]

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...

Re:why attack mike?

[zzabur]

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.

Bigger picture, friend

[The Tyro]

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.

Re:Bigger picture, friend

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Innocent my ass

[theolein]

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.)

Mike Anderer is only now beginning to 'get it'

[iwbcman]

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.

Re:Mike Anderer is only now beginning to 'get it'

[Xenographic]

[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...

SFU

[Earlybird]

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.