Slashdot Mirror
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."
C&D's don't mean anything - they're just scare tactics. The thing about the GPL which I suspect he's alluding to, is that you are allowed to redistributed copyrighted works if you stick to the terms. However, the act of redistributing GPL'd works could be argued as also breaching traditional copyright, if a previous contributor has included someone else's copyrighted work. Whether it would stick I don't know, but that's the obvious end-user attack - if they are redistributing the code in question. It doesn't affect Joe User who downloads Mandrake and runs it on his box at home.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
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.
.
To be fair, Bush campaigned openly that he'd instruct the DOJ to seek a settlement. 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. That's not to discount the legal merits of the case, but that's the reason the case was brought. Most of the evidence supports the idea that Sun, AOL/Netscape, and other hi-techs with *vast* lobbying efforts in Washington DC consistently lobbied for a harsh line against MS. Both Clinton and Al Gore personally appealed to higher ups during the Clinton re-election for campaign donations - and both were refused. Until this point, MS had no widescale lobbying program, no nationwide political agenda, and no significant history of donations or involvement in DC politics. Not long after the Clinton re-election did the real meat of the DOJ attack start. The strongest likelihood is that MS was being punished for being politically neutral. The result? Now MS learned that lesson and in less than 10 years has the most well-funded lobbying operation in history. Go figure.
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?"
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". At that point, the DOJ "lost" in terms of public perception. They lost the case by not winning their chosen punishment. Any penalty tha the point was moot - as we know, MS can work around any wording no matter how clever.
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 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.
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?
Yes. My favorite is:
"I helped build the channels for most of the products that corporate America is currently using and some they will be using soon."
So he builds "channels". To quote Benjy mouse "Sounds very significant without actually tying you down to meaning anything."
The real Ralph Yarro posts as Anonymous Coward. Anyone else is an impostor.
- I have filed more patents and owned/managed more businesses than you can think of. This deal was a microscopic, ultimately forgettable fraction of my business.
- I have nothing to say about the money Microsoft funneled to SCO (my excuse is that they won't let me).
- Everybody licenses Unix and they've been doing so for years. SCO as a licensor is only executing a rational business decision based on current market trends. Microsoft bought SCO licenses for SFU just like everybody else has been doing for years, there's nothing wrong with it.
- Microsoft is actually cooperating with you Linux guys with their SFU. They're good guys!
- The GPL makes IP matters confusing, and we have to leave it to the big companies like Sun and SCO to figure it out for the rest of us. They might even be kind enough to give it all away for free!
- Red Hat is still a bunch of small boys. Do you really think this johnny-just-come company with a few hundred million in the bank can actually indemnify its customers from the devastating effects of a settlement? They will be obliterated in no time! Better leave it to the big guys (Sun, MS, SCO...).
- We used to have all this crap figured out with patents and cross-licensing and stuff. You GPL people came around and messed up the whole thing, and now we're trying to clean up your mess. Stop making noise and let's clean this whole thing up for you.
- Why is everyone picking on me? I've done a lot of good stuff, and nobody says anything about that!
[Wow. I have to give this guy an award for managing to say so little in so many words.]
Am I a hipster-doofus?
You are right but I don't see how this has anything to do with the GPL. It applies to every software distributor out there.
The argument is always that the GPL specifically transfers some liability that other licenses don't. By your argument, Somebody can sue IBM for code it got from Computer Associates.
How does the GPL transfer liability. Liability != Waranty.
"Fighting terrorists with millitary might is like killing a mosquitor on your Dad's forehead with a rifle."
Up until the mid 90s, Microsoft hadn't initiated a single lawsuit against anybody. If memory serves, the first lawsuit involved one of the larger distributors of bogus Microsoft software, so even that was fairly benign. This is not a litigation-happy company.
That said, they have started to wrap some pretty evil licenses around all technical information disseminated about Windows, its SDKs and technical papers. Furthermore, they're starting to layer gratuitous DRM over the new MS Office file formats even where it doesn't make sense, leaving room to invoke the DMCA when people make Office file format importers/exporters.
MS salespeople have started to tell shops migrating to Linux that there would be "legal issues" preventing Linux from interoperating with future versions of Windows. There may well be a sea change in Microsoft's tactics ahead, or the salesmen may be talking through their hats. Either way, MS is starting to build up an arsenal of twisted legal manipulation every bit as formidable as IBM's patent arsenal.
Linux is an equal or superior product in every possible way, without exception
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.
Not everything is all black and white.
3)Person C is not inocent but its not guilty until it knows about it. Its the job of company B to tell all parties: "Hey you have my code please remove it from you software. And by the way I want compensation from the ones who but the code in there.". Only if company B doesn't comply would it be in danger of litigation.
I even think that it is REQUIRED by B to try to resolve the problem BEFORE going to court. By telling A and C to remove the code. Of course if it can prove A knew it was copying copyrighted material when A did it, B could claim some damages.
I would of though that everyone would know about these things by now with all of the SCO, Growklaw etc... brouhaha
oh and IANAL but I did a project on IP law once. (Canadian IP law, but because of international agreements I think it is very similar to US laws)
This guy has a messianic complex. I thought it was telling how he describes himself and his incredible career. Also rather naive of him to implicitly threaten companies who don't have billions in cash to defend fake IP lawsuits. Also rather stupid of him not to be able to imagine a world in which GPL protects producers AND consumers. Marianne
However, he is mistaken that "GPL type licence agreements push the liablity to the users." The GPL specifically puts the patent onus on the code contributor.
As far as end-user liability goes, I fail to see the difference between the GPL and the EULAs of closed software. While GPL projects are certainly vulnerable, there have already been significant successful patent infringement claims against closed software that may affect the end-users of that software.
For example, Timeline recently won a patent infringement suit against Microsoft that potentially could require licencing royalties from developers and even end-users of SQL Server.
There is also Eolas' successful suit against Microsoft for Internet Explorer, which Anderer refers to.
BTW, when Anderer says that MSFT has 50 patent lawsuits waiting in the queue, I read that as saying Microsoft will be the defendant in those suits.
If they do this they will force IBM to supply their own IBM-Linux (Or buy Novell) that will be covered by the Gadzillion Cross-licensing deals they have plus anyone that attacks will be counter sued for Patent infringement by IBM.
The "Best" MS can do it nible around Linux as is the case with the Paul Allen funded SCO harrassment case.
IBM-Linux is a nightmare scenario for MS. The only reason IBM has not done this is that they development process of Linux is performing well and IBM do not want to face some of the Patent issues that may be lurking inside Linux. By Lurking I am not implying that Linux has stolen anything but maybe a lot of potential SCOs is watching.
IBM knows this and that's why they will make an example out of SCO. SCO will not only be leveled but the fields around it will be salted. Corporate Veil to Canopy will be ruled broken and they will be forced to admit guilt and settle or face extinction.
IBM has actively collected Patents for the better part of its life for a reason. This is it.
Help fight continental drift.