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."
What exactly does he mean by this? Traditional EULAs push liability onto the user as well.
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!
The Slashdot story seems to claim that Microsoft has many more lawsuits planned. Here is the paragraph that I think the author was referring to:
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.
I read this to mean that Microsoft has a queue of 50 frivoulous lawsuits against itself not that Microsoft is planning 50 lawsuits against other people.
At any rate, Anderer's comments are devoid of any substance. Someone at Microsoft/SCO probably wrote the memo for him or he just copy and pasted talking points into his response.
He doesn't say "that Microsoft has many more disruptive lawsuits planned up their sleeves", he says that Microsoft have a great many lawsuits queued up AGAINST them. His perspective is evidently that you can only survive in the operating systems market if you can stand up against the sort of litigation that Microsoft has to. I don't think his point is a very good one but let's not pretend that it was something else entirely.
The real Ralph Yarro posts as Anonymous Coward. Anyone else is an impostor.
Did you even read the article? He didn't say that Microsoft had 50 "disruptive lawsuits" up their sleeves... he said that Microsoft is going to face 50 lawsuits from people sueing them. His point was that someone smaller, like RedHat couldn't withstand that kind of judgement against them because of their limited resources.
Bill
It's my Sig and you can't have it. Mine! All Mine!
Hmmm...maybe it'll go back to the way it was before people could get rich on software. That's what RMS was originally after, all those years ago
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
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.
What an asshole.
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
Red Hat, Inc. Prices $500 Million of 0.50% Convertible Senior Debentures Due 2024
RALEIGH, N.C., Jan 6, 2004 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Red Hat, Inc. (Nasdaq: RHAT) today announced the pricing of $500 million aggregate principal amount of 0.50% Convertible Senior Debentures due 2024, which are being issued in a private offering.
The debentures are being sold at 100% of their principal amount. The sale of the debentures is expected to close on January 12, 2004, subject to customary closing conditions. The initial purchaser has an option to purchase up to an additional $100 million aggregate principal amount of the debentures. The debentures will be Red Hat_s senior unsecured obligations and will be subordinated in right of payment to all of its existing and future secured debt. Red Hat expects to use the net proceeds for general corporate purposes, including possible acquisitions of complementary businesses and technologies and the expansion of its international operations.
The debentures will bear interest at a rate of 0.50% per annum, payable on each January 15 and July 15, beginning on July 15, 2004. The debentures will mature on January 15, 2024, unless earlier converted, redeemed by Red Hat at its option or repurchased by Red Hat at the option of the holders. Each $1,000 principal amount of the debentures will be initially convertible under certain circumstances into 39.0753 shares of Red Hat common stock. Therefore, the debentures are convertible in the aggregate into approximately 19,537,650 shares of Red Hat common stock, or approximately 23,445,180 shares of Red Hat common stock if the initial purchaser exercises its option to purchase additional debentures in full. The conversion rate is equivalent to a conversion price of approximately $25.59 per share, subject to adjustment. This represents approximately a 37% conversion premium based on the last reported bid price of $18.68 of Red Hat common stock on January 6, 2004. The debentures will be redeemable by Red Hat beginning in January 2009 and investors will have the right to require Red Hat to repurchase the debentures in January 2009, 2014 and 2019 and upon certain repurchase events.
The debentures have been offered only to qualified institutional buyers in reliance on Rule 144A under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The debentures and the shares of Red Hat common stock issuable upon the conversion of the debentures have not been registered under the Securities Act and may not be offered or sold in the United States or to a U.S. person absent registration or an applicable exemption from registration requirements.
This press release does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any security and shall not constitute an offer, solicitation or sale in any jurisdiction in which such offering would be unlawful.
About Red Hat
Red Hat is the world's leading provider of open source solutions to the enterprise. Red Hat is headquartered in Raleigh, N.C. and has offices worldwide.
Forward-looking Statements
Statements in this press release that are not historical facts and that relate to future plans or events are forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements include Red Hat_s intention to raise proceeds through the offering and sale of convertible senior debentures, the intended use of proceeds and the anticipated terms of such debentures. There can be no assurance that Red Hat will complete the offering on the anticipated terms or at all. Red Hat_s ability to complete the offering will depend, among other things, on market conditions. Red Hat_s actual results could differ materially from those projected or forecasted in the forward-looking statements. These include uncertainties relating to market conditions for corporate debt securities in general and our debentures in particular, as well as other factors identified in Red Hat_s most recent Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
SOURCE: Red Hat, Inc.
Red Hat, Inc.
Gabriel Szulik, 919-754-3700 ext. 44439
gszulik@redhat.com
"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
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.
Read reviews of shopping cart software
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
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?
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...
I get the feeling this man has a bitter taste in his mouth writing this. It's as if he's declaring to all the world: 'I did all this!', so that he can tell himself that he can stand by his actions, and convince himself that he's not feeling guilty.
It's the voice of hypocrisy.
Although I have more sympathy for this kind of hidden guilt, than for the greed and stupidity I have heard in many voices lately.
Oh wait, I forgot who's in charge of the "Justice" Department: wrist slap, settlement, look the other way. Never mind.
Anyhow, great, he's worked for SCO under NDA, he's got a lot of Darl-like bombast about economic justification for his actions.
He *thinks* he's a rocket scientist (mostly people who say 'it's not rocket science' do think this :-).
He's writing junk patents, apparently for people who haven't figured out that the .com bubble has burst.
Linux is Linux, if One need clarify their dist: <Dist>/GNU Linux
bsds are of course just BSD
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:
Auferre trucidare rapere falsis nominibus imperium, atque ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
- 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?
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'.
... and amzingly some of them feed you back! (they take your ideas and build on them, or more directly, donate resources to you).
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,
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
since he can spew up this load of BS without actually reaching a substantial point even once.
Buy all your crazy japanese videogames from
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.
I helped build the channels for most of the products that corporate America is currently using and some they will be using soon. In several cases, I am finally finding or developing ways to solve problems I have been working on for the last 20 years. The only way I can hide is to work so hard that it becomes close to impossible to track all the companies I have owned, bought, sold, rolled up, or sat on the board of. If you include the ones where I helped entrepreneurs and companies through tough times, or sat on non-profit boards, the list would be even tougher to follow.
Modest lad, isn't he? I'm always suspicious about people who feel the need to have such a self-serving description...as there's usually snake oil to follow.
this sentence reveals the author's bias:
Nobody wants to be the ultimate guarantor for software that was free (or close to it).
that's free as in beer, not speech--why is this so hard for $uit$ to understand?
although, given the state of the union, we may be coming to this:
Nobody wants to be the ultimate guarantor for speech that was free (or close to it).;>
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.)
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.
Eventhough the "responce" of this guy reads like his resume in most parts, the one thing I did pick up on, is how he relates the GPL back to the PublicDomain just as MicroSoft (I blieve) and SCO.
This got me thinking on why these companies would view the GPL this way, when their are obvious and huge differences. However, to the enduser, for example my parents, it is essentially the same as the public domain - for this reason; they will NEVER know who Linux Torvaldi is, or let alone that he is respnsible for bringing them what they rely on - both comercially and privately..
The essence of the GPL is to provdide a protected way to share knowledge and ideas, and to encourage such a freedom. At the intellectual level, this is the best thing to come along since boxed bread. However, at the business level there is no inherent value of the GPL simply because of the fact that the end user(s) of the resulting products, may very well never know who authored the said product and consequently there could conceivably never be any return on the hard work.
Take the revised XFree86 license that essentially just expects acknowledgement of their hard work.
The big difference between XFree and IBM/Novell/Redhat/etc.. is that the later would conceivably see a return from their efforts with supporting the entire system that they help build, while XFree would never see such a return because they only help build it and to the enduser they are never acknowledged.
Perhaps what the open source community needs to consider is a way to acknowledge the given author(s) if so required - for example in the configuration the X server, acknowledgement of XFree86 and the comercial video driver manufacturer (NVidia/ATI/etc..) could be linked back to their respective sites or something.
Without this acknowledgement, the open source community is essentially alienating the software business world (the community itself will figure out how to support the given product and likewise make any business efforts moot to a certain extent), and these tif's and battles with companies such as SCO and Microsoft are going to be inevitable.
The open source community needs to make every effort to bridge this gap between the intellectual and business worlds - other wise these battles and wars will just get worse, and consequently just as threatening...
Very true. Look at how he intoduced himself and we can see what kind of dude he is.
Most of my time is currently spent on new technologies on several different platforms.
Read: I don't know shit. When someone is foolish enough to consult me I'll give them some buzzwords and get away with it.
Many of my companies and several of our offices have been merged into other companies, moved or sold as part of a technology deal, some even sold during the deepest parts of the downturn.
Read: Companies I worked for usually falling into bankrupcy, disbanding into complete disarray or being bought out as junk stock. I'm proud to tell everybody I'm actively participating in their failures.
I helped build the channels for most of the products that corporate America is currently using and some they will be using soon.
Read: I offers in 'digital channel' teen sex, herbal viagra and penis enlargement, etc. when I'm not hired.
In several cases, I am finally finding or developing ways to solve problems I have been working on for the last 20 years.
I finally figure out how to wipe my ass clean without shitting my pants.
The only way I can hide is to work so hard that it becomes close to impossible to track all the companies I have owned, bought, sold, rolled up, or sat on the board of.
Read: Trust me. I'm somebody of importance, only I just can't tell you why.
If you include the ones where I helped entrepreneurs and companies through tough times, or sat on non-profit boards, the list would be even tougher to follow.
Read: Don't you get it? Let me repeat, I've done a lot of great things but I just can't tell you a bit of it.
(Somehow I should have written my resume like that)
OK, I'll be the Language Police this time, because the word cruft in this case is not just an ordinary misused word, it's a misused hackers' word.
Let's use the right word to express ourselves. The word that should have been used is " crux ."
According to the New Hackers Dictionary, the definition of cruft is:
The appropriate word was crux, which, as defined in Merriam-Webster Online, means:
So let's at least use words correctly that we as hackers made up ourselves. It's really not enough that we just find the closest-sounding hackers' word to substitute for a perfectly good, already existing word. The malapropism that results isn't even funny to anyone but other hackers.
And just think of the ridicule you would receive if, instead of posting a English language comment with a malapropism in it, you had instead posted a C++ program with a malapropism in it.
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
Hardware support is the _worst_ thing to argue for Windows being better than Linux. Linux support far more hardware than Windows, just consider all those architectures that Linux runs on and Windows doesn't.
Also, many drivers in Linux are actually written by people who actually maintain them, meaning that if your peripheral is supported in 2.2, it's likely to also be supported in 2.4, 2.6, and future versions. Contrast this with Windows where devices can and do become useless when new and incompatible Windows versions come out, and some drivers won't be ported to the newer version, whereas other things won't be released for earlier versions -- you must upgrade to use the new functionality, but that means you can't use your old device anymore.
I have a dream that one day, hardware manufacturers will actually care to support a plurality of operating systems, either by shipping drivers for various systems (this is already happening to some extent), or, preferably by releasing specifications (which used to happen in the past) or standardizing interfaces at hardware level (I think many USB devices do this). Or they might embed platform-independent drivers in firmware, a la OpenFirmware. I think this dream might just come true when the operating system monoculture is broken.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
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!
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.
It sorely disappoints me that those with money and power will always try to find a scapegoat -- Mike Anderer is no exception. Obviously he will always live up to the perpetual negative stereotypes of CEOs and upper management with comments like this.
GPL and GPL-like licenses have always been about the community and the greater good -- and it is obvious people like Mike will never "get it." Instead of finding the person to sue, they need to think about the greater good of the community and approach it as such -- i.e. "I'm here to try to work things out with arbitration and a good dialogue." Instead they come in with guns blazing and slap such a huge lawsuit hoping for such a huge payout that people will just laugh in their face and think they're just crackpots -- ruining the whole dialogue in the first place. Approaching issues such as licenses and IPs will require lots more tact than these individuals of the "old school" will care to exercise.
Linux at home
This shows a serious lack of understanding. IBM, Sun and many other large contributors to the kernel have a lot of power in the industry, and they each own copyrights over the parts of the Linux kernel that they contributed. But they don't own Linux as a whole: each of them owns pieces of Linux, but the code surrounding what they contributed is licensed to them. The license is the GPL, which does not allow them to re-use the code under a license other than the GPL. So in theory Sun (or one of the others) could take code they contributed to Linux and put it in the public domain, but they couldn't touch the surrounding code, nor revoke the GPL-granted rights of people who licensed the code as it exists in the kernel.
The idea of Linux going into the public domain is wishful thinking that we've heard a few times from people in the industry. They need to get over it, because it's highly unlikely. They also would benefit from learning a bit more about how these collaborative uses of copyright work. Contrary to Mr. Anderer's comments, the economic model of the GPL has actually been thought out in great depth: there is little room for the licensing models employed in the past by priprietary software vendors, but this is intentional and not in need of fixing.
To be perfectly honest, I really haven't been paying enough attention to politics lately.
All I know about Kerry is that he appears to be more "intelligent" than Bush when he's jabbering on TV, ie. he's more articulate, but I don't know what he stands for.
I don't mean to pick on you, specifically, but since you stated, "Kerry's no prize," could you tell me why that is?
I don't particularly like the Democratic party, but neither do I like the Republican party. I would toss out another protest vote, but at this point I have come to the conclusion that Bush has been terrible for this country, and unless his oponent is actually worse, I plan to vote for "anyone but him" this year.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
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.
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
The real goal here is to strip the GPL away from Linux. Once its free of the severe restrictions of the GPL, they can take it, and start work on MS-Linux.
Remember the tactical situation in which Microsoft finds itself right now. Most of their money is being made selling copies of Microsoft Office, and copies of Windows to run it on. The two are viewed almost as a monolith by the public, because the cost of Windows is usually hidden in a new computer.
They find themselves with stuck with the results of 20 years of marketing driven development as their code base. Any new system has to be backward compatible to the point where most MS-DOS 2.1 programs still work. This severely limits design flexiblity.
With a switch to Linux, they could drop all of their bugs, grab a nice clean codebase from the public domain, and start fresh. They could blame any bugs on the Linux people, and claim their professional team of developers is working to enhance the stability and security of the software to meet the needs of corporate America. (oh, the Irony of it)
What member of the public wouldn't jump at the chance to buy MS-Linux? They would see it as the latest technology, with the Microsoft seal of approval. (We don't want those undesireable "hacker" types writing our software, do we?)
Once they have MS-Linux firmly in place, they can then extend their true monopoly (Microsoft Office) into the Linux space.
I assume this is obvious to some of you, but I wrote this just in case someone hasn't woken up yet to the reality.
To sum up, as long as the GPL holds, we can have a free (as in speach and beer) set of working software to build and share. Once the GPL gets breeched, we're fscked! (Just spend the $1000/machine, and pay for MS-Linux with Office)
--Mike--
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.
"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."
Then the headline says:
"Among the highlights is a prediction by Mr. Anderer that Microsoft has many more disruptive lawsuits planned up their sleeves."
My interpretation of this paragraph is that Microsoft always has tons of people suing them, and that redhat or whomever else wishes to make a living as an OS vendor needs to have lots of cash to pay out on some of them. Of course I disagree with that, but he does not come out and say that Microsoft has 50 more SCO-type suits in the works.
Liberty.
Quoting Wikipedia Monopoly:
In economics, a monopoly (from the Greek monos, one + polein, to sell) is defined as a market situation where there is only one provider of a product or service. Monopoly should be distinguished from monopsony, in which there is only one buyer of the product or service. It should also, strictly, be distinguished from the (closely related) phenomenon of a cartel (which is a type of oligopoly), in which a centralized institution is set up to (partially) coordinate the actions of several independent providers ? as opposed to monopoly, in which there is one sole provider ? although, in some cases, that sole provider may have been created by consolidating several formerly independent firms
[...]
The term is sometimes (loosely) used to describe companies such as Microsoft or Standard Oil, which do face market competition, but which command a large market share and use their size to compete in ways which are considered unfair -- such as dumping products below cost to harm competitors, creating tying arrangements between their products, and other practices regulated under Antitrust law.
[...]
That's a NPOV for you!
WE DON'T NEED NO BLOG CONTROL.
1. Microsft will license the Gnu/Linux code from SCO, incorporate that code into Windows then sell it as Microsoft binaries under a non GPL Microsoft license.
2. SCO will lose their license claims in court, thus invalidating the Microsoft licenses.
3. Gnu/Linux lawyers will then sue Microsft and win.
4. Whistle blowers will begin to give evidence that Microsoft engaged in anti competetive practices in attemting to aquire rights to Gnu/Linux.
5. Everyone who was inconvenienced by the SCO lawsuit will then sue Microsoft under the Clayton and Sherman Anti Trust Acts and this Microsoft will be broken up into separate companies. Remember, Microsft was sued by 20 states and they lost! If they're found guilty again of the same offense, a judge will likely have no other option. This will happen around 2008.
Bush is the least qualified President we have ever had
After checking the Wikipedia...
Kennedy - Bachelor's degree
Carter - Bachelor's degree
Reagan - Bachelor's degree
Bush I - Bachelor's degree
Clinton - Bachelors and JD
Bush II - Bachelors and MBA
Least qualified? Not by comparison to some other recent presidents.
His ties to Enron alone are enough to want him out.
Much of the Enron shenanigans were ongoing before he even took office. Clinton had some ties also. Would that have made you impeach Clinton too, or only Bush?
Bush squandered the greatest chance for peace in our time by calling all of the world "Evil"
It was 3 countries, and those countries are either state sponsors of terrorism, genocidal regimes, or rogue nations pursuing WMD. If that's not evil, I'd love to see how you define "good."
say a big fuck you to the world
Kerry supported it... No, Bush got tired of UN corruption and inaction, and going around the UN was arguably the right thing to do. Check out the latest dirt on the UN's "Oil for Pala^H^H^H^H Food" program.
think of America as a "play by its own rules" bully
If those "rules" include reining in WMD proliferators and demolishing terrorist states, screw the opposition; The Right Thing (TM) isn't always the easy or popular thing. If finding and killing terrorists before they can strike is wrong, I don't want to be right.
Not to mention the fact that he wants to hold Americans without trial or due process indefinitely
If they're terrorists, they have almost no rights. To be considered lawful combatants and thus entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention, you must meet four conditions: have a responsible chain of command (autonomous terrorist "cells" don't qualify), carry weapons openly, have a distinctive uniform or insignia, and follow the laws of war... Al-Queda meets NONE of these (the commentary I cited above is interesting... I recommend reading it).
It's OK that you hate Bush... really.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Seriously, what's Linux got that MS wants so bad that they can't steal from BSD legally, like Apple did? Rotor's already on FreeBSD, and I'm not sure what MS would want to steal from Linux other than that basic foundation for their CLI, other than brand marketability (which, I suppose, could be enough).
MS doesn't like competition, and that's why they'd help out SCO and have this fellow essentially threaten Red Hat out of business. They don't have to want to have Linux to want to see it gone.
It's all 0s and 1s. Or it's not.
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
What he and everyone else on that side haven't realised, is that they could kill Red Hat et al, and Linux would continue:
-
We get as much indemnity from a download as MS gives in it's EULA.
-
We get more support from the community than we get from Microsoft.
-
We get more life from our hardware, because our OS/apps aren't as bloated.
-
We get more innovation, no matter what the established people say. I don't know what innovation Microsoft has ever done - everything I can think of, they actually nicked from other people.
Justin.You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
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.
Ok, where are the mass destruction weapons that US had so much proof of?
And the people contained in Guantanamo? If they are guilty of something, why isn't any evidence shown about this? And why aren't any cases presented? What are they contained for? And if they cant even tell them or us why they are there, on what ground are they there?
who shot the cat in the hat to experiment is insane
"Least qualified? Not by comparison to some other recent president"
Yea because a college degree proves everything. Bush's inability speak English on an 8th grade level proves more than anything you said. Do we need to talk about how many schools Bush was rejected from? And yes people who flee from the military are not qualified to send others to die.
"Much of the Enron shenanigans were ongoing before he even took office. Clinton had some ties also. Would that have made you impeach Clinton too, or only Bush?"
Umm let's see. Who was Bush's #1 supporter and closest ally during his run from the govenor's office to the Presidency? Who held special meetings with the Vice President to decide our nation's energy policy while other companies were locked out? Who let Enron dictate Energy Commision nominess? Who refuses to discuss those meetings? You cannot in any way compare the access that Enron had to Bush to any other President.
"Check out the latest dirt on the UN's "Oil for Pala^H^H^H^H Food" program."
No actually I'd rather check out Bush and Cheney's ties to the Oil industry. I'd rather talk about Halliburton. Go ahead ignore that and bring up some other subject. It's your able to do.
"If those "rules" include reining in WMD proliferators and demolishing terrorist states, screw the opposition; "
Your so fully of shit its not even funny. Where exactly are those WMD's in Iraq?
"If finding and killing terrorists before they can strike is wrong"
Rah Rah. Kill the terrorists! Yep just keep scaring the Americans and saying terrorism so that the people are afraid to elect someone other than a Right-Wing hardliner war hawk. Great arguement. "If finding the bad guys is wrong I don't want to be right!" Bravo. That will play well with uneducated people everwhere. The End justifies the means always. Right?
"If they're terrorists, they have almost no rights."
If they are American citizens they have rights. I specifically said American citizens, who Bush FULLY supports holding without rights. Way to set up a straw man arguement though and say I'm arguing for rights for foreign terrorists.
"It's OK that you hate Bush... really."
I know it is. Thanks for avoiding debating the real facts though. It makes it so much easier.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
"I would state that this licensing project represented only a small fraction of my time over the last year and has completely gone away in recent months. "
and
"I am still hoping people dig up some of the more positive projects I have been involved with."
Before getting involved in this whole SCO mess, Mike should have remembered this vital lesson .
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.
.coms.
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
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
...then the next security update would have to remove it all, by definition.
IRL, the original author's off his tree. While the sharks could bend it, the law clearly starts out by saying: the person or organisation who did the actual including is entirely at fault.
If the code said something like "stolen from Microsoft" or obviously contained Microsoft headers and such, slap-in-the-face clues that the code was still albatrossed by non-Free copyright, responsibility could easily be pushed out as far as the last entity to compile it (likely the distributor), and more fool them for not knowing what they're compiling.
In order to make end-users vulnerable, the program would have to give out a fairly unmissable clue when run. Announcing Microsoft copyrights in the splash screen would do it, although doing so on an "About" screen that you have to go out of your way (but not know any secrets) to get to would probably be enough.
If such a thing did happen, someone at Microsoft would be in the unenviable position of explaining how the code got loose, and how they know exactly what got loose and what didn't, and how they know that some sour-grapes manager didn't actually release it under a GPL or some such as a parting gift to his/her employer.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
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.
...is that he's apparently white-cane-and-glasses blind to a lesson which history should have burned deeply into our collective national psyches by now, one of the major reasons for the founding of the USA, and a problem which even Australia constitutionally recognises (although in practice we are, like the uSA, pretty much ignoring our own Constitution whenever it really counts).
I'm talking about blending religion and politics.
If he wants the Inquisition back, albeit named something harmless-sounding like "the department of Homeland Security", then George's going the right way about it. The Inquisition had a friendly-sounding name as well, "the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith", but that didn't stop it from causing tens (possibly hundreds, they also liked destroying records) of millions of deaths or perverting the government in scores of countries so that competing faiths stood no chance. Mao's and Stalin's faith-based purges weren't as subtle but killed around about as many people and clearly exposed the fallacy of regarding humanism or atheism as in any way benevolent or "safe" faiths.
I think Microsoft counts as a religion, too. Pope Bill and Cardinals Steve, Paul and so on presiding over the congregation of money-worshippers. Whether you take that idea seriously or not, they're distorting government in pretty much the same way a religion does. The irony of them claiming to have any corporate rights should be pretty clear to anyone who's read one of their EULAs.
To say that Anderer's either off his tree or snowing like Alaska in January would be something of an understatement, but it's inumportant compared to the context in which all of this crap is happening. Bush may be unsubtle about how he lets the USA get pushed around by religious and corporate interests, but Clinton didn't exactly raise a rash of red flags against most of the related issues either. If I was a Yank, I'd be voting against both Bush and Clinton.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
...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
Put aside for a moment the actual message of his letter. Just for now, pay attention to his writing. The man is practically illiterate.
He is incapable of putting together a coherent paragraph. Forget about getting a cogent argument; you have to struggle to understand what he's trying to express!
OK, back to the content. In my experience, I've met many people like him. They have lots of shady companies. Often, they have had so many that they have lost track of them. Mr. Anderer brags of this trait, but it is a major red flag.
Such people also tend to never stick to one thing; they make "contributions" in countless fields. They can never stay too long in one place, or people will notice that they are bullshitters.
Bottom line, this confirms my guess about him. He's a sleazy, bottom-feeding, undereducated corporate whore, used by Microsoft and TSG only to distance themselves from an unsavory transaction.
Yesterday, Charles M. Schulz was utterly amazed when he came across Mike Anderer's reply regarding the Baystar SCO transaction on NewsForge.
Charles M. Schulz, who had used the famous 'wha wha wha' to identify adults speaking in his cartoons, was amazed to find the equivalent could actually be accomplished with real words.