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]

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.

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

[AndroidCat]

Not true! In Microsoft's EULA, they'll pay off on any proven liability .. up to $10 or the cost of the product. :^P

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

[bunhed]

Oh c'mon, M$ is always covering my ass everytime I lose data, crash, re-install, get a virus, let a spammer in, end with up an incompatable version... yep, M$ is always behind me, everytime I bend over.

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...

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

[minkwe]

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.

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

[starm_]

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)

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

[wrecked]

From the context of his statement, I believe he's talking about patent infringement, not copyright infringement.

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.

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

[k_head]

Look he is wrong about a lot of things.

He is wrong about the GPL. He confuses the GPL with "public domain". He feels that you "have to go after somebody". That last one is quite disturbing actually. Why do you have to go after somebody.

This guy is an evil idiot. All he talks about is how great he is and how busy he is and how he knows so much and how us little old peons don't know what's really going on.

Listen. If open source means guys like this will make less money then that's reason enough to support open source. If this guy is representitive of the enemies of open source then then we should have no problems convincing people to adopt open source.

Just point to his letter and say "see you don't want guys like this running the world do you?"

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.

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree.

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

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

Re:Think about how you vote this November.

[Alien Being]

Our government doesn't have time to deal with minor annoyances like MS. They have rights to abolish and wars to start.

Bush deserves a lot more than being voted out of office. IMO, he's earned the right to be the first person to land a Navy jet on the Sun.

Re:Think about how you vote this November.

[danheskett]

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.

Re:Think about how you vote this November.

[dbc001]

I think it's time to start calling your local attorneys general and suggest that they work on anti-trust proceedings against microsoft again. am i correct in assuming that these sorts of actions start at the attorneys general? my impression is that some of these guys are actually out to defend us, so if we give them a barrage of phone calls maybe they will look into it. Here's where you can get some contact info.

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.

[jr87]

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

Re:Think about how you vote this November.

[tepples]

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.

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.

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Re:Think about how you vote this November.

[beeblebrox87]

IANAL, but actually, strictly speaking, just having a monopoly (without special government licensing and regulation) is still a felony.

USC Title 15, Chapter 1, Section 2: Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty

Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court

This is rarely enforced, however, as such cases often end up being very difficult and time-consuming to prosecute (e.g. see US vs. Alcoa, 1945). The law has, however, been upheld by courts in the past, notably in US vs. Standard Oil (1911) and US vs. DuPont (1956).

Re:Think about how you vote this November.

[mt_nixnut]

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

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

Lawsuit misinterpretation?

[IgD]

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.

Re:Lawsuit misinterpretation?

[Ralph Yarro]

Yup, PJ over at Groklaw seems to have made the same mistake.

There's always some risk when someone copies the girl next to them instead of doing their own homework.

Misconstrued

[Ralph Yarro]

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.

RTFA!!!

[wjsteele]

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

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:Master of political speak

[Ralph Yarro]

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."

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.

RHat Cash on Hand.

[DAldredge]

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

More poor editorial

[m00nun1t]

The article doesn't say anything about
"Microsoft has many more disruptive lawsuits planned up their sleeves".

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

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

/. credibility: -1

Re:More poor editorial

[Mr. Darl McBride]

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.

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.

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...

Is he ashamed?

[polemistes]

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.

perhaps this is SCO's 'MIT rocket scientist'

[fw3]

Anderer:

"it does not take an MIT rocket scientist to think it would make sense for the largest software company in the world to increase their rights by taking another license"

This is all I can really give you considering the NDA. As for the PIPE deal, I cannot comment at all, but I also would have nothing of interest to add beyond what has already been made public.

I will file close to 20 patents this year for companies in many spaces [mars?]

Anderer's patents:

6,546,418 Method for managing printed medium activated revenue sharing domain name system schemas
6,448,979 Printed medium activated interactive communication of multimedia information, including advertising
6,314,457 Method for managing printed medium activated revenue sharing domain name system schemas

This 'article' is just barely better-written than Halloween X itself, no doubt this is the guy (and hey, there's open-source in action, he writes in (marginally) better style when he knows it's gonna be read by people who actually know about style(1) and diction(1)).

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.

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.

Summary

[xcomputer_man]

- 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.]

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?

Too good to be true?

[Rick Zeman]

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.

he doesn't get 'it'

[mojoNYC]

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).;>

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...

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

[Azureflare]

Your comment rocks, man. Kudos to you. You should write that in to an online publication before they steal it from slashdot ;)

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

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

Groklaw's take on this

[FunWithHeadlines]

And here's PJ's take on this letter in Groklaw. She feels he inadvertantly gave away the overall scheme. Interesting stuff.

Saving the world, one license at a time

[marianne1017]

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

[RAMMS EIN]

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.

GPL code can't easily go into the public domain

[Random BedHead Ed]

A few people have commented on Anderer's comments regarding putting the kernel into the public domain. I agree that it's great that this guy came forward, but frankly I would have thought that someone as involved in copyright and patent licensing as he claims to be would know a bit more about the ins and outs of copyright law, particularly as it pertains to Linux and other GPL-licensed software. Consider this:

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.

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.

Re:GPL code can't easily go into the public domain

[the-banker]

You are thinking about the wrong OS.

He isn't referring to putting Linux in the public domain, he is referring to placing Unix in the public domain.

In other words, he is surprised that the quick solution - buy the source to Unix then place Unix source in the public domain - has not happened.

There are a lot of things that Anderer stands for that I despise, however someone like IBM doing what he suggests would actually be good for the community in that it would settle a lot of the licensing murkiness around Unix that has hung like a pall over it for years (AT&T, BSD, Novell, SCO, SCO/Caldera, etc...).

I think this would prove next to impossible in a practical sense, however, as I am sure that other companies would claim that IBM doesn't own *ALL* of Unix and sue on that basis.

The bottom line is that I don't see Unix license issues ever disappearing completely - the best we can hope for is a clear judgement against SCO that prevents any other company from trying similar tactics.

Patent assault = Force IBM distribution

[bstadil]

A frontal Patent assault by MS can not be won.

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.

Public Domain Linux - Microsoft's Goal

[ka9dgx]

I apparently see things a little differently that most of the /. crowd. It's obvious to me, even though I'm not a Lawyer, that he gave it away in the middle of the interview...

"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."

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--

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.

Missleading headline

[7-Vodka]

I believe the guy who posted the headline didn't understand what was meant by the Microsoft impending lawsuits. Here's the entire paragraph from the letter:

"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.

Wikipedia

[LuSiDe]

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!

Re:ANYONE but Bush IS a better alternative

[The Tyro]

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.

Feeling a bit put upon

[crucini]

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.

Anderer expected a settlement

[ppanon]

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

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

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

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

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

Calm yourself

[The Tyro]

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).