Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Halloween X Author Mike Anderer Speaks Out

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

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

40 of 424 comments (clear)

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


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

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

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

      --
      Don't Tread on OpenSource
    2. Re:Maybe because its early for me, but... by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 5, Interesting

      C&D's don't mean anything - they're just scare tactics. The thing about the GPL which I suspect he's alluding to, is that you are allowed to redistributed copyrighted works if you stick to the terms. However, the act of redistributing GPL'd works could be argued as also breaching traditional copyright, if a previous contributor has included someone else's copyrighted work. Whether it would stick I don't know, but that's the obvious end-user attack - if they are redistributing the code in question. It doesn't affect Joe User who downloads Mandrake and runs it on his box at home.

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    3. Re:Maybe because its early for me, but... by AndroidCat · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    4. Re:Maybe because its early for me, but... by bunhed · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

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

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

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

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

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    6. Re:Maybe because its early for me, but... by minkwe · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You are right but I don't see how this has anything to do with the GPL. It applies to every software distributor out there.

      The argument is always that the GPL specifically transfers some liability that other licenses don't. By your argument, Somebody can sue IBM for code it got from Computer Associates.

      How does the GPL transfer liability. Liability != Waranty.

      --
      "Fighting terrorists with millitary might is like killing a mosquitor on your Dad's forehead with a rifle."
    7. Re:Maybe because its early for me, but... by starm_ · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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)

    8. Re:Maybe because its early for me, but... by wrecked · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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.

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

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

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

    And then they immediately started doing it again.

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

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

    --

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

      So who should I vote for?

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

    2. Re:Think about how you vote this November. by danheskett · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:Think about how you vote this November. by dbc001 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    5. Re:Think about how you vote this November. by tepples · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

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

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

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

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

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

      --
      "Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
      "I can see my house from here!" - ST:
    8. Re:Think about how you vote this November. by FauxPasIII · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

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

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

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

      --
      25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
  3. Misconstrued by Ralph+Yarro · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  4. RTFA!!! by wjsteele · · Score: 4, Informative

    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!
  5. Master of political speak by Saven+Marek · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    nude mac desktops

    1. Re:Master of political speak by Ralph+Yarro · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

      Yes. My favorite is:

      "I helped build the channels for most of the products that corporate America is currently using and some they will be using soon."

      So he builds "channels". To quote Benjy mouse "Sounds very significant without actually tying you down to meaning anything."

      --

      The real Ralph Yarro posts as Anonymous Coward. Anyone else is an impostor.
  6. Re:it seems to me by platypussrex · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

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

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

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


    What an asshole.
    --

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

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

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

    litiguous fucking bastards

    --
    An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
  9. Musta used a spell checker this time by robslimo · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Anyway, off to read the rest...

  11. perhaps this is SCO's 'MIT rocket scientist' by fw3 · · Score: 4, Informative
    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.

    --
    Linux is Linux, if One need clarify their dist: <Dist>/GNU Linux
    bsds are of course just BSD
  12. Re:why attack mike? by zzabur · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    • He fails completely to understand what the free software and open source movements are all about.
    • He seems to think that filing totally meritless bogus lawsuits to be bought out is a fair and legitimate business model.
    • He says that small companies like Redhat have no place in software business, as they cannot pay the protection money to the SCO mafia.
    • Based on the points above, he considers himself a true visionary.
    • Yet he seems to think that all the people who actually wrote the software in question, don't have any reason to disagree with his/SCO's vision to get payout for the work they didn't do.
    --
    Auferre trucidare rapere falsis nominibus imperium, atque ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
  13. Summary by xcomputer_man · · Score: 5, Interesting

    - 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?
  14. Re:More poor editorial by Mr.+Darl+McBride · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  18. Groklaw's take on this by FunWithHeadlines · · Score: 4, Informative
    And here's PJ's take on this letter in Groklaw. She feels he inadvertantly gave away the overall scheme. Interesting stuff.

  19. Saving the world, one license at a time by marianne1017 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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

  20. Patent assault = Force IBM distribution by bstadil · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.

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

    Er. I think not.

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

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

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