Tocqueville Blames U.S. IT Troubles On Free Software

twitter writes "The group that told us closed source was more secure than open source, now tells us that "Open source software, also described as free software, is the neutron bomb of IP" that will destroy 85% of the market value of US companies and drive companies who are currently outsourcing to "draconian measures even worse than outsourcing." So, there you have it, free software is responsible for bad laws, out sourcing and bad hair days." (Remember who funded the same group's report on open source security?)

Comments

Cough-Cough-Bullshit!

[Goo.cc]

"The report warns governments against relying on open-source software for national security."

Personally, I would recommend against using closed source software produced by any company that outsource their programming. It seems to me that is a security risk of incredible measure.

I would also like to suggest that Tocqueville create a report on how an illegally maintained monopolies can hurt the computer industry.

Re:Cough-Cough-Bullshit!

[akadruid]

I would also like to suggest that Tocqueville create a report on how an illegally maintained monopolies can hurt the computer industry.

Money talks louder than sense. To increase volume, increase back handers.

The software industry is only the latest victim of money-greased government. It's always happened - the only difference is that the modern well educated citizen with freedom of information knows a lot more about it than our ancestors.

Re:Cough-Cough-Bullshit!

[tcopeland]

> "The report warns governments
> against relying on open-source software

Since the government is busy sponsoring open source software, I think this warning falls (happily) on deaf ears.

Re:Cough-Cough-Bullshit!

[Anonymous Coward]

0) MS said they couldn't reveal source code in court because it would be a national security risk.

1) MS has allows China (and other countries) to see the MSWindows source code.

2) closed source is better for national security.

3) 1+1=10?

4) ?????

5) Profit!

Re:Cough-Cough-Bullshit!

[Coryoth]

Hmmm

SELinux or Windows 2003 Server.

I wonder which is more secure and less of a national security risk?

Jedidiah

Re:Cough-Cough-Bullshit!

[Anonymous Coward]

You can take their results on the economics and come to directly opposite conclusions, with a little thought.

The closed source software industry has promoted massive overemployment and inefficiency in the IT economy. As the open source software industry expands, it enables companies to remove these inefficiencies, resulting in smaller, more adaptable workforces, and a more flexible IT industry, better able to adapt to rapid changes in the global economy.

Re:Cough-Cough-Bullshit!

[Anonymous Coward]

1+1 does equal 10.

Re:Cough-Cough-Bullshit!

[MartinG]

> The report warns governments

Since the government is ..

You may find, if you check, that there is more than one government in the world. Some may unfortunately be listening to this kind of nonsense.

Re:Cough-Cough-Bullshit!

[tcopeland]

> governments
> the government

Touche!

Re:Cough-Cough-Bullshit!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it does. And 1010 + 1010 = 10100.

Re:Cough-Cough-Bullshit!

[Anonymous Coward]

and beware the underpants gnomes?

Re:Cough-Cough-Bullshit!

[Turmio]

> > "The report warns governments
> > against relying on open-source software
>
> Since the government is busy sponsoring open source software, I think this warning falls (happily) on deaf ears.
Yes, but these guys must be quite specialists of national security since they have the nerve to question the doings of this governmental organization with track record for not having that nonchalant attitude towards security issues :)

Re:Cough-Cough-Bullshit!

[e_AltF4]

There are 10 types of people in the world,
those who understand binary and those who dont.

Re:Cough-Cough-Bullshit!

[Global-Lightning]

Yep,
Anytime someone trots out these "Open Source is bad for the goverment" pieces,
I like to hit back with the MITRE report titled Use of Free and Open-Source Software (FOSS) in the U.S. Department of Defense

Choice quote (emphasis added):
"The main conclusion of the analysis was that FOSS software plays a more critical role in the DoD than has generally been recognized. FOSS applications are most important in four broad areas: Infrastructure Support, Software Development, Security, and Research. One unexpected result was the degree to which Security depends on FOSS. Banning FOSS would remove certain types of infrastructure components (e.g., OpenBSD) that currently help support network security. It would also limit DoD access to--and overall expertise in--the use of powerful FOSS analysis and detection applications that hostile groups could use to help stage cyberattacks. Finally, it would remove the demonstrated ability of FOSS applications to be updated rapidly in response to new types of cyberattack . Taken together, these factors imply that banning FOSS would have immediate, broad, and strongly negative impacts on the ability of many sensitive and security-focused DoD groups to defend against cyberattacks."

Overall, MITRE carries much more credibility in the government than some apparently politically and economically motivated "thinktank"

Re:Cough-Cough-Bullshit!

[scotch]

There are 2 types of slashdot readers, those who have seen this little math gem a million times and no longer think it's amusing, and those who haven't. The second category is comprised of 1 user with retrograde amnesia.

Re:Cough-Cough-Bullshit!

[petecarlson]

what?

Re:Cough-Cough-Bullshit!

[dnoyeb]

Naa, I expect the CIA, err, USA to fully endorse the use of closed source software in the governments. Especially foreign ones ;)

Re:Cough-Cough-Bullshit!

[Marxist Hacker 42]

For that matter, privately produced software is an incredible security risk- I dislike the idea of the Department of Defense outsourcing anything. Instead, they should be offering jobs to the people that private industry lays off- and put all of that unused brainpower to work.

Re:Cough-Cough-Bullshit!

[extremecenter]

Since the government is busy sponsoring open source software, I think this warning falls (happily) on deaf ears.

For the most part it does, at least among government technocrats. Congress, however, is another story. These little think-tank pieces are always trotted out by Congresscritters pushing some agenda. This one will no doubt be latched onto by the anti free trade crowd. But just about every defense or science agency I know of is using lots of open source, and in a lot of cases contributing to it as well. Any high assurance software review requires access to source code. That's one of the big arguments as to why open source is good for security.

Re:Cough-Cough-Bullshit!

[SphericalCrusher]

I don't see what the problem is. The only difference is the obvious and the price. Wow, because software costs money, it makes it a lot more secure than something free? Bullshit. I think they should take their time and find out what software works best and then use that, instead of complaining about it being open-source or closed-source. When they do find more stable open-source software, they can pay money for it if it'll make them feel better...

Re:Cough-Cough-Bullshit!

[Anonymous Coward]

Overall, MITRE carries much more credibility in the government than some apparently politically and economically motivated "thinktank"

Yeah, MITRE isn't economically motivated.

Re:Cough-Cough-Bullshit!

[TyrranzzX]

Reminds me of an old saying:

In Soviet Russia, We build 10,000 tractor! If 9,999 of them don't work, oh well! We build them again! And Again! And Again! Until they All WORK! Is stupid?! Nonsense!; this way, we can employ 1000 comrades! Behold our Wisdom you capitalist pigs!

They are complaing of competition. Let them complain; OSS has created more jobs than it's destroyed, that's for sure. I consider the squealing and thrashing of my enemy the siren of victory.

Re:Cough-Cough-Bullshit!

[AhBeeDoi]

Yes, but these guys must be quite specialists of national security since they have the nerve to question the doings of this governmental organization with track record for not having that nonchalant attitude towards security issues :)

Uhm, did you see "The Falcon and the Snowman"?

Re:Cough-Cough-Bullshit!

[Anonymous Coward]

You may find, if you check, that there is more than one government in the world.

What... you mean, like, the Illuminati and the Knights Templar?

Re:Cough-Cough-Bullshit!

[Anonymous Coward]

There are 2 types of slashdot readers, those who have seen this little math gem a million times and no longer think it's amusing, and those who haven't. The second category is comprised of 1 user with retrograde amnesia.

To which there can be only one answer. Ahem:

In Soviet Russia, amnesia... uh...

Re:Cough-Cough-Bullshit!

[Nadsat]

RING RING! TELEPHONE!

Hello?

It's always happened - the only difference is that the modern well educated citizen with freedom of information knows a lot more about it than our ancestors.

Knows a lot about what? Ancestors? Huh? I can't hear anything. Hold on second. (Aside) Honey! Turn down that TV I can't understand! Kids, go to your room! Can't you see I'm trying to talk to this nice slash dot man. Yes, Slash dot. No I don't know I think it's some kind of slashed tire repair service for our busted pickup. (Back to the Phone) Yes, I'm sorry. I don't know any ancestors other than grandpa's cateracts.

Re:Cough-Cough-Bullshit!

[Anonymous Coward]

We'll all see in November the true potential insecurities of closed source software in the Diebold and other voting machines.

Wah! Stomp your feet! Wahh!

[grub]

So, major U.S. corporations are heavily investing in developing a widely available 'free software inventory' that is open to anyone to use or customize at will. If customers only want to use free software, they will buy more hardware and services because there is no additional cost for software. Moreover, with no software costs, even hardware development, etc. becomes even cheaper.

I always thought that the customer looking for, and receiving, the best value (or "bang for the buck") was one of the inherent features of capitalism. Now that the business model for software firms is being turned on its head Ken Brown is crying foul. I didn't hear Brown whining when domestic garment manufacturers started moving all the sewing jobs overseas to sweatshops which put far more people out of work than the current IT outsourcing.

Of course, being a pieceworker in any industry isn't considered a "glamour job" on Wall Street.

Re:Wah! Stomp your feet! Wahh!

[james_in_denver]

The report state:

The bottom line is this: a non-IP future means that all companies in the Baruch Lev study go to from 85% to 0% in intangible asset value.

That article fails to address the point that their costs associated with developing and maintaining IP (Intellectual Property for the uninitiated) will also drop to near $0. This allows most business to focus on, well for instance, their business. It frees them in some regards from worrying about how much budget to allocate for the overhead of purchasing and maintaining closed source IT "solutions".

Re:Wah! Stomp your feet! Wahh!

[Oscaro]

I always thought that the customer looking for, and receiving, the best value (or "bang for the buck") was one of the inherent features of capitalism.

No. (John Maynard Keynes)

Re:Wah! Stomp your feet! Wahh!

[gabebear]

GPLed software that a company owns the copyright to is probably still recorded as an asset. I imagine SGI's XFS copyright is now worth more than it was before releasing it under the GPL. If someone wants to use XFS in their non-GPL OS they are going to have to licence it from SGI. Even if they put XFS under a BSD licence, there would still be some value as the creator as an "expert".

Some software re-released under the GPL(probably adding some asset to the original company).

• Quake II engine
• MySQL
• Blender
• QT
• a bunch of games

Re:Wah! Stomp your feet! Wahh!

[tanguyr]

Porkchops. (Homer J. Simpson)

Re:Wah! Stomp your feet! Wahh!

[jtwJGuevara]

That article fails to address the point that their costs associated with developing and maintaining IP (Intellectual Property for the uninitiated) will also drop to near $0. This allows most business to focus on, well for instance, their business. It frees them in some regards from worrying about how much budget to allocate for the overhead of purchasing and maintaining closed source IT "solutions".

The problem with this from a business strategy point of view is that it reduces a form of competitive advantage. I agree that removing all IP of a company by seeking it through open source methods reduces all costs associated with obtaining that IP, and that makes great financial sense for an organization. But it doesn't make competitive sense. What is the goal of massive leading organizations such as Microsoft or Ford? I don't know what they officially state it is but I'm 99.99999999% sure it involves becoming and then staying the market leader by obtaining the most market share in their industry over their competitors. An organization obtains their piece of the market share by holding a competitive advantage over the rest of their industry. If a company uses nothing but open solutions, they lose a competitive advantage and they are put on an even level with everyone else using open solutions or on a lower level than the organization that does hold a competitive advantage with its IP. For a competitive business, it doesn't make sense to do this, and they won't do it. Open source decreases expenses. But open source also decreases competitive advantage and the most powerful organizations depend on their competitive advantages to stay at the top of their industries.

(note: I am not an economist or business analyst... but I can play one on slashdot)

Re:Wah! Stomp your feet! Wahh!

[bruthasj]

sweatshops - get a clue

Re:Wah! Stomp your feet! Wahh!

[ciphertext]

An organization obtains their piece of the market share by holding a competitive advantage over the rest of their industry. If a company uses nothing but open solutions, they lose a competitive advantage and they are put on an even level with everyone else using open solutions or on a lower level than the organization that does hold a competitive advantage with its IP. For a competitive business, it doesn't make sense to do this, and they won't do it. Open source decreases expenses. But open source also decreases competitive advantage and the most powerful organizations depend on their competitive advantages to stay at the top of their industries.

I don't think merely owning open source products instead of closed source software weakens (or even levels)your ability to maintain a "competive advantage". What gives you the competitive advantage is how "efficiently" you produce your product or provide your service compared to your competitors. This also "assumes" that your product/service is "perceived" to be relatively equal in value to your competitors. You obtain a "competive advantage" by being the most efficient producer/provider of a product or service. The way that you "implement" your IT solutions (closed or open source) plays a role in making you more efficient, however, merely the ownership of an IT solution doesn't make you more efficient. If the implementation augments (by making you more efficient) your capability to perform your business processes, then you will have a competitive advantage over someone who does not have that same capability. IT solutions do not drive a business. Your business practices and processes are what drive the business. The IT solutions merely make you more efficient (in theory) in executing those practices and processes.

Re:Wah! Stomp your feet! Wahh!

[Aardpig]

I don't think merely owning open source products instead of closed source software weakens (or even levels)your ability to maintain a "competive advantage". What gives you the competitive advantage is how "efficiently" you produce your product or provide your service compared to your competitors. This also "assumes" that your product/service is "perceived" to be relatively equal in value to your competitors.

...and we shall mount this "Laser" on the Moon and call it a "Death Star"...

Re:Wah! Stomp your feet! Wahh!

[Mr.Cookieface]

Look.

Whether you agree with it or not, most of the "special value" of American corporations comes from their holdings of Beanie Babies and Yu-Gi-Oh! trading cards.

We all know that the value of those items depends on the whim of ADD children.

All this guy is saying is that by having the Beanie Babies and Yu-Gi-Oh! cards made in China means that there will be stupid Chinese knockoffs at the swap meet.

That means that everyone will liquidate their stock portfolios because they will see that the clone products are much cheaper and will naturally want to invest in Teenie Wabies and Charlie-Go! cards at this low entry price.

If that happens then the US economy will fall to ruin and companies will have to start making actual products.

This means that all the "special consultants" and "think tank" employees will have to find real work.

And if that happens then people like Ken Brown can no longer sit at home getting drunk while "working" on such valuable articles(which they hastily fire off before bothering to spell check or even reread to see if there is any coherence).

Re:Wah! Stomp your feet! Wahh!

[JWW]

So everyone using windows has a competitive advantage just because its proprietary??

That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Ford can sure as hell build its own systems to run on Linux and they would still an important part of competitively running their business. Also if you run MySQL as a database the important thing (the IP from a user perspective) is the DATA. That data is your proprietary data, IT IS YOUR IP!! The status of MySQL as open source softare has no effect on your IP for your business.

The guy who wrote this article is a flaming idiot. First he picks our numbers from the internet bubble where companies that make tangible items watched their value stay flat while companies that primarily traded in vapor got obscenely overvalued. It was interesting to note he stopped quoting S&P numbers with 1998 data (this for a report penned in 2004?).

Re:Wah! Stomp your feet! Wahh!

[Anonymous Coward]

That article fails to address the point that their costs associated with developing and maintaining IP (Intellectual Property for the uninitiated) will also drop to near $0.

I understand that open source can have substantial monetary gains over using closed source software. But do you really expect that cost will go down to near $0 just because they are using open source? If the corporation is big or seroius enough about the software they are using, then I'm sure they will have an inhouse team working on the project at-hand. And I doubt that team will be working for free.

Of course, they can always use the bug fixes or new features of the open source software that is being released by the community. But if the corporation is serious or specific enough about their software or IP needs, then they will most likely be doing it themselves - and still spending money to further development.

Re:Wah! Stomp your feet! Wahh!

[tuba_dude]

What intrigues me about this latest argument of "no software costs" is that it's the opposite of the last salvo. Previously, the opposition had argued that free software costs more due to support and related expenses. Now it looks like they want to ignore that.

Not that I'm pointing out hypocracy or anything, it's just an interesting note.

Re:Wah! Stomp your feet! Wahh!

[LO0G]

Are you sure of that?

If Ford uses Embedded Linux in the engine control systems of its cars, doesn't the GPL require that they release the source for the control systems of the car?

And the engine control systems are some of the most valuable intellectual property of the car manufacturers.

And before you say "That's ok, because they're using LGPL and they're only required to release the portions of the code that they modified", are you sure about that? Do you have the findlaw references of the court cases that adjudicated the lawsuit?

There's a really good reason that companies like Microsoft and IBM (yes, IBM) don't let their employees that work on their closed source projects work on open source projects. Their lawyers are scared witless about what accidentally including GPL code would do to their intellectual property.

Re:Wah! Stomp your feet! Wahh!

[JWW]

Yes I am sure of that. If Ford does not modify the kernel they do not need to release their code for the control system of the car. If you write a game that runs on Linux do you need to release all the code for it just because you run it on Linux. Of course not!!! Oracle runs on linux and the last time I checked they haven't put any of their code out there under the GPL.

Also, if Ford wanted to they could even create driver modules for the kernel and still not be required to include their source. See nvidia's Linux display drivers for this case.

Re:Wah! Stomp your feet! Wahh!

[ciphertext]

You know.....after reading it again.....there are WAY too many quotation marks.

Re:Wah! Stomp your feet! Wahh!

[Anonymous Coward]

The report state: The bottom line is this: a non-IP future means that all companies in the Baruch Lev study go to from 85% to 0% in intangible asset value. That article fails to address the point that their costs associated with developing and maintaining IP (Intellectual Property for the uninitiated) will also drop to near $0. This allows most business to focus on, well for instance, their business. It frees them in some regards from worrying about how much budget to allocate for the overhead of purchasing and maintaining closed source IT "solutions".

what if my business is software?

Re:Wah! Stomp your feet! Wahh!

[LO0G]

I repeat my comment: Where is the case law on this?

What happens to Ford when GM (or Chrysler, or BMW, or Toyota, or whowever) sues them using the the GPL to force them to release the source code to their engine firmware? You say that there won't be a problem. But how do you know that?

More importantly, even if Ford's lawyers say "Yeah, the GPL doesn't require that we release this code", without this being litigated and thus resolved in the courts, how can they be sure that some jury (whose members never completed high school) won't decide to force them to release their entire source code?

And how many millions of dollars will they have to spend defending themselves?

IMHO, the GPL and it's ambiguities are the single greatest barrier to the adoption of Linux in corporate America.

Re:Wah! Stomp your feet! Wahh!

[Anonymous Coward]

But how do you know that?

Because I can read the fucking license you ignorant cunt. Why don't you try reading it yourself before you spout off some more trollish crap about it?

Re:Wah! Stomp your feet! Wahh!

[Anonymous Coward]

w0rd. RTFGPL. Quit FUDdin' around. Saying apps that run on Linux are subject to the GPL is like saying all Windows apps are subject to Microsoft's EULA. The parent post was right, you are an ignorant... well, why should women have to bear the burden entirely here? an ignorant dickhead!

Re:Wah! Stomp your feet! Wahh!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said.

Any business using closed source software has NO business advantage over their rivals who use the same software. Open source gives hungry business them the edge, over the overpriced take it or leave it crap that comes out of a box.

More money on the pointy business side of things, more spending on training their staff to perform more efficiently.

Re:Wah! Stomp your feet! Wahh!

[LO0G]

Ya know, I shouldn't feed the AC trolls - I really shouldn't, but..

I'm not a lawyer. But I know several lawyers, including several IP lawyers (my brother, for one). He says that there are significant ambiguities associated with the GPL that have not yet been adjudicated. I trust him to know what he's saying.

I'm willing to bet that you're not a lawyer either, are you?

I didn't think so.

If you're not a lawyer, or can't quote me case law (in other words, the results of a trial), then your opinion is worth nothing.

Re:Wah! Stomp your feet! Wahh!

[Anonymous Coward]

You mentioned the Quake II engine. While I'm aware that the source has been released, is it really under the terms of the GPL? So anyone who now makes a game using that engine HAS to make his source code public domain as well?

Re:Wah! Stomp your feet! Wahh!

[gabebear]

Yep, the Quake II engine is under the GPL, HOWEVER software doesn't have to be released under one licence. Quite a bit of software is released under the GPL and a propriety license, so people have a choice to either make their derivitive programs GPL, or pay for another licence, QT(the graphics API for KDE) is licensed this way.

Also, Quake II levels need not be under the GPL. If someone wanted to use the engine to make a new game, only the engine modifications would have to be GPLed, the artwork and level designs can be distributed however you like.

Re:Wah! Stomp your feet! Wahh!

[JWW]

You know it would be entirely possible for Ford to by an executables only of embedded linux, and write their software to run on top of they. In that case they wouldn't even have the GPL source code.

Your argument is really weak. The AC who posted about code for Windows apps was right on. If you write a windows app (even using their APIs) you are not bound by the windows EULA, just because your software runs on it.

Re:Wah! Stomp your feet! Wahh!

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a short list of things that can happen to you if you lose a copyright infringement suit, and "you must release source" isn't on it.

Re:Wah! Stomp your feet! Wahh!

[LO0G]

But the primary reason for going with open source is that you can modify the source.

If you run a binary-only distro, you might as well run Windows CE in the engine module.

Or you could buy one of the non-GPL embedded operating systems...

Re:Wah! Stomp your feet! Wahh!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think merely owning open source products instead of closed source software weakens (or even levels)your ability to maintain a "competive advantage". What gives you the competitive advantage is how "efficiently" you produce your product or provide your service compared to your competitors. This also "assumes" that your product/service is "perceived" to be relatively equal in value to your competitors. You obtain a "competive advantage"

I don't "get" it.

For god's sake

[Ckwop]

Nonsense Squared! This is really unreal. I'm not a linux zealot but open source is at the *VERY least* as secure as closed source and has the potential to totally surpass it through the ability to get such a large amount of peer review.

I don't see how companies saving money is going to lead to the end of the American way anyhow.

I just love it when people say open source is anti-capitalist and unamerican. I think quite the opposite. It embodies the spirit of America. Capitalism is about maximising profit. Open source achieves that by being free (as in beer) on the whole. American's also love freedom of speech. Open source is more than freedom of speech. It's freedom of information. Companies don't like this fredom because they can't control it. It is cancerous but this isn't a bad cancer.

If I put my blood and sweat into a piece of software and GPL it I sure as hell don't want a closed sourced vendor to take my hard work and make money from it - I don't see how that is unammerican. It's not Marxist, as some suggest, I still believe the code is mine and there's ownership to that code. It's just that i've made it freely available provided you follow some simple rules.

Another point. The business value of code is not tied to applications as such.. it's tied to the code that bridges those applications. That's where you pay money the money for programmers. Open source will generally have no effect on the value of this important intellectual property. It just means you may not have to reinvent the wheel to do a job that's partly been done before..

And besides, even if his logic was sane, if people are outsourcing jobs to india to save money then by the same token the open source neutron bomb should be able to take a chunk out of the market value of a few corporations. You can't have your cake and eat it.

Simon.

Re:For god's sake

[CrosbieFitch]

...GPL it I sure as hell don't want a closed sourced vendor to take my hard work and make money from it.

In case you didn't notice, the GPL fully embraces the idea of a vendor (Microsoft or anyone else) being able to take your GPL source code and make money from it. All it requires is that if they release anything based on your source code, that they must release all the source code too. The GPL is not about preventing anyone from making money.

Re:For god's sake

[Rich0]

And it also requires that MS not be able to restrict their customers from distributing the code themselves.

Suppose MS made MS-linux based on the linux kernel and distributed it under the GPL for $10,000 a copy.

Another company would just buy one copy and then resell it for $14.95 if they expected to sell at least 1000 copies.

That is the other half of the GPL - you must license your derivitives under the GPL as well, which means that others are free to use the derivitives.

Re:For god's sake

[jdavidb]

I'm a libertarian and an extreme laissez-faire capitalist. I agree with you that I can't see how people believe Free software is anti-capitalism. I am pro-Free software because I am a laissez-faire capitalist.

Intellectual property is a government granted monopoly. I do not agree with government granted monopolies, both on ethical grounds (just not right to restrain everybody else that way) as well as practical (not as good for the economy as some people think; the alternative is better, as demonstrated by Free software). Thus I value Free software as a legal means of resistance against these monopolies.

Read clearly what it says is the purpose of intellectual property in the Constitution some time. The purpose is not to recognize the inherent right people have to their ideas; the purpose is to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts" by "securing for a limited time" an exclusive right to an idea for its inventor. That's a government-granted monopoly. If there were some issue of inherent rights here, then this right would last forever and making it end after the limited time would be immoral. (Your rights to your house don't expire after 14 years.)

Furthermore, I don't agree that the progress of science and the useful arts is part of the purpose of government. I believe granting these monopolies and restraining everyone else who didn't come up with an idea is unethical. Furthermore, I believe it actually hinders the progress of science and the useful arts. Free software is proving that when these monopolies (effectively) don't exist, everyone can build on the work others have released, and the science of software construction advances faster than it would have had people exercised their privilege of government-granted monopoly. In the same way, all science in history has been built on the work of others, and we can best help the advance of science by not restraining those who would use and advance the ideas of others.

Yes, as many point out, if intellectual property laws didn't exist, the GPL and copyleft could not exist, either. However, this misunderstands the purpose of copyleft. If you read what RMS has actually said (most people don't), you'll find that copyleft was invented as a weapon to strike against what he felt was an immoral exercise of copyright. He talks about how he used the rationale that it was acceptable to use the enemy's own weapon against them, even though he didn't agree with what they were doing. Copyleft is a way to use copyright law to work against what RMS felt was an abuse of copyright law.

RMS may be a communist hippie or something like many people say; I don't know. He and I certainly don't see eye to eye on everything (he doesn't advocate the abolition of intellectual property laws or copyright, actually). All I know is, when I think things through from a libertarian point of view, I arrive at the conclusion that Free software is the laissez-faire capitalist way.

Re:For god's sake

[cavemanf16]

I just love it when people say open source is anti-capitalist and unamerican.

Two things that sell in marketing:

1) Sex
2) Patriotism

Obviously software engineering is mostly FAR from 'sexy', and Open Source Software vs. Closed Source Software has nothing to do with sex, so computer companies are choosing the 'patriotism' angle to sell their closed source software. Unfortunately all the marketing in the world can't, in the end, overcome a revolutionary change to the way things are done.

Re:For god's sake

[CrosbieFitch]

I quite agree.

However, simply because you see little prospect for making money by selling GPL software does not mean the GPL is about preventing people from making money.

Re:For god's sake

[Thnurg]

I'm not American, but I've heard the anthem. I believe one of the lines includes "The Land of the Free".
Well if America is "The Land of the Free" then Free Software is more in line with "The American Way" than proprietary.
However the world is beginning to learn the cynical lesson that the land of the free is fast becoming the land of the corporate interest.
When a country's dictator is a despot you can hope that someday he will be overthrown or will die of natural causes. When the dictator is money it will take a total economic collapse to depose it.
That's why our governments MUST value the public interest over the corporate interest, and why I fear that the fast eroding freedom in America will turn it into Mega City 1 long before this century is half gone.

Re:For god's sake

[Kjella]

And besides, even if his logic was sane, if people are outsourcing jobs to india to save money then by the same token the open source neutron bomb should be able to take a chunk out of the market value of a few corporations. You can't have your cake and eat it.

1. YOu lose the IP cashflow itself (since many big IP companies are American.

2. You lose competitiveness. Expensive people and IP (US) compared cheap people + expensive IP (India) now, In the future: Expensive people + cheap IP (US) compared to cheap people and IP (India). To them, the cost savings are a greater fraction of their total cost.

However, there's no real alternative. Ban OSS, make US compete with expensive people and IP vs India with cheap people and IP? Yeah. Right.

OSS is the great equalizer because it can always be money locally spent. Let's say I want a small feature. Closed source US product, I can pay a US company to add it on top of theirs. OSS, I can have the local programmers do it. Yes, that will suck for the US.

Kjella

Re:For god's sake

[jdavidb]

Read Selling Free Software from GNU. As I said in my other post, noone ever seems to bother to actually read the things RMS and GNU puts out.

I'm not really karma whoring with this link; just trying to get more people to read this so we can actually see informed discussions instead of misunderstandings like this.

Re:For god's sake

[nine-times]

"I just love it when people say open source is anti-capitalist and unamerican. I think quite the opposite. It embodies the spirit of America. Capitalism is about maximising profit."

No offense, but I always shudder a little when people imply the American spirit is about Capitalism and "maximising profit". Not that I'm communist or anything. I think you're right that open-source fits with American ideals, but I think that the ideal behind the founding of America was a philosophic ideal about freedom. Not free as in beer, but free as in speech (and notice that, advocates of the GPL are always using the phrase "free as in speech", which, goes without saying, is a nod to the Bill of Rights).

America has a mostly capitalistic (with some socialistic tendancies thrown in) economic system, merely because the political foundations insist on freedoms of all kinds, and this thing we call "capitalism" is the most free economic system.

But really, "capitalism" isn't synonymous with "the American way". That's some BS somebody's fed you through movies and propaganda. I, as an American, am open to any possible system that a)preserves freedom and b)works.

Re:For god's sake

[NineNine]

First off, you're not a libertarian.

Secondly, a basic government is needed to protect property rights (that's a tenent of Libertariansim). Your assumption is that everybody wants to code for free, which is utter bullshit. How do you propose protecting the rights of people who develop software and want to sell it? If people who want to sell their work have no way of protecting their property, then what you've done is just ended all non-free software development, so all software development is in the hands of people who happen to have the time and money to code for free. The government is there to protect basic rights that make capitalism possible.

What you're advocating is the gov't in Atlas Shrugged, and what happened there, would happen here if copyright an IP laws were ever abolished. Those people who DO create and want to be rewarded for it will have nothing to do with this country any more.

I used to write software for a living, and if the software I wrote had no IP behind it, I simply wouldn't write software.

Free software is not capitalism, and it doesn't fit. Capitalism assumes that people want to be reimbursed in some way. Free software makes no logical sense, because people do it out of altruism and stupidity.

Re:For god's sake

[tomstdenis]

The kernel is a small part of the OS though.

MS in this case could take the userland tools and kernel, release those under GPL but then make their own proprietary hotplug/portage database which is not GPL.

So you couldn't just buy one copy of MS-Linux and re-sell it since the distribution is not GPL, just certain components of it.

Tom

Re:For god's sake

[Just Some Guy]

All it requires is that if they release anything based on your source code, that they must release all the source code too.

Umm, wouldn't that make them an Open Source vendor, and therefore not a target of Ckwop's complaint?

Re:For god's sake

[naryco]

I don't see why some people have such a hard time accepting it. If some people are ready to develop software for free, it naturally reduces the chances for other people to get paid for it. sure, there still is the need to customize and support it further but the jobs for software product development are gone. Just think about all the jobs involved in developing the commercial products for which open source alternatives exist. If the open source alternatives ever really gained widespread adoption, there would be MUCH less IT jobs around.

Re:For god's sake

[Cognitive Dissident]

No, this is not 'nonsense' and we must not think of it that way. It is propaganda of the most blatant sort. Having produced several 'studies' that try to make corporate officers and staff fear Open Source, they have now moved on to inoculating ordinary IT workers against the idea. Have most 'rank & file' IT workers thought much about Open Source even if they have heard of it? Probably not as they are too busy trying to keep up with their workload. But they might well read some of the website and magazines that this article will be featured on.

This is advertising a point of view, just like commerical or political ads. And it will work if it is not countered, just as it has worked for countless candidates and businesses already. It doesn't matter if the reasoning is flawed any more than it matters for other forms of advertising. It's not aimed at people who are calmly analyzing what they read. It's aimed at harried IT workers who are skimming the IT journal of their choice for any 'trends' they need to be aware of to keep up with their job. They'll swallow it whole just like most people swallow political 'soundbite' ads whole. People tend to believe what they hear repeated over and over. Dismissing it as 'nonsense' is as stupid and dangerous as Dukakis dismissing the Willie Horton smear campaign as nonsense.

How much 'public relations' work do Open Source businesses do? Maybe it's about time for the FSF and other bodies to actually purchase advertising and increase their other explicit efforts to promote understanding of the Open Source movement. If they let Microsoft sponsored propaganda defined them, they are headed for the same sort of high-minded defeat that Dukakis suffered.

Re:For god's sake

[smagruder]

Another point. The business value of code is not tied to applications as such.. it's tied to the code that bridges those applications. That's where you pay money the money for programmers. Open source will generally have no effect on the value of this important intellectual property. It just means you may not have to reinvent the wheel to do a job that's partly been done before.

To expand this thought... As free software becomes ubiquitous, the demand for customization and integration development should dramatically increase to a level never seen before. The new IP with regards to software will be the trade secrets that a software services company possesses in its strategies for providing these development services. This is going to be a huge global industry.

Re:For god's sake

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, you're an idiot.

Secondly, libertarianism and Libertarianism (i.e., supporters of crony capitalism, corporatism and monopolies) are two separate ideas.

Thirdly, open source merely shifts how money can be made on software development... it doesn't end money-making opportunities. Customizations and integrations will now be in even greater demand, globally!!!

Re:For god's sake

[Anonymous Coward]

You miss the point. If MS did that, then in addition to being a closed source vendor, they would also be an open source vendor. I believe the parent would be upset if the code was 'closed up' by the closed source vendor in order to make money from it.

Re:For god's sake

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the reason only GNUites care about GNU/RMS essays is because the dishonest logic in there. "Go ahead and SELL your free software", says stallman, and then spends the rest of the essay explaining how "it's not a problem because nobody really needs to BUY it from you". Is that supposed to reassure programmers?

Like a lot of Stallman's babber, it's pre-Internet thinking. I'm sure it was a lot easier to sell GNU EMACS when computers were hundreds of miles apart, programs were moved around on giant 9-Track tape reels, and the only way to find out about software was to answer an ad in the back of a magazine or newsletter.

Nobody sells Free Software anymore. Nobody. They sell support plans and manuals and t-shirts, but they don't sell the software.

Re:For god's sake

[Overd0g]

Finally, someone who isn't afraid to state the obvious. You realize you may be burned as a witch, however.

Re:For god's sake

[CrosbieFitch]

They might not choose to release it...

They could be using GPL software to compute Mandelbrot Sets or something.

And it is not beyond the realms of possibility that MS might sell a piece of GPL software. If they did, that wouldn't stop them being a 'closed source' vendor.

Re:For god's sake

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said! I have come to exactly the same conclusions over the past year.

Re:For god's sake

[Sj0]

Quickly becoming?

Has long become, my freind. Corporations are now more human than human. They have more rights than us, immortality, a whole slew of resources and legal rights you and I could never dream of having.

Re:For god's sake

[vvdd2]

By the way, if you want to sell software you wrote - GPL is a better option than BSD style license. This way you (as the author) can sell your software to commertial entity for some $$$ without any requirement to open their sources.
With BSD license they can just take your software away without paying anything.

Re:For god's sake

[Tarantolato]

Free software makes no logical sense, because people do it out of altruism

Right. Super-altruists like IBM and Sun.

and stupidity.

Although the commies certainly proved themselves leaders in this field, there's nothing anticapitalist about stupidity.

Free software is not capitalism, and it doesn't fit. Capitalism assumes that people want to be reimbursed in some way.

Companies regularly have loss-leader products (give away the razor and sell the blades) that they don't expect to get meaningful reimbursement for. That's part of capitalism. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

The companies who are investing in Free Software (I'm using the GNU-approved term instead of Open Source just to annoy you, by the way) are making a comparable bet. Maybe it'll work, maybe it won't; you're pretty sure it won't.

But failures are a big part of capitalism. If we banned bad business models, we'd basically be "picking winners" and setting an "industrial policty": which means you're veering into Mondale/Dukakis territory, binky.

Hey, here's an idea, Mr. Capitalist-Libertarian-Ayn Rand-fanboy: if you don't like Free Software why don't you make a law against it? Oh wait.

Re:For god's sake

[CrosbieFitch]

That's because the mechanisms to sell open source software are a bit thin on the ground at the moment.

If you check out The Digital Art Auction
you'll see that I'm working on such a mechanism.

Re:For god's sake

[Kenja]

I've read it. Its BS and doesn't work in the real world. In the real world, if I spend X years and Y dollars creating an innovative peace of software I need to at least recoup my expenses when trying to sell it as a service. Another group however can just take what I wrote (since its released under the GPL) and under sell me on support costs since they have no development expenses to make up.

Re:For god's sake

[Anonymous Coward]

if intellectual property laws didn't exist, the GPL and copyleft could not exist, either. However, this misunderstands the purpose of copyleft

Exactly. It's true that, in the absence of copyright, somebody could take my sourcecode and release a modified compiled-only version. However, it's also true that without copyright, there would be no economic reward for doing so. Without copyright, the GPL is unnecessary, its purpose fulfilled by simple economics.

Re:For god's sake

[Minna Kirai]

Secondly, a basic government is needed to protect property rights (that's a tenent of Libertariansim)

Conflating Libertarianism and libertarianism makes you look as stupid as if you mixed up Republicans and republicans or Democrats and democrats.

In all cases, the specific uppercased political party named itself after a lowercased general principle, but has gone on to define itself in ways far beyond or even in opposition to what the original term meant.

The acid test to distinguish a Libertarian from a libertarian is to ask "Should a man be able to sell himself into slavery?" The Libertarian says yes, a libertarian says no.

Re:For god's sake

[Anonymous Coward]

"Nobody sells Free Software anymore. Nobody. They sell support plans and manuals and t-shirts, but they don't sell the software"

Yes they do. Red Hat sells RHEL which is made up of Free software. You can't just arbitrarily separate the selling of the software from any associated benefits like support, a manual etc. I know you were hoping to be able to win the arguement by setting up conditions which could only prove your point but sorry they are not valid groundrules and only a sucker would accept them as a position to argue against.

There are also vendors who will sell you any OSS distro for like $4.99. Many people get their linux distros this way. It may only be $4.99 but it is in fact another example which proves that you are wrong when you say you can't sell Free software.

Nobody said you would become an instant millionaire by writing some cool GPL app but you wrong if your trying to argue that its not possible to make money selling GPL'd software. Several Linux vendors have been doing it for years now.

Re:For god's sake

[jdavidb]

Did you even read what I wrote?

First off, you're not a libertarian.

Sure I am. I'm currently a minarchist libertarian, but learning towards anarchist, also known as anarcho-capitalist.

There's more than one kind of libertarian, you know. Those who, like me, disagree with intellectual property laws are still a minority within the movement, but we are a significant minority. Here's a good discussion of the issue. Here's some more perspective. Saying libertarians are all agreed on the issue and that I'm not a libertarian because of my position on this is a misrepresentation. As Eric Raymond says, the non-coercion principle is about the only thing all libertarians agree on.

Secondly, a basic government is needed to protect property rights (that's a tenent of Libertariansim)

You're dismissing an entire branch of libertarianism, there. Anarcho-libertarians do not believe a basic government is needed, at all, or believe that government itself should be demonopolized (allowing a choice between any number of independent governments in a geographic area, or starting your own). Now, most of the ones I hear from still seem to believe in intellectual property, but I'm at a loss as to how intellectual property law is to be enforced in anarchy.

Furthermore, as I said in my post (did you read it?), I do not believe "intellectual property" is a property right. Nowhere in our legal code is it acknowledged as a right; it is a gift from the public encoded in the Constitution NOT because people have an "inherent right" to their ideas, but in order to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. (Did you read the Constitution?)

Your assumption is that everybody wants to code for free, which is utter bullshit.

Where did I say that? Strawman, or else you're reading somebody else's post.

I don't code for free, but I don't produce proprietary software, either. Something like 70% or more of the coding industry is not jobs for software makers like Microsoft or your favorite game company but coding custom software that is only of interest to one particular company. This will never go away; intellectual property laws have zero bearing on whether this kind of work needs to be done or not. Furthermore, removing the government-monopoly grant of intellectual property would radically change the software industry but not destroy it. Free software is demonstrating that. We are slowly approaching the point where, even with the protection of the government grant of exclusive rights "for a time," proprietary software will be unable to compete on price, features, performance, or TCO with Free software. That's the point of the whole article from Tocqueville! They see Free software as a neutron bomb that will "kill" the industry. What it will do is not kill it, but change it forever. There will still be money to be made in Free software. And even if not, people still have the right to give their "intellectual property" away for free, so this change is going to happen anyway.

How do you propose protecting the rights of people who develop software and want to sell it?

I do not believe anyone has a right to a profit at any particular business model, nor do I believe anyone has an exclusive right to an idea they have originated, thus I do not propose protecting these alleged "rights." (I do, of course, believe in protecting all the same rights for everybody, so they'd have the same basic rights as you and me.)

Meanwhile, it's not impossible to make money selling Free software. Why don't you do some reading some time?

so all software development is in the hands of people who happen to have the time and mone

Re:For god's sake

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, so you CAN sell the software, but only for the nominal cost of burning a CD. Great comeback :P

RHEL is a support plan. RTFLicence.

Re:For god's sake

[dasmegabyte]

That's because RMS is a creepy academic zealot with an agenda. It's really hard to take business advice from a guy like that, especially considering most companies are out to make money, and the whole thrust of that page is that software can be sold to fund development -- in other words, you can break even selling it. It becomes a charity, not a business.

It's hard for classic software companies to go from "we're making money" to "we're funding development." In my experience, GPL distribution attracts a few honest companies and a lot of freeloaders. I bought a Windows distribution of SpamAssassin promising free support and unlimited updates. The guy provides NO support and hasn't compiled anything since March. Buyer beware, I guess...but it's happened to me with enough other OSS Windows ports to encourage a "better off buying closed source, at least I know the developers are getting paid" philosophy.

Re:For god's sake

[Anonymous Coward]

And the reason they're "thin on the ground" is the Internet. Funny thing is that 7 years ago it was actually easier to sell Linux distros than it is today -- the bookstores and computer stores were full of Linux CDs, and now they aren't. What does that tell you?

Re:For god's sake

[Just Some Guy]

And it is not beyond the realms of possibility that MS might sell a piece of GPL software. If they did, that wouldn't stop them being a 'closed source' vendor.

I didn't realize that "closed" and "open" were mutually exclusive. Was SuSe a closed source vendor before they released the source to yast?

If they sell open source products, then they are an open source vendor, in addition to other roles they may have. They are perfectly entitled, both legally and morally, to make a profit from Free software as long as they abide by the rules.

Re:For god's sake

[jdavidb]

Uh, ever seen Linux Central? They seem to believe they are making money selling CDs of Free software. I guess they'll continue to do so as long as they believe they are making money.

There is no rule in Free software that says you can only sell for a nominal cost. You can sell for any cost you want. There is only the economic rule that people will not pay more for it than it is worth.

Re:For god's sake

[CrosbieFitch]

Much as I'd like to agree with you, what's being sold isn't so much the software as the package or distro, or in other words, 'convenience'.

The only time open source software is sold at the moment is when a contractor says "Pay me $500 or you can't have the software modification I've produced for you".

These software sales are always between developers and commissioning clients, except in one important case: Blender.

Blender is a unique landmark where open source software is sold to a large group of customers.

It won't be the last.

Re:For god's sake

[Anonymous Coward]

Loss leaders for the books and shirts. Its obvious from looking at the page.

Re:For god's sake

[dasmegabyte]

Well, I agreed with you up to the last paragraph.

Free software is capitalism and does make sense, but only for certain things. See, software is hard to write, and there are many elements which are universal, yet have no universal method of replication. Open Source makes sense as a method of providing a uniform framework that is shared by many closed source vendors, that is understood by and supported by all of them. It's less a product than a standardization of common activities.

Think of it like constructing a building. Could you make a building if every brick vendor offered different sizes and shapes of bricks? If every concrete had a different mix time and pour rate? If every bulldozer shipped with different fuel sources and control systems? Sure, some of these things are standardized, but most of them are just the result of every vendor and manufacturer adopting the same constraints as the others. That's what OSS is for software vendors.

A little uniformity is a good thing, and before the prevalence of OSS, your only option was to trust the arbitrary uniformity of closed source vendors. OSS is a way to take the repetitive, common things all developers do, and do them ONCE for the entire community of developers.

Now, where OSS doesn't make sense is in the creation of new software products. If you can make good money selling something, why in the hell should you give it away?

Re:For god's sake

[fbg111]

I don't see how companies saving money is going to lead to the end of the American way anyhow.

Uh, since when is saving money the American way?

(Ducks...)

Re:For god's sake

[fbg111]

On a more serious note,

It's just that i've made it freely available provided you follow some simple rules.

You've made it so it can't be stolen, expropriated, or co-opted by any other person or organization.

Re:For god's sake

[Simon Brooke]

If there were some issue of inherent rights here, then this right would last forever and making it end after the limited time would be immoral. (Your rights to your house don't expire after 14 years.)

You're right, they don't. In typical western democracies they expire in less than that. Here in Scotland, for example, if you leave a house abandoned and someone else has the use of it without your permission and without you doing anything about it for twelve years, it's legally theirs.

There is no fundamental right to property. The law protects property - and ought to protect property - only so far as it benefits the community.

Re:For god's sake

[Prior Restraint]

In the real world, if I spend X years and Y dollars creating an innovative peace of software I need to at least recoup my expenses when trying to sell it as a service.

In "the real world," people don't just assume they deserve to recoup their expenses for no other reason than that they spent X years and Y dollars doing something. If you absolutely must turn a profit on something you did, you should make arrangements to get reimbursed before the fist line of code is ever written.

Another group however can just take what I wrote (since its released under the GPL) and under sell me on support costs since they have no development expenses to make up.

Unless your product is trivial (in which case, you don't deserve to support yourself on it), it will take time for your competitors to understand what the Hell your code does, and how best to complement it. In the meantime, the services you provide give you new ideas for adding yet more complexity. Not all consultants are created equal.

Re:For god's sake

[Simon Brooke]

Free software is not capitalism, and it doesn't fit. Capitalism assumes that people want to be reimbursed in some way. Free software makes no logical sense, because people do it out of altruism and stupidity.

So what you're saying is capitalism doesn't fit with the way people are? It's broken, then. Fix it or scrap it.

Oh, and I notice that you gave up writing software to become a porn broker. There's an amusing put down about the dignity of labour to be written here, but it's shooting fish in a barrel.

Re:For god's sake

[rcs1000]

Actually, there are many, many types of libertarians. Some believe there should be no government at all, some believe in a very small one (minimal statists), some believe that contracts between individuals can somehow replace government.

Libertarian covers a wide variety of sins (and virtues). Best not to use Slashdot as an excuse for "define your terms" pedantry. ;-)

Re:For god's sake

[Intrigued]

Ethics and practicality don't always go hand in hand. Ethics depends largely on point of view.

The most important part of patents (and from the beginning in theory, copyrights) was the registration/publication of the information.

I would not want to see society take the step back to the dark ages where people horded information in guilds, abbeys and personal libraries. The true purpose of patent/copyright laws is to transfer the greed/control incentive from protection by restriction to protection by law, thereby allowing information to give more benefit to the creator if given to the public than if kept to himself.

There is also the matter of compensation. I have a very good friend that wrote a much needed technical text for a major publishing company. He spent months struggling and studying to create it. It sold ok but just ok and no one really made much money. Just enough that it was worth the time to create it. He freely admits that he could have never done it without the compensation.

If it were not for the copyrights to extract the profit for the work of the masses, only the rich, self serving, fanatical or self sacrificing could afford to produce the information.

BTW, I do think that the "limited time" is too great and kills incentive of the best and brightest to continue to produce but I would not wish to see us fall too far the other way either.

Re:For god's sake

[drew]

this is true, but redhat enterprise linux seems to be selling fine despite the existence of white box linux, centos, tao, and probably others which are available for free...

Re:For god's sake

[Anonymous Coward]

Aw, did the poor closed-source developer get burned when the free software train came into town?

Quit your damn whining. Ever heard of survival of the fittest? If you can't perform or outperform your competitors, whether they offer their services for free or not, you're toast. That's the way true capitalism works. Those who perform well in the marketplace are the ones who come out on top. Those who don't get on Slashdot and complain about outsourcing, free software, etc, and then join the unemployment lines.

Re:For god's sake

[Sunda666]

Hmmm lemme see if I remember this right:

"If I have an apple and you have an apple, and we exchange them, now each one of us have one apple;
If I have an idea and you have an idea, and we exchange them , now each one of us have two ideas!"

neat, eh?

peace.

Re:For god's sake

[slithytove]

A company wouldn't have to buy even one copy, either, as the source code must be available upon request for, at most, a nominal fee covering cost of distribution. $10k hardly qualifies as nominal:)
On the other hand, as another responder to your post has already pointed out. M$ would do what Caldera did with their Linux distro- mix in some proprietary stuff (metro-x and caldera desktop in caldera's case) so that you can't just copy the cd or install from it to multiple machines.

Re:For god's sake

[spitzak]

Free software is not capitalism,

My god you are wrong there.

Free software IS capitialism. Everybody writing it is writing for entirely selfish purposes. Not every reward is money. I would estimate 99% of free software is written to boost the writer's ego and to gain admiration, and perhaps even to advertise their talents and get paid. Maybe 1% is written by somebody literally thinking they are improving the world.

The GPL is explicitly designed so that a persons creative efforts continue to belong to them, while still allowing maximum exposure and distribution and advertising.

If free software was not capitalism, it would be public domain.

Re:For god's sake

[jdavidb]

Thank you for your insightful contribution to the discussion. I can tell you are well-informed about the original purpose of copyright and patents. I do take issue with one of your assumptions, though:

I would not want to see society take the step back to the dark ages where people horded information in guilds, abbeys and personal libraries.

I do not believe that would happen, and I offer as a counterexample the Free software movement itself. Many in the industry have seen (and the industry itself as a whole is slowly learning) that there is far more incentive to share ideas/software than to hoard it, even when the law gives them the legal right to hoard it! I don't think anything can stop that.

Re:For god's sake

[Anonymous Coward]

This argument is so fucking shallow.

"I'm the real Capitalist -- You are a communist!"
"No, I'M the Capitalist! Commie!"
"Am Not"
"Is Too"

YHBT by this stupid institute.

Re:For god's sake

[Anonymous Coward]

If the power is in the software, why should someone pay more for the software than for the hardware? Why just hardware manufacturers can make money?

Re:For god's sake

[13Echo]

You have a point, but maybe this really shows us how our software industry has become? Could it be that the amount of money and effort that went into producing an non-physical thing (software) and protecting a non-physical invention (patenting intellectual property) really was moot? Maybe it shows that there never was really any *true* value in having proprietary solutions from companies like Microsoft in the first place, other than the fact that there was little alternative before grassroots development of free software became more common with the growth of the Internet. Software develpment is growing and changing. If that involves the adoption of more "free" software instead of proprietary software, then it's just the nature of its evolution.

I still can't see how people insist that there will be less demand for IT jobs. There may be less of a demand for designing and writing the software, if community efforts overtake proprietary efforts, but you'll still need to have people around to maintain and support the software and the end-users. It will be the same as it is today. My campus IT staff doesn't write their software. They use (mostly proprietary) solutions from several companies. The majority of their pay goes into configuring and maintaing these machines. At any rate, the demand for technical support staff increases all of the time as the needs for more computer-operated tasks increase.

Unless computers and robots do all of the programming and engineering in the future, I can't see how anyone can insist that there will be less IT related jobs. But then again - if robots and computers could program, why would we need to work in the first place? We could all sit on our asses and become philosophers.

Yes: I'm not being serious; I'm being facetious.

By the way. The level of contradiction in these Microsoft-funded reports never cease to amaze me. First, they insist that software like Linux costs more to support than Windows due to a need to higher more, and higher paid, IT staff. Then, they insist that Linux eliminates the need for IT jobs. When will it all end?

Re:For god's sake

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you absolutely must turn a profit on something you did, you should make arrangements to get reimbursed before the fist line of code is ever written."

"...it will take time for your competitors to understand what the Hell your code does, and how best to complement it. In the meantime, the services you provide give you new ideas for adding yet more complexity."

These are the dumbest counter-arguments I have ever heard.

The original guy is just saying he wants a return on his investments (money and time) and maybe turn a little profit, but that someone can just take his work and lowball him.

Your answer is essentially that he should not *want* to make any profits off his work and that he should continue adding new innovations while his compettiors simply continue mooching and stealing his great ideas.

What color is the sky in your world?

Re:For god's sake

[mdielmann]

I agreed with most of what you said, but had to point out one thing I didn't agree with: whether government should have a concern with the promotion of arts and sciences. Government is very interested in those things, because of two things: economy and security. People pay to see (or own) great art, people pay for the results of science, and having superior technology to other countries benefits your security (this goes beyond the 'security' issues of the day, imagine if anyone could easily counterfeit one of the most influential currencies around?). When you think of France, what do you think of? Well, besides renaming foods in retaliation for not wanting to play in the Middle East. Yep, really old buildings, (one of the?) tallest freestanding structure in the world, the Louvre. And where are you going to eat, and sleep? All good for the economy.

So it behooves the government to be interested in this, just like they're interested in industry, because it is the lifeblood of the country. They (are supposed to) make laws to promote this, preferably not to the long-term detriment of these same things. The idea is, artists/inventors will have the capability to make a profit (and pay off the research costs) before the protection is gone and anyone can use their new idea, which will attract them to your country, and further promote your economy. This is all great in theory, and I agree with it, in theory. But when you have 25-year patents in an industry where 5 years old is obsolete, or copyrights lasting decades after the death of the artist, it seems the spirit of the constitution is being directly contradicted, and your point of view may well be better the current state of affairs.

Re:For god's sake

[Intrigued]

Wonderful!

I do truly hope that you are right. It would be a much better world in that view.

I have seen the Free software movement to be, at least in part, a backlash against the increasing oppression of poor protections of the public domain. I have concerns about the free software ferver waning should the legal intellectual monopolies ease their grip or worse yet, gain enough legal strength with such things as software patents to marginalize the movement.

I think that if all protections were removed, these same influences would exert their power in less controlled ways.

I have not seen enough legal pushback to open up the intellectual monopolies and shorten the time periods. I fear that the greater power to make those decisions lies with those receiving the money and that the populace won't be moved enough to stand against it. It is a matter of incentive. The populace with little understanding of it's loss gets outweighed by the greed incentive of a selfish individual(s) to lobby the law. I think that laws have been placed that will never be taken back.

I hope that I have just been made too cynical by recent news.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph [of personally incentivized detriment to society] is for uninformed/ignorant/concerned/apathetic men to do insufficient/ineffectual application of effort to restore their loss." - (my own twist of a fake quote attributed to Burke!)

The real quote:
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle"
Burke's quote

hmmmmm... Burke had the original idea for slashdot?

Re:For god's sake

[Frizzle Fry]

practical (not as good for the economy as some people think; the alternative is better, as demonstrated by Free software).

I don't follow. How is this demonstrated by free software? The large majority of people choose to pay for and use software, music, movies, etc. that are protected by copyright and thus have "government granted monopolies", rather than alternatives that aren't. If most people perfer non-free software, despite the financial cost, this seems to demonstrate that only having free software available would be considerably worse than the current situation.

Re:For god's sake

[jdavidb]

I have seen the Free software movement to be, at least in part, a backlash against the increasing oppression of poor protections of the public domain.

I don't see it that way, at least not primarily. I think as a whole it is the realization of an economic reality: that the proprietary software model cannot compete with any software that might be released without proprietary restrictions, and that noone can stop software from being released free of these restrictions, so there is far more sense in helping oneself by using (and contributing, if applicable) to Free software than using or producing closed.

I have concerns about the free software ferver waning should the legal intellectual monopolies ease their grip

I think you are seeing Free software more from as an ideological viewpoint than as a practical necessity. I encourage you to spend a little while looking at the Open Source branding effort for Free software for awhile, which emphasizes the practical benefits rather than the idealistic and ethical motivations. The "ferver" will not fade, because the vast majority of it is based on the pragmatic fact that the Open Source or Free model meets the needs of people and businesses better than the other. This won't change no matter how restrictive the intellectual monopolies are with their software; on the contrary, if they open up, all they are doing is increasing the amount of Free software in the world and contributing to the movement. And if they loosen up without fully opening things, they will still be outcompeted by the collaborative Free software model.

gain enough legal strength with such things as software patents to marginalize the movement.

Patents are still to be feared.

I think that if all protections were removed, these same influences would exert their power in less controlled ways.

What protections? All we have now is their "protection" of their alleged "intellectual property." If that were removed, what would happen would be they would discover even sooner that they cannot compete long term with Free software. As near as I can tell, there aren't any legal protections that are protecting "us" against "them."

I have not seen enough legal pushback to open up the intellectual monopolies and shorten the time periods. I fear that the greater power to make those decisions lies with those receiving the money and that the populace won't be moved enough to stand against it. It is a matter of incentive. The populace with little understanding of it's loss gets outweighed by the greed incentive of a selfish individual(s) to lobby the law. I think that laws have been placed that will never be taken back.

This is why I take a minarchist libertarian point of view. If the government is restrained in its very constitution from having these kinds of powers, then noone can lobby the government to take these actions. Government should exist only to protect us from outside threats, protect our rights from violation by fellow citizens, and enforce civil contracts. If government's power to grant special privileges, monopolies, etc. were completely abolished, there would be no point in lobbying government. Everyone would finally have, at last, the exact same rights as everybody else. The problem is too many people want to receive new "rights" at the expense of everyone else.

Re:For god's sake

[cdrguru]

Unless a product is hopelessly overcomplicated, the support will consist of things like asking "Is it plugged in?" for totally clueless users. Anybody can handle that level of support without even knowing what the product is supposed to do.

The next level of support is helping people use the product that don't bother reading whatever limited documentation there might be. That can be handled by someone with a 6th grade education that actually can read the documentation and read it back to the slightly more clueful users that didn't bother.

Neither of these levels of support is going to require anything in the way of "understanding the code". If a product needs more support than this to be usable, it is the wrong solution.

Understand, there can be bugs that do actually require fixes. But if that isn't a lot less than 5% of the users, again it is the wrong solution. Someone can easily write off those 5% of sales in favor of the 95% that don't need that level of support.

My conclusion is therefore that support is something that any 6th grader can handle.

Re:For god's sake

[jdavidb]

The demonstration is in progress. Watch the adoption rate of Free software climb along with the rejection rate of proprietary software. It's not done, yet, but you can already see several areas where Free software is a category killer.

Re:For god's sake

[Rich0]

Agreed - there is room in the open source world for companies which continue to deliver real value and innovation.

If Red Hat just kept selling the same enterprise server year after year without at least offering stellar support nobody would pay the price they're asking. With Red Hat you get good support and continuing feature growth. You aren't just buying the software - you're buying the care and the future. Anyone trying to resell Red Hat will always be a step behind - as long as Red Hat keeps moving. And that is what is great about open source - it keeps vendors from stagnating.

Re:For god's sake

[ebyrob]

Do you really think the future is going to sway against copyright?

With laws like the DMCA, and technologies like Palladium on the horizon, I'm not so sure myself. What do you think is going to keep us out of the future Stallman outlines in the Right to Read?

What happens when it becomes criminal to interface a "free" system with a proprietary one? Microsoft already appears to be gearing up for this on Palladium with a beefed up patent portfolio. (DVD's and CSS are one tiny hole in free software currently, but whats to stop the same mechanisms from creating more significant holes?)

Re:For god's sake

[amorsen]

Even if the future isn't going to sway against copyright anytime soon, does that mean we should all just switch to the "winning" side?

Personally I see the draconian measures as a sign of desperation. I have a hope that the people will eventually rise against them and get rid of them, preferably peacefully. It may be wishful thinking of course -- it was also said that the increase in Iraqi fighting was a sign of desperation among supporters of Saddam Hussein.

Re:For god's sake

[Prior Restraint]

Well, when I was thinking about services, it was for something a little more robust than "tech support." I imagined something more like adding new features, interfacing with legacy systems, etc. My job is developing software for corporate use, though, so maybe I'm slanted in my thinking.

Re:For god's sake

[antiMStroll]

That's absolutely correct. They would not be able to take the decade's long labour of others, extend it, package it for $10K and lock the next gen of developers out. You make that sound like a bad thing.

Re:For god's sake

[jdavidb]

Do you really think the future is going to sway against copyright?

Yes, I do. The competition from Free systems is just too strong; the incentives to cooperate just too valuable. And some day, you'll be thinking, "Oh, there was some freak on slashdot who told me this was going to happen!" :)

You do bring up some significant obstacles, particular the issue of it being illegal to interface free systems to proprietary. However, I believe this is a transient concern. For one thing, the current legal weight seems to be to press for interoperability and the open standards that make it possible. For another, interoperability is just too valuable on its own, even if not coerced through legislation, for people to make impossible forever; and, if the systems are interoperable with open standards, they will be interfaced to by Free systems, even if just as an act of civil disobedience; there is furthermore no technologically unbreakable way to prevent or detect this. Finally, even if such a legal "Berlin wall" were established between Free and proprietary systems, enough people are interested in going it alone with Free systems only to still outcompete the proprietary. It'd just be the victory of gzip over compress/LZW all over again. I for one know which side of the wall I'd pick, even on just practical grounds without any ideology.

Re:For god's sake

[jdavidb]

What do you think is going to keep us out of the future Stallman outlines in the Right to Read? [gnu.org]

The main thing keeping us out of this is the willingness of some people to continue producing Free content and Free software. As long as the "intellectual property"-ites continue to maintain the facade of "property rights," they cannot deny anyone the right to do with their "intellectual property" as they wish, including the right to give it away. Sure, some stuff may be locked up for awhile, but in the mean time, some those who learn to do without it or with substitutes will make their methods available to everyone.

Re:For god's sake

[ebyrob]

Even if the future isn't going to sway against copyright anytime soon, does that mean we should all just switch to the "winning" side?

Of course not.

Personally I see the draconian measures as a sign of desperation.

I hope you're correct, but there are those who have compared modern Intellectual Property trends with a second enclosure movement and unfortunately, even many in the F/OSS movement seem to prefer more control over their creative works.

I have a hope that the people will eventually rise against them and get rid of them, preferably peacefully.

I'm sure freedom will win out long-term, but the short term has been gearing up to be rather nasty.

Re:For god's sake

[Eminor]

Secondly, a basic government is needed to protect property rights.

I think most people would agree with that. The problem is when protect is granted too excessively or when obvious methods get patented.

Your assumption is that everybody wants to code for free, which is utter bullshit. How do you propose protecting the rights of people who develop software and want to sell it?

You can to develop software and distribute it with a restricted license if you wish. The fact that others develop software for free doesn't change that. Keep in mind that even if others weren't developing free software that competes with yours, a monopoly might be developing software that competes with yours, making it hard to make money off your software.

The government is there to protect basic rights that make capitalism possible.

Yes, but they do not protect you against competition (Monopolies and IP rights aside). If somebody can produce a product for cheaper than you can, then you are SOL. That's how the market works.

Those people who DO create and want to be rewarded for it will have nothing to do with this country any more.

You seem to think that OSS is about destroying the the entire market place. It is not. In fact, having solid infrastructure that is open to those who whish to enhance it strengthens the economy.

Free software makes no logical sense, because people do it out of altruism and stupidity.

To many people it is a hobby, and if you can share the fruits of your hobby at almost no cost with the rest of the world, that's great. Software is not limited by scarcity, so the old economic model does not apply to it.

To some people, OSS is a reaction to companies trying to unfairly apply the old economic model to software.

Re:For god's sake

[Prior Restraint]

Your answer is essentially that he should not *want* to make any profits off his work...

Nonsense. I didn't say he shouldn't want to make a profit. I said that he shouldn't want to write software that isn't profitable. I hate to break it to you, but most software is crap. If it takes you five years to turn out a new version of ls(1), you're not going to become a millionaire, even if it's closed-source. His post seemed (and it might be a misinterpretation on my part) to suggest that he should be able to make a profit on anything he writes, just because it took him time and money to do it.

...that he should continue adding new innovations while his compettiors simply continue mooching and stealing his great ideas.

Even the parent didn't suggest he was trying to sell the software. The idea is that you give the software away, and make money selling services. These services can include customization (which has little-to-no value outside a particular client) and integration with legacy systems (ditto), among others. If he needs to charge slightly more than the competition to recoup his costs, the ability to say, "I'm the author of this tool" should help convince a potential client he's worth it. If he has to charge significantly more, then there's a chance it's not a profitable piece of software, and he shouldn't bother writing it.

What color is the sky in your world?

It's been my experience that the answer depends on such factors as time of day and local weather conditions (especially smog). Glancing out the window just now, it appears to be a pale gray.

Re:For god's sake

[bnenning]

Capitalism assumes that people want to be reimbursed in some way. Free software makes no logical sense, because people do it out of altruism and stupidity.

Pride, enjoyment, and reputation are forms of reimbursement. Capitalism is about maximizing *utility*, not dollars. But let's say you're right, and everyone who releases free software is a socialist or an idiot. As a business owner, it's still in my self-interest to use that software if it fulfills a need that I otherwise would have had to pay for.

Free Porn. Period. [ninenine.com]

Heh.

Re:For god's sake

[Anonymous Coward]

How about you take that dictionary of yours and look up the term "minarchist" to find out what you are?

A libertarian wants no government interntion in economy. They want all that autonomous. It is clear copyright protection is not always used to promote science.

A minarchist wants only a basic government for things like police, fire department, etc and actually some argue that should be done on hiring people for that as well, thus a business. Thus being close near anarchism.

Do you agree with my 2 definitions? Probably not, and it matters not since it proofs my point: it all depends on the definition and it is clear you two don't agree on that. Therefore, why use the terms, why not exclude them instead? Are these really needed to make your point? Or, why not agree on the definitions first by bringing up your definition in a clear way? First agree on the premise, or leave it out!

Re:For god's sake

[amorsen]

I hope you're correct, but there are those who have compared modern Intellectual Property trends with a second enclosure movement and unfortunately, even many in the F/OSS movement seem to prefer more control over their creative works.

Thank you for the link. You are right that the position of the F/OSS movement has changed a lot. There are even those who think copyright is a positive simply because it enables the GPL. People try so hard to be reasonable and see things from both sides that when one side gets dragged off for miles, they have to follow to stay in the "middle".

Re:For god's sake

[drsmithy]

Meanwhile, it's not impossible to make money selling Free software. Why don't you do some reading some time?

You should try reading it as well. It doesn't explain how to make money selling free software at all, it just says you can (and should try) to charge for it.

That article is a basically like saying you can make money standing beside a river selling cups of water. Sure, for people dumb enough to pay for a cup of water they could simply get by walking over to the river, you can make money, but the vast majority of consumers aren't (quite) *that* stupid.

Second of all, if all software is free, then coding will still have to get done, so people will pay to have what they want done, but there will be no economic incentive to keep the work to themselves, so it will be released in a Free manner.

Your argument is circular ("if all software is free, then all software will be free").

The economic incentive for "keeping the work from themselves" applies to products where the program is the *only* thing being sold. Games are an excellent example of this, but you really need to look no further than software that is used with no requirement for on-going support.

You are right in that this doesn't apply to all - or probably even a majority - of software development. It shouldn't be particularly difficult to sell packages combining free software and services.

Unfortunately, not all customers need or want the "services" part (games, again, being a prime example).

The complete abolishment of copyright - or anything like it - would completely destroy entire sections of the software industry and, more importantly, wipe out entire classes of product (eg: how could Doom 3 deliver ROI when anyone could legally acquire it without paying anything to id ?).

Now, personally, I think copyright needs to be mostly abolished and dramatically limited - but I think eliminating it completely would, overall, have a negative effect.

Re:For god's sake

[drsmithy]

The GPL is explicitly designed so that a persons creative efforts continue to belong to them, while still allowing maximum exposure and distribution and advertising.

Trouble is, it's also explicitly designed to make *selling* those ideas nigh on impossible.

Re:For god's sake

[spitzak]

The original author has no trouble selling them if they want. The original author also can sell or even give the rights to another company to make a closed-source version.

You seem to think it is ok for people to steal others work and make money from it, and call that freedom and capitalism. That's pretty strange.

Re:For god's sake

[drsmithy]

The original author has no trouble selling them if they want.

They'll have trouble selling it more than once, given their first customer can resell - or even give away - copies at will.

The original author also can sell or even give the rights to another company to make a closed-source version.

At which point it becomes closed source software, all the pro-OSS arguments disappear and it becomes "evil" in the eyes of OSS advocates.

You seem to think it is ok for people to steal others work and make money from it, and call that freedom and capitalism. That's pretty strange.

O_o

I think no such thing.

I have no idea how or why you have leapt to this conclusion from my one line comment pointing out that the GPL makes it extremely difficult to sell software.

Re:For god's sake

[Dirtside]

Anarcho-libertarians do not believe a basic government is needed, at all, or believe that government itself should be demonopolized (allowing a choice between any number of independent governments in a geographic area, or starting your own).

I've never quite understood, so I'm asking: how do anarcho-libertarians plan to enforce this system of government demonopolization, if they're committed to non-coercion? How does a "number of independent governments in a geographic area" differ from the current situation? E.g. Spain, Portugal, and France seem like a number of independent governments in a geographic area. Do you mean that the governments' area of influence would overlap? They wouldn't really be governments then, would they? How would they prevent a "traditional" government from invading and enslaving everyone?

Re:For god's sake

[newhoggy]

The American way has be redefined so often and by so many people, that it has become things vague concept that's lost all meaning.

Re:For god's sake

[jdavidb]

Yes, I mean overlapping areas. Spain, Portugal, and France are three different areas for this discussion. I'll describe below what I mean, where there could be any number of governments within the territory we call "Spain."

The non-coercion or non-initiation of force principle is often misunderstood. The idea is not that all force is forbidden; the idea is that it is wrong to initiate it. Take this simple example: you walk into a dark alley and someone attempts to mug you. They have initiated force against you, and you have the right of self-defense.

One of the basic principles of libertarianism is that the right of self-defense can be delegated, and that is why we have governments that defend us; they are merely exercising a right we possessed and delegated. (As a corollary, another basic principle is that rights we do not possess can not be delegated. For example, I do not possess the right to confiscate your money and use it on public services, thus I cannot delegate such a right to the government; even if we vote on it, then, taking your money away to fund these things is an exercise of a power government cannot legitimately possess. Many minarchist libertarians still concede the necessity of minial taxes, but a growing number are beginning to conclude that all such services should be funded by voluntary donations (and preferable handled outside the purview of government, anyway. This is not so farfetched; public television operates mostly on donations, and when was the last time you noticed one of those breast cancer marathons to raise money?)

A friend who helped me become a libertarian once said that a government, as we currently understand it, is simply an organization that claims a monopoly on the use of force in a particular geographic area. They claim to be the only legitimate authority to exercise force and that all small-scale private uses must be authorized (delegated) by them. This is actually completely backward.

So, imagine that we demonopolized this. Then suppose five or ten or twenty or even a thousand different groups sprung up, all with completely voluntary participation, each considered to be the government of its members. These might all take radically different forms; some would be elective democracies; some might even be monarchies. Some might allow membership (citizenship) in additional governments; some might require exclusive citizenship.

Now, as long as the relationship between a government and its members is private, everything is fine and nobody else's business. But suppose a government or some of its members begin infringing the rights of persons outside of their government. Those people of course have the right of self-defense, which may or may not be delegated to one or more organizations (governments) to exercise that right on their behalf. Those people could do just what we would do now if a foreign government attacked us: fight in their own defense.

In this way, each government would act as a check on the others. This is checks and balances to the extreme! As long as people practice a "live and let live" policy toward each other, they have no cause for concern. You might work with people who are members of ten different governments, and presumably you would all be peaceable to each other. There's just no incentive to violate other people's rights when their government will come after you. (And that government has no incentive to violate other people's rights when those rights will be defended by another government.)

What an incredible world to imagine -- and all of it is based on voluntary agreement. Noone has to be a member of a government if they don't want to; if you don't like yours, you leave and join another or start your own. If you don't want to be a member of one, you can stay out of the whole thing if you like. If you really want to have a hereditary monarchy, more power to you, as long as noone else has to accept it except those who choose to. As long as people respect each other's rights, they can live in the same society in harmony this way. The multiple governments enforce the kind of live and let live, ain't nobody's business if I do kind of society some slashdotters here can only dream of.

Re:For god's sake

[Dirtside]

One of the basic principles of libertarianism is that the right of self-defense can be delegated, and that is why we have governments that defend us

See Hobbes or Rousseau. This is actually one of the basic principles of sociology; pretty much all governments have practiced it since long before the advent of libertarianism.

a government, as we currently understand it, is simply an organization that claims a monopoly on the use of force in a particular geographic area.

And this organization just springs out of thin air? Governments are created out of the collective will of the people. And the nature of governments essentially requires that they have a monopoly on the use of force in a particular geographic area. If "governments" were geographically intermingled, you'd end up with incessant violence due to conflicting laws.

Imagine two overlapping governments: one where everyone has the right to their own sexual choices, and one where only men have that right, and women are treated as property. Now imagine that a man from the second government rapes a woman from the first government. Under his laws, it was legal; under her laws, it was illegal, and so her government retaliates against the guy. But from his government's point of view, this is unjustified use of force, and so they retaliate against the woman's government. Yay! War! With geographic separation, these people would never have come into contact in the first place.

And any number of small, loosely-organized governments, no matter how well-armed, is going to be any kind of match for a large, unified army like the ones fielded by modern governments. Unless, of course, those small governments band together in order to defeat that threat... which makes them into a single government for practical purposes.

Then suppose five or ten or twenty or even a thousand different groups sprung up, all with completely voluntary participation, each considered to be the government of its members. These might all take radically different forms; some would be elective democracies; some might even be monarchies. Some might allow membership (citizenship) in additional governments; some might require exclusive citizenship.

This might be feasible, if every person in every one of those governments agrees to live by this system... which is brain-meltingly unlikely to happen. As soon as you get one rogue government which will stop at nothing to consolidate its power...

As long as people practice a "live and let live" policy toward each other, they have no cause for concern.

This is true. But in real life, people don't practice a "live and let live" policy, and that's why we have governments! One of the primary reasons governments exist (especially more recent democratic governments) is to protect the weak from being abused, oppressed, or simply exterminated by the strong.

What an incredible world to imagine -- and all of it is based on voluntary agreement.

Yes, it is an incredible world. In the original sense meaning "unbelievable."

Re:For god's sake

[jdavidb]

This might be feasible, if every person in every one of those governments agrees to live by this system... which is brain-meltingly unlikely to happen. As soon as you get one rogue government which will stop at nothing to consolidate its power...

... you have a hundred governments fighting against it to defend the liberty of their citizens.

The answer to all of your objections is that the citizens in this society must as a whole desire their own liberty and be willing to fight for it. NO free form of government can compensate for a lack of that in its citizens.

Your scenario about the women being oppressed by the government they are not a part of is answered by the desire for liberty on the part of the government they are a part of, and the willingness to fight to defend it. We don't have militant Islam taking over in the United States right now because they know that is a hopeless battle; it will be lost because of our will and ability to fight. Our ability comes from our numbers. With suffient numbers of people willing to fight for liberty, oppressive governments will have to stick to oppressing their own citizens.

Unless, of course, those small governments band together in order to defeat that threat... which makes them into a single government for practical purposes.

Yep, and then they can separate again after the threat is eliminated, like the Allies in WWII. Or they can maintain an alliance like NATO, which does not make its members into a single government. They can do whatever they choose and whatever they deem necessary. An infinitely malleable system.

Re:For god's sake

[jdavidb]

Governments are created out of the collective will of the people.

Incidentally, that's a relatively recent phenomenon. In the past, governments were created when one small group conquered another, and then that group conquered another small group, etc. Governments were generally created by armed force. Only recently have we as a society delved into government of the people. And still the collective will you are discussing is a majority rule that may not be acceptable to the minority. Hitler arose in a democratic government, you know.

But in real life, people don't practice a "live and let live" policy, and that's why we have governments!

And what I am suggesting is that to secure my right to live and let live I have the authority to establish whatever kind of government I want with people willing to participate with me, and that to defend against me if I do not practice such a policy other people have the same right. Of course, this is not a new concept, the Declaration of Independence stated, "We hold these truths to be self-evident ... that they [men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights ... That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." The only different thing I am proposing is that when a minority doesn't consent, they should have the right to opt-out and do whatever they wish (establish their organization, or whatever) ... so long as it's all voluntary and they practice live and let live. What I'm saying is that noone has the right to compel anyone to be part of their governmental system, which is basically what Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration. He probably just never imagined a possibility of multiple governments being instituted in the same geographic area.

Part of the reason we probably don't see eye to eye on this is I view government as having an extraordinarily limited role. I view them as being established basically solely for the purpose of securing those unalienable rights to life and liberty. When a government goes out of control, be it the government I belong to or a government I do not, I assert that I have the right to institute a government to secure my rights and defend me against the rogue state.

Re:For god's sake

[Alsee]

I really want the government to move in a libertarian direction...

but christ! I just wish libertarians weren't so... loony (said with a grin)

Even a pair of 'ideal' live-and-let-live libertarians can dissagree over details and where various lines get drawn. If two overlapping government (quite reasonably) draw even one line/threshhold even slightly differently then you can wind up with two well intentioned people in conflict, both considering themselves perfectly law-abiding, both actually law-abiding according to their own government, and both 'legitimately' using force in self defense against the other. And each person has also delegated that self defense right to his own government's police, and each police then uses force to persue the opposing 'criminal', and each police force defending their own 'innocent' citizen against the opposing 'aggressor' police force, escalating into full blown war. Whoopsie!

All triggered by some border-line detail like exactly what constitutes toxic pollution or permissible noise levels (loud enough noise could even be fatal).

Obviously things only get worse if one or both people involved are less than angelic.

I like the libertarian party to drag the idiot reublicrats to compromise on some of the "moderate" issues like butting-out of people's personal lives, but most of the "long term goals" of Libertarians go off the deep end (IMO, grin).

-

Re:For god's sake

[Dirtside]

you have a hundred governments fighting against it to defend the liberty of their citizens.

A hundred small, disconnected, disorganized governments, which will probably spend a lot of effort arguing about how to fight back and who should have authority in their collective military force, vs. a monolithic government with a focused army that will trample over those smaller governments.

Here's another scenario to ponder. Imagine a collection of microgovernments (for that is what I shall call them) occupying the area currently known as Maine. Now imagine that the Canadian government decides it wants to possess Maine. Rather than using force, the Canucks spend a bunch of money to buy up all the grocery stores in Maine. No force is used, merely offers of a great deal of money. Now Canada owns the Maine grocery industry. Then they start raising prices, so that eventually nobody living in Maine can afford to buy groceries. Once again, no force is being used. People start moving out of Maine because it's too expensive to live there. Canada buys up all the rest of the land -- dirt cheap, because everyone's selling so it's a buyer's market -- and Canadians move in, subsidized by their massive government. And the microgovernments have nothing to say about it, because of their policy of live and let live. What would prevent something like this from happening? Not a single shot was fired, no threats were made. Canada simply buys everything (because it can afford to), and changes the economic situation so that Maniacs can't afford to live there anymore. There are many kinds of oppression that do not require the use of force.

What if Canada did invade Maine by force? Sure, the local microgovts would fight back. Of course, people in New York and Pennsylvania and California wouldn't be concerned, being so far away. But the local Maine govts, being so small compared to the mighty Canadian military (work with me here, this is a hypothetical future), can't effectively resist. And most people don't really want to get shot over changes that might not really affect them all that much -- one westernized industrial government is pretty much the same as another these days. So a large external force would be able to take over, little by little, until it owned the entire territory that the microgovernments used to control. (Of course, they never really "controlled" that territory.)

The answer to all of your objections is that the citizens in this society must as a whole desire their own liberty and be willing to fight for it.

If everyone in the world decided to play fair with each other (which is what your solution basically entails), it would be fantastic and wonderful. That is never going to happen; you're always going to have people who will to abuse and take advantage of the system, and your system makes it easier, not harder, for them to do that.

NO free form of government can compensate for a lack of that in its citizens.

There's no such thing as a "free form of government." A government exists to protect its members not only from external threats, but also from each other. The entire point of a goverment is to be able to exercise force in order to achieve the goals of its people. In a government of a half million people, you're not going to have a complete consensus at all times (in fact, you never will), but most of the time, people in that government will agree enough with the others, that they'll go along with things and not split off to form their own government. For one thing, doing so is a nontrivial effort; it requires a lot of time and energy that the average person simply does not have. Joe Random isn't going to be forming his own government.

And in fact, if the whole policy is "live and let live," if people can just do whatever they want (except initiate force), then why even have the pretense of governments? Why would an

Re:For god's sake

[Dirtside]

Imagine you are a member of a microgovernment (let's call it A) which has members who live exclusively in the area currently known as Rhode Island. Then imagine that there is another microgovernment (let's call it B) that occupies much of the same area. And perhaps 24 other microgovernments, let's call them C through Z.

An external force (say, France) starts murdering members of microgovt B. But they don't touch anyone who's a member of A. Would A help B? If so, why? If not, why not?

Re:For god's sake

[SharpFang]

Well, practically, GPL -grants- you right to sell -one- copy of GPL'd software.
That is, you are free to charge $1000 for your program plus complete sources.
You sell your newly written program to your customer. You provide them with the source code. They introduce a tiny, non-essential modification to the sources, recompile them, repack and start redistributing for free or for $10 a piece. It's their right, though they should know that their first customer may do the same and so the investment in the $10/piece trade won't pay back, and nobody's going to pay you that $1000 again, they are free to use the free copies that completely legally "leaked out"... unless of course they want a new feature only YOU can implement.

Re:For god's sake

[CrosbieFitch]

So, the trick is to make all your money on the first sale.

The Digital Art Auction

Re:For god's sake

[SharpFang]

Either this, or use other methods:
- Using behind-the-scenes agreements with your customers that they won't pass over/resell your software, or ask them nicely to do so. (SuSE)
- Use "pay-for-work", not "pay-for-product" model, so you create custom free apps and release them free of charge, but exactly with features the commissioning customer wants, and they pay you for writing it. (and since you're the author, you're the best suited person for that) (ReiserFS)
- Make money on support, extras, etc. (RedHat)
- Don't sell the GNU-derived software, just services it provides. (Google)

Re:For god's sake

[tricorn]

So if that works, then obviously Microsoft made a mistake selling it for $10,000. They should have sold it in the first place for $14.95 if there's that much of a market for it at that price. They'd make more money that way. Remember, there is plenty of value to customers to getting it from the source, and getting support from the source. A repackager is going to mostly only get those customers who wouldn't have gotten the product in the first place, or would have simply "pirated" it, or the repackager is going to have to put significant resources into supporting it, at which point they can't so easily undercut the price. GPL makes a free market "more free".

If Microsoft decides that by not allowing others to freely redistribute it they can make more money (less the cost of developing those things they would have gotten for no cost by using GPL'ed software as a base), then they obviously should go with a proprietary solution instead of GPL. Of course, if they go that route and find they can't sell it anyway because others have provided a freely available solution and are sharing enhancements, then they lose. As they should.

Re:For god's sake

[HuguesT]

> "better off buying closed source, at least I know
> the developers are getting paid" philosophy.

Really? Need I say outsourcing? What about all the game development shops where the developers are laid off as soon as the game hits gold?

In my experience closed source software is no guarantee of support.

Re:For god's sake

[Anonymous Coward]

> Unfortunately, not all customers need or want the "services" part (games, again, being a prime example).

Not so much. It seems that the majority of games these days are intended primarily for multiplayer, in which case it's possible to make money charging for the server. Some games - notably MMORPGs - already do this.

Same guy

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this the same guy we were saying was so smart the other day because he predicted patent problems for penguins?

Offcourse, we already knew this.

[BorisZ]

And it will also recede your hairline by 10 years, eat your cat, set fire to your car and break all the windows in your house. But hey, it's cheap :)

Re:Offcourse, we already knew this.

[Adriax]

"Closed source software, on the other hand, is safe, secure, promotes capitalism, whitens teeth, burns calories, promotes hair growth, feeds and grooms your pets, vaccuums your living room, cures cancer, and fights terrorists."

Re:Offcourse, we already knew this.

[onebuttonmouse]

Sounds just like an OS X update :)

Re:Offcourse, we already knew this.

[Geoff-with-a-G]

No, I'm pretty sure it just makes you consume vast amounts of caffeine and junk food until you're fat, causes you to spend all your time indoors so you're ablino pale, and revokes your ability to talk to girls.

Re:Offcourse, we already knew this.

[rock_climbing_guy]

"Closed source software, on the other hand, is safe, secure, promotes capitalism, whitens teeth, burns calories, promotes hair growth, feeds and grooms your pets, vaccuums your living room, cures cancer, and fights terrorists."

C'mon, let's go all out now. GET NE W CL05ED 50URCE N0W. ENL4RGE Y0UR 9ENIS UP TO TW0 1NCHES!!!

Re:Offcourse, we already knew this.

[LiSrt]

I think you're confusing cause and effect there...

Re:Offcourse, we already knew this.

[Geoff-with-a-G]

Oh, sure. You're only disagreeing with me so you have an excuse to say that.

Re:Offcourse, we already knew this.

[Alsee]

"Closed source software, on the other hand, is safe, secure, promotes capitalism, whitens teeth, burns calories, promotes hair growth, feeds and grooms your pets, vaccuums your living room, cures cancer, and fights terrorists."

All that, and it STILL won't clean the damn bugs off Windows.

-

Business Model

[jenohn]

From the article... >>This feature makes selling GPL'ed software inane because anyone that agrees to the terms of the GPL can also have a copy of the same software with the code - for free. There are a lot of businesses making some fine money from selling that free software. Redhat, Gentoo, Mandrake, etc.

Re:Business Model

[MrIrwin]

"There are a lot of businesses making some fine money from selling that free software. Redhat, Gentoo,"

Of course Gentoo's founding father and chief architect had to throw in the towel recently because he was not making any money from it and had run up $20,000 of debts.

Re:Business Model

[Anonymous Coward]

Everybody knows that.

What I'm more interested in is...

I've got some /. MODPOINTS, where the f*** do I mod Torquevilles down as trolls?

Posted as AS
Signed as justsomebody

Re:Business Model

[spirality]

They are making money because by packaging many open source products they add value. Still much of their revenues (at least Redhat's) are based upon providing services. That's not a bad thing, it's just that the service model does not scale like the closed source proprietary software model.

I mean, take any closed source package, say Windows XP. It takes time to write code, but there is virtually no production cost. After you've paid for your programmers there is a huge profit to be made. The service model just does not scale like this (it tends to scale linearly). But like I said that's not a bad thing, actually I think it's beneficial for society in general that companies will find it harder to have like 10,000% profit margins on software.

-craig.

Re:Business Model

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really. Redhat, Gentoo, Mandrake and others primary builds their product in free labour. If there was no free labour available Redhat wouldn't exist.

Re:Business Model

[13Echo]

I think that it's just that many people fail to understand the value in free software in relation to the work that is involved in distributing it.

Patrick Volkerding doesn't require that you buy Slackware to use it. Nevetheless, I send him a $40 "donation" every year or two because I value his work in putting it together, and I hope that it coaxes him to continue the effort into the future. He mentions that his work on Slackware has always been a profitable endeavor since day one, even if it is on a small scale compared to other software products out there.

There are reasons for paying for something that's free. It's called "My ass is too lazy to download, compile, and configure an entire OS and its programs". Some people can't understand this concept because they've never understood anything other than traditional business models.

Re:Business Model

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course Enron, Imtech, Tyco, Parmalat, Delta, Adelphia. Therefore capitalism is a failure.

Re:Business Model

[drsmithy]

There are a lot of businesses making some fine money from selling that free software. Redhat, Gentoo, Mandrake, etc.

No, they're making a lot of money from selling *services*. I'm sure there are people out there who pay for free software, but no-one is making lots of money off them.

From the article:

[American AC in Paris]

However, the open source strategy is a triple-edge sword.

Triple-edge sword?

Sounds like the functional equivalent of a clue-by-four to me...

Re:From the article:

[WormholeFiend]

that's such a bad analogy to use with geeks who also happen to be Babylon 5 fans...

A Vorlon said understanding is a three edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth.

Microsoft!=All business revenue from Software

[foidulus]

One just needs to look to IBM for a great counter-argument. A few months ago IBM announced that it was going to form special groups of IT people that would each concentrate on a different area(ex: manufacturing, retail, banking etc). They will get a base of FOSS then add custom software etc to that base to help the business be the most efficient it can be. Having worked in a manufacturing environment that made extensive use of Linux, I can tell you, it is a great help.
The offshoring thing is also laughable. A lot of what is being sent offshore is stuff like back office banking coding, not a whole lot of FOSS software for that. FOSS helps level the playing field between giant corporation and small business. Now a little guy can get into the game without having to sign over his first born for windows licences or have to have an army of lawyers on standby in case the BSA comes knocking on their door because someone forgot to activate their copy of XP.
Which brings me to a random aside, if you really want to avoid being offshored, SPECIALIZE! Learn something in addition to CS.

Re:Microsoft!=All business revenue from Software

[don_weber]

foidulus wrote: SPECIALIZE! Learn something in addition to CS. Absolutely, while you can study how to make hammers, no on offers a degree in "hammer science"

Re:Microsoft!=All business revenue from Software

[Anonymous Coward]

People doing free labour is good for IBM in the same way slaves are good for their slave-owners.

Free labour is NOT good for the economy.

Re:Microsoft!=All business revenue from Software

[Nobody You Know]

A lot of what is being sent offshore is stuff like back office banking coding, not a whole lot of FOSS software for that

And that is precisely why open-source software will never cause the demise of closed-source code. There are too many highly-specialized things that people use software for to expect to always find a viable open-source solution.

Where open-source really shines is when you have many people who need to do the same basic thing (a critical mass, if you will). That's why Linux is success: everyone needs to have an operating system. And Linux largely came about because of the monopoly cost associated with commercial UNIX and/or Windows.

Does anyone believe that the Open Office project would have devoted all that time and effort had Microsoft made it's version of Office available for UNIX/Linux at a reasonable cost (reasonable being open to debate here)?

And does anybody else see the irony of an organization whining about the evils of open-source software from a website running on a FreeBSD server?

Re:Microsoft!=All business revenue from Software

[Overd0g]

You prove the authors point. Since the CS career path is being destroyed, the solution is to learn another career.

Re:Microsoft!=All business revenue from Software

[Anonymous Coward]

"...that will destroy 85% of the market value of US companies..."

Any company that can be destroyed this easily isn't worth anything anyway. The market value is just an illusion created by PR and Wall Street hype and can disappear almost overnight! Think of Enron!

Think of the stock market and Chapter 11 as a mechanism for getting rid of worthless corporations! This is a good, not a bad thing! Somebody has to prune out the deadwood, after all.

A company that can be destroyed this easily deserves its fate! It should be shunned both by investors and customers alike!

Where is good old American knowhow? Where is true innovation? And I don't mean "Microsoft innovation"!!!

Re:Microsoft!=All business revenue from Software

[Anonymous Coward]

I afraid that you are right - if you want to avoid being off-shored, then purely technical skill alone may not cut it. The problem is that I like the technical side of things.

It seems to me that success of OSS is and will be partly due to the maturing of IT in general. The OSS community can't muster the kind of resources that commerical closed-source companies can (I know some will disagree but consider IE v Netscape). OSS only catches up when IT matures and innovation slows down (not because OSS is not innovative, but because implementation is often slower). Unfortunately maturity also means (i) less demand for IT techies, (ii) lower profits and margins. Free software appears to me to just be the ultimate consequence of falling unit-prices.

The result is that I have mixed feeling about free software. OSS sounds like a really noble idea, but I fear success will signal the end of the good times. It seems logical to me that if you do not pay for a product, then those producing the product will not be paid much.

I guess we will all become analysts or middle managers ;-( I think I'll go take some prozaic.

Re:Microsoft!=All business revenue from Software

[Bryan K. Feir]

No, you're the one who has missed the point.

The CS career path is alive and well. As has been pointed out elsewhere in this discussion, most software never sits on retail shelves. Most software is written internally to a company for a specialized task, and is never sold outside of that company.

The point that the parent was making is that people who know coding and only coding are the ones in trouble anywhere outside of an academic environment. People who are cross-trained will survive. Someone with both CS and English training can write manuals. Someone with CS and Art or Psychology degrees works on user interfaces. Someone with CS and Geology training writes software to locate oil deposits. Someone with CS and Medical training writes software to analyze X-rays. And so on.

The days of the 'pure' coder are numbered. Anybody with a specialization aside from that still has opportunities.

-- Bryan Feir

Re:Microsoft!=All business revenue from Software

[Alsee]

if you really want to avoid being offshored, SPECIALIZE! Learn something in addition to CS.

...like English.
Speaking the same language as your potential employer is always a big plus in a job interview!

-

Taste of your own medicine, Slashdot

[Swamii]

So, there you have it, free software is responsible for bad laws, out sourcing and bad hair days."

That is unfair, sure. But it is the same kind of generalizing bull shit Linux zealots have been pulling regarding Microsoft, that is is responsible for all the evils of the world.

Mod me down if you must, but it's the honest truth. Generalizing groups of people, companies, or ideas is always unfair biased bull shit.

Re:Taste of your own medicine, Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

>Mod me down if you must, but it's the honest truth. Generalizing groups of people, companies, or ideas is always unfair biased bull shit.

yeah, I agree. anybody who makes broad generalizations is an idiot. oh, wait...

Re:Taste of your own medicine, Slashdot

[Decameron81]

"Mod me down if you must, but it's the honest truth. Generalizing groups of people, companies, or ideas is always unfair biased bull shit."

No it's not. Everyone has the right to think as they wish, as long as they understand that theirs is just one side of the coin. I myself think that Microsoft is a bad company (evil?) overall, because that's what my experience has taught me in the past. I also think that free software will probably be responsible for destroying many companies, but it will also give birth to many others. Something like Darwin's evolution theory. The fact that some companies are going to die just means they didn't adapt to the surrounding.

Being politically correct about what you say doesn't mean you can't lean towards one position or another. And saying you hate windows or linux doesn't make you a racist nor anything like it.

And I'm not saying you should go around insulting people you don't like. I'm just saying there's a line that divides what you can from what you can't say, but your opinions on companies are not anywhere near that line.

Diego Rey

Re:Taste of your own medicine, Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Something all the Microsoft astroturfers like Swamii here miss - its not unfair if you've got evidence. There's very nearly three decades of evidence of the damage done by Microsoft, and two decades of evidence of the benefits of Free Software.

Re:Taste of your own medicine, Slashdot

[Swamii]

Oh yes it's not unfair to say Microsoft is the root of all the world's problems, since we have evidence to prove so. That's the whole problem that you fail to see: everyone has evidence against their enemy. Tocqueville just posted "evidence" that OSS/FS is the root of all problems, but you ignore it, and probably rightfully so. Why do you ignore it? Because it's biased bull shit. The same goes for your 'evidence'. Microsoft is the cause of all evil. Right. Biased bull shit.

Re:Taste of your own medicine, Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

and its the same generalizing bullshit that MS is famous for. Its called FUD and MS has turned it into an art, MS's one true innovation to this world has been its FUD machine.

Re:Taste of your own medicine, Slashdot

[Our Man In Redmond]

Generalizing groups of people, companies, or ideas is always unfair biased bull shit.

In other words, all generalizations are invalid. Presumably including this one.

Am I the only one?

[grasshoppa]

Call me naive if you must, but am I the only one who doesn't really care about IP laws? Wouldn't it be more innovative if we got rid of the ip laws and let it be free reign on creation and development? Then, the market truely would be customer driven.

Without IP laws, companies would be forced to do as good of a job designing and implementing the product for fear of a competitor coming along and doing it better than they.

Why the hell *do* we have these laws?

Re:Am I the only one?

[Registered Coward v2]

"Why the hell *do* we have these laws?"

To address the free rider problem - why should I develop a great piece of software, invest time and money, when anybody can then take it and do what they want, without compensating me?

IP laws ensure creators have the right to control how their ideas are used in the marketplace - wether it's CS, OSS, free as in beer or $495 plus $200 in upgrades every year...

Re:Am I the only one?

[RazzleFrog]

No reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater. There are plenty of good reasons to keep IP. Copyrights are fine as long as they have a finite term. Unfortunately, that term seems to be getting less and less finite. You have to remember that writing a book can take years of hard work and research. The author deserves some compensation for his work (and most definitely credit at the least).

Patents follow the same line as copyrights. As long as they are for real inventions and have a reasonable finite term (which they do). Software patents are the evil here. A patent on clicking a button to shop doesn't seem very inventive to me.

Trademarks really are the least evil of the bunch. Trademarks protect companies by making sure that the goodwill associated with their name is not take advantage of by a knockoff. For the consumer it is good because you know that when you buy a Coca-Cola you are getting a soda made by the Coca-Cola company.

Without IP laws, companies would be forced to keep everything very tightly secret and secure so as to maintain their competitive advantage. And your point is moot. Patents do not prevent a competitor from building a better version of your product. Most patents issued are improvements on previous patents.

Re:Am I the only one?

[feloneous cat]

Without IP laws, companies would be forced to do as good of a job designing and implementing the product for fear of a competitor coming along and doing it better than they.

Actually, the whole POINT of IP lawsuits in business is to slow down a potential competitor. Why do I know this? Because there was a time when I had to look over patents (aww, who am I kidding, I still do) to see if we are, in fact, really infringing.

Most of these Cease and Desist are pure bullshit. The only relevance they had to the projects I worked on is a) they had a microprocessor in them (the projects, not the C&D) and b) the pointy haired types don't understand the technology they're in charge of (which is why I had to look make this determination).

So what did it gain anyone? Nothing. The projects rolled out and I wasted valuable time and money.

If business spent MORE time on making BETTER products and LESS time on trying to figure out how to get something for nothing, perhaps we would ALL be better off.

Except for the lawyers.

Re:Am I the only one?

[ckathens]

This is a short-sighted and a naive opinion. While I believe most of the original article is FUD and mere political banter (especially the part about "Linux Activists" believing all patent/trademark law should be eradicated), your commentis outrageous.

Trademark, patent, and copyright laws exist to protect the "property" of those who create them. Without these laws there is little in the way of incentive for developing new products, since competitors can merely take your program, re-label it, and release it. A good example is Biotech patents: biotech companies spend millions of dollars every day in R&D. This R&D results in many useful and life-saving devices and drugs. If a competitor can easily take this device/drug and reverse-engineer and re-release/re-package, there is no incentive for the Biotech companies to continue making these drugs/devices.

Here's another example: You're a engineering student who works in his freetime trying to design a great new widget. You spend thousands of dollars and put in every moment of free time on this product. Finally you get it to work and release it to the world. The next day every widget producer has your design and begins creating their own. DO you have any incentive to ever work on a widget ever again?

Don't get me wrong, i'm a big fan of F/OSS. But your view of IP law is completly wrong. If you're interested in the basis for IP law or just want to learn more about it, Harvard Law School has a great page with primers for copyright, patent, trademark, and trade secret law.

I'm a law student studying in IP so the subject is near and dear to me. I believe in the necessity of IP laws but what is really needed is a balance between IP protection laws and consumer rights. Right now the law is being bent heavily towards strong IP protection and against consumer rights. I'd like to make it a little more fair, but arguments like this make myself and others like the EFF look bad and are just provide more ammo for the content and software industry.

Re:Am I the only one?

[grasshoppa]

This is a short-sighted and a naive opinion. While I believe most of the original article is FUD and mere political banter (especially the part about "Linux Activists" believing all patent/trademark law should be eradicated), your commentis outrageous.

Good, they were supposed to be. My comment was designed to get people thinking and talking. Seeing how 6 people have commented, and several others are moderating this all over the place, I'd say I accomplished what I set out to do.

I do believe in some sort of protection, but nothing NEAR what we have now. And I do believe that if you can take an idea and make it better, then you shouldn't be limited by a law that is supposed to protect innovation, not stifle it.

How this system is supposed to work I haven't quite figured out yet. ;)

Re:Am I the only one?

[Anonymous Coward]

My comment was designed to get people thinking and talking.

So you admit to Flamebaiting? Nice. Mods - you know what to do.

Re:Am I the only one?

[Anonymous Coward]

why should I develop a great piece of software

Because you like to develop software. If all you're interested in is money, then perhaps you should become a counterfeiter or a thief.

Re:Am I the only one?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice extremes. Because I would like some compensation for my work I must only think about money. Plus since I like money I must be a criminal. Ok Chairman Mao.

Re:Am I the only one?

[grasshoppa]

So you admit to Flamebaiting? Nice. Mods - you know what to do.

Only on slashdot could a comment that gets people thinking and talking be called flaming.

I see stupid people.

Re:Am I the only one?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a matter of the intelligence of the original post. If you made an educated argument, presented facts, discussed counter views then you would be ok. Just saying I think IP sucks and we should get rid of it without presenting alternatives just shows your ignorance. You presented a inflammatory argument - that makes it flamebait.

Re:Am I the only one?

[DustMagnet]

For this comment IP refers to copyrights and patents, not trademarks and trade secrets.

I hate our current IP system too. Few people seem to even understand why it exists. All the responces you got state that it's to prevent theft of ideas. This is a mentality that's grown up as a result of IP laws, not the reason for them. Jefferson himself said that he didn't want people to think they could own ideas.

The reason for IP protection is simple. If I have really great idea, I might keep it secret if I feel that's how I will get the best use out of it. Keeping the idea secret is not best of society. To improve this the governemnt offers a deal. Let people know your secret and you get excluse use to it for a limited time. Or as the U.S. constitution words it, "The Congress shall have Power . . . To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." This is important because it trumps the first amendment, my right say whatever I want, even if someone else said it first.

The problem is IP protection just keeps getting bigger and bigger. There's no balance in the system anymore. People no long see the purpose as promoting the arts, but promoting profits for artist, which is not the same thing. With the easy ability to transfer the these exclusive rights, today's laws often don't promote the profits of authors and inventors, but the profits of large corporations.

IP law was intended to be an incentive to share ideas so others could use them. Now the laws seem designed to give soemone total control and profit from an idea forever, something I feel does not promote the progress of science and the useful arts.

You know...

[blackholepcs]

I'm sick of all this crap about free software is the devil. Free software isn't the problem. Crappy software and hike prices and outsourcing are the problems. If companies who charge for their software would quit producing fodder and being dicks, free software wouldn't be an issue for them. Maybe they should just start producing quality products at a fair price that are made by people who speak the same language as the country they are selling the product in.

Re:You know...

[Anonymous Coward]

I must say, I don't know much about Linux and how it works other than general GPL, and what Open Source generally symbolizes, so keep at least 1 grain of salt handy.

I can see how free software kills companies that invest in coming up with high-end new software. Capitalism also means competition, and there is no competition with X$ vs 0. The catch is, what mainstream software is there that really requires high-end programming to release the damn thing every 2 years. Aside from bug-fixes, do they really need to reinvent the wheel all the time? MSWord takes up 12Mb RAM on opening. Sure, it does some nifty things, but for the average Joe, OpenOffice does the job just fine. The GIMP works. Photoshop is better, but the GIMP works.
Its all a question of consumer culture. Companies are pissed that they can't sell the motherload to people anymore even if they only need a fraction of what they're paying for. If you need the high end, then you'll pay for it, but there's no way we all need the most expensive of everything.
It's like me buying a crappy TV for 15$ at a garage sale to watch the news with rabbit ears. JVC can't whine foul because I didn't buy a brand new 27" or bigger. I want the news, not Dolby 5.1.

If anything, I'd like to see companies give away software. I'm in Industrial Electronics, and we use fucking VISIO to do schematic/wiring diagrams. That's right, VISIO!!! Its gorified Paint for what we're doing. We have Electronics Workbench (that is amazing software, by the way) but they will only give us shareware, which means no printing and no saving. If I could use it to its full potential, I'd use it alot more, and would probably buy a copy when I graduated. But they want to sell you EVERYTHING.
We won't buy the cow if the milk is free, but in the same context, we won't buy the cow if all we need is the milk either.

Re:You know...

[rajafarian]

I'm sick of all this crap about free software is the devil. Free software isn't the problem.

Ah, but if you are used to making millions or billions of dollars selling proprietary software, then it is the devil and a problem you should "fix" any possible way.

Re:You know...

[Anonymous Coward]

Face it they're just in M$'s camp and they're going to make as much noise against Linux as possible.
M$ isn't going to let go of their monopoly without trying every trick in the book and spreading money around for "studies" or "investments" (Baystar any1?)
Losing Government accounts to Linux/IBM is their worst nightmare..that's what this is, M$ Fearmongering by proxy.

Doesn't make sense

[Uma Thurman]

The simple version: I make money using open source software, because the marginal cost to learn or use just one more tool is zero. With closed source software, I have to pay somebody for everything that I use, which limits the number of tools that I have.

So, when I have all these free tools laying around with no restrictions, I'm better off because I am limited only by my imagination. My counterparts who are limited by the size of their wallets can't compete with me.

The end story is that if I'm an employee, I get bigger raises. If I'm a business, I have more money to hire people with.

Re:Doesn't make sense

[MrBlackBand]

The end story is that if I'm an employee, I get bigger raises.

Ha ha ha ha! That's funny. Now in the *real* world it would be:
The end story is that if I'm a CEO, I get to buy five jets this year instead of four.

Re:Doesn't make sense

[js3]

how naive. if I didn't have to pay for my education I would be have more money to buy a house and a new car too. oh wait, if I didn't have to buy a house or pay for a car I would have money to buy more money to spend on vacation and other things too.

Re:Doesn't make sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Talk about not getting the picture. What are you, a GNAAA troll?

Re:Doesn't make sense

[dasmegabyte]

This is the same argument used for outsourcing: less money paid for tools, aka employees, the more money that can be spent on using them. Bigger raise, more hires.

How can OSS be good, and yet outsourcing be bad?

(just posing a question here...I know MY answer...)

Re:Doesn't make sense

[Uma Thurman]

Outsourcing isn't bad. It's just stupid business for the most part. PHB's jump on stupid fads all the time, and this is one of them.

Re:Doesn't make sense

[timjdot]

Didn't read the article but read the quotes. I think Open Source is a natural evolution. The solved problems are being open sourced. You don't see any insurance company open-sourcing it's business rules. That's the IP. The code is cost.

From the quotes it is apparent the author doesn't realize the difference. Also apparent he/she never worked on any large SW projects. Open Sourcing an OS, rdbms, or compiler doesn't give you a tailored business system!

Also, Open Source and outsourcing are two totally different but very related animals. Why buy from Oracle, Microsoft, Accenture when you can use Open Source? Sure the newer technologies are not open yet but programming languages, databases, source control, and the like are. Why hire Americans when taxes are per person enormous compared to China, India, and Africa? Since I formerly lived in a [formerly] textile state I can assure you that Americans had better jump on Open Source pronto before the IT market is totally decimated. The household income where I lived was almost exactly 1/2 of the national. That's where we are headed if outsourcing continues. (Of course the government could raise tarriffs on par with income tax and/or abolish income tax and have sales tax or use tax; and, thus, stop punishing people for working in America and companies for employing Americans.)

TimJowers
p.S> Open Source is anti-outsourcing because unpaid work does not need to be outsourced. But also Open Source products is the #1 set of products used ex-USA from what I can tell. So it's pro-outsourcing too. Outsourcing is a tax issue. Open Source is a technological advance issue.

Re:Doesn't make sense

[timjdot]

Oh yeah, a real funny one is Google. Isn't Luserne an open sourced search engine? Yet the analysts love Google!!!

Meanwhile in another story......

[MrIrwin]

There is a report about the explosive growth of smaller software companies offering IT solutions specifically tailored and maintained to local customer requirements.

A large service industry that is not outsourceable.

Re:Meanwhile in another story......

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a report about the explosive growth of smaller software companies in India offering IT solutions specifically tailored and maintained to local customer requirements.

Fixed it for you. If you think this kind of work isn't outsourceable, you have NOT been paying attention.

PS: I am one of these companies. It works great on a very small scale. But forget walking into a Fortune 500 and bidding on a big job -- first world programmers are not competitive. The entire mid-tier of consulting companies was decimated, first by the dotcom crash, second by outsourcing.

Funny, IBM has been doing better...

[aquarian]

...since they started using open source software extensively, and selling products and services based on it. Other companies based entirely on open source software have made many people rich -- Redhat, for example.

Gee, I wonder if someone in the proprietary software business is backing these De Toqueville folks -- Microsoft, perhaps?

Re:Funny, IBM has been doing better...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is IBM really doing that much better? There stock price has gone up and down but is at about the same place it was a year ago and their Revenue and Profits are only up negligibly.

And how many people did Redhat really make rich? And what do you consider rich?

Re:Funny, IBM has been doing better...

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever thought about why open source is good for IBM? It gives them free labour.

Free labour is however never good for the economy as a whole. People should be paid.

Re:Funny, IBM has been doing better...

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who thinks IBM is a "open source" company doesn't understand their Linux strategy.

Look, when IBM's entire software stack (Websphere, DB2, CICS) is threatened by open source, they're in a world of fucking hurt. So, you can expect Linux to be assimilated or marginalized by IBM before that can happen.

(And forget Services -- the only reason to buy IBM services is for IBM products. Remember when DEC sold itself to Compaq as a 'Service' company? The entire business disappeared when the software/hardware did.)

Re:Funny, IBM has been doing better...

[Geoff-with-a-G]

Gee, I wonder if someone in the proprietary software business is backing these De Toqueville folks -- Microsoft, perhaps?

Well duh. I've got the tinfoil briefing memo right here, and it clearly states that anyone who says closed-source software is better than open-source software is being paid by Microsoft.

Re:Funny, IBM has been doing better...

[ChrisMaple]

"Have you ever thought about why open source is good for IBM? It gives them free labour."

So IBM isn't paying its programmers?

Question:

[Paulrothrock]

How does open source cause outsourcing? People are still needed to configure and support it, and since it's free, they can spend more to support it. Support (the kind found at enterprises) is very hard to outsource because it requires local people. Closed source can only be fixed by that company. Can someone explain their reasoning for me?

Re:Question:

[Adriax]

From the /. article in that last link:
"It's little suprise that this group takes money from Microsoft."

I'd say that explains it all...

Re:Question:

[Anonymous Coward]

"How does open source cause outsourcing? "

If there is pricedumping on software, like the one open source causes, everyone must lower their prices.

When you must lower your prices lower than what the man-hours to make it cost you must dramatically lower your cost to make it. Since man-hours are most of the cost software companies have, cheaper labour must be used.

You can't have a large amount of people paid western-level salaries if the productts made will be very cheap.

"People are still needed to configure and support it, and since it's free, they can spend more to support it"

You got that completely wrong. The prices of products and prices people and companies are willing to pay for related products and services are connected.

If you buy a database for $100 000 you can pay, say $20 000 a year for support. But if the database costs $1000 the support part of the total cost would seem unrealistic and people would simply not pay it.

Thats also the reason why the stockmarket corelate the value of companies in similuar businesses. Value of one will affect the other.

Re:Question:

[vsprintf]

How does open source cause outsourcing? . . . Can someone explain their reasoning for me?

I was trying to figure that out as well. My take on it is that if companies can't get 80% profit margins selling proprietary software because of OSS, then they will outsource jobs to regain that profit margin. Sounds like a statement about managerial greed to me.

The part of the article I found most interesting was the conclusion: "Unless intellectual property assets are better protected, we will soon see information technology firms resorting to draconian measures even worse than outsourcing." What could be more draconian? Griding up the employees and making Soylent Green?

In other news, sky is blue

[Alioth]

It's obvious that Free software will cause the business in proprietary software fall sooner or later. It's just not news.

The question is: is it a BAD thing?

Of course, there will be bleating about lost jobs. In the long term, though, it will be only a tiny number which will be absorbed elsewhere as companies have more money to spend on making software what they really need, thanks to the ability to customize. They will have to employ programmers to do this for them or other companies to provide this service. Open source will be bad news for some developers and some customers, but it's very good news for many more companies. Business models sometimes go out of date. People have to deal with it.

I believe in the long run, OSS will be good for employment and the IT industry; it will take away artificial scarcity. It's funny how we as a human race clamour for instant and inexhaustable supply of everything, but as soon as we make something that's easy to make an instant an inexhaustable supply of (a copy of a program), we suddenly have to make it artificially scarce!

Re:In other news, sky is blue

[ballpoint]

we suddenly have to make it artificially scarce!

Not by a long shot. You can buy as much proprietary software as you want, you are not going to exhaust the supply. And prices would not rise due to increasing demand - they probably would fall instead.

So there is no scarcity. Then why does proprietary software have a price, which, in traditional economic theories, is a proxy for scarcity ?

New economic theories are needed for music, movies, and to all stuff with perceived value but zero marginal cost. I think we haven't seen the full ramifications of the digital era yet.

Re:In other news, sky is blue

[composer777]

I disagree, it will likely result in job loss. Let's not take the route that free traders take and say that somehow it will magically create jobs. Chances are that it will not. I could be wrong, but don't enter into free software with this rosy picture of the future and a stronger economy, etc. That's not why we do it. We do it because the alternative is even worse. The alternative is letting large corporations have all of the control over the future of technology. Perhaps what you mean is that it will be better for employment than the current system. That might be true, just make sure that you aren't counting on it.

Re:In other news, sky is blue

[arkanes]

Because of (as the GP said) artificial scarcity. The articifial scarcity being the government-mandated monopoly granted by copyright. It's not scarce because you can run out the supply, it's ARTIFICIALLY scarce because the supply is controlled and you can't just walk outside and pick one up.

However, the fact that in many environments you CAN do just that (via P2P or other warez channels) really does affect the digital economy. Which is not to say that there's not still money to be made there but I think an understanding and acceptance of the fact the the copyright monopoly is not as all-encompassing as it used to be and your profit margins aren't going to be as high is pretty much essential for survival in coming years. Which, of course, is basically what the paper is bitching about (FUD aside). Margins are going to go down, the "worth", both percieved and real of IP is going to go down, and companies that rely on that artificial model are going to have to do some thinking.

Re:In other news, sky is blue

[Dun Malg]

You can buy as much proprietary software as you want, you are not going to exhaust the supply.

The artificial scarcity is that something as potentially infinitely replicable as software must be bought instead of replicated from someone who already has it for free. The scarcity is enforced by copyright law.

Re:In other news, sky is blue

[MOMOCROME]

the scarcity is in improved functionality / new features. that's why the traditional developers steer towards the vicious upgrade cycle as a business model.

foss takes advantage of this (or rather, undermines it) with the practice of feature stealing and reverse engineering. No R&D expenses, no paying designers and architects, and no price on the software.

For those of you who simply can't see how this threatens the stability of our tech sector, I don't know what to say. My supposition is that FOSS will gut the current software industry, flounder without direction for a while, and companies will spring up to resume some semblance of 'progress' when they can find a way to secure their interests.

I know you guys want to believe the idealism of shared source, in whatever form, and on paper it sure sounds good, but seriously, there's much more to software than the coder and the app. FOSS necessarily eats into that.

You probably don't give much credence to accountants, CEOs, testers, artists and even the humble secretary, but the fact of the matter is that progress is much more viable with a large disciplined organization with support staff, specialization and market pressures to drive the managment. Rather than the floundering about, hunting and pecking at sourceforge, forking a project t o add an email client, skins or an mp3 player, etc.

Re:In other news, sky is blue

[Chester K]

So there is no scarcity.

Sure there is. With software, and indeed with most all digital media, the scarcity is in the production -- not the duplication.

Saying that software/music/movies should be free because it's so easy to copy that there's no limited supply is ignoring the whole reason the founding fathers put copyright protection in the Constitution in the first place.

Re:In other news, sky is blue

[Anonymous Coward]

The value of digital media is obviois - it is what the average customer is willing to pay. Since you can only (legaly) get a given song/film/application from one source (all other legal sources must be authorised by this one) you can either pay what they want or go without.

Re:In other news, sky is blue

[Alsee]

My supposition is that FOSS will gut the current software industry, flounder without direction for a while

Essentially the entire functionalty of the internet originated in FOSS and was copied into closed sorce products. The original Windows TCP/IP stack was lifted directly from BSD. There's quite a bit of functionality moving from FOSS to closed source is all sorts of areas.

Yes, FOSS is spending a lot of time implementing things from closed source software because (1) FOSS is playing catch up to a huge base of existing closed software and (2) FOSS currently runs on a tiny fraction of desktops, if there's going to be any interoperability at all then FOSS is required to do the "following" and copy stuff because there's no way in hell Microsoft is going to provide any interoperability.

Linux appears to be advancing faster than Windows, it certainly appears to have pulled into the lead with better features, power, and stability in the server role.

FOSS still only has a miniscule market share on the desktop. The more people who use it the more developers and development there will be. And remember, progress comes from the world wide base. If an office in Russia hits a bug, and the IT staff fixes it, that patch can go to the entire world. If some programmer in Estonia works up a feature for himself, that feature can go to teh entire world. If Mitsubishi has their professional paid staff architect a major complex addition or overhaul to FOSS software for their own use, then not only does Mitsubishi benefit from it, the entire planet can benefit from it at no additional cost.

Mitsubishi needed that big professionally engineered upgrade to the system, either way they needed to pay to get it. The difference with FOSS is that everyone else can get the benefit as well. And Mitsubisi benefits from any fixes/improvements that anyone else on earth makes later.

a large disciplined organization with support staff, specialization and market pressures to drive the managment

Like a government agency perhaps? Governments need software too, and if it doesn't already exist then they are going to have to pay to have it written.

The US National Security Agency has paid their own programmers to develop Security-Enhanced Linux. Expertly architected and engineered from top to bottom.

China and a few other asian countries have banded together to work on Red-Flag Linux and applications new features. Any code China has written can be used to improve the productivity of US companies.

Various governments around the world are deploying FOSS, like Munich. Well, they deploy, use, debug, enhance, and create all sorts of office applictations and other software for themselves. Any such software from Munich can be used to improve the productivity of city government offices all over the US, and probably company offices as well.

If FOSS deployment increases to match Windows deployments then the development of FOSS software will explode. If one person writes the code anywhere for any reason, everyone can benefit from it.

If that happens, yeah, it would be a big change. A disruptive change. In some ways there is less incentive to write software, but on the otherhand you have the entire planet adding to the software pot.

I was going to say the biggest impact would be on games, but closed source games won't be "driven out" by FOSS games. And even if they were driven out, well that would obviously indicate that there was a plenty ample supply of FOSS games.

-

Re:In other news, sky is blue

[Alsee]

the whole reason the founding fathers put copyright protection in the Constitution in the first place

To promote the progress of science and useful arts.

Specificly that wanted to encourage the creation of new works to feed the public domain.

Specificly they wanted to ensure the distribution the works that were created (without copyright an author may not have brought it to a printer, or the printer may not have invested in printing it).

I presume they would also have liked to encourage each work to be more valuable/beneficial to the public, though I don't think they saw any way to encourage that.

They were also explicitly concered with any harm or costs incurred through the means used to promote the above aims.

So ultimately they were trying to maximize the public benefit. To make an equation out of it:

Public benefit = (number of works created) * (the distribtion of those works) * (the value of the works) - (any associated costs)

Ok, lets evaluate the effect of a major increase in FOSS.

First we will assume decreased incentive to create software. That's the big boogyman they are yelling about. But we'll get back to this point.

Second, distribution. FOSS has a big plus here. Everyone can have a copy, essentially for free. If there was half as much software written, but that software has double the distribution, then everyone still has the same amount of software and receives the same amount of utility.

Third, the value/utility of the works. FOSS has an inherent advantage here. It is impossible for someone to force "mal-features" into a FOSS product, someone would simple remove them. And much closed software does in fact contain mal-features. Anything from product activation to identity tracking usage tracking to phoning-home system information to incompatible file formats to forced "upgrades" to intentionally missing/crippled features to intentional incompatibility with other software, and probably a dozen other mal-features I didn't think of.

It also has more utility because you (or staff) can immediately fix critical bugs yourself. Bugs the original vendor may never have fixed.

It also has more utility because you (or staff) can add desired features yourself. Features the original vendor may never have added.

It also has more utility because you (or staff) can adapt it to interoperate with other software you may have. Or copy features and functionality out of one program into another. Or even integrate two or more programs into one.

It also has more utility because you (or staff) can LEARN from the source code. Learn to produce more and better other programs. Or gut that program and use it as a framework to build an entirely new program (as a programmer I can tell you that one is a huge-deal, plugging your own "guts" into an existing working framework can enable you to write software you never could have written otherwise).

Now remember the first item was reduced incentive to create software? Well look back over the last four paragraphs! ALL OF THEM DESCRIBE INCREASED SOFTWARE BEING WRITTEN. Software that never would have been written if the sourcecode was not available.

If someone in Estonia fixes a bug, or adds a feature, or forks to create an entire new application, well then every person in the US can gain the benefits of that software essentially free. US companies get increased productivity from that software essentially free.

Oh yeah, and the final item was to subtract associated costs. Well FOSS wins here too. You eliminate the overheads involved in distributing and defending closed apps. You have no intentional incompatibilities. You have no intentional mal-features. But best of all there is a boon to the economy. Companies have to pay for customized software either way, but with FOSS the OS and general apps are free - the money that would have been spent remains in the buyer's pocket. It gets spent on something else.

People, compa

Re:In other news, sky is blue

[Alsee]

you are not going to exhaust the supply

Right, no natural scarcity.

So there is no scarcity.

If the copyright holder chooses to only make three copies, then legally the total supply is three. An artificial scarcity. If you want more then you have to ask/convince the copyright holder to create more - generally by offering him money.

This is standard economic theory of copyright, a couple of hundred years old. The conumdrum for economic theory today is that the creation of copies no longer has any signifigant link to commercial activity. It used to be that only commercial explotiation was copyright infringment.

Copyright did not exist to ensure a profit would be made. It simply existed to enable to copyright holder to sue to obtain what profits were generated from the work. A lawsuit to seize commercial exploitation profits. Copyright law always has been, and still is, entirely effective in it's intended purpose. It is generally quite easy to identify anyone who attempts to generate any non-trivial profit exploiting a work. It is fairly easy and quite effective to sue to obtain those profits.

Individiual non-commercial use was never intended to be considered infringment. Current copyright law is "failing" because they are attempting to apply it where it was never intended to apply, where it was never expected to work - in private homes and against millions of anonymous individuals.

-

If this group had any credibility ....

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

I'd be more concerned. They pretty much blew their credibility wad the last time they put out an "open source is evil" report and it turns out that they were taking money from M$.

Sadly they are giving their namesake a bad name.

This guy...

[Chordonblue]

...is clearly an asshat. And I don't use that word lightly friends. Here's two quotes that stood out for me:

"However, the open source strategy is a triple-edge sword..."

If you're going to use an analogy how about one that at least sort of makes sense. For some reason I keep thinking about those triple bladed Gillette MACH 3 razors here. ..and

"...most free software such as Linux, (the most popular because of its operating system capability)"

I could've shown you the many typos and bad sentence structure but this one statement shows how little this writer (or his 'writing capability') understands about Linux and/or Open Source.

They give people like this positions where they're stuff can be read by the public?! Amazing!

Re:This guy...

[CodeMonkey4Hire]

Imagine, this guy was the president of the think tank. Pretty impressive.

Re:This guy...

[Finuvir]

Imagine, this guy was the president of the think tank. Pretty impressive.

Doesn't president just mean village idiot now?

Re:This guy...

[CodeMonkey4Hire]

It has ever since Bush took office.

Re:This guy...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush isn't good enough for the "village idiot" label. Methinks "pile of shit" works far better.

Re:This guy...

[Anonymous Coward]

asshat? Sounds like a good distribution name...asshat linux?

Re:This guy...

[drew]

I found the triple edged sword amusing as well, but the line that sold me was this:

Open Source activists that want to see Linux succeed argue that eventually, they want all intellectual property protection to end, including patents and trademarks.

the guy clearly either has no idea what he is talking about or is deliberately misleading. the whole point of the GPL is using existing copyright law to ensure that the software remains free.

Re:This guy...

[AndroidCat]

Tocqueville certainly hasn't written anything worthwhile since his Democracy in America ;)

Re:This guy...

[blancolioni]

"However, the open source strategy is a triple-edge sword..."

Maybe he was thinking about this.

I knew watching crap movies would come in handy one day.

Re:This guy...

[NDPTAL85]

I know geeks and nerds like to giggle and snicker whenever someone says something like this but like it or not Linux *IS* an operating system.

The "but but Linux is just a kernel and GNU is the OS..." stuff rings lame.

Re:This guy...

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone has been watching too much babylon 5.

It is a Vorlon saying "Understanding is a three-edged sword... Your side, Their side and the truth.".

Bugger all idea what it has to do with software.

Re:This guy...

[MrResistor]

Hey now, that's hardly fair. Reagan was an idiot too...

What does that make me? Oppenheimer?

[gd23ka]

If it's a neutron bomb, am I then a nuclear scientist?

Re:What does that make me? Oppenheimer?

[gclef]

No, clearly Linus -> Oppenheimer. The real question is, who maps to Teller? I can't decide between RMS and ESR.

Re:What does that make me? Oppenheimer?

[kunudo]

No, you are a nuclear terrorist.

Re:What does that make me? Oppenheimer?

[dfalgoust]

"I have become Linus, destroyer of Windows."

Re:What does that make me? Oppenheimer?

[dmaxwell]

RMS can be Teller.
ESR can be Dr. Strangelove.

Strangelove was largely a parody of Teller. In life, the mere mention of Strangelove was an interview ender to Teller.

RMS goes to great pains to point out ESR's views are different from his. The mere mention of ESR or Open Source provokes correction from RMS in interviews.

Re:What does that make me? Oppenheimer?

[Anonymous Coward]

>In life, the mere mention of Strangelove was an interview ender to Teller.

Did he become more relaxed in death? ;)

Market value vs. productivity

[amightywind]

Open Source software...that will destroy 85% of the market value of US companies and drive companies who are currently outsourcing to "draconian measures even worse than outsourcing."

The market value of a few software companies is irrelevent compared to the massive increases in productivity and standards of living that result from free software. Even though the world is awash in free software, creating systems and solutions using it is still very lucrative. Ask IBM.

Re:Market value vs. productivity

[Rich0]

Also - most programmers could care less if their employers lost 85% of their value - they only care about having jobs...

Given a choice of an environment where lots of programmers are employed but their employers can only make modest earnings off their work, and an environment where big companies make a fortune but fire all their programmers anyway, they'd probably rather go for the former.

Also - open source basically forces companies to continue to innovate - since anybody else can pick up one vendors work and resell it. If a company keeps coming out with version after version of software with great support and lots of useful features, I'll probably pay more and get the software direct from them. Other resellers will probably be a few steps behind them at any given time. On the other hand, if I don't need cutting edge, or if the vendor turned out one great product 5 years ago and is trying to milk it, then I can go to a reseller who will give me the software itself virtually for free and provide their own support for a lower cost.

If you are at the leading edge of innovation, then it won't matter that others can redistribute your work - by the time they do so and develop good support structures you'll be a step ahead. And if you listen to your customers then customers will buy directly from you to have more input in the development process.

On the other hand, if you made an OS which was good for its time 10 years ago and achieved 99% market share and now you just want to sit back and collect, a move to an open source world where others are free to fork your project is obviously a scary thought!

Re:Market value vs. productivity

[The Conductor]

In that excerpt:
Open Source software...that will destroy 85% of the market value of US companies
This think-tank is espousing mercantilism (i.e. managing government policy to agglomerate measurable assets), the very policies that de Tocqueville himself so bitterly criticized.

If I invent an affordable Star Trek transporter, the value of United Airlines would go down, because we won't need them anymore, and that is a good thing. Even if it is not good for UAL stockholders.

Re:Market value vs. productivity

[Jesrad]

The market value and the inherent value of Open Source are disconnected. Who would seriously say that Linux costed $0 to make ? I mean, besides a technology-impaired editorialist on Microsoft's payola ;)

Re:Market value vs. productivity

[amightywind]

Great link. If I had 5 style points to give I would.

Maybe---

[inode_buddha]

it's time to play a game of reducito ad absurdium. Because seriously, these folks won't "get it" until their own thought process is commoditized and sold at a profit - by someone else.

Linux

[kunudo]

However, the open source strategy is a triple-edge sword. First, most free software such as Linux, (the most popular because of its operating system capability)...

You mean Linux has operating system capabilities, too?

Re:Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean Linux has operating system capabilities, too?

Yep, I've heard it runs really well on Emacs!

Re:Linux

[edubarr]

Yeah, but only if you run it on emacs

They are right!!

[carvalhao]

Yeeesssss! And Open Source will crawl it's way down to those computers in some Pentagon basement due to government fund cutting for defense (which, as we well know, has happened but has been hidden by the OS controlled press), and them computers will gain conscience due to some OS devilish AI software found on Sourceforge and will start shooting nukes around, opening war on the entire Human Race. Then, the only hope left for humans is to send a MS robot back in time in hope that it wouldn't crash before destroying the entire OS comunity and...

...NO, I don't want to wear the reversed white shirt again! And no more pills!!

I guess they didn't read this article

[ValourX]

Debunking Common GNU/Linux and Free Software Myths

If only the Tocqueville morons had read this first. Maybe then they'd have thought of more original tripe to regurgitate.

Can't someone sue this Ken Brown guy for purposefully misleading the public? This has to be a crime somehow.

-Jem

Re:I guess they didn't read this article

[g00set]

"Can't someone sue this Ken Brown guy for purposefully misleading the public? This has to be a crime somehow."

While I don't agree with his opinion/analysis of the impact of free software, it is exactly that, his opinin. In what court and under which law would you like to sue this guy for voicing an opinion you/we find absurd?

Re:I guess they didn't read this article

[ValourX]

He's stating lies as facts with the intent to harm or discredit Free Software. That's not an opinion. An opinion begins with the letter "I" and continues with "Think," "believe," "guess," or "have experienced."

-Jem

Re:I guess they didn't read this article

[g00set]

KDict via WordNet defines:

Opine :
1. Speak one's opinion without fear or hesitation
2. Expect, believe, or suppose

Lie:
"A man may state what is untrue from ignorance or misconception; hence, to impute an untruth to one is not necessarily the same as charging him with a lie. Every lie is an untruth, but not every untruth is a lie."

Fact:
A concept whose truth can be proved; 'scientific hypotheses are not facts'

"He's stating lies as facts"

Are you sure about this? If this is not true did you just lie to me with the purpose of discrediting my post? Can I sue you?

Re:I guess they didn't read this article

[ValourX]

But the rules for publishing and journalism are different. You're presenting conversational rules and they don't apply to published works. When you publish a paper or article that is made to appear as fact, it can and will be treated as fact and you can be held liable for it, especially if it is intended to damage someone or some entity.

Putting your opinions in writing and presenting them as fact is not the same as repeating believed untruths. It's hard to prove malice, though.

-Jem

Libel?

[Short Circuit]

Is there any way the free software movement can get together and charge this group with libel?

I mean, subpoena their research materials and numbers. Their phone logs. Find out who they talked to and what information they had.

Re:Libel?

[TrancePhreak]

Wouldn't that require spending money? And all these free software movement people got their money from where? Obviously not the free software. Perhaps therein lies the problem.

Re:Libel?

[Desirsar]

That's easy, they get their money (starting now) from idiots who put out false reports against them and get sued. :) I'm sure they could find some good lawyers that'd work for a percentage on the contingency that they win. And Microsoft (or anyone else) couldn't just lend lawyers to the guy for defense - if you shoot someone on live national television, and are arrested in possesion with... wait, I think someone got off for that once. If you drop your pants on live national television during music video awards, no lawyer can get you off. :)

In related news...

[Bronster]

People all over the country are destroying the American way of live by entering into a Marxist arrangement called "Marriage" in which they agree to share resources.

This "Marriage" is destroying the market for prostitutes and other providers traditional pay-per-use facilities. While it is true that using the opensource style "Marriage" arrangements it is often more difficult to arrange to get sex, with cryptic error messages like "I've got a headache" with no friendly interface where you can uncheck headache box and get your end in, many people are still choosing this threat to society.

It must stop. Join with the good capitalists and put an end to these terrorists trying to take out country by stealth. Ban marriage!

Re:In related news...

[Anonymous Coward]

This "Marriage" is destroying the market for prostitutes

Hmm. You're not married, are you...?

Re:In related news...

[Overd0g]

You have a weak mind.

Re:In related news...

[Pembers]

I forget who said it, but...

"One of the main differences between sex for free and sex for money is that sex for free usually costs you a lot more in the long run."

...which sounds eerily like Microsoft's arguments that the TCO of Linux is higher than Windows...

Re:In related news...

[Anonymous Coward]

You should have be modded insightful not funny.

Re:In related news...

[lubricated]

I'm married and have been for a while. If you and your wife aren't having sex then either you are a shitty husband or she is a shitty wife. Granted alot of people might qualify especially in the us.

Re:In related news...

[tiger99]

Marriage is actually a God-given institution, and nothing to do with Marxism, which is as anti-God as you can get.

Re:In related news...

[ChrisMaple]

Since there is no such thing as "God", there can be no such thing as a "God-given institution". Marxism and "God"-believing organizations are merely competing religions marketing their shoddy wares to people who can't think properly.

Re:In related news...

[Pac]

First, I believe he was making a joke. Second, merely having sex won't usually do. Sometimes people want something their partners are not willing to provide, sometimes people want just to have sex with someone else, etc. This has nothing to do with being a lousy husband/wife, but with human nature.

Re:In related news...

[Bronster]

Hmm. You're not married, are you...?

Actually, I am - but that doesn't mean I can't joke about it.

A better example is the effect on the GDP of a woman stopping being a mother to her family and going out to become a prostitute - I tell you, it's great for the economy - employment for child carers, she's earning money herself. Yay for synthetic metrics.

(and I know the counter argument - you can always come up with specific cases that break a general metric - the question is whether they're a reasonably accurate indicator at the high-level they're pitched at. I can't answer that one)

Re:In related news...

[Bronster]

If you and your wife aren't having sex then either you are a shitty husband or she is a shitty wife.

Or you're both so busy/tired all the time that you don't get the opportunities.

A couple of years ago when she was teaching (early starts, early to bed) and I was working late hours on a deathmatch project and too tired to get up early each morning, we hardly saw each other - that was very hard on the relationship.

(and don't get me started on the amount of time kids take out of your day - but it's worth every second of it)

Granted alot of people might qualify especially in the us.

Yeah, I'm finding that here - even more high-paced than life in Australia, and that was pretty stressful doing in-house development work. Not that I'm likely to leave the industry any time soon, there are rewards as well (money for one thing!)

Re:In related news...

[tiger99]

Completely and utterly wrong. See http://www.trf.org.au for proof.

The irony

[SilentStrike]

This article, brought to you by free software

Re:The irony

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but it's FreeBSD, they can rip it off, do whatever they want with it, and never reveal the source. All they have to do is give credit.

job loss due to MS

[fermion]

I believe MS is the cause of most proffesional developer job loss in the US. They create products that encapsulate knowledge and often allow less skilled workers to approximate common tasks in a shorter time.

This has been going on for a long time. I personally remember the original SCO losing sales to MS as developers began to port products over to DOS and Windows. This meant that qualfied admins were being replaced with college kids who knew Windows.

Then it was the visual languages. A person no longer needed to have a basis in best coding practices and best GUI practices. Just whip some widgets on the screen, and look Ma, I got me a program thingy.

Then it was Frontpage. Who needs W3C compliance. Who needs to employ web browser developers. MS gives away IE and kills the browser industry. Who needs to hire qualified developers. Just put some Flash on the screen, say it is IE only, and the public will think it is a proffesional job.

Re:job loss due to MS

[stratjakt]

What idiocy.

And Black and Decker costs jobs because they sell power saws and nailers that allow a single carpenter to frame out a new structure, when once upon a time it would have taken dozens to complete it in the same timeframe.

We should pass a law barring people from creating better tools for getting things done. Everything should be like the way Linux and the Amish do it - as backbreaking and labor intensive as possible, because that means more work!

The joke of it is, you were modded insightful on "we hates msft" principles, while I'll be modded flamebait/troll/offtopic because it may appear I'm "defending" them.

Re:job loss due to MS

[Anonymous Coward]

and to the children out there, this is very subtle humor or irony or whatever you want to call it.

MS did cause a a job loss. They also caused job growth. There was probably a net benifit.

But people were complaining about MS as much as they are now complaining about OSS. The troublemaker is never the dominant power, it is always those pesky innovators that force to actual think about the dominant models.

Re:job loss due to MS

[PhrostyMcByte]

How is Microsoft making things easy for developers a bad thing? Why should we have to reinvent the wheel every time we start a new program?

I can code straight Win32 GUIs, but I choose not to. Unless I need a completely dynamic UI, all it does is add more code and make things harder to manage.

If you are having problems finding a job, get off your obsolete ass and learn the new technologies. If you know the easy way AND the hard way, employers will hire you over the retard just out of college.

Re:job loss due to MS

[4of12]

and the public will think it is a proffesional job.

And the professionals will think it is a public job.

And MS wonders why it has to work so damn hard to promote mindshare and get a positive spin from developers...

Re:job loss due to MS

[91degrees]

How is Microsoft making things easy for developers a bad thing? Why should we have to reinvent the wheel every time we start a new program?

Because if you had to do that, you wouldn't be able to work as quickly, so there would be more jobs for programmers.

Yes, I know it's a stupid argument, but it's pretty much the same as the argument that open source destroys the community.

Re:job loss due to MS

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are having problems finding a job, get off your obsolete ass and learn the new technologies.

Employers won't fund employees learning technologies that they don't use. Most employers want to hire people with prior work experience in the technologies that they use.

If you know the easy way AND the hard way, employers will hire you over the retard just out of college.

Um, actually I've found that empoyers are aware that they can pay less to, and get more hours out of a recent graduate. Covert ageisim is real.

Re:job loss due to MS

[Minna Kirai]

What idiocy.

Duh. That was supposed to be idiotic- equally as idiotic as the Tocqueville report. Maybe he was a little too subtle...

The poster was pointing out that just because something costs jobs or destroys company value doesn't mean it's bad. To fear that a technology will take away your salary is called "Ludditism". If successful cold fusion will destroy the worth of oil companies, so what?

Everything should be like the way Linux and the Amish do it - as backbreaking and labor intensive as possible, because that means more work!

That's a mischaracterization of Linux. In some cases it can be more work, in others less- because once somebody does the work, everyone else can often copy it free of charge.

Both the freeness of Linux and the handholding of Microsoft can in some situations destroy jobs- but in neither case is that a bad thing.

Sauce for the goose

[ArsSineArtificio]

Since you don't think we should have IP laws, surely you won't mind if I swipe your post and claim I wrote it.

So here's my own opinion on the matter: Call me naive if you must, but am I the only one who doesn't really care about IP laws? Wouldn't it be more innovative if we got rid of the ip laws and let it be free reign on creation and development? Then, the market truely would be customer driven.

Without IP laws, companies would be forced to do as good of a job designing and implementing the product for fear of a competitor coming along and doing it better than they.

Why the hell *do* we have these laws?

Re:Sauce for the goose

[Anonymous Coward]

> surely you won't mind if I swipe your post and
> claim I wrote it.

Doing so, you're infringing copyright, NOT IP.

Re:Sauce for the goose

[grasshoppa]

I'm not entirely sure of the point you were trying to make, but I assure you, if you had somehow improved upon my post, I would do nothing other than aplaud you.

However, as it stands, you didn't even fix my spelling mistakes. :)

Re:Sauce for the goose

[Anonymous Coward]

IP doesn't exist so what is your point? Typically IP is used as a catch all for Copyrights, Trademarks, and Patents.

Re:Sauce for the goose

[jdavidb]

Since you don't think we should have IP laws, surely you won't mind if I swipe your post and claim I wrote it.

There are several responses to that. One is that claiming you wrote something you did not would be fraud, and there are those who do not believe the government should grant the monopolies we refer to as "intellectual property" but still believe the government should protect against fraud. Another point of view is that claiming you wrote something you did not is an immoral or unethical act, but that it is not the government's place to enforce morality. I believe everyone should go to church, for example, but I do not believe the government should mandate that everyone go to church and enforce that law. So you and I might agree that claiming credit for someone else's work is immoral ... so what? Who's to say that our morality is any better than anyone else's? Why should the government enforce that morality?

Re:Sauce for the goose

[jdavidb]

Hmm, I found the following from Karl Fogel's The Promise of a Post-Copyright World as yet another perspective on this:

Although the free stream does not use traditional copyright, it does observe, and unofficially enforce, a "credit right". Works are frequently copied and excerpted with attribution -- but attempts to steal credit are usually detected speedily, and decried publicly. The same mechanisms that make copying easy make plagiarism very difficult. It's hard to secretly use someone else's work when a Google search can quickly locate the original. For example, teachers now routinely do Google searches on representative phrases when they suspect plagiarism in student papers.

Of course, in this case, anyone can just click "parent" and find out who really wrote the post you copied, so it's even easier.

Re:Sauce for the goose

[drsmithy]

I'm not entirely sure of the point you were trying to make, but I assure you, if you had somehow improved upon my post, I would do nothing other than aplaud you.

Unfortunately, goodwill isn't a particularly good fuel for economies.

Re:Sauce for the goose

[drsmithy]

Without IP laws, companies would be forced to do as good of a job designing and implementing the product for fear of a competitor coming along and doing it better than they.

Uh, no. Without IP laws companies would have to live in fear of other companies undercutting them with lower prices after taking a free ride off their R & D.

Why the hell *do* we have these laws?

To provide incentives by providing the opportunity to make money.

Accomplishments

[barfomar]

It's interesting the that a click on the "Accomplishments" of the ADTI web page brings up:

"Not Found

The requested URL http:// was not found on this server."

One Question...

[Chordonblue]

What Linux-based company has been convicted of running a monopoly?

Yeah, I know, you'll 'get back to me'.

Re:One Question...

[Swamii]

IBM.

Re:One Question...

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you saying that Microsoft was? Any links to prove that?

Re:One Question...

[Chordonblue]

Yes, but this was before Linux AND... IBM does not control Linux, per se at any rate.

Re:One Question...

[Swamii]

What's your point? This kind of over-generalization and mud slinging doesn't help anyone. It's biased unfair bullshit regardless of whether a Microsoft rubber stamper or a Linux zealot is doing it.

Re:One Question...

[GoofyBoy]

SCO.

They have a monopoly on dumb-ass legal manuvers.

Re:One Question...

[Minna Kirai]

This kind of over-generalization and mud slinging doesn't help anyone.

Microsoft is one specific legal entity. By definition, an attack against it is not a "generalization".

If this is the report for the US -

[Claws Of Doom]

I'd hate to see the one about Finland...

Alexis de Tocqueville

[Joehonkie]

It's really sad that they are using the name of a great man to push this kind of bullshit on people. I'm sure an individual like him would actually be quite impressed with Open Source.

Still, doesn't seem to be worth getting excessively upset over crap like this unless the government starts making laws based on it.

Re:Alexis de Tocqueville

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Yes. De Tocqueville described a young America built on freedom, innovation, and opportunity -- the same ideas that underly F/OSS. For this bunch of reactionaries to call themselves the "Alexis de Tocqueville Institution" is like starting an anti-semitic group and calling it the "Simon Wiesenthal Institution," or a group dedicated to the restoration of the monarchy and calling it the "Thomas Jefferson Institution," or ... oh, hell, you get the idea.

Re:Alexis de Tocqueville

[fishdan]

Amen, Democracy in America should be required reading for everyone. Fortunately it's online and freely accessible

Re:Alexis de Tocqueville

[cptgrudge]

Still, doesn't seem to be worth getting excessively upset over crap like this unless the government starts making laws based on it.

Getting upset about something after a law is made doesn't really help anymore. All sorts of people (mostly on slashdot) are upset about the DMCA, but all of our whining in the world won't take care of it. Better to kill these bad ideas before they get momentum (and lobbying dollars) behind them and passing laws from them becomes a formality.

Re:Alexis de Tocqueville

[rock_climbing_guy]

Yes. De Tocqueville described a young America built on freedom, innovation, and opportunity -- the same ideas that underly F/OSS. For this bunch of reactionaries to call themselves the "Alexis de Tocqueville Institution" is like starting an anti-semitic group and calling it the "Simon Wiesenthal Institution," or a group dedicated to the restoration of the monarchy and calling it the "Thomas Jefferson Institution," or ... oh, hell, you get the idea.

How about creating an organization dedicated to protecting teaching professionals from any and all responsibility for the results of their piss-poor work ethic and then calling it The National Education Association.

Re:Alexis de Tocqueville

[chadjg]

I have read that book. It truly is an amazing piece of work, but the interested shouldn't stop there.

Since this is an American (cue pedantic jackasses) dominated board, and it's a well known fact that we don't know squat about our own history, I have to recommend a lot of background reading. Read a little French, a little English & some general European history. Then go for some enlightenment era philosphy.

Alexis de Tocqueville was no great fan of American style democracy. Most people miss that point. It's a good read.

Re:Alexis de Tocqueville

[geminidomino]

Since this is an American (cue pedantic jackasses) dominated board, and it's a well known fact that we don't know squat about our own history, I have to recommend a lot of background reading

(Offtopic, I know...) I think a big part of the problem over here is "WE" as a whole don't have a whole lot of common history. 230 years isn't a long time as far as history goes. Go further back than that, and it turns to English history, German history, Japanese history, Italian history, &c.. Catastrophes like 9/12 get us to pull together with some national identity, but that didn't take but a few weeks to dissolve again.

They should be renamed..

[jrexilius]

To the Pat Buchanan Institute for Terror Confusion and Hate.. hmm.. pBITCH..

Their grasp of economics, capitalism, and technology is more pathetic then their attempts at feigning objectivity...

Missing the point?

[oddman]

I think its important to realize that the author of the story *is not missing the point* of Open/Free software. He clearly sees it for what it is (at least partially,) an attack on corporate models along the lines of Microsoft (and Sun and IBM before they started to come around.)

GNU/Linux is that! It is true that GNU/Linux advocates want proprietary, closed-source models to fail. The author gets this. In his opinion that is a really bad idea because a huge chunk of US GNP is based on that closed model.

Now whether or not you agee with the conclusion drawn is one thing, but you should not be accusing them of being unaware of the realities.

Re:Missing the point?

[Joehonkie]

That's a total load. There are plenty of Open Source projects out there that are designed to compliment and work with closed source solutions. Not everyone is figthing a war here.

Re:Missing the point?

[Mr. Hankey]

It's interesting that the statistics he quotes were from 1998. That's 6 years ago. I wonder how much different they might be if taken more recently, especially considering the fallout of the dot-coms and any perceived value that was placed in those companies. Statistics can say a lot of things, depending on how you put them together.

In any case, even if his statistics were on-target he's not just talking about software. Rather, he's talking about the abolition of all IP as we know it, which is a different argument than open source vs. proprietary, closed-source software. Not all of those intangible assets are software, and not all of the software in the industry has (or will have) an open source competitor.

Interesting point.

[Aniquel]

So, the auther cites a study saying that the 85% of the assets of companies in the S&P 500 are "intangible," which he assumes to mean intellectual property (strike 1). He then goes on to say that the ultimate goal of OS is to devalue IP (strike 2), which in turn means that 85% of assets belonging to companies in the S&P 500 are "worthless" (strike 3).

It's a pretty interesting point though, because there are companies whose primary asset is IP, specifically software. And OS is definitely a threat to them. And yes, if MS were to lose even 50% of its "value" (not assets - think stock price), there would be worldwide financial catastrophy. Hm.

Chewbacca!!

[shystershep]

Article summary:
85% of market value of US companies == intangible
intangible value == IP
F/OSS software == anti-IP (& in fact will destroy it, somehow)
Therefore, F/OSS == the destruction of 85% of the value of US companies

I don't know where to begin, this article is so full of holes.

Probably the most glaring error is equating "intangible value" with "IP," and claiming that F/OSS will destroy the former by avoiding the latter. First of all, F/OSS is not anti-IP. If anything, it is merely anti exploiting-IP-till-it-squeaks, but the GPL (etc.) are all about copyright, not against it. Second, what the hell does any of that have to do with trademarks? Last, but certainly not least, where are this guy's numbers? If 85% of "market value" of companies is intangible, and open source and outsourcing are going to destroy that value, wouldn't there be some measurable impact since 1998 (when the 85% number came from) with the increase of Linux market share and outsourcing the last several years? There ought to be some evidence for his position if it is at all defensible.

Well, that's enough rant for now. I've probably made even less sense then this bozo, but idiotic, scare-mongering, groundless spin like this makes my blood boil. (Which is why I avoid TV even more in an election year.)

Re:Chewbacca!!

[tehcyder]

Intangible assets are made up of a number of different things, including trademarks, but in normal accounting terms are limited to goodwill (the excess Company A will pay Company B over the value of its tangible assets(.

Stock market valuations are something else again, and can quite easily have no relation to reality whatsoever (e.g. the dot com bubble companies).

The fact that the US stock market is absurdly over-valued is certainly worrying, but hardly the fault of OSS.

I would suggest that Wall Street's valuation of Microsoft at $500bn (or whatever) based on ever-expanding revenue streams into infinity is simply absurd. There is no reason why in 10 years' time "windows" is not just a word for the pieces of glass filling up the holes in walls again.

Re:Chewbacca!!

[ShinmaWa]

Excellent... But, you missed one:

Implication: all of the intangible value in the US is in closed-source software.

So, that patent you won for the super-duper toaster? Linux will kill that RIGHT off. The license you have to make T-shirts with NASCAR's logo on them? Open Source software will destroy that too. What?

Re:Chewbacca!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh. The original article also forgets that at least 80% of "intangible assets" that a company might have are tied up in the brains of the company's employees. In fact, the reality is that a company is defined by who works for them, a view that proponents of the current trend of making people into interchangeable parts, cogs of a machine if you will, dislike oh so very much.

So. In the future, perhaps 85% of the cashflow generated by selling proprietary, binary-only software (restrictive EULAs, NDAs, fascist license enforcer programs on your LAN, etc) will disappear. Personally, I view that as a good thing -- people should be encouraged to get to know the programs that they use, instead of being told that you don't need to understand this thing in order to do something with it (that kind of thinking tends to lead to beliefs bordering on the magical on how stuff works, after all). Eventually the most intellectual capital that a worker has will be inside his or her brain. Hey, I'm down with that kind of empowerment -- hell, that sounds suspiciously like what Marx predicted about the workers taking control of the means of production (barring those buttfuck NDAs you're used to, across the pond over there)!

Re:Chewbacca!!

[Darth23]

Looks like we're going to have to do smething to remove those valuable brains from the skulls of those employees. Those brains are obviously too valuable to be entrusted to inherintly unreliable wrokers.

The american way and open source.

[Yartrebo]

I just love it when people say open source is anti-capitalist and unamerican. I think quite the opposite. It embodies the spirit of America. Capitalism is about maximising profit. Open source achieves that by being free (as in beer) on the whole.

After hearing at least this argument and the opposite argument (that it's communist) 1,000 times, I've got a neat theory: Open source combines the best aspects of both systems. You get the cheapness, efficiency, and transparency of a free market and you also get the equality and sharing of a communist model.

Ideal communism (as opposed to Soviet and Chinese communism) doesn't allow for copyrights (it would fly straight in the face of the communal model of sharing), and while the GPL relies on copyright for keeping the source open, under communism you would have to share source code you write, since it belongs to the state for everyone's use, so both achieve the same noble end.

Free-market capitalism (as opposed to our crony capitalism and corporatism) maximizes efficiency by setting marginal cost to marginal price, which in the case of software, movies, music, etc., is very close to zero. If you supply the resources, like with P2P, it would be free.

Open source also avoids the pitfalls of both systems. It gets around the state censorship problem by distributing control - anyone can fork off a project is she/he feels like it. It also avoids the problems of monopolists, rent-seekers, corporate censors, and other dirtbags that you find in capitalism.

Re:The american way and open source.

[jrexilius]

Thats interesting, I have thought the same thing. It takes the best of both systems, competition and darwinian evolution of products, communal good, maximization of profits, etc.

I think the one thing it lacks as a good survivable, transportable model is that it is enabled by a system that, effectively, lacks scarcity. The internet and software are not reflective of other systems in that regard.

Re:The american way and open source.

[gowen]

Well, its an interesting thought. My own opinion is that Open Source Software is merely a natural reaction to the fact that software is, essentially, outside most economic principles, which are firmly grounded in scarcity.

Well, excluding Duke Nukem Forever, what little scarcity there is in software is artificially created ("We'll make this stuff expensive, because our coders have got to eat"). If suitably licensed, I can share it around at almost no cost to myself.

Capitalism says "get hold of something scarce and barter it for other scarce things." Communism says "gather together all the scarce things and try and share them out equally." Diametrically opposed, but both relying on scarcity.

Linux is immune, because there isn't a limited amount of it to go round.

Re:The american way and open source.

[megarich]

How about the fact we are putting way to much ideology behind a great os. Linux is nothing more nothing less than an operating system with cool apps. It doensn't represent communism nor capitalism. It's just an alternative for some of the other shit that's out there.

Re:The american way and open source.

[LurkerXXX]

But it does bring with it, it's own problems. One is one of the same problems that helped bring down the Soviet Union. Lack of incentive.

(Now before you start screaming TROLL at the top of your lungs, let me say that I like open source and I use a lot of open source. I'm just saying it's not a magic bullet.)

Most OS coders write the code they need to use themselves. To scratch an itch. Some maybe for a bit of 'leet' glory. But they write it just for fun. If the fun goes, so does all their commitment. There isn't a monetary incentive to keep going and do the dull boring parts (documentation, etc). Boredom, lack of time, etc can lead to the abandonment of a project. Sourceforge is littered with them. I've used some stuff of there before and gotten attached to using it, only to be burned when the projects were abandoned.

"But!", you say "The source is still available, just write it yourself". No thanks, some of the projects were extensive and keeping them modern/updated would have taken months of coding. I don't' have $30,000 to pay some in-house/contract developer to modernize the project. I do have a couple hundred bucks in my pocket that I would gladly trade for a shrink-wrapped box of updated software. A few thousand other companies might also find that software useful for the price of a few hundred dollars. That's where the proprietary software wins. People have an incentive to keep working on it besides just 'kicks'. If you are being paid for the software you are creating, it keeps you going, even when your having not-so-fun days.

And yes, closed source software gets abandoned too, but I suspect not anywhere as frequently as open source by looking at Sourceforge et. al. I'd love to see some real statistics on relative abandonment of proprietary vs open source, but I expect they would be difficult to gather accurately.

Re:The american way and open source.

[NixLuver]

"And yes, closed source software gets abandoned too, but I suspect not anywhere as frequently as open source by looking at Sourceforge et. al. I'd love to see some real statistics on relative abandonment of proprietary vs open source, but I expect they would be difficult to gather accurately."

Have you looked in the software bins of 'computer thrift stores' recently? There are DROVES of 'Print Shop' and 'Photoshop' and 'Paint Shop' clones hanging about waiting for someone to pick up the poor 'abandonware'. I wouldn't wager on the outcome of the relative frequency of abandonware in open source and commercial software.

Not to mention the fact that commercial abandonware is more than inconvenience - it's wasted money; Free Software from Sourceforge is probably going to work the way it appears to work for the forseeable future, given the source code can be recompiled as new libraries, kernels, etc are released. Try that with Windows abandonware.

Re:The american way and open source.

[Simon Brooke]

Ideal communism (as opposed to Soviet and Chinese communism) doesn't allow for copyrights (it would fly straight in the face of the communal model of sharing), and while the GPL relies on copyright for keeping the source open, under communism you would have to share source code you write, since it belongs to the state for everyone's use, so both achieve the same noble end.

Under ideal communism there is no state. Workers who produce anything own both the means of production and the products which they produce - absolutely and without anyone else having any say. Workers are expected to share the fruits of their labour with anyone who needs it - but the exact mechanism by which this happens is lost in hand-waving.

Thus free software is as compatible with ideal communism as it is with ideal capitalism. It's really orthogonal to both, since both are rooted in exchange based economies and free software operates in a gift economy.

Re:The american way and open source.

[ortholattice]

There is another consideration concerning outsourcing to a country with more liberal or less stringently enforced copyright laws. In such a country, developers are more likely to use "pirated" development tools when working with proprietary OS's, so their setup cost for doing the work becomes much less. US companies, on the other hand, will almost always pay for their development tools because the draconian penalties for getting caught just aren't worth the risk. This makes it even more difficult for US companies to compete.

With free open source software, on the other hand, US companies can start off with one less disadvantage compared to their foreign competitors.

Re:The american way and open source.

[bmedwar]

> Free-market capitalism

I'd argue that in such a system, GPL would be illegal (or more accurately wouldn't be applicable). All software would be under an implied BSD license, because there would be no laws governing IP. The notion of IP would not exist; there would be no need for a license. The absense of IP licensing certainly more closely resembles a BSD-style license, than it does the GPL.

One key issue that people seem to miss is that in such a system you would still be able to limit the distribution and access to your trade secrets. The difference is that the responsibility of enforcement rest solely on you as the content distributer. You can't simply include a text file that says "user shall not do this, this, nor this" and then expect to lay the burden and expense of enforcing those rules on an entity that is funded from mandatory payment by all citizens.

Re:The american way and open source.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, anyone could make their own Duke Nukem -- just grab the free Quake II engine, and spend a $1 Million on artists and game designers. How is that "almost no cost"?

The same holds true for all other branches of software -- Code Monkeyism has very low value (or scarcity) -- the value of the software is in the design or the logic. When someone buys accounting software, they are buying a set of business rules. When someone buys database software, they are buying distributed two-phase commit.

Once you get out of the range of 'hard' problems, software is already very very cheap. (Most 'bots would be knocked on their ass to hear how little large corps pay for Microsoft software for example -- they like to believe Windows is $200/copy when in bulk its more like $20.)

Re:The american way and open source.

[timeOday]

I think what you just said is exactly why OSS won't cause the sky to fall, as the Tocqueville article claims.

Most of the specialized, vertical applications that companies hire people to write will never be Open Source. (They could even be built on GNU libraries, but never distributed outside the company).

OSS tends to default the software that needs devaluing. Microsoft sits back and milks the OS/Office cow with 85% profit margins year after year. Ending this situation will not destroy our economy, it would just distribute ownership of Microsoft's 50 billion dollars a lot more broadly.

Re:The american way and open source.

[jdavidb]

After hearing at least this argument and the opposite argument (that it's communist) 1,000 times, I've got a neat theory: Open source combines the best aspects of both systems. You get the cheapness, efficiency, and transparency of a free market and you also get the equality and sharing of a communist model.

It's the ideal demonstration that given Freedom, individuals will choose the level of cooperation that benefits them the most (or best fits their goals, or whatever). As long as everything is free and voluntary, it's still a free system, even if people choose to cooperate. That's the fundamental difference with Communism, where people have no choice but to "share" and "cooperate."

Re:The american way and open source.

[gowen]

Code Monkeyism has very low value (or scarcity) -- the value of the software is in the design or the logic

True, but very few Linux kernel hackers are getting monetary reward for it. Previously, everyone thought solving hard problems cost money, now there are a committed group of people who are doing it for free.

Re:The american way and open source.

[geminidomino]

Free Software from Sourceforge is probably going to work the way it appears to work for the forseeable future

Unless it's a KDE app. ;)

HHOS. It's a pain in the butt trying to get an older project(PixiePlus) to build on the latest Slack release.

The funny thing...

[wolf31o2]

I have worked for several companies now that made their living on FOSS, even if they weren't in the market of making software. As a good example, I now work at a company that uses FOSS almost exclusively on its ISP business. Being an ISP, profits can be slim, especially when sending money by the truckload to a certain location in Washington state.

I always have found it funny how everyone seems to think that just because something is free you can't make money from it.

Yawn...

[falcon5768]

very funny Microsoft, but dont you know ventriloquist acts went out of style a long time ago.

IP Theft

[Thnurg]

I stopped reading when I read the term "IP Theft".
Do these people have a clue?
You can't steal Intellectual Property. Why? Because it is not property. It is not governed by property laws. Sure, someone who violates copyright is breaking the law, but no court in the US or UK will convict them of theft.
These people seriously need to get a clue before publishing uninformed rants.

Re:IP Theft

[TrancePhreak]

What about people who warez games? Is that not theft? They steal the money that a company could of had by selling their product. Your definition of property is not geared for the digital age. Just because something is not tangeable does not mean that you should be able to have it for free. People spend many thousands of hours working on something because justly they will be able to make a living from it.

Re:IP Theft

[Anonymous Coward]

> What about people who warez games? Is that not theft? They steal the money that a company could of had by selling their product.

What about watching a movie (or listening to music) at friends house?
Aren't you effectively "stealing" from the publisher by doing so? You're getting the benefits, but haven't paid for it.

What if a bunch of people chip in and pay for the rental?

Peace

Re:IP Theft

[Thnurg]

Engage brain before touching keyboard.
I did not claim that such acts are not legally wrong. Copyright violation is against the law but it is not theft. Here's a clue.
Copy-right.
Hmmm, copy-right, what could that mean? Could it be something to do with the rights to copy?
You're not a thief if you walk on someone's private land without permission.
You're not a thief if you shout "fire" in a crowded theatre.
You're not a thief if you drive 80mph down the wrong side of the freeway.
But in all those cases you would be engaging in acts that you have no right to, and would be breaking the law.
Your definition of property is not based in law but is based on the propaganda of big copyright holders.

The "truth"

[khyron664]

"However, the open source strategy is a triple-edge sword."

As in your side, their side, and the truth?

Think they'd know better than to reference a line from B5. :)

Khyron

Amazing:

[runfaster]

First, most free software such as Linux, (the most popular because of its operating system capability), comes with a license that dictates that any all development of the product (which would have been valuable intellectual property) becomes community property and must subsequently become free as well.

Of course, without that liscence, it could be argued that developer X would never have seen the code anyway... and if software is closed like the author seems to be suggesting, that developer definitely would not have seen that code, unless they all work for the same large corporation which makes all software...

Second, Linux initiatives have enabled foreign-based information technology firms with zero IP costs and cheap labor to easily compete with U.S. software companies. While some may argue that Linux only impact the business software sector, BSA reports that the business market for software is over $160 billion.

So we should only allow people thew world over to get into the IT business if they will plunk down serious $$$ to get in it for the software? Having the capitol is not enough, they also need to pay a lot for the actual software? It is critically important to US interests that a software monopoly (or small oligopoly, so that prices don't come down) exists that requires everyone worldwide to spend a lot of money on its products? Yeah, that sounds... interesting. I wonder who pays this guy? (wink)

Re:Amazing:

[smagruder]

I just defer to one of my favorite axioms:

It's nobody's responsibility to prop up an industry.

You're not the only one

[winchester]

One of the major pro-oss arguments made within large military organisations is exactly this point. OSS may or may not be more secure, but at least with OSS everyone is at a level playing field with regards to the ability to audit source code.

Re:Article reaction

[jrexilius]

actually they will make it an approachable commodity for all people, not just the rich and large corporations in the same way that has happened with cars, electricty, telephones, textiles, etc. The net effect of this is that everyone gets richer as they can devote more resources to new and better competitive advantages. The other side effect is that research and development will improve as well as quality. study a little econ man..

Open source and free software is merely a response

[codepunk]

The open source and free software is a natural response to draconian measures by proprietary software companies.

It is a response to over priced buggy software.

It is a response by developers that are tired of monopolistic control artificially imposed by vendors of propriatary software.

Open software wrenches the control back to the individual and individual developer.

It may shift control and the current business model but it will hardly mean the end to the software business. Open source software has already changed the software business and it is going to overtake it in my opinion. The only question is are the software development shops going to adapt or die?

It's all perspective

[hopemafia]

I have to say I agree completely with the analysis given. The difference is that I think all of those things are good things, whereas Mr. Brown thinks they're bad (or is being paid to say so).

The economy in general is very resilient. Yes, some companies may fail to adapt to the changing business climate and fail, but new companies will take their place. Big companies might be able to fight the changes for a while, but in the end change is inexorable and those who embrace it will prosper.

Interesting point glossed over

[josquin9]

Picking through the chicken little ranting, there was one little gem.

To paraphrase: the protectionist act of preventing foreign technology workers from coming to the US has led to the distribution of technical knowledge throughout the world to a much greater extent than would have occurred if emigration had been allowed/encouraged.

That concept deserves a lot more investigation. Whether it would have been better or worse, I wouldn't say without a lot more consideration. Redistributing wealth is a natural side effect of the advancement of any scale of economy, be it local, national or global. The lesson, though, seems to be that fighting the economics of the situation wound up creating exactly the result most feared; lost American jobs and capital.

Somebody's been watching their B5 boxed sets...

[ClayJar]

"However, the open source strategy is a triple-edge sword." --Ken Brown, Alexis de Tocqueville Institution

"Understanding is a three-edged sword." --Kosh Naranek, "Deathwalker" (113), Babylon 5 (Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5)

You Are Naive

[SteveM]

Without IP laws, companies would be forced to do as good of a job designing and implementing the product for fear of a competitor coming along and doing it better than they.

BZZZZZTTTT WRONG

Without IP laws you have no recourse when your competitor takes your product idea and markets it as their own.

SteveM

Lies, errors, half-truths and suppositions

[iPaul]

1) That liberal IP policies and free software will shrink the value of existing IP property. False - it will probably raise the total amount of IP capital over the long run. More producers of IP will have access to more tools and be able to provide more solutions on more platforms.

2) Outsourcing is bad - okay outsourcing is bad.

3) Outsourcing ruins US IP. The value a company places on a process, technology etc, is purely subjective. There's an accounting value - which is a function of the acquisition cost and r&d costs, but if they value an asset they will protect it. Companies that take core business processes overseas where IP property theft is rampant are either stupid, or these processes don't have a lot of value.

4) GPL only allows you to develop GPL software - Where do I begin - he said shaking his head in dismay. You can write (and people do write) closed source software based on an cooperating with Open Source software. In some cases you must release certain parts of code, in other cases you can keep it all locked up. Either way, Oracle, IBM, BEA, Sun, etc. all have proprietary software that runs on GPL based platforms.

5) The author assumes that the accounting value of IP = the real value of IP. In some cases you have large "IP assets" that are worthless. Think OS2 software. However, you have to depreciate them on your books because of accounting rules. Also, it doesn't follow that enforcing all your IP claims will make the economy better off. If everyone started suing everyone else over IP, then no one could produce software and what little there was would skyrocket in cost. Remember IBM owns a little here, Oracle some ther, Intel has some, etc. but no one owns even enough to make a complete O/S.

That what's in GPL'ed software is necessarily valuable IP. In some cases these are concepts that have been written about in O/S textbooks for 30 years! Many are based on industry standard APIs or widely adopted practice. Read - Unix like kernels and related software are good, stable technologies but not exactly hot off the press.

Summary - The Tocquaville author is an idiot

Arrogant?

[scottennis]

We in America do not have the market cornered on creativity and ingenuity as much as we'd like to think so.

So we close our borders and keep our precious IP locked in a black box? Then the world comes to a screeching halt?

We bitch and moan about OPEC manipulating the flow of oil, but we're willing to try to manipulate the flow of information? Seems a bit arrogant to me.

Guess what--there's no such thing as "information reserves," like there is oil reserves. The more information you let flow, the more information will be produced, in the US and abroad.

I've seen one of those!!!

[Chordonblue]

Now that I think of it, I think I've actually seen a triple-bladed sword. It was the day ATi released the 4.3 Catalyst update to my Radeon 8500. I installed it, rebooted, and proceeded to play Dark Age of Camelot.

Hoo boy! I had lines going every which way, textures out of place, the works! But I remember that those who held flame or ice blades had three or four polygon planes of blade sticking out (instead of fire or ice effects)!

Uhhhh, no... That's probably not what the writer of this article was thinking. :P

Re:I've seen one of those!!!

[Tesral]

ABB? ABB??!! Really? ANYBODY?! How about Ralph Nader?

Why not Nader? No one likes him, he is moody and disagreeable. Both parties would hate his guts, and trash his programs. He in turn would veto their bills. The resulting pissing match would lock up the Federal government for four years.

Meanwhile we would would have a four year breather. We could get some real work done and at the end of it Nader would drop off the face of the planet so to speak, unless we could twist his arm for another four years.

Re:Triple Edged Sword

[Thnurg]

I think they mean a sharp edged prism.

His assumptions are flawed anyway...

[aug24]

There's an assumption in there that the IP valuations companies put on 'their' IP are and have been correct. Personally, I would say that many US companies have overvalued their IP, as they have valued it according to how much money they can make off it - worldwide - in a year, and expected that income to continue indefinitely.

However, as soon as other countries start acquiring sufficient infrastructures (eg mobile phone nets in Africa) they are enabled to do their own development. Thus the US 'IP' is worth less than it was recorded as.

This does not mean, as Ken says, that the IP has been devalued, merely that it was over-valued.

Justin.

Yes, because

[matlhDam]

...anyone using BMP images on the web is clearly in a perfect position to talk about technology-related matters.

Still, I suspect someone over there's having a "tocque". *

* Where "tocque" rhymes with "poke".

glad to know I am piece of plutonium

[joeldg]

yay!..

lets bomb a certain few companies off the map.

notice they didn't state that paid-for software is often more unreliable that unpaid-for software. My linux box uptime:186 days and handles a lot of stuff (mail/www/huge crontab) in addition to being node1 on a three node cluster. And guess what, it is all 100% free.

And, if I want, I can tweak it as I see fit and often do.

This article is just moaning about how everyone's property (read, interested parties) cannot be controlled and we would be better off dealing with countries that steal our stuff than these communist hippie programmer types.

bah. FUD FUD FUD

Could it be

[salesgeek]

That Intellectual Property is worth about 85% than IP owners think it is?

Tocqueville=IDIOT

[Nonillion]

Tocqueville doesn't know WTF they are talking about. I have a SuSE 8.0 machine that has been exposed to the raw Internet going on 4 years now. Not once in that time has it EVER been compromised, my Sun box running Solaris was compromised in two weeks with a DOS client. And don't even get me started with Windows boxes.

In defense of the GPL

[CodeMonkey4Hire]

However, the open source strategy is a triple-edge sword. First, most free software such as Linux, (the most popular because of its operating system capability), comes with a license that dictates that any all development of the product (which would have been valuable intellectual property) becomes community property and must subsequently become free as well.

Can someone elaborate on the GPL for me? The article attacks it in such a broad sweep that it ignores the content of the GPL. The fact that the author doesn't even refer to it by name leads me to believe that he is biased against it and/or has no idea what it is.

Without having worked with the GPL in-depth, I had thought that it only applied to software that you distributed, i.e. you didn't have to open the source of in-house software, etc. Are there anyways that a vendor can opt-out of the GPL? I am naively thinking of things such as providing a partial source, paying some license fee to some entity, etc.


I'm also having a little trouble picturing a triple-edge sword that wouldn't be pointless. Maybe he had 2 "points" in his attack, and thought up a 3rd one, but didn't have time/energy/intelligence to come up with a new analogy.

Re:In defense of the GPL

[91degrees]

I'm no expert, but I gather that the GPL states that if you distribute the software, you must also distribute the source. So, basically, yes. You're correct.

Rumours on rumours

[m00nun1t]

Time to burn karma...

"Remember who funded the same group's report on open source security?"

No, I don't. I remember that Microsoft provided some level of funding to the group (and were quite open about it). Guess what? Microsoft fund a lot of people, doesn't mean they become Microsofts lackies. Microsoft owns 7% of comcast who made TechTV (RIP) which could hardly be called Microsoft friendly. There is no evidence at all that Microsoft funded this report, merely speculation.

So, basically, the /. editors report rumours as facts, and then misquote themselves to build further "facts" on top of that. Please try and get some crediblity.

Intangible Assets

[LazyBoyWrangler]

The ratio changes from tangible to intangible assets doesn't surprise me in the least. For some srtange reason, accounting and stock market analysts have used the ever-inflating intangible asset valuations to drive corporate valuations into the stratosphere, forming the nucleus of every bubble market that eventualy pops. It isn't the technology or people of these companies that fail - its the valuations. Here in Ottawa, I see great technology from Nortel destroyed due to market bubble related carnage. We need last mile / high speed technology and the people that can imagine it and then make in real. The scary thing is that a lot of these people are flipping burgers, while the stock market analysts and accountants are busy trying to create the next bubble from intangible assets. Christ, it pisses me off!

Where's the outcry?

[Misch]

Where's the outcry from ADTI about the effects of the automobile industry on horse whip manufacturers?

First, most free software such as Linux, (the most popular because of its operating system capability), comes with a license that dictates that any all development of the product (which would have been valuable intellectual property) becomes community property and must subsequently become free as well.

Incorrect. No organization that utilizes free software is obligated to distribute the modifications to the code they created. (Of course, if that orgaznization distributes the program tehy develop, then they have to distribute the code.

In a widely quoted study, Baruch Lev of the Brookings Institution reported that in 1982, 62% of the market value of companies in the S & P 500 Index could be attributed to tangible assets, and only 38% to intangibles. By 1992, Lev noted, the ratio had essentially reversed: 32% of the assets for S & P companies were tangible, while 68% were intangible. A follow-up study by Brookings in 1998 reported that the asset ratio had shifted even more, with 85% of assets intangible, and only 15% tangible.

When people say "widely quoted" and don't even bother to cite a source, their credibility takes a beating.

Second, Linux initiatives have enabled foreign-based information technology firms with zero IP costs and cheap labor to easily compete with U.S. software companies.

Oh? Competition isn't good? Oops. Our bad. But in one instance,a backboe built out of lots of free software played a role in saving US government organizations $3-10 billion. Where's the outcry over the loos in business revenue for the existing phone companies?

Open Source activists that want to see Linux succeed argue that eventually, they want all intellectual property protection to end, including patents and trademarks. The bottom line is this: a non-IP future means that all companies in the Baruch Lev study go to from 85% to 0% in intangible asset value.

No we don't! Trademarks are very important, and I can't think of anyone in the OSS community who wants trademarks to go away. (i know, people will prove me wrong on this assertion).

As for patents, onClick.do() shouldn't be patentable. X=X+1; repeat; shouldn't be patentable. Business models suck and should not be patentable.

He misses the point of OSS

[mrhandstand]

I got started with Linux and OSS for two reasons.

1) I'm a cheap bastard (I was anyway...I was a college student with little extra $$$).

2) I hate piracy (My family owned a software business.)

I appreciated the usage of the software, sent thank you letters or meager donations when I could, and never claimed the work as my own. If Ken Brown is de-crying the theft of IP, then my example helps to refute his argument. I did not have any incentive to steal. This prick wouldn't understand generosity or community if it slapped him in the face.

So let me get this straight

[dkleinsc]

Last I checked, The American Way (TM) involved competitive markets ensuring that the group that could produce a product for the lowest price won. Open source software produces their product for an extremely low price (donations to the FSF, etc) and creates competitive markets of distributing, supporting, and modifying F/OSS. Plus the shift to services means that the jobs F/OSS creates have to stay in the US instead of moving to India.

So, yes, the shrink-wrapped-box software industry executives may end up screwed. But programmers and other computer professionals will still have jobs, the smart executives will change their business around, and generally land on their feet. This was simple a model of creating software getting competed out of the market.

the web is evil too

[Anonymous Coward]

because people can read and learn stuff for free, like at libraries. wait, libraries are evil too then.

none of these sorry bastards ever understands the gpl. it's a right to distribute, not to use. you can make all the changes you want and add all the code you want, and not share it with anybody, as long as you don't distribute it to others. that can only hurt software companies that want to sell software, not anybody else. any other company can benefit from the work of others, and not share any stuff they come up with, if they so choose. stupid asses writing about law based on assumptions that flow from an idea that is incorrect.

will the a/c

Somewhat true

[llZENll]

OSS is free, therefor poor countries have MUCH easier access to it than expensive commercial software, so its what they use and grow up with, thereby becoming more profficient at it than the US. Yes, simply by the fact that it is free promotes itself for services surrounded it to be outsourced by US companies who use it.

Brought ot you by..

[OlivierB]

This advertisement has been brought to you by MSFT.

Seriously whatever this means, experts are losing credibility making contradictory statements.

One institute believes Open_source is good. The other says says evil.

You know what: all this "noise" and "incertainty" is just benefiting MSFT. Just like when in a storm, living things hide to a safer "calmer" place (ok worms not withstanding as per definition they are unpredictable).

Obligatory Netcraft check:

[sammy baby]

According to Netcraft, www.adti.net is running FreeBSD.

Why, oh why, does the Alex de Tocqueville institution hate freedom so?

Re:Obligatory Netcraft check:

[Anonymous Coward]

According to Netcraft, www.ngworldstats.com is owned by Microsoft and is running Linux. Therefore, Microsoft is communism.

What a coincidence!

Re:Obligatory Netcraft check:

[Anonymous Coward]

That proves it. Alexis de Tocqueville is dead.

Re:Obligatory Netcraft check:

[Alsee]

Perhaps because they are funded by Microsoft?

-

He's making an incorrect assumption.

[composer777]

He's assuming that the direction the US IT industry was headed was a good a direction, with a small minority of people owning everything. I agree, free software does strike a major blow to US corporations, and this is a good thing. Of course we can expect him to whine about how it's hurting them, but that's exactly what the point is, it's to loosen the grip of major corporations on IP, at all costs. It doesn't make sense to give corporations complete control over IP, if, in the long run, they'll simply lock it up and throw away the key, keeping a small team of programmers around for maintenance activities after the majority of work is done, but still charging the same price.

As far as free trade goes, let's try not be naive. He's implying that corporations are really nice guys who wouldn't offshore if only we could get rid of free software. This is an old trick. What he's doing, is he's taking two groups that are a threat to the IT industry, and these groups are:
1. IT workers who have recently been laid off and are upset at the industry for offshoring.
2. Open Source programmers who are creating software for free.

Now he is setting them up to fight amongst themselves so that they'll ignore what the industryis doing. The company I work for is doing the same thing. We have a Union here that is set to strike any day now. They keep bringing up the Union member's wages and saying,"See, look how much they get paid for what they do." Nevermind that they get paid a fraction of what I get paid. The assumption that they are implying is that the Union, by asking for higher wages, is causing my salary to drop and leeching off the company. That's pure nonsense. When low-level workers make more, then that causes everyone else wages to go up as well. This kind of wage inflation might be seen as a bad thing, until you realize where the money is coming from. It's coming from the top 1%. That top 1% owns about 43% of the wealth in the US, and they've managed to acquire 15% of that 43% in the last 20 years. When one knows that single fact, it's easy to see who the leeches are. They've stolen a huge chunk from Americans through scams such as free trade, credit cards, IRA's, Enron, Haliburton, etc., and getting some of is back to the people who actually work for it is a good thing in my opinion.

Re:He's making an incorrect assumption.

[ChrisMaple]

"scams such as free trade"

You oppose freedom. No further commentary required.

Re:He's making an incorrect assumption.

[composer777]

Define the word freedom...

There is some (paranoic) insight there

[dbrower]

Yes, he's wrong on a lot of specifics, and alarmist, but the general concern of the article is something to think about: export of accumulated intangible capital which leaves how much for the exporting nations?

While there will certainly be some service/customization jobs to replace the creation of the creation of basic technology, how many will there be? We don't know.

You can make the argument that software is going to go through it's own trajectory of following the Forrest curve , where the cheaper (limit: free) off-the-shelf stuff is good enough, and there's no economic motivation because of low return to invest in major changes.

We have not yet seen an example of a F/OSS development that has resulted in a significant alteration of the hardware design, which requires major planning and investment. Linux has, in honesty, leeched off the PC changes driven by Microsoft and the WinHEC.

The bazaar is good for somethings; but if you think you want to build Aqueducts or Roman Roads, you may need organization more like that of the cathedral builders. The concern is that if the world is composed exlusively of folks with booths in the bazaar, how does an economy organize and fund major changes that are not small incremental steps? In absence of viable large corporations, do you result in public governmental funding and organization? That is what builds water systems, schools and highways (sometimes), if people allow themselves to be taxed.

-dB

Re:There is some (paranoic) insight there

[stealth.c]

Large software corporations will decline, but I see no reason people like Intel, AMD, IBM and other hardware manufactureres should not be just as huge as they are today. Hardware companies, if they so chose, would be able to lead an acqueduct project for whatever new hardware concoction they're dreaming of, and hire a bunch of programmers to do it. Heck, they could (collectively?) sponsor a development lab full of paid OSS programmers dedicated to pushing the limits of hardware.

I think you might have it backwards anyway. I remember the software industry *following* the hardware industry. The PC gaming arena was stagnating because 3dfx saw no purpose in improving its Voodoo2 3D accelerator. When folks like ATi and nVidia started eating their lunch, advancements in PC games took off.

Patents

[humungusfungus]

However, the open source strategy is a triple-edge sword.

Ah yes, the old triple edged sword. It's a shame no-one patented this as a the ideal cutting device, sued everyone making single and double edged blades for infringing on the idea and then forced us all to cut our bread with it.

What a bunch of hogwash.

Wrong Sword!

[Anonymous Coward]

...For the demon shall bear a nine-bladed sword. Nine-bladed! Not two or five or seven, but nine, which he will wield on all wretched sinners, sinners just like you, sir, there.

And I care why?

[Anonymous Coward]

The bottom line is this: a non-IP future means that all companies in the Baruch Lev study go to from 85% to 0% in intangible asset value

They say that as if I'm supposed to care. If you try to base a business on selling an abundant resource, then why the heck would you be surprised if your business failed? They seem to assume that these are valid business plans. Perhaps they should reconsider that assumption first.

this is true

[VAXGeek]

It was also true that inventing electric lights spelled the end for candle makers. No one cared about crossing the Atlantic with a sail when they could use an engine. Gasoline would not be used as much if someone invented a cheaper way to get a car from here to there. Basically, software companies sell something that you cannot really touch and that can be copied infinitely. Free software can proliferate on its merits alone without worry of cost. On a long enough timescale, of course most commerical software is irrelevant. But there will always be those niches which OSS cannot fill, and commercial software vendors will turn to finding a niche and doing it best. I can't really see a future without OSS though, once you switch to it and it suits your needs, would you really ever switch back to software you have to pay for? I bet most shops that go open rarely go back 100% proprietary.

patriarchy, monarchy... and?

[happyfrogcow]

so what's the word for a country governed my the corporations?

Re:patriarchy, monarchy... and?

[TobiasTheCommie]

capitalism.

Re:patriarchy, monarchy... and?

[stealth.c]

Corporatarchy?

Or if you ask Mussolini, Fascist.

Re:patriarchy, monarchy... and?

[smagruder]

Plutocracy.

OS peer review

[Anonymous Coward]

has the potential to totally surpass it through the ability to get such a large amount of peer review.

Like sendmail right?

Many eyes that don't understand the code are no better then a few eyes that do and I think that the number of closed source devolopers who actually understand security concepts in computing is about the same as the number of Open source develops who understand the same concepts on any given project.

Or do you consider all the first year CS students who download the code to apache to be "peer review".

errrr....

[mojoNYC]

your post starts out good, but then you ramble into FUD territory at the end...frontpage has never had ANY impact on the professional market (it's hobbyist software at best)

second, you've got Flash mixed up with Javascript--Flash runs the same on ALL browsers--it's js that has problems with cross-browser issues...

not to nitpick, but FUD is FUD...

Tocqueville is funded by Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

See Did MS Pay for Open-Source Scare?

> A Microsoft spokesman confirmed that Microsoft provides funding to the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution.

Who is this guy?

[futuresheep]

I can't tell from the web site if this is a legitimate institute or just some crank that has an opinion page of his own. It looks pretty amateurish to me, there's broken links on the site, like his:

Accomplishments Page

Support Page

He doesn't cite anyone, using the 'people contacted at' crutch. He's also inconsistent in his opinion. Tell me if I'm wrong, but I'm, simply underwhelmed by the whole thing this guy is about and simply don't understand whether or not he's important, or if I should care.

Re:Who is this guy?

[Tarantolato]

Almost every document on the site is aguest column from a small-time newspaper or non-academic magazine. There are also a lot of recordings from radio shows.

None of them contain original research; this particular article just takes some figures from another institution's report and makes ludicrous extrapolations therefrom.

One of the "fellows" is one John Norquist, the brother of a bigger-time conservative activist named Grover Norquist. The "senior fellow" is James Kilpatrick, who made a name for himself in the sixties writing op-ed pieces opposed to civil rights legislation.

In short, it's a handout program for has-been or never-were conservative pundits.

Well to be honest it's true.

[pcx]

I mean if you spend your teens honing your skills by making the freeware open office better than any office production software in existance -- so good EVERYBODY uses it what are you going to do when you finally grow up, get a wife, get an unplanned kid or two and decide you need to finance things like diapers and baby formula?

All your skills are in writing office software but because the office software is free there's no way to make money for it unless you take a minimum wage help desk to support users who don't know how to turn on their computers.

I mean isn't that what open source is working for? The day when you don't have to pay for your OS (linux) , or your Word Processor (open office, abiword), or your graphics software ( gimp ), or your games (freeciv)?

If all the software you could possibly want to use is available for free off the net as open source, just where exactly are the development careers going to be when any Indian slave laborer can mod a few open source modules to form a perfect drop in app?

IMHO the software industry is ignoring a major potential problem. Sure gimp is pathetic compared to photoshop today but in 5 years? Eventually it's going to hit critical mass and be a great alternative to paying $700.00 for a photoshop license. If I were Adobe I'd be tracking every programmer working on gimp and I'd hire every developer on the project that showed a spark of talent and potential -- complete with a hiring agreement prohibiting future development on Gimp.

But that's just me I guess.

Value for whom

[StrawberryFrog]

Value for whom - software makers or software users?

If you are a shoemaker, then someone else giving away free shoes is a detriment to your business, but a benefit to the shoe-wearing population. If you are a software make ...

However, software makers are also software users: In order to write the business apps that I am paid to write, I need an operating system, a compiler, a database, etc. So I benefit if the software up the chain is cheaper (or if we broke the windows habit), but I might lose my job if the company's clients can get the same business app that I write for free. That's far less likely, as it's rather a specialised application.

A few large, and largely American, companies that exist to make software near the top of the chain will be the losers if free software takes over. The world's population in general will be the winners - they will pay less and get more, counteracting the tendency for the rich to get richer by further impoverishing the poor.

I asert without proof that it's not a zero-sum gain. That is, the total gains to many from freeing IP will always match or more likely far exceed the losses to a few rich people by not gettting IP-rent any more.

Thus I don't think it true that "downward pressure on intellectual property is having a serious impact upon ... the entire U.S. economy."

I'm very happy with that, but then I'm not one of the very rich few, and I don't own a large software company. The Alexis de Tocqueville Institution isn't happy with it, so take it from whence it comes.

Re:Value for whom

[bnenning]

A few large, and largely American, companies that exist to make software near the top of the chain will be the losers if free software takes over. The world's population in general will be the winners - they will pay less and get more, counteracting the tendency for the rich to get richer by further impoverishing the poor. I asert without proof that it's not a zero-sum gain.

And you're correct. It's the flip side of the broken window fallacy, which is the incorrect argument that breaking windows is good for the economy because it provides revenue for repairmen. In this case, free software is the equivalent of unbreakable windows; repairmen may be understandably upset that it lowers their income, but everyone else benefits.

A minor correction

[composer777]

My first paragraph should start...

He's assuming that the direction the US IT industry was headed was a good a direction, with a small minority of people owning everything. I disagree with his assumption that this was a good direction for the industry to go. However, I do agree with his assertion that free software does strike a major blow to US corporations, and I think that this is a good thing.

Intangible_Assets GT Tangible_Assets EQ Fraud

[stankulp]

"In a widely quoted study, Baruch Lev of the Brookings Institution reported that in 1982, 62% of the market value of companies in the S & P 500 Index could be attributed to tangible assets, and only 38% to intangibles. By 1992, Lev noted, the ratio had essentially reversed: 32% of the assets for S & P companies were tangible, while 68% were intangible. A follow-up study by Brookings in 1998 reported that the asset ratio had shifted even more, with 85% of assets intangible, and only 15% tangible."

This sounds more like accounting fraud than anything caused by open source software.

Does anybody remember a couple of companies named Arthur Anderson and Enron?

Re:Intangible_Assets GT Tangible_Assets EQ Fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

Arthur Anderson? Enron?

Never heard of 'em.

Chicken and Egg question

[xyote]

Open source software is created by who exactly? And how do those programmers make a living?

It's a self solving problem since if all the programmers are put out of work, there will be no way that they can support their open source programming, in a sustainable fashion anyhow.

The more interesting aspect of this will be how the emerging players, India, China, etc..., will support open source long term.

Outsourcing a problem?

[Henrik S. Hansen]

It's really funny how a community, which embraces (Free Software|Open Source), and values freedom and cooperation, is against something that is a good thing for people with a generally lower standard of living than us.

It just seems so egoistic. "Let's make some draconian laws to prevent outsourcing (or make it hard), but really, we ARE for freedom and against government control".

Please, grow up.

(Of course, some might say that I misrepresent their views - "we are not really for freedom, you see" - this is just even more sad)

a common fallacy

[uncadonna]

Economic arguments often add up costs and not benefits or vice versa. This is the core flaw of the article.

A decline in the unit cost of software is a net benefit to anyone whose primary product is anything else, and thus a net beenfit to the economy.

Adding it all up, the article is anti-competitive, anti-globalization and anti-capitalist. These sorts of arguments are always wheeled out by industries in decline. I'm not totally pro-competitive pro-globalization myself, but solid arguments against these approaches can't be made economically (they have to be made on a social or moral basis).

The intended purpose of intellectual property is to allow inventors to recoup their costs and fair return. As the cost of development of software inevitably tends toward zero, that protection becomes moot, and IP law tends toward a pure cost center.

This being the case, since there are so many volunteers who are happy to produce software at small or zero cost, and whose efforts violate IP only accidentally (rather than directly drawing upon expensive efforts of others), the economic arguments presented here are pure nonsense. From an economic point of view, as the production cost of a unit of software function drops, software IP increasingly protects vested interests and is increasingly a net drag on the economy as a whole.

You just can't argue against globalization using econometric arguments. The article is manipulative nonsense.

Alexis de Tocqueville Insitute

[Anonymous Coward]

So vote me -5 troll, but this is my opinion.

Seems by these statements ADTI have "come out of the closet", by displaying they are not at all in favor of democracy - more like members of the Illuminati and in favor of even more totalitarian dictatorships. Hypocrites.

Re:Alexis de Tocqueville Insitute

[timjdot]

They must be fairly dense too since Open Source is evolution. Probably don't like metal roofs, alterative energy, small airlines, and other socio-tech evolutions. The real question is when this evolution in SW development will catch up with current product cycles. E.g. will data integration, BPM, and other current SW focii last for another 1/2 decade or will someone figure out how to cooperate and make an open source frawework faster than that!

Not even valid... WTF?

[tweakt]

"Open source software, also described as free software, is the neutron bomb of IP" that will destroy 85% of the market value of US companies...

Since when did 85% of US companies sell software? Please, someone explain to me, how Free/OSS Software could be a bad thing to anyone besides direct commercial competitors (ie: Microsoft, etc).

The last report was a bit of a stretch, this isn't even passable as valid research.

Round one is over. Here comes Round 2.

[Anonymous Coward]

SCO's (possibly Microsoft sponsored) copyright FUD is quickly going down the tubes.

The next round is software patent FUD. The enemies of open source have to keep people believing this until Longhorn comes out. It comes as no suprise that other posters think that this study was done for Microsoft's benefit.

What evidence do we have that a widely distributed system can be derailed by patents. The best case I can think of is the GIF file format. This caused some companies a problem but not users particularly.

I am willing to bet thousands of hours of programming time that the bad guys can't kill Open Source, nor can they slow it down much.

Wonderful

[Fullmetal Edward]

I bet they own stock in alot of closed source software companies.... Nice to see the cogs are still spinning trying to get rid of better and cheaper software :)

Open Source is fine, free as in beer is bad.

[nazzdeq]

People that work for free are idiots. Hey, lets all work for free, then give away our software too we should be able to pay the mortgage and car loan from our monthly paycheck of $0. Count how may people who worked for free on something has ended up paying their bills by doing so? There's not 1,000,000 people working for free and making a living doing so. Anyone who would work on software for free and give it away is either 1) a student or 2) a complete idiot. I wish I had 20 people willing to work for free everyday. Hell, I'll start a cool bar or restaurant and make a ton of money. Companies are making money on open source software, but those companies were VC funded for one and two they pay their employees. I just don't understand why anyone would work for free.

Re:Open Source is fine, free as in beer is bad.

[steveb964]

I just don't understand why anyone would work for free.

Well, I'll bet that if *most* of the true OSS developers considered it work instead of generously donating the fruit of their passion (software devel/improvement) back to the community, then it would hardly be free, would it?

I'm certain most OSS developers have already paid their bills, fed the kids, then put in their own time into this *free work*.

So I am a "complete idiot" for giving my software away for free I guess. Hmmm...I guess I am a complete idiot for collecting $120/hr for implementing it and supporting it too?

Re:Open Source is fine, free as in beer is bad.

[nazzdeq]

Well, you chould be charging licensing fees as well as $120/hr to implement and support it. So, you're giving away more than half your potential revenues. That's not too bright if you ask me. It's like a restaurant giving away free meals so they can make money off of deserts and drinks. Sure, they'll make some money, but it's a dumb ass business model that's missing out on half their revenues. Sounds like the internet days of 1998. When someone else makes the same product as yours only much better and gives it away for free, you'll be toast, like Netscape.

Sad So Sad....

[Nikker]

That this guy must be grasping for the last bit of attention he can muster...

couple of points for the FUD master ...
Open Source software itself has never been around to make any money, businesses take it over other alternatives and apply it to thier business model. Nothing is hidden.
Could it be that software has gotten as far as it can go?? I don't think so but people that probably dont even understand what code is are here saying that it is against "IP" Well who's IP *yours* ?? no if the GPL and those who contributed to descided tomorrow to patent the whole thing and make it closed source would it make you happier? I doubt it. You know why its because the power house (i.e M$) arent comming up with anything to distract these companies in terms of innovation to stop them from going open source. These companies are happy to write off expenses and know that they have someone to beat with a stick, if something goes wrong, but an option that has no real corporate sponsorship like open source is being chosen over closed source?

And you say that is the fault of Open Source ?? Get a life buddy!!

I have a word of advice for you go back to the drawing board and come up with something better and they will buy it our economy has no problem putting $$ down for stuff tehy dont need maybe, just maybe you can pull something our of your *ass* that some one will want to buy till then *Shut up*

Thank you

US supremacists make me vomit

[stealth.c]

"Linux initiatives have enabled foreign-based information technology firms with zero IP costs and cheap labor to easily compete with U.S. software companies."

How the fuck is this a BAD THING? Hearing people like this talk, you'd think that if anyone besides a US company ever does well, it's some kind of threat to humanity.

Free Software is leveling the playing field. Geniuses like this guy are too used to subjugating the outside world. "Foreigners" are human beings too, jackass.

Obsolescence is a bitch, ain't it?

But what would "MS Linux" be?

[roystgnr]

Just a derivative work of the Linux kernel? I doubt it. If MS really wanted to make a proprietary Linux distribution, they'd probably bundle it with a bunch of closed source user space software. You'd still be free to resell the kernel they gave you (and any modifications they made to it) for $14.95, but you wouldn't be able to redistribute other MS programs just because they came on the same CD-ROM.

Re:But what would "MS Linux" be?

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft already makes a non-freely-redistributable operating system. That wasn't the point.

The point was that Microsoft could take and extend a fully GPL'd program/system (using Linux as an example), i.e. this hypothetical system is completely GPL'd, and sell it for 10 k$. Then someone else could sell it for 0.01495 k$.

Re:But what would "MS Linux" be?

[AnonymousKev]

This would be exactly what Apple did with Darwin (Open Source) and Aqua (closed source).

Re:But what would "MS Linux" be?

[tiger99]

Of course they would have to include the BSOD and lots of new bugs and security holes, otherwise no-one would believe it was a genuine product of the Twice Convicted Monopolist.

So...

[Anonymous Coward]

MS cant payoff netcraft and The Gartner Group anymore?

Not completely crazy...

[tony1c]

Actually I think the article makes a good point about the value of US industries: US companies are now valued primarily by the value of their IP (true?) and that by giving IP to other countries for "free" through outsourcing and open source software we're lowering the overall value of US companies by lowering the value of IP in general. I don't completely agree with this claim because it seems like the article completely overlooks the value of IP generated through use of open source and outsourcing that couldn't otherwise be generated (and which might potentially be more valuable than any IP given up), but I do see some merit in the claim that by enabling foreign companies (via "free" IP) who have much lower operating costs than the US, we could make it much more difficult (in the short term, at least) for US companies and employees to compete with foreign entities -- hence lower valuations.

Missing the point of F/OSS

[ratboy666]

We don't *care* about "proprietary, closed-source models". Because we don't do it for money, it's a hobby. Sure, Redhat, et.al. can make money, and that's good, but we would be doing it *anyway*.

What you should be asking is why the "proprietary, closed-source" (corporate model?) is at all threatened by an amateur job like Linux.

If the "reality" is that Microsoft (et.al.) are threatened by Linux, they have some very serious problems.

As I have previously stated -- when MS Longhorn is released I will look at it, and if it is better for my PROFESSIONAL needs, I will use it. If not, I will stick to Linux, (or whatever system meets those needs best).

If Microsoft can't win me over, it's actually Microsoft's problem. Nothing to do with Linux. And, seeing as how I *am* a computer hobbyist, I will contribute to the F/OSS. But, folks!, its just a hobby for me (and many, many others).

If the "hobby model" is so successful, maybe the IT area was TREMENDOUSLY overvalued. I'll even accept Ken's argument (silly on another level, but I will take it) that 85% of assests are now intangible "IP". The point is that the IP isn't worth anything! Sure, those companies are now very screwed. Maybe they will have to focus on MAKING PRODUCTS.

Ratboy

Analysis

[jonabbey]

Many U.S. firms are not only devaluing intellectual property via outsourcing, but are also embracing business strategies to devalue (and if necessary, eradicate) their competitor's intellectual property.

Yes, Microsoft has been doing that forever. IE, anyone?

A lot of the passion involved in the Open Source community is a reaction to seeing the keys to everyone's computing kingdom held by a single company that has the power of life or death over just about any other software company it chooses to do battle with. If an entity with disproportionate market power is to be free to destroy the sale value of its competitors software, unchecked by effective antitrust policing, why shouldn't a community effort do the same?

Unless you want to argue that it should be illegal to give anything into community availability, there's very little point in making this kind of argument. There's no IBM or HP who is, out of bleeding sympathy for Microsoft, going to decline to take advantage of the Open Source ecology.

Software is so easy to make (all you need is IQ, time, and a computer) and so ridiculously easy to duplicate and propagate that any software company that depends on selling bits rather than service is likely to have a hard time of it in the long run.

Patents modify this picture, by recreating scarcity. The question will be whether the advantages of patented algorithms will overcome a population's natural desire to avoid getting locked into a monopoly treadmill. Que Sera Sera

Re:Analysis

[praksys]

A lot of the passion involved in the Open Source community is a reaction to seeing the keys to everyone's computing kingdom held by a single company that has the power of life or death over just about any other software company it chooses to do battle with. If an entity with disproportionate market power is to be free to destroy the sale value of its competitors software, unchecked by effective antitrust policing, why shouldn't a community effort do the same?

This is so true, but seldom mentioned. For individuals and for corporations, Free software became attractive because it offered the only escape from the arbitrary power of Microsoft. If that monopoly was broken then half of the attraction of Free software would be gone. I wonder why the guys at Tocqueville have not suggested this quite obvious first step towards reducing the appeal of Free software.

Is it just me...

[91degrees]

Or does this read like a troll? I mean choice quotes like
"In the name of globalization, the U.S. has relentlessly pursued business partnerships with countries that are home to relentless intellectual property theft.",

"Why are workers abroad able to produce our technology at all? The reason is because they know how to -- because they have our intellectual property. ",

In other words, surely these scummy foreigners can't possibly produce software. Only good honest hard working Americans are able to do that (Speaking as a troll, I would have added a comment along the lines of this being because we have Jeeaasus on our side, but I digress.)

"Open Source activists that ... eventually, they want all intellectual property protection to end, including patents and trademarks. "

Tarring us all with the same brush. I'll grant that some people do. However, a lot of us see trademarks as very useful.

hypocrasy

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering what netcraft says for www.adti.net ...

bsd....

well gee perhaps if adti is so hell bent on saving outdated technology companies perhaps they should move their webserver to SCO V...

Re:hypocrasy

[Anonymous Coward]

All the networking stuff in Windows XP is lifted from FreeBSD. That's why you don't need to reboot twice if you change your IP address like you used to have to do with 95/98.

Stop science!!

[infolib]

Quick, before some of these destructive science zealots publish their findings, sending the entire GDP to India with the latest copy of Nature!

Here's what science did to Denmark: In 1820 H. C. Oersted discovered electromagnetism, and immediately the lunatic published it! It is estimated that the annual value of electromagnetism exceeds $240bn - all ruthlessly snatched from the hands of danish children (telling this really hurts).

If only this knowledge had stayed within the the nation we wouldn't have been a wasteland populated by warring tribes today. (Our main produce is low-quality mud) Oh, the horror, do not let this destiny befall you!

Yeah and what?

[t_allardyce]

"Open source software, also described as free software, is the neutron bomb of IP" that will destroy 85% of the market value of US companies and drive companies who are currently outsourcing to "draconian measures even worse than outsourcing."

Yes and good ethics, freedom and better public education and journalism will destroy the ability of companies to get away with cheap 3rd world labour extortion, mass polution and shockingly poor quality products with major defects! This is certainly going to lead to desparate measures by these companies to secure their way of business and will include the bribing of politicians and forcing of unfair trade 'agreements' with other countries and maybe even mass gangster style policing!

Damnit we cant have that can we!?

Here are some counter-arguments and fixed mistakes

[mmurphy000]

All quotes are from "Outsourcing and the global IP 'devaluation'", the lead de Tocqueville article linked to in the original posting.

If 85% of the assets of the Standard Poor 500 shrinks by even 1% percentage point, it devalues U.S. corporations by billions of dollars.

It's unclear exactly how he anticipates IP assets shrinking, per se. The original analysis he cites compares market value to hard assets, to come up with tangible vs. intangible ratios. That's where the 85% intangible comes from. However, that's based on market value, not IP value. If a firm's market value drops by 10%, that's not saying that X% of its IP value is lost somehow -- leastways, I kinda doubt that individual or institutional investors have their HP 12c calculators out and are computing their take on the firm's IP value and are proactively using that in their investment decisions that drive market price.

In other words, Mr. Brown's argument here would seem to be smoke, and possibly mirrors.

Third, and even more serious, these initiatives are continually pushing U.S. intellectual property asset values downward.

Mr. Brown offers no proof of this assertion. More smoke.

Open Source activists that want to see Linux succeed argue that eventually, they want all intellectual property protection to end, including patents and trademarks.

Mr. Brown offer no proof of this assertion. If he limited his statement to stopping protection of software patents, he might have a leg to stand on, as it would appear the open source community tends to be anti-software-patent.

The bottom line is this: a non-IP future means that all companies in the Baruch Lev study go to from 85% to 0% in intangible asset value.

See my original point -- intangible asset value is not IP value. At most, if somehow commercially-distributed software were eliminated and patents revoked, intangible asset value will decline a modest amount, because there's other intangible assets. Even in the area of software, FOSS has no problem with firms keeping private IP private, and so that IP has value. For example, even if FOSS ruled the roost, Google's IP value in their search technology, massive server farm management technology, etc. still exists.

Honest Truth

[Anonymous Coward]

Merely claiming that something is the "honest truth" does not make it so. Such a statement may be a delusion, or even worse, a straw man being set up to bother readers of popular websites.

and what's wrong with that?

[hak1du]

"Open source software, also described as free software, is the neutron bomb of IP" that will destroy 85% of the market value of US companies and drive companies who are currently outsourcing to "draconian measures even worse than outsourcing."

Of course it will. And what's wrong with that? Cheaper manufacturing technologies drive down prices and force inefficient, older companies to close. In the case of software, the prices happen to have been driven down to $0, but there is nothing magic about that. If competition had driven prices down to $1 RDBMS systems, the effect on the industry would be the same. It just happens to be the case that for software, driving the price all the way to zero is both possible and simpler.

And, as with all other industries, if the US doesn't go along with it, the market will simply be taken over by other countries. It still is better for open source and free software to be developed in the US than for everything to move overseas.

Linux IP isn't necessarily American

[Orthogonal Jones]

Given that many of the Linux programmers who contributed to the core code aren't Americans, it is a bit disingenuous to say that Linux promotes the transfer of American intellectual property to parasitic non-American companies.

False economy

[earthforce_1]

We need to drive home that the idea of open source or free software destroying economic value is based on a false economy. Customers that don't have to pay for software licences can spend their money elsewhere. Companies can afford to expand, lower the cost of their products, and perhaps hire additional staff with the money they save. And as a software/hardware developer I don't believe closed source equates to job security. You can still be outsourced, and there is little incentive to improve software products if the customer is locked in, so arguably they would be hiring fewer, not more developers.

What they propose is analogous to shutting off the town water supply and throwing arsenic into the local river, in order to support the bottled water industry. This is the message that needs to get out.

Die gedanken sind frei!

[dpbsmith]

All together now, in four-part harmony:

Die gedanken sind frei, my thoughts freely flower
Die gedanken sind frei, my thoughs give me power
No scholar can map them, no hunter can trap them
No man can deny, Die gedanken sind frei!

I think as I please, and this gives me pleasure
My conscience decress this right I must treasure
My thoughts will not cater to Duke or Dictator
No man can deny, Die gedanken sind frei!

And should tyrants take me and throw me in prison
My thoughts will burst free, like blossoms in season
Foundations will crumble the structures will tumble
and free men shall cry, "Die gedanken sind frei"

Oh, wait...

So let me get this straight...

[dcavanaugh]

The same US software companies that are already offshoring heavily will be forced into even more draconian measures to counteract Open Source? Somebody seems to have missed the fact that a lack of competition is what drove most of the logic that quality of product and service was irrelevant, and therefore cutting costs was universally good.

If these companies are now on the losing side of competing with free, that is just dandy as far as I am concerned. In fact, I'm having a hard time finding the downside of this.

In reality, the savings of offshore operations could shift the prices of software down to the point where the price would cease to be a factor. However, the quality, standards compliance, and community support by knowledgeable people is a real problem for those who have sacrificed everything to achieve savings.

85% of tangible assets are not negligible

[Chemisor]

> That article fails to address the point that their
> costs associated with developing and maintaining
> IP (Intellectual Property for the uninitiated)
> will also drop to near $0.

Think of how the stock market will see this: your company just lost 85% of its assets, but has also cut spending on IT infrastructure. Considering that the maintenance of proprietary software is probably much less than 85% of the total value of all assets, the result is still a very large drop in company value. And you know that means that this company's stock will crash, and it will crash hard. When that happens, I don't want to be in your shoes when you try to console your boss about not having to pay for those copies of Windows any more.

Re:85% of tangible assets are not negligible

[colinrichardday]

Of course, if your company is not primarily a vendor of proprietary software, then how does it lose 85% of its assets?

Re:85% of tangible assets are not negligible

[tybalt44]

Well, I think the market would see a company with 85% of its assets in proprietary software in exactly the same way it would see a company with 85% of its assets in detachable shirt collars, or VAX hardware, or overalls for chimney sweeps, or rotary telephone dials.

There's nothing wrong with that. The economy marches on. You can't halt economic progress just because the market means that progress produces winners and losers.

Re:85% of tangible assets are not negligible

[sumdumass]

?Can't you asing a value to the technoligy you are using to supliment the tangible assets? I mean sure you software is open source, Probalbly cost you next to nothign, but as when you bought or owned the software your using, the way it is put tpgether and interoperates does represent a value to the performance and competitveness of the company or services it offers.

I mean, if I have a server running apache and mysql with perl and some other basic web oriented software, even though the software cost me nothing, i could still asign a value of say $1000 to the services the package of software offer on top of the value of the server it is running on.

Would it cost $1000 to replace the software on that server? The software and os free but the loss of buisiness because of the downtime might increase the value even more. If the same server made $500 a day, then I would say the combinations of the software compaired to the time it would take to replace the server if neccesary would be a value equil to Gross income for that server divided by the downtime to replace it if neccesary. You could acuratly come up with a number much higher than the $1000 I originaly sugested.

So even though the software/ip is open and not tangible property I think it is resonable to conclude the aplication of the software/ip is. I see this as more of a non-issue than they make it out to be.

--of course I should prequalify this comment by saying i have no clue if what i'm saying is close to being corect. thats why it is more of a question then a statement.

Re:85% of tangible assets are not negligible

[james_in_denver]

Yes, I agree, with one major caveat,

85% of an organizations IP, excluding proprietary software development firms, is NOT tied directly to proprietary software.

There are subject matter, finanacial, operational, management, engineering, and other experts in any successful organization. Open software has no effect on them organizationally, except to reduce the overall operating overhead.

Re:85% of tangible assets are not negligible

[Eccles]

The prototypical example of this is the poor beleagered buggy whip industry, which has been devastated by those newfangled automobiles.

Re:85% of tangible assets are not negligible

[sydsavage]

Think of how the stock market will see this: your company just lost 85% of its assets, but has also cut spending on IT infrastructure. Considering that the maintenance of proprietary software is probably much less than 85% of the total value of all assets, the result is still a very large drop in company value. And you know that means that this company's stock will crash, and it will crash hard.

First of all, if 85% of your company's assets are represented by your purchased software, a stock price adjustment is probably in order.

Second, this argument assumes that the money not spent on proprietary software evaporates. Don't you think that if this 85% of assets were now held in cash, or is invested in real assets that actually have a chance of appreciating in value, it will look better on the books than the 85% of assets in highly depreciating intangible assets?

Re:85% of tangible assets are not negligible

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't the prototypical example nowadays be outsourcing, which companies claim to be economic progress blah blah?

Re:85% of tangible assets are not negligible

[tybalt44]

What's wrong with outsourcing? As someone who *buys* these products and consumes these services, outsourcing serves to drive down the price I pay.

This is a Good Thing. Again, no one said that economic progress won't create a pool of losers - it almost always will. That doesn't make it bad.

Re:85% of tangible assets are not negligible

[Anonymous Coward]

1) This drop won't happen immediately. 2) If you can be first, you can still leverage your investments. That is, open source *now*, so that your IP assets become adopted as the open source standard.

The people that

[BCW2]

dream this crap up just amaze me. If common sense and brains were dynamite, could they produce enough energy to blow one nose.

And in another analysis...

[Znork]

Tocqueville blames the rivers, oceans and rain for the devaluation of the 'liquid assets' of water bottling companies.

Many of the companies in the bottled water industry have invested heavily in, well, water. If the availability of free water is allowed to continue these assets are not worth as much as they could be.

Tocqueville now recommends that the oceans, rivers and lakes be drained in order to build a huge and thriving industry around limiting the availability of water. Combined with legal measures like outlawing other sources of water, and turning off tap water, as well as forbidding private wells this would create a massive amount of wealth in the US. The economic slump could be dealt with in one swift stroke.

Tocqueville would also like to call attention to their upcoming reports on the availability of free air, beer, speech and life, and how the economy could benefit from some other new measures.

This is called the "broken window fallacy"

[roystgnr]

Wikipedia summarizes the allegory here.

It's application in this case is pretty simple: if a business need isn't met by free software, then proprietary software companies can still meet it and nothing has changed. If a business need is met by free software, then the value of any proprietary software companies who previously met that need hasn't been "destroyed", it has simply been transferred to their ex-customers, who now have more money to spend elsewhere.

This is something which will happen with or without free software, in fact. Economics 101 says that in equilibrium, marginal price will equal marginal cost, and even for closed source software marginal cost is under $1. It's possible to delay that price drop (by using monopoly power to deter competitors who might get into a price war with you, for example), but not to prevent it. Even if there was only one software company on the market, eventually they'd be outcompeted by the previous versions of their own products, which don't wear out and need to be replaced like tangible goods do.

Re:This is called the "broken window fallacy"

[Tony]

. . . eventually they'd be outcompeted by the previous versions of their own products, which don't wear out and need to be replaced . . .

In a monopoly position, that shortcoming of capitalism is fixed simply by either going to a rental model, or by causing the old software to expire, and refuse to work (which is effectively the same as the rental model).

Please note the heavy push by Microsoft in recent years to migrate current customers to a rental model. I believe this is evidence that they are already feeling competition from their old software.

Someone gets it at last!

[Roadkills-R-Us]

I'm glad *someone* understands.

But when will he get into the really *meaty* subjects? I mean, it's pretty clear to me that open source software is responsible for *all* the US troubles, not just the IT troubles. Open source software put us in Iraq, caused prisoner abuse, got that guy beheaded, is responsible for global warming, causes higher oil prices, starves people, pollutes, and has Kobe Bryant in court. It put Saddam Hussein in power *and* tore his statue down. It causes tooth decay. It raped my trash can and turned over my dog. It must be stopped!

If this was posted in a comment at /.

[sjf]

it would be modded down as a troll.

Loss of IP due to outsourcing. Any company that does not retain it's employees for the remainder of their working life is open to potential loss of IP. Outsourcing is no different in this regard. Except that outsource companies generally stay in the business of outsourcing, not competing with their former customers. Whereas former employees often go to work for competitors.

Clearly the AdTI should be promoting employee retention laws. Legalising slavery would be great for American business.

Yes, the GPL is pernicious and was written with the intent of radicalising the market for software IP. Deal with it. For every company that is losing money through having to compete with open source or free software there are others that are building successful and profitable businesses on OSS. Guess what, those "other" companies are not necessarily yet in the S&P 500. Innovation will be killed when strategy and legislation is focussed only on what is good for the 800lb gorilla companies. And, even they can adapt and be profitable: IBM.

I'll leave others to address the nonsense of OSS being inherently insecure, written by spotty teenagers and bad for your breath.

Mr Toqvile is making himself redundant.

[SlashDread]

If I follow their reasoning, -information- is to blame.

Lets make -everything- a secret, and be happy.

wow, how insightfull.

"/Dread"

In related news...

[gmuslera]

Tocqueville also said that the printing press was the TNT Bomb of IP 500 years ago.

What a crock of shit

[scharkalvin]

He claims that outsoucing gives away our IP (true) and that the only reason the third world can do the job cheaper is becuase THEY HAVE OUR IP. Circular logic!

Open source will only destroy programming jobs for those that make 'off the shelf' software. But that is only the tip of the iceburg. Almost ALL software being written is NOT off the shelf stuff, but custom written for a single customer, or embedded for sale in a specific product.

Points:

[Irvu]

1. The group argues that the U.S. push for globalization spawned piracy. They seem to be arguing that the only inevitable result of forming trade deals with foreign countries is theft, or at least the extreme eagerness of the U.S. to form these deals let ip rights fall by the wayside.
   
   While one could argue very reasonably that globalization has been pursued in a less than advantageous fashion I find it illogical to argue that the inevitable result of dealing with foreigners is theft and loss.
2. Secondly they make the (somewhat) valid point that outsourcing (especially of the Intel variety) leads to the transfer of some intellectual property abroad. While true they seem to only be using this as a stepping stone.
   
   Oddly enough they seem to miss the irony involved in writing a report that condemns outsourcing, lobbying for foreign workers in the U.S., etc, when their own best supporter has done and continues to do all of these things.
3. "triple-edge sword"? Isn't it "double-edged sword"?
4. They provide no actual support for the argument that Open Source software is pushing the value of "U.S. intellectual property assets downward." While I do believe that the existence of Open Office reduces the value of any patents and copyrights that Microsoft has on Word I fail to see how forcing myself to purchase an overpriced piece of software just because it has no competition is in any way beneficial. Secondly I find it illogical to argue that the use of Open Source software impacts the intellectual property rights of say, Sony as their IP is not in software.
5. As usual they make the case (without any supporting information) that Open Source and Linux are one in the same and that the GPL applies to all "open source" software.
6. They also make the case (again without supporting information) that open source advocates who "want to see Linux succeed argue that eventually, they want all intellectual property protection to end, including patents and trademarks." This would seem to contradict their earlier complaints about the restrictive nature of the Linux license (apparently it's name has been changed from the GPL).
7. Interestingly he immediately concludes from this that: "The bottom line is this: a non-IP future means that all companies in the Baruch Lev study go to from 85% to 0% in intangible asset value." Which is a bit odd as it embraces all "intangible assets" (which he has yet to define explicitly) which from his statements above seem to include all "intellectual property." While I will grant you that the value of a Britney Spears song will not remain as it has forever I find it odd to argue that Linux will bring about her downfall (directly).

"Intellectual Property" is a mispresentation

[Anonymous Coward]

"Open Source activists that want to see Linux succeed argue that eventually, they want all intellectual property protection to end, including patents and trademarks."

The phrase "intellectual property" is deliberately vague to blur copyrights, patents, and trademarks -- which are based on entirely different laws and concepts -- into one convenient bundle.

Open source is based on copyright law and not against it as implied by the above statement. Patents are a totally different issue altogether and many experts argue that the U.S. patents system is broken. And what's the compliant about trademarks?

This obfuscation caused by using the vague term "intellectual property" is a deliberate attempt to mispresent the Open Source community.

Wrong

[schon]

IBM is not a Linux-based company.

They are primarily a hardware company, who has a software division, who sells and supports lots of different types of software (including Linux.)

Saying that they are "linux-based" is like saying that McDonalds is "fish-based", because they sell filet-o-fish. (When in reality, it's one small part of their business, and is greatly overshadowed by their other products.)

Re:Wrong

[hughk]

Actually IBM these days is primarily a services based company. This fits in pretty well with the Linux and FOSS in general business model.

This seems simple...

[iggychaos]

If you can get something for free (that meets your needs) you take it. If you can't, you make it or buy it. If cars became free, the car companies as we know them would disappear. People getting paid to do something keeps them motivated (much like the reason you complain about work but still go each day). People not getting paid are altruists. I like this view: Why does Open Source Software exist?

WHAT YOU SAY!!!

[Sj0]

Next in the news: Microsoft on why it hates the WWF. "We wanted to sell "endangered species solutions" to governments who wanted to protect endangered species, but then those uppity World Wildlife Foundation pricks went in and did the job for free!"

Oh, cry me a river. If all these businesses are being dominated by a couple projects done by volunteers, maybe their time has come? You know, nothing in the market says you're entitled to a paycheque if you're not making something someone wants to buy.

Quite tired old arguments

[Wylfing]

This kind of "reasoning" was very popular in the eighteenth and nineteenth century in Europe -- that if Company A is providing a product for less than Company B, then A is causing a loss to the economy in the amount of B.price - A.price. Of course this argument is the reverse of the truth: the extra money required to buy B's product is a direct reduction in the customer's purchasing power, i.e., the customer's net wealth is decreased, and the aggregate economy stalls. (Corollary: lower-cost alternatives in the marketplace create wealth.)

Frederic Bastiat in 1848 wrote a nice essay called "That Which is Seen and That Which is Not Seen" dealing with this topic handily. A good portable copy is at Memoware.

However, then as now many lawmakers were persuaded by this lie and protected the established players from competition. Because of bullshit analyses like Tocqueville's we can look forward to many more years of a sluggish economy. As soon as we stop shielding big players vis-a-vis "intellectual property" we'll see a nice upturn.

it's all good but...

[Gastoner]

What happens when i spend 1 year developing a game and GPL it? Worst scenario case, only one person will buy the game, the others will copy it. Services? No, people don't need support for games... What if i spend 2 years developing a killer software, GPL it, IBM comes, takes my hard work, make their own version, they have their name beyond the software, better support, etc. What will happen to me? Where's the reward for that 2 years of hard work? It seems that everyone is talking about freedom... but only freedom to the user. What about my right to be rewarded for my hard work? Please not that i'm not against free software... i just want someone to give their views about this issues.

Perfect competition != capitalism

[karzan]

the customer looking for, and receiving, the best value

That's a feature of perfect competition (a theoretical state which is in actuality impossible and never exists, as it rests on 0 bars to entry of an industry, perfect information, and various other impossible conditions), not of capitalism (a real economic system more often characterised by oligopoly or monopoly conditions, imperfect information, and intentional 'distortions' of markets by firms).

...our intellectual property!

[cowboy_small]

"we are not asking a very obvious question. Why are workers abroad able to produce our technology at all? The reason is because they know how to -- because they have our intellectual property."

Well they certainly don't have your intellectual property, because you sir are an idiot!

Re:...our intellectual property!

[congaflum]

Good call. I guess the author can't get over thinking "americans smart, foreigners dumb", despite being living proof of the contrary.

This has cause and effect mixed up

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are workers abroad able to produce our technology at all? The reason is because they know how to -- because they have our intellectual property.

I agree with this statement. He then goes on to say that the way they got our IP was steal it - and that is blatantly false! They didn't have to steal it. In the pursuit of cheaper production costs, US companies gave them intellectual property in several ways:
1. By opening manufacturing centers overseas - this saves money in terms of labor costs (they do work cheaper) and in terms of facility costs (most of these foreign countries do not require "environmental impact studies" which lead to higher initial costs and longer lead times nor do they have as stringent pollution limits which lead to higher running costs). Unfortunately, in order to produce their products overseas, of course companies have to teach foreign workers how to manufacture, test and repair the products!
2. By hiring foreign workers in America - H1B visas have been a fact of life in technical companies for quite a while now. Companies bring in foreign workers, train them by letting them work on the most advanced technical projects they have and then send them home after the projects are completed. Did they think that all that training would be forgotten when these H1B workers returned home?
3. By educating foreign workers in America - many, many of the educated workers that companies are so eager to take advantage of overseas were educated in American universities. The partnership between American universities and companies has grown to alarming levels lately (witness the William H. Gates building recently dedicated at MIT) beacuse of companies' desires to have graduating students that would be immediately useful to them. Did they think that foreign students studying at these same universities would be excluded?

The article implies that outsourcing is only happening because they stole our IP. Bull! Companies gave them IP so that they could outsource!

Linux initiatives have enabled foreign-based information technology firms with zero IP costs and cheap labor to easily compete with U.S. software companies.

Isn't it true that U.S. companies can also use Open Source initiatives to compete more effectively? As, I believe, Microsoft themselves did by using the FreeBSD TCP/IP stacks to quickly and cheaply implement better networking in their OS products! and profited greatly thereby. This is good, but foreign countries doing the same thing is bad?

Let the market do its job...

[Anonymous Coward]

> I always thought that the customer looking for, and receiving, the best value (or "bang for the buck") was one of the inherent features of capitalism.

You are correct. Of course, that's only true when referring to real capitalism (i.e. a free market), as opposed to the government-supplied corporate favoritism that today passes as capitalism.

Following the logic of Tocqueville, the government should have also banned Tractors, because of all the farm laborers put out of work; semiconductors, because of the tube manufacturers put out of business; the automobile, because of the buggy manufacturers put out of business; and so on.

In this case, Open Source means that a few companies like Microsoft -- companies that make their profit through lock-in -- will lose some billions of dollars.

But every other company will benefit by no longer having to pay extortion prices, and by the improvement in software flexibility, security, expandibility, and so on.

As in those earlier cases, the gain will be a hundred times larger than the loss.

BTW, in response to an above poster, John Maynard Keynes was an idiot. He convinced many governments that the way to create wealth was to print money (aka Keynesianism). In reality, the result -- as any intelligent person might expect, and as demonstrated many times -- is some increased spending, creating a false perception of growing demand, resulting in a burst of business expansions, followed by inflation, followed by business collapses, followed by high unemployment. Witness the depression, the 80s, and now.

Re:Let the market do its job...

[karzan]

real capitalism (i.e. a free market), as opposed to the government-supplied corporate favoritism that today passes as capitalism

That's like saying 'real feudalism (i.e. a kingdom of God in which the Church and the monarchy are acting by divine rule), as opposed to the corrupt, rapine, impoverished system that passed for feudalism in the middle ages'. Perfect competition has never existed and will never exist. It is a model, for use in economic theory, that is intended to represent a theoretical tendency.

In REAL capitalism, i.e. the real, actual, existing economic system, since its birth several hundred years ago, (as Adam Smith repeatedly points out in Wealth of Nations incidentally) firms constantly attempt to influence and control goverment to pursue their own profit maximisation goals. This includes raising tariffs when they want them (i.e. against competitors) and lowering them when they are a problem (i.e. for export markets). Manipulation of politics for profit maximisation is and always has been a feature of REAL capitalism, and the inevitable result of this is non-free markets (although even without it, markets would not be 'perfect' as we do not have perfect information, 0 barriers to entry, etc).

John Maynard Keynes was an idiot. He convinced many governments that the way to create wealth was to print money

Keynesianism does not argue that the way to create wealth is to print money. It argues that the government should correct the cyclical fluctuations of the capitalist economy by creating countercyclical expansions and contractions--borrowing and spending in periods of contraction, paying off the debt in periods of expansion, not printing money, but trying to stabilise the economy through spending. Don't get the neoclassical synthesis (today's ISLM model) confused with original Keynesianism. There's a big difference.

And John Maynard Keynes was not an idiot; even if you disagree with him, he was ahead of his time.

Re:Let the market do its job...

[Anonymous Coward]

> That's like saying 'real feudalism (i.e. a kingdom of God in which the Church and the monarchy are acting by divine rule), as opposed to the corrupt, rapine, impoverished system that passed for feudalism in the middle ages'.

No, because feudalism was enslavement by definition.

And capitalism, by definition, is private ownership of capital, which means that businesses and consumers deal with each other in a free market, governed by rule of law. That means that the government is not allowed to mess around in the economy through regulations, tariffs, and so on.

> In REAL capitalism, i.e. the real, actual, existing economic system, since its birth several hundred years ago, (as Adam Smith repeatedly points out in Wealth of Nations incidentally) firms constantly attempt to influence and control goverment to pursue their own profit maximisation goals. This includes raising tariffs when they want them (i.e. against competitors) and lowering them when they are a problem (i.e. for export markets). Manipulation of politics for profit maximisation is and always has been a feature of REAL capitalism,...

What you are describing -- with constant government manipulation of the market -- is the opposite of the definition of capitalism.

So you are saying that if something is done in the world one way, but people lie about it by calling it the opposite, then we should just accept the lie, and call it the "real" thing?

In the former Soviet Union, the government used to call what they had freedom, and refer to the West as slavery. So, using your method, does that mean that, in the Soviet Union, a communist distatorship is REAL freedom???

If we don't keep the meaning of words clear, then how are we to communicate?

Capitalism is private ownership. It is a free market. The government stays out, except to enforce standard laws that apply to equally to everybody -- including business owners.

What we have today is a mixed economy, dominated by government regulation intended to favor large corporations. It doesn't even come close to the definition of capitalism. I ususally refer to it as corporatism (it's not that different from feudalism).

> Keynesianism does not argue that the way to create wealth is to print money. It argues that the government should correct the cyclical fluctuations of the capitalist economy by creating countercyclical expansions and contractions--borrowing and spending in periods of contraction, paying off the debt in periods of expansion, not printing money, but trying to stabilise the economy through spending. Don't get the neoclassical synthesis (today's ISLM model) confused with original Keynesianism. There's a big difference.

Keynes also called for deficit spending to "prime the pump." Regardless, the real world result was always the same, a government-driven expansion of the money supply designed to speed up the economy, followed by inflation, and recession or depression.

But, if you say that Keynes' theories were better that the implementation, that does not surprise me, and I can accept it.

Nevertheless, in calling for government management of the economic cycle, Keynes was wrong.

First, if it were not for the government's interference, we wouldn't see such cyclic swings in the first place. In a free market, with a steady money supply, there is no reason for all businesses to shrink or expand at the same time. For example, in the U.S., before the creation of the Federal Reserve, individual banks often went out of business, but the banking industry as a whole was never threatened. It was the unlimited expansion of credit created by the Federal Reserve that caused the huge, industry-wide swings that gave us, for example, the depression.

Second, what smaller cycles remain in a capitalist economy are, in themselves, corrections. In attempting to reduce those cycles, governments are simply preventing, or deferring the natural economic adjustments, and, in this case

Re:Let the market do its job...

[Anonymous Coward]

What we have today is a mixed economy, dominated by government regulation intended to favor large corporations. It doesn't even come close to the definition of capitalism. I ususally refer to it as corporatism (it's not that different from feudalism).

I agree, and so would most Marxians. The argument is that Capitalism would have collapsed due to its own internal contridictions if it were not propped up by the power of the state. (Even your example of Hong Kong had extreme state restrictions on real estate.)

However, the entire argument is Randian Trollbait. "This is REAL Capitalism". "NO YUO!". Who cares? The "superstructure" has imposed the system we've got, and absent violent revolution, there's not much one can do about it.

Re:Let the market do its job...

[tgibbs]

But, if you say that Keynes' theories were better that the implementation, that does not surprise me, and I can accept it.

Much as the theories of Free Market Capitalism seem better than its implementation? Or the theories of Marxism seem better than its implementation? Sad how the real world so persistently fails to live up to our theoretical idealizations, isn't it? However, it is manifestly unfair to compare idealized Capitalism to real-world Marxism or feudalism. Ultimately, it seems like the true limiting factor on all of these systems is not how well they would work in the ideal, but rather how closely that ideal can be attained in actual practice.

Re:Let the market do its job...

[Anonymous Coward]

> The "superstructure" has imposed the system we've got, and absent violent revolution, there's not much one can do about it.

But that is why I think the definition is so important.

You say that it is extremely difficult to reduce the power of the government and the corporations.

I agree.

But, how much more difficult will it be if people don't believe the alternative can work?

And how much more difficult again will it be if people aren't even aware that there is an alternative?

What is happening today is straight out of 1984 -- those in power are attempting to erase the very concept of capitalism, a system in which their power of centralized control would disappear.

That may sound overly dramatic, but look around. Centralized control is the order of the day.

As you pointed out, the politicians don't want to lose that power, the big corporations don't want to lose that power, and the priesthood of the system, the university professors, don't want to lose that power.

Therefore, conciously or subconciously, they are trying to erase the concept of capitalism. And one of the ways they can do that, as in 1984, is by redefining the term.

Thus, they have hijacked the word capitalism, and now use it to refer to the current system, despite the fact that today's lack of economic freedom, and highly centralized control, are nothing like capitalism, that is, as the word is originally defined.

We are headed toward a world where there is less and less economic freedom. As the regulations increase (spilling over into the content of the news, websites, etc.), this will lead to a reduction in civil liberties as well.

The only way we can change that direction is by promoting the concept of freedom, including economic freedom, as embodied in capitalism.

But we can't do that if we allow the enemies of freedom to define our terms.

To end on a positive note, there have been cases in history where freedom has increased without the need of violent revolution. Germany and Japan are NOT examples, nor is the U.S., which started with a revolution, and, with some notable exceptions (ending slavery, ending prohibition, women's rights), has been gradually reducing freedom ever since. However, Britain provided an example when they ended the Guild system. Likewise, India and Sweden have been increasing economic freedom in recent years, as have been many countries in the Far East. Russia could also be an example, though the jury's still out on that one (they seem to have bypassed capitalism, and gone straight to a corrupt mob-run economic system, but I'm still hopeful).

In short, we shouldn't give up. We need to continue to fight for our freedom, and oppose the threats to that freedom. But it helps if we can name our goal. We had a name -- capitalism -- as the word was used by Adam Smith. I think that retrieving that name from those who seek to corrupt it is a worthwhile starting goal.

Re:Let the market do its job...

[ichimunki]

Ultimately, it seems like the true limiting factor on all of these systems is not how well they would work in the ideal, but rather how closely that ideal can be attained in actual practice.

This is an excellent comment. And from just looking around, I'd say that capitalism is easier to maintain than pure Marxism or Feudalism and shows more promise, given the abundance of free societies in places like Europe and America where capitalism is the order of the day, compared against places like Communist Russia, North Korea, or China.

Re:Let the market do its job...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Much as the theories of Free Market Capitalism seem better than its implementation? Or the theories of Marxism seem better than its implementation? Sad how the real world so persistently fails to live up to our theoretical idealizations, isn't it?

Not true.

Capitalism is not just a theory. It has worked in reality almost every time it has been implemented, and for as long as it was maintained.

I gave some examples in my earlier post.

America was mostly capitalist during the 1800s. and its wealth grew steadily, at 5% per year, for the entire century. And, as capitalism predicts, that increased wealth went to the poorest in society, as well as the richest. Also, as capitalist theory predicts, civility, and social awareness increased, which produced an expansion of civil liberties for all.

Likewise, capitalism was implemented in post-WWII Germany and Japan, both of which showed a similar growth in both wealth and social awareness. Hong Kong was another example, prior to its return to Chinese rule.

Capitalism has succeeded in almost every country that tried it, and the extent of that success (increased wealth and civility) has been in proportion to the extent to which capitalism was implemented. You can see this in countries like Britain, America, Canada, and so on. You can also see it in the rest of Europe, Asia, South America, and Africa, where the countries that succeeded in raising their people out of poverty and ignorance were the countries that implemented capitalism, at least to some extent.

The same history of success cannot be claimed for centrally controlled economies.

Now I know that many argue that theoretical socialism does NOT necessarily involve a centrally controlled economy. I'm willing to accept that, but then I would want to see a proper definition of socialism (I have heard conflicting definitions), as well as some examples of where it has worked in practice.

Re:Let the market do its job...

[cmacb]

Here, have a virtual mod point.

Did anyone else try and click through the links on their web site? Almost none of them worked for me. I've heard of this organization, but don't really know anything about them. Could it be just 4 or 5 (or even less) otherwise unemployed Georgetown Law graduates pimping for research money? They sure could use a new webmaster.

Re:Let the market do its job...

[Anonymous Coward]

As you pointed out, the politicians don't want to lose that power, the big corporations don't want to lose that power, and the priesthood of the system, the university professors, don't want to lose that power.

I always love it when they go after the university professors. If you had spent any time in an academic setting you would know that (A) it's completely nuts, but more importantly (B) university professors do not have any fucking power at all, you drooling Randroid dumbass. Except maybe over their grad students--whoopie!

If you want to know who the priesthood of the system is, tune in to AM radio. Turn on daytime TV. Pick up a pamphlet from the Ayn Rand Institute. There's your fucking priesthood. You're soaking in it, beeeeyotch!

Re:Let the market do its job...

[Breakfast Cereal]

Um... Actually, you might want to look around a little more. Feudalism was pretty easy to maintain in practice. It lasted a pretty long time! Also, Marxism in practice modernized Russia in the space of a generation (brutally, bloodily, but nevertheless there it is) and capitalism reduced it to a third world kleptocracy in a decade. I am not defending any of these systems, but pointing out that there are more variables to the equation than just whether or not private ownership and management of capital is entirely unregulated.

Honestly, step away from yourself for a minute and look at what you write. It sounds like religion to me. The allmighty market will protect us. The market is all-knowing. Have faith in the market. Oh, your job just got moved to Mexico/India/Mordor? Well, the market works in mysterious ways, but it will all work out for the best!

Uh-huh. Reality TV is a product of the market. So much for your theory.

Re:Let the market do its job...

[ichimunki]

You're missing the comparison of expression to ideal. The idea is to compare real-world capitalism to real-world marxism, but to compare real-world capitalism to ideal capitalism under the idea that the best system to idealize is the one which finds itself most readily expressed by humans, knowing that each one will have its faults. In such a comparison I find capitalism, which is considerably lighter on prescriptive theory than feudalism or communism, seems to come out ahead. Whether the theory itself is best, whether in expression or ideal, is a whole different question. Personally I'll take the free market over the chattel slavery of feudalism or total state control of the economy anyday (especially both of these systems seem to go hand in hand with repressive government).

And if "my" job gets moved to Mexico/India/Mordor, that *is* best. The owner of capital gets to make a product more cheaply, often resulting in less expensive goods for consumers... not only that, some Mexican/Indian/Southron got a job! Good for everyone but me. If the job moves, things improve for three people. If the job stays it simply preserves the status quo.

As to reality TV.... people watch that stuff! Maybe you're too cool for it now that it's no longer limited to MTV (I bet when it was just Real World or whatever you weren't complaining about it). But apparently there are a lot of people who think watching that stuff is a good use of their time. It's their time and their choice to watch it. So much for your elitist BS.

F/OSS will be our savior!

[Chucker]

The outsourcing of IT skills is a natural cycle which the US saw in the '70s when much of our manufacturing jobs left. The only jobs that avoid this cycle are service based jobs. If you are providing a service, you must be present to do the job. Because of this, I see F/OSS as our savior if we choose to accept it. If software as a commodity is free, even the developers overseas will loose their jobs because they cost more than free! But, ultimately, companies doing business here need and require someone for support (i.e. someone they can put their hands on and thump when problems arise). If we follow the model of providing support for free software, our jobs will remain here as support people, and the development work we will do for "free" so we can get the support work that feeds our families... Example: IBM.

Other reports we want to see

[Anonymous Coward]

The Rickshaw Operators Union has funded a study calling for the closure of sidewalks. An R.O.U. spokesman said "At the moment, people can get to where they want to go for free, by walking, thus endangering the livelihood of our members. We expect this study will show that wages for American rickshaw operators to grow by 85%, and job creation by even more".
The Cabbies Union is also funding a study calling for the banning of private cars and public transport.

Where did Linux come from?

[Atomizer]

I think the funniest part of the article is that he assumes that Linux (the "IP Neutron bomb") came from the US.

Re:Where did Linux come from?

[kunudo]

Agreed. Those damn euro terrorist commies.

That's the point

[famazza]

Informatino (software included) should be free. ALL INFORMATION.

I'll tell more. The nature of information is to be free. Copyrights appeared recently in order to protect progress of the humanity. It has done its service, and is becoming obsolete.

Now humanity has produced enough information so copyrights are not that important to the progress. Humanity has now new ways to distribute it through the world very easily. Copyrights are getting in the way.

Humans communicate by nature, humans like to comunicate and exchange information. Restrict this human nature by the means of laws can't be a good thing.

Re:That's the point

[I_Love_My_Mac]

Information may wish to be free.... but use of that information does not want to be free.

Consider the argument that software code should all be free. Why? The arguments usually stand that anyone can write code, and, for the most part, the code isn't going to be all that different, so why I should I hide my code? Simple reason. Not because the code for a particular algorithm is all that different from someone else's, or how you implemented a GUI is particularly such a huge trade secret. The real "trade secret" is how it's all assembled and implemented.

Sure, the design to a combustion engine is "open source", but I can bet the implementations of a particular engine is patented. Why? Because someone spent resources (money, time, energy) on developing a particular implementation of various "open source" information. Those resources need to come from somewhere, so, thusly the engine price reflects that research and design cost (in addition to materials), and someone from a competing company can't just swipe your hard-worked implementation for free and sell it themselves.

Applied to software, and information in general, there's no difference. The english language contains some tens of thousands of words. Everyone has access to them, however, the author who writes a best-selling book is allowed to charge (and people are willing to pay) for that book because of the implementation of those words. If anyone could just copy his implementation, resell or give it away for free, where's his incentive to write more books? Good will towards others? No. He needs to eat, and he also may want to buy a new car one day. Free information can go screw, I want to give my kids shoes to wear.

I write software for commercial use. I usually open-source various components of a piece of software. If someone wants to copy what I've done, they're still going to have to devote resources to pulling all those various "free" pieces together. Just like I did. So is my software free (in both cases)? No, absolutely not. I spent time and energy (up front, as an investment) and now I want to have that investment pay off, so that I too can eat.

As to the model of "giving software away" and charging for service and support. To me, that's just about as close to extortion as you can get. Frankly, when I evaluate software, I want software that works as close to out of the box as possible. If it needs customization, fine. But, after that, go away. I don't want a whole room of IT folk (and their salary, and their associated overheads) to maintain my equipment and software. I am more than happy to pay for a piece of software that doesn't require a legion of IT people to "support" it.

Get with the real human nature. Competition and scarcity of information, and goods and services to create wealth is a underpinning of our entire way of life back to the caves. Understand people and their attitudes and how they operate. Perhaps you would only "eat what you need" when it comes to using free goods and services, thusly not abusing the system. But, for every one of you, there are probably 5 others who won't, generally "stealing" free ideas and using them to advance themselves, regardless of licenses and what slashdot has to say. This is why copywrite and patents exist to protect the original creators of implementations and ideas. It's a dog eat dog world out there. Really, it is. And few will easily just put aside their own needs and desires just because the EULA says GPL. If there's money to be made, someone's going to take that shot.

Whine whine whine

[tomstdenis]

"...it [open source] lets vendors compete at virtually no cost ..."

And that's a bad thing? Maybe prices in the US are over-inflated compared to say, I dunno, THE REST OF THE WORLD?

Sorry if you think 60k/yr is what a software programmer should make but that's not what the rest of the world thinks.

That article was nothing more than whining for "the good ole days" before people had much choice about things...

Tom

AdTI a right-wing front

[dutky]

AdTI is a well known conservative front organization consisting of only a half-dozen far-right radicals from the first Bush administration and the mid-nineties Gingrich/DeLay camp. The board of directors includes former members of the Nixon and Ford administrations.

Regardless of their evident funding sources, the group is obviously bankrolled by conservative corporate interests and publishes articles whose only purposes are to slander political oponents, promote conservative politicians and causes, and generally undermine anything that might threaten powerful monied interests (i.e. big corporations) in the U.S. or abroad.

A quick perusal of the articles on their site is enough to determine where their political bias lies, searching for the names of their officers and board members (found on their contact page) on google is simply a formality.

Re:AdTI a right-wing front

[bnenning]

I'm a conservative, and these idiots are not. If they were, they would have a basic understanding of economics and realize that when something that used to be expensive becomes cheap, it's a net benefit to the economy. Actually, I suspect they do realize this, and are just spreading propaganda to support the special interests they represent, which is a time-honored tradition across the entire political spectrum.

Mmm.... Beer.....

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about you, but I get paid quite well ($72k/yr). Mostly, I manage systems (set up mail servers, write code for database access and management, implement other network services, etc). But, in my spare time, I love to do what I got into computers to do: code.

Do I contribute a lot? No, I don't. But I contribute what I can, where I can. With enough people like me, nobody is out of a job.

Consider the several billion dollars Microsoft has in reserve. This is money that has effectively been removed from the economy; think how many jobs that would support.

Considering that free software adds about the same amount of value to the economy without the corresponding drain, free software probably provides a net increase in economic gain greater than Microsoft's.

As long as companies need people like me to manage computer systems, and install new services, and change passwords for the users who can't remember their kid's name (usually what it's set to), nobody's gonna starve. In fact, the number of people being paid to manage computers is far greater than the number being paid to code for computers.

The "Broken Window" Fallacy...

[pjkundert]

"If some punks run around town breaking windows, it will actually help the local economy (eg. the local shoe maker, etc.). This is because the home owners with broken windows will purchase new windows from the local Hardware store, and hence the hardware store owner will buy his children new shoes."

This fallacy is as old as time itself. It is provably false, trivially. (Breaking the windows increases entropy, reducing the total value in the system). The money going to buy the replacement windows would have been used on something else (eg. the shoes). The only winner is the company producing the windows. The loser is the community.

Microsoft is the maker of Windows, supplying all the local Hardware stores (the businesses producing software) with replacement Windows. Somehow, not being forced to buy new Windows every year or two will "hurt" industry. (Oddly enough, Microsoft gets to go around breaking its own Windows, and forcing you to upgrade...) The only loser will be those producers of proprietary software, who choose not to cooperate with, and take advantage of, those who produce FOSS . For example, Microsoft will lose, if I chose to use Debian for my next Enterprise project. Does that money vanish? No, it goes to my company's shareholders (via. Capital Gains or Dividends), or to my clients (due to lower prices), or to me (due to increased profits). It just doesn't go to Bill. Who loses? Bill. No one else. (Well, Tocqueville also loses, because Bill doesn't pay them to write stoopid articles any more, either...)

Take Apache, for example. Presumably, Apache hurts producers of Closed Source web servers. I cannot use the Apache code and re-brand it as "Joe's Web Server" (I think -- I haven't read the license, but I assume it is more like the GPL than the OpenBSD "free for any and all uses" license). However, this only hurts me if I (Joe) decide not to arrange my affairs to take advantage of Apache!

If I choose to fight Apache, then I am (probably) reducing the overall value in the system. If I have some non-trivial value to add, then I should quit wasting my time re-writing the same code that the Apache team is writing, I should encapsulate my super-duper value in some kind of an add-on to Apache, and I'll start marketing my company as "Joe's Super-Duper Valuable Enterprise Support For Apache, That You Just Gotta Buy, If You're A CTO!"

There! I (Joe) win, Apache wins, my client's win. Microsoft (IIS) loses. Who cares?

Re:The "Broken Window" Fallacy...

[rburt3]

I cannot use the Apache code and re-brand it as "Joe's Web Server"
As a matter of fact, you could as long as you comply with the APL (more like BSD than GPL).

Re:The "Broken Window" Fallacy...

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is Microsoft Windows arrive from the factory pre-broken.

Re:The "Broken Window" Fallacy...

[Alsee]

I (Joe) win, Apache wins, my client's win. Microsoft (IIS) loses. Who cares?

Oooo! Oooo! I can get this one!

Hmmmm.... you, Apache, your clients, or Microsoft Ummmm.... I can get this... give me a minute... ahhhhh.... is it....

Is it... your clients?

-

I'm sure the dinosaurs...

[eddy]

...complained about the weather too, and those gawd damned mammals!

oh please

[Richthofen80]

The assumption that open sourced software will destroy an industry is false. I believe the industry instead will destroy open source software.

Economies drive work and products produced. Software is a product, even if it is easily mass produced. If free software abounds, it means that companies can afford to run cheaper, making their bottom lines increase, and doing wonders for the economy.

As far as software is concerned, as long as developers take a salary, I highly doubt there will be a problem. If, all of the sudden, people writing open sourced software became slaves and refused to be paid, then, the software industry would be wrecked. But, since they require payment, (to feed themselves), then software won't necessarily always be free as in beer. and so the software industry will continue.

Why Oh Why

[deadline]

do these gasbags make the assumption that open source software takes away US intellectual property. Last time I looked, people from all over the world are contributing their IP to FOSS projects.

So explain to me a again how a software project that started in Finland and has people from all over the world contributing, is a theft of American IP?

Oh, sorry I forgot about the SCO thing.

Mod up

[Second_Derivative]

Where's mod points when you need them

Balance

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it amazing that so many people here both make their livelihood from creating software, and advicate that it should be free. Actually, Open Source is very very good for the vast majority of big business, obviously because it's free. And yes, they'll clearly have to pay sysadmins etc. to look after the kit, as they do now.

But, what about the coders? Despite what posters here seem to think, the vast majority of companies (and not only small ones) do not employ coders, and would not (especially with all the related tasks such as risk management, quality control etc.) so, rather than buy proprietary software that takes care of these issues, as they do now, they will get it free and benefit.

As for all you coders, please do continue donating software free to business. How are you going to pay the bills?

Re:Balance

[cruachan]

As someone who's been coding commercially since the mid-80s I'd say you're looking at this from the wrong point of view. Business processes hasn't changed that much over the last 20 years, but nevertheless there now seems to be more opportunities to write code to solve business problems then there was back then.

I think software is more like an ecology than some sort of process tick list. As the business software environment gets more complex more niches are created to fill with new programs, which in turn create a more complex ecology and so on. Extending the metaphore the ecology also progressively spreads into previously inhospitable terrain and so gains breadth as well as depth.

Making open source unusable

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be fairly easy to embed all of your business rules into state transition tables stored in external data files.

You would give the rules engine away for free under GPL but sell the state transition table datafiles for large amounts of $$$.

Standing on the shoulders of giants

[gmuslera]

IP laws could have some meaning when you think on just copying someone's else work without giving credit, and getting profit on that (even free software licenses have that in consideration). But also outlaws that someone else to have a similar idea (it even could be better, but similar enough to give troubles). Right now, the first that have and idea and follow a maybe complex task to register it, "owns" it, and nobody else is enabled to have a similar idea, or have a new idea based on that one.

Civilization has reach this point because we builded based on previous works, and advanced on them. Wonder in what kind of caves we are living today if today IP laws were from the begining. You just need to patent a brick (or something equally basic) and the entire civilization must live in caves again.

With software things can be worse, and what open source does is giving ways to build things up, to legally base in the works of others to reach new heighs, and without worrying about big corporations, needed money and things like that. Individuals not behind big corporations could make big differences for all, think i.e. in the relativity theory.

The "American Way"?

[Entropius]

The "American way" is not about capitalism, per se. It's about liberty. Sure, capitalism is a part of this, since it's the economic system that gives people the most freedom... but the founding documents of this country show no special devotion to capitalism. The Framers' attitude toward economics is best described as "As long as you pay your taxes and play fair, do whatever the hell you want."

Free software is indeed anti-capitalistic, sort of. Capitalism is based on the notion that the value of all goods can be measured monetarily; the idea that someone would be willing to code for free (or for some non-monetary benefit, like prestige) causes a division-by-zero error in the system.

But it's certainly not non-American, since it fits with the *real* American ideal of liberty: do what you want, as long as you don't hurt anyone. Free Software coders aren't hurting anyone other than by out-competing them (which is legal). They're helping a great many people: those who get neat software for free.

(If I start handing out free cookies in the street in front of a bakery, I'm not breaking the law. In fact I'm a major benefit to society, because people get free cookies. Whether the bakery goes out of business isn't my problem.)

Disclaimer: the *ideal* American Way involves liberty and governmental non-interference. It doesn't exactly work that way any more...

Re:The "American Way"?

[alph0ns3]

"Free software is indeed anti-capitalistic, sort of. Capitalism is based on the notion that the value of all goods can be measured monetarily; the idea that someone would be willing to code for free (or for some non-monetary benefit, like prestige) causes a division-by-zero error in the system."
Free software IS NOT about people coding for free, it's not even about money.

Re:The "American Way"?

[Entropius]

That's the point. It's not about money. The most pure form of capitalism assumes that everything that has value can be made to be about money. ... and, as you point out, free software isn't about money.

Re:The "American Way"?

[Quantum Jim]

Capitalism is based on the notion that the value of all goods can be measured monetarily

Is this premise valid in the real world? Warning: I'm going to restate the obvious in the response. Sorry.

Certainly, societies with economic systems based on simple barter (for instance, a farmer and blacksmith trading food for tools) still follow capitalistic principles. The traded goods represent value for each person. Now the perceived value may be different for each person involved in the trade, but overall (of the society) the value follows capitalistic models.

The idea behind money, on the other hand, is based on the notion that the value of those goods can be quantified by a standard measure. And that the measure can be stored and exchanged at a different time. For instance, the farmer can sell food to any person in exchange for an IOU for something with the price of the food (measured value of the food). Then later he gives that IOU to the blacksmith in exchange for tools. Then the blacksmith cashes in on the IOU for something else (the third party has to produce something of value to barter, after all). This is more efficient than simple barter.

However, some things can't be exchanged this way. Like you stated, reputation in one person's eyes (AKA prestige) must be "bartered" by the other person's actions by definition (actions with that person's value for a good reputation). It's still capitalistic, but trade is just not based on monetary compensation. However, the behavior of society as a whole can still be modeled with capitalistic theories.

Re:The "American Way"?

[newhoggy]

If I start handing out free cookies in the street in front of a bakery, I'm not breaking the law. In fact I'm a major benefit to society, because people get free cookies. Whether the bakery goes out of business isn't my problem.

Bad analogy.

It is a problem for a lot of people if you put the bakery out of business and then stop providing cookies. Then there'd be no cookies to be had.

Suppose Microsoft give out their XBoxes for free and put Sony out of business and then once Sony is out, they lump on a huge tax per game. This is predatory pricing and should be illegal.

How is that different to open source?

Open source by its nature means it cannot be monopolised on and its usefulness is perpetual. Unlike the predatory giver, it is simply impossible for open source to stop giving.

Re:The "American Way"?

[alph0ns3]

When I mean it's not about the money, I mean that money CAN be involved, but it's not required to. "someone would be willing to code for free" isn't what free software is about, it's "someone may or may not be willing to code for free, but he is willing to release it's code in a free licence". Big difference.

Channelling de Tocqueville?

[finnhart]

Not that /. is the best forum for writing style nits, but can we talk for a moment about the style of this published document?

...the U.S. has relentlessly pursued business partnerships with countries that are home to relentless intellectual property theft.
...
The relationship is simple: unpunished theft of intellectual property, coupled with IT and IP globalization, has exponentially increased the overall amount of IP theft. Simply put, ...

The "green lady" at my junior high wouldn't have let those slip.

And free beer is destroying Busch

[nurb432]

Home brewing is destroying the liquor industry, shade tree mechanics are destroying the auto industry.. bla bla bla..

I suppose they have to blame someone, and since we dont have the funds to defend ourselves in the mainstream media, we are the first target.

The danger is that the congeress believes this crap and starts legislating a 'fix'. Much as they did with the DMCA.

That's true!

[AchilleTalon]

Once a day, Linus just pass cross my field and my cows felt sick!

And if it was this good Dr. Bill, the vet, they would all die.

Bunch of nonsense

[ttyp0]

All our backend servers run Linux and open source software. The money we have saved using open source software has allowed me to hire additional programmers. Yes that right, I'm creating jobs here in the U.S. How can someone tell me that's unamerican and bad for the economy? Whos right is it anyways to tell me I can't give something away for free.

Sorry who invented what?

[Alci12]

"while foreign companies (using American ingenuity) may become their new employers." Frankly I wonder how us Non-Americans ever invented the wheel. It seems Tocqueville believes ingenuity is only created by Americans and stolen by the rest of the world!

Open Source != Free Software

[crashnbur]

[...] "Open source software, also described as free software..." [...]

Whether we're talking about free speech or free lunch, "open source" does not necessarily mean "free" in either sense. Both the open source and free software movements have lengthy explanations for this.

I didn't realize Linus was from the US!

[Anonymous Coward]

the article implies that Linux is an example of US intelectual property and know-how leaving for other countries.

I didn't realize that Tannenbaum (MINIX) and Linus Torvalds (Linux) were from the US or even US residents at the time of the inception of the revolution.

Maybe they were hired by the KGB (or its post-cold war equiv) to fool americans to dump their IP into the "public domain".. ::)

Some, not all

[GQuon]

It is true that GNU/Linux advocates want proprietary, closed-source models to fail.

Some do, yes. But not all.
The antagonism against Microsoft is strong in the F/OSS community, but also among proprietary software developers. Microsoft has a long history of breaking the law, behaving unethically toward customers and competitors, and making crappy -- but well marketed -- software.
Some people think that Microsoft is the natural final state of the closed source company, and that closed source thus is proven to be bad for innovation, business and freedom. I don't agree. I say blame the government for letting lawbreakers slip through their fingers, and blame the customers for being lazy.
I believe that closed source still is a legitimate business model, both for consumer products and bespoke systems. I don't see proprietary products as "evil" in any way and won't mind paying for a good product, except that I wonder wether the source is free of infringement, back doors and security flaws.

what the?!?!

[Roger Keith Barrett]

How can any of these arguments mean anything when most programming is done for internal use only?

If you are getting stuff written for yourself, the open/closed software debate doesn't have any meaning because you aren't going to release it to anyone else!

Someone still have to write all the stuff that is special to the back end of individual enterprises and someone still has to write the needed customizations to existing software, OSS or not.

Looks like there is plenty of opportunity to me... for someone somewhere.

This is just too rich... they're owned by MS...

[borgheron]

Alexis Do Tocqueville used to be a reputable firm. Now, I don't believe a word they say. It amazes me how they are trying to focus hatred on Free Software over the current outsourcing trend.

The plain and simple truth of the matter is that the market was too fat to begin with. To many companies were charging to much for products or services and they're feeling it now.

To many contractors were charging $400/hr instead of reasonable rates. It would have happened *anyway*, anyone who says differently is blowing smoke or selling something.

They're idiots, no one else pays attention to them, why should you.

GJC

They are of course wrong

[Stone316]

comes with a license that dictates that any all development of the product (which would have been valuable intellectual property) becomes community property and must subsequently become free as well.

They make it sound like any development done on a linux platform has to be distributed for free. Of course proprietory software can also be developed if your not incorporating any GNU or other similiarly license products into your own.

This article isn't even really about opensource, its about piracy and corporations exporting their IP. The slashdot article is kinda misleading, yes they mention opensource and their facts are wrong but the meat of the article is about other issues. Much more critical issues if you ask me.

Not OpenSource, CEO Fraud. . .

[jafac]

What destroyed 85% of the Market Value of "software" companies (dot bombs)?

CEO fraud. Not Open software.

Supply constraint doesn't work on free software. Find something else to sell. Like talent.

Increase in ANTI-FLOSS propoganda....

[borgheron]

Has anyone else noticed an increase in ANTI-FLOSS propoganda since it became clear that the SCO debacle isn't the answer to the status quo's problems?

GJC

Software Shall, and Must, Be Free

[$criptah]

I suspect that in thirty years software industry will be quite different from what we have today.

First of all, the majority of commercial software will target businesses. We are going to see more and more business specifict software crafted for special market purposes. Smaller software companies will work directly with the customers for the customers' needs. That way these IT shops will be able to charge reasonable prices and stay afloat. How many Open Source contributors will be willing to write software based on specifications of one and only one business?

Secondly, we are going to have less commerical software that targets individual buyers. For the exception of several operating systems and high-speciality applications. We are going to reach this point sooner than you think. For example, although I have paid for Mac OS X, I haven't paid a dime for any additional software that I use and I do not have any illegal copies; thanks to Darwinports, I have quite a few Open Source applications.

Finally, I believe that most of the IT companies will rely more on the revenues generated by support rather than by the actual products that they sell. As we face global economy, goods will become cheaper, yet we'll have to pay the same amount of money for quality technical support and installation services.

P.S.: If U.S. businesses want to stay competitive maybe it makes sense to review salaries of CEOs and other corporate elite. I have no mercy for corporations who file for Chapter 11 while writing out multi-million dollar checks to their vps and presidents.

Economy based on IP or Jobs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Profiteering from an anarchic IP system only locks profit's into the hands of the few. Open Source Software simply rationalizes the profitiability model to those who can provide solutions. Sure the big companies are all outsourcing (so much for the lies of the "service economy") software development, but smaller organizations actually benefit more from working locally with someone with the skills to solve problems.

Just my opinion.

Too right... it's a barn raising!

[aug24]

When lots of people pull together and give away the end result - and it's a barn - that's good (presumably except for barn manufacturers and they don't employ fud-factories like the above's author).

When lots of people pull together and give away the end result - and it's an OS - that's baaaaaad and scary foreigners will get you (if you read fuddy articles like the above)!

Justin.

Yesterday, these were "non-partisan" researchers

[Anonymous Coward]

SUCH a LOAD of CRAP.

It's the Amazing Microsoft Mouth. put $$ in, and listen to streaming FUD, complete with Excreta to match!

I've got three words

[Anonymous Coward]

F U D!

For once...

[The Spoonman]

I'm going to have to agree with the majority of /.ers and say this is bullshit. Free software isn't the cause of problems in IT...it's the morons who work there. The fucknut deskside guys who think that defragging a friggin' hard drive actually FIXES something. The wastes of sperm who think that because they have a certification, they have any clue how a thing works and should be an administrator. Or, the self-propelled vacuums who rather than figure out how to fix a problem just throw up their arms at the first sign of trouble and say, "Well, that's Windows! Servers reboot every day! Microsoft designs it that way!"

But, even worse than that, it's the managers who don't have the skill to get the business to buy into what's best, rather than what the fad of the day is.

As the saying goes, "It's a poor musician who blames his instrument".

Windows has lower TCO!

[YellowYahoo]

So he seems to think that Linux allows foreign competitors to undercut costs of companies using closed source alternatives. But I thought the largest provider of closed source software had proven that Linux has a higher cost.

So which is it? Oh I get it - Linux costs more than Windows when you use it but less when someone else uses it?

And what the heck is a triple edged sword? Talk about bad metaphors.

Re:Windows has lower TCO!

[eyepeepackets]

"And what the heck is a triple edged sword?"

Ummm, a slide rule maybe? If that's what he's thinking of then it was a bad choice: a slide rule implies the use of logic to arrive at a truthful solution whilst this dude is using a straw man to arrive at a bogus pile of poo, metaphorically speaking.

Cheers and ciao,

Fearful

[Anonymous Coward]

My my, aren't people afraid of our little OS? It appears we have their attention!

I don't see it that way...

[abulafia]

...but that's probably not a surprise.
Open Source, to my mind, is orthagonal to political systems. It is more akin to process of scientific discovery - everyone involved competes, but the end result is shared for the betterment of all.

These Tocqueville shills may as well argue that scientific research, unless bottled up and sold at a profit, is going to ruin our country - that would have the same validity.

"If we told everyone of Quantum Theory without charging for it, what incentive will there be for future physicists to explore new theories?"

Well MS does get its moneys worth.

[rspress]

Since MS is the cause of the loss of millions and millions of dollars worldwide it is time they did something about it. Blame someone else. Now they are blaming outsourcing on open source.

You must admit that when Microsoft buys someone, they get their moneys worth out of them.

Next up open source software the cause of American hostage beheading.

Don't forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

It also reduces the world's dependency on a single company in Redmond, USA. I live in the U.S., but I can imagine that other countries must be really annoyed to be dependant upon a SINGLE COMPANY in another country for their computing needs.

Countries like to feel sovereign, and they don't like feeling like some foreign company has got their grubby hands in the countries' pockets.

You're just proving THEIR point

[ThinWhiteDuke]

It's obvious that Free software will cause the business in proprietary software fall sooner or later. It's just not news. The question is: is it a BAD thing?

I agree that it is not a BAD thing for mankind. But is it a BAD thing for the US? Come to think about it, can you name one major non-US software companies? OK, there's SAP. Any other? Microsoft? US; Oracle? US; Siebel? US; Adobe? US; PeopleSoft? US; Ariba? Progress? Autodesk? Symantec? BEA? etc... all are US companies.

The US have pioneered the business of software and have reaped huge profits from their prominent position. OSS threatens this position. Tocqueville, biased as they may be, have a point here.

draconian measures even worse than outsourcing?

[Wansu]

Unless intellectual property assets are better protected, we will soon see information technology firms resorting to draconian measures even worse than outsourcing.

... and what might those be?

Time stands still for these people

[mabu]

You gotta love articles like this one, where these pundits compare two industries as if one is standing still. As if, open source software becomes dominant in the marketplace, traditional companies won't adapt and find a way to profit and change their business model. Nope. Not according to these guys.

If Linux becomes the standard over Windows, I'm sure domestic commercial software companies will just sit there and scratch their heads. They won't, for example, start bundling services and building new products around open source. Naw, there's no indication that this would happen. These companies will simply stop in their tracks like deer frozen in headlights and die and the entire tech industry will implode and we'll all be speaking Hindi.

Productivity of WHAT?

[abb3w]

Not that I'm entirely disagreeing, mind you. But one of the main things software helps you make is more software... which (DeToqueville types claim) will go to zero value as a result of the complete unprotection of IP. Talented people may be able to develop and refine operating systems as a hobby these days, but they have to earn a living before they put effort into their hobbies. And increases in productivity mean nothing if what you produce becomes worthless.


The patent and copyright system in the US was created to try to balance the need to give creative types some rewards for their efforts (to encourage progress and new thought) while enabling society to reap the benfits at limited cost and encouraging sucessive development. Recent legislation has begun badly imbalancing this towards benefiting creators-- or worse, their descendants. Weak examiniations by the patent office exacerbate the problem.

Bill Gates' basic point from 1976 was that, if you do good work, you should be able to get paid for it. And, from an economics standpoint, more people tend to be inclined to do that work if they get rewarded.

Of course, at the time writing software was a highly arcane and rare skill. These days, Microsoft's business is becoming more and more like prostitution in a college town: hard to make a living at because so many talented amateurs are giving a comparable product away for free.

Software to do a job appears to pass through three stages: where nobody knows how to do it, where an oligarchy knows how to do it, and where nearly every shmuck knows how to do it. As time progresses, and computer skills have spread, more and more things move from the first category to the second, and then the second to the third.

But you can only make a boodle of cash if what you're doing is in the middle category. What scares Bill is that almost all of Microsofts gigabucks of revenue come from Operating Systems and Office Suites... and Linux and Open Office have started moving (via the GPL) both of those from the hands of the oligarchy to the hands of the masses.

The DeToqueville people are whining about this trickle down trend as the third part of their "three edged sword". In this, they are unfortunately like King Canute and the tide. The solution, obviously, is to be move more things from what nobody can do into the hands of the oligarchy. Of course, this means that those (like Microsoft) cannot rest on their Intellectual laurel Property, but must keep working hard with no assurance they will be the oligarchs who get the next amazing idea... as Google seems to have demonstrated. It may well be that operating systems and office suites will not be where the smart people make their money in the future, but on organizing these tools to make work go smoother (like IBM does). Of course, to make money this way (for long), your CLIENT has to be making money producing something-- which, if IP becomes worthless, won't be an information economy product?

The DeToqueville institute may have some point with the first edge of their sword (as bad as that metaphor becomes), in that the GPL may be TOO STRONG a protection to encourage inventors properly... which I will suggest as a student term paper topic, rather than blather on about here. =)

Their second edge I consider contemptible. Yes, giving away Linux is providing jump starts to lower-income countries. As a fat, lazy American, I find the disparity in the global distribution of wealth digusting, and if adjusting that can be done by giving the poor oportunities to become richer, I can accept that it means that the rich have to work harder to stay that way.

A more interesting point that they raise is the shortsightedness of outsourcing in the effect that it has on redistribution of intellectual power. I think this will be the biggest long-term threat of outsourcing-- the gutting of the American skill set by failing to train replacements for the baby boomers.

Re:Productivity of WHAT?

[amightywind]

Very thoughtful reply. You are right to challenge the productivity comment. The potential dislocation of people that work for proprietary software companies is significant. For a year I was one of them! They are people trying to make a living. I still stand by it.

The Bill Gates self-serving rant has pretty much been refuted. Good software does get written, even when the authors do not get paid. Software is also different than material objects in that "stealing it" does not deny others who pay. I do not condone stealing, I only point out that software is not material. I think of software as analogous to basic scientific research. Researchers are paid by institutions to produce science results - math theorems, experimental results, etc. Most of the time the results are shared freely and past results are used to advance the state art. An innovator has no protection from others seeking entry into his field or superceeding his results. Yet this system is a halmark of advanced civilizations throughout history, and continues to serve us well.

Wouldn't it be ridiculous if we had to make a payment to the right's holder of the Pythagorian theorem each time we used it? I find it equaly ridiculous that PC users pay $100's for a word processor developed 10 years ago.

I think we can both agree that the patent and copyright system that has served so well for material inventions is in need of a facelift.

Foreign developers

[eric76]

The article fails to note that a large number of the developers of Free and Open Source Software are foreign.

In fact, remember that Linux was began in Finnland, not the U.S.

Does this mean that we are importing free IP?

In reality, I agree that it will reduce the IP value of some companies. It won't eliminate it, but it will reduce it.

Is that such a bad thing?

It seems to me that if we eliminated software patents, the hardest hit would be those leach companies who patent some nebulous idea and then wait for real companies to develop something similar so they can hit them with enormous lawsuits. Would it be so bad if these firms all went under?

There would still be plenty of IP around. Those maintaining most or all of their IP would be those who use that IP for legitimate, constructive purposes instead of leaching off the work of others.

Re:Foreign developers

[Anonymous Coward]

Finland

Free software makes logical sense

[David Jao]

Free software is not capitalism... Capitalism assumes that people want to be reimbursed in some way.

Your problem is that you are narrow-mindedly assuming all reimbursement must be in the form of financial payment.

I have personally contributed about 300 lines of code to Debian, for free. In return, I have received all 15 million lines of code contained in Debian, available to use for free. If that doesn't count as reimbursement, I don't know what does.

Free software makes no logical sense, because people do it out of altruism and stupidity.

Let's logically analyze how stupid and altruistic my above mentioned contribution really is. I contributed 300 lines of useful code and got back 15 million lines.

1. Is this stupid? No. The 300 lines I contributed only took a few hours to write. The 15 million lines I got back takes a lifetime.
2. Is this altruistic? Not in my case. I wrote those 300 lines of code out of pure self interest. The only reason I wrote the code was because I needed it for my own use.
3. Does it make logical sense? It sure does. Each of the thousands of contributors receives far more value than he alone contributes.
4. How can this work while Communism failed? Because software is infinitely copiable. Communism tries to apply the sharing philosophy to material goods, which unlike software are not infinitely copiable.
5. What about the freeloader problem? Freeloaders are irrelevant for infinitely copiable goods. As long as the contributors themselves are adequately reimbursed, freeloaders do no harm.

The moral is, do not blindly assume that the economics of material goods apply to software. And please, for the love of god, do not attack all free software as having "no logical sense". If you're not gonna participate yourself (as is your right), at least don't interfere with other people who wish to participate out of their own free will (as is their right).

Re:Free software makes logical sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn man. That was well-said! ;)

Re:Free software makes logical sense

[LordNimon]

I have personally contributed about 300 lines of code to Debian, for free. In return, I have received all 15 million lines of code contained in Debian

No, you have not. Those 15 million lines of code were always yours for the taking. Your donation of 300 lines has not given you anything at all, except maybe a warm, fuzzy feeling.

Re:Free software makes logical sense

[Anonymous Coward]

You are wrong. The original poster stated he wrote those 300 lines because he needed additional functionality for his own use. His release of the code does not necessarily mean that he will get anything back, but also makes it possible for others to improve on the added functionality, fix bugs or whatever. These are potential paybacks that many realize from releasing Free software.

Re:Free software makes logical sense

[David Jao]

Your donation of 300 lines has not given you anything at all, except maybe a warm, fuzzy feeling.

If you had actually read my post, you would have discovered that I wrote those 300 lines because I specifically needed them for my own use. I certainly did personally gain from writing those 300 lines.

Once those 300 lines were written, the cost of donating them was exactly zero. With GPL software, there is not even any opportunity cost involved, since your only choices (literally) are to donate the software under the GPL, or not donate it at all to anyone under any terms.

It is therefore hard to see how any alternative action could possibly be logical under the circumstances. I wrote the code because I personally needed it, and I donated the code because I gained nothing from not donating it.

Re:Free software makes logical sense

[drsmithy]

I have personally contributed about 300 lines of code to Debian, for free. In return, I have received all 15 million lines of code contained in Debian, available to use for free. If that doesn't count as reimbursement, I don't know what does.

Now look at it from the other side. For the blood, sweat and tears involved in creating 15 million LOC, the only thing the people responsible got back from you was a lousy 300 lines...

Re:Free software makes logical sense

[LordNimon]

You just proved my point: "His release of the code does not necessarily mean that he will get anything back". He said that he donated 300 lines and he got 15 million in return. That is technically not true. He did not receive the 15 million lines in exchange for the 300.

Re:Free software makes logical sense

[HuguesT]

If a thousand people each contributed 15,000 lines, the ledger is not that skewed, in particular if the 300 lines really are important.

In the Linux kernel you can easily have 15,000 lines that are not that hard to write (some well documented device driver, say) and 300 that are excruciatingly difficult, say the core of the memory allocator.

Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

I am afraid of competition.

Speaking of assumptions

[Anonymous Coward]

if, in the long run, they'll simply lock it up and throw away the key...

Re:Speaking of assumptions

[composer777]

Wow, you spotted an assumption. See, but if you'll pay attention, I pointed out that his assumption was incorrect. There is nothing wrong with an assumption, it's INCORRECT assumptions that are the problem. There is plenty of evidence that corporatiosn will lock it up and throw away the key. It's in their very nature to be controlling and greedy, even if they can't make a profit from it. When was the last time you were able to get a license for an Atari ROM so that you could legally run it in your emulator? How about the source code for old software that was written in 80's and is no longer used, have you had much luck in getting a hold of that? And the list goes on...

"{FamousPerson} Institute" Design Antipattern

[Sigfried]

This appears to be another case of a growing trend to create bogus agenda-laden "Institutes" and using the names of famous thinkers to put unearned legitimacy on highly questionable ideas. I just did a random google on ${FamousPerson} Institute and came up with some doozies.

Submitted for your Approval:

• The Schiller Institute Lyndon Larouche sez: 440 is evil
• George Washington Institute Spiritual Healing for George
• The Cato Institute Ayn Rand was apparently very popular in Ancient Rome...

Pick your own favorite philosopher and google 'em yourself. You'll be amazed at the bizarre ideas attributed to them...

But the tools are not as good...

[James4765]

And Black and Decker costs jobs because they sell power saws and nailers that allow a single carpenter to frame out a new structure, when once upon a time it would have taken dozens to complete it in the same timeframe.

We should pass a law barring people from creating better tools for getting things done. Everything should be like the way Linux and the Amish do it - as backbreaking and labor intensive as possible, because that means more work!

Bullshit. Utter bullshit. The problem with things like Front Page and Visual Basic is that they remove the craftsmanship.

I took some of the Front Page-generated HTML documentation from my job and re-did it with standards-based HTML & CSS, that would render properly in IE, and fixed layout mistakes that were part of the ball of snot that Front Page spewed, and chopped the size of the archive down by 2/3.

Check those bandwidth bills out, baby.

It's more like, when you work on aircraft, you have to use Federally-certified tools - because if you don't, you could damage the parts woth poor-fitting sockets and out-of-calibration torque wrenches. POS Chinese tools may be fine for fixing a leaky faucet, but check your auto mechanic's toolbox, and you'll find Mac, Matco, Proto, or Snap-On tools are in the majority - That's what's in my toolbox at work. MS's products are okay for hobbyist/short-term use, but don't have the features that make for excellence (At least their consumer-level products, anyway).

Re:But the tools are not as good...

[BandwidthHog]

Do the feds really mandate the use of quality tools to build/service products they buy? That's actually kinda reassuring, if true.

The Open Source Ken Brown Sees

[yintercept]

Open Source activists that want to see Linux succeed argue that eventually, they want all intellectual property protection to end, including patents and trademarks.

Rather than just getting upset with an author that has a different point of view of OSS, we should at least understand what the author is seeing when talking about OSS.

The author does not see OSS as source code that is open for review. Nor does the author see OSS as a reaction to the abuse of intellectual property. All this author sees is that attack on the very notion of property rights.

There has been a long history of people who wanted to end all property rights and to destroy the petty bourgeoisie. The defenders of property rights have developed extremely entrenched, absolutist views. They see the rhetoric on /. the same way they see all the other calls for the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the abolition of private property.

It is not surprising that a lot of people see OSS and /. like this. When Napster was reaching its height, a large number of voices on the far left were reaching a crescendo about how the internet would bring about a state of total revolution. P2P would tear down the horrible capitalist machine and destroy the petty little bourgeoisie that leaches off the capitalist machine. Vive la revolution...death to the bourgeoisie!

I think articles like this are great, because it shows how many influential people see OSS. Rather than just talking about how stupid the author is. I think the OSS community should understand how others might perceive OSS. For example, this author sees OSS as a complete rejection of intellectual and other intangible assets. The author fails to see that OSS itself has voices ranging from the left to right to libertarian.

There are many voices on /. who reject all notions of intellectual property. The second an idea comes out of your head, it becomes property of the collective. An individual or organization should have no sense of ownership of their ideas. There are many who would deny any legal rights to the creator of ideas.

A writer has no claim to their words. A software designer has no claim to the code they produce. All is part of the greater collective. We should give to the collective according to our ability. The collective will distribute according the political whims of the central core of the collective.

From an economic standpoint, we see that when we completely deny any claim that an author has to their work, we destroy any ability to make money from the work. By destroying the ability of intellectual creations to serve as capital, we end up undermining the economic forces that lead to the creation of new ideas, and we destroy the majority of those cushy little IT jobs that we once knew.

Looking at the IT industry, we see that the majority of high paying IT jobs were all about building up capital infrastructure. Companies invested billions in welling paying, fun IT jobs because they were looking at getting a future return from the investment. By denying the ability for IT investments to be capital, we ended up destroying the industry.

I still believe the code is mine and there's ownership to that code.

Believing something does not make it true. Nor does your belief that you own something give you any rights. Ownership and the scope of that owernship will be defined by law and custom.

What you just said echoes the beliefs of the majority of people on /.. For that matter, GPL is built on IP rights. The real arguments for OSS are not about the social revolution. The things driving OSS are IP abuses and the fact that having the source code available increases, not decreases, the value of an asset.

You are not a person, only "intellectual capital"!

[mankey wanker]

And only the corporations have any rights worth considering.

What a lot of crap that article was...

Easy to defeat

[SuperKendall]

First of all, you can still sell the software even if you release the source as well, so you can make money that way.

Secondly, if you continue to innovate then your support has a leg up in that it is familiar with features before a release, and the other company will be forced to churn studying new releases.

Or, if you can't beat them then work a deal where they cut a percentage of support profits to help support your development, and act as tier 2 support (which is more lucrative anyway) while they field the annoying stuff.

There are a lot of different ways to solve that problem.

Re:Easy to defeat

[Anonymous Coward]

So one of your arguments is essentially the same as the other guy's - Keep adding to and changing your software so the moochers and thieves have to play catch-up. (job) security through obscurity. Great plan.

This also equates to churning out and tracking more and more releases that poor IT shmucks have to keep installing on 1000s of computers.

I'll never understand why some people think its good to just give your IP away...

open source just lowers the barrier to entry

[monkeyboy87]

I dont think its a cause of it, but it does help level the playing field and lower the barrier to entry. Look at mySQL as an example, in the old days (like 10 years ago) if you pretty much had to own oracle licenses to be developing for it. This meant that you started out with fewer competitors in the marketplace. Now someone can get mysql for free and start banging out code to compete with you and your oracle solution. And since software is mostly about labour, you just can't be competitive even if your cost of tools also goes to zero because in the end, once you get going the labour cost is where most of the software cost is located.

OpenSource is not the solution for every problem.

[LWATCDR]

But it is a great solution for many.
So far open source has made big wins in
OSs Linux and BSD
Programing tools Eclipse, Netbeans, gcc,...
Databases MySQL, Postgres, and Firebird.
And many other programs.
Where it has not done well are
Games. Yes frozen bubble and bzflag are great but they are not Unreal.
CAD. I have not seen any open source cad system that is even as good as TurboCad much less solidwork.
What used to be called Contact Managment but what is now called CRM. There are one or two projects that are coming along but nothing to compair with SAP.
I am sure there are more successful catagories and more unsuccessful that I have left out.
What both sides have to understand is that it will never be an all free or all closed world. It really never was and it will never be in the future. The question is which way to go with your product.

Your post is not entire BS Free either

[AHumbleOpinion]

I agree that the government should ensure that any work done related to national security does not involve outsourcing. The experience and expertise with that software should be available domestically should a national emergency occur. However closed source is a different topic and is largely irrelevant. Your post suggests that the government does not have access to closed source, this suggestion earns a cough-cough-BS as well IMHO. The government is free to demand access to any source involved in national security. Look at everyone's favorite example of closed source, MS Windows. MS has made the Windows source code available to university researchers and their students after NDAs are signed. You think MS declines the US military? "Closed Source" is sometimes a misnomer. Source may be closed to the public at large but that does not mean that involved parties have no access.

Re:Your post is not entire BS Free either

[AuMatar]

Access to the source is nothing. Can the government fix the bugs in it, compile their own versions, and deploy it on government computers? Nope. So the source doesn't get them much, if anything.

Re:Your post is not entire BS Free either

[iminplaya]

Can the government fix the bugs in it, compile their own versions, and deploy it on government computers? Nope.

What's to stop them? Does Microsoft have nukes? The gov't can do and does what it pleases.

Re:Your post is not entire BS Free either

[AuMatar]

Two things

1)The law. Its in the license agreement that they can't.

2)They don't have the build environment. Which is a significant technical hurdle.

Re:Your post is not entire BS Free either

[jdavidb]

In other words, it's about Freedom, not about Open Source. How about that?

Re:Your post is not entire BS Free either

[iminplaya]

1) The law doesn't apply to gov't. (Re: OSHA)

2) Maybe not, but they could tell MS that if they want to continue their illegal monopoly, they(MS) will have to do it for them (gov't).

Re:Your post is not entire BS Free either

[Anonymous Coward]

Take that attitude when the EU slaps a huge penalty on MS, please....

Re:Your post is not entire BS Free either

[L*stB*y]

A large majority of Gov Contracted Software includes: source code, design specs, build environment, all custom development/test tools, listing of COTS tools. The US gov is not screwed if they decide to give the maintence contract to a diferent vendor.

Re:Your post is not entire BS Free either

[Ryosen]

>1)The law. Its in the license agreement that they can't.

Two things here. First, EULAs have yet to be proven legally binding. If someone knows otherwise, I would be very interested in knowing the details of the case (name, date, etc). Second, Government use of software often occurs under a separate agreement of usuage terms.

>2)They don't have the build environment. Which is a significant technical hurdle.
They don't need it. Access to the source code has little to do with building the system yourself. It's about auditing. The US government has access to the resources required to carry out such an audit. EDS, CSC and many other top-tier organizations have the talent. As the US government outsources a large portion of their IT work to US IT companies, the lack of any in-house expertise is of little concern.

There is no formalized process or independant entity in place to audit and ensure the security and "trustworthiness" of open-source software. I can understand why this would be of some concern. The nature of OSS is such that anyone can get involved with a project without ever meeting, in person, other members of that project. Let's be honest. I think Apache is, without question, the most superior web server out there. But how do you know that mod-SSL, to pick a purely random target, wasn't written by some terrorist or government blackhat or some other asshat?

Given the anonimity that the Internet provides, this creates a security risk that, at some level, can be mitigated, it is hoped, at a corporate, closed-source entity. Of course, this requires a bit of due dilligence on the part of the software company to thoroughly investigate the credentials and background of an applicant. But my professional experience has shown me that this occurs much more frequently in the corporate world than the OSS world. I've been fingerprinted, investigated and have pissed into more cups than I care to remember for corporate positions/contracts. I can't say the same for OSS projects.

Not that it is my intention to condemn OSS projects. Far from it. Im a huge fan (and supporter) or OSS but I don't feel that OSS provides a significant threat to commercial software. There will always be companies that are too OSS-adverse to turn away from commercial software (see: IIS). Microsoft, et al, have little to worry about there. As much as I love *nix, I don't think M$ need lose any sleep over their market position. As for companies that do embrace OSS, that just leaves them with more operating capital to put towards development. Which benefits me and other developers. And there will always be a need for custom developed software. Happy smiles all around.

Re:Your post is not entire BS Free either

[Ryosen]

One point of clarification: I don't think that M$ needs to worry about their position on the desktop. I know first-hand of many companies that won't touch their server components.

Re:Your post is not entire BS Free either

[iminplaya]

I've been fingerprinted, investigated and have pissed into more cups than I care to remember for corporate positions/contracts.

You know, zogger is right. You guys really need to organize. Worldwide if you can. Then you might not have to put up with that humiliation. Some people think that kind of treatment is necessary, but most of us know better, and we should in no way tolerate it. I walk away from anybody that asks anything more personal than my social security number and my address. It's easy for me because I don't drive an SUV and I always wore a rubber. We DO have the power. Let use it.

Re:Your post is not entire BS Free either

[Ryosen]

We're my clients little pissant companies, I might agree. However, I service the big financial companies on Wall St, as well as other Fortune 100 companies. Especially with regards to those businesses whose operations directly affect the US and Global economies, I'd much prefer that they ensure that the folks they employ are who they say they are.

Re:Your post is not entire BS Free either

[iminplaya]

Screw them. They shouldn't any more power than anybody else. This is part of our problem. We think that just because these are great big companies, we should give them what they want. To hell with that. The power belongs to US.(That's you and me, not the country) Nobody else. If you want to let them have power over you, great. I say, Stay outta my face!!! This ESPECIALLY applies to Wall St.

Re:Your post is not entire BS Free either

[Ryosen]

I think you misunderstand me. I want them to thoroughly inspect the credentials of their applicants. I want them to weed out the liars, scam artists, fakes and phonies. I was there on Wall St when the World Trade Center towers fell. I walked through the south tower every single morning at 9:05am. It was by mere luck that I wasn't in those towers when they were hit.

If you don't want to play by the rules, if you are not confident enough in your abilities to subject them to scrutiny, if you are so sure that you cannot be trusted that you would reject any attempt to verify your credentials, then I say "Stay outta my face". This ESPECIALLY applies to YOU.

Re:Your post is not entire BS Free either

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, they don't have to be able to compile the source for it to be useful to national security. I would much rather have the government know what the vulnerabilities in Windows are than not know. Even if their hands are tied as far as fixing them. Open source, however, allows the best of both worlds. Case in point, SELinux.

Re:Your post is not entire BS Free either

[iminplaya]

Verifying credentials can be done via public records. If you want to weed out the liars, scam artists, fakes and phonies, then you shouldn't vote for them. The day you actually become honest with yourself is the day that you will realize that it's American meddling in the affairs of others is what brought down the towers. And don't try to think that I'm justifying it. It is every bit as despicable as the horrors that the Americans are perpetrating on the Iraqis at this moment, which is an act brought on by the lies spewing from Washington every day. You might also find that most of the liars, scam artists, fakes and phonies are the same people that RUN Wall St. The savings and loan scandals, Enron, etc. were brought on by the kind of people that will never have their backgrounds checked because of their connections. The only people that anybody is going to check are the janitors and cafeteria employees. The liars, scam artists, fakes and phonies, and drug addicts will continue to work the floor unimpeded.

Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Now show us how IBM is using its monopoly against Windows, oh great and mighty Swamii.

what about US use of foriegn free software?

[congaflum]

>Second, Linux initiatives have enabled foreign-based information
>technology firms with zero IP costs and cheap labor to easily compete with U.S.
>software companies

Isn't he forgetting that these "zero IP costs" are effectively being imported to the US too?

A lot of free software originates from outside the US, <cough>Linux</cough>, and its existance surely provides many technological benefits to US companies.

The idea that all the smart work is done by Americans and then gobbled up by a punch of pesky foreigners (which I feel was being alluded to) is ridiculous.

Heat Rash and Jock Itch

[Esion Modnar]

free software is responsible for bad laws, out sourcing and bad hair days.

Don't forget that it causes those, too. Your Friend, Bill.

OFFTOPIC : the "gnu is not unix" slashdot icon

[Anonymous Coward]

i'm sorry, but i just can't figure out what that thing is supposed to be. maybe it's just my filthy mind, but the only thing that comes to mind when i look at it is a male reproductive organ wearing some sort of cape. would somebody please tell me what it's supposed to be ?

Re:Speaking of INCORRECT assumptions

[Anonymous Coward]

You deserve that source code, right?

Points out the stupidity of "IP"

[wcrowe]

From the article: ...Why are workers abroad able to produce our technology at all? The reason is because they know how to -- because they have our intellectual property...

Or, maybe it is because that "intellectual property" is an illusion. Cooking code is similar to cooking food. Recipes are copied, modified, and otherwise replicated, but no one considers them "intellectual property" because, well, it's stupid. It's easy to taste a dish and, with some experimentation, come up with a dish that is almost identical (and sometimes better). Programming is really no different.

The fault is with the companies who have built themselves upon the "sand" of IP, rather than the "bedrock" of tangible assets.

Re:Points out the stupidity of "IP"

[Anonymous Coward]

No it isn't. You can download an open source package such as gfFT and be using it in a few hours to enhance your code where it would have taken you 6 months to write it yourself.

Source code, kept secret, is a tangible asset. Knowing HOW to code something is a far cry from actually coding it.

Re:Points out the stupidity of "IP"

[wcrowe]

Let me preface my comment to say that I may not understand your point.

What I'm trying to say is that IP is just too easy to replicate to be considered very valuable. We've seen too many companies who jealously guard their source code go under. It is just too easy for someone else to create something that works the same or better.

Let's take a tangible asset like gold, for example: It becomes valuable because of the work that goes into digging it up out of the ground and refining it. For any individual gold nugget, that work cannot be duplicated.

Now look at "intellectual property." All it represents is an idea. The work that went into creating it can be quite easily duplicated. If Shakespeare wants to depend on the uniqueness of Romeo And Juliet to support himself, he's a fool, because lots of people can churn out what is essentially the same story and make a living out of it (and they have).

I could just see myself explaining to my insurance agent:

"My computer got struck by lightning. I had lots of source code on it which represented hours of my effort. I estimate it was worth $100,000."

After he finished laughing he would probably throw me out of the office.

IP is a house of cards.

Linux was made by foreigners

[DocTillo]

Second, Linux initiatives have enabled foreign-based information technology firms with zero IP costs and cheap labor to easily compete with U.S. software companies.

The author tries to tell us, that there's only one direction know how is being tranferred: From the us to foreign countries overseas. He's somehow missing the fact, that Linux was started overseas and the Linux know how has initially been brought from overseas to the us ...

I believe it!

[Tired and Emotional]

The same problem killed off science. Scientists insisted on publishing scientific results and as a result there was no IP value in their work anymore. Just think, if scientists had kept their work proprietary, we'd have warp drive by now!

Oh the arrogance of it

[cruachan]

I particularly like the implicit assumption in the article that only Americans have the ability to produce good/usable code. It even seems to assume that Linus is american.

Of course if congress passed a law tomorrow forbidding any americans to contribute to open source it wouldn't make a cent of difference in anything beyond the very short term.

The Real Assets are People That Create IP

[rben]

This guy is basically saying that the very idea that someone should be able to do anything without paying some royalty on Intellectual Property is going to destroy our economy. He seems to believe that the way to beat competition is to make sure that only the largest companies with the biggest groups of laywers can compete. Talk about destroying IP.

This guy must love the idea of software patents. I'll bet he sees them as part of the "answer" to us long-haired FOSS types that, according to him, want to destroy all IP. As Bugs would say, 'What a maroon!'

If Software companies want to survive in this world they will have to realize that the infrastructure software such as Operating Systems and Word Processors is going to move to FOSS. There is just no way commercial software can compete in those areas over time. Commercial software companies might want to look at their REAL assets, the talented programmers they are so eager to replace with foreigners and think about how the company might better utilize those resources to provide customized solutions, consulting, and commercial products that are unlikely to gather enough support to succeed as FOSS products.

The problem is that the companies think that IP is their asset. It isn't. The real assets of U.S. companies are the talented people who create the IP.

Do you have a clue what libertarianism is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, for that matter, liberty itself?

Taken to its logical conclusion, "intellectual property" is one of the most evil concepts out there.

Think about it. As an IP owner, I own a part of your mind, and can regulate your use of it. Hum a song while walking in the park? Sorry, that song's copyrighted; you owe ASCAP "public performance fees". Need to solve a problem? Oops, you used a patented algorithm to solve it without knowing it, you thief. And don't you dare tell your kid to get a Kleenex when his nose runs if Puffs happened to be on sale last time you went shopping.

(Yes, I know that it's not quite that ridiculous yet. That's what "taken to its logical conclusion" means.)

Libertarians are generally for reducing the amount of interference governments have in your life. Given that all the enforcement mechanisms for the above scenarios will of necessity have to involve government, it naturally follows that "intellectual-propertyism" is about as anti-libertarian as you get.

Not all libertarians are opposed to copyrights, patents, or trademarks, and it's certainly true that many libertarians are imprecise in their language. But while you can find libertarians who use the words "intellectual property", none of them would sign on to the thoughtcrime-infested dystopia those words really imply.

My reply to Dr. Brown

[coats]

Dear Dr. Brown:

I had one reaction to your recent article about Linux and other open source software:

What did de Tocqureville himself say about voluntary community associations in America, how they were _uniquely American_, and uniquely effective because of the way they got out from under the rigid guild-and-government strictures of the Old World? And how are the current IP-law trends different from an attempt to reimpose those guild-and-government strictures on voluntary community associations that now (thanks to the Internet) can span the world?

and, generally, in reaction to trends in copyright and other IP law over the past century, a further question:

How is the present unlimited copyright term consistent with the demands of the Constutution? (Given that (1) when copyright term may be extended at will by Congress, that term is by definition NOT limited in mathematical terms (note that I _am_ a professional mathematician (Ph.D.1978, MIT)); (2) when there is no experiment that I can perform which distinguishes current copyright term from unlimited term, then that term is operationally unlimited; and (3) when no work I can find has had its copyright term expire during my lifetime, _nor can I expect such an expiration to happen during the actuarial remainder thereof_, then copyright term is not limited in human terms.)

Absent a satisfactory answer on these mattters, I can only conclude that your claim to follow de Tocqueville is hypocritical at best.

Sincerely--

Carlie J. Coats, Jr., Ph.D.

The whole report hinges on "intangible assets"...

[Lodragandraoidh]

The report is a house of cards held up only by the reader's tacit agreement in the idea of a business's "intangible assets". If it is 'intangible', then how were the percentages in the first paragraph arrived at? Houdini couldn't have devised a better parlour trick. In reality this points to the over inflation of company values through questionable accounting practices, more than any so-called 'IP drain'.

More disturbingly, the article states that "Today, intellectual property is not just patents, copyrights and trademarks, it is processes, techniques, methodology and talent; described by many experts as intellectual capital". The implication here is that processes, techniques and methodology that is not patented, should somehow fall under protections. Even more disturbing is the lumping of 'talent' on top of that list; the last time I checked, 'talent' was 'owned' by each person - not by a business (I certainly didn't spend thousands of dollars going to college, not to mention years before and since developing my personal abilities outside of the workplace [i.e. 'talent'] to have businesses lay claim to that too! I take my talent with me, wherever I go).

The whole paper only serves to attack and devalue the contributions of the individual, while trumpeting a false 'crisis' brought on by the dual evils of outsourcing and open source development - the solution evidently the destruction of the open source movement and further protections against the 'IP' drain...

The reality is that globalization of the economy is happening, and nothing short of byzantine laws and misinformed policy will slow it down. Smart businesses will realize this and focus on what it takes to succeed in such an environment. Rich businesses with lawyers and money to burn will continue to lobby, and generate papers like this - because it is 'better' for them to maintain the status quo and cash those fat dividend checks (this could be applied to the MPAA as well). It seems the larger a company gets, the less in touch it becomes with common decency, common sense, and our real reason for being on this planet: to uplift our communities - rather than prey upon them.

I think it instructive to note that the Gates foundation was started well after the initiation of the Justice Department case. What was Bill doing with all that money until then, and why the change? I think that issue gets to the point - big business does not hold our best interests at heart. More importanty, the question becomes, "what are we going to do about it?"

Re:Mmm.... Beer.....

[nazzdeq]

Free software, like Linux, is putting a dent into MS as well as other companies profit. Throw in a kick ass free database and Oracle is toast, BEA and IBM should be losing money because of JBoss, etc. When those guys get hit hard, people get fired like about 3,000 from Sun, who in their own stupidity is comodotizing their own hardware business. Once I write some kick ass open source and free as in beer system management system, company's won't need people like you.

A fair point

[alex_tibbles]

The article does make at least one fair point: that outsourcing information-based work overseas is bad for the economy, because 'Intellectual Capital' (i.e. mainly skilled people, but also organizations, contracts etc.) are moving out of the country. THIS IS NOTHING NEW! It's called Brain Drain, and the US has profited by for some fifty (50) years.
Is this really a problem though? A lot of jobs moved overseas are not the IP-creating, IC (see above) -creating jobs. If a large proportion become highly skilled jobs, then there will be a problem of course...

Re:A fair point

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the only thing the U.S. can offer is a "nicer place to live" to attract all the high tech foreigners, but, can it really do that anymore? Do the elite of other nations really want to live in the U.S.? I think not. The rampant Crime, Draconian drug laws and general sense of unease living in the U.S. engenders in someone make the U.S. an unlikely place to want to live anymore. At one time time this may have been true but the continued intrusion of the U.S. government into people's private lives has made it, "The home of the enslaved, and the land of the afraid".

I love it!!!

[sonofuse]

The phrase "coin-operated policy dispenser" not only reminds me of Alex of Tacoville but also our beloved Congressman and Representatives.

Re:I love it!!!

[nmjon]

Did you check out their web page, when you click on the accomplishment tab it gives a Not Found error !!!!!!!

Well then that means...

[CKW]

*If* it's true, then it means that lots of big companies were getting money for something that's worth a lot less than they were charging.

This is *exactly* how competition in a free market should work.

It also means that their "IP" wasn't really worth much at all to begin with!!!!

Clearly giving someone an artificial monopoly when dozens of other people can come up with the same thing, is worth NOTHING to society.

AdTI a right-wing front? Holy Tin Foil Hats!

[pjkundert]

Is it "Jumpy Liberal" Day, or what?

If you think what AdTI is talking about in any way approximates "Conservatism", then you should read up.

Remember, Liberals: Just because someone is Stoopid, doesn't automatically mean that they are "Conservative"!

Anyone with more than a vague knowledge of "Capitalism" understands that Capital != Corporation. Nor does Capital == Money. Why do you think that, under Capitalism, a relatively poor person in a far away land can acquire something as valuable as a contract to provide Computer Programming services a group somewhere else in the world? Because they command Intellectual Capital. As much as you despise that, I will continue to protect your right (and their right) to acquire Capital, and use it to their own, and their family's, benefit.

Remember, under Capitalism, those who have Capital have ownership of the means of production. As much as you lib-lefties would love to take that away from people (such as, oh, say ME ), the fact that we have Ownership, and the Rule Of Law by means of a strong police force, I can retain my Capital, and wield it whatever effect I DESIRE, without undue interference from YOU.

Remember -- Capitalism also makes it very likely that someone who is stoopid will not retain control over his or her Capital for long. They will invest it unwisely (such as in AdTI FUD), and lose it. It will then be re-deployed, to better effect, by those more able to use it efficiently.

So, rather than spouting laughable rhetoric about the evils of Corporations, and Capitalism, and Conservatives (although I applaud you for making it to the letter "C"), why don't you go out and acquire some Capital? Financial Capital would be a fine goal, but I suggest you start with Intellectual Capital first...

The internet is the "neutron bomb" of IP

[Kazoo the Clown]

IP devaulation is a consequence of increased information flow. Period.

Unsurprisingly, those who are dependent on the value of IP are shriveling up.

The classic example is the music distribution industry-- it's whole existence is dependent on maintaining a narrow content pipeline to the marketplace over which they can exert control. Poof-- the internet made that go away and now they are careening to Earth at terminal velocity without a parachute, grasping at the air in a futile attempt to slow their descent. So what's the last thing that goes through their mind as they hit the ground?

Kiss it goodbye!

Re:Speaking of INCORRECT assumptions

[composer777]

I'm not going to answer that question out of context, because you are leaving out the fact that if it weren't for society and the police protection that we pay for to enforce their copyrights, Microsoft's copyrights wouldn't be worth the paper they are printed on. Basically, you are ordering me to answer out of context whether or not I DESERVE sourcecode. It depends on the context. What determines whether or not someone deserves anything? Can you answer that? It depends on the situation, if I pay the required amount, sure, I deserve it, as much as can be said about anything. What about expired source code? Should it be released to the public domain. Yes, I think that it's a small payment to society for the protection that society provides to copyright holders in the enforcement of copyright laws. There should be something that is given in return by the copyright holders in exchange for the monopoly that they are given, and I don't think that merely releasing the software is enough. An idea that is expressed in copyright law is the idea of public domain. In order for the public domain to have anything useful, it must have the source code in this case. Our current situation with software is similar to books that are printed on paper that crumples right when the copyright expires. It goes against the spirit of the copyright system.

I beleive that we should have a system that encourages open source in order to restrict the amount of control that corporations have over the technology industry. I should have the freedom to promote the kinds of institutions and groups that are dedicated to maximizing freedom for all Americans. I feel that encouraging laws and instutional structures that are greedy and refuse to give back to the society that supports them, even when it costs them nothing, is the wrong path to go. I don't deserve source code any more than Microsoft deserves my taxpayer dollars in order to keep me from freely using software produced by them. You might then say,"Well, how are we supposed to have innovation if you don't subsidize the police protection required to enforce copyright law?" I believe we have an answer in Open Source, much in the same way the Music Industry's pro copyright stance falls apart once you point out all the musicians that earn nothing from our current copyright laws.

Re:Speaking of INCORRECT assumptions

[composer777]

Second, the topic at hand, if you'll refresh your memory, is that corporations think they deserve to have the government enforce their gravy train, and to take away other's freedom to innovate. I think that taking someone's freedom to write software requires a large burden of proof, and I don't think that corporations have met that burden of proof. Open Source is not breaking the law, they are doing what they feel is right in a free society. I simply pointed out the obvious fact that corporations don't share. Then you asked me if I thought they should share. Yes, I do, but it's beside the point, because with Open Source, we don't need them to share. We don't ask them for anything. We don't ask the government for special protection or incentive. It's the corporations that feel that they are entitled.

BTW, you deserve to be able to tell me what kind of software I can write, correct?

Disruptive technology,

[Alex]

Isn't this what you'd expect from a disruptive technology?

Lots of old ways of creating value are destroyed to be replaced by new ones. Kind of the way that the railways destroyed the canals in the industrial revolution. Only in those days canal companies didn't have patents on "ways of transporting goods using metal items", like we do now.

Isn't progress great ?

Alex

Re:hypocrisy

[FingerDemon]

Yes, but when they lifted it from freeBSD it was "open". Once they put it in XP, it was "closed". You see? That's what makes it more secure.

Re:Speaking of INCORRECT assumptions

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not going to answer that question out of context...

because it exposes your naive train of thought.

they could kill free software

[twitter]

with more bogus patents and enforcement of the DMCA and continue outsourcing. That's what they would like, you know, the lowest possible price for a government mandated monoploy product that everyone needs daily. Companies like Microsoft are driving there already. Free software is what can stop them, so they are trying to attribute everything people hate to free software. Funny for a company that has offshored a large portion of it's work to tell you that offshoring is bad, isn't it?

Re:they could kill free software

[Anonymous Coward]

Moderators: Please note that "twitter" is a known fanatical psycophant whose obnoxious offtopic rants are legend here on Slashdot. It doesn't matter what the topic is, he'll find a way to scrape in some pointless Microsoft bashing. While nobody expects us to love Microsoft in any way, his particularly tepid style of calling anyone he replies to "troll" or "liar" because he happens to disagree with whatever they're saying is well documented and should not be rewarded. If anything, twitter is the type of person that should not be part of the open source/free software community. He is an anathema to all that is good about free software.

I'm posting this so that you (the moderator) have some context to consider twitter and not mod him up whenever he posts his filler preformatted rants about installing Knoppix or whatever that unfortunately get him karma every single time and allow him to continue posting his trademark toxic crap (read on) day in and day out. You may consider this a troll - I consider it community service. And I ain't kidding.

If you're a /. subscriber, I invite you to look through some of his posting history. I guarantee that you'll be hard pressed to find someone that is more "out there" than twitter. You'll also probably notice he's got quite an AC following. Don't just read his posts, make sure you go through the replies.

For example, in this recent post twitter not only calls the OP a troll but attempts to "tell it like it is" while making some vague argument about "GNU". Yes, if you're confused, you're not alone. The reply (modded +4) proceeds to simply destroy his bogus argument. You will notice he did not reply. This is what some people call "drive-by advocacy". A sort of I'll just leave you with my thoughts here and move on to the next flamebait kind of deal. In fact, he almost never replies because he knows that his fanatical arguments simply do not hold up to any sort of discussion. It's not that he's chosen the wrong cause - he's just going at it in a completely wrong way.

More? Just read though this post and the subsequent replies. I guess this stands on its own.

More? Bad spelling in astounding conspiracy theories, more offtopic FUD and uninformed "I'm right, look at me" rants, promptly proven wrong. Worse even, twitter wants to be RMS, apparently (that first one is a winner). I mean, really. You think?

FUD, FUD, FUD, FUD, offtopic FUD, and more FUD. This guy is like the Monty Python SPAM skit, but with FUD and more FUD instead of canned meat. Amazed

The real question...

[rdean400]

is will anyone in government ever recognize the cold, hard truth that not every "idea" is something ownable? Nowhere in this discussion have I seen anyone on the pro-IP side indicate that in addition to more effective IP laws, we need reform wrt what can legitimately be claimed as Intellectual Property.

What a freakin' idiot

[smoon]

First, "Intangible Assets" are generally accounting conveniences like "goodwill" and have nothing to do with intellectual property. Company A buys company B for $1 billion. Company B's assets are only $100million, the other $900 million is counted as 'goodwill'. Given our screwball stock market the past 20 years or so no wonder tangible vs. intangible is so out of whack.

Second, if a company spends $1 million of Microsoft licenses, it's revenue for Microsoft, but it's not exactly an asset for the company -- it is in the sense they will depreciate it over time perhaps, but it's not as if there is any residual value to a license (which probably can't be transferred anyway). The real value is what is locked up in the software -- the business processes arbitrated by e-mail systems, database systems, etc. $1 million in Oracle licenses pales in comparison to the $1 billion in information stored in that database.

If a company (U.S. or offshore) uses open source software then the effect is the comparable to pirating proprietary software at least to the proprietary software vendor -- they don't get any revenue, but it's actually worse since the proprietary vendor loses the user mindshare (a developer working on pirated oracle is still an oracle developer. A developer working on postgres or mysql is lost to oracle). However to the company that uses free software they derive the same business value and save the bulk of the licensing expense. This is painful for proprietary vendors, but healthy for the businesses who use software.

This is just a fundamental shift in how the software market works. The age of pre-packaged commercial software is (slowly) coming to a close. Are we supposed to mourn the passing? Proprietary vendors are getting a clue though -- IBM is the worlds biggest software company and they are also the worlds biggest proponent of Linux.

Re:Article reaction

[Overd0g]

Wrong. Cars weren't made affordable because workers decided to produce them and give them away.

Protectionism vs. free market economics

[nut]

He is railing against one of the core assumptions of capitalism. Producers will become more efficient and reduce production costs in order to produce goods at a lower price and gain a larger market share.
Free software is the logical endpoint of this. Once software is written it costs effectively zero dollars to reproduce, so it is "sold" at the price also.
It works because people use it to sell other goods and services on the back-end (hardware, consultancy...)
He is simply advocating protectionism to control the means of production - and that's the big red button that breaks the free market philosophy.

Re:Speaking of INCORRECT assumptions

[composer777]

Nooo, it's because only within the context of reality that one can correctly evaluate how things work. It makes no sense to talk about things such as deserve, property, etc. without evaluating what one means by freedom. Slave owners used the word freedom to justify slavery back in the 19th century US. "Why shouldn't they have the freedom to own slaves?" Well, one can answer that by looking at the reality of slavery. The same goes for evaluating free trade, copyright, etc.

I'm writing you off as a troll. We'll agree to disagree. Have a nice day.

quick correction

[composer777]

quick correction

It makes no sense to talk about things such as deserve, property, etc. without evaluating what one means by freedom.
should be

It makes no sense to talk about words such as deserve, property, freedom etc. without evaluating what one means by them within the context that they are used.

Don't worry about replying, I'm talking to people who might be reading this not you. Have a nice day.

awesome post

[Anonymous Coward]

Very insightful. Too bad I'm and AC and can't mod you to a +5. ;)

Genie out of bottle for a decade, doh

[im a fucking coward]

Unless intellectual property assets are better protected, we will soon see information technology firms resorting to draconian measures even worse than outsourcing.

Rather than scorn this guy mercilessly, I'd rather wonder how he plans to put the genie back in the bottle? What's left to protect when it's all becoming irrevocably free, and not coincidentally improving rapidly because of it?

The assertion that US business won't be improved by open source innovation is absurd. We won't be able to hold the rest of the world hostage via our IP any longer, big friggin' deal. Industry will adjust, advance, and proliferate the same way it always has. The rules have changed, but open markets adapt better than any other. Have a little faith, or at least read a little history.

Build environment - red herring

[AHumbleOpinion]

1)The law. Its in the license agreement that they can't.

The US military is free to require a different license than the typical retail one.

They don't have the build environment. Which is a significant technical hurdle.

Again, MS provides a *buildable* version of Windows to approved University research projects. Why would they allow college professors and students to build their own version of Windows and not the US military?

The Pentagon will receive what they as for. You don't like their terms you don't get their contract.

If they have your code, they don't need you.

[Zip In The Wire]

I manage an outsource team in Russia and can tell you from my experience that 90% of the job they do for us is simply slapping together some open source. Programmers who give away their code, especially high end professional stuff like apache, and samba are putting themselves and hundreds of thousands of other programmers out of work. If they have your code, they don't need you. I'm sorry but it is a simple truth. I'm not sure what these people are thinking. For example, the guy who wrote BitTorrent, if he'd made it closed source, would be set for LIFE, instead, he has to slave away at his old job still, subject to the whims of pin striped suited idiot managers and other predators who understand the simple rule, "If they have your code, they don't need you". It's pathetic. He even has his resume up there begging for scraps from corporate america. People are making millions from his work and he doesn't see A PENNY. NOT A FUCKING PENNY. Wake up. Your simple minded idiocy and naivety is being taken advantage of. You are being used. When I code, I put in NO comments. I don't give up my code unless forced. I make it as difficult as possible for people to understand and use my code. Why? Because my code really has value, people HAVE TO USE IT. I don't have to give it away free. And without me, the code is useless. Never work as a "maintenance programmer" unless you get paid triple what the original programmers make. Why? Because you are disposable. The original coder is much more difficult to get rid of IF he makes himself indepensable. It's time to dump all these silly idealistic rules like "make your code understandable by other programmers". Sure, it sounds nice, but it just makes predators and corporate scum able to get rid of you more easily. If you are working for an idiot technical middle manager who insists on doing himself out of a job by making the code easy to use, you need to disguise your intent obviously. How many of you followed all the rules of making your code understandable by others and are now out of a job? Hmmmm? Your code is valuable to the degree that is helps people solve real world problems. If you give it away you are like an architect who gives away his plans for free, a musician who plays concerts for free, a doctor who works for free, a lawyer who works for free. All these people have knowledge and expertise that they sell, but programmers are in the unique position that their knowledge can be bottled and used without their presence. Don't let that happen. If they have your code, they don't need you, and believe me, no one feels any obligation to "donate" to you when they get your code for free. If you write open source software that solves any significant problem, you are doing away with your own future. Don't complain if you end up working at McDonalds. You greatly contributed to your own downfall. If they have your code, they don't need you. How hard is that to understand? You may rant and rave about what I just said, but in the end I will be proven right. The programmers who make thmselves indepensable will have the high paying jobs, and you others will be janitors and burger fippers.

Democracy in America?

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one who wondered what a 19th century author was doing comenting on 21st century matters?

Economic Hypocrisy w/o Bounds

[Anonymous Coward]

This report is almost funny in that it tends to want to bite itself in the a$$. It claims that outsourcing is causing our economic woes. Now, IANAE (I am not an economist), but the point of outsourcing was to hire labor cheaply. This is done in the name of ``well, 20 cents a day in India is alot of money, so we can pay that for a full day's work of hacking, and it's good business practice. Plus, we're helping those people''. Now, it suddenly turns out those people getting 20 cents actually learned something (imagine that, them 3rd worlder smart-alecks!), and are using it against us, and the ``policy institute'' people are suddenly screaming bloody murder!

Doesn't this contrast strike anyone as not-a-little hypocritical? Considering that those same Toqueville ass-wipes would've been the ones recommending outsourcing precisely because it was cheap. I mean, corporate america is bad, but this is simply unbelievable. I think we should bomb those evil outsource intellectual property pirates. Preemptively. Show them brown what it is to mess with us good Americans.

Or better yet, we should get the Metavirus to infect them - this way, they can still work for us and not remember anything!

Just in case someone had their sense of humor surgically removed, the above should NOT be taken as actually insulting to Indians/3rd World countries, etc.. However, anyone from the U.S. Government, and especially The De Toqueville Institute should feel free to be insulted. I can only hope the relevant parties feel so insulted they either a) go work for a living, or b) jump off a high bridge. The more, the merrier.

You Are Begging The Question

[Prior Restraint]

Without IP laws you have no recourse when your competitor takes your product idea and markets it as their own.

Without IP laws, ideas are neither yours nor theirs. Maybe that's a Bad Thing, but you haven't established that. Instead your argument states you need IP laws because without them, people wouldn't obey IP laws. This is tantamount to arguing that we shouldn't legalize marijuana because then more people would smoke it.

Yes, military can edit, debug, build, etc.

[AHumbleOpinion]

Access to the source is nothing. Can the government fix the bugs in it, compile their own versions, and deploy it on government computers? Nope. So the source doesn't get them much, if anything

That is an amazingly ignorant statement. The MS Windows source provided to University researches can be used to enhance the kernel, add new features, debug, etc. The whole friggin point of the University source licenses is to allow researches to tweak and change the OS! Why would you think US military projects could not do the same?

The truth

[vdamiano]

It is not just about security. The problem is that Open Source does not generate ideas, it only replicates ideas. Even the biggest fruit of Open Source - Linux is nothing more than a replication of an existing system.
I see Open Source as a powerful but dangerous medicine. If it is applied carefully and under control it could boost productivity and the quality of the products, it could be a very good competitor and wipe out all scam attempts in the area. But increase the dose and you kill the patient.
And this is what we start to see now - an overdosed IT patient that shows all undesirable simptoms of this.

Re:The truth

[Democritus2]

The problem is that Open Source does not generate ideas

Ok, I am now convinced there is some serious FUD going on out there designed to propagate this lie. Please back up this assertion. Take a look at 10 linux based server projects and show how they are nothing but replications. Show me where proprietary companies do NOT just replicate the ideas of other proprietary companies.

As it is, I am going to read all such statements as clueless FUD from now on out

Market Economics

[lousyd]

Dear Closed-Source company,

Your lack of successful business plan is not my problem.

--

While it is true...

[Eric Damron]

that open source will drive down the cost of software thus deflating over priced products by a few monopolistic companies it is also true that millions of people will benefit. The savings that the vast majority will incur will help the overall economic situation.

Microsoft will suffer but so what? That's just one company that doesn't pay taxes anyway. If the Bush administration is really in favor of giving everyone a tax break and not just the rich they should help abolish the Microsoft tax.

Not fraud.

[ArsSineArtificio]

One is that claiming you wrote something you did not would be fraud

Fraud exists under the common law where a) a person has represented that something is true; b) that thing is not true; c) that person knew or should have known that it was not true; d) that person made the statement intending that the listener would rely upon it in some way; e) the listener did rely upon it; and f) the listener thereby suffered some sort of damage.

Claiming that I wrote that post satisfies conditions A, B, and C, and fails the rest. Therefore, it's not legally actionable fraud. It is, however, a violation of his intellectual property, the rights which the poster was claiming he should not have.

I believe everyone should go to church, for example...Who's to say that our morality is any better than anyone else's?

Most religions hold that their system of morality is absolute. If you don't believe that, then why go to church?

Re:Not fraud.

[jdavidb]

It is, however, a violation of his intellectual property, the rights which the poster was claiming he should not have.

And you seem to prove there's no purpose in him possessing these alleged "rights." After all, you concede that point F is not true, thus he did not suffer any damage, despite your violation of his alleged "right." I contend that since he did not suffer any damage, there is no such right.

For cases where possessors of a copyright allegedly suffer economic damage from infringement, I contend this is only devaluation of inventory brought about through competition, and I don't believe that should be an actionable "damage." After all, if I sell shoes and you open a shoestore next door to me, you've devalued my business through your competition, and I've suffered economic "damage," but you still have the right to open your shoe store.

Most religions hold that their system of morality is absolute. If you don't believe that, then why go to church?

Think you misunderstood, or missed the context. I do believe that system of morality is absolute. I also do not believe I have the authority to enforce it.

As I read it:

[Anonymous Coward]

"US Intellectual property laws are more restrictive than those of other countries. This makes it hard to compete with overseas rivals. To counter this, we need to make our IP laws more restrictive."

Am I missing something here?

-Greg

Open source sours milk and fades curtains?

[GrassyNoel]

I thought that was daylight saving.

Let the market outsource your job...

[Breakfast Cereal]

Capitalism is not just a theory. It has worked in reality almost every time it has been implemented, and for as long as it was maintained.

Wrong. The kind of capitalism advocated by Libertarians and Randroids has never existed anywhere, and they are the first ones to say so when anyone brings up problems that have come up in their exemplar "capitalist" societies. Claiming a given society was capitalist when it suits you and not really capitalist when it does not is intellectual dishonesty. Just admit you are working with a theory here, OK? Because you are.

America was mostly capitalist during the 1800s. and its wealth grew steadily, at 5% per year, for the entire century.

A large portion of America had institutionalized slavery for more than half of that time. Which I guess counts as capitalism in the sense that human capital was privately owned. But I don't think that's the kind of capitalism you are advocating.

America also had the benefit bringing tremendous amounts of resources directly into its economy, primarily by stealing. I believe the Libertarian term for this is "creating wealth." I'm sure my income would increase substantially if I could get away with stealing my neighbors stuff, and if I put all that stuff to good use then my income would probably continue to grow even after I ran out of neighbors.

Oh, and even then there was still a considerable amount of regulation, though most of it was at the state or local level. Not that it matters; with assloads of stolen property flowing into the system and an abundance of slave labor you could probably have an economic system based on astrology and it would still work pretty well.

Likewise, capitalism was implemented in post-WWII Germany and Japan, both of which showed a similar growth in both wealth and social awareness.

A huge influx of cash from the U.S. had nothing to do with this, of course. And just as they had elements of capitalism, they also had elements of socialism. National health care, anyone? So purely based on the fact that both countries have been successful--er, at least until the 90s in Japan's case--you could just as easily argue that socialism was responsible for their success. I'm not making that argument, I'm just pointing out that they could be models for moderate forms of socialism just as easily as they could be models for capitalism (if not more easily).

Hong Kong was another example, prior to its return to Chinese rule.

Or it was the benefit of having free military protection by the British.

Capitalism has succeeded in almost every country that tried it, and the extent of that success (increased wealth and civility) has been in proportion to the extent to which capitalism was implemented.

Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, and Russia. Tell me communism wasn't better for Russia. No, don't bother because I know you will. You'll point out that what Russia has now isn't really capitalism, never mind that none of the examples above were really capitalism in the way that you mean it (completely laissez-faire). And actually, I won't argue that communism was better for Russia, but rather a stable government that a lot of the people believed in was.

first paragraph quot-age

[zogger]

this is interesting, right off the bat:

"In a widely quoted study, Baruch Lev of the Brookings Institution reported that in 1982, 62% of the market value of companies in the S & P 500 Index could be attributed to tangible assets, and only 38% to intangibles. By 1992, Lev noted, the ratio had essentially reversed: 32% of the assets for S & P companies were tangible, while 68% were intangible. A follow-up study by Brookings in 1998 reported that the asset ratio had shifted even more, with 85% of assets intangible, and only 15% tangible."

And I am assuming it might even be a more worse situation now, tangibles versus intangibles. 15% tangibles, this is what our economic leaders and government brought us, aren't we proud?

But RIGHT THERE he misses the boat. The US economy is in trouble PRECISELY because we live in a tangible world, and we gave away our ability to produce tangible assets! We decided tangibles were worthless! We placed an artificiality of extreme "worth" to intangibles, that completely skewed centuries of understanding of what was "worth" more, or what constituted "wealth". WHAT is worth more, which is "produced wealth", which is a "more valuable" asset to own, a nice JPEG of a turkey dinner with all the fixin's, or a REAL turkey dinner?

He's correct in the article on outsourcing, but he missed what was more valuable, and that was the outsourcing and destruction of domestic manufacturing. And you could see the further results in the great dot bomb fiasco, when some web page about something was somehow going to be worth X-amount more than THE REAL THING, AND keep going up in value! That was the real bottom line disaster in the economy, substituting real stuff for pie in the sky and intangibles, swapping snake oil for your basket of produce, buying the sizzle, not the steak.

And the proof resides in the hard numbers of balance of trade stats, in the old way of measuring unemployment, not the new way that takes off the rolls those who have exhausted unemployment "insurance",the cost of living indices they had to adjust to keep people from freaking out and so to nothave to pay entitlement COLAS as required by law, the historically high levels of personal and corporate bankruptcy, the levels of non -savings, personal and corporate and governmental debt, pensions funds (and social security)that are almost universally in serious hotwater, and so on.

We let our government and high level casino traders trade us the magic beans for the cow. It was and continues to be quite a lamer move.

Open source and free software (and perhaps an overhaul of intangible patenting to be sure) will go to place intangibles back to their proper place, as some of the, and JUST "some of the",tools to do the real work. Just having a "tool industry" based on intangibles or servicing intangibles, won't produce a single thing, you need to *use* the tools to make the real stuff, to perform the real service that the real stuff needs. Intangibles have a place in economy, no one would argue against that, but putting them at the top? Basing your national economy on them? Nuts! Crazy! Someone ate their branes! No way, seriously misguided. Until there's some sort of 2$ replicator, in meatworld space, tangibles will always rule, both as tools and as products, and whomever has world mastery of them will rule, too, it's that simple, and we *gave it away* for basically free.

Now all the economic shills, err I mean most learned pundits are trying to explain how nice these magic beans are, how nutritious and filling, how we'll all get rich quick with more magic beans, and will insist you keep trading for more magic beans, and it's pretty funny how many adults still don't see the fairy tale for what it is.

Re:AdTI a right-wing front--FACT!!!!

[Ded Mike]

the Rule Of Law by means of a strong police force

You mean like those idiots in Abu Ghraib and the rest of the Occupation^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H...errr...Coalition idiots, or their so-called "leaders (Fuerhers?)" in Washington?

Corpratism in itself is not evil, but the nepotism and oligarchy it inevitably spawns is.

OSS Bomb

[katorga]

I would have to agree with the article's assertion about the destructive nature of OSS. A massive amount of corporate value is derived from IP. OSS basicaly drops the floor out from under that value. Eventually, this will apply to all classes of IP, music, drugs, art, literature, etc.

My current employment actually has a physical asset to sell. So from my perspective OSS only allows me to drive down my cost of delivering IT services. But, the impact on the supporting companies will be severe. I expect most of the major unix hardware/software vendors to be extinct within five years. Already, vendors such as Veritas, Legato, EMC, and others are finding hard sells at my company. Its difficult to pitch a $500 software license for Veritas storage tools for a zero dollar OS running on a $5000 server.

My "IP" is the knowlegde and skills to architect and deploy solutions ranging from top end proprietary *nix and windows solutions down to low cost OSS solutions. But, that skillset is a dime a dozen. My guess would be that real "technical" IT jobs will slowly fade as OSS gets more traction and emphasis will shift to the more mundane "business analyst" role of translating business needs and managing outsourced, extremely low-cost technical contractors.

Security? Its a wash. OSS is more secure if you are a non-US country because you can examine the code line by line to make sure there are no NSA backdoors (as there are in commmercial US operating systems).

Once comfortable with that a government can then make the original OSS code a proprietary, secure govt. release that is not returned to the OSS community thereby saving millions on developing their own OS.

Posted on their site with bad grammar and typos...

[Tangential]

Based on their attention to detail, I prescribe the same disposition for this article as I do for resumes I receive with typo's.....the round file. (Or in this case the bit bucket.)

Here's one example from the numerous ones available on the page....

While some may argue that Linux only impact the business software sector

Anyone who would post something this poorly written to their website and have a press release about it is obviously clueless.