Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Stallman Feeds Gates His Own Words

Posted by timothy on from the open-up-for-the-airplane-zooooooom dept.

soloport writes "C|Net has published an article, written by RMS, in which Stallman points out that Gates is merely calling the kettle communist. Toward the end of the article, Stallman strengthens his point by feeding Bill his own words. Back in 1991, Bill said, in an internal memo: 'If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today...A future start-up with no patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose.' Now, if only Bill were as clear-minded on the subjects of Innovation and Interoperability."

6 of 647 comments (clear)

  1. CIFS patents used in attack by dunng808 · · Score: 5, Informative
    History does not agree. Consider Microsoft's patents on CIFS, which they used to attack Samba and the GPL. Below is taken from this 2002 CNET news article.

    Early history of CIFS

    The relationship between Samba and Microsoft wasn't always so contentious. In 1996, when Microsoft was just introducing CIFS, it had to contend with competition such as the Sun-Novell alliance behind Sun's WebNFS software. Microsoft at that time pledged that it was "making sure that CIFS technology is open, published and widely available for all computer users," and it noted that Samba used CIFS.

    Microsoft submitted the first version of CIFS to the Internet Engineering Task Force at the time, a first step in the standardization process. That process went nowhere, but a 1997 version of that submission is still available on the Internet. The submission made no mention of two related patents, which Microsoft received in 1993 and 1995. In addition, Microsoft shared information in a series of CIFS conferences that began in 1996.

    The patents, however, rose to prominence this year.

    In the technical document describing CIFS in Windows NT 4.0, Microsoft prohibits companies from using the information in software covered by the GPL, which includes Samba. Microsoft requires readers of the document who plan to implement its description to sign a license agreement that raises the specter of patent infringement.

    Specifically, the agreement grants a company a royalty-free license to two Microsoft patents but prohibits the developer from using the CIFS information in software that would subject that company to "intellectual property rights-impairing licenses," including the GPL.

    --

    Gary Dunn
    Open Slate Project

  2. the part stallman left out... by the-build-chicken · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...of the bill gates quote

    The solution is patenting as much as we can.

    In the article, RS is implying that Bill Gates once agreed with him on patents, and the quote he gives would make it seem so....however, if you include the bit that he "conveniently" left out, it reads quite the opposite, gates stance on patents has always been the same, and against RSs stance. Nice to know that Microsoft isn't the only one capable of FUD...well done RS.

    1. Re:the part stallman left out... by Omnifarious · · Score: 4, Informative

      I did not get the impression from the quote that Bill Gates had shifted his views from the time of the quote until now. It merely indicates that all the high-minded ideals Gates talks about when he talked about 'intellectual property' count for squat, and that what he's really interested in is a world where the large players can shut the small ones out before they get a chance.

      Here is a more complete version of the quote:

      If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today. I feel certain that some large company will patent some obvious thing related to interface, object orientation, algorithm, application extension or other crucial technique. If we assume this company has no need of any of our patents then the have a 17-year right to take as much of our profits as they want. The solution to this is patent exchanges with large companies and patenting as much as we can.

      Bill Gates in a 1991 memo called Challenges and Strategy

      So, yes, you are correct. But the first part of his quote clearly illustrates that he knows exactly what kind of world strong and pervasive patent protection will create. That's the world he wants, a world where the IT industry is at a standstill because everything is owned by Microsoft and they have no interest in going anywhere anymore.

      --
      Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
  3. Re:In fairness to M$FT... by mboverload · · Score: 4, Informative

    No one would ever take Microsoft on. All they would have to do is threaten and that would be that. Just like the RIAA.

  4. Re:In fairness to M$FT... by laughingcoyote · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the second weblink:

    See this link, or:

    Avery Lee 00-12-05: ASF support removed at request of Microsoft

    Avery Lee, author of http://www.geocities.com/virtualdub/, a free software tool for converting multimedia file formats, reports sad news:

    Today I received a polite phone call from a fellow at Microsoft who works in the Windows Media group. He informed me that Microsoft has intellectual property rights on the ASF format and told me that, although the implementation was still illegal since it infringed on Microsoft patents. I have asked for the specific patent numbers, since I find patenting a file format a bit strange. At his request, and much to my own sadness, I have removed support for ASF in VirtualDub 1.3d, since I cannot risk a legal confrontation.)

    --From the above-cited link

    They didn't need to file a lawsuit, they eliminated competition just by THREATENING one. That's the whole problem here. This is not a "defensive" use of their patent, the creator of VirtualDub had not made a threat to MS that they were responding defensively to.

    --
    To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
  5. Re:Where's the "-1: Idiocy" mod option? by novakyu · · Score: 4, Informative
    Big shocker that this garbage is coming out of Berkeley. First of all, you equate the value of software to the cost of duplicating it. Pretty convenient that you can ignore the cost of creating it in the first place. And as for software being a public or private good, that's why we have licenses. If you create the software, you get to decide which license to use. What an amazing system!

    So, what "fundamental economics principles" are you citing? Your developmental cost ("opportunity cost", cost of living, etc.) is part of "sunk cost." (And I believe one of the fundamental econmic principle was this: "Sunk costs are sunk", and another one "Sunk costs are really sunk".) I was referring to "marginal cost", which has to do producing an additional unit---i.e. copies---and it may be considered a "fundamental principle" (I'm not sure if it is, IANAE), but it is clear that "price of a good should exceed its marginal cost." Softwares (and intellectual property in general) are unique in that the marginal cost is phenomenally low---whether that justifies a phenomenally low price is arguable, but it is arguably the strongest blow against $200 softwares (which is one of the consequences of proprietary softwares).

    Now, with this understanding, does my point about RMS (and probably OSS) not breaking any "fundamental economic principles" get across to you? Don't let my domain (*.berkeley.edu) cloud your eyes---otherwise, my predecessors would have fought for free speech in vain.

    PS. BTW, you are forgetting that the corporations' support of software patents (which RMS is opposing) are nullifying the very force of licenses that you are so fond of. Would you like an "artistic patent" so that no artist/writer may "steal" an idea from another?