Stallman Feeds Gates His Own Words

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."

Comments

Well You know what they say about absolute power..

[phuturephunk]

Idealism dies when you actually get put in the big chair.

Patents

[dadjaka]

If Apple (or Xerox) had patented the GUI, we would still be stuck with DOS!

So, if M$ patents everything it can get its hands on, what innovations would it stop?

Let the ubiquitous RMS bashing begin...

[Chordonblue]

...but first...

RTFA! I think he makes a valid, lucid point here and does a great job explained why software patents tend to be evil.

Re:Let the ubiquitous RMS bashing begin...

[Chordonblue]

He does, and he doesn't - depends on how 'smart' you are. Free software is very much like a religion to RMS. He tends to lose people in the arguments he makes because they fail to understand what the big deal is - it's just SOFTWARE after all! To RMS, computing is LIFE! Case in point:

In Sam William's 'Free as in Freedom', he wrote this about RMS,

"One day, while taking a break from writing code, Stallman experienced a traumatic moment passing through the lab's equipment room. There, Stallman encountered the hulking, unused frame of the PDP-10 machine. Startled by the dormant lights, lights that once actively blinked out a silent code indicating the status of the internal program, Stallman says the emotional impact was not unlike coming across a beloved family member's well-preserved corpse.

"I started crying right there in the equipment room," he says. "Seeing the machine there, dead, with nobody left to fix it, it all drove home how completely my community had been destroyed." "

In the age of the 5 second sound bite, average people just don't have the time to read and fully understand the implications of things as esoteric as software patents or SCO lawsuits. To the average PHB, Gates' sweet sounding words sound just as compelling as RMS' intellectual arguments. Therefore, it's easier to dismiss RMS as a quack or an introverted nutjob than to take him seriously and that's a shame.

I would MUCH rather see him write more in this sort of format - short and to the point, than a long winded dissertation that only the already-convinced will read.

Eating Crow?

[Shadow Wrought]

One of the inherent problems with this kind of argument is that it assumes that opinions ought to be static. Frankly I think that beliefs and opinions should grow and change as one travels through life. What Bill Gates believed 14 years ago is certainly going to be different than what he believes now. That doesn't make what he said then any more insightful than what he says now. They are simply different. Now if RMS were comparing quotes within a couple weeks of each other (and no new information happened along in the intervening time) than I think it would be legitimate.

For those of us with a few years between school and the present, I'd ask you if you really wanted to be judged by what you think now, or what you thought then? Does it really matter that you're opinion of a decade ago doesn't gel with your opinion of today?

Communists

[fsh]

Technically, Mr. Gates is right. The whole Open Source idea is a communist idea, not in terms of Soviet Russia (where software owns you) but in terms of a community of workers all banding together to produce their own labor, instead of selling themselves to the capitalists.

Seriously, folks, the current situation of Linux v. Microsoft is exactly what Marx and Engels were talking about.

What the Open Source community has is what all communist countries thus far have lacked, which is the admission of only like-minded people. For a commune to work, the citizens must all have similar ideas with respect to how to interact with the outside world. In a nation, where all citizens just become communists, this simply isn't possible.

Re:Communists

[gidds]

Free software being compared to Communism isn't so bad when everybody knows what Communism actually means. Unfortunately most people don't.

Yes they do. They know it means 'dangerous subversive pinko commie leftist liberal atheist democracy-hating anti-American scum'.

Or at least, that's what it seems to mean to most Americans. Here in Europe, we don't necessarily see it quite that way...

Re:Communists

[rseuhs]

The difference is that with information, communism works - and mostly works better than capitalism, while with real, normal goods, capitalism works - and mostly better than communism.

The soviets tried to force a communistic system on real material goods - that worked only as long as they had an opressive state that kept everyone in line. Humans have a natural desire to own material things. They don't want to "share" their car with strangers.

The Americans (especially Microsoft and the **AAs) now try to force a capitalistic system on information (or "intellectual property") - and that works only as long as you have opressive IP-laws. (DMCA, etc.) Humans have a natural desire to share information. They don't mind "sharing" their elelectronic (= non-material) music-collection with strangers. Actually, a normal, non-sociopath individual will want to share it. (How often did you hear: "Hey, check that out!")

Both systems fail because the energy needed to keep them running, far exceeds any benefits. The systems tried to work against human nature with laws that were (seen as) opressive and unjust.

Just look at Microsoft: The marketing costs, costs to ship little boxes with little plastic discs around the world, the cost to store those boxes and the markup outweight the development costs by far. Similar with music. Only movies still have usually more money in production than in the retail channel.

In fairness to M$FT...

[mosel-saar-ruwer]

Can you site an instance where M$FT ever sued someone on patent grounds? Remember, we're talking patents, not copyrights or software piracy.

As far as I know, companies like M$FT take out patents to defend themselves, not to launch offensives against their competition.

Re:In fairness to M$FT...

[cduffy]

Can you site an instance where M$FT ever sued someone on patent grounds?

I can't cite a case where Microsoft sued on grounds of patent infringement -- but I can remember cases where they've threatened to, overtly or otherwise, without about as much effect. See their enforcement of vfat-related patents for an example.

Re:In fairness to M$FT...

[Col. Klink (retired)]

> entirely to defend against litigation, as against "submarine" patents like those used in Eolas v. Microsoft.

The problem is that Eolas wasn't a competitor of MicroSoft, they are simply a patent portfolio company. If Sun came after MS and sued for patent infringement, then MS would be able to retaliate with its own patents. But what can you do to a portfolio company? They don't actually make anything, so they aren't violating any patents.

Further, if MS justs wants "defense", then why are they pushing so hard for software patents in Europe. Why aren't *they* leading the fight to abolish software patents entirely? If their only concern was defense, wouldn't they be in a better situation if everyone were disarmed? Wouldn't they save a lot of money if they didn't have to patent everything?

Oh, and if the VFAT patent licensure wasn't a submarine patent, I don't know what is.

Nope

[JoeBuck]

Every important element of the modern GUI (windows, icons, menus, pointing device) was demonstrated by Doug Engelbart in 1968. His system even had something that looked a lot like a blog. The patents all would have expired long ago.

Re:Nope

[ScrewMaster]

If nothing else, Engelbart's work makes pretty good prior art. Or would, if the patent office here in the U.S. cared about such things anymore.

Everybody likes to point out that Apple's MacOS was a rip of Xerox's Smalltalk, but that was really a rip of Engelbart (I think someone should create a Linux distro and call it "Engelbart".) But so what ... that was the way things worked back then, and everyone (including Microsoft) is better off because of it.

You know what I think this is all about? I think it's all about fear of change. Realistically, considering the pace of progress in today's world, how long does any given piece of technology remain viable, marketwise? Not long, and the curve is accelerating. Which means that, really, the only security for a technology company is continous creation and implementation of new ideas (or new derivations of old ones.) And that means heavy investment in R&D, just to remain competitive. I think most of us Slashdotters understand that, and welcome it, as it keeps us technojocks employed if nothing else. I guarantee you that the Japanese understand that, better than anyone.

Look at it this way: America's businesses (including it's high-technology outfits) are being run more and more by attorneys and accountants. People that, by their nature, are highly conservative, highly risk-averse. Sure, you can point to people like Steve Jobs and others that continually improve their products, but they are the exception. The worldwide whirlwind of technological debauchery that we are experiencing right now makes them very, very nervous. Why? Because it is completely unpredictable. But ... if one could just STOP all these annoying little people and their dinky little companies from creating anything new and disruptive, thereby controlling the pace of progress ... why, everything would be like it used to be.

From a bean-counter's perspective, it's hard to bank on R&D. It's expense to begin with, and even worse a given line of research may not pay off (even though, on average, investment R&D pays back handsome dividends) and they'd just rather keep making the same old widgets and not have to worry about improving them all the time. Wasn't a lot they could do about that, though, until recently. Now, these statists have a really big gun in their arsenal: it's called "intellectual property". It gives them the power to effectively halt all technological advancement in this country except that which they deem acceptable. By "them" I mean monopolistic concerns like Microsoft, or indeed any tech company that prefers to compete on legal grounds.

I don't like this state of affairs one bit.

Re:Nope

[mvdwege]

Look at it this way: America's businesses (including it's high-technology outfits) are being run more and more by attorneys and accountants. People that, by their nature, are highly conservative, highly risk-averse.

Bravo! Finally someone who sees what is going on: despite what the conventional wisdom says, modern business is not about maximising profit, it is about minimising risk. Once you minimise the risk, have a steady income stream, then you maximise profits by cutting costs.

Actual innovation is anathema to this model, because it means increasing your risk. Of course, the payoff for succesful innovation is higher, so in the long run your profit will be higher, even if you fail a few times along the way, but in an economy that's obsessed with quarterly results, you get the fraidy-cat beancounters squashing all attempts at a little risk.

This disconnect between what the conventional wisdom says and how the market actually behaves is not new. It has been described in the 1950s by John Kenneth Galbraith, in summary in The Affluent Society and in detail in The New Industrial State. His essential point is that the modern corporation is a bureaucracy like any other, where CYA is the best practice, and the appearance of things like innovation, entrepreneurship and profit maximisation is more important than the actual activities themselves.

Should you not have read those books, by all means do. I suspect you already have, but other readers should really try to pick up a copy (or borrow it from your local library, you will find Mr. Galbraith in the Economics section).

Mart

Re:Thats rich

[aussersterne]

I knew how to rule the world in 1991 but unfortunately it changed. For the better.

Yeah, Linux happened and Stallman's free software vision took off.

Re:Admittedly, RMS IS a Commie, but...

[Concerned Onlooker]

Why would you "admit" that RMS is a commie when in fact RMS himself says he is not (in TFA)? Or is anyone who questions any facet of capitalism automatically a communist?

Re:Filter Time?

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

Many of the news /. posts, are based on the work of RMS.

Many don't agree with him, i respect that. But even when you don't agree with many things he says, most of you are using an operating system that exists because of Richard's Work. You are also using thousands of lines of code that he wrote by himself. He has proved in the past to have been right, and the fact that he continued with his fight, even against what most others told him, has benefited the whole community.

So, don't agree with him if you don't want to, but at least hear what he has to say, you will learn a lot, and it's the least we can do to thank him for everything he has given us.

ALMAFUERTE

Re:Well You know what they say about absolute powe

[sTalking_Goat]

Pretty much. I think. Harold Weir from Freaks and Geeks said it best

"Everyone's a Democrat until they get a little money." -

Re:That's nice.

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

"he only ever seems to garner attention from those who are already on his side"

That's true, it's our work to reach other people. Richard is out there to remind us what Free Software is all about, our task, is to understand it, and help develop and spread it. And do it the way it should be done, which is, by showing the real ethical reasons to use this system, and not just technical advantages.

Re:Right...

[MightyMartian]

I guess the big fear right now is that at some point Microsoft, when it feels sufficiently threatened, may start using its patents to beat down open source products. Whether that materializes or not, I dunno, but I simply don't have much faith in Microsoft's good intentions. I suppose some things, like Samba, may be at least partially protected because of IBM's claims on Lanserver, but who knows. Maybe they will try to beat Linux down by claiming that people who want to mount FAT or NTFS partitions have to pay a licensing fee.

What about the centralization aspect?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is also part of communism where the group tries to centralize all of the means of production. In other words, all productive activity is to be controlled and organized from one place, and production for individual benefit becomes illegal.

Now, does that sound more like what MS is trying to do, or what Open Source people are trying to do?

It sounds to me like that one place is Redmond, and that for free/open source software, there is no such place or controlling entity.

With free/open source, anyone who doesn't like a development group's decisions can fork the code and develop their own code base. So, your comparison is not a fair one.

Re:Perhaps bill should heed these words

[Anonymous Coward]

how to live off of academic endowments

You say that like it's a bad thing. In reality, there's a huge amount of research done by universities that would never be done by private industry, simply because there's no short-term profit in it. I'm not defending Stallman in particular, but to criticize "living off academic endowments" is to spit on many of our best scientists. Nearly every famous chemist was a university professor. Many never worked in private industry. Linus Pauling comes immediately to mind.

And this time, with formatting

[Nine Tenths of The W]

Doh

In lefty terms:
Capitalism=market based, means of production are owned by a few.
Mutualism=market based, means of production are owned by all.
Communism=non market based, means of production are owned by all.
Stalinism=non market based, means of production are owned by a few.

Obviously that's a very loose set of definitions, based around the Trot line, and changes depending on which lefty cult the person you're talking with belongs to.

Marx and Engels

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

"Seriously, folks, the current situation of Linux v. Microsoft is exactly what Marx and Engels were talking about."

Of course it is. Marx and Engels talked about man tools, and how, a man , in orther to be truly free, should have access to the tools he needs. If the tools he needs to work, are owned by the rich, they become their masters, and can have him dominated.

It's the same argument that Stallmans points out, about software, and, IMHO, it's a fundamental issue.

There is a serious misguided idea that most USA citizens have, which is that communism = URSS, and that's an utter bullshit. The URSS was a corrupt dictatorship fighting for world domination (And we had 2 corrupt dictatorships fighting for world domination in that years, now there is only one left). Communism is an economic and social system, that (just like Capitalism) can work ok if implemented by honest people, or be a terrible weapon if implemented by a corrupt government. This is true for both systems. The issue is in the society, not on the system.

ALMAFUERTE

Patents and copyrights == communism

[iamacat]

In true capitalism I can use any resources at my disposal to make money. Only murder and theft in the sense of breaking in and lugging away things is not allowed. If Microsoft sells Windows CDs for $100 and I can figure out how to copy my CD that I bought from them and sell copies for $1, nobody should interfere with me.

So now companies come to government and say other people should give them money for something created without their further labor. Even worth, they want to tax an inventor who came up with their idea independenly. Any why? Because they "worked hard and they are good for the society"? Well cry me a river!

That's social protection, and companies don't really need it. If not for patents and copyrights, businesses will form consortium to joinly invent something they can all then manufacture. And in particular software companies will sell personalized support for their software. Like a poolman, there will be a computerman that comes to my house and teaches me how to use software for reasonable rate. There will be some shake up and loss of efficiency, and maybe Microsoft will have 5 billion in the bank instead of 40 billion. But it will not be all bad, and much of the money will be in the pockets of Microsoft customers who are now overcharged for whatever wealth Microsoft actually created.

We need social protection. We work for the good of the society and already don't get royalties, don't get paid again and again for the work we only did once. It's only fair we get some type of royalties first - like job security and the company that outsourced jobs paying for retraining costs for layed off workers. Then, once we are well protected, we'll think about shelling out a few bucks for their CDs that we can easily make ourselves.

By the way, I am not arguing for unlimited social protection or that capitalism doesn't have benefits. But patents and copyrights are definitely NOT capitalism.

Wow, you still have witch hunts there too?

[QuantumG]

It's amazing that labelling someone a communist is still considered an effective strategy. Patents are scary not just because developers can be sued for writing software, but because distributors can be sued and so can end users. If software patent enforcement becomes common place the few developers who try to continue developing software will be forced underground. That is, they'll put their software in the public domain and disavow all responsibility for it. But that won't be enough because distributors will have to be underground too, else they can be sued, and end users will have to keep their illicit software quiet also. The end result will be so horrifying that perhaps even normal people will notice it. By then the software industry will be long dead though.

Re:Well You know what they say about absolute powe

[StikyPad]

Wait, lemme get this straight.. When people are the underdog, they support measures to even the playing field, and when they're dominating, they support measures to keep themselves on top?

Holy sh*t, people are only out for themselves? When did that start?

Hypocracy is irrelevant

[Digital Pizza]

Bill Gate does what's best for Bill Gates, or more accurately, whatever it takes for him to "win". Winning at all cost means forgetting your principals, or never having them in the first place.

When Microsoft was tiny, patents were bad for them; now they find them useful, simple as that.

Re:Perhaps bill should heed these words

[novakyu]

I am criticizing an academic who criticizes the fundamental economic principals that puts food in the mouths of software developers.

What are these "fundamental economic principals" (yes, you spelled it wrong, but I'm not asking the question as a spelling nazi) that you speak of?

There is nothing "fundamental" about selling softwares---bunches of codes that can be copied at a fraction of a cent. There might be question whether a completed software becomes public good or private property, but that's far from being settled, and in fact, in this point, I think computer science (or software industry, but computer science draws a better parallel) is an aberration in fields of science. When one discovers something in science (say, the technique of optical pumping, or nuclear magnetic resonance) it gets published in peer review journal and everyone gets to test (read: "use") it in their own laboratory. Imagine what would happen to physics if every physicist patented every experimental technique, theoretical derivation they discovered. Physics would always be 15 years (or however long those damn things last), and, yes, we would have had to wait until 1960 until the end of WWII!

What is going on with softwares is an aberration---an error that should be fixed, despite corporations and corrupt politicians, and RMS, in spearheading this effort, is in no way violating any unwritten codes of academics. I know that academics are often criticized of living in the ivory tower, but is it too much to ask of a critic to say that they are criticizing when they are?

PS. BTW, know the distinction between "capitalist" and "monopoly": ask any economist---capitalism, good, monopoly, bad (by default---there are, of course, special cases where monopoly is desirable).

it doesn't matter whether they sue

[idlake]

Very few patent disputes with big companies ever become lawsuits, and it takes a while for lawsuits over patents to be filed (in fact, it can be in the interest of companies to wait a while). Microsoft has only started getting on the patent bandwagon fairly recently and they have already been throwing their weight around with patent-related threats.

Furthermore, the notion of "defensive patents" is nonsense. In order to defend an idea against a patent claim, all you need to do is publish it (you still need the lawyers to actually win in court, but you need those also if you have a patent).

The term "defensive patent" is really a euphemism for becoming a member of a patent cartel: the "giants" that Gates talks about, companies like IBM, Apple, Xerox, etc., have amassed huge patent portfolios that they are cross licensing. As a result, they can operate almost completely free of worries over patent infringement, while small companies that don't have cross licensing agreements are at constant risk of being put out of business by any member of that club. Well, Gates's solution to the problem has been to become a member of the cartel.

Re:Perhaps bill should heed these words

[novakyu]

No, but it is one, and I'll be damned to hear some sanctimonious self-appointed philosopher king tell me I should stop because he doesn't approve of it. I supply the service, they're okay with the conditions I place on it.

Most people seem to just pass over this passage in Republic,

"Come, then, just as if we were telling stories or fables and had ample leisure, let us educate these men in our discourse."

right before the passage about poetry and banishment of Homer and Co---Socrates (*coughplatocough*) never establishes his philsopher-king kingdom.

I like open source. I write open source. But I won't have it shoved down my throat.

What academics do are, well, academic---they don't matter. Only when people take it seriously (as you have, apparently) and act on it, then it takes a life of its own.

It is also my understanding that when an academic outsteps his boundary (i.e. force his view (which may still be controversial) upon others, such as in public policy), he stops becoming academic---and becomes (or at least should be) a pariah in his own community.

I don't need advice on how to make a living from some has-been who already hit his motherlode with a macarthur grant and now tells everyone they can just work at wal-mart if they're not willing to serve the community over themselves.

Thus the often-cited (thrice by me, now) accusation that academics dwell in their ivory tower---a too-oft well-deserved accusation, I should say.

Re:Admittedly, RMS IS a Commie, but...

[Total_Wimp]

Even better, why do we give a damn if he is or he isn't? Is Free Software or Open Source suddenly a bad idea if one of its proponents supports a different political system?

"Hark! I should buy all of my buggy, virus riddled software from the richest man on the planet because a communist created the GPL!"

It's silly.

TW

Re:What is there to learn?

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Bill is worth several Billion. RMS is worth what?

Integrity, self-respect, moral clarity, admiration of peers ... I'd say RMS is infinitely wealthier then Bill will ever dream of being. It all depends what your "currency" is...

I dont think bill needs to learn much from RMS.

By this yardstick, Bill has nothing to learn from Mahatma Ghandi either... not that he would comprehend anything, ever. I sense you are belonging to the same school of thought Bill does: The Society of Insanely Greedy Psychopaths.

Re:Perhaps bill should heed these words

[Antonymous Flower]

From Richard Stallman's original post to net.unix-wizards (1983) in which he announces GNU/GNU's not Unix:

Why I Must Write GNU

I consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a program I
must share it with other people who like it. I cannot in good
conscience sign a nondisclosure agreement or a software license
agreement.

So that I can continue to use computers without violating my principles,
I have decided to put together a sufficient body of free software so that
I will be able to get along without any software that is not free.

This, along with the rest of the post, seems like a direct response to Bill Gates' Open Letter to Hobbyists (1976) in which Gates states:

"Almost a year ago, Paul Allen and myself, expecting the hobby market to expand, hired Monte Davidoff and developed Altair BASIC. [...] Now we have 4K, 8K, EXTENDED, ROM and DISK BASIC. The value of the computer time we have used exceeds $40,000.

and:

"The feedback we have gotten from the hundreds of people who say they are using BASIC has all been positive. Two surprising things are apparent, however, 1) Most of these "users" never bought BASIC (less than 10% of all Altair owners have bought BASIC), and 2) The amount of royalties we have received from sales to hobbyists makes the time spent on Altair BASIC worth less than $2 an hour.

Why is this? As the majority of hobbyists must be aware, most of you steal your software. Hardware must be paid for, but software is something to share. Who cares if the people who worked on it get paid?

Is this fair?"

and:

"I would appreciate letters from any one who wants to pay up, or has a suggestion or comment. Just write to me at 1180 Alvarado SE, #114, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87108. Nothing would please me more than being able to hire ten programmers and deluge the hobby market with good software."

Mr. Gates has devoted his life to creating an industry, and it seems Mr. Stallman has devoted his to preserving the rights of those who use technology in response to Mr. Gates' inquiry. Mr. Gates' influence has been felt across the globe, and the influence of ideas by Stallman are still expanding. GNU GPL, written by Stallman, has given birth to the following behind Linux, has influenced the Creative Commons iniative, and influenced projects like Wikipedia and numerous other projects that 'share.' Wikipedia is incredibly successful, and sites are rapidly adopting the CC license for podcasting, music distrubition, etc. I have seen posts here on Slashdot regarding Stallman's statements as 'FUD' (fear, uncertainy, doubt.) I'm not sure this is fair; considering Stallman's record. The attacks on Mr. Gates by posters aren't completely unfair, but the man has changed the world and should be respected for that.

Patents are tricky, because they do promote 'openness,' yet at the same time are ambiguous, restrictive and provide a government granted monopoly. The problems with patents have extended past these software patents, though. Biochemical compound discoveries are being patented. An idea of say, a difference engine or steam-powered engine, are different than the discovery of a naturally occuring compound.

Re:Perhaps bill should heed these words

[Karma Farmer]

I will always be paid to write software to fill someone's needs. And paid pretty damned well, I might add.

If you think my job will ever go away from "free software", you're obviously not a programmer.

Re:Where's the "-1: Idiocy" mod option?

[nels_tomlinson]

And as for software being a public or private good, ...

Hate to screw up a good rant, but software is, by definition, a public good.

A public good is non-excludable, and non-rivalrous in consumption. That is, like a streetlight, you can't keep people from benefitting by it (non-excludable), and you don't lose any of your benefits when others benefit by it (non-rivalrous). Schooling is not a public good, since it is easily excludable: just close the door of the school room.

... that's why we have licenses.

No.

Some public goods can be made artificially excludable by law. Lighthouses are a good example of this (lighthouses in England were once private, for-profit, very lucrative businesses). Software is another example of a public good which can easily be made artificially excludable. That's ``...why we have licenses'': to artificially turn a public good (information) into a private good.

We originally began doing that because our constitution allows (but doesn't require) our congress to grant these monopolies:

``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;'' (article 1, section 8, discussed here.)

Whether it is still a good idea for Congress to grant those monopolies to all software creators is an empirical question, and the answer may be no. If we can identify any cases in which patents or copyrights are hindering progress in the sciences and useful arts, Congress would have no authority to grant those exclusive rights in those cases.

Software Patents

[demon_2k]

Software Patents? Who needs them?
Patents would/will (and maybe in some cases already do) only slow developement, software, hardware, doesn't matter.

Company A - Has an idea, patents it
then
Company B - Get's cought and forced to pay up.
or
Company B - Is forced to re-invent another way to do the some thing (re-inventing the wheel)

This is exacly what's holding us, the human species back. We could share ideas and/or methods and concentrate on support and improvement.

Company A - Invents, and releases to public
then
Company B - Takes the idea and improves on it,
releases to public
then
Company C - Takes the work of Company C and further improves on it. And releases it.

If the big companies didn't play this childish game (which they don't need to, they already have dominance/influence because they are big companies) we as species would be way ahead of where we are today.

Even if you didn't want someone to know how you did something. You could refuse to show your code. In this case companies would compete on better implementation of thesome idea.

Everone wants somethingm for nothing...but not at expense of keeping the little business out. IMHO...

Re:What is there to learn?

[IgnoramusMaximus]

really? Bill Gates donates billions of dollars a year to many charatable causes. What does RMS donate?

Bill "donates" a negligeable fraction of his ill-gotten fortune to "charitable" causes which somehow inevietably result in government procurment deals for his products and tax breaks. Bill's charity is the Dickensonian kind, of a fat pig in a luxury carriage tossing a few silver coins to wretched poor in rags on the street on Christmas. "Self-serving" is a term we use for that.

As to RMS, a lifetime of effort, bearing fruit such as the GPL and Linux, to mention just the obvious ones. More importantly, he "donated" to humanity an entire movement which seeks to protect us from ... people like Bill who will not rest until they somehow enslaved us all.

if RMS really had moral clarity, he (and the FSF foundation) wouldn't go after people for violating the GPL.

I can't tell if you are serious here. GPL is a clever mechanism to protect our rights from those who would take them, using the villain's own legalese. If he would not use it as a weapon, the whole thing would be pointless.

if RMS had integrity and self-respect, he wouldn't have tried to change linux to GNU/linux.

I happen to agree that GNU deserves very considerable credit for Linux, far more so then any other component provided by others. The GNU/Linux campaign is perheaps unwise from the PR point of view, but it has all the moral justification it needs.

free software is fine, but the majority of people in this world don't enjoy getting rehetoric forced down their throats.

Do you know the beauty of free software? You don't have to use it, you don't have to contribute under GPL, you can do what you want with your own projects. What you just said is "Meeee! I wanna to make others make software for Meeee under Myyyy terms!! Everyone, gimmeeee!". Somehow I suspect a conversation on this subject with you is waste of time.

I can bet you have used at least one computer today that has a Microsoft operating system installed.

You would have lost your money, but that is beside the point.

I would say that Bill Gates is clearly more intelligent than RMS. Otherwise, we would all be using GNU software.

I see. So the measure of intelligence is an ability to foist one's "product" on the unsuspecting public. By that measure, the inventor of "pet rock" was a true genius, far above Bill. And I am getting an ominous feeling that I am feeding a garbage-covered troll.