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."

10 of 647 comments (clear)

  1. Or it could be said... by iota · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Or it could be said that Bill just took his own advice. Depends on what he was looking to accomplish.

  2. Perhaps bill should heed these words by shadowknot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think Bill could learn a lot from Stallman and by examining his own past and the way MS and Apple took the computer industry off of IBM in the early days.

    1. Re:Perhaps bill should heed these words by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I think Bill could learn a lot from Stallman and by examining his own past and the way MS and Apple took the computer industry off of IBM in the early days.

      You're ALMOST on to something. Except for the fact that Apple didn't take anything from IBM. And that, more than likely, Bill has his own past in mind when he looks at the GPL.

      First - the early days of the Personal Computer. Apple pioneered the consumer personal computer market. Sure, there were microcomputers before Apple. But Apple was the first to put together a product that had such consumer-friendly features such as a keyboard and custom molded plastic casing. IBM dismissed the microcomputer as a niche market for hobbiests. That is, until the dawn of the spreadsheet. Visicalc revolutionized number crunching and made the Apple II a must-have device on the business desktop. IBM suddenly took notice of an exploding market. And since they were caught flat-footed, they had to rush to bring their own "Personal Computer" to market. This lead to several very important events. First, the OS was licensed from a third party rather than outright owned as was usually the case in computers until then. Secondly, in the rush to market, IBM's engineers selected mostly generic off-the-shelf components to create their product. The only gatekeeper in IBM's product was their BIOS. When a bunch of market-savvy former Texas Instruments engineers formed a company (Compaq) and managed to legally reverse-engineer that key... everything fell in place. The proprietary hardware market was soon dominated by the commodity PC. IBM lost control of their platform and was almost inundated by the wave that washed over the relatively young IT market. That wave almost swamped Apple too - Apple managed to maintain control of their platform. And in winning that battle, they lost. Apple went from being on the forefront of the microcomputer revolution to being a niche player; even further behind than IBM.

      So what's the lesson for Bill? Microsoft learned how to play the game from IBM. Almost every detested aspect of Microsoft's business strategy is simply a refinement of IBM's earlier days. But those roles would soon change. The revolution of the commodity hardware platform was a boon for Microsoft. Every "PC clone" was an additional sale to MS. And every PC clone was further lessening of IBM's direct influence over the marketplace. IBM would have to work with a growing chaotic collection of hardware players instead of deciding the industry's direction by fiat. IBM attempted to recapture their influence with the PS/2 and the proprietary Microchannel bus architecture. But that was rejected. IBM became just one of many players in the market.

      Now we're seeing the possible next stage; the commodity OS. Windows is just as important to Microsoft's financial and strategic success as the PC was to IBM. Most likely, Microsoft has a strategy in case they can't hold back the tide. But they would be better off if they can simply disrupt it.

      Ironically, IBM has been spending the last couple years paddling to get in position to ride that wave if it crests.
  3. That's nice. by Caspian · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Now, will this story actually get read by Microsoft-hugging MIS types and pointy-haired bosses?

    The problem with Stallman is that, brilliant as he is, he only ever seems to garner attention from those who are already on his side. He preaches to the choir and only to the choir, which is kind of useless when 99% of the world wouldn't know a Linux (err, GNU/Linux ;) ) from a lentil bean.

    What would it take to get a story like this onto the desk of every Gates-worshipping, MSFT-stock-owning, spyware-infested-Windows-machine-running, Gartner-Group-report-reading, pointy-haired boss?

    And... holy crap, Stallman trimmed his beard???

    --
    With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
  4. Missed the best line by X · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I thought the best line was: "Thanks to Mr. Gates, we now know that an open Internet with protocols anyone can implement is communism; it was set up by that famous communist agent, the U.S. Department of Defense."

    Of course, he's twisting the meaning of things as much as Gates has, but of course that's the point.

    --
    sigs are a waste of space
  5. whack the stupid git by coolestdickofall · · Score: 5, Interesting

    FTFA: "If somebody sues you, you change the algorithm or you just hire a hit-man to whack the stupid git." - Linus Torvalds More people really need to take his advice...

  6. Re:Let the ubiquitous RMS bashing begin... by hdparm · · Score: 4, Interesting
    he makes a valid, lucid point

    That's what he always does. Love Stallman or hate him, man is a genius.

  7. Re:In fairness to M$FT... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm posting AC for obvious reasons, but when I worked at MSFT (for a little over a year, I quit voluntarily), I was given a presentation on software patents by the legal department.

    They were clear in saying we/they were making a push to patent more, and that the patents are intended entirely to defend against litigation, as against "submarine" patents like those used in Eolas v. Microsoft.

    Take it for what it's worth...who knows if that's just the official line and the higher-ups have a different plan.

  8. Re:Eating Crow? by chris_mahan · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You know, people are realizing that patents are a liability these days.

    If I am a big corp and I have a patent on X (let's say)

    And startup "Wewantfunding" goes looking for money to implement their plan to dominate the world, the VC will say: sorry, no money for you, your idea is already patented by BigMegaCorp.

    But it 40 hackers around the world are building FOSS, integrating some of the ideas of the patent into a radically new piece of software, then BigMegaCorp is screwed, because no matter how much money they spend (waste) on fighting this they can't recover it (since the 40 hackers are not a company--and they're poor(not even 1M between them all)). Plus BigMegaCorp will look like the bad guy and people won't buy their products (can you say Adobe (skylarov)), and they can't develop anything that uses their patent to compete, because the FOSS is most likely better and definitely cheaper, and they can't get rid of the patent because they mark it on the books as an asset.

    So now, BigMegaCorp calls HugeCustomer and says: Hey we have this new product that you'll love, it's patented, so send us $1M!
    HugeCustomer replies: "Hum, sorry, our admins just found this great little tool off the net that runs on linux and does everything your app does and then some."

    Finally, the patents are a drain, because they weren't cheap to get, and the idea was either to develop and sell a product on using the patented tech, license them to third-parties that need those functions, or sue the daylights out of any startup foolish enough to release a product based on the patents.

    FOSS makes all these arguments moot, and now companies are asking themselves why they should file for patents if they can't profit from them in the future.

    So yeah, FOSS is kicking ass.

    --

    "Piter, too, is dead."

  9. Cut from the same cloth as Bill... by borschski · · Score: 4, Interesting


    Former Microsoft CTO Nathan Myhrvold obviously saw the intellectual property light: patent it no matter what and you'll own the toll-booth. Stallman's perspective is probably too little, too late and Gates' head has probably been here for years.

    Myhrvold started a company five years ago (Intellectual Ventures) that is focused on a strategy to "create or buy new ideas, accumulate patents--exclusive rights to use the inventions--and rent those ideas to companies that need them to do the gritty work of producing real products.">

    How is he doing this? As it says in the article, "To generate patentable ideas, Intellectual Ventures hired a dozen top scientists as part-time consultants to participate in several all-day gabfests each month, which the company calls "invention sessions." Lawyers transcribe the discussions, which can range from biotech to nanotech to solid-state physics, and follow up on the most promising ideas with patent applications." He's obviously the most visible person involved in this activity. Pretty soon (if not already) *any* idea you have had better be fully patent-researched before you embark on a new adventure.

    IMHO, this activity by people like Myhrvold (and the bleak state of the US Patent Office) is what is going to seriously hamper open source innovation and people taking risks to start up companies.