Slashdot Mirror
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."
Or it could be said that Bill just took his own advice. Depends on what he was looking to accomplish.
Now, will this story actually get read by Microsoft-hugging MIS types and pointy-haired bosses?
;) ) from a lentil bean.
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
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?
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...
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.
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.