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.
"Stop repeating everything I'm saying!"
"Stallman's a dork."
"Stallman's a... HEY!"
UTF-8: There and Back Again
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.
Idealism dies when you actually get put in the big chair.
Gates is merely doing what's best for the stockholders. Oh wait. That's HIM.
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?
...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.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
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?
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?
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
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
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.
fsh
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.
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.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
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.
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
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
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.
"Everyone's a Democrat until they get a little money." -
My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...
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
"The transfomers are WAAAY better than G.I. Joe" - me
"Seriously, I didn't sleep with that woman. " - Governor Clinton
"Remember what I said about taxes.. uhm, psyche!" - George Bush 1
"Don't make me tell daddy" - George Bush 2
"I bet I could make money on this internet thing" - Steve Case
Ahhh.. good ole '91
Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
There's an entire thread devoted to discussion of how much Stallman needs to "get a haircut," since of course how you wear your hair is an indicator of the worth of your ideas.
Imagine if Einstein hadn't worn a crewcut his entire life. Where would we be then?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
"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
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
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.
...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.
No one would ever take Microsoft on. All they would have to do is threaten and that would be that. Just like the RIAA.
You're just going to have to trust me. And stop masturbating so much, it makes me sad.
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.
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.
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?
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
When Microsoft was tiny, patents were bad for them; now they find them useful, simple as that.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
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.
Apparently you didn't read the "Allowed HTML" tag section when you were posting. Your tags didn't come out right.
Now accepting PayPal donations!
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?
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.
Can't quite make out that date format. Is it the 0th of December or the twelfth of Nonuary?
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
Obviously. That would be as stupid as suing IBM without any evidence.
English is easier said than done.
> 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.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
I came up with my own date format once.
It went YMYDMYDY.
Please help me push it as the new international standard as I'm sure it will alleviate the confusion.
Today: 20012055
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.
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:
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.
See what I've been reading.