Slashdot Mirror
Groklaw Examines Microsoft's Promises
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Groklaw has examined that 'new leaf' Microsoft turned the other day. PJ has a lengthy analysis of Microsoft's latest promises. To make a long story short, the promises are more of the same stuff and don't help anyone but Microsoft. They only protect 'noncommercial' development and are set up to create a patented standards toll road so that Microsoft can charge competitors to compete. As PJ puts it, 'This is a promise to remain incompatible with the GPL, as far as I can make out.'"
The promise is to not litigate if you use their patents/documents for non-commercial applications.
The problem is that GPL software cannot have this limitation.
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
Seems like European Comission has learned something about Microsoft's previous four announcements. Excerpt:
The Commission would welcome any move towards genuine interoperability. Nonetheless, the Commission notes that today's announcement follows at least four similar statements by Microsoft in the past on the importance of interoperability.
ECIS's Thomas Vinje has also issued a statement that is worth reading.
"They [Microsoft's promises] only protect 'noncommercial' development and are set up to create a patented standards toll road so that Microsoft can charge competitors to compete."
Someone could make a really, really scary horror movie: Bill Gates as software's "Dr. Death", killing an OS used by millions of people, wasting their time by releasing software that isn't finished, and generally being dishonest and sneaky and adversarial toward the whole world.
Just when you thought that was as much ugliness as you could handle, there would be scenes of Microsoft Marketing robots spewing corporate-speak and not realizing that they are the undead.
One of the biggest and most respected IT magazines is rejecting Windows Vista: Save Windows XP. Quote: "More than 75,000 people have signed InfoWorld's "Save XP" petition in the three weeks since it was launched - many with passionate, often emotional pleas to not be forced to make a change."
Fixed that for you.
Sounds good to me. Where do I sign up?
Sign up? You're already working for 'em.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
> Groklaw wouldn't be happy unless Microsoft announced that it was filing for bankruptcy and submitting everything they own into the public domain
Wrong. Groklaw just asks that msft stop lying. If msft wants to keep their MSOOXML thing proprietary, that is no problem.
The problem is that msft claims that MSOOXML is an open standard, when it's not.
The real story from Groklaw, How to Get Your Platform Accepted as a Standard - Microsoft Style http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071023002351958
I submitted this story last weekend. One of the many juicy excerpts....
I have mentioned before the "stacked panel". Panel discussions naturally favor alliances of relatively weak partners - our usual opposition. For example, an "unbiased" panel on OLE vs. OpenDoc would contain representatives of the backers of OLE (Microsoft) and the backers of OpenDoc (Apple, IBM, Novell, WordPerfect, OMG, etc.). Thus we find ourselves outnumbered in almost every "naturally occurring" panel debate.
A stacked panel, on the other hand, is like a stacked deck: it is packed with people who, on the face of things, should be neutral, but who are in fact strong supporters of our technology. The key to stacking a panel is being able to choose the moderator. Most conference organizers allow the moderator to select the panel, so if you can pick the moderator, you win. Since you can't expect representatives of our competitors to speak on your behalf, you have to get the moderator to agree to having only "independent ISVs" on the panel. No one from Microsoft or any other formal backer of the competing technologies would be allowed - just ISVs who have to use this stuff in the "real world." Sounds marvelously independent doesn't it? In fact, it allows us to stack the panel with ISVs that back our cause. Thus, the "independent" panel ends up telling the audience that our technology beats the others hands down. Get the press to cover this panel, and you've got a major win on your hands.
If you can't win by technical merit, stack the panel and buy the moderator. OpenDoc was superior and I find it interesting that were there again after 10+ years with the OOXML vs ODF battle.
I think Microsoft just killed my subscription(s) to every Pro-Windows magazine I subscribe too (DrDobbs, MSDN, etc). Now every favorable opinion I've read about Microsoft will be biased with a "Did Microsoft purchase that expert opinion?". If you compete against Microsoft you will loose because they control the Pundits/Press, and Moderators. Its all about the marketing, not the technical advantages of your product.
My opinion and I reserve the right to be wrong.
Enjoy,
It's just the normal noises in here.
Groklaw is complaining that, as usual, Microsoft's marketing department is saying something that doesn't match what Microsoft is doing.
Marketing is saying: "Look! We care for open source! We'll release documentation they can use! We want to interoperate!!!"
Meanwhile, they're releasing some documentation that can be used only for non-commercial projects, and they're only saying they won't sue the developers of such projects.
They try to connect "non-commercial" with "open source", when in fact those are distinct, for instance Red Hat uses open source code for commercial purposes, they sell it. Not to mention Microsoft also tries to mix "open source" and "free software", which are also different concepts, and when their marketing department tries to imply they'll be good to free software, in fact their actions are totally against it.
And consider this snippet (from TFA):
BRAD SMITH: With respect to other distributors, and users, the clear message is that patent licenses will be freely available.STEVE BALLMER: Patents will be, not freely, will be available.
BRAD SMITH: Readily available.
STEVE BALLMER: Readily available for the right fee.
I mentioned before, they're saying they won't sue the developers... but the users? Oh... they'll have to license Microsoft's valuable patents to be able to use such software!
In other words, it's all FUD. Marketing doing a big fuss about something that is completely different of what they announce. All to try to look good at EU's eyes. It's still just business at usual, Microsoft way.
The phrase "free market" has been corrupted by doublespeak. When Adam Smith wrote about the free market, he meant the market should be free. Today's corrupted meaning is that people within the market should be free. The two meanings are contradictory.
most of what you say is correct here, but also don't forget that the real reason that apple survived the 90's is because MS infused it with a large sum of cash via non-voting stock. Microsoft knew that if Apple went bankrupt they would be in big trouble.
Article 1: Selective Prosecution.
Avoiding detection is not the same as avoiding prosecution.Selective Prosecution is Persecution! The most damnable of all violations of Justice! It destroys both parties, the ones selected to be punished, to the uttermost farthing, and are never forgiven and those who are immune from penalties, because of some assumed position of nobility or immunity.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."