Stallman Attacks Gates, Microsoft, & Charity Foundation

An anonymous reader writes "Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation, has an article in the BBC in which he maintains that Gates' departure from Microsoft doesn't mean the end of proprietary software and that the free software community needs to stand strong to undo the damages Bill Gates, Microsoft, and other proprietary software vendors (explicitly naming Apple & Adobe amongst them) have done. And he slips in a claim that the Bill and Melinda Gates charity foundation doesn't really help the poor; it just pretends to while actually subjecting them to greater harm."

Comments

Re:You see, there's this thing called economics

[Anonymous Coward]

The economics issue extends to the operations of Bill and Melinda's "charitable" giving as well. You see, the foundation actively opposes generic drugs. I'm not one to suggest Bill is malicious. He really truly believes that the free market doesn't work, that government must establish artificial monopolies on ideas, and his foundation would like to apply the same principles that enabled Microsoft to dominate the US software market to the world pharmaceutical market.

People disagree. Others believe that the market should be left to its own devices and find its own equilibrium. Some would say that denying access to generic drugs by pressuring governments to avoid doing business with companies that produce them, and by also pressuring them to establish, practice and enforce US laws establishing artificial monopolies over ideas on their soil (this is ironically called "free trade"), is causing great harm to the world's poor. Yes, even killing them.

The debate about the usefulness of artificially concentrating great wealth in the hands of the very few so that these superior intellects may shower the rest of us with their munificence extends beyond the world of software. It's entirely appropriate that RMS would be discussing these issues as they relate to the Gates' "charitable" foundation, which invests in the very pharmaceutical companies who's profits are tied to squashing competition from generic drug manufacturers. Thank god someone is doing it, because heaven knows we can't count on our self-interested media conglomerates to provide any kind of balanced perspective.

B&M Gates smoke curtain....

[xtracto]

Ahem, ahem...

I am not really impressed by B&M gates foundation... and the use they have given to it:

e-Mexico.

Which was about to be kickstarted with Open Source (with the backup of HP, IBM, Sun, etc)... until Bill Gates went to Mexico to speak with Presidente Fox... aaaaand, guess what:

Microsoft has pledged $60 million in software and training to help fund Internet kiosks that are being built in remote communities. The software maker has also allotted $10 million to train workers in small and mid-size businesses, along with an additional grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to the country's VAMOS MEXICO program to be used to move the country's libraries online.

Ohh, Vamos Mexico... the foundation from Fox's wife which has been investigated for allegued corruption practices.

Oh yes, B&M Gates foundation are God's messengers.

Re:Too far

[spauldo]

I've heard this before, although generally about cancer. The problem is, that idea only works if the drug companies are a cartel.

Let's say you're an executive for EvilCo, and your company develops that one month treatment for AIDS. You've got two choices:

1) Patent it, sell it for major short term profits
2) Sweep it under the rug, continue selling treatments for long term profits

Option two sounds the best, right? But you don't exist in a vacuum. If your researchers found the cure, then how long until SatanDrugs, LLC or BeelzePharm makes that same discovery, and will they do the same thing you are? Maybe they already have. Maybe they're on their way to the patent office now...

It's kind of like the old prisoner's dilemma scenario. You can't trust every other company to act for the collective good for the industry, and since any one of you could sell out for short term profits, why not you?

There's also another problem, which is that it's a cold hearted bastard thing to do. If your R&D department actually discovered a cure, you think the people who know about it are going to sit quietly while you sweep it under the rug? What kind of PR are you going to get when they go public? The only way to guarantee they'd keep quiet would be to have them killed. Otherwise, your company would have the worst PR incident since the holocaust.