I don't really care about form. a) I'm just too lazy to type the exact same thing twice, and b) in the other post, I acknowledged the bias in the hosting website (if you had bothered to read it). And besides, that PDF was an original document, not something made up by the obviously-biased website. A document being hosted on a biased website doesn't make the document itself biased.
Rambus invented the memory technology in your computer nearly 20 years ago and tried to sell it, but was not able to make any money on it because bigger memory manufacturers a) ripped off their technology and incorporated it into SDRAM and DDR without giving Rambus anything for developing the ideas and technology, and then b) sold SDRAM and DDR below cost for years to prevent anyone from adopting Rambus's own products.
This is an example of the patent and anti-trust system *working as designed*, and all anyone on Slashdot can do is myopically look at Rambus as a patent troll. See this post for a citation.
There are two sides to every story. The Rambus side is that everyone else (Micron, Hynix, Infineon, etc.) tried to get Rambus to disclose its patent-pending stuff in JEDEC so they could all say it was public-domain and use it royalty-free. There's the infamous bad-faith memo[1] with the quote from the Infineon guy (pg 5 in the linked PDF): "One day all computers will (have to) be built like this, hopefully without royalties going to Rambus."
To me, that's like the definition of "in bad faith." I'm sure at some point Rambus acted in bad faith too, but don't make this out like it's a cut and dried patent troll case. As far as I'm concerned, Rambus invented the memory in your computer about 20 years ago and only now is turning a profit on their investment.
[1] I don't have a better source for this other than the obviously-biased rambus.org, but this quote is pretty well known and has been reproduced in many other publications on the Internet. Do a quick Google search.
No. This sort of tone is very common on Slashdot; using it is not flamebait, it is par for the course, and even encouraged in some instances to display disdain for idiots (either article authors, or other posters), like OP was trying to do. Using your definition of "flamebait", I would argue that a large percentage of the comments on Slashdot - possibly over 50% - are flamebait since many of them take a jackass attitude towards either the article itself, or another post. Yet I consistently see that they are modded Insightful, not Flamebait.
Why, then, should a post that uses this very common tone be singled out as flamebait when so many others are not? The answer is that it disagrees with Slashdot groupthink.
This is not flamebait and never should have been moderated as such. The post is simply making a logical argument that is opposed to the prevailing pro-piracy, anti-copyright view of Slashdot.
Libraries are funded by taxes, and those tax dollars are used to pay for content. Libraries do not rip off e-books and download music from P2P networks.
if you don't want to be bullied, just suck up to the bully and play by his rules, so what's the problem?
I don't see how the analogy fits. The US is enacting some trade embargoes (i.e. beating up Costa Rica) because...the US is demanding Costa Rican sugar for free? No, that's not what's happening at all. The US is enacting trade embargoes because Cuba is taking US goods without paying for them. It's almost the exact opposite of the classic bully situation, where a bully (Costa Rica) takes your lunch money (music, movies, software). If Costa Rica doesn't take US goods, no trade embargo. That's not bullying, that's called business.
Don't you think that a nation's law should, ultimately, be set by its citizens?
Yes, absolutely. I do not think Costa Ricans should have much to do with US IP law. If Costa Ricans don't want to enforce IP law that is compatible with the US's, they are free to do so. However, they can then get their music, movies, and software elsewhere, and they can sell their sugar to someone else too.
The brief states that between the time Napster came out and iTunes came out, there was no ability for consumers to obtain music legally via download, and that posed a lack of choice for "Digital Natives" who wanted to obtain music that way. The court recognized that period as an "interregnum period" during which I presume (again IANAL) that no one can be successfully prosecuted for copyright infringement for downloading. However because iTunes was encrypted from 2003-2007, the brief argues that the interregnum period should be extended until some time in 2007, when encryption-free digital music was available.
The two main arguments for that are 1) publishers released DRM-free music on CD, so they partially contributed to the proliferation of the recordings on P2P networks and must have been aware of it by 2004, yet continued to sell and promote CDs. (This seems awfully tenuous to me...the publishers were still trying to sell music, and by that point the digital market hadn't quite gotten to the saturation point where they could stop selling CDs, and CDs require DRM-free music), and 2) The brief cites a prior case in which a court recognized that care taken by the plaintiff to "protect" their IP made a fair use defense fail, and that had the plaintiffs failed to protect the IP, fair use defense might have worked. In this case, the brief argues that the plaintiffs did not take enough "care" of their IP because they released them DRM-free on CD, and so fair use defense might work. (To me that seems to be arguing a hypothesis - that the court in the prior case would have ruled differently if the plaintiff had acted differently - rather than arguing a precedent on an actual ruling. Also, the CD format requires DRM-free music, so I'm not sure what sort of choice the publishers had there short of breaking everyone's existing CD players. Digital being a newer format allows for new things like DRM.)
What about software developers whose software gets pirated? How about writers, directors, and actors whose movies get pirated?
Slashdot's suggestion for software developers was to go on speaking tours to make money. What a crock. I have not yet heard a Slashdot suggestion on how film actors are going to get paid if their movies get leaked to BitTorrent in 1080p+7.1 surround and shown in private home theaters that are approaching commercial theater quality.
Amen! Where are the myriad of pro-piracy Slashdotters when you really need them? They show up in droves to make this ridiculous argument whenever there are RIAA stories, but they seem to disappear whenever a GPL violation or a Microsoft-steals-code story gets posted.
If you wanted to make any point, you could have but didn't.
Wrong again. I will paste my point below for you to read again.
Over the past 2 years, the BusyBox developers have actively pursued litigation against the copyright infringers and had source code released for a wide variety of devices as a result. That is a good thing. Without copyright, that doesn't happen.
I suppose it may not be obvious but there are many more possibilities besides selling hardware and working at Wendy's. There are many developers today who are working as developers on open source projects as employees of companies like Red Hat, IBM, TrollTech, etc.
That's true, but I would say that a lot of those companies make money (and thus pay their free software developers) via selling hardware, or selling their software in conjunction with support or ancillary services. In other words, software as a primary means of generating revenue is not viable.
I could be wrong but I suspect your concern is less about making money as a developer and more about making profits off control of distribution.
Not really...I am mostly concerned with software developers making money for developing software. I suppose that is not clear from any of my posts.
I understand that open source licensing requires new ideas on commercializing developer skills but at the same time I also understand that the closed source proprietary software method with licensing while profitable is a false market. After a product is developed the cost of reproduction and even distribution is virtually $0.00.
Agreed, but there is still the initial creation cost. In the proprietary model, which admittedly is a false market, the creation cost gets amortized in with every sale, so that once X units are sold, the developers' salaries are paid. I guess what I'm saying is that I never saw a problem with this model, other than the closed nature of the software post-sale.
There are people here that are for an abolishment of copyright. There are also people here that a big believers in the GPL. This does not mean that there is even one slashdotter out there that have both opinions!
I would like to note that I said "pirate supporters" in the original post, not "GPL supporters". My post was clearly directed at the first group. The second group is not as clear, but if someone is a big believer in the GPL, they must also support at least some form of copyright for enforcement of the GPL. So my original post would not be directed at them.
You used the phrase "mythical piracy supporters". I don't know what other interpretation I am supposed to take from that. Are only some of the piracy supporters are mythical? What about the rest of them?
And I have no idea why they were dumped into one group as if there is no difference in opinion between any of them.
If you wanted to make a point about how there are some piracy supporters that are different than others, you could have said that, but you didn't.
So, when they are all lumped together, there's no problem, but when there is a difference of opinion from within that lump, that's a problem?
I still don't understand your point about how some of the piracy supporters are different than others. Are you saying that some of them are also GPL supporters? I can make arguments to that if you want, but since I don't know what you're talking about I'm having a hard time doing so.
As opposed to today, where the exact same thing you are saying would be a bad result is happening now.
Wrong. Over the past 2 years, the BusyBox developers have actively pursued litigation against the copyright infringers and had source code released for a wide variety of devices as a result. That is a good thing. Without copyright, that doesn't happen.
I have no idea why you're suggesting that there aren't piracy supporters on Slashdot.
And so I think the mythical pirates you refer to would be happy to have the problem you describe, as long as it came with the 2 year cap to copyright you mentioned (or even abolition).
I disagree. See this post for why they wouldn't really be so happy. It would amount to free software developers giving away their code as charity to proprietary shops, who would then sell it for a profit. Free software developers would get absolutely nothing in return.
Can you point to serious refutations of copyright where the point of the argument is that copyright should last 2 years or not exist at all?
No. The only arguments I have heard in this vein are from Slashdotters who like The Pirate Bay too much.
My experience is that calls for no or very short terms of copyright are posited by people who ought to reconsider what is in society's best interests.
Agreed again.
I can't ascertain your position on copyright from your post. Stallman seems to grudgingly favor a medium-length copyright out of necessity, a "least evil" approach if you will, where he thinks copyright in and of itself is generally evil. I don't agree with that. From what I can tell, Stallman thinks that all software should be developed and effectively given away gratis (which is basically one of his goals if I understand them correctly). I think that leads to two conclusions: a) software developers cannot function as software developers in a capitalist society, they have to do something else to pay bills like sell hardware that uses their software, or mop floors at Wendy's, or b) Stallman really wants a communist society. I don't like either a or b, so I can't call copyright evil on its face.
I am fully aware of Copyleft licenses like the GPL and their purpose. The point is, they require copyright law to function. Without copyright law, or with very weak copyright law, they can no longer ensure those freedoms. Software would then have no reason to be open, and because the original creator can't make it so (without copyright), it won't be, as jbn-o points out.
What the hell, I have karma to burn: It doesn't sound as nice when I put it that way, does it?
Granted, (before I get 20 responses telling me just how many ways the SFLC is different than the RIAA), I acknowledge that the tactics that the SFLC is using are actually sane and civil. The point remains, however: all the pirate supporters on this website don't like it when you shove their arguments back in their face. If there were no copyright, or if copyright were limited to 2 years, then Linux 2.6.15 would be in the public domain by now and anyone could put it into any product they wanted without giving back to the people that created it.
Wasn't there a story on Slashdot recently about how movies != music when it comes to piracy? I honestly haven't heard all that much from the MPAA recently, it's all been from the RIAA. And rightly so: even if everyone pirates every movie, the MPAA has two things working to its advantage:
It controls distribution for the first 1-6 months of the movie release - while the movie is in theaters, before it hits DVD/BluRay - so it doesn't really have to worry about pirates for a while (and no, some crappy camcorder in a theater does NOT cut it for me or for most people).
Even if it didn't control distribution and it sold the raw movie bits immediately, MPAA can still sell a "theater experience" with a huge screen and awesome sound, something that most people do not have.
RIAA, on the other hand, does not and really cannot control distribution. They sell the raw bits, which a lot of people can replicate for $0.
Broadcast media is funny - someone else controls the content, and they control the ads. As a result, broadcasters can reasonably guarantee that an ad would be seen by a certain number of people at a certain time, and the advertisers pay a premium for that opportunity.
A service like Imeem, with its on-demand, user-controlled content/playlists, is much more dynamic, and as a result, much more difficult to get a wide audience for any particular ad. The result is that ads for services like this don't cost as much, and thus bring in less revenue for the broadcaster. So the analogy to traditional ad-supported broadcast media is not quite right at best, and completely wrong at worst.
The problem for the future of ad-supported free content is that other than for live or near-live events (like a daily news program), broadcast media is dying. Broadcast media is not controlled by the end user, and end users want on-demand, I-control-the-content services. The traditional way to make that work was to make people pay for the *content*. Sell them CDs or MP3s or DVDs, and they can do what they want with them, watch them whenever, etc. I have yet to see someone make that viewer/consumer model work with ad-supported content.
Hey buddy, lose the attitude. I appreciate the citation, and I am now better educated about this issue and the law in Canada, but to become educated I had to endure two posts of smug. Oh wait, this is Slashdot, and you are the norm.
I'm not going to get into arguments about legal definitions and whatnot, but you are basically contending that it's impossible to illegally pirate content using P2P networks in Canada. I would be very surprised if what you say is actually true.
I have no idea why you are talking about the TSC. Nothing in the article states that the TSC is generating interrupts. The article states that the APIC timer (which is fully capable of generating interrupts) is the thing generating spurious random, unrelated interrupts (i.e. not APIC timer interrupts).
The article does mention that the hypervisor might be virtualizing the TSC for the guest, but again, I have no idea how you got from there to your post.
I don't think so. Here's the text from the Intel erratum:
During a complex set of conditions, if the APIC timer is being used to generate interrupts, unexpected interrupts not related to the APIC timer may be signaled when a core exits the C6 power state. The APIC timer stops counting in C6 and as such isn't typically used to generate interrupts when the C6 core power state is enabled.
Implication: Unexpected interrupt vectors could be sent from the APIC to a logical processor.
Interrupts not related to the APIC timer being caused by the APIC timer is not a software problem, it's a hardware problem. I could understand your argument if the APIC timer was generating too many interrupts upon C6 exit, or something else related to messed-up APIC timekeeping near power management events, but this is unrelated interrupts being generated.
I don't know the details, but I would assume Microsoft is using the APIC timer in its hypervisor for a reason. Maybe it's because the hypervisor is required to virtualize all the other timekeeping mechanisms for the guest.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't really care about form. a) I'm just too lazy to type the exact same thing twice, and b) in the other post, I acknowledged the bias in the hosting website (if you had bothered to read it). And besides, that PDF was an original document, not something made up by the obviously-biased website. A document being hosted on a biased website doesn't make the document itself biased.
Rambus invented the memory technology in your computer nearly 20 years ago and tried to sell it, but was not able to make any money on it because bigger memory manufacturers a) ripped off their technology and incorporated it into SDRAM and DDR without giving Rambus anything for developing the ideas and technology, and then b) sold SDRAM and DDR below cost for years to prevent anyone from adopting Rambus's own products.
This is an example of the patent and anti-trust system *working as designed*, and all anyone on Slashdot can do is myopically look at Rambus as a patent troll. See this post for a citation.
There are two sides to every story. The Rambus side is that everyone else (Micron, Hynix, Infineon, etc.) tried to get Rambus to disclose its patent-pending stuff in JEDEC so they could all say it was public-domain and use it royalty-free. There's the infamous bad-faith memo[1] with the quote from the Infineon guy (pg 5 in the linked PDF): "One day all computers will (have to) be built like this, hopefully without royalties going to Rambus."
To me, that's like the definition of "in bad faith." I'm sure at some point Rambus acted in bad faith too, but don't make this out like it's a cut and dried patent troll case. As far as I'm concerned, Rambus invented the memory in your computer about 20 years ago and only now is turning a profit on their investment.
[1] I don't have a better source for this other than the obviously-biased rambus.org, but this quote is pretty well known and has been reproduced in many other publications on the Internet. Do a quick Google search.
No. This sort of tone is very common on Slashdot; using it is not flamebait, it is par for the course, and even encouraged in some instances to display disdain for idiots (either article authors, or other posters), like OP was trying to do. Using your definition of "flamebait", I would argue that a large percentage of the comments on Slashdot - possibly over 50% - are flamebait since many of them take a jackass attitude towards either the article itself, or another post. Yet I consistently see that they are modded Insightful, not Flamebait.
Why, then, should a post that uses this very common tone be singled out as flamebait when so many others are not? The answer is that it disagrees with Slashdot groupthink.
This is not flamebait and never should have been moderated as such. The post is simply making a logical argument that is opposed to the prevailing pro-piracy, anti-copyright view of Slashdot.
Libraries are funded by taxes, and those tax dollars are used to pay for content. Libraries do not rip off e-books and download music from P2P networks.
if you don't want to be bullied, just suck up to the bully and play by his rules, so what's the problem?
I don't see how the analogy fits. The US is enacting some trade embargoes (i.e. beating up Costa Rica) because...the US is demanding Costa Rican sugar for free? No, that's not what's happening at all. The US is enacting trade embargoes because Cuba is taking US goods without paying for them. It's almost the exact opposite of the classic bully situation, where a bully (Costa Rica) takes your lunch money (music, movies, software). If Costa Rica doesn't take US goods, no trade embargo. That's not bullying, that's called business.
Don't you think that a nation's law should, ultimately, be set by its citizens?
Yes, absolutely. I do not think Costa Ricans should have much to do with US IP law. If Costa Ricans don't want to enforce IP law that is compatible with the US's, they are free to do so. However, they can then get their music, movies, and software elsewhere, and they can sell their sugar to someone else too.
IANAL. I did skim part of the brief.
The brief states that between the time Napster came out and iTunes came out, there was no ability for consumers to obtain music legally via download, and that posed a lack of choice for "Digital Natives" who wanted to obtain music that way. The court recognized that period as an "interregnum period" during which I presume (again IANAL) that no one can be successfully prosecuted for copyright infringement for downloading. However because iTunes was encrypted from 2003-2007, the brief argues that the interregnum period should be extended until some time in 2007, when encryption-free digital music was available.
The two main arguments for that are 1) publishers released DRM-free music on CD, so they partially contributed to the proliferation of the recordings on P2P networks and must have been aware of it by 2004, yet continued to sell and promote CDs. (This seems awfully tenuous to me...the publishers were still trying to sell music, and by that point the digital market hadn't quite gotten to the saturation point where they could stop selling CDs, and CDs require DRM-free music), and 2) The brief cites a prior case in which a court recognized that care taken by the plaintiff to "protect" their IP made a fair use defense fail, and that had the plaintiffs failed to protect the IP, fair use defense might have worked. In this case, the brief argues that the plaintiffs did not take enough "care" of their IP because they released them DRM-free on CD, and so fair use defense might work. (To me that seems to be arguing a hypothesis - that the court in the prior case would have ruled differently if the plaintiff had acted differently - rather than arguing a precedent on an actual ruling. Also, the CD format requires DRM-free music, so I'm not sure what sort of choice the publishers had there short of breaking everyone's existing CD players. Digital being a newer format allows for new things like DRM.)
What about software developers whose software gets pirated? How about writers, directors, and actors whose movies get pirated?
Slashdot's suggestion for software developers was to go on speaking tours to make money. What a crock. I have not yet heard a Slashdot suggestion on how film actors are going to get paid if their movies get leaked to BitTorrent in 1080p+7.1 surround and shown in private home theaters that are approaching commercial theater quality.
Slashdot has concluded that "lost sales" are not real, so I don't see the distinction. Other than a plagiarism argument, I suppose.
Amen! Where are the myriad of pro-piracy Slashdotters when you really need them? They show up in droves to make this ridiculous argument whenever there are RIAA stories, but they seem to disappear whenever a GPL violation or a Microsoft-steals-code story gets posted.
If you wanted to make any point, you could have but didn't.
Wrong again. I will paste my point below for you to read again.
Over the past 2 years, the BusyBox developers have actively pursued litigation against the copyright infringers and had source code released for a wide variety of devices as a result. That is a good thing. Without copyright, that doesn't happen.
I suppose it may not be obvious but there are many more possibilities besides selling hardware and working at Wendy's. There are many developers today who are working as developers on open source projects as employees of companies like Red Hat, IBM, TrollTech, etc.
That's true, but I would say that a lot of those companies make money (and thus pay their free software developers) via selling hardware, or selling their software in conjunction with support or ancillary services. In other words, software as a primary means of generating revenue is not viable.
I could be wrong but I suspect your concern is less about making money as a developer and more about making profits off control of distribution.
Not really...I am mostly concerned with software developers making money for developing software. I suppose that is not clear from any of my posts.
I understand that open source licensing requires new ideas on commercializing developer skills but at the same time I also understand that the closed source proprietary software method with licensing while profitable is a false market. After a product is developed the cost of reproduction and even distribution is virtually $0.00.
Agreed, but there is still the initial creation cost. In the proprietary model, which admittedly is a false market, the creation cost gets amortized in with every sale, so that once X units are sold, the developers' salaries are paid. I guess what I'm saying is that I never saw a problem with this model, other than the closed nature of the software post-sale.
There are people here that are for an abolishment of copyright. There are also people here that a big believers in the GPL. This does not mean that there is even one slashdotter out there that have both opinions!
I would like to note that I said "pirate supporters" in the original post, not "GPL supporters". My post was clearly directed at the first group. The second group is not as clear, but if someone is a big believer in the GPL, they must also support at least some form of copyright for enforcement of the GPL. So my original post would not be directed at them.
And I have no idea why they were dumped into one group as if there is no difference in opinion between any of them.
If you wanted to make a point about how there are some piracy supporters that are different than others, you could have said that, but you didn't.
So, when they are all lumped together, there's no problem, but when there is a difference of opinion from within that lump, that's a problem?
I still don't understand your point about how some of the piracy supporters are different than others. Are you saying that some of them are also GPL supporters? I can make arguments to that if you want, but since I don't know what you're talking about I'm having a hard time doing so.
As opposed to today, where the exact same thing you are saying would be a bad result is happening now.
Wrong. Over the past 2 years, the BusyBox developers have actively pursued litigation against the copyright infringers and had source code released for a wide variety of devices as a result. That is a good thing. Without copyright, that doesn't happen.
mythical piracy supporters
I have no idea why you're suggesting that there aren't piracy supporters on Slashdot.
And so I think the mythical pirates you refer to would be happy to have the problem you describe, as long as it came with the 2 year cap to copyright you mentioned (or even abolition).
I disagree. See this post for why they wouldn't really be so happy. It would amount to free software developers giving away their code as charity to proprietary shops, who would then sell it for a profit. Free software developers would get absolutely nothing in return.
Finally, some semblance of sanity.
Can you point to serious refutations of copyright where the point of the argument is that copyright should last 2 years or not exist at all?
No. The only arguments I have heard in this vein are from Slashdotters who like The Pirate Bay too much.
My experience is that calls for no or very short terms of copyright are posited by people who ought to reconsider what is in society's best interests.
Agreed again.
I can't ascertain your position on copyright from your post. Stallman seems to grudgingly favor a medium-length copyright out of necessity, a "least evil" approach if you will, where he thinks copyright in and of itself is generally evil. I don't agree with that. From what I can tell, Stallman thinks that all software should be developed and effectively given away gratis (which is basically one of his goals if I understand them correctly). I think that leads to two conclusions: a) software developers cannot function as software developers in a capitalist society, they have to do something else to pay bills like sell hardware that uses their software, or mop floors at Wendy's, or b) Stallman really wants a communist society. I don't like either a or b, so I can't call copyright evil on its face.
I am fully aware of Copyleft licenses like the GPL and their purpose. The point is, they require copyright law to function. Without copyright law, or with very weak copyright law, they can no longer ensure those freedoms. Software would then have no reason to be open, and because the original creator can't make it so (without copyright), it won't be, as jbn-o points out.
What the hell, I have karma to burn: It doesn't sound as nice when I put it that way, does it?
Granted, (before I get 20 responses telling me just how many ways the SFLC is different than the RIAA), I acknowledge that the tactics that the SFLC is using are actually sane and civil. The point remains, however: all the pirate supporters on this website don't like it when you shove their arguments back in their face. If there were no copyright, or if copyright were limited to 2 years, then Linux 2.6.15 would be in the public domain by now and anyone could put it into any product they wanted without giving back to the people that created it.
Wasn't there a story on Slashdot recently about how movies != music when it comes to piracy? I honestly haven't heard all that much from the MPAA recently, it's all been from the RIAA. And rightly so: even if everyone pirates every movie, the MPAA has two things working to its advantage:
RIAA, on the other hand, does not and really cannot control distribution. They sell the raw bits, which a lot of people can replicate for $0.
Your sarcasm is more accurate than you think.
Broadcast media is funny - someone else controls the content, and they control the ads. As a result, broadcasters can reasonably guarantee that an ad would be seen by a certain number of people at a certain time, and the advertisers pay a premium for that opportunity.
A service like Imeem, with its on-demand, user-controlled content/playlists, is much more dynamic, and as a result, much more difficult to get a wide audience for any particular ad. The result is that ads for services like this don't cost as much, and thus bring in less revenue for the broadcaster. So the analogy to traditional ad-supported broadcast media is not quite right at best, and completely wrong at worst.
The problem for the future of ad-supported free content is that other than for live or near-live events (like a daily news program), broadcast media is dying. Broadcast media is not controlled by the end user, and end users want on-demand, I-control-the-content services. The traditional way to make that work was to make people pay for the *content*. Sell them CDs or MP3s or DVDs, and they can do what they want with them, watch them whenever, etc. I have yet to see someone make that viewer/consumer model work with ad-supported content.
Business charges $0 for its product, runs out of cash due to lack of viable revenue. Details at 11.
Unless you're Google and can sell tons of ads, "free" is not going to survive.
Hey buddy, lose the attitude. I appreciate the citation, and I am now better educated about this issue and the law in Canada, but to become educated I had to endure two posts of smug. Oh wait, this is Slashdot, and you are the norm.
I'm not going to get into arguments about legal definitions and whatnot, but you are basically contending that it's impossible to illegally pirate content using P2P networks in Canada. I would be very surprised if what you say is actually true.
I have no idea why you are talking about the TSC. Nothing in the article states that the TSC is generating interrupts. The article states that the APIC timer (which is fully capable of generating interrupts) is the thing generating spurious random, unrelated interrupts (i.e. not APIC timer interrupts).
The article does mention that the hypervisor might be virtualizing the TSC for the guest, but again, I have no idea how you got from there to your post.
During a complex set of conditions, if the APIC timer is being used to generate interrupts, unexpected interrupts not related to the APIC timer may be signaled when a core exits the C6 power state. The APIC timer stops counting in C6 and as such isn't typically used to generate interrupts when the C6 core power state is enabled. Implication: Unexpected interrupt vectors could be sent from the APIC to a logical processor.
Interrupts not related to the APIC timer being caused by the APIC timer is not a software problem, it's a hardware problem. I could understand your argument if the APIC timer was generating too many interrupts upon C6 exit, or something else related to messed-up APIC timekeeping near power management events, but this is unrelated interrupts being generated.
I don't know the details, but I would assume Microsoft is using the APIC timer in its hypervisor for a reason. Maybe it's because the hypervisor is required to virtualize all the other timekeeping mechanisms for the guest.