mike <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 08:02:26 +0000, Mark Kent wrote:
>
>> mike <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:51:47 +0000, Mark Kent wrote:
>>>
>>>> thad01@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <thad01@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>> Mark Kent <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So far, Red Hat have refused Microsoft's attentions, and none of the
>>>>>> remaining distros have yet become powerful enough to gain the interest
>>>>>> of Microsoft, /however/, I'm quite sure that their invest and destroy
>>>>>> approach will be repeated with depressing regularity.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've been a loyal Red Hat user for years, but I've increasingly
>>>>> impressed with Debian and Ubuntu. If Red Hat imploded, I would
>>>>> not really be concerned. Linux is Linux is Linux... it lives on
>>>>> no matter what happens to any individual distro. Microsoft will
>>>>> be playing an expensive and fruitless game of wack-a-mole if
>>>>> they try to kill Linux by buying out the distros.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My suspicion is that Microsoft do not intend to kill linux, however, I
>>>> think that they /do/ intend to kill the perception that it is safe,
>>>> free, secure, reliable and so on. If they can keep knocking out the
>>>> leading distro in any particular 2-3 year period, they will be able to
>>>> create the impression that somehow it just isn't a safe bet. They have
>>>> deep enough pockets to do this for many years.
>>>>
>>>> Having said that, I think that they're buying themselves time to a) get
>>>> another round of lock-in from Vista and b) time to establish some new
>>>> business units or models to replace Windows in the longer run. I think
>>>> that they will have some success at this.
>>>
>>> i thought the consensus was that microsoft's linux strategy was to use
>>> patent protection to divide & conquer by creating the illusion that
>>> microsoft-backed linux distributors are "safer" (from patent litigation)
>>> than those that are not.
>>
>> Oh indeed that is the case, and I have certainly been lined up with that
>> viewpoint, however, when considering the demise of Corel followed by Sco
>> and now the problems at Novell, each of which happened /after/ Microsoft
>> investments, then I think that there is another, additional, tactical
>> play going on. Most strategies have many tactics involved, of course.
>>
>
> yes, i lost a chunk of change on my corel investment back when it was
> taken private by vector capital which loaded the company up with debt
> to pay itself about $150M in dividends (if i recall correctly).
> there's nothing more annoying than having an investment with good
> potential yanked out from under you only to be "stripped and flipped" (as
> business week called it) by private equity thieves. i still think corel
> and vector should both be sued, but i digress... back to the point, i
> agree that there is little doubt that it is among msft's intentions
> to kill any linux company it sinks it's teeth into (financially). just
> another example of one of the many clever "innovations" that msft has
> come up with to evade antitrust laws.
>
It's a neat technique, clearly highly effective, 2 down that we know of,
surely plenty more to go.
>
>>> it's my understanding that the open source
>>> development community is confident that microsoft (or any other) can not
>>> make a valid patent case against linux because of the simple fact that as
>>> soon as any infringing code is found (if there is any) it will be
>>> immediately replaced or eliminated, that is after-all what the GPL license
>>> explicitly states.
>>
>> There are some deeper issues than this to consider. For example,
>> Microsoft have attempted to patent things like icons on a screen (Xerox)
>> and the fat filesystem (which they copied from CPM anyway!). Were it
>> possible to have a meritous patent on such things, it would cause
>> problems not only with Linux, but with most computing devices like
>> cameras, phones, satnavs, pvrs, dvb receivers etc. etc.
>>
>> The real solution to the patent problem is for the US to cease handing
>> out software patents, and for the US and Australia to no longer accept
>> them as valid; instead, they should do what the rest of the world does,
>> which is use copyright for software.
>>
>
> i agree, imo one of the best things that could happen to the software
> industry is to eliminate software patents altogether.
But will anyone have the gonads to go up against the pro-patent lobby
and solve this problem? It is a fundamental problem, it gnaws[1] at the
roots of the whole legal/property system, and I suspect could have a
significant long-term impact on global capitalism as we understand it.
note [1]: for non-native English speakers, gnaw means to bite, nibble,
chew. For German speakers, it is like nagt... It is the proper word for
this expression.
>
>
>>> i believe this is the reason why open source
>>> developers will be fairly vehement about shunning companies that make
>>> deals that give the appearance of lending credibility to the notion that
>>> linux is subject to patent litigation risk. i think the open source people
>>> want to make it clear that there is no risk despite the nearly
>>> overwhelming misinformation/propaganda/FUD campaign being waged by
>>> microsoft.
>>
>> I agree that there is no credible case, or at least, has not been a
>> credible case so far.
>>
>>> imo, if it weren't for the fact that msft has billions of
>>> dollars to spend brainwashing the masses, this probably wouldn't even
>>> be an issue but given the amount of money involved msft could probably
>>> prove 1 = 2 and it would be accepted as the defacto standard for the new
>>> math. if you've read this far, sorry for rambling, and have a nice day. :)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The biggest concern with MS would be that they have the money to
>> litigate open-source companies to death on these kinds of issues.
>> Should they ever win anything, we'll have a problem on our hands, at
>> least until the decision is overturned.
>
> the problem as i see it, is that for capitalism to work, certain
> fundamental rules must be followed, one of which is proper control of
> a monopoly such that the overall benefit to the society it serves is not
> exceeded by the costs inflicted on that society. unfortunately these
> costs/benefits are not easily quantifiable so the issue becomes subject to
> the collective judgment of the individuals in that society. however, in
> the case of msft, much of the necessary information needed to make a
> proper judgment has been suppressed from public view (ie: non-disclosures
> in an endless stream of antitrust settlements). add to this the billion $$
> whitewashing campaign being constantly waged by the army of msft employees
> & shills and you have the basis for some very wrongly-biased opinions.
> top this off with a political system that is filled with opportunity for
> wealthy corporations to spend money on campaign contributions and lobbying
> and voilà you've got the recipe for the mess we're in.
The UK's definition of a monopoly from the point of view of the
monopolies and mergers commission, ie., the point at which abuse is
likely to occur, is at > 49% of a given market. [ For some reason Jim
Richardson found this very amusing, I'm still not 100% sure why. ] The
point is, of course, to prevent abuse before it becomes significant, and
in particular, to prevent a situation like that of Microsoft from
springing up in the first place. I do *not* understand why Microsoft
seem to have escapted the attention of HMG in this respect - it is quite
clear that they have had a monopoly on the computing desktop for many
years, and even put people in Britain out of work (DRDOS being one
example - it was written in Huntingdon in Cambs). Perhaps nobody in
Britain ever complained, but this is not normally required!
>
> imo, msft does not represent an anomaly, it's a highly probable outcome
> for the broken economic/political system in which it exists. is there
> anything unusual about the pervasive deceit perpetrated by microsoft? not
> really, just look at the multitude of scandals in recent years (enron,
> worldcomm, etc), bill gates is no different than the heads of those
> companies other than that his lies are still turning a huge profit and as
> long as that continues it will be business as usual...
>
Enron & Worldcom are indeed good examples (along with Andersen) of how
it can all go wrong. I'm sure that there is plenty more going on.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
|
|