Perspective: Bill Gates and other communists

When CNET News.com asked Bill Gates about software patents, he shifted the subject to "intellectual property," blurring the issue with various other laws.

Then he said anyone who won't give blanket support to all these laws is a communist. Since I'm not a communist but I have criticized software patents, I got to thinking this might be aimed at me.

When someone uses the term "intellectual property," typically he's either confused himself, or trying to confuse you. The term is used to lump together copyright law, patent law and various other laws, whose requirements and effects are entirely different. Why is Mr. Gates lumping these issues together? Let's study the differences he has chosen to obscure.

Software developers are not up in arms against copyright law, because the developer of a program holds the copyright on the program; as long as the programmers wrote the code themselves, no one else has a copyright on their code. There is no danger that strangers could have a valid case of copyright infringement against them.

Thanks to Mr. Gates, we now know that an open Internet with protocols anyone can implement is communism.

Patents are a different story. Software patents don't cover programs or code; they cover ideas (methods, techniques, features, algorithms, etc.). Developing a large program entails combining thousands of ideas, and even if a few of them are new, the rest needs must have come from other software the developer has seen. If each of these ideas could be patented by someone, every large program would likely infringe hundreds of patents. Developing a large program means laying oneself open to hundreds of potential lawsuits. Software patents are menaces to software developers, and to the users, who can also be sued.

A few fortunate software developers avoid most of the danger. These are the megacorporations, which typically have thousands of patents each, and cross-license with each other. This gives them an advantage over smaller rivals not in a position to do likewise. That's why it is generally the megacorporations that lobby for software patents.

Today's Microsoft is a megacorporation with thousands of patents. Microsoft said in court that the main competition for MS Windows is "Linux," meaning the free software GNU/Linux operating system. Leaked internal documents say that Microsoft aims to use software patents to stop the development of GNU/Linux.

When Mr. Gates started hyping his solution to the problem of spam, I suspected this was a plan to use patents to grab control of the Net. Sure enough, in 2004 Microsoft asked the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) to approve a mail protocol that Microsoft was trying to patent. The license policy for the protocol was designed to forbid free software entirely. No program supporting this mail protocol could be released as free software--not under the GNU GPL (General Public License), or the MPL (Mozilla Public License), or the Apache license, or either of the BSD licenses, or any other.

The IETF rejected Microsoft's protocol, but Microsoft said it would try to convince major ISPs to use it anyway. 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.

Mr. Gates' secret is out now--he too was a "communist;" he, too, recognized that software patents were harmful--until Microsoft became one of these giants.

With Microsoft's market clout, it can impose its choice of programming system as a de-facto standard. Microsoft has already patented some .Net implementation methods, raising the concern that millions of users have been shifted to a government-issue Microsoft monopoly.

But capitalism means monopoly; at least, Gates-style capitalism does. People who think that everyone should be free to program, free to write complex software, they are communists, says Mr. Gates. But these communists have infiltrated even the Microsoft boardroom. Here's what Bill Gates told Microsoft employees in 1991:

"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."

Mr. Gates' secret is out now--he too was a "communist;" he, too, recognized that software patents were harmful--until Microsoft became one of these giants. Now Microsoft aims to use software patents to impose whatever price it chooses on you and me. And if we object, Mr. Gates will call us "communists."

If you're not afraid of name-calling, visit ffii.org (the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure), and join the fight against software patents in Europe. We persuaded the European Parliament once--even right-wing MEPs are "communists," it seems--and with your help we will do it again.

Biography
Richard Stallman is president of the Free Software Foundation as well as chief GNUisance of the GNU Project.

More Perspectives

[Not Bugged]

Gates' mud doesn't stick

Ah name calling, the last resort of school yard bullies everywhere. Of course back when Bill Gates had new ideas calling someone a "communist" had a little more weight. Now it looks that much more desperate.

Having Stallman feed him his own words must be frustrating. What's next, someone reading him the Oxford definitions of "innovation" and "interoperability"?

[Jeff Putz]

Ugh... get a life

Who is this guy? Respond to name calling with name calling? Get a haircut.

[katamari]

Hahahahaha.

I've been saying that for years (re: get a haircut).

Come on, Stallman. Your charade is about as old as the GNU mascot himself -- which, by the way, looks an awful lot *LIKE YOU*.

Creepy in itself.

Find a new scapegoat. How about addressing the fact that open-source zealotry often results in irresponsibility and laziness, simply by assuming that "the community" (or is that The Community(tm)) will maintain something that a software author should?

Screw the licensing schpeel -- focus on the real issues.

Oh... and get a haircut.

Who is RMS

RMS is merely the guy who wrote most of gcc and EMACS, and started the Free Software Foundation. The FSF assembled the "GNU" utilities that are the core of the Linux operating system, as opposed to the kernel. Richard is a strange man, but he's logicalm, consistent, and perceptive in his views.

Who is this guy??? you ask?

Wow?
All your question and statements do is prove your ignorance.

RHS has been creating industries, concepts, ideas and culture before you drooled. He grasps the deep interrelations and changes that have effected, built and continue to mold our industry. In stark contrast to you, he?s brilliant. Often, to the naïve, dull, or less than quick, brilliance and unique inspiration sometimes broach insanity. Go back and buy more of that Microshaft FUD you?ve obviously been blinded by? The world is much larger than your ability to comprehend. pitty.

Does the word...

irony have a definition in your world?

[Not Bugged]

"This guy" is very important

"This guy" is on one of the most distinguished programmers in the world. Amongst other things, he played a large role in the creation of GNU-EMACS, founded the Free Software Foundation and Started the GNU project. The GNU project produced a vast majority of the Userland software in GNU/Linux. Oh, and he wrote the GPL. And why does he need a haircut?

you get your life right first

hey, this guy, RMS, happens to be a modern-day hero. He's known all over the world...who are YOU?

He happens to be fighting for us to have a better world in which to develop our talents freely as programmers!

[Not Bugged]

Not Quite...

While I agree that everlasting software patents would bring the industry to a stand-still, I see no problem with patents that have a three year or so life span. The pro of patents is that companies who innovate, such as Apple, can't be ripped off by companies that make money on buying/stealing other's ideas, such as Microsoft. By having a patent lifespan of 3 years, companies like Apple can continue to innovate and profit off of their hard work while still allowing the rest of the industry to catch up eventually.

Also, speaking as a political conservative, Communism only works when its not forced on people, which is why GNU/Linux is successful, there is CHOICE. I happen to be a BIG fan of free software and the FSF, does anyone HONESTLY believe that RMS isn't a Communist?

Patents, like copyrights, might be extended...

You make some valid points. The worry, of course, is that patents, like copyrights, might be extended through the lobbying efforts of large companies if a "3 year patent" system, or something similar, was put into place.

Of course, if one is truly a capitalist than one would not support a patent system. A true capitalist would view patents as an unecessary government control which limits the ability of the innovative and strong companies to compete, forcing a malaise on the economy for the period the patents exist.

In other words: Patents stifle competition, and capitalism is all about comptetition fostering innovation and advancement.

[quasarstrider]

Apple copied ideas from Xerox too

The mouse, the GUI, you name it. The Xerox Alto system had it all:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_Alto

Apple is a bunch of copycats. They even hired former Xerox employees for their team. If we had software patents back then, I suspect your only choice would be overpriced Xerox machines.

The whole software industry is based on building products based on old ideas mixed with new to solve a user problem. Add patents and you'll delay progress for decades.

Software patents cause more harm than good. Copyright protects the rights of authors just fine.

Well said...

Well said, Thorst. Why aren't software patents similar to patents in the drug industry? If open source software is the "generic equivilent" of the closed-source variety, it still should have a place at the table.

[CoachWT]

Richard Stallman move out of grear U.S.A.

If you don't like our system of government ... then leave this great country!

"was set up by that famous communist agent, the U.S. Department of Defense"

Go write your code in some foreign country. Bill Gates is one of the most charitable persons on this earth. Microsoft is one of the greatest American companies. Yes, I said it American.

The 'grearest' country on earth

The US have to be very 'grear' to be able to teach its citizens such excelent spelling and imbue them with such an utter lack of understanding of ironic comments :)

[Bill Dautrive]

I guess you missed the sarcasm

He wasn't saying that DoD is a communist organization. I suppose I shouldn't except much intelligence from the love it or leave it crowd. Anyone with any brains would not say that criticism of our country is tantamount to being a commie american hater. It is the patriotic duty of every citizen to question its government, no matter who is in office. People who don't question an administration hellbent on dismantling the constitution are the traitors who might be better off in a communist country. Then again, we are working hard to become the new soviet union and people cheer it on because they are cowards. But I digress.

MS is about as far from a legitimate american company as you can get. They are also as far from a legitimate capitalist company. They are a monopoly, proven in court. Monopolies are generally illegal, so would a responasible corporate citizen blatently break the laws of its host country?

As for his 'charity' it hardly amounts to much more then a tiny fraction of his income and is only done as a tax write-off and as an advertisement for MS. Only gullible people think Gates is charitable by any reasonable definition of the word.

By the way Mr Stallman has done more positive work for the computer industry then MS has ever thought of doing. Isn't it funny how people who work only for their own gain and everyone elses detriment are labeled capitalists, and people who work for the betterment of the industry and all its customers are some sort of unamerican commie.

His points are 100% accurate. Gates is a self-serving hypocrite and patents are extremely harmful to the software industry. Copyrights are all that is needed in a field where everything is based on the same foundation and everything is an abstraction.

Patenting software is as stupid as patenting a book or magazine article. It is a direct logical path between the two, an author of a novel or its publisher would be laughed out of the industry if it tried to patent a book. The self-servering, short-sighted software corporations who do so should be treated with the same level of scorn.

Ignorance benefits no one.....

Bill Gates is a very generous man. Carnegie was a very generous man. There have been, over time, many generous and good people who simply have taken the wrong stance on different subjects.

Bill Gates is wrong on Software Patents. Bill Gates is a hypocrit on Software Patents.

Software Patents stifle innovation in that field. Software Patents were NOT what the creators of the patent system intended.

Bill Gates would prefer to call those who oppose Software Patents "communists" rather than engage in an honest, forthright and meaningful discussion on this subject.

Your disagreement with Mr. Stallman is fine, but you offer no support for this disagreement except for Mr. Gates generosity. You would rather call Mr. Stallman names than engage in a meaningful discussion.

In the end, your hot air, anger and name-calling only serve to further prove his point that the arguments for Software Patents have no substance, no validity, and are only full of hot air.

Richard does write code

Richard wrote EMACS and gcc. He published them as open source, and continues to do similar work. Your ability to detect the irony of Bill Gates calling open source efforts "Communist", but on other days relying on the open intiatives of the Internet itself for his business plan, shows that you have never actually read past the editorial page of your local right-wing newspaper.

Stallman does more honest work for the US and its citizens than almost anyone I've ever met.

[monche77]

It's called sarcasm

the department of defense comment is a sarcastic remark sir.

Talk about clueless...

Thanks for the soda-shoot-from-nose laugh there buddy...

Stallman wasn't calling the DoD communists.. Gates did, indirectly, by calling implying that those who support open internet standards (like the DoD has) are communists.

Microsoft is not American

America is a free market system. What you're forgetting is that if a megalithic company (Microsoft) tries to muscle out smaller companies from developing, the US Gov will protect the smaller; every time (you see, crowding out competition tends toward a closed market system, like comunism). "This great country," as you so morally write, is currently being maneuvered by Microsoft to form vendor lock-out policies. I don't know about you, but I like having choices.

hey ! RMS used IRONY

Richard Stallman is AMERICAN and he love his country and he
said with HUMOR than OF COURSE it's not COMMUNIST, the US
Department of state is NOT communist but it made a huge part
of Internet and the whole open protocols, so to do "open"
protocols is NOT communism

it's IRONY. HUMOR, to point the absurdity of Bill Gate talk

RMS simply point the lies of Bill gates. to do open and free(dom)
software is NOT "communist", it's simply like the us department
of state made in the begins of Internet.

okay ? in fact, RMS LOVE the us copyright laws. it allows
developpers to protect their own work.
(and to licence it on the terms they want, for exemple the GPL
licence, than RMS and others thinks is the best interest for users
and developpers . To licence software, you NEED COPYRIGHT
LAWS and us copyright laws are fine for free(dom) software
needs)

RMS is a total american ; he believes in free market, in choice of
software and in copyright.

RMS launched the GNU project which created and helped to
create many many software than developpers use and many
software used on internet even if people doesn"t know.

he is quite a charitable and American man too.

[Not Bugged]

In America, we understand sarcasm

RMS was pointing out that the DoD is obviously NOT communist, and yet according to Bill Gates they would be.

[cashaww]

The Beauty of it all....

is we can disagree and not have to leave the country, you big ***!
Here is an example, Bill Gates is NOT great, and neither is his
company. See, I express an opinion you do not like, and we
either work it out or not. I want to keep all people who are in
oppisition to the status quo in the country, this way the status
quo will change, meaning no party will hold office for too long.
Sounds like the basic meaning of the US Government.

Stallman is bitter

Dick Stallman is just upset that his work will forever be overshadowed by Linus Torvalds, hence his reference to Linux (the general accepted term) as "GNU/Linux". Whether you like Bill Gates and MS or not, Stallman's contributions to computing are miniscule when compared to those of Bill Gates and Microsoft. Not to mention Gates' many philanthropic efforts. Stallman, get a life, you're old news.

[Bill Dautrive]

What contribution?

Name one thing that MS contributed to the software industry. Make sure it is something that came from MS, and not bought, copied or stolem.

[sunergeos]

Now that's rich!

Philanthropic deeds does not change history - it's not even a
good whitewash. That's like saying Al Copone should be given a
Presidential pardon because he gave the kids in his
neighborhood money to support their families. It does not erase
the ill gotten gains. You are willing to put your integrity on the
line for an unrepentant convicted monopolist?!

Besides, those financial gifts are contributed to Melinda's
generosity, not Bill's. The money didn't flow until Melinda
became part of the picture.

Stallman done nothing?

I can say quite clearly:
* He has done more then you ever have, but that does not mean you should just shutup, just like stallman shouldn't shut up.
* Gates has done very little for computing since the Basic Interpreter, thats his only real innovation, all the others were investments. Learn your history and your arguments might be a little less transperant then vaccum.
* Stallman started a project, which without Linux would probably not even be 10% of what it is today, Linux is just a kernel. However thanks to GNU, Gnome Project, KDE Project, Sourceforge, Open Source Developer Labs, xorg, Linux, we have a great little operating system.
* The GNU compilers are shipped with many major operating systems, and used by a great deal of developers in the mainstream to compile code. Learn your history, there are peices of Stallman everywhere.
* Your probably a troll and im going to go do my literature homework.

Reality check, please

Most of the work on the GNU operating system was done long before Torvalds had come up with a version of the Linux kernel. Were it not for Stallman's work, there would be no GNU operating system for the Linux kernel to be merged with.

All Stallman wants, is credit where credit is due, and a lot of it is due to him. Calling the entire operating system "Linux" makes about as much sense as calling your car a "Champion" car because of the brand of spark plugs that are in it. (Probably not the best analogy, but the best I could think of.)

from small independent inventor

I am getting really tired of all those ?anti-swpatent? activists, including RMS and Linus (With all due respect).
They may be talented developers or just mediocre coders, but they all have nothing to do with true software inventions. The true software invention is an algorithmic discovery.
Do they really think that they could accidentally infringe on something like RSA patent, not to mention Karmarkar patent ? Just give me a break?
Of course, there is always some probability that a monkey randomly typing on a keyboard can eventually produce something like ?War and Peace??

The problem with the current patent system is that it produces too many junk patents (in all fields, not just in software). What they need to do is to tighten it up, not to destroy the system altogether. Abolishing software patents will remove any incentive to INVENT.

Talking about reducing software patent term to 3 years?
Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha-Ha...............................
I filed mine almost 3 years ago and haven?t received first office action yet.

--
Open source is the art of letting other people write your bad code.

[quasarstrider]

"Good" patents

Patenting is supposed to be a temporary compromise by the State to spur innovation. Real innovation, not the Microsoft newspeak.

Yes, something like RSA would have been a good example of something genuinely useful. A decent breakthrough. However, RSA was conceived in MIT during 1974, a time when software patents were not enforceable. It was also a re-discovery of something a British had conceived previously. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA

Had it been disclosed, instead of being a UK State cypher secret, they wouldn't have been able to patent it.

So history proves you do not need software patenting to exist to advance software knowledge.

Worse, I could point to you that since software patenting is in force software technology development has stalled, with the Web being one of the few exceptions. And Tim-Berners Lee invented the Web without expecting or wanting to patent it. Fancy that.

Oh the humanity

You have no idea how much that can actually hurt in the future... Mediocre coders will cease to exist, and you'll be stuck with their.... um... "software". Yeah... please tell me coders shouldn't have a say in what law applies to them.

[Not Bugged]

Software patents inhibit creativity...

Software patents, not the lack of them, stop people inventing. If an independent programmer comes up with an idea for a program, but the program will only work using an existing piece of patented software, they'd throw the code away as they wouldn't be able to afford to pay. The only thing patents are useful for is keeping the rich rich and the poor downtrodden.

[Roland_Orre]

Seems as you haven't understood open source/free software.

Open source is the art of letting anyone learn from other people's software.
Open source is the art of letting anyone contribute to the world's software wealth.
Open source makes 1+1==4

I have been involved in open source/free software projects as well as commercial software development and I can assure you, the requirements of you as a programmer are significantly higher in free software. Those who can not produce the highest quality code will not be accepted as direct contributors, everyone has to learn to program, and that is a long process. However, anyone can provide ideas and by contributing also code which may not be of the highest quality possible, the ideas of the code can be implemented or improved by the skilled programmers of a project.

Closed, proprietary software is a dead end, as noone can build upon, learn from or improve closed software.

[grey_eminence]

Please Have Communist Contact Me

The article was a cheap shot at Mr. Gates for his views.

If Mr. Gates is a communist. I would like to join him.

U.S. Patents, # 6,028,835 2/22/00 and # 6,046,973 4/4/00


Michael E. Thomas

CEO/President/Chairman
Colossal Storage Corporation

[Bill Dautrive]

LOL

It was a reposinse to Gates assrertion that people that oppose MS ideas are communists. Are you people really this stupid or do you just play a moron on the internet?

[Roland_Orre]

Michael,
the least one could expect from someone commenting on an article is to RTFA.
By commenting without reading you could only make a fool of yourself.
It was Bill Gates, who had earlier, 1991, said that he was against software patents (they stifle innovation) later he had changed his view to say that anyone that opposes software patents is a communist. You certainly can not have missed this if you had read the article.

Microsoft is a good example of company that has built a software empire without patents, despite lately having become one of the most aggressive software patenters on the planet.

[mosshaven]

Richard Stallman wrote a LIE!

Richard Stallman started this article with a LIE! Too bad if this guy is the best front man we can come up with to promote Open Source. Shame on CNET. Is their BS detector on the blink?

Stallman wrote:
"When CNET News.com asked Bill Gates about software patents, he shifted the subject to "intellectual property," blurring the issue with various other laws."

That's a LIE. Read the TRUTH below:

CNET'S QUESTION: In recent years, there's been a lot of people clamoring to reform and restrict intellectual-property rights. It started out with just a few people, but now there are a bunch of advocates saying, "We've got to look at patents, we've got to look at copyrights." What's driving this, and do you think intellectual-property laws need to be reformed?
BILL GATE'S ANSWER: No, I'd say that of the world's economies, there's more that believe in intellectual property today than ever. There are fewer communists in the world today than there were. There are some new modern-day sort of communists who want to get rid of the incentive for musicians and moviemakers and software makers under various guises. They don't think that those incentives should exist.

SO...Gates just responded to a question about intellectual property. He didn't "shift the subject" to it. BS is just BS. Both Stallman and Gates should keep that in mind.

[CoachWT]

Bravo! - Hey D.M. read this ...

D.M your conspiracy theory failed. The govenment is not after you. You can go back and hide in your corner programming and come out and bash the U.S. on the next try.

[David Arbogast]

Sad spin from Stallman

Thank you, Chris. I was about to flame Stall(the system)man for improper and unethical representation of Bill's real comments. I'm glad you beat me to the punch. The difference in ethics and morals between Bill's comments and Stallman's response make it quite clear why bill is sitting on top of the world and Stallman is crying for revolution from beneath a pile of hippy-hair. You were more civil than I would have been.

This article is clearly another perfect example of how news.com is transforming into a tech-tabloid rather than a source of quality news. Of course, with Stallman and Torvalds writing articles with no legitimate counterpoint, what do you expect?

Hey Stallman....

Kucinich lost. Big time.

American's "fleeing Bush" are not refugees for Canada to support.

The CocaCola boycott is enormously worthless.
(and I'm drinking a coke right now)

Bush didn't steal *either* election.

Your fingerprints are ALREADY on your passport.

GNU IS UNIX.

[mpotter28]

the issue is??

SOFTWARE PATENTS.

both Stallman and Gates are using this issue to further their own ends. Lets get rational about this and solve the problem

RMS wrote, you Lied

you see, what Bill said shifted the topic to communists, it's still the same thing, he shifted the topic ! Period !

[Al Johnsons]

detector on the blink

http://www.analogstereo.com/volvo_262_264_265_owners_manual.htm

Thank you Richard!!!

Thank you for your life and your devotion to the whole community. Your genius ideas and commitment to them will help us be better persons and live better life. Please keep up the fight. Your ideas will eventually prevail.

[David Arbogast]

and...

Praise be to Jerry Garcia...

sheesh...

Open-Source Biology

BTW, I read recently on wired about open-source Biology and that you are also active in that field. Good for all of us and our descendents!

(http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,66289,00.html)

[David Arbogast]

Hypocracy in this crowd

How many discussions have at the same time suggested that Microsoft has developed nothing of value while at the same time argue that Microsoft's software patents should be invalid because they stifle innovation?

Give me a break....

Anti-patent people want to steal things that are OWNED. If Microsoft's technology was useless as people claim, nobody would care about the patents they hold.

I guess there is just no other good way to copy Windows code into Linux while patents exist.....

MS has offered nothing of value to the computing world

Not one single thing. Well, except for an unsecure enviroment and fodder for countless jokes. Other then that, nothing.

They stifle innovation because they buy up patents to keep others locked out. They usually didn't invent anything, like usual. Level the playing field and we will see how far they get. Of course that will never happen, since they need the baord titled in their favor to survive. MS is now reacting to open source, while at the same time trying to discredit it. That does not bode well for them.

They are a convicted monopolist and has yet been forced to bend to the laws and standards of our country and the corporate world. Nothing more. They create nothing. They pay lip service to innovation. The only way they can get ahead is to play unfairly. They are basically a schoolyard bully, and that is about it.

[quasarstrider]

Removing software patents will not enable copying

That is what Copy-right laws regulate? Get it now?

Patents provide monopolies on ideas, not the actual product per se. Microsoft seldom comes up with anything useful. But they do have a lot of capital. Capital which can be used either to buy thirdy party ideas or sue them into bankruptcy.
Patents provide no worthwhile extra protection to software writers, it only benefits lawyers, and those which have money to afford a lot of lawyers.

Anti-patent people?

The US patent policy right now is a crapshoot. It's not based on the validity of the new idea, but rather on your ability to file the correct paperwork in the right formats. The existing patent policy actively stifles innovation because ludicrous, over-broad patents are used against companies and inventors who genuinely develop new ideas, but have to protect them in court. And the ability to fund the lawyers has become more important than the patent itself.

The patent system is *broken*, especially when it comes to software patents.

Problem with patents

One of the problems is that patents are often not given to people who invented something, but people who applied for a patent. Peole have patented hypertext, the world wide web and a whole lot of other things. Things that they can't possibly be given credit for.

What if someone comes up with a new idea and files for a patent. The next day another person comes up with the same idea, independently, not knowing about the first person. Assume the second person productizes the idea? The first person is too lazy to do such a thing. Why should the first person have any right to money owned by the second guy? How is that capitalism?

Re: Hypocracy in this crowd

> Anti-patent people want to steal things that are
> OWNED. If Microsoft's technology was useless as
> people claim, nobody would care about the patents
> they hold.

Give us a break!

Copyright is still copyright. Code is protected under copyright. Please don't mix the two issues, they are seperate.

Putting patents in place would mean that only one company would be allowed to sell, or provide licenses for certain technologies. This may sound reasonable - but think about it's ramifications - what if only one company were allowed to make DVD players and/or force other companies that made DVD players to pay royalties. (You could change DVD players to anything - tape players, telephone equipment, e-mail.)

Innovation would be squashed as no other DVD players would be allowed irregardless of how they operated. Even if you were smart enough and built your own DVD player without seeing anyone elses code - you wouldn't be allowed to do so, or would be made to pay a fee.

That'd squash innovation. That'd squash my freedom.

You may say then that this would allow a whole lot of other non-patended stuff to be generated, but what happens when someone else registers them as their patents. There'd be no common grounds of interoperability or communication - or at least, not without a price tag. Which would push innovation and communication into the realms of those who could afford it. It'd also encourage those who couldn't to be criminals. (Not for doing anything wrong in todays terms, but just wanting to be able to have their own freedom.)

Software patents aren't about code copyright. I want to be able to program and/or build my own technology instead of having to buy Joe Blow's if I see fit.

[bjrankin]

You give me a break...

The reason people are sick of these ridiculous software patents is that they have little to no merit and the vast majority of them are patenting common knowledge coding, not breakthrough innovations!!! Have you actually read any of MS's said patents??

Can you please get off the Ayn Rand fueled rampage and post something that shows some intelligence?

Cheers,

- Brendan

[The Mitch]

Copy Windows code into Linux? Errr...

Let's check: is Windows code available? Not legally. It has been leaked last year. Linux exists since 1991, GNU since 1984. Complete code has been available for both (entities) since they came out. Their structure is basically different, so reusing one's code into the other's would be difficult and counterproductive (it's not even the same language, as GNU/Linux is written in C while Windows is mainly done in C++, if I'm not mistaken). However, Windows uses public softwares' ideas (TCP/IP stack, basic MOSAIC code, IIS and Apache, the Microsoft VM - which has been forbidden since Sun won its lawsuite for - ta-daaa! COPYRIGHT infringement - , Windows Installer is a ripoff of Redhat Package Manager and Debian's installer...).

Windows itself: interface was initially ripped from MacOS (licenced from Apple, then acquired through dubious court plays), navigation from GEM (a windowed PC GUI outed in... 1986), the kernel was conceived by that guy who made VMS (next letters: WNT), Windows Messenger was made after softwares like ICQ (after IRC) were becoming common...

Richard Stallman intended to re-create UNIX using a licence preventing what AT&T (or Bell, I don't remember the exact situation) did with UNIX: stealing the results of their programmers' hobbies.

Microsoft buys (or steals and shuts up opposition) someone else' idea, suppresses competition then sells unfinished softwares at high prices. Their history of acquisitions and lawsuits proves that.

Now, Richard Stallman is another extreme; he could be qualified as a communist (meaning that everybody MUST work with an interest only in the society's interest, the 'must' word being the questionable part here) on his views on softwares - that could be legit. Still, he followed his expressed philosophy: freedom for everyone to PROGRAM (stealing honest to goodness CODE is what the GNU GPL is supposed to prevent), and he contributed a ******** of code; Bill Gates bought softwares, put a few stickers on them and force-fed them to consumers as much he could. Yes, they favoured interoperability between their own softwares, creating full solutions - where no one else can play, since their APIs are not completely open, change from version to version, are incorrectly documented most of the time...

I thought freedom of thought was in most democratic states Constitutions... Oh! I forgot, Communism = Stalin+Mussolini+Mao+Castro = bad. Check Marx' ideology, see how Stalin & co corrupted it, re-think 'communism' and tell yourself this: if 'communism' means abusing a dominant position, what is Bill Gates?

I'm no communist; however, you can't put a price tag on innovation (on service, though, you can), so there, group thinking CAN work.

I'm no programmer either; I've only dabbled in Pascal, PHP, some HTML and (very frustrating) VBA, however I could see the benefit of gluing together code coming from various sources (much better programmed than I could do myself) and thus develop the part that really interested me without wasting time reinventing the wheel. Using GPL-licenced code prevents me from packaging it into a nice box with a price tag over the CD's price, however - that's my personal experience - there is a lot of cash to make on services over such software. If, at the same time, I can contribute some interesting piece of code that someone else is going to reuse in something else (that I may want to reuse myself!), that's even better.

I'm sure a bunch of people will shout "You're a commie! Die!" "You said you don't program! Shut up!" "You don't know what it is like to make software and have it stolen! Die!" or something as constructive. These people should learn how to read books and THINK, not watch TV or read only headlines in newspapers.

[sunergeos]

Where to start...

First of all, why would I take cultures from the Microsoft petri
dish and infect Linux code with it? That would never - read
NEVER - happen.

The fact that you want others to believe that Microsoft is fighting
for patents for the common good of man means you have
chosen to be selective about your remembrance of history.
Remember when Microsoft was successfully sued for stealing
from Stac Software? Software patents were in place then. Why
didn't Microsoft do the noble thing then and respect Stac's
patents?

I'm sorry...I didn't hear you - a little louder please. That's right,
because Microsoft doesn't really care about software patents.
They can afford to pay for the lawsuits. They will continue to
steal and pay the penalties as long as they are in business.

So, where do you go now that you squandered all your
reputation on this topic?

I admire your ability to mix up things

Personally, I don't want even commented-out lines from Windows source into Linux (for God's sake). The main worries about Microsoft patents are two:

* Their software isn't good by any means, but it's popular. I don't give a $**t if my system is interopable with Windows or not, but there are people who do.

* The current patent scheme lets Microsoft claim pretty much ANYTHING.

I think the origin of this discussion is Gates' and others' (including SCO) attitude of "software development costs millions of dollars, so if you could do something useful on a low budget, then you must have stolen it". If you believe so, then the whole debate is useless.

Hypocrisy is spelt this way

...and not only the spelling is wrong, your brain is twisted too.

Look, patents are different from copyright. Copyright will protect and prevent code from being copied but patents stop people from building on a good idea.

Look at Ford cars...
now, wouldn't u agree that the Japanese make better cars today?

[mpotter28]

baldy?

you like name calling so much... your like Bush unable to hold a rational thought..

so enough of the insults and think about software patents. My opinion is that the whole concept is BS what is yours? think about the issues and develop an opinion based on logic , not on some quasi religion where IBM,M$ or SCO are gods

Depressing Reactions

I had no intentions of posting a comment until I saw how negative and, in my opinion, ignorant many of the comments were. The long hair and talk of communism, which I don't think most understood, can be annoying but the basic ideas are accurate. The quote by Gates was especially poignant. There is no arguing that state sanctioned and protected monopolies are in conflict with capitalism, however the same does not really make for Communism either.

David Arbogast, you are confused

You're quite confused here. If anything, I'd say that "D M"'s post have added more thoughtful insight and valid points to the arguments than anyone in this discussion, regardless of any position, agenda, personal beef, etc.

Your posts, on the other hand, have mostly been filled with namecalling and irrelevance, I'm quite sure this is a "kettle->black" scenario.

[David Arbogast]

What can you expect

Actually, I have contributed definitions, research, and even referenced and quoted other articles... so I disagree that my posts are nothing more than name calling. However, all you have to do is read the article to see that CNet and Stallman were simply launching a name-calling article to get lots of activity from readers.

Please read the article

How many of you actually read the article instead of responding to the author's name?

Mr Stallman writes an intelligent article responding to the threat of software patents and I see here all manner of negative comments that have nothing to do with the article but rather about the reader's thoughts about Bill Gates or Richard Stallman.

As the article points out, both Mr Stallman and the Bill Gates of 1991 can see the dangers of software patents. As can any software developer not working for a multi-billion dollar company.

I do believe, contrary to Mr Stallman's assertion, that the Bill Gates of 2005 still has some sense of the danger of software patents. While Microsoft could afford to pay the $500 million awared to Eolas without a lot of difficulty I do believe the number is large enough to have even Bill Gates attention.

[Jeff Putz]

Classic response

The old "you didn't read it" response. Any time someone expresses an opinion someone else doesn't agree with it's because the first person lacked reading skills.

[Not Bugged]

WRONG AS WELL!

How many times do I have to hear this FUD?...Apple PURCHASED the right to use the GUI from Xerox! The Xerox execs found no use for it and Steve Jobs gave them $10mil worth of Apple (around 5%) so they could use the technology they saw at PARC. Microsoft on the other hand STOLE this from Apple, which is why Apple never recieved anything from Microsoft except grief. Apple bought the rights to use the idea of the GUI and even though Apple had a copyright for it, it didn't stop Microsoft from stealing it legally.

[David Arbogast]

Check your History

You are somewhat correct. Except that, as I understand it, Microsoft received authorization to examine the technology at Xerox. What they provided in exchange, if anything, is irrelevant when their access was approved by Xerox executives. Suggesting that Microsoft stole the GUI from Apple is most likely incorrect.

Thanks RMS

You put to words what I wish I could have said and have felt for a long time. Intellectual property -- thought ownership -- wow, Big Brother really *is* watching.

Lack of utter clue...

Explain how Microsoft's code is getting into Linux. Trust me, Linus wouldn't want it there.

[Al Johnsons]

getting into Linux

http://www.analogstereo.com/porsche_owners_manual.htm

[volterwd]

Whats wrong with communism

are americans still stuck in the cold war era? get over it...

you are right, but

but for RMS (and the whole free software movement) it's just to
explain "free software" are not "communism" (all goods and
commodity controled by a state).

and he need to explain than "free software" DO need copyright
laws and actual american copyright laws are mostly fine for the
free software needs.

just that
and of course it's true than for many americans , communism is
a taboo, a really bad word, the word of Evil and big Satan,
whatever is the reality. so, it's important to explain.



(pff.. anyway, for too much many us citizens, every
"leftish"(liberals?) ideas (socialism,communism, anything in fact
) is a Totalitarian Evil Fiend Monstruous thing from Space who
want to destroy liberty and good old american way of life , so
what ? France, Swessen and others european country are Ugly
Totalitarian ??? what a pity, silly... )

even in the "cold war", the world was not simply USA vs URSS !!
gaaah, I'm angry.

[Fray9]

Nothing

Theres nothing wrong with communism. Its a form of economics and is in fact superior in many ways to capitalism.

The fact though is that communism is often distorted into totalitarianism by greedy leaders while still being called communism such as what happened with the USSR and other facist governments.

Totalitarianism is defined as a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control and ownership over all aspects of life and property, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed.

Which is exactly what most americans attribute to communism because of cold war propoganda and media inprecision (not to mention its easier to pronouce).

Communism by contrast is an economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

The american indians utilized a communistic system.

To my knowledge there are no communistic countries in existance at the moment.

But that still doesnt stop people from misusing the word and utilizing it to play on peoples fears.

While it is true that open source shares the fact that its development process is designed for the organization of labor for the common advantage of all how is that any worse than a system where the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and labor is organized with the express goal of furthering the private accumulation of wealth for select individuals or organizations (capitalism)?

As I said before, communism has its superior traits to capitalism in that labor benefits all rather than an elite minority while capitalism has the benefit of being a more resilient system that requires no forethought to maintain.

I love you, Richard Stallman! Thank You!

You are my hero, Mr. Stallman!
I am a n00bie, but am learning fast enough! I am studying C & the GNU/Linux.

When my tax refund comes in, I am joining the FSF, the least I can do.

Thank you so much, sir!

robstr12

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

All of this careful parsing of the words of Bill Gates is unproductive. Like George W., Bill G. uses his words to misdirect attention away from his actions.

Looking at Microsoft's history, it would seem that their business ethos can be approximated by the phrase "Utilize any tactic that our lawyers can absolve us of later." I don't believe that Bill Gates is Satan, a Communist, a Fascist, a Sadist ... He is just a ruthless businessman. It is our misfortune that he excels at business.

We are in an industry which has undergone qualitative shifts as it has grown. Microsoft, which was an irritant during the DOS era, is now a real danger to the survival of independent software. Given their history, there is every reason to fear that Microsoft will destroy open source software through the courts, by co-opting developers, and/or through deep pockets marketing.

I am opposed to software patents because they are easily abused, not because they are inherently 'wrong.' Software patents offer a field of battle that might be winnable; we need as many winnable battles as we can find.