For those keeping an antitrust scorecard in the IT industry, it is increasingly difficult to keep track of all the players.
Intel was sued in the United States, and it has faced antitrust investigations in Japan, Korea and Europe. Sony leads a list of memory chipmakers under antitrust investigation in the United States. Apple's iTunes pricing and interoperability formats have been subject to regulatory scrutiny on antitrust grounds in Europe.
Why is it that very few large IT players are immune from antitrust attack? Are they simply unable to comport themselves with the law? Or is this regulatory trend indicative of governmental lack of faith in the very engine that has created sustained economic growth and innovation in the IT sector: the free market?
One thing never seems to change: Microsoft is always enduring some antitrust challenge--even when it is working with other industry players to create better products. Take, for example, Microsoft's recent agreement with Novell to make Windows server software interoperate better with the Linux server products of Novell.
Last month, oblivious to this agreement, the European Commission issued another statement of objections alleging that Microsoft engaged in bad faith to thwart interoperability in the server market. The Commission's proposed remedy would require Microsoft to make its valuable intellectual property available to its competitors--for free.
The inexplicable actions of the European Commission would take us in the same direction as the Free Software Foundation.
At first glance, the FSF and the Commission attacks on Microsoft appear to be unrelated. But the common thread is this: the attacks are based on a lack of faith that consumer demand will lead a market to where consumers want it to be. It is based on a faulty assumption that a company can use its intellectual property to harm competition rather than fuel it.
The FSF's assault on the Microsoft--Novell deal demonstrates its open hostility to Microsoft's--or any other company's--use of its intellectual-property rights to protect its innovations and inventions. This position is directly contrary to a central premise of free-market economics: IP protections will encourage investment and result in a wider breadth and depth of innovation.
But the inexplicable actions of the European Commission would take us in the same direction as the FSF. The Directorate General for Competition is the regulatory enforcement agent of Europe. Clear European law provides explicit protection to intellectual property through the Parliament's "Software Directive" and many published court decisions.
Yet the Commission alleges that Microsoft has established "unreasonable" prices for its protocol licensing of its server technology in Europe. The Commission characterizes Microsoft's proprietary server software protocols, which is protected by patent, copyright and trade secret law, as containing "virtually no innovation."
The Commission then remarkably concludes that everyone in the industry, nonetheless, "needs" Microsoft's protocols, and that Microsoft should provide them "royalty-free." What the Commission demands in the end is that Microsoft make its intellectual property available to its competitors for free.
Microsoft and Novell recognized the basic fact that the consumer is truly in charge of software markets--not regulators, nor free-software advocates like the FSF. The impetus for their groundbreaking agreement was consumer demand. Enterprise customers operating Windows and Linux software wanted better performance.
Both companies realized that the fortunes of both would improve through the agreement. Market forces provide the driving incentive for real solutions. Those wishing to "control" markets should take note.
Biography Lars Liebeler is antitrust counsel for the Computing Technology Industry Association and a partner in the Washington law firm Thaler Liebeler. Microsoft is a member of CompTIA.
Where have you been for the last three years? Ever heard of the SCO? How about Baystar? Ever read anything about Ballmer's comments about IP and the Linux world? I think the WORLD generally considers Microsoft to be a predator when it comes to IP and antitrust.
Mr. Liebeler gives us a heart rending plea that governments and individuals should respect Microsoft's right to its intellectual property. Then he decries interference into "Microsoft's recent agreement with Novell to make Windows server software interoperate better with the Linux server products of Novell".
The thing is, this latter agreement violated the spirit (and perhaps even the letter) of the license agreement under which thousands of companies and individuals licensed the technology at the heart of this agreement to Novell. If Microsoft first agrees to respect other people's intellectual property rights, then perhaps it will be entitled to have governments supervise it less closely when it comes to its own IP rights.
MS wasn't taking anyone's IP in the Novell agreement, rather, offering protection for anyone using its IP. Yes, MS was very evil in that regard. Since when is interoperability bad?
This article is nothing but shameless spin from a Microsoft shill
He's taken a completely disingenuous view of the MS-Novell relationship, ignores Microsoft's spurious patent lawsuit threats, and misrepresents the actions of the EU.
... that everyone in the industry, nonetheless, "needs" Microsoft's protocols, and that Microsoft should provide them "royalty-free." What the EC demands in the end is that Microsoft make its intellectual property available to its competitors for free..."; one has got to bear in mind that the Microsoft Corporation was not the OEM of the SMB "protocols" in question as they were reportedly first developed by the International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) DUH!
I do hope you are not seriously suggesting that a because someone holds a software or business method patent, it is a good indication that he/she has invented something new and nonobvious. A short session reading patents in these areas will show that ideas published or used 10, 20, or more years before the patent issue dates are very well represented in patents currently in force. As are patents whose claims include trivial concepts that would be obvious to anybody.
DANCING The "SAMBA"! HAPPY "20th" BIRTHDAY OS/2 WARP!
"SAMBA for OS/2 and eCS"
"Samba is a SMB/CIFS protocols file and print sharing server/client set originaly made for UNIX world to cooperate with corresponding Windows and OS/2 servers or clients.
OS/2 has native implementation of SMB/CIFS server/client set - IBM LAN Manager and IBM Peer. These products haven't been updated for a long time and have some compatibility problems with modern Windows SMB/CIFS implementations..."
And then let's see what their stance is. The EU wants their cake and eat it too. Any company that start getting assailed by the EU for the intellectual property (unless proven "prior art") should start to cut back operations there. Stop the money flow into the EU economy. If that doesn't work then just leave the EU. Yes it is a sizable market but if they are going to want all of your property at no charge and/or mitigate your profits by countless baseless law suits then just leave and stop supporting the product in that region until they come to their senses and gurantee your IP is safe and the market open. If EU users could no longer get support for their MS products they would be up a creak without a paddle. Maybe that is an idea that the EU could live with, If MS has to give away their IP then MS should charge the EU users for what is in the US free support, such as security fixes, patches, updates, etc.
You're statement assumes that Microsoft is the only viable option for Europe. It isn't, there are alternatives that would also work. If Microsoft were to leave Europe, these alternatives would have to be implemented. The Mac OS, Linux, Unix, etc. would be given top priority.
This would establish the need for commercial software packages tailored to the Unix brand of OS (since all of these run a derivative of Unix). The market for non-Microsoft software would be firmly established. This would first lead to global firms with U.S. ties to examine their IT infrastructure. I'm sure most would establish a common base. Since Microsoft wouldn't be supported in Europe, they would make their U.S. associates use their O.S.
A cascade would be implemented that would gain ground for non-Microsoft operating systems and software. My thoughts are that this would lead to more web-based applications. The reason for this would be the firms that have a mix of MS and non-MS software. If everything were web-based, this would make the OS moot.
You're comments are right that Microsoft should pull out of Europe. But this would be their own loss, and would help the rest of us in the long run.
MS is in the EU to make money. So long as they can and do, why the heck should they not stay there? If MS pulls out, someone else will move in and eventually face the same probelms. If they stop making money then as you say, they should pull the plug.
Microsoft will never leave the EU market (sorry, propeller heads...). What they *should* do is pass along the EU penalty fees to EU consumers in the form of higher prices. Once EU businesses see that they are paying for the anti-free market baloney of Brussels, you'll see the insanity stop.
if they moved out, and took their software with them. people would really begin to see the folly of using windows. it would really begin to be seen as the closed proprietary system that it is. after all microsoft COULD conceivably do this. it is their software. they can do whatever they want with it. including stop selling it (though i'm sure shareholders would not like that). what are you gonna do once microsoft decides that windows is obsolete? or that they don't want to sell it anymore?
microsoft is never going to just yank their software from a market. if they do that, they will have handed an entire market of computers to open source. even if they did it for a month. it would have irreparable damage on their ability to sell software in the EU.
"The FSF's assault on the Microsoft--Novell deal demonstrates its open hostility to Microsoft's--or any other company's--use of its intellectual property rights to protect their innovations and inventions."
Frankly wrong. FSF opposes when companies or individuals try misuse GPL-protected source code. There is not -- and there could not be -- hostility when a company protects its own innovations, proterty or whatever. Microsoft--Novell is just a tricky way of trying to bypass the GPL. If they are protecting *their own* innovations, why trying to bypass GPL that deals with source code of others?
OK, let's be fair, this guy is a lawyer; the concept of objectivity hasn't hit him since before law school. Of course, in his mind, he is being objective.
On the other hand, let's not subject him to ad hominem arguments, especially without evidence. I think he's working from the point of view that IP rights and anti-trust laws give him guaranteed employment, so he need not understand technology.
Easy Answer: Socialists Emboldened and on the March
That's it pure and simple. These liberal socialists are littered throughout government and academia, and now with their ludicrous "global warming" mantra they seek to overthrow or diminish capitalism. When will they ever learn that the business of America is business. Every concievable idea they ever had eventually ends up in the trash heap of history, and rightfully so.
MSFT has pretty much earned most of its legal black eyes - they have been ill-behaved since day one.
The EU thing is another creature altogether - It could be 100% legit (I don't know enough ab't EU law to know for certain), it could be a money grab, or it could be a means by which the EU wants to promote their own home-grown solutions in lieu of MSFT ones. That said - if you're going to play in Europe, you have to play by their rules. Don't like it? Leave.
I seriously doubt it's socialism, though, and jingoistic crapola like the post I'm replying to serves no one.
The business of the USA is the welfare of it's people. Business only matters in what it can do for the people of this country. Capitalism has done ok by this country, but it's also had a price paid in the loss of a lot of simple freedoms.
Capitalism has it's problems just like every other form of running an economy. Any fool can see that and only a fool would not give credit where credit is due.
If the business of America ever becomes business...that would be hell on earth.
large coporations. With capitalism, you produce a better mouse trap and the world beats a path to your door. What companies like Microsoft do is find out about your mouse trap and crush you by marketing a similar trap below cost. If you want an example, just look at what happend to Netscape. They used to sell Netscape Navigator, until MS started giving away IE. Now there is no company called Netscape. That's not Capitalism. That's the beginning of Feudalism, with corporations as lords and workers as serfs. In this new Feudalism, the serfs can easily end up out of work, as the Lords can easily move the whole castle to another country where they can hire cheaper, more compliant serfs.
As for Global warming, anyone who has ever passed a basic physics course (and I doubt you could) knows that if you apply enough force to anything, it will move. By pulling fossil fuels out of the ground and spewing millions of tons of the CO2 from their combustion, along with many other pollutants, every day, we are applying enormous force to our weather patterns. Everything we know about Science tells us that the weather must change. You can argue about the amount of change, but the reality is that even a small change will have a dramatic impact on our quality of life.
if it wasn't for "liberals" you would still be thinking the earth is flat or maybe that the sun revolves around the earth, or maybe you still do.
without any regulation of commerce, there is the potential for chaos, volatility and downright lawlessness as was the case of the savings and loan scandal. there is also the potential for stagnation as was the case of bell and, well microsoft. look what happened after bell was split up by "liberal socialists." it's called innovation, which has made conservative capitalists, like yourself lots and lots of money.
you should actually worship the people you so despise.
Europe as we know it is a dead society, ask yourself why the "EU" even exists?
People in Europe want a free lunch and they believe it is owed to them just for existing. Microsoft selling and not sharing their secrets goes against this philosophy, pure and simple.
... like Microsofts. The EU wants competition in the marketplace, Microsoft refuses. Would you be such a staunch defender of the Windows near-monopoly if it was issued by the State instead of a dominant corporation which wants to dictate the market?
And I should perhaps point out that Microsoft has been through more legal hassles in America than in Europe. Or have you forgotten the antitrust rulings?
There not making anything new, just duplicating efforts
A company makes a new product, Microsoft just duplicates their own clone of that product, exploits it until it's dead, then moves on ready to jump on another one's idea.
AOL = MSN Google = MS search OSX 10 = Windows Vista AIM = MSN messenger Beryl/Compiz = Areo Effects in Ultimate
Then they just take old technologies, patent their own mock ups, and re-offer them as "new features" for an additional fee for either a service or for a product.
We now get less with the new items they come out with. They now limit choices which their older products had before but now only offer it in more premium versions of their applications?! Now I can't use my application more than 3 times? It expires after years down the road when I plan on upgrading my computer, or if I have to do a clean installation of their product? I have to verify every time now I using a legit copy of my products all the time? Is this a new feature that customers wanted? Being bombarded with verifications that I'm legit? come oon!
That isn't innovation. This is how to reinvent old hat to create more revenue, but with so much emphasis on protecting their IP, they make their products and services less appealing who just wants the thing to work.
Computers and software are tools for us. Shouldn't be designed so we are "tooled" by them.
Your characterization of the GPL is completely wrong. And your attempt to make it some kind of free market enemy only shows either ignorance or outright hostility. An allegiance to MS must also be infured because of your repeating of there talking points, "The GPL blocks collaboration."
The deal between MS and Novell had a few different parts. There was the collaboration part which would allow MS and Novell to work together to allow there respective technologies to have greater interoperability. This part is completely unaffected by any existing draft of the GPL.
The part that causes problems has nothing to do with getting technologies to work together. Its a patent agreement in which MS promises to Novells and only Novells customers that they will not sue them for unspecified patents in Novell technologies. This creates unequal freedoms for GPL software. The GPL's intention is only to create equal freedoms for all that use software covered by it.
GPL seeks to eliminate market in intellectual property
>>> The part that causes problems has nothing to do with getting technologies to work together. Its a patent agreement in which MS promises to Novells and only Novells customers that they will not sue them for unspecified patents in Novell technologies. This creates unequal freedoms for GPL software. The GPL's intention is only to create equal freedoms for all that use software covered by it. <<<
Then I guess developers of GPL'd software had better not infringe on anyone else's intellectual property. If there's nothing in Linux covered by Microsoft's patents, then the Microsoft/Novell agreeement is meaningless on this issue. If the Linux code *does* infringe on patents, then all the intentions of the GPL don't change that fact.
The FSF's position on patents is clear: they don't like them. The GPL doesn't say "don't infringe on other people's patents"; the GPL says "If GPL'd software infringes on *your* patents, and you sue to enforce your rights, then you lose the right to use the infringing software." That's pretty darn hostile towards patents.
It's obvious what the FSF intends. Outright theft of intellectual property by eliminating the very notion of intellectual property. Yes, the FSF is indeed an enemy of the free market; it seeks to eliminate an entire market (that of buying and selling intellectual property).
It does seem to ring true. Indeed, if you track the reports and read the bottom of the article, you'll note that he's from CompTIA (a Microsoft-influenced group which almost always seems to side with Microsoft).
Indeed, as is so often the case, when you follow the money, it leads right back to Microsoft!
Why is Apple being investigated about iTunes issues in Europe?
It isn't about Microsoft, Apple, or Jello Pudding. It's about how much money the EU and others can get out of successful companies.
Trying to blame Microsoft for this is just plain silly. Will you blame Microsoft for Apple's involvement with the EU? If everything leads back to Microsoft, I'd like to see how that argument works.
Why is Apple being investigated about iTunes issues in Europe?
It isn't about Microsoft, Apple, or Jello Pudding. It's about how much money the EU and others can get out of successful companies.
Trying to blame Microsoft for this is just plain silly. Will you blame Microsoft for Apple's involvement with the EU? If everything leads back to Microsoft, I'd like to see how that argument works.
Thank goodness Microsoft is under attack. They've stifled innovation and have not played by the rules for far to long. The decline of Microsoft is a huge victory for the consumer.
MS had no server market presence 12 years ago. Most of the comments seem to imply or make statements relating to MS' desktop position. The fact of the matter is that MS didn't have any presence in the server market and built their market share without any leverage from the desktop side. In fact as most know the original NT system was considered a joke and it would never take the place of UNIX.
Guess what? The joke of a UI allowed companies to hire SA for 1/2 the price of a comparable UNIX SA. Eventually the product improved significantly and I'd argue the the server is actually MS' best product right now. Yes, I said that. Don't flame unless you've used it. It works and works well and the cost is very low.
Btw, stop with the ignorant and stupid comments about how he's a paid shill. Of course he is. The other side has their's too. Does anyone really think there are people waiting around to spend their time on your cause for free? It doesn't mean they don't believe in it, or that they are liars, it only means they need to be able to support themselves. This is common in all industries, they are called Paid Experts.
You are mistaken - when was Linux server pushed with a similar "paid to look like a neutral" story? A lot of us like technical excellence and will endorse and approve and support it for free.
[i]"Eventually the product improved significantly and I'd argue the the server is actually MS' best product right now. Yes, I said that."[/i]
...compared to other MS products, I agree. Compared to other server products? Windows Server is not even halfway there in efficiency, flexibility, and certainly not even close to workable when it comes to drivers @ the enterprise level.
[i]"The joke of a UI allowed companies to hire SA for 1/2 the price of a comparable UNIX SA."[/i]
...which is where such treasures such as "Code Red", "Blaster", and even ASUS' recent IIS6 server compromises came from. When any fool can point-click-done to a halfway workable "server" setup, any fool eventually will. ;)
[i]"Btw, stop with the ignorant and stupid comments about how he's a paid shill. Of course he is."[/i]
Of course he is... which is why his comments can be discarded accordingly. A shill (as opposed to someone with an actual stake in a given matter) is next to worthless for credibility, because he (and now by extension, CompTIA) becomes nothing more than a mouthpiece, a puppet.
I am going to address the 3rd. paragraph, the "paid shill" clause. In this modern world, where everything is evaluated into dollars, the GNU Manifesto reintroduced the concept of work done for recognition by peers out of motivation to have fun, be happy, learning to produce goods that people need. This need and right has been exercised by Linus Torvalds and thousands of other people who saw the chance to learn things, have fun, acquire respect from peers. These people mostly have a different vision from the majority regarding what to do for entertainment, and they always find a way to survive without pain. That is how it has been for most of us. There are many of the open-source or GNU/Linux supporters who found ways to do business using the GPL software as a significant component. Each of us has a different way of doing it, and we learn everyday new facets. That is why it is difficult to theorize this in terms of capitalism, socialism, etc. but the fact is that it is working for IBM, HP, RedHat, Novell, and many individuals. Some companies, such as SCO, tried to earn big money out of the general confusion of understanding the weaknesses of the GPL, but it did not work. FOSS does not have a budget for publicity, but SCO, IBM, ZDNet, CNet (this forum) have contributed enormously to make GNU, Linux, open-source known to more people. Microsoft is trying to capitalize on the fears of corporations about patent lawsuits to gain something from association with Novell. The FSF is trying to protect FOSS from destruction by the large proprietary companies by GPL version 3. All these things are happening together under various kinds of dangers and luck, but FOSS has made progress, acquires more credibility everyday, and people are learning to make a decent living legally with the help of FOSS. Eventually there will be proper legislation to regulate all these things, but I can guarantee that abnormalities such as Microsoft or SCO will not be tolerated, and a balance will be found so that collaboration will provide tools and money will be distributed, maybe not as uniformly as idealized by Marx, nor as concentrated as idealized by Bill Gates, but somewhere in between with enough diversity, where creativity and innovation driven by necessity will provide the means for survival and decent societal behavior. It has never been attempted before with this kind of intellectual tools and the internet, so it is a new kind of challenge. There are reasons for prior failures, so it is worth trying once again. We are just beginning to execute the first steps of a process, there are many nuances we can't explain in an acceptable way to you, but I am certain that it is viable. I understand that today everybody is doing their best to preserve what they think is essential, that each person needs to do something to make a living, and we have decided to do things more wisely if all others respect our ways and we promise to do it quietly, without violence. Just watch how things occur, because we are also curious. If we fail, it will not hurt anybody. But if we are successful, it will be good for you, too, only different from today. There will be not much time left to discuss in these forums, either, so we will not bother you with zealotry and curses.
Not everyone realizes that it's well within the power of the US Govt. to simply dissolve the corporate charter of any corporation that acts sufficiently anti-social. Of course, MS is just such a corporation for reasons that have been exhaustively detailed and documented by the DOJ, the EU etc etc .
It's funny that some people who claim to want the market to work hate it when the market decides that their company is bereft of value. People leave MS every chance they get; that's why MS had to break the law for the first 20 years of its existence to survive. They're criminals, plain and simple, proven repeatedly in courts all over the world and found guilty. So get rid of them. Simple.
You forgot to mention aliens controlling Elvis' brain transplanted into Bigfoot's head. No story about conspiracies like these are complete without at least one alien reference.
The article is wrong in so many levels it is hard to comment. This implies the author knows the facts, but chose to play dumb to push the Microsoft agenda. Even a semi-honest assessment will find dozens of things wrong with Microsoft, whereas this article has the "Microsoft is OH SO GOOD CORP CITIZEN" flavor to it. The author is a lawyer. Did CNET do an investigation on why he wrot the article and if any under the table Microsoft money was involved? Or are you approving the pseudo "grassroots" agenda MS is pushing to prevent its rapid decline as a tech leader?
I think that the ultimate drawback to this sort of reasoning is that it entirely ignores the possibility that multiple parties can each independently implement similar ideas, without any interaction with or even knowledge of the others - more commonly known as the "non-obvious" criteria for patenting.
As long as the bean counters are worried about their beans, then the pseudo-importance of idea ownership will persist. Ultimately, they can stop a person, but they can't stop an idea whose time has come.
Which is more important - the person who invented the wheel, or the benefit reaped by society as a whole because of it?
The Microsoft-Novell agreement was as much driven by a desire by those companies (especially Novell) to not be sued due to software patent disputes. Their customers (and 'performance' etc) were a secondary consideration. Free enterprise can only get so far, and then systemic limitations such as the issues regarding software patents become problematic.
The entire lifetime of the World Wide Web is the duration of a single software patent - the very forum we are reading this on would not exist if the WWW was made as a proprientary, patented system. Patent protection for software does far more to 'lock out' innovators from building upon technologies than it does to promote new innovation. When dominant firms use software patents and other heavy-handed tools to prevent inter-operability and competition, innovation suffers.
As far as I am concerned, Micro$oft and free market should not be used in the same sentence. To pretend that M$ really plays fair in the free market, and is just protecting its IP is a farce that flies in the face of the facts. Why shouldn't competitors have access to the same APIs that MS can access? Why should there be a general purpose API for everyone else, and a special, better, faster, more powerful extended API that only M$ programmers can use? Of course this gives M$ an unfair advantage when creating software and only serves to perpetuate their pseudo-monopoly. The nature of I.T. is that for compatibility reasons, one product tends to dominate in a given area of computer software. This has been a blind luck bonus for M$. The price to pay SHOULD be that they have to give everyone access to all of their internal APIs and related aspects of the operating system. You win some, you lose some, but it's in the best interest of consumers and society in general. The law has to be flexible enough to take the new reality of technology into account to keep things fair for consumers and keep competition healthy.
I absolutly agree, the writer of this articale obviously has no concept of what a "FREE MARKET" is. First you have to understand what 'PROTOCOLS' are. Protocols are like the engineering specifications for say a gearbox for which you want to make an after market gear shift system for, so that your gearshift will work properley with the gearbox. It is ilegal in any other field to to withhold this information or to charge for it. But some stupid judge in the U.S.A. ruled it was OK for software companies to do so. This gives the software companies a power they should not have, the ability to pick & choose who can write software to fit with their products. Well of course this is market stacking which is exactly what MS is trying to do in EU. All protocols should be freely available to everyone in order for the free market to function properly.
"a special, better, faster, more powerful extended API that only M$ programmers can use?" It would be better if you don't throw such general terms and be more concrete in the examples. I would also like to point out the underlying flaw in your argument. If these "special" API's are faster and better as you say they are, then there in lies the innovation and gives every right for Microsoft to charge a fee for that IP. What EU is saying is there is NO innovation in these protocols and hence they can't charge for these IPs. What I don't understand is if there is "NO Innovation" then why was an IP issued in the first place. The fact that an IP was issued is fact in itself that there was innovation and gives MS every right to protect it.
I have no problem with MS protecting its legitimate individual patents. After x number of years, those patents & the code that went into them then become public domain. They gained a 90% market share with Windows through their efforts. If those ideas were stolen, then they should be sued or prosecuted.
My problem stems from MS's use of their huge bank account that strives to monopolize all aspects of computer & internet applications, as well as the threat & use of lawsuits that discourages startups in the field. I believe they should be broken up into separate companies, each with their own specialties, much like ATT was in the 70s.
The problem with the Microsoft GPL deal is this. The FSF owns the copyright to most of this software. Novell is selling special unspecified license rights to use this software which they licensed from Microsoft for a limited time. This unbelievably harmful to the FSF's IP, and to many other's IP and is an example of exercising bad faith with regards to the license under which Novell is allowed to distribute the code in the first place. All the FSF is doing is closing up this loop hole that Novell came up with. The license will once again be doing the same thing in practice as it's always done.
If Dell found a loop hole in Microsoft's EULA that allowed it to give out windows for free, don't you think Microsoft would close up this loop hole? Why are the rights of the FSF and other users of the GPL less than the rights of Microsoft and Novell?
It appears that the European Commission has a great deal going on self funding. Talk about a heavy handed organization, they can make all the rules, and basically look for big companies to go after to self-fund their big building and fancy offices, plus job security. They especially like bringing in american owned company money. They don't represent EU consumers, but work to keep their own life busy with a steady stream of money. If you have a profitable competitor, go tap on the shoulder of an EC commissioner and tell them that you'd like help to make the other company less powerful, and the EC organization gets to keep the cash, billions of it! It's almost like they look at their bank account and say "hey we need more money, who should we shake down next for it?"
Do you have any data at all to back up your theory? I mean is this something you wondered upon while reading your paper than thought 'yeah , that might be true' and than just posted it as if you had first hand info?
You really think there is no control over what the EC does? That they have a bankaccount directly connected to the EC and all get a mastercard, that they even have access to the fines? That's a nice thought and easy to believe in but I guess you have no clue how the EC works at all. How would the EC especially sue american companies? Again, do you have any data to backup that theory? Do you even know of a company different than microsoft that got sued by the EC?
It's also funny how you seem to think microsoft hasn't done anything wrong. You seem to forget microsoft is the criminal and not the victim. It's not microsoft that gets targeted, they made a target of themselves by not respecting free market rules. And in case you didn't know, companies not only have rights, they have duties too, even microsoft.
An "anti-trust" counsel is extolling the virtues of free market economics and questioning the need for antitrust legislation? OK, so hell has frozen over... The reason that Microsoft is the subject of anti-trust investigations is that they have been and are in violation of anti-trust laws. The make second rate copies of innovations and force the innovators out of business. They made their bed.
Chinese authorities have reportedly taken iPads from a third-party retailer, a move apparently brought on by Apple's continued refusal to honor a trademark for the iPad name owned by a Chinese manufacturer.
NY professor believes that a word-based algorithm can help bring together those who believe, with one glimpse, that they have found and lost the love of their lives.
Along with green-lighting Google's buy of Motorola, the Justice Department today OKs an Apple-Microsoft-RIM partnership deal to buy Nortel patents, and Apple's plan to acquire Novell patents.
Chamtech's spray-on antenna uses a nano material to provide a low-power boost to antenna range. The wireless-in-a-can product may some day bring an end to unsightly cell towers.
This week, we pass around Sony's new PlayStation Vita for some hands-on testing, check out HP's newest Beats Audio laptop, and debate the best and worst Valentine's Day gadget gifts.
EnerG2 opens a plant to make an engineered carbon that will improve performance of energy storage devices and make storage for start-stop hybrid cars less expensive.
The thing is, this latter agreement violated the spirit (and perhaps even the letter) of the license agreement under which thousands of companies and individuals licensed the technology at the heart of this agreement to Novell. If Microsoft first agrees to respect other people's intellectual property rights, then perhaps it will be entitled to have governments supervise it less closely when it comes to its own IP rights.
"Just what is SMB?"
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://samba.anu.edu.au/cifs/docs/what-is-smb.html" target="_newWindow">http://samba.anu.edu.au/cifs/docs/what-is-smb.html</a>
holds a software or business method patent, it is a good indication
that he/she has invented something new and nonobvious. A short
session reading patents in these areas will show that ideas
published or used 10, 20, or more years before the patent issue
dates are very well represented in patents currently in force. As are
patents whose claims include trivial concepts that would be
obvious to anybody.
"Samba is a SMB/CIFS protocols file and print sharing server/client set originaly made for UNIX world to cooperate with corresponding Windows and OS/2 servers or clients.
OS/2 has native implementation of SMB/CIFS server/client set - IBM LAN Manager and IBM Peer. These products haven't been updated for a long time and have some compatibility problems with modern Windows SMB/CIFS implementations..."
HAPPY "20th" BIRTHDAY!
OS/2 WARP OS/2 WARP OS/2 WARP OS/2 WARP OS/2 WARP!
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://samba.netlabs.org/en/site/index.xml" target="_newWindow">http://samba.netlabs.org/en/site/index.xml</a>
The EU wants their cake and eat it too.
Any company that start getting assailed by the EU for the intellectual property (unless proven "prior art") should start to cut back operations there. Stop the money flow into the EU economy. If that doesn't work then just leave the EU. Yes it is a sizable market but if they are going to want all of your property at no charge and/or mitigate your profits by countless baseless law suits then just leave and stop supporting the product in that region until they come to their senses and gurantee your IP is safe and the market open.
If EU users could no longer get support for their MS products they would be up a creak without a paddle.
Maybe that is an idea that the EU could live with, If MS has to give away their IP then MS should charge the EU users for what is in the US free support, such as security fixes, patches, updates, etc.
This would establish the need for commercial software packages tailored to the Unix brand of OS (since all of these run a derivative of Unix). The market for non-Microsoft software would be firmly established. This would first lead to global firms with U.S. ties to examine their IT infrastructure. I'm sure most would establish a common base. Since Microsoft wouldn't be supported in Europe, they would make their U.S. associates use their O.S.
A cascade would be implemented that would gain ground for non-Microsoft operating systems and software. My thoughts are that this would lead to more web-based applications. The reason for this would be the firms that have a mix of MS and non-MS software. If everything were web-based, this would make the OS moot.
You're comments are right that Microsoft should pull out of Europe. But this would be their own loss, and would help the rest of us in the long run.
It's the nature of business.
microsoft is never going to just yank their software from a market. if they do that, they will have handed an entire market of computers to open source. even if they did it for a month. it would have irreparable damage on their ability to sell software in the EU.
Frankly wrong. FSF opposes when companies or individuals try misuse GPL-protected source code. There is not -- and there could not be -- hostility when a company protects its own innovations, proterty or whatever. Microsoft--Novell is just a tricky way of trying to bypass the GPL. If they are protecting *their own* innovations, why trying to bypass GPL that deals with source code of others?
sentences which reveal that the author is writing on behalf of MSFT.
On the other hand, let's not subject him to ad hominem arguments, especially without evidence. I think he's working from the point of view that IP rights and anti-trust laws give him guaranteed employment, so he need not understand technology.
Just a bunch of anti-establishment fools.
have been ill-behaved since day one.
The EU thing is another creature altogether - It could be 100%
legit (I don't know enough ab't EU law to know for certain), it
could be a money grab, or it could be a means by which the EU
wants to promote their own home-grown solutions in lieu of
MSFT ones. That said - if you're going to play in Europe, you
have to play by their rules. Don't like it? Leave.
I seriously doubt it's socialism, though, and jingoistic crapola
like the post I'm replying to serves no one.
/P
Capitalism has it's problems just like every other form of running an economy. Any fool can see that and only a fool would not give credit where credit is due.
If the business of America ever becomes business...that would be hell on earth.
trap and the world beats a path to your door. What companies
like Microsoft do is find out about your mouse trap and crush
you by marketing a similar trap below cost. If you want an
example, just look at what happend to Netscape. They used to
sell Netscape Navigator, until MS started giving away IE. Now
there is no company called Netscape. That's not Capitalism.
That's the beginning of Feudalism, with corporations as lords
and workers as serfs. In this new Feudalism, the serfs can easily
end up out of work, as the Lords can easily move the whole
castle to another country where they can hire cheaper, more
compliant serfs.
As for Global warming, anyone who has ever passed a basic
physics course (and I doubt you could) knows that if you apply
enough force to anything, it will move. By pulling fossil fuels out
of the ground and spewing millions of tons of the CO2 from
their combustion, along with many other pollutants, every day,
we are applying enormous force to our weather patterns.
Everything we know about Science tells us that the weather must
change. You can argue about the amount of change, but the
reality is that even a small change will have a dramatic impact on
our quality of life.
flat or maybe that the sun revolves around the earth, or maybe
you still do.
without any regulation of commerce, there is the potential for
chaos, volatility and downright lawlessness as was the case of
the savings and loan scandal. there is also the potential for
stagnation as was the case of bell and, well microsoft. look what
happened after bell was split up by "liberal socialists." it's called
innovation, which has made conservative capitalists, like
yourself lots and lots of money.
you should actually worship the people you so despise.
ever come back to respond?
People in Europe want a free lunch and they believe it is owed to them just for existing. Microsoft selling and not sharing their secrets goes against this philosophy, pure and simple.
And I should perhaps point out that Microsoft has been through more legal hassles in America than in Europe. Or have you forgotten the antitrust rulings?
AOL = MSN
Google = MS search
OSX 10 = Windows Vista
AIM = MSN messenger
Beryl/Compiz = Areo Effects in Ultimate
Then they just take old technologies, patent their own mock ups, and re-offer them as "new features" for an additional fee for either a service or for a product.
We now get less with the new items they come out with. They now limit choices which their older products had before but now only offer it in more premium versions of their applications?! Now I can't use my application more than 3 times? It expires after years down the road when I plan on upgrading my computer, or if I have to do a clean installation of their product? I have to verify every time now I using a legit copy of my products all the time? Is this a new feature that customers wanted? Being bombarded with verifications that I'm legit? come oon!
That isn't innovation. This is how to reinvent old hat to create more revenue, but with so much emphasis on protecting their IP, they make their products and services less appealing who just wants the thing to work.
Computers and software are tools for us. Shouldn't be designed so we are "tooled" by them.
The deal between MS and Novell had a few different parts. There was the collaboration part which would allow MS and Novell to work together to allow there respective technologies to have greater interoperability. This part is completely unaffected by any existing draft of the GPL.
The part that causes problems has nothing to do with getting technologies to work together. Its a patent agreement in which MS promises to Novells and only Novells customers that they will not sue them for unspecified patents in Novell technologies. This creates unequal freedoms for GPL software. The GPL's intention is only to create equal freedoms for all that use software covered by it.
Then I guess developers of GPL'd software had better not infringe on anyone else's intellectual property. If there's nothing in Linux covered by Microsoft's patents, then the Microsoft/Novell agreeement is meaningless on this issue. If the Linux code *does* infringe on patents, then all the intentions of the GPL don't change that fact.
The FSF's position on patents is clear: they don't like them. The GPL doesn't say "don't infringe on other people's patents"; the GPL says "If GPL'd software infringes on *your* patents, and you sue to enforce your rights, then you lose the right to use the infringing software." That's pretty darn hostile towards patents.
It's obvious what the FSF intends. Outright theft of intellectual property by eliminating the very notion of intellectual property. Yes, the FSF is indeed an enemy of the free market; it seeks to eliminate an entire market (that of buying and selling intellectual property).
Indeed, as is so often the case, when you follow the money, it leads right back to Microsoft!
It isn't about Microsoft, Apple, or Jello Pudding. It's about how much money the EU and others can get out of successful companies.
Trying to blame Microsoft for this is just plain silly. Will you blame Microsoft for Apple's involvement with the EU? If everything leads back to Microsoft, I'd like to see how that argument works.
Scratch that- no I don't.
It isn't about Microsoft, Apple, or Jello Pudding. It's about how much money the EU and others can get out of successful companies.
Trying to blame Microsoft for this is just plain silly. Will you blame Microsoft for Apple's involvement with the EU? If everything leads back to Microsoft, I'd like to see how that argument works.
Scratch that- no I don't.
Guess what? The joke of a UI allowed companies to hire SA for 1/2 the price of a comparable UNIX SA. Eventually the product improved significantly and I'd argue the the server is actually MS' best product right now. Yes, I said that. Don't flame unless you've used it. It works and works well and the cost is very low.
Btw, stop with the ignorant and stupid comments about how he's a paid shill. Of course he is. The other side has their's too. Does anyone really think there are people waiting around to spend their time on your cause for free? It doesn't mean they don't believe in it, or that they are liars, it only means they need to be able to support themselves. This is common in all industries, they are called Paid Experts.
...compared to other MS products, I agree. Compared to other server products? Windows Server is not even halfway there in efficiency, flexibility, and certainly not even close to workable when it comes to drivers @ the enterprise level.
[i]"The joke of a UI allowed companies to hire SA for 1/2 the price of a comparable UNIX SA."[/i]
...which is where such treasures such as "Code Red", "Blaster", and even ASUS' recent IIS6 server compromises came from. When any fool can point-click-done to a halfway workable "server" setup, any fool eventually will. ;)
[i]"Btw, stop with the ignorant and stupid comments about how he's a paid shill. Of course he is."[/i]
Of course he is... which is why his comments can be discarded accordingly. A shill (as opposed to someone with an actual stake in a given matter) is next to worthless for credibility, because he (and now by extension, CompTIA) becomes nothing more than a mouthpiece, a puppet.
/P
In this modern world, where everything is evaluated into dollars, the GNU Manifesto reintroduced the concept of work done for recognition by peers out of motivation to have fun, be happy, learning to produce goods that people need. This need and right has been exercised by Linus Torvalds and thousands of other people who saw the chance to learn things, have fun, acquire respect from peers. These people mostly have a different vision from the majority regarding what to do for entertainment, and they always find a way to survive without pain. That is how it has been for most of us. There are many of the open-source or GNU/Linux supporters who found ways to do business using the GPL software as a significant component. Each of us has a different way of doing it, and we learn everyday new facets. That is why it is difficult to theorize this in terms of capitalism, socialism, etc. but the fact is that it is working for IBM, HP, RedHat, Novell, and many individuals. Some companies, such as SCO, tried to earn big money out of the general confusion of understanding the weaknesses of the GPL, but it did not work. FOSS does not have a budget for publicity, but SCO, IBM, ZDNet, CNet (this forum) have contributed enormously to make GNU, Linux, open-source known to more people. Microsoft is trying to capitalize on the fears of corporations about patent lawsuits to gain something from association with Novell. The FSF is trying to protect FOSS from destruction by the large proprietary companies by GPL version 3. All these things are happening together under various kinds of dangers and luck, but FOSS has made progress, acquires more credibility everyday, and people are learning to make a decent living legally with the help of FOSS. Eventually there will be proper legislation to regulate all these things, but I can guarantee that abnormalities such as Microsoft or SCO will not be tolerated, and a balance will be found so that collaboration will provide tools and money will be distributed, maybe not as uniformly as idealized by Marx, nor as concentrated as idealized by Bill Gates, but somewhere in between with enough diversity, where creativity and innovation driven by necessity will provide the means for survival and decent societal behavior. It has never been attempted before with this kind of intellectual tools and the internet, so it is a new kind of challenge. There are reasons for prior failures, so it is worth trying once again.
We are just beginning to execute the first steps of a process, there are many nuances we can't explain in an acceptable way to you, but I am certain that it is viable.
I understand that today everybody is doing their best to preserve what they think is essential, that each person needs to do something to make a living, and we have decided to do things more wisely if all others respect our ways and we promise to do it quietly, without violence. Just watch how things occur, because we are also curious. If we fail, it will not hurt anybody. But if we are successful, it will be good for you, too, only different from today. There will be not much time left to discuss in these forums, either, so we will not bother you with zealotry and curses.
It's funny that some people who claim to want the market to work hate it when the market decides that their company is bereft of value. People leave MS every chance they get; that's why MS had to break the law for the first 20 years of its existence to survive. They're criminals, plain and simple, proven repeatedly in courts all over the world and found guilty. So get rid of them. Simple.
learn more at :
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.thecorporation.com/" target="_newWindow">http://www.thecorporation.com/</a>
forums. its damn easy to spot.
As long as the bean counters are worried about their beans, then the pseudo-importance of idea ownership will persist. Ultimately, they can stop a person, but they can't stop an idea whose time has come.
Which is more important - the person who invented the wheel, or the benefit reaped by society as a whole because of it?
The entire lifetime of the World Wide Web is the duration of a single software patent - the very forum we are reading this on would not exist if the WWW was made as a proprientary, patented system. Patent protection for software does far more to 'lock out' innovators from building upon technologies than it does to promote new innovation. When dominant firms use software patents and other heavy-handed tools to prevent inter-operability and competition, innovation suffers.
First you have to understand what 'PROTOCOLS' are. Protocols are like the engineering specifications for say a gearbox for which you want to make an after market gear shift system for, so that your gearshift will work properley with the gearbox. It is ilegal in any other field to to withhold this information or to charge for it. But some stupid judge in the U.S.A. ruled it was OK for software companies to do so.
This gives the software companies a power they should not have, the ability to pick & choose who can write software to fit with their products. Well of course this is market stacking which is exactly what MS is trying to do in EU.
All protocols should be freely available to everyone in order for the free market to function properly.
I would also like to point out the underlying flaw in your argument. If these "special" API's are faster and better as you say they are, then there in lies the innovation and gives every right for Microsoft to charge a fee for that IP. What EU is saying is there is NO innovation in these protocols and hence they can't charge for these IPs. What I don't understand is if there is "NO Innovation" then why was an IP issued in the first place. The fact that an IP was issued is fact in itself that there was innovation and gives MS every right to protect it.
My problem stems from MS's use of their huge bank account that strives to monopolize all aspects of computer & internet applications, as well as the threat & use of lawsuits that discourages startups in the field. I believe they should be broken up into separate companies, each with their own specialties, much like ATT was in the 70s.
If Dell found a loop hole in Microsoft's EULA that allowed it to give out windows for free, don't you think Microsoft would close up this loop hole? Why are the rights of the FSF and other users of the GPL less than the rights of Microsoft and Novell?
You really think there is no control over what the EC does? That they have a bankaccount directly connected to the EC and all get a mastercard, that they even have access to the fines? That's a nice thought and easy to believe in but I guess you have no clue how the EC works at all. How would the EC especially sue american companies? Again, do you have any data to backup that theory? Do you even know of a company different than microsoft that got sued by the EC?
It's also funny how you seem to think microsoft hasn't done anything wrong. You seem to forget microsoft is the criminal and not the victim. It's not microsoft that gets targeted, they made a target of themselves by not respecting free market rules. And in case you didn't know, companies not only have rights, they have duties too, even microsoft.