Posted on 01/13/2005 12:54:36 AM PST by nickcarraway
Bill Gates, Microsoft's chairman and chief software architect, has been talking about the digital future. The other Bill, technology critic Bill Thompson, has been reading between the lines.
Bill Gates thinks I'm a communist.
Not the old-fashioned state socialist concerned with five-year plans for boot production in the eastern provinces, but a "new modern-day sort of communist", the sort who "want to get rid of the incentive for musicians and movie-makers and software makers".
Admittedly, Mr Gates probably does not know who I am and I doubt if he spends a lot of time reading the BBC news site.
But he clearly thinks that those of us who are concerned about the restrictions on creativity placed in our way by the extension of intellectual property law, and those who oppose software patents, pose a serious danger to the US economy and Microsoft's profitability.
Gates made his comment about communism in an interview he gave to tech news site CNet just before he spoke at the opening session of the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.
It was an interesting aside, since it revealed just how much Microsoft is worried by the growing popularity of the free and open source software movement.
Patent pounding
Microsoft likes patents and protection partly because it has a lot of patents and can afford to employ expensive lawyers to defend them.
And it is clear from what Mr Gates said at the show that he has decided to bet the future of the company on finding lucrative ways to help the content industry - music, movies and games - reach consumers rather than just offering operating systems and applications to those who want them.
That means turning away from the idea that a computer is a general-purpose device that will process any sort of digital content into building systems that enforce restrictions and help rights holders exploit their customers more effectively in future than they ever managed in the past.
It means providing publishing systems to set up online music stores, writing operating systems that allow people to listen to music and watch TV or DVDs on any screen they can find, and ensuring that all of these systems incorporate the sort of digital rights management that provide ways for content owners to 'protect' their property by limiting copying, viewing or distribution.
It is a vision that puts Microsoft everywhere - not just as a software company but as the core provider of every component for our new digital lives at work and home.
It is also a vision that relies on controlling what we can do with the music, movies, games and any other forms of digital content we find on our hard drives.
Business software and commercial systems remain important, of course, partly because Office and other tools make a lot of money, but also because the technology we will be using in our homes is only the end point of a sophisticated and incredibly complex chain of integrated components.
Xbox Live, for example, is not just about the console in someone's living room, but relies on the network and a customer management service to let people sign up and pay.
It also needs a massive server farm to host the games in progress and let players communicate.
And setting up an online music store is a major e-commerce undertaking, even once you have sorted out the rights issues with the record companies.
Tough talk
It would be easy to dismiss this as just another unreachable aspiration from an egomaniacal geek, but we should not forget just how powerful Microsoft can be.
In his CNet interview Gates defended Internet Explorer against the increasingly popular Firefox browser, arguing that many people will have both IE and Firefox on their computers and will use both.
And when he was asked if Microsoft would lose to Firefox he said "people who underestimated us there in the past lived to regret that".
Those of us who remember the browser wars, when Microsoft used its market dominance to undermine Netscape, know just what he means.
So while Linux, Firefox and even Apple may look like threats at the moment, we should not forget that Microsoft is big enough to make serious mistakes, retreat and then come back having learned its lessons.
In the mid 1990's it tried and failed to persuade US cable companies to run a version of Windows on set top boxes, believing that it would give it access to the broadband content market.
The cable companies did not like what Microsoft was trying to do and did not trust its software, and the plan failed.
But now cable companies like SBC Communications are running the latest version of the same software, and Microsoft's IPTV (Internet Protocol Television) work is beginning to take off.
It's the same with mobile phones. The first Windows smartphone, the SPV, was universally derided as buggy and unusable, but now it claims 61 operators in 28 countries are using the latest version.
And of course the second-generation Xbox will combine console gaming with home entertainment, network connectivity and many other functions.
If Microsoft has decided that the future lies with the content owners, using the increasingly restrictive laws on intellectual property to build and safeguard its markets, rather than with the hardware providers who are capable of building PCs, hard drive recorders, portable music players without copy protection, then we should all take notice.
Or in five years time it could be: "Where do you want to go today? - but get permission from Microsoft first".
Bill Thompson is a regular commentator on the BBC World Service programme Go Digital.
The drama between Open Source/Linux/Apache and proprietary licensed software like Microsoft very much parallels the more tangible battle of Marxism vs. Capitalism; government ownership of everything vs. private property rights.
The Mozilla.org logo very much is reminiscent of Communist China.
The cry "information just wants to be free" is at core an attack on intellectual property (private property) rights....
Copyright law of 100 years ago was closer to original intent of our Constitution (which includes concepts of fair use and works lapsing into the public domain).
It was also freer (no royalties to record a song on record, no royalties to play a song on radio...). Cases went to the Supreme Court and these freedoms held. Eventually entertainers got the special legislation that they wanted.
Copyrights and patents were all designed to give limited exclusive use periods to the creators (or those they decided to sell their ownership to). All works were supposed to lapse into the public domain.
The way to avoid making such information public and available is to not file it with anyone (which is why some people will reverse engineer software, hardware, and recipes).
Yes ... and no. There's the larger issue of who "owns" information... the state? Microsoft? the people? Intellectual property rights may need to be protected in some new form, but I'm afraid Bill Gates and megacorporations are not the folks I want to trust with control over information access.
More than ever, Microsoft needs Commies, and Commies need Microsoft.
That is double speak for Communism.
The American state does not own intellectual property rights. The patent office can be used to enforce your own intellectual property rights (with the stipulation that you will relinquish those rights at some future point). Our government creates NO copyrights, government texts are copyright free (which is why many publishers will release their own "Starr Report" or "Warren Commission" books using the government text). Even NASA images and WPA photos from the Library Of Congress carry no royalties.
The belief was that our inventions and literature would develop our culture. One thing would build off of the next. We would never have gotten to this stage of scientific development if someone tried to monopolize things forever.
Many people try to develop new technology (as it has always been). There were "races" to develop planes, television, and movie cameras. The rewards seem to go to the one who gets the job completed first (not just develops the "missing" piece) and can capitalize on it.
I think that the private race for space will have more pay off in the long run but it would be wrong to require all space launches to go through one private agency. Should everyone be driving a Ford today? Should different manufactuers' cars run on different patented fuels and even require different roads?
Spoken like a true Globalist. Sheesh.
Astute friends of mine describe China as Fascism with a Communist face. Chinese free enterprise is for the benefit of the state and its expansionist aims. And, I'm not sure how "free" those enterprises are. Try putting out an unapproved website, for example.
LOL
Seems to me that open source philosophy is just another contender in the free market.
Exactly, and the Mozilla people have decided to give theirs away. Now, if some talented programmer or group who contributes to Mozilla realizes the marketability of their talents, they can enter the free market at a compensatory level. Let the market work and stay out of people's choices. If they want to work for less than they're worth, it's good for the consumption side of the equation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.