> No different than IBM, who needed and got a staunch competitor from Microsoft.
Certainly, for many years IBM was the Blue Meanie, the great Evil One in the computer business. But they've almost always been hardware, systems, services -- not pure software like Microsoft. Microsoft wisely stayed out of the big-iron end of the business; they write light-weight, small-computer software, and they don't have a clue on hardware or large systems.
> And they have paid a price, in court, when they went too far, while IBM always seems to skate.
In my view, Microsoft hasn't been harmed by any actions in court, whether from the fed-gov, the EU, or any other entities. They were temporarily inconvenienced by a few things, but look -- I.E. is still an integral part of Windows, Office still enjoys a tremendous advantage over other applications in terms of inside knowledge of the OS, and whenever MS pleases, it brings out products that wipe out whole sections of the competing industries by being offered for "free", tightly integrated with the OS.
Microsoft has only ever suffered because of their own mistakes, in writing crappy code and occasionally making a business error -- that's they only time they get hurt. Nobody else can touch them.
I do agree with you that IBM seems to be pretty much teflon too.
> This "opensource" resurgence was a calculated move by IBM to bring in foreign IP and use it as leverage against their competitors who were nearly pure American companies, like Microsoft/Oracle/Sun, and one that lowered the value of American IP tangibles such as patents.
Yes and no. IBM's activity in support of open-source may be as you say. But open-source has been there all along -- it was the majority and default until Gates introduced closed-source in the mid-70s. It did just fine through the 80's, in the hands of firebrands like Stallman (GNU) and others. It rose to prominence in the 90's with the various BSDs and Linux, Sun's Star-Office, etc. IBM was nowhere to be found all that time. They only jumped on the bandwagon after 2001 or so when it suited their purposes.
A lot of open-sourcers think IBM is terrific for providing support, but I'm a bit more cynical, having spent many more years disliking IBM than liking them. I suspect you and I see alike on that.
IBM holds more patents than anybody by a long shot. I don't think they seriously want to hurt patent value.
> Obviously I see International Business Machines as a much greater danger to the American way of life than Microsoft, for doing the same things you accuse Microsoft of, but for longer.
Can't really argue with that. I deeply distrust them both, especially when they seem to be altruistic.
Glad to see you're not turning a blind eye to IBM like most who distrust Microsoft, you've obviously been around long enough to know better. But since as you said open source has been around since before Microsoft, you can't claim IBM just now got on board. Stallman's first job was with IBM, and he still consults with them to this day. And I see Stallman's leftist agenda including "copyleft" and his "GNU Manifesto" as being a much greater danger to US interests than Microsoft. Microsoft wants to lease US IP to the rest of the world, while Stallman wants to give it to them for free.