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.
That seems to be your canned reply to everyone.
So all I have to say is - what you said is rubbish, and it sounds insane. Alright?
It circumvents the copyright system, because it allows for unlimited duplication of a work. If that result is desired, it should therefore be public domain. But it is not, it is a trap set for those foolish enough to use it, who then lose the rights to their work.
Simple. Your suggestion is to substitute our capitalistic system for your system of shared society. No thanks, there's too many US tech workers dependent on our capitalistic system to keep working the way it is, and this foreign freeware you are pushing on us is a serious threat.
Being rich isn't a popularity contest. Once upon a time, Al Capone was the richest man in Chicago. Lot's of the locals liked him too. He opened street kitchens and soup lines for the unemployed. That made him no less of a thug.
They just want to rob the US tech advantage and give it to their buddies for free.
They want to rob the people that have perverted the copyright system into an endless gravy train.
Microsoft needs to be watched, but Bill has been a good boy since the feds threatened to bust him up.
Unless you count the some 50 lawsuits filed against Microsoft since the antitrust case. Most of them claim that Microsoft is up to it's old anticompetitive tricks. See the lawsuit by the Burst corporation, who states that Microsoft stole their technology and made a buck off of it. So far, the case continues to go forward. All of Microsoft's attempts to discredit the evidence failed, so they destroyed evidence. Every time there is a hearing, the judge has found that Burst has a valid case. It's due to go to court this summer. Perhaps Microsoft will get broken up after all.
Microsoft is a company founded on lies and deceit, and founded by a known leftist who contributes large sums of money to third-world abortion and forced sterilization causes. Why do you continue to support Bill Gates?
These "Suse" and "Red Flag" imitations are for losers.
SuSE is owned by the Novell Corporation of Provo, UT and RedHat is based in Durham, NC.
If your going to spread FUD, you should at least have a passing idea of what you are talking about.
No, it would be to prevent Gates, or anyone, from having that sort of lock or control on information, particularly old works in libraries, dating before 1940 or 1930, just for example. If it ever got to the point that Gates could claim proprietary ownership of a vast collection of ancient material, he would also have the right not merely to hoard it, but to alter it, and to demand, by law, that you destroy any copies you possess, and particularly if you intended to share you copy with others. That's the nightmare. It's not from open source - it's from the control desired by Bill Gates and Micro$oft. Don't you see it?
As for open source attempting to remove the profit motive, remember that Micro$oft benefitted from decades of open source research in universities, openly shared, disseminated worldwide, as academic research tends to be. That's open source, worldwide. That's scientific research - worldwide. That's really what's behind open source - not a desire to promote socialism, but rather the reflection of how 'business' is done everyday at your local university. It's the worldwide campus, not the 'fraternitay' or 'internationale'. Now, if some introduce some idea foreign to that, then that is always how Communists have behaved, historically, and the same for freemasons. They latch on, attempt to subvert, control for the own, etc.
What does that say about Bill, I wonder?
You've got to be kidding. You're going to try to compare Bill Gates to Al Capone? Go ahead, start with murder. Gates is a salesman, and a damn good one. You don't like his product, unlike the 90% of the rest of us? Fine, go buy something else. But don't start pushing your freeware fix on us without also giving out the likely side effects.
They want to rob the people that have perverted the copyright system into an endless gravy train.
The copyright system is what has protected our intellectual property, one of the primary products of this country, which has not only grown in value but in significance as we move further away from manufacturing. These guys want our computer secrets fist, but that is just so it will make it easier to get our prescription drug secrets, nuclear secrets, etc. down the line. They want something, they should have to pay for it. Hey, it's the American way.
It's due to go to court this summer. Perhaps Microsoft will get broken up after all.
Not a chance while Bush is in office, because it would be a ridiculously ignorant thing to do. That was Janet Reno's BS, Microsoft may be guilty of violations, and if they are they need to be punished, I can't think of a time that they have been penalized (except this recent EU shakedown) that I thought they didn't deserve to pay. But busting them up is just a socialists wet dream, they'd love to see the world's richest guy taken down for anything.
If your going to spread FUD, you should at least have a passing idea of what you are talking about.
I obviously know exactly what I'm talking about, and those are versions of Linux, which is nothing more than a cheap Finish knock-off the the Unix operating system. It's an immitation, pure and simple. We need our software companies building to increase the value of our proprietary products like Unix, instead of these cheap foreign clones that steal our intellectual property with their "copyleft" vs. "copyright" licenses.
Chinese X Focus is to blame for posting unpatched exploits on the net, not Microsoft.
It takes two to tango. Microsoft sells trivially exploitable systems, gives China the source code, and then China exploits them.
You never had any proof it was registered, that I recall. Do you have it yet, or are you still pushing an unproven accusation as fact?
The software was operating illegally in the Taliban's UN mission (which is not a loophole for violating export control laws), so I'd estimate a high probability that it was registered in the usual online fashion and Microsoft was not performing due diligence like scanning for words like "Taliban", "Cuba", "North Korea", etc. during the registration process. I'll ask Asa Hutchinson about it the next time he's in town and let you know.
That was the IBM corporation.
Indeed it was, and they still have not been brought to account for their role in the atrocities. Nor has Microsoft for their respective actions - but there is still time.
No, because none of that is anywhere near happening yet. What is specifically happening though, right here under your daydreaming eyes, is the Chinese government is getting free software developed right here in the US, sometimes even by the National Security Agency, and they are using it to power their supercomputer systems that are being used to design nuclear bombs. Does that sound like a dream to you? Well it's not. It's the Red Hat software, that is renamed to Red Flag in China, and then used in supercomputer labs. All legal, right in the open.
So tell me again, which is worse? Your daydream, or what's happening right now with this free software like Linux?
As for open source attempting to remove the profit motive, remember that Micro$oft benefitted from decades of open source research in universities, openly shared, disseminated worldwide, as academic research tends to be. That's open source, worldwide.
You've fallen for the apple without see what it might contain. It hasn't been "open source" that led to the original publicly shared software and engineering technology. It was "public domain", which I support. Public domain is the true and free use of a product, without any obligation whatsoever, and can be used very successfully by corporations.
"Open source" is a trick, masquerading as public domain, but requiring the creator the obligation to return back to "the community" not only his rights to that work, but all future improvements to that work, with nothing ever in return. Simultaneously, anyone else ever improving that work, must submit their improvements as well, as well as any future generations, again back to this "community", if they ever try to sell these modifications. Something you need to warn people about, when you go advertising the supposed benefits of this open source software.
Not hardly.
You're going to try to compare Bill Gates to Al Capone?
A criminal is a criminal.
Gates is a salesman, and a damn good one.
Gates is a marketing genius. He's become rich by selling stuff he stole from others. His lawyer daddy both helped him with his first scam, stealing a BASIC compiler from those who contributed most of the code, and backing him finacially to set up a scam to pretend to IBM that he actually had a product they wanted, which he didn't. Since you seem a bit slow, I'll spell it out for you. Selling something you don't have is called fraud.
But don't start pushing your freeware fix on us without also giving out the likely side effects.
Side effects? Like established and published standards? Like open specifications?
The copyright system is what has protected our intellectual property, one of the primary products of this country, which has not only grown in value but in significance as we move further away from manufacturing.
Nope. Naive of you to think so, though. There are only a few people that have benefitted from the un-Consitutional expansion of the copyright concept. People who make only software, the MPAA and lawyers. Everyone else suffers.
Not a chance while Bush is in office, because it would be a ridiculously ignorant thing to do.
The President as little say in what happens in a court room. And Microsoft can only keep up it's criminal ways for so long. They've been given lots of opportunities to correct their criminal ways, but they won't. Breaking them up is the only option left.
But busting them up is just a socialists wet dream, they'd love to see the world's richest guy taken down for anything.
Punishing a thief is hardly socialist.
I obviously know exactly what I'm talking about, and those are versions of Linux, which is nothing more than a cheap Finish knock-off the the Unix operating system.
You have a long history of spreading FUD. Other than that, you have almost never shown to know what you are talking about.
We need our software companies building to increase the value of our proprietary products like Unix, instead of these cheap foreign clones that steal our intellectual property with their "copyleft" vs. "copyright" licenses.
Every dollar that your precious software companies bilk from the public is one less dollar that a real business can apply to real things, like hiring people, building things and transporting goods.
No-cost and low-cost software that do what they are supposed to do are good for American business. High-priced crap-ware like Windows cost American businesses billions of dollars every year in forever-licensing, viruses, worms and security catastrophies.
But do keep spinning on for your lefist buddy. It's cheap entertainment for the rest of us.
In other words you're still stating an unproven accusation as fact, when you've already been called on it before. What could that speak of one's character?
Indeed it was, and they still have not been brought to account for their role in the atrocities. Nor has Microsoft for their respective actions - but there is still time.
Right, in your rush to blame Microsoft for the most hideous of all possible crimes, you accuse them of doing something their #1 rival is uniquely guilty of. Do we see a pattern here?
Only if you're too stupid to read the license.
... but requiring the creator the obligation to return back to "the community" not only his rights to that work...
Only if the creator publishes it. Do learn to read, will you?
but all future improvements to that work, with nothing ever in return.
Again, only it the work is published. And getting nothing in return is a lie.
1. You get to incorporate code for free from other works under the same license, thus saving time and money in creating your work.
2. Others can examine your code, make improvments and return them to you.
3. And you can sell your code if you wish. RedHat does. So does SuSE. And IBM. And Oracle. Sun. SGI. Nothing in the GPL prevents it.
All fine, American companies. The only companies that get shafted by the GPL are theives like your buddies at Microsoft.
A murderer is a murderer, and if you can't tell the difference you've got problems beyond the context of this discussion.
stole...scam...stealing...scam...fraud.
As I always say Gates has made some mistakes and he's paid some prices. But in this long list of accusations you just made, there's no proof of any of them. Just like the other poster who lives in daydreams, in your context of free sofware for the world, Gates never stole any code, he actually PAID something for that original code, a concept apparently foreign to you. So you accuse Gates of stealing something he actually paid for, all as a smokescreen to hide the fact you want all software to be free in the end anyway.
Dirty, sneaky tricks, but obvious to more than you think.
Punishing a thief is hardly socialist.
But you are in lockstep with them. On every single issue there is.
Every dollar that your precious software companies bilk from the public is one less dollar that a real business can apply to real things, like hiring people
You put the two together, but still got it backwards. Your foreign freeware isn't about hiring anyone, it's about firing people, Americans. Not just at Microsoft, but at Unix vendors, database software vendors, down the line.
You have a long history of spreading FUD.
No I have a long history of proving your product is a fake.
Yes I'm aware, I just wish the code they were using had originated in the US, instead of from overseas.
Open source isn't evil and it isn't some golden shining answer. It won't replace proprietary code
According to IBM it will. The same guys that just sold their PC division to China.
Sounds like the dealings of the most untrustworthy salesman. No wonder Gates is such a success, he looks like a choirboy compared to you goons.
Again, only it the work is published.
I said if they dare ever try to sell it, it is you with the reading comprehension problem my friend.
And you can sell your code if you wish.
But you must also give it away at the same time, don't you. Since you can't be trusted to answer correctly, the answer is yes.
So if it's also available for free, why in the world would anybody want to buy that? Answer again: they won't, why should they, their beloved "community" is providing it for them, rather than them having to work and accept what they can afford.
Nice dodge, but I'll spell it out for you.
Fact: Al Capone was linked to several murders, but there is no proof that he murdered anyone himself. Rather, he gave other people money to murder people.
Fact: Bill Gates has been linked to no murders, but he gives money to other people that forcibly perform abortions. To many people on this website, that's murder.
Happy?
As I always say Gates has made some mistakes and he's paid some prices.
Prices? What prices?
But in this long list of accusations you just made, there's no proof of any of them.
I'll post links to my allegations when you post links to yours.
Considering that I've got a whole bookmark folder full of links to Microsoft's illegal activities, I'm not worried. But you should be.
So you accuse Gates of stealing something he actually paid for...
Paid for? Yes. But he sold it to IBM before he owned it. He sold someone else's product, pocketed the money, then bought said product and delivered it. That's fraud.
So you accuse Gates of stealing something he actually paid for, all as a smokescreen to hide the fact you want all software to be free in the end anyway.
No, I want it to be open. Most open software is free, but not all of it. A copy of RedHat Enterprise is certainly not free. But it's still open.
But you are in lockstep with them. On every single issue there is.
I'm not the one defending the gun-grabbing abortionist of Redmond.
You put the two together, but still got it backwards.
SPIN! SPIN AWAY!
Your foreign freeware isn't about hiring anyone, it's about firing people, Americans.
Prove it. Prove that one single person has been fired at any company that used open source software because they used open source software.
No I have a long history of proving your product is a fake.
Well, if lying and sucking up to Billy Gates can be considered "proof" you may have a point. Otherwise you've simply been making a fool of yourself.
In order to publish under the GPL, you have to include a copy of the GPL. It's part of the requirement. The only people that don't have a copy and read it are trolls like you.
I said if they dare ever try to sell it, it is you with the reading comprehension problem my friend.
Liar. You said, and I quote:
""Open source" is a trick, masquerading as public domain, but requiring the creator the obligation to return back to "the community" not only his rights to that work, but all future improvements to that work, with nothing ever in return."
You mentioned nowhere that it's only if you publish it. You intentionally made it appear through your intentional omission that any work must be turned over to the community.
But you must also give it away at the same time, don't you. Since you can't be trusted to answer correctly, the answer is yes.
I'd prefer to answer my own questions, thank you.
So if it's also available for free, why in the world would anybody want to buy that?
Ask RedHat, IBM and SuSE. They have lots of people buying their "free" code.
Answer again: they won't, why should they, their beloved "community" is providing it for them, rather than them having to work and accept what they can afford.
This is why I don't want you answering questions for me. It's because you're nearly always wrong.
Yet not one you've substantiated yet.
Paid for? Yes. But he sold it to IBM before he owned it.
According to who? You and your buddies from Finland?
A copy of RedHat Enterprise is certainly not free. But it's still open. Open meaning free for the Chicoms to rename it to "Red Flag" instead and run all their supercomputers on it.
I'm not the one defending the gun-grabbing abortionist of Redmond.
I'm not defending anyone. Just pointing out your lies.
Prove that one single person has been fired at any company that used open source software because they used open source software.
You're making things up again, jobs are being lost as foreign freeware like Linux is stealing jobs away from US proprietary software vendors, any company you name to wish. Who's doing it are Red Flag, MySQL, the Adobe rip offs, it's all a big Euro commie scam. And here you are pushing it.
"Lots" is a joke. Come here with some facts, instead of your scams. IBM has sold some hardware with Linux installed, primarily overseas in places like China. They especially enjoy making supercomputers out of it, how lovely it's being custom delivered right at the emperor's feet.
Why should I post them again? You've never retracted your earlier lies nor posted a single reference to validate your slander.
According to who? You and your buddies from Finland?
According to the court documents when the owner of QDOS sued Microsoft over just this thing. Microsoft settled.
Open meaning free for the Chicoms to rename it to "Red Flag" instead and run all their supercomputers on it.
And how much Windows software has made it into Chinese super computers? Could be any amount since Microsoft release their source code, not to the businesses of American, but to the Chinese government.
I'm not defending anyone. Just pointing out your lies.
You have? And here I thought you were just padding your resume to get a job at SCO. You have many of the same tactics. You'll be a great fit.
You're making things up again, jobs are being lost as foreign freeware like Linux is stealing jobs away from US proprietary software vendors, any company you name to wish.
As I said, prove it or shut up. Post a single reference to any company firing any person because "free software cost them their job." Just one.
You won't. Because you can't. Because the only place it's happened is in your dreams.
Who's doing it are Red Flag, MySQL, the Adobe rip offs, it's all a big Euro commie scam.
Lot's of spin and FUD, but still not a shred of evidence. But that's been your MO since you started posting on the tech threads.
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.