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 Chinese government controls Legend group, but does not own it.
Legend Group owns about 54% of Lenovo.
Lenovo bought IBM's defunct PC group.
You stated:
...IBM sold it's PC operations to the Chicom government...
which is not true. IBM sold it's PC operations to a company with ties to the Chicom government, not to the Chinese government itself.
And it's a money-losing, out-of-date PC manufacturing operation.
IBM, an American company, divests itself of a financial blackhole and you whine.
One might think that you just want IBM bankrupt themselves by continuing to pump money into their PC division.
So much for you being all about American busineses. Well, unless by "American busineses" you mean "Microsoft."
Wrong, loser.
The DOJ investigation into Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior began in 1990. That would be the Bush I administration. The Clinton regime saw it as an opportunity to shake down Microsoft rather than an opportunity to get down to the facts.
And it worked. Before 1992, Microsoft gave almost no money to political parties and didn't even have an office in D.C. After the Clinton DOJ had a few meetings with the Microsoft lawyers (and presumably demanded money) Microsoft opened a D.C. office, hired a D.C. lobbying firm and started dumping money into political parties.
But they made the mistake (well, the Clinton's thought it was a mistake) of dumping money into both parties, so the suit went forward.
You may have noticed that the Bush administration did everything to settle with Microsoft when they took power (
Wrong again.
The Bush administration Justice Department has even condemned the EU only recently for their ruling ainst Microsoft.
Correct, but not for the reason you want people to think. The current administration has had many differences with the EU over trade. The Microsoft action was simply something else the administration could use to beat up on the EUies.
China controls all businesses in their country, with force if necessary. It's called "communism", since you never heard of it.
IBM has historically built the best PC systems in existence. I have bought large numbers of them for work and two for my home, one being a multiprocessor server several years old but still running great.
My last IBM purchase about 3 months ago came in a box with the words "MADE IN CHINA" larger than any other text on the box. It is the last IBM I plan on ever buying, and I am not alone.
While certainly no expert in this field, I think the free market sorts this out. I switched from Netscape to IE simply because I go tired of the constant plugins I had to install in Netscape, and found IE a much better app. I don't recall anyone forcing me to choose IE over Netscape. Also, I got fed up with Windows XP and all its problems and switched to MAC. Seems to me if Microsoft dies some day it will be because of poor quality, not lawsuits.
I encourage others to note that you offered no information in your invective, probably due to the fact that your previously posted information was thoroughly refuted.
Thus you fell back on one of the few tools that the MS worshipers have, namely lies, FUD and insults.
Microsoft has had poor quality products since at least 1990, yet they haven't collapsed, so I think you'd better look for another reason for their continued survival.
Perhaps look at the nasty agreements that they've forced computer manufacturers and distributors into. Basically they require all of the major dealers to sell Windows with every computer or pay retail for Windows licenses.
With the razor thin margins that most dealers operate on, they would rapidly go out of business if that happened to them, thus Windows gets shipped on every computer whether the consumer wants it or not.
I believe in the free market too. I believe that Microsoft should be restricted from using their monopoly power to force OEMs to ship their product and let the consumer decide what they want to buy.
Now let the backpedalling begin.
microsoft has become a sick joke at our company... all our servers are now running linux with the built in SEL kernel extensions enabled...
But for regular PCs, Microsoft already gave their source code to China, so they can't even take the high ground there.
How long should a copyright be held?
IBM and Sun have a history of breaking US export control law. Microsoft? Nada.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3713194926c5.htm
Do some reading on Henry Ford and his legal battles with the patent trust that tried to claim a royalty on every car built by everyone, on the basis of some vague patents and without ever having built a car themselves
The fact is that a car is open source. If you want to go build one yourself, you're free to do so. Lots of people do. Same with airplanes. Nobody's paying royalties to the heirs of the Wright Brothers.
Not getting punished for it? They're experts at that.
An unproven accusation. While IBM and Sun have paid fines for millions of dollars, yet you defend their even more blatant misuse of our technolgy that is happening today.
IBM can't compete with Microsoft in software, so they buddy up with communists the world over to make software free. Can't compete with Dell in the PC business, so they practically give theirs away to the Chinese. Yet there you are, trying to blame microsoft. Hilarious!
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.