The author seems to really dislike Microsoft. He's obviously not alone, but it's a pity when the article is clouded with so much obvious bias.
For example, he complains about MS defending their patents, and sees this as a direct attach on Open Source. Other than the fact that Android is sort-of-open, there doesn't seem to be a relationship. As he points out the patent problem is the fault of the USPO, not MS. Yet still spends half the article on this topic. (To call MS out for patent litigation is completely absurd - the list of companies currently litigating over patents is really, really long.)
Exhibit B has to do with MS lobbying for favorable legislation. Again this is pretty much standard practice with large companies these days. Sure it's dumb legislation, but blame the politicians for failing their job, not the company for doing theirs. again the direct link to "attacking open source" seems weak.
So here you have a company indulging in activities that pretty much all the major players are doing these days. Patent protection and lobbying are not exactly MS invented tactics. Both exist because the legislative system allows for them.
> For example, he complains about MS defending their patents
No, for using bogus patents to attack competition. Defending patents is something totally different.
> Again this is pretty much standard practice with large companies these days. Sure it's dumb legislation, but blame the politicians for failing their job,
Neither popularity of the practice nor ineptitude of the parties whose duty is to prevent it make the practice OK in my book.
He's obviously not alone, but it's a pity when the
article is clouded with so much obvious bias
Everybody is biased. It is human nature. What you need to do is to consider both sides and choose your own (biased) opinions.
MS defending their patents
Patents in question are as trivial as Amazon's one-click patent. No matter the feelings you have on IP, the government shouldn't grant monopolies on ideas/processes that can come from multiple independent sources.
as a direct attach on Open Source
Actually it is far worse than that.
Microsoft is attacking all its competitors that are perceived as threats, not by means of healthy competition and innovation -- but by cloning products, distributing those products by means of its monopoly, actively seeking even the dumbest of patents, changing legislature in their favor, and also suing and threatening the smaller companies that can't fight back (like Motorola and HTC).
If this trend continues, sooner or later everybody will pay a Microsoft-tax, i.e. Microsoft will be the ultimate patent troll.
the list of companies currently litigating over
patents is really, really long
Yes it is, but as far as patents portfolios go, Microsoft is almost as big as IBM -- few companies are like that; few companies are convicted monopolies; few companies are in a position to threaten the whole software industry.
this is pretty much standard practice with large
companies these days
Just because it is the status-quo, that doesn't make it right, or morally justified, or healthy for the economy as a whole. It's a complete non-sequitur and doesn't make sense.
Sure it's dumb legislation, but blame the
politicians for failing their job
Actually I blame the people that voted for those politicians. Those politicians are only doing what was promised in their campaigns -- and it's the people's fault that politicians need big and costly campaigns to get elected, making them seek sponsors in return for favors.
Patent protection and lobbying are not exactly
MS invented tactics. Both exist because the
legislative system allows for them.
If a bully from your school kicks you in your balls, that makes it right because other bullies do it too?
Great way of pointing out how much the situation sucks, btw. Yes, it's not Microsoft's fault, it's the fault of their customers that tolerate, excuse or applaud such behavior, without thinking that this hurts the economy and ultimately everybody.
And btw, in this reply I haven't mentioned "open-source" once, as this is a problem far bigger than that, IMHO.
You're exactly agreeing with me here. These are bad practices, and we should rail against the practices themselves. The root of the problem is however, in a different place.
Unfortunately the author writes the article from a point-of-view that implies that this is a "Microsoft versus Open-Source" issue. This is a pity because it allows people to choose sides based on their personal view of Microsoft. It hides the real issue, which is that the Patent system is broken, and the legislative system is bought-and-paid-for by companies who can effectively afford to buy an election.
Patent litigation, and the threat thereof affects software companies in numerous ways quite independently of their open, or closed, source nature.
Company-favored-legislation is rife across all industries.
My point is not that it's ok for MS to behave like this - my point is that to pitch the problem as being caused by MS allows the issue to be clouded - for example should we picket outside Redmond, or the USPO in Washington?
Then Microsoft started to try the EEE (embrace, extend and extinguish) strategy. Yet the projects under copyleft licenses like GPL are more or less immune to EEE, so MS has started to support permissive open-source against copyleft.
Winning in this context does not necessarily mean vanquishing your nemesis. OSS can win simply by becomming a viable, usable alternative in a healthy, diverse market. Not long ago, the prize of mere coexistence a fantastic notion...for any non-Microsoft alternative. Apple was hanging on by their fingernails, too.
If 'OSS' wins, that doesn't mean the end of competition. Rather, it means the beginning of competition between the numerous distributions, window managers, package managers, etc.
Fortunately, these are almost all based on the same kernel, which will allow for better interoperability and cross-platform software (cross-platform meaning Ubuntu/Red Hat/BSD/Mac etc, not Windows/*nix variant). OSS is a philosophy, not a monopolistic party.
Or, possibly, the beginning of an Apple-dominated monopoly.
I think the competition between proprietary and OSS is more productive, as Windows/Mac and Linux complement each-other better than two Linux distros would for example.
Furthermore, there are interesting features/research opportunities that simply aren't interesting for either single party.
In my experience the kernel is not such a big issue when it comes to cross-platform software. In fact, having a cross-platform core is doable right now with reasonable effort.
The problems are ironically related to the different desktop managers, package managers and so on. :)
Very nice comments in the first article from September 2005:
"If Google is just a house of cards, what's he so worried about??"
"Ballmer is not worried about google. that's WHY he said he would burry them. granted google will be a strong contender against microsoft.but do you Really think the microsoft empire will lose?! doubt it."
"Like wow... that's amazing. I guess Google is really going to do an OS and a browser."
"I'm scared to say it, but Google doesn't actually have a stable, reliable income at this point. Their stock offering and Google Earth Pro isn't enough revenue to survive an all out war with M$."
"I find the Google brand advocates funny. Google is indeed a house of card. And the reason is simple - if Google ceases to exist tommorrow, it would not matter to me or the majority of the Internet. There are plenty of 'search' technology out there."
"Google is just a bunch of PhDs trying to screw some money and get laid. They have no product, no income, no long term strategy and no future. Google is possibly last but deffinitely biggest dot com baloon about to do the typical dotcom boooooom... I just imagine Booom logo in Google colour letters."
"As much as I adore Linux and hate Microsoft everybody here is wayy off. How can you say that a search engine is the next 'holy grail' of computing? Who actually believes that Google will come out with an OS?"
"As much as I've seen AJAX hyped it's not a desktop app replacement by any means. Ever had Google Earth time out and just go to la la land? Ever seen it be as quick and responsive as Open Office or Word?"
That's barely 6 years... oh how the world has changed...
The link in the parent is really important. It shows that Microsoft has been successfully lobbying for new protectionist legislation that only really benefits them against organisations using open source in their supply chain.
From what I've read, it only applies to orgs that use pirated MS software, so where did you draw the conclusion about "using open source in their supply chain"?
"So how might this apply to open source? Well, consider a US carrier offering an Android handset: under the new laws, they would effectively be required to prove that not only did they not use any pirated Microsoft software, but that none of their suppliers did either. And given that many of those suppliers are likely to be in China, where piracy is not completely unknown, the chances that at least one supplier is in fact using the odd dodgy copy of Windows or Office is probably somewhat close to 1.
But it goes much further than Android. One of the biggest growth areas for Linux is consumer electronics. Many of the most exciting low-cost digital consumer products are running stripped-down and customised versions of Linux at their heart – and not Microsoft's Windows CE. Again, retailers and importers of those Linux-based systems would need to be able to prove that not a single one of their suppliers had a single pirated copy of Microsoft products anywhere. If they couldn't, Microsoft could effectively block the import of those products into the US states that have passed this new legislation."
First of all, I agree that the legislation is absurd - just to get this out of the way.
Your quote seems like a reasonable line of thought, but it's not exactly targeting open source, it's targeting users of pirated software. It could lead to some open source collateral damage, but OTOH it could lead to suppliers switching to opensource software. Why are they running pirated Windows anyway?
You have to ask what Microsoft's original intent was in lobbying for this legislation in the first place.
I can guarantee that Microsoft isn't going to pursue this sort of legal action against companies that are building products on Windows & Windows Phone 7.
It is yet another attempt on their part to impose a tax on companies that aren't building on their platforms & the prime target is clearly companies building on open source platforms specifically Linux & Android.
I've been a linux user since '94. What he sees as FUD, I just see as marketing. Do we expect competitors to not say bad and questionable things about their rivals? It seems to be a pretty common tactic across many industries.
Microsoft: Linux is slow, illegal, communist, unreliable.
Linux advocates: Microsoft is slow, horribly insecure, crashes all the time.
Apple: Windows is for stupid people who aren't like you, hard to use, insecure.
Most of them have varying amounts of real truth attached to them but generally overlook the big picture or just frame it in a way that makes them look best.
In addition, most of the talking points work off of the previous age, things that were much more true some considerable time ago.
Just please stop fighting with Microsoft and make a good desktop computer os.
People will use Linux if it's good, not because Windows is bad.
reply