Home Page
05.21.2007 (previous | next)
Who Scares You More, Microsoft or the Free Software Foundation?

Mark Blafkin from ACT has an excellent review of the Free Software Foundation's FUD agenda against Microsoft.

...when it fits their (the Free Software Foundation) strategic goal of killing software patents, Stallman et al talked as if the threat from Microsoft's patents was deadly real. Now that Microsoft is finally admitting they think Linux distributions ARE infringing their patents, they change their story.

If they always assumed Microsoft's patents were bogus, why didn't they calm the fears of their developers rather than fan the flames in all their anti-patent rhetoric?

If you're a FOSS customer, developer or firm shaking in your boots about Microsoft and software patents, you could not be making the Free Software Foundation happier. Microsoft is trying to sign patent agreements, the Free Software Foundation wants to destroy Microsoft- and they will gladly destroy themselves and the community to do it.

posted by Noel Le @ 7:02 AM | Free Culture Movement

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment(5)


Comments

Important to note that ACT has always been a fairly transparent microsoft front:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Association_for_Competitive_Technology

The FSF doesn't want to "destroy microsoft", it just wants microsoft to stop trying to deny others the market freedom microsoft themselves enjoyed and benefitted from. Remember, microsoft arose and became a highly successful company long before widespread software patenting. It was a few years after Gates shifted their strategy to grabbing patent micromonopolies (~1991-92) that microsoft crossed over into being a real market megamonopoly (~1995ish). It is unsurprising that if you hand people a bunch of specific monopolies on a plate, they build a larger generic monopoly.


Posted by: Larko at May 21, 2007 8:49 AM

How exactly does Microsoft deny free markets to others? Thats something I see the government doing, but not a private entity.

Posted by: Noel at May 21, 2007 3:45 PM

Noel, various courts have documented in excruciating detail how Microsoft denies free markets to others. Yes, I can guess what you think of those lawsuits - but ignoring them is a bit dishonest.

Posted by: John Gordon at May 21, 2007 5:20 PM

John, I"m aware of the Microsoft antitrust cases. With the US cases decided, do you feel that Microsoft still denies the free market to other innovators (lets just keep this about the US for now). If so, what do you propose, another antitrust suit, should Microsoft's competitors go knocking on the door of the DOJ? Perhaps you think the responsibility for calling out anticompetitive action and punishing monopolists has shifted to consumer groups.

I'm just trying to gather your thinking.

Posted by: Noel at May 21, 2007 5:40 PM

Noel, Microsoft in particular has a lot of influence on USA government policy. But anyone who supports patent monopolies is trying to deny free markets to others. As microsoft and their front organisations and ibm have actually worked to create the legal regime of software patenting in the USA, they crossed over from trying to doing.

The US government's feeble antritrust judgement was silly and wrong (yes, I was on microsoft's side on that one - kindof) - Simply ceasing granting patent and copyright monopolies would allow the freed market to sorted out the microsoft problem in short order.


Posted by: Larko at May 22, 2007 9:03 AM








 
IPcentral WebLog

Blog Main

IPcentral Blogosphere Archives

Search the Blog

Recent Posts
  - IP and Marginal Cost
- Academics and Copyright
- More on Jammie Thomas from DOJ
- More Studies of Downloading
- Facebook, MySpace, and Network Externalities
- Copyright and the University: An Academic Symposium
- Tyler Cowan on Chinese Movie Piracy
- More WHO Antics--Roger Bate Reports
- Patents, Meds, and the Developing World: Clips & Links
- Jermaine Dupri's Gripe with iTunes
Archives by Month
  - December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
  - (see all)
Archives by Subject
  - Academia
- Access: Commons, Fair Use, Orphan Works, Public Domain
- Accounting
- Analog Holes
- Antitrust
- Art
- Aspen
- Big Tent
- Biotech
- Books
- Comments from Readers
- Counterfeit
- Digital Americas
- Digital Europe
- Digital Europe 2006
- DMCA
- DRM & Watermarks, etc.
- Economics, Game Theory & Public Choice
- Enforcement & Remedies
- Free Culture Movement
- Games
- General
- Infrastructure
- International
- Internet: P2P, Search Engines...
- Legislation and Legislators
- Liberty and IP
- Markets: Business, Investment & Innovation
- Media: Video, Music...
- Patents
- Pharma
- Physical Property
- Prices, Terms, and Licensing
- Privacy and Security
- Radio
- Software
- Spectrum & Wireless
- Standards
- Supreme Court
- Tax-Funded IP
- Telecom
- Theft of Service
- Universities
Links
 

Site Feed

  - Atom
- RSS 1.0
- RSS 2.0
We welcome comments by email - look for a link to the author's email address in the byline of each post. Please let us know if we may publish your remarks.


 
Home Page