EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

08.31.11

Microsoft Tries to Lure Linux Luminaries Away From Linux

Posted in GNU/Linux, Microsoft at 4:15 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Eric Raymond's mug

Summary: Microsoft continues to try buying out its rivals from the GNU/Linux world

TECHRIGHTS has a small repository of information about what Microsoft did to Borland. This predates this site . The short story is, Microsoft abused its monopoly power to crush a smaller competitor, taking away from Borland some of the key people. It’s a form of monopoly abuse that reduces competition and enables Microsoft to boost prices, reduce quality, and lock everyone into Microsoft products (not just development products).

“People who are feeble joined Microsoft and they know who they are.”Microsoft has been trying a similar strategy against Free software and GNU/Linux. We’ve covered some examples before, including Eric Raymond (shown above). People who are feeble joined Microsoft and they know who they are. They sold out. Gianugo Rabellino is one of the latest (now promoting “open surface” nonsense for Microsoft) and Simon Phipps seemed to suggest some months ago that Microsoft was trying to recruit similar people to buy the perception that it is part of its competition and is therefore not worthy of antitrust scrutiny or scepticism. This also disrupts the competition’s operations. Moments ago in IRC we also found out that twice in the past Microsoft tried to recruit the community manager of a GNU/Linux distribution (it’s in our IRC logs). This reminds us of the tactics Microsoft used against Borland, namely destroy the competition by buying it away or removing the key people using money. To quote the confession, “about 4 months into working at [Linux company]I had the second offer” from Microsoft. Quite rightly he refused and we respect this declination which shows the putting of one’s values before money. It helps show the strength of the GNU/Linux community and the sneakiness of Microsoft, which is trying to buy out its competitors and critics (long history there and definitely a subject for another future post).

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

13 Comments

  1. Michael Glasser said,

    August 31, 2011 at 4:51 pm

    Gravatar

    It is not selling out for someone to work for a company you, Roy, do not like. Now if these people claim to share your biases and hatred and then later work for Microsoft you might have a point. You never show they share these things with you though.

    You pretend it is wrong for companies to hire talented people, or people they see as being talented. Why?

    twitter Reply:

    As it is with prostitution, the greater crime is the demand. It is foolish to take an offer from Microsoft but not criminal. Given Microsoft’s coercive monopoly conviction, the offers may be criminal. As Roy clearly pointed out, these hires are designed more to weaken competition than they are to develop anything Microsoft might use. Once the project is disrupted, Microsoft fires their sucker. We can only hope that an outraged public will wake a sleeping US Department of Justice.

    Thanks, Michael Glasser, for twisting Roy’s article around into an attack on developers. I’ve got an article coming about persistent hecklers like you.

    Michael Glasser Reply:

    There are times when going after a person to employ them is wrong – but Roy does nothing to show this is the case here. As far as your claim of the person being fired, there is nothing said about that, either.

    I did nothing to twist his article. The question is a legitimate one: why is it wrong for a company to seek to hire people?

    twitter Reply:

    The answer to your question is in the article and you seem to understand it well enough.

    The person who was fired is another programmer I read about a couple of years ago. He was hired at a supposedly chance meeting and let go a couple of years later.

    Michael Glasser Reply:

    The answer to my question is in the article – but you cannot find it to quote it. Interesting.

    As far as this “other programmer”… maybe…maybe not. And nothing in the article shows it is related to this current situation.

    There is *nothing* wrong with a company asking someone to work for them. And there is *nothing* wrong with that person deciding they should or should not. People have no obligation to limit their choices based on Roy’s biases.

    Would you be against a Linux distro manager asking someone to help them or come work for them?

    twitter Reply:

    twice in the past Microsoft tried to recruit the community manager of a GNU/Linux distribution (it’s in our IRC logs). This reminds us of the tactics Microsoft used against Borland, namely destroy the competition by buying it away or removing the key people

    You knew that but are trying to twist the article into something it’s not.

    Michael Reply:

    See how you make accusations you cannot support.

    I am twisting nothing. Roy is whining about something that is *not* a problem: companies looking to hire people and people accepting jobs from companies.

    The idea that *someone* on his IRC channel made some vague accusation is irrelevant. Curious, “twitter” if you are really Roy. After all, he said he would gladly respond to my posts – and then you started doing so.

    Not saying that is proof… just an odd coincidence.

  2. Michael Glasser said,

    August 31, 2011 at 5:28 pm

    Gravatar

    A company actually had the audacity to offer a job to a person who they admire.

    Why is that wrong? And unless the person shares your hatred of the company, why shouldn’t they consider the offer? It is not selling out simply to work for a company you (and not they) loath.

    Jose_X Reply:

    >> A company actually had the audacity to offer a job to a person who they admire.

    Do you have evidence the company admires the person?

    I know that is a silly question (since you can simply assume they do or don’t based on your view of the company and be done with it), but if you are going to criticize Roy’s interpretation as that not being evidence, then perhaps you should be more careful as well about what statements you make.

    IMO, Microsoft is the antithesis of fair competition and open collaboration.

    Jose_X Reply:

    Roy, when you say “they sold out”, is that your way of saying that the person appears to have made a switch from helping to promote and support fair competition to fighting that in favor of very lopsided playing fields?

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    Yes, for self benefit (usually money).

    Michael Reply:

    So taking a job with having *a* goal of making money is what you mean by “selling out”.

    That is kinda funny. That means almost everyone who takes a job is “selling out”.

    Michael Reply:

    Jose_X: Unless there is reason to *doubt*, when a company offers a person a job it makes sense to assume they think they will benefit from that person’s work.

    Roy, however, does not think companies should seek people to employ and that if they do it is “selling out” for the person to accept a job. Well, he does when it comes to companies he loathes.

What Else is New


  1. Links 19/2/2018: Linux 4.16 RC2, Nintendo Switch Now Full-fledged GNU/Linux

    Links for the day



  2. PTAB Continues to Invalidate a Lot of Software Patents and to Stop Patent Examiners From Issuing Them

    Erasure of software patents by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) carries on unabated in spite of attempts to cause controversy and disdain towards PTAB



  3. The Patent 'Industry' Likes to Mention Berkheimer and Aatrix to Give the Mere Impression of Section 101/Alice Weakness

    Contrary to what patent maximalists keep saying about Berkheimer and Aatrix (two decisions of the Federal Circuit from earlier this month, both dealing with Alice-type challenges), neither actually changed anything in any substantial way



  4. Makan Delrahim is Wrong; Patents Are a Major Antitrust Problem, Sometimes Disguised Using Trolls Somewhere Like the Eastern District of Texas

    Debates and open disagreements over the stance of the lobbyist who is the current United States Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division



  5. Patent Trolls Watch: Microsoft-Connected Intellectual Ventures, Finjan, and Rumour of Technicolor-InterDigital Buyout

    Connections between various patent trolls and some patent troll statistics which have been circulated lately



  6. Software Patents Trickle in After § 101/Alice, But Courts Would Not Honour Them Anyway

    The dawn of § 101/Alice, which in principle eliminates almost every software patent, means that applicants find themselves having to utilise loopholes to fool examiners, but that's unlikely to impress judges (if they ever come to assessing these patents)



  7. In Aatrix v Green Shades the Court is Not Tolerating Software Patents But Merely Inquires/Wonders Whether the Patents at Hand Are Abstract

    Aatrix alleges patent infringement by Green Shades, but whether the patents at hand are abstract or not remains to be seen; this is not what patent maximalists claim it to be ("A Valentine for Software Patent Owners" or "valentine for patentee")



  8. An Indoctrinated Minority is Maintaining the Illusion That Patent Policy is to Blame for All or Most Problems of the United States

    The zealots who want to patent everything under the Sun and sue everyone under the Sun blame nations in the east (where the Sun rises) for all their misfortunes; this has reached somewhat ludicrous levels



  9. Berkheimer Decision is Still Being Spun by the Anti-Section 101/Alice Lobby

    12 days after Berkheimer v HP Inc. the patent maximalists continue to paint this decision as a game changer with regards to patent scope; the reality, however, is that this decision will soon be forgotten about and will have no substantial effect on either PTAB or Alice (because it's about neither of these)



  10. Academic Patent Immunity is Laughable and Academics Are Influenced by Corporate Money (for Steering Patent Agenda)

    Universities appear to have become battlegrounds in the war between practicing entities and a bunch of parasites who make a living out of litigation and patent bubbles



  11. UPC Optimism Languishes Even Among Paid UPC Propagandists Such as IAM

    Even voices which are attempting to give UPC momentum that it clearly lacks admit that things aren't looking well; the UK is not ratifying and Germany make take years to look into constitutional barriers



  12. Bejin Bieneman Props Up the Disgraced Randall Rader for Litigation Agenda

    Randall Rader keeps hanging out with the litigation 'industry' -- the very same 'industry' which he served in a closeted fashion when he was Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit (and vocal proponent of software patents, patent trolls and so on)



  13. With Stambler v Mastercard, Patent Maximalists Are Hoping to Prop Up Software Patents and Damage PTAB

    The patent 'industry' is hoping to persuade the highest US court to weaken the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), for PTAB is making patent lawsuits a lot harder and raises the threshold for patent eligibility



  14. Apple Discovers That Its Patent Disputes Are a Losing Battle Which Only Lawyers Win (Profit From)

    By pouring a lot of money and energy into the 'litigation card' Apple lost focus and it's also losing some key cases, as its patents are simply not strong enough



  15. The Patent Microcosm Takes Berkheimer v HP Out of Context to Pretend PTAB Disregards Fact-Finding Process

    In view or in light of a recent decision (excerpt above), patent maximalists who are afraid of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) try to paint it as inherently unjust and uncaring for facts



  16. Microsoft Has Left RPX, But RPX Now Pays a Microsoft Patent Troll, Intellectual Ventures

    The patent/litigation arms race keeps getting a little more complicated, as the 'arms' are being passed around to new and old entities that do nothing but shake-downs



  17. UPC Has Done Nothing for Europe Except Destruction of the EPO and Imminent Layoffs Due to Lack of Applications and Lowered Value of European Patents

    The Unified Patent Court (UPC) is merely a distant dream or a fantasy for litigators; to everyone else the UPC lobby has done nothing but damage, including potentially irreparable damage to the European Patent Office, which is declining very sharply



  18. Links 17/2/2018: Mesa 17.3.4, Wine 3.2, Go 1.10

    Links for the day



  19. Patent Trolls Are Thwarted by Judges, But Patent Lawyers View Them as a 'Business' Opportunity

    Patent lawyers are salivating over the idea that trolls may be coming to their state/s; owing to courts and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) other trolls' software patents get invalidated



  20. Microsoft's Patent Moves: Dominion Harbor, Intellectual Ventures, Intellectual Discovery, NEC and Uber

    A look at some of the latest moves and twists, as patents change hands and there are still signs of Microsoft's 'hidden hand'



  21. Links 15/2/2018: GNOME 3.28 Beta, Rust 1.24

    Links for the day



  22. Bavarian State Parliament Has Upcoming Debate About Issues Which Can Thwart UPC for Good

    An upcoming debate about Battistelli's attacks on the EPO Boards of Appeal will open an old can of worms, which serves to show why UPC is a non-starter



  23. The EPO is Being Destroyed and There's Nothing Left to Replace It Except National Patent Offices

    It looks like Battistelli is setting up the European Patent Office (EPO) for mass layoffs; in fact, it looks as though he is so certain that the UPC will materialise that he obsesses over "validation" for mass litigation worldwide, departing from a "model office" that used to lead the world in terms of patent quality and workers' welfare/conditions



  24. IBM is Getting Desperate and Now Suing Microsoft Over Lost Staff, Not Just Suing Everyone Using Patents

    IBM's policy when it comes to patents, not to mention its alignment with patent extremists, gives room for thought if not deep concern; the company rapidly becomes more and more like a troll



  25. In Microsoft's Lawsuit Against Corel the Only Winner is the Lawyers

    The outcome of the old Microsoft v Corel lawsuit reaffirms a trend; companies with deep pockets harass their competitors, knowing that the legal bills are more cumbersome to the defendants; there's a similar example today in Cisco v Arista Networks



  26. The Latest Lies About Unitary Patent (UPC) and the EPO

    Lobbying defies facts; we are once again seeing some easily-debunked talking points from those who stand to benefit from the UPC and mass litigation



  27. Speech Deficit and No Freedom of Association at the EPO

    True information cannot be disseminated at the EPO and justice too is beyond elusive; this poses a threat to the EPO's future, not only to its already-damaged reputation



  28. No, Britain is Not Ratifying 'Unitary' Anything, But Team UPC Insinuates It Will (Desperate Effort to Affect Tomorrow's Outcome)

    Contrary to several misleading headlines from Bristows (in its blog and others'), the UPC isn't happening and isn't coming to the UK; it all amounts to lobbying (by setting false expectations)



  29. The EPO's Paid Promotion of Software Patents Gets Patent Maximalists All Excited and Emboldened

    The software patents advocacy from Battistelli (and his cohorts) isn't just a spit in the face of European Parliament but also the EPC; but patent scope seems to no longer exist or matter under his watch, as all he cares about is granting as many patents as possible, irrespective of real quality/legitimacy/merit



  30. Andrei Iancu Begins His USPTO Career While Former USPTO Director (and Now Paid Lobbyist) Keeps Meddling in Office Affairs

    The USPTO, which is supposed to be a government branch (loosely speaking) is being lobbied by former officials, who are now being paid by private corporations to help influence and shape policies; this damages the image of the Office and harms its independence from corporate influence


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts