Jeff sez, “Inspired by Boing Boing post about Microsoft tax dodge, cartoonist RR Anderson takes on Washington’s $100 million tax cut and tax amnesty for Microsoft.”
As the Seattle Weekly discussed earlier, the Seattle Times has yet to report on Representative Ross Hunter’s HB3176 and its proposed $100 million tax cut for Microsoft as well as $1.27 billion in amnesty. It may be that the paper is too busy running to the bank to cash Microsoft’s latest check for a full page ad on the controversial 20th century vision to add more car lanes highway 520.
“Microsoft looks at new ideas, they don’t evaluate whether the idea will move the industry forward, they ask, ‘how will it help us sell more copies of Windows?’”
Summary: Very negative portrayal of Free software is tied to a lobby that’s directly tied to Microsoft and also strives to criminalise Free software in the EU
Lobbyist Francisco Mingorance from the Business Software Alliance (BSA) is a die-hard advocate for software patents on the European level. The original EU-Commission software patent directive proposal which was defeated by Eurolinux and supporters was last saved by the lobbyist Francisco Mingorance. His recent intervention at the European STOA panel shows that we have to stay alert and defend the rights of software SMEs and the Linux sector against our opponents and their patent ideology.
Look. I wasn’t surprised when Microsoft launched yet another patent/IP FUD attack against Linux and Open Source, and I’m not surprised that some organization with the Business Software Alliance as a member is attacking Open Source.
Break it on down now
You need to understand something: the BSA is basically a front organization for Microsoft and has consistently and continuously lobbied against Free and Open Source Software.
They have done everything anti-Open Source they can short of printing up stickers of Calvin pissing on a penguin.
To understand where the BSA is coming from – or if you find yourself in need of an emetic – read its 2005 publication Open Source and Commercial Software: An In-Depth Analysis of the Issues. The bias against Free and Open Source Software is present in virtually every single sentence; much of it serves as talking points for Microsoft apologists and the IIPA “report”.
Since I began writing this blog in 2005 I have watched open source move from a fringe idea to something embraced by the IT mainstream.
But there are still extremists out there who want to destroy open source. Some of their names may surprise you.
What they have done is retreat into a group where they seek not to be identified.
The International Intellectual Property Alliance dates from 1984, before open source began, and is thus the perfect front group for this activity.
[...]
If the BSA’s position has reversed, if it now wants to use the force of the U.S. government to drive open source under, then its members are also against open source. But the BSA’s membership includes IBM, HP, Cisco, Adobe, and Dell — some of the biggest boosters and biggest beneficiaries of open source on the planet.
It’s time to ask these companies. Do you agree with the position of the trade group you belong to? Should you continue to support a trade group that is acting against your corporate interests?
The reason they should be put on the list? Their governments encourage (but do not mandate) their administrations to use open source software. Obviously, this reduces the revenue of cost software vendors and publishers, but it is a real stretch to call this piracy. The governments are simply making business decisions, weighing costs and benefits. And given the quality of open source software and operating systems, that decision is rather easy.
This would not be the first time that the BSA is doing this. Previous examples that we gave here involved Firefox and Fedora, but these examples go back almost 4 years. It’s useful to know that the BSA is still acting like Microsoft’s bulldog, spreading the illusion that “Free” (as in freedom and sometimes price too) is illegal. No doubts are left about the BSA’s agenda. As Blankenhorn has argued, IBM, HP, Cisco, and Dell should withdraw BSA funding. As it stands, these companies indirectly support software patents in Europe and also attempt to illegalise Free software. █
Summary: How the Gates Foundation is controlling this system through perceptions that offer privileged positions of authority
Bill and Melinda Gates make money from illness, but there are other areas where they work to ensure that schools, for example, only use Microsoft software and get children “addicted” to Gates’ proprietary ‘drugs’. There is a payoff here and Bill Gates once said that “they’ll get sort of addicted, and then we’ll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade.” Despite the obvious facts, Gates is being treated as though he is minister of education as we previously showed in posts like:
It is not unusual for the Gates family to promote its agenda by ‘planting’ some articles out there in publications with a great reach. The husband of the former head of the Gates Foundation did just that, but it needn’t be so shallow anymore; the Gates Foundation is hiring a lot of PR personnel for what ought to have been about charity. As we asked many times before, what are they trying to hide using spin? We already know the answer and we showed it many times in a variety of contexts.
Melinda makes an informercial disguised as an oped for a newspaper where she sits on the board
Next time Gates Keepers wants to publish an infomercial disguised as an oped in a newspaper we will be sure to go to a newspaper where we sit on the Board of Directors. That is what Melinda has done. Has this Gates Foundation board member no shame? Why didn’t she send it to another paper where she doesn’t sit on the board?
Nice catch.
The same site has also caught this piece from an anti-abortion/contraception group that is religious.
In exchange for perpetuating this glorious deception and maintaining a silence on the Gates/Buffett world-wide killing machine, CRS has received in excess of $40 million for global and agricultural development and financial services for the poor from 2003 to 2009. Compared to the billions Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett and his family spend on their true passion – baby killing and. population control – it’s a drop in the bucket, of course, but I’m sure they consider their money well spent. In reviewing the anti-life record of the Gateses and Buffetts, one they have successfully keep out of the public eye, thanks to organizations like CRS.
This stance on abortion/contraception is not necessarily something that most people would agree with; regardless, they call the Gates Foundation a “world-wide killing machine”; considering what happens in Nigeria (see video at the top), there is an element of truth to it. █
Summary: Criticism of the patent system is increasing and abolishment too is being considered for what became a hindrance — not a facilitator — to science
Filed under post slug “Patent Fail”, the following new post from Tim Bray is an expression of hatred of patents (Bray works for Oracle, but opinions in his blog are personal). He titled it “Giving Up On Patents”:
Not so many years ago, even as I was filled with fear and loathing of the hideous misconduct of the US Patent & Trademark Office, I retained some respect for the notion of patents. I even wrote what I think is an unusually easy-to-read introduction to Patent Theory. But no more. The whole thing is too broken to be fixed. Maybe it worked once, but it doesn’t any more. The patent system needs to be torn down and thrown out.
[...]
And here are a few words for the huge community of legal professionals who make their living pursuing patent law: You’re actively damaging society. Look in the mirror and find something better to do.
Maybe Bray can confront his employer over this*. Among those new articles that he cites is this excellent Mises analysis which uses the confusing term “IP”:
How should the IP system be reformed? For those with a principled, libertarian view of property rights, it is obvious that patent and copyright laws are unjust and should be completely abolished.[2] Total abolition is, however, exceedingly unlikely at present. Further, most people favor IP for less principled, utilitarian reasons. They take a wealth-maximization approach to policy making. They favor patent and copyright law because they believe that it generates net wealth — that the value of the innovation stimulated by IP law is significantly greater than the costs of these laws.[3]
What is striking is that this myth is widely believed even though the IP proponents can adduce no evidence in favor of this hypothesis. There are literally no studies clearly showing any net gains from IP.[4] If anything, it appears that the patent system, for example, imposes a gigantic net cost on the economy (approximately $31 billion a year, in my estimate).[5] In any case, even those who support IP on cost-benefit grounds have to acknowledge the costs of the system, and they should not oppose changes to IP law that significantly reduce these costs, so long as the change does not drastically reduce the innovation gains that IP purportedly stimulates. In other words, according to the reasoning of IP advocates, if weakening patent strength reduces costs more than it reduces gains, this results in a net gain.
Economists recognise the fact that patents are harmful and so do engineers. But as long as lawyers run our governments and collude with other lawyers [1, 2], rules will be established by the wrong people. It’s a battle between creators and leeches of these creators. A lot of people may not remember this, but Bill Gates was bound to be a lawyer, raised by a prominent (and apparently corrupt) lawyer, so he is not an engineer. Tim Berners-Lee, a true innovator, says that “software patents are a terrible thing”, but Microsoft still uses these for racketeering [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7], even this week. █
_____ * I had arguments with Sun about the subject (but a lot of employees suppress their own opinion because of a paycheck).
The Against Monopoly Web site refers to that same article which reveals the lesser-known sides of Intellectual Ventures:
Is this just a patent troll or a new way to extract money from everybody?
[...]
It doesn’t sound to me like Myhrvold has much interest in the poor inventors. Rather, he just seems to want their patents so he can make piles of money suing manufacturers.
One reader of ours says that “Intellectual Ventures & Myhrvold [are a] fraud worse than patents trolls” and he points to this first comment from the Against Monopoly Web site (written by “Repentant Patent Owner”):
Having had some direct experience with Myhrvold’s group (and hence my desire to remain anonymous), I suggest the following. “Patent troll” is too simplistic and limiting. Think of IV as a combination mob protection racket + ponzi monetization scheme.
The goal is build an increasing portfolio of interlocking patents under control through a kind of pyramid scheme. Eventually the principals (Myhrvold, Gates, others) will cash out later. The patents are rarely held directly, instead they are held in an elaborate pyramidal network of LLC’s, LLP’s, etc.
The mob protection racket is in the form of thier pitch to current patent owners & potential licensees: “we’ve never sued for infringement, but of course a few of our patents have been sold to folks who do sue for nasty damages. Be a shame if anything would happen to your nice business, eh? Why not join us as a licensee AND investor? I’m sure we can make sure no patents of interest to you end up with the nasties.”
The idea is to get patent-owning firms (particularly multi-patent owners) to agree to sell ownership of the patents to IV, but also to get them simultaneouslyh INVEST in LLP’s that buy more patents. More investors means more $ to buy more patents, which brings more investors, which (especially when leveraged) brings more patents, which, …. until (someday) they have all the patents (of course Myhrvold & Gates are gone by then). All along the way, IV takes substantial mgt fees for managing all these portfolios & LLP’s.
No, IV isn’t a troll per se. It’s probably worse long-term for the larger economy. Kind of like how some of the worse Wall St creatures haven’t been extorting per se, but when you put together a pyramid of SIV’s levering off each other and buying Mortgage backed securities and then artificial derivatives based off the already derivative securities, all with 1% capital you get something not very healthy for the economy, but enormously profitable for the bank that manages the setup for fees.
If it is indeed a pyramid scheme, then it should be treated as such, despite the massive PR and lobbying that Intellectual Ventures is doing. The president of the FFII points out that “Even the average reader of the Harvard Business Review has a gut appreciation for the fundamental unfairness of software patents.” He points to this VC who speaks about Intellectual Ventures in response to that same report from The New York Times:
Software patents are the problem not the answer
[...]
Nathan supports this argument by comparing the current market for intellectual property to the early days of the computer industry. He argues that in the 1970s people did not believe the software industry could be an independent business and that it would always be linked to hardware. He says that software industry developed for two reasons. First, software vendors persuaded software users to respect intellectual property rights through both education and lawsuits, and second, the vendors overcame system incompatibilities and developed solutions that would work on different computers. Nathan suggests that a market for inventions would emerge if the same two conditions are met, and then offers his company Intellectual Ventures as a model for how to meet them.
I do not agree. Here’s why.
Let’s start with software analogy. Put aside the fact that in the 70′s software vendors used copyright law to prevent the outright copying of their software and not patents as Nathan proposes to do. The real reason the independent software industry emerged is that operating systems and APIs made it possible for independent software vendors to develop applications independently. They no longer had to ask permission of the hardware vendors. This same characteristic of permissionless innovation led to the explosion of independently created services on the internet. The rampant abuse of the patent system has created the opposite condition for the creators of software and web services today.
Perhaps Mr. Myrhvold recognizes this, because in the article he says “I’m trying to get inventions that kind of respect as an economic entity.” (Emphasis added). IV apparently incentivizes innovation on…inventions? “Inventions” are actually a term of art in patent law, they are the things for which one can legally be granted patent rights. IV, therefore, seems to admit that it wants to enforce patent rights so that we can…have more patents. Mr. Myhrvold wants to create an entire economic category based on payments to entitles that don’t build, produce, sell, etc, any products, or create anything of value (i.e., that don’t innovate, at least in any useful way that advances human progress), in exchange for not being sued on exclusionary patent rights.
Groklaw quotes from the article a part which says: “In the article and in conversation, Mr. Myhrvold describes the patent world as a vastly underdeveloped market, starved for private capital and too dependent on federal financing for universities and government agencies, which is mainly aimed at scientific discovery anyway. Eventually, he foresees patents being valued as a separate asset class, like real estate or securities.”
“A new way to gamble at the public’s expense, as I see it.” –Pamela Jones, GroklawPamela Jones mocks this comparison to “real estate”. “Is he kidding,” she asks, “After what investors/bankers/hedge funds in real estate did to the world’s economy? He wants to do that with patents? A new way to gamble at the public’s expense, as I see it.”
One of our readers, the one who wrote a short article about Myhrvold glorification in some gullible Web sites, points to this followup and calls it “More vacuous glorification of Gates and Myhrvold, “The Dawning of the Age of Biology” is a dinner that makes me want to gag. There’s a nice picture of Gates looking nasty, but the text is gibberish. It is not surprising to see Huffington Post people at such a gathering, but it is sad to see BoingBoing getting suckered by the “shoulder rub”. Jardin might want to take a shower to wash that rub off if she thinks of what Microsoft business methods will do to medicine and food.”
Yes, those old PR stunts of Myhrvold do receive some attention and the same goes for Gates (coverage from The GigaOM Network which was paid by Microsoft). The writers seem not to pay attention to what really happens out there (lack of context) and overall, the problem is no longer just Microsoft because the Gates family is spreading to other abusive monopolies and even funds/creates this patent menace that Myhrvold is engineering. █
Summary: How Microsoft abstains from paying tax like the rest of the nation’s citizens while press that’s complicit with Microsoft sweeps the problem under the rug
THE PREVIOUS POST discussed Microsoft’s control of the press, especially in Washington (the state). But there are also some interesting news from Washington DC. We’ll touch on both subjects.
Some of the biggest multinationals operating here, such as Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard, are gearing up to fight an Obama administration plan to curb offshore tax avoidance.
The $15.5bn (€11.3bn) proposal in US President Barack Obama’s 2011 budget targets what the IRS calls the growing problem of so-called transfer pricing. The technique allows companies to reduce their tax bills by transferring intangible property such as patents, trademarks and licenses to offshore subsidiaries.
The Business Software Alliance (BSA), a Washington-based trade group that represents technology companies, said it would “educate policymakers” on how the proposal would hurt US companies, jobs and the economy.
Software and computer companies such as Microsoft Corp., Hewlett-Packard Co. and Dell Inc. are gearing up to fight an Obama administration plan to curb offshore tax avoidance.
The $15.5 billion proposal in President Barack Obama’s 2011 budget targets what the Internal Revenue Service calls the growing problem of so-called transfer pricing. The technique allows companies to reduce their tax bills by transferring intangible property such as patents, trademarks and licenses to offshore subsidiaries.
“Microsoft ramps up its lobbying team,” according to another report (among others):
Microsoft is fortifying its congressional lobbying team as major issues that could affect them begin to work their way through Capitol Hill this year. The software firm has hired Christina Pearson to join its Washington office as senior director for public relations.
And also:
WASHINGTON: Microsoft named Christina Pearson the senior director of PR in the company’s Washington office, effective February 15.
Pearson, most recently an SVP at Fleishman-Hillard, is a former assistant secretary for public affairs at the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). She replaces Ginny Terzano, who was hired to lead the communications practice at Dewey Square Group. Pearson reports to Lori Harnick, senior director of PR, who continues to oversee public affairs.
That’s just more lobbying. It’s interesting to see a move into the Dewey Square Group, which relates to illegal Microsoft AstroTurfing [1, 2, 3, 4].
Washington may soon be broke. So perhaps now is not the best time for Rep. Ross Hunter to suggest one of the state’s richest companies get a tax break.
In 1997, Microsoft opened a small office in Reno, Nevada. Why? So they could avoid paying $100 million a year in software royalty taxes.
Seattle Times Microsoft Tax Dodge Coverage Only Found in Comments
Microsoft’s alleged dodging of over $1 billion in Washington state Royalty taxes may or may not be illegal. It may or may not be unethical. But it’s certainly news.
The P-I, Crosscut, KUOW, HorsesAss, TechFlash, BoingBoing, the U.K.’s Guardian, Huffington Post and Seattle Weekly all think so. The Seattle Times does not.
We’ve mentioned this before. At The Seattle Times they also glorify and whitewash Gates’ character, whereas The Seattle Weekly was also willing to help expose and cover Microsoft fraud [1, 2]. Another bad publication is the Seattle P-I, which is like a 24/7 advertisement for Microsoft, but the staff there declined from about 150 to just 8 or so. █
Summary: New chart of the “Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation” serving as a tax-exempt business venture/operation with some revealing disclosures of investments
Looking at the Gates Foundation’s holdings from the end of 2009, one can see that the endowment was trimming to its massive Berkshire Hathaway stake. Elsewhere, Gates was making limited moves, adding shares of Mexican broadcaster Grupo Televisa (TV) and vehicle dealer AutoNation (AN).
The Gates Foundation also held steady with large stakes in fast food chain McDonald’s (MCD), beverage maker Coca-Cola (KO), heavy equipment maker Caterpillar (CAT), waste services firm Waste Management (WM), energy giants Exxon Mobil (XOM) and BP (BP) and discount retailer Wal-Mart (WMT).
As we showed before, Gates is making more money from world hunger by investing in patents of companies like Monsanto. We wrote about this many times before and provided extensive evidence. The investment in Grupo Televisa, for example, also enables controlling media coverage, e.g. regarding the Gates Foundation. Gates also invests in Wal-Mart, which ended up choosing Novell over Red Hat (there are also personal reason at play) and then there are those investments in alcohol and Big Oil (giants like Exxon Mobil and BP) that AstroTurf against scientists who highlight the issue of global dimming, warming, or whatever the situation may be called. Since Gates is investing in Exxon Mobil, there is a dangerous alignment of interests. We mentioned the other day that Gates was downplaying global warming, as usual (the press does not pay attention to critics of his approach and instead plays along with the celebrity who is against immediate action [1, 2]). How much effect (if any) do these investments have? Why put money in the same companies that have AstroTurf operations (funded with millions of dollars) to knowingly lie about the reality and put civilisation at huge risk, leading to many deaths?
“Over in Africa, Gates and his investments in oil are killing Nigerian children…”There are many real issues that the press in the West is ignoring. Over in Africa, Gates and his investments in oil are killing Nigerian children (while the foundation is pretending to save lives over there). How about the investments in Caterpillar, which has an atrocious record when it comes to human rights and workers’ rights, especially abroad? And McDonald’s? Come on. There are also newer investments in UK retailers which have nothing to do with charity, just profit without obligation to pay tax (that’s what makes the foundation so valuable to Gates and Buffett, who also enjoy the PR aspect).
By what right does Bill Gates arrogate himself above national leaders?
Microsoft chairman Bill Gates has been held in awe for many years for his business acumen. But since the world’s richest man embarked upon a career change as a global philanthropist his self-importance has blossomed.
On the occasion of the latest global mega gabfest known as the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Mr Gates granted interviews to two German newspapers to vaunt his foundation’s work, and then to criticize and shame the Prime Minister of another European country – Italy – for not conforming to Gates’ definition of generosity. Such effrontery is almost unheard of. Is Bill Gates so involved in his own version of the finest in philanthropy that he never had time to learn diplomacy, manners or humility?
Mr Berlusconi, who has provided fodder for the prurient international press with his peccadilloes (which occurred on his Sardinian property and not in the government seat of power as with Bill Clinton in the Oval Office), has become the whipping boy of Bill Gates: his is the sole name on Gates’ “List of Shame.” What for? For allegedly reducing foreign aid as part of the Italian government’s budgetary measures to attempt to reduce a government deficit of 5.3 percent of GDP and an official debt of 115 percent of GDP.
Gates’ political agenda should come as no surprise as he was never actually a programmer. Neither were his parents.
“Fine, Gates said. Simple enough. Change the Windows model to be like the Mac.
“But if the Windows team changed the model to pull, the ship date would slip another year. Gates simply didn’t understand the architectural issues because he had not been in on the development process.”
–Barbarians Led by Bill Gates, a book composed by the daughter of Microsoft’s PR mogul
We previously showed how Bill Gates was pressuring government officials to whom he gives money to also give money to companies he is investing in (i.e. profits from) under the guise of “charity” (at the expense of taxpayers, meaning the poor). This is scandalous and it might also explain why Gates denounces world leaders who do not swing that way. In a later post we will write about the Gates-backed Intellectual Ventures, which is like a racketeering operation of massive scale and also a pyramid scheme. Yes, Bill Gates and his friend Nathan are destroying the IT industry with something that’s akin to racketeering and derivative scams (investments backed by bubbles). The media largely ignores these issues, maybe conveniently and maybe because Gates is investing in it. █
Summary: The company that just refuses to die suddenly finds a new fountain of cash and Microsoft continues to stifle Free software through infighting and infiltrations
MICROSOFT has a proven (and thus factual) history of putting money in SCO, which has been suing Linux for almost a decade, always finding some extra cash to fund more motions and ensure that the trial does not end. On numerous occasions in the past we showed that Alwaleed bin Talal, a friend and/or partner of Microsoft’s Bill Gates, made his appearance in relation to investments in SCO [1, 2, 3, 4]. There are a few other examples like this (the firm of Bill Gates’ father for example), where Microsoft seemed like it was still funding these baseless lawsuits against Linux. Well, according to Groklaw, Ralph Yarro wanted to give a couple of million to SCO just a short while ago:
You’ve been expecting this, I’m sure. Ralph Yarro wants to loan SCO some money, $2 million, or more accurately up to $2 million, and the SCO trustee, Edward Cahn, wants to let him. It’s all at “arm’s length” and “in good faith” negotiations with this SCO insider, don’t you know. So, does this mean nobody else wants to fund SCO? No potential buyers? Just Ralph? And Cahn asks the court to please shorten the time to handle the motion. Is SCO on its last legs or something?
The motion calls Yarro the “former Chairman” of SCO’s board of directors. See all the stuff you can hide if you don’t file MORs or with the SEC, despite being a public company? Say, didn’t Cahn promise to file those MORs by now? What, they look too awful? Still, they’re supposed to be filed. Well, well. SCO’s MO seems to be catching. Delay, delay, delay while they keep their greedy hand reaching desperately for the brass ring.
“The Trustee is advised that Seung Ni Capital Partners, L.L.C. is a newly formed entity formed by Ralph J. Yarro III (“Yarro”) and was created for the purpose of providing postpetition financing to the Debtors. Since Yarro is the former Chairman of the Debtors’ Board of Directors and the Debtors’ largest shareholder, Yarro is an insider pursuant to Bankruptcy Code section 101(31). See 11 U.S.C. § 101(31). The Trustee represents that at all times the negotiations among the Trustee, his advisors and Yarro were at arms-length and in good faith.”
Wait. Look at page 2. It’s a loan from Ralph in public and “other lenders from time to time”. Uh oh. Page 3:
9. In accordance with the Credit Agreement, additional Lenders may also make loans to the Debtors under the Credit Facility from time to time.
Not another weirdo deal with shadows… Remember the York deal in 2007, speaking of shadows? It was a Super Dooper Senior Secured Super-Priority Credit Agreement too. We’d better look at the exhibits, which set forth the precise terms. I’ll swing back by after I do that.
In the dispute between the SCO Group and Novell about the copyright for Unix, the new jury trial scheduled to begin on the 8th of March is apparently set to go ahead: according to a statement by Chapter 11 trustee Edward Cahn, SCO’s majority owner Ralph Yarro wants to inject a loan of $2 million dollars into the financially stricken company.
Legal observers at Groklaw reported that Ralph Yarro intends to finance the loan via his investment company, Seung Ni Capital Partners. The loan is termed to run for a year at an interest rate of 6.6%. SCO will have to repay the loan before settling its other open debts. Among these is a court order to pay $2.5 million to Novell. Earlier, trustee Cahn had told the bankruptcy court that SCO was in urgent need of further funding if it was to survive the new trial. The trustee said that without further funding he would not be able to continue SCO’s business.
Presumably Novell will soldier on with this handicap and SCO gets to bring up years of irrelevant evidence as it did before. How the trial can go in two or three weeks with this Pandora’s box now opened is beyond me.
Another strange thing. The judge made his ruling without a hearing… That can happen if the matter is clear but there is obviously a dispute. Why not have it out in a hearing? I fear the fix is in. SCO is getting everything its own way, even having Utah law applied to a California contract. Novell will have to start all over again in SCOTUS. How many years will it take?
Other new articles from Groklaw (regarding SCO) are:
What’s also worth commenting and remarking about is Microsoft’s OSBC keynote. Darryl Taft wrote about it, but he changed his headline (or maybe the editor did) from “Microsoft to Spread Open Source Love at Business Conference” to “Microsoft to Talk Open Source at OSBC”. Why the sudden change?
In any case, Dana Blankenhorn wrote about this too and he used a provocative headline, namely “Will open source accept Microsoft leadership”:
It will once again be a “platinum sponsor” at the Open Source Business Conference in San Francisco next month and its National Technology Officer for the U.S., Stuart McKee, will deliver a keynote.
At Groklaw, Pamela Jones wrote: “This is where precise language matters. Free Software, the F in FOSS, will never accept Microsoft’s “leadership”, since that leadership has given evidence of attempting to destroy or make useless the GPL and has actively FUDed against Linux, threatening it with patents. Besides, their software is poorly designed, in the community’s view, so leadership to where? to what? for whose benefit? If you read the exhibits in the Comes v. Microsoft litigation, you’ll find there have been earlier “charm offensives”, as Dana calls it, and they were indeed for the purpose of destroying competitors. So the real answer to Dana’s question is, only if they’re stupidly naive.”
“If you read the exhibits in the Comes v. Microsoft litigation, you’ll find there have been earlier “charm offensives”, as Dana calls it, and they were indeed for the purpose of destroying competitors.” –Pamela JonesRegarding the CodePlex Foundation picking Paula Hunter as Executive Director (we covered this in [1, 2, 3]), Jones quotes Andy Updegrove: “As you’ll see from the announcement, one of Paula’s prior jobs was as the Executive Director of UnitedLinux. UL was a client of mine, and that’s where I first met Paula. And if you’ve never heard the saga of UL, it’s a rather fascinating story.
“Since it was a client, I can’t go into many details, but suffice it to say that it was an early casualty of SCO’s maniacal and misguided obsession with trying to tax the development of Linux.”
“On the same day that CA blasted SCO, Open Source evangelist Eric Raymond revealed a leaked email from SCO’s strategic consultant Mike Anderer to their management. The email details how, surprise surprise, Microsoft has arranged virtually all of SCO’s financing, hiding behind intermediaries like Baystar Capital.”
Content is available under CC-BY-SA