05.31.11
Posted in Bill Gates, FSF, GNU/Linux, IBM, Kernel, Microsoft at 12:53 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
[Deliberate use of the word “hatred” because Microsoft criticism is not “Microsoft hatred” (loaded term [1, 2, 3) as he once called it.]
“It’s certainly a lot more likely that Microsoft violates patents than Linux does [...] Basic operating system theory was pretty much done by the end of the 1960s. IBM probably owned thousands of really ‘fundamental’ patents [...] The fundamental stuff was done about half a century ago and has long, long since lost any patent protection.”
–Linus Torvalds, 2007
Summary: Defense of Torvalds’ stance on patents and criticism of the spineless ‘Guardian’, which has become preoccupied and entangled with bizarre corporate agenda
IT HAS got to be hard for Torvalds to speak out. When he criticises Microsoft or Apple technologies, then the Wintel press portrays him as a basher, as someone who is immature and disrespectful. When he announced Linux 3.0 Microsoft Jack decided to go with a rather malicious headline and spin that negatively, as expected. When he speaks out against software patents Microsoft Florian repeats his smears of the funding sources of the Linux Foundation (which have the same inclination as many of the FSF’s funders) and other Microsoft boosters point to Torvalds’ patents that are not software patents and were acquired on behalf of an old employer of his. Linus Torvalds does not advocate software patenting and he never caved and got lured into it. “Muchas patentes son totalmente ridículas” says a new headline from Argentina (in Spanish), which basically quotes Mr. Torvalds. It is abundantly clear what his position is and nevertheless, Microsoft apologists for the most part wish to distort this fact. Likewise, some detractors of Techrights tried to portray yours truly as an apologist or hypocrite on the subject of software patents because some people in my field — not myself — are pursuing patents. I do not publicly attack other people my field or even my colleagues, but I do attack the practice of patenting in general. To expect Torvalds to attack his paymaster IBM in public is unreasonable. He probably knows IBM's stance and just being paid by IBM (like the FSF is) does not mean he inherits the same principles. There is some serious distortion of views these days, sometimes being the fault of lawyers who try to make it seem like their views are the views of programmers. Likewise, news which professes to be a watchdog has in fact become the rich men’s attack dog.
Glyn Moody, who used to write for the now-Gates-funded Guardian (which is promoting patents, even in Europe), has had enough of that. Not only does he show that Gates is a hypocrite but he also shows that the Gates-funded Guardian has lost its way. To quote:
That’s what Bill Gates said in 1991. He changed his mind, of course, when he realised that Microsoft could use its huge wealth to acquire vast numbers of software patents and deploy them as a weapon to crush or tax competitors. Granting software patents in the UK would simply allow that strategy to be applied here. It would be insanity to hand over such a huge advantage to the well-funded, established US software houses in this way.
That’s why the Hargreaves report was quite correct that the status quo must be preserved: to do anything else would probably spell the end of the UK software industry as we know it.
If the errors of the article are easy enough to rebut, there remains one more troubling issue: why on earth is the Guardian running it? At least the attack on open source that it published last week was flagged up in the headline as a comment piece – that’s fair enough. But the current post in the Guardian Technology Blog has no such heading. The author’s background is given at the foot of the piece, but a naïve reader would still assume that his views are shared by the Guardian. Are they? Does the Guardian really believe that the UK should emulate the US and allow software patents? If so, what on earth is it the guardian of, these days – intellectual monopolies?
I have occasionally read The Guardian since I was a teenager, even on this PDA on which I am typing this blog post. This publication is no longer to be treated as defender of the people. Many publications perished because of the Internet; The Guardian is now surviving in rich men’s pockets. It is no way to be credible. It’s more like controlled opposition, depending on who pays.
One of Gates’ boosters, Heim, wrote that “Cooper, the journalism professor, finds it “laughable” when media claim Gates money doesn’t influence their coverage.”
“It would be naive to believe big-money foundations don’t play the same game that corporations and other special interests do,” wrote Cooper. Since Gates owns a lot of key outlets and uses them to seed his propaganda, we should not expect much resentment against patents coming from these sources. Gates adores patents, it’s what he is all about and what he invests his money in.
In order for GNU/Linux to ‘win’ software patents must die. Do not expect those in power to want software patents to vanish. Protectionism supports and increases the power of those already in power. This includes patent bullies like Steve Ballmer. █
‘A fund manager from one of Microsoft’s largest shareholder’s reportedly told Reuters, “Bill Gates is a ruthless capitalist. If he wanted to, he’d walk Ballmer to the door himself”.’ [Four days ago]
Permalink
Send this to a friend
05.23.11
Posted in Apple, GNU/Linux, Google, IBM, Microsoft, Patents at 7:49 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: What it means to ignore Microsoft’s patent cartel while daemonising companies whose patents are intended to defend FOSS
SOFTWARE patents need to be eliminated and those who hoard them are part of the problem, with caveats. There are those who actively use patents for anti-competitive purposes, there are those who just collect them for “defensive” purposes (although that can change when the ownership of the company or the patents changes), and those who keep mostly silent on the subject (the conspiracy of silence as the former head of the FFII called this type of phenomenon).
“As time goes on it becomes ever more clear that the “FOSSPatents” persona is just an attack on FOSS.”One person who conveniently ignores Microsoft’s aggression — that which uses patents offensively itself — is Microsoft Florian. He wants people to believe that so-called ‘defensive’ patents (like OIN’s) are the problem. In fact, Microsoft Florian links to a Microsoft booster who paints Google as the culprit, not Microsoft. He always ignores Microsoft. As Charles-H. Schulz put it, “Florian Mueller has been rattling his saber for almost a year now, launching “fatwas” and anathemas on selected vendors (IBM and to a lesser extent, Oracle) while refusing to address the very big elephant in the room: Microsoft.” Here is his latest post which conveniently leaves Microsoft out. To quote the ending: “They’ll try to sue the defenseless while Apple, Google and RIM are sitting on the sideline, or don’t even seem to care at all.”
He happily paints IBM as the problem again by requoting: “IBM said it is launching InfoSphere BigInsights and Streams software to analyze unstructured data such as text, video, audio and social media. The software, cooked up by IBM Research, is based on Hadoop and more than 50 Big Blue patents.”
How many of these patents would be used offensively? And what about Microsoft’s more controversial patent applications that start to monopolise fighting disease? What about Apple’s purchase of over 200 patents from Freescale Semiconductor?
Apple Inc. recently recorded the receipt of 200 patents and pending patent applications from the electronics company Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. Although not recorded until May 18, 2011, the assignment is dated April 11, 2011. Freescale began as a division of Motorola in 1949 and spun-off in 2003. Some of the patents transferred originally belonged to Motorola.
Microsoft Florian does not write about such things because it’s part of Microsoft’s cartel of patents, not the Linux/FOSS side. As time goes on it becomes ever more clear that the “FOSSPatents” persona is just an attack on FOSS. LWN readers can’t stand the guy. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
05.22.11
Posted in IBM, Microsoft, Novell, Red Hat at 8:06 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A British journalist explains how, based on his sources, Novell was used by those who conspired to wage anti-competitive wars
JOURNALIST/COLUMNIST Eric Doyle has a couple of interesting posts about Novell, and about SUSE in particular. Now that AttachMSFT separates SUSE from itself, Doyle’s well-researched commentary suggests that “Novell’s bright hopes for SuSE failed to shine, but a chance encounter in a London bar may explain how the downhill run started…”
Be sure to read the part after the encounter is described. “Not quite an “apres-ski binge” but, nonetheless, an alcohol-fuelled encounter around 10pm in a London hotel bar during an Infosecurity conference” he explains. “I fell into conversation with a fellow delegate who claimed to be a pig farmer involved in RFID tests. Given my agricultural background, he had picked the wrong journalist to con and I soon blew his cover. After around four hours of elusive badinage about his real identity, he eventually cracked and confessed to being a former Novell employee.”
“After around four hours of elusive badinage about his real identity, he eventually cracked and confessed to being a former Novell employee.”
–Eric DoyleNotice how he uses our picture of Steve Ballmer riding SUSE’s mascot. We made this picture for “Boycott Novell” and what he says about the conspiracy to unseat competition only further validates our suspicions. There is also an accompanying article from Doyle. Excellent work and a case of real journalism. It says that “Four divisions will house Attachmate’s products and those gained through its purchase of Novell” (Novell sliced down and reorganised itself about a year and a half ago).
So anyway, where does this whole mess leave the GNU/Linux component of Novell? It turns out that Teradata’s use of SUSE (more in [1, 2]) is likely to persist along with Fujitsu’s (it also runs SUSE), whereas SAP seems to be getting back into Red Hat and it’s not alone. Companies just don’t trust SUSE after Novell's collapse. Even OpenSUSE is hardly active anymore. Susan Linton — as we originally noted in our daily links — shows that OpenSUSE becomes a Ubuntu me-too and older releases of the distribution reach end of life quite quickly. If someone wants to buy the SUSE division, then it probably won’t cost much. It is quite likely to happen. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Finance, IBM, Microsoft at 6:05 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Photo by Dan Farber
Summary: IBM is worth more than Microsoft again as one monopoly descends
MICROSOFT is making foolish moves that put the CEO in jeopardy although he has the backing of Gates.
There are yet more investors who want Ballmer out and one of them publishes “Microsoft Needs a New CEO to Unlock Shareholder Value”. To quote:
I believe if a new CEO took these simple steps, MSFT could easily achieve a much higher stock price in the short and medium term.
Matt Rosoff, a Microsoft booster arriving from a Microsoft-oriented firm [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7], notes that “IBM Is Now Worth More Than Microsoft”. As we noted in yesterday's audiocast, Microsoft in not far from falling to 5th position now. What a reversal, eh? As the Microsoft booster puts it:
That’s a stunner for anybody who remembers the tech landscape in the early 1990s, when Microsoft’s embrace of the PC revolution sent IBM into a tailspin.
What we are seeing here is a company so inherently unable to evolve, a company whose core business becomes outdated as the cash cows are suffocating (profits decline). All it can do now is rely on dubious testimonies from so-called ‘analysts’ who are paid by Microsoft. Yes, Office is once again being defended by friends of Microsoft, who conveniently ignore people’s increased use of the Web for collaboration and productivity. As Groklaw correctly points out, “Business *Productivity* Online Services? Methinks a name change is in order to something a little less hyperbolic.”
The site talks about Microsoft's continued problems with E-mail, which culminate in this recurring issue a Microsoft booster writes about:
A week after being hit hard by serious cloud e-mail problems, a number of Microsoft’s Business Productivity Online Services (BPOS) users are reporting on May 19 that they’re experiencing e-mail delays of up to an hour or more.
Microsoft’s poor software reduces productivity and that sure has a toll/cost. The world of IT will be a better place when bad technology is rejected and not selected based on anti-competitive conduct, lock-in, and dangerous proprietary zealotry. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
05.10.11
Posted in GNU/Linux, Google, IBM, OIN, Patents at 1:52 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
(ODF | PDF | English/original)
Resumen: IBM y Google se siguen perdiendo una oportunidad maravillosa para hacer de uno de los productos básicos una plataforma de comodidad y defender esta comodidad, poniendo fin a las patentes de software.
Las patentes de software son la mayor no-amenaza-bar a la libertad del software y las compañías que defienden su existencia son sin duda parte del problema. Por lo general, trabajar en conjunto contra de los intereses de aquellos cuyo plan es la eliminación de las patentes de software en su conjunto (FFII – Fundación para una Infraestructura de Información Libre – es una excepción).
El mes pasado criticamos a Google por querer comprar las patentes de Nortel[http://techrights.org/2011/04/06/benjamin-henrion-on-google-nortel/]. Si Google pelea las patentes con todavía más patentes, entonces simplemente legitima la existencia de matorrales, los abogados de patentes y los monopolios protegidos por el gobierno. Hemos sido críticos de la hipócrita postura de Google desde hace bastante tiempo.
El último consorcio de patentes de Google para WebM es diferente sin embargo. Al igual que el pool (grupo) de OIN, viene con algunos compromisos. Desde el sitio oficial[http://www.webm-ccl.org/]: “Los miembros del CCL (Comunidad WebM licencia cruzada )se están uniendo a este esfuerzo porque se dan cuenta que el ecosistema entero de la red – usuarios, desarrolladores, editores y fabricantes de dispositivos – van beneficiarse de una alta calidad, desarrollada por la comunidad de código abierto formato de los medios de comunicación. Esperamos con interés trabajar con los miembros del CCL y la comunidad de estándares web para promover el papel WebM en video de HTML5. ”
“”A IBM no le gusta hablar acerca de su política en favor de las patentes y cuando le pregunté el doctor Sutor sobre ella se negó a responder.””Es un asunto difícil de defender, pero dado que la alternativa es hostil hacia el software libre y el software propietario, WebM es por mucho la mejor opción. El mismo argumento vale para la estrategia de patentes de IBM, que no está en contra de las patentes de software[http://techrights.org/2009/08/12/ibm-promoting-software-patents/] (lo mismo ocurre en cierta medida para Oracle y Red Hat). Las hilanderas, como Microsoft Florian[http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Florian_M%C3%BCller], en un gran esfuerzo para distorsionar los hechos. Quieren que la gente cree que la hipocresía se extiende a todo el mundo del software libre. De hecho, IBM y su adhesión a la concesión de licencias con Microsoft no acaba de hacerlo parte del cartel, porque también está la OIN (Invención de red abierta), que fue creado por un hombre de IBM. La OIN hace una labor encomiable. Es por eso que la OIN es odiada por refuerzos de Microsoft.
Otro punto de contacto digno de Google e IBM tiene mucho que ver con sus esfuerzos de código abierto que no son del todo abiertos, y mucho menos libre. Los hilanderos Microsoft intenta tirar “barro” sobre la base de que, sobre todo para enbarrar a sus mejores competidores. IBM prefiere algo así como la licencia Eclipse y no la licencia de Apache que Google favorece al parecer. Esto es perfectamente aceptable, aunque el tema de patentes sigue siendo descubierto. Hemos hablado de esto en el IRC ayer por la noche. A IBM no le gusta hablar acerca de su política en favor de las patentes y cuando le preguntó el doctor Sutor sobre ello se negó a responder. No le gusto la pregunta. No es como si estuviera haciendo caso omiso, ya que habíamos tenido una relación amistosa durante años. Sobre la base de su currículum, IBM cambió el título de su trabajo (VP) de “código abierto y estándares” a “Open Source y Linux” y luego a “Sistemas Abiertos y Linux” (2010 al presente). De las normas a Linux y de código abierto para sistemas abiertos, ¿eh? Diversas explicaciones se podría dar para eso.
IBM es un amigo de código abierto, pero su política de patentes tiene un gran margen de mejora porque ahora que la persona # 1 en la USPTO es de IBM, es muy claro que la empresa no tiene interés en poner fin a las patentes de software para bien. Si bien ese es el caso, para los desarrolladores de software libre y propietario por igual (los jugadores pequeños) seguirán sufriendo. Aquí es una empresa que anuncia que va a poseer otra patente “a través del Internet”[http://www.renalbusiness.com/news/2011/05/doctors-xl-charge-capture-software-now-patent-pending.aspx]:
DoctorsXL el03 de mayo, dijo que su “software basado en web MobileXL 3.0 está ahora pendiente de patente”.
Necesitamos que las empresas más grandes que hablen en contra de las patentes de software. Pero las patentes son beneficiosas para los carteles con muchos empleados, por lo que es poco probable que las mega-corporaciones levantarán un dedo para reformas reales.
IBM y Google no son amenazas para el Libre/Software de Código Abierto, pero en conclusión, que merecen mucha más presión. Deben unirse a la lucha contra las patentes de software en vez de actuar como defensores de software libre (con patentes) y sus niñeras. █
Translation produced by Eduardo Landaveri, the esteemed administrator of the Spanish portal of Techrights.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
05.09.11
Posted in GNU/Linux, Google, IBM, OIN, Patents at 10:15 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: IBM and Google are still missing a wonderful opportunity to make the platform a commodity and defending this commodity by putting an end to software patents
SOFTWARE patents are the greatest-bar-none threat to software freedom and companies which defend their existence are definitely part of the problem. They usually work against the interests of those whose plan is to eliminate software patents altogether (FFII being an exception).
Last month we criticised Google for its bid to take Nortel's patents. If Google fights patents with yet more patents, then it merely legitimises the existence of thickets, patent lawyers, and government-protected monopolies. We have been critical of Google's stance for quite some time.
Google’s latest patent pool for WebM is different however. Like the OIN’s pool, it comes with certain commitments. From the official site: “CCL members are joining this effort because they realize that the entire web ecosystem — users, developers, publishers, and device makers — benefit from a high-quality, community developed, open-source media format. We look forward to working with CCL members and the web standards community to advance WebM’s role in HTML5 video.”
“IBM does not like to talk about its pro-patents policy and when I asked Dr. Sutor about it he refused to answer.”It is a tricky one to defend, but since the alternative is hostile towards free software and proprietary software, WebM is by far the better choice. The same argument goes for the patent strategy of IBM, which is not against software patents (the same goes to some degree for Oracle and Red Hat). The spinners, such as Microsoft Florian, try very hard to distort the facts. They want people to believe that the hypocrisy extends to the whole Free software world. In fact, IBM and its cross-licensing with Microsoft does not quite make it part of the cartel because there is also OIN, which was created by a man from IBM. The OIN does commendable work. That’s why the OIN is loathed by Microsoft boosters.
Another touch-worthy point about Google and IBM has a lot to do with their open source efforts that are not entirely open, let alone free. The Microsoft spinners try to generate ‘dirt’ based on that, mostly for smears against those top competitors. IBM prefers something like the Eclipse licence and not the Apache licence like Google apparently favours. This is perfectly acceptable although the patent issue remains uncovered. We discussed this in IRC last night. IBM does not like to talk about its pro-patents policy and when I asked Dr. Sutor about it he refused to answer. He was not comfortable with the question. It’s not as though he was ignoring, as we had had a mostly amicable relation for years. Based on his CV, IBM changed the title from of his job (VP) from “Open Source and Standards” to “Open Source and Linux” and then to “Open Systems and Linux” (2010 to present). From standards to Linux and from Open Source to Open Systems, eh? Different explanations could be given for that.
IBM is a friend of Open Source, but its patent policy has room for improvement because now that the #1 person at the USPTO is from IBM, it is made abundantly clear that the company has no interest in ending software patents for good. While that is the case, Free and proprietary software developers alike (small players) will continue to suffer. Here is a company announcing that it is going to own another “over the Internet” patent:
DoctorsXL said May 3 that its web-based software MobileXL 3.0 is now patent pending.
We need more large companies that speak out against software patents. But patents are beneficial to cartels with many employees, so it is unlikely that mega-corporations will lift a finger for real reforms.
IBM and Google are not menacing to Free/open source software, but in conclusion, they deserve a lot more pressure. They should join the fight against software patents rather than act like FOSS defenders (with patents) and its babysitters. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
03.04.11
Posted in Apple, IBM, Microsoft, Patents, Standard at 10:13 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The perils of cartels orbiting around multimedia formats are recognised by the federal government and an IBM senior slams the BSA
The MPEG cartel is a subject we wrote about extensively, especially last year, e.g. in:
According to Murdoch’s press, there is federal action against this cartel, which also includes Microsoft and Apple. An “interesting development” British journalist Glyn Moody calls it and his colleague says that the “US Justice Department [is] reportedly investigating MPEG LA over VP8 threats”:
The US Justice Department is reportedly studying whether attempts by owners of the H.264 video patent pool to find out whether Google’s free and open-source VP8 codec infringes their patents are unfair.
It has opened an antitrust probe to find out whether the MPEG LA group or its members are trying to stifle the alternative format, which Google is pushing as a cost-free alternative for video on the web, according to the Wall Street Journal.
As a reminder, the BSA too is currently lobbying in favour of the likes of MPEG-LA in the UK [1, 2] and IBM’s Rob Weir says he’s proud IBM is not associated with the BSA (it was dumped by IBM recently). To quote Weir:
The Business Software Alliance (BSA) is at it again. They are claiming that new UK Cabinet Office policy in favor of open standards — the kind of standards that the web is built on and which has created billions in new economy jobs – is actually a bad thing, since it would (according to the BSA), “reduce choice, hinder innovation and increase the costs of e-government”.
Really? Are they serious?
Those with a penchant for the history of economic thought may recall the 19th century French liberal economist Claude Frédéric Bastiat, and his satirical economic parables, which attacked prevalent economic errors of his time. We have need of Bastiat at this hour, especially his skewering of an entrenched industry’s rent-seeking tendency to push for government protection from lower cost competitors. His attack on protectionism was called “The Candlemaker’s Petition“…
See the rest of the details in Weir’s blog. It’s like OOXML all over again (with Candlemaker rather than broken windows, bridges, or light bulbs this time around). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Apple, IBM, Microsoft, Patents, Standard at 2:33 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
(ODF | PDF | English/original)
Resumen: Los peligros de los cárteles que orbitan alrededor de los formatos multimedia son reconocidos por el gobierno federal y un ejecutivo de alto nivel de IBM critica a la Alianza Empresarial de Software BSA
El cartel de MPEG es un tema sobre el que hemos escrito ampliamente, especialmente el año pasado, por ejemplo, en:
* Canonical tiene que indicar a los usuarios de Ubuntu cuánto pagó MPEG-LA para su “protección” de Patentes[http://techrights.org/2010/05/07/canonical-disclosure-h264-video/]
* Microsoft y MPEG LA-Se llama “trolls de patentes”, denuncia antimonopolio presentadas[http://techrights.org/2010/05/26/mpeg-cartel-and-microsoft-backlash/]
* Troll Patentes (MPEG-LA) puede ser el dueño de su propio Personal y Videos de Familia[http://techrights.org/2010/05/26/patent-trolls-exploit-cams/]
* Alexandre Oliva explica por qué la patente Troll Larry Horn (Cartel MPEG) es una pantalla[http://techrights.org/2010/05/27/mpeg-cartel-bluff/]
* “Estamos en la era del vídeo digital, y es un lío,”-Steve Jobs, MPEG-LA Autor/cabildero de su propuesta[http://techrights.org/2010/05/28/mpeg-cartel-gives-jobs/]
* Simon Phipps: “MPEG-LA es un parásito que los institutos de normalización tienen como su huésped, ya sea que lo quieran o no.” (Y una perorata sobre Banshee/Mono)[http://techrights.org/2010/06/07/mpeg-la-and-dot-net-trap/]
Según la prensa de Murdoch[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703752404576178833590548792.html], hay acción federal en contra de este cartel, que también incluye a Microsoft y Apple. Una “evolución interesante” lo define el periodista británico Glyn Moody y su colega dicen que el “Departamento de Justicia de los EE.UU. este investivgando las amenazas de MPEG LA contra VP8″[http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2011/mar/04/justice-department-antitrust-mpeg-la-vp8]:
El . Departamento de Justicia de los EE.UU. está estudiando si los informes, los intentos de los propietarios de la junta de patentes de vídeo H.264 para determinar si el libre y de código abierto de Google códec VP8 infringe sus patentes son injustas.
Se ha abierto una investigación antimonopolio para averiguar si el grupo MPEG LA y sus miembros están tratando de sofocar el formato alternativo, que Google está empujando como una alternativa gratuita para el vídeo en la web, de acuerdo con el Wall Street Journal.
Como recordatorio, la Alianza Empresarial de Software BSA también está presionando en favor de chacales como la MPEG-LA en el del Reino Unido [1[http://techrights.org/2011/03/02/bsa-tries-to-exclude-freedom/], 2[http://techrights.org/2011/03/03/lies-machine-vs-foss-policy/]] y Rob Weir de IBM dice que está orgulloso de IBM no está asociada con la BSA[http://www.robweir.com/blog/2011/03/bsa-new-candlemakers.html] (fue objeto de dumping por parte de IBM hace poco[http://techrights.org/2011/01/14/bsa-loses-key-members/]). Para citar Weir:
La Alianza Empresarial de Software (BSA) esta en él otra vez. Ellos están reclamando acerca la nueva política de la Oficina de Gabinete del Reino Unido en favor de los estándares abiertos – la clase de normas que la web se basa en, y que ha creado miles de millones de puestos de trabajo nueva economía – es realmente una mala cosa, ya que (de acuerdo con la BSA) , “reducir la elección, obstaculizar la innovación y el aumento de los costos de la administración electrónica”.
¿En serio? ¿Son serios?
Los que tienen una inclinación por la historia del pensamiento económico puede recordar el 19 º siglo economista liberal francés Claude Frédéric Bastiat, y sus parábolas satíricas en económía, que atacaron frecuentes errores económicos de su tiempo. Tenemos necesidad de Bastiat a esta hora, en especial su ensartar de la tendencia de captación de rentas de una industria arraigada a impulsar la protección del gobierno en contra de los competidores de menor costo. Su ataque contra el proteccionismo que se llamó “La Petición del Candlemaker” …
Vea el resto de los detalles en el blog de Weir. Es como OOXML de nuevo (con Candlemaker en lugar de ventanas rotas, puentes, o las bombillas en esta ocasión). █
Many thanks to Eduardo Landaveri of the Spanish portal of Techrights.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
Content is available under CC-BY-SA