Microsoft takes on the free world

here is an interesting read.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fort...5/28/100033867/index.htm?section=money_latest

 

Yes it is interesting. It reminded me that while I never cared for Bill Gates very much, I flat out do not like Steve Balmer at all.

IMO, it's all baloney. From my point of view, there are very few completely "new" ideas in the computer world. Every version of Windows that has a GUI is a direct decsendent of Xerox's Alto computer. (Of course, MS wasn't the first to copy it. That was Apple.) Maybe Xerox should get it's due from Steve's wallet...

 

Hello,
This is a good sign. M$ are in panic. Vista is not doing well. Linux is getting stronger. First, they will ignore you. Then they will hate you - we're here. And finally, they will respect you - we'll pwn them.
Mrk

 

Interesting read indeed.

Like, probably they aren't legitimate claims at all. Very funny.

HAN, you pointed to other funny aspects too. I guess in that example, the 1's ans 0's were too different to make a patent claim...

One thing does surface: start paying attention to Stallman. He's been saying this would happen for a long time. That's also why the HURD would be important. Programmers should be urged to contribute for a stable release of the HURD kernel.
That's my opinion.

 

AFAIK that article did not mention once that MS was directly challenging any of the supposed patent infringements, just going after the customers for royalties for ALLEGED patent infringements.

I hope these companies tell MS to get lost and take it to the courts.

My speculation is this:

If MS takes this to court, they cant get much money out of free software (especially when most of it is written by non-profit organisations), but MS can go for the bussinesses and fool them into paying royalities on free software.
Dont forget how much free software has backing of big Companies like IBM, Sun, Novell... if this stuff gets dragged through the courts, MS will not only have to face the bed room hackers who write open source stuff for fun, but also these big companies (because their efforts are a shared effort on a common platform and licence of GNU/Linux), which MS would have to face as one big opponent, which even if it won, would suffer crippling damage (in cost, publicity and market shared). So instead MS targets these companies one by one, where it is big enough to take them on one at a time.

 

Oh come on Microsoft this is LOW.

 

And the lawyers are the winners.

 

Of course - George Carlin Law - "Have you ever noticed that the lawyer always smiles more than the client?" - George Carlin. *** -Sadly- the reality of our world. ***

 

This is not about Microsoft vs. Open Source Software. It's about an entire industry of commercial software providers trying to maintain the value of their software products. Microsoft spear-heads commercial software. Microsoft generates billions of dollars per year. Governments are likely to side with Microsoft on legal issues because the system is based on capital. Governments would stand to lose billions of dollars in taxes generated by Microsoft If people woke up and realized that free and open software solutions can do just about anything a Microsoft product can do (and more). A copy of Windows only has value if people use it. Several years ago I was asked how Microsoft could ever compete with free offerings like Linux. I knew Microsoft would reduce the prices of its offerings especially in emerging markets around the world. This reveals the real game. The profits that Microsoft makes are not justified and the world is beginning to see that. The Windows operating system probably cost less than 5 dollars to manufacture, package and distribute. What we get as consumers is a 5 dollar CD (if that) after distribution, and if they can sell it and still make a profit that tells you how much it is really worth. The other 95 dollars is what we pay to use the software in the form of a license agreement. Now on each copy sold the government from local to federal collects taxes either in the form of sales taxes or corporate income taxes. I would guess around 12 to 14 dollars per copy if purchased by a end user at a store in the US. The vast majority of licenses are sold to computer manufactures who then resell the operating system installed on new computer equipment.

The Windows End User License Agreement is a tax on computer users. The operating system itself doesn't really have any value thus Microsoft doesn't sell you the operating system they sell you a license to use the operating system. Windows its self is worthless. Not only does the licensing model (EULA) tell us that the software is worthless but other offerings from the open source community also confirms this.
The way in which Open Source Software is developed and distributed gives you a peek into how much any Microsoft product is really worth. How is it developed? By a community of some paid and some volunteer software developers. How is it distributed? You download it and copy it to a CD. How much did all this cost the consumer? In most cases nothing. How do the developers get any return on their work? By providing other services like support and realizing the real value of the work in which they provide. They could never expect to make billions of dollars off of providing the coding that goes into the software.
The people that do the coding at Microsoft don't make billions, either - it's the share holders, officers, and board members - those who do very little in the form of coding software that make all the money.

I can do some things on a windows based PC that I can not do on Linux or FreeBSD based machine. Likewise, there are a many things I can do on a FreeBSD or Linux machine that I could never do on a Windows based machine. At this time the only thing that separates windows PC from a PC running Linux or FreeBSD is high end gaming and some high end multimedia applications. As for email, web browsing, instant messaging, CD/DVD burning, listening to music and DVDs, any open source operating system is more than capable of functioning at this level. The vast majority of new computer users will never use a computer for more than that and Microsoft is well aware of it. Open Source software, in most cases, but maybe not by design is the sword that will force a fair distribution of capital in information technology as a whole (if the world as we know it is still around by then). It will help the guy who used to be able to assemble computer components and still sell the computer and make a profit. It gives the control back to small services providers and leverages the real value of something compiled once then sold over and over for billions of dollars in the form of a license to use. Microsoft is trying to prove to the world that its software offerings will continue to have value. If this was not the case Microsoft would not be asking the world to have faith in the value of its products by playing this patent game.

What has happened is that the quality of open source software has been greatly improved and has become more end user friendly. Now the world and especially Microsoft investors will want to know how the Windows operating system will maintain its smoke screen of a monetary value. Microsoft is looking in the wrong place by threatening the use of litigation over patents. It will backfire because any smart investor knows that litigation means desperation. No investor wants to see a 4 or 5 year long battle over software patent issues. They don't reveal the alleged violations because they would be readily fixed. I expect that next quarter MSFT profits will be in decline. Taking companies to court that use Linux is not a reality. That would make any smart Investor run like hell. Just because you sue doesn't mean you win. Who would Microsoft sue if there was a possible patent violation the individual developer that wrote the code? No they would go after the companies that use the product. Investors don't see any profit coming out of litigation especially if when they could loose. Litigation is an expense and nothing more. We are talking 235+ possible cases of patent violations and 4 to 5 years to prove each one. They are telling you they don't have any other solution to the competitiveness of open source software solutions other than to go back and threaten to sue for something they are not willing to reveal. This is classic FUD.

 

VERY WELL SAID!

My take on all this is exactly the same but to take matters a step further who can sympathize with microsoft when they have a very high alternative source for even more revenue to line their greedy souls IF THEY HAD COURAGE or the same loyalty their global customers gave to them, but no.

Microsoft has had Windows 98/Me customers sitting there as they still are to this very day and they are too blind to see all they needed to do was revist those O/S's and rewrite them again for re-release which IMO would prove $M a technological leader instead of a money grubbing whiner like they are now.

And they wonder why the world is taking them to task as fiercely as it's become?

$M ran tail away from 98/Me customers and completely avoided them both like the black plague which is ended in the culmination of finally announcing total abandonment of them for some lame excuse that those systems just couldn't be secured. Well, to that i say Bahhh!!

For one example, System Safety Monitor certainly has secured 98's & Me's but that alone is not the point here. They ($M) has had ample opportunity to redress them again shortly after XP's release and prove to ALL window's users that $M is a responsible and forthright technology leader, not one that leaves unfinished business AND customers behind like they have proven to the world.

So now $M arrogant NEGLECT is gained a new public audience globally and they are desparately licking their self-inflicted wounds by making moves in the direction mentioned in a vain attempt to preserve their monopoly, because Open-Source is not going away ever and if anything is proved it's already outpaced $M so-called business model.

 

A simple thought popped up:
How would the governement position itself if an open source installation would generate the same $14 TAX? I'm thinking of a payment of $14 by the open source consumer and the full amount is considered TAX.
Maybe the governement wouldn't care at all, since the open source market is minor. So, then why care now?

 

I disagree. Economics, and government tax income is far more complex than that. If people don't spend it on that, they spend it elsewhere, or even better, SAVE the money and INVEST.

Only a bad government would think like that, only on the short term. I DISAGREE.
The only government that could think like that is US government, since Microsoft generates billions to the US economy.

It's like the deceiving discussion about taxes on tobacco. Look, it makes so much money and taxes...

my 2 cents

 

In the United States freedom doesn't mean free choices, it means no government involvement.
I have noticed that consumers are hardly protected, companies make profit off customers mistakes (have had any bank fees lately?)

Why is there no law that entitles the customer to support for as long as the customer uses a product?

 

Hi Guys,

Wait a minute!

Yes it does, your free to choose, buy, do what you want!

It's Microsoft's choice, as to re-doing Windows98,or ME, should GM re-invent the 1956 Buick? It's a business decision. In the USA business is about free enterprise, your free to make as much money as you can. Those who complain about Microsoft's earnings, seem anti-free enterprise. When a company is king of the hill, top dog in its industry, the competition, is always trying to knock #1 off its lofty perch! Example:

Sears Roebuck used to be the #1 retailer for many years. It used to be known as 'where America shops.' Sears thought it was invincible, the competition be damned, & rested on it laurels. It took for granted, the competition & what happened, a small company (at first) from Arkansas, cleaned Sears clock. Now we have a new king of the hill, a new #1 Wal Mart. Sears tried many gimmicks to regain its old glory, but it never worked. Finally Sears was purchased, by K-Mart. Wal-Mart is still the top dog, & cannot rest, if it wants to maintain its position, as a DOW component.

I see Microsoft in a very similar position, that Sears was in, & open source, trying usurp #1.

Wall St. rewards growth Microsoft is no longer considered a growth stock, share price much lower than previous, not nearly as explosive, as yesterday. Microsoft is considered a mature company.

All the companies mentioned in this post are publicly traded corporations which have a duty to, there shareholders & employees, to make money. To attract new money (shareholders) they need to invent, not re-invent.

Take Care
Rico

 

If that is true, why do parents move to different area's if they want their children go to a certain school? Why can't I go to any physician and get coverage from my health insurance?
Just a few examples.
Perhaps you can make choices if you can afford it? That's not free, is it?

I don't remember: did Wal-Mart get that position by filing lawsuits? Does Wal-Mart have a patent on shelves and they publish that Sears is unfair by using shelves too?

 

Hello Wilbertnl,

First Good Morning Wilbertnl!!

It's still free choice!

Each system has it's advantages & dis-advantages. I'm not sure from your last statement exactly what you mean. Do you have health care coverage & are being, denied coverage? Canadian health-care system has problems also, and is not the panacea many think. The grass is always greener, on the other side.

While Sears has not used the same dirty tricks, that some believe Microsoft is using. Sears had plenty of nasty things they did. Example it was quite common for Sears to offer 20% off, the public assumed 20% off the normal everyday price. They would raise the price & then discount, the raised price. The perception was public get a reduced price, when they did not. Sears drove many small business's into chapter 11. You cannot sustain a company on lawsuits, Microsoft is losing it's lofty position, & will not re-gain there previous stature, via lawsuits.

Wal Mart has it's detractors as well, low wages etc etc. Eventually they will not be #1.

Companies are pretty much like individuals & have phases: birth > growth > maturation > death. Some take longer to die than others. Microsoft one day, will, no longer be #1. Microsoft has inspired, the birth of companies, that one day will take M$ down. And one day the new #1 will fall. Progress marches on!

Take Care Amigo
Rico

 

I lived 40 years in The Netherlands.
In The Netherlands I can select any healthcare insurance company, I can base my selection on the benefits they offer and the fee they ask. This selection is in no way limited by my employment.
Then I can select my physician and pharmacist, based on whatever criteria I have. This selection, again, is in no way limited by my health insurance.

In the US, when I change employer, it also means I change health insurance and healthcare providers.

Well, this is not about Microsoft or software, but about the definition of freedom.
Without Mozilla, there would not be an Internet Explorer 7.

 

Awesome sentence, I especially like the ending

Cheers,

Alphalutra1

 

While it is true regarding grass, what exactly is wrong with Canada's FREE HEALTH care? heh
From what i read, it works, and people don't have to be rich to receive top health care.
(sorry for the OT; but the canadians have a great example to show the world IMO)

 

I saw a recent TV news show about comparisions between Canada and the US medical systems. There were pluses and minuses to each system. The report said that sometimes the wait was rather long for seeing a specific type of specialty doctor in Canada while access was much easier in the US. Of course, the high cost of US medical care was a big minus.

Sorry for straying off topic

 

Well, from all the GREAT things the USA has, and offered to the world, the Health care is embarasing. I hope no one follows the american example. Me personally.

Problems are always around in Health Care. It's where costs will always rise. When people find new ways to cure deceases, bet your money that it will raise costs. Not only that, you HAVE TO invest on those new technologies. You CAN'T ignore these improvements for obvious reasons. It's not the new dualcore vs. quad. It's live or not!

One of the few exceptions was when it was discovered that the aspirin actually had more benefits (more uses) than previously thought.

 

Sorry Ronjor, i get carried away..

 

I've been seriously considering switching over to LINUX.

This just adds fuel to the fire. Now I'm determined.

I'm fed up with "Microshlock" and their insane practices.
I'll continue running XP PRO for the time being but will
not be installing "Vista" spyware on my system.

Not today thank you.