Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: [News] Glyn Moody: "Intellectual Property" Does Not Exist

____/ [H]omer on Thursday 29 November 2007 02:06 : \____

> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>> "I see in recent talks, that Microsoft executives have given, the
>> language used is “commercial vs. open source” software. This is a
>> clever bit of mind manipulation, suggesting that OSS cannot be
>> commercial. Bill Gates went to far as to say that the intentions of
>> FOSS developers was to ensure that nobody could make money with it,
>> but that’s completely untrue. Just ask IBM, or RedHat, or even
>> Novell, not to mention the legion of consultants who use FOSS daily.
>> The accurate comparison is “proprietary” vs. “open source” and to
>> suggest otherwise is deceptive, manipulative and underhanded. I
>> encourage anyone who see this doublespeak to correct it every time."
> If Microsoft are such accomplished buzzword architects, why have they
> apparently never heard of "SOA"?

Just a mild correction. Microsoft knows all too well about SOA. More to the
point, it knows how to /destroy/ it (remember, it's about 'killing'/buying the
rival, not developing better products, which can be pricey and risky)

More obvious misgivings about Microsoft and SOA

,----[ Quote ]
| My take is that inside of Microsoft its aggressor A-types are all about 
| dissing SOA and promoting .NET ad nauseam. At the same time the Microserfs 
| and developers must understand the inevitability of SOA for at last a portion 
| of the most advanced and innovative enterprises’ and service providers’ 
| architectures.    
| And so, as the world turns toward SOA, Microsoft will fight quietly inside of 
| itself about what it really is as a company — a partner to its customers, or 
| a parasite on the hide of productivity.  


Microsoft: My way or the highway with SOA?

,----[ Quote ]
| Microsoft isn’t changing its tune with SOA, the authors say, noting 
| that “Microsoft again appears to be crafting its own rules and vision. The 
| company has so far declined to participate in certain key emerging industry 
| standards relevant to SOA. It has a different perspective on what SOA is and 
| a different approach for crystallizing its vision.“    


Microsoft needs REST

,----[ Quote ]
| Yaron Goland defended his Microsoft colleague, Dare Objasanjo, as a poor 
| sitting duck. He justifies the decision to scrap APP as tactical and not 
| strategic. He states: “We considered this option but the changes needed to 
| make APP work for our scenarios were so fundamental that it wasn’t clear if 
| the resulting protocol would still be APP… I also have to admit that I was 
| deathly afraid of the political implications of Microsoft messing around with 
| APP.” According to Goland, “we couldn’t figure out how to use APP without 
| putting an unacceptable implementation and performance burden on both our 
| customers and ourselves.”       
| The implications for this APP vs. Web3S debate can potentially be enormous. 
| Just as we are on the brink of creating simple architectures that are 
| interoperable using simple standards, the industry risks splitting into 
| separate, incompatible camps again. It is probably no coincidence that we 
| have Microsoft on one side and Google, IBM and Sun on the other. This will be 
| a fundamental problem for enterprise customers if Microsoft extends this 
| strategy into any REST architectures that it introduces into the enterprise. 
| Any enterprise systems that expose their data using APP, which is likely in 
| the near future, will be incompatible with any Microsoft system that expose 
| their data with Web3S.         


Microsoft absent from open standards movement around SOA

,----[ Quote ]
| Now, a new series of SOA standards is headed to OASIS, ones that could 
| create a whole market segment around SOA common programmatic principles, 
| but Microsoft is nowhere in sight. The absence of Microsoft from the 
| Service Component Architecture (SCA), and its sibling Service Data 
| Objects (SDO), definitions process can mean one thing: Microsoft will 
| pursue its proprietary approach of baking pseudo-SOA into its 
| operating system stack as long as it can.


Shades of technical vandals:

Halloween Memo I Confirmed and Microsoft's History on Standards

,----[ Quote ]
|  By the way, if you are by any chance trying to figure out Microsoft's policy 
|  toward standards, particularly in the context of ODF-EOXML, that same 
|  Microsoft page is revelatory, Microsoft's answer to what the memo meant when 
|  it said that Microsoft could extend standard protocols so as to deny 
|  Linux "entry into the market":    
|    Q: The first document talked about extending standard protocols as a way 
|    to "deny OSS projects entry into the market." What does this mean? 
|    A: To better serve customers, Microsoft needs to innovate above standard 
|    protocols. By innovating above the base protocol, we are able to deliver 
|    advanced functionality to users. An example of this is adding 
|    transactional support for DTC over HTTP. This would be a value-add and 
|    would in no way break the standard or undermine the concept of standards, 
|    of which Microsoft is a significant supporter. Yet it would allow us to 
|    solve a class of problems in value chain integration for our Web-based 
|    customers that are not solved by any public standard today. Microsoft 
|    recognizes that customers are not served by implementations that are 
|    different without adding value; we therefore support standards as the 
|    foundation on which further innovation can be based.          


> This is indeed a nasty bit of manipulation. Why does the industry have
> to be about generating revenue through software licensing? Whatever is
> wrong with just *using* software as a business tool? Sweaty loves this
> false dichotomy, since it is such an effective Big Lie tactic.
> As Sweaty well knows, SOA and other business models that don't rely on
> proprietary (blackmail) licensing are perfectly viable, but not really
> conducive to the type of exclusionary (lock-in) agreements that is the
> life-blood of monopolists like Microsoft. This is why he is dismissive
> of the alternatives, ignores them, pretends they don't exist or twists
> their implications out of context.

Don't forget that scare tactics are directed not just at users (businesses and
end users, i.e. individuals). Behind the scenes, Microsoft is terrifying OEMs,
which *ARE* Microsoft's customers (ensuring that every PC sold is Microsoft
property *and* revenue).

Microsoft Shuts Down Linux 10 Years Ago Says Iowa Attorne

,----[ Quote ]
| Going back now to as early as 1998, Microsoft starts to realize that
| Linux might pose a possible threat, and Vinod Valloppillil, who is
| a program manager at Microsoft, is asked by Mr. Allchin, Jim Allchin,
| to analyze potential strategies for combatting open-source software,
| and specifically Linux.
| His memos are leaked to the press in April -- I beg your pardon --
| in October of 1998 and become known as the Halloween documents.
| And the evidence will be that Microsoft uses its influence in the
| OEM channel, the computer manufacture channel, to make sure that
| end users have a difficult time buying PCs with Linux preinstalled.


Microsoft's Dirty OEM-Secret

,----[ Quote ]
| They are, in short the secret to Microsoft's success. And the word
| secret is to be taken quite literally: No OEM may talk about the
| contents of his contract, or he will lose his license, and (assumption)
| likely be sued for breach of contract as well.


Jury Hears Microsoft Competition Suit

,----[ Quote ]
| A judge on Friday told jurors they must accept as fact that a
| federal court found in 1999 that Microsoft holds a monopoly over
| computer operating systems and that it restricted computer
| manufacturers' ability to use competing systems.
| [...]
| She said she'll show that the company used its monopoly power
| to exclude competition and control prices and that it conspired with
| other companies to restrain trade, maintaining what she called a
| chokehold on software competitors and computer manufacturers.


Did Microsoft want to 'whack' Dell over its Linux dealings?


Dell's secret Linux fling


Microsoft 'killed Dell Linux' - States


>> Scroll up to see the monster that takes pride in such monopolistic
>> and fascistic behaviour.
> Is that drool coming from Sweaty's mouth?

Mouth? That's no his face, you know. And that's not drool.

                ~~ Best of wishes

.oʍʇ sɐ buıɥʇ ɥɔns ou s,ǝɹǝɥʇ 'ɹǝpuǝq 'ʎɹɹoʍ ʇ,uop :ʎɹɟ
.oʍʇ ɐ ʍɐs ı ʇɥbnoɥʇ ı puɐ ...ǝɹǝɥʍʎɹǝʌǝ soɹǝz puɐ sǝuo .ɯɐǝɹp 1nɟʍɐ uɐ
ʇɐɥʍ 'ɥɥɥɐ :ɹǝpuǝq
http://Schestowitz.com  |    RHAT Linux     |     PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
 03:05:02 up 29 days,  7:03,  2 users,  load average: 1.61, 1.29, 1.36
      http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index