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 Wednesday 28 November 2007 20:18 : \____

> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>> What Does "IP" Really Mean?
>> ,----[ Quote ]
> [...]
>> | "intellectual property" does not exist.
>> `----
>> http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1005736
> He suggests the term "Intellectual Monopoly" instead, which I must
> agree is far more appropriate. It exposes the predatory and greedy
> nature of the concept, using the same negative connotation tactics
> employed by Microsoft (e.g. "Non-Proprietary"). It is Orwellianism
> turned against the oppressor, and put to a "doubleplusgood" cause.

Pointed out hours ago (
http://boycottnovell.com/2007/11/28/turbolinux-microsoft-love-charade/#comment-3898 ):

Also mind the fallacious distinction introduced here:

“bridge between open source and commercial technologies”

"There is no need to such a “bridge” since open source can be perfectly
commercial. They keep insisting in their view of a world in which only
proprietary software was profitable, and they try to project that view in
every marketing PR move they make, while at the same time kind of dismissing
the viability of “open source” (and mind this: they ALWAYS refuse talk about
FREE(dom) software) as “business ready” as if open source needed some kind of
proprietary clutches (what they call “bridge”) in order to be allowed by them
to compete in the software market (which they view as their private
backyard -as stated by Microsoft execs in disclosed Iowa memos-)

I really can not grasp how linux distributors cave to such marketing exercises"

Further down:

"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

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."

Scroll up to see the monster that takes pride in such monopolistic and
fascistic behaviour.

                ~~ Best of wishes

An aristocrat's sexual escapades equate to Technocrat's hot RSS feed
http://Schestowitz.com  |  RHAT GNU/Linux   |     PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
         run-level 2  2007-10-30 19:49                   last=
      http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine

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