Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 5th Jul 2011 22:12 UTC
Microsoft "One of Microsoft's hottest new profit centers is a smartphone platform you've definitely heard of: Android. Google's Linux-based mobile operating system is a favorite target for Microsoft's patent attorneys, who are suing numerous Android vendors and just today announced that another manufacturer has agreed to write checks to Microsoft every time it ships an Android device. Microsoft's latest target is Wistron Corp., which has signed a patent agreement 'that provides broad coverage under Microsoft's patent portfolio for Wistron's tablets, mobile phones, e-readers and other consumer devices running the Android or Chrome platform', Microsoft announced." That's the reality we live in, folks. This is at least as criminal - if not more so - than Microsoft's monopoly abuse late last century. After the Nortel crap, it's completely left the black helicopter camp for me: Microsoft, Apple, and several others are working together to fight Android the only way they know how: with underhand mafia tactics. Absolutely sickening. Hey Anonymous, are you listening? YES I WENT THERE.
Thread beginning with comment 479695
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

An alternative to software patent trolls, expensive legal battles which produce nothing, and the economic deadweight loss associated with artifical scarcity (read: proprietary software) is discussed here:

http://beginlinux.com/blog/2011/07/tlwir-7-patent-trolls-superheroe...

"The free software model may soon become the ONLY acceptable model for software from a software security standpoint. Which is smarter: to have a programmer in house who has access to all of your company’s source code and can access and fix any problem instantaneously, or to have to wait for some company like Microsoft or Apple to have to release the security update for you? Better yet, might it not be better to be part of a large community where you all help to protect each other?

Whether businesses like it or not, freedom seems to be the direction in which everything is moving because it is simply a much more efficient way to operate. Having everyone invent their own version of the wheel, and to then have each of those versions of the wheel compete against each other is not only wasteful; it actually stifles innovation. The reason for this is that the time spent by multiple entities building essentially the same thing could have been used in advancing other areas."

Well, to tell the truth, not everything ... rather say "everything except the desktop and (some) mobile platforms" seem to be moving in this direction.

Reply Score: 3

morglum666 Member since:
2005-07-06

This argument shows clearly the delineation between those who DO, and those who talk on the Internet.

""The free software model may soon become the ONLY acceptable model for software from a software security standpoint. Which is smarter: to have a programmer in house who has access to all of your company’s source code and can access and fix any problem instantaneously, or to have to wait for some company like Microsoft or Apple to have to release the security update for you? Better yet, might it not be better to be part of a large community where you all help to protect each other? "

My wife works for a small freight broker. Their business is in the transactions of booking loads on tractor trailors that are currently unloaded to new locations and they take a per cent. What interest would they have in hiring a programmer when they can get their patches automatically from the vendor and keep on working?

The key point here is that business's buy software so they can work. There is nothing wrong with proprietary software.

I'm not even going to mention that the "many eyes make bugs large" argument has been successfully debunked and the reality is that open source has a astronomically higher base of users vs people who review the source code.

Morglum

Reply Parent Score: 4

danger_nakamura Member since:
2011-06-21

What interest would they have in hiring a programmer when they can get their patches automatically from the vendor and keep on working? The key point here is that business's buy software so they can work.


This may seem nitpicky, but this is a false dichotmy. A business does not require a programmer on payroll to use open source software. Vendor support would take the place of "closed code" in a third possibility. The difference under that scenario is that the business, while still paying a vendor, would not be dependent on that vendor. How does the business lose under this scenario?

Reply Parent Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

An alternative to software patent trolls, expensive legal battles which produce nothing, and the economic deadweight loss associated with artifical scarcity (read: proprietary software) is discussed here:

http://beginlinux.com/blog/2011/07/tlwir-7-patent-trolls-superheroe...


Why can't you ever use a independant 3rd party instead of a pro linux/FOSS website ... because there are no other that support your beliefs.

"The free software model may soon become the ONLY acceptable model for software from a software security standpoint. Which is smarter: to have a programmer in house who has access to all of your company’s source code and can access and fix any problem instantaneously, or to have to wait for some company like Microsoft or Apple to have to release the security update for you?


Yes because everyone can afford trained specialist programmers for each software application they are using ... oh wait they are fooking expensive.

The whole point of using a large corp to provide support is that you don't have to hire someone in that can potentially be very expensive to hire long term.

Say you used Oracle Enterprise Linux support and was running say a scripting language, web server and a database.

You could either pay oracle $120 a year per CPU ... which is pretty cheap for a server OS support.

Or get a specialist to provide support for all 4 pieces of core software you are using ... which is far more expensive...

The whole point of an external company giving you lower level of support is that it is cheaper ... the expense must be weighed against the business need ... some things not working for say a month might be cheaper than hiring someone in to fix it immediately ... it isn't black and white so please don't make it out to be.

Better yet, might it not be better to be part of a large community where you all help to protect each other?


And what if the community doesn't want to help me, with my problems? I a SOL.

Having everyone invent their own version of the wheel, and to then have each of those versions of the wheel compete against each other is not only wasteful; it actually stifles innovation. The reason for this is that the time spent by multiple entities building essentially the same thing could have been used in advancing other areas."


So why are there countless linux distributions?

Why is there no LibreOffice and OpenOffice?

Why is XMMS, audacity?

Why is there MPlayer, Totem, Kaffeine, Banshee?

Why is there KDE, Gnome, XFCE, LXDE?

Why is there Redhat, Suse, Ubuntu, Madriva commercial distros?

Why is there Alsa, PulseAudio, Jack, OSS?

Why is there MySQL, PostGresSQL, Sqlite?

There are just variations of the same functionality ... Why is the wheel being reinvented so many times by the community itself? Surely by your arguement there should only be one example of each ...

Your arguement is bullshit.

Edited 2011-07-06 18:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2