Halloween X Author Mike Anderer Speaks Out 424
cdlu writes "Mike Anderer, author of the now-famous Halloween X document, has spoken out at NewsForge. Among the highlights is a prediction by Mr. Anderer that Microsoft has many more disruptive lawsuits planned up their sleeves."
Maybe because its early for me, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
What exactly does he mean by this? Traditional EULAs push liability onto the user as well.
Re:Maybe because its early for me, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Maybe because its early for me, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Maybe because its early for me, but... (Score:2)
Re:Maybe because its early for me, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
There's two obvious arguments:
1) Person C is an IP Thief(tm) distributing Company B's copyrighted work (which they are) and must be sued and made an example of.
2) Person C is an innocent party and received the copy in good faith, and the liability is deferred back to Person A, who actually did the nasty deed.
Hopefully the latter argument would win, but once you get laywers involved, anything can go wrong...
Re:Maybe because its early for me, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
The argument is always that the GPL specifically transfers some liability that other licenses don't. By your argument, Somebody can sue IBM for code it got from Computer Associates.
How does the GPL transfer liability. Liability != Waranty.
Re:Maybe because its early for me, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
3)Person C is not inocent but its not guilty until it knows about it. Its the job of company B to tell all parties: "Hey you have my code please remove it from you software. And by the way I want compensation from the ones who but the code in there.". Only if company B doesn't comply would it be in danger of litigation.
I even think that it is REQUIRED by B to try to resolve the problem BEFORE going to court. By telling A and C to remove the code. Of course if it can prove A knew it was copying copyrighted material when A did it, B could claim some damages.
I would of though that everyone would know about these things by now with all of the SCO, Growklaw etc... brouhaha
oh and IANAL but I did a project on IP law once. (Canadian IP law, but because of international agreements I think it is very similar to US laws)
Re:Maybe because its early for me, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
If person C stops distributing the code, then your answer 2) is correct, they are not liable for anything. But, if person C starts complaining and refusing to comply then they are liable. Depending on what happens, person C could lose a lawsuit, or person C (perhaps a huge company with lots of lawyers) might haul the whole case back into court and get the original judgement thrown out.
Re:Maybe because its early for me, but... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Maybe because its early for me, but... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Maybe because its early for me, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
But what really bothers me is that people seem to want somebody to hold liable and yet don't want to pay. There is no "contract" of purchase under which somebody should be held liable with Open Source. If you want somebody to hold liable, you need to pay. If you pai
If that really was Outlook code... (Score:3, Interesting)
IRL, the original author's off his tree. While the sharks could bend it, the law clearly starts out by saying: the person or organisation who did the actual including is entirely at fault.
If the code said something like "stolen from Microsoft" or obviously contained Microsoft headers and such, slap-in-the-face clues that the code was still albatrossed by non-Free copyright, responsibility could easily be pushed out as far as the l
Re:Maybe because its early for me, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
However, he is mistaken that "GPL type licence agreements push the liablity to the users." The GPL specifically puts the patent onus on the code contributor.
As far as end-user liability goes, I fail to see the difference between the GPL and the EULAs of closed software. While GPL projects are certainly vulnerable, there have already been significant successful patent infringement claims against closed software that may affect the end-users of that software.
For example, Timeline recently won [com.com] a patent infringement suit [theage.com.au] against Microsoft that potentially could require licencing royalties from developers and even end-users of SQL Server [eweek.com].
There is also Eolas' successful suit against Microsoft for Internet Explorer, which Anderer refers to.
BTW, when Anderer says that MSFT has 50 patent lawsuits waiting in the queue, I read that as saying Microsoft will be the defendant in those suits.
Re:Maybe because its early for me, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
He is wrong about the GPL. He confuses the GPL with "public domain". He feels that you "have to go after somebody". That last one is quite disturbing actually. Why do you have to go after somebody.
This guy is an evil idiot. All he talks about is how great he is and how busy he is and how he knows so much and how us little old peons don't know what's really going on.
Listen. If open source means guys like this will make less money then that's reason enough to support open source. If this guy is representitive of the enemies of open source then then we should have no problems convincing people to adopt open source.
Just point to his letter and say "see you don't want guys like this running the world do you?"
Think about how you vote this November. (Score:4, Insightful)
IANAL but I know the industry, and so do most of you. Let's be realistic. MS basically got off with a "please don't do it again, OK?"
And then they immediately started doing it again.
The only way in the long run to stop this "compete with anything but quality and price" attitude is for the government to finally enforce the antitrust law. And that may only happen if you all vote
The Bush people seem perfectly happy with the Microsoft status quo. So, process of elimination...
Re:Think about how you vote this November. (Score:4, Insightful)
Its not as if the Clinton DOJ hasnt had its share of questionable policy.
Re:Think about how you vote this November. (Score:3, Insightful)
Consistently voting for Nader... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Think about how you vote this November. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Think about how you vote this November. (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not the worst of it, either. Because if you vote for the third candidate, the front runner you disliked the most is more likely to win, because had you cast your vote for a front runner, it wouldn't have been him.
Every time a third party candidate gets recognition for winning a lot of votes, the front runner that is least liked is the one that wins. I'm going to cast my vote for whoever Democrat is running because I really don't think the Democrats will put someone up who is as bad as Bush.
I'm al
Re:Think about how you vote this November. (Score:3, Insightful)
Janet Reno and John Ashcroft have done quite well trampling on civil liberties.
Just because the main differences between the two are that one likes Microsoft and the other doesnt, does not make one better than the other.
Re:Think about how you vote this November. (Score:3, Insightful)
My problem with GWB... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm talking about blending religion and politics.
If he wants the Inquisition back, albeit named something harmless-sounding lik
Re:Think about how you vote this November. (Score:3, Funny)
Bush deserves a lot more than being voted out of office. IMO, he's earned the right to be the first person to land a Navy jet on the Sun.
Re:Think about how you vote this November. (Score:3, Funny)
And if he worries that it might be too hot, let's just tell him he can go at night.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Think about how you vote this November. (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't necessarily directed to you, but to a misconception I've seen over and over again.
You don't have to have 100% market share to have a monopoly.
That's not me talking - that's the US Supreme Court. Just because Linux and MacOS exist doesn't negate the fact that Microsoft has a monopoly on desktop computer operating systems. True, one could argue that they do not have a monopoly in the server room, but they still have one on the desktop. And they use that desktop monopoly to try to extend their reach into other areas, which is what ran them afoul of antitrust laws.
Part of having a monopoly in an area is that you get to dictate the terms in that area. Aside from the Mac, which does not by its existance negate the desktop monopoly, Microsoft names the terms by which the desktop market operates. Their browser quirks define what an acceptable webpage is, not standards. Their document formats define what people use in the office. Their media formats, increasingly, define what people listen to.
That's their monopoly. Not the fact that Joe Hacker runs KDE at home.
Re:Think about how you vote this November. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Think about how you vote this November. (Score:4, Informative)
This is rarely enforced, however, as such cases often end up being very difficult and time-consuming to prosecute (e.g. see US vs. Alcoa, 1945). The law has, however, been upheld by courts in the past, notably in US vs. Standard Oil (1911) and US vs. DuPont (1956).
Wikipedia (Score:3, Informative)
In economics, a monopoly (from the Greek monos, one + polein, to sell) is defined as a market situation where there is only one provider of a product or service. Monopoly should be distinguished from monopsony, in which there is only one buyer of the product or service. It should also, strictly, be distinguished from the (closely related) phenomenon of a cartel (which is a type of oligopoly), in which a centralized institution is set up to (partially) coordinate the actions of s
Re:Think about how you vote this November. (Score:5, Interesting)
Linux is an equal or superior product in every possible way, without exception
Even with respect to driver support for more recent desktop peripherals? My scanner didn't come with a SANE driver on its CD, and there exists no such driver in SANE CVS either.
Re:Think about how you vote this November. (Score:5, Insightful)
> come with a SANE driver on its CD, and there exists no such driver in SANE CVS either.
Rather than just stating that it doesn't, think about why it doesn't. Is
it because of the technical superiority of Windows? Or the superior innovation
coming out of Microsoft? Do you think they wrote all those drivers themselves?
Or, is it because the Windows monopoly is, like most monopolies, self-perpetuating?
Since they have the monopoly, not only do the realities of the market make it
more likely that Scanners, Inc. will write a Windows driver before, or perhaps
to the exclusion of all others; it also means that Microsoft is in a position to
illegally abuse their monopoly by REQUIRING that Scanners, Inc. play by MS's
rules if they want their scanner to work on Windows at all.
The playing field is not level at all, as should be obvious. Vendors bend over
backwards to make their devices work within the bizarro world that is Windows.
Counterwise, most of them expend no effort whatsoever, often denying even
basic documentation that would cost them nothing to provide, to the development
of Linux drivers. The very existence of drivers for ANY sufficiently complex
devices is a small miracle, and should be taken as testament to the innate superiority
of Linux and her developers.
Once the Windows stranglehold is broken, just you sit back and watch what Linux
turns into when the playing field is leveled.
Re:Think about how you vote this November. (Score:3, Informative)
it because of the technical superiority of Windows? Or the superior innovation
coming out of Microsoft? Do you think they wrote all those drivers themselves?
They did for a huge chunk of the earlier drivers, yes. IIRC, Windows 95's drivers were initially all written by Microsoft - or at least a huge chunk of them were.
Re:Think about how you vote this November. (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that the "relative market share" here was not determined by market economics. Monopoly is still the driving force even if hardware manufacturers are only doing what economically "makes sense" to them. Incidentally, there is virtually no cost in releasing complete hardware documentation so that alternative drivers can be written. And yet most hardware companies still do not do this -- many sti
Hardware Support (Score:4, Informative)
Also, many drivers in Linux are actually written by people who actually maintain them, meaning that if your peripheral is supported in 2.2, it's likely to also be supported in 2.4, 2.6, and future versions. Contrast this with Windows where devices can and do become useless when new and incompatible Windows versions come out, and some drivers won't be ported to the newer version, whereas other things won't be released for earlier versions -- you must upgrade to use the new functionality, but that means you can't use your old device anymore.
I have a dream that one day, hardware manufacturers will actually care to support a plurality of operating systems, either by shipping drivers for various systems (this is already happening to some extent), or, preferably by releasing specifications (which used to happen in the past) or standardizing interfaces at hardware level (I think many USB devices do this). Or they might embed platform-independent drivers in firmware, a la OpenFirmware. I think this dream might just come true when the operating system monoculture is broken.
Re:Think about how you vote this November. (Score:5, Insightful)
No offence, but what mad weed are you smoking? Windows isn't a monopoly even though it runs roughly 95% of desktop computers?
You don't have to have 100% marketshare to be a monopoly. Simply saying "now there is an alternative, kind of, for some people, if they're willing to do complex and expensive migrations means Windows doesn't have a monopoly" is one of the most incredible pieces of doublethink I've seen for along time.
Re:Think about how you vote this November. (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you actually read the ENTIRE anti-trust trial transcript? Ok....maybe I have no life, but I DID read it. No intelligent person could have read that transcript and not derived from it the fact that Microsoft is one of the most corrupt, deceitful, predatory, and ILLEGAL monopolies ever in existance.
"There is another aspect you might have missed. The DOJ wa
Re:Think about how you vote this November. (Score:3, Insightful)
> Jackson was biased. It was not Bush.
Er, the same Supreme Court that got Bush elected with a minority of the vote?
And Jackson GOT biased by hearing Bill Gates hem and haw in his taped testimony, and watching Microsoft lawyers tamper with the videos produced as evidence in court.
Re:Think about how you vote this November. (Score:5, Informative)
Bigger picture, friend (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's look at this from a larger perspective: the economy is just beginning to recover from the tech bust (not really bush's doing; presidents don't control the economy), there's a war and reconstruction effort going on, there's the ongoing hunt for terrorists, it's an election year... and you want Bush to focus on Microsoft?
Microsoft has the money, and we all know that politicians can be bought... John Kerry has certainly taken his share of special interest money over the years. So who would you have us vote for? Nader? (let's be realistic... he has no chance of winning).
Listen, if you want to take shots at Bush... have at it... that's practically required here at Slashdot. However, let's also be realistic about the bigger picture, and the lack of palatable alternatives. Kerry's no prize.
Re:Bigger picture, friend (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a big government. It took political attention span to stop the antitrust case, not the other way around.
Monopolies are terrible for the economy. Showing you're serious about economic policy might be very good for a sitting president with problems like Bush.
You can make criticism of Bush look like a reflex on Slashdot, the same way everyone paints the readership as Linux zealots or anti-Microsoft... But pardon me for being blunt, I call it rude and ignorant.
It seems to annoy people when a group develops a consensus on something - even when they are correct. Even when what they disapprove of is particularly egregious. Microsoft doesn't deserve scorn, here or wherever thinking people discuss things? Hello? SCO?
You know what you sound like to me? "If you want to take shots at Hitler... have at it... that's practically required here at soc.culture.jewish."
And we, on Slashdot, should be called "partisan" (or the same implied) as if the political developments of the last 4 years don't suitably justify it?
Sorry, just have to get that off my chest. Snidely poking at a consensus opinion (without appearing to worry on wether it's correct) just makes you look ignorant. Say why you think Bush gets short shrift, if you feel differently.
Don't you think there's a reason people here (and in general anywhere people are more educated than average) dislike Bush?
Kerry? (Score:3, Interesting)
To be perfectly honest, I really haven't been paying enough attention to politics lately.
All I know about Kerry is that he appears to be more "intelligent" than Bush when he's jabbering on TV, ie. he's more articulate, but I don't know what he stands for.
I don't mean to pick on you, specifically, but since you stated, "Kerry's no prize," could you tell me why that is?
I don't particularly like the Democratic party, but neither do I like the Republican party. I would toss out another
Re:Bigger picture, friend (Score:3, Insightful)
1. He lied in order to drag our country into war (with Iraq) that has cost of almost a hundred billion dollars and will most likely cost billions more. It also resulted in over 10 thousand deaths, far more than Osama's kill count. Just imagine if Bush decided to convince the country to put hundreds of billions of dollars into rewiring our telecom infustructure with fiber to the curb? We would be having a dot-com boom that would make the 90s look like nothing!
2. His and h
Re:Bigger picture, friend (Score:3, Insightful)
That's rubbish. If you vote for Nader, you vote for Nader. Whatever the final percentage is, let it be 5% of all voters, that makes roughly 6 Million people who made their voice heard. If the US's parliamentary system does not allow six Million people to be heard in the ensuing government or parliamentary representation, then that is a fundamental flaw in the system.
And that can only be changed by showing that people want a third power, a voice that is dis
Re:Bigger picture, friend (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm from MA. This state's electoral votes are all going to the dems. No two ways about it. I'm voting Nader again. It won't hurt the anti-Bush effort. Kerry doesn't need my help anyway. I'll be able to look myself in the mirror. And maybe, just maybe, it will improve the viability of future independent and 3rd party candidates.
Re:ANYONE but Bush IS a better alternative (Score:4, Informative)
After checking the Wikipedia...
Kennedy - Bachelor's degree
Carter - Bachelor's degree
Reagan - Bachelor's degree
Bush I - Bachelor's degree
Clinton - Bachelors and JD
Bush II - Bachelors and MBA
Least qualified? Not by comparison to some other recent presidents.
His ties to Enron alone are enough to want him out.
Much of the Enron shenanigans were ongoing before he even took office. Clinton had some ties also. [indiatimes.com] Would that have made you impeach Clinton too, or only Bush?
Bush squandered the greatest chance for peace in our time by calling all of the world "Evil"
It was 3 countries, and those countries are either state sponsors of terrorism, genocidal regimes, or rogue nations pursuing WMD. If that's not evil, I'd love to see how you define "good."
say a big fuck you to the world
Kerry supported it... No, Bush got tired of UN corruption and inaction, and going around the UN was arguably the right thing to do. Check out the latest dirt on the UN's "Oil for Pala^H^H^H^H Food" program. [opinionjournal.com]
think of America as a "play by its own rules" bully
If those "rules" include reining in WMD proliferators and demolishing terrorist states, screw the opposition; The Right Thing (TM) isn't always the easy or popular thing. If finding and killing terrorists before they can strike is wrong, I don't want to be right.
Not to mention the fact that he wants to hold Americans without trial or due process indefinitely
If they're terrorists, they have almost no rights. [findlaw.com] To be considered lawful combatants and thus entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention, you must meet four conditions: have a responsible chain of command (autonomous terrorist "cells" don't qualify), carry weapons openly, have a distinctive uniform or insignia, and follow the laws of war... Al-Queda meets NONE of these (the commentary I cited above is interesting... I recommend reading it).
It's OK that you hate Bush... really.
Ha Ha you make a funny (Score:3, Informative)
Yea because a college degree proves everything. Bush's inability speak English on an 8th grade level proves more than anything you said. Do we need to talk about how many schools Bush was rejected from? And yes people who flee from the military are not qualified to send others to die.
"Much of the Enron shenanigans were ongoing before he even took office. Clinton had some ties also. Would that have made you impeach Clinton too, or only Bush
Calm yourself (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd love to see you define 'state sponsors of terrorism', 'genocidal regimes' and (especially nice) 'rogue nations pursuing WMD'
Challenge accepted.
State Sponsor of Terrorism: Iran (also Syria)
Genocidal Regime: Iraq, N. Korea (primarily against its own starving people)
Rogue nation pursuing WMD: Iran, N. Korea, (also Syria)
You brought up a good point. Like you, I don't think the list should be only 3 countries long... there are plenty more I would add... but all in good time; we'll deal with the worst first.
just like going round the League of Nations was right?
The UN wasn't doing its job... somebody had to do it.
Good thing - because you're not.
Really? Perhaps you're a pacifist... I am not. I have no problem hunting and killing terrorists and their allies. In fact, I've personally taken part in/supported operations of exactly that type during my military service. To answer your unspoken question, yes... I sleep very well at night.
some poor British guy (web designer) who you held hostage for 2 years, tortured, starved, and beat, ritually.
So he says... I don't know the circumstances under which he was captured, and neither do you. As for his claims... I'm sure he has no axe to grind against his captors... If he innocent, I'm glad he was released. Yes, 2 years is a chunk out of his life he'll never get back, but at least he's free now... the system was slow, and certainly less than ideal, but it worked.
Hating America, and Americans, is increasingly easy these days. Because of fuckers like you. We know we shouldn't, but jesus, you're loud obnoxious pricks.
On the contrary, Mr. Wright... I've simply offered some reasoned counterpoint to some fairly over-the-top posts. I'm frankly surprised that you're so upset... that kind of vehemence in the face of this simple debate says something about you, sir.
don't fuck with the rest of the world
This may come as a surprise to you, but nothing would please most americans more than to simply be left alone. We didn't ask for this fight... but the Al-Queda have been targeting americans for over ten years, and it's time to deal with them, and the environment that's spawned them (radical islam and state terrorist sponsors).
Re:Think about how you vote this November. (Score:3, Insightful)
Lawsuit misinterpretation? (Score:4, Informative)
In a world where there are $500 million dollar patent infringement lawsuits imposed on OS companies (although this is not completely settled yet), how would somebody like Red Hat compete when 6 months ago they only had $80-$90 million in cash? At that point they could not even afford to settle a fraction of a single judgment without devastating their shareholders. I suspect Microsoft may have 50 or more of these lawsuits in the queue. All of them are not asking for hundreds of millions, but most would be large enough to ruin anything but the largest companies. Red Hat did recently raise several hundred million which certainly gives them more staying power. Ultimately, I do not think any company except a few of the largest companies can offer any reasonable insulation to their customers from these types of judgments. You would need a market cap of more than a couple billion to just survive in the OS space.
I read this to mean that Microsoft has a queue of 50 frivoulous lawsuits against itself not that Microsoft is planning 50 lawsuits against other people.
At any rate, Anderer's comments are devoid of any substance. Someone at Microsoft/SCO probably wrote the memo for him or he just copy and pasted talking points into his response.
Re:it seems to me (Score:4, Insightful)
A few judges with some testicular fortitude will solve the problem much more quickly than a thousand companies raising the price of their software in order to pay all the lawyers who are helping muddy the waters.
Re:Lawsuit misinterpretation? (Score:3, Funny)
There's always some risk when someone copies the girl next to them instead of doing their own homework.
Misconstrued (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Misconstrued (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Misconstrued (Score:3, Funny)
You're both wrong. Or at least, prose-wise, the whole dynamic of his message has been transformed by your attempts to narrow his statements to a specific implication context-wise. This isn't about narrowing. This isn't about context. This is about limitless possibilities for vissioning the implications without giving it to the growning dependence on actual meaning.
Look at his resume--all of the important companies that aren't trying to hide the fact--and have never tried to hide the fact--that he may
Re:Misconstrued (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that he's actually talking about Microsoft defending against 50 or more lawsuits, or at least being ambiguous about it. Look at how he starts the paragraph:
Re:Misconstrued (Score:3, Insightful)
RTFA!!! (Score:4, Informative)
Bill
The "new" model? (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmmm...maybe it'll go back to the way it was before people could get rich on software. That's what RMS was originally after, all those years ago
Master of political speak (Score:5, Insightful)
nude mac desktops [67.160.223.119]
Re:Master of political speak (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes. My favorite is:
"I helped build the channels for most of the products that corporate America is currently using and some they will be using soon."
So he builds "channels". To quote Benjy mouse [hhgproject.org] "Sounds very significant without actually tying you down to meaning anything."
This guy is such a self-promoting jackass (Score:5, Insightful)
What an asshole.
RHat Cash on Hand. (Score:3, Informative)
RALEIGH, N.C., Jan 6, 2004 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Red Hat, Inc. (Nasdaq: RHAT) today announced the pricing of $500 million aggregate principal amount of 0.50% Convertible Senior Debentures due 2024, which are being issued in a private offering.
The debentures are being sold at 100% of their principal amount. The sale of the debentures is expected to close on January 12, 2004, subject to customary closing conditions. The initial purchaser has an option to purchase up to an additional $100 million aggregate principal amount of the debentures. The debentures will be Red Hat_s senior unsecured obligations and will be subordinated in right of payment to all of its existing and future secured debt. Red Hat expects to use the net proceeds for general corporate purposes, including possible acquisitions of complementary businesses and technologies and the expansion of its international operations.
The debentures will bear interest at a rate of 0.50% per annum, payable on each January 15 and July 15, beginning on July 15, 2004. The debentures will mature on January 15, 2024, unless earlier converted, redeemed by Red Hat at its option or repurchased by Red Hat at the option of the holders. Each $1,000 principal amount of the debentures will be initially convertible under certain circumstances into 39.0753 shares of Red Hat common stock. Therefore, the debentures are convertible in the aggregate into approximately 19,537,650 shares of Red Hat common stock, or approximately 23,445,180 shares of Red Hat common stock if the initial purchaser exercises its option to purchase additional debentures in full. The conversion rate is equivalent to a conversion price of approximately $25.59 per share, subject to adjustment. This represents approximately a 37% conversion premium based on the last reported bid price of $18.68 of Red Hat common stock on January 6, 2004. The debentures will be redeemable by Red Hat beginning in January 2009 and investors will have the right to require Red Hat to repurchase the debentures in January 2009, 2014 and 2019 and upon certain repurchase events.
The debentures have been offered only to qualified institutional buyers in reliance on Rule 144A under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The debentures and the shares of Red Hat common stock issuable upon the conversion of the debentures have not been registered under the Securities Act and may not be offered or sold in the United States or to a U.S. person absent registration or an applicable exemption from registration requirements.
This press release does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any security and shall not constitute an offer, solicitation or sale in any jurisdiction in which such offering would be unlawful.
About Red Hat
Red Hat is the world's leading provider of open source solutions to the enterprise. Red Hat is headquartered in Raleigh, N.C. and has offices worldwide.
Forward-looking Statements
Statements in this press release that are not historical facts and that relate to future plans or events are forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements include Red Hat_s intention to raise proceeds through the offering and sale of convertible senior debentures, the intended use of proceeds and the anticipated terms of such debentures. There can be no assurance that Red Hat will complete the offering on the anticipated terms or at all. Red Hat_s ability to complete the offering will depend, among other things, on market conditions. Red Hat_s actual results could differ materially from those projected or forecasted in the forward-looking statements. These include uncertainties relating to market conditions for corporate debt securities in general and our debentures in particular, as well as other factors identified in Red Hat_s most recent Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
SOURCE: Red Hat, Inc.
Red Hat, Inc.
Gabriel Szulik, 919-754-3700 ext. 44439
gszulik@redhat.com
More poor editorial (Score:4, Insightful)
"Microsoft has many more disruptive lawsuits planned up their sleeves".
It talk about lawsuits against Microsoft. RTFA:
"In a world where there are $500 million dollar patent infringement lawsuits imposed on OS companies
And further, how many lawsuits has Microsoft initiated (except piracy, which is justified IMHO)? There are probably some, but off the top of my head I can't think of a single one. They aren't the multi-headed legal beast attacking all over the place the /. "editors" would portray them to be.
Re:More poor editorial (Score:5, Interesting)
Up until the mid 90s, Microsoft hadn't initiated a single lawsuit against anybody. If memory serves, the first lawsuit involved one of the larger distributors of bogus Microsoft software, so even that was fairly benign. This is not a litigation-happy company.
That said, they have started to wrap some pretty evil licenses around all technical information disseminated about Windows, its SDKs and technical papers. Furthermore, they're starting to layer gratuitous DRM over the new MS Office file formats even where it doesn't make sense, leaving room to invoke the DMCA when people make Office file format importers/exporters.
MS salespeople have started to tell shops migrating to Linux that there would be "legal issues" preventing Linux from interoperating with future versions of Windows. There may well be a sea change in Microsoft's tactics ahead, or the salesmen may be talking through their hats. Either way, MS is starting to build up an arsenal of twisted legal manipulation every bit as formidable as IBM's patent arsenal.
Wrong at so many levels (Score:5, Insightful)
In a world where there are $500 million dollar patent infringement lawsuits imposed on OS companies (although this is not completely settled yet), how would somebody like Red Hat compete when 6 months ago they only had $80-$90 million in cash? At that point they could not even afford to settle a fraction of a single judgment without devastating their shareholders. I suspect Microsoft may have 50 or more of these lawsuits in the queue. All of them are not asking for hundreds of millions, but most would be large enough to ruin anything but the largest companies. Red Hat did recently raise several hundred million which certainly gives them more staying power. Ultimately, I do not think any company except a few of the largest companies can offer any reasonable insulation to their customers from these types of judgments. You would need a market cap of more than a couple billion to just survive in the OS space.
This attitude is wrong at SO many levels. New players can't enter the OS space NOT because they will have to compete against marketing schemes/ad campaigns of a richer company BUT because they'll be sued into oblivion by the competition.
It is being assumed here that a company with $85 million in the bank won't be able to survive because they don't have money to survive a LAWSUIT...the quality of their products/service/innovation apparently doesn't even enter the equation anywhere.
litiguous fucking bastards [sco.com]
Re:Wrong at so many levels (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with the legal system is it's stacked against the small guy from start to finish. This is how it's stacked: Consequences. There are *NO* consequences for setting out to ruin somebody. None whatsoever. What are the consequences for MS and SCO
why attack mike? (Score:2)
Re:why attack mike? (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps being an (ex-)man of SCO and a friend of Darl McBride (in case he has real friends) is enough for many of us. But there is more in it. If you actually read the article, you will find plenty of reasons to consider this guy a major asshole. Here is a short list:
Re:why attack mike? (Score:3, Funny)
Most of my time is currently spent on new technologies on several different platforms.
Read: I don't know shit. When someone is foolish enough to consult me I'll give them some buzzwords and get away with it.
Many of my companies and several of our offices have been merged into other companies, moved or sold as part of a technology deal, some even sold during the deepest parts of the downturn.
Read: Companies I worked
Re:why attack mike? (Score:3, Insightful)
Most striking was the self-aggrandizing hot air about how many wonderful "channels" and "patents" he's created. If he's that wonderful, you'd think that someone would have heard of him, or that he could name any major deal he's done.
I particularly liked him arguing that a "small company" like Red Hat doesn't have the resources to stay in the OS business because they only had a few $100M in the bank, ignoring the compa
Musta used a spell checker this time (Score:5, Insightful)
For this article, ol' Mikey must have used a spell checker. Heck, given his grammar problems, he must have had someone proofread it for him. Hmmm, ghostwriter?
I'm RTFAing... (Score:5, Insightful)
I will file close to 20 patents this year for companies in many spaces, including homeland security, anti-terrorism,
He's trying to build himself up and throw in sympathetic issues. But he's doing it the wrong way to the wrong audience I think.
(I'm not saying he didn't do those things, but when somebody starts like that they're usually about to feed you some bullshit.)
Anyway, off to read the rest...
Is he ashamed? (Score:3, Interesting)
I get the feeling this man has a bitter taste in his mouth writing this. It's as if he's declaring to all the world: 'I did all this!', so that he can tell himself that he can stand by his actions, and convince himself that he's not feeling guilty.
It's the voice of hypocrisy.
Although I have more sympathy for this kind of hidden guilt, than for the greed and stupidity I have heard in many voices lately.
I had thought that MS didn't... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh wait, I forgot who's in charge of the "Justice" Department: wrist slap, settlement, look the other way. Never mind.
perhaps this is SCO's 'MIT rocket scientist' (Score:5, Informative)
Anyhow, great, he's worked for SCO under NDA, he's got a lot of Darl-like bombast about economic justification for his actions.
He *thinks* he's a rocket scientist (mostly people who say 'it's not rocket science' do think this :-).
He's writing junk patents, apparently for people who haven't figured out that the .com bubble has burst.
Summary (Score:5, Interesting)
- I have nothing to say about the money Microsoft funneled to SCO (my excuse is that they won't let me).
- Everybody licenses Unix and they've been doing so for years. SCO as a licensor is only executing a rational business decision based on current market trends. Microsoft bought SCO licenses for SFU just like everybody else has been doing for years, there's nothing wrong with it.
- Microsoft is actually cooperating with you Linux guys with their SFU. They're good guys!
- The GPL makes IP matters confusing, and we have to leave it to the big companies like Sun and SCO to figure it out for the rest of us. They might even be kind enough to give it all away for free!
- Red Hat is still a bunch of small boys. Do you really think this johnny-just-come company with a few hundred million in the bank can actually indemnify its customers from the devastating effects of a settlement? They will be obliterated in no time! Better leave it to the big guys (Sun, MS, SCO...).
- We used to have all this crap figured out with patents and cross-licensing and stuff. You GPL people came around and messed up the whole thing, and now we're trying to clean up your mess. Stop making noise and let's clean this whole thing up for you.
- Why is everyone picking on me? I've done a lot of good stuff, and nobody says anything about that!
[Wow. I have to give this guy an award for managing to say so little in so many words.]
Too good to be true? (Score:3, Interesting)
Modest lad, isn't he? I'm always suspicious about people who feel the need to have such a self-serving description...as there's usually snake oil to follow.
he doesn't get 'it' (Score:3, Interesting)
this sentence reveals the author's bias:
Nobody wants to be the ultimate guarantor for software that was free (or close to it).
that's free as in beer, not speech--why is this so hard for $uit$ to understand?
although, given the state of the union, we may be coming to this:
Nobody wants to be the ultimate guarantor for speech that was free (or close to it).;>
Innocent my ass (Score:5, Insightful)
Quotes:
I suspect Microsoft may have 50 or more of these lawsuits in the queue. All of them are not asking for hundreds of millions, but most would be large enough to ruin anything but the largest companies.
Translation: Yeah, Microsoft is behind the lawsuit. Oops I let the cat out the bag, because I hardly mentioned SCO in the article and gushed about Microsoft for most of it. And a little theatening works wonder now and again, doesn't it, nudge ndge, wink wink, say no more.
Since the GPL type license agreements push the liability to the users, who do you go after? I think this is a key problem. Nobody wants to be the ultimate guarantor for software that was free (or close to it). I think the dispute with SCO would have been settled a long time ago if everybody knew this was the last one. The problem is there will probably be hundreds or even thousands of these disputes in the future and the targets will be the companies with the deepest pockets. Even if the large vendors disclaim all responsibility initially, I do not think the customers will accept this from their vendors for very long. In the meantime, I don't see anybody being in a hurry to write the first big check.
Translation: I'm just busy repeating what Darl has been pissing into the winds so I can make people worry more than they are. Yet even I am just too fucking stupid to understand the GPL and still don't get it. (hint to Mike: You and your kind of greedy money grabbing fuckwits deserve to get your assses sued out of existence for your stupidity: If there is no proprietry IP in the Linux kernel then the GPL protects us very well.)
I have also had several long lost friends contact me. I think they thought I might need some support.
Tranlsation: Bill and Darl have been on the phone screaming at me for that leaked letter. They have warned me to only say nice things about Microsoft and SCO. (Hint for Mike: You're gonna need that support mike, because IBM is almost certain to subpoena your ass into court, and if they don't Novell and RedHat will. After that you will know what it's like to get screwed in the butt by a big hairy Convict.)
Mike Anderer is only now beginning to 'get it' (Score:5, Insightful)
Secondly, I get the impression that Mike Anderer is almost there, almost beiginning to fathom the changes in the software industry which he has referred to. He is not simply stuck in the old-style IP tradition which became utterly dominant in the last 20 years-no he was one of the architects of this development.
Secondly, For people like him compatibility, exhangability and interoperatibilty means cross-licenscing. According to this view if companies want to exchange documents between various applications cross-licensing agreements must already be in place which allow for this to happen.I can imagine that for many companies, during the time frame where the IP hegemony system was comming into being(early 80's), the idea of cross-licenscing as the way to enable open exchange and interoperation was quite obvious and even common sensical.
What people didn't realize then, and which many fail to still realize now, is that all of the problems of compatibility, exhangability and interoperatibilty are created by this IP regime to begin with. Only when one sees that these issues are contrived issues, issued which have no technical merit, and are issues which themselves promote and prolong their own very being, does one begin to see how self-servingt the IP regime really is.
Mike Anderer has been in the buisness of creating the need for his own buisness for the last 20 years- and he is not alone. He is but one of an entire industry of IP tychoons which arose in the ecosystem of IP. HE and people like him worked to develop the IP system and these same people then provided the solutions to the self-created problems which the IP system inherently produces-one could view this as a form of autopoesis.
Thirdly, his confusing of the GPL with public domain is pre-programmed. The notion that something can be licensced in such a way that this license itself cannot be bought or sold contradicts, in it's very roots, what licensces have always traditionally meant. The price of the GPL is priceless -and the free software community will stand forever in debt to the brilliance of this licensce. Mike Anderer cannot really grasp this concept fully without fundamentally re-evalutating what licenscing means-and this is of course the fundament of his occupation for the last 20 odd years. For him to fathom this sea-change in the software industry it is necessary for him to understand the incredibly subtle, yet profoundly deep difference between the GPL and public domain/propietary IP.
Understanding this difference means relinquishing the defining oppsoite self-definition of IP-IP has always defined itself through it's opposition to it's other(andere)- public domain. The two notions need each other and exist for each other's benefit. The temporary evil of IP find's it's absolution in the eventual transition to public domain. The defered time, the temporary evil-to-be-covercome, constitutes the horizon of the economy of relative value which is traded in the IP system.
The GPL is never public domain and is never to be bought or sold-it is a-economic in the strictest sense of the word. For Mike Anderer to understand this he would need to call into question the raison d'etre of his entire proffesional life and therein lies the damning self-service of the IP industry.
Re:Mike Anderer is only now beginning to 'get it' (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, I'm not a lawyer, much less one who specializes in patents. I am, however, a mathematician who has done some game theory.
Basically, ALL companies are vulnerable to something I have dubbed an "IP Vampire." Whereas other businesses have products, which make them vulnerable to counter-suits over patents, an "IP Vampire" has no products. It has nothing but patents, lawyers, and enough capital to sue. It is NOT vulnerable to counter-suits, so they have only to weigh their case: license the patent, or settle. Either of these costs the business they sink their teeth into. Even defending themselves successfully costs them money. It's a no win situation for the business they bite. Enough of them can drain any company. Anyone who sponsors them is short-sighted. As long as it is legal, the competition can do this just as well as they can. For a monopoly to do this, one might think it could raise anti-trust issues, but I suspect a lawyer would have to make that arguement, and I am not one.
Microsoft is every bit as vulnerable to these as the next company. It nearly got hit for 500M thanks to Eolas. They should be glad that that patent did not have so much prior art. They cannot win them all.
If this is legal, everyone who can do this will. At some point, they will have to sponsor such suits just to stay alive (or to try to). If it's not legal, game over. I hope that someone can eventually find a way to straighten much of this out. Personally, I would end software patents for starters... software is just mathematics, and anyone who says otherwise is spouting nonsense. I do not agree that mathematics should ever be patented. We know that it is not necessary to drive mathematical innovation, after all. Ask Euclid and company. I can only wonder how much mathematical progress would have been lost if all the works of antiquity could not have been preserved... we had all too few copies of the great mathematical works to learn from for too long, after all...
But I digress. The principle behind an "IP Vampire" is simple. Defending against them is futile. I suspect that Microsoft is thus banking on the only principle of that game to their advantage--whoever has the most money, especially if they move first, wins.
But that would eliminate all competition. If our anti-trust regulators are that asleep at the switch, well... something will have to be done... I know all to well that if you don't like the rules, you have to change the game. I know a few other games to play. I would rather not play any of them, however. It is like the movie "WarGames" -- the only way to win is not to play.
In the mean time, I think that publicity will probably suffice. The more people who know why they do not want to do business with Microsoft, or anyone else who promulgates these insidious "IP Vampires" the better...
Re:Mike Anderer is only now beginning to 'get it' (Score:4, Insightful)
At any rate, I think there's something you should follow up on: Perhaps Mike Anderer DOES understand that the GPL threatens his livelihood. It could be, and I think it's very possible, that he is saying this, deliberately misrepresenting the GPL, so that he CAN save his livelihood! If the GPL becomes widely adopted, because it gets rid of all that IP muss, Anderer will be out of a job. He knows there's an avalanche falling, but he's hoping that placing a twig in such a way will stop it...
It'd have to be a pretty strong twig, though.
Groklaw's take on this (Score:5, Informative)
Saving the world, one license at a time (Score:4, Interesting)
Finding scapegoats -- CEO/MBA/Biz bad rep (Score:3)
It sorely disappoints me that those with money and power will always try to find a scapegoat -- Mike Anderer is no exception. Obviously he will always live up to the perpetual negative stereotypes of CEOs and upper management with comments like this.
GPL and GPL-like licenses have always been about the community and the greater good -- and it is obvious people like Mike will never "get it." Instead of finding the person to sue, they need to think about the greater good of the community and approach it as such -- i.e. "I'm here to try to work things out with arbitration and a good dialogue." Instead they come in with guns blazing and slap such a huge lawsuit hoping for such a huge payout that people will just laugh in their face and think they're just crackpots -- ruining the whole dialogue in the first place. Approaching issues such as licenses and IPs will require lots more tact than these individuals of the "old school" will care to exercise.
GPL code can't easily go into the public domain (Score:4, Interesting)
This shows a serious lack of understanding. IBM, Sun and many other large contributors to the kernel have a lot of power in the industry, and they each own copyrights over the parts of the Linux kernel that they contributed. But they don't own Linux as a whole: each of them owns pieces of Linux, but the code surrounding what they contributed is licensed to them. The license is the GPL, which does not allow them to re-use the code under a license other than the GPL. So in theory Sun (or one of the others) could take code they contributed to Linux and put it in the public domain, but they couldn't touch the surrounding code, nor revoke the GPL-granted rights of people who licensed the code as it exists in the kernel.
The idea of Linux going into the public domain is wishful thinking that we've heard a few times from people in the industry. They need to get over it, because it's highly unlikely. They also would benefit from learning a bit more about how these collaborative uses of copyright work. Contrary to Mr. Anderer's comments, the economic model of the GPL has actually been thought out in great depth: there is little room for the licensing models employed in the past by priprietary software vendors, but this is intentional and not in need of fixing.
Re:GPL code can't easily go into the public domain (Score:4, Interesting)
He isn't referring to putting Linux in the public domain, he is referring to placing Unix in the public domain.
In other words, he is surprised that the quick solution - buy the source to Unix then place Unix source in the public domain - has not happened.
There are a lot of things that Anderer stands for that I despise, however someone like IBM doing what he suggests would actually be good for the community in that it would settle a lot of the licensing murkiness around Unix that has hung like a pall over it for years (AT&T, BSD, Novell, SCO, SCO/Caldera, etc...).
I think this would prove next to impossible in a practical sense, however, as I am sure that other companies would claim that IBM doesn't own *ALL* of Unix and sue on that basis.
The bottom line is that I don't see Unix license issues ever disappearing completely - the best we can hope for is a clear judgement against SCO that prevents any other company from trying similar tactics.
Patent assault = Force IBM distribution (Score:5, Interesting)
If they do this they will force IBM to supply their own IBM-Linux (Or buy Novell) that will be covered by the Gadzillion Cross-licensing deals they have plus anyone that attacks will be counter sued for Patent infringement by IBM.
The "Best" MS can do it nible around Linux as is the case with the Paul Allen funded SCO harrassment case.
IBM-Linux is a nightmare scenario for MS. The only reason IBM has not done this is that they development process of Linux is performing well and IBM do not want to face some of the Patent issues that may be lurking inside Linux. By Lurking I am not implying that Linux has stolen anything but maybe a lot of potential SCOs is watching.
IBM knows this and that's why they will make an example out of SCO. SCO will not only be leveled but the fields around it will be salted. Corporate Veil to Canopy will be ruled broken and they will be forced to admit guilt and settle or face extinction.
IBM has actively collected Patents for the better part of its life for a reason. This is it.
MS licenses GPL code? (Score:3, Interesting)
Public Domain Linux - Microsoft's Goal (Score:4, Interesting)
The real goal here is to strip the GPL away from Linux. Once its free of the severe restrictions of the GPL, they can take it, and start work on MS-Linux.
Remember the tactical situation in which Microsoft finds itself right now. Most of their money is being made selling copies of Microsoft Office, and copies of Windows to run it on. The two are viewed almost as a monolith by the public, because the cost of Windows is usually hidden in a new computer.
They find themselves with stuck with the results of 20 years of marketing driven development as their code base. Any new system has to be backward compatible to the point where most MS-DOS 2.1 programs still work. This severely limits design flexiblity.
With a switch to Linux, they could drop all of their bugs, grab a nice clean codebase from the public domain, and start fresh. They could blame any bugs on the Linux people, and claim their professional team of developers is working to enhance the stability and security of the software to meet the needs of corporate America. (oh, the Irony of it)
What member of the public wouldn't jump at the chance to buy MS-Linux? They would see it as the latest technology, with the Microsoft seal of approval. (We don't want those undesireable "hacker" types writing our software, do we?)
Once they have MS-Linux firmly in place, they can then extend their true monopoly (Microsoft Office) into the Linux space.
I assume this is obvious to some of you, but I wrote this just in case someone hasn't woken up yet to the reality.
To sum up, as long as the GPL holds, we can have a free (as in speach and beer) set of working software to build and share. Once the GPL gets breeched, we're fscked! (Just spend the $1000/machine, and pay for MS-Linux with Office)
--Mike--
Re:Public Domain Linux - Microsoft's Goal (Score:3, Insightful)
But we need to put things into perspective:
1) Linux has an active community around it. That is hard to beat. You still cannot compete against a worldwide bunch of people continually hacking on the kernel wrt Microsoft hacking on it's own kernel.
2) The code is still free, it's still a free product. I believe MS-Linux will cost y
SFU (Score:5, Insightful)
Er. I think not.
SFU is a bunch of half-arsed stuff cobbled together from existing licensed products, some of which could be replaced by better Free Software (such as Cygwin).
It's designed to cater to legacy Unix environments -- sites still stuck with NIS, NFS, telnet etc. -- not modern Linux/*BSD environments.
A proper, non-legacy "services for Unix" package would include Cygwin, OpenSSH, encrypted Samba access, CUPS support etc., and it would have the unfortunate but amusing effect of driving the customer away from Windows, not the opposite.
Missleading headline (Score:4, Informative)
"In a world where there are $500 million dollar patent infringement lawsuits imposed on OS companies (although this is not completely settled yet), how would somebody like Red Hat compete when 6 months ago they only had $80-$90 million in cash? At that point they could not even afford to settle a fraction of a single judgment without devastating their shareholders. I suspect Microsoft may have 50 or more of these lawsuits in the queue. All of them are not asking for hundreds of millions, but most would be large enough to ruin anything but the largest companies. Red Hat did recently raise several hundred million which certainly gives them more staying power. Ultimately, I do not think any company except a few of the largest companies can offer any reasonable insulation to their customers from these types of judgments. You would need a market cap of more than a couple billion to just survive in the OS space."
Then the headline says:
"Among the highlights is a prediction by Mr. Anderer that Microsoft has many more disruptive lawsuits planned up their sleeves."
My interpretation of this paragraph is that Microsoft always has tons of people suing them, and that redhat or whomever else wishes to make a living as an OS vendor needs to have lots of cash to pay out on some of them. Of course I disagree with that, but he does not come out and say that Microsoft has 50 more SCO-type suits in the works.
Read between the lines! (Score:3, Interesting)
What he and everyone else on that side haven't realised, is that they could kill Red Hat et al, and Linux would continue:
Why wait for BSD Linux when there's BSD? (Score:3, Interesting)
MS doesn't like competition, and that's why they'd help out SCO and have this fellow essentially threaten Red Hat out of business. They don't have to want to have Linux to want to see it gone.
Feeling a bit put upon (Score:4, Insightful)
I think his conscience may be troubling him a little now that he's forced to look back on the Microsoft deal. At the time, it was probably so exciting that he rode past such considerations, as many people have done. After all, it wasn't illegal or clearly wrong - the wrongness is more visible now that SCO has become such a high profile enemy of Linux. But now that the angry mob is after him, Mike can't afford reflection. He has to dig in his heels and affirm his SCO ideology.
Mike mentions being harrassed by an individual with five online handles, all registered as underage for extra legal protection. To what forum is he referring? Does slashdot have this underage checkbox? Did he sue the harrasser and get a subpoena, or was he forestalled by the underage status?
Mike gives an overview of his accomplishments - the numerous companies founded and patents granted. I think the message here is that he is not simply a shady dealmaker, but a technologist who has helped to move the industry forward. So clearly, his "geek cred" is important to him. Unlike Darl, Mike isn't playing to the Wall Street Journal readers. He'd like slashdotters to, if not forgive, at least understand.
What Mike gets remembered for.... (Score:3, Informative)
"I would state that this licensing project represented only a small fraction of my time over the last year and has completely gone away in recent months. "
and
"I am still hoping people dig up some of the more positive projects I have been involved with."
Before getting involved in this whole SCO mess, Mike should have remembered this vital lesson [mac-archive.com].
Anderer expected a settlement (Score:4, Insightful)
Anderer expected a settlement and probably so did SCO. They never counted on IBM pimp-slapping them in court 'pour encourager les autres' to not repeat the same mistake. In the long run, that's the most effective way to be a guarantor of IP-related issues. Paying off blackmail just encourages more of the same (especially if it's for doctored picts).
However people in the computing and IT industries shouldn't be surprised that what they licenced for tens of millions of $ was now free. It's the result of the commoditization of products and is partially related to why you can get a $500 PC that is faster than a $10 million mainframe/supercomputer from 20 years ago.
Did those companies and managers get enough ROI on those tens of millions to amortize their costs before the price dropped? After all Linux has been available for a while even if it's only been gaining mainstream commercial acceptance for a few years. The writing was on the wall for anyone smart enough to read it. If IT directors were planning on amortizing $10million+ costs over more than 5 years, they were dreaming or counting on non-existent first-mover advantages that also bit a lot of
If somebody with that kind of purchasing power is upset, then either a) they don't know this industry or b) they are idiots to be upset that their overhead just shrunk massively. Either way, they shouldn't be holding that position and if this is what it takes to get them replaced, so much the better.
Holy shit, he's practically illiterate. (Score:3, Interesting)
He is incapable of putting together a coherent paragraph. Forget about getting a cogent argument; you have to struggle to understand what he's trying to express!
OK, back to the content. In my experience, I've met many people like him. They have lots of shady companies. Often, they have had so many that they have lost track of them. Mr. Anderer brags of this trait, but it is a major red flag.
Such people also tend to never stick to one thing; they make "contributions" in countless fields. They can never stay too long in one place, or people will notice that they are bullshitters.
Bottom line, this confirms my guess about him. He's a sleazy, bottom-feeding, undereducated corporate whore, used by Microsoft and TSG only to distance themselves from an unsavory transaction.