HP Memo Predicts MS Patent Attacks on Open Source 330
Roblimo writes "A two-year-old internal HP memo has just surfaced that talks about how 'Microsoft could attack Open Source Software for patent infringements against OEMs, Linux distributors, and least likely open source developers. They are specifically upset about Samba, Apache and Sendmail.' NewsForge has the story, including the memo's full text, a response from Eben Moglen (who says the memo's author misinterprets part of the GPL), and a statement from HP saying they love open source, really they do, even though 'Microsoft continues to be one of HP's strongest partners.'"
so that would explain (Score:5, Funny)
ahhh..
world domination..
never would have thought MS would stoop so low..
Re:so that would explain (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:so that would explain (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:so that would explain (Score:2, Informative)
are you talking about the hp dashboard [comcast.net]? i remember that one, was a really neat tool.
Re:so that would explain (Score:3, Funny)
Re:so that would explain (Score:5, Funny)
Re:so that would explain (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I can see why that got modded as funny. Since when was a GUI an essential part of an operating system? It's at best a layer on top, and if you haven't sufficiently abstracted the API that you can't easily change either to a different GUI or to a completely different user interact
Re:so that would explain (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't involve drawing particular pictures on the screen, although it may provide a method to do so.
It sure as hell doesn't involve a web browser.
Microsoft has created this homogenous "operating environment" (Windows Kernel/Windows GUI/MSIE/Office/Outlook) and tried to claim that the whole thing is an operating system. It's not, although Microsoft has tried its darndest to make it such by assuring that you have to use the IE-based tools to talk to the kernel.
Re:so that would explain (Score:3, Insightful)
Tbe fair, other major operating systems of today (e.g. most linux distros, macos x) install web browsers, email clients, etc by default. In fact they go further and install office suites, which MS does not do.
The concept of installing a bunch of possibly-useful stuff along with the kernel and device drivers isn't really new or bad. You can disagree with choices the OS vendors have made about what to bundle, and how tightly to integrate it. The alternative,
Re:so that would explain (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference is that they don't pretend to be part of the OS. There's a different between an operating environment and an OS: the former includes kde, konqueror, X, openoffice, kmail, and on and on. The point is that these are all interchangeable--if I don't like konqueror, I can go get something else.
It's like cars. I can go buy a car, and it will almost certainly contain a stereo of varying quality. Is that stereo part of the car? No. Am I glad it came with the car, preinstalled and already working without me having to fuss about with cables? Yep.
The car manufacturer, and Mandrake, give me the opportunity to fuss around with cables if I want.
Microsoft doesn't.
pretend to be part of the OS (Score:3, Interesting)
As for the Taurus audio, I have to at least partly agree that the thing is proprietary as all get-out. For those that don't own one, the Taurus audio is a big oval, instead of the compact rectangle that is standard. Mine (1999, 2nd hand company car) has provisi
Re:so that would explain (Score:3, Informative)
modern cars come with standard Iso connectors [lineone.net] there must be some propriatery ones out there but I haven't seen any newer that 1990.
M.O.O. (Score:5, Funny)
What, you thought they were going to donate them to the Vatican or something?
more than just patent filing (Score:5, Interesting)
burnin
Re:So what defensive measures are needed....... (Score:5, Informative)
Is it time for the Open Source community to consider switching to another license model.?? Or changing the GPL....??
That sounds pretty foolish to me. You're scared of some oddball interpretation of one clase? Or that the GPL has never been tested in a court? That should make you more confident, not less. OSS has been fairly high profile for what, close to 10 years now? For all of its enemies, not one has tried to directly challenge the GPL in court. After all this time, that should tell you something - they know the GPL is unassailable, and figure that uncertainty is the best position for FUD-launching that they've got. So they'll stay out of direct challenges in order to leave the GPL a supposed "gray area".
If anything, the GPL's history tells us that it's doing very well. If OSS needs any "defensive measures", it's in keeping the kinds of paper trails that help defend against frivolous patent suits like the ones in the memo. Patent litigation and license weaknesses are two different avenues of attack, and it's the former that is the bigger threat now.
Re:So what defensive measures are needed....... (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree. There are many other reasons why they wouldn't want to challenge it in court.
Example reason: They may not like the verdict if they win. Many potential challengers have EULAs and Licenses on their software too. It is conceivable to me that a clear verdict that says the GPL is invalid, may have implications on EULAs and other
Re:So what defensive measures are needed....... (Score:3, Insightful)
No patents were violated in the creation of Linux et al., to my (limited) knowledge. If any legitimate patents were violated, then code needs to be rewritten. OSS has already done this: see ogg vs. mp3, png vs. gif.
Illegitimate patent claims can be beaten in court. Plus, with the widespread and revenue-free (thus, legally ephemeral) development and distribution model of OSS, it'd take a severe legal hit to have all that much impact.
There's nothing wrong with the GPL, and th
Lots of Qualifiers (Score:3, Insightful)
This kind of fluff makes front page news? Anybody COULD do anything. Why don't you report on it when MS does? In the meantime, isn't there better stuff to report, like real news?
This is news, as was this... (Score:4, Informative)
burnin
Re:Lots of Qualifiers (Score:3, Funny)
Tell me about it! Next thing you know we'll have front page stories announcing when software licenses don't change. "This just in: nothing has happened! [slashdot.org] Film at eleven."
Well, that's fine for america. (Score:5, Insightful)
That is, of course, assuming that IBM doesn't decide to stand up to MS and pull a few patent tricks of their own.
Ever hear of the WTO? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ever hear of the WTO? (Score:2)
Re:Ever hear of the WTO? (Score:3, Informative)
BINGO - Linux will survive. (Score:4, Insightful)
The losers in this war are the American (as in US) companies and civilians.
Microsoft will chew us up, while the rest of the world takes over with OSS.
Prior Art (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Prior Art (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft has a $50 billion war chest with which to fight patents in court. Who's going to pay for the lawyers who will be defending the open source projects?
Re:Prior Art (Score:2)
you don't need a law degree to say "here's the prior art, I rest my case"
Re:Prior Art (Score:5, Insightful)
And if you tried to go up against Microsoft without a law degree, no matter how "right" you are, you'd get destroyed.
Easy (Score:2, Interesting)
IBM
Redhat
ILM
Google
Oracle
etc.
Any company that contributes to or heavily relies on open source.
Re:Prior Art (Score:2)
Big business uses Linux without having to pay for it in the way they have to pay for Windows. They've got a lot to lose if Linux suddenly is a cause to pay back royalties... so trust me, the money will come out of the woodwork.
Re:Prior Art (Score:2)
Re:Prior Art (Score:3)
This should go without saying, but ... (Score:5, Insightful)
"They are specifically upset about Samba, Apache and Sendmail." Hmm ... perhaps becasue Samba, Apache, and Sendmail are better constructed than their Microsoft counterparts?
Re:This should go without saying, but ... (Score:2)
Re:This should go without saying, but ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, the point of Samba is interoperability, right? So what else can they do? Invent a new method? Well, okay, cool, but how does that solve their core reason for existence which is interoperability? Whatever they do has to work with Windows servers or what's the point?
If it's shit, it's MS's fault (which I note you agree with.)
Supid, Stupid, Stupid (Score:2)
This is not about cost-free software; it's about the ability of garage coders to continue to code freely.
Re:This should go without saying, but ... (Score:2)
Even better, subject to the terms and conditions of their individual licenses, they are free to use each of those packages if they wish.
Oh, and how the hell could they be upset about sendmail? It predates DOS 5 for cryin' out loud!
Ha! No! Sendmail (proper) [wikipedia.org] even predates DOS 3.0 [f9.co.uk]!
Dorks... makes me think the whole thing is a hoax.
The point about Sendmail (Score:3)
Yes, Sendmail is much older than any MS mail system. Yes, Sendmail is ancient, obscure, cranky and historically buggy. That's not the point. The point is that Sendmail provides copper bottomed prior art for all other Internet or multi-protocol mail transfer agents, and, as the dominant MTA of today's world, prevents Microsoft imposing new delivery and authentication protocols without negotiating with Open Source.
Obviously in a clueful, uncorrupt legal system Sendmail would have to be secure against patent
SCO? (Score:2)
Oh yeah, i'd almost forgot about SCO. What's Darl up to these days? I love how HP jumps on the pro open source bandwagon by reminding everyone how they were the first to scoff at SCO.
Re:SCO? (Score:2)
According to GrokLaw, their latest missive to the court basically says, "Copyright problems? What copyright problems? We never said IBM gave illegal stuff to Linux! We just said it was a contract dispute! And, oh, by the way, to get some evidence of that (because we don't have any right now), we need to look at all of IBM source code going back to 1989."
The judge is going to poop or go blind.
I'd say the case is very close to summary judgement in IBM's
Two years old... (Score:5, Funny)
Gotta wonder what they are saying now. Think about the original Halloween documents. Those'll be six years old soon. Think how much Linux has improved since then. I'm sure Microsoft's internal memos are lot more interesting now. (Probably something along the lines of oh shit...oh shit...oh shit) Wow, to be a fly on the wall of Ballmer's office...
Re:Two years old... (Score:2, Funny)
Just ask any of them.
Re:Two years old... (Score:4, Funny)
Upset about sendmail? (Score:4, Funny)
Just so they know. (Score:5, Insightful)
If I absolutely positively have no choice but to run all proprietary software on all proprietary platforms (Which is a situation I won't tolerate. You can buy senators till the cows come home. I still won't tolerate it.), I will be damn sure my dollars go to your most credible competitors.
Do yourselves some favors. Make products people actually want without sleazy lock-in tactics and start diversifying. Your products are rapidly becoming a continuous cost center to those who use them. Any sane business will try to allievate this. No amount of lawyers will prevent it.
Re:Just so they know. (Score:3, Interesting)
LS
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Just so they know. (Score:2)
Re:Just so they know. (Score:3, Insightful)
Create insecure, buggy products - thats ok.
Proven illegal monoploy - thats ok.
Spread FUD about OpenSource TOC/quality - thats ok.
Bully HW vendors to sell your product regardless if I chose buy it or not - thats ok.
Launch a patent-legal battle, which you have no clue what its basis is - You and a million (yes, 1 million) of your close buddies suddenly get all excited.
And this is Insightful?
There is no Black and White only shades of Gray. (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that Microsoft partners with HP doesn't diminish it like for Open Source. HP is mostly hardware company and they want to sell their hardware to everyone. If the customer likes open source then there product will work on Open Source if their customer like Windows then their product will work on windows.
HP Has the recourses to be committed to Open Source and to Microsoft. The same with IBM, IBM actively competes with Microsoft and they generally don't like Microsoft but Microsoft is still one of IBMs biggest partners.
Re:There is no Black and White only shades of Gray (Score:2)
What'd happen if the hardware to go with Linux suddenly because cheaper than hardware that supports Windows? Would anybody write a free non-official driver for Windows? I think not...
Microsoft's got to partner to players with both sides of the ball... there still are companies big enough to give them headaches otherwise.
Actually it is B&W (Score:2)
In every industry, in every sector - there are emerging two groups. One that want's to secure content controll in one form or another, and the other who doesn't want the burdon of imposing it. The simple fact is that the forces pulling them apart are far gre
Re:There is no Black and White only shades of Gray (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not such a happy old world. Sure HP is a hardware company but being a partner with MSFT means some dire things for any OS or Software company trying to work with HP.
HP slips out a Linux laptop. MSFT stomps on it behind the scense, HP wants to put Linux in its sales material. MSFT stomps on it.
Sometimes HP gets its way but mostly MSFT hinders competitors behind the scenes in ways Linux or Netscape or... never do against MSFT.
It was maybe 4 years ago I called Dell asking if I could get a Linux lap
Samba... (Score:5, Informative)
Can't Sue Me MS!!! (Score:3, Funny)
Your move Bill.
MS and Law (Score:2, Insightful)
It's all good to talk about prior art, this and that, but please remember to destroy a competitor, you don't necessarily have to win the lawsuit, sometimes you just need to be resourceful enough to drag on and throw money at the case.
It's like poker games, you might have the best cards but if you don't have enough money to call and raise, how many times ca
Only IBM (Score:2)
Everyone else would either be forced to fold or be bought outright and silenced.. Regardless of how good a hand they may have...
What about IBM? (Score:5, Insightful)
One other thought occured to me. That memo stated that MS could target HP, Intel and other "partners". It must really suck to be an MS "partner". You do what they tell you and you can have some of the extra cash that falls down. Step out of line once and you can be squashed. Maybe that is why Dell is low key with their (small) Linux offerings.
Re:What about IBM? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What about IBM? (Score:2)
Re:What about IBM? (Score:2)
Re:IBM and the golden goose. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What about IBM? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yep and its doesn't matter how big you are. As big as Intel was they had to back down when Microsoft threatened them.
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,
Then again what company didn't Microsoft threaten in the 90's?
Patent hellstorm (Score:3, Interesting)
This is, I think, a part of the reason IBM is not wielding its patent portf
timing and last-resort options... (Score:4, Insightful)
What's happened in two years? Microsoft has lost (/is losing) the web server market. Samba has cost them revenue. And Sendmail? MS is not competing well. They haven't turned the ship around and it's heading for the rocks. ok, it's overly dramatic. But I believe that Microsoft is looking at some very unpleasant future pictures and looking at *drastic* actions.
Why did this memo pop up now? Maybe MS is getting desparate? big legal actions against OS operations would perhaps shut them down (or slow them down) at a cost tons of ill will. Which is why I don't think it's happened yet. This might be an easier out for MS than fixing it's problems.
eric
Apache? Sendmail? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only that, but those two aren't even licensed under the GPL, which is ostensibly the target here.
This all sounds vaguely like something this Gary Campbell fellow pulled out of his ass...
Re:Apache? Sendmail? (Score:3, Informative)
I was thinking much the same thing. More than something which has been pulled out of Gary Campbell's ass, I think that it's something he pulled out of his ass in order to increase his influence. Look at what he writes in the memo: "we need an HP-wide committee", "we need an HP-wide committee", "Intel went radio silent on Linux in March; maybe MS got to them then", "And did I mention that we need an HP wide committee t
It is very sad that it's come to a fight over.. (Score:4, Informative)
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
Even if they freeze GPL-ed software, so what? (Score:3, Interesting)
DRM is a big scare too. (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been looking at Office 2003's "Information Rights Management", which uses Windows Server 2003 as a key-keeper, along with
I really get the sense that people are scared of being the first to get hurt for publishing holes they've found in the system, rather than because the standards themselves are in flux.
It's a little creepy - on one side, you get people saying why DRM is wrong in so many ways, and should be avoided, but not allowing themselves to actually look at the system. On the other side, you've got people praising the idea with lavish strings of superlatives, saying that governments should use it [zdnet.com.au] amongst other things - it would be hard for a businessman to say anything other than Microsoft is fellow businessmen, and the other guys are crazy folks who don't know what they're talking about.
The FUD is working - the smart ones are staying quiet, and the dumb ones are making the rest look like they're all crazy.
Ryan Fenton
This is how it would work... (Score:5, Funny)
IBM: *SMACK*
MS: Fuck, that hurts.
Open Source: W0ot! Thanks IBM!
Re:This is how it would work... (Score:5, Insightful)
As regards IBM's "we're hip and open source" campaign:
I mean, yes, it's all marketing in the end, and a bunch of people sitting in cubicles trying to figure out how to manipulate me, an open source coder, and people like me. But it's kind of like being manipulated by an attractive woman -- yes, you're being manipulated, but it's *enjoyable*. You don't *mind* it. Having enormous, cold companies pretend to be warm and fuzzy and rub up against you while purring makes you feel *happy*. You just can't help it.
Re:This is how it would work... in the real world (Score:3, Informative)
Microsoft is a big player. A stinkin'-big monster. But even the monsters can die, when swarmed with overwhelming number of individually weak enemies. Like when a rodent visits a beehive; the bees, much smaller themselves than the animal, feed it with enough poison - for the cost of lives of many o
Reminds me of a quote... (Score:3, Insightful)
Keep your enemies even closer.
Re:Reminds me of a quote... (Score:3, Funny)
Sendmail? (Score:4, Insightful)
When sendmail was written, Microsoft were only just getting off the ground. And it hasn't changed much since Microsoft still thought the internet was a fad.
The obvious answer? (Score:5, Insightful)
A dangerous course of action. (Score:5, Insightful)
Worse still, the battle could put the whole question of software patents back on the table. If governments eliminate software patents, the entire portfolio goes poof.
useful to grab attention (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a cold war, and rogue nations would threaten to use the weapons (i.e. file a lawsuit to grab attention) - MS is a superpower, they are not going to push that button.
It just won't happen. MS is too
Re:A dangerous course of action. (Score:3, Insightful)
You are correct, not many. However, that isn't the point of this pointless system. Getting a patent decalred invalid through prior art is a very, very expensive proposition. In fact, this slashdot story from last Friday [slashdot.org] points out that of the approx 7,000,000 existing patents, only 614 have been revoked, and only 3927 have had their claims narrowed.
And MS has lots of money. They've spent some of it successfully and unsucessfully defending patent attacks against themselves. But, if they wanted to caus
wimps (Score:3, Insightful)
Even though we have short term protection, we need to lower our profile while still shipping products. We need to examine reducing our exposure on pre-loading Linux by off loading it to the channels exclusively.
We will need to change how we donate software to the open source, probably the type of license we use, lower the profile of our opensource portal, etc.
Basically, "we need to hope Microsoft doesn't see us." I'd love to see "We need to be prepared to stand up to them in court and kick their ass." HP has the money to do it. But this is pathetic.
Is This More FUD-By-Proxy From Microsoft? (Score:3, Interesting)
Putting my tinfoil-hat on, I seriously wonder if someone somehow at HP's dear partner Microsoft asked for a leak of this memo. It would certainly fit right in with the FUD-by-proxy strategy that Microsoft seems to be using to tide them over until their Next Big Big Big OS Release (tm).
Still it is a chilling look at the tactics that those of us who have been in the industry a couple of decades have grown used to.
Final thought: might this bode well for Apple?
Not only open source software at risk (Score:4, Insightful)
The only option for free software would be to trade patents, but the problem is that few free sofware developers do patent their stuff. So there will be little to trade.
Besides, how do we handle companies buying or seeking patents on technology without having any software business on ther own. Companies just sitting on patens waiting for some patented technology to become a taxable hit. Not even companies like IBM would be able to fight them by using their enormeous list of patents as a weapon, as they could if the enemy was an ordinary software producein company.
Patents and the GPL -- a suggestion (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree. Furthermore, much of the real "OSS economy" operates without money being involved, and thus it would be difficult to fund patent production.
It *would* potentially be possible, though it would make me a bit uncomfortable, due to the GPL bias, for a company to "cross patent" with the GPLed world. Basically, to say "you may use an
Re:Patents and the GPL -- a suggestion (Score:3, Interesting)
John Walker of AutoDesk fame and victim of the infamous XOR patent has had thoughts along those lines (PATO) [fourmilab.ch]. See also these pages. [openpatents.org]
If MS tries to patent http and destroy apache (Score:5, Insightful)
I like the idea of MS openly acting like the evil scum suckers they really are, only once again out in public (with no proxies) and likely in court.
they will reap the whirlwind
IBM, Apple and Novell (Score:4, Interesting)
Factoring this into the equation (Score:5, Interesting)
While this internal HP memo is not the only factor leading to this, I included the following statement to the notes area of the section concerning Hewlett Packard;
Commitment to our platform of choice is questionable
Given that my employer places an emphasis on vendor support, I expect that statement to weigh heavily against HP in our deliberations.
There are many vendors of commodity hardware and the differentiator for many organisations is the level of support. I think HP has raised reasonable doubts about their level of commitment to support for a platform that is increasingly prevalent in the industry and that will cost them business.
International, international, international (Score:5, Informative)
So essentially Red Hat and a few other companies go out of business and the OSS community otherwise goes on unhindered. At worst, public adoption of Linux slows a bit and already market-dominating products like Apache and sendmail continue on unabated. Microsoft's lawsuits would do very little damge and utterly destroy their public image.
They're hoarding patents to protect themselves against other patent-hoarding companies; they're not dumb enough to try to use them against OSS. This is just plain and simple FUD.
they name the 3 major players (Score:3, Interesting)
MS Incapable of Understanding FOSS (Score:3, Insightful)
The GPL and other Open Source licenses cuts off his ability to commercially exploit FOSS and that ruins the MS business model. It IS the long term threat and they'll battle against it until they're a mere shell of their current selves.
If the GPL had an inherent weakness it would probably be exposed by now. RMS' genius was understanding how to cut off the commercial exploitation of free software. SCO's attacks have been useful in helping create an understanding of how to defend ourselves more effectively by documenting the history more carefully. In my opinion, "intellectual property" is kind of oxymoronic in the end. There might be temporary commercial advantages in it but, as a previous poster suggested, it doesn't work well in the long run against non-commercial entities without a product.
Re:Heh (Score:2)
Personally, I expect that they'll use their portfolio defensively
That's why we need to work NOW to restore sanity to the patent system.
Here is your action statement... (Score:5, Interesting)
In case you don't get it let me help, Phelps is not interested in protecting MS from submarine patents. He intends to assist MS in smashing any competition be they open source or proprietary.
burnin
Never safe from an "IP Company" (Score:5, Insightful)
That is, having a patent portfolio to throw back in someone's face lets, say IBM and Microsoft or Sun to face eachother down because the "cross licensing" factor.
But "I am violating your patent while you violate mine, so lets do a deal" breaks down utterly when "the other party" doesn't have a product. That is, when Eolas (sp?) beat up Microsoft over patents, Eolas had the extreme advantage of having no product to "defend" in the exchange-of-fire. Eolas' own incompetence and lack of venture made them immune to counter-patent argument.
The reason that an IP Holding Company is such a disaster for us (technologists) as a comercial whole is that we have no leverage to push back against.
An IP holding company has no product, no market, vanishingly little capital, and no need of "good will in the marketplace". In short they are as smooth as a bowling-ball.
It is like an aircraft carrier (IBM with some Product) comming up against bombardment from space via aimed asteroid (an IP Holding Company.) There is nothing else to fire back against so all the guns in the world are of no use. You are left with only mobility and prayer. So small companies that can turn on a dime are less useful targets to an IP company because they are harder to hit and less satisfying to sink.
I would think that every software company everywhere would be desperate to remove software patentability.
After all, I could be nearly destitute, and a manufacturer of nothing, and hold a patent. Then I just need to hire a lawyer on spec to sue the IBMs of the world. They can't hurt me with thier patents (since I have no product) and I can soak them for money, all "at risk" with my lawyer on spec.
Software Patents in the hands of IP holding companies is asking for doom.
Were all software patents voided this very instant, with none to follow, every company on the planet would be instantly in a better possition despite the "loss of IP". Sure, they would "lose" the money they had already spent, and small upstarts could challenge their software, but it would be like "instantly" removing all the nuclear weapons all at once as if by magic.
The disarmament would be simultaneous and complete, and would free up assets and reduce risks to zero on a whole front of contention.
But most companies are too dumb to see that, and most "IP Lawyers" would lose their livelyhood. So it will never happen.
But until it does happen, any company can be soaked for Patent Extortion by any tiny patent held by a non-entity.
This is what I like to think of as "the instantanious, self-punishing nature of life". They feel that they *must* have this stone around their necks, and they keep trying to make the stone heavier and then they don't understand why they are so tired all the time.
very interesting... (Score:3, Interesting)
after all M$ is the biggest and least mobile target there is.
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Perspective (Score:2)
Yeah, two years latter they haven't gotten here yet. Maybe we should put this in the "don't give them any ideas" file.
Excellent Point on India and China (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if MS gets the entire US Congress and court system to bend over and take it in the rear... even if it drives open source out of every server in the US.... there is a limit to its potential power... the law of intellectual property regimes only extends as far as the military and political might of the American empire.
Ultimately the conflict over intellectual property regimes escalates to an international and civilizational conflict, in which some nations (China, India) will use the OSS model... and enjoy its benefits.
The corrupt American empire, bought and owned by the multinational corporations that it once liscensed but that now licsence it, will not be able to compete.
At that point either (1) the US loosens up its intellectual property regime, moves away from "software patents" and other bad ideas, and remains competitive on an international economic level... or (2) its relative position in the world begins to slide as India/China and the World realize the economic externalities in an OSS software intellectual property regime and use them to compete.
The intellectual property regime we are constructing in the US is a deadweight on US international power.... a deadweight that large corporations would love to see remain in place.
It will be interesting to see what path we choose, given the paths that India and China will surely choose toward OSS.
(Of course... paradoxically... if you think the US is too powerful in the world... in this dialectical model, you would then root for the success of Microsoft, software patents and all sorts of other nonesense to ultimately reduce the power of the American empire. But you can resolve the paradox by considering that there are two kinds of power.... the power of domination and the power of leadership... power that is "we win/ you lose" versus power that involves "we win, and you win too." )
Re:Can somebody explain to me how (Score:3, Interesting)
The right of the software patent holder to exclude others f