LWN: Comments on "Sam Ramji: On the CodePlex Foundation and more"

Sam Ramji: On the CodePlex Foundation and more

hozelda — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:04:00 +0000

>> Note that the conditions you attach should be complex - that way if it hits the news, the average person won't be able to follow the conditions and understand that they are unreasonable, making it very difficult for the other side to explain themselves.

The patent system comes to mind. Why? Because I think most people understand what a patent is supposed to be (and can accept the general motivation behind such a system), but don't appreciate how broken the system is in allowing fast runners and those piggie-backing on the industry to gain monopoly control (or taxing powers) over huge areas of intellectual development and products.

In the patent world, prior art means nothing. Only those taking out patents (which can carefully cut around your tiny prior art implementation) have any real leverage and are ridiculously empowered to control things whose details their authors will never dream up or implement. This happens because English and other spoken languages allow generalities to "cover" in scope many things over which the details are unknown.

You either work and contribute to society (if you are allowed to) or you rake in profits via patents as you leech off society's bounties created by others -- this is where software is headed if SCOTUS permits this potentially ridiculously perverse system to apply to software.

Is less than a week, SCOTUS hears verbal arguments on Bilski.

Sam Ramji: On the CodePlex Foundation and more

hozelda — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:51:30 +0000

Microsoft's monopolies are extremely profitable and give than advantages into new markets (eg, retailing). They hope to be able to also leverage FOSS on their terms (pushing technology, standards, organizations, licenses, etc, that they control, lead in, patent, or are heavily invested it) to help them beat out Linux and other threats to their monopolies.

They want to tap into the time and efforts of volunteers (this much hasn't changed).

They can't eliminate what attracts people to FOSS, but they hope to set the terms of the game so that dollars and control flow towards them and their closed monopoly environment.

Monopolies implies monopoly pricing and control. Losing existing monopolies (all else that is material remaining mostly the same) implies stock price tanking and losing levers and openings into new revenue streams.

Hopefully, SCOTUS will make a decision on software patents that helps society and is consistent with the US Constitution. Neuter software patents.

Hopefully, those that value FOSS will see through Microsoft's games and work on real FOSS instead of contributing in ways that augment the value of Microsoft's monopolies.

The question I have is, when is Microsoft going to get serious and open source their platform and applications (and drop sw patent attacks) instead of polluting FOSS?

Stockholders won't allow it?

Next.

Sam Ramji: On the CodePlex Foundation and more

sanxiyn — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 07:55:14 +0000

I think he meant "contributing to open source", not "using open source".

Sam Ramji: On the CodePlex Foundation and more

johnflux — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:58:34 +0000

Just a quick point - Tex and Latex are not GPLed.

Sam Ramji: On the CodePlex Foundation and more

johnflux — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:52:31 +0000

I knew someone who used to be in a lot of negotiations. He said that if you don't want to do something, you should never outright say no, but instead just attach complex conditions that you know the other side will never accept.

Then paint the other side as being unreasonable for refusing your request. That way you gain what you want (Redhat etc not accepting the patent), while making it seem like the other side is being unreasonable, giving you greater leverage in the future.

Note that the conditions you attach should be complex - that way if it hits the news, the average person won't be able to follow the conditions and understand that they are unreasonable, making it very difficult for the other side to explain themselves.

Sam Ramji: On the CodePlex Foundation and more

Trelane — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:07:11 +0000

Or outside confirmation. "hearing" something doesn't mean that it actually happened, let alone in the way you think.

Sam Ramji: On the CodePlex Foundation and more

txwikinger — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:51:28 +0000

"... it's impossible to hire engineers under 30 years old who have no open source experience;"

Well, I think it is very difficult to hire engineers over 40 years old that have no open source experience. Most engineers of this age would have had exposure to gcc, emacs, TeX and a lot of other GPL licensed software during their studies. I remember most papers being written in TeX during my first degree.

AST and Red Hat

BrucePerens — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 20:38:26 +0000

Except that Microsoft didn't have to sell their patents. Especially patents that effect Linux and Open Source software. They aren't really short of money, although they've tightened their belt a bit they still have around 20 Billion of cash and short-term investments, and longer-term assets worth more. So, I still don't believe much of what we are being told about this.

The patent issue

job — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:35:13 +0000

The comments about software patents are dishonest at best. It would be interesting with some follow-up questions on this, also contrasting what he describes as business as usual with Microsoft's behaviour in the EU swpat directive. After all, patents are some of the common criticism against the foundation in which he is active.

AST and Red Hat

AlexHudson — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 09:30:49 +0000

It has been said that "OIN has a patent treaty with AST I" (http://www.linux.com/news/featured-blogs/168-brian-proffi...) so it may be that Red Hat, while not being members themselves, benefit from the AST I licensing arrangements.

I find it difficult to believe that Microsoft were intending be malicious by selling their patents to a defensive patent trust (which is what AST is). It sounds more like - to me - they tried selling the patents individually first and ended up having to auction them as a lot later. Which basically infers that there isn't a lot of value in these patents.

AST and Red Hat

rahulsundaram — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 03:31:58 +0000

"On the red herring, it's my understanding that those 22 patents were offered to both Red Hat and IBM individually before they were sold to Allied Securities Trust, a non-profit that counts both Red Hat and IBM among its members."

Sam's understanding seems incorrect since he seems to have confused AST and OIN. I looked and couldn't find any information that Red Hat is a member of AST and in fact AST membership requirements would exclude Red Hat

http://www.alliedsecuritytrust.com/index-3.html

"Operating companies with over $1 billion in annual product revenue"

Wikipedia doesn't list Red Hat as a member either

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_Security_Trust

Open Invention Network however has both IBM and Red Hat as members

http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/about_members.php

Sam Ramji: On the CodePlex Foundation and more

jmm82 — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 02:24:36 +0000

When I read an article such as this I can not help but ponder the question, "Has hell froze over?" When I finally determine that the answer is "NO." it makes me believe that open source is winning the battle. It may not have hit the mass public yet, but large cooperations such as Microsoft are realizing this and trying to adapt before it is too late. While there may be some *good* people working at Microsoft, I know I will personally have a lot of difficulty warming up to this new open source Alli[?].

Sam Ramji: On the CodePlex Foundation and more

BrucePerens — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 23:40:58 +0000

Under what terms were Red Hat and IBM offered those patents? I doubt they were fair ones. But there's a lot we're not being told about those patents, by any of the players.

Sam Ramji: On the CodePlex Foundation and more

rahulsundaram — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 00:32:13 +0000

Good luck Sam. I have good reasons to be sceptical of Microsoft but I have no problems believing that individual people within Microsoft and outside of it are willing to put a genuine effort to change the nature of the organization's interactions with Free and open source software for the better. I will continue to keep a open mind and a open eye for progress.