kevin at lumiere.net
Fri Feb 16 20:11:41 UTC 2001
Of course, this is a blatant FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) strategy
at work -- tossing out ridiculously muddled thoughts in hopes that
they can cause IP anxieties surrounding Napster to be associated with
the phrase "open source". No shame!
QUOTE from the article:
Microsoft has told U.S. lawmakers of its concern while discussing
protection of intellectual property rights.
Linux is developed in a so-called open-source environment in which
the software code generally isn't owned by any one company. That, as
well as programs such as music-sharing software from Napster, means
the world's largest software maker has to do a better job of talking
to policymakers, Allchin said.
''Open source is an intellectual-property destroyer,'' Allchin said.
''I can't imagine something that could be worse than this for the
software business and the intellectual-property business.''
> > This is the start of a concerted effort by MS to attack Linux on
> > non-technical fronts.
>I don't doubt that such a campaign is in the offing, but Microsoft's
>most pressing problem is their antitrust appeal. They're busy hiring
>Attacking open source does two things for them:
> 1) It provides cover for their political lobbying, and spin for
> people on their payroll.
> 2) It pushes the argument that Microsoft is not a monpoloy, that
> Microsoft faces serious, threatening competition, and therefore
> that breakup is unnecessary and possibly counterproductive.
>The latter point will, of course, be amplified by the inevitable
>response. Not that one should shy away from response: it seems like
>an excellent opportunity to point out the chilling effects that
>monopolistic business has on innovation.
> * Tom Hull * thull at kscable.com * http://www.ocston.org/~thull/
More information about the License-discuss