boomberg bloopers

[Kevin Shrieve]

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.''

END QUOTE

>  > 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
>political clout:
>
>   http://www.salon.com/tech/wire/2001/02/16/big_guns/index.html
>
>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/
>  */