Thanks for everyone’s constructive (and not so constructive) comments over the past week.

I think by now, everything that needs to be said has already been said by all sides. I certainly learned a lot from the community and it helped me gain a lot of new perspectives on things that I normally would not have been aware of.

Therefore, I’m looking forward to move on and contribute in other ways to the social web. Don’t worry, Boycott-Novellians, I won’t be going over to visit for a while.

If you still have something to say, you are more that welcome to email me.

First, I happen to remember that freedom software developers were the ones who were “coding alone in basements”, now it turns out that people who do “lip service” for Microsoft are the ones sitting alone in their basements, rebuffing peoples’ arguments. Isn’t it ironic?

What’s ironic to me is that for all the grief I got from the community for “shilling”, “astroturfing”, “not disclosing properly” and what not, Most of the people who leave comments here are doing so anonymously.

But it’s alright. I don’t mind. A discussion is a discussion, whether I can see your face or not.

Oh, and by the way, if you have read my blog disclaimer, you will know that everything here is my opinion, I don’t do lip service for Microsoft, and it’s very difficult to find a house here in Singapore with a basement.

Anyway, Mike claimed that he wanted to “prove a point that the small guy can win against the giant corporations.” And he achieved his goal. Microsoft needed to pursue this or risked losing the right to fight future trademark infringements. And they accomplished their objective.

Like I said, all’s well that ends well.

One last note about the whole affair that made me chuckle:

From CNET:

“We believe he’s a bright young man with great potential,” Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler said, reading from a prepared statement on Friday. “We have agreed to help redirect any traffic to his new Web site to ensure that he does not lose any business.”

And what does Mike do with his new website?

Rowe’s new Web site, which is called MikeRoweForums.com, already has more than 700 members and carries advertising banners for file-sharing service Warez P2P.

Somehow I just found that funny.

I wouldn’t call the armtwisting MS did amicably, whatever the MS spin doctors tried to make from it. At least, it didn’t work for me.

Still it may be an idea to set up a website in Holland for the programs my pet bird has written and cash $10,000 for FSF Europe.

http://www.mycrowsoft.nl

Just kidding

I haven’t actually heard of the Mike Rowe story before today. Thanks for pointing it out to me. Reading the case on Wikipedia, it seems like a classic case of both sides being overly zealous in their position. Again, it’s a matter of grey, and not black or white.

Mike Rowe’s demands for $10K for the domain name could have been interpreted as cybersquatting (I mean, he did choose mikerowesoft.com instead of mikerowe.com). But then again, Microsoft was IMO, also a bit too heavy-handed in the whole affair. However, they may have had no choice.

From Wikipedia:

Microsoft later admitted that they may have been too aggressive in their defense of the “Microsoft” trademark. Following the case it was suggested by Struan Robertson – editor of Out-Law.com – that Microsoft had little choice but to pursue the issue once it had come to light or they would have risked weakening their trademark. This view was also espoused by ZDNet, who noted that had Microsoft knowingly ignored Rowe’s site, the company would have risked losing the right to fight future trademark infringements. Had legal proceedings ensued, Robertson thought that Rowe would have made a strong argument for keeping his domain, as he was using his real name and wasn’t claiming to be affiliated with Microsoft.

I’m glad everything was settled amicably and nicely. Rowe gave up the domain to MS, he set up a new website paid for by MS, received a whole bunch of gifts, got to tour MS research facilities, and charities got donations (from Rowe’s defense fund).

All’s well that ends well.

But as much as we have our own opinions, software patents (fortunately or unfortunately) do exist, and we just have to play by the rules. And we should not feel outraged or surprised if corporations (not restricted to just Microsoft) also play by the rules. Like Matt Asay said, they will be being irresponsible to their shareholders if they don’t take advantage of any patents they hold.

I believe freedom and innovation are important tenants the western world believes in greatly (disclaimer: I am Singaporean), but then again, so is capitalism.

Ultimately, everything Microsoft does will always be judged by the community at-large, which we also have to remember, also includes Microsoft’s partners, allies, customers, and developer community.

Trust and PR is the best check and balance we have against unnecessarily excessive patent litigation from corporations today.

MS just has a bad track record in that respect. Many feel it cannot be trusted. Note that although IBM holds many, many patents it has NEVER exercised a single one against any FOSS entity, either corporate or private. It has – AFAIK – never violated a ISO license once.

That is trust.

Note that nowadays someone with a $150 device can create something that may violate some trivial invention like..

- A computer in a car (MS patent)
- Saving a filename in two different forms (MS patent)
- One click buying (Amazon)

Every single FOSS developer may run into these kinds of things – without knowing he actually violated anything. Patents were invented to protect significant investments, but hacking some algorithm you can do with a moment of enlightenment and a few lines of code.

There is a good reason why mathematics cannot be patented. And they apply to informatics too. FOSS actually boosted invention, because anyone can profit – amateurs and companies alike, just like in the scientific communion. The difference is that a good algorithm doesn’t require a lot of physical means to implement or produce. It shares these characteristics with mathematics.

Hans Bezemer

I freely donate code to you to use. You go ahead and use it unchanged. I sue you for using the code. Something just doesn’t sound right here.

I’m willing to believe that Linus (as well as Greg K-H and most of the lawyers in the FOSS camp) thinks this is ludicrous as I do, which is why they have no qualms with accepting this donated code.

It’s good to see my alma mater (IBM) do what it does to support the open source community. But before we get too carried away, do realize that 500 patents is only about 1% of the 42,000 patents IBM currently has (as a comparison, I think MS has about 8,500 patents). If I was Sam Palmisano, I’m pretty sure I won’t be releasing any of the ones with real commercial potential.

Anyway, since you didn’t disagree, I assume that you agree with Matt’s viewpoint that it doesn’t make fiduciary sense to declare that one will never, ever sue open-source developers over patent infringements.

I can fully understand why Torvalds doesn’t have any problem adding MS related code in his code base. If I were in his place and able to assert any possible patent problems beforehand I would too, I guess. If you play by the rules, you’re in.

I have contemplated what I would do if Microsoft added any code to my code base. I think – as a small developer – I would be afraid to add the code for the simple reason that I am not a lawyer and cannot assert any legal complications. But that aside, if I was happy on that account, I would include it too.

And – here we go again – that’s the main problem with FOSS/MS related activities. You’re never sure when the lawyers pop out of that patent infested Trojan horse.

Gain security – gain trust.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/print/106099/IBM_Red_Hat_join_others_in_Linux_patent_venture

Microsoft is not on the list. I told you I have a fairly large link database.

Hans Bezemer

RedHat says:

Over the years, the individual and corporate members of the community have through formal and informal steps made clear that they will not pursue or threaten patent litigation in the Linux area. Patent threats are irreconcilable with the norms and values that are at the heart of Linux. To win the respect and trust of the Linux community, Microsoft should unequivocally disavow such conduct and pledge that its patents will never be used against Linux or other open source developers and users.

Matt’s response:

First of all, I’m not sure this is true. I don’t remember IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Oracle, or even Red Hat declaring once and for all that they will never, ever sue open-source developers over patent infringements.

Second of all, why would they? Why would you ever conclusively close the door on actions that might well be required to legitimately defend your interests? This seems like the height of fiduciary irresponsibility in the hopes of scoring political points.

- Promise not to make any patent claims against the Linux kernel in any form or shape to any entity using it. Do as IBM and Sun did: give ‘em away.
- Liberate Mono by extending the promise to the entire Mono suite.

Easy.

Ok, let the corporate legal babble commence.

Your point being?

Hmm, wasn’t similar wording used on Port25 JUST before the patent case against TomTom was launched?

Second, let’s do a little free market economics!
In a perfect free market economy every economic agent has equal resources with the others.
But it turns out that some obtain more money by making better decisions than the others (Microsoft) and they use their advantages to obtain long term and more consistent advantages. But at some point the regulatory agent (government) should step in and stop some people from overtaking a market, transforming it from a free market to an oligopoly or worse, monopoly. Worse still, some economic agents become so big that they influence whole government policies. Microsoft was under investigation for antitrust violation by DOJ until 2004, but the case was dismissed because of the ideology that the state has minimal regulatory duties.
They were therefore leaving for the market mechanisms to sort out how to transform the monopoly centered market back to a free market.

It’s something you may not notice if you’re in the company that is criticized, so I’ll give you the benefit of doubt.