<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Geoffrey Teale wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid1108632999.23284.32.camel@dubya.devel.cmedltd.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">-----%<-----
It's not uncommon for business leaders to lobby politicians with
statement along the line of:
"If you enact <insert policy for the common good here> it will have
<insert ludicrously overstated negative effect on "business" here> and
as a result will lead to massive loss of jobs amongst your
constituents."
... you'll see this kind of statement coming from the likes of the CBI
and various FTSE 100 companies every time someone has the gall to
suggest some "ludicrous" policy. Here the term "ludicrous" means, of
course, the kinds of policies that make the many better off at the
expense of making the super-rich slightly less super-rich.
Software patents fall squarely into this category. While it's not true
that the _only_ people to benefit from them would be massive global
corporation (many small software companies, including the one I work for
have software that could be shielded from competition by software
patents) it is already apparent in the US that those large companies
would use patents as a weapon against all forms of competition and
simply buy up smaller firms who hold patented technology they are
interested in.
The likes of IBM, Oracle, Sun and Microsoft already follow this strategy
of buying up innovative companies without the added push of patents.
The reason they do this is that, with massive amounts of available cash,
this strategy shows up better in SWOT analysis than developing competing
software (which is rightly seen as an expensive and risky option with
massive loss of opportunity derived from letting the originating company
continue building a market whilst you develop competing software).
-----%<-----
</pre>
</blockquote>
Careful Geoff, if we're not careful, we'll have you sitting at "moots"
reading Das Kapital and waving a copy of Mao Tse Dongs' "Little Red
Book" to order drinks, all snug in your "happy coat" and mink "shapka".
<span class="moz-smiley-s1"><span> :-) </span></span><br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid1108632999.23284.32.camel@dubya.devel.cmedltd.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""></pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Equally, I know some "journo's" like to use a bit of poetic licence
(copyright 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, etc etc :-) ) but I
can't see them mis-quoting him in such a way.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
It's a fine line. If such a thing came out in this country then a large
amount of coverage would treat the story as "not supporting software
patents means we're all going to lose our jobs - economic collapse to
follow" - the Daily Mail would probably go on to tell us that house
prices would crash, immigrants would flood in and rape our children and
we'd all be forced to be "PC" at gun point. The Guardian and the
Independent would run a story closer to the one that's been all over the
web since yesterday. All the people who read both sets of papers would
have their existing views reinforced, we'd be having this same
conversation.
The point is , I imagine this whole things is actually rather more run
of the mill than the attitude of the average slashdot reader would
suggest.
-----%<-----
</pre>
</blockquote>
Sorry, my dismay at some of the "alleged" comments, clouded my
musing's. What I suppose I really meant, is not so much that Gates
might have said such a thing, but said them in earshot of journo's -
given the everso slightly tarnished reputation of M$. I suspect that
he's "probably" got enough "smarts" to have a handle on such things,
even things potentially as low on his probable agenda as PR. Mis-quote
or not, it still makes him look just a little foolish.<br>
<br>
-----%<-----<br>
<blockquote cite="mid1108632999.23284.32.camel@dubya.devel.cmedltd.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""></pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Otherwise the news of libel writs would surely have hit the streets by
now. Gates is, afterall, an intellegent man, who, I'd suggest, wouldn't
let such an "own goal" get the better of the M$ legal dept??
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Well, if they sued someone for printing an opinion or interpretation of
a real event (it is very likely that Microsoft is actively lobbying all
EU governments in the manner described above) they wouldn't get very far
at all.
Moreover it may equally be favourable to their cause to seed the idea
that software patents = job security in the public conscience.
</pre>
</blockquote>
This is one of the many things that I for one, would like to see
changed. To start with, a EU wide ban on political lobbying by
"industry" (one "man", one vote and all that "socialist drivel"), and a
change in at least "our" libel laws, inasfaras a person, can only libel
another person, and "business" is taken out of the equation i.e. it's
not the newspaper who would be guilty of libel, but the journo who
wrote the article etc etc, then perhaps the individual writers would
make/take greater effort in confirming the truth in such matters - Sure
it would have to have some sort of accompanying legislation so that the
"employer" of the accused (if such a libel where made when the person
making the allegation was "working") etc, but to my mind it's high
time, that business had such "rights" removed.<br>
<br>
<br>
Yes, I also appreciate that these views are ill thought out,
emotional/instinctive knee jerk reactions, but hell, the more I think
of it, the more I believe/see the potential of such actions.<br>
<br>
Still, I suppose that just like those squadrons of flying pigs above my
house, it just isn't going to happen <span class="moz-smiley-s2"><span>
:-( </span></span><br>
<br>
regards<br>
<br>
John D.<br>
<br>
p.s. As far as I'm concerned, a CBI conference (held jointly with the
RHA and FTA) would be a good place for nuclear testing - in a "pest
control" sense. <span class="moz-smiley-s4"><span> :-P </span></span><span
class="moz-smiley-s14"><span> O:-) </span></span><span
class="moz-smiley-s11"><span> 8-) </span></span><br>
</body>
</html>