[Sussex] MS "alledged" threats to Denmark

[John D.]

Geoffrey Teale wrote:

>-----%<-----
>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).
>-----%<-----
>  
>
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". :-)

>>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.
>>    
>>
>
>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.  
>-----%<-----
>  
>
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.

-----%<-----

>>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??
>>    
>>
>
>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.
>
>
>  
>
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.


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.

Still, I suppose that just like those squadrons of flying pigs above my 
house, it just isn't going to happen :-(

regards

John D.

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. :-P O:-) 8-)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/sussex/attachments/20050217/5d873c1d/attachment.htm