content/editorial/MSFTArticle.html - openoffice-org - Git at Google

 <html><head>
 <meta HTTP-EQUIV="content-type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
 </head>
 <body>


 <title>Allchin's Demagoguery</title>

 <h2><font color="#cc6600" face="Courier New, Courier, mono" size="+2">Editor's
   Column</font></h2>
 <p>22 February 2001<br>
   <br>
 </p>
 <h3><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Allchin's Demagoguery</font></h3>
 <p
 style="margin-top: 0.42cm; margin-bottom: 0.5cm; page-break-after: avoid"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">by
   Bill Roth, <i>Guest Contributor</i></font></p>
 <p>My family is not a quiet one. When we care about something, we care deeply.
   And loudly. And with great passion. There are certain things, in both my personal
   and professional life that get me up in arms. I have a <a
 href="http://java.sun.com/features/2000/04/oreilly.html">history</a> of mounting
   the hustings when someone does something unethical or unfair. It was in the
   vein that I blearily posted my<a
 href="//www-discuss/current/msg01855.html"> first message</a>
   on the news that Jim Allchin thinks that Open Source Software (OSS) is a threat
   to the American way of life.</p>

 <p>But first: Let me make it clear that I am speaking as <a
 href="http://www.geocities.com/wgroth2/sunresume.html">Bill Roth</a>, Computer
   Scientist, and someone who has been involved with GPL software for 10 years.
   I am not speaking for Sun in any way.</p>

 <p>Back to the main point. In a C-Net <a
 href="http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-4833927.html?tag=st.cn.1.lthd">article</a>,
 Jim Allchin of Microsoft is quoted as saying, ''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.'' </p>

 <p>He goes on to include a thinly veiled threat, namely that Microsoft
 will begin lobbying against open source software. ''I'm an
 American, I believe in the American Way,'' he said. ''I worry if
 the government encourages open source, and I don't think we've
 done enough education of policy makers to understand the threat.''
 </p>

 <p>What unmitigated demagoguery.</p>

 <p>I find this hypocritical in the extreme. Here is a company that pleaded to
   any one that would listen that its--allegedly failed--competitors were using
   the courts to do what they could not in the marketplace. Then then the tables
   turn. A technology arises that is a clear and present danger to its way of doing
   things, namely the open source movement. What does Microsoft do? Lean on the
   courts and the legislative process.</p>

 <p>While Microsoft has done some <a
 href="http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,2687872,00.html">backpedaling</a>
   in the press, it is clear that they intend to make this a public policy issue.
   We can not let this go unanswered. I urge you all to pay close attention to
   this issue in the coming weeks and be ready to support pro-OSS legislators.
   (Part of the problem is that we will have to figure out who they are first.)</p>

 <p>The core of the issue is that OSS does in fact threaten the
 traditional understanding of intellectual property. But it does
 so in an indirect way, rather than a direct one. Open source
 software is software that is created in such a way as to allow
 the distribution of the software AND its source code for free.
 There is also relatively little restriction on the redistribution
 of the source code .</p>

 <p>OSS is not, as Allchin says, an IP destroyer. In fact, people who contribute
   to open source projects like Sun's OpenOffice.org freely yield their IP and
   their copyrights to the project. This is the key point. OSS is a different expression
   of IP. As <a
 href="//www-discuss/current/msg01891.html">Frank Hecker</a>
   has pointed out, what Allchin tries to do is to tie a legitimate activity, like
   OSS, to an illegitimate one like Napster, whose issues with copyright law are
   well known. Scurrilous in the extreme.</p>

 <p>While Microsoft's arguments are outrageous, their position on open
 source is not. In fact, it makes sense, given their position. OSS
 represents the work of thousands of people building meaningful
 software and giving it away for free. In effect, it represents
 tremendous downward pricing pressure that could have catastrophic
 effects on their business. </p>

 <p>This is why OSS is dangerous. It is not dangerous because it
 threatens IP. It is dangerous because it threatens the revenue
 stream that Microsoft and other companies get from their production of
 IP.</p>

 <p>This is a distinctly old world way of looking at things. In general, OSS is
   not an inhibitor to a revenue stream, but something that can enhance it. It
   is, under the right conditions, a good business strategy. This is why Sun and
   other companies are jumping to use it wholeheartedly.</p>

 <p>My father would look at what we're doing in OpenOffice.org as sheer lunacy
   and one aparatchik short of communism. We're giving away valuable work output
   for free. And on this topic, as many others, I'm sure we would have a very lively
   (and loud) argument. But that's just how life is in our family.</p>
 <p><i>[Comments? Please direct them to OpenOffice.org's <a href="//mail_list.html">discuss
   mailing list</a> -Editor]</i></p>
 </body>
 </html>
	<html><head>
	<meta HTTP-EQUIV="content-type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
	</head>
	<body>


	<title>Allchin's Demagoguery</title>

	<h2><font color="#cc6600" face="Courier New, Courier, mono" size="+2">Editor's
	Column</font></h2>
	<p>22 February 2001<br>
	<br>
	</p>
	<h3><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Allchin's Demagoguery</font></h3>
	<p
	style="margin-top: 0.42cm; margin-bottom: 0.5cm; page-break-after: avoid"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">by
	Bill Roth, <i>Guest Contributor</i></font></p>
	<p>My family is not a quiet one. When we care about something, we care deeply.
	And loudly. And with great passion. There are certain things, in both my personal
	and professional life that get me up in arms. I have a <a
	href="http://java.sun.com/features/2000/04/oreilly.html">history</a> of mounting
	the hustings when someone does something unethical or unfair. It was in the
	vein that I blearily posted my<a
	href="//www-discuss/current/msg01855.html"> first message</a>
	on the news that Jim Allchin thinks that Open Source Software (OSS) is a threat
	to the American way of life.</p>

	<p>But first: Let me make it clear that I am speaking as <a
	href="http://www.geocities.com/wgroth2/sunresume.html">Bill Roth</a>, Computer
	Scientist, and someone who has been involved with GPL software for 10 years.
	I am not speaking for Sun in any way.</p>

	<p>Back to the main point. In a C-Net <a
	href="http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-4833927.html?tag=st.cn.1.lthd">article</a>,
	Jim Allchin of Microsoft is quoted as saying, ''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.'' </p>

	<p>He goes on to include a thinly veiled threat, namely that Microsoft
	will begin lobbying against open source software. ''I'm an
	American, I believe in the American Way,'' he said. ''I worry if
	the government encourages open source, and I don't think we've
	done enough education of policy makers to understand the threat.''
	</p>

	<p>What unmitigated demagoguery.</p>

	<p>I find this hypocritical in the extreme. Here is a company that pleaded to
	any one that would listen that its--allegedly failed--competitors were using
	the courts to do what they could not in the marketplace. Then then the tables
	turn. A technology arises that is a clear and present danger to its way of doing
	things, namely the open source movement. What does Microsoft do? Lean on the
	courts and the legislative process.</p>

	<p>While Microsoft has done some <a
	href="http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,2687872,00.html">backpedaling</a>
	in the press, it is clear that they intend to make this a public policy issue.
	We can not let this go unanswered. I urge you all to pay close attention to
	this issue in the coming weeks and be ready to support pro-OSS legislators.
	(Part of the problem is that we will have to figure out who they are first.)</p>

	<p>The core of the issue is that OSS does in fact threaten the
	traditional understanding of intellectual property. But it does
	so in an indirect way, rather than a direct one. Open source
	software is software that is created in such a way as to allow
	the distribution of the software AND its source code for free.
	There is also relatively little restriction on the redistribution
	of the source code .</p>

	<p>OSS is not, as Allchin says, an IP destroyer. In fact, people who contribute
	to open source projects like Sun's OpenOffice.org freely yield their IP and
	their copyrights to the project. This is the key point. OSS is a different expression
	of IP. As <a
	href="//www-discuss/current/msg01891.html">Frank Hecker</a>
	has pointed out, what Allchin tries to do is to tie a legitimate activity, like
	OSS, to an illegitimate one like Napster, whose issues with copyright law are
	well known. Scurrilous in the extreme.</p>

	<p>While Microsoft's arguments are outrageous, their position on open
	source is not. In fact, it makes sense, given their position. OSS
	represents the work of thousands of people building meaningful
	software and giving it away for free. In effect, it represents
	tremendous downward pricing pressure that could have catastrophic
	effects on their business. </p>

	<p>This is why OSS is dangerous. It is not dangerous because it
	threatens IP. It is dangerous because it threatens the revenue
	stream that Microsoft and other companies get from their production of
	IP.</p>

	<p>This is a distinctly old world way of looking at things. In general, OSS is
	not an inhibitor to a revenue stream, but something that can enhance it. It
	is, under the right conditions, a good business strategy. This is why Sun and
	other companies are jumping to use it wholeheartedly.</p>

	<p>My father would look at what we're doing in OpenOffice.org as sheer lunacy
	and one aparatchik short of communism. We're giving away valuable work output
	for free. And on this topic, as many others, I'm sure we would have a very lively
	(and loud) argument. But that's just how life is in our family.</p>
	<p><i>[Comments? Please direct them to OpenOffice.org's <a href="//mail_list.html">discuss
	mailing list</a> -Editor]</i></p>
	</body>
	</html>