summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/bill-gates-and-other-communists.html
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/bill-gates-and-other-communists.html')
-rw-r--r--talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/bill-gates-and-other-communists.html176
1 files changed, 176 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/bill-gates-and-other-communists.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/bill-gates-and-other-communists.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..df18cee
--- /dev/null
+++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/bill-gates-and-other-communists.html
@@ -0,0 +1,176 @@
+<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" -->
+<!-- Parent-Version: 1.78 -->
+<title>Bill Gates and Other Communists
+- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title>
+ <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/bill-gates-and-other-communists.translist" -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" -->
+<h2>Bill Gates and Other Communists</h2>
+
+<p>by Richard Stallman</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+<p>Originally published in 2005 in
+<a href="http://cnet.com/au/news/bill-gates-and-other-communists/">CNET
+News.com</a>.</p>
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>Bill Gates discussed patents with CNET under the heading of
+&ldquo;<a href="/philosophy/not-ipr.html">intellectual
+property</a>,&rdquo; a term that covers many disparate
+laws. He said anyone who won't give blanket support to all these laws
+is a Communist. Since I'm not a Communist but I have criticized
+software patents, I got to thinking this calumny might be aimed at
+me.</p>
+
+<p>The term &ldquo;intellectual property&rdquo; is too broad to have
+one opinion about. It lumps together copyright law, patent law, and
+various other laws, whose requirements and effects are entirely
+different. So anyone using the term &ldquo;intellectual
+property&rdquo; is typically either confused himself, or trying to
+confuse you. Why does Mr. Gates lump these issues together? Let's
+study the differences he sets aside.</p>
+
+<p>Software developers are not up in arms against copyright law,
+because the developer of a program holds the copyright on the program;
+as long as the programmers wrote the code themselves, no one else has
+a copyright on their code. There is no danger that strangers could
+have a valid case of copyright infringement against them.</p>
+
+<p>Patents are a different story. Software patents don't cover
+programs or code; they cover ideas (methods, techniques, features,
+algorithms, etc.). Developing a large program entails combining
+thousands of ideas, and even if a few of them are new, the rest must
+necessarily have come from other sources, such as programs the
+developer has seen. If each of these ideas could be patented by
+someone, every large program is likely to infringe hundreds of
+patents. Developing a large program means laying oneself open to
+hundreds of potential lawsuits. Software patents are a menace to
+software developers, and to the users. Since patent law covers
+execution of the program, the users can also be sued.</p>
+
+<p>A few fortunate software developers avoid most of the danger.
+These are the megacorporations, which typically have thousands of
+patents each, and cross-license with each other. This gives them an
+advantage over smaller rivals not in a position to do likewise.
+That's why it is generally the megacorporations that lobby for
+software patents.</p>
+
+<p>Today's Microsoft is a megacorporation with thousands of patents.
+Microsoft said in court that the main competition for MS Windows is
+&ldquo;Linux,&rdquo; meaning the free software GNU/Linux operating
+system. Leaked internal documents say that Microsoft aims to use
+software patents to stop the development of GNU/Linux.</p>
+
+<p>When Mr. Gates started hyping his solution to the problem of spam,
+I suspected this was a plan to use patents to grab control of the net.
+Sure enough, in 2004 Microsoft asked the IETF to approve a mail
+protocol that Microsoft was trying to patent. The patent license
+policy for this protocol was written to forbid free software entirely.
+No program supporting this mail protocol could be released as free
+software&mdash;not under the GNU GPL, or the MPL, or the Apache
+license, or any other.</p>
+
+<p>The IETF rejected Microsoft's protocol, but Microsoft said it would
+try to convince major ISPs to use it anyway. Thanks to Mr. Gates, we
+now know that an open Internet with protocols anyone can implement is
+Communism; it was set up by that famous Communist agent, the US
+Department of Defense.</p>
+
+<p>With Microsoft's market clout, it can impose its choice of
+programming system as a de-facto standard. Microsoft has already
+patented some .NET implementation methods, raising the concern that
+millions of users have been shifted to a government-issued Microsoft
+monopoly.</p>
+
+<p>But Capitalism means monopoly; at least, Gates-style Capitalism
+does. People who think that everyone should be free to program, free
+to write complex software, they are Communists, says Mr. Gates. But
+these Communists have infiltrated even the Microsoft boardroom.
+Here's what Bill Gates told Microsoft employees in 1991:</p>
+
+<blockquote>
+<p>&ldquo;If people had understood how patents would be granted when
+most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the
+industry would be at a complete stand-still today...A future start-up
+with no patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the
+giants choose to impose.&rdquo;</p>
+</blockquote>
+
+<p>Mr. Gates' secret is out now&mdash;he too was a
+&ldquo;Communist,&rdquo; he too recognized that software patents were
+harmful, until Microsoft became one of these giants. Now Microsoft
+aims to use software patents to impose whatever price it chooses on
+you and me. And if we object, Mr. Gates will call us
+&ldquo;Communists.&rdquo;</p>
+
+<p>If you're not afraid of name calling, visit the
+<a href="https://ffii.org"> Foundation for a Free Information
+Infrastructure</a>, and join the fight against software patents in
+Europe. We persuaded the European Parliament once&mdash;we even got
+support from right-wing MEPs&mdash;and with your help we will do it
+again.</p>
+
+</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
+<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
+<div id="footer">
+<div class="unprintable">
+
+<p>Please send general FSF &amp; GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org">&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;</a>.
+There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a>
+the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent
+to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org">&lt;webmasters@gnu.org&gt;</a>.</p>
+
+<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph,
+ replace it with the translation of these two:
+
+ We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality
+ translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection.
+ Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard
+ to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org">
+ &lt;web-translators@gnu.org&gt;</a>.</p>
+
+ <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of
+ our web pages, see <a
+ href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+ README</a>. -->
+Please see the <a
+href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations
+README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations
+of this article.</p>
+</div>
+
+<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to
+ files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should
+ be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this
+ without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first.
+ Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the
+ document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the
+ document was modified, or published.
+
+ If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too.
+ Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying
+ years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable
+ year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including
+ being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system).
+
+ There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers
+ Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. -->
+
+<p>Copyright &copy; 2005, 2015 Richard Stallman</p>
+
+<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license"
+href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative
+Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p>
+
+<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" -->
+
+<p class="unprintable">Updated:
+<!-- timestamp start -->
+$Date: 2015/10/06 13:43:20 $
+<!-- timestamp end -->
+</p>
+</div>
+</div>
+</body>
+</html>