Microsoft hosts Ron Paul employee meeting

[quickmike]

According to the official RP site, they hosted a meeting for their employees to hear Dr Paul speak.


Anyone ever see any video of this?

I cant find anything.

[Blowback]

It happened after the SU Constitution speech. It was set up very last minute and I'm not sure if it was recorded or anything.

[bcmiller]

Ron Paul uses Microsoft as an example of how making money is fine since we seek their products. I can see how MS would want him to speak there and I think it is good.

However, MS is a case of a monopoly that leans on the government to support it's weight. They got tied up in Anti-Trust cases in the 90's but the real bad thing they do is vendor lockin on document formats and media formats.

The patent provision was put into the constitution as a lure for immigration. The thinking was that you would get "temporary" exclusive use of your inventions and then the country would benefit by being able to innovate on those ideas.

Now, we have lumped, trademark, patent and copyrights into something called "intellectual property" and it has become permanent real estate. It is illegal to be Eli Whitney or Samuel Colt in the world of software. The laws for Trademark are different for Patent and they are both different than Copyright and they should be.

If you want to hear a brilliant speech on this subject click here (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7588377269832585471&q=eben+moglen+redhat+2006&total=11&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)

I really hope that Ron Paul does something to reverse this situation, but I hope he doesn't tell MS until after they support his stance on the internet.

Not that it would hurt MS so much since they are both a victim and victimizer of "intellectual property" abuse. The real culprits are the ones who sit on patents but make no product. They have no incentive to do anything but sue, they innovate nothing, but just sit on the new real estate market and wait to sue. Much like having hotels on Boardwalk and Parkplace but not having to roll the dice.

To experience Free as in freedom computing click here (http://www.ubuntu.com) or here to pick your own distro (http://www.distrowatch.com)

[jpa]

I am a msft employee, ron paul supporter, and funder of the free software foundation.

Most employees agree the patent system needs reform. Given that, msft is a corporation and protects itself from huge finicial loss with hoards of "defensive" patents and legions of unholy lawyers.

However, don't try and get the government to regulate "open" formats or force people to license the software they create under certain licenses. In a truly free society, the creator of the work and the benefactor of the work are the only ones who need to agree to the contract (or license) needed to distribute or copy that piece of work (a completely voluntary system).
The technology world is built on the foundations of IP ownership. Remove the pillar of finicial reward, and watch the rate of technology advancement crumble. Creators of software need limited time protections from direct copies, and in rare cases patents for truly original algorithms (mathematical discoveries which have a practical purpose) to provide incentives for the creators themselves and investors when large teams are required to create such software.

[jblosser]

Remove the pillar of finicial reward, and watch the rate of technology advancement crumble. Creators of software need limited time protections from direct copies, and in rare cases patents for truly original algorithms (mathematical discoveries which have a practical purpose) to provide incentives for the creators themselves and investors when large teams are required to create such software.

Because we would never have had the Renaissance without IP protection.

[jpa]

Because we would never have had the Renaissance without IP protection.

Actually, copyright law was created in the Renaissance ( 1662 the first formal law according to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law) )
Many of the great thinkers of the time profited from their works (usually from the form of commisions.

One could argue that the pursuit of intellectual pursuits has accelerated greatly since the inception of IP ownership concepts.

[specsaregood]

However, don't try and get the government to regulate "open" formats or force people to license the software they create under certain licenses. In a truly free society, the creator of the work and the benefactor of the work are the only ones who need to agree to the contract (or license) needed to distribute or copy that piece of work (a completely voluntary system).

As a software developer for the past 12 years, I couldn't agree more.

[cjhowe]

I am a msft employee, ron paul supporter, and funder of the free software foundation.

Most employees agree the patent system needs reform. Given that, msft is a corporation and protects itself from huge finicial loss with hoards of "defensive" patents and legions of unholy lawyers.

However, don't try and get the government to regulate "open" formats or force people to license the software they create under certain licenses. In a truly free society, the creator of the work and the benefactor of the work are the only ones who need to agree to the contract (or license) needed to distribute or copy that piece of work (a completely voluntary system).
The technology world is built on the foundations of IP ownership. Remove the pillar of finicial reward, and watch the rate of technology advancement crumble. Creators of software need limited time protections from direct copies, and in rare cases patents for truly original algorithms (mathematical discoveries which have a practical purpose) to provide incentives for the creators themselves and investors when large teams are required to create such software.

I agree with the right to contract as one sees most beneficial to themselves. This should be the crux of the discussion. The practicality of enforcing such contracts is where the reform is necessary.

However, because computers work to improve efficiency, security, etc even if every letter of code was forced into the public domain, you could not remove the financial reward. I would be almost willing to wager that the majority of software spending today is in software where there is no inclination to exchange a license to a finished product for money.

[trispear]

However, don't try and get the government to regulate "open" formats or force people to license the software they create under certain licenses. In a truly free society, the creator of the work and the benefactor of the work are the only ones who need to agree to the contract (or license) needed to distribute or copy that piece of work (a completely voluntary system).However, the government can mandate Open Formats for its own internal use and to get vendors to compete with each other on an open and fair playing field.

I agree with the Federal Government mandating that it's own departments using open formats, and State governments doing likewise.

[jpa]

However, the government can mandate Open Formats for its own internal use and to get vendors to compete with each other on an open and fair playing field.

I agree with the Federal Government mandating that it's own departments using open formats, and State governments doing likewise.

I think its wise for any organization to store its data in a format that is read/writable by multiple systems. good common sense.

There is no such thing as a fair playing field, and having an "open" file format certainly will not make things fair for competitors. The file format is only a small part of the lock in to MS Office. User behavior & training costs are a WAY bigger barrier for competitors. Another lock in method is LOB solutions built on top Office thru its object model (VB for applications)..

I agree with the intent of your post, but I do want to warn you that "open" or standards based formats favor least common denominator features and stagnation. When I worked on Office, the biggest reason why we couldn't add new features (e.g. better image compression) is adherence to the 97 file format. Be careful in what your org mandates.

I will dance a jig the day the fed & state orgs move away from PDF as a file format :-D

[Sakimoto]

Ron Paul uses Microsoft as an example of how making money is fine since we seek their products. I can see how MS would want him to speak there and I think it is good.

However, MS is a case of a monopoly that leans on the government to support it's weight. They got tied up in Anti-Trust cases in the 90's but the real bad thing they do is vendor lockin on document formats and media formats.

The patent provision was put into the constitution as a lure for immigration. The thinking was that you would get "temporary" exclusive use of your inventions and then the country would benefit by being able to innovate on those ideas.

Now, we have lumped, trademark, patent and copyrights into something called "intellectual property" and it has become permanent real estate. It is illegal to be Eli Whitney or Samuel Colt in the world of software. The laws for Trademark are different for Patent and they are both different than Copyright and they should be.

If you want to hear a brilliant speech on this subject click here (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7588377269832585471&q=eben+moglen+redhat+2006&total=11&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)

I really hope that Ron Paul does something to reverse this situation, but I hope he doesn't tell MS until after they support his stance on the internet.

Not that it would hurt MS so much since they are both a victim and victimizer of "intellectual property" abuse. The real culprits are the ones who sit on patents but make no product. They have no incentive to do anything but sue, they innovate nothing, but just sit on the new real estate market and wait to sue. Much like having hotels on Boardwalk and Parkplace but not having to roll the dice.

To experience Free as in freedom computing click here (http://www.ubuntu.com) or here to pick your own distro (http://www.distrowatch.com)


I disagree. I do not think Microsoft is a monopoly.

[Lois]

Hi bcmiller,

I like your blogspot, especially the Suze Orman blog.

[FunkBuddha]

I disagree. I do not think Microsoft is a monopoly.

I don't think M$ is a monopoly either... I work at a University and while 90% of the computers run MS products, that number is decreasing daily. They're gonna have to turn things around drastically with the next version of Windows or MacOS and Linux are going to prevail.