decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal

User Functions



Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

MS-Funded Alexis de Tocqueville Institution Attacks Linus, Probably Making Itself a Laughingstock
Monday, May 17 2004 @ 02:15 AM EDT

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water. . . more FUD attacks.

This is so stupid I think we need a parody done by Scott Lazar. But I'll do my best to tell you the news with a straight face. The Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, who as you may recall admitted it gets funding from Microsoft, has put out a press release on a "study" they have done that suggests that Linus isn't the father of Linux after all. Another "independent" study with Microsoft peeking out from behind the curtain.

It's good when you are opposed by Larry and Moe. How dumb do you need to be to attack Linus Torvalds? As I've said before, it's like kicking Dorothy's little dog, Toto. All you get for your trouble is a lot of really offended folks who seriously dislike you and all your supporters.

Their press release provides no proof, no facts, no details, but it claims the author, the head of the Institution, Ken Brown, did extensive interviews with Richard Stallman, Dennis Ritchie, and Andrew Tanenbaum before discovering Linux's "questionable" roots. Linus, unbeknownst to us, is not the man of integrity we know him to have proven himself to be. Instead, I gather they mean to say he is a common thief, or so the Institution hints, who stole from UNIX. Because they provide no explanation, beyond the hints, we are compelled to draw the conclusion that this is what they seem to mean:

"Brown suggests the invention of Unix is an integral part of the Linux story commenting, 'It is clear that people's exceptional interest in the Unix operating system made Unix one of the most licensed, imitated, and stolen products in the history of computer science.'"

I guess Linus'd have to be a liar too, because he has stated publicly that the origins of Linux were not UNIX (Cf. Minix reference in this historic Linus email). The article about their "study" is here. Here is a taste:

"Popular but controversial 'open source' computer software, generally contributed on a volunteer basis, is often taken or adapted from material owned by other companies and individuals, a study by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution finds. . . .

"Among other points, the study directly challenges Linus Torvalds' claim to be the inventor of Linux."

Maybe Linus would lie and steal other people's code if it's like that movie, "Invasion of the Cabbage People", or whatever that horror movie was called, where people's brains were taken over, and they were then pliable and did things they never would do as their true selves.

UPDATE: Linus has responded, as only Linus can. He reveals to LinuxWorld that he has been found out. The true fathers of Linux are Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. Santa is from Finland, after all, so he thought of Linus, who has strong teeth and was thus acceptable to the TF also. He suggests that the Alexis de Tocqueville's web site may have been taken over by some enterprising DNS thief:

"Btw, I do believe that somebody took over

"I don't think the Alexis de Tocqueville institute ever had humor (they certainly used to take themselves very seriously), but their site today is filled with jokes.

"Maybe they forgot to pay their DNS registration fee, and some enterprising person decided to play a joke on them?"

This press release is disgusting, and I hope Linus sues, not that he is the type to sue. He may not be able to, because in true FUD fashion, the headline says "probably", as in "Torvalds claim to 'invent' Linux probably false, says new study." Of course the "study" itself is not available, consisting, I gather, of what is in Mr. Brown's head and notes. You can buy the book, and they probably put out the press release because they want you to, and there will be "excerpts" available on May 20.

If this group is the new SCO, we have lucked out. They incompetently provide a link from their article to what they say will be a UNIX and Linux timeline, but the link takes you instead to a Linux page, which is a bit out-of-date, listing Caldera Linux, which then links to the UNIX page. Except there is no timeline.

Not to worry. We are working on one. The Grokline research project, which will result in an ownership-history-of-UNIX timeline chart to amplify Eric Levenez' chart, will be going online this week. I'll tell you more soon, and I hope you will help us beat off the dark side's UNIX nonsense once and for all by contributing your knowledge and skills to that project, so we can prove where all the code came from and who owned it, making future "studies" like this one impossible. Not to mention future SCO's.

Anyway, when you get to the Linux page, it sings Linux's praises and correctly attributes Linux's authorship to Linus, thus serving as an antidote to their poison. You probably need to go there fast, though. Once they read this, they'll probably change it, once they realize we have probably shown them to probably be incompetent. Here is a highlight:

"Developed by Linus Torvalds and further elaborated by a number of developers throughout the world Linux (lee'nuhks/ or /li'nuks/,_not_/li:'nuhks) is a freely available multitasking and multi-user operating system. From the outset, Linux was placed under General Public License (GPL). The system can be distributed, used and expanded free of charge. In this way, developers have access to all the source codes, thus being able to integrate new functions easily or to find and eliminate programming bugs quickly. Thereby drivers for new adapters (SCSI controller, graphics cards, etc.) can be integrated very rapidly.

"Linux may be obtained in two different ways. All the necessary components can be downloaded free of charge from the Internet. This means that an individual operating system can be assembled for almost nothing. An alternative is to use a so-called Distribution, offered by various companies and including a wide range of applications and installation programs that significantly simplify the installation of Linux. . . .

"Pro: Linux and Linux variants are considerably less expensive to run. Most versions of Linux are free and those that are not are generally very affordable. Especially when looking at the Microsoft Windows NT with multiple licenses.

"Pro: Issues are generally resolved more quickly then Windows NT with open source code."

I doubt Microsoft pays people to say that or link to it either. The Institution, while acknowledging MS funding, claims they are independent in what they write. I don't know about these "independent" studies. Microsoft, to me, is like a 2-year-old covering his head with a towel and thinking he is thereby invisible.

There is absolutely no point in writing to the Institution, by the way, in my opinion. They long for controversy. Probably. And they may keep lists of everyone they hear from too, for all I know.

They have to know better, having spoken to the individuals they claim to have spoken to. This is why I don't talk to all the reporters who contact me, by the way, any more. Some people use you, if you let them. So I am selective. I expect we may hear a word or two from some of the poor, used interviewees.

The same institution has been on a roll, one press release after another. Here is their prediction that Linux is on a collision course with patents. The article is here. I think Microsoft needs to take a lesson from BayStar and ask for its money back. They might want to note their sage advice to SCO about not attacking Linux and the Linux community, too. Here is a sample of the quality of this article:

"To summarize, the General Public License (GPL), the contract/license for GNU/Linux software and other open source software requires distribution of the source code for the original program. If you receive a copy of GPL’ed software, you can use it without worrying about the original author exercising any limitations, fees, licenses, etc. The GPL enables developers to transfer the rights of their work to anyone they would like, for the privilege of having the reciprocal use of GPL’ed work. This feature makes selling GPL’ed software inane because anyone that agrees to the terms of the GPL can also have a copy of the same software with the code - for free."

These folks are probably toadies, so what can you expect? But I do have a question in my mind. Is Microsoft, with all its money, unable to come up with anything better than this? Isn't it remarkable how little they get for all their silver and gold?

Here is a threat at the very end of another offensive article of theirs. The topic is outsourcing, but they can't help themselves and just must say something hateful and untrue about open source:

"Many U.S. firms are not only devaluing intellectual property via outsourcing, but are also embracing business strategies to devalue (and if necessary, eradicate) their competitor’s intellectual property. Open source software, also described as free software, is the neutron bomb of IP. . . .

"However, the open source strategy is a triple-edge sword. First, most free software such as Linux, (the most popular because of its operating system capability), comes with a license that dictates that any all development of the product (which would have been valuable intellectual property) becomes community property and must subsequently become free as well. . . .

"In conclusion, while it is debatable whether outsourcing can be described as just another business solution or the hemorrhaging of the IT industry, downward pressure on intellectual property is having a serious impact upon the information technology sector and the entire U.S. economy. Instead of asking how much harm is this having on our economy, we should really be asking how much longer can we continually export the U.S. IP economy to every (and any) global competitor at no cost? Unless intellectual property assets are better protected, we will soon see information technology firms resorting to draconian measures even worse than outsourcing."

For those of you who wish to feel as angry as I do, I reproduce their loathsome press release in full.


Torvalds claim to "invent" Linux probably false, says new study

Fri May 14, 5:49 PM ET

Washington, DC (FeatureXpress) May 14, 2004 - Popular but controversial "open source" computer software, often contributed on a volunteer basis, is often taken or adapted without permission from material owned by other companies and individuals, a study by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution finds. Among other points, the study directly challenges Linus Torvalds (news - web sites)' claim to be the inventor of Linux (news - web sites). In one of the few extensive studies on the source of open source code, Kenneth Brown, president of AdTI, traces the free software movement over three decades -- from its romantic but questionable beginnings, through its evolution to a commercial effort that draws on unpaid contributions from thousands of programmers. Brown's account is based on extensive interviews with more than two dozen leading technologists including Richard Stallman, Dennis Ritchie, and Andrew Tanenbaum.

"The report," according to Gregory Fossedal, a Tocqueville senior fellow, "raises important questions that all developers and users of open source code must face. While you cannot group all open source programmers and programs together; many are rigorous and respectful of the intellectual property rights, while others speak of intellectual property rights with open contempt."

Brown suggests the invention of Unix is an integral part of the Linux story commenting, "It is clear that people's exceptional interest in the Unix operating system made Unix one of the most licensed, imitated, and stolen products in the history of computer science." Brown writes, "Over the years, many have envied the startling and pervasive success of Unix. For almost thirty years, programmers have tried and failed to successfully build a Unix-like system and couldn't. To this day, we have a serious attribution problem in software development because people have chosen to scrupulously borrow or imitate Unix."

Brown's study is part a book he is writing on open source software and operating systems. Excerpts from the book will be published at on May 20, 2004.


MS-Funded Alexis de Tocqueville Institution Attacks Linus, Probably Making Itself a Laughingstock | 841 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Here Please
Authored by: PJ on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 02:18 AM EDT
Please put corrections here, so I can find them easily. Thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS-Funded Alexis de Toqueville Institution Attacks Linus, Probably Making Itself a Laughingstoc
Authored by: kpl on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 02:28 AM EDT
Blech! I feel dirty.

I only thought these kind of people existed in bad movies.

Makes me think of Rita Skeeter from Harry Potter. ;-)

mv sco /dev/null

[ Reply to This | # ]

Attacks Linus? - doh!
Authored by: irieiam on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 02:34 AM EDT
Well, I remember reading these years ago and found them. The 'Linus Roots' are
not hard to trace and are nice and

[ Reply to This | # ]

Watch Language, please.
Authored by: PJ on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 02:37 AM EDT
Please don't create extra work for me or make me delete comments that are
otherwise valuable by being careful with language. I feel angry myself, so I
figure it will be harder to be restrained, but remember judges and such do
surf the Internet too.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Well duh!
Authored by: Groo on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 02:45 AM EDT
It was a communist plot, funded by the whale preservationists against Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge drilling. They channeled money through North Korea to
attack our precious democratic and capitalistic institutions. What could be

On a serious note, does anyone care anymore? I mean, if these tools want
attention, they can just set themselves on fire and run past my house. At least
that would make me smile more. Right now, my only feeling toward this are edging
toward pity for MS. They are desperate and cornered, and each 'brilliant' scheme
they come up with tends to blow off another foot, and bring the level of
corporate awareness of Linux to a higher level.

I don't think MS has realized two things. First, when you are going against
something that has little or no name recognition, and you tell how much better
you are, all you are doing is giving your opponent free advertising. Coke
learned this the hard way when they tried to counter the Pepsi Challenge ads
with the same thing of their own.

The next is that people get jaded to repeated attacks. After a while, they get
one of two attitudes. The first is that they don't care, that is where I think
most people are now. The average CxO is probably bored reading this drivel by
now, so anything MS has to say for real, and there are such points, gets ignored
also. The second is that when they are proven either wrong, or lie with blatant
ulterior motives, they are painted as liars. From that point on, everything they
say is looked at with a jaundiced eye.

MS is in both of these positions right now, depending on the viewer. What they
did with SCO simply raised the corporate profile of Linux. Think about this,
when the CxO set first read about the IBM suit, think they turned to the CTO and
said 'find out if we are running that crap'. This leads to audits, studies and
briefings. What do you think came out of those briefings, a mad rush to MS
software, or a revelation about how much good Linux was doing for them now?

Overall, these blatant stupidities are a good thing to the Linux community. Each
time MS tries, they chip away at their own credibility, nothing more. Meanwhile,
the Linux community sits back and takes the high road. Corporate types notice


[ Reply to This | # ]

MS-Funded Alexis de Toqueville Institution Attacks Linus, Probably Making Itself a Laughingstoc
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 02:57 AM EDT
"Torvalds claim to 'invent' Linux probably false, says new study"

Come on, since when Alexis de Toqueville works for the Onion ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sophisticated and effective propaganda
Authored by: mk270 on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 02:57 AM EDT

My first thought when seeing this article was "Oh, can't we just stick to SCO?", but I'm now glad it's been posted.

I'm very interested in the FUD that SCO was using to attack the free software community, and this report by the institute is an example of a more sophisticated attack, and is thus interesting to analyse.

Darl McBride's attack, repeated several times in answer to various questions when he was giving that lecture at Harvard, was as follows:

  • people should be free to license their software however they want, including copylefting it (fair enough)
  • don't copyleft any of my stuff without my permission (fair enough)
  • my stuff has been copylefted without my permission (a matter of evidence)
  • copyleft is actually involuntary due to network effects, the dishonesty of some parts of the free software community, whatever (does not logically follow)
If you're listening critically, expecting misbehaviour, the non-sequitur screams out at you each time he utters it. If you're not paying attention, the way he expresses it seems reasonable. To a disinterested and uncritical observer, Darl may come across as convincing. What he says is "someone may have infringed our IP, therefore there may be others, therefore the ideas that draw the free software community themselves may also be suspect".

So what has the de Tocqueville institute done? Much better than Darl. Firstly they have got the unsubstantiated allegations of some sort of unspecified misappropriation of someone's work on UNIX.

  • UNIX is valuable
  • UNIX has been copied
  • The people who copied UNIX did so immorally or unlawfully
Leaving to one side the important issue that not all copying is immoral let alone illegal, de Tocqueville come out with a gem to follow this, once they've set the stage: they note that some members of the free software community speak with "open contempt" for intellectual property rights.

This is quite smart. The impression created is that some subsection of the community would put this supposed contempt of IP rights into practice. Ah of course! They must have been the ones who ripped off UNIX.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is this a part of the SCO legal strategy
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 03:00 AM EDT
I wonder if this isnt part of an organised ¨anti-open source" strategy. If
I not being too paranoid here, isnt this something that SCO can add to their FUD ¨See Judge, we told this was happening to us!!!¨

I do note that there is no evidence offered so far, but when this book is
published, will SCO be able to get bits of it into evidence before it can be
accurately analysed by IBM, RH lawyers etc.

This, and the timing of it all, seem a bit too cute to me to be real.It does
make sense if (and its a big if) it is all be orchestrated by someone (MS or SCO
seem to fit the bill, but I dont know that SCO could swing this)

Ok tell me I nuts.


PS I would sign on but I forgot my password...ooops!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Libel ?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 03:08 AM EDT
"the study directly challenges Linus Torvalds ... claim to be the inventor
of Linux"

Linus Torvalds owns the Linux trademark.

If the ATDI study and/or book really does contain such a claim, can Linus sue
for libel ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Unix is an integral part of the Linux story commenting"
Authored by: Khym Chanur on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 03:09 AM EDT
I'd have to say that this part is true. Minix, which inspired Linus, is a clone
of some of the other Unices, and Linus implemented the POSIX standard, a
standard which was derived from Unix. So is UNIX had never existed, Linus would
have created an entirely different kernel (or might have spent his time on an
entirely different type of project).

Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but set him on fire, and
he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Paraphrased from Terry Pratchett)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Note for future reference..
Authored by: Franki on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 03:14 AM EDT
my note for future reference, take nothing the Alexis de Toqueville Institute
say with any more credence then anything uttered by Darl.

In short, put up or shut up.. both make claims and allegations, and neither
provides any proof at all. At least ADT had the sense to hide behind words like
"probably" meaning we don't really know, but we'd like to think this
is the case cos micro$oft will be happy with us for saying it and give us more

When will these people learn that we are not a not a bunch of hicks that can't
read? And that if you add up all the linux and open source news sites, they
pretty much outnumber any other single area... perhaps we should start our own
centralised FUD machine against those who would lie. only ours would document
our sources for said FUD, thereby removing the FUD element altogether.

I hope there are not CEO's and CTO's out there that would take a benchmark or
story like that at face value without checking its heritage... though if there
are, then they don't deserve their positions anyway and good ridance to them.

Its been said for ages, never trust anything said on the internet unless you
implicitly trust the person or company that said it. This mob have proven that
they can't be trusted.

I hereby declair that 2+4 is actually equal to 10. I provide no proof, but you
should just take my word for it because I know more then you and I want to sell
a book about it.

I'm going to take a shower now.. I feel like I imagine a jailbird does
immediately after picking up dropped soap in a prison shower.



[ Reply to This | # ]

'Questionable beginnings..."
Authored by: moonbroth on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 03:17 AM EDT
That particular soundbite from the press release reminded me of this bit from Babylon 5 (context: a masterclass in writing a biased report) --
Londo: "'The Minbari put great emphasis on art, lecture, music.' Yes, but say instead: 'They are a decadent people, interested only in the pursuit of dubious pleasures.' The 'dubious' part is very important. It doesn't mean anything, but scares people every time..."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Meaning of "invention"
Authored by: macrorodent on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 03:24 AM EDT
Actually one could make the case that Linus did not "invent" Linux, because the system, especially in the beginning, was not original in a ground-breaking way (by contrast, today one sees other systems adopting ideas from Linux). It was an implementation of existing knowledge about operating systems. For example, in the famous usenet argument, Tanenbaum chided Torvalds for creating a "monolithic" kernel, which he considered old-fashioned at a time when microkernels were the flavour of the month in OS design (even Windows NT was touted as a microkernel in its early days).

But by the same token, Thompson and Ritchie did not "invent" the original UNIX, either, because it, to, was largely an implementation of existing ideas, in particular those developed in the seminal Multics project, in which they participated.

By the time Linux was writing Linux, all these ideas had been common engineering knowledge for years. Linux wasn't even the first independently created Unix-style system, there were several (mostly academical) before it.

So how should we interpret "invent"? I am not a native English speaker, but I get the impression that it is often used two ways: Inviting a totally new idea out of "thin air", or creating a new work composed of both existing knowledge and own contributions (i.e. synonymously with "create").

Invention in the first sense is rare. But Linux definitely "invented" Linux in the second sense of the word. It is a matter of public record. But I think the de Tocqueville guys and other Linux opponents try to muddy the issue by playing on the different meanings of the word "invent". It is hard to fight only with facts, rhetorical skills are needed.

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS-Funded Alexis de Toqueville Institution Attacks Linus, Probably Making Itself a Laughingstock
Authored by: drh on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 03:25 AM EDT
Linus stated that Linux was inspired by Minix, not Unix.
Comments and source code uphold that statement. Therefore
Minix would have to be Unix in order for the articles
statements to be true.

Here is a choice quote from "Operating Systems, Design and
Implementation" by Andrew S. Tanenbaum, Fist Edition
copyright 1987 Prentice Hall

Section 1.2.5 History of Minix

"To remedy this situation, I decided to write a new
operating system from scratch that would be compatible
with UNIX from the user's point of view, but completely
different inside. By not using even one line of AT&T code,
this system avoids the licensing restrictions, so it can
be used for class or individual study."

So Minix is not UNIX, therefore Linux is not UNIX,
therefore no theft as hinted at.

Just another day...

[ Reply to This | # ]

GPL rubbish
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 03:27 AM EDT
"To summarize, the General Public License (GPL), the contract/license for GNU/Linux software and other open source software requires distribution of the source code for the original program. If you receive a copy of GPL’ed software, you can use it without worrying about the original author exercising any limitations, fees, licenses, etc. The GPL enables developers to transfer the rights of their work to anyone they would like, for the privilege of having the reciprocal use of GPL’ed work. This feature makes selling GPL’ed software inane because anyone that agrees to the terms of the GPL can also have a copy of the same software with the code - for free."

Just read the above and you'll immediately know that those people have no clue. Contract/licence? Yeah right. Where the heck is consideration in this contract? What does a licensee need to do or promise to do to get the GPL? Absolutely nothing. GPL doesn't qualify as contract, not by a long shot.

But never mind that little detail. Just focus on the "recipocal use" for moment. This is in their mind this "exchange" that makes GPL a contract. Now, image I take the Linux kernel and modify it. I can:

  • copy/use modified version privately with no restrictions
  • release modified work as a whole to my clients only under the GPL (including the source or an offer for it)

In both of the above scenarios, the original author may never see the code that I've created. Not to mention that I get the GPL even if I never modify the code. Such is the nature of this "exchange" that it may never happen at all.

Which makes the GPL a really strong contract, don't you think? Yeah right. Contract my back side. Contract defined in Restatement (Second) of Contracts:

"A contract is a promise or set of promises for the breach of which the law gives a remedy, or the performance of which the law in some way recognizes as a duty."

The law will not enforce illusory or gratuitous promises, however. A licensor simply cannot sue a GPL licensee for a breach of contract, because there is none.

Now get this: you can swear you'll uphold the GPL, spit three times, cross you heart and hope to die, but it's not gonna make a whole lot of difference when you get sued for copyright infringement (after you copied, modified and distributed the software). The only thing that will matter will be the authorisation of the owner of copyright. If you had one, you're fine. If you didn't, you're infringing. From the book Nimmer on Copyright:

"Without a promise there is no contract, while a promise on the part of one who engages in unlicensed reproduction or distribution is not required in order to constitute him a copyright infringer."

Promise or not, if you didn't have the licence, you're going down. That's copyright.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What de Toqueville himself said about Open Source
Authored by: coats on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 03:28 AM EDT
de Tocqueville himself remarked on the extraordinary success in the United States of voluntary community associations, which he says are found nowhere else in the world (not even next-door Canada he remarks), and which are remarkably effective for dealing with community issues as they occur, in striking contrast to the rigid guild-and-government strictures of the Old World. De Tocqueville approves, strongly.

Open source is an expansion of this voluntary association trend worldwide, as enabled by the Internet. (GrokLaw is another.)

The de Tocqueville Institute is attacking one of the causes espoused by what it proclaims is its patron. "Hypocrites" is the kindest term which may be applied.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I feel sorry ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 03:32 AM EDT
I just feel sorry that the memory of Alexis de Toqueville is being sullied by
association with these paid insinuators.

BTW, there is a pattern here of anti-competitive behaviour: funding SCO, funding
the AdTI - can the attention of Massachusetts, or anyone else interested in the
misbehaviour of Microsoft, be drawn to this?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: bonzai on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 03:36 AM EDT
At an article on the site of the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution called Break up Microsoft? Rest of world pooh-poohs the notion (December 2000) they write:
On a global perspective, attacks on the software giant seem puzzling, according to the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution — — a nonpartisan, nonprofit think-tank in Arlington, Va

At this article at you read something completely different:

A Microsoft spokesman confirmed that Microsoft provides funding to the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution.

... De Tocqueville Institute president Ken Brown and chairman Gregory Fossedal refused to comment on whether Microsoft sponsored the report.

"It is not our policy to comment on supporters; I'm sure you can understand. From this you should not infer that information you have is correct or not correct; we just don't comment," Fossedal wrote in an e-mail.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Xenographic on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 03:38 AM EDT
Oddly, the word "misdirection" is all I can think of just now. For
those who do not know, it is a fundamental principle of illusionists to
misdirection with flashes and loud noises so that you will miss where the slight
of hand is actually going on. By managing the attention of the crowd, focusing
it on something noisy and exciting, one misdirects them so that they are
surprised when the magic happens.

It was Enderle who gave me this idea, of all people. You may remember him, for
all his claims about "Linux terrorists" and then trying even to
provoke Linux vs. BSD flamewars in a snotty aside at the end of one of his

You see, it should be obvious to anyone that this is all designed as flamebait.
One would expect people to react vociferously, as is the nature of flamebait.
But what is its use? For our "analysts" in the institute here, it
means money, either in donations from the like-minded, or even hype for their
book. Even those who hate it might be tempted to read it, simply to find out
what they say in it.

As for Microsoft, what do they gain from negative PR, you might ask? I suspect
they want to make themselves out to be a victim. Oh, of course, we certainly
won't buy it, but if voices like Enderle's prevail... well, that's another
matter. The general public, and thus many of Microsoft's customers, probably
won't hear about all this, but they might hear the news Microsoft helps put out,
say on MSNBC or other channels...

How might they become a "victim" you ask? By portraying us as
"reactionary" (even when there may be no "us" to speak of)
and trumping up those who come up with the crazy conspiracy theories to
discredit those who can envision more plausible scenarios. I suspect that they
would simply say that their funding of this group was innocent and incidental,
then some up with some wildly inaccurate conspiracy theory from some random
person on the internet, and use that to discredit all those who see any
significant involvement between the two.

Worse, if (God forbid) anyone got upset enough to do something illegal, we would
all be maligned for it. In such a hostile environment, they may blame even
unrelated misfortunes (such as one's server crashing, or random hardware
failures) on unknown "hackers" ...

So don't get distracted by patent nonsense. Refute it, yes, but always with a
level head, knowing that there are "journalists" like Daniel Lyons of
Forbes who will even stoop to quoting random anonymous comments off the internet
to make it look as though everyone with a differing opinion is a moron, while
SCO has invented fake protesters with fake signs claiming to support communism,
among other things.

So remember, they're not trying to convince us of anything. They're trying to
convince those who know little about these issues and who haven't taken sides

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS-Funded Alexis de Toqueville Institution Attacks Linus, Probably Making Itself a Laughingstock
Authored by: belzecue on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 03:41 AM EDT
My thoughts:

Get angry, but not here on Groklaw. Don't fall into the trap of responding the
way the FUDders want you to react. They want to be able to point and say
"See? Told you so!" When you are emotionally flooded, it's not good
to do anything except relax.

So take some time before responding. Get your mind on something else, then come
back to this outrageous steaming pile. It will smell just as bad, but you'll be
ready to help shovel it out of our yard in a calm, methodical way.

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS-Funded Alexis de Toqueville Institution Attacks Linus, Probably Making Itself a Laughingstock
Authored by: muswell100 on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 03:44 AM EDT
Hmmm. The article given in the link to the Wired site has some interesting bits,
not least of which is the following quote:

'A Microsoft spokesman did say that open-source software is not innately more or
less secure than proprietary software.'

"Microsoft has held the position that security is an industry-wide issue
and software is only one part of it. Implementation and administration are also
key in security."

Funnily enough, I haven't yet come across any version of Linux/Unix that...

1) Randomly allows the execution of any files that have the extension EXE, COM,
BAT, SCR, etc., without a by-your-leave.
2) Leaves over a half-dozen ports/backdoors open by default, regardless of your
PCs connection state.
3) Assigns the equivalent of Administrator rights to any old Tom/Dick or Darl
who may choose to log on (assuming a password is asked for at all, that is)
4) Closely binds non-system-essential components to the core OS (eg: Internet
Explorer), giving rise to further security holes.

Sure you can hack a Linux system just as you can hack Windows, but why hang the
equivalent of a 'Kick Me Hard' sign on your back?

As for the question of whether Linus 'stole' Linux or not, I find this
proposition pretty rich coming (indirectly) from a company that bought it's
first mainstream application (DOS), 'borrowed' technology from the OS community
for it's own products (Internet Explorer) and has used litigation and
intimidation wantonly to get to the position it now occupies in the IT industry.
How do companies like this have the chutzpa to claim the high moral ground when
they themselves obviously occupy a remote chasm at the bottom of the Grand
Canyon somewhere?

Oh, and in case I forget - happy anniversary Groklaw!

[ Reply to This | # ]

In other news...
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 03:51 AM EDT
It was revealed today that Linus Torvalds doesn't actually know C programming
language at all. He was using another person, programming icognito and behind
the scenes, to make Linux out of Unix source code. The whole thing is a
conspiracy of conservative elements of the former Soviet Union to bring back the
communist system through their infiltration of IBM. It is feared that if the
situation isn't corrected promptly, the Earth will stop spinning and the Sun
will stop shining.

[ Reply to This | # ]

-1: you fed the troll.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 03:57 AM EDT
Some claims are so farcical that they don't deserve the oxygen of publicity.
Given the number of sites that simply echo Groklaw on a regular basis, you might
consider that in future.

Are you familiar with the anecdote about Nixon's election campaign? Where he
instructed his minions to spread rumours that his opponent had relations with
farm animals? When it was pointed out that this was ridiculous and untrue, his
answer was "I know, I just want the b*stard to deny it."

Yes, I'm angry too, but I'm not going to be telling anyone about this, as it
doesn't deserve our time or consideration.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ken Brown - possible theory about Lions book
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 04:00 AM EDT
Ken Brown has posted a number of emails on the open-source license discuss
mailing list. Here's an archive of his posts --

Note his latest one from March is a question concerning the Lions book on 6th
Edition Unix. Apparently, he may have concocted some wacky theory about how
Linus stole the 6th Edition code from the Lions book. Of course, if he bothered
to look at the 6th edition code (available on and Linus' early
Linux code, he would see that they are completely different.

Here's his email post --

Subject: History of the Lions Book
From: "Ken Brown" <>
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 10:29:06 -0500

Hello group,

I would like to talk to an expert about early history of Unix and the
publication of the kernel in the Lions book. Feel free to get in touch
with me.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Great link
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 04:02 AM EDT
I went to the Institute's site and looked at the 'backgound' page Here. Click on '2. Accomplishments' and you get '404 Not Found'.

How very true.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Great link - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 08:21 AM EDT
    • Re: Great link - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 10:53 AM EDT
MS-Funded Alexis de Toqueville Institution Attacks Linus, Probably Making Itself a Laughingstoc
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 04:05 AM EDT
Unfortunated the Wired news story quotes an email from an unidentified M$
spokeperson. Most other citations link back to the Wired story. There are a few
other links I found on google that place AdTI in proper perspective, as a
nature-hating, money-grubbing, racist-education organization.
Bradley Foundation, Lynne and Harry

...List of Right-Wing Grantees:
...Alexis de Tocqueville Institution ...
The Right-Wing Affiliations of
Bush Administration Officials

Vice President’s Office
Assistant to the Vice President for Domestic Policy -- Cesar Conda was executive
director of the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, a libertarian think tank.
...Bush’s Corporate Cabinet: Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense ...
... Other positions: ... Alexis de Tocqueville Institution ...
Appendix A

Anti-Environmental Web Sites

The following are the web sites of dozens of organizations involved in the
backlash against environmental regulations. This list is by no means complete,
and due to the rapid growth and rate of change on the internet, some web site
addresses may be obsolete.
...Alexis de Tocqueville Institution
Alexis de Tocqueville Institution
Arlington, VA 22209
Web address:

More info culled by Media Transparency

Total $ Granted: $ 1,723,900
For Years: 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1991 1990 1989
# Grants: 39

The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
Philip M. McKenna Foundation
Koch Family Foundations
David Koch Foundation | Charles Koch Foundation | Claude R. Lambe Foundation
Send Lawyers, Guns and Money:
Lobbying and the Merchants of Death
from the book Washington on $10 million a Day

...Public opinion has also been targeted by a number of prominent defense
intellectuals. The foremost public proponent of the B-2 is Loren Thompson of the
Alexis de Tocqueville Institution in Arlington, an outfit that receives funding
from Northrop. Thompson produces a steady stream of pro-B-2 op-ed articles and
is regularly quoted in the press.
Think tanks at risk for corruption

...Several tank officials and analysts, who spoke to UPI on the condition of
anonymity, said that the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, a small Arlington,
Va.- based think tank that promotes free-market principles, receives a
significant portion of its funding from the Microsoft Corp. The sources said
that the think tank essentially lobbies in favor of issues important to
Microsoft through op-ed pieces and policy briefs by tank officials.

Although no one at de Tocqueville could be reached by deadline, an examination
of their Web sites showed that the think tank has taken positions aligned with
policies that would clearly benefit the computer software giant.

Think tank analysts also told stories of being asked by a Microsoft lobbyist if
it was possible to fund research that supported Microsoft's side in the
government's anti-trust case against the firm.
Opening the Open-Source Debate

Recently, an obscure Washington think-tank, the Alexis de Tocqueville
Institution (AdTI), posted a press release promising a study which
"outlines how open source might facilitate efforts to disrupt or sabotage
electronic commerce, air traffic control or even sensitive surveillance
systems." ...

... Who Funded the Report?

The first and most obvious question that the discerning reader should ask him or
herself is "who funded the report?" Think tanks don't think for free;
they are commissioned to do studies. And very often, who funds a study has a
strong effect on the conclusions of the study.

When I questioned him about the funding source, Gregory Fossedal, head of AdTI,
replied "it isn't our general policy to discuss who does and doesn't fund
de Tocqueville, except in the case of qualified press or public officials who
are willing to make symmetrical disclosures." ...

...However, it is a matter of public record that Microsoft funds the AdTI. It's
also a matter of public record that Microsoft strongly opposes the GPL, the
license under which Linux is released.

And, coincidentally, the author of the AdTI study seems particularly perturbed
by the GPL. ...,1411,52973,00.html

...A Microsoft spokesman confirmed that Microsoft provides funding to the Alexis
de Tocqueville Institution.

"We support a diverse array of public policy organizations with which we
share a common interest or public policy agenda such as the de Tocqueville
Institution," the spokesman wrote in an e-mail.

Microsoft did not respond to requests for comment on whether the company
directly sponsored the debate paper. De Tocqueville Institute president Ken
Brown and chairman Gregory Fossedal refused to comment on whether Microsoft
sponsored the report. ...
Caught in the Act

When asked whether Microsoft offered the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution
financial compensation for its research, a Microsoft representative later
admitted that the company did in fact offer funding to the research company.

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS-Funded Alexis de Toqueville Institution Attacks Linus, Probably Making Itself a Laughingstoc
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 04:10 AM EDT

Bloke writes book. Bloke makes outrageous comments. Book sells.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Linux drafted by an Open Standard Lead article
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 04:19 AM EDT
This line of FUD attack (perfectly in line with SCOG's attack) is rather easy to
debunk, and expose for the rediculus nonsense that it is: Linux is drafted after
the POSIX open standard, now merged with the Open Group's Single Unix
Specication. The lattter which was delibirately created and designed to be an
Open Standard by a SCOG's predecessor in interest: Novell.

Any one in for a group effort? A short, to the point, ironic piece would have
the highest anti-FUD impact, I think.

(To me this latest FUD makes perfectly that the dark side is trying to redefine
"implementing a compatible implementation" as "stealing", as
copyright infringment. To me this latest FUD, together, with all kind of lawyers
repeating the anti-GPL nonsense that we hear from MS and SCOG, and the SCOG's
attempt to rewrite history and the law (Similarrights) such that Linux becomes
"illeagal" by SCOG lawbooks make it perfectly clear that this is a
coordinated, prepared FUD campaign.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Looks like AdTi ate its earlier FUD and regurgitated this "gem"
Authored by: Hydra on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 04:31 AM EDT

See my post here about David F. "Roaring Penguin" Skoll's article about an older Microsoft sponsored *cough* independent AdTi study called "Opening the Open-Source Debate".

It appears to me that AdTi swallowed their Open Source Is A Bad Thing™ article --there is no mention of it at all on their website now-- and had the good ol' stomach acids work on it so it could be regurgitated as this new FUD.

And the analogy doesn't stop just there. This sour stinking pool of upchucked FUD makes me retch. In soccer terms, they have decided to play the man instead of the ball. Time for the ref to hand out a card. A red one.

[sarcasm]Well done AdTi![/sarcasm]

[ Reply to This | # ]

OK, I don't get it.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 04:44 AM EDT
If Unix is the most copied (and therefore popular) OS in history, didn't M$ miss
the boat?

[ Reply to This | # ]

AST and RMS on Linus
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 04:49 AM EDT
Linus has done quite a bit to annoy RMS ("Linux isn't free enough")
and AST
("Linux isn't Minix"), so it's probably not terribly hard to get a
quote that can
be misused for a "study".

[ Reply to This | # ]

All your code are belong to US
Authored by: Richard Reynolds on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 04:59 AM EDT
This makes me really mad:

'we should really be asking how much longer can we continually export the U.S.
IP economy to every (and any) global competitor at no cost?'

I've been releasing OSS as have thousands of others in UK as have millions of
others in every country on this planet. Linux and OSS is what it is because
pritty much every race on this planet that has access to a computer has put
something into it or OSS.

Linux is not something the US exports, its something they as part of the global
comunity of developers contribue to.

All this greed and IP land grabbing is truly depressing to me. It stinks of
times past in the US when for example GM destoryed your tram infrastructure so
their cars would take off.

Thankfully this time people are watching and the few greedy self interested
people involved in creating this will reap what they sow.

[ Reply to This | # ]

My guess ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 05:10 AM EDT
without seeing it, is that the study itself states the obvious:
- linux was inspired by unix and minix. Thus it many of the concepts did not
originate with linus.
- large parts were developed by people other than linus, so much of the actual
code was not written by him.
- what is usually called 'linux' is actually mostly software from many other
projects, with the kernal only being a small part. Since they talked to the FSF,
perhaps it's the old GNU/Linux argument.

Then the press release (and perhaps the study itself) spins all of the above as
"linus didn't write linux". Which is in fact true, in the limited
sense described above.

If I am right, it is less about outright lies than about presenting some rather
well known, obvious conclusions as something new and shocking. Which is of
course much safer than outright libel.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Alexis de Toqueville Institution: Study reveals: All plays by Shakespeare are a forgery
Authored by: BJ on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 05:23 AM EDT
Breaking News New study by the Alexis de Toqueville Institution reveals that Shakespeare never existed. All plays and works attributed to him were in reality done by a person who looks like him and who was also called 'Shakespeare'.

|Encountered Proprietary Standard and/or Patented Protocol.
|Choose method of payment

[ Reply to This | # ]

Same-Funded Alexis de Toqueville & Cato In$titute$
Authored by: LionKuntz on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 05:43 AM EDT
Since the same funders that fund AdTI and TechCentralStation fund Cato
Institute, I thought I would look up what Cato has to say about Open Source
Software or Linux. These are the results I got looking for OSS or Linux:

...Unfortunately, the public health field is not the only one in which the
argument against the ownership of ideas is gaining ground. Today, governments
around the globe are being asked to use only computer software that is available
under an open-source license. The General Public License (GPL) is the most
common license and is used for the most popular open-source software package,
the Linux computer operating system. Although many Linux and open-source
software users are content to co-exist with the for-profit world, the GPL can
quickly suffocate intellectual property rights. The GPL allows anyone to
distribute copies of open-source software for free or use the source code to
create a derivative software program. But if anyone uses some of the Linux code
in creating a derivative work or complementary program, that software, too, must
be distributed for free and its source code made available to all. Adherents of
the GPL refer to the system as "copyleft," fully understanding that it
forces any proprietary software maker who wants to use code licensed under the
GPL to surrender its intellectual property to the commons. ...
Results 1 - 23 of about 36 from for linux

Anti-Microsoft Conservatives: They Just Don't Get It

"Antitrust enforcement should ... be seen not as 'regulation' but as an
alternative to regulation." That apostasy appears in a letter sent to
members of Congress by a group of Reagan-era antitrust officials. Today, the
list of conservative defectors is swelling, according to a Progress and Freedom
Foundation paper, "In Defense of Antitrust: Conservatives and the Microsoft
Findings." Indeed, applauds the author, "a growing number of
conservatives are calling for what would seem the most drastic of remedies: a
Microsoft breakup." ...

How Not to Define Business Monopoly

The 1998 Microsoft antitrust case seems finally settled, but it is hard to be
completely sure about private suits, the states and the European Union. One
reason we cannot be entirely certain this foolishness is over is that the
Appeals Court judges never took a close enough look at the original
"findings of fact," particularly the abuse of market share figures to
prove monopoly. Since that label stuck, it still invites legal harassment. ...

U.S. v. Microsoft: Time for a Reality Check

Here it is, the centerpiece of the government's crusade against Microsoft,
verbatim from its 800-page proposed "Findings of Fact" deposited with
federal judge Thomas Penfield Jackson on August 10: "Microsoft
substantially impeded the most effective channels of distribution . . . and,
ultimately, effectively eliminated Netscape as a platform threat." Does
anyone, even within the sequestered halls of the Justice Department, really
believe that rubbish? ...

Social Engineering by Legal Brief

If you can't send in bureaucrats, you can send in lawyers. That seems to be the
new strategy of the social engineers. Destroy the tobacco industry and gun
makers through liability lawsuits. Ruin Microsoft with federal and state
antitrust actions and assorted private cases. Set precedents to apply against
any company in any market. ...

Microsoft, Decision Two

Do you surf the Internet with a Microsoft browser? If so, federal judge Thomas
Penfield Jackson and the Justice Department want you to know that your choices
have been unfairly curtailed by the predatory and monopolistic practices of the
Microsoft Corporation. Even without evidence that consumers were harmed, Judge
Jackson ruled that Microsoft violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. His opinion is
remarkable for its naive view of the business world and its skepticism about
healthy competition. ...

[PDF] The Legacy of US v. Microsoft
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
... Page 3. ANTITRUST tems, with Apple and Linux as other notable players. On
... Others? (set- top, wireless) MS Windows Apple, Linux, others? ... - Similar pages

[PDF] Microsoft Redux: Anatomy of a Baseless Lawsuit
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
... (Sun’s Solaris system doesn’t count because it isn’ta single-user system.)
Linux came too late to be included in DOJ’s market share calculations. ... - Similar pages

[PDF] Microsoft’s Appealing Case
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
... 2 6 Those devices include wireless PDAs and cellphones from such industry
leaders as Palm and Nokia; Linux-based Internet devices from AOL-Gateway;
powerful ... - Similar pages

[PDF] All the Facts That Fit: Square Pegs and Round Holes in US v. ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Page 1. Alt hough dozens of jou rna li sts sp ent long days in the cou rt ro om
and thousa nds of stories ab out the trial app ea ... - Similar pages

Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don't?
... The first famous "internet worm" of 1988, however, was aimed at
Sun3 and VAX computers. Recent Linux worms include cheese, lion, ramen and
slappen. ... - 50k - May 16, 2004 -
Cached - Similar pages

Microsoft is no monopoly
... The answer, unequivocally, is no. First, roughly 1 customer in 8 doesn't use
Microsoft. Alternatives are avail -- MacOS, Unix, OS/2 and Linux to name a few.
... - 47k - May 16, 2004 - Cached - Similar pages

Rewriting the Rules for High-tech Antitrust
... Whether a user has MacOS, Unix, Linux or any other system, as long as he is
running a Web browser he has much the same capabilities as a Windows user. ... - 53k - May 16, 2004 - Cached - Similar pages

Microsoft's Illusory Barrier to Entry
... entry barrier. Moreover, many of the programs were written for non-Windows
operating systems like Linux, Apple and IBM. Many others ... - 50k - Cached - Similar pages

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS-Funded Alexis de Toqueville Institution Attacks Linus, Probably Making Itself a Laughingstoc
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 06:06 AM EDT
Obviously, *some* of what is alleged is true. Linus didn't 'discover' or
'invent' the Linux kernel, he 'developed' it.
Just as obvious, he used existing information to develop it from. Of course, he
did not volunteer that there are legitimate sources to draw from, which is what
Linus claims to have used. I think any infringement if it exists, would be
upstream from him, say, the Minix guy or some such...

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS-Funded Alexis de Toqueville Institution Attacks Linus, Probably Making Itself a Laughingstock
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 06:27 AM EDT
The guys at ADTI probably just listened to RMS a little too long. Stallman says
on his web page, "Today, Linux-based variants of the GNU system, based on
the kernel Linux developed by Linus Torvalds, are in widespread use. There are
estimated to be some 20 million users of GNU/Linux systems today."

The GNU website says, "Welcome to the GNU Project web server,
The GNU Project was launched in 1984 to develop a complete UNIX style operating
system which is free software: the GNU system. (GNU is a recursive acronym for
“GNU's Not UNIX”; it is pronounced “guh-noo.”) Variants of the GNU operating
system, which use the kernel Linux, are now widely used; though these systems
are often referred to as “Linux,” they are more accurately called GNU/Linux

In this version of reality the system is the GNU system, which Linus did not

Well maybe. Maybe not. But, the ADTI press release flows easily from
Stallman's statements.

Not all FUD comes from Redmond, some comes from Cambridge.

[ Reply to This | # ]

its a landgrab
Authored by: Paul Shirley on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 06:27 AM EDT
What's really going on has nothing to do with theft, UNIX or Linux. Its the continuing efforts by some commercial entities to redefine accepted software industry practice as theft.

Software has traditionally been protected by secrecy, copyright and hardware lockin. If you could write your own clean version of anything no-one would try hard to stop you. Its what allows standards like POSIX to exist and benefits almost all computer users.

The PC and various legal actions against mainframe manufacturers removed hardware lockin. Microsoft is hell bent on bringing it back through its various 'security' initiatives.

Trade secrets have become largely ineffective as the programming community has grown, many eyes mean secrets are worked around quickly. The DMCA is partly a response to that.

Copyright only stops actual theft of work.

We're in a world where borrowing of ideas is the accepted way of working and copyright and trade secret defences aren't slowing down that borrowing. Its hardly surprising the commercial response is to redefine the normal development process as theft. They tried it with the look&feel cases of the 1980's. They achieved the misuse of patents for software.

This is just the next stage, where copyright itself is redefined to mean something much more flexible. Apply SCOGs circular logic and assume that winning a case sets a precedent and a possible precedent allows them to bring a case... assume just sharing ideas is theft and then Linus really did 'steal' UNIX. Problem is, we don't define software theft that way, its just wishful thinking, thinking that could equally be applied to the sponsors of this claim. After all there were clearly command line interfaces before Microsoft existed, therefore they must have stolen the idea.

Its an all out assault on the entire industry to snatch control from individuals in favour of corporate interests. Don't get angry about the specific mud throwing, get angry about the attempt to redefine copyright, the mud won't stick if we win the copyright fight.

[ Reply to This | # ]

**INVENTED** ???
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 06:39 AM EDT
Software is *NOT* invented. How often do you read that someone
"invented" photoshop...And MS "invented" windows" ? LOL
they didn't invent anything. We should try to get a headline out "DOS was
not invented by Bill Gates".
Developed, created, there are many terms that apply, but software is certainly
not invented.

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS-Funded Alexis de Toqueville Institution Attacks Linus, Probably Making Itself a Laughingstoc
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 06:40 AM EDT
I have a feeling that is message was ment for people in the european parliament
to get them vote for the scam that the BSA pulled by letting the european
comission and individual member states screw all the needed changes in their
patent polici.
Not for us though.

I guess that in the end they will lobby for laws that are despickable at least,
this is why I wont stop helping and fighting for GPL and OS because if we loose
this fight it will be felt by many generations after us.

Bas Burger

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS-Funded Alexis de Toqueville Institution Attacks Linus, Probably Making Itself a Laughingstoc
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 06:43 AM EDT
<i> For almost thirty years, programmers have tried and failed to
successfully build a Unix-like system and couldn't.</i>

Does this mean the authors of Unix failed to build a Unix-like system?

[ Reply to This | # ]

de Tocqueville Institution web site
Authored by: lordmhoram on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 06:51 AM EDT
From the de Tocqueville Institution's mission statement

"Since 1988, the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution has studied the spread
and perfection of democracy around the world."

I think the appropriate acronym is ROTFLMHO or something similar.

(Lot of broken links on that page also - most amusingly the one which is
supposed to link to "accomplishments". Also, interestingly,
"Staff & associates" is not a link.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Alien programmers from outer space
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 06:53 AM EDT
Where is the National Enquirer when you need it?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Alexis would find this funny...
Authored by: PSaltyDS on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 06:59 AM EDT
All this FUD used to fight Linux might be amusing to Alexis de Tocqueville himself.

From the Wikipedia page on him: "Alexis de Tocqueville once observed that it is easier for the world to accept a simple lie than a complex truth."

The FUDsters seem to have staked their new litigous business model on repeating the simple lie as often and in as many ways as possible.


"Any technology distinguishable from magic is insuficiently advanced." - Geek's Corrolary to Clarke's Law

[ Reply to This | # ]

So depressing.
Authored by: senectus on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 06:59 AM EDT
My first reaction was to swear.. then to act violently :-P

Now its more like despair. This is the way they do business.. and 9/10 times it
works.. someone makes very damaging comments, with vague accusations that never
really claim anything that would hold water but all the same just saying it has
They either say these things because they were paid to or because it's
"sensational" and therefore will make money.
Then the parties that gain from this FUD-CRUD (Fear Uncertainty Doubt Created by
Ruthless Unscrupulous Deviants), use it in major press releases by
"quoting" from it and insinuating that the story "is a very
serious matter" thereby implying that they believe its true.

It's so incredibly depressing that they get away with it because being honest
and using truth and the facts doesn't sell as many clicks/newspapers/TV time.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Torvalds claim to "invent" Linux probably false.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 07:11 AM EDT
Torvalds claim to "invent" Linux probably false, says new study.

I always love it when there is a new "study" that has been done. I
would suggest they go study a bit more.

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS-Funded Alexis de Toqueville Institution Attacks Linus, Probably Making Itself a Laughingstoc
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 07:25 AM EDT
'There is absolutely no point in writing to the Institution'

I don't thinks so. Pleas read following article:

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS-Funded Alexis de Toqueville Institution Attacks Linus, Probably Making Itself a Laughingstoc
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 07:27 AM EDT
Of course "open source" software is "devaluing IT". It
devalues the current business model of IT. What ATI, MS, and SCO fail to mention
is the same thing that Valenti and the Media Conglomerate plays down: it
devalues the current model in favor of a different one; which is also
profitable. The new model simply threatens their established model. In a fully
competetive economic ecosystem, the old model would have to adapt, or fail in
its obsolecense, unable to survive.

What we have here, as in the music industry, is a paradigm shift that has been
frozen in transit -- the last mile before delivery, in fact. I don't know if
this has been documented in history; but maybe it can be closest tied to the
Church's interference against Copernicus back in the day.

[ Reply to This | # ]

How do you imitate or steal
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 07:49 AM EDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS-Funded Alexis de Toqueville Institution Attacks Linus, Probably Making Itself a Laughingstoc
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 07:51 AM EDT
These FUD-meisters keep referring to Linux as a "controversial operating
system." It appears to me, although I may be biased, that the only thing making
Linux "controversial" is the fact that these people keep calling it
"controversial." Microsoft has had to deal with a lot more legal stuff than
Linux, so wouldn't it be right to refer to Windows as the "controversial
operating system called Windows?" One lawsuit doesn't make something
controversial. Maybe, since that McDonalds thing a few years back, we should
also start calling coffee a "controversial beverage."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Guilt by Association
Authored by: snorpus on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 07:52 AM EDT
Note that while the press release lists Stallman, Ritchie, and Tannenbaum as being among those interviewed, it does not indicate what they said.

The impression that AdTI wants the reader to get is that they agree with the assertions of the PR, while in fact we have no indication at all of what any of them said, or if they agree with how their comments have been interpreted.

73/88 de KQ3T ---
Montani Semper Liberi

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS-Funded slapstick routine
Authored by: icebarron on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 07:54 AM EDT
This is definately the most laughable thing I have ever heard come from any source. Let's see now...hmmm. code (sic)is often taken or adapted without permission from material owned by other companies and individuals. This sounds more like Billy Gates than Linus. After all who pays for stolen code more often???
Get a life Bill! If you can't innovate, retire on your stolen wealth and live a miserable life with what few TRUE friends you claim to have.
as someone else has signed off before:
Don't steal Microsloth doesn't like competition

[ Reply to This | # ]

Parody of press release
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 08:02 AM EDT

I say "parody" but the only valid interpretation for the original PR[1] seems to apply to Windows just as well.

[1]- That being that Linus re-implemented a lot of very good ideas, and that he and others have also come up with useful ways to solve other problems not addressed in the classic implementation of Unix.

Microsoft claim to "invent" Windows probably false, says new study

Thu Apr 1, 12:00 AM

Redmond, WA (SatirePress) Apr 1, 2004 - Popular but controversial "proprietary" computer software, often written on a for-profit basis, is often taken or adapted without permission from material owned by other companies and individuals, a study by the Biased Jokers Institution finds. Among other points, the study directly challenges Microsoft Corporation's claim to be the inventor of Windows. In one of the few extensive studies on the source of proprietary code, Curly Joker, president of BJI, traces the proprietary software movement over its less-than-three decade life -- from its ranty beginning, through its evolution to a club that encourages convicted corporations to build up $50 billion war chests. Joker's account is based on extensive interviews with more than two leading technologists including Bill Gates, Werner von Braun, and more who have been interviewed by third parties.

"The report," according to Unbiased Mole, a Biased Jokers senior fellow, "raises important questions that all developers and users of proprietary software must face. While you cannot group all proprietary software and companies together; many are rigorous and respectful of the unspecified intellectual property rights, while others mismatch semicolons and commas. Go figure."

Joker suggests the invention of VMS is an integral part of the Windows story commenting, "It is clear that even narrow interest in the VMS operating system made VMS one of the premier sources of Windows NT design ideas because Microsoft hired a bunch of ex-VMS engineers." Joker writes, "Over the years, many have envied the startling and pervasive success of Windows. For almost ten years, governments have tried and failed to successfully make Microsoft comply with anti-trust laws and couldn't. To this day, we have a serious open market problem in computers because people have chosen to scrupulously exploit monopoly positions." [I apologize for the poor grammar - the original was so.]

Joker's study is part of a book he is writing in hopes to bag a cushy expert witness gig during future anti-trust trials. Excerpts from the book cannot be redistributed; all your copyright are belong to us.

[ Reply to This | # ]

They're right ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 08:06 AM EDT
Unix is the most stolen operating system of all time. It was stolen from
researchers at the University of California.

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS-Funded Alexis de Toqueville Institution Attacks Linus, Probably Making Itself a Laughingstoc
Authored by: jrbrtsn on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 08:15 AM EDT

The primary underlying assumption for all FUD attacks claiming that GPL software is evil is this:

   Generosity is a bad thing.

Unfortunately for Microsoft and their shills, most of us learned that generosity is a good thing by the time we entered kindergarten. Sharing is a virtue.

Folks like Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds have donated immeasurably to mankind, and have received relatively little in the way of tangible compensation. Microsoft donates a paltry fraction of their profits to charity, probably only for PR reasons.

As our lives become increasingly dependent on software, remember this:

"Whoever controls the software controls our lives. It had better be us."

stolen quote

Keep that in mind when deciding which software you will support.

[ Reply to This | # ]

NEWSFLASH - SD SCO Named to the SD Times 100
Authored by: dodger on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 08:18 AM EDT
For the complete article:

"Each year, the editors of BZ Media's SD Times 100 look for companies and
influencers which set the technical and market leadership for the software
development industry," said Alan Zeichick, editor-in-chief of SD Times.
"When choosing the 2004 SD Times 100, we carefully considered each
organization's offerings and reputation with developers, as well as the
attention and conversation we've heard around the company and its products and
technologies, as a sign of leadership within the industry."

Are these more MS Stooges? (Hey. Cut that out!)

As usual, the SCO Group are named 'the owner of the UNIX operating system'.

No need to panic. I am the owner of the Brooklyn Bridge, the Golden Gate Bridge,
most of europe and asian, not to mention the fact that Bill Gates shines my
shoes. (We took him off of cleaning windows, cause the windows kept crashing!)

[ Reply to This | # ]

which would have been valuable intellectual property
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 08:22 AM EDT
I think this says its all!

Not only IS it "valuable intellectual property", but is it free to the
world for the betterment of society. Through an incredible feat of philanthropy,
an extremely talented group of programmers, hackers, and hobbyists, have proven
that a community effort via global communications is not only a viable
development solution, but also a powerful force in the software industry.

They are grasping at straws at this point and it's quite amusing to watch. Linux
is eating into MS's server share and mind share of CIO's world wide. Even the
people that aren't using or piloting Linux at this point are talking about it.
They are shooting blanks at this point, reminds me of this joke:

Three FBI candidates are in the running for a single spot on the team. They call
them to their final test. The first, a man, is handed a gun, told his wife is in
the next room and that he must go in the and shoot her. He immediately breaks
down and states that there is no way he could shoot his wife. They tell him he
is not the man for the job. The second, also a man, is put to the same test. He
takes the gun, enters the room, shortly after that he comes back in tears and
says that he just couldn't do it. They also show him the door. The third
candidate, a woman, is given the same test with her husband. She takes the gun,
enters the room, shots are heard, then lots of screaming, finally silence. She
exits the room, sweaty and disheveled. "The gun had blanks", she says,
"So I had to beat him to death with the chair"

Things don't always go as planned......

[ Reply to This | # ]

How many ways do I FUD thee?
Authored by: inode_buddha on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 08:28 AM EDT
Let me count the ways....<p>Linus did not invent UNIX, and the ADTI
*certainly* didn't invent the English language. Now, if they will excuse me,
I've got to go repair some bad routing tables. With apologies to PJ for my
"quote of the year", my lip will remain curled.

Truly, if Te is strong in one then all one needs to do is sit on one's ass, and
the corpse of one's enemy shall be carried past shortly.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: SCO is honored by SD Times as a :"leader"
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 08:28 AM EDT
SD Times honors SCO as innovative company here

[ Reply to This | # ]

Economic Damage
Authored by: arch_dude on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 09:09 AM EDT
This piece of yellow journalism/corporate propaganda "discusses" the
purported economic damage of Open Source. It neglects to mention the direct
economic damage of the Microsoft Tax. For a typical workplace desktop, the
Microsoft software (defacto mandatory due to monopoly practice) costs more than
the hardware. This is a drag on the economy that is equivalent to a 100% tax on
these computers.

There is NO technical benefit to business to offset this cost. It's merely a
cost of doing business, imposed by Microsoft's monopoly standards-setting

The blood-sucking dinosaurs alledge that these obscene profits are justified in
order to generate revenue to drive further innovation, and that software
innovation will cease if revenue ceases. This is false: Open Source innovates
more quickly than Microsoft does. In software, necessity, not profit, is the
mother of invention.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: DOD is suing Alexis De Toqueville institute!
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 09:16 AM EDT
"Alexis de Toqueville" bears a strikingly strong auditory resemblance
to "Axis of Evil(TM)", a trademark recently registered by Donald
Rumsfeld. Thus, to protect this trademark, the DOD is going to sue the Alexis de
Toqueville Institue and ask for a punishment of $100000 for each day this name
continues to be used.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCOG and Evidence
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 09:22 AM EDT

Hmm... Keep their article in mind while browsing the future SCOG court filings. I wouldn't be surprised if this shows up as part of SCOG's "evidence" that Linux contains Unix.


[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: SCO name dropped from Vintela Authentication product
Authored by: belzecue on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 09:22 AM EDT

"The successor to SCO Authentication 2.1 for Microsoft Active Directory,
SCO has renamed its secure identity management product to reflect a closer
relationship with its partner, Vintela, Inc."

... or the more likely reasons: 1) Vintela doesn't want their product to go down
the toilet with SCO; 2) Nobody will buy a product with the SCO name on it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Need a directory of low-value sources
Authored by: Scorpio on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 09:22 AM EDT
Just as acocuntants have GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles), we
need GUIS (Generally Useless Information Sources). This would be a directory of
sources which should be ignored in terms of accuracy, but can still be read for
humor and insight into troubled minds. Such a listing would include Life
Members such as Microsoft and SCO. This Institute would certainly have passed
the first screening for stupidity and inaccuracy.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Press Trolling
Authored by: capitalist_pig on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 09:32 AM EDT
I think this and some of the other howler articles that have been posted here
are great examples of what might be a new phenomenon: press and special interest
group trolling.

Basically, people have figured out that you can generate a lot of interest by
saying very inflammatory things and then you can use that interest to:

- Generate traffic
- Sell books
- Promote yourself by creating "buzz"
- Generate revenue from special interests

I think it's important to debunk this kind of trolling, but at the same time I
think that we should avoid feeding the trolls too much.

I am personally waiting for Linus to call them on this. I know he's a quiet
man, but I think that it is almost his duty for both personal and professional
reasons to call them out on this nonsense. Before he speaks, I don't think we
should make too much noise.

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS-Funded FUD
Authored by: wvhillbilly on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 09:35 AM EDT
First we have open source. Now we have open libel.

What goes around comes around, and it grows as it goes.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Another point: MS stole the GUI
Authored by: capitalist_pig on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 09:36 AM EDT
I think there's another important point to make: Microsoft stole the GUI from
Apple who stole it from Xerox who stole it from Stanford.

That could have been "valuable intellectual property" as well until
this gang of theves got their hands on it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Tokeville (Toqueville)
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 09:39 AM EDT
Isn't that right next to Margaritaville ?

Sure, it's where CHEECH and CHONG grew up.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Linus stole from Unix,
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 09:40 AM EDT
then everything that happened and surfaced in the last year, suddenly makes

[ Reply to This | # ]

Qualifications? I'm doubting he's got any.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 09:49 AM EDT

Just what are Brown's qualifications or credentials that make him an expert on operating systems and open source software. Who'd buy this book? Who the heck would publish it? Some publisher of vanity coffee table books perhaps?

I'd more likely buy and read a book about OSS and operating systems written by Cokie Roberts or even Fabio than I would from this paid character assassin.


[ Reply to This | # ]

SD Times 100
Authored by: lanthus on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 09:50 AM EDT
SCO has a press release stating that they have been named to the SD Times 100.

LINDON, Utah, May 17 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- The SCO(R) Group (SCO) (Nasdaq: SCOX), the owner of the UNIX operating system and a leading provider of UNIX-based solutions, today announced the company has been named to the 2004 SD Times 100. SCO was recognized for its influence in software development as owners of the UNIX Operating System.

Although it seems they'd like to think they're getting the honor for the great work they do with Unix here's what the SD Times 100 says.

The company’s legal assaults on IBM and Linux users dominated 2003’s tech headlines and shook up the open-source community. No other IT topic inspires such fervent debate, fear, uncertainty and doubt.

Sounds to me they're getting Kudos as the biggest FUD slingers in town.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • SD Times 100 - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 10:12 PM EDT
If they are a study they must publish their methods and sources.
Authored by: shadowman99 on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 09:54 AM EDT
When these guys publish they will discredit themselves. A serious
"study" must publish or make available all of their notes. Omisions
will be easy to detect. I have a feeling that these guys 'probably' are making
most of this up out of thin air, and we will be able to see this when they
publish their book.

[ Reply to This | # ]

More Tokeville Stank
Authored by: Tim Ransom on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 09:58 AM EDT
Apparently, this is just the latest of Mr. Brown's gibberings. This guy is prolific - it's as if he's on a steady drip of mental Ex-Lax.

If you go to (I believe the acronym stands for Always Defer To Idiots) you can find Mr. Brown's spoor smeared from stem to stern.

Unfettered by reality, the Tokeville Institute not only ignores things like the possible relationship between the names 'Linus' and 'Linux' (D'oh!), they publish a steady stream of inanities calculated to make your blood boil.

Here's a little gem entitled 'Open Source Software May Offer Target for Terrorists' from back in 2002. I would suggest you find an eraser to squeeze before subjecting yourselves to this one.

Maybe Rant for Rent Rob was simply a red herring to distract people from these guys. At any rate, I nominate Kenneth Brown as Underassistant FUDmeister #1. Now that Dunderle has been relegated to the funny papers, I believe the aptly named Mr. Brown is ripe for a little boot leather himself. Let's see if we can draw him out.

All I see is press releases. Has anyone ever read any of Tokeville's actual 'reports' or 'studies'?

Thanks again,

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS-Funded Alexis de Toqueville Institution Attacks Linus, Probably Making Itself a Laughingstoc
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 09:59 AM EDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrected - Canopy's fingerprints all over this
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 10:01 AM EDT
I posted this in "Corrections" accidentally..... This is same post,
but with additional bit at the end.


During the 1998 Caldera v Microsoft trial, there was another book:

"Microsoft File: The Secret Case Against Bill Gates." by Wendy Goldman

ISBN 0-8129-2716-8

This book came out during the trial and was extremely damaging (in a PR way) to

People that Rohm is known to have extensively talked to (she has quotes from
private meetings at Novell and WordPerfect for example), are, or very close to:

1. Duff Thompson (then Chief counsel Word Perfect, then at Novell -- today on
SCO board!)

2. Dan Campbell (then CFO Word Perfect, then at Novell -- today on SCO board!)

3. Ray Noorda (then former CEO of Novell -- today owner of Canopy)

4. David Boies (then a DOJ lawyer -- today a SCO lawyer!)

Regarding numbers 1, 2, and 3. In Rohm's book we even get to discovery which
flights Thompson and Campbell took. What they said to each other at certain
meetings. We get to read Noorda's gibberish poems. How this is relevant to the
theme of Rohm's book, I do not know. But it certainly reads like people 1, 2
and 3 were major sources, and perhaps a big egogistical.

Next go back and read the news archive for 1998.

Microsoft were very upset when Rohm's book came out. There is even speculation
that her book was part of the reason they settled.

Why were Microsoft upset? Because all sorts of confidential information (e.g.
depositions etc.) that they had given Caldera in discovery, ... just happened to
be in Rohm's book.

Microsoft wanted to find out who Rohm's sources were. Rohm refused to tell them
her sources, but she did half-heartedly deny Caldera was the source (even if you
believe her, of course that leaves open Canopy for example).

This new book, follows the same pattern. The press release is even similar!

(Maybe CNET could track over some changes in Word and find some hidden info in

The other two big clues that the book was SCO inspired:

- "intellectual prooperty rights" in the press release. Not
copyright, not patents, not trade secrets, but the same vague Darlism

- "unix operating system". The only companies that believes that unix
is an operating system and not a standard, or family of operating systemS, are
Canopy and SCO. Even Sun and Microsoft don't agree with Canopy/SCO on this.

- the concept that "unix operating system" is a single piece of
software that can be owned outright by one entity is in the press release. it
isn't explicitly stated by it's implied. Again even Sun and MS do not agree --
they know that some versions contain their code, for example, and even have
received considerable royalties on the basis of that code.

- (weaker) there are a couple of sentences in there that look to me like they
were written by Darl and Kevin. Read carefully you can see what I mean.


It is not impossible that MS may have tipped off SCO/Caldera to talk to these
ADTI people, or helped them make a connection, or even fund the report

But the source material, at least in the press release, matches SCO/Caldera's
take on things -- not Microsoft's

And it matches Canopy/Caldera's past history, surprisingly closely, even right
down to the people involved.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Stolen product
Authored by: kberrien on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 10:06 AM EDT
>and stolen products in the history of computer science.

I assume they mean "stolen code", else Windows would be the most
stolen "pirated" OS. How about the Xerox PARC GUI, "stolen"
by Apple, MS, and everyone else...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Plenty of MS "cabbage" behind this study.
Authored by: seanlynch on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 10:07 AM EDT

P.J. You are almost correct with your horror movie analogy:

"Maybe Linus would lie and steal other people's code if it's like that movie, "Invasion of the Cabbage People", or whatever that horror movie was called, where people's brains were taken over, and they were then pliable and did things they never would do as their true selves."

However, I don't think it is Linus who has been taken over by the cabbages.

The "cabbage" Is from Redmond, Washington. It is amazing how little cabbage needs to be spread around in order to warp people's will and have them make such false claims. Ken Brown's brain has been taken over. He is like a computer infected with one of those spam generating windows worms. Only the cabbage worms in Mr. Brown's brain produce FUD not spam.

To quote Theodore Geisel:

"Mr. Brown can moo! Can You?"

Mr. Brown can produce B.S. too!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Possible Misinterpretation of RMS?
Authored by: billposer on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 10:15 AM EDT

Seeing Richard Stallman's name listed so prominently as one of Brown's sources made me wonder since RMS has had nothing to do with the development of the Linux kernel and is not known particularly as a historian of Unix. It occurs to me that the connection might be that the AdTI study will try to make use of the Linux vs. GNU/Linux debate. I can see how someone uninformed, or intentionally spreading FUD, could take RMS's point that Linus didn't create, or even initiate the creation of, the system as a whole but just the kernel, which filled a gap in the long-standing GNU project, and misleadingly restate this as: "Linus didn't invent Linux; he stole a big chunk of it." Since like everyone else I haven't seen the report this is pure speculation, but it seems plausible.

To forestall flames, I'm not criticizing RMS's position, with which I agree, nor on the other hand am I denigrating Linus' enormous contribution of the kernel. I'm just suggesting what an anti-FOSS propagandist might do with this.

[ Reply to This | # ]

When will Groklaw start doing press releases?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 10:20 AM EDT

Two can play at this game. The independent, impartial,
and well regarded Groklaw analysis team should come out
with some of its own press releases.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT Totally - Who controls the internet??
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 10:24 AM EDT
Who controls the information.

When the big viruses etc. started seriously affecting things a couple of years
ago, it seemed to me that the best place to go, very often,to find out what was
happening, was Google Groups. You could pick up on some Admin talk, somewhere,
and make your mind up about what was going on.

I don't remember the name of the virus, but approx 2 years ago, an event
happened over the weekend, which took down everything in sight, but did not do
any real damage, except everyone had to work hard to get everything back for
South Korea was worse hit, but it effected the world.

The event was suspicious, everyone was looking at internet stats for the next
couple of weeks, and not a few felt that it wasn't an accident.

At the time, it became apparent from some military.alt type groups that this may
not have been unexpected. Certainly, plenty of people were tuning in to them.
Try some INQ etc. articles from the time. Many people felt it was an attempt to
get them to patch their systems in case of cyber terrorism following 9/11.

Some time later, when Iraq was invaded, I went back to the mil.alt groups
because the info you could get was so much more informative than the news. Ex
soldiers actually go and watch and they know what is going on. (This is not new,
more people watched the charge of The Light Brigade from ships offshore than
actually took part in the battle).

Approx. 1 year passes.

Because of the recent prisoner abuse stuff, I thought I'd try the mil.alt groups
again. Nothing, their all gone. More than that, I can't find much that you could
call first hand information on Iraq at all in any groups or anywhere.

I have been carefull here, not to say whether I support the war or not. That is
not the point. BUT:

Who controls the internet??
Who controls Google??
Who controls your information??
Who controls the Patent laws in the EU??
Who controls the outcome of court cases??

I've left my tin foil hat behind.
I think I'll write a letter next time its important.

Brian S.

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS Assumptions
Authored by: shareme on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 10:26 AM EDT
MS Assumes that the opne community functions like corporations in rewriting
hsitory once technology become spoppular..

However Linux, Open Osurce, and Free Source are not like firms such as MS and
SUN( the Sun case rewriting the story to place Gosling as father of
java..true he wrote the compliler..but there were others involved in fathering
java) in that everything is out inth eopen and thus its very hard to a consensus
to rewrite history with so many voices..

Sharing and thinking is only a crime in those societies where freedom doesn't

[ Reply to This | # ]

We're under attack now guys
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 10:29 AM EDT
They've got a cave troll.


Looks like some astroturfers have decided to do a rag job on Groklaw. Don't
click on the Peoples' Primary link unless you want to see some antropomorphic
renditions of the Loch Ness Monster.

[ Reply to This | # ]

AdTI is in for a rude awakening...
Authored by: PSaltyDS on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 10:29 AM EDT
The Alexis de Tocqueville Institution may be ill-informed and unduly influenced by Microsoft, but at least their web site is badly maintained.

According to Uptime at NetCraft they switched from IRIX to FreeBSD for their web host software in December of '03, and so likely have Apache running the site.

They may not be hosting it themselves, as the address block they are in belongs to Yahoo (, so they probably didn't know that they were hosted on open source software (Mon Dieu! How could this be!).

It seems that almost all the links on the site are broken (massive 404-File not found errors), or lead to an “Under Construction” page. Including the page supposedly touting their “Accomplishments” - another 404 error. One link that (sort of) worked was the site search engine which returned exactly two links for “Linux”, both of which which gave 404 errors, and 22 links for “Microsoft”, all but two of which 404'd.

According to the press release: "Brown's study is part a book he is writing on open source software and operating systems. A series of excerpts from the book will be published at beginning on May 20."

I really think this guy is simply naive, and has no idea how easily and badly his poor research and ignorance is going to be trashed once the open source community get a hold of it. After the quote "For almost thirty years, programmers have tried to build a Unix-like system and couldn't.", while his web site runs on FreeBSD, can Mr. Brown expect even the Didiots to give him any credit at all?


"Any technology distinguishable from magic is insuficiently advanced." - Geek's Corrolary to Clarke's Law

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO top Influencer!
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 10:31 AM EDT

In other news, SCO is a software development 'Influencer', winning its category in the SD-Times top 100. According to the article,

The company’s legal assaults on IBM and Linux users dominated 2003’s tech headlines and shook up the open-source community. No other IT topic inspires such fervent debate, fear, uncertainty and doubt.

I couldn't have said it better myself!

brian in mpls

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS-Funded Alexis de Toqueville Institution Attacks Linus, Probably Making Itself a Laughingstoc
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 10:39 AM EDT
Could peoples replies be limited to a certain width in future. As that troll, no
doubt from slashdot, has made this page a real pain to read.

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS-Funded Alexis de Toqueville Institution Attacks Linus, Probably Making Itself a Laughingstoc
Authored by: rben13 on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 10:42 AM EDT
I think it is quite possible that Microsoft did not ask anyone to write this
article which will eventually become a book. I suspect that this is merely an
effort to capitalize on the debate and sell lots of books.

I've know several people who are just as enthusiastic about Microsoft as the
most ardent Linux fan is about Linux. I suspect such people see Bill Gates in
the way that the Royal Family is seen in England. There is always the tiny
chance that you might marry into the Royal Family or you might get the job of a
lifetime from Microsoft. These people constantly argue against anything that
threatens thier favorite company.

We all need to be cautious about letting our enthusiasm carry us away. In many
ways the differing philosophies about software development have taken on many of
the aspects of religions.

Linus Torvalds started the development of Linux and he has overseen it's growth
from a tiny kernel of code into one of the most capable and advanced operating
systems in existence. He couldn't have done it, however, without the incredible
dedication of the thousands of people who have helped develop Linux. All that
help would have been unavailable to Linus if not for the Internet, a tremendous
technological leap in our ability to communicate and work together.

Linux and other open source projects have accomplished something that has been
beyond the reach of commercial software development since programming began.
Open source projects have found a way to use an effectively unlimited number of
programmers to add to the productivity and quality of a project. It is almost
impossible for old school development managers to comprehend how such a process
could work and produce high quality code, so they look for other explanations.
They decide that the code must be derivative or stolen for development to
proceed so quickly.

[ Reply to This | # ]

M$ and Alexis de Toqueville Inst. History
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 11:01 AM EDT
Here is a study paid for by M$ in June 2002.

This is not the first time they've shilled and FUD'ed for M$.

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS-Funded Alexis de Toqueville Institution Attacks Linus, Probably Making Itself a Laughingstock
Authored by: aaron_tx on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 11:06 AM EDT
Having read works by the real Alexis De Toqueville as a poli sci major in
college, I cannot help but think about a skeleton somewhere rolling over in its
grave...Bill Gates could give away all of his billions to charity and he still
will not reverse the negative Karma he has brought on himself. Proprietary
software companies are just like proprietary pharmaceutical companies - Using
government laws and NGO's like the WHO as a tool to keep the third world
repressed, not to mention stifle competition in the first wolrd...MNC's listen
up - just because YOU can't make money off of something does not make it wrong
or evil. The federal government and the corporations who run it are hipocrites,
they prefer closed-market capitalism, but tout free-markets to give everyone the
false hope that they too can be rich al the while they are no more than cogs in
the machine.

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS-Funded Alexis de Toqueville Institution Attacks Linus, Probably Making Itself a Laughingstoc
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 11:08 AM EDT
With this level of attack , you almost wonder if we wrapped a towel around our
heads would MS and minions, in bugbladder beast fashion ( ref. Hitch Hiker's
Guide to the Galaxy ) , be unable to find us. Thanks for the first year PJ .

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • What beast ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 12:40 PM EDT
Apples and Oranges
Authored by: moogy on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 11:11 AM EDT
It is rather obvious that either the institution that
wrote the study is either completely unscrupulous or
does not have a basic understanding of the subject
they are studying.

What Linus started was a system kernel based upon
POSIX compliancy that would work well with the GNU
system and utilities that were already established,
available, and open source.

RSS and GNU already had their own kernel and continue
to have alternative kernels besides Linux, but the
Linux kernel attracted more developers into the
project and it has continued to snowball ever since.
This was the choice of the level of programmers who
are capable of writing and improving a system kernel
and not the choice of some business executives.

As computer hobbyists, like myself, heard more and
more about this alternative to windows, which didn't
even have a tcp/ip stack in those days, via usenet
and irc, interest grew. Many of those were using unix
at work and wanted a similar work-alike at home.
Many wanted an escape from perpetual Windows
crashes and limited control over the operating
system. The unix-like shells like bash, csh, tcsh,
etc, along with a huge array of GNU utilities gave
the user the power of control over the OS that they
simply can not get via an M$ product. These shells
were GNU and what the user directly experienced.

The study is attributing all of the creations of
GNU and lumping them into Linus' creation of a

Mike Tuxford - #Groklaw
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you,
then they fight you, then you win. --Gandhi

[ Reply to This | # ]

BSD and AntiTrust
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 11:11 AM EDT
BSD and variants that were 'liberated' from AT&T because, like Microsoft, it
was found to be a monopoly. Then real improvements (innovation as in
Constitution) were to the software making it more useable by a wider community.
Maybe this study will shed some light on what should happen to Microsoft.


[ Reply to This | # ]

MS-Funded Alexis de Toqueville Institution Attacks Linus, Probably Making Itself a Laughingstock
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 11:11 AM EDT
The only way I can make any sense of the press release is if I take the position
that intellectual property rights are a million times too lax, even with nearly
perpetual copyrights and a relatively strong but increacingly promiscuous patent
regime; that borrowing an idea, or drawing inspriation is the equivalent of
grand theft.

Either that, or that they are so hopelessly naive that they believe that
invention without learning from the success and mistakes of your predecessors is
the rule, rather than the exception, and that they still wet themselves with
excitement waiting for Santa on Christmas eve.

Or perhaps it is both. They believe in the former, and subscribe to the
mythology of the later in order to justify it and drive it forward.

Whatever the case may be, it is a dangerous idealogy, radical and ignorant of
thousands of years of history (but then, it would have to be, since building on
others ideas is a crime), and unfortunately not without its powerful supporters
given the absurd excess of copyright terms in the US.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I wonder if this is based on the whole GNU/Linux argument
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 11:13 AM EDT
Given the people they list as having talked to I wonder if they are talking
about Linux distributions and not the Linux Kernel. They are many who say that
Linux distributions rely heavily on othe utillities, especially those from GNU.
While the Kernel itself is undoubtedly Linus' work and not based on UNIX a linux
system(or Distribution) is. Its a sides ways argument much like someone
spinning statistics. The recent RIAA spin of decreases projected sales vs
nielson reporting of increased sales based on realy numbers at the register is
an example of that sort of spin.

[ Reply to This | # ]

It's a bait. Beware.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 11:32 AM EDT
I think what they really want you to do is to use the word "invent",
thus making software like Linux an "invention".
This is relevant if you consider the debates in Europe regarding the
patentability of software. They want to trick open source people into talking
about software that has been "invented" an therefore is subject to

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: arch_dude on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 11:32 AM EDT
From their press release:
"...Among other points, the study directly challenges Linus Torvalds
(news - web sites)' claim to be the inventor of Linux (news - web sites)."

Has Linus ever claimed to be the "inventor" of Linux? He is the
"creator" or "developer" of the original version. Can anyone
find a quote where he claims to be the "inventor?"

Software is developed, not invented.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Libel? - Authored by: muon on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 12:39 PM EDT
  • Libel? - Authored by: pb on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 01:19 PM EDT
MS-Funded Alexis de Toqueville Institution Attacks Linus, Probably Making Itself a Laughingstock
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 11:35 AM EDT
To me the comment that Linus did not 'invent' Linux is a subtle (OK not so
subtle) promotion of the idea that since software is 'invented' it should be
patented. The article is just one of many to come that will purport to show that
the messy litigation by SCO over Unix's slide in the marketplace to Linux would
be resolved by patenting all software. My belief is that tangible things that
are invented can be subject to patent, while software (which is written and not
tangible in the physical sense) can be copyrighted (or copylefted). If the A de
T Institute's FUD were to have any meaning at all it would instead accuse Linus
of plagarizing Unix. This of course did not in any way occur so the A de T
Institute can't. New source, same old FUD.

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS-Funded Tomas de Torquemada Institution Attacks Linus, Probably Making Itself a Laughingstoc
Authored by: T. ProphetLactus on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 11:46 AM EDT
"No one expected it".



[ Reply to This | # ]

value of IP, invented vs written
Authored by: Andy on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 11:46 AM EDT
Many U.S. firms are not only devaluing intellectual property via outsourcing, but are also embracing business strategies to devalue (and if necessary, eradicate) their competitor’s intellectual property.
I like the implication that Intellectual Property only has value if you keep it under wraps and don't let anyone see it. If you keep it under wraps, it has value only to the secret keepers -- if you let other people use it, it has value to everyone. Isn't something that is valuable to a wide audience actually MORE valuable than someone that is valuable to only one person?
Among other points, the study directly challenges Linus Torvalds (news - web sites)' claim to be the inventor of Linux (news - web sites).
I find it interesting that they claim that Linus "invented" Linux. If it is invented, then it can be patented -- I bet they have a thinking along these lines. Personally, the software I write is "written", like a book, not invented, and thus falls under copyright, not patent, protection.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Post from slashdot, The Register has some words too
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 11:50 AM EDT
Ok, everybody is angry now. Take it with a grain of salt
and make a laugh of it.

A really funny comment from slashdot:

Re:Seeing as they like history...... (Score:5, Funny)
by plj (673710) on Monday May 17, @10:26AM (#9173121)

No, no, it was just that Linus had really boring at school,
so he hacked to the M$ network and stole this []
and related files from their labs, and put his name and
street address under it.

It should have become the kernel of their new, more
advanced version of Windows, but as the code was leaked
they decided to abandon it, blamed the leakage to its head
developer and fired him - some guy called Stallman - and
hired Cutler to his place.

This was a brief history of Windows NT and Linux, and an
explanaition why Windows sucks and Linux rocks today.
Stallman, on the other hand, felt pissed and took the lead
of certain miserable and insignificant foundation called
FSF, which developed viral licenses to communistic
IP-dishonoring hippies, and later on claimed himself its

By they way, I also heard recently that Linus' file in
Finnish citizenship registry keeps magically getting erased
at random times ever since the said registry was moved to
run on .NET platform.

But now you have to excuse me, as I'm out of crack and my
hands are shaking too badly.

The Register has something to say, too:
Alien puppet Linus swiped Linux from SCO, says balanced

[ Reply to This | # ]

Lessons from History
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 11:53 AM EDT
Was reading about the early 1900's and the battle between Edison and
Westinghouse. Edison had invented the DC system for producing electricity and
Westinghouse, with the patents of Nikola Tesla, the AC system.

In order to fight back, Edison had one of his allies secure a license for the AC
patents. They then went to the NY State Prisons and cut a deal for the first
electric chair.

They had been having demos at Menlo Park with dogs and cats, but in moving up to
humans made a slight miscalculation. The voltage was too low and it didn't work
at first. They had to do it a couple of times to finish the job.

The Edison bunch then used the term "Westinghoused" instead of
electrocuted. They continued to spread this FUD (that AC was dangerous) for some
years, until the better technology put them in the dustbin of history.

So, if history is any guide, expect more of this kind of stuff. To paraphase
Churchill in describing the Battle of Britain, this at best can be descibed as
the end of the beginning NOT the beginning of the end.


How old would you be if you didn't know how old you are?

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS-Funded Alexis de Toqueville Institution Attacks Linus, Probably Making Itself a Laughingstock
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 11:53 AM EDT
The war against OpenSource has just begun to be sure. Let them talk. As I see it
right now only fools are listening anyway.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Has anyone noticed that there is no more "innovation", now it's all about the IP rights?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 11:55 AM EDT
What a joke, Microsoft! What everyone has known to be true is now your new

Microsoft will vigorously protect it's IP rights by lawsuits, FUD, and funding
others to spread FUD including analysts, research foundations, and private and
public corporations.

Innovation? We no longer talk about that, and we never really did any of that
to begin with. We just embrace, extend, and extinguish the competition with our
illegal monopoly that we obtained off the skirts of IBM and then screwed
everybody who tried to work with us. Including IBM (heh!) Apple, Novell, ad

Microsoft BOUGHT MSmail, Exchange, FrontPage, and many other products too
numerable to list. Some innovation...

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS-Funded Alexis de Toqueville Institution Attacks Linus, Probably Making Itself a Laughingstoc
Authored by: joef on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 12:04 PM EDT
For kicks I did the following Google search:
"Alexis de Tocqueville Institution"
and got 6990 hits. Then, with the Search Within Results function I added linux,
and got 3630 hits: more than half the total.
Much of the funding probably comes from the "anti public education"
element of the political right, according to

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft is inventor, Linus not.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 12:05 PM EDT
Take a long look at history and the times: Linus Torvalds was to cheap to invent
his own operating system. Instead he slavishly got hold of existing standard
documents and implemented a state of the art operating system, adhering to all
relevant standards (actually, he _started_ with that vision and kept to it, even
though Linux was absurdly far from that goal in its beginnings) at that time for
the best _established_ systems in use.

In contrast, Microsoft showed true inventor spirit: ignoring all preexistent
standards, they cooked up something painful... well, more or less. They
_bought_ up technology that was affordable mostly and cooked up something
painfully incompatible with everything else.

And in contrast to Linus Torvalds, they have prevailed. Both Torvalds and
Microsoft started out with homebrewn systems painfully incompatible to the rest
of the world, and substandard when compared to other operating systems of the

Microsoft prevailed. Linux, in contrast, became more and more standard
compliant and competitive. Nothing inventive here, just superior engineering.

That is not to say that Microsoft does not have impressive engineers, too. In
fact, it is amazing what they manage to make the incoherent piece of junk that
is called Windows do. In some areas you might even fancy it would not be
painful to use it.

At least until you try so.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A dovetail with the IBM case
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 12:05 PM EDT
"For almost thirty years, programmers have tried and failed to successfully
build a Unix-like system and couldn't."

This is fairly screaming to be called up by TSG in the IBM case, or used in
similar FUD: "See, they /had/ to have stolen our code ... nobody could
possibly build a Unix-like system without it".

Such rubbish: especially considering SCO's Unix-like systems are a technology
generation behind, or more, in the Unix field.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Nothing New Here
Authored by: dmscvc123 on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 12:13 PM EDT
ADTI has been one of MS's toadies since the antitrust trial. Actually reading
their documents is rather entertaining, like here's one from a 2002 article of
"The GPL requires that if its source code is used in any type of software
product (commercial or non-commercial) for any reason, then the entire new
product (also known as the derivative) becomes subject to terms of the GPL open
source agreement. For example, if the code for a software application was
originally 10 lines, and 5 lines of GPL open source is added to it, then the
entire 15 lines becomes GPL open source."
Actually that sounds more like what SCO is saying about Linux and AIX, etc.

"Carey Lening discusses the issue of reverse engineering: “…The desire to
reverse engineer, be it for the good of mankind, the good of profit, or the good
of making the software better seems lost amidst the act. The very notion of
reverse engineering is given a nefarious tone, no matter
what the motivators…” When you own the source you’re not reversing anything.
You’re looking at the code, and making modifications as such. There is no
illegality because the source is accessible to all for that reason…” (However)
“When you ‘own’ the binary bits, you have no
such freedom.”"
I guess that person doesn't know the history of the PC and how IBM's
architecture wasn't open, but rather the BIOS was reverse engineered by Compaq.

I look forward to reading their future FUD if their past FUD is any idea of what
to expect.

[ Reply to This | # ]

ADTI misquoted me, I expect they misquoted everyone else.
Authored by: dwheeler on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 12:21 PM EDT
Years ago, when ADTI was creating their first anti-open source software piece, they interviewed me. So I can speak from first-person experience about getting interviewed by ADTI, and how they later carefully twist your words and omit anything inconvenient to them. At the time I didn't know who ADTI was; ADTI is an obscure organization, and they had not revealed their motives or funding sources to me. They certainly didn't reveal to me that they received significant funding by a company competing with OSS/FS, and they didn't reveal their biases. Once their "study" of a few years ago was revealed, I found it claimed I'd said things I didn't actually say. I was quite unhappy, as I document in my Why OSS/FS? Look at the Numbers! paper. Here's a relevant quote:
The ADTI “quotes” me several times in the paper, but in some cases claims I said something I never said, and in others places them out of context by intentionally omitting important things that I said. ADTI originally claimed that I said that “without licensing the source code in a multilicense format, (referring to other more permissive licenses), it is impossible for GPL to work for a proprietary business model.” But I never said this. In fact, I specifically noted to ADTI that Microsoft sells a GPL’ed product (a fact I’d already publicly published). Instead of removing the statement, ADTI later made up a statement and claimed that I said it. What I really said was ... “without licensing the source code in a multilicense format [GPL and other licenses], the GPL does not permit certain kinds of uses in proprietary business models.” The words are similar, but this is a much narrower statement; note that many business models (including some proprietary ones!) are permitted by the GPL. ADTI also claims I said that “today I would be confident that the number [of GPL software] has probably grown to 80%;” I only said that I believed the number was probably larger than 50%, but since I couldn’t remember the exact figures offhand, I told them to examine my papers - which ADTI did not do (if they had, they’d notice that I’d recently published that 71.85% of Freshmeat’s software packages were covered by the GPL). More intriguing are the omissions. For example, I explained to ADTI the GPL license (which they did not understand, even though they were attacking it); ADTI seems to think that the GPL requires public release of code, but it does not. The GPL only requires that those who receive the binary executable receive the source code. This is crucial, because it means you can still keep “secrets” in GPL’ed code, in spite of ADTI’s implied assertion otherwise. Besides, there’s anecdotal evidence that the government uses most GPL’ed code as-is, in which case these issues don’t apply - the GPL permits arbitrary use and redistribution of unmodified copies.

I explained web browser history to them, which, since the facts were inconvenient, they decided to ignore. And they ignored the main point of my SLOC paper, again, because it appears that the conclusions were inconvenient.

But I wouldn't worry too much about the interviewees' "quotes" being non-quotes. If ADTI changes what they say into something quite different, which is likely given my experience, I'm sure they'll speak up and anyone who wants to can hear the real story. It looks like they've decided to pick on people who can "buy ink by the barrel," which is rarely a good idea.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Britain has a "Malicious Falsehood" tort
Authored by: trevmar on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 12:25 PM EDT

Although this report may be hard to assail under the US libel laws, Britain has a "malicious falsehood" tort, with a 5-year statute of limitations.

The standard of proof is different from the US libel statutes, with the key element being that the perpetrator was intent on doing harm. Qualifications such as "probably" no longer get them off the hook.

Based on the preparation I did (many years ago) to file under this UK tort, it looks to me as though 5 years may be enough to bring out both the "malicious" intent and the "falsehood" as well.

Neglecting International Law is one big mistake that SCO made, as I pointed out in my BYTE report. As a result, they lost legal ground in Germany, and (arguably) that may have been a turning point in their campaign. It seems to me that this report has also been drafted with little thought being given to the International reputation of the individual being libelled. A bad mistake indeed, IMO.


[ Reply to This | # ]

MS-Funded Alexis de Tocqueville Institution Attacks Linus, Probably Making Itself a Laughingsto
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 12:34 PM EDT
For chissakes, lying should be illegal cuz there freakin doin it corporate style
nowadays.. and they insult the historical figure of de Tocqueville...
un-frakin'-believable.. g'dam misfits who never got laid in high school just
can't drop dead? Arghh..

Yeah this post is pointless but at least two things have been acomplished here:

1. my old MS ergo keyboard is dead.... good 'cuz I hate the freaking mutants..

2. i feel better now that the old keyboard is lodged deep into an old MSDN


me used use that crap.. no longer as i have been freed from such crap in '01 ...
thank you Linus!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Invention and Al Gore
Authored by: joef on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 12:35 PM EDT
Gore was derided over claims that he claimed to have "invented the
internet." Perhaps the word was actually used by him at some time, I
really don't know. But I DO know that he was certainly the most vocal promoter
in the internet in the US Senate, and perhaps inside the beltway, and spoke at
many technical conferences in its support.
My point is that the word "invention" is used so carelessly that it
becomes a great weapon in the FUD arsenal. It certainly was used against Gore
to paint him as a liar.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A tangled web, featuring my new favourite, Ken Brown
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 12:37 PM EDT
The admin contact for is Gregory Fossedal, also listed as admin for

It turns out that dcfund is a hedge fund of the Emerging Markets Group. Here's a snippet from the site:

'Thank you for your interest in the Democratic Century Fund, LLC, a hedge fund investing in emerging market countries. DCF is managed by the Emerging Markets Group, with offices in West Lebanon, NH, and Washington, DC.'


'Because we protect the confidentiality of our investors, and our own methods, we can make only certain information about our firm available on the internet, through the operating links below.

Kenneth Brown is listed as Director and Vice President. Hmmm.

[ Reply to This | # ]

US Intellectual Property?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 12:40 PM EDT
The original intellectual property for Linux is Linus-written code. At the time this code was written, Linus was neither a US citizen nor a US resident. That's worth mentioning to highlight how wrong the following sentence from the original article is: [...] we should really be asking how much longer can we continually export the U.S. IP economy to every (and any) global competitor at no cost? Linus IP was imported in the US, not exported from the US.

[ Reply to This | # ]

An idea for Linus
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 12:43 PM EDT
I do not believe that Linus will sue de Tocqueville but if he does, I propose
him to do the following. Instead of asking for the book to be banned, he could
ask for the book to be made public for free on the Internet so everyone could
have a good laugh.
Would'nt it be ironical to force de Toqueville to 'open' the book?

[ Reply to This | # ]

M$ and IP
Authored by: utahbob55 on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 12:49 PM EDT
M$ better watch out what they fund especially about IP. As I recall ( and I'm
sure that many of you can back me up on this) M$ hands aren't so clean when it
comes to IP. The orgins of that golden goose call MS-DOS can be traced to a
pirated clone of CP/M. It was a copy right down to the bugs. I mean, all they
really did was port CP/M to the Intel processor that IBM had selected for their
new computer. Well, I gues that really isn't true, all they did was BUY a clone
and re-work it.


[ Reply to This | # ]

How Long Will Microsoft Be Allowed to Flout the Law?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 12:50 PM EDT
Obviously, as the lead-in suggests, this is part of Microsoft's ongoing attacks on Open Source. This is how Microsoft defeats most of its competitors. Therefore, it might be interesting to review some of Microsoft's past "victories," and how they were achieved...


- Fraud: Windows issued a warning about DR-DOS that MS knew was false.

- FUD: The DR-DOS evidence includes Microsoft memos planning the FUD campaign.

- Sabotage: Windows 95 had secret calls to prevent it from running on DR-DOS.

- Sabotage: MS purposely kept DR-DOS out of the Windows Beta-test program (also documented by evidence).


- Sabotage: New MS-DOS release caused Geoworks to fail.


- Fraud: MS publicly announced that OS/2 was the future direction.

- Sabotage: MS provided WordPerfect with faulty Windows APIs.


- Fraud: Microsoft pretended to support OS/2, then abandoned it.

- FUD: Microsoft paid people to disparage OS/2 in posts in forums, letters to the editor, etc.

- Suspected Theft: Microsoft is believed to have borrowed OS/2 IP to use in Windows 3.1.

- Suspected Sabotage: Microsoft is believed to have provided less than their best code for OS/2.


- Sabotage: Windows 95 caused AmiPro function-keys to break.


- Contract Interference: Microsoft paid sites to stop using Netscape (thus "cutting off Netscape's air supply").

- Extortion: Microsoft threatened VARs who preload Netscape.

- Extortion: Microsoft threatened Apple with the cancellation of MS Office for the Mac, unless Apple dropped Netscape (as shown in the DOJ evidence).


- Sabotage: Microsoft tried to "kill cross-platform Java by growing the polluted [J++] Java market."

- Fraud: Microsoft memo described a plan to keep quiet about the incompatibilities, so that J++ users would unintentionally create Windows-only code.

And now, let's look at Microsoft's current campaign...


- Fud: Obviously.

- Fraud: False claims, planted by partners like Toqueville.

- Legal Attacks: Microsoft funded the SCO attack.

- Patents: Future attacks.

- Legislation: DRM, etc.

- Proprietary Internet Protocols: MS Multimedia formats, .Net authentication protocols, DRM.

- Secret Hardware Protocols: Working with partners like NVidia (closed source drivers), ATI (closed source drivers), and AMD (the unpublished memory-access fix).

- Locking-in Linux: Working with partners like NVidia and ATI (closed source drivers), possibly Trolltech (the proprietary version of Qt, and Qt's support for .Net), possibly CodeWeavers (promoting MS Office on Linux, and ActiveX on the Internet), possibly Xandros and a couple of other Linux distributers (proprietary Linux admin tools, Qt-only desktop environment, promoting MS Office on Linux, etc.), possibly Macromedia (Flash), and who-knows-who else.

- Infiltration: MS plants have been joining Open Source projects to cause interference, wearing out the leaders through constant complaining, driving away other developers by acting like jerks, pushing the project in bad directions, etc.

- Infiltration: MS plants have been joining Open Source projects and pretending to be die-hard supporters, then pushing for overly-tight licensing, convincing others to add special restrictions that limit the software's use (possible examples: DotGNU, XFree86), using LGPL for what should be BSD (CodeWeaver's Wine), using GPL for what should be LGPL (MySQL), and so on.


Microsoft is one of the most corrupt organizations that I know.

Through the sabotage of Java alone, Microsoft has cost the world HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars, by delaying the development of e-commerce.

Microsoft's incompetence and destruction have held the industry back by perhaps a decade. Microsoft failed to support the protected memory capabilities of the 386, thus delaying its use by half a decade, just as Microsoft's incompetence is now delaying the introduction of 64-bit CPUs (AMD and Intel are being forced to add 32-bit support). Likewise, there has been very little progress in Internet technologies since Microsoft got involved a decade ago (in fact, cross-platform compatibility has gone backwards as a result of Microsoft's interference).

And Open Source developers, who just want to enjoy making good software, are constantly having to look over their shoulder, wondering what form of sabotage Microsoft might be planning next.

Given their long list of crimes, Bill Gates et al should be in jail. The world would be better off.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SD Times
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 12:54 PM EDT
read this It's not what about it says, but about what it does NOT say. C

[ Reply to This | # ]

Remember the famous cookie recipe hoax
Authored by: Rsnable Person on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 01:00 PM EDT
I remember working for a company years ago when this FAX came in that was the
same cookie recipe hoax that has circulated in e-mail for years now too. You
know the one, where a woman was getting even with a store for tricking her into
paying for a cookie recipe.

"Credible" hoaxes require several things:

1) Popular theme - i.e. little guy sticks it to big guy
2) Some credible sounding authority or personable witness
3) FUD
4) What I like to call the "join in the cause" plea

We see a similar attempt in this "study", and unfortunately there will
be a lot of gullible people that 'forward it to all the contacts on their
address list' as it were - "just in case".

Maybe M$ was paying attention to all those hoax e-mails that claimed they could
track forwarded e-mails...

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS-Funded Alexis de Tocqueville Institution Attacks Linus, Probably Making Itself a Laughingsto
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 01:07 PM EDT
There is a hidden danger in the use of proprietary software in your company. Not
just from viruses, invasion of privacy, or software compliance audits, but from
anti-us interests.

Right now, there are thousands of programmers overseas working non-stop on
highly sensitive software projects which run our schools, our companies, even
our military. These people have the opportunity to insert trojan horses,
backdoors, and other subversive code right into products like Windows that you
use every day. Proprietary software companies like Microsoft hire these
programmers instead of Honest, Hard-working Americans to cut costs and increase
their profits, with little or no decrease in the cost to the consumer, and loss
of jobs for thousands of people.

These miscreant programmers as well as others right here in the USA have most
likely copied and inserted code into Microsoft products which was stolen from
Honest, Hard-working Americans like you and me. Right now there may be millions
of lines of copied code in Windows XP, with absolutely no royalties being paid
to the programmers that actually wrote the code. That's right, outright theft!
Unfortunatly, there is very little you can do about it because Microsoft keeps
their code tightly controlled, with the exception of sharing it with countries
like China. They don't want you to see it because it could contain stolen code,
as well as poor quality software engineering which could compromise our
military. Keeping it secret is the only way to protect themselves from the good

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS-Funded Alexis de Tocqueville Institution Attacks Linus, Probably Making Itself a Laughingsto
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 01:10 PM EDT
How about setting up a site about the true spirit of Alexis de Tocqueville ?
Seems like a more constructive way to opposition. Let's get ranked #1 on google
when searching for Alexis de Tocqueville. Right now it is AdTI and they don't
have much ado about the real guy.

Anyone up for this ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft's Inferiority Complex
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 01:10 PM EDT
If all this hokey stuff really is Microsoft working through paid shills, it is
certainly would be a revealing admission they consider themselves pretty
incapable of competing on merit. It shows a marked preference for subterfuge
which appears to have earned a similar assessment of competency.

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS-Funded Alexis de Tocqueville Institution Attacks Linus, Probably Making Itself a Laughingstock
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 01:11 PM EDT
This depends what you mean by invent and what you mean by steal. What Linus
infact did was to imitate Unix in many ways, as does the GNU software that
accompanies it. This is not theft. It is quite legitimate and entirely legal
software engineering. It is not theft and you'd have to change the rules to
define this as theft.

The code in Linux is written by Linus and others in the Linux community, it was
not copied and is not subject to the Copyrights of others. We don't need
computer illiterates redefining the technical mores of software engineering.
This activity has never been referred to as theft and every software maker has
ingaged in similar engineering activities, including Microsoft, Apple, IBM and

This is just a highly contorted attempt to obscure the facts and reinforce a
monopoly by removing more of the freedoms that we enjoy. It's a sad day when
independent men cannot come together to write software without bandits and their
cohorts trying to steal the fruits of their labor or at least stop them using
their own software to support an existing business model that loses out as a

This whole thing is thoroughly disgusting.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: Linus' Top Ten SCO Quotes
Authored by: Maple Syrup on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 01:13 PM EDT

Completely off-topic ...

Linuxworld has an amusing story containing Linus' Top 10 quotes about SCO.

Worth a read for a giggle ...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Copied UNIX or Minux?
Authored by: dclayton on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 01:19 PM EDT
At the time Linus developed Linux UNIX was too bloated to run on a lowend PC and
licenses were expensive. Minux was an academic toy and tied up in proprietary
red tape. I think Minux might have become something like Linux if users and
developers could feedback improvements to the basecode. Tanenbaum wanted to keep
tight control on the little OS so it never became useful. I am certain he is
still upset that a lowly student upstaged him and now Minux is only known to a
few computer historians. It is not surprizing you can get anti-Linux quotes for
a few defeated rivals. Linux probably could have prospered under one of the
other free licenses but the GPL has been good. I am surprized how many good
things were said about UNIX in the article. Did Microsoft expect this from
their investment?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Software Patents also field of IN-expertise
Authored by: whoever57 on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 01:21 PM EDT
An article at Grokshill discusses Ken Brown's inane ideas on patents.

For a few laughs, see "Simon's Comic Online Source" at

[ Reply to This | # ]

Alexis de Tocqueville Institution Attacks Linus and SCO Names to the SD TImes 100.
Authored by: JustFree on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 01:28 PM EDT
SCO Named to the SD Times 100.

This is a strange read. The press releases realise states that "SCO was recognized for its influence in software development as owners of the UNIX Operating System". Press releases like these two (SCO's and Alex de Tocqueville are all about PR and nothing more. Over the last year I do not see how SCO could be an influencer, antagonist maybe.

Alexis de Tocqueville Institution seems to live in a reality where only products that a developed by Organizations that have shareholder can develop any thing.

The article seems valid, but it has omitted several facts and include opinions that are not relivant. These opinions are directly pointed at anyone who develops software that changes the software industry with it innovation. It is expected that this article could have been written by a tabliod. This article could be sponsured by Canopy, SCO Group or Baystar.

Actions like this will not make people who embarance Mircosoft software or SCO UnixWare more.

It is humorous that Microsoft has be actively pushing their Trustworthy initiative, when they have two business problem.
-The quality of their software over the past 15 years
-The predatory actively against their competition.

as in free speech get it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

2 new PRs form SCO -
Authored by: BigTex on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 01:34 PM EDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS-Funded Alexis de Tocqueville Institution Attacks Linus, Probably Making Itself a Laughingsto
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 01:36 PM EDT
Hmm, I know this idea is not very popular but...

No, Linus did not 'father' Linux when it comes to ideas initially, he does when
it coems to code and to implementing those ideas.

Going from there to claiming he stole them is way too far tho, at that time
those ideas were well known and tought in schools and universities and had been
for a while really. They were also widely documented in many books, including
books from the peopel that this institute claims to have interviewed.

I think it is important however to se that distinction. This argument is going
to be repeated, and possibly by someone who does a better job at it

I for one would be interested to hear what Linus himself has to say about it. I
never caught him on being untrustworthy or lying, I do think I caught him a few
times on not caring too much about such claims, and somehow my feeling says that
he'd answer along the lines of 'I fathered the initial code, and we did the
rest' and lay no claims to the ideas.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: Linux on the Desktop
Authored by: ujay on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 01:39 PM EDT
For the last 3 years I have been using Linux and installing Linux servers at
small business sites. I have been asked on many occasions about Linux on the
desktop, and my usual response was that I did not think Linux was easy enough
for the average user to use on a desktop.

Just a few days ago I was presented with an opportunity. A gentleman asked me
to assist him in getting a computer. This person has no prior computer
experience whatsover. I knew this man would get a broadband internet
connection, and if I installed a Windows based OS, there were just too many
avenues for disaster, so I gave the idea of supplying him with a Linux desktop
serious consideration.

As the man in question had no prior computer experience, whatever system was
supplied to him would be a learning curve, so any consideration of a prior
Windows user being too Pavlovized to adjust to a Linux environment was a dog
that would not bite.

Of course, before actually doing this, I had to evaluate if the Linux
distribution I was going to give him would actually be easy enough for him to

On my home workstation, I use Mandrake with the Blackbox window manager. I like
Blackbox due to it's minimalist approach, and I tend to work in terminal (rxvt)
quite a lot. It helps maintain the illusion of myself as a master adept of the
black arts, and people tend to exhibit the correct deference when entering my
inner sanctorum.

To create a proof of concept test (Is Linux easy enough for a user) I switched
the Desktop to KDE. I have not used KDE in years, and the KDE 3 Desktop really
surprised me.

Creating Icons on the Desktop was a snap, I could even drag and drop from the
Application List ( ie system menu). Manipulating the task and lower application
'quick launch' bar was also quite simple. The included Control Center allowed
for complete individualization of the desktop with an ease that was really

Installation of software is also a snap. Supplied software can be installed
from the Mandrake Control Center quite easily, and third party RPM's are also
automatically linked to the RPM manager for instant install. It even asks for
root password. Compressed files ( .gz etc...) can be viewed and extracted from
within the directory viewer.

Audio/video files launch properly, and a selection of viewers/players are
available on the alternate menu. Setting a particlar viewer/player as the
primary application on double click is a snap, simply reorder the list, or add
the freshly installed application.

Creating an association to a file type (in the test case, bittorent files) was
even easier and faster than any similar activity I've had to do in a Windows
environment. On the actual test, I had no graphical bittorent application to
use for the test, as I use the terminal based ctorrent application. By creating
a couple of simple scripts, I could right click on a .torrent file, and either
view it, or download the file listed.

I am quite impressed with the current state of KDE and have now changed my mind.
Linux is ready for the home user desktop, and that is what I will be supplying
this individual.

PJ, I will keep a log of his experience for the GrokDoc project.

Programmer: A biological system designed to convert coffee and cheesies into

[ Reply to This | # ]

Columnist Fred Langa?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 01:43 PM EDT
More FUD?

Exclusive Langa Analysis: Linux Worries

Columnist Fred Langa addresses criticisms of his recent review of Linux
problems, including claims that sound isn't that important in business
computing. He also posits that high-priced commercial Linux vendors are on a
suicidal course. Read about Linux under scrutiny:

[ Reply to This | # ]

Who Invented Unix?
Authored by: dmscvc123 on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 01:49 PM EDT
<<Brown suggests the invention of Unix is an integral part of the Linux
story commenting, "It is clear that people's exceptional interest in the
Unix operating system made Unix one of the most licensed, imitated, and stolen
products in the history of computer science." Brown writes, "Over the
years, many have envied the startling and pervasive success of Unix. For almost
thirty years, programmers have tried and failed to successfully build a
Unix-like system and couldn't. To this day, we have a serious attribution
problem in software development because people have chosen to scrupulously
borrow or imitate Unix.">>

I hate to rain on ADTI's parade, but Unix was an unauthorized derivative work
that came out of the MIT Multics project. ADTI is only going to make themselves
look even more foolish after they release their report where it shows they're
clueless about the history of Unix. It would be especially bad if they didn't
realize the clouded history of Unix, which is why there is BSD and Ransom Love
said this:
"Indeed, at first we wanted to open-source all of Unix's code, but we
quickly found that even though we owned it, it was, and still is, full of other
companies' copyrights."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Yet more Tokeville propaganda
Authored by: Tim Ransom on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 02:15 PM EDT
Here's a 'whitepaper' (Warning!PDF)called 'Opening the Open Source Debate' from Keystone Ken and his Redmond Regurgitators. A sample:

'For example, if the Federal Aviation Agency were to develop an application to control 747 flight patterns from a widely distributed GPL open source code, security questions would include:
Would it be prudent for the FAA to use software that thousands of unknown programmers have intimate knowledge for something that has been actively targeted? Could the FAA be sure that intimate knowledge of this software is not being shared with the wrong parties? Would widespread awareness that software the FAA chose to use originated in the public domain hasten an invitation to hackers?'

OMG! I'm moving to the desert immediately to build an underground compound in order to hide out, then repopulate Earth after the GPL wipes out civilization! I will need several wives!

Thanks again,

[ Reply to This | # ]

PJ Please don't water down the sites focus,
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 02:20 PM EDT
Dear PJ et. Al.

By responding to FUD, money Stuffs, and Law stuffs, you have lost the ability to
control the agenda here. I expect you will be seeing a ratio of 10-1 FUD as the
Money and Law stuffs gets very interesting and FUD may become the topic not the
very execellent neutral analysis of Law and Money.

As this is your site I respect your choices but I offer my humble request.

A subtle ogre

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is this the same Ken Brown
Authored by: Liquor A. on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 02:48 PM EDT
It seems there was a short discussion of the GPL on license-discuss at, and also this interesting note from last september.

A short search for "Ken Brown" on license-discuss shows quite a few other comments, which I have not had time to look through, but those which I did check seem, in my opinion, to be trying to find unrebutted FUD.

Liquor A.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I thought SCOX was a laughing stock..
Authored by: tz on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 02:48 PM EDT
especially if one is a short seller.

Playing devils advocate, what they may mean is what Stallman talks about when he
says it should be called "GNU/Linux". But the fundamental 7 system
call set (open / read / write / close / fork / exec / ioctl) was cloned in
almost everything including things like DOS (maybe without fork and exec).

This is a bit like saying Henry Ford didn't invent the model T. He didn't
invent the automobile, but he did invent the chain producing the first
everyman's car.

The Descendents of Alexis DeToqueville should sue for libel and whatever else PJ
can come up with - he wasn't that stupid or ignorant..

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is website a joke?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 03:17 PM EDT
I don't get it; you rarely see a website so unprofessionally designed these days
(their search page uses picosearch!)

Nearly all the pages are "under construction"..

I'd heard of banks that pull up really quick websites to pull scams, but this is
the first joe-job-website I've seen used for journalistic purposes..

[ Reply to This | # ]

A better book to read
Authored by: bb5ch39t on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 03:46 PM EDT
Rather than the book mentioned in previous posts, you might want to check out: "The Success of Open Source" by Steven Weber, ISBN 0674012925. Reviewed on Slashdot

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: SCO at a new 52 week low
Authored by: ray08 on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 03:48 PM EDT
As of 3:46 EDT, SCOX was at 4.80 per share. We may see a new 52 week low today.

[ Reply to This | # ]

City of the crazy false
Authored by: darkonc on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 04:18 PM EDT
So you could say that Tocqueville sounds like 'City of the crazy false'

Or, to put it quite suscinctly: "FUDVille"

Powerful, committed communication. Touching the jewel within each person and bringing it to life..

[ Reply to This | # ]

A word from Alexis De Tocqueville...
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 04:28 PM EDT
Among other things, he had left behind this so appropriate
and relevant quotation:

"The surface of American society is covered with a layer
of democratic paint, but from time to time one can see the
old aristocratic colours breaking through."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Fud-Fighters in IWeThey
Authored by: _Arthur on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 04:35 PM EDT
Karsten Self has a detailed article on FUD tactics on the Wiki

ADTI May 2002 anti-OpenSource article is commented at

I suppose if volunteer lawgrokkers want to become FudFighters and rip apart recent FUD pieces, that Wiki would welcome them.

In one of the analysis, Drew Kime carefully classifies each statement in 3 categories: Right, Wrong/False, and Undetermined/Irrelevant.
At the end of the article, the RWU count is: 9/35/4
So the anti-Linux article contained 51 statements, 35 falsehoods.
see: FUDHarvyALineOnLinux


[ Reply to This | # ]

AdTI = wookie
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 04:56 PM EDT
This FUD could be timed to distract the media (and us) from what will happen to
the SCOG stock this week.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Register on Alexis de Tocqueville's "report"
Authored by: vruz on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 05:50 PM EDT
Alien puppet Linus swiped Linux from SCO, says balanced study
By John Lettice

--- the vruz

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT : SCOX PR desperation
Authored by: garbage on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 06:47 PM EDT
SCOX are putting out press releases bragging about making it to the SD Times 100
list as if it is an endorsement of their fantastic products. But no link to the
SD Times article.

When you go find it this is what SD Times say's why SCOX is
on the list :

"The SCO Group Inc.
The company’s legal assaults on IBM and Linux
users dominated 2003’s tech headlines and shook up the open-source community. No
other IT topic inspires such fervent debate, fear, uncertainty and doubt."

That's some endorsement!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Fundamentally important: creation NOT invention
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 06:52 PM EDT
This is exactly what THEY (the corporate lobbying groups like MS) want. To
enforce software as something you invent and hence, patent.
As you know, this war for preservation of freedom is being fought in Europe
these very days.
Linux was created by Linus and protected by copyrights. This is the way
democracy is done. Freedom of speech. You cannot patent a text in a lingual
language. There is NO reason why a text of computer language should be treated
in a different manner.
THEY are trying to FUD this important distinction between patents and
WE are grateful to Linus not inventing Linux, but for his creation!

/Freedom fighter

"When we speak of software, we are referring to freedom, not price" -
Richard M. Stallman

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS-Funded Alexis de Tocqueville Institution Attacks Linus, Probably Making Itself a Laughingsto
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 07:13 PM EDT
The AdTI's position is obviously that all ideas MUST be property, and so
everything that is based on an idea must be stealing someone else's work.
Everything that is released for free is lost productivity or GDP, apparently.

Never mind that the internet is based on open protocols. If the Internet had a
tollbooth at every turn, it would have never taken off. As sophisticated and
powerful has technology has become, we don't have the technology to begin to
process the phalanx of micropayments that would ensue if everything were
considered property.

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS-Funded Alexis de Tocqueville Institution Attacks Linus, Probably Making Itself a Laughingsto
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 08:04 PM EDT

It is a no brainer to figure out that when you make productivity improvement
technology available for a lower cost, the benefits due to productivity
improvements are going to be higher than if you charge a lot.

Haven't these guys figured out that the IT related productivity improvements
that have kept GDP increasing despite higher unemployment.

Even if you accept their claim that FOSS is destroying property values in the
software property market, there is evidence that the benefits due to
productivity improvements far outstrip any property value loss.

Yes my implication (not proven by any means) is that FOSS is actually creating
more economic value through the increased productivity of the society as a

[ Reply to This | # ]

It never fails to amaze me
Authored by: inode_buddha on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 08:44 PM EDT
How the value of something suddenly jumps when you tack the word
"free" in front of it </sarcasm>

Truly, if Te is strong in one then all one needs to do is sit on one's ass, and
the corpse of one's enemy shall be carried past shortly.

[ Reply to This | # ]

How it really started....
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 09:07 PM EDT
it´s fun and it´s true...

[ Reply to This | # ]

The zdnet FUD-puppet is also at it
Authored by: bsm2003 on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 09:50 PM EDT
Why choose open source?

"Furthermore, consider that proprietary software historically has done a much better job of providing the features that matter to ordinary consumers than open source software. As noted in the Theory section, this is necessarily true, as proprietary companies are the only entities with the close interactions with customers required to discover these features, not to mention the financial resources to orient developers towards those needs."

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS-Funded Alexis de Tocqueville Institution Attacks Linus, Probably Making Itself a Laughingsto
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 10:43 PM EDT
Can somebody show me where Linus ever claimed he "INVENTED" Linux?
I've seen him quoted as having "CREATED" which is not the same thing.

Im just asking,, thanks.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Damning evidence!
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 10:50 PM EDT
"UPDATE: Linus has responded, as only Linus can. He reveals to LinuxWorld that he has been found out. The true fathers of Linux are Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy." Ah. So Linux does contain code belonging to the Santa Claus Operation!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Linus 'fesses Up About Linux
Authored by: Weeble on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 10:58 PM EDT
UPDATE: Linus has responded, as only Linus can. He reveals to LinuxWorld that he has been found out. The true fathers of Linux are Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. Santa is from Finland, after all, so he thought of Linus, who has strong teeth and was thus acceptable to the TF also.

I have two things to say about that;

1) Linus must have been a VERY good boy that year.

2) While "Santa Claus" is a phenomenon in many countries, Nicholas of Myra, the progenitor of the entire Santa Claus phenomenon, was from the city of Myra in Asia Minor, now modern Turkey. He's not from Finland, I hate to say.

"Profanity is the effort of a feeble mind to express itself--forcefully." --the late Rev. O. Dean Martin

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: AntiFUD on Monday, May 17 2004 @ 10:59 PM EDT
This is another link to Peopleprimary IT will screw up your browser.

Please Remove Parent


IANAL - But out to deter FraUDulent FUD FUnDing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS-Funded Campaigns, PR and Litigation
Authored by: webster on Tuesday, May 18 2004 @ 01:34 AM EDT
These studies come out periodically. They were planned long ago and the seeds
are starting to sprout. They were meant to go hand in hand with the litigation

The litigation campaign is doing moderately well by retarding the uptake of
Linux and keeping people on Windows and Office. The actual litigation in court
is potentially disastrous. It is going so bad that they may be in line for
problems with business slander. What did MS say to who about the editorial
content. Was it based on the same SCO Code lies? Might IBM try to sweep them
up with MS. Worse yet it is starting to damage the PR campaign.

This Toqueville Report was suposed to come out and reinforce the belief created
by the mere existence of the litigation that Linux was stolen. Not many people
are buying this anymore. The FUD has been met and defeated. There is no code
so the FUD won't fly. People read something like that and they look here to see
if it means anything.

Soon a significant victory in court will turn the tide. All the FUD they have
in the pipeline will be refuted in court before it is published. If they are
wise, they will withhold it.


[ Reply to This | # ]

What is an "Attribution Problem?"
Authored by: mobrien_12 on Tuesday, May 18 2004 @ 01:50 AM EDT
"To this day, we have a serious attribution problem in software development
because people have chosen to scrupulously borrow or imitate Unix."

Nice FUD. "Scrupulously borrow"... doublespeak for accusations of
stealing. Imitate Unix? So what's so bad about that?

And what is a serious attribution problem? Sounds just as dangerous as that
evil dihydrogen monoxide.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Crudity and stupidity of MS FUD campaign
Authored by: Peter Smith on Tuesday, May 18 2004 @ 02:08 AM EDT
I am astonished by the crudity and stupidity of the MS FUD campaign.

And also delighted. If this is the best they can do then Open Source has few

Why have they chosen such a poor approach?
- perhaps it is because good thoughtful investigative writers wont sell their
- facts supporting their cause are hard to come by?
- or does the immense arrogance of MS give them such a low opinion of the public
that they think they can feed them on such unmitigated drivel?

[ Reply to This | # ]

atdi web site down
Authored by: lordmhoram on Tuesday, May 18 2004 @ 04:27 AM EDT
I've noticed this morning that is currently giving a "Site
temporarily disabled" message.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Unix most stolen product??
Authored by: thiegroe on Tuesday, May 18 2004 @ 04:32 AM EDT
I don't understand the text
'It is clear that people's exceptional interest in the Unix operating system made Unix one of the most licensed, imitated, and stolen products in the history of computer science.'
I thought that software of Micro$oft were the most stolen products. At least that's what MS is telling us.
Furthermore since the upcoming of Linux all the Unixes become suddenly very good and valueable. I can remember the Micro$oft FUD from before Linux. In those dark ages, Unix was already dead, according MS. It was an old OS without any future. Now suddenly, with the maturity of Linux, all the Unixes became full of live, valueable and most stolen product.

[ Reply to This | # ]

doesn't the double standard get old ADTI?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 18 2004 @ 07:25 AM EDT
what i always find hypocritical about these articles, is the presumption that
non-open source software providers somehow do some code review for purity.


i don't know of a single shop that does that personally. oddly enough, places
like IBM are the only places that probably do that since they do both open and

if you think about it, most managers in shops probably wouldn't care too. if
noone could see your source, then how would they ever be able to bring a suit
saying your 'copied'. there wouldnt' be any money in it.

is our esteemed kenneth brown even programmer?.

i know as a programmer i attmept to increase laziness. which on the surface,
copying might sound expedient, but you learn fast that the longest term
maintainability (optimal laziness) is the code that came from your own head,
because it's written the way you think. what's worse, if you don't understand
well enough to write, you could NEVER maintain a piece of stolen code (as code
is harder to maintain than to write).


[ Reply to This | # ]

MS-Funded Alexis de Tocqueville Institution Attacks Linus, Probably Making Itself a Laughingsto
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 18 2004 @ 08:17 AM EDT
From was running Apache on Linux
last queried at 18-May-2004 12:12:03 GMT

[ Reply to This | # ]

Mobius sword?
Authored by: tintak on Tuesday, May 18 2004 @ 08:41 AM EDT
"However, the open source strategy is a triple-edge sword."

What shape would the blade on this triple edged sword be?

Like the rest of Ken's writing, this does not seem to be very well thought

'it is literally impossible' for SCO to itself provide
direct proof' Mark J. Heise 02/06/04

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why get mad?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 18 2004 @ 09:35 AM EDT

I would say printing such nonsense pretty much indicates they are losing the FUD campaign big time.

Good FUD is subtle.

It will be interesting to see what Tannenbaum said. When Linus started he was the student that believed in monolithic kernels, Tannenbaum was the professor that believed in the microkernel model ( l like to call it client/server model as those words captures the complications better). That led to this famous exchange Voices from the open source revolution.

I think you would have to say history has proven Linus right. The about to be released windows NT talked about by Tannenbaum played with the client/server model (perhaps because of Tannenbaum's visit to the USA). In the latter versions of NT the graphic sub system moved back into the kernel ( the linux graphic solution is a lot nicer). All that is left of the client/server model in NT is the Unix and OS2 sub systems. I recently read in an article that suggested longhorn is going to perform a mercy killing.

Yes Tannenbaum has an ax to grind and he owes the open source movement nothing.

Richard Stallmans problem with linux is well documented. He worked for years developing the infrastructure needed. The HURD was supposed to take the glory, and linux came from behind and took the prize. To my mind the reason is clear. Linus was bright enough and strong willed enough to take on the conventional wisdom at the time as articulated by Tannenbaum, and he had the personality to run a team. It will be interesting to see what Stallman said.

Richard Stallmans greatest contribution was a license that allowed the form of development used by Linus. It will be interesting to see if he has realized this or if the bitter pill ( people call it linux no GNU/Linux) has been too hard to swallow.

Richie, I am surprised he is on the list. He is one of the greats. He has reason to be proud of Unix, BSD and Linux. Perhaps that is what he said.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Real purpose behind 'think tanks' like deTocquville
Authored by: seanlynch on Tuesday, May 18 2004 @ 10:23 AM EDT

I know this topic is a day old, and My comment will probably be missed.

But I think this signals the set up for the next wave of FUD from MS. Think tanks like adti and cato are not paid to come up with good thinking, but to print what they are told, no matter how outlandish or deceitful.

The veracity of what they produce in completely irrelevant. Their entire purpose is to create something that others can later use as a reference to build more elaborate lies with.

I believe that in the near future we will see politicians and pundits arguing against open and free software, and using comments like " a major conservative think tank has released a study proving how damaging open source is to our American economy".

These comments will be made mainly in speeches, and in broadcasts, but not often in printed media. This is done to inflate the impact of the politician's statements as he is speaking, while lowering the chances someone may actually check on who the "major conservative think tank" is, or even what they have said. At least they won't go very in depth in their background checks.

Microsoft has failed to win over open source and free software in the server room. In the back office the technical merit of open and free software and the bottom line influence the decision making in the long run. Sure the MS marketing guys get their wins, but using MS software puts a business at a competitive disadvantage, so open source gains ground because the companies that choose it are winning financially.

The current fight is the one we are seeing in court. This will probably be expanded into a patent fight in the future. However the courts have a reason and logic of their own. Groklaw has helped us geeks understand this logic, and we will prevail here as well. The truth will win out. We know how to prove the copyright heritage of Linux, and we know how to fight meritless patents like pub-pat does. Open source and free software will prevail because the rules of law and order work to our benefit.

The next wave, the political arena, does not obey much logic. It is ruled more by emotion than truth. The best way to fight this is to ask our biggest corporate users to speak up. When politicians start to reference works like the deTocqueville 'study' in their arguments against open source and free software it won't be in a forum where debate and reason are allowed. We just have to make sure that the big money interests who benefit from the use of free and open software turn to the politicians whose ears they have and say that banning FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) will negatively affect their bottom line, and put American corporations at a competitive disadvantage.


[ Reply to This | # ]

ADTI Site Modified?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 18 2004 @ 10:58 AM EDT
Hmmm. The links to this press release on ADTI's main page now request a
password. Is this a new development? It strikes me as counterproductive to
password-protect a press release...

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: IBM's Memorandum in opposition (148) is available
Authored by: belzecue on Tuesday, May 18 2004 @ 11:38 AM EDT
Docket Text: Memorandum by Intl Bus Mach Inc in opposition to [129-1] motion to amend [23-1] Scheduling order

... and, as usual, it's a doozy!

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT. Redhat adds new general counsel
Authored by: mikebmw on Tuesday, May 18 2004 @ 11:55 AM EDT
Red hat press release :

Red Hat Appoints Michael Cunningham from IBM as General Counsel

full story here

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: Patents in europe
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 18 2004 @ 12:03 PM EDT
We lost, we now have e-patents in europe!

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: News: Software Patents in Europe
Authored by: Simon G Best on Tuesday, May 18 2004 @ 12:10 PM EDT

There is news! (I was going to put this in the comment thread for news and off-topic stuff, but there doesn't seem to be one on this occasion.) Well, there seems to be news.

On the FFII website, there is news (or at least rumour (at the time of writing)) about the EU Council of Ministers' passing (carrying, accepting) the Irish presidency's proposed draft directive (or something like that).

Sounds like the hideous version of the draft directive was voted for, which means it goes back to the European Parliament for a second reading. One way or another, it's bad news :-(

Open and Honest - Open Source

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Two dozen" interviews too little?
Authored by: gdt on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 03:17 AM EDT

Brown's account is based on extensive interviews with more than two dozen leading technologists including ...

I'm looking at writing another book, so I found myself chatting with editoral staff today over coffee. We got around to the AdTI media release.

One of the editors made the very good point that "two dozen" people is a very small number of interviews for a history book based on primary sources. "Those sort of books need hundreds of interviews, Black Hawk Down would be typical". "Because the community is so insular if you come from outside you need a lot of interviews before you even get into their heads. You find yourself going and re-interviewing people because you made a hash of it in the beginning." "You need more interviews because there are less secondary sources -- the Washington Post can tell you what the President thought of a particular national event, but no one reported the formative discussions about the GNU License."

I hadn't thought about Brown's forthcoming book in that light.

[ Reply to This | # ]

This Disinformation Will Be Paraded Before Policy Makers As Researched & Verified Truth
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 08:06 AM EDT
This is part of the war on FOSS. This is ammo for the evil side. Given the
truth that has come to light on TSG and the other rats that serve M$,
caution is advised.

The press and politicians will not know it is malicious lies. This
disinformation will become part of the M$ lobbying effort to make FOSS
illegal. This book will be quoted many times.

Lets expose the book as the lame attempt at disinformation that it is. It is
a tactical mistake to simply ignore it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: software patents and the art of war
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 08:49 AM EDT
The following is an attempt to apply the principles and guidelines of Sun Tzu's
'The Art of War' to the current situation of software patents. I encourage
everyone to go and read the text on , it is
only 13 pages. And then bring forth their own insights.

As a first try:

Warfare is a great matter to a nation;
--- There is hardly any denying this: through their latest actions Microsoft,
sometimes with the help of certain 'allies', has declared war on open source.
The consequences of this war are not to be underestimated. It is up to us to
recognize this and respond appropriately. ---

it is the ground of death and of life;

it is the way of survival and of destruction, and must be examined. ?

--- Because of everything that is at stake, we have to carefully examine the
current situation---

Therefore, go through it by means of five factors;

compare them by means of calculation, and determine their statuses:

One, Way, two, Heaven, three, Ground, four, General, five, Law. ?

The Way is what causes the people to have the same thinking as their superiors;
--- There have to be leaders, there have to be generals. These people have to
stand up, stand strong and they need the support of their 'people'---

they may be given death, or they may be given life, but there is no fear of
danger and betrayal.
--- We might be succesfull or we may not be, but we have to know what we are
fighting for---

Heaven is dark and light, cold and hot, and the seasonal constraints.
--- there are certain 'uncontrollable' aspects, such as the state of economy,
the time, ... we have to take these into account and if possible make use of
them, but we cannot directly influence them. ---

Ground is high and low, far and near, obstructed and easy, wide and narrow, and
dangerous and safe. ?
--- ground are the aspects that are more concrete and which we therefore CAN

General is wisdom, credibility, benevolence, courage, and discipline.
--- The wisdom to judge, the credibility he needs to communicate his judgement,
the benevolence he needs to gain his followers support, the courage he needs to
make and execute his decisions and the discipline to have his plans executed
without flaw---

Law is organization, the chain of command, logistics, and the control of
--- The composition of the 'community', the 'hierarchy' of the leaders, the
means at our disposal, good management of these means ---

All these five no general has not heard;

one who knows them is victorious, one who does not know them is not victorious.

Therefore, compare them by means of calculation, and determine their statuses.
--- solid guidelines to develop a strategy ---


Which ruler has the Way,
--- Are we as united as we think we are? Are we ready to make sacrifices? Are we
loyal? How about the 'opposition'? ---

which general has the ability,
--- which 'leaders' have the insight, the experience, the skill(s), the support,
... ---

which has gained Heaven and Ground,
Are the 'uncontrollable' aspects (such as poor economy/good economic prospects)
in our advantage or disadvantage?

Do the 'controllable' aspects give us a (dis)advantage?

which carried out Law and commands,
--- Who did what they promised to do and what was expected of him? Who can be
trusted? ---

which army is strong,
--- which side(s) are numerous/influential---

which officers and soldiers are trained,
--- which key persons have been prepared thoroughly, are they properly equipped?

which reward and punish clearly,
--- which side is (un)fair and what are the repercussions for failure?---

by means of these, I know victory and defeat! ?

A general who listens to my calculations, and uses them, will surely be
victorious, keep him;

a general who does not listen to my calculations, and does not use them, will
surely be defeated, remove him. ?

Calculate advantages by means of what was heard, then create force in order to
assist outside missions. ?
--- good information is of primordial importance when making plans ---

Force is the control of the balance of power, in accordance with advantages. ?
--- Find out what the balance of power is and examine your situation. Apply
'force' to move the balance of power to a point which is (more) advantagous to
ourselves ---

Warfare is the Way of deception. ?
--- clearly, the deception of the *enemy*. This might at times include deception
of one's own army by the general if this will aid him in decepting his enemy.

Therefore, if able, appear unable,
--- Give the impression to the enemy that we are not in the ability to change
anything, but at the same time continue to plan our strategies and act
accordingly, in secret ---

if active, appear not active,
--- Do not attract unnecessary attention to yourself, your plans, your position,
... ---

if near, appear far,

if far, appear near. ?

If they have advantage, entice them;
--- This is an interesting passage. Basically it could mean something like
'offering a trojan horse' which will satisfy their greed. If well camouflaged,
this can be deployed with awesome power. ---

if they are confused, take them,
--- I doubt they are. In fact, I think many of *us* are ---

if they are substantial, prepare for them,
--- guess we'd all better get prepared then. ---

if they are strong, avoid them,
--- avoid direct confrontation on/with their strong points/positions. This COULD
e.g. mean: avoid them in Ireland, but deploy your forces everywhere else ---

if they are angry, disturb them,
--- no doubt they learned from their mistakes ---

if they are humble, make them haughty,
--- make them think they have already won the fight ---

if they are relaxed, toil them,
--- no doubt they learned from their mistakes(or not?) ---

if they are united, separate them. ?
--- I am quite certain that in a monolithic organisation as M$, it would be very
feasible to 'seperate' them by 'converting them from the inside. Stupid example:
if someone inside M$ is running OpenOffice to easily create PDF's, this is
already a step towards a more effective internal separation. If a M$-marketing
droid is married to an Open Source programmer (imagine that), the marketing
droid may well be un-brainwashed; ... ---

Attack where they are not prepared, go out to where they do not expect. ?
--- Clearly, they seem quite comfortable with their situation with regard to
patents and the way the proposal is formulated now. But is there -perhaps- a red
herring in the text which can be used against them? Are there other issues
besides patents where they are vulnerable? ---

This specialized warfare leads to victory, and may not be transmitted
beforehand. ?
--- keep your plans secret! ---

Before doing battle, in the temple one calculates and will win, because many
calculations were made;
--- The temple is a safe and sacred place to discuss ones plans ---

before doing battle, in the temple one calculates and will not win, because few
calculations were made; ?

many calculations, victory, few calculations, no victory, then how much less so
when no calculations?
--- what is important is the WHOLE situation, not just certain aspects of it

By means of these, I can observe them, beholding victory or defeat!

--- Great. But what I am missing here is a clear outline of the current parties
and alliances. ---


Generally, the requirements of warfare are this way:

One thousand quick four-horse chariots,

one thousand leather rideable chariots,

one hundred thousand belted armor,

transporting provisions one thousand li,

the distribution of internal and on the field spending,

the efforts of having guests, materials such as glue and lacquer,

tributes in chariots and armor,

will amount to expenses of a thousand gold pieces a day.

Only then can one hundred thousand troops be raised.
--- Some general/historical stuff---
When doing battle, seek a quick victory.

A protracted battle will blunt weapons and dampen ardor.

If troops lay siege to a walled city, their strength will be exhausted.

If the army is exposed to a prolonged campaign, the nation's resources will not

When weapons are blunted, and ardor dampened, strength exhausted, and resources
depleted, the neighboring rulers will take advantage of these complications.

Then even the wisest of counsels would not be able to avert the consequences
that must ensue.

--- Delays will cost a lot of our resources ---

Therefore, I have heard of military campaigns that were clumsy but swift, but I
have never seen military campaigns that were skilled but protracted.

No nation has ever benefited from protracted warfare.

Therefore, if one is not fully cognizant of the dangers inherent in doing
battle, one cannot fully know the benefits of doing battle.
--- Are there any dangers of us doing battle/taking action? ---

Those skilled in doing battle do not raise troops twice, or transport provisions
three times.
--- try to do everything right from the start ---

Take equipment from home but take provisions from the enemy.
--- Coders from Microsoft? Money from government contracts? Manipulating search
results? Google bombing? (MSN search bombing would be wonderfully ironic) ---

Then the army will be sufficient in both equipment and provisions.

A nation can be impoverished by the army when it has to supply the army at great

When provisions are transported at a great distances, the citizens will be

Those in proximity to the army will sell goods at high prices.

When goods are expensive, the citizens' wealth will be exhausted.

When their wealth is exhausted, the peasantry will be afflicted with increased

When all strength has been exhausted and resources depleted, all houses in the
central plains utterly impoverished, seven-tenths of the citizens' wealth

the government's expenses from damaged chariots, worn-out horses, armor,
helmets, arrows and crossbows, halberds and shields, draft oxen, and heavy
supply wagons,

will be six-tenths of its reserves.

Therefore, a wise general will strive to feed off the enemy.

--- therefore, it might be a good idea of strengthening our position in
countries without a strong M$ presence ---

One bushel of the enemy's provisions is worth twenty of our own, one picul of
fodder is worth twenty of our own.
--- you gain one, the enemy loses one, you don't have to transport it far
anymore, it is good for morale as well---

Killing the enemy is a matter of arousing anger in men;
--- I think this one should not be so difficult. M$ are doing a perfectly good
job at that themselves ---

taking the enemy's wealth is a matter of reward.

Therefore, in chariot battles, reward the first to capture at least ten
chariots. ?
--- e.g. "Attention, salespeople, for all contracts won against M$, you get
x% (more) of the profits!"

or: "first one to convert 5 clients from M$ to Linux wins a cruise"

Replace the enemy's flags and standards with our own.
--- Get out those Tux stickers and put them somewhere visible. If possible,
stick them OVER the M$ sticker ---

Mix the captured chariots with our own, treat the captured soldiers well.
--- welcome those 'converted' developers and other professionals ---

This is called defeating the enemy and increasing our strength.

Therefore, the important thing in doing battle is victory, not protracted

Therefore, a general who understands warfare is the guardian of people's lives,
and the ruler of the nation's security.

--- if a 'general' does not understand warfare, he will not be able to
adequately defend his nation and his people's lives ---

I will close here, rounding of with the following insight, which I think is
extremely important for the current software patent battle (the patent battle is
'just' a part of the bigger 'war')

<strong> Therefore, the best warfare strategy is to attack the enemy's
plans, next is to attack alliances, next is to attack the army, and the worst is
to attack a walled city.</strong>

We know already (part of) their plans. We must thwart them in succesfully
execute them. We must attack the alliances they made. Their army, unfortunately,
appears to be very 'formless', so at least this lesson of the AoW M$ heeded

[ Reply to This | # ]

MS-Funded Alexis de Tocqueville Institution Attacks Linus, Probably Making Itself a Laughingsto
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 05:33 PM EDT
I realize that PJ wisely suggested not writing to AdTI, but I couldn't resist. Here is my letter:
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 14:14:34 -0700
From: Dustin 
Subject: Software industry study

I notice that the AdTI takes an interest in the software industry.
I'd like to see it apply its talents and brainpower to a study of the effects of
domination of of the industry by illegal monopolies and how this subverts the
(intended to be) independent voices and institutions that report on the
industry.  Of particular interest would be the ability of such monopolist
players to quietly skew the results of studies and research in ways that help
maintain their monopolies.  I think AdTI is uniquely qualified to bring public
attention to this important way that money corrupts the free market and free
discourse on which democracy  depends, and I hope that time and funds are
available for this sort of expose.



I wonder if anyone reading email at AdTI has a sense of humor? Dustin

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hipocrits (sp?)
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 10:24 PM EDT
They blast free software for aiding terrorists and they host their website from

Check it:

[ Reply to This | # ]

The RIDDLE -& Next Issue
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 11:47 PM EDT
Ok folks.. we're all smart here -- stop laughing and start thinking like a snake
climbing from the gates of hell.

Do not discount this article, but treat it as a piece of a larger riddle. Do
you really think that Microsoft would send something this ludicrous without a
plan behind it?

Here's what we know.

* Linux is Microsoft's biggest threat.
* Microsoft does anything to kill its competitors
* Microsoft and Sun are sharing patent portfolios as a result of the recent
$1.6B agreement.
* Microsoft recently released what is effectively Cygwin to allow Linux apps
to run on Windows.
* This Alexis de Tocqueville Institution article is not the first attack, but
a stealthy and all but unnoticed follow-up to the initial one called Patents and
the Penguin ( ) dated APril 28.
* The current article
( ) includes
the statement:
"Popular but controversial "open source" computer software, often
contributed on a volunteer basis, is often taken or adapted without permission
from material owned by other companies and individuals, a study by the Alexis de
Tocqueville Institution finds. "
* Microsoft isn't stupid. They have taken the approach of first hinting that
there may be a problem, then saying there is - but without detail, soon we might
see the reveal of the actual issues.
* Microsoft does nothing if it doesn't bring in money. How Microsoft will
extract money from the Linux user in this case is anyone's guess. How Sun, with
their patent sharing will make out is anyone's guess.

So ... with Groklaw leading, start thinking how we can prepare for a
multipronged patent attack on Linux.


[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Lucky guess - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 21 2004 @ 03:26 PM EDT
Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )