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


Groklaw Gear

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

You won't find me on Facebook


Donate Paypal

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.

Is Brown Really the Father of Samizdat? - A Parody by Justin Moore
Monday, June 07 2004 @ 03:38 PM EDT

Justin Moore has done a delightful parody, and he has given permission to publish it on Groklaw, "Is Brown the Father of Samizdat?" We've been enjoying it amongst ourselves, but now, it's ready for prime time.


Is Brown really the father of Samizdat?
~A Parody, by Justin Moore

It's hard to imagine that Ken Brown could have launched Samizdat without directly using earlier book-writing work, according to a report that has been unnoticed even before it was written.

The 2-page report from a one-person Durham, NC think tank called Justin Moore, suggests more book-writing credit should go to The Elements of Style. A book, The Elements of Style was written by Strunk and White to help them teach grammar and style elements in Chicago. Brown used The Elements of Style before he embarked on FUD development in 2003.

In an e-mail interview. Brown strongly disputed the study's conclusions. Strunk and White were unavailable for comment.

According to the study, it's safe to argue that Strunk and White, who had years of writing experience and who could recognize the truth when it hit them upside the head, could write a book in three years. "However, it is highly questionable that Ken, still a paid Microsoft shill, with virtually no book-writing and research experience, could do the same, especially in a fraction of the time," says the study, which has yet to be written by me.

"Why are the most brilliant business minds in the history of book publishing, with hundreds of millions of dollars in capital, reading The Elements of Style, if writing a book is as simple as writing one from scratch with little help or experience?" the study asks. "Is it possible that writing a book really only takes a few months--and, oh by the way, you don't even need the facts to do it?"

An unnamed source took a more measured view. "I think we can all stipulate that Samizdat is not a 'clean room' creation. Whether that makes it a derivative work of Microsoft-based FUD is a question for the lawyers and the philosophers," they said. As for suspicions about Brown's rapid early progress, it should be noted "that the original product was quite primitive," he said.

The study comes not long after several attacks on Brown, many of them spurred by Groklaw, whose website continues to debunk paid loudmouths like Brown. More significantly, it arrives in the midst of a legal kamikaze on Linux by Caldera Systems the SCO Group, which argues that up is down, and that it has never argued that up is down.

Bolder Words

Although my study raises more questions than it answers, in an interview with myself, I was bolder in my claims.

"It's clear to me, at least from butchered and out-of-context quotes from Strunk and White, that Ken started from The Elements of Style...He just sat down with The Elements of Style and wrote this book. By definition, that is not an invention," I said. "If you sit down with the Ford blueprints and build a Chrysler ... well, I guess that means you can't really read blueprints."

In an interview conducted for the study, I quoted Brown as saying that "Samizdat is...[i]nherently [u]nstable...[and]...depends heavily upon sponging...from U.S. corporations."

If Samizdat is a derivative work of The Elements of Style, that makes Samizdat vulnerable to charges of intellectual property infringement by Pearson Higher Education, which published the The Elements of Style book. "Arguably, Pearson Higher Education has lost out on tens of dollars" because of lost book sales, the study says.

But Brown argued that he and other Microsoft shills have given proper credit.

"Samizdat never used The Elements of Style text...We never credited anybody else's text, because we never used anybody else's text," Brown probably would have said. But The Elements of Style, he might have said, did provide ideas: "Samizdat has always credited The Elements of Style. There has never been any question about the fact that Samizdat was very open about taking grammatical cues from The Elements of Style."

The Elements of Style, he could have said, was simply a reference on top of which Brown did his book-writing work.

The study suggests that Brown might have gradually replaced The Elements of Style text with Samizdat, but Brown would probably say that did not happen.

"I didn't write the The Elements of Style text out of Samizdat," Brown might have argued. "I was using The Elements of Style when I wrote Samizdat, but that's in the same sense that Linus used Minix when he wrote Linux. Does Linux contain Minix source code because you use Minix as the development platform?"

Brown isn't the only one to dispute the study; I myself have sided against myself.

"Ken didn't sit down in a vacuum and suddenly type in Samizdat text. He had The Elements of Style and pages of Microsoft-written FUD. But the text was his," I said.

"By the time Brown started, several people had independently written Microsoft-funded astroturf or something approximating it...All of this was perfectly legal and nobody broke any anti-trust laws. Given this history, it is pretty hard to make a case that one person can't write a book attacking Linux with FUD, out-of-context quotes, and pseudo-research with pre-determined conclusions that are not shaken by the truth."

Fueling the flames

While I announced the pending writing of my report earlier this week--saying it "directly challenges Ken Brown's claim to be the writer of Samizdat"--it immediately drew criticism from Microsoft advocates who suggested Ken Brown foe Ken Brown was behind the report.

Ken Brown indeed has provided fodder to the open-source community for five years, a non-existent Alexis de Tocqueville Institution representative said, without disclosing how many out-of-touch-with-reality statements Brown has made. Brown shoots himself in the foot repeatedly, reportedly hitting all five of his "piggies"; the one that went to market, the one that stayed home, the one that had roast beef, the one that had none, and even the notorious one that went "wee-wee-wee" all the way home.

I declined to discuss my funding sources, but said there are several and that my research is independent. "I publish what I think, and that's it. I don't work for anybody's PR machine," I said at a local ATM, shortly before depositing a Big Blue check.

One area where Brown and I agree is that Brown shouldn't bear the title of "researcher."

"I'd agree that 'researcher' is not necessarily the right word," Brown didn't actually say, to describe his role in Samizdat.

The study also raises the issue that Brown saw Microsoft FUD. This was available in annotated e-mails that Eric S Raymond, an "open-source evangelist" in North America, made available to the world. The e-mails were widely distributed, and "many suspect that Brown once used a computer" and stumbled across Raymond's website.

Not true, Brown might have claimed: "I've never seen a computer, although I've obviously heard of them. And no, no leaked Microsoft memos either."

I and two colleagues--myself and me--read more than two websites for the study, but Brown "didn't get back to me" with requests for comment. Brown probably would have claimed that he never received any e-mail from me.

The Samizdat issue fuels my concern that Microsoft makes it easier for journalistic hacks to benefit from shoddy hatchet jobs, I said: "How are you going to have an intellectual attack on Linux if you keep throwing money at obvious puppets reciting provably false statements?"

Such political and business issues will likely get more attention in a book I plan to publish in my "copious free time" that will expand on these themes.

The study will be sold by an outside e-book seller, I said. Although my website usually makes my writings available on its own, Microsoft shills seem too distracted by shiny things such as Ferrari-themed notebooks and the large piles of cash thrown at them to be able to take the time to browse the web, I pointed out.

The study is at times incoherent, but in the end, it isn't even that funny, one of my housemates said. "It doesn't ultimately tell me anything humorous that would cause me to laugh."

If you liked this story, you'll probably love the original one.

The "press release" is pretty good, too.


Is Brown Really the Father of Samizdat? - A Parody by Justin Moore | 169 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Thanks, site is up
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 04:49 PM EDT
Thanks for the entertainment :) It's nice to see one work of fiction parodying

BTW, works for me.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I hated reading that..
Authored by: senectus on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 05:14 PM EDT
The fact that it was so closely derived from the "original" drivel
that Brown scratched out, just took away any pleasure I could have invented from
reading it.

Uhg... I feel dirty now.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Copied lines of type
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 05:14 PM EDT
Every single word* in the Samizdat document has been copied, literally, from
Webster's Dictionary---a travesty numbering many thousands of lines of type.

* At least, the vast majority of them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT - Paternts and the BBC
Authored by: eamacnaghten on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 05:16 PM EDT
Excuse the off topic post, but the following may be of interest.... /hi/technology/3782771.stm

[ Reply to This | # ]

Goes with Ken's Test Score.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 05:16 PM EDT

Test: Basic comprehension
Name: K3n Brown

Fill in the blanks. Cross only one alternative in each section.
1pt for correct answers, -1 for incorrect answers. 0 for skipped sections.

Max Score: 17

In the early 1990s, Linus Torvalds
[X] Invented
[ ] Authored
[X] Stole ( -- Teacher's note: You can only pick one, Ken!)
[X] An Operating System
[ ] A Kernel
[ ] Linux.
[ ] DOS.
Torvalds elected to release Linux as
[X] Freeware
[ ] Public Domain
[ ] GPL
[ ] BSD
software, which primary purpose is to see to it that the software remains
[ ] Gratis.
[ ] Free as in freedom.
[X] Communistic goods, unmonetizable by US patriots.

When first released, Linux was
[ ] Mature
[ ] Immature
[X] Military Grade Software
which gradually matured by
[ ] years of development by the community.
[X] stealing U.S IP and handing it to terrorists!

From the documented history of Linux we can see that Linus
[ ] is an excellent programmer and leader
[ ] is a poor programmer and leader
[X] is a filthy thief, and a poor programmer and leader
and that he is very
[X] slimey and cowardly
[ ] upfront and honest
[X] full of himself, and wickedly dishonest
in his feelings about software development and his place as Linux
[ ] guiding hand.
[X] IP stealing hippie leader.

When we look at the
[X] "magical"
[ ] open
[ ] closed
way in which Linux is developed by
[ ] a community of
[X] stealing from
professionals, we realize what a
[X] drain on the economy
[ ] fantastic equalizer and enabler
it is.

In short, linux history is the history of how a[n]
[ ] gifted
[X] thieving
[X] unamerican
[ ] Finn
[ ] Swede
[X] Third World foreigner
[ ] accidental revolutionary
[X] hardened communistic revolutionary
changed the world,
[ ] just for fun.
[X] to further his anti-capitalistic agenda!

--- Your score: -20 / 17
--- Grade: (F)ail!
--- Comment: Parent; please look into a School for Very Special Kids.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is Brown Really the Father of Samizdat? - A Parody by Justin Moore
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 05:23 PM EDT
This was funny, but I still laughed more at the original. Thanks for the

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is Brown Really the Father of Samizdat? - A Parody by Justin Moore
Authored by: Stumbles on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 05:56 PM EDT
I said. "If you sit down with the Ford blueprints and build a Chrysler ... well, I guess that means you can't really read blueprints."

So that's how Microsoft builds software from "the standards" and calls it innovation.

You can tuna piano but you can't tuna fish.

[ Reply to This | # ]

on a more serious note...
Authored by: pyrite on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 06:06 PM EDT
Ok. I believe in freedom of speech, and yes, that means that you may hear things
that you don't like.

But what I still don't understand is how the simple act of making something
purely proprietary (i.e. closing the source) offers any kind of guarantee that
there isn't any stolen code. There is just no reason to believe that being able
to hide away your source code in a top secret location somewhere is going to
insure that there wasn't any misappropriation. Anyone care to explain that?

While there are plenty of honest companies around, it's not unthinkable that
there might be some companies that are dishonest, or perhaps just careless.
Whether or not something is open source or closed source, for profit, or not for
profit really has no effect on the potential for misappropriation. It could just
as easily happen to a closed source, proprietary vendor (we would just never
find out about it).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is Brown Really the Father of Samizdat? - A Parody by Justin Moore
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 06:17 PM EDT
Unfortunatly, Brown probably didn't have access to The Elements of Style. If he had, he would probably be a better writer. Or maybe that is part of the parody...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is Brown Really Fatter than Samizdat?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 06:18 PM EDT
I can't help what I see

[ Reply to This | # ]

Brown's Response?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 06:45 PM EDT
Has anyone (noone?) sent this to Mr. Brown for his review and response to the

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 07:15 PM EDT
In Brown's response to Tanenbaum, he says that Linus refused to rename Linux
into GNU/Linux, when requested by FSF/Stallman, and suggests that is some
evidence of Linus' wrongful actions.

In the real world, we know that Linus is just involved with the kernel, whereas
FSF is involved with the toolset, and the argument that Brown is making relies
on the false premise that Stallman's request for GNU/Linux naming somehow
suggests a Stallman claim on the kernel itself.

Even if that were not the case, the fact is that I don't believe there is
anything in the GPL which requires you to incorporate or use the original
author's product name as part of a derived version. For example, I could take a
copy of GCC and call it something else entirely, and wouldn't be in violation of
the GPL provided that I complied with the terms of GPL (such as making source

On the same basis as Brown argues GNU/Linux v Linux, I would like to argue that
Brown's Samizdat report ought to be called


I claim this on the basis that I (and many others) have said or written idiotic
things during at last some periods in our life.

If Brown insists on using a vast percentage of the idiocy available in the world
(and indeed even add to world stocks), I think he ought to credit all the prior

Don't you?

Will Mr Brown credit the other idiots, from which his work is in part derived?
(Although I will acknowledge that Brown has invented some new idiocy of his own,
but it's not like he started from a blank slate of world idiocy).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Do you ken?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 07:50 PM EDT
For us to accept Tanenbaum's argument, Linus Torvalds at 21, with one year of C
programming, was Doug Comer, an accomplished computer scientist, or smarter than
the Coherent team, and of course a better programmer than the good professor

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Syntax error? - Authored by: Jude on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 08:00 PM EDT
    • Syntax error? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 08:05 PM EDT
  • Do you ken? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 08 2004 @ 01:12 AM EDT
  • Do you ken? - Authored by: Rodrin on Tuesday, June 08 2004 @ 12:49 PM EDT
  • Do you ken? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 09 2004 @ 07:56 AM EDT
OT: New Enderle Masterpiece
Authored by: m_si_M on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 08:07 PM EDT

Enderle spat out a new masterpiece. Besides his usual falsehoods and lies, we can read some interesting sentences:

"The most common response I get from Apple advocates when I mention this threat is that Apple will sue the Linux providers. Given that the user interfaces could fall under the GPL a lawsuit strategy will be problematic. We have only to look at SCO to see just how problematic this will become.

Unlike SCO, Apple has a well-funded marketing organization and could be far more effective at painting Linux advocates as communists and thieves. But this could get incredibly ugly. Apple is seeking patents to protect its interface better, but its litigation against Microsoft a decade ago didn't go well, and Microsoft will clearly dispute these patent attempts and make it difficult even if Linux supporters don't initially dispute these patents."

I recommend everyone to read the whole article, because, ironically, it's obvious that literal as well as non-literal copying of Brown‘s draft seems to have occured.


[ Reply to This | # ]

enough already
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 08:16 PM EDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: bruce_s on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 08:47 PM EDT
From a message on the Yahoo! board Well it appears that AdTI is starting a counter-counterFUD campaign called "Open Contradictions".
Adti, 'open contradictions' and the WSJ by: moonrealestate2000 06/07/04 08:28 pm Msg: 141966 of 141967
AdTI has a new piece on it's homepage: a quote for ESR: "Linus Torvalds, for example, didn't actually try to write Linux from scratch. Instead, he started by reusing code and ideas from Minux, a tiny Unix-like operating system for PC clones...." Eric Raymond, 1999 and the anouncement of a site to track "open contradictions": > The link leads to the well known under construction page (they should sell advertising space on that page, they would make a fortune!)
They offer a second under construction link to the "open contradictions series" and ad a credit to the WSJ: "Special thanks to Lee Gomes of The Wall Street Journal for his recent email which inspired this service."

Bruce S.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Game Time US District Court Salt Lake City
Authored by: cxd on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 09:15 PM EDT
Tuesday, 06/ 08/ 04

TIME: 10:30 Motion Hearing

2:03-cv-00294 SCO Grp, et al v Intl Bus Mach Inc

I look forward to seeing all of the fans at the game tomorrow. My son Parker
will not be attending with me this time, he will be in school. He asked me
today if the same bad men would be at the court tomorrow. I said “what bad
men.” You know dad the ones that steal other peoples work.” Next he said “ Dad
when will all of this be through?” I did not know what to say to him but I am
starting to see light in the distance.

I hope to see many of the Linux faithful there.

As always I will be there with the Linux and SuSE lapel pins on. I will write
to the list as soon as I can get back from the court.

You know I was thinking we should have a bake sale or something out in front of
the court. Support the Salt Lake Linux Group because we want to save you money
on your next Operating System! Better yet we could give Linux cd's away for
free. This would be free as in speech and as in beer. What a concept. Oh
there goes the radical in me again. Wow I am out of control.

I get so excited the night before a good Court Date.

See everyone there. Hoping for a great outcome for the home team.


[ Reply to This | # ]

In Ken's Defense
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 09:19 PM EDT
I know this opinion may be unpopular here, but I believe Ken is being unfairly treated by this "parody". How can we be expected to imagine that he copied from The Elements of Style when there isn't even an atom of style in his writing?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Would you please ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 10:22 PM EDT
...stop calling this peace of Brown's sh**t Samizdat.

Call it whatever you want but it's just not faire to spit on something that was
so beautiful tradition, just because one idiot called his (never published book)
like that.

Men, how would you feel, let say 10 years from now, some idiot write a POS
called "Groklaw comunity or why crows dives in the indien ocean",
stating that dolphins in fact are not mamals but insects perfectly accomodated
to a US capitalistic system, so no other nation could ever eat the tuna fish,
eccept maybe Japs cause the killer whales are the birds accomodated to Japs
feudalysm so they have almost the same rights on tuna fish as US.

Have you ever red or at least take in hand some peace of samizdat. Continuing to
use this word in context of some alleged K. Brown is not fair use ... of this
word ... and we (I mean Eastern euros) have (c) on it.

106ja (sory just to lazy to logon)

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT - Microsoft patch ban attacked
Authored by: kh on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 10:48 PM EDT
An article about Microsoft putting profit before security: here (Registration may be required)
The Microsoft decision will harm its licensed users, says chief technical officer of Counterpane Internet Security, Bruce Schneier. "This decision, more than anything else Microsoft has said or done in the past few years, proves to me that security is not the company's first priority," Schneier says.

Here was a chance for Microsoft to put security ahead of profits and improve security for all its users worldwide, he says. "Microsoft claims that improving security is the most important thing, but its actions prove otherwise."
and remember that even if you use another operating system, bugs trojans, spammers using windows affect everyone else on the internet.

Democracy imposed from without is the severest form of tyranny.
-- Lloyd Biggle, Jr.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is Brown Really the Father of Samizdat? - A Parody by Justin Moore
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 10:48 PM EDT


[ Reply to This | # ]

OT: How is paying out $13m boosting a warchest
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 10:48 PM EDT

I understand paying $13m (and issuing stock) is better cash-wise for SCO than
paying $40m, but I find it hard to believe that paying $13m is a
"boost" to a war chest.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is Brown Really the Father of Samizdat? - A Parody by Justin Moore
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 11:28 PM EDT
You forgot a line.....

Strunk and White were unavailable for comment.

Of course, what with them being dead and all..... :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

To write a book in our times
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, June 07 2004 @ 11:52 PM EDT
The Danish philosofer Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) wrote 160 years ago
(in my approximate translation into English):

To write a book in our times is the easiest thing.
when you, as is common, take ten older books about the same subject
and write from that an eleventh book about the same subject.

Neither Danish nor English is my native language
so there may exist a better translation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Truth! Above all else.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 08 2004 @ 12:09 AM EDT
A "Factual & Truthfilled" rebuttal to Ken Brown.

~waynesworld~ Daemons @ the Jersey Shore

[ Reply to This | # ]

Other new filings
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 08 2004 @ 12:40 AM EDT
More PHVs for SCO. I didn't bother to read it. But I guess they feel that 12
lawyers from 4 firms is not enough

[ Reply to This | # ]

Quoting AdTI
Authored by: dmscvc123 on Tuesday, June 08 2004 @ 01:00 AM EDT
"But unlike oil and aluminum, ideas and innovative technology can be
controlled by no company."

"Consumers exercising their freedom of choice to buy the best product have
made Microsoft what it is today. And -- as they did to the telegraph, the icebox
and the stamp -- new technology and consumer demand will quickly move old ideas
into the history books."

"History has proven the decision for dominant technology should rest in the
marketplace, not in the courtroom."

All those quotes from Ken Brown's 2000 article titled "The Market Place
Should Rule On Technology

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is Brown Really the Father of Samizdat? - A Parody by Justin Moore
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 08 2004 @ 01:49 AM EDT
Another Rebuttal to Ken Brown,
by Andy Tanenbaum, 6 June 2004


[ Reply to This | # ]

Is Bill Gates really the father of MS-Basic?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 08 2004 @ 02:38 AM EDT
I have just been reading “A History of Modern Computing 2ed” by Paul E. Ceruzzi
and I found the following history interesting.

Apparently Bill Gates and Paul Allen (with some help from Monte Davidoff) wrote
the first MS-Basic for the Altair, based on the language spec of Kemeney and
Kurtz of Dartmouth and using crucial language extensions from DEC - in
assembler!- on a PDP-10 using a cross assembler they wrote for a target
architecture they didn’t have access to!!- under the incredibly tight memory
constraint of 4K!!! –despite having no formal training in Computer Science!!!!
–all in under a year!!!!!

Now *that* is an incredible accomplishment… hmmm… Brown has got me thinking…

(Interestingly, the same book points out that Tim Paterson wrote the initial
version of QDOS (later MS-DOS) (in assembler!) in about two months).

[ Reply to This | # ]

IInnocent question: could we misconstrue AdTI's commentary?
Authored by: cheros on Tuesday, June 08 2004 @ 02:49 AM EDT
It strikes me that it would be even more comical to use AdTI's press releases,
FAQs and answers (including Ken Browns') and twist that in the same fashion.

Might be an amusing exercise, and they won't be able to say they didn't make
such statements.

Call it couterspin...


[ Reply to This | # ]

Possible Addendum
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 08 2004 @ 03:04 AM EDT
Other sources question whether Brown's words are really fully expressed. A
former head, on the very top of a pair of shoulders no less, called writing like
brown's 'Hybrid Words'. These words are not truly worth listening to because
they are imbued by hidden agendas and undisclosed backers. Opinions of this
nature are not really valid because they are full of half truths and

An author's backers, concealed by proprietary business license, are initially
shielded because writing of this nature purports to work independently and with
a seeming scientific detachment. As this sort of half speech continues and
commercial writers are unable to 'open source' their facts it takes on a darker
more asinine quality. Hybrid Opinion, unable to represent its backers or defend
its insincerity, embarrasses a swath of potential companies and makes a laughing
stock of the people who originate or espouse it. This is a reason why many
Universities and places of learning follow an open source license for their data
called 'Honesty'.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comparing Samizdat with source
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 08 2004 @ 08:00 AM EDT
Justin Moore asked me to compare any code found in Samizdat 0.1 and the
interviewees he spoke with. My results are as follows:

I found no correspondence between the coherent arguments put forward by ASTand
others and the incoherent ramblings found in Samizdat. Any comments to the
contrary are certainly more fud!

Apparently he didn't write this article before receiving my findings, so I guess
he must know what he is talking about!

with apologies to Alexey Toptygin, who impressed me no did Justin :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Documentary evidence that AdTI is nothing more than paid PR
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 08 2004 @ 02:25 PM EDT
"AdTI has a proven track record of generating national, regional and local
press on issues ... Our press abilities are, quite frankly second to none. ...
We would like to request $60,000, or $30,000 a month, to implement this
program." -- AdTI fax to Philip Morris.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Some quotes from Brown that support your thesis
Authored by: Tim Ransom on Tuesday, June 08 2004 @ 06:47 PM EDT
"AdTI did not publish Samizdat..."

"As long as the value of the IT economy is dependent on the preservation of
intellectual property, it is counterproductive..."

Thanks again,

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is Brown Really the Father of Samizdat? - A Parody by Justin Moore
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 09 2004 @ 02:10 AM EDT
This is, without a doubt, the funniest thing I have read in a long time. To
laugh out loud at such well thought out drivel is delicious. Congratulations!
on a job well done.

Ron Smith

[ Reply to This | # ]

Kernel Writing - Single-handed
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 09 2004 @ 07:27 PM EDT
In regards to Mr. Brown's insults to Linus about not being able to write a kernel single-handedly... of course it's possible--you just need the right assistance...

[ Reply to This | # ]

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 )