[CS-FSLUG] Sydney Morning Herald: Cuba to Dump Windows for Linux

[David Aikema]

On 5/26/05, Don Parris <gnumathetes at gmail.com> wrote:
> BTW, the Apple Store competes against P2P, and seems to be doing quite
> well at it.  Some apparently have said that they make it their stuff
> "easier than free".  Additionally, In Singapore's high-"piracy"
> market, their theatres still thrive - Both of these examples are from
> "Free Culture".  In other words, a free market keeps you and I
> competitive.  Even when the goods are free, people will still pay for
> quality goods & services.  If we try to stamp out *all* competition,
> then we're no better than Microsoft.

In the case of Apple vs. P2P, the one provides a guaranteed source of
quality, whereas with the other one you never quite know what you'll
get.  I, for one, refuse to purchase anything whatsoever from Apple's
store as by signing up for an account I agree not to circumvent the
DRM on the downloaded product - something which for me is
non-negotiatable (on the other hand I had a subscription with
Audible.com for some time as to me, the pricing fit close enough to
the idea of "renting" than purchasing for me - even though your
license to a particular product purchased there is not time-limited).

In the case of open source software, I can also often get the stuff
needed directly from the company manufacturing it - albiet without a
support contract (which just buying a boxed distro probably won't
provide you with more than a couple of months of limited access to
anyways).  To me the equivalent there would be for Apple to charge for
its product, while simultaneously offering free access to it.

I'm not totally certain of the situation in Singapore, but when you
say theatres, do you mean movie theaters or live performance theaters?
 Where did you find these statistics?

> I did not know this, but apparently Microsoft lobbied the government
> to veto a meeting to discuss LOSS.  It was either WIPO or a
> WIPO-related meeting.  This is within the last two years.  The wording
> used by our USPTO representative, Lois Boland, was to the effect that
>  LOSS runs against the mission of WIPO.  Her comments, presumably
> spurred by Microsoft's misunderstanding of what LOSS is, include the
> idea that LOSS is about waiving rights held under copyright.  The goal
> of WIPO is to determine (a) how best to protect IP, and (b) what the
> best balance of rights is.  LOSS and libre arts fulfill these goals
> naturally, including the balance part.
> 
> This is just one effort to get people to believe that LOSS is somehow
> anti-IP.  What they're really saying is that they've lost their
> innovative edge.  The real issue is that companies need to innovate,
> not only in the area of software development, but also in business
> development.  How do we adapt our businesses to the disruptive
> technologies, such as the ability to download a whole OS via
> broadband?  We cannot rely on IP to protect our monopolies.  We must
> innovate.  That's a free market.  An IP-controlled market is not a
> free one, but a protectionist scheme.
> 
> Have I turned the table on you yet? :)

Nope, I'm not a great big fan of the present IP situation, but I still
have reservations about the workings of a business environment
dominated by OSS.

David