Think tank influence pt. II
Wikipedia: "Critics charge as another example that over the past three years Microsoft has funded about a dozen think tanks that have released papers attacking open-source software."
While the open-source movement is not something I am an expert on I do feel that it is an important part of society that is integral to the free exchange of information and ideas. Open-source code and software can allow people who would not be able to afford proprietary software to enter into the computing world. In his book, The World is Flat [1], Thomas Friedman notes that much of the developing world uses open-source platforms such as Linux. Also, much of the internet foundation is based on some of sort of open-source code. Philosophically, the open-source movement believes that many minds are better than few, thus allowing for rapid improvements to code or information, and that it is generally good for many to people to have access to programs, code and information because it allows for heightened community creativity. But due to the fact that open-source code is generally non-proprietary making money from it can be difficult. How a company does so depends on the details of the code in question. The operating system Linux is especially onerous to companies such as Microsoft who wants everyone in the world to use Windows. Because people by nature will tend to keep doing things that don't cost money, the only way to stop or hinder open-source movements is to create a legal framework that makes it difficult or impossible for open-source advocates to operate. Think tanks can generate the idealogical momentum to push such laws.
Apparently, Microsoft has funded at least fourteen think tanks to research open-source software and the movement in general, 5 of which are confirmed to use open-source software. Microsoft has spent at least $750,000 on this endeavor, and that's only the money that's been tracked down. It is not surprising to find that all fourteen of these think tanks have produced research that is negative toward open-source [2].
Some think tanks appear to bought out completely by Microsoft. According to United Press International, "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 [3]." Alexis de Tocqueville Institution (ADTI) fellows have written that open-source conflicts with intellectual property rights, and one fellow even went on to say that "Every day, an untold amount (sic) of employees beholden to strict employee/invention/intellectual property agreements, in their spare time (and even during work-hours) freely give away ideas, code, and products to open source projects[4]." This last statement raises the issue of who owns a person's creativity. Certainly if open-source content is being produced on company time then there's a direct conflict of interest, but is a person's spare time no longer their own but rather owned by the company they work for? It looks like the world is moving in that direction.
Microsoft has used these same tactics to defend itself against the anti-trust case held against it [3, 5]. In one glaring example, Microsoft paid a think tank called the Independent Institute to run full-page adds in newspapers supporting Microsoft's position in the case [5].
To wrap up, it appears that there is a direct attack the open-source movement by think tanks with funding from corporations who have direct involvement in the issue. Further, this whole process suggests to me that there is a direct attack being leveled at the whole idea of freedom of thought. In a perfect Microsoft world they would own all the thoughts of their employees and would be able to buy your thoughts as well.
While the open-source movement is not something I am an expert on I do feel that it is an important part of society that is integral to the free exchange of information and ideas. Open-source code and software can allow people who would not be able to afford proprietary software to enter into the computing world. In his book, The World is Flat [1], Thomas Friedman notes that much of the developing world uses open-source platforms such as Linux. Also, much of the internet foundation is based on some of sort of open-source code. Philosophically, the open-source movement believes that many minds are better than few, thus allowing for rapid improvements to code or information, and that it is generally good for many to people to have access to programs, code and information because it allows for heightened community creativity. But due to the fact that open-source code is generally non-proprietary making money from it can be difficult. How a company does so depends on the details of the code in question. The operating system Linux is especially onerous to companies such as Microsoft who wants everyone in the world to use Windows. Because people by nature will tend to keep doing things that don't cost money, the only way to stop or hinder open-source movements is to create a legal framework that makes it difficult or impossible for open-source advocates to operate. Think tanks can generate the idealogical momentum to push such laws.
Apparently, Microsoft has funded at least fourteen think tanks to research open-source software and the movement in general, 5 of which are confirmed to use open-source software. Microsoft has spent at least $750,000 on this endeavor, and that's only the money that's been tracked down. It is not surprising to find that all fourteen of these think tanks have produced research that is negative toward open-source [2].
Some think tanks appear to bought out completely by Microsoft. According to United Press International, "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 [3]." Alexis de Tocqueville Institution (ADTI) fellows have written that open-source conflicts with intellectual property rights, and one fellow even went on to say that "Every day, an untold amount (sic) of employees beholden to strict employee/invention/intellectual property agreements, in their spare time (and even during work-hours) freely give away ideas, code, and products to open source projects[4]." This last statement raises the issue of who owns a person's creativity. Certainly if open-source content is being produced on company time then there's a direct conflict of interest, but is a person's spare time no longer their own but rather owned by the company they work for? It looks like the world is moving in that direction.
Microsoft has used these same tactics to defend itself against the anti-trust case held against it [3, 5]. In one glaring example, Microsoft paid a think tank called the Independent Institute to run full-page adds in newspapers supporting Microsoft's position in the case [5].
To wrap up, it appears that there is a direct attack the open-source movement by think tanks with funding from corporations who have direct involvement in the issue. Further, this whole process suggests to me that there is a direct attack being leveled at the whole idea of freedom of thought. In a perfect Microsoft world they would own all the thoughts of their employees and would be able to buy your thoughts as well.
posted by Metatree at 2:11 PM
2 Comments:
Intellectual property laws are still in their infancy. Judges don't understand the concept of code. They understand things like patents on tangible things such as inventions and gizmos. But 1's and 0's are beyond their understanding. So they make poor rulings based on prior, out-dated examples. Our court-system simply is not fast enough to keep up with the technology.
Simply put, what drives big company's like MicroSoft is:
Company's make money by owning things.
And they don't make money when they don't own things.
As long as its legal, companies like MS will continue to do what is in their best interest and not in the best interest of humanity.
Interesting post, I, myself being a contributor to open source have a couple of points you might want to understand.
Open source in all its greatness still cannot compare to the usability of Microsoft products. Microsoft sadly but truly has talent. We live in the day of everyone has a website and/or every Joe can publish his software tool. Sometimes weeding through the crap to find something that installs properly can be a pain. And with new versions of kernels and programs being released daily sometimes it is hard to keep up. It might work on the authors computer but he has version XX of this and you don't, &c., &c.
Ayn Rand often talks about selfishness and how it is itself a virtue. Microsoft produces better products because it needs money to survive. I code for appreciation and out of boredom hence my code looks like it, I don't face losing my job &c. You can't force an author to update their software, but Microsoft must or lose a user base. Open source authors like myself are a bunch of rogues, we do what we want, when we want.
Gosh there is so much to say about this stuff you could write a couple books on it. Microsoft is doing something right. But the main point is open source software does not function as well as Microsoft products and until it does they have no competing chance, free or not. Linux, *BSD, Unix seem to have a novelty effect not a free and functional effect.
Post a Comment
<< Home