spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: moving on from MARID

2004-09-25 21:14:11
Michel Py wrote:
Well, good news for us fat and happy Americans, Uncle Sam
still can. Contrary to popular thinking, the richest man
in the world is not Bill Gates, it's Uncle Sam.

David Brodbeck wrote:
Are you kidding?

Not at all.

That guy's in debt up to his eyebrows! ;)

Indeed, but a) it's not incompatible with what I wrote and b) it does
not matter anyway. Here's why:

Uncle Sam does not know competition (can you fire him or shop somewhere
else?). I believe that every vote counts (although I have my doubts), so
whether you vote for Bush or Kerry does count, but unfortunately the
outcome does not WRT what you wrote. Whether we collectively elect Bush
or Kerry in November, I can assure you that someone will pay Uncle Sam's
debt. I can even tell you who: me. And _you_. Welcome to America. (Same
applies for many countries).

Yeah, it hurts. I know. Now, if you don't agree with what I wrote in the
paragraph above, don't bother reading further and hit the delete key.
Otherwise, keep reading.

Back to business at hand. Is the Microsoft patent applicable to SPF? I
don't know, and it does not matter.

If Microsoft wants to annoy you in court, they can do it with or without
a patent. For all practical purposes, they can sue you because they
don't like the color of your shirt and the end result is that you will
win, but spend 8 years devoting all your time, money and energy to it,
if you don't give up before that is. This is not a luxury the SPF
community has. Time is money. I own some Microsoft _hardware_ (yes they
had some) that's older than some of you boys and girls; they have not
changed a bit in the last 24 years, and I'm happy about it because I
made a killing with their shares.

Yes, a patent could help but keep in mind that if Microsoft goes to
court about it it's not about winning, it's about bankrupting the small
guy with legal fees and gaining time to develop their own gig.

I am not sure that trying to patent SPF is a good idea, because it might
convey the message to patent lawyers that _if_ we try to patent SPF, it
also means that what Microsoft tries to patent is indeed patentable as
well, which I have a hard time to swallow. By trying to patent SPF, we
actually help MS getting through their own patent process.

Shifting the battle to the legal grounds is part of Microsoft's
strategy: they know we don't have the resources to win there. They don't
care if they win or not in court as long as the SPF community is
paralyzed by it.

People, wake up. So far, we got more than MS out of the deal. Yes, they
got a bunch of free visibility out of it, but so did the SPF community,
and the fact of the matter is that MS could have bought the visibility
they got for peanuts on the dollar, when this community could not have
bought a single peanut. Although the SPF community will pay twice as
much as MS did, this part of the deal: if you can buy your house cash,
it does not cost you interest. If you put 10% down and pay the rest over
360 payments (that's 12 * 30) you pay 2 1/2 times it. MS has money, SPF
not. Life is not fair, grow up.

Yes, SPF did waste 6 months with all this bullshit, but IMHO it was a
reasonable price to pay for the increased visibility. Without the failed
MS/SPF merger, SPF was not a big enough spot on any decider's radar to
go anywhere.

Now, time to move on. Stop worrying about the legal bullshit, you're
playing MS game if you do so. What is needed now is to DEPLOY. As Soon
As Possible. PR would be good, but how much $$$ is available for it (how
much did the T-shirt deal bring?) This still is an engineering matter
and should remain so.

Go back to your keyboards and get this thing rolling. Tomorrow. Morning,
preferably. Shoot for 100% clean, but settle for 99% clean. An imperfect
solution is better than MS' crap to rule the world again.

Michel.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>