Favorite Files

No favorite files added yet

Recent Posts

1. Comment - Microsoft: Open-Source Violates 235 Patents

   (May 14, 2007 - 3:50 PM)

   Infinite Number of Monkeys.
   
   Intellectual Property typically protects the means by which a result was achieved, not the end result itself. For those who have been around, think back to the first IBM Personal Computers and then the Compaq Personal Computer. The Compaq developers weren't allowed to see the source for the IBM BIOS but were tasked with creating something that performed the same function, which is where we got the term IBM Compatible. Other developers are allowed to develop materials similar to those produced by Microsoft as long as they don't use Microsoft's code. Microsoft is pitching a fit because the Open-Source community is achieving the same goals that their own developers have put effort into and then giving away the capabilities for free. (GPL) Microsoft sees it as a threat and is simply lashing out. They've been doing this for years, attacking Apple, Sun and a number of other companies because those companies were able to produce software and tools that looked similar to their own.
   
   The whole idea of being able to patent software is just absurd. Back to the monkeys. The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type or create a particular chosen text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare. The Monkey didn't see anything written by Shakespeare. It can't read. It doesn't even have a concept of who Shakespeare is. It was simply pressing buttons and by chance came up with the same result. That being said, if a non-Microsoft developer sits in front of a keyboard and has a conscious thought about how to arrive at a solution, then proceeds to type it out, good for him. If it turns out that someone at Microsoft already typed the same thing, who cares? The non-Microsoft developer didn't use any Microsoft materials to arrive at the solution so there should be no problem. If both developers used the same path to arrive at the conclusion, it should simply prove that it was the most logical path, so no foul. If Microsoft has a problem with it, they need to suck it up, move on and make something better. It's supposed to be a competitive market.