05.06.09
Why Did CNET Remove Microsoft’s Attack on Open Source?
Amnesia or unfortunate accident?
Summary: CNET article on Microsoft’s open source FUD simply vanishes
SOMETHING must be working terribly wrong in CNET if it has selective memory. Balrog has just found this page, whose content was mostly deleted for unspecified reasons.
Microsoft exec calls open source a threat to innovation
A high-level Microsoft executive says that freely distributed software code could stifle innovation and that legislators need to understand the threat.
The story “Microsoft exec calls open source a threat to innovation” published February 15, 2001 at 11:00 AM is no longer available on CNET News.
The Web Archive does not have a copy of the full article, which was widely cited. Google finds nothing similar, either. █
“Open source is an intellectual-property destroyer [...] I can’t imagine something that could be worse than this for the software business and the intellectual-property business. I’m an American; I believe in the American way, I worry if the government encourages open source, and I don’t think we’ve done enough education of policymakers to understand the threat.”
–Jim Allchin, President of Platforms & Services Division at Microsoft
More CNET:
- CNET Hypnosis: Only the Poor People of Brazil Might Want GNU/Linux
- Microsoft Fights GNU/Linux and Brazil with Lies
- CNET Senility of the Day: Sun Buying Novell
DiamondWakizashi said,
May 6, 2009 at 4:53 pm
I found part of that article here:
“Microsoft exec calls open source a threat to innovation,” Bloomberg News, February 15, 2001, 11:00 a.m. PT
One of Microsoft’s high-level executives says that freely distributed software code such as Linux could stifle innovation and that legislators need to understand the threat.
The result will be the demise of both intellectual property rights and the incentive to spend on research and development, Microsoft Windows operating-system chief Jim Allchin said this week.
Microsoft has told U.S. lawmakers of its concern while discussing protection of intellectual property rights . . .
”Open source is an intellectual-property destroyer,” Allchin said. ”I can’t imagine something that could be worse than this for the software business and the intellectual-property business.” . . .
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_tuncom/major/mtc-00028313.htm
Roy Schestowitz Reply:
May 6th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Thanks.
I’d preferably like to find the CNET article or rule out the possibility that they just relocated the article. I had some conversations with InfoWorld’s editor last week for similar reasons. ‘Amnesia’ is not always an accident; there are mischievous staff members.
David Gerard said,
May 7, 2009 at 7:43 pm
I’m seeing the cuts in Microsoft’s PR spend take effect. Their Slashdot astroturfers appear to be taking shifts – I had no comments from them for about three days, then several comments showed up in the past few hours. I can only assume they’re feeling the layoffs. Anyone else?
Roy Schestowitz Reply:
May 7th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Microsoft did cut its PR budget. It was in the news in April. I was also told by a Slashdot admin that Microsoft hires agencies to game the site.
Scott Mace said,
May 7, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Roy, have you tried to approach CNet for comment on this?
Roy Schestowitz Reply:
May 8th, 2009 at 2:11 am
I don’t know their editor. Who would be best to contact?
Scott Mace said,
May 8, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Jai Singh was editor in chief in 2001, IIRC, but he’s retired. I can’t tell who the author of this story was, or I would ask him or her. Other CNet folks who covered this back in 2001 include Joe Wilcox and Stephen Shankland. Wilcox appears to have a Web site at http://www.joewilcox.com, but it’s down right now. Shankland is still a writer at CNet. You might ask him. There’s a link to email him at http://www.cnet.com/profile/Shankland/?tag=mncol;title.
If I knew either Wilcox or Shankland personally, I’d ask them myself. I’ll be watching to see what you can find out!
Scott
Stephen Shankland said,
May 11, 2009 at 9:39 am
The article in question was a wire-service report that we reprinted at CNET News. (I can’t remember offhand if it was from Reuters, Bloomberg, or AP.) We only have permission to show such articles for a limited time, typically 30 days if memory serves, after which you get the not terribly helpful “is no longer available on CNET News” page.