Why is Apple still a member of the BSA? They might as well pull out. They aren't in the business of selling costly software licenses - they give most of their software away, ostensibly to drive hardware sales. But it seems to me there's little that BSA does that dovetails in their interest.
Microsoft, Apple and 27 other tech companies backing SOPA indirectly
41–50 of 120 posts
Re: Microsoft, Apple and 27 other tech companies backing SOPA indirectly
#42I can't help but wonder if this couldn't be made into an opportunity for those of us who oppose SOPA.
All of the companies in the BSA are big/high value. Nevertheless, my gut tells me that some of the companies on that list are not ones that would be ready to face the limelight of an organized protest. Real or virtual. As such, targeting a few of the more vulnerable companies on that list could make them publicly distance themselves from the legislation, if not outright oppose it.
Re: Microsoft, Apple and 27 other tech companies backing SOPA indirectly
#43The membership of this group is basically a list of businesses that startups should be chipping away at. Let them spend their time lobbying, while you sneak up behind them and whack them on the head with your niche webapp. -- Adobe Apple Autodesk AVEVA AVG Bentley Systems CA Cadence Design Systems CNC Software – Mastercam Compuware Corel Dassault Systèmes SolidWorks Corporation Dell Intel Intuit Kaspersky McAfee Micr…
The above comment displays a remarkable lack of understand of what it takes to build serious, featureful, software that solves hard problems. Almost every webapp I've used is a recreational activity compared to some of the problems the above companies solve. Particularly amusing in comparison are the antivirus vendors, Autodesk, CNC, and Solidworks. They are gen-you-winely complicated.
I'm not seriously suggesting that two guys in a garage set out to build an index of web pages like Yahoo's - Yahoo has hundreds of people for god's sake.
Seriously though, I do hear what you're saying. But I used the words chip and niche. If I could chip a tiny niche out of Microsoft then I'd be a happy man.
I guess my point, which I didn't make at all clear, was that everyone's trying to get a slice of Facebook, Google, Salesforce, 37signals (all smart companies) when they could be going for these dinosaurs.
Re: Microsoft, Apple and 27 other tech companies backing SOPA indirectly
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
Downvoters, educate me! What's the issue here?
I downvoted you... First, that list of companies has deep pockets, and it is WAY harder to undue legislation than prevent it in the first place. So, suggesting in any way that we let it be and take some other tactic is bad advice, IMO. Second the "niche webapp" bit is way too cliche. What "webapp" is going to threaten Dell, Intel or Apple? Even some of the software companies on that list focus on things that are not…
Thanks, I appreciate the opportunity to engage. Apple, Intel and Dell are the misfits on that list, fine. Although by the same logic Microsoft (the equivalent of a webapp developer in its time) should pose no threat to IBM.
For sure, they aren't going to fall prey to a single webapp. But they are being chipped away at - Autodesk is now up against Sketchup. Microsoft is facing Google Docs, iOS, Ubuntu, Android etc etc etc. All those competing products came from acquired startups - I doubt they set out to 'fell Microsoft' , and nor have they done it.
I wholeheartedly agree with you that we oughtn't to let this legislation roll through - I was a bit flippant on that.
Re: Microsoft, Apple and 27 other tech companies backing SOPA indirectly
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In this case I'm increasingly of the opinion that all campaign contributions of any kind should be banned. Unfortunately the only real effect of this is that only the independently wealthy would be able to successfully run for office.
Public funding. If getting information to the public about candidates costs money, then that's just another tragedy of the commons - an external cost of government that is simply ignored so that the rich and powerful can have government to themselves. It is very easy to argue that informing the public about their options in an election is essential and should therefore be covered by public funds.
Who decides which candidates get public money to spend?
Re: Microsoft, Apple and 27 other tech companies backing SOPA indirectly
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have interned with Microsoft in the past, and am scheduled to in the future. Therefore take everything I say with a metric ton of salt. Obviously my opinions don't speak for them. Most corporations put their lobbying efforts behind or against legislation based on what's in their interest. I don't believe that the public can honestly expect them to act any differently so long as their behavior is in accordance with…
> I think what this highlights, however, is that legislation should stem from principles and the interest of the people (individuals only, please) Exactly. No bill should be longer than a couple of pages. The Constitution is less than 15 pages, no bill should be longer than that. (Or you can pick another arbitrary number as long as it is low). Special interests are unintentionally creating a worse world for all of us…
Just make lots of short bills instead, or make a sort bill granting vast regulatory authority to another group. Congressmen are clever and they will get around arbitrary restrictions like that.
Re: Microsoft, Apple and 27 other tech companies backing SOPA indirectly
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know what those companies have in common? They don't sell software. If your business is basically running a website, what do you care about piracy? Not defending SOPA -- I don't have a clue about its intricacies -- but when a bunch of companies that don't sell software are against a bill that purports to try to do something about software piracy, I don't really see what the news is. In fact, these companies are a…
SOPA is mostly about music and movie piracy and any site that allows you to upload audio, video, or files is a target.
But the bill would give software companies the same tools to go after warez sites too. Why wouldn't Adobe want to be able to crack down on sites that distribute cracked copies of Photoshop? Or Microsoft with illegal copies of Windows or Office?
That's not to say this is a good bill. It's not. But if it's in the interests of companies with significant IP to protect to support it, companies with significant IP to protect like Microsoft, Adobe, and Apple can be expected to support it.
Their support is really that simple.
Re: Microsoft, Apple and 27 other tech companies backing SOPA indirectly
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
Public funding. If getting information to the public about candidates costs money, then that's just another tragedy of the commons - an external cost of government that is simply ignored so that the rich and powerful can have government to themselves. It is very easy to argue that informing the public about their options in an election is essential and should therefore be covered by public funds.
Who decides which candidates get public money to spend?
Any registered candidate would have to get funding for public funding to make any sense. Since the registration is already in place, there you go. If you can't get your minimum signatures to register, you don't get funding. Seems fair to me.
Re: Microsoft, Apple and 27 other tech companies backing SOPA indirectly
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have interned with Microsoft in the past, and am scheduled to in the future. Therefore take everything I say with a metric ton of salt. Obviously my opinions don't speak for them. Most corporations put their lobbying efforts behind or against legislation based on what's in their interest. I don't believe that the public can honestly expect them to act any differently so long as their behavior is in accordance with…
> In this case I'm increasingly of the opinion that all campaign contributions of any kind should be banned. Unfortunately the only real effect of this is that only the independently wealthy would be able to successfully run for office.
Ban corporate donations, and limit personal donations to a relatively small sum. Ron Paul for example is getting millions every month from donations made by people alone. This should be the status quo, not the exception.
But most politicians right now they know they couldn't gather as much money as they'd like this way, because they know there aren't that many enthusiastic people who love them enough to give them money. So getting money from rich people or corporations is a shortcut to being elected.
Re: Microsoft, Apple and 27 other tech companies backing SOPA indirectly
#50Notice that the supporters are software companies and the opposed are Internet companies. Here is a theory I proposed yesterday[1]: Microsoft makes the vast majority of their money selling licenses. So does the entertainment industry. For years these industries (software, music, and video) grew to massive size by exploiting cheap duplication of digital goods and control over distribution channels. Now that further ad…
I have interned with Microsoft in the past, and am scheduled to in the future. Therefore take everything I say with a metric ton of salt. Obviously my opinions don't speak for them. Most corporations put their lobbying efforts behind or against legislation based on what's in their interest. I don't believe that the public can honestly expect them to act any differently so long as their behavior is in accordance with…
>I don't believe that the public can honestly expect them to act any differently so long as their behavior is in accordance with the law -- even if only technically, and even if the law should be changed.
Corporations are composed of people, and I expect people to act morally. Laws are never going to properly capture morality, to put it another way legality is a weak indicator of morality. I humbly submit that it's not OK to be a sociopath in the service of a corporation, just because legally corporations are allowed to be sociopaths. People are just people, and should use their consciences.