Microsoft Anti-Trust suit

[Psy]

It been 10 years since the Microsoft Anti-Trust suit and I started taking a deeper look at it.

The suit basically revolved around Microsoft giving IE for free that undermined Netscape's revenue stream which unearthed other anti-competitive behavior that MS partook in.

If we look now MS primary competitors are not in these fields are not profit drive but competitors producing utility for the sake of utility (Firefox, Linux,ect) and this is really interesting as what we are seeing is that the natural drive for capitalists (in this case MS) to dominate its market is not being challenged by other capitalists but by producers outside the capitalist mode of production and if you look at leaked MS memos MS came to a similar conclusion in that the open source movement is different in that it is not a capitalist entity thus can't be put out of busniess.

[Kamerat]

I think this shows the incentive to work without the motivation of money. The primary reason for open source is the developmemt of new technologi, avoid patents and other private property which hamper the development. In addition is free for the users.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1078/718933691_1b96fe6dee.jpg

[bosgek]

There is a cloud in the sky: Google.
It too poses a real threat to MS with a browser and their soon coming internet based operating system and office applications. That makes 2 capitalists. Microsoft responded with their own new search engine.

[mel]

It been 10 years since the Microsoft Anti-Trust suit and I started taking a deeper look at it.

The suit basically revolved around Microsoft giving IE for free that undermined Netscape's revenue stream which unearthed other anti-competitive behavior that MS partook in.

If we look now MS primary competitors are not in these fields are not profit drive but competitors producing utility for the sake of utility (Firefox, Linux,ect) and this is really interesting as what we are seeing is that the natural drive for capitalists (in this case MS) to dominate its market is not being challenged by other capitalists but by producers outside the capitalist mode of production and if you look at leaked MS memos MS came to a similar conclusion in that the open source movement is different in that it is not a capitalist entity thus can't be put out of busniess.

None of these are really examples of developers producing utility for the sake of utility. Firefox has its origins in the netscape codebase, which was open sourced and modified. Now Mozilla is an entity which makes a lot of money peddling firefox out for free (see: ad revenue, google partnership). That they happen to have a chunk of their labor done for them for free just makes it more profitable.

Linux is a similar story, it was originally created as a pet project for a Unix that was compatible with the intel line of processors. People started putting the Kernel together with a bunch of tools from the GNU foundation, but linux only really took off after a bunch of huge corporations took an interest in it and begin contributing (Novell, Red Hat, etc. all provide huge contributions to the GNU/Linux codebase, and in return they have a better product that they can sell to their business partners and clients).

All that said, the open source licenses used by these companies ensure that there will always be some version of the software available free of charge (at least to the end user, most companies find another way of making money off of them) and as such, it makes a lot of tool available to working class people free of charge that would otherwise cost a whole lot of money.

[Psy]

None of these are really examples of developers producing utility for the sake of utility. Firefox has its origins in the netscape codebase, which was open sourced and modified. Now Mozilla is an entity which makes a lot of money peddling firefox out for free (see: ad revenue, google partnership). That they happen to have a chunk of their labor done for them for free just makes it more profitable.

Firefox has developed beyond Netscape.



Linux is a similar story, it was originally created as a pet project for a Unix that was compatible with the intel line of processors. People started putting the Kernel together with a bunch of tools from the GNU foundation, but linux only really took off after a bunch of huge corporations took an interest in it and begin contributing (Novell, Red Hat, etc. all provide huge contributions to the GNU/Linux codebase, and in return they have a better product that they can sell to their business partners and clients).

It become popular when big business took notice but it saw lots of development prior to that.



All that said, the open source licenses used by these companies ensure that there will always be some version of the software available free of charge (at least to the end user, most companies find another way of making money off of them) and as such, it makes a lot of tool available to working class people free of charge that would otherwise cost a whole lot of money.
Plus you have a lot of code written by people looking for utility then sharing said code.

[mel]

Firefox has developed beyond Netscape.

Yeah, once they partnered with google and it became a lucrative money-making venture. The Mozilla Foundation pays people to code the software full time, if that business wasn't profitable, they couldn't afford to do that.



It become popular when big business took notice but it saw lots of development prior to that.

Yes it did, but you can't say that modern linux developed outside of the sphere of capitalist production. Modern linux is composed of many, many, many pieces, and a lot of the development on linux is done by corporations who have a vested financial interest in its success. It's just factually incorrect to suggest that it developed outside of capitalism, as the meat and bones of the software has come largely from corporate interest in it.



Plus you have a lot of code written by people looking for utility then sharing said code.

I just think you overestimate the amount of code in these open source projects that comes from individual contributors vs. the amount of code that comes from the full-time programmers at companies all over the world. The open source community is many good things, but it's not a shining example of extra-capitalist production, nor is it even a shining example of human benevolence.

[Psy]

Yeah, once they partnered with google and it became a lucrative money-making venture. The Mozilla Foundation pays people to code the software full time, if that business wasn't profitable, they couldn't afford to do that.




Yes it did, but you can't say that modern linux developed outside of the sphere of capitalist production. Modern linux is composed of many, many, many pieces, and a lot of the development on linux is done by corporations who have a vested financial interest in its success. It's just factually incorrect to suggest that it developed outside of capitalism, as the meat and bones of the software has come largely from corporate interest in it.

I didn't say it developed outside capitalism, I said outside the capitalist mode of production.




I just think you overestimate the amount of code in these open source projects that comes from individual contributors vs. the amount of code that comes from the full-time programmers at companies all over the world. The open source community is many good things, but it's not a shining example of extra-capitalist production, nor is it even a shining example of human benevolence.
Even for code done by companies it is still mostly done for utility not profit for example IBM doesn't develop Linux directly to make profit but to create utility in order to make profits way farther down the production chain.