Re: Patent on aligned memcpy

[Craig Burley <burley at gnu dot org>]

>Why are you blaming MS for trying to patent things? Lots of people try to
>patent stuff.  It's the PTO's fault they were too clueless to find prior
>art.

IMO, that's a classic case of buck-passing.  The PTO is indeed supposed
to do a better job than it does, but it is *incumbent* upon the
submittors of the patent to fairly represent it.  You might as well
just say "it is the police's job to stop us running a red light at
80mph".  Go talk to whoever filed the patent(s) at MS and ask *them*
whether they think there might have been prior art, how hard they
tried to determine that, etc.  You might be in for quite a surprise.

As far as MS lies: quite well documented, in public, including some by
Bill Gates, such as ludicruous comparisons of DOJ demands re MS's
monopoly to made-up examples that have *nothing* to do with monopolies.
(Misleading the public is not the sole province of that *other* Bill and
his cohorts.)

It's up to you whether to continue to work for an organization that
is so clearly associated with deceipt and deception in the public
mind, and, IMO, much of this fairly (though I've posted quite a few
MS-defense items to USENET over the years, and continue to do so
when the opportunity to honestly and fairly correct the false
impressions of the public occurs, especially when the result is
likely to be a better-educated public).

As far as the language used against MS to which you responded: I agree,
it was *incredibly* inappropriate, and should be apologized for.  "Bit
players" in the free-software movement, for example, sometimes decide
to "help out" by saying the most stupid, obnoxious, hateful things they
can come up with, apparently to try to embarrass members of the "enemy
camp" into switching sides.  I guess they feel this is something they're
better at, compared to contributing code, documentation, bug-fixes, or
funding to free-software efforts.

That kind of conduct often makes me wonder why I'm associating myself
publicly with the free-software movement, especially since I tend to
have my own problems behaving this way when it seems to be "the norm".

But then I realize that there's not likely to be *anything* worth
working for that doesn't have some rude hangers-on associated with it.
(Well, I'm hoping g77 remains an exception, for good reasons at least.)

And, one of my alternatives would be to work for a company whose
*top executives*, rather than hangers-on, conduct themselves so
despicably.  IMO, top executives like Bill Gates have lots fewer
excuses for, and do much more damage by, trashing the motives and
efforts of those who they see as opposing them, than the kind of
people from the free-software community who stereotype MS employees
based on a relatively small number of public statements, including
those made before Congress.

Further, changing the behavior of the free-software bozos seems
easier -- all they usually need is to grow up (I had to go through
that phase too; some would say I still am in it ;-).  Whereas people
like Bill Gates and MS lawyers are being *paid* to conduct themselves
that way, and are thus unlikely to stop overnight just because
someone told them they should "play nice".

So, rather than work for Microsoft, I stick with helping out the
free-software community in my own little way.  (This, despite having
a relative working for MS who keeps trying to get me to come work
there.)

And, yes, the rhetoric does seem to be discouraging any collaboration
between the communities.  That's usually a bad thing, at least,
and probably is in this case.  But neither the free-software
community nor MS can fairly claim the other bears the burden of
responsibility for discouraging such collaboration, given how
many *other* enemies each side seems to be able to make with its
conduct, relative to their sizes and numbers of "borders".

        tq vm, (burley)