Why Would Attorney General Eric Holder Cite Debunked Stats About 'Piracy'?

from the can't-admit-the-truth? dept

As part of the latest effort by the US to get China to respect US patent, copyright and trademark laws, it's apparently sent Attorney General Eric Holder to Asia to make speeches that are blatantly ridiculous. You can read the text of the speech that Holder recently gave in Hong Kong, and try not to gag at the claims he makes that are either blatantly misleading or simply outright falsehoods. The Attorney General is supposed to enforce the law -- not lie to protect the interests of a few companies.

After kicking it off with (yet another) conflation of serious counterfeiting issues (that actually put people's lives in danger) with file sharing of music, movies and software, he simply parrots the totally debunked BSA's stats on unauthorized software:
The global software industry is a prime example.
Indeed. If you look at open source software and how they've been able to put together incredible businesses, and enable all sorts of innovation by being the core building blocks of the internet, the web, email and giant companies like Google and Facebook, it really is a prime example of how "piracy" isn't a legal issue, but a business model one. Or wait, did you mean something different?
According to recent industry reports, it is now estimated that, worldwide, more than 40 percent of all software installed on personal computers is obtained illegally -- with forgone revenues to the software industry topping $50 billion.
Yes, according to industry reports. But not according to reality. The "foregone revenue" number is based on a simply laughable claim of a 1:1 ratio of unauthorized copies to "foregone revenue." No intellectually honest person would suggest that number is accurate.
These are funds that could have been invested in new jobs and next-generation technologies.
Right, except Holder ignores the fact that those funds didn't disappear. It's just that rather than going to a few companies with gov't granted monopolies, they went into actual companies doing stuff with the software. That means, those funds did get invested in new jobs and next-generation technologies. In fact, some of the evidence suggests that the money went towards creating even more jobs than it would have if it had gone towards paying for software.
And software piracy affects more than just the software industry -- since, for every $1 of PC software sold, it's estimated that more than $3 of revenues are lost to local IT support and distribution services. Other IP and support industries are seeing the same ripple effect of losses -- and current trends are alarming.
Oh, wait, so you do understand ripple effects. It's just that Eric Holder seems to think ripple effects only go in one direction. They don't. And, um, you do realize that counting "ripple effects" is blatantly misleading in that it's really recounting the same dollars multiple times. Could it be that US Attorney General Eric Holder doesn't understand basic economics and math? Or is he simply accepting widely-debunked claims from an industry that clearly benefits from folks like him repeating those claims? Neither answer seems particularly flattering to Holder.

He then goes on to scold China (without naming them directly) for not doing enough to prop up American businesses. Well, that's not how he puts it, of course, but it's what he's basically saying. Apparently, he hasn't realized that China has been a quick study in figuring out how to use intellectual property laws to hold back foreign companies operating in China -- including many US companies. Encouraging China to respect intellectual property laws is simply encouraging them to harm American companies and innovation, while giving the government more tools to suppress free speech. This is really troubling and dangerous. And, what's most upsetting is that folks like Holder don't even seem to have considered these sorts of reactions.

Next up, he simply makes stuff up to win political brownie points:
As many of you know, last year, President Obama created a new leadership role in the White House -- Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator -- and appointed Victoria Espinel to fill this position.
Except, um, that's not true. President Obama did not create that role. It was created by the (problematic) ProIP bill, which was signed by President Bush, not Obama. Now, Obama did hire the first IP czar, and figure out which department it would go in, but only in response to the law signed by his predecessor. To claim he created the role is blatantly false. This may be a minor point, but it highlights that Holder seems to have filled this entire speech with statements that seem to show a disconnect from reality.
Last December, Vice President Biden convened the administration's first intellectual property summit, which brought together cabinet officials and industry leaders to discuss intellectual property rights and policies
Right. The "summit," which only brought in one side of the debate and kicked out the press. The Attorney General is supposed to uphold the law, right? He must have learned at some point that the entire point of copyright and patent laws is to benefit the public by "promoting the progress of science and the useful arts," right? So, if you're going to convene a "summit" about such intellectual property, wouldn't you expect that the real stakeholders should be present as well -- rather than just a few industry folks seeking regulatory capture and an increase in monopoly rents at the expense of the public?
To build on the contributions and achievements of our prosecutors and investigators, in February of this year, I reestablished the Justice Department's Task Force on Intellectual Property.
Right, at the same time that you were de-emphasizing the importance of things like stopping identity fraud and finding missing persons. But helping prop up a few companies who contribute a lot to political campaigns? We'll get right on that...

There's a lot more like that in the speech, but honestly, the whole thing is shameful. It's a pure propaganda piece for a few industries, at the expense of the public good.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), Oct 21st, 2010 @ 10:42am

    USA Gov:

    "The Attorney General is supposed to enforce the law -- not lie to protect the interests of a few companies."
    This sort of thinking is very clearly outmoded. We do not live in a democracy, nor even a republic. We live in an oligarchy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Wren (profile), Oct 21st, 2010 @ 10:46am

    Right. The "summit," which only brought in

    Did you mess up a link there? Or am I the only one seeing this?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 21st, 2010 @ 11:03am

    how piracy has a zero effect on economies

    ok i have a tshirt worth 10$
    someone makes one exactly like it for a buck

    i save 9$...what do i do with 9$
    i buy 9$ opf other stuff and thus the economy is not harmed , just the monopoly that wont play ball with its over priced tshirt.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Chosen Reject, Oct 21st, 2010 @ 11:38am

      Re: how piracy has a zero effect on economies

      This is patently absurd. Everyone knows that there is $50 billion sitting in mattresses the whole world over and that's just from software piracy. We all know you took that $9 and stuffed it in your mattress as well. It's what all the pirates do. And what's more: they're not buying new mattresses either. No! They are stealing empty sacks and filling them with all that money and making that their new mattress. First it's piracy, then it's mattress stuffing, and next thing you know there isn't any more currency in the world, and the whole economy has gone down the toilet. Curse you mattress stuffers! Curse you all!! You are ruining the world for all of us!!!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 21st, 2010 @ 11:04am

    ps economy not harmed part 2

    and because the tshirt that is a buck is cheaper it gets far more sales and thus they have to hire more people to make them and thus in fact in this case it actually might do more for an economy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 21st, 2010 @ 11:04am

    Ignorance FTW

    So, if I understand correctly, that Eric Holder is going to get fired, right? Or is wilful ignorance rewarded in the American government? Please tell me he's going to get fired...

    Great post, though it totally makes me lose faith in humanity, again.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 21st, 2010 @ 1:36pm

      Re: Ignorance FTW

      Willful ignorance is essentially a requirement to be in the American government (or most governments, really).

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 21st, 2010 @ 11:07am

    regarding copyright czar

    this also tells you that both republicans and democrats are pro copyrights and thus out of touch with the majority of voters in fact weren't voter numbers down last US election ....people are vastly losing faith to even bother voting...
    and id say that once its below 50% you dont have the right to sit in office any of them....

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      nasch (profile), Oct 21st, 2010 @ 12:26pm

      Re: regarding copyright czar

      That would be an interesting law: can't hold office unless greater than 50% of the electorate votes you in. Would probably have to couple it with mandatory voting like Australia has. Actually maybe not, that would lead to a lot of vacant offices, which could be a good thing...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Jose_X, Oct 21st, 2010 @ 4:10pm

      Re: regarding copyright czar

      A system of representative that I like is for us to pick our representatives on an ongoing basis (ie, we can change from one day to the next if we don't like their voting) from a free market pool that is hopefully very large and with few impediments. This is short of a democracy to the extent that most people would not vote on most issues/bills anyway or would not be sure how to vote and would allow someone else to vote on their behalf especially if that person made a commitment

      however, I suspect even this system would be gamed by those with lots of money (eg, by lying about the purposes or likely consequences of a bill or amendment and then marketing that lie aggressively.. on an ongoing basis).

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        MrWilson, Oct 21st, 2010 @ 9:18pm

        Re: Re: regarding copyright czar

        Not my ideal scenario, but one I've daydreamed of:

        Ban all political parties. Minimum of 5 candidates per race or the vote is postponed. No one votes for anyone. Everyone gets one vote to vote against their least desirable candidate. Candidate with fewest votes against them gets the job.

        Once they're in the job, they have a camera on them the entire time they perform their duties, like a reality show. They're public servants, so they should work in public. No private meetings. No secret lunches with lobbyists. Any work done off camera without a legitimate explanation leads to an instant recall.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          nasch (profile), Oct 22nd, 2010 @ 9:25am

          Re: Re: Re: regarding copyright czar

          I like the cameras idea, but at the national level there are legitimate reasons some things need to be kept secret. You'd have to come up with some way to have someone else determine when the cameras can be shut off for discussion of classified topics. Also, it will never happen. :-)

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Oct 21st, 2010 @ 11:10am

    "Right, at the same time that you were de-emphasizing the importance of things like stopping identity fraud and finding missing persons."

    Taking that one step further ... The Justice Department's Task Force on Intellectual Property actually causes exploitation of missing children

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 21st, 2010 @ 11:13am

    @10

    you mean like fbi officers being pulled off missing children cases so they can go after IP issues?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 21st, 2010 @ 11:19am

    I'm curious as to why you didn't cite all the studies funded and done by the public with the real, non-debunkable figures.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    loki_racer (profile), Oct 21st, 2010 @ 11:21am

    Huh?

    Which software companies have "gov't granted monopolies"? I'm not aware of any government issuing monopoly licenses to any software developer.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 21st, 2010 @ 11:26am

      Re: Huh?

      Troll?

      In case it is not.
      IP laws are granted monopolies.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 21st, 2010 @ 11:27am

      Re: Huh?

      Huh?

      Every single software company is given a government granted monopoly unless they willingly give it up.

      Name one that doesn't get one in the US.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Mike42 (profile), Oct 21st, 2010 @ 11:46am

      Re: Huh?

      Copyrights and Patents. Obviously you're new around here.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      loki_racer (profile), Oct 21st, 2010 @ 1:37pm

      Re: Huh?

      I'm not new here, but I also don't buy the idea that IP laws stop companies from developing software. If this were the case, there would be one OS, one antivirus software, one email client, etc.

      Blind hatred of the copyright and patent system does less to help reform those laws than doing nothing.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Russ (profile), Oct 21st, 2010 @ 2:05pm

        Re: Re: Huh?

        You should read here more often, there are examples on a weekly basis of bad copyright and patents stopping companies from developing software.

        Take the MS case where some company claims the patent on aspects of XML that forced MS to alter Word to remove functionality.

        Just because bad IP hasn't reached the worst case conclusion that you would expect, doesn't mean it doesn't adversely impact software development.

        What if Apple had won the GUI case? There would only be one graphical OS.

        What if UC had control of UNIX through copyright and/or patents?

        What if UI had patented the Browser?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          loki_racer (profile), Oct 21st, 2010 @ 2:10pm

          Re: Re: Re: Huh?

          What if pigs could fly?

          I agree the IP system needs to be modified, but I think it's extreme to say IP laws/lawsuits equal government issued monopoly.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Oct 21st, 2010 @ 2:27pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh?

            Yeah, it is very extreme to say that government issues monopolies are government issued monopolies.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Oct 21st, 2010 @ 2:26pm

        Re: Re: Huh?

        Awesome straw man. How much did you pay the inventor of straw for it?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          loki_racer (profile), Oct 21st, 2010 @ 2:44pm

          Re: Re: Re: Huh?

          Unfortunately it's not a straw man. The government issuing copyrights does not equal "gov't issued monopoly".

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Oct 21st, 2010 @ 3:39pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh?

            Copyright exclude others from using what you made without paying you. You are the only one that can use that work freely. You have the monopoly over that work. And it's government issued. What's the doubt here?

            And in relation to your one x, y or z. Two different things:

            - You have few hundred Linux distros (including clones and derivatives of larger distros) because Linux is free and open-source, unencumbered by copyrights.

            - You only have one Windows 7, because it is closed-source and copyrighted. Microsoft has the monopoly over the Windows ecosystem.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Oct 21st, 2010 @ 10:29pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh?

            That is the definition, actually, but keep making yourself look silly.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              loki_racer (profile), Oct 22nd, 2010 @ 8:21am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh?

              I think you misunderstand what a straw man is. I haven't misrepresented any part of the author's argument. I haven't tied the author's argument to another idea, or to an indisputable idea.

              Throwing out the straw man card is a cop out if you ask me.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                nasch (profile), Oct 22nd, 2010 @ 9:34am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh?

                I also don't buy the idea that IP laws stop companies from developing software. If this were the case, there would be one OS, one antivirus software, one email client, etc.

                The strawman you employed is "IP laws have caused a complete cessation of all software development outside the single monopoly provider of each software type." Nobody is taking that position, but you attacked it anyway. Thus, a strawman.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  loki_racer (profile), Oct 26th, 2010 @ 10:19am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh?

                  No. It is my opinion that if IP law were creating "gov't granted monopolies" there would only be one piece of software for each type of application.

                  A straw man would have been me saying this was truch and then using it to dispute the "gov't granted monopolies" statement.

                  By the definition of monopoly, there couldn't be competition in each market of the software world, if the author's statement were true.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    nasch (profile), Oct 26th, 2010 @ 4:03pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh?

                    By the definition of monopoly, there couldn't be competition in each market of the software world, if the author's statement were true.

                    Ah, I see the problem. "Monopoly" doesn't actually mean an utter and complete lack of any competition. For example, Microsoft has been found by a court to have monopoly power in the operating system market, despite OSes being available from other providers.

                    You still haven't answered this question though:

                    "Copyright exclude others from using what you made without paying you. You are the only one that can use that work freely. You have the monopoly over that work. And it's government issued. What's the doubt here?"

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      loki_racer (profile), Nov 2nd, 2010 @ 1:00am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh?

                      Quick, abandon the straw man accusations for something else.

                      You might want to read up on United States v. Microsoft. The case had everything to do with Microsoft using it's power in the OS market to attempt to win the browser market war. Previously Microsoft was charged by the FTC of abusing it's "OS monopoly". However, this case deadlocked and was dropped.

                      I have no clue what "Copyright exclude others from using what you made without paying you. You are the only one that can use that work freely. You have the monopoly over that work. And it's government issued. What's the doubt here?" is and why I need to answer it.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        icon
                        nasch (profile), Nov 2nd, 2010 @ 6:39am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh?

                        You might want to read up on United States v. Microsoft. The case had everything to do with Microsoft using it's power in the OS market to attempt to win the browser market war.

                        Right. Its monopoly power in the OS market. I was just trying to rebut your claim that monopoly means an absoulte lack of any competitors. It does not mean that. However, I think the other point is much more important:

                        I have no clue what "Copyright exclude others from using what you made without paying you. You are the only one that can use that work freely. You have the monopoly over that work. And it's government issued. What's the doubt here?" is and why I need to answer it.

                        What part of it do you not understand? You don't have to answer it of course, but if you refuse to you reduce your credibility. And if you cannot understand such a simple explanation of how copyright works, then I'm starting to think you don't know what copyright is at all. I think it's more likely you're trying to dodge the question, but I'm glad to explain it if you can tell me which of those sentences is not clear.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          icon
                          loki_racer (profile), Nov 6th, 2010 @ 9:56pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Huh?

                          What I don't understand is where you quoted that from. You quoted something that hadn't been mentioned in this discussion before, so I was simply saying I don't understand where the quote came from.

                          I'm fairly sure you're not the brightest crayon in the box. I'm not the one arguing that a monopoly equals no competition. The author of the article claims that copyright equals government granted monopolies. I said if this were the case, then any market with a copyright involved, would only have one supplier, or a variation of supplies that had licensed the copyrighted material. Since that is the definition of a monopoly, then I have proved that copyright law does not constitute government granted monopolies.

                          I'm done playing round robin with you. Thanks for playing.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    mkam (profile), Oct 21st, 2010 @ 11:25am

    File a complaint against the AG

    Apparently you can file a complaint against a DOJ employee but it has to be in writing. Process is described at the link below to file a complaint with the Office of Professional Responsibility. I am sure nothing will come of it however. Would be nice if they got a bunch of official complaints against the Attorney General for basing an entire speech on made up statistics and industry propaganda.

    http://www.justice.gov/opr/process.htm

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    sum guy, Oct 21st, 2010 @ 11:40am

    "you do realize that counting "ripple effects" is blatantly misleading in that it's really recounting the same dollars multiple times."

    im not an economist, but i thought the measure of an economy was "ripple effects". the amount of and number of times money changes hands. im not criticizing, i agree with the post, but it causes me confusion. can someone clarify?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 21st, 2010 @ 11:44am

    Why not take the bull by the horns and write Holder a letter telling him about your concerns and suggestions.

    Otherwise, this article is little more than yet another cumulative post.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Free Capitalist (profile), Oct 21st, 2010 @ 12:17pm

    I'm surprised he has time to front for IP industries with the ongoing DoJ full-press operations in the Roger Clemens steroid case. That evil-doer has our DoJ and Congress in a battle that's gone all quagmire, and they are going to need more resources.

    Missing kids and so-called "Constitutional rights" can clearly wait in triage with the rest of us tax paying beggars.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 21st, 2010 @ 12:18pm

    It's because....

    The new Business Plan For America involves offshoring and using the Double Irish Tax Dodge Technique.

    When the model is licensing internally, and setting up business subsidaries, money is invested into dodging taxes. By legitimizing false piracy stats, it's possible to dodge the real problem of paying duly-owed taxes.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    lee, Oct 21st, 2010 @ 1:25pm

    just kill him

    just kill him.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 21st, 2010 @ 1:44pm

    It's sad that an attorney general wastes so much of our tax money to protect the business model of private corporations.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Russ (profile), Oct 21st, 2010 @ 1:57pm

    Ghost writer

    I am sure that Holder did not write this speech, did not question the content or apply any intellectual energy on this speech.

    He read it off a teleprompter like any other good actor.

    Not to say he doesn't fundamentally agree with the concept, its just unimportant for him to understand.

    I totally agree that the law of unintended consequences will come to bite the US (and the content industry)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Flyfish, Oct 21st, 2010 @ 2:04pm

    Holder isn't exactly the sharpest tool in the drawer and there are many reasons to question his integrity.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Andrew D. Todd, Oct 21st, 2010 @ 4:07pm

    China Will Not Pay

    In the real world, China is not going to spend hundreds of billion dollars of foreign exchange on Intellectual Property Rights. They have national security reasons for not wanting to use Microsoft software, and "Anti-Piracy" is no doubt a convenient pretext for going around and making everyone switch over to Red Flag Linux. As for American entertainment products, the Chinese government blocks them because it considers them socially undesirable. Such products encourage people to want things they cannot have, such as automobiles. Quite apart from the issue of oil, the infrastructure of Chinese cities is not built for large numbers of automobiles, and everything would have to be rebuilt from scratch.

    Then, too, there is the whole issue of the pathological tendencies in American Pop Culture. American Pop Culture does not inculcate Confucian values, nor does it even represent the tendencies in American culture which might be analogous. Granted that it may not be feasible to keep this stuff out of China, but the Chinese government is hardly going to pay for importing it.

    The Chinese are willing to pay for raw materials, of course. That does not mean they are willing to do so in value-added form. For example, in foodstuffs, they like to buy soybeans, which Chinese peasants can feed to their livestock, producing both meat and fertilizer.

    They are also willing to pay for selected technology. By "technology," I do not mean patents or copyrights-- I mean things like source code, blueprints, test cases, raw underlying test data, quality control procedures, etc., and all of the foregoing, not just for the product, but for the tools, dies, and fixtures required to manufacture, ship, sell, and service the product as well. The whole system, in short. Additionally, I include the services of experts as tutors for as long as may be required, bearing in mind that what seems obvious to an American may be lost in translation, and may have to be clarified on the spot. Many American "inventors" could not provide such information because they have never reduced their "inventions" to industrial practice.

    By "selected" I mean technology of fundamental importance. That does not mean the latest new video game. It means things like high-speed trains (involving technology purchased from France, Germany, and Japan), or chip fabs. Certain American railroading firms are selling in China. American railroads are not very good at fast passenger trains, but they are good at the kind of heavy, slow, cheap trains required to move raw materials, or to serve as the equivalent of a transcontinental ship canal. If the Chinese want to run a freight railroad to Europe, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad (BNSF, now owned by Warren Buffet's Berkshire Hathaway) are the experts in that kind of thing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Random Blowhard, Oct 22nd, 2010 @ 4:22pm

    Meh, another McCorporate McMinion shilling away to a country that does not give a shit about American copyrights and never will. Eric Holder is a minion and a disgrace to his office and the Obama administration are spineless Wall Street puppets. 10 years from now America will be a failed state and it will be other countries who will be calling the shots. Economic collapse - Yes We Will.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    darryl, Oct 22nd, 2010 @ 5:20pm

    So you just make stuff up now. !!

    The global software industry is a prime example. Indeed. If you look at open source software and how they've been able to put together incredible businesses, and enable all sorts of innovation by being the core building blocks of the internet, the web, email and giant companies like Google and Facebook, it really is a prime example of how "piracy" isn't a legal issue, but a business model one. Or wait, did you mean something different?

    Its funny that out of your list you fail to mention a single SOFTWARE COMPANY, open source, no, google no, facebook NO.

    They are not software companies, they are companies that use software, apart from open source, which is a model for copying other software products.

    So if a company uses software to do business they are a 'software' company by Mikes definition.

    It is easy to see how Mike gets such a warped outlook on how the real world works.

    If you cannot see the difference between a company that creates, sells and supports software products as opposed to companies that use software for their day to day business activities, then you should not be commenting on these issues.

    To make a claim that facebook is a software company because they use software, is like saying a bank is a software company because they also use software.

    Or an office that uses software to create documents, they are not a software company any more than google who uses software to provide a service, that is paid advertising sponsored search.

    So Mike, with all your 'expertise' in the industry are you trying to tell us that you believe companies that use software to perform their business are software companies ?

    REALLY ?? wow.

    So tell us Mike, why is it that people do not even have to say anything like what you "report" on, if they do not say when you wish they did say, you just make shit up and say that they said it.

    Even if they did not, that is lying Mike, and you do it all the time..

    Once you get caught up in a lie its very hard to get out of it..

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      madenglishbloke (profile), Oct 23rd, 2010 @ 7:53am

      Re: So you just make stuff up now. !!

      I think you entirely fail to get what was being said here - and, as a bonus, then go and get your facts entirely wrong.

      The bit you quoted actually states that companies have built valid businesses on open source, and gives the backbone of the Web and other Web-based services as a good example - Apache, Mozilla, MySQL, and Red Hat were all big companies,with some having now been bought by some of the major players in the software industry.
      Further, that paragraph also states that Google and Facebook have taken the technologies produced by those companies and used that as the basis of their business model - so that statement is correct.
      However, Facebook takes those basic technologies and extends them, writing custom code to allow their users to do new and exciting things - they write software, therefore they are a software company.
      OK, so the source code may not be available to everyone, but they make their API's available, and just as they make money from web technologies, so other companies make money by writing software that runs on Facebook.
      Google not only writes custom code for their search engine, but they make a lot of code available to the public - Google Earth, Sketch Up, Buzz, Chrome, Google Talk, and many more are all freely available from Google, as are a couple of Operating Systems (Chrome OS - still in development, but there none-the-less - and Android) - I think you could safely say Google is a software company.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    darryl, Oct 22nd, 2010 @ 7:48pm

    More Mike SPIN..

    He then goes on to scold China (without naming them directly) for not doing enough to prop up American businesses. Well, that's not how he puts it, of course, but it's what he's basically saying. Apparently, he hasn't realized that China has been a quick study in figuring out how to use intellectual property laws to hold back foreign companies operating in China -- including many US companies.

    NO he does NOT Mike, you just made that up. He says NO SUCH THING, and you damn well know it.

    He does not even say anything like what you claim he said, so where do you get this crap from Mike, do you just make it up, or are you stupid, or do you think we are so stupid that we cannot see your SPIN from a mile off ?

    Really Mike, you have to do much better than that.

    At least tell the truth, and stop trying to make out people have made statements that they clearly have not made.

    What are you trying to pull here ?

    If you had a reputation, this would badly damage it, if you had one..

    Are you going to explain to us why you posted a blantant LIE, or are you going to keep quite ?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      nasch (profile), Oct 22nd, 2010 @ 8:12pm

      Re: More Mike SPIN..

      NO he does NOT Mike, you just made that up. He says NO SUCH THING, and you damn well know it.

      Here is the relevant passage; I'll let everyone make up their own minds about what it means.

      "But the simple truth is that our chain of necessary and desired enforcement is only as strong as its weakest link. Let me be blunt: Not every country, not every organization has done enough. It is time to be clear, and honest, about where we can – and where we must – improve. If we are going to turn the page on the problem of international intellectual property crime, we must fully assess current efforts and commit to making meaningful, measurable enhancements.

      Like many of your own governments, the Obama Administration recognizes that our nation’s economic prosperity is increasingly tied to industries – like software or life sciences – that rely on strong IP enforcement. That is why we have created a new framework, and called for an increased level of activity, to better protect intellectual property rights."

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    andsens (profile), Oct 24th, 2010 @ 2:41am

    Facebook gives stuff back too

    Actually facebook gives quite a big deal of software back to the community:
    http://developers.facebook.com/opensource/
    There are some really cool (and big!) tools like HipHop and an improved version of memcached, which benefit the OS community a lot!
    Google does the same thing. GoogleWave for example is entirely open source.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This