[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
[school-discuss] Re: Shocking news about Microsoft's ability to kill Open
I'm not really shocked at all. Having spent nearly a decade within the
higher education industry as teacher and student, I've seen a lot of
private-university partnerships. It's common practice and is
encouraged. Private-university partnerships should be encouraged in my
view. Does it make a university look bad to take "bribe money" to host
particular kinds of workshops or programs? Sure it does!
But there's also a lot of value in having a company support a university
- especialy if you believe that universities provide the work force for
successfull companies, which in turn give back to the educational system.
The University of Washington is a great example. Boeing sponsored the
Aeronautical Enginneering program in various ways, and helped build a
wind tunnel. The business students study in Balmer Hall (as in Steve
Balmer). The brand new computer science and engineering building is
called the Mary Gates Hall. Biomedical technology and research is well
funded at the University of Washington and in the local businesses.
It's an area of interest for both Gates and Paul Allen - although I
don't know how much money is directed that way.
If you look at the universities as the engine that kicks out the work
force for businesses it makes sense and provides a valuable lesson.
When open source applications and services mature enough to "rake in the
dough" like the IBMs and Microsofts of the world, the companies
providing services will have the ability to work as closely with
universities as any company. Right now it's just Microsoft's turn.
We may have a Torvalds computer science hall built somewhere someday . . .
On 2003.10.30 12:10 Tom Adelstein wrote:
> I'm scheduled to speak at the Desktop Linux Consortium on November 10th
> at Boston University. My subject relates to Linux in State and Local
> Government, a subject about which I have some knowledge.
> This morning I discovered from a reliable source that we will not be
> invited back because Microsoft offered BU a Gold Partnership agreement
> and marketing money to never "do this again".
> Jsut slightly infuriated, I inquired anonymously about the situation. I
> contacted the Department of Justice and spoke to an attorney. Imagine my
> surprise to discover Microsoft didn't do anything wrong. What they did
> doesn't violate the law. I couldn't believe it.
> Imagine, all the time spent trying to stop them from restraining trade
> and it means nothing. They can pay companies to "not sell" Linux. They
> can provide "marketing money" to make sure their products are put ahead
> of others, make sure certain products don't get shelf space, advertise
> on every page featuring Linux or Open Source Software and they don't
> break the law. Basically, they're not considered criminals as far as I
> can tell.
> Now, if they threaten you with bodily harm, that's different. But what
> does one get other than maybe a settlement if they do? That's something
> else I found out.
> I've followed Microsoft's antics for years now and seen some amazing
> things. Some of those include what I thought were "kickbacks". But in
> reality, they must not be kickbacks. I guess if they won a contract and
> paid the procurement officer, that would be a kickback. But, no one has
> accused them of that - at least not in any way about which I know. Price
> cutting, sure they do that. Lobbying, they do that too. Whining, I hear
> they whine and spin. Evidenttly, nothing is wrong with that either.
> So, all I can conclude is that we shouldn't call them crooks. We might
> wind up the subject of a defamation suit.
> I wonder if we could suggest a boycott?
> Would doing that be a violation of law?
> Ossi mailing list