Re: "Google and Microsoft are both deeply dedicated to research, although their approaches to it are quite different but"

Not really converging at all.

Microsoft's research is dedicated to becoming a 100% dominant monopoly with all competition rendered either destroyed or illegal. On the other hand, Google's research is dedicated to becoming a dominant monopoly by offering a compellingly better solution and not by force of law.

It's like two different countries with the same goals of survival and world domination. Except that Microsoft acts as a warring dictatorship, while Google acts as a free nation to which immigrants flock because of the promise (whether true in practice or not) of freedom and better living, and not because of some legal or militarily enforced action.

So whoever Obama backs now, it seems certain that the old economy that supported a 100% Microsoft monopoly as somehow a good thing is showing signs of coming to an end. Time will tell.

So Philosopher - how exactly do you form your opinions of Microsoft and Google's motivations for their research? Based on reading /.? I know many many people at Microsoft including some very senior people and I can tell you that you're assumptions are false. Don't just spout the party line of the Microsoft-bashing community.

Quote Philosophe "Don't just spout the party line of the Microsoft-bashing community."
-
Come on, at least if you want to try and protect whatever identity you usually post under try and think of a more original name that IMO doesnt seek to confuse free debate.
-
Quote "I know many many people at Microsoft including some very senior people and I can tell you that you're assumptions are false."
-
Who and what do they say? Its very easy to make baseless generalizations (and thats often the problem when MS supporters make a post)
-
I put it to you that you are spouting the party line of the Microsoft faithful community.
-
I dont bash Microsoft. On the day that I post something untrue about them or their products I will agree with you. That is bashing. If IMO Microsoft didnt create the news in which we quote then we wont quote it. Simple really.
-
Much as I would like to take the word of a poster who simply partly copies the handle of another when they say "I can tell you that you're assumptions are false", until you are more specific you are guilty of what you are trying to imply philosopher is, that being opinion.
-
I take it you are not refering to Steve Ballmer though, as he was reported saying:
-
"Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches,"
-
Assumptions false? - Ill let the readers decide.

Microsoft claims that most open-source software is violating their patents. Google doesn't.

Microsoft prevents me from fully accessing Sharepoint or using Moonlight or fully accessing Exchange Web mail from Linux and Mac browsers. Google lets me get to Gmail from IE, Firefox, or Safari with equal ease and with hardly any interruption.

Bill Gates claimed that software patents would kill innovation, and now Ballmer is claiming that open-source softare violates Microsoft's software patents. If they are not contradicting each other, then Microsoft's own executives are publically stating that they are trying to stop all non-Microsoft innovation.

I formed my opinions by direct experience and from well-documented public statements.

Google tried to buy off Yahoo after the deal with Microsoft fell through.That is a company move that fits in well with the trusts that the anti monopoly law was set up to break up.Google is no different than other trusts, only it has skillful propaganda and has put money in the right places such as in the Democrats pockets .

Obama needs to let the free market work when it comes to technology development. Intrusive government intervention here is not the answer.

Which company will have his ear? That's easy -- the one that passes the most cash under the table for Mr. O and the Democrats.

The worm has turned boys and girls. There are no more rules. We are now a one-party system and state control is coming for most national-scale interests and companies.

a. This council was established in 1990 by George Bush Sr. It dates back to the Truman era.

b. The council includes non-profit companies and academic leaders.

c. Worshipping the "free market" got us far in the past 8-10 years. Yes, we are in a far better place with a healthy economy. Sure.

Pablo says:
"Google tried to buy off Yahoo after the deal with Microsoft fell through."
----------------------------------------------------
Not aware of that at all, if you have some links to back up your claim that would be nice. Google and Yahoo were trying to put a ad deal together "before" the M$/Yahoo deal fell apart, that is known.
----------------------------------------------------
Is it any wonder that our gov in the USA is sort of bought and paid for? It mostly business as usual here, and the company that gives the Most (M$) gets the most.
Google gave to, but not as much. Both Google and M$, I believe, gave to both parties. The system is setup these days, that it takes a lot of money to win an election, guess where that money comes from.

@The Lady,

Yes, you are correct. And it is my experience that any party that is in power owes its allegiance to the top money donors.

Freedom isn't free; free markets aren't free from oversight. Freedom, whether personal or markets, is like taking a bath. You can't bathe only once in your life and stay clean. You must bathe again and again and again to stay clean. Likewise, freedom and free markets require constant care and attention and on-going sacrifice to remain free. Freedom and cleanliness aren't possible without constant and careful attention.

All presidents starting with Reagan, from both parties, have let the financial foxes guard the banking henhouse (sorry for the metaphor gone awry!). That is NOT free-market capitalism. That is financial anarchy. But governments have no business aptitude for running financial institutions, car manufacturers, science, and health care. Anarchy is no good. Government control and micro-management is no good. The middle ground? It's extremely elusive, that's for sure.

Democracy is the worst form of governance, except for the alternatives. Capitalism is the worst economic system, except for the alternatives.

I agree with you, Philosopher. I didn't agree with other posters who suggested that because tech industry members are named to a diverse panel that included non-profits and educators, we are leaving the free market system. I think that a science and tech panel needs to have everyone on board.

I also think that in general, we may now be in the process of ensuring that the foxes no longer "guard the henhouse", as you say. I don't think current negotiaton/interference with banks, car companies, etc. (to help keep them afloat)is happening any more it did with the previous administration, which started the "givaway" and "co-ownership" process. Basically, I don't think the news that Google or Microsoft were appointed to an ongoing advisory panel is in any way pro- or against-capitalism, a political move, or even a big deal.

I agree with you, Philosopher. I didn't agree with other posters who suggested that because tech industry members are named to a diverse panel that included non-profits and educators, we are leaving the free market system. I think that a science and tech panel needs to have everyone on board.

I also think that in general, we may now be in the process of ensuring that the foxes no longer "guard the henhouse", as you say. I don't think current negotiaton/interference with banks, car companies, etc. (to help keep them afloat)is happening any more it did with the previous administration, which started the "givaway" and "co-ownership" process. Basically, I don't think the news that Google or Microsoft were appointed to an ongoing advisory panel is in any way pro- or against-capitalism, a political move, or even a big deal.

I dont think its a big deal that Google and Microsoft are part of Obama's tech advisory council. The council should have some private sector participation, i mean technology advancement is driven by the private sector so they should have some participation. With the hard economic times, everyone is turning to the government to save us. i dont know if more government involvement is going to help, then again the private sector has already messed things up. one thing i'm glad Obama is focusing on is cybersecurity. identity theft and fraud is back on the rise and with everything going digital, we need to be aware and careful about how we protect our sensitive/private information. i have been doing a lot of reading on justaskgemalto.com, its this digital security resource site. there is a lot of things that i have been doing that isnt consider safe, like using the same password for everything. i realize that as we move to a digital society, we need to develop our digital smarts skills.