Related: diary
Nov-24-2008:
Microsoft.com/msft/aspx/secfilings.aspx >>4/24/2008 10-Q Quarterly Report 662 Kb
https://investor.shareholder.com/msft/EdgarDetail.asp?CIK=789019&FID=1193125-08-89362&SID=08-00
"'
Challenges to our business model may reduce our revenues and operating margins. Our business model has been based upon customers paying a fee to license software that we developed and distributed. Under this license-based software model, software developers bear the costs of converting original ideas into software products through investments in research and development, offsetting these costs with the revenue received from the distribution of their products. In recent years, certain “open source” software business models have evolved into a growing challenge to our license-based software model. Open source commonly refers to software whose source code is subject to a license allowing it to be modified, combined with other software and redistributed, subject to restrictions set forth in the license. A number of commercial firms compete with us using an open source business model by modifying and then distributing open source software to end users at nominal cost and earning revenue on complementary services and products. These firms do not have to bear the full costs of research and development for the software. Some of these firms may build upon Microsoft ideas that we provide to them free or at low royalties in connection with our interoperability initiatives. A prominent example of open source software is the Linux operating system. Proponents of open source software continue efforts to convince governments worldwide to mandate the use of open source software in their purchase and deployment of software products. Although we believe our products provide customers with significant advantages in security, productivity, and total cost of ownership, the open source software model continues to pose a significant challenge to our business model. To the extent open source software gains increasing market acceptance, sales of our products may decline, we may have to reduce the prices we charge for our products, and revenue and operating margins may decline.
Another development is the software-as-a-service business model, under which companies provide applications, data, and related services over the Internet. Providers use primarily advertising or subscription-based revenue models. Recent advances in computing and communications technologies have made this model viable and enabled the rapid growth of some of our competitors. We are devoting significant resources toward developing our own competing software plus services strategies. It is uncertain whether these strategies will be successful.
We face intense competition. We continue to experience intense competition across all markets for our products and services. Our competitors range in size from Fortune 100 companies to small, specialized single-product businesses and open source community-based projects. Although we believe the breadth of our businesses and product portfolio is a competitive advantage, our competitors that are focused on narrower product lines may be more effective in devoting technical, marketing, and financial resources to compete with us. In addition, barriers to entry in our businesses generally are low and products, once developed, can be distributed broadly and quickly at relatively low cost. Open source software vendors are devoting considerable efforts to developing software that mimics the features and functionality of our products, in some cases on the basis of technical specifications for Microsoft technologies that we make available. In response to competition, we are developing versions of our products with basic functionality that are sold at lower prices than the standard versions. These competitive pressures may result in decreased sales volumes, price reductions, and/or increased operating costs, such as for marketing and sales incentives, resulting in lower revenue, gross margins and operating income.
We may not be able to adequately protect our intellectual property rights. Protecting our global intellectual property rights and combating unlicensed copying and use of software and other intellectual property is difficult. While piracy adversely affects U.S. revenue, the impact on revenue from outside the U.S. is more significant, particularly in countries where laws are less protective of intellectual property rights. Similarly, the absence of harmonized patent laws makes it more difficult to ensure consistent respect for patent rights. Throughout the world, we actively educate consumers about the benefits of licensing genuine products and obtaining indemnification benefits for intellectual property risks, and we educate lawmakers about the advantages of a business climate where intellectual property rights are protected. However, continued educational and enforcement efforts may fail to enhance revenue. Reductions in the legal protection for software intellectual property rights or additional compliance burdens could both adversely affect revenue.
'"
Nov-21-2008: Papers.SSRN.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1160044 >>Undermining Abundance (Counter-Productive Uses of Technology and Law in Nature, Agriculture and the Information Sector)
"'Technology and law are increasingly used to undermine processes of abundance intrinsic to nature, agriculture and the information sector. A number of examples are reviewed here. Such counter-productive use of technology and law is traced to corporate profit-seeking. The relationships between the phenomenon of abundance and the related concepts of scarcity and commons are explored. Finally, approaches are proposed that harness abundance for the human good.'"
Nov-20-2008: Profit and work are both investments.
Nov-20-2008: Considering the title "The Product Motive".
Nov-20-2008: KashKlash.com >>We are envisioning a new world where today's aging, less useful and even dangerous financial systems are replaced by or mixed with more disruptive innovations and exchanges. Imagine yourself deprived of all of todays financial resources. Maybe you're a refugee or stateless. Yet you still have your handset and laptop and Internet and a broadband cellphone connection...
Nov-20-2008: Kurasje.org/arkiv/17400f.htm >>THE PERMANENT CRISIS: Henryk Grossman's Interpretation of Marx's Theory Of Capitalist Accumulation
Nov-14-2008: Autonomo.us >>Toward Free Network Services
Nov-12-2008: RVerzola.WordPress.com >> Ecology, technology and social change A Green activist's weblog
His latest article is "'Roots of the financial crisis: overproduction?'".
More at: P2PFoundation.net/Roberto_Verzola_on_Undermining_vs._Developing_Abundance
Nov-12-2008: Wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_trade >>Safe trade is a slogan advocated by Greenpeace in its desire to "green" the World Trade Organisation and the Doha Development Round. It is designed to compete with "free trade" as a concept.
Nov-11-2008: Aguanomics.com >>the economics of water (and some other stuff)
Nov-10-2008: Subject: Product is the original incentive
I admit that treating profit as a reward for the current owners is an
enormous incentive to incorporate. In fact, I'm afraid it is almost
the only incentive nowadays.
But there is another reason that people choose to organize and work together.
The other reason is actually the true, primary and original reason for
all production: *PRODUCT*.
The actual result of production is Product as a Good or Service.
Production doesn't cause Profit. Profit is something that MIGHT come
later if a Consumer pays a Price above Cost.
Profit is the difference between Consumer Price and Owner Costs
When I use the word 'PROFIT' I am talking about the difference between
the Price a Consumer pays, and the Costs the Owner incurred during
that production (and other, semi-hidden costs such as interest on
loans, insurance, etc.). Corporations already sort that all out and
report a final thing called 'profit', so these calculations can
obviously be performed.
When I use the word 'PRODUCT' I am talking about the output or
objective of that production. For example, the products of an apple
tree might be, apples, shade, and maybe even some wood.
When I use the word 'PRICE' I am talking about the amount a Consumer
pays - we'll assume it is in Federal Reserve Notes for now.
When I use the word 'COST' I am talking about the amount a group of
Owners pay before and during production.
PROFIT only appears when a PRODUCT is sold at a Price above Cost.
----
Ok, so that was all very elementary, but it must be outlined if we are
to move to the next observation that is somehow not obvious:
There is a special case in economics where the Price of a Product can
safely reach Cost, and where Profit can be zero.
That case occurs when the Means of that Production (the land, tools,
etc.) are Owned by a group that invested for the purpose of achieving
"at cost" access to that product.
Their "return on investment" is "at cost" goods (such as organic food)
or "at cost" services (such as cell-phone service).
So I guess my answer to the article is:
Profit is not the only incentive, and can be replaced by *Product* in
the special case where Product Consumers Own the Means of that
Production.
All policies designed to insure price stays above cost (such as
destroying or limiting the growth of food, or trade tariffs, etc.) can
be phased-out in all industry where the Means of Production are
sufficiently Consumer-Owned.
Patrick
Nov-07-2008: WaitingForCargo.net >>A cargo cult is any of a group of religious movements appearing in tribal societies in the wake of interaction with technologically-advanced, non-native cultures - which focus upon obtaining the material wealth of the advanced culture through magical thinking as well as religious rituals and practices—while believing that the materials were intended for them by their deities and ancestors.
Nov-07-2008: loom.cc >>Loomster: The Creature from Gamma Island
Nov-05-2008: Mail to Robert Cronk:
I need to comment on the last part of my message to Nate:
>>> >>> DOS is like an anarchist, "Free Trade" OS kernel in that no central
>>> >>> authority interferes to 'govern' resource use.
I also claim DOS is like Capitalism in that vital resources such as RAM or CPU can be 'Privatized'. Private property is very important to me and the model I am working on, but Privatization of natural resources such as Water Rights for the purpose of keeping price above cost is something I consider a problem (an inefficiency) in the system.
>>> >>> NT, Linux, Solaris, etc. are more like dictatorial and "protectionist"
>>> >>> where all resource use must be approved through a central authority.
I also claim Pre-Emptive kernels are more like State-run Socialism/Communism in that resources ownership is never actually in the hands of the citizens/processes, but access is selectively doled out by a 'privileged' process instead of heeding the 'Market' caused by citizens/processes *competing* for that resource.
Nov-05-2008: Mail to Robert Cronk:
Robert Cronk wrote:
> P.S. Here's an article that discusses prices and profits that might
> interest you: http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=4014
>
> Let me know what you think.
>
> Robert
I agree that State-run, centrally planned Socialism is the wrong direction.
The paper outlines some of the specific problems with the Operating System kernel called 'Communism'.
But there are also specific problems with the OS kernel called 'Capitalism' that others have outlined, and that I could cover here except for the boredom it would cause...
Just because I have problems with one does not mean I adhere to the other. To think I must would be a false dichotomy. I have problems with BOTH of these systems.
But there are OTHER ways to organize. Many have been tried throughout history. Others have yet to be invented, or are only partially complete.
The system I am working on is not Communism. It is not Capitalism. It is not Corporatism. It is not Anarchy. It is not a feudal kingdom. It is something else that I still do not have a good name for.
We can build yet anOTHER kind of OS kernel that is different from what we have traditionally considered.
I have trouble describing what I mean, but here is a beginning to that line of thought:
> Patrick Anderson wrote:
>> Nathan,
>>
>> Here are some thoughts after our conversation at Wal*Mart:
>>
>>
>> PART I:
>> Would you say people *NEED* government?
Nathan Bushman wrote:
>
> I'd say that any sizable group does need some form of govt
>
>>
>> Does that answer change as the number of people increases?
>
> Sort of - I think that the need for govt grows logarithmically in relation to the growth of the population
>
>
>> If there were some way to "start over" - to 'reboot' our society,
>> could we safely eliminate government? Could people ever get along
>> without a central authority?
>
> I doubt it
>
>
>> Why have most people across history organized governments as a
>> centralized authority?
>
> Because it's convenient and practical
>
>
>> If there is any valid purpose for what government should be, what is
>> that purpose, goal or intent?
>
> Enforce the rules upon which the members of society have agreed
>
>
>> PART II:
>> What does a modern OS kernel achieve for the naive computer user? Why
>> should resource scheduling and allocation be in the hands of a
>> 'privileged' process?
>
> It keeps the resource hogs in check and ensures that nobody starves. It's a matter of practicality to give the scheduler more (privileged) power because otherwise it may not be able to actually carry out its job. With no edge, power/privilege-wise, on other processes, there's no way to guarantee that the scheduler can keep a rogue resource hog process under control.
>
>
>> Why not just insure all the processes begin with an 'equal' amount of
>> rights, disk space, memory, CPU time, network bandwidth, etc. and then
>> let the 'market' decide ~ more like DOS?
>
> Because the results are less than desirable. You really *do* want some tasks to have an edge over others. It's the same thing in real life. An ambulance really should take precedence at an intersection over commuter vehicles.
>
>
>> DOS is like an anarchist, "Free Trade" OS kernel in that no central
>> authority interferes to 'govern' resource use.
>
> Absolutely true.
>
>
>> NT, Linux, Solaris, etc. are more like dictatorial and "protectionist"
>> where all resource use must be approved through a central authority.
>
> Yeah.
Nov-05-2008: ResilientFutures.org >>Resilient Futures was formed in April 2008 as a result of a number of practitioners in various fields believing that the current thinking in their respective professions was inadequate in dealing with the problems of tomorrow, and that resilience thinking and the concepts underpinning it provide much needed clarity in a rapidly changing interconnected world.
Nov-05-2008: InclusiveDemocracy.org >> A discourse by Takis Fotopoulos on "The Multidimensional Crisis and Inclusive Democracy"
Nov-05-2008: Social-Ecology.org >>Established in 1974 and incorporated in 1981, the ISE is an independent institution of higher education dedicated to the study of social ecology, an interdisciplinary field drawing on philosophy, political and social theory, anthropology, history, economics, the natural sciences, and feminism. The ISE has offered intensive summer programs, a year-round B.A. degree program, workshops on issues such as biotechnology, fall and winter lecture series, internship opportunities, and a speakers bureau. In addition, the ISE is involved in research as well as publishing and activist projects—currently including both the ISE biotech education and regional food system design projects.
Nov-05-2008: OpenEconomics.net >>The Open Economics project provides open content, data and code related to Economics. This site itself provides interfaces to some (though not all) of the Open Economics datasets and models. Below you can find a link to the main repository containing all our code and data (including that used to run this site), as well as to the main services provided by the project both here and externally.
Nov-05-2008: Homepage.NewSchool.edu/het >>HISTORY OF ECONOMIC THOUGHT
NewSchool.edu>>This is The New School -- a global university in Greenwich Village offering numerous degrees and continuing education opportunities in design, social sciences, management, humanities,
Nov-03-2008: http://www.kurasje.org/arksys/archset.htm >>This site is an international resource of materials about 'Council Communism'. In short 'Council Communism' was/is the critical and theoretical reflection of the revolutionary mass struggles of the working class in Western Europe - especially those in Germany - following the I. World War.
Nov-03-2008: http://ideas.repec.org/p/cdx/dpaper/2008-10.html >>The appearance of homo rivalis: Social preferences and the nature of rent seeking
"'While numerous experiments demonstrate how pro-sociality can influence economic decision-making, evidence on explicitly anti-social economic behavior has thus far been limited. In this paper we investigate the importance of spite in experimental rent-seeking contests. Although, as we show, existing evidence of excessive rent-seeking is in theory compatible with fairness considerations, our social preference elicitations reveal that subjects' investments are driven by spite, not fairness or reciprocity. We also observe a striking disconnect between individuals' revealed social preferences in our contest game and in a standard prisoner's dilemma, rejecting the idea that there are consistent pro-social, selfish or anti-social "types". Moreover, we find that cooperation and reciprocity rates drop substantially after subjects have been exposed to rent-seeking competition.'"
Nov-03-2008: AASII.org >>Abstract is being developed to be a competitive accounting and planning solution
Nov-03-2008: I've been trying to archive my "Sent Mail" from Gmail.com, but cant find the right IMAP folder name.
Nov-03-2008: Permablitz.net >>Permablitz is a social enterprise committed to improving the sustainability of our cities and suburbs. We use a sustainable design system called permaculture to help communities move away from denial and dependent consumerism to engagement and responsible production. Our core focus is helping people sustainably grow food where they live, building healthy community in the process. Rather than depressing people with the bad news, we empower them with the good news - that the solutions are at hand - and get on with having fun rolling them out.