Microsoft, Apple and 27 other tech companies backing SOPA indirectly

http://thenextweb.com/insider/2011/11/17/which-tech-companies-back-sopa-microsoft-apple-and-27-others/

by bradmccarty • 15 years ago

492 118 15 years ago

thenextweb.com

rexf• 15 years ago

It was very conspicuous yesterday that Apple & Microsoft did not show up on the anti-SOPA NYTimes ad:

http://www.engadget.com/2011/11/16/google-facebook-twitter-a...

guywithabike• 15 years ago

Also conspicuous that Y Combinator wasn't on the ad. It's clear and obvious that PG and Y Combinator are in full support of SOPA.

monochromatic• 15 years ago

Har har.

tikhonj2• 15 years ago

Those were all internet companies--internet freedom really matters to them. Microsoft and Apple, on the other hand, make money by restricting users' freedom and do not rely on the internet nearly as heavily. Their covertly supporting SOPA does not really come as a surprise.

Volpe2• 15 years ago

> Microsoft and Apple, on the other hand, make money by restricting users' freedom

Umm, actually I think they make their money buy selling products. Consumers are rarely (ever?) driven by a "restrict my freedom" motive...

podperson• 15 years ago

You know what those companies have in common? They don't sell software. If your business is basically running a website, what do you care about piracy?

Not defending SOPA -- I don't have a clue about its intricacies -- but when a bunch of companies that don't sell software are against a bill that purports to try to do something about software piracy, I don't really see what the news is. In fact, these companies are all basically ad networks...

wmf• 15 years ago

SOPA is mostly about music and movie piracy and any site that allows you to upload audio, video, or files is a target.

nextparadigms2• 15 years ago

Does that mean Microsoft and Apple have to support any anti-piracy bill, without any regard for its consequences? Because if that's true, then they are no better than RIAA and MPAA and they couldn't care less about the Internet and censorship, as long as they reduce the pirated copies by 10% (if that).

dmak• 15 years ago

I am really worried for the future of the internet.

AlexMuir5• 15 years ago

The membership of this group is basically a list of businesses that startups should be chipping away at. Let them spend their time lobbying, while you sneak up behind them and whack them on the head with your niche webapp.

Adobe

Apple

Autodesk

AVEVA

AVG

Bentley Systems

Cadence Design Systems

CNC Software – Mastercam

Compuware

Corel

Dassault Systèmes SolidWorks Corporation

Dell

Intel

Intuit

Kaspersky

McAfee

Microsoft

Minitab

Progress Software

PTC

Quark

Quest

Rosetta Stone

Siemens PLM Software, Inc.

Sybase

Symantec

TechSmith

The MathWorks

AlexMuir5• 15 years ago

Downvoters, educate me! What's the issue here?

brk• 15 years ago

I downvoted you...

First, that list of companies has deep pockets, and it is WAY harder to undue legislation than prevent it in the first place. So, suggesting in any way that we let it be and take some other tactic is bad advice, IMO.

Second the "niche webapp" bit is way too cliche. What "webapp" is going to threaten Dell, Intel or Apple? Even some of the software companies on that list focus on things that are not going to fall prey to "niche webapps" for any foreseeable time.

So, to me, your comment was a strawman that added no value.

rhplus• 15 years ago

I didn't downvote, but possibly it's because you're suggesting people build webapps to compete with anti-virus firms, CAD/CAM vendors and a couple of hardware manufacturers.

bonzoesc• 15 years ago

None of the companies you listed are one-man shops; believing that they can either lobby or make new products and not do both is silly.

pnathan2• 15 years ago

The above comment displays a remarkable lack of understand of what it takes to build serious, featureful, software that solves hard problems.

Almost every webapp I've used is a recreational activity compared to some of the problems the above companies solve.

Particularly amusing in comparison are the antivirus vendors, Autodesk, CNC, and Solidworks. They are gen-you-winely complicated.

AlexMuir5• 15 years ago

I'm not seriously suggesting that two guys in a garage set out to build an index of web pages like Yahoo's - Yahoo has hundreds of people for god's sake.

Seriously though, I do hear what you're saying. But I used the words chip and niche. If I could chip a tiny niche out of Microsoft then I'd be a happy man.

I guess my point, which I didn't make at all clear, was that everyone's trying to get a slice of Facebook, Google, Salesforce, 37signals (all smart companies) when they could be going for these dinosaurs.

rmjb• 15 years ago

It sounds like you're implying that web apps aren't quite ready to take on CAD/CNC apps yet. Have you seen tinkercad ?

luigi• 15 years ago

Here's the Influence Explorer profile of the BSA:

http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/business-software-...

Alex3917• 15 years ago

Based on Google's congressional testimony yesterday, it sounds like even they are willing to support the bill as long as it's changed so that Google themselves aren't affected.

naner2• 15 years ago

Notice that the supporters are software companies and the opposed are Internet companies. Here is a theory I proposed yesterday[1]:

Microsoft makes the vast majority of their money selling licenses. So does the entertainment industry.

For years these industries (software, music, and video) grew to massive size by exploiting cheap duplication of digital goods and control over distribution channels. Now that further advancing technology has brought duplication and distribution to the masses they are franticly trying to regain control.

The opposing tech companies sell services and advertising. Copyright infringement largely doesn't affect their bottom-line and these proposed measures will be costly for them to implement and legally difficult for them to follow.

Google's lawyers bringing up the Wikileaks payment processor embargo as a preferred solution also supports this position. Google (and other Internet companies) aren't really trying to protect free speech or other perceived rights, they are merely trying to protect their own interests.

1: http://news.ycombinator.org/item?id=3246019

steve-howard4• 15 years ago

I have interned with Microsoft in the past, and am scheduled to in the future. Therefore take everything I say with a metric ton of salt. Obviously my opinions don't speak for them.

Most corporations put their lobbying efforts behind or against legislation based on what's in their interest. I don't believe that the public can honestly expect them to act any differently so long as their behavior is in accordance with the law -- even if only technically, and even if the law should be changed.

I don't like SOPA one bit, and I don't think it should pass. I think what this highlights, however, is that legislation should stem from principles and the interest of the people (individuals only, please). This is not currently the case, thanks in part to a long history of Supreme Court decisions (culminating in Citizens United v. FEC) which permits corporations to buy politicians. It is certainly not in most politicians' interest to alter the status quo.

As with the Occupy Wall Street crowd, I say again: if corporations are following the law of the land in a way that's detrimental to the public, then the law is what's broken. In this case I'm increasingly of the opinion that all campaign contributions of any kind should be banned. In any case I'm appalled that the primary concern with sweeping and dangerous legislation is what will happen to the economy, and not the basis on which such a law is founded.

naner2• 15 years ago

Right and this also explains other behavior. Take patents, for example. Microsoft took advantage of the laws pertaining to software patents and now that they have a massive patent portfolio, they use them to generate revenue and hurt competitors. And they try to influence the law to protect or enhance this revenue stream and competitive advantage. So Microsoft is somewhat a product of the legal terrain and the legal terrain is to some extent a reflection of Microsoft (and other companies).

And our congresspeople could be imagined as mini corporations. Instead of selling goods and services they sell political influence. Instead of shareholders they have constituents. And they often act according to their best financial interests.

esrauch• 15 years ago

> In this case I'm increasingly of the opinion that all campaign contributions of any kind should be banned.

Unfortunately the only real effect of this is that only the independently wealthy would be able to successfully run for office.

breck• 15 years ago

> I think what this highlights, however, is that legislation should stem from principles and the interest of the people (individuals only, please)

Exactly. No bill should be longer than a couple of pages. The Constitution is less than 15 pages, no bill should be longer than that. (Or you can pick another arbitrary number as long as it is low).

Special interests are unintentionally creating a worse world for all of us (and not just IP proponents, I mean all special interests from banking lobbyists to teacher unions), and the way they are doing it is because bills are impossible to understand (even if that's your job!), and so everyone tries to get their short term benefit while making the whole system worse in the long run.

Make a constitutional amendment saying no bill can be more than 15 pages and I guarantee you countless problems will go away.

freemarketteddy• 15 years ago

You are right....The notion that corporations (which is a group of individuals together to achieve a particular objective,most commonly money) have the same rights as individuals(objective:happiness) is the root of this mess!....But I dont know if such an old legal precedent like Dartmouth vs Woodward can be changed!...Not that people havent tried.....http://movetoamend.org/!

This should really be the aim of the OWS movement!

lukeschlather• 15 years ago

>I don't believe that the public can honestly expect them to act any differently so long as their behavior is in accordance with the law -- even if only technically, and even if the law should be changed.

Corporations are composed of people, and I expect people to act morally. Laws are never going to properly capture morality, to put it another way legality is a weak indicator of morality. I humbly submit that it's not OK to be a sociopath in the service of a corporation, just because legally corporations are allowed to be sociopaths. People are just people, and should use their consciences.

sreque• 15 years ago

You can't force people to make the right choices through legislation. There will always be loopholes and technicalities, and a law system that attempted to do so would be so restrictive of individual freedoms as to be entirely impractical.

If a society stops being composed primarily of good people that make the right choices for the right reasons, that society will crumble, and no amount of legislation will save it.

bomatson• 15 years ago

You're absolutely right. There's not even a gray area between the companies supporting vs. opposing SOPA. Black and white. SOPA would be a huge backstep for anyone trying to innovate or sustain on the web

snowwrestler3• 15 years ago

The dividing line can be neatly seen as whether a company derives its value from server-hosted software or not. Companies which derive their value from server-hosted software have no reason to support IP-protecting legislation because their IP is already protected by the server/client architecture.

Companies like Microsoft, Apple, most game companies, and of course content companies transmit their entire IP to each customer. It is impossible to technologically prevent the copying of this IP--we all know the failings of DRM. Thus they must depend on the law for protection.

I hypothesize that Google might be less sanguine about IP protections if a new technology became available which allowed anyone to easily view and copy the Google search algorithm code at any time.

yuhong• 15 years ago

Yea, "artificial scarcity" is the key word.

tomlin• 15 years ago

I feel like people got soft as soon as they saw Apple on the BSA.

A few people I work with were dead-set against SOPA and all it stood for - suddenly, after seeing Apple here, had a completely different, sympathetic opinion towards it. Are you fucking kidding me?

This is what is wrong with movements like these - they are easily bent on self-fulfilling, cognitive dissonance. It's disgusting.

imran• 15 years ago

Of all, Apple only supported because steve jobs is not there.

CyruzDraxs• 15 years ago

It's no coincidence that most of the companies on that list sell mediocre software for way more than it's worth. They rob us with their high prices, yet they throw a tantrum when we rob them back. Make your software suck less and maybe I'll consider paying for it.

BobPalmer• 15 years ago

"They rob us with their high prices, yet they throw a tantrum when we rob them back"

Last I checked, nobody is putting a gun to your head to buy a piece of software that you feel is overpriced for your perceived benefit. And that certainly does not give you the right to just outright steal it. There simply is no moral justification for that - it's theft, plain and simple.

If you feel something is overpriced, then don't buy it - either go with an alternative, or build a competing product and disrupt. But I daresay they are justified in 'throwing a tantrum' when people steal their stuff.

dchest• 15 years ago

(Speaking as an owner of a software business).

Ehr, sorry, but this is not true. It's not a gun, but you have to own a copy of Windows for some government/state services in some countries, because their software is written for it.

Also, copying software is not a "theft, plain and simple". I'm not sure how you missed the whole debate about it that lasts for a few decades. If it was so "plain and simple", there would be no debate.

tzs• 15 years ago

   Yeah, how about that. In short, Microsoft
   is using a front group to throw its support
   behind SOPA, while publicly saying and doing
   nothing, thus avoiding our rancor and displeasure.
   Well, no, that won’t do at all.

Note that the article provides no support whatsoever for the claim that BSA is a Microsoft front group, or that Microsoft is using it to intentionally support SOPA.

I'm surprised this hasn't been flagged to death. Are people not actually reading the article?

rbanffy4• 15 years ago

All Microsoft has to do is to publicly state they don't support SOPA. This is hard to believe because they supported PIPA.

The conclusion Microsoft suports SOPA by helping support an organzation that supports it is inescapable.

tptacek5• 15 years ago

Textbook logical fallacy.

_delirium• 15 years ago

Whether the BSA is a Microsoft front group or not is something people have been debating since it was founded in the late '80s, and probably depends on how close ties you require to call something a "front group". There was a bunch of debate and some litigation over it in the 1990s.

feralchimp2• 15 years ago

There's no story here.

The alternative to "supporting SOPA in virtue of membership in the BSA" is "leaving the BSA over the BSA generally lobbying government to enforce copyright protections." That's kind of the point of the organization.

If you don't expect AutoDesk and MathWorks and SolidWorks to leave the BSA just to avoid this kind of second-rate muckraker reporting, then ignore the fact that Microsoft, CA, and Apple didn't leave either.

recusancy• 15 years ago

Apple left the Chamber of Commerce over their stance on climate change. Why is this different? Sometimes an organization that you belong to goes too far.

feralchimp2• 15 years ago

Upvoted that.

billpatrianakos3• 15 years ago

The chamber of commerce is amateur hour to Apple whereas the BSA actually has a bit of pull. There's a big difference.

throwaway642• 15 years ago

this is not a new thing, that's what you are missing here, this isnt some radical position shift for the BSA where the companies that are members have had no time to react to this extreme position they have chosen to take.

The BSA actively states it speaks for all that list of companies, if the companies both remain a member and do not state otherwise thats _exactly_ what they do.

I mean you are falling for their trick if you chose not to blame the member corporations of their BSA for the actions/statements of the BSA, that is exactly its purpose, to take positions that are unpopular/anti consumer, and shield their members from criticism.

It works for the RIAA/MPAA, it works for the BSA too...

nandemo• 15 years ago

Surely that's not the only alternative. Another would be "influencing the BSA not to support SOPA", or support alternative legislation that still caters to the interests of BSA.

Note also that BSA members fund it proportionally to each member's revenues, so it's fair to assume that Microsoft and Apple have a bigger weight in its decisions.

dfc• 15 years ago

Disclaimer: I am whole heartedly against SOPA

That being said I think that it is important to raise the level of discourse on this issue in the community and I do not think that this article does much to that end:

    "We can, however, show that it does. And somewhat
    disingenuously, if I may."

Since when does membership/support of business alliances and/or lobbyists count as disingenious? I do not think you will see any veteran reporters on the hill write that being a member of the BSA equates with any disingenious activity; the fact that microsoft is a member is public knowledge.

jvandenbroeck2• 15 years ago

Finally a list you can use as a computer science graduate to know for which companies you are absolutely not going to work.

the-cakeboss3• 15 years ago

Why wouldn't you work there? Does trying to protect your IP and business ( albeit in a completely inappropriate and detrimental way ) indicate a poor employer?

jvandenbroeck2• 15 years ago

In my opinion it is also about values, I can totally understand why they favor these laws, but I want to work for a company that has the same values as I have.

Its like the zinga incident in which they forced employees to give back their unvested stock. I can totally understand it from a business view, but its a "bad smell". If I worked for Microsoft now,I would really feel bad

ericd4• 15 years ago

Many people don't want to work for an employer who has no principles. In this case, hobbling the internet is pretty clearly a large net negative for society, and pretty much the only reasons you would try to do that is for reasons of pure self-interest.

andrewfelix• 15 years ago

I was on the fence about whether being a BSA member was enough to make one complicit in support of SOPA. But I think I've been swayed...BSA's support of SOPA would add a huge weight of legitimacy to the pro SOPA supporters. It's disturbing to say the least.

caycep• 15 years ago

Why is Apple still a member of the BSA? They might as well pull out. They aren't in the business of selling costly software licenses - they give most of their software away, ostensibly to drive hardware sales. But it seems to me there's little that BSA does that dovetails in their interest.

the-cakeboss3• 15 years ago

Possibly to drive more revenue towards iTunes and whatever other online initiatives they have in the works. While they themselves aren't being heavily affected by copyright infringement they do have an interest in more people turning towards legal outlets for content.

Furthermore, it is quite possible that they feel the need to maintain a good relationship with the RIAA et al.

incongruity• 15 years ago

I can't help but wonder if this couldn't be made into an opportunity for those of us who oppose SOPA.

All of the companies in the BSA are big/high value. Nevertheless, my gut tells me that some of the companies on that list are not ones that would be ready to face the limelight of an organized protest. Real or virtual. As such, targeting a few of the more vulnerable companies on that list could make them publicly distance themselves from the legislation, if not outright oppose it.

ZipCordManiac• 15 years ago

I apologize if this is covered in the article, but I could not find it. Does anybody know when the vote on SOPA happens ? How long afterwords until they start prosecutions and shutdowns ?

MBlume2• 15 years ago

This is pretty simple. If you work for one of those companies, quit.

mey2• 15 years ago

How is this a simple solution? What does an individual value more, income stability or their information access?

With a little less snark, employee's should consider alternative employment.

MBlume2• 15 years ago

Simple != easy.

That said, there's been a lot of links on the front page suggesting a seller's market for developer talent.

throwaway642• 15 years ago

What do you value more, freedom or material comfort?

mlinksva• 15 years ago

BSA membership is smaller than I would've guessed, eg HP, IBM, Oracle, and SAP aren't members. Good for them.

Why are Dell and Intel members? None of their direct competitors are.

idspispopd• 15 years ago

This link is tenuous at best. Being a member of BSA does not mean that the BSA dictates policy for these companies. (BSA is a non profit that comes under criticism for their rather obscure 'piracy' estimates.)

It's like saying google support SOPA because they do business with the RIAA.

billpatrianakos3• 15 years ago

Over 100 comments here and most everyone seems surprised? The reporting in that article was complete crap. I don't like Microsoft but I don't see any evidence in this article for the claim that the BSA is a front for MS. That bit was recycled from a claim Some years ago in Uruguay which also doesn't totally make it clear that the BSA is a front.

Aside from the writer's total desperate reaching for a real story, let's all remember this is the BSA. the BSA has been independently campaigning to stop piracy by all means necessary for years now. How is this any shock at all that now they'd support SOPA? It's not Google supporting it, it's big ass software companies! Come on!

So you mention Apple in the title and we're all supposed to be shocked and horrified? We're supposed to be shocked that the company that just had record breaking profits is going to support a piece of legislation that is total dog shit for everyone but huge copyright holders?

Come on now. Let's cut the crap and be real. This is a non story. SOPA sucks, I love Apple, I'm still not moved. Waste of time to read.

Microsoft, Apple and 27 other tech companies backing SOPA indirectly

Related Stories