EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

06.25.07

The Laura DiDio Shill Spreads the Anti-Linux IP FUD

Posted in Deception, FUD, GNU/Linux, Microsoft at 8:18 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Surprise, surprise. One familiar face, same old agenda. A couple of recent jabs lead us to this rant.

Miss DiDio, who has earned her reputation as a a shill whose income comes from Microsoft, strikes again. This represents just one poisonous statement among many others which you might find in the news. These usually come from so-called ‘analysts’ that are close to Microsoft. In case you wonder about the latest FUD, have a quick look:

“It can impact enterprise users if somebody decides to sue for patent infringement … and they don’t have any protection in place,” DiDio said. “That is always a danger.”

There has been a lot more coming from the mouth recently. Pamela Jones highlighted one such incident and observation last week:

Obviously, the journalist doesn’t realize that Shuttleworth was talking about free as in speech, not free as in beer. In fact, he used the word freedom, not free. But it whizzed right over her head. That is so basic, I will opine, with my feet up on the desk, that she hasn’t a clue what FOSS is about and did not a minute’s research on what freedom means in this quotation.

There are several others therein. For example:

Here’s what DiDio said:

     “If you look at the success of Linux you have to ask how it got so good so fast,” Didio said. “Well there’s a reason. A lot of people will maintain that Linux is ripped-off Unix code — and certainly there is a lot of Unix in Linux.”

It doesn’t take long to do a background check and realise there is dangerous bias therein.

Laura Didio

[...]

An example of her opinion on how Open Source Software is handled shows in this remark (quoted from a phone interview from her home in Massachusetts): “The thing about Linux is, you can talk about a free, open operating system all you want, but you can’t take that idea of free and open and put it into a capitalist system and maintain it as though it is some kind of hippie commune or ashram, because if you can do it like that, at that point I’m like, ‘Pass the hookah please!’” [1]

Even recently, after admitting that a SCO victory in their case against IBM seemed like an extreme longshot, Didio said, “There is a larger issue, though: Even if the SCO case gets dismissed entirely, it does not remove the copyright cloud hanging over Linux and open source.” [2]

[...]

Unsurprisingly, Linux advocates have in response heavily criticised DiDio. Typical criticisms are a lack of formal Computer Science qualifications and promoting studies funded by Microsoft; frequently this has resulted in questioning of her integrity and her being characterised as “a Microsoft shill”.

Why do serious publications keep polluting the news with disinformation? Not so long ago, the founder of the Yankee Group attacked Linux as well, calling the ‘movement’ an actual “religion”. Bear in mind that the Yankee Group has done studies for Microsoft, notably ones that claim high Linux TCO. As long as the news deceives, we should continue to rebut.

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

8 Comments

  1. mcintosh said,

    June 25, 2007 at 12:05 pm

    Gravatar

    >>Not so long ago, the founder of the Yankee Group attacked Linux as >>well, calling the ‘movement’ an actual “religion”.

    I’m sure that a lot of us come across as if we have a religious fervor, particularly out of frustration with seeing people that we care about paying for a cheesburger when they could eat lobster for free. Let’s say you give a damn about, oh, your mother. Would you want her using a computer that has a guaranteed lack of security through a monolithic design with a welded-in browser or a computer with a modular, intrinsically more secure operating system (of course, this could also appeal to your self-interest, since an insecure operating system could help crackers rob her of what otherwise could someday be your inheritance)? Would you rather that she had to continually pay to upgrade hardware when the monopoly forces her to use the latest bloatware?

    Yeah, it’s hard to not come across as foaming at the mouth when we see the zombies all around us. However, we need to occasionally take a deep breath (or three) to calm down and remember how Linux got to the point where it is. While fans helped get the word out, performance is what clinched the deal. I did not convert because of anyone’s enthusiasm. I converted because XP had unacceptably poor performance, reliability, and configurability. I converted because I figured that, even with no training, trying Linux out would be a relief from the frustration I’d experienced with a year of XP. Within a day or so, Fedora had me working less to keep my PC going and keep it going faster than XP.

    Performance got us here, and performance will keep us going. As long as we have that, and a commitment to keep the GPL strong and clean, MS is hopelessly outgunned.

    Regards.

  2. MattD said,

    June 25, 2007 at 12:12 pm

    Gravatar

    Laura DiDio has a long history with Linux users that isn’t very good. Her name is one of the few that I remember because of a flurry of articles sometime back (2005) trying to beat down linux-users as malicious, dangerous lunatic stalkers.

    It’s clear that any objectivity she professes to have for the Yankee Group (supposedly an objective consulting firm) was lost a long-time ago because her own objectivity was called into question.

    Her feelings have been hurt with a nickname labelling her as “DiDiot” and one can only surmise that her emotions play a major role in the performance of her job. It’s a shame and a crime that the integrity of people like DiDio continue to be an issue (and a hurdle) when it comes to Open Source Software Technologies aimed at improving the lives of so many.

  3. Shane Coyle said,

    June 25, 2007 at 3:02 pm

    Gravatar

    Once or Twice, Ms. DiDio has been quoted here in a positive sense.

  4. Roy Schestowitz said,

    June 25, 2007 at 7:18 pm

    Gravatar

    Shane, there are other such examples, but the prejudice and insults prove this to be an attempt to show balance.

  5. kripken said,

    June 26, 2007 at 3:54 am

    Gravatar

    “It can impact enterprise users if somebody decides to sue for patent infringement … and they don’t have any protection in place,” DiDio said. “That is always a danger.”

    Well, actually that is 100% accurate. There is a need for SOME form of protection, because of the extremely unhealthy US patent system. Ignoring the danger (for the enterprise, at least) is reckless.

    Which is exactly why Red Hat (and Oracle, and others) provides indemnification for their Linux users (and Microsoft does the same for Windows). Patent indemnification is in fact the correct form of protection; unfounded and detrimental ‘patent covenants’ like the recent Microsoft-Linux distro deals are very wrong.

    We should fight the Microsoft-Novell (and other) deals all we can, but we shouldn’t claim that there isn’t a need for protection from patents.

  6. Roy Schestowitz said,

    June 26, 2007 at 4:03 am

    Gravatar

    I beg to differ, kripken. Let’s not forget OIN, the LF, and the DoJ, for example. Additionally, patents need to be tested in court. So far, judging by two cases that we saw a couple of months ago, junk patents don’t get so far. In fact, they dissolve.

  7. kripken said,

    June 27, 2007 at 12:18 am

    Gravatar

    Roy,

    I agree 100% that OIN is a powerful tool in protecting from patent threats, as well as other factors you mentioned. Still, if I were running a business (in the US), I would want the assurance of formal patent indemnification from my vendor. Sure, some patent cases have dissolved, but others have gone through – e.g., the recent billion-dollar verdict against Microsoft for MP3 patents. The problems with the patent system are too great to be ignored, sadly.

    But anyhow, as I said, patent indemnification is already offered by the major commercial Linux vendors (Red Hat, etc.), so this isn’t a problem in practice.

  8. Roy Schestowitz said,

    June 27, 2007 at 1:12 am

    Gravatar

    Good point, kripken. You opened up my eyes to the importance of indemnification, even if it’s all about perception that serves the customer’s mind.

    If only a bogus perceived risk was not part of this. It was ‘shoved’ into the equation to fuel FUD. SCO’s case ought to have taught us that apathy is a cure to an unnecessarily worried mind.

What Else is New


  1. Patent Maximalists Are Still Upset at the US Supreme Court (Over Alice) and the US Patent Office Carries on As Usual

    In spite of the courts’ continued rejection of software patents — perfectly in line with what the high courts are saying — abstract ideas are still being covered by newly-granted patents



  2. Links 18/11/2018: Cucumber Linux 2.0 Alpha and Latest Outreachy

    Links for the day



  3. The European Patent Office Comes up With a Plethora of New Buzzwords by Which to Refer to Software Patents

    The permissive attitude towards software patents in Europe is harmful to software developers in Europe; the officials, who never wrote a computer program in their entire life, pretend this is not the case by adopting marketing techniques and surrogate terms



  4. Patent Maximalists in Europe Keep Mentioning China Even Though It Barely Matters to European Patents

    EPO waves a "white flag" in the face of China even though Chinese patents do not matter much to Europe (except when the goal is to encourage low patent quality, attracting humongous patent trolls)



  5. Team UPC Has Been Reduced to Lies, Lies, and More Lies about the Unified Patent Court Agreement

    With the Unified Patent Court Agreement pretty much dead on arrival (an arrival that is never reached, either) the UPC hopefuls -- those looking to profit from lots of frivolous patent litigation in Europe -- resort to bald-faced lying



  6. Links 17/11/2018: Mesa 18.3 RC3, Total War: WARHAMMER II, GNOME 3.31.2

    Links for the day



  7. Links 16/11/2018: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 Beta, Mesa 18.2.5, VirtualBox 6.0 Beta 2

    Links for the day



  8. Berkheimer or No Berkheimer, Software Patents Remain Mostly Unenforceable in the United States and the Supreme Court is Fine With That

    35 U.S.C. § 101, which is based on cases like Alice and Mayo, offers the 'perfect storm' against software patents; it doesn't look like any of that will change any time soon (if ever)



  9. Ignoring and Bashing Courts: Is This the Future of Patent Offices in the West?

    Andrei Iancu, who is trying to water down 35 U.S.C. § 101 while Trump ‘waters down’ SCOTUS (which delivered Alice), isn’t alone; António Campinos, the new President of the EPO, is constantly promoting software patents (which European courts reject, citing the EPC) and even Australia’s litigation ‘industry’ is dissenting against Australian courts that stubbornly reject software patents



  10. Patent Maximalists Are Still Trying to Figure Out How to Stop PTAB or Prevent US Patent Quality From Ever Improving

    Improvements are being made to US patents because of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which amends/culls/pro-actively rejects (at application phases) bad patents; but the likes of Andrei Iancu cannot stand that because they're patent maximalists, who personally gain from an over-saturation of patents



  11. Links 15/11/2018: Zentyal 6.0, Deepin 15.8, Thunderbird Project Hiring

    Links for the day



  12. A Question of Debt: António Campinos, Lexology, Law Gazette, and Sam Gyimah

    Ineptitude in the media which dominates if not monopolises UPC coverage means that laws detrimental to everyone but patent lawyers are nowadays being pushed even by ministers (not just those whose clandestine vote is used/bought to steal democracy overnight)



  13. Science Minister Sam Gyimah and the EPO Are Eager to Attack Science by Bringing Patent Trolls to Europe/European Union and the United Kingdom

    Team UPC has managed to indoctrinate or hijack key positions, causing those whose job is to promote science to actually promote patent trolls and litigation (suppressing science rather than advancing it)



  14. USF Revisits EPO Abuses, Highlighting an Urgent Need for Action

    “Staff Representation Disciplinary Cases” — a message circulated at the end of last week — reveals the persistence of union-busting agenda and injustice at the EPO



  15. Links 14/11/2018: KDevelop 5.3, Omarine 5.3, Canonical Not for Sale

    Links for the day



  16. Second Day of EPOPIC: Yet More Promotion of Software Patents in Europe in Defiance of Courts, EPC, Parliament and Common Sense

    Using bogus interpretations of the EPC — ones that courts have repeatedly rejected — the EPO continues to grant bogus/fake/bunk patents on abstract ideas, then justifies that practice (when the audience comes from the litigation ‘industry’)



  17. Allegations That António Campinos 'Bought' His Presidency and is Still Paying for it

    Rumours persist that after Battistelli had rigged the election in favour of his compatriot nefarious things related to that were still visible



  18. WIPO Corruption and Coverup Mirror EPO Tactics

    Suppression of staff representatives and whistleblowers carries on at WIPO and the EPO; people who speak out about abuses are themselves being treated like abusers



  19. Links 13/11/2018: HPC Domination (Top 500 All GNU/Linux) and OpenStack News

    Links for the day



  20. The USPTO and EPO Pretend to Care About Patent Quality by Mingling With the Terms “Patent” and “Quality”

    The whole "patent quality" propaganda from EPO and USPTO management continues unabated; they strive to maintain the fiction that quality rather than money is their prime motivator



  21. Yannis Skulikaris Promotes Software Patents at EPOPIC, Defending the Questionable Practice Under António Campinos

    The reckless advocacy for abstract patents on mere algorithms from a new and less familiar face; the EPO is definitely eager to grant software patents and it explains to stakeholders how to do it



  22. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is Working for Patent Trolls and Patent Maximalists

    The patent trolls' propagandists are joining forces and pushing for a patent system that is hostile to science, technology, and innovation in general (so as to enable a bunch of aggressive law firms to tax everybody)



  23. Team UPC, Fronting for Patent Trolls From the US, is Calling Facts “Resistance”

    The tactics of Team UPC have gotten so tastelessly bad and its motivation so shallow (extortion in Europe) that one begins to wonder why these people are willing to tarnish everything that's left of their reputation



  24. The Federal Circuit Bar Association (FCBA) Will Spread the Berkheimer Lie While Legal Certainty Associated With Patents Remains Low and Few Lawsuits Filed

    New figures regarding patent litigation in the United States (number of lawsuits) show a decrease by about a tenth in just one year; there's still no sign of software patents making any kind of return/rebound in the United States, contrary to lies told by the litigation 'industry' (those who profit from frivolous lawsuits/threats)



  25. Links 12/11/2018: Linux 4.20 RC2, Denuvo DRM Defeated Again

    Links for the day



  26. Automation of Searches Will Not Solve the Legitimacy Problem Caused by Patents Lust

    The false belief that better searches and so-called 'AI' can miraculously assess patents will simply drive/motivate bad decisions and already steers bad management towards patent maximalism (presumption of examination/validation where none actually exists)



  27. The Federal Circuit and PTAB Are Not Slowing Down; Patent Maximalists Claim It's 'Harassment' to Question a Patent's Validity

    There’s no sign of stopping when it comes to harassment of judges and courts; those who make a living from patent threats and litigation do anything conceivable to stop the ‘bloodbath’ of US patents which were never supposed to have been granted in the first place



  28. Patent Maximalists Will Latch Onto Return Mail v US Postal Service in an Effort to Weaken or Limit Post-Grant Reviews of US Patents

    An upcoming case, dealing with what governments can and cannot do with/to patents (specifically the US government and US patents), interests the litigation 'industry' because it loathes reviews of low-quality and/or controversial patents (these reviews discourage litigation or stop lawsuits early on in the cycle)



  29. Guest Post: EPO Spins Censorship of Staff Representation

    Another concrete example of Campinos' cynical story-telling



  30. Andrei Iancu and Laura Peter Are Two Proponents of Patent Trolls at the Top of the USPTO

    Patent offices do not seem to care about the law, about the courts, about judges and so on; all they care about is money (and litigation costs) and that’s a very major problem


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts