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

07.27.07

Bill Hilf and Microsoft’s ‘Terror Culture’

Posted in America, FUD, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Patents at 1:32 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Apparently, some people take pride in attacking Free software. With statements such aswe would like to strike similar patent deals with all the Linux vendors, but we had to start somewhere” or eventhe Free Software movement is dead. Linux doesn’t exist in 2007. Even Linus has got a job today,” Bill Hilf is no popular figure these days. In fact, in a very controversial fashion, Bill has just announced that Microsoft will soon invade ‘our side’ (“the Free World”, as they called it in Forbes Magazine) even further.

In his keynote at OSCON, Microsoft General Manager of Platform Strategy Bill Hilf announced that Microsoft is submitting its shared source licenses to the Open Source Initiative.

This will definitely corrupt the meaning and value of “Open Source” (if it passes). Have a look at this other observation made at OSCON:

What Will Change at Microsoft with Regard to F/OSS Patents

Hilf’s response was… priceless. “I get a lot of e-mail.” “People like to subscribe me to crazy newsletters and spam.”

So essentially, Bill escaped the question and actually admitted that he is loathed. This is by no means the first time that he angers the Linux community. There is reason to suspect that a lot of Microsoft’s recent anti-Linux strategy came from this man, who apparently replaced and inherited the place of Martin Taylor. Martin quit Microsoft last year, having spearheaded the anti-Linux propaganda (“Get the Facts” and all the rest). Propaganda and Big Lies aside, what is even worse is terrorisation.

Personally, I am getting a little fed up. I am not alone in assuming that Bill Hilf, along with the division that he manages, has resorted to nothing more than distortion, extortion, embrace-and-destroy strategies and — shall I say — corporate terrorism. I am not the only person to have come up with such as assessment. Here are a few articles that concur.

Microsoft, the art of Corporate Terrorism

Microsoft, no longer the technological leader in the Computer Desktop market, is taking on a terrorist role in its attempt remain in power at all costs.

Convicted Monopolist Terrorizes Software Industry

That headline is designed to grab your attention. Sensationalistic as it may be, it also happens to be true, if what you mean by ‘terrorize’ is to provoke fear.

Sun exec accuses Microsoft of ‘patent terrorism’

The efforts of Microsoft to pressure the Linux community over alleged and unspecified patents is akin to “patent terrorism”, according to a local executive for Sun Microsystems.

Well, of course it’s patent terrorism

Do not let yourself be terrorised and be aware that the RICO ACT might have validity here. But, who will ever challenge Microsoft in court? They also have the support of the American government. Selected citation follow (just to prove the point).

Decide for yourself if you are looking at an above-the-law monarchy or what has essentially become a ‘country’ within country.

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

10 Comments

  1. akf said,

    July 27, 2007 at 2:19 am

    Gravatar

    I don’t like Microsoft either. But we shouldn’t reject everything, just because it is from them. They say that we are unreasonable and when we just reject everything without thinking, we really are. But of course we should be cautious!

    Even the FSFE said that some of the Shared Source licenses could be okay:
    http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/press-release/2005q4/000120.html

    But they also say:

    Naturally, it is not the publication of licenses, but the publication
    of software under a Free Software license, that gives people freedom:

  2. SubSónica said,

    July 27, 2007 at 3:06 am

    Gravatar

    My “spider-sense” tells me there is a patern here, let me elaborate a little bit on it:
    First, Microsoft is going after some Linux distros, in order to try to divide the FOSS community and to subvert the 4 freedoms that the GPL is designed to guarantee (remember that MSFT has been relentlessly attacking the GPLv3 and the FSF long before the last version of the license was actually released)
    Now they want to throat-feed its locking-in fake standard MSOOXML through the ISO in order to subvert the stablished standard document format (ODF/ISO23600) that, incidentally, they are the only company not willing to support in their office suite offerings. They are stuffing the technical commitees at the ISO (and astruturfing with fake support letters sent by their gold certified partners who depend on MSFT for their livelyhood)in order to force a favourable decission for MSOOXML.
    As soon as they get the standard they will shout everywhere they’re “THE” standard.
    It is the same so with the Open Source Initiative:
    They badly want its backing so it allows them to go all around shouting they are also “Open”. In this case, it is the community collaborative development what the corporate structure of MSFT cannot imitate, and which is outpacing, both in quantity and in quality the development and offerings of the monopoly: Compare for example Sourceforge.net or Freshmeat with Codeplex… well, they are not even in the same league: that is the kind of difference you get with genuine free, open and collaborative development communities VS an astruturfing experiment leaded by a control-freak corporation (Codeplex)

    This “me too” strategy is deep rooted in Microsoft behaviour: whenever
    a product, service, development model or standard that they do not control, is successful they go out with their own second class offering and try to use their desktop monopoly leverage to impose their “clone” in the market, while
    at the same time eroding and subverting the original/competing one. (It already worked with DRDOS, OS2, Novell, WordPerfect, Borland, Netscape, Palm… and they keep trying against PlayStation -Xbox mkI & mkII-, Ipod -Zune mkI & mkII- …etc)
    Aditionally, I suspect that if they get the standard and the open “certification” they will go around shouting they are THE standard and THE open way to go, but it won’t take long for them to change some details in the standard or in the licence that make them double-edged and they will be used exclusively (in ways that are neither standard nor open) against any competing player in the market. You can bet the licence Microsoft submits to the OSI will be carefully designed to be fully incompatible and toxic with the GPLv3: In fact many of these exclusive-proprietary-non-standard flaws are alredy incorporated in their MSOOXML format or, for example, in their “covenants not to sue” devised to attack-threaten any Gnu/Linux distros /users not caving to Microsoft’s wishes.
    On the other hand, if they cannot get their way and the ISO rejects the MSOOXML format and the OSI rejects their “open” licence, I expect a harsh campaign from Microsoft to discredit these intitutions as “irrelevant”.
    So far this strategy has worked with many products and some services. Let’s hope it doesn’t work so well with international standards or with community
    development models and licences, actually no, let’s not only hope, let’s fight for it.

  3. Roy Schestowitz said,

    July 27, 2007 at 4:24 am

    Gravatar

    Have a look at this new report.

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/07/27/osi_fury_badgerware/

    One has to wonder if Microsoft could attempt to create a ‘civil war’, essentially dividing the ‘open source’ world further. Their deals have already led to a storm in OSDL, so why not OSI?

    As SubSónica points out, making their licences incompatible with GPL(v3) would be be convenient. It’s akin to joining the Web, ‘extending’ a few things, and then bringing over some userbase (e.g. developers), whose old stuff is no longer compatible with the new rules.

  4. mcintosh said,

    July 27, 2007 at 4:24 pm

    Gravatar

    >>I don’t like Microsoft either. But we shouldn’t reject everything, just >>because it is from them.

    Even though a broken clock is right twice a day, I’m going to look elsewhere for my time checks.

  5. Tel said,

    July 28, 2007 at 12:41 am

    Gravatar

    The world is big, the options are numerous and thinking about the legal details of the latest Microsoft offering takes time away from other, more important things. One fact has been proven by history… you don’t partner up with Microsoft and walk away alive. Ask Stacker.

    At the end of the day, Microsoft’s current business plan depends on maintaining market dominance. Linux, by its nature, does not allow one company (or any single distro) to squeeze the market like Microsoft has done. The only rational conclusion is that Microsoft behaviour is designed to maintain their position of power and to stifle Linux adoption. Spend your thinking time on the next killer Linux app or a cool game for Linux or building that online business. Microsoft have had more than a reasonable measure of slack cut to them — trusting them now is a fool’s errand.

  6. Roy Schestowitz said,

    July 28, 2007 at 1:14 am

    Gravatar

    To name some Microsoft ‘partners’: Lotus, WordPerfect, Corel, DBase, Netscape, and Novell (pre Linux).

    I have the suspicion that while many of these companies take the dive, some people at the top end up with big bucks. It is sad when an excecutive’s interests do not intersect with the well-being of the company s/he run.

    Discover the ‘benefits’ of the latest deals:

    How Much Did Mr. Typaldos, Mr. Carmony, and Mr. Hovsepian Get Paid to Stomp on Linux?

    The ‘Cost’ of GPLv3 is the Loss of All Threats to Free Software

  7. akf said,

    July 29, 2007 at 6:55 am

    Gravatar

    Maybe I should explain my first posting. Of course I would not like Microsoft licenses to be accepted by the OSI. But the OSI has to find a very convincing explanation for the rejection. Just saying “because we don’t like you” could be turned against us. If they can’t find a convincing explanation, it is better to approve the licenses. There are other OSI approved licenses, which I would never use…

    And the OSI has to make very clear, that it is not about all Shared Source licenses. I fear Microsoft will try to lump them together, if they get the approval.

  8. Roy Schestowitz said,

    July 29, 2007 at 8:26 am

    Gravatar

    But the OSI has to find a very convincing explanation for the rejection. Just saying “because we don’t like you” could be turned against us.

    I agree with you entirely and therein lies the rub. Be aware that Microsoft was a Diamond Sponsor of OSCON. It’s slush money for Microsoft. It’s a pattern. It’s assimilation with malevolent/self-serving intent. See the following recent story.

    “Microsoft seems to have hijacked Linux Asia”

    ,—-[ Quote ]
    | Was the general feel amongst the attendees at Linux Asia 2007;
    | MS however, just wanted to say ”let us walk hand-in-hand”
    `—-

    http://www.ciol.com/content/developer/Linux/2007/107020104.asp

    I have many more such examples, just in case you need any.

    If you watch this closely, you’ll see that Microsoft poisons the minds of the attendants. The attendants are unhappy about this. The attraction is lost and the conference loses focus. It is not an isolated incident. Linux and Open Source conferences require funding, but given the wrong funding source, agendae get ‘corrupted’. A recent conference in Germany came under a lot of scrutiny.

    At the end of the day, tensions are unhealthy.

  9. Roy Schestowitz said,

    July 29, 2007 at 8:39 am

    Gravatar

    a little addendum…

    A quick search on “bill hilf” immediately brought up the following, which is a prominent reference connecting Martin Taylor to Bill Hilf.

    “Martin Taylor and Bill Hilf – Linux at Microsoft, Part I”

    http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=64981

    God save us. If these two minds think alike, then I would be surprised if Bill uses Tux toys as a voodoo dolls. These are very poisonous people whose position is, as I suspected, to destroy GNU/Linux (and Free software).

    Taylor used very questionable propaganda techniques to achieve this. He worked closely with Steve Ballmer at the time. The product of the “Get the Facts” smear campaign is, as I only recently found out, banned in the United Kingdom because it’s considered misleading advertising, which increasingly invades more of the Web. Recently, LinuxWorld started the placement of not one but two large and animated banners with anti-Linux ads from Microsoft.

  10. Matthew Flaschen said,

    July 29, 2007 at 9:54 pm

    Gravatar

    I’m far from a fan of Microsoft’s licensing policies, but rejecting a license from them /just/ because it comes from them is ridiculous. I am fairly familiar with the Open Source Definition (http://opensource.org/docs/osd) and I think both the Microsoft Permissive License (http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/licensingbasics/permissivelicense.mspx) and Microsoft Community License (http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/licensingbasics/communitylicense.mspx) comply (Note: Microsoft Limited Permissive License and Microsoft Limited Community Licenses clearly don’t). Others on the OSI list have expressed this opinion, and OSI has held off formal consideration only because Microsoft had not submitted the license. Should the open source community use the Microsoft licenses if they get approved by OSI?? Maybe, maybe not. I see no benefits to these licenses compared to existing ones. But I would have no problem with OSI approving them, since it would clarify that a significant and growing body of work is in fact open source.

What Else is New


  1. CAFC Meddling in PTAB Affairs; Unified Patents Fights a Good Fight by Invalidating Software Patents

    A look at how the AIA's Patent Trial and Appeal Board is invalidating software patents post-Alice, with or without involvement of patent courts



  2. Early Certainty That Benoît Battistelli is Dangerously Clueless and a Major Risk to the EPO

    The chaos which Team Battistelli is assured to deliver if it doesn't treat scientists like scientists, instead viewing them as a production line with rubber-stamping duties



  3. OIN Makes Claims About “Open Source Innovation”, But It Produces Nothing and Protects Virtually Nobody

    The Open Invention Network (OIN) reports growth, but in practical terms it does little or nothing to help developers of Free/Open Source software



  4. Links 27/7/2016: New CrossOver, Blackmagic for GNU/Linux

    Links for the day



  5. The Death of Software Patents and Microsoft's Coup Against Yahoo! Made the Company Worthless

    A look at what happens to companies whose value is a house of software patents rather than code and a broad base of users/customers



  6. Munich Attack Mentioned by EPO But Not Ansbach

    The EPO does the usual right-wing thing (exploiting disaster/emergency for domestic crackdowns), but some bemoan the omission of the explosion at Ansbach (also in Germany)



  7. Kluwer Thinks People Are Clueless About the Unitary Patent System and Pretends It's Business as Usual

    Flogging the dead UPC horse at times of great uncertainty (enough to bring the UPC to a standstill)



  8. Almost Everything That the Government Accountability Office Says is Applicable to the EPO

    The Government Accountability Office in the United States produces reports which can serve as a timely warning sign to the European Patent Office, where patent quality is rapidly declining in order to meet 'production' goals



  9. Microsoft Says It Loves Linux, But Its Anti-Linux Patent Trolls Are Still Around and Active

    Highlighting just two of the many entities that Microsoft (and partners) use in order to induce additional costs on Free (as in freedom) software



  10. Links 26/7/2016: Microsoft Growing Desperate, Linux 4.8 Visions

    Links for the day



  11. Links 25/7/2016: Linux 4.7 Final, PostgreSQL 9.6 Beta 3

    Links for the day



  12. Leaked: Boards of Appeal Face 'Exile' or 'Extradition' in Haar After Standing up to Battistelli

    A look at some of the latest moves at the European Patent Office (EPO), following Battistelli's successful coup d’état which brought the EPO into a perpetual state of emergency that perpetuates Battistelli's totalitarian powers



  13. The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) Comes Across as Against Software Patents, Relates to the EPO as Well

    Some analysis of the input from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) with focus on the EPO and software patents



  14. In the US, Patent Trolls Engage in Patent Wars and Shakedowns, Whereas in China/Korea Large Android OEMs Sue One Another

    Highlighting some of the differences between the US patent system and other patent systems



  15. Links 24/7/2016: Elive 2.7.1 Beta, New Flatpaks and Snaps

    Links for the day



  16. Links 23/7/2016: Leo Laporte on GNU/Linux, Dolphin Emulator’s Vulkan Completion

    Links for the day



  17. Links 22/7/2016: Wine 1.9.15, KaOS 2016.07 ISO

    Links for the day



  18. Haar Mentioned as Likely Site of Appeal Boards as Their Eradication or Marginalisation Envisioned by UPC Proponent Benoît Battistelli

    Not only the Staff Union of the European Patent Office (SUEPO) is under severe attack and possibly in mortal danger; the increasingly understaffed Boards of Appeal too are coming under attack and may (according to rumours) be sent to Haar, a good distance away from Munich and the airport (half an hour drive), not to mention lack of facilities for visitors from overseas



  19. EPO Attaché Albert Keyack Viewed as Somewhat of a Mole, Reporting From the US Embassy in Brazil Until Shortly Before the Temer Coup

    Public responses to the role played by Albert Keyack on behalf of the United States inside the European [sic] Patent Office



  20. EPO Insiders Explain Why the EPO's Examination Quality Rapidly Declines and Will Get Even Worse Because of Willy Minnoye

    Public comments from anonymous insiders serve to highlight a growing crisis inside the European Patent Office (EPO), where experienced/senior examiners are walking away and leaving an irreplaceable bunch of seats (due to high experience demands)



  21. Patents Roundup: BlackBerry, Huawei, PTAB, GAO, Aggressive Universities With Patents, and Software Patents in Europe

    Various bits and pieces of news regarding patents and their fast-changing nature in the United States nowadays



  22. Glimpse at Patent Systems Across the World: Better Quality Control at the USPTO Post-America Invents Act (2011), Unlike the EPO Post-Battistelli (2010)

    While the EPO reportedly strives to eliminate pendency and appeal windows altogether (rubberstamping being optimal performance as per the yardstick du jour), the USPTO introduces changes that would strengthen the system and shield innovation, not protect the business model of serial litigants



  23. Blockstream Has No Patents, But Pledges Not to Sue Using Patents

    Blockstream says that it comes in peace when it comes to software patents, which triggers speculations about coming Blockchain patent wars



  24. Links 21/7/2016: Ubuntu 16.04.1 LTS, Linux Mint 18 “Sarah” Xfce Beta

    Links for the day



  25. Links 21/7/2016: An Honorary Degree for Alan Cox, Looks Back at DebConf16

    Links for the day



  26. EPO USA: Under Battistelli, the 'European' Patent Office Emulates All the Mistakes of the USPTO

    Conservative Benoît Battistelli is trying to impose on the European Patent Office various truly misguided policies and he viciously attacks anyone or anything that stands in his way, including his formal overseers



  27. Links 19/7/2016: ARM and Opera Buyout

    Links for the day



  28. Large Corporations' Software Patenting Pursuits Carry on in Spite of Patent Trolls That Threaten Small Companies the Most

    With unconvincing excuses such as OIN, large corporations including IBM continue to promote software patents in the United States, even when public officials and USPTO officials work towards ending those



  29. Battistelli Has Implemented De Facto EPO Coup to Remove Oversight, Give Himself Total Power, and Allegedly Give UPC Gifts (Loot) to French Officials

    Benoît Battistelli's agenda at the EPO is anything but beneficial to the EPO and suspicions that Battistelli's overall agenda is transitioning to the UPC to further his goals grow feet



  30. EPO Social [sic] Report is a Big Pile of Lies That Responsible Journalists Must Ignore

    A reminder of where the EPO stands on social issues and why the latest so-called 'social' report is nothing but paid-for propaganda for Battistelli's political ambitions


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