Microsoft’s headache continues, underhanded tactics ensue
EU: European Commission to increase its use of Open Source
The European Commission will take a more pro-active approach to its own use of Open Source.
In a document published last week, the EC states among others that the Commission will prefer Open Source software for its new IT projects: “For all new development, where deployment and usage is foreseen by parties outside of the Commission Infrastructure, Open Source Software will be the preferred development and deployment platform.”
According to the document, the EC is an early adopter of Open Source. A first strategy document on this type of software was presented in 2000. However, it is for the first time the European Commission publishes such a document. Valerie Rampie, spokesperson or Siim Kallas, the European commissioner who is responsible for administrative affairs, said the publication of the strategy is “mainly for information purposes”.
Need it also be mentioned that, according to this new article, the US Navy is now dumping proprietary software and will focus only on free/open source software? [via Matt Asay]
“The days of proprietary technology must come to an end,” [Vice Admiral Mark Edwards, deputy chief of naval operations for communications] said. “We will no longer accept systems that couple hardware, software and data.”
When Steve Ballmer said just two weeks ago that Microsoft’s number one competitor is Linux, he probably meant it. This has actually been said for many years, albeit reluctantly.
“Microsoft will make every possible attempt to limit or illegalise Linux.”So, how will Microsoft responds? Will it embrace Linux? Will it resort to more FUD tactics or find another brigadier like SCO? More likely, Microsoft will continue to try to change the law and also spend on manufacturing precedences. Microsoft will make every possible attempt to limit or illegalise Linux.
Digital Majority continues to take a close look at the situation in Europe. Several articles seem to suggest that the lobbyists are busy. Very busy. Here is one obnoxious report from Ireland.
O’Connor is a leading expert on European software patents and explained to his audience, which comprised 250 technology transfer and intellectual property experts from a range of companies and universities including Yahoo!, Microsoft, MIT, UC Berkeley and Stanford, why software patent applications fail in Europe, and what needs to be done to resolve these problems.
On the issue of ambiguities in the law getting misused, see this article.
The problem arose because the EPC and the derivative UK Patents Act excluded from patentability “methods of doing business and computer programs ‘as such’”. It took a number of stages to get a consistent interpretation of what was allowed. The problem arose because a computer program is often a convenient way of implementing a set of instructions which produce a technical advance (technical effect in patent-speak). Early on it was decided both in the EPO and in the UK courts that where the computer program is used to implement a method which produces a technical advantage, the process would be patentable.
Lastly, see how a fight against software patents gets described as a loss in the Guardian.
The chief judge in the landmark European Microsoft antitrust case highlighted the doubts of critics on Wednesday, saying in his first public comments on the decision he hopes it will not discourage investors.
The 13-judge Grand Chamber of the European Union’s second highest court handed down a sweeping ruling in September, upholding a tough European Commission decision saying Microsoft abused its dominance of PC operating systems to crush rivals. It also endorsed a 497-million euro fine.
Vesterdorf said that many critics believe the decision weakened patent law and the rights of patent holders to do as they wished with their intellectual property.
There was no doubt that the CFI had significantly enhanced the authority of the European Commission beyond its rulings earlier cases, he said, giving it “a wide margin of appreciation.”
Mind the use of the word “investors”, which is very different from the word “inventors”. Patents are increasingly seen as a financial tool which serves not the developers but serves those who capitalise and profit while they marginalise and elbow rivals off their ‘intellectual territories’. In light of that last article bemoaning the EU’s decision, consider the quote below. █
“The government is not trying to destroy Microsoft, it’s simply seeking to compel Microsoft to obey the law. It’s quite revealing that Mr. Gates equates the two.”
–Government Official, Washington Post