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

10.04.08

Who’s Bugging Google and Apple? (Updatedx2)

Posted in Apple, Boycott Novell, GNU/Linux, Google, IBM, Law, Microsoft, SCO at 8:40 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“Our friends up north spend over five billion dollars on research and development and all they seem to do is copy Google and Apple.”

Steve Jobs, 2006

GROKLAW HAS just presented two harassment-by-proxy candidates. The victims are too familiar (no, it’s not about Linux and SCO this time around). It’s particularly curious because Google and Apple may have already been sued via Microsoft proxies [1, 2, 3], of which they are several that are very relevant to this Web site.

All that a so-called ‘proxy’ requires is a common/mutual business interest, incentive, or inter-personal relationship. Companies are, after all, just sets of people. They are nor insular robots, so to speak.

It the case of Google, Microsoft’s role was more transparent to see than in Apple’s. One of the goals here is for Microsoft and its supporters to be able to say that Apple and Google are “just as evil as Microsoft,” which therefore provides defensive ‘ammunition’. Both stories are being covered extensively in the media at the moment, so let’s take a quick look.

Apple

About a month ago, Bloomberg foolishly posted an obituary of Steve Jobs, having already had the chance to learn from unsubstantiated and very damaging rumours circulating about pancreatic cancer. Apple’s rebirth under Jobs’ wing [1, 2] makes his presence there considerably significant. Some people seem to be taking advantage if this.

A day or so ago, not only have more rumours been spread about Jobs’ health; there were false claims of a heart attack too. The SEC, having said very recently that it would take spreading of erroneous rumours seriously by regulating the Internet press (Heh! Good luck with that), is already looking into this latest incident, from which short-sellers could reap a fortune.

SEC Examining False Report on Apple Chief Job

[...]

Concern about Jobs’s health weighed on the shares this year, contributing to a 51 percent drop. The stock swing caused by today’s erroneous report drew renewed calls for Apple, which has said only that Jobs’s health is a “private matter,” to be more forthcoming, said Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, senior associate dean at Yale University’s School of Management.

Decentralisation of the media has opened the door to a surrogate of pump-n-dump schemes, whereby disinformation is using used to over- or under-evaluate a stock, at least temporarily. However, there may be more to this story, opines PJ from Groklaw. She wrote: “Just an off the wall suggestion: look into how Psystar folks are paying their lawyers to harass Apple? No? Too simple? I only raise it because Jobs has said that Apple is being shorted; and if that’s true, any negative news would be useful to anyone wanting the stock to go down, I would assume, and any litigation is negative news.”

“The lawsuit above, while probably justified for Apple’s ruthless control ‘freakiness’ with hardware, DRM, NDAs and so forth, does raise a lot of questions.”Whether you are an Apple supporter or not, false predictions of a person’s death are nasty, if not outright illegal in this particular sort of circumstances. The lawsuit above, while probably justified for Apple’s ruthless control ‘freakiness’ with hardware, DRM, NDAs and so forth, does raise a lot of questions.

Psystar seems to have begged for trouble, but more importantly, where does this company of almost-teenage boys find the money for litigation? Shades of SCO and those cash infusions truly return [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]; Groklaw now reports that Norris filed something in Florida, stating that he was inactive in 2007. Things just don’t add up as more contradictions are being found and assembled.

Going back to Apple, Roughly Drafted recently wrote about the smear campaigns against this rapidly-rising Microsoft competitor.

An author who has devoted his career to deriding Steve Jobs’ Apple as being “irredeemably evil” and portraying its users as a “cult” has scribbled up a new missive for Wired that attempts to hijack the company’s upcoming iPod event and replace any discussion of new technology with a tasteless personal attack of the company’s CEO.

The same site also wrote about a particular “Apple scandal” some time ago. This relates to Microsoft's control of the media, and especially in its relation to Apple.

MediaNews did buy the Mercury News with a loan from Bill Gates’ foundation, and is in the process of paying back that loan by publishing information without much journalistic or technical integrity.

Specifically, I wrote “One might think that the San Jose Mercury News, being located in Apple’s backyard, would tend to trumpet the company’s success. One would be wrong… Apple’s corporate proximity to San Jose is trumped by the Mercury News’ need to publish low cost, highly sensational news to make enough money to pay back Bill Gates for the favor of his humanitarian loan.”

Google

As reiterated before, Microsoft’s fight against Google is a lot more visible. There are some other possible proxy fights against Google and Yahoo that we mentioned in the past and even alluded to just days ago. IBM may be another good example, but it just happens to be less relevant to this one post which grows longer than it ought to be.

Anyway, here is a new report confirming that Microsoft has delayed the Google/Yahoo deal just as it previously did with DoubleClick. The company is obsessed with every small move that Google is making and this feeling is not reciprocal.

Google and Yahoo have agreed to a “brief” delay in the planned start of their search advertising partnership to give the Justice Department additional time to investigate the antitrust implications of the deal, the companies said Friday.

“The companies have agreed to a brief delay in implementing this agreement to continue our ongoing discussions with the Department of Justice,” Yahoo said in a statement. “We have had discussions with regulators and look forward to responding to their questions about this agreement.”

The Justice Department, as we showed before, is influenced a great deal by Microsoft, especially after possible ‘stacking’ in the late 90s. Now, watch the reasoning behind this very latest decision:

“Recognizing the nascent and fast-changing nature of this marketplace, we encourage the department to continue to monitor the state of competition in this industry, whatever the outcome of its current investigation,” Kohl wrote in his letter. “If, over time, you determine that Google is gaining a dominant market position as a result of the Google-Yahoo agreement, then we would encourage the Justice Department to intervene to protect competition. Even should you conclude at present that this deal is not contrary to antitrust law, the department must be sure that this deal never in the future crosses the line into an unacceptable, anti-competitive collaboration among competitors which will harm consumers and advertisers.”

In Groklaw, PJ writes: “Never in the future? What is the guy asking for, permanent government oversight of two private companies just in case someday the deal might not work out even though it isn’t an antitrust problem currently? This is an extraordinary request. Is that how capitalism works normally? Anyone know who donates money to this individual? Man, Microsoft sure is a sore loser.”

The main question to ask though is not necessarily who pays this man; it’s also a matter of influence. Microsoft, for example, is repeating dirty tricks from one decade ago as it hires AstroTurfers to pressure politicians. It’s using that against Google

Add this utterly appalling factor to Microsoft's political muscle and remember how US politics are run.

“Did you know that there are more than 34,750 registered lobbyists in Washington, D.C., for just 435 representatives and 100 senators? That’s 64 lobbyists for each congressperson.”

CIO.com

Let’s find out about Hherb Kohl’s history when it comes to Microsoft. Since he is the one pushing to intercept Yahoo/Google cooperation, it’s worth stressing that he also handled the Microsoft antitrust case many years ago. He even wrote this letter.

As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Antitrust, Business Rights, and Competition of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, I have studied the proposed settlement of the government’s antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft very closely, and I write to express my concern about whether the settlement is in fact “in the public interest.” 15 U.S.C. § 16(e). Accordingly, I respectfully ask that you address the issues raised in this letter when you file with the district court your mandatory “response” to these comments. See 15 U.S.C. § 16(d).

[...]

HERB KOHL

Here is another old article: Microsoft order leaves Kohl with `misgivings

Sen. Herb Kohl said Friday that he had “misgivings” about the ordered breakup of Microsoft Corp., but he said Congress shouldn’t intervene.

He also blamed the software giant for failing to settle the case out of court.

“Their lawyer, in my opinion, should have recognized their vulnerabilities and got it settled,” said Kohl, who is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary antitrust subcommittee.

In that role, Kohl chided Microsoft founder Bill Gates at a highly publicized Senate hearing two years ago

More recently, as it turns out, Kohl also opposed a Yahoo/Microsoft merger, so it might be too early to jump to any reasonable conclusion. Here are some articles that can be easily found:

1. Yahooglesoft Lawyers Speak!

Titled “The Google-Yahoo Agreement and the Future of Internet Advertising,” the hearings were called by the Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights and chaired by Sen. Herb Kohl (D., Wis.).

2. Murdoch may team up with Microsoft in bid for Yahoo

In Washington, Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights, also warned about the potential anti-competitive implications. “We will be following closely the results of the short-term test alliance between Yahoo and Google,” he said in a statement. Kohl had previously raised concerns about a Microsoft-Yahoo combination.

3. Higher antitrust bar for Yahoo-Google than Microsoft

Sen. Herb Kohl, a Wisconsin Democrat and chair of a Senate antitrust panel, said he was watching the Google test.

“Should there be moves to make this agreement permanent, we will examine it closely in the antitrust subcommittee to ensure that it does not harm competition,” Kohl said in a statement.

Kohl expressed concern about the rapid consolidation of formerly independent players in the Web advertising market.

What to make of it all? We leave it for readers to decide and we shall return to this in the future.

Update (05/10/2008): this report about Steve Ballmer echoing Psystar’s accusations may suggest that a Microsoft-Pystar connection is possible. It comes just at the right time, but it could be a coincidence.

Update #2 (05/10/2008): we have just been informed that the writer who caused Apple (APPL) to collapse used to write for a Microsoft-owned site (Slate). Says our source: “The author in question used to write for Slate and was heavily involved in stock market inflation in the tech bubble.”

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

23 Comments

  1. aeshna23 said,

    October 4, 2008 at 12:57 pm

    Gravatar

    Let me answer the following question:

    “In Groklaw, PJ writes: “Never in the future? What is the guy asking for, permanent government oversight of two private companies just in case someday the deal might not work out even though it isn’t an antitrust problem currently? This is an extraordinary request. Is that how capitalism works normally? Anyone know who donates money to this individual? Man, Microsoft sure is a sore loser.” ”

    Kohl is independently wealthy. It’s not a money thing. I go so utterly sick of people trying to reduce political stances to money–when it’s clearly ridiculous. For example, the anti-abortionist claiming that abortion doctors do abortion just for the money.

  2. AlexH said,

    October 4, 2008 at 1:35 pm

    Gravatar

    @aeshna23: I think you’re partially right, although financial motivations are sometimes there (just not necessarily personal financial benefit).

    I think the situation in the US is that politicians are extremely wary of interfering with corporate structures. The situation with Bell and the baby Bells is an obvious example; it has to become inescapably clear that restructuring is needed before they will act.

    Previously, the idea has been to separate Microsoft into an operating system company and one (or more) applications company/ies. I don’t think that would do any good; in fact, those mini-Microsofts would have free reign to throw their weight in the market around even more.

    I think anyone looking at cutting it into pieces would have to be a lot more imaginative to encourage real competition in the market. For example, I would think strongly about splitting it simply in half, and having both halves maintain the same products. That would cause all the major products – Windows, Office, etc. – to fork. Over time, they would inevitably diverge and there would be real competition between the two sides. Without one single monopoly product, there would be much more room for the “smaller” guys to come in and compete as well (although it would still, obviously, be extremely difficult).

  3. Roy Schestowitz said,

    October 4, 2008 at 2:41 pm

    Gravatar

    For example, the anti-abortionist claiming that abortion doctors do abortion just for the money.

    Similar accusations are being made against patent offices, with evidence suggesting that it’s more profitable to just accept whatever rubbish ‘invention’ is properly filed among the heap of applications. Quality defeated by quantity…

  4. Dan O'Brian said,

    October 4, 2008 at 3:35 pm

    Gravatar

    Quality defeated by quantity.

    Sort of like the articles on this site ;-)

  5. Roy Schestowitz said,

    October 4, 2008 at 4:06 pm

    Gravatar

    Dan, what’s your site?

  6. Roy Schestowitz said,

    October 4, 2008 at 8:35 pm

    Gravatar

    Update;

    http://www.groklaw.net/newsitems.php
    http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2008/10/02/ballmer-recommends-separating-iphone-hardware-and-software

    * Ballmer recommends separating iPhone hardware and software
    * 08:10PM October 10/04/08, 2008
    * In a recent interview, Microsoft’s Steve Ballmer offered Apple some friendly advice: be more like Microsoft. He said that Apple needs to stop tying its hardware and software together so closely and just distribute the iPhone’s OS to a wide variety of manufacturers.

    [PJ: What a coincidence... I believe that is Psystar's request as well in the litigation.] – ars technica

  7. twitter said,

    October 4, 2008 at 8:46 pm

    Gravatar

    Funny man, Dan. M$ is an infinite fount of corruption and ill will, no site, lawsuit or history will ever be able to contain all of it.

  8. Jose_X said,

    October 4, 2008 at 10:05 pm

    Gravatar

    >> Previously, the idea has been to separate Microsoft into an operating system company and one (or more) applications company/ies. I don’t think that would do any good; in fact, those mini-Microsofts would have free reign to throw their weight in the market around even more.

    Why do you not think this would do any good?

    I also don’t understand the part about the mini-Microsoft’s.

    I prefer solutions other than to break up Microsoft, but I don’t think you can keep them from violating antitrust laws without either having them open source or else make sure no single company or partnership will both have a monopoly on one side of a software dialog and be involved in the other side as well. Otherwise, you’ll get right back to the monopoly being used to help grow the market share of the software that is on the other side of the conversation and has inside access.

    I haven’t taken inventory of all the issues and possible solutions, but this above just came to mind since I hit on it frequently.

    >> For example, I would think strongly about splitting it simply in half, and having both halves maintain the same products.

    No. They can collude, but even without doing so, one of these would likely eventually come to dominate and once again establish itself in monopoly position.

    As mentioned a moment ago, you can’t have the two sides of the software dialog (a) being closed source, (b) having insider access to each other, and (c) having at least one of the two having monopoly position or supported by monopoly position.

    ..and there are probably other things to worry about as well.

  9. Roy Schestowitz said,

    October 4, 2008 at 10:33 pm

    Gravatar

    The EC thought about splitting Microsoft a couple of years ago (or less). It’s not a radical idea.

  10. Dan O'Brian said,

    October 4, 2008 at 10:39 pm

    Gravatar

    I think AlexH’s idea was to force the 2 halves of Microsoft to compete against each other (if they both had the same product sets). I think his point was that if you split Microsoft the traditional way (by product), then it wouldn’t really solve the problem. It would in a way give them more power, because they’d be free of the pressures to behave (due to being a monopoly) which are sort of imposed on them now.

    Whether his idea would work or not, I have no idea.

  11. Roy Schestowitz said,

    October 5, 2008 at 4:01 am

    Gravatar

    Can you suggest something better?

  12. AlexH said,

    October 5, 2008 at 5:08 am

    Gravatar

    @Jose:

    Splitting Microsoft up along product lines wouldn’t do much good, in my opinion, because for the most part everything is already separated like that already internally in Microsoft. There are very few instances of them making use of “secret” interfaces any more, and the main problems (having a single dominant product in a given market) wouldn’t be fixed.

    The idea of making them fork their products and compete is entirely because that would make it impossible for them to collude; it would be illegal. Each would have to develop their version of Microsoft Office (or whatever) and customers wouldn’t have a single upgrade route: they would have two.

    Even if that idea fails – e.g., Microsoft 1 do very well at Windows but suck at Office, but Microsoft 2 do very well at Office but suck at Windows, all that happens is that customers buy Microsoft 1 Windows and Microsoft 2 Office. So it degenerates to the case where they are split down product lines in any event.

  13. RyanT said,

    October 5, 2008 at 5:30 am

    Gravatar

    I would wait for open source to disrupt Microsoft.

    Desktop PC’s are going to become more and more marginalised as time goes on. within 5 – 10 years most portable devices (if not sooner than that) will be able to handle most of the tasks that the majority use PC’s for, and will far outnumber desktop PC’s, with a far greater range of devices. Just as the PC market disrupted microcomputers, mobile devices will disrupt the PC market (Microsoft’s core market).

    Ubuntu already has a pretty good position with netbooks and (hopefully) it’s MID edition, available pretty widely from most of the biggest vendors, if they’re not using some customised version. Other Linux vendors are doing the same too.

    http://www.microscope.co.uk/welcome/netbook-market-predicted-to-reach-50-million-units-by-2012/http://www.microscope.co.uk/welcome/netbook-market-predicted-to-reach-50-million-units-by-2012/

    http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/09/netbooks-evolvi.html

    http://ostatic.com/173214-blog/netbooks-fuel-good-pc-market-news-says-idc

    http://blogs.pcmag.com/miller/2008/03/intel_talks_netbooks_mobile_in.php

    http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/07/21/netbook-margins-so-low-some-pc-makers-not-even-going-to-bother/

    Microsoft has 2 major threats waiting to obliterate it – Internet services, from Google (GDocs and its ilk will eventually take over Word and potentially Office), and the diversification of devices, which its core money maker and operating systems, XP and Vista, cannot even dream of capturing.

    1) Linux and similar, open source platforms are far more customisable – in mobile devices, you need all the power you can get. Using these allows you customisation on the software side that you wouldn’t normally be able to get, without having to ask the gatekeeper.

    2) As per the last link, margins are incredibly tight. Using free, open source software allows you to cut costs and rake in more profit.

    3) Open source companies will be able to rake it in because of these 2 factors. Their money isn’t in selling you the software, it’s in selling services. Providing customisation services might be a good way of “outsourcing” to whichever company, and be a far better spend of money in comparison to a locked out, interdependent and not very configurable OS, where you depend entirely on the vendor to make changes you can’t really see, or further adapt and change.

    In competition to Office (referring to the likes of GDocs):

    1) Once again, lower cost of software (being $0).

    2) Other advantages being true collaborative word processing, which could give it value in certain markets (perhaps journalism in the long run, not sure about what else, don’t have enough information).

    3) It goes very well with the likes of netbooks – they’re intended for mobile web use, and where disk space and processing power is limited, being able to write something up within one program (your browser), right beside your email and whatever else your looking at, and the advent of webapps where said things become more integrated into the desktop (look for the firefox plugin prism, and I know Ubuntu has prism made webapps in its repositories), it becomes a more viable alternative.

    In regards to breaking MS up:

    It would do a lot of good. Part of the problem with MS is that they have the foothold in 2 markets, which gives them a big 1-2 punch. A key part of their business relies on this. Separating Office and their OS would essentially half the desktop threat. Reducing company size and revenue. While internal departments may be kept seperate, they’re still part of the same company, meaning any revenue and profit can go to either. Separating them forces each product line to survive on its own. The Xbox division would most likely collapse on its own, especially as the core product relies on Microsoft technology, which would have to licensed and paid for after they were separated (unless the breakup would involve keeping them all under a Microsoft umbrella, and each one just being spun out independently, which in that case probably would be to their advantage).

    Part of what keeps Microsoft even remotely competitive is the amount of money it generates from its core business, that it then can pump into other areas, regardless of whether they truly make money or not.

  14. Roy Schestowitz said,

    October 5, 2008 at 5:42 am

    Gravatar

    To split a company is one thing, but to ensure that they than do not collude is another. A split would be too symbolic.

  15. standardize this said,

    October 5, 2008 at 6:45 am

    Gravatar

    I disagree here, a simple spit into systems and applications would have worked. As AlexH points out, things are internally segregated within Microsoft. However, it’s executive oversight that binds these divisions, without that each would gradually break away from the whole.

    To understand why splitting Microsoft would work, consider that we need only counter the lock-in mechanisms. When the mechanisms by which the monopoly is able to exert control are impeded, it must strategically align to compete in the extant market.

  16. AlexH said,

    October 5, 2008 at 7:10 am

    Gravatar

    @Roy: If they were split into different companies, it would be extremely difficult for them to ‘collude’: the market regulators are pretty good at controlling that kind of thing. They’re rubbish at regulating single monopolising companies.

    @standardize this: the problem with splitting down dept. lines is that for the most part, there is no incentive for them to make life harder for the other side. The lock-in already exists, and I don’t think that executive oversight makes much difference. Windows Inc. and Office Inc. would continue to be dominant in their respective spaces, and I very much doubt that Office Inc. would spend more time on making Office work well on Mac OSX (for example) – in fact, they would probably focus on that even less, because the legal pressure would have totally gone away and at the moment I suspect Microsoft invests more in that platform that it deserves based on market size.

    Having separate Windows Inc. and Office Inc. would probably kill off the Mac in extremely short order. Free software would survive, but we would make very little progress against them (it would probably not harm us that much though).

  17. AlexH said,

    October 5, 2008 at 7:12 am

    Gravatar

    @RyanT: people have predicted the demise of the desktop PC for years, though: see, e.g., Sun’s “the network is the computer”.

    The basic issue is that a low-cost terminal isn’t much cheaper than a fuller spec. PC. If network access was cheap and ubiquitous then maybe, but we’re a long way from that – especially for mobile users.

  18. Roy Schestowitz said,

    October 5, 2008 at 7:19 am

    Gravatar

    In Japan, desktops are already neglected because of mobile devices, suggested a study last year. Sun’s vision was actually quite accurate, even if RMS dislikes the idea.

  19. RyanT said,

    October 5, 2008 at 7:57 am

    Gravatar

    The difference Alex is that it is actually happening.

    It doesn’t matter that a netbook or laptop isn’t such a huge drop under the PC – people are not paying the premium for the power, they’re paying the premium for the mobility. Most people do not have a need for the extra power of a PC for the kind of applications they have and use. You do not need a full PC for i.m., e-mail, browsing, or even document editing and such. Laptops and netbooks are at a stage where they’re good enough for most needs, and yes, ubuiquitous access isn’t quite there yet, but it is certainly moving quickly. 3G based USB dongles are coming through with monthly data packages, and even mroe recently the white spaces campaign:

    [quote]Potential users are likely to be first time buyers in emerging markets and experienced users in more mature markets looking for a lightweight surfing or email device as the second or third PC in the home.

    The largest growth opportunity for the technology comes from consumers said Gartner, eventually accounting for 70 per cent of sales, but it does not foresee netbook shipments cannibalising mobile PCs for several years yet.

    “There is a significant functionality and performance gap between notebooks and mini-notebooks,” said Gartner, but the gap could close from 2010 and if performance improves substantially by 2011, mini-notebooks could become a business tool.

    Gartner recently said netbooks could drop in price to $100 (£50) in the next two years as component costs fall 10-15 per cent, although packaging, assembly costs and software prices would remain stable.

    Analysts at iSuppli are far more bullish about the sales prospects for netbooks, forecasting 18.3 million unit shipments by 2012 with revenues standing at $291.2m. [/quote]

    http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/09/25/abi_netbook_sales_2013/

    http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080103-2008-could-be-the-year-laptop-sales-eclipse-desktops-in-us.html

    http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080902-google-white-space-petition-13000-signatures-and-counting.html

    http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/white-spaces-battle.ars/4

    I ask you the reverse:

    Why pay the premium for a stationary desktop, when you can get a cheaper, more portable alternative that will better fit into your life?

    It barely even needs to be netbooks – proliferation of smartphones also fits into the bill of mobile devices, and iPhone can also do many of the basic needs – e-mail, web browsing, messaging.

    These are very much emerging markets, but over the next 5 – 10 years just about every barrier will come down. We already have devices with nearly ubiquitous wireless access that can do most of the basic access (like the iPhone) that have gained genuine consumer traction and as wireless hotspots and take up increases, and hopefully the white spaces campaign can be successful, there’s little genuine reason to think they won’t take off. Sun were right – they were just too early.

    http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/the_network_is_the_computer

    You should also take a look into data that shows how certain companies deliberately ended up increasing the requirements of hardware on the desktop, so as to stop the impending disruption that was going to happen with laptops (guess who). It’s contained in the book “The Innovator’s Dilemma”, shall have to look around for it on the interwebs.

  20. Roy Schestowitz said,

    October 5, 2008 at 8:36 am

    Gravatar

    I’m updating this post to add some new information.

  21. standardize this said,

    October 5, 2008 at 11:55 am

    Gravatar

    @AlexH

    Why would an antitrust remedy that involved splitting a monopolist into disparate concerns seek to incentivize each to “make life harder for the other side”? A legal sanction seeking to reduce barriers to competition carries no imperative that split companies should engage in further anti-competitive actions.

    As for Office on the Mac, these are some of Microsoft’s finest applications and with good reason. Neglecting OSX would create an opportunity for competing document formats to establish a foothold.

  22. Roy Schestowitz said,

    October 5, 2008 at 12:05 pm

    Gravatar

    In its old deal with Apple, Microsoft used a similar route to elbow Netscape out of the market and make IE more of the ‘standard’ on the Web.

    I put the video here.

  23. Jose_X said,

    October 5, 2008 at 7:46 pm

    Gravatar

    >> Splitting Microsoft up along product lines wouldn’t do much good, in my opinion, because for the most part everything is already separated like that already internally in Microsoft.

    Microsoft has segragation within their product lines? That is a joke, right?

    That doesn’t make any sense.

    Bill Gates would even disagree. “Internet E is a part of Windows.”

    When AlexH says these kinds of things, I can’t help but to feel he is purposefully working to deceive in Microsoft’s/Novell’s favor.

    The technical Chinese Wall AlexH claims exists can be enforced much better when Microsoft components are separated. If the segregation is already there as he says, then it should not hurt to make the divisions formal.

    Please.

What Else is New


  1. Links 22/4/2019: Linux 5.1 RC6, New Release of Netrunner and End of Scientific Linux

    Links for the day



  2. USPTO and EPO Both Slammed for Abandoning Patent Quality and Violating the Law/Caselaw in Order to Grant Illegitimate Patents on Life/Nature and Mathematics

    Mr. Iancu, the ‘American Battistelli’ (appointed owing to nepotism), mirrors the ‘Battistelli operandi’, which boils down to treating judges like they’re stooges and justices like an ignorable nuisance — all this in the name of litigation profits, which necessitate constant wars over illegitimate patents (it is expensive to prove their illegitimacy)



  3. IRC Proceedings: January 27th, 2019 – March 24th, 2019

    Many IRC logs



  4. IRC Proceedings: December 2nd, 2018 – January 26th, 2019

    Many IRC logs



  5. Links 21/4/2019: SuperTuxKart's 1.0 Release, Sam Hartman Is Debian’s Newest Project Leader (DPL)

    Links for the day



  6. The EPO's Use of Phrases Like “High-Quality Patent Services” Means They Know High-Quality European Patents Are 'Bygones'

    The EPO does a really poor job hiding the fact that its last remaining objective is to grant as many European Patents as possible (and as fast as possible), conveniently conflating quality with pace



  7. A Reader's Suggestion: Directions for Techrights

    Guest post by figosdev



  8. Links 20/4/2019: Weblate 3.6 and Pop!_OS 19.04

    Links for the day



  9. The Likes of Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA), Team Campinos and Team UPC Don't Represent Europe But Hurt Europe

    The abject disinterest in patent quality and patent validity (as judged by courts) threatens Europe but not to the detriment of those who are in the 'business' of suing and printing lots of worthless patents



  10. The Linux Foundation Needs to Change Course Before GNU/Linux (as a Free Operating System) is Dead

    The issues associated with the Linux Foundation are not entirely new; but Linux now incorporates so many restrictions and contains so many binary blobs that one begins to wonder what "Linux" even means



  11. Largest Patent Offices Try to Leave Courts in a State of Disarray to Enable the Granting of Fake Patents in the US and Europe

    Like a monarchy that effectively runs all branches of government the management of the EPO is trying to work around the judiciary; the same is increasingly happening (or at least attempted) in the United States



  12. Links 19/4/2019: PyPy 7.1.1, LabPlot 2.6, Kipi Plugins 5.9.1 Released

    Links for the day



  13. Links 18/4/2019: Ubuntu and Derivatives Have Releases, digiKam 6.1.0, OpenSSH 8.0 and LibreOffice 6.2.3

    Links for the day



  14. Freedom is Not a Business and Those Who Make 'Business' by Giving it Away Deserve Naming

    Free software is being parceled and sold to private monopolisers; those who facilitate the process enrich themselves and pose a growing threat to freedom in general — a subject we intend to tackle in the near future



  15. Concluding the Linux Foundation (LF) “Putting the CON in Conference!” (Part 3)

    Conferences constructed or put together based on payments rather than merit pose a risk to the freedom of free software; we conclude our series about events set up by the largest of culprits, which profits from this erosion of freedom



  16. “Mention the War” (of Microsoft Against GNU/Linux)

    The GNU/Linux desktop (or laptops) seems to be languishing or deteriorating, making way for proprietary takeover in the form of Vista 10 and Chrome OS and “web apps” (surveillance); nobody seems too bothered — certainly not the Linux Foundation — by the fact that GNU/Linux itself is being relegated or demoted to a mere “app” on these surveillance platforms (WSL, Croûton and so on)



  17. The European Patent Office Does Not Care About the Law, Today's Management Constantly Attempts to Bypass the Law

    Many EPs (European Patents) are actually "IPs" (invalid patents); the EPO doesn't seem to care and it is again paying for corrupt scholars to toe the party line



  18. The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) Once Again Pours Cold Water on Patent Maximalists

    Any hopes of a rebound or turnaround have just been shattered because a bizarre attack on the appeal process (misusing tribal immunity) fell on deaf ears and software patents definitely don't interest the highest court, which already deemed them invalid half a decade ago



  19. Links 17/4/2019: Qt 5.12.3 Released, Ola Bini Arrested (Political Stunts)

    Links for the day



  20. Links 16/4/2019: CentOS Turns 15, Qt Creator 4.9.0 Released

    Links for the day



  21. GNU/Linux is Being Eaten Alive by Large Corporations With Their Agenda

    A sort of corporate takeover, or moneyed interests at the expense of our freedom, can be seen as a 'soft coup' whose eventual outcome would involve all or most servers in 'the cloud' (surveillance with patent tax as part of the rental fees) and almost no laptops/desktops which aren't remotely controlled (and limit what's run on them, using something like UEFI 'secure boot')



  22. Reader's Claim That Rules Similar to the Code of Conduct (CoC) Were 'Imposed' on LibrePlanet and the FSF

    Restrictions on speech are said to have been spread and reached some of the most liberal circles, according to a credible veteran who opposes illiberal censorship



  23. Corporate Media Will Never Cover the EPO's Violations of the Law With Respect to Patent Scope

    The greed-driven gold rush for patents has resulted in a large pool of European Patents that have no legitimacy and are nowadays associated with low legal certainty; the media isn't interested in covering such a monumental disaster that poses a threat to the whole of Europe



  24. A Linux Foundation Run by People Who Reject Linux is Like a Children's Charity Whose Management Dislikes Children

    We remain concerned about the lack of commitment that the Linux Foundation has for Linux; much of the Linux Foundation's Board, for example, comes from hostile companies



  25. Links 15/4/2019: Linux 5.1 RC5 and SolydXK Reviewed

    Links for the day



  26. Links 14/4/2019: Blender 2.80 Release Plan and Ducktype 1.0

    Links for the day



  27. 'Poor' (Multi-Millionaire) Novell CEO, Who Colluded With Steve Ballmer Against GNU/Linux, is Trying to Censor Techrights

    Novell’s last CEO, a former IBMer who just like IBM decided to leverage software patents against the competition (threatening loads of companies using "platoons of patent lawyers"), has decided that siccing lawyers at us would be a good idea



  28. Guest Post: The Linux Foundation (LF) is “Putting the CON in Conference!” (Part 2)

    Calls for papers (CfP) and who gets to assess what's presented or what's not presented is a lesser-explored aspect, especially in this age when large corporate sponsors get to indirectly run entire 'community' events



  29. Patent Maximalists Are Enabling Injustices and Frauds

    It's time to come to grips with the simple fact that extreme patent lenience causes society to suffer and is mostly beneficial to bad actors; for the patent profession to maintain a level of credibility and legitimacy it must reject the deplorable, condemnable zealots



  30. Further Decreasing Focus on Software Patents in the United States as They Barely Exist in Valid Form Anymore

    No headway made after almost 4 months of Iancu-led stunts; software patents remain largely dead and buried, so we’re moving on to other topics


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