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

11.28.08

Gartner Group is Banned by Boycott Novell

Posted in Boycott Novell, Deception, Free/Libre Software, FUD, Microsoft at 5:04 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

We invite others to do the same

THE reason we have been writitng about the Gartner Group quite a lot recently is that they attack Free software very frequently [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. That’s several times in a matter of weeks.

As Matt Asay puts it, there is not much money to be made as an analyst in a world so saturated with Free software. It marginalises Gartner and one of its major clients/investors (notably — although not only — Microsoft), so its attacks on Free software are means of self defence.

It’s a pleasure to see even the community manager of OpenSUSE denouncing Gartner. Data Blankenhorn too has just gone on the polite offensive.

In order to simplify and improve people’s understanding of the Gartner Group, it’s likely that some time in the future we will create a cohesive resource. Gartner is just one of the largest of its kind, but equally bad are smaller firms like Forrester, Burton Group, and Yankee Group, which serve virtually the same interests.

IDC, which owns one of the most extensive media networks covering technology, is another serious problem. It’s a wound in the fabric of seemingly independent media, which merely instructs trends through a Web of citations of itself and selected clients. For it’s worth, it is the same in politics where public opinion is shaped by a consensus decided by interests-possessing ‘elites’, accompanied by policed media and curricula.

Related posts:

“Analysts sell out – that’s their business model… But they are very concerned that they never look like they are selling out, so that makes them very prickly to work with.”

Microsoft, internal document [PDF]

Taking a buck (bribe)

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. AlexH said,

    November 28, 2008 at 5:41 am

    Gravatar

    Roy, do you want to expand on what “banned” mean?

    Presumably it doesn’t mean that Gartner’s next pronouncements on “open source” isn’t going to be ignored?

  2. AlexH said,

    November 28, 2008 at 5:42 am

    Gravatar

    .. that should be “doesn’t mean [it] _is_ going to be ignored?”, for clarity…

  3. Roy Schestowitz said,

    November 28, 2008 at 5:51 am

    Gravatar

    No matter their remarks on anything, this legion of marketing people will be disregarded.

  4. AlexH said,

    November 28, 2008 at 6:02 am

    Gravatar

    Sorry, but just to be clear: that means you’re not going to cover anything that they write in the future?

    (I’m not struggling with your criticism of them, but what action you’re proposing, that’s all).

  5. Roy Schestowitz said,

    November 28, 2008 at 6:33 am

    Gravatar

    Firms like Gartner earn their undeserved ‘validity’ because they are cited in IDG-type publications (or so-called “Wintel press”) extensively. People who read trade journals/magazines are peer pressured — so to speak — to perceive Gartner as an authority. Some conduct business with the group as a result.

    As for myself, I will dismiss Gartner no matter what they say and tune in to sources that can be trusted because there is no money on the table.

    This does not indicate that I will abstain from mentioning Gartner’s shilling-du-jour. Vigilance is crucial.

  6. AlexH said,

    November 28, 2008 at 7:23 am

    Gravatar

    I’m not arguing with you about Gartner’s “credibility”, we agree on that matter.

    I’m just asking what you meant by the word “banned”, which is implying that you’re not going to write about them (to me, at least).

    You say “we invite others to do the same” – do you just mean you want others to dismiss what they write, or is there some broader action you’re asking for?

  7. Roy Schestowitz said,

    November 28, 2008 at 7:51 am

    Gravatar

    It’s similar to the goal of Boycott Novell, which is to encourage people not to buy from Novell (feeding them, so to speak). The same goes for Gartner, whose output needs to be constantly questioned or altogether ignored.

    Academic studies (before the increased commercialisation of universities) and industrial analysis are two totally separate animals because one strives to inform for fixed income, e.g. state funding, whereas the latter typically relies on relationships with companies (recent example that had us cited by ComputerWorld and InformationWeek). That’s why many analysts have begun putting disclosures online, in attempt to defend their integrity in advance.

  8. AlexH said,

    November 28, 2008 at 8:06 am

    Gravatar

    Ok, that makes more sense. I would think about changing the subject, though – you’re not really banning them from anything.

What Else is New


  1. The Patent Trolls' Lobby, Bristows and IAM Among Others, Downplays Darts-IP/IP2Innovate Report About Rising If Not Soaring Troll Activity in Europe

    Exactly like last year, as soon as IP2Innovate opens its mouth Bristows and IAM go into "attack dog" mode and promote the UPC, deny the existence or seriousness of patent trolls, and promote their nefarious, trolls-funded agenda



  2. Links 20/2/2018: Mesa 17.3.5, Qt 5.11 Alpha, Absolute 15.0 Beta 4, Sailfish OS 2.1.4 E.A., SuiteCRM 7.10

    Links for the day



  3. Replacing Patent Sharks/Trolls and the Patent Mafia With 'Icons' Like Thomas Edison

    The popular perceptions of patents and the sobering reality of what patents (more so nowadays) mean to actual inventors who aren't associated with global behemoths such as IBM or Siemens



  4. The Patent Trolls' Lobby is Distorting the Record of CAFC on PTAB

    The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), which deals with appeals from PTAB, has been issuing many decisions in favour of § 101, but those aren't being talked about or emphasised by the patent 'industry'



  5. Japan Demonstrates Sanity on SEP Policy While US Patent Policy is Influenced by Lobbyists

    Japan's commendable response to a classic pattern of patent misuse; US patent policy is still being subjected to never-ending intervention and there is now a lobbyist in charge of antitrust matters and a lawyer in charge of the US patent office (both Trump appointees)



  6. The Patent Microcosm's Embrace of Buzzwords and False Marketing Strives to Make Patent Examiners Redundant and Patent Quality Extremely Low

    Patent maximalists, who are profiting from abundance of low-quality patents (and frivolous lawsuits/legal threats these can entail), are riding the hype wave and participating in the rush to put patent systems at the hands of machines



  7. Today, at 12:30 CET, Bavarian State Parliament Will Speak About EPO Abuses (Updated)

    The politicians of Bavaria are prepared to wrestle with some serious questions about the illegality of the EPO's actions and what that may mean to constitutional aspects of German law



  8. Another Loud Warning From EPO Workers About the Decline of Patent Quality

    Yet more patent quality warnings are being issued by EPO insiders (examiners) who are seeing their senior colleagues vanishing and wonder what will be left of their employer



  9. Links 19/2/2018: Linux 4.16 RC2, Nintendo Switch Now Full-fledged GNU/Linux

    Links for the day



  10. PTAB Continues to Invalidate a Lot of Software Patents and to Stop Patent Examiners From Issuing Them

    Erasure of software patents by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) carries on unabated in spite of attempts to cause controversy and disdain towards PTAB



  11. The Patent 'Industry' Likes to Mention Berkheimer and Aatrix to Give the Mere Impression of Section 101/Alice Weakness

    Contrary to what patent maximalists keep saying about Berkheimer and Aatrix (two decisions of the Federal Circuit from earlier this month, both dealing with Alice-type challenges), neither actually changed anything in any substantial way



  12. Makan Delrahim is Wrong; Patents Are a Major Antitrust Problem, Sometimes Disguised Using Trolls Somewhere Like the Eastern District of Texas

    Debates and open disagreements over the stance of the lobbyist who is the current United States Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division



  13. Patent Trolls Watch: Microsoft-Connected Intellectual Ventures, Finjan, and Rumour of Technicolor-InterDigital Buyout

    Connections between various patent trolls and some patent troll statistics which have been circulated lately



  14. Software Patents Trickle in After § 101/Alice, But Courts Would Not Honour Them Anyway

    The dawn of § 101/Alice, which in principle eliminates almost every software patent, means that applicants find themselves having to utilise loopholes to fool examiners, but that's unlikely to impress judges (if they ever come to assessing these patents)



  15. In Aatrix v Green Shades the Court is Not Tolerating Software Patents But Merely Inquires/Wonders Whether the Patents at Hand Are Abstract

    Aatrix alleges patent infringement by Green Shades, but whether the patents at hand are abstract or not remains to be seen; this is not what patent maximalists claim it to be ("A Valentine for Software Patent Owners" or "valentine for patentee")



  16. An Indoctrinated Minority is Maintaining the Illusion That Patent Policy is to Blame for All or Most Problems of the United States

    The zealots who want to patent everything under the Sun and sue everyone under the Sun blame nations in the east (where the Sun rises) for all their misfortunes; this has reached somewhat ludicrous levels



  17. Berkheimer Decision is Still Being Spun by the Anti-Section 101/Alice Lobby

    12 days after Berkheimer v HP Inc. the patent maximalists continue to paint this decision as a game changer with regards to patent scope; the reality, however, is that this decision will soon be forgotten about and will have no substantial effect on either PTAB or Alice (because it's about neither of these)



  18. Academic Patent Immunity is Laughable and Academics Are Influenced by Corporate Money (for Steering Patent Agenda)

    Universities appear to have become battlegrounds in the war between practicing entities and a bunch of parasites who make a living out of litigation and patent bubbles



  19. UPC Optimism Languishes Even Among Paid UPC Propagandists Such as IAM

    Even voices which are attempting to give UPC momentum that it clearly lacks admit that things aren't looking well; the UK is not ratifying and Germany make take years to look into constitutional barriers



  20. Bejin Bieneman Props Up the Disgraced Randall Rader for Litigation Agenda

    Randall Rader keeps hanging out with the litigation 'industry' -- the very same 'industry' which he served in a closeted fashion when he was Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit (and vocal proponent of software patents, patent trolls and so on)



  21. With Stambler v Mastercard, Patent Maximalists Are Hoping to Prop Up Software Patents and Damage PTAB

    The patent 'industry' is hoping to persuade the highest US court to weaken the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), for PTAB is making patent lawsuits a lot harder and raises the threshold for patent eligibility



  22. Apple Discovers That Its Patent Disputes Are a Losing Battle Which Only Lawyers Win (Profit From)

    By pouring a lot of money and energy into the 'litigation card' Apple lost focus and it's also losing some key cases, as its patents are simply not strong enough



  23. The Patent Microcosm Takes Berkheimer v HP Out of Context to Pretend PTAB Disregards Fact-Finding Process

    In view or in light of a recent decision (excerpt above), patent maximalists who are afraid of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) try to paint it as inherently unjust and uncaring for facts



  24. Microsoft Has Left RPX, But RPX Now Pays a Microsoft Patent Troll, Intellectual Ventures

    The patent/litigation arms race keeps getting a little more complicated, as the 'arms' are being passed around to new and old entities that do nothing but shake-downs



  25. UPC Has Done Nothing for Europe Except Destruction of the EPO and Imminent Layoffs Due to Lack of Applications and Lowered Value of European Patents

    The Unified Patent Court (UPC) is merely a distant dream or a fantasy for litigators; to everyone else the UPC lobby has done nothing but damage, including potentially irreparable damage to the European Patent Office, which is declining very sharply



  26. Links 17/2/2018: Mesa 17.3.4, Wine 3.2, Go 1.10

    Links for the day



  27. Patent Trolls Are Thwarted by Judges, But Patent Lawyers View Them as a 'Business' Opportunity

    Patent lawyers are salivating over the idea that trolls may be coming to their state/s; owing to courts and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) other trolls' software patents get invalidated



  28. Microsoft's Patent Moves: Dominion Harbor, Intellectual Ventures, Intellectual Discovery, NEC and Uber

    A look at some of the latest moves and twists, as patents change hands and there are still signs of Microsoft's 'hidden hand'



  29. Links 15/2/2018: GNOME 3.28 Beta, Rust 1.24

    Links for the day



  30. Bavarian State Parliament Has Upcoming Debate About Issues Which Can Thwart UPC for Good

    An upcoming debate about Battistelli's attacks on the EPO Boards of Appeal will open an old can of worms, which serves to show why UPC is a non-starter


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