05.21.09
Posted in Free/Libre Software, Microsoft at 8:47 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Was TrueSpace bought just to be buried?
Microsoft has shut down many services, programs, and products over the past 6 months. Many of these were bought by Microsoft, whose track record shows a long history of acquisitions. As Microsoft's earnings have just sunk 32% and the future looks not-so-certain, Microsoft is now discontinuing TrueSpace, only a short time after promising it a place at Microsoft.
Microsoft took over Caligari TrueSpace earlier last year and later released the software as freeware. They have now decided to discontinue TrueSpace – the first services will be disabled by tomorrow. This is a truly sad day for their loyal user base.
To keep this wonderful project alive it might be worth turning it from freeware to Free/libre software (if that’s legally possible). █
“Usually Microsoft doesn’t develop products, we buy products.”
–Arno Edelmann, Microsoft’s European business security product manager
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, GNU/Linux, Kernel, Law, Microsoft, Patents at 3:51 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
“If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today’s ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today.”
–Bill Gates (when Microsoft was smaller)
Summary: A roundup of news and observations about Microsoft’s exploitation of software patents
AS THE previous post showed, Microsoft and its offshoots may be paying politicians for software patents. One of the benefits (to Microsoft) which comes out of this is that it bans competition. Microsoft’s #1 competition is GNU/Linux and Free software and the company already sues this competition using software patents which is lobbies for. Microsoft views software patents as something that the GPL is naturally vulnerable to.
LWN.net has just made public its latest debate about the TomTom/FAT case, which represents Microsoft’s first legal shot at Linux. From the article:
When Microsoft filed its lawsuit against TomTom, it named two patents which cover the VFAT filesystem. That, naturally, led to a renewed push to either (1) get those patents invalidated, or (2) move away from VFAT altogether. But some participants have advocated a third approach: find a way to work around the patents which retains most of the VFAT filesystem functionality while, with luck, avoiding any potential infringement of the claims of the patent. But, as a recently-posted patch and the ensuing discussion show, workarounds are not a straightforward solution even after the lawyers have been satisfied.
There is a rather terrible and demeaning article in Ars Technica right now. It is about Microsoft's patent propaganda book and the reviewer plays right into Microsoft’s hands, maybe intentionally.
Far from being the evil monopolist, Microsoft has in many ways become the cooperative giant—and it’s all thanks to intellectual property. The company’s IP czar takes us inside the corporate transformation in a new book, Burning the Ships, to show us how it happened (and to take a few potshots at Richard Stallman).
Glyn Moody responds to the shallow take contained in this book review, which seems only to defend Microsoft’s offensive behaviour. Software patents did not make Microsoft nicer; they only made it more ruthless and anti-competitive.
To call this “collaboration” is a perversion of language: it’s about *enslavement*, pure and simple. It’s just that Microsoft has become subtler.
Moody also shows what Microsoft has done to the idea of patenting and Microsoft’s tactics of intimidation may be working because, according to this new article, some companies seek indemnification.
But for many large enterprises, potential intellectual property (IP) lawsuits and lack of support staff still keep open source tools out of data centers.
Indemnification is also mentioned in Bluenog’s new press release — being a company that more or less uses the term “open source” for marketing purposes.
“Bluenog is disrupting today’s enterprise technology space with Bluenog ICE, an integrated suite of CMS, Portal and BI software that offers the benefits of open source, such as access to source code, backed by indemnification and the comprehensive support typical of commercial solutions,” said Suresh Kuppusamy, chief executive officer, Bluenog. “It is no small feat to be selected among the best and brightest companies competing to be winners of the Red Herrin
Some of Microsoft’s patents are rather outrageous. Take this newly-approved patent for example. It’s hilarious, it’s an embarrassment to the USPTO.
“On Tuesday, Microsoft was granted US Patent No. 7,536,726 (it was filed in 2005) for intentionally crippling the functionality of an operating system by ‘making selected portions and functionality of the operating system unavailable to the user or by limiting the user’s ability to add software applications or device drivers to the computer’ until an ‘agreed upon sum of money’ is paid to ‘unlock or otherwise make available the restricted functionality.’ According to Microsoft, this solves a ‘problem inherent in open architecture systems,’ i.e., ‘they are generally licensed with complete use rights and/or functionality that may be beyond the need or desire of the system purchaser.’ An additional problem with open architecture systems, Microsoft explains, is that ‘virtually anyone can write an application that can be executed on the system.’ Nice to see the USPTO rewarding Microsoft’s eight problem-solving inventors, including Linux killer (and antelope killer) Joachim Kempin, who’s been credited with getting Microsoft hauled into federal court on antitrust charges.”
Regarding this news, one reader writes to us: “Microsoft Openness, I don’t think so. It just goes to demonstrate how – they aren’t ever going to stop – until they own it all.
“This ‘patent’ a perversion of everything the technology is supposed to be about. Guess who the gate keeper of of this functionality is going to be. Not content with messing with the ever changing system calls, they now want to control the whole industry at the OS level.”
Now that XBox is struggling against Nintendo Microsoft also resorts to ‘copying’ and then patenting this:
In a newly disclosed patent application, naming Allard and others as inventors, Microsoft seeks intellectual property protection for a concept described, literally, as a “MAGIC WAND.” Although it was only made public a few days ago, the application was originally filed in November 2007 — about a year after Nintendo launched the Wii, with its distinctive, wand-style controller. (Update: Timing of Nintendo’s Wii launch has been corrected since original post.)
More coverage in:
Gene Quinn, a lawyer and proponent of software patents (the more patents, the more money for lawyers) says that In Re Bilski is not bad for software patents. The patent reform (deform), which is by all means a farce, seems to have negative impact in other places where equivalents crop up. Here is one from New Zealand:
Patents Bill
[...]
I will begin by looking briefly at software. The bill proposes that software should be patentable; the opposite direction to that being pursued by the European Union. This is a very bad idea. The foremost theorist in this area is Richard Stallman. Stallman eloquently argues that the use of software patents stifles creativity, massively reduces efficiency, and can lead to whole areas of software usefulness remaining unexplored. Software patents are a substantial cause of software incompatibility, for example. He draws an analogy with the composition of a symphony. Suppose someone had patented particular chord progressions, sequences of notes, or combinations of instruments playing at the same time. What sort of problem would Beethoven have had? We regard him as a brilliant and innovative composer, but he wrote symphonies using a musical vocabulary comprised of very many musical ideas developed by multiple composers. Stallman argues that even a genius software programmer must draw on a standard vocabulary of programming ideas. If software patents are permitted, then the programmer cannot draw on such ideas without infringing patents. The consequences are that whole areas of software development are avoided lest software developers breach patents, and in other areas inefficient or otherwise unsatisfactory programmes remain in use because it is not technically feasible to develop better options because of this restriction. In this area patents are clearly a brake and a hindrance on innovation.
In the United States, patents (monopolies) are seen as the notion with which to save the economy. [via Digital Majority]
IP Enforcement As US Foreign Policy
The United States Chamber of Commerce, the largest US business group, on Monday issued a release applauding a new bill introduced into the US House of Representatives by House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman (Democrat, California) that would “enhance State Department resources and training for intellectual property enforcement efforts in countries not meeting their international obligations,” the Chamber said.
In essence, this is competitive strangulation using pieces of paper. As we showed earlier, Microsoft being the example, even crippling of an operating systems is now a US patent. Here is another funny new patent which is consumer-hostile:
MLB Gets A Patent On Making It More Difficult To Watch Your Favorite Baseball Team Online
[...]
Limiting access by subscription levels has been around forever. Combining the two hardly seems new and innovative. This seems like it should fail based on general obviousness, as well as the new tests under the KSR ruling (on obviousness) and the Bilski ruling (on pure software patents). About the only “good” that comes of this is that perhaps it means other sports leagues won’t use such an anti-fan policy.
Where is this patent system going? And other than selfishness and infinite greed, what is it that motivates Microsoft to support it? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Bill Gates, Finance, Law, Microsoft, Patents at 2:57 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Getting down to pertinent details and names of Microsoft lobbyists (including those working for the Gates family)
MICROSOFT’S MASSIVE lobbying framework is a subject that was explored here before. It is important to realise that Microsoft need not lobby directly and many lobbyists are not registered, therefore the estimates are too modest.
The study of this matter is particular relevant these days because Microsoft spends endless amounts of money and effort trying to defeat competition like Google using lobbyists. At the same time, based on last week’s news, Microsoft’s patent troll Nathan Myhrvold is funding lobbyists who in turn fight for software patents.
An article in CongressDaily’s AM Edition on Friday notes that Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., is an opponent of legislation intended to rework how patents are granted and litigated in the United States. Rohrabacher said at a House Science Committee hearing that the measures currently moving through the House and Senate have been driven by major high-tech firms that are “trying to destroy the patent system.” The story points out that Rohrabacher’s top 2008 campaign donor was Intellectual Ventures, a firm founded by Nathan Myhrvold, a former Microsoft executive who has been highly critical of changing the patent system. He also accepted money from manufacturers — another sector that has panned portions of the legislation.
Bill Gates too is gradually becoming a patent troll. But to what extent are Bill and his father (Bill) also politicians? Let’s find out.
Here is a glimpse at some numbers and also an overview:
Microsoft Corp is the world’s top computer software company. It is also one of the biggest campaign contributors in Washington—an astounding fact when you consider that Microsoft is a relatively new player on the political scene. Prior to 1998, the company and its employees gave virtually nothing in terms of political contributions. But when the Justice Department launched an antitrust investigation into the company’s marketing of its popular Windows software, things changed. The company opened a Washington lobbying office, founded a political action committee and soon became one of the most generous political givers in the country. The move eventually galvanized an entire industry, as computer and Internet companies quickly moved to emulate Microsoft’s political savvy.
“The list [...] gives the overall figures on how much Microsoft has given to political parties in the USA since the DOJ trial. The most of any company… 3.22 million in 2008,” writes Chips, who also links to this invaluable list. According to the list, here are some of the more recent lobbyists for the firm of Bill Gates Sr.
3) Jack Abramoff Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
33) Thomas Allison Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
76) Gretchen Asmuth Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
81) Larry Ayres Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
111) Kelli Barron Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
146) Amy Berger Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
179) Jonathan Blank Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
213) Todd Boulanger Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
238) Werner Brandt Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
318) Amy Carlson Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
374) Chris Coakley Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
405) Elizabeth Connell Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
407) Darrell Conner Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
422) Stephen Cooper Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
462) William Davenport Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
472) Robert Davis Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
590) Michael Evans Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
663) Dick Ford Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
707) David Funderburk Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
723) Pamela Garvie Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
729) Susan Geiger Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
782) Slade Gorton Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
890) Bruce Heiman Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
895) Lisa Helpert Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
1007) Glenn Ivey Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
1025) William Jarrell Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
1105) Will Keyser Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
1133) Stacy Knowlton Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
1184) Lawrence Latourette Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
1237) Ellen Livingston Behan Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
1250) John Longstreth Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
1320) Tricia Markwood Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
1325) Rolf Marshall Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
1369) Gregory McCarthy Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
1404) Lloyd Meeds Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
1425) Benjamin Milder Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
1433) Eugene Miller Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
1479) Roger Morse Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
1483) Sol Mosher Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
1497) William Myhre Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
1536) Ralph Nurnberger Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
1560) Cindy Omalley Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
1562) Michael Oneil Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
1593) Connie Partoyan Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
1608) Tim Peckinpaugh Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
1640) Heather Pichelman Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
1653) Patrick Pizzella Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
1762) Yvette Robitaille Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
1794) Emanuel Rouvelas Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
1807) Mark Ruge Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
1843) Michael Scanlon Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
1882) Chad See Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
1919) William Shook Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
1952) Alan Slomowitz Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
1972) Shirley Smits Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
1978) Michael Soussan Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
2013) Dennis Stephens Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
2014) Martin Stern Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
2015) Michael Stern Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
2018) Paul Stimers Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
2087) W Thomas Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
2143) Steven Valentine Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
2154) Shawn Vasell Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
2183) G Walker Preston Gates Ellis Rouvelas & Meeds LLP
Wow. That’s a lot of people.
This firm is doing a lot of work for Microsoft, but maybe not anymore (not in the future).
How about those working directly for Microsoft? Well, here is what we have in this one particular list:
145) Marc Berejka Microsoft Corp.
220) Paula Boyd Microsoft Corp.
236) Betsy Brady Microsoft Corp.
278) Marland Buckner Microsoft Corp.
730) Matt Gelman Microsoft Corp.
811) Bill Guidera Microsoft Corp.
958) James Houton Microsoft Corp.
999) Ed Ingle Microsoft Corp.
1089) John Kelly Microsoft Corp.
1154) Jack Krumoltz Microsoft Corp.
1313) Susan Mann Microsoft Corp.
1569) Lori Otto Microsoft Corp.
1595) Pamela Passman Microsoft Corp.
1768) Tom Roesser Microsoft Corp.
1800) Ira Rubinstein Microsoft Corp.
1827) Bill Sample Microsoft Corp.
1828) John Sampson Microsoft Corp.
2098) Fred Tipson Microsoft Corp.
2106) Frank Torres Microsoft Corp.
So now we have a decent list of Microsoft lobbyists or lobbyists related to Bill Gates Sr. and his firm which worked for Microsoft. This list is partial and incomplete, but at least it’s something. What might also be useful are examples of activities and links to prior posts about them. In the site Wiki we shall start creating profiles for their various activities (hopefully some time in the future).
Here is another informative page that Chips shared with us:
Top Contributor to Member – 133 match(es) found (Show all matches):
2010 Cycle
* Microsoft Corp (Recipient: Judd Gregg (R))
* Microsoft Corp (Recipient: Olympia J Snowe (R))
* Microsoft Corp (Recipient: Edward M Kennedy (D))
* Microsoft Corp (Recipient: Charles B Rangel (D))
* Microsoft Corp (Recipient: Jay Inslee (D))
Top Contributor to Candidate – 36 match(es) found (Show all matches):
2010 Cycle
* Microsoft Corp (Recipient: Hillary Clinton (D))
* Microsoft Corp (Recipient: Suzan DelBene (D))
2008 Cycle
* Microsoft Corp (Recipient: Larry Wayne Ishmael (R))
* Microsoft Corp (Recipient: Al Franken (D))
* Microsoft Corp (Recipient: William James Breazeale (R))
Top Contributor to Party Committee – 2 match(es) found:
2010 Cycle
* Microsoft Corp (Recipient: Democratic National Cmte)
* Microsoft Corp (Recipient: Republican Party Committees)
Among all these lists we also have a list of money given by Microsoft to congress members, by name. “Bill truly owns the USA,” Chips wrote. Looking at particular people one by one would easily prove fruitful. Take Todd Boulanger for example. “A little googling on those names will most likely return a heap of dirt,” Chips asserts.
There is a lot of embarrassing stuff one can find about them using the Internet. Here is one example of a scandal:
Gregg: Ex-staffer caught up in corruption probe
[...]
Staffer F was cited in a guilty plea last week by Todd Boulanger, a former deputy to Abramoff. In federal court, Boulanger admitted he plied the staffer with front-row tickets to a hockey game, meals and drinks and other tickets to a baseball game, and in exchange received favors in spending legislation.
Need anything more be said about Abramoff and the Gates family? The main difference is that he is in prison whereas they are not. █
“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
Permalink
Send this to a friend
05.20.09
Posted in Finance, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft at 3:20 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Vicinity Corporation and Matt Hopkins make another strong link between Microsoft and Net Applications, whose data it admits to be flawed
WE ARE WELL aware already that Net Applications is funded by Microsoft in the form of clientèle and the company’s output sure feeds a lot of anti-GNU/Linux writers like Preston Gralla from IDG. They just need some manufactured numbers with which to suppress and demoralise the competition, as explained very lucidly in Microsoft's effective evangelism courses.
“They just need some manufactured numbers with which to suppress and demoralise the competition, as explained very lucidly in Microsoft’s effective evangelism courses.”Net Applications has admitted that its sample set is not representative of the global population of Web sites and a lot of people conveniently ignore this (with exceptions that get washed away by “yes men”). Moreover, Chips has just told us that the company’s Twitter account is run by Matt Hopkins, a former Microsoft Employee. He is with Net Applications now. And here is another link: Vicinity Corporation. Hopkins was there when Microsoft bought it and also, according to Chips, Hopkins does investing. He is listed as a former employee of Microsoft and Vicinity Corporation, which Microsoft bought.
“On the Net Applications page,” elaborates Chips, “[do] a google search on Matt, says that he is also an investor [...] one wonders if he owned part of Vicinity, and got the money from Microsoft.” Net Applications is an insult to GNU/Linux, as explained in:
So, what is the real installed based on GNU/Linux on the desktop? Even on the server we may never know because Microsoft paid those who measure it to do this in a way that glorifies Microsoft, by statistical design. This is a strategic move. As Microsoft puts it [PDF], “To control mental output you have to control mental input. Take control of the channels by which developers receive information, then they can only think about the things you tell them. Thus, you control mindshare!” █
“There’s a lot of Linux out there — much more than Microsoft generally signals publicly — and their customers are using it…”
–Paul DeGroot, a Directions On Microsoft analyst
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, GNU/Linux, Kernel, Law, Microsoft at 2:48 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Refutation of spin by pro-Microsoft journalists
WE COULD NOT help noticing that Microsoft boosters are characterising consent on a triviality as some sort of a peace deal between Linux and Microsoft. Mary Jo Foley, for example, tries to insinuate that Horacio Gutierrez, one of the key people behind the legal assault on Linux, is somehow changing his feelings or mind. It’s not true at all. Wishful thinking.
Truth can, indeed, be stranger than fiction — as is evidenced by a May 14 letter on software-licensing policies that was signed by both Microsoft and Linux Foundation officials.
The letter, which the two sent to to the American Law Institute (ALI), was designed to “express our shared concerns with the group’s draft Principles of the Law of Software Contracts,” according to a blog post by Horacio Gutierrez, Microsoft’s Corporate Vice President and Deputy General Counsel.
All the early reports about this seem to come principally from Microsoft-focused reporters*, including Nancy Gohring at IDG:
Microsoft, Linux join forces in software law debate
They urge the ALI specifically to clarify a section of its document that concerns warranties on defects in software. The document appears to absolve commercial open-source software from the types of warranties that would be applied to proprietary software. But because many open-source software providers make money, such as through advertising, it’s unclear if such providers would be liable for defects according to the document.
This is not the first time that such a thing happens (even the SFLC and Microsoft), so this is nothing new. It’s about liability. Todd Bishop may have spun this a little too widely when he used the headline: “Best Friends Forever: Microsoft and the Linux Foundation?”
He is spinning this as though Microsoft makes peace with what it sues, constantly threatens, and calls “cancer”. It could not be further from the truth. In this case, two opposing groups found common ground on technical issues of liability, but Microsoft refuses to bury its hatchet (slanderous unspecific claims of patent infringement), so this is not a case of “Best Friends Forever” as Todd Bishop puts it (with a question mark to be fair).
Additional new coverage of this could be found later in:
It is important to observe that Microsoft-oriented reporters are acutely aware of the company’s overly aggressive behaviour. Mary Jo Foley says that she has always been a skeptic. Therefore, in order to perfume what they do (to themselves and to others such as readers) they try to portray Microsoft as a friendly creature that would harm almost no-one. Being sedated is the worst one can do when Microsoft carries on with its “smile while you squeeze the trigger” attitude towards the competition. We wrote about an example of this attitude just a few hours ago (regarding ODF). █
“In the last several days Microsoft has shown that despite claims of acquiring a newly found respect for open principles and technology, developers should be cautious in believing promises made by this “new” Microsoft. [...] There is one other fact clear from this case. Microsoft does not appear to be a leopard capable of changing its spots. Maybe it’s time developers go on a diet from Microsoft and get the FAT out of their products.”
–Jim Zemlin, Linux Foundation Executive Director
____
* It’s possible that Microsoft or Waggener Edstrom seeded it.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
