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


Important Precedence: IBM Threatens to Sue Microsoft Over Propaganda Site

Posted in Deception, FUD, GNU/Linux, IBM, Microsoft, Windows at 4:18 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“Microsoft did sponsor the benchmark testing and the NT server was better tuned than the Linux one. Having said that, I must say that I still trust the Windows NT server would have outperformed the Linux one.”

Windows platform manager, Microsoft South Africa
Reference: Outrage at Microsoft’s independent, yet sponsored NT 4.0/Linux research

Summary: Another manufactured ‘benchmark’ from Microsoft gets the wrath of rivals

ABOUT A month ago, 18 companies sued the Swiss government for dealing with Microsoft behind closed doors and signing expensive (probably overpriced) deals by completely excluding competition [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. This set an important legal precedence and IBM may be setting another one right now. Sadly, as far as the news is concerned, this story is only covered by a Microsoft spinner from Ziff Davis (they work with Microsoft [1, 2, 3, 4]). The author does not even bother giving voice to anyone from IBM’s side, so it’s virtually ghostwritten by Microsoft employees. The gist of the story is this:

IBM lawyers have contacted Microsoft about the “Who Knew?” site, which claims that customers will save money and get better performance by running WebSphere on Windows Server 2008, instead of on IBM operating systems.

The dispute here must be over deliberate deception. Microsoft has never any qualms about misrepresentation of facts and faking of benchmarks. See quote at the very top. “Get the Facts”, “Linux Personas”, "It's better with Windows", “[Vendor] recommends Vista” and other paid-for messages (advertisements) are disguised as “facts” or endorsements, so this is not acceptable. GNU/Linux is not the only victim .

“Microsoft has never any qualms about misrepresentation of facts and faking of benchmarks.”Let’s take VMware for example. It was a long time ago that Microsoft commissioned the Yankee Group to attack VMware’s business [1, 2]. Yankee consequently pulled the report (VMware did not accept this libelous attack), but Microsoft still hosted its copies of the propaganda it had paid for. Microsoft later proceeded to creating anti-VMware Web site/s. In a similar vain, Microsoft is using ACT to create pro-software patents Web sites in Europe.

When will this end and why does Microsoft still wonder if circles in IT distrust it, to say the very least?

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


  1. Jose_X said,

    June 9, 2009 at 9:31 am


    Bait and Switch

    Here is a simple recipe.

    Keep in mind this is a hypothetical exercise.

    We have two pieces of hardware: A (ours) and B (theirs).

    We have the corresponding platform software: for A (our platform sw) and for B (their platform sw).

    We have the product being tested on each (in this case, it’s their server software).

    The first step is to make sure we find an A so that it outperforms their B hardware. This is easy to do unless B is the fastest supercomputer on record. It isn’t, obviously, so we can definitely find an A that beats whatever B is. [Eg, a 4gighz x86 beats a 1gighz x86 from the same vendor.]

    Each platform software performs about the same as the other under ordinary circumstances (or maybe ours is a bit worse). This means we will optimize extra for the occasion. This is easy to do by removing security and other tests. We can keep special task/process related memory objects around preinitialized in anticipation. We can simplify and speed up our scheduling. We can give the special process high priority to the CPU and to the filesystem (bypassing security checks, etc). We put everything else, including the GUI, into slow low priority mode. We turn kernel dynamic lists into static lists. Etc. Really, it is possible to optimize well for the occasion if we know the system will only be used for a specific purpose (to win in some benchmark). Also, the platform software we chose for their side is their generic platform software if possible (eg, their regular platform software not optimized for this benchmark).

    So that is how we easily got the improved performance.

    However, we need to control further context in order to pull off the coop. What about the price, right? After all, a supercomputer outperforms a pocket calculator, but people don’t buy supercomputers to compute tax at the restaurant. The context in this case is that the supercomputer is a LOT MORE expensive. We need to get the price of our “supercomputer” down to a competitive level.

    Here is how we carry out this step. We work with the hardware partner. They develop an exclusive model that they will price near cost. We also give away our platform software at near cost (it’s a “special configuration” remember). Voila! We got our costs down because we and our partner have no intention to actually sell many of these models to actual customers.

    So we kick their buttocks, and customers flock to our product.


    The hardware model runs out quickly and a very slightly differently named/numbered hardware model is put in its place at a higher price.

    Also, our platform software is changed back to normal, except that now, it actually doesn’t run their server software all that well in comparison to our own server software that competes with theirs (but which was not tested in the benchmark). It’s extremely easy to change platform software bits around so that one app that was favored is no longer favored and is actually handicapped. It’s also very difficult to catch this if third parties don’t have the source code. Also, for subtlety, this change in the platform can be achieved later on through one or more automatic online updates/patches.

    Of course, the price of the platform software also goes up eventually, if not initially. Maybe its price goes up at the one year renewal or else when they exceed an artificially low user count. Or perhaps the price is raised transparently through the bundled software/service package “deal” the customer actually ended up buying. There are many ways to guide them into these higher priced options.


    Recap: We found better hardware, tweaked only our platform software to game the benchmark, and artificially lowered the price on this model in order to win the benchmark price comparison test. Then we switched this system with a regular one, threw in some more items, and modified the platform software (over time) to disfavor their application that we favored for the benchmark. Through this bait and switch we won the contract, and later by controlling the platform software, we disgraced their product to upsell our product in its place. We had the slightly worse software perhaps yet won and pulled in much more money than what they were advertising as their price tag. A full sleigh of hand.

    This is dirty, absolutely. It’s deceptive. It’s anti-consumer and anti-competitive. It likely leverages monopolies later on in the upsell. It is perfectly within Microsoft’s capabilities to pull off. It would be consistent with Microsoft’s past behavior.

    Keep in mind, however, that this was only a hypothetical exercise.

    Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    Thanks, Jose. That is a very clear explanation. I hope the quote prepended to this post helps in establishing precedence that supports the conviction.

  2. Motoko-chan said,

    June 9, 2009 at 3:25 pm


    I’m not really surprised. Microsoft has run some really unbalanced “benchmarks” in the past, then hid their test configurations in the fine print of their ads.

    One particular one that comes to my mind was from back in 2005 with Microsoft claiming their SQL Server was faster than Oracle 9i. The Windows machine ran four dual-core Opteron processors (eight cores) at 2.2 gHz and the Oracle machine ran four Itanium 2 processors (four cores) at 1.5 gHz.

    Hm, I wonder why Microsoft’s software was able to be twice as fast?

    Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    Can you find a link about this? Did Oracle take action?

    Oracle did an investigation of ACT.

What Else is New

  1. EPO Caricature: Battistelli's High Five

    Another cartoon about the sad state of the EPO

  2. Battistelli Ruins Not Only the EPO But Also the Whole of Europe By Ushering in Software Patents That Patent Trolls Love So Much

    Battistelli's bad leadership at the EPO threatens to bring to Europe all the ills and menaces of the patent system in the United States

  3. EPO Spokesman Lies to IP Watch in Order to Save Face and Save the King (Battistelli)

    Rewriting history (revisionism) regarding Battistelli and what was demanded amidst abusive behaviour from him

  4. Unitary Patent (UPC) is Dead, But 'Managing IP' and Selfish Patent Law Firms Still Try to Resurrect It

    The latest attempts to shore up the Unitary (or Unified) Patent Court and who's behind it other than the usual suspects

  5. Links 20/10/2016: Linux 4.10 Preview, ONF and ON.Labs to Merge

    Links for the day

  6. Battistelli-Commissioned PwC 'Study': The Raw Outcome Shows Distortion of the Facts at the EPO's Notorious 'Social Conference'

    Results of the Staff Survey carried out by PwC, in order to provide some propaganda for Battistelli's expensive Social Conference

  7. Addendum: EPO's Alberto Casado Cerviño, WIPO's Francis Gurry, and EUIPO's Archambeau

    Photos taken as part of an IP event which took place in Riga (Latvia) in March 2015

  8. Worrisome Connections Between EPO VP2 Alberto Casado Cerviño and Patricia García-Escudero Márquez

    Exploring the potential conflicts of interests implicating the EPO's Boards of Appeal Committee

  9. Site's Infrastructure Under Attack and Upgrades Ahead of Major New Publications

    Protections for the Web site have been improved and capacity increased in order to avoid or at least prepare for another week of abusive/spam traffic

  10. Team Battistelli's Conspiracy Theory: SUEPO is Behind Everything, EPO Management is Trying to Tell the Media

    Attempts to blame SUEPO, the staff union of the EPO, even though SUEPO has nothing to do with articles that are critical of the EPO while many thousands of EPO employees are disgruntled

  11. Links 19/10/2016: Canonical Livepatch Service, Plasma Plans

    Links for the day

  12. The 'Sarah Sharps' of Microsoft: Not the Kind of Scandal the Media Cares Enough to Write About

    Another example of the large (industrial) scale of sexual discrimination at Microsoft -- a company that tries to advertise itself as diverse or tolerant and stigmatise Free/Open Source software (FOSS) as intolerant and/or not diverse

  13. EPO Caricature: EQE Questions

    The latest EPO cartoon, this time about European qualifying examination (EQE)

  14. The Long History or Seeds of Control by Fear and Punishment at the EPO

    The latest hogwash from Team Battistelli (Pinocchio), the latest instance of software patents promotion by EPO Principal Director, and an old (decade-old) nugget of information from the Forum for Principal Directors

  15. Subject of the European Patent Office's Abuses Raised in European Parliament by Ulrike Müller (ALDE)

    A local copy of a bunch of questions asked less than a month ago by Ulrike Müller at the European Parliament, regarding the unacceptable state of affairs at the European Patent Office (EPO)

  16. French Article About the EPO "Crisis"

    Le Monde, which covered EPO suicides and nervous breakdowns a year and a half ago, revisits the subject

  17. Battistelli Wants Us to Believe a Patent Office in a Freefall (EPO) is “Stronger and More Sustainable”

    Still in denial (or self-deluding for self indulgence), Battistelli writes about the EPO as though everything is rosy and people are happy

  18. Leaked Documents Shed More Light on What Happened to Alison Brimelow and How Battistelli Rose to Power

    How Battistelli's (almost) all-male (and all-white, mostly French) management came into being, not too long after Ms Alison Brimelow got elbowed out the Office

  19. Leaked: Outcomes of 149th Administrative Council's Meeting at the European Patent Organisation

    The raw details or a summary thereof, based on the above which serves to confirm what we wrote about several days ago, right after the quarterly meeting had ended

  20. Danish Press Coverage of the European Patent Office and the Problems Explored by Techrights

    Jesper Kongstad does virtually nothing to deny the arguments (or "accusations") and instead alludes to the style of the writings about him

  21. Links 18/10/2016: Release Candidate of Leap 42.2, Looking Ahead at GTK4

    Links for the day

  22. Links 17/10/2016: JS Foundation, Ubuntu 17.04 Named ‘Zesty Zapus’

    Links for the day

  23. EPO Updates: Battistelli in Trouble, Grossenbacher and Battistelli Having a Fight, EPO Doubles Down on Željko Topić

    Interesting updates from the European Patent Office (EPO), where things have taken a turn for the worse for Battistelli while Željko Topić secures an extension of his notorious contract

  24. EPO Social Conference Another Example of Astronomical Waste of Money by Benoît Battistelli

    Having paid the media and attempted to scare/intimidate staff into silence (even among one another), Battistelli now pays some firms to lie for him and present the lies while staff representatives are blocked from entering the presentation

  25. As Expected, Benoît Battistelli Puts Longtime Ally Roland Grossenbacher on Top of Boards of Appeal

    Benoît Battistelli's predecessor Roland Grossenbacher, who has a track record of protection and support for Battistelli (no matter the magnitude of abuses), reportedly takes a key position with Battistelli's approval, debunking the notion that the appeal boards will enjoy greater (perceived) independence from the Office

  26. UPC Preparatory Committee Projects Optimism in an Effort to Salvage Its Dying Project, the Unitary/Unified Patent

    Refusing to let the UPC stay in its grave, Team UPC keeps digging up and dishing out UPC misinformation, in front of an audience that need not be preached to as it's already converted (effectively an echo chamber)

  27. Outline of Latest Press Coverage Regarding the European Patent Office (EPO)

    European media is beginning to cover scandals associated with the European Patent Office (EPO), in spite of Battistelli's attempt to silence and manipulate it, at the expense of millions of Euros per year

  28. Links 16/10/2016: Linux 4.9 RC1, Wine 1.9.21

    Links for the day

  29. Links 14/10/2016: 20th Birthday for KDE, Apache OpenOffice 4.1.3

    Links for the day

  30. EPO Administrative Council Meeting Turning Point - Part V: “Siegfried Bross as President of the Boards of Appeal!”

    Retired judge Siegfried Broß is jokingly named as the person who should head the independent Boards of Appeal that keep the Office in check


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


Recent Posts