Summary: Microsoft lobbying backfires, so the attack on Free software is retracted with the excuse that “an old draft [was] released in error”
PENGUIN Pete has just said it well when he reminded readers that Microsoft will play politics and use AstroTurfing against any competitor great enough (and thus worthy of such effort/investment/risk of being caught). The latest example is Google’s entrance into the GNU/Linux desktop arena, further encroaching on Microsoft’s front yard.
Expect trouble in the US!
You will be thwarted. Microsoft owns too much of the US government for you not to be harassed. So don’t worry about the US market. Remember, the Metric system caught on everywhere else but the US, too. The US will be your toughest market, even without bought-off senators and officials throwing themselves in your way like salmon.
Ignore the siren song of asstroturfers!
Don’t be stupid like a few other open source projects and listen to the thousand flaming trolls in a comment page – they are paid to derail you. Google, you have done very little wrong so far; what market share you’ve acquired, you’ve earned fair and square. Don’t start doubting yourself now.
Microsoft’s political moves against Google are all too obvious and one must always keep track of them because they are virtually endless [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. But the combination of GNU/Linux and Google must be particularly scary to Microsoft, so it promptly strikes back with reports published by its lobbying front, ACT. We have already explained what ACT is all about and what Jonathan Zuck does there, but here is a newer overview.
Watch how the press parrots “Microsoft Meller”, who knowingly or innocently helps Microsoft front groups spread their messages.
A European Commission policy review white paper released last week (PDF available here) was brought to light in the US this week by virtue of a comment from its most vocal opposition. Yesterday, press sources including IDG’s Paul Meller quoted the Association for Competitive Technology’s Jonathan Zuck as taking sides — not surprisingly — against the white paper, accusing the EC of bias in favor of open source software producers over commercial manufacturers.
“We remain concerned that the policy framework suggested in the white paper seems to favor open source software over proprietary software to achieve more interoperability,” reads another citation of Zuck’s statement. Ironically, Zuck’s ACT Web site from which the statement originated appeared to be the victim of a crash in its open source asset management system this morning, so only second-hand citations of Zuck were available today.
Dana at ZDNet has just called out ACT’s latest spiel.
A European Commission effort to move the continent toward open standards is being threatened by Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) from a group favoring proprietary solutions.
Clear out the rhetoric and Zuck is saying that monopolies created by patents, and only such monopolies, allow technology to move forward, and that a regime that truly demands open standards is an attempt to “impose one business model over another.”
Now it gets funny. Watch how ‘damage control’ kicks in.
Correction from ACT
Hey, just stopping by to make small apology and perhaps a quick comment. First, our statement on the recent Whitepaper on ICT Standardization was based on an old draft and released in error. My apology is here:
However, dude, you’re all over the map here. First you’re referring to a press release from a year ago about something called the European Interoperability Framework and while that document is still evolving, I stand by our statment. One of the very examples you use of 802.11 would not be allowed in public producrment under the EIF because it’s patent encumbered and royalty bearing.
Happy to talk more. Next time you want to write about what I think, why not get my opinion first?
As one reader puts it, “ACT bashed the wrong version, and the Redmond guys told him, hey stop Zuck, we rewrote the paper and Nellie Kroes does not like insults when she negotiates with us.”
Surely enough, “an old draft” says the very opposite from the final version, right? Or is this one of the lamest excuses ever heard? It’s outright embarrassing.