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

08.02.09

Comes Antitrust: Microsoft’s Attack Plan on GNU/Linux and Today’s Lessons

Posted in Antitrust, Bill Gates, Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, Intellectual Monopoly, Microsoft, Novell, Oracle, Patents, Protocol, SUN at 4:59 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Beyond the Halloween Documents (Comes vs Microsoft exhibits)

TODAY’s Comes vs Microsoft post is a particularly long one, so we attempted to shorten it so as to keep the signal high and leave the details aside for separate inspection by those who are curious and have more time to spare.

“The authenticity of them was confirmed when the Comes vs Microsoft case produced exhibits for the broad public to access.”Many regulars are probably aware of the Halloween Documents. Eric Raymond (ESR) has a complete mirror of the text with commentary, so we will not replicate the documents, which have already been out there for years. The authenticity of them was confirmed when the Comes vs Microsoft case produced exhibits for the broad public to access.

Interestingly enough, Bill Gates said about these reports (Halloween documents): “The two documents in here from Vinod are the ones I want the board to see.” He was referring to Halloween Documents I and II. Here is Halloween Document I as text and as PDF. Here is Halloween Document II as text and as PDF.

Background

The documents which Gates referred to are already in ESR’s Web site (as plain text), so there is no point repeating the process of posting them publicly. However, to highlight some particular bits from them, here are some portions from the above. Microsoft explains that:

OSS is a concern to Microsoft for several reasons:

1. OSS projects have achieved “commercial quality”
2. OSS projects have become large-scale & complex
3. OSS has a unique development process with unique strengths/weakness

Microsoft later adds that “to understand how to compete against OSS, we must target a process rather than a company.”

Then come the issues of APIs, e.g.:

Linux and other OSS advocates are making a progressively more credible argument that OSS software is at least as robust – if not more – than commercial alternatives. [...] [E]vangelization of API’s in a closed source model basically defaults to trust, OSS API evangelization lets the developer make up his own mind.

The strategy in general:

Beating Linux
In addition to the attacking the general weakness of OSS projects (e.g. Integrative / Architectual costs), some specific attacks on Linux are:

* Beat UNIX
* All the standard product issues for NT vs. Sun apply to Linux
* Fold extended functionality into commodity protocols / services and create new protocols
* Linux’s homebase is currently commodity network and server infrastructure. By folding extended functionality (e.g. Storage+ in file systems, DAV/POD for networking) into today’s commodity services, we raise the bar & change the rules of the game.

That was about 10 years ago. As we noted before, Bill Gates once wrote: “What we are trying to do is use our server control to do new protocols and lock out Sun and Oracle specifically.”

How can Microsoft capture some of the rabid developer mindshare being focused on OSS products?

Some initial ideas include:

* Provide more extensibility – The Linux “enthusiast developer” loves writing to / understanding undocumented API’s and internals. Documenting / publishing some internal API’s as “unsupported” may be a means of generating external innovations that leverage our system investments.

It says “Documenting / publishing some internal API’s as “unsupported”…”

Does that sound familiar? As we shall show later, Microsoft also speaks frankly about “undocumentation”.

Here is embrace & extend in action:

OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized, simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market.

From Halloween Document II we pull the following (thanks to Jason):

The Linux community is very willing to copy features from other OS’s if it will serve their needs. Consequently, there is the very real long term threat that as MS expends the development dollars to create a bevy of new features in NT, Linux will simply cherry pick the best features and incorporate them into their codebase.
The effect of patents and copyright in combatting Linux remains to be investigated.

Later came the SCO lawsuit, the Novell deal, and patent racketeering which carries on to this date.

New Material

Today’s main exhibit ties the above documents together and we believe that there is no copy of it anywhere else (as text), so Wallclimber kindly contributed her time to process the text, which we then analysed. Wallclimber says that this “strategy” document outlines exactly what they’ve done to Novell. “I especially got a kick out of the “fatal flaws”,” she added. Here is the original exhibit (PX08175, 1999) [PDF] and several points of interest that are extracted from the full text, which can be found at the bottom.

This short document is titled “Our Linux Strategy” and it was authored by Vinod Valloppillil.

Watch number 1 and number 2 in the list, then think about the loadable module [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7], which added Microsoft hooks to Linux (hypercalls).

1. Embrace Linux: MS APIs / Linux kernel — release an MS version of Linux and/or release key MSFT platform technologies on Linux (e.g. parts of Win32, app server, etc.)

Pros: Ride the wave & try to evangelize Win32
Cons: Dramatically evangelizes Linux & may risk MSFT IP due to GPL license issues
Fatal Flaw:
– Impossible to make this revenue neutral with Windows biz.
– Doesn’t protect the “crown jewel” IP from being targeted at a later date

2. Embrace Linux: Linux APIs / MS Kernel — try to get Linux API’s on Windows — get more hardcore about POSIX subsystem on NT to capture Linux app base

Pros: Capture some of the Linux dev mindshare by making it easy to bring Linux apps to NT
Cons: Hurts Win32 evangelization
Fatal Flaw:
– There are no Linux apps that we covet.

Also think about Mono, Moonlight, and OOXML.

Prior to that, Valloppillil states:

This document discusses both our strategy and our plans for competing with Linux. To understand the strategy it is important to remember the following:
- Linux isn’t most importantly a product/feature; it’s a philosophy change
- Linux has no new specific features to co-opt
– Unlike the NC: the NC touted TCO benefits, and thus we introduced ZAK/ZAW
– Unlike the Internet: the Internet was loaded with technology changes, and thus we invested in browser technologies and reexamined all our existing products

The core strategic thrust of Linux is NOT an attack against some product/feature weakness of Microsoft. It’s an attack at the base of the commercial software industry – Intellectual Property.

Previous threats to Microsoft (the NC, Java, etc.) have been about replacing Microsoft’s IP with another company’s IP that claimed some new benefit (e.g. TCO). What differentiates Linux is that OSS attempts to extricate Intellectual Property all together.

Learn from what Microsoft did to NetPC (NC) and to Java. Watch what else Microsoft put forth as an option:

Cons: ISVs getting hooked on undocumented API’s, support costs, etc.

So, “undocumented API’s” are an option, eh? Microsoft admits their existence.

Watch what Microsoft thought about Wine back when it was a lot less mature and capable:

– Microsoft is an IP company. Like the rest of the software industry, >90% of our IP valuation stems from Trade Secrecy of the source code. Open Source is mutually exclusive with Trade Secrecy. This plan would instantly make the various Win32 clones (e.g. http//www winehq.com) an order of magnitude more capable.

More compelling stuff from Microsoft:

2. Innovating, Creating New IP

(Re-)recognize that we are an IP company and that in our networked world, functionality delivered via protocols is steadily replacing functionality which was once delivered via APIs Thus, innovation must occur both internal to our products, but also between computers.

Windows clients must always be able to communicate with Linux servers (and vice-versa). However, there MUST be additional value created when a Windows machine is touching another Windows machine. NOT doing this is akin to giving away the Win32 APIs. Every group defining protocols needs to remember this.

Also:

We must innovate and keep our great advancements to ourselves. The fine balance between protecting/financing our innovations and interoperability will get more difficult overtime But, it is relatively easy today.

Notice the following:

4. Compete with Linux Head-On
BED marketing is currently making the transition towards engaging Linux as a tier-1 competitor in the server & client markets. There are still some decisions to be made here (and headcounts to fill) to ensure that on a tactical basis, NT out markets Linux Some of the core deliverables include white papers, benchmarks, etc. More peripheral questions / issues include reclaiming retail shelf-space from Linux, etc We need engagement throughout the company (e g, retail) on this. Finally, getting the word out on NT’s architectural advantages over Linux is an imperative.

Then it says:

Open Source development is the greatest cloning machine of all time. Consequently, we must recognize that “Trade Secrecy” of source code will provide increasingly minimal protection over time and that aggressive patent procurement is our only investment defense. Additionally, strong patent procurement is a key enabler which allows us to publish more of our source code to leverage evangelization benefits (the patent application process is, in a manner of speaking, a form of source publication)

Initiatives (NOT discussed further in this paper) are underway to understand the options in this space.

“The following are all underway,” eh? What would that be? Those lawsuits Jim Allchin spoke about [1, 2]?

“The two [Halloween] documents in here from Vinod are the ones I want the board to see.”
      –Bill Gates
It is worth remembering that all these documents are spread with Bill Gates’ oversight and endorsement, just like the AstroTurfing which he loves. At the time, when these documents leaked, Microsoft tried to portray the AstroTurf as an act it had nothing to do with; a lead participant, James Plamondon, insistingly denied this, saying that Bill Gates was a supporter of the tactics all along. His colleague Marshall Goldberg confirmed this in an internal presentation.

Likewise, when it comes to the Halloween Documents, Microsoft tried to dismiss this as “an engineer’s individual assessment of the market at one point in time.” The exhibits clearly show Bill Gates distributing this material quite enthusiastically to chief people at Microsoft. It means that Microsoft simply lied to save face.

At the end of the document we find out what’s already “underway” at Microsoft:

The following are all underway:

1. Ramp-up / staff Linux competitive marketing efforts.
2. Ramp-up source licensing initiatives. DRG/MSDN is the owner for the umbrella but all component teams must begin evaluating what codebases would benefit the platform if they were evangelized via less restrictive licensing.
3. More proactively & aggressive secure patent rights to MSFT innovations that will be significant to the OSS fight. Development teams must shift mindsets from source code secrecy towards patents as the primary means of securing our key innovations.
4 [on-going] Create new IP in base scenarios – file sharing, management, etc.

“Ramp-up / staff Linux competitive marketing efforts” sounds like potential reference to more AstroTurfing, which is a reality. The remainder has a lot to do with patents, which we now know are used against GNU/Linux. The document as a whole is worth reading, assuming one has the patience. It’s properly formatted below.


Appendix: Comes vs. Microsoft – exhibit PX08175, as text


Microsoft Confidential

Our Linux Strategy
VinodV
5/19/99

Microsoft Confidential; © 1999, All Rights Reserved Do Not Forward without Approval from Author.

Introduction
This document discusses both our strategy and our plans for competing with Linux. To understand the strategy it is important to remember the following:
- Linux isn’t most importantly a product/feature; it’s a philosophy change
- Linux has no new specific features to co-opt
– Unlike the NC: the NC touted TCO benefits, and thus we introduced ZAK/ZAW
– Unlike the Internet: the Internet was loaded with technology changes, and thus we invested in browser technologies and reexamined all our existing products

The core strategic thrust of Linux is NOT an attack against some product/feature weakness of Microsoft. It’s an attack at the base of the commercial software industry – Intellectual Property.

Previous threats to Microsoft (the NC, Java, etc.) have been about replacing Microsoft’s IP with another company’s IP that claimed some new benefit (e.g. TCO). What differentiates Linux is that OSS attempts to extricate Intellectual Property all together.

Since many people have proposed how to deal with Linux, we thought it might be helpful as a thought exercise to quickly examine some of the alternative strategies we could consider. For each we include the “fatal flaws” that make them untenable.

1. Embrace Linux: MS APIs / Linux kernel — release an MS version of Linux and/or release key MSFT platform technologies on Linux (e.g. parts of Win32, app server, etc.)

Pros: Ride the wave & try to evangelize Win32
Cons: Dramatically evangelizes Linux & may risk MSFT IP due to GPL license issues
Fatal Flaw:
– Impossible to make this revenue neutral with Windows biz.
– Doesn’t protect the “crown jewel” IP from being targeted at a later date

2. Embrace Linux: Linux APIs / MS Kernel — try to get Linux API’s on Windows — get more hardcore about POSIX subsystem on NT to capture Linux app base

Pros: Capture some of the Linux dev mindshare by making it easy to bring Linux apps to NT
Cons: Hurts Win32 evangelization
Fatal Flaw:
– There are no Linux apps that we covet.

3. Embrace Open Source: Publish NT Source — release NT source code under a license similar to Sun’s community source license

Pros: Try to capture Linux’s evangelization benefits by publishing NT source
Cons: ISVs getting hooked on undocumented API’s, support costs, etc.
Fatal Flaw:
– Microsoft is an IP company. Like the rest of the software industry, >90% of our IP valuation stems from Trade Secrecy of the source code. Open Source is mutually exclusive with Trade Secrecy. This plan would instantly make the various Win32 clones (e.g. http//www winehq.com) an order of magnitude more capable.

4. Lower the price of Windows — release older / stripped versions of the OS for at lower price

Pros: Try to capture people who use Linux due to price sensitivity

Page 1

Plaintiff’s Exhibit
8175
Comes V. Microsoft

MS-CC-MDL 000000202974
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL


Microsoft Confidential

Cons: Building new versions of windows. Long-term support headaches Cannibalization of the “real” windows?
Fatal Flaw:
– Assumes that price is the primary motivator for Linux usage. This has not been borne out in reality.

What are the core strategies that we are going to pursue?

1. Fix our Sins

Linux’s most immediate contribution is highlighting our sins in some key market segments. There are already (large) investments in the company spun up to deal with our most pressing concerns such as reliability; remote admin; etc so we won’t spend further time describing them here. It is critical that we make progress in these areas

Currently, Linux gains horsepower due to VASTLY exaggerated negative claims about our abilities and corresponding VASTLY under reported positive claims about our innovative work. We must reverse the “conventional wisdom” that UNIX is technically superior to NT which is the foundation for Linux marketing. In most ways, NT is superior & the technical message needs to get out.

2. Innovating, Creating New IP

(Re-)recognize that we are an IP company and that in our networked world, functionality delivered via protocols is steadily replacing functionality which was once delivered via APIs Thus, innovation must occur both internal to our products, but also between computers.

Windows clients must always be able to communicate with Linux servers (and vice-versa). However, there MUST be additional value created when a Windows machine is touching another Windows machine. NOT doing this is akin to giving away the Win32 APIs. Every group defining protocols needs to remember this. Some core initiatives that are excellent demonstrations of this are:

Management – Deep, rich WMI instrumentation is an area where Windows and Win32 apps must excel. In addition to IP boundaries, Linux’s development methodology makes this difficult for Linux to provide leadership in breadth & uniformity of coverage/implementation.

Storage — Rich, structured, remotable, queriable storage dramatically raises the bar versus today’s basic file system functionality. The benefits to client application vendors & server vendors are numerous and well detailed in other presentations.

These areas demonstrate functionality that IT managers — once they’ve tasted it — will (hopefully) find compelling enough to mandate across as many systems within their computing universes as possible. Letting our protocols become commoditized is a recipe for failure. We must innovate and keep our great advancements to ourselves. The fine balance between protecting/financing our innovations and interoperability will get more difficult overtime But, it is relatively easy today.

Outside of protocols we need advancements throughout the system. Advances in file formats (e.g., the disk structure), technology such as security, etc. are areas that are critical for us to innovate. We need to accelerate patenting every invention

3. Form Factor Proliferation
This is a well-discussed area. Obviously PC’s will not be the exclusive center of computing in the near future and this addition to the OS requirements list provides the opening for low innovation competitors such as Linux in. We need to spread our technology everywhere And where we don’t have our OS present, we need to ensure the protocols are not IP latent and in fact open for us to use.

Page 2

MS-CC-MDL 000000202975
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL


Microsoft Confidential

4. Compete with Linux Head-On
BED marketing is currently making the transition towards engaging Linux as a tier-1 competitor in the server & client markets. There are still some decisions to be made here (and headcounts to fill) to ensure that on a tactical basis, NT out markets Linux Some of the core deliverables include white papers, benchmarks, etc. More peripheral questions / issues include reclaiming retail shelf-space from Linux, etc We need engagement throughout the company (e g, retail) on this. Finally, getting the word out on NT’s architectural advantages over Linux is an imperative.

5. Getting Credit for the Openness and Availability of our Sources
One of the key lessons learned from the Linux OS is the power of the Open Source model with respect to creating passionate, technically savvy development communities around a body of code. Reclaiming the hobbyist developer / “scratch an itch” developer communities is paramount for us (they were the original “long hairs” who introduced the PC to corporate America). While we may never be able to fully detract from Linux’s energy in this space, it is very important for us to focus our TREMENDOUS developer relations assets into this new “channel.” JimAll presented a plan at the 3yr review that involved a 2-pronged attack on this channel:

a. Depth Licensing — Ramping up full, formal source code licenses to ISVs/IHVs/Corps etc. by at least a factor of 10 vs. today’s efforts.

b. Breadth Licensing — Reorganizing & creating new widely licensed, derivable, redistributable source code bases hosted on web sites targeting specific Win32 developer niche’s (e.g., ResKit level functionality).

6. Securing our Current & Future IP
Once again, the core of the Linux phenomena — and the #1 reason it tries to claim the “glow of inevitability” — is it’s aversion to Intellectual Property (IP). Obviously, in terms of economic effects, IP is on par with motherhood & apple pie in its role in the world economy.

The belief that the “Open Source” pie will eventually gobble up ingredients from all the other pies is more dangerous to us & the software industry than the current Linux product

Open Source development is the greatest cloning machine of all time. Consequently, we must recognize that “Trade Secrecy” of source code will provide increasingly minimal protection over time and that aggressive patent procurement is our only investment defense. Additionally, strong patent procurement is a key enabler which allows us to publish more of our source code to leverage evangelization benefits (the patent application process is, in a manner of speaking, a form of source publication)

Initiatives (NOT discussed further in this paper) are underway to understand the options in this space.

Immediate Next Steps:

The following are all underway:

1. Ramp-up / staff Linux competitive marketing efforts.
2. Ramp-up source licensing initiatives. DRG/MSDN is the owner for the umbrella but all component teams must begin evaluating what codebases would benefit the platform if they were evangelized via less restrictive licensing.
3. More proactively & aggressive secure patent rights to MSFT innovations that will be significant to the OSS fight. Development teams must shift mindsets from source code secrecy towards patents as the primary means of securing our key innovations.
4 [on-going] Create new IP in base scenarios – file sharing, management, etc.

Please direct any questions / discussion to VinodV

Page 3

MS-CC-MDL 000000202976
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL

Credit: wallclimber

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

2 Comments

  1. Needs Sunlight said,

    August 2, 2009 at 1:14 pm

    Gravatar

    These three points from Comes v Microsoft Plaintiff’s Exhibit 06501 were written in *1998*

    1. OSS projects have achieved “commercial quality”
    2. OSS projects have become large-scale & complex
    3. OSS has a unique development process with unique strengths/weakness

    Note in particular points 1 and 2 were achieved over a decade ago.

    MS has been holding back, undermining and destroying the IT sector for that long. Osama bin Laden can’t even hold a candle to that much destruction when added up in dollars. The body count has to be higher too, if you count MS problems in mission-critical systems and environments.

  2. Jose_X said,

    August 4, 2009 at 1:23 pm

    Gravatar

    I can’t help point out some obvious things.

    A note on mono: it grabbed the best of the two options

    >> Pros: Capture some of the Linux dev mindshare by making it easy to bring Linux apps to NT
    >> Pros: Ride the wave & try to evangelize Win32

    While avoiding the negatives:

    >> Cons: Hurts Win32 evangelization

    and through proxies that sing the glories of Windows over Linux mostly avoids

    >> Cons: Dramatically evangelizes Linux & may risk MSFT IP due to GPL license issues

    Microsoft has to have protocols, API, etc that are difficult to clone and which work better with their software; otherwise, they’d be committing the sin of “giving away the .. APIs”.

    >> Windows clients must always be able to communicate with Linux servers (and vice-versa). However, there MUST be additional value created when a Windows machine is touching another Windows machine. NOT doing this is akin to giving away the Win32 APIs. Every group defining protocols needs to remember this.

    http://www.linuxtoday.com/developer/2009080300335OSMSNT

    >> The fine balance between protecting/financing our innovations and interoperability will get more difficult overtime But, it is relatively easy today.

    The fine balance meant documenting more of their interfaces (EU order) and ECMA/ISO standards, but adding in patents (and still keeping closed source interop issues alive).

    >> Additionally, strong patent procurement is a key enabler which allows us to publish more of our source code to leverage evangelization benefits (the patent application process is, in a manner of speaking, a form of source publication)

What Else is New


  1. The Federal Circuit Continues Squashing Software Patents

    Under the leadership of Sharon Prost the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) continues its war on software patents, making it very hard to remember the last time it tolerated any



  2. SUEPO Representatives Like Elizabeth Hardon Vindicated as Battistelli's Detrimental Effect on Patent Quality is Widely Confirmed

    Feedback regarding the awful refusal to acknowledge patent quality crisis at the EPO as well as the appointment of a President so close to Battistelli (who most likely assures continuation of his policies)



  3. Links 17/10/2017: KDE Frameworks 5.39.0, Safe Browsing in Epiphany

    Links for the day



  4. Judge Bryson Rules Against Allergan After It Used Native American Tribes to Dodge Scrutiny of Patents (IPRs); Senator Hatch Does Not Understand IPRs

    Having attempted to dodge inter partes reviews (IPRs) by latching onto sovereign immunity, Allergan loses a key case and Senator Hatch is meanwhile attempting to water down IPRs albeit at the same time bemoaning patent trolls (which IPRs help neutralise)



  5. Rumours That António Campinos Initially Had No Competition at All (for Battistelli's Succession) Are Confirmed

    Succession at the EPO (mostly French) shows that there's little room for optimism and Battistelli's people are too deeply entrenched in the upper echelons of the EPO



  6. EPO Stakeholders Complain That the New Chairman Does Not Grasp the Issues at the EPO (or Denies These)

    Some information from inside the EPO’s Administrative Council, whose Chairman is denying (at least to himself) some of the core issues that render the EPO less competitive in the international market



  7. Another Misleading Article Regarding Patents From Rana Foroohar at the Financial Times

    In an effort to promote the agenda of patent maximalists, many of whom are connected to the Financial Times, another deceiving report comes out



  8. Monika Ermert's Reports About the Crisis at the EPO and IP Kat's Uncharacteristically Shallow Coverage

    News from inside the Council shows conflict regarding the quality of European Patents (granted by the EPO under pressure from top-level management)



  9. Patent Troll VirnetX a Reminder to Apple That Software Patents Are a Threat to Apple Too

    VirnetX, a notorious patent troll, is poised to receive a huge sum of money from Apple and Qualcomm is trying to ban Apple products, serving to remind Apple of the detrimental impact of patents on Apple itself



  10. Links 16/10/2017: Linux 4.14 RC5, Debian 9.2.1, End of LibreOffice Conference 2017

    Links for the day



  11. The Systematic Erosion of Workers' Rights and Holidays at the EPO Goes Years Back

    The legitimacy of the staff's concerns at the EPO, having seen basic labour safeguards being shredded to pieces by Battistelli for a number of years (predating even the escalation of the conflict)



  12. Articles in English and German Speak About the Decline in Quality of European Patents (Granted by the EPO)

    Heise and The Register, two sites that have closely watched EPO affairs for a number of years, speak about the real problem which is declining patent quality (or rushed examination) -- a recipe for frivolous litigation in Europe



  13. Software Patents and Patent Trolls Not a Solved Issue, But the US is Getting There

    A media survey regarding software patents, which are being rejected in the US in spite of all the spin from law firms and bullies such as IBM



  14. US Patent Trolls Are Leaving and the Eastern District of Texas Sees Patent Cases Falling by More Than Half

    The decline of patent aggression in the US and the patent microcosm's response to Justices, having ruled in TC Heartland, curtailing patent trolls



  15. Qualcomm's Nightmares Are Getting Worse as Antitrust Questions Are Raised and Assessed

    Qualcomm is getting itself deeper in trouble as fines pile up and its multi-billion dollar dispute with Apple isn't getting it anywhere



  16. Forget About Apple; Two of the Leading Phone Makers (Samsung and Huawei) Are Bickering Over Patents

    Massive Android OEMs, Huawei and Samsung, are in a big patent dispute and this time, for a change, China is a legal battleground



  17. Tim Heberden From the Glasshouse Advisory is Throwing Stones in a Glasshouse to Create Patent Litigation

    IAM's latest lobbying, aided by the patent microcosm, for a climate of feuds and disputes (to line the pockets of the litigation 'industry')



  18. Access to Medicine is More Important Than Patents

    Some of the latest news about patents that impede/deny access to crucial medication; strategic litigation from the generics sector, seeking to invalidate patents and then offer low-cost alternatives



  19. Links 14/10/2017: Windows Breaks Dutch Law, Wine 2.19 Released

    Links for the day



  20. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Supported by Congress, a Federal Judge, Soon to be Supported by the Supreme Court Too?

    The Patent Trial and Appeal Board is still widely defended, except by the patent microcosm which likes (and profits from) patent trolls and litigation Armageddon



  21. Patents Are Turning BlackBerry and Nokia, Which Used Android, Into Anti-Android Fronts That Tax Android OEMs

    The Canadian BlackBerry has sued BLU in the US only to compel it to pay 'protection' money; Nokia's patents are being scattered to trolls, which are doing something similar (without risking litigation themselves)



  22. The Unified Patent Court (UPC) is Rotting Like the European Patent Office

    The Unitary Patent litigation pipe dreams (or prosecution/trolling fast lane), which Battistelli's EPO long relied on, turn out to be the road to nowhere



  23. Lying and Faking Now a Standard Procedure at the European Patent Office

    The European Patent Organisation (EPO) under the leadership (or chairmanship) of Christoph Ernst continues to relay lies from Battistelli's Office, SUEPO rejects these, the Office lies about SMEs, prioritises Microsoft (again), and probably buys fake Twitter "followers"



  24. Links 13/10/2017: X.Org Server 1.19.5, pfSense 2.4, Final Stages of Ubuntu 17.10

    Links for the day



  25. Truly Terrible 'Journalism' About António Campinos Boils Down to Lobbying and Agenda-Pushing

    The expectedly shallow coverage of the appointment (succession) of Battistelli's French pick, which will likely change nothing of significance at the European Patent Office (EPO)



  26. Under Christoph Ernst, the Council is Just a Megaphone of Battistelli's EPO, Including on Patent Quality

    The Administrative Council of the EPO does not appear to be interested in a serious, adult, scientific debate about the quality of European Patents (EPs) and is instead relaying lies from Benoît Battistelli



  27. Links 12/10/2017: Cutelyst 1.9.0, Qt Creator 4.5 Beta

    Links for the day



  28. The Hogwash Begins: Patent Microcosm's Media Pretends Campinos is Anything But Battistelli's French Succession Plan

    A survey of media coverage regarding António Campinos, the French person whom Benoît Battistelli selected as his successor at the EPO



  29. Patent Quality at the EPO (European Patents) is Slipping While Battistelli's Office Boasts “Expansion of Early Certainty” (Even Worse)

    The EPO is staring down the abyss as high-level EPO management, quite frankly as usual, looks for new ways to further exacerbate patent quality (for superficial gains in the number of granted patents) rather than improve it



  30. Former Microsoft Employee Explains Why Microsoft 'Embrace' of GNU/Linux and Free/Libre Open Source Software is Like W3C Entryism

    Microsoft's latest moves are "EEE" that "concern" him, according to this new video


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