A federal appeals court Monday overturned a 2007 decision that Novell owns the Unix code, and the ruling now clears the way for SCO to pursue a $1 billion copyright infringement case against IBM.
In a 54-page decision, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals said it was reversing the 2007 summary judgment decision by Judge Dale Kimball of the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, which found that Novell was the owner of Unix and UnixWare copyrights.
This is a blow to Novell (needless to say), but it can also refuel some old FUD about Linux. SJVN is not particularly concerned. As he rightly explains, SCO has no case anyway. SCO did not win a case against Linux; in fact, UNIX ownership is unrelated to Linux and only a peripheral case. Will Microsoft contribute some more funds as it did before?
There’s a fool born every minute, but a fool who wants to invest still more money in legal fees in this money pit? I doubt it. I don’t think even Microsoft, which has bankrolled SCO’s anti-Linux lawsuits, has the stomach for it.
The SCO zombie’s victory is meaningless legal trivia. The company, and its anti-Linux claims, is still dead. The now brainless corpse is just twitching a little still.
According to Tom Harvey’s report, SCO has plans to litigate, but where will the money come from?
The ruling may mean The SCO Group will renew its effort to collect licensing fees from thousands of companies that run the Linux system, said McBride. He also said the ruling again calls into question IBM’s ability to continue marketing its Aix server program, which is derived from Unix.
Precisely what will happen next in the lawsuit remains to be seen, especially in light of the pending SCO bankruptcy and the recent court decision to appoint a Chapter 11 Trustee to take over the business affairs of the company.
SCO still owes money to Novell. If an investor — if any exists at all — shows up to shore up SCO’s lawsuits, Novell might have to be compensated using the allotted funds. Masnick writes:
A judge has overturned part of the lower court’s original ruling on who owns the copyrights to Unix, and ordered a full jury trial take place to determine who actually owns the copyright. Oddly, the court did not overturn the part where SCO has to pay Novell $2.5 million — which could push the company over the final edge. If, however, SCO can stay alive, and it does go to trial, the company could (and likely will) still lose that trial (and, we’re still twiddling our thumbs and waiting for any evidence from SCO that IBM actually infringed on the UNIX copyrights… but that’s another story and another lawsuit).
Likewise, we’re still twiddling our thumbs and waiting for any evidence from Microsoft that Linux actually infringed on Microsoft patents. As Heise once put it, “Pamela Jones [...] has told Infoworld that Microsoft will be the next SCO Group.” Microsoft buddies like Andrew Thomas are already on the scene, seemingly trying to fuel SCO’s cause. █
“…Microsoft wished to promote SCO and its pending lawsuit against IBM and the Linux operating system. But Microsoft did not want to be seen as attacking IBM or Linux.”
Summary: Microsoft’s “Delta Force” presents an attack plan on GNU/Linux adoption
IT IS not so often that we find so many ‘smoking guns’ in one single Comes vs Microsoft exhibit. We shall tackle this one in several parts, starting with the more obvious bits.
This exhibit is 83 slides long (plus notes) from someone who works for Microsoft. It’s actually called “Delta Force” — the force which fights against GNU/Linux adoption, apparently. The presentation is marked “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” and it is easy to see why. The presenter, Steve Winfield, even mentioned the SCO lawsuit against IBM. “Another deluded fool that sold his integrity to Billistopheles and for what,” remarks one of our readers. Regarding the name “Delta Force”, suggests this reader, “insert a picture from the A Team with Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer face imposed.” Another reader sent in such a picture, but it’s not suitable for publication.
According to Winfield, customers choose GNU/Linux because “Apps are easier to pirate.”
Here is the full presentation (Exhibit PX09346)[PDF], which is available as text at the bottom. Let’s address some interesting portions of it.
Who is responsible?
Steve Winfield
National Technology Strategist
Partner Technology Team (a.k.a. Delta Force)
US Partner Group, Microsoft
This presentation is dated 2005 at the top, or maybe 2003 for the content itself. Either way, it is fairly recent by Comes standards.
The presentation is filled with the TCO lies, which Microsoft paid Gartner [1, 2, 3] and IDC [1, 2] to generate. We have other Comes exhibits that show this very clearly. These were funded by Microsoft and Microsoft even intervened to affect the outcome.
In future posts we shall address other classic FUD like security figures that combine numbers from systems that are not comparable. Microsoft hides many of its security patches, but that is another long story.
Today we would like to focus on Microsoft’s unethical behaviour, which this presentation reflects on.
For Microsoft, based on the presentation, this is a well-understood strategy. See the part where it says:
Ask the partner to give you heads up on customer situations – bribe them!
Does Microsoft admit bribing as a strategy? That would be a felony, a crime.
Around page/slide 62, the presenter talks about how they are fighting GNU/Linux at CIO level. Slide 53 says “Escalate to CompHot”. Remember CompHot [1, 2, 3, 4]? That’s the anti-GNU/Linux programme/fund.
“Contact CompHot,” it says. Further down this slide says:
Find and Lean on your insider friend, ‘the fox’. Having a trusted MSfriend in the account is critical. Some people (unix Bigots) can think of lots of reasons to not have a MS solution. MS folks may not be the strongest voice but they are true believers (Protect them, make them look good).
“Find and Lean on your insider friend,” eh?
Sounds like this ‘myth’ of “Microsoft minions” is not so far fetched after all. Paranoia it ain’t when they’re really out to get you.
Moreover, as Jason put it: “Again, it is Microsoft that applies the religious analogies to tar the FLOSS community with the “cult”/”zealot”/”fundamentalist” brush.”
Separately, he wrote: “This is a good presentation to read — even though most of it is structured as “Am not! Are too!”– because a lot of these slides show up in other internal MS presentations. There also a few good references about the “backchannel” competition Microsoft like so much: bribe someone, lean on an insider.
“And, finally, it’s topped off with the “bigots” / “true believers” mentality. Another example of Microsoft being the one to view things in religious terms (but it is the vocal members of the FLOSS community that are painted with the “zealotry” brush.”
“Sounds like this ‘myth’ of “Microsoft minions” is not so far fetched after all.”Microsoft’s staff loves accusing its competition of being “a cult” when it is them — Microsoft and its ecosystem — who act like a cult against anything that is not Microsoft. Hypocrisy to the extreme.
Further on it says: “Leverage existing MS technology clout”. Think of Exchange/SharePoint for example. Microsoft uses these as ‘Trojan horses’ to work its way up the stack and establish total lock-in. Now we have this on paper to be shown as evidence that it is no side-effect but a deliberate strategic act.
Throughout this exhibit, Microsoft also refers to an internal network, “http://linux“, as already seen before. It contains “TCO studies and tools” for Microsoft employees to fight against what it calls "Linux infestation". It’s related to CompHot.
Similarly, based on this presentation, Microsoft has an “Office compete team”, which is accessible internally through “http://officemarketing/staroffice“.
Regarding EDGI, which is not referred to by name in this presentation, Jason wrote: “This is how the EDGI program plays out in actual practice. Under honest and fair evaluation, an organization decides to go with Linux, and Microsoft comes in the the funds to distort the market, because they know they will make it up in the long run.”
Without further ado, here is the full presentation, which we intend to revisit, but then taking another angle. █
Appendix: Comes vs. Microsoft – exhibit PX09346, as text
Summary: Moonlight and Mono news from the past week or so
Earlier this month we mentioned the release of the beta of Moonlight 2 [1, 2, 3], which was highlighted in some places that habituallymention it (also here). Long-time Mono proponent Ryan Paul and also eWeek do it as a matter of routine, whereas many Linux sites turn a blind eye to Mono- and Moonlight-related news.
“…[M]any Linux sites turn a blind eye to Mono- and Moonlight-related news.”These feature-by-feature imitations of Microsoft software are generally treated with suspicion in the GNU/Linux community, and rightly so. Here is new software called PDF Mod. “There are likely some bugs,” writes the author, “but in my testing it is quite useful and slick already. It’s built on top of libpoppler/poppler-sharp, PdfSharp, Gtk#/Cairo, and Banshee’s Hyena library. The app itself is a paltry 2009 lines of .cs files.”
As one person points out in the comments: “It seemed a cool hack until the point I realized it is in Mono. I can’t express any interest on that.” There is an update on this.
Next, it reinforces the point that Mr. de Icaza was totally serious back when he said that “Gnome 4.0 should be based on .NET” – that’s exactly what he thought then, and exactly what he thinks now. It’s dressed up a bit in pseudo-technical rhetoric, but the underlying desire is the same.
Simon Phipps made a blog post titled “Monkey Business” where in reference to the same article he wrote: “Very interesting overview of the story of Mono and Miguel’s role in it. If you’ve not been following that story all along, it’s an especially useful summary and briefing. Note also the GNOME acronym expansion.”
But to critics of Novell’s moves to align with Microsoft to offer Moonlight as a way to make Silverlight-enabled content work for Linux users, the bad karma continues. Instead of this being a good thing for Novell and Linux users, critics argue, the Moonlight project helps Microsoft maintain a leadership role in a development platform that only gives lip service to the open source community, they say.
Novell’s CEO, a former IBM/Windows guy, told us. He said he couldn’t sell Linux against Windows. So, he sold out Linux and the FOSS community by implicitly claiming that Linux contains MS IP, and now pays ROYALTY to Microsoft for every copy of SLES sold, in return for special treatment and immunity from possible lawsuits.
[...]
As far as MONO and MoonLight being on a Linux desktop, Microsoft’s James Plamondon said it best: “Every application written to Microsoft’s standards is a WIN for Microsoft…”
In other words, “He who controls the desktop API controls the desktop.”
My question has always been: “What advantage for Linux and FOSS is there in giving Microsoft direct or indirect control of the Linux desktop?”
ABSOLUTELY NONE. To do so would result, eventually, in the destruction of Linux, a goal Microsoft has NEVER ceased to attain. So, why do certain people CONTINUE to campaign, even with hostility, in order to help Microsoft attain it’s goal?
Linux.com quoted only a portion of my explanation, which goes as follows:
There are more reasons than people are led to believe (a form of distraction that trivialises the criticism by posing the issues incorrectly and then addressing straw men). The main issue is proliferation of Microsoft de facto standards on the Web (and later on the desktop). Other issues, including patents, are secondary.
Allow me to explain.
In its leaked evangelical slides (approved by Microsoft’s highest chiefs for presentation), James Plamondon, a Microsoft Technical Evangelist, presented the company’s views on standards. From Exhibit 3096 (Comes v. Microsoft litigation) we gather the following quote:
“Every line of code that is written to our standards is a small victory; every line of code that is written to any other standard, is a small defeat.”
This quote is symbolic, but it is one among many which show the company’s realisation that in order to increase its dominance it must have other, competing developers rely on its own APIs, formats, protocols, etc.
Coming into play then are various factors, such as:
1. Microsoft’s tool kit is typically ahead (examples: Silverlight vs Moonlight, Visual Studio vs MonoDevelop, .NET vs Mono). This leads to correct perceptions that anything other than Microsoft’s offering is “cheap imitation”.
2. Migration is made easier from competing products over to Microsoft’s “superior” offerings, as explained in (1). It’s like a migration route and we have real-world examples.
3. If Microsoft’s competition happened to leapfrog Microsoft in its own territory, then it can devise patents as a tool as intimidation, taxation (royalties), and — if all else fails — litigation. Microsoft has already sued TomTom and Melco over Linux patents (few people know about the latter case, but Processor.com alluded to it). FAT is an example of a Submarine Patent, which corresponds to Microsoft specs and patents.
There are other factors that fit this recurring pattern, which is mostly about control.
Let’s focus on Silverlight and delve into Moonlight more specifically. Microsoft has a lot to gain here with Novell. First of all, Microsoft keeps regulators at a distance (Novell’s deal harmed the Samba case in Europe, it helped OOXML, and it helps Silverlight). Silverlight had several States complain in 2007 . ECIS also filed a complaint for similar reasons. They realised there was a plot to harm the Web and replace HTML with XAML. When only one company delivers the renderer/viewer, this puts the whole Web in jeopardy and competing operating platforms at Microsoft’s mercy. Flash may raise similar issues, but Adobe is not prolific further down the stack, so it’s rather agnostic. Moonlight came a while later, but it was falsely (yet repeatedly) characterised as a “port” of Silverlight or the “Linux version” of Silverlight, which it is not. Moonlight is almost designed to be inferior and deliver a poorer experience to GNU/Linux users. It’s always behind. Then there is the legal complication, which the SFLC addressed last year. As a result of it, Red Hat concluded that it cannot ship Moonlight.
In summary, Mono and Moonlight are all smoke and hype. They can be be harmful. We are still keeping track of the hype Microsoft generates for Vista 7 and it’s sad to see Novell using similar tactics. The video below was uploaded to YouTube a few days ago. It’s called “The Goodbye Novell Blues”. Since Novell spends much of its time promoting Microsoft these days, it’s time to say “goodbye” to Novell. █
Summary: ODF Workshop arrangements and i4i appeal scheduled
Jomar Silva has just updated the agenda of the ODF Workshop. “[W]e’re trying to do a live streamming on the second day,” he writes, adding about the event that “It will be 5 days discussing and building the basis of a new world…”
As one person remarks, “Someone please confirm that ODF files open on HTC Hero or on Android . I’m sick of saving my docs in .doc format just to see them on phone”
See, that’s the reason a standard like ODF is necessary. To depend on one vendor as though it is the universal owner of all documents in the world is simply not acceptable. This is not about “hate” as FCW puts it in the headline, it’s about practicality. Why is Microsoft so keen on hating international standards despite people’s demand for this? In Wikipedia, for example, HAl is removing references to “{{FLOSS}}” as though it is a dirty word when used in conjunction with ODF.
ODF is also distanced from the issue of software patents, for now. Matthew McKenzie, a proponent of Free software, writes:
According to i4i, the company has already concluded that the current version of OpenOffice.org — and presumably ODF — do not violate its patents. There is some speculation, however, that future releases might tempt the company to revisit this question.
Bear in mind: An attack on OpenOffice.org or ODF would risk war with companies like IBM and Novell that use — and have an interest in defending — both technologies.
The last company that tried this against IBM was a rotting penny-stock carcass called SCO. We all know how that turned out.
A few days ago we cited Andy Updegrove's take on the i4i case [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11]. Sam Dean — like many others — takes it for gospel, whereas one of our readers claims that Updegrove is utterly wrong and simply won’t ever admit it. “So to summarize,” writes the reader, “Microsoft either wins that motion for a stay or it promptly settles with i4i pretty much on i4i’s terms. That’s the squeeze play the i4i lawyers had as their litigation strategy.
“It’s a safe bet that settlement negotiations are already under way to determine what the settlement will be if Microsoft does not win that stay. In fact, there may already be a settlement agreement that makes what i4i gets contingent on how the motion to stay is decided by the Court of Appeals.”
On Sept. 23, a federal appeals court will hear Microsoft’s appeal of the injunction prohibiting it from selling versions of Microsoft Word with custom XML capabilities.
According to our reader, Microsoft should already be forbidden from selling Microsoft Word, regardless of whether it agrees with the judge or not. █
Summary: Microsoft and Yahoo! seek to harm Google, together; Apple and AT&T agreed to block Google’s VoIP application
OUR writings about the Yahoo!-Microsoft deal [1, 2, 3, 4] culminated in this latest post which showed that it is not final. Here is another new tidbit about this ‘anti-Google’ alliance.
Matthew Cantor, a partner with the firm Constantine Cannon LLP, told ComputerWorld that he believes the deal will not get past regulators – at least not as is.
Will regulators recognise the fact that having less choice and centralising power inside a convicted monopolist is detrimental to competition?
Speaking of collusional abuse, watch what Apple and AT&T have been doing. We wrote about that some weeks ago and the full story finally unravels.
US telecoms giant AT&T has admitted that it struck a deal with Apple to prevent iPhone applications from using its network for VoIP.
Yet another collusion that harms the consumer then. They fight for scarcity. Just because it works well for two private corporations does not make it acceptable. Watch Apple doing ‘damage control’ in reaction to this discovery. █
Summary: Hospitals given another reason to give Windows the kick; Vista 7 fails to improve security
YET another UK-based hospital has just been punished for using Windows, but the victims are live (or dead) patients who were denied access to service due to Conficker.
An east London hospital has confirmed its computer systems were infected by the Conficker worm earlier this month.
Some hold Microsoft accountable, but as this new bit of IE6 humour shows, Microsoft continues to rely on ignorance and apathy. Not enough people are calling for change. While on a humourous side, here is a new Clippy cartoon. Wheaeas the company is able to make obnoxious and obstructive animations, decent reliability and security are too great a challenge to it.
According to this from news, there is yet another reason to accept the fact that Vista 7 is insecure by its very nature [1, 2, 3, 4].
[W]hen a Sophos blog posting from it’s Chief Technology Office, Richard Jacobs, started with the playground taunt equivalent of ‘I’ve been kissing your mum’ by saying “Windows 7′s planned XP compatibility mode risks undoing much of the progress that Microsoft has made on the security front in the last few years and reveals the true colours of the OS giant” you kind of new things would get nasty, and quick. Jacobs continued his verbal assault on Microsoft and Windows 7 by adding “XP mode reminds us all that security will never be Microsoft’s first priority. They’ll do enough security to ensure that security concerns aren’t a barrier to sales, but not so much that it gets in the way of progress”. Ooh, a little below the belt perhaps?
It’s Still Windows
Despite delivering an intuitive, modern interface in Windows 7, this OS is still Windows. In our first look at Windows 7, we complained about the OS’s inability to recognize an Adobe AIR file followed by its failure to search for software to run the file.
Also, Windows 7 doesn’t immediately know what to do with some pretty obvious tasks. When you insert a thumb drive, for example, you must tell Windows 7 what to do with it (i.e. open the folder and view the files) and customize a setting to get the OS to automatically behave that way. In short, when getting started you’ll have to do a lot of tweaking and customizing to get moving smoothly. That’s unfortunately an experience all Windows users are accustomed to — things don’t “just work.”
Security Isn’t Automatically Better
Computerworld’s Steven Vaughan-Nichols stands firm that Windows 7 won’t change anything from a security perspective: “Windows 7 still has all the security of a drunken teenager in a sports car,” he wrote. “Millions of lazy Windows users are the reason why the internet is a mess. If you already do all the right things to keep XP running safely, you’re not going to get any safer by buying Windows 7.”
Good point. Because Windows 7 is still Windows, you’re again the primary target of attack for hackers and virus coders. Therefore, it’s up to you to protect yourself with anti-virus software and running update patches to keep the OS as secure as possible. (Compare this experience to Mac OS X Leopard, for which many don’t even run anti-virus software, because it’s more secure out-of-the-box compared to Windows.) Though Windows 7 does deliver some security enhancements, such as data encryption for thumb drives, and a feature for IT administrators to control which applications can run on a corporate network, these are not general security improvements that change much for the overall user experience.
In summary, Windows leads to deaths in hospitals and nothing is changing. Vista 7 will resolve nothing substantial. █
“Our products just aren’t engineered for security.”
Microsoft on Sept. 8 plans to discontinue its Live Framework Community Technology Preview for developers, instead integrating the framework into the next release of the company’s Windows Live online services.
Developers urged to salvage code before cut off date
This is not as bad as it may sound, but inconvenience is caused (not for the first time) by Microsoft products and services being folded or relocated. █
