09.16.09

CodePlex Foundation Loves Software Patents and What MonoTouch Means to Microsoft

Posted in Apple, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Mono, Novell at 11:29 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Hallllo… Mono?

Summary: One more look at the CodePlex Foundation and what Novell is doing for .NET other than lending a VP to CodePlex

THE news about the CodePlex Foundation previously got covered in:

Here is a second take from Jason at Mono-Nono.

To me, when someone starts heralding Microsoft – it instantly raises astroturf / shill suspicions in my mind. Automatic acceptance and praise not only puts aside natural and justified skepticism, but it also skips right over “wait and see” into fanboy-land. I do not see how that is an intellectually honest position to take.

The criticisms of Andy Updegrove have already reached the press, but here is his original post, which also sheds light on the role of software patents.

Q: What about the CodePlex mission? How does that sound?

A: I had to smile a bit when I listened to the (scripted) interview at the site. The premise seems to be that (a) “some companies” have “culture” problems that keep them out of open source projects, or are “uneasy” with the “intellectual property” rules of open source foundations; (b) that “more companies” would participate “as much as they should” if better practices, and intellectual property tools, were developed; and (c) that a place is needed to bring “such companies” and open source developers together. It’s clear that all of these statements would be true if you substituted “Microsoft” for the phrase, “some companies,” but I haven’t noticed that any of these factors has been a problem for most other software vendors.

This slide from the interview will give you the flavor:

· Commercial software developers currently under-participate in open source projects
– Cultural differences
– Differing development methodologies
– Differing perspectives on copyrights and patents
– Differing perspectives on licensing
· No other foundation is dedicated to changing that situation

The responses to Bruce Byfield on the subject are interesting. Steve Stites claims that “Microsoft also needs to pay compensation for the damage done by their multimillion dollar attack on Open Source.” Others — like Abe — just want Microsoft out of the way.

There are also apologists like Matt Asay, who wrote:

It’s also why I welcome, not reject, Microsoft’s attempts to open itself to open source.

Asay also invited them to OSI where damage to reputation was caused. Need anyone else be shown Microsoft floating anti-GNU/Linux patents for others to sue with [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]? On the other hand, Asay still understands that Microsoft is up to no good with his previous employer, Novell. Separately he writes:

This isn’t to whitewash all that Microsoft has not done well vis-a-vis open source (e.g., I’m not a fan of its patent-licensing arrangements, including the “interoperability” agreement with Novell), but clearly, Microsoft has been actively adopting open source as part of its business strategy.

Novell is so proud of Miguel de Icaza (for helping Microsoft) that its PR department publicises this. Well, de Icaza has also expanded Microsoft's monopoly to the iPhone — something that Novell brags about as well, using promotion-tied budgets. There is a press release bragging about it and it’s titled “Novell Releases First Solution to Build iPhone Applications Using C# and Microsoft .NET Languages.”

Never mind the implications, eh? Here is the Windows/Microsoft de facto press raving about it because it’s big promotion for Windows and .NET, not just Novell and Mono. Longtime Windows authors seem enthusiastic and so are sites which include ITWire, PC World (IDG), Campus Technology, Ars Technica, and others.

Good news for Microsoft; for GNU/Linux? Not so much. █

“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.”

–James Plamondon, Microsoft Technical Evangelist. From Exhibit 3096; Comes v. Microsoft litigation [PDF]

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

Permalink Mail Send this to a friend

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

What Else is New

Dutch Court Rules Against SUEPO (in a Reversal), But EPO Management Would Have Ignored the Ruling Even If SUEPO Won (Updated)

SUEPO loses a case against EPO management, but the EPO's overzealous management was going to ignore the ruling anyway
New Paper Provides Evidence of Sinking Patent Quality at the EPO, Refuting the Liar in Chief Battistelli

In spite of Battistelli's claims (lies) about patent quality under his watch, reality suggests that so-called 'production' is simply rushed issuance of invalid patents (one step away from rubberstamping, in order to meet unreasonable, imposed-from-the-top targets)
Battistelli Locks EPO Staff Union Out of Social Conference So That He Can Lie About the Union and the Social Climate

The attacks on staff of the EPO carry on, with brainwash sessions meticulously scheduled to ensure that Administrative Council delegates are just their master's voice, or the voice of the person whom they are in principle supposed to oversee
Unprecedented Levels of UPC Lobbying by Big Business Europe (Multinationals) and Their Patent Law Firms

A quick look at some of the latest deception which is intended to bamboozle European politicians and have them play along with the unitary [sic] patent for private interests of the super-rich
Links 29/9/2016: Russia Moving to FOSS, New Nmap and PostgreSQL Releases

Links for the day
Team UPC is Interjecting Itself Into the Media Ahead of Tomorrow's Lobbying Push Against the European Council and Against European Interests

A quick look at the growing bulk of UPC lobbying (by the legal firms which stand to benefit from it) ahead of tomorrow's European Council meeting which is expected to discuss a unitary patent system
IP Kat is Lobbying Heavily for the UPC, Courtesy of Team UPC

When does an IP (or patent) blog become little more than an aggregation of interest groups and self-serving patent law firms, whose agenda overlaps that of Team Battistelli?
Leaked: Conclusions of the Secretive EPO Board 28 Meeting (8th of September 2016)

The agenda and outcome of the secretive meeting of the Board of the Administrative Council of the EPO
Letter From the Dutch Institute of Patent Attorneys (Nederlandse Orde van Octrooigemachtigden) to the Administrative Council of the EPO

The Netherlands Institute of Patent Attorneys, a group representing a large number of Dutch patent practitioners, is against Benoît Battistelli and his horrible behaviour at the European Patent Office (EPO)
EPO's Board 28 Notes Battistelli's “Three Current Investigations/Disciplinary Proceedings Involving SUEPO Members in The Hague."

The attack on SUEPO (EPO staff representatives) at The Hague appears to have been silently expanded to a third person, showing an obvious increase in Battistelli's attacks on truth-tellers
Links 28/9/2016: Alpine Linux 3.4.4, Endless OS 3.0

Links for the day
Cementing Autocracy: The European Patent Office Against Democracy, Against Media, and Against the Rule of Law

The European Patent Office (EPO) actively undermines democracy in Europe, it undermines the freedom of the press (by paying it for puff pieces), and it undermines the rule of law by giving one single tyrant total power in Eponia and immunity from outside Eponia (even when he breaks his own rules)
Links 28/9/2016: New Red Hat Offices, Fedora 25 'Frozen'

Links for the day
Team Battistelli Intensifies the Attack on the Boards of Appeal Again

The lawless state of the EPO, where the rule of law is basically reducible to Battistelli's ego and insecurities, is again demonstrated with an escalation and perhaps another fake 'trial' in the making (after guilt repeatedly fails to be established)
After the EPO Paid the Financial Times to Produce Propaganda the Newspaper Continues to Produce UPC Puff Pieces, Just Ahead of EU Council Meeting

How the media, including the Financial Times, has been used (and even paid!) by the EPO in exchange for self-serving (to the EPO) messages and articles
Beware the Patent Law Firms Insinuating That Software Patents Are Back Because of McRO

By repeatedly claiming (and then generalising) that CAFC accepted a software patent the patent microcosm (meta-industry) hopes to convince us that we should continue to pursue software patents in the US, i.e. pay them a lot more money for something of little/no value
The US Supreme Court Might Soon Tighten Patent Scope in the United States Even Further, the USPTO Produces Patent Maximalism Propaganda

A struggle brewing between the patent 'industry' (profiting from irrational saturation) and the highest US court, as well as the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
Patent Trolling a Growing Problem in East Asia (Software Patents Also), Whereas in the US the Problem Goes Away Along With Software Patents

A look at two contrasting stories, one in Asia where patent litigation and hype are on the rise (same in Europe due to the EPO) and another in the US where a lot of patents face growing uncertainty and a high invalidation rate
The EPO's Continued Push for Software Patents, Marginalisation of Appeals (Reassessment), and Deviation From the EPC

A roundup of new developments at the EPO, where things further exacerbate and patent quality continues its downward spiral
The Battistelli Effect: “We Will be Gradually Forced to File Our Patent Applications Outside the EPO in the Interests of Our Clients”

While the EPO dusts off old files and grants in haste without quality control (won't be sustainable for more than a couple more years) the applicants are moving away as trust in the EPO erodes rapidly and profoundly
Links 27/9/2016: Lenovo Layoffs, OPNFV Third Software Release

Links for the day
The Moral Depravity of the European Patent Office Under Battistelli

The European Patent Office (EPO) comes under heavy criticism from its very own employees, who also seem to recognise that lobbying for the UPC is a very bad idea which discredits the European Patent Organisation
Links 26/9/2016: Linux 4.8 RC8, SuperTux 0.5

Links for the day
What Insiders Are Saying About the Sad State of the European Patent Office (EPO)

Anonymous claims made by people who are intimately familiar with the European Patent Office (from the inside) shed light on how bad things have become
The EPO Does Not Want Skilled (and 'Expensive') Staff, Layoffs a Growing Concern

A somewhat pessimistic look (albeit increasingly realistic look) at the European Patent Office, where unions are under fire for raising legitimate concerns about the direction taken by the management since a largely French team was put in charge
Patents Roundup: Accenture Software Patents, Patent Troll Against Apple, Willful Infringements, and Apple Against a Software Patent

A quick look at various new articles of interest (about software patents) and what can be deduced from them, especially now that software patents are the primary barrier to Free/Libre Open Source software adoption
Software Patents Propped Up by Patent Law Firms That Are Lying, Further Assisted by Rogue Elements Like David Kappos and Randall Rader (Revolving Doors)

The sheer dishonesty of the patent microcosm (seeking to bring back software patents by misleading the public) and those who are helping this microcosm change the system from the inside, owing to intimate connections from their dubious days inside government
Links 25/9/2016: Linux 4.7.5, 4.4.22; LXQt 0.11

Links for the day
Patent Quality and Patent Scope the Unspeakable Taboo at the EPO, as Both Are Guillotined by Benoît Battistelli for the Sake of Money

The gradual destruction of the European Patent Office (EPO), which was once unanimously regarded as the world's best, by a neo-liberal autocrat from France, Benoît Battistelli
Bristows LLP's Hatred/Disdain of UK/EU Democracy Demonstrated; Says “Not Only Will the Pressure for UK Ratification of the UPC Agreement Continue, But a Decision is Wanted Within Weeks.”

Without even consulting the British public or the European public (both of whom would be severely harmed by the UPC), the flag bearers of the UPC continue to bamboozle and then pressure politicians, public servants and nontechnical representatives