02.26.10
Posted in Deception, Marketing, Microsoft at 12:44 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Any card you want as long as it’s an ace
Summary: Microsoft abuses words of the English language in order for people to feel confused about the difference between one product and another
MICROSOFT’S “Software Choice” campaign was mentioned in this older post. To quickly repeat it, Bruce Perens wrote that “Microsoft’s new “Software Choice” campaign is all for your right to choose… as long as you choose Microsoft. It’s too bad that Intel and the U.S. Government couldn’t see through the rhetoric.”
“Yasmin Mahmood from Microsoft Malaysia used this type of lies repeatedly…”Those lies about choice are nothing new and right now there is this ballot which provides an illusion of choice (regarding browsers and ODF). Yasmin Mahmood from Microsoft Malaysia used this type of lies repeatedly (calling for “choice” between a proprietary format and a standard rather than between office suites). That was before she jumped ship. She didn’t quit the company before getting involved in the many OOXML scandals, e.g. [1, 2, 3].
Here again we see that Microsoft misuses the word “choice” to market its monopolistic, proprietary software.
At Microsoft’s Public Sector CIO Summit this week, Microsoft is promising governments “choice,” a theme normally reserved for the freedom-loving open-source set.
But Microsoft’s “choice” campaign is all about giving governments the option to step into the Google-blessed cloud realm without leaving the comfort of their Windows/Office/etc. environments. For some, and perhaps many, this may be just the sort of safe choice they’re seeking.
The word “open” (or the term “open source”) was also misused to confuse and IIPA/BSA slander Free software at the moment by claiming that it reduces "choice". They distort the language; they destroy the vocabulary and connotations that come with it. █
“If thought can corrupt language, then language can also corrupt thought.”
–George Orwell
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Bill Gates, Finance, Fraud, Humour, Microsoft, Steve Ballmer at 12:30 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The relationship between Washington and Microsoft as shown more comically (see the original in the links below)
TAX dodger Microsoft Corporation [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9] is receiving no love these days.
Jeff sez, “Inspired by Boing Boing post about Microsoft tax dodge, cartoonist RR Anderson takes on Washington’s $100 million tax cut and tax amnesty for Microsoft.”
This cartoon was also mentioned by a former Microsoft employee. There is this post/article of his about bias at the Seattle Times, which still seemingly refuses to cover Microsoft’s offences and instead glorifies rogue operations.
As the Seattle Weekly discussed earlier, the Seattle Times has yet to report on Representative Ross Hunter’s HB3176 and its proposed $100 million tax cut for Microsoft as well as $1.27 billion in amnesty. It may be that the paper is too busy running to the bank to cash Microsoft’s latest check for a full page ad on the controversial 20th century vision to add more car lanes highway 520.
We wrote about the bridge story just a couple of days ago. █
“Microsoft looks at new ideas, they don’t evaluate whether the idea will move the industry forward, they ask, ‘how will it help us sell more copies of Windows?’”
–Bill Gates, The Seattle Weekly, (April 30, 1998)
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Bill Gates, Europe, Free/Libre Software, Law, Microsoft, Patents at 4:06 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Very negative portrayal of Free software is tied to a lobby that’s directly tied to Microsoft and also strives to criminalise Free software in the EU
JUST about a week ago we addressed claims that the BSA (Business Software Alliance) helps Free software and explained why such claims would be rather ludicrous. Prior reports we provided (in the form of links) show that the BSA, with its Microsoft/Gates relationship [1, 2], is responsible for a lot of smearing of Free software and also lobbying for software patents in Europe. Other interesting posts on the subject include [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7].
Based on this short report from last month, Francisco Mingorance, a lobbyist from the BSA, makes the situation even worse in Europe. The EU rejects software patents, but the “BSA is still campaigning for it, through the UPLS,” tells us the president of the FFII:
Lobbyist Francisco Mingorance from the Business Software Alliance (BSA) is a die-hard advocate for software patents on the European level. The original EU-Commission software patent directive proposal which was defeated by Eurolinux and supporters was last saved by the lobbyist Francisco Mingorance. His recent intervention at the European STOA panel shows that we have to stay alert and defend the rights of software SMEs and the Linux sector against our opponents and their patent ideology.
Two days ago we wrote about the cartel which includes the BSA practically lobbying against Free software, comparing it to a communist plot. Jason from The Source has rebutted the claims and showed that the BSA’s very poor arguments are just slander:
Look. I wasn’t surprised when Microsoft launched yet another patent/IP FUD attack against Linux and Open Source, and I’m not surprised that some organization with the Business Software Alliance as a member is attacking Open Source.
Break it on down now
You need to understand something: the BSA is basically a front organization for Microsoft and has consistently and continuously lobbied against Free and Open Source Software.
They have done everything anti-Open Source they can short of printing up stickers of Calvin pissing on a penguin.
To understand where the BSA is coming from – or if you find yourself in need of an emetic – read its 2005 publication Open Source and Commercial Software: An In-Depth Analysis of the Issues. The bias against Free and Open Source Software is present in virtually every single sentence; much of it serves as talking points for Microsoft apologists and the IIPA “report”.
Dana Blankenhorn has said that it’s time “to name and shame the anti-open source extremists”. His argument goes like this:
Since I began writing this blog in 2005 I have watched open source move from a fringe idea to something embraced by the IT mainstream.
But there are still extremists out there who want to destroy open source. Some of their names may surprise you.
What they have done is retreat into a group where they seek not to be identified.
The International Intellectual Property Alliance dates from 1984, before open source began, and is thus the perfect front group for this activity.
[...]
If the BSA’s position has reversed, if it now wants to use the force of the U.S. government to drive open source under, then its members are also against open source. But the BSA’s membership includes IBM, HP, Cisco, Adobe, and Dell — some of the biggest boosters and biggest beneficiaries of open source on the planet.
It’s time to ask these companies. Do you agree with the position of the trade group you belong to? Should you continue to support a trade group that is acting against your corporate interests?
There is other coverage that includes a rebuttal from the Against Monopoly Web site.
The reason they should be put on the list? Their governments encourage (but do not mandate) their administrations to use open source software. Obviously, this reduces the revenue of cost software vendors and publishers, but it is a real stretch to call this piracy. The governments are simply making business decisions, weighing costs and benefits. And given the quality of open source software and operating systems, that decision is rather easy.
This would not be the first time that the BSA is doing this. Previous examples that we gave here involved Firefox and Fedora, but these examples go back almost 4 years. It’s useful to know that the BSA is still acting like Microsoft’s bulldog, spreading the illusion that “Free” (as in freedom and sometimes price too) is illegal. No doubts are left about the BSA’s agenda. As Blankenhorn has argued, IBM, HP, Cisco, and Dell should withdraw BSA funding. As it stands, these companies indirectly support software patents in Europe and also attempt to illegalise Free software. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Antitrust, Europe, Google, Law, Microsoft at 7:46 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
“I’m going to f—ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I’m going to f—ing kill Google.”
–Steve Ballmer, Microsoft CEO
He loves wiretapping!
Summary: Microsoft is intruding people’s private communications, reveal new policy leaks; the antitrust investigation against Google is blamed on the Microsoft lobby
MICROSOFT’S hate campaigns against Google have been aided by particular publications [1, 2] and it’s proving to be effective. Microsoft is scared of Google because it’s a direct threat to Microsoft on pretty much all fronts (E-mail, search, browser, mobile, operating systems, office suites, collaboration and so on).
The latest examples presented in this post would not be the first of their kind, nor will it be the first time that Microsoft targets Google in malicious and probably illegal ways. That’s just Microsoft’s nature.
“Microsoft is scared of Google because it’s a direct threat to Microsoft on pretty much all fronts (E-mail, search, browser, mobile, operating systems, office suites, collaboration and so on).”To give some previous examples, an ex-Microsoft manager produced an anti-Google study, Microsoft has had whisper campaigns against Google, it has had AstroTurf campaigns against Google, and it recently sued Google too (not just urged other companies to sue Google [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]). Even the mainstream media covers this stuff.
In addition to all this, we know that Microsoft has been manufacturing abuse against competitors and critics, sometimes by spying on reporters. Microsoft is watching everything (with the help of peripheral agencies) even if it’s not obvious to see on the surface.
With the kind help of Bill Gates’ new friend lady Huffington [1, 2, 3, 4] (see the photos and remember that Murdoch is also a friend of Microsoft and their ally against Google [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13]), Microsoft has pushed to make eavesdropping in datacentres a lot easier, but with or without the changes, Microsoft is intruding people’s private data to shut down an important Web site.
Microsoft Kills Watchdog Website Due to Leaked Documents
[...]
For example, in cases involving libel or trade secrets, said Cohn, “You go to court, you make a case and you get an injunction. You don’t just file a form. DMCA makes censorship easy.”
Cohn also noted she feels the reason Microsoft actually wants the document removed from the Web is because, for a large corporation with millions of users and an aggressive PR agenda, the document raises concerns and sparks conversations the company would rather not confront.
“It’s part of a very intense political debate about the role of intermediary companies like Microsoft aiding surveillance for law enforcement. It’s embarrassing for Microsoft for their users to see how much the people who carry their email have arrangements with law enforcement.
“All of the people who carry our communications are an easy conduit for our government to spy on us, and a lot of people are unhappy about that. It’s a legitimate public debate, and Microsoft doesn’t want to be part of that debate.”
We hope that Microsoft does, in fact, release their stranglehold on Young and his site and take part in a conversation with their users about how their data can be accessed by others, including law enforcement. We’ve reached out to them for comment and will update this post if and when we hear back.
Let us remember that Microsoft will always try to hide the evidence just as it tried burying Comes vs Microsoft exhibits. A former Microsoft lawyer decided to blow his whistle recently; he claims that Microsoft “routinely produces and/or condones deficient investigations, covers up alleged misconduct, mischaracterizes evidence, refuses to preserve or provide pertinent facts and data, protects the perpetrators and retaliates against victims.”
Well, a new document that can be seen here shows that despite Microsoft wanting to posses public data, including patient records [1, 2], Microsoft can only talk about “privacy” while at the same time violating privacy as a matter of policy. Here is Microsoft’s “spy guide” which got leaked just as Microsoft moved in to kill another leakers’ Web site.
We recently reported that a watchdog site, Cryptome, was removed from the Web for refusing to take down a copy of a Microsoft document.
This document, called the Microsoft Online Services Global Criminal Compliance Handbook, or “spy guide,” gives details on how law enforcement can grab user data from a wide range of Microsoft services, from Windows Live ID to Xbox Live to Hotmail. Microsoft holds and can reveal a huge amount of data on individuals through their social networking and file-sharing services, too. These data include IP addresses, credit cards, chat logs and much more.
How is that for a reminder that Microsoft — not Google — is a privacy/security offender? There is already “damage control” and a retreat by Microsoft (due to bad publicity).
Microsoft is said to be the cause for the antitrust challenge against Google in Europe. Here are some reports on the subject:
1. Is Microsoft behind Google legal challenge?
Internet search giant Google says complaints to the European Commission that it is using its dominanent position to reduce rivals’ visibility are funded indirectly by Microsoft.
Google claims the complaints against them in part derive from a lobbying body whose largest funder is Microsoft.
[...]
Foundem is a member of Initiative for a Competitive Online Marketplace (ICOMP), a Brussels-based lobbying group primarily funded by Microsoft, who have been historically critical of Google’s power.
2. EU Opens Antitrust Investigation Into Google. Microsoft’s Fingerprints Are Everywhere.
Ciao (which is now called Ciao Bing) is the Microsoft-owned German shopping site making one of the complaints. Microsoft purchased them in 2008 for nearly $500 million. The others are Foundem, a UK-based shopping site, and EJustice.fr, a French site that does legal search inquiries. All three are claiming that Google’s search dominance is hurting their businesses. And Foundem is claiming that Google has placed a “search penalty” on its site, which has crippled it.
[...]
Update: Here’s a post on Google’s Public Policy Blog. Not surprisingly, Google makes quick note of both Ciao and Foundem’s ties to Microsoft.
3. European Commission Turns Magnifying Glass On Google
Holtz also hinted that a certain rival of Google’s might be behind much of this. Ciao! from Bing is owned by Microsoft, after all, and Foundem belongs to an organization (the Initiative for a Competitive Online Marketplace) that’s sponsored by Microsoft.
Even Microsoft boosters link to Google’s explanation of this:
Regarding Ciao!, they were a long-time AdSense partner of Google’s, with whom we always had a good relationship. However, after Microsoft acquired Ciao! in 2008 (renaming it Ciao! from Bing) we started receiving complaints about our standard terms and conditions. They initially took their case to the German competition authority, but it now has been transferred to Brussels.
Now that Microsoft also attacks the Freedom of GNU/Linux through Amazon [1, 2, 3], Canonical’s COO Matt Asay says that Microsoft should try the same tricks against Google:
This week, Microsoft made its boldest move to date, signing yet another patent cross-licensing agreement with Amazon, calling out that this agreement allows Amazon to use Linux. Yes, Amazon sells its Linux-based Kindle device, but the agreement also covers Amazon’s use of Linux (presumably for the Amazon.com service, EC2, etc.), representing, as ZDNet’s Adrian Kingsley-Hughes writes, “the clearest indication so far from Microsoft that if you use Linux-based servers…you ow[e] them money.”
Oh, really?
If Microsoft has such an ironclad case in this matter, there’s just one thing to do:
Sue Google.
Google, after all, is the killer bee in Microsoft’s bonnet, one that Microsoft has been at pains to repel, and one that depends heavily on Linux. Google Search, Apps, Chrome OS, Android, etc. make heavy use of Linux, and threaten to topple the Redmond giant.
It would not work of course. But anyway, Microsoft is desperate as its business keeps declining [1, 2, 3, 4]. Windows is just trouble (cartoon) and even some of Microsoft’s former chiefs don’t believe in the company anymore:
The recent commentary by former Microsoft Executive Dick Brass regarding Microsoft’s loss of any innovative edge and the rebuttal by Frank Shaw, corporate vice president for corporate communications [“Microsoft’s creative destruction” and “Microsoft: A good idea isn’t enough,” Business, Feb. 8], was eerily reminiscent of Dilbert — a regular feature I read in the comics section of the paper.
[..]
On the one hand, we have a logical reconstruction of Microsoft’s miscues, articulated by a company insider with a credible perspective on the issues under discussion. On the other hand, we have a corporate executive striving to characterize the color black as actually only a misrepresentation of a slightly shaded color white.
Microsoft is neither black nor white. It’s neither “Good” nor “Evil”. It’s just truly criminal; it has always been like that. That’s just an objective statement. █
“No other large companies as far as I know use their employees as attack dogs to silen[ce] dissent. It’s time for Microsoft to stop this nonsense.”
–The Prickly Prince From Microsoft Strikes Again
Guess who else likes wiretapping?
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, Kernel, Novell, OIN at 6:33 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Further to the Linux Foundation’s implicit acceptance of software patents, we present another new dilemma (OpenGov/OSFA)
THE Linux Foundation funds development of one of the most important Free software projects out there. But it does not mean that we should blindly agree with everything that it is doing (the same goes for Red Hat). There was one example yesterday where we criticised the Linux Foundation for supporting or silently endorsing software patents like its masters at IBM. This is not helping, especially not when it comes to Free software outside the kernel (and yes, OIN covers more than just kernel space, but still, the Linux Foundation is feeding the USPTO by gestures of legitimacy).
“They are participating in a broken system rather than repair it or at least mend its modus operandi.”The fact that the Linux Foundation is also feeding IDC (sometimes with Novell) is not helping either. To expose IDC's financial relationship with Microsoft, for example, would no longer help the Linux Foundation as it would rightly be called a “hypocrite”.
We dislike this idea of the Linux Foundation et al lobbying the government, which means that they fight fire with fire rather than put out the fire and strive to reform inherently broken systems (such as the USPTO).
According to this couple of reports, the OSFA is lobbying the government now:
Check out OpenGov Tracker. The ideas are there, with good discussion, but I’m doubtful about the numbers. The “top ideas” all have under 100 votes. It’s a new site, sure, but I wonder if people can get enthusiastic about trying to influence the government.
They are participating in a broken system rather than repair it or at least mend its modus operandi. Later on we will write about Microsoft’s anti-Google lobby and explain why abolishment of lobbying — not a fight between lobby groups (or between patent arsenals, or analysts for sale) — is the only ethical way to go. Howard Zinn once said something along the lines of, just because you believe you fight against “Evil” does not make you “Good”; you can both be “Evil”. Free software should challenge morbid aspects of the system that is hostile towards it; the system ought to adapt to its original goals rather than participants adapting to this derailed system. █
“Did you know that there are more than 34,750 registered lobbyists in Washington, D.C., for just 435 representatives and 100 senators? That’s 64 lobbyists for each congressperson.”
–CIO.com
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Law, Microsoft, Security, Windows at 5:23 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: New security policies sought by politicians as a 10-year old Windows flaw surfaces
A FEW days ago we wrote about the enormous cost of Windows being as insecure as it is. A 10-year old flaw has been reported in Windows and this one firm considers it perhaps the worst in a decade. Not everyone agrees, but here is the claim anyway.
A new Windows-based denial of service attacks reportedly exploits a 10-year old OS flaw to crash vulnerable systems.
[...]
2X, which is not well known in the world of information security research, issued a press release over its discovery on Wednesday billing it “one of the biggest security vulnerabilities in the Windows OS for many years”.
The state of Windows botnets is alarming authorities:
The official British view casts ongoing talks between the US and Russia – aimed at fostering cooperation between states on internet security and agreeing ground rules – in a pessimistic light.
[...]
“The increasing sophistication of criminal cyber tools and the availability of cheap, fast broadband will mean that states are able to achieve their aims by hiring criminal botnets to carry out DDOS or other attacks on their enemies’ infrastructure.”
Governments may use this to pass new draconian laws and Microsoft can pass discriminatory measures to address a problem that its own negligence [1, 2, 3] has created. The US cybersecurity czar is former Microsoft employee Howard Schmidt [1, 2, 3], so this new US push for “government cybersecurity authority” might be trouble for Free desktops. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
