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

04.07.10

Apple Apologists

Posted in Apple, DRM, FUD, GNU/Linux, Google at 6:09 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Misconceptions in the press and blind faith in Hollywood-friendly DRM prisons from Apple

WE have already written many posts about the iPad [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9], putting aside the fact that Apple is arrogantly suing Linux [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8].

What we find rather curious is that Apple enthusiasts sometimes fail to understand what GNU/Linux is all about and what “open source” means (some think that Apple is “open source”).

Well, Gizmodo, which was possibly bribed by Microsoft for some rave reviews of Vista 7, is currently mocking Doctorow for his criticism of the iPad. Some writers at Gizmodo have zero understanding of GNU/Linux, as shown in the following part of the new rant that’s also cited elsewhere.

Who brought Linux to the mainstream? Google. Giant, corporate, rule-bending, corruptible Google.

Huh?

The funny thing is that Canonical’s new COO, Mac [sic] Asay, is also among the iPad apologists who antagonise Doctorow. He writes:

Cory Doctorow believes the iPad signals an end to innovation. It doesn’t. Apple’s iPad actually points to a beginning of innovation in personal computing.

Asay does not believe in ‘his’ own products and the associated philosophies, which also resonate with the clients. Why again does he work for Canonical? It becomes embarrassing when a self-proclaimed “open source” champion is salivating over proprietary software, just like Miguel de Icaza.

Here is another piece of utter nonsense from Apple apologists who speak about GNU/Linux:

Consider Linux, which still doesn’t have a user-friendly GUI.

Really?

While we’re at it showing or debunking FUD, here is another piece of inaccurate description from the press.

Nokia has finally ditched Symbian in favour of Maemo, which, like Android, also borrows its design heavily from Linux.

There are at least 3 mistakes in that very short sentence.

In another short piece with an Enderle-like headline (“Microsoft, Apple, Google – The Battle for Domination”) the following statement is made:

Contrary to Apple’s iPhone, Google has been the pioneer for open source technology.

Here we go again. Google is not even an open source company (let alone “the pioneer for open source technology”).

Finally, Gizmag has this to say:

Although open source software is playing an increasingly important part in our digital lives, most of still use commercial applications where the code running them is locked down tight and rarely caters for too much uncontrolled tinkering.

They probably mean “proprietary”, not “commercial”. Microsoft deliberately fails to make a distinction between the two.

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

7 Comments

  1. dyfet said,

    April 7, 2010 at 6:18 pm

    Gravatar

    I certainly never experienced any problem with commercial acceptability of pure free software licensing. In fact I always believed the two are essential partners and not distant relatives that have to be kept apart such as through dual licensing schemes which remove freedoms for some downstream. But some forget that I was a founder and CTO for Open Source Telecom Corp, where we did rather successfully sell commercial software licensed using the GNU GPL.

  2. your_friend said,

    April 7, 2010 at 8:00 pm

    Gravatar

    Google may not be a free software company but they are a pioneering free software user and something for free software advocates to point to with pride. There are dangers in trusting others with your private information but there should be no doubting Google’s technical competence or honesty. Microsoft. Yahoo and other big ISPs all but promise to censor users and sell user data to the highest bidding spammer. As a provider of services, Google has made first rate use of free software. Through Google code and other initiatives, they also sponsor a great deal of free software community.

    Through all of Microsoft’s FUD against Google, we should never lose site of the fact that software freedom gives Google and others to do exactly what they are doing. The technical excellence and success of Google are a direct result of the excellent tool set software freedom produces and something most people are not aware of. All of the racket about the dangers of software as a service is spun to give ignorant people the impression that Google is something similar to Microsoft. The two are not remotely comparable.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    Their business models are very different.

  3. Needs Sunlight said,

    April 8, 2010 at 4:14 am

    Gravatar

    If an iPad is configured with an M$ Exchange account, an joker that can crack administrator level access can initiate a remote wipe command using the Exchange Management Console or the Exchange ActiveSync Mobile Administration Web tool. The remote wipe can be initiated using directly using Outlook Web Access, and we all know how secure MSIE is…

    http://images.apple.com/ipad/business/pdf/iPad_Security_Overview.pdf

    This basically blocks using the iPad at any school…

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    Google has similar deals involving software patents.

    Needs Sunlight Reply:

    What, that anyone that can fiddle access to M$ Exchange can go in and nuke the Google services?

    The above agreement ties the ability to DDOS an iPad to the fragility of Windows + Exchange. That’s not a winning combination.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    With or without a “combination”, HypePad seems like a dud to me, but the copyright cartel likes it (DRM, paywalls), so it promotes it a lot.

What Else is New


  1. Koch Brothers and Big Oil Could Not Buy the Decisions in Oil States, SAS

    In Oil States Energy Services v Greene’s Energy Group, a case which Koch-funded think tanks meddled in (including those whose panel guests send me threatening legal letters), ends up with dissent from a Koch-connected Justice citing or quoting those very same Koch-funded think tanks



  2. The European Patent Office (EPO) Wastes a Lot of Money on External PR Agencies for Battistelli's 'Heist'

    The EPO's management is once again scattering/throwing EPO budget at PR agencies and media companies (publishers/broadcasters) to disseminate a bunch of puff pieces and virtually ignore the very obvious conflict of interest, which should be a scandal on par with that of FIFA (resulting in the arrest of its boss, Mr. Blatter)



  3. Today's EPO is Not Compatible With the Law and It's Grossly Incompatible With Truth and Justice

    Today, once again, the EPO openly advocates software patents while media promotes loopholes (notably hype waves)



  4. Quick Mention: As Expected, the US Supreme Court Cements PTAB's Role With Trump-Appointed Gorsuch Dissenting

    Oil States has been decided and it's very good news for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB); even Conservatives-leaning Justices support PTAB



  5. Links 24/4/2018: Preview of Crostini, Introducing Heptio Gimbal, OPNsense 18.1.6

    Links for the day



  6. Patent Maximalists Step Things Up With Director Andrei Iancu and It's Time for Scientists to Fight Back

    Science and technology don't seem to matter as much as the whims of the patent (litigation) 'industry', at least judging by recent actions taken by Andrei Iancu (following a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee)



  7. Mythology About Patents in the East

    Misconceptions (or deliberate propaganda) about patent policy in the east poison the debate and derail a serious, facts-based discussion about it



  8. Patent Trolls Watch: Red River Innovations, Bradium Technologies/General Patent, and Wordlogic

    A quick look at some patent trolls that made the news this Monday; we are still seeing a powerful response to such trolls, whose momentum is slipping owing to the good work of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)



  9. Holding Benoît Battistelli Accountable After the EPO

    The many abuses and offenses committed by Mr. Battistelli whilst he enjoyed diplomatic immunity can and should be brought up as that immunity expires in two months; a good start would be contacting his colleagues, who might not be aware of the full spectrum of his abuses



  10. Links 23/4/2018: Second RC of Linux 4.17 and First RC of Mesa 18.1

    Links for the day



  11. The Good Work of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and the Latest Attempts to Undermine It

    A week's roundup of news about PTAB, which is eliminating many bad (wrongly-granted) patents and is therefore becoming "enemy number one" to those who got accustomed to blackmailing real (productive) firms with their questionable patents



  12. District Courts' Patent Cases, Including the Eastern District of Texas (EDTX/TXED), in a Nutshell

    A roundup of patent cases in 'low courts' of the United States, where patents are being reasoned about or objected to while patent law firms make a lot of money



  13. The Federal Circuit's (CAFC) Decisions Are Being Twisted by Patent Propaganda Sites Which Merely Cherry-Pick Cases With Outcomes That Suit Them

    The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) continues to reject the vast majority of software patents, citing Section 101 in many such cases, but the likes of Managing IP, Patently-O, IAM and Watchtroll only selectively cover such cases (instead they’re ‘pulling a Berkheimer’ or some similar name-dropping)



  14. Patents Roundup: Metaswitch, GENBAND, Susman, Cisco, Konami, High 5 Games, HTC, and Nintendo

    A look at existing legal actions, the application of 35 U.S.C. § 101, and questionable patents that are being pursued on software (algorithms or "software infrastructure")



  15. In Maxon v Funai the High 'Patent Court' (CAFC) Reaffirms Disdain for Software Patents, Which Are Nowadays Harder to Get and Then Defend

    With the wealth of decisions from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) wherein software patents get discarded (Funai being the latest example), the public needs to ask itself whether patent law firms are honest when they make claims about resurgence of software patents by 'pulling a Berkheimer' or coming up with terms like “Berkheimer Effect”



  16. Today's European Patent Office Works for Patent Extremists and for Team UPC Rather Than for Europe or for Innovation

    The International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (AIPPI) and other patent maximalists who have nothing to do with Europe, helped by a malicious and rather clueless politician called Benoît Battistelli, are turning the EPO into a patent-printing machine rather than an examination office as envisioned by the EPC (founders) and member states



  17. The EPO is Dying and Those Who Have Killed It Are Becoming Very Rich in the Process

    Following the footsteps of Ron Hovsepian at Novell, Battistelli at the EPO (along with Team Battistelli) may mean the end of the EPO as we know it (or the end altogether); one manager and a cabal of confidants make themselves obscenely rich by basically sacrificing the very organisation they were entrusted to serve



  18. Short: Just Keep Repeating the Lie (“Quality”) Until People Might Believe It

    Battistelli’s patent-printing bureau (EPO without quality control) keeps lying about the quality of patents by repeating the word “quality” a lot of times, including no less than twice in the summary alone



  19. Shelston IP Keeps Pressuring IP Australia to Allow Software Patents and Harm Software Development

    Shelston IP wants exactly the opposite of what's good for Australia; it just wants what's good for itself, yet it habitually pretends to speak for a productive industry (nothing could be further from the truth)



  20. Is Andy Ramer's Departure the End of Cantor Fitzgerald's Patent Trolls-Feeding Operations and Ambitions?

    The managing director of the 'IP' group at Cantor Fitzgerald is leaving, but it does not yet mean that patent trolls will be starved/deprived access to patents



  21. EPO Hoards Billions of Euros (Taken From the Public), Decreases Quality to Get More Money, Reduces Payments to Staff

    The EPO continues to collect money from everyone, distributes bogus/dubious patents that usher patent trolls into Europe (to cost European businesses billions in the long run), and staff of the EPO faces more cuts while EPO management swims in cash and perks



  22. Short: Calling Battistelli's Town (Where He Works) “Force for Innovation” to Justify the Funneling of EPO Funds to It

    How the EPO‘s management ‘explained’ (or sought to rationalise) to staff its opaque decision to send a multi-million, one-day ceremony to Battistelli’s own theatre only weeks before he leaves



  23. Short: EPO Bribes the Media and Then Brags About the Paid-for Outcome to Staff

    The EPO‘s systematic corruption of the media at the expense of EPO stakeholders — not to mention hiring of lawyers to bully media which exposes EPO corruption — in the EPO’s own words (amended by us)



  24. Short: EPO's “Working Party for Quality” is to Quality What the “Democratic People's Republic of Korea” is to Democracy

    To maintain the perception (illusion) that the EPO still cares about patent quality — and in order to disseminate this lie to EPO staff — a puff piece with the above heading/photograph was distributed to thousands of examiners in glossy paper form



  25. Short: This Spring's Message From the EPO's President (Corrected)

    A corrected preface from the Liar in Chief, the EPO's notoriously crooked and dishonest President



  26. Short: Highly Misleading and Unscientific Graphics From the EPO for an Illusion of Growth

    A look at the brainwash that EPO management is distributing to staff and what's wrong with it



  27. Short: EPO Explains to Examiners Why They Should and Apparently Can Grant Software Patents (in Spite of EPC)

    Whether it calls it "CII" or "ICT" or "Industry 4.0" or "4IR", the EPO's management continues to grant software patents and attempts to justify this to itself (and to staff)



  28. Links 21/4/2018: Linux 4.9.95, FFmpeg 4.0, OpenBSD Foundation 2018 Fundraising Campaign

    Links for the day



  29. As USPTO Director, Andrei Iancu Gives Three Months for Public Comments on 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Software Patenting Impacted)

    Weeks after starting his job as head of the US patent office, to our regret but not to our surprise, Iancu asks whether to limit examiners' ability to reject abstract patent applications citing 35 U.S.C. § 101 (relates to Alice and Mayo)



  30. In Keith Raniere v Microsoft Both Sides Are Evil But for Different Reasons

    Billing for patent lawyers reveals an abusive strategy from Microsoft, which responded to abusive patent litigation (something which Microsoft too has done for well over a decade)


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