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

04.11.10

Florian Müller Seemingly Connected to CCIA (Microsoft Proxy)

Posted in Antitrust, Europe, IBM, Microsoft, Patents at 6:00 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Florian Mueller

Summary: More evidence that the attacks against IBM are actually coming from Microsoft and that Müller plays a role in it (Müller set up his anti-IBM blog when he got connected with CCIA’s Executive VP, who works with Microsoft)

WE keep promising to depart from this overreported subject, but as the plot thickens this becomes harder to avoid. Previous posts about TurboHercules vs IBM are:

  1. Microsoft Proxy Attack on GNU/Linux Continues With TurboHercules
  2. Eye on Security: Windows Malware, Emergency Patches, and BeyondTrust’s CEO from Microsoft
  3. IBM Uses Software Patents Aggressively
  4. IBM’s Day of Shame
  5. IBM Will Never be the Same After Taking Software Patents Out of Its Holster
  6. Thumbs up to Ubuntu for Removing a Part of Microsoft; TurboHercules Likely a Psystar-Type Microsoft Shell
  7. Why IBM Does Deserve Scrutiny (Updated)
  8. Patents Roundup: Fordham Conference for Software Patents in Europe, NZOSS Responds to Pro-Software Patents Lobbyists, and TurboHercules’ Ties With Microsoft Explained

For those who are not aware, Florian Müller became a lobbyist, but whose lobbyist? More recently he became known for his attempts to derail the Munich migration to GNU/Linux. Florian Schießl, one of the people leading the Munich migration, currently writes: “Wow, Florian Müller’s Blog started just a few days ago. Only a PR campaign, nothing to do with #swpat in real, imho http://is.gd/bm4BA #fail” (and to Rui Seabra he says that “the whole #IBM patent story is just another PR stunt by the “famous” lobbyist Florian Müller.”).

Müller is still at it on more than a daily basis. It’s like a nonstop attack on IBM in a brand new blog (it’s the same in Maureen O’Gara’s ‘blog’ [1, 2] at the moment). To clarify again, Techrights believes that evidence is sufficient to call TurboHercules a “Microsoft proxy” (see this article from Timothy Prickett Morgan), but IBM’s overall attitude towards software patents has always been a problem in general. According to this, “IBM Denies Open Source Sellout” (which is true). This is not about IBM “selling out” but about IBM defending itself from Microsoft attacks; nonetheless, IBM does not help Open Source by promoting software patents. As the president of the FFII showed this morning using an IBM document [PDF], “IBM believes harmonisation should occur along lines which endorse the current practice and case law of the EPO.” For the uninitiated, “harmonisation” is a way of bringing software patents to Europe.

All or at least several of the letters exchanged between IBM and TurboHercules are available from TurboHercules (which may have had something to do with the sensationalised, self-serving leak to Müller). Some of the details there reveal IBM’s pride which it takes in software patents and even its contribution to the guidelines developed by the European Patent Office (EPO).

“As for Microsoft, in a perfect world, someone will in due time bring an complaint against Microsoft for arranging antitrust complaints against its competition.”
      –Pamela Jones, Groklaw
Here is Groklaw’s initial take on the TurboHercules vs IBM case (written in “News Picks” before publishing a whole post): “Here’s my take. First, on the author’s use of arguments about Apple and monopoly markets, the courts already ruled that Apple doesn’t have a monopoly in the relevant market, so that analogy isn’t legally on point. Beyond that, remember when Microsoft said their competitors would be having antitrust issues? Remember when Maureen O’Gara was one of the very first to write about the TurboHercules antitrust threat to IBM, almost a year ago? And now Florian Mueller, who disrupted the Munich switch to Linux and later famously tried to use MySQL’s license as a way to block the Oracle-Sun deal, including them suggesting that the GPL license be tossed overboard in favor of a BSD-like license, now appears in the TurboHercules story, attacking IBM. What might that tell us? The Microsoft gang’s all here? That this is a manufactured anti-trust issue? That if you are a competitor of Microsoft, someone will file an antitrust complaint against you? You think? Here’s TurboHercules’s take on why they filed, so you can have the whole picture. I can’t speak for the entire open source community, just for myself. But if Florian Mueller tells me to go to the right, I’m inclined immediately to look to the left or straight up or down for alternative options. As for Microsoft, in a perfect world, someone will in due time bring an complaint against Microsoft for arranging antitrust complaints against its competition. They should put more energy into creating good products. Then they wouldn’t have to resort to such tactics.

A lot more discussion is going on in IRC (logs available online), but here is the gist of it.

“Müller added a LinkedIn connection to Erika Mann, CCIA’s Executive Vice President and head of CCIA’s European office…”One thing that came up some time between March 22nd and March 29th is that Müller added a LinkedIn connection to Erika Mann, CCIA’s Executive Vice President and head of CCIA’s European office (Microsoft and CCIA work together [1, 2]). That was just before he started to attack IBM like he also attacked Oracle some months ago (along with the GPL). He even created a new blog for this purpose.

We are a little saddened to see that Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols (SJVN) points the finger at what he calls “Linux fans”* (hello, hypocrisy) and blames them for IBM’s PR damage.

That’s not to say that Linux doesn’t have its share of internal battles that don’t do anyone any good. Free software founder Richard M. Stallman’s insistence that Linux should be called GNU/Linux puzzles more people than it does bringing anyone to Linux, or GNU/Linux if you insist. In the last few days though, another Linux family fight has erupted.

This time around, it’s open-source developer and anti-patent political lobbyist Florien Mueller accusing IBM of breaking its promises to the FOSS (free and open-source software) community of not using patents against it. Mueller’s is ticked off that TurboHercules, an open-source z/OS emulator company, over its possible misuse of IBM patents, which includes two that’s covered by IBM’s pledge to not sue open-source companies or groups using these patents.

I have several problems with this. First, as Pamela Jones of Groklaw points out, TurboHercules started the legal fight with IBM and the open-source software license it uses isn’t compatible with the GPL–the license that covers Linux. Second, this is really just a standard-issue business fight that involves patents. It does not, as Mueller would have it, show that “After years of pretending to be a friend of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS), IBM now shows its true colors. IBM breaks the number one taboo of the FOSS community and shamelessly uses its patents against a well-respected FOSS project, the Hercules mainframe emulator.”

There is an old problem here. SJVN must understand that patents are probably the #1 barrier to GNU/Linux adoption, so software patents must go. Here is an excellent article/commentary from Dj Walker-Morgan at The H:

Patents could lead to the mutually assured destruction of the software industry and the parading of pledged patents in the opening of a dispute between IBM and TurboHercules threatens to upset the only progress towards a safer world for open source.

Patents are akin to the missiles of the Cold War. The super powers of the software industry have built up large arsenals of them to give them bargaining power. But if all companies who held patents were to pursue all infringements of their patents at the same time, there would be nothing left of the entire IT industry except the legal departments.

[...]

That said, it is somewhat essential to isolate the overarching problems with patents from the specific problem of the pledged patents. The former is a systemic problem which requires complex negotiation, legal reforms and an industry wide consensus that the problem exists in the first place. The latter though is a specific problem, one that IBM can immediately resolve by saying “Sorry, those two patents were not meant to be there”. That one move would reassure the community. IBM could, possibly, enhance their good reputation in the community by creating a new 2010 patent pledge which puts more of IBM’s near 50,000 strong arsenal of patents “beyond use” against open source software.

The only real solution is to invalidate them all or issue a legal contract that renders them useless. This is not realistic (too Utopian) given that IBM uses its patents to milk competitors and make over $1 billion per year doing almost nothing. IBM is now obliged to do this for shareholders. This is unfortunate because they use patents as a welfare system that mostly funds lawyers and cannot be afforded by most companies in the same arena**. These companies do complain sometimes, so ideally, IBM should let go and not carry on controlling using patents, however quietly.

Here is what Microsoft is up to these days: [via]

In a recent patent filed at the USPTO, Microsoft has sought to bolster its product offerings with an interesting recommendation engine. Inspired by the recommendation algorithm incorporated on websites like YouTube, Microsoft TV’s recommendation engine will recommend TV shows, movies based on user interests as well as the program’s functional value.

This is just a fence. Who would benefit from such a patent except Microsoft? And doesn’t that involve profiling (euphemism for “spying on”) a user’s activity?

Stephen O’Grady has the following take on the subject of IBM:

The case also illustrates what RedMonk analyst Stephen O’Grady calls “the inevitable outcome of software patents: They get used.”

O’Grady is against software patents, “not for ideological reasons, but because it is self-evident to me that there is no reasonable mechanism for evaluating and granting patents,” he told LinuxInsider.

We wrote about O’Grady’s views on software patents in this older post. He is right on target.
_____
* “Linux”, which is the kernel IBM put a lot of money in, is not the whole of Free software.

** IBM could reform the system if it wanted to (IBM’s Kappos runs the USPTO), but that would not be beneficial to IBM’s shareholders. The “indemnification” advantage IBM markets to customers is also a way for IBM to suppress use of GNU/Linux that’s not from IBM (e.g. plain Debian).

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

15 Comments

  1. wallclimber said,

    April 11, 2010 at 11:34 am

    Gravatar

    RE: SJVN

    SVJN is now, and always has been, a fence-sitter. He is almost, but not quite, maybe, sometimes, kind of/sort of, half-heartedly supportive of Free Software…but never without a little jab or two at those who actually take a stand. Meh.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    He really wants GNU/Linux to succeed on the desktop. Trust me, he does. However, he is willing to make concessions (e.g. Flash, software patent deals).

    If GNU/Linux succeeds on proprietary software’s terms, then it’s just another OS X.

    wallclimber Reply:

    “If GNU/Linux succeeds on proprietary software’s terms, then it’s just another OS X.”

    I believe that SJVN would be perfectly okay with that.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    His wife uses a Mac. By the way, I wish Groklaw did more to criticise Apple; it often does the opposite.

    wallclimber Reply:

    Because Groklaw is a blog about the law and technology, I believe that PJ will say plenty when Apple does something illegal. At this point, every rotten thing Apple does mostly hurts itself and its own customers…and makes GNU/Linux look great in comparison. (Hey, what about “Rotten Apples” for a campaign title? :)

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    Someone suggested it, but it sounded a little too aggressive to me.

    Yuhong Bao Reply:

    You said that before, and when you say it, I mention that the entire GUI of OS X is proprietary. That is how proprietary OS X is.

  2. Florian Mueller said,

    April 11, 2010 at 5:09 pm

    Gravatar

    I have responded to this on my blog:
    http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/04/id-rather-discuss-patent-issues-than.html

  3. Dr. Roy Schestowitz said,

    April 12, 2010 at 9:38 am

    Gravatar

    Hi, Florian,

    I have just read your response. Therein, you don’t deny what I wrote (instead you attack straw men, e.g. I didn’t argue that you had not known Erika Mann beforehand). In fact, you dance around the issue just as TH danced around the question about its relationship with Microsoft (which was later made very obvious). Be sure to follow the links and see my explanation of why Microsoft funds CCIA and Black in a very special way; don’t conveniently omit details, please.

    So, Florian, are you in contact with TH and CCIA? You sneakily fail to address this point. Have you been in touch with Carina Oliveri?

    Have a good day.

    Florian Mueller Reply:

    I won’t engage in back-and-forth discussions on this website here, where I only wanted to point out that I have responded on my blog. I will now quickly update my above-mentioned blog post to address these follow-on questions. If there are more questions and I don’t update, then it’s because at some point I’ll believe I can’t be reasonably expected to answer questions that either digress from the original issue or keep going in circles.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    Why are you not willing to engage in a two-way debate/conversation? We can use IRC if you prefer.

    I’ve noticed Hartmut’s argument about CCIA where he refers to 2003-4. Ed Black, CCIA’s chief executive, received $9.75 million in a settlement with Microsoft in November 2004. That makes a huge difference and you know it.

    Report: Microsoft paid CCIA official as part of antitrust settlement

    “The antitrust settlement between Microsoft Corp. and the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) announced earlier this month included a payment of $9.75 million to the CCIA’s president, according to a report published today.

    “Almost half of the $19.75 million total settlement went to Ed Black, who has been the president and CEO of the Washington-based industry organization since 1995, in a deal approved by the CCIA board, according to a report in the Financial Times. The newspaper cited confidential documents in its story.

    “A spokesman from Microsoft declined to comment on the FT report. The CCIA referred questions to Black, who couldn’t be reached. ”

    http://www.tunexp.com/news/windows-story-559.html

    your_friend Reply:

    He won’t respond here because he can’t. His response on his blog is mostly to accuse BN of bad behavior and ignorance while confirming the facts you dug up.

    He first says it was improper to notice he’s a buddy of Erika Mann but then goes on to say he’s been a friend for ever. Muller basically paints Mann as a soccer mom and his contact as trivial and innocent. The contact may be trivial, but Mann occupies a position that netted a predecessor 9 million Microsoft dollars for betraying Samba and FSFE by dropping out of an important EU anti-trust complaint against Microsoft. Muller goes on and on with distracting details about Linkedin and puffs himself up with his 290 contacts but accuses BN of being rude to have published the contact with Mann. Apparently, truth is something he only wants to share with business buddies and we should all be awed by how many of those kinds of people he knows.

    Muller answers the charge of being an anti-IBM attack dog by throwing more mud on IBM.

    He denies CCIA is doing things that benefit Microsoft by saying that Google, Red Hat and IBM are “members” of CCIA. Like the ISO, it’s the corrupting and embarrassing Microsoft membership that’s the problem. The membership of those other companies does little to change the nature of CCIA’s action, it seems, and we might expect most of them to issue statements and perhaps withdraw if any of them cares what a clown like Muller has to say about them or what CCIA does.

    In short, PJ and others quickly got the TH story right and Muller fails to address any of issues raised. TH is not so much a “conspiracy” as it is the latest proxy trick by Microsoft. The involvement of people like Muller and his 290 Linkedin friends only works to prove the point. Muller has proven himself an enemy of free software and a Microsoft promoter many times in the past. He lends as much credibility to things as MoG, Ed Bott and other raving sell outs.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    He still posts about 2 pieces of anti-IBM spin per day, despite the fact that everyone in the “FOSS” world (as in “fosspatents”) has moved on to discussing the MS-LH connection, not IBM’s long-standing love of patents.

    The “no further comment” policy suits PR departments, not a so-called ‘activist’ (lobbyist).

  4. saulgoode said,

    April 13, 2010 at 1:02 pm

    Gravatar

    While it is acceptable to questions people’s motivations for saying what they say, it is no substitute for actually evaluating the validity of what they say. Rob Wier’s criticisms of OOXML are made no less valid because he works for IBM, nor are Miguel de Icaza’s criticism of … well, everything he criticizes, made any less valid because of his motivations to market Microsoft technology (they are invalid because they are invalid :) ).

    If Florian Muller is serving as a proxy for Microsoft in his battle against software patents then Bravo Microsoft! for finally realizing how destructive and illogical software patents are, especially to the Free Software community. Of course, Microsoft has not changed their opinion on software patents, and I seriously doubt that they should wish Mr Muller’s campaign against software patents be in the least bit successful.

    Groklaw’s Miss Jones, regardless of whether her own motivations stem from some alleged association with IBM*, is wrong on several counts:

    1) She claims that TurboHercules requested a license from IBM for z/OS when in fact TH requested that IBM offer licensing to IBM’s z/OS customers that would permit z/OS running on TurboHercules.

    2) She claims that TurboHercules’ complaint to the EU constitutes a lawsuit when in fact it does not.

    3) She equates the EU complaint against IBM’s proprietary z/OS with a lawsuit against an Open Source product.

    4) She presumes her own determination of what constitutes “Open Source” should preempt the judgment of Open Source Initiative.

    5) She suggests that providing a list of applicable patents does not constitute a threat which, while I agree, ignores that the “threat” occurred prior to the list being provided when IBM claimed to have intellectual property which would be infringed by the Hercules software.

    * I don’t believe Miss Jones to be an “IBM shill”, nor do I believe Florian Muller to be a “Microsoft shill” — the point is that the evidence and arguments should presented and analyzed regardless of individual motivations.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    It is worth recalling the T3 case, where Microsoft clearly funds the antitrust complaint.

    Oh, and FWIW, nobody called Florian a “Microsoft shill”. Many companies are involved here and many interests too.

What Else is New


  1. The Sickness of the EPO – Part IV: Cruel Management That Deliberately Attacks the Sick and the Weak

    The dysphoric reality at the European Patent Office, which is becoming like a large cell (with bolted-down windows) where people are controlled by fear and scapegoats are selected to perpetuate this atmosphere of terror and maintain demand (or workload) for the Investigative Stasi



  2. Links 23/2/2017: Qt 5.9 Alpha, First SHA1 Collision

    Links for the day



  3. UPC Roundup: War on the Appeal Boards, British Motion Against the UPC, Fröhlinger Recalled, and Fake News About Spain

    Taking stock of some of the latest attempts to shove the Unitary Patent (UPC) down Europe's throat, courtesy of Team Battistelli and Team UPC



  4. The Sickness of the EPO – Part III: Invalidity and Suicides

    An explanation of what drives a lot of EPO veterans to depression and sometimes even suicide



  5. The Appeal Board (PTAB) and Federal Circuit (CAFC) Maintain Good Pace of Patent Elimination Where Scope Was Exceeded

    The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) continues to accept about 4 out of 5 decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) refuses to intervene



  6. Software Patents Are Ebbing Away, But the “Swamp” Fights Back and Hijacks the Word “Fix”

    The club of patent maximalists, or those who profit from excess prosecution and legal chaos, isn't liking what has happened in the United States and it wants everything reversed



  7. Report From Yesterday's Debate About the European Patent Office (EPO) at the Bavarian Landtag

    A report of the EPO debate which took place at the Bavarian Landtag yesterday (21/2/2017)



  8. Links 22/2/2017: Wine-Staging 2.2, Nautilus 3.24

    Links for the day



  9. French Politician Richard Yung Tells the Government About Abuses at the European Patent Office (EPO)

    The subject of EPO scandals has once again landed in French politics, just a couple of months since it last happened



  10. The Sickness of the EPO – Part II: Background Information and Insights

    With a privatised, in-house (sometimes outsourced and for-profit) force for surveillance, policing, justice, public relations and now medical assessment (mere vassals or marionettes of the management) the EPO serves to show that it has become indistinguishable from North Korea, where the Supreme Leader gets to control every single aspect (absolutely no separation of powers)



  11. EPO Cartoon/Caricature by KrewinkelKrijst

    A new rendition by Dutch cartoonist and illustrator KrewinkelKrijst



  12. Inverting Narratives: IAM 'Magazine' Paints Massive Patent Bully Microsoft (Preying on the Weak) as a Defender of the Powerless

    Selective coverage and deliberate misinterpretation of Microsoft's tactics (patent settlement under threat, disguised as "pre-installation of some of the US company’s software products") as seen in IAM almost every week these days



  13. The Sickness of the EPO – Part I: Motivation for New Series of Articles

    An introduction or prelude to a long series of upcoming posts, whose purpose is to show governance by coercion, pressure, retribution and tribalism rather than professional relationship between human beings at the European Patent Office (EPO)



  14. Insensitivity at the EPO’s Management – Part VII: EPO Hypocrisy on Cancer and Lack of Feedback to and From ECPC

    The European Cancer Patient Coalition (ECPC), which calls itself "the largest European cancer patients' umbrella organisation," fails to fulfill its duties, says a source of ours, and the EPO makes things even worse



  15. Links 21/2/2017: KDE Plasma 5.9.2 in Chakra GNU/Linux, pfSense 2.3.3

    Links for the day



  16. EPO Caricature: Battistelli's Wall

    Battistelli's solution to everything at the EPO is exclusion and barriers



  17. The 'New' Microsoft is Still Acting Like a Dangerous Cult in an Effort to Hijack and/or Undermine All Free/Open Source Software

    In an effort to combat any large deployment of non-Microsoft software, the company goes personal and attempts to overthrow even management that is not receptive to Microsoft's agenda



  18. PTAB Petitioned to Help Against Patent Troll InfoGation Corp., Which Goes After Linux/Android OEMs in China

    A new example of software patents against Free software, or trolls against companies that are distributing freedom-respecting software from a country where these patents are not even potent (they don't exist there)



  19. Links 20/2/2017: Linux 4.10, LineageOS Milestone

    Links for the day



  20. No, Doing Mathematical Operations on a Processor Does Not Make Algorithms Patent-Eligible

    Old and familiar tricks -- a method for tricking examiners into the idea that algorithms are actual machines -- are being peddled by Watchtroll again



  21. Paid-for UPC Proponent, IAM 'Magazine', Debunked on UPC Again

    The impact of the corrupted (by EPO money) media goes further than one might expect and even 'borrows' out-of-date news in order to promote the UPC



  22. Lack of Justice in and Around the EPO Drawing Scrutiny

    The status of the EPO as an entity above the law (in Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland and so on) is becoming the subject of press reports and staff is leaving in large numbers



  23. Links 19/2/2017: GParted 0.28.1, LibreOffice Donations Record

    Links for the day



  24. The EPO is Becoming an Embarrassment to Europe and a Growing Threat to the European Union

    The increasingly pathetic moves by Battistelli and the ever-declining image/status of the EPO (only 0% of polled stakeholders approve Battistelli's management) is causing damage to the reputation of the European Union, even if the EPO is not a European Union organ but an international one



  25. Patent Misconceptions Promoted by the Patent Meta-Industry

    Cherry-picking one's way into the perception of patent eligibility for software and the misguided belief that without patents there will be no innovation



  26. As the United States Shuts Its Door on Low-Quality Patents the Patent Trolls Move to Asia

    Disintegration of Intellectual Ventures (further shrinkage after losing software patents at CAFC), China's massive patent bubble, and Singapore's implicit invitation/facilitation of patent trolls (bubble economy)



  27. Links 17/2/2017: Wine 2.2, New Ubuntu LTS

    Links for the day



  28. Bad Advice From Mintz Levin and Bejin Bieneman PLC Would Have People Believe That Software Patents Are Still Worth Pursuing

    The latest examples of misleading articles which, in spite of the avalanche of software patents in the United States, continue to promote these



  29. Patents Are Not Property, They Are a Monopoly, and They Are Not Owned But Temporarily Granted

    Patent maximalism and distortion of concepts associated with patents tackled again, for terminology is being hijacked by those who turned patents into their "milking cows"



  30. SoftBank Group, New Owner of ARM, Could Potentially Become (in Part) a Patent Troll or an Aggressor Like Qualcomm

    SoftBank grabbed headlines (in the West at least) when it bought ARM, but will it soon grab headlines for going after practicing companies using a bunch of patents that it got from Inventergy, ARM, and beyond?


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