“Business secretary Peter Mandelson is slimed by an environmental protestor outside the Royal Society on Carlton House Terrace, Pall Mall after allegations of ‘favours for friends’ over the Heathrow third runway decision” [Courtesy of "Plane Stupid", via Wikimedia]
Summary: Microsoft continues to offer proof that it is working against public interests and instead assists conglomerates; the company is also accused of contamination/pollution
A few days ago we showed that Gordon Brown was visiting Microsoft, just further confirming Microsoft’s “special relationship” with the British government (this relationship is inter-personal too, so it runs pretty deep).
As people inside the UK are certainly aware (we post links about the subject almost on a daily basis), Peter Mandelson brought to the UK some very atrocious laws shortly after dining with a Hollywood mogul.
Based on this report, Microsoft is sidling with the copyright cartel and against the British public.
The Digital Economy Bill’s passing into law is “a victory for consumer empowerment” according to Neil Thompson, general manager of Microsoft’s Entertainment & Devices Division.
The Digital Economy Bill as a whole is anything but a victory for consumers – it has highlighted serious failings in our Parliamentary process and a pandering to an industry that still lives in the dark ages. We fail to see how Thompson thinks that disconnecting users from the internet for alleged file sharing is a victory for consumers.
Well, that’s just typical Microsoft.
Speaking of harm to the public, Microsoft is also being knocked for harming the environment.
Microsoft was removed from the NASDAQ Global Sustainability Index (QCRD) on October 31, 2009 due to a failure to disclose at least two out of five quantitative environmental metrics that adhere to the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) G3 guidelines. Two other NASDAQ listed companies were removed (Cisco and Oracle) for similarly inadequate disclosure. Microsoft’s removal appears to conflict with the company’s stated mission, marketing and new product lines which focus heavily on improving other large corporations’ environmental footprints through technological improvements, better energy management and overall reductions in energy usage and GHG emissions. So shouldn’t Microsoft be leading the pack in stellar reporting and disclosure themselves to set the right example?
Here are some related posts on the subject:
- Real Environment Activists Don’t Use Windows
- Bingeing with Microsoft and Ruining the Environment
- Microsoft Demoted in IT Leaders League, Ranked Second-Worst Polluter/Environmental Hazard
- Gates Foundation Denies Global Warming and Strives for Global Domination
Greenpeace keeps slamming Microsoft for only pretending to do good for the environment. █
Send this to a friend
Photo by Mara
Summary: News from three continents about patent policy: Microsoft’s “revolving door” European Commission officials; New Zealand’s AJ Park looking for tax on software; Algebraix Data brags about its software patents
EVERY ONCE in a while we highlight developments that impact patent policy. In this roundup, Microsoft is involved too (it typically uses front groups to hide its role) and Free software is directly impacted.
We have written quite a lot about David Hammerstein in recent months [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. As a former member of parliament, he helps expose Microsoft’s maneuvers behind closed doors in Brussels. Here is his latest: [via André]
Open Standards under siege in the European Union
Nevertheless, openness still seems to be considered a dirty word in a number of official corridors of Brussels that are probably under the well-organized lobbying efforts of the Microsoft empire (according to some malicious rumours difficult to believe the campaign is being promoted by “revolving door” European Commission officials who returned to public service after a number of years of “leave” on the Microsoft payroll). According to many observers this US IT giant is trying to counter-attack after taking heavy blows and fines precisely from the new Digital Commissioner Nelly Kroes who previously held the post of the EU’s competition czar.
If this EU programme was put into practice a number of major IT companies would have a harder time at locking out new innovative competitors and millions of internet users would have a much easier time at communicating without technical barriers. EU citizens would for the first time be able to participate in European democratic institutions without being forced to purchase one particular closed brand of software in order to exchange information with their elected representatives.
The final “EU Digital Agenda” will be presented at the end of April and the latest news is that the openness agenda is losing the battle within the European Commission while a few narrow business interests are taking the upper hand. If it were published today the term “open standards” would be totally erased from the whole document. In this important fight the positions of the general public interest have hardly been taken into account. Voices in favour of open standards and interoperability urgently need to be heard in Brussels.
For information about EIFv2, see:
- European Interoperability Framework (EIF) Corrupted by Microsoft et al, Its Lobbyists
- Orwellian EIF, Fake Open Source, and Security Implications
- No Sense of Shame Left at Microsoft
- Lobbying Leads to Protest — the FFII and the FSFE Rise in Opposition to Subverted EIF
- IBM and Open Forum Europe Address European Interoperability Framework (EIF) Fiasco
- EIF Scrutinised, ODF Evolves, and Microsoft’s OOXML “Lies” Lead to Backlash from Danish Standards Committee
- Complaints About Perverted EIF Continue to Pile Up
- More Complaints About EIFv2 Abuse and Free Software FUD from General Electric (GE)
- Patents Roundup: Copyrighted SQL Queries, Microsoft Alliance with Company That Attacks F/OSS with Software Patents, Peer-to-Patent in Australia
- Microsoft Under Fire: Open Source Software Thematic Group Complains About EIFv2 Subversion, NHS Software Supplier Under Criminal Investigation
- British MEP Responds to Microsoft Lobby Against EIFv2; Microsoft’s Visible Technologies Infiltrates/Derails Forums Too
- Patents Roundup: Escalations in Europe, SAP Pretense, CCIA Goes Wrong, and IETF Opens Up
- Patents Roundup: Several Defeats for Bad Types of Patents, Apple Risks Embargo, and Microsoft Lobbies Europe Intensely
- Europeans Asked to Stop Microsoft’s Subversion of EIFv2 (European Interoperability Framework Version 2)
- Former Member of European Parliament Describes Microsoft “Coup in Process” in the European Commission
- Microsoft’s Battle to Consume — Not Obliterate — Open Source
Over in New Zealand, leeches of the software development community are fighting to allow software patenting [1, 2, 3] and the following short new report continues to name Peter Harrison as instrumental in opposition to all of this.
New Zealand Open Source Society is seeking powerful interests for pressurizing the government to turn around its plans of excluding software from patent protection reforms in the country.
Posting his views on NZOSS website, yesterday, Vice President Peter Harrison appreciated the Commerce Select Committee’s advice of exclusion of software from patent protection, thereby countering the views of the critics.
He pointed out the criticism made by Ken Moon of intellectual property specialist AJ Park, arguing that the requirements for resourcefulness in the functionality of patent law are the same as for any other innovation.
We wrote about AJ Park yesterday. It’s just a law firm trying to take money away from actual producers. The “patents industry” is even less useful than the “marketing industry”; it contributes next to nothing. Issues like the “penal industry” clearly show that industries can grow where they shouldn’t.
As the article above correctly adds, even proprietary software companies would support the exclusion of software patents, unless they are monopolies. Patents harm small businesses, so it’s not just an issue affecting Free software (contrary to common belief).
Justice Stevens is leaving the Supreme Court of the United States and as Timothy B. Lee (who has just been hired by Google) puts it, Stevens was an opponent of software patents.
Patents: The explosion of software patents is one of the biggest threats to innovation in the software industry, and Justice Stevens saw this threat coming almost three decades ago. Stevens wrote the majority decision in the 1978 case of Parker v. Flook, which clearly disallowed patents in the software industry. Three years later, Stevens dissented in the 1981 case of Diamond v. Diehr, which allowed a patent on a software-controlled rubber-curing machine. Although the majority decision didn’t explicitly permit patents on software, Stevens warned that the majority’s muddled decision would effectively open the door to software patents. And he has been proven right. In the three decades that followed, the patent-friendly U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has effectively dismantled limits on software patents. And the result has been a disaster, with high-tech firms being forced to spend large sums on litigation rather than innovation.
From ZDNet we learn that a San Diego-based company called Algebraix Data is patenting maths (data manipulation, i.e. strings, matrices, and hashing) in the form of algorithms.
I met with Charles Silver, the CEO of Algebraix Data, a startup based in San Diego. He was telling me about his company’s approach to querying large databases, very quickly, and with no need for prior indexing, or construction of data models.
It all sounded too good to be true, I told him.
If Algebraix can do what it says it can, it is a very hot startup.
Here are some notes from our conversation:
- We have four patents on the technology. Getting software patents is not as easy as it once used to be.
Well, apparently it’s not difficult enough. What is the physical invention here? █
Send this to a friend
Summary: What India is teaching us about the impact of patents that increase wealth (in the West) rather than reduce mortality as a matter of priority
IT HAS been a long time since we last explained the fundamental problem with pharmaceutical patents [1, 2]. The following item from the news (some context here) led to the following remark from Mike Masnick:
However, Jamie Love points us to the news of a new report that found that the Indian patent office has gone against this law and issued such patents quite frequently and, no surprise, the main recipients are among the world’s largest pharma companies, including Pfizer, Novartis and Eli Lilly. Is it any wonder that they’ve all been pushing to dump sections 3(d) and (e) all along? Remember, pharma patents are not about drug discovery, but about jacking up the prices on drugs.
When it comes to pharmaceutical patents, life is at stake (there is Novartis for example [1, 2, 3, 4]). A lot of disinformation is being spread to teach the public that there is no better way. █
Send this to a friend
Summary: Novell’s promotion of its own competitor (Windows) is noted
“ZENworks can help put you and your Windows 7 migration and management at peace,” says Novell. Is Novell promoting Vista 7 along with ZENworks? Either way, ZENworks Configuration Management 10.3a is out.
Here is the ZENworks Configuration Management SP3 (10.3) – update information and list of fixes
For a couple of years we have shown that Novell was promoting migrations to Windows Vista too. A lot of Novell’s software targets Windows, so perhaps it cannot be blamed on bias, but still, why be promotional about it? As this video which has just been uploaded ought to show, Novell and Microsoft are inseparable in many ways. They also deceive the public without qualm. █
Send this to a friend