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

05.07.10

Microsoft Extorts GNU/Linux While Distorting the Meaning of “Open Source”

Posted in Boycott Novell, Deception, Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Novell, Windows at 5:45 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Extorting and Distorting

Summary: A look at how Microsoft discriminates against anything other than its own stack and also uses aggressive coercion to get its way and change people’s language/perception

IN our coverage of the Microsoft patent attack on Android we have not yet given Google’s response and the response of the Linux Foundation. Well, here they are:

Google at this time simply said “no comment” on Microsoft’s efforts to profit from their Android spin on Linux. But then Jim Zemlin, executive director of The Linux Foundation, explained about this Microsoft action, “This is a classic from the Microsoft FUD playbook. A confidential agreement where few terms are disclosed, vaguely referring to an operating system that is beating Microsoft in the market. Microsoft is once again demonstrating that it will attempt to use patents to muddy the waters about the viability of any competitive platform in order to maintain its Windows franchise. Unfortunately for Microsoft, Linux is clearly leading in the mobile space and developers will see this news for what it is and choose to innovation open platforms as opposed to developing on locked-down operating systems from patent-wielding dinosaurs.”

Microsoft is clearly not interested in co-existence. It wants to dominate both sides using racketeering [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7] and ridiculous laws which it lobbies for.

Microsoft is currently pretending to have embraced “Open Source” but what it never emphasises is that all this “Open Source” is supposed to depend on and rely on Microsoft’s proprietary software. When it comes to Linux patches, Microsoft is just advancing Windows and Hyper-V, which are proprietary. Here is the latest spin from Microsoft, which gets parroted by a Microsoft MVP’s blog:

In March, Microsoft announced the beta release of the Linux Integration Services for Microsoft Hyper-V, which added support for SMP-based virtual machines, timesync, and integrated shutdown. Today we’re announcing the release candidate (RC) version of the integration services.

Integrating Microsoft into Linux? So that it is treated as just an addon to Windows? How telling.

In recent months we have given several examples such as this one where Microsoft dresses up its biology-related projects as “open”, “open source”, or “open-source” (which should be pronounced “open minus source”). Here is another new example of this deception which is important to spot and report. It’s disrupting the meaning of the term “Open Source”, which only works well for Microsoft. Here is another new example:

Assimilate Technology announced today the release of the first official beta of their VersaFix open source FIX engine for the .NET platform.

What an apt name: Assimilate Technology! That’s exactly what Microsoft has been trying to do to “Open Source” ever since it realised that the “Shared-Source” label didn’t do enough to corrupt existing labels like “Open Source”. Microsoft now has Codeplex to serve as a front.

Last week we wrote about what the Joomla! deal really was about (we also found out about Eucalyptus for Windows) and The 451 Group — occasionally a Microsoft apologistwrote about this too. The headline says “Why rejecting Microsoft’s OSS contributions is counter-productive” (we do not agree with this).

The post says:

And no, Microsoft hasn’t released a major product as open source. Neither had IBM when it started supporting Apache. Holding Microsoft to a different set of expectations is being deliberately difficult – discriminatory in fact.

This may sound like a terrible, terrible comparison, but on it goes to clarify: “But doesn’t Microsoft deserve to be discriminated against? Certainly there are good reasons to mistrust Microsoft, but in this instance Microsoft has signed the Joomla! Contributor Agreement, which means it is contributing directly to the Joomla! project using the project’s chosen license (the GPL) and procedures. It didn’t have to do this. The Microsoft of old would sooner have forked the project – or more likely created a competing product based on .NET.”

No. Microsoft is exploiting Joomla! to help sell Windows and other proprietary software like IIS. It’s about fighting against GNU/Linux and using money to achieve goals at the expense of people’s spirit. The 451 Group later adds some balance by stating: “On the negative side it [Microsoft] also took a step backwards when it signed a patent agreement with HTC covering HTC’s mobile phones running Android.

“To be more specific it wasn’t necessarily the signing of the patent deal that was a negative step (we’ll leave the more general discussion of software patents to another post) but the fact that the company once again chose to highlight the fact that the patent agreement related to open source software without providing any details.

“Just as we saw in the announcement of a previous agreement with Amazon, open source software takes center stage, and yet we have no way of knowing if the focus placed on open source software in the announcement is proportionate to the focus placed on open source software in the agreement.

“This is clearly potentially damaging for open source, but it is also potentially damaging for Microsoft as it tries to encourage more open source developers and users to move to its platforms. And make no mistake, Microsoft is aware that it needs more open source developers to move to its platforms if they are to continue to be seen as platforms for innovation.

“That is why we noted in July last year that “in order to convince those FOSS advocates that it is serious about co-existence, Microsoft needs to find a way to publicly communicate details about those 200+ patents in such a way that is not seen as a threat and would enable open source developers to license, work around, or challenge them.””

“Microsoft is aware that it needs more open source developers to move to its platforms if they are to continue to be seen as platforms for innovation.”
      –451 Group blog
Microsoft, in short, is killing with kindness and back-stabbing. Jim Allchin, Microsoft’s former Platform Group Vice President, put it best when he wrote: “We need to slaughter Novell before they get stronger….If you’re going to kill someone, there isn’t much reason to get all worked up about it and angry. You just pull the trigger. Any discussions beforehand are a waste of time. We need to smile at Novell while we pull the trigger.”

To be fair, Microsoft is not the only company which is corrupting the term “Open Source”. We have given many other examples and this week we found several articles about “R”, which leads to wrong characterisations of “Open Source”. One reader wrote to us last night to say:

I’m seeing a great many articles assisting Microsoft in its attempt to re-define Open Source as closed source by using name calling.

The Reg went over to Microsoft years ago, but still tries now and again to pose as a tech rag. How is the Open Source Initiative and its new leadership planning to strengthen or raise the profile of the original definitions as set out by FSF and OSI?

The “Open Source” people and the “Free software” proponents (there is a lot of overlap there already) ought to unite and join forces not against one another; they ought to stop their real problem, which is companies that fake “Open Source” with all sorts of buzzwords like “Open Core”, Mixed Source” (that’s what Novell calls it), “Open Source with software patents and proprietary stack” (that’s Microsoft), and “Open Source somewhere on a server out there” (that’s Google for example).

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

A Single Comment

  1. Needs Sunlight said,

    May 7, 2010 at 6:46 am

    Gravatar

    M$ is never going to play nice, nor are any of the shysters frauds or useful idiots promoting M$. The sooner high profile people admit this the less time we’ll waste, the less money we’ll waste, and the more jobs we’ll save.

What Else is New


  1. Links 16/11/2018: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 Beta, Mesa 18.2.5, VirtualBox 6.0 Beta 2

    Links for the day



  2. Berkheimer or No Berkheimer, Software Patents Remain Mostly Unenforceable in the United States and the Supreme Court is Fine With That

    35 U.S.C. § 101, which is based on cases like Alice and Mayo, offers the 'perfect storm' against software patents; it doesn't look like any of that will change any time soon (if ever)



  3. Ignoring and Bashing Courts: Is This the Future of Patent Offices in the West?

    Andrei Iancu, who is trying to water down 35 U.S.C. § 101 while Trump ‘waters down’ SCOTUS (which delivered Alice), isn’t alone; António Campinos, the new President of the EPO, is constantly promoting software patents (which European courts reject, citing the EPC) and even Australia’s litigation ‘industry’ is dissenting against Australian courts that stubbornly reject software patents



  4. Patent Maximalists Are Still Trying to Figure Out How to Stop PTAB or Prevent US Patent Quality From Ever Improving

    Improvements are being made to US patents because of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which amends/culls/pro-actively rejects (at application phases) bad patents; but the likes of Andrei Iancu cannot stand that because they're patent maximalists, who personally gain from an over-saturation of patents



  5. Links 15/11/2018: Zentyal 6.0, Deepin 15.8, Thunderbird Project Hiring

    Links for the day



  6. A Question of Debt: António Campinos, Lexology, Law Gazette, and Sam Gyimah

    Ineptitude in the media which dominates if not monopolises UPC coverage means that laws detrimental to everyone but patent lawyers are nowadays being pushed even by ministers (not just those whose clandestine vote is used/bought to steal democracy overnight)



  7. Science Minister Sam Gyimah and the EPO Are Eager to Attack Science by Bringing Patent Trolls to Europe/European Union and the United Kingdom

    Team UPC has managed to indoctrinate or hijack key positions, causing those whose job is to promote science to actually promote patent trolls and litigation (suppressing science rather than advancing it)



  8. USF Revisits EPO Abuses, Highlighting an Urgent Need for Action

    “Staff Representation Disciplinary Cases” — a message circulated at the end of last week — reveals the persistence of union-busting agenda and injustice at the EPO



  9. Links 14/11/2018: KDevelop 5.3, Omarine 5.3, Canonical Not for Sale

    Links for the day



  10. Second Day of EPOPIC: Yet More Promotion of Software Patents in Europe in Defiance of Courts, EPC, Parliament and Common Sense

    Using bogus interpretations of the EPC — ones that courts have repeatedly rejected — the EPO continues to grant bogus/fake/bunk patents on abstract ideas, then justifies that practice (when the audience comes from the litigation ‘industry’)



  11. Allegations That António Campinos 'Bought' His Presidency and is Still Paying for it

    Rumours persist that after Battistelli had rigged the election in favour of his compatriot nefarious things related to that were still visible



  12. WIPO Corruption and Coverup Mirror EPO Tactics

    Suppression of staff representatives and whistleblowers carries on at WIPO and the EPO; people who speak out about abuses are themselves being treated like abusers



  13. Links 13/11/2018: HPC Domination (Top 500 All GNU/Linux) and OpenStack News

    Links for the day



  14. The USPTO and EPO Pretend to Care About Patent Quality by Mingling With the Terms “Patent” and “Quality”

    The whole "patent quality" propaganda from EPO and USPTO management continues unabated; they strive to maintain the fiction that quality rather than money is their prime motivator



  15. Yannis Skulikaris Promotes Software Patents at EPOPIC, Defending the Questionable Practice Under António Campinos

    The reckless advocacy for abstract patents on mere algorithms from a new and less familiar face; the EPO is definitely eager to grant software patents and it explains to stakeholders how to do it



  16. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is Working for Patent Trolls and Patent Maximalists

    The patent trolls' propagandists are joining forces and pushing for a patent system that is hostile to science, technology, and innovation in general (so as to enable a bunch of aggressive law firms to tax everybody)



  17. Team UPC, Fronting for Patent Trolls From the US, is Calling Facts “Resistance”

    The tactics of Team UPC have gotten so tastelessly bad and its motivation so shallow (extortion in Europe) that one begins to wonder why these people are willing to tarnish everything that's left of their reputation



  18. The Federal Circuit Bar Association (FCBA) Will Spread the Berkheimer Lie While Legal Certainty Associated With Patents Remains Low and Few Lawsuits Filed

    New figures regarding patent litigation in the United States (number of lawsuits) show a decrease by about a tenth in just one year; there's still no sign of software patents making any kind of return/rebound in the United States, contrary to lies told by the litigation 'industry' (those who profit from frivolous lawsuits/threats)



  19. Links 12/11/2018: Linux 4.20 RC2, Denuvo DRM Defeated Again

    Links for the day



  20. Automation of Searches Will Not Solve the Legitimacy Problem Caused by Patents Lust

    The false belief that better searches and so-called 'AI' can miraculously assess patents will simply drive/motivate bad decisions and already steers bad management towards patent maximalism (presumption of examination/validation where none actually exists)



  21. The Federal Circuit and PTAB Are Not Slowing Down; Patent Maximalists Claim It's 'Harassment' to Question a Patent's Validity

    There’s no sign of stopping when it comes to harassment of judges and courts; those who make a living from patent threats and litigation do anything conceivable to stop the ‘bloodbath’ of US patents which were never supposed to have been granted in the first place



  22. Patent Maximalists Will Latch Onto Return Mail v US Postal Service in an Effort to Weaken or Limit Post-Grant Reviews of US Patents

    An upcoming case, dealing with what governments can and cannot do with/to patents (specifically the US government and US patents), interests the litigation 'industry' because it loathes reviews of low-quality and/or controversial patents (these reviews discourage litigation or stop lawsuits early on in the cycle)



  23. Guest Post: EPO Spins Censorship of Staff Representation

    Another concrete example of Campinos' cynical story-telling



  24. Andrei Iancu and Laura Peter Are Two Proponents of Patent Trolls at the Top of the USPTO

    Patent offices do not seem to care about the law, about the courts, about judges and so on; all they care about is money (and litigation costs) and that’s a very major problem



  25. The Patent 'Industry' Wants Incitations and Feuds, Not Innovation and Collaboration

    The litigation giants and their drones keep insisting that they're interested in helping scientists; but sooner or later the real (productive) industry learns to kick them to the curb and work together instead of suing



  26. EPO 'Outsourcing' Rumours

    The EPO advertises jobs in Prague and Lisbon; this leads to speculations less than a year after António Campinos sent EU-IPO jobs to India (for cost reduction)



  27. Links 11/11/2018: Bison 3.2.1 and FreeBSD 12.0 Beta 4

    Links for the day



  28. Pro-Litigation Front Groups Like CIPA and Team UPC Control the EPO, Which Shamelessly Grants Software Patents

    With buzzwords and hype like "insurtech", "fintech", "blockchains" and "AI" the EPO (and to some degree the USPTO as well) looks to allow a very wide range of software patents; the sole goal is to grant millions of low-quality patents, creating unnecessary litigation in Europe



  29. Latest Loophole: To Get Software Patents From the EPO One Can Just Claim That They're 'on a Car'

    The EPO has a new 'study' (accompanied by an extensive media/PR campaign) that paints software as "SDV" if it runs on a car, celebrating growth of such software patents



  30. The Huge Cost of Wrongly-Granted European Patents, Recklessly Granted by the European Patent Office (EPO)

    It took 4 years for many thousands of people to have just one patent of Monsanto/Bayer revoked; what does that say about the impact of erroneous patent awards?


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