05.26.10
Posted in America, Boycott Novell, Europe, LG, Patents, Samsung at 5:47 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
It gets harder to escape patents on DNA
Summary: Proposed solutions, impending cases, and another new case where patents go so terribly wrong that even people needlessly die
TODAY we look at 3 types of news from the past 3 days or so. Software patents are being covered too, but everyone is still waiting for In Re Bilski to be concluded.
USPTO and Patent Conundrums
Today (May 26th), the USPTO has this workshop which is intended to “explore the intersection of patent policy and competition policy”. How about tackling the problem of patent pools, which make up thickets and abusive cartels?
Three separate companies are steadily recruiting intellectual property holders into patent pools for LTE (Long-Term Evolution) technology, initiatives intended to get more manufacturers building gear for the fast network.
Patent pools are only suitable for large companies — those that exclude new entrants. The only small entities to benefit from this system are the NPEs (trolls). Samsung and LG, the two Korean giants which pay Microsoft for Linux, are complaining about patent trolls right now.
Representatives say South Korean electronics makers are becoming targets from “patent trolls” as increased competition between manufacturers makes room to seek more money in legal suits.
Did Microsoft, which Salesforce’s CEO Benioff compares to a patent troll, sign those Linux patent deals with Samsung and LG only after threats of litigation? We might never know.
In Re Bilski
Brad Feld writes about “innovating against software patents” and receives support from Groklaw.
Last week, Microsoft sued Salesforce.com claiming infringement of 9 software patents. This comes shortly after Nokia sued Apple who sued Nokia over software patents, and after Apple sued HTC who sued Apple over software patents.
As an example of the ridiculous nature of software patents, Microsoft’s claims cover user interface features, including a “system and method for providing and displaying a Web page having an embedded menu” and a “method and system for stacking toolbars in a computer display.”
This explosion of litigation based on the patenting of software cannot be brushed-off as large corporations doing what they do, as almost every start-up software company is at some point being shaken down by software patent holders. It’s a massive tax on and retardant of innovation.
From Pamela Jones:
I have a request from End Software Patents’ Ciarán O’Riordan. He’d like your help.
He says VC good guy Brad Feld is interested in in mailing out copies of the film Patent Absurdity (Full title: Patent Absurdity: How software patents broke the system) to 200 people — politicians, influential people in companies, policy setters at standards groups, and whoever will be influential in the debate the breaks out post-Bilski — and he’d like to have some help from you coming up with a list of who best to send to.
This system in the United States (USPTO) needs a change and it needs it urgently. Glyn Moody writes about the German ruling on software patents [1, 2, 3, 4] and points out that “some argue there were similar ones in early 90s” (so maybe it’s not as bad as some people imagined). It is mostly the USPTO which ‘exports’ those bad laws to the rest of the world. The problem ought to be squashed in the US and in Japan.
Patents on Life
Red Hat’s new Web site writes about how the GPL can inspire a solution to the increasingly-serious injustice which is patenting of living things [1, 2].
The Economist is right on top of the story of the first fully synthetic life-form. For those of you who may have missed the announcement last week, Craig Venter and Hamilton Smith, the two American biologists who unravelled the first DNA sequence of a living organism (a bacterium) in 1995, have pushed the envelope again, demonstrating the first successful boot-up of a synthetic bacterium. Editors at the Economist argue that the only sensible way to protect ourselves from such creations is to require that the DNA sequences be open source. It is a profound insight.
[...]
But now he’s back, and he’s built the one thing that sits as an exception to the Gene Patent exclusions: a wholly synthetic lifeform. Does Ventner really want to advance science (which he has done), or is he searching, like Charles Muntz, villain of the PIXAR movie UP, for his ultimate, exclusive patent on life?
What happens when patent law kills patients? [via]
When a child dies of brain disease at Children’s Hospital of Orange County, Philip H. Schwartz meets with the parents, explains his research and asks them to donate their child’s brain to his quest for a cure.
“These are not easy conversations to have,” he said. “There are expectations by parents that if they allow us to do that to their child, it will serve a useful purpose.”
But for three years, the cells derived from many of those children’s brains have been suspended in limbo, frozen in Thermos bottles. The nonprofit Southern California hospital has shut down the research, intimidated by a patent claim from the Palo Alto biotech company StemCells. The company’s co-founder is esteemed Stanford stem cell scientist Dr. Irving Weissman, one of the world’s most passionate advocates for giving scientists access to a field entangled by politics, ethics — and now money.
Against Monopoly asks, “Who Owns You?” █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Apple, Google, Microsoft at 5:17 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
“Advertising is far from impotent or harmless; it is not a mere mirror image. Its power is real, and on the brink of a great increase. Not the power to brainwash overnight, but the power to create subtle and real change. The power to prevail.”
–Eric Clark
Summary: Now that the AdMob acquisition is approved, Tricia Duryee says that “Microsoft won’t have a chance to buy the largest mobile advertising network”
Google has been fighting to gain more control with the AdMob deal and this fight pays off at the end as barriers are dropped [1, 2, 3] and Google is expected to swallow another company.
According to the FTC’s statement, evidence gathered by the agency raised important questions about the transaction. Google and AdMob have competed head-to-head for the past few years, with a notable increase in intensity during the past year. This competition has spurred innovation and allowed mobile publishers to keep a large share of the revenue generated from the sale of their ad space. The companies also have economies of scale that give them a major advantage over smaller rivals in the business, the statement says.
These concerns, however, were outweighed by recent evidence that Apple is poised to become a strong competitor in the mobile advertising market, the FTC’s statement says. Apple recently acquired Quattro Wireless and used it to launch its own iAd service. In addition, Apple can leverage its close relationships with application developers and users, its access to a large amount of proprietary user data, and its ownership of iPhone software development tools and control over the iPhone developers’ license agreement.
Worth paying attention to is the “proprietary user data” which Apple is mentioned for. Here is the response from the American Antitrust Institute (AAI):
The Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) decision not to challenge Google’s acquisition of AdMob is understandable given the nascent and changing nature of the mobile advertising market and Apple’s emergence as a likely formidable competitor in this market. The American Antitrust Institute (AAI) agrees with the FTC’s conclusion that, particularly as a result of Apple’s recent actions, current market shares are unlikely to be an accurate predictor of future market shares or whether the Google/AdMob combination will be able to exercise market power. Indeed, press reports indicate that Apple’s licensing agreements with iPhone application developers may prevent developers from using competing mobile ad networks.
One Microsoft blog characterises this as a preparation for competition between Google (Android/Linux) and Apple (hypePhone). Tricia Duryee says that it “paves way for Microsoft to make a move in mobile advertising”:
There’s one thing for sure now: Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT) won’t have a chance to buy the largest mobile advertising network now that Google (NSDQ: GOOG) has received approval to go-ahead with its $750 million acquisition of AdMob.
We already understand how Google harms Microsoft’s monopoly and there is suspicion that Google and Apple might replace Microsoft one day.
Google landed some big hits against Apple yesterday at their I/O developer conference. Reading through the narrative coverage, you’d think they were the only two companies that matter, which leads me to ask, whatever happened to Microsoft?
Apple and Microsoft are in turn threatening with software patents, which are the biggest threat to software freedom. Google’s threat to freedom is different in nature. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Fork, GNU/Linux, Mono, Novell, OpenSUSE, Oracle, SUN at 4:58 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Assuming that Novell’s buyer will only care about immediate profit, the OpenSUSE community should start considering independent life outside Novell
Reuters has been the leading source so far when it comes to Novell acquisition news. It reported the number of bidders and about 3 months ago it also broke the news about Elliot. Novell is still up for sale and another new article from Reuters reveals a possible parallel. “It’s picking the Sun technologies that are commercializable and focusing on those,” said Larry Ellison, “and ignoring those that are not. They are just science projects.”
“It’s picking the Sun technologies that are commercializable and focusing on those and ignoring those that are not.”
–Larry Ellison, OracleThis leads to the question, would Novell’s buyer be committed to the Free software projects inside the company? Oracle has already suppressed or shut down some Free software projects that Sun created and/or maintained. The same can happen to Novell when it gets bought. So regardless of raves about Novell’s proprietary software, it is time to think what would happen to Mono, Moonlight, and OpenSUSE. SLES and RHEL are quite swappable, so there is no risk for GNU/Linux as a whole, but what about OpenSUSE?
Novell’s Markus Rex speaks about the mainframes this week, but there is no risk there because Red Hat would be better off kicking Novell (with Microsoft tax) out of those IBM mainframes anyway.
The big question is, should OpenSUSE volunteers already begin forking OpenSUSE (there was at least one major derivative before)? OpenSUSE is owned and controlled by Novell, which also owns the trademark. A few days ago we stressed this point and expanded on it. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Apple, Free/Libre Software, Microsoft, Patents at 4:31 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
“Based on years of conversations, I am convinced that part of the cause of the problem is the tendency to call the system Linux rather than GNU, and describe it as open source rather than free software.”
–Richard Stallman
Summary: MPEG-LA/H.264, Apple, and Microsoft appear to be the only prominent opponents of WebM/VP8; The OSI explains why Google needs to refine the licence
PERHAPS we congratulated Google a little prematurely [1, 2]. There are improvements to be made to Google’s unusual licence, but first, let’s look at the good sides of VP8.
Joe Brockmeier is optimistic about Google’s WebM, Adobe added support for VP8 and Moovida’s support of VP8 is mentioned by Martin Kaba, not to mention Opera’s support (Opera was also a major backer of Ogg).
Looking for a media player to playback your videos converted to open WebM with Miro Video Converter, then grab Moovida media player. Open Source Moovida media player formerly known as Elisa is one of the first media players to boast support of the open source VP8 codec.
There is already fairly widespread support for VP8.
A browser that supports WebM content isn’t much use if there’s no WebM content to play, and Google has that covered too. Anyone opting into YouTube’s HTML5 front-end will be able to use WebM for video playback by appending “&webm=1″ to the URL.
The exceptions, as expected, are Apple and Microsoft, not to mention MPEG-LA. IDG puts it like this:
Google faces off against Microsoft, Apple over Web video standard
[...]
“We now have a great format for video,” added Hakon Wium Lie, Opera’s chief technology officer. “We all have video cameras in our pockets. Let’s use them, let’s back WebM.”
“Microsoft tepid in its support for Google’s WebM video plan,” say Microsoft bloggers as Microsoft promotes H.264 and other problematic codecs.
I’ve been using Real Alternative for years. It works well and is 100% transparent, that is, it doesn’t bug you about anything, ever. It just registers itself as a DirectShow filter (Microsoft-speak for a codec) and with your browsers, then decodes virtually any Real Media file ever created. It’s good enough that I haven’t even considered installing RealPlayer in years.
From South Africa we have:
Unsurprisingly, Apple and Microsoft are among the companies licensing the use of H.264, so stand to make money, and lots of it if the format is widely adopted.
The only other competitor to H.264, until a couple of days ago, was Theora, an open source format favoured by Mozilla, Google and Opera. But the chances of Theora succeeding have always seemed very slim, particularly as Jobs has already made it clear that Apple was looking at hitting Theora hard with patent suits.
Apple and Microsoft have also made it very clear that they wouldn’t be supporting Theora in their future browser releases.
Other competitors of VP8 are spreading FUD, some of which is worth attention. There is another new comparison between VP8 and H.264:
VP8 is now free, but if the quality is substandard, who cares? Well, it turns out that the quality isn’t substandard, so that’s not an issue, but neither is it twice the quality of H.264 at half the bandwidth. See for yourself, below.
To set the table, Sorenson Media was kind enough to encode these comparison files for me to both H.264 and VP8 using their Squish encoding tool. They encoded a standard SD encoding test file that I’ve been using for years. I’ll do more testing once I have access to a VP8 encoder, but wanted to share these quick and dirty results.
Diego’s latest rant is actually not much of a rant. He addresses the alleged FUD that’s mentioned above.
Now, Dark Shikari of x264 fame dissected the codec and in part the file format; his words are – not unexpectedly, especially for those who know him – quite harsh, but as Mike put it “This open sourcing event has legs.”
Perhaps the only real disappointment is that VP8/WebM is not Open Source, according to Michael Tiemann (OSI). Was it too good to be true?
This note from Apple was like a rabid dog barking at the pound, for it seemed to set off a flurry of patent-rattling from all corners, with Microsoft quickly claiming that Salesforce.com infringed nine of their patents, Nokia claiming that Apple infringed 5 more of its patents, HTC getting into the fray, etc.
And then along comes Google. And instead of piling on to this patent suit scrum, they offer immunity instead. Which is astonishing.
I have to give some props to the FSF for asking for precisely what Google seems to have decided to do. They wrote an open letter asking Google to free VP8 and use it on YouTube. The bigger part of that decision now seems to have been effected. Which, to use the FSF’s own adjective, is amazing. And cause for both gratitude and celebration.
And of course this is not the end of the story, but the beginning. The license Google wrote for VP8 smacks of OSD goodness, but it has not yet been submitted to the OSI for approval. Should the OSI approve yet another license? Should the OSI treat a patent grant attached to a license we’ve already approved as two separate items, a patent grant (which is great) and a license we’ve already approved? Clearly Google is trying to do the right thing. We are trying to do the right thing. What remains to be seen is whether the H.264 are going to do the right thing and offer all their patents as required by the Open Standards Requirements (OSR) or whether Apple will do the right thing and defend, rather than attack, the open source community and its right to enjoy watching a movie on the laptop of their choice.
Simon Phipps (OSI) also has a problem with that licence and in IDG he writes:
The announcement last week at Google IO of the creation of the WebM project and the release of the VP8 codec was a positive and welcome development, finally offering an alternative for online media to the royalty-liable H.264 and to Theora. WebM arises from Google’s purchase of ON2 last year and had been widely anticipated
Google did their homework, securing endorsements from competing browser vendors Opera and Mozilla and even from Adobe (possibly in exchange for Google’s endorsement of Flash on their TV platform) and, weakly, from Microsoft. The parade is now in full swing, and we can expect many more announcements of support like the one from the Miro Project. Only Apple was painfully absent, pushing the Google-Apple tension further into the spotlight
[...]
Despite their claims that WebM was been checked for patent risks when ON2 was acquired, Google has neither made its research available nor does it offer a patent indemnity. Google has expressed extreme confidence in the patent safety of WebM, yet has failed to create a patent pool with its other endorsers and grant free and indemnified licenses to WebM contributors.
That means the path is open for those hostile to digital liberty, such as the MPEG-LA licensing cartel, to ‘tax’ VP8 users – they have already declared an intent to do so. Google should rapidly create “WebM-LA” with $0 licensing terms for those willing to commit to digital liberty.
This was also covered by The H:
According to OSI board member Simon Phipps, the VP8 codec, which Google released last week as part of the WebM project, is “not currently open source”. In a blog posting, Phipps notes that the licence used by Google has not been submitted to the Open Source Initiative (OSI) for approval and that it “possibly can’t be approved”. The problem is that although the licence Google uses for VP8 is based on the Apache licence, it includes a “field of use” restriction in the patent grant section which is limited to “this implementation of VP8″.
Matthew Aslett wrote about the subject and heard back from Bruce Perens, who argued: “It really isn’t an open source license, due to an unfortunate word choice in the patent grant language, which is the main chance from the BSD-style license they started with. If you modify the VP8 implementation, you become a patent infringer.” █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Antitrust, Google, Microsoft, Patents at 3:24 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The MPEG Cartel and Microsoft Corporation both engage in abusive activities whereby patents are used anti-competitively and discriminatingly
IF THERE IS something that Microsoft and MPEG-LA have in common, it is that both are using patent bullies ‘on the side’.
In our previous posts about the subject we showed that MPEG-LA was headed by a patent troll (Larry Horn), who is already taking shots at VP8.
A few days ago we showed that the CEO of Salesforce called Microsoft “alley thugs” and according to IDG he also indirectly called them patent trolls (by analogy):
Salesforce.com CEO Says Microsoft Is a ‘patent Troll’
[...]
Speaking with reporters on the sidelines of a company conference in Singapore, Benioff declined to comment on specifics of the suit, but reiterated his description of Microsoft as a patent troll.
“Patent trolls are part of the industry today, that’s just the way it is. We’ve dealt with them before and we’ll deal with this situation in the same exact way,” Benioff said, noting that the Microsoft lawsuit would have no material impact on the company.
This post, however, is hardly about Microsoft, which pays trolls like Acacia and promotes cartels like MPEG-LA. It would be more useful to concentrate on the latter entity because it is being sued for antitrust violations, just like Microsoft.
It’s no secret (though certain copyright and patent system defenders insist otherwise) that copyrights and patents are monopoly privileges, granted by the government. In fact, some of our elected officials have made the argument that antitrust law should be used against the worst abuses of intellectual property law. While it’s unclear how successfully that will play in courts, we may soon have a bit of a test case. Slashdot points us to the news that German company Nero AG is suing MPEG-LA, claiming abuse of monopoly power with its patent pools for licensing digital video codecs.
Nero added GNU/Linux support a few years ago. Here are some more details and the text of the lawsuit [PDF].
Nero AG, a company with one of the most fitting names ever (can you imagine a company called Hitler or Stalin 2000 years from now?), has filed an anti-trust lawsuit against the MPEG-LA. The German technology company claims the licensing body has abused its monopoly power, and that is has not honoured agreements made with the US Department of Justice. There’s some juicy stuff in here.
Our reader Ryan asks: “Nero is suing the MPEG Cartel while promoting the Nero AAC encoder?
“The funniest part is where it says that all of the MPEG-2 “essential” patents have expired, so MPEG Cartel trumped up some more.”
MPEG-LA is headed by Larry Horn (the ‘horny’ patent troll, the troll with the horns), so it deserves no sympathy. Horn is truly a patent troll (by definition) and by extension, Posgon calls MPEG-LA a “Patent Troll”.
They make no bones about it. These trolls are “going after” users of technology. They are pirates. Let us hope SCOTUS pops their balloon today.
Here is what Slashdot had to say about the subject and here is the extortion tariff:
MPEG LA: Yes, since the Web site is receiving remuneration for the AVC video content it makes available on a subscription basis, it would benefit from the coverage our AVC License provides. The amount of royalties owed, if any, would depend on the number of Subscribers to that website during a calendar year:
100,000 or fewer subscribers/year = no royalty;
100,001 – 250,000 subscribers/year = $25,000;
250,001 – 500,000 subscribers/year = $50,000;
500,001 – 1,000,000 subscribers/year = $75,000;
and more than 1,000,000 subscribers/year = $100,000.
“Holy cow,” wrote Pamela Jones in Groklaw, “$100,000 for one video based on all subscribers for the year, instead of how many actually viewed it, at least, and do you really believe that such a single typical video brings in that much value to WSJ? Are patent dudes off their rockers? Just how many such videos would you want to offer at those rates? *Now* do you see the magnitude of what Google has just done? Thank you, Google.”
Florian wrote about this subject as well.
For the time being, I believe it’s best to wait until there are news, either positive ones from Google (concerning its patent clearance and/or its indemnification policy) or negative ones from other patent holders. One way or the other, this situation should be clarified before anyone takes a risk.
Here is an analysis that Florian is citing.
An analysis of WebM and its patent risk
[...]
So, calling Google out for releasing the study on possible patent infringement is something that has no sense at all: they will never release it to the public.
There is additional analysis from Ryan Paul and in the next post we will discuss the fact that WebM is not really Open Source, according to the OSI. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Apple at 2:40 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Unrest amongst Apple supporters, not just opponents
• Ipad users are annoyed at lack of Flash support
• Anthony Doesburg: Apple’s antics starting to leave a sour taste
Was it a colossal overreaction by Apple when a prototype of its next iPhone fell into the hands of gadget-obsessed US website Gizmodo?
Combine that with Apple boss Steve Jobs’ uncompromising “Thoughts on [Adobe] Flash” statement a fortnight ago, and the question arises: is the darling of the high-tech world in danger of displacing Microsoft as the company people love to hate?
Yes and no; and yes and no again. Naturally enough, it depends on your point of view, but some points of view matter more than others.
Why Can’t Apple Just Drop the ‘Leaked’ iPhone 4G Inquiry?
Given that over 80 per cent of respondents in the report claim to use their Ipads for web browsing and almost 50 per cent for viewing video, areas in which Flash is particularly pervasive, it’s not surprising that users find lack of support for the format annoying.
• Gizmodo-iPhone Saga: Court Docs Reveal Fascinating Details
• iPhone Leak: ‘Huge’ Hurt for Apple
• Latest leaked iPhone reveals iPad processor
The latest leaked next-generation iPhone, which includes the same processor that powers the iPad, is probably a production or near-production unit, a hardware expert said today.
• What’s the bug up Apple’s @$$?
In late February, Apple purged 6,000 apps it deemed “too sexy.” Late last month, Jobs posted a scathing 1,700-word essay on Apple’s Web site about why he hates Adobe Flash.
• Steve Jobs Spars With Valleywag Editor By E-Mail
Steve Jobs has gone rogue. Taking the bait on a late-night e-mail from Valleywag Editor Ryan Tate, Jobs defended Apple’s App Store for offering “freedom from porn,” among other things.
• Steve Jobs Offers World ‘Freedom From Porn’
• Is Nothing Sacred? Porn Comes to the iPad (Microsoft too will apparently censor applications [1, 2, 3])
• Apple faces patent suits over iTunes Store, Safari, Mac OS X
The first lawsuit, filed in the patent-friendly Eastern District of Texas, comes from Sharing Sound LLC, which holds the rights to a patent for “distribution of musical products by a web site vendor over the internet.” The patent in question describes what is functionally any website you’ve ever visited to buy a music download, including song previews, a shopping cart, and even an accompanying app to play legally purchased music. The patent targeting Apple has a provision that downloaded songs have a unique identifier included in the file to link the files to a particular purchaser.
“‘Free software’ is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of ‘free’ as in ‘free speech,’ not as in ‘free beer’.”
–Richard Stallman
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, Ubuntu at 2:33 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
[Correction: Popey tells us that "Canonical added Skype to the Canonical partner repo, not the Ubuntu repo." (Phoronix was wrong)]
Summary: Despite the FSF’s caution (arguing that giving people proprietary software would discourage freedom in the long term too) Canonical opens the door to non-Free software
TREAD carefully, folks. As Phoronix puts it:
Again this is a closed-source version of Skype. We do know that an open-source side to Skype is being worked on and an update is expected soon, but with Canonical now pushing this Skype binary into Ubuntu Lucid makes us wonder if Skype and Canonical are working together on this new version or have any other dealings. Traditionally, Skype has not been available via distribution repositories but users have had to acquire it via their web-site.
Skype’s ‘open source’ is more of a PR thing. Skype’s guts are to remain proprietary. Is Canonical’s move perhaps a sign that Skype will become Free software? That seems highly unlikely. In any event, Fedora 13 has just been released and its policies are more strict. █
“Instead of worrying about what somebody else is going to do, which is not under your control, the important thing is, what are you going to decide about what is under your control?”
–Richard Stallman
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
