06.29.10
Posted in Apple at 5:58 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Apple’s bad behaviour and other technical problems from the past week’s news
• iPhone iOS 4.0 multitasking is horrible: Apple blew it (also here)
iOS4′s multitasking is a mess of a feature. Yes, it lets you listen to Pandora while using other apps. Yes, it lets you freeze games that support multitasking, such as Plants vs. Zombies, while you take care of more important tasks. But in exchange for those perks, some of the iPhone’s elegance is lost, and the advantages you’d gain from true multitasking aren’t there either.
• More Than 25 Percent of iPhones Break in Just Two Years
• The Iphone 4 has a shoddy antenna
• iPhone 4: Perfect for everyone, except humans
• Apple accused of hushing up security update
• The gambling man who co-founded Apple and left for $800 (so now he can buy a Mac Mini)
• Mac Mini as HTPC
So this is where it gets interesting — people have been using the Mac mini as a basic HTPC for years now, and the new model’s HDMI port certainly makes it seem like Apple’s given the little guy its blessing to invade the living room. It’s not quite that simple, though — and if you were hoping to just drop in the new mini in place of an aging Apple TV, well, you’ve got some surprises coming. First, you should note that all the HDMI port really gets you is a simpler interconnect story; otherwise you’re still dealing with a full-on computer, not an integrated media device. Second, the fact that you’re using a real computer means that you need some sort of keyboard and mouse to do anything of value — sure, you can click through Front Row using an Apple Remote, but that’s a pretty limited experience compared to even the Apple TV, and you didn’t just pay $700 for a limited experience. Apple was pretty upfront about this: they told us that the mini’s HDMI port is about offering flexibility, not making a play in the living room, and that mini customers who wanted to hook it up to a TV were probably savvy enough to find their own software and input methods. In fact, the only HDTV-specific piece of software on the mini is a new underscan slider in the Displays preference pane, which lets you dial in the size of the image on your TV. Apart from that, you’re on your own here, Chico.
[...]
Just know that getting the best experience isn’t necessarily plug and play — unless you’re willing to spend some time monkeying around with semi-obscure utilities like Audio MIDI Setup, putting a mini under your TV might cause more problems than it solves.
[...]
On the other hand, $700 ain’t cheap. You’ll almost certainly get more bang for those bucks in the PC world, although you’ll sacrifice some fit and finish. It’s also fairly easy to find a $700 HDMI-equipped PC with a Blu-ray drive, which is a striking omission from the mini — especially since it seems so perfectly suited to the living room. No, the mini isn’t the perfect HTPC, although it’s close. But if you can live without Blu-ray and you can afford the price tag, the mini promises to be just as lovable an oddball as its predecessor.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, FUD, GNU/Linux, Servers, Vista 7, Windows at 5:03 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Response to some new spin and lies from Microsoft
• Microsoft Attacks, By and With the Numbers (fake/bogus/selective numbers that we wrote about before, especially the server figures which are easily contradicted by Steve Ballmer’s statement (September 2008) that “forty percent of servers run Windows, 60 percent run Linux”)
There are two things that are worth noting about the figures that the Microsoft post quoted. First, that it bothered to include them alongside all the other sectors where Microsoft is under pressure. This is a clear indication that the company is feeling the heat from GNU/Linux in the server market: you don’t bother defending yourself unless you’re under attack.
But what’s more telling is that Microsoft couldn’t find any better figures to make its case. As Arthur rightly points out, the way they were gathered seriously undercounts the true usage of GNU/Linux. The fact that despite that distortion GNU/Linux still has pretty decent numbers – 21% is hardly shabby – means that the real market shares in terms of real-world deployments will be much worse for Microsoft. Hence the attack.
• Netgear modem/router giving your browser “Page Not Found” errors? Blame Windows 7, then hit it with a hidden hotfix. (possibly another case of silent patching, which Microsoft finally admitted)
Windows XP and Vista are not affected. Linux is not affected. It’s not a problem with the router.
See: KB983528 – The TCP receive window autotuning feature does not work correctly in Windows Server 2008 R2 or in Windows 7
Microsoft, probably in an attempt to cover up Windows 7 defects, jury rigged that article to not show up in search engines. Go ahead and google for KB983528 and you’ll see that Microsoft has hidden it, deliberately, with robots.txt trickery.
Anyway, if anyone is similarly afflicted, try whacking it with that Hotfix and tell me what you get. 
Here is what this illusion of security can lead to:
• Chase Bank May Drop Support of Chrome, Opera (are they seriously suggesting that IE6 is secure, despite all the recent evidence to the contrary [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13]?)
mwandaw writes “Banking giant JPMorgan Chase may drop support of some popular browsers because they do ‘…not all offer the minimum levels of security that we require while others may not perform well with our site.’ After July 18 you may not be able to access the website with a browser that they do not support. The list of browsers they currently support seems outdated: Internet Explorer 6.0 and higher, Firefox 2.0 and higher, and Safari 3.0 and higher (for Macs only). With usage of IE6 plummeting and concerns about its security well known, the inclusion of that browser seems suspect. On the other extreme, rising star Chrome appears to be left out, too. What does Google think of that?”
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Free/Libre Software, Google, Java, Microsoft, Mono, Oracle, Patents at 4:38 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Microsoft’s imitation of Java is mentioned by Salesforce in its counter lawsuit; more news about the MPEG-LA threat
WE ALREADY know that Microsoft has .NET patents which it uses to keep Mono at bay. But we’ve just found an interesting observation about the Salesforce case [1, 2], which is still in some headlines:
The complained mentioned .NET platform and SharePoint collaboration software violates Salesforce.com patents.
Oracle’s Java patents are also a problem to .NET, but what makes Mono and Moonlight rather unique is that they are encumbered by patents owned by the company which actively attacks GNU/Linux with patents. What we are trying to say is, software patents in general are a problem, but those who actually use them against GNU/Linux are so far Apple, Microsoft, and the patent troll called Acacia, which has Microsoft connections.
“It’s a fine example of the need for immediate reform (Bilski wasn’t it).”Just looking at some new press releases, we realise that software patents are not just a “Microsoft thing” (or Apple or IBM for that matter). Small companies too are showing them off in press releases [1, 2], but they never attack GNU/Linux. They have no interest in doing this because they don’t defend a monopoly with profitable products like Windows.
On the other hand, large companies use software patents to build fences around existing monopolies. TechDirt comments on the Amazon patent we mentioned a day ago. It’s a fine example of the need for immediate reform (Bilski wasn't it).
There is one last item regarding MPEG-LA, which we wrote about in:
FFmpeg writes about its newly-added VP8 support:
Now that the hype is over, let’s talk the real deal. How good is Google’s VP8 video codec? Since “multiple independent implementations help a standard mature quicker and become more useful to its users”, me and others (David for the decoder core and PPC optimizations, Jason for x86 optimizations) decided that we should implement a native VP8 decoder in FFmpeg.
As Slashdot points out:
They were able to keep the line-count low by relying on heavy reuse from the existing H.264 codebase.
The thing is, encoding with matrices and compression is a mathematical process. To allow a monopoly on such a thing is to grant exclusionary rights on natural, logical things. The FFII’s president considers this to be a pretext for lawsuit, but what we understand is that VP8 shrewdly evaded being classified as fulfilling all the conditions in patents held by MPEG-LA (which typically extorts companies using peripheral pressure). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Courtroom, Law, Microsoft, Patents at 3:48 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) provides ruling on the Bilski case; we take a preliminary look at the apparent outcome, with particular emphasis on the impact when it comes to software
YESTERDAY evening we posted the full text of the SCOTUS ruling regarding Bilski and added some immediate commentary. We assume that the huge number of analyses have been read by now and since we are not lawyers, we cannot offer anything too valuable or novel. Instead, here is a rundown encompassing some more coverage and opinions.
Over the weekend, just before this decision came, we found some of the following articles that are relevant to the subject:
i. Decision about the Second Amendment Case to be Ruled Today
After the decision of U.S. Supreme Court to regulate the Second Amendment case, Carl Bindenagel revealed the court’s record on earlier gun rights cases.
ii. Supreme Court Finale
Tom Goldstein of scotusblog.com believes that the Constitution will win out, but isn’t sure how far the Court will go in terms of raising questions about firearms regulations.
That will be an important part of today’s decision.
Three other cases will be decided today on student religious organizations on college campuses, a major case on software patents and whether a key part of the Sarbanes-Oxley (post Enron) law is constitutional.
iii. Will The Supreme Court Clean Up the Patent Mess?
I did my original patent posts in 2008, shortly after the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments in In Re Bilski, a case involving a “business method” patent. There was a growing consensus that the patent system was broken, and high expectations that the court would use it as an opportunity to reform the rules for patent eligibility. The decision was released later in the year, and it did just that, overturning the extremely permissive standard for patentability that had applied for the preceding decade.
The case is now before the Supreme Court, which is due to hand down its decison on Monday. Virtually everyone expects the high to affirm the Federal Circuit’s rejection of Mr. Bilski’s patent, but as always the important question is what’s in the accompanying opinion. A narrow holding could simply rule out the most egregiously abstract business method patents (Mr. Bilski’s “invention” consisted entirely of mental steps) while leaving the bulk of software and business method patents untouched. But if the Supreme Court is feeling more ambitious, it may try to draw a new line that invalidates many existing business method and maybe even deal with the sotware controversy.
iv. Patent Litigation Weekly: With Bilski, the Waiting Is the Hardest Part
Patent Watchtroll, a rude lawyer who has been lobbying for software patents, wrote about it and he seems to be supporting his position by warping/faking the oppositions’ point of view or avoiding the mainstream opinion and instead asking a student. The headline says “Programmers Perspective”, not “Programmer’s Perspective” (making it seem like a talk on behalf of many). As the first comment says: “im calling you out, your a patent lawyer trying to support your position as a “programmer” using the pseudonym “andrew cole””
There are other legal types who crave positive perspectives on monopoly (that’s what a patent is). It is abundantly clear that lawyers are ruining science through the patent system, which to them is a form of tax on science.
Patently-O, which mostly attracts the legal types (with bias), ran this Bilski poll just before the decision arrived. When the decision finally came it correctly stated that:
The result is that the scope of patentable subject matter is certainly narrowed from its 1998 high-water-mark.
Yes, this is true and that’s good news. Here is another take:
Supreme Court Rules Narrowly In Bilski; Business Method & Software Patents Survive
As I expected it appears that the Supreme Court has ruled somewhat narrowly in the Bilski case (pdf), which many had hoped would end the scourge of business method and software patents. Instead, the court effectively punted the issue. Technically it affirmed the overall decision from the Federal Circuit that Bilski’s specific patent was invalid for being way too broad, but much more importantly for everyone else, it rolled back the Federal Circuit’s “machine-or-transformation” test, which many believed effectively ruled out pure software patents. Instead, the court said that the courts “should not read into the patent laws limitations and condi-tions which the legislature has not expressed.” In other words, business method and software patents survive.
The good news is that the “Supreme Court Throws Out Bilski Patent,” as Ciaran/Slashdot summarised it.
ciaran_o_riordan writes “The US Supreme Court has finally decided the Bilski case (PDF). We’ve known that Bilski’s patent would get thrown out; that was clear from the open mockery from the judges during last November’s hearing. The big question is, since rejecting a particular patent requires providing a general test and explaining why this patent fails that test, how broad will their test be? Will it try to kill the plague of software patents? And is their test designed well enough to stand up to the army of patent lawyers who’ll be making a science (and a career) of minimizing and circumventing it? The judges have created a new test, so this will take some reading before any degree of victory can be declared. The important part is pages 5-16 of the PDF, which is the majority opinion. The End Software Patents campaign is already analyzing the decision, and collecting other analyses. Some background is available at Late-comers guide: What is Bilski anyway?”
An interesting but forgotten fact is that Ginsburg attended the Bilski hearing despite her husband’s death the prior day. This was pointed out by Groklaw, which offers an extensive summary (news survey) and links to coverage excepting news sources.
Anti-IBM lobbyist Florian Müller says that “the US Supreme Court accepts only one way to limit software patentability: new legislation from Congress [...] Only a decision to grant a patent on the Bilski application could have been any less restrictive”
Müller mass-mailed journalists (as usual) to spread his point of view. He wrote:
Please feel free to use in your reporting on the Bilski decision any of these comments. I’m the author of the FOSS Patents blog (and founder and former director of the NoSoftwarePatents campaign) on the Bilski decision and what it means for the patentability of software.
Here are a few select quotes, and further below the URL of my posting and the complete text.
“Unfortunately, the Supreme Court delivered an opinion that doesn’t help the cause of partial or complete abolition of software patents at all.”
“[T]he court’s majority position is about the most liberal reasoning that it could have been. Only a decision to uphold the Bilski patent could have been any less restrictive.
“Simply put, the Supreme Court’s decision does not do away with even one software patent that already exists, nor does it raise the bar for the future.”
“The decision announced today makes it clear that a majority of the Supreme Court wanted to give the abolition of even only a small percentage of all software patents the widest berth possible.”
“This US decision is even more disappointing when taking into account the global trend.” [then mentions political process in New Zealand and court decision in Germany]
“The position that software patents should be abolished isn’t nearly as popular among judges and politicians as it is in the free and open source software community.”
The upcoming Defensive Patent License (DPL) is recommended at the end of the blog posting.
Here’s the URL and the full text:
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/06/bilski-decision-major-disappointment.html
We still urge Müller to stop mass-mailing journalists. If you find the quotes above in some news articles, you’ll know why. He tries using shortcuts to get his point heard and inject his name into articles (which he later cites with pride). We especially oppose his illusion that IBM is the root of all evil.
“I mentioned Microsoft in the same lobbying contexts as IBM,” he told us separately, “on EU patent reform and today the reference to New Zealand. Plus I link in the righthand column to a slashdot op-ed that mentions Steve Ballmer.
“I also think(not at PC, writing this on phone, can’t check) in a posting that I don’t like their lobbying for software patents. Maybe the one on LinuxTag.”
“Hopes and Dreams of “IP Sucks” Crowd Shattered – Cheers!”
–ACT, Microsoft lobbyistThat hardly changes anything. In his book he wrote about Microsoft’s lobbyists, but now he’s just ignoring them for the most part (or ignoring their ties). But anyway, let’s get back to In Re Bilski
Müller showed us that Microsoft lobbying group ACT is “jubilant over SCOTUS decision” (he didn’t mention the Microsoft connection)
ACT wrote: “#SCOTUS Upholds Software Patents. Hopes and Dreams of “IP Sucks” Crowd Shattered – Cheers! – ACT Blog – http://bit.ly/dkzLay #bilski”
One reader showed us that ACT's Mike Sax (seen here) has just had an article published about him in Standaard. He admits being supported by Microsoft (while evidently pretending to serve small businesses).
Het dunbevolkte Oregon met zijn wilde natuur en wouden is niet meteen de meest voor de handliggende locatie voor een technologiebedrijf. Maar Sax is niet van plan te verhuizen. ‘Het zegt veel over technologie dat je niet vanuit een metropool hoeft te werken om toch succesvol te zijn. Idealiter heb je dan ook werknemers die op afstand werken en die daardoor een hoge levenskwaliteit behalen omdat ze in kleine steden wonen, dicht bij hun familie, zonder dat ze hun carrière moeten opgeven.’ Een betoog dat niet toevallig aansluit bij dat van de Association for Competitive Technology (ACT), een organisatie die Sax in 1998 oprichtte en die streeft voor de belangen van kleinere technologiebedrijven -al zijn ook grotere ondernemingen zoals Oracle en Microsoft steunend lid. Het is voor ACT dat Sax opnieuw Brussel bezoekt, om bij Europarlementsleden te pleiten voor een geharmoniseerde privacy- en arbeidswetgeving en een Europees patent.
The last sentence says that Sax is visiting Brussels again, pushing for MEPs to call for the back door to software patents (‘harmonisation’ or ‘European patent’). Who are they kidding? They are Microsoft’s lobbyists and they push for software patents in Europe. Is Müller paying attention at all? Nope. His blog post about the Bilski decision is a defeatist one and it’s titled “Bilski decision a major disappointment: doesn’t invalidate even one software patent”
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has finally handed down its opinion in re Bilski, a business method patent case.
Here is more from Patently-O:
Although Bilski’s claims were held unpatentably abstract, the Supreme Court has re-affirmed that the door to patent eligibility should remain broad and open.
The FFII writes that “Bilski’s business patent [is] rejected by the Supreme Court but no MoT-Test for the rest of US” (machine-or-transformation test).
We’ve been sent a lot of E-mail following this milestone decision and one of them sought publication that related to the MoT-Test:
I know you’ve been actively following the Bilski case on TechRights. In the wake of this morning’s decision, I wanted to pass on some commentary from Barbara Rogan, the Chief Legal Counsel for LogLogic. Barbara has been closely monitoring the decision due to its implications on the tech industry and startups. While the Supreme Court’s decision affirms the Federal Court’s ruling, it also raises a number of other questions in the area of process patents.
Barbara’s commentary below:
What’s Still To Be Decided:
What is a Machine?
- The Supreme Court agrees with the Federal Circuit that merely using an abstract idea in “a particular technological environment” or by adding “insignificant postsolution [sic] activity” does not transform an otherwise unpatentable invention into a patentable invention.
- In Bilski, the Federal Circuit ruled that the connection of the process to a machine or apparatus must be more than just “insignificant extra-solution activity” meaning that the machine must be more than a “throw-in” to make the process patentable.
- In its brief to the Supreme Court, the Respondents argue that using a general purpose machine (i.e. a calculator or a telephone) would not be sufficient for to turn an otherwise non-patentable process into a patentable process.
- In Yahoo!’s Amicus Curiae brief, Yahoo! Worries that with the Machine or Transformation, processes which are carried out over the Internet (a general purpose series of machines) may fail this test, thus leaving out from patent protection all Internet based processes.
- Yahoo!’s concern is not theoretical. While the Bilski case was pending in the Supreme Court, the District Court in Northern California in Cybersource Corporation v. Retail Decisions, used the Machine or Transformation Test to find that the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in a patent infringement suit should be granted because the patent was likely on unpatentable subject matter. The process patent in question was an Internet based process patent.
- In light of Bilski decision, it would seem that the District Court should re-examine its ruling as the Supreme Court indicated the Machine or Transformation test is NOT the exclusive test for determining process invention patentability.
- Another question that is open and needs to be decided is whether programming a general purpose machine to do a specific task is sufficient to overcome the requirement that the machine not contribute in an “insignificant extra-solution activity” manner.
What is “Transformation” in the Digital Age?
- The meaning of transformation as it applies to digital information has yet to be decided. In oral arguments, Justice Sotomayor suggests that electronic signals may be a “substance” which would differentiate it from a pure process completed outside of a computer. Based on this reasoning, a viable argument could be made that the electronic processes transform the information from one type or state into another type or state. This would free digital technology patents from the need to be tied to a machine for the purposes of obtaining a patent.
What inventions might be still be patentable if they fail the Machine or Transformation Test?
Justice Stevens tried to do that right thing, but upon his retirement there is generally a feeling that he didn’t have enough power to counter his peers and knock out software patents.
In April, the Supreme Court’s most senior justice, John Paul Stevens, announced his retirement. Since then, hundreds of articles have been written about his career and his legacy. While most articles focus on “hot button” issues such as flag burning, terrorism, and affirmative action, Stevens’s tech policy record has largely been ignored.
When Justice Stevens joined the court, many of the technologies we now take for granted—the PC, packet-switched networks, home video recording—were in their infancy. During his 35-year tenure on the bench, Stevens penned decisions that laid the foundation for the tremendous innovations that followed in each of these areas.
[...]
The high court took a renewed interest in patent issues when John Roberts was elevated to Chief Justice, but the court hasn’t squarely addressed the software patent issue. The closest they came was in today’s Bilski decision, in which the majority handed down a narrow ruling that invalidated the specific patent at issue in the case but declined to articulate a clear standard for patent eligibility.
It is possible to see Stevens’ portions in this ruling. The following Bilski analysis highlights a portion that says: “But this fact does not mean that unforeseen innovations such as computer programs are always unpatentable” (covered in [1, 2, 3]). The bottom line is — as Stephen Shankland put it — the Supreme Court sidesteps software patent issue. But it doesn’t make it a loss for software freedom; it just leaves the USPTO in a limbo. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, GNU/Linux, IBM, Microsoft, Patents at 2:32 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Software patents are not a done deal in New Zealand; Calling out Florian Müller’s IBM paranoia
THE disturbing developments in New Zealand (allowing software to be patented) were partly the result of Microsoft lobbying. There were quite a few companies involved in this invasion which overrode the opinions of New Zealanders and this is not over because InternetNZ is challenging the decision.
InternetNZ (Internet New Zealand Inc) has today called for the Government to allow any proposed changes to the Patents Bill to be referred back to the Commerce Select Committee for further scrutiny.
The issue of software patents has recently attracted a great deal of attention and controversy, particularly in respect of the patentability of “embedded software”.
New Zealand’s locals were countered by a multi-nationals’ lobby, as explained in the following news portion about NZICT [1, 2, 3, 4]:
Commerce Minister Simon Power and the Economic Development Ministry have rejected claims from commerce select committee chairwoman Lianne Dalziel they have significantly shifted their position by proposing software which has a “technical purpose” could be patented.
Mr Power announced in April that the Government would back changes to the Patents Bill proposed by the commerce select committee that would mean computer software could no longer be patented. The committee’s understanding was that inventions that relied on “embedded software” – software that is built into a physical device – would still be patentable.
[...]
Information technology industry body NZICT has campaigned in favour of software patents, fearing the effect that restricting software patents could have on both its multinational members and locally owned software exporters.
The “embedded software” trick is also being used in Europe. “Computer programs as such (i.e. systems that solve data processing problems) are patentable,” shows the president of the FFII by linking to this page in German. This initially happened because of Microsoft's FAT patent (ruling in Germany) and then solidified further by Siemens [1, 2].
Florian Müller uses fairly old news to daemonise IBM. He continues to act as though IBM is the only lobbyist for software patents, which is irrational. At the very least, he only ever concentrates on IBM, which makes some people suspect that he just pushes Microsoft’s agenda (whether intentionally or not). “IBM’s Bilski brief spits in the face of the free software and open source movements,” he named his (almost) latest post and Microsoft is mentioned just once in the whole post, despite its obvious lobbying for software patents. Why does he single out IBM? Why does he never write any posts criticising Microsoft? It’s rather baffling and some would say suspicious. We asked him for some answers about the bias and he said: “I will try to address those issues. Not all at once, but rather soon.
“The mainframe monopoly isn’t a z/Linux question. I’m not sure you’ve been told the truth by other sources about the situation in the mainframe market…”
The thing is, Müller was approached or at least got in touch with some of those companies that joined Microsoft's lobby against IBM. What does it say about his dispositions?
In a members-only post from Groklaw, one reader points out:
It’s like the trolling Florian Mueller is doing (and failing badly at) on slashdot. In the end, if they’re trying to make their case, it’s counter-productive, to say the least.
For those who lack context, Müller writes a lot of ‘anti-IBM’ in Slashdot these days. Never once have we seen him write negatively about Microsoft. Selective? Hypocrite? Misinformed? In any case, this biased of his is an issue we wrote about before.
A reader got in touch with us yesterday, saying that “Florian Mueller’s latest meltdown” is sign that something is amiss. “Just to let you know that Florian Mueller had quite a public melt-down this weekend when he tried to troll slashdot,” she said.
“Out of the over 200 comments, only 2 posters supported him – and one of those posters was Jay Mayrand, the maintainer of Hercules.
“No sooner were his claims debunked than he began to whine about a “conspiracy” involving groklaw and IBM. He’s channeling Darl McBride.
“slashdot’s comment system is a bit b0rked when it comes to handling deeply-nested comments, so I’ve collected some of the better quotes here: Florian Mueller’s latest FUD campaign hits a brick wall
“Each quote links back to slashdot, so even if your view settings are messed up, you’ll be able to access that portion of the comment thread.
“Everything that’s in the link I sent you is very public already – it’s all on slashdot, and there’s no way for him to take it back or deny it.”
“Out of the over 200 comments, only 2 posters supported him [Müller] – and one of those posters was Jay Mayrand, the maintainer of Hercules.”
–ReaderMüller likes to stick to the story that those who defend IBM (like Groklaw) must be some kind of IBM operatives.
“Better watch it,” told us the reader sarcastically, “you’re now an IBM operative!
“Or worse, you’re from groklaw! (he can’t believe that people can actually operate on their own initiative – or that someone with a long history on slashdot (and over 500 fans) can actually act on their own initiative. It *has* to be a plot!
“He’s now gotten a few of his friends to help spread the fud, so it’s getting interesting.
“Like the claim that when groklaw deletes a user account, their posts automatically get set to “Anonymous”. I guess they’ve never run a content management system before – geeklog handles account deletions that way. IIRC, so does postnuke, and so do many others. It’she only way not to break the threads.
“I’ve caught him in a few lies … I intend to catch him in more.”
Anyway, the bottom line is that Müller loses a lot of credibility because he aims to ruin a company that supports GNU/Linux, he mass-mails many journalists (we consider those methods to be a violation of netiquette), and he refuses to accept that software freedom is a worthy cause (his explanation about it was complex). We paid attention to him only because we do believe there is room for improvement in the OIN and in IBM’s patent policy (especially the lobbying). We have argued this since 2008, long before Müller even resurfaced.
Having received about 50 E-mails from Müller, we urge people to reject Müller’s points of view. They should be rejected on the basis that he has been hostile towards several Free software projects and he is blind to the fact that proprietary software companies except IBM are also the culprits. A criticism that’s misdirected is only bound to mislead people. The obsession with IBM is similar to the dirty tricks used against ODF when Microsoft decided to pretend that behind everything ODF there was just IBM. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
06.28.10
Posted in GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Mono, Novell, SCO, TomTom, Ubuntu at 8:32 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: How to put Microsoft’s and Novell’s Mono where it belongs (the garbage can)
SOMEONE has just published these instructions for removing Mono from the Ubuntu distribution of GNU/Linux and one reader of ours wrote an ode about Mono earlier today:
Alejandro Nova
Life with Mono – Mononono
They sold us it was free
>From someone else’s claims
The code began to show
And no one spoke at all
But when I asked to Novell,
If I’m protected…
Ingenue
Ingenue
I just don’t know what to do
GNOME-sized avenues
Brought us a perfect doom
F-Spot, Banshee and a paint
Made us target for threats
But if you still trust MS
Then you are a complete…
Ingenue
Ingenue
I just don’t know what to do
Ingenue
I just don’t know what to do
For reasons we explained before, Mono is a gift to Microsoft and a Trojan to GNU/Linux. Even Canonical's CTO is aware of the issues associated with Mono. According to this uncertain post from Groklaw, Microsoft’s preparations for lawsuits against GNU/Linux (like SCO and later TomTom) may take a long time to ‘cook’ before action is taken. Groklaw’s post uses evidence that we covered a year and a half ago [1, 2, 3, 4], thanks to Comes vs Microsoft exhibits.
What did Microsoft know about SCO’s plan to attack Linux, and when did it know it? And was it a force behind it?
[...]
But now, thanks to a volunteer working on doing the exhibits in the Comes v. Microsoft antitrust litigation as text, we find an email thread in Exhibit 8953 [PDF] where Microsoft employees, including the managing director of Microsoft in India at the time, mention SCO in a discussion about heading off the Linux threat in India. The emails are dated September 11, 2002. Given the date, I believe this opens up the question of Microsoft’s involvement once again. At a minimum, it needs clarification. If it doesn’t demonstrate Microsoft knowing about SCO’s plans before they unfurled, what does it mean? I’d like Microsoft to tell us. Because I have a lot of questions about the email thread.
[...]
If you recall, EDGI was about pushing Microsoft in India so as to head off Linux and StarOffice use there in government and education. This email says Bill Gates thought they should just give away their software in India and wherever necessary to head off the threat, and that is part of what is being discussed, because some disagreed about giving it away for free. But EDGI was not restricted to India; it could be implemented wherever needed.
I believe this exhibit may be a smoking gun. At a minimum, it calls for clarification, and if and when SCO v. IBM starts up again, I believe it could provide a basis for limited discovery on this very topic or if Michael Anderer is put on the stand, it opens up a fruitful thread. Regulatory bodies are also completely free to investigate whether it was indeed Microsoft using SCO as an anti-competitive weapon against Linux in violation of antitrust law.
The email mentions Novell, SCO and Trishul, and I thought it might be referring to an inside name for the strategy, since that is the name of a Trident air defense missile (“The Trishul air-defense missile is intended to counter a low level attack with a very quick reaction time and has an all weather capability.”), but it is also possible it’s referring to a Microsoft employee who heads up the Runtime Analysis & Design research group, so I’ve written to him asking him which it might be or if he can clarify the email. Meanwhile, take a look. The reference to Novell is more puzzling, but it is certainly possible, given the evidence that SCO thought Novell would join them, that Microsoft back then thought so too.
This fascinating part of an antitrust exhibit about EDGI and the mentioning of SCO was covered by Techrights last year, but for those who are interested in a detailed analysis and some background, the above will do. Mono — like FAT — is a form of an ambush. Microsoft recently validated a FAT patent in Germany. But Mono is not just about software patents; it’s about controlling developers and it’s developed/coordinated by a Microsoft MVP. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Africa, Deception, Free/Libre Software, Microsoft at 8:05 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Tectonic and others tell the story of South Africa and how Free software proponents got “subsumed” or drained; Microsoft hijacks the “open” flag in New Zealand
Tectonic remains an excellent Web site which is back in action after a dormant year. The informants from Tectonic are some of the very few in Africa who spread progress reports in English (except for corporate-controlled African media, which rhymes with companies’ press releases and advertisements, as we showed on numerous occasions before).
“It’s yet another example of government hijack by proprietary, patents-encumbered lock-in, bundled deceitfully and marketed under the “open” banner.”Outrageous claims are being made in this new recording which is interesting but depressing to listen to at times. It covers issues which we pointed out before, such as the pushing out of Free software proponents from government (typical tactic), even buying out of Free software players and dismantling them by proprietary giants, who are always pretending to be open. It’s a lie. They are imposters who are aided by Microsoft lobbyists like CompTIA. It’s probably better to listen to the full audiocast.
Microsoft seems to have also ‘pulled a LinuxTag’ [1, 2] over in New Zealand where it has just lobbied for software patents. Shameless liars are ‘pulling a NASA’ [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] by organising an “Open Government” conference that they are sponsoring and hosting. Microsoft? Open? Who are they kidding? It’s yet another example of government hijack by proprietary, patents-encumbered lock-in, bundled deceitfully and marketed under the “open” banner.
It came outta the blue this conference. The topic is Open Government. There was another Open Government un-conference in Wellington last year.
[...]
Microsoft sponsored the first. This one they pretty much completely hosted. They was enough reason for many to stay away — and coupled with the suprise announcement and lack of involvement in any open government initiatives in NZ so far, those who pointedly didn’t attend make a good point. I see this as undoubtedly microsoft trying to wedge their brand in with something successful. The question is will they really be able to take this movement they have tried to block so much in the past, and magically be able to repaint it as something they’re all about? They seem to be on the start of a mission to do just that.
Don’t they already know that Microsoft is doing this on purpose? Microsoft enjoys and takes pride in destruction and obfuscation. It’s also what it did in South Africa. █
“I’ve killed at least two Mac conferences. [...] by injecting Microsoft content into the conference, the conference got shut down. The guy who ran it said, why am I doing this?”
–Microsoft's chief evangelist
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
