Summary: Microsoft wants European GNU/Linux users to pay through the nose, but first it needs to use lobbyists like Zuck (above) to change the law in Europe, by pretending to speak for small businesses

TALKSTANDARDS.COM AND OTHER LOBBYISTS of Microsoft's interests in Europe (including ACT and Microsoft Florian for example) lobby for RAND or defend the practice of RAND, knowing damn well that it is not compatible with Linux and therefore can justify 'Linux tax' over there (this issue was covered in the previous post). The RAND lobby from the usual suspects even spawns public events where the purpose is probably to sway politicians and change the law (ACT does this a lot, with Microsoft funding). There is nothing more abhorrent than lobbying to change laws by foreign companies such as Microsoft. As FFII has just put it, 'Would you let this person "transform" your "government"?'

“It is wrong to corrupt foreign governments”
      --FFII"Transformational government means hostile takeover," says FFII at Twitter. "How dare you transform our government? Transform yourself!"

Citing unjust clauses in ACTA, the FFII says that "It is wrong to corrupt foreign governments" (that's what Microsoft is doing in Europe right now).

Microsoft's co-founder Paul Allen, who keeps pretending to do charity (another bogus publicity stunt), has just officially become a patent troll who uses software patents to harm large businesses. The 'Microsoft press' says in a blog's headline that "Paul Allen Needs More Money" (Microsoft Florian seemingly defends this man and the Microsoft-funded pressure group ACT pretends that SMBs benefits from all that).

Katherine Noyes has just explained why "Software Patents Hurt Everyone, But Especially SMBs":

Taken together, all this recent legal action provides a vivid illustration of many of the problems plaguing the U.S. patent system today. Software patents do far more harm than good to both the industry and consumers, and they put small and medium-sized businesses at a particular disadvantage.

Watch the lawyers fight back with their self-serving lies. It didn't even take long.

Using the Paul Allen litigation as a hook, a piece entitled "Software patents hurt everyone, but especially SMBs", written by PC World's Katherine Noyes, rehashes a lot of the old arguments made against software patents. It's a remarkably unsurprising piece that adds nothing to the debate.

Watch them just shoot the messenger claiming that a dosage of reality "adds nothing to the debate." This site is run by patent lawyers, so nobody should be surprised by this reaction.

Should policy about software not be written for software developers with consultation from them? Why should foreign monopolies, their lobbyists, and their lawyers hijack the system? ⬆