Summary: Microsoft's agenda gets spread to other areas using a European booster-for-hire who masquerades as a "FOSS" guy

FOR REASONS we can understand -- given Dana Blankenhorn's Windows-oriented background in computing -- his blog chooses to be hostile to the very same subject it is covering sometimes. Blankenhorn's intentions are good and he does not do this deliberately. In recent months, however, he was one among countless journalists who were sprayed by the mass-mailing operation of Microsoft Florian, a .NET developer whose life and philosophy seem to revolve around one company's doctrines. That's all fair, but to pretend that he is a FOSS person is where he clearly crosses the line, especially if he mass-mails journalists and gives them this false impression. Microsoft Florian promotes interests that are opposite to those of FOSS, e.g. MPEG-LA and RAND (covered in the previous post).

“H.264 is now free as in beer, as opposed to WebM’s open format aimed at HTML5...”
      --Dana BlankenhornMPEG-LA is in dire need of some PR (propaganda and FUD) right now because as Blankenhorn correctly puts it, "MPEG LA tries free as in beer against WebM" (many do not understand the distinctions inherent in the word "free"). We addressed this subject some days ago [1, 2, 3, 4] and Blankenhorn says: "H.264 is now free as in beer, as opposed to WebM’s open format aimed at HTML5...

"It’s not free for everyone. Those who charge for their video, whether it’s a service like Hulu, a Blu-Ray disc company, or Apple’s iTunes, which wants to charge 99 cents to see shows from free TV, will still pay. (If you’re charging for free beer it’s no longer free to you, is the idea.)"

Now watch who shows up in the comments to play ball for MPEG-LA and promote his anti-IBM blog. It's the same person who 'injects' his opinions into many of Blankenhorn's blog posts. Sadly, Dana Blankenhorn still pays attention to Microsoft Florian and focuses only on Apple when talking about "Global struggle over software patents", e.g.:

From this it’s clear Apple thinks it has a worldwide monopoly on how the iPhone works, one that could last until late in the next decade. The questions courts must ask are:

1. Does this cover any portable touch screen system, as Apple contends, or just this particular system? 2. Should the patents be considered valid, since Google asserts it was working on its own Android system before the iPhone patents were filed.

There is another important question. Does it respect and reward innovation to give Apple control of all portable touch screen devices, for as long as touch screens may be an interface of choice? Would society have benefited if Microsoft had to wait until the 21st century to deliver Windows, or something like it?

Watch where the focus on Apple came from (it's there in the text). Blankenhorn is hopefully not becoming a tool of Microsoft Florian, but based on new posts like this one, he is. Why would Blankenhorn want to take his guidance and advice from the Microsoft crowd? ⬆ ____ ^* Apple sues Linux just like Microsoft does (Microsoft commends Apple for doing so while they cross-license). Microsoft Florian defends Microsoft's approach and vilifies the rest, including Apple's to an extent. While some sites are stalking this company's patents and publishing examples, it is not Apple which hires lobbyists to spread software patents, making them applicable in the entire world.

Finally, two Apple patents hint at how Apple TV will allow users to browse content and store information.