Posted in Deception, Europe, Microsoft, Patents at 2:34 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Resumen: Las tácticas brutales utilizados por Microsoft para promover su régimen,donde se tiene que pagar por el software libre, incluso en lugares como Europa, donde las patentes de software son, en principio, ilegales.
“Kudos to Spain for not allowing Microsoft to impose his agenda of dominion by control over it & the whole Europe,” says Eduardo Landaveri, who has another translation for us, this time of last night’s post about Microsoft’s continued lobbying for software patents in Europe (see the original English version).
“The same goes to India,” added Landaveri. “By doing this they’re shaking off the last shackles of Colonialism.
“But let us continually be alert because the dark forces of tyranny with complicity of corrupt politicians, and the easiness of the misinformed public make entire counties fall into it.
“Like Ruben Blades said: “Search the depth and its reason, remember we see the faces but no the hearts”
“Just because Microsoft have erased any competition on the United States doesn’t mean that they have to do the same on Europe, India, Latin America y Africa. Its minions have names like Association for “Competitive” Technology as though they would like to compete when indeed Free Market means for them the obliteration of EVERY competitor not by doing better products but to destroy them and it’s last weapons besides its money are software patents.
“Finally, let us not forget that “The best regional software patent protection is the COMPLETE elimination of software patents”
“Europe wake up! The saga hasn’t ended yet!
Or in Spanish:
“Felicitaciones a España por no permitir a Microsoft imponer su agenda de control y dominio sobre ella y toda Europa.
“Lo mismo ocurre a la India. De esta manera se está sacudiendo las pasadas cadenas del colonialismo.
“Pero vamos a estar continuamente alerta, porque las fuerzas oscuras de la tiranía con la complicidad de políticos corruptos, y la facilidad con que el público mal informado pueden caer en su juego.
“Al igual que Rubén Blades, dijo: “Buscar el fondo y su razón, recuerda que se ven las caras pero nunca el corazon”
“El hecho de que Microsoft ha borrado toda competencia en los Estados Unidos, no significa que tienen que hacer lo mismo en Europa, India, América Latina y África. Sus secuaces tienen nombres como la Asociación para “Competitiva” Tecnología como si quisiera competir, cuando en realidad libre mercado significa para ellos la destrucción completa la competencia , no por hacer mejores productos, sino por destruirlos y sus última armas, además de su dinero son las patentes de software.
“Por último, no olvidemos que “La mejor protección regional de patentes de software mejor regional es la eliminación CoMPLETA de todas las patentes de software”
“Europa despierta! La saga no ha terminado aún!
translation of last night’s post is available in PDF and ODF format, as well as the following version.
“EL consenso que Microsoft está cada vez menos una empresa de tecnología (productos muchos menos) y cada vez más un troll de patentes y su vez un movimiento político, se va consolidando cada vez más. A medida que más y más productos de Microsoft desaparecen[http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Microsoft_-_Dead_Divisions_or_Products], la empresa se califica como un TROLL DE PATENTES (entidad no practicante) en más áreas en las que sólo extorsiona a la competencia que ganó.
Para que Microsoft sea más eficaz como un troll de patentes, Microsoft tendrá que modificar algunas leyes. Microsoft no puede hacer esto directamente, porque sería que criticado por intentarlo. Así que Microsoft contrata y financia a varios grupos (lobbyists) que hacen la presión por él. Se han escrito más de un centenar de puestos (posts) con ejemplos de este tipo de actividad, ya que esperamos documentar y trazar un mapa de los vectores de presión (que a su vez los debilita o, a veces les obliga a nymshift).
El programa Microsoft du jour está empujando el RAND, “Razonable y No-Discriminatorias” licencias en Europa. Microsoft aparentemente no pudo hacerlo en la India[http://techrights.org/2010/11/16/india-swpats-and-rand/]. Ahora quiere engañar a la opinión pública en Europa. Simon Phipps, un británico, acaba de explicar por qué RAND es “no tan razonable”[http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2010/11/rand-not-so-reasonable/index.htm]. Es un ensayo decente nueva en este viejo tema:
Justo, razonable y no discriminatorio – seguro que todo tiene que ser cosas buenas? RAND suena tan bien, y ha estado apareciendo en todo tipo de noticias últimamente. Es una parte clave en la negociación de licencias de patentes que se aplican a las normas, y que significa “razonables y no discriminatorias”, palabras tan excelentes que es difícil de criticar. A veces se muestra como razonables y no discriminatorias, con “JUSTO” FRAND adelante haciendo que suene muchísimo mejor, o como RAND-z, con la z (zero) que indica que todo lo que los términos de licencia se van a tener un billete de cero libras de precios adjunta. Como sin no va a costar nada. Suena tan maravilloso.
RAND aparece en las normas y procedimientos de la mayoría de las organizaciones de normalización y de hecho hace un gran trabajo en la mayoría de ellos. Es mucho mejor que la alternativa, en la que los titulares de patentes puedan obtener por licenciar sus patentes al precio que pagará cada víctima, o hacer la norma casi imposible de implementar por cualquier persona u organización que ellos no deseen que sea capaz de hacerlo de forma selectiva reteniendo una licencia. Usted puede entender por qué un grupo de estándares preferiría el mandato de RAND, razonables y no discriminatorias o RAND-z, dadas las alternativas.
Por supuesto, está la cuestión obvia de por qué un cuerpo de estándares permite que algo se convierta en un estándar en primer lugar, si una de las empresas que contribuyen a ella, posee una patente sobre una técnica esencial para que la ejecute. Recuerden el OOXML.
Simon Phipps dice a Carlo Piana (otra persona que representa los intereses de Europa no de Microsoft,): “¿Quieres apostar sobre cuánto tiempo será antes de que consiga un comentario troll?”
Bueno, ¿adivinen qué? Sí, no pasó mucho tiempo para mobbyist Microsoft Florian [http://techrights.org/2010/08/27/fake-representation-of-foss/] para someter un comentario troll promoviendo RAND, como es su costumbre[http://techrights.org/2010/09/01/msft-florian-promoting-swpats-rand/]. Su posición sobre este tema es prácticamente idéntica a la del grupo de presión que Microsoft Zuck lidera (asi como sus secuaces) [http://techrights.org/2010/08/26/microsoft-lobbyists-for-rand/]. ¿Cúan previsible debe haber sido para Simon Phipps? Probablemente sabía exactamente quién haría con el primer “comentario troll”. Simplemente mencionan RAND y mobbyists y pronto aparecerán. Casi cualquier pieza contra el RAND está interrumpido/trolled por mobbyists contratados por Microsoft que no sea él, pero eso es lo que debemos esperar dado los miles de millones de dólares de Microsoft tiene en juego. Profesionalmente hablando, Florian es todo acerca de Microsoft (. NET, nunca el uso de GNU/Linux, orgulloso Vista 7 usuario, mientras que se hace pasar por una persona de software libre que se opone a las patentes de software). En una palabra CINISMO con mayúsculas. Vamos a llegar a más de esto en un momento.
“RAND describe un superconjunto de los comportamientos. Algunos requisitos RAND llevan a términos de RF (Libre de Regalías). La existencia de contraejemplos triviales donde los estándares RAND tienen implementaciones GPL, Licencia Pública General [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.es.html#GPL] permite a los trolls desacreditar esta posición “.
Glyn Moody también se involucra en este debate (en Identi.ca). Él le dice a Bradley Kuhn (FSF), por ejemplo: “en general, sí, pero [RAND] un ser elaborado de manera anormal para ser compatibles.” Kuhn no muy de acuerdo. Para Phipps, escribe: “Puedo haber leído mal. Mi abstracto era: “a veces, RAND funciona para el software libre, pero por lo general no lo hace.” “No estoy de acuerdo con la sútil diferencia.” Para Moody Phipps y luego escribe:”. Es difícil conseguir los desarrolladores del software libre seguir las sútiles differencias de licencias de patentes, por lo que ayudan las simplificaciones, ala “# # = RAND problemática” [...] mi maestro de primer año de CS , dijo: “Tenemos que mentir un poco aquí”, en las sútiles differencias necesarias requisitos, pre-requisitos que no teníamos. Similarmente aquí, Phipps dice a Kuhn: “RAND describe un superconjunto de los comportamientos. Algunos requisitos RAND llevar a términos de RF (Libre de Regalías). La existencia de contraejemplos triviales donde los estándares RAND tienen implementaciones GPL, Licencia Pública General, permite a los trolls desacreditar esta posición “.
“Mira lo que hizo con la mobbyist Nancy Gohring, que cubre mayormente Microsoft desde hace años.”El mobbyist a continuación habla mal de Android, difundiendo información errónea sobre una demanda vertical contra Samsung y LG, (cerró todos los comentarios en su blog después de haber estado expuesto y reprochado varias veces por los comentaristas, para que nadie pueda corregirlo donde él guía a los periodistas con su masivo correos electrónicos). Se la caracteriza como una demanda contra el Android [http://news.priorsmart.com/vertical-computer-systems-v-interwoven-l3pZ/], aunque es ligeramente más complejo que eso. Pero no importa la exactitud. El mobbyists sabe que lo que se trata es de confundir a la gente que no saben mejor, haciendo declaraciones absurdas que pueden capturar incautos transeúntes que pasan por curiosidad.
Mira lo que hizo con la mobbyist Nancy Gohring, que cubre mayormente Microsoft desde hace años. Ella tomó como tarea una historia de IDG, y posiblemente fue alimentada por uno de los seudo-personales E-mails de Florian[http://www.infoworld.com/t/intellectual-property/android-faces-another-patent-attack-291] (que personaliza mensajes idénticos que envía en masa a muchos periodistas, mientras se presenta como un opositor de las patentes de software). Gohring escribió:
“Android se enfrenta a una nueva amenaza con una demanda que Vertical Computer Systems presentó el lunes en contra de Samsung y LG.”
Vertical se basa en que algunos teléfonos de Samsung y LG basados en Android infringen dos de sus patentes que describen los sistemas para la generación de aplicaciones. En la demanda, presentada ante la Corte de Distrito de EE.UU. para el Distrito Este de Texas, Vertical nombra el LG Aliado, cuatro modelos de Samsung Galaxy y el Galaxy de Samsung Tablet PC como los productos que utilizan “sus” tecnologías patentadas.
Ella entonces se une al mobbyist, que esta envíando correos eléctronicos en masa a los periodistas para obtener su versión de la historia sea la que se cuenta (y es en en general Linux hostil). No sabemos a ciencia cierta si Gohring fue alimentada por el mobbyist, juzgando por la forma en que está escrita (con su propia introducción falsa a sí misma), es muy probable que sí sea el caso. Él continúa fingiendo que está en contra de las patentes de software porque se trata de cómo un lobbyist debe presentarse a sí mismo a los periodistas (para tener credibilidad, aunque sea falsa, al igual que frente a un monopolio, pretendiendo hablar en nombre de las pequeñas empresas). Este desgraciado no tiene verguenza tampoco escrúpulos. No apreciamos su enfoque activo-agresivo con los periodistas, donde los presiones (con mensajes no solicitados en su mayor parte) para obtener que su versión de la historia sea la que se cuenta. A continuación, se jacta de ello, como si hubiera citado de forma espontánea para ser más exactos o perspicaces . Por otra parte, sólo así es como los grupos de presión en el trabajo en general. La Asociación por Tecnología “Competitiva” ACT tambíen funciona así. Son medios subversivos de comunicación, que tratan de influir en la opinión pública. El mobbyist también copia y paga mucho dinero por publicar comentarios idénticos o casi idénticos en muchos sitios y foros, como Slashdot, Ars Technica, y LWN. Como de costumbre, recibió la ayuda de Dana Blankenhorn, a quien conoció hace unas semanas. Blankenhorn nos menciona de una manera negativa [http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/how-much-patent-trouble-is-google-really-in/7800?tag=mantle_skin;content] porque se niega a escuchar a muchos otros autores de software libre que en repetidas ocasiones le han desenmascarado a Florian. El debe leer los comentarios de Florian con más cuidado y reflexionar. Tal vez algún día se dará cuenta y admitir que él tambíen fue engañado.
De todas formas, no sólo la mobbyists están promoviendo activamente RAND en este momento. Vean el nuevo calendario de IP 2010 [http://www.premiercercle.com/sites/ip2010/agenda_day1.php] y desplácese hacia abajo para ACT, los grupos de presión RAND (con las patentes de software en el interior). En “6C Patentes Software, Open Source” se encuentra “Jonathan Zuck”, que pretende representar a Bélgica (¿a quién esta engañando realmente?).
Glyn Moody dice [http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2010/11/can-you-feel-tension.html] que “la Comisión Europea y la Oficina Europea de Patentes quieren explorar” tensiones “entre las normas de las Tecnologías de Informatica y Comunicaciones y las patentes” (en referencia a la presente [http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/ict/standards/extended/ict-ipr-conference_en.htm]). Con razón se pregunta (en Identi.ca), “no se decide?”
Se puede decir con sólo su marco: se trata de “una conferencia para abordar algunas cuestiones específicas en materia de patentes y normas de las TIC Tecnologías de Informatica y Comunicaciones”. Las TIC son en su mayoría sobre software, y sin embargo el software no puede ser objeto de patente “como tal”. Así, en cierto sentido, esto debería ser una conferencia trivial que dure unos cinco minutos. El hecho de que no se muestra es adonde nos estan llevando: hacia la aceptación y la promoción de las patentes en las normas europeas, incluidas las de software.
Eso no es realmente sorprendente, dado que es la organización – la Comisión Europea y la Oficina Europea de Patentes (OEP). La Comisión Europea siempre ha sido un gran fan de las patentes de software, y es muy poco probable que la OEP pueda participar con una conferencia que dice: “ustedes saben, * realmente * no necesitamos todas estas patentes en nuestros estándares.”
Por supuesto, el resultado opuesto – que las patentes son tan indescriptiblemente deliciosas que tenemos que tener el mayor número posible de ellas en nuestras normas europea de las TIC – deben surgir de manera natural y orgánica. Y así para garantizar que resultan naturales y orgánicos, tenemos unas pocas empresas seleccionados que participan al “azar”.
Este es un tipo de debate falso (como el que nos encontramos en el cambio climático) está convocando a la polémica falsa en la que mobbyists y grupos de presión trabajan tan duro para crear. Ellos quieren distraer con preguntas que debería ser triviales y en su lugar poner la desinformación en el centro de todo. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
11.18.10
Posted in America, Law, Microsoft, Patents, Red Hat at 5:48 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Events in Canada may mean that USPTO expansion is hindered somewhat and Microsoft’s patent attack on GNU/Linux can be affected
PROFESSOR Michael Geist says that Sookman says that “The Canadian government appeals the Amazon.com decision regarding the patentability of business methods.” For those who have not followed this case, see [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. If true, this is good news. But Sookman is one of the ‘bad people’ when it comes to Canadian copyright law; it makes him harder to trust in some ways. It’s what one ought to expect from so-called ‘IP’ lawyers. To them, there’s money at stake. There are hardly any exceptions here. One of the latest examples is Patent WatchTroll, a software patents proponent (because he makes money from them as a lawyer) whining about Europe’s unwillingness to become more like the USPTO [1, 2].
One of the few ‘good’ patent lawyers, Rob Tiller (Red Hat), is now asking: “Is software too abstract to be patented?”
A big challenge for those facing the risk of being accused of infringing bad software patents is how to demonstrate that the patent is an abstract idea. The Bilski decision reaffirmed that abstract ideas are not patentable, but it didn’t give a test for how to distinguish such abstract ideas. There are various possible paths on this. The Supreme Court has said that mathematical algorithms are not patentable, and Ben Klemens [PDF] and others have argued that software is at bottom indistinguishable from mathematical algorithms. Others have fashioned related arguments leading toward the conclusion that at least some software is too abstract to be patented. Some of the analysis of PoIR on GrokLaw is particularly interesting: Why software is abstract and An Open Response to the USPTO — Physical Aspects of Mathematics.
This is a discussion that needs to continue. I hope FOSS developers and others with deep knowledge of software technology will get involved. We need to get to a convincing explanation in terms that non-technical people (such as judges and juries) can understand of the nature of software and why it is at bottom an abstract idea. Anyone care to take a swing?
Red Hat was recently hit by the Microsoft-funded Acacia and signed a secret deal. Amazon is now paying Microsoft for Red Hat, due to the secret Microsoft patent deal and Amazon’s awkward stance on software patents. Microsoft meanwhile “applies for a patent for [...] verifying a ‘safe’ operating system,” says one Microsoft booster (Mary Jo Foley).
Microsoft has applied for a patent for an “automated, static safety verifier” that will help verify the type- and memory-safety of an operating system.
And why should anyone care? This isn’t the Monkeys coming to Zune, after all. But there are some connections to other Microsoft projects (and potentially, products) worth considering.
This patent is abstract and absurd, but do not expect the author to say it. As a Microsoft employee put it a couple of weeks ago, “Mary Jo does not [do real journalism] and that’s why she gets interviews at Microsoft” (she did admit to me that this is the way it works, at least back when she was more gutsy). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Europe, Free/Libre Software, Microsoft, Patents, RAND at 5:07 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The Rand Pauls of RAND

Photo by Gage Skidmore
Summary: Rough tactics used to promote Microsoft’s scheme wherein Free software gets taxed by Microsoft, even in places like Europe where software patents are in principle not legal
THE CONSENSUS that Microsoft is decreasingly a technology company (far fewer products) and increasingly a patent troll and political movement is gradually getting a foothold. As more and more Microsoft products get axed, the company will qualify as a patent troll (non-practicing entity) in more areas where it’s just extorting its competition which won.
In order for Microsoft to become more effective as a patent troll, Microsoft will need to modify some laws. Microsoft cannot do this directly as it would get blasted for attempting it. So Microsoft hires and bankrolls several front groups that do he lobbying. We wrote well over a hundred posts giving examples of this type of activity as we hope to document and to map the vectors of lobbying (which in turn weakens them or sometimes forces them to nymshift).
The Microsoft agenda du jour is pushing RAND into Europe. Microsoft apparently failed to do this in India. Simon Phipps, a Brit, has just explained why RAND is “Not So Reasonable”. It’s a decent new essay on this old subject:
Fair, Reasonable, Non-Discriminatory – surely that all has to be good stuff? RAND sounds so good, and it’s been showing up in all sorts of news lately. It’s a key part in the negotiation of licenses for patents that apply to standards, and it stands for “Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory”, excellent words that it’s hard to criticise. Sometimes it shows up as FRAND, with “Fair” in front making it sound even better, or as RAND-z, with the Z indicating that whatever the license terms are they will have a zero pounds price ticket attached.
RAND appears in the rules and procedures of most standards organisations and actually does a great job in most of them. It’s far better than the alternative, which is for patent holders to be able to either license their patents at whatever price each victim will pay, or to make the standard almost impossible to implement by anyone they don’t want to be able to by selectively withholding a license. You can understand why a standards group would want to mandate RAND, FRAND or RAND-z, given the alternatives.
Of course, there is the obvious question of why any standards body would allow something to become a standard in the first place if one of the companies contributing to it holds a patent on a technique essential to implementing it.
Simon Phipps tells Carlo Piana (another person who stands for Europe’s interests, not Microsoft’s): “Want to make any bets on how long it will be before I get a troll comment?”
Well, guess what? Yes, it didn’t take long for mobbyist Microsoft Florian to hit this piece with a troll comment promoting RAND, as usual. His position on this subject is virtually identical to that of Microsoft lobbyist Zuck (and his fellow minions). How predictable it must have been for Simon Phipps. He probably knew exactly who it would be with the “troll comment”. Just mention RAND and this mobbyist will soon show up. Just about any piece against RAND is being heckled/trolled by Microsoft mobbyists other than him, but that’s what we ought to expect given the billions of dollars Microsoft has at stake. Professionally speaking, Florian is all about Microsoft (.NET developer, never using GNU/Linux, proudly using Vista 7 while pretending to be a FOSS person who opposes software patents). We’ll come to more of that in a moment.
“RAND describes a superset of behaviours. Some RAND requirements lead to RF terms. The existence of trivial counterexamples where RAND standards have GPL implementations allows trolls to thus discredit this position.”
–Simon PhippsGlyn Moody gets involved in this debate as well (in Identi.ca). He tells Bradley Kuhn (FSF) for example: “generally, yes, but it [RAND] an be crafted in abnormal ways to be compatible.” Kuhn does not quite agree. To Phipps he writes: “I may have misread. My take-away was: “sometimes, #RAND works out for FLOSS, but usually doesn’t.” I don’t agree w/ nuance.” To Phipps and Moody he later writes: “It’s tough to get FLOSS hackers to follow patent licensing nuances, so simplifications help, ala “#RAND = #problematic” [...] my 1st yr CS teacher said: “We must lie a little here” b/c the nuances required prereqs we didn’t have. Similar here.” Phipps tells Kuhn: “RAND describes a superset of behaviours. Some RAND requirements lead to RF terms. The existence of trivial counterexamples where RAND standards have GPL implementations allows trolls to thus discredit this position.”
The mobbyist has already resumed badmouthing Android, spreading misinformation about a Vertical lawsuit against Samsung and LG (he closed all the comments in his blog after he had been exposed repeatedly by commenters, so nobody can correct him where he leads journalists whom he mass-mails). He characterises it as an anti-Android lawsuit even though it is slightly more complex than that. But never mind accuracy. The mobbyists are supposed to confuse people who don’t know better, making absurd statements that may capture gullible bystanders who curiously pass by.
Watch what the mobbyist did with Nancy Gohring, who covers a lot of Microsoft since years ago. She took this one assignment/story for IDG and was possibly fed by one of Florian’s pseudo-personal E-mails (he personalises identical messages which he pushes to many journalists while presenting himself as an opponent of software patents). Gohring wrote:
Android faces a new threat with a lawsuit that Vertical Computer Systems filed Monday against Samsung and LG.
Vertical alleges that certain Samsung and LG Android-based phones infringe two of its patents that describe systems for generating applications. In the suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Vertical names the LG Ally, four Samsung Galaxy models and Samsung’s Galaxy Tab tablet computer as products that use the patented technologies.
She is then linking to the mobbyist, who is mass-mailing journalists to get his version of the story told (and it’s Linux-hostile). We don’t know for sure if Gohring was fed by the mobbyist, by judging by the way it is written (with his own fake introduction to himself), it’s very likely to be the case. He is still pretending that he is against software patents because this is how a lobbyist should present himself to journalists (for credibility, even if it’s bogus, like fronting for a monopoly while pretending to speak for small businesses). We do not appreciate his active-aggressive approach towards journalists, wherein he pressures them (with unsolicited mail for the most part) to get his version of the story told, then brags about it as though he was spontaneously quoted for being more accurate or insightful. Then again, that’s just how lobbyists in general work. ACT works like this. They are media subvertors, who try to sway public opinion. The mobbyist also copies and pastes a lot, posting identical or nearly identical comments in many sites and forums such as Slashdot, Ars Technica, and LWN. As usual, he received aid from Dana Blankenhorn, whom he met some weeks ago. Blankenhorn mentions us in a negative way because he refuses to listen to many other FOSS proponents who repeatedly explain to him Florian’s agenda. He should read his comments more carefully and reflect. Maybe one day he’ll realise and admit that he got bamboozled.
Anyway, not only the mobbyists are actively promoting RAND right now. Watch this new schedule for IP 2010 and scroll down to ACT, the RAND lobbyists (with software patents inside). Under “6C Software Patents, Open Source” we found “Jonathan Zuck”, who pretends to stand for Belgium (who is he kidding really?).
Glyn Moody says that “EC & EPO want to explore “tensions” between ICT standards and patents” (in reference to this). He rightly asks (in Identi.ca), “isn’t it decided?”
You can tell just by its framing: this is “a conference to address some specific issues on patents and ICT standards”. ICT is mostly about software, and yet software cannot be patented “as such”. So, in a sense, this ought to be a trivial conference lasting about five minutes. The fact that it isn’t shows where things are going to head: towards accepting and promoting patents in European standards, including those for software.
That’s not really surprising, given who are organising it – the European Commission and the European Patent Office (EPO). The European Commission has always been a big fan of software patents; and the EPO is hardly likely to be involved with a conference that says: “you know, we *really* don’t need all these patents in our standards.”
Of course, the opposite result – that patents are so indescribably yummy that we need to have as many as possible in our European ICT standards – must emerge naturally and organically. And so to ensure that natural and organic result, we have a few randomly-selected companies taking part.
This sort of fake debate (like the one we find in climate change) is summoning the fake controversy which the mobbyists and lobbyists work so hard to create. They want to distract with questions which ought to be trivial and instead put disinformation at the centre of it all. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Microsoft, Steve Ballmer, Vista, Vista 7, Windows at 3:50 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Vista 7 is unsuitable for form factors that customers increasingly adopt
WINDOWS is not doing well. Don’t believe the spinners. When it comes to profit, the numbers not only declined over the years; these turn out to be faked figures, too (the rest of the revenue comes from squeezing the goose, inflation, forced ‘upgrades’ and so on). Even Microsoft is now admitting that Windows has an innovator’s dilemma-type crisis. It just doesn’t scale, not even Vista 7 which Microsoft claims to be lighter than Vista (how inappropriate a basis for comparison).
According to this Microsoft booster, Vista 7 is too heavy for tablets. It’s implicit and subtle. By saying that Vista Phony 7 [sic] might be needed for tablets, Microsoft inadvertently admits that Vista 7 is too fat.
If Vista Phony 7 [sic] is Microsoft’s plan for the future, then no wonder we saw more and more people saying that Ballmer is already on the exit chair, awaiting ejection (and it won’t be Ballmer setting off this chair). As my colleague and friend Tim puts it, what Microsoft says is not reality and even its PR is suffering a lot this month. Examples are being given, including some from the overly-hyped KINect:
Today I thought that I would present a list of articles/links which hardly put Microsoft in the same light as its PR agents and boosters would want you to know.
[...]
Can Microsoft compete with the Nintendo with Kinect? – On the basis of this and other reports around the net, I wouldn’t think so.
[...]
It also seems Microsoft advocates/boosters will tell you that demand has it sold out. This doesn’t appear to be the case and at time of writing HMV had these in stock. Maybe Microsoft is trying to generate some interest? Maybe Kinect sales are suffering with the same type of lag that the device reports to have (as per the BBC Click review) . Maybe the people who part with cash for this contraption can let us all know.
“Will Microsoft ride Kinect tiger or go Wii Wii Wii all the way home,” asks one of ZDNet’s FOSS-leaning bloggers, who adds:
As I noted Friday, Microsoft has backed down from earlier legal and technological threats against the programmers who turned Kinect into a general computer interface. But now Google’s Matt Cutts has tweaked the Green Monster with his own contest for the best Linux and open source applications using the device.
Note that this is not a Google contest. It’s a Matt Cutts contest. He just happens to work at Google.
As our Adrian Kingsley-Hughes notes, the Kinect’s parts cost just $56. Even at $149, that’s a healthy profit margin, but he also notes that Microsoft’s research costs mean it must sell “a lot of Kinect devices to turn this one into a serious money spinner.”
Based on the billions (in losses) which Xbox cost Microsoft, one should not be too optimistic here. KINect will definitely sell better than KIN, but again, this is not a proper basis for comparison. Any Wii sold already contains the equivalent of KINect. Microsoft is playing catch-up here and allegedly spends half a billion dollars just marketing this thing. The same goes for Vista Phony 7 [sic] marketing, which — as we predicted — will be money down the toilet. The Register ponders: “So did Windows Phone 7 ‘bomb in US’?”
40,000 devices is still embarrassing, even if it’s just the USA and leaves out the 90,000 or so Microsoft employees who’ll be getting one, and even if figures elsewhere are rather better. But before drawing any conclusions it’s worth thinking about the numbers.
Charles Arthur, who is working for a Bill Gates-funded publication (where the sponsorship helps inject bias sometimes [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]), looks back at the early days of Windows and suggests that we are seeing the end of this era. His headline states: “Has Microsoft’s Windows had its day?”
The bald man in the ill-fitting check jacket doesn’t pause as he stands beside the beige 1980s-vintage PC. The words pour out of his mouth like the sharpest huckster you’ve ever seen. “How much do YOU think this advanced operating environment is worth? WAIT just ONE minute before you answer,” he instructs eagerly. “WATCH as Windows integrates Lotus 1-2-3 with” – he clutches his lapels – “MIAMI VICE!”
The screen shows picture of a Ferrari pasted into a document. “NOW we can take THIS Ferrari and paste it RIGHT INTO Windows Write,” the man gabbles. “NOW how much do you think Microsoft Windows is worth?… DON’T ANSWER. WAIT until you see Windows Write and Windows Paint and LISTEN to what else you get at NO EXTRA CHARGE!”
We’re only 15 seconds in but already you feel buffeted. “The MS-DOS executive, an appointment calendar, a cardfile, a notepad, a clock, a control panel, a terminal, printer, a RAM driver, AND CAN YOU BELIEVE IT, REVERSI, yes that’s right, ALL these features and Reversi, for just – HOOOOW much did you guess?”
Guess? We had to guess? ” FIVE HUNDRED? A THOUSAND? EVEN MORE? NOOOO it’s just 99 dollars, that’s right, it’s 99 dollars, it’s an incredible value but it’s true, it’s Windows from Microsoft, order TODAY! PO BOX 286-DOS,” he concludes as the address flashes on the screen, before adding weirdly, and without explanation, “…. Except in Nebraska.”
Arthur refers to the viral video below. Tim (of TechBytes and OpenBytes) does not expect Ballmer to survive next year at Microsoft. Vista Phony 7 [sic] is just one of his many recent failures. █

Steve Ballmer in Windows 1.0 advertisement
Permalink
Send this to a friend