12.20.10
Posted in Microsoft, Patents at 3:04 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The show is over for companies like Kodak and Microsoft, so they turn to patents rather than products
Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols writes about CPTN, which is Microsoft’s latest plot that it leads in order to further suppress competition. That’s what patents are about and they tend to be used the most when their holder cannot compete and instead starts litigating. Sounds familiar? Look no further than Kodak.
We wrote about Kodak repeatedly [1, 2, 3, 4] also when it got close to the Gates Foundation, a big booster of patenting. Kodak has a long history in its field, but now it is becoming somewhat of a patent troll and this new article asks: “Will Kodak Sue More Photo-Sharing Sites?”
Kodak, which has gone after several mobile-phone companies over the past year, is now targeting an internet company, with its recent lawsuit against Shutterfly. And, more importantly, it could easily use those same patents to go after other companies in that space, from startups like SmugMug and Snapfish to larger entities like Google’s Picasa or Yahoo-owned Flickr.
Kodak has asserted five patents in the lawsuit against Shutterfly, which it claims are being infringed by various Shutterfly services, including the sales of prints and photobooks through its web site. It may find Shutterfly an unusually tough opponent, as the startup has a handful of its own patents and has hired top-notch patent lawyers. This week, Shutterfly counter-sued Kodak in a federal court in California.
The patent system has become pathetic because rather than encourage innovation it is clearly stifling it. “Congress Approves Patent Pilot Program For Federal Judges” claims Legal Times. This does almost nothing to correct a broken system which increasingly puts the United States in a position of disadvantage.
District court judges interested in developing expertise in patent litigation will have a new opportunity under legislation headed to President Barack Obama’s desk.
The House gave final approval Thursday night to a proposal to establish a pilot project in at least six district courts where judges will be able to opt in to the new program to hear patent cases.
“Prior to coming to Congress, I was part of a number of patent suits. I was often struck by the fact that many district court judges either knew little of the applicable law, or did not understand the technology involved,” said Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who with Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) sponsored the legislation. “Patent litigation often costs litigants over $10 million and can inject crippling uncertainty into a business. This legislation launches a 10-year program to support efforts of courts to help businesses and individual inventors who patent ideas.”
In a world of modernised copyright law (not here yet), will anybody need patents? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Courtroom, Microsoft, Oracle, Patents, RAND, Red Hat at 2:53 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The European Interoperability Framework does not go far enough to serve as a bridge between free/libre applications and this helps Microsoft
THE question about software patents can determine winners and losers. It’s a battle which takes place in the courts rather than the markets and it’s not over yet. The most recent Red Hat USPTO/SCOTUS news helped show the company’s great interest in the outcome and here is further news coverage of that:
A group of US companies including Red Hat, Yahoo, eBay, Electronic Arts, General Motors and HP, have joined together to challenge a recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which threatens to seriously exacerbate problems in the already highly controversial software patent system within the United States.
The group has filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking correction of the standard for inducing patent infringement, relating to the case of Global-Tech Appliances, Inc v. SEB S.A. Under the existing ruling, the Court of Appeals held that organisations and individuals can be held liable and prosecuted for infringing patents of which they have no knowledge. It used a standard of “deliberate indifference,” which it then equated to negligence.
[...]
The Supreme Court challenge is likely to be scheduled for sometime this spring.
Red Hat employees have commented on EIFv2 (we’ve asked them for feedback and received some) and Red Hat’s Mark Bohannon also put his output in Red Hat’s official Web site. Yesterday we showed that he put it in another site (Spanish translation), unless Red Hat put it there for him.
Richard Adhikari writes about the subject for ECT and gathers comments from various stakeholders:
The European Union has announced public procurement rules for technology that appear to favor open source.
The European Interoperability Framework sets out interoperability standards to create a trusted information exchange between public administrations of member countries.
The EIF encourages open specifications for the framework.
Members of the Business Software Alliance, which offer proprietary software, are apparently contesting this provision.
The announcement of the EIF is the another step in a years-long process.
“The EU’s work in this area has been going on since at least 2000, when OpenOffice.org was named as the preferred word processor for Denmark’s government,” Bill Roth, executive vice president at LogLogic, told LinuxInsider.
The European Parliament’s press office did not respond to requests for comment by press time.
In “Trond’s Opening Standard” (Oracle blog, not Oracle’s statement though) it is asked whether EIFv2 is “a new beginning” and the opening goes like this:
The most controversial document in the history of the European Commission’s IT policy is out. EIF is here, wrapped in the Communication “Towards interoperability for European public services”, and including the new feature European Interoperability Strategy (EIS), arguably a higher strategic take on the same topic.
Leaving EIS aside for a moment, the EIF controversy has been around IPR, defining open standards and about the proper terminology around standardization deliverables. Today, as the document finally emerges, what is the verdict?
Let us remember that Oracle uses patents offensively, notably in the Oracle vs. Google case that Groklaw continues to cover.
Groklaw quotes a page which is no longer accessible at the old address but can still be found here. Citing this letter [PDF] it says that “[p]atents do not give protection to inventive small businesses because they are impossible to enforce” (not news).
“A false assumption is made that an SME holding a patent will have ‘protection’ for their related investment in R&D and any resultant innovation,” the letter says.
This whole debate matters because the law is increasingly discriminatory in the sense that it discourages the small person with the small business. As Microsoft fails to make new products stick, it is turning further into the realms of patent trolling as white-collar racketeering company [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. A new blog post titled “Microsoft patent chief: 2010 was a significant year of invention” led Groklaw to saying: “Uh oh. Writers call that foreshadowing. From the blog: “Patents will continue to play a key role in fostering technologies that enable interaction with people in new, unexpected ways. Our commitment to world-class creativity and invention in computer science and our R&D investment will enable Microsoft to continue setting the standard for patent quality in the technology industry.” That means they want you to pay them.”
To quote directly from the blog post:
…Microsoft Chief Patent Officer Bart Eppenauer notes in a blog post that 2010 will “go down in history as a significant year for creativity and invention at Microsoft.”
When they say “invention” they means patents, which EIFv2 allows them to embed inside formats and protocols (e.g. OOXML and FAT, respectively), in order to marginalise software freedom and competition from the likes of Red Hat. █
Related posts:
- European Open Source Software Workgroup a Total Scam: Hijacked and Subverted by Microsoft et al
- Microsoft’s AstroTurfing, Twitter, Waggener Edstrom, and Jonathan Zuck
- Does the European Commission Harbour a Destruction of Free/Open Source Software Workgroup?
- The Illusion of Transparency at the European Parliament/Commission (on Microsoft)
- 2 Months and No Disclosure from the European Parliament
- After 3 Months, Europe Lets Microsoft-Influenced EU Panel be Seen
- Formal Complaint Against European Commission for Harbouring Microsoft Lobbyists
- ‘European’ Software Strategy Published, Written by Lobbyists and Multinationals
- Microsoft Uses Inside Influence to Grab Control, Redefine “Open Source”
- With Friends Like These, Who Needs Microsoft?
- European Interoperability Framework (EIF) Corrupted by Microsoft et al, Its Lobbyists
- Orwellian EIF, Fake Open Source, and Security Implications
- No Sense of Shame Left at Microsoft
- Lobbying Leads to Protest — the FFII and the FSFE Rise in Opposition to Subverted EIF
- IBM and Open Forum Europe Address European Interoperability Framework (EIF) Fiasco
- EIF Scrutinised, ODF Evolves, and Microsoft’s OOXML “Lies” Lead to Backlash from Danish Standards Committee
- Complaints About Perverted EIF Continue to Pile Up
- More Complaints About EIFv2 Abuse and Free Software FUD from General Electric (GE)
- Patents Roundup: Copyrighted SQL Queries, Microsoft Alliance with Company That Attacks F/OSS with Software Patents, Peer-to-Patent in Australia
- Microsoft Under Fire: Open Source Software Thematic Group Complains About EIFv2 Subversion, NHS Software Supplier Under Criminal Investigation
- British MEP Responds to Microsoft Lobby Against EIFv2; Microsoft’s Visible Technologies Infiltrates/Derails Forums Too
- Patents Roundup: Escalations in Europe, SAP Pretense, CCIA Goes Wrong, and IETF Opens Up
- Patents Roundup: Several Defeats for Bad Types of Patents, Apple Risks Embargo, and Microsoft Lobbies Europe Intensely
- Europeans Asked to Stop Microsoft’s Subversion of EIFv2 (European Interoperability Framework Version 2)
- Former Member of European Parliament Describes Microsoft “Coup in Process” in the European Commission
- Microsoft’s Battle to Consume — Not Obliterate — Open Source
- Patents Roundup: David Hammerstein on Microsoft Lobbying in Europe; Harrison Targets Lobbying on Software Patents in New Zealand, Justice Stevens Leaves SCOTUS
- Oracle Doesn’t “Go Bananas Over EIF 2.0” Being Subverted by Microsoft and Friends
- Inaction From Ombudsman/EU Commission Regarding Microsoft Lobbyists Derailing Public Policy
- The Difference Between Florian Müller and Hugo Lueders (Pro-Microsoft Lobbyists)
- BSA, ACT, and Other Microsoft Front Groups Still Try to Shoot Down EIF in Europe While Promoting Software Patents
- Free Software Proponents Expose the Microsoft-Funded (F)RAND Lobbyists and Their Lies, Microsoft to Lobby Directly in SOSOCON 2010
- Battling the BSA Hydra – Interpretation and Spanish Translation
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Free/Libre Software, Microsoft, Patents, RAND at 1:48 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
(ODF | PDF | English/original)
Resumen: Las primeras evaluaciones de la última versión del Marco Europeo de Interoperabilidad (EIF)
¿Qué tan bueno o mala es la versión final (como en la revisión) de EIFv2 (Marco Europeo de Interoperabilidad)? Bueno, depende de quién la pidió. Glyn Moody miró a la diferencia entre las diferentes versiones, que la FSFE (Free Software Foundation de Europa) también se destaca en su página web. Se levantaron en contra de los grupos de presión de Microsoft EFI[http://techrights.org/2010/08/26/microsoft-lobbyists-for-rand/]. Microsoft Florian[http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Florian_M%C3%BCller], BSA (Alianza Empresarial de Software)[http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Business_Software_Alliance], y ACT (Estadounidenses por Tecnología “Competitiva”)[http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Association_for_Competitive_Technology], por ejemplo, siguieron promoviendo RAND (“Razonable y No-Discriminatorias” licencias) utilizando exactamente las mismas mentiras sobre el Software Libre. Moody, que se activa refutar estas personas, dice que “los grupos de presión ganaron, el software libre pierde [en] #EFI#eu#” y escribe un artículo titulado[http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2010/12/european-interoperability-framework-v2---the-great-defeat/index.htm] “La Gran Derrota”:
“El largo sufrimiento de lectores de este blog sabrán que el Marco Europeo de Interoperabilidad me ha ocupado durante algún tiempo – escribí acerca de el por primera vez en 2008, y han estado siguiendo los giros y vueltas del proceso de revisión desde entonces.
Estas incluyen la versión infame filtrada que redefinió “cerrado”, como “casi libre”. Ahora por fin tenemos la versión final del EFI v 2 – y no es un espectáculo agradable.
[...]
Esta cuestión de si FRAND (“JUSTO”, Razonable y No-Discriminatorias” licencias) o no-restrictivas y/o libre de regalías debe ser aprobado por los estándares abiertos es el que he discutido mucho en columnas recientes, señalando que RAZONABLES y “NO DISCRIMINATORIAS” no son compatibles en general con las implementaciones de software libre. Podría parecer que la Comisión Europea ha llegado a un compromiso bien “equilibrado” por el que se especifica que ambas FRAND y libre de regalías son aceptables. Pero si lo piensas, “FRAND o libre de regalías” es idéntico a FRAND, porque FRAND incluye libre de regalías como un subconjunto estricto. La Comisión Europea se ha limitado a mencionar “libre de regalías” como una concesión a las personas que lo requerían.
Pero espera, usted puede decir, no lo especifica que incluso términos FRAND(“JUSTO”, Razonable y “No-Discriminatorias” licencias) deben ser “de una manera que permita su aplicación tanto en el software de código abierto como el propietario”? Ciertamente no, pero eso sólo significa que debe existir la posibilidad de algún tipo de código abierto para aplicar la normas FRAND, que no dice que todos los tipos de código abierto deben ser capaz de hacerlo.
Así, en la práctica, esto significa que las normas FRAND (“JUSTO”, Razonable y “No-Discriminatorias” licencias) que excluyen software GPLv2 (Licencia Pública General v2), por ejemplo, es perfectamente aceptable siempre y otras licencias de código abierto – de los cuales hay muchas – se puedan acomodar. Una vez más, la Comisión Europea ha adoptado un texto que parece responder a las preocupaciones de la comunidad de código abierto, pero que en la práctica ofrece a los aficionados FRAND exactamente lo que quieren: la posibilidad de BLOQUEAR el código GPLv2 (Licencia Pública General v2)- que son usados por la mayor parte del mundo del software libre – respetando al mismo tiempo EIFv2.”
Bueno, no todo el mundo está de acuerdo con esta evaluación (hay muchos comentarios en Identi.ca) y es reclamado por un empleado de Red Hat que la BSA y Microsoft están molestos por este resultado. Para algunos antecedentes más información, véase:
1. Grupo de Trabajo Europe de Software de Código Abierto una estafa total: secuestrado y subvertido por Microsoft y sus chácales[http://techrights.org/2009/02/27/microsoft-sap-seize-control/]
2. Astroturfing de Microsoft, Twitter, Waggener Edstrom, y Jonathan Zuck[http://techrights.org/2009/03/12/microsoft-astroturf-roundup/]
3. ¿Tiene la Comisión Europea un puerto de destrucción de Free / Open Source Software grupo de trabajo?[http://techrights.org/2009/03/24/refusal-disclosure-ess/]
4. La ilusión de la transparencia en el Parlamento Europeo y la Comisión (a Microsoft)[http://techrights.org/2009/04/30/illusion-of-transparency/]
5. 2 Meses y No Divulgación del Parlamento Europeo[http://techrights.org/2009/05/22/european-parliament-disclosure/]
6. Después de 3 meses, Europa Permite la influencia del Grupo Especial de Microsoft en la UE [http://techrights.org/2009/06/05/microsoft-corrupted-eu-panel/]
7. Queja formal contra la Comisión Europea por Albergar los Grupos de Presión de Microsoft[http://techrights.org/2009/06/25/ombudsman-posted-complaint-text/]
8. Estrategia “Europea” de Software, Escrita por Grupos de Presión y las Multinacionales[http://techrights.org/2009/09/14/eu-strategy-document-truths/]
9. Microsoft Utiliza Influencia Interior para Toma de Control, Redefinir “Open Source”[http://techrights.org/2009/09/19/microsoft-open-source-spider/]
10. Con amigos como estos, ¿quién necesita de Microsoft?[http://techrights.org/2009/09/28/microsoft-bear-hug-oss/]
11. Marco Europeo de Interoperabilidad (EIF) Dañado por Microsoft y sus Grupos de Presión[http://techrights.org/2009/11/03/eif-derailed-by-microsap/]
12. EFI Orwelliano, Open Source Falso, e Implicaciones de Seguridad[http://techrights.org/2009/11/04/orwellian-eif-manipulation/]
13. No hay Sentido de la Vergüenza en Microsoft[http://techrights.org/2009/11/07/microsoft-inverses-open/]
14. Grupos de Presión lleva a la Protesta – la FFII y el surgimiento de la FSFE en oposición a la subversión del EFI[http://techrights.org/2009/11/08/march-against-eif-corruption/]
15. IBM y Foro Abierto Dirección habla del Marco Europeo de Interoperabilidad (EIF) Fiasco[http://techrights.org/2009/11/11/open-forum-europe-on-eif/]
16. EFI Analizado, ODF Evoluciona y las OOXML de Microsoft “mentiras” de Plomo Backlash al Comité danés de Normas [http://techrights.org/2009/11/18/microsoft-is-accused-of-lying/]
17. Quejas sobre EFI Pervertido Siguen Acumulándose [http://techrights.org/2009/11/25/eif-many-complain-after-forums/]
18. Más Quejas sobre EIFv2 Indebido y el Software Libre FUD de General Electric (GE) [http://techrights.org/2009/12/02/second-version-of-the-eif/]
19. Patentes Resumen: derechos de autor por consultas SQL, Microsoft Alianza con Compañía que Atacs F/OSS con las Patentes de Software, Peer-to-patentes en Australia[http://techrights.org/2009/12/09/free-software-legal-restriction/]
20. Microsoft Bajo Fuego: Grupo de Software de Codigo Abierto Temática se queja de EIFv2 Subversion, NHS proveedor de Software Bajo Investigación Penal [http://techrights.org/2010/01/06/msft-related-scandals-draw-fire/]
21. Diputado británico responde a Microsoft lobby contra EIFv2; Tecnologías Visible de Microsoft infiltra/descarrila Foros frecuentemente [http://techrights.org/2010/01/14/bsa-and-visible-technologies-do-evil/]
22. Patentes Resumen: Las Escaladas en Europa, las pretenciones de SAP, CCIA Sale Mal, y el IETF Se Abre [http://techrights.org/2010/02/14/sap-pretense-ccia-trans-atlantic/]
23. Patentes Resumen: Varias Derrotas para los Tipos Malos de las Patentes, Apple embarga Riesgos, y Microsoft cabildea intensamente en Europa [http://techrights.org/2010/03/31/government-approved-monopolies-watched/]
24. Europeos solicitan que se detenga le Subversion de Microsoft del EIFv2 (Versión Marco Europeo de Interoperabilidad 2) [http://techrights.org/2010/03/29/call-for-action-eifv2/]
25. Ex miembro del Parlamento Europeo Describe un Microsoft “Golpe de Estado en proceso” en la Comisión Europea [http://techrights.org/2010/03/26/entryism-msft-eu-commission/]
26. Batalla de Microsoft para Consumir – No Asolar – Open Source [http://techrights.org/2010/04/10/microsoft-strategy-eif-foss/]
27. Resumen de Patentes: David Hammerstein sobre cabildeo de Microsoft en Europa; Objetivos Harrison cabildeo sobre las patentes de software en Nueva Zelanda, Stevens Justice deja SCOTUS [http://techrights.org/2010/04/11/hammerstein-eu-harrison-leads-lobbying-nz/]
28. Oracle no “Go Bananas En EFI 2.0″ ser subvertido por Microsoft y sus Amigos [http://techrights.org/2010/06/22/rant-about-eif-2-0-gone/]
29. La Inacción de la Comisión de la UE Defensor del Pueblo. En cuanto a los grupos de presión de Microsoft descarrilan las Políticas Públicas [http://techrights.org/2010/06/29/ec-employees-coverup/]
30. La diferencia entre Florian Müller y Hugo Lueders (grupos de presión pro-Microsoft) [http://techrights.org/2010/09/13/lobbyists-as-pretenders/]
31. BSA, ACT, y otros grupos Frente Microsoft todavía tratan de derribar el EFI en Europa promoviendo al mismo tiempo las patentes de software [http://techrights.org/2010/10/14/swpats-drama-in-europe/]
32. Los Defensores del Software Libre Exponen los Microsoft-financiados grupos de presión RAND y sus MENTIRAS, Microsoft Lobby Directamente en SOSOCON 2010 [http://techrights.org/2010/10/21/mobbyists-and-frand-fail/]
33. Luchando contra la Hidra BSA – Interpretación y Traducción en español [http://techrights.org/2010/10/22/karsten-gerloff-translation/]
El jefe de la FSFE respondió a la EIFv2 en varias ocasiones y luego escribió sobre ello en su blog[http://blogs.fsfe.org/gerloff/2010/12/17/assessing-the-new-european-interoperability-framework/]:
“Ayer, la Comisión Europea publicó finalmente la nueva versión de la Comunidad Europea Marco de Interoperabilidad [pdf]. Nosotros, en la FSFE ha estado trabajando en este documento por un largo tiempo. Cuando se publicó ayer, le dimos la bienvenida a pesar de algunas reservas.
Glyn Moody señala una serie de puntos débiles en el nuevo documento. En realidad, me preocupa que muchos de los mismos puntos que él. Sin embargo, no estoy de acuerdo con su juicio de que EIFv2 es una “gran derrota”. El documento sin duda habría sido mucho peor sin el arduo trabajo de la FSFE y otros. A pesar de que deja abiertas algunas cuestiones clave, que representa algunos avances.
Ya sea para dar la bienvenida EIFv2 o no es una cuestión de lo que toma como punto de referencia para la comparación, y si ve el documento aislado o en su contexto. Mucho dependerá también de cómo se implementa el EFI.
Pero vamos a llevar las cuestiones a su vez.”
Su conclusión:
“Así que lo que tenemos ahora es una declaración de estrategia, sin el nivel de detalle que hizo EIFv1 como un documento útil. Pero esta estrategia general, va en la dirección correcta, y es mucho más poderoso que antes, gracias a su carácter oficial.
Supongo que el cambio se verá en toda Europa será lento, sino que será continua y muy amplia. EIFv1 siempre un punto de reunión para los Estados miembros y los organismos públicos que se interesaron por el Software Libre y Estándares Abiertos. EFIv2 es un impulso general para todo el mundo a usar más los estándares abiertos, a pesar de que contiene generosa conseguir-hacia fuera cláusulas.
En general, damos la bienvenida a EFIv2. No es todo lo que deseabamos, pero es mucho mejor de lo que temíamos. Vamos a ver su puesta en práctica con mucho cuidado, y moverlo a lo largo de su caso.”
Aquí hay una página en cuestión[http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/1734&format=HTML&aged=0&language=en&guiLanguage=en] y comentarios relacionados de la FSFE:
* La FSFE da la bienvenida revisada Marco Europeo de Interoperabilidad [http://fsfe.org/news/2010/news-20101216-01.en.html]
“La Comisión Europea ha publicado su largamente esperada revisión del Marco Europeo de Interoperabilidad. Este documento tiene como objetivo promover la interoperabilidad en el sector público europeo. El documento es el resultado de un proceso prolongado y muy reñida. Free Software Foundation Europa acompañado este proceso y de entrada ofreció a la Comisión Europea en varias etapas.
“Durante la historia de la EIF, que tenía motivos para preocuparse que el Software Libre efectivamente sería excluida del sector público europeo. La FSFE ha trabajado duro para evitarlo, y lo hemos conseguido “, dice Karsten Gerloff, el presidente de la FSFE. “Con este documento, la Comisión muestra que está dispuesto a llevar. Vamos a apoyar y acompañar a la CE en este esfuerzo. ”
* La Libertad para Competir: la Fijación de la Contratación de Software [http://www.fsfe.org/projects/eu/freedomtocompete.en.html]
“El martes 07 de diciembre, se emitió un comunicado de prensa acerca de un contrato adjudicado por la Comisión Europea, en virtud del cual la CE y otras instituciones europeas se gastan hasta 189 millones de euros en software propietario y servicios relacionados. Somos de la opinión de que en la expedición de este contrato, la CE ha vuelto a no estar a la altura de sus propias directrices y recomendaciones sobre el uso del Software Libre y estándares abiertos, y ha perdido una oportunidad para abrir la contratación de software a la competencia de libre Las compañías de software.
Marcos Bohannon, el Vicepresidente de Asuntos Corporativos y Global de Políticas Públicas de Red Hat, dice[http://opensource.com/government/10/12/european-interoperability-framework-supports-openness] en un sitio de Red Hat de propiedad que “Marco Europeo de Interoperabilidad apoya la apertura”, y citan el final:
“Es el nuevo EIF perfecto? No. Debido a un fuerte cabildeo de intereses creados tecnología propia, algunos sectores clave de la EIF se han hecho confuso (de hecho, la definición de “estándares abiertos” se ha diluido en la versión 2004 y ya no incluye el requisito de ser “sin derechos libre “). La definición de “abrir” las normas o especificaciones sigue siendo un motivo de discordia en la industria de TI. Un ejemplo de una definición más precisa de los estándares abiertos se pueden encontrar en el recientemente lanzado Política de Normas de la India e-Gobierno, que especifica que la propiedad intelectual debe tener una licencia libre de regalías y que alguna especificación requerida debe ser de neutralidad tecnológica.”
“Si bien la nueva definición no da a la comunidad de código abierto y estándares abiertos todo lo que hubiera deseado, y algunos ciertamente critican el resultado, la política de la UE aún debe ser aplaudido como una declaración general en favor de la apertura. En su corazón es una reafirmación de la apertura y el reconocimiento de que el código abierto no sólo es un elemento clave de la -, sino también un factor creciente en la – La agenda europea de TI.”
“Red Hat y la comunidad de código abierto y estándares abiertos seguirá trabajando para las políticas de derechos de propiedad intelectual libres de derechos de licencia que nivelar el terreno y promover la elección de los consumidores. Teniendo en cuenta este último anuncio de política de la UE, la comunidad de código abierto y estándares abiertos tendrá que ser vigilantes para que esta política se lleva a cabo de una manera significativa y alcanza su verdadero objetivo: la interoperabilidad, la elección de proveedor, la portabilidad, la innovación colaborativa y la competencia en la prestación de productos y servicios.”
Comentarios de Simon Phipps ‘se puede encontrar en Identi.ca, pero también en su blog [http://webmink.com/2010/12/17/links-for-2010-12-17/], por ejemplo:
“Lugar de referencia la publicación del Marco Europeo de Interoperabilidad de la Comisión Europea. Por supuesto, esto es sólo una orientación y el contexto político es muy complejo como lo demuestra el lenguaje en torno a “FRAND” y las patentes. Vamos a ver si pueden adherirse a este mejor de lo que puede pegarse a sus directrices propias adquisiciones.”
[...]
“Como si para proporcionar cuidado los acoge con satisfacción la publicación del EIF, FSF Europa sigue de cerca muy racional y bien argumentada sobre el fracaso de la Comisión Europea a seguir sus propias reglas.”
Con todo, no hay consentimiento aquí. Parece haber acuerdo en que el EIFv2 podría ser mejor, algunos de F/OSS defensores están razonablemente satisfechos, pero RAND se las arregló para encontrar su camino en el EIF. En cierto modo, el mobbyists y grupos de presión salieron con la suya. █
[Special thanks to Eduardo for his translation]
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Africa, America, Bill Gates, Patents at 1:33 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Pfizer’s impact on the Nigerian population serves to show that Bill Gates’ actions in the country can be counter productive and beneficial to large American business
A FEW months ago we wrote about Pfizer's connections with the Gates Foundation. Bill Gates is a shareholder and his investment in experiments performed on Nigerian people can result in massive profits, which rely on Pfizer patents and medication that can be tested on a population that would not sue back when things go awry*. This victimisation of Nigeria is a subject we more recently covered in various posts but did not have time to continue covering in recent weeks. Fortunately enough, with Wikileaks’ help Democracy Now is currently covering what it titled “WikiLeaks Cables: Pfizer Targeted Nigerian Attorney General to Undermine Suit over Fatal Drug Tests”
“The Gates Foundation is about control, not charity.”“Diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks show the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer hired investigators to find evidence of corruption against the Nigerian attorney general to pressure him to drop a $6 billion lawsuit over fraudulent drug tests on Nigerian children,” says the summary. Democracy Now helped explain how Gates increases polio in Nigeria, too. That was a few years back.
It’s not just Nigeria which gets this type of treatment. The Gates Foundation is about control, not charity. Dr. Ravitch, for example, has warned [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] that Bill Gates uses it as a vehicle to take over American schools and Alternet.org, which is not ‘for sale’, slags him off for it right now, summarising its article as follows:
Gates’ suggested short-changing of the nation’s education system is just another strain of the oligarchs trying to take over another sector of society.
The above refers to the United States, but Gates took this agenda to Canada too. That was some months ago. It’s all about power, it’s a question of control. It goes global, gradually. Real issues like safety for example are being ignored.
Last week the Ontario Auditor General released its report with respect to the Ontario Governments “Safe Schools initiatives”. The overall report centers on the lack of information relating to the success of programs implemented in the Safe Schools initiatives, and lack of accountability with respect to where the money the province allocated to these programs went when school boards got their hands on it.
It’s a shame that we no longer cover Gates Foundation news. Hopefully we will return to showing what Bill Gates does not want people to know, maybe some time this month (he spends about a million dollars per day just controlling the press and glorifying himself, quite effectively in fact). How about paying tax like ‘normal’ people? █
“My background is finance and accounting. As a socially conscious venture capitalist and philanthropist, I have a very good understanding of wealth management and philanthropy. I started my career in 1967 with the IRS as a specialist in taxation covering many areas of the tax law including the so-called legal loopholes to charitable giving. […] However, the Gates Buffet foundation grant is nothing more than a shell game in which control of assets for both Gates and Buffet remain the same. […] The only difference is that the accumulation of wealth by these two will be much more massive because they will no longer have to pay any taxes.”
The Gates and Buffet Foundation Shell Game
___
* We wrote about pharmaceutical fallacies in 2009 (in the context of patent debates).
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.19.10
Posted in GNU/Linux, Novell, OpenSUSE at 6:28 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Novell’s new head speaks to Novell customers and characteristically neglects OpenSUSE, which unlike SLE* can be modified easily
Novell will soon be known as AttachMSFT [sic], following the acquisition which will have assets passed and perhaps rebranded. Jeff 'bison slayer' Hawn will replace Ron Hovsepian, who looted Novell while putting it on sale (he got around $20 million or more for his job, all while sacking employees). Novell’s new leader, an already-notorious bison slayer (he killed many innocent animals with firearms) has published this open letter where OpenSUSE is not mentioned even once, despite promises which were made beforehand in order to calm the community down.
Attachmate is committed to delivering quality products, providing exceptional customer service, and being easy to do business with. We are excited about the opportunity to make these same commitments to Novell customers after closing. To ensure that we do so, Attachmate will support the existing roadmaps and release schedules for products across the Novell and SUSE portfolios.
It says nothing about OpenSUSE, which could be an early sign of what people close to SUSE choose to deny, calling it “OpenSUSE FUD”. To quote:
I am really sick and tired of people spreading FUD on the future of openSUSE and SUSE Linux in light of the Attachmate/Novell merger.
Point One – Attachmate is not Oracle and openSUSE is not OpenSolaris.
Point Two – Jeff Hawn, CEO of Attachmate has already said that SUSE and openSUSE are important components of the merger and will remain.
Point Three – Goto Point One
The SD Times compares Sun to Novell (typical comparison) and “Oracle’s Solaris take-over” is aligned with “SUSE angst” in this other new article that says:
2: SUSE Linux users nervous as Novell explores options
In late May, Novell Inc., apparently put itself on the block two months after an unsolicited — and unwelcome — $2 billion buyout bit by Elliott Partners. The company, which made its name on NetWare, joined the Linux fray with its purchase of SUSE. Novell SUSE Linux struggled against Red Hat Linux in big accounts, but retained a devoted base of users who now worried about what Novell’s plans meant for their favorite Linux distribution.
The OpenSUSE volunteers keep releasing news even though there is next to none except for technical posts and the occasional old news from Novell staff like Jos Poortvliet. He goes back to writing about the OpenSUSE conference:
At the openSUSE conference almost two months ago a special Educational track on Saturday featured talks about the progress on openSUSE Edu-L.i.f.e, the applications it ships and many other educational topics. The goal of the openSUSE Edu team is to cater for students, educators as well as parents and the software they develop, package and ship has everything required to make computers productive for either home or school usage.
Regarding a story which we mentioned some days ago Sam Dean writes: [via LWN]
We’ve covered Novell’s SUSE Appliance Program, which encompasses SUSE Studio before, and now the “roll-your-own-Linux” efforts behind the program are coming to fruition. Novell has announced the winners of its first annual ‘Dister’ awards, which celebrate “innovators and inventors” who use SUSE Studio to build creative SUSE Linux-based software offerings. Novell is handing out two $10,000 grand prizes to two companies: Radical Breeze and Anderware. Here is what they built, and how open source-focused incentive programs like this can really succeed.
This is not exactly OpenSUSE and that’s what Novell is willing to speak about in press releases. There is still no long-term commitment to OpenSUSE, which gives reason to fork and escape the trademark now owned by AttachMSFT [sic], not to mention that it’s tainted by the patent deal (expires within a year). The light green is not trademarked, so the escape route seems approachable. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Mono, Patents at 5:55 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Further explanations about the dangerous nature of Mono and Microsoft’s relationship with GNU/Linux
THERE IS abundant evidence that Mono is a Microsoft Trojan and more recently it was also co-developed directly by Microsoft, which removed doubts about it being beneficial to Microsoft rather than a competitive risk to the patent bully which breaks the law routinely and changes the law to illegalise the competition. Dana Blankenhorn wrote about Microsoft and Wikileaks at the end of last month, stating:
But what about big business lies, like the one about Microsoft caring about Linux and open source on behalf of customers (as opposed to profit)? We know it’s not true.
Whether we think it acts defensively regarding Linux (as I do) or offensively (as some talkbacks will say below) everyone knows Linux is a threat to Microsoft and that the company has to respond.
People who say that Microsoft can be a friend of Linux sometimes turn out to be former Microsoft employees, people whose work complements Microsoft’s, or people who couldn’t care less about GNU/Linux and just want to be portrayed as peacemakers. “People. Can’t Live With Them. Can’t Shoot Them. ARGH!” That’s the title of Wayne Borean’s latest blog post which accompanies this fairly well-researched article on Mono and why it is wrong to promote it as some people do.
Mono, the Open Source implementation of Microsoft’s .NET programming environment (the Common Language Infrastructure) , has probably caused more page views, than any other programming environment. Ever.
There’s a variety of issues people have had with Mono, but almost everyone has missed the main point.
Who In Their Right Mind Would Want Microsoft Technology On Their Linux Operating System Computer?
Stop. Think. Why do most people dump Windows for Linux? Is it because:
1) They are true believers in software freedom?
2) They think that a Unix style operating system is superior?
3) Because they think that Windows is a total piece of crap?
Most people will pick number 3. That’s why I switched. That’s why I absolutely refuse to help out friends who run Windows anymore. If they want to run Windows after I’ve warned them about the issues (virii, security holes, etc.) then as far as I’m concerned they can take the computer to Geek squad. I refuse to fix it.
When I switched to Ubuntu, I was ecstatic that I wouldn’t have to put up with Microsoft, ever again.
And then I got a total shock. I found out that some idiot (this is my feelings at the time) had decided to import Microsoft technology into Linux. I was furious.
Just think. I’d done a lot of work getting my laptop running fully with Ubuntu 7.04, the biggest problem being the Broadcom wireless card, all to escape from Microsoft. And about a year after I’d made the switch, I find out that I haven’t escaped from Microsoft after all, because some idiot had decided it would be a nice idea to if programmers used to working with Microsoft C# had the same thing available to them on Linux.
We already know from a Microsoft employee that Microsoft encourages its TEs (paid AstroTurfers) “to stay away from supporting Mono in public [because] they [Microsoft] reserve the right to sue” and Microsoft confirmed this last year when it put legal boundaries started suing companies for using Linux (or Microsoft APIs in Linux, e.g. FAT). We will soon show new evidence that Microsoft intends to litigate with patents even more in the near futuere. Mono gives them many convenient targets. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
