EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

04.24.11

TechBytes Episode 41: Going Rusty

Posted in TechBytes at 7:55 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

TechBytes

Direct download as Ogg (1:22:55, 15.4 MB) | High-quality MP3 (75.9 MB | Low-quality MP3 (9.5 MB)

Summary: Tonight we spoke about Samsung’s defence against an Apple lawsuit, ACS:Law, torrents for slow networks, and a whole lot more; Rusty joined us from the United States

In addition to the topics named in the show notes, it ought to be mentioned that Richard Stallman said he would love to be in a future show; we are also adding videos over SIP very soon, and the intention is to have them summarise some news, be delivered in decent viewing quality, and maybe have guests in them too. Hopefully our first video episode will be out tomorrow.

RSS 64x64“Abyss of Hell” and “Bourbon Lassi” are the tracks in today’s show. We hope you will join us for future shows and consider subscribing to the show via the RSS feed. You can also visit our archives for past shows. If you have an Identi.ca account, consider subscribing to TechBytes in order to keep up to date.

As embedded (HTML5):

Download:

Ogg Theora
(There is also an MP3 version)

Our past shows:

November 2010

Show overview Show title Date recorded
Episode 1: Brandon from Fedora TechBytes Episode 1: Apple, Microsoft, Bundling, and Fedora 14 (With Special Guest Brandon Lozza) 1/11/2010
Episode 2: No guests TechBytes Episode 2: Ubuntu’s One Way, Silverlight Goes Dark, and GNU Octave Discovered 7/11/2010
Episode 3: No guests TechBytes Episode 3: Games, Wayland, Xfce, Restrictive Application Stores, and Office Suites 8/11/2010
Episode 4: No guests TechBytes Episode 4: Fedora 14 Impressions, MPAA et al. Payday, and Emma Lee’s Magic 9/11/2010
Episode 5: No guests TechBytes Episode 5: Windows Loses to Linux in Phones, GNU/Linux Desktop Market Share Estimations, and Much More 12/11/2010
Episode 6: No guests TechBytes Episode 6: KINect a Cheapo Gadget, Sharing Perceptually Criminalised, Fedora and Fusion 14 in Review 13/11/2010
Episode 7: No guests TechBytes Episode 7: FUD From The Economist, New Releases, and Linux Eureka Moment at Netflix 14/11/2010
Episode 8: Gordon Sinclair on Linux Mint TechBytes Episode 8: Linux Mint Special With Gordon Sinclair (ThistleWeb) 15/11/2010
Episode 9: Gordon Sinclair returns TechBytes Episode 9: The Potentially Permanent Return of ThistleWeb 17/11/2010
Episode 10: Special show format TechBytes Episode 10: Microsoft FUD and Dirty Tactics Against GNU/Linux 19/11/2010
Episode 11: Part 2 of special show TechBytes Episode 11: Microsoft FUD and Dirty Tactics Against GNU/Linux – Part II 21/11/2010
Episode 12: Novell special TechBytes Episode 12: Novell Sold for Microsoft Gains 23/11/2010
Episode 13: No guests TechBytes Episode 13: Copyfight, Wikileaks, and Other Chat 28/11/2010
Episode 14: Patents special TechBytes Episode 14: Software Patents in Phones, Android, and in General 29/11/2010
Episode 15: No guests TechBytes Episode 15: Google Chrome OS, Windows Refund, and Side Topics Like Wikileaks 30/11/2010

December 2010

Show overview Show title Date recorded
Episode 16: No guests TechBytes Episode 16: Bribes for Reviews, GNU/Linux News, and Wikileaks Opinions 3/12/2010
Episode 17: No guests TechBytes Episode 17: Chrome OS Imminent, Wikileaks Spreads to Mirrors, ‘Open’ Microsoft 5/12/2010
Episode 18: No guests TechBytes Episode 18: Chrome OS, Sharing, Freedom, and Wikileaks 11/12/2010
Episode 19: No guests TechBytes Episode 19: GNU/Linux Market Share on Desktop at 4%, Microsoft Declining, and ChromeOS is Coming 16/12/2010
Episode 20: No guests TechBytes Episode 20: GNU/Linux Gamers Pay More for Games, Other Discussions 18/12/2010
Episode 21: No guests TechBytes Episode 21: Copyright Abuses, Agitators and Trolls, Starting a New Site 20/12/2010
Episode 22: No special guests TechBytes Episode 22: Freedom Debate and Picks of the Year 27/12/2010

January 2011

Show overview Show title Date recorded
Episode 23: Tim, Gordon, and Roy TechBytes Episode 23: Failuresfest and 2011 Predictions 2/1/2011
Episode 24: Tim, Gordon, and Roy TechBytes Episode 24: Android, Microsoft’s President Departure, and Privacy 10/1/2011
Episode 25: Tim and Roy TechBytes Episode 25: Mono, Ubuntu, Android, and More 14/1/2011
Episode 26: Tim and Roy TechBytes Episode 26: £98 GNU/Linux Computer, Stuxnet’s Government Roots, and More 18/1/2011
Episode 27: Tim, Gordon, and Roy TechBytes Episode 27: Linux Phones, Pardus, Trusting One’s Government-funded Distribution, and Much More 22/1/2011
Episode 28: Tim, Gordon, and Roy TechBytes Episode 28: The Weekend After Microsoft’s Results and LCA 30/1/2011
Episode 29: Tim, Gordon, and Roy TechBytes Episode 29: KDE, Other Desktop Environments, and Programming 31/1/2011

February 2011

Show overview Show title Date recorded
Episode 30: Tim, Gordon, and Roy TechBytes Episode 30: Microsoft at FOSDEM, Debian Release, and Anonymous 7/2/2011
Episode 31: Tim and Roy TechBytes Episode 31: Nokiasoft and Computer Games 13/2/2011
Episode 32: Tim and Roy TechBytes Episode 32: Desktop Environments, Computer Games, Android and Ubuntu as the ‘New Linux’, Copyright Mentality 22/2/2011

March 2011

Show overview Show title Date recorded
Episode 33: Tim, Gordon, and Roy TechBytes Episode 33: Patent ‘Thieves’ and News That Deceives 6/3/2011
Episode 34: Tim, Gordon, and Roy TechBytes Episode 34: Done on a Dongle 13/3/2011
Episode 35: Tim, Gordon, and Roy TechBytes Episode 35: You Can’t Please Some People 19/3/2011

April 2011

Show overview Show title Date recorded
Episode 36: Tim, Gordon, and Roy TechBytes Episode 36: “Come to Take Me Away” 3/4/2011
Episode 37: Tim, Gordon, and Roy TechBytes Episode 37: Escaping the Soaps 4/4/2011
Episode 38: Tim, Gordon, and Roy TechBytes Episode 38: Thanks for Reaching Out 11/4/2011
Episode 39: Tim and Roy TechBytes Episode 39: Groklaw wins, Microsoft me too’s and trolls fail 13/4/2011
Episode 40: Tim, Gordon, and Roy TechBytes Episode 40: Video Begins at 40 17/4/2011

Eye on Patents: Monopoly Conflict of Interest and Software Patent Headlines

Posted in Patents at 7:40 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: A set of news about software patents and the general problems associated with patent monopolies

● Rick Falkvinge: Monopoly Lawyers Shouldn’t Write Monopoly Laws

Kappos and his $100 Million (10%) Budget Cut (a so-called ‘IP’ guy [1, 2] promoting so-called ‘IP’)

Last week, I reported that the new appropriations for the remaining five-months of FY2011 would force the USPTO to cut approximately $100,000,000.00 from its budget. That figure represents more than a 10% cut in what the office was expecting to spend during this period. Today, USPTO Director David Kappos confirmed my statements in a message to USPTO Employees. He writes:

In view of the funding cuts reflected in the final budget and affecting the U.S. government as a whole, we will be unable to expend the additional $85-100 million in fees that we will be collecting during this fiscal year—funds that we had anticipated being able to use to fund operations this year.

… Further, I am mindful of the fact that we may very well be operating at the FY 2011 level for the foreseeable future. As a result, we have had to make some difficult decisions in order to ensure the responsible stewardship of the agency.

Akamai Loss to Limelight to Be Reheard by U.S. Appeals Court

Akamai Technologies Inc. (AKAM) persuaded a U.S. appeals court to reconsider whether Limelight Networks Inc. infringed a patent over software that speeds delivery of Web videos.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in December Limelight didn’t infringe the patent. In an order posted on the court’s website today, the Federal Circuit said the dispute will be considered by all of the court’s active judges.

Nevada Lawyer Launches Patent Assault Over Media Companies’ Websites

A Nevada attorney and former tournament blackjack player says he invented—and patented—most forms of targeted online advertising. Now, Sheldon Goldberg has filed a lawsuit demanding royalties from 12 major media companies, including the owners of Conde Nast magazines and alt-weekly publisher Village Voice Media.

GPD Global’s FLOware® Software optimizes underfill processe

Federal Court Sides With TiVo in Ongoing EchoStar Battle

Appeals Court Rules Dish Network Breached Patent Rights Held by TiVo

Patent Protection (discusses a lot of the usual stuff)

“For me and many others the patent battle was a case story that demonstrated to us that a critical mass of dedicated persons from all the European countries can have significant political influence when fighting for better regulations for our society. Now, under the latest European Treaty, Official Journal of the European Union C 115/21 Article 11, a group of one million people from different member states can ask the European Commission to take up a specific topic to initiate or change legislation.”Anne Østergaard

Microsoft’s OOXML Fox Speaks of “Clueless Fuckwittery.”

Posted in Microsoft, Open XML, OpenDocument, Standard at 7:20 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“A stacked panel, on the other hand, is like a stacked deck: it is packed with people who, on the face of things, should be neutral, but who are in fact strong supporters of our technology. The key to stacking a panel is being able to choose the moderator. Most conference organizers allow the moderator to select die panel, so if you can pick the moderator, you win.”

Microsoft, internal document [PDF]

Summary: A key participator in the OOXML fiasco mocks an attempt to establish real standards

MICROSOFT zealots are quite the bunch. Those zealots love to characterise freedom lovers as what they themselves are, carefully using stereotypes to portray appreciators of rights, standards and transparency as the “bad guys”. We saw many examples of that last week in ZDNet and days ago we got a reminder when we saw Microsoft's "fox" speaking utter rubbish again. Alex Brown [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21] wants to be seen as a professional, but he keeps dodging the questions that matter. Moreover, rather than apologise for helping a corrupt process be corrupt (knowing all sorts of things which turned out to be true later, including patent traps), he carries on moaning and playing dumb. What does it say about him? With UK acceptance of ODF he must be rather bitter. After all, his reputation was burned like an effigy after all he had sacrificed everything for his beloved OOXML. Strong language is all he can descend to now, writing phrases like: “Faced with such clueless fuckwittery it’s tempting simply to ask: what’s the point?” The context is “UK Open Standards”.

Andy Updegrove has responded to this one:

Presumably, being involved in standards activities that are highly relevant to the consulting and implementation business of Alex’s firm, Griffin Brown, has no impact on its fortunes at all. And engaging in some other type of community service – say, volunteering at a homeless shelter, or becoming a Boy Scout leader – would avoid all that tedious travel to the excessively dreary locations where SC 34 (the format standard working group) insists on holding its meetings. Places like Tokyo, Stockholm, Paris, Copenhagen, and Prague.

[...]

The problem, it appears, is that Alex thinks that only those that participate in working groups like SC 34 are competent to judge what should be in a standard, or which among competing standards might be superior. Never mind, of course, that legions of formal standards have never been widely adopted at all, or that consortium standards are frequently adopted over formal standards. But forget that. Those who aren’t inside the formal standards process just don’t get what standards are really and truly all about, so why don’t all you ignorant sods just bugger off?

If the name Alex Brown rings a bell, don’t be surprised. Alex was the convenor of the one week OOXML Ballot Resolution Meeting held in 2008 – you know, the one that thought that a one week meeting was an intelligent way to resolve over 1,000 comments on an over 6,000 page specification in order to formalize an open standard. During that meeting, Alex made multiple decisions that were later condemned by many. Four countries filed formal appeals. Alex remains serene about that meeting, the decisions made, and the outcome.

Standards, you see, are not to be questioned by those that are expected to use them. They are to be accepted with the deference to which their developers are entitled. We, who are increasingly utterly dependent on what standards allow us to do, or not do, are never, ever to question the judgment of those that create these precious gifts.

Our role is to take what we’re given, and do what we’re told. Anything else would be “clueless fuckwittery.”

My God, Alex. Where is there an end of it?

“Do take a look,” remarks Groklaw, “and if you are in the UK, you might let the government know what standards are important to you. If you are not one for surveys, it says you can alternatively email cto at cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk”

Duck

Shades of SCO in Action Against Android

Posted in GNU/Linux, Google, SCO at 7:01 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Film clapper

Summary: Same script, new players; or how the Android case resembles the situation of Linux under SCO’s legal attacks

SCO is only history, but the lesson to be learned from the SCO case is that Microsoft, for example, will compensate other companies for attacking Microsoft rivals in the courtroom. One of the people who played along with SCO and Microsoft was DiDio from the Yankee Group and she is was quoted a lot by ECT over the years, even in Linux Insider. The same goes for other SCO friends, who wrote entire columns for ECT and also moved on to ZDNet where they pushed the SCO line/talking points. ECT still quoted DiDio last week (spreading FUD about “support” for GNU/Linux, in a Web site called Linux Insider).

One of our readers, speaking in IRC, suggested that Oracle, Apple, and Microsoft might be working together/in tandem, maybe even colluding to eliminate free platforms (they are all in CPTN after all). Pamela Jones linked to this new article and wrote: “That’s the same reasoning behind SCO’s attack on Linux, to make it cost. Where are the regulators, you ask? Where are *you*? If you refuse to buy from companies that behave like this, they’ll get the message, just as SCO got the point eventually.” From the article:

It’s the same reason why Microsoft is suing makers of Android phones: to give Android a price.

Android is free. In some cases, it’s even cheaper than free, with Google sharing some revenue from Google searches on Android phones with partners. This is hugely disruptive to both Microsoft and Apple’s business models; Microsoft because they make money on software licenses, and Apple on hardware. And this disruptive approach is winning: Android is surging past iOS in marketshare.

A lawsuit from a big company, even if doomed, still takes a lot of time, energy and money to fight off. So a Samsung or someone else might settle, accepting to pay some form of license. If that happens, Apple can go around the other manufacturers asking for the same license and have a much stronger claim. And now OEMs have to factor that cost into the decision to choose Android. And all of a sudden, Android has a price.

Microsoft has said that it would pursue this strategy. There need not be speculation here. John C. Dvorak wrote a similar article over the weekend. In summary he adds:

The rise of the Android operating system seems to have gotten the attention of just about everyone, as Google Inc. is under attack by various patent holders looking to derail the software and the company. The beneficiaries are Apple Inc. and Microsoft Corp.

Separately, Jones wrote that “Patent Verdicts Are Usually Appealed, Often Reversed”. Her comment in News Picks went like this (it is a shame that there cannot be permanent link to her insights in News Picks, therefore reproducibility matters):

I see Florian Mueller is once again predicting gloom and doom for Linux, this time due to a jury win for Bedrock against Google, but let me show you something that should calm the waters.

Here’s the website of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which is the specialty court that hears appeals of patent infringement cases in the US, and the link is to the page on statistics, and here [PDF] are the latest statistics on what happens to patent infringement cases on appeal. I think you can see from the stats why patent cases so often are appealed — your chances are very good that you can get matters reversed on appeal, almost a 50-50 chance.

In fact, here’s the intro to a paper [PDF] titled TOWARD CERTAINTY AND UNIFORMITY IN PATENT INFRINGEMENT CASES AFTER FESTO AND MARKMAN: “The increasingly complex technology involved in patent infringement cases has lead many to question the ability of district court judges and jurors in such cases to issue uniform and predictable decisions. In fact, there is evidence that the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals – the appellate court with sole jurisdiction and accumulated expertise in patent law – routinely overrules district court decisions regarding claim construction and prosecution history estoppel under the doctrine of equivalents. Given the frequency with which the Federal Circuit overturns district court decisions, and the fact that nearly every patent infringement case involves a dispute over claim construction or prosecution history estoppel under the doctrine of equivalents, patent infringement cases are typically uncertain until after appeal.”

So calm down. There will likely be an appeal of the jury’s decision in the case brought by Bedrock against Google. And given the nature of the patent, I expect Google will prevail, frankly. In fact just today, Dave Farber wrote on his IP list: “I believe I used that technique in SNOBOL in the early 60′s,” meaning the technique that awed the jurors so. When it comes to tech, it isn’t so easy for juries, and this was in Texas, where the juries have a rep for finding for patent holders whether they deserve it or not. So, I’d suggest everyone just relax and let it all play out. It’s way too early to be worried. I’d also point out that $5 million isn’t very much for Google, even if it were upheld, and if that were the worst that were to happen in the Oracle suit, it hardly would spell doom and gloom for Android. Of course, the real problem is that a lot of stupid patents have issued, and real solution is that software and patents need to get a divorce.] – Federal Circuit Ct. of Appeals

Let us remember that Microsoft Florian is busy attacking Android (even today) while he mostly ignores what Apple and Microsoft are doing; instead he promotes cartels like CPTN — a cartel with Apple inside it. Here is something that Glyn Moody wrote a few days ago on this matter.

So far, I’ve held off from writing about the proposed sale of 882 Novell patents to a consortium “organised by Microsoft”, since there have been so many twists and turns – first it was on, then off – that making sensible statements about the likely impact on free software was well-nigh impossible. As is so often the case, the devil would clearly be in the details.

[...]

Again, it is pretty amazing to read in an official press release from the terribly serious German Cartel Office concerns about the use of patents to spread FUD, specifically against open source. This argues a widespread appreciation of the way in which broken patent laws have allowed what was designed to be a spur to innovation to become a weapon for hobbling competitors – not just directly through the courts, but as a vague but real threat to hold over them.

The fact that the US Justice Department clearly shares that view – and “will continue investigating the distribution of the Novell patents to the CPTN owners” – is significant; it means that all of those involved in the CPTN consortium will remain under scrutiny to guard against any future abuse of the patents involved, or FUD based on them.

Now that Microsoft’s gadgets die along with all the rest of its products (bar the cash cows), even ZDNet does an article about it, even though it spins it a bit (as expected). For example:

Microsoft declined to confirm the rumours, although plenty are speculating that the company will keep the Zune brand and continue to produce media player software for Windows Phone 7 and the Xbox 360. If true, that would relegate the much hyped device to the dustbin of failed tech products.

Zune is one example among many where Microsoft fails in gadgets. This is why it wants to tax Android, for example. Increasingly, Apple chooses a similar route because Android is taking over many areas, thanks in part to its licensing model and wide channel strategy.

As CPTN includes the company behind iPatent, its legal actions make it a suspect. Not only Microsoft had something to gain from the SCO case. Sun too paid SCO. As we explained before, there is some evidence that can suggest collaboration on patents between Microsoft and Apple (they are already cross-licensing), including the irrational litigation against Android.

This post hopefully contains enough pointers to encourage further reading.

Microsoft’s Indian ‘Branches’ and TCS Harming India With Software Patents

Posted in Asia, Microsoft at 1:59 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

TCS Logo ('PATENTS')

Summary: News suggests that amongst Indian companies it is Microsoft’s partners who file for the most monopolies (patents), not just lobby for those

DUE to the nature of today’s attacks on software freedom, Techrights is becoming more focused on legal issues and there might be a new site/subsite pretty soon — one that concentrates on legal issues. A couple of years ago we started assembling articles about software patents in India, which matters a lot when it comes to software.

We have already shown how TCS is causing damage with patents; it does India a great disservice and to make matters worse, TCS is helping Microsoft along with Infosys, which is like an extension of Microsoft India. They are both taking the “lead in Indian tech patent applications” according to a new article which also states:

The biggest filer of technology patents in India is not an Indian firm, but the US chip-maker Qualcomm, India’s Controller General of Patents and Trademarks, PH Kurian has revealed.

[...]

Unlike the US, Indian law considers software code as less of an invention and more of a literary work and are therefore protected under the copyright laws. Many technology industry veterans therefore argue that the regime allows companies to steal software technology by rewriting the code from scratch, known as ‘clean room’ re-engineering.

Kurian said this may be a factor in the poor track-record of patent-filings by Indian companies. “In some cases, I know some of our software companies are filing outside India because we are stricter about software patents,” he said.

The monopolists have been trying to change the law though. Microsoft plays a pivotal role in this and it is helped by its semi-subsidiaries — such as Infosys — which do a lot of the lobbying.

IRC Proceedings: April 23rd, 2011

Posted in IRC Logs at 1:15 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

GNOME Gedit

GNOME Gedit

GNOME Gedit

#techrights log

#boycottnovell log

#boycottnovell-social log

Enter the IRC channels now

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channels: Come and chat with us in real time

New to This Site? Here Are Some Introductory Resources

No

Mono

ODF

Samba logo






We support

End software patents

GPLv3

GNU project

BLAG

EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com



Recent Posts