04.20.11
Posted in GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Mono, Novell at 2:07 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Overlap between Mono and Microsoft is increasing and Novell helps make Microsoft stronger
Microsoft has already become a contributor to Mono. Its own code is right in there and parts of Mono are licensed under Microsoft licences. Some members of the Mono team are former Microsoft employees, who still serve Microsoft’s interests; they find Android to push their APIs into, as we explained most recently (announcements come from Novell, which was paid by Microsoft). They advocate pushing more Mono also into Linux, the kernel. Yes, that’s just the most recent example of the former Microsoft employee recommending that Linux adopts C#.
Meanwhile, the Mono team is helping Microsoft by spreading the dying Silver Lie (why be so adamant to save Microsoft’s products?) and sites that focus on this area of Microsoft’s operation indeed give credit to Mono. Mono and Moonlight are closely related, as we have explained since 2007 (back when the Mono team denied it). Well, it’s quite telling that according to Microsoft MVP de Icaza, even Mono conferences are held on Microsoft’s territories. To quote his new Monospace rave:
The event will take place at the Microsoft NERD Center.
Yes, this is where the future of Mono is being determined. Mono is Microsoft. It’s Microsoft’s benefit, it’s Microsoft’s APIs, it’s Microsoft’s patents, it’s Microsoft fans. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Apple, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Patents at 2:38 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Why Microsoft is the black sheep among technology companies, especially when it comes to the software patents lobby
Microsoft is not a boogeyman, it is a major part of the problem Free software has been having, especially when it comes to particular areas like legislation. Microsoft is a major lobbyist for many of the policies that by their nature marginalise Free/Open Source software and it is the company behind many lawsuits against Linux-powered products (increasingly, Apple does the same thing and it backfires). It’s not a coincidence, it’s systemic. Over in New Zealand Microsoft not only uses proxies like NZICT to lobby for software patents. According to the FFII’s president, “Microsoft pushing for software patents in New Zealand, asking to reject “reject clause 15(3A)”, using the EPO hack”
Here is the evidence right from the horse’s mouth (MSDN):
Many changes in the Patents Bill are constructive and will help to improve patent quality in New Zealand. However, the proposed exclusion in clause 15(3A) is a step in the wrong direction. And, setting aside policy considerations, an exclusion that no one can explain will be bad law.
We think the focus should be on patent quality, not on an arbitrary exclusion. However, if there must be an exclusion, the question must be asked: “How can inventors and investors make decisions about their commercialisation strategy if it is not even clear which inventions are now to be excluded from protection?”
It was only yedsterday that we also wrote about Lehne's agenda in the context of conflicts of interest and now we discover this about the SCOTUS ruling regarding Microsoft’s patent infringement (the i4i case, which is still being covered in the news):
The case was heard by eight justices, with Chief Justice John Roberts not taking part because he owns more than $100,000 worth of Microsoft stock. The court will likely rule on the matter by the end of June.
How many of the judges have investments that they do not disclose? There was recently a major blunder regarding political affiliations and activities of SCOTUS judges (“justices”). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Site News at 1:04 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: ZDNet deletes important claims — even defenses of the falsely-accused — which are supported by court evidence and direct evidence; Microsoft Jack (Schofield) acting as the hatchet man of malicious corporations which support his convictions using the same site which he works for
AN incident which we mentioned the other day would simply have been resolved by ZDNet UK had the editors bothered to look at the evidence sent to them. But it has been three days and it fell on deaf ears. Our detractors tried to claim that the now-invisible comments were somehow nasty or “unlawful” (since these were deleted, nobody can verify that this is a fallacy), but for those who want to see the comments which ZDNet UK found unacceptable (to the point of deleting them, as opposed to not approving them in a moderation process), here are the 7 deleted comments, which were eventually fetched from Google Cache. These are posted here in full, in order to prove that there is nothing rogue about them (justifying censorship by complete deletion). So, here are the comments in their entirety, including the text I quoted for reply and in defence of myself, due to wrong allegations being made against me (see prior post for more context):
Comment #1:
[...cont]
More people deserve to be aware of the shady industry which calls itself PR and is sometimes the creation of companies which become its clients (it is proxifying). One company which Microsoft uses (and was created by a former Microsoft employee) brags about methods of auto-finding critics and auto-generating blog comments from templates in order to rapidly respond to criticism, so it’s semi-automated. If the message cannot be shot down, the messenger gets disgraced; if that’s not enough, this sometimes escalates to intimidation and harm (not physical harm).
I should add that Microsoft employees have publicly compared me to Unabomber, a serial killer. Those who accuse me of “libel” conveniently take a one-side, double-standard approach. If they have an issue with something I wrote they should speak out as we have a good track record of correcting errors (we amended about 20 blog posts among 13,000+). Just because someone does not like an opinion does not make this opinion “libel”. Blogs provide opinions a lot of the time and Techrights is carefully worded.
If someone wishes to ask questions, issue a correction, and also find out that we are amicable people can join us at the IRC channels. We are not of the stereotype our detractors claim us to be.
NB – it appears as though the ZDNet comment component just devoured links that I put in my previous comments, e.g. the one from Wired Mag.
Comment #2:
[continued]
[quote]
Here’s a good example. In this article, http://techrights.org/2010/03/17/rich-uncle-bill-explored/, he writes about Bill Gates and Bill Clinton. They both testified before Congress on the same day urging an increase in US spending on global health. He also notes that there are photos of Bill Gates and Bill Clinton sitting next to each other.
[/quote]
There is far more than that. If one follows the links and does further digging, it will become apparent. Did you know, for example, that the new speech writer of Bill and Melinda is Clinton’s? I wrote a lot more about it than the above, but it takes patience to learn. I could provide links here, but ZDNet devours links that I put with the hypertext.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303362404575580340735524682.html
[quote]
Then, about nine months later, he writes this article: http://techrights.org/2011/01/02/vietnam-with-proprietary-software/. In that article, he cites the first article as showing “the special relationship between Clinton and Gates”. Testifying on the same day in Congress and being seen sitting next to each other is a special relationship?
[/quote]
No. What you say is akin to claiming that just because Biden sat next to Geffen/other on some arbitrary date we can suddenly deduce that Biden is in Hollywood’s pocket (with copyright policy). You use an anecdote to infer that it is an *isolated* example. It’s not.
Comment #3:
[continued]
[quote]
Next time he writes about Clinton and Gates and their “special relationship”, he’ll cite the second article, so you’ll have to click through twice to see original sources and find out his claim is not supported.
[/quote]
There are many examples which you could find. Search Techrights to find external links, too.
[quote]
Here’s another good example of poor research: http://techrights.org/2011/01/12/kinect-vs-move-and-truth/. He praises Sony for selling 4.1 million Moves in 2 months, and says it is beating Kinect. I invite you to do the research that Roy either didn’t do, or purposefully ignored. You’ll find Kinect did 4 million in ONE MONTH, and by two months was at something like 8 million. (Oh, Sony’s numbers were “sell in”, and Microsoft’s were “sell through”. The former is how many have been pushed into the sales channel, the latter is how many have sold to consumers. I.e., Sony’s numbers included stock sitting on shelves).
[/quote]
Sony seems to have gamed numbers by channel-stuffing, much in the same way that Microsoft always done (and Techrights kept good record of that). If the Sony ‘numbers game’ fooled us, then we may have an error there, one error in a pile of 13,000+ posts (which may make the above nitpicking on being deceived by Sony, makers of rootkits and lawsuits against PS3 enthusiasts).
[quote]
A final example: http://techrights.org/2010/08/26/aviation-and-windows-2/. He claims the crash of a Spanair plane was caused by malware. This is an outright lie. The crash was caused by the flaps being in an incorrect position at takeoff, because the pilots did not go through the preflight checklist. There was a warning system that should have warned them of this–but it was not a computerized warning system.
[/quote]
That seems like revisionism from you. It has been well established that malware caused it.
Comment #4:
continued]
[quote]
There was (possibly) malware on a computer owned by Spanair. That computer was at headquarters, hundreds of miles from the plane and crash, and was used to file maintenance reports. Its connection to the crashed flight was that if all had gone well, a day or two *AFTER* the crash, a maintenance report on that plane was due to be filed, and the computer was supposed to then notice that the plane had had the same problem three times in a short period (a problem unrelated to the crash), and flag for further investigation. There is speculation that this flagging would have perhaps failed due to the malware.
[/quote]
That’s beside the point. There was malware there. The context in which I wrote this post was a claim from Microsoft Florian (the lobbyist) that IBM was to blame for the crash — a lie which he repeated several times.
[quote]
I’ll stop with the examples now, although I have dozens more (some hilarious, like a fairly recent one claiming that the iPad–excuse me, hypePad–has been a big failure commercially).
[/quote]
Got more example? Go ahead. Don’t entertain the audience with mythical ones. SCO said it had “mountains of evidence” that Linux was a ripoff of ‘its’ UNIX. Did it show these “mountains of evidence”?
Comment #5:
[continued]
[quote]
I challenge you to actually SERIOUSLY read Techrights for a couple of weeks. By “seriously” I mean read each article and do a good fact checking on it. Follow the links until you get to original sources. Check those sources and see if (1) they actually support what Schestowitz is citing them for, and (2) if they seem to be legitimate sources.
[/quote]
Thanks for urging people to read it from the source rather than by hearsay about the site.
[quote]
I guarantee that if you do this, you’ll be posting another blog entry, retracting this one.
[/quote]
This does not seem to be the case, does it? And I’ll tell you why. Over the years we’ve had people who entered the IRC channels only to troll us. And you know where these people are today? They are on the channel defending us. They defected. They realised that they have been incited against a site which actually *does* defend their interests. You can go ahead and try comparing me to Beck all you want, but people who actually spend a day reading me on Twitter/Identi.ca will see a stereotype mismatch.
Comment #6:
Microsoft’s Public Relations department, Waggener Edstrom, edits Wikipedia. It’s well documented. http://techrights.org/2008/12/05/waggener-edstrom-wikipedia/
Comment #7:
Well, while we’re at it, Techrights also published leaked E-mails from Waggener Edstrom — E-mails that very clearly show how Microsoft coordinated with ‘reporters’ the planting (their term, not mine) of news which was hostile towards Linux, which is why my suspicion of the likes of Jack is not unfounded.
Microsoft is not just a normal technology company, it’s more like a marketing company. And I can’t help but feel baffled by the account summary of http://twitter.com/zdnetuk_News because it says “All the latest business technology news, covering security, mobile, Microsoft and much more”.
Why is Microsoft the only brand mentioned? It’s not even the most highly valued technology company anymore. Let’s talk about the real issues, not about people. You’re steering the debate towards ad hominem.
This is apparently material which ZDNet finds unacceptable. Amazing, eh? Is there something that is not family-friendly here? I even sent them supporting evidence, but they did not reinstate the comments. They did not even reply after asking for this evidence. What is the point of asking for it if the editors won’t do their job?
Right about now Novell employees are publicly providing “material’ for Microsoft Jack to smear us with (one example among several for reference), omitting context of course (because it’s so much easier to manufacture evidence). He of course goes along with it and posts/repost this. And guess what? It now appears as though they only deleted one of Jack’s comments (censored by his own employer, probably for defaming us with distortions), but they also deleted my own direct response to him which said:
And even though Schofield’s claims above are incorrect and thus libelous, I very strongly doubt ZDNet will have them removed. Mine were correct, but ZDNet has not reinstated the comments as promised (I provided supporting evidence by E-mail) It says a lot about ZDNet. But hey, it’s not like anyone failed to see the bias of the site…
Jack, your immature name-calling is being noticed by a lot of people in Twitter, which helps people learn who really lost this debate. Have a good day. I can’t help suspecting you encouraged your colleagues to remove those comments which you simply did not agree with.
They hide the fact that they have censored fine comments and then, when faced with evidence, still failed to reinstate the comments. The short story is, I won’t bother ever commenting in ZDNet again, and not just because of Microsoft Jack, either (by the way, it’s not a name we made up. “Microsoft Jack” is a name that Guardian readers have used for ages because of his obvious biases). Many of the commenters there have only just joined the site with very vague names and as some commenters explain, these may be people with a vendetta that they hide (Novell employees are known to be anonymously smearing us from other sites, as Carla Schroder once confessed). As for Microsoft Jack, his Microsoft dogmatism has him smearing individuals who do not approve the act of a multinational monopoly abuser. He even insults other commenters in the same thread, belittling them because he arrogantly believes his opinion is the Fountain of Truth. This is pathetic (and possible pathologically so) behaviour which shows he has totally lost the plot, so his retirement is probably well overdue. As for ZDNet UK, he is just a liability to them because he drives away participants. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Microsoft, NetWare, Novell, Patents, Windows at 5:00 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The days of Windows as “legacy software” are approaching, just as the days of desktops and laptops as the main (or most sold) computer type are ending
Microsoft’s and Novell’s marriage is a marriage between a pair that shares common problems. Microsoft and Novell both have debt and both companies shrink over time (layoffs included). Novell’s likely layoffs after the AttachMSFT deal is done (there is this new article about debt featuring a project manager at Novell) is a subject we will address at a later stage/post, but for the time being, the main question is about patents and CPTN. That’s where a lot of damage can be done, which is why Microsoft boosters lobby for FTC approval.
Novell used to be a company that matters, at least back in its NetWare era. There is this new article which goes back in time and speaks about the subject. It says:
When talking about disappointment, Novell merits special consideration. Once thought to be a legitimate competitor to Microsoft in network operating systems with their Netware Enterprise products, they are now left wondering what could have been. Through their own ineptitude, they allowed rivals (some smaller and bigger) to eat away at their market share until they saw no other option but to leave the market entirely. It remains sad to analyze their progression into technology obscurity.
Microsoft has a similar problem these days. Those that take up market share are UNIX and Linux, especially in emerging form factors. Assuming that “PC” is synonymous with “desktop”, mind the new article titled “PC Market Weakness is Bad News for Microsoft” (From Nasdaq.com Community):
Microsoft’s ( MSFT ) business is highly dependent on PC sales as Windows OS and Microsoft Office for PCs respectively account for about 40% and 36% of our $31.64 price estimate for Microsoft stock .
This is a serious factor because the remainder of the cash cows (mostly one) depends on Windows as a common carrier. Windows sales already decline, for several consecutive quarters even.
“The attitude in Redmond seems to be one straight out of the ’90s, maybe even the ’80s…”
–Lee PenderOne trend we’ve noticed is, a lot of journalists stop covering Microsoft, which matters not so much anymore. Lee Pender, a Microsoft fan from their Redmond ‘press’, is also sensing a moment of weakness and in his column “Microsoft Isn’t Worth Waiting for Anymore” he cites another Microsoft booster and says: “What’s stunning, though — and this is really Mary Jo’s point — is that Microsoft doesn’t seem to care. The attitude in Redmond seems to be one straight out of the ’90s, maybe even the ’80s: “Hey, we’ll get to these new markets when we get to them, and when we do we’ll clean everybody’s clock. This is Windows versus OS2 all over again.”
“Hey, Microsoft: Not anymore. You’re slow and bloated, and your competitors have no reason to fear you anymore. Heed Mary Jo’s word — she probably knows more about your company than you do, after all.”
Microsoft’s relevance these days has little to do with technology or even marketing; it is to do with litigation — a subject we’ll tackle as a matter of priority here in Techrights. It’s not about “cheap shots”, it’s about addressing a serious subject. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Microsoft, OSI, Patents at 4:36 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Michael Tiemann says that Florian Müller “proceeds to spout nonsense” after insulting the Open Source Initiative (OSI) regarding defence of Free/Open Source software
MICROSOFT is lusting for Novell’s patents and Microsoft Florian keeps licking his lips over the possibility that Microsoft et al. will get some so-called “FOSS patents” to threaten Linux with. It’s rather transparent based on what he writes, especially the reckless gloat (and insults) in his Twitter stream. He’s not alone though.
IDG’s Jon Brodkin, known to us for the Microsoft whitewashing efforts (we recently gave examples [1, 2, 3] and he too speaks to Florian), says that “U.S. Antitrust will review Microsoft/Novell patent sale for 30 more days”. Florian is meanwhile spreading disinformation; they try to rush the judgment or push this bit of disinformation while Florian deceives people (there is an inaccurate CPTN report in ZDNet UK, maybe as a result of this) when in fact even his online friend Maureen O’Gara realises that there is no clearance. Brodkin, a Microsoft blogger, is spinning it as defence for Microsoft (“Shield… From Lawsuits”) [1, 2]; it is arguably this headline which makes him a fan of the deal, just like Florian. The patent deal is atrocious (FSF and OSI agree and even work jointly against it, in an unprecedented fashion), whereas Microsoft boosters are predicting or heralding its success before it’s even cleared. Are they trying to influence the decision by generating fallacious claims? Truthfully, we wrote about this before. Since the pro-Microsoft crowd is so eager to see those patents falling into Microsoft’s arms, we know for sure that the FSF and OSI are correct and to quote a response from “barney”, aimed at Brodkin’s spin (headline is “Novell Patent Sale to Shield Microsoft, Apple, EMC and Oracle From Lawsuits”):
Shield? don’t you mean sword
I really don’t see Microsoft, Apple, nor Oracle being passive with regards to using those patents and they way I see it, they will be used to cut down open source technology( aka Linux ) based products.
There is only one resoponse and one that does not take into account the companies’ prior attitude towards competition and how they use patents. They are aggressors. Meanwhile, the propaganda machine of Microsoft Florian kicks into gear again and the head of the OSI responds:
Florian Mueller accuses that the OSI is spouting nonsense, and then proceeds to spout nonsense. I’m calling him on it.
The FCO has clearly stated the conditions under which a deal can and must be blocked, which is when when the CPTN transaction would “create or strengthen a dominant position of one or several CPTN-investors on the markets on which they are active.” Florian thinks that is an impossibly high bar, because according to him, there’s really no way regulators can be expected to do their jobs. I reject such a cynical conclusion. And I am heartened that the regulators in both the US and EU are reading carefully both the legal requirements and the facts and evidence of the transaction. We have already seen a huge change to the structure of the CPTN transaction, indicating that there were clearly some very serious issues with the first structuring.
In the world of open source, a rejected patch is never automatically accepted merely because some random changes were made and the patch resubmitted. The patch must address the substantive issues, and must do so in a way that is accepted by the community. It is accepted when the *maintainer* says its good enough, not when the submitter claims it’s good enough.
The revised proposed CPTN transaction did address one of the many concerns raised by the OSI, but it leaves most of the concerns unaddressed. The FCO requested our input–as members of the community–and we have given our answer. We should let the FCO do their job, and not second-guess their authority, their ability, or their integrity.
As the next commenter pointed out:
I wish this summary, like most on Linux Today, had identified the author of the article. This is an important piece of information that I use when deciding whether or not to click through and read an article.
And the next one after that:
Thanks for that informative post, Michael. When is saw the link was to FOSS Patents, I decided to avoid clicking.
Barnie asks: “Florian – do you feed any of the Microsoft patent deals are justified?”
Over the last few years we have seen Microsoft make deals (it would seem by threat of legal action) extract patent deals from the likes of HTC, TomTom and many others.
Do you believe any of these deals are justified and do you believe the current system is working?
Florian appears a couple of times in this thread, only to insist on the same spin and distortion of facts (his main tactic, also against messengers he does not agree with, e.g. Groklaw and Techrights). Rainer Weikusat closes this conversation with:
> 1) If it were up to me, patents of that kind would
> not be granted in the first place.
.
But it isn’t ‘up to you’, meaning, any statement on
this from your side is entirely hypothetical: No
‘reality check’ of its truthfulness will ever occur
and in the context of the actual question, it is also
completely irrelevant.
.
> I don’t believe that it’s reasonable to grant
> 20-year monopolies on software-related ideas. This
> view is independent from whether we’re talking about
> a Microsoft FAT, Apple multitouch, Oracle virtual
> machine, Amazon one-click or Google Doodle patent
> (yes, they patented that one and the patent was
> granted recently, and in my view it’s the most
> abusrd one in this list).
.
It is at least about some original invention, as
opposed tasking someone with ‘design and implement
a way to add “long filenames” to a DOS-directory
in a way which will not disturb software written to
use 8.3 names’ (something any decent programmer should
be easily capable of) and then patenting the result
of this work in order to hamper independent,
interoperable implementations.
.
> 2) Given that such patents do exist nonetheless,
> it’s the normal course of business that right
> holders want to use them. If they grant licenses on
> reasonable terms, that’s infinitely better than any
> strategic exclusionary use of patents
.
The interesting question, however, is what precisely
constitutes ‘a reasonable term’. For instance, legally,
Linux is prohibited from being fully interoperable
with systems creating filesystems using the ‘long name
addition method’ patented by Microsoft, except
insofar proprietary kernel modules of legally dubious
status are used. And in my opinion, this is ‘strategic,
exclusionary use of patents’: While a license to use
this ‘invention’ may be available to ‘companies’ it
is only granted subject to the condition that said
companies to not participiate in large-scale
collaborative development efforts Microsoft considers
to be potentially detrimental to its ongoing business
success. This also conveniently ignores the fact that
a lot of ‘development’ is not done by ‘companies’
producing software because of its ‘sale value’ (and
thus, capable of paying royalties).
The legitimacy of Microsoft Florian in FOSS circles which he pretends to champion is at an all-time low. Anything which could be attributed to him in the past is being superseded by unacceptable deception and hostility towards software freedom, including crass behaviour and language. Florian the author is not Florian the lobbyist and he admits that he never wrote FOSS. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
