04.05.11
Posted in GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Novell, Patents at 4:15 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The Linux-hostile strategy at Microsoft evolves to get around regulators and further the patent agenda; Novell’s acquisition delayed until exactly one week from now
Microsoft remains a top patent threat simply because it is doing anything which deserves this label. It is not a scapegoat. Linux foes like Microsoft Florian seem to be part of the PR campaign which paints Google — not Microsoft — as the patent problem. Here is one recent rebuttal to Florian’s latest lies and distortions:
I’ve been sitting back watching the newest Florian Müller psycho babble play out. It always plays to the same formula. Florian Müller raises the alarm. The people who actually know what they are talking about explain why Florian is wrong. Again.
Let’s face it. Either Florian isn’t all that bright, or someone is paying him to make his statements. No one could be this consistently, stupidly, wrong. It’s just not possible. People learn. Learning is the basis of human existence.
[...]
The next day, Florian Müller starts off a blog post with the sentence Intellectual property issues continue to cloud Google’s mobile operating system. Do you see a pattern here folks?
[...]
He’s not a programmer. He’s not a lawyer. Just how does he have the skills to reach a conclusion? Is he even thinking?
In light of news like this (which we mentioned earlier) the inflammatory FUD machine of Florian is once again trying to incite people against Google, which has no history of patent aggression. The article says:
Hopeful of dissuading further patent lawsuits against its Android partners, Google (NSDQ: GOOG) went public Monday with its intention to bid on a patent library held by bankrupt telecom company Nortel and said it had been selected to open the bidding with a $900 million offer.
Tell the FUD machine that Google is at least not using patents offensively, at least so far. Microsoft Nick (the Microsoft booster Nicholas Kolakowski) joins the voices which predict trouble for Android (and therefore interest in Vista Phony 7, which is ridiculous). Microsoft’s partners at Ziff Davis [1, 2, 3] even put this stuff from Microsoft Nick in a Linux site while the scrupulous Sys-Con [1, 2, 3, 4] still makes room for SCO defender Maureen O’Gara [1, 2] (also a Microsoft booster/story ‘planter’ , who is still pushing the same agenda as she is boosting SCO, too). They are are eager to see Novell’s patents coming to Microsoft’s own extortions portfolio. There is reportedly some Microsoft-AttachMSFT interaction around patents and Microsoft booster Gavin Clark has this to say:
The Microsoft-led consortium of tech companies trying to hoover up nearly 1,000 of Novell’s patents is back in business.
CPTN Holdings re-registered with German authorities on Wednesday, according to the website of the German Federal Cartel Office. Plans to create CPTN as a German entity were withdrawn in December 2010.
CPTN is buying 882 of Novell’s patents in a deal with soon-to-be Novell-owner Attachmate. Apple, EMC, and Oracle are also members of CPTN, but it’s helmed by Redmond.
Everyone which we found covering this has some special relationship with Microsoft. That includes Microsoft Florian, who got access to inside information whose publication was beneficial to Microsoft. On a public level, Novell has this to say about CPTN (from its SEC filing):
The merger contemplated by the merger agreement remains subject to the satisfaction or waiver of certain closing conditions, including the closing of the sale of certain identified issued patents and patent applications to CPTN Holdings LLC (“CPTN”) pursuant to a Patent Purchase Agreement, dated as of November 21, 2010. Under the Patent Purchase Agreement, one of the conditions to closing of the patent sale to CPTN remains the expiration of applicable waiting periods under the competition laws in Germany and the United States.
With respect to Germany, on December 30, 2010, the CPTN consortium had voluntarily withdrawn its filed notification in order to provide the Federal Cartel Office (the “FCO”) with more time to review the proposed patent sale. On March 23, 2011, the CPTN consortium, following discussions with the FCO, re-filed the notification. The re-filing starts a new one month review period under the German Act against Restraints of Competition in the version of 15 July 2005, as amended, during which the FCO could clear the transaction at any time.
In the United States, the Company previously reported that, on March 4, 2011, each of the Company and CPTN certified as to its substantial compliance with the second request for information from the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) and that each of the Company and CPTN has agreed to provide the DOJ with additional time to review the patent sale and not to close the patent sale prior to April 12, 2011.
The Company remains committed to working with the DOJ and FCO as they conduct their respective reviews of the patent sale. The patent sale remains subject to the satisfaction or waiver of other closing conditions as set forth in the Patent Purchase Agreement.
This may soon be addressed according to other reports, e.g. [1, 2] from the news, including one report from the 11th of March (following an earlier report) that says: “Novell said yesterday the Department of Justice needs more time to investigate its sale of Linux patents to Microsoft.”
Maureen O’Gara and others name April 12th as the day to look forward to (or not to look forward to). The Microsoft camp would love to see Microsoft putting its hands on those thousand patents (or almost a thousand patents) for the purpose of patent manipulation. Novell has patents which relate to UNIX. Since Microsoft mostly sues companies which use Linux these days, what does that say about Novell’s decision to give Microsoft patents? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Bill Gates, Europe, Law at 3:24 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Microsoft’s lobbyists roam the world, still looking for new legal mechanisms that promote monopolies, by design
Microsoft’s #1 lobbyist (Gates) is lobbying in Europe again, according to a leading FFII figure. As we explained before, he does not seek to accomplish only what he — along with his million-dollar-per-day PR operation — claims to be doing.
In Europe, like in New Zealand, there is a major public debate right now about software patents (in both places the “embedded” trick gets used) and we all know Mr. Gates’ views on the subject; he promotes the interests of large pharmaceutical monopolies (whom he invests in and takes as top tier staff), amongst other entities which depend on patents for dominance through obscenely and unnaturally high prices.
Over in New Zealand, a Microsoft-backed lobbying group brought back the debate about software patents, so the ever-insightful Anthony Doesburg relies on Jeffrey Matsuura who according to Doesburg states that politicians who are inclined to pass another law each time new technology tests existing legislation should resist the temptation. To quote with more context:
Politicians who are inclined to pass another law each time new technology tests existing legislation should resist the temptation.
That’s the view of Jeffrey Matsuura, an American lawyer with decades of experience of technology-related issues who is studying New Zealand’s legislative response to technological change.
Once he is familiar with our methods, he’ll compare us with the United States, Canada and other countries and try to draw up a manual of best practice.
So far, from his temporary vantage point in the University of Otago’s Centre for Law and Policy in Emerging Technologies, he approves of what he sees.
“I believe New Zealand has been willing to be a little more careful about enacting laws and regulations aimed specifically at new technologies or applications. I think that’s a better way to err.
There was never a reason to introduce even the proposition of software patents in New Zealand, but when lobbyists from Microsoft throw their weight around looking to become richer and more powerful, it’s clear that the law is always subjected to distortion by a few, for benefit of the few. Gates, for example, loves monopolies. Back in 2008 (at the Institute for Systems Biology in Seattle) Bill Gates defended the pharmaceutical cartel (patents-dependent) and then started attacking the GNU General Public License (GPL). “I think if you invent drugs, you should be able to charge for them,” he said in defence of patents abusers (implying that GPL is against making money and that patent abusers deserve to be defended). Is this the type of minds they allow into Strassbourg? The bully which even Gates' friend warns about? The man who broke the law repeatedly?
Lobbying should be prevented; failing prevention, vigilance is essential. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Microsoft, Windows at 3:14 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Innovator of Clippy and Talking Dog shatters the “familiarity” myth to pieces
IN last night's show we talked about Vista 8 — the imaginary operating system which has fake ‘leaks’ promoting its existence. The main ‘feature’ about it, as marketed by Microsoft, is that it has radical UI changes. This is counter-productive to Microsoft’s monoculture as it creates a sort of ‘fragmentation’ among users of different versions of Windows. As Mr. Pogson outs it, Windows “Becomes More Like the Bazaar”:
This shows that the world of that other OS is becoming more like GNU/Linux and FLOSS in that suppliers sometimes produce a product that users don’t love like doing away with desktops, icons or whatever in the interests of “efficiency”. Re-learning a UI for the sake of change is not efficient for users and there are many thousands of users for every developer. That’s a lot of inefficiency. It does provoke making real choices by customers and that’s good. The monopoly continues to weaken.
Back in the days, Microsoft tried to absorb users of mobile phones by mimicking its Windows desktop environment and putting that on phones This is no longer the case, so familiarity with Windows no longer counts as a strength of Vista Phony 7 and Radu Georgescu, the CEO of GECAD (big Romanian IT group according to a reader), is openly blasting Vista Phony 7 right now. From the automated translation:
How do well to human cheek, I said not to use only the iPhone and Android, but to give him a chance and MS. Conclusion: Never ever. Not even once.
We had a lot more to say on the subject in last night's show. Microsoft may be better off just giving up on Vista Phony 7. What’s the future of Microsoft then? Licensing “ribbon” patents? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Microsoft at 2:46 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Microsoft is up to no good again, this time with Internet Explorer 9 ‘benchmarks’
THE previous post contained an example of Microsoft’s fake GNU/Linux benchmarks — a subject we wrote a lot about over the years. Microsoft nearly got sued for it and benchmark fraud also surrounded Internet Explorer 9. Microsoft just doesn’t know how to make the case that Internet Explorer 9 performs better than the rivals (which it does not). According to this, Microsoft’s “lab tests” (or labs Microsoft pays to generate some lies) are being “used as advertising”. To quote:
Instead of producing less bloatware to run on PCs or using software that runs on ARM, they orchestrated a test of the effect of several browsers on power consumption. When I look at the report it is obvious they did not monitor power consumption with real users using the systems in real scenarios but several specific benchmarks of peak power consumption in specific situation. In the real world browsers idle…
Here I am with 15 tabs open in Chrome:
load average: 0.00, 0.05, 0.07
Cpu(s):5.6%
and lots more going on.
So, the lab tests are irrelevant for real world situations. They might be relevant for video but not for reading and looking at pictures or typing.
Tests can be constructed to show just about anything, selling the false claim of one thing being “better” than another. Microsoft has done this many times, so it is the boy who cried “Wolf” really. In other news about Internet Explorer 9, it has a privacy hole. To quote The Register: “A hole has been spotted in Internet Explorer 9′s do-not-track technology, and Microsoft says it’s a feature not a bug.
“In response to a US government call for greater protection of consumers’ privacy online, Microsoft added a Tracking Protection Lists (TPLs) feature to IE9. Netizens can use one or more lists to prevent certain ad networks and websites from tracking their behavior online. But when an IE9 user downloads multiple TPLs and a site’s blocked on one list but allowed on another, IE9 will allow the site, letting it to track the user’s activities.”
So here we are in 2011 and Microsoft still pretends privacy does not matter. Is anybody surprised by this given that Microsoft promotes surveillance? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in GNU/Linux, Google, Intellectual Monopoly, Microsoft, Patents at 2:28 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Microsoft increases level of aggression, Google responds (although hypocritically), and Intellectual Monopoly (IP) gets called “The Biggest Legal Danger for Open Source”
Microsoft’s gradual decline into the world’s largest patent troll has been a long time in the making. Patent extortion is just the latest development in Microsoft’s bullying behaviour. Before patents, it was biased studies (e.g. Windows Server vs Linux). This was coupled with vague illegality accusations against GNU/Linux, such as on the grounds of “copyright infringement”. Microsoft used proxies for these attacks back then too, be it SCO or “experts” that try to make baseless accusations about the relationship between MINIX and Linux (all of which were denounced by the author of MINIX). Of course, if Microsoft had been a forward-thinking company, the resort to dirty tactics may never had happened. Microsoft had an early start to compete (or even collaborate) with Free software on merits and value alone. Instead they blew the time away because they did not take Linux seriously and they couldn’t see above the enticement of profit and to be the monopoly in the market. Glyn Moody has posted a fantastic piece which nicely chronicles Microsoft’s negative transformation into a FUD-spewing machine:
Things probably began to change with the infamous 1999 Mindcraft benchmarks, which Microsoft paid for. They seemed to show that Windows NT was faster than GNU/Linux as both a file and web server, although the fact that the tests were conducted in Microsoft’s labs naturally caused people in the free software world to cry foul. In the end, the tests were re-run under fairer conditions, and they did indeed show that Microsoft’s product was faster.
That was soon fixed – by running these tests and exposing weaknesses in the free software that was used, Microsoft had effectively submitted a rather important bug report. But the more interesting aspect was the fact that Microsoft had paid for the tests at all: you don’t go to all the expense of proving you are better than someone unless you perceive them to be a threat. By publishing the results of the Mindcraft tests, Microsoft had effectively admitted officially that free software was a competitor – a big shift from its previous position.
Thereafter, Microsoft began exploring ways of undermining this increasingly worrisome upstart with a variety of FUD. Indeed, it went through so many different stories about why free software was bound to fail/couldn’t be trusted/was no good that five years ago I felt compelled to write a “Brief History of Microsoft FUD” in an attempt to keep track.
Microsoft’s approach included the “It’s not very nice” insults – Ballmer’s infamous “communism/cancer” comparisons; the “It’s not very cheap” TCO studies; and culminated in the “It’s not legal” argument. Actually, there were two phases to the latter. “It’s not legal 1.0” was essentially SCO – and we all know how that fizzled out.
[...]
Judging by recent events, it’s seems the dinosaurs are back with a vengeance. Here’s Exhibit A, courtesy of Horacio Gutierrez, Microsoft’s Corporate Vice President and Deputy General Counsel:
As you may have seen, Microsoft today filed legal actions against Barnes & Noble, Inc., Foxconn International Holdings Ltd., and Inventec Corporation in both the U.S. International Trade Commission and the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. Today’s actions focus on the patent infringement by the Nook e-reader and the Nook Color tablet, both of which run the Android operating system.
He then goes on to make two interesting comments:
Together with the patents already asserted in the course of our litigation against Motorola, today’s actions bring to 25 the total number of Microsoft patents in litigation for infringement by Android smartphones, tablets and other devices. Microsoft is not a company that pursues litigation lightly. In fact, this is only our seventh proactive patent infringement suit in our 36-year history. But we simply cannot ignore infringement of this scope and scale.
So, by Gutierrez’s own words, Microsoft does not pursue litigation “lightly”, and yet it has chosen to attack a number of companies that have in common only the fact that they are making and selling products running Android. Clearly there is something bigger going on here.
So Microsoft is seriously suing companies for allegedly infringing its patents on *selecting text* and a superimposed download bar? Give me a break; these have to be some of the most trivial patents that Microsoft has applied for, and to the USPTO’s shame, been granted.
[...]
These are no great Einsteinian insights into the underlying fabric of space-time – or industrial applications therof; they are things that you or I would *instinctively* think of. No patent incentive was needed to bring these forth. The fact that Microsoft has been forced to use such risible patents shows that it simply wants to “persuade” companies through the potential inconvenience of a long, expensive trial, just enough to make paying some royalties slightly more attractive. This is intellectual monopoly bullying at its worst.
[...]
This latest trend to devise and deploy legal strategies against open source seems to me to represent an admission on Microsoft’s part that it can no longer compete on technology. Instead, the dinosaurs have decided that it’s time to play really dirty – and nothing is dirtier than enforcing bad monopolies using worse laws.
Dr. Moody rightly alleges that Microsoft’s supply of ideas has run dry; consequently, the has-been corporation is using vague patent attacks instead. Groklaw made this same argument some days ago, also in relation to the "antitrust" whining against Google. Whether it is on the grounds of patent, copyright, or antitrust violations, Microsoft’s first attacks on Google/Linux have been consistently via proxies. Only after failing the proxy strategy will Microsoft itself enter the scene and perform the same tactics directly. This crooked methods should provide more than enough incentive for Google to take a clear and firm stance for software patent abolishment.
Unfortunately, it seems that Google suffers the same conflicting dual-nature as Red Hat does (cite: red hat article). Earlier today, we wrote about Google's decision to help organise and translate patents. Now, according to this new item from Slashdot, “Google Reaffirms Stance Against Software Patents”. It states that “Google has again publicly affirmed its stance against software patents during an announcement over a potential defensive acquisition. These days, when Microsoft, Apple, and others are abusing software patents, it’s nice to see one large company calling them junk.”
Here is what the Official Google Blog has to say on this issue:
It’s for these reasons that Google has long argued in favor of real patent reform, which we believe will benefit users and the U.S. economy as a whole.
[...]
But as things stand today, one of a company’s best defenses against this kind of litigation is (ironically) to have a formidable patent portfolio, as this helps maintain your freedom to develop new products and services. Google is a relatively young company, and although we have a growing number of patents, many of our competitors have larger portfolios given their longer histories.
There was quick and early reaction to Google’s hypocrisy:
#sadness is… a world where those (who claim to be) against software patents acquire more of them
Google seems to acknowledge the conflict of interests created by its illogical position but do nothing to address it. Instead, they make refuse to make the necessary short-term progressive decisions that would drive change for the better. They excuse this unwillingness to change by alluding that change will happen in the long-term. This is the same two-dimensional thinking that creating the dying, hulking bully that Microsoft is today.
We have written about this subject numerous times before [1, 2, 3] and have compared Google’s approach to that of the aforementioned Red Hat. Companies like these are still treating ideas like physical property and/or assets that can be passed around like shares, increasing the barriers around competition along the way.
Perhaps it is just the patent lawyers who are pushing this backwards strategy on to the corporate cultures of these respective companies; it is difficult to know for sure. What we do know, however, is that while Google claims to be against software patents it is also trying to buy about 6,000. It seems that Google takes a page from the Stephen Harper book of blatant contradictions. From the news:
Internet giant Google has revealed that in a bid to steer clear of the explosion in patent litigation lately, it has made a “stalking horse” bid for Nortel’s patent portfolio in the company’s bankruptcy auction.
The internet giant is believed to be bidding US$900m for some 6,000 valuable patents.
What’s sad is that Google’s purchase is nearly as bad as what Microsoft is doing with CPTN and Novell patents (cite) and other patent-hoarding operations. Microsoft’s tactics however happen to predatory target Linux, and really all Free software in general. A real “Linux company”, which is what Google or Red Hat position themselves to be, should campaign strongly to abolish the software patents they vilify and claim to be antithetical to.
On a similar subject, Brian Proffitt is currently criticizing another type of thought monopoly, calling it potentially “The Biggest Legal Danger for Open Source”. To quote his piece:
“FUD is the obvious intention of those who have instigated the various legal troubles on open source practitioners. Fear specifically: ramp it up to intimidation, and you’ve got a potential licensing revenue channel on your hands.
“Such troubles, from the scores of software patents that are used to “protect” intellectual property, are obvious.
“But no less troublesome, I believe, is the issue of copyright and copyright assignments.
“Lately, commercial vendors in open source space have caught flak for the nature of the copyright assignments used when developers contribute code to a project the vendor manages.
“Copyright assignments basically work like this: I, a hypothetical developer, create some semi-brilliant code and want to contribute it to Project X, which is overseen and used by Company X. Company X, recognizing the semi-brilliance of my code, wants to use it in their latest distribution, so they ask me to sign away the copyrights of my code over to them. This is so that when they release my code as part of the greater whole distribution, they can have full legal control over the code–even though they will still work with me and give me credit.
“Under most circumstances, this seems rather fair. After all, I want my code to be in Distro X, and it makes sense that Company X doesn’t want the nightmare of working with a bazillion different copyrights.
“But sometimes copyright assignment can be confusingly Machievllian, even in open source land.”
Bear this in mind when talking about Canonical and SCO (which is a former contributor to Linux). There is no basis for comparison though, because Proffitt’s concern assumes ill-intentions or even malice from within the developers’ base of GNU/Linux. That is why at Techrights we consider patents — not copyright assignment — to be “The Biggest Legal Danger for Open Source”. Whereas copyright is about exact implementation and distribution of copies, patents are a lot more vague and they can be granted without taking prior art into consideration. All that is needed is just prior patents. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Microsoft, Steve Ballmer at 2:19 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: New numbers suggest that Steve Ballmer is the worst technology CEO, based on the opinion of his own employees
The co-founder of Microsoft dislikes the other co-founder, as we noted this afternoon. But what happens when the entire staff dislikes the CEO, Steve Ballmer? Glyn Moody calls this “incredible” and it seems as though Ballmer’s wing(wo)man, Bartz, is also doing pretty badly. Microsoft’s booster Preston Gralla asks, “[h]ow long can he last” — meaning — when will Ballmer get fired?
For the last two years, Glassdoor.com has regularly surveyed employees of a dozen major tech companies and asks them to rate their CEOs. It just announced the latest year’s rankings, and the news couldn’t be worse for Ballmer. His approval rating is down in the dumps, at 40%. The next worst CEO rating is well above his, eBay’s John Donahoe at 46%.
It’s official. Microsoft is in a state of unrest wrt management-ordinary workers relationships. Maybe Microsoft will just send more of its workers from the West to teach (somewhere in Asia) how their job is done, then announce layoffs, then announce hiring in Asia a year later. It’s not just Microsoft’s trick for cutting costs but also convenient means of getting more obedient staff which will revere the management “from America” and feel ever so thankful. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
The show ends with “Open War” and also “You Are Goodbye” by Holly Conlan (from SXSW 2009 Showcasing Artists). We hope you will join us for future shows and 
