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

06.13.11

ES: Pintando al Impuesto con un Pincel de Caridad

Posted in Bill Gates, Deception, Microsoft, Patents at 3:32 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“Mi fondo es finanzas y contabilidad. Como un capitalista de riesgo y filántropo social consciente, tengo una comprensión muy buena de la gerencia y de la filantropía de la abundancia. Comencé mi carrera en 1967 con el IRS como especialista en los impuestos que cubrían muchas áreas de la legislación fiscal incluyendo las escapatorias legales supuestas al donante caritativo. [ ] Sin embargo, los grants de la Fundación de Buffet & Gates no son nada más que un juego de cáscara en el cual el control de los activos para ambos Gates and Buffet sigan siendo igual. [ ] La única diferencia es que la acumulación de abundancia por estos dos será mucho más masiva porque no tendrán que pagar más impuestos.”

El Juego Shell de la Fundación Gates y Buffet[http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0823-26.htm]

Shell on the beach

(ODF | PDF | English/original)

Resumen: La escapatoria que los plutócratas están explotando y cómo podemos afrontar este problema o por lo menos a ayudar a la gente a reconoce este problema.

T

TECHRIGHTS se esfuerza en promover ética y promover el pensamiento crítico, animando y educando a otros sobre la diferencia entre las relaciones públicas y el periodismo investigador. Como parte de nuestra investigación nos desviamos a veces un poco del software y de las patentes, a condición de que sigue habiendo un acoplamiento o un puente. La política no se puede explicar sin una cierta ciencia y, inversamente, qué sucede en ciencia no puede ser explicado mientras que totalmente no hacen caso de política. Hágamosle frente, así es la. Es también la manera que la consecución de gobierno se hace a menudo[http://techrights.org/2009/04/28/oin-counter-strike-fat/]. La gente en el poder tiende a ayudar a la otra gente en el poder (los políticos ayudan generalmente a los ricos y viceversa). El contrato humano y los asuntos civilizados han sido siempre sobre ayudas del amigo a un amigo o un pariente (o un perro-comer-perro “). El software hace nuestra vida mucho más fácil, pero para muchos de nosotros (especialmente el 90% del fondo que Occidente tiende a olvidar o simplemente explota) puede hacer vida mucho más desgraciada. El software puede ayudar a ésos en el poder para capitalizar en el trabajo, la salud y el bienestar de otros. Por ello nos disculpamos por no siempre hablar puramente sobre tecnología. Nos preocupamos de cómo está afecta a la vida de la gente, e.g. su libertad, su relación con sus vecinos, etc.

“Realmente los contribuyentes pagan impuestos por él. Dan sus fondos provenientes de impuestos para una campaña promocional de Relaciones Públicas de aquel hombre (o mujer).”En las semanas que vienen vamos a ponernos al día acerca de la Fundación Gates[http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Gates_Foundation_Critique], que sirve Microsoft como un cabildero y financiero de los Trols Linux-hostiles de patentes. Es difícil contradecir el mensaje repetido por la prensa cuando la Fundación Gates les entrega aproximadamente un millón dólares al día (en promedio) para comprar cobertura positiva apenas algo que donando cualquier cosa, pero lo vamos a intentar. Como Rusty explicó en un episodio reciente de TechBytes, este truco no es único y se ha hecho por muchos décadas si no siglos. La idea básica es, la gente la cual paga impuestos estaría en la gama de muchos millones o sobre billones se dan cuenta que sea más barato apenas fijar una entidad que lo exime de impuesto y después utiliza esos ahorros para hacer una lavada de su reputación. Esencialmente, dinero que supuestamente debería ser pagado de nuevo al público, se está empleando mal para retratar a alguna gente muy codiciosa como los héroes de una nación. Es realmente todos los pagadores de impuestos los que pagan él. Dan sus fondos provenientes de impuestos para una campaña promocional de relaciones públicas de aquel hombre (o mujer). Para hacer las cosas peores, en el caso de Gates el asilo de impuesto como también utilizado es una inversión y el vehículo de cabildeo que empuja a gobiernos para dar al dinero de los pagadores de impuestos a las compañías en las que la fundación invierte (para su propio beneficio).

El Philanthrocapitalismo necesita ser escudriñado más. La importancia para nosotros es que tal entidad que ejerce el philanthrocapitalismo (la más grande de su clase) está dañando la libertad de la gente y promueve Microsoft. Investigando su comportamiento podemos ayudar a demostrar lo que están haciendo otros como él también. Los trucos son universales porque las escapatorias son sobre todo las mismas dondequiera.

Nuestra cobertura más comprensiva sobre este tema está a partir de 2009 y en poco grado 2010 también. En una determinada etapa realizamos que llegó a ser repetitivo como aunque había claramente noticias que se compartirán (e.g. Gates comprando otros medios de comunicación o siendo cogido en otro escándalo importante), los síntomas principales eran igual y la aclaración de él todo era argumentos contrarios similares compuesto de un ejercicio cíclico. Como muchos otros sitios que alcancen un punto donde se agota el material conceptual único, vamos probablemente a cubrir la fundación de las Gates usando los resúmenes y los extractos de los acoplamientos. Nuestros lectores son bastante elegantes deducir el necesario de éstos y nuestra página del wiki[http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Gates_Foundation_Critique] en el tema contiene refutaciones la mayor parte de a los puntos claves.

Translation produced by Eduardo Landaveri, the esteemed administrator of the Spanish portal of Techrights.

ES: Las Compras del Sector Público en el Reino Unido

Posted in Europe, Free/Libre Software, Microsoft at 8:29 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

¿Cómo el destino del dinero del contribuyente se determina?

Coin towers

(ODF | PDF | English/original)

Resumen: La exclusión de importantes agentes del mercado y viables al poner la marca “Microsoft” , por ejemplo, ahí mismo dentro de los requisitos.

EL NEGOCIO de la contratación que es gracioso. En Suiza fue como un “negocio divertido” que condujo a una demanda que hemos cubierto en su mayoría hace un año en:

1. Microsoft demandado por su corrupción en Suiza, Microsoft deuda Revisado[http://techrights.org/2009/05/24/msft-corruption-in-switzerland/]
2. ¿Puede el Reino Unido y Hungría todavía ser demandados por Excluir el Software Libre?[http://techrights.org/2009/05/25/united-kingdom-hungary-rigging/]
3. Tres nuevos cargos de Violación de Defensa de la Competencia por parte de Microsoft[http://techrights.org/2009/05/14/antitrust-violations-by-microsoft/]
4. ¿Microsoft está violando la ley en Suiza también?[http://techrights.org/2009/05/09/switzerland-microsoft-london-olympics/]
5. Microsoft utiliza los grupos de presión para atacar la migración de Holanda con el Software Libre y una especie de soborno profesores de Sudáfrica para hacerlos utilizar Windows[http://techrights.org/2009/05/10/lobbyists-bribes-vs-free-sw/]
6. Buen artículo de ZDNet/eWeek Arruina Peter Judge por Atacar a Red Hat Cuando Microsoft comete el crimen[http://techrights.org/2009/05/25/zdnet-ruins-peter-judge-article/]
7. Semana de Microsoft de Asuntos de Gobierno: una mirada retrospectiva, una mirada al futuro[http://techrights.org/2009/05/28/microsoft-government-affairs/]
8. Demanda contra Microsoft / Suiza tiene éxito hasta ahora, más países/empresas deberían seguir su ejemplo[http://techrights.org/2009/05/29/lawsuit-against-switzerland-over-ms/]
9. Últimos informes sobre ofertas a granel Microsoft siendo bloqueado en Suiza, Nueva Zelanda[http://techrights.org/2009/06/01/microsoft-bulk-deals-derailed/]
10. Gobierno de Suiza y Federal Computer Weekly: ¿Por qué la hostilidad hacia el Software Libre?[http://techrights.org/2009/06/06/federal-computer-weekly-foss-fud/]
11. Suiza y el Reino Unido Bajo el Fuego Perpetuo por Compromisos con Microsoft[http://techrights.org/2009/06/17/switzerland-and-uk-backlash/]
12. Pleito sobre supuesta corrupción de Microsoft en Suiza intensifica al Tribunal Federal[http://techrights.org/2009/12/12/lawsuit-government-procurement/]
13. Cuando Sólo Microsoft/Lock-in se define como “Tecnología”[http://techrights.org/2010/07/07/lingual-loophole-for-bad-tender/]
14. Los Contratos Presuntamente Ilegales en Suiza con Microsoft Llevar Gente a la Corte Otra Vez[http://techrights.org/2010/10/10/blocking-competition-queezing-oems/]
15. Presuntamente ilegal de Microsoft Adquisiciones EE.UU. se congelan después de Demanda[http://techrights.org/2011/01/06/lawsuit-against-government/]

La práctica de la contratación ilegal, que excluye la competencia a lo que se está utilizando actualmente es un tema que hemos tratado muchas veces desde 2007. Hemos escrito sobre la situación en el Reino Unido en los mensajes, tales como:

1. ¿Ha Microsoft desatado sus Trolls a las autoridades del Reino Unido?[http://techrights.org/2009/02/28/richard-steel-vs-freedom-policy/]
2. “Cómplice” Jefe de Microsoft en el Reino Unido Salta del buque[http://techrights.org/2009/07/15/richard-steel-retires/]
3. Richard Steel y Microsoft Ballnux Franquicia (Actualizado)[http://techrights.org/2008/05/09/uk-cio-taxable-gnu-linux/]
4. Los signos de la corrupción de Microsoft en el Reino Unido y República Checa[http://techrights.org/2009/03/06/czech-republic-uk-ms-conduct/]
5. La saga Newhamicrosoft: Part Deux[http://techrights.org/2008/06/26/newhamicrosoft-saga/]

Los factores importantes que son el amiguismo y el nepotismo desempeñan un papel en todas partes, incluida la contratación pública. Vale la pena entender exactamente dónde ocurre y cuando ocurre, como explica este nuevo artículo[http://www.computing.co.uk/ctg/news/2077519/source-vendors-unfairly-excluded-government-contracts], Microsoft de alguna manera “gana” no porque tiene el mérito técnico, sino porque se inserta en la política. Para citar a:

Europeos del sector público contratos de TI son injustamente a favor de los grandes proveedores, como Microsoft haciendo caso omiso de las normas que rigen el uso de marcas en las solicitudes de oferta, según un nuevo informe.

[...]

Cuando las ofertas se encontraron para incluir marcas comerciales, se menciona que la gran mayoría pertenecen a Microsoft.

Bertrand Diard, director ejecutivo de datos de código abierto Talend gestión de proveedores, pidió al gobierno del Reino Unido para hacer cumplir las mejores prácticas y fomentar la competencia leal para los contratos del sector público del Reino Unido.

“El actual proceso de licitación del contrato de TI [en Europa] está plagado de problemas”, dijo. “Si va a haber ningún desarrollo de estándares abiertos en el Reino Unido, entonces la responsabilidad recae sobre los hombros de aquellos en la Oficina del Gabinete a seguir adelante con sus planes iniciales.”

Bajo las reglas de la Unión Europea, organismos del sector público debe evitar el uso de marcas comerciales en anuncios de licitación para los paquetes de software y sistemas de información, con el fin de fomentar la competencia.

A raíz de su larga defensa de la competencia disputa con Microsoft, funcionarios de la UE tuvieron que ser dispuestos a alentar a las organizaciones del sector público a considerar alternativas a la tecnología de Microsoft, especialmente en áreas donde la empresa con sede en Redmond domina el mercado, tales como sistemas operativos de escritorio y herramientas de productividad.

Si las plataformas hubieran sido evaluadas en base a sus características técnicas (y antifeatures), Microsoft se encuentran muy abajo. Como educador, el Sr. Pogson explica[http://mrpogson.com/2011/06/09/who-in-their-right-mind-would-run-stuff-on-that-other-os/] lo que está mal de Windows, para empezar:

No necesitamos más:

* DRM (Manejo de Restricciones Digitales),
* Llamando a casa,
* Re-re-re reinicio,
* ABI/API,
* Acuerdos de exclusividad,
* Cosas enredadas en el sistema operativo, como pasteles de barro, y
* Complejidad.

Basta! El uso de GNU/Linux libra de esta carga a la TI. He estado usando GNU/Linux para casi exclusivamente desde el año 2000 y sólo he tenido algunos problemas, por lo general no relacionados con la seguridad, en todo ese tiempo, mientras con la otra gente OS son cada vez balsas de problemas para solucionar mensualmente, como la maldición de una mujer.

Un lector habitual de nuestro nos dijo que el Sr. Pogson habían sido despedidos posiblemente debido a su preferencia por GNU / Linux, que en el sector de la educación no está tan extendida. En cierto sentido, puede haber sido expulsado, por así decirlo, por tener otras opiniones (que son muy defendible, por cierto). Del mismo modo, un periodista británico insinúa[http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/public-sector/2011/06/bristol-linux-house-sings-for.html] que mediante la emisión de las amenazas veladas tras el incidente Bristol (ver enlaces al final para el fondo), el lado que da poder y los beneficios del software propietario en el sector público británico no hace sino reforzar la percepción de que los que favorecen el Software de código Libre/Abierto sufren represalias. Un artículo dice: “Una tienda de Linux se ha pronunciado en defensa de los boo-hissstems integradores de otra manera culpado por dominar la industria, sofocando la competencia, estafando a los contribuyentes y presidir público que las fallas tan infame que desacreditó al gobierno anterior y se tiñe la reputación de toda una profesión. ”

Otro artículo, de la excelente periodista Mark Ballard, habla acerca de las amenazas[http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/public-sector/2011/06/computacenter-threatens-blockh.html]. Para citar: “Los grandes proveedores de TI son tan poderosos, se dice, que controlan la gran mayoría de TI del sector público, que se lleva a cabo en su interés comercial. Que puede contar como quid pro quo desde la perspectiva del proveedor. Pero cuando el proveedor es parte de un oligopolio, el mantenimiento de un monopolio, que es un poco desafortunado para nada tratando de respirar fuera de ese mundo confortable poco que se conoce como el gobierno de TI. “Para algunos de fondo, consulte los enlaces que publicamos bajo el gobierno y el público sector a principios de esta semana[http://techrights.org/2011/06/07/platform-11-new-wine/]. Los reproducimos a continuación.

* ComputeCenter Culpable en fila de Origen del sector público abierto[http://www.microscope.co.uk/news/reseller-news/channel-blamed-in-public-sector-open-source-row/]
* ¿El final de código abierto por el piojo Condes?[http://www.bristolwireless.net/2011/06/the-end-of-open-source-down-the-counts-louse/]
* Los integradores de sistemas prestar estrategia de la Oficina del Gabinete de código abierto inviable, dijo a los diputados[http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2011/06/07/246890/System-integrators-render-Cabinet-Office-open-source-strategy-unworkable-MPs.htm]

Translation produced by Eduardo Landaveri, the esteemed administrator of the Spanish portal of Techrights.

Mozilla Staff Explains That Net Applications Gives Skewed Firefox Measures

Posted in Apple, Deception, GNU/Linux, Marketing, Microsoft at 7:32 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Net Applications

Summary: The inaccurate caricatures of Net Applications are further doubted, not just by GNU/Linux proponents (who do have some hard numbers)

INACCURACY that is imposed by design (data/method) can be called “bias” and bias is always up for sale. It is the business model of so-called ‘analysts’ and PR people (who overlap to an extent). As we frequently remind readers, anti-GNU/Linux trolls like to point to Net Applications, which is paid by Microsoft and Apple. Alex Faaborg from Mozilla notes:

The data shown here is from Net Applications. This is proportional to Web usage on each platform, and not individual users. So for instance if iOS users browse the Web more than Android users, their box becomes proportionally larger.

Also I should add the caveat that Net Applications usually reports lower numbers for Firefox market share compared to the other public data sources (and our own internal metrics), but nonetheless, this treemap sure has a lot of orange in it.

In other news, Mr. Pogson counters new FUD of the “GNU/Linux Desktop is DEAD” flavour:

Yet another “GNU/Linux Desktop is DEAD” FUD-piece. Basically the authour writes that it won’t happen because it won’t happen, a circular argument. He even claims Dell, HP, ASUS and others selling PCs with GNU/Linux is not happening. I agree Dell is rather weak in its effort but HP intends to put Linux on most of its PCs and ASUS already does (ExpressGate – “In response to great user feedback, our plan is to proliferate Express Gate across our entire motherboard product portfolio, starting with over one million motherboards per month,” says Joe Hsieh, General Manager, ASUS Motherboard Business Unit. “Consumers want to turn their PCs on and off like any other appliance, and Express Gate has made that possible.”).

He goes on to claim that those defecting from M$ are going to Apple which is partly true but he has the wrong numbers for shares to show that. GNU/Linux is on about 10% of PCs and MacOS is on about 4%. M$ is losing, certainly, but Apple scarcely sells any desktops outside USA/Europe.

The skewed Apple statistics from Net Applications have always served as evidence of US-centric bias. Did having Apple as a Net Applications customer contribute towards this? No wonder corporate press which us funded by Apple and Microsoft (key advertisers) is grooming Net Applications.

“There’s a lot of Linux out there — much more than Microsoft generally signals publicly — and their customers are using it…”

Paul DeGroot, a Directions On Microsoft analyst

France and the United Kingdom Want to Drown in Software Patents Sea of Risk

Posted in America, Europe, Patents at 7:18 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

La bataille de Waterloo
La bataille de Waterloo

Summary: France and the UK are giving in to American agenda of software monopolies; the FFII and Techrights counter that

SOMETHING rogue is going on in France and this time it’s not Barnier, whose lobbying for a software patents loophole we wrote in many older posts over the past year. “France to launch a national patent troll,” claims the president of the FFII (who is Belgian and fluent in French). While his claim links to 3 pages in French, his Slashdot description summarises everything as follows:

[zoobab:] “France is creating a state sponsored patent fund, FranceBrevets, which primary focus will be to sponsor, acquire and license patents in the ICT (read software patents) sector. The patent fund is at the initiative of the minister of Research, Valérie Pécresse, the Ministry of Industry, Energy and digital economy, Eric Besson. The primary target of the fund is to collect licenses on those patents, which is already seen in France as the biggest patent troll of the country. France is also supporting the European Unitary Patent, which is seen by many at the final attempt to validate software patents in Europe.”

“FranceBrevets and the European Unitary Patent: a good opportunity for patent trolls, jackpot damages for the whole EU,” he notes separately, further explaining that “France is creating a fund to heavily invest in software patents (priority is Information and Communication Technology)”; quite mystifying, no? It leads to more ambiguity and uncertainty for European developers. Symbian (Nokia) validated a software patent in the UK some years ago and Germany made things worse with a ruling on Microsoft's FAT. As one person noted, regarding the decision of Wilcox [1, 2, 3, 4], the Peer To Patent “UK pilot program will start as the US did, however; it will focus solely on computer-related technologies.” Citing Techrights it says:

Not everyone is so thrilled by this focus, particularly the many opposed to software patents in principle. At least one group argues that we ought not to “legitimize” software patents with programs such as Peer to Patent, “to [which] the issue is the quality of patents, not software patents in general.” This debate may prove especially problematic in adapting the original US model to European states, like the UK. Article 52 of the European Patent Convention (EPC) excludes “programs for computers” as patentable subject matter. UK law on the subject is confusing, to say the least; recent jurisprudence seems to have established that computer programs making a “technical contribution” are patentable – though exactly what this entails is unclear.

What is going on in Europe? It seems to be under the same American attack (brought by monopolists with government help) that New Zealand is under. As one person, noted in response at Twitter: “You know our multi-National-friendly govt will do what they ask. #FriesWithThat ?”

Keep clean

IDG Blames Carriers Amid Strategic Shift at Microsoft: Don’t Sell Windows Phones, Tax Linux Instead

Posted in FUD, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Patents at 6:47 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The ‘new Microsoft’: if you can’t beat them, tax them

Cash box

Summary: Microsoft strives to turn Linux/Android into its own cash cow and IDG (among other Microsoft-funded corporate press) is helping Microsoft achieve this, not to mention Microsoft patent trolls

THE PRO-PATENTS lobby is very strong because the oligopoly hires lobbyists to pretend to be the voice of the people. There is also a fair number of pro-Windows PR agents, whom Microsoft is compensating in all sorts of ways (we covered these before). It is rather easy to spot them and as noted in our daily links, Mary Jo Foley (the longtime Microsoft booster) said that the sellers discouraged her from buying a “Windows” phone (of course they did, because it’s rubbish). IDG is trying to blame the carriers rather than blame Microsoft’s product. Amazing! To quote:

At a Verizon reseller kiosk, a salesman clearly tried to deter me from buying a WP7 device altogether. Not only did not he appear to know the fundamental difference between Windows Mobile and WP7, his kiosk didn’t even offer WP7 devices and said you’d only find WP7 demo products at a few of Verizon’s big retail stores.

“Honestly, only 1 out of 500 customers comes in here asking for a Windows phone,” he said. “Verizon won’t roll them out to kiosks until it performs better on the market.”

At Sprint, a salesperson was impressed by my insistence on trying a WP7 device (Sprint has only on Windows Phone 7 model, the HTC Arrive), but still tried to sell me the Android-powered HTC Evo (like the one he held). When I told him I’d rather wait for another WP7 phone to hit Sprint, he tried to convince me to return on June 24 for the HTC Evo 3D.

Yes, Android phones are technically vastly superior. As one of our readers put it, “sales people tell customers that Windows Phoney 7 is crap, Microsoft press [IDG] complains. Mary Jo Foley complained about the same thing, last week on Twitter with some nasty Microsoft PR person. The company has an excuse for all of their failures, it’s always someone else’s fault. boo hooo.”

Mr. Pogson notes that annual sales are at a region of “472 Million Smart Phones, 50 Million Tablets and 360 Million PCs”. This helps show that GNU/Linux need not aim so hard at the desktop, not anymore perhaps. Microsoft is currently demolishing Nokia to take over at no cost. Glyn Moody notes a headline that says “Nokia still dominant in #Africa, has 61% of mobile ad impressions” (adding, “but for how long when cheap #androids”). My response to him was, “Microsoft won’t allow cheap Androids. It will tax Android (=cash cow) and send along trolls which Florian will be cheerleading for. Microsoft does not need the desktop. It needs patent tax on 472m smartphones & 50m tablets that are sold per year (mostly w/ Linux/Android)” (these comments can be found in Identi.ca).

We really ought to reform/remove the USPTO, but the corporate press is not helping at all.

Almost nobody (except patent lawyers) denies the fact that the USPTO is broken. Some call for its abolishment, while more conformist voices (arguably “cowards”) call for mild reformation. The truth remains that the USPTO and its proponents try to spread and expand its clout to other continents, thereby instantaneously giving amazing power to a lot of American conglomerates over other countries. So-called ‘trade agreements’ are utilities of this unjust agenda. It should be noted that Europe is not innocent here [1, 2] and countries in Africa, south America, and east Asia should be furious. Their politicians happily sign away their citizens’ rights and freedom, using all sorts of lies and euphemisms (“trade agreements” is one such euphemism).

“We really ought to reform/remove the USPTO, but the corporate press is not helping at all.”As we noted in the previous post, Microsoft is trying to spread the USPTO’s mentality like it’s some kind of a medicine that would benefit other countries rather than turn those countries into slaves of the likes of Microsoft, Intel, and IBM. Shameful, shameful stuff. Everyone except employees of those companies (including the patent lawyers) has everything to lose and nothing to gain. Monopolies do nothing to promote innovation, they promote protectionism, exclusionism, and nationalism within the subjugating country (not the oppressed ones). These market dynamics ought to be understood in the context of the attacks on Linux, which has origins outside the United States and is often characterised as being “non-American” (despite its permanent basing in Oregon).

An American company called IDG is one heck of a curse not just to the English-speaking world. Since it has many publications in many different languages, it can often provide the American bias its customers (advertisers, not readers) require if not demand. It echoes a lot of US-centric statistics (more on that in a later post) to glorify domestic companies and it also promotes a US perspective on law. In relation to the Windows Mobile/Phone/whatever brand they choose today, IDG is now spreading new propaganda which came from itself and is allegedly Microsoft-funded FUD. For a change, it noted at the bottom: “Full Disclosure: IDC is a sibling company to PCWorld, both of which subsidiaries of IDG” (this is rarely noted, if at all, when IDG promotes so-called ‘studies’ from IDC, funded by the BSA to lie annually and harm the public with those lies). Recent headlines from IDG’s fake “open source” blog include “Shame on Richard Stallman” and “Has Open Source Made Google’s Software Stack Obsolete?” The writers there often have a proprietary software background/bias, as we explained before. One of the Microsoft apologists there is having a FUDfest right now with a “30 days with Ubuntu” rally. Anyway, in that latest article which predicts success for “Windows Phones” (based on its own ‘study’), the author adds: “An issue not taken into account by IDC is Google’s legal troubles relating to Android software patents” (Android has no software patents, it’s like saying “FOSS patents”).

“The USPTO reexamination process is so cumbersome that it helps show what a farce the USPTO really is.”Ah… FUD time again. When the i4i verdict came out from the SCOTUS and coverage arrived to disappoint, where was IDG? Doing some investigative journalism or just playing ball for the US patent system which was victorious that day (it does not harm the Canadian one, yet). Where is IDG when Microsoft patent trolls are attacking Linux? It just doesn’t report. It doesn’t do its work. It is left for sites like Groklaw to pick up the pieces and criticise the broken system. Professor Webbink writes about the Interval case which also affects Linux: “Don’t hold your breath for the court to issues a stay.. Although the court in this case previously denied a stay, it did so on April 29 only because the USPTO had not acted on the reexamination requests. That has now happened (See the update to The World Kicks Back). Despite the fact that the USPTO has now ordered a reexamination of each of the patents, Courts are generally loath to wait on the USPTO reexamination process.”

The USPTO reexamination process is so cumbersome that it helps show what a farce the USPTO really is. It is biased in favour of patent maximalism because it sells better (selling monopolies is the USPTO’s business). It is therefore left for other companies to pool their efforts and fight outrageous software patents one by one. This new example counters one such patent and it says: “Some of you may have known, that Widget Press is being sued for patent infringing on US Patent US Patent 7,822,816 (816) that covers data collection on a mobile device using an electronic form. A lot of folks have generous offered financial assistance in helping Widget Press during this difficult time. Thank you. This post is mostly to address how you can help and to discuss briefly about the lawsuit we are in. If you feel so inclined to help us out after reading this post, please feel free to support Widget Press in any way you can.”

Patents should be discussed more often as anybody but patents lawyers and monopolies should vote strongly against them. Why doesn’t the corporate press play along with the people’s interests? Maybe it’s just not supposed to and was never supposed to.

Intel and Microsoft Attack Freedom of Software Developers by Defending/Lobbying for Software Patents in New Zealand

Posted in Hardware, Microsoft, OLPC, Patents at 5:41 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Intel: criminal inside

Summary: Convicted monopolist Intel joins the Microsoft-style lobby of advocating monopolies on mathematical ideas such as algorithms

ONE THING THAT INTEL and Microsoft have in common is that both are committing crimes to gain and to protect their monopolies and when legal action is brought against them they just pay a bribe to have the evidence destroyed and for the legal cases to go away. Both Microsoft and Intel were found guilty in multiple continents and they had colluded for many years (recent example [1, 2]) as they rubbed each others’ back and forced smaller competitors out of the market.

“Intel submits that if New Zealand chooses to provide restrictions on the patentability of software, those who will suffer the most include citizens of the country, and particularly those who develop software.”
      –David Simon, Intel
Intel’s pretense (PR lies) is a subject we wrote about before. Do not believe what Intel says. It wants the world to perceive it as a GNU/Linux friend so that its hardware gets bought by people with a clue in computing. It’s a PR exercise. Intel paid SCO and attacked OLPC (which was Linux-based), then covered it up. Moreover, notes the FFII’s president upon this release of submissions regarding software patents in New Zealand, that “Intel says [PDF] you cannot distinguish hardware from software, very shocking from the number manufacturer of hardware” (does Intel ‘own’ the transistor yet?)

We have looked at the said submission and were appalled. There is also a very shameful lie there from David Simon (on behalf of Intel). He said that “Intel submits that if New Zealand chooses to provide restrictions on the patentability of software, those who will suffer the most include citizens of the country, and particularly those who develop software.” The very opposite is true, but don’t let facts gets in Intel’s way. Shame on Intel.

Glyn Moody notes that “#Microsoft fights desperately for #swpats” in there, but we already knew that. Microsoft and its front groups in New Zealand are a subject we explored quite thoroughly before (see this wiki page for details). The FFII’s president adds that the “European Commission DG Trade commenting on software patents guidelines in New Zealand, while EPC is not even EU law” (in New Zealand they try to legitimise software patents in the same way they do in Europe, by painting software as hardware or “device”). Mr Vassilis Koutsiouris from the intellectual property unit is deceiving New Zealand [PDF]. Is this what European taxpayers pay for? To harm themselves and empower monopolies whose billionaires have no qualm about lying?

[Disclosure: Posted from an AMD box]

IRC Proceedings: June 12th, 2011

Posted in IRC Logs at 2:32 am 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