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


The Difference Between Microsoft’s Racketeering Against Linux and Oracle’s Racketeering Against Linux

Posted in Apple, FUD, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Oracle, Patents at 4:12 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Tennis racket and ball

Summary: The General Dynamics Itronix patent deal deciphered; Oracle — unlike Microsoft — takes the outrageous Android complaint to Google, which has good reasons to put up a fight; it also names actual patents

THE LATEST Microsoft extortion deal has just been announced and the coverage about it controlled to an extent. Rather than pay attention to the success of Android/Linux (“500,000 Android device activations per day”), the Microsoft boosters try to associate Android with patent lawsuits, malware, etc. Among the Microsoft tax-tainted Android devices we previously had Samsung, LG, HTC, and thankfully not the Nook, which unlike the Kindle (Amazon, not Android) is being defended by B&N. Notice the pattern though, as those extorted are located where the US pushes disgraceful treaties to force-feed software patents.

Free Android is still available from Sony, Motorola, ASUS, Dell, Acer, Cisco, Archos, Toshiba, Sharp, and many more. Companies to avoid for their payments to Microsoft (for unknown patents, allegedly relating to Linux) are Novell/SUSE/Attachmate, Xandros, Turbolinux LG, Fuji Xerox, Brother, Melco, Samsung, Kyocera Mita, I-O Data, and HTC. Motorola and B&N fought back, so there is an ongoing battle in court and Google should try to help those companies that attend the courtrooms. They are under fire because Microsoft is desperate to make Linux more expensive and also its own cash cow. Microsoft’s boosters play along with this outrageous plot. For example, the now-spineless (maybe for the safety of her job at ZDNet) Mary Jo Foley does nothing to promote justice in her shallow coverage of the news from Microsoft’s PR department:

On June 27, Microsoft announced that General Dynamics Itronix signed a patent agreement with Microsoft for Itronix devices running Android. Microsoft characterized the agreement as providing “broad coverage under Microsoft’s patent portfolio for General Dynamics Itronix devices running the Android platform.”

Some journalists asked me for comments about it. A press release broke the news (Microsoft probably pushed it to them early under embargo) with Microsoft boosters who were possibly briefed so as to cushion the extortion and play with talking points. For those who missed the news, Microsoft merely extorted another company which sells Linux. Microsoft uses software patents. As usual, out of the blue Florian had to jump right at my face (in Twitter), as though he was almost celebrating the extortion. He tends to sympathise with Microsoft’s racketeering [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7].

Here is the PR which the boosters are parroting. General Dynamics Itronix “devices running the Android platform” will be “covered”, says the PR, as if extortion has much to do with “coverage” (of one’s back maybe). The signing of a patent agreement is a case of putting a smile on something very hostile, as we explained before. Microsoft threatens to sue and then makes an escape route conditional upon “protection money” and pretense of the deal being amicable. To Microsoft is is important to say that “the contents of the agreement have not been disclosed” (more uncertainty) and “the parties indicate that Microsoft will receive royalties from General Dynamics Itronix under the agreement.” That’s extortion. Now watch what Microsoft’s lead extortionist says to promote further extortions: “We are pleased to have reached this agreement with General Dynamics Itronix, which is an example of how industry leaders address intellectual property.” Translations: those who do not agree to cough up “protection money” are disrespectful of the law.

This deal demonstrates Microsoft’s continued bullying and persistent attempts to get around Google and tax its Linux-based operating system, usually by intimidating distributors of Android with lawsuit threats. Microsoft knows that for such companies to fight the case in court there would be less incentive than for Google, which currently battles against Oracle to defend Android from software patents. This deal is yet another example of the harms of software patents, which seem to provide a sort of welfare system to former monopolies or monopolies on the decline. People must ask themselves whether the patent system promotes innovation or promotes litigation which merely raises the price of everything we buy and reduces incentives for developers, whose jobs are dropped to give way to patent lawyers.

Glyn Moody wrote about the subject of software patents that fail against Android. That was just hours before the above announcement and it basically said that software patents are clearly failing:

I’ve noted before that we are witnessing a classic patent thicket in the realm of smartphones, with everyone and his or her dog suing everyone else (and their dog.) But without doubt one of the more cynical applications of intellectual monopolies is Oracle suit against Google. This smacked entirely of the lovely Larry Ellison spotting a chance to extra some money without needing to do much other than point his legal department in the right direction.


Even assuming that Google has wilfully infringed on all the patents that Oracle claims – and that has still to be proved – it’s hard to see how Oracle has really lost “opportunities” as a result. If anything, the huge success of Android, based as it is on Java, is likely to increase the demand for Java programmers, and generally make the entire Java ecosystem more valuable – greatly to Oracle’s benefit.

So, irrespective of any royalties that may or may not be due, Oracle has in any case already gained from Google’s action, and will continue to benefit from the rise of Android as the leading smartphone operating system. Moreover, as Android is used in other areas – tablets, set-top boxes, TVs etc. – Oracle will again benefit from the vastly increased size of the Java ecosystem over which it has substantial control.

Of course, I am totally unsurprised to find Oracle doing this. But to be fair to the Larry Ellison and his company, this isn’t just about Oracle, but is also to do with the inherent problems of software patents, which encourage this kind of behaviour (not least by rewarding it handsomely, sometimes.)

Oracle could sue distributors of Android other than Google and then extort them. But Oracle does not play as dirty as Microsoft. Only SCO, given funding from Microsoft, could possibly use such a strategy, although even SCO did not go as far as Microsoft.

To Microsoft, being able to milk other people’s work may be essential for survival because the company has debt (and it didn’t actually pay billions for Skype as it may have journalists believe, for reasons we’ve covered separately). Microsoft’s cash cows are dying and as my co-host Tim put it:

Like a parasite, Microsoft feeds off another, yet can you blame them? Windows Phone 7 isn’t the Iphone killer that Microsoft PR would have you believe and that’s just one “cog” in its product catalogue. Microsoft has battles all across the board, its firing in all directions and all the while its competitors are coming out with products that people want to buy.

To me it’s very telling that Microsoft doesn’t go after Google directly. I wonder why that is? Could it be like the schoolyard bully they pick on those smaller than themselves, knowing full well that their patent claims won’t be tested in court? Could it be that Microsoft knows exactly how much “worth” there is in their claims and knows Google would fight back.

And Microsoft wonders why its name is mud with many in the tech world? To me these actions show Microsoft as a parasite and coward. If you feel you can justify Microsoft’s actions then I’d love to hear from you. If you can’t, then maybe you are as disgusted as me how Microsoft is allowed to carry on like this.

“Nessuno” in USENET writes: “Convinced ‘em, all right.  “Nice little family you have there.  Be too bad if something happened to your little girl.”

“Of course they make more money from shaking down Linux than they make selling their own crap.”

Here is what a pro-Linux site had to say about the deal:

Last month, a Citi analyst said that Microsoft is receiving $5 per Android phone from HTC, and is aiming to squeeze $7.50 to $12.50 per device from other vendors. According to some observers, the $150 million per year sum from HTC is five times more income than Microsoft receives for its Windows Phone.

While many of the Linux device agreements appear to relate to patents Microsoft claims over the FAT filesystem, as was revealed in Microsoft’s successful lawsuit against TomTom, the Android claims could instead relate to UI techniques. At least this is what was revealed by Microsoft when Barnes & Noble refused to pay protection money to Microsoft over its Android-based Nook e-reader, and was sued by Redmond in March. Microsoft’s official statements in that case suggested that the cited UI techniques may be similar to those covered in the HTC case.

This settlement is good news for Microsoft Florian (he tried to push the abused into submission) and it is also validating the position of other lobbyists for software patents (and their own pockets), such as Steve Lundberg, who is still going at it.

Microsoft’s dream is a world where every device running just about any operating system will be a revenue source for Microsoft, due to software patents. That’s the vision they have — a vision where people write monopolies (patents), not code. Apple too is starting to lean that way now that Linux gives it a run for the money. Apple and Microsoft are part of the same problem and as we explained earlier, they try to impose US law (with USPTO monopolies) in Asian countries that actually make a lot of Linux-based devices. Apple Began pressuring Samsung with a patent lawsuit (they don’t go after Google) and “Apple’s long divorce from Samsung near final,” writes The Register. “The strained relationship between Apple and Samsung has moved a step closer to fracturing completely, with a report in the Chinese-language Commercial Times refreshing rumours that TSMC will become Cupertino’s new best friend.”

“Even if Apple jumped in 2012, its business would only represent about 2 percent of TSMC’s business,” explains the author.

“The rest probably goes to Android,” remarks “Homer” in USENET.

“Well I must say I’m shocked and amazed this happened after Apple shafted Samsung with a bogus looky-feely lawsuit.

“Now it seems the shiny Samsung, er, I mean Apple iPhoney is set to become a considerably less shiny Korean iPhoney … made from only the finest plastic. The good news is it’ll also come with a free case made from dog fur, and a two feet tall antenna so you can actually get a signal.”

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one


  1. TemporalBeing said,

    June 30, 2011 at 3:05 am


    May be Microsoft needs to be tried under RICO too then…that’ll be a twist, if only U.S. DoJ would do it. Probably enough in their patent dealing to prove it too.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    B&N seems to have suggested this. How might one go about asking for federal action?

What Else is New

  1. Public Protests by European Patent Office (EPO) Staff Weaken the EPO's Attacks on the Media

    Where things stand when it comes to the EPO's standoff against publications and why it's advisable for EPO staff to stage standoffs against their high-level management, which is behind a covert crackdown on independent media (while greasing up corporate media)

  2. Why the European Patent Office Cannot Really Sue and Why It's All -- More Likely Than Not -- Just SLAPP

    Legal analysis by various people explains why the EPO's attack dogs are all bark but no bite when it comes to threats against publishers

  3. How the EPO Twisted Defamation Law in a Failed Bid to Silence Techrights

    Using external legal firms (not the EPO's own lawyers), the EPO has been trying -- and failing -- to silence prominent critics

  4. East Texas and Its Cautionary Tale: Software Patents Lead to Patent Trolls

    Lessons from US media, which focuses on the dire situation in Texas courts, and how these relate to the practice of granting patents on software (the patent trolls' favourite weapon)

  5. The Latest EPO Spin: Staff Protesters Compared to 'Anti-Patent Campaigners' or 'Against UPC'

    Attempts to characterise legitimate complaints about the EPO's management as just an effort to derail the patent office itself, or even the patent system (spin courtesy of EPO and its media friends at IAM)

  6. The Serious Implication of Controversial FTI Consulting Contract: Every Press Article About EPO Could Have Been Paid for by EPO

    With nearly one million dollars dedicated in just one single year to reputation laundering, one can imagine that a lot of media coverage won't be objective, or just be synthetic EPO promotion, seeded by the EPO or its peripheral PR agents

  7. EPO: We Have Always Been at War With Europe (or Europeans)

    The European Patent Office (EPO) with its dubious attacks on free speech inside Europe further unveiled for the European public to see (as well as the international community, which oughtn't show any respect to the EPO, a de facto tyranny at the heart of Europe)

  8. What Everyone Needs to Know About the EPO's New War on Journalism

    A detailed list of facts or observations regarding the EPO's newfound love for censorship, even imposed on outside entities, including bloggers (part one of several to come)

  9. EPO Did Not Want to Take Down One Techrights Article, It Wanted to Take Down Many Articles Using Intimidation, SLAPPing, and Psychological Manipulation Late on a Friday Night

    Recalling the dirty tactics by which the European Patent Office sought to remove criticism of its dirty secret deals with large corporations, for whom it made available and was increasingly offering preferential treatment

  10. The European Private Office: What Was Once a Public Service is Now Crony Capitalism With Private Contractors

    The increasing privatisation of the European Patent Office (EPO), resembling what happens in the UK to the NHS, shows that the real goal is to crush the quality of the service and instead serve a bunch of rich and powerful interests, in defiance of the original goals of this well-funded (by taxpayers) organisation

  11. Microsoft Once Again Disregards People's Settings and Abuses Them, Again Pretends It's Just an Accident

    A conceited corporation, Microsoft, shows not only that it exploits its botnet to forcibly download massive binaries without consent but also that it vainly overrides people's privacy settings to spy on these people, sometimes with help from malicious hardware vendors such as Dell or Lenovo

  12. When the EPO Liaised With Capone (Literally) to Silence Bloggers, Delete Articles

    A dissection of the EPO's current media strategy, which involves not only funneling money into the media but also actively silencing opposing views

  13. Blogger Who Wrote About the EPO's Abuses Retires

    Bloggers' independent rebuttal capability against a media apparatus that is deep in the EPO's pocket is greatly diminished as Jeremy Phillips suddenly retires

  14. Leaked: EPO Award of €880,000 “in Order to Address the Media Presence of the EPO” (Reputation Laundering)

    The European Patent Office, a public body, wastes extravagant amounts of money on public relations (for 'damage control', like FIFA's) in an effort to undermine critics, not only among staff (internally) but also among the media (externally)

  15. Links 27/11/2015: KDE Plasma 5.5 Plans, Oracle Linux 7.2

    Links for the day

  16. Documents Needed: Contract or Information About EPO PR/Media Campaign to Mislead the World

    Rumour that the EPO spends almost as much as a million US dollars “with some selected press agencies to refurbish the image of the EPO”

  17. Guest Post: The EPO, EPC, Unitary Patent and the Money Issue

    Remarks on the Unitary Patent (UP) and the lesser-known aspects of the EPO and EPC, where the “real issue is money, about which very little is discussed in public...”

  18. Saving the Integrity of the European Patent Office (EPO)

    Some timely perspective on what's needed at the European Patent Office, which was detabilised by 'virtue' of making tyrants its official figureheads

  19. A Call for Bloggers and Journalists: Did EPO Intimidate and Threaten You Too? Please Speak Out.

    An effort to discover just how many people out there have been subjected to censorship and/or self-censorship by EPO aggression against the media

  20. European Patent Office (EPO) a “Kingdom Above the EU Countries, a Tyranny With ZERO Accountability”

    Criticism of the EPO's thuggish behaviour and endless efforts to crush dissenting voices by all means available, even when these means are in clear violation of international or European laws

  21. Links 26/11/2015: The $5 Raspberry Pi Zero, Running Sans Systemd Gets Hard

    Links for the day

  22. EPO Management Needs to Finally Recognise That It Itself is the Issue, Not the Staff or the Unions

    A showing of dissent even from the representatives whom the EPO tightly controls and why the latest union-busting goes a lot further than most people realise

  23. Even the EPO Central Staff Committee is Unhappy With EPO Management

    The questions asked by the Central Staff Committee shared for the public to see that not only a single union is concerned about the management's behaviour

  24. The Broken Window Economics of Patent Trolls Are Already Coming to Europe

    The plague which is widely known as patent trolls (non-practicing entities that prey on practicing companies) is being spread to Europe, owing in part to misguided policies and patent maximalists

  25. Debunking the EPO's Latest Marketing Nonsense From Les Échos and More on Benoît Battistelli's Nastygram to French Politician

    Our detailed remarks about French brainwash from the EPO's media partner (with Benoît Battistelli extensively quoted) and the concerns increasingly raised by French politicians, who urge for national or even continental intervention

  26. The Sun King Delusion: The Views of Techrights Are Just a Mirror of EPO Staff Unions

    Tackling some emerging spin we have seen coming from Battistelli's private letters -- spin which strives to project the views of Techrights onto staff unions and why it's very hypocritical a form of spin

  27. Links 25/11/2015: Webconverger 33.1, Netrunner 17 Released

    Links for the day

  28. United They Stand: FFPE-EPO Supports Suspended Staff Representatives From SUEPO

    An obscure union from the Dutch side of things at the EPO is expressing support for the suspended colleagues from SUEPO (more German than Dutch)

  29. Censoring WIPR Article About Censorship by EPO

    A testament to how terrified journalists have become when it comes to EPO coverage, to the point of deleting entire paragraphs

  30. Censorship at the EPO Escalates: Now We Have Threats to Sue Publishers

    Having already blocked Techrights, the EPO's management proceeds to further suppressions of speech, impeding its staff's access to independently-distributed information (neither ordinary staff nor management)


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 Channel: Come and chat with us in real time


Recent Posts