06.30.11
Microsoft’s War on Linux is All About Software Patents Now
Summary: Microsoft makes Velocity Micro pay Microsoft — not Google — for Linux-based Android devices
The extortion against Android has a maze of NDAs. Thanks to Barnes and Noble we know how ugly it really is. There is no amicable agreement, there is racketeering [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. Just a few days ago Microsoft announced one extortion deal against Android and now comes another with lots of the same lies (talking points to make it seem like an amicable deal):
The patent agreement is another example of the important role intellectual property (IP) plays in ensuring a healthy and vibrant IT ecosystem.
No, it’s extortion, and it should not be legal. Microsoft has clearly run out of ways to compete with Linux, so it is lobbying for software patents everywhere (Microsoft Florian is almost definitely on their payroll, directly or indirectly) and it is attacking Linux all the time behind closed doors, trying to make it more expensive and also Microsoft’s cash cow. Microsoft’s co-founder Bill Gates plays similar games with patents (on food and medicine for example) and this has got to stop. Microsoft is a very dangerous company, not a scapegoat. █
Needs Sunlight said,
June 30, 2011 at 2:40 am
What M$ is doing is covered by The RICO Act. These shake downs have to stop.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:
June 30th, 2011 at 3:01 am
Yes, but how does one pressure for RICO Act to actually be enforced? Citizens are very helpless here, partly because of the NDAs and PR (Microsoft controls the coverage). They pretend these are mutual agreements.
dyfet said,
June 30, 2011 at 5:28 am
One issue is legal standing. So long as they do not make the mistake of shaking down the “wrong” party who may choose to pursue such things or a war to the bitter end regardless of cost, there is little opportunity to see that happen, as what they think is a system that enables asymmetric costs of shakedowns may also be used to force far greater asymmetric costs back onto them. A class action on the other hand seeking a declarative injunction for restraint of trade and Rico seems perhaps possible, though. I might suggest a theory of indirect harm to assert legal standing for that; less free software people get employed as a direct result of their knowingly fraudulent actions.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:
July 4th, 2011 at 3:24 am
Some companies choose for immorality, at least among managers. Ruthlessness can be profitable because it blocks our natural inclination to collaborate.