06.17.11
Posted in Novell at 4:04 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Following the sale of Novell and the failure of Move Networks we look at Drew Major’s legacy
THE THING about Move Networks is that it is hardly around anymore. Drew's latest 'baby', Move, died last year (around the same time as his previous ‘baby’, Novell, which many still view of Noorda’s company), but this article suggests that the company is “rebounding with new business”. To quote:
Move’s founder and chairman Drew Major, a local man and BYU alumnus, was one of the founders of Novell and the lead architect of NetWare, the killer app of its time. In 1995, BYTE magazine named him one of the 20 Most Influential People for the previous 20 years of the computer industry. He was inducted into the National Computer Industry Hall of Fame in 1999 and into the Utah Technology Hall of Fame in 2005.
He founded Move Networks 10 years ago after Novell rebuffed his vision of broadcast-quality TV on the Internet. The upstart initially enjoyed huge backings from Microsoft, Comcast and Walt Disney, and big-ticket clients like ABC, HBO, Fox, ESPN, Discovery, CBS, WB and Televisa, the largest publisher of Spanish content in the world.
Novell, as everyone recognises by now, is dead. Its glory days are long gone and its legacy brand still keeps for its products some of their old inertia. From CRN India:
Shah started by selling Banyan VINES products. “There were two prominent names in networking products—Novell and Banyan VINES. Novell was known more for its LAN software and there were also piracy issues. I chose Banyan VINES.”
Novell will probably be remembered for its legacy in the network, not for its later products. There is some new PR piece titled “Novell Positioned in Leaders Quadrant for Security Information and Event” and he was explained before, Magic Quadrant is a matter of nepotism or bribes sometimes. Those who bet on Novell put their cards/bets on a ticking time bomb. A few weeks ago we explained that Groupwise was a dying product, but “Sonian(TM), the pioneer in cloud-powered archiving, today announced its partnership with HostedEM to deliver the first ever Cloud-Based Managed Service for Novell(R) GroupWise(R) in the enterprise collaboration market.” When was the last time that Novell/Attachmate gained a major new client of Groupwise? Will it new owner even try? As we shall show later, SUSE is already being neglected. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Microsoft, Patents at 4:22 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
(ODF | PDF | English/original)
Resumen: Los grupos de presión de la mal llamada “PYMEs Alianza Innovativa (PYME representa la Pequeña y Mediana Empresa y PYMN Pequeños y Medianos Negocios) no están en realidad promoviendo la causa de las PYMEs y, además, los argumentos de este lobby distorsionan los hechos sobre el EOP (Oficina Europea de Patentes) con el fin de salirse con la suya.
Recientemente hemos visto algunos pasos en el Reino Unido que pueden ayudar a legitimar las patentes de software [1[http://techrights.org/2011/05/31/patent-monopolies-in-the-eu/], 2[http://techrights.org/2011/06/01/wilcox-should-learn-from-eu/], 3[http://techrights.org/2011/06/10/transporting-software-patents-to-eu/], 4[http://techrights.org/2011/06/13/software-monopolies-in-fr-and-uk/]]. Todavía hay algo cocinadose por los abogados de patentes quienes piden más monopolios para que ellos puedan tener más clientes. A pesar de los inconvenientes conocidos de las patentes de software[http://techrights.org/2011/06/14/smashing-progress-with-swpats_es/], la propaganda de aquellos con intereses creados se propaga a través de algunas vías alternativas [1[http://www.suaju.com/software-news/software-patents-could-be-the-answer-to-protect-the-economy-and-the-software-industry/1543], 2[http://www.womenintechnology.co.uk/news/uk-software-industry-restricted-by-patent-rules--news-800579361]]. David Meyer de ZDNet ha hecho un trabajo decente cubriendo[http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/intellectual-property/2011/06/14/uk-tech-lobbyists-call-for-software-patents-40093101/] algunas de las últimas tonterías de los grupos de presión (cuya oscura página de inicio es http://www.smeia.org/, que puede oler a Bristol-basado AstroTurf sin actividad sustancial[http://www.smeia.org/member-forum/]). Algo que se llama “Alianza para la Innovación de las PYMEs” está presionando para que las patentes de software con presunciones falsas. En principio, no existen las patentes de software en Europa, sin embargo, John Mitchell pretende que “no tenemos una industria de software debido a que la Oficina de Propiedad Intelectual del Reino Unido está fuera de línea con el resto de Europa”. Espera, ¿qué? Para citar a:
El Reino Unido sólo se otorgará patentes de software si estas resuelven un problema técnico en particular, al tiempo que niega a los que tienen un uso de propósito general, como una aplicación de procesador de textos. En comparación, la Oficina Europea de Patentes (EPO) es un poco más relajada, ya que permite las patentes de los programas de ordenador.
Eso es una tontería. ¿Son estas supuestas distorsiones que le ayudara a presión? De todos modos, un comentario que nos gustó especialmente, dice: “PERO CON LAS PATENTES DE SOFTWARE, TAMBIEN PODRIAMOS TENER UNA PROSPERA INDUSTRIA DE “TROLL DE PATENTES”! ¿No sería bonito? (Si usted es un abogado de patentes, por supuesto que sí …)
Sí, bueno, tal vez esas empresas pequeñas y medianas empresas que el nefasto Mitchell pretende representar, de hecho son, firmas no tan pequeñas y/o no tan medianas empresas de los TROLLS DE PATENTES, que en muchos casos son más o menos lo mismo. Como astroturfing expertos como CMD probablemente sabe (ver PR Watch[http://www.prwatch.org/] y SourceWatch[http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch]), para convertirse en un cabildero eficaz hay que pretender hablar por el lado opuesto (que él o ella es o en realidad son/están). El petroleo, el tabaco, y otras industrias notorias, entre las que se incluye Microsoft utilizan esas tácticas ampliamente. Ver la Asociación para la Tecnología “Competitiva” ACT[http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Association_for_Competitive_Technology], por ejemplo, ya que pretende ser un lobby PYMN/PYME con sede en Bélgica, pero en realidad es un grupo frontal de Microsoft promoviendo las patentes sofwtare en Europa. █
Translation produced by Eduardo Landaveri, the esteemed administrator of the Spanish portal of Techrights.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Microsoft, Open XML, Patents at 4:05 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
(ODF | PDF | English/original)
Resumen: La NZOSS celebra un hito, ya que aleja a Microsoft con su patente de OOXML.
La Oficina de Patentes de Nueva Zelandia[http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Software_Patents_in_New_Zealand] (IPONZ[http://techrights.org/2010/07/20/i-ponzi-on-swpats/]) se ha convertido en un campo de batalla para Microsoft y sus grupos de presión, que comparte con otras multinacionales como IBM e Intel[http://techrights.org/2011/06/13/intel-for-swpats/]. Están esencialmente tratando de colonizar la isla con todo tipo de leyes que imponen a la población bajo el supuesto de que la población quiere ser esclavizada por extranjeros distantes y -me escuchan en Latino America y Africa- el uso de las MENTIRAS típicas (por ejemplo, que las patentes de software ayudarán al país). Alguien una vez nos dijo que en Nueva Zelanda el gobierno está controlado por la población y no al revés (como en muchos países grandes). Días atrás se nos dijo lo contrario.
Bueno, es que parece que la sociedad de Nueva Zelanda de Código Libre/Abierto ha salido con la suya[http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1106/S00062/nzoss-wins-patent-opposition.htm]. Desde su nuevo comunicado de prensa:
La NZOSS se complace en anunciar que la oposición a Nueva Zelanda solicitud de patente 536149, presentada por Microsoft en relación con documentos de procesamiento de XML ha sido un éxito. Ayer fuimos informados por la IPONZ que Microsoft ha retirado su solicitud.
La NZOSS aplaude la decisión de Microsoft de abandonar su intento de usar el sistema legal para impedir la interoperabilidad a través de patentes de software que están en los documentos XML de procesamiento de textos. A medida que avanzamos hacia un futuro cada vez más dependiente de la tecnología y el software esperamos que Microsoft entienda que los estándares abiertos y la interoperabilidad son fundamentales para un entorno informático robusto y saludable.
Aquí está el anuncio original[http://nzoss.org.nz/content/nzoss-wins-patent-opposition] y en el interés de la preservación reproducimos a continuación este en su totalidad. La NZOSS tiene un montón de trabajo en frente de ellos, porque ésta es sólo una patente; cambiar la ley en materia de patentes (para eliminar los “integrados” vacíos legales) será el siguiente objetivo importante. Los políticos que apoyan las patentes de software no son compatibles con Nueva Zelanda, apoyan a sus propios bolsillos a costa de Nueva Zelanda. Hay que nombrarlos y avergonzarlos, para debilitarlos y silenciarlos. █
La NZOSS Gana Oposición en Materia de Patentes
Jueves, 16 de junio 2011, 17:18
Comunicado de prensa: Nueva Zelanda Sociedad de Código Libre/Abierto
La NZOSS gana la oposición en materia de Patentes
La NZOSS se complace en anunciar que la oposición a Nueva Zelanda solicitud de patente 536149, presentada por Microsoft en relación con documentos de procesamiento de XML ha sido un éxito. Ayer fuimos informados por la IPONZ que Microsoft ha retirado su solicitud.
La NZOSS aplaude la decisión de Microsoft de abandonar es tratar de usar el sistema legal para impedir la interoperabilidad a través de patentes de software que está en los documentos XML de procesamiento de textos. A medida que avanzamos hacia un futuro cada vez más dependiente de la tecnología y el software esperamos que Microsoft entienda que los estándares abiertos y la interoperabilidad son fundamentales para un entorno informático robusto y saludable.
Las barreras legales que impiden la competencia en torno a las normas son un gran perjuicio para el bien público. Animamos a Microsoft a unirse a la gran mayoría de la industria de Nueva Zelanda de TIC y apoyar la decisión del Gobierno de Nueva Zelanda para excluir las patentes de software, protegiendo así los negocios de Microsoft en Nueva Zelanda de amenazas de patentes en el futuro. La decisión de Microsoft no sólo eliminar la espada de Damocles sobre las cabezas de nuestros propios miembros, sino de toda la comunidad de Nueva Zelanda de las TIC.
Peter Harrison, vicepresidente de la sociedad hizo una declaración ayer informar a los miembros de la decisión de Microsoft de retirarla, diciendo: “Por supuesto, estoy muy contento con el resultado. Se proporcionará una mayor seguridad sobre la capacidad de las entidades comerciales inter-operar con los formatos de Microsoft sin preocuparse por cualquier infracción de patentes. Junto con la exclusión de las patentes de software en el proyecto de ley pendiente de patente que debe ver a un ambiente que es mucho menos riesgoso para el desarrollo de software que en otros países. Esto en combinación con nuestro personal altamente calificado convierte a Nueva Zelanda en una excelente ubicación para el desarrollo de software.”
El NZOSS ha llevado a cabo Oposiciones de Patentes contra dos patentes XML presentada por Microsoft desde el año 2003. El NZOSS sentido estas patentes que se presentan un peligro claro y presente a ambos interoperabilidad entre los productos de Microsoft y de otros proveedores, y potencialmente habría permitido a Microsoft para obligar a otras empresas en los acuerdos de licencia de patentes con el fin de poner en práctica los documentos de procesamiento de textos en XML.
La oposición a los de las patentes de Microsoft XML ha tardado ocho años en resolverse, el tiempo y el compromiso de muchos de nuestros miembros. Hace unos años, después de oponerse a la primera patente, nos pusimos de acuerdo a una importante limitación de las reivindicaciones de la primera patente de tal manera que no creo que alguien alguna vez lo infringe. Posteriormente, nos opusimos a la segunda patente, y se han estado moviendo hacia una audiencia sobre la oposición.
Peter Harrison agregó: “La decisión de Microsoft de abandonar la segundo solicitud de patentes en frente de nuestra oposición ha reivindicado sustancialmente nuestra posición, es decir que estas solicitudes de patentes NO ERAN INVENCIONES PATENTABLES.” Él continuó agradeciendo a todos aquellos involucrados con la oposición, diciendo ” Debo dar las gracias a los esfuerzos de aquellos que hicieron posible este esfuerzo. Matew Holloway ha desempeñado un papel vital y profesional en su análisis detallado y objetivo de la patente. Estoy seguro de que hay pocas personas con la experiencia de Matew en torno a los formatos XML y de productividad de oficina. Sin su ayuda no podría haber sido capaz de montar un caso convincente. Y a nuestros abogados – Ellis | Terry – que hicieron un gran trabajo en la dirigencia de esta oposición, las palabras no pueden expresar mi gratitud por su compromiso de ver esto a través de la conclusión de hoy”.
Translation produced by Eduardo Landaveri, the esteemed administrator of the Spanish portal of Techrights.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
06.16.11
Posted in Apple, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Patents at 11:27 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Intellectual Ventures runs lobbying campaigns while Microsoft is working to ensure it can tax Android and Google is left defenceless
MICROSOFT is a major opponent of whatever it takes for GNU/Linux to win. It is easy to see why. Microsoft probably has the most lose. Just the other day we explained the point about CPTN as proof of Microsoft’s hypocrisy when it complains about Google patents (same party line as Microsoft Florian the lobbyist). “Fascinating to see Goog’s approach,” writes Smári McCarthy, “Microsoft whines about possible #swpat [software patents] bullying”
Glyn Moody published this excellent rebuttal which says:
I’ve written plenty about why software patents should be resisted where they don’t exist, and abolished where they do. But if I wanted further ammunition for my arguments I couldn’t hope for a better example of software patent madness than what is happening in the smartphone sector.
[...]
Clearly, what Microsoft fears here is that Google might acquire the patents, and then threaten to cancel the licensing deal with Microsoft unless the latter halts its legal action against companies using Android as the basis of their products.
For Microsoft to complain is pretty rich, of course. Here it is, using patents to attack companies employing Android in an attempt to slow down the uptake of that rival to its own Windows Phone smartphone system. That’s a clear abuse of the patent system to dissuade companies from signing up with a competitor (which, interestingly, it doesn’t attack directly), rather than to protect real innovation (an aim that was thrown out of the patent system long ago.)
[...]
I mean, let’s be consistent here: if you want to abuse the patent system, expect to be on the receiving end of similar abuse. On the other hand, rather more laudably, why not stop abusing, in which case you can take the moral high ground when others start abusing the system to attack you?
Microsoft is meanwhile trying to tax Android from many directions, not just Microsoft (directly). The goal is to make Linux more expensive than Windows. Intellectual Ventures, the world’s largest patent troll (which is incidentally derived from Microsoft), is part of the Android patents shakedown and Nokia is probably next, as we correctly predicted. Walter Byrd dropped us these quotes from Microsoft’s mole in Nokia, Stephen Elop. Following the deal with Apple [1, 2], which was also covered by the Bill Gates-funded BBC, Elop stated: “We are very pleased to have Apple join the growing number of Nokia licensees. This settlement demonstrates Nokia’s industry leading patent portfolio and enables us to focus on further licensing opportunities” (and that comes just days after he named Android in relation to the iPhone). The Microsoft-controlled Nokia has turned into more of a patent parasite (maybe troll in the future) and Walter informed us that “Intellectual Ventures starts anti-reform campaign”. Representing the patent troll in its Windows-powered Web site is Microsoft’s former CTO. “Intellectual Ventures begins running radio ads equating patent reform with big bank thievery, on DC news radio. A new bill, HR 1249, called the American Invents Act, will scale back business method patents. Naturally, they are opposed (warning: PDF)” (We previously covered this joint lobbying for software patents, too). So… “radio ads equating patent reform with big bank thievery”… Microsoft got fined $40 million after it tried something similar. It was called “trial misconduct”.
Let us remember that Intellectual Ventures is behind the patent which is now used to attack and thus deter iPhone and Android developers. Even the New Scientist covered this and there is now a “Bounty set for invalidating Lodsys patents”. This patent from Intellectual Ventures leads lawyers to making a meme from Wilson’s “Enough is Enough”. Groklaw tackles this by hosting a post by Patrick T. Igoe, Esq. and providing further commentary while also showing that software patents which target Free software are in fact being revoked. Quoting Professor Webbink:
On May 19, 2011, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued a Final Rejection [PDF] in the reexamination of Trend Micro’s U.S. patent 5,623,600 (the “’600 patent”). Groklaw has covered the story of Trend Micro’s assertion of this patent from early on, and many of our readers helped identify and contribute prior art relied upon in the reexamination. It strikes us as worthwhile to relay the history of this litigation and this reexamination as an object lesson of what can happen to a patent holder asserting a weak patent.
Trend Micro essentially attacked Free software at the time. There is no patents exemption for software just because it’s “open source” and as one person in Twitter pointed out yesterday, “PHP infringes on DuFresne’s patents (http://t.co/ng33kTs). Filed almost 1 year after PHP’s first release.”
In other patent news, Research in Motion has just been sued over patents:
Dolby has filed a lawsuit against Research in Motion for patent infringement, the audio technology company announced today.
One has to wonder what Nokia might do to Research in Motion, not just Google and/or Android distributors. Whatever it does, people are not foolish enough to forget that Elop is Microsoft’s mole who is still a top Microsoft shareholder. Under his leadership, Nokia is a Microsoft slave, not an independent company. We’ve warned about Nokia since 2007 because of its patent policy. Regulators are hopefully watching these abuses from Microsoft. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Microsoft, Patents at 11:00 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The lobbyists from something called “SME Innovation Alliance” (SME stands for Small and Medium-sized Enterprise and SMB stands for Small and Medium-sized Business) are not actually promoting the cause of SMEs and moreover this lobby argumentations distort facts about the EPO in order to get their way
RECENTLY we saw some steps in the UK which may help legitimise software patents [1, 2, 3, 4]. There is something still brewing as patent lawyers crave more monopolies so that they can have more clients. Despite the known drawbacks of software patents, the propaganda from those with vested interests spreads through some alternative avenues [1, 2]. David Meyer from ZDNet did a decent job covering some of the latest nonsense from lobbyists (whose obscure homepage is http://www.smeia.org/, which can smell like Bristol-based AstroTurf without substantial activity). Something called “SME Innovation Alliance” is pushing for software patents under false presumptions. In principle, there are no software patents in Europe, yet John Mitchell pretend that “we don’t have a software industry because the UK Intellectual Property Office is out of line with the rest of Europe”. Wait, what? To quote:
The UK will only grant software patents if they solve a particular technical problem, while it denies those that have a general-purpose use, such as a word-processing application. By comparison, the European Patent Office (EPO) is a little more relaxed, in that it allows patents for computer programs themselves.
That’s nonsense. Are these distortions supposed to help him lobby? Anyway, one comment that we particularly liked says: “But with software patents, we could also have a thriving “patent troll” industry! Wouldn’t that be nice? (If you’re a patent lawyer, anyway…)
Yes, well, maybe those small- and medium-sized businesses/enterprises which Mitchell purports to be representing are in fact small- and medium-sized law firms or patent trolls, which in many cases are more or less the same. As AstroTurfing experts like CMD would probably know (see PR Watch and SourceWatch), to become an effective lobbyist one needs to pretend to speak for the opposite side (that he or she is really on). The oil, tobacco, and other notorious industries which include Microsoft use those tactics extensively. See Association for Competitive Technology for example, as it pretends to be a SMB/SME lobby based in Belgium but it’s actually a Microsoft front group pushing for sofwtare patents in Europe. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Microsoft, Open XML, Patents at 10:12 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary:NZOSS celebrates a milestone as it drives away Microsoft with its OOXML patent
THE PATENT OFFICE of New Zealand (IPONZ) has become a battleground for Microsoft and its lobbyists, which it shares with other multinationals like IBM and Intel. They are essentially trying to colonise the island using all sorts of laws they impose on the population under the assumption that the population wants to be enslaved by distant foreigners and using the typical lies (e.g. that software patent would help the country). Someone once told us that in New Zealand the government is controlled by the population rather than vice versa (like in many large countries). Days ago we were told the opposite.
Well, it sure seems like the New Zealand Open Source Society has just gotten its way. From its new press release:
The NZOSS is pleased to announce that it’s opposition to New Zealand patent application 536149, filed by Microsoft in relation to XML word processing documents has been successful. Yesterday we were informed by IPONZ that Microsoft has withdrawn their application.
The NZOSS applauds the decision of Microsoft to abandon it’s attempt to use the legal system to deter interoperability through it’s software patent on XML word processing documents. As we move into a future increasingly dependent on technology and software we hope Microsoft understands that Open Standards and Interoperability are central to a robust and healthy computing environment.
Here is the original announcement and in the interest of preservation we reproduce this below in full. NZOSS has a lot of work left because this is just one patent; changing the one law regarding patents (to remove the “embedded” loophole) would be an important next goal. Politicians who support software patents do not support New Zealand, they support their own pockets at the expense of New Zealand. Name and shame them as it will weaken and silence them. █
NZOSS Wins Patent Opposition
Thursday, 16 June 2011, 5:18 pm
Press Release: New Zealand Open Source Society
NZOSS Wins Patent Opposition
The NZOSS is pleased to announce that it’s opposition to New Zealand patent application 536149, filed by Microsoft in relation to XML word processing documents has been successful. Yesterday we were informed by IPONZ that Microsoft has withdrawn their application.
The NZOSS applauds the decision of Microsoft to abandon it’s attempt to use the legal system to deter interoperability through it’s software patent on XML word processing documents. As we move into a future increasingly dependent on technology and software we hope Microsoft understands that Open Standards and Interoperability are central to a robust and healthy computing environment.
Legal barriers preventing competition around standards is a great detriment to the public good. We encourage Microsoft to join with the overwhelming majority of the New Zealand ICT Industry and support the decision of the New Zealand Government to exclude software patents, thus protecting Microsoft’s business in New Zealand from future patent threats. Microsoft’s decision will not only remove the Sword of Damocles from above the heads of our own members, but of the entire New Zealand ICT community.
Peter Harrison, Vice President of the society made a statement yesterday informing the membership of Microsoft’s decision to withdaw, saying “I am of course very pleased with the result. It will provide certainty about the ability of commercial entities to inter-operate with Microsoft formats without concern about patent infringement. Along with the exclusion of software patents in the pending Patent Bill we should see a environment that is far less risky for software development than in other countries. This in combination with our highly skilled people makes New Zealand an excellent location for developing software.”
The NZOSS has been conducting Patent Oppositions against two XML patents filed by Microsoft since 2003. The NZOSS felt these patents presented a clear and present danger to both interoperability between Microsoft’s products and that of other vendors, and potentially would have allowed Microsoft to force other companies into patent licensing agreements in order to implement word processing documents in XML.
The opposition to both of the Microsoft XML patents has taken eight years to resolve, and the time and commitment of many of our members. A few years ago, after opposing the first patent, we agreed to a substantial limiting of the claims of the first patent to such an extent that we don’t believe anyone will ever infringe it. Subsequently we opposed the second patent, and have been moving towards a hearing on the opposition.
Peter Harrison added “The decision by Microsoft to abandoned the second patent application in the face of our opposition has substantially vindicated our position; that is that these patent applications were not patentable inventions.” He continue to thank those involved with the opposition, saying “I must thank the efforts of those who made this effort possible. Matthew Holloway played a vital and professional role in his detailed and objective analysis of the patent. I’m sure there are few people with the expertise of Matthew around XML and office productivity formats. Without his help we may not have been able to mount such a compelling case. And to our lawyers – Ellis|Terry – who did a great job of executing this opposition, words can hardly express my gratitude for their commitment to seeing this through to the conclusion today.”
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
