09.21.11
Posted in Site News at 1:20 pm by Guest Editorial Team
-
Security
-
Defence/Police/Aggression
-
Anti-Trust
-
PR/AstroTurf/Lobbying
-
Privacy
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Patents at 12:51 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: More scholarly ammunition against the practice of patent trolling (or NPEs)
Half a trillion dollars is a lot of money. The co-founder of Microsoft tries to hijack a system that is worth half a trillion dollars per year while also promoting patents for fame and profit. But that is a subject for another day.
Earlier this year we mentioned a widely-cited Bessen study about the harms of software patents. His next paper seems to be about the harms of patent trolls. James Bessen wrote this next paper with Michael Meurer and Jennifer Laurissa Ford. Fortunately, it is accessible for reading online. The abstract says:
In the past, non-practicing entities (NPEs) — firms that license patents without producing goods — have facilitated technology markets and increased rents for small inventors. Is this also true for today’s NPEs? Or are they “patent trolls” who opportunistically litigate over software patents with unpredictable boundaries? Using stock market event studies around patent lawsuit filings, we find that NPE lawsuits are associated with half a trillion dollars of lost wealth to defendants from 1990 through 2010, mostly from technology companies. Moreover, very little of this loss represents a transfer to small inventors. Instead, it implies reduced innovation incentives.
Timothy B. Lee provides an alternate summary and so does this person, who writes:
We all know patent trolls waste everyone’s time and money, leech off the productive and innovative, and are generally annoying. If you’re into the independent software development scene at all, you probably support a few developers that have been trolled. It’s expensive and wasteful and we all know it — well, we all have anecdotal evidence to support that claim anyway, but now, thanks to researchers at Boston University, we now have a study we can point to and that study shows innovators have lost $500 billon to patent trolls since 1990.
Mike Masnick took on the issue and Glyn Moody was another taker, so Techrights is unlikely to have much to add. Moody writes:
Aside from the patent trolls themselves, few have a good word for them, since it’s pretty obvious to everyone that they suck money out of companies that make stuff, and thus act as a brake on real innovation. But those feelings have been largely unquantified. Now, thanks to recent work of the authors of the seminal book “Patent Failure”, James Bessen and Michael Meurer, along with a third author, Jennifer Laurissa Ford, we have perhaps the first rigorous estimate of the damage they cause. It’s even worse than we thought…
But think about this: “Non-troll patent owners cost us even more?”
That the claim from Matt Asay, who worked for Novell and Canonical. Novell makes its customers pay Microsoft for patents and Canonical nearly did the same. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in GNU/Linux, Google, Patents at 12:46 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Why Google blew it as the company continues to pursue its own security rather than become more of a team player in the FOSS world
ALTHOUGH Android is not as free/libre as one might hope, it is the most likely Linux-based mobile platform to rise to greatness.
Google disappointed us on numerous occasions because rather than antagonise software patents (even with an amicus brief) it just played along with the plot and bought many patents, including software patents. It also filed applications for software patents of its own. Google is in a position where it can afford to play those messy games, but how does that help the rest of us? Android patent defence does not magically indemnify Linux.
So anyway, Google became part of the Big Boys Club and the hoax of a patent reform got passed, not actually resolving the key issues that IDG explains as follows:
“3. No Real Change on Software
“Of critical importance to those of us in the information technology industry are software patents, which I’ve long opposed. While this reform could have been a great time to deal with this problematic issue, that didn’t happen. Only two narrow niches–financial products and tax strategies–are addressed in a limited way, but nothing broader is included to fix the problem overall.
“Android patent defence does not magically indemnify Linux.”“Pro: Patents are limited or clarified somewhat in two narrowly defined business niches.
“Con: Overall, the ongoing software patent debacle continues unchanged, and that can only hurt small developers.”
What a waste of a ‘reform’.
Google has done one thing right when it spoke out about the cartel against Android, but what else is it doing about it? Based on reports like this one or this one, “Android [is] hurt by patent wars, could lose features” (amid call for CEOs to attend the courtroom).
The many articles about the subject (even new timelines) say something along the lines of “Google, Oracle CEOs Said to Make Little Headway in Patent Talks,” but the idea of abolishing software patents altogether is totally off the table. We must remember that Oracle’s older official statement was against software patents and all those “Java” patents are in fact software patents. Has Google explored the possibility of cutting the umbilical cord of this whole attack among others (on other developers too)? Or is Google just interested in defending Google while considering no push to end software patents for good? Here is one particular article on the subject:
oogle and Oracle CEOs will square off in court today to resolve a dispute that may pose the biggest threat to Google’s Android mobile software, now running on more than 150 million devices.
Google’s Larry Page and Oracle’s Larry Ellison were ordered to appear before a federal court magistrate in San Jose after tussling over patents for more than a year. Oracle accused Google of infringing on patents related to its Java software, and a settlement means the companies avoid the risk of having a jury trial decide whether Google owes royalties.
What about explaining to the court or at least to politicians the ridiculousness of those patents in general? These are the politicians who pass a fake patent ‘reform’ to wash their hands. In the sick industry of lobbying surely Google could come up with something. Its foes constantly lobby for more patents (and a global patent system), not to mention embargo. To quote this new report: “A settlement will likely require HTC to pay Apple hefty royalty fees for using its patents. The Taiwan-based company already gives Microsoft $5 for every handset sold, which brings the Redmond, Wash.-based company more revenue than from its Windows Phone sales.”
Android is getting damaged here and in order to resolve the problem for good (before Microsoft sends more and more patent trolls to raise the price of Android) Google will need to strike at the root. Samsung has a huge patents portfolio, so it can afford to seek embargo against Apple as means of deterrence. Quoting the news:
There are now 19 patent lawsuits between Samsung and Apple, in 12 courts in nine countries. In addition to the United States, Germany, and Australia, patent suits are pending in the United Kingdom, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan and South Korea. Apple also has filed patent suits against HTC, Motorola Mobility and others.
Samsung is meanwhile considering more of Bada and it can afford to sue back against aggressors like Apple. But how many developers out there are able to do so? Google too has just grown up patents-wise, but it does not provide much comfort to the FOSS world at large. We must not lose sight of the real problem and the real solution to it. Google was only a potential ally in that regard. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Site News at 12:34 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A note on the lack of conflict of interest in Techrights
NONE of the writers and contributors here has a conflict of interest to declare. As far as we know, there was never someone working for a GNU/Linux vendor writing here. There were some community volunteers, sure, but none of them was connected to a company we write about such as Red Hat or Google. We are very strict about this. Speaking for myself, I would not work for a company like Google (they tried hiring me 3 times over the years) as that would invalidate a lot of what I wrote and promoted independently. Instead, I work in academia and industry, mostly administration/development/research, which makes the subject of patents very relevant. On the side I also run a couple of companies which in no way relate to what this Web site covers. Over at the IRC channels, none of us except Jono Bacon works for a GNU/Linux company, so allegations about us being “biased” would be very weak. We don’t do this for our wallet, just our ideology/beliefs. Techrights is about justice in technology. it’s not profit-obsessed. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Apple, Microsoft at 12:23 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Bankruptcy for a Dutch company that relied on Microsoft products while providing security/encryption services
A few weeks ago we wrote about DigiNotar, noting that Windows dependence caused a huge mess. DigiNotar has just died based on reports that say it filed for bankruptcy in The Netherlands. This not only cost a lot to other companies (and their reputation) but it also compromised the identity and activity of ~300,000 Iranian internet users, potentially leading to the death of some. The crack was caused by Cain and Abel, which according to Wikipedia is “a password recovery tool for Microsoft Windows. It can recover many kinds of passwords using methods such as network packet sniffing, cracking various password hashes by using methods such as dictionary attacks, brute force and cryptanalysis attacks.”
“Proprietary software hides code and also hides the weaknesses, which doesn’t mean they are not still there.”There is another incident worthy of being mentioned. Incidentally, on the face of it, “If you use Skype on an iPhone or iPod touch, Phil Purviance can steal your device’s address book simply by sending you a chat message,” writes The Register. Apple+Microsoft Skype (proprietary)=insecurity.
This other new report from the same source says that “Apple has dropped a couple of monumental password security clangers with the release on OS X Lion, according to security blogger Patrick Dunstan.”
Hey, at least it’s shiny. Proprietary software hides code and also hides the weaknesses, which doesn’t mean they are not still there. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Microsoft, Vista 8, Windows at 12:11 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
“I’ve been thinking long and hard about this, and the only conclusion I can come to is that this is ethically indistinguishable from bribery. Even if no quid-pro-quo is formally required, the gift creates a social obligation of reciprocity. This is best explained in Cialdini’s book Influence (a summary is here). The blogger will feel some obligation to return the favor to Microsoft.”
–Former Microsoft manager
Summary: Dubious ‘gifts’ from Microsoft (to the only users Microsoft sees as valued) are being converted into cash through eBay
IT MIGHT be years before Vista 8 is available for use, so we try not to mention it. Just mentioning it would help Microsoft, but it is already failing, so we thought we should make a quick post without linking to any promotional material.
“Microsoft calls it a “gift”, but we just call it a bribe and we are not alone.”As we expected all along, Microsoft was bound to bribe some bloggers or influential people for positive coverage (see this previous time). Microsoft does this every time and some days ago it gave 5,000 free Samsung-built tablets. According to reports, some of these ended up on eBay because recipients were not impressed and preferred turning Microsoft’s tablet bribe into cash. Microsoft calls it a “gift”, but we just call it a bribe and we are not alone.
Tim Anderson, who was among the recipients of such bribes when Microsoft started the Vista 7 PR campaign (and only selected people had access to it), has been posting numerous articles about Vista 8 recently. One of those articles speaks of the .NET switch. The headline might seem negative, but it’s just the usual Anderson. It’s all about Microsoft, Microsoft, and how we should all keep track of Microsoft developments (not its abuses). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in GNU/Linux, OpenSUSE at 12:01 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: News from OpenSUSE about systemd being too much for them to handle
THERE IS very little to say about SUSE and generally very little OpenSUSE news, but this one which we came across yesterday has a nice spin to it. OpenSUSE’s Web site says:
Respecting users is a priority to the openSUSE Project so when something does not work the way it should be, taking a step back is more preferable than delivering something that is not ready yet. For that reason yesterday afternoon Greg K.H. announced to the openSUSE-factory mailing list that systemd is being removed from Tumbleweed so that users won’t have a problem with it. That way it will allow developers to spend more time on working on it in order to have systemd ready for the upcoming 12.1 instead of chasing problems that are specific to Tumbleweed.
Another way to put it is, we tried working with this piece of software which is not being developed by us, but we failed too badly, causing irritation. So now we move away from it. Other distributions do not seem to have this problem. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Patents, TomTom at 11:52 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Further discussion about the Casio extortion and what it might really be about
YESTERDAY we alluded to the 'deal' with Casio and unfortunately it’s mostly Microsoft boosters who cover it, so they do it in a shallow way that is not critical at all. Articles like this one do a disservice to justice. They are more like PR and not investigative journalism. This other coverage makes it seem like Casio is on equal footing and the most trollish article (article at The Register) plays along with Linux FUD, stating: “In the last four years, the software giant has been quietly threatening legal action for any Linux-using company that refuses to sign patent deals with it. Amazon, Novell, Linspire, TurboLinux and Xandros have all put their X on the dotted line. Others, like satnav maker TomTom, ended up in court, but eventually settled.”
And what exactly was TomTom sued over? That’s right, FAT. That’s hardly Linux at all and recently we learned from the OIN that some of those deals Microsoft called “Linux deal” are in fact just FAT deals. So caution is required, Microsoft is lying.
On USENET, the distinction between FAT and Linux is already being brought up. More people ought to start pressuring Microsoft to disclose what patents it claims to be involved. How many of them actually relate to Linux (if any at all)?
“More people ought to start pressuring Microsoft to disclose what patents it claims to be involved.”It is not just companies that need to be concerned about the lack of disclosure of patents. Customers are all paying the price for these extortions (cascading down to price tags and ending up in bank accounts of Microsoft billionaires), so antitrust regulators must really wake up and do their work on behalf of those customers. “Microsoft faces fresh antitrust probes in Ireland and Spain” according to another headline from The Register and this relates to what we mentioned yesterday. Both are about “licensing” and illegal tactics that somehow escape scrutiny.
“Microsoft is facing more antitrust scrutiny as Spanish competition authorities announced an 18-month review of Redmond’s licensing practices in Spain and Ireland,” says the article.
A translation from the complaint goes as follows: “This case originated in a complaint filed by Elegant Business SC for a possible breach of competition law.”
What are the European laws that may apply to Microsoft’s secret extortion racket? There would probably be a RICO Act equivalent and someone really needs to look into it. US regulators fail to do their job. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
