10.07.11

Links 7/10/2011: KDE SC 4.7.2, Thunderbird 8 Beta

Posted in News Roundup at 5:10 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Permalink A Single Comment      Send this to a friend

Steve’s Job

Posted in Apple at 1:44 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: The king of showmanship remembered, but with a factual look at his achievements, not hype

STEVE JOBS was a very successful capitalist. He helped create a company that made a lot money.

Sure, the iPhone 4S is a sign of stagnation and more of Apple’s usual delusion, deception, media hype, and reality distortion field, but Steve himself did a very good job after he had rejoined Apple. By the word “good” we mean effective, profitable. See my thoughts on Apple (video) and why the company was in fact unethical. Whether it was Jobs’ decision to make those final decisions is not an issue we ought to go into because there is too much uncertainty there. Only people deep inside the company can shed light on these issues. We have some wiki pages about Apple to provide some more background information on some of these issues.

Apple’s outrageous software patents have not gone away along with Mr. Jobs. A day after his death we read that “Steve Jobs Patents OS X Dock Day Before his Death”. To quote: “A search at the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) site reveals 312 issued Apple patents where Jobs was one of the listed inventors; 269 of these of these were design patents, which cover ornamental design aspects of some device. (A search leaving Apple out found 317 patents issues to Jobs, implying he also filed a few patent applications in the years he was not at Apple.) There appear to be dozens more pending patent applications filed in Jobs’ name, as well.”

Those were not innovations. Those were design monopolies. Many of those are not deserved due to prior art and generality. We saw these in the courtroom. Apple needed to doctor evidence (lie) to fool judges.

Richard Stallman’s comment on Steve Jobs’ death is polite and direct. He wrote in his political blog that “Steve Jobs, the pioneer of the computer as a jail made cool, designed to sever fools from their freedom, has died.

“As Chicago Mayor Harold Washington said of the corrupt former Mayor Daley, “I’m not glad he’s dead, but I’m glad he’s gone.” Nobody deserves to have to die – not Jobs, not Mr. Bill, not even people guilty of bigger evils than theirs. But we all deserve the end of Jobs’ malign influence on people’s computing.

“Unfortunately, that influence continues despite his absence. We can only hope his successors, as they attempt to carry on his legacy, will be less effective.” [source]

Stallman summed it up quite well. Steve Jobs’ legacy was also mentioned by Jamie Love, who noted that:

Jobs was willing to build his newer products on free open source software and then use proprietary extensions and standards and patent litigation to marginalize free software. He was quite good at turning the operating system and applications into a store to buy things from Apple.

Over at Slated.org we found much harsher words about Jobs, including the following observations:

But no, it wasn’t Gandhi, nor indeed anyone of even the slightest nobility. It was a patent extortionist with an apparent objection to altruism, called Steve Jobs. Even El Presidente fawned over this selfish racketeer, like he was the new messiah, or something…

[...]

According to the CIA World Factbook, 160,521 people die every day. Steve Jobs was just one of them.

I bet very few of the other 160,520 people who died that day ever made sinister threats to ‘go after’ an altruistic software project like Theora, or ran around suing everyone for making ‘rounded rectangles’ and ‘green phone icons’. I bet they also donated a helluva lot more to charity than Jobs too, given that he apparently had some kind of objection to it, which is sort of like having an objection to love and compassion. Or how about the time Jobs bribed the police to act like they were his private security agency, to kick down the front door to a journalist’s home, seize his property and interrogate him like a criminal, just because of some crap iGadget accidentally lost by an Apple employee, after that journalist had already voluntarily contacted Apple and returned it to them?

So given the sort of monster Steve Jobs was, witnessing the spectacle of everyone from Joe Blogs to El Presidente gushing over him, like a bunch of schoolgirls at a rock concert, is absolutely sickening.

[...]

As for being a ‘visionary’ … the only ‘vision’ Jobs ever had was the one he nicked from Xerox PARC. From that point forward he made a career out of shamelessly stealing others’ ideas, shoehorning them into shiny but otherwise dysfunctional and DRM-infested toys, then branding an Apple logo on them (ironically also nicked, from the Beatles). And then to add insult to plagiarism, Jobs fraudulently stamped his ‘IP’ seal on those ‘shamelessly stolen’ ideas, then embarked on a hypocritical and vicious rampage of litigation. How’s that for gratitude? Add that to the litany of virtues Jobs didn’t subscribe to.

Paula Rooney chose another approach by doing PR for Mr. Jobs, essentially openwashing him. Her colleague did something similar. In a more respectful post from SJVN and from Muktware we find an openwashed Jobs whose relationship with FOSS is at least being described as “complicated”. To quote:

For whatever reason, Apple holds its secrets in a death grip. When new products are rolled out, developers are threatened with being removed from the program if they leak any information. Obviously, this seems over the top when you’re used to open source development and the collaboration that comes along with it.

Mr. Jobs was using patent monopolies to manipulate this market, so here at Techrights we stopped being apathetic towards Apple some time last year (after Apple had filed a lawsuit against HTC). Here is what Mr. Pogson wrote about the disinformation we keep seeing in the media:

I am being inundated with wild claims of fans of Steve Jobs about how wonderful he was. The facts are a different patchwork:

* He invented the PC – Nope. Not even close. I still have a working PC from 1980. The Macintosh did not emerge until 1984.
* He invented the GUI – Nope. Not even close. He got the idea from Xerox who got it from … I was using crude GUIs in the 1970s and they were old then.
* He inspires inventors – Nope. Many inventive people don’t even bother because some bully like Apple will sue them for inventing something.

And about the attack on Android he wrote:

The issues of patents is a house of cards soon to fall under its own weight. Samsung and Apple are in a mutually assured destruction battle and the same will happen to all the players unless patents are kicked out of software.

We wrote about this case earlier and also mentioned the likely demise of iPhone with the 4S. Apple has just lost a symbolic figure, not just a number or a brand.

People die every day. Over a hundred thousand of them. Even a celebrity dies every day, but we are not seeing press releases from the White House issues for each one of them. What troubles us is that the death of a person not only became a media feeding frenzy (they are trying to monetise this death) but also an opportunity for revisionism because nobody is willing to say negative things about a person who has just died. Here at Techrights we care about what’s true, not just what’s PC (politically correct). Jobs and Apple — like Gates and Microsoft — were copiers of other people’s great ideas. They admitted this. So let’s not give more credit than deserved just because of a tragic and undeserved death. █

Permalink 85 Comments      Send this to a friend

Halliburton in a War With European Patent Law

Posted in Europe, Patents at 1:38 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Notorious occupier and military contractor Halliburton helps legitimise USPTO-style software patents in Europe

IF patent monopolies granted by the USPTO have their enforcement expand to international scope, then a form of imperialistic growth (for multinationals) gets better reinforced and further facilitated. There is nothing to be gained from software patents (granted in the US) coming to other nations, unless one is a patent lawyer or major monopolist that hires patent lawyers. The public seems to have already grasped that, but those who lobby politicians are not representatives of the public. There is a parallel universe of special interests and parasitical operations that justify their own existence by ‘selling’ and ‘buying’ so-called ‘intellectual property’, as can be seen in some new press release. Intellectual monopolies do not exist to serve the public, just as the copyright debate is steered almost solely by corporations with copyrights (see this new video from Larry Lessig).

Yesterday we wrote about Halliburton doing its thing in the UK, adding to its notoriety also on a litigious dimension. According to this new article’s headline, “Halliburton wins appeal on software patentability issue” and to quote the opening paragraphs: “One of the world’s largest providers to the global oil and gas industry, Halliburton, has won an important appeal hearing in the UK overturning a previous decision on its simulation software.

“According to Withers & Rogers, the decision makes it possible for businesses to obtain patent protection in the UK for various computer implemented design and simulation tools, amongst other things, which may have previously been blocked by some specific UK exclusions.”

Absolutely outrageous.

“On a caselaw basis they arguably legitimise software patents in Europe.”Software patents in the EU have been a concern in recent years primarily due to a decision on Symbian in the UK and then some decisions in Germany (we covered all of these on numerous occasions). On a caselaw basis they arguably legitimise software patents in Europe.

It is being reported right now that following Apple’s appeal to a trolls-friendly court (based on Germany) that it should block imports of some Android devices, Samsung is in fact fighting back:

The latest iPhone is at the centre of controversy already – the day after it was unveiled.

Technology firm Samsung is planning legal action to stop Apple selling it in two European countries and it has received a lukewarm reception from experts.

The iPhone 4S looks identical to the previous iPhone 4 and shares its glass front and back and trademark stainless steel band, but has a new more powerful A5 chip inside and potentially revolutionary voice recognition software.

Apple fans will conveniently ‘forget’ who started this and perhaps even accuse Samsung (one of the top European patentors) of being “aggressive”. With or without lawsuits, iPhone 4S is too little, too late. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

EU Patent Failing to Materialise, But EPO and Politicians Begin to Overstep Their Line of Authority to Intervene

Posted in Europe, Patents at 1:06 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: A couple of reports about the proposed system which threatens software developers and several observations about these

The attack from multinationals on Europe comes in many forms. But one of those forms that we herein concentrate on is the EU Patent, which is just a euphemistic way to imply expansion of corporate power over the people.

Axel H. Horns, a patent lawyer, has been inadvertently useful when it comes to antagonism against the EU Patent (which he actually seems to be advocating for, due to his profit motive). He now reports on lack of compatibility:

Hence, some work on the text of Brussels I appears to be necessary in order to properly implement the UPC.

Also with regard to the other parts of the acquis as examined, technical problems need to be resolved.

If all these issues are not sorted out properly right now, the real life practice of the UPC might later on become sort of a complex nightmare with numerous difficult legal problems waiting to be resolved by the Courts. The UPC is meant to provide more legal certainy; if the complex clockwork of Treaties, Regulations and Conventions isn’t adjusted properly, the EU Patent with unitary effect might fail in practice.

Excellent. That is what all European citizens should want. The more compartmentalised monopolies remain, the better. Ideally, those patent monopolies should mostly be dismantled as they impede progress , all for the enrichment of very few individuals.

“EPO continued to lobby the EU over the Unitary Patent, a non-EU international instrument,” writes/quotes Benjamin Henrion (FFII)
based on this new article from IPWatch that says:

The head of the European Patent Office (EPO) and the European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services today renewed their commitment to introduce a unitary EU patent, which they say would significantly ease workloads and reduce costs for patent applicants.

The effort is considered a compromise after the Commission was unable to get a full EU-wide patent several years ago. The Commission issued a proposal for a unitary patent in April (IPW, European Policy, 13 April 2011). The governments of Spain and Italy filed their opposition to the idea this summer (IPW, IP Live, 7 July 2011).

The EPO press release follows:

The President of the European Patent Office (EPO), Benoît Battistelli, met with European Commissioner for the Internal Market and Services, Michel Barnier, at the EPO headquarters in Munich today to discuss the planned introduction of a unitary patent aimed at improving the European patent system to better serve the needs of European industry. They also discussed the progress of the automatic translation system for patents, which is currently being developed in the EPO.

The visit by the EU delegation also included two Members of the European Parliament, Eva Lichtenberger and Cecilia Wikström.

Bad Boy Barnier (whom we mentioned days ago and also here, here, here, here and here) is still doing his lobbying, proving yet again who he is serving. Spain and Italy should be commended for their firm stance on this issue. The most disturbing thing, based on the above text, is that people who oughtn’t intervene in such a process do intervene, often in some rather disturbing ways.

“The most disturbing thing, based on the above text, is that people who oughtn’t intervene in such a process do intervene, often in some rather disturbing ways.”Europe does not need software patents and it does not need a unified patent system that facilitates those. Those patents are, by their very nature, absurd and moreover, as we pointed out before, Oracle’s case is dissipating a bit, one patent (or several) at a time yielding just about nothing but a total waste of time and money. Not so bad for patents lawyers, eh? Their clock is ticking and the register is ka-chinging.

It ought to be added that a few hours ago one of our readers from Belgium wrote: “After my visit to the single market forum in Krakow my trust in (EU) politicians and there guests were even more squeezed.

“Member of the panel Dr. Katarzyna Lasota Heller freelance lawyer/lobbyist claimed to be IP specialist but refused to answer my questions about the benefits to small businesses. Her goal is clear since she answers that patents will be more easy to gain as she runs away agitated.

“Only Waldemar Pawlak, vice premier Poland managed to give a more stupid speech than Van Quickenborne (B) the well known puppy of De Gucht senior by giving a fired up speech on IP giving Wikipedia as example.”

Apologies for the strong language and relatively weak English. The comment was at least informative and important. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Microsoft Increases Linux Tax Using Its Own Mole, Likewise

Posted in FUD, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Patents, Samba at 12:46 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: More Linux patent tax, this time courtesy of a company closely tied to Microsoft (as part of the campaign to generate more FUD, in numeric form)

THE MONOPOLIST from Redmond is part of a chain of companies, some of which are some kind of spinoffs.

Former Microsoft employees tend to use the skills they acquired at Microsoft to further perpetuate the Microsoft mindset (which is why many in the Mono community have Microsoft connections or roots, but that’s a story for another day). Likewise, for example, is part of the Microsoft group. Its managers, the people who came from Microsoft, have been spreading Microsoft APIs for several years now, for a fee.

Likewise is not new to us and we already have a wiki page about it. It is trying to compete with projects like Samba, offering for a fee what people can get for free.

Likewise never hid its Microsoft ties, but the Microsoft boosters promote its latest kissing affair with Microsoft as “Linux patent deal”, which is shameful reporting that helps Microsoft spread FUD. See the following:

Likewise, a software platform provider for identity, security and storage, has signed a licensing agreement with Microsoft, adding Likewise to the list of companies on Microsoft’s Linux patent-protection list.

The licensing agreement with Microsoft will affect Linux and Unix-based Network Attached Storage devices and provide Microsoft Server Message Block protocol support for Windows Server 8.

This is more Microsoft PR and an attempt to scare companies that use Linux. The source of the article was previously funded by Microsoft and the deceiving case of ‘reporting’ this placement of “Linux tax” inside companies is another case of collaborating with market manipulation and extortion. We have seen more of that recently. Journalists like these should be smashed of themselves.

The reality of the matter is that the press should receive a lot of flak for playing along with extortionist companies, which essentially ‘normalises’ this behaviour and makes readers accustomed to it. To give another new example, it is ridiculous headlines like “How I’m protecting my software IP with a patent” that further do damage by calling code “technologies” (illusion of physical existence). It is a very weak piece that neglects to account for copyright as the reasonable option and it makes software patents seem essential for small businesses (this could not be further from the truth). Journalists who are doing this deserve to be criticised because they do a massive disservice to the public. Some of them justify this by painting the articles “interviews” or pointing to FUD-inspiring “press releases” to pass liability. We shall write more about patent lobbying and myths in the next couple of posts. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Weeks After Google Buys Part of Motorola Microsoft’s Patent Troll Sues Motorola

Posted in GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Patents at 12:33 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: The extortion racket run by Microsoft’s former CTO terrorises and then sues Motorola, which has given Microsoft reasons for concern recently

THE ISSUE which is Microsoft patent trolls has been covered here for years. It is a well established fact that Microsoft is using entities other than itself to raise the price of Linux (which is otherwise free). Microsoft got caught doing this before and with some of Microsoft’s own employees setting up operations like Intellectual Ventures, it is abundantly clear that we cannot confine ourselves to just Microsoft when looking at the actions of the Microsoft Movement. According to IDG’s Microsoft booster, Microsoft’s largest patent troll has been harassing Motorola using patents and is now suing:

Patent licensing company Intellectual Ventures has set its sights on Motorola with a new lawsuit charging the handset maker with infringing six patents.

The patents cover a wide range of technologies related to text messaging, docking stations and pushing software out to devices.

Intellectual Ventures, which owns 35,000 patents, said it approached Motorola in January about licensing patents, including several named in the case, according to the lawsuit. Motorola refused to license the patents, Intellectual Ventures said.

More trolling courtesy of sociopaths from Microsoft, who are attacking Microsoft rivals behind the scenes. Microsoft too sued Motorola. Such behaviour should be a matter of antitrust regulation and federal enforcers. They don’t seem to mind the RICO Act, but ideally, under a sane system, those people would potentially be in prison, not out there threatening people, which is a form of corporate terrorism. This gangster behaviour is thriving in the IT industry because the public does not demand change actively enough.

Here is a better article which is better worded as it was not composed by a Microsoft booster. The well known author misspells “patent-hoarding” though:

Patent-holding firm Intellectual Ventures has filed suit against the company in the US claiming Motorola handsets violate patents it holds related to both hardware and software components in smartphone handsets.

What we see here is not the first time that the world’s largest patent troll sues even directly. This is a tax on everything that people buy and nobody benefits from it except few ring leaders, who engage in racketeering. Why can’t the corporate press describe this properly? This further perpetuates the belief that these practices are acceptable and should not be criticised. It helps marginalise voices of proponents of restoration of justice, not just improved pace of innovation. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Did Microsoft Pay the Philippines to Drop GNU/Linux and Free Software?

Posted in GNU/Linux, Microsoft, OpenOffice at 12:24 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Dubious claims of OpenOffice.org and Linux being “33 percent more than the cost for Office 2010 with Windows 7.”

LAST MONTH we witnessed EDGI in the Philippines, which we also saw bullied around by the US government at the behest of Microsoft (see Cablegate) after it had decided to go with Free/open source software nationally. Truthfully, this goes a long way back. For a country to choose FOSS is quite brave because US multinationals treat it like those countries have just adopted communism and declared war on capitalism (or “IP”). Mr. Pogson looks at GNU/Linux in the Philippines and says:

HB1011, Free Open Source (FOSS) Act of 2010 is in committee stage. It’s stated purpose is that “The government shall apply only FOSS or Foss solutions in all ICT projects except under exceptional cirumstances”. There is strong opposition, for example, from the Minister of Education who claims FLOSS costs more… Of course using “7″ and databases costs less than using paper but they did not give GNU/Linux a fair shake in trials. M$ now uses the Minister of Education as a poster-child for non-free software: “We received feedback from the school IT administrators that the computers running OpenOffice.org had more technical issues, to the point that some computers were unusable….For us, the cost to deploy and support computers with OpenOffice.org and Linux is about 33 percent more than the cost for Office 2010 with Windows 7.” That sounds like EDGI got in there and paid people to use M$’s stuff. I don’t see any other way that FLOSS could be more expensive.

This is one that needs watching. Microsoft obviously plays dirty here, as usual, maybe via some front groups like the BSA (as it did years ago). █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

IRC Proceedings: October 6th, 2011

Posted in IRC Logs at 4:25 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Enter the IRC channels now

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend