Posted in Antitrust, Bill Gates, Courtroom, Microsoft, Novell at 1:43 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
It’s all about Noorda’s Novell, not Ballmer’s and Hovsepian’s ‘new’ Novell
Ray Noorda, who died three weeks before Novell became partly Microsoft controlled
Summary: Clarifications about the Novell vs. Microsoft case and what it’s really all about (or who it really involves)
A FEW days ago we wrote about antitrust cases and about Novell's case against Microsoft in particular. It is not about today’s Novell, but about Noorda’s Novell. Noorda died almost exactly 5 years ago, leaving a legacy that teaches what a corrupt company Microsoft really is (we have some court exhibits in our wiki). It’s about a different Novell that existed long ago and was run under completely different reign/leadership. The Novell of the past 5 years was run jointly by Microsoft and now by Attachmate, which is a top partner of Microsoft (apropos, watch some Novell-related videos from Attachmate’s BrainShare [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] and some about Groupwise, such as this new one).
SUSE has been decoupled from Novell and it is doing its own rituals, pretending that SUSE itself is not in Microsoft’s pockets (even though it is, especially since July) and it’s no wonder that there are delays. The project has been suffering delays for quite some time and even frequency of releases got lowered a couple of years ago. It is not looking too good. OpenSUSE only matters for marketing purposes. It makes Microsoft's GNU/Linux distribution be portrayed as "open" and "community-driven". But moving on a bit, it seems as though Mr. Gates will have to leave his PR/lobbying/investment operations for a day or two to explain/justify his crime to the courts. As Pogson puts it: “Remembering the past should help us avoid a repetition. We shall see whether or not the message was learned. It seems the old “partners” of M$ are continuing to go along. It will take the new power houses of Google and Android/Linux to finish the battle between good and evil in IT.” He also wrote about “harassing customers” of Android, which is something we addressed the other day.
A lot of the coverage of the case against Microsoft comes from Pamela Jones, who is very familiar with this case. So aside from the continued focus on the Oracle vs. Google case and analysis of patent trolls from Professor Webbink (who already highlighted the connection to Intellectual Ventures, Microsoft’s patent troll), Groklaw covers the Novell case in two parts (so far). Pogson remarks on Gates’ role while Jones writes:
Today was the first day of the trial in Novell v. Microsoft, the antitrust trial over WordPerfect and Quattro Pro. Novell won the right to this trial on appeal. The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed Judge J. Frederick Motz’s ruling [PDF] on summary judgment in favor of Microsoft, basically on a technicality, and so it’s back to Utah they had to go, but with Judge Motz, who is a judge in US District Court in Maryland, where the case had been transferred from Utah, commuting to Utah to stay in charge of the case.
The case matters, because normally Microsoft settles antitrust litigation either before they go to trial or early in the trial, and frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if that happened again.
Our own Chris Brown attended for us today. He says that mainly today was about picking the jury. They sat 12 jurors, out of 45 prospective jurors, just in case. In Utah, where this trial is happening, the judge explained, you only need 6 jurors for civil trials, but things happen, and rather than run out of jurors, they picked double the amount, and he says the judge said all of them would participate if they all make it to the end of the trial. They were then released until the morning, 8:30 AM promptly, and the lawyers then argued about whether the Findings of Fact from the US government’s antitrust trial against Microsoft should be called Findings of Fact or just Findings.
This trial will be interesting to watch, but it is not related to the same Novell we were boycotting, the Novell which was a Microsoft ally rather than a foe. The ‘old Novell’ died just weeks after Noorda had died. The ‘new’ Novell needs to die because it is actively helping Microsoft promote Linux tax, promote .NET, promote OOXML, and so on. It ought to be noted that Novell's role in the SCO case also predates Ballmer’s and Hovsepian’s leadership at Novell. █
“Now [Novell is] little better than a branch of Microsoft”
–LinuxToday Managing Editor
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Apple, Free/Libre Software, Patents at 1:08 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A leftover of news about software patents and their impact on society, competition, and 99% of the population
Apple is afraid of Linux. It will not say this out loud, but Linux-based platforms such as Android are hurting hypePhone sales and it is not looking too good for Apple in the long term (it has already lost the "Jobs" brand, which does not help either). Apple is so nervous that it has been pushing for embargoes since last year and the US agents support the US company, obviously (can it get any more biased than that?). Apple has been having a harder time against Samsung. To quote this new article:
Software patents are one of the most egregious misuses of patent protection that exist. There was a time when the patent office would reject patents for 3rd Grade math or simple sorting algorithms, but no longer. For the last couple of decades, anyone could code an obvious calculation method for a spreadsheet program and then patent that code. With that patent in hand, you could not only sell a crappy spreadsheet program, but you could also sue all the other spreadsheet program developers who used your patented code for a simple, obvious calculation. Yay, more litigation!
Bloomberg’s latest IP brainwashing (bundling patent monopolies with “IP”) mentioned both the HTC and Samsung cases. Any shallow report that we find, like this new report for example, does not really delve into the heart of the situation and the legality/ethics of what Apple is doing. The SCOTUS too is quite a lost cause (we already explained why [1, 2]) when it comes to business method and software-implemented idea as “patents”. To quote Law.com:
Following the Supreme Court’s rejection of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s “machine-or-transformation” test as the sole test for determining patent eligibility in Bilski v. Kappos, the Federal Circuit has crafted a standard for determining the patentability of business method inventions. Two recent Federal Circuit decisions — Research Corporation Technologies Inc. v. Microsoft and Cybersource Corporation v. Retail Decisions — provide guidance as to the evolving contours of this standard.
Here is some more shallow coverage which names patents as “intellectual property” and something about Microsoft partners in a software patents case. In the midst of all those monopolies small companies are hurt and OpenSim scrambles to find ways of protecting against litigation. From this one new report:
OpenSim developers are discussing ways to combat damaging patent litigation, including changing the OpenSim license to deter potential patent trolls.
The Overte Foundation, which holds the OpenSim licenses, recently released a contributors’ license agreement for its developers. One possible anti-troll protection measure would be to change the agreement so that if someone sues an OpenSim developer for a patent violation, they will lose the right to use the OpenSim code.
OpenSim core developer Crista Lopes, inventor of the hypergrid and treasurer of the Overte Foundation, said that the foundation’s legal counsel will be looking over the suggestion.
“We all share the loathing for patent trolls,” she told Hypergrid Business, adding that the foundation has been studying what other open source projects are doing in this area.
Who benefits from software patents and how can their existence ever be defended by the 99% of the population? It’s time to throw them all out. Only corruption keeps them in tact given the will of voters. Just because ~1% of the population (patent lawyers and CEOs) want them does not mean they should exist. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Patents, RAND at 12:52 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
“Thus, the “independent” panel ends up telling the audience that our technology beats the others hands down. Get the press to cover this panel, and you’ve got a major win on your hands.”
–Microsoft, internal document [PDF]
Summary: How Microsoft along with its boosters, lobbyists and corrupt officials have brought us to a state where racketeering against Linux has no invocation of the RICO Act, despite the triviality of obvious offences
LAST night we argued that Android is en route and assured to win over the majority of phone users. The only thing that Microsoft and Apple can do about it would have to involve some kind of sabotage, either legal or technical (or both). MPEG-LA has already gotten the wrath of the government; maybe it did not have enough crooked politicians in its pocket (including a president who issues a press release mourning an aggressive CEO)
There are reports right now about BBB (Bad Boy Ballmer) talking trash about Android and as one headline put it, “Ballmer slams Android as ‘cheap,’ doomed, as Android lengthens its lead by two big steps”.
“It takes unbelievable spin to somehow justify this, so Microsoft has a little PR offensive going for that angle.”Microsoft’s current strategy is to make Android more expensive by means of extortion, as last we mentioned just a few days ago. Or as Geek.com puts it, “Microsoft now earning royalties for every Kindle Fire sold?”
It takes unbelievable spin to somehow justify this, so Microsoft has a little PR offensive going for that angle. “Microsoft has already scored two big time Android IP licensing deals, one with HTC and the other more recently with Samsung,” says one report. “The boys in Redmond have now secured one more epic deal, this time with Taiwan’s Quanta Computer Inc. Wait, who?”
This affects eBook readers with Linux. There is a Microsoft-friendly troll which is also trying to add ‘royalties’ to this Linux device, so it is just part of the overall strategy. With the addition of ludicrous Apple patents they are trying to impose sanctions against the spread of Android (we will deal with Apple separately later). By adhering to euphemisms such as “protect”, “assert”, “IP”, “license”, and “royalty” they are managing to get away with violations of the RICO Act — so far. When Microsoft and Apple “get into bed together you have to start wondering what’s going on,” said a Senior Vice President from Google a few months back.
“By adhering to euphemisms such as “protect”, “assert”, “IP”, “license”, and “royalty” they are managing to get away with violations of the RICO Act — so far.”It is no secret that the system is broken, so Microsoft and Apple often just exploit it, but when it comes to extortion or SLAPP, there are laws against that. It also ought to be pointed out that current laws are the fruits of lobbying from large corporations such as Microsoft. We still see software patents in press releases of all sorts (including phrases like “software patent licensing”) because they managed to normalise the idea that ideas should be monopolised, even if they cannot be applied physically. But going back to Microsoft, watch this new report from Global Post. The headings say it all:
Nokia workers ask, is chief executive a Microsoft mole?
Engineers accuse CEO Stephen Elop of destroying the company so Microsoft can buy it cheap.
Microsoft is trying to take control of everything in Nokia and then use its patents to attack Linux [1, 2], at Nokia’s own expense and risk (just like SCO). Regulators said they would look into such abuses, but we have not heard anything back from them in quite a while.
Another thing regulators ought to look into are lobbyists/’spammers’ like Microsoft Florian, who is trying to distort public opinions by all means legally available to him (without giving disclosures though, only claiming vacuously in this site last year that he was complying with transparency regulations). SPAM regulations are not violated by him because he personalises the messages a slight bit before mass-mailing journalists with the intent of injecting his nonsense into respectable sites (even a 1% success rate would count as something given the high volume of mail he sends like this). It was obvious all along to us, but it is only now that many journalists can see it for themselves. It is a shame that some of them did not listen to our warnings last year. A long time ago we wrote about him promoting RAND (even a year ago) and we provided extensive evidence that it was his interest, he was not against software patents at all.
“Microsoft is trying to take control of everything in Nokia and then use its patents to attack Linux, at Nokia’s own expense and risk (just like SCO).”Microsoft Florian is one of those lobbyists who pretend to be the opposite of what they really are because it gives more impact to their deception. They do this in anticipation of contracts if not in order to help existing clients. These are well known techniques, e.g. hiring the person when the job is done or in progress, which makes it less suspicious. Well, in some sector it is known as “revolving doors” (“do this while in government, later we’ll give you a super high-paying job”). To quote Microsoft, “[y]ou want to infiltrate those. Again, there’s two categories. There’s those that are controlled by vendors; like MSJ; we control that. And there’s those that are independent. [...] So that’s how you use journals that we control. The ones that third parties control, like the WinTech Journal, you want to infiltrate.” You can read the full PDF/presentation from Microsoft's chief evangelist. That’s just how the company works. We gave many examples over the years.
There are journalists who are now exposing Microsoft Florian in standalone articles. It is about time. To quote one:
Is Patent Expert/Blogger Florian Mueller Getting Too Cozy With Microsoft?
On his popular FOSS Patents blog, Mueller summarizes in plain English the legal wrangling surrounding disputes like Apple’s effort to snuff out Samsung. A self-styled intellectual-property expert, his quick quotes have made him popular with blogs and major news outlets alike.
On Friday, the 9To5 Google blog pointed to a post in which a Google software engineer noted that Mueller had disclosed that he received money from Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT) for a new study. The engineer also described Mueller as “anti-Google” and pointed out that he is a patent analyst not a lawyer.
So what should we make of Mr. Mueller? The engineer’s assessment is fair in one sense but unfair in another. Let’s start with the latter. As a former practicing lawyer, I don’t believe one needs a law degree to understand or report on law. In Mueller’s case, he is able to parse and summarize tricky judgments more effectively than many of his credentialed counterparts and does not make any obvious mistakes. He is very smart and his blog provides an excellent way to keep up with the tic-toc of global software patent litigation. As for the Microsoft-funded study, it seems a worthy enough initiative (a review of FRAND patents) and Mueller has the qualifications to undertake it.
[...]
The relationship between Mueller and Microsoft is noteworthy for another reason: Microsoft’s history of using proxies to attack Google. Prior to hearings on the Google Books Settlement, for instance, Microsoft paid a professor and former employee to run a project summarizing objections to the settlement.And the Wall Street Journal (NSDQ: NWS) reported that Microsoft lawyers were behind the efforts of an obscure Ohio company to bring an antitrust action against Google.
Mueller may have perfectly good reasons to consistently zing Android—he’s far from the only pundit that has consistently strong views about a particular company. But given his financial relationship with that company’s archenemy—and the fact that Microsoft has a history of “hiring” outside experts to attack the competition—it’s hard to regard him as a disinterested party. The time has come for Mueller to amend the conflict of interest disclaimer on his blog and for the media to cease citing him as an impartial authority.
He is already spinning it in the comments, realising the damage this is doing to his lobbying abilities. Watch this article with an image Microsoft’s Brad Smith (in French) for more relevant material and also see how Microsoft’s lead racketeer (a crime really, but not when the company controls parts of the government) praises Florian, whom he is paying (and Florian brags to me about it, claiming that now I “have the transparency you hoped for, you’re still not happy”). The racketeer from Microsoft says “walking encyclopedia”, meaning “lobbyist in our side”, “Microsoft apologist”, “external staff”. As for Florian, he is pretending to be transparent when in fact he just had no choice because people had already found evidence, based on private communication (I cannot name the person who told this me, but I already knew Microsoft was in it, yet Florian chose to make it seem like he beat us to it and was “transparent”). Oh, the lying! It’s like the crook who “turns himself in to the police” after the police vans already surround his house, armed and prepared to storm in. Regarding the order of the payments from Microsoft, it is not unusual to see Microsoft booster lobbying with the expectation of a reward later. The President of the FFII quotes a comment that says:
About Florian Mueller: “i can’t read his posts, they make me want to throw things” ur1.ca/5favv
Well, his ‘analysis’ is never factual. It’s just spin, lobbying, distortion of the truth, and influence (or spam) for sale. There is no honour in that. But there is an audience of Apple fanatics and Microsoft extortionists, who will happily promote that nonsense, no matter the inaccuracy. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Free/Libre Software, FUD, Microsoft at 11:57 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Why it matters who’s on whose side, especially when one side infiltrates the other
OVER time we have been flagging and providing supportive evidence about allies and friends of Microsoft — people and groups whom people might call “independent” when in fact those come from Microsoft or work with Microsoft. We have not updated our credibility ranks for years, but having said that, those ranks upset some people who are listed. They don’t want their biases to be up on display. We still stress the importance of knowing who is who and where one’s wallet is. Consider for example Bott and his latest insult to GNU/Linux users who worry about Microsoft’s anticompetitive abuses [1, 2, 3, 4]. Some people who do not understand his relationship with Microsoft are citing him, mistaking his message for something genuine and objective. Microsoft sometimes hires “journalists” who spent their time in papers promoting Microsoft, almost as though Microsoft gives them the rewards (wages) once they are done. And then we have companies like Centrify putting their stuff inside Ubuntu without anyone calling foul. We explained what Centrify is doing before. It is similar to Likewise, which one reader tells us has infiltrated Ubuntu Forums. These are former Microsoft people, just like many of those who are associated with Mono and even Xamarin (its CEO is a former Microsoft employee and funding comes from a Microsoft MVP). Understanding who is a friend of Microsoft is very essential for the protection of software freedom. In a later post we are going to show what Microsoft Florian is doing (he is still afraid of Techrights‘ explanations of who is really is) and in Diaspora there are some more examples of friends of Microsoft doing their thing in the name of “FOSS”, especially in IDG. It’s either controlled opposition or fake journalism (like Rupert Murdoch’s). █
“As discussed in our PR meeting this morning. David & I have spoken with Maureen O’Gara (based on go ahead from BrianV) and planted the story. She has agreed to not attribute the story to us….
“[...] Inform Maureen O’ Gara (Senior Editor Client Server News/LinuxGram) or John Markoff (NYT) of announcement on Aug 28, 2000. Owner dougmil (Approval received from BrianV to proceed)
“Contact Eric Raymond, Tim O’Reilly or Bruce Perrins to solicit support for this going against the objectives of the Open Source movement. Owner: dougmil [Doug Miller]. Note that I will not be doing this. Maureen O’Gara said she was going to call them so it looks better coming from her.”
(From Microsoft’s smoking guns)
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA