EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

10.22.11

Microsoft is Still Fighting Hard Against GNU/Linux, Resorting to Dirty Tricks

Posted in GNU/Linux, Microsoft at 7:53 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: A couple of new examples of Microsoft breaking rules to break Linux or break apart Linux contracts

Antitrust complaints have already been filed against Microsoft in response to blocking of Linux through UEFI [1, 2, 3, 4], so ZDNet’s Microsoft’s bloggers start disinformation campaigns (two of them so far). It is like a coverup attempt.

Over in Tamil-Nadu [1, 2, 3] there are some interesting developments going on and Glyn Moody, having read an article we helped research, compared this to Newham's Microsoft fiasco. Another thing he said in his blog post about Microsoft’s response to GNU/Linux adoption:

This looks like an important win for free software – not least because it could give impetus to similar plans elsewhere in Latin America. No surprise, then, that the FUD had already started appearing even before this decision was made public – for example this article on the “risks” of free software – which calls for “technology neutrality” and “interoperable standards”.

But isn’t it interesting that the same groups never called for such “neutrality” and “interoperability” between open source and closed source when it was the former that was completely locked out by biased procurement specifications? Strange that….

We wrote about this deception before. Lobbyists of Microsoft use this semantic trick a lot. It is important to be familiar with the common FUD tactics.

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

14 Comments

  1. Michael said,

    October 22, 2011 at 10:43 pm

    Gravatar

    FUD:
    —–
    Antitrust complaints have already been filed against Microsoft in response to blocking of Linux through UEFI [1, 2, 3, 4], so ZDNet’s Microsoft’s bloggers start disinformation campaigns (two of them so far). It is like a coverup attempt.
    —–
    Roy has 4 links.

    To his own pages.

    None of them speak of any current antitrust complaints filed against Microsoft.

    saulgoode Reply:

    The provided links are not necessarily provided as annotation to the fact that antitrust complaints have been filed — but perhaps merely to previous Techrights coverage of “blocking of Linux through UEFI”, or even just “UEFI”.

    The expectation that every hyperlink offered on a web page has to address the entirety of the topic of discussion or offer substantial proof of an argument is misguided. If a blog states that “Neil Armstrong is an avid reader of Vogon poetry”, a reader should not complain that the hyperlink provided fails to substantiate the statement.

    Complaining that Techrights articles contain lots of links to other Techrights articles is as nonsensical as would be complaining about Wikipedia articles containing links to other Wikipedia articles.

    Michael Reply:

    Your link does not even have the word “antitrust” either.

    Is there any evidence to back Roy’s claim?

    saulgoode Reply:

    Your link does not even have the word “antitrust” either.

    The complaint was registered based upon concerns regarding Australia’s Competition and Consumer Act. If you examine that law, Part IV does indeed cover “antitrust”, and it is hard to see how any of the other Parts should apply. It is possible the complaint filed covered other aspects of the Act; feel free to investigate and present what you find. The facts as presented by the article give all appearance to being accurate; at least one complaint has been filed, and it references a law covering antitrust.

    Michael Reply:

    I am not interested in digging to try to support what Roy cannot.

    The point is not that Roy is necessarily wrong – the point is he does not support his points.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    @saulgoode you are feeding a known troll. To quote Microsoft Bott, “Why won’t Microsoft tell PC manufacturers how to implement secure boot on their computer designs? Because anything they say can be used against them in a court of law. Literally.” (from blog post “With Windows 8, Microsoft can’t forget past antitrust issues”)

    Also see
    http://www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/733030

    Michael Reply:

    Roy: I note how you are not supporting your claims, and your reaction is simply to call me names. You then point to a link which speaks of “pending introduction of criminal sanctions” but does not even mention if any official antitrust complaints have been filed.

    saulgoode Reply:

    The point is not that Roy is necessarily wrong – the point is he does not support his points.

    No. You asserted that the claim was “FUD” — regardless whether or not supporting evidence was provided. If I claim the Earth is round and you respond that my claim is “FUD” because I did not reference my sources, this represents an utter failure of logical thinking on your part.

    Michael Reply:

    Claiming the earth is round is not an attack against someone.

    Roy repeatedly posts claims he fails to support to push his fear, uncertainty and doubt.

    Bottom line: Roy spewed accusations he failed to support… you cannot support them either but you will give him a free pass because your think his BS is not properly labeled as “FUD”.

    What a pathetic defense of his lack of support.

  2. saulgoode said,

    October 23, 2011 at 4:37 pm

    Gravatar

    Claiming the earth is round is not an attack against someone.

    Nor is pointing out that anti-trust complaints have been filed against Microsoft in response to their UEFI proposal. That is what you claimed was FUD — and yet you provided nothing to substantiate your claim, while the fact is complaints have been filed.

    Bottom line: Roy spewed accusations he failed to support… you cannot support them either…

    I provided a link to an article which asserted that complaints have been filed with the Australian government. If you have reason to doubt the veracity of that article, why not address your response there? Or at least present some reasoning to support your contention that the claim is false?

    …but you will give him a free pass because your think his BS is not properly labeled as “FUD”.

    And yet you’ve provided nothing toward discounting the claim. Where is the substantiation for your view? If you’re “not interested in digging” to find out whether a claim made is true or false then what justification can there be for accusing the claim of being unfounded? Do you feel it reasonable to charge people with spreading “BS” when you admit that you’re not interested in discovering the truth?

    Michael Reply:

    What antitrust complaints have been filed against MS in response to their UEFI proposal? What is the complaint and where can I read it?

    And if you can produce such, fine… the point was Roy did not.

    ?

    wiwiwiw

    Michael Reply:

    Whoops… sincere apologies about the added wiwiwiwiw and question mark. Pasted the wrong thing.

    saulgoode Reply:

    The first sentence on the page to which I linked in my first response:

    A number of Australian Linux users have filed a formal complaint with the national competition regulator over what many perceive to be restrictive practices introduced in upcoming Microsoft’s Windows 8 operating system which may stop many mass-market computers from being able to boot alternatives such as Linux.

    The Zdnet article (therein linked) provides this response as being from the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission:

    Section 47 of the Act prohibits exclusive dealing. Broadly speaking, exclusive dealing occurs when one person trading with another imposes some restrictions on the other’s freedom to choose with whom, in what or where they deal. Exclusive dealing is only a breach of the Act where the conduct has the purpose, effect or likely effect of substantially lessening competition in the market. In an assessment of the effect of the conduct on competition, it is not enough merely to show that an individual business has been damaged. The wider market for the particular product or service must be considered.

    The situation you described may raise issues of exclusive dealing, but it is unclear from the details provided whether it would be likely to meet the competition test described.

    If you do not consider “exclusive dealing” to qualify as an “antitrust” concern, I would direct you to what the United States Federal Trade Commission has to say on the matter.

    Are you disputing the facts as presented on those websites? Are you disputing that exclusive dealing qualifies as an “antitrust” concern?

    Even so, you have presented a non sequitur argument that since this article did not provide links that address the actual filing of complaints, no complaints have been filed. Your logic is flawed. Complaints have been filed and this article’s report of that fact is accurate.

    Michael Reply:

    Fair enough. All I ask for is support.

    Now why couldn’t Roy offer any.

    Sincerely, thank you.

What Else is New


  1. From Alleged Organised Crime to Vice-President of the European Patent Office (EPO)

    Željko Topić's situation in Croatia illuminated by means of recent documents from the authorities



  2. Battistelli May Still be on the Way Out as Pressure Grows in Germany, UPC in Shambles

    Pressure on Battistelli is growing even from within circles that are traditionally protective of him and a long letter is sent to Dr. Christoph Ernst, who some believe will replace Battistelli



  3. Caricature: European Patent Office (EPO) Under Battistelli

    The latest caricature about the state of the European Patent Office (EPO)



  4. Techrights (Almost) at 10: From Software Patents to Novell and to Present Focus on EPO

    A short story about how and why we ended up writing so much about the European Patent Office (EPO) and the impact beyond Europe



  5. Patents Roundup: Bad Quality (USPTO), Bad Analysis (India), Bad Microsoft, Bad Actors (Trolls), Bad Scope (Software Patents), and the Ugly

    A mishmash of news about patents, mostly regarding the United States, and what can be deduced at the moment



  6. Links 26/6/2016: IceCat 38.8.0, Wine 1.9.13

    Links for the day



  7. With UPC Dead for Battistelli's Entire Remaining Term, No Reason for the EPO or the Administrative Council to Keep Battistelli Around

    Thoughts about what happens to the EPO's leadership after 'Brexit' (British exit from the EU), which severely undermines Battistelli's biggest project that he habitually used to justify his incredible abuses



  8. Links 24/6/2016: Xen Project 4.7, Cinnamon 3.0.6

    Links for the day



  9. Benoît Battistelli Should Resign in Light of New Leak of Decision in His Vendetta Against Truth-Telling Judge (Updated)

    Benoît Battistelli continues to break the EPO's own rules, not just national laws, as a new decision helps reveal



  10. Fake Patents on Software From Fake Australian 'Inventor' of Bitcoin and the Globally-Contagious Nature of EPO Patent Scope

    News from Australia regarding software patents that should not be granted and how patent lawyers from Australia rely on European patent law (EPO and UK-IPO) for guidance on patent scope



  11. Patent Lawyers Love (and Amplify) Halo and Enfish, Omit or Dismiss Cuozzo and Alice

    By misinterpreting the current situation with respect to software patents and misusing terms like "innovation" patent lawyers and others in the patent microcosm hope to convince the public (or potential clients) that nothing in effect has changed and software patents are all fine and dandy



  12. Looks Increasingly Plausible That Battistelli is Covering up Bogus and/or Illegally-Obtained 'Evidence' From the EPO's Investigative Unit

    Why we believe that Benoît Battistelli is growingly desperate to hide evidence of rogue evidence-collecting operations which eventually landed himself -- not the accused -- in a catastrophic situation that can force his resignation



  13. As Decision on the UK's EU Status Looms, EPO Deep in a Crisis of Patent Quality

    Chaotic situation at the EPO and potential changes in the UK cause a great deal of debate about the UPC, which threatens to put the whole or Europe at the mercy of patent trolls from abroad



  14. Another Demonstration by European Patent Office (EPO) Staff on Same Day as Administrative Council's Meeting

    SUEPO (staff union of the EPO) continues to organise staff actions against extraordinary injustice by Benoît Battistelli and his flunkies whom he gave top positions at the EPO



  15. Links 23/6/2016: Red Hat Results, Randa Stories

    Links for the day



  16. Interview With FOSSForce/All Things Free Tech

    New interview with Robin "Roblimo" Miller on behalf of FOSSForce



  17. Links 22/6/2016: PulseAudio 9.0, GNOME 3.21.3 Released

    Links for the day



  18. IP Europe's UPC Lobbying and the EPO Connection

    The loose but seemingly ever-growing connections between AstroTurfing groups like IP Europe (pretending to represent SMEs) and EPO staff which is lobbying-centric



  19. EPO “Recruitment of Brits is Down by 80%”

    Letter says that “recruitment of Brits is down by 80%” and "the EPO lost 7% of UK staff in one year"



  20. The Conspiracy of Patent Lawyers for UPC and Battistelli's Role in Preparing by Firing People

    The parasitic firms that lobby for the UPC and actually create it -- firms like those that pass money to Battistelli's EPO -- are doing exactly the opposite of what Europe needs



  21. Patent Lawyers, Having Lost Much of the Battle for Software Patents in the US, Resort to Harmful Measures and Spin

    A quick glance at how patent lawyers and their lobbyists/advocates have reacted to the latest decision from the US Supreme Court (Justice Breyer)



  22. Links 21/6/2016: Fedora 24 and Point Linux MATE 3.2 Officially Released

    Links for the day



  23. Supreme Court on Cuozzo v Lee Another Major Loss for Software Patents in the United States

    Much-anticipated decision on the Cuozzo v Lee case (at the highest possible level) serves to defend the appeal boards which are eliminating software patents by the thousands



  24. As Alice Turns Two, Bilski Blog Says 36,000 (Software) Patent Applications Have Been Rejected Thanks to It

    A look back at the legacy of Alice v CLS Bank and how it contributed to the demise of software patents in the United States, the birthplace of software patents



  25. EPO Self-Censorship by IP Kat or Just Censorship of Opinions That IP Kat Does Not Share/Accept (Updated)

    ree speech when it's needed the most (EPO scandals) needs to be respected; or why IP Kat shoots itself in the foot and helps the EPO's management by 'sanitising' comments



  26. Caricature: Bygmalion Patent Office

    The latest cartoon regarding Battistelli's European Patent Office



  27. Links 21/6/2016: GNU/Linux in China's HPC, Linux 4.7 RC4

    Links for the day



  28. Under Battistelli's Regime the EPO is a Lawless, Dark Place

    How the EPO's Investigative Unit (IU) and Control Risks Group (CRG), which is connected to the Stasi through Desa, made the EPO virtually indistinguishable from East Germany (coat of arms/emblem above)



  29. New Paper Demonstrates That Unitary Patent (UPC) is Little More Than a Conspiracy of Patent 'Professionals' and Their Self Interest

    Dr. Ingve Björn Stjerna's latest paper explains that the UPC “expert teams” are in fact not experts but people who are using the UPC as a Trojan horse by which to promote their business interests and corporate objectives



  30. Money Flying to Private Companies Without Tenders at Battistelli's EPO (by the Tens of Millions!)

    Extravagant and cushy contracts to the tune of tens of millions of Euros are being issued without public scrutiny and without opportunities to competition (few corporations easily score cushy EPO contracts while illusion of tendering persists -- for small jobs only)


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts