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. Team UPC and CIPA Are Lobbying, Publishing Puff Pieces, and Rewriting the Law for Unitary Patent (UPC) Behind Closed Doors

    A collection of the latest news and views on the UPC, which is being lied about by those who stand to benefit from it and is probably going nowhere because Brexit means that the UK stays out, in which case it must be reset and pertinent ratifications done all over again



  2. China's Suffering From Patent Maximalism Has Europe Forewarned

    The parasitic elements inside China -- those that just want lots of litigation (even if from patent trolls) -- are winning over, much to the detriment of the Chinese economy, and Team UPC threatens to do the same in Europe with help from Battistelli



  3. Links 27/4/2017: Mesa 17.0.5 RC1, Git 2.13.0 RC1, and Linkerd 1.0

    Links for the day



  4. The Latest Expensive PR Blitz of the EPO, Led by Jana Mittermaier and Rainer Osterwalder Under the 'European Inventor Award' Banner

    The PR agencies of the Corsican in Chief, who appears to be buying political support rather than earning any, are very busy this week, as yet another reputation laundering campaign kicks off



  5. Links 26/4/2017: SMPlayer 17.4.2, Libreboot Wants to Rejoin GNU

    Links for the day



  6. PatentShield is Not the Solution and It Won't Protect Google/Android From Patent Trolls Like Microsoft's

    A new initiative called "PatentShield" is launched, but it's yet another one of those many initiatives (Peer-to-Patent and the likes of it, LOT Network, OIN, PAX etc.) that serve to distract from the real and much simpler solutions



  7. Patent Quality Crisis and Unprecedented Trouble at the European Patent Office (EPO) Negatively Affect Legitimate Companies in the US As Well

    The granting en masse of questionable patents by the EPO (patent maximalism) is becoming a liability and growing risk to companies which operate not only in Europe but also elsewhere



  8. Blog 'Takeovers' by Bristows and Then Censorship: Now This Firm Lies About the Unitary Patent (UPC) and Then Deletes Comments That Point Out the Errors

    Not only are Bristows employees grabbing the mic in various high-profile IP blogs for the purpose of UPC promotion (by distortion of facts); they also actively suppress critics of the UPC



  9. Links 25/4/2017: Kali Linux 2017.1 Released, NSA Back Doors in Windows Cause Chaos

    Links for the day



  10. Astoundingly, IP Kat Has Become a Leading Source of UPC and Battistelli Propaganda

    The pro-UPC outlets, which enjoy EPO budget (i.e. stakeholders' money), are becoming mere amplifiers of Benoît Battistelli and his right-hand UPC woman Margot Fröhlinger, irrespective of actual facts



  11. EPO Fiasco to be Discussed in German Local Authority (Bavarian Parliament) Some Time Today as the Institution Continues Its Avoidable Collapse

    Conflict between management and staff -- a result of truly destructive strategies and violations of the law by Benoît Battistelli -- continues to escalate and threatens to altogether dismantle the European Patent Office (EPO)



  12. In the US and Elsewhere, Qualcomm's Software Patents Are a Significant Tax Everyone Must Pay

    The state of the mobile market when companies such as Qualcomm, which don't really produce anything, take a large piece of the revenue pie



  13. In South Asia, Old Myths to Promote Patent Maximalism, Courtesy of the Patent Microcosm

    The latest example of software patents advocacy and patent 'parades' in India, as well as something from IPOS in Singapore



  14. Links 24/4/2017: Linux 4.11 RC8, MPV 0.25

    Links for the day



  15. Why Authorities in the Netherlands Need to Strip the EPO of Immunity and Investigate Fire Safety Violations

    How intimidation and crackdown on the staff representatives at the EPO may have led to lack of awareness (and action) about lack of compliance with fire safety standards



  16. Insensitivity at the EPO’s Management – Part IX: Testament to the Fear of an Autocratic Regime

    A return to the crucial observation and a reminder of the fact that at the EPO it takes great courage to say the truth nowadays



  17. For the Fordham Echo Chamber (Patent Maximalism), Judges From the EPO Boards of Appeal Are Not Worth Entertaining

    In an event steered if not stuffed by patent radicals such as Bristows and Microsoft (abusive, serial litigators) there are no balanced panels or even reasonable discussions



  18. EPO Staff Representatives Fired Using “Disciplinary Committee That Was Improperly Composed” as Per ILO's Decision

    The Board of the Administrative Council at European Patent Organisation is being informed of the union-busting activities of Battistelli -- activities that are both illegal (as per national and international standards) and are detrimental to the Organisation



  19. Links 23/4/2017: End of arkOS, Collabora Office 5.3 Released

    Links for the day



  20. Intellectual Discovery and Microsoft Feed Patent Trolls Like Intellectual Ventures Which Then Strategically Attack Rivals

    Like a swarm of blood-sucking bats, patent trolls prey on affluent companies that derive their wealth from GNU/Linux and freedom-respecting software (Free/libre software)



  21. The European Patent Office Has Just Killed a Cat (or Skinned a 'Kat')

    The EPO’s attack on the media, including us, resulted in a stream of misinformation and puff pieces about the EPO and UPC, putting at risk not just European democracy but also corrupting the European press



  22. Yann Ménière Resorts to Buzzwords to Recklessly Promote Floods of Patents, Dooming the EPO Amid Decline in Patent Applications

    Battistelli's French Chief Economist is not much of an economist but a patent maximalist toeing the party line of Monsieur Battistelli (lots of easy grants and litigation galore, for UPC hopefuls)



  23. Even Patent Bullies Like Microsoft and Facebook Find the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Useful

    Not just companies accused of patent infringement need the PTAB but also frequent accusers with deep pockets need the PTAB, based on some new figures and new developments



  24. Links 21/4/2017: Qt Creator 4.2.2, ROSA Desktop Fresh R9

    Links for the day



  25. At the EPO, Seeding of Puff Piece in the Press/Academia Sometimes Transparent Enough to View

    The EPO‘s PR team likes to 'spam' journalists and others (for PR) and sometimes does this publicly, as the tweets below show — a desperate recruitment and reputation laundering drive



  26. Affordable and Sophisticated Mobile Devices Are Kept Away by Patent Trolls and Aggressors That Tax Everything

    The war against commoditisation of mobile computing has turned a potentially thriving market with fast innovation rates into a war zone full of patent trolls (sometimes suing at the behest of large companies that hand them patents for this purpose)



  27. In Spite of Lobbying and Endless Attempts by the Patent Microcosm, US Supreme Court Won't Consider Any Software Patent Cases Anymore (in the Foreseeable Future)

    Lobbyists of software patents, i.e. proponents of endless litigation and patent trolls, are attempting to convince the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to have another look at abstract patents and reconsider its position on cases like Alice Corp. v CLS Bank International



  28. Expect Team UPC to Remain in Deep Denial About the Unitary Patent/Unified Court (UPC) Having No Prospects

    The prevailing denial that the UPC is effectively dead, courtesy of sites and blogs whose writers stood to profit from the UPC



  29. EPO in 2017: Erroneously Grant a Lot of Patents in Bulk or Get Sacked

    Quality of patent examination is being abandoned at the EPO and those who disobey or refuse to play along are being fired (or asked to resign to avoid forced resignations which would stain their record)



  30. Links 21/4/2017: System76 Entering Phase Three, KDE Applications 17.04, Elive 2.9.0 Beta

    Links for the day


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