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. Links 29/9/2016: Russia Moving to FOSS, New Nmap and PostgreSQL Releases

    Links for the day



  2. Team UPC is Interjecting Itself Into the Media Ahead of Tomorrow's Lobbying Push Against the European Council and Against European Interests

    A quick look at the growing bulk of UPC lobbying (by the legal firms which stand to benefit from it) ahead of tomorrow's European Council meeting which is expected to discuss a unitary patent system



  3. IP Kat is Lobbying Heavily for the UPC, Courtesy of Team UPC

    When does an IP (or patent) blog become little more than an aggregation of interest groups and self-serving patent law firms, whose agenda overlaps that of Team Battistelli?



  4. Leaked: Conclusions of the Secretive EPO Board 28 Meeting (8th of September 2016)

    The agenda and outcome of the secretive meeting of the Board of the Administrative Council of the EPO



  5. Letter From the Dutch Institute of Patent Attorneys (Nederlandse Orde van Octrooigemachtigden) to the Administrative Council of the EPO

    The Netherlands Institute of Patent Attorneys, a group representing a large number of Dutch patent practitioners, is against Benoît Battistelli and his horrible behaviour at the European Patent Office (EPO)



  6. EPO's Board 28 Notes Battistelli's “Three Current Investigations/Disciplinary Proceedings Involving SUEPO Members in The Hague."

    The attack on SUEPO (EPO staff representatives) at The Hague appears to have been silently expanded to a third person, showing an obvious increase in Battistelli's attacks on truth-tellers



  7. Links 28/9/2016: Alpine Linux 3.4.4, Endless OS 3.0

    Links for the day



  8. Cementing Autocracy: The European Patent Office Against Democracy, Against Media, and Against the Rule of Law

    The European Patent Office (EPO) actively undermines democracy in Europe, it undermines the freedom of the press (by paying it for puff pieces), and it undermines the rule of law by giving one single tyrant total power in Eponia and immunity from outside Eponia (even when he breaks his own rules)



  9. Links 28/9/2016: New Red Hat Offices, Fedora 25 'Frozen'

    Links for the day



  10. Team Battistelli Intensifies the Attack on the Boards of Appeal Again

    The lawless state of the EPO, where the rule of law is basically reducible to Battistelli's ego and insecurities, is again demonstrated with an escalation and perhaps another fake 'trial' in the making (after guilt repeatedly fails to be established)



  11. After the EPO Paid the Financial Times to Produce Propaganda the Newspaper Continues to Produce UPC Puff Pieces, Just Ahead of EU Council Meeting

    How the media, including the Financial Times, has been used (and even paid!) by the EPO in exchange for self-serving (to the EPO) messages and articles



  12. Beware the Patent Law Firms Insinuating That Software Patents Are Back Because of McRO

    By repeatedly claiming (and then generalising) that CAFC accepted a software patent the patent microcosm (meta-industry) hopes to convince us that we should continue to pursue software patents in the US, i.e. pay them a lot more money for something of little/no value



  13. The US Supreme Court Might Soon Tighten Patent Scope in the United States Even Further, the USPTO Produces Patent Maximalism Propaganda

    A struggle brewing between the patent 'industry' (profiting from irrational saturation) and the highest US court, as well as the Government Accountability Office (GAO)



  14. Patent Trolling a Growing Problem in East Asia (Software Patents Also), Whereas in the US the Problem Goes Away Along With Software Patents

    A look at two contrasting stories, one in Asia where patent litigation and hype are on the rise (same in Europe due to the EPO) and another in the US where a lot of patents face growing uncertainty and a high invalidation rate



  15. The EPO's Continued Push for Software Patents, Marginalisation of Appeals (Reassessment), and Deviation From the EPC

    A roundup of new developments at the EPO, where things further exacerbate and patent quality continues its downward spiral



  16. The Battistelli Effect: “We Will be Gradually Forced to File Our Patent Applications Outside the EPO in the Interests of Our Clients”

    While the EPO dusts off old files and grants in haste without quality control (won't be sustainable for more than a couple more years) the applicants are moving away as trust in the EPO erodes rapidly and profoundly



  17. Links 27/9/2016: Lenovo Layoffs, OPNFV Third Software Release

    Links for the day



  18. The Moral Depravity of the European Patent Office Under Battistelli

    The European Patent Office (EPO) comes under heavy criticism from its very own employees, who also seem to recognise that lobbying for the UPC is a very bad idea which discredits the European Patent Organisation



  19. Links 26/9/2016: Linux 4.8 RC8, SuperTux 0.5

    Links for the day



  20. What Insiders Are Saying About the Sad State of the European Patent Office (EPO)

    Anonymous claims made by people who are intimately familiar with the European Patent Office (from the inside) shed light on how bad things have become



  21. The EPO Does Not Want Skilled (and 'Expensive') Staff, Layoffs a Growing Concern

    A somewhat pessimistic look (albeit increasingly realistic look) at the European Patent Office, where unions are under fire for raising legitimate concerns about the direction taken by the management since a largely French team was put in charge



  22. Patents Roundup: Accenture Software Patents, Patent Troll Against Apple, Willful Infringements, and Apple Against a Software Patent

    A quick look at various new articles of interest (about software patents) and what can be deduced from them, especially now that software patents are the primary barrier to Free/Libre Open Source software adoption



  23. Software Patents Propped Up by Patent Law Firms That Are Lying, Further Assisted by Rogue Elements Like David Kappos and Randall Rader (Revolving Doors)

    The sheer dishonesty of the patent microcosm (seeking to bring back software patents by misleading the public) and those who are helping this microcosm change the system from the inside, owing to intimate connections from their dubious days inside government



  24. Links 25/9/2016: Linux 4.7.5, 4.4.22; LXQt 0.11

    Links for the day



  25. Patent Quality and Patent Scope the Unspeakable Taboo at the EPO, as Both Are Guillotined by Benoît Battistelli for the Sake of Money

    The gradual destruction of the European Patent Office (EPO), which was once unanimously regarded as the world's best, by a neo-liberal autocrat from France, Benoît Battistelli



  26. Bristows LLP's Hatred/Disdain of UK/EU Democracy Demonstrated; Says “Not Only Will the Pressure for UK Ratification of the UPC Agreement Continue, But a Decision is Wanted Within Weeks.”

    Without even consulting the British public or the European public (both of whom would be severely harmed by the UPC), the flag bearers of the UPC continue to bamboozle and then pressure politicians, public servants and nontechnical representatives



  27. Released Late on a Friday, EPO Social 'Study' (Battistelli-Commissioned Propaganda) Attempts to Blame Staff for Everything

    The longstanding propaganda campaign (framing staff as happy or framing unhappy staff as a disgruntled minority) is out and the timing of the release is suspicious to say the least



  28. Links 23/9/2016: Latest Microsoft and Lenovo Spin (Now in ‘Damage Control’ Mode)

    Links for the day



  29. White Male-Dominated EPO Management Sinks to New Lows, Again

    Benoît Battistelli continues to make the EPO look like Europe's biggest laughing stock by attempting to tackle issues with corny photo ops rather than real change (like SUEPO recognition, diverse hiring, improved patent quality, and cessation of sheer abuses)



  30. Journalism 102: Do Not Become Like 'Managing IP' or IAM 'Magazine' (the Megaphones of the EPO’s Management)

    Another look at convergence between media and the EPO, which is spending virtually millions of Euros literally buying the media and ensuring that the EPO's abuses are scarcely covered (if ever mentioned at all)


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