02.25.12
Microsoft and Its Lobbyists Push FRAND to Kill FOSS in Europe
Summary: Additional details about Microsoft’s propaganda campaign for flat fees on Free software
IN HIS many remarks on the subject, the president of the FFII continues to express concerns about FRAND — an issue we’ll spend more time covering, especially now that Microsoft pays scum like Florian Müller to promote it. This is perhaps the #1 barrier to FOSS, which some charlatan who goes by the name “FOSS patents” is trying to promote in order to suppress or kill FOSS. Talk about importance of names…
“IMCO is the leading committee,” writes the FFII’s presidet, “there are no amendments to remove FRAND, so it will probably go through [...] Too late. Greens even tabled AM260 which supports FRAND. Crazzy when you think Greens should be against swpats.”
They are perhaps being deceived, in part by Microsoft lobbying (though proxies like BSA as well).
Having watched this very closely for years, later on he wrote: “FRAND will become EU law, unless there is a mobilisation against it.” And moreover:
AM260: Greens supporting the undefined FRAND term in EU law on standards, the anti-free weapon
Finally he wrote:
Greens supporting the undefined FRAND term in EU law on standards, where are we going?
We are going into FOSS as “illegal” (or incompatible as matter of law). This must be stopped. █
Dr. Roy Schestowitz said,
February 25, 2012 at 12:26 pm
Someone has just posted this comment which says that “Linux defences are strong imo: http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/ ”
I beg to differ though. The OIN is not an effective response, unless one is a big corporation. Additionally, for those who care about software freedom, the OIN does not provide a useful defence. I’ve explained this before and so did the FFII. The OIN itself cannot quite address the criticisms either.
Moreover, the OIN tries to give the illusion of being open but it in fact keeps its cards close to its chest and for the second time it asked me if I wanted to speak to their CEO (also invited me to London to speak to him), whereupon I asked some challenging questions and did not receive a response to them. I did not ask anything rudely, And it’s them who came to me, I never came to them. in fact here is what would have been the Q&A with OIN’s CEO:
Question: How would you quantify OIN’s growth over the past few years? In particular, what is the significance of the number of members and the sum of their patents?
Question: Does the OIN stand behind Tizen following Nokia’s apparent retreat from MeeGo? What about the rumoured new Linux-based platform from Nokia (for low-end phones)? Does the OIN have that covered? And what about WebOS?
Question: To what degree, if any, does the OIN assist Android in patent battles?
Question: How can the OIN facilitate feud prevention among its members, e.g. Oracle versus Google?
Question: How does the OIN conduct its cause politically (if at all)?
Question: How does the OIN plan to counter threat from entities such as Mosaid? If reactionary means such as defensive patents cannot help, are antitrust complaints something the OIN can subscribe to (like the OSI and FSF did regarding CPTN)?
Suffice to say, if the OIN decides that it can answer these questions, I’ll be more than happy to post the answers. Previously, Keith explained to me on the phone that it was a PR failure that caused my questions not to be answered (after those were welcomed).
Needs Sunlight Reply:
February 25th, 2012 at 1:59 pm
The larger threat comes via proxies and patent trolls which have nothing to counter sue against. How does OIN help protect in that case? From where I stand, it appears that it doesn’t.