08.10.15
Posted in GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Vista 10, Windows at 3:35 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Officially becoming a malware company, expanding beyond patent racketeering and political blackmail
The Microsoft apologists insist that privacy is dead, giving Microsoft the carte blanche
Summary: The villainous side of Microsoft comes out more bluntly, as any regard for privacy is dismissed as irrelevant, private networks are becoming Microsoft’s playground, Windows silently but remotely gains more malicious antifeatures (with the hallmark of espionage), and the same rogue operations are extended to Android and GNU/Linux (if Microsoft can gain a foothold there)
THE TERM “Vista 10″ has been catching on (many people use it now) and the wiki page for Vista 10 has had nearly 3,000 page views since Vista 10 was released (that’s when the page was first set up). Since then we have seen GNU/Linux-centric authors writing about Vista 10 (there are two examples today [1, 2]), but we don’t see what the big deal is. Here in Techrights, having accumulated data over the past 8 days, only 0.7% of visitors used Vista 10 (we checked the back end, which strictly retains logs for no longer than 4 weeks) and some other Web-wide surveys put it at around 3%, contradicting popular lies about adoption rates of this seemingly gratis ‘upgrade’. Vista 10 is a huge disappointment for Microsoft, but the company will never publicly admit it (we know what people from the inside, i.e. Microsoft employees, think because we confidentially hear from some). There is a massive budget dedicated to manufacturing bogus (sometimes pre-prepared or ghostwritten by agencies) ‘reviews’ and praises of Vista 10. It’s peaking right now, so it may take some time for the ‘hangover’ (real users’ feedback) to truly show up and dominate the Web. It was the same when Vista 8 was released, never to be widely adopted at all, just loathed (the boss got fired, too).
“There is a massive budget dedicated to manufacturing bogus (sometimes pre-prepared or ghostwritten by agencies) ‘reviews’ and praises of Vista 10.”Today’s article is not a rant about Vista 10 but a survey of recent revelations and key articles, as opposed to puff pieces (there are plenty of those because the release is relatively recent, meaning that the marketing budget has not been exhausted just yet). As we are going to show, Microsoft is seemingly coordinating a response to criticism, almost as if it sends talking points or memos to ‘buddies’ in order to confuse the public and berate critics.
Microsoft Abuse
Several authors (Linux-centric people on the Web) told me that they get abused for criticising Vista 10 and I too received many personal insults, none of which address anything that I wrote but instead are an attack on character. These come from people whom I never heard from or heard about. Remember that Microsoft recently got caught paying for abusive AstroTurfing of this kind (planting comments). Showing the ‘smoking guns’ is hard unless whistleblowers come out (as some recently did, acknowledging that Microsoft pays them to game Reddit).
Microsoft Crowd Says Privacy is Dead
We kindly ask readers to inform us if they see the following rather terrible ‘damage control’ from Microsoft. Here is Microsoft’s response to allegations over privacy violations. It goes along the lines of, “if they ask, we give. Erk. In the post-Snowden era, that’s going to put a few noses out of joint.”
Microsoft has done absolutely nothing to deny that it seriously violates privacy. That is far too well documented to deny. What we have found, however, is diversion tactics. Here is a Microsoft/MSN-connected site (also “Microsoft apologists,” according to iophk) responding with shameless spin, claiming “The inevitable death of privacy” (Microsoft apologists and employees use the same kind of excuse habitually).
Microsoft Peter reads from the same memo, apparently, as his best defence was his ludicrous headline “Windows 10’s privacy policy is the new normal”. Well, maybe if you pretend that BSD and GNU/Linux don’t exist!
“We have strong reasons to suspect there’s behind-the-scenes coordination here.”Notice the pattern and spot the party line. Microsoft is basically heralding the death of privacy as if this alone will make its own attacks on privacy any more acceptable. We ask readers to post a comment if they see more of this and share information about where it comes from. We have strong reasons to suspect there’s behind-the-scenes coordination here. We saw that back in the Vista days.
Security Not Guarded, Only Mocked, Stampeded
The other day The Register asked: “Are you a Windows 10 converts responsible for young computer users? Be on your guard. Child-friendly Family Features from Windows 7 and 8 won’t be recognised or accepted in the new operating system.”
It’s hardly a surprise. Based on feedback we see on the Web, many people complain about anything-but-smooth an ‘upgrade’ process.
As we pointed out the other day, installing Vista 10 turns one's PC into part of a botnet (Windows Update, which cannot be blocked). The Microsoft-operated botnet is clearly out of control, or out of the scope of what’s legal (not that Microsoft believes laws can be enforced against it, ever). It’s also a massive security breach. “Windows 10 commandeers users’ upload bandwidth,” said the headline of this IDG article, composed by a Microsoft critic. “Windows 10 is FORCING ITSELF onto domain happy Windows 7 PCs,” said this article from The Register. Is this even legal? “Windows 7 PCs are being force fed a diet of Windows 10, breaking a promise made by Microsoft,” says the author. “The problem is affecting domain-attached Windows 7 PCs not signed up to Windows Server Update Services (WSUS) for patches and updates, but looking for a Microsoft update instead.
“Based on feedback we see on the Web, many people complain about anything-but-smooth an ‘upgrade’ process.”“The upshot is PCs, ranging from 10s to hundreds at a time, simultaneously chowing down on the 3GB-plus Windows 10 load, killing business networks.
“The problem began showing up on Monday with complaints beginning to notch up online.”
Vista 7 and 8 Silently Turned (Modified) Into Malware
“And now they are adding the tracking and telemetry to Win 7 and 8 in updates,” pointed out one person to me last week, “for those who don’t upgrade https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/3068708” (can this be legally tolerated?)
Clearly enough, whatever Microsoft has made of Vista 10 (and now predecessors too!) is violating privacy or data protection policies in many firms, such as law firms. They need to wipe this malware off their networks to avoid being sued for confidential document leaks. Their keystrokes, for instance, mustn’t be divulged.
“Windows has technically become malware.”“Indeed Microsoft has realized that its income is going downwards,” said one person to me. “And more important, as many other companies, they now know that the data of their “clients” is more valuable than the services and software they provide. So the tendency is clear: they are offering zero price products and services because they don’t want people thinking about expending some $ or €. They just want data, and more data and more data…”
Windows has technically become malware. It already was, but it’s getting worse. It is hard to deny that it is now malicious software, operating well outside the control (and consent) of the user. If people click “OK” to express consent to the new policy, however, their chances of a day in court greatly diminish.
One site has just explained “Why You Must Dump Microsoft NOW”. “As of August 1, 2015,” it says, “Microsoft announced a new privacy policy and a new services agreement. In the words of one network professional, “Basically, they redefined their operating system to be spyware.””
The site recommends GNU/Linux instead, stating: “The version of Linux I like best is Linux Mint. With it, you can run OpenOffice (also called LibreOffice), which does everything essential that MS Office does. Then get Firefox for a browser and Thunderbird for email, and you’re in business.”
“Microsoft does not find it sufficient to spy on Windows users but also tries to do the same in Android and in GNU/Linux (well over a billion users).”Brad of “Goodbye Microsoft” remarked on this article by saying: “In the thirteen-plus years that I’ve been using Linux, I have never signed a user agreement to do so. Nor have I checked “accept” to terms on a web page, nor opened a shrinkwrap package with a you-accept-this license inside. In fact, I couldn’t legally use Linux at all but for the fact that the authors have accepted an agreement, the GNU Public License (GPL), which says that I’m free to use their work.* (With each passing year I become more amazed at the brilliance and the foresight of the creators of the GPL.)”
It’s a Data Harvesting Venture
Microsoft does not find it sufficient to spy on Windows users but also tries to do the same in Android and in GNU/Linux (well over a billion users). Microsoft wants to spy on GNU/Linux servers too (with confidential data of customers or staff) because Scott Hanselman, whom we mentioned here for Microsoft spin (like the 'new' Microsoft uses Microsoft’s channel and “talks to Khalid Mouss about how you can monitor your Linux machines within an Azure infrastructure.” We have already explained why this is extremely dangerous.
To illustrate just how dangerous it is to let Microsoft operate servers, consider the latest excuses for Office 360 spyware at the heart of British politics (where Microsoft blackmails MPs [1, 2]). Bogus excuses are now being given, after Microsoft failed for several days to deliver mail to MPs (the article downplays this duration by a factor of 6). The Register acts as Microsoft’s courier by blindly saying (without any proof) that it’s a case of “Microsoft failing to inform itself about a technical change” (as if changing something in a mail server should take it down for several days, without expectations as such).
“When it comes to privacy, Microsoft is demonstrably far worse than Google.”“The outage occurred on 23 June,” The Register says, “and resulted in a total of 13 hours of downtime, the Parliamentary Digital Service said in response to a Freedom of Information request.”
According to reports in the British media (not much of it covered this blunder — something that people openly complain about in social media), this outage lasted days, not 13 hours. Why is The Register relaying Microsoft’s propaganda and ‘damage control’ without even a challenge?
Either way, does Vista 10 not provide enough evidence that nobody should relay mail through Microsoft (snooping of mail by Microsoft for business reasons has been done before) and definitely mustn’t host a servers (including GNU/Linux) inside Microsoft datacentres? When it comes to privacy, Microsoft is demonstrably far worse than Google. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Apple, Courtroom, EFF, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Novell, OIN, Oracle, Patents at 7:12 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Patents not on engineering (or physical products) anymore
Summary: News about patents from all across the Web, placing special emphasis on software patents and how these affect Free software projects, including Linux and Android
THIS week’s patents roundup revolves around practicing companies that act in a way which is almost indistinguishable from patent trolls. As we have said here for several years, the term “patent trolls” can be misleading because many large companies act in the same way but don’t get labeled “trolls”, mostly because of their size. It means that a fight against “patent trolls” often turns out to be a fight over scale, waged by large corporations against smaller ones. Check again who is behind the PATENT Act [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8].
Today’s post brings together several stories and themes/strands in order to keep readers abreast of the latest developments.
Open Invention Network
We have spent over 8 years writing about the Open Invention Network (better known as OIN) and why it cannot effectively protect Free software projects. We also exchanged many E-mails with the OIN and some trolls. We saw how toothless the OIN can be in many scenarios and we challenged the OIN over it. I spoke in length with their CEO a few times over the telephone and I still think that it helps legitimise software patents and rarely achieves very much, except promote the interests of large corporations (like those which founded it and still fund it).
Earlier this morning FOSS Force published this very long interview with Deb Nicholson, who had worked for the FSF before she moved to OIN. This interview is very good and Nicholson’s views on patents are fine. We shared them here before.
“My work at OIN involves a lot of research,” Nicholson says. “I read academic papers on litigation trends and try to stay on top of who’s getting sued this week. It also involves a lot of behind the scenes emailing. I have lots of informal conversations with people about how you run a free and open source software project. Sometimes, they don’t realize that lots of other companies are succeeding with FOSS business models and shared community resources. Once they see that it can be done, they often feel more confident.”
Nicholson then speaks about the role of SCOTUS in lowering the risk of software patents.
“The Supreme Court,” she explains, “has given the lower courts the tools to rule against two specific categories of vague and frivolous patents. This is great for companies that have the cash and the time to go to court. For companies that don’t want to fight in court — which is lots of them, because it really is expensive and time-consuming — the letters will keep coming. Plus, there are still plenty of overly broad or obvious patents on the books that may not be affected by the recent rulings. So, things are improving but I wouldn’t say that we’re finished.”
She makes an important point regarding the cost of litigation, but the matter of fact is, USPTO examiners are now tougher on software patents and fewer companies (or shell firms) are eager to assert software patents for fear of losing them. Not only the extorted party (usually developers) is scared of the courts; the plaintiff, e.g. a patent troll, is too. What SCOTUS has done is, in our humble assessment, the best news in nearly a decade. We cannot recall anything bigger or better in terms of magnitude, at least not when it comes to systematically squashing software patents (not one patent at the time as per the EFF’s much-advertised earlier efforts, dubbed “patent busting”).
Finjan
The Finjan-led patent extortion crusade was mentioned here just weeks ago (they are Microsoft-connected) and now, just weeks later, this firm’s troll entity (Finjan Holdings) gets extortion money from a really nasty company, Blue Coat, which some say the EPO hired to spy on people like yours truly and EPO staff. “Finjan Holdings,” as a trolls expert explains, is “a patent-licensing company operating in the cybersecurity space” and it has just “won a hefty $39.5 million jury verdict (PDF) on Tuesday, when a San Jose jury found that Blue Coat Systems infringed five of its patents.”
Keep an eye on Finjan, not just because of its Microsoft connections. Finjan has become a very malicious company. It deserves to go out of business. The sooner, the better.
Cisco
Cisco, now known for its surveillance and back doors (which is even openly discusses when applying for standards), is receiving negative publicly because as its profits run dry (or more meager), it increasingly turns into more of a troll, just like Microsoft and Apple. Is this what Cisco wants to be renowned (or notorious) for? Remember that TrollTracker, a fighter against patent trolls. was a Cisco lawyer, but Cisco is now turning into what it fought. Arista, according to this article, says that Cisco is “Very Much Like a Patent Troll” (that’s the headline) and it’s coming all the way from the top. To quote the article, “Arista’s top lawyer used the company’s earnings call for trash-talk Thursday, saying Cisco is “behaving very much like a patent troll” in its intellectual property lawsuit against Arista.
“Arista Networks Inc. CEO Jayshree Ullal kicked off the badmouthing: “Despite all the overheated rhetoric we’ve been hearing from Cisco blogs about Arista’s brazen copying, we think the only thing brazen about the suit is the extreme length Cisco has gone to,” she said. “Our customers have shown unwavering support.”
“Cisco has basically become another very malicious company, if not for colluding with espionage agencies, then for bulling/attacking rivals using patents.”“Arista Vice President and General Counsel Marc Taxay agreed. “Ironically … it appears to us at any rate that Cisco is behaving very much like a patent troll, which is pretty much what they’ve spent the last decade condemning.” Cisco is claiming patents for widely implemented features and functionality that exist on a broad range of switches today, and some of the patents affect features the patents were never intended to cover, Taxay said.”
The Wall Street Journal, taking note of “expensive legal battle with Cisco”, also expresses concerns about this case. “That may give some investors pause,” the author claims, “especially when Arista remains embroiled in an expensive legal battle with Cisco, which has accused it of infringing on patents.”
Cisco has basically become another very malicious company, if not for colluding with espionage agencies, then for bulling/attacking rivals using patents. Cisco used to be on the defensive, but now it’s on the ofsensive, and not against trolls. For a company that is eager to be seen as a FOSS and GNU/Linux supporter, this surely is a dumb strategy whose gains — if any — are massively outweighed by public image erosion.
JDate
A new article from Timothy B. Lee helps chastise the bully called JDate, which we wrote about very recently. “JDate,” he explains, “recently sued JSwipe, a mobile dating app for Jews that works like Tinder. Most media coverage has focused on mocking JDate for essentially claiming that it has a monopoly on certain uses of the letter J.
“But in some ways, the part of JDate’s lawsuit that really merits mockery is the patent infringement claims. JDate is suing JSwipe for infringing a broad patent that essentially claims the concept of using a computer to match pairs of users who express interest in each other. The lawsuit illustrates the continuing need for patent reform, because the current system makes it too expensive for defendants to challenge dubious patents.”
There are some interesting comments about JDate here. Although this Web site only targets a small niche, we strongly encourage all readers to boycott JDate, or else they’ll continue their shameful bullying, perhaps inspiring other companies to do the same.
The Economist Versus Patents
The Economist, interestingly and surprisingly enough (given its strong pro-business bias), chastises the patents regime in at least two articles this month. One is titled “A question of utility” and says in its summary: “Patents are protected by governments because they are held to promote innovation. But there is plenty of evidence that they do not” (we have covered such evidence for almost a decade).
“The ability to patent,” says the author, “has been extended from physical devices to software and stretches of DNA, not to mention—notably in America—to business processes and financial products.”
Yes, patent scope is a huge part of the problem.
“Time to fix patents” is the second such article from The Economist and it too is an assault on the status quo. “Ideas fuel the economy. Today’s patent systems are a rotten way of rewarding them,” said the summary.
Here is a key part of this article: “Patents are supposed to spread knowledge, by obliging holders to lay out their innovation for all to see; they often fail, because patent-lawyers are masters of obfuscation. Instead, the system has created a parasitic ecology of trolls and defensive patent-holders, who aim to block innovation, or at least to stand in its way unless they can grab a share of the spoils. An early study found that newcomers to the semiconductor business had to buy licences from incumbents for as much as $200m. Patents should spur bursts of innovation; instead, they are used to lock in incumbents’ advantages.”
It is nice to see even The Economist debunking these tiresome myths, many of which still perpetually spread by patent profiteers rather than producing companies. Are we on the cusp of a mindset change?
Patent Propaganda From Lawyers’ Sites
Lawyers’ media, seeking to maximise dependence on patent lawyers, promotes patents on construction in this series that starts with the following paragraph: “In the first of this three part series, clean tech, or green construction, was defined as construction that reduces or minimizes the environmental impact in building construction, operation and use. That article also discussed the importance of building intellectual property walls, and especially with patents, to protect inventions from being incorporated into projects by unlicensed users. Equally important is knowing the patents that may prevent a company from incorporating patented technology for which it has no license. Patent rights can shape an industry; consequently, companies must develop patent strategies. Patents for green construction encompass everything from building materials, to software for optimizing various processes, to green energy systems, amongst others.”
Yes, they even suggest software patents right there.
“The US may not have a world class patent system,” say the patent maximalists of IAM, “but its professionals are second to none” (for taxing by lawyers perhaps). Another site of patent lawyers who lobby for a lot of ludicrous types of patents (including software) pretends that patents take a short time to receive, despite that infamous backlog and these notorious issues which can only be tackled by lowing examination standards, hence granting bogus patents (trivial, and/or with prior art).
“Intellectual property & intangible assets” is the headline of this British article which is so full of nonsense that we don’t know where to start. To quote one part of it: “Newton says the real value in business these days is in knowledge, which is tied up in intellectual property, patents, trademarks and designs.”
That’s nonsense. The term “intellectual property” refers to patents, trademarks, and copyrights, so it cannot be separated as above. Then there are designs, which are already (in most domains) covered by copyrights and if the author wishes to speak about trade secrets, that’s different from all the above and still pertains to knowledge, without having to introduce that vague notion of “intellectual property” and “intangible assets” — both horrible propaganda terms that equate ideas with objects.
“Patent scope has been getting so much worse over time, to the point where abstract concepts like business methods, algorithms, and even basic designs become patents although copyright should definitely suffice.”The article titled “9 Tech Startups Disrupting the Legal Industry” talks about proprietary software that patent lawyers use to keep track of their work. “Experts say the market for legal technology is as much as $400 billion,” the article says, but there is nothing like a citation to support such a figure.
“We hear the same complaints over and over every time Congress tries to improve the patent system,” Matt Levy wrote the other day. “In fact, we’ve been hearing some of them for over 70 years.” Patent scope has been getting so much worse over time, to the point where abstract concepts like business methods, algorithms, and even basic designs become patents although copyright should definitely suffice.
Design Patents and Linux Gadgets
Speaking of design patents, watch what patent maximalists celebrated this weekend: “The text cluster provided here shows that much of Hasbro’s portfolio of 1,772 patents (339 of which are active) are related to toy vehicles, electronic games and ornamental designs, indicating a fair amount of design patents.”
The notion of “design patents” has got to be one of the most loathsome and ridiculous. The article “Apple v. Samsung and a Fight Over the Patents for Designs” was published by Forbes the other day, reminding us of so-called design patents (such as the widely-ridiculed 'rounded corners' patents). Apple is very desperate to stop Android (and by extension Linux), but doing so by bullying with outright bogus patents isn’t the way to compete. CPTN members (i.e. holders of Novell’s patents) Oracle, Apple and Microsoft have been systematically attacking Android using patents and Oracle now takes this further. “Oracle’s lawsuit against Google over Java copyrights probably won’t be back in a courtroom again until next year,” wrote The Register, “but in the meantime, Oracle has asked the court to let it expand the scope of its complaint to include events that have occurred since it was first filed in 2010.”
This forever-legal-limbo scenario helps hurt Android, so we cannot just pretend that software patents are not a problem. More FOSS and GNU/Linux site must learn to address these issues as a matter of priority. Not enough are doing this at the moment and it definitely helps our foes. Many people seem to forget that Microsoft still attacks GNU/Linux using patents (albeit more discreetly than before). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA