01.21.21

How a Newly Inaugurated President Biden Can Advance Software Freedom (If He Actually Wishes to Do So)

Posted in Antitrust, Free/Libre Software, Microsoft, Security at 10:58 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Spoiler: Biden does not actually care about users’ and developers’ freedom; he’ll promote monopolies like Trump and Obama did.

President Biden/Crazy Ass Biden Bug-Eyed Clinton: I... don't even think about it!

Summary: Techrights has ‘Four Suggestions’ to President Biden, the 46th ‘front end’ of American plutocracy

All those Biden images or memes should not be mistaken for — or wrongly seen as — “pro-Trump”; as we've stressed all along (even before the election), the American public was, in effect, left with no choice on the most important issues (War, Wall Street, World Climate… or WWW for short). People voted for what they perceived to be a “lesser evil”.

“Let’s see if the ‘Four Suggestions’ can be fulfilled, either in full or just partly.”That said and done, we’re gratified to know that the name “Trump” won’t be mentioned here much anymore. Let’s focus on the situation we’re in and seek to make the most out of it. Mr. Biden (now President Biden) is a close friend (kinship and personal friendship) of many who strongly oppose software freedom. We named some of these people last year.

Here are our suggestions for Biden (not that he’s going to read this blog, but let’s use that as a reference for a hypothetical ‘scorecard’):

  • Suggestion #0: Appoint a chief at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) who respects and upholds 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on Alice (SCOTUS). That chief can be someone like Andrei Iancu‘s predecessor, albeit it’s better if that chief did not come from Google or IBM (like David Kappos did). Iancu resigned a day or two before inauguration, along with his troll deputy, so there are vacancies.
  • Suggestion #1: Initiate antitrust proceedings against Microsoft. There are many antitrust violations to choose from, including the basis of the GitHub takeover.
  • Suggestion #2: Choose Free software for all public infrastructure. Almost all the recent ‘hacking’ (cracking) incidents were the fault of proprietary software, often Microsoft’s (with NSA back doors which inevitably become everyone’s back doors).
  • Suggestion #3: Provide stimulus to Free software developers instead of stimulus to the crooks mentioned in Suggestion #1. Microsoft does not deserve billions of dollars in ‘gifts’ from the taxpayers; Free software developers would make much better use of that money and give back to the public.

Let’s see if the ‘Four Suggestions’ can be fulfilled, either in full or just partly. Any of the above would be very nice indeed.

10.25.20

How Microsoft is Still Worse Than Google

Posted in Antitrust, Bill Gates, Microsoft at 4:17 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Google at least publishes extensions

Source PDF [PDF]

I have decided that we should not publish these extensions. We should wait until we have a way to do a high level of integration that will be harder for the likes of Notes, Wordperfect to achieve, and which will give Office a real advantage.

I have decided that we should not publish these extensions.

Summary: “I have decided that we should not publish these extensions. We should wait until we have a way to do a high level of integration that will be harder for the likes of Notes, Wordperfect to achieve, and which will give Office a real advantage.”

‘President Bill Gates’ Wants to Punish Not Only Google After Using “Extensions” to the Web to Reinforce Microsoft’s Monopoly (Antitrust Violations Are a Microsoft Thing)

Posted in Antitrust, Google, Microsoft at 3:23 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The latest “Bill says” puff piece — in a spectacular reversal of narratives — frames the biggest culprit as the biggest authority

Antitrus and Gates

President Bill? Attorney General Bill? Have satirical reversals become reality? The author of that piece is a longtime Microsoft booster, a bit like a PR “extension” inside the media.

“Another suggestion In this mail was that we can’t make our own unilateral extensions to HTML I was going to say this was wrong and correct this also.”

Bill Gates [PDF]

Another suggestion In this mail was that we can’t make our own unilateral extensions to HTML I was going to say this was wrong and correct this also.

Summary: In gross distortion of facts and of history and in a rather incredible fashion (very shameless and insulting) the corporate media tries to paint Bill Gates as an antitrust hero that will save the world from monopolies

THE FOLLOWING bits from the Bill Gates deposition are worth highlighting, seeing that a lot of people accuse Google of doing things that Microsoft was — and still is — more culpable of (as GitHub is pushing more proprietary 'extensions').

The “Q” is Boies (interrogator), “A” is Bill Gates (almost lawyer but a college dropout who says he's no lawyer), and Mr. Heiner is Bill Gates’ lawyer:



20 Q. Let me ask you to look next at an
21 exhibit marked Government Exhibit 392. The second
22 item here purports to be a message from you to Paul
23 Maritz and Brad Silverberg with copies to a number of
24 other people dated January 28, 1997, at 10:34 a.m.
25 Do you see that?
634





1 A. Yes.
2 (The document referred to was marked
3 by the court reporter as Government Exhibit 392 for
4 identification and is attached hereto.)
5 Q. BY MR. BOIES: Did you send this
6 message to Mr. Maritz and Mr. Silverberg and others
7 on or about January 28, 1997?
8 A. I don't remember doing so, but I have
9 no reason to doubt that I did.
10 Q. You say that there has been -- the
11 beginning of the document, the very beginning of the
12 document you say, "There has recently been an
13 exchange on e-mail with people in the Office group
14 about Office and HTML. In one piece of mail people
15 were suggesting that Office had to work equally well
16 with all browsers and that we shouldn't force Office
17 users to use our browser. This is wrong and I wanted
18 to correct this."
19 Do you see that?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Did you send that message to Mr. Maritz
22 and Mr. Silverberg and others in or about January of
23 1997?
24 A. You already asked that and I told you I
25 don't remember sending it.
635





1 Q. Did you convey the substance of what is
2 here to Mr. Maritz and Mr. Silverberg in or about
3 January of 1997?
4 A. I don't know the time frame, but there
5 was a question for very advanced features in Office
6 that had to do with the fact that older browsers,
7 including our own older browsers, couldn't display
8 the information and should we therefore display it to
9 no one or what should we do about advance display
10 semantics. And I know in that case the issue came up
11 about should we support the advanced display
12 semantics at all.
13 Q. Is it your testimony, Mr. Gates, that
14 that is what you were talking about here?
15 A. Absolutely. That's what this
16 message -- I mean if you read it, that's what it is
17 about.
18 Q. This is a message that you don't recall
19 sending; is that correct?
20 A. I've read it today, but I don't recall
21 sending it, that's right.
22 Q. But what you're doing is you're
23 testifying under oath that when you say that you
24 should force Office users to use Microsoft's browser,
25 you were talking about what you just described; is
636





1 that your testimony?
2 A. I don't see that in the message.
3 Q. Well, you're saying here that Microsoft
4 should force Office users to use Microsoft's browser,
5 are you not, sir?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Well, sir, you say "In one piece of
8 mail people were suggesting that Office had to work
9 equally well with all browsers and that we shouldn't
10 force Office users to use our browser. This is wrong
11 and I wanted to correct this."
12 Is it your testimony under oath that
13 you are not saying that the assertion that you had
14 heard that Microsoft shouldn't force Office users to
15 use Microsoft's browser was wrong?
16 A. There's a sentence there that talks
17 about whether Office has to work equally well with
18 all browsers and because I'm talking about Trident
19 here, Trident was a set of technologies we were doing
20 to extend things so that you could work with Office
21 documents that are very rich documents in a new way
22 that no previous browser, including our own previous
23 browsers, was willing to display. And there was a
24 question of whether they should take advantage of
25 those Trident things or not. Some people were
637





1 questioning whether we should take advantage of those
2 Trident things and here I'm making very clear, and
3 all you have to do is read the complete e-mail, I'm
4 saying we should go ahead and take advantage of those
5 Trident things. Now, that is very different than
6 saying people are forced to use any browser. It's
7 just if you want the best experience in terms of
8 seeing those rich documents, what we're doing in
9 Trident I thought we should take advantage of.
10 Q. Now, sir, is it your testimony sitting
11 here under oath that when in the language that I have
12 quoted you wrote "This is wrong and I wanted to
13 correct this" relating to the previous sentence,
14 which had said "In one piece of mail people were
15 suggesting that Office had to work equally well with
16 all browsers and we shouldn't force Office users to
17 use our browser," you were talking about Trident? Is
18 that your testimony?
19 A. Well, I think you've mischaracterized
20 my testimony.
21 Q. All I'm asking is whether that is your
22 testimony. If you tell me that's not your testimony,
23 we go on. Is that what you're telling me, sir?
24 A. Are you trying to characterize my
25 previous testimony?
638





1 Q. I was trying to see whether we
2 understood your previous testimony.
3 A. Your characterization was wrong.
4 Q. Okay. In the second paragraph of this
5 exhibit you write "In one piece of mail people were
6 suggesting that Office had to work equally well with
7 all browsers and that we shouldn't force Office users
8 to use our browser. This is wrong and I wanted to
9 correct this." Does that statement relate to
10 Trident, sir?
11 A. I explained how it relates to Trident.
12 Q. So your answer is that that relates to
13 Trident; is that your testimony?
14 A. In order to know that, I read the
15 entire piece of e-mail and upon reading it, I know
16 that what that relates to is whether we should
17 exploit the advanced features of Trident so that
18 Office works particularly well with the new browser
19 from us with those Trident features.
20 Q. Mr. Gates, isn't it clear that the
21 discussion at the end of the memo about Trident is
22 about a different point than the point we've been
23 talking about?
24 A. Absolutely not.
25 Q. Well, sir, immediately after the
639





1 paragraph we've been talking about don't you write,
2 "Another suggestion in this mail was that we can't
3 make our own unilateral extensions to HTML. I was
4 going to say this was wrong and correct this also."
5 And then you go on to talk about Trident. Isn't that
6 what you wrote here?
7 A. I think you've correctly read some of
8 the words in the e-mail. We could go on and read
9 more of the words so you could understand why what
10 I've told you is correct.
11 Q. Is there anything in here that asserts
12 that forcing Office users to use Microsoft's browser
13 is limited to the Trident situation?
14 A. It's clearly about whether Office
15 should exploit HTML that takes advantage of Trident
16 and whether that's a good idea or not. That's what
17 this piece of e-mail is about.
18 Q. If that's all it's about, Mr. Gates,
19 why do you introduce the Trident discussion by saying
20 "Another suggestion in this mail is that we can't
21 make our own unilateral extensions to HTML. I was
22 going to say this was wrong and correct this also"?
23 Aren't you clearly saying this is an additional
24 point?
25 A. No. You're just trying to misread my
640





1 e-mail. It talks about Office.
2 Q. Yes, it certainly does talk about
3 Office. And it talks about forcing Office users to
4 use your browser; correct, sir?
5 A. No.
6 Q. It doesn't? When you say that somebody
7 is saying -- that you've seen an e-mail of people
8 saying "we shouldn't force Office users to use our
9 browser" and that this is wrong, you're not saying
10 that you should use Office to force users to use your
11 browser; is that what you're saying?
12 A. That was the most circular thing I've
13 ever heard.
14 Q. I think it was pretty circular
15 because --
16 A. You continue to not read the sentence
17 and look at the piece of e-mail. The question in
18 this e-mail is whether Office should work equally
19 well with all browsers. And it's talking about --
20 Q. Now, sir --
21 A. If you want to look further to
22 understand it --
23 Q. How about let me put a question.
24 MR. HEINER: Let me --
25 MR. BOIES: May I ask the witness what
641





1 question is he answering?
2 MR. HEINER: Whatever the last question
3 that was posed.
4 MR. BOIES: I want to know if he knows
5 what question he is answering.
6 THE WITNESS: Can you read back the
7 question?
8 Q. BY MR. BOIES: No. Can you tell me,
9 Mr. Gates, what question you're purporting to answer?
10 A. Your last question.
11 Q. Do you know what it is?
12 A. Could I make it as convoluted as you
13 did? No.
14 Q. Can you tell me what question you're
15 answering?
16 A. I can't repeat back that convoluted a
17 question. I could ask the reporter to.
18 Q. Can you tell me the substance of the
19 question you're answering?
20 MR. HEINER: Mr. Boies, pose the next
21 question.
22 MR. BOIES: Okay.
23 MR. HEINER: Let me suggest one. Ask
24 him about the first sentence, which is the subject
25 matter being introduced.
642





1 Q. BY MR. BOIES: Okay. Actually, I've
2 read the first sentence, but I'll read it again. The
3 first sentence, which is one paragraph, says "There
4 has recently been an exchange on e-mail with people
5 in the Office group about Office and HTML."
6 Second paragraph says "In one piece of
7 mail people were suggesting that Office had to work
8 equally well with all browsers and that we shouldn't
9 force Office users to use our browser. This is wrong
10 and I wanted to correct this."
11 Third paragraph says "Another
12 suggestion in this mail was that we can't make our
13 own unilateral extensions to HTML. I was going to
14 say this was wrong and correct this also."
15 Now, have I read correctly the first
16 three paragraphs of this memo, Mr. Gates?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And is it your testimony that when you
19 said that the e-mail suggesting that Office had to
20 work equally well with all browsers and that
21 Microsoft shouldn't force Office users to use
22 Microsoft's browser was wrong, that all you were
23 talking about there was Trident; is that your
24 testimony?
25 A. I'm not sure what you mean all I was
643





1 talking about. This e-mail is about Office and HTML.
2 Q. Yes.
3 A. There is a new extension to HTML being
4 created in Trident. There was a question of whether
5 Office could take advantage of it, which meant that
6 it would take advantage of those new browsers in a
7 better way than it would take advantage of our old
8 browsers or other people's browsers without those
9 extensions. I was suggesting here, and it's totally
10 a mischaracterization to suggest that that third
11 paragraph isn't totally in line with it, that we
12 should take advantage of those Trident HTML
13 extensions and, therefore, Office documents would
14 look better, at least for those users.
15 Q. And is it your testimony -- and all I'm
16 trying to do is clarify your testimony, Mr. Gates,
17 because once the testimony is done, then the trier of
18 fact can decide what credibility to give it. All I'm
19 trying to do is identify it. And you have said that
20 the extensions to HTML relates to Trident; correct?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Now, what I'm trying to find out is
23 whether these extensions to HTML that relate to
24 Trident is also the only point of your statement that
25 you should force Office users to use your browser?
644





1 A. That's a sentence fragment here. What
2 people were saying was if we took unique advantage of
3 Trident, wouldn't people feel like they needed to
4 upgrade to Trident. And I said, hey, if that's the
5 only way they can see the advanced document
6 capability, then fine.
7 Q. Mr. Gates, I mean that's not what this
8 e-mail says.
9 A. We certainly know what the e-mail says.
10 Q. Yes, exactly. And I don't mean to be
11 disrespectful here, but aren't you doing what we
12 talked about before here, just trying to substitute
13 different words for the words that you actually wrote
14 that you think will sound better in the context of
15 this litigation?
16 A. I've explained to you what this e-mail
17 is about. You don't seem to like the facts.
18 Q. Mr. Gates, my question, and if the
19 answer is yes or no or I don't understand your
20 question, you can give me that testimony. But is the
21 explanation that you're giving me now of this
22 document an explanation where you're trying to use
23 words differently now because of the litigation than
24 you used them back in 1997?
25 A. No.
645





1 Q. Not at all, sir?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Do you feel more uncomfortable
4 admitting in a deposition in this case that you were
5 trying to force Office users to use your browser than
6 you did back in January of 1997?
7 A. You're mischaracterizing the e-mail.
8 Q. Well, let me ask you a question
9 independent of the e-mail.
10 Do you feel more uncomfortable with the
11 characterization that Microsoft is forcing Office
12 users to use Microsoft's browser today than you did
13 back in January, 1997?
14 A. I've never been comfortable with
15 lawyers mischaracterizing the truth.
16 Q. Well, Mr. Gates, could I have my
17 question answered?
18 A. I answered it.
19 MR. BOIES: Would you read the question
20 back, please.
21 (Record read.)
22 Q. BY MR. BOIES: Could I have an answer
23 to that question, sir?
24 MR. HEINER: Objection.
25 THE WITNESS: My view of lawyers
646





1 mischaracterizing something has not changed.
2 Q. BY MR. BOIES: Mr. Gates, I'm not
3 talking about your view of lawyers mischaracterizing
4 things. I'm talking about your view of the use of
5 language. You've got a document in here in which you
6 talk about forcing Office users to use your browser.
7 You say "In one piece of mail people were suggesting
8 that Office had to work equally well with all
9 browsers and we shouldn't force Office users to use
10 our browser." You go on to say to the top executives
11 of your company, "This is wrong."
12 Now, my simple question is whether
13 you're more concerned about the use of those words
14 today than you were back in January of 1997, whether
15 this litigation is influencing the care and
16 precision, if you want to put it that way, with which
17 you are determined to use words?
18 A. I'm not sure what I'm comparing to
19 what.
20 Q. Okay, let me try to be clear. In
21 January of 1997 you wrote this e-mail --
22 A. In total.
23 Q. In total. And at the time you wrote
24 this e-mail, you didn't have any expectations it was
25 going to show up in this litigation, did you?
647





1 A. I'm not sure what you mean by that.
2 Q. What I mean is you thought this was a
3 private e-mail. You thought you were writing to your
4 executives and you didn't think anybody outside the
5 company was going to review this and do what I'm
6 doing now, which is asking you questions about it,
7 right?
8 A. Oh, I think the general notion that any
9 e-mail I write might be reviewed at some point is one
10 that I've understood certainly since 1990.
11 Q. So it is your testimony that taking
12 this e-mail in its entirety, that you today are
13 entirely comfortable that the memo, the e-mail in its
14 entirety, is a fair and accurate statement of your
15 views; is that correct?
16 A. If somebody takes the trouble to
17 understand it, yes.
18 Q. That is, if somebody reads this
19 document all the way through, takes the trouble to
20 figure out what is here, you say that's a fair and
21 accurate statement of your views; correct?
22 A. Views on what?
23 Q. Views on the things that you're talking
24 about in the memo.
25 Let me try to approach it a different
648





1 way. Sometimes when people write things after the
2 fact, they say "I wish I hadn't written it that way,
3 that just isn't accurate." Or "I overstated it," or
4 "I got it wrong." Are you saying that about this
5 document?
6 A. I guess I can say that if I realized
7 how you might misinterpret the thing, I would have
8 put a little footnote in here for you to help make
9 sure you didn't misinterpret it.
10 Q. And that's because you think that what
11 I'm doing, as you've said before, is
12 mischaracterizing what's here; correct?
13 A. Several of your questions I believe
14 have mischaracterized it.
15 Q. Now, suppose, Mr. Gates, that you have
16 to worry not about what I think about this memo,
17 which is really irrelevant, but only about what the
18 trier of fact thinks about this memo. Assume that a
19 neutral trier of fact is going to look at this memo
20 in a fair and balanced way. Would you say to that
21 neutral trier of fact "I really shouldn't have
22 written this. This really doesn't reflect my views.
23 I made a mistake"? Or would you say "If you read the
24 whole thing and read it fairly, that's what I
25 believe"?
649





1 A. If they understood what it was about, I
2 wouldn't feel any need to amend or change it.
3 Q. Okay, sir, that's -- I mean on that
4 basis, I think we can leave it to the trier of fact
5 to determine what it means. Because I think the one
6 thing -- you believe this memo is clear, don't you?
7 A. I don't know what you mean by that.
8 You've made it clear that somebody can misinterpret
9 this memo. Whether that is being done maliciously or
10 not, I don't know. So now I understand that somebody
11 who doesn't understand the subject matter of the memo
12 can misinterpret it. In particular you can
13 misinterpret what is meant there.
14 Q. Well, you've told us that extensions to
15 HTML that you are referring to here were the Trident
16 extensions, haven't you, sir? That's what you've
17 said?
18 A. And general principals about HTML
19 extensions, yes.
20 MR. HEINER: Will the Antitrust
21 Division of the United States, when it tries this
22 case, present information to the trier of fact so
23 that the trier of fact understands what HTML is, what
24 Trident is and so forth, or will it present snippets
25 and fragments as it did in the fall in the consent
650





1 decree case?
2 MR. BOIES: I believe the trier of fact
3 will have this entire document and we will ask the
4 trier of fact to read this entire document and we
5 will present to the trier of fact -- and if we don't,
6 you will -- everything that either of us can think of
7 that relates to the subject matter of this.
8 One of the things about a trial is we
9 both get our shot and if you think there is anything
10 that you can say to the trier of fact that will get
11 the trier of fact to interpret this differently than
12 I have, take your best shot.
13 MR. HEINER: All I'm saying is that
14 even the plaintiff in an action has an obligation as
15 an officer of the court to present facts in a summary
16 judgment motion, in a complaint, in a motion for
17 preliminary injunction or at the trial so that the
18 court can understand the full set of facts.
19 MR. BOIES: We will continue to do
20 that.

Notice how evasive Gates is — to the point of trying to attack the interrogator himself (signs of Hubris).

10.21.20

Ways and Means to Reduce One’s Dependency on Google’s Various Monopolies and Near-Monopolies

Posted in Antitrust, Free/Libre Software, Google, GPL, Microsoft, Servers at 10:35 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

LibertyBits 2019 - 18 - Richard Stallman - Mass Surveillance
Richard Stallman just weeks before he was pushed out of his office to help MIT save face

Summary: Getting rid of Google means a lot more than embracing DumbDumbGo (DDG) or some other sites that spy just like Google; we’re taking stock of some options

THE legal action against Google wasn’t misguided. It was likely selective, however, guided in part by Microsoft lobbyists (years in the making). Putting Microsoft’s role aside, Google is a problem. Monopolies are a problem. Market dominance reduces the incentive to improve and can harm people in a variety of ways.

Maybe by mere coincidence, only hours before the lawsuit was unveiled Planet OpenSUSE had this post entitled “Migrating away from Google services” (we’ll come back to it later).

“One popular alternative to Google or rather a YouTube sieve (offering the same material sans the surveillance and ads) recently shut down.”Now, let’s consider practical solutions to the Google problem. Monopolies like YouTube for instance…

Yesterday Debian announced its “donation for Peertube development,” noting that “[t]his year’s iteration of the Debian annual conference, DebConf20, had to be held online, and while being a resounding success, it made clear to the project our need to have a permanent live streaming infrastructure for small events held by local Debian groups. As such, Peertube, a FLOSS video hosting platform, seems to be the perfect solution for us.”

One popular alternative to Google or rather a YouTube sieve (offering the same material sans the surveillance and ads) recently shut down. APIs and lawyers had also similarly killed Scroogle (not to be mistaken for Microsoft’s rogue AstroTurfing campaign). We’re talking about invidio.us here, being a YouTube alternative. But it was Free software-based (GNU Affero General Public License, version 3.0), so other instances of it still exist. It should be noted that some are unsavoury and are linked to bad people, some are not.

yewtu.be is one alternative of interest — at least until Google’s lawyers shut it down using threats. In yewtu.be one can escape annoying Google ads, spying (JavaScript) and spurious pop-ups urging viewers to “log in” (it got a lot worse recently). yewtu.be also supports embedding videos, searching (however limited, better insert direct YouTube URLs into the search box as a starting point).

Scroogle screenshotRegarding search, the decentralised approach works better because Startpage turned into a scam; along with other so-called ‘private’ search engines it was quietly passed into the claws of surveillance giants. The same is true for DumbDumbGo (DDG), where many people still dumbly go to spew/infuse personal information (because of empty promises and plenty of misleading marketing campaigns). SearX instances keep going up and down, but the one which nowadays works reliably (and has worked for months) is searx.feneas.org (not recommended on the basis of deep research into how they handle their data).

Google News is a near-monopoly when it comes to indexing news in (almost) real-time. I’ve never managed to find a solid and reliable alternative to it. Google News isn’t consistent either (more and more spammy results in it over time), so I rely on it a lot less. Google News is pretty much the only Google service I cannot fully get rid of.

Apparently many people out there still rely a great deal on Blogspot, GMail and various other non-essential ‘services’ (to which plenty of good alternatives exist). People who can’t figure out how to get rid of Blogspot and GMail are probably a ‘lost cause’ when it comes to ridding them of Google. Seriously, how hard can it be to just open an E-mail account somewhere like GMX or ProtonMail? Then telling people, over time, about the new address? I myself haven’t had such issues since 2003 when I registered my own domain and managed all my mail there (about 20 E-mail accounts to separate the wheat from spam/chaff, mostly with aliases).

Going back to the post from Planet OpenSUSE, it says this:

My inbox tells me I started using GMail around 2004. The oldest mail I can find in my archive is from 16 years ago. After Gmail, Google Photos, Keep, Docs, Drive and Fit followed.

I have reasons to stop. Whether your reasons are privacy, the U.S. as a data harbor, GMail becoming sluggish, karma for killing Inbox, fear about getting your account locked, or you found a better email provider, the objective of this post is not to convince you about my reasons but to help you with a migration plan and showing you alternatives.

Breaking the dependency on Google services is really hard. This dependency was a showstopper and motivator at the same time. If you are locked-in at this level, something is wrong.

This is correct. Take time and invest effort to become technically and technologically independent, or at least less prone to abuse (censorship, surveillance and so on).

Google isn’t the most harmful company to us GNU/Linux/BSD users who value software freedom. But Google poses a great threat to privacy — probably a more potent and long-lasting threat (in that particular domain/aspect) than Microsoft ever will.

Like we’ve said countless times before, getting rid of Microsoft isn’t enough. If we get rid of one brand only to be abused by another, then we’re simply not aiming correctly. To a lot of people out there, their ‘activism’ (or principle) boils down to “I’ll swap Microsoft with Apple” (basically defecting between brands). Right now in Manchester they have a massive marketing campaign (billboards and all) associating iPhone with “privacy”; we always get a kick out of it, as if iPhone users covering their faces with a tracking device (with microphone and multiple cameras, not to mention back doors) is “privacy”… Apple is just ‘pulling a DumbDumbGo’.

Image credit: By Ewald, Fair use

[Meme] US Department of Justice Should Have Taken on Microsoft Again, Not Google

Posted in Antitrust, Google, Microsoft at 3:41 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Mike Rowe versus Mike Rowe soft: has to get pc with windows on it, says google is worse because you must use google?

Summary: When lobbying, connections and political sway determine the actions of the American government it’s hardly surprising that Bill Gates gets the Trump administration to fight for him (to make him even richer)

“Some of the possible anti-trust remedies against Alphabet / Google include cessation of payments to rivals for making Google the default search engine. That would pull the plug on Mozilla’s non-coding festivities and maybe kill the whole project, not just the cruft,” an associate has told us this morning.

10.20.20

Bill Gates: “I’m Not a Lawyer” (He Dropped Out of College, Where He Studied Law Before and After Breaking the Law Chronically)

Posted in Antitrust, Bill Gates, Deception, Hardware, Law, Microsoft at 8:48 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Wikipedia on IANAL

Summary: How Microsoft blackmailed other companies into supporting nothing but Microsoft and Windows; Bill Gates repeatedly lied to the interrogators about it, then said “I’m not a lawyer” (IANAL) even though he went to college to become one, just like his father who died last month

THE Bill Gates deposition contained the following bit, which in retrospect sheds a lot of light on current affairs.

How so? Read on: (we’ve also highlighted the “I’m not a lawyer” part and it’s mostly about Intel)


1 Q Did you ask Intel to keep you apprised
2 of what software work Intel was doing?
3 A I think I made that request in vein on
4 several occasions, nothing ever came of it.
5 Q Is it your testimony that they refused
6 to keep you apprised of the software work they were
7 doing?
8 A No. I just said to them that if they
9 would -- whatever software work they were doing that
10 was intended to help Windows, they should talk to us
11 about it early on if they wanted to have the highest
12 probability that it would, in fact, achieve that
13 goal.
14 And unfortunately, we never achieved
15 that result; that is, they would do things related to
16 Windows that without talking to us in advance, and
17 then once they had done the work, there would be some
18 incompatibilities between what they had done and
19 Windows itself.
20 Q When is the last time that you asked
21 Intel to keep you apprised of what software work they
22 were doing?
23 A I'm not sure.
24 Q Approximately when?
25 A I don't know.
485





1 Q Was it within the last year?
2 A I don't know.
3 Q Was it within the last two years?
4 A I honestly don't know.
5 Q Was it within the last three years?
6 A There's probably one instance where I
7 asked them to tell us about things they were doing
8 related to Windows.
9 Q Did you or others, to your knowledge,
10 from Microsoft tell Intel that if Intel began to
11 compete with Microsoft, Microsoft would be forced to
12 begin to compete with Intel?
13 A No.
14 Q Not at all, sir; never said that in
15 words or in substance?
16 A No.
17 Q To your knowledge did anyone else from
18 Microsoft ever say that?
19 A I'm not aware of anybody saying that.
20 Q If anybody had said that, would you
21 consider that to be inconsistent with company policy?
22 MR. HEINER: Objection.
23 THE WITNESS: I'm confused. Intel and
24 Microsoft are not in the same businesses, so there's
25 no policy about one of our people suggesting that
486





1 we're going to go into the chip business.
2 Q BY MR. BOIES: Was it part of what you
3 wanted to accomplish, Mr. Gates, to be to keep Intel
4 and Microsoft in separate businesses?
5 A No.
6 Q Did you ever take any action intended
7 to accomplish that?
8 A No.
9 Q Did you or, to your knowledge, anyone
10 from Microsoft ever tell people at Intel that
11 Microsoft would hold up support for Intel's
12 microprocessors if Intel didn't cooperate with
13 Microsoft in areas that Microsoft wanted Intel's
14 cooperation in?
15 A When we saw Intel doing the low quality
16 work that was creating incompatibilities in Windows
17 that served absolutely no Intel goal, we suggested to
18 Intel that that should change. And it became
19 frustrating to us because it was a long period of
20 time where they kept doing work that we thought,
21 although it was intended to be positive in the
22 Windows environment, it was actually negative. And
23 we did point out the irony of how while we seemed to
24 communicate with them on microprocessor issues and
25 yet they seemed on the areas where they were trying
487





1 to enhance Windows that the communication worked very
2 poorly.
3 Q Did you or others on behalf of
4 Microsoft tell Intel that Microsoft would hold up
5 support for Intel's microprocessors if Intel did not
6 cooperate with Microsoft?
7 A No.
8 Q No one ever told Intel that, to your
9 knowledge?
10 A That's right.
11 Q Let me see if I can refresh your
12 recollection.
13 Did you or anyone from Microsoft ever
14 tell Intel representatives that Microsoft would hold
15 up support for Intel's microprocessors if Intel
16 didn't cooperate with Microsoft on the Internet?
17 A No.
18 Q Did you or anyone from Microsoft ever
19 tell representatives of Intel that Intel would not
20 cooperate -- that if Intel would not cooperate with
21 Microsoft on communications programs, Microsoft would
22 hold up support for Intel's microprocessors?
23 A No.
24 Q Did you or to your knowledge anyone
25 from Microsoft ever tell Intel that you wanted Intel
488





1 to reduce its support of Netscape?
2 MR. HEINER: Objection.
3 THE WITNESS: It's very likely that our
4 sales force that calls on Intel as a software
5 customer talked to them about their web site and
6 their browsers. And they may have tried to convince
7 them to use our browser in terms of their internal
8 efforts. It's kind of a knit, but I think it's
9 possible.
10 Q Did you, Mr. Gates, ever yourself try
11 to get Intel to reduce its support of Netscape?
12 A I'm not aware of any work that Intel
13 did in supporting Netscape. They may have used their
14 browser internally or one of their server things, but
15 that's -- that's not really support. So I'm not sure
16 of any support they were giving to Netscape.
17 Q You may mean that to answer my
18 question, but I want to be clear.
19 It is your testimony that you're not
20 aware of any instance where you asked anybody at
21 Intel to reduce the support that Intel was providing
22 to Netscape; is that your testimony?
23 A No. I may have asked -- I may -- and I
24 don't remember it -- but I may have talked to them
25 about their internal browser use. I don't think so,
489





1 but I may have. And I may have talked to them about
2 their web servers and what they were using, but I
3 don't think so.
4 MR. HEINER: We would like to take one
5 last break here at some point, and we'll go through
6 until 4:00.
7 MR. BOIES: Okay.
8 MR. HEINER: Okay.
9 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 3:26.
10 We're going off the record.
11 (Recess.)
12 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The time is 3:36.
13 We're going back on the record.
14 Q BY MR. BOIES: Mr. Gates, you're
15 familiar with a company called RealNetworks, are you
16 not?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Did you ever have any discussions with
19 any representative of RealNetworks concerning what
20 products RealNetworks should or should not offer or
21 distribute?
22 A No.
23 Q Microsoft signed two contracts with
24 RealNetworks, did it not, sir?
25 A I have no idea. I thought it was one.
490





1 Q RealNetworks was previously called
2 Progressive Networks; correct, sir?
3 A Right.
4 Q In the contract or contracts, if there
5 was more than one, between Microsoft and
6 RealNetworks, was there any restriction on what
7 services RealNetworks could provide to competitors of
8 Microsoft?
9 A I've never looked at those contracts.
10 Q Did you participate at all in those
11 contracts either the negotiation of those contracts
12 or discussions concerning those contracts prior to
13 the time they were entered into?
14 A I knew that Muglia and Maritz were
15 talking with Progressive about some kind of deal, but
16 I didn't know what was in the deal.
17 Q Did you know anything about what was in
18 the deal?
19 A I knew there was an investment piece.
20 I knew there was some code licensing in it. That's
21 about all.
22 Q At the time that Microsoft was
23 negotiating the contract or contracts with
24 RealNetworks -- and I'll refer to it as RealNetworks
25 even though at the time it was referred to as
491





1 Progressive Networks -- did you consider that company
2 to be a competitor of Microsoft?
3 A Not -- I think I was confused about
4 what RealNetworks -- what their plans were, and I
5 wasn't sure if they were a competitor or not.
6 Q Was there a time when you did become
7 convinced that they were a competitor?
8 A Yes.
9 Q When was that?
10 A When Rob Glaser appeared in Washington,
11 D.C.
12 Q To testify before a Congressional
13 committee?
14 A Senate, yes.
15 Q What led you to conclude from
16 Mr. Glaser's testimony that RealNetworks was a
17 competitor of Microsoft?
18 A It was nothing in his testimony.
19 Q Why did you become convinced at the
20 time of his testimony that RealNetworks was a
21 competitor of Microsoft?
22 A Well, because he went out of his way to
23 lie about us, I sort of thought, "Hum, he must be a
24 competitor."
25 Q When you say he went out of his way to
492





1 lie about you, when was that?
2 A That was at the press interview
3 surrounding the testimony -- maybe the testimony
4 itself, I'm not sure. I've never seen a transcript.
5 Q Did you ever personally have a
6 conversation with Mr. Glaser about his business?
7 A A long, long time ago when Rob was just
8 getting started I think there was one meeting that I
9 had with Rob. I haven't met with him since then.
10 Q Was that meeting before or after the
11 contract between RealNetworks and Microsoft that you
12 say that you know about?
13 A If you mean the contract where we
14 invested in Progressive, it was years before it and
15 not at all related to it.
16 Q When was the contract in which you
17 invested in Progressive Networks or RealNetworks?
18 A I'm not sure. I'd guess it's about a
19 year ago.
20 Q Did you have a conversation with
21 Mr. Glaser a few days after that agreement was
22 signed?
23 A Now that you ask me that, maybe I did.
24 Maybe I did. I think we may have had a short
25 meeting.
493





1 Q And did you in that meeting tell
2 Mr. Glaser in words or in substance how you thought
3 he should limit his business?
4 A Absolutely not.
5 Q Not in any way, sir?
6 A Not in any way.
7 Q Did you tell him he ought to get out of
8 the base streaming media platform business?
9 A No.
10 Q Did anyone ever tell you that
11 Mr. Glaser had said he would get out of the base
12 streaming media platform business?
13 A No.
14 Q Did Mr. Maritz ever tell you that
15 Mr. Glaser's stated plan was that he would get out of
16 the base streaming media platform business?
17 A As far as I know, we didn't know what
18 Rob's plans were.
19 Q Did you ever try to find out what those
20 plans were, sir?
21 A No.
22 Q Were those plans important to you?
23 A To me personally? No.
24 Q Were they important to Microsoft?
25 A On a relative basis, I'd say no.
494





1 Q Well, I suppose on a relative basis a
2 business as big as Microsoft, I don't know what would
3 be important, but --
4 A I can tell you.
5 Q -- but on a non-relative basis?
6 A I can tell --
7 Q Yes. Tell me what would be important
8 to Microsoft on a relative basis.
9 A Improvements in Windows, improvements
10 in Office, breakthroughs in research, breakthroughs
11 in Back Office.
12 Q How about browsers? On a relative
13 basis would that be important -- was that important
14 to Microsoft?
15 A To the degree it relates to Windows,
16 yes.
17 Q What about Java or Java runtime? Was
18 that on a relative basis important to Microsoft?
19 A To the degree it related to Windows,
20 yes.
21 Q Let me ask you to look at a document
22 that we have marked Government Exhibit 379. This
23 purports to be an e-mail from Paul Maritz. You are
24 not shown on this as receiving a copy. The portion
25 I'm particularly interested in is the last full
495





1 paragraph that says, quote,
2 "Rob's stated plan is that
3 he will get out of the base streaming
4 media platform business, and focus on
5 higher level solutions, hosting, and
6 content aggregation, and says that
7 his goal is now to get us to get his
8 base technology as widespread as
9 possible," close quote.
10 Do you see that?
11 A Uh-huh.
12 (The document referred to was marked as
13 Government Exhibit 379 for identification and is
14 attached hereto.)
15 Q BY MR. BOIES: Did anyone ever tell
16 you, as Mr. Maritz writes here, that Mr. Glaser had
17 said that his stated plan was that he would get out
18 of the base streaming media platform business?
19 A No.
20 Q Did you or, to your knowledge, anyone
21 from Microsoft ever tell Mr. Glaser that he should
22 get out of the base streaming media platform
23 business?
24 A No.
25 Q Okay.
496





1 You are aware, are you not, sir, that
2 one of the issues in this case is the extent to which
3 operating systems and browsers are or are not
4 separate products?
5 MR. HEINER: Objection.
6 Mischaracterizes the allegations of the complaint, I
7 believe.
8 MR. BOIES: Well, if the witness tells
9 me that he doesn't think that's an issue in the case,
10 he can so tell me.
11 THE WITNESS: I'm not a lawyer, so I
12 think it's very strange for me to opine on what's an
13 issue in the case. As far as I know, the issues in
14 the case are not -- are something that you decide,
15 and I don't claim to have any expertise at all.
16 Q BY MR. BOIES: And if you don't know,
17 that's okay. But one of the things that I want to
18 understand from you is whether your understanding,
19 which is important to my next line of questions, is
20 that the issue of whether or not browsers are or are
21 not a separate product from the operating system is
22 in this case.
23 MR. HEINER: Objection. What operating
24 system? What browsers? You referred to "the
25 operating system."
497





1 MR. BOIES: You want me to stop. All
2 right. I --
3 MR. HEINER: No. I want you to ask the
4 question but with specific specificity.
5 MR. BOIES: I've asked the question.
6 If he says he doesn't understand this question,
7 again, we put it down and then it's there for people
8 to look at later.
9 MR. HEINER: That's fine. You can do
10 that. And I, as his counsel, can pose an objection.
11 MR. BOIES: Yeah. But you can't pose
12 questions to me particularly when you're trying to
13 get the witness out at 4:00.
14 MR. HEINER: I can.
15 MR. BOIES: Not questions to me.
16 Q Mr. Gates -- you can put in an
17 objection, I'm not trying to keep you from putting in
18 an objection.
19 Mr. Gates, do you understand that the
20 issue of whether or not browsers are a separate
21 product or are not a separate product from the
22 operating system is an issue in this case?
23 A I don't consider myself someone who
24 could say if that's an issue in this case or not.
25 Q Have you participated in any way in
498





1 trying to get Microsoft personnel to use language
2 that would suggest that browsers and operating
3 systems are not separate products?
4 A I have no idea what you mean by that.
5 Q Well, have you seen e-mails that urge
6 people within Microsoft not to talk about browsers as
7 if they were separate from the operating system?
8 A I don't recall seeing any such e-mail.
9 Q Are you aware of any anybody within
10 Microsoft who has asserted, either in an e-mail or
11 otherwise, that people ought to not talk about
12 browsers as if they were separate from the operating
13 system?
14 A I don't remember any such e-mail.
15 Q Has Microsoft tried to get companies to
16 agree to statements that Internet Explorer comprises
17 part of the operating system of Windows 95 and
18 Windows 98?
19 A I know it's a true statement, but I'm
20 not aware of us doing anything to try to get anyone
21 else to endorse the statement.
22 Q You're not aware of any effort by
23 Microsoft to get non-Microsoft companies to endorse
24 the statement that Internet Explorer comprises part
25 of the operating system of Windows; is that what
499





1 you're saying?
2 A I'm not aware of such efforts.
3 Q Do you know whether Microsoft has made
4 any efforts to include language like that in any of
5 its license agreements?
6 A No, I don't.
7 Q Do you know why Microsoft might do
8 that?
9 MR. HEINER: Objection.
10 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure.
11 Q BY MR. BOIES: Do you recognize that
12 OEMs have a need to acquire the Windows operating
13 system that Microsoft licenses?
14 A What do you mean by OEM? Is it a
15 tautology because of the way you're defining it?
16 Q Well, if you take IBM and Compaq and
17 Dell, Gateway and some other companies, those are
18 commonly referred to as OEMs or PC manufacturers;
19 correct, sir?
20 A No. The term "OEM" would be quite a
21 bit broader than that. OEMs used means original
22 equipment manufacturer.
23 Q I see.
24 And does OEM have a specialized meaning
25 in your business to refer to people that supply
500





1 personal computers?
2 A No. It usually means our licensees.
3 Q And do your licensees, in part, supply
4 personal computers, sir?
5 A Some of our licensees.
6 Q The licensees to whom you license
7 Windows are suppliers of personal computers, are they
8 not, sir?
9 A If you exclude Windows CE and depending
10 on how you talk about workstations and servers.
11 Q So that if we can get on common ground,
12 the licensees for Windows 95 and Windows 98 would be
13 companies that you would recognize as personal
14 computer manufacturers; is that correct?
15 A Yeah. Almost all the licensees of
16 Windows 95 and Windows 98 are personal computer
17 manufacturers. Some are not, but the overwhelming
18 majority are.

Years later Gates said he was on a "Jihad" against Intel's support for Linux (apparently it's perfectly OK for a self-described "philanthropist" to speak like that). How little has changed since…

Microsoft Has Not Changed Since Being Investigated (and Prosecuted) for Crimes at a Federal Level

Posted in Antitrust, Bill Gates, Deception, Microsoft at 8:12 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“This anti-trust thing will blow over. We haven’t changed our business practices at all.”

Bill Gates

1000000 questions in a row: Corporate media

Summary: The media keeps telling us a bunch of worthless junk about Gates “saving the world” and Microsoft becoming a “nice” and “gentle” (or “soft”) company, but nothing could be further from the truth

THE timing of the Bill Gates deposition series seems apt. Microsoft is committing the very same crimes, as noted for instance a few days ago in this article (publisher infiltrated by Bill Gates some years ago, to the point where they removed Gates critics):

The Verge on Vista 10

People who insist that Microsoft has changed often turn out to be receiving Microsoft’s money (like Deb Icaza at OSI for instance). Those who claim that “GAFA” is the real problem have successfully been indoctrinated by the worst abuser out there. With the Linux Foundation thoroughly bribed as well as infiltrated, nowadays we see the same in the OSI, which took Microsoft’s bribes about a year afterwards.

“In the coming days we’ll continue unearthing more old stuff from the antitrust days (before the concept of antitrust became eternally fossilised).”We’re not exactly optimistic about the whole thing. Microsoft and Gates keep corrupting their competitors and critics. Like the cult they are, they accept nothing but their own way and the concept of competition isn’t tolerated. In the coming days we’ll continue unearthing more old stuff from the antitrust days (before the concept of antitrust became eternally fossilised).

People With God Complex Must Never be Allowed in Positions of Power

Posted in Antitrust, Bill Gates, GNU/Linux, Kernel, Microsoft at 5:13 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“Get me into that and goddam, we’ll make so much money!”

Bill Gates, Microsoft

Related: Bill Gates Said He Was on a “Jihad” Against GNU/Linux, But GNU/Linux Users/Developers Engaged in Self-Defense Are Foul-Mouthed ‘Microsoft Haters’? | Bill Gates: “Where Are We on This Jihad?” (Against Linux at Intel) | Reminder: Bill Gates Called for “Jihad” (His Word) Both Before and After Being Grilled for Crimes | Bill Gates Deposition: Gates Keeps Referring to His Attacks on Competitors (Linux Included) as “Jihad” and Still Lies About Illegal Contracts | The Supposedly ‘Soft’ Bill Gates Interrogated About What Was Called His “Jihad” | Bill Gates Refers to His Business as “Jihad” and Accuses Java of Being a “Religion” With “Rabid” Supporters

Jimmy Neutron meme: It's mine, mine, mine. Bill, not everything must be controlled by you.

Summary: The attack on Linus Torvalds — an attack which at his own expense/peril he fails to recognise/acknowledge — seeks to put both projects that he founded right in Microsoft’s palm

“WHAT’S mine is mine and what’s yours is mine, too…”

So goes the motto at Microsoft, shows the Bill Gates deposition. They cannot grasp the concept of competition, let alone fair competition. Independent media is also an anathema, which is why both Gates and Microsoft bribe publishers (sometimes to oust their critics and delete articles critical of them… as if they’re “blasphemous”). They increasingly control Linux through the Linux Foundation and increasingly control Git through GitHub (which is where they want Linux to go).

“They cannot grasp the concept of competition, let alone fair competition.”Unfortunately, Mr. Torvalds is unable or unwilling to wake up and smell the coffee. Companies that want him powerless or retired (same effect) are taking over his projects and all they have in mind is proprietary software with surveillance, not Free software and not even Open Source — a term that increasingly means nothing to these people. Torvalds couldn’t have lost sight of what Microsoft did to Nokia, once the pride of his home country (and city). If someone can do anything at this point, regarding Git and Linux at least, it’s their creator, not his so-called ‘boss’ who thinks Microsoft is like a "puppy". One can imagine what he thinks of Bill Gates…

“He [Bill Gates] acted like a spoiled kid, which is what he was.”

Ed Roberts, Gates’ employer at MITS in the 1970′s (Atlanta Journal-Costitution, 04-27-97)

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »

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 Channels: Come and chat with us in real time

New to This Site? Here Are Some Introductory Resources

No

Mono

ODF

Samba logo






We support

End software patents

GPLv3

GNU project

BLAG

EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com



Recent Posts