01.24.12
Posted in Antitrust, GNU/Linux, Microsoft at 1:01 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Microsoft’s spin is getting old and rusty
Summary: Another new example of sources that are bribed by Microsoft or allied with Microsoft dismissing the anti-competitive nature of what Microsoft is doing and disseminating insults instead (ad hominem attacks)
THE UEFI tricks that Microsoft uses to harm the competition are not going to make Windows secure. On ARM in particular, Microsoft cannot justify those tricks, e.g. using the “security” excuse. Realising darn well what Microsoft is up to, Katherine writes about the situation, but Microsoft uses its highly biased press partners to whitewash the whole thing. This one come from an author who does not even wish to be identified (which often says a lot) and a publication with Microsoft ties. Microsoft talking points are contained therein and the key development is this:
This argument seemed somewhat settled until Computerworld author Glyn Moody noticed something a little different from Microsoft’s line of argument on page 116 of Microsoft’s “Windows Hardware Certification Requirements” for client and server systems, which bears a publish date of December 2011. On that page, it appears that Microsoft is telling OEMs producing ARM-based machines that secure boot is mandatory, whereas it can be disabled on non-ARM (x86) machines.
The article is designed to discredit those claims and one commenter adds: “In Brazil, the government will be not allowed to buy machines with Secure Boot, since it is against the current legislation by not allowing free concurrence. I see some legal issues in this question…”
It’s not just that. As a Red Hat engineer continues to explain:
The fundamental problem is that UEFI is a lot of code. And I really do mean a lot of code. Ignoring drivers, the x86 Linux kernel is around 30MB of code. A comparable subset of the UEFI tree is around 35MB. UEFI is of a comparable degree of complexity to the Linux kernel. There’s no reason to assume that the people who’ve actually written this code are significantly more or less competent than an average Linux developer, so all else being equal we’d probably expect somewhere around the same number of bugs per line. Of course, not all else is equal.
Even today, basically all hardware is shipping with BIOS by default. The only people to enable UEFI are enthusiasts. Various machines will pop up all kinds of dire warnings if you try to turn it on. UEFI has had very little real world testing. And it really does show. In the few months I’ve been working on UEFI I’ve discovered machines where SetVirtualAddressMap() calls code that has already been (per spec) discarded. I’ve seen cases where it was possible to create variables, but not to delete them. I’ve seen a machine that would irreparably corrupt its firmware when you tried to set a variable. I’ve tripped over code that fails to parse invalid boot variables, bricking the hardware. Many vendors independently fail to report the correct framebuffer stride. And those are just the ones that have ended up on hardware which crosses my desk, which means I haven’t even tested the majority of consumer-grade hardware with UEFI.
UEFI offers no benefits to computer users, especially on ARM-based devices. Microsoft is cheating and then relying on professional liars to cover up with spin. Microsoft never changed. █
“Government attorneys accuse Microsoft of using its monopoly position to bully, bribe and attempt to collude with others in the industry, while illegally expanding and protecting its Windows franchise.”
–The antitrust case: a timeline
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Antitrust, Apple, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Patents at 12:47 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The duopoly which is Apple and Microsoft faces new legal challenges while the patent assault heats up
APPLE’S growth is impeded by the rise of Android. The dead CEO vowed to destroy Android, so we have no sympathy for him or for the cult he created. In fact, we urge people not to buy from Apple until or unless it stops suing (to embargo) its competitors, notably Linux/Android.
In a new post from Muktware we read about the latest lawsuit against Apple, this time for anti-competitive behaviour (again):
Apple Sued For Anti-Competitive Practices
A federal antitrust class action lawsuit has been filed against Apple accusing the company of billing iPhone customers for voice and data services even after they cancel it. They also Apple of stifling competition and increasing prices for software apps by charging developers an annual ‘application’ fee.
The Courthouse News reports that lead plaintiff Eric Terrell accuses Apple of ‘unlawful anticompetitive activities,’ and claims that consumers did not contractually consent to Apple and AT&T’s 5-year exclusivity agreement.
Fortunately, Apple’s behaviour is likely to just drive people away to Linux and even the lawsuit from Oracle (perhaps in part motivated by Apple’s CEO) won’t be able to stop it. The Oracle case is just another SCO and the outcome might be the same, except for the bankruptcy.
Microsoft too has been flirting and collaborating with Apple's lawyers, according to recent reports. Microsoft engages in illegal tactics and conspiracy to harm a potent rival. Having been faced with a legal challenge,Groklaw claims that the plot is being unravelled and Microsoft’s attack through Nokia becomes too hard to deny. To quote:
Nokia continues to struggle mightily to get free from Barnes & Noble’s discovery requests. Barnes & Noble, you’ll recall, succeeded in persuading the ITC to recommend that Finland help it to do depositions of some Nokia executives, including Stephen Elop, and also get its hands on some documents that Nokia isn’t willing to provide voluntarily.
So the necessary request documents were sent to Finland, and then Nokia started going wild with efforts to block. And it continues to do so, telling the court all the steps it’s taken, and asking ITC to quash the Barnes & Noble motion or in the alternative to advise Finland that it can’t provide any discovery until the motion is ruled on. Nokia also has complaints about what it represents to both Finland and the ITC as being Barnes & Noble’s misstatements about the case.
And now Microsoft has asked the court to quash a motion to depose Steve Ballmer. It’s under seal, but I’m sure we can guess at its contents. After all, we’ve seen companies try to keep their executives from having to get involved in litigation before, and so far, they all had to testify. Remember SCO v. IBM? Sam Palmisano had to testify because he had “unique personal knowledge”, or so the judge believed. If the CEO knows things other people don’t, no matter how busy he is, he will likely have to testify. I’m sure Microsoft lawyers know that, so in the alternative, they ask that he be allowed to testify by videoconference.
We warned about this right from the start. It is good to see action being taken to expose this at the courts and set obstacle.
In other news, RIM, whose key executives leave, finds itself sued over patents again. Guess who’s suing again?
Ottawa-based Wi-LAN Inc. has launched a patent suit against Research In Motion Ltd., adding to the challenges facing the troubled BlackBerry maker.
The mobile patent wars are becoming nasty and when Microsoft passes ammunition to patent trolls (proxies) there needs to be a lot more investigation. it’s not as shallow as it may seem. █
“On the same day that CA blasted SCO, Open Source evangelist Eric Raymond revealed a leaked email from SCO’s strategic consultant Mike Anderer to their management. The email details how, surprise surprise, Microsoft has arranged virtually all of SCO’s financing, hiding behind intermediaries like Baystar Capital.”
–Bruce Perens
Permalink
Send this to a friend
01.23.12
Posted in Antitrust, Apple, GNU/Linux, Microsoft at 6:48 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Apple and Microsoft use legal instruments to perturb the market and disrupt fair competition
ACCORDING to this new report from The Register, Apple is up to no good and it does not go unnoticed. EULA tricks are no longer just Microsoft’s weapon of choice; Apple too is doing it:
Budding authors attracted to Apple’s latest content-creating tool should tread with care lest the small print locks them in tighter than they’d imagined.
The End User Licence Agreement, to which users consent by using the software, requires the output of iBooks Author be distributed only through Apple’s retail operation – with Cupertino getting its customary 30 per cent cut – to ensure that only Apple students get the benefit of Apple’s largess.
This is an example where lawyers — not engineers — try to tilt the table. Another recent example of this is UEFI requirement that Microsoft crafted to exclude Linux and Android on ARM-based machines. To quote a good new report on this subject:
Matthew Garrett, the Red Hat engineer who originally raised the issue of UEFI Secure Boot and Linux, points out in a new posting titled “Why UEFI secure boot is difficult for Linux” that, despite Microsoft’s recent changes to its UEFI Secure Boot requirements, there are some major challenges left if users want secure-booted Linux.
[...]
The concerns over how Microsoft plans to make use of UEFI’s Secure Boot on ARM processors has also continued. A number of commentators and the Software Freedom Law Center reported that Microsoft had barred ARM devices which run Windows 8 from booting Linux. These requirements are in the current Microsoft Hardware Certification Requirements document, but were known about in September 2011 when the initial fears about UEFI were raised; Microsoft’s plans were detailed in presentations about its “Logo Requirements” at the time.
A couple of years ago when Microsoft promoted its chief racketeer (a lawyer) it became evident that Microsoft realigned itself as a legal manipulation firm.
As another site has just put it:
Back in October 2011, the Free Software Foundation speculated on the possibility that Microsoft might be trying to block out other operating systems from loading within a computer, using a new concept known as the Unified Extensible Firmware Interface (UEFI). Microsoft showed it off a couple of months back, booting up Windows 8 in eight seconds. Linux users: Should you be concerned?
[...]
Surely enough, Microsoft was watching the dilemma and responded to the issue, saying that there’s already an option within their hardware prototypes to disable secure boot attempts from the motherboard. We’re still not sure, though, whether you’ll be able to run Windows 8 with secure boot disabled. Microsoft has admitted indirectly, however, that the option could turn up missing on certain platforms that weren’t released by the company. In other words, any OEM can choose to omit the option to disable secure boot, making this the first step towards a world without a free OS.
How convenient to Microsoft.
Matthew Garrett’s views are explained in this new article:
BIOS, the archaic firmware that sits between a computer’s hardware and the operating system, is set to be replaced by the Unified Extensible Firmware Interface (UEFI). The move is intended to improve security, but a leading kernel developer says UEFI is “awful” for Linux.
This is not a technical war but a legal war that uses technical means and dotted lines to execute competitors. Where are the regulators? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
01.21.12
Posted in Antitrust, GNU/Linux, Google, Patents at 11:51 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Developments on the patents front and how they affect the Linux-powered Android platform
THERE is usually danger that proprietary software vendors will hijack the voice of FOSS ones. The infiltration which we previously mentioned is further promoted by Microsoft-friendly circles. It is a true danger when FOSS is being hijacked (and Microsoft lobbyists, for example, call themselves “FOSS patents”).
There has been a campaign designed to derail Google’s acquisition of patents that would defend Android. Microsoft lobbyists participated in this campaign. According to this update from Bloomberg:
Regulatory reviews mean the purchase by Google is likely to be completed in 2012, Libertyville, Illinois-based Motorola Mobility said in November. Google plans to use Motorola Mobility’s more than 17,000 patents to protect supporters of its Android software in licensing and legal disputes with rivals such as Apple Inc. (AAPL) — and also move into the hardware business.
More here:
European Union regulators restarted their antitrust review of plans by Google Inc., the biggest maker of smartphone software, to buy Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc.
The European Commission set a new deadline of Feb. 13 to rule on the deal. It stopped the review on Dec. 6 to seek more information from the companies.
Where were the regulators when Microsoft extorted a lot of companies using patents. With more patents on software being granted, the regulators are missing the point. The one new example says:
EliteForm’s PowerTracker uses patent-pending algorithms and the latest in 3D computer vision to track the movement of athletes during strength exercises without the use of wired attachments.
Patents on algorithms? That is not allowed in Europe.
To quote more from Bloomberg:
The number of patents in litigation between Apple Inc. (AAPL) and a Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc. (MMI) unit was narrowed by a judge who invalidated two of them, said Apple didn’t infringe a third and found that issues with five others required a trial.
Apple is losing its case against Motorola and new patents from its patent worship sites suggest that monopolies on Siri are coming:
That application, published this morning by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and picked up by Patently Apple, details an “Intelligent Automated Assistant.” The filing, dated January 2011, comes some nine months after Apple’s acquisition of Siri the company, and includes numerous diagrams of the software in use.
Sadly for Apple, on the Android side there are also many patents that can be used defensively and Ericsson/Sony is among those with an arsenal (the Microsoft lobbyist tries to spin it against Android). Moreover, Larry Ellison’s attack on Android is failing again:
The parties in Oracle v. Google have been busy debating whether or not Oracle should be allowed to submit yet a third expert damages report, after the judge found the first two were ridiculous. He didn’t accept the way Oracle came up with such huge damages numbers, the very ones that made headlines when the case was new.
And more remarks from Mr. Pogson can be found here.
A few days ago we wrote about the patent allegations/charges from Oracle allegedly being conceded and here is more on that:
In a surprise detail, Oracle also claimed that Sun Microsystems was looking to get into the smartphone game. Oracle wrote, “Sun had plans and the means to use that intellectual property to develop a smartphone platform that would have generated hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues. These plans were undermined by Google’s release of an incompatible Android for free.”
Oracle’s claim that Sun was looking to develop a smartphone operating system is an interesting one given that the firm’s Java Mobile Edition was hardly setting the world alight when Apple’s IOS came out, let alone Google’s Android. It will be interesting to see what, if any, evidence Oracle has to back up this statement.
The Oracle versus Google Android battle has stalled twice over arguments about the amount of damages. Whether Oracle’s latest ploy will result in any of its patent claims being put in front of a jury is unclear at this point.
If true, then it marks a small victory for Android, but the Microsoft lobbyists try to spin as it bad news.
In other news, Microsoft might pay Alcatel soon:
A jury awarded Alcatel-Lucent $70 million after Microsoft was found to have stolen a Day patent in its Outlook software.
More here;
Alcatel-Lucent (ALU), Microsoft Patent-Infringement Case Dismissed
Alcatel-Lucent (ALU)’s patent-infringement lawsuit against Microsoft Corp., (MSFT) the world’s largest maker of software, was dismissed by a federal judge after both companies asked to end the case.
U.S. District Judge Marilyn Huff granted the joint motion to end all claims in the suit with each side agreeing to bear its own costs, according to a filing Jan. 17 in San Diego. No information was given on a possible settlement of the dispute.
In July, a jury awarded Paris-based Alcatel-Lucent $70 million in damages. Huff reduced the award to $26.3 million on Nov. 10.
Alcatel-Lucent sued over technology in Redmond, Washington- based Microsoft’s Outlook program and two other applications.
The case is Lucent Technologies Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 07-02000, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
And more here:
Alcatel-Lucent’s patent infringement lawsuit against Microsoft Corp., the world’s largest maker of software, was dismissed by a federal judge after both companies asked to end the case.
U.S. District Judge Marilyn Huff granted the joint motion to ends all claims in the suit with each side agreeing to bear its own costs, according to a filing yesterday in San Diego. No information was given on a possible settlement of the dispute.
Microsoft was probably required to pay. Maybe it will also learn a lesson about the patent system, one lawsuit at the time (I have purchased an Alcatel phone for this reason), then withdraw from its anti-Linux blackmail. And speaking of Microsoft, its racist side (deleting black people) is arguably resurfacing again in a patent:
Microsoft faces accusations of potential racism related to its patent for a new pedestrian-friendly map application.
To be fair, geography/demography and race are not the same thing. Microsoft gets flak nonetheless, for a patent so stupid that its existence alone is offensive to human civilisation. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
01.18.12
Posted in Antitrust, Database, Microsoft, Novell at 1:05 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Update on the WordPerfect case and remarks on the need to remember what Microsoft did
JUST before Christmas there were some developments related to the WordPerfect case. We covered them in the IRC channel at the time. Basically, even the dangerous charlatan Bill Gates was called in to testify about those competition crimes against Novell. Shortly after hung jury as we covered at one time it was evident that this 'old Novell' case was about to proceed and Groklaw has this update:
As promised Microsoft has now filed its renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law [PDF; Text] in the Novell case. Nothing terribly surprising here, and we don’t know what arguments Microsoft will set forth to support this motion, although Microsoft renews its arguments set forth in its original motion from November 17.
[...]
Given that the only thing the jury was undecided about was the degree of damage to Novell, are we to conclude that the jury was, in fact, unreasonable in all of its other findings? That seems a bit rich. On the other hand, judges have been known to override juries before, and what a reasonable jury would have done is the basis for a judgment as a matter of law. In this case, however, it would seem that, if the Judge Motz thought Novell had failed to prove its case as Microsoft suggests, he would have never allowed the matter to go to the jury in the first place.
This action by Microsoft is likely simply a matter of protecting its right of appeal and attempting to strengthen its hand in any settlement discussions with Novell. We will await Microsoft’s brief, which is due February 3.
WP is virtually dead and also its employees die if this news is something to judge by (WP/Corel is an old company). Novell too is pretty much dead and to quote:
Fluent in several languages, he used this aptitude working for the LDS Church, WordPerfect, and Novell and pursuing his passion for genealogy.
The pathway of Microsoft’s road of destruction. Doc Searls writes about another former Novell employee who died:
I got to know Judith Burton when she was still Judith Clarke and Senior VP Corporate Marketing for Novell, in 1987. Novell had just bought a company called CXI, which had been a client of Hodskins Simone & Searls, the Palo Alto advertising agency in which I was a partner. By that time HS&S had come to specialize in communications technology clients, and the chance to do something with Novell as well seemed moe than opportune, especially since it was clear that Novell was smarter about comms than just about anybody at that time.
Novell was outsmarted by a company that broke the law in order to get its way and later sneak its way out of justice. Microsoft’s attempt to just assassinate competitors in illegal way continues to this date and we should learn from the past. One day there might be nobody left to tell these stories first-hand; instead, Gates’ PR/reputation laundering operations will continue to rewrite history (including the case against Microsoft, as covered so poorly in the press last month). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Antitrust, GNU/Linux, Microsoft at 12:56 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Microsoft wants the only keys to the hardware
Summary: An accumulation of articles about Microsoft’s anti-competitive UEFI moves and responses to these
UEFI has been a hot subject this week. Ever since Glyn Moody published his findings and conclusions the debate has been rekindled.
Jeff of Bodhi Linux thinks further:
I wrote a post late last year when all the news first started being posted (pretty much everywhere) about the Windows 8 “secure boot” support. Well folks, the open source news media is at it again – Microsoft has announced they are doing exactly what we thought they would – they are implementing secure boot on Windows 8 ARM devices.
[...]
Do these people have any idea how many Linux based ARM devices don’t allow dual booting? Do they have any idea how many Linux based ARM devices exist, were even if you can dual boot them they lack hardware functionality in alternative operating systems due to closed source drivers?
We pointed out just the other day that Microsoft is a non-starter in this area. But Microsoft is historically a non-starter in all areas; it wasn’t until Microsoft cheated with secret exclusionary deals and sometimes bribes that the company managed to marginalise competition.
According to Michael Larabel, this is a “big problem” for Linux because:
Matthew Garrett, the Red Hat developer commonly working on power management and UEFI/BIOS matters for Linux, has a new blog post related to UEFI Secure Boot. This latest posting is simply entitled Why UEFI secure boot is difficult for Linux.
From this post from Matthew Garrett we learn why it’s technically difficult:
I wrote about the technical details of supporting the UEFI secure boot specification with Linux. Despite me pretty clearly saying that this was ignoring issues of licensing and key distribution and the like, people are now using it to claim that Linux could support secure boot with minimal effort. In a sense, they’re right. The technical implementation details are fairly straightforward. But they’re not the difficult bit.
Joe Brockmeier writes about the latest UEFI débâcle. He says that Microsoft insists on not disabling UEFI:
Remember last year when questions arose about Microsoft’s policies on UEFI secure boot on Windows 8? Microsoft’s response, or lack thereof, was that “OEMs are free to choose” how or whether to enable turning off secure boot on systems shipping Windows 8. It appears, however, OEMs may not be as free to choose if they’re shipping ARM hardware.
Here is another new take:
Microsoft was quick to hit back at such claims, stating categorically that OEMs would provide buyers with the ability to disable the UEFI Secure Boot mode for use with non-signed operating systems. Sadly, it appears that the company missed one vital point from its statement: the fact that ARM-based systems are excluded.
According to the company’s latest certification requirements document for Windows 8, while non-ARM systems – traditional desktops and laptops, in other words – will allow a ‘custom’ mode to be selected that prevents UEFI Secure Boot from blocking third-party unsigned code, the ARM build – for tablets and low-power laptops – must have this feature removed if manufacturers want to be able to put the Windows logo on their products.
These excuses for Microsoft are unconvincing and some wonder if these practices from Microsoft “killed” Ubuntu tablets:
Did Microsoft Just Kill Ubuntu Tablets?
[...]
There is no doubt that Canonical is looking at the ARM based hardware for its tablets. But Microsoft seemed to have nipped Ubuntu’s Tablet in the bud. The company tweaked its Windows Hardware Certification Requirements to effectively ban most alternative operating systems on ARM-based devices that ship with Windows 8.
Microsoft’s booster Peter Bright spins this in Microsoft’s favour and Microsoft's Bott is again pretending that UEFI is not a problem. Sam Dean, who previously recited the lies from Bott, now says that his “stance toward Linux users is questionable” and adds
Thus far, there is no official response from Microsoft on the issue, but the Linux lock-out debate is back in new form.
Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols remarks on the spin from Bott as follows:
I wrote recently about Microsoft trying to block any other operating system from running on Windows 8 ARM-powered devices . While Ed Bott think that seeing this as an attack on Linux and other operating systems is FUD, I don’t think that’s the point.
I don’t see Linux being attacked by this move. I see Linux supporters being annoyed at it–I know I am–but attacked, afraid? No.
Sure as Bott writes “The Secure Boot requirements apply only to OEMs who sell an ARM-based device and Windows 8 as a complete package.” and that “If you disable Secure Boot on a Windows 8 ARM tablet, you have effectively bricked it.” So, yes you can take this as attack on people who want to switch operating systems, but it’s 2012. Now, if Microsoft was trying this trick with x86 PCs, it would be a different story, but Microsoft has backed off from that position. So, is really it that important to Linux that Microsoft is trying to keep it off Windows 8 ARM devices?
No, I don’t think so. Today Microsoft can’t dictate terms to the computer industry they way they once did. In the 1990s, Microsoft could call up an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and tell them what they could or couldn’t ship on their PCs, how much they would pay for the privilege, and they could take it or die.
That was then. This is now. While the U.S. courts found in 2001 that “Microsoft had a monopoly in the market for Intel-compatible personal computer operating systems,” the company was only slapped on the wrist. It might have been better for Microsoft in the long run if the courts had insisted that the company be broken up. As it was, Microsoft continued with business as usual. But, the world was shifting under Microsoft’s feet and even now the company hasn’t catch up with those changes.
The Register is meanwhile writing about the x86 tablets that never seem to fly:
m Taiwan’s computer manufacturers: lower the price of Windows 8 tablet components and software or the devices will be so expensive that consumers won’t want them.
Claiming that both Microsoft and Intel have rejected calls to drop their prices, Asian moles say that means Windows 8 tablets could cost as much as $899 (£586) before sales tax when they go on sale later this year, DigiTimes reports.
That is too expensive to sell much and Pogson says “Android/Linux on ARM is looking better all the time and there is still the option of GNU/Linux on everything if prices really do matter.”
This is why Microsoft wants to block it. As another article puts it;
There\s been some controversy since September of last year. It seems that Microsoft, while unsure if it’s intentional or not, is going to make it quite difficult for people to install Linux on a computer that comes with Windows 8.
Basically, it comes down to a process called UEFI secure booting. Hardware makers must have it enabled in order to qualify for a “Designed For Windows 8″ logo. The technology prevents operating systems from booting that are not signed by a trusted certificate authority.
This means that in order for Linux to be installed on a “Designed For Windows 8″ PC, one would have to figure out a workaround in order to make it happen and that means your choice of what to install, may be quite limited.
Companies need to just reject Vista 8 and stick with what’s becoming market leader (Android/Linux). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
01.16.12
Posted in Antitrust, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Windows at 10:48 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Strong-arming the ARM world
Summary: Experts insinuate that Windows won’t make it in portable devices and Microsoft tries using legal (or illegal) instruments to distort the market instead
MICROSOFT is desperate to make a dent in the phones and tablets market, seeing damn well and also acknowledging that the desktops/laptops business is not growing anymore. The x86 monopoly is having a quiet crisis and Intel is still scrambling to find ways to evolve (Atom wasn’t it).
Windows applications are typically compiled only for 32-bit Intel-conformant architectures (and sometimes 64-bit too). As soon as Microsoft steps out of x86 world, it has almost no applications, so the inertia is gone. Analysts realise that Windows on ARM is a non-starter and to quote this latest example from the news (there are several new ones):
Microsoft’s Windows 8 OS was shown on a handful of prototype ARM-based tablets at the Consumer Electronics Show this week, but almost no one was allowed to try it out.
There is nothing impressive about it and certainly a lot less applications than Android/Linux has got. Microsoft is suddenly the underdog, whereas Linux is among the market leaders. This is why Microsoft thinks it can afford to distort the market, being the corrupt company Microsoft has always been. First it tried to force ARM devices to be crippled and thus made unattractive for Linux and then it got worse.
A few days ago we wrote about UEFI fears being confirmed. Microsoft cannot use the ‘security’ excuse for a platform that has about 0% in ARM devices. It’s just about blocking the real dominant platform on new devices, notably Android. Microsoft managers cheat because they command no share there and Mr. Pogson, among several news sites, was quick to respond.
It’s been a few years since Microsoft really shot itself in the foot by making itself look really unfriendly, and someone at the company must’ve been missing the pain. A careful read of the company’s “Windows 8 Hardware Certification Requirements” document has revealed draconian policies that require vendors to block the installation of other operating systems on ARM devices.
First, a bit of history. Earlier this fall, Microsoft briefly made waves when it announced that Windows 8 would require that UEFI (the successor to BIOS) Secure Boot be enabled on all systems that ship with Windows 8 installed. Secure Boot uses vendor-provided signed keys to ensure that the OS in question has been properly validated. The concern was that this process could be used to effectively prevent the installation of Linux on ARM products.
Helios has his own take too:
From recent news, it seems that Microsoft banned booting of Linux or any other operating system on ARM based Windows 8 devices. From this decision of Microsoft, it seems that they are ready to war with GNU/Linux operating system. Due to the UEFI secure boot protocol, any other OS rather than Windows 8 can not run on ARM based devices.
Here is the good take of Muktware:
When Microsoft published The Certification Requirements for Windows 8 it was evident that the company wanted to use the secure boot to lock Linux out of such hardware, thus creating a Windows only hardware. The discovery lead to a strong protest from the FLOSS community. Microsoft allowed the non-ARM hardware to be able to run Linux if the hardware vendors chooses to allow that. But as we saw the arrival of ARM on desktop Microsoft “wasted no time in revising its Windows Hardware Certification Requirements to effectively ban most alternative operating systems on ARM-based devices that ship with Windows 8.”
The illegality of this is also being debated in the news:
Microsoft has been discovered to have changed its requirements for the upcoming ARM version of Windows 8. The change essentially will prohibit ARM devices, including PCs, from running operating systems other than Windows 8 after they ship to customers.
Specifically, Microsoft recently amended its requirements for ARM Windows 8 System Builders. Unlike Windows 8 for Intel-compatible (x86 & x64) machines, the ARM version of Windows 8 will not be sold to the public. To purchase an ARM version of Windows 8, you will have to purchase a device with it pre-loaded (similar to Windows CE devices today, such as Windows Phone). The new requirement calls for utilizing UEFI Secure Boot, a technology that forces manufacturers to instruct devices to boot code certified by the manufacturer for the device.
If the hardware is to be digitally signed for Windows only, how does that benefit anyone except Microsoft? Even Microsoft boosters are not trying to defend or provide coverup for what Microsoft is doing here. Yes, even those who are like PR agents for the company find themselves disagreeing with Microsoft. Varghese notes that antitrust might not be a possibility here:
For one, the PC world is dominated by Intel, which is a founding member of the UEFI. Hence, in the case of Intel-based devices, Microsoft’s requirements are close to those required by this body.
Secondly, ARM devices could be locked down without any fear of customer backlash as there was no support for older versions of Windows; on the PC platform, this was not the case. Customers who did not like Windows 8 might like to load Windows 7 or XP and would be angered if they could not.
And finally, the SFLC pointed out, there was no chance of anti-trust concerns being raised with regard to mobile devices as Microsoft had a very small share of the market. The reverse was the case with the PC and Windows.
How about a lawsuit then? Why should Microsoft be allowed to get away with it after numerous convictions for monopoly abuse? This is how Microsoft distorted the market in the past — by cheating time after time whilst everyone was too passive, trusting an “invisible hand” perhaps. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.23.11
Posted in Antitrust, Courtroom, Microsoft, Novell at 2:44 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The WordPerfect case with its imminent future is reported to have approached settlement, but experts beg to differ
THE Novell of Mr. Noorda is said to have entered settlement talks with Microsoft and according to Groklaw Microsoft made a motion to dismiss. Based on the filings that Pamela Jones shows:
Microsoft intends to renew its motion to dismiss as a matter of law Novell’s antitrust case in Novell v. Microsoft. It sent a letter [PDF] to Judge Frederick Motz informing him of its intention, saying it will file by January 13th. I gather it would prefer to avoid a second jury trial. TechFlash reports Microsoft lawyers will claim that Novell lacks sufficient evidence to support its claims. And IDG’s John Ribeiro provides more details on Network World. So, no settlement, as Law.com reports: “Despite the close call, Microsoft’s lawyers say they won’t pay to make the case go away. ‘There are no settlement discussions,’ Sullivan & Cromwell partner David Tulchin told us. ‘Microsoft believes firmly that Novell’s claims have no merit,’ he added.”
Microsoft typically pays its victims to just disappear, but perhaps not this time. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »
