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

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

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? █

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. █

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). █

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). █

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. █

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. █

Summary: The Novell vs. Microsoft case in a nutshell

THE NOVELL of Noorda claims that Microsoft misled and still pursues in damages just about as much as the ‘new’ Novell is worth, based on this article which says:

Microsoft deliberately misled Novell in a bid to steal a march on the company with Windows 95, according to lawyers pursuing a $1 billion lawsuit against the Redmond-based software giant.

This trial is also covered by Groklaw, which says that:

Microsoft and Novell each summed up its case for the jury yesterday in Utah, in the antitrust trial Novell brought against it regarding WordPerfect and Quattro Pro. Yes, it’s almost over. We had a reporter there for part of Microsoft’s closing statement today, and Bloomberg fills in the rest, along with the Salt Lake Tribune. TechFlash has coverage as well. And we also have most of the latest documents for you.

Since we last looked in, Microsoft’s motion for judgment as a matter of law was denied, but Novell’s motion to reopen the case to present more evidence was denied. I confess I have been disturbed by reports of this judge’s conduct at this trial, but the thing about juries is that they are not predictable. So, we’ll see. Maybe they feel the same way I do about the judge. But one thing is for sure, whoever loses will almost certainly appeal.

This ended up as a mistrial with a hung jury, but Pamela Jones had claimed that the “Holdout Juror Was Convinced Microsoft Was Guilty of Anticompetitive Behavior”. To quote:

The one holdout juror, Corbyn Alvey, in the Novell v. Microsoft antitrust trial over WordPerfect and Quattro Pro has now spoken. And it’s extraordinary. In an interview by KSL-TV, he says that he was convinced that Microsoft was guilty of anticompetitive behavior. His doubt was whether Novell was damaged by it, so he voted no on the marketplace issue, but yes on the allegation of anticompetitive behavior.

Wow. That means that all 12 jurors found Microsoft guilty of anticompetitive behavior. The video is extraordinary. Alvey even says that, while he’d not wish to call Bill Gates a liar, he certainly saw that his testimony on the stand did not match up with his emails from the 90s that Novell presented.

The case was eventually dismissed and the Microsoft booster spoke of retrial:

Novell’s reanimated antitrust case against Microsoft’s Word is reported to have hit “hopeless” deadlock, with Novell pushing for a fresh trial.

A jury in Salt Lake City hearing the $1bn case can’t make up its mind whether Microsoft broke the law, according to The Wall St Journal.

According to the WSJ, after a brief examination of the case the jury became quickly and “hopelessly” deadlocked. Jurors received the case Wednesday and on Friday morning told Judge J Frederick Motz they were deadlocked.

According to the VAR Guy, “Microsoft, Novell [may be] Negotiating WordPerfect Settlement” because according to sources:

Attorneys for Microsoft and Novell apparently are trying to negotiate a settlement to address Novell’s $1 billion lawsuit against Microsoft. The negotiations started after Novell’s case against Microsoft ended in a mistrial/hung jury. The big question: Will Microsoft write a big settlement check to Novell, or will Novell seek a retrial?

For the time being, there is only a mistrial:

A seven-year-old antitrust case brought by Novell against Microsoft has ended in a mistrial after jurors were unable to reach a unanimous verdict.

The unfortunate thing is that no matter what happens, by breaking the law Microsoft repeatedly crushed competition and by the time there was a trial and even a settlement Microsoft had already established a position that abuses customers (e.g. overprices and under-delivers), destroys many jobs (so money goes to very few people), and demonstrates to us that crime pays off. █

A Tivoized PC will look like an ugly TV.

The Windows press is doing damage control to quell a rising realization that the Microsoft demands and will have complete practical control of the next generation of Windows devices. Microsoft cleverly divulged key details over the past months to prevent people from understanding the implications. Free software advocates immediately understood the implications of signed code and some adopted a wait and see attitude believing OEMs would not be foolish enough to make all of their hardware Windows 8 logo compliant. Microsoft’s App Store rules made the intentions clear for Windows users, so Microsoft boosters are Open Washing the program to keep users from bolting. Boosters celebrate a Microsoft limited choice of free software and Microsoft’s cynical license compliance as a “Big win for Open Source.” Microsoft’s demands should trigger anti-trust investigation. Free software developers who still concern themselves with Windows should think carefully about the implications for their code. Windows users should migrate immediately because the PC ecosystem they grew up with is long gone.

A spokesman for Microsoft lead Business Insider to believe the revocation feature may only be for “Metro”

The Windows Store will be the exclusive distribution channel for apps that use the Windows 8 “Metro” interface, which is designed for tablets and smartphones, but will also contain some traditional desktop apps. Microsoft wouldn’t confirm if the kill switch applies only to Metro-style apps or if it covers any app in the store. “It’s really the early days yet,” said a spokesperson. “The terms of use applies to apps that people are creating now. More info will be shared as we get closer to release.”

Microsoft’s claim, of course, is ridiculous hair splitting. If Microsoft succeeds in Tivoizing all x86 and ARM hardware, only Microsoft signed code will run on Windows 8. Stopping any program from running will be as easy as revoking the keys no matter how they are installed.

Extreme Tech claims compliance terms in the App Store documentation are a “big win for Open Source.” The article is titled, “Windows 8 Store will allow open source apps, unlike iOS and Mac App Stores” and says:

There may be another win for the open source movement today, as there has been some interesting legalese found in the recent publication of the Windows Store Application Developer Agreement. … The section in question states that apps released under a license from the Open Source Initiative (GPL, Apache, etc.) can be distributed in the Windows Store. Further, it says that the OSI license will trump the Microsoft Standard Application License Terms, namely the the restriction on sharing applications.

The article offers some explanations that glorify Microsoft and belittle competitors but fail to make the common sense observation that Microsoft is forced to comply with the licenses used. They sink as low as to compare Microsoft’s long running patent extortion[2] to a friendly game of chess. Here’s another article that makes some of the same silly claims.

“Choice” and “Open” code are poor substitutes for software freedom and Tivoizing hardware defeats meaningful software freedom. Microsoft will be able to comfort their users with free software like browsers, image and audio editors. They will dutifully provide users with source code if the license requires as much but it is of no real value to the user because they can never run a modified version. The user gains none of the security, privacy or control of real software freedom from a single free program on top of a malicious OS. Users of Windows 8 will never have the tools to guard themselves.

Both articles are filled with Microsoft’s language about “security” and “legal” reasons for revocation of code. This is a smoke screen. The only security signed code provides is financial security for Microsoft from a lock out of competition.

In the past, I’ve often warned free software developers that porting to Windows is a waste of time and energy better spent making gnu/linux and other really free software better. It was easy enough to point to all of the companies Microsoft ruined by technical sabotage and ask people why they would bother with such an anti-social company. People who ignored that warning should be asking themselves some serious questions about what extra efforts they will now be forced to go through. What process will Microsoft demand for approval? Will a partial distribution be worthwhile? Can they trust Microsoft to distribute code free of modification beyond selection?

Microsoft’s attempt to Tivoize the computing world is far from assured. Vista and Windows 7 were both dismal failures [2] mostly because of Microsoft’s insane anti-competitive and digital restrictions plans. Windows 8 is more of the same with even less to offer the user. Plans to lock out competition by signed code is a sign of desperation born of complete failure to compete on merit. The only real question is how many of their partners they will ruin before they fail. Apple, IBM and Google each have more to offer those partners.

Summary: By moving to mobile devices Linux is working around the OEM trap — a trap which Canadian courts are to look into

MICROSOFT does not sell Windows to Windows users. Microsoft sells (“licenses” actually) Windows in bulk to OEMs, and it uses potentially illegal tactics to block or suppress usage of GNU/Linux in this way, removing the end user from the decision-making process. We have written many articles over the years and also presented relevant evidence.

Mr. Pogson shows us the decline of Windows (which is mostly caused by the decline of the OEMs) and to quote part of his argument:

I am not writing about money, which is all M$ really cares about, but share of “seats”. M$ can raise its prices for years to come to keep the money rolling in from the suckers but they cannot lock in more users it seems. Consider this. In October, Wikimedia records 91% of visits were “non-mobile”, mostly that other OS. 9% were “mobile”, mostly not that other OS. In October a year ago, the numbers were 95.2% and 4.8%. M$ is losing 5% share per annum on the move to mobile alone. In 2010, M$ had 84.29% share but now have 78.38% share, down about 6% per annum. Now that Android 4 is out and Android will make a big move in tablets, the slide for M$ will be faster simply because more mobile devices will be produced.

This is a known trend and one that B&N mentioned in its complaint about Microsoft extortion.

More importantly, however, based on the Canadian press (Pogson too is Canadian), actions in the OEM level is also possible:

The Supreme Court of Canada has granted leave to appeal two decisions by the B.C. Court of Appeal that the final consumers of a product cannot sue the producers in a class action law suit if they did not purchase the product directly from the producer.

The decision involves efforts to set up two Canadian class action law suits; one involving high-fructose corn syrup producers Cargill Inc. and Archer Daniels Midland Co. (ADM), for conspiring to fix the price of the sweetener; and Microsoft Corp., for creating agreements with the manufacturers of computers that required them to buy only Microsoft products.

Therein we might finally see some action that sets precedence for other countries to unbundle PCs and Windows. █

Defective by Design

Non free software owners are creating practical mechanisms to exclude competition and exercise the power they have long claimed over users. Microsoft and other non free software companies have always demanded the right to terminate your use of their software at any time for any reason. In time, EULAs added language about being able to search and delete user files too. Recently the Windows 8 logo requirements revealed that the next generation of Microsoft ready x86 and ARM hardware will be unable to run anything but code signed by Microsoft [2]. As noted by Mr. Pogson, Microsoft also tried to bully the entire ARM market to use their boot mechanism but has so far failed because the Microsoft way impractically restricts OEM trade. To further clarify their position, Microsoft recently announced the rules of their App Store:

We [Microsoft] may change or discontinue certain apps or content offered in the Windows Store at any time, for any reason. … we may refund to you the amount you paid for the license… If the Windows Store, an app, or any content is changed or discontinued, your data could be deleted or you may not be able to retrieve data you have stored. We have no obligation to return data to you.

This is the logical conclusion of Microsoft’s attempts to control “open” software on Cheap Off the Shelf Technology and users. From the beginning, when Gates rode IBM’s coattails into market dominance, Microsoft abused their position to sabotage competitors like OS/2, DRDOS and Word Perfect. All along, the monopoly bully portrayed itself as a champion of free enterprise. If OEMs accept Microsoft’s outrageous restricted boot scheme and anti-trust regulators don’t intervene, the only way to get software on x86 and ARM will be through Microsoft’s App store. All other software and OS will be locked out at Microsoft’s discretion. People who want their software freedom will be forced onto more expensive PowerPC and under performing MIPS hardware. Microsoft knows that the control they have over hardware translates directly into money they can charge people.

Prior successes of this model have all been tied to other monopolies and success is not assured because people hate being bullied and extorted. Tivo and iPod depended on big publisher monopolies on movies and music. iPhone and other non free phones have all depended on telco spectrum monopolies. Microsoft and Apple have both previously taken advantage of media format monopolies. Apple’s iPad depends heavily on software and design patents but is swiftly being overrun. Previous Microsoft tablet and PDA efforts have all went the way of Zune. Xbox sponged off the once mighty world of PC gaming and mostly killed it. For these few successes there have been many failures. At this point, with most business software firmly XP focused, it is not clear what Microsoft has to offer developer and vendors to go along. Users have nothing to gain and should demand software freedom. If everyone ignores the new hardware, vendors will be forced to offer things people want.

• How M$’s Empire is Crumbling

  M$ can raise its prices for years to come to keep the money rolling in from the suckers but they cannot lock in more users it seems. Consider this. In October, Wikimedia records 91% of visits were “non-mobile”, mostly that other OS. 9% were “mobile”, mostly not that other OS. In October a year ago, the numbers were 95.2% and 4.8%. M$ is losing 5% share per annum on the move to mobile alone. In 2010, M$ had 84.29% share but now have 78.38% share, down about 6% per annum.

  See also this article.

• M$ Verging on Irrelevance

  Asked early in 2011 what consumers thought of that other OS on a tablet, 45% were interested. Now, the number is 25%. At that rate of decline, interest will be ~10% by the time M$ moves its bowels to deliver “8″.

• Science

  • GmailTex, a nifty toy to show Latex in Gmail.

  • Safecast: Global sensor network collects and shares radiation data via CC0

    Multiple sources of data are always better and more accurate when aggregated.

• Hardware

  • 2012 Will Be A Great Year in IT

    Remember when ASUS shook the world with the announcement of GNU/Linux on a netbook? Well, that will look like a teardrop compared to the flood of innovation 2012 will bring. Expect Android/Linux and GNU/Linux on ARM to intrude into the desktop/notebook space previously dominated by Wintel

• Security

  • CNet/Download.com bundles malware with free software as “CNet Installer”

• Defence/Police/Aggression

  • Seymour Hersh: Propaganda Used Ahead of Iraq War Is Now Being Reused over Iran’s Nuke Program

    UK politicians are also pushing for war.

  • Israel is denying the Palestinian Authority $100 million in taxes owed

  • 5-Year-Old Handcuffed, Charged With Battery On Officer

    A foolish “Scared straight” stunt whent wrong.

• Environment/Energy/Wildlife

  • Kyoto protocol round up

  • Industrial pollution ‘costs UK billions each year’

    Health and environmental damage from industry costs up to €18bn a year, according to the European environment agency

  • A second person dies of brain eating amoebas from Tap Water.

    Naegleria fowleri is primarily a tropical disease but as the climate warms up, tropical diseases are moving north. Naegleria fowleri needs 80F water to cause infection

• Finance

  • The large banks, while shamming concern about global heating, have invested heavily in increased coal burning.

  • Wall Street Recidivists

    Many big Wall Street firms have settled fraud cases brought by the government with a promise to never violate the same law. But an analysis of Securities and Exchange Commission documents by The New York Times found that since 1996, there have been at least 51 repeat violations by those firms.

    Massachusetts has sued the big US banks for foreclosure fraud.

  • The European Union has created a “debt crisis” to impose austerity.

    As with the manufactured debt ceiling crisis in the United States, the E.C.B. is withholding relief in order to extort austerity measures from member governments—and the threat seems to be working.

  • Bernanke: There Was No ‘Secret’ Bank Bailout, And It Was Only $1.5 Trillion

    Claims everyone knew what was going on but no one else can count. The only mystery, supposedly, was who was getting the money but it’s now revealed that the money went to McDonalds. Gee, thanks.

  • Economists Statement in Support of Occupy Wall Street

    We are economists who oppose ideological cleansing in the economics profession. Equally we oppose political cleansing in the vital debate over the cause and consequences of our current economic crisis.

    We support the efforts of the Occupy Wall Street movement across the country and across the globe to liberate the economy from the short-term greed of the rich and powerful one percent.

    We oppose cynical and perverse attempts to misuse our police officers and public servants to expel advocates of the public good from our public spaces.

    We extend our support to the vision of building an economy that works for the people, for the planet, and the future, and we declare our solidarity with the Occupiers who are exercising our democratic right to demand economic and social justice.

• Anti-Trust

  • Canadian Supreme Court to hear Microsoft Case

  • Verizon now claims they are not blocking Google Wallet — but you can’t use it either.

• PR/AstroTurf/Lobbying

  • Caught on camera: top lobbyists boasting how they influence the PM

    Special undercover investigation: Executives from Bell Pottinger reveal ‘dark arts’ they use to burnish reputations of countries accused of human rights violations [and] to bury bad coverage and influence public opinion.

    They claim to be able to manipulate Google results and Wikipedia, manipulate weak minded politicians, create doubt with unimportant details, to run fake blogs and all that other Arron Barr trash. Because they also claim to be true belivers in their clients, they are themselves the most manipulated party.

• Censorship

  • RMS recommends signing this petition against SOPA

    Please sign it too. Almost a million people have.

  • Vint Cerf spoke against SOPA, and seizure of domain names in general.

  • Kspersky Quits BSA over support of SOPA

  • More Collateral Damage From SOPA: People With Print Disabilities And Human Rights Groups

    The first is that Bookshare, an online library for people who can’t read standard print books … Bookshare is legal in the US, but that doesn’t stop authors, agents or publishers who don’t know much about people with disabilities or copyright law sending cease and desist letters. … Benetech develops free software to help human rights activists around the world safely record stories of human rights abuse. … when asked if we know whether or not there are “pirated” copyrighted materials, we can’t say. … [under SOPA] If any single publisher or author of any one of the more than 130,000 accessible books in our library gets antsy, they can send a notice to VISA and MasterCard and say, stop money from going to Benetech and Bookshare.

    This article uses the propaganda term “piracy” for sharing. The point of SOPA is to give publishers the power to shut down whoever they want and that is unacceptable.

  • Big publishers Censor the Web in Belgium by DNS

    A few days after the verdict was announced The Pirate Bay registered depiraatbaai.be, a new domain not covered by the court order. Today, just a few weeks later, this domain is already the 124th most-visited in Belgium, on its way to enter the top 100.

  • Police in Kashmir attacked journalists, as they often do.

  • Apple is censoring information about abortion providers,

  • TV manager put on trial for showing a movie

• Privacy

  • Cyber Intelligence Bill Threatens Privacy and Civilian Control

    [a bill] permitting ISPs to funnel private communications and related information back to the government without adequate privacy protections and controls. The bill does not specify which agencies ISPs could disclose customer data to, but the structure and incentives in the bill raise a very real possibility that the National Security Agency or the DOD’s Cybercommand would be the primary recipient.

    “Cybersecurity” is impossible as long as people run Windows, but government wants weak security for spying on citizens.

  • Facebook Security Flaw Reveals Zuckerberg’s private Photos.

  • IMDb and Amazon vs. the “Ageless Actress”

    She claims that her age was requested as part of the routine sign-up sequence along with credit card, address, and other related data, and that it was not made clear that IMDb claimed the right to then use this information in their public database. When she asked them to remove this data from public view, IMDb reportedly declined. … Amazon seems to be largely “blowing off” concerns about their behavior in this matter, and worse, is attempting to preemptively shift blame to the plaintiff.

  • Open data in the UK means giving your medical records to drug companies.

    If the Coalition’s plan is implemented, it would mean that national healthcare patients would be required to proactively take themselves off the list, to prevent their personal medical data being shared with researchers. … Apparently, outsourcing medical research is the way forward for the NHS, but to do that, data needs to be shared.

• Civil Rights

  • US Citizens, please sign this ACLU petition. Tell Congress: Say NO to Indefinite Detention and Endless Worldwide War

  • NDAA passes house for “National Security Reasons.”

    Reddit and Twitter both experience problems.

  • Ten minutes of corporate media time was given to NDAA.

  • Welcome to the War

    The passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) through the Senate last Thursday saw the culmination of a ten-year crusade by Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) to make the law of war apply on US soil. … In summary, once the NDAA becomes law a US citizen on US soil can lawfully be killed by the US military if the military believes that citizen to be a terrorist affiliated with Al Qaeda or its allies.

  • America the Battlefield: The End of the Rule of Law

    As Senator Lindsay Graham recently remarked as an explanation for his support of legislation allowing for the indefinite detention of Americans, “Is the homeland the battlefield? You better believe it is the battlefield.” … If signed into law by President Obama, this bill will not only ensure that we remain in a perpetual state of war — with this being a war against the American people — but it will also institute de facto martial law in the United States.

  • Are Americans in Line for Gitmo?

    The Senate clearly wished for the military’s “law and order” powers to extend beyond the territory of military bases on the theory that there may be “terrorsymps” (short for “terrorist sympathizers”) lurking everywhere. … By noting that little-known fact [about Awlaki], am I showing “support” for “al-Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces”? Will the U.S. military be obliged to target me, too?

    It is worth reading the whole article.

  • Exclusive: Government Activating FEMA Camps Across U.S.

    An interesting accusation and summary of previous US crowd control/population lock up plans in light of NDAA.

  • ‘Occupy’ protesters reclaiming foreclosed homes in 20 cities

    Tuesday’s “Occupy Our Homes” action in at least 20 cities makes it clear that they are standing up to banks to reverse foreclosures. … We’re here because [there are] a lot of empty buildings owned by Wall Street banks and we’re going to liberate them

  • How the Gingrinch Stole Christmas.

    This is from the 1990s, when he advanced the Contract on America.

    If you did not believe the Republicans said what they meant and meant what they said back then, you should look around today and read this again.

  • LEGAL EXPERTS BLAST SAN DIEGO FOR ARREST OF RAY LUTZ, FORMER CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE, OVER VOTER REGISTRATIONS AT CIVIC CENTER PLAZA

    Ray Lutz should not be confused with this clown, Frank Luntz

• Intellectual Monopolies

  • Flood of EU Software Patents on the Way?

    The idea of bringing in a unitary EU patent system has been rolling around Brussels so long most people have assumed it will never happen. But there is a clear push on at the moment to realise these plans once and for all. … taking place largely in secret: this is a hugely important area, with implications for all businesses, and yet we are not permitted to see how the final negotiations are being conducted.

  • Copyrights

    • Royal Society Claims 1671 Copyright On Newton Letter (Copyright Law Born 29 Years Later)

Summary: Nokia will not produce anything of mass appeal, but it will, however, emit patents for Microsoft to attack Linux/Android with

OUR new page about MOSAID will help us keep track of the troll Microsoft plans to use, probably against Android.

Microsoft has taken what it wanted from Nokia and it will leave the corpse to dry up and die like like Yahoo! Even longtime Microsoft boosters do not believe that Nokia can save Microsoft or vice versa.

To quote this new article:

There are early signs of trouble with Nokia‘s initial round of Windows-based smart phones.

The Espoo, Finland-based mobile phone company has bet its future on a decision to shift its high-end hardware to Microsoft Windows Phone software and away from its proprietary Symbian OS. The company recently started selling the first fruits of its arrangement with Microsoft, the Lumia 800.

Bernstein Research analyst Pierre Ferragu pointed out a research note Friday that checks on Google Trends finds that the buzz level for the Lumia 800 is about on a part with the Nokia N8, the company’s top-of-the-line but poor selling smartphone a year ago. He thinks this one could be a dud, too.

Nokia was about to deliver a great GNU/Linux-based platform before a mole entered the company. The rest is history and we covered it extensively. Now we need to keep a close eye on MOSAID. Regulators should too. █

Direct link to deposition video | Full set of the deposition videos (including Ogg Theora versions)

Summary: Bill Gates’ crimes come back to haunt him, but he refuses to admit what things he previously wrote can show rather clearly — that he decided to break the competitors’ products rather than compete

MR. GATES was expected to be brought back to the courtroom. This finally happened some days ago and there is video coverage too:

Mr. Pogson points out and highlights some of Gates’ own words (as found in Comes vs. Microsoft):

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. [...] Having the Office team really think through the information intensive scenarios, and be a demanding client of systems is absolutely critical to our future success. We can’t compete with Lotus and Wordperfect/Novell without this.

Now, look at the exhibits shared by Groklaw and some of the reports from there:

We had a reporter there at the Novell v. Microsoft antitrust trial on Friday, and I gather it was quite a day. As you probably saw from the Salt Lake Tribune article we put in News Picks yesterday, the judge, U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz, had set aside five hours Friday to consider a Microsoft motion on whether to stop the trial now, on the alleged ground that Novell had failed to present a case. That kind of motion is typical after the plaintiff finishes presenting its case in most civil trials. What was different was that the judge took it seriously enough to even listen to extended oral argument. He does seem to have a Microsoft tilt, frankly.

By the way, Bill Gates is expected to testify on Monday. The trial is scheduled to continue on Monday, but the judge took the arguments on the Microsoft motion under advisement, and he could still rule to stop the trial if he wants to. And from all I’ve seen, he wants to. But if that happens, it won’t be before Gates testifies. It seems Novell found a crucial bit of evidence that the judge was not expecting.

Here is another one from Groklaw:

The media reports that Bill Gates’ testimony was that they decided to make the API change because of worry about breakage, but Novell responds to that and the other excuses amply.

Novell even points out that the judge is bound by the appeals court. They did rule that this case had to go to the jury, after all. It’s the law of the case. Novell seems to be setting things up so the record is complete and clear for an appeal, should one prove necessary.

The Microsoft boosters cannot quite spin Gates out of this one. Yes, Microsoft needed to shoot Novell’s horse, as Pamela Jones once put it. Techrights‘ Ryan quotes an article as saying: “He [Gates] testified later that Microsoft had to dump a technical feature that would have supported WordPerfect because he feared it would crash the operating system.”

Based on the exhibits we have, this is nonsense. The statement from this article is a lie. To quote other bits:

Microsoft’s Windows 95 rollout presented the most challenges in the company’s history, leading to several last-minute changes to technical features that would no longer support a rival software maker’s word processor, Bill Gates testified Monday in a $1 billion antitrust lawsuit filed by the creator of WordPerfect.

As Homer put it in USENET, “Microsoft’s Godfather [is] back in court”

Quoting his message through The Register: “Gates: Novell are sore losers, Word trounced WordPerfect Microsoft supremo testifies at antitrust hearing

“Gates told a court in Salt Lake City, Utah, on Monday that his Redmond minions “worked super-hard” on Word. He added: “It was a ground-breaking piece of work, and it was very well received when we got it done.”"

Homer’s response is that “they worked “super-hard” … by poaching Charles Simonyi and Richard Brodie from Xerox, to “rewrite” Xerox Bravo, the first GUI word processor, then rebranded it as Microsoft’s “innovation”.

“Then they worked “super-hard” to break cross-platform software, by releasing deliberately broken APIs, whilst using undocumented APIs for their own software, just like they did with Novell, Netscape, Real Networks and anyone else who dared to support anything but just Windows.

“Both the DOJ and the EU Commission have already exposed Microsoft’s criminal business methods in great detail, producing a swath of court evidence, most of which originates from within Microsoft, so why does this even need to go to trial again? It should be an open and shut case.

“Here’s a good summary [PDF]”

Here is another article about it:

Attorneys for Novell are expected to cross-examine Microsoft chairman Bill Gates Monday in a federal courthouse in Utah, where jurors are hearing Novell’s claim that the software giant used anticompetitive means to quash Word competitor WordPerfect and Excel rival Quattro Pro.

U.S. district court judge J. Frederick Motz, who is presiding over the case in Salt Lake City, may also rule Monday on Microsoft’s request, submitted Friday, to dismiss the case.

Novell sued Microsoft in 2004, claiming the software maker “deliberately targeted and destroyed” its WordPerfect word processor and Quattro spreadsheet franchises because they were compatible with non-Windows operating systems. Novell also charged that Microsoft banished WordPerfect from the Windows 95 rollout in an effort to drive the application into obscurity.

While it is true that this was ages ago, no justice was ever restored and Gates has done some other atrocious things since then. He is a user, a self-glorifying one (reputation laundering). █

Summary: The “Compete” euphemism is back and it is being sneakily used to deprive Google of the right to actually compete

TECHRIGHTS is proud to be the exclusive host of a lot of verified EDGI evidence. Based on court exhibits that we put out there for sites like Slashdot to make widely known, one term Microsoft uses to describe such anti-GNU/Linux initiatives is "Compete". It’s a funny term to be using as it’s a euphemism for anti-competitive tactics, wherein the company with a monopoly essentially bribes companies (or governments) to lure them away from the competition. Based on this new report, Microsoft now uses the same tactics to defend the Office monopoly:

Microsoft is so riled up over Google Apps that it has a team called Google Compete offering major inducements to convince customers to stay with Office, according to defectors and the search company itself.

At this week’s Google Atmosphere conference, several defectors who had adopted Google cloud apps said that they were approached by members of the Google Compete team, who had sought to persuade them to stay with Microsoft. If argument failed to convince them, then the team was willing to offer other inducements.

Google should complain about this because for a Redmond-based company with a monopoly in the office suites market there are special rules that Microsoft clearly does not obey. Under the banner “Compete”, Microsoft is being anti-competitive, derailing all efforts to actually compete. █

Summary: Competition crimes/violations from Apple and Microsoft in particular but also in general, exploiting the broken patent system in the United States

IN MONTHS or years to come we are likely to cover Apple’s and Microsoft’s patent attacks on Linux. It’s really that old guard and a case of last resort in action. Apple and Microsoft have reached the point of actually collaborating (or colluding) in their fight against Linux/Android. They use some bogus patents, embargo based on fake evidence, extortion, and patent trolls.

No fruit, just lawsuits!

Apple fan sites, in their usual way, spin Apple as a “victim” by saying that “Apple [got] Sued by a Third Party using Powerful Patents from Palm & 3Com”. To quote this fan site would be unwise, but it’s just something to be aware of. The reality is, Apple has been threatening several Linux-based platforms over the years, always using patents. It also threatened Palm. So who is Apple to claim to be a victim of Palm patents? How silly do these fan sites have to be? The patents in questions are worse than a joke; they are an insult to the USPTO and a real harm to everyone who buys electronic products. Apple and Microsoft just generally cannot compete fairly, so as Google puts it (paraphrased) “when Microsoft’s products fail, it wields patents”. The same goes for Apple, whose sales are falling behind those of several Android backers, even in isolation.

The problem with patents is widely understood. A OECD study says the quality of patent filings has fallen dramatically. To quote:

The quality of patent filings has fallen dramatically over the past two decades. The rush to protect even minor improvements in products or services is overburdening patent offices. This slows the time to market for true innovations and reduces the potential for breakthrough inventions, according to a new OECD report.

In other news of more minor relevance, things are not so rosy in India, either:

Reference to the name Upaid instantly reminds one of January 2009, the Satyam shock and class-action suits. The dispute between the two ended up with a tax issue, which was referred to the Authority for Advance Rulings (AAR). Among withholding tax issues, the AAR recently ruled on “hidden royalties”. Upaid was in the business of designing and developing software technology relating to payment-processing platforms and services. It conceived of an intelligent processing platform for which it outsourced the software development to Satyam. After all the agreements were done and dusted, two products — Call Manager and Net Manager — were developed. Patents were approved.

Two employees of Satyam also produced declarations that they had developed the patents which were assigned to Upaid, who turned out to be bad paymasters, forcing Satyam to acquire 22.06 per cent of its equity and offset its receivables. Disputes resulted in the termination of all agreements, with Upaid getting the intellectual-property (IP) rights and Satyam discontinuing software development.

Notice the terrible language in this article, not just “intellectual property” but also “develop patent”. How on Earth does one develop a piece of paper with ink on it? This whole system seem to have become somewhat rotten, especially when nothing physical is produced (e.g. in the software industry), which implies natural abundance.

Dr. Glyn Moody has this good new analysts of the antitrust violations of Microsoft as well as those mafia-like tactics which we wrote about before (that make it racketeering too). To quote:

Why Barnes & Noble is an Open Source Superstar

As I’ve noted many times, one of the biggest threats hanging over open source is patents, because of the way trivial but indispensable software techniques have been patented in some jurisdictions (mostly the US). Things are made worse by the fact that vague threats can be made in this area, for example this famous assertion in 2007:

Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith and licensing chief Horacio Gutierrez sat down with Fortune recently to map out their strategy for getting FOSS users to pay royalties. Revealing the precise figure for the first time, they state that FOSS infringes on no fewer than 235 Microsoft patents.

It’s striking that Microsoft has never said exactly which patents it thinks free software infringes upon, although not surprising. If it did, it would be possible to see whether there were any likely infringement and, more damagingly for Microsoft, to look for prior art or other grounds for those patents to be revoked. By keeping everything as vague accusations, Microsoft gets the best of both worlds: it is able to imply that free software is in big trouble, but without running the risk of being proved a paper tiger.

That’s what makes Barnes & Noble’s principled stand against Microsoft’s patent bullying so important. As PJ writes on Groklaw:

Barnes & Noble has done the world a tremendous favor, by pulling aside the curtain and revealing Microsoft’s patent campaign tactics against Android in lurid detail.

It reveals the assertion of “trivial” and “invalid” patents against Barnes & Noble and some shocking details about an “oppressive” license agreement that would have controlled hardware and software design features that Microsoft presented, thus limiting to what degree Barnes & Noble could offer upgrades and improved features to its customers if it had signed it, features it says none of Microsoft’s patents cover. Microsoft worked so hard to keep it all secret, and I think you’ll see why. It’s ugly behind that curtain.

[...]

However, the Barnes & Noble filing goes further than simply listing these patents: it also provides detailed information about prior art or other reasons why they are all invalid. But even if they were valid, they are pathetic in the extreme. That Microsoft is using such flimsy weapons against Barnes & Noble exposes how its whole approach is a sham.
It is obviously hoping that the sheer effort and expense of fighting them in a long-drawn out court process will persuade manufacturers simply to roll over and license them as the easier option. And indeed, that has worked with companies like HTC and Samsung signing up, to their eternal shame.

Barnes & Noble, by contrast, emerges with considerable honour here, since it refused to buckle, and as a result is able to provide us with the first real glimpse into Microsoft’s new strategy as a patent troll following the continuing failure of Windows Mobile in the market. And that is a key factor, as Barnes & Noble points out in its submission to the FTC (also on Groklaw), where it calls for a full anti-trust investigation into Microsoft’s behaviour

The rest is worth reading. We are working on a petition to have Microsoft executives prosecuted for these acts. Rich powerful people never/rarely get prosecuted because of the bias of the system, but at least it makes a loud statement about the lack of justice. This raises awareness. █

Photo by Luca Sartoni

Summary: Why the modus operandi of Microsoft (against Linux) is mostly overlooked because of proxies that it uses to distance itself from attacks

BASED on the comments we received yesterday, people misunderstood the basis of our complaint. Microsoft is breaking the law like Capone broke the law. Microsoft uses thugs to go and beat up the competition. If a company does not pay Microsoft “protection money”, then Microsoft will send some trolls. Microsoft’s patent troll Nathan Myhrvold does the same thing and should accordingly come under criminal/federal investigation (as already suggested by some of his victims).

When B&N complained about Microsoft abuses it did not neglect to mention this important point. MOSAID, for example, is one of those thugs [1, 2, 3] that Microsoft along with its mole Stephen Elop are arming. As one article from a Linux site put it, “Barnes and Noble petitions Nokia over Microsoft deal”. To quote:

Barnes & Noble has subpoenaed Nokia in its defense against Microsoft’s Android-related patent infringement claims, following its petition to the U.S. Department of Justice to look into Microsoft’s patent behavior for possible antitrust violations. In other patent-related news, Microsoft and Huawei are negotiating on a patent agreement, say reports.

When we say that Microsoft is breaking the law, it is essential to understand why and perhaps actually read the B&N complaint. One of our US-based members is currently preparing a petition to the White House about this. █

Summary: Negative pricing and retaliatory offerings from a convicted monopolist with antitrust violations — is that the ‘new’ Microsoft?

WHEN Microsoft paid people to use its Google scraper (known as "Bong") journalists called it a "bribe" and it failed anyway (Microsoft loses billions per year online). Microsoft wanted to be able to spy on more Internet users for all sorts of purposes. Now, we also know that Microsoft uses Internet Explorer to spy on users by keeping track of all the pages they visit. But this browser is failing pretty badly, so what does Microsoft do? Bribe ‘em:

Somewhere along the line, Microsoft went from being the 800-pound gorilla in the browser market to begging users to switch back to Internet Explorer. Now, Microsoft is running a “where’s the love?” campaign to offer “free stuff” for users who download IE9. After all these years, hasn’t Microsoft learned yet that it can’t buy love? Is the company capable of competing on features at all?
While IE may hold a lead over Firefox, Chrome and Safari individually, it’s trounced by the trio overall.

There are several articles about it out there. Microsoft gets slammed for trying to merely buy its userbase and thus deprive smaller companies, removing their rivals’ customers to the point where they are in mortal danger. This is monopoly abuse. There is some other interesting news today which very much screams “EDGI”. Assuming this report is accurate, Microsoft is offering ‘free’ stuff to derail its Free/open source competition, which again, is definitely monopoly abuse and ought to be investigated. To quote:

Free Microsoft upgrade when you threaten open source?

Qamar Yunus, assistant director in the Cabinet Office ICT policy team, says that Microsoft provided its software for free when a government department decided to pilot open source LibreOffice as an alternative to upgrading its Microsoft software.
Yunus was making the point that considering open source helps improve competition. He added, though, that open source should be considered properly rather than simply as a negotiating tool, according to Guardian Government Computing.
Yunus was speaking at EHI Live in Birmingham. He said that extensive research has established that neither departments nor system integrators understand open source.
He was also reported as saying that the ‘myth’ that open source was less secure than proprietary had been dispelled, and every government department was now mandated to look at both proprietary and open source software.

Antitrust officials should take action against this. If they disregard monopoly-related rules, then what good is the rule of law anyway? █

Summary: Kind request for the RICO Act to be upheld and enforced now that federal agents are under active pressure from Barnes and Noble, Google, and others

MICROSOFT has engaged in a new type of crime for about 5 years now. A lot of it happens behind closed doors. Extortion rackets are not legal, but they can be spun or painted as something else provided that the perpetrators are rich enough to buy the press, to buy lobbyists, to buy politicians, and to change the law with all of those things. The tide is beginning to turn against Microsoft now that the extortion racket has grown too big to be ignored.

While Groklaw does not look at the Oracle vs. Google case (its main focus these days [1, 2, 3]) it looks again at Microsoft and then covers what we covered here before. Microsoft lobbyists such as charlatan/crook Florian Müller and Novell will collude with Microsoft and try to get regulators off their back. Who can blame them? Microsoft pays their wages to do this. They are aiding crooks because it’s profitable. One tactic has been to divert attention to the victim, Google, portraying it as an aggressor. Here is one article among many about pursuit of “DOJ probe into Microsoft patent tactics”. “The overview, in the slides, of Microsoft’s anti-competitive behavior is the following,” writes Pamela Jones, who then quotes:

* Publicly Claiming Control of Android and Other Open Source Operating Systems

* Requiring Potential Licensees to Enter into Overly Restrictive Non-Disclosure Agreements

* Demanding Royalties Commensurate with Owning the Entire Android Operating Sysem (and Similar to Royalties for a Windows Phone License) Even Though Microsoft Only Owns Trivial Patents

* Imposing Licensing Provisions Unrelated to Microsoft’s Patents and Designed to Prevent Competitor Innovation

* Filing Frivolous Patent Infringement Actions Against Companies That Refuse to Enter Into Anticompetitive Licensing Agreements

* Deal with Nokia Includes an Agreement to Engage in a Coordinated Offense Use of Patents Against Open Source Software

* Purchasing Patent Portfolios that Threaten Open Source Software

“It’s almost as Martin Niemöller said,” writes Pogson, “First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.”

It is time to call out this nonsense and actually make Microsoft afraid of the law being enforced. What it is doing almost certainty violates the RICO Act, it’s just that nobody bothers to actually enforce the law and Microsoft uses NDAs to hide evidence of its criminal activities, just as it hid OOXML bribes to ensure it can corrupt ISO without the watchdogs sending anybody to jail.

Microsoft commits crimes of extortion and only gets away with it because of crooked political systems and a PR campaign it funds to whitewash its behaviour. If you are are US citizen who is tired of this, make sure you let your government representatives know (Microsoft is based in the US, so it has to be done there). A talented writer says that an expert claims regulators are “slow to catch up” to Microsoft patent bullying. In a sane system, Ballmer and his buddy Horacio would possibly be put in prison for a very long time, but as Timothy B. Lee makes apparent, the government is too afraid to take legal action against billionaires (we see this in Wall Street, too). Well, nobody wants to say that the emperor is naked because the PR campaign keeps talking about the garments, not the obvious absurdities:

Expert: Regulators “slow to catch up” to Microsoft patent bullying

Google and at least one of its Android partners—Barnes and Noble—have been agitating for a government antitrust investigation of Microsoft’s patent licensing practices. Last month, Barnes and Noble submitted a formal request for the Department of Justice to launch a probe.

According to Barnes and Noble, Microsoft claims to have over 60,000 patents. Fewer than 20,000 of those were granted by the patent office; Microsoft presumably purchased the other 40,000 from other firms. The result is one of the world’s largest “patent thickets.” Microsoft has so many patents that it’s difficult to build a software product as complex as a mobile operating system without infringing dozens, maybe even hundreds, of them.

And Microsoft is taking full advantage of that fact, approaching each Android-based phone manufacturer in turn and demanding stiff licensing fees—fees that are allegedly at least as high as the fees Microsoft charges for its own Windows Phone 7 operating system. Microsoft has also been cagey about identifying the specific patents allegedly infringed by Android vendors. Some observers (including me) have characterized the process as a shakedown.

So does Microsoft’s conduct run afoul of antitrust law? Michael Carrier, an antitrust scholar at Rutgers-Camden, is skeptical. “I’m concerned by a lot of this conduct,” he said, but antitrust law has “limited tools” to deal with it. And antitrust regulators tend to be slow to adapt to changing market circumstances.

Nobody suggests an “Occupy Redmond”; we only ask US citizens to demand enforcement of the RICO Act, which was not put in place for mere ‘decoration’ or symbolism. It is the legal rights of US citizens to contact their elected officials and at the very least share with us their responses. We need to apply pressure. The president of the FSFE calls this whole thing “extortion” in one of his latest tweets, but he cannot do much about it. To quote:

Barnes & Noble: Microsoft trying to make #android as expensive as Windows Mobile through patent extortion

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols wrote one of the best articles about this. To quote:

While Google has been fighting with Oracle over Java’s intellectual property (IP) and Android, it hasn’t been doing a lot for its Android allies who have been being whipsawed by Apple, Microsoft and patent trolls such as Intellectual Ventures. That may be changing. Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt said today in Taiwan that Google will stand by the phone vendors firms in any Android patent lawsuit.

According to Focus Taiwan, Schmidt said, “We disagree with Microsoft that anyone needs to pay Microsoft a royalty fee for products they didn’t build. I want to emphasize that Google built these products [Android and Chrome], not Microsoft. We tell our partners, including the ones in Taiwan, that we will support them.”

It’s not just Microsoft though that Schmidt is giving notice to that Google won’t be sitting back in patent lawsuits. “For example, we have been supporting HTC in its dispute with Apple because we think that the Apple thing is not correct.”

I also suspect it’s because, as Google gets closer to sealing the deal that will bring it Motorola Mobility. Google will be able to use its Motorola Mobility patent arsenal against Android’s enemies in the courtroom.

Pogson cited this and added:

Some other nuggets:

see Oracle v Google where the judge has seen patent claims and copyright claims whittled away to almost nothing compared to the $billions Oracle made. Google’s lawyer stated in court, “when Android was announced in 2007, Sun didn’t throw up their hands and say, oh, my gosh, you’re infringing, Sun congratulated Google on Android, welcomed Android to the Java community, put Android on Sun products, asked Google how they could help Android.”

see A suggestion that the ugly Apple v Samsung global war was actually the result of Steve Jobs’ vanity and may soon be resolved.

The world of IT needs this war to be short and decisive. There is hope.

According to a new article from Reuters, “Google offers support to Android firms in lawsuits”. Well done:

Google Inc will continue to offer support to firms using its Android system that are involved in legal disputes, its executive chairman Eric Schmidt said on Wednesday, as the Internet giant looks to cement alliances in the face of toughening competition.

It would be unfair to name only Microsoft for its extortion of Android. Apple’s former CEO too vowed to use up to $40 billion just trying to kill Android in the courtroom, as though the courtroom is just a little playground for him — a playground by which to subvert competition, maybe even by liaising with his best friend Larry Ellison. Watch this new patent from Apple, the company which only pretends to innovate. When it does ‘innovate’, it’s stuff like this:

• Apple patents a SIM you can’t remove

  Apple has been awarded a US patent on an embedded SIM capable of switching between mobile network operators under command from Cupertino, assuming the operators comply.

  The patent places an embedded SIM within the secure element which one would expect to see managing electronic payments, which is why it was spotted by NFC World. Its editor, Sarah Clark, realised the significance of the patent and how it validates last year’s rumours that Apple was planning a cross-network SIM-less handset.

  We discussed that idea almost exactly a year ago, coincidentally on the very date the patent was filed. We pointed out that in Europe the legally mandated GSM standard requires a removable SIM, and that Apple would have to get the standard changed before would be allowed to sell such a device. That change is now in process, but we didn’t expect Apple to patent the idea too.

It has been suggested elsewhere that Steve Jobs' own words should be used to report Apple too — not just Microsoft — for abusing the legal system for anti-competitive purposes, incidentally colluding with Microsoft at the same time. The bottom line though is clear; it is time to actually use the law the way it was supposed to be used — to serve justice, not to derail competitors, extort competition, bankrupt competitors, intimidate competitors, and present fake evidence to block imports of the competition.

US citizens: the Barnes and Noble complaint text can be (re)used to contact representatives without having to do much work. If you hear back, please let us know and share. █