Summary: Important observations about the nature of computer-implemented ‘inventions’, or software patents
Thanks to a recent decision against the patent troll called Uniloc we now know that “Even An East Texas Court Has Told Uniloc That It Can’t Patent Math”. The significance of this lies in the fact that software patents are characterised correctly for a change, even in the most patents-friendly places. There is a new “Math on Trial” book. It is not about patents but it’s about cases in the courtroom that are built solely on mathematics, or specifically mathematical errors. Let us hope that more literature and even courts will reinforce the position that mathematics have no place in the courtroom and software patents essentially correspond to monopoly on higher-level mathematics. Unless the judges are prepared to handle a whiteboard/blackboard, pick up a marker/chalk, and then analyse legal case in terms of equations and such, mathematics have no place on trial. Richard Stallman made the suggestion that software patents should be made unenforceable in the courts. █
Send this to a friend
Accepting the status quo, like sheep led to slaughter
Summary: Red Hat is too soft on the issue of software patents, based on its comments to the USPTO; Linux/Android continue to suffer from software patents in court cases which may last years
Red Hat has hardly been a flag bearer in the fight against software patents. It is not as bad as IBM, but it is not always helpful, either. Red Hat itself is filing to receive software patents of its own, making a distinction between what it calls “bad” software patents and “good” software patents. It tends to focus on trolls and in its Web site OpenSource.com (Red Hat-run) it has almost a monopoly on views regarding software patents.
Nevertheless, in the wake of USPTO opening up to feedback Red Hat is making its policy known:
The USPTO has been asking the public to respond to a series of questions with suggestions on improving patents. It is aware that the technical community isn’t happy with the way patents are being issued, particularly software patents. You are familiar with some of the USPTO’s questions, because we at Groklaw responded to two of them, topic 1 on how to improve software patents, regarding functional language, and topic 2, suggestions for future topics for discussion.
Red Hat’s suggestions play along the lines of software patents as a given, which is problematic. Groklaw‘s ‘cref 66895 suggestions], on the other hand, were very good and they are essential for a meaningful discussion of the real issues. Elsewhere in Groklaw there is a discussion about a legal case involving the best-selling Linux devices, the ones from Samsung. Here are the latest two updates on that:
1. Joint Case Management Statement Filed in Apple v. Samsung
The judge in the first Apple v. Samsung patent case in California, the Hon. Lucy Koh, asked the parties to file a joint case management statement, just in case she decides to go forward with an immediate second jury on the issue of damages on the 14 products where the first jury got the math wrong. And they have now done so [PDF]. There will be a hearing on all this on April 29. Of course, they disagree. Because they don’t agree on how to go forward, they each set out their positions, once again. The short version is that Apple wants to hurry up and have the trial immediately and Samsung wants to hear from the appeals court before the new damages trial goes forward, so as to ensure the same mistakes aren’t repeated.
2. Judge Koh’s Order in Apple v Samsung: No Stay on Damages Retrial, Unless…
Judge Lucy Koh has reached a decision [PDF] on going forward on the retrial on damages in Apple v. Samsung. Trial is set now for November 12th, on damages only, same Daubert rulings, motions in limine, discovery disputes, and evidentiary objections ruled on the same as the first trial, meaning if she made mistakes in the first trial, they’ll be repeated in the retrial. “The parties may not relitigate these issues,” she writes. So it’s all for the appeal court to figure out. She isn’t interested in reviewing all that. So if the appeals court orders a third trial, that’s the way it will have to be. She wants to keep the damages retrial short and sweet and limited to just one issue, and then send it on its way to appeal, so no new theories and no new fact discovery. There is a schedule for expert discovery. The jury will be 8 people, with the parties’ given three peremptory challenges each. Apple asked for the very same jury instructions, but she says they will get together on October 17th to discuss “how to
present infringement and validity findings” to the new jury. Other than that, she is silent on that point.
Trial expected at the end of this year, eh? Justice is taking too long, so it’s SCO all over again in that respect. What needs to occur some time in the next year or two is elimination of software parents in the United States (or radical cut-down). Red Hat just doesn’t go far enough to achieve that. We need other fronts in the fight against software patents; Google ain’t it, either. █
Send this to a friend
Novell’s site (front page) looks like this today:
Summary: Even though Novell was sold, the brand continues to have some output under certain circumstances
Novell, the company that we first targeted in this Web site (way back in 2006), is still pursuing justice in the WordPerfect case. This is perhaps Novell’s last legacy. Pamela Jones has this update on the case:
Novell has now filed its reply brief [PDF] with the US Court of Appeals for the 10th District. Here’s Microsoft’s brief and Novell’s opening brief in its appeal in the WordPerfect antitrust case against Microsoft.
Novell’s arguments are clear and powerful. “A reasonable jury could find that Microsoft’s conduct was anticompetitive because it harmed Novell, was not competition on the merits, and was reasonably capable of contributing significantly to maintaining Microsoft’s monopoly power in the operating systems market,” Novell writes. Nowhere, it says, does Microsoft defend Microsoft’s conduct as competition on the merits. And Microsoft’s brief neglected to mention to the appeals court, or respond to, the District Court’s conclusion that a jury could have found Microsoft’s justifications for its conduct “to be pretextual.” Worse, Microsoft is asking the appeals court to confer immunity on it “for deception of competitors regardless of the effect on competition.”
By withdrawing its support for namespace extension APIs, Microsoft destroyed Novell’s economic viability, and it did it on purpose to harm a competitor. The Bill Gates email [PDF] proves it, they believe. The whole point of documenting APIs and releasing betas is to induce reliance, so Microsoft can’t credibly argue that it didn’t know this change on its part would impact Novell negatively.
And again, as in Novell’s opening brief (p. 38, footnote 5), Novell references Microsoft using a “deceptive script” which it says is mentioned in the email thread in which a Microsoft employee reported to his company that WordPerfect appeared to be “OK” with the change. Novell says was used to justify the change and persuade companies like Novell that Microsoft had to make the change. (Cf. this Groklaw article and this email thread [PDF] for context.) I’m sure we’ll hear more about this at oral argument. So if you attend the event, and I know some of you are trying to make arrangements to attend, please watch for this in particular.
And then Novell says Microsoft ignored a great deal of the evidence that favors Novell, and so did the District Court, but the applicable standard for summary judgment under Rule 50 is that the court was required to view the evidence in the light most favorable to Novell, which it failed to do. Microsoft also ignored evidence that its conduct harmed competition in the operating systems market, including evidence from binding Findings of Fact from the US v. Microsoft case, and the testimony and statements of Microsoft executives (cf. Groklaw). And finally, Microsoft disregarded applicable substantive law, Novell argues.
Novell was sold to Attachmate, but the Novell brand lives on. There is this new post about a Novell-branded product which Novell boasts about at
Adding to the existing Novell File Management Suite, Novell File Reporter 2.0 integrates with both eDirectory and Active Directory to simultaneously report on Novell and Microsoft network folder and file data and corresponding file rights.
This product was even announced in Novell’s Web domain. Not too long ago Novell tried telling us that it was not dead. For most purposes, however, it is just a brand owned by Attachmate and it’s the name of the claimant in the case against Microsoft. Novell’s board has been sued for selling the company. █
Send this to a friend
Summary: An overview of recent news about Android cases and a reminder of the anti-Korea bias in north American press
Android is developed by an American (US) company, but the lion’s share of Android devices come from east Asia. By creating factories in the US, Apple and Samsung compete over the perception of being “more American” (made or assembled in USA). The corporate press, channels like CNN for example, does an Apple for dummies type of routine when it covers anti-Android lawsuits. It does not focus on trial misconduct [1, 2] for example. Forbes describes Apple as a victim:
Apple is perhaps the most talked about company in the world, online. Now, thanks to Apple’s litigation strategy, Samsung is the second most talked about. Here is a small thread of evidence.
The US is, as one might expect, hostile towards Korean companies if their rivals are largely US-based brands. Pamela Jones is the exception and she writes:
Judge Lucy Koh, the presiding judge in the Apple v. Samsung litigations, warned [PDF] the parties that she would ignore any arguments in their attachments to their post-trial motions that were new and therefore a backdoor way of bypassing the page limits she set for them, writing that “Any argument that is not explicitly articulated within the briefing page limits will be disregarded. Any supporting documentation shall be for corroboration purposes solely and shall not be used as a vehicle for circumventing the Court’s page limits.”
It would not be racist to say that Koh’s ethnicity may make her less likely to be Korea-hostile (as many US judges are). Recall what Europe too does to the Korean giant along with the ITC. Here is the ITC in action. The private US press — that which billionaires literally own — covered it a lot to make Apple, a common advertiser and ally, look good. Smaller news sites mention Apple setbacks; contrariwise, bad news for Samsung is what they fancy covering at CBS. To quote: “Samsung has dropped its bid to have Apple products that relate to its ongoing court cases against the company withdrawn from sale in Europe.”
And what about Apple? Remember who started it all and repeatedly sought bans. Watch this pro-Apple site whining about Apple not getting a trademark on “launchpad” (like Canonical):
On December 13, 2012, the US Patent & Trademark Office published a notice sent to Apple that basically denies them the rights to “Launchpad.” This is Apple’s second attempt at convincing the government agency of approving this trademark.
Canonical has had Launchpad for years. This just shows an ugly side of Apple, that’s all. The company also sought patents on shapes — a territory which in an article by Dennis Crouch he describes as follows: “laws of design patents; design patent application preparation and prosecution; design patent enforcement; tests of design patent validity; and design patent remedies.”
These patents are vague enough to augment copyright and they are very controversial, too. Remember the rounded rectangle monopoly of Apple? Apple’s cases are just very weak.
Recently we wrote about Apple and MPEG-LA. Watch this new article and remember that Apple and Microsoft are patent allies.
Motorola and Microsoft Debate the Scope of Google’s MPEG-LA License (Seattle) ~pj
The last time we looked in on the Microsoft v. Motorola litigation in Seattle, the judge, the Honorable James L. Robart, had just ruled that Motorola would have no right to injunctive relief in the US and Germany for its H.264 and 802.11 standard essential patent portfolios, at least not in the current set of facts, although he allowed that facts could change in the future.
The judge has asked [PDF] the parties to give him more information about Google’s license agreement with the MPEG-LA patent pool, and he set a hearing for oral argument for January 28 at 1:30 PM in Seattle on that issue and on a Microsoft motion for summary judgment on invalidity. If any of you can attend, that’d be wonderful.
We now can have a much clearer picture of the parties’ positions, now that we have both parties’ post-trial briefs on the subject of Google’s license agreement with MPEG-LA regarding H.264/AVC patent pool.
The crux of the debate is how to interpret one clause in the agreement, Section 8.3. Does it require Google to grant Microsoft a license to Motorola’s H.264-essential patents? Microsoft says it does, and Google says it does not. Google says it chose a license whereby it would have to list all affiliates it wished to be covered by the agreement, and to date it has not listed Motorola. It didn’t close on the Motorola deal until after it entered the license agreement with MPEG-LA anyway. And Motorola never on its own put any of its relevant patents into the MPEG-LA patent pool. So either way, Microsoft has no rights to a license via the MPEG-LA patent pool, Google argues, only by negotiated agreement under normal RAND terms, obviously at a higher rate.
The MPEG cartel has been used by the duopoly against free platforms, but Apple got hit recently, as covered here:
A federal jury in Delaware has found Apple’s iPhone infringes on three patents held by MobileMedia Ideas, a patent-holding company formed by Sony, Nokia and MPEG LA.
Here is more:
Apple Inc. (AAPL) lost an infringement case brought by patent-licensing firm MobileMedia Ideas LLC when a federal jury decided the maker of the iPhone misappropriated protected technology for the handheld devices.
Jurors in Wilmington, Delaware, deliberated about four hours after a weeklong trial before also concluding today that the three patents aren’t invalid.
Those trolls are connected to the MPEG cartel, unlike this entity:
Apple Inc. (AAPL) and LG Electronics Inc. (066570) didn’t infringe an Alcatel-Lucent SA (ALU) unit’s patents for electronic devices including phones and computers, a jury said.
The verdict today came after a trial that began Nov. 27 in federal court in San Diego over a 2010 lawsuit by the Paris- based company’s Multimedia Patent Trust accusing Apple and LG Electronics of copying video-compression technology that allows data to be sent more efficiently over communications media, including the Internet and satellites, or stored on DVDs and Blu-Ray disks.
This comes from Bloomberg. Plutocrats’ press likes to cover pro-Apple stories. █
Send this to a friend
Summary: Now that Android- and Linux-powered devices easily outsell Apple’s we find clear nervousness at Apple
Android and iOS have both just been hit by a European patent troll, which is an unusual thing; we have never heard of Arendi before (hard to find a Web site for it also), but here it is in the news:
Arendi S.A.R.L, a Luxembourg-based technology company, unleashed a torrent of patent infringement suits against a who’s-who of technology companies including Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and in Delaware federal court Thursday over three patents covering computer programs.
Apple fan sites are not happy, but Apple is in no position of deserving sympathy. Groklaw says that Apple is preparing to strike Android again, in a matter of days:
I think Apple may be feeling a little nervous about Samsung winning a new trial in Apple v Samsung. As the December 6th hearing on both parties’ motions for summary judgment draws near, there has been a flurry of Apple activity.
First, they have finally voluntarily told [PDF] the court — voluntarily as in after Samsung filed a motion to compel Apple to respond, but before the judge ruled — that they didn’t know about the jury foreman’s litigation with Seagate until after the trial. They did know about the bankruptcy but they didn’t delve into it. This, of course, is helpful to Samsung, in that Apple’s argument that Samsung shoulda-coulda known earlier about the litigation and failed to pursue it now bites the dust. Or it should. But the truth is, no matter what they said, it helps Samsung, but this is the least harmful to Apple. Presumably it’s also true.
The Microsoft booster says that Cook got himself a press platform already:
A rare interview with Apple’s chief executive will air the same day the company heads back to court with rival Samsung.
Trial by media? “The hearing is Dec. 6th,” writes Pamela Jones, “but I doubt there will be a ruling that day. More likely would be that the judge takes it under advisement and issues a written decision thereafter. But it’s an interesting decision to do the interview. I wonder if it means Apple is finally waking up to the news that a lot of folks genuinely hate the patent war it is waging.”
One thing is for sure; Apple created a lot of hostility towards patents. It also helped many realise that the problem is not just Microsoft and that swapping Microsoft with Apple is misguided; for innovation and for the betterment of society we must journey towards software freedom. █
Send this to a friend
Apple’s tribalism backfires
Summary: Apple’s Hubris and reluctance to comply with court orders is costing it not just in bad publicity but also a more severe and stern order
Apple is a nasty company based on its behaviour in recent years. It’s not mere emotion that makes one call Apple “nasty”; this has become a widely-held perception, sometimes about Apple’s most passionate customers too. Watch Apple getting criticised for its aggressive nature again:
Apple is a litigious company, most famously for its multi-billion dollar patent crusade against Samsung. The Cupertino company has a more quixotic legal battle going on against its competitors, however, that has also become a bit of a war against the English language. Since last year, Apple lawyers have been arguing that “App Store” is a trademarked phrase, and it has the right to stop others from using similar phrases. That includes Amazon, which was sued by Apple in March 2011, shortly after it opened the Amazon Appstore for Android.
Now, some of those issues are finally coming to a head in public. At a hearing today in an Oakland federal court, it became clear that while Apple may have a lot of fury and passion behind this lawsuit, it has run into trouble in the form of a very skeptical judge. US District Judge Phyllis Hamilton showed great doubt that Apple will be able to prove that consumers were confused or deceived by Amazon’s use of the word “Appstore.” At this point, it’s somewhat remarkable that the company hasn’t dropped this suit, since Hamilton indicated a year ago that she was unimpressed by Apple’s arguments and denied a preliminary injunction.
Apple‘s arrogant marketing (including the “R and D” nonsense) is not impressing those who see innovators fleeing or getting fired. To quote this one report, “[w]hen Apple forced its mobile software leader Scott Forstall out of the company, it pushed out the most prolific inventor at the company, as measured by recent patent filings.
“Forstall’s name is on 166 pending patent applications. That’s more than anyone at the company, according to data from investment bank MDB Capital.”
Those patents have been used against companies like Samsung, usually in vain. Apple is getting told off by judges who accuse the company of breach of order. To quote: “Apple tried to argue that it would take 14 days to post an updated notice on its website, but the request was shot down. In fact, Judge Jacob made it clear that Apple’s actions are beginning to make him testy.”
Mr. Pogson says that “Apple Needs to Learn Humility” and in a post by Mike Masnick we learn about the background:
Last week we noted that Apple had put up a rather petulant non-apology apology in response to the UK court order requiring it to advertise to the world that Samsung didn’t copy Apple in making its devices. Many people wondered how the court would react to Apple’s attempt… and the answer is that the court is not pleased (and is further displeased by Apple’s claim that it needs two weeks to come up with something better)…
Pamela Jones says that Apple must go further than before:
There are consequences now that are worse than before. Apple tried to argue that they followed the letter of the law in the original notice, as does Patently Apple. But there is something called the spirit of the law too, and if you follow one and thumb your nose at the other, things can go wrong, because people notice. Judges are not stupid. Not that I believe what Apple did obeyed the letter of the law either. Nor did the judge in the UK.
It’s never all right to show disrespect to a court of law, and lawyers above all others should take the lead in demonstrating that respect. The rule of law actually depends on it, which is another way of saying that civilization itself depends on it. Otherwise, it’s back to pistols at dawn, or worse.
We wrote about the fake apology several times before [1, 2, 3]. Here is the best report we found in the sense that it’s not shy to slam Apple:
Apple Has To Readmit That Samsung Did Not Copy iPad Design: Reprimanded By Court
Judge Jacob said, “I’m at a loss that a company such as Apple would do this. That is a plain breach of the order.”
Apple’s arrogance doesn’t end here. The company requested 14 days to make the changes. Wow. Why would a company need 14 days to make changes to it’s own site? Typical Apple.
Judge Jacob did not buy this and rejected the request stating, “I just can’t believe the instructions you’ve been given. This is Apple. They cannot put something on their website?”
Here is the Apple-friendly BBC:
Apple has 48 hours to re-write a statement on its website relating to its design rights dispute with Samsung, UK judges have ruled.
Lord Justice Longmore told Mr Beloff: “We are just amazed that you cannot put the right notice up at the same time as you take the other one down.”
Sir Robin Jacob added: “I would like to see the head of Apple [Tim Cook] make an affidavit about why that is such a technical difficulty for the Apple company.”
Now, that would be entertaining. Apple got itself deeper in the PR blunder. Its arrogance sure works against its intentions and brings no benefit. █
Send this to a friend
Monopoly (uniformity) versus openness and diversity
Summary: A mixed roundup of news and analysis affecting the growth of Linux
THE REALITY of “patent wars”, as a Microsoft-friendly site put it (especially in smartphones), is being realised by more and more people. “An infographic showing who is suing whom and who is selling patents to whom shows that patents are indeed a source of much friction and the only likely winners are the lawyers.” This is the description of this recent article which helps illustrate just how harmful patents have been, unless we take into account a patent lawyers’ perspective. In this post we’ll present some news with evidence-based material that can help support an appeal to authorities.
Over at Groklaw, the biggest lawsuit against Android is being covered only to say that: “The judge in the Oracle v. Google litigation has denied Oracle’s risible renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b), one day after Oracle filed its reply to Google’s opposition to it. No ruling in Oracle’s favor, therefore, will be forthcoming, and no new trial. Also, no hearing on the 26th. The judge didn’t need to hear them jabber on about all this in person, at further expense to both sides, before making his decision.”
“The judge in the Oracle v. Google litigation has denied Oracle’s risible renewed motion for judgment …”
–GroklawRecently, one writer questioned Larry Ellison’s motives for filing this whole bogus lawsuit. We have always suspected that his best friend Steve Jobs played some role in this decision. To quote the writer however: “IT SEEMS that Oracle’s lawsuit against Google over its use of Java in Android has fallen apart. Although the trial is still ongoing, and the judge has yet to hand down an important copyright ruling while the jury has yet to return its verdicts on patents and damages, if any – it’s already apparent that Oracle is unlikely to win billions or even millions of dollars from Google, and it’s possible that Oracle might lose entirely.
“This lawsuit is rather important, however, if only because it has raised the spectre that software APIs might be found subject to copyright. As many people have already noted, that would have dire consequences for interoperability and software freedom throughout the IT industry. It would put into play programming languages, the interfaces of software stacks and potentially even the internet itself.
“All kinds of APIs could suddenly become targets for the extraction of licensing fees and endless litigation. That could effectively destroy the entire software industry and stifle innovation for years, creating a terrible dystopia.
“While that depressing vision might not in fact develop if APIs are deemed copyrightable – and it seems unlikely that Judge Alsup will rule that they are, given that US copyright law has always considered them functional elements and not creative expression that’s deserving of copyright protection – that’s what Oracle has argued for in its lawsuit against Google.”
Oracle’s case is weak and meanwhile the main party benefiting from it is Apple. After the lawsuit against Google some said that software patents as a whole were discredited.
More recently, the judge in another case against Android explicitly questioned software patents (well done, Mr. Posner), noting in an actual column (rare for a judge) that “there are too many patents in America (that is his headline, see a printer-friendly version for future reference). “Recently,” says the judge, “while sitting as a trial judge, I dismissed a case in which Apple and Motorola had sued each other for alleged infringement of patents for components of smartphones. My decision undoubtedly will be appealed, and since the case is not yet over with it would be inappropriate for me to comment publicly on it.
“But what I am free to discuss are the general problems posed by the structure and administration of our current patent laws, a system that warrants reconsideration by our public officials.*
“U.S. patent law confers a monopoly (in the sense of a right to exclude competitors), generally for 20 years, on an invention that is patented, provided the patent is valid — that is, that it is genuinely novel, useful, and not obvious. Patents are granted by the Patent and Trademark Office and are presumed valid. But their validity can be challenged in court, normally by way of defense by a company sued by a patentee for patent infringement.
“With some exceptions, U.S. patent law does not discriminate among types of inventions or particular industries. This is, or should be, the most controversial feature of that law. The reason is that the need for patent protection in order to provide incentives for innovation varies greatly across industries.”
Over at Groklaw, another valuable reference was provided for the new work from Boston. To quote: “Jim Bessen and Mike Meurer have published their latest paper examining the impact of “patent trolls” (they politely refer to them as Non-Producing Entities or NPEs) on our national economy. Entitled The Direct Costs From NPE Disputes [PDF], the paper examines the direct costs of patent assertions by NPEs against operating companies, i.e., companies that actually make things to earn their revenues. More on the Bessen/Meurer paper in a bit.
“In the meantime, Prof. Colleen Chien of the Santa Clara University School of Law is conducting a survey on the economic impacts of patent litigation on the economy, and she could use your help. Prof. Chien is particularly interested in survey responses from start-ups and small companies. Respondents need not be patent holders or in the technology business. If you know of anyone who could provide a useful response, please encourage them to participate.
“Now, back to the Bessen/Meurer paper. Here are some of the highlights:
* The number of defendants in NPE patent suits doubled from 2009 (approximately 2,700) to 2011 (more than 5,800).
* Direct costs of patent assertions by NPEs are cost our national economy more than $29 billion dollars a year, and that tab also doubled from 2009 to 2011.
* Much of the burden of this NPE litigation falls on small and medium-sized companies. 82% of the defendants, accounting for 50% of the defenses, had median revenues of less than $12 million a year.
* They find little evidence to support the contention that NPEs promote invention. [Why am I not surprised?!]”
“They find little evidence to support the contention that NPEs promote invention.”
–GroklawSo now we have both judges (lawyers) and scholarly people (academics) telling us that the system is broken. In order to ensure this does not spread to Europe, please, our dear European readers, consider writing to politicians whom we named.
A month and a half ago we saw Kelora losing a patent for it being “obvious”, leading to the question, are “Software Patents In Danger?”. To quote: “As software patent litigation ramped up over the past few years, software patents have come under the microscope within the technical community. Many investors and technologists believe that software patents should be abolished all together, while others take the less extreme position that many software patents are obvious over known prior art (“prior art” being earlier publications that show a patent is obvious or not new). Courts are increasingly cognizant of these criticisms.
“Though it is unlikely that software patents are going away any time soon, as the recent summary judgment in eBay v PartsRiver (PartsRiver is now known as Kelora) demonstrates, courts are beginning to do a more thorough job of applying the obviousness standard to software patents.”
Right now we must work to squash software patents while at the same time ensuring we can compartmentalise and contain this virus, simply by preventing our politicians from being bamboozled. The evidence is overwhelmingly on our side. We need the voices though. As we’ll show in a later post, Microsoft lobbyists are paid to speak about patents on ‘our behalf’, at our expense, resulting in great disparity (or distortion) between public policy and public opinion. █
Send this to a friend
Original: Georg C.F. Greve, FSFE Founder
Summary: Microsoft is ruled guilty and is forced to pay around a billion dollars in fines for anti-competitive behaviour
THOSE who say that Microsoft is a reformed company and mostly a scapegoat may wish to read the latest reports on Microsoft antitrust. From the MSBBC for example (with known pro-Microsoft bias and ex-Microsoft executives):
Europe’s second highest court has upheld a competition ruling against Microsoft saying it “essentially upholds the Commission’s decision”.
Reuters spins it as “EU court cuts Microsoft antitrust fine slightly” (that’s not the major angle of the news) and after Novell sold out we are happy to see the FSFE making the following remarks:
Second, FSFE was a public interest organisation who couldn’t be bought off. The case began with many companies giving testimony of Microsoft’s breaches of antitrust regulation, but one-by-one these companies made deals with Microsoft and withdrew from the case. FSFE and SIIA were the only two organisations that pursued this case from start to finish. We were later joined by ECIS, who did extraordinary work, but there were moments when it got lonely for the Commission.
Microsoft cannot starve the FSFE like it apparently tried to starve the FSF. A news report is finally published about this:
The Free Software Foundation’s executive director John Sullivan has publicly complained that Microsoft’s reputation database is listing the Foundation’s donate.fsf.org as a gambling site. The Foundation was alerted by a Reddit posting where a user was unable to access the site from his place of work.
The FSF is probably the body we can rely on the most. It is targeted by Microsoft indirectly most of the time, e.g. attacks on the General Public License (GPL).
The aforementioned articles help show that companies like Canonical ought to complain rather than collaborate with crooks. “So pursuing anti-trust may be necessary,” writes iophk, “but in the short term it is no help in solving any of the problems. The solutions will have to come from other means. Only 8 years…” █
Send this to a friend
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »