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). █

The US is in the midst of an insurance industry push towards electronic medical records. Tax breaks and other incentives have been offered to doctors who make the move to electronic records keeping. This will be good if adequate protections are in place.

The privacy of electronic records is supposed to be protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, but there are obvious and gaping problems. Frequently raised concerns include nosy clerks especially at satellite institutions like pharmacies, unauthorized remote intrusion, court orders and a lack of action by regulators who take complaints. Mostly overlooked is the fact that software owners like Microsoft will have unfettered access to any medical record that any Windows system has access to. Google recently proved that Microsoft was spying on ordinary users, so the threat is no longer a theoretical matter of the company exercising the broad rights to snoop they gave themselves in their EULAs a decade ago [2] with or without your permission.

Every business and government office that uses non free software should realize this threat and end it by migrating to free software. Moving to free software won’t protect institutions from malicious clerks and other commonly mentioned problems but it is the only solution to unauthorized access to records by software owners. That access and power is at the heart of the bad deal propitiatory software has always offered but is exposed in an ugly way when all of our records are electronic and computers must be on a network to be considered useful.

Businesses that do not move out of customer and self interest should be forced by law. Customers and citizens concerned about their privacy should be protected. Because no such privacy can be guaranteed by propitiatory software, no propitiatory software should be allowed to operate on customer business records. Only software with the four software freedoms should be allowed.

Summary: Microsoft wanted Web SQL dead “just because they don’t have sql92 level sqllite implementation,” alleges a reader of ours

IN RECENT weeks we’ve written critically about the W3C [1, 2, 3], which does dubious things that help Microsoft (it has a chair there).

According to an update from 2 days ago (18 November 2010), “W3C kills Web SQL Database,” says Reddit. Over a hundred comments were posted about it and one reader of ours, who is very knowledgeable in the area of databases, came to say: “w3c (Microsoft) kills web sql (just because they don’t have sql92 level sqllite implementation)” █

Summary: Leader of Sun’s open source programme is not at all positive about Oracle’s commitment to Free/libre software

THE ORACLE-GOOGLE case has gotten us increasingly distracted [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9], but it’s an important issue. Simon Phipps‘ initial reaction was:

Hmm. Aren’t these both Linux Foundation members and OIN licensees? Fighting over open source technology in a Linux distro? Presumably this also indicates Oracle’s decision on Apache’s request for a TCK for Harmony.

Phipps was Sun’s key “Open Source” guy, so his opinion matters a great deal. He is calling for everyone to abolish software patents (again). “If you still think software patents are a spur to innovation, you’re not paying attention,” he wrote. More importantly, he goes on to show that Oracle is not serious about Free software, except as a control freak or a ‘consumer’ (exploiting without contributing much, pretty much like Apple). Oracle has grabbed MySQL and other such projects which relate to databases. In a 2006 interview Ellison made a revealing statement:

FT [Financial Times]: Is open source going to be disruptive to Oracle?

LE [Larry Ellison]: No. If an open source product gets good enough, we’ll simply take it. Take [the web server software] Apache: once Apache got better than our own web server, we threw it away and took Apache. So the great thing about open source is nobody owns it – a company like Oracle is free to take it for nothing, include it in our products and charge for support, and that’s what we’ll do. So it is not disruptive at all – you have to find places to add value. Once open source gets good enough, competing with it would be insane. Keep in mind it’s not that good in most places yet. We’re a big supporter of Linux. At some point we may embed Linux in all of our products and provide support.

Phipps also links to Carlo Daffara’s second insightful post about the subject:

I believe that the first one is the most probable one; Larry Ellison should know that cornering Google would not be sufficient to make them capitulate – they have too much to lose. But this will not be sufficient to create an opportunity for Oracle; I believe that the lawsuit will actually bring nothing to Oracle, and lots of advantages to Google. But only time will tell; the only thing that I can predict for sure right now is that Solaris will quickly fade from sight (as it will be unable to grow at the same rate of Linux) exactly like AIX and HP-UX: a mature and backroom tech, but nothing that you can base a growth strategy upon.

The FSF-backed swpat.org is already stepping in and Google promises to fight Oracle to defend Android/Dalvik. █

Summary: How the emergence of SkySQL weakens Monty’s case against the company which bought (and continues to maintain) MySQL

“SugarCRM jumps the Open Source shark claiming closed is open and it’s the rest of us who are mistaken,” wrote Simon Phipps in Twitter. Phipps used to be the Open Source symbol of Sun Microsystems (now he is in OSI), whose employees that moved to Oracle might as well attempt to pass ‘open’ core as “Open Source” (hot subject at the moment [1, 2, 3]). Roberto Galoppini has published an opinion on ‘open’ core from Giuseppe Maxia (Oracle/MySQL), who calls it the “pragmatic freedom”. As Pamela Jones (Groklaw) put it earlier this month, “I don’t share his views, but I thought you’d like to hear from an open core defender, who also happens to work at Oracle on MySQL, as he presents what’s been jokingly called the Yuppie Nuremberg Defense (“I had to pay my mortgage, etc.”).”

“SugarCRM jumps the Open Source shark claiming closed is open and it’s the rest of us who are mistaken”
      –Simon PhippsJones also points out that Michael “Monty” Widenius from MySQL (and from Microsoft’s CodePlex Foundation) had personal financial interests while lobbying against Oracle’s takeover of MySQL (he helped create SkySQL). “Another happy coincidence?”

That is what she asks anyway. “Consider the timing of the appeal of the Oracle-Sun deal by Monty before you answer,” she adds. This is an especially hard subject for us to address because Techrights uses a MySQL database. So does Groklaw for that matter. As for Phipps, his Web site uses MySQL and he refuses to talk about MySQL under Oracle (at least in FLOSS Weekly). We are grateful to Widenius for MySQL, but this project is no longer his. He sold it and made millions. █

Summary: Timely reminder of the fact that software patents opposition is not the same of Free software advocacy

THE MOST effective lobbyists are sometimes those who pretend to be the very opposite of what they are. There are many example of that, extending well beyond the realms of IT. We wrote about “controlled opposition” in April [1, 2] and in June when we gave Association of Competitive Technologies (ACT) as an example.

Yesterday we wrote about OIN — the body which endorses Linux and software patents at the same time. It’s bizarre, no doubt about it, but that’s how companies like IBM seem to perceive Linux (more on that in the next post). Others join this same bandwagon for practical reasons [1, 2] that are simple to explain.

Here is what someone wrote to Bradley Kuhn (FSF/SFLC) a short while ago: “Wouldn’t OIN being proactive against [software patents] nullify some of their own member’s patent claims? That would explain their approach.”

The CEO of OIN (Bergelt, the successor of Rosenthal from IBM) says that he is in favour of “good” software patents — whatever that actually means.

“My guess is that he [Florian Müller] is being paid handsomely to act the way he does.”
      –Stefan GustavsonGroklaw wrote about OIN the other day (not explicitly referring to IBM’s role), defending it unquestionably, as usual. The president of the FFII quoted Groklaw as saying that “Bergelt is highly respected in the FOSS community, as is OIN”; What did he label it? “When Groklaw get it wrong” — that’s right, the FFII was never a big fan of the OIN, either. Certain things which the OIN does are commendable [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6], but there might be better ways to defend the freedom of GNU/Linux. On the other hand, there are those who consider OIN’s foes to be foes of GNU/Linux.

Over at Groklaw, Stefan Gustavson writes: “You may be confusing the Florian Müller from 2005 with the person we see blogging now in 2010. He might have been honest then. At least he did some good when the EU patent “reform” was shot down. He certainly isn’t honest any longer. He spreads lies about free software and its proponents, and throws mud in any general direction where Linux is being discussed in public, with a clear intent of spreading FUD. He is not stupid, so he can’t be excused for not knowing better. My guess is that he is being paid handsomely to act the way he does.”

Müller does not seem to have responded to that yet. When we had our suspicions about him and people started to turn up the heat he ended closing comments on his blog. It makes a more controlled platform for him, but he can’t control Groklaw, which continues to accuse him sometimes. Other former colleagues of Müller are equally suspicious.

One thing is for sure; Müller is nothing like the lobbyists from ACT and especially Jonathan Zuck (see video below) who denied wrongdoing in his E-mail to me.

It is astonishing that the European authorities even give this man a seat after he produced fake letters 'on behalf' of dead people, as always in support of Microsoft which funds him. It’s people like these who tear down Europe’s software sovereignty, just as Hollywood’s lobbyists are subverting copyright law in Europe and in Canada (the latter is hot in the news at the moment).

Going back to Müller, he seems to have a fixation targeted at IBM (a bit like Jeff Gould with his anti-IBM rants that he pushed into GNU/Linux Web sites in the form of submissions from “AlexGr”). Müller may be against software patents, but he is not a proponent of GNU/Linux or software freedom. We also know that Müller is close to Monty, who is in Microsoft’s CodePlex. Glyn Moody has just written this detailed article which explains why CodePlex is still an embodiment of Microsoft, even the CTO. [via]

Not surprisingly, CodePlex has been subject to much suspicion – and derision. It was a pretty blatant attempt to jump on the open source bandwagon, in a form that was strictly controlled by Microsoft, which allowed it to place its own interpretation on what open source meant (by including licences that weren’t on the OSI list, for example). And so no surprise, either, that the open source world has pretty much ignored CodePlex as a result. I must confess that I am guilty of this sin too, and that is unfortunate, because something is happening there that is potentially very interesting.

CodePlex is based around .NET, Microsoft licences, and other parts of Microsoft’s proprietary stack. Open Source projects for .NET developers are no better than Mono and Moonlight. They are actually worse because many of them are Windows-only, SQL Server-only, and SharePoint-only. That’s not Open Source, it’s a farce. But Windows sites happily defend this.

Speaking of suspicious ‘friends’, somebody from Finland has told us about the latest giveaway from Tuxera:

Directly related to this is the European case of looming software patents.
Today Mikko Välimäki from Tuxera wrote several blog entries on their law firm’s page, main one is this:

http://www.turre.com/2010/06/softan-patentoinnille-euroopassa-lopullinen-ok/

Title in english: “Final ok for patenting software in europe?”

He even goes to say that decision to allow/approve software patents in Europe would be JURIDICALLY correct. What a nice bat called FUD that is.
And “oikeusvarmuus” is translatable to “assurance of juridical rights”, the same once again.. pay us or be sued.

In conclusion, some who protest against software patents are not in favour of Free software, some who develop for Linux are in favour of software patents, and in the next post we’ll put our sceptical eye on IBM (yet again). █

Summary: Oracle blog rant about EIF 2.0 said to have been removed; the role of the BSA in fighting software freedom is explained

THE PRESIDENT of the FFII points out that “Oracle´s blog post over EIFv2 open standards lobbying has disappeared” and that it can still be found here (titled “The EU goes bananas over EIF 2.0″). What’s the matter with all that? Is it possible that Oracle found it unacceptable to defend software freedom and standards (like Sun removed MySQL’s anti-software patents page following the acquisition [1, 2])? Here is a portion of what this newer Oracle post about the Digital Agenda says despite the fact that it too has been derailed.

The EU Digital Agenda (I gave it an 85/100 score), while laudable, stops short of using the term. The speech is a nice interpretation of her own document. I am told all other relevant Commissioners saw and accepted the speech in a brief interservice consultation. What that means is another thing. Are they blind? Have they changed their mind? Or, do they simply let her have her own opinions, but were not prepared to go as far as this in the Digital Agenda? Whatever lies behind what happened and what was said today, it is progress.

The next step for the European Commission is defining the term open standards. If they do that, and do it right, Vice President Kroes will go into history as having made a significant contribution towards global progress in e-government by possibly eradicating lock-in forever. Moreover, she will put Europe’s SMEs in a better position to succeed in a global IT market filled with barriers to entry from players not fully understanding, using, or unpacking standards.

For some background about the lobbying, see the following posts.

1. European Open Source Software Workgroup a Total Scam: Hijacked and Subverted by Microsoft et al
2. Microsoft’s AstroTurfing, Twitter, Waggener Edstrom, and Jonathan Zuck
3. Does the European Commission Harbour a Destruction of Free/Open Source Software Workgroup?
4. The Illusion of Transparency at the European Parliament/Commission (on Microsoft)
5. 2 Months and No Disclosure from the European Parliament
6. After 3 Months, Europe Lets Microsoft-Influenced EU Panel be Seen
7. Formal Complaint Against European Commission for Harbouring Microsoft Lobbyists
8. ‘European’ Software Strategy Published, Written by Lobbyists and Multinationals
9. Microsoft Uses Inside Influence to Grab Control, Redefine “Open Source”
10. With Friends Like These, Who Needs Microsoft?
11. European Interoperability Framework (EIF) Corrupted by Microsoft et al, Its Lobbyists
12. Orwellian EIF, Fake Open Source, and Security Implications
13. No Sense of Shame Left at Microsoft
14. Lobbying Leads to Protest — the FFII and the FSFE Rise in Opposition to Subverted EIF
15. IBM and Open Forum Europe Address European Interoperability Framework (EIF) Fiasco
16. EIF Scrutinised, ODF Evolves, and Microsoft’s OOXML “Lies” Lead to Backlash from Danish Standards Committee
17. Complaints About Perverted EIF Continue to Pile Up
18. More Complaints About EIFv2 Abuse and Free Software FUD from General Electric (GE)
19. Patents Roundup: Copyrighted SQL Queries, Microsoft Alliance with Company That Attacks F/OSS with Software Patents, Peer-to-Patent in Australia
20. Microsoft Under Fire: Open Source Software Thematic Group Complains About EIFv2 Subversion, NHS Software Supplier Under Criminal Investigation
21. British MEP Responds to Microsoft Lobby Against EIFv2; Microsoft’s Visible Technologies Infiltrates/Derails Forums Too
22. Patents Roundup: Escalations in Europe, SAP Pretense, CCIA Goes Wrong, and IETF Opens Up
23. Patents Roundup: Several Defeats for Bad Types of Patents, Apple Risks Embargo, and Microsoft Lobbies Europe Intensely
24. Europeans Asked to Stop Microsoft’s Subversion of EIFv2 (European Interoperability Framework Version 2)
25. Former Member of European Parliament Describes Microsoft “Coup in Process” in the European Commission
26. Microsoft’s Battle to Consume — Not Obliterate — Open Source
27. Patents Roundup: David Hammerstein on Microsoft Lobbying in Europe; Harrison Targets Lobbying on Software Patents in New Zealand, Justice Stevens Leaves SCOTUS

The BSA was among the lobbyists for Microsoft. In other news that covers the BSA’s actions regarding software patents and policies, we have this:

The largest growing part of the software sector, and which most threatens the legacy business models of BSA members, is the Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) movement. I joined this multi-sectoral movement, which includes but is not limited to commercial software companies, in the early 1990′s. Most of the policies promoted by the BSA since the mid 1990′s have been aimed at stopping or reducing the growth of this movement. The two most active policies are software patents and legal protection for technical measures.

[...]

Independent software authors have obvious allies with other independent software authors. There is the Open Source Initiative, the Free Software Foundation and the Linux Foundation in the US, and various software user/developer groups in Canada such as CLUE: Canada’s Association for Open Source.

If you look at the membership for the Linux Foundation and the BSA, you may notice there are overlapping companies between who I consider to be my most obvious opponents and allies. This is not only true within these associations, but within individual companies. I’ve observed informal policy debates between employees of IBM, with these different employees being as far as two individuals can be from each other on key areas of technology policy.

[...]

The BSA members are using the labels as their public face to the political process, just as the labels have always used specific famous musicians as their public face. Michael Geist has suggested that the major labels are behind the latest Astroturf campaign, and from what I have seen I suspect this is true.

Oracle is not listed as a BSA member. It could do a lot more to rectify EIF 2.0 and the Digital Agenda, especially now that it has important Free software projects in its portfolio. █

Summary: Another live example of Microsoft ‘security’ at work; debunking the latest Linux lies from Ed Bott

“SECURITY through obscurity” sounds like a good idea in theory. As we recently found out (and had confirmed by Microsoft), part of this obscurity is lack of disclosure. Microsoft is silently patching flaws that it never discloses, which is dishonest if not fraudulent when Microsoft issues security reports based on such oversight.

According to this new article, “tens of thousands of sites” running Microsoft’s software are paying the price for having ‘secret’ vulnerabilities:

There’s a large-scale attack underway that is targeting Web servers running Microsoft’s IIS software, injecting the sites with a specific malicious script. The attack has compromised tens of thousands of sites already, experts say, and there’s no clear indication of who’s behind the campaign right now.

The attack, which researchers first noticed earlier this week, already has affected a few high-profile sites, including those belonging to The Wall Street Journal and The Jerusalem Post. Some analyses of the IIS attack suggest that it is directed at a third-party ad management script found on these sites.

This must be the latest example of why nobody gets fired for avoiding Microsoft.

Speaking of Windows security, “Juniper Networks Protects Customers From New Microsoft Vulnerabilities” after Juniper became filled with Microsoft managers [1, 2, 3]. It’s just something to bear in mind.

There is some bad FUD about Linux security at the moment (coming primarily from Ed Bott). SJVN has already responded to this FUD:

Here’s what really happened. UnrealIRCd, a rather obscure open-source IRC (Internet Relay Chat) server, wasn’t so much hacked as the program it was letting people download has been replaced by one with a built-in security hole. Or, as they explained on their site,

Microsoft boosters like Bott have been desperate to show that GNU/Linux is not more secure than Windows. As companies like Google dump Windows for security reasons, Microsoft will carry on with this FUD campaign but rely on peripherals/extensions (like Bott) to do the attacks]. That’s just how Microsoft operates when it needs FUD. See the “smoking gun” below. █

“As discussed in our PR meeting this morning. David & I have spoken with Maureen O’Gara (based on go ahead from BrianV) and planted the story. She has agreed to not attribute the story to us….

“[...] Inform Maureen O’ Gara (Senior Editor Client Server News/LinuxGram) or John Markoff (NYT) of announcement on Aug 28, 2000. Owner dougmil (Approval received from BrianV to proceed)

“Contact Eric Raymond, Tim O’Reilly or Bruce Perrins to solicit support for this going against the objectives of the Open Source movement. Owner: dougmil [Doug Miller]. Note that I will not be doing this. Maureen O’Gara said she was going to call them so it looks better coming from her.”

Microsoft uses reporters as attackers

Summary: Inhumane practices are being implemented in the United Kingdom (UK) for Microsoft to become richer and the British population tracked through finger-based surveillance

MICROSOFT Corporation, the company which US congress accused of “enabling tyranny”, is now bringing its tyrannical practices to the UK. Having already helped implement an ID card scheme in India (the UK is canning its own plan for ID cards and thank goodness for that), Microsoft will now participate in the fingerprinting of toddlers, who shall be catalogued like books and numbered based on their small gentle fingers (which the “bad guys” would love to have). From The Telegraph:

Children, 4, ‘to be fingerprinted to borrow school books from library’

Students in Manchester are having their thumbprints digitally transformed into electronic codes, which can then be recognised by a computer program.

[...]

But critics said they were “appalled” at the system, developed by Microsoft which is also being trialled in other parts of the country.

Thank you again Microsoft for protecting those children from paedophiles, terrorists, and those evil evil evil people who borrow a textbook from the library without permission (we all know what a menace to human kind they can be, having gained knowledge!!). Sadly, you failed to protect the children’s fingers, which will now become a hotter commodity.

“Sadly, you failed to protect the children’s fingers, which will now become a hotter commodity.”Having already hijacked the irreplaceable British Library, Microsoft keeps looking for new national assets and institutions with which to make entire states totally dependent on Microsoft, even for curation and long-term access to historical records that are invaluable items.

With just a bunch of developers, Microsoft seems to be doing more damage than many years with Labour have wrought upon human rights (and I am not against Labour at all, just their policies that neglect people’s liberties and freedoms, which were long fought for). █

Summary: Microsoft hires Donna-Bea Tillman from the FDA in order to increase its influence in the United States government and help Microsoft control healthcare systems

MICROSOFT’S connections with the US government continue to be tightened. According to The Seattle Times, Obama’s CIO Vivek Kundra may have just met Steve Ballmer, who also visits the White House on occasions [1, 2].

After his San Francisco tour, Kundra is coming to Seattle for a day Thursday beginning with breakfast at Microsoft with Chief Executive Steve Ballmer and other local executives.

Microsoft will show Kundra advanced research projects before he speaks at the University of Washington in the afternoon. He’ll also meet with executives at Amazon.com before making an appearance at the Washington Technology Industry Association’s awards dinner.

This possible encounter is not the subject of this post though; it merely serves as a precursor and a reminder of Microsoft’s relationship with the government. Politics and commerce are never separate, unless one insists on oversimplification.

The FDA is connected to Microsoft through the pharmaceutical cartel, as well as the Gates Foundation, which works for Monsanto [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8] and has former Monsanto staff (which in turn has a notorious exchange of staff with the FDA). With high-level Monsanto employees inside the Gates Foundation, the connections to the government become a tad more apparent, but we won’t delve into it any further because that’s not the point.

The main story is the following one. According to this report from the Wall Street Journal, Microsoft is going to hire a Fed from the FDA.

The director of the Office of Device Evaluation, one of the highest-ranking positions at the Food and Drug Administration, is leaving this month to join the Washington office of Microsoft Corp., according to an email she sent Monday morning.

Donna-Bea Tillman, who has been with the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health since 1994, said in the email that she will become part of the software giant’s health solutions group as the director of regulations and policy. The FDA and Microsoft confirmed the move.

There is more information in the blog — details that didn’t make it into the main article.

You probably wouldn’t put Microsoft on the list of companies in the market to hire former FDA officials, but the software giant snagged a top medical-device regulator today.

Donna-Bea Tillman, head of the office of device approvals, says her jump to Microsoft isn’t as unusual as it may seem. She told colleagues in a memo she has long had “a love for all things computer.”

Here is another news article which cites the Wall Street Journal.

Donna Bea-Tillman will leave her post at Food and Drug Administration to join the Washington, D.C. lobbying office of Microsoft Corp., according to the Wall Street Journal

Donna Bea-Tillman, the director of the Food and Drug Administration’s office of device evaluation, will apparently resign her post to join the lobbying office of software giant Microsoft Corp., according to a report in the Wall Street Journal.

[...]

Tillman told her colleagues in the email that she took the position with Microsoft because of the potential for health information technology to, “reduce the skyrocketing cost of health care,” according to a copy of the email obtained by the paper

So quite clearly, the purpose here it to lobby for control over people’s medical records [1, 2]. There needn’t even be speculation about it being just more Microsoft lobbying, which works against the interests of people and instead benefits a private corporation. If people learned something from the healthcare fiasco and the insurance companies, this ought to be it. To usher this whole campaign for Microsoft as the steward of health/patient records, Microsoft seems to have started a whole tour and media blitz. In the past week alone we’ve found a lot of press releases about Microsoft in health. The number of press releases was very, very unusual. It includes:

• Microsoft Case Study Spotlights OrthoCarolina and Mariner Partnership in Medical Practice Efficiency

• Cleveland Clinic/Microsoft Pilot Promising; Home Health Services May Benefit Chronic Disease Management

• Greenway Medical Technologies Advances Patient-Provider Benefits (about Microsoft)

• Patients will be granted the ability to see medical records with Microsoft Technology

• Cleveland Clinic, Microsoft project: Home health tracks chronic conditions better

Now, watch what else Microsoft is doing. “Microsoft Health Users Group Innovation Awards” are announced and from these “Innovation Awards” we get another press release:

• NextGen Health Information Exchange and Doylestown Hospital Recognized as Winners of Microsoft HUG 2010 Innovation Awards

Microsoft is even sponsoring/arranging a “hospital luncheon” (recall the “Screw Google luncheon”, which we last mentioned here).

Mission Viejo Microsoft Store takes title sponsorship for hospital luncheon

[...]

The Microsoft Store at The Shops at Mission Viejo is slated to be the title sponsor of Mission Hospital’s 14th Annual Valiant Women Luncheon on Friday, March 12, at the Ritz-Carlton Laguna Niguel.

Then, Microsoft uses Philips to storm the medical system and consume private data (also covered here). This a colossal mistake given Microsoft’s proven disregard for people’s privacy and very poor reliability in general. To seize control of the medical system becomes more of a matter of life and death in this case. Microsoft has abysmal record here, with Windows zombies becoming the menace of many hospitals. See for example:

• Security Links: Another Hospital Falls Prey to Windows Spyware; Another Trojan and Botnet
• US Army Becomes Zombies Army; London Hospitals Still Ill (Windows Viruses)
• NHS Never Learns: Windows Viruses Leave British Patients to Die, Again
• How Many People Must Die Before Abandoning Windows?
• Utah Has Novell, SCO, and… Conficker in the Hospitals
• New Casualties of Microsoft Windows?
• Yes, Windows Causes Deaths Sometimes

People should be killing Microsoft’s attempt to invade hospitals before they kill people. Sadly enough, some reporters play along with this media blitz [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], which is backed by new lobbyists and marketing people, with people’s lives at stake (to Microsoft it’s just the smell of money and crucial dependency/lock-in).

“It’s not about embrace but about exploiting rivals’ platforms to help Microsoft, which has almost no market share in phones.”On a related note, Microsoft is trying to control (with patents) bar codes and it’s advertising this through Linux/Android phones [1, 2]. Just like Hyper-V drivers for Linux, it’s self serving. It’s also the same with Microsoft applications for iPhone — ones that merely have users connect to Microsoft services. It’s not about embrace but about exploiting rivals’ platforms to help Microsoft, which has almost no market share in phones. The reporters totally missed that or chose to ignore it. Mary Jo Foley looks at this news and wonders if Microsoft will use this strategy to also advance Silver Lie, much like Microsoft uses the *Spark programmes to achieve this (with free advertising from IDG).

Last but not least, Microsoft wants to manage people’s national identities [1, 2]. In India, Microsoft had NASSCOM facilitate this but in Germany too Microsoft apparently found some guinea pigs.

Microsoft released its new identity management software at the RSA conference on Tuesday and is working on a prototype national ID card system in Germany that is designed to give consumers control over the amount of personal data they share with specific organizations.

ID cards are a terrible idea for many reasons (including surveillance but a lot more than that). We won’t go into it. In any case, Germany ponders implementing an unnecessary system and even putting it in the hands of a private company from abroad, and one that’s highly abusive and irresponsible. What an utter disaster. █

Summary: Microsoft wants to control more aspects of people’s lives and those who enable this are identified and named

(Mis)Education

Microsoft is still exploiting the education systems for more control over the curriculum and the tools, just as it recently did with the IEEE (more on that here). Microsoft proceeds to Imperial College (London) and Washington University, based on the ‘Microsoft press’ which masquerades as academic media (1105 Media). They are advertising the Live@edu scam.

Health Vulture

Microsoft’s HealthVault uses Silverlight, so it punishes those who are not Microsoft customers, but there are worse things. For more control over people’s medical records [1, 2] Microsoft is now misusing the word "choice" and coercing HHS while unleashing press releases and attending/organising events. No medical system anywhere should allow a corporation to have private control of vital tools and patients’ data. Microsoft claims “choice and flexibility” in its press release, as long as you choose Microsoft (i.e. no choice and no flexibility). It even (mis)uses the word “open” in the title. Microsoft Nick and others have covered this [1, 2, 3], but they did not list the drawbacks or outline the deception. It’s more like ghost-writing or editing (of press releases), it’s not journalism.

India (Microsoft’s Future)

Over in India, Microsoft is to manage people's identities (it’s a scary thought) and Microsoft is still moving jobs over there. More recently it was the legal team and here is another new article about it:

Microsoft Outsources Legal Work to India Amid Budget Cuts

In a surprising move, Microsoft Inc. has inked a contract with a legal outsourcing provider to outsource to India. The provider CPA Global will employ lawyers in India to get the legal work done.

Law.com chose the headline “Tech Lawyers Say ‘Uh Oh’ as Microsoft Outsources Legal Work to India” and “India is critical to Microsoft’s strategy” says another news headline from last week. Expect more parts of Microsoft to move to India and reduce the company’s expenses.

Goldman Sachs Meets Microsoft Slime

We previously wrote about Microsoft and Goldman Sachs in [1, 2]. The ‘Microsoft press’ and the Seattle Times report from last week’s Goldman Sachs event where Microsoft promoted itself (including some of the above, namely ‘cloud’ services for government/public service to store data on Microsoft servers), with help from Microsoft booster Gavin Clarke, who is sliming Oracle by quoting Microsoft’s slurs.

Addressing Goldman Sachs Technology and Internet Conference in San Francisco, California, Microsoft’s server and tools chief Bob Muglia criticized Oracle for peddling a return to “1960s computing,” as the rival company goes against industry trends and backs obsolete technologies.

This is utter nonsense. Muglia has said other darn things about Free software, going back several years ago [1, 2].

If Microsoft is so future-proof as Microsoft wants people to believe, then why did Bill Gates carry on dumping Microsoft (MSFT) shares last week? He seems to be dumping these as fast as he is allowed, being an insider. This has gone on for years.

Director of Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) William H Gates Iii sold 7,000,000 shares during the past week at an average price of $28.77.

He is investing in other monopolies.

Elsewhere in the World

Over in Jordan, Microsoft continues targeting the government and the business sector. Elsewhere in the Middle East Microsoft is trying to control Information and Communication Technology (ICT).

Microsoft Jordan hosted a training workshop for 150 of its customers and partners on the increasing importance of effective and integrated business intelligence (BI) solutions that will help drive better decision making across organisations and government institutions, resulting in improved IT skills, reduced costs and enhanced business performance.

Here is Microsoft exploiting UNESCO again. It makes a partnership while publishing this press release to start a whole lot of media fluff.

Microsoft Corp., in collaboration with UNESCO, has launched an initiative of its own kind to save several rare languages from being lost after they have been falling victim to the ever-changing cultural landscape.

The news is missing the point by repeating sound bites from UNESCO.

“Linguistic diversity is under threat,” UNESCO director-general director Irina Bokova said in a release. “This loss not only erodes individual communities and cultures, but more broadly, the very makeup of our societies.”

It is Free software — not Microsoft — that keeps languages alive. There are many examples to that effect, but it’s not what this post is about. In general, it’s sad to see that UNESCO sometimes plays along with a convicted monopoly abuser. UNESCO was previously promoting ODF [1, 2, 3], which is about communication across platforms (multilingualism being similar). As for the language issue, last month we explained the language game Microsoft is playing [1, 2]. It’s doing this a lot in Africa and South America, but the new examples which we gave last month were all from Africa. █

“It’s possible, you can never know, that the universe exists only for me. If so, it’s going quite well I must admit.”

–Bill Gates

Summary: Microsoft is preparing to poach users/customers of the most ubiquitous Free database software

SEVERAL MONTHS ago we showed that Microsoft was embracing and extending MySQL in some special sense. Now there’s this in the news. From Mary Jo Foley:

Microsoft tests tool for migrating MySQL to SQL Server

[...]

It’s no secret that even though MySQL has been a Microsoft partner, it also is a Microsoft competitor. And ever since Oracle made overtures to buy Sun and (get MySQL in the process), Microsoft’s been even more of a foe.

Given that context, it’s probably not too surprising that Microsoft is readying a tool designed to help customers migrate from MySQL to SQL Server and/or SQL Azure, Microsoft’s cloud-hosted version of its database. That tool is currently in the early test stage (Community Technology Preview 1), and is downloadable from the Microsoft Download Center.

Everyone knows that Microsoft is a terrible partner. Another very ubiquitous database, Sqlite, is being embraced and extended by the Mono people.

Those who have been speaking about Monty’s connections with Microsoft can make further speculations, but speculations are all they can ever be. █

Related posts:

1. SAP/Microsoft Attack on Java, OpenOffice.org, Other Libre Products Culminates in Alliance
2. The ‘Microsoft of Europe’ Instructs Oracle on Free Software
3. Is Microsoft Lobbying to Burn Sun?
4. Microsoft Has Lobbyists and Cronies Around European Commission, Working to Shatter MySQL and Defend IE Monoculture
5. Why Does Microsoft Decide for the World?

–Marten Mickos, CEO of MySQL

Summary: Oracle commits to swallowing but not devouring the dolphin, whereas the creator of MySQL database, who is now with Microsoft’s CodePlex Foundation, lobbies with Microsoft against it

WE HAVE mostly abstained from saying whether MySQL should or should not be acquired by Oracle. Sun is at stake too, along with projects like Java and OpenOffice.org, so it’s a tough situation. Either way, based on reports, there is at least a promise from Oracle, which means that pressure from the European Commission paid off in some way.

A pledge in Oracle’s commitments to European regulators would continue to license MySQL, a key Web site software, for five years after Sun is acquired

An approval for Oracle is foreseen despite all the lobbying from Microsoft and SAP. Groklaw points out that Microsoft has just acquired the Toronto-based Opalis, which is a MySQL partner. Could this be strategic and intentional in some way? Who knows, but Groklaw found that important enough to mention.

“Monty could have changed the license prior to selling it to Sun, and he didn’t, so it’s a bit late now to worry about who owns it.”
      –Pamela JonesNow that Michael Widenius is lobbying to block the acquisition, Groklaw’s Pamela Jones also writes: “I’m a MySQL user on Groklaw, and I think he’s serving up baloney, and definitely not anything to do with Open Source, since he’s suggesting the license on MySQL be changed to one that allows him proprietary possibilities. Monty could have changed the license prior to selling it to Sun, and he didn’t, so it’s a bit late now to worry about who owns it. I doubt the EU Commission will care about emails like this, but there’s no reason why people can’t send emails if they so choose. If so, it’s to comp-merger-registry@ec.europa.eu and mine, if I wrote one, would say, I see nothing wrong with Oracle buying MySQL.The GPL rights are irrevocable, so it doesn’t matter who owns the copyrights.”

Here are some opinions that Groklaw cites for support:

But the Oracle filing quotes several customers who said practically the opposite in response to the EU’s market survey. Vodafone Group PLC said it “does not consider that Oracle’s database offerings constitute direct substitutes to Sun’s offerings.” McAfee Inc. also said the two don’t “constitute direct substitutes.” As did General Electric Co., which added that while “both parties’ offerings may on the face of it share some functionality, they are qualitatively different.” Said Fujitsu Services Ltd.: “They operate in different markets.”

Widenius has said that Oracle’s promise is useless, but Jones disagrees when she writes: “If he claims the promises are empty, I’d not call that a success. If it is a success, then the promises must not be empty.”

What do our readers think? Is the European Commission doing the right thing by obstructing Sun (and Oracle)? Is it defending MySQL from a hostile takeover? We lost a great deal of confidence in the European Commission when Steve Ballmer met Neelie Kroes and bamboozled her until she accepted software patents. The president of the FFII wrote a few hours ago: “Nellie Kroes in bed with Microsoft for protecting their soft patents, commercial software redefined, champagne in Redmond!”

This was indeed a disappointment which we wrote about yesterday and also covered in [1, 2, 3]. Initially, the Commission caved and obeyed Microsoft lobbyists, later inviting Microsoft again. With several Microsoft cronies inside the Commission, this might not be entirely shocking. As someone who maintains about 20 MySQL databases, I’d appreciate input from readers. Who’s “right” and who’s “wrong”? █

Summary: Vigilant eye on laws that restrict or ban Free software, with new examples ranging from Microsoft to similar companies

THIS latest roundup actually begins with a weird new example where copyrights — not patents — are used by someone to ‘own’ SQL queries.

Can someone copyright a SQL query?

[...]

So back to the subject’s question: Can he really copyright this query? And if so, is modifying it ourselves a copyright violation? In my mind, a single query isn’t program code. It’s more a command line command. But I don’t know what it’s considered legally.

Need programmers now check every SQL query of theirs and ensure it does not infringe on copyrights? This is insane. What’s even more insane is a subject that was brought up before — that some companies are creating intellectual monopolies on methods vital to saving the planet. These are now being fast-tracked.

The US Patent and Trademark Office said Monday that it’s launching a test program that will greatly speed the review of “green” technology patents.

The new fast-track pilot program is expected to shave a full year off the patent review process, which takes an average of 40 months to reach a final decision, according to the USPTO.

It is suicidal to use patents to limit the use of such methods. It shows that the patent system prioritises profit — not betterment — of the industry.

Looking at some proprietary software giants, Apple is looking to reverse a decision regarding a patent (in Eastern Texas of course).

Apple has been told to pay OPTi $21.7m in damages after an Eastern Texas Court issued a final judgment in the firm’s long-running patent infringement case.

But reports this morning suggest the Mac maker’s next move will be sending an appeal to the ruling, rather than a cheque.

Microsoft is meanwhile getting together with a company that attacked Free software using software patents. That would be NetApp. It may have put ZFS in a life-threatening position.

Microsoft and NetApp have struck a 3-year strategic alliance centred on virtualised server environments and technology integration.

President of the FFII is unhappy about Peer-to-Patent’s extension into Australia because it only helps legitimise software patents as a whole. Pointing to this new report about threats to the European patent system [1, 2, 3, 4], he argues that “Bifurcation of infringement and validity will be a disaster, as it is completely one-sided in favour of patentees.” He also adds that “Mono Hackers [are] coming to HSB for FOSDEM, should bring some Microsoft software patents covering Mono?” We wrote about this before.

Those who are not paying attention to what Microsoft is doing in Europe do so at their own peril. We have already shown how Microsoft pressure groups CompTIA, BSA, and ACT were lobbying for software patents in Europe’s interoperability framework [1, 2, 3]. The FSFE is now highlighting their role in the successful perversion of EIFv2 (European Interoperability Framework version 2) and concludes as follows:

Based on the above analysis, we can only conclude that the European Commission is giving strong preference to the viewpoint of a single lobby group. Regarding interoperability and open standards, key places of the consultation document were modified to comply with the demands of the BSA. Input given by other groups was not considered on this issue. Beyond ignoring this input, the Commission has apparently decided to ignore the success of the first version of the EIF, and to abandon its efforts towards actually achieving interoperability in eGovernment services.

OSOR has written about this too. We previously wrote about EIFv2 in:

1. European Interoperability Framework (EIF) Corrupted by Microsoft et al, Its Lobbyists
2. Orwellian EIF, Fake Open Source, and Security Implications
3. No Sense of Shame Left at Microsoft
4. Lobbying Leads to Protest — the FFII and the FSFE Rise in Opposition to Subverted EIF
5. IBM and Open Forum Europe Address European Interoperability Framework (EIF) Fiasco
6. EIF Scrutinised, ODF Evolves, and Microsoft’s OOXML “Lies” Lead to Backlash from Danish Standards Committee
7. Complaints About Perverted EIF Continue to Pile Up
8. More Complaints About EIFv2 Abuse and Free Software FUD from General Electric (GE)

The ODF Alliance has just published a post which shows that the US administration wants “Open Formats”, but it is only a matter of time before Microsoft lobbyists redefine “open” in the United States too and then pressure the government to use proprietary formats instead. Microsoft’s top lobbyist [1, 2, 3], Bill Gates, is even making phonecalls to politicians to achieve such goals.

The Obama Administration’s Open Government Directive was unveiled today. Concerning open formats the key provisions are:

“each agency shall take prompt steps to expand access to information by making it available online in open formats……..To the extent practicable and subject to valid restrictions, agencies should publish information online in an open format that can be retrieved, downloaded, indexed, and searched by commonly used web search applications. An open format is one that is platform independent, machine readable, and made available to the public without restrictions that would impede the re-use of that information……..”

Just give us the data! That’s been the mantra of open-government enthusiasts, developers among them, who have created mashups – web-based tools that make the reams of government data more accessible and, importantly, put this data to effective public use. For example, Stumble Safely, highlighted in a recent New York Times article, links data regarding incidents of crime with popular locations, such as bars, restaurants and transportation hubs to help guide people home safely after a night out.

It seems safe to assume (based on experience) that Microsoft is already leaning on the right people. █

Summary: More reviews of OpenSUSE 11.2, the OpenSUSE Boosters Team, and site theme makeovers

THE release of the latest OpenSUSE is just weeks behind and one of its reviewers, Caitlyn Martin, has some followups on last week's review. In her blog she complains about what she describes as ‘the’ community, as though there is one happy family with a cohesive set of ideas and goals, all living in harmony. The reality is more complex because some factions advocate DRM, others exploit GNU/Linux for cost, and others value Freedom for example. There are many other dimensions of division. In O’Reilly’s domain, she writes some more about the subject in relation to her review of OpenSUSE. She did receive some abuse from people, but this is by no means unique to users of GNU/Linux. It is a little disappointing to see it attributed to people who are classified by the operating system that they use.

In response to this, Rainer Weikusat writes:

I have been a SuSE user for years because the company had the nice habit of burning the content of all larger FTP-servers to CDs and I didn’t have ‘internet’ at home. Usually, I rewrote everything I was forced to look at because it didn’t work in the way I had needed it to work. I tried this on more than one computer and with the intention to actually use these for professional work in 1998 for a very short while. To prevent me from going mad on the spot, I switched to Debian very soon, since I wanted a computer that could be used to accomplish work and not one which only caused work.
.
The last thing I actually saw from SUSE was a couple of years ago, namely, an init-script which contained a complaint from its author that he would need this particular abstruse workaround because some other script “still isn’t fixed”. I assume the idea to fix it instead never occurred to him. And this epitomizes the SUSE mentality for me.

There is other feedback of a similar kind.

Linux Planet has this new review of OpenSUSE 11.2 which is mostly positive.

openSUSE 11.2 is a solid incremental update to a popular distribution. It has enough new and improved stuff in it to make it a definite upgrade for current users. For the curious it’s definitely worth a hard look. On the flip, side this version is not without warts. Issues like proprietary wireless drivers (Broadcom) and some annoyances with Intel 845 graphics will cause newbies to cringe. If you cruise the openSUSE forums, you’ll find workarounds for the most common issues. So go ahead and give it a spin. It might be just what you’re looking for.

Even a tough reviewer of GNU/Linux distributions quite liked OpenSUSE 11.2.

OpenSuSE 11.2 has the most stable and unobtrusive version of KDE 4 I’ve ever used. That’s a big win in my book. I’m sick and tired of having to sacrifice stability and features for eye candy and it’s good to see that finally I can have both (for the most part).

The only real problems I ran into popped up *after* I started fiddling with things, and to give credit where it’s due, SuSE put up with my tinkerings without a crash. What can I say, I’m a fiddler. Now get off my roof.

Another good review calls OpenSUSE 11.2 “James Bond’s choice”.

openSUSE 11.2 is an excellent release. While it is not a revolution that version 11 was compared to 10.3, it builds on the good points and makes them ever better.

openSUSE 11.2 runs faster, smoother, conserves power more wisely, has a more polished desktop, and simpler installation. You get a decent, colorful choice of programs, lots of useful utilities, plus centralized management by YaST, which is smarter and easier to use than ever before.

Not everyone was happy with OpenSUSE 11.2. For example:

I decided to give a new OpenSUSE 11.2 a spin. In hindsight, that was probably a mistake.

Another short review and walk-through says:

openSUSE is my favorite Linux distribution. Linux in general has some usability frustrations as a desktop user, so I hope to share some of the ways they can be dealt with.

Jack Wallen has published the following walk-through which says very little about operation of the distribution.

Once you have taken care of that you are on your way to installation Nirvana. I say that, not necessarily because the installation is the simplest installation you will encounter, but more because it is the cleanest and well thought out installation you might see.

Han Wen Kam wrote about reasons for liking OpenSUSE 11.2 and also some other things.

Luv openSUSE 11.2 so much, especially the default KDE 4.3 GUI..

Not all upgrades went smoothly. Even among core OpenSUSE people we find this (although proprietary software may be guilty).

I’ve upgraded my openSUSE 11.1 64bit using esound to 11.2 64bit recently and the result was no sound in flash (e.g., YouTube and other streamed video) but everywhere else it worked. I’ve googled around a bit but didn’t find anything that would work for me. So I tried to switch to pulseaudio but the result was still the same.

Here is one way in which the release of OpenSUSE 11.2 relates to Fedora 12.

The middle of November was very exciting for both Fedora and openSUSE communities. At first, openSUSE project unleashed its 11.2 release, which was followed by Fedora 12 a few days after. I thought it would be interesting to dig into bug reports which were filed during the development of these two releases in respective bugzillas.

Technical

On the more technical side, OpenSUSE has removed DHT.

The Pirate Bay’s tracker closure has spurred several discussions about DHT, BitTorrent’s fallback technology for when central trackers are unavailable. According to some, DHT has some problems of its own. Novell, for example, decided to ship openSUSE with the BitTorrent client Transmission, but not before stripping DHT support.

Under the pretext of “makes you safer”, OpenSUSE still gets mentioned for its TPM inclusions. This is a subject which had Boycott Novell mentioned in the Dutch press after last week's post.

Apart from some more technical posts about packaging and compiling, there are some posts about Novell’s “boosters” [1, 2, 3, 4] who are promoting SUSE.

On November 20th, the Czech members of the openSUSE Boosters Team organized openSUSE 11.2 Release Party. The party took place in the nice building of Faculty of Mathematics and Physics.

Michal Hrušecký turns out to be among the “boosters”, based on his post about the site’s MediaWiki theme.

As you may or may not know, I’m part of the openSUSE Boosters team and I’m working on umbrella project.

Another theme makeover:

Today I applied the new Robert Lihm’s theme called Bento to GameStore web, so it doesn’t look like a quick hack anymore.

Hrušecký later wrote about MySQL (he often does that) in the OpenSUSE Build Service:

It’s been some time already since I informed you about server: database: UNSTABLE repository in openSUSE Build Service. Today I want to mention what is going on there. As the name of the repository suggests, it’s probably not the best idea to use anything from here on your production servers

OpenSUSE’s Dominique Leuenberger wrote about Compiz 0.8.4. It’s rather ironic that OpenSUSE ships an old version of Compiz despite the origins of this good project.

Doubtless you’re all aware that openSUSE 11.2, as great and up to date it is with many packages, was shipped with an outdated version of compiz version 0.7.8. The reasoning behind this was that some patches for NOMAD just were not able to be forward ported in reasonable time. At one point I started fixing / backporting some fixes from 0.8.4 to 0.7.8 and was granted maintainer status for the compiz packages, which is a great honor to me. Nevertheless, this happened too late in the 11.2 release cycle to include more recent packages. We were already in version freeze and I could never get this through.

Having an out-of-date Compiz is not such a big deal, but according to Heise there is greater trouble involving security at 1&1. OpenSUSE users are affected.

According to a German IT service provider, users running 1&1 servers with openSUSE 11 as their distribution should check the version number of their Linux kernel. In order to guarantee full support for the hardware it uses, for openSUSE, 1&1 installs its own homemade kernel. Unfortunately this kernel disables the YAST auto-update function, with the result that, despite regular updates, the kernel (2.6.27.21) remains several months old – making it vulnerable to a range of root exploits involving null pointer dereference (NPD) and other vulnerabilities.

Leftovers

In other news, Zonker finally speaks to someone not from Novell (i.e. a colleague). It’s the first time in 4 shows and Novell’s PR department is grooming Zonker by promoting his show, as usual (while promoting SUSE in another audiocast of its own).

Lastly, there is OpenSUSE Weekly News with some translations and an audiocast. █

THE title is borrowed from a book of Christopher Hitchens, which was intended to alert using strong words. What we increasingly find in Microsoft’s “open source” endeavours is the “Embrace, Extend and Extinguish” strategy, which was explained many times before, even years ago.

Microsoft’s CodePlex Foundation, where Miguel de Icaza is working (and which is explicitly intended to help promote Mono), is making a lot of noise these days and Mono boosters, who are also former Microsoft employees (MindTouch), lend their voice to it. As we noted yesterday, they also suck up to Matt Asay and it's paying off.

MindTouch bills itself as the open source alternative to Sharepoint and recently named our own Matt Asay as the second most-influential executive in open source.

Matt Asay finally has this new post which bears an alarmist headline: “Microsoft’s embrace of MySQL could kill it”

Here are the opening words:

For those who have fret about Microsoft fighting against open source, I have news for you: Microsoft’s impact on open source may be worse as a friend than as an enemy.

Now with MySQL inside! Yes, we can.

Over the past few years, Microsoft has steadily warmed to open source, to the point that it now hosts its own open-source code repository and has seen its Microsoft Public License used more often than venerable licenses like the Mozilla Public License or the Eclipse Public License, according to new data released by Black Duck Software.

The open-source world should be worried.

We previously showed how Microsoft was lobbying to ruin MySQL [1, 2]. In emerging markets, MySQL is said to have a market share of 46% which is huge. No wonder Microsoft wants to ruin MySQL and with its big ally, SAP, Microsoft is doing a sort of Slog. To whit:

“Working behind the scenes to orchestrate “independent” praise of our technology, and damnation of the enemy’s, is a key evangelism function during the Slog.”

–Microsoft, internal document [PDF]

“[O]rchestrate “independent” praise of our technology,” eh? How might that be?

We once wrote about Black Duck promoting CodePlex. What too few people are aware of is the fact that Black Duck has a Microsoft genesis [1, 2] and the firm is selling fear about Free software. Black Duck is a purely proprietary software company with proprietary methods and proprietary data. It goes back to the post from Asay, but watch what Dana Blankenhorn is now parroting uncritically.

The latest Black Duck Software figures on open source license popularity make it clear.

Microsoft is gaining.

Is it really? Is the source of the claim unbiased? What is it measuring? A wise gentleman (or several gentlemen to whom it’s attributed) once said:

“Lies, damned lies, and statistics”

One of our readers warns us that Black Duck is currently selling fear in more places, for a fee. The same reader tells us that Novell’s “Michael Meeks and ex-Sun employee [are] talking about why Mono sucks.” The source, says our reader, are “some pictures of a friend of a friend on FB.”

Is it not curious that a Novell and GNOME developer bashes Mono? Even Novell employees seem to understand that Mono is technically inferior. The main reason to use it seems to be Microsoft’s contentment and its promoters include existing and former Microsoft employees. “Open Source” is being poisoned from the inside. Doing nothing would not resolve this issue. █

“[The partnership with Microsoft is] going very well insofar as we originally agreed to co-operate on three distinct projects and now we’re working on nine projects and there’s a good list of 19 other projects that we plan to co-operate on.”

–Ron Hovsepian, Novell CEO

Summary: Enlarged Board of Appeal to make decision regarding software patentability in Europe, but some judges may have already made up their minds

THE FFII’s president has just pointed out that the “European Patent Office “independent” Enlarged Board of Appeal says its judges are “independent”.” We append its response in plain text. Of course they would just act in self defence here, justifying their own integrity rather than relying on independent, external judgment. To quote the crux of the matter:

In an amicus curiae brief addressed to the Enlarged Board on 26 April 2009 Mr M. Schulz contested the impartiality of the Board giving the following reasons:
1. A technically qualified person in charge and mandated by the Enlarged Board of Appeal had officially and publicly given his opinion on the decisions mentioned in the referral of the President and on the interpretation of the EPC with respect to the exclusion of computer programs from patentability, among others on the decision in the case T 1173/97.

We previously wrote about this referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal in:

• Important Step for Software Patents in the European Union
• Alison Brimelow (EPO) Criticised for Referral to Enlarged Board of Appeal
• European Patent Office: From Riot to Order?
• Is the EPO Selling Out to Microsoft?
• EPO in State of Turmoil, Patents Kill
• Knuth Tells Europe to Let Him “Innovate in Peace” (Without Software Patents)

I have also submitted my own brief.

Separately, says FFII’s president, “Oracle [is] not mentioning patents” when claiming that “because MySQL is open source, it cannot be controlled by anyone.” Oracle wrote this in response to the European Commission, which blocks the Sun takeover.

We wrote about MySQL and patents back in 2008 [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. █

b

Europäisches     European        Office européen
Patentamt        Patent Office   des brevets
Große            Enlarged        Grande
Beschwerdekammer Board of Appeal Chambre de recours

 Internal distribution code:
 (A)  [ ]  Publication in OJ
 (B)  [X]  To Chairmen and Members
 (C)  [ ]  To Chairmen
 (D)  [ ]  No distribution
                  Datasheet for the Interlocutory Decision
                              of 16 October 2009
 Case Number:                          G 0003/08
 Language of the proceedings:          EN
 Referral by the President of the EPO in relation to a point of
 law pursuant to Article 112(1)(b) EPC
 Headword:
 -
 Relevant legal provisions:
 EPC Art. 24
 RPBA Art. 4
 Relevant legal provisions (EPC 1973):
 EPC Art. 24
 Keyword:
 "Objection to a member of the EBA, suspicion of partiality"
 Decisions cited:
 G 0001/05, G 0002/08, T 0954/98, J 0015/04
 [2002] EWCA Civ 90, [2003] QB 528 - Taylor v. Lawrence; [2003]
 UKHL 35, [2003] ICR 856 - Lawal v. Northern Spirit Ltd.;
 Locabail (UK) Ltd. v. Bayfield Properties Ltd.
 Catchword:
 -
 EPA Form 3030 06.03
 C2034.D

b

Europäisches        European        Office européen
Patentamt           Patent Office   des brevets
Große               Enlarged        Grande
Beschwerdekammer    Board of Appeal Chambre de recours

  Case Number: G 0003/08
                I n t e r l o c u t o r y        D e c i s i o n
                       of the Enlarged Board of Appeal
                              of 16 October 2009
  Composition of the Board:
  Chairman:      P. Messerli
  Members:       M. J. Vogel
                 P. Alting Van Geusau
                 M. Dorn
                 A. G. Klein
                 U. Scharen
                 J.-P. Seitz
 C2034.D
                              - 1 -                    G 0003/08
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I.      In the present referral case under Article 112(1)b EPC
        concerning several questions raised by the President of
        the EPO on Computer Implemented Inventions ("CII") the
        Enlarged Board of Appeal invited the public to file
        opinions on the questions submitted by the President.
II.     In an amicus curiae brief addressed to the Enlarged
        Board on 26 April 2009 Mr M. Schulz contested the
        impartiality of the Board giving the following reasons:
        1. A technically qualified person in charge and
        mandated by the Enlarged Board of Appeal had officially
        and publicly given his opinion on the decisions
        mentioned in the referral of the President and on the
        interpretation of the EPC with respect to the exclusion
        of computer programs from patentability, among others
        on the decision in the case T 1173/97.
        2. In the documents of the Diplomatic Conference of
        2000, the decision in the case T 1173/97 was considered
        to justify the deletion of the EPC provision excluding
        computer programs as non patentable subject matter.
        This means that this decision was not taken on the
        basis of the law in force at that time.
        3. Furthermore, the person mentioned above, now a
        member of the Enlarged Board in the present case,
        supported the EU-proposal of a directive on CII as a
        lobbyist of the Commission. He declared publicly that
        the then-drafted version of the EU-directive would not
        initiate a reversal of the jurisdiction of the Boards
        of Appeal. This is further proof that the then-valid
C2034.D
                              - 2 -                    G 0003/08
        law, which excluded computer programs from legal
        protection, had been disregarded by the Boards.
        4. Finally, just before its publication, a member of
        the Boards of Appeal publicly took the position that
        the referral of the President was inadmissible. This
        was an undue attempt to put pressure on the President
        and the Members of the Enlarged Board.
        5. On the strength of past experience with the
        behaviour of Board members the question is not whether
        there are different decisions and even whether these
        decisions are in line with the Convention. These
        questions have already been answered by the Boards'
        decisions. The question is rather whether it is
        possible having regard to the foregoing facts to
        compose an Enlarged Board from members of the Boards of
        Appeal, who have already been subject to a reproach of
        obliqueness.
        6. Under these conditions there is a suspicion of
        partiality with the consequence that the present
        composition of the Enlarged Board has to be dissolved
        and the grounds of dissolution have to be published.
III.    After due deliberation of the Board, in the absence of
        the member concerned, the Chairman of the Enlarged
        Board of Appeal by order dated 28 September 2009
        appointed Mr Alting van Geusau as alternate to Mr Rees
        for the purpose of the proceedings under Article 4
        RPEBA and Article 24(4) EPC.
IV.     In his statement according to Article 4(2) RPEBA
        Mr Rees declared that, as a director in DG 2 between
C2034.D
                              - 3 -                    G 0003/08
        2000 and 2003, he was assigned the duty of explaining
        the examination policy of DGs 1 and 2 with respect to
        computer-implemented inventions (CII), which was based
        on the case law of the Boards of Appeal, to the public
        and external bodies like the European Parliament.
        Furthermore he did the same when he attended as an
        expert for the European Commission a number of meetings
        of the responsible committee of the Council of
        Ministers where the proposal of a EU-directive on CII
        was discussed.
Reasons for the Decision
1.1     As provided by Article 24(3) EPC, members of a Board of
        Appeal or of the Enlarged Board of Appeal may be
        objected to by any party for one of the reasons
        mentioned in Article 24(1) EPC, or if suspected of
        partiality. Whereas objections based on Article 24(1)
        EPC (iudex inhabilis) may be raised by anyone, whether
        he is a party or not, the right to object to a member
        of the Board because of alleged partiality (iudex
        suspectus) is reserved to parties in the proceedings
        (see interlocutory decision of 15 June 2009 in case
        G 2/08, point 1.4 of the Reasons). In referral cases
        under Article 112 EPC, however, members of the public
        who file amicus curiae briefs do not have the status of
        a party. They are not entitled to file requests but
        only to submit their personal view of the case or that
        of their organisations, in order to support the Board
        with arguments that should be considered in its
        findings. Since an amicus curiae is not a party to the
        referral proceedings his request for exclusion of a
C2034.D
                              - 4 -                    G 0003/08
        member of the Enlarged Board or of the Enlarged Board
        as a whole is inadmissible under Article 24(3) EPC.
1.2     However, pursuant to Rule 4(1) of the Rules of
        Procedure of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (RPEBA) in
        the version approved by the Administrative Council of
        the EPO on 7 December 2006 (OJ 2007, 304), the
        procedure of Article 24(4) EPC is also to be applied,
        if the Enlarged Board of Appeal has knowledge of a
        possible reason for exclusion or objection which does
        not originate from a member himself or from any party
        to the proceedings. Under this provision the
        submissions of a third party with respect to a member
        of the Enlarged Board to be objected to according to
        Article 24(1) EPC or suspected of partiality under
        Article 24(3) EPC are taken as information on the basis
        of which the Board can ex officio look at the alleged
        grounds of objection or suspicion of partiality.
2.1     In the amicus curiae brief under consideration it is
        not alleged that one of the members of the Enlarged
        Board should be excluded from the case for reasons of a
        personal interest in the case, or for having been
        involved previously as a representative of the party
        (Article 24(1) EPC). Rather, the submission is based on
        the ground that one member of the Enlarged Board of
        Appeal in this case as well as the Board as a whole is
        suspected of partiality.
2.2     The interlocutory decision in case G 2/08 mentioned
        under point 1.1 above states that it might appear
        appropriate not to proceed any further with a complaint
        or information received if the so-called "possible"
        reason for exclusion or objection which does not
C2034.D
                              - 5 -                    G 0003/08
        originate from a party to the proceedings or the
        Enlarged Board of Appeal itself, would amount to an
        abuse of procedure. The decision mentions as an example
        a complaint that is completely unsubstantiated or
        ignores established case law (point 2.3 of the Reasons).
2.3     Turning to the present case, the Enlarged Board notes
        that the submissions in the amicus curiae brief are
        vague and largely unsubstantiated. The brief does not
        say who made which concrete remarks in which function
        under which circumstances and in which connection with
        respect to the referred questions such as to justify
        his exclusion as a member of the Enlarged Board of
        Appeal for reasons of suspicion of partiality.
        Nevertheless the Enlarged Board is in the position to
        identify Mr D. Rees on the basis of these submissions
        as the member suspected in the amicus curiae brief and
        is also aware of his earlier duties as a director in
        DG 2 of the EPO between 2000 and 2003 and as an expert
        for the EU-Commission in the field of CII at that time.
        But these facts submitted to establish the suspicion of
        partiality are not suitable to do so. The mere general
        and unsubstantiated assertion that the member in
        question explained as an expert in earlier times, when
        he was still a director in DG 2, that the jurisprudence
        of the Boards of Appeal in the field of CII would not
        be against the EPC and the law of the member states of
        the EPO cannot support an argument that this member or
        even the whole Enlarged Board in this case (G 3/08)
        should be excluded from dealing with the referral. Nor
        can such a conclusion be supported by the – actually
        incorrect - submission that the members of the present
        Enlarged Board are all members of the Boards of Appeal.
C2034.D
                              - 6 -                    G 0003/08
        This is not an argument justifying the assumption that
        - deciding on the present referral - they are not
        solely bound by the provisions of the EPC.
2.4     According to established case law of the Boards of
        Appeal, of the Enlarged Board and also of national
        courts of member states, the mere fact that a board
        member has expressed a view on the legal issue to be
        decided on a previous occasion, be it in a prior
        decision or in literature, be it in a prior position in
        the EPO or as an expert for external political
        institutions, cannot lead to the conclusion of doubts
        as to impartiality. Nor does a purely subjective
        impression that the opinions of a board member might be
        disadvantageous to a particular interest justify an
        exclusion (see T 954/98, point 2.4 of the Reasons; see
        also J 15/04; see further Interlocutory decision of
        7 December 2006 in case G 1/05, point 20 of the Reasons;
        confirmed in G 2/08, supra, point 4.2 of the Reasons;
        [2002] EWCA Civ 90, [2003] QB 528 - Taylor v. Lawrence;
        [2003] UKHL 35, [2003] ICR 856 - Lawal v. Northern
        Spirit Ltd.; Locabail (UK) Ltd. v. Bayfield Properties
        Ltd.; Rappel de la portée des stipulations de
        l'article 6 de la Convention européenne des droits de
        l'homme et des libertés fondamentales, JurisClasseur
        Justice Administrative, Fasc 70-11; Baumbach/Lauterbach,
        Zivilprozessordnung, Vol. 1, 67th Edition, 2009, § 42
        Margin 44, 45, 57; Zöller, Zivilprozessordnung, 27th
        Edition, 2009 § 42 Margin 26, 33; Fasching, Lehrbuch
        des österreichischen Zivilprozessrechts, 2nd Edition,
        1990, Margin 154; Fasching, Kommentar zu den
        Zivilprozessgesetzen, Vol. 1, 2nd Edition, 2000, § 19
        Jurisdiktionsnorm Margin 10).
C2034.D
                              - 7 -                    G 0003/08
2.5     Once lawfully appointed, a judge is deemed to act in
        good faith and is therefore presumed impartial until
        proven otherwise (see interlocutory decision in G 2/08,
        point 3.2 with further remarks). Moreover the parties
        to judicial proceedings have a right to have their case
        considered and decided by lawfully appointed judges.
        Such judges not only have the right to be member of a
        Board but also have the duty to decide in the cases
        allocated to them. They can neither withdraw at will
        from the proceedings, nor be objected to, at will, by a
        party to the proceedings, or by any other person. On
        the other hand they have to withdraw from a case in
        which their impartiality could be reasonably doubted
        (see interlocutory decision in case G 2/08). E.g. there
        might indeed exist an issue of partiality if a judge
        let it be known that he would never change his mind on
        certain questions on which he has given his opinion
        before. However, in the present case there is no
        indication whatsoever that this might be so.
3.      Therefore, this Board sees no reason to exclude Mr Rees
        from its composition in case G 3/08 or to replace
        further members.
C2034.D
                              - 8 -                    G 0003/08
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1.      The request of Mr Schultz is rejected as inadmissible.
2.      The composition of the Enlarged Board of Appeal in case
        G 3/08 remains unchanged.
The Registrar:                            The Chairman:
P. Martorana                              P. Messerli
C2034.D

“A stacked panel, on the other hand, is like a stacked deck: it is packed with people who, on the face of things, should be neutral, but who are in fact strong supporters of our technology. The key to stacking a panel is being able to choose the moderator. Most conference organizers allow the moderator to select die panel, so if you can pick the moderator, you win. Since you can’t expect representatives of our competitors to speak on your behalf, you have to get the moderator to agree to having only “independent ISVs” on the panel. No one from Microsoft or any other formal backer of the competing technologies would be allowed -just ISVs who have to use this stuff in the “real world.” Sounds marvellously independent doesn’t it? In feet, it allows us to stack the panel with ISVs that back our cause. Thus, the “independent” panel ends up telling the audience that our technology beats the others hands down. Get the press to cover this panel, and you’ve got a major win on your hands.”

–Microsoft, internal document [PDF]

Summary: A person from Pappas & Associates, which has history with Microsoft, tries to derail the Oracle deal and thus leave Sun altogether abandoned

TWO weeks ago we showed that Microsoft was lobbying behind the scenes in order to cause trouble for Oracle, Sun, and projects that Sun currently possesses. Groklaw has just scooped up the following gem:

“Neither path Ms. Kroes faces is a pretty one, and yet this is the decision she might end up being remembered by,” said Spyros Pappas of the law firm Pappas & Associates in Brussels. “Probably the best escape for her would be for Oracle to cancel the deal.”

Mr. Pappas has in the past represented Microsoft, an Oracle rival, but is not currently representing any companies involved in the case.

Remember the role of Ed Black and CCIA in T3/Microsoft's lawsuit-by-proxy against IBM for its GNU/Linux-running mainframes. It’s a familiar story.

Microsoft might wish to delay the deal in order to ruin projects like Java and OpenOffice.org, making Sun suffer in the mean time, mostly of uncertainties, lost market share, erosion of market cap (value), and layoffs, i.e. workforce. Groklaw points out the following opinion:

Oracle might use the cover of the EC delay as an excuse to abandon the deal altogether. But history suggests that when Mr Ellison wants something he sticks with it to the end, so dropping Sun at this point would be surprising.

In recent weeks we also showed how Microsoft was gaining influence inside the European Commission. It’s all about people. █

“Microsoft is now talking about the digital nervous system. I guess I would be nervous if my system was built on their technology, too.”

–Sun Microsystems President Scott McNealy

Summary: Courtois infiltrates another area where there is a potentially-forbidden conflict of interests and Microsoft deceives the EU Commission

WOW. Microsoft never ceases to amaze with underhanded tactics and cronyism, even in European member states. Recall Microsoft's hiring of a big gun (John Vassallo) in Europe, which it needed after the OOXML corruptions that had the Commission launch a formal investigation.

Microsoft has other big guns in Europe, one of whom is Courtois. We wrote about him earlier this month in relation to previous actions that involved him, e.g. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. Well, watch how incestuous things are getting in the European Commission right now. From CNN blogs:

It’s a sign of the growing détente that Courtois himself, a 25-year Microsoft veteran, is currently serving as an official “ambassador” for a jamboree called the “Year of Creativity and Innovation” organized by the E.U.’s executive commission — the same body that has been taking Microsoft to task over its business practices. He will be sharing a podium in Brussels in early November with the commission’s president, José-Manuel Barroso, and the other 14 ambassadors. “We’re trying to be a partner with Europe,” Courtois says, pointing out that Microsoft spends about $600 million on research and development in Europe, and provides thousands of jobs in the region.

The above text was written in relation to the Web browsers “war”, which as far as Europe is concerned is still an antitrust issue because Opera, Mozilla, and ECIS are not happy with the Microsoft deal [1, 2].

Putting Web browsers aside for a moment, Groklaw has noticed that Microsoft and its close ally SAP are both lobbying regarding the Oracle takeover of MySQL, which is the reason the Commission leaves Sun hanging and burning .

The investigation followed lobbying by Oracle competitors including SAP AG and Microsoft Corp.

Now, here is where is gets really interesting. The other day, Groklaw alleged that Monty may be used as a 'front' for Microsoft (we know from one reader of ours that Monty censors even polite comments that are critical of Microsoft) and now comes this report from The Inquirer, which says:

Microsoft wants MySQL sold

[...]

“To make things clear, I have not ever been paid anything from Microsoft and I have no relationship with them. The Codeplex foundation is an independent organization from Microsoft; It’s true that a lot of the people on it are still paid by Microsoft, but that is supposed to change soon,” wrote Widenius.

Monty also expanded upon his support for Codeplex, stating

“What is interesting with the Codeplex foundation is that if it is, what Microsoft claims it is, it will make it easy for people employed by Microsoft to actively participate with Open Source. This would be a great mind set change for Microsoft and as an Open Source/Free Software advocate I want to be sure that they do it right and there is no hidden agenda in the Foundation. The reason for me to accept to be on the Codeplex Advisory board was that it gives me a chance to ensure the above. I also believe that the more we get Microsoft employees (and actually any company) engaged in Open Source, the better it will be for Open Source projects in general.”

Still, Microsoft can be seen to have a massive vested interest in MySQL and whoever ultimately owns it.

The FSFE has had time to lay out its case as well. MySQL is hugely important to so many Free software projects and thus its independence is important, as Richard Stallman of the FSF would probably argue. There are no intuitive answers here. MySQL is also vital as a component in the fabric of Fog Computing (more proper name for “Cloud Computing”) where Microsoft is now trying to push and earn certification — quite sadly a certification from the same ISO it corrupted and hijacked.

Microsoft Corp. wants to get its suite of hosted messaging and collaboration products certified to the ISO 27001 international information security standard, part of an effort to assure customers about the security of its cloud computing services.

Fog Computing security and security of data “out there” (in the so-called ‘cloud’) are not the same thing. Microsoft can achieve neither because Windows is easy pickings and backup is not Microsoft’s best skill. We’ve covered the Sidekick fiasco, for example, in:

• Microsoft Pink is Already Declared Dead and Danger Dies with Permanent Data Loss
• Microsoft Sued for Data Loss
• Lawsuits Against Microsoft Turn to Class Action Lawsuit While Microsoft Mobiles Become Dying Breed
• Microsoft Recovers Sidekick Data? Not So Fast!

Some hospitals are still foolish enough to give patients’ data to Microsoft.

Microsoft got a seat at the health IT table last week as Caritas Christi, a Catholic-based hospital chain in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, decided to standardize on Amalga software.

They didn’t learn from Sidekick, did they? The hospitals can never tell doctors that they will recover just part of their data in about 2 weeks, just maybe.

Windows botnets already cause many deaths in hospitals [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] (there are many Conficker examples from British hospitals), not just trillions in damages. But anyway, we’ve deviated from the main subject of this post. This issue of data control will be revisited at a later date. █

Summary: Novell’s promotional action in IDG gets even more incestuous; MySQL and Sun’s other assets revisited in relation to Novell

FOR quite some time now, Novell has produced promotional audio series, the latest example of which is this one and another one from The Register, which sells out these days.

Several days ago we showed that IDG gave Novell a podium from which Novell employees Zonker and Greg K-H promoted SUSE. Zonker now uses his place there to promote Mono by speaking to another colleague from Novell. Novell’s PR team is happy about this.

In this latest OpenMic podcast, Joe ‘Zonker’ Brockmeier talks with Mono founder, Miguel de Icaza, about what’s new with the Mono Project and what’s coming soon. The two also discuss the many iPhone apps brought to you by Mono, what’s next for Moonlight (the Linux implementation of Microsoft’s Silverlight), and why Windows developers should really check out Mono.

Here is the direct link with the list of shows so far. That’s 2 shows out of 2 (100%) with just Novell employees in them. Amazing, isn’t it? It is stuff like that which helps Mono gain acceptance in some recognised circles and Unity has just earned some funds:

Unity Technologies Raises $5.5 Million From Sequoia Capital

[...]

Here’s how CEO David Helgason describes some of the platform’s benefits:

Unity uses .NET (or rather Mono, Novell’s open source .NET implementation) for “scripting”, which sidesteps the whole classical conundrum of scripting-versus-native, since the code gets JIT or AOT compiled to native code while still being sandboxable and easy. Also, there’s lots of documentation and very rich libraries to work with.

Mono also receives a lot of positive publicity from Microsoft Web sites, for obvious reasons.

The other day we showed Zonker's objection to the FSF's position and right now we find him repeating the arguments of a known Stallman basher, Matt Asay. They both make the same argument, using the MySQL situation to discredit Stallman.

In the news we find an hypothetical scenario where Novell is mentioned as a potential suitor for MySQL

If Ellison changed his mind and decided to sell MySQL, open source companies like Red Hat and Novell would be on top of the list of potential buyers, according to Bo Lykkegaard, software analyst at IDC.

More on Sun, Oracle, and Novell in relation to identity management:

Enterprises need confidence in the stability and continuity of their supplier when large investments are involved. Confidence in the identity management sector was badly shaken when HP, one of the leading providers, announced that it was leaving the sector in 2008. The fact that Novell took over its products only partially assuaged enterprises’ fears.

To summarise, Novell promotes Mono by sending out there media boosters like Zonker and there may be real danger here that Novell covets MySQL, not just OpenOffice.org, which it forked [1, 2, 3, 4] (Sun hates that). █