11.10.11
Posted in Debian, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Patents at 12:24 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Advice for Debian following extensive coverage about Ubuntu dropping Mono from its GNU/Linux CDs
NOW THAT we've achieved what we wanted from Ubuntu, it is time to look where Mono remains other than SUSE (which is inherently subverted because it’s financially dependent on Microsoft). Mono is partly developed by Microsoft under Microsoft licences. It is a patent risk that the FSF and Groklaw keep warning about. It’s about legalese, not ideology.
Microsoft is putting patent traps in GNU/Linux — traps that it can later use in subversive, anti-competitive ways (more on that in later posts about Android). “”Bansheegeddon” sees Banshee, Mono dropped from Ubuntu default,” says the headline from IDG. “Slashdot has picked up the story about Ubuntu dropping Mono,” told us a reader. “Unfortunately, it quotes a Mono booster.” Here is it and here is a more accurate bit of coverage from a longtime Mono critic. To quote:
I think Canonical has made the right decision to go back to Rhythmbox. My suggestion would be to now stick to Rhythmbox and polish it beyond perfections. I would expect Canonical to hire a full-time Rhytmbox developer and polish features like integration to Ubuntu Music and Amazon Music.
Ubuntu does need a ‘stable’ music player which can not only integrate well with the system but also offer users with all the much needed features.
Getting rid of Mono will also silent the camp which is worried about Mono on the Linux platform. Post Novell’s buy-out Mono’s future is uncertain given that there is no ‘true’ advantage of using Mono on the Linux platform other than forced implementations. The only area where Mono, due to Moonlight, could have been of any help was Netflix. Unfortunately, Netflix does’t work on Linux and owing to the recent changes more and more users are switching away from Netflix. So, Mono has become completely irrelevant on the Linux platform. I think, investing any resource on a technology developed by the arch-rival of Linux, Microsoft, is simply digging your own grave.
There is more coverage that says:
The situation for the default applications in less clear. The recently added Banshee media player is penciled in for removal to be replaced by Rhythmbox, the application it previously replaced. The issue for Banshee is that is uses GTK2 and the port to GTK3 is blocked due to missing features. The decision is not yet final though as the impact on Unity integration has not been established. Banshee’s removal would leave only Tomboy and Gbrainy as Mono-based applications and the removal of them, and Mono, was discussed but a final decision was not made. GNOME 3.4 is being released just a month before the release of Ubuntu 12.04, so the decision has been made to stick with GNOME 3.2 for the release but use GTK3.4 and some GNOME 3.4 components such as gedit and the GNOME Games.
“I’ve killed at least two Mac conferences. [...] by injecting Microsoft content into the conference,” bragged a Microsoft chief evangelist and “you want to infiltrate” is another memorable phrase from him. This ties nicely into the next bit of news, which reminds us of a famous incident in Romania. Microsoft “Tried to Sabotage DebConf 11″ as one blogger put it and to quote the original:
I could write a whole novel about this, but to keep it as short as possible, for last two years as a side project I was working on an idea of Government or some of its institutions migrating to Linux. At first I was somewhat loud about it, then after Microsoft heard about it and after they tried stopping the idea by trying to scare me by trying to interfere with my private life; as that didn’t work its lobbyist came even near of obstructing the whole conference within the Government. For the sake of the conference, I convinced the Government that by supporting DebConf it doesn’t mean they need to move to Linux and publicly stopped talking about it. I also convinced them that our only goal was to have successful conference and promote alternative options and open ideas. I wasn’t lying as I saw this as new opportunity of them concluding on their own why they should or shouldn’t not move, the better conference was the more chances of success we had.
That’s why I tried pushing as many representatives from various companies as in this case we would use reverse psychology where basically no one or few know what Linux or Debian for that matter is, but everybody knows who Google is, so if you have participants from i.e: Google or Austrian E-Health care system talking about how they are using your technology is better way to explain what’s it all about really. Eventually Microsoft even had their first ever conference in Bosnia/Herzegovina and you wanna take a wild guess where it was held? Smile
In the end we had a great conference, after the conference we were the ones that were approached by some big local companies interested in future co-operation and in the end a meeting with Mark Shuttleworth and President along with the core of Government was scheduled. Topic? Migration to Linux. For me personally this meeting went better then I could possibly even picture it, many topics were discussed and basically it was up to us/me to make a draft of the project plan and submit request for proposal to the Government. There was still some lobbying but it seemed as it all disappeared, runway was clear and open for the lift off.
The main loud voice who now opposes the removal of Mono from Ubuntu is one who pushed it into Debian an Ubuntu a few years back. This Mono booster is unhappy to see Mono going away from Ubuntu and he will mostly likely work to ensure that it stays inside Debian (my Debian Squeeze box came with Mono). Some people try to spread Mono, whereas some celebrate its riddance:
Flushing Mono down the toilet, where it belongs, will require removing Tomboy (no loss), and either replacing Banshee or modifying it to remove Mono dependency. Well worth the effort.
Sam Varghese writes:
The reason for this is that the Ubuntu development team has decided to drop the Mono-dependent Banshee music player and go back to RhythmBox which was used in earlier releases. Once Banshee is removed, the main reason for the inclusion of Mono goes with it.
The net effect is the same regardless of whether patents or technical limitations were the catalyst. Mono is now a niche/startup, so it is unlikely to ever return to Ubuntu. Mono is dying. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
08.21.11
Posted in Debian, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Xandros at 9:55 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Xandros is for sale
Summary: The distributor which pays Microsoft $50 per copy (for patent assurance) seems to have gone silent
ONE distribution we only ever hear about in historical context is Xandros, which pays Microsoft for GNU/Linux (although SUSE is still Microsoft’s favourite child). It is usually mentioned in reference to Eee PC. Actually, we find a great deal of revisionism in this area. Rather than explain how Microsoft distorted the sub-notebooks market in anti-competitive ways, the newer pieces pretend that GNU/Linux should be blamed. But either way, how many people still use Xandros? It has virtually no existence in the news because the distribution, which is oddly enough still up for sale, is many years old. Xandros as a company seems to have gone missing and it even sold Scalix last month, making a bit of a wave at the time (more like a ripple though).
Is anybody aware of a business which still uses Xandros somewhere? If so, we would like to know. Using the latest Debian would be a lot better than using some ancient “Xandros”, which is a controversial ripoff job that many Debian GNU/Linux developers are not too happy with.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
04.09.11
Posted in Debian, GNU/Linux, Mono, Ubuntu at 6:08 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: An affinity for the ripoff of the ripoff of Java is costing Debian and its descendent’s, Ubuntu, dearly
MONO is not software, it’s a doctrine. It’s the belief that Microsoft is the centre of all things and that all platforms — GNU/Linux included — should just become clients of Microsoft despite the known risks.
Banshee is the latest Mono addition to Ubuntu and as a notable blogger put it, “I wonder what is the next platform they’re going to take on now that both Windows and Mac are already supported.”
Banshee — like Mono in general — is about .NET, it's not about GNU/Linux. It never was. That says a lot. In fact, a lot of the people who promote Mono inside GNU/Linux are not even GNU/Linux users. They have an agenda, which is to increase the use of Microsoft APIs. It’s no wonder that the lead developer of Mono is a Microsoft MVP.
According to this, Banshee was added to Ubuntu prematurely. It’s buggy. We have heard the same thing in IRC and in E-mail. What was Canonical thinking??? All that Banshee has done for Ubuntu so far is harm its reputation (the Bansheegate).
According to this other new post, “Debian 6 [is] sluggish and slow due to Mono”.
It says: “To cut a long story short, I have no need for Mono and decided to erase it.
apt-get purge cli-common libmono-*
“If you are a Ubuntu user reading this, please do not run this command.
“Now the interesting thing after performing this action was I noticed my desktop was more snappy and responsive, and more inline with Fedora 14.”
Fedora avoids Mono as a matter of principle. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
03.04.11
Posted in Bill Gates, Debian, Finance, Microsoft, Servers, Vista 8, Windows at 9:21 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: IDG/IDC do their trick again, selling false perceptions about GNU/Linux and about Microsoft, which keeps sliding down while finding new financial ways of hiding its weaknesses
YESTERDAY we wrote about Microsoft hiring liars to defame Free software more frequently than before. Some of those liars call themselves “academics” or “analysts”, but to them the business model is to find the criteria and data which allows them to come up with the required deception and then massively promote it using corporate media arms. IDG does this a lot with IDC as we have shown over the years, which is why Microsoft loves paying IDG/IDC a lot of money, sometimes quite explicitly in order to assist with Microsoft lobbying (we have given examples of that too). Earlier this week IDC released its periodic GNU/Linux FUD and this was covered not just by gullible sites that still take and accept the figures at face value (despite there being detailed rebuttals) and the IDG/IDC overlap, where IDG sites basically promote IDC lies (fake numbers that do not actually reflect on what they are said to represent), can also be seen here. Yes, IDG gives exposure to its own ‘studies’ but wraps all it together as ‘news’, as usual. They know that they deceive, they are told so, but they carry on (see our wiki for details). That’s just corrupt, unfair, and totally unprofessional. Yesterday we wrote about IDG's latest Microsoft whitewashing, which is basically an attempt to wed Microsoft and the “open source” community, using amazing spin and serious omissions. As the 451 Group helps show, Microsoft’s vision of “open source” is one of Microsoft licences and acceptance of software patents (no GPLv3 allowed). How noble, eh?
Over at Identica, Silner writes: “This PHP story got me wondering if Microsoft’s new strategy is divide and conquer: divide !OpenSource from !Linux?”
In reply he got: “That is their old strategy: divide “open source” from Linux, Linux from GNU, GNOME from GNU, stuff GNOME with Mono.”
Silner responds with a question: “What is their new strategy though? You know, I leaning towards the idea they’re hedging their bets”
The context can be seen in Identica along with more analysis. “I should have said the Gnu strategy. I missed that one,” Silner added.
It is correct to say that Microsoft is trying to fragment the community. The Mono and Moonlight boosters (Novell employees) are doing the same thing and they also try to incite Ubuntu members against us, using lies. Popey, for example, is under the misguided impression that we are against Ubuntu when in fact we’ve defended the project since it was conceived. Separately, wrote Popey, “Wow! Windows 8 will have multiple desktops! Welcome to 1985!”
You always know that Microsoft is having a tough time when it brings up Vista 8 promises, just as it was harping about WinFS for many years, promising to deliver Longhorn (successor of XP) by the end of 2003, along with WinFS. People who know Microsoft’s vapourware tactics will understand that it just shows how fragile the company really is. It is facing a situation where few rich billionaires take money out of Microsoft while Microsoft is borrowing money and sees its cash cows Office and Windows falling without signs of this fall stopping. The company has troubling times ahead, just like every company (they all stagnate eventually). Meanwhile, people like Bill Gates are getting even richer while avoiding tax (the Gates Foundation is essentially passing all taxation to the poor by also exempting Warren Buffett). See this new discussion in Twitter [1, 2] which speaks about tax avoider Gates who is still acting like the United States economist for Obama. It’s about this article which is titled “Bill Gates Addresses The ‘Completely Unsustainable’ Crisis In Public Pensions” (Gates is an quotable economist now?):
There are long-term problems with state budgets that a return to economic growth won’t solve. Health-care costs and pension obligations are projected to grow at rates that look to be completely unsustainable, unless something is done. But so far, many states aren’t doing much to deal with their fundamental problems. Instead they’re building budgets on tricks – selling off assets, creative accounting – and fictions, like assuming that pension fund investments will produce much higher gains than anyone should reasonably expect.
How about asking Gates to stop evading tax and actually contribute something other than lobbying, e.g. instructing governments (usually so that they give taxpayers’ money to companies he invests in)?
In summary, this whole corrupt nature of Microsoft is not the only sign of its demise. Microsoft has always been corrupt, it just happens to be very visible this month. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
02.13.11
Posted in Debian, GNU/Linux, Security, Windows at 2:28 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
(ODF | PDF | English/original)
Resumen: A pesar de algunas denuncias maliciosas, Microsoft sigue copiando la funciones de seguridad de Linux, no al revés.
Los sitios de noticias de tecnología han comenzado a empujar la historia “USB”, lo que sugiere que heredar el comportamiento en Windows hace a Linux menos seguro. Hay muchas réplicas presentadas por escrito al respecto y le haremos frente en una etapa posterior. Por el momento, recordemos la gran ventaja de GNU/Linux no sólo en lo que respecta a la centralización de software en los repositorios de confianza (lo que verifica la seguridad y la protege de descargas maliciosas desde sitios arbitrarios). Una de las grandes ventajas de este enfoque es que utilizando el mismo mecanismo GNU/Linux mantiene todo el software subyacente – no sólo el núcleo del sistema operativo – al día con los parches de seguridad. Windows no tiene esto (Apple emula esto y Microsoft sólo expresa las esperanzas de emular algún día, al igual que emula sudo) y, de hecho, un escritor dice ahora que “Microsoft tiene que abrir Windows Update para los desarrolladores de terceras partes[http://www.betanews.com/article/Why-Microsoft-has-to-open-Windows-Update-to-thirdparty-developers/1296852522]“:
Hay una gran confusión que hay acerca de cuándo los ataques contra los ordenadores se producen como consecuencia de las vulnerabilidades en el software y no de algún otro punto débil, por lo general de ingeniería social. hay considerables progresos logrados en la protección contra las vulnerabilidades en Windows, y podemos hacer aún más difícil su explotación, si Microsoft se puede convencer a sí mismo de mi plan: abrir Windows Update para las aplicaciones de terceros.
Mi propia opinión es que la ingeniería social es mucho más importante que las vulnerabilidades y ha ido aumentando en importancia. Una razón para esto es que las vulnerabilidades son un objetivo más difícil de lo que solía ser, y eso es en gran parte debido al trabajo que Microsoft ha hecho en los últimos 6 o 7 años.
Glyn Moody escribió sobre la confesión William Hague, que hemos mencionado, el otro día[http://techrights.org/2011/02/05/william-hague-got-pwn3d/], alegando con razón[http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2011/02/uk-cyberwar---or-uk-cyberwallies/index.htm] que los sistemas operativos desempeñar un papel importante aquí:
La clave es darse cuenta de que el vínculo peligroso que los idiotas gobierno del Reino Unido ha hecho clic en descargar a su PC el troyano Zeus – un keylogger que SOLO AFECTA A WINDOWS (no es como que alguna vez habías supuesto a partir de la cobertura de la corriente principal PATETICA de cualquier infección Zeus ). Así que si el gobierno del Reino Unido intercambia muchos de los sistemas Windows caros y vulnerables, con los de bajos costos y mucho más seguro de GNU/Linux con los que, estaríamos a salvo de la mayor parte de las pérdidas de los ciber-wallies, para casi ningún desembolso.
Pero eso sería demasiado fácil, eficiente e inteligente – especialmente cuando hay un paquete de aullido de las empresas de seguridad que tienen el olor de los 650 millones smackeroonies en sus fosas nasales dilatadas. Para evitar que la amenaza de reducir al mínimo la amenaza con medios tan sencillos, que sin duda va a crear un crescendo de FUD sobre el inminente “ciber-Armageddon” que todos nos enfrentamos si el gobierno del Reino Unido no lanza cubos de dinero en su dirección a “defender , la demora, el ataque y las maniobras en el ciberespacio “, como el General Sir David Richards, jefe del Estado Mayor de defensa, lo puso en el artículo citado anteriormente (¿cómo demonios haces maniobras en el “ciberespacio?)
El problema es que no importa mucho cómo las empresas de seguridad reclaman sus soluciones costosas son a prueba de idiotas, subestiman la inteligencia de los idiotas – o la falta de profundidad e intrínsecos de la seguridad ofrecida por un monocultivo de Microsoft, que es aún más resistente que el molesto “ciber “prefijo ….
En el mismo día, Moody también compartió un enlace a este curiosa [http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/4-07022011-AP/EN/4-07022011-AP-EN.PDF] PDF, que sugiere que “Casi 1/3 de los usuarios de Internet en la Unión Europa -27 han capturado un virus informático” (Moody agregó: “aqui no se menciona Windows, sólo por un cambio”) .
Fue hace casi 3 años que escribimos acerca de las estadísticas que sugieren un 40% de las PC de Windows se había convertido en zombies[http://techrights.org/2008/05/14/windows-zombie-pc-40-pct/], si los usuarios saben esto o no. █
Many thanks to Eduardo Landaveri of the Spanish portal of Techrights.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
02.08.11
Posted in Debian, GNU/Linux, Security, Windows at 6:34 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Contrary to some malicious allegations, Microsoft remains the one copying security features from Linux, not the other way around
THE technology news sites have begun pushing the “USB” story, suggesting that inheriting Windows-like behaviour makes Linux less secure. There are rebuttals written about it and we may address them at a later stage. For the time being, let us recall the advantage GNU/Linux has not only when it comes to software centralisation in trusted repositories (which verifies safety and protects from malicious downloads from arbitrary sites). One of the big advantages of this approach is that using the same mechanism GNU/Linux keeps all the underlying software — not just the core of the operating system — up to date with security patches. Windows does not have that (Apple emulates this and Microsoft only expresses hopes to emulate that, just like it emulates sudo) and in fact one writer is now saying that “Microsoft has to open Windows Update to third-party developers”:
There’s a lot of confusion out there about when attacks against computers occur as a result of vulnerabilities in software as opposed to some other weakness, usually social engineering. Considerable progress has been made in protection against vulnerabilities on Windows, and we can make exploitation even harder if Microsoft can be talked into my scheme: open up Windows Update to third-party applications.
My own opinion is that social engineering is far more important than vulnerabilities and has been increasing in importance. One reason for this is that vulnerabilities are a harder target than they used to be, and that’s in large part because of the work Microsoft has done over the last 6 or 7 years.
Glyn Moody wrote about the William Hague confession which we mentioned the other day, arguing quite rightly that operating systems play a role here:
The key thing to notice is that the dangerous link that the UK government idiots clicked on downloaded to their PCs the Zeus trojan horse – a keylogger that only affects Windows (not that you’d ever guess that from the pathetic mainstream coverage of any Zeus infection). So if the UK government swapped out lots of those expensive and vulnerable Windows systems with low-cost and rather more secure GNU/Linux ones, we’d be spared most of the losses from those cyber-wallies, for almost no outlay.
But that would be too easy, efficient and intelligent – especially when there’s a baying pack of security companies who have the scent of those 650 million smackeroonies in their dilated nostrils. To avoid that threat of minimising the threat with such simple means, they’ll doubtless create a crescendo of FUD about the imminent “cyber-Armageddon” we all face if the UK government doesn’t throw buckets of dosh in their direction to “defend, delay, attack and manoeuvre in cyberspace”, as General Sir David Richards, chief of the defence staff, put it in the article quoted above (how on earth do you “manoeuvre in cyberspace”?)
The trouble is, no matter how much security firms claim their costly solutions are idiot-proof, they underestimate the cleverness of idiots – or the deep and intrinsic lack of security offered by a Microsoft monoculture, which is even more durable than that pesky “cyber” prefix….
On the very same day, Moody also shared a link to this curious PDF, suggesting that “Nearly 1/3 of internet users in the EU27 caught a computer virus” (Moody added: “no mention of Windows, just for a change”).
It was almost 3 years ago that we wrote about statistics suggesting 40% of Windows PCs had become zombies, whether the users know this or not. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
08.11.10
Posted in Debian, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Vista 7, Windows at 4:18 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: GNU/Linux is patching flaws very quickly (almost immediately), whereas Microsoft hides flaws and patches them a long time after their discovery, sometime patching them secretly or only once attacks strike
Mr. Pogson has just found this news about a vulnerability that affects Vista 7 and all of its predecessors. It took Microsoft no less than about half a year to patch this vulnerability. Yes, check it out:
The software company on Tuesday released MS10-049 to kill the bug in Windows Server 2008, Windows 7 and 12 other versions of Windows that are still under support. The patch updates a part of the operating system known as SChannel, or Secure Channel, which is responsible for implementing SSL, which is also referred to as TLS, or transport layer security.
This patch Tuesday was the worst ever recorded (but Microsoft admits bluffing with the numbers, so it’s impossible to know for sure]).
Either way, compare that to the speed of Debian’s patch for the same issue:
I read that M$ has just patched SSL to comply with RFC5746, five months after Debian GNU/Linux did it… on 12 architectures and several versions. Who are you going to call when you need software for your IT system? Debian GNU/Linux!
Microsoft still promotes the mythology that half of Windows PCs are claimed to be zombies just because Windows is ubiquitous. Maybe it has a lot to do with Microsoft’s shoddy patching practices, not supposed “popularity” which Microsoft loves to rave about like a cheerleader. █
“The trouble with you, Andy [Hill, Microsoft developer], is you aren’t willing to listen to schedules. When I tell you what the schedule is, you try to twist my arm to sign up to a schedule that I don’t believe in. You learned that at the Steve Ballmer cheerleading school too, didn’t you? Well, he’s nuts, and so are you.”
–Microsoft manager
Permalink
Send this to a friend
05.14.10
Posted in Antitrust, Apple, Debian, Europe, GNU/Linux, Google, OIN, Patents at 3:16 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Teams of embedded Debian users/developers may want a shield from software patents; Europe does nothing to stop software patenting; patent lawyers and the patents they crave prove harmful to development of “best” mobile phones
Benjamin Henrion (FFII) says that “EmDebian [is] considering joining the Open Invention Network,” based on this new message:
OIN is the open innovation network, a patent defence group set up in 2005 by IBM, phillips, Red Hat, Novell, NEC and Sony to create a patent pool for defending Linux.
They are now keen to have proper free-software people and projects join up, especially in the Embedded space which is shaping up for a big fight over the next few years as the incumbents realise Linux has eaten their businesses. This could easily get dirty (i.e. have incumbent vendors resort to their patent portfolios to hang on past their natural time – (in the way that SCO did, although they tried to use copyright rather than patents).
Henrion is trying to tell them that “collective patent pools and shields do not work against trolls” (with special exceptions [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]).
Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBoA) Decision Loved by Patent Lawyers
Wednesday’s disappointment from the EBoA is already being covered all around Europe, especially by the legal 'industry'.
Patent attorneys seem pleased with the outcome, which lets them carry on doing what they did before, including the patenting of software using known loopholes.
To be honest, the decision was pretty much expected: the European Patent Office (EPO) has been taking a fairly consistent approach to computer-implemented inventions and has a growing body of learning materials on the subject.
Another ‘IP’ attorney says that “Enlarged Board of Appeal confirms approach to controversial software patents.” More from patent lawyers:
As many in the ‘FOSS’/anti-patent world would undoubtedly say, perhaps it is now time for the legislator to take over. However, I would have very serious doubts about whether it will be possible to come to any sort of agreement among the member states of either the EU or the EPC that would stand any chance of resolving the issue once and for all.
[...]
6. T 424/03, Microsoft does deviate from a view expressed in T 1173/97, IBM, concerning whether a claim to a program on a computer-readable medium necessarily avoids exclusion from patentability under Article 52(2) EPC. However this is a legitimate development of the case law and there is no divergence which would make the referral of this point to the Enlarged Board of Appeal by the President admissible.
Henrion has just uploaded this English version of the video depicting the European Parliament as it rejects the Software Patent Directive (also available in French/original). Here is an Ogg Theora version of this historical video.
It would be nice to have another such high-profile decision annulling all patents on software. In the United States, In Re Bilski will resume very shortly.
Phones a Patent Mess
“Complex Smartphones Are the Latest Patent Battleground,” exclaims Business Week. It seems like nothing but lawsuits is what patents brought to this lucrative section of the industry (where Linux grows fastest and Microsoft diminishes).
The patent wars are raging in the mobile device market, and they could result in rising costs for handset makers and higher gadget prices for wireless carriers and consumers. So far this year, Apple and HTC—two of the most innovative smartphone makers—have become embroiled in more patent-related litigation than in all of 2007, and they are on track to beat their own 2008 and 2009 records, according to Bloomberg data.
Wired Magazine has the following new article:
Investigation: Apple vs Nokia vs Google vs HTC vs RIM
[...]
The struggle that’s broken out between the tech giants has a certain irony; after all, the prizes they’re disputing — patents — were invented to accelerate and encourage invention, not hinder it. The concept is fairly straightforward: a patent is granted if an invention meets a number of requirements, the most essential being “novelty” and “usefulness”. Once granted, a patent typically gives the inventor a limited monopoly of a minimum of 20 years in which he alone can market the invention or license others to take up his protected work.
[...]
In their 2008 book Patent Failure, Bessen and fellow Boston University law professor Michael Meurer show that, since the late-90s, litigation costs for publicly traded companies (except in the case of pharmaceuticals) have consistently outweighed the profits that companies derived from patents. They show that in 1999 alone, $9.3 billion (£6bn) were made in profits from patents globally. Litigation costs alone, however, reached $16 billion (£10.5bn) for the US. In the last decade, this situation has deteriorated considerably: in 1999, there were 2,318 patent litigation lawsuits filed in the US. By 2008, that number had risen to 2,896.
Yesterday we mentioned the HTC vs Apple case. The New York Times has attempted to get a response from Apple but failed.
An Apple spokeswoman declined to comment.
Why didn’t HTC join the OIN and retaliate against Microsoft and Apple this way? Instead, it sold out to Microsoft and harmed the whole of Android in the process.
HTC is using just 5 patents. Had it joined the OIN, it would possibly have hundreds of infringing examples for a more effective artillery in this M.A.D. situation (TechDirt says that a “Patent Nuclear Response [Was] Launched” because it’s the best analogy).
According to the press release, HTC believes Apple infringes upon five of their patents. As to what they are, we don’t quite know. More on this as it develops.
“HTC files patent complaint against Apple, asks for ban on iPhone, iPad, and iPod,” says Engadget. That’s the ITC loophole which often gets abused.
Apple has other problems because of Adobe and invocation of “antitrust”.
Adobe has launched its latest salvo in an ongoing dispute with Apple.
The co-founders of Adobe have published an open letter in which they say that Apple threatens to “undermine the next chapter of the web”.
Actually, it is Adobe which undermines the next chapter of the Web. The Web is about web standards, not proprietary plugins. More companies also need to support Theora, which both Apple and Adobe are a threat to (see the posts below). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »
