Summary: The Gates Foundation goes lobbying for Microsoft again, this time in Vietnam

TECHRIGHTS has covered hundreds of examples where the Gates Foundation can be seen hacking the system and making profit while making it look like charity — a travesty to be described positively by the bribed press (that Gates is paying to do this). When the world’s biggest thief is speaking on behalf of poor people we just know something is totally wrong and journalists occasionally speak out about it (those whose publisher has not yet been bribed by Gates). The foundation is again exploiting and piggybacking farmers to spread lock-in, this time in Vietnam. Gates had already stepped into Vietnam under the "Foundation" gown in order to derail Free software adoption over there. But it’s merely a drop in the bucket. See our past posts about this country, notably:

• Cablegate: US Sees Microsoft as Helping to Impose Intellectual Monopolies in Vietnam
• Cablegate: Microsoft Asks US Government to Help Derail Vietnam’s Migration to GNU/Linux, Wants to Treat Vietnamese Like ‘Pirates’ Instead
• Cablegate: In Vietnam, BSA+IDC+Microsoft Assure Microsoft Lock-in in Exchange for Indoctrination
• US Government Helps Microsoft Derail Vietnamese Migration to Free/Libre Software
• Cablegate: Microsoft Rushes Vietnam to Get Rid of Open Source, Including FOSS Policy
• Microsoft Strikes Back In Vietnam (Leaked)

As we explained before, software costs no money to copy, so portrayal of software as “donation” is just a trick to make Vietnamese taxpayers pay Microsoft. The Communist Party paper says this:

Bill Gates fund helps Vietnam farmers go online

[...]

The fund includes nearly $30 million of free support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and $3.64 million worth of Microsoft software. The remaining investment will be raised by the Vietnamese government.

This Windows-powered Web site fails to mention the problems with this, as mentioned at the time by Gates Keepers among several others. It’s all just a story of sentimental blackmail (an old favourite of Microsoft) and yet more Microsoft promotion. We have seen this before. Gates uses this so-called ‘charity’ quite a lot to sell or impose the sale of Microsoft lock-in, especially in places where Free software gains traction. In this case, the government (i.e. taxpayers) bear some of the costs. And then they wonder why there are problems and critics, blaming "communication" problems for the criticism. As one critic of the foundation put it, there is a brute-force charm offence going on:

Basically, I was noting that the Gates Foundation is widely viewed by many outsiders, including grant recipients, as somewhat inscrutable. It has been saying for years it wants to improve on its ability to communicate with perhaps little evidence of improvement (and even as its annual report has dramatically shrunk in size, a good thing but symbolically irresistable to me):

Remember that Bill Gates is still getting richer. The press which he bribes keep telling us that he gives his fortune away, giving people at the bottom the wrong impression and sympathy for a robber baron. By all means be sceptical of any report which sells the story of Gates taking care of the poor; he often just uses the poor for PR and for profit. One just needs to grasp the common spin techniques being crafted. Then the reality becomes very shallow. █

Summary: Money still the vehicle by which opinions get heard, so Bill Gates exploits this for fame, power, and profit

SEVERAL months ago we explained and showed how the Gates Foundation was hijacking the voice of the poor, rendering itself a voice of the very opposite of what it is. This is extremely dangerous for reasons we went through before and it makes up a powerful lobbying tactic which we alluded to earlier today. Over at the Indian press we see more of that same old PR which associates Gates with poor people:

A delegation of Bill Gates Foundation on Friday visited Dharavi here, among the biggest slums in Asia, to study the conditions there.

As we demonstrated in the past, Gates is artificially generating coverage to earn sympathy (he bribes publications for it), sometimes with press that is already funded by Gates for this type of agenda setting. In reality, as his wealth gains show, he does this to make himself richer and more powerful, pretending to lead the poor. Here is what one of them says:

“I am confident that we will continue to innovate on behalf of the poor,” says Bill Gates in his video on development innovation for Gates Notes. He is often criticized for his top-down approach to development and that statement does little to dissuade critics. Also note the parachuted safe landing in on the ground. All seems to indicate that innovation is coming from the outside.

Unfortunately, the video ends when it shows how innovations are being shared between countries like Japan and Brazil. The recipient, in the end, is an African country. It misses the final step that shows how future innovations will involve countries like Mozambique. The recipients will not be limited to the developing world. Accomplishing this, in part, will necessitate a re-configuration of the view that innovation goes in only one direction.

We continue to do a disservice to the poor if we insist on innovating on their behalf.

And the Bill Gates-fudned Guardian writes that owing/due to the likes of Monsanto in Africa, this is no justice:

It’s strange that at this week’s World Economic Forum the designated voice of the world’s poor has been Bill Gates, who has pledged £478m to the Global Fund to fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria, telling Davos that the world economic crisis was no excuse for cutting aid.

[...]

The biotech agriculture that Lord Sainsbury was unable to push through democratically he can now implement unilaterally, through his Gatsby Foundation. We are told that Gatsby’s biotech project aims to provide food security for the global south. But if you listen to southern groups such as the Karnataka State Farmers of India, food security is precisely the reason they campaign against GM, because biotech crops are monocrops which are more vulnerable to disease and so need lashings of petrochemical pesticides, insecticides and fungicides – none of them cheap – and whose ruinous costs will rise with the price of oil, bankrupting small family farms first. Crop diseases mutate, meanwhile, and all the chemical inputs in the world can’t stop disease wiping out whole harvests of genetically engineered single strands.

Both the Gatsby and the Bill and Melinda Gates foundations are keen to get deeper into agriculture, especially in Africa. But top-down nostrums for the rural poor don’t end well. The list of autocratic hubris in pseudo-scientific farming is long and spectacularly calamitous. It runs from Tsar Alexander I’s model village colonies in 1820s Novgorod to 1920s Hollywood film producer Hickman Price, who, as Simon Schama brilliantly describes in The American Future, “bought 54 square miles of land to show the little people how it was really done, [and] used 25 combines all painted glittery silver”. His fleet of tractors were kept working day and night, and the upshot of such sod-busting was the great plains dustbowl. But there’s no stopping a plutocratic philanthropist in a hurry.

And then there is the vexed question of whether these billions are really the billionaires’ to give away in the first place. When Microsoft was on its board, the American Electronics Association, the AeA, challenged European Union proposals for a ban on toxic components and for the use of a minimum 5% recycled plastic in the manufacture of electronic goods.

[...]

Free marketeers will spring to the defence of billionaire philanthropists with a remark like: “Oh, so you’d rather they spent all their money selfishly on golf courses and mansions, would you?” To which I reply: “Oh, you mean that trickle-down doesn’t work, after all?” But the point is that the poor are not begging us for charity, they are demanding justice. And when, on the occasion of his birthday, a sultan or emperor reprieved one thousand prisoners sentenced to death, no one ever called those pardons justice. Nor is it justice when a plutocrat decides to reprieve untold thousands from malaria. Human beings should not have to depend upon a rich man’s whim for the right to life.

They are basically deciding for the poor that they should accept something harmful (but profitable to the rich). Needless to say, the astorturfers are storming such voices that oppose the profitable agenda. It is “interesting how polarised the comments are,” notes Glyn Moody. What he might not know is the extent to which PR agents are employed to spin the Gates articles (messengers tend to be bullied, ridiculed and discouraged too). These are agencies that we’ve shown to be engaging in dubious and possibly illegal tactics. The Gates Foundation hires agents that also work for Microsoft and we know that among their arsenal there are bribes for bloggers, semi-automated blog comment mechanisms, etc.

As for the article above, maybe Gates will bribe the Guardian some more to gag such critics through the publishers/editors. As we are reminded by Felix Salmon from Reuters, the Guardian already carries paid ads for Bill Gates, pretending to be “content”:

Now what happens if your aims are a not selling baby stuff, or fizzy drinks, or financial products? In fact, what happens if your aims aren’t selling anything at all?In that case, you might not mind if someone else were doing the publishing, just as you managed to achieve your goals at the same time. Which brings me to a very interesting $2.5 million grant from the Gates Foundation, which is sponsoring the Guardian’s global development microsite for three years.

The Gates Foundation actually launched the site in 2010, spending an undisclosed sum to do so; the new grant keeps the site going for another three years. As part of the deal, every page in the site — be it blog post or news story — gets prominently branded with the Gates Foundation logo, right at the top of the column where all the editorial content goes. (In fact, the logo is significantly larger than the Guardian’s own logo at the top of the page, although the site looks and feels like the rest of the Guardian site, and lives at guardian.co.uk.)

[...]

What the Guardian doesn’t say, here, is that $2.5 million is what’s technically known as a shit-ton of money. It’s vastly more than it could ever get from ad revenues on a niche site like this — even at a $20 CPM, you’d need to serve up 125 million pageviews over three years to get that much money. Global development issues have a substantial audience, but not that substantial.

More importantly, $2.5 million is significantly more than it costs the Guardian to put together a micro-site like this — this deal is profitable, for a media organization which, like most, is in desperate need of profits. In fact, it’s a twofer for the Guardian, which manages to improve its revenues and also beef up its editorial offerings in one go.

Looked at from the point of view of the Gates Foundation, there’s real value here. For one thing, all of the content automatically gets a lot more credibility than it would if it were published by the Gates Foundation directly, especially given the suspicion with which it’s already regarded. And frankly, publishing well-written, agenda-setting material for a mass audience is not one of the Gates Foundation’s core competencies: if they tried to do it, there’s a good chance they wouldn’t do it very well. (Non-profits in general seem constitutionally incapable of getting out of their wonky high-serious comfort zone.)

And the way these deals are structured, they do a pretty good job of minimizing the sulfurous smell of advertorials and “sponsored content” which has a habit of lingering in even the glossiest sponsor-driven site. Which isn’t to say that they’re not criticized. The Seattle Times did a 2000-word investigation into the Gates Foundation’s media sponsorships earlier this year, and found it quite easy to find critics…

Yes, the Gates Foundation has effectively been running paid ads (charity-washing) in a lot of publications. More journalists need to speak out against it. The BBC is another British press body that got bribed by Bill Gates at least twice last year (tens of millions of pounds). It helps deceive the public and marginalise voices of reason. █

Summary: After papers and schools are receiving massive bribes from “king of the universe” Bill Gates (to push an agenda) dissenting voices get removed or suppressed

THE GATES Foundation is still occupying and looting the US education system, bringing to it private interests that include but are not exclusive to Microsoft Corporation. We have given many examples here before (see this index).

The US public, back when it occupied Oakland, won the support of a teacher who wrote:

That’s what Race to the Top was all about. It was a big con paid for with our tax dollars and brought to you by Bill Gates and Eli Broad.

Bill has many paid cheerleaders, hired through PR agencies (in addition to a million or more bucks a day in expenditure to control the press). We still become increasingly aware of more institutions that are funded by Gates, sometimes without disclosing it. The Center for Global Development, for instance, turns out to be paid by Gates. According to this, Morduch too is funded by Gates, but “[a]t least he comes clean about most of his work being Gates Foundation funded.”

Valerie Strauss, who previously worked under a leadership with Gates in it (until the scandal), lashes out at Bill Gates again. She writes:

Bill Gates was just in the news again, bemoaning the sorry state of America’s schools, insisting that business leaders like him have a lot to teach us about measuring performance.

[...]

Are our billionaire education reformers interested in any of this information?

We can choose tax structures that underfund our schools, we can believe that we are collectively “broke” while some people stack up the billions, and still need tax breaks. But the data is in. The gulf between rich and poor is obscene. And the schools alone will not fix this. Sending more children to college will not fix this. Only social policies that aim to reverse the concentration of wealth will make a real difference.

Bill Gates can produce the most elaborate teacher evaluation system in the world, but any system built upon the two dimensional data provided by test scores will be trumped by the smell and taste of poverty in our classrooms, and the cold hard data that shows we are failing to provide the most basic level of support for our children to live healthy lives and learn well in school.

Strauss also wrote about “[h]ow Bill Gates throws his money around in education” (her article’s headline). To quote:

What would happen if one of the wealthiest men in the world decided to remake the institution of public education in America? What if that man believed he understood the secrets to success, and sought to align the nation’s schools to his vision and methods? What if he decided to devote all his time and considerable money to this objective? Could he succeed? We are in the process of finding out just how far money and a sharply defined agenda can take you.

[...]

Influence the media: Sponsor coverage of education in the media, including major television news events such as NBC’s Education Nation. Last year’s Education Nation was tied into the release of Waiting for Superman, which had a $2 million publicity effort sponsored by the Gates Foundation.

It probably won’t be long before the publisher gets bribed and this voice of reason gets silenced. We saw that happening before. Here is part of an interesting comment we found in a blog of teachers who protest against Gates in Seattle:

Several PTA members asked questions about their connection to Stand for Children, they insisted that Stand was just one member of the coalition and did not drive policy, but also admitted that their platform had been chosen from a list of items suggested in a report created by Stand (and a consulting firm employed by Stand.) They also admitted that their funding comes from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, but said that nobody influenced what they wrote in their grant application.

Gates’ aggressive war on teachers, going as far as retaliating (by proxy) against opposition, is shown in this article:

A veteran teacher was suspended Thursday for rejecting the evaluator chosen for him under a Gates-funded initiative that is revolutionizing the way the Hillsborough County School District assesses its teachers.

School and union officials believe this is the first such act of defiance under Empowering Effective Teachers, a complex system of mentoring and evaluation funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

The district’s action comes just one day after the couple themselves, Bill and Melinda Gates, toured Jefferson High School, where the computer mogul hailed the program as a national model and called its success “phenomenal.”

[...]

The Gates system, funded in part by a $100 million grant from the foundation, replaces the old method of evaluating teachers, a somewhat informal process in which the principal or assistant principal filled out a checklist.

The same sort of thing tends to happen to journalists who report truthfully about the Gates agenda. We’ll try to highlight more such examples (we covered several before). To those who are new to all this, take the time to learn what the press is paid not to cover. No single person (perhaps except Rupert Murdoch) controls the press like Bill Gates does. █

Summary: Good examples of the political intervention by Bill Gates and also the purchase of a consensus in the press, by means of gentle bribes

THE world’s top lobbyist and famous criminal, Bill Gates, is still up to no good. He tries selling/promoting patents he is investing in and in the process he offers bribes to politicians who serve his agenda:

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation – Any Nigerian state governor whose state improves routine immunization coverage and end polio will be awarded $500,000 each by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the foundation said in a statement yesterday. .

That’s the spin; as pointed out by a critic:

Some call these cash prizes. Others call them bribes. Does the Gates Foundation really want to be seen bribing politicians?

Gates’ investments actually contribute to polio (we covered this before, e.g. here), not its avoidance. But never mind that. As pointed out in the previous post, the Wallart Foundation now takes staff from Gates’ house of lobbyists:

Wal-Mart Stores Inc named Sylvia Mathews Burwell as the president of the Walmart Foundation, its philanthropic arm, replacing Margaret McKenna, who is retiring after four years in the role.

“When Sylvia said she wanted to spend more time with family she didn’t say it was the Walton family. More concentration of power at the heart of the philanthropy-industrial complex,” remarks Gates Keepers. She didn’t say which family. Why are so many top people leaving the Gates Foundation these days? Maybe they realise that the PR generated by those lobbyists is just a smoke screen; maybe they can see clearly from the inside what the foundation really is about. It’s publicity and agenda-pushing (for profit).

AllAfrica, which was bribed by Gates, does some agenda advancement in birth control and credits Gates for it. Here is another bribed-for article:

Dr. Rilwan Mohammed, executive secretary, FCT Primary Healthcare Development Board (PHCDB), stated this when Susan Rich, Senior Programme Officer, Melissa and Bill Gates Foundation, visited the Family Health Clinic, at Area 2 recently.

There are many articles just like this, seeded and paid for by Gates (who also pays the BBC and The Guardian to do this, to name just a couple of British examples). It’s a nasty charade of self-promotion, disguised monopolisation, and ultimately profit (Gates is still getting richer). A lot of people do not know this because Gates spends about 1 million dollar per day just bribing/buying the press (according to 2011 estimates). A lot of people sincerely believe that Gates is giving his money away, not getting more powerful and wealthy (which he is). What a successful spin machine. █

Summary: New developments in the patents arena and what the news sites fail to tell

THE Microsoft lobbyists continue to attack Android and they resort to such ridiculous spin (link omitted on purpose) that the FFII is sharing it for hilarity in the mailing lists. Poor Microsoft cannot come up with a meaningful story against Android, so whenever Google is using patents to defend Android from attacks its lobbyists link to articles like this one and whine senselessly (portraying Google as a patent aggressor). Generally speaking, those types of smears against Android have been muted somewhat because journalists slowly learned who was being paid by Microsoft (Florian Müller, for example, is paid by Microsoft).

Some patent lawyers seek to make a quick buck from the mobile arena, acting as parasites in a thriving market:

Software patent attorney, Steve Aycock today announced the launch of a new law practice which helps people patent their software. The law firm specializes in helping independent inventors, entrepreneurs and start-up companies patent their new technologies including software inventions. Mr. Aycock was a software engineer for ten years before attending law school so inventors will get someone with experience in both software and patent law.

No thanks, Steve, patents are a waste of time for developers. Surely enough this bogus industry of litigation looks to expand by latching onto real industries. From the news we discover that “Venable LLP notably strengthens its patent prosecution and litigation practices with the arrival of three new partners – Michele Van Patten Frank, Toni-Junell Herbert, and Mark Shanks; Of Counsel Therese Finan; and Associate Fabian M. Koenigbauer to the firm’s Washington, DC, office.”

In other words: prepare for more lawsuits. Oh, innovation, surely!

It’s the same in Europe. Patent lawyers (who obviously want software patents in Europe) promote their cause with an analysis that ends with nonsense:

Conclusion. In case of mixed-type invention (such as organisational, commercial or intellectual applications of software), EPO examiners are urged by the problem/solution approach to consider any disclosure of non-technical aspects to the detriment of applicants. Therefore, patent drafters should not at all or only to the absolutely required extent incorporate non-trechnical aspects in the claims or specification.Otherwise non-technical aspects could “devaluate” even important technical claim features.

It is hardly even coherent. Lawyers like to make it sound complicated when in fact the criteria for rejecting a patent can be simple.

Fortunately, more people are able to see past the spin and realise that software patents — if not patents in general — have become a burden on society. Tim thinks that the Tea Party should take on the issue too. In his own words:

The debate over software patents does not unite Silicon Valley the way the debate over SOPA does. Rather, the software patent debate pits the patent bar and large software companies like Microsoft and IBM, which have tens of thousands of patents, against rank-and-file programmers and up-and-coming entrepreneurs for whom the threat of frivolous litigation is a growing disincentive to innovation.

But I think this is precisely what makes it a great issue for Republicans—and especially Tea Party Republicans—to take up. There’s a long-running battle inside the GOP between pro-business Republicans and pro-market ones. The former have supported bailouts, corporate welfare, and protectionist legislation like SOPA. The Tea Party was organized in opposition to those things. And in the last couple of years, the Tea Party has had growing momentum.

Here’s how I’d frame the software patent debate if I were advising a GOP member of Congress: Software patents are a bailout for declining software companies that are better at filing patent applications than producing innovative products and services. For example, it’s been years since Microsoft was a major source of new innovations. That torch has passed to younger companies like Google, Facebook, Dropbox, and a revitalized Apple. But Redmond has so many patents (60,000 of them, according to one estimate) that it’s essentially impossible to write software without accidentally infringing some of them. And this means that Microsoft can force any company that beats them in the marketplace to share their profits with them, as it is currently doing to firms that produce Android phones.

If only there was as much public pressure against software patents as there was against SOPA last week… █

GATES WATCHERS is a Web site that keeps an eye on the Gates Foundation.

Critics of Gates do not receive the exposure they deserve, in part due to financial strings that Gates attaches to publications (we provided evidence before). In a copy of a paid articles (thus less accessible) we find that “Tim Ogden writes the Foundation has issues with hearing the truth, accountability, and focus.” (source)

Another summary says: “It has pushed well past the boundaries of traditional foundation behaviour, intervening in and influencing public policy on both domestic and international matters – for good or ill, or very likely for a mixture of both.”

And another copy of an article alludes to Monsanto lobbying when it says:

And he says that Rockefeller no longer works in the same areas as the Gates Foundation. Huh? Don’t they both fund AGRA?

We wrote about this before, many times in fact. Gates keeps pushing his own numbers funded by himself to praise his work and push his agenda, so paper trail says a lot:

The DCP2 was published by the Disease Control Priorities Project, a joint enterprise of The World Bank, the National Institutes of Health, the World Health Organization, and the Population Reference Bureau, which was funded primarily by a $3.5 million grant from the Gates Foundation.

Regarding this shameful article, Gates Watchers asks:

How many grants did it get from the Gates Foundation before it gave Melinda this award?

As points out in our IRC channels this week, Gates also bribes many departments to have these rebranded after him, creating the illusion that he is loved (reputation laundering using the money he illegally earned). The Melinda worship is equally disturbing as we already saw how The Guardian and the BBC praised her right after they had gotten bribed by her husband. We covered this at the time and put forth then evidence.

As pointed out in another posting:

Here we see a Gates Foundation-supported evaluation of a Gates Foundation-supported project with a comment by chairs of a Gates Foundation-supported evaluation group. The potential for bias is clear.

It’s all stacked.

It turns out that homeless people surround the tax-evading corporation known as Gates Foundation (based on local news), but do they know the extent to which this foundation is exploiting the public and distorting information which gets presented to the public?

About 100 homeless people and anti-poverty activists staged a “sleep-out” Monday night outside the new Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation building in Seattle to protest a funding shortage that has forced the closure of 15 shelters.

Unless there is profit and PR to be made from the homeless, Gates will do nothing. It is class warfare from Gates and fellow criminals (who use PR to hide past crimes from media attention givers who do their work properly). We will need to write about this subject in length at a later stage. But basically, Gates keeps getting richer while controlling the press to the point where it says he “gives” (free samples to create patent dependence, PR, and so forth). It’s a big scam. █

Summary: The alter-ego of Microsoft Corporation as seen in the news and in new “official” reports

THERE is a set of companies we sort of specialise in here at Techrights because they have a commonality. While pretending to serve FOSS they usually do the opposite.

Black Duck, a firm with Microsoft roots, gradually becomes the ‘expert’ in GPL (telling us it is declining) while joined by OpenLogic, a company with management from Microsoft, which reinforces the same message. If they control information, they will control minds. In this case, they can capture and control perception that FOSS developers have. GPL FUD is just on example and OpenLogic, the firm that reinforces the same message as Black Duck, now seeks to become the authority in what FOSS to use and what not to. As one article puts it:

The report ranks hot open-source projects in three key categories: Web and application servers; application frameworks; and databases and big data.

Too bad the source of the report is a company founded and control by a former Microsoft guy, eh? They always neglect to say this. Ohloh is another one (now owned by Black Duck).

Speaking of Microsoft talking heads/points, Ed Bott is at it again with his PR lies. Pogson responds by writings:

Ed knows better. He wrote, “Windows 7 has shipped a half-billion copies” since October 2009, 9 quarters, 55 million a quarter. IDC reports 80-90 million PCs per quarter produced. M$ is no longer getting a free ride, Ed. Get used to it. There are businesses that do give M$ a free ride but there are many governments, organizations and businesses that have seen the light and choose to avoid monopoly. Shopping around is the right way to do IT.

This lie goes back to Microsoft’s PR people and is echoed by their shills/MVPs. We need to be careful in the face of Microsoft’s Big Lies that it spreads via its allies. They are all just a matter of “perception management” as Microsoft calls it. We tackled those lies before. █

“Mind Control: To control mental output you have to control mental input. Take control of the channels by which developers receive information, then they can only think about the things you tell them. Thus, you control mindshare!”

–Microsoft, internal document [PDF]

Summary: In Malaysia, the ‘IP’ propaganda runs rampant — a lot more rampant than actual ‘piracy’ and a cable shows how it’s done

According to the following cable from the embassy in Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia), not only is Microsoft lobbying to make copyright infringement (even backup) a crime; its proxies do similar things. The following Cablegate cable reveals lobbying for patents not just from ACT but also from the Business Software Alliance (BSA).

Here is the best part: “He also pointed out that BSA supports technology neutral government procurement, given that its membership straddles both sides of the open source software debate.”

Really?

“Here is another priceless example not of pretending to be one’s own opposition but more of the usual lie that tries to tie copyright infringement with terrorism in order to pass new laws.”IBM left the BSA and just about every member is a proprietary software company. Here is another priceless example not of pretending to be one’s own opposition but more of the usual lie that tries to tie copyright infringement together with terrorism in order to pass new laws. “Gane also raised the significant funding through IPR crime of other criminal activity.”

There is another lie trying to imply that if Hollywood does not get a licence to its copyright terrorism regime, then people will die (same propaganda gets used for ACTA these days). Read this piece of propaganda: “Cyril Chua, a Singapore attorney who represents the Entertainment Software Alliance, noted the particularly high rates of piracy in Malaysia in that area of optical media (over 90 percent by some estimates). Like his industry colleagues, he pointed to the weak prosecution of cases as a prime concern, noting that the government has not strengthened prosecution to keep up with its strengthened enforcement efforts. Tom Hart of Aztra Zeneca, who represented Amcham’s pharmaceutical committee, pointed out that, while his industry faces different obstacles from optical media industry, counterfeit pharmaceuticals posed a direct threat to the health of Malaysian consumers, and thus necessitated particularly strong enforcement and prosecution.”

The short version: “pass more draconian laws for our dear Hollywood masters or your people will die.”

Now, that’s how lobbying is done. The full cable follows.

VZCZCXRO0200
RR RUEHCHI RUEHDT RUEHHM RUEHNH
DE RUEHKL #0794/01 1220415
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 020415Z MAY 06
FM AMEMBASSY KUALA LUMPUR
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 6530
INFO RUCNASE/ASEAN MEMBER COLLECTIVE
RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC
RUEAWJA/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHDC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 05 KUALA LUMPUR 000794 

SIPDIS 

SIPDIS 

STATE FOR EB/TPP/MTA/IPC - FELSING
STATE PASS USTR FOR B. WEISEL, J. JENSEN, V.
ESPINEL
USDOC FOR JENNIFER BAKER
COMMERCE PASS USPTO FOR P. FOWLER 

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ETRD [Foreign Trade], KIPR [Intellectual Property Rights], MY [Malaysia]
SUBJECT: U.S.-MALAYSIA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
RIGHTS ROUNDTABLE 

Summary and Introduction
------------------------ 

¶1.  The U.S. and Malaysia held a long-anticipated
IPR Roundtable on April 20 in Kuala Lumpur.
Approximately seventy participants from the
Malaysian and U.S. governments, as well as
industry and civil society, gathered to discuss
IPR enforcement efforts, industry views on
combating piracy, IPR protection within the
context of free trade agreements, and the U.S.
perspective on IPR protection, including the use
of specialized IPR courts.  Participants also
discussed U.S.-Malaysian cooperation efforts,
including the ongoing provision by the U.S. of
capacity building for Malaysian officials.  The
Ambassador and the Minister of Domestic Trade and
Consumer Affairs launched the event and also held
a joint press conference.  The Roundtable was co-
chaired by the DCM and by Deputy Secretary General
Mohamed Nor Hj. Abd Aziz of the Ministry of
Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs (MDTCA). 

Ambassador LaFleur and Minister Shafie Launch the
--------------------------------------------- ----
Roundtable
---------- 

¶2. Ambassador LaFleur kicked off the event with a
speech that countered common excuses made by
purchasers of stolen IP, such as the cost of
optical media and the alleged lack of harm to IP
producers.  He emphasized the need for the U.S.
and Malaysia to continue to work together to
change the common perception among consumers that
IPR piracy is not a true crime.  The Ambassador
urged Malaysia's leaders to project more public
opposition to IPR piracy.  High-level advocacy was
essential not only to stem retail piracy, but more
broadly to further Malaysia's goal of developing a
knowledge-based economy, which is strongly
influenced by foreign investors' assessments of
whether their IPR would be protected.  The
Ambassador welcomed Minister of Domestic Trade and
Consumer Affairs Shafie Apdal's commitment to
implement a specialized IPR court, as well as his
more recent initiative to obtain legal authority
to act against owners of retail premises that
routinely sell pirated products. 

¶3.  Minister Shafie placed the IPR Roundtable in
the context of the upcoming U.S.-Malaysia FTA
negotiations, expressing his hope that negotiators
of the FTA's IPR chapter would build on the day's
events.  He acknowledged that IPR theft was a
drain on Malaysia's economic growth and would
inhibit its ultimate economic success, and noted
his particular concern about Malaysia's reputation
as one of the leading exporters of pirated optical
disc media.  Shafie listed a range of actions that
Malaysia had undertaken to attack piracy,
including an increasing number of seizures, more
effective prosecution that included higher fines
and longer sentences for convicted IPR pirates,
and the creation of an export enforcement unit to
strengthen controls at international air and sea
gateways.  He noted the ministry's intention to
hire over 700 new enforcement officers this year
and reiterated his plan to implement soon a
specialized IPR court. 

¶4.  The Ambassador and Minister Shafie held a
joint press conference following the opening
session, which received wide coverage from the
media.  They conveyed many of the same themes in
their remarks to the press.  Press questions
focused on a news report that the Recording
Association of Malaysia had brought suit against a
local shopping mall for its failure to stop sales
of pirated CD's on its premises.  Minister Shafie
confirmed that he is seeking administrative
authority to enable his Ministry to independently
pursue such cases. 

KUALA LUMP 00000794  002 OF 005 

U.S. and Malaysian Approaches to Enforcement
-------------------------------------------- 

¶5.  Econoff presented the USG STOP Initiative as
an effort by the United States to improve its
interagency coordination in IPR enforcement.
Although the United States has long led global
efforts to protect intellectual property, enhanced
coordination through STOP was helping U.S.
agencies to improve their effectiveness against
organized IP crime.  Econoff noted that engagement
with U.S. trading partners on IPR protection was a
key component of the initiative; our commitment to
improving IPR enforcement in the region was shown
by the recent posting to Bangkok of an IP attach
and an IP law enforcement coordinator, both with
regional responsibilities. The U.S. would continue
to provide IP training and capacity building
programs for foreign officials, and welcomed
Malaysia's ongoing participation in such
initiatives. 

¶6.  Roslan bin Mahayuddin, MDTCA Acting Director
General for Enforcement, gave an overview of
Malaysia's recent enforcement activity, noting in
particular that 2006 was shaping up to be a record
year in terms of seizures of pirated IPR in
Malaysia.  Roslan reiterated Shafie's statement
that the establishment of the MDTCA's Export Unit
in April 2005 was a key component of Malaysia's
strengthened enforcement efforts.  More than RM 50
million (approximately USD 13.8 million) in
merchandise has been seized so far this year,
compared to seizures worth just over RM 100
million in all of 2005, in part through better
coordination on seizures destined for export.
Roslan noted that the number of licensed optical
media disc factories in Malaysia has been reduced
from 44 to 38 in the last year, and several other
pending license revocations would continue to
bring that number down to a level more
commensurate with the legitimate Malaysian market.
An optical disc forensic laboratory was
established in 2003 in coordination with the
government Chemistry Department; Roslan
acknowledged that no cases have yet been developed
based on forensics evidence corroborated by the
new lab, though he suggested that would soon
change. 

¶7.  USPTO Senior Counsel Peter Fowler provided an
overview of U.S. judicial enforcement of IPR.  The
U.S. has long experience in protecting IPR that
could inform other countries like Malaysia on the
most effective means to enforce IPR.  Fowler
highlighted a number of facets of U.S. IPR
enforcement, including a reliance on civil
litigation, supplemental use of criminal
prosecution, and the predominance of the federal
court system for litigation rather than state or
local courts.  Government must be involved in IPR
enforcement because such protection is in the
public interest, going beyond the interests of
individual piracy victims.  Fowler added that
piracy is often committed without the victim's
knowledge, and the victim usually has no direct
relationship with the infringer; in such
situations a victim might be unable to pursue
civil remedies, leaving criminal penalties as the
only effective recourse.  Criminal sanctions may
also be necessary in cases where fines might be
treated by IPR violators as just a cost of doing
business. 

¶8. Fowler presented a number of models that
Malaysia could consider as it moves toward
implementing a specialized IPR court, including
separate specialized courts or judicial panels,
such as in Thailand and Korea, or designated
existing courts to handle IPR cases, as in Japan,
Singapore, Indonesia, Taiwan and the Philippines.
He noted that the U.S. had no designated IPR
court, though we do have a special appeals court
to handle patent litigation.  Regardless of the 

KUALA LUMP 00000794  003 OF 005 

approach, a specialized IPR judicial regime was
important given technically complicated cases
involving science, technology innovation, patents,
and transnational civil litigation.
Specialization would allow for a better-informed
judiciary, more focused law enforcement, better
case management and dedicated resources to
continuously promote protection. 

IPR Protection in the FTA Context
--------------------------------- 

¶9. Econ Counselor gave a general overview of the
typical provisions of an IPR chapter in a U.S.
free trade agreement, after cautioning that his
presentation should not be seen as pre-judging the
treatment of IPR in the upcoming U.S-Malaysia FTA
negotiations.  He noted that U.S. Trade Promotion
Authority (TPA) sets as an FTA negotiating
objective the promotion of effective IPR
protection through accelerated implementation of
TRIPS, in particular its enforcement aspect; by
ensuring that FTA provisions reflect a standard of
protection similar to U.S. law; and by providing
strong protection for new and emerging
technologies.  Typical IPR chapters in past FTAs
have included provisions on trademarks,
copyrights, patents, Internet domain names,
satellite broadcasts, and enforcement and criminal
procedures. 

Industry Views - Improving Enforcement, Continuing
Concerns
--------------------------------------------- -----
--------- 

¶10. While representatives from a range of IPR
industry associations expressed appreciation for
the Malaysian government's recent enforcement
successes and its commitment to IPR protection,
they were not shy about raising their varied
concerns on the state of IPR protection here.
Jeff Hardee, Regional Vice President of the
Business Software Alliance, noted that an
effective IPR court would necessitate better-
trained prosecutors than exist at present, and he
called on Malaysia to fully implement all WIPO
treaties.  He also pointed out that BSA supports
technology neutral government procurement, given
that its membership straddles both sides of the
open source software debate.  Neil Gane, Senior
Operational Director of the Motion Picture
Association, noted MPA's appreciation for the
government's enforcement efforts, which had
reduced DVD piracy substantially in the last few
years.  Despite reducing the number of licensed OD
factories, however, MPA continues to believe the
country has far too many production lines, and
which keeps it a significant exporter of pirated
products.  Gane also raised the significant
funding through IPR crime of other criminal
activity. 

¶11. Su Siew Ling, a Kuala Lumpur attorney who
represents the Association of American Publishers,
said the AAP's primary concern in Malaysia is the
widespread photocopying of textbooks, particularly
around university campuses.  She pointed out that
illegal photocopiers typically produce on demand,
keeping virtually no stock on hand that would help
authorities prove counterfeit production.
Photocopiers are aided by Malaysia's copyright
law, which allows for possession of up to three
copies of a work for private/personal use.  Siew
Ling said AAP continued to advocate stronger anti-
piracy action by means of increased surveillance
in chronic areas, such as near universities; an
increased willingness by authorities to enforce
actions against photocopiers, and to follow up
with effective prosecution of such cases; an
enhanced public awareness program, especially
among teachers and students; and increased use of
civil action against violators. 

KUALA LUMP 00000794  004 OF 005 

¶12. Cyril Chua, a Singapore attorney who
represents the Entertainment Software Alliance,
noted the particularly high rates of piracy in
Malaysia in that area of optical media (over 90
percent by some estimates).  Like his industry
colleagues, he pointed to the weak prosecution of
cases as a prime concern, noting that the
government has not strengthened prosecution to
keep up with its strengthened enforcement efforts.
Tom Hart of Aztra Zeneca, who represented Amcham's
pharmaceutical committee, pointed out that, while
his industry faces different obstacles from
optical media industry, counterfeit
pharmaceuticals posed a direct threat to the
health of Malaysian consumers, and thus
necessitated particularly strong enforcement and
prosecution. 

Current and Future Cooperation
------------------------------ 

¶13. The U.S. and Malaysia continue to cooperate on
a number of capacity building programs.  Peter
Fowler noted that the most effective training
programs are those that can reach a broad set of
officials, and that can be institutionalized
relatively quickly so that an organization's
improved performance does not depend on the
continued employment of those officials who
initially receive training.  Fowler pointed out
the May 2006 seminar on IP prosecution in KL,
which is an ASEAN-sponsored event with significant
financial and logistical support from USPTO.  He
noted USPTO's active training schedule in
Southeast Asia, where it typically works through
ASEAN to set up capacity building sessions.  He
also pointed out the recent inauguration of the
Global Intellectual Property Academy at USPTO,
which has already trained several Malaysian
participants.  Siti Eaisah of the Malaysian
Intellectual Property Office (MyIPO) noted her
appreciation of the training USPTO has provided to
MyIPO officials, and said her office needed
particular assistance in training patent examiners
in specialized areas like biotechnology and
engineering.  Othman Nawang of the MDTCA's
enforcement division said his officers would
benefit from training in surveillance and
detecting techniques, combating Internet piracy,
criminal profiling, and optical disc forensics. 

¶14. Industry representatives were united about the
need to improve public awareness on the need to
protect intellectual property.  Chua said ESA has
launched an IP initiative in public schools aimed
at young children, viewed as the most persuadable
audience, even if the results from such outreach
may not be apparent until such kids reach their
early teenage years.  MPA likewise sees schools as
a main focus of its outreach efforts.  While
agreeing on the importance of educating consumers,
particularly children and young adults, BSA's Jeff
Hardee pointed out that there are no shortcuts to
strong enforcement measures.  He raised the issue
of piracy in the U.S., which continued to be a
major concern throughout the IP industry despite
extensive public outreach (he noted that, while
U.S. piracy rates are fairly low by Southeast
Asian standards, overall losses there remain very
high).  Strong enforcement is a tool along with
education in deterring IP theft, he added. 

¶15. The DCM wrapped up the Roundtable by
acknowledging our existing and future cooperative
efforts, including the Roundtable itself.  Our
bilateral cooperation had been one factor in
Malaysia's improving ability to fight piracy, and
the U.S was committed to continuing our effective
collaboration.  The U.S. looked forward to
Malaysia's continuing efforts, including the
upcoming establishment of an IPR court.  The FTA
talks would ensure that IPR protection would be a
prime topic of bilateral government discussion in
the coming year, which we hoped would lead to an 

KUALA LUMP 00000794  005 OF 005 

FTA that would continue to advance our
cooperation. 

Comment
------- 

¶16. The IPR Roundtable was a welcome opportunity
for an open discussion of Malaysia's efforts to
protect intellectual property, and was especially
well timed given our imminent launch of
negotiations on an FTA.  MDTCA officials are
understandably proud of the progress they have
made in enhancing enforcement and expressed a
strong commitment to furthering those gains.  They
also recognize that one of the government's
principal goals in the just released Ninth
Malaysia Plan - creating a more knowledge-based
economy - will depend heavily on the government's
ability to protect IPR, both to encourage local
entrepreneurs as well as the foreign investors who
would help support them.  Our industry
representatives acknowledged Malaysia's progress
and commitment, but made clear that the government
had a long way to go in creating an effective
deterrent that would help effect a significant
shift in the average Malaysian's attitude toward
IPR piracy. 

¶17. Embassy was pleased by the large, diverse
turnout at the Roundtable, which included some NGO
participants that have been vocal critics of the
U.S.-Malaysia FTA.  Their comments during the
Roundtable indicated they we didn't change any
minds, but we were pleased to be able to explain
to them our views on the benefits of an FTA to
Malaysia, including through enhanced IPR
protection.  The Roundtable deepened our bilateral
dialogue on IPR, and could lead to the
organization of similar events in the future,
perhaps after the conclusion of our upcoming FTA
negotiations. 

LAFLEUR

This is the only Malaysian cable that we found interesting and relevant thus far. █

Summary: Kaspersky is one of the latest members of the BSA to leave and IDC dares not to shower Windows with the usual paid-for compliments

LAST year we saw the BSA losing some key members after it had gotten worse than terrible. Techrights made it into some mainstream news sites for breaking this story at the time.

The BSA recently fronted and promoted SOPA, which led to yet more of an exodus. Can the BSA become defunct like other Microsoft front groups, let’s say within a decade? We shall wait and see. What we already find in the news is that FUD spreader Al Gillen and his colleagues lose blind faith in Windows as IDC expresses concerns about Vista 8. How times have changed… █

Summary: The Gates PR machine is still warping coverage in public media outlets in order to advance its agenda

BILL Gates borrows the best press money can buy. There are many skeletons he needs to hide in his closet, so PR is crucial.

Over the past few years we have named countless stations/papers/channels which were paid by Gates to promote his agenda. It was most outrageous when public radio and even the BBC repeatedly took money from Gates in exchange for a different agenda. He simply buys the publicity he needs for his investments. He is like a lobbyist. Here is another recent example of Gates dipping his finger in yet another pie:

Will WNYC’s On the Media include more global health segments in the near future? It certainly seems like it might if you listen to recent sponsorship messages acknowledging support from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

But neither WNYC nor the Gates Foundation has acknowledged that the show has actually received a grant.

Several recent episodes of On the Media credit the Gates Foundation, among other groups, with supporting the show. You can hear the message on the July 22 show at around 11 minutes. “Support for On the Media also comes from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, dedicated to the idea that all people deserve the chance to live healthy productive lives,” the announcer states.

When I first heard the sponsorship message a few weeks ago, I searched On the Media’s website to learn more about the Gates Foundation funding. But I didn’t find information or acknowledgement of it anywhere. The show does not appear to put all its sponsorship information on the website. Apart from a sentence in the footer, I could not find mentions of other sponsors mentioned in the same podcast, such as Reputation.com and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

To the common man (or woman), Gates might seem like a marvellous person, but then again, doesn’t the corporate press tend to glorify everyone who is super rich? Check to see who owns the media companies. There is no hidden conspiracy there. The death of Steve Jobs was a recent reminder of this. █

Summary: The establishment which was supposed to be taxpayers-funded (to serve taxpayers of course) is broadcasting propaganda funded by one of the world’s most infamous abusive monopolists and shady lobbyists

THIS POST is being written just 100 meters away from the BBC at Media City UK, where a lot of footage is done to promote public understanding of the world, at the expense of people who pay TV tax.

It is truly troubling that the BBC lost sight of its goals, yet again. It is now taking money from billionaires (through their front groups) for what can only be described as “placements”. They piggyback the reputation of the BBC to deceive the public, glorify themselves, and create a financial dependency (strings) in an establishment that operates worldwide, supposedly informing people.

It has been years since we last showed the great number of Microsoft UK executives who moved to the BBC. The bias of the BBC was accordingly noted and now we discover that yet more money is being funnelled from Bill Gates to the BBC in exchange for coverage:

A television health show supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation launched on BBC World News last week. The 26-part weekly magazine programme, called The Health Show, reports on global health issues from areas vulnerable to specific conditions.

This is part of the Gates PR campaign, which in turn aids lobbying and allows him to market particular patents or run the world the way he wants to. The post-Microsoft Gates is in many ways more dangerous than that man who was grilled for (and found guilty of) criminal business activities. His PR operating is currently trying to dismiss critics as “ill informed”, armed with empty and arrogant rhetoric.

As Gates Keepers put it:

Gates Keepers find it odd that this chronic problem with the Gates Foundation is being framed and labelled as a value-free ‘communication problem’. Institutional values are involved. Perhaps it is a mission problem, a leadership problem, or even an attitudinal problem. Or all three or none of them.

But the focus on a ‘communication problem’ with grantees does not allow for discussion of a far greater issue – the relationships between the Foundation and other institutions & between the Foundation and its beneficiaries around the world.

This whole “communication problem” line is not new. We saw it used before. it’s worse than the “rotten apple” line, which companies typically use to excuse themselves when they are caught in a major scandal. The author gives several examples of the whitewash. These are example that he gives of Gates-funded publications that push this form of apologism while one talks about the real issue, concluding:

Perhaps the reason this issue has become such a chronic refrain isn’t due to the lack of coming up with some new plan, or timeline or committee-designed set of principles, as it is about developing a new mindset.

As a journalist who’s been covering the Gates Foundation for more than a decade, I’ve seen it evolve from an upstart start-up philanthropy run by just a handful of people — who were actually pretty bold, outspoken and perhaps even a bit reckless — into a massive, fairly bureaucratic and apparently risk-averse organization.

The Gates Foundation has no “communication” problem. When you are doing selfish things that harm society, then it is simply hard to communicate it positivity, even when you spend a million dollars (or more) per day on media coverage that is warped, corrupted, and essentially just a case of ghost-writing/PR/placements. █

Summary: Microsoft Florian and other spinners whom Microsoft paid are performing a reality distortion exercise that they try to push into the press as “independent”, in their usual deceitful ways

“Microsoft [is] facing Android patent competition probe” says this one new headline about Microsoft’s crusade to make money from products it never developed at all.

Barnes & Noble has asked US antitrust regulators to investigate if Microsoft is abusing its position by demanding royalties from companies making kit running Android software.

The move was revealed in a letter from the book seller to competition regulators and comes in the wake of Microsoft taking legal action earlier this year over five patents that it claims were infringed in the Nook ebook reader.

As Techrights‘ Ryan puts it in his interesting new blog:

Moving further on, into Microsoft’s patent racket operations. You might remember that Foxconn, a global manufacturer of PC and Mac motherboards (sometimes sold under different brand names), was conspiring with Microsoft a few years ago to break non-Windows operating systems with corrupt ACPI implementations in the board’s BIOS firmware. As a reward for carrying water for Microsoft in their Corrupt PC BIOS Initiative , Foxconn ended up being named as a defendant in Microsoft’s patent-racketeering lawsuit against e-reader maker Barnes & Noble.

Microsoft is also attacking Android with copyright FUD. A lawyer previously working for Microsoft (he tried to hide payments from Microsoft, without success) is at it again: [via]

And, it should be clear, neither does a position paper from a lawyer possibly working on behalf of a client. Or, yes, even a blog.

Is this a reference to Microsoft Florian, who loves to amplify the FUD from Naughton while always portraying Google as a patent aggressor? These lobbyists need to be exposed and people who cite them without naming their clients (that make a conflict of interest) ought to be notified. Microsoft has a well-funded PR campaign going to whitewash its extortion campaign. The regulators are coming, so Microsoft depends on a lot of spin and “perception management” (which Florian has been selling as a product). In his so-called ‘blog’, Florian is now spinning the B&N complaint against B&N. It’s a load of nonsense, but that’s all that Microsoft can offer at this stage. It just needs some mouthpieces that appear external to the company and it pays them for it. Watch out for Microsoft playing dirty by recruiting corruptible people who masquerade as “analysts” and mass-mail journalists for their clients’ agenda. How despicable. █

Summary: Why it matters who’s on whose side, especially when one side infiltrates the other

OVER time we have been flagging and providing supportive evidence about allies and friends of Microsoft — people and groups whom people might call “independent” when in fact those come from Microsoft or work with Microsoft. We have not updated our credibility ranks for years, but having said that, those ranks upset some people who are listed. They don’t want their biases to be up on display. We still stress the importance of knowing who is who and where one’s wallet is. Consider for example Bott and his latest insult to GNU/Linux users who worry about Microsoft’s anticompetitive abuses [1, 2, 3, 4]. Some people who do not understand his relationship with Microsoft are citing him, mistaking his message for something genuine and objective. Microsoft sometimes hires “journalists” who spent their time in papers promoting Microsoft, almost as though Microsoft gives them the rewards (wages) once they are done. And then we have companies like Centrify putting their stuff inside Ubuntu without anyone calling foul. We explained what Centrify is doing before. It is similar to Likewise, which one reader tells us has infiltrated Ubuntu Forums. These are former Microsoft people, just like many of those who are associated with Mono and even Xamarin (its CEO is a former Microsoft employee and funding comes from a Microsoft MVP). Understanding who is a friend of Microsoft is very essential for the protection of software freedom. In a later post we are going to show what Microsoft Florian is doing (he is still afraid of Techrights‘ explanations of who is really is) and in Diaspora there are some more examples of friends of Microsoft doing their thing in the name of “FOSS”, especially in IDG. It’s either controlled opposition or fake journalism (like Rupert Murdoch’s). █

“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.”

(From Microsoft’s smoking guns)

Summary: How Microsoft managed to corner another company which distributes Linux and how it became known that Microsoft is funding lobbyists to attack Android, Linux, and all those things that are free/libre

THE PEOPLE of the United States (99%) are strongly against software patents, but Microsoft is strongly in favour and so are patent parasites who think that patents should be treated like products. Microsoft uses these to drive up the price of products, especially those where price points are crucial.

What products are most heavily affected?

“Florian is an imposter and just like Microsoft’s front group Association for Competitive Technology he pretends to be the opposite of what he is.”Not Microsoft’s. Microsoft found another victim for easy extortion of Linux and this was covered rather poorly in the corporate press. It neglects to remark on the fact that what Microsoft does is racketeering. This angle got suppressed over time. The Microsoft boosters ‘normalised it through repetition plus headline-jacking and Microsoft-funded lobbyists do the unthinkable by trying to make Google look like the villain and not quite commenting on Microsoft patent trolls attacking Android (instead, the Microsoft-funded lobbyists pretend that Google funds those trolls). The other day we wrote about the Intellectual Ventures antitrust-related letter of complaint. There is great anger over this lawsuit from Intellectual Ventures (IV) suing not only small companies but also extorting large companies. Don’t expect Microsoft lobbyists to comment on this.

The Microsoft-funded lobbyist Florian Müller. (who spams journalists to tweak the news) carries on with his usual disgusting behaviour of blaming Google for merely being a victim of litigation from Microsoft and its ilk. Microsoft uses excuses to pass him some bribes and it has become rather clear now that his Quanta deal raves are just “part of the package” (I lost another post that I wrote about it, but the anti-Linux rhetoric continues). Any journalist who still quotes this man in articles that involve Microsoft or Android should be told off for not stating that there is a conflict of interest and that Florian is really just a lobbyist pretending to be an “analyst” (among other masks). Florian is an imposter and just like Microsoft’s front group Association for Competitive Technology he pretends to be the opposite of what he is.

But getting back to the main point, Microsoft’s extortion continues, but there is just a PR/lobbying angle to it which we must be aware of. This short story is, our list of vendors to avoid will now include Quanta. We need to reward vendors who do not pay Microsoft. It’s the most effective action. █

Summary: A detailed explanation of what Microsoft is doing at the moment to indoctrinate the young and make this seem commendable

IN OUR page about counterfeiting we help show that Microsoft spreads lock-in while whining about “privacy” or calling it “charity”. This is purely propaganda. Over at the Philippines it seems like Microsoft may have bribed against GNU/Linux again, painting it with the ‘donation’ brush, as usual. The whole approach is known internally (at Microsoft) as “EDGI” and we have a wiki page about that too.

TechDirt takes apart some of the latest Microsoft PR and explains why Microsoft’s so-called ‘giveaways’ are just cheap marketing. To quote parts of it:

This means that of the $949 million dollars “contributed” to nonprofits, $844 million — 88% – was actually software, presumably Microsoft’s, since it’s unlikely it went out and bought it from competitors.

[...]

Now, I’m not suggesting that the people who put up the web page about Microsoft’s contributions to nonprofits were following that definition exactly. But equally, it seems likely that the gist is the same: it’s a kind of rough price that you’d usually find in normal markets selling the products in question. And those prices are almost certainly well above the cost of manufacturing, especially if the software was delivered online, or if multiple installations were permitted.

So the actual cost to Microsoft of that donated software is likely to be only a small fraction of the $844 million “fair market value” cited. This inevitably tempers our admiration for Microsoft’s ten-figure generosity somewhat.

But there’s something else. Microsoft wasn’t just handing out a bunch of any old products: it was giving away mostly Windows and Office, judging by a table showing a breakdown by region. Both of these are well-known for the lock-in effects they produce: once you start installing applications and creating documents with them, it’s quite hard to move to a completely different platform like Apple or GNU/Linux. Most people don’t even try.

So these free copies not only cost Microsoft considerably less than the $844 million figure it used to calculate that near-billion dollar total for its corporate brochure, but it wasn’t really altruistic at all. With hundreds of thousands of copies of Windows being distributed (417,030 were supplied for refurbished computers alone), there is a very high probability that Microsoft will be benefiting financially – and not just in terms of goodwill — from upgrades and follow-on sales for many years to come.

We no longer cover this subject as much as we used to because it has been covered to death. The challenge is explaining to the broad public (which primarily relies on television for information) that a lot of “charity” is in fact the very opposite of it. █

Summary: Microsoft is found to have manipulated the mainstream press, just like Bill Gates is doing every single day (at the expense of a million dollars, daily)

YESTERDAY we criticised elements of the press that are Microsoft PR disguised as journalism. They also help spread Linux FUD, so it’s worse than just positive publicity/promotion. It is very malicious and should be subjected to scrutiny from above, not just from below (e.g. deceived readers/viewers).

Over the years we have shown how Microsoft’s co-founder was deliberately shaping the media to match his financial interests. To him, the media is something which needs to be bought and coverage of his message is something which should be demanded, not earned. Similarly, Microsoft has been trying to infiltrate the FOSS community using PR offensives and front groups, the latest of which is known as Outercurve [1, 2], funded by Microsoft to emit press releases and promote FOSS which sells proprietary software (such as Windows, SQL Server, and so on).

““Technological Evangelism” Still Lives” at Microsoft, tells us Mr. Pogson regarding an article we found at LXer. “There is a scandal of global proportions,” he writes, and it’s about Microsoft “paying to have coverage in news programming on CNBC and BBC.”

“They are essentially just buying the stories that they want and ‘plant’ them in trusted publications.”Is anybody surprised by this? This is the same type of thing Bill Gates has been doing. He even paid the BBC tens of millions of dollars to promote his agenda (as a reminder, the BBC is intended to be funded by taxpayers to truly inform taxpayers). According to a recent report, Gates hired a “media relations” person from the BBC. To quote: “The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation wants the media (and, it should be noted, pays some media) to emphasize “success stories” in global health and development.

“That’s fine, but sometimes the story has to be about failure. Here is a video of Jeremy Hillman, a BBC journalist who will soon join the Gates Foundation media team.”

They are essentially just buying the stories that they want and ‘plant’ them in trusted publications. This journalist knows the deal. And later he notes: “The Gates Foundation is also paying a significant number of media to cover matters of global health and development. I’ve written about this trend a few times, as have others, and have mixed feelings about it.”

All those publicists for Gates’ brand (it is a brand, one that helps push controversial corporate agenda in a “charity” gown) are doing something very dangerous because they sell agenda under the disguise of “information”. Watch what else Gates did recently: “John Sage has joined the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation as its director of stakeholder communications, with the task of heading the foundation’s civic engagement and grantee and public communications efforts, among others.”

Communications is a euphemism for “PR”. We saw this term used when IBM tried to 'game' Techrights.

As India’s richest man correctly puts it, this is just about ego:

India’s Richest Man Blasts Western-Style Philanthropy

Mukesh Ambani, the wealthiest person in India, this week criticized Western corporate philanthropy as a “disempowering tool” that does less good for the needy than his country’s traditions of voluntary service and anonymous giving, writes Agence France-Presse.

[...]

But, he added, “Whatever we give should be for our own satisfaction, it should never be for publicity. That is where we are different from the Western world.”

How true. And speaking of India, watch who’s leaving the Gates Foundation and why:

But things are getting better, he said, clearer, in terms of how the Gates Foundation sees itself helping to conceive of new strategies and assisting with the implementation as partners — rather than simply writing checks.

Gates Keepers asks, “Did he jump or was he pushed? Did his spouse have a lead on a film project? One does not just pick up two children and move them to Delhi without a financial cushion and a job or two lined up. What is the job?”

Going back to Microsoft, Mr. Pogson has suffered from some crooks who bully him in his blog. Upon closer inspection iy often turns out that some of them are so-called “Technological Evangelists", who are full-time Microsoft employees responsible for bullying Microsoft critics and essentially AstroTurfing all day long. Some of these are hired in countries where there are poor regulations so Microsoft cannot be fined.

Microsoft is habitually injecting FUD using its boosters and PR people, as we showed here (with concrete evidence) many times before. Just as Bill Gates is buying the press and injecting self-congratulatory messages, Microsoft hijacks publications and there is now fact-checked evidence to show that. Quoting the new report from the Independent:

Microsoft has been sucked into the row surrounding a London-based media company currently under investigation by broadcasters for making editorial programmes without declaring it had a commercial relationship with some of those it featured.

Both the BBC and the US-owned broadcaster CNBC are investigating FBC Media following an investigation by The Independent which showed it had made numerous factual programmes about Malaysia after being allocated millions of pounds by the country’s government to promote it.

This newspaper has evidence that Microsoft was “guaranteed” coverage on a flagship programme which FBC was commissioned to make for CNBC – which is screened in Britain – for a major launch that the global technology company was planning in Europe. CNBC recently suspended the show, World Business, pending the outcome of its investigation.

The Independent has seen a nine-page letter written to Microsoft’s senior communications managers, in which FBC promised coverage of its opening of the European Microsoft Innovation Center in Aachen, Germany, and a second project in St Petersburg, Russia.

The document referred to World Business under the heading “FBC Guaranteed Distribution Placement”. It told Microsoft: “Our flagship programme, World Business, is a weekly half-hour business news magazine, which covers the trends shaping business, particularly from a European perspective.

[...]

It offered Microsoft “guaranteed” coverage of the St Petersburg event on Tech Watch, a monthly technology programme it produced for airlines to show as part of their in-flight entertainment.

It is unclear whether UNHCR or Red Cross knew of the Microsoft/FBC PR campaign associated with this initiative. In a statement, Microsoft said it had had a commercial relationship with FBC Media from 2003 until March this year. “Where FBC guaranteed that news items would appear in their World Business programme, we understood this was based on the content meeting FBC editorial selection criteria in line with their agreements with CNBC and other broadcasters and subject to final editing before transmission,” it said.

[...]

Microsoft began its commercial relationship with media firm FBC in 2003. A nine-page strategy document written in 2004 obtained by The Independent contains excerpts which show that when the technology giant launched its European Microsoft Innovation Centre in Germany in 2004, FBC drew up a plan for Microsoft to target broadcasters with its “corporate messaging” and gave a guarantee to Microsoft that it would “place” coverage of the launch event on World Business, the weekly programme it made for the CNBC network. CNBC has suspended the show and is investigating FBC.

Corruption in the media is not unusual. It’s why some people read particular newspapers. The Guardian, for instance, pretends to speak for the people because there is a large market for ultra-liberal audience around the UK; in reality, as Wikileaks helped show, this paper is a total sham and not so long ago it even took money from Bill Gates to promote his egocentric agenda. Richard Stallman’s tip is that people should read blogs that they trust, ones that haven’t a financial agenda. It’s sad, but it is true. This is why we generally cite a lot of blogs in our daily links. The likelihood that they do mere PR is a lot lower. While their grammar might be poorer and depth of coverage in need of improvement, they at least don’t try to sell anything (ads, bias). Reading blogs as opposed to corporate press typically leads one closer to the truth, if done using a pool of different sources that balance one another. █

Summary: Geeks show that Microsoft’s products do not behave as Microsoft is claiming when subjected to class action lawsuits

“M

icrosoft’s Vision of Phones is Orwellian” is what we argued (with proof) earlier this month. This is not news because we wrote about this before, but the proof is becoming ever more detailed with posts like this one, contradicting Microsoft by stating that “Windows Phone DOES transmit location information without user consent”. To quote: “Statements made by Microsoft to the US House of Representatives prove to be at odds with how its Windows Phone OS actually works. [...] Enter Rafael Rivera, one of the programmer behind the Windows Phone jailbreaking tool ChevronWP. After initially being skeptical about the lawsuit, Rivera decided to test the Windows Phone camera app to see what information, if any, it sent to Microsoft when the phone was reset to the ‘out-of-box’ experience. [...] What Rivera discovered was that the app sent several packets to Microsoft, one to agps.location.live.net and several to Microsoft’s Location Inference (codenamed Orion) service hosted at inference.location.live.net. The information transmitted included:

* OS Version
* Device Information
* Wireless access points in the vicinity of the handset, including MAC addresses and power levels
* Various GUID-based identifiers

But it gets worse….”

The source of the claims is actually pro-Microsoft, which doesn’t help Microsoft at all. █

THE WORLD’S most publicised monopolist, Bill Gates, has spent billions just marketing himself, alleged donations aside. Clearly his PR efforts have not been sufficient because the corporate press still steps ‘out of line’ sometimes. It publishes articles that expose Gates’ real agenda, despite fear of backlash and retaliation. Two of the arguably most highly regarded journals of record in the United States are the New York Times and Washington Post (a de facto pairing). Both have published critical piece about Gates despite his regular visits to those publishers. Those who wish to believe that Techrights presents a biased/fringe point of view ought to pay close attention to the way corporate press catches up with blogs and slowly comes to accept that the bloggers were right all along. First of all, the biasing of Harvard studies (to suit the agenda of the Gates Foundation) is a subject finally being addressed by Valerie Strauss, who writes:

Why would the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the world’s richest foundation, hand over a $500,000 grant to Harvard, the world’s wealthiest university?

It turns out that Harvard, in July, was given a $500,000 grant fromGates, which has its financial tentacles deep in the education world and beyond, to do the following, according to the foundation’s Web site:

[...]

Who knew Harvard, with a $27 billion-plus endowment, needed Gates money for this?

Descartes imagined “Cogito ergo sum” without a Gates grant, but these days, even re-imagining comes under the Gates umbrella of largesse.

It is fair to wonder if educational institutions that take Gates money feel obliged to consider the education positions of Bill Gates.

Gates supports modern reform efforts that unfortunately apply business principles to the public education system, which is not a business but rather a civic institution, the most important one in the country.

[...]

About a decade ago, Gates decided that small schools were the answer to the high school dropout problem, so from 2000-2009 he poured in about $2 billion to help reform high schools and improve graduation rates of minority students — with most of the money going to create small schools out of large drop-out factories.

When standardized test scores didn’t go up, Gates pulled out his money and declared the effort pretty much a failure. It wasn’t entirely, but he moved on, now, to teacher assessment as the answer to troubled schools. Teacher assessment systems in many districts are in dire need of reform, but not the kind that is dominated by standardized test scores.

Do we really want experimenting philanthropists to have a role driving education policy?

One last thing:

Next time the Gates foundation decides to hand over big bucks for re-imagining, please note: For a tenth of what you gave Harvard, the education reporting team at The Post will re-imagine anything you want.

There is a lot more in that article. This author has, in general, been doing good investigative work for over a year. The paper she contributes to has wide circulation among politicians so we hope that she continues to reaffirm our position as she does. They recently got rid of Melinda Gates, so it ought to be easier to speak freely and speak truth.

The complaints from Strauss are further amplified by Ravitch, as usual. Both ladies do a good job speaking for teachers rather than corporations. Here is a good post from around the same time:

Diane Ravitch on Corporatization of Public Education

[...]

Perhaps it was the agreement between the Gates Foundation and the Pearson Foundation to write the nation’s curriculum. When did we vote to hand over American education to them? Why would we outsource the nation’s curriculum to a for-profit publishing and test-making corporation based in London? Does Bill Gates get to write the national curriculum because he is the richest man in America? We know that his foundation is investing heavily in promoting the Common Core standards. Now his foundation will write a K-12 curriculum that will promote online learning and video gaming. That’s good for the tech sector, but is it good for our nation’s schools?

Oh, and one more outrage: The Gates Foundation and the Eli Broad Foundation, both of which maintain the pretense of being Democrats and/or liberals, have given millions to former Florida governor Jeb Bush’s foundation, which i s promoting vouchers, charters, online learning, test-based accountability, and the whole panoply of corporate reform strategies intended to weaken public education and remove teachers’ job protections.

If Bill Gates can control this system, he then controls a budget of half a trillion dollars per year and also gets to decide what children’s minds get filled with. Scary thought, no?

Here is the AstroTurf roundup from the New York Times:

They described themselves simply as local teachers who favored school reform — one sympathetic state representative, Mary Ann Sullivan, said, “They seemed like genuine, real people versus the teachers’ union lobbyists.” They were, but they were also recruits in a national organization, Teach Plus, financed significantly by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

For years, Bill Gates focused his education philanthropy on overhauling large schools and opening small ones. His new strategy is more ambitious: overhauling the nation’s education policies. To that end, the foundation is financing educators to pose alternatives to union orthodoxies on issues like the seniority system and the use of student test scores to evaluate teachers.

In some cases, Mr. Gates is creating entirely new advocacy groups. The foundation is also paying Harvard-trained data specialists to work inside school districts, not only to crunch numbers but also to change practices. It is bankrolling many of the Washington analysts who interpret education issues for journalists and giving grants to some media organizations.

[...]

Mr. Hess, a frequent blogger on education whose institute received $500,000 from the Gates foundation in 2009 “to influence the national education debates,” acknowledged that he and others sometimes felt constrained. “As researchers, we have a reasonable self-preservation instinct,” he said. “There can be an exquisite carefulness about how we’re going to say anything that could reflect badly on a foundation.”

[...]

The foundation paid a New York philanthropic advisory firm $3.5 million “to mount and support public education and advocacy campaigns.” It also paid a string of universities to support pieces of the Gates agenda. Harvard, for instance, got $3.5 million to place “strategic data fellows” who could act as “entrepreneurial change agents” in school districts in Boston, Los Angeles and elsewhere. The foundation has given to the two national teachers’ unions — as well to groups whose mission seems to be to criticize them.

“It’s easier to name which groups Gates doesn’t support than to list all of those they do, because it’s just so overwhelming,” noted Ken Libby, a graduate student who has pored over the foundation’s tax filings as part of his academic work.

An early example of the increased emphasis on advocacy came in 2008, when Mr. Gates teamed with Eli Broad for a campaign aimed at focusing the presidential candidates on issues like teacher quality and education standards. The Gates Foundation spent $16 million on the effort.

Mr. Gates later acknowledged that it achieved little, but in the years since, the foundation has helped leverage sweeping changes. Its latest annual report, for instance, highlights its role — often overlooked — in the development and promotion of the common core academic standards that some 45 states have adopted in recent months.

Well, a lot more examples are included in this article, but to keep compliant with fair use, we’ll end it there. It is encouraging to see the press waking up. █

Summary: A rare glimpse at a common phenomenon where Microsoft uses national papers to spread fear and the advertisers in newspapers are said to be playing a role

Microsoft and its slaves in the Government of Oman (who gave Microsoft taxpayers' money) have only led to further criminalisation of the population, which Microsoft loves calling “pirates” (an inappropriate term). Occasionally Microsoft and its bully, the BSA, organise intimidation campaigns which even cables reveal are just intended to create a scare. In the following Cablegate cable there is concern that the newspapers did not do as Microsoft and the BSA please; they didn’t spread enough fear by naming the country targeted as an "enforcement showcase":

VZCZCXYZ0006
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHMS #0938 2810622
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 080622Z OCT 07
FM AMEMBASSY MUSCAT
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 8838
INFO RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC

UNCLAS MUSCAT 000938 

SIPDIS 

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS 

STATE FOR NEA/ARP, EEB/TPP/MTA/IPC
COMMERCE FOR COBERG
COMMERCE PASS TO USPTO (PFOWLER) 

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ECON, ETRD, KIPR, MU
SUBJECT: MICROSOFT SETTLES WITH OMANI SOFTWARE PIRATES 

1. (U) On October 7, Econoff discussed Microsoft's conclusion
of an out-of-court settlement with four Omani companies
engaged in software piracy with Jawad al-Redha, Microsoft's
Gulf Anti-Piracy Manager and Co-Chair of the Business
Software Alliance.  Redha noted that the settlement was the
product of over seven months of work in negotiating with the
violators, identified as al-Madina, al-Rafraf, al-Arabiya,
and World IT.  Under the agreement, each company will pay
Microsoft USD 3,000 in compensation and pledge to refrain
from selling illegal software in the future. 

2. (SBU) Redha expressed optimism that the agreement will
create momentum in enforcing IPR in Oman.  He was quick to
point out that Oman's purported software piracy rate of 62%
was still high for the region, but that concerted efforts
such as this would help bring that statistic down several
percentage points each year.  Redha said that improvements
need to be made on the public relations front in reaching
this goal.  As an example, he noted that the press release on
the settlement was only published in the English-language
daily Oman Observer, and only after the government cleared on
text that did not include country-specific references.  Redha
speculated that the publishers of Oman's Arabic-language
dailies, which declined to publicize the settlement, were
worried that they would lose advertising revenue from the
companies cited in the text of the announcement. 

3. (SBU) Comment:  Microsoft's settlement comes on the heels
of change in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, the lead
Omani agency in promoting intellectual property rights.
Econoff learned on October 3 that the director of the
Intellectual Property Department has been reassigned to a
lower-level position in a different office of the ministry,
and that his deputy has been transferred to an unrelated
department as well.  Post suspects that the director's
ineffectiveness during the implementation stage of the
U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement may have precipitated the
reshuffle.  End comment.
FONTENEAU 

They are trying to use newspapers as a propaganda tool. Advertisers affect the content of newspapers. █

Summary: An absurd exchange which on both sides of the coin works in Microsoft’s favour

THE FOLLOWING Cablegate cable is similar to the previous one in the sense that we see the annual BSA/IDC lies (we debunked these many times before) being used by politicians to lobby for Microsoft’s agenda. Even though counterfeiting is beneficial/essential to Microsoft’s business, Microsoft is being portrayed as a victim and this ‘victimhood’ tactic is then being used to cause embarrassment/guilt and have a submissive deal signed — a deal under which a lot of taxpayers’ money gets passed to Ballmer and Gates, who in ‘exchange’ for this ‘favour’ will help indoctrinate the Vietnamese population. Some deal, eh? Then consider other stories from Vietnam, such as:

• US Government Helps Microsoft Derail Vietnamese Migration to Free/Libre Software
• Microsoft Strikes Back In Vietnam (Leaked)
• Bill Gates’ ‘Foundation’ is Lobbying Vietnam’s Leadership to Derail Migration to Software Freedom, Puts Money Together With Microsoft

Notice the lies from the BSA (these are actually IDC+BSA lies, where the former uses IDG to spread the lies through the media). It says that “The 2007 Business Software Alliance (BSA) and IDC Global Software Piracy Study ranks Vietnam as having the world’s fifth highest software piracy rate. At 88 percent, this is the highest rate in Asia.”

Lists of shame are a shameful. It’s the way sex offenders are being treated. Here is the cable in full:

VZCZCXRO2587
OO RUEHHM
DE RUEHHI #0945/01 1421035
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 221035Z MAY 07
FM AMEMBASSY HANOI
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 5427
INFO RUEHHM/AMCONSUL HO CHI MINH 3073
RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHINGTON DC
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 HANOI 000945 

SIPDIS 

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS 

STATE FOR EAP/MLS AND EB/TPP/IPE JBOGER
STATE ALSO PASS USTR DBISBEE AND RBAE
STATE ALSO PASS USPTO FOR JURBAN
STATE ALSO PASS LIBRARY OF CONGRESS FOR TEPP
USDOC FOR 4430/MAC/AP/OPB/VLC/HPPHO 

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: KIPR, ECON, ETRD, ECPS, VM
SUBJECT: MICROSOFT SIGNS LANDMARK SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH
VIETNAM 

(U) SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED, DO NOT POST ON THE INTERNET 

1. (SBU) Summary:  On May 21, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer and
Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dzung witnessed the signing of
a multi-faceted agreement committing all GVN agencies to use
licensed software.  For its part, Microsoft will increase its
investment to develop Vietnam's information and communication
technology (ICT) sector through training and capacity building
programs.  Embassy intervened with GVN officials to make sure the
signing took place after Microsoft met with the Ambassador and
expressed last-minute concerns that the GVN would hold the agreement
as a deliverable for the potential visit of President Triet later
this summer.  The agreement is a significant demonstration of
Vietnam's commitment to protect intellectual property rights (IPR)
and stop rampant piracy.  Implementation of this agreement will move
Vietnam from having the world's fifth highest, and Asia's highest,
software piracy rate to a better ranking in the region and the
world.  This may well constitute the most significant agreement
Vietnam has ever signed with a U.S. business.   End Summary. 

2. (SBU) During his May 21 visit to Hanoi, Microsoft CEO Steve
Ballmer joined Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dzung, the
Ambassador and other GVN officials to witness the signing of a
multi-faceted agreement between the company and the GVN requiring
all government agencies to purchase and use licensed software.  This
follows through on the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), signed in
Washington during Deputy Prime Minister/Foreign Minister Pham Gia
Khiem's March visit, which committed both sides to sign a
comprehensive agreement on software licensing and collaborative ICT
development efforts by the end of May.  Microsoft's President for
Southeast Asia Chris Atkinson estimated that Vietnam would purchase
licensed software for approximately 300,000 desktops through this
deal.  In exchange, the agreement provides a foundation for
Microsoft to assist Vietnam in developing its ICT sector through
training, human resource development and other capacity building
programs.  (Note: Though the figures are not public, Atkinson said
the 300,000 licenses will cost the GVN approximately USD 20 million,
while Microsoft's investment to develop the local ICT industry would
be around USD 3 million.  End Note.) 

Last-Minute Concerns by Microsoft
--------------------------------- 

3. (SBU) On May 18, Microsoft's Atkinson requested a last-minute
meeting with the Ambassador to request his assistance in urging the
GVN to follow through on its commitment in the March MOU to sign the
formal agreement by the end of May.  Microsoft was concerned that
the GVN would try to delay signing some or all of the substance of
the agreement to preserve it as a deliverable for the potential
visit this summer by Vietnam's President Nguyen Minh Triet. 

4. (SBU) Following the meeting, the Embassy contacted officials in
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Office of the Government to
underline United States Government support for signing the agreement
now, so that our Presidents would be able to echo the signing's
important message and broad positive reaction during President
Triet's potential visit.  For its part, Microsoft told the GVN it
would "mobilize all available resources" to spotlight Vietnam's
efforts to uphold its commitments to protect intellectual property
rights (IPR), as well as the opportunities for increased cooperation
between U.S. firms and Vietnam's ICT industry during the possible
Triet visit.  Late on May 18, the GVN confirmed to Microsoft that it
would proceed with the signing now, with the hope that the two sides
could hold a second, "ceremonial" signing in Washington in
conjunction with the planned Triet visit. 

PM Dzung and Microsoft's Ballmer Applaud This Step
--------------------------------------------- ----- 

5. (SBU) At the 30 minute signing ceremony, Prime Minister Dzung
stated that this agreement is evidence of Vietnam's commitment to
Microsoft, to the World Trade Organization and to the U.S.-Vietnam
Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA).  The Prime Minister said he highly
appreciates the cooperation with the United States in the ICT field
- both through USG assistance and cooperation and investment from
large U.S. enterprises - referencing specifically the anticipated
March 2008 launch of the Vinasat satellite built by Lockheed Martin.
 He continued by saying that Vietnam will consistently follow market
practices, and will implement fully its international commitments,
including those on IPR protection.  He told Microsoft's Ballmer that
he would personally ensure Vietnam fulfills its obligations under
this agreement.  IPR protection is important to develop Vietnam's
"modest" USD 300 million software development industry and the ICT
sector as a whole, which will be critical in extending Vietnam's 

HANOI 00000945  002 OF 002 

wave of development, the Prime Minister said. 

6. (SBU) PM Dzung talked about Vietnam's so-called Six Pillars of
Comprehensive Development (outlined in the World Bank/Asian
Development Bank/UNDP 2001 Vietnam Development Report) required to
ensure Vietnam's "sustainable development with social equity."  He
noted that Vietnam will need to emphasize particularly the fifth
pillar, which he defined as education, training, science and
technology.  This agreement provides a foundation for cooperation in
this pillar, Dzung said, expressing his hope that Microsoft would
continue to support Vietnam through participation in efforts such as
the Topic 64 Program and its ongoing work with Vietnam's leading IT
firm, FPT Corporation. 

7. (SBU) Ballmer responded by stating that this agreement
demonstrates Vietnam's seriousness in protecting IPR and in creating
an environment and a platform for Vietnam's ICT industry to grow.
Echoing the Prime Minister's personal commitment, Ballmer agreed
likewise personally to ensure that Microsoft upholds its promises to
assist Vietnam's ICT sector. 

Improving its BSA Software Piracy Ranking
----------------------------------------- 

8. (SBU) The 2007 Business Software Alliance (BSA) and IDC Global
Software Piracy Study ranks Vietnam as having the world's fifth
highest software piracy rate. At 88 percent, this is the highest
rate in Asia.  Significantly, Microsoft estimates that this
agreement alone will improve Vietnam's piracy rate by at least 10
percentage points, which would put it ahead of many other countries
in the region, including China, Indonesia and Thailand.  Microsoft's
Atkinson told the Ambassador that this would be "one of the single
biggest percentage drops in the history of tracking software piracy
rates." 

Comment
------- 

9. (SBU) Of all the signings with U.S. businesses in recent years,
this agreement is likely the most significant for Vietnam in the
long term.  Carrying through on its commitments will enable Vietnam
to take a giant step forward in its international respectability
with regard to protecting intellectual property rights.  It sends a
strong signal about Vietnam's commitment to IPR protection as it
contemplates requesting consideration as a beneficiary under the
Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) Program and works to improve
its status under the Special 301 review process.  The agreement will
also lead to a new level of development in Vietnam's ICT industry,
setting the stage for it to become a potentially significant player
in this rapidly expanding sector. 

MARINE 

Why is this a matter of foreign affairs and international policy anyway? This is a private business. █