04.07.11
Posted in EFF, GNU/Linux, Microsoft at 3:48 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
(ODF | PDF | English/original)
Resumen: Microsoft está haciendo fuego sobre la disidencia (para tiranos opresivos solamente) deliberadamente dejando a la gente que utiliza el software de Microsoft expuestos a la vigilancia y a otros abusos.
El tema del Software Free/Libre como herramienta de autonomía va muchos años atrás. Para que un usuario de la computadora esté en el control del software en vez de ser el sirviente de este software, hay características que necesitan estar presentes en el código. La FSF Fundación del Software Libre da una buena definición de estas características, aunque puedan haber otras. Richard Poynder explica cómo la Ciudadanía y el Software[http://poynder.blogspot.com/2011/03/of-citizenship-and-software.html] se relacionan uno con otro en una atmósfera donde el software está cada vez más politizado:
Lorenzo Lessig vino entender el poder del software para construir y formar nuestro mundo cuando él era (brevemente) “amo especial” durante el caso anticompetitivo contra Microsoft. Como él me lo expuso más adelante, “[T]u puedes escribir software sin embargo como usted quiera, producir cualquier clase de producto usted quiera. Y esa capacidad es única con software: usted no puede, por ejemplo, decir que un automóvil será algo que es una transmisión y una radio envueltas en una al mismo tiempo. Pero usted puede hacer exactamente eso con software, porque el software es tan plástico.
Como tal, él agregó, “el caso de Microsoft encajona era un ejemplo particular de un punto más general sobre cómo usted necesita entender la manera de la cual tecnología y política interactuan.”
Como todo, nuestras vidas son organizados y controlados cada vez más por las computadoras, y el papel que el software tiene en la sociedad llegan a ser cada vez más centrales, la mayoría de la gente asume que el mundo virtual que abren delante de ellos cuando encienden la computadora, y las opciones que son ofrecidos en la pantalla, sigue siendo cómo las cosas son y deben ser – no una consecuencia de la manera en la cual el software subyacente ha sido escrito.
La gente que utiliza el software de Microsoft son controla a totalmente por las inclinaciones políticas de Microsoft y esos gobiernos con los cuales Microsoft colabora (básicamente cualquier gobierno, por su propio beneficio). Las historias recientes de Rusia [1[http://techrights.org/2010/09/19/microsoft-pulls-a-wernher-von-braun/], 2[http://techrights.org/2010/09/14/dumping-against-gnu-linux-russia-ngo/], 3[http://techrights.org/2010/10/18/rewriting-history-about-dissent/]] son un recordatorio impactante de ello y la FFII (Fundación para una Infraestructura de Información Libre) divulgan que “Microsoft apagó HTTPS (Secure HTTP) en Hotmail en más de una docena de países”. Como André Rebentisch lo puso, “Hotmail no ofrece HTTPS para las naciones autoritarias”[http://arebentisch.wordpress.com/2011/03/28/hotmail-does-not-offer-https-for-authoritarian-nations/] y aquí están esas naciones en resumen:
Según un enlace secreto en EFF, Hotmail inhabilitó al parecer la opción implícita de https para sus usuarios que fijaron su localización en las naciones siguientes: Bahrein, Marruecos, Argelia, Siria, Sudán, Irán, Líbano, Jordania, Congo, Myanmar, Nigeria, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan.
Brad explica porqué “Los Activistas Políticos Necesitan Linux” – un tema que tratamos aquí muchas veces antes.
He insistido una y otra vez el consejo de los expertos de la seguridad de computadora: si usted debe utilizar Windows, no utilice Internet Explorer. E iré un paso más al futuro: si usted tiene alguna razón para creer usted puede ser perseguido por o atacado – debido a sus creencias políticas, o sus actividades económicas – entonces DEJE de USAR WINDOWS.
Hay también una interpretación de Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols[http://www.zdnet.com/blog/networking/did-microsoft-leave-hotmail-open-for-dictators/874]. Aquí tenemos otro más ejemplo de Microsoft dañando a los usuarios de computadoras. ¿La gente no aprenderá de Egipto sobre cómo los gobiernos identifican y arrestan la oposición después de la vigilancia eléctronica? █
Translation produced by Eduardo Landaveri, the esteemed administrator of the Spanish portal of Techrights.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
03.29.11
Posted in EFF, GNU/Linux, Microsoft at 7:02 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Microsoft is gunning down dissidence (for oppressive tyrants only) by deliberately leaving people who use Microsoft software exposed to surveillance and other abuses
THE subject of Free software as a tool of autonomy goes many years back. For a computer user to be in control of the software rather than the servant of this software, there are characteristics which need to be present in the code. The FSF gives one good definition of these characteristics, although there may be others. Richard Poynder explains how “Citizenship and Software” relate to one another in an atmosphere where software is increasingly politicised:
Lawrence Lessig came to understand the power of software to construct and shape our world when he was (briefly) “special master” during the Microsoft antitrust case. As he later put it to me, “[Y]ou can code software however you want, to produce whatever kind of product you want. And that capability is unique with software: you can’t, for instance, say that an automobile will be something that is a transmission and a radio wrapped in one. But you can do exactly that with software, because software is so plastic.”
As such, he added, the Microsoft case was just “a particular example of a more general point about how you need to understand the way in which technology and policy interact.”
Yet, as more and more of our lives are organised and controlled by computers, and the role that software plays in society becomes increasingly central, most people still assume that the virtual world that opens up before them when they switch on the computer, and the choices they are offered onscreen, is how things are and ought to be — not a consequence of the way in which the underlying software has been coded.
People who use Microsoft software are completely controlled by the political inclinations of Microsoft and those governments which Microsoft collaborates with (basically just about any government, for the sake of profit). The recent stories from Russia [1, 2, 3] were a shocking reminder of it and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) reports that “Microsoft Shuts off HTTPS in Hotmail for Over a Dozen Countries”. As André Rebentisch put it, “Hotmail does not offer https for authoritarian nations” and here are the nations in short:
According to an EFF deeplink Hotmail apparently disabled the https default option for its users who set their location to the following nations: Bahrain, Morocco, Algeria, Syria, Sudan, Iran, Lebanon, Jordan, Congo, Myanmar, Nigeria, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan,
Brad explains why “Political Activists Need Linux” — a subject we addressed here many times before.
Over and over again I have stressed the advice of computer security experts: if you must use Windows, do NOT use Internet Explorer. And I’ll go one step further: if you have any reason to believe you may be targeted for attack — either because of your political beliefs, or your business activities — then stop using Windows.
There is also an interpretation from Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols. Here we have yet another example of Microsoft harming computer users. Won’t people learn from Egypt about how governments identify and arrest the opposition following surveillance? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
10.03.10
Posted in EFF, ISO, Microsoft, Open XML, Patents, Standard at 7:10 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Lessons to be taken from the i4i vs Microsoft case and the real story behind amicus briefs in this case
THE i4i vs Microsoft case has led to OOXML troubles. Microsoft knew about it all along [1, 2, 3], which is why ISO was urged to invalidate OOXML after it had foolishly sold out.
Microsoft’s booster/insider Alex Brown keeps provoking about OOXML and patents right about now, but we’ll leave that alone for the time being because it’s not worth stirring up this hornet’s nest again. He too knew about this problem, but as the BRM convenor for OOXML he kept quiet about it. He had a job to do and that job was seemingly to promote Microsoft, not do the duties he was assigned to carry out for ISO.
Microsoft is currently trying to escape the trap set up by i4i after the very shrill Microsoft cheated i4i and even took some pride in it. Microsoft wants to get rid of i4i’s patent/s and spinners of this (mobbyists in particular) take it out of context by pretending that Microsoft’s patent policy is reasonable and that the EFF supports Microsoft. As the FFII puts it, this is just a case of:
#EFF against i4i #XML patent
It’s a software patent and Microsoft et al. knew about it years ago yet hid the issue in order to market OOXML, which is a story of corruption.
Ryan Paul wrote about it and so did Groklaw which has a full amicus brief presented as text:
Seriously, Google, Verizon, Dell, HP, HTC, and Wal-Mart, if you can believe it, have together filed an amicus brief [PDF] in support of Microsoft’s petition for writ of certiorari [PDF] in the i4i patent litigation case Microsoft lost both at the District Court level and on appeal to the Federal Circuit. HP and Dell submitted amicus briefs before in support of Microsoft, back when the case was being appealed to the Federal Circuit, but after Microsoft lost again there, the crowd in support has grown. And they all give the court an earful about just how messed up the patent system has become.
It’s a new day, ladies and gentlemen, when Wal-Mart gets it that the patent system is destructive to business and destroying innovation. A number of others have also filed amicus briefs, including EFF together with the Apache Software Foundation, Public Knowledge, and the Computer & Communications Industry Association. You can find more amicus briefs in Nick Eaton’s article in the San Francisco Chronicle, but I thought you’d particularly like to see the Google brief, so I’ve done it as text, because Google uses the same firm that represents them against Oracle in the patent litigation regarding Java and Android, King & Spalding.
Rob Weir is meanwhile showing that ISO is a farce. “Costs over $100 to view,” he writes “#FAIL RT @isostandards: ISO/IEC standard for special mathematical functions (C++) http://ow.ly/2MiPR”
If ISO allows patent traps (even from trolls) to become “standards”, then ISO renders itself obsolete. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
09.24.10
Posted in EFF, FSF, Law, Patents at 6:26 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
First title page of the scientific journal Nature, November 4th, 1869.
Summary: News about patents, ranging from action against software patents in the United States to patent trolls and their use of software patents to terrify US-based businesses
Brett Smith from the Free Software Foundation (FSF) has just issued a call for mail to be sent to the USPTO, urging it “to stop issuing software patents”:
Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Bilski v. Kappos, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) plans to release new guidance as to which patent applications will be accepted, and which will not. As part of this process, they are seeking input from the public about how that guidance should be structured.
Normally when the USPTO solicits feedback like this, they hear almost exclusively from patent attorneys who have a vested interest in making sure that patents are granted as broadly as possible. And this process will be overseen by David Kappos, the current director of the USPTO and formerly an attorney at IBM in charge of their heavy-handed patent strategy. The company obtained large numbers of software patents with his oversight (and has continued to do so after his departure).
In Identi.ca, the FSF says that the “USPTO is preparing post-Bilski guidance for issuing patents—tell them to leave software out of it! Due Monday.”
The EFF has taken a different approach to the problem. It busts bad patents one by one, which has a symbolic significance but not much of an impressive track record of being effective (there are far too many software patents). The EFF’s latest triumph got some coverage from IDG and Slashdot.
Continued good news in the fight to bust bad software patents: the Patent Office has issued an encouraging office action in the reexamination of the C2 patent, one of EFF’s “Most Wanted” patents. The C2 patent claims to cover a “Method and Apparatus for Implementing a Computer Network/Internet Telephone System,” broad enough to essentially wholesale claim using the Internet to call someone’s phone.
The Patent Office has agreed with many of the arguments EFF put forth in its petition for reexamination, and preliminarily found the C2 patent invalid as obvious. This first office action is non-final, which means that C2 still has the chance to respond and make its own argument in support of its patent. While this office action is not a final victory, it’s an important first step in busting a patent that stifles innovation and the use of VoIP as a free speech tool, and further cripples the progress of VoIP developers who seek to ease online communications.
An even better solution would be to ban software patents altogether. Realistically, for the time being it’s important to ensure that software patents cannot spread any further. Nature Publishing Group, which is based in London, New York, and Tokyo (it is a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited) is not doing a favour to science right now.
“No word about the cost of patenting for society, the bias of the patent system towards big corporations, the toll of bogus patents on innovation, and the very shaky empirical foundation on which the whole “patents foster innovation” argument rests.”
–GezaSomebody from the FFII’s mailing list, Geza, has found this article which he called “a pretty one-sided article about the European patent system an the way to reform it appeared in the current issue of Nature” (high-impact journal/magazine).
“It essentially argues that a more streamlined, US-like system is all we need to foster innovation,” he wrote. “No word about the cost of patenting for society, the bias of the patent system towards big corporations, the toll of bogus patents on innovation, and the very shaky empirical foundation on which the whole “patents foster innovation” argument rests.”
“Professors without patents” is an article Glyn Moody has just drawn attention to. In it, the case is made for entrepreneurship to be achieved without patent monopolies and rather by collaboration. Nature magazine turns out to have published part of this work in July, so maybe there is balance in coverage:
The results of a recent study challenge the standard notion that most businesses started by academics are based on patents (“Start-up model patently flawed”) in Nature magazine, July 2010).
The study found that the majority of companies started by US academics are started without patents. This is contrary to the generally accepted wisdom about how entrepreneurship occurs in a university, which usually goes something like this: academics disclose their invention to universities, get it patented and then spin-out their company from the university. This is actually only part of the entrepreneurial picture in universities — and a smaller part of the picture at that.
Looking at the impact of patents right now, Newegg is still being trolled by software patents in the Eastern District of Texas [1, 2]. Now comes an appeal:
Newegg.com will appeal a recent court decision that awarded an e-commerce application development company damages for Newegg’s alleged violation of several software patents, including a shopping cart.
The following new post uses the term “NPE” for patent trolls and claims that a study shows “Heavily Litigated NPE Patents Overwhelmingly Los[ing] at Trial”. Here are some of the numbers:
- Just 16.7% of the assertions of the most-litigated patents were made by product-producing companies.
- Software patents constituted 20.8% of the once-litigated patents but 74.1% of the most-litigated patents.
- Owners of non-software patents are far more likely to win their cases than are software patent owners (37.1% versus 12.9% overall)
- The number of defendants per case is a negative predictor of settlement – the more defendants there are per case, the less likely the case is to settle. Also, the more defendants there are per case the more likely those defendants are to win.
If “[o]wners of non-software patents are far more likely to win their cases”, does that not mean that a lot of software patents were never supposed to be granted in the first place? Prior art search in the field of software is extremely complicated and by far outweighs design and ‘production’ costs (production is just copying). Software patents just make no economic sense. Some people go further and suggest that they are not constitutional, either. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
08.25.10
Posted in Apple, EFF, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Patents at 6:39 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A look at HTC’s counterclaim, filed after Apple sued Linux via HTC/Android; Apple refuses to have its phones tested for environmental impact; EFF goes hard on Apple for what it calls “traitorware” (iOS)
Apple’s case against HTC is also Apple’s case against Linux. Groklaw has begun covering this case, which helps show that Groklaw does not always take Apple's side.
HTC denies infringing the patents, of course, but they also say as a first affirmative defense that four of the patents are invalid for “failure to comply with one or more of the conditions for patentability set forth in Title 35 of the United States Code, including, but not limited to, utility, novelty, non-obviousness, enablement, written description and definiteness in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, 112, and/or 116, or are invalid pursuant to the judicial doctrine barring double-patenting”. HTC also claims prior art, marking, laches and marking defenses, and it says it has license agreements with third party suppliers to do what they do the things Apple is suing them over. It asks the court to declare the patents invalid. Here’s a recent case highlighted on EFF’s site where some of those types of defenses worked perfectly.
Both Apple and Microsoft are already known for their severely negative impact on the environment [1, 2]. The manufacturing material and processes just don’t bode too well. Watch what Apple is doing now, according to Adam Vaughan.
Apple blocks iPhones from green ranking scheme
Apple has refused to allow its iPhones to be included in the UK’s first-ever green ranking scheme for mobile phones.
The scheme gives phones a rating of zero to five based on their environmental footprint and major manufacturers including Nokia, Sony Ericsson and Samsung have signed up. The network O2, which is launching the rating system today, said 93% of the devices its customers use will be covered.
Launched in partnership with sustainability advisers Forum for the Future, the green ranking scheme scores handsets on the ecological impact of their raw materials, the manufacturing process, packaging, how long they are likely to last, energy efficiency and how easy they are to reuse or recycle.
An Apple spokeswoman declined to comment on why the company had decided not to join the voluntary labelling scheme, but highlighted its environmental reporting online.
What is Apple so afraid of?
Last but not least, Apple patents spyware:
The EFF weighed in on Apple’s recent security software patent. The EFF’s post, Steve Jobs Is Watching You: Apple Seeking to Patent Spyware, states, “This patent is downright creepy and invasive – certainly far more than would be needed to respond to the possible loss of a phone. Spyware, and its new cousin traitorware, will hurt customers and companies alike – Apple should shelve this idea before it backfires on both it and its customers.”
We actually covered this earlier in the week. The EFF generated a lot of negative press for Apple. They deserve it. Apple is a patent aggressor (see above). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in EFF, Intellectual Monopoly, Patents at 2:57 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Credit: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS)
Summary: Monopoly proponents from Europe rebutted; Lexmark sues 24 companies for patent infringement; EFF kills another ludicrous patent
Horns is an informative blogger (not just a European patent attorney from Germany) who often sheds light on important issues such as UPLS [1, 2, 3]. But there is one point that he overlooked a little while ago when he debated the patentability of software (an important subject in Germany due to Microsoft and Siemens [1, 2]).
Here is where Horns gets it wrong: [via FFII]
He says that there is a “myth” of software patents being used as a tool of dispossession against the copyright programmers earned by writing something. This is a “myth”, in his view, since programmers need to check for patents, just as someone who wants to build somewhere needs to check the property status of the real estate in question.
He then goes on, however, to explain that it is actually impossible for most software authors to do the patent check. That means he is refuting his own point.
Being a patent lawyer, he sure wants more patents. It’s business to him. The same goes for the British Intellectual Monopoly Minister, Judith Wilcox. The president of the FFII highlights this new bit of patent propaganda from Incisive Media/Bizmedia:
The Intellectual Property Minister Baroness Wilcox has unveiled a research programme into intellectual property and its value to the British economy
[...]
Wilcox said: “Intellectual property has a key role to play in rebalancing the British economy. The highly-skilled industries where the UK can excel are driven by innovation.
“Britain must have an intellectual property system that encourages innovation and is internationally competitive.
Wilcox wants the public to believe that a patent system “encourages innovation” (“internationally competitive” is euphemism for “imperialistic”), but what happens when it’s used to actually suppress competition? Just watch this new lawsuit:
Lexmark sues importers of laser cartridges for patent infringement
Lexmark International, Inc. (NYSE: LXK) announced today that it has filed a patent infringement complaint with the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) against 24 companies engaged in the manufacture, importation and sale of replacement cartridges for various Lexmark laser printers and multifunction devices.
The complaint alleges that these replacement cartridges infringe at least 15 U.S. patents owned by Lexmark. Lexmark is requesting that the ITC issue a general exclusion order banning the importation and sale of patent infringing laser cartridges by any entity.
ITC means embargo [1, 2, 3, 4]. How does that encourage innovation? It encourages litigation and limits competition.
In other noteworthy news, the EFF has just squashed another bad patent. It’s hardly the solution though because as Richard Stallman once put it, “Fighting patents one by one will never eliminate the danger of software patents, any more than swatting mosquitoes will eliminate malaria.” Regardless, the following is good news at least for symbolic reasons:
Good news in the fight against bad software patents: a jury in the Eastern District of Texas recently found the Firepond/Polaris patent (U.S. Patent No. 6,411,947) invalid. This patent was on EFF’s “Most Wanted” list, targeted because it claimed nothing more than a system using natural language processing to respond to customers’ online inquires by email.
EFF was not involved in this case, in which Bright Response, LLC — the technical owner of the patent — sued Google, Inc., Yahoo!, Inc. and eight other companies, alleging that Google’s AdWords and Yahoo!’s Sponsored Search infringes the Firepond/Polaris patent. The jury found three of the patent’s claims invalid based on the public use bar, obviousness, and for lacking written description. The jury also found that neither Google nor Yahoo! infringed those claims. Finally, the jury found the entire patent invalid due to improper inventorship.
Mike Masnick has just covered this too. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
03.29.09
Posted in EFF, Europe, Free/Libre Software, Law, Microsoft, Patents, Red Hat at 8:02 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Image from Wikimedia
Summary: A roundup summarising important developments pertaining to software patents
A LOT has happened since the last post regarding software patents. Here are some reports and developments to be aware of.
Red Hat Revisited
For some background, see the posts which criticise Red Hat’s attitude towards software patents [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. The short story is that Red Hat is not telling the whole truth and it doesn’t do as it preaches. Glyn Moody addresses incognitos at Red Hat, asking for answers to very important questions which, as far as we know, Red Hat has not formally answered yet.
I’d like to direct your attention to a long and interesting piece that has appeared on the Digital Majority site asking a very important question: “Did Red Hat lobby for, or against software patents in Europe?”
The piece is dense and closely argued, drawing on Red Hat’s statements down the years to support its case. The central question it tries to address is whether Red Hat is truly helping to fight software patents in Europe, or whether it simply wants the patent system reformed to something more convenient for its own purposes as a big software house, while retaining the good graces of the free software movement.
Red Hat’s response would be very important at this stage. The former head of the FFII names this “The Conspiracy of Silence” and he rightly lumps in some other companies like Sun Microsystems and IBM. He writes:
For me, the greatest threat to the Abolitionist movement is not the “bad guys” who wear black hats and do stupid things like suing RIM, or TomTom. It is the “good guys”, who silently collect patents, allow the Community to be scared into accepting that these “defensive” patents are necessary, and who keep a blanket of silence over the public discussion of software patent abolition.
And those who allow this, from the best motives, are part of the conspiracy. Those who invest in projects like Peer-to-Patent are part of the conspiracy. Those who write how OIN is a great achievement, how various “promises not to sue” are sufficient to waive all concern… it is these good willed people who are the problem.
Novell’s so-called ‘hackers’ as well are obtaining software patents rather than abolishing them. If they do so at the behest of their employer or shareholders, this is hardly an excuse. Moreover, promises not to sue are useless because they are not legal contracts and thus unexpected takeovers render them obsolete.
Speaking of Red Hat, in spite of the Microsoft connections at Lenovo, this OEM will stock Red Hat Enterprise Linux and no longer just SLES. We spotted this news about the ThinkStations the other day:
ThinkStations are certified from third parties to ensure compatibility with major applications, and the systems are preloaded with Windows Vista with support for RedHat Linux Enterprise 5.2.
Microsoft Attacks Linux with Patents
There are many articles, posts, and good comments about Microsoft’s attempt to befriend open source whilst attacking it viciously in court (moreover targeting the feeble, which is already on the verge of bankruptcy).
Here is yet another article on this subject, which combines Microsoft’s attack on Linux with Red Hat’s unnecessary armament that damages the work of abolitionists.
‘Patents Are FUD’
“It’s sad that Red Hat thinks they need those patents,” Montreal consultant and Slashdot blogger Gerhard Mack told LinuxInsider.
“The fix is still patent reform, since these patents will only protect Red Hat from companies that actually produce projects, and not patent trolls,” Mack added.
“I hope 2009 will see the death of software patents before the U.S. Supreme Court,” blogger Robert Pogson added. “We need that because the TomTom matter may take years to sort out.
“A decisive victory for freedom of software should reduce the threat of patents to a whisper,” Pogson told LinuxInsider. “Until that day, patents are FUD that delays adoption of GNU/Linux and increases the cost of having to maintain a defense against these evil spirits
A formal document titled “Microsoft Launches Patent Offensive Against Linux” [PDF] was released. Any legal document with the headline “Microsoft Launches Patent Offensive Against Linux” can be seen as directly contradicting Microsoft’s claims that this had nothing to do with Linux. Microsoft wants to sue and to scare without ever being scrutinised. How cheeky. SCO said the same thing when it sued IBM (that it was only a case against IBM and not against Linux).
Sean from Jupitermedia wonders if “Microsoft [is] feeling TomTom Linux patent chill.”
That said, last year at OSCON, Ramji was quite literally mobbed by the audience after his presentation by attendees that were ‘curious’ about Microsoft’s patent stance. The TomTom case potentially represents Microsoft’s first real patent legal attack against Linux and as such, somehow I suspect that eventually that will trigger a chill of some sort.
Microsoft intentionally does not send out its ‘Ballmers’ and 'Horacios'. Instead, it is sending inexperienced people who will be painted as victims and make Microsoft’s real victims looks like “zealots”, like the bad guys.
Last week we wrote about BackWeb's lawsuit against Microsoft. It is an interesting situation because of the nature of the patents and many articles about the case have been published. For future use and reference, here are some more resources about this case against Microsoft.
In an article that IDG has spread all over the place (many of its domains), “open-source” firms are being encouraged to handle a bizarre strategy that only legitimises software patents.
Open-source software companies are missing out on a relatively inexpensive way to fight concerns about patent liability, according to an attorney who spoke at an open-source conference in San Francisco this week.
More open-source companies should be asking the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office to re-examine patents that may pose a threat to them, as a cheaper, sometimes more suitable alternative to waging a patent lawsuit, said Van Lindberg, an attorney with Haynes and Boone LLP, who spoke at Infoworld’s Open Source Business Conference in San Francisco.
Wrong approach, sorry. It’s better to eliminate software patents altogether, not pull another EFF. This article was also mentioned in The Inquirer.
LEGAL EAGLES working for Open Sauce collectives have discovered that there is a cheap way of fighting concerns about patent liability.
Those “LEGAL EAGLES” are probably just looking for business. To them, abolishment of software patents — especially globally — would mean financial bankruptcy or immediate career change.
Microsoft for Software Patents in Europe
We are utterly appalled by what Microsoft is doing with its lobbying guns in Europe. Yesterday we wrote about ACT/Jonathan Zuck, to give just one example. He is determined to illegalise and eradicate Free software. It’s not just about patents and Free software by the way. “ACT was also defending Microsoft in the EU antitrust case,” says an informant. “There are video recordings of him on the Audiovisual website of the Commission. Those are hidden on the EC website. You have to obtain a login and search in there.”
“…Microsoft-sponsored presidencies and those which Microsoft helps install are pushing for obstructive change relentlessly.”We provided some evidence of this before. We did collect some press which shows Zuck et al AstroTurfing in defence of Microsoft, as an ‘independent’ body. That’s just their spiel and they stir up trouble in Brussels every week.
According to this report (in German), the EU Parliament has thrown out another attempt to introduce software patents. It figures. But whilst many attempts to change these law are failing, Microsoft-sponsored presidencies and those which Microsoft helps install are pushing for obstructive change relentlessly.
Digital Majority does a spectacular job stalking the so-called “Community” — as in “anti-Free software community” — patent. Here are reports to watch out for:
1. Patent litigation reform to cut costs for SMEs
The European Commission is seeking powers from EU member states to conclude an agreement on a Unified Patent Litigation System (UPLS), which would establish a court with jurisdiction for existing European patents and the future Community patent system.
[...]
Under the UPLS, the ECJ would rule on preliminary questions raised by patent courts regarding the interpretation of EC law and regarding the validity and interpretation of acts from the Community institutions. The Commission will have to ensure that the rules of any draft agreement are consistent with the creation of a Community patentexternal.
2. Patents: EUROCHAMBRES welcomes negotiation mandate for the European Commission
Today, the European Commission requested from the Council a negotiation mandate on the European and Community Patent Court.
3. Patents: Commission sets out next steps for creation of unified patent litigation system
The European Commission has adopted a Recommendation to the Council that would provide the Commission with negotiating directives for the conclusion of an agreement creating a Unified Patent Litigation System (UPLS). The UPLS would increase legal certainty, reduce costs and improve access to patent litigation for businesses, in particular SMEs. The court structure to be established in the framework of the UPLS would have jurisdiction both for existing European patents and for future Community patents. This constitutes a further significant step in the pursuit of the EU’s patent reform agenda.
No attempt to ban Free software is complete without some McCreevyism, either. This is just appalling, yet predictable.
IPJur.com wrote this good article where the unified patent litigation system is labeled “Another Secret Project Of The EU Commission.” Has ACTA taught us nothing?
It looks as if this might well be something different than the European Patent Judiciary envisaged as counterpart to the EU Community Patent, the chances of which to come into life have further deteriorated since Mr Topolanek’s forced demission. In the absence of further facts, the title might be understood as if there has happened some high-level decision to put aside or even abolish the well-known project of a European Patent Judiciary but to launch negotiations aiming at a more radical approach, e.g. merging all national patent courts (also for EP bundle patents and even for national patent?) into a single institution (“Unified” Patent Litigation System). Otherwise, it might also just be merely a technical turn to include EPC Member States not forming part of the EU (e.g. Turkey) into said European Patent Judiciary. I don’t know if any of the readers of this Blog have a particular idea about the meaning of this new EU project.
Digital Majority has also netted a couple of new PDFs, from which it extracted text of interest to those who target the bad system through abolishment, not elimination of one patent or one lawsuit at a time.
Regarding Bilski:
According to the majority of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Re Bilski, inventions directed to so-called `business methods’ and software-implemented inventions may still be patentable but must now overcome an arguably greater obstacle before issuing to patent in the US. In setting out the `machine or transformation test’ in its judgment of 31 October 2008, the CAFC, sitting en banc, appears to be moving towards a more European approach to patentability, and away from the broader tests of previous US decisions such as the well known State Street authority. Bilski could have significant implications for European businesses active in Europe as well as the US, at a time when the European Patent Office (EPO) and other national European patent offices are also reviewing this area. It remains to be seen whether the decision in Bilski will have an impact on these future deliberations.
Here is a submission to the EPO [PDF] (regarding the referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal). We liked this part:
The sequence of execution of a program is the same regardless of whether the program runs on a physical machine, a virtual machine or in the minds of people.
Software patents must be stopped without exceptions. Microsoft will be there to encourage more of them, so Red Hat must join the fight against them. Deeds can be louder than words. Red Hat may be the second-largest open source company (or largest bar Sun, if Sun’s posturing is anything to be believed) and since Sun is a lost cause (Novell likewise), we need Red Hat.
Silence is no good and neither are promises, either written or verbal. █
“Fighting patents one by one will never eliminate the danger of software patents, any more than swatting mosquitoes will eliminate malaria.”
–Richard Stallman
Permalink
Send this to a friend
02.24.09
Posted in Deals, EFF, Europe, Free/Libre Software, FSF, Microsoft, Patents at 4:54 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
THERE ARE some bad news and some good news this week. We’ll begin with some of the bad.
Microsoft Against Free Software
Microsoft has just entered a extortion licensing deal with 123map.
Microsoft Corp. and 123map GmbH & Co. KG, a supplier of high-quality geographical services, announced a patent licensing agreement that will enhance 123map’s ability to bring digital point-of-interest mapping technology to its customers.
The text above is pseudo-journalism, recasting a press release [1, 2]. The press release also comes from Redmond and it more or less tells which side is winning.
According to this report, there might be an element of open source software involved.
Microsoft in pact with semi-open source map maker
[...]
“123map’s products are developed with a diverse mix of proprietary and open source software, and this business agreement is a testament to the importance of mutual respect for IP, regardless of development models,” Microsoft officials said in a statement today.
Once again they label "open source" a "development model" (nothing to do with rights or freedom) and they use the term “IP” in order to blur the gap between copyrights, trademarks, and software patents in this case. Why does a German company engage in such a deal? Are these patents legitimate over there at all?
Another brow-raising development comes from AXIGEN, a Romanian collaboration server company that is (or was) focused on BSD and GNU/Linux. It is joining something which is called “Microsoft’s Empower Initiative for ISVs.”
AXIGEN (http://www.axigen.com/), the professional messaging solution vendor, announces it has joined the Empower for ISVs (Independent Software Vendors) initiative, partnership program designed by Microsoft (http://www.microsoft.com/), worldwide leader in software, services and solutions. Empower combines deep industry knowledge, useful tools, powerful research expertise and innovative thinking aimed at supporting global business growth.
[...]
Winner of the ServerWatch 2007 Product Excellence Award for the Communications Server category, AXIGEN Mail Server features a carrier class technology and outstanding support. Now at version 6.2, AXIGEN runs on several Linux and BSD distributions, on Solaris, on Windows operating systems, on PowerPC and SPARC architectures and is becoming the messaging solution of choice for a growing number of service providers and enterprises worldwide.
This has nothing to do with patents, but it’s another timely example of Microsoft co-opting rivals.
Ambush/Abuse
The nuisance which is Rambus [1, 2, 3] has been leeching off its competitors using patents that it hid inside standards. The European Commission did strike back with accusations, but over in the United States it has been a subject of active debate. Well, sadly enough, Rambus eventually got its way.
The Supreme Court rejected the US Federal Trade Commission’s request to resurrect antitrust accusations the District of Columbia Circuit tossed out in April. Its latest rebuff effectively kills the regulator’s seven-year saga against Rambus for allegedly monopolizing four key technologies found in DRAM chips.
The FTC accuses Rambus of deceiving the memory standard-setting group JEDEC (Joint Electron Device Engineering Council) by not disclosing its intentions to patent technologies that would become part of the DDR SDRAM specification.
This important development which can serve as precedence is also covered in:
“That’s great news for Microsoft,” writes Jose. They have sneaked patents into formats like OOXML, which they committed many crimes to make standards.
Europe
Philips is one of the most vicious lobbyists for software patents in Europe. It even uses ‘attack dogs’ to do its extortions [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. Well, Digital Majority has just found this text from Philips regarding the Enlarged Board of Appeals referral [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]. It says:
Observations: In view of the above discussion on the statutory background, the examples in Article 52(2) EPC should be understood in the light of the principle that all technical inventions are patent-eligible, while all non-technical subjects are not. So, it is not relevant whether some computer-related wording is used in a claim, as the question that needs to be answered is whether the claim relates to a technical invention. Moreover, it is not that relevant whether a claim in the area of computer programs avoids exclusion under Article 52(2)(c) and (3) EPC by using some smartly chosen wording, as it still needs to be new and involve an inventive step in order to be patentable. As has been aptly mentioned in T 154/04, only technical features can contribute to novelty and inventive step, so that there must be technical features that distinguish the invention from the prior art in a non-obvious way.
Also in Europe — the spats-thirsty lawyers from IPKats are trying to force software patents upon the UK using ZDNet as their platform. Glyn Moody rebuts.
Professionals who work in the field of intellectual monopolies have a problem. Most of them are quite able to see there are serious problems with the system, but since their entire career has been built on it, they can hardly trash the whole thing. Instead, they not unreasonably try to come up with a “reasonable” compromise.
[...]
There are simply *no* good reasons for software patents, and hence no justification for halfway houses, however reasonably framed, and however intelligent and reasonable the framer.
Economics of Software Patents
Another good find from Glyn Moody is this paper which shows that patents decrease innovation and therefore harm consumers.
This work basically shows that recent attempts to introduce intellectual monopolies into science in order to “promote innovation” have actually been counter-productive.
[...]
In this context at least, it’s openness that leads to more innovation, not its polar opposite.
Some people are still trading software patents. This trend leads Mike Masnick to asking some hard questions.
The Chicago Tribune has an article claiming that intellectual property sales are “growing” despite the recession, as companies look to sell off what they’re not using. Except… the article doesn’t present any evidence whatsoever
End Software Patents
There are two strands of news in this area; first is the Free Software Foundation’s support for the second phase of EndSoftwarePatents.org. This attacks the problem at its root.
The Free Software Foundation today announced funding for the End Software Patents project to document the case for ending software patents worldwide. This catalog of studies, economic arguments, and legal analyses will build on the recent success of the “in re Bilski” court ruling, in which End Software Patents (ESP) helped play a key role in narrowing the scope for patenting software ideas in the USA.
This also appears here and Glyn Moody sets his sights (probably hopes) very high:
Here’s to Phase III: victory.
The EFF is doing its own share of activism and reporting, as well. It typically targets one patent at the time as opposed to the system which makes them possible in the first place.
In April 2007, as part of our Patent Busting Project, we asked the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to revisit its decision to grant NeoMedia a patent that broadly claimed to cover database lookups using things like barcodes. In October 2007, the PTO agreed to take another look, and last July, it issued an initial opinion that all 95 claims of the NeoMedia patent were invalid.
The next battleground for Free software is likely to be legal, not just technical. Programmers prefer to focus on technical aspects alone, but ignoring all those ‘peripheral’, man-made aspects does not mean that they will magically disappear. The maximalists always work on new laws to protect their monopolies and banish their competition. █
“Value your freedom or you will lose it, teaches history. “Don’t bother us with politics,” respond those who don’t want to learn.”
–Richard Stallman
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »
