Summary: How a process which produces monopolies or fear is being streamlined to potentially make the effects more severe

THE USPTO, a farce for the masses, has signed a contract to have some software supplied. The goal there seems to be to increase efficiency, i.e. grant even more patents (poor patents) more rapidly. Here’s to monopoly:

Science Applications International Corp. or SAIC (SAI) was granted a prime contract by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office or USPTO to provide software development integration and testing services in support of the USPTO’s Automated Information Systems. The multiple award, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity or IDIQ contract has a one year base period of performance, four one-year options, and a total ceiling value of $525 million for all awardees, if all options are exercised. Work would be performed mainly in the National Capital Region or NCR.

Meanwhile, yet another automation system is presented which claims to be capable of finding FOSS inside a body of code or files, further helping the fear of FOSS along the lines of Black Duck and Protecode. To quote:

SourceSquare is graphically creative with a range of colors highlighting the various files on your system. It generates a direct line notation of where the Open Source files exist, and even more important, how much Open Source is on your system. The treemap visualization allows users to get a more detailed outline of all their files, with and without Open Source coding.

Whether it will be used to help FOSS or harm it remains to be seen, but it is Open Source and uses Java. We saw what OpenLogic was doing about it, usually just scaring users. Companies with Microsoft roots tend to do this. █

SLASHDOT is lending some space to the latest FUD from Black Duck. For the uninitiated, Black Duck came from Microsoft.

The 451 Group seeks to validate the claims from Black Duck, but upon a close look at comments it is possible to see the flaws.

NB: I am relying on the current set of figures published by Black Duck Software for this post, combined with our previous posts on the topic. I am aware that some people are distrustful of Black Duck’s figures given the lack of transparency on the methodology for collecting them. Since I previously went to a lot of effort to analyze data collected and published by FLOSSmole to find that it confirmed the trend suggested by Black Duck’s figures, I am confident that the trends are an accurate reflection of the situation.

There are already rebuttals to this, so we won’t make more. Another similar company that came from Microsoft, called OpenLogic, is spreading some more FOSS FUD to sell its products. Remember that the company is run by a former Microsoft guy. These are the companies that push nonsense like “Intellectual Property” in the FOSS world (like the GPL-hostile CDDL^*), which smells a bit like this thing too:

Today I presented about the complicated relationship between FLOSS and Intellectual Property at the Technical University of Berlin. The presentation was part of a lecture about Intellectual Property management, targeting students in an international master’s program in business administration. This setup guaranteed for a kind of culture clash, since the motivation for students to attend this lecture is to learn about how to increase the value of their companies by building IP assets. Openness, sharing and collaborative development is usually not the focus.

Clarification (5/1/2012): the above turns out to actually be a talk from a FOSS proponent who educates people on the subject. He does not really promote “Intellectual Property” as a concept.

Watch out for another of Microsoft’s proxies for ‘open source’ infiltration. It is “squar[ing] off against the GPL” as one would expect:

I am consistently amazed by the lengths people will go to to try to succeed in the marketplace.

Actually, that’s not true. Having been around fellow humans for 45 years, I would have to say that such destructive behavior doesn’t really surprise me. What does surprise me, though, is the repeated use of the same, tired memes when it’s been proven time and again that they don’t work.

So it was with sad dismay that I read a DotNetNuke blog entry this morning that took unabashed aim at the GNU Public License (GPL) used by DotNetNuke’s (DNN) primary (and more successful) competing content management systems, WordPress, Joomla!, and Drupal.

Microsoft’s front group CodePlex/OuterCurve is accommodated by this company. Surprise, surprise. Loyalty. █
___
^* Quoting Wikipedia, “In the words of Danese Cooper, who is no longer with Sun, one of the reasons for basing the CDDL on the Mozilla license was that the Mozilla license is GPL-incompatible.” Cooper now works for Bill Gates based on her LinkedIn page.

Two friends have a good chat about free software at OSCON.

The CarrierIQ issue, even if it is part of an organized campaign to smear and ruin Android [2], is showing people the dangers of using non free software. Even one piece of non free software can betray users, so mostly free, “pragmatic” systems can be just as bad as regular non free systems. The free software community should capitalize on this awareness to change people’s attitudes towards their devices so that they will reject non free software in the future. Software freedom must be complete for users to have real conrtol and privacy.

Richard Stallman wrote an extensive review of Android back in September. It lists all of the parts of available phones that can be used maliciously against users, which surprisingly include the radio control firmware. The conclusion was unequivocal, “Android is a major step towards an ethical, user-controlled, free-software portable phone, but there is a long way to go. … While any computing system might have bugs, these devices might be bugs.”

When the CarrierIQ scandal broke, Mr. Stallman was not surprised. His comment was,

The root cause of this problem is that the users don’t control the software on these phones. So if they didn’t put in this surveillance package [Carrier IQ], they would put in some other. The users’ only protection against malicious features (surveillance, intentional restrictions, and back doors) is to insist on free software.

Anyone in the Open Source community who’s surprised should think hard about what the Free Software Society has been telling them. About four years ago at a “Web 2.0″ meeting, Eben Moglen urged the Tim O’Reilly and the Open Source community to quit, “wasting time promoting commercial products.” O’Reilly was sad that Moglen did not want to talk about protecting people’s data on other people’s computers in “the cloud,” but CarrierIQ makes it plain that those rights and protections are meaningless if the user is stripped of privacy by malware in their pocket. It might have been useful ten years ago to hide scary talk about freedom from big companies like IBM. It worked, thanks, but talk about “best tool for the job” and “pragmatic” mixes of free and non free software should now be considered counter productive and the results dangerous.

There are community alternatives to carrier issued Android. Stallman mentions Replicant, a 100% free software replacement for Android. There is also a less careful distribution called CyanogenMod that is focused on performance and includes non free software from Google and perhaps device drivers. Jeff Hoogland, the founder of Bodhi GNU/Linux, is working on Debian for cell phones and we can be sure many others are as well. In the mean time, if you must have a smart phone, it might as well be Android because there is no chance a phone from Apple or Microsoft will be liberated, but don’t expect it to be a Freedom Box the community really wants [2 and don't trust it until it's really free.

Sadly, US law is mostly a hindrance. Senator Al Franklin had some very pointed questions about possible violations of law for the company and a lawsuit has been launched against the guilty parties - Apple, HTC, Samsung, Motorola, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Carrier IQ. That's good but it will be difficult to prove what actually happened, and the free software community can do better. Like Vista and Windows 7, CarrierIQ establishes encrypted communications to hide the data transmitted. It would be better to have free software on your cell phone, so the FSF has petitioned the Librarian of Congress for a DMCA Exemption Without that, it may be against US law for people to replace the software on their phones or even to delete CarrierIQ malware.

The lack of freedom in cell phones is not a natural state but is unlikely to end without changes and enforcement of US law. Android has emerged as the top cell phone OS because it is free software and creates a productive commons for the odd hundred companies that must cooperate to make a cell phoneThe obnoxious US patent system has allowed Microsoft and Apple to practice judicial extortion that should have been blocked by US anti-trust and racketeering laws[1, 2,3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. Spectrum licensing itself is a technically obsolete and harmful practice but the FCC could demand adherence to technical standards, demand the publication of technical standards required to operate phones, and forbid practices such as phone locking as the price carriers pay for spectrum as it transitions to open spectrum.

We are in this hole because a long running propaganda campaign by non free software owners has played down ethical issues while convincing people that they are helpless. Billions of dollars in propaganda spending still drown out the basic truth of the situation and non free software use remains prevalent even among people who have every reason to fear spying by the rich and powerful. CarrierIQ gives us a good chance to fix that.

Summary: More propaganda from Microsoft and its lobbyists, as well as rebuttals to that

Microsoft front groups like the BSA are using IDC and other so-called ‘analysts’ to manufacture self-serving propaganda. We gave many examples of this in prior years.

IDG (IDC patent company) helps promote this nonsense under the banner of “reporting” or “news”and the language says it all really. This on example goes like this: “Pirated software saves its users in developing countries more than $2.9 billion annually. So finds a study of manufacturers in Latin America, Central and Eastern Europe and Asia-Pacific commissioned by Microsoft. ”

Yes, paid for by Microsoft. As TechDirt points out, Microsoft shot itself in the foot:

Microsoft ‘Anti-Piracy’ Campaign Explains Why It’s Bad For Businesses To Pay For Microsoft Software

[...]

In the distant past, Microsoft used to be willing to admit that — especially in developing countries — the company was significantly better off due to infringement. Bill Gates famously said: “As long as they’re going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They’ll get sort of addicted, and then we’ll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade.” More recently, of course, Microsoft has been increasingly aggressive when it comes to its anti-piracy campaigns. The company recently did a PR stunt around Global Play Fair Day, in which it released a study, done by Keystone Strategy, which I think is supposed to explain the importance of not infringing. However, the message that it actually seems to be sending is: “paying for Microsoft software is bad for business.”

I’m not joking.

We wrote about the BSA previously, e.g. to explain who was funding SOPA lobbying. The BSA seems to have had unintended effects:

Late last week and over the weekend, supporters of SOPA started pushing a slightly ridiculous idea that a bunch of big tech companies “supported SOPA.” This was based on the fact that the oftentimes extremist organization, the BSA, had come out in favor of SOPA, and a few people chose to believe that meant every member of the BSA — including companies like Apple, Intel and Dell — supported SOPA. The attempt to pretend that Apple must support SOPA was angering a lot of Apple fans, and it appears that something happened behind the scenes.

The BSA has now come out with a blog post “clarifying” its position…

Then again, when they hide behind “BSA”, the paymasters almost manage to hide their participation. █

Summary: A quick status update about FUD firms that piggyback FOSS concerns to sell proprietary software (unsurprising they have their roots in Microsoft)

EVERY now and then, the more notable firms which spread GPL FUD appear in the press again, either with a press release or a placement. Here is the latest example from PR person Kim Weins, who spreads some licence FUD on behalf of her boss from Microsoft, who created and runs this company called OpenLogic, just like Black Duck was created by a Microsoft marketing guy and serves a similar purpose now. We were somewhat baffled to see this announcement which says:

The partnership will help deliver complete code inventory and licensing reports to facilitate the adoption of open source Linux-based systems among automotive OEMs and Tier1 companies.

How is the spreading of GPL FUD with proprietary software and software patents “facilitat[ing] the adoption of open source Linux-based systems”? █

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: The presence of Microsoft-friendly entities in the FLOSS (free/libre open source software) world stressed in the context of a new announcement

THERE are some particular companies and small firms that brush shoulders with those in the FLOSS world. Such firms often have roots in Microsoft and their goals align with Microsoft’s. This should not be surprising. Those who familiarise themselves with antitrust exhibits will soon realise that Microsoft strategises this way. It even uses words like “infiltrate”. Microsoft wants to tame and control its own opposition, e.g. by repelling and ousting elements in it (e.g. FSF) that are risky to Microsoft’s business goals.

Black Duck (see Wiki) is one of the companies that were created by a Microsoft marketing executive to now serve as a de facto authority on the subject of Free/open source software licences. The SFLC has publicly complained about bias in Black Duck and over the years we did a lot to explain what Black Duck is really doing (ignore all the PR which is very well laid out and repeated). Black Duck is a proprietary software company with proprietary software, software patents, Microsoft deals, and FOSS FUD. There is absolutely nothing there which is FOSS, except the data it is digesting to sell proprietary software for Microsoft Windows only. Black Duck is often marketed as “open” something, but it’s just a scam. It’s not open at all, these are just gymnastics in semantics. According to IDG, it wasn’t until now that Black Duck’s Code Sight software even ran on anything other than Microsoft’s own proprietary Windows platform. To quote:

Black Duck Code Sight 2.0, out now, is also the first version of the software to run on Linux servers, in addition to being able to run on Microsoft Windows servers.

Yes, so people can now run proprietary software on a GNU/Linux server for the purpose of scaring themselves because their proprietary software might be misusing Free software. Quite the FOSS advocacy tool, eh?

Black Duck is not alone in this business. One of their rivals, ‘Open’Logic (not open) is run by a guy from Microsoft. This whole monkey business has helped Microsoft validate its FUD against Free software code (while denying FLOSS firms their voice). Apparently it also makes some ‘former’ Microsoft executives rich, all at the same time. What a winning strategy. █

“You want to infiltrate those. Again, there’s two categories. There’s those that are controlled by vendors; like MSJ; we control that. And there’s those that are independent. [...] So that’s how you use journals that we control. The ones that third parties control, like the WinTech Journal, you want to infiltrate.”

–Microsoft's chief evangelist

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: Threats by proximity and dependency, as covered in the news

Patents

Microsoft is attacking its competition with patents while IDG’s Microsoft boosters take a break from openwashing and whitewashing Microsoft, instead raving about the patents Microsoft gets with Skype. They also write about embrace & extend moves that put Microsoft nearer to the core of Linux, as we saw elsewhere recently.

Microsoft Linux

Mac Asay writes about Microsoft’s latest embrace and extend (for more proprietary lockin), which he comments on here (ignore the headline, Asay does not write the headlines). Microsoft exploits hooks even in the kernel, which is not new. We have explained Microsoft’s goals dozens of times before.

Black Duck

When releasing proprietary scareware is “Support[ing] Open Source” (news here too), then we know that Black Duck is lying again. But then again, Black Duck was created by a former marketing exectuive from Microsoft.

We already have a detailed idnex page about Black Duck. It explains what’s wrong with it, unlike newspapers that just repeat the deceitful press releases. █

Summary: The lesser-realised problem with machines that are made to include TiVoization for Microsoft compliance; more “security” FUD from Microsoft

IT has been a while since we last wrote about the UEFI scandal [1, 2]. Nothing has actually been resolved, despite the comforting sense that the authorities have been informed and Microsoft issued a statement (which was no reassurance).

Several years ago we wrote some articles about the impact of Windows Vista on the environment, but it wasn’t until someone from Asia pointed this out that we realised TiVoization seriously impedes reuse:

Consumers Don’t Own Computers “Designed for Windows 8″, and They Go to Landfills Earlier (Side Effects of “Trusted Computing”)

Microsoft Windows 8 alpha is released and downloadable. But no, I am not recommending it. Nor am I denouncing it in favor of GNU/Linux (well, not in this article anyway). What you should be aware of and concerned about as a consumer is those machines labeled as “Designed for Windows 8″. Much more so if you care about the environmental and humanitarian problems caused by e-wastes, for these machines will end up much faster as e-wastes than the ordinary machines manufactured now.

Machines labeled as “Designed for Windows 8″ have to support UEFI. UEFI is said to have many nice features, which I am not knowledgeable about and will not discuss. But I can assure you that one of those features is a downright hoax, scam, and lie. The “secure boot” feature in UEFI is claimed to make your computer more secure by disallowing intrusions from untrusted sources. This and certain other features in UEFI are important elements of Trusted Computing, a mechanism advocated by Microsoft and other big IT companies. The claim is that booting a computer from an untrusted source (such as a tux usb key which has applications in tourism, education, environment preservation, LOHAS, and ethics) is a security threat and should be avoided.

There is just one tiny problem: it’s not you, the consumer, who gets to decide who is to trust. The propaganda claims that the consumers are too dumb (well, ok, actually phrased in a much more polite way) to make their own decisions about whom to trust. (“Microsoft or Chao-Kuei?”) Software booting from an untrusted source may contain rootkit, for example, which would gain absolute control of your computer. The real, unsaid intention, however, is to prevent consumers from using alternative players and readers on alternative operating systems to circumvent the human-right infringing and infamous Digital Rights Management. If the big IT companies let you decide whom to trust, then they cannot trust you as a DRM-abiding consumer. With the secure booting mechanism in UEFI, the IT companies finally can trust that you will not be able to ask your computer to do what is best in your interest, for example exercising your fair use right and other rights requested in the digital consumer bill of right.

This abusive behaviour from Microsoft (and Apple) should not be tolerated silently because it is yet another example of using “security” to pass new and self-serving rules that harm everyone’s freedom. In a similar vein, Microsoft is smearing the free Web browsers/competition, very much as usual (although the competition does not quite do that itself). This latest attack too uses “security” and to quote The Register:

Microsoft has unveiled a website aimed at raising awareness of browser security by comparing the ability of Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, and Google Chrome to withstand attacks from malware, phishing, and other types of threats.

Your Browser Matters gives the latest versions of Firefox and Chrome a paltry 2 and 2.5 points respectively out of a possible score of 4. Visit the site using the IE 9, however, and the browser gets a perfect score. IE 7 gets only 1 point, and IE 6 receives no points at all. The site refused to rate Apple’s Safari browser in tests run by The Register.

We recently saw how Microsoft's friend used "security" to derail Free/open source adoption in Bristol. █

Summary: More Linux patent tax, this time courtesy of a company closely tied to Microsoft (as part of the campaign to generate more FUD, in numeric form)

THE MONOPOLIST from Redmond is part of a chain of companies, some of which are some kind of spinoffs.

Former Microsoft employees tend to use the skills they acquired at Microsoft to further perpetuate the Microsoft mindset (which is why many in the Mono community have Microsoft connections or roots, but that’s a story for another day). Likewise, for example, is part of the Microsoft group. Its managers, the people who came from Microsoft, have been spreading Microsoft APIs for several years now, for a fee.

Likewise is not new to us and we already have a wiki page about it. It is trying to compete with projects like Samba, offering for a fee what people can get for free.

Likewise never hid its Microsoft ties, but the Microsoft boosters promote its latest kissing affair with Microsoft as “Linux patent deal”, which is shameful reporting that helps Microsoft spread FUD. See the following:

Likewise, a software platform provider for identity, security and storage, has signed a licensing agreement with Microsoft, adding Likewise to the list of companies on Microsoft’s Linux patent-protection list.

The licensing agreement with Microsoft will affect Linux and Unix-based Network Attached Storage devices and provide Microsoft Server Message Block protocol support for Windows Server 8.

This is more Microsoft PR and an attempt to scare companies that use Linux. The source of the article was previously funded by Microsoft and the deceiving case of ‘reporting’ this placement of “Linux tax” inside companies is another case of collaborating with market manipulation and extortion. We have seen more of that recently. Journalists like these should be smashed of themselves.

The reality of the matter is that the press should receive a lot of flak for playing along with extortionist companies, which essentially ‘normalises’ this behaviour and makes readers accustomed to it. To give another new example, it is ridiculous headlines like “How I’m protecting my software IP with a patent” that further do damage by calling code “technologies” (illusion of physical existence). It is a very weak piece that neglects to account for copyright as the reasonable option and it makes software patents seem essential for small businesses (this could not be further from the truth). Journalists who are doing this deserve to be criticised because they do a massive disservice to the public. Some of them justify this by painting the articles “interviews” or pointing to FUD-inspiring “press releases” to pass liability. We shall write more about patent lobbying and myths in the next couple of posts. █

Summary: How Microsoft boosters (who routinely liaise with Microsoft) seed the press with FUD, misinformation, euphemisms, and apologism for arguably criminal behaviour

INACCURATE reporting and one-sided scaremongering took over the Web yesterday. Dr. Glyn Moody quotes an article titled “Samsung & Microsoft settle Android licensing dispute” and says: “feeble story: there was no “dispute”, figures are speculation”

Indeed, and those inaccurate stories serve Microsoft a great deal. The purpose of those stories — and to an extent those deals too — is to generate fear and discourage choice of Android by manufacturers. Moreover, Samsung and Microsoft already have a patent deal that indirectly involves Linux. It has been over 4 years since that deal was signed. Moody asks a “quick question: some stories are describing the Samsung/MS patent deal as “settling a dispute”: was there a dispute? I don’t remember one”

As I explained to Moody, the only ‘dispute’ — if any — was over the price that Samsung had already been paying Microsoft for FAT since 2007 (the OIN told us that Linux-related software meant FAT in this case).

“There are no Linux infringements being named”Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, an advocate of GNU/Linux but not a strong resistor of those patent deals, calls this a “patent troll win”, explaining that “Microsoft has just announced its biggest ever Android-related patent deal with Samsung. In this contract, Microsoft will get a royalty payment on every Android smartphone and tablet that Samsung sells. And, what exactly is Samsung paying for and how much are they actually paying? We don’t know.”

Well, not even patents are named, so maybe just ActivSync is (again) at the centre of the so-called ‘dispute’. The OIN explained to me that many or all of those patent deals are about Microsoft compatibility. There are no Linux infringements being named. This helps show just how weak a case Microsoft has against GNU/Linux. But those deals are mostly about FUD and innuendo, resulting in reluctance to make Android phones and also an extra source of revenue for Microsoft (whose mobile platform suddenly seems cheaper). Granted, this is a form of monopoly abuse, but it is largely overlooked by regulators. Microsoft has a way of agreeing with the extorted to pretend not to be a victim, We saw some evidence of that when Barnes & Noble came out with a formal complaint.

What we find just about as despicable as this extortion is the Murdoch rags abusing their ‘press’ status to spread more FUD against Google, quite frankly as usual.

One Microsoft booster is actively playing along with the FUD and spreads some more for Microsoft talking points. It ought to be noted that this booster has always been doing this shameless extortion apologism and support for Smith, riding his coattails since the CNET days. This is not journalism, it’s trash.

“The reality is actually not as bad as Microsoft wishes to paint it.”Other Microsoft boosters are a little more subtle about it. This one Microsoft booster was cited a lot perhaps for getting a headsup from Microsoft’s PR and thus coming with the earlier report. This is Todd Bishop, who helped seed coverage which was not at all critical of Microsoft. They are controlling the message and the public perception using those boosters who they are briefing in advance and sometimes rewarding. We covered such issues before (distortion of the press) and surely will do so again in the future. “Samsung Joins Ranks of Android Vendors Licensing Microsoft Patents” is the headline from Slashdot and it repeats what Microsoft boosters have to say, which is something ‘old Slashdot’ would not have done (the Slashdot that did not do Microsoft PR, before it saw its founder, Rob Malda, quitting). The Slashdot summary too is craftily written to contain a lot of FUD, even pulling more FUD from HTC and using a language that Microsoft loves to use (euphemisms galore). Shame on the press for being Microsoft’s tool. And what a shame for Slashdot, which became noise for nerds instead of News for Nerds.

“Disgusting,” called it one person in USENET, “I just wish somebody would challenge this shit in court so we can all see whether the patents have merit rather than this behind the scenes shakedown.”

The reality is actually not as bad as Microsoft wishes to paint it. Samsung was already paying Microsoft for FAT. Samsung was a pariah going back to 2007 and this whole deal might be just a return of favour to Microsoft (it is said to involve Windows marketing too). If Bishop and Fried actually went to a school of journalism, they should hand their heads in shame. They became propagandists masquarading as journalists.

Speaking of extortion (and sanction) attempts that actually name individual patents, there is more Samsung and Apple action and even a pro-Apple site now says that Samsung is part of the “beast Apple should have never awoken”. To quote:

As you know, the Nokia vs. Apple case over wireless patents ended with a settlement involving a big one-time payment to Nokia and ongoing royalties on a per-device basis. What happens if Apple gets the short end of the stick in HTC and VIA lawsuits? Consequences for the company could be far-reaching and are bound to be costly. It is interesting that Apple kicking those potentially dangerous lawsuits into motion coincides with the appointment of Bruce Sewell as Apple’s senior vice president and legal counsel in September of 2009.

Apple quoted its then CEO Steve Jobs in a statement accompanying the hire. Jobs praised Sewell’s “extensive experience in litigation, securities and intellectual property”. Sewell’s bio page at Apple notes that he “oversees all legal matters, including corporate governance, intellectual property, litigation and securities compliance, as well as government affairs”, which makes him pretty much the mastermind behind Apple’s current legal maneuvering. The problem is, Sewell lost some key lawsuits during his 19-year tenure at Intel.

For example, in May of 2009 the European Union ruled that Intel had engaged in anti-competitive practices and fined the chip maker €1.06 billion, or approximately $1.44 billion. It would be a stretch to claim that Sewell is personally responsible for the legal mess in which Apple has gotten itself into, but there’s no doubt the pressure is on him to deliver. The alternative – should Apple lose those cases – is anyone’s guess. Let’s just say the company might easily regret taking rivals to courts in the first place.

Apple is using patents aggressively, but unlike Microsoft, it does not sign shady deals that should clearly be the subject of criminal investigation. There are laws against racketeering, they just don’t appear to be actively enforced. █

Summary: More of the “Android is proprietary” FUD pattern and where this is coming from

THERE seem to be briefings from Microsoft-friendly, truth-hostile Linux foes. A lot of Google and Android FUD is being coordinated from above and we know this not only because can we see the professional background of those who are seeding anti-Google hatred. Microsoft also got caught (several times) hiring PR agents to bribe reporters in exchange for Google FUD. AstroTurfing groups like LawMedia and Burson-Marsteller were covered here before. There are other groups that must not have been caught red-handed yet.

“People who allege that Android is closed source are either spreading the propaganda or are victims of that propaganda.”So anyway, there is a new smear against Android and it comes from a pro-Microsoft lobbyist (in his temporary anti-Android blog). In turn he is cited by Microsoft’s booster Matt Rosoff (he spreads a lot of Linux FUD these days, having come from Directions on Microsoft), who is parroting such pro-Microsoft lobbyists as a matter of need. This is exactly the pattern we have been seeing over the past year. They keep inventing new FUD (e.g. GPL-flavoured claims of violations), push it hard into the press (even by borderline spamming) and while reasonable people debunk the FUD, the lobbyists already move on to the next piece fo FUD and start hammering on those same journalists whom they previously exploited to plant misdirection and misinformation. After a while they run out of FUD and then recycle the older FUD which is already thoroughly debunked but possibly forgotten. Since Microsoft has its own cheerleaders inside the press (pretending to be journalists and hiding their commercial affiliations), there will always be one or two lackeys who parrot the official Microsoft line (smear), which then leads to more. It’s like spreading a disease. They rely on ‘fanbois’ who carry the FUD onwards because of ideology and lack of critical skills.

This is part of the lethal combination of patent FUD and extortion against Android and Linux. The suggestion (which we prefer not to repeat) can currently be debunked very easily, first by pointing to Google’s git repositories and secondly by showing that one is able to compile android code without any real difficulties. People who allege that Android is closed source are either spreading the propaganda or are victims of that propaganda. █

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: Apple adopts SCO-like tactics against Linux and rebuttals are posted to show Apple’s nerve

NOT so long before Android was born, Rubin had escaped Microsoft's destructive hand (Rubin is like the Torvalds of Android) and Apple is currently trying to spin what Android really is, pretty much in the same way SCO tried to spin what Linux was, claiming fraudulently (without evidence) that Linux had been derived from its (actually Novell’s) UNIX. As a little reminder, the SCO case seems to be just about over:

Legal experts at Groklaw said that, technically, SCO can ask the US Supreme Court to hear a further appeal, but the specialists expect that such a motion would most likely be rejected without a hearing by the US Supreme Court.

Those who keep an eye on an anti-Android lobbyists will notice a new pattern of FUD. Apple is trying to claim that Android started or was conceived at Apple and the best rebuttal we’ve found so far can be found here. It says:

Apple which lost its case against Android in Europe seems to be getting desperate. Anti-Android propaganda machine now wants the press to believe that Android started at Apple. Why? Just because Andy Rubin, Android creator, once worked at Apple.

The claim is laughable as Andy was a low-level engineer at Apple between 1989-1992, with seemingly no access to the core projects. That was the time when Apple did not even have a clear future, let alone having any concept of the iPhone or the iPad.

It’s sounds more ludicrous because even if there is remotest of the remote possibility that Apple was even thinking of any such device in 1989 it would be extremely secretive about it and someone as low as Andy would never have access to it.

Big companies don’t work the way these propagandists want us to think. Do you think ever engineer at Microsoft gets access to the entire code of Windows 7? No. They get to see only one or two unrelated parts of it. It’s like working at Boeing and all you get to see is a nut. You can’t get inspiration of 747 from a nut, or can you?

Just like SCO, Apple is losing to Linux, so we expect to see many lies being spread. We sure need to counter those. Muktware does a decent job. █

Summary: Apple is said to have committed a serious felony by pretending to be police and it is also attacking Linux through the courtroom, much to the chagrin of Microsoft proponents and lobbyists

THE cult which is Apple “will die with steve jobs,” wrote to me someone in Identi.ca two hours ago, after I had posted a link about Apple losing its leadership to Linux (more on that in our daily Links).

The latest disgrace from Apple is this allegation that Apple has again misused police powers that it does not have. To quote:

If accurate, his account raises the possibility that Apple security personnel attempting to recover the prototype falsely represented themselves as police officers — a criminal act punishable by up to a year in jail in the state of California — or that SFPD employees colluding with Apple failed to properly report an extensive search of a person’s home, car, and computer.

A “criminal act”? Don’t worry, cults do that a lot. Ask Scientologists. As TechDirt put it in its headline, “Man Claims Apple Investigators Pretended To Be SF Police In Searching For Lost iPhone Prototype”. Criminal if true, but Apple is never punished for such behaviour, just like it got away with it the previous time (the police typically protects rich corporations from the people, not vice versa). Quoting TechDirt:

Earlier this week, News.com broke a story of yet another Apple employee losing an iPhone prototype in a bar (stop me if you’ve heard this one before…). Unlike the last one, this one (as far as we know) did not get sold to some tech website for a few thousand dollars. However, reports are emerging that raise some serious questions about how Apple went about trying to retrieve the phone.

A man in San Francisco, Sergio Calderon, claims that six people showed up at his door claiming to be San Francisco Police Department officers, and that they had badges. They claimed they were looking for a lost phone, but didn’t say it was a prototype. The original News.com report had said that police together with Apple investigators went to the guy’s house — but the SFPD says they have no record of SFPD being involved in any such action (which it should have if they were involved). The guy whose house was searched says that no one identified themselves as being from Apple. They also threatened him and his family over their immigration status (even though he says they’re all legal). Either way, he was nervous and let them search his house (a mistake) and even check out his computer. They didn’t find anything.

What we cannot help but notice is that many of the pro-Microsoft people have become Apple boosters when it comes to the war on Android. They just cannot stand Linux and Free software, so Apple and Microsoft share common goals. Microsoft’s shameless booster Matt Rosoff continues to promote anti-Linux sides (Rosoff came from a Microsoft consultancy) and the egomaniac pro-Microsoft lobbyist we have all come to know and loathe also quotes Microsoft boosters like Ed Bott in order to make Android/Google/Linux look bad. That one example was just a few hours ago. He does this all day long. They work in unison to daemonise Android and prop up Apple’s case, which by the way has been noticed also by Neil Richards, who writes the column “I Can Sue You, But You Can’t Sue Us: Apple”. To quote:

Apple has sued almost every other company in the mobile industry, in not only US but around the globe. The company also tried to patent a rectangular design claiming monopoly in the tablet segment.

The same company whose ex-CEO quotes “We are shameless about stealing from others.” has sued everyone else over minor similarities in the box of the product, icon design and rectangular shape.

[...]

This is not the first time anti-FOSS bloggers are trying to spin the story. They recently twisted the story of Samsung’s victory in the Dutch court as the victory of Apple diluting the fact that Apple lost its design patents and all other software patents except for one. The court gave Samsung 7 weeks and one day’s time to fix the problem or the injunction will be enforced. Trusted sources like BBC also fell for this trick and covered the defeat of Samsung.

It is interesting to see that such blogger, with no legal expertise, are supporting Apple’s foul cry that Samsung and Motorola are abusing their patents. What they won’t tell us is its Apple which is suing everyone else using software patents.

It’s interesting to see that the same anti-Android lobbyists while support Apple’s ‘right’ to use a broad rectangular design and block everyone else from selling a device, but they criticize competitors when they try to defend themselves using the technologies they actually invented!

We mentioned this yesterday and also this morning. Apple has no shame left. And on the same subject, for those bolstering the anti-Android camp there’s the Oracle case on which Groklaw remarks: “Google’s response is a thorough recitation of the current law of copyright when it comes to analyzing software on the issue of copyright infringement, at least within the 9th Circuit. Google’s strongest arguments are that the JAVA API’s at issue are functional and, thus, not protected by copyright and, to the extent Google has copied anything, the copying has been de minimis, i.e., a few lines of code out of thousands.”

What’s very popular right now among anti-Android lobbyists is to claim copyright-related problems in Android that almost nobody cares about (not even the developers). They try to cause friction and infighting. Some of these people have employment history in Microsoft. We know those tactics. █

Summary: An opinion about misdirected criticism of the Free software community

Last week a poison pen who pretends to be a reasonable journalist claimed there’s an epidemic of burnout in the Free software community and asked developers to achieve balance in the wrong place. He smeared the community and ignored the largest stressor of the Free software community, Microsoft. There is a lot of stress out there right now, but the answer is more cooperation and freedom, not less. People involved with Free software should be proud of the fantastic world they have built and the way their tools and cooperative spirit is catching on in society at large. No one needs to be a hero when we all share and work together and this — rather than burnout — is a hallmark of the Free software world.

The call to surrender dredges up old and discredited community smears. He regurgitates nonsense about hostility towards women and talks about people vomiting from caffeine addiction. Sexual harassment is not acceptable, but it is less prominent in the Free software community than in society at large but is more so where people are trained to think of developers as “one night stands”. Caffeine addiction and dietary abuse should not be a problem at volunteer organizations but are stereotypical of cubicle life. The charges are a projection of the worst practices of non-Free software companies and the author has a history of doing this to Groklaw, the Free Software Foundation, Boycott Novell and others. What’s not brought up probably as important than what he does talk about.

Microsoft’s constant attacks on the community through infiltration, impersonation, direct trolling, media manipulation, technical sabotage and legal attack are great burdens that deserve mention in any article about free software frustration. Boycott Novell has both experienced and covered these issues in the past. People like Bruce Perens had a dozen Slashdot impersonation accounts, and HP offered him similar PR services when he worked for them. Every Free software community has put up with endless trolling. Anyone who thinks trolling is just coincidental or part of human nature that randomly focuses on Free software has not read and understood Microsoft’s training material which details and advocates “subverting” and shutting down “enemy” channels of communication. Face it, most internet trolls hardly know about Free software projects and are not inclined to waste years harassing yours. If you think Microsoft’s legal assault on Free software started with Android, you should check out my short history of their software patent extortion, which tells the story in their own words. Microsoft’s ongoing technical sabotage of Free software includes creating complex and poorly performing hardware hardware standards like ACPI and the usual boot loader tricks [2, 3]. Those companies that overcome all of those barriers face retail sabotage that includes spying, intimidation and bribes. All of these attacks make it difficult to make a living with software of any sort but are especially aimed at free software users and developers.

Microsoft’s war against software freedom is part of the rich and powerful’s attack on all of our freedoms. At least one person has astutely pointed out that concentration of wealth has created an inefficient command economy. Inefficiency, paradoxically works in their favor. They can only recruit their armies of airport gropers, phone tappers and other flunkies in an atmosphere of paranoid deprivation. Those who have wealth and power are punishing the rest of us to maintain their relative position as their usual means of control falter. Sadly, as we know from the HB Gary scandal, Microsoft’s form of information warfare has gone mainstream and is being used by major banks and other big dumb companies owned by the same set of sociopaths. They would have us divided and helpless and hate the community ethos and effectiveness of free software.

The answer is not to step away from important free software work, it’s to take back your life. Free software is something people want to do. Sixty hour work weeks for progressively less money are not something people want to pull. We will need the cooperation of our neighbors to successfully demand social justice. Free software builds up a civic spirit that is useful in solving problems that are more responsible for people’s frustrations and burn out than anything unique to coding. Sharing is good and people who share trust each other more. Free software also bring essential tools for publication and private communication that our neighbors need. █

Summary: Diplomats parrots Microsoft claims and biased ‘studies’ about “shareware” like Linux and why it is bad

IN the previous post we showed more of what Microsoft was doing in Vietnam, by proxy. In the following Cablegate cable we receive confirmation of what we knew Microsoft was doing behind closed doors all around Asia, especially whenever a government made the decision to move to GNU/Linux (famously in Thailand)

We are highlighting bits of interest in the diplomatic cable (for those who are not aware, the Business Software Alliance is a Microsoft front group):

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 HO CHI MINH CITY 000367 

SIPDIS 

SENSITIVE 

State for EAP/BCLTV
State pass to USTR Elena Bryan
USDOC for 6500 and 4431/MAC/AP/OPB/VLC/HPPHO 

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: VM, KIPR, ECON, ETRD
SUBJECT: IN VIETNAM, THE GOVERNMENT IS MICROSOFT\'S FIRST TARGET 

Summary
-------
1.  (U) With a software piracy rate estimated at 95 percent by the
Business Software Alliance, there is no shortage of targets in
Vietnam for IPR protection efforts.  Microsoft executives tell
ConGen that it will focus on getting the GVN and multi-national
corporations to use licensed software.  Microsoft is worried about 
the interest in Linux-based systems, fearing that because it is 
more difficult to use, offices that officially switch to Linux 
will soon unofficially switch back to pirated Microsoft software. 

Target the Big Targets
----------------------
2.  (U) At a recent meeting with Econoff and Econ FSN, Microsoft\'s
Director for Business Development Asia-Pacific Emerging Markets
Mr. Faycal Bouchlaghem and Vietnam Country Director Mr. Ngo Phuc
Cuong described the situation in Vietnam from their company\'s
perspective.  Despite the prevalence of vendors selling pirated
copies of Windows and other MS software from countless shops,
Microsoft has decided to focus first on getting the GVN and second
on multinational firms operating in Vietnam to use licensed
Microsoft software.  Their target is to switch the GVN over
completely to licensed product over the next five years.
Microsoft told Econoff that, like the rest of the market, the GVN
currently uses very little licensed software and that many
multinational firms that are law abiding elsewhere start using
pirated software after a few months in Vietnam. 

Windows Costs Money
-------------------
3.  (U) Microsoft describes two main difficulties in moving the
GVN from pirated to licensed software.   First is Microsoft\'s lack
of pricing flexibility.  MS claims that they are constrained from
offering deeply discounted pricing for the Vietnam or any other
market by a `Consent Decree\' agreement with U.S. Department of
Justice.  They say that the decree would allow MS to develop and
sell a new Vietnamese Windows product, and if it was substantially
different from the existing versions, they could sell this special
version for any price they chose.  Microsoft\'s representatives
said that this was not viable, however, since the Vietnamese
market would not offer enough of a return on the investment needed
to develop such products.  They said that the company can,
however, discount software to existing customers.  But these
customers will still have to pay for it. 

Linux is Cheaper
--------------------
4.  (U) The promise (false according to MS) of cheap or even free 
Linux-based software is another issue.  MS outlined several
reasons why, in their admittedly biased view, Windows was a better
choice.  First, the average user is used to Windows-based point
and click software and retraining them to another system will be
difficult.  Second, Linux systems require more technical expertise
on the part of the end user than do Windows systems.  Finally,
there would be a massive compatibility problem -- most of the
world uses Windows, and the GVN could find themselves in a
position where it might be difficult to communicate and share data
between their Linux systems and everyone else\'s MS systems, not to
mention the relative shortage of third-party software that runs on
anything other than Windows. 

Copying Thailand
----------------
5.  (U) Microsoft claims that these factors will inevitably lead
to one outcome.  They contend, based on their own analysis using a 
post-purchase survey of commercial Linux users in Thailand, that 
within a few months of a shift to Linux, almost every GVN computer 
will also be running pirated Windows software.  They claim using
Linux will be a hassle no one will put up with for very long.  In
the Thai survey cited by MS over 70 percent of consumers that
acquired Linux operating systems were back to using illegal
Windows software within a few months. 

Other Efforts
-------------
6.  (U) Though the GVN and multinationals remain the focus, MS
also works with the Economic Police by offering them training on
how to detect pirated products in the retail market. Microsoft
agreed to let Econ FSNs attend the next training session.  This
opportunity should allow ConGen to expand its contacts within the
Economic Police and help us better target our assistance on IPR
issues. 

7.  (SBU) The firm is still trying to figure out the best way to
work with local law enforcement.  Like many observers Microsoft
has been critical of the GVN\'s effort to protect IPR and was
surprised in a recent meeting when the Economic Police asked MS to
\"identify targets\" for enforcement raids.  Microsoft elected not
to give any names.  They explained that they do not want to set a
precedent by doing the government\'s job when it does not take much
detective work to find an IPR violator.  Nor do they wish to have
MS linked to police action in the minds of consumers.  They do not
want Vietnamese to think police raids and fines when they think
Microsoft.  Microsoft\'s country director told Econoff that a few
high-profile raids against small shopkeepers would not/not help
Microsoft\'s long term business plan in Vietnam. 

8.  (U) Though wary of the stick, MS has been trying to use the
carrot to change behavior.  The company\'s Vietnam offices recently
began the \"Clean Shop Program.\"  This program asks retailers of
software and assemblers of PCs to sign a pledge to provide
customers with only licensed software.  In return, program members
are rewarded with points for every licensed copy sold.   Points
can be redeemed for merchandise in a system not much different
from a frequent flyer or shopper program.  Thus far, the \"Clean
Shop Program\" has had limited success.  In an investigation of
program members, MS found that over 30 percent of the shops and
factories -- all of whom volunteered for the program -- were still
distributing unlicensed software. 

9.  (SBU) Microsoft\'s efforts to influence the local IPR situation 
extend beyond enforcement and rewards programs.   On March 16,
2004 the software manufacturer signed a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with the Information Technology Project
Management Office (ITPMO) of the Ho Chi Minh City People\'s
Committee.  This MOU, five pages in length, was drafted to ensure,
\"mutual business cooperation,\" and, \"establish a formal basis for
cooperation in the area of Information and Communication
Technology.\"  Under the terms of the MOU, Microsoft will,
\"contribute to the social and economic development of Ho Chi Minh
City by developing the local IT ecosystem by building skills
through IT training for ICT companies, students, teachers and
government ICT professional employees based on common projects, so
as to help create employment opportunities in HCMC.\"  Microsoft
also agrees to help develop HCMC\'s e-government projects and work
with the city government to agree on software licensing terms
under the Microsoft Volume Licensing Program.  Finally, Microsoft
will set up courses to teach educators and students about ICT, as
well as seminars, \"as appropriate for the target audience,\" on the
value of IPR protection and enforcement.  In return, the HCMC
People\'s Committee, through the ITPMO, agrees to \"co-operate with
Microsoft in order to ensure that the Ho Chi Minh City People\'s
Committee\'s government institutions lead by example in using only
licensed software and adopt the best practices for IPR protection
and for the enforcement of IPR protection through the relevant
Government Institutions.\" (NOTE: Full text of MOU to follow by
SEPTEL) 

Comment
------- 

10.  (SBU) While the MOU is certainly a positive development, in
that it increases dialogue and highlights the importance foreign
companies place on IPR matters, it is an agreement without teeth.
The MOU does not give either side legal leverage, nor are the
stated goals and responsibilities binding.  Life can go on as
usual.  If either party finds that an obligation must go
unfulfilled for reasons beyond their \"reasonable\" control, they
are automatically relieved of the obligation as long as they
inform the other signatory in writing.  The MOU is a nice vision
of the future, but it lacks an actionable plan. 

11.  (SBU) For now it appears that the world\'s software giant is 
more worried about competition from \"shareware\" than it is about 
pirates.  Microsoft\'s arguments that Linux may not be a good fit
for Vietnam clearly stem from self-interest, but they have a
point.  In a country where government offices are filled with
computers running pirated software, it seems unlikely that a
lasting improvement will take root if the new system is any more
difficult to use than the familiar, albeit illegal, alternative.
And it will be hard to take real enforcement actions in the South,
when the government itself is one of the biggest violators.
YAMAUCHI 

Linux is actually not “shareware”, it is Free/libre software.

This cable was labelled “IN VIETNAM, THE GOVERNMENT IS MICROSOFT’S FIRST TARGET” and it is easy to see why. There is also Linux FUD there, coming from the mouths of diplomats whose wages are paid by taxpayers. Who are those people really serving, people or corporations? █

“It’s easier for our software to compete with Linux when there’s piracy than when there’s not.”

–Bill Gates

Summary: “I’ve worked with Microsoft on these kinds of matters,” writes Ben Edelman, whose poison pen has one main target: Google

IT IS NOT just a theory that Microsoft hires AstroTurf professionals to attack Google. It is a well-confirmed truth and while more evidence remains to be found about the Edelman-conncted Consumer Watchdog, we already know about LawMedia Group and Burson-Marsteller [1, 2, 3]. It has been proven many times before that Microsoft pays for people to smear Google and give the company antitrust trouble. See the older post “Attempt to Involve Me in Anti-Google ‘Astroturf Lies’ PR Campaign”, it is not an isolated incident. So when Ben Edelman started attacking Google we wrote about it [EN | ES]; as we know from experience/history that companies or individuals attacking Microsoft rivals is often a sign that they are in Microsoft’s pocket.

Well, based on the finding of our editorial team (from last night), Ben Edelman has just admitted being on Microsoft’s payroll. He wrote:

Much of my work for Microsoft does indeed speak to advertising fraud. Microsoft must make sure Bing doesn’t show ads for scams, that fraudsters don’t use the Microsoft DRIVEpm ad network, that Windows Defender properly detects spyware/adware, etc. I’ve worked with Microsoft on these kinds of matters.

The headline he chose says “DOJ pharmacy investigation undermines Google credibility”; well, guess who else has just lost credibility? A self-potraying “academic” who works for Microsoft and attacks Google in the press. The best AstroTurf money can buy, eh? Over the years we have covered many examples where Microsoft hired acaemics to compose a bunch of spin, lies, and ammunition for lobbying. The Gates Foundation does the same thing. █

Summary: The mobbyists (mob-like lobbyists) are shedding uncertainty and doubt over Android using new talking points that ought to be ignored

Dana Blankenhorn is once again quoting the mobbyist, Florian Müller, who is looking to exploit lazy journalists who do no double-check the facts or apply critical analysis. Just because someone claims something does not necessarily make it true. “Oracle could not only claim copyright over the mySQL database,” writes Blankenhorn, “but over the interfaces that connect it to other programs, and the names of the routines within the program.”

No, this is not true. This is more spare-able nonsense from the mobbyist, who would rather confuse the danger of patents blocking APIs with copyrights. The switch-and-bait with copyrights and patents is deliberate and it has helped draw in some more people who fail to see that Müller is merely a lobbyist (as covered in last night's TechBytes show, it’s his business model) and they parrot what he tells them. To whit:

If Google’s motion for summary judgment were granted, it would blow a pretty big hole in Oracle’s case. If APIs were found to be non-copyrighted, then Oracle could hardly claim Google caused a problem by using the Java APIs.

But Oracle’s response to the August 1 motion is to challenge the entire premise of API copyrights (or lack thereof). In a motion filed over the weekend, Oracle’s motion of opposition argues that APIs do indeed fall under copyright.

If Oracle’s motion is upheld, then this would have enormous consequences for the software industry in the US, which–like other nations–has traditionally held that APIs are not enforceable by copyright.

To examine the impact, here’s the beginner’s guide to APIs. APIs are the aspect of a computer program that enable programmers to “plug in” to that program. They are what enable applications to communicate with each other. Historically, APIs have been regarded as not falling under copyright–the reasoning being that APIs are not creative implementations but rather statements of fact. “To access library A, use this command.”

Right. So why give the FUD any credibility at all?

For those who are looking for news which has not been distorted by Microsoft’s cartel and its lobbyists, go to Groklaw which currently tells us of “Potentially Important Victories for Google” in this case. From the latest post of Professor Webbink:

In a flurry of filing activity in the Oracle v. Google case this past week, a couple of rulings by the court stand out. First, Google has won the right 325 [PDF] to file a motion for summary judgment on the Oracle affirmative defense of “assignor estoppel.” Second, Google has won the right 328 [PDF] to file a motion for summary judgment on the issue of infringement outside the U.S. under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f). This last one is really important for reasons we will explain.

Most of the rest of the filing and entry activity (there were 40 separate filings or entries from Tuesday through Friday) related to the on-going discovery disputes, including the dispute over the Lindholm emails. In regard to the Lindholm emails, in the latest round Google argues that the declaration filed by Fred Norton in support of Oracle’s position was improper because it was not limited to factual information, as directed by the court, but included legal arguments. Oracle says that is not true. So much of this argument has now digressed into “he said; she said”. We are inclined to wait for the court to rule before spending more time analyzing this particular dispute.

The situation for Android is not as grim as Microsoft and its minions wish manufacturers to believe. It’s just a reality distortion field. Android keeps expanding despite the FUD. █