Summary: Another look at the OpenStack situation, why Microsoft should not be allowed to enter, and more about patent and copyright complications

SOME days ago we wrote about OpenStack's situation when it comes to Microsoft. Later we showed what Microsoft boosters were doing to spin it as good news. Well, according to this new article:

OpenStack is supposed to be a vendor agnostic open community for building an open source cloud stack. And it is, unless you don’t pull your own weight- or if you’re Microsoft.

I know there is plenty of vitriol in the open source world towards Microsoft and certainly some of that has now surfaced in the OpenStack community.

OpenStack is now removing the Hyper-V capabilities from its stack, after Microsoft didn’t maintain the code. That happens in projects all the time, just think about the Linux kernel where Microsoft has had similar challenges and hey for that matter so has Google.

The hostility towards Microsoft has a lot to do with this monopolist’s continued attacks on Open Source projects. We need not whitewash Microsoft here or claim the above to be an irrational move of irrational hatred. Never mind the fact that Hyper-V is proprietary and not open. Microsoft continues to attack Linux with all sorts of proxies like SCO as well as patent trolls. There are those who wish to just abolish it all, especially patents. Realising the idiocy of many patents, there are some who speak about the harms of patents as a whole, not just software patents. To quote:

“Is this Patent full of crap?”

[...]

The ideas are those of patent lawyer Andrew Schulman, but the story is full of insight on a patent lawyer’s thinking and offers real clues into why the patent system is such a mess–complexity compounded, full of precedents that ordinary humans will find puzzling at best.

Earlier we wrote about many patents becoming just junk. Even Oracle seems to be moving further away from patents and is now trying to use copyrights against Android. Quoting Groklaw:

Today is the due date for Dr. Cockburn’s third attempt at a damages report on behalf of Oracle, and just to make sure Oracle knows what needs to be submitted, Judge Alsup has issue a reminder order. (709 [PDF; Text]) The judge wants to see not only the report but also all of the related reports and studies that support it.

Let’s remember that Microsoft has put code with its copyrights inside Linux and the same goes for Mono. They try to make those things more adaptable to Microsoft’s proprietary software. In the case of Mono, there is lawsuit risk too. Anything with Microsoft in it tends to be tainted. Just see what happened with FAT. █

Summary: Key people continue to leave SUSE and the distribution is left without a compelling sales pitch

THE brain drain at SUSE continues as many of the familiar names, not just Greg K-H, are leaving the Microsoft-funded SUSE. It’s funny that some of them will be serving SUSE’s competition, e.g. by maintaining a kernel from RHEL for 10 years.

None of this exodus should be surprising to people who have followed SUSE in recent years (as we have). The project lost momentum, it has become quiet, and Attachmate seems reluctant to invest much in it (more on Attachmate’s financial problems later). One of the executives of SUSE moves on to join other former SUSE executives:

ownCloud Inc., the commercial entity behind the popular open source file sync and share project, announced today that former SUSE executive and ownCloud co-founder Holger Dyroff, has joined the company as vice president, sales and marketing.

There are other SUSE people in there, as we showed in the past. And to quote a very recent article from CMS Wire:

ownCloud was formally founded last year, and in December the project announced that former SUSE and Novell executive, Markus Rex, would be joining the company as CEO and CTO.

Basically, SUSE has lost a lot of its leadership. Those who deny this would struggle to put together a counter-argument. Here at Techrights we faced the facts when Microsoft and Novell lied to the world about their patent deal and we still adhere to realism in this age of excessive PR and spin.

As Sean Michael Kerner put it the other day, one of the people behind OpenSUSE “Gives SUSE the Boot” and:

The move means that he’s leaving SUSE – that’s right kaput, no more SUSE for him.

He is one of the key people behind OpenSUSE’s formation, so all that’s left of the project is some tiny community and under-funded SUSE (partly funded by Microsoft). Here is an example of volunteer work:

I’ve been playing around a bit with SUSE Studio and I’ve created ‘moniz’, a openSUSE 12.1 based image with Cinnamon as default Desktop Environment. Currently it’s in a very Alpha state and it’s mainly the result of a series of tests to the functionality of SUSE Studio. I’m going to work more on this but locally using Kiwi.

OpenSUSE hopes to emulate the success of a two-men project, Linux Mint (maybe more than two people in practice). This is a sad testament to the weakness of OpenSUSE/SUSE, which was a leading distribution because Novell signed that treasonous deal with Microsoft. Not so long ago OpenSUSE suffered repeated downtimes and now it is getting new certificates, presumably for unrelated reasons.

“SUSE has become a mess that GNU/Linux does not need.”The other day we found in YouTube this new video which says: “Not all Open Source Software is free, and not all free software is open source. Open Sourcing Software can be done not just for community, but for security or integration. A sure way to make your software well documented is to provide the source code so that those integrating with your system can see the limitations in the code itself. SUSE Linux from Novell is one such product.”

Like we said before, SUSE is weird when it comes to access to code. Novell hides it or makes it hard to access. If one wants to fork “Microsoft Linux”, e.g. to make a taxless SUSE, there are technical barriers to it, imposed by Novell for years.

SUSE has become a mess that GNU/Linux does not need. Its main purpose now it to replace RHEL with Microsoft tax and more Microsoft APIs. █

Summary: A few updates of greater importance where the Linux situation is discussed in the context of Android and Novell

THE patent assault on Android is one that we cover here several times per week because Android is perhaps the best example of Linux in the mainstream (criticisms aside) and it helps show the lengths to which Microsoft and Apple would go to derail Linux, even with software patents as we predicted for more than half a decade.

Professor Webbink from Groklaw is perhaps the best source of news about the Oracle vs. Google case, which he claims to be moving along as follows:

Just because the Oracle v. Google case has not been set for trial (and won’t be until at least the time at which Oracle provides its third attempt at a damages report) does not mean the court can’t move the case along, and that is what Judge Alsup has done with his latest order. In an attempt to narrow the issues to be argued at trial, Judge Alsup’s latest order (708 [PDF; Text]) focuses on the copyright issues and directs the parties to provide opening briefs in which they identify each remaining claim of copyright liability and the affirmative defenses to each such claim. In addition, the parties are to identify those issues that should be resolved by the court and those underlying facts that first need to be decided by the jury.

Groklaw continues to face a barrage of FUD from Microsoft boosters who continue to spin/modify the news (in this case about OpenStack wanting to toss Microsoft out) and Microsoft lobbyists who are distorting the story about the ITC and then seeding disinformation in the corporate press along with pro-Microsoft blogs. Pamela Jones from Groklaw debunks the nonsense and explains:

I’m seeing a couple of articles about an initial determination by the ITC against Barnes & Noble on its patent misuse defense, and there’s quite a lot of spin on the ball, thanks to the usual suspects. They are reading a lot into a title of a sealed document. I see many misstatements.

So I’ll explain a little about the process, so you can understand it. For one thing, the title of the sealed ITC initial determination is called an *initial* determination for a reason. It means it isn’t final. The final one comes later. Initial determinations can be reviewed by the full ITC if the defendant petitions for review and even one Commissioner says yes.

Litigation isn’t like football. It is rarely suddenly over.

Most importantly, the materials and depositions Barnes & Noble is seeking in discovery from Nokia and MOSAID have not yet arrived, although the ITC did grant Barnes & Noble’s motion to ask Finland and Canada to provide them, and that’s still ongoing, so there is likely more to go, even at the ITC. So with those materials not yet in hand, Microsoft’s statement today that this means the defense is meritless is… well… to put it kindly premature. I mean, if a determination is made without the complete record being available, what does it mean?

The case is important because it’s about Microsoft’s patent abuses against Android, as well as some of the patent trolls Microsoft is using. Last year we wrote a great deal about Novell’s patents, which went to CPTN, i.e. to Microsoft, Apple, Oracle, and EMC (3 of these are Android foes). Here is a new article about the Department of Justice. Part of it says:

Another example of international cooperation was the Antitrust Division’s close cooperation “with the German Federal Cartel Office on the acquisition of certain patents and patent applications from Novell Inc. by CPTN Holdings (a holding company owned by Microsoft Inc., Oracle Corp., Apple Inc. and EMC Corp.). This was the first merger enforcement cooperation the Division had had with Germany in 20 years.”

Novell became just a pile of patents, which gave Microsoft ammunition with which to threaten UNIX/Linux. The authorities needed to step in after the OSI and FSF had filed a formal complaint. Here is the story of another company which rapidly becomes just a pile of patents. It says: “Remember, back in August, shortly after Google’s purchase of Motorola, Kodak looked like the next company in line for an IP-driven payday. Analysts looking at the high valuations of the Novell, Nortel and Motorola portfolios estimated Kodak had $3 billion in IP assets alone: with a market capitalization of just $700 million, it seemed like easy money. Kodak’s stock rose accordingly in anticipation of a white knight around the corner.”

This is of course not innovation. It’s a case of virtual “goods” being used to make lawyers richer and interfere with fair competition.

Novell, by the way, has just been assigned another patent, according to this roundup from January 22^nd. Any new patents in Novell’s hands might eventually be passed to Linux foes, not the OIN. █

Summary: Response to reputation laundering from Wired Magazine, the latest nonsense from Microsoft’s lobbyist Florian Müller, an update on Microsoft’s trolling against Android, and a little more of Apple’s

WE are quite cynical about the corporate press. It has become abundantly clear that journalism is dying and instead it gets accommodated/replaced by the PR industry, working at the behest of rich people with an agenda and a nickel for any press still willing to bend over (independent press is likely to perish in the process). Like a husband who tells the policeman or the judge that he deeply loves the woman whom he beats up daily, Bill Gates/Gates Foundation would love for us to believe that he is a master of Open Source. Yes, and Cade Metz trying to portray these racketeers as friends of Open Source (whitewashing Gates at the same time). Why would anyone with integrity do reputation laundering for a criminal and his company that commits acts of extortion? Even Gutierrez gets characterised positively:

But that afternoon was different. At the invitation of the company’s chief legal minds — Smith and Gutierrez — Ramji sat down with Gates, chief software architect Ray Ozzie, and a few others to discuss whether Microsoft could actually start using open source software. Ramji and Ozzie were on one side of the argument, insisting that Microsoft embrace open source, and Gutierrez offered a legal framework that could make that possible. But other top executives strongly challenged the idea.

Then Bill Gates stood up.

No, Bill Gates has been attacking Open Source for a very long time. Remember that Letter to Hobbyists? And all those court exhibits we showed? We oughn’t allow history to be rewritten like this. Over at Free Software Daily, the modified headline of this article states “Meet Mobster Bill Gates, the Man Who Charges Open Source Software even if is free Android Linux” (the original is troll article that attracted many comments, for being more inflammatory than sane).

Microsoft is currently feeding patent trolls in order to attack Linux. Microsoft does not have enough ammunition to attack Linux, so it uses help from the outside.

Pamela Jones, over at Groklaw, writes more about the case that seeks to expose MOSAID, a patent troll that Microsoft is feeding. To quote part of the analysis:

B&N and Microsoft have come to an agreement about Steve Ballmer’s participation in the Microsoft v. Barnes & Noble action at the ITC. They were arguing about it, and they’ve now agreed that Ballmer will not have to testify live at the ITC hearing, currently scheduled for February. Instead, B&N will present designated portions of his deposition, and Microsoft’s lawyers have sent a letter [PDF] to the ITC stating officially that it withdraws its motion for a protective order, attaching to the letter a proposed schedule on the parties’ next steps in figuring out exactly what each side wants in the way of details. This means there will be no further motion practice on the live testimony issue.

[...]

Microsoft is also opposing Barnes & Noble’s request that the record be held open to include Nokia and MOSAID’s evidence, if Barnes & Noble is finally able to get it. And they parties continue to try to whittle into shape what each may use as evidence.

Lots of sealed filings, once again. But don’t worry. By hook or by crook, we usually find out in due time what the filings were about.

I had a chance to talk to Andy Updegrove, of Standards Blog, who as you probably know is a lawyer who does patent work in the standards area. I wanted to pick his brain, because the 2000 patents Nokia sold to MOSAID relate to standards, according to their statements. Just how many patents could possibly be required for a phone to be built? Surely not 1,200 out of the 2,000, I was thinking. Yet, that is the claim.

[...]

He suggested that we read some Department of Justice ‘business review letters’ on patent pools, because a patent pool is an example of multiple patent owners getting together to agree on a price for technology required to implement a standard. That’s not exactly what Microsoft, Nokia and MOSAID say they are doing, but we’re getting warm. You get to read in the letters the way the pool participants set the pool up, what safeguards they took (in the request letter), and the way the DoJ analyzed the request and either approved, qualified, or rejected the request. The controls traditionally include hiring a third party expert to review each supposedly essential claim and determine whether it’s valid, whether it’s essential, and what it’s worth relative to the other essential claims. So he thought we might find it interesting to look at what a legal pool looks like, and then we can contrast that to the actual conduct that is being alleged here.

This case has not been decided yet, but it does help shed a lot of light on Microsoft’s racketeering.

The known Microsoft boosters and even lobbyists (whom they cite) try to make us believe that it’s all over and Microsoft is innocent. Some people fall for it. They also push this tripe into Slashdot with all the bias and misdirection. As Homer put it in USENET, we should just ignore the Microsoft lobbyist. To quote: “Note this is only the conclusion drawn by Microsoft’s pet shill, Florian Müller (who’s now openly on Microsoft’s payroll), and he drew this stunning conclusion from just the /title/ of a docket he doesn’t even have access to, because it’s still under seal.

“It’s also, as the title suggests, just an “Initial Determination”, and may yet be disputed by the DOJ – a fact Müller chose to ignore. He also chose to ignore several of B&N’s valid complaints that might yet cause
the DOJ to overturn this conclusion, even if it turns out to be true and “final”, such as Microsoft deliberately withholding prior art in its various patent applications, and using NDAs to cover up extortion, under
the pretext of “secrets” that are in fact a matter of public record (as all patents are required to be by law). But instead he portrayed B&N’s complaint as futile, because:

“For example, Barnes & Noble claimed that Microsoft asked for excessively high patent license fees, but the OUII quoted passages from U.S. law (statutory as well as case law) that clearly said that patent law doesn’t require a patent holder to grant a license on any terms.”

“Then he completely ignores all the other key points (above). This seems to be the entire basis for his pessimism (or I should say “optimism”, since it’s clear whose side he’s on).”

Microsoft is feeding lobbyists and trolls and it’s easy to see this. Apple is said to have been sued by trolls again, but since Apple itself acts like a patent troll we have no sympathy for it. To quote:

A patent troll is going after Apple for patent infringement of an “electronic alignment system”.

Apple’s spiritual leader’s friend, Larry Ellison, is still attacking Android with patents that he got from Sun. Google gets another opportunity.

Mr. Pogson summarises: “Google argues that Oracle’s experts are not expert as they had no intimate knowledge during deposition.”

Basically, it seems like Oracle’s patent case against Android will be coming to an end. Maybe a copyright allegation alone will be left, so think along the lines of SCO.

OIN is meanwhile growing strong:

OIN today announced a remarkable increase in the size of its community of licensees during 2011 as licensees seized the opportunity to benefit from the value of the growing OIN community and the freedom of action enabled by OIN’s royalty free licensing program. During 2011, OIN’s community grew to over 400 corporate licensees, a more than 60% year over year increase. OIN licensees, which include founding members and associate members, benefit from the leverage provided by a patent portfolio dedicated to the protection of Linux and access to enabling technologies through OIN and shared intellectual property resources.

What’s baffling is that Oracle is in the OIN. It never ought to have attacked in the first place, but maybe it was a favour to the thermonuclear CEO, Larry Ellison’s “best friend” (by his own words). It is not a far fetched hypothesis. █

Summary: The Microsoft-funded SUSE will no longer pay Greg K-H’s wage, the Linux Foundation will

THE BEST known SUSE developer is arguably Greg Kroah-Hartman. He is dissociating himself from Novell/Attachmate/SUSE starting just about now. He won’t be indirectly funded by Microsoft anymore.

What exactly is happening then?

Instead, he will be funded by Linux backers like IBM and Red Hat. To quote a Microsoft booster:

Greg Kroah-Hartman, maintainer of the Linux kernel’s stable branch and the Linux driver project, is leaving his position with SUSE to join the Linux Foundation in a full-time fellowship role. Kroah-Hartman will now have more time to oversee kernel development and work with the Linux community, while leaving aside the responsibility of working for a vendor. (The SUSE Linux project was owned by Novell, and now Attachmate.)

“There were no direct conflicts working for SUSE, as the people there understand how important the individual developer, and their voice, is in the Linux community,” Kroah-Hartman told Ars this week in an e-mail interview. “But, working in a vendor-neutral environment like the Linux Foundation allows me to spend a larger amount of time interacting with other companies and vendors, as well as helping Linux out in environments that were not necessarily the focus of my previous employer.”

He was one of the main people behind OpenSUSE’s creation. This distribution lost its way. All they have to talk about now is wallpapers:

On a related note, Silva also divulged the wallpaper for openSUSE 12.2. Very much in character of most openSUSE default backgrounds, it’s an attractive, tasteful, and professional choice. Marcus Moeller’s “”Lightray” earned the honor by receiving the most votes in a recent opinion poll.

When OpenSUSE runs polls there are hardly any participants. SUSE will most likely be forgotten in several years. Many of its key developers have already moved on (we covered the departures of selected few). Now they lose the association with Greg Kroah-Hartman — one that they used to take pride in. █

Summary: Another quick look at the patent play against Android/Linux and who is behind it

Regarding a story that was mentioned here before (because Microsoft lobbyists were trying to spin it ) Muktware states that it should really be blamed on Apple’s own aggression, not on Google or Android:

Apple has created a hostile environment in the mobile world by dragging almost every Android player to the court. We are noticing that Apple has started to lose legal battles in the courts, which is a good sign for the growth of the industry. Apple has used every kind of patents they can, even the rectangular design of a tablet, to exhaust their competitors and monopolize the market. Now, the tables have turned, Motorola, the inventor of cell phones has sued Apple, seeking an injunction against the iPhone4S and the iCloud.

This is a deterrent against Apple’s attacks. Nokia, having signed a deal with Apple and Microsoft, proceeds to feeding patent trolls as we covered last week:

Nokia sells more than 450 patents to patent troll

Following a long history at the forefront of the wireless industry, Nokia holds more than 30,000 patent licenses and applications. On Thursday, the Finnish vendor’s portfolio was confirmed to be slightly lighter as patent troll Sisvel International announced that it had acquired more than 450 Nokia patents.

It would not be shocking if Sisvel went after Android vendors, along with MOSAID (also fed by Microsoft/Nokia). Nokia is controlled by Microsoft and Apple signed an agreement with Nokia last year. Nokia itself, led by a mole from Microsoft, keeps imploding based on this news:

Nokia’s Windows Phones not selling

Nokia Oyj reported a 73 per cent fall in fourth-quarter earnings as sales of its new Windows Phones failed to dent the dominance of Apple Inc.’s iPhone or compensate for diving sales of its own old smartphones.

Apple itself cannot quite get its way causing an embargo against Android; there are new software patents coming from Apple, but patent proxies (perhaps Oracle too) are likely to come. Here is a new article that speaks of a new Apple patent: “This SDK would act as a sort-of “interpreter” of language between a mobile device and another gadget. It would make it possible for accessory makers to build apps for the iPhone or iPad that could communicate directly with their devices. For example, it would be like using your phone to control a desktop radio.”

A Microsoft lobbyist, Florian Müller, is working to weaken (at least in the press) the case for Android by feeding Android-hostile claims (fuelled by Apple), but fortunately enough not many journalist pay attention to him anymore (all the stories, including this latest one are consistently anti-Android). Perhaps they finally realised who was paying his wage. He is still a lobbyist for hire. █

Summary: A collection of news about the litigious challenges from monopolists against Linux in the mainstream

THERE IS something about the patent system that nobody can miss. Its main proponents and benefactors are those greedy patent lawyers who want to put their tentacles on real work and tax it. People who file those are typically those patent lawyers who somehow convince technical people that they need a monopoly. In the case of multinational mega-corporations, those monopolies might make business sense, but what about the rest of the businesses?

Patent trolls further complicate the situation because all they do is raise the price of everything and promote no agenda of a producing company (quite the contrary in fact). One new article asks, are “Legal: Ecommerce Owners Liable to Patent Trolls?”

To quote:

There has recently been an increase in the number of patent claims against website developers and operators. The claims are based on “business method” and software patents for various functions of a website, such as drop-down menus, site search, and other common functions. Many of these functions are in common use by many developers, who do not know that the software or method they are using is covered by a patent. Many of these patents are old, and developers have furthered website development using their functions to create new technologies, which are still covered by the patent. In addition, searching patent registrations to determine if your website is infringing on an issued patent is difficult, time consuming, and expensive. “Patent trolls” are patent owners that take advantage of the difficulties of finding a patent, and lie in wait for someone to use their technology without realizing it is covered by the patent owners rights under their patent.

The USPTO has widened the scope of patentability to the realms of the absurd. Sun Microsystems engineers used to joke about it and see how absurd a patent application can pass muster. Later on their patents ended up in Oracle’s hand to attack Linux/Android. Regarding this case, Groklaw writes:

With that short statement [PDF] Oracle advised the court today that it will undertake a third attempt to produce a satisfactory damages report and that it will do so in compliance with the orders of the court. I have no doubt they will produce the report. Whether they will be able to restrain themselves in the manner directed by the court remains to be seen. If past history is any indication, don’t hold your breath.

Oracle is trying to make Android more expensive. Along with Oracle we have Microsoft and its proxies doing the same thing. One patent troll, MOSAID, is quite clearly such a proxy and Groklaw has this to say about its case against Red Hat:

Facing numerous filings that either seek to dismiss MOSAID’s claims altogether or to block MOSAID from filing a second amended complaint, MOSAID has now responded with a raft of responses. Of course, MOSAID believes the law is on its side and that all parties should remain in the conjoined suit and all of MOSAID’s new claims added in the second amended complaint should be permitted. How the court decides these issues will largely determine whether this ends up as one suit or multiple suits. In any case, don’t expect MOSAID to back down.

Let’s remember Microsoft’s involvement in passing thousands of patents to MOSAID. Then there’s Apple, which launched attacks on Android/Linux (starting with the Apple vs. HTC case), but as another court loss is reached it seems possible that Apple cannot do much:

The lawsuit that Apple slammed HTC with is over and $100 million in legal fees later, Apple have nothing to show for it. Apple have been known to protect their design patents fiercely and in some instances, irrationally and for many who have been following the HTC lawsuit, the same thoughts ring, what exactly was Apple hoping to achieve through the lawsuit?

To quote another report:

The decision was an appeal of a ruling from a lower regional court in August 2011, requesting a temporary injunction. At the time, Apple did win a temporary injunction in the Netherlands. However, it was based on a photo gallery scrolling patent and not design-related patents, which were ruled not to infringe in the ruling on Tuesday.

The British press covered this as well [1, 2], not to mention Android sites that wrongly characterise a Microsoft lobbyist as a FOSS advocate:

After a solid year of courts beckoning to Apple’s call, it would seem that sanity is returning to European benches. Taking a queue from Germany, which is set to reject Apple’s patent case over the revised Galaxy Tab 10.1N, a Dutch court rejected Apple’s final appeal to get Samsung’s tablet banned from sale in the Netherlands. Free and Open Source Software advocate Florian Mueller reported the legal news on the FOSS Patents blog. The appeal denial is the latest in a string of many Apple defeats and few victories in the last few months.

Florian is definitely not a FOSS advocate; he is the exact opposite, but he names himself to confuse. He is paid by Microsoft to attack FOSS causes. █

Summary: Another new example of sources that are bribed by Microsoft or allied with Microsoft dismissing the anti-competitive nature of what Microsoft is doing and disseminating insults instead (ad hominem attacks)

THE UEFI tricks that Microsoft uses to harm the competition are not going to make Windows secure. On ARM in particular, Microsoft cannot justify those tricks, e.g. using the “security” excuse. Realising darn well what Microsoft is up to, Katherine writes about the situation, but Microsoft uses its highly biased press partners to whitewash the whole thing. This one come from an author who does not even wish to be identified (which often says a lot) and a publication with Microsoft ties. Microsoft talking points are contained therein and the key development is this:

This argument seemed somewhat settled until Computerworld author Glyn Moody noticed something a little different from Microsoft’s line of argument on page 116 of Microsoft’s “Windows Hardware Certification Requirements” for client and server systems, which bears a publish date of December 2011. On that page, it appears that Microsoft is telling OEMs producing ARM-based machines that secure boot is mandatory, whereas it can be disabled on non-ARM (x86) machines.

The article is designed to discredit those claims and one commenter adds: “In Brazil, the government will be not allowed to buy machines with Secure Boot, since it is against the current legislation by not allowing free concurrence. I see some legal issues in this question…”

It’s not just that. As a Red Hat engineer continues to explain:

The fundamental problem is that UEFI is a lot of code. And I really do mean a lot of code. Ignoring drivers, the x86 Linux kernel is around 30MB of code. A comparable subset of the UEFI tree is around 35MB. UEFI is of a comparable degree of complexity to the Linux kernel. There’s no reason to assume that the people who’ve actually written this code are significantly more or less competent than an average Linux developer, so all else being equal we’d probably expect somewhere around the same number of bugs per line. Of course, not all else is equal.

Even today, basically all hardware is shipping with BIOS by default. The only people to enable UEFI are enthusiasts. Various machines will pop up all kinds of dire warnings if you try to turn it on. UEFI has had very little real world testing. And it really does show. In the few months I’ve been working on UEFI I’ve discovered machines where SetVirtualAddressMap() calls code that has already been (per spec) discarded. I’ve seen cases where it was possible to create variables, but not to delete them. I’ve seen a machine that would irreparably corrupt its firmware when you tried to set a variable. I’ve tripped over code that fails to parse invalid boot variables, bricking the hardware. Many vendors independently fail to report the correct framebuffer stride. And those are just the ones that have ended up on hardware which crosses my desk, which means I haven’t even tested the majority of consumer-grade hardware with UEFI.

UEFI offers no benefits to computer users, especially on ARM-based devices. Microsoft is cheating and then relying on professional liars to cover up with spin. Microsoft never changed. █

“Government attorneys accuse Microsoft of using its monopoly position to bully, bribe and attempt to collude with others in the industry, while illegally expanding and protecting its Windows franchise.”

–The antitrust case: a timeline

Summary: The duopoly which is Apple and Microsoft faces new legal challenges while the patent assault heats up

APPLE’S growth is impeded by the rise of Android. The dead CEO vowed to destroy Android, so we have no sympathy for him or for the cult he created. In fact, we urge people not to buy from Apple until or unless it stops suing (to embargo) its competitors, notably Linux/Android.

In a new post from Muktware we read about the latest lawsuit against Apple, this time for anti-competitive behaviour (again):

Apple Sued For Anti-Competitive Practices

A federal antitrust class action lawsuit has been filed against Apple accusing the company of billing iPhone customers for voice and data services even after they cancel it. They also Apple of stifling competition and increasing prices for software apps by charging developers an annual ‘application’ fee.

The Courthouse News reports that lead plaintiff Eric Terrell accuses Apple of ‘unlawful anticompetitive activities,’ and claims that consumers did not contractually consent to Apple and AT&T’s 5-year exclusivity agreement.

Fortunately, Apple’s behaviour is likely to just drive people away to Linux and even the lawsuit from Oracle (perhaps in part motivated by Apple’s CEO) won’t be able to stop it. The Oracle case is just another SCO and the outcome might be the same, except for the bankruptcy.

Microsoft too has been flirting and collaborating with Apple's lawyers, according to recent reports. Microsoft engages in illegal tactics and conspiracy to harm a potent rival. Having been faced with a legal challenge,Groklaw claims that the plot is being unravelled and Microsoft’s attack through Nokia becomes too hard to deny. To quote:

Nokia continues to struggle mightily to get free from Barnes & Noble’s discovery requests. Barnes & Noble, you’ll recall, succeeded in persuading the ITC to recommend that Finland help it to do depositions of some Nokia executives, including Stephen Elop, and also get its hands on some documents that Nokia isn’t willing to provide voluntarily.

So the necessary request documents were sent to Finland, and then Nokia started going wild with efforts to block. And it continues to do so, telling the court all the steps it’s taken, and asking ITC to quash the Barnes & Noble motion or in the alternative to advise Finland that it can’t provide any discovery until the motion is ruled on. Nokia also has complaints about what it represents to both Finland and the ITC as being Barnes & Noble’s misstatements about the case.

And now Microsoft has asked the court to quash a motion to depose Steve Ballmer. It’s under seal, but I’m sure we can guess at its contents. After all, we’ve seen companies try to keep their executives from having to get involved in litigation before, and so far, they all had to testify. Remember SCO v. IBM? Sam Palmisano had to testify because he had “unique personal knowledge”, or so the judge believed. If the CEO knows things other people don’t, no matter how busy he is, he will likely have to testify. I’m sure Microsoft lawyers know that, so in the alternative, they ask that he be allowed to testify by videoconference.

We warned about this right from the start. It is good to see action being taken to expose this at the courts and set obstacle.

In other news, RIM, whose key executives leave, finds itself sued over patents again. Guess who’s suing again?

Ottawa-based Wi-LAN Inc. has launched a patent suit against Research In Motion Ltd., adding to the challenges facing the troubled BlackBerry maker.

The mobile patent wars are becoming nasty and when Microsoft passes ammunition to patent trolls (proxies) there needs to be a lot more investigation. it’s not as shallow as it may seem. █

“On the same day that CA blasted SCO, Open Source evangelist Eric Raymond revealed a leaked email from SCO’s strategic consultant Mike Anderer to their management. The email details how, surprise surprise, Microsoft has arranged virtually all of SCO’s financing, hiding behind intermediaries like Baystar Capital.”

–Bruce Perens

Summary: A reminder of the unappealing nature of OpenSUSE due to a release cycle of 8 months and support span of just 18 months

JUST as we mentioned the other day, OpenSUSE cuts the line of support for 11.3 and moves ahead to 12.2. As the official blog post put it:

As Benjaman Brunner announced yesterday, openSUSE 11.3 has reached end of life. As a quick refresher, openSUSE releases new versions every 8 months, and each version has a life cycle of 18 months. As 11.3 was released in July of 2010, the time has come to embrace our newer versions, including the successful release of 12.1 in November of 2011.

A year and a half of support is very little although Fedora does not do much better. Yesterday I installed Debian GNU/Linux on two machines, knowing that it would be supported for a long time to come. Why do people feel as though OpenSUSE is still competitive when better options exist that also get long-term support? Experience suggests that many of SUSE’s users — especially corporate users — just happen to be in the same country as SUSE. Is that really a proper selection criterion? █

Summary: Quick SUSE and Tuxera updates

OPENSUSE plans a release in the summer because “OpenSUSE 12.1 was released last November”. Releases are typically 8 months apart (it used to be 6 until a few years ago). 11.3 is soon to be neglected, which leaves this distribution in state much worse off than Debian or Ubuntu (LTS). The project focuses on the wrong things while users seek something that can work reliably over time. We often hear that OpenSUSE works beautifully once installed, but the system is prone to breakage over time. Unless that changes, OpenSUSE will never regain that appeal is had before the Novell/Microsoft deal. Under Attachmate leadership, it is unlikely the this project will get a boost. In fact, Attachmate shows no signs of health. Webroot picks a former Attachmate executive according to this press release:

Prior to Symantec, Giesbrecht held executive positions at Attachmate Europe, Lotus Development and Digital Research, where he grew the operation to be the company’s most profitable subsidiary. He has also held a number of leadership positions in the information technology and semiconductor industry at Rank Xerox, Mohawk Data Science, Teradyne and LTX.

Apart from that and some bits of technical posts about OpenSUSE [1, 2, 3, 4] we can find Tuxera promotion (Microsoft software and tax on Linux) at Phoronix. Fortunately, there is no sign of this Trojan horse getting much momentum on Linux and SUSE too is dying up, leaving Linux untaxed by Microsoft. █

Summary: Apple and Microsoft use legal instruments to perturb the market and disrupt fair competition

ACCORDING to this new report from The Register, Apple is up to no good and it does not go unnoticed. EULA tricks are no longer just Microsoft’s weapon of choice; Apple too is doing it:

Budding authors attracted to Apple’s latest content-creating tool should tread with care lest the small print locks them in tighter than they’d imagined.

The End User Licence Agreement, to which users consent by using the software, requires the output of iBooks Author be distributed only through Apple’s retail operation – with Cupertino getting its customary 30 per cent cut – to ensure that only Apple students get the benefit of Apple’s largess.

This is an example where lawyers — not engineers — try to tilt the table. Another recent example of this is UEFI requirement that Microsoft crafted to exclude Linux and Android on ARM-based machines. To quote a good new report on this subject:

Matthew Garrett, the Red Hat engineer who originally raised the issue of UEFI Secure Boot and Linux, points out in a new posting titled “Why UEFI secure boot is difficult for Linux” that, despite Microsoft’s recent changes to its UEFI Secure Boot requirements, there are some major challenges left if users want secure-booted Linux.

[...]

The concerns over how Microsoft plans to make use of UEFI’s Secure Boot on ARM processors has also continued. A number of commentators and the Software Freedom Law Center reported that Microsoft had barred ARM devices which run Windows 8 from booting Linux. These requirements are in the current Microsoft Hardware Certification Requirements document, but were known about in September 2011 when the initial fears about UEFI were raised; Microsoft’s plans were detailed in presentations about its “Logo Requirements” at the time.

A couple of years ago when Microsoft promoted its chief racketeer (a lawyer) it became evident that Microsoft realigned itself as a legal manipulation firm.

As another site has just put it:

Back in October 2011, the Free Software Foundation speculated on the possibility that Microsoft might be trying to block out other operating systems from loading within a computer, using a new concept known as the Unified Extensible Firmware Interface (UEFI). Microsoft showed it off a couple of months back, booting up Windows 8 in eight seconds. Linux users: Should you be concerned?

[...]

Surely enough, Microsoft was watching the dilemma and responded to the issue, saying that there’s already an option within their hardware prototypes to disable secure boot attempts from the motherboard. We’re still not sure, though, whether you’ll be able to run Windows 8 with secure boot disabled. Microsoft has admitted indirectly, however, that the option could turn up missing on certain platforms that weren’t released by the company. In other words, any OEM can choose to omit the option to disable secure boot, making this the first step towards a world without a free OS.

How convenient to Microsoft.

Matthew Garrett’s views are explained in this new article:

BIOS, the archaic firmware that sits between a computer’s hardware and the operating system, is set to be replaced by the Unified Extensible Firmware Interface (UEFI). The move is intended to improve security, but a leading kernel developer says UEFI is “awful” for Linux.

This is not a technical war but a legal war that uses technical means and dotted lines to execute competitors. Where are the regulators? █

Summary: Patent stories that mostly relate to Android and its competitors

THE sales of Windows continue to decline as Linux-based platforms gain traction (notably Android).

As Tim points out, Microsoft trolls just attack messengers now and moreover:

Microsoft Advocates who infest the newsgroups, who engage in personal attacks and vile insults claim that the desktop is still alive and well! They claim that the tablet form factor is not what the mainstream consumer is wanting! – The reality though outside the wibbly wobbly world of Microsoft Advocacy is very different and I think the trend away from the desktop form factor by the mainstream consumer will continue. As for Windows and the latest “great” version (8), I think by the time it finally flops onto the market, people will have already settled on the plethora of more mature alternatives leaving Microsoft languishing in a Windows Phone 7 market share hell.

Microsoft is resorting to the use of patents in this age of software patents boosting; those parasites are extorting those who do sell (at Windows’ expense) and Mr. Pogson tried to find some numbers:

Much has been written on the web about M$’s taxation of Android/Linux but M$ mentions little but lawsuits in its recent 10-Q report. In fact, there we read, “there are approximately 60 other patent infringement cases pending against Microsoft.” Nowhere is there a number showing revenue from royalties levied on Android/Linux. While noting the risk of consumers buying gadgets not running M$’s stuff M$ never mentions royalty income from those gadgets. It must not be substantial because hundreds of millions of units running Android/Linux were sold but royalty revenue by M$ was not enough to prevent a decline in revenue by their client division.

We reckon that many of Microsoft’s patent deals put a small tax only as symbolic as Microsoft needs for them to provide FUD. But patent trolls and proxies like MOSAID are then being sent to push further up the price of Linux/Android. That’s their goal. It’s about destroying the economic advantage of Android, more so than to be a Microsoft cash cow.

We have two options now; one is for Microsoft to be nailed for creating an anti-competitive conspiracy against Android; the other is to target the patent system that enables this to carry on. With more software patents being granted all the time in the US (e.g. this new roundup from Iowa) the problem is clearly getting worse; more and more ideas are being “stolen” from the Commons. IBM too seeks a patent monopoly on software. To quote one article about it:

According to the document, the patent covers “techniques for protecting a child user from inappropriate interactions within an immersive virtual environment” in which those actions may be determined by “examining characteristics of the interactions between a child and another user”, “by monitoring physical signs of stress in the child”, or “by receiving software commands given by the child to signal discomfort in a particular situation”. Once detected, the technology may take action by “notifying the parents of the child, altering the virtual world to end the interaction, or notifying authorities of the behavior of the other user.”

Here is a new post which demonstrates how messed up the USPTO is:

Aleks Yankelevich drew my attention to an interesting patent case Gore versus Garlock. The Federal Circuit court decided to reverse a lower court reaching the stunning conclusion that prior art doesn’t matter if it was kept secret. So if you invent something and keep it secret, someone else can patent it.

There are also some newer articles about items we mentioned before, such as this one from Microsoft:

Despite the fact that the word “ghetto” was not a part of the patent paperwork, the program has been nicknamed the “Avoid the Ghetto” app.

[...]

This has led to cries of racism and economic disadvantage for minority neighborhoods. Dallas branch NAACP President Juanita Wallace told CBS, “I’m going to be up in arms about it if it happens. Can you imagine me not being able to go to Martin Luther King Boulevard. because my GPS says that’s a dangerous crime area? I can’t even imagine that.”

For whatever reason Google is still being scrutinised while it is in fact a victim of litigation from Apple, Microsoft, and some of their front groups (CPTN, for example, includes Oracle too). To quote:

Regulatory reviews mean the purchase by Google is likely to close in 2012, Libertyville, Illinois-based Motorola Mobility said in November. Google plans to use Motorola Mobility’s more than 17,000 patents to protect supporters of its Android software in licensing and legal disputes with rivals such as Apple Inc. — and also move into the hardware business.

Here is another report about the Alcatel case we wrote about the other day:

SOFTWARE HOUSE Microsoft and Alcatel-Lucent have ended their patent lawsuit and told the judge that they have had enough.

The lawsuit has lasted ten years so it is perhaps through attrition that it has come to an end. Either way both parties asked US District Court Judge Marilyn Huff to dismiss all claims and just get over the whole business.

Last year we claimed that Apple and Microsoft were colluding against Android and Google validated this in the middle of the year. This new report too helps validate it even more:

If you were searching for Apple Inc. (AAPL)’s European patent lawyers on a Friday, you would have better luck looking in the German city of Mannheim than on the golf course or in a pub.

Judges in the southwest German city hold most patent hearings on the last day of the week and will issue rulings in smartphone disputes involving Apple, Samsung Electronics Co. (005930) and Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc. over four of the next five Fridays starting today. The city, along with Dusseldorf and Munich, has become the center of European patent litigation as companies seek quick rulings from German judges that influence courts throughout the continent.

“If you have a big multinational corporation setting up a patent litigation strategy for Europe, they will almost always sue in Germany,” said Rowan Freeland, a litigator at Simmons & Simmons LLP in London. “Maybe you add other countries as well, but if you have to choose, it’s almost certainly Germany.”

Mobile device makers filed dozens of cases in the three cities last year. Samsung today lost a patent-infringement suit filed against Apple in the Mannheim court. The judges also heard another suit between the two rivals. A hearing in two disputes between Motorola Mobility and Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) originally scheduled for this afternoon were postponed until next month.

They have a common interest as both are suffering from Linux. But their tool for competing, namely patent attacks, is not acceptable, especially when they do so with the goal of removing competition from the market. It’s doupoly abuse [1, 2, 3], or simply a cartel. █

Summary: Developments on the patents front and how they affect the Linux-powered Android platform

THERE is usually danger that proprietary software vendors will hijack the voice of FOSS ones. The infiltration which we previously mentioned is further promoted by Microsoft-friendly circles. It is a true danger when FOSS is being hijacked (and Microsoft lobbyists, for example, call themselves “FOSS patents”).

There has been a campaign designed to derail Google’s acquisition of patents that would defend Android. Microsoft lobbyists participated in this campaign. According to this update from Bloomberg:

Regulatory reviews mean the purchase by Google is likely to be completed in 2012, Libertyville, Illinois-based Motorola Mobility said in November. Google plans to use Motorola Mobility’s more than 17,000 patents to protect supporters of its Android software in licensing and legal disputes with rivals such as Apple Inc. (AAPL) — and also move into the hardware business.

More here:

European Union regulators restarted their antitrust review of plans by Google Inc., the biggest maker of smartphone software, to buy Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc.

The European Commission set a new deadline of Feb. 13 to rule on the deal. It stopped the review on Dec. 6 to seek more information from the companies.

Where were the regulators when Microsoft extorted a lot of companies using patents. With more patents on software being granted, the regulators are missing the point. The one new example says:

EliteForm’s PowerTracker uses patent-pending algorithms and the latest in 3D computer vision to track the movement of athletes during strength exercises without the use of wired attachments.

Patents on algorithms? That is not allowed in Europe.

To quote more from Bloomberg:

The number of patents in litigation between Apple Inc. (AAPL) and a Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc. (MMI) unit was narrowed by a judge who invalidated two of them, said Apple didn’t infringe a third and found that issues with five others required a trial.

Apple is losing its case against Motorola and new patents from its patent worship sites suggest that monopolies on Siri are coming:

That application, published this morning by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and picked up by Patently Apple, details an “Intelligent Automated Assistant.” The filing, dated January 2011, comes some nine months after Apple’s acquisition of Siri the company, and includes numerous diagrams of the software in use.

Sadly for Apple, on the Android side there are also many patents that can be used defensively and Ericsson/Sony is among those with an arsenal (the Microsoft lobbyist tries to spin it against Android). Moreover, Larry Ellison’s attack on Android is failing again:

The parties in Oracle v. Google have been busy debating whether or not Oracle should be allowed to submit yet a third expert damages report, after the judge found the first two were ridiculous. He didn’t accept the way Oracle came up with such huge damages numbers, the very ones that made headlines when the case was new.

And more remarks from Mr. Pogson can be found here.

A few days ago we wrote about the patent allegations/charges from Oracle allegedly being conceded and here is more on that:

In a surprise detail, Oracle also claimed that Sun Microsystems was looking to get into the smartphone game. Oracle wrote, “Sun had plans and the means to use that intellectual property to develop a smartphone platform that would have generated hundreds of millions of dollars in revenues. These plans were undermined by Google’s release of an incompatible Android for free.”

Oracle’s claim that Sun was looking to develop a smartphone operating system is an interesting one given that the firm’s Java Mobile Edition was hardly setting the world alight when Apple’s IOS came out, let alone Google’s Android. It will be interesting to see what, if any, evidence Oracle has to back up this statement.

The Oracle versus Google Android battle has stalled twice over arguments about the amount of damages. Whether Oracle’s latest ploy will result in any of its patent claims being put in front of a jury is unclear at this point.

If true, then it marks a small victory for Android, but the Microsoft lobbyists try to spin as it bad news.

In other news, Microsoft might pay Alcatel soon:

A jury awarded Alcatel-Lucent $70 million after Microsoft was found to have stolen a Day patent in its Outlook software.

More here;

Alcatel-Lucent (ALU), Microsoft Patent-Infringement Case Dismissed

Alcatel-Lucent (ALU)’s patent-infringement lawsuit against Microsoft Corp., (MSFT) the world’s largest maker of software, was dismissed by a federal judge after both companies asked to end the case.

U.S. District Judge Marilyn Huff granted the joint motion to end all claims in the suit with each side agreeing to bear its own costs, according to a filing Jan. 17 in San Diego. No information was given on a possible settlement of the dispute.

In July, a jury awarded Paris-based Alcatel-Lucent $70 million in damages. Huff reduced the award to $26.3 million on Nov. 10.

Alcatel-Lucent sued over technology in Redmond, Washington- based Microsoft’s Outlook program and two other applications.

The case is Lucent Technologies Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 07-02000, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

And more here:

Alcatel-Lucent’s patent infringement lawsuit against Microsoft Corp., the world’s largest maker of software, was dismissed by a federal judge after both companies asked to end the case.

U.S. District Judge Marilyn Huff granted the joint motion to ends all claims in the suit with each side agreeing to bear its own costs, according to a filing yesterday in San Diego. No information was given on a possible settlement of the dispute.

Microsoft was probably required to pay. Maybe it will also learn a lesson about the patent system, one lawsuit at the time (I have purchased an Alcatel phone for this reason), then withdraw from its anti-Linux blackmail. And speaking of Microsoft, its racist side (deleting black people) is arguably resurfacing again in a patent:

Microsoft faces accusations of potential racism related to its patent for a new pedestrian-friendly map application.

To be fair, geography/demography and race are not the same thing. Microsoft gets flak nonetheless, for a patent so stupid that its existence alone is offensive to human civilisation. █

Summary: Timely reminder that analysts, journalists and PR agents are interchangeable and serve a similar function, including promotion of Microsoft Linux (SUSE)

SEVERAL weeks ago we noted that SUSE/Attachmate had hired a PR agency for some spin and intervention with the media.

Yesterday we saw an Attachmate employee publishing an article as though it’s unbiased journalism but we also found out that an IDG “journalist” relocated to the firm that services Attachmate. To quote:

BENCH PR has appointed Lisa Banks, ex IDG journalist, to work on the agency’s growing list of IT clients. She has been appointed to the position of senior consultant.

Banks was a journalist at IDG Communications until December 2011, writing for CIO, ComputerWorld and TechWorld. She will work from BENCH PR’s new Adelaide office.

Journalism and PR are similar industries in the sense that they usually sell influence and only pretend to be objective. IDG is an example of it because it gets bribed through advertising and IDC contracts.

SUSE coverage is in part artificial, resulting from pressure from PR agencies. We too get contacted by PR people sometimes, but we pay them no attention. As another new bit of background:

Attachmate plots new future for Novell
Attachmate Corp.’s purchase of Novell Inc. was finalized on April 27 of this year. Attachmate aimed to breathe new life into Novell’s franchises and assured partners and current users of Novell products that they would receive their continued support.

SUSE was separated structurally, but it still controlled by Attachmate and the Bench PR contact with Attachmate explicitly covers SUSE (we showed this before). Whenever reading about SUSE in the corporate press, bear in mind it’s possibly fake and paid for. █

Summary: Former Microsoft people gain influence inside Microsoft’s competitors

THE PREVIOUS post spoke about a possible Microsoft patent lawsuits proxy. Speaking of proxies, the growth of Black Duck troubles us because it tries to tell us how to use and select FOSS despite being a proprietary company with Microsoft roots. Fortify, another ally of Microsoft [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], has an executive departure and the destination has FOSS orientation:

Open source security information and event management (SIEM) AlienVault has hired a new leadership team, grabbing a number of security industry veterans from Fortify Software.

More interesting than all the above is that an abusive Microsoft executive whom we wrote about before in relation to the Linux-based WebOS is put in charge of it:

Strangely, the release (embedded in full after the break) mentions that Bill will be leading HP’s “cloud and webOS open source initiatives,” but it fails to elaborate on what exactly those “initiatives” may be.

More background was posted here:

Veghte joined HP in 2010. In the most recent fiscal year, he grew HP’s software business by 18 percent. Prior to HP, he spent two decades at Microsoft in a variety of senior leadership positions. Most recently, he managed the company’s $15 billion global Windows® business and was instrumental in the delivery and launch of Windows 7.

So a Windows executive now controls a Linux-based open source platform? This does not sound reassuring at all. █

Summary: The versatile kernel which makes several mobile platforms rapidly changes the competitive landscape

SEVERAL years ago people were occasionally laughed at for suggesting that Linux would become dominant and desktops would lose share to mobile devices. Now that mobile devices are very sophisticated they manage to challenge miniature desktops/laptops such as Microsoft’s Origami. They are also far cheaper.

The “year of Linux on the desktop” might be some time around 5 years ago when it became viable for many reasons (regardless of market share/installed base) and this goal has become somewhat irrelevant now that mobile devices are a lucrative market. Apple becomes a cash-rich company, a big foe of Linux (with lawsuits), and in some ways the main player to compete against.

When it comes to mobile devices, Microsoft is not an imminent threat and as this new article puts it, price and weight keep Microsoft out of the game:

A rumor site claims that Intel tablets running Windows 8 will start at $600 and cost as much as $900, putting Apple and Android at a pricing advantage.

Have you ever wondered why your PC is so expensive? Well, a good portion of that cash goes straight into the pockets of Intel for its processors and Microsoft for Windows. Unfortunately, while the market has seen that the days of expensive PCs are over, executives at Microsoft and Intel may fight to retain high PC prices as we move into the next era of the PC: tablets.

Microsoft just tries cheating now.

Techrights will spend time concentrating not only on Linux’s real competitors in this area but also Microsoft’s patent attacks on Android. We used to focus on Novell, but now we need to identify the remaining barriers to software freedom. Readers reaffirmed this strategy. █

Summary: Android Community alleges that Microsoft is trolling while the Microsoft-controlled press tries to “regularise” flagrant extortion

THE US patent system has many stories to show that demonstrate its sad state. One of them was brought up by Jeremy Allison this week and it’s an open letter that says:

You’ve no doubt heard about patent battles in the world of software. Companies such as Nokia, Apple, and Microsoft use their incredibly large patent portfolios against each other in a multitude of ways. Often defensively, sometimes offensively. While there are many patents for truly inventive things, there are also a great number that are for things that already exist. Patents are a good idea that have been appropriated over the decades as a corporate tool for establishing limits to competition, no matter if the ideas described by those patents are truly inventive. Furthermore, this kind of use of patents isn’t just limited to the world of computing.

The Washington Post has posted a presentation of players in the patent war of 2012 and the opening remark says:

The patent wars have been around since well before the modern technology sector. In fact, a Time magazine article dated, June 10, 1929, with the headline “Business: Patent War,” covered the dispute over who could rightfully be called “The Father of Radio.” The battle for patent supremacy has led some of Silicon Valley’s most powerful companies to trek out an army of lawyers to negotiate acquisitions expressly for the purpose of beefing up their patent holdings, sue companies believed to be infringing on held patents and defend themselves against similar suits from others. The battle, dubbed “The Patent Wars” will be one of the long-running technology trend stories to be explored in 2012.

Although Google is only on the defence, it is dragged into the arms race and it chooses IBM for its arsenal supplies (IBM is a top patentor).

The Microsoft ‘press’ covers Microsoft’s latest Android extortion (poor coverage, as expected) and IDG spins is some more against Google. Novell is mentioned in light of this extortion too. It has had a lot to do with it. Quoting Digital Trends:

Microsoft has taken a similar “fear, uncertainty, and doubt” tack with Linux—alleging for years without filing a case that the operating system infringes on Microsoft technologies. Microsoft also offers corporate and enterprise Linux users an immunity deal through it’s partnership with Attachmate/Novell regarding SUSE Linux.

We boycotted Novell for years because this provided Microsoft with the ammunition it needed to “normalise” extortion, characterising it as “mutual agreement” or something along those lines. Novell might be dead, but the legacy of its decisions is still affecting everything. As Android Community puts it:

If you bought an Android smartphone or tablet in the last six months, odds are surprisingly good that you paid a considerable chunk of the purchase price to Microsoft. The dinosaur of the software world has successfully sued and/or negotiated with most of the major Android OEMs, including Samsung, HTC, and lately LG. Microsoft claims that over 70% of the Android hardware sold in the US includes licensing fees paid to the company – a disturbing statistic for an open-source operating system.

[...]

Google isn’t happy about Microsoft’s Android tax, but there isn’t much they can do about it. Since Microsoft has so far refused to sue Google directly over the software, instead aiming for smaller and ostensibly weaker manufacturers, its patents are unlikely to be overturned in the United States. Oh well – if you can’t innovate, litigate.

More from the same site calling Microsoft a “patent troll”:

Last week Microsoft couldn’t resist taunting Google over its licensing deal with LG, and it looks like the patent gravy train isn’t set to stop rolling any time soon. Accroding to Korean news outlet Yonhap, Pantech is currently in negotiations with the American software giant to pay indeterminate licensing fees for the priveledge of running Android (a free and open-source operating system) on its phones. Along with LG and a handful of other major manufacturers like Samsung and HTC, Microsoft now claims it collects fees for more than 70% of Android phones sold in the United States.

This extortion by Microsoft should be pursued more actively in antitrust authorities. The company is abusing the market and it should therefore brought down. █

Summary: An accumulation of articles about Microsoft’s anti-competitive UEFI moves and responses to these

UEFI has been a hot subject this week. Ever since Glyn Moody published his findings and conclusions the debate has been rekindled.

Jeff of Bodhi Linux thinks further:

I wrote a post late last year when all the news first started being posted (pretty much everywhere) about the Windows 8 “secure boot” support. Well folks, the open source news media is at it again – Microsoft has announced they are doing exactly what we thought they would – they are implementing secure boot on Windows 8 ARM devices.

[...]

Do these people have any idea how many Linux based ARM devices don’t allow dual booting? Do they have any idea how many Linux based ARM devices exist, were even if you can dual boot them they lack hardware functionality in alternative operating systems due to closed source drivers?

We pointed out just the other day that Microsoft is a non-starter in this area. But Microsoft is historically a non-starter in all areas; it wasn’t until Microsoft cheated with secret exclusionary deals and sometimes bribes that the company managed to marginalise competition.

According to Michael Larabel, this is a “big problem” for Linux because:

Matthew Garrett, the Red Hat developer commonly working on power management and UEFI/BIOS matters for Linux, has a new blog post related to UEFI Secure Boot. This latest posting is simply entitled Why UEFI secure boot is difficult for Linux.

From this post from Matthew Garrett we learn why it’s technically difficult:

I wrote about the technical details of supporting the UEFI secure boot specification with Linux. Despite me pretty clearly saying that this was ignoring issues of licensing and key distribution and the like, people are now using it to claim that Linux could support secure boot with minimal effort. In a sense, they’re right. The technical implementation details are fairly straightforward. But they’re not the difficult bit.

Joe Brockmeier writes about the latest UEFI débâcle. He says that Microsoft insists on not disabling UEFI:

Remember last year when questions arose about Microsoft’s policies on UEFI secure boot on Windows 8? Microsoft’s response, or lack thereof, was that “OEMs are free to choose” how or whether to enable turning off secure boot on systems shipping Windows 8. It appears, however, OEMs may not be as free to choose if they’re shipping ARM hardware.

Here is another new take:

Microsoft was quick to hit back at such claims, stating categorically that OEMs would provide buyers with the ability to disable the UEFI Secure Boot mode for use with non-signed operating systems. Sadly, it appears that the company missed one vital point from its statement: the fact that ARM-based systems are excluded.

According to the company’s latest certification requirements document for Windows 8, while non-ARM systems – traditional desktops and laptops, in other words – will allow a ‘custom’ mode to be selected that prevents UEFI Secure Boot from blocking third-party unsigned code, the ARM build – for tablets and low-power laptops – must have this feature removed if manufacturers want to be able to put the Windows logo on their products.

These excuses for Microsoft are unconvincing and some wonder if these practices from Microsoft “killed” Ubuntu tablets:

Did Microsoft Just Kill Ubuntu Tablets?

[...]

There is no doubt that Canonical is looking at the ARM based hardware for its tablets. But Microsoft seemed to have nipped Ubuntu’s Tablet in the bud. The company tweaked its Windows Hardware Certification Requirements to effectively ban most alternative operating systems on ARM-based devices that ship with Windows 8.

Microsoft’s booster Peter Bright spins this in Microsoft’s favour and Microsoft's Bott is again pretending that UEFI is not a problem. Sam Dean, who previously recited the lies from Bott, now says that his “stance toward Linux users is questionable” and adds

Thus far, there is no official response from Microsoft on the issue, but the Linux lock-out debate is back in new form.

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols remarks on the spin from Bott as follows:

I wrote recently about Microsoft trying to block any other operating system from running on Windows 8 ARM-powered devices . While Ed Bott think that seeing this as an attack on Linux and other operating systems is FUD, I don’t think that’s the point.

I don’t see Linux being attacked by this move. I see Linux supporters being annoyed at it–I know I am–but attacked, afraid? No.

Sure as Bott writes “The Secure Boot requirements apply only to OEMs who sell an ARM-based device and Windows 8 as a complete package.” and that “If you disable Secure Boot on a Windows 8 ARM tablet, you have effectively bricked it.” So, yes you can take this as attack on people who want to switch operating systems, but it’s 2012. Now, if Microsoft was trying this trick with x86 PCs, it would be a different story, but Microsoft has backed off from that position. So, is really it that important to Linux that Microsoft is trying to keep it off Windows 8 ARM devices?

No, I don’t think so. Today Microsoft can’t dictate terms to the computer industry they way they once did. In the 1990s, Microsoft could call up an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and tell them what they could or couldn’t ship on their PCs, how much they would pay for the privilege, and they could take it or die.

That was then. This is now. While the U.S. courts found in 2001 that “Microsoft had a monopoly in the market for Intel-compatible personal computer operating systems,” the company was only slapped on the wrist. It might have been better for Microsoft in the long run if the courts had insisted that the company be broken up. As it was, Microsoft continued with business as usual. But, the world was shifting under Microsoft’s feet and even now the company hasn’t catch up with those changes.

The Register is meanwhile writing about the x86 tablets that never seem to fly:

m Taiwan’s computer manufacturers: lower the price of Windows 8 tablet components and software or the devices will be so expensive that consumers won’t want them.

Claiming that both Microsoft and Intel have rejected calls to drop their prices, Asian moles say that means Windows 8 tablets could cost as much as $899 (£586) before sales tax when they go on sale later this year, DigiTimes reports.

That is too expensive to sell much and Pogson says “Android/Linux on ARM is looking better all the time and there is still the option of GNU/Linux on everything if prices really do matter.”

This is why Microsoft wants to block it. As another article puts it;

There\s been some controversy since September of last year. It seems that Microsoft, while unsure if it’s intentional or not, is going to make it quite difficult for people to install Linux on a computer that comes with Windows 8.

Basically, it comes down to a process called UEFI secure booting. Hardware makers must have it enabled in order to qualify for a “Designed For Windows 8″ logo. The technology prevents operating systems from booting that are not signed by a trusted certificate authority.

This means that in order for Linux to be installed on a “Designed For Windows 8″ PC, one would have to figure out a workaround in order to make it happen and that means your choice of what to install, may be quite limited.

Companies need to just reject Vista 8 and stick with what’s becoming market leader (Android/Linux). █

Summary: Microsoft’s extortion of Android leads to passage of patents to Google, Apple loses its cases against Android, and Oracle too is gradually losing the argument against Dalvik

WE recently addressed the transfer of patents from OIN member IBM to OIN member Google (it is reported on as though it’s a sale) and we continue to see this sort of arms trade being done under a cloak of secrecy. One conspiracy against another, eh? To quote this new example:

Cryptography Research, Inc. (CRI), a division of Rambus, Inc., and CPU Technology, Inc. have signed a patent license agreement regarding the use of CRI’s patented innovations in CPU Tech products. This agreement covers the use of CRI’s patented countermeasures to differential power analysis (DPA) attacks for CPU Tech’s tamper-resistant products, including the Acalis® family of secure processors. This license also covers software developed by CPU Tech customers when executing on licensed CPU Tech chips.

These are software-related deals that involve submarine patents. Rambus, the company behind all this, is an atrocious aggressor [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. In many ways, years ago we compared the practices of Rambus to those of Microsoft, which no longer makes stuff that can sell; instead, Microsoft wants to compel people to pay up for something they do not want and never chose. Right now Microsoft is trying to force buyers of Android phones to pay Microsoft for a “licence” and LG signed the latest deal of this kind. Here are some interesting observations or theories from Muktware:

Is Android Part Of Microsoft’ Windows Phone License?

[...]

Let’s see what Microsoft deputy general counsel Horacio Gutierrez has to say, “We are pleased to have built upon our longstanding relationship with LG to reach a mutually beneficial agreement.”

This statement is very important: “built upon our longstanding relationship”. If we look at Microsoft’s Android deals you will notice a pattern. Microsoft has succeeded in cracking deals with those players who are already Microsoft customers. Samsung, LG, HTC are all Microsoft partners as they use Microsoft OS in their devices. Why is Microsoft not excited about telling the world that their ‘longtime partners’ Samsung, LG or HTC will be putting Windows on their phones? Because, the Android deals could very well be the Windows deals painted as Android deals.

Here is a hypothetical scenario:
Microsoft Executives to LG: “We want you to commit to putting Windows Phone OS on x number of your devices. If you do commit that we won’t raise any Linux patent issues. In fact with Windows Phone License you will also get Android protection.”

What will LG do? Its a win win situation for them. They are getting Android protection for free with Windows phone license. Why will they even consider raising issues about patents.

Now how to hide the fact that it was a Windows phone deal, ‘sign an NDA’ so that the rest of the world won’t know the reality.

Ghabuntu explains why Microsoft’s WP7 is failing and notes that:

5. The OEMs just love Android: Why? Because it gives them the power to differentiate themselves completely from their competitors. Given its open nature, it is always easy and safe to model Android into anything one can think of, an example being what Amazon did with it on its Kindle Fire tablets. Which company would not love such an offering? It’s little wonder that even the home pages of almost all the device makers readily feature Android phones, with WP7 a few clicks down the menu. I don’t know the extent of customization Microsoft allows the OEMs, but it sure will not be on the scale Google gives them with Android.

Dr. Moody explains why on tablets too it is Android which is likely to win:

You don’t have to be a marketing genius or industry pundit to foresee that tablets will be an extremely hot sector in 2012. The launch of Apple’s iPad in 2010 largely defined the category, just as the launch of the iPhone defined a new kind of smartphone in 2007; in 2012 we will probably begin to see Android tablets start to gain major market share just as Android smartphones have done this year.

Currently, the tablet is something of a cross between the hipster tech toy of choice and a trivially easy-to-use computing device for couch potatoes. But those early sectors are incidental to the tablet’s real potential to revolutionize education, particularly in emerging economies.

The devices are perfect: they are compact, connect to the Net wirelessly, run off battery power for hours and can be used by children and adults alike with little or no training. There’s just one problem, of course: the typical tablet’s high-end pricing – hundreds of dollars – places it so far out of reach for most of the world’s population that it might as well not exist for them. That is what makes India’s Aakash tablet – basic cost around $50, but only $37 for Indian students thanks to a government subsidy – so remarkable, and so important.

For those who think that Apple can just sue Android out of existence, here is some news [1, 2, 3] that should worry Apple because “[t]he US International Trade Commission (ITC) has ruled against Apple in its patent suit against rival mobile vendor Motorola.”

The CPTN members (Novell patents) just cannot seem to keep Android away, no matter the number of lawsuits they launch along with predictions (FUD) of doom and gloom. As Mr. Pogson shows:

It’s always fun to see the school-yard bully take his lumps:

* ITC: Motorola does not violate Apple patents
* Oracle v. Google – Rock, Meet Hard Place
* Barnes & Noble Opposes Microsoft’s Motion for SJ on Patent Misuse Defense ~pj

Here is the latest from Groklaw: [via]

Judge Alsup is also not buying Oracle’s minimalist argument on how long the trial will take. He says it will be a two-month trial. And a possible date for the trial is a moving target because the rest of Judge Alsup’s docket continues to fill up, i.e., other trials continue to be calendared, further delaying the scheduling of this trial.

Of course, a further delay has the added impact of allowing the reexaminations before the USPTO to run their course, and the last we looked those reexaminations were not favoring Oracle.

Rock, meet hard place. In the other filing of the day we see Google’s (final) supplemental brief [PDF; Text] in support of its Motion in Limine No. 3 – the motion to exclude portions of the Cockburn report. Although this brief is not particularly timely (for us as readers) given that Judge Alsup has already ruled on the matter, it is noteworthy with respect to the main thrust of Google’s argument, i.e., challenging Oracle for continuing to ignore the actual Google arguments and trekking off on unrelated and irrelevant matters. No doubt we have seen this behavior before by Oracle counsel, but what reinforces it in this instance is the fact that Judge Alsup recognizes the Oracle behavior himself. Thus, the ruling against Oracle on the Cockburn report.

However, Google goes even further in this brief. Google argues that Cockburn never investigated or understood the real deal on the table between Sun and Google back in 2006. In a supplemental filing Google provides a Sun slide presentation [PDF] on the discussions, and it is fascinating. It would appear from the presentation that Sun wanted the deal with Google badly. It is also clear that the deal on the table would have been Java compatible, thus undercutting the fragmentation argument that Oracle keeps making to support a higher damages claim.

Oracle has other ongoing patent cases based on this new report:

JDA Software powered its way through 2011 to post decent financial numbers despite the legal battles it fought with Oracle over patent infringements and a lawsuit it inherited with the acquisition of i2 in August 2010.

We keep insisting that Oracle may have attacked Android because Steve Jobs is Larry Ellison’s best friend. Oracle, Apple, and Microsoft are all CPTN members, which ties it all together with Novell and its sellout again. We were right all along about those patents. █