EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

04.26.16

More Rumours and Calls Surrounding Prospects of Microsoft Buying Canonical (Ubuntu and More)

Posted in GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Novell, Rumour, Ubuntu at 6:48 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“Microsoft is asking people to pay them for patents, but they won’t say which ones. If a guy walks into a shop and says: “It’s an unsafe neighbourhood, why don’t you pay me 20 bucks and I’ll make sure you’re okay,” that’s illegal. It’s racketeering.”

Mark Shuttleworth

Summary: Taking some of Canonical’s recent moves into account, some pundits not only think it’s possible for Shuttleworth to choose Microsoft money over principles but also urge for this to happen

AFTER gaming the media for weeks if not months (googlebombing “Linux” in the news) and blackmailing Linux companies using software patents (for bundling, not just payments) while lobbying for a stronger software patents impact we grow increasingly concerned that the “embrace” phase (as in E.E.E.) is moving forward to “extend”. Microsoft is already paying Canonical (expect Shuttleworth to dare not say anything negative about Microsoft) and devouring Ubuntu, just like Novell with Hyper-V (enclosing GNU/Linux in a proprietary jail of Microsoft).

“Microsoft is already paying Canonical (expect Shuttleworth to dare not say anything negative about Microsoft) and devouring Ubuntu, just like Novell with Hyper-V (enclosing GNU/Linux in a proprietary jail of Microsoft).”Starting this week, sporting the big lie (“Microsoft loves Linux”), Janakiram MSV from the 1%’s media/mouthpiece (Bill Gates’ cheerleader) says that “Microsoft’s Open Source Strategy Is Incomplete Without This Acquisition” (he alludes to Canonical).

“To make the case stronger, here are a few reasons why Microsoft should consider acquiring Canonical,” he wrote. As Susan Linton put it this morning: “With Microsoft and Canonical’s new chummy relationship still on the minds of many, Janakiram MSV today said “Microsoft’s Open Source strategy is incompletely” without them. He said with Microsoft trying to change their image away from being Windows-only, it only makes sense to buy Canonical. Ubuntu has millions of users and “an army of developers and system administrators.” Besides people, Canonical comes with LXD, Snappy Ubuntu Core, and Juju – all things that could make Microsoft more competitive in the cloud and IoT. To Janakiram, there are no downsides for Microsoft.”

“It’s not unthinkable that Microsoft would at least attempt to buy Canonical.”Two years ago we heard of posts like “Why Microsoft should buy Canonical” and last year there were rumours to that effect.

It’s not unthinkable that Microsoft would at least attempt to buy Canonical. It already tried hiring (poaching) Canonical’s community manager for Ubuntu (he declined). But would Mr. Shuttleworth sell out more than he already does? Mr. Shuttleworth left some comments here back in the days after he had bought codec licences (for software patents) from Microsoft. That was 8 years ago.

“That’s extortion and we should call it what it is. To say, as Ballmer did, that there is undisclosed balance sheet liability, that’s just extortion and we should refuse to get drawn into that game.”

Mark Shuttleworth

04.23.16

[ES] Compañías Coreanas Hacen el Caso Por Patentes por Diseño Mientras la Más Grade Solicita a la Corte Suprema de los EE.UU. Deshacerce de Ellas

Posted in America, Asia, Courtroom, GNU/Linux, Google, Patents at 6:37 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

English/Original

Article as ODF

Publicado en America, Asia, Courtroom, GNU/Linux, Google, Patents at 8:05 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Samsung phone

 

Sumario: A pesar de amasar muchas patentes por diseño propias, Samsung quiere voluntáriamente interceptarlas/socavarlas cada una de ellas, en order de acabar con las demandas de Apple contra Android/Linux

LA Oficina de Patentes de los EE.UU. la USPTO, continua otorgando patentes por diseño, las que son a su vez controversiales en Europa.

Una escala/numero de patents por diseño acaban de ser presentadas por Patently-O, las que dice: “Las patentes de diseño siguen siendo un esquema de protección popular para los desarrolladores de productos de consumo y pantallas. Los diez más concesionarios por lo tanto, mucho de 2016 con la mayoría de los ejemplos recientes …”

Samsung no ha (históricamente por lo menos) sido agresivo con patentes.

Con Samsung en la cumbre, luego LGE (a quién Apple frecuéntemente acusó de plagioen diseñoscuando primero introduco su iPhone). Ambas son compañías Coreanas y un comentari corréctamente señala: “Uno no podría ser sorprendidos al notar que Samsung es altamente conscientes de las propiedades potentes de patentes de diseño.” Actualmente Samsung desafía la potencia de este tipo de patentes, tomando todo el camino hasta la Corte Suprema. En todo caso, esto puede indicar que Samsung solamente a regañadientes patenta diseños, tal vez con la esperanza de nivelar estos fines defensivos cuando compañías como Apple los ataca (con connotaciones nucleares). Samsung no ha (históricamente por lo menos) sido agresivo con patentes.

Una decisión del Circuito Federal ha puesto a Coleman Co en una posición más fuerte para enjuiciar a un competidor por infringimiento de sus patentes de diseño relacionado a aparatos personales de flotación.

   –Bloomberg BNA

Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC, una firma de abogados (obviamente), acaba de publicar este artículo acerca de patents por diseño de construcción como números acerca de patentes por diseño sugieren un rápido incremento en medio de un caso que SCOTUS trajo en su contra. Como hemos explicado aquí unas pocas veces antes, muchas patentes por diseño son similares y relacionadas con las patentes de software (interfaces en particular). Su existencia es desafíada en las cortes de nuevo, como este artículo sirve para mostrar. Parece una vez más que la CAFC decide en la materia. Para citar:Recuérden que el propósito original del sistema de patetnes fue proveer un incentivo para su publicación a cambio de un monopolio temporario. A la luz de aquella premisa olvidada por mucho tiempo consideren este nuevo post de Patently-O que dice: Una decisión del Circuito Federal ha puesto a Coleman Co en una posición más fuerte para enjuiciar a un competidor por infringimiento de sus patentes de diseño relacionado a aparatos personales de flotación.

La suerte de las patentes por diseño tiene billónes en riesgo; no sólo billones de dólares/pounds/yens pero también billones de personas.

04.22.16

Korean Companies Make the Case for Design Patents While the Bigger One Asks the US Supreme Court to Shoot Some of Them Down

Posted in America, Asia, Courtroom, GNU/Linux, Google, Patents at 8:05 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Reaching the conclusion that these patents (related to software patents) are excessive and counterproductive?

Samsung phone

Summary: In spite of amassing many design patents of its own, Samsung is willing to intercept/undermine all of them, in order to shoot down Apple’s demands against Android/Linux

THE United States’ patent office, the USPTO, continues to grant design patents, which are rather controversial in Europe.

Design patentees by scale/number have just been presented by Patently-O, which said: “Design patents continue to be a popular protection scheme for developers of consumer products and screen displays. Top ten assignees thus-far in 2016 with most recent examples…”

“Samsung has not (historically at least) been aggressive with patents.”It’s Samsung at the top, then LGE (which Apple was often accused of copying — design-wise — when it first introduced the iPhone). Both are Korean companies and one comment rightly points out: “One might not be surprised to notice Samsung highly aware of the potent properties of design patents.” Samsung currently challenges the potency of such patents, taking it all the way up to the Supreme Court. If anything, this may indicate that Samsung only begrudgingly patents designs, maybe in the hope of leveling these for defensive purposes when companies like Apple strike (with nuclear connotations). Samsung has not (historically at least) been aggressive with patents.

“A Federal Circuit ruling has placed Coleman Co. in a stronger position to sue a competitor for infringement of its design patent relating to personal flotation devices.”
      –Bloomberg BNA
Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC, a lawyers’ firm (obviously), has just published this article about design patent constriction as figures about design patents suggest a sharp increase amid a SCOTUS case about/against it. As we explained here a few times before, many design patents are similar and related to software patents (interfaces in particular). Their very existence is challenged in courts again, as this new article serves to show. It seems as though once again it’s CAFC deciding on the matter. To quote: “A Federal Circuit ruling has placed Coleman Co. in a stronger position to sue a competitor for infringement of its design patent relating to personal flotation devices.”

The fate of design patents has billions at stake; not just billions of dollars/pounds/yen but also billions of people.

Microsoft’s Patent Blackmail Against Linux Not Enough to Keep Microsoft Afloat, Many More Layoffs Coming

Posted in GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Patents at 3:35 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Many thousands of additional layoffs at Microsoft are reported as the effort to extract lots of ‘protection money’ from Linux falls short of expectations

Matt Rosoff, a Microsoft booster who is professionally close to Microsoft as we pointed out before [1, 2, 3, 4], says “A huge shift in the Android market is hurting Microsoft” (previous headline was, “Microsoft Android patent-licensing revenue falling”).

“In the release,” he wrote, “Microsoft noted that its patent-licensing revenue was down 26% from a year ago. And it’s because of Android.”

“Microsoft may be a dying/rapidly declining company, but it doesn’t mean it won’t try to poach GNU/Linux professionals and ‘steal’ the industry as part of the “extend” phase of E.E.E.”Nevertheless, this strategy evidently continues. Yes, Microsoft’s extortion against Linux is still a core business now that layoffs are unstoppable, in spite of massive tax evasion.

According to this new article, “18,000 Job Cuts Loom in Sight for Microsoft Employees” and to quote: “Microsoft is also cutting 5.500 more jobs because they want to focus on its mobile and cloud productivity software, including Windows Phone, Office 36, Skype, Windows Azure, Bing and OneDrive.”

Microsoft may be a dying/rapidly declining company, but it doesn’t mean it won’t try to poach GNU/Linux professionals and ‘steal’ the industry as part of the “extend” phase of E.E.E. Vigilance is required here.

[ES] Creciéntes Amenazas de las Patentes de Software en Europa y la Trampa FRAND Que Microsoft Promueve/Cabildea

Posted in Europe, Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, RAND at 3:03 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

English/Original

Article as ODF

Publicado en Europe, Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, RAND 9:45 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

¿Y Microsoft nos dijo que ´ama´ a Linux?

EU lobbying

Sumario: El Cabildeo de Microsoft’s contra Android in Europe y por FRAND (esenciálmente patentes de software) el los estádares Europeos logra resultados

Las patentes de software en Europa han sido cubiertos aquí por mucho más tiempo que la EPO. Empresas como Microsoft las han venido usando para prohibir efectivamente software de código libre/ abierto (FOSS), o excluir este tipo de software de la política de contratación de acuerdo con las normas. De acuerdo con este nuevo artículo del Dr. Glyn Moody, Microsoft ha tenido éxito con esto, ya que sus grupos de presión siguen presionando por FRAND en Europa [1, 2]. Sí, además de su presión ante la Comisión Europea por muchos años contra el software libre/Android [1, 2, 3], que finalmente consiguió acción antimonopolio contra Google, “Mientrás que Microsoft está ¨adoptando¨al código abierto, la UE está excluyéndolo de la política – como Microsoft demandó originalmente “, para citar a Simon Phipps, quien a su vez cita Moody diciendo:” no es de extrañar que la Comisión estaba tratando de mantener ese detalle en particular escondido, debido a la concesión de licencias FRAND, supuestamente acrónimo de “justo, razonable y no discriminatoria “, es incompatible con el código abierto, el que por lo tanto, se encontrará excluidosde gran parte de la gran nueva estrategia de mercado único digital de la UE. Eso no es una “política de derechos de propiedad intelectual equilibrada“.

El problema inherente con esta política es que asume erróneamente que las patentes de software tienen legitimidad en la UE

El problema con open source es que el estandar licensign puede ser perfectamente justo, razonable y no-discrimínatorio, pero sería sin embargo imposíble de implementar para el open source.Típicamente, el licensiamiento FRAND requiere un pago por copia, pero para el Software Libre, que puede ser compartido innumerables veces, no hay manera de llevar la cuenta en cuántas copuias hay afuera. Incluso si el pago es pequeño, todavía un requerimiénto de licensias que el open source no puede implementar.

El problema inherente con esta política es que asume erróneamente que las patentes de software tienen legitimidad en la UE. Es una laguna o incluso una distorsión de la legislación Europea. Bueno, no es como si Microsoft trata verdaderamente de obedecer la ley de todos modos … su grupo delantero, la infáme Business Software Alliance, ha adoptado este tipo de política durante casi una década.

Bueno, no es como si Microsoft trata verdaderamente de obedecer la ley de todos modos …

Incidentálmente, ayerIP Katpublicó este artículoacerca de laPatentabilidad del diseño de interface del usuario”, citando al Jurado de Apelaciónesqueparticularmente no es amigable a las patentes de software (a diferencia de la EPO, no busca máximizar ganancias al bajar la calidad de las patentes o al expándir su esfera con el tiempo en desafío a la EPC*).
Un comentario del presidente de la FFII dijo: “Jacob dijo que” redacción técnica “es una reformulación del mismo problema. “Técnico” se convierte en el agujero negro, donde la EPO encuentra manera de evitar el espíritu de la EPC, materias en las que las exclusiones se relaciónan con lo abstracto “.
Técnico es generalmente un término sin sentido
Una persona respondió diciéndo: “te has molestado al leer el post? Explica como al contrario, el BoA de la EPO ha rechazado ver algo “técnicoen presentaciónes de información, excepto en tres ahora viejos casos (T 643/00, T 928/03 and T 49/04). Aparte de ello, por una cosa sé que la T 49/04 fué una decisión controversial de la EPO, y esto pueda explicar el porque, después, los Boards no continuaron en el mismo camino.”
Aquí tenemos una persona voluntáriamente ignorando la correlación entre la UPC y las patentes de software (personas de alta reputación han hablado al respecto) y ella diceconspiraciónpara desacreditar a aquellos que hablan acerca de ello, matándo al mensajero como sigue:

Si “Zoobab” es el mismo Zoobab de Twitter, parece ser un activista anti-software-patentes y parece ser un fiel seguidor del blog Techrights, quienes ven cualquier cosa que se menciona incluso las patentes de software o la UPC (incluso en un contexto negativo) como evidencia de algún tipo de gran conspiración para defraudar al público europeo.
Da la casualidad de que estoy dudoso acerca de los méritos de las patentes de software o incluso de la UPC. Pero he aprendido que nada menos que totalmente de acuerdo, de todo corazón con las teorías de la conspiración loca de esos personajes es visto como una prueba más de que no hay solamente una conspiración, sino también que eres parte de ella, incluso si comparte ampliamente su recelos si bien por diferentes razones.

Lo anterior pone palabras en la boca de tanto Benjamin Henrion y la mía – palabras que nunca se pronunciaron en absoluto. A pesar del secreto que engendra sospecha **, hay una gran cantidad de información se puede acumular cavando lo suficientemente profundo. En realidad, hay un montón de pruebas que demuestran lo que ambos dijimos (no lo de arriba), la administración de la EPO mantiene la promoción por la UPC *** y las patentes de software (escribimos acerca de ello con ejemplos a principios de este año), y esto llamó la atención de otras personas anoche. “Técnica” es generalmente un término bastante sin sentido (como “innovación¨, “novedoso” y otros marrulleos). Una taza del baño es muy técnivo. Vea esta reacción a la frase “el efecto de un perfil mental particular del usuario puede ser considerado técnico” (respuesta en Español).
______
* “Cliente”, aparentemente, basado en este nuevo tweet, es una nueva palabra por “solicitante” que la EPO heredo de la mentalidad ENA de Pinocho Battistelli.

** La EPO de nuevo (dos veces por semana) promovió a la EUIPO. Recuérden el overlap entre esos dos [1, 2, 3]].

*** He aquí la última Promoción de la UPC por parte de la EPO (last night).

04.21.16

Growing Threats of Software Patents in Europe and the FRAND Trap Which Microsoft Promotes/Lobbies For

Posted in Europe, Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, RAND at 9:14 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

And Microsoft told us it “loves Linux”…

EU lobbying

Summary: Microsoft’s lobbying against Android in Europe and for FRAND (essentially software patents) in European standards yield results

Software patents in Europe have been covered here for much longer than the EPO. Companies like Microsoft were using them to effectively ban Free/Open Source software (FOSS), or exclude such software from procurement policy as per the standards. According to this new article from Dr. Glyn Moody, Microsoft was somewhat successful with this as its lobbyists continue lobbying for FRAND in Europe [1, 2]. Yes, in addition to lobbying the European Commission for many years against FOSS/Android [1, 2, 3], eventually leading to antitrust action against Google, “Just as Microsoft is adopting open source, the EU is excluding it from policy – like Microsoft originally demanded,” to quote Simon Phipps, who in turn cites Moody who’s saying: “It’s no surprise that the Commission was trying to keep that particular detail quiet, because FRAND licensing—the acronym stands for “fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory”—is incompatible with open source, which will therefore find itself excluded from much of the EU’s grand new Digital Single Market strategy. That’s hardly a “balanced IPR policy.”

“An inherent problem with this policy is that it wrongly assumes that patents on software have legitimacy in the EU.”“The problem for open source is that standard licensing can be perfectly fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory, but would nonetheless be impossible for open source code to implement. Typically, FRAND licensing requires a per-copy payment, but for free software, which can be shared any number of times, there’s no way to keep tabs on just how many copies are out there. Even if the per-copy payment is tiny, it’s still a licensing requirement that open source code cannot meet.”

An inherent problem with this policy is that it wrongly assumes that patents on software have legitimacy in the EU. It’s a loophole or even a distortion of European law. Well, it’s not as though Microsoft truly tries to obey the law anyway… its front group, Business Software Alliance, has pursued this kind of policy for nearly a decade now.

“Well, it’s not as though Microsoft truly tries to obey the law anyway…”Incidentally, yesterday IP Kat published this article about “Patentability of user interface designs”, citing the Board of Appeal which isn't particularly software patents-friendly (unlike the EPO, it doesn’t just seek to maximise profit by reducing patent quality or by also expanding patent scope over time, in defiance of the EPC*).

One comment from the FFII’s President said: “Jacob said the “Technical” wording is a restatement of the same problem. “Technical” becomes the black hole where the EPO finds it way to bypass the spirit of the EPC, where all the exclusions concerns abstract matters.”

““Technical” is generally a rather meaningless term.”One person responded by saying: “have you bothered to read the post? It explains how, on the contrary, the BoA of the EPO has refused to see anything “technical” in presentations of information, except in three now rather old cases (T 643/00, T 928/03 and T 49/04). Apart from that, I know for one thing that T 49/04 was an extremely controversial decision within the EPO, and this may explain why, afterwards, the Boards didn’t continue on the same path.”

Here we have a wilfully ignorant person who doesn’t know the correlation between the UPC and software patents (high-profile people have spoken explicitly about it) and s/he says “conspiracy” to discredit those who speak about it, shooting the messengers as follows:

If “Zoobab” is the same Zoobab as on Twitter, s/he seems to be an anti-software-patent activist and appears to be a loyal follower of the Techrights blog, who see anything that even mentions software patents or the UPC (even in a negative context) as evidence of some sort of grand conspiracy to defraud the European public.

As it happens, I’m dubious about the merits of software patents or indeed the UPC. But I’ve learned that anything less than full, wholehearted agreement with the wacky conspiracy theories of such characters is seen as yet further evidence that there’s not only a conspiracy, but also that you’re part of it, even if you broadly share their misgivings albeit for different reasons.

The above puts words in the mouth of both Benjamin Henrion and myself — words that were never at all uttered. In spite of the secrecy which breeds suspicion**, there is a lot of information one can accumulate by digging deep enough. There is actually plenty of evidence to show what we both said (not the above), the EPO’s management keeps promoting both the UPC*** and software patents (we wrote about it with examples earlier this year), and this got the attention of other people last night. “Technical” is generally a rather meaningless term (like “innovative”, “novel” and other such buzzwords). A toilet bowl too is technical. See this reaction to the phrase “the effect of a particular layout on the mental processes of the user could be considered… technical” (response in Spanish).
______
* “Customer”, apparently, based on this new tweet, is a new word for “applicant” as EPO inherits the ENA mentality of Battistelli.

** The EPO has once again (second time in a week) promoted the EUIPO. Recall the overlaps between those two [1, 2, 3]].

*** Here is the latest UPC promotion from the EPO (last night).

04.16.16

Microsoft’s War on Java Shows That Microsoft’s E.E.E. (Embrace, Extend, Extinguish) Tactics Are Alive and Well

Posted in Antitrust, GNU/Linux, Java, Microsoft, Mono at 3:05 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Microsoft a serial killer of FOSS

A serial killer

Summary: Microsoft has just killed yet another FOSS project (using money to shut down competitors) — one that was helping Android and Java

THE headline “Embrace, extend – and kill. Microsoft discontinues RoboVM” says it all really. Several people in our IRC channels noticed this original story (from the original statement) rather quickly and later on in the day some people told me about it privately, so it obviously wasn’t overlooked at all.

“Nice,” Lirodon wrote in the afternoon, “and now Microsoft has killed RoboVM dead. It was already dead when they became non-free.”

“Microsoft,” MinceR responded, “where projects go to die [...] just like they killed entire video game developer companies (Terminal Reality and Ensemble Studios)” (we covered this years ago).

Microsoft is just the same old evil company, there is no ‘ new’ Microsoft. Microsoft will try this against GNU/Linux if it can. It’s its classic modus operandi, but taking on a project as big as these (to “extinguish”) is a monumental task.

What Techrights wrote about RoboVM when it was first “embraced” [1, 2, 3] turns out to be true. We foresaw exactly what Microsoft would do about RoboVM once it’s payday (yet again!) for Miguel de Icaza.

Some people still wonder, what exactly happened to RoboVM? Here it is in their own words: “Over the past few weeks, we’ve been working with the teams at Xamarin and Microsoft to assess the technology and business conditions of RoboVM to determine the path forward for the products. After looking at the complete landscape for mobile development with Java, the decision has been made to wind down development of RoboVM.”

After they had made it proprietary (shortly before Xamarin stepped in formally), essentially stabbing the whole community in the back, the Microsoft people (all of them are Microsoft staff now) did this:

For any fools out there who still think Microsoft doesn’t do E.E.E. against FOSS, here we go again. What would it take to wake people up? How many more companies need to die? How could RoboVM not know that Xamarin was an evil proxy of Microsoft? It was common knowledge as it wasn’t hard to see where Xamarin’s money had come from (Microsoft veterans).

Microsoft is now essentially shutting down another pillar of Java, so this is classic E.E.E. via Xamarin. As one person put it to us, “and today Microsoft ordered RoboVM to wind down operation” (linking to the original announcement).

A lot of the utter rubbish about Microsoft “loving Linux” is a villainous lie. It’s the best lie money can buy as it’s clear that Microsoft is still very aggressive; it hates GNU/Linux, it hates Android, and it hates Java. Don’t let the Microsoft-funded media fool you (Microsoft Peter, for instance, moved from the UK to the US to write for Condé Nast, which is paid by Microsoft). Microsoft basically buys articles from various large media networks; it pays networks to tell us that Microsoft has changed, but nothing is changing, it’s only escalating.

The above, says Fernando Cassia, “reminds me of VirtualPC, which was a product of Innotek Gmbh and offerend Windows virtualization under OS/2 hosts….”

He then told me, “guess which product they dropped after being acquired by Microsoft? Yes, Virtual PC for IBM OS/2 :-/”

He further emphasised that “everything Microsoft does is about leveraging its cash cow to hurt competitors or whatever it sees as a menace” and “the war on Java started ten years ago… “Operation Sunblock” never really stopped” (here is the article about “Operation Sunblock”)

“20 years ago,” he added a few hours later, “boy how time flew [...] “+options available…including tools that will help you PORT TO XAMARIN” //Competitor eliminated.Mission accomplished”

When will be the next antitrust probe against Microsoft bribery, racketeering, blackmail, and extortion? Did it get enough lobbyists in all the right places in order to shift any such focus to Google? Remember that Microsoft is still run by the same thugs (only the CEO changed) and they want Android and Linux to be next in the E.E.E. pipeline. Microsoft loves nothing but itself and its own monopoly of lock-in and back doors. New charm offensives try to lull us into sleep and inaction (no defensive/reactionary statements from the community).

As one person told me yesterday: “Remember Microsoft’s charm offensive with Nokia? We all know very well how that ended and what happened to MeeGo & Meltemi.”

We wrote a lot about what Microsoft did to Nokia. How many more Linux and FOSS backers need to die (out of work) before the media acknowledges that Microsoft is a liar and an assassin?

04.14.16

European Patent Office a Microsoft Stronghold: GNU/Linux and Mac Support Seemingly Just Dumped

Posted in Apple, Europe, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Patents at 8:26 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Microsoft is an EPO V.I.P. (a marriage made in Hell)

Microsoft at EPO

Summary: Yet more examples of preferential treatment for Microsoft at the EPO, which merely helps a foreign company, Microsoft, make sales, e.g. of Windows (even spyware!), and launch lawsuits against GNU/Linux in Europe, having enjoyed a fast lane and outrageous tolerance of software patents (Microsoft even bragged about this)

LAST month we wrote about the worrisome technical relationship between the EPO and Microsoft [1, 2], setting aside preferential treatment for Microsoft as a patent applicant (which does a lot of patent aggression against European companies that ‘dare’ to distribute Linux). The EPO has become just as abusive as Microsoft if not a lot worse and moreover, just like Microsoft, it somehow believes that it is above the law and that it can get away with virtually anything, even mass surveillance without consent.

At 34 minutes past midnight (less than two hours ago) the EPO announced this new release. Well, looking at the download page (warning: epo.org link), we find this:

Windows-only EPO

Windows-only EPO text

These self-explanatory screenshots suggest either that the EPO dumped support for any platform other than Windows or it deliberately leaves these ‘bad’ platforms behind, despite Java being cross-platform. Microsoft must be very, very pleased and happy with its lapdogs at the EPO. To quote the page: “BiSSAP version 1.3.6, currently available only for Windows users. Mac OS and Linux versions will not be updated to be compatible with Java 8.” Whose office is this?

« Previous Page« Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries »Next Page »

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channels: Come and chat with us in real time

New to This Site? Here Are Some Introductory Resources

No

Mono

ODF

Samba logo






We support

End software patents

GPLv3

GNU project

BLAG

EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com



Recent Posts