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

05.28.16

Microsoft Boosters Pretend Microsoft Fights for Privacy While the Company Uses Malware Tactics to Put Keyloggers on Everyone’s Computers

Posted in Microsoft, Vista 10 at 10:22 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

BP loves puppies

Summary: In spite of malware-inspired tactics that should land Microsoft in courts of law all around the world (as a defendant), Microsoft-friendly circles pretend that the company fights for people’s rights like privacy — all this when Microsoft installs keyloggers on people’s PCs without their consent and obviously against their will

“Microsoft fights for your privacy” should sound as perverse as “BP fights for the environment” (or puppies) and “the Mafia fights for justice,” but in spite of Microsoft’s close relationship with the NSA some rights groups help Microsoft with the latest publicity stunt or show trial. One Microsoft booster even chose the hilarious headline “Microsoft is going in to bat for your privacy” (after all that Microsoft has done against people’s privacy, overtly and aggressively).

Microsoft Jack, in his typical Microsoft-promoting fashion, answers (or claims to answer) 10 quick questions about installing Windows 10 (he means Vista 10, which is technically malware) in light of the latest controversy over Microsoft’s resort to malware tactics (where X means "yes"). “Microsoft won’t back down from Windows 10 nagware ‘trick’,” said the British press two days ago:

Microsoft is hurt and disappointed that people would think it was trying to “trick” them with a confusing Windows 10 upgrade dialog that scheduled an upgrade without users explicitly agreeing to do so.

Redmond recently created a new Windows 10 nagware reminder that presented a dialog asking you to install the OS. But if users clicked the red “X” to close the dialog – standard behaviour for dispelling a dialog without agreeing to do anything – Microsoft took that as permission for the upgrade.

Nobody in Microsoft has been put on trial, as usual, for reasons we explained before. The following day we saw the Microsoft-friendly BBC (lots of former Microsoft UK staff now run it) writing about “Microsoft U-turn on ‘nasty trick’ pop-up” (they even put scare quotes around nasty trick). To quote:

Microsoft has u-turned over changes it made to a pop-up encouraging users to upgrade to Windows 10.

Users were angry that clicking the cross to dismiss the box meant that they had agreed to the upgrade.

Based on “customer feedback”, Microsoft said that it had added another notification that provided customers with “an additional opportunity for cancelling the upgrade”.

The pop-up design had been described as a “nasty trick”.

Microsoft told the BBC it had modified the pop-up two weeks ago as a result of criticism: “We’ve added another notification that confirms the time of the scheduled upgrade and provides the customer an additional opportunity for cancelling or rescheduling the upgrade.

How many people have been ‘tricked’ into installing this malware on their PC/s? When if ever will there be a class action lawsuit? Who has been held accountable? Will Microsoft claim ‘triumph’ for Vista 10 because it forced several more millions of people to have this malware installed against their will? When will people finally realise that Microsoft is not an ordinary company but a company that cheats, bribes, deceives, and so on?

“The government is not trying to destroy Microsoft, it’s simply seeking to compel Microsoft to obey the law. It’s quite revealing that Mr. Gates equates the two.”

Government official

05.26.16

Microsoft Has Killed Nokia (and Its Own Mobile Ambitions), But Watch What it Does With Patents

Posted in Microsoft, Patents at 7:41 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Nokia still a piece in Microsoft’s patent stacking strategy against Android

Nokia trolls
Image from BusinessKorea

Summary: Microsoft announces many more layoffs, having already caused tremendous damage to the Finnish economy, and patents are left astray for Microsoft’s favourite patent trolls to pick

SEVERAL readers have sent us links regarding the latest passage of Nokia patents by Microsoft, having already seen how Microsoft feeds Google-hostile trolls using Nokia’s patent portfolio. These links have been sent to us for over a week and we can no longer ignore the subject, despite the fact that we try hard not to cover Microsoft (there are more pressing issues like the EPO). This article is an accumulation of news about Microsoft and Nokia, including the patent angle that the media overlooks, as usual.

Microsoft is fully aboard on a marketing campaign and it is still in a major war against Linux. Anyone who doesn’t see it probably pays no attention to patents. As Benjamin Henrion put it earlier this week, “Google, Facebook, Microsoft and others hardly pay any taxes in any country, with patent boxes and other tricks.”

“Microsoft does not think it needs to obey the law. It never really did. Bill Gates already got arrested as a youngster, but as a child of very rich parents he quickly got bailed out.”The Patent Box trick was covered here before. It’s one classic way to evade tax through patents (as loopholes) and IAM published ‘sponsored’ ‘content’ about this the other day, titled “The Patent Box is changing shape”. Recall Microsoft’s tax avoidance (it was found guilty in a court and the IRS now goes after it, however belatedly) and consider the fact that Microsoft hardly cares about the law. Microsoft does not think it needs to obey the law. It never really did. Bill Gates already got arrested as a youngster, but as a child of very rich parents he quickly got bailed out.

Microsoft hardly matters in mobile. It never really mattered. It was companies like Nokia with Symbian that dominated the market. Regarding this article from a Microsoft booster, iophk wrote to tell us: “Aside from its role in killing Nokia, Microsoft was never a player. And statistics say otherwise about iPhone vs Android market share.”

Yes, it is disappointing to see some of the claims put forth by Microsoft boosters in ‘journalist’ clothing. They are trying to rewrite history regarding Microsoft and mobile and also misplace the blame for Nokia’s demise. As one person put it earlier this week: “#Microsoft #mobile cutting 1350 people in Finland + 500 globally, killing #windowsphone #wp So this was Microsoft’s mobile first strategy.”

It was a failed strategy, but Microsoft refuses to admit this and would quite likely resort to a strategy of revisionism. Watch Microsoft’s CEO and the mole (Elop) in the photo used by Microsoft Peter. Will the world remember that it was Microsoft’s Elop who killed Nokia?

The Helsinki Times wrote: “The network equipment manufacturer confirmed that it will trim its headcount in the country by 1,023 as part of a global, almost one-billion euro cost-cutting programme aimed at achieving the synergies arising from its recent takeover of Alcatel-Lucent.”

Gizmodo has chosen the headline “Microsoft Is Demolishing Its Smartphone Business” and said: “A week after selling off its feature phone division, Microsoft has announced that it’s also “streamlining” its smartphone hardware business, cutting 1,850 jobs in the process.”

“Will the world remember that it was Microsoft’s Elop who killed Nokia?”These are more Microsoft layoffs, which oughtn’t be attributed to Nokia because Nokia was killed by Microsoft after Microsoft had infiltrated it. Initially, the Finnish press reported a different number, e.g. “Nokia to cut 1032 jobs in Finland”. To quote: “Networks giant Nokia has slightly lowered the number of employees being made redundant in Finland from April’s estimate of 1300. About half of the jobs being eliminated are in Espoo, with about a quarter each in Oulu and Tampere.”

Later on came the headline “Microsoft to cut 1,350 jobs in Finland” and whatever the real number is, we know from experience that Microsoft disguises many of its layoffs using a variety of tricks, so the real number is probably a lot higher. As CNET put it: “The company announced Wednesday that it would be axing 1,850 jobs in addition to the 4,500 job cuts that were announced last week, along with the sale of its feature phone business.”

It is getting hard to keep track of the numbers, but considering all the loopholes (like temporary employees and contractors), assume the real number of laid off staff to be much higher albeit hard to verify.

The Australian media says this will cost Microsoft a billion (probably more in reality). To quote: “Software giant Microsoft appears to have all but thrown in the towel on its disastrous mobile phone experiment, announcing a US$1 billion restructure of its smartphone hardware business with the loss of 1850 jobs, most of them at the former Nokia plant in Finland.”

“It is getting hard to keep track of the numbers, but considering all the loopholes (like temporary employees and contractors), assume the real number of laid off staff to be much higher albeit hard to verify.”“Good riddance,” iophk told us. “Now how can they be reconditioned so as not to be a liability for society, which they will be if they continue to spread Microsoft?”

Yes, there’s a growing danger of entryism by Microsoft in Finland.

Microsoft ended up killing Nokia after Nokia had worked on Linux (which was created by a Finnish man) and now this is costing Finnish taxpayers (i.e. economy) a lot of money. Consider the report “Government ministers pledge to help laid-off Microsoft workers” which says: “The Minister of Economic Affairs Olli Rehn and Minister of Justice and Labour Jari Lindström said that the government would help the 1,350 workers in Finland who are scheduled to be laid off by the computing giant Microsoft.”

This sounds like corporate welfare for thugs.

“Again,” iophk wrote, “it is the taxpayers who are left holding the bag.” With its back doors (for NSA at al) Microsoft cost economies trillions (some estimates circa 2010). How much more can the world tolerate? Imperialism/espionage by Microsoft and those whose offensive spying it actively facilitates? Even near the Russian borders, where such activity can invoke brutal retaliation?

So Microsoft killed Nokia and everyone but Microsoft is expected to pay the price now?

“Microsoft is a ruthless company that won’t tolerate Android, not without it becoming a Microsoft cash cow somehow.”What about patents? Well, see this report from IAM. It says: “HMD Global is reportedly owned by its own management team – which includes several former Nokia and Microsoft executives – and private equity fund Smart Connect LP. This latter entity is managed by another Nokia alumnus, Jean-Francois Baril, who served as senior vice president and chief procurement officer for the Finnish company from 1999 to 2012.”

According to press releases we were shown, patents too (including software patents) were passed, so we might know quite soon if the gutting of Nokia is a way to ensure Android gets heavily taxed (at OEM level) in the patents sense. This is what Microsoft has basically been doing to Android for over half a decade, including through Nokia (we gave several examples in the past). Microsoft is a ruthless company that won’t tolerate Android, not without it becoming a Microsoft cash cow somehow.

Microsoft, a Dead Company Walking, Resorts to Malware Tactics, Now Truly Indistinguishable From Crackers

Posted in Microsoft, Vista 10, Windows at 6:02 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

What next? Ransomware?

Albert Gonzalez
Albert Gonzalez is in prison, but Microsoft executives are too big to jail. Photo: U.S. Secret Service/US Attorney for New Jersey

Summary: Microsoft is essentially taking over people’s PCs and installing on them a large piece of malware, complete with keyloggers, against the will of these PCs’ owners

WHAT is the difference between Vista 10 and malware? Quite frankly, we can’t tell anymore. Windows is no longer just the host of state-developed malware like Stuxnet; it is itself malware, as per definition.

Days ago we wrote about further escalation of Vista 10's aggressive tactics and now it gets even worse, confirming what we mentioned earlier this week:

Once again, Microsoft has been caught out putting the security of its users at risk, by employing what has been described as a “nasty trick” to force an upgrade to Windows 10.

A BBC report said that the company had now changed the functionality of the pop-up that was used to encourage users to upgrade to Windows 10.

The red X at the right-hand top corner is normally used to close the pop-up, but the BBC said now clicking there activated the upgrade, rather than closing the pop-up.

One can only avoid the upgrade when another pop-up appears at the time scheduled on the first pop-up. The instructions provided by Microsoft are not exactly simple and will take up a fair amount of time.

Note that the instructions blithely say: “When you close this pop up, your PC will upgrade at the scheduled time,” as though closing a pop-up normally results in the activity specified therein running to conclusion!

“Better option is to upgrade to GNU/Linux,” iophk told us. “Mint is a good starter distro.”

Worth repeating is this assertion: if Microsoft was not so well connected in government, given it a sense of immunity, Vista 10 tactics would land people who developed it in prison (there are other reasons for this), or at least in courtrooms all around the world.

05.24.16

Windows and Microsoft’s Other ‘Burning Platforms’

Posted in Microsoft, Vista 10, Windows at 12:26 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

To use Elop’s own words (we shall write about Nokia separately some time later)

Summary: It’s not just Windows for phones that’s reaching minuscule market share levels but also Windows, but Microsoft is skilled at hiding this (cannibalising Windows using something people do not even want, then counting that cannibal, Vista 10)

THE REASON why Microsoft is not being covered here as much as before is that it’s not as relevant. Right now even Microsoft’s and Bill Gates’ friends at Gartner admit that Windows Phone market share is approaching 0%. Rumours we have been hearing suggest that Windows Phone will be called off and die not too long from now. Even Microsoft’s biggest fans (some of whom pretend to be journalists) have dumped Windows Phone (usually in favour of Android). We didn’t write about it when it happened because we worry more about what Microsoft intends to do with its patents (recall IBM) as its business is reduced to rubble.

“Rumours we have been hearing suggest that Windows Phone will be called off and die not too long from now.”For those who have not seen or heard the news, “Windows Phone market share falls below one percent”, according to a Microsoft-connected firm. As iophk put it: “Market share or sales? The numbers might be lower still.” They probably are. To quote CBS: “Microsoft’s Windows Phone may not be long for this world. Although the first quarter of 2016 saw a 3.9 percent increase in global smartphone sales year-on-year, Windows Phone saw a nearly 2 percent drop in sales. According to the latest Gartner report, Windows Phone sales went from 2.5 percent and 8.27 million units in Q1 2015 to 0.7 percent and 2.4 million units in Q1 2016.”

Glyn Moody cites this as proof that Microsoft won’t come back to greatness (in the market share sense) any time soon, or ever. Here is another article about it, this one titled “Windows Phone market share sinks below 1 percent” (also from a Gates-connected source). There are even more pessimistic reports in other places. FOSS proponent Sam Varghese notes that “Android sales were the highest (84.1%).” We have intentionally chosen Microsoft-friendly sources so as to show just how serious the problem is. Even the Microsoft choir cannot spin its way out of it.

“Microsoft’s Vista 10 installs itself without consent, still.”On the desktop, Microsoft is forcing people to use what Microsoft tells them to have, basically by hijacking people’s PCs. As the Bill Gates-funded The Guardian has just put it, “Microsoft has ruined my day, and possibly my life” (article by Michele Hanson). the summary says: “An unwanted software update has moved my files, broken my printer and stopped the sound on iPlayer” (which was originally notoriously Microsoft-friendly, as we noted over the years).

“Microsoft is in shambles.”As a matter of preference and priority, we don’t write much about Vista 10 anymore, but we keep hearing new stories about forced ‘upgrades’. For instance, “yesterday,” said one person, “Microsoft updated to windows 10 without my consent…” [1, 2]. Microsoft’s Vista 10 installs itself without consent, still. The solution? Goodbye Windows, hello GNU/Linux. Much to our disgust, Microsoft continues to exploit the “Linux” brand in its miserable effort to whitewash Vista 10, based on what Microsoft published yesterday. Is this whole provocative charade not over yet? Microsoft does not love Linux, it just realises that now, as Chromebooks outsell Apple-branded PCs, GNU/Linux is the growing/huge force not only in mobile (tablet/phones) but also on the desktop (or laptop rather). Microsoft does not love Linux and it does not love FOSS either. Yesterday, for instance, we learned of yet another case of Microsoft censorship [1] because someone dared to suggest making Visual Basic FOSS upon its 25th anniversary [2].

Microsoft is in shambles. To use Elop’s words (from that infamous memo), Microsoft’s operating systems are now “burning platforms”.

Related/contextual items from the news:

  1. Visual Basic Reaches 25th Birthday – Microsoft Censors Campaign To Open Source VB6
  2. Microsoft marks Visual Basic’s 25th birthday, kicks off marathon celebration

05.21.16

Guest Post: How Vista 10 Imposes Itself on Users of Windows

Posted in Microsoft, Vista 10, Windows at 5:53 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: A reader’s experience being nagged by Microsoft, as documented and explained by this reader

The attached screen capture shows what the update procedure looks like.

On 19 May 2016:

Vista 10 nags
The update utility showing KB3122862

Vista 10 nags
The official Microsoft info on KB3122862

What third parties are saying [1, 2]. The previous attempt to dump Win10 on my machine was less than a fortnight ago, on 7 May 2016

Vista 10 nags
The second update is this time classified as
“important” rather than “optional”.

Vista 10 nags
Uh oh, time to grab the barge pole…

Vista 10 nags
Another “innocuous” sounding update on 8 April 2016.

And on 13 April 2016, there were a lot of updates, no Win10 stuff, but I had to go through them one by one to check that nothing sneaky was included.

I’m almost ready to make the switch to Linux but it’s more complicated than I thought, I’m running into technical problems which I don’t really want to have to deal with, e.g. video drivers. I’ve been getting familiar with OpenSUSE for the last few years, and reviewed many other distributions. I’ll stay away from Ubuntu as they seem to be in bed with Microsoft, and after I looked into the other choices (Mint, Debian, Fedora), I’ll stick with the devil I know.

05.17.16

Endless Harmonious Self-Congratulatory Praises From Self-Serving Law Firms in the Wake of Just One Pro-Software Patents Decision From CAFC

Posted in Courtroom, Microsoft, Patents at 10:50 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Many loudspeakersMaybe if it’s repeated often enough and shouted from the mountains/rooftops with a megaphone they’ll manage to impose their selfish (greedy) will on the system

Summary: The court that brought software patents to the United States has defended a software patent and patent lawyers want us to believe that this is an historic game-changing decision (potentially to be appealed by Microsoft, if Microsoft actually wanted to fight software patents)

THE corporate media continues to be heavily besieged by patent lawyers and their interests. Nobody seems to be seeking the views of software developers/programmers. It’s almost as though they do not exist in (or to) the media.

Last week a decision was covered by the media (context in this previous post about the decision). It’s a decision which involved a software patents. The only reason it got so much press coverage is that it was in favour of software patents and cherry-pickers were quick to take advantage.

“It’s all just agenda or marketing disguised as “advice” or “news”. Such is the nature of much of the media nowadays.”Kevin Cukierski and James P. Muraff from Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP went on lobbying for software patents in guise of ‘reporting’, other patent lawyers’ sites continued to emphasise mostly pro-software patents decisions (the minority of the whole), there was more bias by omission in lawyers’ blogs, and so on. More push-polling on the subject, more selective quotes that neglect to speak to a single software developer and so on are just what we’ve become growingly accustomed to. An article by Michael Hussey and Marc V. Richards from Brinks Gilson & Lione went as far as claiming that “The Post-Alice Pendulum Swings Backs” (nope, it’s not the Supreme Court deciding here but a notoriously biased and corruptible court). In the news we have now spotted literally dozens of such pieces and virtually all are composed by law firms, not journalists, not software professionals, not judges. Legal firms of patent lawyers pretend Alice as a precedent matters no more or has “growing backlash”, whatever that means (it’s not like there are protests in the streets). Michael Borella from McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP would have us believe that it’s game over and it’s more of the same at the same site where Knobbe Martens (Olson & Bear LLP) celebrates software patents and even says “Good News” in a headline about “Federal Circuit’s Enfish Decision and PTO Guidelines Should Give Hope to Patentees” (what about patentees who are constantly being sued by rivals over software patents and thus file for defensive purposes?).

When will we, for a change, see unbiased reporting on such matters? It’s all just agenda or marketing disguised as “advice” or “news”. Such is the nature of much of the media nowadays.

05.15.16

Relying on EPO, CAFC — Originator of Software Patents in the US — Tries to Bring Them Back Into Play in Microsoft Case

Posted in America, Courtroom, Europe, Law, Microsoft, Patents at 6:11 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

And the microcosm of patents lawyers helps CAFC by selective coverage and accompanying hype that is hardly justified

Omission bias
Reference: Wikipedia

Summary: The highly biased Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) rules in favour of a software patent, so the crowd of patent lawyers (or their sites) goes wild and makes it seem like an Earth-shattering development that suddenly makes software patents very eligible in spite of Alice/§ 101

CONCERNS about the EPO‘s rogue management and the EPO scandals are globally justified as these matters impact not only Europe. And it’s not just because the EPO is not a European body (it’s international/globalist) but because it inspires moves in other countries/continents, where labour rights gradually get abolished/eroded and patents get expanded in terms of scope, number, injunctions, damages, and so on.

“New USPTO Patent-Eligibility Guidance Not So New,” according to this pro-patents site. Lawyers’ sites which comment on USPTO guidelines would rather have us believe nothing has changed. This one says that “this memorandum simply lays out the by now well-known two-part Alice/Mayo test, spells out explanations that examiners are supposed to give when making Section 101 rejections, and provides examiners with responses to arguments that applicants may make. Applicants may find this guidance useful in pressing examiners for better explanation of rejections based on allegedly unpatentable subject matter. However, I suspect applicants will continue to be frustrated by the seemingly subjective, and undeniably unpredictable, nature of many rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”

“The USPTO does not care what the Supreme Court says.”Will this patent office stop issuing software patents at long last? We doubt it. The USPTO does not care what the Supreme Court says. It’s pretty much the same at the EPO, where the EPC is repeatedly ignored (on multiple levels).

EPC rules are being ignored/crushed by Battistelli with his lousy leadership (while he makes up the EPO rules/guidelines with zero oversight) and in the mean time we learn that: “The CAFC in Enfish v Microsoft employed the EPO technical test to define what, if anything, was abstract.”

Worth noting, as we have indicated before, is the gross deception (by omission) from lawyers’ sites. When decisions are made against software patents in the US the lawyers’ blogs and sites are mostly quiet; but they’re all in hype and joy otherwise, amplifying the news. This is why the lawyers’ sites were all over this case a few days ago [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9], with headlines like “Federal Circuit Clearly Says Software Can Be Patentable” and summaries such as this: “A Federal Circuit panel (Judges Moore, Taranto, and Hughes) has unambiguously stated that some — one might even say much — software is patent-eligible, reversing findings of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for two patents “directed to an innovative logical model for a computer database.” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2015-1244 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2016) (opinion by Judge Hughes). In addition to reversing a summary judgment of Section 101 invalidity, the court vacated a summary judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 102, and left intact a summary judgment of non-infringement. But the reason why this case will be a big deal is the holding — and analysis — pertaining to the patent-eligibility of software inventions.”

“Then came the think tanks (the think tanks of patent maximalism), like one that supports not only patent trolls but also software patents.”“The EPO tech feature test is 40 years old,” one person wrote. “Why didn’t CAFC use it before and avoid all this jurisprudential bullshit?”

As Benjamin Henrion put it, “because the EPO test is garbage.”

Another opponent of software patents asked, “US Court now using EU rules?”

A later question was, “so they just take rules from other Countries when they decide to?”

“The GAO Report has already cited the role of Software Patents in the problem,” it was added, “FTC Report will probably say the same” (the patent maximalists slam it before it’s even released).

“In her Dissent in Bilski,” said one patent attorney, “J. Moore said that the abstract test would swallow circuit court decisions. It did. Hence, Enfish Today.” Another tweet said: “Enfish v Microsoft et al.–Only 1 of 2 Fed Cir Decisions Holding Software Eligible under 101; Held Software Not Inherently Abstract”

“Suffice to say, patent maximalists were celebrating, expounding, and emphasising the news.”Then came the think tanks (the think tanks of patent maximalism), like one that supports not only patent trolls but also software patents. To quote: [1, 2] “Some much-needed sanity in #patent law: Fed Cir says today in Enfish v. Microsoft that #software NOT automatically “abstract” under 101 test [...] unfortunately, Alice left much to interpretation by courts & PTO, who took it as anti-software patent mandate” (still slamming the Supreme Court because, once again, CAFC is trying to promote software patents, which it made up or introduced in the first place).

Here is a press release about the case. Suffice to say, patent maximalists were celebrating, expounding, and emphasising the news. This is their time to deceive, mislead, and engage in shameless self-promotion/marketing. IAM wrote: “Since the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Alice, many in the patent market have been searching for a case that provides some greater clarity on the Justices’ thinking or, at the very least, doesn’t simply see the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirm a lower court ruling and invalidate the patent in question. Those cases have been few and far between but the market took some encouragement this week from the CAFC’s decision in Enfish LLC v Microsoft, when the majority ruling explicitly stated that Alice did not simply eliminate broad swathes of software from patent eligibility.”

“So many sites, almost all of which are run by patent lawyers and their batsmen, are celebrating and emphasising this case because they love software patents and conveniently ignore the cases where the opposite is concluded.”Here is what Gene Quinn’s site and IP Kat wrote. So many sites, almost all of which are run by patent lawyers and their batsmen, are celebrating and emphasising this case because they love software patents and conveniently ignore the cases where the opposite is concluded.

National Law Review went with the headline “CAFC Finds Software Patent Eligible Under 35 U.S.C. §101″ and Andrew Chung from Reuters said “Federal Circuit revives patent, expands software eligibility”.

Software-related patents will survive challenges to their validity despite a U.S. Supreme Court precedent that has led to the widespread cancellation of patents, if they improve the way computers operate, a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday.

In a dispute involving Enfish LLC and Microsoft Corp, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit revived two Enfish patents on an advanced database, agreeing with the company’s Cooley attorneys that the technology improves the functioning of a computer and thus deserved to be patented.

As Microsoft lobbies so hard for software patents, losing this case is possibly good news to Microsoft. One might argue that they’re winning by losing here. This case isn’t about patent trolls but about patent scope and the former “patent reform is minimal,” Benjamin Henrion reminds people, “real reform involves discussing patents for software.”

“Why did it rely on the EPO? It seems totally improper a thing to do.”Right now there’s just one case that shows digression (moving in the opposite direction) as “patent courts are always biased.” (especially true in the case of CAFC, which is full of well-documented corruption)

“In a rare win for a software patentee,” Patently-O wrote, “the Federal Circuit has rejected a lower court ruling that Enfish’s “self-referential” database software and data-structure invention is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as effectively an abstract idea.”

Why did it rely on the EPO? It seems totally improper a thing to do.

In other cases — not the type of cases that patent lawyers want the public to know about, § 101 kills patents because it’s about an “electronic device to obtain clinical trial data that would otherwise be collected by pen-and-paper diary” (to quote the decision, not the Docket Report):

The court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss because the asserted claims of plaintiff’s clinical drug trial patents encompassed unpatentable subject matter and found that the claims were directed toward an abstract idea.

Another § 101 article from the Docket Report says “Popularity of § 101 Motions Weighs Against Certification for Interlocutory Appeal”. To quote: “The court denied defendant’s motion to certify for interlocutory appeal an earlier order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of patentable subject matter because, although there was a controlling question of law that would materially advance the litigation, the court exercised its discretion not to grant appeal given the popularity of 35 U.S.C. § 101 motions.”

The bottom line is this: Most decisions which involve § 101 wind up eliminating software patents. But reading the patent lawyers-dominated media (or their own ‘news’ sites) one might give the opposite impression.

[ES] Compañías Grandes Que Se Están Convirtiéndo Trolles Amenazan a Linux, Tratan de Embargar Importaciónes

Posted in GNU/Linux, Google, IBM, Microsoft, Patents at 4:57 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

English/Original

Article as ODF

Publicado en GNU/Linux, Google, IBM, Microsoft, Patents at 11:17 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Las patentes de software atacan de nuevo

La creencia no es sustitúto de la aritmética.”

Henry Spencer

Sumario: Batállas legales que largamente envuelven a Android (y por extensión Linux) son notados en los medios esta semana porque hay una solicitud para su prohibición (interdicto)

Hay una creciénte tendencia en economías que están yendo para abajo porque crecimiénto infinito es imposible y los monopolistas luchan para compensar sus pérdidas y sobreponérse a nuevas fronteras. A las compañías que alguna vez produciéron productos asombrósos no les queda nada pero patentes, así que recurren a chantáje de patentes y tratan de escurrir a otras compañías de sus ganancias. Observen como, en medio de grandes despidos, IBM esta atacándo compañías legítimas usando patentes de software en estos días, ganándose títulos como “el Más Grande Troll de Patentes del Mundo”. IBM se considera una victicma y dijo: “IBM, una reliquia de las firmas tecnológicas del siglo 20, ha recurrido a usurpar la propiedad intelectual de las compañías nacidas este milenio.” ¿Puede alguién confíar IBM con la OIN más? IBM no es un aliado creíble, es un animal encorralado asustado de no emplear un medio millón de personas como solía. ‘Pobrecito’ IBM…

No sólo compañíás que pretendes ser todo por Linux hacen esto. Una de estas compañíás es Creative, de la que hablamos el otro dia. Como un nuevo artículo lo puso, “Creative se levanta de los muertos para tratar de destruir a Android” y para citar:

¿Recuerdas Creative? En la década de 2000, la empresa tuvo su gran periodo, ya que sus reproductores de MP3 Zen fueron los anti-sistema alternativo al iPod. En estos días, la empresa con sede en Singapur en su mayoría hace auriculares para juegos y altavoces de la computadora – nada que ver con los teléfonos inteligentes, en otras palabras. Pero gracias a una denuncia presentada en contra de todos los fabricantes de teléfonos Android grande, Creative ha declarado la guerra a Android en silencio.

La queja presentada contra un quién es quién de los teléfonos inteligentes Android: Samsung, LG, HTC, Blackberry, Sony, ZTE, Lenovo y Motorola. El tema en cuestión es reproductores de música: todos los teléfonos tienen ellos, y Creative tiene una patente que piensa está siendo violada. En concreto, todos los teléfonos son capaces de “reproducción de archivos multimedia almacenados seleccionados por un usuario desde una visualización jerárquica.”

Android Police escribió que “Creative Quiere Prohibir a la Mayoría de Telefonos Android Phones de los EE.UU por una Supuesta Infracción de Patentes” y para citar unos párrafos:

Creative no es un nombre que se oye tan a menudo en la electrónica de consumo en estos días. La firma con sede en Singapur es conocida por la fabricación de productos de audio, incluyendo la línea de Zen de reproductores multimedia. Creative ha presentado una queja ante la Comisión Internacional de Comercio (ITC), alegando que, básicamente, todos los fabricantes de teléfonos Android está infringiendo sus patentes de Zen al mostrar su música. Se quiere que todos sean prohibidos, pero lo que realmente quiere es el dinero.

La queja se dirige a ZTE, Sony, Samsung, LG, Lenovo, Motorola, HTC y BlackBerry. La cuestión es cómo todo el mundo ve a las canciones y álbumes en un sistema de menú jerárquico muestra, que dice que es un invento suyo. Se fue detrás de Apple por lo mismo hace una década y, finalmente, consiguió un acuerdo de $ 100 millones. Si el CCI está de acuerdo con Creative, que podría conducir a la prohibición de dispositivos infractores, lo que sería una gran cantidad de teléfonos.

Ahora recuérden a Microsoft, un ¿ socio de Creative? No hay un cese al fuego a su chantaje de patentes como reporto hace poco. La parte de Google en Motorola teléfonos móviles viene a la mente, vean este nuevo reportaje que demuestra que Microsoft todavía esta atacándo a Linux/Android con patentes de software (mientras al mismo tiempo afirma “amar a Linux). Para citar a Reuters (reporte corto): “La patente de Microsoft Corp en camino para mostra que un web brows todavíá esta subiéndo contenido no es inválida, una corte de apelaciónes de los EE.UU dijo este Martes en vista del desafío de Motorola Mobility y Google Inc.

“Un panel de tres jueces de la Corte de Apelaciones de EE.UU. para el Circuito Federal falló a favor de Microsoft y sus abogados Klarquist Sparkman, la afirmación de un fallo de la Patente de EE.UU. Oficina de Marcas y que se negó a cancelar una parte clave de la patente. El panel no se dio por razones de su decisión, que se produjo dos días después de los argumentos orales en el caso.”

Por lo que Microsoft está todavía acosándo a Motorola y Google (es decir, Android) y al mismo tiempo dice que “ama a Linux”. Tiene sentido, ¿verdad? Mandatos no sólo buscados por Creative (recurrir a la ITC como lo hizo Microsoft hace cerca de una década con el fin de bloquear un rival al este de Asia); Es probable que sólo estrategia de crecimiento en Estados Unidos, a juzgar por estos nuevos artículos escritos por bufetes de abogados de Canadá y Brasil [1, 2] para ser incluído en IAM principios de esta semana.

ITC investigará a Samsung y Sony por reclamos de patentes” dice otro nuevo titular. ¿Quién se beneficia de esto? Para citar:

La Comisión de Comercio Internacional (ITC ) ha dicho que va a iniciar una investigación sobre fabricantes de teléfonos inteligentes como Sony, Samsung, ZTE y LG por la presunta violación de patentes.

En un comunicado en su página web, la ITC dijo que su investigación se centraría en “dispositivos electrónicos portátiles con la capacidad de reproducir archivos multimedia almacenados”.

Lenovo, Motorola, HTC y BlackBerry pueden destinarse también en la investigación.

La investigación de la sección 337 se basa en una denuncia presentada por Creative Technology con sede en Singapur y Creative Labs, con sede en Milpitas, California, en Marzo.

Creative solía ser amable en la década de 1990, pero ahora es notoria por su acoso a Linux (hay conexiones con Microsoft e Intel). Además de esta controvertida medida de Creative nos hemos enterado que el propio troll de patentes de Ericsson que todavía está activo en el Reino Unido y al parecer permanecera en la Corte de Patentes del Reino Unido en lugar de la Corte de Apelación Competitiva , basado en el informe de ayer, que dice: “Para cualquier persona se mantenga al tanto, la disputa de patentes de mamut en Unwired Planet v Huawei y Samsung continúa a lo largo de un trueno a paso. La última decisión del Tribunal de Patentes de la saga abordó la cuestión de si los problemas de competencia – posiblemente la parte más jugosa del caso – podrían ser transferidos a la Competencia Appeal Tribunal (CAT)? A finales de abril, el Sr. Justicia Birss respondió a esta cuestión, la decisión de que las cuestiones deben permanecer en la División de la Cancillería [2016] EWHC 958 (Pat).”

Permanecemos completamente comprometidos con el rastreo meticulóso de estas amenazas al Free software, incluyendo Android, ya que las patentes de software no son compatibles con el Free software como Linux. Cuando estas patentes comienza a sobrepasar las fronteras Europeas nos damos cuenta que la enfermedad se esta esparciéndo en vez de ser contenida (e.g. debido a Alice en los EE.UU). Hay mucho en riesto.

« 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