05.14.12
Posted in Deception, Microsoft at 10:54 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Convicted monopolist Microsoft has its moles’ voice invalidated, based on the conflict of interest (Microsoft versus the public)
WITH Microsoft moles like Hopkirk or Müller out there, it seems ever more reasonable to watch out for “controlled opposition” strategies. Microsoft is trying to speak ‘on behalf’ of its opposition (e.g. “FOSS patents”), as it has done for quite a while now. The H writes about this latest example where Microsoft influence poisons the well:
The Cabinet Office has confirmed that the consultation on Open Standards which was due to close next week has now been extended by a month after the facilitator of a round table discussion was discovered to have been directly advising Microsoft on the Open Standards consultation. The roundtable events have been held to bring opinions together and as a complementary source of input to the consultation, alongside the email, post and online methods for offering opinions on the government’s proposals.
According to the Cabinet Office, Dr Andrew Hopkirk facilitated a 4 April 2012 roundtable around “Competition and European Interaction”. Hopkirk, described as “a respected advocate for ‘openness and interoperability of systems, of people, processes and information technologies’”, was engaged by the Cabinet Office as a facilitator on a pro bono basis.
A few years ago Microsoft did the same type of thing in Europe, but government officials turned a blind eye, even in the face of complaints. So this latest development represents progress. See the links below. █
- European Open Source Software Workgroup a Total Scam: Hijacked and Subverted by Microsoft et al
- Microsoft’s AstroTurfing, Twitter, Waggener Edstrom, and Jonathan Zuck
- Does the European Commission Harbour a Destruction of Free/Open Source Software Workgroup?
- The Illusion of Transparency at the European Parliament/Commission (on Microsoft)
- 2 Months and No Disclosure from the European Parliament
- After 3 Months, Europe Lets Microsoft-Influenced EU Panel be Seen
- Formal Complaint Against European Commission for Harbouring Microsoft Lobbyists
- ‘European’ Software Strategy Published, Written by Lobbyists and Multinationals
- Microsoft Uses Inside Influence to Grab Control, Redefine “Open Source”
- With Friends Like These, Who Needs Microsoft?
- Microsoft-Funded Fake ‘SMB’ Group Still Lobbies for Software Patents in Europe
Permalink
Send this to a friend
05.12.12
Posted in Microsoft, Patents at 9:25 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: An accumulation of news about software patents, patent parasites, and patent trolls
THE parasites who are patent lawyers continue to give misguided (but self-serving) advice. They wants programmers to think that patent applications — not automatically-acquired copyrights — are needed for funding from VCs and the likes of them.
Companies like MOSAID make a living (for some lawyers) by litigation alone. Having recently gotten some patents from Microsoft and Nokia, MOSAID may soon be suing companies that already pay Microsoft for Android. B&N complained about MOSAID, but Microsoft paid B&N a considerably expensive/meaningful bribe for its silence. Meanwhile, as this report reveals, Nokia patents are being used against Android companies with a weak patent portfolio:
Nokia just announced that it’s suing HTC, RIM, and Viewsonic for patent infringement in the US and Germany. All told, there are 45 patent in the various lawsuits, covering what Nokia says are proprietary technologies — i.e., not industry standards. Specifically, Nokia’s patents cover hardware features like antennas, radios, and power management, as well as software features like multitasking, navigation, app stores, retrieving email attachments on mobile, “conversational” message display, dynamic menus, and certain types of data encryption.
HTC and Viewsonic — unlike Motorola and Samsung — haven’t many patents. So it is clear who will be harmed the most by such a system.
“Software patents [are] destroying business of SMEs in Germany,” says OPENTIA and it has become rather obvious that all this patent nonsense is just serving giants and their lawyers. Vivek Wadhwa, a critic of software patents (who regrets applying for some in the past), alleges that patent trolls are destroying jobs. As he put it in the Washington Post:
Where are the jobs? Ask the patent trolls.
President Obama has been touting patents as a way to create jobs and increase U.S. competitiveness. “These are jobs and businesses of the future just waiting to be created,” he said of patent applications last September, “somewhere in that stack of applications could be the next technological breakthrough, the next miracle drug, the next idea that will launch the next Fortune 500 company.”
The President is mistaken—at least when it comes to the patent system as it relates to software patents. These patents—and the patent system—aren’t creating innovation, they are inhibiting it and, by extension, job creation. Why? Because the breakthroughs aren’t in the patents, they are in the way ideas are commercialized and marketed. Because of flaws in the patent system and government leaders’ misunderstandings, there is an arms race of sorts happening in the tech industry that is sapping billions out of the economy and crushing technology startups. This system is enriching patent trolls—companies that buy patents in order to extort money from innovators. These trolls are like a modern day mafia. Given this, I argue software patents need to be eliminated or curtailed.
In order to re-ignite the economy several steps have to be taken other than regulation. Some obviously bad ideas like software patents, for example, must go. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Microsoft at 9:05 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Comparing one’s opposition to Unabomber
Summary: Microsoft funds an AstroTurf which compares particular people to mass murderers
THOSE who challenge Microsoft in response to its many crimes probably know too darn well how far the company goes to daemonise and intimidate the lone messengers. One of the company’s employees, working without disclosure in a so-called “TE” role (AstroTurf), was once harassing me in this Web site. See older posts such as:
Microsoft’s Wong decided to compare me to Unabomber and publicly insult me until I filed a complaint to the FTC. In a new E-mail titled “Charles Manson, the Unabomber…and you?” (dated 5/11/12 7:38 PM) Mike Palamuso from the League of Conservation Voters wrote:
Tell Microsoft, Comcast and other corporate donors to stop funding the
Heartland Institute's offensive, climate-denier propaganda:
http://action.lcv.org/site/R?i=kkLMsFUXoSE0Z-yr8zOZ9A .
[snip],
Have you heard what they're calling us? Serial killers and terrorists.
I know it seems like a joke, but this was actually put up on a
billboard last week in Chicago. The Heartland Institute, a leading
anti-science think tank, launched a campaign with images like this -
implying that if you believe global warming is happening, then you are
no different than the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, or mass
murderer Charles Manson.
If you find this as outrageous as I do, sign our petition urging the
Heartland Institute's corporate donors, including Microsoft and
Comcast, to end their funding today:
http://action.lcv.org/site/R?i=G8Fr2S5UeLFQHO3-Vrm4YQ .
For years, the Heartland Institute has been producing climate-denying
propaganda to benefit Big Oil and Dirty Coal. But this goes too far.
In their press release, they actually said that "people who still
believe in man-made global warming are mostly on the radical fringe of
society... they are murderers, tyrants, and madmen." This kind of
inflammatory, hateful rhetoric is offensive to the millions of
Americans who support common-sense solutions to the climate crisis.
Luckily, public outcry forced the Heartland Institute to take these
billboards down after just 24 hours. Yet, they are still not
apologizing for this deceitful campaign and will keep feeding the same
rhetoric to the media, members of Congress, and even our schools
unless we take action now.
Our partners at Forecast the Facts have been busy organizing a rapid
response from activists, which has already convinced some major
corporations like State Farm to pull their funding from the Heartland
Institute this week. Now they've asked for our help in adding
thousands more voices of activists like you to the call on other
corporations to end their funding to the Heartland Institute.
Will you sign our petition to Microsoft, Comcast, and the other
corporate funders of the Heartland Institute today?
http://action.lcv.org/site/R?i=eMaVmZ25VA6-XVKdtcDGvA
It's time for any corporation that cares about its reputation to stop
funding climate-denying groups like the Heartland Institute. With
enough people behind us, we can make that happen. So please take
action, and then share it via email, Facebook and Twitter.
Only together can we set the record straight on climate change and
ensure a clean energy future. We'll get back to you soon with updates
on the campaign as it progresses.
Thanks,
Mike Palamuso
Vice President, Communications
League of Conservation Voters
Here we have merely one more example where Microsoft funds predatory bodies that do this type of things. We mentioned more in the past. The AstroTurfing must stop and the anti-social element at Microsoft should be brought to justice. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Europe, Microsoft at 8:52 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
“Consultants: These guys are your best bets as moderators. Get a well-known consultant on your side early, but don’t let him publish anything blatantly pro-Microsoft. Then, get him to propose himself to the conference organizers as a moderator, whenever a panel opportunity comes up.”
–Microsoft, internal document
Summary: A ‘mole’ funded by Open Source-hostile interests is revealed for what it is by a government Web site
TECHRIGHTS mentioned quite recently a "controlled opposition" approach which Microsoft uses to infiltrate and subvert panels. Here is a UK government site complaining about what Microsoft is doing:
e aware of our recently re-launched consultation on which we have been soliciting your views since 9th February 2012. One of our first discussion roundtables held on the 4th of April (Competition and European Interaction) was facilitated by Dr Andrew Hopkirk who blogged about the event for Computer Weekly and who was engaged by Cabinet Office as an independent facilitator on a pro-bono basis.
But guess who paid him? As André Rebentisch puts it:
The UK cabinet office washes its dirty laundry in the open. They accuse the facilitator of their controversial round table on open standards, Dr. Hopkirk, of a conflict of interest: an advisory role for an American software manufacturer which is an outspoken opponent of open standard policies.
Hopkirk is a backstabber, a deceiver, and a manipulator. May he be banned from panels for trying to subvert them for secret paymasters. Based on what we heard through the grapevine, Hopkirk did this before. It’s not an isolated incident. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in GNU/Linux, Google, Java, Microsoft at 8:40 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The Microsoft boosters from Miguel de Icaza’s company find new ways to disrupt Android promotion and promote Microsoft .NET instead
Fernando Cassia reminds us that “de Icaza is hell bent on destroying Java since he started his .Net clone”
He links to this new article which relates to Xamarin‘s attempt to sabotage Android with Microsoft .NET (or Mono):
A company has substantially ported Google’s Java-based Android software to use C# and the .NET framework, a move that could be the first step towards creating an Android-like operating system that avoids legal entanglements with Oracle.
When will the Microsoft fans from Xamarin realise that the Free software community does not care for their work? All they do is damage Free software and a lot of Microsoft promotion. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Antitrust, Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, Microsoft at 8:33 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Competition? Do not want.
Summary: Mozilla complains about Microsoft’s scheme to block rival Web browsers despite antitrust actions
SEVERAL days ago Mozilla complained that Microsoft was blocking it again. “Mozilla issued a statement Wednesday,” said one report, “expressing concern about some of the technical restrictions that Microsoft is imposing on its ARM port of Windows 8. Microsoft’s policies will effectively prevent Mozilla and others from bringing their Web browsers to the Windows 8 desktop on ARM systems.”
Using UEFI [1, 2, 3], Microsoft sought to do the same to Linux on ARM [1, 2, 3, 4]. Here is the original complaint and some analysis:
Mozilla and Google are both crying foul because Microsoft is restricting Firefox and Chrome from running natively on Windows RT–the only version of Windows 8 that will run on ARM devices.
Even the WSJ covered it:
The company behind the Firefox Web browser says Microsoft Corp. is hindering its ability to distribute the software on some devices being designed for the next version of the Windows operating system.
Mozilla Corp.’s contention focuses on future tablets and personal computers that exploit chip designs licensed from ARM Holdings PLC—which are being supported for the first time in the next version of Microsoft’s flagship Windows software.
Microsoft is impeding on mobile devices any form of competition provided Microsoft gets leeway. We must really learn from Korea what happens when browser monoculture is allowed [1, 2]. This latest article explains:
The trouble is ActiveX is only supported on one platform: Microsoft Windows. As a result, when the South Korean government made the technology mandatory for online e-commerce, the entire South Korean Internet sector become enslaved to Internet Explorer
The importance of this is that monopoly breeds abuse. Mozilla’s complaint should be fully supported, not downplayed. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Oracle, Patents at 8:18 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: News updates about Android/Google defence in the face of aggression and market distortion from Microsoft and from Oracle
THE wide range of bribe types includes gentle bribe [1, 2, 3, 4] and lobbying.
Not every bribe is being referred to as such; this is the art of buying influence short of classical bribery. Sometimes it is being painted with the “just politics” or “just business” brush.
“Sometimes it is being painted with the “just politics” or “just business” brush.”We recently alluded to the Barnes & Noble deal, about which Jay Lyman writes: “with the deal in place, Barnes & Noble is no longer putting pressure on Microsoft to explain exactly where it asserted IP rights over Android.”
This is a trick that Microsoft pulled before. It’s like buying terror, paying the reluctant victim some money to stop fighting against extortion and thus paving the way to more of it. As the same source put it, “Microsoft has bought a share of Barnes & Noble’s Nook e-reader business.”
Nice way to pass a bribe — “buying a share”. Barnes & Noble was important in this battle for Android freedom (gratis) and Microsoft has just neutralised it. It may make “business sense” for both sides to make such a transaction, but it’s akin to a bribe that helps Microsoft further distort the market.
As SJVN put it:
So, did Microsoft do the deal just because they realized that if their anti-Android patents would be ruled to be FUD? No, but it did have a heck of a lot to do with it. As Alison Frankel, senior writer at The American Lawyer, commented, “Microsoft paid B&N, the patent defendant, a sum of money that exceeded the marketplace value of its investment. How often does a patent plaintiff pay the defendant in a settlement? Especially when that defendant is on the ropes and urgently searching for a strategic investor?”
I know the answer to that one: Never.
Yes, but it’s a bribe. The “b” word oughtn’t be a taboo.
On another front, APIs in Android are leading to copyright madness. “Irrespective of my opinion on the subject,” writes one analyst, “what will the impact be should APIs prove copyrightable? It is likely to be extensive, cascading and a lesson in unintended consequences. Even parties with no intention of asserting their intellectual property rights concerning APIs – think authors of permissively licensed programming languages, as one example – will presumably be required to commit to non-enforcement, contractually. And obviously those parties wishing to realize another revenue stream, limit competition or both will ramp up legal actions around unlicensed usage of the APIs in question. It’s difficult to fully predict the downstream effects, but given the accelerating servicification of the world, a decision in favor of copyrightable APIs is likely to be at least as damaging as the patent system is today.”
Here is what Simon Phipps wrote while the Microsoft boosters used it against Android. Joe Mullin said that headaches loom, whereas the FSF issued this statement and Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols mocked the case, calling it a “Dead lawsuit walking”:
Oracle’s case is as dead now as when it began. Like SCO with its insane attacks against IBM and Linux, Oracle doesn’t have a leg to stand on in its Google litigation.
Later on SJVN remarked on this whole copyright nonsense and the Against Monopoly Web site used it to show how outdated copyright law is becoming. To quote:
The courts continue to get to make copyright and patent law. The latest involves Oracle which is suing Google over Oracle’s Application Programming Interface (API) as well as other lesser elements.
It has become more apparent that copyrights law — not just patent law — is an impediment to software freedom and programming in general. Tech dinosaurs use those antiquated laws to hold back progress. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
05.11.12
Posted in Microsoft, Search at 12:17 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Searching for a way out out of censorship as “search”
Summary: The failed ‘search’ engine assembled by Microsoft (by censoring, hijacking Yahoo!, acquiring companies, and scraping Google results pages) is on its last toe
WORD on the street is, Facebook was offered Microsoft’s money sink which is known as “Bing” (we usually call it Bong). This one report helps show that Microsoft too has lost hope and Mac Asay writes:
Microsoft, incidentally, also apparently tried to dump Bing at Facebook’s door – what’s one loss-generating search business between friends? – but Mark Zuckerberg wasn’t interested.
Microsoft’s other investments have been major misses.
The company’s financial situation raises questions. Have the debts been paid back yet? The online business of censorship giant Microsoft has been losing billions for years. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
