09.10.11
Posted in America, Microsoft, Office Suites, Open XML, OpenDocument at 8:12 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Photo by Espen Moe
Summary: The impact of leaked diplomatic cables on current affairs and perceptions people have about companies, government, and elected officials
OVER the past day or two we have been receiving a record number of links to this site, mostly pointing to Cablegate posts. People from all over the world share with their friends what they previously suspected but could not prove.
One person from Brazil is pulling skeletons out of Microsoft’s closet and embarrassing the cowardly, supine government at the same time. Following some blog posts about American diplomats lobbying for OOXML (including our own post), we are notified about this very detailed post which provides further background to the leak from someone who was nearby:
Let me make clear here that I don’t believe that this meeting between Microsoft and the major representative from the American Government in Brazil has been a personal initiative of Mr. Michel Levy, but for me it was an corporative initiative. Even being a Microsoft employee, Mr. Michel Levy is a Brazilian, and I prefer not to believe that he has, on its own initiative, decided to start an initiative to put the American Government against the Brazilian Government, thus violating our sovereignty and our national technical merit.
The first question that I leave here is on how many other countries that voted NO to OpenXML the same kind of initiative also happened, and how much of these countries “have accepted” an eventual intervention by the U.S. government.
Yes, the intervention may have occurred, because if you notice the general line of argumentation used here in Brazil, the national technical decision is presented as being an initiative against the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), and one of the things that cause retaliation in free trade agreements with the United States are eventual IPR violations. I have my own collection of rumors from the times of OpenXML, where possible sanctions motivated by IPR violations were brought to the negotiation table to get the governmental votes in some countries (if your country has changed the vote after the voting in September 2007, please investigate and you will probably find a ‘key’ governmental role on that vote changing). Maybe one day, WikiLeaks could help us to investigate that too!
[...]
Finally, they try to insinuate that the ODF is an anti-American standard. I confess that I would like to know what IBM, Oracle, Google and Red Hat (and other North American companies) think about the that, since they work hard on the past years on its development and worldwide adoption. Actually I prefer that these companies explain directly to the American Government if the ODF is anti-American, and I still hope they ask clarification from the American Government about Microsoft’s similar initiatives in other countries during the 2007 and 2008 years.
For those who did not follow the whole story, the ODF was adopted in Brazil, OpenXML rejected here and just didn’t had a major role on the international scene, because we were silenced on the last day of the BRM, just when we would submit a proposal that could change the end of this history. I’ve already told this story here.
Special thanks to WikiLeaks, for helping us get the skeletons out of the closet. For those who want to understand how Microsoft deals and negotiates with governments that have pro-FLSOO policies, it’s worth reading this other cable here.
Well, now there is proof too.
Several days ago we found out what American government officials were saying about Neelie Kroes. We published this yesterday and Jan Wildeboer notes that there is plenty more where that came from. Sooner or later we shall get around to it. This promises to change the way Microsoft and its lobbying practices are widely perceived. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
09.06.11
Posted in America, Microsoft, Open XML, OpenDocument, Patents at 3:31 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Microsoft’s Michel Levy uses propaganda to daemonise a pro-ODF policy, insult the president’s pro-freedom policies, and pressure politicians to permit proprietary lock-in
IN THE YEARS 2007-2008 we spent a lot of time covering OOXML corruption. Microsoft had done in a few months the amount of misconduct most companies do not do throughout their entire existence. James Love has found this newly-release cable which shows lobbying for Microsoft in Brazil, at taxpayers’ expense and against the interests of taxpayers. Quoting Mr. Love:
Levy claimed to be in possession of unsigned letters from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (which is referred to as “Itamaraty” in the cable), to foreign governments, asking that they collaborate to support the open source ODF as the international standard. Of course, if this was true, it would not be surprising, since at the time, there was broad support among non-US governments, non-Microsoft software companies, consumer groups and free software advocates to push for ODF as an open standard for file formats.
The cable says that Microsoft was seeking confidential advice, rather than advocacy, from the Ambassador. Such advice was forthcoming: “Ambassador Sobel did offer advice on various SIPDIS approaches Microsoft could take in generating support for standards that would have room for both ODF and XML software.”
The subject of the original cable is “MICROSOFT SEES GOB ATTACKS AGAINST IPR” (GOB is Government of Brazil and IPR is a propaganda term for copyrights and patents). Here is the original Cablegate cable:
ZCZCXYZ0026
OO RUEHWEB
DE RUEHSO #1001 3551359
ZNY CCCCC ZZH (CCY ADDED CAPTION AD04181F2 MSI3697 508,
O 211359Z DEC 07
FM AMCONSUL SAO PAULO TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 7773
INFO RUEHBR/AMEMBASSY BRASILIA IMMEDIATE 8916
RUEAWJF/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHDC IMMEDIATE
RUEATRS/DEPT OF TREASURY WASHDC IMMEDIATE
RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
C O N F I D E N T I A L SAO PAULO 001001
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
(C O R R E C T E D C O P Y: ADDED SIPDIS CAPTION)
E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/20/2017
TAGS: ECON[Economic Conditions], ETRD[Foreign Trade], ECIN?[Economic Integration and
Cooperation], PREL[External Political Relations]
SUBJECT: MICROSOFT SEES GOB ATTACKS AGAINST IPR
Classified By: Econ/Pol Chief James Story for reasons 1.5 b and d.
¶1. (C) SUMMARY: In a December 20 meeting in Sao Paulo with Ambassador Sobel, Microsoft
Brazil President Michel Levy stated that current GOB policies are antagonistic towards Intellectual
Property Rights (IPR). According to Levy, the GOB through the Foreign Ministry (Itamaraty) has
mounted an international campaign to discredit Microsoft's proprietary XML format and is pushing
for countries to adopt the ODF (Open Document Format) at the expense of XML at the March
meeting of the International Standards Organization in Geneva. Levy sees both ideological issues
as well as commercial interests at work in the GOB position. END SUMMARY.
¶2. (C) Microsoft Brazil President Michel Levy requested a meeting with Ambassador Sobel
on December 20 to discuss ways forward on working with what he characterized as an
antagonistic GOB. According to Levy, Itamaraty has pressured the purportedly independent
Brazilian Technical Standards Agency, ABNT to adopt a more aggressive posture against
using XML as one of two possible standards, along with ODF, in Brazil. In addition, Levy
stated that he is in the possession of unsigned letters from Itamaraty to various foreign
governments requesting that the governments work together to support only the open source
ODF as the international standard.
¶3. (C) Levy believes that this issue has turned ideological and is a manifestation of
anti-Americanism within Itamaraty. He cited President Lula's Chief of Staff Dilma Rousseff as
well as high-ranking advisor Celso Alvarez as being the chief architects of an anti-IPR, anti-royalties
strategy within the GOB. According to Levy, these advisors have convinced President Lula that
there is no difference between ODF and proprietary XML software. His main concern is that the
GOB will use the ABNT to adopt an ODF only standard by decree rather than going through
Congress where Microsoft would at least have an opportunity to explain the differences between
the software systems. Levy used as an example that all of Embraer's designs are created through
XML and that the current ODF software simply can't do the same job. If ODF is the only
standard, Levy argued, there could be economic ramifications for Brazil.
¶4. (C) Levy then pointed out that commercially Microsoft faces an uneven playing field in Brazil.
He stated that in addition to several bills in the Brazilian Congress that would deny the
GOB the ability to buy proprietary software, there are reports that many recent bids that
went to tender had specific, if unwritten, instructions that disallowed any Microsoft bids. He
further stated that the issue of cross-retaliation on IPR from the cotton subsidies case is alive
and well and could potentially come to pass in 2008.
¶5. (C) While Levy made it clear that Microsoft is not asking for any USG advocacy at this point,
and in fact requested that our communication be kept strictly confidential, Ambassador Sobel did
offer advice on various SIPDIS approaches Microsoft could take in generating support for
standards that would have room for both ODF and XML software. Specifically, the Ambassador
thought Mircosoft should work through various trade groups to begin a discussion with the GOB
on this issue. The Ambassador also indicated that Microsoft should get Brazilian companies to put
this issue high on the agenda of the CEO Forum meetings to take place with Department of
Commerce Secretary Gutierrez early next year.
¶6. (C) COMMENT: The debate among various international standards (GPS, telecommunications,
etc.) is not new in Brazil, and Levy's concerns about an anti-American ideology in the Brazilian
Foreign Ministry are not only Microsoft's concern. Microsoft's concerns that the GOB is seeking
to adopt one standard that does not allow for proprietary softwear, bears watching. A multi-industry
push for a strategy that allows for Congressional debate over the relative merits of the software systems
will certainly yield better results than Microsoft fighting this issue alone. END COMMENT.
WHITE
Microsoft is trying to portray distrust of Microsoft as hatred of the US, which is a trick it pulls a lot. The above says that “Levy believes that this issue has turned ideological and is a manifestation of anti-Americanism within Itamaraty.” If there is any “anti-Americanism”, it is because of the likes of Levy who seek to disrupt policies overseas and turn entire massive populations into clients of some American monopolist that rose to power through criminal activities. Notice the daemonisation of Lula as well, using the “anti-IPR, anti-royalties” terms that mean nothing but protectionism and artificial monopoly enablers. Also mind this part: “The Ambassador also indicated that Microsoft should get Brazilian companies to put this issue high on the agenda of the CEO Forum meetings to take place with Department of Commerce Secretary Gutierrez early next year.” Also see: “Microsoft’s concerns that the GOB is seeking to adopt one standard that does not allow for proprietary softwear [sic], bears watching.” How so? It is when the government accepts lock-in and code that cannot be audited that one should be concerned. It’s the public which pays for it after all. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
06.19.11
Posted in Law, Microsoft, Open XML, Patents at 9:57 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
(ODF | PDF | English/original)
Resumen: “El ministro Simon Power confirma que el proyecto de ley de patente NZ se aprobó sin ninguna modificación. Los programas de ordenador son excluidos”, anuncia un principal lider del Free/Open Source Software en la isla.
Nuestra página dedicada sobre Nueva Zelanda (wiki para kiwi[http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Software_Patents_in_New_Zealand]) se acumula la mayor parte lo que escribió acerca de la lucha de Nueva Zelanda contra los extranjeros y sus ayudantes en el interior del país – los que querían los monopolios en las recetas de software. Hay buenas noticias esta semana.
“El ministro Simon Power confirma el Proyecto de Ley de Patentes NZ se aprobó sin ninguna modificación. Programas de ordenador excluidos “, escribe Don Christie[http://twitter.com/normnz/status/80058819614474240], citando esta página[http://www.burgess.co.nz/law/patents-bill-2010-update]. También escribe que[http://twitter.com/normnz/status/80386202213158912]:
“Método y aparato para llevar a cabo una campaña de marketing en nombre de una publicidad” – patentes de métodos comerciales en Nueva Zelanda – la aplicación de Patentes # 591806
Tal vez puede invalidar esto sólo mientras Microsoft retiraba su OOXML patente[http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/xml-patent-saga-ends-with-microsoft-withdrawing-application] hace unos días. No fue invalidado pero se retiró de acuerdo con un comunicado de prensa[http://techrights.org/2011/06/16/nzoss-milestone/]. Sólo falta que los lagunas “integradas” (haciendo pasar software como hardware) deben ser eliminados o tratados explícitamente en las directrices de patentes. █
Translation produced by Eduardo Landaveri, the esteemed administrator of the Spanish portal of Techrights.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
06.18.11
Posted in Law, Microsoft, Open XML, Patents at 11:06 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary:”Minister Simon Power confirms the NZ Patent Bill will be passed without any changes. Computer Programs excluded,” heralds a leading Free/open source proponent in the large island
OUR dedicated page about NZ (wiki for kiwi) accumulates most of what we wrote about New Zealand’s fight against foreigners and their helpers inside the country — those who wanted monopolies on software recipes. There is good news this week.
“Minister Simon Power confirms the NZ Patent Bill will be passed without any changes. Computer Programs excluded,” writes Don Christie, citing this page. He also writes that:
“Method and apparatus for performing a marketing campaign on behalf of an advertises” – Business method patents in NZ – Patent App #591806
Maybe they can invalidate this just as they drove away this Microsoft OOXML patent a few days ago. It was not invalidated but withdrawn according to a press release. It remains for the “embedded” loophole (masking software as hardware) to be removed or explicitly addressed by the patenting guidelines. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
06.17.11
Posted in FUD, Microsoft, Open XML, OpenDocument, Security, Windows at 4:26 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The company which made viruses so abundant (and whose operating system is insecure by design) is using excuses and tricks to daemonise WebGL
WE HAVE seen it all before. Whether it was the case of not supporting ODF or even something like Ogg, Microsoft never blamed competitive reasons; it’s just not good for PR and the whole antitrust karma too would be impacted. See how Microsoft used security FUD to promote OOXML [1, 2]. It sure is amusing when Microsoft spinner Mr. Bright excuses Microsoft for avoiding WebGL by citing its talking points (headline says “Microsoft: no way to support WebGL and meet our security needs”). Truth be told, there is clearly more to it considering what’s done with Silverlight (hardware acceleration and Web integration, even with proprietary software).
For Microsoft it is not unusual to snub new standards and create its own proprietary extensions that require Windows with IE. It is no secret that even Microsoft’s Web developers write hacks especially for IE6 (and they detest IE for this reason, based on comments found in page source). Watch Microsoft’s booster Bott spotting a new “Microsoft security versus Microsoft Web” gaffe. Of course he is spinning this. It’s his job.
Microsoft makes shoddy Web products because it wants to turn the Web into a sandbox of lock-in, not interoperability. Instructions for this come from the top. █
“In one piece of mail people were suggesting that Office had to work equally well with all browsers and that we shouldn’t force Office users to use our browser. This Is wrong and I wanted to correct this.
“Another suggestion In this mail was that we can’t make our own unilateral extensions to HTML I was going to say this was wrong and correct this also.”
–Bill Gates [PDF]
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Microsoft, Open XML, Patents at 4:05 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
(ODF | PDF | English/original)
Resumen: La NZOSS celebra un hito, ya que aleja a Microsoft con su patente de OOXML.
La Oficina de Patentes de Nueva Zelandia[http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Software_Patents_in_New_Zealand] (IPONZ[http://techrights.org/2010/07/20/i-ponzi-on-swpats/]) se ha convertido en un campo de batalla para Microsoft y sus grupos de presión, que comparte con otras multinacionales como IBM e Intel[http://techrights.org/2011/06/13/intel-for-swpats/]. Están esencialmente tratando de colonizar la isla con todo tipo de leyes que imponen a la población bajo el supuesto de que la población quiere ser esclavizada por extranjeros distantes y -me escuchan en Latino America y Africa- el uso de las MENTIRAS típicas (por ejemplo, que las patentes de software ayudarán al país). Alguien una vez nos dijo que en Nueva Zelanda el gobierno está controlado por la población y no al revés (como en muchos países grandes). Días atrás se nos dijo lo contrario.
Bueno, es que parece que la sociedad de Nueva Zelanda de Código Libre/Abierto ha salido con la suya[http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1106/S00062/nzoss-wins-patent-opposition.htm]. Desde su nuevo comunicado de prensa:
La NZOSS se complace en anunciar que la oposición a Nueva Zelanda solicitud de patente 536149, presentada por Microsoft en relación con documentos de procesamiento de XML ha sido un éxito. Ayer fuimos informados por la IPONZ que Microsoft ha retirado su solicitud.
La NZOSS aplaude la decisión de Microsoft de abandonar su intento de usar el sistema legal para impedir la interoperabilidad a través de patentes de software que están en los documentos XML de procesamiento de textos. A medida que avanzamos hacia un futuro cada vez más dependiente de la tecnología y el software esperamos que Microsoft entienda que los estándares abiertos y la interoperabilidad son fundamentales para un entorno informático robusto y saludable.
Aquí está el anuncio original[http://nzoss.org.nz/content/nzoss-wins-patent-opposition] y en el interés de la preservación reproducimos a continuación este en su totalidad. La NZOSS tiene un montón de trabajo en frente de ellos, porque ésta es sólo una patente; cambiar la ley en materia de patentes (para eliminar los “integrados” vacíos legales) será el siguiente objetivo importante. Los políticos que apoyan las patentes de software no son compatibles con Nueva Zelanda, apoyan a sus propios bolsillos a costa de Nueva Zelanda. Hay que nombrarlos y avergonzarlos, para debilitarlos y silenciarlos. █
La NZOSS Gana Oposición en Materia de Patentes
Jueves, 16 de junio 2011, 17:18
Comunicado de prensa: Nueva Zelanda Sociedad de Código Libre/Abierto
La NZOSS gana la oposición en materia de Patentes
La NZOSS se complace en anunciar que la oposición a Nueva Zelanda solicitud de patente 536149, presentada por Microsoft en relación con documentos de procesamiento de XML ha sido un éxito. Ayer fuimos informados por la IPONZ que Microsoft ha retirado su solicitud.
La NZOSS aplaude la decisión de Microsoft de abandonar es tratar de usar el sistema legal para impedir la interoperabilidad a través de patentes de software que está en los documentos XML de procesamiento de textos. A medida que avanzamos hacia un futuro cada vez más dependiente de la tecnología y el software esperamos que Microsoft entienda que los estándares abiertos y la interoperabilidad son fundamentales para un entorno informático robusto y saludable.
Las barreras legales que impiden la competencia en torno a las normas son un gran perjuicio para el bien público. Animamos a Microsoft a unirse a la gran mayoría de la industria de Nueva Zelanda de TIC y apoyar la decisión del Gobierno de Nueva Zelanda para excluir las patentes de software, protegiendo así los negocios de Microsoft en Nueva Zelanda de amenazas de patentes en el futuro. La decisión de Microsoft no sólo eliminar la espada de Damocles sobre las cabezas de nuestros propios miembros, sino de toda la comunidad de Nueva Zelanda de las TIC.
Peter Harrison, vicepresidente de la sociedad hizo una declaración ayer informar a los miembros de la decisión de Microsoft de retirarla, diciendo: “Por supuesto, estoy muy contento con el resultado. Se proporcionará una mayor seguridad sobre la capacidad de las entidades comerciales inter-operar con los formatos de Microsoft sin preocuparse por cualquier infracción de patentes. Junto con la exclusión de las patentes de software en el proyecto de ley pendiente de patente que debe ver a un ambiente que es mucho menos riesgoso para el desarrollo de software que en otros países. Esto en combinación con nuestro personal altamente calificado convierte a Nueva Zelanda en una excelente ubicación para el desarrollo de software.”
El NZOSS ha llevado a cabo Oposiciones de Patentes contra dos patentes XML presentada por Microsoft desde el año 2003. El NZOSS sentido estas patentes que se presentan un peligro claro y presente a ambos interoperabilidad entre los productos de Microsoft y de otros proveedores, y potencialmente habría permitido a Microsoft para obligar a otras empresas en los acuerdos de licencia de patentes con el fin de poner en práctica los documentos de procesamiento de textos en XML.
La oposición a los de las patentes de Microsoft XML ha tardado ocho años en resolverse, el tiempo y el compromiso de muchos de nuestros miembros. Hace unos años, después de oponerse a la primera patente, nos pusimos de acuerdo a una importante limitación de las reivindicaciones de la primera patente de tal manera que no creo que alguien alguna vez lo infringe. Posteriormente, nos opusimos a la segunda patente, y se han estado moviendo hacia una audiencia sobre la oposición.
Peter Harrison agregó: “La decisión de Microsoft de abandonar la segundo solicitud de patentes en frente de nuestra oposición ha reivindicado sustancialmente nuestra posición, es decir que estas solicitudes de patentes NO ERAN INVENCIONES PATENTABLES.” Él continuó agradeciendo a todos aquellos involucrados con la oposición, diciendo ” Debo dar las gracias a los esfuerzos de aquellos que hicieron posible este esfuerzo. Matew Holloway ha desempeñado un papel vital y profesional en su análisis detallado y objetivo de la patente. Estoy seguro de que hay pocas personas con la experiencia de Matew en torno a los formatos XML y de productividad de oficina. Sin su ayuda no podría haber sido capaz de montar un caso convincente. Y a nuestros abogados – Ellis | Terry – que hicieron un gran trabajo en la dirigencia de esta oposición, las palabras no pueden expresar mi gratitud por su compromiso de ver esto a través de la conclusión de hoy”.
Translation produced by Eduardo Landaveri, the esteemed administrator of the Spanish portal of Techrights.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
06.16.11
Posted in Microsoft, Open XML, Patents at 10:12 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary:NZOSS celebrates a milestone as it drives away Microsoft with its OOXML patent
THE PATENT OFFICE of New Zealand (IPONZ) has become a battleground for Microsoft and its lobbyists, which it shares with other multinationals like IBM and Intel. They are essentially trying to colonise the island using all sorts of laws they impose on the population under the assumption that the population wants to be enslaved by distant foreigners and using the typical lies (e.g. that software patent would help the country). Someone once told us that in New Zealand the government is controlled by the population rather than vice versa (like in many large countries). Days ago we were told the opposite.
Well, it sure seems like the New Zealand Open Source Society has just gotten its way. From its new press release:
The NZOSS is pleased to announce that it’s opposition to New Zealand patent application 536149, filed by Microsoft in relation to XML word processing documents has been successful. Yesterday we were informed by IPONZ that Microsoft has withdrawn their application.
The NZOSS applauds the decision of Microsoft to abandon it’s attempt to use the legal system to deter interoperability through it’s software patent on XML word processing documents. As we move into a future increasingly dependent on technology and software we hope Microsoft understands that Open Standards and Interoperability are central to a robust and healthy computing environment.
Here is the original announcement and in the interest of preservation we reproduce this below in full. NZOSS has a lot of work left because this is just one patent; changing the one law regarding patents (to remove the “embedded” loophole) would be an important next goal. Politicians who support software patents do not support New Zealand, they support their own pockets at the expense of New Zealand. Name and shame them as it will weaken and silence them. █
NZOSS Wins Patent Opposition
Thursday, 16 June 2011, 5:18 pm
Press Release: New Zealand Open Source Society
NZOSS Wins Patent Opposition
The NZOSS is pleased to announce that it’s opposition to New Zealand patent application 536149, filed by Microsoft in relation to XML word processing documents has been successful. Yesterday we were informed by IPONZ that Microsoft has withdrawn their application.
The NZOSS applauds the decision of Microsoft to abandon it’s attempt to use the legal system to deter interoperability through it’s software patent on XML word processing documents. As we move into a future increasingly dependent on technology and software we hope Microsoft understands that Open Standards and Interoperability are central to a robust and healthy computing environment.
Legal barriers preventing competition around standards is a great detriment to the public good. We encourage Microsoft to join with the overwhelming majority of the New Zealand ICT Industry and support the decision of the New Zealand Government to exclude software patents, thus protecting Microsoft’s business in New Zealand from future patent threats. Microsoft’s decision will not only remove the Sword of Damocles from above the heads of our own members, but of the entire New Zealand ICT community.
Peter Harrison, Vice President of the society made a statement yesterday informing the membership of Microsoft’s decision to withdaw, saying “I am of course very pleased with the result. It will provide certainty about the ability of commercial entities to inter-operate with Microsoft formats without concern about patent infringement. Along with the exclusion of software patents in the pending Patent Bill we should see a environment that is far less risky for software development than in other countries. This in combination with our highly skilled people makes New Zealand an excellent location for developing software.”
The NZOSS has been conducting Patent Oppositions against two XML patents filed by Microsoft since 2003. The NZOSS felt these patents presented a clear and present danger to both interoperability between Microsoft’s products and that of other vendors, and potentially would have allowed Microsoft to force other companies into patent licensing agreements in order to implement word processing documents in XML.
The opposition to both of the Microsoft XML patents has taken eight years to resolve, and the time and commitment of many of our members. A few years ago, after opposing the first patent, we agreed to a substantial limiting of the claims of the first patent to such an extent that we don’t believe anyone will ever infringe it. Subsequently we opposed the second patent, and have been moving towards a hearing on the opposition.
Peter Harrison added “The decision by Microsoft to abandoned the second patent application in the face of our opposition has substantially vindicated our position; that is that these patent applications were not patentable inventions.” He continue to thank those involved with the opposition, saying “I must thank the efforts of those who made this effort possible. Matthew Holloway played a vital and professional role in his detailed and objective analysis of the patent. I’m sure there are few people with the expertise of Matthew around XML and office productivity formats. Without his help we may not have been able to mount such a compelling case. And to our lawyers – Ellis|Terry – who did a great job of executing this opposition, words can hardly express my gratitude for their commitment to seeing this through to the conclusion today.”
Permalink
Send this to a friend
06.10.11
Posted in America, Courtroom, Law, Microsoft, Open XML, Patents at 7:25 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), comprising no scientists, rules in favour of software patents and thus endorses a $290 million fine, affecting OOXML
AS PROMISED, this is a standalone post about the i4i ruling at the SCOTUS.
So the news is just about everywhere, especially in the Canadian press (because i4i is a Canadian company). The SCOTUS ruled against Microsoft as we mentioned earlier. King of the trolls, Microsoft, suffers from a verdict which is good news for patent trolls. The i4i case is not about patent trolls (in fact, i4i does have products), but the consequence of it is that rogue patents get legitimacy from the incompetent and at times technically-illiterate SCOTUS (they went to law school many decades ago). The SCOTUS is against fundamental principles that legalese experts rarely grasp and it neglects the people’s interests, too, not just technologists’. It helps monopolists under the assumption that their disinformation campaigns actually bear truths.
About Microsoft losing the case, Rui Seabra says that “being a patent aggressor themselves, they kind of deserve it, however… SCOTUS validating #swpat is definitely not good.” As pointed out by the other side of this debate (patent lawyer Mike Wokasch):
Prediction: Breyer’s concurrence, (w/ Alito & Scalia) re:role of courts, becomes important fodder for the anti-#swpat crowd. #patents #i4i
A FOSS respective on this case can be found in Groklaw, which calls it a “Disappointing Supreme Court decision”. This was covered by Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols and Joe Brockmeier too. They explain the relevance to FOSS.
Here is the official decision [PDF] and other news coverage below. The success of Free software is hinged upon eradication of software patents because they impede dissemination. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
