“Thus, the “independent” panel ends up telling the audience that our technology beats the others hands down. Get the press to cover this panel, and you’ve got a major win on your hands.”
Summary: How Microsoft along with its boosters, lobbyists and corrupt officials have brought us to a state where racketeering against Linux has no invocation of the RICO Act, despite the triviality of obvious offences
It takes unbelievable spin to somehow justify this, so Microsoft has a little PR offensive going for that angle. “Microsoft has already scored two big time Android IP licensing deals, one with HTC and the other more recently with Samsung,” says one report. “The boys in Redmond have now secured one more epic deal, this time with Taiwan’s Quanta Computer Inc. Wait, who?”
This affects eBook readers with Linux. There is a Microsoft-friendly troll which is also trying to add ‘royalties’ to this Linux device, so it is just part of the overall strategy. With the addition of ludicrous Apple patents they are trying to impose sanctions against the spread of Android (we will deal with Apple separately later). By adhering to euphemisms such as “protect”, “assert”, “IP”, “license”, and “royalty” they are managing to get away with violations of the RICO Act — so far. When Microsoft and Apple “get into bed together you have to start wondering what’s going on,” said a Senior Vice President from Google a few months back.
“By adhering to euphemisms such as “protect”, “assert”, “IP”, “license”, and “royalty” they are managing to get away with violations of the RICO Act — so far.”It is no secret that the system is broken, so Microsoft and Apple often just exploit it, but when it comes to extortion or SLAPP, there are laws against that. It also ought to be pointed out that current laws are the fruits of lobbying from large corporations such as Microsoft. We still see software patents in press releasesof all sorts (including phrases like “software patent licensing”) because they managed to normalise the idea that ideas should be monopolised, even if they cannot be applied physically. But going back to Microsoft, watch this new report from Global Post. The headings say it all:
Nokia workers ask, is chief executive a Microsoft mole?
Engineers accuse CEO Stephen Elop of destroying the company so Microsoft can buy it cheap.
Microsoft is trying to take control of everything in Nokia and then use its patents to attack Linux [1, 2], at Nokia’s own expense and risk (just like SCO). Regulators said they would look into such abuses, but we have not heard anything back from them in quite a while.
Another thing regulators ought to look into are lobbyists/’spammers’ like Microsoft Florian, who is trying to distort public opinions by all means legally available to him (without giving disclosures though, only claiming vacuously in this site last year that he was complying with transparency regulations). SPAM regulations are not violated by him because he personalises the messages a slight bit before mass-mailing journalists with the intent of injecting his nonsense into respectable sites (even a 1% success rate would count as something given the high volume of mail he sends like this). It was obvious all along to us, but it is only now that many journalists can see it for themselves. It is a shame that some of them did not listen to our warnings last year. A long time ago we wrote about him promoting RAND (even a year ago) and we provided extensive evidence that it was his interest, he was not against software patents at all.
“Microsoft is trying to take control of everything in Nokia and then use its patents to attack Linux, at Nokia’s own expense and risk (just like SCO).”Microsoft Florian is one of those lobbyists who pretend to be the opposite of what they really are because it gives more impact to their deception. They do this in anticipation of contracts if not in order to help existing clients. These are well known techniques, e.g. hiring the person when the job is done or in progress, which makes it less suspicious. Well, in some sector it is known as “revolving doors” (“do this while in government, later we’ll give you a super high-paying job”). To quote Microsoft, “[y]ou want to infiltrate those. Again, there’s two categories. There’s those that are controlled by vendors; like MSJ; we control that. And there’s those that are independent. [...] So that’s how you use journals that we control. The ones that third parties control, like the WinTech Journal, you want to infiltrate.” You can read the full PDF/presentation from Microsoft's chief evangelist. That’s just how the company works. We gave many examples over the years.
There are journalists who are now exposing Microsoft Florian in standalone articles. It is about time. To quote one:
Is Patent Expert/Blogger Florian Mueller Getting Too Cozy With Microsoft?
On his popular FOSS Patents blog, Mueller summarizes in plain English the legal wrangling surrounding disputes like Apple’s effort to snuff out Samsung. A self-styled intellectual-property expert, his quick quotes have made him popular with blogs and major news outlets alike.
On Friday, the 9To5 Google blog pointed to a post in which a Google software engineer noted that Mueller had disclosed that he received money from Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT) for a new study. The engineer also described Mueller as “anti-Google” and pointed out that he is a patent analyst not a lawyer.
So what should we make of Mr. Mueller? The engineer’s assessment is fair in one sense but unfair in another. Let’s start with the latter. As a former practicing lawyer, I don’t believe one needs a law degree to understand or report on law. In Mueller’s case, he is able to parse and summarize tricky judgments more effectively than many of his credentialed counterparts and does not make any obvious mistakes. He is very smart and his blog provides an excellent way to keep up with the tic-toc of global software patent litigation. As for the Microsoft-funded study, it seems a worthy enough initiative (a review of FRAND patents) and Mueller has the qualifications to undertake it.
[...]
The relationship between Mueller and Microsoft is noteworthy for another reason: Microsoft’s history of using proxies to attack Google. Prior to hearings on the Google Books Settlement, for instance, Microsoft paid a professor and former employee to run a project summarizing objections to the settlement.And the Wall Street Journal (NSDQ: NWS) reported that Microsoft lawyers were behind the efforts of an obscure Ohio company to bring an antitrust action against Google.
Mueller may have perfectly good reasons to consistently zing Android—he’s far from the only pundit that has consistently strong views about a particular company. But given his financial relationship with that company’s archenemy—and the fact that Microsoft has a history of “hiring” outside experts to attack the competition—it’s hard to regard him as a disinterested party. The time has come for Mueller to amend the conflict of interest disclaimer on his blog and for the media to cease citing him as an impartial authority.
He is already spinning it in the comments, realising the damage this is doing to his lobbying abilities. Watch this article with an image Microsoft’s Brad Smith (in French) for more relevant material and also see how Microsoft’s lead racketeer (a crime really, but not when the company controls parts of the government) praises Florian, whom he is paying (and Florian brags to me about it, claiming that now I “have the transparency you hoped for, you’re still not happy”). The racketeer from Microsoft says “walking encyclopedia”, meaning “lobbyist in our side”, “Microsoft apologist”, “external staff”. As for Florian, he is pretending to be transparent when in fact he just had no choice because people had already found evidence, based on private communication (I cannot name the person who told this me, but I already knew Microsoft was in it, yet Florian chose to make it seem like he beat us to it and was “transparent”). Oh, the lying! It’s like the crook who “turns himself in to the police” after the police vans already surround his house, armed and prepared to storm in. Regarding the order of the payments from Microsoft, it is not unusual to see Microsoft booster lobbying with the expectation of a reward later. The President of the FFII quotes a comment that says:
About Florian Mueller: “i can’t read his posts, they make me want to throw things” ur1.ca/5favv
Well, his ‘analysis’ is never factual. It’s just spin, lobbying, distortion of the truth, and influence (or spam) for sale. There is no honour in that. But there is an audience of Apple fanatics and Microsoft extortionists, who will happily promote that nonsense, no matter the inaccuracy. █
Summary: The duopoly of Linux foes is working hard not to outpace Linux/Android but to cheat and interfere with fair competition
THE CONSEQUENCES of what Halliburton [1, 2, 3] did are still discussed in British news sites. More and more people are becoming aware of the problem. This can help bring patent trolls to the UK along with more litigation.
There are new stories of software patents being used offensively, but these are mostly stories from the US. The danger is that by letting multinationals and patent trolls expand their lawsuits or their arsenal to Europe there will be less opportunity for European businesses to work in peace. Apple is already among those who harm Europe by denying access of certain products and certain features into the continent. “Samsung To Alter Smartphones To Skirt E.U. Ban” says a headline from IW and Apple evidently continues to innovate even after Steve Jobs' departure — innovating in the legal department by blocking Android tablets [1, 2]. Apple suppresses innovation having taken all of its ideas from others.
Microsoft too is a major problem because it lobbies for the EU Patent (allowing bans and fines to have their scope expanded). The other day we were not quite so sure what to do to counter all that lobbying, but Glyn Moody used his IDG blog to push a rebuttal to disinformation into public awareness. Quoting the article’s opening paragraphs:
One of the striking changes at Microsoft over the last twenty years is how savvy it has become in terms of lobbying and influencing political opinion. There was a time when, like most serious tech companies, it regarded this kind of sneaky activity as beneath it – something that only tobacco companies would stoop to. No more; today, it bombards everyone and anyone with a constant stream of carefully-crafted policy papers and posts designed to achieve its goals.
Here’s the latest one. It comes form the “Positions” page of Microsoft’s Digital Policy site in Europe. It’s called simply “Intellectual Property”, and is written in a deceptively simple style, as if it were some non-contentious statement of truths universally acknowledged.
“After failure of introducing EU swpats [software patents], the unitary patent idea has become the back-door way of achieving the same goal,” writes the FFII’s president, quoting the above.
There are patent boosters in the UK working to make FRAND (patents in standards) more commonplace. Moody wrote a great deal about this subject before, even in the very same blog. In the next blog post we will show how Microsoft uses all that lobbying to actively suppress Linux adoption and also to tax its use (Android and beyond, even GNU/Linux). This is an issue we have warned about for 5 years. █
Summary: The SCOTUS on Mayo Collaborative Services vs. Prometheus Laboratories; The Chamber of Commerce on fake patent ‘reform’; a look at a patent troll, Scott Redmond; continued fight against patents inside standards, courtesy of Xiph.org and the FFII
According to this short update from the SCOTUS Blog (generally a reliable source of information), there is an important ruling in the pipeline, on which Dan Ballard (pro-patents person) comments as follows:
Supreme Court decided to hear another #patent case today. Issue is patentability after Bilski
We have summarised our posts about the Bilski case in our wiki. The case did not provide the basis for eliminating all software patents as we had hoped, but it did help on occasions, e.g. by eliminatingsome software patents, upon court rulings.
The Chamber of Commerce, a scrupulous lobby for big businesses (and for patents), is meanwhile promoting a fake patent reform that can make things worse. As one political site put it:
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce came out in support of the bipartisan patent reform bill on Tuesday as opposition to one of the bill’s key provisions grows in the House.
The Chamber expressed public support for the America Invents Act for the first time in a letter to the House, arguing the bill would help drive economic growth and create jobs.
That’s a lie. Patents may help create jobs like patent lawyers, which are of no substantial value to economic growth. If anything, they depress it.This whole ‘reform’ is a “wolf in sheep’s clothing,” to quote an analysis we cited the other day when we also mentioned Microsoft's lobby regarding Nortel's patents (Apple reportedly wants these too). On the same day which is yesterday we also mentioned the lawsuit against Torrent software (algorithm or design as allegedly patented technology) and we happen to have found something out about the source of the lawsuit, Redmond. “Interesting Gizmodo piece on the guy apparently behind the BitTorrent patent troll, ” writes Len Sassaman who shares details about Scott Redmond and his scams. To quote: “The Greatest Scam in Tech? Scott Redmond would like us to clarify.Last week we posted an exposé of Peep Wireless. Despite repeated attempts, we initially couldn’t reach the company for comment, but founder Scott Redmond has since contacted us. He’s nonplussed. For transparency’s sake, we’d like to show you his objections.
“What follows is the Peep Wireless post, in its entirety — and then some. Mr. Redmond demanded that we remove the original story by 5pm today but instead, we are reposting it with his comments included — the @’s and bold red text were his idea. Read his grievances and judge for yourself whether we were too harsh.”
Patent trolls are ruthless sociopaths. Here we just see that again. The world’s biggest patent troll is located near Redmond, too (the place, not the person). Finally, on that same day we wrote about the Xiph.org complaint (I wrote all of these posts in Media City), on which Dr. Glyn Moody remarks in an excellent post:
This episode emphasises Xiph.org’s other important role, alongside writing great codecs: standing up to attempts to cow the free software world with vague threats of software patent Armageddon. Long may it continue to do so.
Free software is under a constant attack from software patents proponents and RAND proponents (there is major overlap between those two groups). In Europe, for example, the Commission has been working recently towards RAND as permissible for standards (meaning software patents through the back door). We have shown some documents confirming this, thanks to research from the FFII, which is now warning about today’s discussion. The head of the FFII wrote yesterday: “Software patents to be legalised in Europe with the Unitary patent, discussion tomorrow in EU parliament” (so let us keep watching). He also shows this page about ludicrous patents that demonstrate the corruption of the patent system as a whole. To those who write the policies it no longer matters what will benefit the customers (over 95% of the population, putting top managers, developers, and lawyers aside), it just matter what gets them re-elected, usually with funds from big business that adore patent monopolies, i.e. protectionism. More on that in our next post… █
Resumen: Los monopolistas como Microsoft, con sede en los Estados Unidos, tratan de traer las patentes de software a través del Atlántico, por lo que Techrights ofrece un resumen de noticias y un resumen general de tendencias a tener en cuenta.
AQUÍ en Techrights que hemos estado cubriendo la situación de las patentes de software en Europa[http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Software_Patents_in_Europe] casi desde los albores de este sitio web. Siempre se trataba de las patentes de software y más gente comienza a entender la importancia de este tema cuando se enteran de que Microsoft hace dinero de los teléfonos Android de HTC[http://techrights.org/2011/05/27/linux-swpats-own-cash/]. Además, como un lector nos muestra esta semana[http://www.htc.com/sea/product.aspx], “HTC pagó por las patentes y comenzó a utilizar aspx” ¿Puede alguien verificar esto? La historia de Netcraft no va hacia atrás[http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://www.htc.com]. Que ya sabemos acerca de la presión de Microsoft en Intel para utilizar Windows en sus servidores, porque hemos encontrado documentos internos al respecto[http://techrights.org/2009/01/12/bill-gates-jihad-vs-linux/]. Microsoft está incluyendo este tipo de acuerdos, por lo que los acuerdos condicionada a la migración y relaciones públicas para Microsoft.
De todos modos, para aprender acerca de grupos de presión de Microsoft por las patentes de software en Europa, hay que estar familiarizado con los poderes que utilizan para la presión, por ejemplo, Asociación para la Tecnología “Competitiva” ACT[http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Association_for_Competitive_Technology]. Microsoft tiene maneras de tratar de presentarse como “europeo” y también el uso ‘Euro-lavado’ a las empresas que impulsan su programa allí. Hemos cubierto en su mayoría estos en 2008 y 2009, por lo que aconsejamos a los lectores a mirar hacia atrás (nos esforzamos para disminuir la repetición). Está claro que Microsoft es un componente importante de este problema, otros que son Siemens y Nokia. No debería ser sorprendente que quienes están a favor de las patentes de software son los gigantes. Los monopolios de patentes hacen que los gigantes sean más fuertes y las únicas entidades pequeñas a las que tal sistema podría ser de utilidad son los trolls de patentes y “empresas especializadas en los llamados” abogados de propiedad intelectual”.
El año pasado en los Estados Unidos, Bilski y su colega rompió el sistema de los EE.UU. por la legitimación de las patentes de software aún más, al menos sobre la base de un análisis de personas (no concluyente). Se lo llevaron todo el camino hasta la SCOTUS (Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos), cuyas resoluciones sobre el tema de las patentes han sido bastantes terribles[http://techrights.org/2011/06/02/scotus-vs-freedom-labour/] recientemente[http://techrights.org/2011/06/10/fine-affecting-ooxml/]. SCOTUS no se merece un respeto ciego porque las leyes también son relativas y dependen de los principios que se adopte en una cultura civilizada. No hay justicia absoluta o la definición de “civilizados”, la tendencia es ‘incorporado’.
La Patente Bilski[http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Bilski_Case] fue clasificado como perteneciente a la categoría de negocios y los métodos de este nuevo informe[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304259304576373461579770054.html] del Wall Street Journal dice que las patentes sobre estas estrategias fiscales (emulando a lápiz y papel métodos) pronto podría ser declaradas ilegales:
La Patente de EE.UU. número 7.698.194 no es una ingeniosa máquina nueva o un tratamiento de gran avance médico. Es un método de análisis de los impuestos asociados a planes de ahorro para la universidad.
Es también una de las 144 estrategias fiscales patentado y 162 solicitudes pendientes, a partir de finales de mayo, los preparadores de impuestos que dicen que han cargado su trabajo e hizo más difícil para que los ciudadanos pagan sus impuestos.
Grupos de consumidores y fiscales han impulsado desde el año 2007 para obtener este tipo de patentes prohibidos, y sus esfuerzos están a punto de llegar a buen término este mes. La Cámara de Representantes tiene previsto votar cuando regrese de su receso de esta semana en una importante revisión del sistema de patentes que efectivamente prohíbe patentar las estrategias fiscales.
Aunque no hay esperanza de que la USPTO se reforme (de acuerdo con reacción negativa del público), las cosas no están mejorando en Europa. Recientemente, por ejemplo, la señora Wilcox decidió dar paso a un esquema [1[http://techrights.org/2011/06/01/wilcox-should-learn-from-eu/], 2[http://techrights.org/2011/05/31/nyls-idea-re-swpats-in-uk/], 3[http://techrights.org/2011/05/31/patent-monopolies-in-the-eu/]] que pueden ayudar a legitimar / cambiar la norma de patentes de los EE.UU. (incluso en Europa) y para citar[http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-06/06/peer-to-patent] a la clase de falacias que se repiten: [a través de Benjamin Henrion[http://twitter.com/zoobab/statuses/78455225215762433]]: la baronesa Wilcox, la ministro de la propiedad intelectual, dijo: “El piloto dará a los expertos la oportunidad de formular observaciones sobre las solicitudes de patentes y compartir su experiencia vital antes de que las patentes se conceden. También significa que las invenciones ya conocidas en la comunidad en general se filtran con mayor facilidad. Peer To patente es un paso adelante para apoyar el crecimiento mediante el refuerzo de la base de patentes en el que las empresas innovadoras de crecimiento”.
Las empresas innovadoras en realidad no requieren patentes. Busque en Google para un ejemplo reciente. Mientras tanto, en Europa también tenemos la preocupación por el lobby de RAND (Licencias “Razonables y No-Discriminatorias”) a la Comisión [1[http://techrights.org/2011/06/01/reputation-uspto-disintegrating/], 2[http://techrights.org/2011/06/09/needing-neelie-back/]]. Benjamin destaca esta nueva página que indica más de lo mismo. RAND no es compatible con el software libre, pero la Comisión está a la vigilancia de RAND, no obstante, tras la presión de los grupos frontales de Microsoft. Esto se refiere a la primera cuestión que hemos cubierto. Lo más importante, sin embargo, es la tendencia actual de la patente de la UE, que pretende hacer de los litigios de mayor escala más fácil y también puede propagarse las patentes de software de tal forma que trascienden las fronteras con la mera firma de un documento/s (tratado que sobrepasa la ley mediante una ‘hack’). Considere el hecho de que en los Estados Unidos una patente que era propiedad[http://techrights.org/2011/06/02/lodsys-and-intellectual-ventures/] del troll de patentes de Microsoft (Intellectual Ventures[http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Intellectual_Ventures]) es objeto de un litigio[http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/lodsys_hit_with_pantent_invalidation_suit/] que buscan su anulación. Al mismo tiempo vemos que las empresas se convierten un montón de patentes maduras para ser recolectado por los trolls[http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Nortel+patent+bonanza/4916085/story.html]. Para ellos, las patentes son sólo medios para llevar a juicio, con abogados especializados en patentes. En lugar de crear una industria que innova, patentes amplian una industria que litiga. Considere la posibilidad de esta empresa que es un “especialista en patentes de software, derechos de autor y secretos comerciales.” El artículo fuente está aquí (Nueva York blogs Times[http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/the-story-under-mrs-landmans-umbrella/]). ¿Qué valor en realidad pueden empresas como estas traer a la economía? Aquí está en su contexto:
Andrew Schulman no lo era. Él es un lector de Lens en San Francisco, un fotógrafo y – más importante para los propósitos de este post – un abogado especializado en patentes de software, derechos de autor y secretos comerciales.
¿Ahora quieren patentar paraguas también? Ni siquiera es una idea aún sin explorar previamente. Hace una década escribí en mi PDA una idea que tenía de un paraguas. Muchos de las llamadas “invenciones” solicitan patentes en que no sólo se ha pensado de antes, pero se han aplicado también. Todo este asunto de las patentes sólo añade complejidad al sistema y frena su avance.
Para resumir algunos de los puntos clave, Europa se enfrenta a nuevas amenazas de grupos de presión (por ejemplo, para RAND), la llamada “unificación” (que en realidad puede ser la importación de las patentes de software), y un intento de inicio de la premisa de que el problema es “calidad” de las patentes en lugar de su tipo (por ejemplo, de impuestos sobre el software). Todos debemos mantenernos vigilantes. Es posible que las patentes de software se mueren en los Estados Unidos -ojalá- antes de que puedan extenderse a otros países como un tipo de virus. █
Summary: Monopolists like Microsoft, based in the United States, try to transport software patents across the Atlantic, so Techrights provides a news summary and a general summary of trends to watch out for
HERE at Techrights we have been covering the situation of software patents in Europe almost since the dawn of this Web site. It was always about software patents and more people begin to understand the importance of this issue when they hear that Microsoft makes money out of HTC's Android phones. Additionally, as one reader shows us this week, “HTC paid for patents and started to use aspx.” Can someone verify this? Netcraft history does not go far back. We already know about Microsoft’s pressure on Intel to use Windows on servers because we found internal documents about it. Microsoft is bundling such deals, making agreements conditional upon migration and PR for Microsoft.
Anyway, to learn about Microsoft’s lobbying for software patents in Europe, one needs to be familiar with the proxies they use for lobbying, e.g. Association for Competitive Technology. Microsoft has ways of trying to portray itself as “European” and also use ‘Euro-washed’ firms to push its agenda there. We mostly covered these in 2008 and 2009, so we advise readers to look back (we strive to decrease repetition). It is clear that Microsoft is a major component of this problem, others being Siemens and Nokia. It should not be shocking that those in favour of software patenting are giants. Patent monopolies make giants stronger and the only small entities to whom such a system might be of use are patent trolls and lawyers’ firms specialising in so-called ‘IP’.
Last year in the United States, Bilski and his colleague shattered the US system by further legitimising software patents, at least based on some people’s analysis (inconclusive). They took it all the way up to the SCOTUS, whose rulings on the subject of patents have been rather terriblerecently. SCOTUS deserves no blind respect because laws too are relative and they depend on principles one adopts in a certain civilised culture. There is no absolute justice or definition of “civilised”; the bias is ‘built in’.
Bilski’s patent was classified as belonging to the business methods category and this new report from the Wall Street Journal says that patents on tax strategies (emulating pen-and-paper methods) may soon be ruled illegal:
U.S. patent number 7,698,194 isn’t an ingenious new machine or a breakthrough medical treatment. It’s a method of analyzing the taxes associated with college-savings plans.
It’s also one of the 144 patented tax strategies and 162 pending applications, as of late May, that tax preparers say have burdened their job and made it harder for citizens to pay their taxes.
Consumer and tax groups have pushed since 2007 to get such patents banned, and their efforts are poised to come to fruition this month. The House of Representatives is expected to vote when it returns from this week’s recess on a major overhaul of the patent system that would effectively prohibit patenting tax strategies.
While there is hope that the USPTO will be reforming (in accordance with public backlash), things are not improving in Europe. Recently, for example, Mrs. Wilcox decided to usher in a scheme [1, 2, 3] that may help legitimise/change the bar for US patents (even in Europe) and to quote the sort of fallacies she is repeating: [via Benjamin Henrion]: Baroness Wilcox, the minister for intellectual property, said: “The pilot will give experts the opportunity to comment on patent applications and share their vital expertise before patents are granted. It will also mean that inventions already known in the wider community will be filtered out more readily. Peer To Patent is a step forward in supporting growth by reinforcing the patent bedrock on which innovative businesses thrive.”
Innovative businesses actually did not require patents. Look at Google for a recent example. Meanwhile in Europe we also have the worry about the RAND lobby at the Commission [1, 2]. Benjamin highlights this new page which signals more of the same. RAND is not compatible with Free software, but the Commission is guarding RAND nonetheless, after lobbying from Microsoft front groups. This relates to the first issue which we covered. Most important, however, is the current push for the EU Patent, which seeks to make litigation of larger scale easier and can also spread software patents such that they transcend borders with the mere signing of some document/s (treaty superseding the law using a ‘hack’). Consider the fact that in the United States a patent previously owned by Microsoft’s patent troll (Intellectual Ventures) is the subject of litigation seeking its invalidation. At the same time we see companies turning into a pile of patents ripe for picking by trolls. To them, patents are just means for suing, using patent lawyers. Rather than breed an industry which innovates, patents expand an industry which litigates. Consider this one firm which is “specializing in software patents, copyright and trade secrets.” The source article is here (New York Times blogs). What value can such firms actually bring to an economy? Here it is in context:
Andrew Schulman wasn’t. He’s a Lens reader in San Francisco, a photographer and — most important for the purposes of this post — a lawyer specializing in software patents, copyright and trade secrets.
Now they want to patent umbrellas too? It is not even an idea previously unexplored. About a decade ago I typed down on my PDA an idea I had for an umbrella. Many of the so-called ‘inventions’ people seek patents on have not just been thought of before but also implemented. This whole business of patents merely adds complexity to the system and slows down its advancement.
To summarise some of the key points, Europe faces new threats from lobbying (e.g. For RAND), so-called ‘unification’ (which can actually be the import of software patents), and an attempt to start from the premise that the problem is “quality” of patents rather than their type (e.g. software, tax). We must all stay vigilant. It is possible that software patents will die in the States before they manage to spread to other countries like some of kind a virus. █
Summary: The European Commission makes strategic mistakes that weaken Europe and give more power to its rivals across the Atlantic, especially gruesome software monopolists
TECHRIGHTS has a lot of respect for Neelie Kroes and the Commission, but if the current agenda is to pay American companies for the privilege of running systems with American back doors (e.g. FBI access), then the European Digital Agenda (note capitalisation) is a bit of a farce. It also puts the continent at great risk in case of a future war.
A couple of years ago we showed how the Commission had been manipulated by lobbyists, then we also showed dubious appointments that made the Commission somewhat hostile towards Free software, and arguably European SMEs too. See for instance some of the following posts:
In the video above, Neelie speaks not in her mother’s tongue and she actually maintains an interesting YouTube channel a lot of which is in Dutch. She did a better job in the Commission than some of her successors, whom we recently showed to be supportive of RAND (with software patents). They are being stuffed by lobbyists and the following new comments berates them for it. The European commenter writes:
If I am not mistaken Oracle is an American company and Mingorance a lobbyist of an American rightsholder organisation. I can’t see how views from American lobbyists are relevant for a European Digital Agenda, other than that we have to break free from our US lock-ins in the digital markets. In other words, let’s do what hurts them most. Small companies from Europe, companies which actually pay their taxes in Europe, are excluded here. What had the Commission in mind?
In the past, back when the Commission did some laudable work with the likes of Neelie in the right chair, telling off the Commission would seem unreasonably disrespectful. But things have changed. Right now, for example, even the FSFE criticises the Commission by showing that it sets a bad example for others to follow. To quote:
In the Commission’s answer to Staes, EC Vice-President Maros Sefcovic argues that “[t]he Commission does not rely on (or is locked into) one single software vendor”, citing the fact that the Commission’s IT infrastructure uses software from many different vendors.
[...]
While lock-in is a problem that troubles many organisations, our next concern is quite specific to this case: We believe that the European Commission should have put out a public call for tender when it wanted a new software platform. Instead, the EC simply declares that the move to Windows 7 is just an “upgrade” – just a newer version of the same product.
If “it’s just an upgrade” becomes acceptable as an excuse to ignore the competition and cozy up to a single supplier, then Europe’s market is in trouble; and not just the one for software. Imagine a local administration that decides to have the town’s main street repaved by the same company that built it in the first place, saying that they’re just “upgrading” the road surface. No new competitor would ever get a foot in the door. Public bodies would hardly ever have to hold competitive bidding procedures for any type of product or service they’ve bought before. This simply cannot be right.
The foundation of Europe’s procurement rules, Directive 2004/18/EC, says that those rules are intended to guarantee the opening-up of public procurement to competition. But it looks like in this instance, the EC has found a way to sidestep that goal, letting inertia (let’s be kind here, ok?) take precedence over competition and long-term value for Europe’s citizens. The Commission itself feels the need to emphasise that “it always complies with public procurement legislation”. We’d certainly hope so.
It doesn’t help that the EC is obviously confused on the commercial nature of Free Software when it uses “open source” as the opposite of “commercial software”. Some people in the Commission seem to believe that there is no money to be made with Free Software. The many companies that have built their business on software freedom would certainly argue otherwise.
This is not the first such complaint from the FSFE.
Whatever happened to the European Commission, it is now in danger of earning notoriety just like NATO or the UN. If it allows itself to be steered by lobbyists and monopolies, then there is no longer need for it. Taxpayers just do not receive what they paid for, not even fines imposed on Microsoft for breaking the law [1, 2] (which has cost European citizens a lot of money over the years). We need the ‘old’ Neelie back — the assertive one, not the softened one. █
Richard Stallman in a Free Software Briefing (WSIS-2005)
Summary: How Microsoft is daemonising ordinary people and confusing lawmakers using terminology and imposters who pretend to speak for free/open source software
MOVING to Free (libre) software is a decision which ought to be motivated at least in part by the realisation that freedom is hard to earn and it is very valuable. It’s only when it’s lost that its value can be appreciated. Microsoft pretends to be countering counterfeiting while in fact it uses counterfeiting to counter freedom, ensuring that populations especially in poor countries have no control over their computing; instead, Microsoft takes control. Glyn Moody has found this post from China about a new and dishonest Microsoft campaign:
One of the biggest issues Western firms have with China is the country’s stance on intellectual property rights. Despite the Chinese Government stepping up its efforts to battle the issue in recent years, the problems still exist.
Whether it be the stalls in Beijing’s Silk Market selling their staggering range of counterfeit designer goods, Chinese media broadcasters using copyright footage without permission, or the ever impressive copycat products (known in China as ‘山寨’ – Shānzhài) such as the recent ‘iPed’ — the fake iPad, there is no doubt about it intellectual property infringements are rife in the PRC.
[...]
For instance in 2008, Microsoft rolled out a program called “Windows Genuine Advantage” which caused “black screens of death” to appear every hour on unregistered versions of the Windows operating system. The only way to resolve the problem would have been to buy a genuine copy of Windows.
Bill Gates in China 1995
Yet, just a year earlier, Bill Gates stated that he liked the Chinese pirating his software over its competitors, because he believed that eventually Chinese consumers would pay for the real thing.
Wikileaks recently taught us something new about the “black screens of death”. To the government, it’s about control (being able to suspend computers in a hostile nation), not about so-called ‘piracy’ (counterfeiting). Be careful of the Microsoft spin, which seems to be everywhere these days.
In a “Guest Post” from Microsoft’s Walli [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] (who pretends not to understand Free software, e.g. by implicitly comparing it to communism) Microsoft’s Outercurve Foundation gets promoted while Outercurve/Microsoft staff continues to redefine open source. It is infiltrating its competition and obscures freedom as in “free to distribute”, as opposed to free of charge. Not so long ago the same type of people tried to tell us that RAND was compatible with Free software and they managed to derail the second version of EIF [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], which more and more groups are not pleased with. The FFII deciphers this message from Dutch:
IT journalist Brenno de Winter is not impressed by the #EIF
That’s what will happen if Microsoft is allowed to hijack “open source” and then use mobbyists/lobbyists to lie about what it is. Glyn Moody predicted this would happen when he wrote about it for Linux Journal around 3 years ago. █
“There’s free software [gratis, dumpware] and then there’s open source… there is this thing called the GPL, which we disagree with.”
Resumen: La reacción de Microsoft para EIFv2 (Marco Europeo de Interoperabilidad version 2) es casi abrumadoramente positiva, mientras que nuevos comentarios de los defensores de la libertad (alrededor de RAND (“Razonable y No-Discriminatorias” licencias)en EIFv2) sugieren que es realmente beneficioso para Microsoft, que EIFv2 se descarriló.
Aquí hay otro análisis de EIFv2[http://gotze.eu/2010/12/19/european-interoperability-framework-2-0/] que dice: “Por desgracia, parece como si la gente que escribió el FEI no recibieron el memo de EIS, nos queda adivinar cómo ven la arquitectura en el juego. Con v2, EFI señala cuatro niveles de interoperabilidad – jurídicos, organizativos, semánticos y técnicos. El nivel de organización incluye la alineación de procesos de negocio, las relaciones de organización y gestión del cambio. En consecuencia, las administraciones deben utilizar un enfoque arquitectónico que abarca a todos los niveles; que, por supuesto, arquitectura de la empresa, yo diría. Por desgracia, en lugar de ir esa dirección, el EFI acaba de dar recomendaciones vagas y no comprometidas en este y oeste “.
La Comisión Europea adoptó una Comunicación titulada “Hacia la interoperabilidad de los Servicios Públicos Europeos”, la introducción de la segunda encarnación del Marco Europeo de Interoperabilidad (EIF) y la Estrategia Europea de Interoperabilidad (EIA) [1]. Esta semana la Comisión también publicó nuevas directrices horizontales [2], en las hace a los cárteles de patentes exentas bloque-de defensa de la competencia.
“El Marco Europeo de Interoperabilidad es una leyenda. Es difícil, en efecto, para que el impacto que se compara con el primer EFI. Lamentablemente el lobby diluyó la interoperabilidad europea. Es asombroso que la Unión Europea, el Comisario Šefčovič superó la indecisión, y presento sus “húmedos” documentos. “, Dice el Vicepresidente de la FFII Magos René.
El nuevo Marco Europeo de Interoperabilidad (EIF), publicado el jueves, incluye una recomendación de que, “la hora de establecer los servicios públicos europeos, las administraciones públicas deben preferencia a las especificaciones abiertas, teniendo debidamente en cuenta la cobertura de las necesidades funcionales, la madurez y de apoyo al mercado”.
La postura de la Comisión en cierta manera de desafiar a la opinión de la Alianza Empresarial de Software (BSA), que había afirmado su preferencia por especificaciones abiertas “socavaría la capacidad de innovación de las normas europeas”.
“El pasado jueves la Comisión Europea ha dado un paso importante en la “apertura” a escala. La ocasión fue el lanzamiento de una nueva versión del Marco Europeo de Interoperabilidad (EIF), que aprobó definitivamente el uso de normas de origen abierto en la prestación de “servicios públicos” dentro de la Unión Europea. Este resultado fue considerado con razón por los defensores de código abierto como Open Forum Europe.”
“Sin embargo, la CE dio dos pasos hacia atrás en todo lo demás, ya que revisó su definición de “estándares abiertos”, presumiblemente reflejando los esfuerzos del sector (por ejemplo, por la Alianza Empresarial de Software) para preservar el valor de las patentes de software.”
“En esta entrada del blog, voy a revisar el largo proceso de siete años en que el “Marco Europeo de Interoperabilidad” (EFI) en primer lugar establecer una marca mundial alta para la liberalización de la definición de estándares abiertos, y luego se retiró de esa posición.”
“Si uno tuviera que elegir la pregunta más controvertido en la elaboración de normas en la última década, tendría que ser la pregunta engañosamente simple: “¿Qué significa ser un” estándar abierto? ‘”
[...]
“La preferencia por la ejecución sin derechos de autor también ha sufrido una caída. No se distingue ahora aparece entre FRAND (“JUSTO”, Razonable y “No-Discriminatorias” licencias) y normas libres de FRAND (“JUSTO”, Razonable y “No-Discriminatorias” licencias), incluso en el lenguaje más aspiracional (“la apertura es más plenamente efectivos”) de la EFI en comparación con 2.0 a 1.0 (“los requisitos mínimos de los estándares abiertos son”).”
Esto se acerca más a la evaluación de Glyn Moody’s ya que concluye con:
“Por alguna razón, parece que la CE ha decidido abandonar la posición de liderazgo que tomó en 2004 para fijar la meta de normas adecuadas para la adopción en el gobierno. Aquellos que creen que los estándares abiertos, libremente definidos, son vitales para abrir gobierno ahora tendrá que buscar otro lugar para la innovación.”
Cuanto más esperemos, más negativa de la opinión sobre EIFv2 parecen ser. Como ha señalado acertadamente por Microsoft Florian[http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Florian_M%C3%BCller], las reacciones iniciales (por ejemplo, en Twitter/Identi.ca) de la multitud a favor de Europa fueron prematuramente positivas.
