12.06.11

CarrierIQ Exposes the Flaws of “Best Tool for the Job” Pragmatism

Posted in Apple, Free/Libre Software, FSF, FUD, Hardware, Intellectual Monopoly, Law, Microsoft, Patents, Samsung, Tivoization at 2:52 pm by Guest Editorial Team

The Best Tool For Freedom is a Free Tool

Two friends have a good chat about free software at OSCON.

The CarrierIQ issue, even if it is part of an organized campaign to smear and ruin Android [2], is showing people the dangers of using non free software. Even one piece of non free software can betray users, so mostly free, “pragmatic” systems can be just as bad as regular non free systems. The free software community should capitalize on this awareness to change people’s attitudes towards their devices so that they will reject non free software in the future. Software freedom must be complete for users to have real conrtol and privacy.

Richard Stallman wrote an extensive review of Android back in September. It lists all of the parts of available phones that can be used maliciously against users, which surprisingly include the radio control firmware. The conclusion was unequivocal, “Android is a major step towards an ethical, user-controlled, free-software portable phone, but there is a long way to go. … While any computing system might have bugs, these devices might be bugs.”

When the CarrierIQ scandal broke, Mr. Stallman was not surprised. His comment was,

The root cause of this problem is that the users don’t control the software on these phones. So if they didn’t put in this surveillance package [Carrier IQ], they would put in some other. The users’ only protection against malicious features (surveillance, intentional restrictions, and back doors) is to insist on free software.

Anyone in the Open Source community who’s surprised should think hard about what the Free Software Society has been telling them. About four years ago at a “Web 2.0″ meeting, Eben Moglen urged the Tim O’Reilly and the Open Source community to quit, “wasting time promoting commercial products.” O’Reilly was sad that Moglen did not want to talk about protecting people’s data on other people’s computers in “the cloud,” but CarrierIQ makes it plain that those rights and protections are meaningless if the user is stripped of privacy by malware in their pocket. It might have been useful ten years ago to hide scary talk about freedom from big companies like IBM. It worked, thanks, but talk about “best tool for the job” and “pragmatic” mixes of free and non free software should now be considered counter productive and the results dangerous.

There are community alternatives to carrier issued Android. Stallman mentions Replicant, a 100% free software replacement for Android. There is also a less careful distribution called CyanogenMod that is focused on performance and includes non free software from Google and perhaps device drivers. Jeff Hoogland, the founder of Bodhi GNU/Linux, is working on Debian for cell phones and we can be sure many others are as well. In the mean time, if you must have a smart phone, it might as well be Android because there is no chance a phone from Apple or Microsoft will be liberated, but don’t expect it to be a Freedom Box the community really wants [2 and don't trust it until it's really free.

Sadly, US law is mostly a hindrance. Senator Al Franklin had some very pointed questions about possible violations of law for the company and a lawsuit has been launched against the guilty parties - Apple, HTC, Samsung, Motorola, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Carrier IQ. That's good but it will be difficult to prove what actually happened, and the free software community can do better. Like Vista and Windows 7, CarrierIQ establishes encrypted communications to hide the data transmitted. It would be better to have free software on your cell phone, so the FSF has petitioned the Librarian of Congress for a DMCA Exemption Without that, it may be against US law for people to replace the software on their phones or even to delete CarrierIQ malware.

The lack of freedom in cell phones is not a natural state but is unlikely to end without changes and enforcement of US law. Android has emerged as the top cell phone OS because it is free software and creates a productive commons for the odd hundred companies that must cooperate to make a cell phoneThe obnoxious US patent system has allowed Microsoft and Apple to practice judicial extortion that should have been blocked by US anti-trust and racketeering laws[1, 2,3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. Spectrum licensing itself is a technically obsolete and harmful practice but the FCC could demand adherence to technical standards, demand the publication of technical standards required to operate phones, and forbid practices such as phone locking as the price carriers pay for spectrum as it transitions to open spectrum.

We are in this hole because a long running propaganda campaign by non free software owners has played down ethical issues while convincing people that they are helpless. Billions of dollars in propaganda spending still drown out the basic truth of the situation and non free software use remains prevalent even among people who have every reason to fear spying by the rich and powerful. CarrierIQ gives us a good chance to fix that.

Permalink 4 Comments      Send this to a friend

08.25.11

Steve’s Duopoly Against Linux

Posted in Antitrust, Apple, Deception, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Patents, Samsung, SLES/SLED, Windows at 5:16 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“We’ve always been shameless about stealing great ideas.”

–Steve Jobs

Original photo by Matthew Yohe, modified by Boycott Novell

Summary: The patent assault on GNU/Linux and Android carries on, although one of the chief players, Steve Jobs, is calling it quits amid struggles to block the competition (e.g. tablets with Linux)

“Apple plus Microsoft equals 100% of the desktop computer market. And so, whatever Apple and Microsoft agree to do, it’s a standard,” said Steve Jobs over a decade ago (see the video). Those two companies, Apple and Microsoft, are now collaborating (colluding) in their attacks on Linux. Might the Cook-led Apple be any different? We doubt it, but we can only hope. The MSBBC and pro-Microsoft lobbyists are pushing a distorted version of the story about Apple versus Samsung. For Apple, the decision was somewhat of a defeat, coming to light on the very same day that Steve Jobs decided to step down from his embargo company. If anyone needs proof that Apple is merely a marketing/branding company, it’s the reaction from investors to this man’s departure. Incidentally, since Samsung is on the receiving end of Apple’s thuggish behaviour, it is worth noting that in last night’s phone conversation that I had with OIN’s CEO (we spoke for almost an hour and a half, touching various issues) it turned out that Samsung (and possibly LG) is not paying Microsoft for Linux per se, so a small correction (error caused by Microsoft disinformation) ought to be made. While LG and Samsung are, according to Microsoft, paying Microsoft for Linux, it turns out that Microsoft just grossly exaggerated this for FUD purposes. The patent deals from 2007 were just for FAT patents. We wonder how many more of those “Linux” deals (e.g. Brother) are just phony extortions over some unwanted and arcane file system. In any case, Samsung and LG are not the sellouts Microsoft would have us believe they are. The interesting thing is, Android was beating iPhone around the time of iPhone 3. It seems likely that Android will beat iPad around the release of iPad 3, as well. No wonder Apple is so frantic and aggressive. The antitrust folks should really pay more attention to Apple’s reaction, possibly constituting a cartel.

Looking more closely at Samsung’s case, the prior art argument was being used properly [1, 2]. “Watch them wind around when confronted with truth,” writes Jan Wildeboer separately, regarding this response to Stallman's piece about the "unitary patent". Wildeboer, whose origin country helps a quick interpretation of the Apple-Samsung ruling, has also been trying to counter the FUD which came from pro-Microsoft lobbyist Florian Müller. This lobbyist pushed his FUD into some news sites. Some pro-patents sites are always looking for damning material that helps validate software patents too [1, 2, 3] while a Microsoft apologist continues to daemonise the Google-Motorola deal (this time using China), even a week after it all happened. Apple’s and Microsoft’s crusade for “Linux tax” is intended to make those new open source-based platforms that are so disruptive to them “uneconomic”, to use the word OIN’s CEO repeated a lot. Over in China, where intellectual monopolies are hardly respected, Microsoft is already infiltrating Linux to put Microsoft tax on it, as we explained twice this week. Quoting Sam Dean:

Microsoft will be involved with the deployment of NeoKylin Linux…

Yes, it’s just like another Novell, i.e. the ‘Microsoft Linux’ which Microsoft makes money from at the expense of Debian, Red Hat, and others. This is a point that OIN’s CEO and I seemed to have no disagreements on. Moreover, as he pointed out, there is clearly an attempt by what he labelled “duopolists” and “monopolists” to just remove competitors from the market. Android is their current target, but GNU/Linux on the server is another. We really must fight back on both fronts. One way is to challenge Android FUD and another is to antagonise Novell-like deals. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

08.23.11

Europe Under Threat From Software Patents Through the Back Door, Warns FSF Founder

Posted in Apple, Europe, Patents, Samsung at 11:21 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Richard Stallman further validates the FFII’s warning that Europe is besieged by the same forces who sought to legalise software patents in the whole EU just over half a decade ago

LAST year we warned that Amazon was trying to flush its software patents down the EPO's throat. Benjamin Henrion warns that “Amazon one-click patentable in Europe, EPO says add a computer and it will become patentable,” based on this blog post:

Amazon’s so called “One-Click Patent” is one of the most controversially discussed software inventions ever. The term, which nowadays is used as a cipher for a prototypical business method patent, was originally coined for US 5,960,411 titled “method and system for placing a purchase order via a communications network” (filed 12 Sep 2007, granted 28 Sep 1999; pdf), which has been enforced against competitor Barnes & Noble and licensed to Apple.

The respective teaching enables easy Internet shopping in that a customer visits a website, enters address and payment information and is associated with an identifier stored in a “cookie” in his client computer. A server is then able to recognize the client by the cookie and to retrieve purchasing information related to the customer, who thus can buy an item with a “single click”.

Europe is in a limbo and even hours ago people complained about it:

Read this patent GRANTED in Europe t.co/aaGAtfa then read this t.co/BxK8stq for more crappy #swpats

Richard Stallman has emerged from his more political commentary and contributed this article which warns about the “unitary patent” — the latest among many euphemisms used to silently push a pro-software patents agenda. To quote Stallman:

Just as the US software industry is experiencing the long-anticipated all-out software patent wars, the European Union has a plan to follow the same course. When the Hargreaves report urged the UK to avoid software patents, the UK government had already approved a plan that is likely to impose them.

Software patents are dangerous to software developers because they impose monopolies on software ideas. It is not feasible or safe to develop non-trivial software if you must thread a maze of patents. (See Patent absurdity, Guardian, 20 June 2005.)

Every program combines many ideas; a large program implements thousands of them. Google recently estimated there might be 250,000 patented ideas in a smartphone. I find that figure plausible, because in 2004 I estimated that the GNU/Linux operating system implemented around 100,000 actually patented ideas. (Linux, the kernel, had been found by Dan Ravicher to contain 283 such ideas, and was estimated to be 25% of the whole system at the time.)

[...]

The volunteer activists drifted away, thinking the battle won, but the corporate lobbyists for software patents were paid to stay on the job. Now they have contrived another sneaky method: the “unitary patent” system proposed for the EU. Under this system, if the European Patent Office issues a patent, it will automatically be valid in every participating country, which in this case means all of the EU except for Spain and Italy.

European patent lawyers are obviously unhappy about Stallman’s article. As Stallman warns about lobbying those aim is to get software patents approved in Europe, European patent lawyers label his allegation a “conspiracy theory” — a term whose usage we explained before.

This cheapening of Stallman’s views (which reached a lot of people through The Guardian, plus the “Slashdot effect”) actually comes from the group which is typically polite, German patent people like Falk Metzler (here is his latest agenda-pushing) and Axel H. Horns, who gets into an argument (after calling Stallman’s argument “conspiracy theory) with the FFII. He, along with pro-Microsoft lobbyist (Florian Müller), writes pro-software patents rhetoric and adds in relation to the “unitary patent” that:

On July 10, 2010, I had reported on the planned Organisation of work on the patent reform under the Polish Presidency. Now, as we still are within the summer recess period where nothing appears to move forward there might be a little stretch of time to contemplate as to how things might move on during next fall.

There is a recent precedent of successful adoption of enhanced co-operation in the EU: As we can learn from Wikipedia, with the rise in cross border divorce in the EU, common rules were put forward to settle the issue of where trans-national couples can divorce in the EU. However Sweden was blocking the new rules, fearing the loss of its liberal divorce law (divorce law differs strongly, with Nordic liberalism being in contrast to more conservative countries such as Malta which – until recently – did not even allow it). In order to allow those willing states to proceed without Sweden, in July 2008 nine countries put forward a proposal to use enhanced co-operation. At a meeting of the justice ministers on July 25, 2008, the nine states decided to formally seek the measure of enhanced cooperation; eight states formally requested it from the European Commission on 28 July 2008.

This is an interesting analysis (the author is typically informative), but why potray a so-called ‘unity’ patent as a good thing like peace-making? It’s not. All it does is, it increases damages in European industries and raises the frequency/impact of litigation, which helps the likes of the author, not real producers.

To give a very recent example of the toxic effects of US monopolies inside Europe, consider the Apple embargogate [1, 2, 3] , which fortunately turned out to be just an Apple scam that ended badly for Apple. To quote:

Apple faces a turnover of the Samsung injunction and iPad 3 may be delayed with screen supply problems

It was a black Wednesday for Apple. Samsung managed to overturn the European Union ban on sales of its flagship tablet, an action prosecuted by Apple, and the iPad 3 launch was “put back” because of technical problems.

Added to the news that if Google’s bid for Motorola Mobile goes through, Apple will lose some of its patents litigation power because of its reliance on Motorola technologies, it is probably not a good time to be in the Cupertino company’s boardroom.

Here is more about Apple lying to the court using fake 'evidence' to impose an EU-wise embargo of Linux-based products from Samsung. It is theorised that Samsung might buy WebOS from HP, but based on hirings, Samsung will stay with Android/Bada and distribute that without qualm all around Europe, although quite likely with a Microsoft tax. Samsung is one of the top patentors in Europe. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

07.06.11

Report: Microsoft Wants $15 for Each Android Phone Sold, Without Contributing a Single Line of Code

Posted in GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Patents, Samsung at 2:02 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Microsoft jots down monetary demands from rival platforms, virtually at gunpoint (as in, pay up or get sued frivolously)

MICROSOFT reportedly gets $5 for each HTC Android phone that gets sold and it wants even triple that amount, based on this other new report which helps show how Microsoft’s strategy of buying patents and then extorting rivals plays out:

Microsoft Corp has demanded that Samsung Electronics Co Ltd pay $15 for each smartphone handset it makes based on Google Inc’s Android operating system as the software giant has a wide range of patents used in the mobile platform, local media reported on Wednesday.

Samsung would likely seek to lower the payment to about $10 in exchange for a deeper alliance with Microsoft for the U.S. company’s Windows platform, the Maeil Business Newspaper quoted unnamed industry officials as saying.

Samsung had no immediate comment.

They should be reporting racketeering [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7] and the USPTO should really come under scrutiny from the USDOJ. What is this?! Microsoft has been running around with a loaded gun quite a lot recently. Time to send out the police. What ever happened to the RICO Act?

Even a Microsoft apologist is appalled by this? Is this the future of Microsoft? A patent bully and parasite?

Well, paint me red and call me a girl scout, I totally did not see this one coming at all. This is so utterly surprising it made my brain explode. Hold on to your panties, because this will rock your world. After pressuring several smaller Android vendors into submission (and yes, HTC is still relatively small compared to other players), Microsoft is now moving on to the big one: Redmond is demanding $15 for every Samsung Android device sold. Samsung’s choices are simple: pay up, or face another epic lawsuit.

Then he adds:

Update: As pointed out in the comments, more accurately would be to say that the USPTO resisted software patents until the mid-’90s, with lower courts sometimes overturning USPTO decisions. Software patentability then developed further in the court system, until the 1998 decision, in which the patentability of software was established beyond any doubt. More here.

So, even without software patents, the computer and software industry flourished before 1998. Basically every computer and software technology we use today is older than 1998, so this means innovation and progress occurred just fine without software patents. Arguing that software patents are needed to foster innovation is akin to arguing that progress was hampered pre-1998.

As I’ve said before, ideas should not be patentable. A patent should cover an implementation, but since with software the implementation comes in the form of code, the implementation is already protected by copyright. Hence, software patents are not only idiotic, they are simply not needed.

It takes a lot of time and research to write a good science fiction novel, yet you’ll see few people arguing that the idea of a space novel should be patentable. Yet, this is exactly what software patents are.

Meanwhile, one of the patent trolls which attack Google celebrates getting more patents. From the press release:

Red Bend Software, the market leader in Mobile Software Management (MSM) with more than 1 billion Red Bend-Enabled™ devices, today announced it has been granted six more patents relating to the company’s unique update technology used in its software management products and solutions. These additional patents further enhance Red Bend’s leadership position in Mobile Software Management.

While Bill Gates and his friend Nathan Myhrvold lobby against substantial patent reform we are increasingly seeing an industry destroyed and Gates getting another form of tax on every chipset sold. This whole corruption of the system needn’t be tolerated. We forewarned about this in 2006. █

“Intellectual property is the next software.”

–Nathan Myhrvold, Microsoft patent troll

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

05.27.11

Microsoft’s Android Extortion Gets Price Tags

Posted in GNU/Linux, Kyocera Mita, LG, Linspire, Microsoft, Patents, Samsung, SLES/SLED, Xandros at 11:17 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Using software patents, Microsoft turns Linux into its own cash cow whilst also making it more expensive

Summary: Techrights’ fight against ‘Linux tax’ from Microsoft is getting a lot more attention this Friday

“BOYCOTT NOVELL” was all about stopping Microsoft tax on GNU/Linux. More people are beginning to wake us and realise that our cause was all along on target, as several distributions of GNU/Linux which paid Microsoft for this ‘privilege’ simply went extinct (Xandros' price was $50 for Microsoft patents). Our goal was to ensure that people/companies do not become dependent on Microsoft-taxed distributions, as that would simply serve Microsoft’s goal of making GNU/Linux its own cash cow. SUSE, Turbolinux, and Linspire were also part of this problem and all those companies went into the ashtray of history. There are more such companies, but they sell hardware, not purely software.

Everyone appears to have just ‘discovered’ that “HTC Pays Microsoft $5 Per Android Phone” and there is already a lot of coverage about it. Quoting The Register:

Buy an HTC smartphone and $5 of what you spent on it goes to Microsoft – even if you’ve just bought an Android device.

So says Citi analyst Walter Pritchard in a note sent out to investors today, according to Business Insider.

Microsoft announced the royalty payment deal – the result of a legal settlement – last year, but the amount the software giant receives was not made public. MS has alleged Android infringes its intellectual property, and has other smartphone vendors in its sights.

Pritchard reckons Microsoft is pursuing other Android handset makers for a royalty of $7.50-12.50 per device. HTC clearly got of relatively lightly by settling Microsoft’s claims out of court.

[...]

Microsoft can’t be too forceful. If can’t afford to overly annoy those vendors who’re also selling phones based on its Windows Phone OS – they might just drop it, in a huff. Or they may trade lower royalties for a stronger commitment to WinPho – something Microsoft needs far more than even a few hundreds of millions of dollars in royalty payments.

Saumsung, LG, and Kyocera Mita also pay Microsoft for Android. There might be more such companies, perhaps not prominent ones though. Faced with a price tag, people act surprised about it even though our site has highlighted this issue since 2007 when Samsung signed the first such deal and in order to discourage similar deals we called for a boycott. The bottom line is, we do have a problem here, but it is not a new problem. We even found one anti-Linux propagandist writing: “This is just fraud. I really like HTC phones with their Sense interface but I have a Galaxy S II on order and I will not buy any HTC phone again while they give in to Microsoft’s blackmail.”

According to other news from today, Lodsys wants to go after Android developers. “Patent holding company Lodsys caused a stir recently when it demanded money from iOS developers using in-app payments,” says this report, “something it holds a patent for. Now it appears that Android developers could be next in line for a stern email from the firm.

“Android Community has spotted one developer who is claiming to have received a request for payment in relation to integrating in-app payments into an Android app. If true, it could stir up another hornet’s nest of anger in the development community.”

“Saumsung, LG, and Kyocera Mita also pay Microsoft for Android.”This is actually not news and we alluded to it before. Apple, unlike Google, is a patent aggressor, so it is not the same situation for Android and Apple’s hypeOS. Interestingly enough, Microsoft’s ally Nokia is also giving a hard time to Apple. How long before Microsoft uses Nokia to sue Android distributors too? Nokia has given hints about it. Microsoft’s strategy is to tax Linux from as many directions as possible. It’s blackmail [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7], so regulators should step in to intervene. █

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

–Mark Shuttleworth

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

11.27.10

Microsoft Sellouts Join Microsoft’s Racket Intellectual Ventures and Not OIN

Posted in Deals, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Patents, Samsung at 3:55 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“I’d put the Linux phenomenon really as threat No. 1.”

–Steve Ballmer, 2001

Summary: Samsung signs a patent deal with the world’s biggest patent troll, Intellectual Ventures (which serves Microsoft’s agenda)

Earlier today we wrote about HTC feeding the vultures of Intellectual Ventures, which is somewhat of a Microsoft spinoff and also the world’s biggest patent troll. It’s rather mysterious and we suspect that HTC did not join voluntarily, so maybe it happened after threat of litigation, even by proxy (Intellectual Ventures always sues through one of its 1,000+ satellites). Both Microsoft and Intellectual Ventures use attack dogs to distance themselves from the negative publicity associated with lawsuits. Why did Microsoft and Gates want Intellectual Ventures created in the first place? The founder too came from Microsoft. Perhaps Microsoft can use such a proxy to repeatedly extort companies and elevate the price of its competition, which is gratis under conditions where software patents are not valid.

According to this new report, Samsung decides to “Partner Up With Intellectual Ventures”:

In a move to help steer clear of any more legal trouble, HTC and Samsung have entered into a partnership with Intellectual Ventures to use over 30,000 software patents in their phones, and in Samsung’s case, a myriad of other devices. This is especially handy for HTC who’s faced nothing but legal trouble since they spearheaded the Android movement back in 2008.

HTC sold out to Microsoft some months ago and then signed an Intellectual Ventures deal; Samsung too follows this path, having surrendered to Microsoft without even a fight (in 2007), deciding to pay Microsoft for Linux. Samsung could possibly join the OIN instead of joining the Microsoft racket, but Microsoft and Samsung have resemblances and a long history together (as partners). As shown in the very recent conversation below (full log to be published later), our contributor gnufreex has some ideas about the purpose of OIN and CPTN, which we will write about tomorrow. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

09.10.10

Embedding ‘Microsoft Tax’ in Linux, Using Mono

Posted in Microsoft, Mono, Novell, OpenSUSE, Patents, Samsung at 3:44 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Advice to those wishing to free Linux and remove all Microsoft tax from it (hint: avoid vendors that pay Microsoft for Linux)

THE PROGRAMS known as Mono and Moonlight are malicious in the sense that they enable Microsoft to control Linux, partly with the help of software patents. A few days ago we also warned about SparkleShare, which is Mono based (and proud of it) but nonetheless receives some coverage. Juliet Kemp is promoting Gnome-don’t right now; it is also Mono based.

3 years ago we hypothesised that Mono was the reason Samsung paid Microsoft for Linux (Samsung put Mono on phones at the time, but it no longer does). Here is another Samsung smartphone to avoid because it’s a Microsoft cash cow:

The Samsung i9000 Galaxy S was just crowned as the fastest smartphone by GLBenchmark, with a performance of 1834 frames, ahead of the iPhone 3GS with 1077 frames and the iPhone 4 with 1039 frames.

Well, too bad it’s being taxed by Microsoft, right? Anyway, this whole plot with Mono should be familiar because SCO tried to do with UNIX what Novell is now doing with .NET. As Groklaw explains this week, the SCO-Novell trial carries on, forever keeping that uncertainty about the freedom of Linux (although everyone knows that SCO has no case).

Novell has responded to SCO’s Objections to Novell’s Bill of Costs for the two trials. Novell did not fail to notice and point out to the court SCO’s cheeky move, asking that the court deny the entire bill, when some of it was costs from the first Utah trial that had already been authorized by the court…

As always, we advise people to simply steer away from Samsung and Novell, just as many technology-savvy individuals avoided anything from SCO. OpenSUSE, despite looking nice and all, is also helping Novell (OpenSUSE is 100% property of Novell), so it too should be avoided. There are many GNU/Linux-based alternatives out there. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

09.07.10

Microsoft Tax in Televisions, Thanks to Ballnux

Posted in GNU/Linux, GPL, LG, Microsoft, Patents, Samsung at 6:11 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: More new televisions run Linux, but not the type which is free because Microsoft unjustifiably gets paid

THE KOREAN televisions industry is still at it. Both LG and Samsung pay Microsoft for Linux, also in their televisions. LG claims to be running “open source” right now (“Open source Plex media center to run on LG TVs”) and Samsung uses Android in HDTVs, based on this news article which says nothing about the Microsoft tax.

HDTVs are the next consumer electronic battlefield and Samsung is apparently testing out Android on its sets in order to step up their offering in response to the latest from Sony, Apple and others. Currently, Samsung is the world’s leader in HDTVs sold but there’s a shake-up looming and Samsung no doubt wants to retain its title. Android may or may not be the answer.

Many television sets of Sony runs Linux, but these do not pay Microsoft for ‘permission’ to do so. Samsung is only starting to learn about complying with Free software licences (new code release [1, 2, 3]), but it never learned about Free software being incompatible with patents, simply based on practices. Pressuring Samsung regarding GPL violations proved fruitful (they formally published code because a Techrights member pressed them), so Samsung ought to be pressured to also stop paying Microsoft for Linux (Microsoft presented no evidence to justify it). This cause and this goal can be achieved, but customers need to pressure them. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend