One of the disappointing things about Microsoft's rocky affairs in Europe is that software patents get pushed onto table using buzzwords like "reasonable" (as in RAND) and "interoperabile" [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11].
As we showed very recently, based on unpublished research and reports from FFII, Microsoft still wants GNU/Linux tax (even in Europe). On the face of it, the US Department on Justice does not stand in the way of this self-serving plot. From last night's news:
Microsoft, DOJ issue status report on interoperability compliance
[...]
Also, 49 companies have licensed patents for the communications protocols since the final judgment, with 36 of the companies signing aboard for a royalty bearing license.
[...]
To date the interoperability labs, which are offered free to MCPP licensees at its Microsoft Engineering Center, Microsoft completed an interoperability lab with one licensee in March and another in May.
There has been some concern that GPL implementations of material covered by Microsoft's Open Specification Promise are prohibited. Microsoft could resolve this with a clear statement that GPL implementations are OK. Why hasn't it?
[...]
Microsoft made it clear last year that it wanted to encumber the open source communities with patent royalties. Do you expect that Microsoft sponsored standards will tend to be covered by Microsoft patents? CNN's senior editor said: "If the company gets its way, free software won't be free anymore." is this an accurate claim?
He also gives a painfully polished response to CNN's senior editor's claims that the company is trying to eliminate free software.Typical Microsoft PR response to tough questions, but interesting nonetheless....
“OpenLogic, for example, is a company that is run by a former Microsoft chap.”There is an informational and also a technical aspect at play. On the one hand, Microsoft can try to deliver and perpetuate the belief that software patents are already honoured by Free software developers (and that they loathe GPLv3); on the other hand -- and at the same time in fact -- Microsoft can 'poison' Free software with what's considered more trivially provable as infringing (Hallo, Moto Mono).
Yesterday we shared some commentary, which was backed with news, in order to show that the threat comes from the inside. OpenLogic, for example, is a company that is run by a former Microsoft chap. It claims to have established somewhat of a 'census' that encompasses open source, but it's far from it. It could be used as just a monitoring project -- spyware that's akin to Microsoft Windows which sends Redmond a list of all your installed applications every time Windows Update is invoked (automatically).
At the same time, as just spotted in another site (ComputerWorld UK), Glyn Moody draws his conclusions about GPLv3 based on Microsoft Black Duck (CEO Doug Levin no longer works at Microsoft). Remember ACT?
Microsoft influence is only to be expected where there are inter-personal relationship and past colleagues (de Icaza, for example, has friends at Microsoft). They're everywhere. And Dana Blankenborn has just explained how they buy their way into the 'community'.
Why is it that all these open source news sites, blog sites, and resource sites are still being sponsored by Microsoft?
--Steve Pepper