ACT, the Microsoft pressure group which fakes the voice of European SMEs, is getting some backup from other lobbyists who push Microsoft's interests in Europe, especially when it comes to software patents.
"There are a whole host of policies in the flagship which will favour SMEs. On intellectual property, for example, the EU patent would dramatically reduce the cost of patenting in Europe, which would particularly benefit SMEs. But in addition, the commission will make proposals for a European knowledge market for patents and licensing.
"The EU patent plus the European market place for IPs would allow SMEs both to patent more of their inventions, and also to trade and exchange them on equal terms with larger companies," Dewar told the meeting.
She went on, "This is particularly critical in sectors such as semi-conductors and telecoms where companies need to bundle together many existing technologies and therefore require access rights to a range of IPRs.
The Gerson Lehrman Group's site is carrying this missive from Jeff Gould giving a rather wild-eyed analyst view of Oracle's enterprise kernel update.
“I'm disturbed by claims that RAND is compatible with FS.”
--Carlo PianaAndrew Katz, a lawyer, has already put the kibosh on the mobbyists' lies about RAND. He writes: "my personal view is that RAND is against all freedom in spirit, and against some licences in word (e.g. GPL)"
Piana adds: "in other words, yes, if you imply open standards as in FSFE def. (incl. no running royalties forever)"
This won't stop Microsoft Florian, for example, from lying. He is still pushing the same line as BSA and ACT, Microsoft's front groups on these issues; the difference is that he pretends to be pro-FOSS (which he is not) and against software patents, but he is pushing the BSA's party line. Some 'reporters', only/mostly in ZDNet on the face of it, are still willing to chew the falsehoods from lobbyists and mobbyists. It's just sad. Regarding the BSA-FSFE altercations [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] David Meyer writes: "Lobbyists clash over open standards in Europe" (it makes it sound like FSFE is a lobbying group).
In its letter to the Commission (PDF), dated 7 October, the BSA called for "an express endorsement of technologies made available on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms", rather than the preference for open specifications that apparently exists in the draft EIF revision.
The BSA said a tilt towards open specs would "undermine the innovativeness of European standards", adding that the recommendation suggested that such standards should be "free of intellectual property rights". The organisation also pointed to many technologies that are licensed on FRAND terms, such as Wi-Fi, GSM and MPEG.
The FSFE sent its own letter to the Commission on Friday, saying the BSA's letter showed "a gross misconception of standards, their role and their working".
But there was a time, long before ZDNet, when I did some consulting. A company I worked for had contracts with some very big vendors indeed, under strict non disclosure agreements (NDAs).
I learned a lot from those contacts, about the decision-making process within those clients. Did it make me their lapdog? Not at all.
My point is that the assumption of corruption in others does grave damage to the cause. The use of rumors — calling someone else “IBM Stu” or “Microsoft Dave” — is what gives vendors their power over open source.
It’s Florian Mueller (right), and he wrote it on his FOSSPatents blog last week, shortly after I met with him in Munich.