02.14.11
Posted in Finance, Novell, SCO at 2:54 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: SCO is broke, not just bankrupt; however, it keeps suing to death
Groklaw laughs at SCO this week. To quote the reason:
SCO’s professional fees since it entered bankruptcy are $5,768,232 plus $469,501 in expenses. Guess how much cash in hand SCO Operations had in October of 2007? $6,438,789. Guess what it had at the end of November, keeping in mind that we are now in February to boot? $948,320. Amazing. Not a single creditor paid off.
By the way, keep in mind that SCO is holding $2 million in a loan from Ralph Yarro, the terms of which on default are that he gets all the assets, I think, as well as all the proceeds if they sell all the assets, if I’ve understood the document, with only half going to pay off the loan, and if SCO sells only some assets he takes half with none of it paying off the loan.
Well, it’s over my head, so check my math, but I get the overall picture, all right. Yarro gets money no matter what happens.
Another quick update on the SCO case takes it further. It says that “SCO has responded to Novell’s Objection to the proposed sale of most of SCO’s assets. Novell’s objection is irrelevant, SCO claims, because SCO doesn’t intend to assume and assign the 1995 APA.
“Novell argued that “It follows by the Debtors’ own admission that to operate the Business as defined [by] the unXis APA, unXis (or any other buyer) needs access to the copyrighted material that the Debtors licensed from Novell. In other words, any buyer of the Business must have the Debtors assume and assign their Novell copyright licenses…. Finally, and of the utmost importance, Original APA Section 9.5(c) expressly prohibits its assignment by SCO without Novell’s consent.”
“Here’s SCO’s workaround.”
SCO is all about workarounds, including allegedly its bankruptcy claims. █
“On the same day that CA blasted SCO, Open Source evangelist Eric Raymond revealed a leaked email from SCO’s strategic consultant Mike Anderer to their management. The email details how, surprise surprise, Microsoft has arranged virtually all of SCO’s financing, hiding behind intermediaries like Baystar Capital.”
–Bruce Perens
Permalink
Send this to a friend
02.11.11
Posted in Bill Gates, Finance, Microsoft at 2:17 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
(ODF | PDF | English/original)
Resumen: La Fundación Gates nos ayuda a entender como los niños son educados para aceptar a los que les roban y por qué ciertos “fundación”-nombrados paraguas cada vez más se convierten en una carga para la sociedad.
La educación pública es un gran negocio y la educación privada puede sustituir a la educación pública, también. La Fundación Gates[http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Gates_Foundation_Critique] es el vehículo que Bill Gates utiliza para influir en este gran negocio e incluso compra las publicaciones que cubren el tema de la educación. Se les paga millones (es decir, fondos de cajas negras) para engañar al público y ampliar la cobertura de sus ‘estudios’, cuya finalidad es la inclinación de la agenda de la educación hacia su lado. No sólo los Estados Unidos se ven afectado por esto, y la cobertura integral de esta última se centró en “Teach for America (TFA)[http://techrights.org/2011/01/09/teach-for-america-es/], que es uno de los muchos grupos de presión de Gates” que mantiene a su disposición (no grupos de presión per se, sino un vehículo de influencia, no obstante). Si Gates puede controlar cómo se gasta el dinero en la educación en los Estados Unidos, entonces él tiene en sus manos un presupuesto de $ 500 mil millones por año (sí, eso es medio billones de dólares, casi el costo del rescate de los bancos grandes). Un lector nos acaba de decir que el PR Watch (un excelente sitio web por cierto) se ocupa del tema ahora mismo. El título es elocuente. Se trata de “¿Cómo los Multimillonarios Gobiernan Nuestras escuelas[http://www.prwatch.org/node/9917]“, pero el pluralismo es tal vez un intento de no criticar directamente al Sr. Relaciones Públicas PR Amor(aunque la foto está ahí). Para citar a la apertura:
El costo de la educación pública K-12 en Estados Unidos llega a más de $ 500 mil millones por año. Entonces, ¿cómo alguien puede influir mucho en el sector privado ejercer mediante el control de unos pocos millones de dólares de esa suma inmensa? Resulta una influencia decisiva. Unos pocos millones de dólares en dinero de las fundaciones privadas, estratégicamente invertidos cada año durante una década, ha sido suficiente para definir el debate nacional sobre la educación, sostener una cruzada por una serie de reformas en su mayoría mal concebida, y determinar las políticas públicas a nivel local, estatal, como a nivel nacional. En el ámbito de la filantropía de riesgo – que los donantes decidan lo que quieren de la transformación social para diseñar e implementar proyectos de diseño y para poner en práctica su visión – Invertir en la educación dá grandes dividendos.
Cientos de organizaciones filantrópicas privadas gastan en conjunto casi $ 4 mil millones anuales para apoyar o transformar la educación K-12, la mayor parte dirigido a las escuelas que atienden a niños de bajos ingresos (sólo las organizaciones religiosas reciben más dinero). Sin embargo, tres proveedores de fondos – la Fundación Bill y Melinda Gates, la Fundación Eli y Edythe Broad y la Fundación de la Familia Walton – trabajan en sincronía, el mando sobre el terreno. Cualquiera que sean las pocas matices que las diferencian, las motivaciones de los Tres Grandes, sus objetivos de mercado para revisar la educación pública coinciden: la ELECCION, la COMPETENCIA, la DESREGULACION, la rendición de cuentas, y los datos basados en la toma de decisiones. Y que financian los mismos vehículos para alcanzar sus objetivos: las escuelas charter, las pruebas estandarizadas de alto riesgo para los estudiantes, pago por mérito para los maestros cuyos estudiantes mejoran sus resultados en los exámenes, el despido de profesores y el cierre de las escuelas cuando los resultados no se elevan de manera adecuada, y la longitudinal recoleccón de datos sobre el desempeño de cada estudiante y maestro. Otras fundaciones – Ford, Hewlett, de Annenberg, Milken, por nombrar sólo algunos – a menudo se unen en la financiación de un proyecto u otro, pero el éxito del movimiento de reforma de la educación hasta ahora ha dependido del tamaño y peso del triunvirato Gates-Broads-Walton.
la subversión de Gates de la educación de los EE.UU. para sus propósitos egoístas es similar a su presión de visado*[http://techrights.org/2008/12/22/microsoft-gates-abramoff-connection/]. Nadie debe suponer que Gates está interesado en mejorar la educación. Se trata de dinero y poder. Este tema es tener cobertura en una fecha posterior y eso es una promesa. Tal vez lo tendremos listo en marzo. Por el momento, queremos compartir las palabras de un lector que nos envió ayer. Es su mensaje que ella escribió sobre lo que Microsoft llama “calumnias”[http://techrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/comes-3096.pdf] [PDF] (o sloggers), diciendo: “hablar penosamente de vuelta de Microsoft … después de las acusaciones de Google sobre trampas Bing, y después el problema fantasma de datos en el teléfono Win7, así como la falta de ventas, y todas las noticias de patch martes … oh sí, y las noticias de los Informes Trimestrales …
“Parece que Bill (Senior Slogger en Jefe) sintió la necesidad de hacer algo de control de daños. El titular de Slashdot sobre hablar de Bill acerca de las vacunas (y el B & G metas de vacunación Fundaciones), llegó en el momento perfecto para ayudar a desactivar todas las malas noticias de Microsoft.”
“Parece que todo lo que causa daño Steve, Bill sólo tiene que encender la máquina de relaciones públicas y abatirse como el Papa agitando su halo de santidad, y proclamar su bondad por toda la tierra.”
“Al final, será mucho más difícil de socavar los cimientos de la Fundacion Gates de lo que ha sido para socavar Microsoft.”
–Lector anónimo“Como la mayoría de la gente en el mundo siguen conectando a Bill Gates con Microsoft, como podrían no gustarles un tipo que regala sus miles de millones sólo para mantener a los niños sanos. Por lo tanto, siguen comprando los productos de Microsoft para ayudar a un proyecto de ley para apoyar la salud de los niños.”
“Simplemente me pareció que era el momento interesante. Las “buenas obras” por (salud de los niños, etc) de la Fundación, obviamente, triunfa sobre cualquier mal comportamiento de su empresa.”
“Usted probablemente ha notado esto, pero el menguante poder de Microsoft parece ser igual a la potencia creciente de B & M. Gates (y su brazo de inversión). Al final, será mucho más difícil de minar sus cimientos de lo que ha sido para socavar Microsoft. La gente tiende a ser menos favorable a una corporación gigante, cuando se trata de un mal comportamiento. Pero señalar la mala conducta de una fundación santa que “ayuda” a los niños pueden ser visto como una crítica sin fundamento.”
Como señalamos antes, la actual táctica de Gates ahora es comprar los medios de comunicación y perjudicar a la sociedad enormemente a puerta cerrada, mientras que todos los críticos que se interponga en su camino, se desaniman con una declaración como, “al criticar a Gates estás matando a los niños hambrientos de África.” Por qué vale la pena, Gates no es la única persona que utiliza esta táctica, ya que se ha hecho muchas veces antes. Es una forma de chantaje sentimental. █
_____
* Como hemos explicado en puestos separados, Gates también drena las arcas de dinero de los contribuyentes en todo el mundo por grupos de presión políticos a las patentes de licencia y solicitar la compra de la talla de Monsanto y su Cartel Farmacéutico (por cierto, tienen personal dentro de las Gates Fundación que utilizan como un vehículo para el cabildeo de sus ex empleadores).
Many thanks to Eduardo Landaveri of the Spanish portal of Techrights.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
02.08.11
Posted in Bill Gates, Finance, Microsoft at 3:27 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The Gates Foundation helps us understand why children are brought up to accept those who rob them and why certain “foundation”-named umbrellas increasingly become a burden to society
PUBLIC education is big business and private education can substitute public education, too. The Gates Foundation is the vehicle Bill Gates uses to influence this big business and even buy publications that cover the subject of education. He pays them millions (i.e. slush funds) to deceive the public and expand coverage of his paid-for ‘studies’ whose purpose is to tilt the education agenda. Not just the United States is affected by this anymore and our last comprehensive coverage of this was centered on Teach for America (TFA), which is one of Gates’ many lobbying groups that he keeps at his disposal (not lobbying per se, but a vehicle of influence nonetheless). If Gates can control how money is spent on education in the United States alone, then he has in his hands a budget of $500 billion per year (yes, that’s half a trillion, nearly the cost of the big bank bailout). A reader has just told us that PR Watch (an excellent Web site by the way) is addressing the subject right now. The headline is telling. It is “How Billionaires Rule Our Schools”, but the pluralism is perhaps an attempt not to criticise Mr. PR Love directly (although his photo is right there). To quote the opening:
The cost of K–12 public schooling in the United States comes to well over $500 billion per year. So, how much influence could anyone in the private sector exert by controlling just a few billion dollars of that immense sum? Decisive influence, it turns out. A few billion dollars in private foundation money, strategically invested every year for a decade, has sufficed to define the national debate on education; sustain a crusade for a set of mostly ill-conceived reforms; and determine public policy at the local, state, and national levels. In the domain of venture philanthropy — where donors decide what social transformation they want to engineer and then design and fund projects to implement their vision — investing in education yields great bang for the buck.
Hundreds of private philanthropies together spend almost $4 billion annually to support or transform K–12 education, most of it directed to schools that serve low-income children (only religious organizations receive more money). But three funders — the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Eli and Edythe Broad (rhymes with road) Foundation, and the Walton Family Foundation — working in sync, command the field. Whatever nuances differentiate the motivations of the Big Three, their market-based goals for overhauling public education coincide: choice, competition, deregulation, accountability, and data-based decision-making. And they fund the same vehicles to achieve their goals: charter schools, high-stakes standardized testing for students, merit pay for teachers whose students improve their test scores, firing teachers and closing schools when scores don’t rise adequately, and longitudinal data collection on the performance of every student and teacher. Other foundations — Ford, Hewlett, Annenberg, Milken, to name just a few — often join in funding one project or another, but the education reform movement’s success so far has depended on the size and clout of the Gates-Broad-Walton triumvirate.
Gates’ subversion of US education for his selfish purposes is similar to his lobbying for visas*. Nobody should assume that Gates is interested in improving education. It’s about money and power. This subject is to be covered properly at a later date and that’s a promise. Maybe it will take until March. In the mean time, we wish to share the words of a a reader who mailed us yesterday. In her message she wrote about what Microsoft calls “the slog” [PDF] (or sloggers), stating: “speaking of slogging and Microsoft spin…after the Google accusations about Bing cheating, and after the ghost data problem on the Win7 phone, as well as the lack of sales, and all the Patch-Tuesday news…oh yes, and the Quarterly Reports news…
“It seems that Bill (Senior Slogger in Chief) felt the need to do some damage control. The Slashdot headline regarding Bill’s talk about vaccinations (and the B&G Foundations vaccination goals), came at the perfect time to help defuse all the bad Microsoft news.
“It seems that whatever damage Steve causes, Bill just has to fire up the PR machine and swoop down like the Pope waving his saintly halo, and proclaim His Goodness throughout the land.
“In the end, it will be much harder to undermine the Foundation than it’s been to undermine Microsoft.”
–Anonymous reader“Since most people in the world still connect Bill Gates with Microsoft, they couldn’t possibly dislike a guy who gives his billions away just to keep children healthy. Therefore, continuing to buy Microsoft’s products will help Bill to support children’s health.
“It just seemed to me that the timing was interesting. The “good works” by the Foundation (children’s health, etc) obviously trumps any sleazy behavior by the company.
“You’ve likely already noticed this, but the waning power of Microsoft seems to be equal to the growing power of B&M Gates Foundation (and its investment arm). In the end, it will be much harder to undermine the Foundation than it’s been to undermine Microsoft. People tend to be less sympathetic to a giant corporation, when it comes to bad behavior. But pointing out bad behavior of a saintly foundation that “helps” children will be viewed as baseless criticism.”
As we pointed out before, the tactic of Gates right now is to buy the media and then harm society enormously behind closed doors while every critics who stands in his way will be discouraged with a statement like, “by criticising Gates you are killing hungry African children.” For what it’s worth, Gates is not the only person using this tactic as it has been done many times before. It’s a form of sentimental blackmail. █
_____
* As we’ve explained in separate posts, Gates also drains the coffers of taxpayers’ money all around the world by lobbying politicians to license patents and solicit purchases from the likes of Monsanto and the Pharmaceutical Cartel (incidentally, they have staff inside the Gates Foundation which they use as a lobbying vehicle for their former employers).
Permalink
Send this to a friend
02.04.11
Posted in Finance, Microsoft, Novell, Patents at 11:50 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Vulture fund Elliot had negotiated with Novell’s buyer long before it pushed Novell to sell
THERE are many warning signs when it comes to Novell’s sale. Too many things smell rather funny. One of those things is the CPTN agreement/arrangement [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]. It is being contested by several parties and Simon Phipps wrote that “Additional Novell filing shows DoJ agrees with OSI & FSF and wants to investigate patent sale to CPTN (p4)” (there are not proper articles about it yet).
Here is the SEC filing. Carlo Piana wrote: “DoJ is not content with CPTN sale and took more time, asks more info from Novell.”
Groklaw wrote a detailed post about it and it includes the following interesting bit:
What are they? One is, what would Novell’s value be if the merger doesn’t happen but the patent deal does? The shareholders claim that a Jesse Cohn of Elliott “was in contact with the sponsors of Attachmate about a Novell deal as early as January 2010, and that his communications with Attachmate continued throughout the sales process Novell’s board of directors initiated soon after Elliott’s March 2010 offer.” Was he promised that Attachmate would give the Elliott folks a seat on the board or some “other arrangement that would give Elliott a greater role than just minority shareholder of Attachmate”? The shareholders also allege “that Elliott and Attachmate expect to receive significant synergies in the near term.” I’d certainly like to know what they know that we don’t.
I seems like Novell is being restructured in a way that benefits Microsoft’s camp and the links at the bottom hopefully complete the picture somewhat. Groklaw also wrote about SCO’s alleged new plan (Groklaw doesn’t buy it):
Right. SCO is “restructuring”.
Maybe for litigation. █
Related posts:
“Now [Novell is] little better than a branch of Microsoft”
–LinuxToday Managing Editor
Permalink
Send this to a friend
01.29.11
Posted in Finance, Microsoft at 11:54 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: As Windows figures sink like a rock (despite cheating) Microsoft must find new lock-in methods such as SharePoint
EARLIER today we showed that Microsoft possibly fakes its financial results again. Putting that all aside, Business Insider reports that Microsoft still loses over $2 billion each year in the online business alone:
Every quarter Microsoft reports earnings, and every quarter it reports a massive loss in its online operations. Today it reported a $543 million loss for its December quarter.
When Microsoft reported the numbers (they had been leaked beforehand because the site got hacked) the stock responded negatively and sank to the lowest level in almost 2 months. It turns out that, given the demise of Windows, it is reasonable to believe that other products which depend on Windows as a common carrier (e.g. Office, SharePoint) are bound to suffer too and speaking of SharePoint, there is new criticism of the cost of this pile of uninvited lock-in.
Microsoft estimates that you the customer will spend a total of $6.2 Billion on services related to SharePoint in 2011 (see their partner pitch). According to my rough estimate, you can add $1.7 Billion in 2011 SharePoint license revenue on top. This for a product that many sales folk continue to tout as low cost, and sometimes even as free.
That’s a huge amount of money by anyone’s lights, and so it’s no wonder SharePoint has been subject to so much hype. To get a feel for just how much money we’re talking about here, I assembled the chart below. According to Goldman Sachs data more than 50 countries have a GDP (Gross Domestic Product) less than what the world spends on SharePoint.
Microsoft has devised all sorts of new lock-ins, but unless enough businesses swallow the bait, this is not a viable long-term strategy. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Finance, Microsoft, Security, Windows at 6:56 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Odd cases of conflicting information and information leaks suggest that Microsoft cannot keep its financial story straight; Microsoft’s PR people have no response, either
IT IS implicitly but widely reported that Microsoft’s press release regarding results is truth and all the numbers contained in it must not be questioned or audited independently. One thing we mentioned very briefly the other day is that despite Vista 7 hype, “Microsoft’s Windows revenues plunge 30%” (not so surprising at all):
Revenues from Windows plummeted 30% last quarter compared to the same period the year before, Microsoft said on Thursday.
“Microsoft Web site hacked to get at financial results early,” writes journalist Joab Jackson, linking to this bit from a Forbes blog which says:
Ryan Terpstra didn’t post Microsoft’s quarterly earnings early. Microsoft did. Terpstra just found them first — forcing Microsoft to broadly release its numbers before the close of trading Thursday.
Terpstra’s 22-person company, Selerity, describes itself as a “low latency, real time-fact aggregation and event data company.”
In plain English, Terpstra explains that what the Jersey City-based company does is automate a trick journalists have been using to pry earnings out of publicly traded companies minutes before they’re ready to release them.
That’s rather embarrassing for several different reasons, but the main finding we found fascinating is this:
Microsoft (MSFT) announced its earnings, and reading through them was enough to raise your eyebrows. Oh, not because of record earnings or slowing Windows sales or strong performance by Office and Xbox 360 and Kinect. No, the real shocker was that not all the numbers in the 10-Q filed with the SEC and the earnings press release were the same. The revenue and operating income (loss) breakout by division were completely different. And not only were the numbers for last quarter different, but the numbers from the same quarter last year were different.
[...]
[Update: I heard back from the PR people. I quote: "I’d be happy to look into this for you. Can you please provide insight regarding your deadline?" How about now?]
For those who cannot remember, a few months ago it was further confirmed or validated that Microsoft was manipulating its financial results.
Microsoft financial problems and irregularities were also mentioned by our reader Wayne recently. He did a series on the subject over at his own Web site and the British press gave that coverage which includes:
Are Microsoft’s days numbered? – report
[...]
He cites these further reasons as to why Windows is doomed:
1 Not one of those tablet computers can run Microsoft Office.
2 Not one of those tablet computers can run Microsoft Windows.
3 Windows Phone 7 was two years too late, and being outsold by Apple’s IOS and Google’s Android.
4 Kinect, Microsoft’s motion sensing add on for the XBox 360 is being outsold by Sony’s motion sensing add on.
5 The OEMs are learning that depending upon Microsoft is dangerous.
“Can Microsoft turn things around? Of course they could. The question is will the company make the hard choices that need to be made, and I think that they won’t.”
If Microsoft’s results are as healthy as it claims them to be, why are executives leaving in droves? This month alone we have already covered nearly a dozen high-level departures (like Vice Presidents). Something does not add up here. █
“Microsoft, the world’s most valuable company, declared a profit of $4.5 billion in 1998; when the cost of options awarded that year, plus the change in the value of outstanding options, is deducted, the firm made a loss of $18 billion, according to Smithers.”
–The Economist, 1999
Permalink
Send this to a friend
01.14.11
Posted in Bill Gates, Finance at 1:33 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
(ODF | PDF | English/original)
Resumen: La visita no programada de Gates y su compadre – Warren Buffett,- les permite a esta pareja para orientar las políticas del gobierno de los Estados Unidos de América.
EL TRABAJO de la Fundación Gates [http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Gates_Foundation_Critique] es un tema que hemos estado trabajando desde enero, después de haberla dejado de lado en noviembre y diciembre. Parece razonable decir (y Gates también dijo recientemente algo en este sentido) que Microsoft está colapsando [http://techrights.org/2011/01/12/high-level-departures-roundup/], sin embargo los sociópatas que crearon esta empresa – ya sea Gates o Allen, quien es ahora un famoso troll de patentes [http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Interval]- siguen extendiéndo el daño que hacen, al mismo tiempo que haciéndose pasar por filántropos. Ellos tienen esta cosa llamada “la Promesa de Dar”, que no exactamente trabaja de la manera como a la gente se les hace creer.
Aquí está una parte de la obra [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-dorfman/the-giving-pledge_b_796159.html] “¿Por qué debemos girar hacia abajo nuestro entusiasmo por la promesa de dar”. Se trata de Aaron Dorfman, el Director Ejecutivo del Comité Nacional de Filantropía Sensible. Esto debería ayudar a la gente entender lo que Gates en sus secuáces están haciendo. Para citar una parte:
“Suponiendo que estoy en lo cierto que la mayor parte del dinero se pondrá en dotación con pagos al 5 por ciento, estamos sumando unos $ 0.75 mil millones en nuevos fondos para fines sociales del primer año, $ 1.5 millones el segundo año, $ 2.25 millones el tercer año, etc . No será hasta en 20 años que vamos alcanzar hasta 15 mil millones dólares anuales de dinero nuevo que llega efectivamente a las organizaciones no lucrativas haciendo el trabajo importante que hay que hacer. Es evidente que la promesa de dar no será un factor importante, lo que provocó una gran esperanza para recuperarse de la caída dada que ha diezmado a muchas organizaciones no lucrativas estos dos últimos años.”
Gates Keepers elogia [http://gateskeepers.civiblog.org/blog/_archives/2010/12/17/4705784.html] a este caballero, “un hombre valiente [que] desarrolla un análisis de la promesa de dar, como el copresidente de la Fundación Gates dedica su tiempo a la promoción”:
Muchas personas están abrumados por la promesa de dar, pero que no va a leer sus opiniones en el periódico. ¿Quién quiere que su nombre sea visto criticando las promesas de los multimillonarios?
Uno de nuestros lectores nos llamó la atención a este breve post [http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/12/14/tuesday_linkdump] hace un par de semanas. Se ha dicho:
# Roger Simon escribió una columna increíblemente estúpida hoy acerca de como casi todo el mundo odia a los ricos, porque son celosos.
# Hablando de! Warren Buffett y Bill Gates se dirigió a la Casa Blanca para pasar el rato con Barack Obama en la actualidad.
En dos artículos/páginas titulados “¿Puede Warren Buffett y Bill Gates salvar al mundo?” [1[http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Guide-to-Giving/2010/1120/Can-Warren-Buffett-and-Bill-Gates-save-the-world], 2[http://www.kivitv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13548400]] este asunto se debatió. Estas dos personas no son “salvadores” como sus agentes de relaciones públicas tratan de hacernos creer, son un síntoma de lo que es problemático en el mundo. Este culto conjunto de Buffett en el contexto de las acciones de Microsoft [http://www.gurufocus.com/news.php?id=116785] no debería impresionar a nadie. De hecho, “una filial de Berkshire Hathaway [http://newsfuzion.com/2010/12/14/geico-adopts-microsofts-windows-phone-7-os-for-company-and-customer-communications/]” (empresa de Buffett) se dice que ha adoptado “Microsoft Windows Phone 7 OS para su empresa y las comunicaciones de sus clientes”. Se podría decir que Buffett hace un favor a Bill aquí, después de haber utilizado un hypePod por un tiempo [http://techrights.org/2009/07/31/bill-gates-wants-patented-stuff/](lo que preocupa Gates, de acuerdo a lo que las exposiciones Comes vs. Microsoft [http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Comes_vs_Microsoft] revelaron).
De todos modos, aquí viene la parte difícil. Esos dos plutócratas se están auto-alabando ahora reunirse en privado con Obama para discutir la economía [http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-story.aspx?storyid=201012141254dowjonesdjonline000287&title=officialobama-met-with-buffettgates-to-discuss-economy], a pesar de que Gates no es economista. Esto es típico y se escribió sobre esto antes. “Obama recibe ayuda económica de Gates, Buffett”, dice este otro titular [http://www.benzinga.com/life/politics/10/12/700136/obama-gets-economic-help-from-gates-buffett-msft-brk-a], mientras que AFP dice que se trata de “filantropía” (el caballo de Troya para la influencia política[http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jNpeCMoE2nZHCf1NwArAwb0pDb9w?docId=CNG.b97f22024bc6db2a202c8cbfa569513d.3d1]). El titular del Financial Times ‘dice así: “Obama se reúne con más multimillonarios promesa de riqueza [http://www.ft.com/cms/s/566b369c-07be-11e0-a568-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F566b369c-07be-11e0-a568-00144feabdc0.html&_i_referer=]“. “Obama se reune con los multimillonarios”, afirma el National Journal [http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/obama-meets-with-billionaires-warren-buffett-bill-and-melinda-gates-20101214], diciendo: “Bill y Melinda Gates, en la foto recibiendo el 2010 el Premio J. William Fulbright para el Entendimiento Internacional, se reunieron con el presidente Obama y hoy Warren Buffett en la Oficina Oval para hablar de sus “Compromisos de Dar” a “la economía y la educación.”
Esta no es la primera reunión en la Oficina Oval [http://techrights.org/2010/01/01/ballmer-gates-obama-roundup/]. Gates, el infame grupo de presión [http://techrights.org/2009/12/31/cementing-education-sector/], regularmente va a la Casa Blanca para impulsar su agenda (o la agenda de sus clientes enl los que él invierte) y también para ejercer presión sobre la educación, a la que está tratando de POSEER y CONTROLAR. El salón oval u oficina fue nombrado aquí anteriormente, pero a veces Gates organiza reuniones en otras partes de la Cámara [1[http://techrights.org/2008/12/06/puppet-state-cronyism/], 2[http://techrights.org/2009/11/01/obama-ballmer-gates-disclosure/]]. Y teniendo en cuenta la cantidad de tiempo que pasa en estas actividades, tal vez es Obama quien es el invitado allí.
Aquí está un artículo de mediados de diciembre[http://www.hidesertstar.com/articles/2010/12/16/editorial/doc4d081f9776f35913553771.txt]. El autor está en desacuerdo con Buffett y Gates por su actitud egoísta y como Gates Keepers puso [http://gateskeepers.civiblog.org/blog/_archives/2010/12/14/4703590.html] (específicamente con respecto a este informe [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-14/obama-said-to-meet-gates-buffett-at-white-house-on-ways-to-boost-economy.html]): “Melinda también se incluyó, a pesar de la promesa de dar no tiene nada que ver con la economía. Tampoco la Fundación. ”
Gates es sólo la compra de más poder para sí mismo y, a su vez que la utiliza para conseguir instituciones más ricos o intimidar a trabajar a su manera. En el Economic Times lo puso la otra semana, “Forbes: Bill Gates, Hombre más poderoso en la tecnología”[http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-company/corporate-trends/Forbes-names-Bill-Gates-Most-Powerful-Man-in-technology/articleshow/6883156.cms]. Otros títulos incluyen “Gates todavía por delante de Jobs, Zuckerberg en el ranking de Forbes de energía”[http://www.bigmouthmedia.com/live/articles/gates-still-lands-ahead-of-jobs-zuckerberg-in-for.asp/7413/]” y “Gates, Jobs entre los 5 más influyentes ‘geeks’: ExecDigital [http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/et-cetera/Gates-Jobs-among-5-most-influential-geeks-ExecDigital/articleshow/7086554.cms]“.
“Ellos tienen todo el tiempo y poder en el mundo … e intentan llamar a Assange” el hombre más peligroso”. Adivinen de quién?”
–TobyEs curioso ver que alguien que hizo una carrera de violar la ley ahora se considera “el quinto hombre más admirado [http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/archives/233324.asp]“. Es todo Relaciones Públicas PR. Funciona cuando pagas, literalmente, todos los estratégicos periodistas y editores. Incluso los familiares de Warren Buffett se anuncian en todo tipo de formas [http://pndblog.typepad.com/pndblog/2010/12/jennifer-buffett-novo-foundation-.html]. Es un paquete familiar, que se traduce en el poder no electo que no puede ser expulsado y, si queremos aprender algo de la oligarquía (que se extiende dentro de las dinastías), es que tal concentración de poder es un riesgo enorme. Luego pasa a silenciar a la oposición también, en toda clase de maneras sutiles que de vez en cuando la cubierta. “Sí”, escribe Toby, “Ya comenzó, como predije. Tienen todo el tiempo y poder en el mundo … e intentan llamar a Assange “hombre más peligroso”. Adivina de quién? ”
No hace mucho tiempo, incluso Pelosi se unió a Gates y el programa de Microsoft [1[http://techrights.org/2010/11/08/ballmer-lobbying-money/], 2[http://techrights.org/2011/01/04/gates-building-government-connections/]], que ha promovido de una manera muy polémica (no es su papel para hacer esto). Esto da a nuestra afirmación de que Gates es, como mínimo, el número 3 en la cadena de mando [http://techrights.org/2010/10/23/gates-as-patron/](y nunca deje el cargo, lo que permite la acumulación aún mayor de poder sobre el tiempo). Estos OLIGARCAS usan en el cabildeo para su agenda y el uso de relaciones públicas para MANTENER A LA GENTE DESINFORMADA al respecto. EL uso de campañas de relaciones públicas y el anuncio de volver a la misma “compromiso” infinitamente (sin tomar una acción real, sólo aumentar su estatus y la riqueza mientras tanto) es el tipo de filantropía que Groklaw menciona el día de Navidad [http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20101225131233783]:
En el mismo canal, también vi un autor, Ted Gup, hablar de su libro, Un Regalo Secreto, el subtítulo es ¿Cómo un hombre de bondad y un tesoro de cartas-revelado la historia oculta de la Gran Depresión, acerca de su abuelo, que regaló dinero durante la Depresión, en la forma más pura, de forma anónima. Ni siquiera su mujer sabía que lo había hecho.
“Buffett y Gates, agarran de la oreja a Obama”, resume Político [http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/1210/a_visit_from_the_rich_9b4ba501-f88e-4bba-b3f4-57692575f8cb.html], señalando muy interesante que este no era ni siquiera una reunión programada:
El presidente Obama se reunió con Warren Buffett y Bill y Melinda Gates en la Oficina Oval el martes para hablar sobre la “FILANTROPIA” y la tambaleante economía, un evento que no se ajustaba al calendario oficial de Obama.
Bueno, está bien, así que simplemente una especie de ‘cayó de casualidad’. Cuando la riqueza de la nación corre el país tan crudamente, es el momento para las personas llevar un análisys mental debido a que sus funcionarios electos ya no sirven “al pueblo”, sino que acaban sirviendo a un reducido grupo de personas -la PLUTOCRACIA.
Eduardo Landaveri, who is responsible for the Spanish portal of Techrights, adds to the above translation of his:
This influence of Gates & cronies have become part of the daily life in the US and 90 % of the population are unaware of it. Please Spanish-speakers readers download the ODT & PDF and share them with others so they also are informed of this things that also affects them due to Commercial treaties, ACTA & the fact that most Latin American government class have been educated in the US and also will do favors to their these plutocrats. For example, Peruvian ex-president Alejandro Toledo who continues to serve as the President of the Global Center for Development and Democracy, which is based in Latin America, the United States, and the European Union. Is campaigning to be a president again this year. On July 2002 he paid a visit to Bill Gates to sign accords to support his Huascaran Internet-for-schools project. He wanted to subject the poor of his country to keep on being poor by subjecting them to digital colonialism. Peru & Latin American need Free Open Source Software to really be free and to prosper. Latin America look to Brasil.
Or in Spanish:
Esta influencia de Gates y secuazes se han convertido en parte de la vida cotidiana en los EE.UU. y el 90% de la población es inconsciente de ello. Por favor, los lectores que hablan español descargar el ODT y PDF y compartirlos con otros para que ellos también se informen de estas cosas que también afecta a ellos debido a los tratados comerciales, ACTA y el hecho de que la de clase gobernante en Latinoamerica han sido educados en los EE.UU. y también va a hacer favores a sus estos plutócratas. Por ejemplo, el ex presidente peruano Alejandro Toledo, que continúa sirviendo como el presidente del Centro Global para el Desarrollo y la Democracia, con sede en América Latina, Estados Unidos y la Unión Europea. Está haciendo campaña para ser presidente de nuevo este año. En julio de 2002 se realizó una visita a Bill Gates para firmar acuerdos para apoyar a su Huascarán en Internet para el proyecto de las escuelas. Él quería someter a los pobres de su país a seguir siendo pobres, sometiéndolos al colonialismo digital. Perú y América Latina necesitan de Libre Open Source Software para ser realmente libre y prosperar. América Latina mira a Brasil.
Many thanks again to Eduardo Landaveri. █
Many thanks to Eduardo Landaveri of the Spanish portal of Techrights.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
01.13.11
Posted in Finance, Novell at 8:57 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
“What we [Novell and Microsoft] agreed, which is true, is we’ll continue to try to grow Windows share at the expense of Linux. That’s kind of our job. But to the degree that people are going to deploy Linux, we want Suse Linux to have the highest percent share of that, because only a customer who has Suse Linux actually has paid properly for the use of intellectual property from Microsoft. And we took a quota, you could say, to help them sell so much Suse Linux. That’s part of the deal. We are willing to do the same deal with Red Hat and other Linux distributors, it’s not an exclusive thing. But after a few years of working on this problem, Novell actually saw the business opportunity, because there’s so many customers who say, ‘Hey look, we don’t want problems. We don’t want any intellectual property problem or anything else. There’s just a variety of workloads where we, today, feel like we want to run Linux. Please help us Microsoft and please work with the distributors to solve this problem, don’t come try to license this individually.’ So customer push drove us to where we got.”
–Steve Ballmer
Summary: Novell’s leadership was sacking many workers (even low-grade SUSE developers) while taking about $6 million in bonuses every year and now potentially more
The VAR Guy, who has friends at Novell and sometimes accepts payments from Novell to plant their ‘articles’, has gotten some inside information that nobody else pays attention to. He explains: “The list above includes executives with extensive channel experience — such as Senior VP and Chief Marketing Officer John Dragoon, who serves as the company’s current channel chief; and Senior VP of Worldwide Sales Javier Colado, who previously served as channel chief.
“According to a table in the SEC filing, certain executives could receive cash payments if the merger closes on March 9, 2011 and their positions are terminated on such date. In that scenario, CEO Ronald Hovsepian would receive a $6.85 million lump some cash payment plus certain health and dental coverage and 401K matching contributions. Also, Channel Chief John Dragoon would receive a $1.95 million lump sum if his position is terminated March 9; and former Channel Chief Javier Colado would receive a $2.39 million million lump sum cash payment if his position is terminated March 9.”
Is this the reward for having a company destroyed? And for passing a lot of patents to an abusive monopolist that threatens Novell products? This makes no sense. The company itself seems like it’s going into the ashtray, at least some major parts of it.
While there are still some news items that mention Novell Netware, Brian Proffitt believes that this product walks its last mile :
As Novell and Attachmate continue to perform the ritual mating dance of corporate acquisition, Linux and open source community members are holding their breath, waiting to see what will happen to the SUSE Linux and openSUSE product lines.
In the midst of this, one question seems to be missing: What will happen to NetWare?
To get an idea of where NetWare might be going, it would be a good idea of finding out where the status of the old NetWare product line, now known as Novell’s Open Enterprise Server (OES).
[...]
In some respects, the migration plan to OES is working. “…[M]ore than 75% of current NetWare-Open Enterprise Server customers have upgraded their systems to Open Enterprise Server on Linux,” Germanides indicated.
But what will AttachMSFT [sic] do with SUSE and OES? AttachMSFT has no history of committing to free/open source software and this is mostly fine given that Novell’s products portfolio is predominantly proprietary. To use proof from the past month, Novell’s PR team is helping SAP [1, 2, 3] (see our SAP wiki page), helping Fog Computing of course, and delivering more proprietary software while citing Gartner
New releases from Novell are also of proprietary software, e.g. ZENworks 11 [1, 2, 3]. Novell once again gets ridiculed for concentrating on Vista 7 in ZENworks 11:
In the company press statement the word ‘Windows 7′ appears more than 4 times, whereas Linux pops-up only once, which made me wonder if its a Novell press release or from the new ‘proxy’ owner of Novell technologies — Microsoft.
In later posts we are going to give more new examples where Novell promotes proprietary software, even its competition’s. It wasn’t always that way; the management did a poor job and it now rewards itself for this. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
Content is available under CC-BY-SA