10.28.09
Posted in Africa, Asia, Deception, Europe, Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, IBM, Intellectual Monopoly, Law, LG, Microsoft, OIN, Patents, Red Hat, SUN at 9:21 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: As the title suggests, this is an accumulation of patent news that affects Free software
MICROSOFT and its affiliates (or the likes of it) carry on attacking the very foundations of Free software, but a lot of people in the Free software world are still not paying close attention to it. This post about the latest developments will hopefully serve as a reminder.
Open Invention Network (OIN)
OIN recently proved that it serves a real role in defending Linux [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6], so credit is given where it’s due. OIN has just added a new member to its pool of patentees and we append the press release at the bottom. Here is the opening paragraph.
Open Invention Network (OIN), the company formed to enable and protect Linux, today extended the Linux ecosystem with the signing of Messaging Architects as a licensee. By becoming a licensee, Messaging Architects has joined the growing list of companies that recognize the importance of participating in a substantial community of Linux supporters and leveraging the Open Invention Network to further spur open source innovation.
LG and Patent Trolls
As an important reminder, LG signed a Novell-type patent deal with Microsoft [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], which constitutes an attack on the Freedom and price of Linux (and by extension — GNU). LG's criminal activities seem to be followed right now by what the President of the FFII calls “proxying”, akin to the idea of sending thugs and bullies to beat up your competitors or foes. He claims that “LG Electronics [is] proxying lawsuits through patent trolls,” which brings back memories of Sisvel, the ‘patent mafia’ of Philips [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11].
This latest incident (as referred to above) is covered in at least two places; the first is TechDirt, which published: “A Look Behind The Curtain: How A Patent Hoarder Makes Money”
A few months back, someone sent over some details about a legal battle involving Peter Boesen, who is both a convicted felon in jail and a patent hoarder who licensed his patents to a “patent troll” firm to assert against tons of tech companies, and Niro Scavone, the law firm representing the patent company (and the law firm famous for, among other things, having been the inspiration for the term “patent troll”).
In light of the term used by TechDirt, think about Microsoft's own patent hoarder, Nathan Myhrvold. TechDirt links to this post as its source. Here is Johnny Ward again, the troll-loving bully who sued his critic in order to silence him [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8].
Most intriguing is the sum paid by Apple to settle an SPT suit brought over the iPhone in the Eastern District of Texas in 2008: $865,000. Without any motions being filed after the intial complaint or any substantive discovery, a bit more than 30 percent of that amount, $271,817, went to Niro Scavone, which also billed $46,568 in expenses. Nearly $40,000 went to someone identified as “Ward”–most likely Johnny Ward Jr., who served as local counsel to SPT in the case. Of what was left, almost $109,000 went to SP Technologies, then owned by investor Courtney Sherrer, and $311,400 went to Boesen.
Eolas recently attacked a lot of companies using patents [1, 2, 3], having already attacked Microsoft successfully [1, 2]. Damage control from Eolas now comes via Heise:
First they wrestled down Microsoft, now they’re litigating against other big IT players: Eolas intends to enforce its patent on web technologies and plug-ins for integrating interactive content at all cost. However, a partner of the legal firm representing Eolas assured the readers of German Focus magazine that the vendor does not intend to cripple the internet. The lawyer also said that individuals, such as Facebook users or bloggers, using the technologies for integrating, for example, videos into their web pages or profiles, have nothing to fear. Litigation against such individuals doesn’t make sense economically, he added.
Spin and damage mitigation is all that is.
Microsoft
Microsoft is at the moment circulating the following E-mail, which seemingly encourages software patents in Europe. It also has free trips to Redmond as a prize/incentive. This is the type of thing which Microsoft typically does using front groups like ACT.
Amazon
Amazon, which accepted several Microsoft executives into its higher management, is not a friend of Free software. Amazon may be a user of Free software, albeit an abusive user [1, 2] that is a major part of the software patents madness in the United States. In Canada, Amazon’s notorious “one-click” patent was rightly rejected, but Amazon is fighting back to break the Canadian patent system too, forcibly injecting a most insanely controversial software patents into it. Suffice to say, the Free Software Foundation is against Amazon.
Sun
A few days ago we wrote about how Sun’s attitude towards software patents has actually turned against it, potentially killing the excellent ZFS. K&L Gates, which has worked with Microsoft for many years until very recently when its priority was lowered, is now abusing innocent people on behalf of “SPARC”, using intellectual monopolies. [via TechDirt and Slashdot]
SparkFun is all about open. Whether sharing the pcb design files for our products or posting pictures from the office on flickr, we’re pretty open about what it’s like to work here. Today we’d like to share with you a cease and desist letter we received from SPARC International. Here’s a link to SPARC on wikipedia in case you don’t know who SPARC is.
Red Hat
Although it has nothing to do with official company policy, the following new post comes from a Red Hat employee in India, who strongly agrees with the views expressed by Geraldine Fraser-Moleketi in Africa:
Even slaves were considered property: South African Minister
[...]
It is good to remember this at a time when organizations aim to justify the privatization of knowledge and ideas under the guise that this is essential for promoting innovation.
In the area of software patents, this is nothing but a land grab, a conversion of was in the commons into a private enclosure.
Here is a video of Geraldine Fraser-Moleketi speaking about these issues
Software patents should be rejected by Africans and Indians alike; they are weapons of colonialists and fortunately there are those who understand this and turn against the WTO [via Richard Stallman], not just WIPO.
Ten years ago, citizen activists shut down the World Trade Organization (WTO) ministerial in Seattle to protest the devastating impact of the WTO’s corporate globalization agenda on our jobs, wages and the environment. Now, big corporations are back at it, again pushing an expansion of the WTO’s power.
The intellectual monopolies system is mostly about protecting dominant forces in the industry, not facilitating young innovators (“disruption”). To suggest anything else is to sell the illusion marketed by those in industry who benefit from protectionist measures, i.e. the status quo. Incidentally, companies that are wrongly perceived as “friends” of Free software (IBM for example) should be counted among the culprits. IBM is the principal entity behind the OIN*, which mostly defends large vendors (with an extensive patent portfolio) that incorporate Linux into their non-Free products. █
_____
* Jerry Rosenthal came from IBM, which still owns a vast number of OIN patents. It turns much of it into a feud between patent coalitions, but an optimal solution for all is the abolishment of software patents.
Open Invention Network Extends the Linux Ecosystem as Messaging Architects Becomes Licensee
DURHAM, NC — 10/27/09 — Open Invention Network (OIN), the company formed to enable and protect Linux, today extended the Linux ecosystem with the signing of Messaging Architects as a licensee. By becoming a licensee, Messaging Architects has joined the growing list of companies that recognize the importance of participating in a substantial community of Linux supporters and leveraging the Open Invention Network to further spur open source innovation.
Patents owned by Open Invention Network are available royalty-free to any company, institution or individual that agrees not to assert its patents against the Linux System. This enables companies to continue to make significant corporate and capital expenditure investments in Linux — helping to fuel economic growth. By developing a web of Linux developers, distributors, sellers, resellers and end-users that license its patent portfolio, Open Invention Network is creating a supportive and shielded ecosystem to ensure the growth and adoption of Linux.
“We are pleased to have Messaging Architects, a leader in Email risk management and compliance, become a licensee as we seek to enable the Linux Ecosystem,” said Keith Bergelt, CEO of Open Invention Network. “Messaging Architects is one of a growing number of companies that recognize the value provided by open source software and the Linux community. We applaud their support for Linux.”
“Globally, Linux drives the vast majority of Email routing and security infrastructure. As such it plays a critical role as the enabler of innovative messaging technology platforms,” said Pierre Chamberland, CEO of Messaging Architects. “By becoming an Open Invention Network licensee, we encourage ongoing Linux development which helps to ensure the continued improvement of our products and services. This relationship will be incredibly beneficial for Messaging Architects, our customers and partners worldwide.”
OIN has accumulated more than 300 strategic, worldwide patents and patent applications. These patents are available to all licensees as part of the patent portfolio that OIN is creating around, and in support of Linux. The Open Invention Network license agreement can be found at http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/pat_license_agreement.php.
About Open Invention Network
Open Invention Network(SM) is a collaborative enterprise that enables innovation in open source and an increasingly vibrant ecosystem around Linux by acquiring and licensing patents, influencing behaviors and policy, and protecting the integrity of the ecosystem through strategic programs such as Linux Defenders. It enables the growth and continuation of open source software by fostering a healthy Linux ecosystem of investors, vendors, developers and users.
Open Invention Network has considerable industry backing. It was launched in 2005, and has received investments from IBM, NEC, Novell, Philips, Red Hat and Sony. For more information, visit www.openinventionnetwork.com.
About Messaging Architects
Founded in 1995, Messaging Architects is a global builder of infrastructure for Business Driven Email. Messaging Architects provides software and services that deliver 100% uptime and compliance. Thousands of organizations worldwide depend on the firm’s solutions for risk-free messaging and collaboration. For more information, visit www.messagingarchitects.com.
Open Invention Network, the Open Invention Network logo, Linux Defenders, Linux Defenders 911 and the Linux Defenders 911 logo are the property of Open Invention Network, LLC. All other names and brand marks are the property of their respective holders.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
10.26.09
Posted in Apple, Courtroom, GNU/Linux, Intellectual Monopoly, Kernel, Oracle, Patents, SUN at 2:55 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: ZFS as a good example of wonderful software that gets sidelined due to obsession with intellectual monopolies
TO BORROW the words of the FFII, a recent ‘avalanche’ of software patents-hostile filings in the Bilski case [1, 2] shows that the USPTO can no longer take its broken patent law for granted. A Bilski oral argument is due very soon and in separate news, Sun's attitude towards software patents is claimed to have killed ZFS (frankly, NetApp too contributed a lot to such problems). “Sun’s heavily patent-encumbered, GPL-incompatible ZFS filesystem ‘appears to be very dead’,” claims one of our readers, who also cites this bit of news from Roughly Drafted (also in Apple Insider).
Sun’s ZFS had already come under fire for patent infringement from NetApp as part of a patent war instigated by Sun.
NetApp reported that ZFS not only infringes its WAFL storage patents, but that Sun intentionally designed ZFS to provide features unique to NetApp’s WAFL, which Sun itself described it its marketing as “the first commercial file system to use the copy-on-write tree of blocks approach to file system consistency.”
This leaves Apple with an unfinished, patent-encumbered file system and without an enterprise class partner to work with in developing the future of ZFS. Were Apple to develop ZFS on its own, the technology would likely be relegated to pariah status by the rest of the industry.
It remains to be seen whether Apple will begin working with Oracle to port the similar BTRFS to Mac OS X, or simply continue to add new features to HFS+ while monitoring the landscape for promising new file system options. In any case, ZFS appears to be very dead.
The author, a Mac enthusiast and an excellent writer, seemingly strives to make it look like Apple alone was a factor when in fact Linux too has played a role with its multiple rejections of ZFS, mostly for licensing (including patents) and structural issues, according to Morton.
It would be funny to suggest that Apple’s departure from ZFS was due to patents; Apple has a real software patents fever going on at the moment.
Apple Applies for Patent on OS With Embedded Advertising
[...]
An ad-supported operating system would likely not be popular with Mac users.
Roughly Drafted has just written to explain “why Nokia is suing Apple over iPhone GSM/UMTS patents”; for those who missed it, we wrote about Nokia's patent moves against Apple only a few days ago. The litigation is wasteful. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
10.24.09
Posted in Database, Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Mono, Novell, Oracle, SUN at 9:01 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Novell’s promotional action in IDG gets even more incestuous; MySQL and Sun’s other assets revisited in relation to Novell
FOR quite some time now, Novell has produced promotional audio series, the latest example of which is this one and another one from The Register, which sells out these days.
Several days ago we showed that IDG gave Novell a podium from which Novell employees Zonker and Greg K-H promoted SUSE. Zonker now uses his place there to promote Mono by speaking to another colleague from Novell. Novell’s PR team is happy about this.
In this latest OpenMic podcast, Joe ‘Zonker’ Brockmeier talks with Mono founder, Miguel de Icaza, about what’s new with the Mono Project and what’s coming soon. The two also discuss the many iPhone apps brought to you by Mono, what’s next for Moonlight (the Linux implementation of Microsoft’s Silverlight), and why Windows developers should really check out Mono.
Here is the direct link with the list of shows so far. That’s 2 shows out of 2 (100%) with just Novell employees in them. Amazing, isn’t it? It is stuff like that which helps Mono gain acceptance in some recognised circles and Unity has just earned some funds:
Unity Technologies Raises $5.5 Million From Sequoia Capital
[...]
Here’s how CEO David Helgason describes some of the platform’s benefits:
Unity uses .NET (or rather Mono, Novell’s open source .NET implementation) for “scripting”, which sidesteps the whole classical conundrum of scripting-versus-native, since the code gets JIT or AOT compiled to native code while still being sandboxable and easy. Also, there’s lots of documentation and very rich libraries to work with.
Mono also receives a lot of positive publicity from Microsoft Web sites, for obvious reasons.
The other day we showed Zonker's objection to the FSF's position and right now we find him repeating the arguments of a known Stallman basher, Matt Asay. They both make the same argument, using the MySQL situation to discredit Stallman.
In the news we find an hypothetical scenario where Novell is mentioned as a potential suitor for MySQL
If Ellison changed his mind and decided to sell MySQL, open source companies like Red Hat and Novell would be on top of the list of potential buyers, according to Bo Lykkegaard, software analyst at IDC.
More on Sun, Oracle, and Novell in relation to identity management:
Enterprises need confidence in the stability and continuity of their supplier when large investments are involved. Confidence in the identity management sector was badly shaken when HP, one of the leading providers, announced that it was leaving the sector in 2008. The fact that Novell took over its products only partially assuaged enterprises’ fears.
To summarise, Novell promotes Mono by sending out there media boosters like Zonker and there may be real danger here that Novell covets MySQL, not just OpenOffice.org, which it forked [1, 2, 3, 4] (Sun hates that). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
10.22.09
Posted in Database, Microsoft, Oracle, SUN at 4:22 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Groklaw believes that Microsoft plays a role in sabotaging MySQL; Roughly Drafted Magazine explains how Sun and Oracle come to Microsoft’s rescue
THE other day I argued an opinion, claiming that evidence suggests Oracle is bad news for MySQL. It’s not just gut feeling but the result of analysing and looking at literally hundreds of posts and articles on the subject (I spend the better part of my day doing this).
I almost always agree with what Groklaw has to say, but in this case there is insufficient evidence to show that Microsoft may be interested in MySQL (it would be too complicated), as opposed to damaging it, which would still not explain MariaDB and other key factors; yet Pamela Jones warns that Microsoft might be behind an attempt to harm or to buy MySQL. To quote just a few portions (the allegation is better defended when read in its entirety):
Monty Widenius has posted a press release, urging Oracle to sell MySQL to a third party, and there is a link to the materials that he and Florian Mueller, who is working with him, provided to the EU Commission, which appears to have influenced it to delay approval. I’ve been reading all I can find on this topic, and I’d like to tell you why I think the community should support the Oracle deal. The most important reason is that opponents are trashing the GPL [PDF] and calling it a source of “infection” in their FUD submission to the EU Commission.
[...]
Update: I see Matt Asay has jumped on board the antiGPL FUD too. Folks, there is no difference between Sun owning MySQL and Oracle, as far as forking rights. Duh. What is this? An elaborate Microsoft production by proxy?
[...]
Get the picture? He makes a list of who would have the money to buy MySQL. Guess who is number one on the list? Microsoft.
Speaking of Sun and Oracle, the other day we showed that a known Microsoft shill blamed them (along with Linux) for Microsoft’s Danger disaster. We covered it in:
Roughly Drafted, which is another independent thinker like Groklaw, argues that Sun and Oracle actually saved Microsoft amid the Danger disaster, not caused it any trouble. From the analysis:
Sun, Oracle save Microsoft’s Pink after Danger data disaster
[...]
“It will take several days to actually get the database back up,” the source noted, echoing earlier reports that indicated that it took 6 days just to create a normal full backup of the data. The time and storage resources involved in backing up the tremendous amount of data were cited as the reason why Microsoft’s Roz Ho reportedly instructed Danger employees to proceed with work without the full backup in place over their objections, after sources say she was assured by Hitachi that a full backup was not necessary.
Salvaging the damaged data storage without a real backup in place takes even longer, the Sun storage expert explained. “The first thing to do is wheel in a big pile of new disk space, and copy the individual disks so there is a raw backup. This is like making a copy of a jigsaw puzzle one piece at a time. Then they would assemble the puzzle using the copied pieces, in case any pieces need to be re-made from the original.
So there. Sun appears to be saving Microsoft here. It’s not the culprit as the Microsoft crowd wishes to spin this. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
10.21.09
Posted in Database, Free/Libre Software, Marketing, Microsoft, Novell, Oracle, SLES/SLED, SUN at 7:08 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Novell — like Microsoft — gets special treatment from IDG, with which it does business; MySQL acquisition debated further
OTHER than Microsoft, there are companies like Novell which feed pay-to-say firms like IDC [1, 2]. There is a good return on such investments, just like in lobbying, no matter how unethical it is.
Here is Novell’s Zonker getting a seat at IDG, from which to promote Novell in the press (quite frankly, as usual). From Novell’s marketing team:
Yesterday, Network World rolled out a new podcast series, Open Mic with Zonker, hosted by openSUSE community manager, Joe ‘Zonker’ Brockmeier. The new series promises to give an insider’s view on what’s hot and new in the open source community with lively interviews.
In this first podcast, In the Linux Driver Seat with Kernel Developer Greg Kroah-Hartman, Joe ‘Zonker’ Brockmeier talks with Greg Kroah-Hartman about the Linux Driver Project.
Here is the page in question. It’s a pair of Novell employees promoting Novell’s SUSE edition of Moblin (which has its problems). How familiar.
Does IDG present marketing here or is it actual coverage that’s separable from commercial interests? This question is rhetorical. Novell pays a lot of money to IDG through advertising and IDC contracts.
Zonker also carries on comparing Free software to religion (at least based on terminology [1, 2, 3]), which is not entirely surprising.
We have a lot of “true believers” in the FOSS community, which is fine except that many seem to think that they’re talking to other “true believers” when they’re really talking to people who couldn’t possibly care less about software licensing.
“True believer” is a term conventionally used in debates against atheists. To his credit, however, Zonker agrees with Monty’s solution to Oracle-MySQL while obviously rejecting Stallman’s ideas.
I prefer Monty’s solution to Stallman’s.
The headline of the above essay is “RMS says GPLv2 isn’t good enough to protect MySQL (but it is).” Given Novell’s rejection of the GPLv3, would there not be a conflict of interests here? Zonker works for Novell. Here is Stallman’s proposal:
The European Commission should block Oracle’s acquisition of MySQL as part of its acquisition of Sun Microsystems.
Oracle seeks to acquire MySQL to prevent further erosion of its share of the market for database software licenses and services, and to protect the high prices now charged for its proprietary database software licenses and services.
All along (since the beginning of this saga and the very announcement of a takeover) I have been against Oracle’s buyout of MySQL, especially given its history of buying its competitors [1, 2]. It is therefore reassuring to see more opposition to Oracle buying MySQL.
Software freedom activist Richard Stallman and the non-profits Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) and Open Rights Group (ORG) have issued a strongly worded letter to EU competition commissioner Neelie Kroes. In it they demanded that Oracle not be allowed to acquire MySQL.
For obvious reasons, Sun employees are unhappy about this.
It was a surprise to see Richard Stallman’s signature on a letter to the European Commission calling on them to block the acquisition of MySQL by Oracle with its proposed acquisition of Sun.
Piana’s position is a bit surprising (he did legal work for Samba):
This is absolutely frivolous, and it reflects a misconception of how the forces in the Free Software space work. It is not that a successful dual licensing enables a successful Free Software project, it is a successful Free Software project that permits to a dual licensing strategy to survive.
At the moment, however, Richard Stallman and Monty Widenius are the latest and most prominent sources of opposition, whereas the former CEO of MySQL holds the very opposite view. Based on my conversations with him, he is a “pragmatist”.
Monty Widenius, one of the original founders of MySQL, has called for Oracle to sell off the open source database so that its pending acquisition of Sun will not reduce choice in the marketplace.
[...]
Oracle CEO Larry Ellison has firmly rejected the prospect of selling off MySQL. He argues that the open source database doesn’t compete with Oracle’s enterprise products. The two database offerings target different sections of the market, he contends.
It’s unclear if the EU regulators will accept his view and allow the deal to move forward, but the delays are certainly damaging. While the EC is conducting its investigation, IBM is cannibalizing Sun’s server business and picking the bones clean.
What makes this situation tough is that Sun loses a lot of money in the mean time and another 3,000 employees are to be cut. In many ways, Oracle has already caused much damage to its competitor MySQL, which holds almost 50% market share in developing countries. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
10.20.09
Posted in Free/Libre Software, FSF, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Mono, Patents, SUN at 5:39 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Free software is not the same as open core
Summary: Why Mono fits the description of Open Core, which may make it “the New Shareware”
A LOT has been said since Samba’s Jeremy Allison published his opinion about Mono [1, 2, 3, 4]. Jason from the Mono-Nono Web site got around to commenting about it and worth mentioning are the following bits:
In any case, I first started noticing Mr. Allison’s responses directly addressing the fallacy of comparing Mono and Samba in the comments to an error-filled attack rant against RMS by Jason Perlow for ZD Net. Although it is certainly “pearls before swine” to attempt to correct Mr. Perlow, Mr. Allison does make his point:
Comparing Mono to Samba is incorrect. Samba has the PFIF agreements, see here for details:
http://www.samba.org/samba/PFIF/PFIF_agreement.html
To my knowledge Mono has nothing like this.
[...]
Mr. Allison has now taken the time to address Mono in more detail with a blog entry “Monomania“. I encourage you to read it.
I also encourage you to consider all the hoops that Team Mono insists critics people must jump through to criticize Mono, and how Mr. Allison surely meets or exceeds all that I have seen. Yet, I do not see Team Mono accepting his criticism, nor do I see my mailbox filling with acknowledgement that it’s not just crazy zealots that have a problem with Mono.
Why am I not seeing these things? Because Mono apologists are not honest in their arguments. They like Mono, and will make any argument they think supports it, and ignore or attack anything that they think weakens it.
It’s a song I’ve sung many times, and this latest wrinkle on Mono == Samba is just one more example of the sloppy reasoning and poor logic behind Team Mono’s defenses.
What’s interesting about Mono is that, as the FSF warned, it is divided into “legal” parts (core) and “illegal” parts (those that require Microsoft software patents, such that only Novell customers are covered). It makes Mono very much akin to “open core” rather than “open source”. For those who have not followed the heated debate about “open core”, Bradley Kuhn from the SFLC calls it “the New Shareware” and Simon Phipps from Sun Microsystems commented about it as follows:
Bradley Kuhn’s analysis reflects the same conclusions I’ve reached myself about corporate-aggregated copyright. That’s not to say it automatically disqualifies a project as non-Free, but it’s the reason I included “diverse copyright ownership” as a criterion on the proposed open source scorecard. As a side-note, Given Bradley’s critique of the GPL as “just a tool”, surely it’s time to see that open source is not the enemy of software freedom and to finally cut the antagonistic rhetoric.
Is it time to say that Mono uses the “open core” model, where only “core” packages are to be seen as legal or gratis? Banshee, for example, is a Novell project that uses some Mono parts that require patents. █
“The patent danger to Mono comes from patents we know Microsoft has, on libraries which are outside the C# spec and thus not covered by any promise not to sue. In effect, Microsoft has designed in boobytraps for us.
“Indeed, every large program implements lots of ideas that are patented. Indeed, there’s no way to avoid this danger. But that’s no reason to put our head inside Microsoft’s jaws.”
–Richard Stallman, 2007
Permalink
Send this to a friend
10.17.09
Posted in Formats, Google, IBM, ISO, Microsoft, Office Suites, Open XML, OpenDocument, Standard, SUN at 5:11 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Just like a filmography-style mafia, Microsoft and its allies proceed from corrupting ISO to bashing ODF from the inside and trying to control it too
MICROSOFT MAY hope that people will forget what it did for OOXML, but the past returns to haunt as more abusive behaviour gets seen. In light of the i4i case for instance [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10], Jomar Silva raises the point that Microsoft lied about patents in OOXML, with the assistance of its special friend Alex Brown [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21].
Here is what Silva wrote a few days ago:
They also defined the coordinator of the BRM, Alex Brown (who also played a crucial role in the outcome of OpenXML, but that’s subject for another post, because I didn’t revealed yet all I saw in Geneva), and he publishes on his blog a FAQ with the rules of the BRM. This FAQ also circulated as an official ISO document, and can be found here.
Look what is written in this document:
4.1 Will IPR issues be discussed at the BRM?
No. IPR issues in this process are the exclusive preserve of the ITTF. IPR decisions have previously been delegated by all the ISO and IEC members (NBs) to the CEOs of IEC and ISO, and they in turn have examined them and found no outstanding problems. NBs seeking reassurance in such matters must pursue them through other avenues than the BRM.
In other words, the CEOs of ISO and IEC (the highest authorities of the two entities) had assessed the intellectual property issues on OpenXML and found nothing, so no committee around the world have to worry about the issue… I remember that I’ve asked about it few times, and the answer was always the same: “Kid, you are doubting the CEOs of ISO and IEC ?”… but what about the i4i litigation ?
[...]
Most of the ECMA delegates I know are Microsoft employees or business partners of the company. This staff can be anything but “uninformed” and therefore I can’t believe that ECMA didn’t know the litigation too.
So, I change the question asked by Groklaw almost two months ago for a more direct one: Who fooled who?
We all know that all NBs was fooled, that the countries have seen their names used in an unscrupulous way and that all delegates and competent technicians has been fooled too.
I really hope to hear something from the cited parties cited, and I believe that all International Society expect the same. We no longer live in a world where a nonsense fact like this can be accepted, and I’ll not stop until I find an answer (and I know I’m not alone in this quest).
I also would like to know from the ISO/IEC what they have to say about all this. They knew the i4i litigation ?
To finalize, I appeal again to CEOs of ISO and IEC: The G-20 is a reality, and it’s never too late to correct an injustice !
In the comments, the president of the FFII writes:
ISO should pull down the ISO29500 immediately.
No one can implement this specification safely.
ISO29500 should be withdrawn “Now”.
Georg C. F. Greve, the founder of the FSFE, writes about the above: “The first rule of the #OOXML club? Don’t talk about the legal problems!”
Rob Weir has more to say about the role of Alex Brown:
Curiously, NBs were asked to make their final decision without actually seeing the text of the standard they were being asked to approve. ISO leadership denied requests from several NBs, a formal SC34 resolution requesting this text, as well as NB appeals, all which asked to have access to the “final DIS” text that would eventually be published. The ISO chief, in his response to the NB appeals, called the final text of OOXML “irrelevant” (prophetic words, indeed!) and would only permit NBs to have access to a list of over 1,000 resolutions from the BRM, many of which gave great editing discretion to the Microsoft consultant who would eventually produce the final text of the specification.
I discussed why the lack of a final DIS text was a problem back in May 2008:
We are currently approaching a two month period where NB’s can lodge an appeal against OOXML. Ordinarily, one of the grounds for appeal would be if the Project Editor did not faithfully carry out the editing instructions approved at the BRM. For example, if he failed to make approved changes, made changes that were not authorized, or introduced new errors when applying the approved changes. But with no final DIS text, the NB’s are unable to make any appeals on those grounds. By delaying the release of the final DIS text, JTC1 is preventing NB’s from exercising their rights.
Would you make thousands of changes to code and then not allow anyone to test it, and then release it internationally? Of course not. Doing so would amount to professional malpractice. But that is essentially what ISO did with OOXML.
Weir is very careful not to mention names (personalising issues), but it’s obvious who’s who, not to mention the current role these people play in derailing ODF. We shall come to this in a moment. To say that ISO was “gamed” is an understatement. ISO was hijacked and a lot of people corrupted and bribed. There is extensive evidence to show this.
On a more positive note, Bob Sutor (IBM) writes about new success stories for ODF, followed by feedback from Roberto Galoppini and also his colleague Rob Weir.
Roberto Galoppini also writes about the ODF plugfest and spreads the word now that the event is approaching.
The second in a series of events that will bring together implementors of OASIS OpenDocument Format/ISO 26300 to unilaterally test and discuss implementation issues of ODF with each other. All ODF implementors and/or those looking into the matter are invited to participate in this event on behalf of the Netherlands government and OpenDoc Society.
We wrote about those plugfests before, e.g. in [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 9 10, 11, 12]. Microsoft (and its ecosystem) attended plugfests to throw some criticism at this standard, which it hates but at the same time must watch over. Alex Brown’s friend, who has always been hostile towards ODF, drops Microsoft’s talking points to be used against ODF while Microsoft’s Doug Mahugh makes fun of ODF as well. Those who are not employees of Microsoft often feed the company by insulting ODF “by proxy”, so to speak.
“Those who are not employees of Microsoft often feed the company by insulting ODF “by proxy”, so to speak.”In the latest example seen above, we are witnessing a familiar old pattern of deception. As our reader puts it, “Microsoft is able to spin it as Microsoft vs 1 company (either IBM or Sun depending on the circumstances) with amnesia about the rest. Via OASIS, 600 companies, universities and government agencies were behind the initial development of the first try at a universal office format. About two dozen were taking the lead in development.” This politicisation of the issue (courtesy of Microsoft) has gone on for years.
Anyway, those who are speaking about the ODF plugfest now include Glyn Moody, Gwynne Monahan, Jomar Silva, Thomas Zander (Nokia), Rob Weir, and the “elephant in the room” Doug Mahugh. The Microsoft crowd is still trying to 'tame' or dethrone Rob Weir, so Jomar Silva sarcastically writes: “Oh my God ! Mr. Vadar is the chair of the ODF TC ! We must be the bad guys ! (M$ fan boys are impressive)”
Microsoft is still striving to control ODF like it controls ISO and Weir must be polite. That’s probably why he also omits names and does not write about the OOXML scandals as much as he used to.
Microsoft’s hijack attempts affect not only the ODF TC. Watch who is involved in the Document Interoperability Initiative: Microsoft, Microsoft allies, and Microsoft-funded groups.
* I’ll be covering the Office 2010 extensions (as was covered by the Office program managers in last month’s DII workshop in Redmond). I will also present the latest news on how we’re working to improve ODF interoperability between Office and other popular applications, and talk about our plans for the future.
* Alex Brown will be covering present and future plans for the Office-o-tron validator project.
* Klaus-Peter Eckert of Fraunhofer FOKUS will present the latest status of the document test library project and other work Fraunhofer is doing to improve interoperability.
Microsoft attempts to control the whole thing, including so-called interoperability. We showed a lot of evidence before [1, 2, 3].
Even in Wikipedia, ODF-hostile content gets injected into the article about ODF by the Microsoft folks, as last shown some days ago. Some references to Microsoft blogs are now being removed, as well as the poison that they have injected.
A more detailed account of how Microsoft subverts Wikipedia (on ODF) can be found in, e.g.:
Microsoft leads people to confusion, fear, and absorption of disinformation using those people who only pretend to be friends of ODF. Here for instance is a person who was unfortunately led to making a false claim given new software like Androffice. ODF does a lot better than Microsoft would have people believe. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
10.13.09
Posted in America, Free/Libre Software, IBM, Microsoft, Office Suites, Open XML, OpenDocument, OpenOffice, Oracle, Standard, SUN at 12:41 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Office 2010 Starter Edition said not to support ODF but it helps OpenOffice.org adoption; Microsoft ecosystem raises issues with ODF
THERE is a lot of good news for ODF this week but also developments that merit caution. This is a highly compressed post with links to these.
Rob Weir from IBM writes about an ODF spreadsheet for Android, which is called Androffice. It seems to be new at the scene and the word about this gets spread by Bob Sutor, Lynne Pope, Simon Phipps, Jomar Silva and a few others.
People are still being reminded that Microsoft Office 2007 SP2 does not support ODF properly [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7] and Weir has a whole new post on the subject (this was pushed by his colleague at IBM, Bob Sutor).
[N]o amount of disclosure from Microsoft on how they interpret the ODF standard will help. We see that today, with Office 2007 SP2, where it strips out ODF spreadsheet formulas. Having official documentation of this fact from Microsoft, in the form of “Implementation Notes” is useless. Why? Because when I create an ODF document, I do not know who the reader will be. It may be a Microsoft Office user. But maybe it won’t. It very well could be read by many users, using many different programs. I cannot adapt my document to the quirks of various ODF implementations.
When you deal with formats, interoperability is achieved by converging on a common interpretation of the format. Having well-documented, but divergent interpretations does not improve interoperability. Disclosure or quirks is insufficient. Interoperability only comes when all implementors converge in their interpretation of the format.
According to this message which links to an article from Maximum PC, Office 2010 Starter Edition will not support ODF. And regarding this ZDNet UK article about Office 2010 Starter Edition, Glyn Moody argues that Microsoft is “getting worried about OpenOffice, perhaps.”
More here:
MS Office Starter Sports Ads, OpenOffice People Ecstatic
[...]
Works usually included more programs than just a word processor and a spreadsheet and usually did not include advertising. Giving users a glimpse of the Office 2010 experience may prompt them to buy the paid version for fuller functionality and no ads. But if I had to choose between a program that cost $150 or more and one that did less and flashed ads at me, I would look for a third option. One exists, of course: OpenOffice.
Very little was said by mainstream press sources about the fact that Microsoft essentially killed Works.
Going back to OpenDocument, the technical committee is organising today to discuss matters while the ODF Workshop’s Jomar Silva uploads CONSEGI 2009 videos. The ODF Plugfest is coming up (old details in [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 9 10, 11]) and Bart Hanssens speaks about the schedule while IBM folks watch from a distance.
“To counter the threat, the Microsoft ecosystem has been trying to injure ODF from the inside.”IBM may be very prominent in the ODF arena, but IBM, unlike Microsoft, does not attack Free software. It’s also far from the only player in the ODF arena, unlike Microsoft with OOXML.
To counter the threat, the Microsoft ecosystem has been trying to injure ODF from the inside [1, 2]. The insidious behaviour continues as hAl, for example, adds hostility to the ODF entry at Wikipedia. As usual, he is making the article about ODF disparage ODF.
Other Microsoft cronies are getting close to ODF just to talk about problems with it. They are using the same Microsoft-esque party line of “they are equally evil” or “all platforms are not secure” to defend their hidden (but previously well documented) agenda. Weir needs to be nice to them because of threats.
Jesper Lund Stocholm, for example, is linking to old news and we find the the same talking point coming from Alex Brown [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22]. They were getting a chair inside ODF by pretending to be agnostic after they had done their services for Microsoft (they hope people will forget this).
To end with some more positive news, Officeshots turns out to support only ODF. Given that no office suite supports OOXML, why even bother with anything other than the international standard, ODF? █
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