11.08.09
Posted in Antitrust, Database, Europe, Java, Microsoft, Oracle, SUN at 7:37 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A person from Pappas & Associates, which has history with Microsoft, tries to derail the Oracle deal and thus leave Sun altogether abandoned
TWO weeks ago we showed that Microsoft was lobbying behind the scenes in order to cause trouble for Oracle, Sun, and projects that Sun currently possesses. Groklaw has just scooped up the following gem:
“Neither path Ms. Kroes faces is a pretty one, and yet this is the decision she might end up being remembered by,” said Spyros Pappas of the law firm Pappas & Associates in Brussels. “Probably the best escape for her would be for Oracle to cancel the deal.”
Mr. Pappas has in the past represented Microsoft, an Oracle rival, but is not currently representing any companies involved in the case.
Remember the role of Ed Black and CCIA in T3/Microsoft's lawsuit-by-proxy against IBM for its GNU/Linux-running mainframes. It’s a familiar story.
Microsoft might wish to delay the deal in order to ruin projects like Java and OpenOffice.org, making Sun suffer in the mean time, mostly of uncertainties, lost market share, erosion of market cap (value), and layoffs, i.e. workforce. Groklaw points out the following opinion:
Oracle might use the cover of the EC delay as an excuse to abandon the deal altogether. But history suggests that when Mr Ellison wants something he sticks with it to the end, so dropping Sun at this point would be surprising.
In recent weeks we also showed how Microsoft was gaining influence inside the European Commission. It’s all about people. █
“Microsoft is now talking about the digital nervous system. I guess I would be nervous if my system was built on their technology, too.”
–Sun Microsystems President Scott McNealy
Permalink
Send this to a friend
11.06.09
Posted in America, Antitrust, Bill Gates, Law, Microsoft, Novell, Office Suites at 6:56 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Groklaw analyses the personal contributions of Brad Silverberg and Bill Gates to crimes against Novell
BACK in January we published the text of a Comes vs Microsoft exhibit [PDF] whose page can be found here. Groklaw now has an analysis of it, which is nicely weaved together with news from the WordPerfect case.
Novell and Microsoft have each filed summary judgment motions in the antitrust litigation about WordPerfect that Novell brought against Microsoft. In addition, we find out what happened regarding the Bill Gates deposition. And neither party can find certain documents that might be in the Comes collection. I wonder if you can?
[...]
It has to do with whether or not Microsoft made certain APIs available, like IShellBrowser, iShellView, iPersistFolder, and iCommDlgBrowser. Novell says Microsoft decided to make those APIs private and iShellFolder a “read only public interface”, making it impossible for Novell to use the namespace extension mechanism or implement it in a customized fashion, so Novell software couldn’t rely on or invoke those APIs. The context is Windows 95 and NT, in the years between 1994 and 1996.
[...]
Update: The BoycottNovell folks have found one. We have it here also, on our Comes Exhibits page, Plaintiffs Exhibit 2158, which is an email from Microsoft’s Satoshi Nakajima, dated October 10, 1994.
[...]
An anonymous comment also mentions 4293 [PDF] (“the way to shut out novell in the base is to either ship a full client or make it so there is no network connectivity” and 5673 [PDF] (Gates, October 3, 1994: “It is time for a decision on IShellBrowser….I have decided that we should not publish these extensions. We should wait until we have a way to do a high level of integration that will be harder for likes of Notes, Wordperfect to achieve, and which will give Office a real advantage….Our goal is to have Office ’96 sell better because of the shell integration work…” To which Brad Silverberg wrote: “I will jump in — yes we have to take them out of marvel and capone too.”).
Brad Silverberg is not a particularly nice guy [1, 2] and he can probably be held accountable for many of Microsoft’s crimes that typically come from management, not ordinary programmers who merely follow instructions. Regarding the above article, one blogger argues that “many eyes means you cannot bury needle in haysack.” Therein we are given credit for work that our reader/contributor has done studying many exhibits; there are many new “smoking guns” yet to be unraveled and only lack of time is an obstruction right now. We could use help from readers.
Further discussion follows a similar line of explanation, as already pointed out in Groklaw comments, e.g. [1, 2]. It seems safe to say that Groklaw has glued together enough PDFs and any additional commentary can be spared. The antitrust exhibits speak for themselves.
In light of all this, the most astounding thing is that Novell pardoned Microsoft and became an ally just weeks after Ray Noorda had passed away. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Antitrust, Europe, Microsoft at 5:45 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Microsoft’s Courtois does his usual tours across Europe while the browser case he’s involved in never reaches a verdict, and thus benefits Microsoft
LAST week we wrote about Microsoft’s Courtois, if only just to show how he was meddling with the antitrust case in Europe, including the Web browsers conundrum which is about punishing Microsoft for illegal conduct, not just offering an opportunity to more companies. The illusion that the EU is trying to “take away” from Microsoft is nothing more than a Microsoft talking point, as the Commission does something that’s akin to fining a misbehaved person for robbery s/he committed.
A reader has sent us the following, adding that “ScienceBusiness is heavily sponsored by Microsoft.”
Watch who takes the lead.
Regarding the browsers case in Europe, the New York Times makes it clear that opposition remains to the EU Commission’s deal [1, 2].
Three rivals of Microsoft are seeking last-minute changes to its proposed settlement with European regulators that would give buyers of computers loaded with Windows the ability to choose a default browser other than the company’s Internet Explorer.
Skip to next paragraph
The changes — requested by Google, the designer of the Chrome browser, Mozilla, the creator of Firefox, and Opera — aim to ensure that Microsoft does not unfairly influence the decision, said Hakon Wium Lie, the chief technology officer of Opera, based in Oslo.
[...]
Opera also wants Microsoft to bar Windows from displaying its standard warnings when computer users download non-Microsoft software, in this case that of a rival browser, to their computer. Windows automatically displays warnings when users attempt to download non-Microsoft programs and applications. Another request is that the commission survey actual consumer use of the ballot screen — to ensure competition is being fostered — more frequently than after two years, which is in the current proposal.
For more information see:
Those poor deals — partly having Courtois responsible for them — are just buying Microsoft more time. It’s like a procrastination tactic Microsoft is so notorious for, especially in the context of antitrust action. By the time some form of compliance is finally reached, the agreements are out of touch and technical documentation — if any — is already well out of date, almost deprecated. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
11.05.09
Posted in Antitrust, Europe, Hardware, Law, Microsoft, OLPC at 6:32 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: NY Attorney General targets Intel for its crimes that even Europe and Korea exposed this year; but why does Microsoft get a free pass for similar tactics, including with Intel?
Andrew Cuomo, the Attorney General whom we criticised for his totalitarian stance on USENET, has just launched a belated US lawsuit against a criminal company called “Intel”. [via]
New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has filed a federal antitrust lawsuit against microprocessor maker Intel, alleging that the company engaged in a “systematic campaign” of illegal conduct to protect a monopoly.
Intel has already been found guilty in two continents this year [1, 2] (all those which actually investigated Intel). But Intel’s behaviour is not much different than Microsoft’s. On Intel-Microsoft collusion, as well as kickbacks with OEMs, we previously wrote in:
There are many more posts about this subject and they go into great detail, typically showing how Microsoft and Intel engaged in illegal activities to control prices, to control inventories, to prevent consumer choice, and even to kill charitable projects like OLPC. There is abundant evidence to show this, but evidence is not always enough to get regulators eager enough to react. With billions of dollars at stake, companies like Intel and Microsoft surround regulators by lobbyists.
“[P]unishment for Intel may mean that Microsoft is next and a conviction is likely easy to achieve.”Some months ago we saw a front group of Microsoft (ACT) defending Intel in Europe because of the implications for Microsoft. As we explained back then, punishment for Intel may mean that Microsoft is next and a conviction is likely easy to achieve. Microsoft is still under investigation in Europe.
“Kickbacks” is the word one of our readers uses to describe what Intel relied on. “Intel gave Dell $6 billion dollars in kickbacks over five years,” he adds. “Sometimes the kickbacks were the largest source of profit to Dell, accounting for more than 1/3 of their earnings in some quarters. IBM and HP were also paid off and all but AMD reaped the rewards of high margins through collusion. Vendors who offered AMD chips would be denied hundreds of millions of dollars in “rebate” money.”
The links he gives are:
• Wall Street Journal: Dell Got $6B Via Secret Intel Pact
• BusinessWeek: Intel-Dell Dealings Under Fire
• CNET: N.Y. lawsuit details Intel’s ‘largesse’ toward Dell
Those Dell kickbacks are not news by the way. Boycott Novell wrote about them over two years ago.
“Dell also locked in a lot of private and government monopolies in the same years,” our reader says. “State governments, for example, signed exclusive deals with Dell, barring all other vendors from consideration. [University] Researchers had to prove special needs to buy anything else.”
Does that sound familiar?
“Barring all other vendors from consideration…”
Well, Microsoft engages in the same tactics, which are illegal. One country which is affected by it is Hungary. For some background:
eWeek Europe has a report from Hungary this week. It’s going under the headline “Ditch Microsoft, Save £269m Says Hungarian Open Source Group”
Despite a struggling economy and public debt, the Hungarian government continues to spend millions on Microsoft licences when cheaper alternatives exist, say open source groups
With governments across Europe including the UK looking to slash public spending to tackle budget deficits resulting from bank bail-outs and other effects of the recession, open source could be an important way to cut IT costs, according to free software advocates.
Bulgaria and Latvia are stuck in a similar type of absurdity, as we showed just over a week ago. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
10.29.09
Posted in America, Antitrust, Bill Gates, Deception, Marketing, Microsoft at 8:44 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
“Pitting browser against browser is hard since Netscape has 80% marketshare and we have <20% … I am convinced we have to use Windows-this is the one thing they don’t have…”
–Former Microsoft Vice President James Allchin in an internal memo
Summary: Comes vs Microsoft exhibit shows how Microsoft chiefs produce warped surveys on demand, in order to deliver an illusion of public sympathy
NOW THAT Microsoft is dodging the system of justice in Europe, wallclimber and myself thought it would be helpful to transcribe and present Comes vs Microsoft exhibits that were never shown in public before, not in an easily-accessible form anyway.
Today we have Exhibit plex0_2846 (1998) [PDF] to deal with, one among many Netscape exhibits. This exhibit involves Microsoft's patent troll Nathan Myhrvold and Bill Gates, who are speaking against a mention of “put[ting] the browser in the OS.” They refer to Internet Explorer of course. Microsoft was found guilty in this case. It broke the law, it committed a felony, technically speaking.
“Ideally we would have a survey like this done before I appear at the Senate on March 3rd.”
–Bill GatesThe exhibit is sorted reverse-chronologically and therein lies a survey (appendage) which Microsoft is spreading through unspecified marketing people. The intent is made clear by Bill Gates’ statement: “It would HELP ME IMMENSELY to have a survey showing that 90% of developers believe that putting the browser into the OS makes sense [..] Ideally we would have a survey like this done before I appear at the Senate on March 3rd.”
That’s how Microsoft conducts surveys: start with the outcome, then fix the questions such that responders answer in the required way. Ideally, a biased population of responders can be selected too, or maybe deceived in advance. We caught IDC doing this for Microsoft.
The last time we gave an example of such potential push-polling (Forrester) we noted that “Microsoft does this all the time, e.g. against Google and in favour of the patent deal with Novell. The Microsoft-corrupted ISO did the same thing after very sheer corruption had led to formal complaints from several national bodies.”
In today’s particular case, the survey begins with many “fluff” questions which Microsoft does not care much about. It probably hides the real motives. The ‘smoking gun’ is in the last two pages (there are 5 pages in total). Microsoft starts by telling the person who takes the survey what to think (several paragraphs on that) and then phrases the questions in a grossly biased way. People who respond to this probably do not even know the purpose of the survey, but they are being used by Microsoft to dodge the law and squeeze out the answers they want, even by means of deception.
Nathan Myhrvold agrees with Bill Gates’ request for this survey and then plans how to make it biased. He writes:
It is a GREAT idea to get as much quotable data as possible – both for Bills testimony and for other press work.
Also:
Bob Metcalfe, Stewart Alsop, Esther Dyson, Walt Mossberg and others have written in their vanous magazine columns that they agree the browser should be in the OS – we should look up the references and check them.
We have separate exhibits about the relationship between Walt Mossberg and Bill Gates. Then he says:
As an example, we could get a statement about the technical direction of integration, get some survey results, and then get a statement signed by 100 industry and computer science figures.
If we had that, then I think we should consider running it in full page ads in the WSJ, NYT, Washington Post timed to appear the day AFTER Bill does the testimony.
Nothing spontaneous. Here is an admission of push-polling:
That is about the method. As to the SUBSTANCE, I think that it is CRUCIAL to make the statement we ask people about in the survey, or the statement we ask them to sign etc. is worded properly.
Saying “put the browser in the OS” is already a statement that is prejudical to us. The name “Browser” suggests a separate thing. I would NOT phrase the survey, or other things only in terms of “put the browser in the OS”.
Yes, of course he would “NOT phrase the survey” that way. That would not be biased enough to serve Microsoft’s objectives. Likewise, according to Wired Magazine from around the same time:
The author of the email, posted on ZDNet in a Talkback forum on the Microsoft antitrust trial, claimed her name was Michelle Bradley and that she had “retired” from Microsoft last week.
“A verbal memo [no email allowed] was passed around the MS campus encouraging MS employee’s to post to ZDNet articles like this one,” the email said.
“The theme is ‘Microsoft is responsible for all good things in computerdom.’ The government has no right to prevent MS from doing anything. Period. The ‘memo’ suggests we use fictional names and state and to identify ourselves as students,” the author claimed.
How typical. Microsoft frequently buys the illusion that the public supports it and cheating is just part of this spiel. The full exhibit can be found below. █
Appendix: Comes vs. Microsoft – exhibit plex0_2846, as text
Read the rest of this entry »
Permalink
Send this to a friend
10.25.09
Posted in Antitrust, Dell, Hardware, HP, IBM, Microsoft at 6:06 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Microsoft’s “OEM watch list” is out in textual form, with interpretation
TODAY’s Comes vs Microsoft exhibit is Exhibit px04275 [PDF], which we conveniently describe as the “OEM hit list”. Wallclimber has helped us clean it up, reconstruct tables, and she has also extracted all the text from it. The exhibit can be found appended to this post, but here are some interesting bits worth paying attention to.
What is the “Dumbo Plan”?
Dumbo Opportunity: Dumbo Plan was presented to Minolta, who is interested in this project and will have a presentation to MSKK to prove that they can do mass-production.
“Microsoft marketing and sales jargon is truly mind-numbing stuff,” argues Wallclimber.
Watch the resistance from Dell. The ultra-aggressive [1, 2] Joachim Kempin steps in.
Dell continues to reject our WFW proposals on the basis that our offer is a financial mis-fit with their “Build-to-order” marketing model and our per copy pricing is too high. Executive discussion between JoachimK and Joel Kocher yielded no progress.
Having looked at this exhibit, one regular reader of ours wrote: “It’s Microsoft’s “watch list” of OEMs and ISVs, so they can target those who stray from Windows, with their usual racketeering methods. The goal is 100% market saturation of pre-installed systems, and the method is intimidation and blackmail, specifically – the threat of revoking their right to distribute Windows systems if they support anything other than Windows (via secret MoU signed under NDA). Since the DOJ judgement, the new threat is a reduction of volume discounts on licenses, which then reduces the OEMs competitiveness. New method, same racketeering.”
As the items at the beginning of this document show, Microsoft pressures the already-impoverished companies in the East. “Interesting that the Far East OEMs were feeling the pain of deep price cuts while Microsoft’s revenue was exceeding their budget in most areas of the Far East,” alleges one person. █
Appendix: Comes vs. Microsoft – exhibit px04275, as text
Read the rest of this entry »
Permalink
Send this to a friend
10.21.09
Posted in Antitrust, Courtroom, FSF, GNU/Linux, IBM, Microsoft, Mono, Novell, SCO, Ubuntu at 6:17 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: gNewSense removes the Trojan horse that came from Novell and Microsoft; further discussion of why this pair still matters
LAST WEEK we saw Jeremy Allison suggesting that Mono programs should be moved to ‘restricted’ repositories [1]. This led to a fair bit of reaction [1, 2, 3, 4] and the Ubuntu derivative which Richard Stallman is using inevitably removes Mono (and applications that depend on it). We saw this coming a while ago.
Here is the release announcement from the FSF:
Version 2.3 of gNewSense, one of the the FSF-endorsed free GNU/Linux distributions, was released last month. Anyone interested in keeping pace with the latest improvements in free operating systems should check it out. It’s based on Ubuntu, but without the non-free parts that Ubuntu includes by default, or suggests that you download.
This release is being promoted in Free software groups/circles like Identi.ca for the fact that it stripped Mono off. It’s unlikely that anything Mono related will be nominated for an FSF award this time around because Mono helps Microsoft and Novell. It also helps Windows [1, 2, 3] and it does not help GNU/Linux.
It was interesting to find this opinion piece which ignores Microsoft as an issue and advises others to do the same.
I remember a time, recent enough ago that I scarcely need archive.org to read the articles that discussed it, when people were saying that Linux shouldn’t care about what Microsoft (or whoever) does, and just make the best OS possible. I think I’ve said the same thing myself a few times as well.
It would be irresponsible to do so. Here are just two reasons. As The Register put it yesterday:
Much ado about IBM’s mainframe monopoly
[...]
That left T3 Technologies, a company that had a reseller agreement with Platform, with no product to sell and before IBM ate Platform, it fired up its own lawyers, making complaints to the authorities here in the States and in the European Union. It goes without saying that Microsoft, that paragon of fair play in the marketplace, was a big investor in both Platform and T3 (and don’t forget SCO, which is still limping along with its Linux-Unix lawsuit against Big Blue).
More information about the T3 lawsuit can be found in:
Then there’s the SCO case, which is similar to the above. McBride is officially sacked now (it turns out he did not know this until he saw it on the Internet) and there is even a new McBride cartoon. Groklaw has some more updates about the company which attacked Linux using Microsoft funding. But Microsoft no longer attacks just by proxy, either. Recall those anti-Linux patents [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] and the TomTom lawsuit, for example.
So getting back to the point, when Microsoft attacks GNU/Linux from so many directions (including SCO and patent trolls who can sue Linux with Microsoft patents) who can ever pretend that Microsoft can be ignored? Some people wishfully think that if they don’t pay attention to Microsoft, then Microsoft will leave them alone. █
“Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches.”
–Steve Ballmer, Microsoft CEO
Permalink
Send this to a friend
10.19.09
Posted in America, Antitrust, Asia, Deception, Europe, Microsoft at 6:32 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A pay-to-say agency assists Microsoft’s lobbying campaign not only in the United States but in Europe and Asia also
LAST week we warned that Microsoft was using the services of IDC (IDG) to lobby government. This week we see the consequence, which surfaced pretty quickly. Here is a report from India about Microsoft looking for greater stakes.
Commissioned by Microsoft, the study conducted by IDC, investigated the contribution of IT to GDP, job creation in the IT industry, employment in the software sector, formation of new companies and local IT spending in 52 countries. This represents 98 per cent of the total worldwide IT spend.
In the Portuguese press we find this:
Microsoft to invest €526 million in Portugal
The IT market in Portugal is set to create 7,500 new jobs along with 400 new IT companies over the next four years largely thanks to a €526 million investment from Microsoft, a study by consultancy company International Data Corporation has revealed.
[...]
Microsoft’s ecosystem integrates local companies that develop and/or commercialise products that are run in collaboration with or using Microsoft’s software as well as companies that carry out services on or distribute Microsoft’s software.
Microsoft just cannot leave Portugal alone, can it? For examples of Microsoft’s deeds in Portugal, see:
In other related news, it seems possible that Microsoft gets away very cheaply in Mississippi [1, 2, 3]. A deadline has just passed for people to file for compensation, but if California is anything to judge by (settlement of over a billion dollars not redeemed), then this is hardly an appropriate response.
Mississippi residents have until Friday to file a claim in the state’s settlement with software giant Microsoft.
And life goes on. Regarding the impact of “junk science” (IDC) and lobbying, see the following good video from Larry Lessig. █
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