05.26.11
Posted in Google, Intellectual Monopoly, Microsoft, Patents at 6:05 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
(ODF | PDF | English/original)
Resumen: Una mirada fresca a quienes están presionando por las patentes de software en Europa y quienes los antagonizan esta semana.
La política de Europa está bajo ataque. Las empresas de todo el Atlántico desean aumentar su punto de apoyo y todo lo que necesita es un puñado de políticos corruptibles, que estará feliz de llevar el agua de los intereses extranjeros que perjudican directamente a la ciencia y la tecnología en todo el mundo. Uno de los últimos BURROS (sí con mayúsculas) para las malas políticas de patentes es el trístemente célebre Vincent Van Quickenborne [1[http://techrights.org/2010/03/03/bull-openoffice-org-and-munich/], 2[http://techrights.org/2010/07/21/fraunhofer-patent-news-from-europe/], 3[http://techrights.org/2010/10/05/vincent-van-quickenborne-on-swpats/], 4[http://techrights.org/2010/10/06/european-maximalists/], 5[http://techrights.org/2010/10/12/quickenborne-and-bsa-help-promote-swpats/], 6[http://techrights.org/2010/10/14/swpats-drama-in-europe/>, 7[http://techrights.org/2010/11/10/european-patent-lobby-in-wsj/], 8[http://techrights.org/2010/10/20/lobby-for-rand-with-gpl-lies/], 9phttp://techrights.org/2010/11/28/innovation-union-and-timbl-on-frand/[, 10phttp://techrights.org/2010/12/04/front-group-act-and-vincentvq/], 11[http://techrights.org/2010/12/29/worst-of-2010-awards/], 12[http://techrights.org/2010/12/13/excluding-italy-for-swpats/], 13[http://techrights.org/2011/01/19/apple-accused-market-abuse/]]. El todavía echa kerosena a la propaganda de la EPO (Oficina Europea de Patentes) para más patentes (de negocios) y de litigios tambiénp[http://twitter.com/EPOorg/status/71122771928813568]. Para citar a:
Vincent van Quickenborne dice que una patente unitaria proporcionará una protección más barata, más fácil y completa para los inventores europeos.
Lo parafresaría como “una patente unitaria proporcionará mayor entradas para los patent trolls al obligar a pagar a todos los inverntores europeos”, “Oh si, dejeme arrimarles la yuca, que no les dolerá”. Los desarrolladores europeos de software – me incluyo – deben estar muy preocupados por esto. Una plaga que causa un gran daño a los desarrolladores de América se está exportando a Europa con la previsión que probablemente abarque el resto de Asia, también. Los monopolios no quieren la paz y nunca puede obtener suficientes leyes que legitimen su infinito sentido del derecho, como una especie de un plan de bienestar corporativo. Hay debates en curso en las listas de correo FFII (Fundación para una Infraestructura de Información Libre), (la lista pertinente parece ser privado, por lo que no se cita nada de ella aquí) y que parece que muchos desarrolladores europeos se preocupan sobre los desarrollos recientes, sobre todo, un informe del Reino Unido y el unitario vestíbulo de la patentes. El presidente de la FFII señala[http://twitter.com/zoobab/statuses/70823973226680320]: “SWPATS en el Reino Unido, más carga para los desarrolladores de software: http://ur1.ca/47lsk” (un artículo titulado “pide el informe del Reino Unido a las reformas a la ley de propiedad intelectual” es proporcionar un contexto/fondophttp://www.sciencebusiness.net/news/75073/UK-report-calls-for-reforms-to-intellectual-property-law[). El conecta a este informe del gobiernophttp://nds.coi.gov.uk/content/detail.aspx?NewsAreaId=2&ReleaseID=419543&SubjectId=2[, señalando[http://twitter.com/zoobab/statuses/71177716866621440]:
Super alta prioridad para el Reino Unido IPreview: pista de las patentes unificado y de la UE y el sistema de patentes de la UE para validar swpats: http://ur1.ca/47y85
También hay esto desde el Reino Unido-IPO (Oficina de Propiedad Intelectual), en el que las observaciones [http://twitter.com/zoobab/statuses/71177026324803584] formuladas por escrito: “IPreview utiliza el término” programas de ordenador no técnicos “, ¿pero que no es técnico? http://ur1.ca/47y7m ”
“La Comisión Europea trata de poner la ley de patentes fuera de Europa”, concluye[http://twitter.com/zoobab/statuses/71242904928141312]. Hemos escrito sobre esto antes. Europa cede su soberanía y permite que mega-corporaciones salgan con la suya a costa del público. Muy desalentador. Del mismo modo que escribe[http://twitter.com/zoobab/statuses/71235964370042880] con respecto a este[http://www.eplawpatentblog.com/eplaw/2011/05/eu-commission-non-paper-solutions-for-a-unified-patent-litigation-system.html] artículo que el documento no oficial de la Comisión para hackear la decisión del Tribunal de Justicia, el objetivo es validar las patentes de software de la UE con una Corte central “(véase el sitio web de la FFII para futura referencias[http://epla.ffii.org/forum/t-362092/european-commission-tries-to-put-patent-law-out-of-the-acqui]).
El Dr. Glyn Moody, un británico matemático convertido en periodista, entre tanto critica la “Cumbre Mundial de Derecho de Autor[http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2011/05/world-copyright-summit-7-billion.html]“, que curiosamente excluye a la partes interesada más importante:
Los organizadores parecen realmente haber incluido a todos, como ellos dicen: “Todos los actores involucrados en las industrias creativas – creación, concesión de licencias, el uso, la legislación de gestión colectiva, y la difusión de la propiedad intelectual y contenidos creativos.”
Bueno, todos menos uno: El PúBLICO.
El público es el elefante en la habitación, en esta conferencia – o, mejor dicho, los siete billones de elefantes en la sala.
No sólo es el público el que no participa aquí, ni siquiera se menciona, como si la palabra fuera una especie de contaminación en estos sagrados recintos celebrar el gran monopolio intelectual de los derechos de autor, y la manera de extraer el máximo “valor” de ella.
Es lo mismo cuando se trata de patentes. Citando el registro (de un autor famoso, que odia la libertad[http://slated.org/bullshit_blocker]), de veras que parece que las patentes de software no están ahí todavía, al menos no en Europa[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/18/hargreaves_summary_and_first_reaction/].
Para las patentes de software, el informe es escéptico sobre sus “beneficios”, y pone de relieve la confusión en la interpretación en el marco del Convenio sobre la Patente Europea (CPE).
Vale la pena prestar atención a es la posición de Google en este punto. Google ha estado sufriendo mucho por las patentes de software. En Europa no tiene por qué cambiar/corregir cualquiera de nuestras leyes, meramente debe limitarse a la necesidad de preservar la exclusión de las patentes de software. A pesar de las aparentes excepciones (por ejemplo, la patente FAT de Microsoft[http://techrights.org/2010/04/23/contradicting-epo-rules/] y Siemens [1[http://techrights.org/2010/05/19/germany-software-patents-ruling/], 2[http://techrights.org/2010/07/21/crackers-crack-siemens/]]), los tribunales alemanes son capaces de volver a sus sentidos y la navegación de migas de pan se consideran no patentables[http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2011/05/german-federal-court-bread-crumbs.html] por el Tribunal Federal Alemán:
En una sentencia del 24 de febrero de 2011, las razones por las que sólo salió a luz hace poco tiempo, el Tribunal Federal Alemán (BGH) confirmó una decisión del Tribunal Federal de Patentes, que invalidó la patente alemana Siemens DE 101 15 895 C1, a la que me tomo la libertad de referirme como la “patente de migas de pan”.
Otra pérdida para las patentes de software.
“Siemens es probablemente que el solicitante de más patentes a nivel mundial “líder””, afirmó Marcio B. Jr. Hace unos días [1[http://twitter.com/MBjunior/statuses/70844093013569537], 2[http://twitter.com/MBjunior/statuses/70850349514240001]]. Siemens es también defensor/grupo de presión para las patentes de software. ¿Podríamos ver a la afirmación de que las patentes de software en Europa[http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Software_Patents_in_Europe] son ignorados por el sistema legal?
La afirmación sobre Siemens está siendo impugnada por el presidente de la FFII, quien dice que Philips – no Siemens – es la peor entre las empresas europeas[http://twitter.com/zoobab/statuses/71116485292081152].
Philips esta presionando por un tribunal central de patentes en la UE, es el número uno de los empujador de http://ur1.ca/47wn8 de las patentes de software
Otro impulsor de ellas es Bill Gates y su compañero[http://techrights.org/2011/04/13/elop-led-nokia-and-bill-gates-lobby-europe-amid-new-push-ushering-in-software-patents/] (como se ha señalado anteriormente el día de hoy[http://techrights.org/2011/05/20/gates-pyramid-schemes/]), no sólo de Microsoft y sus cabilderos.
Este es un tema de alcance internacional. No sólo los europeos deben mantener un ojo en él, y si Europa se rinde a el gallinero, el resto del mundo, posiblemente, lo seguirá. █
Translation produced by Eduardo Landaveri, the esteemed administrator of the Spanish portal of Techrights.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
05.23.11
Posted in Apple, GNU/Linux, Google, Patents at 8:35 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Co-authored with G. Forbes
Summary: Apple is under fire for apathy in the face of patent trolls it fed; discussion on how the Lodsys case and cases of its kind affect Linux
THE VERY real problems with software patents are being clearly illustrated in the headlines recently. This is a result of the news that there are hypePhone application developers being sued without Apple defending them.
This is a good opportunity to remind all developers that Apple is not their friend, regardless of whatever marketing hype they generate to the contrary.
There has been and continues to be an enormous amount of coverage of this story. [1, 2, 3, 4]. This is perhaps due to the fact that Apple’s involvement is explicitly mentioned. Muktware, as always, does a good job with its coverage, putting the case into a clear context.
The patent troll, in response, has been trying to explain its actions. The EFF, which is involved in an ongoing patent-busting project, has suggested that Apple should get involved in the case (article here) rather than help make patent trolls stronger by sitting in the sidelines. Many developers are having similar feelings, and have decided to call for boycotts:
Mike Lee, a Mac developer and former iOS developer with major contributions to Tap Tap Revenge, Obama ’08 and Apple’s own retail application, has suggested a radical way to fight back against the patent firms targeting mobile application developers with claims of infringement. It’s time for an API boycott, he says.
Lee calls the current patent trolling, where firms such as Lodsys and others are threatening to sue developers who don’t license patents for technology developments like in-app purchasing buttons and the use of forms, an “untenable situation” for developers. “There is no move we can make that will result in our ultimate survival. Either we pay Lodsys and usher in a new era of extortion, or we refuse to pay and are sued out of business.”
Here is a corresponding letter to Steve Jobs. We have covered the Lodsys case before [1, 2, 3]. While this may seem to be a case of one bad party , Apple has in fact funded some of these same patent troublemakers. As a result, Apple has helped to enable the trouble that has arisen, and it deserves a lot of flack here. Developers are complaining to Apple, even through the bug reporting system, e.g. “Filed bug report #9460324 on in-app purchase. Apple needs to do something about these patent-waving clowns.”
This case does have relevance to Linux as well. An Android app died in similar circumstances due to software patents and Shazam engaged in equally bad behaviour although it had no case. With similar and very public attacks now being made against iOS app developers, it should be clear by now that software patent abuse is a global issue. It is one that needs to be addressed urgently.
The founder and owner of the patent troll Igoe Intellectual Property, LLC. has now written about this case several times [1, 2, 3], as have other patenting apologists.
As correctly pointed out at Macworld, it is not only developers who should care about this situation. Almost everyone except patent lawyers will be harmed as a result of this non-productive behaviour. Wealth and power is being passed into the hands of a few, non-producing parasites. Their actions are antithetical to the original purpose of patents and the whole concept of a competitive and healthy economy.
Some lawyers appear to be defecting from their usual party lines as “Software patents become ever more ludicrous,” notes The Guardian. Apple might have to change its mind about patents as well if it continues to go under patent fire more often than at present. As we noted earlier, Apple is currently buying more patents while applying for many more. Meanwhile, GNU/Linux developers are actually writing and contributing code; they are engaged in true innovation.
On this subject, it is too hard to forget Apple’s relationship with Intellectual Ventures or IV for short (it received backing from Apple), which is essentially a player in the anti-Linux/FOSS cartel. The patents involved in cases like this sometimes come from IV. One must also remember that Apple is on Microsoft’s side when it comes to patent hoarding. As a result, Apple will probably just continue to duck when faced with lawsuits like this one:
Another patent-owning company has targeted app developers on both Apple and Android platforms, intensifying concerns among developers that smartphones are the new hunting ground for so-called “patent trolls”.
Yes, Android is affected too. This is not the first time that IV et al. has surfaced in Linux/Android extortion.
On yet another Apple-software-patent issue, Ellison and Jobs have a special relationship as we have mentioned before. There is reason to suspect that it played a role in the Java lawsuit that Groklaw under Webbink continues keep abreast of. To quote the latest postings:
In the two most recent filings in Oracle v. Google we get a glimpse into the contentious nature of this proceeding, with neither side willing to budge a great deal. This shouldn’t be overly surprising considering that we have two of the heavyweights of the information technology industry slugging at each other.
Webbink has also been writing about other Microsoft patent trolls, such as Traul Allen:
Since Groklaw last visited Paul Allen’s patent attack on Google and the World, the court has agreed to sever the omnibus complaint into eleven separate ones 229 [PDF]. There is really no great surprise here. The nature of the asserted infringements in the first amended complaint were so unrelated to each other that the court had little choice but to sever.
Allen and IV are not the only Microsoft-tied entities that attack Android. Microsoft does this directly against B&N and Motorola, while Apple extorts HTC and Samsung using injunctions. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Apple, GNU/Linux, Google, IBM, Microsoft, Patents at 7:49 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: What it means to ignore Microsoft’s patent cartel while daemonising companies whose patents are intended to defend FOSS
SOFTWARE patents need to be eliminated and those who hoard them are part of the problem, with caveats. There are those who actively use patents for anti-competitive purposes, there are those who just collect them for “defensive” purposes (although that can change when the ownership of the company or the patents changes), and those who keep mostly silent on the subject (the conspiracy of silence as the former head of the FFII called this type of phenomenon).
“As time goes on it becomes ever more clear that the “FOSSPatents” persona is just an attack on FOSS.”One person who conveniently ignores Microsoft’s aggression — that which uses patents offensively itself — is Microsoft Florian. He wants people to believe that so-called ‘defensive’ patents (like OIN’s) are the problem. In fact, Microsoft Florian links to a Microsoft booster who paints Google as the culprit, not Microsoft. He always ignores Microsoft. As Charles-H. Schulz put it, “Florian Mueller has been rattling his saber for almost a year now, launching “fatwas” and anathemas on selected vendors (IBM and to a lesser extent, Oracle) while refusing to address the very big elephant in the room: Microsoft.” Here is his latest post which conveniently leaves Microsoft out. To quote the ending: “They’ll try to sue the defenseless while Apple, Google and RIM are sitting on the sideline, or don’t even seem to care at all.”
He happily paints IBM as the problem again by requoting: “IBM said it is launching InfoSphere BigInsights and Streams software to analyze unstructured data such as text, video, audio and social media. The software, cooked up by IBM Research, is based on Hadoop and more than 50 Big Blue patents.”
How many of these patents would be used offensively? And what about Microsoft’s more controversial patent applications that start to monopolise fighting disease? What about Apple’s purchase of over 200 patents from Freescale Semiconductor?
Apple Inc. recently recorded the receipt of 200 patents and pending patent applications from the electronics company Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. Although not recorded until May 18, 2011, the assignment is dated April 11, 2011. Freescale began as a division of Motorola in 1949 and spun-off in 2003. Some of the patents transferred originally belonged to Motorola.
Microsoft Florian does not write about such things because it’s part of Microsoft’s cartel of patents, not the Linux/FOSS side. As time goes on it becomes ever more clear that the “FOSSPatents” persona is just an attack on FOSS. LWN readers can’t stand the guy. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
05.20.11
Posted in Google, Intellectual Monopoly, Microsoft, Patents at 10:07 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A fresher look at who is pushing for software patents in Europe and who is antagonising them this week
EUROPE’S policy is under attack. Companies from across the Atlantic want to increase their foothold and all they need is a bunch of corruptible politicians, who will happily carry water for foreign interests that directly harm science and technology everywhere in the world. One of the latest dunces for bad patent policies is Vincent Van Quickenborne [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13]. He still fuels the EPO’s propaganda for more patents (business) and litigation too. To quote:
Vincent van Quickenborne says unitary patent wil provide cheaper, easier and full protection for European inventors
European software developers — myself included — should be very concerned about this. A plague that causes great harm to American developers is being exported to Europe with foresight that probably encompasses the rest of Asia, too. The monopolies never rest and they can never get enough laws that legitimise their infinite sense of entitlement, like some sort of a corporate welfare plan. There is ongoing discussion in FFII mailing lists (the relevant list seems to be private, so we won’t quote anything from it here) and it sure seems like many European developers worry about recent developments, primarily a report from the UK and the unitary patent lobby. The FFII’s president notes: “Swpats in the UK, more burden for software developers: http://ur1.ca/47lsk” (an article titled “UK report calls for reforms to intellectual property law” is providing some context/background). He links to this government report, noting:
Super High priority for the UK IPreview: unified EU patent court and EU patent system to validate swpats: http://ur1.ca/47y85
There is also this from the UK-IPO, on which he remarks by writing: “IPreview uses the term “non-technical computer programs”, but what is non-technical? http://ur1.ca/47y7m”
“European Commission tries to put patent law outside of Europe,” he concludes. We wrote about this before. Europe gives away its sovereignty and lets mega-corporations get their way at the public’s expense. Very discouraging indeed. Similarly he writes regarding this article that the Commission non-paper for hacking the ECJ decision, goal is to validate EU software patents with a central court” (see the FFII Web site for reference).
Dr. Glyn Moody, a British mathematician-turned journalist, is meanwhile criticising the “World Copyright Summit”, which oddly enough excluded the most important stakeholder:
The organisers really seem to have included everyone, just as they say: “All stakeholders involved in creative industries – creation, licensing, usage, collective management, legislation and dissemination of intellectual property and creative content.”
Well, everyone except one: The Public.
The public is the elephant in the room at this conference – or, rather, the seven billion elephants in the room.
Not only is the public not participating here, it is not even mentioned, as if the very word were some kind of defilement in these hallowed halls celebrating the great intellectual monopoly of copyright, and ways of extracting the maximum “value” from it.
It is the same when it comes to patents. Quoting The Register (from a notorious author who hates freedom), it sure seems like software patents are not there yet, at least not in Europe.
For software patents, the report is skeptical about the benefits, and highlights confusion in interpretation under the European Patent Convention (EPC).
Worth paying attention to is Google’s stance there. Google has been suffering a lot from software patents. In Europe it need not change/fix any laws, it merely needs to preserve an exclusion of software patents. Despite the apparent exceptions (such as Microsoft's FAT patent and Siemens [1, 2]), German courts are able to return to their senses and bread crumbs navigation is deemed not patentable by the German Federal Court:
In a judgment of 24 February 2011, the reasons for which only became available recently, the German Federal Court (BGH) upheld a decision of the Federal Patent Court which invalidated Siemens’ German patent DE 101 15 895 C1, which I take the liberty of referring to as the “bread crumbs patent”.
Another loss for software patents.
“Siemens is most probably a patent applicant world “leader”,” claimed Marcio B. Jr. a few days ago [1, 2]. Siemens also advocates/lobbies for software patents. Might we see affirmation that software patents in Europe are disregarded by the legal system?
The claim about Siemens is being contested by the president of the FFII, who says that Philips — not Siemens — is the worse among the European companies.
Philips pushing for a central patent court in the EU, number one pusher for software patents http://ur1.ca/47wn8
Another pusher for it appears to be Bill Gates and his sidekick (as noted earlier today), not just Microsoft and its lobbyists.
This is a subject of international scope. Not only Europeans should keep an eye on it; if Europe ever surrenders to the peanut gallery, the rest of the world will possibly follow. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
05.16.11
Posted in FUD, Google, Microsoft at 4:23 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
(ODF | PDF | English/original)
Resumen: ¿Por qué los que comparan a los defensores del Software Libre con los teóricos de la conspiración como Alex Jones totalmente perdieron el tren?
Hay personas venenosas que tratan de disuadir a la libertad de pensamiento, alegando que nada malo sucede en la industria. Es una ilusión muy práctica para ser sumergida en, como la realidad implica muchos cabilderos -lobbyists- que dirigen el espectáculo. Los que hablan al respecto o lo denuncian no son el problema, los grupos de presión y sus financiadores lo son.
Durante los últimos dos años hemos visto muchos apologistas de Microsoft que intentaron de caracterizar a Groklaw como un “teórico de la conspiración”, incluso mucho antes de que el sitio tratase con cualquier cosa que se le parezca. Y ahora, ante el cierre del lugar, estamos viendo más de la misma sophistería[http://techrights.org/2011/05/12/facebook-astroturfing/]. Es similar a las extensiones que se utilizaron contra Boicot Novell y Techrights, por lo que vale la pena hacer frente a esto como un fenómeno general.
Allá por el 2007 y 2008, escribimos un puñado de blogs que explican cómo etiquetas tales como “enemigos” y “teóricos” se están utilizando para distraer la atención de los verdaderos problemas. Incluso ahora que descubrimos como Facebook contrató a los grupos de presión después de las inversiones de Microsoft[http://techrights.org/2011/05/15/facebook-astroturfing_es/] hay quienes lo llaman un exagerado acto de fe. Bueno, en primer lugar, Facebook finalmente ADMITE que lo hizo[http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9216656/Caught_Facebook_admits_running_anti_Google_campaign?taxonomyId=71]. Groklaw comenta en esta admisión de la siguiente manera: “Por lo tanto, debo señalar que Facebook y Microsoft son socios y Microsoft ha invertido en Facebook? ¿No les dije que todo esto era una campaña de desprestigio, en mi opinión?”
Groklaw también cita este informe[http://searchengineland.com/how-facebook-enables-the-google-social-scraping-its-upset-about-76979] en el que Facebook daeminises Google de forma más directa, de alguna forma exonerando a Microsoft. ¿Qué superficial. En cuanto a la audiencia del congreso, Groklaw tiene algo que decir así. En palabras del informe:
Pero en general, los senadores en la audiencia parecía querer insistir en una amplia gama de quejas contra Apple y Google sólo algunas de las cuales estaban relacionadas con los teléfonos inteligentes o privacidad en absoluto.
El senador Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) se adelantó y golpeó a Google por su colección privada accidental de datos Wi-Fi, un escándalo de privacidad de ahora más de dos años de edad. En realidad se retiró una solicitud de patente de Google y parecía estar diciendo que Google demostró la intención de tirar de la privada “carga” de datos como parte de su plan para construir mejores servicios de mapas. Davidson se puso en el lugar, pues, ninguna sorpresa, no había visto antes de la solicitud de patente, ya que Google archiva centenares de patentes cada año. Hizo hincapié en que la empresa no fue nunca fuera a utilizar los datos que había recogido accidentalmente. “Tenemos la intención de disponer de él en cualquier forma los reguladores nos dicen que”, dijo. Ashkani y otro investigador independiente de la privacidad tanto declaró que los datos de carga no sería útil en el mapa de capacidad.
Actualización: Un portavoz de Google en breve en contacto conmigo después de esta entrada se ha publicado, ofrece la siguiente afirmación: “La tecnología en que la patente no tiene nada que ver con la recogida y almacenamiento de los datos de carga útil y es totalmente sin relación con el código de software utilizado para recoger información con WiFi Vista de la calle los coches.”
“Estos son las personas que escriben la ley de patentes”, escribe Groklaw. “Y es posible que alguien compruebe y vea a quién Microsoft le da dinero en el Congreso? Hay algo muy extraño en esto, teniendo en cuenta las políticas de privacidad de Microsoft. ¿Por qué sólo Apple y Google fueron citados? En serio. Se siente como una campaña de desprestigio para mí. ¿Y puedes ver porqué Groklaw importa? La gente toma decisiones importantes sobre tecnología, no entiende de tecnología, y dejar que las patentes solas. Esto da miedo.”
En relación con este otro artículo[http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/05/11/doj_probe_could_cost_google_500m_apple_receives_patent_for_horizontal_docking_ipad.html] acerca de la participación federal, observaciones Groklaw citando lo siguiente:
En un informe trimestral a la SEC, Google retroactivamente bajó sus ganancias del primer trimestre de 500 millones de dólares en previsión de un acuerdo con el Departamento de Justicia, lo informa Associated Press.
“Creo que puede estar exagerando las cosas,” afirma Groklaw, “Prefiero decir que este es el límite exterior de lo que podría costar a Google, lo que están dejando a un lado por si acaso. Puede ser que no deben nada, después de todo. Ni siquiera es una investigación oficial todavía. Esto es lo que Google escribe en el formulario 10-Q: “En mayo de 2011, en relación con una posible resolución de una investigación por el Departamento de Justicia sobre el uso de publicidad de Google por determinados anunciantes, hemos acumulado $ 500 millones para el período de tres meses 31 de marzo de 2011. Aunque no podemos predecir el resultado final de este asunto, creemos que no tendrá un efecto material adverso en nuestro negocio, situación financiera consolidada, resultados de operación o flujos de efectivo. “Ahora, cuando usted lee toda la FUD volando alrededor, por lo menos usted sabrá mejor. ”
“Ahora, cuando usted lee toda la FUD volando por ahí, por lo menos usted sabrá mejor.”
—Pamela Jones, GroklawGroklaw no está solo cuando se trata de defender a Google, que de ninguna manera es totalmente inocente. Es sólo que mucho de ello es actuación, hipocrecía, mucho de ello se pone en escena por los grupos de presión e incluso presentadores de programas de radio como Alex Jones. Resultó que no hace mucho tiempo cuando Fox/Glenn Beck realizó una campaña de desprestigio en contra de Google, Rupert Murdoch, estaba en realidad en la cama con Microsoft. Esto es lo que Pamela cita GigaOM como diciendo[http://gigaom.com/2011/05/12/facebook-smear-campaign-takes-war-against-google-to-defcon-2/], “este es un caso muy evidente de la paja en el ojo ajeno. Si bien la echada de Facebook PR (Relaciones Públicas) trata de pintar a Google como la compañía que ha sido sitiada por los críticos de privacidad y los reguladores, cuando en la realidad es que Facebook ha sido mucho más expuesto a las críticas del gobierno y las sanciones – y la regulación de potencial – como resultado de su enfoque a la vida privada y su manejo de datos personales. La red social puede haber estado tratando de desviar la atención de la prensa y los reguladores lejos de sí mismo hacia Google, pero toda esta campaña ha hecho realmente es que Facebook luzca incompetente, desesperado, y con miedo. “Necesitamos tener más sitios como Groklaw para hacer frente a estas cuestiones.” █
Translation produced by Eduardo Landaveri, the esteemed administrator of the Spanish portal of Techrights.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
05.15.11
Posted in FUD, Google, Marketing, Microsoft at 8:41 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg
with former Microsoft evangelist (source: Robert Scoble)
(ODF | PDF | English/original)
Resumen: La misma agencia de relaciones públicas trabaja con Microsoft para atacar a Google acaba de ser pagados por Facebook, para el mismo fin: atacar a Google, también.
Facebook ha hecho mucho para ayudar a Microsoft, incluyendo la promoción de Silver Lie, OOXML, B0ng, e incluso pasar todos los datos de sus usuarios a Microsoft para la explotación minera así como la intrusión de privacidad es obvia. Hay mucho más de eso, pero lo hemos cubierto antes. Añadir otra medalla de la lealtad al chaleco de Mark “tonto m*mones[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/14/facebook_trust_dumb/]” Zuckerberg.
Microsoft acaba de tener que pagar cientos de millones de Facebook (como en el caso de Novell) y la recompensa es buena porque los ataques contra Google están siendo financiados por Facebook[http://everythingnew.net/technology/facebook-admits-hiring-pr-firm-to-smear-google/] [a través de[http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/05/12/138229/Facebook-Admits-Hiring-PR-Firm-To-Smear-Google], HT “walterbyrd”]
Gente, Facebook y Google, el choque de los Gigantes de Internet alcanzaró nuevas alturas después de un portavoz de Facebook confirmó a Daily Beast que Facebook pagó una empresa de alto nivel de relaciónes públicas para publicar y difundir historias en contra de Google a través de los medios de comunicación para estudiar diversos métodos para examinar las alegaciones de que Google ha estado violando la privacidad del usuario. La firma de relaciones públicas Burson-Marsteller, ofrecieron su ayuda a Chris Soghoian para escribir un artículo sobre los círculos sociales que muestra cómo los usuarios de Gmail pueden acceder a la información sobre “Conexiones secundarias” o amigos en su círculo de amigos. Esta muy “Círculo Social” parecía ser la esencia misma de la campaña contra Google por Facebook. El portavoz de relaciones públicas de la empresa, dijo el periodista de noticias en términos de blanco y negro.
Se escribió acerca de esta empresa a principios de semana [1[http://techrights.org/2011/05/11/jim-goldman-propaganda/], 2[http://techrights.org/2011/05/10/sock-puppets-of-microsoft/]], pero es más interesante que eso. En 2007, “Microsoft y la agencia de relaciones públicas Burson-Marsteller formaron ICOMP para luchar contra la adquisición de Google de DoubleClick,” como se citó el año pasado[http://techrights.org/2010/12/14/frivolous-legal-action-and-ita-2/]. También menciona a este perro de ataque en un artículo sobre Richard Edelman[http://techrights.org/2010/12/10/edelman-deceives-the-public/] el super-delincuente. Antes de esto que hemos mencionado de Burson-Marsteller en el contexto de Visible Technologies[http://techrights.org/2009/08/19/visible-technologies-funded-by-ignition/], una empresa fundada por ex empleados de Microsoft[http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Visible_Technologies] para participar en astroturfing a través de blogs (Microsoft es el cliente principal, obviamente). Se trata de algunas cosas desagradables, repugnantes. Microsoft, los hooligans en trajes son tan responsables como la propia Microsoft. ¿Dónde está la responsabilidad? ¿Dónde están los reguladores antimonopolios[http://techrights.org/2011/05/13/attacking-the-little-guy_es/]? █
Translation produced by Eduardo Landaveri, the esteemed administrator of the Spanish portal of Techrights.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Antitrust, Deception, FUD, Google, Microsoft at 11:39 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Microsoft uses proxies to stomp on Google and give it antitrust trouble while it is actually Microsoft that deserve the antitrust treatment
Microsoft is not a reformed company. It’s a thuggish convict in search of a whipping boy. It is still an unethical bully which is more focused on bribes and extortion, as fiascos like OOXML and the B&N blackmail ought to remind regulators all across the world. It makes no sense whatsoever to remove oversight. It’s like releasing a prisoner who was beating inmates up. As one person puts it:
This ignores all the foot-dragging in the EU, the anti-competitive moves in mobile, the software-patent suits, etc.
There is another reason to keep Microsoft — not Google — under the microscope. It is Microsoft — not Google — which hires many AstroTurfers to daemonise a competitor, Google. In the context of Burson-Marsteller we mentioned this before Groklaw and others. Bob Sutor writes: “Burson-Marsteller: now #Facebook against #Google – http://bit.ly/ k6H6fL , then #Microsoft against #Google – http:// on.wsj.com/k5Brp9″
PJ opines (via reader of ours):
It links to a 2007 article in the Wall Street Journal, “Microsoft Goes Behind the Scenes — Public-Relations Proxy Aims to Gather Opposition To Google-DoubleClick Deal”, showing that Microsoft hired the same PR firm as Facebook, Burson-Marsteller, back then also to attack Google. If you are surprised, please raise your hand. Say, journalists, why not ask Facebook if they got this lame idea in 2011 from Microsoft? Or ask Burson if they got the idea from Microsoft and then pitched it to Facebook. I have the feeling we haven’t dug all the way to the bottom of this picture yet.
For Microsoft this is business as usual. See our page on AstroTurfing for additional examples. How can such a convict be left without supervision? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
05.14.11
Posted in FUD, Google, Microsoft at 11:24 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Alex Jones also spreads Google phobia
Summary: Why those who compare Free software proponents to conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones are totally missing the boat
Poisonous people try to discourage free thought by alleging that nothing goes amiss in the industry. It’s a convenient illusion to be immersed in, as the reality involves many lobbyists who run the show. Those who speak about it are not the problem; the lobbyists and their funders are.
Over the past couple of years we have seen many Microsoft apologists who tried tried to paint Groklaw a “conspiracy theorist”, even well before the site dealt with anything resembling it. And now, upon the site's departure, we are seeing more of the same smears. It is similar to the smears that were used against Boycott Novell and Techrights, so it is worth tackling this as a general phenomenon.
Back around 2007 and 2008 we wrote a handful of posts explaining how labels such as “hater” and “theorist” are being used to distract from real issues. Even now that we discover Facebook hired lobbyists after investments from Microsoft there are those who will call it a far-fetched leap of faith. Well, first of all, Facebook finally admits that it did this. Groklaw remarks on this admission as follows: “So, should I point out that Facebook and Microsoft are partners and Microsoft has invested in Facebook? Did I not tell you this was all a smear campaign, in my opinion?”
Groklaw also quotes this report where Facebook daeminises Google more directly, somehow exempting Microsoft. How shallow. Regarding this congress hearing, Groklaw has something to say as well. To quote the report:
But overall, Senators at the hearing seemed to want to harp on a broad range of grievances with Apple and Google—only some of which related to smartphones or privacy at all.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) went ahead and hammered Google over its accidental collection of private WiFi data, a privacy scandal that’s now more than two years old. He actually pulled out a Google patent application and seemed to be saying that it demonstrated Google intended to pull the private “payload” data as part of its plan to build better mapping services. Davidson was put on the spot because, no surprise, he hadn’t seen the patent application before, since Google files hundreds of patents each year. He emphasized that the company wasn’t ever going to use the data it had accidentally collected. “We intend to dispose of it in whatever form regulators tell us to,” he said. Ashkani and another independent privacy researcher both testified that the payload data wouldn’t be useful in map-building.
Update: A Google spokesman contacted me shortly after this post was published, offering this statement: “The technology in that patent has nothing to do with the collection and storage of payload data and is entirely unrelated to the software code used to collect WiFi information with Street View cars.”
“These are the guys who write patent law,” writes Groklaw. “And could someone check and see who Microsoft gives money to in Congress? There is something very odd about this, considering Microsoft’s privacy policies. Why only Apple and Google called on the carpet? Seriously. It feels like a smear campaign to me. And do you see why Groklaw matters? Folks making important decisions about tech don’t understand tech either, let alone patents. It’s scary.”
In relation to this other article about federal involvement, Groklaw remarks by quoting this:
In a quarterly report to the SEC, Google retroactively lowered its first-quarter earnings by $500 million in anticipation of a settlement with the Department of Justice, the Associated Press reports.
“I think that may be overstating matters,” argues Groklaw, “I’d rather say that this is the outside limit of what it might cost Google, what they are setting aside just in case. They might owe nothing, after all. It’s not even an official investigation yet. Here’s what Google writes in the 10-Q: “In May 2011, in connection with a potential resolution of an investigation by the United States Department of Justice into the use of Google advertising by certain advertisers, we accrued $500 million for the three month period ended March 31, 2011. Although we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, we believe it will not have a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.” Now when you read all the FUD flying around, at least you’ll know better.”
“Now when you read all the FUD flying around, at least you’ll know better.”
–Pamela Jones, GroklawGroklaw is not alone when it comes to defending Google, which by no means is totally innocent either. It’s just that a lot of it is acting, a lot of it is staged by lobbyists and maybe even radio show hosts like Alex Jones. It turned out that not so long ago when Fox/Glenn Beck ran a smear campaign against Google Rupert Murdoch was actually in bed with Microsoft. Here is what Pamela quotes GigaOM as saying, “this is a pretty obvious case of the pot calling the kettle black. While Facebook’s PR pitch tries to paint Google as the company that has been besieged by privacy critics and regulators, the reality is, Facebook has been far more exposed to government criticism and sanctions — and potential regulation — as a result of its approach to privacy and its handling of personal data. The social network may have been trying to shift the attention of the press and regulators away from itself and onto Google, but all this campaign has really done is make Facebook look incompetent and desperate, and scared.” We need to have more sites like Groklaw to tackle these issues. █
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