07.02.10
Posted in Apple, Courtroom, Microsoft at 10:41 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Click image for full-sized version
Summary: T-Mobile is finally dumping Microsoft’s Sidekick and Apple’s problems receive scrutiny from Ghabuntu
THE LIST of dead products from Microsoft continues to grow at a rapid pace not just with the addition of KIN to it. Based on today’s news, Sidekick is being abandoned too, at least by T-Mobile.
T-Mobile USA has decided to discontinue sales of the Sidekick family of devices starting on July 2. A T-Mobile spokesperson said to Phone Scoop in an email, “As T-Mobile looks to further innovate and raise the bar for the next iteration of the T-Mobile Sidekick, as of July 2, the Sidekick LX and Sidekick 2008 will no longer be available through T-Mobile, including retail stores, care, telesales and online. While we work on the next chapter of our storied Sidekick franchise, T-Mobile will continue to provide our loyal Sidekick customers with product service and support. Stay tuned for exciting updates in the months ahead, which we expect will provide customers with a new and fresh experience.”
Without T-Mobile, Sidekick is almost dead.
Zune may be next (all models). Almost nobody buys any and its software is of no use for the “Zune phone” (KIN) anymore.
Separately, Ghabuntu pokes fun at Apple, which is now being sued massively for its defective hypePhones, just like Microsoft was sued for the Sidekick disaster at T-Mobile last year. “A cult called Apple” is what Ghabuntu labels the whole situation, as did we.
For some technical miscalculations, users are unable to get a good cellular reception when the phone is gripped in a certain way. When the complaints got to Steve Jobs, his reply was simply to “either hold it the way I’m showing you or get the case”. Only problem is, the case comes at a damage of $29. Phew.
I have been wondering a lot with all the massive publicity that Apple gets and the range of products it releases whether it is more of a cult than a company. Apple almost always releases completely locked down products with features that other competing products have had long before it and yet you have its users (I’m talking to you fanboys) applauding it incessantly.
The difference between Microsoft and Apple is, when Microsoft screws up there is almost nobody who voluntarily defends it, just hired agents (which Apple has too) and bribed individuals. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Novell, Red Hat, Virtualisation, VMware at 9:59 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Defensible rumours have begun floating about, saying that VMware’s deal with Novell will become more than just a collaboration deal
SEVERAL weeks ago we wrote that VMware, which is run by former Microsoft employees after EMC’s intervention, might buy Novell.
There are now concurring rumours about it:
This week I’ve had some questions from people on how this “Strategic Partnership” between Novell and VMware, could be the first step to VMware buying Novell or a number of products from Novell. This got me thinking on if that could really be an interesting move for VMware.
The VAR Guy cites the above and writes:
VMware and Novell: Merger Rumor or More?
The speculation won’t go away. Several companies apparently have bid to acquire Novell. Some pundits think VMware is among the bidders. Why’s that? The short answer involves a mutual enemy called, um, Red Hat (assuming you believe the rumor).
[...]
The VAR Guy wonders: Does VMware see the market similarly? If so, does that mean VMware is willing to pay $2 billion or more to acquire Novell? Plenty of open source pundits are speculating about a potential VMware-Novell merger or acquisition.
The Microsoft booster links to both of the above [1, 2]. As we explained twice last month, VMware is against Red Hat [1, 2]. A takeover of Novell would put former Microsoft executives like Maritz on top of Novell. █
Update: Sam Dean considers this takeover unlikely.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Apple, Boycott Novell, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Novell, Vista 8, Windows at 9:44 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The Microsoft MVP who is also a vice president at Novell says what he would do if he was in charge of Vista 8
WE rarely use question marks in headlines, but this one almost begs for it. In fact, the news came to our attention by this good blog whose headline asks, “Miguel de Icaza: Secret Desire To Head Windows 8?” To quote the crux of the argument regarding this ego trip:
Miguel De Icaza is a known Microsoft supporter. He is often criticized for his endorsement of Microsoft product — he was heavily criticized for endorsing Microsoft’s controversial OOXML standarad.
Many call him a traitor as he leads the Mono project to implement Microsoft’s new .NET development platform on Linux and Unix-like platforms. Now, Icaza returns, suggesting what Microsoft should do to improve the next version of Windows, rumored as Windows 8.
He goes at length taking pains and suggesting what Microsoft should do to improve. Wow! No wonder its coming from Icaza, the long time supporter of Microsoft.
This whole vapourware routine around Vista 8 is a subject we wrote about twice at the beginning of this week [1, 2]. It’s funny that after all those years, Microsoft MVP de Icaza is still fascinated with everything from Microsoft. “At Microsoft I learned the truth about ActiveX and COM and I got very interested in it inmediately [sic],” he wrote about a decade ago and nowadays he drools over Silverlight (de Icaza is also pushing some more Apple stuff this week). Several days ago IDG published this article:
Novell’s de Icaza: ‘People are scared of installing software on Windows’
[...]
While de Icaza may be right that developers and users harbor concerns about Windows, it’s unlikely the developer community would reject the App Store concept entirely. Microsoft’s .NET Framework is popular with developers, and Windows’ mammoth market share will likely lure in developers, even those concerned about making applications run properly on Windows.
Why is he so concerned about Microsoft’s monopoly prevailing (his work on Mono and Moonlight contributes to that)? Why is he still trying to help Microsoft? We don’t wish to end with a question, so instead we’ll suggest that de Icaza views Microsoft as an ally, not a competitor, despite all that we know. █
“I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may laugh at my expense — I deserve it.”
–Be’s CEO Jean-Louis Gassée
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Free/Libre Software, IBM, Law, Patents at 9:17 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
John Paul Stevens retires at the age of 90 as the Bilski decision comes out
Summary: A look at the (mostly) positive analyses resulting from the ruling where Stevens was unable to convince a majority of his peers to pull the plug on software patents
THIS is probably our last post that summarises responses to the decision from SCOTUS.
Our goal is to inform readers of interpretations that relevant groups have shared regarding the Bilski case, so it’s more of an overview that encourages to read further into the references. As I started before, IANAL (I am not a lawyer), so I will make no attempt to interpret the document myself and insinuate that my verdict is an informed one. Others who are not lawyers/paralegal researchers do attempt to do just that and they drown out the signal.
“The explanations and reasoning from the SCOTUS can be interpreted in all sorts of ways because there is a lot of ambiguity and not all judges subscribe to the same portions of the ruling.”Major publications like the New York Times and Washington Post have both covered this ruling [1, 2], which threw out the patent of Bernard Bilski (that is probably the only fact we know for sure).
The explanations and reasoning from the SCOTUS can be interpreted in all sorts of ways because there is a lot of ambiguity and not all judges subscribe to the same portions of the ruling. In fact, the decision was a very close one and there was a 4-to-5 vote at end.
Pogson offers some reflections on Bilski. He is a Free software proponent and not a lawyer but a teacher and engineer.
The only way this issue can be settled promptly now is by legislation. M$ and its buddies will be lobbying fiercely to have the patent laws explicitly accept software. Unfortunately for them, all software, except perhaps in a controller where the software cannot possibly have multiple uses, is abstract. That is to say, programmes written in a high-level language do not even deal with bits let alone reality. They deal in variables and data-structures, abstractions in themselves. If the legislators allow software patents, they will have to allow patents on abstractions, something they will not do or cannot. That would throw our thoughts and all freedom under the bus. Indeed, one brief they did not reference was about freedom of speech as software. Patents cannot be allowed to restrict freedom of speech.
Michael Barclay, a lawyer, wrote for the EFF that “The Supreme Court Declines to Prohibit Business Method Patents” (his chosen headline). APRIL, a French advocacy group for Free software wrote about this too and here is the summary from its statement which it titled “Bilski case: the United States starts to clean the software patents minefield”
The US Supreme Court has issued on Monday a ruling that many people had been waiting for in the so-called “Bilski” case1, regarding a patent on a business method. This decision, even though it does not exclude every software from patentability, invalidates a majority of them, including those patents on computer implemented intellectual methods. It is now time for European lawmakers to halt software patents’ proliferation in Europe.
The FSF’s Peter Brown looks at/accentuates the positives:
Bilski gave us a wonderful opportunity to increase awareness to the harm caused by software patents. More scholars, more developers, more journalists, more politicians, and more patent attorneys than ever before have heard from our community on this issue. What’s next?
So again we see an example of the FSF being positive, not negative. It is mostly constructive in its approach, contrary to claims from those who wish to daemonise the FSF. Yesterday we summarised some opinions from the SFLC's Professor Dan Ravicher. There is also a new summary at Groklaw, focusing on Stevens (whose role Ravicher did not particularly like because of cynicism). Pamela Jones argued about Stevens:
He’s actually read and absorbed James Bessen’s book Patent Failure and he comprehends the dangers and the costs that such patents present. Thank you, Jim Bessen (and co-authors Mike Meurer, Eric Maskin and Bob Hunt), for all your careful and helpful work, educating judges and lawyers to the dangers of software patents. Significantly, Stevens is joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor. Even Justice Scalia, in a separate concurring opinion written by Justice Breyer, agreed that business methods should not be granted patents. That’s five Supreme Court judges. As Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSblog points out in his analysis of the Bilski opinion, that means that business methods patents survived by a single vote. And even at that, the opinion stated that few such methods should be granted a patent.
Here is another decent analysis from a legal blog. It’s outlined as follows: [via Digital Majority]
Sifting through the clues to patentability: Four take-home points from Bilski’s mixed bag
[...]
1) State Street Bank’s “useful, concrete, and tangible result” test is dead.
[...]
2) Abstract ideas likely include “basic concepts” and methods that can be reduced to a mathematical formula.
[...]
3) Parker v. Flook’s “field of use” and “postsolution activity” limitations are alive and well.
[...]
4) Expect more Section 101 challenges, especially at the early stages of patent litigation.
Rob Tiller from Red Hat (he too is a lawyer) wrote about this decision in a rush (Red Hat worked vigourously to eliminate software patents, unlike IBM).
Dana Blankenhorn correctly points out that Florian Müller is unfairly singling out IBM, as though IBM was the sole proponent of software patents.
Given the failure of the Bilski case to change the status quo regarding software and business method patents, the search is on for scapegoats, for weak sisters in the anti-patent fight who can be made open to criticism.
It is similar to what happens after a losing political campaign. Those most committed to the cause argue that it’s weak supporters, those willing to do business under the given circumstances, who are responsible for their political failure.
So it is that Florian Mueller of Fosspatents has seized upon IBM.
We have grown increasingly suspicious of Müller. He keeps trying to find ‘enemies’ other than Microsoft and then incite the “FOSS” crowd (as in “FOSSPatents” @ Blogspot) against that imaginary boogeyman. IBM is a favoured choice for a scapegoat due to its size, regardless of its many contributions to “FOSS”, which are very much appreciated. As one commenter puts it in Blankenhorn’s blog, “Now, I understand what Free Software is (as in Richard Stallman’s stance), and I understand what Open Source is (as in Eric Raymond’s stance). And isn’t the definition of FOSS is the union of Free Software and Open Source Software – i.e., F/OSS.
“Dana – what do you mean by FOSS? Are you confusing FOSS with Open Source?”
Florian defended proprietary software in Techrights comments; he is not a proponent of the “F” in FOSS, as even his lobby with MySQL helped to show. In many new posts about “interoperability” as the theme in the headlines (the word “interoperability” is used to dodge open standards), Müller continues to sing the same tune this week. About an hour ago he mailed me to incite against Apple at Microsoft’s expense. Typical. In his blog he currently promotes action and regulation against Microsoft adversaries.
As the old saying goes, Müller “has got some ‘splaining to do”. Only a mule would not change its stance when new information arrives and given what we have shown him about Microsoft, he continues to ignore Microsoft’s negative effects on “FOSS” (especially the “F”, which means freedom).
As the Bilski hype draws to a close, some go further and ask themselves about the impact as far as biotech patents are concerned (think Monsanto).
A Supreme Court ruling June 28 on idea patents disappointed those hoping for an overhaul of intellectual property claims for software, but it may inspire new patent tests aimed at the legally troublesome biotechnology field.
According to the court, the widely followed “machine-or-transformation” test — which limits patents to machines designed for a specific purpose, or processes that physically transform an object — is outdated. This test is also at the heart of at least two other legal cases currently being contested that could shape the future of the biotech business.
Patents on life? Why not? It’s good for lawyers. Apparently life counts as an “invention” now (if genes are perturbed in scarcely or totally misunderstood ways) to yield seemingly-desirable traits. Just ignore the side effects, much like in the patent system. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Site News at 3:29 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Registered users’ opinion on whether we should include and promote greater use of <video> and <audio>
I
n recent days we’ve experimented with and added loads of multimedia, both audio and video. We use Ogg Vorbis/Theora for this, knowing that most visitors are using Web browsers that support these file types. But what do you think? We’ve started a quick poll (open to subscribed/registered users only, for technical reasons related to page cache) which asks, “should we increase use of multimedia objects in Techrights?” One can find the poll on the right hand side (probably needs scrolling down a bit). Here is an old demo of Metisse on GNU/Linux. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Apple, Courtroom, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft at 2:34 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Apple ‘pulled a Toyota’ and this is costing it dearly in the battle against Linux
SOME OF THE LATEST charts suggest that hypePhone is losing to Android, which is based on Linux but is not exactly as free as MeeGo. In any event, contributing to Apple’s future demise in the phones market will be the fact that it rushed its latest hypePhone and brought it into the market with serious flaws that may not be fixable with a software patch. In other words, Apple has ‘pulled a Toyota’ [1, 2]. It’s no surprise that Apple resorted to suing with software patents. That’s what losers do.
Apple Insider speaks about the lawsuits that Apple is facing. “At least three class-action complaints were filed in California, Maryland, and Texas,” says the report.
Numerous lawsuits were filed this week against Apple, as a number of consumers hope to take the company to task over reception issues that arise with the new iPhone 4 when the left side of the device is covered with a hand.
At least three class-action complaints were filed in California, Maryland, and Texas. The largest was filed in a U.S. District Court in Oakland, Calif., and has a list of 11 plaintiffs included in the complaint, residing in California and New Jersey. The other two each include one plaintiff.
MobileCrunch says that “Apple’s callous response to iPhone 4 defect matched only by its fanboys’ blind dedication”:
What’s more sad: the very fact that the iPhone 4 is completely unusable if you’re left-handed—President Obama is left-handed!— or that Apple fanboys are doing everything in their power to divert attention away from the issue? Check MacRumors. It’s a fine site, yes, and one I read every day, but to call it an “Apple fan site” would be like calling the Sun hot. “Upset that your brand new iPhone 4 doesn’t work? Don’t be: other phones do this, too!” Because that’s what you want to hear: your phone may be a piece of junk, but so is the other guy’s phone, so it all works out. Um, no. It doesn’t work like that.
CrunchGear says that “All-in-one computer sales up 63 percent (but Apple losing out)”:
Apple’s all-in-one market share is expected to drop from 50 percent (in 2009) to 38 percent (in 2010). HP, MSI, and Lenovo are expected to gain where Apple has lost.
Now on to some humour, there are many jokes about hypePhone 4 around the Web [1, 1]. There is already a Downfall video titled “Hitler Reacts to the iPhone 4 Antenna Issues”. Here it is as Ogg Theora.
The end recommends a Linux-based phone.
Here is the message titled “What can the Apple iPad be used as?”
*iPad cannot be used as a phone because …..*
….. It cannot make calls. Period
*iPad cannot be used as a replacement for your laptop or netbook because …..
*
….. It does not have a multi-tasking OS
….. It does not have a Drag & Drop file management
….. It does not have a USB port
….. Its storage maxes out at a paltry 64 GB & has no expandable memory slot
….. It does not have a HDMI port
GNU/Linux is making good tablets.
As for Microsoft in the mobile market, this new post from OpenBytes is agreeing with our prediction that Zune may be axed after the "KIN" died.
Not one person involved in the Kin project turned around and said “hang on folks, isn’t this Kin a bit of a pig?” apparently not since it was thrown into the market which was hungry for other products.
It is also rumoured that Zune (the ipod beater that never was) may go the same route, which leads onto another important point.
The important point worth making is that proprietary platforms increasingly fail in the market. Attempts to reinvent the wheel result in inferior products that cost too much to produce. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA
