05.05.10

“The fight has been around a long time, now the target of Microsoft is Theora”

Posted in Apple, Microsoft, Mono, Novell, Patents at 3:14 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: With Novell’s help, Microsoft continues to retard the World Wide Web, polluting it with .NET and patents-encumbered codecs (like those provided for Moonlight)

THIS morning we wrote about Novell’s use of Mono — not just Moonlight — to mess about with Web browsers and help Microsoft. The Source has just expressed an opinion about it too.

Expand Microsoft lock-in. This is part of the “lock-in” problem: generally speaking, Microsoft technology is designed to work as smooth as possible with other Microsoft technology, and as difficult as possible with non-Microsoft technology. This means that once you start down the road of using Microsoft technology it becomes ever more difficult to step outside of that ecosystem.

Thus, Team Apologista must constantly replace other parts of the development ecosystem with the Microsoft solution. If you learn a Microsoft language (C#), you can’t be using a non-Microsoft language in your browser – have to get C# in there. And that means implementing .NET in your browser. So it goes.

Move from Opt-in to Opt-out to No-opt. Everyone in the world who deals with telemarker calls or shovelware on new (Windows) computers (or uses Facebook and cares about privacy) knows that “Opt-In” is far more preferrable to the user than “Opt Out”.

So, the defense that “if the user doesn’t want Mono they can just remove it” is bogus from the start – “Opt Out” is always the defense offered by those peddling things no one wants. It becomes more bogus when non-Mono apps are replaced by Mono apps, and it explodes in a mushroom cloud of nuclear bogosity when you start sticking it in their browser.

Miguel de Icaza has proven over the past decade from day one that he intends to make .NET ubiquitious – if he gets his way it will be a crucial component of your desktop, your application choices, and even your web browsing experience.

Another subject we have been writing about quite a lot lately is Microsoft’s and Apple’s cultural threat with MPEG-LA:

“Microsoft, Apple Will Never Allow An Open Web,” says one blogger whose explanation goes like this:

There were high hopes with HTML5. It was expected to set the Web free of locked, closed, proprietary formats. That may not be the case anymore. Apple and Microsoft seem determined to put locks on this possibility.

Microsoft’s Dean Hachamovitch, General Manager, Internet Explorer, has made it clear that “In its HTML5 support, IE9 will support playback of H.264 video only.”

Apple’s Steve Jobs has already written at length supporting H.264 and bashing Adobe for its ‘closed’ Flash for his own ‘airtight’ products.

The high-profile blogs by the two proprietary companies of the world hints at a conspiracy. It seems an environment is being created to ‘distract’ developers and users from true free formats like Ogg Theora and prepare the ground for a proprietary H.264, in which these companies are stakeholders.

In a typical Microsoftish manner Dean wrote, “H.264 is an industry standard, with broad and strong hardware support.”

No, it is not an standard. Industry standard it may be because more companies use this format. It is not even an ISO standard. The way Microsoft’s OOXML was approved at ISO raises doubts about such standards. How many standards does Microsoft really respect? CSS standards in IE is a nightmare for web developers. That is a different topic. Let’s steer clear from it.

This is especially curious because Apple and Microsoft used to fight one another when it comes to codecs and formats. While it’s being speculated that Apple may create a Web-based iTunes (with MPEG-LA patents, obviously), it is worth recalling Comes vs Microsoft memos that showed Microsoft’s fear of Apple’s media business. “The fight has been around a long time,” tells us a reader who adds this old reference. “Just now the target of Microsoft is Theora,” he asserts while adding the direct testimony of Avadis Tevanian, Jr. (context).

“Point #70 of Avadis Tevanian testimony warns of the problems that lead to the EU anti-trust case.”
–Anonymous readerHe also claims that “Inferior DirectX, mentioned in the testimonies, is a problem via Picasa. There is no Linux version of Picasa because of that, it has to run inside WINE.

“Point #70 of Avadis Tevanian testimony warns of the problems that lead to the EU anti-trust case. We see more problems from Microsoft and Microsoft partners. These can be prevented by *not* using these products and not accepting excuses from individuals.”

Separately, Microsoft is trying to adapt an ‘Apple defence’ to suppress Datel in a case which we mentioned the other day. It’s not succeeding though [1, 2] and it serves as a fresh example of Microsoft’s anti-competitive behaviour.

To end on a positive note, Webmonkey.com asks, “Who Needs Flash?”

In just months, from seemingly nowhere, Apple’s solo campaign to dethrone Flash as the de facto standard for web video has gathered enough momentum to get over the top. The question is no longer whether HTML5 will or should do the job, but when.

Last week signaled the tipping point, when Microsoft confirmed HTML5 video support would be included in the next version of Internet Explorer, which is due later this year. That move will swing the percentage of browsers supporting the nascent standard well above half, and will rapidly accelerate adoption by publishers, despite lingering technical and legal issues.

The shift is already happening on the mobile web, and eventually — in perhaps as soon as two years — HTML5 can be expected to serve most new video online.

Let us hope that this is true and let us help it become true by requesting that sites provide ‘open’ video and demand that governments do so too (they must work for their citizens and put no barriers on corporations’ behalf). By using our voice we can drive change. █

“Microsoft does not like negative or even objective press coverage and they have a tendency to be a bully about it. If something appears that they don’t like, they have the ability to punish the publication.”

–Knight-Ridder New Media President Bob Ingle

Permalink 3 Comments Mail Send this to a friend

Firm of Bill Gates’ Father Gets Involved in Gizmodo Raid Case, Gizmodo May Sue

Posted in Apple, Bill Gates, Courtroom, Law, Microsoft at 2:49 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: K & L Gates steps into the case involving illegal raid of a Gizmodo blogger; Gawker Media may respond with a lawsuit

LAST week we wrote several posts about what Apple and the police (which Apple invoked) did to a blogger quite tactlessly and maybe even illegally. To cite some relevant posts again (many external links therein), we have:

We find it particularly curious that the dodgy K&L Gates (Bill’s dad) is getting involved with this case, although it is not coincidental given the size of this firm and the incredible political power it possesses.

A 21-year-old California man was identified by his lawyer Thursday as the person who sold a prototype iPhone to the Gizmodo technology site, which published photos and other information about the unreleased device.

Lawyer Confirms Identity of ‘lost’ IPhone SellerBrian Hogan, a college student who lives in Redwood City, Calif., was at a local bar with friends when another patron handed him the phone, said Jeff Bornstein, an attorney with San Francisco law firm K&L Gates, in an e-mailed statement. “Brian asked others near him if the phone belonged to them,” said Bornstein. “When they disclaimed ownership, Brian and his friends left the bar with the phone.”

According to this short report, Gizmodo may sue through Gawker Media.

The dispute between Gizmodo and the San Mateo County, Calif., sheriff’s office regarding the iPhone 4G prototype continues. CNET News reported Wednesday that Gawker Media, Gizmodo’s parent company, may sue the sheriff’s office for the search last week that resulted in the seizure of computer equipment from blogger Jason Chen’s home office.

Thomas Burke, a partner in the San Francisco office of law firm Davis Wright Tremaine, told CNET that Gawker has a cause of action “because search is not the appropriate method in this situation.” California shield laws and the federal Privacy Protection Act require police to use subpoenas to obtain information and other evidence from newsrooms.

Why sue the sheriff’s office? Law enforcers have connections inside the system that make them immune to action that delegitimises this very same system. Why is Apple off the hook here? █

Permalink 4 Comments Mail Send this to a friend

Apple and Microsoft a Threat to Culture (Data), Not Just Software (Tools)

Posted in Apple, Google, ISO, Microsoft, Patents, Ubuntu at 4:41 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Microsoft’s and Apple’s cultural threat with MPEG-LA; Canonical listed as H.264 licensee; Google perceived as potential game changer with YouTube

OGG THEORA has been a hot topic recently because it’s under attack from Apple and from Microsoft. Previous and very recent posts about that subject include:

The Microsoft Bott continues his war on Theora this week, so Chips B. Malroy responds by calling him “major Microsoft shill” (which is actually true because his career is dependent on Microsoft). Malroy added that “audio and video codecs and the patents on them, are in some ways, an attack on the right of free speech” and later he argued that: “Most of us do disdain software patents. They only help the monopolies. They do not promote science or innovation. But there is a worse form of software patents, its software patents on codecs. This should never have been allowed in any reasonable world. Software patents on multimedia codecs are basically a patent on sight and sound, two inalienable senses of the human experience.

“Beyond that the monopolies (Microsoft and Apple) want to use software patents as a way to block free operating systems, to control the web, and to profit by taxing those who have to use these multimedia video and sound software patents.

“Multimedia software patents are completely against the idea of standards, or even standards that can be freely used on the web. We must try to educate those in power to reject software patents on video and audio codecs and to get free standards on these codecs for a free web. Not a web that will be controlled and taxed further by unnecessary Microsoft and Apple lockin.

“It is not enough to just have Theora or the new free Google codec.”
–Chips B. Malroy“As far as IBM and Google with their support of software patents. While we would be better off without the patents, in the meantime, Google has to play the patent game in some countries, as that is the law of the land in the USA. To be able to sue those who come against you, is a weapon that we should not say to Google; “do not sue MS or Apple.”

“It is not enough to just have Theora or the new free Google codec. All of these video and audio software codecs should be free if used on the web, as the web should be free. Free standards for a free web, should be the call. Invalidate the software patents on these video and audio codecs, and make them public domain.”

This point of view is further supported here:

Why Our Civilization’s Video Art and Culture is Threatened by the MPEG-LA

We’ve all heard how the h.264 is rolled over on patents and royalties. Even with these facts, I kept supporting the best-performing “delivery” codec in the market, which is h.264. “Let the best win”, I kept thinking. But it wasn’t until very recently when I was made aware that the problem is way deeper. No, my friends. It’s not just a matter of just “picking Theora” to export a video to Youtube and be clear of any litigation. MPEG-LA’s trick runs way deeper! The [street-smart] people at MPEG-LA have made sure that from the moment we use a camera or camcorder to shoot an mpeg2 (e.g. HDV cams) or h.264 video (e.g. digicams, HD dSLRs, AVCHD cams), we owe them royalties, even if the final video distributed was not encoded using their codecs! Let me show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Microsoft is of course choosing to lobby for MPEG-LA, of which it is a participant. Microsoft is going to use Internet Explorer^* to promote H.264 and Canonical’s old codec affairs won’t help, either:

Canonical licenses H.264 – Theora out for the count?

Canonical are currently the only Linux company to license H.264/AVC, the patented non-free technology used to compress video and favoured by companies such as Apple & Microsoft for HTML5 Video.

Neither RedHat, makers of Fedora, or Novell, makers of Suse, appear on the list of over 800 licensee’s.

What’s interesting is that the rival, if you will, to H.264 is the free and open codec Ogg Theroa which one would naturally assume would be the favoured choice for a Linux distribution’s parent to support.

Let us remember that MPEG-LA's CEO (Larry Horn) is a patent troll. TechDirt has just caught up with this news.

Joe Mullin has a great blog post, looking in detail at MobileMedia, a recently launched “company” that fits all the traditional characteristics of a “patent troll” or “non-practicing entity” (if you’d prefer). It doesn’t appear to do anything but hold patents, demand licensing fees and sue. So what’s so interesting about this one? Well, it’s a subsidiary of MPEG-LA, the company that manages some important digital video standards, and manages the patent pools related to them — and both companies have the same CEO.

[...]

What I find interesting, of course, is that many patent system folks have said that patent pools are the “answer” to issues like non-practicing entities filing crazy lawsuits. And yet, here we have an example of one of the major patent pooling administrators apparently deciding it’s more lucrative to get into the other side of the business instead…

In the meantime, while all this has been going on, it’s worth noting that Steve Jobs — one of the targets in this lawsuit — has apparently been telling people that MPEG-LA is getting ready to sue open video codecs, such as Theora, for patent infringement. Of course, such threats have been made before and never carried out — but if MPEG-LA now thinks that suing for patent infringement (rather than just alerting the patent holders to possible infringement) is the way to go these days, perhaps the lawsuits above were an opening salvo.

MPEG-LA is hardly a legitimate business if it bullies like this, but ISO, which is a farce that sells out to whoever has enough money to corrupt it, won’t do anything/much to stop this. As the president of the FFII put it yesterday, “ISO [is] pushing for a patent-free video codec, committee stuffing, yes you can do it [...] The analysis of patents is outside of the scope and competence of ISO and MPEG [...] MPEG believes that 20 years after its publication some technology will become royalty-free” (posted in Twitter).

One new writer at IDG puts it like this:

It’s Apple and Microsoft versus Google and Mozilla in a tag team match for the video codec in HTML5

[...]

As I wrote about earlier, there has been a horse race going on about which video codecs will be supported by HTML5. With the stakes so high, the race is starting to get a bit rougher. Now it is turning into a tag team match, with Apple and Microsoft on one side and Google and Mozilla on the other.

This past weekend both Apple (of the open standards according to Steve Jobs) and Microsoft (never afraid to assert an alleged patent claim) have supposedly put down the hammer that Ogg Theora (supported by Mozilla) and other open source video codecs may violate patents.

[...]

This sets up an interesting tag team match. On one side, the defenders of “open standards that we like” Apple and Microsoft. In the other corner, the open source champions Google and Mozilla. Hey maybe Adobe can be the guest referee? The winner of this match will determine what technology will underlie the video you watch on the web or your TV in the future.

Dana Blankenhorn has more to say about Apple:

Will Apple put its lawyers behind the open codec patent attack?

[..]

All this makes the pending decision in Bilski vs. Kappos, still unknown at this writing, so important. A decision that encourages Apple to proceed, especially against Google, may make for the biggest lawsuit of all time.

Apple has already sued Android through HTC.

Do not support Apple and Microsoft, though not just because they produce non-Free software and engage in anti-competitive activities (bad faith and conduct); they are also a threat to freedom in culture. This helps nobody but stakeholders like Disney, which Apple is tied to. █
_____
^* Not that Internet Explorer matters so much anymore. Even Microsoft-friendly meters like Net Applications (mostly from the US, secret data and secret methods, funded in part by Microsoft) say that Internet Explorer is losing browser share while about one in two Windows PCs is infected with no foreseeable solution, certainly not even snake oil marketing like this new example:

The word about Immunet’s free anti-virus solution is spreading fast. The agent installed on my computer tells me that there are currently 162,597 people in the Immunet Cloud, and that I’m protected from 12,637,576 threats. When I first installed it almost a month ago, the number of users was around 122,000.

Permalink Leave Your Comment Mail Send this to a friend

05.04.10

Patents Roundup: Red Hat on Patent Trolls; Apple Antitrust; Microsoft Attacks Theora, Which is Needed to Save Our Video Culture

Posted in Antitrust, Apple, Free/Libre Software, FUD, Microsoft, Novell, Patents, Red Hat at 2:47 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Ogg Theora is being smeared and demoted by Microsoft and its boosters while H.264 is pushed hard, even by Apple which now faces an antitrust inquiry for anti-competitiveness

A FEW days ago we summarised the Acacia hoopla by stating that it’s all over:

There is a somewhat belated announcement from Novell and Red Hat’s Rob Tiller wrote about it too. He is confident despite the fact that Red Hat does not always win against patent trolls [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].

We learned many things from this experience, but I’ll note just three here. We now know for certain that those in the business of bringing software patent lawsuits are not invincible, even in the supposedly patent-friendly jurisdiction of the Eastern District of Texas. We know that Texas juries are willing to reject bogus infringement claims and invalidate bad software patents. And we know that attacks on open source based on FUD will not stand up when subjected to the light of truth.

One blogger from Dr. Dobbs says that there is growth in “Theora FUD” at the moment (also to do with patent claims).

A blogger named Hugo Roy posted a piece called An Open Letter to Steve Jobs in which he picked on Steve a bit about the openness of H.264. A few valid points were made, but most interestingly, Hugo then posted an email response he says came from Steve himself, which included the following inflammatory quote:

A patent pool is being assembled to go after Theora and other “open source” codecs now. Unfortunately, just because something is open source, it doesn’t mean or guarantee that it doesn’t infringe on others patents.

If this is true, it is bad news for Theora indeed. Can the Mozilla foundation afford to hang a giant “Kick Me” sign on the next version of Firefox? Can they afford to litigate against even a single patent lawsuit, much less this consortium Steve is quoted as knowing of?

Apple’s many abuses as of late (going after bloggers, blocking third-party developers [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8], veiled threat against Ogg, etc.) do add up. The FTC has just launched an antitrust inquiry, which is not as bad as that may sound.

According to the New York Post, The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) are negotiating which of them will launch an inquiry into a clause in the iPhone OS 4 SDK that bans the porting of software originally written for Adobe’s Flash, Sun’s Java or Microsoft’s Silverlight/Mono to the iPhone OS.

The FTC is usually quite toothless and the FCC nearly went after Apple once before (right after Microsoft connections were formed inside the FCC). Apple also has an edgy history with European antitrust, mostly over the music business. What the FTC really needs to crack down on is AstroTurfing, including some from Microsoft [1, 2, 3]. The FTC promised that it would address the problem — one that we covered in old posts such as:

The FTC or the DOJ may also want to investigate Microsoft for racketeering [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. Microsoft has resorted to outright extortion against its #1 competition, which is GNU/Linux. As Penguin Pete put it:

Funny how it’s always Linux which Microsoft is alleging is infringing on Microsoft’s patent portfolio, isn’t it? Not FreeBSD, not OpenBSD, not NetBSD, not Solaris (open or closed), not Plan Nine From Bell Labs, not ReactOS, not Minix, not GNU-HURD, not any of the flavors of proprietary Unix.

This whole extortion may also end when the Bilski case is once again concluded, assuming that it also kills software patents. Patent trolls/lawyers and monopolies will fight tooth and nail for software patents. Justice Sonia Sotomayor is not helping, either.

Sonia Sotomayor, or Justice Sotomayor is the newest, and maybe the most worrying judge on the US Supreme Court.

Sotomayor was previously married to Kevin Noonan,[1] a patent lawyer who is very pro-patent.

SJVN wrote about the subject, starting with a sound bite that berates lawyers:

First, we kill all the patent lawyers

Actually, I don’t think we should kill all the patent lawyers. Some of my best friends are patent attorneys — no, really. But I’d happily stick a knife into the American patent system.

In the beginning, the U.S. patent system was meant to encourage inventors and innovation. Abraham Lincoln is reputed to have said, “The Patent System added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius.” That was then. This is now.

Today, unless the Supreme Court does the right thing and tosses out business practice and, by implication, software patents with the proper decision in the Bilski case, we’re stuck with a system designed to wreck anyone who actually tries to implement his own ideas.

You see, with many software patents there is no specific language, no hard code, but only descriptions of general processes that can be implemented in multiple ways. Now, you might think you could avoid patent trouble by looking up the appropriate patents and not using them. Good luck with that.

[...]

This is why Microsoft, despite being the loser in some whopping patent lawsuits, such as the $200 million-plus it owes i4i for violating its patents and the $1.5 billion it once owed Alcatel-Lucent, is happy to threaten other companies, especially those that use Linux or open-source software, such as Amazon and TomTom into licensing agreements.

That last example about Alcatel-Lucent includes reasons to embrace Theora, but Microsoft is strongly against Theora, as we recently explained and showed in:

Microsoft continues to justify ignoring Theora. They are using their familiar FUD to justify using something that they are covered for or paid for. As always, their friend Bott joins the attack on Theora (a pile of the usual Microsoft propaganda via ZDNet’s Bott/Foley). It’s extremely disingenuous and The Source explains why:

Oof. ZDNet’s Ed Bott attacks the FSF hard in “Ogg versus the world: don’t fall for open-source FUD“.

One issue

Mr. Bott calls out some of the points made on the PlayOgg FAQ as being “FUD”, “outright lies”, “technically absurd”, “factually dead wrong”, and maybe even downright anti-kittens-with-funny-captions-underneath.

Let’s look at one of his examples (we’ll only take the first one, but the entire article is chock-full of fallacious fun).

[...]

People like Mr. Bott who carry water for organizations like Microsoft are going to resort to hypocrisy, hair-splitting and strawman-bashing tactics.

For example, Mr. Bott seems quite content to quote the CEO of the MPEG-LA asserting that “no one in the market should be under the misimpression that other codecs such as Theora are patent free” in the very article where he is taking the FSF to task for FUD.

The MPEG-LA CEO is a patent troll. The Source concludes with: “So, be aware of that mindset when you write. There will always be someone out there ready to take a cheap shot or play integrity-free games with the point you are trying to make. You can’t stop them – because they aren’t after the truth – but you don’t have to give up free points on the goal either.”

“[P]atent trolls aren’t a pathology of [software patents], but a natural consequence of the system. Not a bug, a feature.”
–Carlo PianaCarlo Piana (Samba lawyer) explains that “Fighting trolls is [is not] getting rid of [software patents]. Getting rid of [software patents] is a way to defeat trolls, though.” He also shrewdly points out that “patent trolls aren’t a pathology of [software patents], but a natural consequence of the system. Not a bug, a feature.”

MPEG-LA is essentially a pool and an example of a troll/bully because of the way it coerces from the outside. As some other sources warn a lot these days, MPEG-LA is a huge risk to our culture because a lot of our videos got trapped in MPEG-LA’s so-called ‘property’ (MPEG-LA members are the ones to loot everyone and MPEG-LA is just their ‘front group’, a la MPAA/RIAA). We really need a codec like Theora and it should be defended from the self-serving members of MPEG-LA. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment Mail Send this to a friend

05.03.10

“Behind the Open Codec FUD Attack, W3C Captured by Microsoft, Apple, Nokia and So On?”

Posted in Apple, FUD, Microsoft, Novell, Patents at 2:09 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Microsoft and Apple continue their attack on freedom facilitation in the World Wide Web and Apple’s PR problem escalates

A FEW months ago we expressed concerns because Novell’s Jaffe, a vocal proponent of software patents, became the chief of the W3C (with chairs from Microsoft, Apple and IBM beneath him). In reality, the W3C should dump Apple and Microsoft for shunning Theora and promoting their software patents, but something has definitely gone amiss [1, 2]. Berners-Lee clearly opposes software patents, but Microsoft is injecting them into HTML (with Apple's support). The president of the FFII wonders loudly, “Behind the open codec FUD attack, W3C captured by Microsoft, Apple, Nokia and so on?” Florian is among those who are concerned about it too (no anti-IBM for a change, with defensible exceptions). As this new article puts it, both “Apple [and] Microsoft Come Out Against Open Source Video Codecs”; FFII’s president writes about it: “Microsoft opt for h264 video format in Internet Explorer, in order to kick other browsers who will be said “incompatible with this website”.”

Another blogger wonder what is “behind the open codec FUD attack” (in seeking of explanations, the simplest ones are usually most suitable):

The FUD attack launched against Ogg Theora and VP8, the very idea that they violate patents, is not aimed at the courts, but at the W3C, which held a conference on the coming HTML5 standards last week in Raleigh.

[...]

Microsoft and Apple are carrying the water of the content industries, which fear that losing control of the technology under which content is displayed results in losing control of the content itself. That control is expressed through the MPEG LA licensing body.

The $5 million license fee for the H.264 codec required by MPEG LA acts as a barrier to entry, both a financial and moral one. A licensee that doesn’t follow Hollywood’s rules could have its license pulled, and thus its product.

The money is chump change for Microsoft, and the barrier a good thing. It’s a matter of principle for open source.

Apple wants to shoot down Ogg just like is has shot down Lala months after acquiring the service (maybe due to relationships with Lala's competition). GNU/Linux users are negatively affected by this.

Apple iTunes on the web would be good news for a lot of people if it is launched. It would enable Linux users to purchase songs from their computers (Apple iTunes does not work on Linux).

TechDirt also ponders: “Apple Bought Lala To Shut It Down?”

Instead, it looks like Apple bought Lala to shut it down. Just five months or so after purchasing it, Apple has announced that Lala will be closing at the end of May, pissing off lots of users. Now, it’s entirely possible (or even likely) that Apple is timing the shutdown with a launch of a totally new streaming iTunes-in-the-cloud type service, but it does seem weird to buy a company and shut it down so quickly, and raises questions of whether or not the purchase was really about building out Apple’s offerings, or about shutting down a nascent competitor just before Apple launched its own version. Also, if the plan is to launch its own version, why “shut down” Lala? Why not just transfer them over to the new service?

TechDirt‘s Carlo Longino is one among many who criticised Apple for its hypocrisy [1, 2, 3, 4] when it comes to banning Flash (and MonoTouch [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]). “I think Flash is crap,” says this person who judges software from an accessibility standpoint.

But nothing against Linux at all.

As a blind person, I tried Ubuntu, just because they said It was accessible, so I wanted to see how accessible it was.

Turns out, from what I saw, not half bad.

Anyway, I think flash is crap too. From an accessibility standpoint, from what I’ve seen over my last 10 years of using the various screen readers such as Windoweyes and Jaws For Windows, flash is not very accessible, if at all.

Even if you don’t like apple at all, as of 2008 or so,you have to give it to them when it comes to accessibility.

Now that Apple receives a lot of negative publicity (e.g. [1, 2]) it actually finds supportive apologists (not just staunch Apple proponents that mock Android) who ought to read Wiki pages about Apple’s many offences against Free software and especially against GNU/Linux (Apple is fine with Free software when it makes Apple richer). To be fair, Apple is not so hostile towards web standards, but the hypocrisy stands.

According to TechCrunch, “Apple Patents The Invisible Button” and since Apple uses patents against GNU/Linux and never joined the OIN, this is a reason for concern (Apple sues Linux vendors). The FSF’s John Sullivan has published an article about Apple in Ars Technica (cited here before and now in Slashdot) and the FSF’s Web site put together a response to Steve Jobs’ ‘Thoughts on Flash’. It says:

In a response to an open letter from Hugo Roy of the Free Software Foundation Europe, Jobs claimed that free codecs like Ogg Theora could also infringe patents, but that does not justify making the internet standard for video a technology that is known to be patented by a group who is actively collecting royalties and suing people for infringement.

We have legal assurances from the only publicly claimed patent holders that Ogg Theora can be used both commercially and noncommercially, in any software, by anyone, without royalty.

Of course, other patents may arise, and we will have to fight them if they do. H.264 could also find itself dealing with some hitherto unknown patent claims in the future; that’s just the nature of the system. Buying a license to H.264 does not magically protect you from such submarine attacks.

The software patent system is broken and we will continue campaigning for its abolition. You can help with this campaign by watching and sharing the new film, Patent Absurdity: How software patents broke the system.

In the meantime, “Everything could be patented anyway” is not an argument for “Give up even trying and just submit to MPEG-LA.” It’s an argument for Ogg Theora, and against software patents.

Adobe might soon sue Apple, not just denounce it in public. Both companies are quite religiously proprietary, but both pretend that they are not (some pretend more effectively than others).

Steve Jobs anti-Adobe Flash rant is really quite a remarkable document both for what it says, and what it doesn’t say.

First, and foremost, there’s the fact that Jobs spends most of his time complaining about the Flash format and ignoring the real beef Adobe has with Apple. Sure Adobe doesn’t like that Apple won’t let Adobe Flash on its iPad/iPhone/iPod Touch platforms. But, that’s not what has Adobe executives ticked off to the point that they’re telling Apple to go screw themselves and that they’re quietly considering suing Apple.

It would be nice to see Gizmodo suing Apple after (it participated in) breaking the law when harassing and ‘assaulting’ a blogger. Here is a new cartoon on the subject, summarised as follows:

Gizmodo’s payment of $5,000 for a misplaced iPhone raises questions about the nature of journalism in the Internet age.

We’ve also covered the issue in some of the posts below. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment Mail Send this to a friend

05.02.10

Apple’s and Microsoft’s New Motto: Do More Evil, Together

Posted in Apple, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Patents at 4:01 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Original photo by Matthew Yohe, modified by Techrights for humour

Summary: Apple and Microsoft share tactical moves in their fight against common enemies, notably Linux and disablers of software patents

Increasing amounts of analysis and interpretation, not just anecdotal evidence, may suggest a correlation between Apple’s action against HTC/Android and Microsoft’s action against HTC/Android. At the very least, Apple and Microsoft fight against the freedom of software and the low cost which hits proprietary software’s business paradigms at their very core (no software acquisition costs, as opposed to costs associated with services and no revenue from patents on codecs for example).

Yesterday we wrote about Apple shutting down Lala shortly after acquiring it. We explained that it could have something to do with Apple's relationships inside the copyright cartel. Apple is also promoting software patents and working against Ogg Theora. Hugo Roy’s open letter, which shows this rather clearly, has just received a lot of attention, starting with his blog post that reached Slashdot.

May I remind you that H.264 is not an open standard? This video codec is covered by patents, and “vendors and commercial users of products which make use of H.264/AVC are expected to pay patent licensing royalties for the patented technology” (ref). This is why Mozilla Firefox and Opera have not adopted this video codec for their HTML5 implementation, and decided to chose Theora as a sustainable and open alternative.

[...]

From: Steve Jobs
To: Hugo Roy
Subject: Re:Open letter to Steve Jobs: Thoughts on Flash
Date 30/04/2010 15:21:17

All video codecs are covered by patents. A patent pool is being assembled to go after Theora and other “open source” codecs now. Unfortunately, just because something is open source, it doesn’t mean or guarantee that it doesn’t infringe on others patents. An open standard is different from being royalty free or open source.

Sent from my iPad

Since it was an open letter, I think I have the right to publish his answer.

Xiph already has a response about Apple: “It would only strengthen the pushback against software patents and add to Apple’s increasing PR mess.”

To quote more fully:

Here is Montgomery’s response:

Thomson Multimedia made their first veiled patent threats against Vorbis almost ten years ago. MPEG-LA has been rumbling for the past few years. Maybe this time it will actually come to something, but it hasn’t yet. I’ll get worried when the lawyers advise me to; i.e., not yet.

The MPEG-LA has insinuated for some time that it is impossible to build any video codec without infringing on at least some of their patents. That is, they assert they have a monopoly on all digital video compression technology, period, and it is illegal to even attempt to compete with them. Of course, they’ve been careful not to say quite exactly that.

If Jobs’s email is genuine, this is a powerful public gaffe (‘All video codecs are covered by patents.’) He’d be confirming MPEG’s assertion in plain language anyone can understand. It would only strengthen the pushback against software patents and add to Apple’s increasing PR mess. Macbooks and iPads may be pretty sweet, but creative individuals don’t really like to give their business to jackbooted thugs.

The FFII’s president says that “MPEGLA will go after Theora, Apple and Microsoft, along with a host of tech companies, are also members of MPEGLA” (MPEG-LA's CEO Larry Horn is a patent troll who extorts 'on the side').

Here is some of the press coverage about the implicit threat from Steve Jobs:

• Steve Jobs: mystery patent pool to attack Ogg Theora

• Patent Pool to Thwart Open Source Codecs

• Apple May Be Gunning for Open Source Codecs

• Patent challenge looming for open-source codecs?

If authentic, a new e-mail from Steve Jobs indicates that Apple and Microsoft–of all bedfellows–could be preparing to challenge the validity of open-source video codecs.

Jobs’ e-mail to Hugo Roy of the Free Software Foundation Europe, coupled with a similarly worded announcement from Microsoft on Friday, is a shot across the bow of backers of the open-source Ogg Theora video codec, used by Mozilla to bring HTML5 video technology to Firefox. Both Apple and Microsoft plan to use the h.264 codec in their HTML5 strategy, which is governed by a licensing body called MPEG LA. Apple and Microsoft, along with a host of tech companies, are also members of that group.

On a separate note, Apple’s (or Steve Jobs’) hypocrisy which we mentioned the other day is being exposed and criticised in Ars Technica which writes:

Pot, meet kettle: a response to Steve Jobs’ letter on Flash

[...]

Part of the reason why Flash and iPhone OS are proprietary is that Adobe and Apple agreed to the terms of the H.264 patent license. H.264, despite Jobs’s claim, is not a free standard—patents necessary to implement it are held by a group that requires all users to agree to a license with restrictive terms. Those terms have previously even been unavailable for examination online. We are publishing them on fsf.org today in order to comment on their unethical restrictions. The fact that H.264 is a commonly used standard does not make it a free standard—the terms of its use are what matter, and they require all licensed software to include the following notice:

THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED UNDER THE AVC PATENT PORTFOLIO LICENSE FOR THE PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE OF A CONSUMER TO (I) ENCODE VIDEO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AVC STANDARD (“AVC VIDEO”) AND/OR (II) DECODE AVC VIDEO THAT WAS ENCODED BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED IN A PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AND/OR WAS OBTAINED FROM A VIDEO PROVIDER LICENSED TO PROVIDE AVC VIDEO. NO LICENSE IS GRANTED OR SHALL BE IMPLIED FOR ANY OTHER USE. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED FROM MPEG LA, L.L.C. SEE HTTP://WWW.MPEGLA.COM

You’ll find similar language in the license agreements of Final Cut Studio, Google Chrome, Mac OS X, and Windows 7.

A Red Hat-run Web site covered this conundrum and so did another which went with the headline: “Meet the Hypocrites: Steve Jobs”

That led to the following paragraph:

Adobe’s Flash products are 100% proprietary. They are only available from Adobe, and Adobe has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing, etc. While Adobe’s Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system.

Notice anything curious about that paragraph? It’s a perfect description of Apple’s own business practices! Just replace “Adobe” and “Flash” with “Apple” and “iPhone”, “iPad”, “iPod/iTunes”, or “Mac” and you get a nicely worded four sentence critique of Jobs’ own company. Seriously… How can Jobs talk about openness when his notoriously secretive company is not only hypocritically on the warpath against Adobe, but recently goaded police into initiating a criminal investigation over the disappearance of Apple’s fourth generation iPhone prototype, which was lost by one of Jobs’ own employees!?

For some background about this, see [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]. Apple has spin on the sin.

Adobe is already drifting towards Linux by “giving employees Android phones with Flash,” according to Apple Insider.

Following Apple CEO Steve Jobs’ public attack on Flash this week, Adobe is now reportedly planning to give its employees Android phones running Flash.

Three sources familiar with Adobe’s plans told CNet that Adobe plans to give its employees mobile phones powered by Google’s Android mobile operating system, and running a new mobile version of Flash created for the platform. Adobe reportedly has not yet decided which Android phone it will give its employees, though “various HTC phones and the Nexus One” were specifically mentioned.

A reader of ours wrote just to say that “Adobe responds to Apple on Flash” and that it “Just goes to show what happens when you do business with a closed source company.” From the BBC he quotes a report which says that “Adobe confirms plans to move away from Apple” and in it Adobe CEO Shantanu Narayen is quoted as saying that “when you resort to licensing language” to restrict development, it has “nothing to do with technology”.

“Our view of the world is multi-platform.”
–Adobe CEO Shantanu NarayenFurther it says: “He said it was now “cumbersome” for developers who were forced to have “two workflows”.

“Mr Narayen said the problems highlighted by Mr Jobs were “a smokescreen”.

“He added that if Flash crashed Apple products it was something “to do with the Apple operating system”.

“He said he found it “amusing” that Mr Jobs thought that Flash was a closed platform.

“”We have different views of the world,” Mr Narayan told the Wall Street Journal. “Our view of the world is multi-platform.””

Our reader also made us aware that “Microsoft’s Internet Explorer 9 shuns open video”, which shows quite clearly that Microsoft’s ‘embrace’ of HTML5 was an embrace, extend, and extinguish move (who didn’t see that coming?). Microsoft may have embraced <video> only to ensure that Theora is not supported in it. For shame, Microsoft. Apple does the same thing and it's not surprising. Here is Microsoft’s spin in Slashdot and the original post that says:

H.264 is an industry standard, with broad and strong hardware support.

Define “industry standard”. What about software patents?

Our reader has insisted that Microsoft merely embraces “open ‘standards’ [with scare quote]” and that “Microsoft [is] yet again playing the ‘open standards’ shuffle.” He argues that Microsoft is more or less saying: “You can use our open codecs but only on our closed proprietary system, and as long as you pay us our royalties.”

“Microsoft [is] yet again playing the ‘open standards’ shuffle.”
–Anonymous readerApple and Microsoft are very much together in this. To them, Free software is a common enemy which is very strong and at the very least forces Microsoft and Apple to keep their prices down.

Here is a new article titled “In Mobile Video Standards Fight, Consumers Are Poised to Lose” and signs that Korea finally learns its lessons from ActiveX [1, 2] and moves further away from Internet Explorer, which does not support Theora, either. From Mozilla we learn:

For those of you who have followed my blog, you know that it has been 3 years since I first reported on the fact that Korea does not use SSL for secure transactions over the Interent but instead a PKI mechanism that limits users to the Windows OS and Internet Explorer as a browser. Nothing fundamentally has changed but there are new pressures on the status quo that may break open South Korean for competition in the browser market in the future.

[...]

Dr. Keechang Kim of Korea University has been working tirelessly for many years to try to change the status quo in Korea around browsers and the reliance on a PKI mechanism that is tied to one platform. With concern being raised by different parts of the Korean government, including the Korean Communications Commission as well as the Office of the President of Korea, Keechang has gathered a very interesting panel of presentations for April 29th in Seoul. The panelists will be addressing the (Korean) Financial Supervisory Service (FSS) which is the regulatory body in Korea that is currently mandating the PKI mechanism that is in place today (which requires Active-X, etc.) Unless the FSS relaxes or changes their regulations, Korean banks cannot offer other mechanisms for Korean users to bank online, etc. In short, unless the FSS changes their stance, nothing will change in Korea.

[...]

Thank you to Keechang and everyone in the OpenWeb.or.kr community for your tireless efforts to try to break open the Korean market. Thank you also to Channy Yun who has put aside his own schedule in order to participate and guide Lucas in Seoul. There is still a long road to walk to an open, competitive market in S. Korea for browsers, but I am starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel.

Speaking of security, Netcraft writes about security issues and points out that “Windows users are vulnerable to flaw in Java Web Start”. Korea ought to change its preferred platform too.

One might argue that Apple’s big sin here is that it’s greedy and that the same applies to Microsoft. But in fact, both companies misbehave in ways that go beyond this. “Boycott Apple,” says a new headline from LinuxToday’s editor, stating the case against Apple for its abuse of bloggers.

This is an abuse of police powers, an exercise in intimidation. The message is clear: annoy Apple, and Apple will crush you like a bug. A more appropriate response would have been dueling lawyers firing subpoenas at each other and racking up the appropriate number of billable hours. The most appropriate response would have been “Oops, we goofed, we let one of our trade secrets out, we need to be more careful.”

Trade secrets are exposed all the time. Execs lose things. Employees blab. Some journalists feel it is beneath their dignity to take advantage of such lapses. But it is not our job to protect their trade secrets, and especially not in this era of intellectual property madness where the balance of power is tipped heavily into the hands of big business, and every last little thing that displeases the corporate overlords is criminalized.

[...]

At best, in my un-legal but common-sense opinion, this is a minor civil matter, and surely not a criminal case that warrants a door-busting raid and possible felony charges. Both Mr. Hogan and Mr. Chen face possible felony charges, which is utterly insane.

Attacking messengers seems to be Apple’s unofficial way out of it after it bullied Gizmodo and received bad press (context below). █

Permalink Leave Your Comment Mail Send this to a friend

“Those Who Can, Do. Those Who Can’t, Sue.” (Updated)

Posted in Apple, Europe, Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Patents at 2:38 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Steve Ballmer Summary: Microsoft may have actually threatened to sue HTC in order to sign a patent deal covering Android for unnamed patents

“Those who can, do. Those who can’t, sue,” said Canonical’s COO Matt Asay. Further he said: “This is the clearest indication of MS’s irrelevance: it’s now the hapless litigant” (whose products are being cancelled, Courier being the latest example).

He said pretty much the same thing about Apple when it sued HTC.

Florian wrote about Microsoft software patents in Europe, alluding to the bizarre new decision regarding FAT (at the core of the TomTom lawsuit).

Last week the Federal Court of Justice of Germany upheld a Microsoft patent related to the Windows file system named File Allocation Table (FAT). As H-Online mentioned in this context, European software patent critics dread the notion that rulings such as that one could elevate the status of software patents in Europe, where different national courts have different approaches to how to interpret the European Patent Convention and its exclusion of patents on “programs for computers [as such]“.

So Microsoft has just gone after HTC. Some articles suggest that there was a settlement and therefore a possibility that Microsoft threatened to sue in order to sign a patent deal (like in Melco’s case).

Some more thoughts about the HTC settlement have come from various influential GNU/Linux users, some of whom wait for software patents to be ultimately abolished.

I believe Bilski will be decided this year and software patents may be kicked into the garbage heap where they belong.

The other day we wrote about Klausner's latest round of patent trolling (against HTC). Here is another interesting perspective about what Apple and Microsoft did to HTC (and to Android by inference).

Microsoft claims that the Linux operating system infringes 235 Microsoft patents, and Android, which is Linux-based, violates Microsoft patents, too. Microsoft has convinced HTC to pay royalties for the alleged Microsoft technology in Google’s operating system.

Why would HTC do that?

Well, Apple is suing HTC for violating 20 Apple patents covering a wide range of technologies. One theory is that with both Microsoft and Apple claiming patent infringement, HTC has to pick sides. It chose Microsoft because the company also makes a wide variety of devices that run Microsoft operating systems. Because it has an extensive relationship with Microsoft, and none with Apple, choosing to work with Microsoft solves its Apple problem. In court, apparently HTC will be able to say that it’s already licensing the technology Apple claims as its own, but from Microsoft. That would imply that Apple’s beef is really with Microsoft, not with HTC. Case closed!

Can anyone confirm that Microsoft pressured and intimidated HTC (with a lawsuit) in order to sign that latest extortion deal [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]? Microsoft tried to paint it as something signed in good faith, but it’s beginning to seem doubtful. █

Update: Florian wishes to correct that last reference by saying (via E-mail):

The “interesting perspective” you quote from the Datamation article on HTC is actually legally wrong. I’ve already contacted the author of that article and here’s the information for you as well:

Every patent stands on its own. Every patent is a little monopoly. So if Apple has some patents that read on HTC’s software, HTC can’t defend itself in court by saying it has a license from Microsoft. That’s legally impossible as a defense. Not only is it very likely that Apple’s patents read on different features (touchscreen etc.) than Microsoft’s patents (there may be some overlap but it’s just impossible that two such large players would have 100% overlapping patent portfolios), but even if that unrealistic scenario of both patent portfolios covering the same functionality that HTC needs was the case, then that still wouldn’t change anything about the monopoly rights connected to each single patent. If Apple has a patent on, say, selecting a menu on a touchscreen and Microsoft has one as well, and if there aren’t differences in the details of the “methods taught”, the fact that there are two patents on the same thing doesn’t mean you get a license to one of them and don’t need the other. Instead, it would have to be sorted out whether one of those patents is prior art based on which the other (newer) patent could be invalidated. Only in that case would it be sufficient to obtain only one patent license.

Permalink Leave Your Comment Mail Send this to a friend

05.01.10

Microsoft Has Just Shot the Courier (Yet Another Dead Product)

Posted in Apple, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Windows at 7:59 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Microsoft’s huge list of dead products and divisions expands further as an attempt to challenge GNU/Linux (and Apple) falls short of arrival

THE “Courier”, which we called "Vapourware" just two months ago, never existed. No, really, it didn’t. Microsoft does not want anybody to know about this failed experiment, which was mostly about buzz and showoff at the time. Microsoft does not want the world to know that it runs away with its tail between its legs because GNU/Linux and hypePad are too strong a competition, so the news about “Courier” dying only came through unofficial sources. Gizmodo is cited by everyone as the original report.

According to sources familiar with the matter, Microsoft has cancelled Courier, the folding, two-screen prototype tablet that was first uncovered by Gizmodo.

We’re told that on Wednesday, Microsoft execs informed the internal team that had been working on the tablet device that the project would no longer be supported. Courier had never been publicly announced or acknowledged as a Microsoft product.

Will Microsoft start bullying Gizmodo like Apple does (to identify leakers, for example)? Or it is more familiar with the ‘Streisand effect’? As a recap, see:

We have more on that string of stories coming shortly.

Anyway, the big news is that Microsoft has just declared/rendered another one of its products “dead”. It’s part of a trend as the company goes deeper into debt and it cannot afford to bring to market ideas that are too risky (as they would almost certainly fail).

Surface failed badly in the market and Microsoft wanted to axe it before its arrival too; it only survived because Bill Gates personally insisted on it, despite Bach’s advice (a correct intuition in retrospect).

Speaking of failure, Microsoft loves to tout just one product as a success these days; it’s called Vista 7 and just like Windows Vista it leads Microsoft to bragging with fake numbers (which we explained in [1, 2, 3]). “Success Delayed is Failure,” is what Pogson called the tricks Microsoft uses.

The last quarterly report looked good only if you ignore the inclusion of deferred licences from other quarters for “7″. The next quarterly report will be more honest. I look forward to the end of April.

The failure of “Courier” is not necessarily a great sign for hypePad, which is overpriced when one considers what Apple does for price fixing/price elevation in so-called ‘content’. As Slashdot put it yesterday, “Apple Raises E-book Prices For Everyone”

“Tablets and E-readers which run Linux are coming from many directions right now, including ASUS and Dell.”Slashdot says that Apple is also shutting down Lala, only months after it acquired it. Too much of a competition? A few months ago we explained that Microsoft (and Apple) promote the MPEG-LA-LA Land and that Apple would destroy Lala. We turn out to have been right all along now that Apple is mercilessly killing Lala, which poses a challenge to Apple’s other business models and partners. A friend told me today about Apple killing or blocking applications that give people access to low-cost or no-cost literature (I had not heard about the company that he mentioned until then). Apple is essentially fighting for Hollywood and against the developing world, as it would keep access to knowledge limited, even with strictly proprietary and patented codecs. It’s not entirely surprising given Apple's connections in the entertainment industry, which in turn offers positive coverage for the hypePad (it’s a reciprocal relationship and Apple usually appeals to the mass media).

Later on we are going to elaborate on Apple's fresh attacks on software freedom. Tablets and E-readers which run Linux are coming from many directions right now, including ASUS and Dell. We typically give such examples in our daily batches of links, but here we present 3 new examples separately.

ASUS has a Linux-powered tablet coming:

It looks as if ASUStek is coming back into the fold of FLOSS with a new product this summer, a tablet-format PC. If it runs Android, is it ARM-based? Amen! That may be the best way for an OEM to escape Wintel.

Dell has a Linux-powered “Slate” coming:

A leaked slide from Dell’s mobile roadmap deck shows 5 inch and 7 inch slates running Android and MeeGo, a 3G slate bundled by Vodafone plus two ARM-powered 11 inch ‘smartbooks’.

There is also JooJoo, which has just been covered by ZDNet UK:

The device is a rival to the iPad. It has a larger screen than Apple’s slate, with a standard 16:9 ratio. It also runs a version of Linux, unlike the iPad, which runs the same operating system as that used by the iPhone handset.

As Jan Wildeboer (of Red Hat/Fedora but speaking for himself) pointed out some hours ago, “nobody offers windows tablets. That’s the message.” █

Permalink Leave Your Comment Mail Send this to a friend