03.14.16

Links 14/3/2016: Linux 4.5, KaOS 2016.03

Posted in News Roundup at 7:00 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

03.13.16

Microsoft Accused of “Patent Trolling” While the United States Moves Closer to Restricting Patent Trolls

Posted in America, Microsoft, Patents at 7:37 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“The Commission cannot unilaterally take away a fundamental right of defense.”

–Horacio Gutierrez, Microsoft hypocrite who collects ‘protection money’ from companies that use/distribute Linux

Summary: Patent aggressors like Microsoft and non-producing firms that take software patents to the Eastern District of Texas in order to extract money from producing companies have attracted unwanted attention from people who can put a stop to it

The recent articles about Microsoft’s patent aggression (4 articles about it [1, 2, 3, 4]) have attracted a lot of traffic (our cache server got 22,986,674 hits in the past 4 weeks) and this led to a lot of articles in all sorts of media, including non-English media. This thread titled “Microsoft Linux patent trolling might be extending into the blockchain with microsoft Azure”, for instance, links to this article which in turn cites us and says:

Microsoft has launched another anti-open source software campaign in the last few weeks, targeting prominent Linux and free software companies. They’re attempting to limit open-source development with buy-outs, patent trolling, and charging royalties for products that use Linux. Their recent efforts have them grabbing up patents for open source technology including software developed by Canonical, publishers of the most popular Linux distribution, Ubuntu.

[...]

This isn’t the first time Microsoft has used this methodology to try and hamper innovation in the open source community. They used similar techniques in 2006 by entering a patent agreement with Novell software concerning the sale of enterprise Linux products. They’ve done the same thing recently by applying for patents on their Continuum technology, (a similar software, called Convergence, had been in development at Canonical in the years prior) and Signing a patent deal with Rakuten Inc. that covers Android and Linux devices. Microsoft Uses these agreements to go after open-source software that hurts their margins, attempting to cripple innovation by circumventing the protections provided from open-source licensing. They use these cases as precedent to establish that Linux and other open source software is their Intellectual Property. These cases are typically covered by mainstream media outlets with considerable bias, painting Microsoft as protecting against infringement, when in reality the opposite is true.

[...]

In today’s legal and software development environments, open source licensing is no longer enough to protect projects that companies have an interest in kneecapping, as we’ve discussed in a previous article. Microsoft has done this in the past, so what’s stopping them from doing it again with the blockchain and cryptocurrencies? Not a whole lot at present. All it takes is a patent agreement with a smaller company that can’t afford a legal battle to start the process in the blockchain ecosystem to get Microsoft’s ball rolling again.

Microsoft is not a classic patent troll because it still has its own products in the mobile domain. But how long for?

“Microsoft is not a classic patent troll because it still has its own products in the mobile domain.”According to this article from MIP, “TC Heartland will be heard today March 11 [that's days ago]. The case seeks to overturn the 1990 Federal Circuit case VE Holding v Johnson Gas Appliance, which gave patent owners more options on where to sue” (usually Eastern District of Texas [1, 2, 3]).

“A few months ago,” wrote another author, “I was at the Eastern District of Texas Bench and Bar Conference, and I started talking to a federal district judge about her views of the then-imminent demise of Form 18, the form that essentially made it sufficient for a complaint alleging direct infringement to include only barebones allegations of the facts. Her response was, “it’s going to be Rule 12 hell.””

The same author later asked (in the headline): “What Would Happen to Patent Cases if They Couldn’t all be Filed in Texas?”

“Wadhwa is not a patent troll but more of an academic and entrepreneur. Contrast his views with those of Neil Wilkof (IP Kat), who earlier today was softening the image of patent trolls and downplaying the issues associated with trolls.”“So,” he said, “where does this leave us? Many cases would have to move, and not just those filed by NPEs [trolls]. Even so, a decent number of cases could have stayed in the same location. That Delaware and Northern California would be the most popular is unsurprising given how many defendants are incorporated in Delaware or headquartered in Silicon Valley. Perhaps more surprising is that Eastern Texas remains third on the list, albeit with a much smaller percent of cases. These cases would likely be filed against retailers selling patented goods from stores located in that district, though there were some defendants in our sample that were headquartered there.”

A new article by Vivek Wadhwa, whom we habitually cite here, wishes to put an end to all this costly and spurious/frivolous litigation. In AOL he wrote the other day: “What’s best for innovation is a thriving ecosystem in which companies build on each other’s ideas and constantly reinvent themselves—instead of trying to slow each other down in the courts.

“It’s bad enough when big companies with deep pockets battle each other, but for young companies, lawsuits can be fatal.

“Fledgling innovators have to live in constant fear of a big player or patent troll pulling out a big gun and bankrupting them. For startups, this is a greater concern than someone stealing their ideas.”

Wadhwa is not a patent troll but more of an academic and entrepreneur. Contrast his views with those of Neil Wilkof (IP Kat), who earlier today was softening the image of patent trolls and downplaying the issues associated with trolls. He wrote: “In November 2013, as this Kat previously reported, over 60 intellectual property professors sent a letter to the United States Congress, setting out their critique of the patent system and suggestions for reform. Inter alia, the letter discussed the negative aggregate effect of patent trolls on innovation…”

Which everyone seems to be well aware of. It’s hardly deniable.

“Interestingly, as this Kat has suggested elsewhere, the poster child for the risks (or opportunities) in the potential for scaling-up patent trolling, namely Intellectual Ventures, seems to have a significantly lowered public presence.”
      –Neil Wilkof“In a word,” Wilkof added, “there simply seems to be less buzz about the subject. Interestingly, as this Kat has suggested elsewhere, the poster child for the risks (or opportunities) in the potential for scaling-up patent trolling, namely Intellectual Ventures, seems to have a significantly lowered public presence. Whether a cause or effect of the more general decline of the patent troll is an interesting question. Moreover, this Kat wonders whether the difficulty in defining what is meant by a patent troll has also contributed to this decline.”

Intellectual Ventures is a massive Microsoft-connected patent troll (one of several) and it indeed suffered layoffs. Nevertheless, there are also thousands of satellites around Intellectual Ventures, so it’s hard to tell if it’s shrinking, growing, or just morphing.

Among people who defend patent trolls (and sometimes get funded by them, e.g. IAM ‘magazine’) it’s common to see claims that “troll” is undefined and the word hardly gets mentioned at all. Look at this comment on Wilkof’s article, which says: “the Sea Change at the courts, effectively reversing State Street and finding (over and over again) ineligible the claimed subject matter that is being asserted by the NPE. After all, most of the claims asserted by the NPE’s are business methods with a contribution to the useful arts that we can summarise as “do it on the internet”. Investors have rumbled that such claims simply don’t cut the mustard any more.”

What he/she/they mean to say is, these are “over the Internet” software patents; that’s one of the most popular weapons of patent trolls.

“We wrote a great deal about both the PATENT Act and Innovation Act and explained repeatedly that these are designed to help big corporations at the expense of patent trolls, rather than help society as a whole at the expense of patent trolls.”Now that patent trolls are back on the agenda in the US (first time since last summer’s recess at Congress), some writers pretend that we need trolls for “innovation”. This one example says: “Our future economy is based on innovation, like the many life science and biotechnology companies being developed in Kentucky. Not only is our industry helping to tackle some of the world’s greatest health threats, but we are doing so while creating the next generation of jobs.”

This guy thinks that innovation cannot happen without patents in every single domain? Or that combating patent trolls is someone bad for small businesses? Pretending that curbing the wave of patent trolls can actually harm small businesses (which trolls usually extort until they’re bankrupt) is misleading at best. Here is another new example from the news. “S 1137 (the PATENT Act) and HR 9 (the Innovation Act),” says this person, “would change the way patent lawsuits are handled. The new process would create a complex and expensive legal patchwork that would make it nearly impossible for small and medium-sized businesses and inventors to defend their patents. While large corporations and their teams of high-priced attorneys will be impacted little by the changes in these bills, those without the resources to defend their patents will be devastated.”

We wrote a great deal about both the PATENT Act and Innovation Act and explained repeatedly that these are designed to help big corporations at the expense of patent trolls, rather than help society as a whole at the expense of patent trolls. It does not, however, mean that these so-called ‘reforms’ are undesirable or detrimental to small businesses which actually produce things (i.e. not patent trolls). █

Permalink A Single Comment      Send this to a friend

EPO Under Benoît Battistelli: Nepotism, Misinformation, Poor Patent Quality, Terrible Working Conditions, and Increase in Prices

Posted in America, Asia, Europe, Patents at 6:45 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Descending to Chinese standards on integrity, quality, and human rights

EPO President Benoît Battistelli and SIPO Commissioner Tian Lipu (even the red flags match). Credit: EPO Web site.

Summary: A look at the ugly legacy of Battistelli, who has turned an Office with international reputation into a ‘factory’ like the USPTO or SIPO (in China)

THE EPO has not been doing a good job preserving its reputation when it let software patents slip in (from the back door) and later, based on a leaked document, started treating patent applications in a discriminatory fashion and an embarrassing manner. “There is nothing in the EPC which allows the EPO to handle applications differently,” wrote this person earlier today.

Based on a lot of sources, some of which chose to do this publicly, EPO 'results' are bunk and some rightly suggest that an external audit of these ‘results’ is urgently needed. As this little poem put it earlier today:

C ould it be I’m getting pendantic?
O r is granting patents so romantic?
O ver embellishment of the statistics
K nown now for years by realistics
E xternal audit,lay the books bare
D oes this AC really care?

It might not be enough to do an external investigation into the union-busting activities; the Office as a whole needs to come under outside scrutiny. Moreover, verification of the so-called ‘results’ is desperately required. Some EPO examiners (choosing to comment anonymously for their own protection) admit that examination quality is poor now, especially under Battistelli. As one person put it earlier today (sarcastically):

Please forgive me if my post is a bit off topic. I have to tell it.

I’m one of the few “fossiles” left in The Hague. Those who started more than 30 years ago, performing searches through mountains of paper and providing both the colleagues in München and our applicants with prior art indicating the novelty destroying “X” documents and the position of the competitors.

Then came BEST, with its holy 14% productivity increase, together with the non-written rule: “Find anything against claim 1, and don’t waste your time looking for the other claims.” What was passed over is that following this dirty search many applicants were able to restore novelty after the first communication. And so, a new search was then required. At least for those of us having a bit of professional pride left, and of course for free. Farewell state of the art. Farewell complete searches. Cut the corners and hurry up.

Thanks to ISO 9001, the quality at the EPO improved far beyond any hope. Short ago, I’ve had the traditional new-year meeting with my director. Here is what I learned. Quality millesime 2016 is having no search or examination files in the red list (read “delayed”), no more than 3 published patents older than 6 months awaiting to be classified, no grants from a colleague in the examining division awaiting signature since more than 2 weeks. Highly important matters, as one can imagine. But not for inventors, not for the applicants and not for all those who pay for our work. The content of the search report/search opinion/communication interests NOBODY. Copy/paste an article of the Süddeutsche and it will reach the representative unnoticed. Like a fig leaf hiding the attributes of a horny satyr, our search strategies are now made public. Useless nonsense in terms of quality as only those who want to see can see. And being blind is so convenient for an examiner eager to reach a high productivity. How many times, as chairman, have I seen the sentence “the preparation process being novel then the product is novel too”. But thanks to ISO 9001 we are the champions of the world.

Gloria in excelcis Battistelli.

“This all ends up looking less like Europe of old and more like the US,” another person wrote, noting:

In my experience, ECFS has resulted in some EPO examiners becoming more and more inclined to take a superficial view of compliance with the provisions of the EPC, and to go for as many “easy wins” as possible.

The result? More patents of questionable validity and, worst of all, more patents with claims that are completely unclear. This means more (and much harder) work, and greater expense, for third parties seeking to clear the way.

This might just be acceptable if the OD was a reliable arbiter, diligently weeding out the dodgy claims that somehow made it through the coarse filter of examination. However, given the number of times that my eyebrows have been raised when reading 1st instance decisions, I don’t think that the OD can be relied upon to deliver justice often enough.

This all ends up looking less like Europe of old and more like the US – with a significant percentage of dodgy patents being granted and with 3rd parties being reluctant to challenge due to the high costs and uncertainties involved. Perhaps we can live with that. However, should the management of the EPO really be the ones deciding that this is where we end up? It does not seem the most democratic way of proceeding.

Quality at the USPTO is horrible and it’s not surprising that the number of patents is soaring, not because of growth in innovation. China is more or less the same. On the 1^st of April (and it’s not a joke) the EPO will be increasing fees, in spite of its poor service, as D Young & Co wishes to remind us right now, noting: “Not all fees are increasing and where they are, compared with past rises, the increases are relatively small (2% maximum).”

In short, EPO in its current state of affairs grants patents sparingly, distorts statistics about patents, increases patent fees, treats applications from large corporations as a matter of priority and so on. How can Battistelli tell (with a straight face) to the Administrative Council that he has done an acceptable job? As we shall show later tomorrow, Battistelli is on his way out (high probability as there are already succession plans). █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

L’Office Européen des Brevets (OEB/European Patent Office) Kontrovers Coverage

Posted in Europe, Patents at 1:24 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Bayerisches Fernsehen

Summary: The Bayerischer Rundfunk (BR) program covering the European Patent Office with French subtitles added

THE Kontrovers program below helps explain why suicides are said to have grown tenfold under Battistelli's regime. EPO management finding itself scrutinised in the BR Kontrovers TV coverage was revealingly noteworthy, so in addition to the original in German we now host a French version too:

Last but not least will be the English version, which probably targets the broadest audience because of the nature of our readership. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

European Patent Office Kontrovers TV Coverage (English Version)

Posted in Europe, Patents at 1:23 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

One man’s story gets told (televised even) so that others won’t have to go through what he did (implicating what EPO staff memorably calls ‘Gestapo’ [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7])

Summary: A television program which demonstrates the correlation between aggressive EPO management and staff suicides preserved as a cautionary tale

HAVING just published the original in German and also the French version (subtitled), we now publish the English version that was shared here in Flash form before (via YouTube).

This Kontrovers program provides food for though to delegates, who can be directly contacted (e.g. with concerns) ahead of this week’s Administrative Council meeting. They too get bullied by for expressing dissent.

There are two main themes/ways in which EPO management tries to justify its abuses and iron-fisted governance approach (suicides unsurprisingly grew tenfold); one is to say about the employees that they’re “well paid” (or something along those lines, as it monetary compensation exempts them from human rights) and the other is all about “results” (which is a basically a lie). █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Kontrovers Coverage of Abuses at the European Patent Office (With Subtitles Added)

Posted in Europe, Patents at 12:58 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: A video of the recent Bayerischer Rundfunk program which dealt with the European Patent Office (primarily but not only in Munich)

THE recent (beginning of this month) Kontrovers program about the EPO is no longer available online (there’s a 5-day catchup period and the link we provided before now returns a 404 error). We now have the program in one complete piece, not in two parts (hosted over at YouTube). Someone sent it to us with German subtitles for the sake of viewers who are deaf. In order to avoid software patents/traps associated with many multimedia formats we have encoded the video in Ogg format and here it is below (should be playable in most modern Web browsers).

Next to come are the French and English versions. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Benjamin Henrion’s (FFII) FOSDEM Talk About UPC and Software Patents in Europe

Posted in Europe, Patents at 12:06 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: A streamable and patents-free version of the video taken at Benjamin Henrion’s recent presentation in Brussels

THE EPO under the current management is trying to improve its bunk 'results' by expanding patent scope and bringing software patents to Europe. We have been writing about this for a number of years and warned about the UPC (and its previous incarnations) for well over half a decade.

Benjamin Henrion, President of the FFII, finally noted that a video of his FOSDEM talk had been produced/uploaded. We have converted that into Ogg format for streaming over one’s browser without heavily-patented formats such as MPEG. The video was taken from afar, but the audio quality is probably decent enough to be useful. As we noted before, the slides can be found right here [PDF].

We are still working to produce (encode) videos of the Kontrovers program which evidently scares EPO management because it exposes its role in the negative workspace atmosphere, including at least some of the suicides. █

Permalink 2 Comments      Send this to a friend

Microsoft Has Chantajeado a Linux Dos Veces en Una Semana y los Medios Ni Siquiera lo Notaron o Simplemente lo Ignoraron Por la Ofensiva Encantadora de Microsoft

Posted in Deception, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Patents at 11:25 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

English/Original

Publicado en Decepción, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Patentes at 2:24 pm por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

¿Cuánta gente se ha dado cuenta (al menos haber escrito acerca de) el arreglo de patentes entre Microsoft y Winstron y Rakuten que explícitamente cubren linux?

Enviar a los periodistas en varias direcciónes para distraerlos de las verdaderamente vergonzósas noticias

Sumario: Microsoft ama a Linux lo suficiente para extrángularlo con patentes mientras que los medios no están prestando atención y en su lugar nos dicen que Microsoft es un compadre o ¨socio¨ de GNU/Linux

MICROSOFT ha – talvez deliberadamente on no – estado distrayendo a los medios y disfrázando varios ataques de patentes contra Linux por medio de la ¨presunción de abierto¨ sus últimas cruzadas proprietarias (trayéndo Microsoft software proprietario y su candado al FOSS y/o GNU/Linux). Para aquellos que han estado viviéndo bajo una roca desde el 2006 (el acuerdo de patentes con Novell), Microsoft está tratando de imponer impuestos sobre GNU/Linux, increméntando sus costos mientras al mismo tiempo convirtiéndolo en una vaca de dinero para Microsoft (de la misma manera que lo hace con Android actualmente), mediante el el uso de patentes de software. Microsoft SIEMPRE COERCE a las partes chantajadas a decir (públicamente) que todo es amigable mientras los arreglos esta envueltos en una saband de NDAs (Acuerdos de No Disclosure). Dimos un ejemplo de esto el mes pasado (ACER). No sólo es injusto; de acuerdo al Acta RICO, esto debería venir a investigación por potenciales violaciones de la ley. Esto, en nuestro punto de vista, es crimen organizado. “Eso es extorsión,” dijo Mark Shuttleworth (fundador de Canonical) varios años atrás, “y lo deberíamos llamar por lo que es. Decir como Ballmer dijo, que hay una secreta página de balance de responsabilidad, es simplemente EXTORSIÓN y deberíamos rechazar ser arrastrados en su juego.¨ En otra ocasión dijo a los medios: ¨Microsoft esta pidiéndo a la gente a que pague por patentes, pero ellos no dicen cuales. Si un tipo entra a un negocio y dice: ¨Es un barrio peligroso, por que no me pagas 20 dólares y me aseguraré que estes bien,¨ eso es ILEGAL, es CRIMEN ORGANIZADO.¨

Para añadir insulto a la herida, Microsoft esta ESTAFÁNDO a GNU/Linux (Canonical en este ejemplo) y luego PATENTANDO LAS IDEAS DE CANONICAL/UBUNTU. Veán este nuevo artículo de un sitio propagandista de Microsoft. Es títulado “Microsoft aplica por patente Continuum” y los comentarios al respecto dicen (entre otras cosas): “El asunto que los medios principales piensan que esto es una idea de Microsoft, e incluso llama al Ubuntu convergencia siendo inspirada por continuum. !Qué tal concha!

“Para añadir insulto a la herida, Microsoft esta ESTAFÁNDO a GNU/Linux (Canonical en este ejemplo) y luego PATENTANDO LAS IDEAS DE CANONICAL/UBUNTU.”“Canonical demoró mucho tiempo para entregar (y en realidad todavía no lo hizo) la idea de convergencia, ahora es muy tarde y el teléfono de Ubuntu morirá pronto ”

Citando comentarios del artículo mismo tenemos: “Me pregunto como esta patente se compara con Convergencia de Ubuntu que ellos han estado DESARROLLANDO POR AÑOS? Esencialmente parece ser lo mismo ya que los teléfonos de Ubuntu se conectan a un monitor y actúan como un órdenador completo.”

Otra persona escribió: ¨No estoy seguro que MS lo consiga. El argumento de Arte Previo. Ubunto ha estado trabajando en la misma cosa los últimos años. Lo llaman ¨Convergencia¨, ha estado a prueba por el último año o más… sin mencionar su previo projecto de incluir ambos Android y Ubunto en el mismo aparato, con los mismos propósitos.¨

“A pesar de ser cualquier cosa que un innovador, Microsoft está EXTORSIONANDO A COMPAÑÍAS detrás de las escenas USANDO ESTAS PATENTES FALSAS.”“No vale la pena hacerlo,” otra persona escribió. “Continuum ha sido hecho con Convergencia Ubuntu, y pienso que KDE Plasma Mobile esta trabajando en algo similar también. Microsoft esta simplemente tratando de ganar una patente para tener algo conlo que puedan tener algo con lo que puedan evitar a todo el mundo de hacerlo por la amenaza de juicios. En otras palabras, Microsofting a la competición.”

Entre los otros comentarios tenemos ¨Arte Previo esta en todos lados¨ y ¨Esto es una patente de mierda.¨

A pesar de ser cualquier cosa que un innovador, Microsoft está EXTORSIONANDO A COMPAÑÍAS detrás de las escenas USANDO ESTAS PATENTES FALSAS. Hace unos días [1, 2, 3]. Un montón de sitios no lo hicieron por estar ocupados escribiendo ¨piezas de hojaldre¨ acerca de Microsoft ¨abrazando¨ a FOSS o Linux (Microsoft nunca abraza excepto en el sentido E.E.E -Abraza, Extiende y Extingue). ¨El arreglo,¨ WIPR dijo, ¨anunciado el Lunes 7 de Marzo, cubre las Tabletas de Winstron, teléfonos móbiles, e-readers y otros aparatos que usan Android y Chrome que caen bajo el portafolio de patentes de Microsoft.¨

“¿Ama Microsoft a Linux? Bueno, simplemente ignoren “Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC,” que esta atacando a Linux, esentialamente embarcandose en chantaje y extorsión con patentes de software.”Que oportuno. “Microsoft puede abrazar open source todo lo que quiera,” Simon Phipps wrote (he is a FOSS luminary), “pero hasta que continuemos viendo agresión de patentes contra ls miembros de la comunidad es una entidad hóstil.”

Tuve una pequeña charla con el acerca de esto [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. Él es muy listo para caer en el juego de Microsoft. ¿Ama Microsoft a Linux? Bueno, simplemente ignoren “Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC,” que esta atacando a Linux, esentialamente embarcandose en chantaje y extorsión con patentes de software. También tomen nota de este reporte de ayer (¨La EU Tomando Pasos Serios Hacia una Queja Formal Contra Android de Google¨ en Bloomberg) lo que nos recuerda que Microsoft todavía esta CABILDEANDO y ASTROTURFING (cabildeándo a traves de sus agentes) contra Linux, como hemos explicado muchísimas veces anteriormente.

Así que este es el verdadero Microsoft y para aquellos que crean que ¨ame a Linux¨ talvez un poco de una perspectiva amplia sea necesaria. Los medios nunca ayudarán a esto porque SIEMPRE ha hecho esto, por ejemplo las semana pasada continuó republicando/reciclando imágenes de marketing de Microsoft (hey Microsoft ¿está esto incluido en tu presupuesto? -Por supuesto.) (con corazones rojos en ellos). Eso dificilmente es periodismo; es frecuentemente llamado churnalism (reciclar propaganda de otros con el fin de engañar al público), ya que no requiere investigacion o fuentes, simplemente editar los guiones que sus patrones indiquen, ya que no requiere investigacion o fuentes, simplemente editar los guiones que sus patrones indiquen.

“Los medios nunca ayudarán a esto porque SIEMPRE ha hecho esto, por ejemplo las semana pasada continuó republicando/reciclando imágenes de marketing de Microsoft (hey Microsoft ¿está esto incluido en tu presupuesto? -Por supuesto.) (con corazones rojos en ellos).”Microsoft como ven, ama a Linux lo suficientemente para EXTORSIÓNARLO. Continuamente. Esta semana lo hizo por segunda vez, mientras los medios (usualmente) no estaban prestando atención. Sólo sitios de propaganda de Microsoft [1, 2] lo hán cubierto (hasta ahora, con el esperado tono de favorecimiento) y los ayayeros de Microsoft tratan de disfrazar esta ACTITUD CRIMINAL como ¨compadres¨. ¿Porqué los medios generales o lo que es peor sitios de GNU/Linux no han estado prestando atención? No estuvo en ningún lugar en las noticias, ni siquierea en el ¨radar¨. Microsoft esta actuando como un troll de patentes exactamente, y se llama ¨Licensias de Tecnologías de Microsoft LLC,¨ basado en este anuncio que dice: ¨Licensias de Tecnologías de Microsoft LLC y Rakuten Inc. en Marzo 9 firmaron una acuerdo de patentes cubriendo productos electrónicos de ambos, incluyendo aparatos con Linux y Android.¨

Así que en sólo dos dias aparte Microsoft firmó dos ¨arreglos¨ de patentes relacionados con Linux (EXTORSIÓN), pero los medios únicamente se enfocan en las relaciónes públicas PR de Microsoft (¿cuánto dinero hay por debajo de la mesa?). Aquí hay una suerte de publicación que casi nadie se dió cuente, excepto este artículo tardío (esta mañana) que dice ¨Microsoft acaba de anunciar que firmó un nuevo acuerdo de patentes sobre sus patentes sobre Linux y Android, esta vez con la compañía Japonesa Rakuten.¨

“Así que en sólo dos dias aparte Microsoft firmó dos ¨arreglos¨ de patentes relacionados con Linux (EXTORSIÓN), pero los medios únicamente se enfocan en las relaciónes públicas PR de Microsoft (¿cuánto dinero hay por debajo de la mesa?).”¿Dónde estuvieron los medios cuándo esto ocurría? ¿Porqué esto no esta siéndo cubierto? IT Wire retrata a Microsoft como amigo de Linux. Esto es un artículo superficial por un escritor ocasional y otro nuevo artículo de su colega (ayayero de MS) Sam Varghese, los cuales mencionan casi nada de los ATAQUES DE MICROSOFT CONTRA GNU/LINUX. Planet Debian también se obsesiona sobre las noticias erróneas (como los apoyadores de Debian), lo cual no so nueva noticias de ninguna manera. La cosa Microsoft/SONiC/Debian no son nuevas noticias porque fuen mencionado en los pasados meses. Son viejas recicladas o re-anunciadas por Microsoft parte de su propaganda, que sólo sirven para distraer (dos ataques en una semana), sea por diseño o coincidencia, lo dudamos.

Allá en Fuerza FOSS Christine dijo que ¨todos estos esfuerzos tienen como objetivo canalizar negocios a la manera de Microsoft. Es una calle de un sólo sentido. Redmon únicamente esta haciendo fácil para desarrolladores de open source trabajen y jueguen bien con el universo de Microsoft.¨

Otro periodista dijo que la ¨cosa grande hoy es SDN -o software definiendo redes – y Microsoft hizo que Linux lo haga posible.¨ ¿Mientras al mismo tiempo esta imponiendo impuestos sobre Linux con patentes? En las cortes Microsoft insiste que Linux es us ¨propiedad intelectual.¨ Ahora esno no es simplemente actuar como si Linux fuese de su propiedad. ¿Cuán conveniente es que la gente olvide (no preste atención) que MICROSOFT TODAVÍA ESTA ATACANDO lINUX CON PATENTES DE SOFTWARE. Talvez no estén prestando atención pero eso seguramente no ayuda. Microsoft no puede amar a Linux ni siquiera aprender a amarlo. Únicamente puede pretender hacerlo cuando le convenga con sus propósitos de mercadeo o su estrategia de E.E.E (Abraza, Extiede, y Extingue).

“Microsoft no puede amar a Linux ni siquiera aprender a amarlo. Únicamente puede pretender hacerlo cuando le convenga con s us propósitos de mercadeo o su estrategia de E.E.E (Abraza, Extiede, y Extingue).”Consideremos en términos generales si hubo un deliberado/diseñado plan aquí (intentando enterrar ciertas noticias mientras al mismo tiempo reciclando algunas viejas/recicladas). Los ayayeros de Microsoft de seguro cubrieron lo malo y en general en los sitios de noticias generales el titular fué cambiado a ¨Microsoft lanzará un personalizado Debian Linux. Repetimos, un personalizado Debian Linux para redes¨ a ¨Microsoft ha lanzado un cambia Debian Linux OS. Repitiendo un Debian Linux cambiate sistema operativo¨ (lo que es enteramente una cosa diferente, sugiriendo que es simplente noticias recicladas). The Register ha reescrito su engañoso titular acerca de Microsoft y Debian y súbitamente parecen como noticias del año pasado.

¿Porqué no hay un reportaje investigativo acerca de los ataques de Microsoft contra Linux? Los apologistas de Microsoft les siguieron el cuento (como siempre) tomando estas noticias del año pasado diciendo: ¨Posen sus tazas de cafe suavemente, Microsoft lanzará hoy un personalizado sistema operativo basado en no otro que Debian GNU/Linux, for network switches,¨ La idea probablemente fue ¨prestada¨ de Brocade Vyatta 5400 router which is also based on Debian GNU/Linux. Lo que demuestra como a lo largo de su historia Microsoft se ha apropiado del trabajo de otros.

¡No!, no hoy, no ayer. Esto son viejas noticias. Y se estan perdiéndo las verdaderas. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend