02.25.13
Posted in LG, Microsoft, Patents at 9:53 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: WebOS turns out to have patents as ‘part of the platform’
WebOS, which Apple had threatened with patents about 4 years ago (before it became Open Source, shot itself in the foot. It has been sold to LG, which pays Microsoft for Linux, in order to produce smart TVs; but as one of our reader correctly notes, part of the transaction of source code includes patents (yes, for code). So here is yet another example of Linux-powered TVs that Microsoft will probably profit from. We gave other examples before. Extortion pays off.
Now, it’s not unusual for phone platforms to get patents on software (RIM got them as well this month), but for a platform which claims to be free/Open Source this is a bit of a heresy. Avoid WebOS/LG. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in EFF, Patents at 9:34 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
This strategy won’t fly…
Summary: The EFF proposes limiting the number of software patents by making them more like copyrights, but that is not the right solution
THE EFF, whose work we respect and appreciate, recently promised to crack down on software patents, but its strategy seems a tad misguided again (like the patent-busting initiative). The EFF wants software patents to include working code, as one article puts it and here are several more articles:
1) EFF proposes adding working code to software patent applications
2) Want a software patent? Write some code
Reform may be on the horizon for software patents in the United States as lobby groups seek to tighten up the criteria for successful applications.
Software patents are aimed at promoting research and development, but the process of registering and protecting patents have become embroiled in controversy over the last decade.
At the heart of the matter are so-called “patent trolls” that do not create products or services, but claim to own the right to the intellectual property behind them in order to sue companies for millions of dollars or force them to take up licensing and royalty deals.
The idea seems to come only from Julie Samuels (not to be confused with Samuelson [1, 2, 3, 4]), whose idea we criticised last week. Her Twitter account describes her as “Staff Attorney and Mark Cuban Chair to Eliminate Stupid Patents” (not software patents).
This is what one gets when the front against software patents is made up of “legal” folks including notable law professors (i.e. glorified lawyers), whose plan is to tame software patents rather than just eliminate them all in one fell swoop. Richard Stallman suggested making existing patents as such un-weaponised, i.e. patents the holder simply cannot sue with, meaning that it’s about dissemination of ideas, credit, attribution, respect, etc.
Let’s not get distracted and obsessed with the ideas of those to whom "more patents" means "more business". █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Australia, Europe, Law, Patents at 9:10 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Australia and New Zealand are having software patents phased in by multinational corporations in the same way as in Europe
THE PRESIDENT of the FFII has resumed keeping track of the Unified Patent Court, which would affect us here in the UK, amongst other countries. This disturbing new post says that “Vince Cable signs Unified Patent Court agreement in Brussels: patent attorneys call for a proper economic impact survey before the agreement is ratified”.
Gérald Sédrati-Dinet, a longtime opponent of the Unified Patent Court, wrote that “Only Gandalf can protect Europe from the Unitary Patent”. He says that “with #UnitaryPatent EU has waived even more prowers to #EPO,” which is something that Glyn Moody finds “really depressing” and “fortunately,” he says, “I’m still convinced that #UnitaryPatent will never ever enter into force…”
Sédrati-Dinet worried when “@montebourg ha[d] signed agreement on a #patent court exposing French firms to the threats of #patentTrolls” and Mark Summerfield said that “Sir Robin calls claims that European #patent would save money ‘lies’, based on assumption that you would patent across all Europe.”
André Rebentisch, also from the FFII, wrote: “Berlin Airport everywhere: Business Europe says let’s adopt #Unipat Court in neglect of technical difficulties http://www.europolitics.info/business-competitiveness/patent-if-the-system-is-not-operational-it-won-t-be-used-art348322-45.html …”
Separately he wrote: “Yesterday speech of Commissioner Michel Barnier on unitary patent http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-13-132_en.htm?locale=en …” (Barnier is one of the principal architects and boosters of this whole mess).
Here is part of Sédrati-Dinet’s detailed analysis of this subject:
Now that, despite all legal, political and economic issues, the European Parliament has approved the regulation on the unitary patent, just as anticipated, it is time to move away from the legislative battle. The unitary patent has still a long way to go before becoming applicable. It is likely that it will be nothing more than a stillborn child. Meanwhile, the threat is hovering over European innovation and growth. It is time now to see whether and how Gandalf’s magical powers can overcome dark forces of Mordor.
New Zealand has been following the same trajectory as the EU because the “forces of Mordor,” as Sédrati-Dinet calls them (referring perhaps to multinationals), sought to make the 'as such" trick a matter of law and then, through trade agreements (so-called uniformity and unification) they try to export/import primarily US-based software patents. It is the same in Australia, which has gone along a similar route (being somewhat of a US client state, as the Julian Assange story helped show).
Here is a noteworthy new article about what happens in New Zealand:
Recently I wrote about looming changes to New Zealand’s patent laws that could have a dramatic and lasting impact on the future shape of New Zealand’s tech sector.
The hope held out by many was that software would be excluded from being covered by patents, however it now appears that the government is likely to change patent legislation so that software can be patented.
Even though the Commerce Select Committee and numerous industry experts have all recommended that software be excluded from patentability, amendments made to the bill after pressure was placed on the government could be sufficiently vague that software could end up being patented.
Yes, just like here in Europe. Be prepared for NZ and Australia to sign some more ‘free’ ‘trade’ agreements to help pave the way to a global patent system where software is patentable (as covered here many times before). That is, unless we rise up and stop this global, as in worldwide, madness… █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Australia, Microsoft at 9:44 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Abuse of powers
Summary: Xbox-related overseas raid (over a hoax) involved the US Federal Bureau of Investigation, which was collaborating with Washington Police at the behest of Microsoft
NO THEORY here but a real conspiracy that reminds us of Microsoft’s backdoors in Windows, which US secret agencies love to exploit. Amid hype in the corporate press over China ‘hacking’ one must remember that it’s the US which attacks other countries with cyber weapons like Stuxnet and President Obama recently made that legal (legalising it after the illegal act), as we covered in our daily links some weeks ago. Techrights is not a political site, so we won’t delve into the politics behind it, but let us point out that Microsoft collusion with the police, as pointed out the other day, had involved the FBI as it turns out:
A Perth teenager — who has gained popularity in cyberspace under the name SuperDaE — has had his home raided and possessions seized by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation and WA Police as part of an international corporate espionage probe.
The incestuous relationship between Microsoft and the secret services ought to make every user of Microsoft software — especially governments — seriously worried. Right now in Iceland there are serious debates over the FBI’s abduction of a Wikileaks employee, which the FBI tried to use to frame Julian Assange. Iceland kicked those FBI agents (who had come in a private plane) out of the country for not respecting national sovereignty, but this is far from a resolved case. What we have here is a blurring gap between legal and illegal as we descend into moral corruption and rule of power, not law.
Last week we shared some links about the revelation that Aaron Swartz was flagged by the FBI. So much for fighting terrorism, eh? More like defence of corporations. In Occupy, as a leak reveals, protesters were labeled “low-level terrorists” and every other week we read about another so-called “terror plot” which actually involved undercover FBI agents providing tools to a stung perpetrator in a group/circle FBI had infiltrated (they call it “Sting Operation” and it’s actually throughcrime, i.e. criminalisation of political views). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in GNU/Linux, Kernel, Microsoft, Red Hat at 9:21 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Red Hat an accomplice in Microsoft’s restricted boot plans and Linus Torvalds is not happy
Torvalds’ complaints about UEFI restricted boot are nothing new. That anticompetitive scheme from Microsoft is polluting the kernel with binaries which merely serve to help discriminate against Linux and Torvalds has just opened his mouth again, sending out a “NSFW Red Hat rant”:
Linux overlord Linus Torvalds has again vented his spleen online, taking on Red Hat employee David Howells with a series of expletive-laden posts on the topic of X.509 public key management standard.
The action takes place on the Linux Kernel Mailing List, with Howell posting a request that Torvalds “pull this patchset please”.
Howells wants the patchset pulled so Red Hat can “”embed an X.509 certificate containing the key in a section called ‘.keylist’ in an EFI PE binary and then get the binary signed by Microsoft.” This arrangement, he suggests, is more elegant than the way the Linux kernel signs certificates today. Torvalds’ initial response is “Not without a lot more discussion first”, because “Quite frankly, this is f*cking moronic. The whole thing seems to be designed around stupid interfaces, for completely moronic reasons. Why should we do this?”
For future reference, here is the original context dated Thursday, 21 Feb 2013 15:47:58 (GMT). Thanks, Torvalds, for doing the Right Thing® in this case. █
Update: Linus Torvalds To Secure Boot Supporters: This Is Not A Dick-Sucking Contest
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, Patents at 5:10 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Leveled against the #1 rival
Summary: Microsoft and a Microsoft front are trying to help Oracle tax Android
IT DID not take long for Microsoft to show its true face and intentions. Google and Oracle are back to the court’s procedures, exchanging all sorts of legal papers and the BSA shows its ugly face along with Microsoft. Here is how Groklaw put it:
Microsoft, BSA, Scott McNealy, others file amicus briefs in support of Oracle’s appeal against Google ~pj
Yesterday there were numerous amicus briefs filed all on the same day and all in support of Oracle against Google in Oracle’s appeal at the Federal Circuit. None of the briefs are posted publicly yet, but they should be available soon.
Microsoft has filed one, together with EMC Corporation, and NetApp, Inc. Scott McNealy has filed one with Brian Sutphin. Can McNealy be a witness for Oracle at trial, which he was [PDF], and also file an amicus brief? Well, he has. The Picture Archive Council of America, Inc. has filed one with the Graphic Artists Guild. Also there’s one from the BSA. And finally Eugene Spafford, Zhi Ding, and Lee A. Hollaar have filed an amicus in support of Oracle. Hollaar seems to file a lot of amicus briefs.
Susan Decker wrote the article “Microsoft Joins Oracle to Defend Software Patents Against Google”:
The top lawyers for Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) and Oracle Corp. (ORCL), saying software patents are important drivers of U.S. innovation and economic growth, pressed Congress today to reject calls to limit that legal protection.
Companies including Google Inc. (GOOG) and Facebook Inc. (FB) have said too many software patents are being used primarily to generate lawsuits instead of contributing to new products and services. Microsoft, the world’s biggest software maker, and Oracle say discussions of ways to curtail litigation shouldn’t become an excuse to limit the ability to patent software.
The partly Gates-owned Monsanto also got support from the BSA, as noted in the previous post and Microsoft is well aware of the BSA’s involvement in this latest move. Microsoft IPG wrote in Twitter:
Microsoft to join @BSANews, @ShopFloorNAM in DC on Thurs to discuss #softwarepatents & innovation. http://bit.ly/WnDCyl
Here is a Reuters report:
Microsoft Corp is backing Oracle Corp’s bid to revive a billion-dollar copyright lawsuit over Google’s use of the Java programming language, according to court filings on Tuesday.
Oracle’s intellectual property battle against Google has attracted intense interest from software developers, many of whom believe the structure of a programming language should not be subject to copyright protection.
Last year a San Francisco federal judge found that Oracle could not claim copyright protection on much of the Java language that Google used on its Android mobile platform. Oracle has appealed.
For background on this case we have ECT’s article:
There appears to be little to encourage Oracle to believe it can win a reversal of the verdict Google won in last year’s bitter Java trial. Nevertheless, it has mounted an appeal, arguing that Google stole its intellectual property just as surely as fictional author Ann Droid plagiarized a Harry Potter book. Oracle might need to cast a spell on the appellate court to pull this one off, though.
In other Android patent news we have this update on Apple:
On February 14, Apple and Samsung met with the Hon. Lucy Koh, who is presiding over their current patent dispute in Apple v. Samsung II, in the very same courtroom where she presided over their first patent litigation in San Jose, CA back in August. The purpose was to go over the parties’ claims in the patents they say are infringed, explaining to her how the technology works. This is in preparation for the upcoming Markman hearing next month, where they will argue officially over what the terms in the claims mean. We had a volunteer in the courtroom, and we have that report for you.
Meanwhile, in Apple v. Samsung I, which is still going on, the parties will be arguing before the Federal Circuit on March 26, as both parties believe the magistrate judge is threatening to unseal too many documents in that case, and things are on hold until the appeals court decides who is right. So far, that is about the only thing the parties *do* agree on, that the magistrate has gone too far. Here’s Apple’s supplemental appeal brief [PDF] on that issue of sealing from Apple v Samsung I. William Lee of Wilmer Cutler will argue [PDF] for Apple on March 26, and Victoria F. Maroulis of Quinn Emanuel will argue [PDF] for Samsung. That’s at 10 AM on March 26 at the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC.
One ought to remember the undeniable personal tie between Apple and Oracle (whose CEO considers Steve Jobs to be his “best friend”). There is surely a conspiracy of companies liaising against Android. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Microsoft, Patents at 4:56 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The Business Software Alliance — not just the Gates Foundation — is trying to help a private company (which Gates invests in) own all self-replicating seeds
Microsoft’s co-founder, a strong proponent of patent monopolies on life and a prominent Monsanto investor/lobbyist, must be keeping his eyes on particular news this month. The USPTO may soon stop patenting life, depending on what the SCOTUS decides. As one article put it, this is “A Farmer’s Crusade Against Monsanto Could Determine The Future Of Patents”. Here is another article, “Who Can Own Life? Farmer vs. Monsanto Before US High Court”.
The SCOTUS still corrupted by corporate interests, so on the face of it Monsanto will get its way. From AP:
The Supreme Court appeared likely Tuesday to side with Monsanto Co. in its claim that an Indiana farmer violated the company’s patents on soybean seeds that are resistant to its weed-killer.
None of the justices in arguments at the high court seemed ready to endorse farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman’s argument that cheap soybeans he bought from a grain elevator are not covered by the Monsanto patents, even though most of them also were genetically modified to resist the company’s Roundup herbicide.
Here is what the New York Times published:
The question in the case, Bowman v. Monsanto Company, No. 11-796, was whether patent rights to seeds and other things that can replicate themselves extend beyond the first generation. The justices appeared alert to the consequences of their eventual ruling not only for Monsanto’s very lucrative soybean patents but also for modern agriculture generally and for areas as varied as vaccines, cell lines and software.
“Can patents on crops and seeds live on through the generations? Seems likely,” writes Joe Mullin, an excellent writer on the subject of patents (trolls in particular).
Groklaw calls it a matter of “Self-Replicating Patented Seeds” in Pamela Jones’ analysis and Slashdot‘s analysis says: ‘Reader 9gezegen adds that Monsanto is getting support, oddly, from parts of the software industry. From the NY Times: “BSA/The Software Alliance, which represents companies like Apple and Microsoft, said in a brief that a decision against Monsanto might ‘facilitate software piracy on a broad scale’ because software can be easily replicated. But it also said that a decision that goes too far the other way could make nuisance software patent infringement lawsuits too easy to file.”‘
The BSA is right now involved in other cases where Microsoft has a stake, but we’ll leave that to the next post. As we showed before, many former workers of William Gates Sr. are now workers of the BSA, so it’s all rather incestuous. What they have in common is that they seek a tax on the Commmons, one in software and another in agriculture. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Patents at 4:37 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Signers of a petition against software patents finally receive a promising response from the White House (amidst other interesting developments such as government-funded research becoming Open Access)
So-called ‘IP’ sites do not like Obama’s promise to reform the patent system after public pressure. Here is a transcript of what he said. “Apparently I am on a mailing list from one of the petitions,” wrote one of our readers. “Below is the message they sent out.”
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: A Bit About Software Patents
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 13:27:19 -0600
From: The White House [info@messages.whitehouse.gov]
Reply-To: info@messages.whitehouse.gov
To: xxxxx
The White House
A Bit About Software Patents
Last week President Obama answered questions during an online video
chat, and he spoke a little about an issue you've expressed interest
in [
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/response/promoting-innovation-and-competitive-markets-through-quality-patents?utm_source=wethepeople&utm_medium=response&utm_campaign=patents
] through We the People.
*Here's what he had to say about software patents: [
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQ4Zo0XyNsw ]*
Watch President Obama speak about software patents [
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQ4Zo0XyNsw ]
Thank you for your involvement in We the People.
Stay Connected
Stay connected to the White House by signing up for periodic email
updates from President Obama and other senior administration officials
[
http://www.whitehouse.gov/get-email-updates?utm_source=wethepeople&utm_medium=response&utm_campaign=patents
].
facebook [ http://www.facebook.com/WhiteHouse ] Facebook [
http://www.facebook.com/WhiteHouse ] twitter [
http://twitter.com/whitehouse ] Twitter [
http://twitter.com/whitehouse ] youtube [
http://www.youtube.com/whitehouse ] YouTube [
http://www.youtube.com/whitehouse ] flickr [
http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse ] Flickr [
http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse ] google+ [
https://plus.google.com/105479712798762608629 ] Google+ [
https://plus.google.com/105479712798762608629 ]
This email was sent to xxxxx
Sign Up for Updates from the White House [
http://www.whitehouse.gov/get-email-updates?utm_source=wethepeople&utm_medium=footer&utm_campaign=patents
]
Unsubscribe [
https://messages.whitehouse.gov/accounts/USEOPWH/subscriber/one_click_unsubscribe?destination=lars.nooden@gmail.com&verification=4.387f2401e00e79763ea9952129af2b17
] | Privacy Policy [
http://www.whitehouse.gov/privacy?utm_source=wethepeople&utm_medium=footer&utm_campaign=patents
]
Please do not reply to this email. Contact the White House [
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact?utm_source=wethepeople&utm_medium=footer&utm_campaign=patents
]
The White House ? 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW ? Washington, DC 20500 ?
202-456-1111
The notable thing here is that over a year later President Obama did respond — at the very least with lip service — to petition signers (of 2011). Credit is deserved for that, but we shall see if real action gets taken. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »
Content is available under CC-BY-SA