10.24.11
Microsoft’s RICO Act Violations Only Supported by Spinners
Summary: Compal is the latest subject of Microsoft’s racketeering/PR campaign, which seeks to distort the way business is being done and ultimately ‘normalise’ corruption
IN THE PAST few posts we have concentrated on Apple and Microsoft, showing quite clearly that they don’t compete (they can’t), they cheat instead.
Nearly 5 years ago this site was created to challenge the beginning of this distortion of ‘competition’, where one turns one’s competition into its own cash cow. The customer suffers enormously and businesses suffer as well, except those which violate the law and get away with it (like the mafia when the police turns a blind eye, due to complicity or fear).
“Microsoft is a reactionary company whose mode of operation is: spot potential threat, then extinguish/buy out, and of course repeat.”Novell is utterly destroyed and all that’s left of it are products that act as Microsoft cash cows and masquerade as “GNU/Linux” (or as “open” and “community-driven”, thanks to gullible people who help OpenSUSE approach another public release). Then there are products like GroupWise, whose future seems uncertain to us based on recent talks (some management left and they lose customers at a rapid pace). Groklaw keeps track of the 'old Novell' case against Microsoft, which Pamela Jones is very familiar with. Microsoft managed to kill both the ‘old Novell’ and the ‘new Novell’, which became too much of a threat to Windows and Office around 2006 when SLE* 10 came out. Microsoft paid to remove Novell as a competitor from the market, in fact paying very cheaply in order to control its opposition through SUSE/OpenSUSE, Go-OO (with OOXML), Mono, etc.
Microsoft is a reactionary company whose mode of operation is: spot potential threat, then extinguish/buy out, and of course repeat. There are many examples of this kind (involving companies or form factors like sub-notebooks) and Microsoft is now focusing on Android. Why don’t people ever learn properly from the past? Microsoft never changed. Only the PR changed.
“Now that we know what both Novell and Microsoft lawyers said in their opening statements Tuesday at the antitrust trial just starting in Utah over WordPerfect and QuattroPro,” writes Jones, “folks here are Groklaw are starting to find exhibits from the Comes v. Microsoft antitrust trial collection here on Groklaw that do seem to raise questions about the facts asserted in the Microsoft opening statement.
“So I decided to put the report about the Microsoft opening statement from the courtroom up again, with some of the exhibits we’ve uncovered, in the hope that it will be useful by comparing them. If you find more, please add them in your comments. We’re still transcribing the exhibits, so feel free to help with that as well, by all means. We’re concentrating on this page now, but you can work on whatever interests you.”
This is where antitrust exhibits and especially their meticulous archival come handy (e.g. Comes vs Microsoft). We already know many of Microsoft’s tactics and can use them in a legal context to make real impact.
“We know based on antitrust material that the act of “planting” articles is very real. We also know that Microsoft pays Florian for sure.”Looking at the Android side, Microsoft lobbyists continue to amplify the fear with a new PR campaign for FUD. They help ‘normalise’ racketeering, making the unthinkable seem acceptable. For instance, after another secret extortion deal Microsoft’s lobbyist Florian Müller and shameless Microsoft booster Jon Brodkin push this new Microsoft talking point (which we prefer not to repeat). Google should “wake up” and file an antitrust complaint, a complaint for violation of the RICO Act, and also file a lawsuit for this criminal activity from Microsoft (which has gone on for years and motivated the creation of this Web site). Microsoft’s PR people keep ‘planting’ Microsoft spin and attacks on Android (Florian messaged me about it several times even though he knows I ignore him). We know based on antitrust material that the act of "planting" articles is very real. We also know that Microsoft pays Florian for sure. Put 2 and 2 together.
CNET calls it “patent-protection”, playing along with euphemisms as we very much expect it to. Quoting this shallow article (one among many):
China-based Compal Electronics will pay undisclosed royalties to the software giant for use of Google’s Android and Chrome operating systems used in smartphones, tablet, and other consumer electronics, the company said.
Microsoft cannot sell, so it is trying to tax those who do by means of divide and conquer with litigation and threats.
Nobody doubts that extortion is a crime, but there are ‘political’ reasons for the way it is handled (antitrust equilibrium) and the endless spin is vital for Microsoft in ensuring people don’t view this logically. They will be running lobbying and PR campaigns to whitewash their habitual crimes (keeping both critics and regulators at bay).
“They will be running lobbying and PR campaigns to whitewash their habitual crimes (keeping both critics and regulators at bay).”A case of accurate reporting will ignore the PR and delve into the issues, then explain what really happens there. But there is cowardice and compliance in the corporate press and lobbyists along with PR agents exploit this to seed deceptive coverage. For instance, Microsoft PR puppets like Preston Gralla go with the “Android/Linux hard to use” FUD, but then again, this is typical Gralla. They are pretending to be journalists, but their job is to boost Microsoft on behalf of publishers that receive big payments from Microsoft (for advertising and ‘consulting’).
Here is a nice new cartoon about the hilarity of patents. More people ought to understand that patents are merely monopolies that a lot of the time cannot be justified. The inventor of Java, which Oracle sues Android over, is now quoted in the news as saying that the patent system is “a disaster”. From Wired Magazine:
The patent system is fundamentally flawed thanks to a combination of ridiculous litigation, really trivial patents and a landscape where you can’t know what is patented, according to James Gosling, the father of the Java programming language and chief software architect at Liquid Robotics.
Gosling , speaking at The Economist’s Innovation Summit, admitted that there was “a kernel of principle that I actually believe in”, which is the value in being able to compensate innovators for what they do. However, he maintained: “The patent system is, frankly, a disaster. It’s one of these things I feel really frustrated about.
One reader wrote to us today: “got email about it this morning: ;There’s one good reason not to buy an Android phone, you’ll be likely paying up to $15 to MS for royalties…’”
“Their goal is to impose desperation and eventually make Android as expensive as Windows Phone 7, with little help from other oligarchs or trolls.”Well, they push this FUD repeatedly, along with fake costs. Their goal is to impose desperation and eventually make Android as expensive as Windows Phone 7, with little help from other oligarchs or trolls. Fortunately, the Oracle vs. Google case is tracked again by Pamela Jones [1, 2, 3], whose site does a fantastic job defending Android, probably the most mainstream ‘distro’ of Linux. Pamela has all along (since last year) warned everyone about Florian’s relationship with Microsoft and raised the need for antitrust action over the Android extortion. A lot of the corporate press never did any of that. Instead, it played along with the Microsoft PR and also quoted Florian extensively (after his mass-mailing campaigns). █
Content is available under CC-BY-SA