01.25.11
Posted in GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Patents at 2:01 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: In addition to anti-TiVo patent cases that are fueled by Intellectual Ventures, Microsoft attempts to ban TiVo imports
A READER has just recommended that we run this news story about Microsoft’s ITC referral which targets TiVo. To clarify by pointing to a previous post about the subject, the lawsuit is not about Linux, but it helps block a Linux-powered device:
Wannabe ARM BFF Microsoft Corp. has recently filed a complaint with the US ITC (International Trade Commission) through which it claims that TiVo’s products infringe four of its patents that relate to program schedules and selection, interface, and rating-based DVR restrictions.
This is also covered in:
There is not much interpretation to present here other than what we wrote about this case before. That said, Microsoft’s patent troll Intellectual Ventures is also having TiVo sued indirectly, so maybe it’s a group effort to eliminate competition (same grouping seen in the anti-Android case). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Site News at 1:38 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Response to libelous accusations against yours sincerely and the Techrights community in general
The rule of thumb is that in Techrights we ignore trolls, avoid naming them, and definitely abstain from linking to them. In 2009 we just spent too much time and space addressing their claims and this whole process fed them. Another implicit rule is that when lies are being repeated they must be rebutted and a correction posted somewhere visible. While many lies were addressed in Identica, it would be handy to have them posted in this blog too.
Mono boosters and other people whose interests are stifled by this Web site have been making accusations against myself and against this site, despite having no evidence whatsoever. The claims are of course false and they help show how dishonest our adversaries are. I have no ‘dirt’ that can be used against me (some people go all the way to the distant past and still can’t find any), so the trolls make some stuff up and repeat it ad infinitum, sometimes citing one another as ‘proof’. One of the more shameless claims is that I change names or have multiple accounts. These are lies. In order to promote and give credence to such libel someone appears to be creating sockpuppet accounts or agent/s provocateur who pretend to be me or pretend to represent this Web site. So to clarify again, official accounts of this site were listed last week. Anything else is fake and since I never comment in other Web sites (due to fakers), anyone who claims to be yours truly in some blog post is probably an imposter looking to cause trouble. One lie related to this is that I’m on Reddit when in fact I never was and never will be because it's filled with Novell employees, Microsoft boosters, and Mono lobbyists.
Techrights challenges many institutions and people, so it expects this sort of flak. It is not going to impede future efforts to shine a light on bad behaviour and malevolent individuals. There is another strand of attacks on this Web site right about now and we might cover it shortly. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 1:09 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: When public officials and alleged “campaigners” actually serve corporate interests
IT IS no secret that there is extensive lobbying in Europe, including some regarding software patents.
Some of the pro-software patents lobbying happens to come from Microsoft Florian, who is spreading Android FUD since some time in the second half of last year. He is spreading lies, but these lies are enough for Microsoft boosters to stick in their blogs or whatever, hoping that these lies will stick [1, 2].
“It’s like the SCO case all over again, this time with Dalvik/Android as the target rather than just Linux.”Fab from Linux Outlaw says that it seems “like @thurrott [Microsoft’s booster Paul Thurrott [1, 2]] is a few days behind on tech news these days: http://outl.ws/hsB6RE he should have read http://outl.ws/harXBr”
To clarify, Fab points out that Thurrott emits FUD like “Source: More Code Theft in Google’s Android” while “Florian Mueller Spreads Anti-Android FUD [which is simply untrue]“. So here we have Microsoft boosters citing other Microsoft boosters/apologists/lobbyists who accused (libellously) Google of “code theft”. It’s like the SCO case all over again, this time with Dalvik/Android as the target rather than just Linux. No wonder Court Justice Jackson called Microsoft executives “gang members” back in the days. That’s just the way the company operates. Following debunking of some of these still-propagated lies, The Inquirer says that “Mueller is forced to back off android copyright infringement claims”:
If that sentiment sounds somehow familiar, then cast your mind back to August 2010, when Microsoft claimed that Android wasn’t free for the smartphone makers that choose to install the operating system. The following month, Tivanka Ellawala, a financial officer at Microsoft, made what can now be seen as a precursor to Mueller’s comments, saying, “It does infringe on a bunch of patents, and there’s a cost associated with that.” That was merely Microsoft bluster, of course, because she didn’t identify any patents to support that threatening claim.
Mueller added, “I’m sure those companies didn’t intend to infringe Oracle’s rights. They probably relied on the presumed legality of the Android codebase.” But he wasn’t specific.
Wayne says that The Inquirer is right in this case. “The Inquirer says Florian Müller is ‘not competent’, world laughs, ADTI cringes,” he wrote shortly afterwards.
Meanwhile, Andre from the FFII has been trying to get hold of official documents which our reader Satipera believes to be related to the subject of “patents” and “unitarypatent”. To requote an item we cited the other day:
The European Council has some difficulties to apply the TURCO judgement of the ECJ which clearly mandates a disclosure of legal advice unrelated to court proceedings. Legal advice concerning the enhanced cooperation on an unitary patent, they think they are permitted to keep it confidential. I strongly doubt so.
Something fishy is going in in Europe and the Commission too is playing a role in it. Satipera has discovered and shared with his followers some new lobbying figures from Microsoft; the monopolist is ranked number one for lobbying, but there is no telling who exactly they hire to do their bidding. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
01.24.11
Posted in Patents at 3:07 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: USPTO needs to change in order to restore approval from citizens whom it supposedly serves
HOW MUCH does the USPTO want to be hated? More and more people speak out against it these days, simply because it cannot make a case in its defence when those who benefit are not scientists but lawyers and franchisees. A little while ago, TechDirt — a longtime patents critic — did some decent investigative work to demonstrate a contemporary chaining of patent trolls, working at someone’s behest a lot of the time (Nathan Myhrvold uses this trick extensively). To quote later parts of the detailed analysis:
Unfortunately, that’s about where the sleuthing runs out… and it really doesn’t tell us that much. We already knew that Vertigo was the parent company, and who owns/runs Vertigo is secret. We did learn that another company owned by Vertigo is using more patents from the same inventors to sue more companies, but that’s about it. Either way, as a basic exercise, it certainly teaches you a fair amount about the sneaky and hidden nature of how patent trolls operate, with layer upon layer of shell companies, changing patent assignments and licenses, all of which hide whoever is actually pulling the strings. It really does make you wonder how this kind of thing does anything whatsoever to improve innovation.
Michael Trick writes about “More patent madness!”, putting forth an example of something that was patented long after it had really been ‘invented’:
Limited discrepancy search has been around since 1995 and occurs often in research (Google scholar is showing 465 references). It is a pretty simple idea: if you are doing a tree search and you have a good idea that, say, all the variables should be 1 (but might not be in the optimal solution), you first search the “all 1″ side of the branches, then try the “all 1 except one” then then “all 1 except two” and so on. Call it twenty lines of code to control the tree search in this manner. Seems like a reasonable approach, but patentable? You have got to be kidding!
[...]
Patents (and companies trying to enforce them) make creating open source software much, much more difficult. How many developers would know that if you embed a method from a 1995 paper in software, you may run afoul of a patent claim?
Patents exist to encourage innovation. The current system, with nonsense like this, serves only to stifle it.
“Inglourious Software Patents” is another good new post which goes around the Web at this moment. It says:
The patent system exists to provide an incentive for innovation where that incentive would not have existed otherwise.
Imagine you’re an individual living in the 19th century. Let’s say the patent system does not exist and you have an idea to make a radically better kind of sewing machine. If you invested the time to develop your idea into a working invention, the existing sewing machine companies would just steal your design and crush you in the marketplace. They have massive distribution and production advantages that you wouldn’t be able to compete with. You wouldn’t be able to monetize the initial investment you made into developing that invention. Therefore, you wouldn’t have invented the radically better sewing machine in the first place.
From this perspective, patents are actually a rather clever hack on society to encourage innovation. By excluding others from using your invention for a fixed amount of time, you get a temporary monopoly on your invention. This lets you monetize your invention which makes your initial investment worthwhile. This in turn benefits society as a whole, as now society has inventions that it wouldn’t have had otherwise.
[...]
Quite the opposite. Software startups are thriving nowadays in spite of software patents rather than because of them. Instead of helping startups get off the ground, patents are a cost. Startups must build “defensive patent portfolios” and worry about getting sued by patent trolls or businesses trying to entrench their position. Instead of patents being a protective shield for a startup, they’re instead a weapon that causes economic waste.
Vivek Wadhwa, consistently a critic of software patents despite having some which he now regrets [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] advises China not to compete on the basis of patents:
The Times quotes David J. Kappos, director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, as saying that the leadership in China “knows that innovation is its future, the key to higher living standards and long-term growth. They are doing everything they can to drive innovation, and China’s patent strategy is part of that broader plan”. Kappos seems to believe that, with patents, China is unleashing a golden age of innovation.
Kappos is wrong.
The reality, as I explained in my BusinessWeek column China Could Game the U.S. in Intellectual Property, is that patents will neither make China more innovative nor benefit the global economy. Just as the vast majority of China’s academic papers are plagiarized or irrelevant, so will its government-sponsored patents be tainted. In contrast to the tiny proportion of Chinese academic papers that serve to expand the world’s knowledge base, however, Chinese patents will serve as land mines for foreign businesses. They will allow China to demand license fees from companies that do business there or to shut them out entirely. (And these will hurt China’s own startups.)
Kappos did not bring the change we had hoped for [1, 2, 3]. People who actually make products hope for change… real change. Is there a chance of In Re Bilski making a comeback in light of conflicts of interest?
Apparently two of the SCOTUS justices, Scalia and Thomas, were deeply involved in “conservative” (not sure what they are conserving but it’s not impartial justice) political events. That brings to mind how they ruled in Bilski. Did these two justices have a hidden agenda and should they have recused themselves or should they be impeached?
It’s too easy to find some reasons to sack a SCOTUS justice (e.g. Kagan for allegedly being gay). The problem is likely to be the USPTO, which is still run by people who simply treat is like business as opposed to an establishment dedicated to the goal improving innovation. The patent system has been hacked. It’s vulnerable and antiquated. █
“People naively say to me, “If your program is innovative, then won’t you get the patent?” This question assumes that one product goes with one patent.” —Richard Stallman
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Apple, Courtroom, Europe, Hardware, Patents at 2:34 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Phones running Linux (Maemo/MeeGo) or Symbian are once again attacked by Apple patents
According to Nokia Update:
Apple sues Nokia in London over touch-screen scroll patent
This bit of news is accompanied by news about Apple patenting something for a mouse to “include a multi-touch display”: [via]
Apple has shown interest in adding a display to its multi-touch Magic Mouse, adding interactivity and functionality to the wireless mouse for its Mac line of computers.
“We’ve always been shameless about stealing great ideas,” said Steve Jobs as shamelessly as always. Is Apple getting a monopoly on something innovative here? Gordon (from TechBytes) wrote: “from the company that brought you the mouse for people with one finger, or mittens on http://bit.ly/fIoaj3 new complex mouse patents” █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Mono, Novell, Patents, Ubuntu at 2:12 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Proposal of replacement for Unity that is dependent on the Mono-based Docky; reminder of Microsoft’s ‘API tax’
The codebase of Unity was being shifted from Vala to C, which puts it further away from C# and the likes of .NET clones such as Mono. We give Canonical credit for making this foundation of Ubuntu Mono-free, but yesterday, by contrast, we found this new suggestion of using Docky (Mono based) to replace Unity. Docky and Unity happen to be developed by the same person actually. The bigger problem would be an underlying platform being based on Mono, in addition to Mono-based applications like Banshee and Tomboy (highlighted above).
The Mono-based programs are a danger to Ubuntu because Microsoft looks forward to using Mono as an excuse not just to promote .NET but also to charge rivals like Canonical for using clones. Right about now in Europe, EIFv2 is showing the ill effects of Microsoft lobbying for software patents in formats/APIs/protocols [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. Brian Kahin, a senior fellow of the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), defends what Microsoft and its front groups (e.g. BSA) have been pushing for. He writes:
This seems to say that RF is no more open than (F)RAND, although RF is in fact an especially open subset of (F)RAND. Unless there are unusual special requirements, anything licensed royalty-free is commonly considered to be available under “free, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory” terms.
And what does “in a way that allows implementation in both proprietary and open source software” mean? Does it only apply to “royalty-free basis” (since the test distinguishes between “terms” and “basis”)? In any case, (F)RAND terms conflict with some open source models and not others. They are not a problem for permissive “BSD-style” licenses, but are for the more common General Public License (GPL). The GPL imposes constrains on distribution if a royalty must be paid. Is possible of implementation under a permissive license sufficient (at least if there is a distributor willing to pay for a patent license on the side)?
There is enough uncertainty here to give lawyers a field day. In fact, this is a fundamental problem with the (F)RAND itself, because it is difficult to define what is “fair,” “reasonable,” or even “nondiscriminatory.”
This helps show that given the conditions of Mono usage, Microsoft may ask for some “fair” and “reasonable” royalty payments from all Mono distributors and users. It would therefore be wise to abolish it as soon as possible. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Microsoft, Steve Ballmer at 1:48 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Microsoft loses chairs (although none are thrown) and Ballmer’s chair too is doubted
Moments ago a reader mailed us some pointer to important news. It was earlier today that Jon Brodkin covered for IDG the story of Microsoft exodus in January of 2011. It is about 3 departures that we wrote about separately about one week ago. Bad news, eh? Microsoft will probably need to start hiring more lawyers (Microsoft is a lawsuits company), but then again, Microsoft’s legal team is being shifted to India for savings and the patent strategy is misguided yet damaging to everyone. Steve Ballmer is not a lawyer, but his company recently promoted some, positioning the monopolist more properly for an existence as a patent agitator and troll.
What Microsoft needs right now is not an eccentric CEO but some kind of a person more ruthless than Ballmer — one who is willing to carry on relentlessly despite realising that s/he serves a malevolent agenda. Many executives perhaps leave because they come to this realisation, or perhaps they foresee further layoffs and collapse of this employer. Either way, a strong Apple proponent slams Microsoft watcher Joe Wilcox and alleges that Ballmer does a terrible job:
If Muglia were the first executive to be let go at Microsoft this year, one might guess he was indeed a bad apple or a poor fit for the job. But in the context of Ballmer’s housecleaning of Xbox and Zune leader J Allard, Entertainment & Devices Division head Robbie Bach, Office Division head Stephen Elop, as well as chief software architect Ray Ozzie (who had joined Microsoft in 2005 to take over the vision role of Bill Gates, and who was supposed to be holding the company’s divisions together in a coordinating role), throwing out the Server and Tools head within the same year-long period seems to be a rather intense and extended amputation on the level of “127 Hours” climber Aron Ralston.
[...]
Wilcox’s praise of Baller makes it sound like he’s a court musician, struggling to find rhyming lyrics that best flatter the crowned emperor who sits on his throne naked and glassy-eyed, eating a greasy turkey leg as his country is overrun by invading Huns outside.
Earlier this month, Robert Pogson pointed out that Ballmer’s vote of confidence had sunk. This was hardly reported, but it helped show that even within Microsoft there’s tiredness of Ballmer. Is he on his way out? █
“Government attorneys accuse Microsoft of using its monopoly position to bully, bribe and attempt to collude with others in the industry, while illegally expanding and protecting its Windows franchise.”
–The antitrust case: a timeline
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
Content is available under CC-BY-SA