05.10.10

Links 10/5/2010: Loads of GNU/Linux Gaming News, Mandriva Rumours

Posted in News Roundup at 4:28 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Clip of the Day

NASA Connect – SF – Aviation Safety (1/9/2001)

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Microsoft to Pay More for Mississippi Antitrust Case; Tennessee Becomes Latest American EDGI Victim

Posted in Africa, America, Antitrust, Courtroom, Deception, Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Windows at 11:34 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

World War 2 propaganda poster

Summary: The mainstream press refuses to state the obvious while Microsoft turns one state after another into a Microsoft Windows/Office indoctrination facility

UNITED STATES officials never learn, or maybe their predecessor never learn from history. The same company which abused the US market for many years (later to be found guilty) is now collecting fees and imprisoning the very same people whom it claims to have compensated.

We will start today’s post with the news that Mississippi lawyers will receive $10 million for fighting Microsoft and winning.

A Mississippi judge has upheld millions of dollars in attorneys’ fees for handling a state lawsuit against computer software manufacturer, Microsoft.

Hinds County Chancellor, Denise Owens, dismissed the challenge filed by state auditor, Stacy Pickering, over $10 million in attorneys’ fees.

We previously wrote about the Mississippi antitrust case in:

• Mississippi Paid up to $60 Million in Vouchers After Microsoft’s Violations of the Law
• Microsoft to ‘Pay’ $0.1 Billion to Settle Mississippi Case Against Its Crimes

Common sense ought to indicate that Mississippi won’t do business with Microsoft again. If someone sells you a faulty car under false pretenses, would you return to the same person to buy your next car? It makes no sense. In this case, Microsoft did more than sell a faulty product; it also eliminated competition in the car industry by breaking the law and then overcharged for the car. A decade or more later we have better options in the market, including BSD and GNU/Linux distributions which are very mature, reliable, and affordable. States should start deploying these, but Microsoft stifles such initiatives by monopolistic dumping.

Watch the public-elected officials as they crawl back into Microsoft’s bed right after receiving compensation (having fought for years in court). Gov. Phil Bredesen sells out and sells his citizens to a convicted monopolist. He is the latest among more than a dozen governors, who one by one decided to participate in Microsoft’s ‘American EDGI’.

What is American EDGI?

That’s what we call the US equivalent (more or less) of EDGI, which Microsoft publicly calls “Unlimited Potential” (yes, it’s a euphemism). Here is the latest new example of “Unlimited Potential” in action.

The YWCA Cass Clay has received the third year of funding from the Unlimited Potential – Community Technology Skills grant program from Microsoft.

Watch the headline. It says “Microsoft donates $205,000 to Cass-Clay YWCA”. What an abuse of the word “donates”. Companies don’t donate, they only pretend to donate (they have shareholders after all) in order to accrue value later on. It’s mostly about blocking Free software in this case.

Now, watch Lance Whitney calling another element of EDGI (software dumping) “free” and playing along with the marketing sham. Only after seeing this article did we find out who Lance Whitney actually is. Based on a very recent article of his (see disclosure), “He’s a contributing editor for Microsoft TechNet Magazine and writes for other computer publications and Web sites.”

That ought to explain self-deception at the very least (like self-censorship).

Here is another EDGI-reminiscing deal which Microsoft has just struck in Texas:

Texas State’s College of Education announced a partnership last week with Microsoft to develop a pilot program for preparing public school teachers to use the 21st century classroom.

Texas State’s College of Education ought to offer education, not indoctrination. Later on we’ll show that Gates is doing something similar to schools these days. They capture the minds of the next generation this way.

Going back to Gov. Phil Bredesen, watch how Microsoft is exploiting the state of Tennessee for indoctrination, with the government’s consent even:

i. Elevate America a great place to begin

On Wednesday, Gov. Phil Bredesen signed a deal with Microsoft Corp. to offer Tennessee residents 25,875 vouchers for free online technology training. The long-term economic value of this public-private partnership should not be underestimated. Employers are demanding higher levels of computer skills. The Elevate America partnership with the Tennessee Department of Labor is a great opportunity for Tennessee residents to acquire these important job skills in a convenient, no-cost online venue.

ii. State, Microsoft Team For Free Tech Training

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Gov. Phil Bredesen said that Tennessee is teaming up with Microsoft to provide free technology training to people across the state.

iii. State residents can pursue free Microsoft technology training

Gov. Phil Bredesen today announced that Tennessee will join forces with Microsoft in an innovative public-private partnership to provide free technology training to people across the state, a news release states.

iv. Bredesen Unveils Partnership With Microsoft To Offer Technology Training In Tennessee

Through Elevate America, Microsoft will work with the Tennessee Department of Labor to distribute 25,875 vouchers for free, online technology training and certification.

v. Career Center Offers Vouchers For Elevate America

Governor Bredesen announced that Microsoft will be bringing their innovative Elevate America program to Tennessee. Microsoft and the Tennessee Department of Labor will be distributing almost 26,000 free vouchers for online technology training and certification

What does that do to participants really? It only turns them into clients of Microsoft using ‘skills’ that even kids under 10 get qualified and certified for (true story and there is a new audiocast on the subject, titled “I earned my Microsoft Certification Badge when I was 11″).

Using a new press release, Microsoft is looking for other companies to help this American EDGI sham, exploiting a crisis for self enrichment and power over the most vulnerable people. The Seattle press plays along and so do some other publications which name Orange County as a victim of this sham:

Orange County’s unemployed workers snapped up most of the free online courses offered last month by Microsoft as part of its Elevate America program, reports the state Employment Development Department.

“Free online courses,” eh? So someone just pays for bandwidth which is used to make people dependent on Microsoft. Are these bandwidth costs being covered by the state so that Microsoft can sit back and just watch how the government becomes an extension of the abusive monopoly? More importantly, are all journalists naive enough to not see what is happening here?

“Once in a while there is a journalist who explores and uncovers the truth, but the resultant report gets washed aside by massive amounts of PR-esque fake ‘news’.”Well, a very recent study showed that the majority of news (especially local news) is written by PR people and ‘dressed up’ a little for publication. As we stressed many times before (along with examples and new proof), Microsoft's control of the national press is very great in the United States, which is how they get their way and overwhelm truth/logic with spin. Once in a while there is a journalist who explores and uncovers the truth, but the resultant report gets washed aside by massive amounts of PR-esque fake ‘news’.

According to TechFlash (also in Microsoft's pocket), Microsoft is outsourcing its viral video campaigns at the moment.

A couple months ago we told you about an unique promotion from the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce in which they asked small business owners to produce a short video touting how Microsoft’s Office 2010 boosts productivity at their companies

More fake ‘fan’ videos, eh?

According to this new blog post (blogs are sometimes more reliable than news sites these days), MSNBC (Microsoft-NBC) and Microsoft are now acquiring Today.com, which will possibly become another fake ‘news’ site.

According to the current Whois record for Today.com, it looks like Microsoft recently acquired the domain name Today.com, and it now forwards to MSNBC’s Today Show website. Prior to Microsoft’s ownership, it appeared to be registered by a company called Marksmen, Inc. which has been known to acquire domain names on behalf of large companies like Microsoft. Prior to that, it was privately registered, and just before that, Domain Capital was shown as the registrant.

“Fending Off Microsoft, Google Invests In TV Ad Startup,” says another article. Google’s role as a gateway to many news sites is also a serious issue which we’ll address at a later date. It’s a global problem.

Two weeks ago we wrote about Microsoft exploiting poor people in South Africa using an EDGI-like action and this currently gets published in the ‘news’ sites of South Africa (feeding on US ‘news’ sites for material), still full of spin and nonsense.

This was one of Microsoft’s biggest equity equivalent deals seen in South Africa to date and was part of its broad-based black economic empowerment (B- BBEE) programme.

How come nobody dares to explain Microsoft’s real motives? In this case, Microsoft is blocking use of Free/libre software. It also pretends that putting a retail price tag on some zeros and ones constitutes huge and generous donation and then makes a public relation scene out of the whole thing. █

“It’s easier for our software to compete with Linux when there’s piracy than when there’s not.”

–Bill Gates

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Symantec Lies About GNU/Linux

Posted in GNU/Linux, Security, Windows at 9:56 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Symantec: the Kent Hovind of security?
(mug shot of Kent Hovind courtesy of Escambia
County Sheriff’s Office after his arrest)

Summary: In order to sell some products, Symantec spreads GNU/Linux fear based on misinformation

EVERY once in a while Symantec aims its FUD pistol at some innocent element of computing which Symantec claims has a problem (and Symantec of course offers a solution to this problem). We have already explained this business strategy (using examples that misuse Free software [1, 2]), which characterises many quacks and pseudo-science. That’s why we put Kent Hovind at the top, for those who still wonder.

An issue which we discussed earlier today in IRC is the latest stunt from Symantec, which is probably best deconstructed and explained by Slashdot user “superapecommando” who submits:

The latest MessageLabs Intelligence Report from Symantec Hosted Services is filled with interesting and useful information regarding the current state of malware and e-mail borne threats as well as the trends over time. Of particular interest to me is the assertion in the report that “any given Linux machine is five times more likely to be sending spam than any given Windows machine.”

A pretty clear case of sensationalist metrics from a company which wants to sell their hosted security solutions to Linux box admins. But one interesting thing that comes out of the story is that many of the security researchers believe that misconfigured POSTFIX and SENDMAIL installations are cloaking the actual amount of spam coming from infected Windows hosts.

Desktops that unleash vast amounts of SPAM actually run Windows and one in two Windows PCs is believed/estimated to be a zombie (either active or not). GNU/Linux drives many mail servers, so if it obeys a request from a Windows zombie, then it will deliver SPAM. Should GNU/Linux therefore be blamed? Of course not. It’s just very good at delivering mail.

“GNU/Linux drives many mail servers, so if it obeys a request from a Windows zombie, then it will deliver SPAM.”Quoting Symantec a little further from its ‘report’ (which assumes bogus numbers about the market share of GNU/Linux), “by calculating a ratio of spam from a given operating system compared to the market share, we can get a “spam index” which shows relative to its market share, the likelihood that a particular computer is sending spam, based on its operating system. In the current spam climate, this index shows that relative to its market share, any given Linux machine is five times more likely to be sending spam than any given Windows machine…”

Another translation was sent to us by a reader who says: “Despite a total lack of evidence and being unable to detect the source OS of spam, we conclude that Linux machines are sending more SPAM because there are less of them.”

As our IRC logs will show later today (fragment posted below), there are even better explanations for that. █

---

IRC: #boycottnovell @ FreeNode: May 9th, 2010

Join us now at the IRC channel.

tessier__	http://www.v3.co.uk/v3/news/2262681/botnets-exploit-linux-owners	May 10 09:29
tessier__	Someone is smoking crack.	May 10 09:29
tessier__	crap	May 10 09:31
schestowitz	Windows is not used much for E-mail	May 10 09:31
tessier__	There is something fishy about that website	May 10 09:31
schestowitz	Which one?	May 10 09:31
schestowitz	V3?	May 10 09:31
tessier__	Not intentionally, no. But that’s what the botnets are doing with Windows: sending mail	May 10 09:31
tessier__	Yeah	May 10 09:31
schestowitz	VNUNEt?	May 10 09:31
tessier__	Have you heard of v3 before?	May 10 09:31
tessier__	I never have.	May 10 09:31
schestowitz	Yes	May 10 09:31
schestowitz	Linux relays spam	May 10 09:32
schestowitz	It runs mail servers	May 10 09:32
schestowitz	It does what it’s supposed to do	May 10 09:32
schestowitz	Which is to relay requests	May 10 09:32
tessier__	I cannot post a comment on that site. The captcha does not work. No matter what you put in there it does not accept it.	May 10 09:32
tessier__	Linux by default is not an open relay.	May 10 09:32
schestowitz	I wonder what sends those requests though	May 10 09:32
tessier__	No distro ships their mail servers that way.	May 10 09:32
schestowitz	It’s spammers	May 10 09:32
tessier__	it will deliver the spam to you that someone injected via a Windows box though.	May 10 09:33
schestowitz	They use open relays	May 10 09:33
schestowitz	Running Linux because it’s better	May 10 09:33
tessier__	Open relays are hard to find these days.	May 10 09:33
schestowitz	They get blacklisted	May 10 09:33
tessier__	And spammers don’t run open relays either. They don’t want other spammers stealing their resources.	May 10 09:33
schestowitz	What was that list that gather IPs of spam relays?	May 10 09:33
schestowitz	many services used to look it up and in 2008 it had sustainability issues	May 10 09:33
tessier__	Whenever I have investigated IP addresses that were sending me spam it was Windows boxes.	May 10 09:33
tessier__	There are lots of DNSBLs	May 10 09:34
tessier__	And they operate quite successfully	May 10 09:34
tessier__	SORBS is one of the big ones these days	May 10 09:34
schestowitz	I can’t recall the one I think about. Articles about it were widespread 2 years ago.	May 10 09:34
*schestowitz creates http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Facebook		May 10 09:35
Techrights	Title: Facebook – Techrights .::. Size~: 12.91 KB	May 10 09:35
tessier__	There have been quite a few	May 10 09:35
-BNtwitter/#boycottnovell-[popey] Mark proposes that 10.10 is released on Sunday 10th October 2010. Where 101010 = 42 = Meaning of Life / Universe / Everything!		May 10 09:37
-BNtwitter/#boycottnovell-[nsisodiya] need a student volunteer for modifying C++ book #schoolos		May 10 09:40
*benJIman has quit (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)		May 10 09:42
-BNtwitter/#boycottnovell-[popey] There will be no public ISO of #Ubuntu Light with Unity, but will be tailored specifically for OEMs.		May 10 09:49
-BNtwitter/#boycottnovell-[davidgerard] From @cracked – 5 Insane File Sharing Panics from Before the Internet – http://tinyurl.com/2ubthnw		May 10 09:53
Techrights	Title: 5 Insane File Sharing Panics from Before the Internet | Cracked.com .::. Size~: 81.74 KB	May 10 09:53
-BNtwitter/#boycottnovell-[satipera] Liberal Democrat negotiations with Labour look likely if Brown goes quickly.		May 10 09:55
*narendra (~79f5e1b0@gateway/web/freenode/x-xaqdkqksysommyyc) has joined #boycottnovell		May 10 10:08
narendra	where I can upload secrect document anonymousy ?	May 10 10:08
narendra	wikileaks is not working i think !!	May 10 10:08
tessier__	http://موقع.وزارة-الاتصالات.مصر/Default.aspx	May 10 10:16
tessier__	Awesome.	May 10 10:16
*benJIman (~benji@benjiweber.co.uk) has joined #boycottnovell		May 10 10:17
MinceR	i’m not so enthusiastic about it.	May 10 10:17
*benJIman has quit (Client Quit)		May 10 10:17
tessier__	Why not?	May 10 10:17
*benJIman (~benji@benjiweber.co.uk) has joined #boycottnovell		May 10 10:17
MinceR	because it allows even more domains that are difficult to type, read and compare	May 10 10:18
MinceR	IDN already lets you create identical-looking but distinct domains that can confuse users trying to check whether a certificate really applies to a supposedly secure connection.	May 10 10:18
MinceR	domain names used to be easy to handle (as such names should be)	May 10 10:19
MinceR	7bit US-ASCII should have been enough.	May 10 10:19
tessier__	SSL CA was broken from the beginning anyway. This doesn’t make things any worse.	May 10 10:21
tessier__	Everyone just clicks ok regardless.	May 10 10:21
tessier__	Although I am curious to know how you would work that sort of thing into a bind zone file.	May 10 10:21
MinceR	no, not everyone.	May 10 10:26

Permalink A Single Comment      Send this to a friend

Why In Re Bilski Could Wipe Microsoft off the Map

Posted in America, Free/Libre Software, Law, Microsoft, Patents at 9:19 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

John Paul Stevens, SCOTUS

Summary: Without software patents, Microsoft would be left toothless and clawless, not just clueless

IT HAS been a while since we last saw an update regarding the Bilski case. Justice Stevens is not around anymore, which is not good news because he was hostile towards software patents in the US. The USPTO meanwhile brags about a rise in ‘business’ (number of patents), probably refusing to acknowledge that it’s not an indication of success, it’s not supposed to be a ‘meat market’ for monopolies. If a university, for example, was to hand out degrees to anyone who requests that, it would devalue those degrees in the same way that patents are no longer a sign of invention. Many patents overlap other patents and disregard prior art. It is a mess. Now, Microsoft may brag that it has over 10,000 patents, but 85% of its patent applications are software patents. Assuming the present is representative of past filings, Microsoft would be left with just ~1,500 (none involving software) if or when In Re Bilski puts software patents right where they belong — the wastebasket.

So, where is Bilski at right now? According to Legal Times, the sessions may resume next week.

The Supreme Court handed down two relatively low-profile decisions this morning, leaving to another day some of the most-awaited cases of the term like Bilski v. Kappos, the business-methods patent-eligibility case that was argued last Nov. 9. The Court won’t be in session again until May 17.

Pogson writes about “problems in Re Bilski for SCOTUS”:

The “amicus” briefs were piled high with supporters of software patents. They were all trying to dodge the issue one way or another. Even Bilski and the opposition both skirted the issue as best they could. The patent office does not want business methods patents but does want software patents (It has issued thousands.). One argument was that adding software to a computer made the computer a specific machine even if it did not transform anything more than bits of information. Has “abstract” lost its meaning with people? Information, itself, is an abstraction, the idea that we can have an idea about ideas…

Meanwhile we find Bob Warfield explaining “the problem with software patents” and concluding as follows:

When we give broad protection like patents to software (or potentially music and books), we wall off via monopoly very large amounts of IP territory. This includes territory that the innovator never needed or perhaps intended to protect. Territory that doesn’t matter in the least to extracting the value of the invention as it was originally conceived. Such accidental monopolies are not good for innovation and are just legal lottery tickets equivalent to ambulance chasing. This kind of protection should be eliminated as there is little evidence software patents are stimulating any kind of innovation whatsoever and lots of evidence it hinders innovation.

“[T]here is little evidence software patents are stimulating any kind of innovation whatsoever and lots of evidence it hinders innovation,” argues Warfield while the FFII points to Mark Webbink’s Web site (he has worked for Red Hat and others) which contains many references on the subject. Webbink explains:

For the first two decades that computers and software were being developed one could not obtain a patent on software. That began to change with a series of court cases in the 1980′s. Among others, I do not consider those court decisions to have helped the software industry. Rather they have only served to slow down innovation. On this page I provide some of the content that has brought me to the conclusion that software patents are problematic.

Is there any compelling argument for software patents? (other than giving lawyers/trolls more business) █

“Software patents have been nothing but trouble for innovation. We the software engineers know this, yet we actually have full-blown posters in our break-room showcasing the individual engineers who came up with something we were able to push through the USPTO. Individually, we pretty much all consider the software-patent showcase poster to be a colossal joke.” —Kelledin, PLI: State Street Overruled… PERIOD

Permalink 3 Comments      Send this to a friend

“Patent Law for Computer Scientists” Should be Named “Computer Science for Patent Lawyers”

Posted in Europe, Free/Libre Software, Law, Patents at 8:48 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Photo by dkpto @ Flickr, Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic

Summary: A new book provides guidance on how to tax Europe’s software industry using patents; WIPO’s Director General (shown above) talks about patent harmonisation

A book called “Patent Law for Computer Scientists” has come out and lawyers from the UK reviewed this product. It gives tips on how to sneak software patents into the EPO:

Using the EPO-style interpretation of the word ‘for’, it seems to be also very suitable for European patent attorneys with an interest in the field of computer-implemented inventions, and particularly well suited for US attorneys who might like to think beyond the requirements of the US system when preparing their applications for being filed internationally.

More thoughts on the book:

It might well be that e.g. senior computer scientists who have prior experiences with the patent system due to their involvement in some earlier patent applications in which they were named as inventors will have a fair chance to gain additional insights from reading the book.

And, finally there might be another targeted group of potential readers: There are critics of the patent system in general and of the current EPO practice of granting patents on computer-implemented inventions out there who perhaps never have understood how exactly the practice of the EPO actually works in detail. Nobody expects them to be turned by 180 degrees after having read the book but their critics might get improved by being earthed in some deeper knowledge of the inner workings of the EPO.

The book’s title is “Patent Law for Computer Scientists,” but it seems more reasonable/suitable to call it “Computer Science for Patent Lawyers” because computer scientists generally dislike patent law; they already have copyrights, which don’t require patent lawyers (the “lawyer tax” or “patent tax”). Copyrights are very easy to decide on, whereas patents are too fuzzy to determine “infringement”, let alone to study (it’s easy to be sure you do not use someone else’s code but hard to know if someone out there applied for a patent on similar ideas, as opposed to implementation).

“I don’t think internationally yet because you can’t get it in Europe.”
      –Francis GurryRui Seabra passes on the message that “Roughly a third of all applications and granted patents relate in one way or another to computers.” How much of a farce does this system want to be?

Software patents proponent, the Patent Watchtroll, has spoken to Francis Gurry, who is WIPO’s Director General (WIPO is based in Europe and it’s generally unfriendly to freedom). Patent Watchtroll is quoted by FFII’s president as saying that “software, IT area is where I personally do my work and with the length of time it takes to get a patent”; he also acknowledges: “Gurry also indulged me in a bit of speculation regarding software and the worldwide disagreement on whether software should be considered patentable subject matter.” Regarding the role of software patents in blocking the EU’s patent harmonisation (globally), Gurry is quoted as saying: “I don’t think internationally yet because you can’t get it in Europe.”

According to Wikipedia, Francis Gurry is a lawyer. No bias there? No conflict of interests? █

Permalink 2 Comments      Send this to a friend

Software Patents Rumble: Apple, Microsoft, Nokia, and GNU/Linux

Posted in Apple, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Patents, Ubuntu, Videos at 7:50 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Why Apple, Microsoft, and Nokia are an active threat to GNU/Linux and to a software patents-free world where people can view films, for example, without paying some aggressive cartel

ONE of Microsoft’s very latest ‘export’ commodities is software patents, which account for about 85% of its applications. How about that for a company whose co-founder said just two decades ago: “If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today’s ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today.”

Based on Bill Gates, Microsoft’s current strategy puts “the industry” as we know it “at a complete standstill today.” It is true that a lot of features are being removed from software these days because of software patents. How is that beneficial? It’s not. Microsoft has for quite some time been a hindrance to progress. So let’s throw aside the “R&D” nonsense and view Microsoft for what it really does to research and development — it suppresses it.

“Microsoft has for quite some time been a hindrance to progress.”According to this new article, Microsoft gets a patent on cleaning up spam. In other words, Microsoft is getting a monopoly on a technique that helps reduce levels of the very same spam its botnets are creating. Dean Drako, Barracuda’s CEO, once said: “I would much rather spend my time and money and energy finding ways to make the Internet safer and better than bickering over patents.”

Next time spam fills one’s inbox, one needs to remember that Microsoft not only caused such spam but also suppressed spam prevention. How about that for a company whose co-founder said just 6 years ago: “Spam will be a thing of the past in two years’ time.”

So here we have a company that not only stifles progress but also stifles productivity. No wonder Microsoft is distrusted in the software industry; it’s not prejudice, it’s deserved dispositions.

“Microsoft gets Songsmith patent,” told us the Microsoft-sponsored TechFlash some days ago, so Microsoft is now stomping on music too. What would musicians and recreational music professionals say?

Apple is another patent aggressor that deserves no pardoning because it has been threatening Linux for a few years now (patent litigation threats) and finally sued Linux a couple of months ago. According to PatentlyApple.com (yes, Apple has fan sites even for its monopolies), “Apple Wins Strategic Multitouch & Music Tempo Workout Patents”:

Apple has been granted a patent for a multi-touch system that compares finger arrangements at the beginning of multi-touch gestures and discriminates between neutral and spread-hand performances. Gestures by the neutral and spread-hand versions of each chord are then mapped to separate, but intuitively related cursor functions or sets of commands. Less-frequently performed functions and commands are typically assigned to the spread-hand chord, since spreading the hand from neutral takes deliberate effort. With these neutral and spread distinctions, a two-handed gesture set can be packed into a one-handed touch surface, or for two-handed touch surfaces, twice as many intuitively customizable gesture command sets can be accommodated.

Over at Groklaw, Pamela Jones says about it: “Wait… you can patent language? Gestures? If I had invented sign language, for example, could I have patented it?”

A few days ago we wrote about Nokia suing Apple for patent violations again. Here are the reports from Reuters and IDG. There are many more.

This hardly makes Nokia the “good guy” and we have been criticising Nokia for its patent policy for quite a few years. In fact, Nokia should not be seen as an enemy of Apple and Microsoft. Just watch the company’s baffling relationship with Microsoft materialising again in the news this month:

• Microsoft releases Symbian Communicator
• Microsoft introduced Communicator Mobile for Nokia devices
• Microsoft and Nokia co-launch Microsoft Communicator Mobile
• Microsoft Reveals Communicator
• Microsoft Releases Communicator Mobile For Nokia
• Microsoft, Nokia make a play for mobile enterprise
• Microsoft builds Mobile Communicator for Nokia smartphones

Let this remind us that Nokia works for Nokia, not for Linux. Nokia’s moral compass is as useless as its shareholders’ (they lobby for software patents in Europe) and here is news coverage from the MSBBC:

The first product to result from an alliance between Finnish phone maker Nokia and software firm Microsoft has been launched.

They happen to be stepping on a product name from Netscape (Communicator).

Having covered Nokia’s relationship with Microsoft, let us look again at Apple’s baffling relationship with Microsoft. Both companies are attacking Android at the moment, which proves that Apple can be just as aggressive as Microsoft, if not more. CRN asks the question, “Will Consumers Still Love An Aggressive Apple?”

The notion of Apple as a ruthless competitor in the technology marketplace isn’t well established in the minds of consumers, but some industry watchers say that could change if the company’s recent behavior continues.

Apple is engaged in conflict on multiple fronts: Google, Adobe, HTC, Ellen Degeneres and the tech blog Gizmodo have all felt its wrath in recent weeks. U.S. regulators are reportedly considering launching a full blown antitrust investigation into Apple’s iPhone developer licensing tactics.

Apple was never gentle. It markets itself with arrogance and elitism as the value proposition (see the Mac ads), so its clientèle might not mind a bit of “tough love”. In fact, Apple’s many fan sites are spinning these recent events because they refuse to believe that their beloved Apple is anything less than perfect and protective of its vastly superior clientèle. Watch this one article spinning it as Apple being a “victim of success”. For shame.

Here in The Guardian is a new article about what Apple does to Chinese workers, just like Microsoft. [via Richard Stallman]

She is one of scores of young workers in the city of Suzhou who were poisoned by the chemical n-hexane, which they say was used to clean Apple components including iPhone touch screens.

Wu Mei – who, like the others, asked the Guardian to use her nickname – recalled her fear as her health suddenly deteriorated last spring.

Those shiny-shiny hypePhones and hypePads have a human toll that Western civilisation conveniently ignores. In defence of Free software, it encourages and facilitates reuse; its philosophy is one of ethics and peer production.

Let’s remember that companies like Apple and Microsoft originate from wealthy families/individuals who hardly ever knew a life of poverty or repression. One should not expect them to ever understand or care (unless it’s done for the cameras, so to speak).

Watch this new Pravda edition of Microsoft Russia in The Telegraph. “Microsoft was created in a garage,” says the president of Microsoft Russia, Nikolay Pryanishinikov.

What???

Does The Telegraph even fact-check its articles before publishing? The origins of Microsoft include sabotage of computers and taking away other people's work. The company best known for its “garage” genesis is probably Google, whose co-founder Brin knew oppression from Russia and therefore put ethics before shareholders, unlike Microsoft [1, 2].

“Perhaps they [Defensive Patent License] would benefit from looking at the prior art, if I may so call it, that Open Invention Network has done.”
      –Pamela Jones, GroklawAnyway, going back to the subject of software patents, a couple of days ago we wrote about "The Defensive Patent License" after an article came from Julie Bort, the editor of Microsoft Subnet, which is IDG’s Microsoft boosting section. She claimed in the title that it “makes patents less evil for open source,” which is a lie or at least crafty deception (coming from Microsoft boosters, it’s pretty much expected). Microsoft wants to have patent games with “open source”, which prevents those patents from just being buried and puts “open source” at Microsoft’s (and Apple’s) mercy.

Groklaw’s Pamela Jones wrote about that same Bort article: “Perhaps they would benefit from looking at the prior art, if I may so call it, that Open Invention Network has done. Here’s their license agreement, for example. They might want to note particularly clause 5.4.” Glyn wrote about that same article: “nice try, but misguided”

Finally, this brings us to GNU/Linux and Ubuntu in particular because of Canonical’s software patents arrangement with MPEG-LA [1, 2]. The president of the FFII asked us to “point to the difference between Ubuntu OEM and the ISO you download from the net.”

In general, we encourage people not to get Ubuntu from OEMs. Instead, people should get a computer without an operating system and install GNU/Linux on it themselves (or find OEMs that don’t play this game with MPEG-LA). As one blogger put it:

Are Ubuntu users covered by H.264 license? It depends

[...]

So, the situation that those purchasing Ubuntu-based machines find themselves in is that unless the system comes shipped with H.264 support, then it’s unlikely that the system is licensed, which technically means that adding that support later would be unlicensed.

It’s unlikely that the MPEG LA would come kicking your door down as a home user, but as a business user this puts you in an awkward position.

Basically, the licensing is a mess.

We need to dump H.264 and strongly encourage the use of Ogg Theora. Microsoft and Apple are attacking Theora at the moment, which is a good sign meaning that Theora is hurting them. Apple, Microsoft, and Nokia are all against Theora and in favour of software patents, so all of them (three at the very least) are problematic. Microsoft and Apple both fight against open standards while redefining the word “open” (meaning “along with software patents”). See the recent post which is titled “Microsoft vs. Standards” and also some of our recent postings about Theora (listed below). Florian has also just mailed us some of his analysis on this topic, which we append at the bottom for increased exposure. █

• Microsoft Brings MPEG-LA-LA Land to the Web and Threatens GNU/Linux With Software Patent Lawsuits
• Patents Roundup: Red Hat on Patent Trolls; Apple Antitrust; Microsoft Attacks Theora, Which is Needed to Save Our Video Culture
• Behind the Microsoft Puppetmaster: SCO-Type Libel, Acacia-Type Patent Trolls, and Novell-Type Patent Deals to Make GNU/Linux Not Free (Gratis)
• Apple’s and Microsoft’s New Motto: Do More Evil, Together
• Steve Jobs: “A Patent Pool is Being Assembled to Go After Theora and Other “Open Source” Codecs Now.”
• Apple and Microsoft a Threat to Culture (Data), Not Just Software (Tools)
• “The fight has been around a long time, now the target of Microsoft is Theora”
• Symptoms of the Sickness of the Patent System and Apple’s Infinite Greed

---

I have published an analysis of the current situation concerning HTML 5 video codecs (Theora vs. H.264 vs. potentially VP8) on my blog, in the format of a three-part sequence of blog posts. The key conclusions are in the third post.

Here’s a summary so you can quickly get the key messages from my blog without having to read the complete text of the three posts.

The key conclusion is this:
“It takes licenses to thousands of patents in order to build a GSM phone, and at some point it may be required to license large numbers of patents to build a fully functional HTML web browser.”

Having once founded the European NoSoftwarePatents campaign, I regret to say so but it seems to me that patent thickets are becoming such a big problem in connection with web technologies that the W3C [World Wide Web Consortium] will sooner or later have to turn HTML into a GSM-like standard. In order to build a GSM phone, vendors need licenses to thousands of different patents. So far, HTML is unencumbered by patent royalties but the W3C won’t be able to uphold that principle without impeding innovation.

- Plug-ins are here to stay (for some more time at least):

My three-part sequence of blog posts predicts in its first part that media player plug-ins will continue to be relevant because an industry-wide consensus on Theora, an open-source codec, looks like a very long shot. In fact, it appears more likely that the browser makers will split up into three camps if Google proposes VP8 (which it acquired as a key asset of On2 Technologies) than convergence on a single video standard acceptable to everyone.

- Free and Open Source Software advocates make various points that aren’t convincing:

The middle part of my sequence of blog posts looks at the points made by Free and Open Source Software developers and activists. While I’m very sympathetic to them, I can’t help but disagree on some of what they say. They overstate the risk of increasing H.264 license fees, they suggest antitrust problems for which there is simply no valid theory under the law, and they downplay or even dismiss the possibility of patent enforcement against Theora and other open-source codecs on a basis that I, with my knowledge of the problems that patents can create, don’t consider too convincing.

- Patent thickets:

In the third and final part of my blog post sequence, I describe the problem of patent thickets. Patent law doesn’t require a patent to relate to a complete product. Instead, there are more than 1,100 patents worldwide just on the H.264 codec. It’s not outside the realm of plausibility that some of those little steps, each of which constitutes a little monopoly, pose a problem to Theora and other current or future open-source codecs.

- Proponents of Theora have to perform at least some reasonable amount of patent clearance:

I believe the proponents of standardization on the basis of Theora would have to make at least some resonable effort to counter the claims made by Steve Jobs and others that there’s uncertainty concerning the potential infringement of patents by Theora. If major players such as Google, a commercial browser maker such as Opera and a well-funded non-profit such as the Mozilla Foundation want to convince the skeptics, I believe they have to make reasonable best efforts to demonstrate that their technology is safe from a patent point of view. At least they should look at the patents held by MPEG LA and perform a well-reasoned and well-documented patent clearance with respect to those.

- Canonical (Ubuntu) and OpenOffice.org believe in mixed free/proprietary approach:

That third and final part of the post sequence also points out that Ubuntu maker Canonical has already chosen to obtain a license to H.264 and that the OpenOffice.org team has rejected demands from the Free Software Foundation to limit its official repository of OpenOffice extensions to those that are considered to be “Free Software”: the OpenOffice.org team continues to welcome proprietary extensions (which could — as I point out — potentially also be patented). This seems to be the way things are heading under the software patent reality we face.

- MPEG LA statement:

In that third post I also quote an answer the MPEG LA patent pool firm gave me concerning H.264 and the ability for open-source projects (such as those led by the Mozilla Foundation) to license those standards. I conclude that the only way open-source projects can support H.264 is with proprietary plug-ins because otherwise the unlimited freedom to redistribute and incorporate program code into other projects would be incompatible with MPEG LA’s licensing rules.

- The W3C probably can’t uphold its royalty-free principle for too much longer:

The W3C’s patent-free-or-at-least-royalty-free approach to standards may be reaching its limits now. As the third part of my post sequence explains, that may very well have been an option for some time but by now there are large corporations as well as patent trolls taking out patents related to technologies that are key to future web innovation. For HTML 5 it looks like there will simply not be an agreement on a standard video codec, but over time the W3C may feel forced to recognize that for the sake of progress it will have to accept patented standards as well. The conclusion I reach is this (quote from the third part of the sequence of posts):

“As the web advances in technological terms, and given that software patents are extremely unlikely to be abolished in the largest markets anytime soon, the W3C may in a matter of only a few years feel forced to revisit its standards policy. It takes licenses to thousands of patents in order to build a GSM phone, and at some point it may be required to license large numbers of patents to build a fully functional HTML web browser. I’m afraid it’s only a question of when, not if it will happen.”

The alternative would be the abolition of software patents, but as I mention in that post, that isn’t realistically achievable for a lack of commitment by small and medium-sized companies.

Below please find a table of contents (links, headlines and subheads) of my three-part sequence of blog posts on this issue.

Florian

–

Part 1 — The HTML 5 dimension:

- W3C requirement for patent-free (or at least royalty-free) standards

- Browser makers divided into two (if not three) camps

- Living in a multi-codec world

- Absent an agreement on a standard HTML 5 video codec, plug-ins will continue to be relevant

Part 2 — Accusations flying in the aftermath of Steve Jobs’ email:

- Are those patents holders dogs that bark but don’t bite?

- Is there an antitrust problem?

- Is there a risk of H.264 becoming too expensive?

Part 3 — Food for thought:

- The patent thicket problem

- The question of relative safety in patent terms

- The need for consensus in the HTML 5 standard-setting discussion

- The burden of proof in the HTML 5 standard-setting discussion

- Is H.264 licensing a practical alternative for FOSS?

- Canonical (Ubuntu) and OpenOffice are comfortable with proprietary extensions to free software

- Will the W3C at some point have to depart from its royalty-free standards policy?

- HTML may become like GSM, at some point requiring licenses to large numbers of patents

Permalink 3 Comments      Send this to a friend

Salesforce CEO Compares Microsoft at Present to IBM in the 80s and 90s

Posted in Apple, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Servers, Virtualisation, VMware, Windows at 6:06 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Marc Benioff foresees a future without Microsoft (not as a relevant force anyway); his company joins VMware for a partnership

Salesforce is no fan of Microsoft and earlier this year its CEO said that Microsoft is “somewhat disgusting” (Salesforce uses a lot of GNU/Linux). We are somewhat disappointed to see Salesforce partnering with VMware, which is not only a proprietary software vendor but it’s also run by Paul Maritz from Microsoft.

Forbes is running a promotional piece about Maritz at the moment, conveniently forgetting his participation in illegal activities at Microsoft. Does the Chairman and CEO of Salesforce not realise who he’s doing business with? In a new Forbes interview, Marc Benioff says:

Recently I was with Craig Mundie, an executive at Microsoft, and I said: “Craig, how many servers and data centers do you think that our customers would need to set up if we didn’t exist as a company?” I was talking about doing just basic customer information or building complex apps. He said: “More than 100,000.”

This shows that Benioff does speak to Microsoft. He’s just not impressed by them or their products.

Separately, in a new Fortune/CNN article, Marc Benioff writes about “The end of Microsoft.” Sadly enough, he’s promoting Apple as a case study and we already know that Apple is not much better (replacing proprietary masters or substituting abusers is not the goal).

I have been waiting for something spectacular to happen any day. And it’s not the explosion of another volcano in Iceland, but it will be a global event with far reaching ramifications that will be as well known. Apple’s market capitalization is about to be worth more than Microsoft’s. That is quite a change from a decade ago.

In response to Benioff’s article, Matt Asay says that “Microsoft [is] down but by no means out” (this post is bearable, unlike other recent ones from Asay).

After all, this is the company that went from calling open-source software “un-American” to embracing it on a large scale. It’s also the company that killed Blackbird when it proved to be a dead-end and recently RIP’d its Courier tablet.

Microsoft is also the company that has dumped several iterations of its mobile Windows to experiment with two iterations of a new mobile strategy: Kin and Windows Phone 7. The two will likely converge over time, but Microsoft is placing multiple bets.

Pogson remarks on both of the above articles.

All the OEMs have a toe in the water of GNU/Linux. That is why M$ cannot raise its prices even though they have spent hundreds of millions promoting up-selling and killing the netbook. The netbook is poised to re-emerge with ARM and unencumbered by that other OS. Another reason why M$ cannot raise prices is because hundreds of millions of XP machines are still in use. Owners will undergo hundreds of dollars each to replace these machines. $150 or so for that other OS would be conspicuous compared to other options.

The monopoly is a house of cards about to crash down. It is crumbling slowly at the moment but any shift in its foundations will cause an avalanche. This is over and above the cloud-immobility issue. There is no monopoly in the cloud. People know what happened with M$ having a desktop monopoly. They will not be fooled again.

As a further sign that Microsoft is declining, there are some new Web browser statistics. Despite Microsoft’s cheating in the ballots [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7], “users explore alternatives to Internet Explorer,” says The Irish Times and eWEEK gives “10 Reasons Why Microsoft’s Internet Explorer Dominance is Ending” (“Microsoft’s IE Suffers the Death of a Thousand Cuts,” says this headline from a pro-Microsoft Web site). █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Indian ‘Trade’ Agreements Leaked

Posted in Asia, Intellectual Monopoly, Patents at 4:58 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“[Intellectual monopolies are] a neo-colonialist plot to ensure the continuing dominance of Western nations.”

–Glyn Moody, author of Rebel Code

Summary: How India is getting further repressed by intellectual monopolies

INDIA is one of the West’s biggest victims and in order to ensure it stays behind, the West has devised measures which are called “IP” and include software patents or deprivation of vital drugs. Here at Techrights we are mostly focused on software patents in India because we see multinationals (not just Microsoft) imposing them upon the Indian population to restrict software development in India (unless it’s carried out by the multinationals or de facto subsidiaries like Infosys [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17]). The assumption here is that Indian people are less worthy of equality and access to knowledge (which can be infinitely distributed anyway).

“It is also worth exposing corporate and/or political entities who are involved in these secret negotiations.”Floating around the Web at the moment are two leaked documents called “IPR India-EU trade agreement” [PDF] and “IPR India-Japan economic agreement” [PDF]. In the latter document (to give just one example), read page 2 about “harmonisation”. We wrote about this euphemism in relation to Europe and here we are seeing it in relation to Japan and India. Is Japan trying to export software patent laws (see page 3 about patents and TRIPS [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]) into India in the same way that the US (ruled mostly by corporate power) tried to export these to Europe? Either way, it seems like Indian free software supporters should rise to the challenge and derail these so-called ‘economic agreements’, which are of no economic value to India. It is also worth exposing corporate and/or political entities who are involved in these secret negotiations. It’s very similar to the umbrella called “ACTA” [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14], based on a cursory look at the texts. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend