Part of the duopoly (with Visa)

Summary: Free/Open Source software in the currency and trading world promised to emancipate us from the yoke of banking conglomerates, but a gold rush for software patents threatens to jeopardise any meaningful change or progress

ANY company that built its presence/niche/empire on proprietary software sooner or later finds out that it is not sufficient in the face of competition that is based on sharing. Proprietary software is unable to compete with Free/Open Source software. Apple’s patent war on Android (Linux and Open Source), for example, is not new. We used to write a lot about it when it started (Apple v HTC) and Apple is gradually losing more and more of its battles (the higher up they do, the lesser the success rate, as the latest Supreme Court decision served to show — a decision to be discussed tomorrow). Even so-called ‘friends’ of GNU/Linux, Amazon for instance, are pursuing loads of software patents that are occasionally being used.

At the end of last year we gave new examples of software patents being used against Free/Open Source software in finance — the very topic which got this site started in the first place. Worrying about the same type of issues (the attack on Bitcoin/Blockchain [1, 2, 3]), yet another site wrote about it just before the year ended. To quote:

Creating a ‘Blockchain Industry:’ Patenting the Blockchain

Patent filings for blockchain technology have more than tripled since 2014; this spike includes patents filed by cryptocurrency exchanges such as Coinbase, payment processors like Mastercard, and banks like Goldman Sachs and the Bank of America.

According to a report conducted by law firm Reed Smith, the most popular areas for these patent applications are payment systems: both for traditional forms of money and for systems that will be used to trade cryptocurrencies or digital tokens. Mastercard, by way of example, recently filed four blockchain patents for separate steps along authenticating a transaction on the blockchain.

Given the behaviour of IBM as of late and its ambitions in this space (not to mention clients such as Goldman Sachs), it wouldn’t shock us if Big Blue too became not just a participant in the patent gold rush but also a serial patent bully (recall TurboHercules v IBM). This isn’t a wish but a growing concern; all that patent hoarding, as noted in a variety of Bitcoin-themed news site, will likely culminate in some legal wars and out-of-court settlements, leaving the same old oligopolies in tact. That’s just protectionism, not innovation. These patents are not trophies to them; they intend to use them one way or another (they’ll probably claim “defensively”). █

“I find a considerable anxiety throughout the community of practicing computer scientists that decisions by the patent courts and the Patent and Trademark Office are making life much more difficult for programmers. ”

–Donald Knuth

Summary: Free/Open Source software (FOSS), which encourages sharing, is increasingly becoming infested or subjected to software patents barbwire, courtesy of those who want to monopolise rather than share

THE OTHER day we wrote about Blockchain and related technologies coming under attack because of giants that hoard software patents and threaten small players/contenders. A news site dedicated to Bitcoin explains this as follows:

Increasing Blockchain Patents May Soon Hamper Innovation

[...]

Companies count their patents among prized possessions. Having a patent for something important can be worth a fortune, guaranteeing the company a constant stream of revenue until it expires. At the same time, it may also hamper innovation by preventing other from using the technology for free.

Bitcoin and its underlying blockchain are open source technologies and it has gained prominence in the banking and fintech industry lately. The potential of blockchain to change the future of banking has forced many institutions to invest heavily in the development and implementation of cryptocurrency technology based applications.

However, the increased involvement of mainstream institutions has created another problem in the cryptocurrency industry. The banks and financial institutions are increasingly filing patents for various blockchain based solutions that are commonly used by many open source crypto-communities. If these institutions were to gain the patents, then they will soon be dictating terms to Bitcoin and other crypto-platforms, hampering innovation and ease of access to millions of people.

We are beginning to hear more and more stories like this and it matters even more to us because of the direct connection to FOSS and to the Linux Foundation. The other day WIPR showed that Hadoop too, in spite of being FOSS, became subjected to patent wars:

Founded in 2012, Pepperdata provides customers with products that improve the performance of Hadoop-based computing clusters. A computer cluster consists of a set of connected computers that work together.

According to the suit, Yahoo uses Hadoop clusters within the US. It made a software patch identified as YARN-5202, titled “dynamic overcommit of node resources”, which it has used on the clusters.

So anyone who uses this Free/Open Source software can now become the defendant in a patent lawsuit? How does that work? And why don’t more FOSS developers becoming actively involved in ending software patents? This should be our top priority. █

THE USPTO insists that it makes the US more competitive, but in many cases it actually helps large companies undermine small ones, not foreign ones.

Case of point: see the new article “When a patent-happy industry meets open-source technology” [1, 2]. To quote from the article:

When the financial services industry started paying attention to blockchain technology, many companies, seemingly as a reflex, sought patent protection for their ideas.

It was ironic, since the original bitcoin blockchain was a breakthrough of open-source development, in which software code is made freely available for anyone to use or modify. As the industry has gained a clearer understanding of how distributed-ledger technology could change its business, it’s begun to see the merits of such openness in supporting collaborative innovation, and the limitations of the traditional, you-can’t-touch-this approach.

Some are even using a hybrid strategy, pursuing patents to secure a competitive advantage – or at least protect themselves from legal challenges – while publishing code and inviting others to improve it by submitting fixes or patching bugs. The situation underscores the cultural differences between the banking and technology fields as the former looks to the latter for help meeting the demands of an increasingly digital world.

IBM’s Manny Schecter was interested in this and Benjamin Henrion told him that these conglomerates pursuing patents on Blockchain technologies is “like oil companies patenting everything solar.”

This isn’t entirely new a revelation. It’s an old trick in many industries (absorbing or denying competition that suggests alternative paradigms). Big Banks are essentially attacking Bitcoin, Blockchain etc. using software patents and today we found two more articles about it, “Blockchain patent filings by Goldman, others tip future cost risk” and “Corporate Patents on Blockchain Could Create Legal Problems for Startups”. Well, that’s the intention.

“Thankfully, a lot of software patents pertaining to payments and finance are being invalidated these days (thrown our by court), more so than in any other field.”“Over the past few months,” one of these articles says, “some of the world’s largest financial companies including Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Mastercard – have been patenting promising Blockchain methodologies. Despite a common perception that Blockchain is Open Source and developers can freely use Sotoshi Nakamoto’s ideas from bitcoin to build new systems, it still could mean costly legal problems for fledgling startups, lawyers and others are saying.”

We wrote about this not too long ago in relation to MasterCard. A lot of the above culminated in the publication of “Big Banks Are Stocking Up on Blockchain Patents” (early yesterday in Wall Street media). To quote:

In the headlong rush to revolutionize modern finance, blockchain enthusiasts are overlooking one potentially costly problem: their applications, built on open-source code, may actually belong to someone else.

Recently, some of the biggest names in business, from Goldman Sachs to Bank of America and Mastercard, have quietly patented some of the most promising blockchain technologies for themselves. Through mid-November, the number of patents that companies have obtained or said they’ve applied for has roughly doubled since the start of the year, according to law firm Reed Smith.

Our readers are smart enough to know what’s wrong with this picture. Gullible people may try to frame this as a sign of “adoption” and “success”, but the large financial firms just want to guard their monopoly/oligopoly, they don’t want disruption.

Thankfully, a lot of software patents pertaining to payments and finance are being invalidated these days (thrown out by courts), more so than in any other field (about 90% of the time). That’s similar to business methods, too.

Are patent examiners in the US paying any attention at all to what courts have been arguing over and over again? █

Summary: An update on Intellectual Ventures and Unwired Planet, whose operations pose a growing problem for Free software and Linux-based products (e.g. Android)

Patent trolls, as we noted in the previous post, are a growing problem in China and UPC in Europe can also make them a growing problem in Europe, basically emulating the mistakes of the USPTO.

“”Working with” as IAM refers to it basically means agreeing to cooperate with an extortionist.”IP Watch, speaking to LOT Network’s Ken Seddon, mentioned the problems associated with trolls on the first of the month, taking stock of the type of trolls that FTC spoke about (against) a couple of months ago. To quote: “Patent assertion entity (PAE) activity has skyrocketed in the past decade and much discussion has occurred around what to do in response to patent holders whose strategy is more focused on legal battles than innovating. One notable group has risen up to bring together global companies to address the PAE issue with a novel sharing approach. In an interview with Intellectual Property Watch, Ken Seddon, CEO and President of LOT Network, talks about the group’s rapid growth, what’s coming next, and how not to bring a squirt gun to a nuclear fight. ”

In our previous post we showed that Intellectual Ventures had expanded in China. Well, IAM continues to groom this troll, the world’s largest patent troll, which is Microsoft’s patent troll. See this promotional article and another new article which euphemistically calls patent extortion “NPEs” “monetisation”. “Working with” as IAM refers to it basically means agreeing to cooperate with an extortionist. IAM makes patent trolls look so benign that it’s appalling if not disgusting. That’s what happens when the patent trolls pay IAM…

“IAM makes patent trolls look so benign that it’s appalling if not disgusting. That’s what happens when the patent trolls pay IAM…”In other news, a network of sites published an article titled “How Big Law and Big Banks Took the Fight to Intellectual Ventures” [1,2], reminding us that Intellectual Ventures is very malicious and parasitic.

Speaking of Microsoft’s biggest patent troll, watch what Microsoft does with Nokia‘s patents other than extorting Android OEMs and passing patents to patent trolls like those that fund IAM. To quote the new article: “Under the terms of the agreement, HMD got exclusive rights to use the Nokia brand on mobile phones and tablets globally (except Japan) for the next 10 years, standard essential cellular patent licenses, software for feature phones…”

Those “standard essential cellular patent licenses” are among the reasons Microsoft ‘stole’ Nokia and now taxes a lot of the mobile industry using patents, even without selling any phones of its own. Not only Nokia’s patents serve to accomplish this goal. Ericsson’s patents too have been weaponised and Ericsson essentially created patent trolls that even operate in Europe (London).

“Ericsson’s patents too have been weaponised and Ericsson essentially created patent trolls that even operate in Europe (London).”Recently, Ericsson’s most prominent patent troll (Unwired Planet) did some damage even to PTAB, which has been responsible for intercepting a great number of software patents in the US. We wrote quite a lot about it last weekend and for those who don’t remember, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) ruled to weaken PTAB. More coverage on CAFC coming out in favour of this patent troll of Ericsson — and indirectly against PTAB scope of operation — came from legal-centric sites [1, 2] at the beginning of last week.

Here in Europe, there may be some good news as Florian Müller, who used to promote/defend FRAND back in the days (it’s similar or related to standard essential patents), says that Germany pushes back against FRAND, citing antitrust reasons. To quote:

There was a time when I spent most Fridays–and occasionally also a Tuesday–in Mannheim (and on trains from Munich to Mannheim and back) to watch numerous smartphone patent trials. After coming to terms with a prohibition on making Internet connections from the courtroom (which prevented me from live-tweeting about the proceedings), I generally enjoyed my visits. I admired the depth of the judges’ technical understanding and their effective trial management (authoritative, but not authoritarian; highly facts-focused, but with a great sense of humor that I know other trial watchers also appreciated). There are, however, two notable exceptions from my fond memories: the incredibly dry air in the courtrooms and, more than anything else, the Mannheim judges’ take on what the obligation to license standard-essential patents on FRAND terms should mean for patent infringement remedies.

We certainly hope that these congregations of trolls, including those that try to tax every phone running Android, will be pushed back by courts. What we have here is a network of few large companies operating through patent trolls (i.e. resistant to lawsuits themselves), hoping to tax everything and everyone. Nobody benefits, except few rich people at the top. █

Summary: Worrying signs that an area of Free/Open Source software innovation is getting impacted by the plague of software patents

EARLIER this year we alluded to Blockchain patents in relation to a sham promise from a company with no patents. It ought to be be widely known — as it certainly is widely recognised among people in the profession — that software patents on financial stuff are the least likely to survive in courts (irrespective of what USPTO examiners do).

And yes, according to this new article, “MasterCard (MA) Files for Blockchain Patents” (!).

A new article from Fortune (published yesterday) is titled “Are Blockchain Patents a Bad Idea?”

Consider whose interests Fortune is serving.

“Remember the connection of Blockchain to Bitcoin, Free/Open Source software, GNU/Linux, and the Linux Foundation. A lot of those are inherently not compatible with patents.”Truly troubling.

Remember the connection of Blockchain to Bitcoin, Free/Open Source software, GNU/Linux, and the Linux Foundation. A lot of those are inherently not compatible with patents.

Earlier today Sam Dean published the article “Will Patent Wars Bog Down the Blockchain Movement?”

Well, they can certainly cause a lot of damage. Other news about Blockchain today is optimistic about business prospects of Blockchain, but what happens if over the next year or two the most news we hear about Blockchain and hyper-ledgers relates to patents? As we noted here before, even Goldman Sachs dives into this gold rush of patents in this particular area.

Software patents need to end, but while the US cracks down of them they appear to have already spread to China, as we shall show later in the weekend. █

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella: women, don’t ask for a raise

Summary: Another example of the large (industrial) scale of sexual discrimination at Microsoft — a company that tries to advertise itself as diverse or tolerant and stigmatise Free/Open Source software (FOSS) as intolerant and/or not diverse

SEXUAL orientation-related and sexual discrimination at at workplace are a common theme. Microsoft’s propaganda mills, however, tried to stigmatise FOSS as hostile to minorities, women, and whatever else isn’t white, straight, middle-aged men.

Microsoft has got quite some audacity though. Microsoft’s hostility towards women [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8] and hostility towards gay people (or homophobia) [1, 2] were covered here before. Even Microsoft’s new CEO came under fire for it. The latest example of Microsoft sexism is reaching the press now. To quote The Register (one among very few that covered it):

Microsoft will have to defend itself against a lawsuit alleging that its employee rating system was biased against women.

A US district court in Washington has tossed out [PDF] the Redmond giant’s motion to dismiss a complaint lobbed at it by three women engineers, who allege the system for evaluating engineering and technical positions unfairly penalized them.

At issue is the Windows giant’s “Connect” system, the evaluation method Microsoft used to replace the much maligned “stack ranking” process for evaluating employee performance.

The engineers allege that the review system relies on manager and peer input from a group that is overwhelmingly male and, as a result, the female employees they evaluated may have missed out on raises and promotions.

“Plaintiffs allege these performance evaluation methods are ‘invalid’ because they ‘set arbitrary cutoffs among performers with similar performance’ and are ‘not based on valid and reliable performance measures’,” the court’s ruling, dated October 14, reads.

As we noted several months ago, sexism at Microsoft is systemic and a year ago we noted that it's not really a FOSS issue, in spite of a stereotype created and spread by the likes of Microsoft. Hence the relevance to FOSS… █

THE previous post spoke about misleading coverage which would have us believe there’s a software patents rebound in the US. There is none of that, it’s just wishful thinking.

According to this new Slashdot post, linking to a report already mentioned in our daily links, in spite of the huge number of payment technology software patents being crushed (about 90% of them!), Accenture (somewhat of an evil and manipulative Microsoft ‘proxy’ in the UK) rushes for software patents in that area. As we noted here a few months ago, patents in this area are a growing cause for concern because they can undermine innovation. Things like Bitcoin and even Free/Libre Open Source software are affected profoundly. It’s not necessarily companies like Accenture and Microsoft that sue, but Microsoft has many patent trolls out there. Those trolls are no longer just a problem in the US; even in east Asia’s markets they are a growing problem or an epidemic (patent trolls spread there and there are new reports to that effect from publications that deny the existence of patent trolls).

Speaking of patent trolls, Joe Mullin has this new article about the latest moves from Mr. Horn. He summarised that as “Company backed by Nokia, Sony, and MPEG-LA gets a $3M verdict.” MPEG-LA is a massive obstruction to Free/Libre Open Source software, for reasons we covered here many times over the years.

“MPEG-LA is a massive obstruction to Free/Libre Open Source software, for reasons we covered here many times over the years.”Times are rough for those who develop software whenever software patents maintain some potency and patent trolls have an incentive to sue, not just to threaten. According to last week’s post from Patently-O the “patent act authorizes district court to award enhanced damages.” But only if you actually read patents, so don’t. Willful infringement can induce further penalties. To quote Patently-O regarding Halo [1, 2]:

The patent act authorizes district court to award enhanced damages. 35 U.S.C. 284 (“the court may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed”). In Halo v. Pulse, the Supreme Court held that the statute grants district courts discretion in awarding enhanced damages – although noting that the punitive damages should ordinarily be limited to egregious infringement – “typified by willful infringement.” In rejecting the Federal Circuit’s Seagate test, the Court held proof of “subjective willfulness” is sufficient to prove egregious infringement. “The subjective willfulness of a patent infringer, intentional or knowing, may warrant enhanced damages, without regard to whether his infringement was objectively reckless.” Halo at 1933. As with other punitive damage regimes – proof sufficient for an award does not necessitate such an award. In patent cases, punitive damages remain within the discretion of the district court even after sufficient evidence establish the egregious behavior.

Another interesting article from Patently-O speaks about obviousness and prior art, along the lines stating that:

In response to being sued for patent infringement, Apple filed for inter partes reexamination of ClassCo’s Patent No. 6,970,695. That litigation (originally filed in 2011) has been stayed pending the resolution here. Although the patent had survived a prior reexamination, this time the Examiner rejected the majority of the patent claims as obvious; the PTAB affirmed those rejections; and the Federal Circuit has now re-affirmed.

The patent relates to a “caller announcement” system that uses a phone’s speaker (rather than screen or separate speaker) to announce caller identity information. The system includes a “memory storage” that stores identify information being announced.

The examiner identified the prior art as U.S. Patent No. 4,894,861 (Fujioka) that teaches all of the claimed elements (of representative claim 2) except for use of the phone’s regular audio speaker (rather than a separate speaker) to announce a caller’s identity (claimed as the “audio transducer”). A second prior art reference was then identified as U.S. Patent No. 5,199,064 (Gulick) that taught the use of the audio transducer for providing a variety of call related alerts.

What’s interesting here is that Apple, which uses software patents against rivals (including against Linux/Android), suddenly fancies invalidating one. Had there been no software patents, none of this mess would be necessary. Moreover, no money would flow into the pockets of patent law firms at the expense of developers and people who purchase products. █

“Where knowledge ends, religion begins.”

–Benjamin Disraeli

Summary: The Open Invention Network (OIN) reports growth, but in practical terms it does little or nothing to help developers of Free/Open Source software

THE function of OIN seems benign if not benevolent on the surface; the problem is, it helps distract from better efforts that would more effectively defend Free/Open Source software (FOSS). Another not-so-useful initiative was Peer-to-Patent, but it seems to be gone by now.

OIN is growing (see the OIN ‘Community’) and MRV has just joined OIN (see the press release [1, 2], mostly or completely overlooked by reporters). This is a sign of growth, but it is growth which won't help FOSS all that much because it was never truly designed with FOSS in mind. The “Open Source Innovation” mentioned in the title of the press release wrongly assumes this will be beneficial to FOSS, but unless every company in the world joined and vowed not to sue any of the other members (like Oracle suing Google), what would it achieve? And what about lawsuits by proxy? Even if Microsoft was ever to join, its patent trolls (two of which we wrote about last night) would still be capable of suing Linux developers/companies.

Speaking of which, even Android players are a patent menace at times (e.g. Sony). A new and relatively long article by Professor Jason Rantanen speaks about Ericsson’s patent troll, Unwired Planet, and its case against Apple. “This post will focus on the issue of fault in the context of Unwired Planet,” he wrote upfront, “although its observations about fault are relevant to issues of culpability in the context of enhanced damages determinations.”

Even if Ericsson was ever to join OIN, this would not prevent it from suing Android OEMs, directly or via proxies like Unwired Planet (which even operates in Europe now). █

Summary: Blockstream says that it comes in peace when it comes to software patents, which triggers speculations about coming Blockchain patent wars

THE PAST few years were baffling as companies equated promises not to sue with “Open Source” or “open-source” (with a dash, to help dodge the trademark perhaps). Examples we covered here included, notably, Tesla and Panasonic.

A couple of days ago we saw that Blockstream had claimed the following: “Today we are excited to announce some important steps we are taking on the patent front, why these defensive steps are necessary, and our hope that others will see merit in our approach and follow our lead.

“The system as it stands is inherently hostile towards GNU/Linux and Free/Open Source software, which is what Blockchain is all about.”“Core to the Bitcoin ethos is permissionless innovation. Without it and the level of contribution to which it gave rise Blockstream would not be on the exciting path we find ourselves today. It should not come as a surprise then that permissionless innovation is also core to Blockstream’s ethos. We firmly believe that in order for Bitcoin and related technologies’ potential to be fully realized they must be underpinned by a global platform that is free for any innovator to use without hesitation.”

As Benjamin Henrion rightly asked, “where do you have patents? which numbers?” Another person, a patent attorney who specialises in patent data/statistics, noted that “Blockstream Does Not Have Any Patents Assigned to It.” This is not entirely shocking. Having written about Blockstream in the past (we have very broad scope in our daily links), not once did we mention it in relation to patents. Patently German hypothesised: “Preparation for future #blockchain #patent wars? Blockstream announces defensive patent pledge and patent agreement…” (IBM, a patent bully with software patents, is also heavily involved in the same Linux-centric space)

IP Watch, a decent watchdog of patent matters, wrote the headline “Trust Us, We Won’t Sue You” (it sounds rather humourous or sarcastic). It said that “Blockstream, which developed the blockchain technology and bitcoin, has announced a defensive patent strategy. The crux of it: assurance that users of its technology won’t be sued.”

“It seems like shameless self-promotion or a publicity stunt with a “patents” angle.”The EFF wrote about this as follows: “We’ve written many times about the need for comprehensive patent reform to stop innovation-killing trolls. While we continue to push for reform in Congress, there are a number of steps that companies and inventors can take to keep from contributing to the patent troll problem. These steps include pledges and defensive patent licenses. In recent years, companies like Twitter and Tesla have promised not to use their patents offensively. This week, blockchain startup Blockstream joins them with a robust set of commitments over how it uses software patents.”

Bob Summerwill told me [1, 2]: “I see this as hugely positive. Looks directly analogous to what the GPL does for copyrights. Use system against itself.”

Right, but unless Blockstream actually has some patents (there is no evidence of it so far), what can they really use against the system? The system as it stands is inherently hostile towards GNU/Linux and Free/Open Source software, which is what Blockchain is all about.

Blockstream’s message is suggestive of unknown context (like something they know but are not telling us). It seems like shameless self-promotion or a publicity stunt with a “patents” angle. We have become accustomed to it. One company that should definitely do the same thing (but has not) is Red Hat. OIN membership does not guarantee this and if Red Hat got sold to some relatively hostile entity (like Sun to Oracle), there is no guarantee that Red Hat’s patents would not be used to wreak havoc (like a $10 billion lawsuit over a programming language alone, i.e. an order of magnitude worse than SCO versus IBM). █

Summary: Weaponisation of European companies for the sake of artificial elevation of prices (patent taxes) a growing issue for Free/Open Source software (FOSS) and those behind it are circulating money among themselves not for betterment of products but for the crippling of FOSS contenders

THE long if not endless war waged by Microsoft against GNU/Linux is far from over. This past week, e.g. in our daily links, we gave several examples of the latest assaults by Microsoft (Android antitrust, Linux booting restrictions, lobbying against freedom-respecting policies and more), aside from the patent angle. Microsoft sure knows what it’s doing and if Microsoft succeeds, Linux-powered products will lose their broad appeal due to removed (thanks to legal threats) features and artificially-elevated prices. In this post we shall focus on the patent aspects alone, as we so typically do in order to keep things simpler.

“Microsoft sure knows what it’s doing and if Microsoft succeeds, Linux-powered products will lose their broad appeal due to removed (thanks to legal threats) features and artificially-elevated prices.”Let’s start with the Microsoft-friendly advocacy site, IAM ‘magazine’. IAM’s innuendo-filled focus on China’s patent activity as of late [1, 2] finally culminates in China’s “misuse of competition law for protectionist policies,” as if the West never ever does this (it’s certainly the norm at the USPTO and ITC). IAM wants to make China’s system (patents, courts etc.) look unfair and unjust, as it did the other day too. China is apparently very mean because there’s bias there that’s hardly unique to China. Huawei is the one major Android OEM that Microsoft never managed to blackmail using patents (it reportedly did try over the years) and IAM now says that “Huawei attracts flak from Nokia, while adversary Samsung signs major deal with the Finnish company” (good cop, bad cop). It is obviously a loaded headline and IAM does not tell readers that Nokia’s patent troll, MOSAID (now Conversant), is paying IAM. What a farce of a ‘news’ site. MOSAID (fed with Nokia patents at Microsoft’s instruction) can be viewed as somewhat of an extension of these entities and after Microsoft effectively hijacked Nokia it’s taxing Google/Android (hence Linux) in a royalty stacking fashion. This happens right now not only in the Western world but also in Asia, albeit Huawei has been one of the very few exceptions (the Chinese government, which is connected to it, seems to have protected it). “Here’s Why Nokia Is About To Get More Money Out Of Its Patents” is a new article from Fortune (writing a lot about patents so far this month) which reminds us that Microsoft essentially turned Nokia into a patent aggressor. Put another way, Microsoft made Nokia yet another one of its (many) patent trolls that are openly against Android and Linux. “I booked http://nokiaplanp.com,” wrote Benjamin Henrion, but that was “years ago, I was right.” The P stands for Patents and it happened around the time people were making jokes about Nokia’s plans under Microsoft’s mole, Elop (there were nearly a dozen such plans with a different alphabetic letter for each).

People are kindly asked to remember what Microsoft did to Nokia as revisionism about it is quite routine nowadays. Not only Nokia engages in such behaviour; Ericsson does this too and it goes as far as south Asia, e.g. India. European patent trolls come to India even if there are no software patents in India and virtually no patent trolls either, as we mentioned here before. Well, Micromax was last mentioned here a couple of months ago in relation to patent trolls, primarily Ericsson’s (the equivalent of MOSAID/Conversant to Nokia) and here is a new blog post about it:

Ericsson has been going all out to enforce its Standard Essentials Patents (SEP) against several mobile phone companies, such as Micromax, Intex and Lava, among others, who are primarily selling mobile phones in India. The outcome of these law suits will no doubt play a significant role in defining the future of licensing and enforcement of SEP in India.

The latest in these law suits is an interim judgement by The High Court of Delhi in the matter between TELEFONKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (Ericsson) and LAVA INTERNATIONAL LTD (Lava). The interim judgement is in favour of Ericsson. More importantly, the judgement deals with various aspects of licensing and enforcement of SEP.

Ericsson keeps 'hiding' behind proxies that are patent trolls in order to shake down practicing companies. It’s hardly even covert like Microsoft’s scheme. Everyone knows that Ericsson is doing this. Standard-essential patents (SEPs) are used here (Nokia has many of these too) and speaking of which, the Kat who is the most pro-software patents (based on years of posting history) wrote about the EPO's PR firm the other day, noting its take on SEP holders. “The final speaker was Mark Bezant from FTI consulting,” she wrote. “He mentioned that he is amongst the FRAND experts in the pending UK case of Unwired Planet v Samsung and Huawei [last reported by IPKat here]. He noted the two key issues in FRAND disputes: (a) the obligations placed on the SEP holders, and (b) the appropriate level of royalty rates. After reminding the audience of some of the methods discussed by Garreth Wong, he mentioned particular issues that arise in practice, such as having to rely on outdated licences or inherently complicated agreements. With respect to the incremental method of calculating royalties, he noted the difficulty in understanding the exact value a single patent has added to a standard. The most common approach, he explained, is looking at established comparable rates and matching them to the situation at hand. Mr Bezant concluded that one must establish a number of factors before assessing whether a licence is FRAND, such as the validity of the patents, the number of declared essential patents, the number of essential patents confirmed by a court, and the qualitative assessment performed by experts on the patents.”

“Remember that there are practically no workarounds for SEPs (by definition) and FRAND is not compatible with FOSS.”It’s rather curious to see Battistelli’s PR firm (at the expense of the EPO) promoting a software patents loophole and patent aggression. Then again, they also promote the UPC and pay IAM, which incidentally gets paid by patent trolls also. It is a hostile world out there and it makes life hard for FOSS proponents. Remember that there are practically no workarounds for SEPs (by definition) and FRAND is not compatible with FOSS. █

Summary: Free/Open Source software (FOSS) continues to be used as a cover for large corporations (like Google, IBM, NEC, Philips and Sony) to maintain a grip on patent pools and act as gatekeepers with software patents that they openwash (not even cross-license, as Oracle v Google serves to illustrate)

WE were never huge fans of OIN, which is why OIN’s CEO and PR people tried hard to convince us otherwise. I saw first-hand accounts where patent trolls were repelled by OIN, which didn’t quite seem to care (maybe because OIN cannot do anything at all about patent trolls, other than attempt to buy/harvest patents before they’re bought to be used offensively). OIN is basically the world’s biggest legitimiser of software patents. IBM, the main company behind OIN (recall its first head of operations, Jerry Rosenthal from IBM), is a patent bully and a notorious software patents proponent, so how can one honestly expect OIN to be part of a true solution? IBM is demonstrably part of many problems.

“IBM is demonstrably part of many problems.”According to this new article from Fortune, joining OIN makes one “a Patron of Open-Source Software” (what a ludicrous headline). To quote from the article: “It’s called the Open Invention Network, and its other members are Google, IBM, Red Hat rht , NEC nec-electronics , Philips phg , Sony sne , and SUSE (a unit of Britain’s Micro Focus). Fortune is the first to report Toyota’s startling move.

“Formed in 2005, OIN’s mission is to protect and encourage the collaborative development and use of open-source software, like the Linux operating system, which can be freely copied, altered, and distributed, and which no one person or company owns. OIN pursues a variety of strategies aimed at protecting the users and developers of such software against the threat of patent suits by proprietary software manufacturers, like Microsoft and Apple. Such suits, if successful, could deny users the freedoms that make open-source software desirable.

“That Toyota would now join the group reflects the growing importance that software is playing in cars, and the growing number of automakers who believe that open-source software is the best approach to providing many of the needed solutions for its vehicles. Open-source champions say such software is cheaper, more flexible, and of higher quality, because it benefits from the pooled resources of collaborative input.”

Toyota, a very close Microsoft partner (probably more so than any other vehicles maker), claims to have joined OIN, but what good will that do for FOSS? Nothing. Toyota is not even a software company. It’s about as relevant to FOSS as that openwashing campaign from Tesla (and later Panasonic). Total nonsense. It’s about as helpful to FOSS as RAND is and speaking of RAND (or FRAND), this new article from IP Watch speaks about FRAND in relation to Europe, where the term FRAND is typically a Trojan horse (or surrogate) for software patents in Europe.

“Toyota, a very close Microsoft partner (probably more so than any other vehicles maker), claims to have joined OIN, but what good will that do for FOSS?”Going back to OIN, it has done virtually nothing so far to protect FOSS. It’s like bogus insurance plan which does not actually work or cover anything (no matter the circumstances). Where is OIN every time Microsoft blackmails Linux/Android OEMs? Speaking of which, Professor Crouch has this new article about insurance based on patents (or copyright, trademark, and trade secret). He says that “Hammond’s insurance company USLI had refused to indemnify Hammond based in-part upon the intellectual property exclusion found in the policy that specifically excluded coverage for any “loss, cost, or expense . . . [a]rising out of any infringement of copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret or other intellectual property rights.” Agreeing, the court particularly found that the basis for TCA’s attorney fee requests stemmed from the Pennsylvania Uniform Trade Secrets Act as well as the Copyright Act – even though no intellectual property infringement claim had been asserted in the underlying case.”

Look what we have come to. With misnomers like “intellectual property”, which compare ideas to “property” and ascribe physical attributes to them (like insurance traditionally did, covering for damage caused to physical things), no wonder the media says joining OIN is becoming “a Patron of Open-Source Software” (FOSS inherently rejects the notion of patron or owner, except in the copyright assignment sense).

“Fortune is the first to report Toyota’s startling move,” its author wrote, but in reality Fortune is the media partner to peddle Toyota’s marketing/propaganda, along with OIN’s agenda. █

Summary: A look at the reality behind today’s Microsoft and what proponents of Microsoft (often connected to the company) want us to believe

THE aggressive company which is widely hated/loathed (and deserves this hatred, which is well earned based on its actions) just can’t help doing evil. Those who try hard to convince themselves that Microsoft has changed must not have noticed that the management is virtually the same and the company continues to operate like a death squad, attempting to prematurely destroy anything which resembles potent competition, based on suspicion alone.

“Those who try hard to convince themselves that Microsoft has changed must not have noticed that the management is virtually the same and the company continues to operate like a death squad, attempting to prematurely destroy anything which resembles potent competition, based on suspicion alone.”Several years ago we explained what Microsoft was hoping to achieve when it took over Skype (soon thereafter to enter NSA’s PRISM, right after Microsoft which was the first in the whole programme and had already provided back doors to the NSA for over a decade). Recently we saw Skype support for GNU/Linux (which was handed over to Microsoft) gradually being withdrawn and this new thread in Reddit says that “Microsoft is lobbying the Indian government to link peoples’ National IDs with their Skype calling” (no source to verify this with).

Microsoft has turned Windows into something as privacy-hostile as Skype itself, if not a lot worse. With Skype, for example, Microsoft spies on people’s private conversations and even follows links; in Vista 10 Microsoft has a keylogger, which spies on everything (even password typing) in real time. Vista 10 should be made illegal, as it is clearly malicious software and should be treated as such. Ironically enough, Microsoft is almost trying to make it impossible not to use Vista 10 and despite that, as Vista 10 infection rates are increasing, very few people actually use this ‘free’ (so-called ‘bargain’) piece of malware. As one report put it, “Windows 10: less than 15 per cent of those who can upgrade have bothered” and “The big question is whether Microsoft will hit the 20 per cent mark by the time the free offer is over.”

“Microsoft has turned Windows into something as privacy-hostile as Skype itself, if not a lot worse.”This is a disastrous result given the way Microsoft fooled and bamboozled people into installing it, even using malware tactics. According to some reports, Microsoft has just made it virtually impossible not to use this malware (one must supply an ‘upgrade’ date) and anyone who still thinks there’s a ‘new Microsoft’ must be either very gullible or bribed.

This new article, “Microsoft Meets Open Source,” is based on a Big Lie. It is not hard to see that Microsoft is attacking FOSS (Open Source), but this site is doing too many sponsored ‘articles’ (advertisements) these days, such as this one (see disclosure). We expect a lot of the usual Microsoft apologists to pretend Microsoft is fine and dandy and indeed, looking at the company’s boosters, we see exactly what’s expected. Microsoft Peter, for instance, continues to attack FOSS using Oracle’s lies. As iophk put it, “now Microsoft has spoken” (alluding to Peter, who very often relays the company’s positions) and given Microsoft’s propaganda sites’ effort to ‘Linuxwash’ SQL Server (also openwashing it, referring to Microsoft’s own employees/mouthpieces), we identify the old strategy which is to associate SQL Server (among other such pieces of proprietary software) with FOSS.

“We expect a lot of the usual Microsoft apologists to pretend Microsoft is fine and dandy and indeed, looking at the company’s boosters, we see exactly what’s expected.”Don’t fall for it. Some people do, but others have been falling for it for a number of years. Sam Dean, who works for a media company that has been receiving Microsoft money to embed propaganda within the articles (and got caught), is still promoting Microsoft proprietary software and repeats the Big Lie, starting with: “According to more and more people, Microsoft may have finally, truly warmed up to Linux and open source. CEO Satya Nadella (shown) has been much in the news for his comments on how he “loves Linux” and he has noted that much of the Azure cloud platform is Linux-based.”

That’s nonsense. It’s a media strategy which we explained before. What is the ‘real Microsoft’, which one might call the ‘new Microsoft’? It’s hardly any better than a patent troll. As Richi Jennings put it the other day in his IDG headline, “Xiaomi feeds Microsoft patent troll — pays patent toll” (Jennings quotes various comments about it).

“What is the ‘real Microsoft’, which one might call the ‘new Microsoft’? It’s hardly any better than a patent troll.”This article quotes Mary Jo Foley (a longtime Microsoft mouthpiece) as saying: “Microsoft is both continuing to collect patent royalties from Android [and defending] antitrust charges in China. … Some outlets are saying Xiaomi “bought” these patents [not] licensed them.”

We wrote about this the other day, noting that this came from Microsoft -- not Xiaomi -- and Xiaomi paid Microsoft for patents. Here is what the patent propagandists have said over at IAM: “Whichever way you look at it, the deal between Microsoft and Xiaomi which was announced earlier this week has to go down as one of the most significant of the year so far. There are the terms of the deal itself – Xiaomi gets 1,500 patents from the software giant’s global portfolio, Microsoft gets Office and Skype pre-installed on Xiaomi’s Android phones and tablets and the two sides put in place a cross-licence (which it’s probably safe to say is more valuable to the Chinese company).”

“What kind of drug does one have to take to believe Microsoft is a friend?”IAM, which is funded by patent trolls, has always been so Microsoft-friendly that it makes one wonder. Even its Web site, unusually enough, is Windows-powered (in 2016!) and another new article about Xiaomi says that “Xiaomi absorbs patent fund operator Zhigu as it re-shuffles IP team”. This too mentions the Microsoft extortion: “Yesterday, this blog covered a major deal between Xiaomi and Microsoft that saw the Chinese company acquire 1,500 patents along with a cross-licence. While the financial details are unknown, the fact that Xiaomi is now likely among the top 200 or so holders of US patents has to be seen as a coup for the smartphone startup. It also comes just three months after some big changes to its relatively young IP function.”

The bottom line is, Microsoft spreads malware, it spreads it forcibly, it lies about its proprietary software being “open” and it goes after the “open” rivals (such as Android) using software patents. What kind of drug does one have to take to believe Microsoft is a friend? █

Article as ODF

Publicado en Deception, Free/Libre Software, Patents a las 6:52 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Ya es tiempo que los desarrolladores se unan activamente se envuelvan en poner fin a las patentes de software

Sumario: Impuestos al desarrollo — o el costo relaciónado con el caos de patentes — rápidamente creciéndo cada vez mas y en el caso del Free software rápidamente excede las ganancias por distribución, que usualmente es $0

EL sistema de patentes de los EE.UU es extremadamente hostil al Free software, por lo que toda clase de grupos como la OIN surgieron (aunque en práctica sean inefectivos). Poniéndolo crudamente, la USPTO y el Free software no pueden coexistir a menos que los examinadores de patentes dejen de otorgar patentes de software y la PTAB (o equivalente) se deshaga de las que ya fueron otorgadas (hay un alto grado de invalidación allí).

Law 360, un sitio con tercas cajas de pagos, tiene estas noticias acerca de un caso de alto perfil. Vale la pena notar que en el caso SRI International Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc. es Free software, el software creado por Sourcefire, el cual fue considerado infractor. To quote Law 360:

Cisco Systems Inc. ha infringido dos patentes de vigilancia en red propiedad de SRI International Inc., un jurado federal de Delaware decidió el jueves, ordenando a la empresa de tecnología de California a pagar casi $ 24 millones en daños y perjuicios.

La demanda de SRI había apuntado productos como el llamado Sistema de prevención de intrusiones de Cisco y algunos servicios que Cisco adquirió cuando compró Sourcefire Inc. (Crédito: AP) Los ocho miembros del jurado acordaron por unanimidad el Cisco sede en San José infringió deliberadamente las patentes de sus productos de prevención de intrusiones en la red y no pudo probar las patentes eran inválidas.

¿Qué sigue, Jabber? Cisco merece crédito por defenderse, pero de todas maneras perdió. Esto son malas noticias para el Free software y demuestra el problema con las patentes de software. Cisco debería apelar si fuese posible; talvez Alice pueda ayudar aquí.

“Las patentes de software son asesinos silenciósos y los principales medios de comunicación hacen nada o muy poco para resaltar el problema.”

A través de los años hemos cubierto como proyectos de Free software (programas, apps, plugins) fuéron asesinados (sacados del internet de la noche a la mañana) debido a agresión de patentes, o litigación o amenazas de ella. Las patentes de software son asesinos silenciósos y los principales medios de comunicación hacen nada o muy poco para resaltar el problema. Esta apatía sólo empeora cuando ellos deciden citar abogados de patentes no a desarrolladores de software, acerca de patentes de software (a veces dejándolos contribuír a una completa columna/artículo).

Otro nuevo artículo de Law 360 habla de los masivos costos legales en los casos de patentes. Para citar: “El costo es $2,000 cada hora, de acuerdo a una investigación del BTI Consulting Group, un crecimiénto notorio del anterior $1,600 alcanzado el año pasado y relativamente tres veces más que lo que clientes normales pagan por trabajo legal.”

“59% de las compañías pagan por lo menos a una Firma Legal $1000 por Hora,” escribió un abogado de patentes, a lo cual Benjamin Henrion respondió con “Siempre dije que era una ocupación parasítica.”

“Los medios de comunicación son acosados por los abogados de patentes.”

¿Cuántos desarrolladores de software libre pueden pagar los abogados de patentes a estos precios realmente exorbitantes? ¿Por qué no son los desarrolladores no se levantan en armas? ¿Dónde está la resistencia? Los medios de comunicación son acosados por los abogados de patentes.

The Hill, medios de comunicación de los grupos de presión, está ahora ocupado spor maximalistas de patente para la maximización de la patente (¡sorpresa!). Para citar la divulgación de esta última pieza de propaganda: “Stoll es un socio y co-presidente del grupo de la propiedad intelectual en Drinker Biddle & Reath y ex comisionado de patentes en la Oficina de Patentes y Marcas de Estados Unidos.”

Y esta gente posa como ‘periodistas’. ¿Dónde esta la voz de los desarrolladores de software? Los proponentes de patentes de software tratan de amplificar el mensaje de Stoll con tonterías como: “¿Las decisiónes de patentes estan estrángulando nuestra economíá? El antiguo Comisionado de Patentes Bob Stoll dice que sí.”

“No hay nada que posea una amenaza existencial para el Free software (no el FOSS cautivo a vendedores) más que las patentes de software y más envolvimiénto es necesario de más programadores con el objetivo de poner fin a ello.”

“Es “su economíá,” Henrion señaló. “Los agentes de patentes viven de ellas.” Bueno, ellos también conquistan a los medios.

“DDR Holdings no es más el punto de esperanza para los innovadores y dueños de patentes en el espacio de software,” escribió otro maximalista, “Discutiéndo Enfish” (lo que acabamos de cubrir).

Como Henrion notó, es esta “¿esperanza de la pesadilla regresando?”

“Hoy celebramos el aniversario de la #MSFT 1st #patente,” escribió una cuenta de Microsoft. “Salud a 30 años de innovación y muchos más por venir” (no innovación, chantaje, incluso contra el Free software).

Como Henrion lo puso, “¿quiéres decir la pesadilla para los desarrolladores?”

Necesitamos más desarrolladores — no sólo desarrolladores de Free software — que se involucren y contrarresten el mensaje de los abogados de patetnes, algunos de los cuales quieren salirse con la suya al traer más patentes a Europa, incluyendo patentes de software que Alemania notoriamente otorga (“¿Son la mayoría de patentes en Alemania válidas después de todo?”)

No hay nada que posea una amenaza existencial para el Free software (no el FOSS cautivo a vendedores) más que las patentes de software y más envolvimiénto es necesario de más programadores con el objetivo de poner fin a ello.

Summary: The tax on development — or the cost associated with patent-related mess — is rapidly increasing and in the case of Free software it by far exceeds the revenue gained from distribution, which is usually $0

THE US patent system is extremely hostile towards Free software, which is why all sorts of groups like OIN came into existence (even if they’re ineffective in practice). Put rather bluntly, the USPTO and Free software cannot coexist unless or until the patent examiners stop granting software patents and PTAB (or equivalent) tosses away already-granted software patents (there is a very high invalidation rate there).

Law 360, a site with stubborn paywalls, has this news about a new high-profile decision. It is worth noting that in SRI International Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc. it’s Free software, the software created by Sourcefire, which is deemed infringing. To quote Law 360:

Cisco Systems Inc. infringed two network surveillance patents owned by SRI International Inc., a Delaware federal jury decided Thursday, ordering the California tech company to pay nearly $24 million in damages.

SRI’s lawsuit had targeted products like Cisco’s so-called Intrusion Prevention System and some services Cisco acquired when it bought Sourcefire Inc. (Credit: AP) The eight jurors unanimously agreed the San Jose-based Cisco willfully infringed the patents with its network intrusion prevention products and failed to prove the patents were invalid.

What next? Jabber? Cisco deserves some credit for fighting back, but it lost anyway. This is bad news for Free software and it demonstrates the problem with software patents. Cisco should appeal if it’s possible; maybe Alice can help here.

“Software patents are silent killers and the mainstream media does little or nothing at all to highlight this problem.”Over the years we have covered several examples of Free software projects (programs, apps, plugins) which were killed (removed from the Net overnight) due to patent aggression, either litigation or threats thereof. Software patents are silent killers and the mainstream media does little or nothing at all to highlight this problem. This apathy is only made worse when they decide to quote patent lawyers, not software developers, regarding software patents (at times even just letting them contribute a whole column/article).

Another new article from Law 360 speaks about the massive legal fees in patent cases. To quote: “That rate has now reached $2,000 per hour, according to research conducted by BTI Consulting Group, a significant increase from the previous high of $1,600 reached last year and nearly three times the average rate clients pay for outside legal work.”

“59% of Companies Pay at Least One Law Firm $1000 per Hour,” one patent attorney wrote, to which Benjamin Henrion responded with “I always said it was a parasitic profession.”

“The media is besieged by patent lawyers.”How many Free software developers can afford patent lawyers at these truly extortionate rates? Why aren’t developers not up in arms? Where is the resistance? The media is besieged by patent lawyers.

The Hill, the lobbyists’ media, is now occupied by patent maximalists for patent maximisation (no surprise here). To quote the disclosure of this latest propaganda piece: “Stoll is a partner and co-chair of the intellectual property group at Drinker Biddle & Reath and a former commissioner for patents at the United States Patent and Trademark Office.”

And these people now pose as ‘journalists’. Where are the software developers’ voices? The proponents of software patents try to amplify Stoll’s message with nonsense like: “Are patent decisions strangling our economy? Former Patent Commissioner Bob Stoll says yes.”

“There is nothing that poses an existential threat to Free software (not the vendor captive FOSS) more than software patents and more involvement is needed from more programmers in order to put an end to that.”“It’s “his economy,” Henrion pointed out. “Patent agents live off patents.” Well, they also take over the media.

“DDR Holdings is no longer only point of hope for innovators and patent owners in software space,” wrote another maximalist, “discussing Enfish” (which we have just covered).

As Henrion noted, is this “hope of the nightmare coming back?”

“Today we celebrate the anniversary of #MSFT’s very 1st #patent,” wrote a Microsoft account. “Cheers to 30 years of innovation & much more to come” (not innovation, blackmail, even against Free software).

As Henrion put it, “you mean the best nightmare for developers?”

We really need more developers — not just Free software developers — to get involved and counter these messages from patent lawyers, some of whom wish their way into more patents in Europe, including software patents that Germany is notorious for granting (“Are most patents in Germany valid after all?”).

There is nothing that poses an existential threat to Free software (not the vendor captive FOSS) more than software patents and more involvement is needed from more programmers in order to put an end to that. █

Summary: Why the latest “Future of Open Source Survey” — much like its predecessors — isn’t really a survey but just another churnalism opportunity for the Microsoft-connected Black Duck, which is a proprietary parasite inside the FOSS community

THE “Future of Open Source Survey” is not a survey. It’s just Black Duck’s self-promotional (marketing) tripe packaged as a “survey”. This is a common PR tactic, it’s not unique. We wrote about this so-called ‘survey’ in several articles in the past, e.g.:

• Latest Microsoft Openwashing, Including ‘Future Of Open Source’ Survey From Proprietary Software Company With Microsoft Ties
• False Spokespeople for Free Software
• Microsoft in the Future of Open Source Forum
• Microsoft Proxies Controlling the Open Source Message
• Grooming Microsoft as the Voice of Free/Open Source Software
• The Foot in Stallman’s Face: Bill Gates Still Redefines Free Software
• Microsoft Tired of Pretending to be Nice to Free/Open Source Software (FOSS), Microsoft ‘Open’ Technologies Dumped

We now have more of the same churnalism and it comes from the usual ‘news’ networks, in addition to paid press releases. When we first mentioned Shipley 8 years ago he was busy doing one nefarious thing and two years ago we saw him joining the Microsoft-connected Black Duck. He is quoted as saying (CBS) that “the rapid adoption of open source has outpaced the implementation of effective open-source management and security practices. We see opportunities to make significant improvements in those areas. With nearly half of respondents saying they have no formal processes to track their open source, and half reporting that no one has responsibility for identifying known vulnerabilities and tracking remediation, we expect to see more focus on those areas.” Thanks for the FUD, Mr. Shipley. So where do I buy your proprietary software (and software patents-protected) ‘solution’? That is, after all, what it’s all about, isn’t it? The ‘survey’ is an excuse or a carrier (if not Trojan horse) for proprietary software marketing.

Here is similar coverage from IDG and the Linux Foundation, whose writers did little more than repeat the talking points of Black Duck after the press release got spread around. █

Article as ODF

Publicado en Europe, Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, RAND 9:45 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

¿Y Microsoft nos dijo que ´ama´ a Linux?

Sumario: El Cabildeo de Microsoft’s contra Android in Europe y por FRAND (esenciálmente patentes de software) el los estádares Europeos logra resultados

Las patentes de software en Europa han sido cubiertos aquí por mucho más tiempo que la EPO. Empresas como Microsoft las han venido usando para prohibir efectivamente software de código libre/ abierto (FOSS), o excluir este tipo de software de la política de contratación de acuerdo con las normas. De acuerdo con este nuevo artículo del Dr. Glyn Moody, Microsoft ha tenido éxito con esto, ya que sus grupos de presión siguen presionando por FRAND en Europa [1, 2]. Sí, además de su presión ante la Comisión Europea por muchos años contra el software libre/Android [1, 2, 3], que finalmente consiguió acción antimonopolio contra Google, “Mientrás que Microsoft está ¨adoptando¨al código abierto, la UE está excluyéndolo de la política – como Microsoft demandó originalmente “, para citar a Simon Phipps, quien a su vez cita Moody diciendo:” no es de extrañar que la Comisión estaba tratando de mantener ese detalle en particular escondido, debido a la concesión de licencias FRAND, supuestamente acrónimo de “justo, razonable y no discriminatoria “, es incompatible con el código abierto, el que por lo tanto, se encontrará excluidosde gran parte de la gran nueva estrategia de mercado único digital de la UE. Eso no es una “política de derechos de propiedad intelectual equilibrada“.

“El problema inherente con esta política es que asume erróneamente que las patentes de software tienen legitimidad en la UE”

“El problema con open source es que el estandar licensign puede ser perfectamente justo, razonable y no-discrimínatorio, pero sería sin embargo imposíble de implementar para el open source.Típicamente, el licensiamiento FRAND requiere un pago por copia, pero para el Software Libre, que puede ser compartido innumerables veces, no hay manera de llevar la cuenta en cuántas copuias hay afuera. Incluso si el pago es pequeño, todavía un requerimiénto de licensias que el open source no puede implementar.”

El problema inherente con esta política es que asume erróneamente que las patentes de software tienen legitimidad en la UE. Es una laguna o incluso una distorsión de la legislación Europea. Bueno, no es como si Microsoft trata verdaderamente de obedecer la ley de todos modos … su grupo delantero, la infáme Business Software Alliance, ha adoptado este tipo de política durante casi una década.

“Bueno, no es como si Microsoft trata verdaderamente de obedecer la ley de todos modos …”

Incidentálmente, ayerIP Katpublicó este artículoacerca de la “Patentabilidad del diseño de interface del usuario”, citando al Jurado de Apelaciónesqueparticularmente no es amigable a las patentes de software (a diferencia de la EPO, no busca máximizar ganancias al bajar la calidad de las patentes o al expándir su esfera con el tiempo en desafío a la EPC^*).
Un comentario del presidente de la FFII dijo: “Jacob dijo que” redacción técnica “es una reformulación del mismo problema. “Técnico” se convierte en el agujero negro, donde la EPO encuentra manera de evitar el espíritu de la EPC, materias en las que las exclusiones se relaciónan con lo abstracto “.
“Técnico es generalmente un término sin sentido”
Una persona respondió diciéndo: “te has molestado al leer el post? Explica como al contrario, el BoA de la EPO ha rechazado ver algo “técnico” en presentaciónes de información, excepto en tres ahora viejos casos (T 643/00, T 928/03 and T 49/04). Aparte de ello, por una cosa sé que la T 49/04 fué una decisión controversial de la EPO, y esto pueda explicar el porque, después, los Boards no continuaron en el mismo camino.”
Aquí tenemos una persona voluntáriamente ignorando la correlación entre la UPC y las patentes de software (personas de alta reputación han hablado al respecto) y ella dice “conspiración” para desacreditar a aquellos que hablan acerca de ello, matándo al mensajero como sigue:

Si “Zoobab” es el mismo Zoobab de Twitter, parece ser un activista anti-software-patentes y parece ser un fiel seguidor del blog Techrights, quienes ven cualquier cosa que se menciona incluso las patentes de software o la UPC (incluso en un contexto negativo) como evidencia de algún tipo de gran conspiración para defraudar al público europeo.
Da la casualidad de que estoy dudoso acerca de los méritos de las patentes de software o incluso de la UPC. Pero he aprendido que nada menos que totalmente de acuerdo, de todo corazón con las teorías de la conspiración loca de esos personajes es visto como una prueba más de que no hay solamente una conspiración, sino también que eres parte de ella, incluso si comparte ampliamente su recelos si bien por diferentes razones.

Lo anterior pone palabras en la boca de tanto Benjamin Henrion y la mía – palabras que nunca se pronunciaron en absoluto. A pesar del secreto que engendra sospecha **, hay una gran cantidad de información se puede acumular cavando lo suficientemente profundo. En realidad, hay un montón de pruebas que demuestran lo que ambos dijimos (no lo de arriba), la administración de la EPO mantiene la promoción por la UPC *** y las patentes de software (escribimos acerca de ello con ejemplos a principios de este año), y esto llamó la atención de otras personas anoche. “Técnica” es generalmente un término bastante sin sentido (como “innovación¨, “novedoso” y otros marrulleos). Una taza del baño es muy técnivo. Vea esta reacción a la frase “el efecto de un perfil mental particular del usuario puede ser considerado técnico” (respuesta en Español).
______
^* “Cliente”, aparentemente, basado en este nuevo tweet, es una nueva palabra por “solicitante” que la EPO heredo de la mentalidad ENA de Pinocho Battistelli.

^** La EPO de nuevo (dos veces por semana) promovió a la EUIPO. Recuérden el overlap entre esos dos [1, 2, 3]].

^*** He aquí la última Promoción de la UPC por parte de la EPO (last night).

Summary: Microsoft’s lobbying against Android in Europe and for FRAND (essentially software patents) in European standards yield results

Software patents in Europe have been covered here for much longer than the EPO. Companies like Microsoft were using them to effectively ban Free/Open Source software (FOSS), or exclude such software from procurement policy as per the standards. According to this new article from Dr. Glyn Moody, Microsoft was somewhat successful with this as its lobbyists continue lobbying for FRAND in Europe [1, 2]. Yes, in addition to lobbying the European Commission for many years against FOSS/Android [1, 2, 3], eventually leading to antitrust action against Google, “Just as Microsoft is adopting open source, the EU is excluding it from policy – like Microsoft originally demanded,” to quote Simon Phipps, who in turn cites Moody who’s saying: “It’s no surprise that the Commission was trying to keep that particular detail quiet, because FRAND licensing—the acronym stands for “fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory”—is incompatible with open source, which will therefore find itself excluded from much of the EU’s grand new Digital Single Market strategy. That’s hardly a “balanced IPR policy.”

“An inherent problem with this policy is that it wrongly assumes that patents on software have legitimacy in the EU.”“The problem for open source is that standard licensing can be perfectly fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory, but would nonetheless be impossible for open source code to implement. Typically, FRAND licensing requires a per-copy payment, but for free software, which can be shared any number of times, there’s no way to keep tabs on just how many copies are out there. Even if the per-copy payment is tiny, it’s still a licensing requirement that open source code cannot meet.”

An inherent problem with this policy is that it wrongly assumes that patents on software have legitimacy in the EU. It’s a loophole or even a distortion of European law. Well, it’s not as though Microsoft truly tries to obey the law anyway… its front group, Business Software Alliance, has pursued this kind of policy for nearly a decade now.

“Well, it’s not as though Microsoft truly tries to obey the law anyway…”Incidentally, yesterday IP Kat published this article about “Patentability of user interface designs”, citing the Board of Appeal which isn't particularly software patents-friendly (unlike the EPO, it doesn’t just seek to maximise profit by reducing patent quality or by also expanding patent scope over time, in defiance of the EPC^*).

One comment from the FFII’s President said: “Jacob said the “Technical” wording is a restatement of the same problem. “Technical” becomes the black hole where the EPO finds it way to bypass the spirit of the EPC, where all the exclusions concerns abstract matters.”

““Technical” is generally a rather meaningless term.”One person responded by saying: “have you bothered to read the post? It explains how, on the contrary, the BoA of the EPO has refused to see anything “technical” in presentations of information, except in three now rather old cases (T 643/00, T 928/03 and T 49/04). Apart from that, I know for one thing that T 49/04 was an extremely controversial decision within the EPO, and this may explain why, afterwards, the Boards didn’t continue on the same path.”

Here we have a wilfully ignorant person who doesn’t know the correlation between the UPC and software patents (high-profile people have spoken explicitly about it) and s/he says “conspiracy” to discredit those who speak about it, shooting the messengers as follows:

If “Zoobab” is the same Zoobab as on Twitter, s/he seems to be an anti-software-patent activist and appears to be a loyal follower of the Techrights blog, who see anything that even mentions software patents or the UPC (even in a negative context) as evidence of some sort of grand conspiracy to defraud the European public.

As it happens, I’m dubious about the merits of software patents or indeed the UPC. But I’ve learned that anything less than full, wholehearted agreement with the wacky conspiracy theories of such characters is seen as yet further evidence that there’s not only a conspiracy, but also that you’re part of it, even if you broadly share their misgivings albeit for different reasons.

The above puts words in the mouth of both Benjamin Henrion and myself — words that were never at all uttered. In spite of the secrecy which breeds suspicion^**, there is a lot of information one can accumulate by digging deep enough. There is actually plenty of evidence to show what we both said (not the above), the EPO’s management keeps promoting both the UPC^*** and software patents (we wrote about it with examples earlier this year), and this got the attention of other people last night. “Technical” is generally a rather meaningless term (like “innovative”, “novel” and other such buzzwords). A toilet bowl too is technical. See this reaction to the phrase “the effect of a particular layout on the mental processes of the user could be considered… technical” (response in Spanish). █
______
^* “Customer”, apparently, based on this new tweet, is a new word for “applicant” as EPO inherits the ENA mentality of Battistelli.

^** The EPO has once again (second time in a week) promoted the EUIPO. Recall the overlaps between those two [1, 2, 3]].

^*** Here is the latest UPC promotion from the EPO (last night).

Article as ODF

Publicadaen Free/Libre Software, FUD, GNU/Linux, Microsoft at 10:34 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

El ‘nuevo’ Microsoft no ataca al Free software directamente, o no tán visiblemente como antes, sin embargo todavía lo hace

Sumario: Free software (FOSS) está todavía bajo constante ataque de Microsoft, incluso si estos ataques son ástutamente disfrazados para no poner en riesgo la fantasía de “Microsoft ama a Linux”
LA E.E.E. estrategia de Microsoft (destruir Linux desde su interior) está progresando mientras que Microsoft todavía está tratando de descarrilar activamente toda adopción de GNU/Linux (normalmente a través de servidores proxy). La compañía también patrocina eventos que promueven las patentes de software (que son la antítesis de la libertad del software), como hemos demostrado en varias ocasiones en lo que va de este mes y que continúa demandando (o amenaza con demandar a) los fabricantes de equipos Android a menos que le entregan dinero en efectivo, o en algunos casos como parte del ´arreglo´ installen un montón de Microsoft sofware spyware en Android.
“La compañía también patrocina eventos que promueven las patentes de software (que son la antítesis de la libertad del software), como hemos demostrado en varias ocasiones en lo que va de este mes …”
Recuerden que Microsoft no tiene que atacar a Linux / FOSS/Android abiertamente con el fin de conseguir su objetivo. Una gran cantidad de gente de Microsoft han creado en los últimos años compañías spin-off que se son más servidores proxy de Microsoft, siendo leales a Microsoft, pero periféricos al mismo. Recuerde, por ejemplo, que financió Xamarin antes de que pase a formar parte de Microsoft (lo que era de esperarse). También recuerden que se trata de una unidad llamada Microsoft Licensing (esencialmente un troll de patentes) que pretende ser ‘dueño de’ Android y otros basados en Linux, entonces sistemáticamente toca las puertas de los OEM y exigiendo dinero para su uso/distribución de Linux.

Tim Greene de IDG señala que SourceClear y Black Duck de practicar FOSS FUD; se trata de dos empresas que vinieron de Microsoft con el fin de manchar el software libre y ganar dinero en el proceso. El titular dice “código fuente abierto es frecuente potencialmente peligroso, en aplicaciones empresariales” (Ballmer todavía diríá es un “cáncer”, como si se trata de una enfermedad mortal y Microsoft lo llama “infestaciones de Linux” como si fuera una cucaracha que debe ser aplastado).
“También recuerden que se trata de una unidad llamada Microsoft Licensing (esencialmente un troll de patentes) que pretende ser ‘dueño de’ Android y otros basados en Linux, entonces sistemáticamente toca las puertas de los OEM y exigiendo dinero para su uso/distribución de Linux.”

No sólo detectamos ésto ayer; incluso los lectores nos hablaron de ello hoy; ellos también se están dando cuenta cada vez más que los artículos anti-FOSS todavía están siendo ofrecidos por esos parásitos que están conectados por Microsoft. El colega de Greene, Korolov, hizo esto hace poco más de quince días. Hay que recordar que ambos son empresas conectadas a Microsoft, como hemos señalado aquí antes, y hacia el final hay una mención de White Fuente, quiennoesamigo de FOSS.

Esos llamados ‘periodistas’ sólo sigue hablando a las empresas que se benefician de este FUD y no son software libre en absoluto. Es como un artículo sobre el calentamiento global que invita para las cotizaciones (más completa del mundo) varios ‘expertos’ de las compañías petroleras. El último ejemplo no habla de los muchos problemas de software equivalentes (o peor) proprietarios, en lugar de hablar de la “martes de parches” de Microsoft, lo que deja las puertas traseras para uso de la NSA. Eso es periodismo irresponsable; es más como el cabildeo (por omisión). Y recuerda cuánto dinero fluye de Microsoft para IDG …

“Eso es periodismo irresponsable; es más como el cabildeo (por omisión).”
Microsoft piensa de alguna manera que asociando su software proprietario con “Linux” será lo suficiente para promover la percepción de que es “open” y por lo tanto elegible pare uso gubernamental a nivel mundial (candado proprietario).- Recuérden quién saboteó las centrales núcleares Iraníes – Al mismo tiempo constantemente sigue atacandoa a Linux.
“Predique en algun momento coexistencia pacífica con Windows. Pueden reírse a costa de mí.— Lo merezco.”

–Be’s CEO Jean-Louis Gassée

Summary: Free software (FOSS) is still under constant attacks from Microsoft, even if these attacks are shrewdly masqueraded so as to not jeopardise the “Microsoft loves Linux” fantasy

THE E.E.E. strategy of Microsoft (destroying Linux from the inside) is progressing while Microsoft is still trying to actively derail GNU/Linux adoption (usually via proxies). The company also sponsors events that promote software patents (which are antithetical to software freedom), as we showed several times so far this month and it sues (or threatens to sue) Android OEMs unless they hand over crates of cash, or in some cases agree to preload Android with lots of Microsoft spyware.

“The company also sponsors events that promote software patents (which are antithetical to software freedom), as we showed several times so far this month…”Remember that Microsoft does not need to attack Linux/FOSS/Android directly in order to get its way. A lot of people from Microsoft have over the years created spinoffs that are more like Microsoft proxies, still loyal to Microsoft but peripheral to it. Remember, for instance, who bankrolled Xamarin before it got rolled into Microsoft (as expected). Also remember that it’s a unit called Microsoft Licensing (essentially a patent troll) that claims to ‘own’ Android and other Linux-based systems, then systematically goes knocking on OEMs’ doors and demanding money for the use/distribution of Linux.

Tim Greene at IDG props up SourceClear and Black Duck for FOSS FUD; these are two firms that came from Microsoft in order to smear FOSS and make money in the process. The headline says “Open source code is common, potentially dangerous, in enterprise apps” (Ballmer would still say “cancer” as if it’s a fatal disease and Microsoft calls it “Linux infestations" as if it’s a cockroach that must be squashed).

“Also remember that it’s a unit called Microsoft Licensing (essentially a patent troll) that claims to ‘own’ Android and other Linux-based systems, then systematically goes knocking on OEMs’ doors and demanding money for the use/distribution of Linux.”Not only did we spot this one some time yesterday; even readers told us about it today; they too are increasingly noticing that anti-FOSS articles are still featuring those parasites that are Microsoft-connected. Greene’s colleague, Korolov, did this just over a fortnight ago. Remember that both are Microsoft-connected firms, as we noted here before, and towards the end there’s a mention of White Source, which is no friend of FOSS.

Those so-called ‘reporters’ just keep speaking to firms which profit from this FUD and aren’t FOSS at all. It’s like an article about global warming which invites for quotes (expert advice) various ‘experts’ from oil companies. The latest example doesn’t speak about the many equivalent (or worse) proprietary software issues, instead speaking of the “Patch Tuesday” of Microsoft, which leaves back doors in tact for the NSA. That’s irresponsible journalism; it’s more like lobbying (by omission). And remember how much money flows from Microsoft to IDG…

“That’s irresponsible journalism; it’s more like lobbying.”Microsoft thinks that somehow associating its proprietary software with “Linux” will be enough to promote the perception that it’s “open” and thus eligible for government use worldwide (proprietary lock-in). At the same time Microsoft keeps attacking Linux. █

“I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may laugh at my expense — I deserve it.”

–Be’s CEO Jean-Louis Gassée

Publicado en Decepción, Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, Microsoft at 9:07 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Microsoft esta ahora pretendiendo que su proprietario SQL Server on GNU/Linux is “abierto” (a quién quieren engañar con esas mamadas) y según los informes lo vende al gobierno como tal

Sumario: Microsoft esta implementando una estrategia del cameleon al pretender que sus stacks de software proprietario son “abiertos” y por lo tantos elegibles para integración en servicios públicos

PONIÉNDO de lado los asuntos de la EPO y ls patentes por un momento, deseamos señalar algunos de los últimos subversivos movimientos de Microsoft. No podemos simplemente ignorar a Microsoft cuando Microsoft no nos está ignorando, y ESTA CONSTANTEMENTE ATACANDONOS (FOSS) CON PATENTES.

“Es una buena manera de distraer al público y suprimir la crítica con algunas imágenes cursis de corazonsitos rojos.”Para aquellos que se la perdiéron, Microsoft está tratándo de EEE GNU/Linux servers en medio de despidos en Microsoft; egoístas intereses de ganancias, como fué notado por varios escritores [1, 2] esta mañana, de nínguna manera nada tiene que ver con FOSS (no hay aspecto de FOSS en ello de ningúna manera!) que estén guíando esos movimientos. Es sólo acerca de encadenárlos en un software proprietario que no será available por otro año de todas maneras. Es una buena manera de distraer al público y suprimir la crítica con algunas imágenes cursis de corazonsitos rojos.

La bocona de Mary Branscombe, una ayayera de Microsoft por largo tiempo quién ocasionalmente ataca a FOSS (vean sus insultos "free puppy" por ejemplo), has reciéntemente publicado un artículo con un cargado titular, “ Las razones detrás del impulso de Microsoft para el código abierto” [3] (no hay tal impulso, así que ¿porqué explorar las “razones”?). Esta cargado de tonteríás, comenzando por el sumario: “Encontrando el equilibrio entre el open source y los negocios comerciales” (Branscombe de nuevo nos muestra una falsa dicotonomíá, donde FOSS es antithetico a los “negocios comerciales” — cualquier cosa que sea – probablemente es simplemente software proprietario)

“El problema con el artículo de Wallen es que está basado en una falsa suposición de que a Microsoft le importa FOSS.”Las últimas ganancias de Red Hat [4,5,6,7] ayudan a desaprobar todas las mamadas de Branscombe, pero no es sólo Brascombe la que está haciéndo eso. Hace dias literalmente encontramos docenas de piezas de hojaldre que disfrazan de abierto a Microsoft. Todas ellas provienen de la India, donde Microsoft esta cabildeando/corrompiendo al gobierno en contra de FOSS (recuérden el enyucamiento de EDGI de hace una década). Microsoft ahora esta planeando un ´evento´ FOSS en India (vean dos diarias links resumiéndo bajo ¨Openwashing¨ in [1, 2] y esta claro que Microsoft trata de engatusar/engañar al gobierno de la India a la noción de que Microsoft es una compañía FOSS, por lo tanto elegible para cualquier contrato con el gobierno (adquisición lucrativa). Necesitámos batallar esta propaganda o simplemente seremos infiltrados por el enemigo, que nos esta atacando a la manera EEE, no simplemente con patentes, sino con todo lo que tienen a disposición.

“Esto es proteccionismo mediante el engaño de Microsoft y los que can en el juego de su campaña (o presión) están haciendo un daño al genuino/legítimo FOSS.”Un nuevo artículo de Jack Wallen [8] nota que las “gananias de licensamiento al consumidor de Microsoft ha declinado un 34 por ciento” y sigue con el titular: “Es tiempo para Microsoft de abrir el código fuente de Windows” (algunos lectores nos lo enviáron despues de que lo encontramos). El problema con el artículo de Wallen es que está basado en una falsa suposición de que a Microsoft le importa FOSS. Aparte de ello, no trabajaría. Ellos convirtieron Windows en SPYWARE (vean en lo que Vista 10 se convirtió). El licensiamiento FOSS removería toda esa porquería. Si es FOSS, a la gente le gustaría remover esos mecanismos indeseables y redistribuirlos sin ellows (FOSS verdadero/genuino significa exactamente eso). Microsoft no se puede dar el lujo de permitirse eso.

En sumario, rechazen la idea que Microsoft es de alguna manera “abierto” ahora. La Unión Europea, el gobierno Indio e incluso la Casa Blanca ahora se arriman a FOSS, así que Microsoft está pretendiendo ser FOSS. Esto es proteccionismo mediante el engaño de Microsoft y los que can en el juego de su campaña (o presión) están haciendo un daño al genuino/legítimo FOSS. █

Contenido relacinado/contextual de las noticias:

1. ¿Ama Microsoft a Linux tanto como Odia las Databases SQL de Oracle?

   Dada la larga espera, el apoyo a Linux del SQL Server 2016 parece reflejar una táctica de negocios más que un movimiento de amor de Microsoft hacia la comunidad de open source

2. Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) Emitirá SQL Server 2016 para Linux En 2017

   Es creído ampliamente que el SQL Server en Linux creación del CEO Satya Nadella, cuando la compañía quiere enfocarse en proveer servicio de clase superior. Más aún, algunos han ido más lejos al decir que la estrategia de la compañía acerca de SQL en Linux revela el ejemplo más fino de ir donde está el dinero, si no viene a ti.

3. Las razones detras del impulso de Microsoft hacia el open source

   En otras palabras, SQL Server vendrá a Linux, pero no será una versión libre, open source.

4. Red Hat Es Ahora un Bebe $2 Billion Open-Source

   Red Hat, quien prometió hace unos pocos meses atras llegar a $2 billones en ganancias anuales, lo ha hecho y ahora dice ser la primera compañía de open source que alcanza este hito

5. ​Red Hat Se Convierte en la Primera Compañíá Open Source de 2B

   Simplemente piensa: Alguna gente todavía no cree que no puedes hacer dinero de Linux y open-source software. Estúpidos! Red Hal se ha convertido en la primera compañía de open source de hacer 2 billones de dolares.

6. Red Hat Alcanza $2 billones de Ganancias Anuales

7. Red Hat Ganancias Anuales alcanzan US$2b por Primera Vez

8. Es tiempo para Microsoft de open source Windows

   Imaginen un mundo en el que Windows fuese open source. Jack Wallen cree que ahora es tiempo para tal realidad.