06.25.08
Posted in Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, IBM, SCO, UNIX at 3:44 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Sun and SCO: truth revealed years later
A couple of days ago, Simon Phipps from Sun Microsystems said that the company ”screwed up“ when it comes to open source. Dana Blankenhorn opines that Sun is still screwing up. Here is the core of his argument.
But he isolates the “screw-up” to 2001-2002, when Sun was still a proprietary company. This is like a candidate for re-election blaming the problems he faces on a predecessor from the other party.
The fact is Sun is still screwing up. Offering open source licenses for key products is not all there is to an open source strategy. Transparency, community, and some ceding of authority are also required.
Sun not only screwed up in 2001-2002. Sun is still no friend of Linux. Moreover, based on this latest bomb from Groklaw, it was willing to let SCO continue its attacks on Linux, just like Microsoft, which even helped fund the suit. If true, shame on Sun.
We learn two primary things from Jones’ testimony: first, what a cynical role Sun played in the SCO saga, and second, that all the time SCO was calling on the world, the courts, the Congress — nay heaven itself, if I may say so — to sympathize with it over the ruination of its Most Holy Intellectual Property by it being improperly open sourced into Linux, not that it turned out to be true, it had already secretly given Sun the right to open source it in OpenSolaris. Remember all that falderol about SCO being contractually unable to show us the code, much as it so desired to do so, because of being bound to confidentiality requirements? What a farce. SCO had already secretly given Sun the right to open source Solaris, with all the UNIX System V you can eat right in there.
The simple fact is, I gather from Jones’ testimony, Sun could have prevented the harm SCO sought to cause by simply telling us what rights it had negotiated and received from SCO prior to SCO launching its assault on Linux. Yet it remained silent. When I consider all folks were put through, all the unnecessary litigation, and all the fear and the threats and the harmful smears, including of me at the hands of SCO and all the dark little helper dwarves in SCO’s workshop, I feel an intense indignation like a tsunami toward Sun for remaining silent.
Speaking of Sun, which may be too easy a target, what’s up with IBM? Glyn Moody wonders…
So, for the sake of your shareholders and of the stakeholders in the open source ecosystem, I say: come on, IBM, pull your socks up and get stuck in again. Please go back to leading in this field, as you did a decade ago, rather than lagging as you seem to be today.
IBM is focused on Linux as a powerful tool and enabler, but it’s quite indifferent when it comes to Free software. It’s truly a step backwards. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
05.13.08
Posted in Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, GPL, Java, Kernel, SUN, UNIX at 9:55 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
What does “open” mean anyway, especially these days?
[More Open Than Open]: “I am constantly amazed at the flexibility of this single word.”
–Jason Matusow, Microsoft (for background see [1, 2])
There’s a lot to a name and if Sun Microsystems believes it can fool people with the name “OpenSolaris”, then it ought to remember the effect of keeping Java closed. Until Sun departs from the CDDL (or duality) it’s better to stick with GNU/Linux and not even poke OpenSolaris with a bargepole.
You can’t beat GNU/Linux with a half-hearted Linux, licence-wise. Sun ought to consider taking OpenSolaris — and probably ZFS too — into the realms of the GPL domain, just like Java. The sooner, the better. If Rich Green was correct, then merging will become a possibility too. Here is the latest decent review of OpenSolaris, but like many others it’s focused on technical characteristics alone. It concludes with:
Although the OpenSolaris development community still has a lot of work to do before the operating system is ready to take on Linux on the desktop, the progress so far indicates that the project deserves further attention. We will keep an eye on future releases to see how the platform evolves.
Licence-wise, it’s worth considering what Groklaw has just had to say.
The CDDL can’t hold a candle to the GPL as far as benefits to programmers or end users. Period. CEOs might love it, but programmers? Why would they? What’s in it for them? Sun needs to make up its mind. Is it open source? ? I don’t care if it chooses to be open, proprietary or mixed, but I can’t see any reason why anyone would contribute code under the CDDL for free, unless you just get a thrill out of helping Sun make money from your unpaid labor, as I explained back in 2005. I continue to view the CDDL as a problem, in part due to the Sun-Microsoft agreement, which includes patent elements, and I remind you of what Dan Ravicher of PubPat.org said about CDDL back in 2005: “My advice is that developers should ask themselves if they really want to work on software distributed by a company that has expressly retained the right to sue them for patent infringement if they don’t give their improvements back to the company.”
On the other hand, a recent interview with Rich Green of Sun indicates that at some point Sun will switch the license to GPL.
At the end, the licences play a tremendous role. Just recall the recent lesson that was taught by Zimbra.
Additionally, as pointed out the other day, Sun appears to be offering OpenSolaris as just a ‘free sample’ that gets young people addicted to the proprietary Solaris. This is something to watch out for and be careful of. What about Sun’s view on patents? █
“Business-method patents are an unwarranted and dangerous extension of the patentability standards. As the article suggests, the method in question may have been used for many years in slightly different contexts and is now being transferred to a computerized system; will that now mean that the pencil and paper method becomes an infringing use? And if you as a lawyer advise a client on a tax strategy or a method of doing business, could that advice be a patent infringement? It is too ephemeral for a patent, and ought be knocked down altogether.”
–I Scream, You Scream, We All Scream for Bilski!
Permalink
Send this to a friend
05.10.08
Posted in Courtroom, FUD, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Novell, SCO, UNIX at 1:35 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
SCO is definitely beyond this Web site’s scope, but recently there has been a great deal of Novell in that saga. There are things there which have future implications on Novell, SUE Linux [sic], and other GNU/Linux distributions. We covered some of the latest in last week's cumulative report, so let’s look at more recent articles and consider portions of them.
From the local press comes nothing but the promise that a decision will come soon. No word since then.
The trial between The SCO Group and Novell over disputed fees involving a computer operating system ended today with the judge promising a decision soon.
Also from the local press:
Novell-SCO trial now is in hands of judge
Arguments this week focused on how much value to attribute to the licensed technology. Novell claimed that technology it controlled — several versions of Unix System V — was a valuable part of the SCO licensing initiative.
InternetNews has an interesting take.
SCO Novell Trial – The Verdict is…
[...]
Frankly I’m still amazed that SCO has hung in this long.Though it is easy to paint SCO as the villain in this drama, it’s also possible to see this as a Tragedy (Greek or Shakespearean) in many ways. McBride (the tragic hero?)really does believe in his view and he is sticking with it to the (bitter?) end.
From another source comes a more detailed (but not so accurate) analysis.
There are times when the jokes just seem to tell themselves. Yesterday, during testimony for Novell’s lawsuit against SCO to determine how much Novell was owed for its ownership of the Unix copyrights, none other than Darl McBride took the stand and said two things that will no doubt become fodder for .SIG files from here to eternity.
[...]
Fortunately, the right people were not that naive. And now we’re at a point where scaring people away from open source on wholly spurious grounds is so passe that even Microsoft is leaving it behind.
That last bit is far from true. Microsoft just knows how it hide it better. It often uses other parties to do its dirty deeds against Free software and other competitive threats. We gave many examples of this before, e.g. here.
The local press from Utah goes further and claims that what’s at stake now is SCO’s fate, short of a Sugar Daddy.
McBride also said Kimball’s decision could affect the new reorganization plan SCO is preparing to file in Delaware, where the company filed for bankruptcy last year.
Groklaw caught up with the bankruptcy filings just a couple of days ago.
SCO’s accountants, Tanner, have applied to the bankruptcy court for compensation for the seventh month. Amazing, isn’t it, this story without an end? This monthly bill is for April, and Tanner would like only $8,574 plus $71 in expenses. That’s the lowest monthly bill ever. December 5-November 5 was $28,499; November 6 – December 5 was $19,001; December 6 – January 4 was $65,955; January 5-February 1 was $98,095; February 2 – March 3 was $32,868; and March 4 – March 31 was $28,441.
Going back to the trial, Lamlaw does its bit of analysis also.
Is a license to Microsoft more valuable than what MS paid SCO? Perhaps so. Certainly Novell might think so.
If the money paid to Novell comes up short, Novell has a few options. And, my bet is that some very interesting discussions take place in that back room between Novell and SUN and between Novell and Microsoft. Fly on that wall kind of thing.
Darl McBride gets cyberslapped here.
SCO CEO, Darl McBride, still believes that SCO owns UNIX in some form. Novell never transferred the copyrights to SCO in the sale of UnixWare but yet the dream lives on. This week the trial began that determines how much money may be owed to Novell from SCO (Up to $20 million). A strange turn of events indeed.
Here is another cyberslap from The Inquirer’s avid Groklaw follower.
McBride’s statement contradicted the just prior testimony of SCO SVP Chris Sontag, as well as the company’s internal memos from 2002, which concluded that SCO’s own software examinations had not found any UNIX code in Linux.
Perhaps McBride was confused about which lawsuit he was in court testifying about.
This week’s comic strip from the Bizarre Cathedral is of Darl McBride, whose mis-comprehension (probably deliberate) has him ridiculed.
Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols has this good piece published in Linux.com where he is now a regular contributor.
Reality, as good writers know, is sometimes stranger than fiction. SCO’s recent performance in the U.S. District Court in Utah is a perfect example. With years to prepare, SCO executives made some remarkable statements in their attempt to show that SCO, not Novell, owns Unix’s copyright.
As a more introductory article, consider this one from ZDNet Australia.
Troubled software maker SCO’s chief executive has claimed the Linux operating system includes Unix source code, during a court case in which Novell is suing SCO for royalties on Unix.
There will probably be a torrent of news when the verdict is out. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
05.08.08
Posted in Java, Mono, Novell, OpenOffice, SCO, SUN, UNIX at 9:52 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
No-one’s killing anyone, yet
Recently, a few sources of tension between Novell and Sun were identified [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. Examples revolve around Novell’s ridicule of OpenSolaris, exploitation (arguably so) of OpenOffice.org, and neglect of Java in favour of support for its biggest rival.
A couple of days ago, as we only briefly mentioned in one of the links digests, SJVN raised an interesting speculation about whether or not Novell can attack OpenSolaris using its ownership of UNIX. We recently discussed the possibility of Novell 'pulling an SCO', based on something that Novell said last week. SJVN may have taken it a little too far, but people carry on talking about his piece. In ZDNet UK, for example, you find this: Could Novell kill OpenSolaris?
Sun’s just opened its developer conference with the long-delayed launch of OpenSolaris, the open source version of its Solaris operating system. But after all this time, will it live?
It’s taken Sun since 2005 to turn OpenSolaris into a proper release, which Sun intends will stand alongside Solaris as a community operating system – like Fedora is to Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
Bill Beebe jumps to Sun’s rescue and gives a reasonable explanation in defense of OpenSolaris, which he has been happily reviewing. He also comments about Novell.
Considering how Novell professed at the time that that they had no plans to sue anyone over Unix, you have to wonder how they’ll square that position with the current comments coming out of the SCO vs. Novell trial that just finished. They can’t have it both ways. Especially when it looks like the only reason they might consider revoking Sun’s agreement is as a blunt anti-competitive business weapon against a formidable competitor. You know, behaving like Microsoft.
These discussions and speculations might be worth returning to in the future. Below are some more articles that readers may find handy. █
Related new articles:
Enterprise Unix Roundup: OpenSolaris, Farm Team or Big League?
To make it big in the enterprise, a platform must be on par with the Unix operating systems, the current meme says. And — interestingly — in this world view, OpenSolaris is not in the majors.
Does OpenSolaris Matter?
I’m not sure.
Sun first announced OpenSolaris in 2005 but they keep finding ways to announce ‘first releases’. Yesterday was one such release.
OpenSolaris Wants To Compete With Linux – Oh Yeah?
Yesterday Sun Microsystems officially released OpenSolaris and suggested that it’s going to go head-to-head with Linux as a Desktop Operating System. Solarisx86 is nothing new and has been around about as long as Linux but it is historically proprietary and closed source. It was also very hardware-finicky and performance was slothlike.
OpenSolaris Just Wants to be Free
“Glassfish is dual licensed — CDDL and GPL. And as you’re aware, MySQL is GPL(2), as is the Java (runtime) platform itself. So three very big components of what’d be a complete OpenSolaris platform are available to the broader GPL community.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
05.07.08
Posted in GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Mono, Novell, SUN, Ubuntu, UNIX at 7:54 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
“I’ve heard from Novell sales representatives that Microsoft sales executives have started calling the Suse Linux Enterprise Server coupons “royalty payments””
–Matt Asay, April 21st, 2008
The headline is just a game of words and nothing personal, but mind the following take on OpenSolaris, courtesy of OpenSUSE’s community manager:
Ultimately, I can’t help but think that the problem that Sun is trying to solve with OpenSolaris is not a technical one, but one of control. Specifically, the company is not ready to cede control over its operating system to the community at large, and so it is instead trying to build a community around OpenSolaris rather than joining the larger Linux effort.
Look who’s talking.
Novell too tries to control GNU/Linux using Mono and copyrights, as well as an exclusionary software patent deal that covers Mono, among other things.
Unless you’re from Novell (or one of Novell’s paying customers), avoid Mono at all costs. We’ve been through many other reasons for this before.
Herein we find yet another reason (among more recent ones [1, 2, 3, 4]) for Sun to keep its distance from Novell/SUSE and hopefully maintain a good relationship with companies like Canonical. Novell is with Microsoft now, working on its digital island to gain greater control over components of GNU/Linux distributions and offer exclusive coupons (Microsoft openly calls these “patent royalties” now) for these crucial components. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
05.06.08
Posted in Deception, GNU/Linux, Kernel, Microsoft, Novell, SCO, UNIX at 1:40 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
“MICROSOFT IS LIKE AN ELEPHANT ROLLING AROUND, SQUASHING ANTS”
(From justice.gov)
We previously showed the connections between SCO and Microsoft and later discussed Stephen Norris [1, 2, 3] (briefly summarised in this post). I published an article about it too. For those who are not familiar with this saga, the incomplete gist of it all is as follows:
- Microsoft paid SCO for ‘rights’ which SCO does not own, thereby assisting SCO’s lawsuits against Linux and companies that use it
- Microsoft sort of passed money to SCO, via BayStar (recommendation of investment)
- A hugely surprising investment plan in the already-bankrupt SCO came out of nowhere. The source of the money had connections revealed that lead to Bill Gates’ investments in the middle east.
- Information that is conflicting, bizarre or contradictory was found and then quickly removed by the investing party that was accused, without as much as an acceptable explanation
The latest news or — shall we assume — the latest development in this alleged proxy fight against GNU/Linux (one among many if true, some of which are not even secret), is the appointment of a senior SCO man who found himself in Microsoft. His role there is particularly interesting (highlights in red).
…SCO once said of Gupta that “he is able to laser-focus on product deliverables.” If half-truths in the interest of competitive strategy are what Microsoft wants in terms of deliverables, Microsoft couldn’t do better than to pull in the SCO team.
Disappointing. Shame on you, Microsoft.
Groklaw has plenty more details.
Guess where Sandeep Gupta landed after he left SCO? If I put a blindfold on you and told you to point on the map, you’d still guess Microsoft, wouldn’t you? And you’d be right. From January, that is where he found a soft landing, as Director, Technical Competitive Strategy of the Server & Tools Division.
[...]
This was back in 2004. They may think we all forgot, but Groklaw never forgets. And if I need to remind you, the SCO v. IBM case is yet to be tried. So Microsoft has hired Gupta midstream.
Here’s what another famous computer expert, Brian W. Kernighan, said after reviewing Gupta’s work:
Furthermore, in places, Mr. Gupta’s conclusions of similarity depend on his selecting isolated lines of code from disparate places and putting them together as if contiguous blocks of code were involved (which they are not) and important differences did not exist (which they do).
So. You may draw your own conclusions as to why he is being rewarded with a plum position at Microsoft after a performance so stunningly rebutted. Mine is that he knows too much and that he fits in perfectly.
Mind Novell’s possible role as ‘the next SCO’. This is something that we last mentioned just 3 days ago. With SCO’s masterminds inside Microsoft and with UNIX ownership (via the increasingly-dependent Novell), Microsoft could try to pull similar tricks. Instead of a proxy or shell company like Acacia [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10], ‘mother ship’ Microsoft could get its work done with the cushion that is a better bank balance.
After last year’s "patent terrorism" it would probably be naive to let this one slide silently. Never say never? Well, at least preparation by exposition of a lie or a plot can help. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
05.03.08
Posted in Action, Corel, Courtroom, Free/Libre Software, FUD, GNU/Linux, Kernel, Microsoft, Novell, SCO, SUN, UNIX at 2:41 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
We do not typically cover any of the SCO trials, but for those who do, here are a few pointers and highlights from the past week.
Several articles heralded the beginning of this latest trial. These included:
1. Trial starts today in SCO lawsuit
More than four years after filing a lawsuit about alleged misuse of the Unix operating system, the SCO Group will get its days in court, beginning today in Salt Lake City.
2. SCO Novell Trial Starts Today
Somehow I don’t think so. SCO has managed to use the legal system to its advantage for years. Somehow it manages to appeal things, and somehow it keeps managing to find people to help bankroll its efforts.
3. Trial Starts Today in SCO Lawsuit over Unix Misuse
More than four years after filing a lawsuit about alleged misuse of the Unix operating system, the SCO Group will get its days in court, beginning today in Salt Lake City.
More comments from the local press:
Kimball’s ruling not only put SCO’s claims against IBM in jeopardy but also left it with a potential bill from Novell for Unix fees for as much as $37 million. The trial that begins Tuesday is to determine how much, if anything, The SCO Group owes Novell.
But Lee Hollaar, a professor of computer science at the University of Utah who teaches classes on intellectual property law, said last week the trial is a shadow of what the original case promised to become.
As expected, Groklaw was right at the centre of things, predicting how things would develop.
How the Trial Will Go, Beginning Tomorrow (SCO v. Novell)
The trial in SCO v. Novell — which has morphed into exclusively Novell’s counterclaims against SCO — begins tomorrow morning, and the parties have filed a Joint Pretrial Stipulation [PDF] and then an Amended one [PDF]. For purposes of this trial, Novell is the plaintiff and SCO the defendant, so Novell will be going first. Thanks to the Stipulation, we know how the trial is structured. Each side will limit itself to 10 hours. It’s 10 hours sort of like football, though, so don’t imagine it will all be over in, say, a long day or two days. A football team might have a minute left on the clock, but it takes a half hour to play it out. Similarly here, 10 hours each doesn’t count things like conferences with the judge at the bench and things like that.
Here is the opening when Novell is said to have turned the table on SCO.
Kimball will open a 4-day bench trial Tuesday to determine whether Novell is entitled to the $37 million it claims [from SCO].
Further coverage from Groklaw included all the necessary court documents. You can find all the details over there, along with heaps of comments.
Here is the interpretation from the local press, which may or may not be biased.
Lawyers for The SCO Group Inc. told a federal judge Tuesday that anything it might owe to Novell Inc. for improperly licensing an older version of the Unix computer operating system to other companies is minimal.
But Novell attorneys told U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball that the pre-1995 version of Unix to which it still holds the copyright, under an earlier ruling by the judge, was a substantial part of what SCO licensed in agreements with Microsoft, Sun Microsystems and other companies.
Mighty Wayne, whom I correspond with sometimes, has joined Ars Technica and recently began covering the SCO case as well. He lives nearby. For an article with some humour and fairly clear bias, consider this.
Novell grilled McBride for the better part of 10 minutes about “filling a form 10-K or 10-Q with the SEC that contained a false statement.” Novell’s counsel reiterated that two separate 10-Q forms filed by SCO did not include Sun or Microsoft revenue generated by UnixWare licenses. McBride adamantly denied any wrong doing, saying that the licenses were for the trunk of SCO intellectual property consisting of multiple brands, not the UnixWare product branch. This was the most hostile point of the day, with the council asking him the same question in several different ways. After two hours on the stand, McBride stepped down.
Watch the tags and the caption on the image.
It was claimed yesterday that Groklaw is being flooded by participation which includes SCO employees. Someone told me this by E-mail and pointed at some evidence (he has read Groklaw for years). Here are some transcripts Groklaw got hold of, thanks to various people who are physically there.
Brian Proffitt has this nice piece which includes a succinct description of the situation for those who are new to it.
SCO: You stole our code!
IBM: Did not!
SCO: Did so!
Novell: Hey, wait, who’s code?
SCO: Our code!
Novell: Nuh-uh! Ours!
SCO: No, it’s our code! Ours! Ours! Ours!
Grown-up Judge: It’s Novell’s.
Novell: Hah! Pay up!
SCO: We’re broke.
Novell, IBM, Red Hat, Rest of the World: What?!?!?
There are similar IRC-like sessions that put the SCO saga in context. Hilarious.
Now we come to the interesting parts.
Novell Corp. says SCO Group Inc. owes it nearly $20 million. SCO says it owes Novell virtually nothing.
Those two stances are the focus of a four-day trial that started Tuesday in federal court in Salt Lake City. The companies fighting over Lindon-based SCO’s licensure of certain technologies in 2003 and 2004 and how much Novell should get from that licensing.
After many hasty speculations [1, 2, 3] Novell has insisted that it is not the next SCO [1], but the following last article raises a brow.
Novell may expand its claims
Company says Unix also found in Microsoft, Sun Microsystems products
Issues at a trial involving The SCO Group Inc. and Novell Inc. threatened Wednesday to spill out once again into the wider software industry, with a Novell attorney indicating it might make claims against Microsoft and Sun Microsystems over Unix code in their products.
Novell presented letters it sent last year to Microsoft and Sun in which Novell said it did not believe that licensing agreements between those companies and The SCO Group were valid. As a result, the letters said, the two companies could be “exposed” to claims by Novell.
Don’t forget the many millions of dollars Microsoft is likely to pay Novell in the WordPerfect trial.
We shall soon find out how it all worked out.
Well, friends, the trial in Novell v. SCO is done. The judge will render a decision as soon as possible.
Whatever the outcome, SCO is irrelevant. Let’s just ensure Novell does not become as effective as SCO when it comes to FUDding Free software. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
05.02.08
Posted in Africa, Antitrust, Courtroom, Europe, Law, Microsoft, Open XML, OpenDocument, UNIX at 12:39 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The anticipated legal action against ISO has just begun, starting with the BSI. If you have been following this Web site for a while, then you probably know that there is plenty of concrete evidence of corruption around the world. Microsoft loves to vainly deny this, joined by ISO and business partners that send away semi-edited letter templates (it’s not a crime to deny and lie about wrongdoing unless you do this under a sworn court testimony).
Mind you, Microsoft’s long history, which filled to the rim with antitrust stories, has many times revealed that Microsoft systematically lied even to the courts at times, not just to the press. But anyway, today’s story is about the BSI, which is not Microsoft but on the face of things is heavily influenced by it. Articles about the legal action include the following pair:
1. UK standards body taken to court over OOXML
The British Standards Institution has been taken to court by a group of Unix users in an attempt to get the standards body to recant its approval of Microsoft’s Office Open XML document format.
The UK Unix & Open Systems User Group (UKUUG) said on Thursday that the British Standards Institution’s (BSI’s) controversial decision to vote for approval of OOXML in a recent International Organization for Standardization (ISO) ballot followed a flawed decision-making process.
2. BSI faces High Court challenge over OOXML U-turn
OSC director Mark Taylor told The Register that the UKUUG and chums were “very confident that the BSI has a case to answer”. He claimed that “they haven’t followed procedures and we want them to explain their controversial actions”.
However, even if legal action against the BSI leads to the UK standards body being forced, in the form of mandatory orders, to withdraw its vote to the ISO, its impact could be muted.
Taylor agreed: “Should the BSI be asked to remove its vote, that in itself probably won’t change the outcome.”
He added that the group hopes to see individuals in other countries mount similar challenges against national standards bodies in order to force the ISO to “sit up and take notice”.
If ISO (and Microsoft) believes that it has a headache now, it doesn’t yet know what’s in store. To echo the words of Neelie Kroes:
“If you flee the rules, you will be caught. And it will cost you dearly.”
–Neelie Kroes (announcing the latest Microsoft fine)
Europe is not the only region to have gotten angry and ignored Microsoft's OOXML by the way. This good article about South Africa [via Simon Phipps] says a little more about the nation’s disregard for what has been more of a political and technical fiasco than the patent-encumbered format proposal which it is. The next few months promise to be interesting because with Microsoft lobbyists gently threatening governments it’s clear that the monopoly will play dirty to shelter its cash cows. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
Content is available under CC-BY-SA