04.13.11
Posted in Apple, Bill Gates, Google, Patents at 5:46 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: When patents cost people their lives more pundits are willing to publicly admit that the patent system is unethical
MORE PEOPLE are speaking out against patents. The Atlantic, an influential publication by all measures, is seemingly fed up with some patents:
In a closely-watched oral argument Monday at a federal courthouse in Washington, the core questions of the case read like scripts from a college philosophy exam: are isolated human genes and the subsequent comparisons of their sequences patentable? Can one company own a monopoly on such genes without violating the rights of others? They are multi-billion dollar questions, the judicially-sanctioned answers to which will have enormous ramifications for the worlds of medicine, science, law, business, politics and religion.
Tell this to Bill Gates, who happens to promote companies of these sorts by giving them investment money, by lobbying for them, and also by hiring their staff to join and administer the Gates Foundation. Maybe when Gates meets Alzheimer he will change his mind, but never mind, Gates can afford to license some absurd patent to save his life. Others can’t. Mike Masnick is the latest to complain about this patent:
We keep hearing stories of important healthcare research being disrupted by patents, and the latest, as pointed out by Slashdot, involves an organization called the Alzheimer’s Institute of America… which happened to buy some patents on a DNA sequence, and is now suing or threatening to sue a ton of researchers in the space. Amusingly, AIA presents itself as an organization committed to supporting Alzheimer’s research, when it appears the organization is more focused on shaking down researchers.
More patent rants by Mike Masnick can be found in [1, 2]. He speaks about the patent problem wrt Google’s dilemma and the Hubris-ridden Apple, which also happens to be hurt by them recently (although not sufficiently). Google too is named: “A lawsuit filed by H-W Technology earlier this week in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas Dallas Division claims Apple, Research In Motion, Google, and 29 other major technology companies are infringing on a patent it was granted in April 2009.”
We all know by now that the Northern District of Texas is a breeding ground for patent trolls. When will the USPTO get rebooted? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
04.07.11
Posted in Apple, Google, Patents at 4:11 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Monopolies and titans spread their monopolies and perpetuate the patent problems rather than strive to resolve them for about 99% of the businesses out there (those without a massive scale and monopoly)
A WHILE back we hoped that Apple would rethink its patent lust given the $625 million verdict against it, but this case is being overturned now:
A federal judge in Texas threw out an earlier verdict against Apple in a patent-infringement case with Mirror Worlds, overturning one of the largest settlements ever awarded in a patent case and fueling debate on software copyright in general.
How is Apple going to learn a lesson about software patents’ harm if not by cases like this one? Apple is currently suing the Linux-powered Android, which leads Google, for example, to resorting to patents too (much to the regret of the FFII). A longtime critic of the patent system calls it the “Nuclear Option” and says that “the exploding IP litigation in mobile will only get larger as Google angles to buy the mobile-patent equivalent of a thermonuclear device.” To quote the opening part:
In a blog post today, Google (GOOG) general counsel Kent Walker announced that the company had bid for Nortel’s patent portfolio. The $900 million offer makes Google the so-called stalking horse bidder: one that sets a high enough bottom line to keep others from low-balling the auction.
This is a major change for Google and an overt declaration that it will use its cash to obtain patents that could make life unpleasant for litigious competitors. Expect that the exploding IP litigation in mobile will only get larger as Google angles to buy the mobile-patent equivalent of a thermonuclear device.
Google would be wiser to give a billion dollars to the FFII and other groups which seek to abolish software patents. That would also help Google justify its “do no evil” motto.
What we are seeing these days is not just consolidation where few companies amass enormous power (e.g. Oracle buying Sun) but also a distortion of law that benefits the rich (e.g. tax exceptions for the super-rich, tax havens for large corporations only). Unless the people stand up behind groups like the FFII, FSF, EFF, etc. nothing is going to improve; it’s only going to get a lot worse. Patents are a symptom and a characteristic of this general trend. They solidify the power of the already-powerful over everyone else, essentially making “illegal” the act of competing. As we last showed yesterday, there is nothing ethical about patents; it’s protectionism, it’s selfishness. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
03.29.11
Posted in Apple, Microsoft, Mono, Novell at 6:45 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
“The best way to prepare is to write programs, and to study great programs that other people have written. In my case, I went to the garbage cans at the Computer Science Center and I fished out listings of their operating systems.”
–Bill Gates
“We’ve always been shameless about stealing great ideas.”
–Steve Jobs
Summary: Continued Mono lobby in Apple’s platforms; The empires of ripoff show their continued exploitation of freely-shareable and free/open source-implemented ideas
WHEN MICROSOFT MVP Miguel de Icaza is not praising Microsoft software like Silver Lie and Moon Lie (he is still at it, delivering on Microsoft’s contract/agreement with his employer) he is also promoting hypePad like it’s a badge of honour. He wants to popularise Microsoft’s C# (Java ripoff) on Apple products. That’s what he does. He promotes C# under the guise of ‘open source’ (Mono) and he is still boosting Monospace, which was organised by fellow Microsoft MVPs. It is clear what they are up to. It’s a case of assimilation (to Microsoft), which they also have a go at when it comes to Linux-powered platforms (making mobile Linux more C#-dependent). Aside from that, in Twitter (de Icaza snubs Identi.ca), he apparently defends Apple’s side and mocks GPLv3 in light of this news:
The upcoming release of Mac OS X 10.7 Lion Server will remove the formerly bundled open source Samba software and replace it with Apple’s own tools for Windows file sharing and network directory services.
One thing that Apple and Microsoft have in common is that they dislike GPLv3 and that says a lot. GPLv3 defangs software patents lovers, so those who dislike GPLv3 are often pushing for patent monopolies and software riddled with patent traps (such as Mono).
As an aside, regarding Apple, Robert Pogson explains why Apple is not a success based on grounds measured by the GNU/Linux world (freedom for example) and even market share.
Less than 2% MacOS usage in Asia, Africa and South America… Is that success?
Ballmer’s own slide shows this:
Apple may be popular in some Western countries, but that’s about it. Linux is a major rival to Apple, especially in phones, tablets, portable gadgets, etc. Sooner or later people realise that Apple is just a badge and that Apple’s staff cannot even deal with DST properly (not even in 2011!). To quote the MSBBC:
Some iPhone owners were heading in to work late on Monday after a glitch caused their alarms to malfunction.
Users found their wake-up alert coming one hour late, one hour early or not at all.
The problem, related to the clocks going forward for British Summer Time, does not appear to have affected everyone.
Apple has yet to comment on what caused it, but similar problems have previously hit iPhones in the US.
Maybe Apple is not reusing enough Free software. A lot of Apple’s code is derived from code it merely exploited and contributed almost nothing to (Apple’s version is proprietary). Who would wish to support such a company by rewarding it for these deeds? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
03.13.11
Posted in Apple, Bill Gates, Microsoft, Patents at 2:10 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
(ODF | PDF | English/original)
Resumen: Algunos elementos de las noticias que muestran cómo las patentes son utilizadas por los “sospechosos habituales” para sofocar el compartir, redefinir los estándares abiertos, la abolición de la libertad, la distorsión de la competencia, y limitar el acceso a la salud.
BSA
Andy Updegrove es el último en responder a las mentiras de la Alianza Empresarial de Software BSA[http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20110304122357355], acerca de los derechos de autor en los estándares libres en el Reino Unido [1[http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/article.php?story=20110304122357355], 2[http://techrights.org/2011/03/03/lies-machine-vs-foss-policy/], 3[http://techrights.org/2011/03/04/federal-government-vs-mpeg-la/]]. Él escribe:
La posición de la BSA fue ridiculizada como FUD (es decir, un intento de extender “miedo, incertidumbre y duda”) por los defensores de la apertura, incluyendo Glyn Moody, quien hábilmente evalúa el impacto esperado por la política del Reino Unido en lo que respecta software libre y de código abierto versus el software propietario.
Pero lo de la rídicula demanda de la BSA que las normas libres y abiertas, en comparación con el software libre y de código abierto (FOSS), “reducirá la elección, obstaculizará la innovación y el aumento de los costos en la administración electrónica?
De hecho, este argumento es mucho más difícil de sustentar en el caso de las normas que en el caso del software libre. Las razones son varias.
En primer lugar, si bien hay excepciones, las normas generalmente no describen los productos, pero elementos del producto, funciones o características. En el caso de la información y las comunicaciones (TIC), el grupo más importante de las normas ha sido desarrollado para permitir la interoperabilidad. En segundo lugar, donde las normas son más fundamentales, por lo general existen en un nivel inferior de la pila de la tecnología.
Desde una perspectiva de defensa de la competencia, lo que esto significa es que las normas suelen bloquear sólo en la medida de un diseño de producto, o las características del servicio, que sea necesario para lograr la interoperabilidad. Esto deja mucho espacio para los vendedores y proveedores de servicios innoven y compitan por encima de la capa de la normalización, proporcionando funcionalidad de valor agregado, servicios adicionales y otras características de diferenciación.
MPEG-LA
El cartel de MPEG está bajo investigación como hemos mencionado antes[http://techrights.org/2011/03/04/federal-government-vs-mpeg-la/] y el Register tiene algunos detalles más sobre esto[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/04/doj_investgates_mpeg_la_over_vp8_attack/] (vean la discusión Slashdot también[http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/03/04/1358236/DOJ-Anti-trust-Investigation-of-MPEG-LA]).
El Departamento de Justicia de EE.UU. está investigando a la MPEG-LA – la organización común de patentes respaldado por Apple, Microsoft, y otros – sobre el esfuerzo de la organización para socavar el códec libre de regalías V8 de Google, presentado el año pasado, según un informe que citó a personas familiarizadas con la materia.
Por cierto, la agresión de patentes puede dar lugar al embargo[http://gigaom.com/2011/03/04/europe-bans-ps3-imports-but-who-wins-in-patent-wars/], como esta nueva situación:
El caso sin embargo, resulta en el impacto a corto plazo de esta prohibición podría ser grave. En este momento, la mayoría de los minoristas aún tienen una semana o dos de las unidades de PS3 en las tiendas. Si la prohibición dura más allá de eso, sin embargo, las acciones podrían comenzar a escasear. Eso va a afectarlos.
La Fundación Gates
Mientras que la Fundación Gates[http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Gates_Foundation_Critique] sigue promoviendo más los monopolios de patentes, el cabildeo de Bill Gates de patentes (con fines de lucro) es cada vez más visto como lo que realmente es. Desde una página antigua[http://harry.sufehmi.com/archives/2006-01-30-1105/] nos enteramos de que:
Esto es lo que he encontrado hasta ahora:
1. Claro, Bill “dona” grandemente. Pero, ¿te das cuenta que la mayoría de ellas -donaciones- están relacionados con los medicamentos/vacunas? He aquí una de ella. Y, ¿te das cuenta de que ha invertido mucho en las empresas médicas?
¿Se puede dibujar una línea que conecta estos?
* Proyecto de Ley vende MSFT, toma Prozac
* Bill y las grandes empresas farmacéuticas: Bill ahora posee propias acciones en muchas compañías farmacéuticas.
2. Un periodismo de investigación en las donaciones de Bill y su agenda. Básicamente, las donaciones que le traerán aún más dinero de las drogas, mediante el bloqueo de medicamentos baratos, por lo tanto potencialmente matar a más de los que salva.
3. Al igual que con Microsoft, Bill firme apoyo incondicional de la protección de la propiedad intelectual de los medicamentos en los países pobres. Argumentan que esto es necesario, para que puedan recuperar los costos de investigación y desarrollo. Sin embargo, resultó que el costo de marketing de grandes empresas farmacéuticas son de 2.5 sobre sus costes de Investigación y Desarrollo.
Este se encontró un par de días atrás, cuando alguien citó Techrights. Nuestra investigación acerca la Fundación Gates es referida por muchos, incluso hemos notado en programas de radio.
Algún tiempo después, en el transcurso del año vamos a escribir acerca del más reciente daño de las maniobras de Gates que exime a él (y Warren) de impuestos y aumenta significativamente su poder sobre la sociedad. Aquellos que cabildean para patentar, esencialmente lobby por monopolios. █
Many thanks to Eduardo Landaveri of the Spanish portal of Techrights.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
03.07.11
Posted in Apple, Bill Gates, Microsoft, Patents at 6:49 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Patent aggressors fly too close to the Sun
Summary: A few items of news showing how patents are used by the “usual suspects” to stifle sharing, redefine open standards, abolish freedom, distort competition, and limit access to health
BSA
Andy Updegrove is the latest to respond to the BSA’s lies about royalty-free standards in the UK [1, 2, 3]. He writes:
The BSA position was soon derided as FUD (i.e., an attempt to spread “fear, uncertainty and doubt”) by proponents of openness, including Glyn Moody, who ably assesses the expected impact of the U.K. policy as regards free and open source software vs. proprietary software here.
But what of the BSA’s claim that free and open standards, as compared to free and open source software (FOSS), will “reduce choice, hinder innovation and increase the costs of e-government?”
In fact, such an argument is far harder to make in the case of standards than it is in the case of FOSS. The reasons are several.
First, while there are exceptions, standards generally describe not products, but product elements, functions or characteristics. In the case of information and communications technology (ICT), the most significant group of standards is developed to enable interoperability. Secondly, where standards are more fundamental, they generally exist at a lower level in the stack of technology.
From an antitrust perspective, what this means is that standards typically lock in only so much of a product design, or service characteristics, as is necessary to achieve interoperability. This leaves plenty of room for vendors and service providers to innovate and compete above the layer of standardization by providing value-added functionality, additional services and other differentiating features.
MPEG-LA
The MPEG cartel is under investigation as we mentioned before and The Register has some more details about that (see the Slashdot discussion as well).
The US Department of Justice is investigating MPEG-LA – the patent pool organization backed by Apple, Microsoft, and others – over the organization’s effort to undermine the royalty-free V8 codec Google introduced last year, according to a report citing people familiar with the matter.
Incidentally, patent aggression may lead to embargo like this new situation:
However the case turns out, the short-term impact of this ban could be serious. Right now, most retailers still have a week or two of PS3 units in stores. If the ban lasts beyond that, however, stock could start to run low. That’s got to hurt.
Gates Foundation
While the Gates Foundation keeps promoting more patent monopolies, Bill Gates’ lobbying for patents (for profit) is increasingly seen for what it really is. From an older page we learn that:
Here’s what I’ve found so far :
1. Sure, Bill gives big. But, do you realize that most of those are related to drugs / vaccinations? Here’s one of it. And, do you realize that he has invested quite a lot in medical companies ?
Can we draw a line connecting these ?
* Bill sells MSFT, takes Prozac
* Bill and Big Pharma companies : Bill now own shares on many drug companies.
2. An investigative journalism into Bill’s donations and agendas. Basically, the donations will bring him even more money from drugs, by blocking cheap drugs, therefore potentially killing more than he saved.
3. Just as with Microsoft, Bill staunch support of strict intellectual-property protections for drugs in poor countries. They argued that this is necessary, so they can recoup the R&D costs. However, turned out that Big Pharma’s marketing cost are 2.5 over their R&D cost.
This was found a couple of days ago when someone cited Techrights. Our research into the Gates Foundation is referenced a lot, even in radio shows that we’ve noticed.
Some time later in the year we shall catch up with more recent mischief from Gates’ stunt that exempts him (and Warren) from tax and significantly increases his power over society. Those who lobby for patenting essentially lobby for monopolies. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
03.04.11
Posted in Apple, IBM, Microsoft, Patents, Standard at 10:13 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The perils of cartels orbiting around multimedia formats are recognised by the federal government and an IBM senior slams the BSA
The MPEG cartel is a subject we wrote about extensively, especially last year, e.g. in:
According to Murdoch’s press, there is federal action against this cartel, which also includes Microsoft and Apple. An “interesting development” British journalist Glyn Moody calls it and his colleague says that the “US Justice Department [is] reportedly investigating MPEG LA over VP8 threats”:
The US Justice Department is reportedly studying whether attempts by owners of the H.264 video patent pool to find out whether Google’s free and open-source VP8 codec infringes their patents are unfair.
It has opened an antitrust probe to find out whether the MPEG LA group or its members are trying to stifle the alternative format, which Google is pushing as a cost-free alternative for video on the web, according to the Wall Street Journal.
As a reminder, the BSA too is currently lobbying in favour of the likes of MPEG-LA in the UK [1, 2] and IBM’s Rob Weir says he’s proud IBM is not associated with the BSA (it was dumped by IBM recently). To quote Weir:
The Business Software Alliance (BSA) is at it again. They are claiming that new UK Cabinet Office policy in favor of open standards — the kind of standards that the web is built on and which has created billions in new economy jobs – is actually a bad thing, since it would (according to the BSA), “reduce choice, hinder innovation and increase the costs of e-government”.
Really? Are they serious?
Those with a penchant for the history of economic thought may recall the 19th century French liberal economist Claude Frédéric Bastiat, and his satirical economic parables, which attacked prevalent economic errors of his time. We have need of Bastiat at this hour, especially his skewering of an entrenched industry’s rent-seeking tendency to push for government protection from lower cost competitors. His attack on protectionism was called “The Candlemaker’s Petition“…
See the rest of the details in Weir’s blog. It’s like OOXML all over again (with Candlemaker rather than broken windows, bridges, or light bulbs this time around). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Apple, Fraud, Microsoft at 8:21 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Apple employee took bribes and Microsoft is still said to be bribing companies in order to distort the market
SEVERAL months ago we wrote about Apple bribery, noting that an employee of Apple had been caught “conspiring” against the firm. He has just been found guilty, according to the MSBBC:
A former employee of computer and phone firm Apple has pleaded guilty to multiple criminal charges and admitted he took bribes from Asian suppliers.
Paul Devine is accused of providing confidential information to suppliers so that they could negotiate favourable contracts.
Mr Devine admitted that the loss to Apple from his actions was more than $2m (£1.2m).
Microsoft too yields its share of bribes (we have a lot of examples in this Web site), so an occasional contributor, Slated, is preparing a complaint against Microsoft's market distortion (to reach the Advertising Standards Authority at a later date) and now he mentions similar intentions to also use antitrust material (which Microsoft tried to hide) to prove bribery and file a similar complaint, possibly as part of a wider campaign. From his blog:
I’ve only just heard about something that’s actually quite old news, but may be relevant in future dealings with Microsoft. Apparently: “Former Conservative cabinet minister Lord Howe of Aberavon has criticised the government for “delaying” the implementation of legislation on bribery.”
“Legislation on bribery”?
Hmm.
Well it turns out the UK is on the verge of bringing something called the “Bribery Act 2010″ into force. This might have happened sooner, had it not been for a delay due to mysterious “meetings with a wide range of bodies” … no doubt to forewarn corrupt businessmen that their unethical bizniz® practices were about to be exposed and shut down.
The Bribery Act 2010 (c.23) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that covers the criminal law relating to bribery. Introduced to Parliament in the Queen’s Speech in 2009 after several decades of reports and draft bills, the Act received the Royal Assent on 8 April 2010 following cross-party support. Initially scheduled to enter into force in April 2010, this was changed to April 2011. The Secretary of State for Justice has yet to publish guidance on the interpretation and use of the Act and has announced that it will not come into force until at least three months after such guidance is made available. The Act repeals all previous statutory and common law provisions in relation to bribery, instead replacing them with the crimes of bribery, being bribed, the bribery of foreign public officials, and the failure of a commercial organisation to prevent bribery on its behalf.
The penalties for committing a crime under the Act are a maximum of 10 years’ imprisonment, along with an unlimited fine, and the potential for the confiscation of property under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, as well as the disqualification of directors under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. The Act has a near-universal jurisdiction, allowing for the prosecution of an individual or company with links to the United Kingdom, regardless of where the crime occurred. Described as “the toughest anti-corruption legislation in the world”,[1] concerns have been raised that the Act’s provisions criminalise behaviour that is acceptable in the global market, and puts British business at a competitive disadvantage.
Let’s read that again:
“behaviour that is acceptable in the global market“
LOL! I bet.
Well, it’s about time bribery wasn’t “acceptable in the global market” then, isn’t it?
So what does this have to do with Microsoft?
Need you ask?
Bear in mind the FTC’s prosecution of Intel last year, for bribing Dell to exclude AMD processors, and I think you’ll begin to see the picture. And that’s in the good ol’ US of A, part of the “global market” where bribery is supposedly “acceptable”.
Given the scope of this tough new law, it’s possible, indeed highly probable that Microsoft’s “Incentives Programme” may actually violate it. I certainly hope so anyway.
Of course that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Microsoft’s racketeering methods are well documented, so it remains to be seen what else this law catches them out with. For example, if Vole’s minions had done in the UK (after April) what they did in Sweden (OOXML bribery), somebody at Microsoft would be doing hard time in prison.
Interesting time ahead…
Prepare for interesting campaigns to come (more details in the IRC logs). This one is all Slated’s , but we too hope to get involved. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Apple, IBM, Microsoft, Patents, Standard at 2:33 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
(ODF | PDF | English/original)
Resumen: Los peligros de los cárteles que orbitan alrededor de los formatos multimedia son reconocidos por el gobierno federal y un ejecutivo de alto nivel de IBM critica a la Alianza Empresarial de Software BSA
El cartel de MPEG es un tema sobre el que hemos escrito ampliamente, especialmente el año pasado, por ejemplo, en:
* Canonical tiene que indicar a los usuarios de Ubuntu cuánto pagó MPEG-LA para su “protección” de Patentes[http://techrights.org/2010/05/07/canonical-disclosure-h264-video/]
* Microsoft y MPEG LA-Se llama “trolls de patentes”, denuncia antimonopolio presentadas[http://techrights.org/2010/05/26/mpeg-cartel-and-microsoft-backlash/]
* Troll Patentes (MPEG-LA) puede ser el dueño de su propio Personal y Videos de Familia[http://techrights.org/2010/05/26/patent-trolls-exploit-cams/]
* Alexandre Oliva explica por qué la patente Troll Larry Horn (Cartel MPEG) es una pantalla[http://techrights.org/2010/05/27/mpeg-cartel-bluff/]
* “Estamos en la era del vídeo digital, y es un lío,”-Steve Jobs, MPEG-LA Autor/cabildero de su propuesta[http://techrights.org/2010/05/28/mpeg-cartel-gives-jobs/]
* Simon Phipps: “MPEG-LA es un parásito que los institutos de normalización tienen como su huésped, ya sea que lo quieran o no.” (Y una perorata sobre Banshee/Mono)[http://techrights.org/2010/06/07/mpeg-la-and-dot-net-trap/]
Según la prensa de Murdoch[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703752404576178833590548792.html], hay acción federal en contra de este cartel, que también incluye a Microsoft y Apple. Una “evolución interesante” lo define el periodista británico Glyn Moody y su colega dicen que el “Departamento de Justicia de los EE.UU. este investivgando las amenazas de MPEG LA contra VP8″[http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2011/mar/04/justice-department-antitrust-mpeg-la-vp8]:
El . Departamento de Justicia de los EE.UU. está estudiando si los informes, los intentos de los propietarios de la junta de patentes de vídeo H.264 para determinar si el libre y de código abierto de Google códec VP8 infringe sus patentes son injustas.
Se ha abierto una investigación antimonopolio para averiguar si el grupo MPEG LA y sus miembros están tratando de sofocar el formato alternativo, que Google está empujando como una alternativa gratuita para el vídeo en la web, de acuerdo con el Wall Street Journal.
Como recordatorio, la Alianza Empresarial de Software BSA también está presionando en favor de chacales como la MPEG-LA en el del Reino Unido [1[http://techrights.org/2011/03/02/bsa-tries-to-exclude-freedom/], 2[http://techrights.org/2011/03/03/lies-machine-vs-foss-policy/]] y Rob Weir de IBM dice que está orgulloso de IBM no está asociada con la BSA[http://www.robweir.com/blog/2011/03/bsa-new-candlemakers.html] (fue objeto de dumping por parte de IBM hace poco[http://techrights.org/2011/01/14/bsa-loses-key-members/]). Para citar Weir:
La Alianza Empresarial de Software (BSA) esta en él otra vez. Ellos están reclamando acerca la nueva política de la Oficina de Gabinete del Reino Unido en favor de los estándares abiertos – la clase de normas que la web se basa en, y que ha creado miles de millones de puestos de trabajo nueva economía – es realmente una mala cosa, ya que (de acuerdo con la BSA) , “reducir la elección, obstaculizar la innovación y el aumento de los costos de la administración electrónica”.
¿En serio? ¿Son serios?
Los que tienen una inclinación por la historia del pensamiento económico puede recordar el 19 º siglo economista liberal francés Claude Frédéric Bastiat, y sus parábolas satíricas en económía, que atacaron frecuentes errores económicos de su tiempo. Tenemos necesidad de Bastiat a esta hora, en especial su ensartar de la tendencia de captación de rentas de una industria arraigada a impulsar la protección del gobierno en contra de los competidores de menor costo. Su ataque contra el proteccionismo que se llamó “La Petición del Candlemaker” …
Vea el resto de los detalles en el blog de Weir. Es como OOXML de nuevo (con Candlemaker en lugar de ventanas rotas, puentes, o las bombillas en esta ocasión). █
Many thanks to Eduardo Landaveri of the Spanish portal of Techrights.
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