No mention of Intellectual Ventures
No mention of Nathan Myhrvold
He mentions Microsoft’s Patent Lawyer 4 times, mostly to lead people to read Microsoft’s opinion.

I once asked him to read my Microsoft Software Patent Extortion Timeline, and asked him why hed did not persue Microsoft and their obvious attacks on gnu/linux and software freedom. He was silent at the time. I now see he produced this lame excuse of “Microsoft’s cooperative approach to patents.” In his defense of Microsoft, he dismisses accusations that he’s a Microsoft lobbiest that can’t be trusted. Then, he tells us,

Microsoft doesn’t use its patents in a destructive way. They don’t just sit on their patents without doing nothing, but they’re a cooperative right holder who doesn’t use them to shut out competition. … Developers, however, generally like FOSS. So I can’t see how Microsoft would go to war against the community. … there’s a pretty good chance that Microsoft’s peaceful coexistence with FOSS will continue and become ever more fruitful. … Microsoft doesn’t have that kind of problem [open washing]. … the most one can realistically expect a patent holder to do is to grant licenses on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. … License deals are generally good news … Microsoft only sued those companies because they were absolutely unwilling to do a license deal. In each of those cases, … The key thing to me is that all of those lawsuits could have been avoided easily. If Microsoft continues to use its patents in the cooperative, reasonable way it has used them so far, then I don’t think there’s a threat to FOSS projects or companies.

This is a disgraceful defense of Microsoft’s strategy against free software. According to Microsoft email exposed in the Comes vrs Microsoft anti-trust case, it is clear that Microsoft’s goal was to impose external costs, “risks” and fear on gnu/linux users and companies. The attack was planned in 2002, executed in 2004 and continues to this day. Microsoft brags that they have netted dozens if not hundreds of license payers, companies that use software that Microsoft does not own. Florian describes this judicial extortion as “cooperative,” “fair,” “reasonable” and “non discriminatory.” I wonder if he wold feel the same way if I were to tell him that I have a patent on FUD, but I don’t want him to stop writing FUD, I just want my fair share of his compensation, 25% should do, otherwise I’ll tie him up in court for the next decade, embargo his writing in the US and EU and set a host of spinners to work on his reputation through my extensive network of technical publications, PR firms, lawyers and lobbiests. As soon as he bothers to pay, I’ll set half a dozen proxies after him. When that is someone else’s reality, he’s OK with it.

His recent work has also cost him a lot of his reputation. People noticed he was the source of Android copyright FUD and thought poorly of it. The attacks on “Groklie,” PJ, will probably cost him more. In typical Microsoft bully fashion, he’s blaming the hit to his reputation on PJ and others who notice what he’s doing.