11.10.09
Posted in Database, Europe, Law, Oracle, Patents at 11:23 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Enlarged Board of Appeal to make decision regarding software patentability in Europe, but some judges may have already made up their minds
THE FFII’s president has just pointed out that the “European Patent Office “independent” Enlarged Board of Appeal says its judges are “independent”.” We append its response in plain text. Of course they would just act in self defence here, justifying their own integrity rather than relying on independent, external judgment. To quote the crux of the matter:
In an amicus curiae brief addressed to the Enlarged Board on 26 April 2009 Mr M. Schulz contested the impartiality of the Board giving the following reasons:
1. A technically qualified person in charge and mandated by the Enlarged Board of Appeal had officially and publicly given his opinion on the decisions mentioned in the referral of the President and on the interpretation of the EPC with respect to the exclusion of computer programs from patentability, among others on the decision in the case T 1173/97.
We previously wrote about this referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal in:
I have also submitted my own brief.
Separately, says FFII’s president, “Oracle [is] not mentioning patents” when claiming that “because MySQL is open source, it cannot be controlled by anyone.” Oracle wrote this in response to the European Commission, which blocks the Sun takeover.
We wrote about MySQL and patents back in 2008 [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. █
b
Europäisches European Office européen
Patentamt Patent Office des brevets
Große Enlarged Grande
Beschwerdekammer Board of Appeal Chambre de recours
Internal distribution code:
(A) [ ] Publication in OJ
(B) [X] To Chairmen and Members
(C) [ ] To Chairmen
(D) [ ] No distribution
Datasheet for the Interlocutory Decision
of 16 October 2009
Case Number: G 0003/08
Language of the proceedings: EN
Referral by the President of the EPO in relation to a point of
law pursuant to Article 112(1)(b) EPC
Headword:
-
Relevant legal provisions:
EPC Art. 24
RPBA Art. 4
Relevant legal provisions (EPC 1973):
EPC Art. 24
Keyword:
"Objection to a member of the EBA, suspicion of partiality"
Decisions cited:
G 0001/05, G 0002/08, T 0954/98, J 0015/04
[2002] EWCA Civ 90, [2003] QB 528 - Taylor v. Lawrence; [2003]
UKHL 35, [2003] ICR 856 - Lawal v. Northern Spirit Ltd.;
Locabail (UK) Ltd. v. Bayfield Properties Ltd.
Catchword:
-
EPA Form 3030 06.03
C2034.D
b
Europäisches European Office européen
Patentamt Patent Office des brevets
Große Enlarged Grande
Beschwerdekammer Board of Appeal Chambre de recours
Case Number: G 0003/08
I n t e r l o c u t o r y D e c i s i o n
of the Enlarged Board of Appeal
of 16 October 2009
Composition of the Board:
Chairman: P. Messerli
Members: M. J. Vogel
P. Alting Van Geusau
M. Dorn
A. G. Klein
U. Scharen
J.-P. Seitz
C2034.D
- 1 - G 0003/08
Summary of Facts and Submissions
I. In the present referral case under Article 112(1)b EPC
concerning several questions raised by the President of
the EPO on Computer Implemented Inventions ("CII") the
Enlarged Board of Appeal invited the public to file
opinions on the questions submitted by the President.
II. In an amicus curiae brief addressed to the Enlarged
Board on 26 April 2009 Mr M. Schulz contested the
impartiality of the Board giving the following reasons:
1. A technically qualified person in charge and
mandated by the Enlarged Board of Appeal had officially
and publicly given his opinion on the decisions
mentioned in the referral of the President and on the
interpretation of the EPC with respect to the exclusion
of computer programs from patentability, among others
on the decision in the case T 1173/97.
2. In the documents of the Diplomatic Conference of
2000, the decision in the case T 1173/97 was considered
to justify the deletion of the EPC provision excluding
computer programs as non patentable subject matter.
This means that this decision was not taken on the
basis of the law in force at that time.
3. Furthermore, the person mentioned above, now a
member of the Enlarged Board in the present case,
supported the EU-proposal of a directive on CII as a
lobbyist of the Commission. He declared publicly that
the then-drafted version of the EU-directive would not
initiate a reversal of the jurisdiction of the Boards
of Appeal. This is further proof that the then-valid
C2034.D
- 2 - G 0003/08
law, which excluded computer programs from legal
protection, had been disregarded by the Boards.
4. Finally, just before its publication, a member of
the Boards of Appeal publicly took the position that
the referral of the President was inadmissible. This
was an undue attempt to put pressure on the President
and the Members of the Enlarged Board.
5. On the strength of past experience with the
behaviour of Board members the question is not whether
there are different decisions and even whether these
decisions are in line with the Convention. These
questions have already been answered by the Boards'
decisions. The question is rather whether it is
possible having regard to the foregoing facts to
compose an Enlarged Board from members of the Boards of
Appeal, who have already been subject to a reproach of
obliqueness.
6. Under these conditions there is a suspicion of
partiality with the consequence that the present
composition of the Enlarged Board has to be dissolved
and the grounds of dissolution have to be published.
III. After due deliberation of the Board, in the absence of
the member concerned, the Chairman of the Enlarged
Board of Appeal by order dated 28 September 2009
appointed Mr Alting van Geusau as alternate to Mr Rees
for the purpose of the proceedings under Article 4
RPEBA and Article 24(4) EPC.
IV. In his statement according to Article 4(2) RPEBA
Mr Rees declared that, as a director in DG 2 between
C2034.D
- 3 - G 0003/08
2000 and 2003, he was assigned the duty of explaining
the examination policy of DGs 1 and 2 with respect to
computer-implemented inventions (CII), which was based
on the case law of the Boards of Appeal, to the public
and external bodies like the European Parliament.
Furthermore he did the same when he attended as an
expert for the European Commission a number of meetings
of the responsible committee of the Council of
Ministers where the proposal of a EU-directive on CII
was discussed.
Reasons for the Decision
1.1 As provided by Article 24(3) EPC, members of a Board of
Appeal or of the Enlarged Board of Appeal may be
objected to by any party for one of the reasons
mentioned in Article 24(1) EPC, or if suspected of
partiality. Whereas objections based on Article 24(1)
EPC (iudex inhabilis) may be raised by anyone, whether
he is a party or not, the right to object to a member
of the Board because of alleged partiality (iudex
suspectus) is reserved to parties in the proceedings
(see interlocutory decision of 15 June 2009 in case
G 2/08, point 1.4 of the Reasons). In referral cases
under Article 112 EPC, however, members of the public
who file amicus curiae briefs do not have the status of
a party. They are not entitled to file requests but
only to submit their personal view of the case or that
of their organisations, in order to support the Board
with arguments that should be considered in its
findings. Since an amicus curiae is not a party to the
referral proceedings his request for exclusion of a
C2034.D
- 4 - G 0003/08
member of the Enlarged Board or of the Enlarged Board
as a whole is inadmissible under Article 24(3) EPC.
1.2 However, pursuant to Rule 4(1) of the Rules of
Procedure of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (RPEBA) in
the version approved by the Administrative Council of
the EPO on 7 December 2006 (OJ 2007, 304), the
procedure of Article 24(4) EPC is also to be applied,
if the Enlarged Board of Appeal has knowledge of a
possible reason for exclusion or objection which does
not originate from a member himself or from any party
to the proceedings. Under this provision the
submissions of a third party with respect to a member
of the Enlarged Board to be objected to according to
Article 24(1) EPC or suspected of partiality under
Article 24(3) EPC are taken as information on the basis
of which the Board can ex officio look at the alleged
grounds of objection or suspicion of partiality.
2.1 In the amicus curiae brief under consideration it is
not alleged that one of the members of the Enlarged
Board should be excluded from the case for reasons of a
personal interest in the case, or for having been
involved previously as a representative of the party
(Article 24(1) EPC). Rather, the submission is based on
the ground that one member of the Enlarged Board of
Appeal in this case as well as the Board as a whole is
suspected of partiality.
2.2 The interlocutory decision in case G 2/08 mentioned
under point 1.1 above states that it might appear
appropriate not to proceed any further with a complaint
or information received if the so-called "possible"
reason for exclusion or objection which does not
C2034.D
- 5 - G 0003/08
originate from a party to the proceedings or the
Enlarged Board of Appeal itself, would amount to an
abuse of procedure. The decision mentions as an example
a complaint that is completely unsubstantiated or
ignores established case law (point 2.3 of the Reasons).
2.3 Turning to the present case, the Enlarged Board notes
that the submissions in the amicus curiae brief are
vague and largely unsubstantiated. The brief does not
say who made which concrete remarks in which function
under which circumstances and in which connection with
respect to the referred questions such as to justify
his exclusion as a member of the Enlarged Board of
Appeal for reasons of suspicion of partiality.
Nevertheless the Enlarged Board is in the position to
identify Mr D. Rees on the basis of these submissions
as the member suspected in the amicus curiae brief and
is also aware of his earlier duties as a director in
DG 2 of the EPO between 2000 and 2003 and as an expert
for the EU-Commission in the field of CII at that time.
But these facts submitted to establish the suspicion of
partiality are not suitable to do so. The mere general
and unsubstantiated assertion that the member in
question explained as an expert in earlier times, when
he was still a director in DG 2, that the jurisprudence
of the Boards of Appeal in the field of CII would not
be against the EPC and the law of the member states of
the EPO cannot support an argument that this member or
even the whole Enlarged Board in this case (G 3/08)
should be excluded from dealing with the referral. Nor
can such a conclusion be supported by the – actually
incorrect - submission that the members of the present
Enlarged Board are all members of the Boards of Appeal.
C2034.D
- 6 - G 0003/08
This is not an argument justifying the assumption that
- deciding on the present referral - they are not
solely bound by the provisions of the EPC.
2.4 According to established case law of the Boards of
Appeal, of the Enlarged Board and also of national
courts of member states, the mere fact that a board
member has expressed a view on the legal issue to be
decided on a previous occasion, be it in a prior
decision or in literature, be it in a prior position in
the EPO or as an expert for external political
institutions, cannot lead to the conclusion of doubts
as to impartiality. Nor does a purely subjective
impression that the opinions of a board member might be
disadvantageous to a particular interest justify an
exclusion (see T 954/98, point 2.4 of the Reasons; see
also J 15/04; see further Interlocutory decision of
7 December 2006 in case G 1/05, point 20 of the Reasons;
confirmed in G 2/08, supra, point 4.2 of the Reasons;
[2002] EWCA Civ 90, [2003] QB 528 - Taylor v. Lawrence;
[2003] UKHL 35, [2003] ICR 856 - Lawal v. Northern
Spirit Ltd.; Locabail (UK) Ltd. v. Bayfield Properties
Ltd.; Rappel de la portée des stipulations de
l'article 6 de la Convention européenne des droits de
l'homme et des libertés fondamentales, JurisClasseur
Justice Administrative, Fasc 70-11; Baumbach/Lauterbach,
Zivilprozessordnung, Vol. 1, 67th Edition, 2009, § 42
Margin 44, 45, 57; Zöller, Zivilprozessordnung, 27th
Edition, 2009 § 42 Margin 26, 33; Fasching, Lehrbuch
des österreichischen Zivilprozessrechts, 2nd Edition,
1990, Margin 154; Fasching, Kommentar zu den
Zivilprozessgesetzen, Vol. 1, 2nd Edition, 2000, § 19
Jurisdiktionsnorm Margin 10).
C2034.D
- 7 - G 0003/08
2.5 Once lawfully appointed, a judge is deemed to act in
good faith and is therefore presumed impartial until
proven otherwise (see interlocutory decision in G 2/08,
point 3.2 with further remarks). Moreover the parties
to judicial proceedings have a right to have their case
considered and decided by lawfully appointed judges.
Such judges not only have the right to be member of a
Board but also have the duty to decide in the cases
allocated to them. They can neither withdraw at will
from the proceedings, nor be objected to, at will, by a
party to the proceedings, or by any other person. On
the other hand they have to withdraw from a case in
which their impartiality could be reasonably doubted
(see interlocutory decision in case G 2/08). E.g. there
might indeed exist an issue of partiality if a judge
let it be known that he would never change his mind on
certain questions on which he has given his opinion
before. However, in the present case there is no
indication whatsoever that this might be so.
3. Therefore, this Board sees no reason to exclude Mr Rees
from its composition in case G 3/08 or to replace
further members.
C2034.D
- 8 - G 0003/08
Order
For these reasons it is decided that:
1. The request of Mr Schultz is rejected as inadmissible.
2. The composition of the Enlarged Board of Appeal in case
G 3/08 remains unchanged.
The Registrar: The Chairman:
P. Martorana P. Messerli
C2034.D
“A stacked panel, on the other hand, is like a stacked deck: it is packed with people who, on the face of things, should be neutral, but who are in fact strong supporters of our technology. The key to stacking a panel is being able to choose the moderator. Most conference organizers allow the moderator to select die panel, so if you can pick the moderator, you win. Since you can’t expect representatives of our competitors to speak on your behalf, you have to get the moderator to agree to having only “independent ISVs” on the panel. No one from Microsoft or any other formal backer of the competing technologies would be allowed -just ISVs who have to use this stuff in the “real world.” Sounds marvellously independent doesn’t it? In feet, it allows us to stack the panel with ISVs that back our cause. Thus, the “independent” panel ends up telling the audience that our technology beats the others hands down. Get the press to cover this panel, and you’ve got a major win on your hands.”
–Microsoft, internal document [PDF]
Permalink
Send this to a friend
11.08.09
Posted in Antitrust, Database, Europe, Java, Microsoft, Oracle, SUN at 7:37 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A person from Pappas & Associates, which has history with Microsoft, tries to derail the Oracle deal and thus leave Sun altogether abandoned
TWO weeks ago we showed that Microsoft was lobbying behind the scenes in order to cause trouble for Oracle, Sun, and projects that Sun currently possesses. Groklaw has just scooped up the following gem:
“Neither path Ms. Kroes faces is a pretty one, and yet this is the decision she might end up being remembered by,” said Spyros Pappas of the law firm Pappas & Associates in Brussels. “Probably the best escape for her would be for Oracle to cancel the deal.”
Mr. Pappas has in the past represented Microsoft, an Oracle rival, but is not currently representing any companies involved in the case.
Remember the role of Ed Black and CCIA in T3/Microsoft's lawsuit-by-proxy against IBM for its GNU/Linux-running mainframes. It’s a familiar story.
Microsoft might wish to delay the deal in order to ruin projects like Java and OpenOffice.org, making Sun suffer in the mean time, mostly of uncertainties, lost market share, erosion of market cap (value), and layoffs, i.e. workforce. Groklaw points out the following opinion:
Oracle might use the cover of the EC delay as an excuse to abandon the deal altogether. But history suggests that when Mr Ellison wants something he sticks with it to the end, so dropping Sun at this point would be surprising.
In recent weeks we also showed how Microsoft was gaining influence inside the European Commission. It’s all about people. █
“Microsoft is now talking about the digital nervous system. I guess I would be nervous if my system was built on their technology, too.”
–Sun Microsystems President Scott McNealy
Permalink
Send this to a friend
10.26.09
Posted in Database, Europe, Microsoft, Oracle, Security, Windows at 1:47 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Courtois infiltrates another area where there is a potentially-forbidden conflict of interests and Microsoft deceives the EU Commission
WOW. Microsoft never ceases to amaze with underhanded tactics and cronyism, even in European member states. Recall Microsoft's hiring of a big gun (John Vassallo) in Europe, which it needed after the OOXML corruptions that had the Commission launch a formal investigation.
Microsoft has other big guns in Europe, one of whom is Courtois. We wrote about him earlier this month in relation to previous actions that involved him, e.g. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. Well, watch how incestuous things are getting in the European Commission right now. From CNN blogs:
It’s a sign of the growing détente that Courtois himself, a 25-year Microsoft veteran, is currently serving as an official “ambassador” for a jamboree called the “Year of Creativity and Innovation” organized by the E.U.’s executive commission — the same body that has been taking Microsoft to task over its business practices. He will be sharing a podium in Brussels in early November with the commission’s president, José-Manuel Barroso, and the other 14 ambassadors. “We’re trying to be a partner with Europe,” Courtois says, pointing out that Microsoft spends about $600 million on research and development in Europe, and provides thousands of jobs in the region.
The above text was written in relation to the Web browsers “war”, which as far as Europe is concerned is still an antitrust issue because Opera, Mozilla, and ECIS are not happy with the Microsoft deal [1, 2].
Putting Web browsers aside for a moment, Groklaw has noticed that Microsoft and its close ally SAP are both lobbying regarding the Oracle takeover of MySQL, which is the reason the Commission leaves Sun hanging and burning .
The investigation followed lobbying by Oracle competitors including SAP AG and Microsoft Corp.
Now, here is where is gets really interesting. The other day, Groklaw alleged that Monty may be used as a 'front' for Microsoft (we know from one reader of ours that Monty censors even polite comments that are critical of Microsoft) and now comes this report from The Inquirer, which says:
Microsoft wants MySQL sold
[...]
“To make things clear, I have not ever been paid anything from Microsoft and I have no relationship with them. The Codeplex foundation is an independent organization from Microsoft; It’s true that a lot of the people on it are still paid by Microsoft, but that is supposed to change soon,” wrote Widenius.
Monty also expanded upon his support for Codeplex, stating
“What is interesting with the Codeplex foundation is that if it is, what Microsoft claims it is, it will make it easy for people employed by Microsoft to actively participate with Open Source. This would be a great mind set change for Microsoft and as an Open Source/Free Software advocate I want to be sure that they do it right and there is no hidden agenda in the Foundation. The reason for me to accept to be on the Codeplex Advisory board was that it gives me a chance to ensure the above. I also believe that the more we get Microsoft employees (and actually any company) engaged in Open Source, the better it will be for Open Source projects in general.”
Still, Microsoft can be seen to have a massive vested interest in MySQL and whoever ultimately owns it.
The FSFE has had time to lay out its case as well. MySQL is hugely important to so many Free software projects and thus its independence is important, as Richard Stallman of the FSF would probably argue. There are no intuitive answers here. MySQL is also vital as a component in the fabric of Fog Computing (more proper name for “Cloud Computing”) where Microsoft is now trying to push and earn certification — quite sadly a certification from the same ISO it corrupted and hijacked.
Microsoft Corp. wants to get its suite of hosted messaging and collaboration products certified to the ISO 27001 international information security standard, part of an effort to assure customers about the security of its cloud computing services.
Fog Computing security and security of data “out there” (in the so-called ‘cloud’) are not the same thing. Microsoft can achieve neither because Windows is easy pickings and backup is not Microsoft’s best skill. We’ve covered the Sidekick fiasco, for example, in:
Some hospitals are still foolish enough to give patients’ data to Microsoft.
Microsoft got a seat at the health IT table last week as Caritas Christi, a Catholic-based hospital chain in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, decided to standardize on Amalga software.
They didn’t learn from Sidekick, did they? The hospitals can never tell doctors that they will recover just part of their data in about 2 weeks, just maybe.
Windows botnets already cause many deaths in hospitals [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] (there are many Conficker examples from British hospitals), not just trillions in damages. But anyway, we’ve deviated from the main subject of this post. This issue of data control will be revisited at a later date. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
10.24.09
Posted in Database, Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Mono, Novell, Oracle, SUN at 9:01 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Novell’s promotional action in IDG gets even more incestuous; MySQL and Sun’s other assets revisited in relation to Novell
FOR quite some time now, Novell has produced promotional audio series, the latest example of which is this one and another one from The Register, which sells out these days.
Several days ago we showed that IDG gave Novell a podium from which Novell employees Zonker and Greg K-H promoted SUSE. Zonker now uses his place there to promote Mono by speaking to another colleague from Novell. Novell’s PR team is happy about this.
In this latest OpenMic podcast, Joe ‘Zonker’ Brockmeier talks with Mono founder, Miguel de Icaza, about what’s new with the Mono Project and what’s coming soon. The two also discuss the many iPhone apps brought to you by Mono, what’s next for Moonlight (the Linux implementation of Microsoft’s Silverlight), and why Windows developers should really check out Mono.
Here is the direct link with the list of shows so far. That’s 2 shows out of 2 (100%) with just Novell employees in them. Amazing, isn’t it? It is stuff like that which helps Mono gain acceptance in some recognised circles and Unity has just earned some funds:
Unity Technologies Raises $5.5 Million From Sequoia Capital
[...]
Here’s how CEO David Helgason describes some of the platform’s benefits:
Unity uses .NET (or rather Mono, Novell’s open source .NET implementation) for “scripting”, which sidesteps the whole classical conundrum of scripting-versus-native, since the code gets JIT or AOT compiled to native code while still being sandboxable and easy. Also, there’s lots of documentation and very rich libraries to work with.
Mono also receives a lot of positive publicity from Microsoft Web sites, for obvious reasons.
The other day we showed Zonker's objection to the FSF's position and right now we find him repeating the arguments of a known Stallman basher, Matt Asay. They both make the same argument, using the MySQL situation to discredit Stallman.
In the news we find an hypothetical scenario where Novell is mentioned as a potential suitor for MySQL
If Ellison changed his mind and decided to sell MySQL, open source companies like Red Hat and Novell would be on top of the list of potential buyers, according to Bo Lykkegaard, software analyst at IDC.
More on Sun, Oracle, and Novell in relation to identity management:
Enterprises need confidence in the stability and continuity of their supplier when large investments are involved. Confidence in the identity management sector was badly shaken when HP, one of the leading providers, announced that it was leaving the sector in 2008. The fact that Novell took over its products only partially assuaged enterprises’ fears.
To summarise, Novell promotes Mono by sending out there media boosters like Zonker and there may be real danger here that Novell covets MySQL, not just OpenOffice.org, which it forked [1, 2, 3, 4] (Sun hates that). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
10.22.09
Posted in Database, Microsoft, Oracle, SUN at 4:22 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Groklaw believes that Microsoft plays a role in sabotaging MySQL; Roughly Drafted Magazine explains how Sun and Oracle come to Microsoft’s rescue
THE other day I argued an opinion, claiming that evidence suggests Oracle is bad news for MySQL. It’s not just gut feeling but the result of analysing and looking at literally hundreds of posts and articles on the subject (I spend the better part of my day doing this).
I almost always agree with what Groklaw has to say, but in this case there is insufficient evidence to show that Microsoft may be interested in MySQL (it would be too complicated), as opposed to damaging it, which would still not explain MariaDB and other key factors; yet Pamela Jones warns that Microsoft might be behind an attempt to harm or to buy MySQL. To quote just a few portions (the allegation is better defended when read in its entirety):
Monty Widenius has posted a press release, urging Oracle to sell MySQL to a third party, and there is a link to the materials that he and Florian Mueller, who is working with him, provided to the EU Commission, which appears to have influenced it to delay approval. I’ve been reading all I can find on this topic, and I’d like to tell you why I think the community should support the Oracle deal. The most important reason is that opponents are trashing the GPL [PDF] and calling it a source of “infection” in their FUD submission to the EU Commission.
[...]
Update: I see Matt Asay has jumped on board the antiGPL FUD too. Folks, there is no difference between Sun owning MySQL and Oracle, as far as forking rights. Duh. What is this? An elaborate Microsoft production by proxy?
[...]
Get the picture? He makes a list of who would have the money to buy MySQL. Guess who is number one on the list? Microsoft.
Speaking of Sun and Oracle, the other day we showed that a known Microsoft shill blamed them (along with Linux) for Microsoft’s Danger disaster. We covered it in:
Roughly Drafted, which is another independent thinker like Groklaw, argues that Sun and Oracle actually saved Microsoft amid the Danger disaster, not caused it any trouble. From the analysis:
Sun, Oracle save Microsoft’s Pink after Danger data disaster
[...]
“It will take several days to actually get the database back up,” the source noted, echoing earlier reports that indicated that it took 6 days just to create a normal full backup of the data. The time and storage resources involved in backing up the tremendous amount of data were cited as the reason why Microsoft’s Roz Ho reportedly instructed Danger employees to proceed with work without the full backup in place over their objections, after sources say she was assured by Hitachi that a full backup was not necessary.
Salvaging the damaged data storage without a real backup in place takes even longer, the Sun storage expert explained. “The first thing to do is wheel in a big pile of new disk space, and copy the individual disks so there is a raw backup. This is like making a copy of a jigsaw puzzle one piece at a time. Then they would assemble the puzzle using the copied pieces, in case any pieces need to be re-made from the original.
So there. Sun appears to be saving Microsoft here. It’s not the culprit as the Microsoft crowd wishes to spin this. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
10.21.09
Posted in Database, Free/Libre Software, Marketing, Microsoft, Novell, Oracle, SLES/SLED, SUN at 7:08 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Novell — like Microsoft — gets special treatment from IDG, with which it does business; MySQL acquisition debated further
OTHER than Microsoft, there are companies like Novell which feed pay-to-say firms like IDC [1, 2]. There is a good return on such investments, just like in lobbying, no matter how unethical it is.
Here is Novell’s Zonker getting a seat at IDG, from which to promote Novell in the press (quite frankly, as usual). From Novell’s marketing team:
Yesterday, Network World rolled out a new podcast series, Open Mic with Zonker, hosted by openSUSE community manager, Joe ‘Zonker’ Brockmeier. The new series promises to give an insider’s view on what’s hot and new in the open source community with lively interviews.
In this first podcast, In the Linux Driver Seat with Kernel Developer Greg Kroah-Hartman, Joe ‘Zonker’ Brockmeier talks with Greg Kroah-Hartman about the Linux Driver Project.
Here is the page in question. It’s a pair of Novell employees promoting Novell’s SUSE edition of Moblin (which has its problems). How familiar.
Does IDG present marketing here or is it actual coverage that’s separable from commercial interests? This question is rhetorical. Novell pays a lot of money to IDG through advertising and IDC contracts.
Zonker also carries on comparing Free software to religion (at least based on terminology [1, 2, 3]), which is not entirely surprising.
We have a lot of “true believers” in the FOSS community, which is fine except that many seem to think that they’re talking to other “true believers” when they’re really talking to people who couldn’t possibly care less about software licensing.
“True believer” is a term conventionally used in debates against atheists. To his credit, however, Zonker agrees with Monty’s solution to Oracle-MySQL while obviously rejecting Stallman’s ideas.
I prefer Monty’s solution to Stallman’s.
The headline of the above essay is “RMS says GPLv2 isn’t good enough to protect MySQL (but it is).” Given Novell’s rejection of the GPLv3, would there not be a conflict of interests here? Zonker works for Novell. Here is Stallman’s proposal:
The European Commission should block Oracle’s acquisition of MySQL as part of its acquisition of Sun Microsystems.
Oracle seeks to acquire MySQL to prevent further erosion of its share of the market for database software licenses and services, and to protect the high prices now charged for its proprietary database software licenses and services.
All along (since the beginning of this saga and the very announcement of a takeover) I have been against Oracle’s buyout of MySQL, especially given its history of buying its competitors [1, 2]. It is therefore reassuring to see more opposition to Oracle buying MySQL.
Software freedom activist Richard Stallman and the non-profits Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) and Open Rights Group (ORG) have issued a strongly worded letter to EU competition commissioner Neelie Kroes. In it they demanded that Oracle not be allowed to acquire MySQL.
For obvious reasons, Sun employees are unhappy about this.
It was a surprise to see Richard Stallman’s signature on a letter to the European Commission calling on them to block the acquisition of MySQL by Oracle with its proposed acquisition of Sun.
Piana’s position is a bit surprising (he did legal work for Samba):
This is absolutely frivolous, and it reflects a misconception of how the forces in the Free Software space work. It is not that a successful dual licensing enables a successful Free Software project, it is a successful Free Software project that permits to a dual licensing strategy to survive.
At the moment, however, Richard Stallman and Monty Widenius are the latest and most prominent sources of opposition, whereas the former CEO of MySQL holds the very opposite view. Based on my conversations with him, he is a “pragmatist”.
Monty Widenius, one of the original founders of MySQL, has called for Oracle to sell off the open source database so that its pending acquisition of Sun will not reduce choice in the marketplace.
[...]
Oracle CEO Larry Ellison has firmly rejected the prospect of selling off MySQL. He argues that the open source database doesn’t compete with Oracle’s enterprise products. The two database offerings target different sections of the market, he contends.
It’s unclear if the EU regulators will accept his view and allow the deal to move forward, but the delays are certainly damaging. While the EC is conducting its investigation, IBM is cannibalizing Sun’s server business and picking the bones clean.
What makes this situation tough is that Sun loses a lot of money in the mean time and another 3,000 employees are to be cut. In many ways, Oracle has already caused much damage to its competitor MySQL, which holds almost 50% market share in developing countries. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
10.06.09
Posted in Database, Europe, Intellectual Monopoly, Mail, Microsoft, Patents, Security, Servers at 12:52 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Microsoft service accidentally discloses information too easily, whereas the UK prevents disclosure of public information
MANY reports out there speak about attempts to address the brute force of botnets using a brute force of human workforce. Just the other day, Cringely explained why it’s bound to fail, but this does not prevent the charade from living on.
Everyone talks about Internet security, but no one does anything about it. That’s not true, of course — there are many organizations and businesses dedicated to keeping the Web safe. Yet it is true that no one is taking ultimate responsibility for policing the Web. No one is willing — or perhaps, able — to say “the buck stops here.” Perhaps that’s as it should be?
A few weeks ago we noted that “Hotmail is currently a mess, which even some fans of Microsoft dislike (Microsoft censors critics of it). Hotmail is also a spam issue and it has security problems.” According to reports even from Microsoft’s circles, login credentials for Hotmail have just been leaked, allegedly after phishing. Under an alternative headline, the BBC puts “posted online” in quotes like it’s a technical term (both myself and a reader called “ThistleWeb” have noticed this independently). It also says: “BBC News has seen a list of more than 10,000 e-mail accounts and passwords which had been posted online.”
What this neglects to say is that phishing too is enabled by malign mail services such as Hotmail. So in a sense, Hotmail is a victim of its own incompetence; it’s cyclic.
ThistleWeb also drew attention to this new report from the BBC, noting: “Whodathunk a postcode would be someone’s “intellectual property”?”
Websites that help people find jobs or hospitals have been hit by legal action threatened by the Royal Mail.
“That could get interesting,” argues Oiaohm. “If someone decided to charge you like 1 cent every time you used a post code, it would stack up.”
The actual revelation is old, but the BBC is very typically left behind. The above helps prove that intellectual monopolies are out of control, even in Europe. The President of the FFII wrote some hours ago: “SAP lobbying for software patents at the US Supreme Court: http://i5.be/MR”
Here’s another couple of Bilski amici indices. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
07.01.09
Posted in Database, Europe, Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Open XML, Windows at 4:34 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Microsoft demonstrates that non-Free software is simply incapable of handling mission-critical tasks like GNU/Linux does (in Wall Street for example)
BACKED by roughly 20 references, we have already written quite extensively about the recurring issues at the LSE (the stock market, not the school). It is considered to be Microsoft’s poster child that they brag about in commercials all over their Web site. By some people’s assessment, this is considered the case study for Microsoft, never mind the excessive redundancy (cost) and poor track record.
Well, guess what?
The LSE is calling it quits and dumping the platform.
What an unbelievable PR disaster. IDG has the details:
London Stock Exchange reportedly to dump £40m platform
[...]
Dropping TradElect would be a dramatic about-face for the exchange, which had heavily promoted its ability to rival newer, dedicated electronic exchanges, and plumbed millions of pounds into doing so. It runs on HP ProLiant Servers and Microsoft .Net and SQL Server 2000 systems, and within a Cisco network architecture.
How will Microsoft respond to this PR gaffe, which was probably an expected blunder? Analogous systems running GNU/Linux are true success stories.
In a similar vein, now that the UK abandons this system, who can ever rely on proprietary formats like OOXML, for example? That too will be at risk if Glyn Moody gets his way. He is rallying for support at the moment.
Next week, I’m taking part in a debate with a Microsoft representative about the passage of the OOXML file format through the ISO process last year. Since said Microsoftie can draw on the not inconsiderable resources of his organisation to provide him with a little back-up, I thought I’d try to even the odds by putting out a call for help to the unmatched resource that is the Linux Journal community. Here’s the background to the meeting, and the kind of info I hope people might be able to provide.
Not surprisingly, the meeting is neither for my nor Microsoft’s benefit, but for that of Richard Steel, who is CIO of the London Borough of Newham. Those with good memories may recall that back in 2003 it looked like Newham was going to switch to open source, in what could have been a real breakthrough for free software in the UK, but that it then changed its mind and signed a long-term – and secret – deal with Microsoft. Winning Newham was so important to Microsoft that it helped set up a competitive trial…
The Newham situation is one that we wrote about in:
Indeed, it is rather ugly. Newham’s people are hopefully paying attention to the significant news from LSE. It is also in London. █
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