04.22.10

The Microsoft Who Cried “Wolf!”

Posted in Antitrust, Free/Libre Software, Microsoft, Windows at 11:00 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“We will really behave this time, we promise!”

Summary: Mozilla Firefox and other Free/libre Web browsers are discriminated against in Microsoft’s ballot due to yet another “error”

Yesterday we showed that IBM's Rob Weir had pointed out yet another Microsoft ballot error. This is not the first time that Weir spots and/or reports such an issue; he is not alone, either. Just watch the wealth of previous examples found and accumulated in:

The latest ballot error (or ‘error’ with scare quotes) is now being confirmed by Microsoft, which will be “kind” enough to address the problem.

But there’s a glitch in its Polish language page, wrote Rob Weir, an ODF (Open Document Format) architect with IBM, who wrote on his personal blog that he was tipped off to a problem.

[...]

Microsoft acknowledged the error.

Microsoft keeps making errors and “fixing” them. How many times? Like 5 times already? How come so many failed attempts? How hard is it to just make a simple screen with selections. This is the type of JavaScript exercise that can be assigned to a high school student. The headline says “Microsoft agrees to fix error in Polish browser ballot screen”; barring the possibility of inaccuracy in reporting, it’s like saying “Toyota agrees to fix faulty brakes”.

Microsoft keeps talking about “the new Microsoft” or use the above ballot as an example of fairness (it’s not fairness, it’s compliance with the law, which Microsoft is repeatedly failing to comply with). Are any more “oops moments” over Microsoft’s horizon? █

“When people understand what Microsoft is up to, they’re outraged.”

–Tim O’Reilly

Permalink Leave Your Comment Mail Send this to a friend

04.21.10

Microsoft’s Browser Ballot is Broken Again and Internet Explorer 8 is Critically Flawed

Posted in Antitrust, Europe, Microsoft, Security, Windows at 2:56 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Poor man’s ballot?

Summary: Microsoft makes it difficult to install a Web browser other than its already-installed and already-flawed Internet Explorer 8

THE BROWSER BALLOT has already been through many changes since it was first introduced. Microsoft kept cheating or simply left some self-serving bugs in tact. We wrote about the subject in:

Rob Weir from IBM shows that Microsoft’s ballot, which it was forced to implement in order to avoid fines (a lot of the press still gets it wrong by characterising it as Microsoft fairness), is simply broken. See the screenshots in Weir’s blog as they are self explanatory.

A few weeks ago I wrote about Microsoft’s “browser choice” ballot page in Europe, which in its debut used a flawed algorithm when attempting to perform a “random shuffle” of the browser choices, a feature specifically called for in their agreement with the EU. This bug was fixed soon after it was reported. But I recently received an email from a correspondent going by the name “Skoon” who reported a more serious bug, but one that is seen only in the Polish-language translation of the ballot choice screen.

In other news, there is a major new flaw in Microsoft’s Internet Explorer 8. [via]

The cross-site scripting filter that ships with Microsoft’s Internet Explorer 8 browser can be abused by attackers to launch cross-site scripting attacks on websites and web pages that would otherwise be immune to this threat.

According to a presentation at this year’s Black Hat Europe conference, the issue introduces security problems at several high-profile websites, including Microsoft’s own Bing.com (screenshot), Google.com, Wikipedia.org, Twitter.com (screenshot) and just about any site that lets IE 8 users create profiles.

Yes, Microsoft’s browser is still lagging when it comes to security due to negligence and incompetence [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12]. But it’s not entirely surprising that while 4 governments encouraged their citizens to abandon Internet Explorer this year, the MSBBC continues to produce Microsoft adverts, including the many Internet Explorer endorsements that we find in the MSBBC [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] on a regular basis (and occasionally report those for scrutiny). Our reader ThistleWeb has more to say about the MSBBC’s latest Infomercial:

I saw this promo piece in the BBC about the launch of Microsoft’s new Fix-it service and a few things spring to mind. The first is that Microsoft have a long track record of causing more problems than they fix when applying updates. They set Windows to download and apply all critical updates without user intervention. So when a user goes to shut down their PC they have no idea if they have to hang around for 15 mins so that Windows can apply it’s updates or not. Similarly they have no idea if those updates will cause a problem when they next start up their PC.

The second is that Microsoft have a history of abusing the term “critical” and slipping in programs like the Orwellian titled WGA (Windows Genuine Advantage). This was apparently a feature a large number of their customers were screaming out for and Microsoft being a listening, concerned company felt they had no choice but to provide; if you believe Micorosoft’s PR about it. WGA checks regularly if the copy of Windows it’s running on is licensed or unlicensed. If it deems that install of Windows to be unlicensed it causes no end of hassle for the user by disabling services, rebooting, nagware messages about “please contact Microsoft to buy a Windows product key”. It’s no advantage to customers, only to Microsoft. Yet this has been defined by Microsoft as a “critical” update. To me “critical” means “your PC is at immediate risk without this update”.

We have written about this before; in fact, Microsoft marks as “critical” anything that’s critical to Microsoft, not to the user. This is probably why one in two Windows PCs is still estimated to be a zombie. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment Mail Send this to a friend

04.11.10

Florian Müller Seemingly Connected to CCIA (Microsoft Proxy)

Posted in Antitrust, Europe, IBM, Microsoft, Patents at 6:00 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: More evidence that the attacks against IBM are actually coming from Microsoft and that Müller plays a role in it (Müller set up his anti-IBM blog when he got connected with CCIA’s Executive VP, who works with Microsoft)

WE keep promising to depart from this overreported subject, but as the plot thickens this becomes harder to avoid. Previous posts about TurboHercules vs IBM are:

For those who are not aware, Florian Müller became a lobbyist, but whose lobbyist? More recently he became known for his attempts to derail the Munich migration to GNU/Linux. Florian Schießl, one of the people leading the Munich migration, currently writes: “Wow, Florian Müller’s Blog started just a few days ago. Only a PR campaign, nothing to do with #swpat in real, imho http://is.gd/bm4BA #fail” (and to Rui Seabra he says that “the whole #IBM patent story is just another PR stunt by the “famous” lobbyist Florian Müller.”).

Müller is still at it on more than a daily basis. It’s like a nonstop attack on IBM in a brand new blog (it’s the same in Maureen O’Gara’s ‘blog’ [1, 2] at the moment). To clarify again, Techrights believes that evidence is sufficient to call TurboHercules a “Microsoft proxy” (see this article from Timothy Prickett Morgan), but IBM’s overall attitude towards software patents has always been a problem in general. According to this, “IBM Denies Open Source Sellout” (which is true). This is not about IBM “selling out” but about IBM defending itself from Microsoft attacks; nonetheless, IBM does not help Open Source by promoting software patents. As the president of the FFII showed this morning using an IBM document [PDF], “IBM believes harmonisation should occur along lines which endorse the current practice and case law of the EPO.” For the uninitiated, “harmonisation” is a way of bringing software patents to Europe.

All or at least several of the letters exchanged between IBM and TurboHercules are available from TurboHercules (which may have had something to do with the sensationalised, self-serving leak to Müller). Some of the details there reveal IBM’s pride which it takes in software patents and even its contribution to the guidelines developed by the European Patent Office (EPO).

“As for Microsoft, in a perfect world, someone will in due time bring an complaint against Microsoft for arranging antitrust complaints against its competition.”
–Pamela Jones, GroklawHere is Groklaw’s initial take on the TurboHercules vs IBM case (written in “News Picks” before publishing a whole post): “Here’s my take. First, on the author’s use of arguments about Apple and monopoly markets, the courts already ruled that Apple doesn’t have a monopoly in the relevant market, so that analogy isn’t legally on point. Beyond that, remember when Microsoft said their competitors would be having antitrust issues? Remember when Maureen O’Gara was one of the very first to write about the TurboHercules antitrust threat to IBM, almost a year ago? And now Florian Mueller, who disrupted the Munich switch to Linux and later famously tried to use MySQL’s license as a way to block the Oracle-Sun deal, including them suggesting that the GPL license be tossed overboard in favor of a BSD-like license, now appears in the TurboHercules story, attacking IBM. What might that tell us? The Microsoft gang’s all here? That this is a manufactured anti-trust issue? That if you are a competitor of Microsoft, someone will file an antitrust complaint against you? You think? Here’s TurboHercules’s take on why they filed, so you can have the whole picture. I can’t speak for the entire open source community, just for myself. But if Florian Mueller tells me to go to the right, I’m inclined immediately to look to the left or straight up or down for alternative options. As for Microsoft, in a perfect world, someone will in due time bring an complaint against Microsoft for arranging antitrust complaints against its competition. They should put more energy into creating good products. Then they wouldn’t have to resort to such tactics.”

A lot more discussion is going on in IRC (logs available online), but here is the gist of it.

“Müller added a LinkedIn connection to Erika Mann, CCIA’s Executive Vice President and head of CCIA’s European office…”One thing that came up some time between March 22^nd and March 29^th is that Müller added a LinkedIn connection to Erika Mann, CCIA’s Executive Vice President and head of CCIA’s European office (Microsoft and CCIA work together [1, 2]). That was just before he started to attack IBM like he also attacked Oracle some months ago (along with the GPL). He even created a new blog for this purpose.

We are a little saddened to see that Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols (SJVN) points the finger at what he calls “Linux fans”^* (hello, hypocrisy) and blames them for IBM’s PR damage.

That’s not to say that Linux doesn’t have its share of internal battles that don’t do anyone any good. Free software founder Richard M. Stallman’s insistence that Linux should be called GNU/Linux puzzles more people than it does bringing anyone to Linux, or GNU/Linux if you insist. In the last few days though, another Linux family fight has erupted.

This time around, it’s open-source developer and anti-patent political lobbyist Florien Mueller accusing IBM of breaking its promises to the FOSS (free and open-source software) community of not using patents against it. Mueller’s is ticked off that TurboHercules, an open-source z/OS emulator company, over its possible misuse of IBM patents, which includes two that’s covered by IBM’s pledge to not sue open-source companies or groups using these patents.

I have several problems with this. First, as Pamela Jones of Groklaw points out, TurboHercules started the legal fight with IBM and the open-source software license it uses isn’t compatible with the GPL–the license that covers Linux. Second, this is really just a standard-issue business fight that involves patents. It does not, as Mueller would have it, show that “After years of pretending to be a friend of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS), IBM now shows its true colors. IBM breaks the number one taboo of the FOSS community and shamelessly uses its patents against a well-respected FOSS project, the Hercules mainframe emulator.”

There is an old problem here. SJVN must understand that patents are probably the #1 barrier to GNU/Linux adoption, so software patents must go. Here is an excellent article/commentary from Dj Walker-Morgan at The H:

Patents could lead to the mutually assured destruction of the software industry and the parading of pledged patents in the opening of a dispute between IBM and TurboHercules threatens to upset the only progress towards a safer world for open source.

Patents are akin to the missiles of the Cold War. The super powers of the software industry have built up large arsenals of them to give them bargaining power. But if all companies who held patents were to pursue all infringements of their patents at the same time, there would be nothing left of the entire IT industry except the legal departments.

[...]

That said, it is somewhat essential to isolate the overarching problems with patents from the specific problem of the pledged patents. The former is a systemic problem which requires complex negotiation, legal reforms and an industry wide consensus that the problem exists in the first place. The latter though is a specific problem, one that IBM can immediately resolve by saying “Sorry, those two patents were not meant to be there”. That one move would reassure the community. IBM could, possibly, enhance their good reputation in the community by creating a new 2010 patent pledge which puts more of IBM’s near 50,000 strong arsenal of patents “beyond use” against open source software.

The only real solution is to invalidate them all or issue a legal contract that renders them useless. This is not realistic (too Utopian) given that IBM uses its patents to milk competitors and make over $1 billion per year doing almost nothing. IBM is now obliged to do this for shareholders. This is unfortunate because they use patents as a welfare system that mostly funds lawyers and cannot be afforded by most companies in the same arena^**. These companies do complain sometimes, so ideally, IBM should let go and not carry on controlling using patents, however quietly.

Here is what Microsoft is up to these days: [via]

In a recent patent filed at the USPTO, Microsoft has sought to bolster its product offerings with an interesting recommendation engine. Inspired by the recommendation algorithm incorporated on websites like YouTube, Microsoft TV’s recommendation engine will recommend TV shows, movies based on user interests as well as the program’s functional value.

This is just a fence. Who would benefit from such a patent except Microsoft? And doesn’t that involve profiling (euphemism for “spying on”) a user’s activity?

Stephen O’Grady has the following take on the subject of IBM:

The case also illustrates what RedMonk analyst Stephen O’Grady calls “the inevitable outcome of software patents: They get used.”

O’Grady is against software patents, “not for ideological reasons, but because it is self-evident to me that there is no reasonable mechanism for evaluating and granting patents,” he told LinuxInsider.

We wrote about O’Grady’s views on software patents in this older post. He is right on target. █
_____
^* “Linux”, which is the kernel IBM put a lot of money in, is not the whole of Free software.

^** IBM could reform the system if it wanted to (IBM’s Kappos runs the USPTO), but that would not be beneficial to IBM’s shareholders. The “indemnification” advantage IBM markets to customers is also a way for IBM to suppress use of GNU/Linux that’s not from IBM (e.g. plain Debian).

Permalink 15 Comments Mail Send this to a friend

04.10.10

Patents Roundup: Fordham Conference for Software Patents in Europe, NZOSS Responds to Pro-Software Patents Lobbyists, and TurboHercules’ Ties With Microsoft Explained

Posted in Antitrust, Europe, GNU/Linux, IBM, Microsoft, Patents at 4:41 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Lawyers’ event pushes for UPLS; New Zealand faces lawyers’ wrath (greed); TurboHercules has presence in Seattle, Washington

“UPLS and EU patent, or the 3rd attempt to legalise software patents in Europe, [are] on the program of the Fordham conference [PDF],” warns the president of the FFII. It seems like a lawyers-led conference seeking to maximise their own wealth at the expense of people who actually create things. UPLS is a disaster. We append the programme in text form at the bottom because we are likely to return to it later when we name culprits, such as lobbyists for software patents in Europe.

There is also heavy lobbying in New Zealand, attempting to reverse exclusion of software patents. Here is what NZOSS has to say:

Law firms that supported continued software patents have published critiques of the arguments put forward by those who opposed software patents and asked for an exclusion to be added to the Patent Bill. In this article Peter Harrison, vice President of the NZOSS responds.

It’s not over in New Zealand. Luckily, there are good people there who stand up for developers.

Some readers have confused our criticism of IBM with denial that TurboHercules is servicing Microsoft. This is rather surprising because we at Techrights were among the first to point out that TurboHercules was acting as a Microsoft shell. We wrote this about a month ago and discreetly received information that may validate it. In 5 more updates, Groklaw provides additional evidence that TurboHercules is connected to Microsoft, including the following article from last year:

TurboHercules is co-headquartered in Paris, France, where Bowler moved after he left the United Kingdom, and in Seattle, Washington, in close proximity to the one big software company that has in the past taken a shining to anything that gave Big Blue some grief, particularly with mainframes. (Yes, we mean Microsoft).

Our reader “Chips” shows us another article that says: “TurboHercules, a privately-held company set up in 2009, is a member of a non-profit trade group called the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), which counts Microsoft and Oracle Corp as members, but not IBM.” IDG says that “TurboHercules’ move follows similar antitrust complaints with the European Commission from two other small IBM competitors, PSI and T3 Technologies. Microsoft, an arch-rival had a stake in PSI but the firm was subsequently bought out by IBM. Meanwhile, T3 ranks Microsoft among its shareholders. Last year, the U.S. Department of Justice opened an antitrust probe into IBM’s dominance of the mainframe market. That probe was sparked by a complaint from the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), a trade group that ranks Microsoft among its members.”

We have already written several times about Microsoft’s connections with the Communications Industry Association [1, 2], in reference to T3 (which is partly owned by Microsoft).

“[N]otice that Turbohercules does really not say that they are not a pawn of Microsoft, they sort of dance around the issue.”
–”Chips”Just to clarify again, we never defended TurboHercules’ side. Its case is not related to the point that, regardless of context, IBM is using software patents to achieve a goal. We have said that TurboHercules is a malign party for a very long time, so none of us ever claimed otherwise. One could argue that TurboHercules tripped up or pulled a trick on IBM (the Microsoft boosters — including Microsoft’s MVP Miguel de Icaza who has just blocked his tweets from the public — then took the opportunity to bash IBM). Here is the “story thus far,” based on Linux Magazine. We do not necessarily agree with this analysis, but it is new. Roberto Galoppini, who is influential among Free/open source voices in Europe, also has a position on the subject.

“Chips” quotes TurboHercules’ head as saying: “IBM also accuses TurboHercules of cooperating with Microsoft. Bearing in mind that Hercules works very well indeed on both Linux and Windows, not to mention the Macintosh, we are indeed quite happy to cooperate with Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard, Unisys, Dell, Intel, AMD or anyone else who wants to work with us.”

He then argues: “notice that Turbohercules does really not say that they are not a pawn of Microsoft, they sort of dance around the issue.” For those who did not read our previous posts on the TurboHercules case, they are listed below in chronological order. █

Read the rest of this entry »

Permalink Leave Your Comment Mail Send this to a friend

04.08.10

Thumbs up to Ubuntu for Removing a Part of Microsoft; TurboHercules Likely a Psystar-Type Microsoft Shell

Posted in Antitrust, Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, IBM, Microsoft, Patents, Ubuntu at 6:44 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: An analysis combining Ubuntu’s relationship with Microsoft proxies such as Yahoo! search and Mono; more on how TurboHercules may be connected to Microsoft and why IBM’s response was tactless

SEVERAL days ago we argued that Canonical was making a serious mistake by sending Ubuntu users to Microsoft’s datacentres [1, 2]. The good news is that Canonical has just changed its mind, but people keep wondering why.

However, for the final release, we will use Google as the default provider. I have asked the Ubuntu Desktop team to change the default back to Google as soon as reasonably possible, but certainly by final freeze on April 15th.

It was not our intention to “flap” between providers, but the underlying circumstances can change unpredictably. In this case, choosing Google will be familiar to everybody upgrading from 9.10 to 10.04 and the change will only be visible to those who have been part of the development cycle for 10.04.

Several people reckon that Canonical did this because of backlash relating to Microsoft, not habits (why else would habits be ignored when realigning/repositioning buttons, for example?). Others say that Google perhaps offered some money or Mark Shuttleworth had a change of heart (or intervention after someone had made this decision which he did not endorse). Either way, we might never find out the whole story and who was behind the decision, unless someone uploads some videos or internal discussions that reveal the anatomy of these decisions (both the old decision and the new one, which retracts and reverses the former).

Canonical’s important decision has received a fair deal of coverage [1, 2, 3], mostly very encouraging. Ubuntu users are happy with this sudden reversal. The Source writes:

In any case, having Google as the default search engine is the best option, so I welcome the change. Whatever the convoluted dance-stepping offered to un-justify and then re-justify it.

Here is a new response to the removal of the GIMP:

The one other thing I did notice right off the bat was that the GIMP was gone. Why Canonical decided to leave out a very, if not the most important piece of software raises some questions. Canonical needs to spend less time on Google’s Chrome OS and more time on their own OS.

Some users remain dissatisfied with the decision to remove the GIMP [1, 2, 3]. In the news we have this for example:

The next major update of Ubuntu code named Ubuntu Lucid Lynx is scheduled to arrive in April 2010. This is going to be an LTS edition, which means updates will be available for three years in desktop and five years in Servers. Even though Ubuntu 10.04 is going to be an LTS release, a complete overhaul is on the cards. Lets take a peek at what’s coming in Ubuntu 10.04 Lucid Lynx.

[...]

In another rather controversial move, Ubuntu is going to ditch GIMP. In Canonical’s observation, most of the users don’t ever use the advanced functionalities of GIMP and all their basic image manipulation needs are met with other applications. Again, you can always install GIMP with a few clicks using Ubuntu Software Centre, and so IMO, this is not going to be a big deal for most of us.

Then there is Ubuntu’s Mono problem that Jeremy Allison warned about [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. There is a new Ubuntu-based distribution without Mono. It addresses general distrust that Canonical turns its back to. More from the news:

[Canonical's] Carr wasn’t hinting, however, about Ubuntu not including Mono, Novell’s Microsoft .NET-compatible set of software tools, applications by default. While some open-source fans really dislike Mono, thanks in no small part to Novell’s Microsoft partnership and Mono’s reliance on .NET, if anything, Ubuntu seems to be incorporating more of Mono in its default distribution.

We remain a little concerned because Canonical’s new COO, Matt Asay, is still defending hypePad (iPad) in another new blog post. As we pointed out yesterday, it’s a disservice to his Ubuntu business. As TechDirt puts it:

As it’s become clear that the iPad is more of a “content delivery vehicle” than an interactive device (and there’s nothing wrong with that), people are quickly discovering how regional licensing issues and copyright may hold the device back in some areas.

We have shared many other explanations of why hypePad is bad [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10], so we won’t be repeating the old arguments. Either way, Asay refers to source code in his blog, but he does not want to talk about Freedom (with a capital F) and what hypePad does to one’s freedom. It’s rather tragic because Ubuntu’s added value ought to be more than just source code which is shared/co-developed with other companies. Ubuntu’s leadership should be thinking about other marketing factors or at least not be represented by the views of Asay. It’s distracting from GNU/Linux. Hostility or apathy towards Free software could put off Ubuntu users, at least a good majority of them.

“Hostility or apathy towards Free software could put off Ubuntu users, at least a good majority of them.”The hypePad is very revolutionary; it introduces the renting of a tablet and merely the renting of some text for it (and paying for the privilege to rent what once could be owned). No wonder Big Media companies give it so much coverage. They love the idea. Xbox is similar to that, but it’s a console.

Fortunately to some people who decided to pay hundreds of dollars to rent an hypePad, there is a way out of Apple’s prison. Within less than a day hypePad got jailbroken.

Apple’s iPad has already been jailbroken, using a variation of the iPhone method and demonstrating just how much the two devices have in common.

The hack was completed in less than 24 hours. In theory it enables the owner to install everything from Wi-Fi scanners to pornography – applications Apple disapproves of – though for the moment it just allows a remote terminal connection.

Another new complaint about Asay comes from The Source, which writes about his response to IBM:

Be careful now – if you want to excuse IBM by pointing out that they can chose to enforce patents outside of the 500 named (let’s assume they listed the 2 by mistake and will retract them), then you must in turn acknowledge that projects like Mono and Moonlight which range far far beyond the standardized core are in explict danger as well.

I do not think IBM is legally out-of-bounds here, no more than I think Microsoft would legally be out-of-bounds to shut down vast portions of Mono and Moonlight now or in the future. (Perhaps after Novell is bought out and agreements are no longer renewed?)

I’m just surprised Mr. Asay finds this an encouraging development for Open Source.

Ubuntu GNU/Linux currently claims 12 million users worldwide and with this privileged position comes responsibility to represent GNU/Linux properly. Ubuntu stands on the shoulders of giants (other people’s labour). According to some recent surveys that are geography dependent, about a third of GNU/Linux users — at least on standard desktops/laptops — use Ubuntu (source: Linux Journal, 2010). Fedora has many users too.

Since the subject of IBM was brought up, here is a quick roundup of what we wrote about TurboHercules so far:

Groklaw believes that it’s just another Psystar. We agree to the extent that this quite likely has Microsoft involvement (we wrote this a month ago). It was weeks ago that sources told this to us privately, after we had raised suspicions. Our criticism of IBM is not for threatening (Groklaw suggests suing) TurboHercules, but for using software patents, including some that were part of an “open-source pledge” [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. Florian Mueller, who we do not consider to be a friend of Free software (he lobbied against the GPL for example), is having a day trip with this one.

The free and open source software community in Europe is going after IBM for using its patents against an open source project by a French company called TurboHercules. “IBM is using patent warfare in order to protect its highly lucrative mainframe monopoly,” open source advocate Florian Mueller wrote on his blog Tuesday. “The Hercules project is anything but anti-IBM. Hercules just wants to provide customers with an interesting and much-needed choice.”

IBM screwed up very badly by attempting to use software patents and it is trying to undo the damage right now [1, 2]. All in all, IBM is not an enemy of GNU/Linux, but it is not a true friend, either (it’s a selfish interest). It needs to be scrutinised, but not shunned. Here is IBM’s spin:

IBM may be using a further clause from the original pledge which says that they reserve the right to terminate the pledge if any company “files a lawsuit asserting patents or other intellectual property rights against open source software”. TurboHercules filed an antitrust complaint with the European Commission last month, and IBM may be considering that as a move that qualifies for revocation of the pledge in this case.

As one person points out:

One thing is for sure, IBM is certainly a friend of the Patent Office.

Indeed. With IBM’s Kappos at the top of the USPTO, there’s almost ‘incest’ in there.

Jim Zemlin, who is working for IBM (indirectly), is not an impartial observer and he helps IBM spin the incident in the two Linux Foundation Web sites.

Jim,

There’s been recent interest in IBM’s “500 patent” pledge made in 2005 and how it applies today. It’s always important to get the facts, and the words of the pledge itself are the facts we need.

“The pledge will benefit any Open Source Software. Open Source Software is any computer software program whose source code is published and available for inspection and use by anyone, and is made available under a license agreement that permits recipients to copy, modify and distribute the program’s source code without payment of fees or royalties. All licenses certified by opensource.org and listed on their website as of 01/11/2005 are Open Source Software licenses for the purpose of this pledge.

“IBM hereby commits not to assert any of the 500 U.S. patents listed below, as well as all counterparts of these patents issued in other countries, against the development, use or distribution of Open Source Software.”

IBM stands by this 2005 Non-Assertion Pledge today as strongly as it did then. IBM will not sue for the infringement of any of those 500 patents by any Open Source Software.

Thanks.

Daniel Frye
VP, Open Systems Development
IBM Linux Technology Center

Given that IBM funds the Linux Foundation (and is among the founding members of OSDL), this is not too shocking at all. Jim Zemlin has always been an IBM stickler. He really ought to at least criticise IBM’s use of software patents, but he can’t. As The H puts it, “Linux Foundation say ‘breathe easy’ on IBM patents”

This is rather funny. It’s like IBM saying, “be easy on IBM.”

In any event, IBM is currently celebrating the 10^th anniversary of GNU/Linux for the mainframe. What a timing!

2010 marks the 10th anniversary of Linux for the mainframe. Here, Knowledge Center contributor Bill Claybrook delves into the 10-year history of Linux for the mainframe, discussing its first deployments, advantages and appropriate workloads, as well as its current market outlook, cost of ownership and available applications. He also offers advice on how you can determine if Linux for the mainframe is the right choice for your data center’s server virtualization project.

The year was 1999. It was the beginning of Linux for the mainframe. IBM and SUSE (which was later acquired by Novell in 2004) began working on a version of Linux for the mainframe. By 2000, the first enterprise-ready, fully supported version was available: SUSE Linux Enterprise Server for S/390. The first large, important customer was Telia, a Scandinavian telecommunications company. This year, 2010, is the 10th anniversary of Linux for the mainframe. The value propositions for Linux for the mainframe that were important in 2000 are still important today.

They ought to move to Red Hat.

In other important news, Slashdot has caught IBM patenting optimisation.

jamie(really) writes “IBM appears to want to patent optimizing programs by trial and error, which in the history of programming has, of course, never been done. Certainly, all my optimizations have been the result of good planning. Well done IBM for coming up with this clever idea. What is claimed is: ‘A method for developing a computer program product, the method comprising: evaluating one or more refactoring actions to determine a performance attribute; associating the performance attribute with a refactoring action used in computer code; and undoing the refactoring action of the computer code based on the performance attribute. The method of claim 1 wherein the undoing refactoring is performed when the performance attribute indicates a negative performance effect of the computer code.’”

IBM ought to stop patenting software. Better yet–IBM should use its connections in the USPTO to stop software patents as a whole. As long as IBM refuses to do this, the Big Blue may be a friend of “Linux”, but it is not a friend of Free software; one just cannot be a friend of Free software and software patents at the same time. █

Permalink 5 Comments Mail Send this to a friend

04.05.10

Microsoft’s Violation of the Law Costing Fines in Wisconsin, But Fines Paid Back to Microsoft

Posted in America, Antitrust, Finance at 5:35 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Schools in Milwaukee and other cities will receive money after Microsoft broke the law, but whether this compensates for a monopoly earned through crime remains to be debated

Microsoft’s settlement is a bit of an embarrassment in Wisconsin. We previously wrote about it in:

The latest news speaks a great deal about those Microsoft vouchers, which are supposed to reach schools.

The vouchers are part of a second phase of the settlement. The initial 2006 settlement gave vouchers to anyone that bought specific Microsoft products or a computer and had those products installed for use in Wisconsin between Dec. 7, 1993, and April 30, 2003.

The second phase distributes money not claimed in the first phase. A Milwaukee County judge ruled that once all the original plaintiffs were paid, the remaining money should be split between Microsoft and Wisconsin public schools, according to news reports.

Some sources call this “Computer Vouchers”, but we previously saw evidence that such vouchers are useless for Free software because they only encourage more spendings on Microsoft software that costs nothing to produce and further increases dependence on Microsoft.

Having looked at some more newer reports [1, 2] we found that “equipment, software and training” are covered.

A drawn-out legal settlement with Microsoft will reap more than $3.4 million in high-tech funding for Madison public schools, officials said Monday.

It’s welcome news in a district facing an $18.1 million budget hole, even though the windfall comes with restrictions on how the money can be spent, based on what the district’s current technology programs include.

[...]

The funds come from the antitrust class action lawsuit Spence et al. v. Microsoft, which was filed on behalf of Wisconsin government entities, business and consumers, and settled in 2007 for $224 million. Schools and school districts that filed claims will receive nearly $80 million of that in vouchers for equipment, software and training, which are to be directed to schools in which at least a third of students in 2005 came from low-income households.

[...]

The district’s chief information officer, Kurt Kiefer, said priorities include making schools wireless, purchasing mobile technologies for schools, and buying basic display technologies for teachers such as data projectors.

Also new:

These schools ought to move to Free software (snubbing the company which committed the crimes in the first place, rather than buying more from it). According to this, one school district will not use the coupons; rather, it will just cross out something on a piece of paper and allow Microsoft to perpetuate its monopoly with intangible goods:

The School District of Beloit will be receiving about $2 million in vouchers to buy software from Microsoft as the result of a lawsuit settlement.

Milwaukee gets about a third of that sum and hopefully it won’t spend a dime on Microsoft software.

The influx of funds is substantial – low-income schools in Milwaukee Public Schools will share about $25 million, while the public school districts in Madison, Kenosha and Green Bay will each receive vouchers of more than $3 million to split among their low-income schools.

More here and here

The Unified School District of Antigo has more than $700,000 to spend on technology. The vouchers came Monday as the result of a class-action lawsuit settlement the state had with Microsoft Corp.

This makes it a week old. Some schools will foolishly reward Microsoft using those very same compensation vouchers that were supposed to be Microsoft’s punishment. Why can’t anybody in newspapers/press point out the absurdity of this?

Surely, the likes of IDG just continue to whitewash Microsoft’s history of criminal activity (with federal convictions that cannot be denied, despite Microsoft’s attempts).

Ten years after losing a bitterly contested antitrust browser battle to the U.S. Department of Justice, debate continues as to whether Microsoft was tamed by the legal rebuke or freed to treat it like a speed bump.

The whole article seems to insinuate that Google is the problem (but it should not be about Google) and it even links to Microsoft-sponsored statistics. Typical IDG. So who is left to actually report in an investigative fashion? And what about those absurd vouchers? █

Permalink 3 Comments Mail Send this to a friend

04.03.10

Microsoft Could Buy UNIX, Novell and Microsoft to Return to the Courtroom

Posted in Antitrust, Courtroom, Microsoft, Novell, Office Suites, SCO, UNIX at 9:40 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Amiga UNIX

Summary: Novell’s ownership of UNIX leads to increasingly-prevalent concern that UNIX is not in safe hands; Novell promises to appeal the WordPerfect ruling

IT IS not entirely clear what happens to SCO after losing the trial because the next course of action is not entirely known yet. There is simply no certainty and we do not know the impact of UNIX being up for sale if Novell is indeed up for sale (which it is). The 451 Group has this new article, titled “How Much Will Novell Go For?”

Over at InfoWorld (Savio Rodrigues writing for IDG), a similar question is asked in light of the SCO case:

Novell recently secured a jury decision against SCO pertaining to the ownership of Unix. Here are two relevant questions and answers from Ian Bruce, Novell’s director of PR:

Q: Given that SCO barely exists any more, what is the real relevance of all this?
A: The jury has confirmed Novell’s ownership of the Unix copyrights, which SCO had asserted to own in its attack on Linux. An adverse decision would have had profound implications for the Linux community.

Q: If Novell owns the copyrights to Unix, what does that mean for Linux?
A: We own the copyrights and we will continue to protect the open source community, including Linux.

Consider that Novell’s board rejected an unsolicited takeover offer from investment fund Elliott Associates just two weeks ago. Novell’s board said the offer “undervalues the company’s franchise and growth prospects.” However, the board did commit to a review of its alternatives, including an outright sale.

[...]

Being April Fool’s, one has to consider the notion of Microsoft acquiring Novell in order to own the copyrights to Unix, which could be used in thinly veiled threats against Linux users and customers. Personally, I don’t think suing customers is good for business.

Update as of April 1: I am not suggesting that Microsoft would or could legally do this. I am not a lawyer. I included this idea because everyone jumps to it when Novell’s future is discussed. But as @Kirovs comments below, Novell has released the code under the GPL, thereby impacting the legal rights of Novell’s potential acquirer and other Linux vendors.

Groklaw continues to assess the situation and separately, IDG looks back at what SCO did.

It is now almost seven years since the SCO Group gave up on the idea of actually producing good products and hitched its future to suing others. In my first column on the topic I predicted that someone would pay off the SCO Group, but it turned out that no one was willing to hold his nose long enough to do so. Well, almost no one: it may be that Microsoft provided SCO with some funding. But maybe this was like two skunks mating — maybe Microsoft could not smell the stink since it has frequently threatened the same kind of attacks on Linux using secret information that the SCO Group was known for.

CNET also has some newer coverage and an audiocast. India Blooms News Service and the Canadian Press (also here under a different heading) are just two among many more sources that continue to cover the case. Microsoft boosters like Gralla [1, 2] divert attention from the case and make it look like a Microsoft victory. Gralla connected this to a totally separate case involving WordPerfect. Microsoft was excused, but Novell promises to appeal. Novell’s appeal is hardly mentioned by Microsoft apologists and another Microsoft booster, Stuart Johnston, who continues to just concentrate on the preliminary ruling [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. Here is how it relates to the above:

Judge J. Frederick Motz, who was presiding over the long-standing lawsuit, declared that Novell was not in a position to pursue the lawsuit against Microsoft, as it had sold the once-popular PC software products to Caldera in 1996.

There was also some coverage that wasn’t biased in Microsoft’s favour (in advance) [1, 2], but it was easily outnumbered. A lot of the press is occupied by Microsoft sympathisers, even The Register after many staff changes. They try to impose their beliefs (and sometimes their warped versions of history) on other people. █

Permalink Comments off Mail Send this to a friend

04.01.10

Eye on Security: Windows Malware, Emergency Patches, and BeyondTrust’s CEO from Microsoft

Posted in Antitrust, GNU/Linux, IBM, Microsoft, Security, Vista 7, Windows at 8:54 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Security holes — some of which highly critical — continue to be found in Microsoft software; Justification of skepticism when it comes to new ‘research’ from former Microsoft staff, based on Microsoft-supplied data

OVER the past few days we have gathered more evidence to show that security problems only affect/target Windows and that those who flatter Windows for security are often tied to Microsoft (Window Snyder is just one example).

Windows-only Threats

Download Squad has this new post which compares Norton’s Security Scan to malware (it sure takes up a lot of resources). Those who think it’s bizarre should check out this minor piece of FUD and the rebuttal from The Source.

Right, so the Murphy’s Law headline is “Stop Supporting Open-Source Bloat“, where the author goes on to decry shady tactics of several programs, like:

* Revo Uninstaller
* Digsby
* ImgBurn

…NONE OF WHICH ARE OPEN SOURCE

Ignorance or deliberate deception? Either way, it looks bad for Maximum PC. Windows problems are now being described as “Open-Source” for no apparent reason.

TechDirt shows how copyright scare is being used to install malware/back-doors on people’s Windows machines. This relies on the infamous click-to-execute mentality that’s so prevalent in the Windows world. Actually, Microsoft software also tends to execute arbitrary code when one just visits a Web page (Active X is notorious for this reason).

Microsoft Emergency

The security flaws are so serious that Microsoft has just released an “emergency” patch for no less than 10 holes in Internet Explorer (which Microsoft neglected to patch for many months, leading to otherwise-preventable chaos [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12]).

From The Inquirer:

SOFTWARE INSECURITY SISYPHUS Microsoft has released an out-of-cycle patch for users lazy or ignorant enough to still be using an old version of Internet Explorer.

It’s generally rare that threats are deemed serious enough for Microsoft to not wait until its next Patch Tuesday, which would be April 13th now, but a vulnerability hit Internet Explorer 6 and 7 that left them open to potential remote code execution.

More at CNET:

Microsoft issued an emergency security update on Tuesday to plug 10 holes in Internet Explorer, including a critical vulnerability that has been exploited in attacks in the wild.

The cumulative update, which Microsoft announced on Monday, resolves nine privately reported flaws and one that was publicly disclosed. The most severe vulnerabilities could lead to remote code execution and a complete takeover of the computer if a user were to view a malicious Web site using IE, Microsoft said in the bulletin summary.

Internet Explorer 8 is also affected.

BeyondTrust is Hard to Trust

Judging by previous incidents, past Microsoft employees who become 'researchers' typically produce output that's biased in Microsoft's favour. That’s why we decided to take a careful look at BeyondTrust. Their web site is all Microsoft stack-based (showing the lower probability that they understand security) and their CEO “spent seven years at Microsoft Corporation in a variety of executive sales and marketing positions,” according to the company’s own pages. “Sales and marketing,” eh? Now, we have already covered security problems Vista 7 suffers from, in a wide range of posts including:

“Statistics must not depend on Microsoft’s own data and presented in a favourable way by design.”This brings us back to BeyondTrust (wow, what a name!). Their latest promotion of Windows for security is quoted a lot by Microsoft boosters like Emil this week. They are measuring the wrong thing by wrongly assuming that Microsoft tells the truth about its patches. Microsoft is patching its software secretly a lot of the time. We saw that many times before and thus we urge people to be skeptical. Statistics must not depend on Microsoft’s own data and presented in a favourable way by design. Remember that there are “lies, damned lies, and statistics,” according to Benjamin Disraeli and others. There may also be reason for bias here.

Speaking of potential connections to Microsoft, an anonymous reader told us to “beware that TurboHercules might be financed by Microsoft”. This reader has not produced evidence to show what led to such suspicions (it may give away the identity), but as we recently showed, TurboHercules did join a Microsoft front. It aligned itself with Microsoft and companies/campaigns that are partly owned by Microsoft. █

Permalink A Single Comment Mail Send this to a friend

« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »