Summary: New numbers suggest that Steve Ballmer is the worst technology CEO, based on the opinion of his own employees
The co-founder of Microsoft dislikes the other co-founder, as we noted this afternoon. But what happens when the entire staff dislikes the CEO, Steve Ballmer? Glyn Moody calls this “incredible” and it seems as though Ballmer’s wing(wo)man, Bartz, is also doing pretty badly. Microsoft’s booster Preston Gralla asks, “[h]ow long can he last” — meaning — when will Ballmer get fired?
For the last two years, Glassdoor.com has regularly surveyed employees of a dozen major tech companies and asks them to rate their CEOs. It just announced the latest year’s rankings, and the news couldn’t be worse for Ballmer. His approval rating is down in the dumps, at 40%. The next worst CEO rating is well above his, eBay’s John Donahoe at 46%.
It’s official. Microsoft is in a state of unrest wrt management-ordinary workers relationships. Maybe Microsoft will just send more of its workers from the West to teach (somewhere in Asia) how their job is done, then announce layoffs, then announce hiring in Asia a year later. It’s not just Microsoft’s trick for cutting costs but also convenient means of getting more obedient staff which will revere the management “from America” and feel ever so thankful. █
Summary: Black Duck, Microsoft, Hadapt, and Red Hat talk about products and/or patents which relate to them
AFTER this previous post, the pro-patents crowd (the lawyers who confront us over these issues) suggested we focus more attention on the company Walker Digital. To quote the relevant parts:
The first lot, for Automatically Captured Images contained only a set of patent applications and foreign patents, yet the bidding petered out at $7,000,000. Bidding for a lot described as a Single Use Transaction Code stopped at $3,000,000. The last two lots, for Driving Directions with Visual Cues and a Certified Audio Vault reached $6,000,000 and $4,500,000, respectively. Altogether, that’s $20.5 M in exchange for the freedom for one company each to practice and manufacture the technology described in these patents. Generally, when good technology is adopted by one company, it gets copied by others, so it’s entirely likely that substantial additional value exists, not just for these patents, but Walker Digital as a whole.
But how did the covenants end up being sent to auction in the first place? Earlier this year, Walker Digital announced the hiring of a consulting firm to help create value out of its substantial patent portfolio
The Open Source Think Tank is the most unique invitation-only event of its kind, bringing together many of the world’s top thought leaders in a challenge to solve real world situations. The event is focused on the evolution and practical implications of open source and cloud computing.
It’s invitation-only, eh? Was Microsoft invited to an “Open Source Think” or does it get automatic admission by simply paying? This whole event is organised by a familiar entity.
Black Duck in reality promotes proprietary software covered by software patents. It is yet another firm that does not see the big picture and realise the hindrance to innovation by software patents. Like the Tea Party, these closed-minded firms play a game where the bigger players (Microsoft, Apple) have the advantage and exploit the smaller players without consequence or guilt. Unfortunately, there is an increasing number of misguided software companies with a patent strategy that is not progressively oriented around immediate abolition. “Our patent-pending Adaptive Query Execution™ capability is unlike any other offering in the market,” drones Justin Borgman, co-founder of Hadapt Inc. Next there will be a patent on using the equation “y=mx+b” with cloud (Internet) spreadsheet programs (that is, if one does not exist already).
Meanwhile, even Red Hat has not proven immune to the software patent bug. It’s legal team has produced harmful statements in a recent post; they spout praise and endorsement over the “strength” of Red Hat’s patent portfolio while still maintaining that the company is a fighter for patent reform:
The ranking of Red Hat’s patent portfolio as the 50th strongest in IT represents a jump of 16 spots from The Patent Board’s previous ranking on November 5, 2010.
[...]
At the same time, Red Hat continues to fight for software patent reform.
Red Hat has made itself open for accusations of hypocrisy. This is the last thing it needs at this point, especially in the light of the source code obfuscation controversy we discussed earlier. Red Hat needs to do what is right and stand up and firmly for its beliefs and the Free software community and software it originates from and depends upon. It can not continue to act like a “wishy-washy” politician if it seeks long-term viability. █
Posted in Microsoft at 10:54 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The modus operandi of Microsoft whenever a public policy is made that may exclude Microsoft’s standards-hostile, user-disrespecting, and overly-expensive software
Microsoft’s business model depends on restrictive proprietary software coupled with non-interoperable formats to produce a vendor lock-in relationship with its customers. It is no wonder then why Microsoft is trying to sabotage policy that encourages Free software and open standards. Microsoft’s main ammunition in this attack is lying. This translates into numerous, often dirty and immoral tactics. Statements along the lines of “‘excluding proprietary’ is ‘removing choice’” (Microsoft has the BSA lobby with this lie in numerous instances) are fabricated and policies are removed altogether by implanting cronies who reverse predecessors’ ideas (see Peter Quinn's story). In recent years, it is common for Microsoft to pretend that it too is open source (a familiar tactic in recent years), and fakers and even professors have been bribed to say that it is practical to use a mixture of both Free and proprietary. In the past, Microsoft only went for the full lobby of pushing proprietary only. █
“He [Bill Gates] acted like a spoiled kid, which is what he was.”
–Ed Roberts, Gates’ employer at MITS in the 1970′s (Atlanta Journal-Costitution, 04-27-97)
Summary: Even the closest friends of Bill Gates cannot stand the guy, whose antisocial behaviour they help reveal to the world
ONE day in the near future we hope to properly research the subject we once covered quite a lot (especially in 2009 and 2010). Quietly but surely and very steadily, Mr. Gates is taking control of more aspects of everybody’s life, from schools to food. He monopolises and controls those in all sorts of ways which we explained before and our criticism is backed by some voices from academia (professors), politicians, and free thinkers. It’s not hard to see what’s going on and a person who grew up with Mr. Gates, working closely with him since they were adolescents, is the co-founder of Microsoft, who is now known as Traul Allen because he is a patent troll of global proportions (he sues the whole world as Groklaw likes to cast it).
One point that we mentioned last week is Allen’s convictions and allegations against Gates, which we already knew about (Cringely wrote about it at least half a decade ago, Allen now concurs and puts it in a book).
Paul Allen’s memoir about his founding and helping run Microsoft paints Bill Gates as an unprincipled shark, conniving to get Allen to give up a sizable percentage of the ownership of Microsoft, and constantly bullying employees. Can Allen be believed? And if so, does Gates’ later life as a philanthropist make up for his youthful behavior?
People who worked for Gates shared similar stories, some of which say that Gates really bullied them and used the “F” word spuriously. Groklaw laughs with the above in mind, adding: “Final answers: yes and then no. Personally, I view Gates’ philanthropy as kind of in the same category as Macbeth’s handwashing.”
“Personally, I view Gates’ philanthropy as kind of in the same category as Macbeth’s handwashing.” –Pamela Jones, GroklawGates is still bullying everyone who does not agree with him, sometimes causing his opponents to be fired or not funded by anyone. This characterises people who are underqualified and use the mistreatment of others to hide their vulnerabilities and boost their own ego (people who do this typically lack confidence and lash out to make themselves feel better, at the expense of others). Remember: Gates never even graduated from college (not properly anyway, honorary doesn’t count). How come they treat him like economist extraordinaire? Possession of illegally-earned money is not the same as managing economies, but they allow him to enter the White House uninvited, regardless, and then lobby on issues of international financing. It’s insane. That has a lot to do with the way he markets himself, iconifying one’s image by emphasising false correlation between wealth and wisdom, rather than ruthlessness and familiarity with ways of breaking the law, then getting away with it (Gates’ father). Regarding the marketing of one’s character, we suggest people take a look at this wiki page, which we have not had time to extend since the start of the year. Well, the short version is that to start the whole thing, Gates bought a lot of the press (about a million dollars per day are spent on just this sort of deception by Gates), turning what may look like news and sound like news into public relations (PR) for himself, which in turn gives him a lot of wiggling room while he gets richer and more powerful, primarily by promoting patents (monopoly assurers) he invests in as well as lobbies for and convinces country leaders to pump public money into. This is a multi-faceted issue that we covered here many times (but not enough times, due to lack of time). It’s disturbing, but a lot of people turn a blind eye to it or believe the PR. It’s easier to just trust what’s heard a lot of times.
Interestingly enough, Groklaw has dug up some old information a couple of weeks ago and it stated regarding the story of Ed Roberts (Microsoft was dancing on his grave last year): “They may wax lyrical now, but Wikipedia includes this illuminating detail, referencing Stephen Manes’ book Gates, fleshing out my theory that partnering with Microsoft can lead to bad things — after Roberts gave them their big opportunity, this is what happened: “Roberts refused to sub-license BASIC to other companies; this led to arbitration in 1977 between MITS and the new ‘Micro-Soft’. The arbitrator agreed with Microsoft and allowed them to license the 8080 BASIC to other companies. Roberts was disappointed with this ruling. Since both Allen and Gates had been employees of MITS and he paid for the computer time, Roberts felt it was his software.””
Separately, Gates and his buddy Nathan Myhrvold, whom he funded to amass patents and now attack Linux/RIM/other rivals, are mentioned again in the context of Intellectual Ventures (IV). The people at IV extort and also lobby for the sick patent law which exists — one that makes both of them (Gates and Myhrvold) a lot of money in their post-Microsoft days. It was only some months ago (about a year or more) when he was claimed to have spent about a million dollars just lobbying to change the patent laws and/or manufacture fake ‘studies’ to defend patent-trolling. Now, check this out:
Union Opposition To Patent Reform Legislation Funded By Intellectual Ventures
Pat Choate, noted political economist, filed a breach of contract lawsuit earlier this week against Intellectual Ventures, a patent aggregator, owner of approximately 30,000 patents, and plaintiff in numerous patent infringement lawsuits. According to a copy of the complaint obtained by GametimeIP.com, Choate was hired by IV to orchestrate opposition to the patent reform legislation in the 2005-08 time frame and beyond while “hid[ing IV] in the crowd” since its high-profile investors, like Bill Gates, supported patent reform.
Also revealed is IV’s connection to the surprising labor union opposition to patent reform. According to a 2007 PC World story, “the AFL-CIO, the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE), and the United Steelworkers — have sent letters to lawmakers saying they oppose two current patent reform bills.”
[...]
However, IV’s tune changed in 2009 when the damages provisions were modified, and IV actually held fund-raising events for patent reform booster Patrick Leahy. According to the Choate’s complaint, about $500,000 worth of his contract with IV has gone unpaid (possibly relating to IV’s change of heart) despite the fact that he was in the middle of a 25 month contract.
The author of this is actually a patents booster who is looking to work in litigation. He too has joined together the dots and decided to name Gates as a major financier of this whole mess.
So, will anyone be willing to contradict Gates’ partner in crime (they both started with sabotage) and still insist that Gates is a wonderful person? Don’t worry, tomorrow’s newspapers will be filled with glowing PR (masquerading as “news”) about Gates, who spends about a million dollars on this PR every single day. He has a lot to hide and money can buy public opinion these days. █
” In my case, I went to the garbage cans at the Computer Science Center and I fished out listings of their operating systems.”
Summary: Monopoly abuser Microsoft Corporation complains about Google “abuses” just a year after Microsoft was punished yet again for monopoly abuse
THE previous post may somehow seem too hostile towards Google. But it’s not, it was just an opinion constructed in the form of advice. Techrights is concerned about Google, but it realises that it is nothing like Microsoft has ever been and the managers at Google are not sociopaths for all we know. Mr. Brin, for example, is known as a modest guy who likes technology, not a manipulative law school dropout.
You know what I think this all means? I think it means Microsoft still doesn’t understand why it got into antitrust hot water, still accepts no responsibility. I understood that better when I read the Paul Allen excerpt from his book in Vanity Fair. The upper management are portrayed as ethically empty. Microsoft now seems to think that all it takes is a competitor to complain, and you end up like it did. That leaves out a powerful factor, which is that Microsoft really did abuse its monopoly position and it did harm to the market, to security, to customers, to competitors in ways that are disturbing to the rest of us. And no one had to use partners and subsidiaries to make it look like it was doing bad things. They really did them, and that is why they ended up in antitrust hot water. So this laughable conspiracy to try to hold Google’s feet to the fire will not end the way it does in Microsoft’s dreams, I don’t think. Because Google isn’t Microsoft. They live on different planets. And that will make all the difference. PS. Google and Android won. Microsoft with this filing waves the white flag.
This happened around the time when Opera, Google, Mozilla and others decided to ask the EC to look into Microsoft’s own anti-competitive practices in the browser market.
One tech lobbyist told POLITICO, for example, that Microsoft has centered some of its Beltway strategy on “pushing folks to investigate Google” long before it filed its antitrust complaint in Brussels — but that it’s not clear whether Google has the stomach to return fire.
“It appears Google is willing to defend itself from accusations that are untrue or unfounded, … but it’s not within their company culture to organize a campaign to cause trouble for Microsoft,” the source said.
Eventually came a whole article on the subject and Jones highlighted the report “Do Not Anger the Alpha Android”, commenting as follows:
What a coincidence. A Microsoft partner, Facebook, complaining about Google the very same day that Microsoft files an antitrust complaint. Is life not full of unbelievable coincidences? PS. I truly do hope Google watches their stuff like a hawk, given Facebook’s track record on privacy. And does Facebook have quality control standards on what outside companies can do with apps for Facebook, for example? I mean, come on.
And as for quality control, it’s real. I have an acquaintance I finally got to get an Android phone, and wouldn’t you know it, it couldn’t play Angry Birds. She happened to get one that wasn’t using the latest and greatest, and she was so mad about it she was going to drop the phone. It was possible to finally slide it on sideways, so to speak, and get it to run, and now she loves the phone, but quality control and consistency are hardly unnatural business concerns. Some of the stuff companies are putting out there bring the brand down, and that isn’t Google’s fault. And frankly the flood of complaining about Google looks to me like a coordinated campaign. There. I said it. I think reporters should research that and write about it next. I’ll bet you hit pay dirt.
Groklaw too acknowledges that there is a special relationship between Facebook and Microsoft (which owns part of Facebook, the company). For those who do not know the history of Facebook’s founder, be sure to read about it. He too is an unethical sociopath (now using so-called ‘charity’ to hide the truth and create a moral shield). A lot of people know nothing about it, but they ought to. And companies are actually run by really powerful people, with character, mood swings, ego, and penis envy. █
Summary: Criticism of Google’s organisation of patents and their translations which help legitimatise patent monopolies, taking them even further
AS noted in last night's show, Microsoft is trying to portray Google as an “IP” villain pretty much in the same way that SCO tried to portray IBM and individual people like Linus Torvalds as “thieves”. This is deliberate. But the point worth making is that Google — unlike IBM for example — is rather ambivalent on the subject. Google, unlike IBM, has not had a century as a massive company (during which to amass patents) and at times it seems like Google is prepared to abolish software patents if it can [1, 2]. On other occasions it contradicts itself, sometimes there seem to be inner conflicts between Google lawyers and engineers, and Google generally uses its expertise as knowledge arranger to catalogue patents-related information, thereby validating these increasingly-dubious systems. Over the past couple of years we gave examples on about three occasions.
Google will be better off without a system which favours long-established companies, which not only grew in size but also grew their paper-based monopoly in terms of size (filing for patents, i.e. protectionism). Well, see this new Vista Phony 7 cartoon which says it all really. Basically, that phone platform is dead in the water and this morning I saw a TV advert for it; all they do now is desperately market it using “Office” and “Xbox”. Pathetic. That’s why Microsoft is trying to extort Android from several different directions. And speaking of which, Kodak seems to be ‘pulling a Microsoft’ too (now that it doesn’t manage to make worthwhile products): “Shares of Eastman Kodak Co (EK.N) soared 16 percent in premarket trading after a trade panel in the United States last week agreed to review a case that could lead to the struggling photography company receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in royalties.”
Windows Phone branding — like lipstick on the analogue photography pig — won’t change the reality. But anyway, the point worth making is that the worst thing Google could do at this stage is legitimise the very same system which threatens its Linux-based platform. Google is doing damaging things for perceived self benefit again (sucking up to the EPO), perhaps not realising that those patent translation it provides could be seen as unifying the system and serving towards the centralised court, whose power could elevate software patents all across Europe (it is a crucial matter and timing counts). What Google should ideally do is just snub the EPO and let it run dry, or realistically sink in its own multi-lingual mess. Instead, Google is helping an arcane system, trying to make PR out of it. Not good. Not evil, either. █
Resumen: Para hacer descarrilar/deshacerse de los planes del gobierno de migrar al Software Free/Libre (en el Reino Unido y otras partes) Microsoft paga a Lerner y a un colega de LSE, Schankerman, para repetir vieja FUD (Miedo Incertidumbre y Duda) de Microsoft.
Por medio de códigos internas sabemos que las autoridades BRITÁNICAS locales exploran la posibilidad de usar más Software Free/Libre y en las noticias de esta semana tenemos artículos como por ejemplo:
* El gobierno revela estrategia, con código abierto a la delantera[http://www.computerworlduk.com/news/public-sector/3267647/government-unveils-it-strategy-with-open-source-at-the-fore/]
El gobierno ha puesto en marcha una estrategia para cortar el gasto público en las TIC del gobierno por “millones de libras a través de deshacerce de la duplicación y del desperdicio”, y prometiendo mucho más uso del software libre.
La estrategia de las TIC del gobierno, puesta en marcha por el ministro para la oficina Francisco Maude del gabinete precisó hoy cómo el gobierno adoptará los métodos, las políticas y las habilidades correctas para asegurarse de que sus TIC apoyen servicios públicos eficientes.
* Reino Unido: Los Investigadores Dicen que el Código Abierto Baja los Costos, Aumenta la Seguridad[http://www.osor.eu/news/uk-researchers-say-open-source-lowers-costs-increases-security]
El sector del cuidado médico puede bajar sus costes y aumentar la seguridad de sus sistemas, haciendo más uso del código abierto, según la investigación en la Universidad del Instituto de Warwick para el Cuidado Médico Digital y el Centro Para la Informática de la Salud y de la Educación Multiprofessional en la Facultad de Medicina de UCL.
Esto compromete algunas vacas de efectivo de Microsoft (Windows y Oficina), así que el MONOPOLISTA puede ser visto defenderse de la misma vieja manera, a saber los puntos patrocinados por Microsoft siguen públicados en las noticias con el académico británico/americano que recibe dinero de Microsoft para hacer esto. Vea este nuevo ejemplo[http://www.zawya.com/mobile/default.cfm/sidGN_25032011_260314/actstory] de Schankerman y de un colega. Escribimos sobre él en [1[http://techrights.org/2011/03/03/lies-machine-vs-foss-policy/], 2[http://techrights.org/2011/01/20/factual-errors-and-microsoft-funded/], 3[http://techrights.org/2011/01/19/professors-sponsored-by-microsoft/], 4[http://techrights.org/2011/01/18/controlling-minds/]]. El artículo dice: No crea todo que usted lee sobre campos de la tecnología, pero también debe decir no crea que todo usted lee adentro sitios de la tecnología como el nuestro porque la fuente olvida mencionar el dinero de Microsoft que fue inyectado en este caso. Éso es cómo las noticias y la opinión pública siguen siendo compradas, barato.
Según otra alarma de Europa[http://arebentisch.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/microsoft-roundtable-on-eu-spectrum-policy/], Microsoft ahora está organizando una mesa redonda en el Espectro Policy de la UE:
Quisiéramos recordarle sobre la discusión de mesa redonda sobre recientes desarrollos en la política del espectro y su impacto en la industria de las TIC. El acontecimiento será el miércoles 13 de abril en el centro ejecutivo del informe de Microsoft, Avenue de Nerviens 85, 1040, Bruselas. El acontecimiento comenzará en el 10:30 y será seguido por un almuerzo y un tour dirigido en nuestro nuevo Centro de la Nube y de la “Interoperabilidad”. La discusión de mesa redonda ofrecerá presentaciones de los expertos dominantes en la materia, cuyos diversos puntos de vista deben asegurar una discusión animada.
Más distorsión de la política europea y del cabildeo de la compañía americana. ¿Qué podía salir mal posiblemente? Es muy simple que Microsoft engañe a políticos, o como Tim lo puso el otro día[http://openbytes.wordpress.com/2011/03/30/why-a-start-up-should-avoid-microsoft-mpit-fail/], el lunes que un sitio fue lanzado con el apoyo de David Cameron para ayudar empresarios con el lanzamiento de su empresa. Oh alegría, usted sabe que esto será “bueno”.
Hemos visto qué sucede cuando los M.P.(Microsoft Professionals) consiguen implicadas en ello.
¿El título del post es por qué una PYME debe evitar a Microsoft? (MP+IT = #Fail) y recibimos anoche un enlace (vía el IRC) de Microsoft que hace movimientos que podrían potencialmente hacer dependiente de Microsoft al programa espacial de la India (que intentaron pasarlo disfrazado como cierta clase de caridad, no de lock-in -cerrojo). Sea vigilante porque como Pamela Jones de Groklaw lo puso la otra noche[http://techrights.org/2011/03/31/traul-allen-on-bill-gates-evil/#comment-113736], entendí mejor cuando leí el extracto de Paul Allen de su libro en Vanity Fair. Retrata a la gerencia superior [de Microsoft] como éticamente vacía. █
“Conseguirámos que se vuelvan adictos, y entonces imaginaremos alguna manera cómo colectar en la década próxima.”
Summary: Operating systems, form factors, and some Ubuntu derivatives
THIS episode was recorded on a wired connection and it covered many interesting topics from the past couple of weeks. Tim will post some show notes at a later date/time. Update: the show notes are up now.
Free/Open Source software in the currency and trading world promised to emancipate us from the yoke of banking conglomerates, but a gold rush for software patents threatens to jeopardise any meaningful change or progress
To nobody's surprise, the past half a decade saw accelerating demise in quality of European Patents (EPs) and it is the fault of Battistelli's notorious policies
New trouble for Željko Topić in Strasbourg, making it yet another EPO Vice-President who is on shaky grounds and paving the way to managerial collapse/avalanche at the EPO
The utter lack of participation, involvement or even intervention by German authorities serve to confirm that the government of Germany is very much complicit in the EPO's abuses, by refusing to do anything to stop them
Another example of UPC promotion from within the EPO (a committee dedicated to UPC promotion), in spite of everything we know about opposition to the UPC from small businesses (not the imaginary ones which Team UPC claims to speak 'on behalf' of)
Uploaded by SUEPO earlier today was the above video, which shows how last year's party (actually 2015) was spoiled for Battistelli by the French State Secretary for Digital Economy, Axelle Lemaire, echoing the French government's concern about union busting etc. at the EPO (only to be rudely censored by Battistelli's 'media partner')
In violation of international labour laws, Team Battistelli marches on and engages in a union-busting race against the clock, relying on immunity to keep this gravy train rolling before an inevitable crash
A new year's reminder that the EPO has only one legitimate union, the Staff Union of the EPO (SUEPO), whereas FFPE-EPO serves virtually no purpose other than to attack SUEPO, more so after signing a deal with the devil (Battistelli)
Orwellian misuse of terms by the EPO, which keeps using the term "social democracy" whilst actually pushing further and further towards a totalitarian regime led by 'King' Battistelli
The paradigm of totalitarian control, inability to admit mistakes and tendency to lie all the time is backfiring on the EPO rather than making it stronger
An outline of recent stories about patents, where patent quality is key, reflecting upon the population's interests rather than the interests of few very powerful corporations
The role played by Heiko Maas in the UPC, which would harm businesses and people all across Europe, is becoming clearer and hence his motivation/desire to keep Team Battistelli in tact, in spite of endless abuses on German soil
The latest facts and figures about software patents, compared to the spinmeisters' creed which they profit from (because they are in the litigation business)
The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is planning to weigh in on a case which will quite likely drive patent trolls out of the Eastern District of Texas, where all the courts that are notoriously friendly towards them reside
The scope of patents in the United States is rapidly tightening (meaning, fewer patents are deemed acceptable by the courts) and Fitbit’s patent case is the latest case to bite the dust
Pretending there is a violent, physical threat that is imminent, Paranoid in Chief Benoît Battistelli is alleged to have pursued weapons on EPO premises
The show ends with “Tears and Rain” (the song, not real tears and rain). We hope you will join us for future shows and 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA