Summary: A look at the US patent system, as viewed from the lens of Professor Dennis Crouch, founder of Patently-O

Continuing our emphasis on the USPTO today, right now we focus on Patently-O, a decent source of information about patents (albeit sometimes a tad biased because of Dennis Crouch's occupation and surroundings/environment).

Based on this new article, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has ruled that ITC cannot weigh in on “Purely Electronic Products”, however that’s defined. Remember that the ITC helped Microsoft embargo competing mice from Asia when Microsoft’s patent aggression began, not too long before the historic TomTom lawsuit which served as a deterrent to many other Linux distributors after 2009. “In its panel opinion,” says Patently-O, “the Federal Circuit held that the USITC jurisdiction over the importation of “articles that infringe” does not extend to the “electronic transmission of digital data”. Rather, Section 337 of the Tariff Act is limited to “material things” as used in common parlance (i.e., beyond an “electron’s invariant mass” that may be associated with a digital transmission). See Dennis Crouch, Federal Circuit Bites Back against USITC Expansion into Electronic Importation, Patently-O (November 10, 2015). That original panel included Chief Judge Prost who wrote the majority opinion along with Judge O’Malley who also issued a concurring opinion and Judge Newman in dissent.”

“Remember that the ITC helped Microsoft embargo competing mice from Asia when Microsoft’s patent aggression began, not too long before the historic TomTom lawsuit which served as a deterrent to many other Linux distributors after 2009.”Other articles from Patently-O note (regarding Cuozzo v. Lee) that “it may make the most sense for the Supreme Court to dismiss the claim construction issue as improvidently granted but retain question two regarding the appeal of institution decisions.” We wrote about this case in the middle of February, right after Antonin Scalia had died.

Another new Patently-O article says: “Most firms, of course, are aware of their ethical obligations to take reasonable precautions to secure client confidences, no doubt in part because the standard of care requires it, hacks are public knowledge, and in fact the FBI issued a warning several years ago on this point. But a Citigroup report dated almost exactly one-year ago said that lawyers still were behind the curve, and articles specific to IP firms (such as this one, calling IP firms the low-hanging fruit compared to the USPTO’s data) are out there also signaling warnings.”

“It’s as though we’re dealing here not with a patent system but a filing system, wherein patents are properly examined only when taken to court (or to PTAB).”Both IP [sic] firms and the USPTO are biased. They cater for themselves. Then there are the extremes like IAM 'magazine'. It’s expected that many people out there will be biased, but realisation of this bias is key. In many people’s view, Techrights too is “biased” — a claim we’re not trying to deny but at least make rather evident (e.g. from the style). Even journalists are biased, but they do a better job hiding it (or their publishers hide it while commissioning journalistic endeavors based on the paper’s agenda).

One very recent article from Patently-O said “lawyer must certify that, based upon a reasonable investigation, that a substitute claim is patentable” (lawyers typically do whatever it takes to just get the job done, i.e. patent something if working for an applicant/plaintiff or invalidate if working for a defendant/challenger).

“The US patent system is in a sordid, sad state.”One last article from Patently-O said: “The second point seems to be that conflict-free counsel would have obtained broader claims that covered Savi’s commercial products. Here, the appellate court said there was no evidence the USPTO would have issued the claims. It is not clear what was done by Axcess: did the expert compare the hypothetical claims to the prior art of record? If so, that would seem to be enough, but the appellate court stated that there had to be evidence of how the USPTO would have responded to hypothetical patent applications and “evidence from similar cases.” In a vacuum and without the full trial record, this seems odd. Again, the opinion is hard to follow.”

Given the PTO’s figures, it’s hard to imagine that they do any quality control at all, but now that there’s a $42 million verdict at stake suddenly they actually try to get the job done properly. It’s as though we’re dealing here not with a patent system but a filing system, wherein patents are properly examined only when taken to court (or to PTAB).

The US patent system is in a sordid, sad state. █

Summary: A new ruling in Germany threatens Microsoft’s campaign of fear and racketeering against Android (and GNU/Linux), but Microsoft allies from the now-defunct Novell help patent-pushing efforts, threatening to add new bait to Android

The traitorous company known as Xamarin, run by former Microsoft staff and a Microsoft MVP (also funded by people from Microsoft), keeps pushing Mono (Moonlight is dead now) into Linux and Android, no matter how strongly users are rejecting it. Now they go after Google’s CCTV Glass, trying to make it Microsoft dependent (including patents).

“Xamarin is now (more than before) very closely connected to Microsoft and it is funded by former Microsoft executives.”People like Miguel de Icaza once pretended that Microsoft would not sue, but even de Icaza had to shut up when Microsoft actually sued TomTom in 2009. Why are these people still pushing Mono into Linux and Android (not to mention Wine [1])? Well, that’s simple. Xamarin is now (more than before) very closely connected to Microsoft and it is funded by former Microsoft executives. They are up to no good.

It should be noted that based on my phone conversations with the OIN’s president, Microsoft typically uses FAT patents to sign patent deals which it characterises as "Linux" ones (TomTom’s included).

People should now shun Xamarin and avoid all Microsoft APIs (Samba got exemptions only after a very long antitrust battle in Europe). It oughtn’t be shocking that those who remain interested in Xamarin’s work are all sorts of developers who hang out in Microsoft forums and develop with Microsoft products; they are not GNU/Linux users.

“Now that the FAT patent may be in its deathbed we need to ensure that Microsoft does not ‘plant’ more such traps/bait (like C#) in Linux/Android.”Now we come to the rather important news. In this age when large companies reject the idea of software patenting and most countries in the world do likewise it was rather shocking to find a FAT-related patent upheld in Germany some years back (April 2010). It was pretty much against the law and it helped Microsoft impose a reign of terror on some companies that use Linux in their products.

Well, according to this bit of news that links to a deceiving Microsoft lobbyist as the source, Microsoft’s FAT patent got invalidated and later coverage helped confirm this. While nobody knows if Microsoft actually makes money from Android (it's all speculations from unreliable sources), Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols says that Microsoft FAT patent loss endangers its Android revenue. “A patent loss in a German court may lead to trouble for Microsoft’s Android strategy,” Vaughan-Nichols writes.

As one person put it today, “it’s not the news I wanted to hear “Microsoft could appeal” but its a step in the right direction.”

It’s almost as though Germany might actually uphold EU law for a change, at long last rejecting software patents in spite of distortion of the facts from Microsoft Florian and other pseudo-European lobbyists like ACT.

Now that the FAT patent may be in its deathbed we need to ensure that Microsoft does not ‘plant’ more such traps/bait (like C#) in Linux/Android. We need to shun Xamarin and explain to people who Xamarin, the Trojan horse, is really serving. Android already reduced its dependence on some Microsoft patented blobs (like ActiveSync). It needs none of the same troublemakers. This isn’t the first time that Xamarin tries to push Mono into Android [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16] and it definitely won’t be the last. █

Related/contextual items from the news:

1. Wine 1.7.8 Updates Its Mono Support

Summary: Samsung and its developers appear to be helping Microsoft’s patent war on Linux and also violating the GNU GPL at the same time

The mischievous role played by Samsung in advancing Microsoft’s Linux tax is nothing new. It turns out to be not only proprietary but quite likely a GPL violation. Companies like Tuxera are working for Microsoft by spreading exFAT to manufacture more victims like TomTom, a FAT scapegoat. Microsoft most routinely uses FAT-related patents to tax users and distributors of GNU/Linux (users are being silently taxed through secret deals). It is hard to work around these traps.

Samsung, a patent friend of Microsoft which we reported for GPL violations in the past, pays Microsoft for FAT and then spreads this patent trap further. We recently wrote about some mysterious code from Korea (more details are in IRC logs) and we studied the author of this code in order to better understand her interests and to find out why she may be promoting exFAT. Now there is clarification. Michael Larabel explains: “Last month there was news of a native Linux driver for Microsoft’s exFAT file-system. It turns out that the driver wasn’t developed through any clean-room reverse-engineering but was rather the apparent rebadging of a Samsung exFAT driver for Linux.

“After being informed via email by a user today with this open-source Linux exFAT driver appearing on GPL-Violations.org, the exFAT Linux driver comes with nefarious intentions.

“A lot of people have berated the alleged leaker, but if it proves GPL violations, then it may as well justify the leak and serve as a case of whistleblowing”“It appears (and evidently its “developer” is admitting it) that the exFAT Linux kernel module was based upon source-code found from a Samsung developer for their exFAT driver. The code likely leaked out of Samsung accidentally by a developer pushing their Linux kernel source tree externally to GitHub when it should have been made private.”

Now, the main question is, was the code modified before being uploaded? If so, whose GPL violation is it (assuming it has not been tampered with)?

The developer, Joosun Hahn, has almost nothing on the Web about her (at least not in English) but has various publications (connected Seongsoo Hong in some publications) in decent journals and also patents like this one. Assuming it’s the same person, a 2009 paper describes her as someone who “received her B.S. degree in Computer Science from Soongsil University, Seoul, Korea, in 1994. She received her M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Computer Engineering from Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea, in 1996 and 2004, respectively. She is currently a research professor in the Department of Computer Engineering at Hongik University, Seoul, Korea. Her research interests include computer architecture, real-time computing, embedded systems, and wireless sensor networks.”

To quote Phoronix Forums (last page), “This source code is not under GPLv2. This source code cannot be redistributed. This code contains Microsoft’s IP. It cannot even be made publicly available – that’s a direct violation of the law.”

In a later thread someone points out: “I’d rather see exFAT burn in hell with its patents, it’s sad that we see this attempt instead.”

As pointed out here, “I examined exfat_super.c and compared it to fs/fat/misc.c, fs/fat/dir.c, fs/fat/namei_vfat.c, and fs/fat/file.c. I will avoid sharing my conclusions here, but any one else is free to look.”

exFAT needs to be killed at all costs. This is poison and those who develop it, be it a person or a brand (Samsung) needs to find other things to do. Right now it’s helping patent terrorists. GPL violations aside (the guilt cannot be established based only on allegations^*, but Samsung has poor history when it comes to GPL compliance), the main issue here should be patents.

A lot of people have berated the alleged leaker, but if it proves GPL violations, then it may as well justify the leak and serve as a case of whistleblowing. We shall wait and see how this story evolves. █
____
^* This page shows:

-MODULE_LICENSE("GPL");
+MODULE_LICENSE("Samsung Proprietary"); 

Summary: Misleading article helps portray the aggressor as a negotiator, using patently false claims that are easily disprovable

The notion of SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) is well understood in the legal world. If the cost of defending oneself in court is higher than the cost of settlement and the outcome at the court is not so crucial (e.g. if you make Android devices but not Android itself), then the legal system can be perturbed and radically manipulated. It enables people in suits to call ‘business’ what really is the direct equivalent of the Mafia demanding ‘protection’ money from local shops. It’s akin to what some label “financial terrorism”, evoking particular detrimental behaviour through economic strangulations.

“It enables people in suit to call ‘business’ what really is the direct equivalent of the Mafia demanding ‘protection’ money from local shops.”Matt Asay, whom we sometimes refer to as Mac Asay for his advocacy of Apple products and Microsoft apologism^*, has this article titled “Microsoft’s Mobile Patent Strategy: Threaten, Don’t Sue” (untrue, see TomTom and others, as it was definitely neither the first nor last). The article comes from a site formerly (until very recently) managed by an inflammatory anti-Linux man.

SLAPP tactics are not taken into account by Mr. Asay, so his hypothesis is misleading. It makes Microsoft look quite soft. Asay cites this article from many years ago and says “Microsoft has never been one to sue. In its long history, the company has only taken someone to court a small handful of times, and itself has had to pay out more than $9 billion in damages. Perhaps because of how hard Microsoft has been spanked by the courts, it has taken a different tactic with Google Android.”

This is nonsense. Microsoft sued plenty of times. We covered many examples.

“As reported by Reuters,” he continues, “Microsoft now makes far more on Android patent royalties than it does on its own Windows Phone OS. (For some this might make Microsoft a patent troll, but we’ll leave that for a separate blog post.) In fact, by some estimates Microsoft will clear $3.4 billion in Android royalty fees in 2013, and is on pace to top $8.8 billion within the next few years.”

“Truthfully, given Microsoft’s business practices, it deserves no real opportunity in mobile devices and its executives should be trailed for racketeering, among other abuses.”No evidence for that, as we noted the other day. These are mere guesses and FUD that Microsoft just loves printed/echoed in the media (it leads to intimidation against Android adoption by companies). There are numerous other issues with Asay’s article. He doesn’t use facts properly. But it it is easy to agree with his closing words: “It’s time to give Microsoft the chance to prove itself in mobile, too, rather than collect fees on others’ hard work.”

Truthfully, given Microsoft’s business practices, it deserves no real opportunity in mobile devices and its executives should be trailed for racketeering, among other abuses.

Gutierrez, Smith and other top lawyers, even Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates to some degree, are behind the racketeering. There is a law against racketeering and it should be put to use at long last. It was put there for a reason. █
____
^* Asay, a former Novell employee, routinely communicates with Microsoft employees and he was also interviewed for a job at Microsoft at one point, later letting the company intrude the FOSS world via OSBC, OSI, etc.

Summary: BlackBerry maker is said to have signed a FAT-related deal with the abusive monopolist

The increasingly struggling RIM is said to have recently signed a patent deal with Microsoft — one that helps traitors like Tuxera tax Linux through exFAT and similar file systems. This is legitimisation of FUD.

Tuxera and Novell are similar in this regard. RIM, unlike TomTom, did not take this to court and it’s likely to have stooped low for Microsoft because those two companies signed some deals before, e.g. Bing search and map.

“This is legitimisation of FUD.”Microsoft uses those deals to extort Google/Android backers including Samsung. Speaking of Bing and extortion, watch what Microsoft is foolishly doing: “A series of monumentally sloppy, automatically generated takedown notices sent by Microsoft to Google accused the US federal government, Wikipedia, the BBC, HuffPo, TechCrunch, and even Microsoft Bing of infringing on Microsoft’s copyrights. Microsoft also accused Spotify (a music streaming site) of hosting material that infringed its copyrights. The takedown was aimed at early Windows 8 Beta leaks, and seemed to target its accusations based on the presence of the number 45 in the URLs.”

Here is another set of good rebuttals to that. Microsoft has gone insane with so-called ‘IP’. █

THE fight against TomTom gave considerable force to Microsoft’s extortion-esque attacks on Linux. Unlike the Novell deal, this court case was about resistance to Microsoft, whereas Novell was the one that came to Microsoft, asking for the deal. Here we are in 2012, merely 3 years after the TomTom case and nearly 6 years since Novell came to Microsoft.

“Microsoft [is running scared from Germany because of #swpats”, writes Alan Lord, noting that just after the FAT decision and involvement from Linus Torvalds the Motorola case is weakened even further. We wrote about FAT recently because Microsoft is losing its patent teeth, which are rooted in lousy patent gums. One report on this subject comes from Reuters:

Microsoft (MSFT.O) is moving its European software distribution to the Netherlands from Germany after being caught up in patent disputes with mobile phone and tablet maker Motorola Mobility Inc (MMI.N).

“We would have preferred to keep our European distribution center in Germany, where it has been for many years. But unfortunately the risk from disruptions from Motorola’s patent litigation is simply too high,” Microsoft spokesman Thomas Baumgaertner said on Monday.

Foolishly enough, Reuters quotes another Microsoft mouthpiece and lobbyist (Florian Müller). As Microsoft is grooming its lobbyists and paying them to spread lies, it is possible to inject yet more Microsoft talking points into articles, then pretend they are from an “independent” source.

As under pressure this lobbyist admitted to be paid by Microsoft, a reputable news source like the above should refrain from quoting him in articles about Microsoft (also its rivals).

As one commenter put it in an external comments section when he saw the lobbyist quoted:

This is where I stopped reading, as I knew at that point that the article was going to be worthless.

This guy is like Gartner: always wrong, but somehow always quoted. How do I get a job where I can just make stuff up, always be wrong, and still get paid?

He is still spreading Android-hostile disinformation. “Both Oracle and Google, not content with letting Dr. Kearl, the court-appointed damages expert, introduce his damages report and testimony without challenge, have filed Motions to exclude portions of Dr. Kearl’s report. However, each party only seeks to exclude one narrow area of Dr. Kearl’s testimony,” says Groklaw when it became clearer that the trial goes on:

Oracle and Google are now set to go before the US District Court of San Francisco on 16 April. Oracle had turned down a settlement offer from Google last week which has led Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal to decide that the case will go ahead.

The war on Android is always based on software patents. Get rid of software patents, then the problem will mostly go away. SJVN notes that CISRO [1, 2, 3] is still exploiting Wi-Fi patents to essentially troll real companies:

Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CISRO) has snatched picked up $229-million from technology companies for their Wi-Fi patent. This time around, CISRO hit up Lenovo, Acer, Sony, AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile. These companies settled with CISRO rather than face in the infamously pro-patent Eastern District Court of Texas, United States.

This isn’t the first time CISRO has cashed in big with its overly-broad patent. The research arm of the Australian government hit up 14 companies in 2009, including HP, Microsoft, Intel, Dell, Netgear, Toshiba, 3Com, Nintendo, D-Link, and Buffalo Technologies, for over $200-million.

During Easter we shall catch up with patent news. We fell behind a bit. █

Summary: The primary patent extortion vector against Linux is falling apart with help from the creator of Linux

A FINNISH company called Tuxera is doing a lot of damage by making it standard practice to pay Microsoft for Linux, due to dubious claims of file system patents. Here is the latest attack from Tuxera and Microsoft. But another Finnish entity, Linus Torvalds, is meanwhile knocking down the very basis for this extortion, namely some controversial file system patents. As one writer put it:

Open source pin-up Linus Torvalds has managed to stuff up an important Microsoft patent which was being used to force Google Android and Linux handset users to pay up.

According to Wired, the Vole had forced many Android phone makers into paying licensing fees for various Microsoft patents related to operating system design.

It looked like Microsoft was vindicated when ITC Administrative Law Judge Theodore R. Essex found that Motorola had violated four Microsoft patents. But Torvalds helped convince the Administrative Law Judge that the patent was invalid.

So, will they issue a refund to many companies such as TomTom when this patent charade is buried? Here is the original article that everyone is linking to. It says;

Linus Torvalds just can’t help but be a thorn in Microsoft’s side.

First, he created an open source project that completely upset Microsoft’s business model. And now, he has helped shoot down an important Microsoft patent in Redmond’s crusade to wring licensing dollars out of Google Android and other versions of Linux.

Microsoft has coerced many Android phone makers into paying licensing fees for various Microsoft patents related to operating system design, and in some cases, it has actually taken legal action against such companies, including smartphone manufacturer Motorola. In October of 2010, it sued Motorola in federal court, and it filed a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission, or ITC.

Last December, Microsoft scored a victory when the ITC Administrative Law Judge Theodore R. Essex found that Motorola had violated four Microsoft patents. But the ruling could also eliminate an important Microsoft software patent that has been invoked in lawsuits against Barnes & Noble and car navigation device-maker Tom Tom.

According to Linus Torvalds, he was deposed in the case this past fall, and apparently his testimony about a 20-year-old technical discussion — along with a discussion group posting made by an Amiga fan, known only as Natuerlich! — helped convince the Administrative Law Judge that the patent was invalid.

This is very important news.

One debate which relates to this is whether software patents should be permitted in standards. The Business Software Alliance (BSA), a Microsoft front group, lobbies in favour and Glyn Moody takes note:

This is a perfect example of why this is not just about big companies versus little companies. Samba is not a company, and has no funds, and yet it has created and continues to develop one of the most widely-used pieces of software in the world. According to Mutkoski, it should be perfectly acceptable that this group of public benefactors – for that is what they are – should be denied access to key information held by a company that was found to have abused its monopoly, simply because that group has no funds. And that, in general, is what will happen if open standards are allowed to be FRAND, and not RF.

And to the argument that Samba did, indeed, obtain that key interoperability information, which proves the current system works, and doesn’t need changing, consider this. Samba obtained that information only because, once more, two things happened: a one-time access fee was charged, and a Fairy Godmother appeared to pay it.

But the point is, a belief that companies will always grant one-time fees, and that Fairy Godmothers will always magically turn up in the nick of time to save open source projects that otherwise will be excluded from key sectors, is not a basis for European policy making. The European Commission must plan on the basis of reality, not fantasy. The only rational way of protecting open source projects and allowing them to continue to make their contributions to society is to insist on RF, not FRAND licensing for open standards.

Of course, there is an alternative which Mutkowski may like to consider: that Microsoft commits irrevocably, perpetually and unconditionally to take on the role of Fairy Godmother by covering all FRAND fees that may be demanded from any open source project for implementing open standards.

exFAT is a major sham that should not be permitted as de facto standard because of patents. Now that the patents in question are scrutinised, might there be a massive refund for Microsoft extortion? Unlikely perhaps, but one can hope. █

Summary: Further discussion about the Casio extortion and what it might really be about

YESTERDAY we alluded to the 'deal' with Casio and unfortunately it’s mostly Microsoft boosters who cover it, so they do it in a shallow way that is not critical at all. Articles like this one do a disservice to justice. They are more like PR and not investigative journalism. This other coverage makes it seem like Casio is on equal footing and the most trollish article (article at The Register) plays along with Linux FUD, stating: “In the last four years, the software giant has been quietly threatening legal action for any Linux-using company that refuses to sign patent deals with it. Amazon, Novell, Linspire, TurboLinux and Xandros have all put their X on the dotted line. Others, like satnav maker TomTom, ended up in court, but eventually settled.”

And what exactly was TomTom sued over? That’s right, FAT. That’s hardly Linux at all and recently we learned from the OIN that some of those deals Microsoft called “Linux deal” are in fact just FAT deals. So caution is required, Microsoft is lying.

On USENET, the distinction between FAT and Linux is already being brought up. More people ought to start pressuring Microsoft to disclose what patents it claims to be involved. How many of them actually relate to Linux (if any at all)?

“More people ought to start pressuring Microsoft to disclose what patents it claims to be involved.”It is not just companies that need to be concerned about the lack of disclosure of patents. Customers are all paying the price for these extortions (cascading down to price tags and ending up in bank accounts of Microsoft billionaires), so antitrust regulators must really wake up and do their work on behalf of those customers. “Microsoft faces fresh antitrust probes in Ireland and Spain” according to another headline from The Register and this relates to what we mentioned yesterday. Both are about “licensing” and illegal tactics that somehow escape scrutiny.

“Microsoft is facing more antitrust scrutiny as Spanish competition authorities announced an 18-month review of Redmond’s licensing practices in Spain and Ireland,” says the article.

A translation from the complaint goes as follows: “This case originated in a complaint filed by Elegant Business SC for a possible breach of competition law.”

What are the European laws that may apply to Microsoft’s secret extortion racket? There would probably be a RICO Act equivalent and someone really needs to look into it. US regulators fail to do their job. █

Summary: Why software patents should be confined geographically, as Microsoft mostly manages to extort Linux distributors in few places that acknowledge patents (monopolies) on algorithms

LWN, one of the best Linux sites out there, says that In Re Bilski means “business [method patents] as usual” (that’s the headline).

“Business method patents nearly bite the dust,” says SCOTUS Blog in the headline. In summary:

Reflecting on Justice Stevens’ lost majority opinion in Bilski

Brad Feld, a critic of this system [1, 2] with a long series of rants about software patents, previously wrote about “Why Bilski Really Means That Software Companies should leave the US” (snippets in Digital Majority).

The problem is made greater when countries other than the United States become equally hostile towards software developers and more friendly towards their lawyers.

According to this patents blog, there are changes in Germany that almost overlap horrible news about the Siemens case [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] and even Microsoft’s FAT patent (upheld in Germany).

The German Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof) has recently made clear that every court has to take into account preceding decisions of the European Patent Office (EPO) and of courts of other contracting states to the European Patent Convention (EPC) if these decisions essentially concern the same questions. Although there is no principle of precedence in Germany – neither in respect of German nor of foreign decisions –, the recent ruling of the Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof, 15 April 2010, Xa ZB 10/09 – “Walzenformgebungsmaschine”) requires more than just regarding other decisions with favour. Every court has the obligation to deal with the arguments brought forward in other – German, EPO or foreign – decisions.

Two years ago it was a Symbian-related case that seemingly brought software patents into Europe via the UK. Earlier this year Germany’s legal system was named as a similar type of culprit and it’s important to watch and report these precedences. According to this report, DENSO, which is based in Japan (where software patents are legal), has just signed a patent deal with Microsoft. Linux is not mentioned at all, except by The Register which brings TomTom‘s case into it (gymnastics in logic?):

Microsoft scored yet another patent licensing deal yesterday, this time with automotive tech firm DENSO Corp.

[...]

Famously, Microsoft’s original court allegations over the three file management patents involved TomTom’s use of the Linux kernel, and according to Redmond at the time the settlement provided TomTom with coverage under those three patents in a way that was compliant with TomTom’s obligations under the General Public License Version 2 (GPLv2).

Many people must have noticed by now that Microsoft is capable of signing Linux-hostile software patent deals in the few places other than the United States (where Xandros, Linspire, and Novell are/were based) that acknowledge software patents. Examples include Fuji Xerox, Turbolinux, Kyocera Mita, and I-O Data (based in Japan too). It is therefore important to ensure that software patents never reach Europe, not in any formal sense anyway.

Korean giants like Samsung and LG have sold out to Microsoft as well (software patents are arguably valid over there). These two companies pay Microsoft for Linux on any items they sell, so it’s not clear why some Linux proponents are jubilant:

LG, Samsung big on Android

[...]

And now most other mobile phone makers, and those readying to ship tablet PCs, are embracing Android. Among them are LG and Samsung both of which are on the brink of releasing Android-based devices.

Microsoft makes money from those. It is better to buy an Android handset from Motorola, for example. █

Summary: How to put Microsoft’s and Novell’s Mono where it belongs (the garbage can)

SOMEONE has just published these instructions for removing Mono from the Ubuntu distribution of GNU/Linux and one reader of ours wrote an ode about Mono earlier today:

Alejandro Nova

Life with Mono – Mononono

They sold us it was free
>From someone else’s claims
The code began to show
And no one spoke at all
But when I asked to Novell,
If I’m protected…
Ingenue

Ingenue
I just don’t know what to do

GNOME-sized avenues
Brought us a perfect doom
F-Spot, Banshee and a paint
Made us target for threats
But if you still trust MS
Then you are a complete…

Ingenue

Ingenue
I just don’t know what to do

Ingenue
I just don’t know what to do

For reasons we explained before, Mono is a gift to Microsoft and a Trojan to GNU/Linux. Even Canonical's CTO is aware of the issues associated with Mono. According to this uncertain post from Groklaw, Microsoft’s preparations for lawsuits against GNU/Linux (like SCO and later TomTom) may take a long time to ‘cook’ before action is taken. Groklaw’s post uses evidence that we covered a year and a half ago [1, 2, 3, 4], thanks to Comes vs Microsoft exhibits.

What did Microsoft know about SCO’s plan to attack Linux, and when did it know it? And was it a force behind it?

[...]

But now, thanks to a volunteer working on doing the exhibits in the Comes v. Microsoft antitrust litigation as text, we find an email thread in Exhibit 8953 [PDF] where Microsoft employees, including the managing director of Microsoft in India at the time, mention SCO in a discussion about heading off the Linux threat in India. The emails are dated September 11, 2002. Given the date, I believe this opens up the question of Microsoft’s involvement once again. At a minimum, it needs clarification. If it doesn’t demonstrate Microsoft knowing about SCO’s plans before they unfurled, what does it mean? I’d like Microsoft to tell us. Because I have a lot of questions about the email thread.

[...]

If you recall, EDGI was about pushing Microsoft in India so as to head off Linux and StarOffice use there in government and education. This email says Bill Gates thought they should just give away their software in India and wherever necessary to head off the threat, and that is part of what is being discussed, because some disagreed about giving it away for free. But EDGI was not restricted to India; it could be implemented wherever needed.

I believe this exhibit may be a smoking gun. At a minimum, it calls for clarification, and if and when SCO v. IBM starts up again, I believe it could provide a basis for limited discovery on this very topic or if Michael Anderer is put on the stand, it opens up a fruitful thread. Regulatory bodies are also completely free to investigate whether it was indeed Microsoft using SCO as an anti-competitive weapon against Linux in violation of antitrust law.

The email mentions Novell, SCO and Trishul, and I thought it might be referring to an inside name for the strategy, since that is the name of a Trident air defense missile (“The Trishul air-defense missile is intended to counter a low level attack with a very quick reaction time and has an all weather capability.”), but it is also possible it’s referring to a Microsoft employee who heads up the Runtime Analysis & Design research group, so I’ve written to him asking him which it might be or if he can clarify the email. Meanwhile, take a look. The reference to Novell is more puzzling, but it is certainly possible, given the evidence that SCO thought Novell would join them, that Microsoft back then thought so too.

This fascinating part of an antitrust exhibit about EDGI and the mentioning of SCO was covered by Techrights last year, but for those who are interested in a detailed analysis and some background, the above will do. Mono — like FAT — is a form of an ambush. Microsoft recently validated a FAT patent in Germany. But Mono is not just about software patents; it’s about controlling developers and it’s developed/coordinated by a Microsoft MVP. █

Summary: Software patents apparently encounter new barriers in the USPTO, whereas in Europe there is a reversal which seems to contradict EPO rules

Microsoft’s business model currently depends on software patents, which is why it has hired lobbyists and recruited front groups to lobby for them all around the world. Yesterday we used Hugo Lueders (CompTIA) as an example, not a scapegoat. CompTIA has lobbies for software patents in Europe even this month.

According to Benjamin Henrion, the president of the FFII (Europe-based), having seen some months ago that the Bilski decision started killing software patents, there might be more of the same. Henrion points to this news and asks: “USPTO starts rejecting software patents?”

From the source:

BPAI Remanding Cases Involving Computer-Oriented Means-Plus-Function Claims

In Ex party Rodriguez, the BPAI rejected a patent applicant’s means-plus-function (MPF) claims as indefinite for failing to provide any corresponding structures in the specification beyond a general purpose computer. That decision followed the Federal Circuit’s Aristocrat holding that “simply disclosing a computer as the structure designated to perform a particular function does not limit the scope of the claim to ‘the corresponding structure, material, or acts’ that perform the function, as required by section 112 paragraph 6.”

This is important news because it’s a software patent on the face of it. A few days ago we saw a film about In Re Bilski being released [1, 2] and there are long discussions about it these days [1, 2]. There is increasing pressure to see the end of software patents.

Ironically, while the US seems to be moving in a better direction, Germany messes up royally by upholding Microsoft’s FAT patent after it was rejected. [via]

The German appeal court has overturned a decision by the German Federal Patent Tribunal to declare Microsoft’s patent for the File Allocation Table (FAT) file system invalid. In judgement number X ZR 27/07, handed down on Tuesday, the tenth civil division of the Karlsruhe-based court confirmed the enforceability of the company’s commercial rights in Germany. It has not yet published its reasoning, but has confirmed the decision in a short press release (German language link).

Some readers have told us about this disruptive development because it relates to the TomTom case and it affects Linux. On the face of it, Scharen is involved but it might be Richter Scharen, not Uwe Scharen, whom we consider to be in Microsoft's fold. █

Summary: Bezos and Ballmer have more in mind than just Windows preference, ‘Linux tax’, and software patents; they also set dangerous precedence in the EPO

A FEW days ago we showed that Amazon does not care about Free software and that its deal with Microsoft was an attack on GNU/Linux [1, 2, 3]. Amazon — now filled with former Microsoft executives — is helping Microsoft’s cause against GNU/Linux, using software patents. Nick Farrell takes Glyn Moody’s scary headline (which we criticised last week) and turns it into another scary headline that says “Microsoft might be planning a patent attack on Linux” (it’s an exaggeration, but Microsoft has already sued TomTom, which is based in Europe).

“Amazon — now filled with former Microsoft executives — is helping Microsoft’s cause against GNU/Linux, using software patents.”Amazon’s history with regards to software patents is very bleak (not to mention remote deletion, DRM, and SaaS). In particular, Amazon has been accused of making a mockery out of the system by pursuing a monopoly on “one-click shopping” in several countries and continents. It turns out that Europe too is included. The president of the FFII cites this post and says that the “EPO validates the Amazon One-click cousin patent (send as a gift), proof that they grant software patents in Europe”

For those who needed another reason to boycott Amazon, here it is. Microsoft is doing the same thing to the EPO and even brags about it. They found workarounds, so they fool the system and ignore the rules.

In other patent news we have:

• UK keeps three times as many patents secret as the US

UK patents are being declared state secrets more than three times as often as those filed in the US, according to information released to New Scientist.

An average of nine secrecy orders were imposed for every 10,000 patents filed in the UK since 2003, compared with less than three per 10,000 filed in the US, figures released for the first time by the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) reveal.

• MBTA sued for patent infringement over e-mail alerts on late trains, buses [via]

A pair of foreign companies today sued the MBTA, alleging the system it uses to notify passengers of late trains and buses violates two patents they hold for compiling information on the whereabouts of vehicles and then notifying people of their status.

• False Marking: Lobbying against the Senate Bill

The false patent marking law imposes a fine on companies that label unpatented products as patented “for the purpose of deceiving the public.” Currently, the law allows any citizen to sue false markers on behalf of the federal government and any fine awarded by the court is split between the citizen who brought the case and the government.

Patent law needs reform or abolishment. It offers no value to programmers (they already enjoy copyrights) and it jeopardises many people's lives. █

–Mark Shuttleworth

Summary: Why Microsoft’s “extortion” is a serious offence that mustn’t be overlooked; How Free software deals with software patents at present

CHIN Wong from the Philippines is an excellent journalist, but in his latest column he seems to have gotten soft on Microsoft. In writing about Steve Ballmer's potential departure he asserts the following about software patents:

Would you fire Steve Ballmer?

[...]

A US federal appeals court upheld a $290-million judgment against Microsoft Corp. and ordered it to stop selling MS Word unless it removed code that violated the software patent of an obscure Canadian company, i4i, that sued it in Texas and won.

The ruling is ironic, given Microsoft’s use of software patents earlier this year to bludgeon TomTom, a Dutch maker of car navigation systems, into settling over its use of the Linux kernel. Ballmer has bellicosely proclaimed that the kernel violates several Microsoft’s patents and has threatened to sue developers and users alike over its use. The company’s suit against TomTom in February was the first time it tried to enforce these patents against the Linux platform.

The author focuses on the TomTom case but misses the more important point about Microsoft using racketeering tactics, which ought to send people like Steve Ballmer to prison (and bring Bill Gates back to court for crimes that he too had helped commit and initiate).

Over in India, a new article from Shree Lahiri makes the decent proposition that “Freedom of software [should be treated as] our birthright” and he also acknowledges Richard Stallman, crediting him in part for the protests against software patents. Lahiri writes:

Freedom of software is our birthright

[...]

Tracing the history of free software, Abhijit said, “In 1984, Richard Stallman started the Free Software Foundation and spent most of his time advocating for free software, as well as campaigning against both software patents and what he sees as excessive extension of copyright laws.”

Speaking of Stallman’s contribution to saner law, where are OIN, Linux Foundation and other IBM fronts when it comes to just abolishing software patents? They have other strategies in mind. The FSF and FFII seem to be among very few who are actively committed to the cause. The EFF’s squashing strategy and Peer2Patent’s gardening or voluntary peer review process are still considered somewhat controversial. Here is a new article from The Register that in some way legitimises software patents for the same reason; by labeling them “good” and “bad” (mostly bad) it tacitly claims that some of these patents are acceptable. OIN very explicitly takes this point of view, whereas for Peer2Patent it is still just implicit.

The best (of the worst) patent claims of 2009

[...]

El Reg is always eager to lap up the sad, eerie, and unusual of the bunch as they fall into our sights. We’ve gathered up a few of our 2009 favorites published in honor of the year’s end.

A patent is a monopoly, based on the words of the head of the USPTO. Schools rhetorically teach that monopolies are harmful to capitalism, so what gives? More importantly, why is there no police involvement when these monopolies are (mis)used for racketeering [1, 2]? To ignore this is to accept that Microsoft is above the law. █

“IP is often compared to physical property rights but knowledge is fundamentally different.”

–IP Watch on Professor Joseph Stiglitz

Summary: Patent news from the United States, Europe, and a middle-eastern nation

Nokia and Apple are two patent monsters that we have warned about for years. They are now clashing with one another, so it’s mutual and counter-productive.

Responding to a lawsuit brought against the company by Nokia, Apple® today filed a countersuit claiming that Nokia is infringing 13 Apple patents.

Apple’s response is covered in many news sites [1, 2, 3] and even the Web site of Miguel de Icaza, who refused the see the writings on the wall when Microsoft sued TomTom (and before the FSF made its famous statement regarding Mono).

Over in the UK, the government is doing something rather bizarre with patents:

On the assumption that this is not a practical joke, it now seems that the British government is set to tax the fruits of research and development in order to fund … research and development. What a wonderful incentive to invest, particularly when other countries are encouraging R&D by doing the exact opposite. Merpel says, don’t worry: Britain’s best tax brains will soon find ways of showing that the income in question isn’t derived from patents at all, and the government’s coffers will be none the fuller.

See the comment from Sun’s Simon Phipps (a Brit).

Another Brit, Glyn Moody, has found even more bizarre stuff:

Objectivists: ‘All Property is Intellectual Property’

[...]

In other words, if you take a principled approach to IP, you endorse a system that condemns society to stagnation and death. So most proponents, like Rand, realizing this, start making ad hoc, unprincipled, utilitarian exceptions to avoid the most obvious, harsh consequences of a principled implementation of their confused IP ideas.

“Greed knows no bounds,” claimed Microsoft some years ago. It was referring to lawyer fees.

Over in Israel too, the threat of software patents is now looming.

As I have explained in this blog in earlier articles, I consider the copyright double protection idea is problematic since copyright protects the embodiment of the idea and not the idea itself. Why shouldn’t a software invention be protectable against reengineering? Is a 70 year protection against copying of any value in a field where a generation is usually 2 years? Considering software not technical is ridiculous. software is rightly considered an engineering discipline. Since algorithms can be hard-wired into chips or by a machine with valves, the concept of software being different from hardware is somewhat arbitrary. Nevertheless, Lord Justice Jacobs has presented powerful arguments as to why software patents are not in the interest of promoting progress and there is a large open-source community.

Abolishers of software patents (led by the FSF’s Ciarán O’Riordan) have already built this resource page about the subject.

The Israeli Patent Office (IPO) has launched a consultation on whether or not to allow software patents, with a February 2010 deadline. I’ve put the details at the end of this post, but first some background.

* The IPO consistently rejects software patents and business method patents. Examples:
o The 2005 rejection of the 142049 website patent
o The September 2006 rejection of the 131733 sales coupons patent
* Patent Attorney Ehud Hausman, with the support of international pro-swpat lobby group AIPPI, has been trying since 2007 to change this.
* He claimed in May 2008 to have partly convinced the IPO to grant software patents (but no change on business method patents). I’ve no third-party confirmation of this.

Who is funding these lobbyists? They are working for their own wallets. █

“Plager said he regretted the unintended consequences of the decisions in State Street Bank and AT&T. Those rulings led to a flood of applications for software and business method patents, he noted. If we “rethink the breadth of patentable subject matter,” he said, we should ask whether these categories should be excluded from patent protection.” —US. Senior Judge S. Jay Plager, speaking at a symposium at George Mason University

Summary: The nastiness of patents puts itself up on display and herein we share the truth about this ill system, based on the latest news alone

THIS is a collection of news items that affect Free software by means of law.

Microsoft and Rambus Ambushed the Industry

Microsoft’s de facto PR machine is working to create another patent scare. Mary Jo Foley’s role was mentioned earlier and Ina Fried follows with promotion of exFAT patents.

The File Allocation Table (FAT) format is also licensed out by Microsoft, although its patents there have been the subject of contention, particularly since many distributions of Linux include the FAT formats.

This is also covered by the Microsoft bunch at Ars Technica (Emil) and other Microsoft reporters.

In February 2009, news broke that Microsoft had filed a patent infringement lawsuit against TomTom, alleging that the device maker’s products, including some that are Linux-based, infringe on patents related to Microsoft’s FAT32 filesystem. In March 2009, Microsoft and TomTom settled their controversial patent dispute, TomTom licensed the patents from Microsoft, and stated its intent to remove from its Linux kernel the code that is covered by the patents.

We have covered the TomTom case very extensively and also explained why Microsoft had ambushed the market with FAT. Microsoft is not alone though.

Rambus used submarine patents (or an ambush) in order to penalise all of its competitors [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. Rambus was brought to court over this type of abuse and right now it is trying to escape punishment in Europe.

The American memory chip designer has been fighting allegations that it intentionally concealed that it had patents and patent applications connected to DRAM chips, which later became an industry standard. It’s accused of charging abusive licensing rates for the technology once its “patent ambush” was sprung.

In an hypothetical industry that prioritises progress, Rambus and Microsoft deserve to have the patents in question rubbished and all royalties previously paid to them refunded over time. If the patent system becomes a tool of deception, then The Christian Science Monitor is probably right and the patent system (including USPTO) deserves to be rubbished along with all those patents. To quote Richard Stallman (regarding EPO earlier this year [1, 2] ): “The European Patent Office is a corrupt, malicious organisation which should not exist.” Stallman argues that if it stands in our way, then we should “get rid of it too.”

RPX: Return of the Uber-Patent Harvester

We previously wrote about RPX in [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. In short, it’s a useless behemoth that only accumulates patents and then offers “protection”. Georg Greve has just described RPX rather politely by writing “When your business plan is a euphemism for “protection racket”…”

Greve is the founder of the Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) and he links to what he describes as a “Good article on the reality of software patents.”

Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers is well known for the venture capital it brought to great innovations involving computers, health and energy. One of its latest startups is based on an entrepreneurial idea that may or may not be great but is very interesting: helping companies hand over money for mostly bogus legal claims involving patents.

This particular startup, RPX, doesn’t describe itself that way. In fact, it makes a good case that its goal is to help companies, many of them in the tech industry, make the best of the bad situation that is the U.S. patent system. The fact that patent holders and lawyers will end up with money they don’t deserve reflects nothing about RPX but a lot about a system filled with rot.

If you think patents protect plucky innovators and their groundbreaking inventions, you haven’t been paying attention. Patents have evolved into an extortion scheme that hurts real inventors far more than it helps them.

Of course it does. Patents are about protecting monopolies, not protecting innovation. It’s a protectionist measure where the “protected” subject is revenue, not science. It is about investors, not inventors.

There is this new transcript of Richard Stallman on software patents:

The Danger of Software Patents

This is the transcript of a talk presented by Richard M. Stallman on 8 October 2009 at Victoria University of Wellington.

There are also videos of previous Stallman talks which cover the same subject.

Patents Versus Survival

On a couple of occasions earlier this week we wrote about the harms caused to the environment by patents. Check out this new report:

Preservation of IP: One of Many Goals in Copenhagen

[...]

The Chamber’s Global Intellectual Property Center (GIPC) has been front and center in this debate, and our position is clear: if governments are serious about addressing climate change, and all agree that new technologies are a vital part of the answer, then IP laws and rights need to be protected in any Copenhagen agreement. Indeed, in our view, a Copenhagen Summit with NO mention of IP at all is a successful conclusion. Current international laws and norms are working, and need to be preserved.

To which Glyn Moody responds with:

Got that? Stuff the environment, we’ve got to protect the *important* things in life, like intellectual monopolies…

Indeed. Here is a touching report on the subject. █

Summary: Apple’s software patents harm/distract the Web and Linux; Microsoft’s software patents harm/distract Linux; The Gates Foundation makes more investments in patents

EARLIER THIS year we wrote about Apple's abuse of the Web using software patents (Apple also threatened to sue over Linux devices). What’s troubling is that both Apple and Microsoft have a chair at the HTML Working Group (W3C) and Apple can be quite a bit of a bully, which now leads the W3C to modifying APIs.

The W3C has spent the last three months poring over Apple’s patent on remote updating, and the web standards organization thinks the patent can be avoided by careful wording and tweaking a couple of APIs.

Software should not be patentable in the first place and the above is a waste of the W3C’s time. What is Apple trying to ‘protect’ anyway? It also publicly attacked Ogg.

NewsWeek has this new report which targets the hype behind the iPhone and the reality behind developing for Apple [via].

Seeking fortune and fame, entrepreneurs rushed to create programs for Apple’s App Store. That’s not always what they found.

So basically, there may be no more money contributing to Apple’s ecosystem than there is in helping Free(dom) software. It was similar with Palm OS.

Moving on to some other software patents, our reader Yuhong Bao claims that Microsoft’s loadable module [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8], which was originally a GPL violation, completely hid this important item of news about the workaround for Microsoft’s FAT LFN patent. From the summary:

Only hours after Microsoft’s Hyper-V Linux patch, tridge submitted a revised workaround patch for MS’s FAT LFN patents. If you don’t remember, the original patch was in response to MS suing TomTom over these patents. This revised version provides better compatiblity, particularly with Windows 98, portable MP3 players, as well as mtools.

More and more people are becoming uncomfortable with the patent system, which a writer at Information Week is now denouncing. His complaint is summarised as follows:

Let’s remember the original purpose of the patent system: to encourage innovation and its broader benefits, not to make people rich.

As Gates and Microsoft grow closer to bankers, worth noticing is this item in the news about JPMorgan and the Gates Foundation hooking up. The Gates Foundation also does more of its notorious investments in patents (i.e. monopolies).

The Gates Foundation funding is for a global decision facility for patents and how they impact on innovation.

The Gates Foundation also invests heavily in patents on life, patents on agriculture (GM crops/foods), and Gates himself started a patent-hoarding firm.

This relates rather nicely to what we wrote this morning about Mirosoft and swine flu. The following segment of a talk provides more insight into the real impact of patents. Patents are not what people are led to believe they are. █

“While I recognize the great value and importance of prescription drugs and strongly support a continued U.S. focus on pharmaceutical research and development, our nation’s seniors cannot be asked to subsidize the drug costs of other wealthy industrialized nations any longer.”

–Michael K. Simpson

–Microsoft [PDF]

Summary: Bits of analysis of Microsoft’s mistakes on Web and document standards

IT IS no secret that Microsoft dislikes open standards; they are not good for the shareholders. The integrity of the company often comes later than short-term gain, so it is not a wise strategy, either. According to this gem, it has just become apparent that OOXML is nothing more than a reactionary move caused by the advent of ODF. It was known all along but there is new compelling evidence to support such an argument.

James D. Mason says:

I spent 22 years as the chairman of what is now ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34. SC34 is the committee that standardized SGML in the 1980s and now is responsible for both ODF, supported by many open-source products, and OOXML, the XML released by Microsoft in response to ODF. Neither ODF nor OOXML has anything to do with ODA/ODIF, which have been dormant since the turn of the current century but were still under development in the 1990s in a committee that was parallel to the one that became SC34.

Our past analysis: OOXML is a response. Thank you very much for the confirmation. Stronger language from Mason found in this article.

Thanks to Andre for finding this out. In his country, Germany, Microsoft has been using Fraunhofer essentially as a shill for OOXML. In light of the very latest deception form Fraunhofer, Jones wrote at Groklaw (News Picks):

ODF is totally open to the world. So where might the bottleneck be found, class? Did you really, really think that Microsoft intended there to be real interoperability? Some of us recall very well what happened in Germany in the OOXML approval process and the role this institute played. Remember their words, as translated from the German by a Groklaw volunteer? –

“The beginning standardization procedure of Office Open XML as an ISO standard will lead to a technological development of both standards – Office Open XML and ODF 1.0. The constructive comments that have been made alongside the DIN approval from leading experts guide the way in direction of interoperability” says the head of the department e-Government at Fraunhofer FOKUS and head of the DIN work group translation of document formats. “We at Fraunhofer FOKUS e-government-lab will support the procedure effectively and accompany our lab-partner Microsoft as a member of ECMA International with our know-how in implementing our recommendations.”

In relation to the patent assault on Free software, Jones later used the OOXML saga as an example too, remarking that it proves Microsoft never wanted to interoperate. “Like Microsoft will run right out and do that [give up on patent threats]“, she wrote, “because it just spent a fortune building up a patent portfolio, and it doesn’t plan on using them against Linux. Dream on. It’s not about hating any company, but there is enough water under the bridge to be able to predict that Microsoft probably will use those patents aggressively, as they already did in the TomTom case, and as they do in FUDly ways already. And what makes anyone think Microsoft wishes to interoperate, after watching the OOXML saga? Best to be realistic about Microsoft. The Linux Foundation may feel it has to say stuff like that, but I don’t.”

Microsoft has a long history of fighting against standards rather than accepting that they are needed. Eventually, inevitably, Microsoft joined ODF but did so poorly in a way that may only harm ODF [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. And now it may do the same to HTML5. As CNET puts it:

The World Wide Web Consortium’s HTML Working Group had been led by IBM’s Sam Ruby and Microsoft’s Chris Wilson. Wilson has stepped down and is being replaced by two others, Paul Cotton, who manages Microsoft’s Web services standards team, and Maciej Stachowiak, who manages Apple’s WebKit WebApps team, according to an e-mail announcement by W3C Director Tim Berners-Lee.

Why are freedom-hostile companies put in charge of the W3C HTML Working Group? We asked that question a couple of days ago, mystified.

“Jimmy the Geek” from Linux Today writes:

About 4 years ago. I could see that Vista was going to kill any momentum that Microsoft had picked up from XP and I was right. I even called the layoffs happening this year.

Sadly some of my friends are caught up in the whole MS layoff situation, which sucks.

My prediction for the next 5 years? Microsoft is going to do a Novell. They are going to try to keep doing what they have always done, despite losing more and more and more market, until in the end they are forced to adopt open source as their core OS.

Well, until then, Microsoft will suffer financially, quarter after quarter. █

–Larry Goldfarb, Baystar, key investor in SCO

Summary: As the SCO lawsuit falls deeper into oblivion, it is worth relating this to existing new lawsuits (TomTom and Melco, both settled)

YESTERDAY we came across this curious comment about Microsoft, which said: “if/when their revenue get down far enough… i will expect to see more lawsuits being initiated by MS…. when that start to happen.. MS will have officially “jumped the shark” as they say..“

Based on Larry Goldfarb’s testimony (under oath), it seems safe to say that Microsoft has at the very least funneled money into SCO. Whether Microsoft is also responsible (in part) for initiating the SCO lawsuit is a separate question which we can only speculate about based on circumstantial evidence.

Apart from that, many reporters seem to have not paid attention to Microsoft’s lawsuits against TomTom and against Melco. Both lawsuits were against Linux and they came directly from Microsoft. They came at a stage when SCO was too deep inside a hole, so its ‘FUD factor’ was pretty much annulled. For those who have not been following the SCO saga as of late, in chronological order we have:

• Groklaw Unearths Another SCO Scandal; SCO Heads Sued for Theft, Computer Fraud and Abuse
• More on the Amazing Story Behind SCO (and Possibly Microsoft)
• SCO Scandals Get Worse: unXis Seems to be All About SCO
• IBM’s Latest Filing Regarding SCO Bankruptcy Mentions “Fraud”
• SCO Scandals Finally in the News
• SCO and Darl McBride Paid $100,000 to Steven Norris
• Link Found Between Potential SCO Rescuers and Microsoft
• SCO Lies About Hans Bayer

With all these scandals behind, it turns out that unXis will not be allowed to buy SCO’s assets after all. From The Register:

A US judge has blocked SCO’s attempt to sell off part of its business in order to fund its ongoing litigation, and appointed a Chapter 11 trustee to oversee the company’s next moves.

SCO was hoping to sell off some of its assets, in order to fund its court battle against IBM and Novell for claimed Linux licenses. For its part, SCO said it was glad not to be pushed into Chapter 7 – full liquidation of the firm.

[...]

Support from Microsoft added to suspicions that the case was designed to put litigation-wary enterprises off using Linux.

The next stage was this appointment of bankruptcy trustee

In the latest development to emerge from the sordid SCO saga, a bankruptcy judge has blocked SCO’s proposed asset sale while denying Novell’s motion to force the company in to Chapter 7 liquidation. In his decision, the judge says that SCO’s hopes of successful litigation against prominent Linux vendors are like Samuel Beckett’s play Waiting for Godot.

The SCO Group attempted to stave off liquidation in June by signing a last minute deal with Gulf Capital Partners and a tech firm called unXis. The terms of the agreement, which were finalized only moments before a court hearing, stipulated that SCO would sell its remaining UNIX assets for $2.4 million—a maneuver that could have potentially made it possible for SCO to continue pursuing its bogus litigation against the open source Linux operating system.

Groklaw was the centre of attention regarding this important development.

The judge in the SCO bankruptcy has ruled at last. SCO’s motion to let it sell to unXis is denied. There could be an auction later. The motions to convert to Chapter 7 by IBM, Novell and the US Trustee’s Office are also denied, but alternative relief is granted, and there will be a Chapter 11 trustee appointed. IBM and Novell agreed that a Chapter 11 Trustee was appropriate if he did not convert to Chapter 7, and that is what he has done. That means presumably that SCO management no longer run this show.

There are over 820 comments on that one (which is a rare number by all means) and Heise covered it too, summarising it thusly:

A Chapter 11 trustee has been commissioned to take over the business affairs of the SCO Group, which is threatened by bankruptcy. The trustee will work to guide the company out of the impending bankruptcy according to Chapter 11 of US bankruptcy code, but can also send the company into liquidation according to Chapter 7 and auction individual company assets to the highest bidder. With this order, the Bankruptcy Court in Delaware has removed SCO’s executive board.

Groklaw has a corresponding transcript.

The bankruptcy judge partly bought it, as you know, although he blocked the sale to unXis, questioning their good faith, which is of course why IBM and anyone would care about a sale to them, but for us, who have followed the SCO litigation so closely for six years now and saw SCO’s malice toward Linux with no evidence on the table the public has ever seen, it’s a wonderful laugh. SCO’s “potent claims”, indeed. What IBM and Novell “have done to SCO”. SCO sued them, actually. And Novell prevailed totally against SCO’s allegations of slander of title, which was what SCO sued Novell over, a claim which SCO humiliatingly lost. SCO is not appealing that claim. Just read it for yourself. Page 2 of SCO’s appeal brief lists the issues on appeal, and SCO’s claim of slander of title is not on the list.

Why doesn’t SCO just give up? Is its goal to win this lawsuit or just to prolong the agony and — along with it — the fear, the uncertainty, and the doubt? █

“[Microsoft's] Mr. Emerson and I discussed a variety of investment structures wherein Microsoft would ‘backstop,’ or guarantee in some way, BayStar’s investment…. Microsoft assured me that it would in some way guarantee BayStar’s investment in SCO.”

–Larry Goldfarb, Baystar, key investor in SCO

AS we pointed out over the weekend [1, 2], the SFLC and FSF are in alignment with Richard Stallman's views on Mono and so are many others. But Bradley Kuhn has just made it more official with a long essay at the SFLC’s Web site. It’s a recommended read.

In an essay last Friday entitled Why free software shouldn’t depend on Mono or C#, RMS argued a key point that I agree with: the software freedom community should minimize its use of programming language infrastructure that comes primarily from anti-software-freedom companies, notwithstanding FaiF (Free as in Freedom) implementations. I’ve been thinking about an extension of that argument: that language infrastructure created in a community process is likely more resilient against attacks from proprietary software companies.

Here is another new perspective:

I think it is interesting that he thinks that it is the “‘best technology’ Linux camp” that is the camp that offers the greatest threat to Microsoft. I can understand why some may think that this is true since this camp is creating flashy and very useful products and features that increase the appeal of Linux. However, mono is not the only tool that the “‘best technology’ Linux camp” has at its disposal. Many view the use of the Qt toolkit as a better alternative, and one that does not have the risk associated with mono. Furthermore, I do not agree with the thought that “‘best technology’ Linux camp” is the one that Microsoft feels most threatened by. I think Microsoft is only threatened by the combination of both camps.

I view mono as a distraction for FOSS developers. Yes, there are some practical advantages in its use, but there are a lot of questions surrounding it. It has the potential of dividing the two mayor camps of Linux contributors. It will be interesting to see what comes out of this controversy.

Since Nokia’s Qt toolkit is mentioned above, here is what KDE developers say on the subject (mind the good comments) and here is what Jack Wallen thinks about Novell’s role.

If Microsoft is threatening patents against .NET, it would seem to me that the Novell/Microsoft relationship didn’t really work out all that well. And now Microsoft is back to their old tricks. And what should the Linux and open source community do about this? Should another deal with Microsoft be made? Is the seamless communication between Linux and Windows worth making a deal with a partner that is only going to turn around and stab you in the back again and again and again?

The Register on the lessons to be learned from TomTom:

Although Stallman frequently speaks about the dangers of software patents on open-source, trust for Microsoft has run particularly thin recently because of the company’s legal attack on TomTom over a FAT patent dispute.

Stallman urged the community to instead distribute and recommend non-C# applications whenever possible to avoid Redmond lawyers from being able to disable major OS functions on a whim.

Microsoft neither retracted nor backed its accusations against Linux. Horacio Gutierrez from Microsoft said about Linux that “there is an overwhelming number of patents being infringed.” He named not even a single one, but Mono is an easy target and also a very unique one.

GNU/Linux users do not want Mono. Well, maybe with the exception of SUSE and Canonical, whose desktop engineering manager comes from Microsoft. In response to the many discussions stemming from Stallman’s essay, Canonical has published yet another statement about Mono.

The Ubuntu Technical Board has been asked for a position statement on the use of C#, specifically the Mono implementation, by applications in Ubuntu.

These applications, as well as the Mono stack, were proposed for inclusion like any other application and underwent the same review process that all new applications and platforms undergo before being accepted into the archive.

With specific regard to the default installed application set, applications have been reviewed and compared against each other on merit and features. These often take place during the Ubuntu Developer Summits, most recently over the default media player.

For those who prefer Ubuntu (like myself), here is a handy new guide: “How to Completely Remove Mono on Ubuntu” █

What Microsoft has

What Microsoft wants