IRC Proceedings: March 3rd, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
IRC Proceedings: March 4th, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
IRC Proceedings: March 5th, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
IRC Proceedings: March 6th, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
IRC Proceedings: March 7th, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
IRC Proceedings: March 8th, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
IRC Proceedings: March 9th, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rules of imperialism
Summary: Microsoft continues to distort the market by sending trolls, lawyers and politicians to impede Google’s business
Patent trolls using standards bodies to assault businesses with real products is what some people fear more than the occasional troll lawsuit. The cost of products depends heavily on innovation coming about in peaceful environments without patent tolls and filing of patents. Some companies feel like it’s fair to change the way the industry operates naturally and they fund entities that achieve this. Patent pools are one type of cartel which offers peace to members and extortion for the rest. MPEG cartel members are willing to get aggressive, too and they have just taken a shot at VP8:
In recent years, MPEG LA has been accused of inhibiting the innovation that it was designed to foster. Notably, the company’s practice of charging high licensing fees for patents that are near or past expiration has led critics to assert that the firm has placed profit above its core mission of cheap and accessible licensing of digital video patents. Technology market players have also alleged that MPEG LA has violated the terms of its original agreement with DOJ by failing to invite oversight of its licensing practices by independent experts, and neglecting to adhere to FRAND guidelines. A firm that was once a model (at least in theory) of the potential benefits from collaboration has morphed into one of the industry’s most notorious and most harmful players….
Notice the role of FRAND there. MPEG-LA is a patent troll in disguise (led by the troll Larry Horn) and it extorts WebM. Microsoft booster Peter Bright, who was spreading FUD against WebM for a while, whitewashes an extortion by Horn while Pamela Jones shows how close Horn is to Microsoft:
Cf. Mr. Horn’s involvement on behalf of Microsoft and once again against Motorola/Google in Microsoft v. Motorola in Seattle.
The news is not VP8 getting devoured but WebM getting extorted. Here is one report on the matter:
With the clearing of the patent issues that have cast a shadow over VP8′s acceptability to open standards organisations as a open, royalty-free video codec, it is likely that its next major stop is becoming an MPEG standard. According to Rob Glidden, video patent analyst, Google proposed VP8 as the codec for MPEG’s IVC in January. IVC is the name of one of the tracks that the ISO/IEC MPEG working group was exploring in its search for a royalty-free codec for web video and other uses. It had been looking at technologies where the patents were expiring.
What we see here is a law-bending move designed to derail patents-free standards. It is similar to what happened in the OOXML saga, where ISO too got used as a Trojan horse for patent-encumbered so-called standards. It is a vicious and corrupt battle where clueless politicians are often just used as tools for corporate profits and power. Not too long ago we saw Microsoft Facebook lobbying politicians to incite them against Google. Microsoft has far more lobbyists than everyone else in Europe (in the technology sector) and 17 lobbyists of Microsoft are identified in this article, lumping some of them together:
The biggest makers of Spyware are not Hackers… They are Companies like Google, Facebook, and Microsoft that make billions selling your personal likes, dislikes and opinions to an enormous glut of advertisers and social programmers. They would rather fight piracy on their collective own than have the Government regulate their blatant invasion of the public’s privacy.
Microsoft, the hypocrite, has for a long time been trying to use “privacy” against Google and it is using lawmakers to selfishly render their competition “illegal” again in Massachusetts. See this new report (the “think about the children!” strategy):
Microsoft is after Google again with a school privacy bill that could wipe out Google’s cloud-computing services for students.
Microsoft is backing a bill that targets Google’s Apps for Education, saying that these cloud-computing services are collecting data from schoolchildren for the purpose of creating better advertising or other commercial means.
“We believe that student data should not be used for commercial purposes; that cloud-service providers should be transparent in how they use student data; and that service providers should obtain clear consent for the way they use data,” said Mike Houlihan, a Microsoft spokesman. “We expect that students, parents and educators will judge any proposed legislation on its merits.”
The bill was unveiled in January, and is currently being considered by Massachusetts’s lawmakers. Microsoft has been very direct with the fact that it is behind this bill, and that Google is the target.
This is classic Microsoft, using lawmakers to help where Microsoft is losing. It is one form of corruption among several similar ones. █
Summary: Under many people’s noses, and with help from an army of lobbyists, Microsoft and its allies exclude their main competitors, through legislation
The FRAND debate has got lawyers dedicated to the matter [1, 2, 3] and there is a great deal of deception in the pipeline, promoting software patents through FRAND even in Europe. As Pamela Jones notes in her reply to the EU Commission’s page:
Note that, sadly, the Guidelines recognize patent licensing of software as legitimate (p. 5, plus first sentence, above, from the draft), although they seem to exempt non-practicing entities (p. 41, 133(c)) from the benefits of this acceptance. Another detail, on page 69, is: “Where the pool has a dominant position on the market, royalties and other licensing terms should be FRAND and licences should be non-exclusive.” I gather they are adopting Google’s suggestion that de facto standards should be licensed as FRAND. Someone needs to explain to them, though, that FRAND excludes the GPL, the license on Linux. The purpose of all this is supposed to be to encourage competition, after all. Instructions on how to email or mail the Commission with comments are on the linked page.
Incidentally, Jones explains why the EU fine [1, 2, 3] for Microsoft abuses is inadequate:
What about the fact that in effect Microsoft has been able to “buy” noncompliance? By that I mean, the browser screen was supposed to be made available for 5 years. It wasn’t made available for 14 months. Is the browser screen going to be kept in effect 14 months longer than the original cutoff date, to make up for that breach? According to this New York Times article, the date is still 2014. If so, Microsoft makes out like a bandit, once again. I’ve written to the EU Commission asking them about this issue, and I’ll post any reply I receive.
[...]
At least the EU Commission is doing something, which is more than the US is doing. But Microsoft… how can anyone still be naive about Microsoft? Why would any agency believe what they say without checking, setting up a system where nobody had to check up on them for two years, given the track record? And they can’t say nobody warned them.
[...]
And may I add, no agency should believe what they say about their competitors without checking, either. Take it from the US, where we watched Microsoft’s fancy dancing to delay obedience to the US compliance requirements after the US v. Microsoft case. The EU Commission itself has some experience with having to fine Microsoft to ensure compliance before, too. Now we have been watching Microsoft on an anti-Google FUD campaign, in the media and to regulators, along with its running dogs, all of whom complain about Google in chorus. I have concluded, personally, that Microsoft just doesn’t want to be the only tech company punished for anticompetitive behavior.
Right now Microsoft is using software patents (even in Europe) to extort its competition. Will the Commission recognise this? This is anti-competitive. █
Hear the partners…
Summary: The resentment against Windows is growing, even among OEMs and other sellers, who typically count for 80% of Windows ‘sales’
The failure which is Vista 8 needs to be highlighted because it’s yet another blow to remember amid the growth of Android (and Linux in other forms).
Samsung, which already uses Linux extensively in its products (not just Android), has its division president say that Vista 8 is no better than Vista. Ouch! And it’s not alone:
First it was Asus and Acer, then Fujitsu. Now Samsung has added its voice to the growing chorus of PC manufacturers whinging away about sluggish demand for machines running Microsoft’s new Windows 8 operating system.
Asked for his take on recent reports that the PC market will continue to contract through 2013, Jun Dong-soo — president of Samsung’s memory chip division — said he doesn’t expect the PC industry to rebound anytime soon. And if and when it does, that rebound won’t be driven by Windows 8.
The FOSS bashers write about ‘saving’ Vista 8, but it sure looks like a lost cause. All that Microsoft can do now is try to tax Android for its own bottom line. Samsung already pays Microsoft for Linux. █
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Guest Editorial Team
Community: Get involved
RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates
Site Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content
Site Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page
IRC Channels: Come and chat with us in real time
Design by Beccary and Weblogs.us · Valid XHTML · Valid CSS · Hosting by CoPilotCo · Part of Bytes Media
 |  |
Content is available under CC-BY-SA
