08.18.11
Posted in Bill Gates, Deception at 11:18 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Even the Seattle Times, just like a lot of for-profit publications, is being paid by Bill Gates while publicly worshipping him
“The Seattle Times received a $15,000 Gates grant through Seattle University for a series of stories on homelessness in 2010,” said an article we mentioned early in the year. The source of this article is the Seattle Times itself. Moreover, says a critic/watcher of the Gates Foundation:
Read the original article to see the graphics and sidebars, including one about Gates Foundation funding of the Seattle Times.
Can anyone confirm this?
“Gates funds public television and radio channels, even the BBC, which is already paid for by British taxpayers.”As for what we cannot confirm months after the report, well… the Seattle Times has been engaged in some kind of an SEO campaign to perform reputation laundering for the Gates Foundation, but this is nothing new. And the author of their Gates ‘fan blog’, Heim, lost her job after publishing the critical report above. Maybe she just didn’t play strictly by Gates’ rules anymore (despite being a huge fan and booster for Gates' agenda for years prior to this report).
The “Gates Foundation controls media through massive journalism grants” is one of the many headlines resulting from her piece that she wrote while still at the Seattle Times. It is a serious issue that nobody should ignore. We have seen many such examples before. Gates funds public television and radio channels, even the BBC, which is already paid for by British taxpayers. If he polices the press, then he can do almost anything he wish while portraying those who offer dissenting opinions as ‘out of line’ wrt the press he buys and controls. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
08.14.11
Posted in Bill Gates, Deception at 5:08 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: TFA lobbying and other Gates-funded groups that harm teachers, for control and for profit
LAST YEAR we wrote about TFA [EN | ES], the Gated-funded group that would help him privatise education (not just put Microsoft, Office and Windows in the classrooms and inside children’s minds at taxpayers' expense). The Seattle Education blog has some updates on this lobbying group, as well as others that are funded by Bill Gates through the Gates Foundation. It’s about business, not charity. Here is some of the latest:
• Why I am not a defender of the ‘status quo’ in education — because the ‘status quo’ is failed ed reforms
The status quo is national public education policy largely determined by unelected billionaires with zero expertise in education. “Venture philanthropists” Eli Broad and Bill Gates spend millions shaping public education policy. Formers staffers from the Gates Foundation now seed the Obama Administration’s Department of Education.
“Two of Duncan’s top aides, Chief of Staff Margot Rogers and Assistant Deputy Secretary James H. Shelton III, came from the [Gates] foundation and were granted waivers by the Administration from its revolving-door policy limiting involvement with former employers.”– “Bill Gates’ School Crusade,” July 15, 2010, Bloomberg Businessweek.
Obama’s secretary of education, Arne Duncan, and former chief economic adviser, Lawrence Summers, are both former members of the Broad board of directors. The “Broad Prize for Urban Education” is a trophy and large cash sum awarded annually by the private Broad Foundation to school districts performing to its liking. In its 2009-10 Annual Report, Broad boasts that the trophy itself “resides at the U.S. Department of Education.”
You couldn’t ask for a better symbol of the infiltration of private corporate interests into federal government.
Have Mr. Broad or Mr. Gates been elected to public office, or to direct education policy? Do either have any expertise or experience in public education? No and no. Do either seek genuine parent input? No.
• Teach for America’s Wendy Kopp is Coming to Town
The League for Education Voters, LEV, that same Broad-backed, Gates’ funded organization that brought us Kevin Johnson, a big proponent of charter schools who spoke to a mostly African-American audience in an African-American church in Seattle and by the way, the only event that was not held at the MOHAI Museum, Steve Barth with KIPP, and my personal favorite, Ben Austin with the Parent Trigger, is now sponsoring an evening with Wendy Kopp, the founder of Teach for America, Inc. (TFA), to extol the virtues of her organization.
• Seattle TV Audience Gives Big Thumbs-Down to School Superintendent’s “Strategic Plan” (& Supt. Goodloe-Johnson Misses Another Public Forum)
Also in the audience (most of the speakers were not identified by affiliation): Liv Finne of the conservative, business-centric Washington Policy Center, Michael DeBell and Steve Sundquist, the past and current presidents of the Seattle School Board, Estela Ortega from El Centro de la Raza, Chris Korsmo and I believe Lisa Macfarlane from the League of Education Voters (LEV), the Gates-funded group that has jumped on the ed reform bandwagon, teachers, parents, bloggers, including Charlie Mas and Melissa Westbrook from the Seattle Public Schools community blog, Sara Morris and Solynn McCurdy from the Alliance for Education (another Gates-funded, pro-corporate ed reform entity), school board candidate Michelle Buetow, and others.
• What Works
I believe that if you’re going to talk the talk you need to walk the walk.
You won’t see that with Obama’s choice of schools for his children or Gates for his children. Their talk is for other people’s children, not their own.
• Proposed House Bill 1609: More of the Same But Worse
This new bill proposed by, among others, our own Representative Reuven Carlyle who was instrumental in pushing through the ed reform Bill 6696 with the help of the Washington and Seattle PTA and the usual list of Broad backed, Gates funded suspects, states that when there are budget cuts and a reduction in force (rif) is required, that teachers should be fired based on their “performance”.
These teachers are not attacking Gates; they are defending themselves from Gates’ attack on their occupation and their children’s education. This is reactionary. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
08.13.11
Posted in Bill Gates, Marketing, Patents at 8:36 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Catching up with the mischiefs of Microsoft’s co-founder, who back in February had another PR blitz for self-promotion and selfish benefit disguised as “philanthropy”
WE are gradually catching up with old Gates Foundation news, handling the queue chronologically and starting where we last left off. For the uninitiated, Gates loves polio for PR reasons, even though the problem was mostly eliminated a long time ago and some of Gates’ existing investments actually cause polio, as we explained in previous years [1, 2, 3].
By controlling the corporate media just like he controls education (or strives to control it as it’s still an ongoing campaign), the facts might require proper research and sceptical analysis. We already published dozens of posts demonstrating very clearly that Gates is distorting the press with a budget of approximately a million dollars per day dedicated just to “advocacy” (i.e. media/press/PR). Our friends at Gates Keepers have found that “[t]wo newspapers of record present critical analysis of the Gates Foundation ‘megabucks against polio’ hype.” Quoting the remark preceding the examples (from the corporate press, not just some arbitrary blogs):
Two ‘newspapers of record’ have chosen to counter the flash and hype surrounding the Gates Foundation throwing money at polio eradication in order to present more balanced views. Journalists at The New York Times and Financial Times have done their homework.
It is still the minority of reports. A lot of journalists play safe by just getting along with Gates’ well-funded PR machine. Education too is becoming an area where antagonising Gates can get one dismissed. “Bill Gates (briefly) talks school reform with The [Washington] Post,” says this headline from the paper which may have expelled Melinda Gates after a scandal. The following story sounds familiar as we previously covered cases where Gates uses "health" as a Trojan horse to enter newspapers and then lobby them regarding entirely different subjects (there was a more recent example where he visited the New York Times for this purpose). Read the following:
Bill Gates dropped by The Post on Wednesday morning, mainly to plug his foundation’s campaign to eradicate polio, but we managed to squeeze in a few questions on education reform. The bottom line remains, unsurprisingly, unchanged: He’s a fan of measuring teacher effectiveness and a foe of teacher tenure.
Gates met with several writers and editors in The Post’s ninth-floor boardroom. On education, he was responding to questions from editorial writer Jo-Ann Armao, myself and editorial page editor Fred Hiatt.
(By the way, Melinda F. Gates, wife of the Microsoft founder, is no longer on The Post Co. board of directors. Warren E. Buffett, a major donor to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, serves on The Post board but plans to step down in spring.)
He neglects to say the reason. We covered that some months ago. It appeared like Melinda had (mis)used the paper to attack a potential rival. The Gates family does that a lot. Just watch what their lobbying operation does in order to take education away from public hands:
Joanne Barkan, writing in Dissent, argues that three big nonprofit foundations (the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation, and the Walton Family Foundation), working together, exert a “decisive influence” on public-school education.
To give another example from around the same time, we already mentioned “GOOD” being sponsored by Gates (how ironic for the name). Watch how “GOOD” is now being used to attack Gates’ competition:
Ann Marie Gardner has written an angry article in GOOD. It includes ad hominem attacks on Horton and others who don’t agree with Gardner and Bill Gates. Is this a GOOD idea? GOOD is funded by the Gates Foundation.
“The chief of malaria for the World Health Organization has complained that the growing dominance of malaria research by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation risks stifling a diversity of views among scientists and wiping out the world health agency’s policy-making function,” wrote the New York Times in 2008. See the trend here? Someone is monopolising. And even Al Jazeera stoops low enough and kneels for Gates:
Gates has been everywhere this week talking about eradicating polio. Here he talks about this plan on Al Jazeera English. It is very clear that the money is in one big pot right now, so who is going to leap for it? With so much power (re: $$$$), Gates is in the unique position to drive global health
More polio propaganda, going back to around February of this year.
In the coming weeks we hope to catch up with a pile of news we have missed. Microsoft may be going down fast (or becoming a patent troll like Bill’s friend, Nathan Myhrvold), but Bill will stay here for a long time to come, continuing to leech and exploit society with his patent monopolies, always ensuring that he bribes the press sufficiently so that it plays along (blind praise or at least self-censorship). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
06.24.11
Posted in Apple, Bill Gates, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Patents at 3:42 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
(ODF | PDF | English/original)
Resumen: Una mirada a algunos de los últimos grupos de presión en contra de “Linux” y el “Software Libre” a la luz de las noticias y los falsos “consejos” de seudo-”defensores”.
Las tácticas FUD de Microsoft han desarrollado a través del tiempo. Ya no vemos perpetuando mentiras acerca de las capacidades de GNU/Linux (o que es como el “comunismo”). Las nuevas tácticas FUD pintan Linux y Android como faltando el respeto de la ley (la llamada “IP”) y que es “no libre”. El monopolista ha estado contratando grupos de presión y en consecuencia hemos desenmascardado a algunos de estos antes. Algunos de ellos deben revelar sus fuentes de financiamiento con el fin de cumplir con la ley (la publicidad los debilita).
Cualquier experto u otra entidad que promueve la línea de Microsoft, acerca de las patentes pueden ser vistos como un respaldo a los chantajes que Microsoft se ha dedicado [1[http://techrights.org/2007/06/08/shuttleworth-on-racketeering/], 2[http://techrights.org/2009/07/17/racketeering-melco-microsoft/], 3[http://techrights.org/2009/12/29/microsoft-extortion-software-patents/], 4[http://techrights.org/2009/07/24/red-hat-on-microsoft-two-face/], 5[http://techrights.org/2009/09/08/staples-employees-anti-linux/], 6[http://techrights.org/2009/07/01/patent-racketeering-myhrvold/], 7[http://techrights.org/2008/02/22/open-for-patents/]], lo que es malo para las relaciones públicas y por el karma. La justificación de lo que Microsoft hace de las patentes es muy difícil, por lo que los expertos a menudo recurren a calumniar a los competidores de Microsoft. Hace unos años nos hemos referido a esta táctica como “igual de malos” troll, donde, básicamente, uno ‘defiende’ lo que Microsoft ha estado haciendo al decir que un competidor como IBM, Google o Apple es tan “malo” por alguna razón especifica (que por lo general no computa).
El año pasado un cabildero salió de la nada promoviendo una empresa que ya es en parte propiedad de Microsoft. Él consiguió algún tipo de acceso especial a documentos con los que calumnió a IBM. Él es lo suficientemente feliz para acusar a las empresas que no son trolls de patentes de “trolls”[http://techrights.org/2011/06/19/manipulating-the-news/], dejando las partes del cártel de Microsoft – Intellectual Ventures (IV)[http://boycottnovell.com/wiki/index.php/Intellectual_Ventures] incluido – intocables, no dijo NADA en contra de ella – No llamar a IV un troll, a pesar de que es el MAS GRANDE TROLL DE PATENTES DEL MUNDO. El nombre de este cabildero – lo has adivinado – es Florian.
En Groklaw, Pamela Jones pregunta, “¿adónde puede ir usted donde estará a salvo de trolls de patentes?”
Ella escribió lo siguiente en relación con Microsoft y trolls de patentes cuando añadió: “Además, el problema es más grande que los trolls de patentes. Recuerde que cuando Microsoft trató de vender las patentes para el uso en contra de Linux a los trolls de patentes? Trolls de patentes por encargo son un problema mucho más grande que sólo los trolls de patentes. Recuerde de dónde saco Lodsys sus patentes y la imagen se vuelve más clara. No es un ecosistema perturbado aquí, y el problema es que las patentes de software no debería haber sido introducidos al medio ambiente. Ahora son todo lo abrumador. La única solución verdadera es el software y las patentes para conseguir un divorcio. Y la única entidad que puede lograrlo es el Congreso”.
Esto fue escrito en relación con una patente de IV que se utiliza en contra de los desarrolladores de iPhone y de Android (pero no los desarrolladores de Windows). También escribió sobre el origen de esta patente en [1[http://techrights.org/2011/06/11/apple-reported-to-bundeskartellamt/], 2[http://techrights.org/2011/06/02/lodsys-and-intellectual-ventures/], 3[http://techrights.org/2011/05/18/apple-and-intellectual-ventures/]]. La única cosa buena acerca de las patentes es que no importa lo mucho que se contagian entre sí, los nombres de ellos no cambian, ni tampoco la lista de cambios, de hablar, o el cambio de la “propiedad” (sin embargo, es extraño que la idea de “vender” ideas pueda sonar). Por lo tanto, no es demasiado difícil mostrar a Microsoft en los detalles.
“¿Recuerden cuando Microsoft trató de vender las patentes a los trolls de patentes para su uso en contra de Linux? Trolls de patentes por encargo son un problema mucho más grande que sólo los trolls de patentes. Recuerden de dónde Lodsys sacó sus patentes y la imagen se vuelve aún más clara.”
–Pamela Jones, Groklaw
Basado sobre este tema[http://www.baumlegal.com/trollbusters/], “Lodsys LLC es una filial de Marshall, Texas, de Lodsys Holdings LLC, una LLC de Delaware. Algunos han especulado que el camino conduce a la propiedad de Intellectual Ventures “(sí, no noticias por ahora, por no mencionar que IV utiliza muchas otros projectiles de acuerdo a otros informes, por lo menos un millar de proyectiles, según una fuente).
“Leverage Si usted es amenazado con infracción de patente (y por qué usted debería ignorar FOSSpatents)”, dice el título de un post acerca de Microsoft Florian[http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Florian_M%C3%BCller] y la mala dirección que le da a los demandados por Lodsys, básicamente les instruye a rendirse y se niega a decirles lo IV es en realidad y dónde nos lleva de nuevo a (Microsoft y Bill Gates, el maximalista patentes[http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Gates_Foundation_Critique] que aboga por las patentes incluso sobre los componentes de alimentos básicos de los pobres, por su propio beneficio[http://techrights.org/2010/04/26/monsanto-boosted-by-gates/]). Semi-verdades y malos consejos es lo que tiene que ver con Florian. Como dice el blog post “, Lodsys probablemente AMA el análisis de Florian y sus opiniones. (No tengo ninguna relación o contacto con cualquier persona en Lodsys, Apple, y ya tengo contacto con Florian). Él parece estar haciendo todos los argumentos que apoyan el plan del troll de patentes – usted no puede permitirse el lujo de luchar, ni siquiera lo intentes, los argumentos de los trolls son decentes, simplemente RINDETE y firma la licencia”.
Para citar más:
Hagas lo que hagas, por favor, ignora el consejo de que no son abogados comentaristas (por ejemplo, Florian Müller @fosspatents), ya que puede ser miope y no están capacitados para proporcionar el análisis jurídico complejo y asesoramiento que necesite. (Por ejemplo, de uno de los últimos Florian mensajes sobre las patentes Lodsys, cualquier abogado de patentes debe ser capaz de reconocer que Florian no entiende la ley en materia de infracción de patentes y otros muchos asuntos.)
Por ejemplo, algunos comentaristas (incluyendo Florian Müller @fosspatents) están asesorando a las victimas de los trolls de patentes a RENDIRSE y PAGAR la CUOTA de LICENCIA, Florian aún está diciendo que el contrato de licencia que no se ha hecho público es aceptable para que Ud. lo firme. Es muy dudable la solidez de este consejo, especialmente teniendo en cuenta el artículo anterior en Watchdog IP. Contrariamente a los malos consejos y análisis jurídico presentadas por Florian, hay opciones disponibles para las empresas amenazadas por los trolls de patentes, e incluso si el resultado es un acuerdo de licencia, el análisis jurídico Florian y su asesoramiento no es sólido. (Yo podría escribir un libro blanco que explique por qué el análisis de Florian está en mal estado, pero no tengo el tiempo ahora mismo. Si alguien me pide que realice un análisis más detallado, la pondré en mi lista de tareas.)
Para empezar, en mi opinión, probablemente Lodsys AMA el “análisis” de Florian y opiniones. (No tengo ninguna relación o contacto con cualquier persona en Lodsys, Apple, y ya no contacto con Florian). Él parece estar haciendo todos los argumentos que apoyan el plan del troll de negocio – usted no puede permitirse el lujo de luchar, ni siquiera lo intentes, los argumentos de los trolls son decentes, ríndete y firma la licencia.
[...]
Todo buen negociador (que excluye la IMO Florian) le dirá que no se negocia con uno mismo. Por lo tanto, no tengo ni idea de por qué Florian dice estar apoyando a los desarrolladores de aplicaciones cuando escribe un análisis que intenta desmenuzar sus argumentos aprovechar el potencial y les aconseja a pagar lo que Lodsys está pidiendo. Si alguien fuese realmente el apoyo de los desarrolladores de aplicaciones, podría estar tratando de reforzar los desarrolladores de aplicaciones aprovechar los argumentos (como lo he estado tratando de proporcionar en este blog).
Algunos sitios, evidentemente, caen en ello, porque por lo menos un escritor escribió que el mejor curso “de acción para los desarrolladores de iOS frente a las amenazas de demandas por violación de patentes emitidas por Lodsys a principios de este mes podría ser la de someterse con las solicitudes de licencia, de acuerdo a un investigador de propiedad “intelectual”. Florian Mueller, quien dirige el blog Las patentes de software libre que publicó una profunda FAQ para los desarrolladores interesados la semana pasada, dice que lo que indica una disposición a jugar bonito con Lodsys podría ser mucho menos costosa que la alternativa, en el largo plazo. “Ya hemos impugnado estas FAQ, que es un lobo con piel de oveja. Es una trampa. Por supuesto que huele más a un ejercicio de presión/marketing …
“Más tarde resultó que realmente Florian estaba completamente mal y su consejo fue peor que inútil.”Más tarde resultó que realmente Florian estaba completamente mal y su consejo fue peor que inútil. Que era veneno puro. Como Jones dijo, “fue este consejo de Mueller, el que empezó la historia. Ahora que Apple ha dado un paso en el que todos los abogados pensaron que era inevitable desde el primer día, ¿Qué le parece ese consejo a usted? Es importante para los desarrolladores que están en una situación jurídica particular consultar a un abogado y no escuchar consejos “legales” de los que no está calificados para ofrecerlo “O peor aún -. De un CABILDERO! También aconsejó a las empresas a las que Microsoft y sus representantes demandaron a simplemente RENDIRSE y PAGAR. es exactamente lo que Microsoft necesita. Para que estas piezas de mal consejo se filtren a la prensa, este CABILDERO (no un abogado o un veterano de las patentes, sin embargo, pretende todo el mundo menos sí mismo no está capacitado para hablar sobre el tema), cuya principal habilidad es el envío masivo de correo a periodistas[http://techrights.org/2011/04/16/how-mobbyists-operate/], ha estado trabajando entre bastidores para lograr ser citado. Nos entristece ver que muchas personas piensan que es citado en los artículos debido al mérito y no a su capacidad de cabildeo. Él es un veterano CABILDERO. Él sabe los trucos.
Este hombre parece que ha estado presionando en vano para pintar Google como un agresor de patentes, ya que, según este nuevo informe[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303848104576386010188538374.html], el cabildeo de Microsoft (parte de la línea del partido mismo) fallo en incitar a los reguladores de EE.UU., hasta el punto de bloquear un intento de patentes de Nortel[http://techrights.org/2011/06/14/taxing-competitors-with-moles/].
“De acuerdo con este artículo[http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2386895,00.asp]“, señala Jones, “Apple tiene miles de patentes, Nokia tiene más de 10.000 “familias” de patentes (patentes mismas en diferentes jurisdicciones), Microsoft cuenta con alrededor de 18.000 patentes, y Google tiene alrededor de 600, en su mayoría relacionados con la búsqueda”, por lo que sobre quien sería Google tiene una ventaja injusta?” Google tiene sus razones para comprar – no tanto solicitar – patentes. Microsoft ha estado atacando a Android de Google (y por extensión Linux) desde muchos ángulos en un intento de gravar impuestos a Google y convertir eso en una mina de oro Mirosoft. Como hemos dicho desde el principio, uno de los siguientes jugadores que pueden demandar o al menos arrancar Android es Nokia, al que más o menos Microsoft conquisto de manera infame[http://techrights.org/2011/04/15/swpats-and-hardware-patents-at-nokia/].
“Empresas moribundas tratan de utilizar las patentes y los derechos de autor. Eso es lo que lo hacen, como hemos visto en la saga de SCO.”
–Pamela Jones, GroklawAcerca de la guerra de patentes que se ha estado gestando en el espacio móvil, Jones escribe: “Ha estado ocurriendo por algún tiempo. Empresas moribundas tratan de utilizar las patentes y los derechos de autor. Eso es lo que lo hacen, como hemos visto en la saga de SCO. Ahora Nokia y Microsoft luchan para hacer frente a un mundo que los está dejando de lado. Así que aquí vienen las patentes. Si usted encuentra que nauseabundo, dígale a su Congresscritter. Ellos son los que puede cambiar la ley de patentes.”
Para citar algunos resultados de interés[http://seekingalpha.com/article/274837-nokia-from-predator-to-prey], en caso de “una ruptura, tres unidades de Nokia pueden tener un valor de € 21,9 mil millones, en base a los múltiplos de ventas de sus competidores de este año. El valor de ruptura no puede incluir las patentes de Nokia, que Tero Kuittinen, analista de MKM Partners LP, estima un valor de 5 millones de euros. Lo que llevaría el total a 26,9 millones de euros. Huawei, ZTE Huawei Technologies Co. y ZTE Corp. (ZTCOF.PK) también podrían estar interesado en la compra de activos de Nokia. “[A través de Groklaw]
-
“El valor de ruptura no puede incluir las patentes de Nokia, que Tero Kuittinen, analista de MKM Partners LP, estima un valor de 5 millones de euros.”
–Seeking AlphaHablando de los grupos de presión, recuerdan a los empleados[http://techrights.org/2009/05/21/list-microsoft-and-gates-lobbyists/] de la empresa del padre de Bill Gates “[1[http://techrights.org/2010/01/19/gates-senior-scandal/], 2[http://techrights.org/2009/05/17/gates-dad-ballmer-bank-allen-charter/]] y luego miren quien está detrás de Apple[http://techrights.org/2011/05/15/uspto-fail/], según el informe siguiente. Por lo tanto, quien representa a Kodak[http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2011/06/apple-nokia-settlement-ends-subpoena-fight-for-testimony-from-apples-dc-attorneys.html], de los que previamente escribimos en relación con la dinastía de los Gates [1[http://techrights.org/2009/02/18/gates-foundation-kodak-money/], 2[http://techrights.org/2009/03/12/kodak-mono-novell-moonlight/]]? La respuesta:
Pickard y su compañero abogado David Cornwell están representndo a la empresa contra la orden de comparecencia de Kodak, Pickard se negó a comentar. K & L Gates representa a Kodak en el caso de Nueva York. Kodak Gerard Meuchner portavoz confirmó que la empresa también se encargará de los litigios en Washington.
Curiosamente, el New York Times ha publicado este artículo[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/11/opinion/11sat4.html] sobre la desaparición de Microsoft en comparación con la de Kodak (ambos recurrieron al uso de las patentes cuando sus productos ya no son convenientes o necesarios):
La tecnología da un vuelco empresas de diferentes maneras. Permite a las empresas nuevas para ofrecer mejores productos y servicios de una manera más eficiente, sino que también crea nuevos bienes y servicios para que los consumidores quieren. Eastman Kodak, la quinta empresa más grande en el S & P 500 en 1975, fue casi destruida por las cámaras digitales y ya no está en el índice. General Motors, ocupo el quinto lugar en 1985, fue obstaculizado por los rivales que podría hacer más vehículos de bajo consumo. Microsoft aún domina el escritorio del PC. Pero que importa cada vez menos como los usuarios a migran a las tabletas y más de computación se lleva a cabo en “la nube”.
Hay otra lección de largo tobogán de Microsoft. Se trata de hasta qué punto gigantes corporativos van a atacar la tecnología que pone en peligro su dominio. Hace diez años, Microsoft trató de usar su monopolio virtual del sistema operativo para estrangular a sus rivales potenciales y sus nuevas tecnologías. Afortunadamente, no pudo. Pero los nuevos gigantes probablemente tratarán tácticas similares contra cualquier nuevo gizmo que los desafíe.
Como los chacales de Microsoft notan[http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2011/06/will-microsoft-follow-kodaks-lead.html], El New York Times tuvo este fin de semana un editorial comparando el estado actual de Microsoft con la difícil situación de Eastman Kodak.”
Kodak también es un agresor de patentes como vimos en las entradas más antiguas. Curiosamente, en un momento Kodak se quejó del cómplice de Gates[http://techrights.org/2010/03/19/intellectual-ventures-vs-kodak-by-proxy/], Intelectual Ventures. Supongo que en realidad no cabildero se atreve a criticar? En su lugar, trata de atribuir sus actos a Google. Afirmaciones sorprendentes, no busque más, Florian de esos pedacitos de humor disfrazado de graves acusaciones. Si es malo para el Software Libre debido a las patentes, entonces es bueno para el “señor” FOSSpatents. █
Translation produced by Eduardo Landaveri, the administrator of the Spanish portal of Techrights.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
06.23.11
Posted in Bill Gates, FUD, GPL, Microsoft, Steve Ballmer at 3:33 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
(ODF | PDF | English/original)
Resumen: ex y actuales funcionarios de Microsoft se reunen a su alrededor y difunden propaganda.
CUANDO MUCHOS altos directivos abandonan Microsoft[http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Microsoft_-_Major_Departure], hay más y más topos para su uso de Microsoft (Elop, por ejemplo). Es algo muy preocupante. Bill Gates ha estado haciendo mucho más daño[http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Gates_Foundation_Critique] desde que salió de Microsoft y en la actualidad, uno de sus movimientos más preocupantes es su cabildeo de patentes. Es lo que se necesita para Microsoft para sobrevivir unos cuantos años más, a expensas de su competencia, literalmente. Hemos hecho un recuento no oficial en torno a Microsoft y llegamos a la conclusión de que las únicas dos personas principales que quedan dentro de Microsoft, serían Mundie (convoy de Microsoft a las congregaciones del gobierno [1[http://techrights.org/2009/04/28/quotes-craig-mundie/], 2[http://techrights.org/2009/05/02/craig-mundie-lobbies-big-eu-guns/]] y Bilderberg[http://techrights.org/2010/06/06/electionmall-and-lobbying/]) y Ballmer, cuya presencia en Microsoft podría terminar pronto debido a una mayor presión.
“Tal vez su continua calumnia de la GPL es un intento de una profecía por auto-cumplirse.”Se debe hacer hincapié una vez más que para que los administradores de Microsoft salgan verdaderamente de la compañía por lo general tienen que retirarse. Si no lo hacen, entonces se limitan a difundir la cultura de Microsoft para otra compañía como un tipo de contaminación. Hemos visto lo que ocurrio dentro de Amazon, que ahora está pagando a Microsoft por Linux[http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Amazon] (después de haber absorbido a muchos altos ejecutivos de Microsoft). Un director de marketing de Microsoft fundó una compañía llamada Black Duck[http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Black_Duck], que actualmente es la única fuente que clama que la GPL está en declive. Seguimos viendo los artículos que repiten acríticamente esas alegaciones que se basan en métodos propios con datos de propiedad de una sola dudosa fuente. Tal vez su continua calumnia de la GPL es un intento de una profecía por auto-cumplirse. Mira las publicaciones de Microsoft simpátizando con Black Duck[http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/black-duck-software-named-to-sd-times-100-for-fourth-consecutive-year-124277339.html]. Muy peligroso. Otra de estas empresas, que está dirigido por un veterano de Microsoft quien ha creado un blog de software “libre” con el fin de atraer tráfico. Pocos de los visitantes conocen la hostilidad contra la GPL de esa empresa. Debemos estar al tanto de la agenda-setting por ex funcionarios de Microsoft, no sólo su personal existente. Ah, y por cierto, este año también Craig Mundie de Microsoft, el jefe de investigación y estrategia para el monopolista, asistirá a la secreta reunión de Bilderberg[http://bilderberg2011.com/bilderberg-members/bilderberg-2010-images-exposed/attachment/009/]. Tal vez él va allí cada vez sólo porque hacen un buen café. █
Translation produced by Eduardo Landaveri, the administrator of the Spanish portal of Techrights.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
06.22.11
Posted in Bill Gates, Deception, FUD, GPL, Microsoft, Steve Ballmer at 7:20 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Microsoft’s former and existing staff gets around and gets its propaganda spreading
AS MANY top managers leave Microsoft, there are more and more moles for Microsoft to use (Elop for example). It is a very troubling thing. Bill Gates has been doing a lot more damage since he left Microsoft and currently, one of his more troubling moves is patent lobbying. It’s what it takes for Microsoft to survive a few more years, at the expense of its competition, literally. We have done an unofficial headcount around Microsoft and came to the conclusion that the only two core people are left inside Microsoft; those would be Mundie (Microsoft’s convoy to government congregations [1, 2] and to Bilderberg) and Ballmer, whose presence at Microsoft might end soon due to increased pressure.
“Maybe its long-going GPL smear is an attempt at a self-fulfilling prophecy.”It ought to be emphasised once again that for Microsoft managers to truly leave the company they usually must retire. If they don’t, then they merely spread the Microsoft culture to yet another company which they sort of contaminate. We saw that happen inside Amazon, which is now paying Microsoft for Linux (after it had absorbed many top managers from Microsoft). A marketing manager from Microsoft founded a company called Black Duck, which is currently almost the exclusive source claiming the GPL to be on the decline. We keep seeing articles that uncritically repeat those claims that are based on proprietary methods with proprietary data from a single dubious source. Maybe its long-going GPL smear is an attempt at a self-fulfilling prophecy. Watch the Microsoft-sympathetic publications groom Black Duck. Very dangerous. Another such firm which is led by a Microsoft veteran has just created a FOSS blog in order to attract traffic. Little do the visitors know about the GPL hostility from that firm. Be aware of agenda-setting by former Microsoft staff, not just existing personnel. Oh, and by the way, this year too Microsoft’s Craig Mundie, the chief research and strategy officer for the monopolist, will attend the secretive Bilderberg meeting. Maybe he goes there every time just because they make good coffee. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Bill Gates, Deception, Microsoft, Windows at 5:49 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Tilted coverage which British taxpayers are forced to fund
Summary: Tesco is again the victim of people who choose Microsoft for platforms, the BBC does not tell the real story though
TECHRIGHTS previously covered Tesco's agreements with Microsoft and denial of GNU/Linux. Well, it didn’t work too well for Tesco, did it? Their Windows-based Web site is a catastrophe and we previously wrote about Windows-imposed downtimes affecting Tesco’s tills, too. But do not expect anyone to call out Windows, especially not in the UK.
As for the BBC, which is the taxpayers-funded medium that is run by former Microsoft UK managers (and is Bill Gates-funded since a while ago), do not expect to get the full story from it. They’ll just omit what suits them. It’s the same source which is naming Android only when there is something negative to say about it, at the same time hiding the platform exclusivity of problems whenever an arisen problem is bad for Microsoft. “Tesco Bank has confirmed that some customers are still unable to access their online accounts,” quoted someone in USENET. “Tesco’s [Windows-based] website was hit by technical problems,” says the BBC (no mention of who is affected), “after the bank updated its computer systems.” Yes, that would be Windows.
Notice what a Tesco spokesman says: “We are aware that some customers are experiencing difficulties accessing their accounts when using Internet Explorer 9.”
Wait, why did the BBC not mention this upfront?
“Just found out that this looks like an IE problem,” quoted the person from USENET, “download and try firefox. You will get a one time password to your mobile and you['re] in [...] if you are running IE9 you need to log in to tesco bank website, press ‘Alt and T’ – then go down to Compatability Settings and accept Tesco Bank and make sure all 3 other boxes are checked.”
Here is the BBC article. Fair and balanced or “Fair and balanced” the Fox ‘News’ way? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
06.20.11
Posted in Apple, Bill Gates, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Patents at 10:48 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A look at some of the latest lobbying against “Linux” and “FOSS” in light of the news and bogus ‘advice’ from pretenders
Microsoft’s FUD tactics have evolved. No longer must we see lies perpetuated about the capabilities of GNU/Linux (or that it’s like “communism”). The new FUD tactics paint Linux and Android as disrespectful of the law (so-called ‘IP’) and “not free”. The monopolist has been hiring lobbyists accordingly and we named some of these before. Few of them must disclose their funding sources in order to comply with the law (disclosure weakens them).
Any pundit or other entity which promotes Microsoft’s party line on patents can be seen as endorsing the blackmail Microsoft has been engaging in [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]; it’s bad for PR and for one’s karma. Justifying what Microsoft does with patents is extremely hard, so such pundits often turn to daemonising Microsoft’s competitors. A few years ago we referred to this tactic as the “equally evil” troll, where basically one ‘defends’ what Microsoft has been doing by saying that a competitor like IBM, Google, or Apple is just as “evil” for some specified reason (which usually does not compute).
Last year a lobbyist came out of the woodwork promoting a company now partly owned by Microsoft. He got some special access to documents with which he daemonised IBM. He is happy enough to accuse companies that are not patent trolls of being "trolls" while leaving parts of the Microsoft cartel — Intellectual Ventures (IV) included — unaddressed. He not calling IV a troll, even though it is the world’s biggest patent troll. The name of this lobbyist — you’ve guessed it — is Florian.
At Groklaw, Pamela Jones asks, “where can you go where you will be safe from patent trolls?”
She wrote this in relation to Microsoft and patent trolls when she added: “Plus the problem is bigger than patent trolls. Remember when Microsoft tried to sell patents to use against Linux to patent trolls? So proxy patent trolls are a much bigger problem than just patent trolls. Remember where Lodsys got its patents from and the picture gets clearer. There is a disturbed ecosystem here, and the problem is that software patents should never have been introduced into the environment. Now they are overwhelming everything. The only true solution is for software and patents to get a divorce. And the only entity that can accomplish that is Congress.”
This was written in relation to a patent from IV being used against iPhone and Android developers (but no Windows developers). We also wrote about the origin of this patent in [1, 2, 3]. The only good thing about patents is that no matter how much they are passed around, the names on them do not change; neither does the changelog, to speak, or the change of ‘ownership’ (however bizarre the notion of ‘selling’ ideas may sound). So, it’s not too hard to show Microsoft in the details.
“Remember when Microsoft tried to sell patents to use against Linux to patent trolls? So proxy patent trolls are a much bigger problem than just patent trolls. Remember where Lodsys got its patents from and the picture gets clearer.”
–Pamela Jones, GroklawBased on this item, “Lodsys LLC is a Marshall, Texas-based subsidiary of Lodsys Holdings LLC, a Delaware LLC. Some have speculated that the ownership trail leads to Intellectual Ventures” (yes, not news by now, not to mention that IV uses many other shells according to other reports, at least a thousand shells according to one source).
“Leverage If You Are Threatened with Patent Infringement (and why you should ignore FOSSpatents)” says the headline of a post about Microsoft Florian and the misdirection he gives to those sued by Lodsys; basically he instructs them to surrender and he neglects to tell them what IV really is and where it leads back to (Microsoft and Bill Gates, the patents maximalist who lobbies for patents even on poor people's basic food ingredients, for his own profit). Semi-truths and ill advice is what Florian is all about. As the blog post states, “Lodsys probably LOVES Florian’s analysis and opinions. (I have no connection or contact with anyone at Lodsys, Apple, and no longer any contact with Florian). He seems to be making all the arguments that support the troll’s business plan – you can’t afford to fight, don’t even try, the trolls arguments are decent, just give in and sign the license.”
To quote more:
Whatever you do, please ignore the advice of non-attorney commentators (such as Florian Muller @ fosspatents) because they can be shortsighted and are not qualified to provide the complex legal analysis and advice you will need. (e.g. from one of Florian’s latest posts about the Lodsys patents, any patent attorney should be able to recognize that Florian does not understand the law regarding patent infringement and numerous other issues.)
For example, some commentators (including Florian Muller @ fosspatents) are advising targets of patent trolls to roll over and pay the license fee; Florian is even advising you that the license agreement that has not been made public is acceptable for you to sign. I very much question the soundness of this advice, especially considering the above article at IP Watchdog. Contrary to the bad advice and legal analysis put forth by Florian, there are options available to companies threatened by patent trolls and even if the outcome is a license agreement, Florian’s legal analysis and advice is not solid. (I could write a white paper explaining why Florian’s analysis is messed up, but I don’t have the time right now. If anyone requests me to provide more detailed analysis, I will put it on my to-do list.)
For starters, in my opinion, Lodsys probably LOVES Florian’s analysis and opinions. (I have no connection or contact with anyone at Lodsys, Apple, and no longer any contact with Florian). He seems to be making all the arguments that support the troll’s business plan – you can’t afford to fight, don’t even try, the trolls arguments are decent, just give in and sign the license.
[...]
Any good negotiator (which IMO excludes Florian) will tell you that you do not negotiate with yourself. Thus, I have no idea why Florian claims to be supporting application developers when he writes analysis that attempts to shred their potential leverage arguments and advises them to pay what Lodsys is asking. If someone was truly supporting the application developers, they would be trying to bolster the application developers leverage arguments (as I have been trying to provide on this blog).
Some sites evidently fall for it because at least one writer wrote that the “best course of action for iOS developers faced with patent infringement suit threats issued by patent holding firm Lodsys earlier this month might be to play nice with licensing requests, according to one intellectual property researcher. Florian Mueller, who runs the FOSS Patents blog that posted an in-depth FAQ for concerned developers last week, says that indicating a willingness to play nice with Lodsys could be far less costly than the alternative, in the long run.” We have already challenged this FAQ, which is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It’s a trap. Smells more like a lobbying/marketing exercise…
“Later on it turned out that Florian was indeed wrong and his advice was worse than useless.”
Later on it turned out that Florian was indeed wrong and his advice was worse than useless. It was pure poison. As Jones put it, “this was Mueller’s advice when the story began. Now that Apple has stepped in, which every lawyer I know thought was inevitable from day one, how does that advice look to you? It’s important for developers in a particular legal situation to have a lawyer and not to listen to “legal” advice from those not qualified to offer it.” Or worse — from a lobbyist! He also advised companies which Microsoft and its proxies sued to just surrender and pay up. it’s exactly what Microsoft needs. In order for these pieces of bad advice to make it into the press, this lobbyist (not a lawyer or a patents veteran, yet he pretends everyone but himself is not qualified t speak on the subject), whose main skill is mass-mailing journalists, has been working behind the scenes to get himself quoted. We are saddened to see that many people think he is quoted in articles due to merit as opposed to his lobbying skills. He is a veteran lobbyist. He knows the tricks.
This man seems to have been lobbying in vain to paint Google as a patent aggressor because, according to this new report, Microsoft’s lobbying (part of the same party line) failed to incite US regulators to the point of blocking a bid for Nortel's patents.
“According to this article,” notes Jones, “Apple has thousands of patents, Nokia has more than 10,000 patent ‘families’ (same patents, different jurisdictions), Microsoft has around 18,000 patents, and Google has about 600, mostly search-related”, so over whom would Google have an unfair advantage?” Google has its reasons for buying — not so much applying for — patents. Microsoft has been attacking Google’s Android (and by extension Linux) from many angles in an attempt to tax Google’s work and turn that into a Mirosoft cash cow. As we have argued all along, one of the next players that may sue or at least extort Android is Nokia, which Microsoft pretty much conquered in nefarious ways.
“Dying companies try to use patents and copyrights. That’s who does it, as we saw in SCO’s saga.”
–Pamela Jones, GroklawAbout the patent war that has been brewing in the mobile space, Jones writes: “It’s been going on for a while. Dying companies try to use patents and copyrights. That’s who does it, as we saw in SCO’s saga. Now it’s Nokia and Microsoft struggling to deal with a world that is passing them by. So out come the patents. If you find that nauseating, tell your Congresscritter. That’s who can change patent law.”
To quote some findings of interest, in case of “a breakup, Nokia’s three units may be worth about 21.9 billion euros, based on the sales multiples of its competitors this year. The breakup value may not include Nokia’s patents, which Tero Kuittinen, an analyst with MKM Partners LP, estimates are worth 5 billion euros. That would bring the total to 26.9 billion euros. Huawei, ZTE Huawei Technologies Co. and ZTE Corp. (ZTCOF.PK) may also be interested in buying Nokia’s assets.” [via Groklaw]
“The breakup value may not include Nokia’s patents, which Tero Kuittinen, an analyst with MKM Partners LP, estimates are worth 5 billion euros.”
–Seeking AlphaSpeaking of lobbyists, recall those employed by the company of Bill Gates’ father [1, 2] and then watch who is going after Apple according to the following report. So, who represents Kodak, which we previously wrote about in relation to the Gates dynasty [1, 2]? Answer:
Pickard and fellow Sterne Kessler attorney David Cornwell are representing the firm against Kodak’s subpoena; Pickard declined to comment. K&L Gates is representing Kodak in the New York case. Kodak spokesman Gerard Meuchner confirmed that the firm will also handle the litigation in Washington.
Interestingly enough, the new York Times has published this piece about the demise of Microsoft as compared to Kodak’s (both resorted to using patents as their products are no longer desirable or necessary):
Technology upends companies in different ways. It allows new firms to deliver better products and services in a more efficient way; it also creates new goods and services for consumers to want. Eastman Kodak, the fifth-biggest company in the S.& P. 500 in 1975, was almost destroyed by digital cameras and is no longer in the index. General Motors, fifth biggest in 1985, was hobbled by rivals that could make more fuel efficient cars. Microsoft still rules the PC desktop. But that will matter less and less as users migrate to tablets and more computing takes place in “the cloud.”
There is another lesson in Microsoft’s long slide. It is about how far corporate behemoths will go to stop technology that threatens their dominance. Ten years ago, Microsoft tried to use its virtual monopoly of the operating system to strangle potential rivals and their new technologies. Fortunately, it failed. But the new rising behemoths will likely try similar tactics on whatever new gizmo challenges them.
As the Microsoft boosters note, “The New York Times this weekend had an editorial comparing the current state of Microsoft with the plight of Eastman Kodak.”
Kodak too is a patent aggressor as we showed in older posts. Curiously, at one point Kodak complained about Gates' accomplice at Intellectual Ventures. Guess which lobbyist dare not really criticise it? Instead, he tries to attribute its deeds to Google. Astonishing claims; look no further than Florian for those bits of humour disguised as serious allegations. If it’s bad for FOSS due to patents, then it’s good for Mr. FOSSpatents. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
Content is available under CC-BY-SA