11.19.10

RAND Mobbyists, Grupos de Presión, y los Astroturfers IP de Microsoft en 2010 (Bruselas)

Posted in Deception, Europe, Microsoft, Patents at 2:34 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Resumen: Las tácticas brutales utilizados por Microsoft para promover su régimen,donde se tiene que pagar por el software libre, incluso en lugares como Europa, donde las patentes de software son, en principio, ilegales.

“Kudos to Spain for not allowing Microsoft to impose his agenda of dominion by control over it & the whole Europe,” says Eduardo Landaveri, who has another translation for us, this time of last night’s post about Microsoft’s continued lobbying for software patents in Europe (see the original English version).

“The same goes to India,” added Landaveri. “By doing this they’re shaking off the last shackles of Colonialism.

“But let us continually be alert because the dark forces of tyranny with complicity of corrupt politicians, and the easiness of the misinformed public make entire counties fall into it.

“Like Ruben Blades said: “Search the depth and its reason, remember we see the faces but no the hearts”

“Just because Microsoft have erased any competition on the United States doesn’t mean that they have to do the same on Europe, India, Latin America y Africa. Its minions have names like Association for “Competitive” Technology as though they would like to compete when indeed Free Market means for them the obliteration of EVERY competitor not by doing better products but to destroy them and it’s last weapons besides its money are software patents.

“Finally, let us not forget that “The best regional software patent protection is the COMPLETE elimination of software patents”

“Europe wake up! The saga hasn’t ended yet!

Or in Spanish:

“Felicitaciones a España por no permitir a Microsoft imponer su agenda de control y dominio sobre ella y toda Europa.

“Lo mismo ocurre a la India. De esta manera se está sacudiendo las pasadas cadenas del colonialismo.

“Pero vamos a estar continuamente alerta, porque las fuerzas oscuras de la tiranía con la complicidad de políticos corruptos, y la facilidad con que el público mal informado pueden caer en su juego.

“Al igual que Rubén Blades, dijo: “Buscar el fondo y su razón, recuerda que se ven las caras pero nunca el corazon”

“El hecho de que Microsoft ha borrado toda competencia en los Estados Unidos, no significa que tienen que hacer lo mismo en Europa, India, América Latina y África. Sus secuaces tienen nombres como la Asociación para “Competitiva” Tecnología como si quisiera competir, cuando en realidad libre mercado significa para ellos la destrucción completa la competencia , no por hacer mejores productos, sino por destruirlos y sus última armas, además de su dinero son las patentes de software.

“Por último, no olvidemos que “La mejor protección regional de patentes de software mejor regional es la eliminación CoMPLETA de todas las patentes de software”

“Europa despierta! La saga no ha terminado aún!

translation of last night’s post is available in PDF and ODF format, as well as the following version.

“EL consenso que Microsoft está cada vez menos una empresa de tecnología (productos muchos menos) y cada vez más un troll de patentes y su vez un movimiento político, se va consolidando cada vez más. A medida que más y más productos de Microsoft desaparecen[http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Microsoft_-_Dead_Divisions_or_Products], la empresa se califica como un TROLL DE PATENTES (entidad no practicante) en más áreas en las que sólo extorsiona a la competencia que ganó.

Para que Microsoft sea más eficaz como un troll de patentes, Microsoft tendrá que modificar algunas leyes. Microsoft no puede hacer esto directamente, porque sería que criticado por intentarlo. Así que Microsoft contrata y financia a varios grupos (lobbyists) que hacen la presión por él. Se han escrito más de un centenar de puestos (posts) con ejemplos de este tipo de actividad, ya que esperamos documentar y trazar un mapa de los vectores de presión (que a su vez los debilita o, a veces les obliga a nymshift).

El programa Microsoft du jour está empujando el RAND, “Razonable y No-Discriminatorias” licencias en Europa. Microsoft aparentemente no pudo hacerlo en la India[http://techrights.org/2010/11/16/india-swpats-and-rand/]. Ahora quiere engañar a la opinión pública en Europa. Simon Phipps, un británico, acaba de explicar por qué RAND es “no tan razonable”[http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2010/11/rand-not-so-reasonable/index.htm]. Es un ensayo decente nueva en este viejo tema:

Justo, razonable y no discriminatorio – seguro que todo tiene que ser cosas buenas? RAND suena tan bien, y ha estado apareciendo en todo tipo de noticias últimamente. Es una parte clave en la negociación de licencias de patentes que se aplican a las normas, y que significa “razonables y no discriminatorias”, palabras tan excelentes que es difícil de criticar. A veces se muestra como razonables y no discriminatorias, con “JUSTO” FRAND adelante haciendo que suene muchísimo mejor, o como RAND-z, con la z (zero) que indica que todo lo que los términos de licencia se van a tener un billete de cero libras de precios adjunta. Como sin no va a costar nada. Suena tan maravilloso.

RAND aparece en las normas y procedimientos de la mayoría de las organizaciones de normalización y de hecho hace un gran trabajo en la mayoría de ellos. Es mucho mejor que la alternativa, en la que los titulares de patentes puedan obtener por licenciar sus patentes al precio que pagará cada víctima, o hacer la norma casi imposible de implementar por cualquier persona u organización que ellos no deseen que sea capaz de hacerlo de forma selectiva reteniendo una licencia. Usted puede entender por qué un grupo de estándares preferiría el mandato de RAND, razonables y no discriminatorias o RAND-z, dadas las alternativas.

Por supuesto, está la cuestión obvia de por qué un cuerpo de estándares permite que algo se convierta en un estándar en primer lugar, si una de las empresas que contribuyen a ella, posee una patente sobre una técnica esencial para que la ejecute. Recuerden el OOXML.

Simon Phipps dice a Carlo Piana (otra persona que representa los intereses de Europa no de Microsoft,): “¿Quieres apostar sobre cuánto tiempo será antes de que consiga un comentario troll?”

Bueno, ¿adivinen qué? Sí, no pasó mucho tiempo para mobbyist Microsoft Florian [http://techrights.org/2010/08/27/fake-representation-of-foss/] para someter un comentario troll promoviendo RAND, como es su costumbre[http://techrights.org/2010/09/01/msft-florian-promoting-swpats-rand/]. Su posición sobre este tema es prácticamente idéntica a la del grupo de presión que Microsoft Zuck lidera (asi como sus secuaces) [http://techrights.org/2010/08/26/microsoft-lobbyists-for-rand/]. ¿Cúan previsible debe haber sido para Simon Phipps? Probablemente sabía exactamente quién haría con el primer “comentario troll”. Simplemente mencionan RAND y mobbyists y pronto aparecerán. Casi cualquier pieza contra el RAND está interrumpido/trolled por mobbyists contratados por Microsoft que no sea él, pero eso es lo que debemos esperar dado los miles de millones de dólares de Microsoft tiene en juego. Profesionalmente hablando, Florian es todo acerca de Microsoft (. NET, nunca el uso de GNU/Linux, orgulloso Vista 7 usuario, mientras que se hace pasar por una persona de software libre que se opone a las patentes de software). En una palabra CINISMO con mayúsculas. Vamos a llegar a más de esto en un momento.

“RAND describe un superconjunto de los comportamientos. Algunos requisitos RAND llevan a términos de RF (Libre de Regalías). La existencia de contraejemplos triviales donde los estándares RAND tienen implementaciones GPL, Licencia Pública General [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.es.html#GPL] permite a los trolls desacreditar esta posición “.

Glyn Moody también se involucra en este debate (en Identi.ca). Él le dice a Bradley Kuhn (FSF), por ejemplo: “en general, sí, pero [RAND] un ser elaborado de manera anormal para ser compatibles.” Kuhn no muy de acuerdo. Para Phipps, escribe: “Puedo haber leído mal. Mi abstracto era: “a veces, RAND funciona para el software libre, pero por lo general no lo hace.” “No estoy de acuerdo con la sútil diferencia.” Para Moody Phipps y luego escribe:”. Es difícil conseguir los desarrolladores del software libre seguir las sútiles differencias de licencias de patentes, por lo que ayudan las simplificaciones, ala “# # = RAND problemática” [...] mi maestro de primer año de CS , dijo: “Tenemos que mentir un poco aquí”, en las sútiles differencias necesarias requisitos, pre-requisitos que no teníamos. Similarmente aquí, Phipps dice a Kuhn: “RAND describe un superconjunto de los comportamientos. Algunos requisitos RAND llevar a términos de RF (Libre de Regalías). La existencia de contraejemplos triviales donde los estándares RAND tienen implementaciones GPL, Licencia Pública General, permite a los trolls desacreditar esta posición “.

“Mira lo que hizo con la mobbyist Nancy Gohring, que cubre mayormente Microsoft desde hace años.”El mobbyist a continuación habla mal de Android, difundiendo información errónea sobre una demanda vertical contra Samsung y LG, (cerró todos los comentarios en su blog después de haber estado expuesto y reprochado varias veces por los comentaristas, para que nadie pueda corregirlo donde él guía a los periodistas con su masivo correos electrónicos). Se la caracteriza como una demanda contra el Android [http://news.priorsmart.com/vertical-computer-systems-v-interwoven-l3pZ/], aunque es ligeramente más complejo que eso. Pero no importa la exactitud. El mobbyists sabe que lo que se trata es de confundir a la gente que no saben mejor, haciendo declaraciones absurdas que pueden capturar incautos transeúntes que pasan por curiosidad.

Mira lo que hizo con la mobbyist Nancy Gohring, que cubre mayormente Microsoft desde hace años. Ella tomó como tarea una historia de IDG, y posiblemente fue alimentada por uno de los seudo-personales E-mails de Florian[http://www.infoworld.com/t/intellectual-property/android-faces-another-patent-attack-291] (que personaliza mensajes idénticos que envía en masa a muchos periodistas, mientras se presenta como un opositor de las patentes de software). Gohring escribió:

“Android se enfrenta a una nueva amenaza con una demanda que Vertical Computer Systems presentó el lunes en contra de Samsung y LG.”

Vertical se basa en que algunos teléfonos de Samsung y LG basados en Android infringen dos de sus patentes que describen los sistemas para la generación de aplicaciones. En la demanda, presentada ante la Corte de Distrito de EE.UU. para el Distrito Este de Texas, Vertical nombra el LG Aliado, cuatro modelos de Samsung Galaxy y el Galaxy de Samsung Tablet PC como los productos que utilizan “sus” tecnologías patentadas.

Ella entonces se une al mobbyist, que esta envíando correos eléctronicos en masa a los periodistas para obtener su versión de la historia sea la que se cuenta (y es en en general Linux hostil). No sabemos a ciencia cierta si Gohring fue alimentada por el mobbyist, juzgando por la forma en que está escrita (con su propia introducción falsa a sí misma), es muy probable que sí sea el caso. Él continúa fingiendo que está en contra de las patentes de software porque se trata de cómo un lobbyist debe presentarse a sí mismo a los periodistas (para tener credibilidad, aunque sea falsa, al igual que frente a un monopolio, pretendiendo hablar en nombre de las pequeñas empresas). Este desgraciado no tiene verguenza tampoco escrúpulos. No apreciamos su enfoque activo-agresivo con los periodistas, donde los presiones (con mensajes no solicitados en su mayor parte) para obtener que su versión de la historia sea la que se cuenta. A continuación, se jacta de ello, como si hubiera citado de forma espontánea para ser más exactos o perspicaces . Por otra parte, sólo así es como los grupos de presión en el trabajo en general. La Asociación por Tecnología “Competitiva” ACT tambíen funciona así. Son medios subversivos de comunicación, que tratan de influir en la opinión pública. El mobbyist también copia y paga mucho dinero por publicar comentarios idénticos o casi idénticos en muchos sitios y foros, como Slashdot, Ars Technica, y LWN. Como de costumbre, recibió la ayuda de Dana Blankenhorn, a quien conoció hace unas semanas. Blankenhorn nos menciona de una manera negativa [http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/how-much-patent-trouble-is-google-really-in/7800?tag=mantle_skin;content] porque se niega a escuchar a muchos otros autores de software libre que en repetidas ocasiones le han desenmascarado a Florian. El debe leer los comentarios de Florian con más cuidado y reflexionar. Tal vez algún día se dará cuenta y admitir que él tambíen fue engañado.

De todas formas, no sólo la mobbyists están promoviendo activamente RAND en este momento. Vean el nuevo calendario de IP 2010 [http://www.premiercercle.com/sites/ip2010/agenda_day1.php] y desplácese hacia abajo para ACT, los grupos de presión RAND (con las patentes de software en el interior). En “6C Patentes Software, Open Source” se encuentra “Jonathan Zuck”, que pretende representar a Bélgica (¿a quién esta engañando realmente?).

Glyn Moody dice [http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2010/11/can-you-feel-tension.html] que “la Comisión Europea y la Oficina Europea de Patentes quieren explorar” tensiones “entre las normas de las Tecnologías de Informatica y Comunicaciones y las patentes” (en referencia a la presente [http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/ict/standards/extended/ict-ipr-conference_en.htm]). Con razón se pregunta (en Identi.ca), “no se decide?”

Se puede decir con sólo su marco: se trata de “una conferencia para abordar algunas cuestiones específicas en materia de patentes y normas de las TIC Tecnologías de Informatica y Comunicaciones”. Las TIC son en su mayoría sobre software, y sin embargo el software no puede ser objeto de patente “como tal”. Así, en cierto sentido, esto debería ser una conferencia trivial que dure unos cinco minutos. El hecho de que no se muestra es adonde nos estan llevando: hacia la aceptación y la promoción de las patentes en las normas europeas, incluidas las de software.

Eso no es realmente sorprendente, dado que es la organización – la Comisión Europea y la Oficina Europea de Patentes (OEP). La Comisión Europea siempre ha sido un gran fan de las patentes de software, y es muy poco probable que la OEP pueda participar con una conferencia que dice: “ustedes saben, * realmente * no necesitamos todas estas patentes en nuestros estándares.”

Por supuesto, el resultado opuesto – que las patentes son tan indescriptiblemente deliciosas que tenemos que tener el mayor número posible de ellas en nuestras normas europea de las TIC – deben surgir de manera natural y orgánica. Y así para garantizar que resultan naturales y orgánicos, tenemos unas pocas empresas seleccionados que participan al “azar”.

Este es un tipo de debate falso (como el que nos encontramos en el cambio climático) está convocando a la polémica falsa en la que mobbyists y grupos de presión trabajan tan duro para crear. Ellos quieren distraer con preguntas que debería ser triviales y en su lugar poner la desinformación en el centro de todo. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

11.18.10

Canadian Government to Challenge Amazon’s Spreading of Software/BM Patents, Which Red Hat Wants Abolished and Microsoft Still Collects

Posted in America, Law, Microsoft, Patents, Red Hat at 5:48 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Events in Canada may mean that USPTO expansion is hindered somewhat and Microsoft’s patent attack on GNU/Linux can be affected

PROFESSOR Michael Geist says that Sookman says that “The Canadian government appeals the Amazon.com decision regarding the patentability of business methods.” For those who have not followed this case, see [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. If true, this is good news. But Sookman is one of the ‘bad people’ when it comes to Canadian copyright law; it makes him harder to trust in some ways. It’s what one ought to expect from so-called ‘IP’ lawyers. To them, there’s money at stake. There are hardly any exceptions here. One of the latest examples is Patent WatchTroll, a software patents proponent (because he makes money from them as a lawyer) whining about Europe’s unwillingness to become more like the USPTO [1, 2].

One of the few ‘good’ patent lawyers, Rob Tiller (Red Hat), is now asking: “Is software too abstract to be patented?”

A big challenge for those facing the risk of being accused of infringing bad software patents is how to demonstrate that the patent is an abstract idea. The Bilski decision reaffirmed that abstract ideas are not patentable, but it didn’t give a test for how to distinguish such abstract ideas. There are various possible paths on this. The Supreme Court has said that mathematical algorithms are not patentable, and Ben Klemens [PDF] and others have argued that software is at bottom indistinguishable from mathematical algorithms. Others have fashioned related arguments leading toward the conclusion that at least some software is too abstract to be patented. Some of the analysis of PoIR on GrokLaw is particularly interesting: Why software is abstract and An Open Response to the USPTO — Physical Aspects of Mathematics.

This is a discussion that needs to continue. I hope FOSS developers and others with deep knowledge of software technology will get involved. We need to get to a convincing explanation in terms that non-technical people (such as judges and juries) can understand of the nature of software and why it is at bottom an abstract idea. Anyone care to take a swing?

Red Hat was recently hit by the Microsoft-funded Acacia and signed a secret deal. Amazon is now paying Microsoft for Red Hat, due to the secret Microsoft patent deal and Amazon’s awkward stance on software patents. Microsoft meanwhile “applies for a patent for [...] verifying a ‘safe’ operating system,” says one Microsoft booster (Mary Jo Foley).

Microsoft has applied for a patent for an “automated, static safety verifier” that will help verify the type- and memory-safety of an operating system.

And why should anyone care? This isn’t the Monkeys coming to Zune, after all. But there are some connections to other Microsoft projects (and potentially, products) worth considering.

This patent is abstract and absurd, but do not expect the author to say it. As a Microsoft employee put it a couple of weeks ago, “Mary Jo does not [do real journalism] and that’s why she gets interviews at Microsoft” (she did admit to me that this is the way it works, at least back when she was more gutsy). █

Permalink A Single Comment      Send this to a friend

RAND Mobbyists, Lobbyists, and Microsoft AstroTurfers in IP 2010 (Brussels)

Posted in Deception, Europe, Free/Libre Software, Microsoft, Patents, RAND at 5:07 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The Rand Pauls of RAND

Photo by Gage Skidmore

Summary: Rough tactics used to promote Microsoft’s scheme wherein Free software gets taxed by Microsoft, even in places like Europe where software patents are in principle not legal

THE CONSENSUS that Microsoft is decreasingly a technology company (far fewer products) and increasingly a patent troll and political movement is gradually getting a foothold. As more and more Microsoft products get axed, the company will qualify as a patent troll (non-practicing entity) in more areas where it’s just extorting its competition which won.

In order for Microsoft to become more effective as a patent troll, Microsoft will need to modify some laws. Microsoft cannot do this directly as it would get blasted for attempting it. So Microsoft hires and bankrolls several front groups that do he lobbying. We wrote well over a hundred posts giving examples of this type of activity as we hope to document and to map the vectors of lobbying (which in turn weakens them or sometimes forces them to nymshift).

The Microsoft agenda du jour is pushing RAND into Europe. Microsoft apparently failed to do this in India. Simon Phipps, a Brit, has just explained why RAND is “Not So Reasonable”. It’s a decent new essay on this old subject:

Fair, Reasonable, Non-Discriminatory – surely that all has to be good stuff? RAND sounds so good, and it’s been showing up in all sorts of news lately. It’s a key part in the negotiation of licenses for patents that apply to standards, and it stands for “Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory”, excellent words that it’s hard to criticise. Sometimes it shows up as FRAND, with “Fair” in front making it sound even better, or as RAND-z, with the Z indicating that whatever the license terms are they will have a zero pounds price ticket attached.

RAND appears in the rules and procedures of most standards organisations and actually does a great job in most of them. It’s far better than the alternative, which is for patent holders to be able to either license their patents at whatever price each victim will pay, or to make the standard almost impossible to implement by anyone they don’t want to be able to by selectively withholding a license. You can understand why a standards group would want to mandate RAND, FRAND or RAND-z, given the alternatives.

Of course, there is the obvious question of why any standards body would allow something to become a standard in the first place if one of the companies contributing to it holds a patent on a technique essential to implementing it.

Simon Phipps tells Carlo Piana (another person who stands for Europe’s interests, not Microsoft’s): “Want to make any bets on how long it will be before I get a troll comment?”

Well, guess what? Yes, it didn’t take long for mobbyist Microsoft Florian to hit this piece with a troll comment promoting RAND, as usual. His position on this subject is virtually identical to that of Microsoft lobbyist Zuck (and his fellow minions). How predictable it must have been for Simon Phipps. He probably knew exactly who it would be with the “troll comment”. Just mention RAND and this mobbyist will soon show up. Just about any piece against RAND is being heckled/trolled by Microsoft mobbyists other than him, but that’s what we ought to expect given the billions of dollars Microsoft has at stake. Professionally speaking, Florian is all about Microsoft (.NET developer, never using GNU/Linux, proudly using Vista 7 while pretending to be a FOSS person who opposes software patents). We’ll come to more of that in a moment.

“RAND describes a superset of behaviours. Some RAND requirements lead to RF terms. The existence of trivial counterexamples where RAND standards have GPL implementations allows trolls to thus discredit this position.”
      –Simon PhippsGlyn Moody gets involved in this debate as well (in Identi.ca). He tells Bradley Kuhn (FSF) for example: “generally, yes, but it [RAND] an be crafted in abnormal ways to be compatible.” Kuhn does not quite agree. To Phipps he writes: “I may have misread. My take-away was: “sometimes, #RAND works out for FLOSS, but usually doesn’t.” I don’t agree w/ nuance.” To Phipps and Moody he later writes: “It’s tough to get FLOSS hackers to follow patent licensing nuances, so simplifications help, ala “#RAND = #problematic” [...] my 1st yr CS teacher said: “We must lie a little here” b/c the nuances required prereqs we didn’t have. Similar here.” Phipps tells Kuhn: “RAND describes a superset of behaviours. Some RAND requirements lead to RF terms. The existence of trivial counterexamples where RAND standards have GPL implementations allows trolls to thus discredit this position.”

The mobbyist has already resumed badmouthing Android, spreading misinformation about a Vertical lawsuit against Samsung and LG (he closed all the comments in his blog after he had been exposed repeatedly by commenters, so nobody can correct him where he leads journalists whom he mass-mails). He characterises it as an anti-Android lawsuit even though it is slightly more complex than that. But never mind accuracy. The mobbyists are supposed to confuse people who don’t know better, making absurd statements that may capture gullible bystanders who curiously pass by.

Watch what the mobbyist did with Nancy Gohring, who covers a lot of Microsoft since years ago. She took this one assignment/story for IDG and was possibly fed by one of Florian’s pseudo-personal E-mails (he personalises identical messages which he pushes to many journalists while presenting himself as an opponent of software patents). Gohring wrote:

Android faces a new threat with a lawsuit that Vertical Computer Systems filed Monday against Samsung and LG.

Vertical alleges that certain Samsung and LG Android-based phones infringe two of its patents that describe systems for generating applications. In the suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Vertical names the LG Ally, four Samsung Galaxy models and Samsung’s Galaxy Tab tablet computer as products that use the patented technologies.

She is then linking to the mobbyist, who is mass-mailing journalists to get his version of the story told (and it’s Linux-hostile). We don’t know for sure if Gohring was fed by the mobbyist, by judging by the way it is written (with his own fake introduction to himself), it’s very likely to be the case. He is still pretending that he is against software patents because this is how a lobbyist should present himself to journalists (for credibility, even if it’s bogus, like fronting for a monopoly while pretending to speak for small businesses). We do not appreciate his active-aggressive approach towards journalists, wherein he pressures them (with unsolicited mail for the most part) to get his version of the story told, then brags about it as though he was spontaneously quoted for being more accurate or insightful. Then again, that’s just how lobbyists in general work. ACT works like this. They are media subvertors, who try to sway public opinion. The mobbyist also copies and pastes a lot, posting identical or nearly identical comments in many sites and forums such as Slashdot, Ars Technica, and LWN. As usual, he received aid from Dana Blankenhorn, whom he met some weeks ago. Blankenhorn mentions us in a negative way because he refuses to listen to many other FOSS proponents who repeatedly explain to him Florian’s agenda. He should read his comments more carefully and reflect. Maybe one day he’ll realise and admit that he got bamboozled.

Anyway, not only the mobbyists are actively promoting RAND right now. Watch this new schedule for IP 2010 and scroll down to ACT, the RAND lobbyists (with software patents inside). Under “6C Software Patents, Open Source” we found “Jonathan Zuck”, who pretends to stand for Belgium (who is he kidding really?).

Glyn Moody says that “EC & EPO want to explore “tensions” between ICT standards and patents” (in reference to this). He rightly asks (in Identi.ca), “isn’t it decided?”

You can tell just by its framing: this is “a conference to address some specific issues on patents and ICT standards”. ICT is mostly about software, and yet software cannot be patented “as such”. So, in a sense, this ought to be a trivial conference lasting about five minutes. The fact that it isn’t shows where things are going to head: towards accepting and promoting patents in European standards, including those for software.

That’s not really surprising, given who are organising it – the European Commission and the European Patent Office (EPO). The European Commission has always been a big fan of software patents; and the EPO is hardly likely to be involved with a conference that says: “you know, we *really* don’t need all these patents in our standards.”

Of course, the opposite result – that patents are so indescribably yummy that we need to have as many as possible in our European ICT standards – must emerge naturally and organically. And so to ensure that natural and organic result, we have a few randomly-selected companies taking part.

This sort of fake debate (like the one we find in climate change) is summoning the fake controversy which the mobbyists and lobbyists work so hard to create. They want to distract with questions which ought to be trivial and instead put disinformation at the centre of it all. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Why Windows Phone 7 Shows That Windows in General is Collapsing

Posted in Microsoft, Steve Ballmer, Vista, Vista 7, Windows at 3:50 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Vista 7 is unsuitable for form factors that customers increasingly adopt

WINDOWS is not doing well. Don’t believe the spinners. When it comes to profit, the numbers not only declined over the years; these turn out to be faked figures, too (the rest of the revenue comes from squeezing the goose, inflation, forced ‘upgrades’ and so on). Even Microsoft is now admitting that Windows has an innovator’s dilemma-type crisis. It just doesn’t scale, not even Vista 7 which Microsoft claims to be lighter than Vista (how inappropriate a basis for comparison).

According to this Microsoft booster, Vista 7 is too heavy for tablets. It’s implicit and subtle. By saying that Vista Phony 7 [sic] might be needed for tablets, Microsoft inadvertently admits that Vista 7 is too fat.

If Vista Phony 7 [sic] is Microsoft’s plan for the future, then no wonder we saw more and more people saying that Ballmer is already on the exit chair, awaiting ejection (and it won’t be Ballmer setting off this chair). As my colleague and friend Tim puts it, what Microsoft says is not reality and even its PR is suffering a lot this month. Examples are being given, including some from the overly-hyped KINect:

Today I thought that I would present a list of articles/links which hardly put Microsoft in the same light as its PR agents and boosters would want you to know.

[...]

Can Microsoft compete with the Nintendo with Kinect? – On the basis of this and other reports around the net, I wouldn’t think so.

[...]

It also seems Microsoft advocates/boosters will tell you that demand has it sold out. This doesn’t appear to be the case and at time of writing HMV had these in stock. Maybe Microsoft is trying to generate some interest? Maybe Kinect sales are suffering with the same type of lag that the device reports to have (as per the BBC Click review) . Maybe the people who part with cash for this contraption can let us all know.

“Will Microsoft ride Kinect tiger or go Wii Wii Wii all the way home,” asks one of ZDNet’s FOSS-leaning bloggers, who adds:

As I noted Friday, Microsoft has backed down from earlier legal and technological threats against the programmers who turned Kinect into a general computer interface. But now Google’s Matt Cutts has tweaked the Green Monster with his own contest for the best Linux and open source applications using the device.

Note that this is not a Google contest. It’s a Matt Cutts contest. He just happens to work at Google.

As our Adrian Kingsley-Hughes notes, the Kinect’s parts cost just $56. Even at $149, that’s a healthy profit margin, but he also notes that Microsoft’s research costs mean it must sell “a lot of Kinect devices to turn this one into a serious money spinner.”

Based on the billions (in losses) which Xbox cost Microsoft, one should not be too optimistic here. KINect will definitely sell better than KIN, but again, this is not a proper basis for comparison. Any Wii sold already contains the equivalent of KINect. Microsoft is playing catch-up here and allegedly spends half a billion dollars just marketing this thing. The same goes for Vista Phony 7 [sic] marketing, which — as we predicted — will be money down the toilet. The Register ponders: “So did Windows Phone 7 ‘bomb in US’?”

40,000 devices is still embarrassing, even if it’s just the USA and leaves out the 90,000 or so Microsoft employees who’ll be getting one, and even if figures elsewhere are rather better. But before drawing any conclusions it’s worth thinking about the numbers.

Charles Arthur, who is working for a Bill Gates-funded publication (where the sponsorship helps inject bias sometimes [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]), looks back at the early days of Windows and suggests that we are seeing the end of this era. His headline states: “Has Microsoft’s Windows had its day?”

The bald man in the ill-fitting check jacket doesn’t pause as he stands beside the beige 1980s-vintage PC. The words pour out of his mouth like the sharpest huckster you’ve ever seen. “How much do YOU think this advanced operating environment is worth? WAIT just ONE minute before you answer,” he instructs eagerly. “WATCH as Windows integrates Lotus 1-2-3 with” – he clutches his lapels – “MIAMI VICE!”

The screen shows picture of a Ferrari pasted into a document. “NOW we can take THIS Ferrari and paste it RIGHT INTO Windows Write,” the man gabbles. “NOW how much do you think Microsoft Windows is worth?… DON’T ANSWER. WAIT until you see Windows Write and Windows Paint and LISTEN to what else you get at NO EXTRA CHARGE!”

We’re only 15 seconds in but already you feel buffeted. “The MS-DOS executive, an appointment calendar, a cardfile, a notepad, a clock, a control panel, a terminal, printer, a RAM driver, AND CAN YOU BELIEVE IT, REVERSI, yes that’s right, ALL these features and Reversi, for just – HOOOOW much did you guess?”

Guess? We had to guess? ” FIVE HUNDRED? A THOUSAND? EVEN MORE? NOOOO it’s just 99 dollars, that’s right, it’s 99 dollars, it’s an incredible value but it’s true, it’s Windows from Microsoft, order TODAY! PO BOX 286-DOS,” he concludes as the address flashes on the screen, before adding weirdly, and without explanation, “…. Except in Nebraska.”

Arthur refers to the viral video below. Tim (of TechBytes and OpenBytes) does not expect Ballmer to survive next year at Microsoft. Vista Phony 7 [sic] is just one of his many recent failures. █

Steve Ballmer in Windows 1.0 advertisement

Permalink A Single Comment      Send this to a friend

Eye on Security: BBC Propaganda, Rootkits, and Stuxnet in Iran’s Nuclear Facilities

Posted in Microsoft, Security, Windows at 3:01 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Some of the latest security news which affects only Windows users (or people whom Windows is using)

HERE are some security news picks from the past week.

MSBBC

Not a week goes by without some BBC propaganda such as this. Since many former Microsoft UK employees took leading positions in the BBC, new articles like this neglect to mention major facts like the scary story only referring to Windows and not computers by and large (BBC Click is encouraging similar narrow-mindedness right now).

“BBC’s usual high standards: no mention of MS Windows,” wrote Glyn Moody in response to it. Gordon from TechBytes wrote: “Yet another Windows only story “forgetting” to mention either “Microsoft” or “Windows” #fail !BBC” (he claims to have had a “deja-vu, found another the other day“).

Ask the BBC to call out Windows and thus inform the public. “Computer” is not the same as “Microsoft Windows” and taxpayers who fund the BBC deserve to know this.

The rest of the security news is tediously repetitive (yet new), so we just add it below categorised.

Rootkit

i. More Layers, Please

M$ has put many coats of paint on the old barn to secure that other OS but the malware writers have discovered a way to alter the MBR data so that rebooting turns off some of the layers of protection. The result is rootkits on the beloved 64bit “7″. Fortunately, our 64bit machines run Debian GNU/Linux. You need physical access to the machine or root access to alter the MBR with GNU/Linux. That other OS provides the tools by default… The modifications to UAC after the Vista fiasco opened the door to this rootkit. Malware artists have been going through this door since August.

ii. Rootkit able to bypass kernel protection and driver signing in 64-bit Windows

The 64-bit version of the Alureon rootkit / bot is able to bypass the special security features included in the 64-bit versions of Windows 7 and Vista and insert itself into the system. The tricks used have been known about in theory for several years, but until recently had not been used by malware in the wild. The 32-bit version of Alureon made headlines early this year, when the installation of a Microsoft patch left many systems unable to boot. The problem was caused by the previously unnoticed presence of the rootkit, which the patch effectively unmasked.

The 64-bit version of Alureon (aka. TDL) deactivates checks for driver signing and, even during the boot process, reroutes specific API calls in order to bypass the kernel’s PatchGuard mechanism. Driver signing is intended to ensure that Windows only loads drivers from known vendors. PatchGuard is intended to protect the operating system kernel from being modified by malicious code.

Stuxnet

i. Stuxnet has a double payload

According to the latest analysis, Stuxnet is aimed not at disrupting a single system, but at two different systems. According to control systems security firm Langner Communications, the worm is not just designed to interfere with specific, variable frequency, motor control systems – it also attempts to disrupt turbine control systems. According to Langner, this would mean that, in addition to Iran’s uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, the country’s Bushehr nuclear power plant may have been a further target of the Stuxnet attack.

Specialists have been puzzling over the worm’s target for several weeks, with early rumours circulating that it was aimed at sabotaging Natanz or Bushehr. However, no-one initially suspected that its aim was to sabotage both plants, although clues that this might be the case have been emerging for some time. Stuxnet attacks Siemens control system types S7-300 (315) and S7-400 (417). The attack modules appear to have been created using different tools – probably even by different teams.

The code for the S7-417 system – used in the turbine control systems at Bushehr – is reported to be much more sophisticated than that for the S7-315 system. The code carries out what amounts to a man-in-the-middle attack in order to pass fake input and output values to the genuine plant control code. User code running on a programmable logic controller (PLC) does not usually query I / O ports directly, but instead reads from an input process image and writes to an output process image. Mapping of physical ports to logical ports is intended to ensure that I / O values do not change during processing cycles.

ii. Stuxnet virus could target many industries (from AP, copyright maximalist and fair use squasher)

A malicious computer attack that appears to target Iran’s nuclear plants can be modified to wreak havoc on industrial control systems around the world, and represents the most dire cyberthreat known to industry, government officials and experts said Wednesday.

They warned that industries are becoming increasingly vulnerable to the so-called Stuxnet worm as they merge networks and computer systems to increase efficiency. The growing danger, said lawmakers, makes it imperative that Congress move on legislation that would expand government controls and set requirements to make systems safer.

iii. Stuxnet Was Designed To Subtly Interfere With Uranium Enrichment

“Wired is reporting that the Stuxnet worm was apparently designed to subtly interfere with uranium enrichment by periodically speeding or slowing specific frequency converter drives spinning between 807Hz and 1210Hz. The goal was not to cause a major malfunction (which would be quickly noticed), but rather to degrade the quality of the enriched uranium to the point where much of it wouldn’t be useful in atomic weapons. Statistics from 2009 show that the number of enriched centrifuges operational in Iran mysteriously declined from about 4,700 to about 3,900 at around the time the worm was spreading in Iran.”

iv. Clues Suggest Stuxnet Virus Was Built for Subtle Nuclear Sabotage

The malware, however, doesn’t sabotage just any frequency converter. It inventories a plant’s network and only springs to life if the plant has at least 33 frequency converter drives made by Fararo Paya in Teheran, Iran, or by the Finland-based Vacon.

Even more specifically, Stuxnet targets only frequency drives from these two companies that are running at high speeds — between 807 Hz and 1210 Hz. Such high speeds are used only for select applications. Symantec is careful not to say definitively that Stuxnet was targeting a nuclear facility, but notes that “frequency converter drives that output over 600 Hz are regulated for export in the United States by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as they can be used for uranium enrichment.”

“There’s only a limited number of circumstances where you would want something to spin that quickly -– such as in uranium enrichment,” said O Murchu. “I imagine there are not too many countries outside of Iran that are using an Iranian device. I can’t imagine any facility in the U.S. using an Iranian device,” he added.

More links about Stuxnet:

1. Ralph Langner Says Windows Malware Possibly Designed to Derail Iran’s Nuclear Programme
2. Windows Viruses Can be Politically Motivated Sometimes
3. Who Needs Windows Back Doors When It’s So Insecure?
4. Windows Insecurity Becomes a Political Issue
5. Windows, Stuxnet, and Public Stoning
6. Stuxnet Grows Beyond Siemens-Windows Infections
7. Has BP Already Abandoned Windows?
8. Reports: Apple to Charge for (Security) Updates
9. Windows Viruses Can be Politically Motivated Sometimes
10. New Flaw in Windows Facilitates More DDOS Attacks
11. Siemens is Bad for Industry, Partly Due to Microsoft
12. Microsoft Security Issues in The British Press, Vista and Vista 7 No Panacea
13. Microsoft’s Negligence in Patching (Worst Amongst All Companies) to Blame for Stuxnet
14. Microsoft Software: a Darwin Test for Incompetence
15. Bad September for Microsoft Security, Symantec Buyout Rumours
16. Microsoft Claims Credit for Failing in Security
17. Many Windows Servers Being Abandoned; Minnesota Goes the Opposite Direction by Giving Microsoft Its Data
18. Windows Users Still Under Attack From Stuxnet, Halo, and Zeus
19. Security Propaganda From Microsoft: Villains Become Heroes
20. Security Problems in iOS and Windows

Messenger

i. Microsoft disables Live Messenger links

According to the Vole’s blog, disabling the feature was designed to prevent the spread of a malicious worm.

The worm requires users to click a link within a message, upon which it will load a webpage that downloads the worm to your PC and then it sends the same message to people in your contact list.

It only affected those who had not upgraded to the newest version of Messenger that uses Microsoft’s Smartscreen, which shows up when you click on any link shared via Messenger.

A spokesperson said that the malicious worm was trying to spread itself through many of the world’s largest instant messaging and social networks, including Windows Live Messenger 2009.

Windows will never be secure. “Our products just aren’t engineered for security,” said Brian Valentine, one of the top Windows executive at the time. █

Permalink 2 Comments      Send this to a friend

Facebook Becomes Like Microsoft’s Hotmail 2.0

Posted in Google, Mail, Microsoft at 2:12 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg
with former Microsoft evangelist (source: Robert Scoble)

Summary: Over time, Facebook becomes more like a rebranding of Microsoft (another label on Microsoft services, akin to Yahoo! search in America)

Microsoft cannot create decent products. To quote Arno Edelmann, Microsoft’s European business security product manager, “[u]sually Microsoft doesn’t develop products, we buy products.” There are many examples. Hotmail, which failed after Microsoft had acquired it (in an attempt to buy its way into E-mail domination), is falling into oblivion despite overhaul attempts. On the Web, Microsoft continues to lose close to $3 billions every single year. That cannot qualify as a success story, can it? Even Windows figures are faked, but that’s another story.

Having found itself well behind the competition in social networks, Microsoft bought part of Facebook a few years back (see our posts about Facebook). Microsoft did attempt to buy the whole of Facebook, but a lot of people do not know this. On an inter-personal basis, Microsoft and Facebook are close friends too and both are patent bullies. Facebook’s founder hangs out with the world’s biggest patent troll, who is Microsoft’s former CTO.

In any case, just so that everyone keeps abreast of the latest developments around Microsoft Office Web Apps, it seems like there’s a true Microsoft-Facebook tag-team act which mimics Google Apps/Mail. Earlier this year we warned that Facebook was becoming an enemy of OpenDocument Format (ODF); instead of promoting open standards, Facebook decided to increase Microsoft lock-in and spread it further through its users. Here is news about that:

What Facebook Didn’t Mention: Microsoft Office Web Apps Come to New Messaging Platform

[...]

Facebook’s newly announced messaging platform will deeply integrate Microsoft’s Office Web Apps so that Facebook users can view Word, Excel and PowerPoint attachments without having to leave the site. Rumors about this integration started to make the rounds on the Internet last week. Oddly, though, Facebook didn’t mention this integration during today’s press conference and makes no mention of it in the official announcement on its corporate blog.

So without buying the whole of Facebook, Microsoft is already dangling Mark Zuckerberg (to whom Facebook users are “dumb fucks”) like a marionette, turning those “dumb fucks” as Mark calls them into Microsoft sheep. Glyn Moody has just challenged Mark to remember where he came from.

Microsoft’s Office documents are already the dominant formats used around the world – a position that Microsoft has worked long and hard to protect. The rise of ODF as an alternative is a hopeful sign that things can change, but let’s not delude ourselves: it is still used by only a small minority, and it is a constant battle to get the format accepted more widely.

That battle just got harder, thanks to Facebook’s decision to integrate Microsoft Office formats into Messages in this way. It makes it much easier to share Microsoft documents than those created with OpenOffice/LibreOffice, say. Given the huge following that Facebook has – especially amongst the younger generation – that’s a really big problem for free software and its future.

So we need to ask Mark Zuckerberg support open formats, too. Why do I think he might listen? Well, for a start, because of the following statement to be found on the Facebook developers site:

Facebook has been developed from the ground up using open source software.

Facebook might never have been created without the existence of zero-cost open source tools that allowed Zuckerberg and his mates to hack together some code easily and quickly when they came up with their idea. It wouldn’t have grown and flourished to its current impressive scale if it had needed to buy ever-more licences for the software that it uses to run its huge infrastructure.

Without Free software, Mark would probably still be in some dormitory or a drop-out after the disciplinary committee chastised and maybe prosecuted him for his offences on campus (this is a story which Facebook has successfully buried over the years, keeping it off the public eye).

Being a prisoner of Facebook increasingly seems like being stuck in a mythical “Hotmail 2.0″ that is just another platform with which Microsoft can manipulate and spy on (yes, Facebook gives its data to Microsoft) many Web users. Professor Eben Moglen is very concerned about Facebook, which he views as a top threat to freedom. █

Permalink A Single Comment      Send this to a friend

Mozilla’s Rob Sayre Claims to Have Revealed More Internet Explorer 9 Benchmark Fraud From Microsoft

Posted in Deception, Microsoft at 1:35 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Internet Explorer 9 (IE9) is said to be cheating in performance tests again

Microsoft relies heavily on benchmark fraud and we gave several examples such as this one from last year. Microsoft was at times threatened with lawsuits over these frauds.

Recently we learned that W3C entryism [1, 2, 3] may have also contributed to false Internet Explorer 9 (IE9) propaganda from the W3C. They got caught. Microsoft still relies on lies and cheating because IE9 is somewhat is a mess [1, 2, 3, 4] and its development team seems to be collapsing. A lot of money is spent brainwashing people, having them believe that this is not the case — that IE9 is actually a massive leap forward. Mozilla cannot match propaganda efforts by throwing hundreds of millions of dollars at perception campaigns. Mozilla just doesn’t even have that kind of money. What Mozilla can do, however, is help expose the lies which come out of Microsoft and Rob Sayre has just done that. Slashdot’s summary has the headline “Did Internet Explorer 9 Cheat In The SunSpider Benchmark?”

“A Mozilla engineer has uncovered something embarrassing for Microsoft – Internet Explorer is cheating in the SunSpider Benchmark. The SunSpider, although developed by Apple, has nowadays become a very popular choice of benchmark for the JavaScript engines of browsers.”

The original coverage of the original blog post starts by stating:

A Mozilla engineer has uncovered something embarrassing for Microsoft – Internet Explorer might be cheating in the SunSpider Benchmark. The SunSpider, although developed by Apple, has nowadays become a very popular choice of benchmark for the JavaScript engines of browsers.

Microsoft is a corrupt company (with many documents to prove it). Never expect fair benchmarks involving Microsoft. It ought to be noted that Microsoft is quite unique in that regard, so it’s not a scapegoat. █

“Microsoft did sponsor the benchmark testing and the NT server was better tuned than the Linux one. Having said that, I must say that I still trust the Windows NT server would have outperformed the Linux one.”

–Windows platform manager, Microsoft South Africa
Reference: Outrage at Microsoft’s independent, yet sponsored NT 4.0/Linux research

Permalink 3 Comments      Send this to a friend

Microsoft FUD at the End of its Life Cycle

Posted in Deception, FUD, GNU/Linux, Microsoft at 1:10 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.”

–(Usually attributed to) Mahatma Gandhi

Summary: Microsoft lies about GNU/Linux, which means it ran out of fear tactics and is now just using libel/slander tactics

SEVERAL weeks ago we showed that Microsoft had resorted to the last phase in its competition against software freedom [1, 2]. By choosing to go this way Microsoft only alienates more people as opposed to winning any friends.

Microsoft says that “Linux at the end of its life cycle,” according to Dr. Moody who translated from Russian:

The idea that “Linux is at the end of its life cycle” is rather rich coming from the vendor of a platform that is increasingly losing market share, both at the top and bottom end of the market, while Linux just gets stronger. I’d wager that variants of Linux will be around rather longer than Windows.

Microsoft’s claim is hilarious for so many other reasons and we’ll leave the subject at that. Below are some Russia-related links about other things Microsoft is doing to suppress GNU/Linux adoption. It’s a losing battle as it drives down the cost of Windows, devalues Windows, and leads Microsoft to so-called ‘piracy’ crackdowns which only accelerate defections to GNU/Linux.

FUD about GNU/Linux has generally increased a lot recently and the argument is void, it’s exceptionally weak. We have some new examples mentioned in the IRC logs and audiocasts (but not enough time to cover them in posts). █

• Why Dmitry Medvedev Should Not Invite Microsoft
• Is Microsoft Paying Russia to Take Schools off GNU/Linux and Halt Antitrust Action?
• Russia Continues Migration to GNU/Linux in Government, Microsoft Creates New Prevention Measures
• Russia Continues Migration to GNU/Linux in Government, Microsoft Creates New Prevention Measures
• How Microsoft Sabotages GNU/Linux Adoption in Russian Schools
• Russia to Microsoft: Stop Forcing People to Buy Windows
• Russia’s Antimonopoly Service Targets ASUS, Toshiba, H-P, Samsung and Dell for Potentially Colluding with Microsoft
• The United States and Russia Take Extra Steps Against Microsoft’s Monopoly Abuse
• Microsoft Antitrust in Europe, Russia, South Korea
• Microsoft Hits Russia Harder with Anti-Linux
• Off Topic: Microsoft Crime/Dirty Tricks Watch (Updated)
• OOXML Vote in Russia Overwhelmed by Scale and Pressure (Updated)
• Novell, Stay Out of Russia With Your Microsoft Software Patents Scam (Updated)
• “In Soviet Russia, Code Opens Microsoft”
• Catching up With Microsoft
• Russia Keeps Working on GNU/Linux (and Fighting Against Microsoft Corruption)
• More Criminal Activity in Bill Gates’ Past (Corbis Fraud), Russian Spies at Microsoft
• Microsoft Pulls an EDGI in Russia to Block GNU/Linux in Schools
• Microsoft-funded IDC (IDG) Attacks GNU/Linux in Russian Schools, Accused of Using “Corrupt” Data

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend