06.29.10

More Bilski Analysis/Links (and Microsoft Front Group Commends Florian Müller)

Posted in Courtroom, Microsoft, Patents at 7:53 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: New Bilski links and another possible linkage between Florian Müller and Microsoft

HERE are several new articles/blog posts about the Bilski case.

• High Court Considers H&C Brief in Landmark Bilski Ruling

Noted European patent expert Georg Jakob, who signed onto the amicus brief and coordinated retaining Hopkins & Carley to file the FFII amicus brief had this to say: “Today’s Supreme Court decision highlights the fact that real checks and balances are needed in to stop the patent system from running Amok. We need substantial patent reform in Europe now and real Courts that control the patent office. It might be uncomfortable, but the European Court of Justice can not run away from this responsibility. The core rules of innovation must not be left to apparatchiks, as the U.S.A. has shown us.”

• Bilski v. Kappos: The Supreme Court Declines to Prohibit Business Method Patents

In short, the ruling has done little to clean up the mess the CAFC helped created in 1998, when it decided State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, and opened the doors to patents for novel methods of doing business. That ruling knocked patent law loose from its historical moorings and injected patents into business areas where they were neither needed nor wanted. The results had been nothing short of disastrous: a flood of patent applications for services like arbitration, tax-planning, legal counseling, charity fundraising, and even a “system for toilet reservations.” In its Bilski opinion, the CAFC tried to fix the problem by effectively overruling State Street. Yesterday’s ruling eroded the CAFC’s limits on process patents, and thus missed an opportunity to fix some of the problems with those patents.

• Second Thoughts On Bilski: Could Another Case Get A Direct Ruling On Business Method Patentability?

So, I already wrote one initial post on the Bilski ruling, where the court basically seems to punt on the larger questions of the patentability of business methods by focusing very narrowly on whether or not Bilski’s specific patent is valid. However, as you read through the “concurring” rulings (pdf), it does seem like many members of the court want, very badly, to outlaw business method patents, but weren’t able to do so this time around. The court really had one clear question to look at here: whether or not the Federal Circuit’s “machine or transformation” test for patents made sense. The court ruled that this was not the only test, so the Federal Circuit erred on that part, even if there were plenty of other reasons to reject Bilski’s specific patent. The majority opinion by Kennedy makes it clear that the court is not making any statements on what is “excluded” from patentability. But the concurring opinions seem to have a serious problem with this. There are two concurring opinions and both express concerns about business method patents.

• Botching Bilski

It is truly tragic that this view narrowly failed to prevail – four judges were in agreement, but five wanted the weaker result that became the main opinion – since it encapsulates all that is wrong with the US patent system’s approach to business method and software patents.

Unfortunately, in the wake of Bilski, it will probably be some years before the Supreme Court addresses this issue again, with the result that many more billions of dollars will be wasted on US litigation around software patents. Worse, the botched opportunity to bring some sense to this area is likely to have knock-on effects around the world, which means that we will all suffer its negative consequences.

• Bilski & Warsaw Share Insights

As an entrepreneur/inventor/person who raises money for my companies, the patent system is a rich man’s game, and as I learned not to play poker with millionaires because they will simply raise the stakes until I can’t keep up, large corporations will eventually raise the litigation stakes until I lose.

• Who lost Bilski vs. Kappos besides Bilski & Warsaw? Ten answers

The notion of Free Software is fundamentally incompatible with software patents. Ciarán O’Riordan, the director of the EndSoftPatents.org campaign, made a statement at a European Commission hearing four years ago where he accurately said that software patents and free software don’t mix whether you cut the price of a patent in half or double it.

But the other part of FOSS, the open source community, is equally affected. While it doesn’t emphasize the concept of freedom as much as Richard Stallman and his followers, I know many open source advocates who are no less opposed to software patents than RMS is.

I venture to guess that the Bilski ruling will represent an obstacle to GPLv3 adoption. I wish the whole world could accept the patent clause in GPLv3, which is meant to counter patent licensing deals by FOSS companies and other entities, but under the circumstances it will be very hard to convince businesses and other contributors to FOSS development that this our-way-or-the-highway approach works in the world we (currently) live in.

• Breaking: Biotech and the Supremes: Prometheus Follows Bilski to Highest Court (For Just a Moment)

Yesterday the Supreme Court issued its decision in the highly anticipated patent case, Bilski v. Kappos. Contrary to some expectations, the Court decided Bilski on narrow grounds, leaving the state of biotechnology patents largely untouched.

• Justice Scalia’s Indecision a Victory for the Patent Bar

Bilski v. Kappos was the most-anticipated Supreme Court patent case in a generation. And when it was finally handed down on Monday, it turned out to be the most anticlimactic.

There’s been a raging debate about software and “business method” patents since an appeals court gave the green light to them in 1998. Many people, myself included, hoped that the Supreme Court would place new limits on such patents this term.

But Bilski turned out to be a bad test case. The applicant, one Bernard L. Bilski, tried to patent a “method for managing the consumption risk costs of a commodity.” If that doesn’t sound like the sort of thing patents are supposed to cover, that’s because it’s not. Almost no one other than Bilski and his attorney believed that he should get his patent.

• Guest Post on Bilski: Throwing Back the Gauntlet

Ultimately, Bilski v Kappos says more about how patent law is made in the United States than about patentable subject matter. By setting the clock back to 1982, the Supreme Court is telling the Federal Circuit to try again in devising workable rules for patent law. The Federal Circuit wrote an opinion that was goading the Supreme Court to address the issue of patentable subject matter after nearly three decades. The resulting opinion raises some fundamental and unsettled questions and, unfortunately, gives us the same, old answers.

• Narrow Bilski ruling leaves all options open for the future

The Supreme Court of the United States delivered its ruling on the Bilski landmark case yesterday. A split court issued a very narrow ruling, avoiding broad decisions on patentability. The Court explicitly refused to weigh in on the scope and limits of the patent system, stating that “nothing in this opinion should be read to take a position on where that balance ought to be struck”.

“We are pleased, but we feel the Supreme Court did not go far enough in banning all patents on abstract ideas such as software and business methods”, comments Benjamin Henrion on the outcome. The President of the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII) has a 10 years record of promoting patent reforms in the European Union, often to prevent “deterioration to US patenting standards”.

• Bilski loses, but the patent madness continues

Once upon a time, the U.S. patent system served a useful purpose. It was meant to encourage inventors and innovation. Ha! Boy, was that a long time ago. Now patents, especially software patents, serve only as bludgeons for patent trolls — companies that do nothing but own patents and then threaten to sue companies that actually do something with ideas — or they’re used by big companies to beat up on smaller ones. I had hoped that the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) would do the right thing in the Bilski case and slap both business process and software patents down once and for all. SCOTUS didn’t. While SCOTUS ruled against Bilski, the Court left the door open for IP (intellectual property) patents (PDF Link) to be granted.

• First thoughts on Bilski

I’m afraid that at the end of this brief train ride, my only firm conclusion can be that the real winners here are patent lawyers- this decision creates no new certainties, only uncertainties, which will encourage patenters to spend more money patenting things, and the rest of us to waste time and energy worrying about the problem- time and energy that should have been spent on innovating. But this is a long, multi-layered ruling, and will require a lot of time for the full implications to be truly understood, so take this one-train-ride blog post with a large grain of salt Hopefully more writing tonight/tomorrow.

• US Supreme Court rejects Bilski patent but nothing else

Reaction from the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) was immediate. Eben Moglen, Chairman of the SFLC, said “The confusion and uncertainty behind today’s ruling guarantees that the issues involved in Bilski v. Kappos will have to return to the Supreme Court after much money has been wasted and much innovation obstructed”. Daniel Ravicher, the SFLC’s legal director said the court had missed an opportunity to “send a strong signal that ideas are not patentable subject matter” and that the rejection of the Bilski patent “got rid of a symptom, but failed to treat the real cause”.

• Software Freedom Law Center Responds to Landmark Supreme Court Patent Decision

Attributable to Eben Moglen: “The landscape of patent law has been a cluttered, dangerous mess for almost two decades,” said Eben Moglen, Chairman of the Software Freedom Law Center. “The confusion and uncertainty behind today’s ruling guarantees that the issues involved in Bilski v. Kappos will have to return to the Supreme Court after much money has been wasted and much innovation obstructed.”

• Microsoft was against software patents before it was for them

Given the support of major corporations like IBM — and, perhaps, a “reformed” Microsoft — for patent protection, Mueller lamented that “it is hard to see how the opponents of software patents could successfully lobby the United States Congress.”

Watch Microsoft lobbyist ACT recommending Florian Müller after he privately pointed to their analysis/jubilation. Yes, a Microsoft lobbyist says that Müller “delivers the most insightful analysis of who lost in Bilski”. It’s just a tad interesting. He is now on some sort of a mission to “expose” Groklaw. These are “a couple thousand words on Mueller’s threat to “expose” groklaw’s “bias” in banning certain users (the specific case was Jay Maynard – Hercules maintainer),” writes Barbara. “I think the picture is apropos ” █

Permalink 2 Comments      Send this to a friend

IRC Proceedings: June 29th, 2010

Posted in IRC Logs at 7:21 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Read the log

Enter the IRC channel now

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Links 29/6/2010: New Fedora Project Leader

Posted in News Roundup at 7:04 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Clip of the Day

CLUG Talk 14 April 2009 – Keeping Time with Linux (2009)

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Microsoft’s Failure in Mobile Technology Shows That Microsoft Has No Promising Future

Posted in Apple, GNU/Linux, Hardware, Microsoft at 11:30 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Microsoft stumbles in mobile phones/devices and its share price too tumbles significantly as its future is questioned by pundits

Vista [sic] Phone 7 is not even out yet and it has almost no applications at all (big mistake for Microsoft to abandon third-party applications compatibility). So why does it receive so much press coverage? It’s not as though Windows Mobile even matters much in the phones space. It seems possible that Microsoft used the leak trick to get some coverage which supposedly resulted from an “accident” (Microsoft does this with Vista 8 at the moment because to put out there Vista 8 screenshots without a supposed ‘leaker’ can send the message that Microsoft to has given up on Vista 7). It’s hard to tell for sure, but Microsoft does use many fake ‘leaks’; it possibly learned this from Apple and we gave many examples before.

There are missing features (even copy and paste) and obstacles, such as the fact that Microsoft is alienating developers. Many large ones have dumped Windows Mobile, at least for now (examples include Mozilla, Skype, and Adobe). Tony Bradley from IDG argues that “Microsoft might be late to the party and have trouble reversing the tide.”

Eric Knorr from IDG publishes his thoughts under two separate headlines (maybe changed by an editor), one being “Microsoft’s embarrassing problem with the future” and the other being “Why Microsoft Can’t Figure Out What’s Next”. From the summary [1, 2]:

When it comes to mobile computing, the cloud, and desktop virtualization, Microsoft can’t seem to shoot straight

We have already covered the fact that Microsoft is sort of bribing mobile developers so that they target Vista Phone 7. The pro-Apple sites call this bribery [1, 2] (“Microsoft Bribing iPhone Developers to Build Windows 7 Games”) and it’s reportedly not working out for Microsoft. The fragmentation [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] sure is not helping and the problem is recognised by more and more sites [1, 2]. Apparently pushing ads is Microsoft’s idea of a ‘killer feature’ [1, 2]:

Microsoft is positioning its upcoming Windows Phone 7 smartphone OS, planned for release this October, as an “ad-serving machine.”

Who would want something like that? Surely not users.

This whole thing is starting to look like another Zune in the making. Our reader Ryan, who used to work at Walmart as an assistant manager, still visits the store and he says that “Walmart has a 16 GB Zune HD. They haven’t sold any in the last 4 months at least. I can tell because they haven’t moved”

Zune is likely to be doomed, but Microsoft depends on its operating system because of the disaster called “KIN” (more on that in a moment). “Bing-Zune integration still not working,” says CNET’s headline and yet again downtime hits the Zune. It suffered a downtime last week and it has become an embarrassment to Microsoft, whose CEO tried to distance himself from the product’s failure. Unsurprisingly, Microsoft’s CEO is not paid so well compared to peers [1, 2, 3] and according to Cory Doctorow:

Aaron Swartz has the news of how the White House is trying to gut a piece of legislation (passed by the House and the Senate) that would be key to reining in CEO compensation in large corporations

The WSJ links to itself (a subsite of sorts, where Kara defends Microsoft) in an article titled “Could a New CEO Fix Microsoft?”

A pro-Microsoft publication goes with the headline “How Vulnerable Is Microsoft?”

Joe Wilcox gives “Five reasons why Microsoft can’t compete (and Steve Ballmer isn’t one of them)” while Matt Asay (Canonical) claims that “Microsoft disqualifies itself from smartphone race”

In the hugely competitive smartphone arms race, there’s only one real certainty:

Microsoft is out. Disqualified. Not competitive.

Why? Because Microsoft failed to tune into its own theme song: “Developers. Developers. Developers.” For a variety of reasons, the company fetished Windows desktop developers to the exclusion of mobile developers and now it’s paying the price.

Just how “not competitive” is Microsoft? Well, last week we aired the rumours that Microsoft had sold just 500 units of "KIN". Microsoft is not denying it yet:

But when taking a closer look at the information that’s available — since Microsoft is unlikely to offer sales numbers that could dispute or confirm the rumor — its easy to see why this tall-tale has legs.

TechFlash’s Microsoft booster Todd Bishop took it upon himself to get some answers and he investigated in a local shop. He wrote:

For starters, if I hadn’t been looking for the Kin, I might not have known it was there. At each of the Verizon Wireless stores I visited, the Kin did have a dedicated area, measuring a few feet across against the wall. But the area was generally overshadowed by promotional areas for Android devices and other high-end phones sold by the carrier.

For those who do not know, TechFlash is still receiving Microsoft sponsorship, but this time around it’s a lot more diluted:

A big thanks to our sponsors for their support: Barokas PR, BDO, Bing, KeyBank, and R2integrated. For additional sponsorship opportunities, please contact Joe Heslet at jheslet@bizjournals.com.

In order to float “KIN” Microsoft has come up with a new and pathetic press release, appealing to children. Microsoft pretends that it’s a niche product for young people, not for stupid buyers.

The price of “KIN” was cut by about 50% (depending on the store) due to abysmal demand and it continues to receive terrible reviews, the latest example being this detailed review from Brighthand:

The bottom line:

Microsoft stated that, with the Kin, they were developing a phone that sits somewhere between so-called “feature phones” that offer the basics and a full-featured, pricier smartphone, but with the Kin Two, they’ve managed to capture the worst of both worlds, often underperforming low-end phones when it comes to capability while charging more than a typical smartphone if you opt for the Zune Pass subscription.

No wonder the management left the project and the company. It’s just a total embarrassment. Open for Business has another new review of “KIN” and it was disappointed, just like everyone else (misguided buyers, not just reviewers whom Microsoft sent a phone).

Sadly, for now this means we would point those in the market for a new Verizon phone to one of the company’s collection of Android devices instead. We wanted to like the KIN, and like the concept car analogy mentioned earlier, many of its ideas are good in theory – they just come up short in practice.

At the expense of Microsoft and other brands, Linux/Android and Apple continue to grow (the Linux-based Android and Apple grow at the fastest pace). Forbes has published “Could Apple Collapse? Not Likely”

This is a response to Henry Blodget’s contention (also published in Forbes) that “odds are increasing that Microsoft’s business will just completely collapse.”

“It’s funny that a Microsoft booster/watcher becomes a Microsoft basher within just a couple of years. Maybe he just cannot ignore the facts anymore.”These articles have some factual basis. Another new one from Henry Blodget is titled “Reason No. 19 Why Microsoft’s Business Is Massively Threatened: Corporate Users Now Want What They Have At Home”

Bloomberg is responding to Blodget and it’s part of the big PR campaign that tries to show Microsoft as professional and invincible. Joe Wilcox, a former editor of the “Microsoft Watch” Web site which has been almost dead for months right after he left it, argues that “Apple revenue will likely top Microsoft during Q2″

It’s funny that a Microsoft booster/watcher becomes a Microsoft basher within just a couple of years. Maybe he just cannot ignore the facts anymore. “Microsoft Volatility Elevated; Shares Near 10-Month Low,” said this financial site last week. Another financial news site says that “Microsoft Is Down 15.77% Since Reporting Quarterly Results 57 Days Ago” and “Microsoft 9.20% Below its May 6th Flash Crash Low of $27.91″ (those are just the headlines).

Unless Microsoft can find a way to evolve for the Web and adapt to mobile technology, its days (or years) may be numbered. It already has an increasing debt. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Inaction From Ombudsman/EU Commission Regarding Microsoft Lobbyists Derailing Public Policy

Posted in Deception, Europe, Microsoft, Standard at 10:11 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Many months after the original complaint (almost a year) a deadlock is reached and Microsoft gets away with legalised corruption of EU guidelines

LAST YEAR I went through a lot of trouble trying to submit feedback and expose the role played by Microsoft lobbyists in derailing documents which promoted Free/libre software and/or open standards. Thanks to Wikileaks we already had sufficient evidence, but we asked for the evidence to be provided by a verified source, namely the EU Commission. This long journey was covered in posts such as:

1. European Open Source Software Workgroup a Total Scam: Hijacked and Subverted by Microsoft et al
2. Microsoft’s AstroTurfing, Twitter, Waggener Edstrom, and Jonathan Zuck
3. Does the European Commission Harbour a Destruction of Free/Open Source Software Workgroup?
4. The Illusion of Transparency at the European Parliament/Commission (on Microsoft)
5. 2 Months and No Disclosure from the European Parliament
6. After 3 Months, Europe Lets Microsoft-Influenced EU Panel be Seen
7. Formal Complaint Against European Commission for Harbouring Microsoft Lobbyists
8. ‘European’ Software Strategy Published, Written by Lobbyists and Multinationals
9. Microsoft Uses Inside Influence to Grab Control, Redefine “Open Source”

Today we received the following message with a 7-page PDF from the Ombudsman’s Microsoft Exchange server (they are still stuck with proprietary software). The message says:

From – Tue Jun 29 15:04:11 2010
X-Account-Key: account11
X-UIDL: UID16773-1237770691
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
X-Mozilla-Status2: 10000000
X-Mozilla-Keys:
Return-path: <EO@ombudsman.europa.eu>
Envelope-to: [roy]
Delivery-date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 13:40:27 +0100
Received: from smtp15.europarl.europa.eu ([136.173.62.228])
by blueberry.active-ns.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <EO@ombudsman.europa.eu>)
id 1OTa70-0001IA-PE
for roy@schestowitz.com; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 13:40:27 +0100
Received: from EMAILLUXSV31.ep.parl.union.eu (unverified) by SMTP15.europarl.europa.eu
(European Parliament) with ESMTP id <T96908f85e588ad3ee41ddc@SMTP15.europarl.europa.eu> for [roy]
Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:40:19 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
boundary=”—-_=_NextPart_001_01CB1788.3C8C821C”
Subject: Complaint Nr. 1719-2009-(MAM)JF
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:40:20 +0200
Message-ID: <44E78AF8B41BA34C8988D3EB5783B2B201C404FE@EMAILLUXSV31.ep.parl.union.eu>
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Complaint Nr. 1719-2009-(MAM)JF
Thread-Index: AcsXiDxE1b0lnSc1RryOrWc8/LFItw==
From: “Euro-Ombudsman” <EO@ombudsman.europa.eu>
To: [roy]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

——_=_NextPart_001_01CB1788.3C8C821C
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=”us-ascii”
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<<1719-2009-(MAM)JF-S2009-113616.pdf>> =20
Dear Sir,

Please find attached a letter from the European Ombudsman which was sent
to your postal address on 20 November 2009 and returned undelivered on
23 Junbe 2010.

Yours sincerely

The Registry

It’s not clear why it bounced and why it took 6 months to return to the sender. In any event, the enclosed PDF reveals nothing new; the Commission was asked to provide a copy of edits from Microsoft’s lobbyist (Association for Competitive Technology). It never provided this, despite repeated requests. Sending just the final documents is absolutely useless as it says nothing about the process which was not transparent and was also stuffed by multinationals. It’s rather outrageous, but at least we have documented proof of what happened and why the system is broken. More recently, this same broken system derailed the EIFv2 (see coverage below) and it’s going to happen again and again unless something is reformed or the ‘bad apples’ get thrown out. “The more corrupt the state, the more laws,” said Publius Cornelius Tacitus. Replace “laws” with “lawyers”? █

1. European Interoperability Framework (EIF) Corrupted by Microsoft et al, Its Lobbyists
2. Orwellian EIF, Fake Open Source, and Security Implications
3. No Sense of Shame Left at Microsoft
4. Lobbying Leads to Protest — the FFII and the FSFE Rise in Opposition to Subverted EIF
5. IBM and Open Forum Europe Address European Interoperability Framework (EIF) Fiasco
6. EIF Scrutinised, ODF Evolves, and Microsoft’s OOXML “Lies” Lead to Backlash from Danish Standards Committee
7. Complaints About Perverted EIF Continue to Pile Up
8. More Complaints About EIFv2 Abuse and Free Software FUD from General Electric (GE)
9. Patents Roundup: Copyrighted SQL Queries, Microsoft Alliance with Company That Attacks F/OSS with Software Patents, Peer-to-Patent in Australia
10. Microsoft Under Fire: Open Source Software Thematic Group Complains About EIFv2 Subversion, NHS Software Supplier Under Criminal Investigation
11. British MEP Responds to Microsoft Lobby Against EIFv2; Microsoft’s Visible Technologies Infiltrates/Derails Forums Too
12. Patents Roundup: Escalations in Europe, SAP Pretense, CCIA Goes Wrong, and IETF Opens Up

Permalink 2 Comments      Send this to a friend

Netrunner 2 (Codenamed “Blacklight”) is Released – Ubuntu Without Mono

Posted in GNOME, GNU/Linux, KDE, Mono, Ubuntu at 9:51 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The first release of Netrunner

Summary: A Ubuntu-based GNU/Linux distribution which excludes Mono reaches its second release

Netrunner submits: “just dropping a line to say we released the second version of Netrunner. From our website:

Netrunner 2 is re-based from Gnome to KDE!
Yet it still aims to be fully Ubuntu/GTK+/Gnome-compatible!

Netrunner 2: Blacklight features well-known Gnome-apps like nautilus, synaptic and more out-of-the-box:

* Firefox 3.6.3
* installed web browser plugins (Java, Flash)
* OpenOffice Software Suite 3.2
* VLC media player with codecs
* Thunderbird email client
* WINE 1.42
* GIMP paint program
* audacious (winamp-like music player)
* Pidgin
* vuze (filesharing program)
* and even more

All that on top of a well-tuned and easily customizable KDE 4.4 Desktop Environment!

“And of course we still ditched mono completely and installed a lot of software instead,” remarked the lead developer. █

Update: Here is a screenshot of the new version (Netrunner 2)

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Microsoft Keeps Losing Market Share to Google, Goes Aggressive, Discriminates Against GNU/Linux, and Grabs People’s Healthcare System

Posted in GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Patents, Search, Servers, Windows at 9:43 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: In order to become “too big to fail” Microsoft is grasping at people’s medical records, sues competitors (using software patents), and offers bribes for people to embrace Microsoft because Google in particular keeps gaining

MICROSOFT is having a hard time and it has begun manufacturing more Vista 8 vapourware (it’s apparently faked as being “leaked” for some extra allure), which is telling because it says Vista 7 is passé (c/f the previous post). Microsoft does this type of thing (bogus numbers too) when morale in the company is low. Microsoft lacks direction in many divisions as presidents and vice presidents leave the company. Last week there was a job swap [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], which is somewhat indicative of strategic misdirection.

Microsoft bolsters a strategy of lawsuits, with a recent example revolving around Hotmail (mentioned beforehand, but still being covered in the news [1, 2]) and other examples involving lawsuits against GNU/Linux (via distributors). These are signs of desperation. Frivolous lawsuits alienate and distract. Ask SCO.

Several months ago Microsoft dumped Linux/UNIX support from FAST (a shot in the foot) and it turns out that Apptus uses this to poach Microsoft customers (a path to other proprietary software). From its new press release:

Apptus, Europe’s leading developer of search and content enrichment services for online directories, today announced that they will offer all users of the FAST Enterprise Search Platform to replace it with their own platform Theca at no cost for licenses. The announcement was made as a response to the spring news that FAST’s present owner Microsoft will abandon all further Unix and Linux platform support for FAST.

Microsoft may be running out of friends, but not just yet. Microsoft has just honoured Accenture, which helped Microsoft in England and sued with software patents. Bad minds think alike.

In the case of Yahoo!, the company avoided Microsoft by all means. It wanted nothing to do with Microsoft before the proxy battle began and Microsoft overthrew the old management, eventually putting on top a Microsoft partner (Carol Bartz). She is driving the company into the ground but in a way that’s at least beneficial to Microsoft.

Yahoo Inc. CEO Carol Bartz faced shareholders at the company’s annual meeting Thursday—18 months into her effort to turn around an unfocused Internet giant eclipsed by Google Inc. and left battered by Microsoft Corp.’s failed takeover attempt.

It was failed, but the bullies eventually got their way as they virtually bought it cheaply and they will pass many users to Microsoft’s engine of lies (biased results by design). Yahoo! might also pass advertisers to Microsoft. What on Earth is this deal? Is anyone watching this covert corporate takeover? Forbes goes along with a deceiving hypothesis and with the headline “How Yahoo Learned To Love Microsoft,” neglecting to mention how the old management was pushed out, only to be replaced by Microsoft partners and former managers. It’s not the same Yahoo! anymore and it puts in jeopardy many people who are being profiled by Microsoft and brainwashed by Microsoft (which provides biased search results).

Here is what Murdoch’s press had to say about a related subject:

A new system to police privacy abuses by companies that track consumers’ Web-surfing habits for ad targeting will be launched in coming months by groups whose members include heavy users of this type of information—Internet companies such as Yahoo Inc. and Microsoft Corp. and advertising companies like WPP PLC.

Apple too is a privacy menace, but that’s a story for another time.

A few days ago we also wrote about rotten things in Telstra, whose CIO has just quit:

Telstra’s chief information officer, John McInerney, has announced he is leaving the company to pursue new opportunities. He has been on leave since April.

Who will replace him? They have already had Microsoft executive staff entering the company’s management.

AOL too is said to be at risk of being taken over by Microsoft [1, 2] and John Dvorak believes it’s a terrible idea. Some days ago he wrote:

Should Microsoft buy AOL?

Microsoft Corp. just seems intent on doing something dumb, such as its earlier attempt to buy Yahoo Inc., so I think this rumor of a takeover of AOL Inc. may be in play. But there could be more to it than meets the eye: a curse!

Microsoft is afraid of Google because it became a threat to it in the Web browsers, operating systems, and office suites space. At the moment, Google is pushing GNU/Linux into the mainstream (maybe Dell desktops/laptops/tablets):

Google’s (GOOG) Chrome operating system will be locked in a market share war with Microsoft’s (MSFT) Windows OS when it’s released later this year. Microsoft has a huge lead because it runs, by some estimates, on 90% of the PCs sold around the world. The success of Windows 7 may help cement that advantage. But the tide could be changing.

Google and Dell (DELL) are discussing a deal to have its Chrome OS put on on the PC company’s laptops. According to Reuters, “We have to have a point of view on the industry and technology direction two years, three years down the road, so we continuously work with Google on this,” Amit Midha, Dell’s president for Greater China and South Asia said.

This is also covered in [1, 2, 3, 4] and many other articles we mentioned last week.

Dell is not hostile towards GNU/Linux, despite that recent debacle [1, 2, 3]. The Consumerist asks, “Did Microsoft Make Dell Take Back Love Letter To Linux?”

It will be interesting to see if Dell chooses Chrome OS (based on Ubuntu GNU/Linux) at the expense of Ubuntu GNU/Linux. The pro-Microsoft press has published the article “How Google Will Defeat Microsoft” and new figures suggest that Google continues to gain at Microsoft’s expense in search.

Experian Hitwise reported that Yahoo’s market share dipped to 14.4% in May, from 15% in the prior month, while Microsoft’s share fell to 9.2% from 9.4%. Yahoo and Microsoft have agreed to combine search operations, in a bid to gain ground on Google.

This is also covered in:

• Hitwise: Google Grew U.S. Search Lead in May
• Google’s U.S. Search Share Increases Almost 1%, Says Hitwise
• Google, the Topmost Search Engine in the U.S
• Hitwise: Google Gained Search Market Share in May
• Hitwise: Google Gains 1% In US Internet Search Share In May
• Google Increased Its Search Dominance in May

These results are consistent with what we’ve been seeing from companies that Microsoft is not paying while they produce so-called ‘market share’ figures. Microsoft’s partner comScore [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10] says the very opposite and lets Microsoft game statistics. comScore should be ignored because with Microsoft money on its table it contradicts the rest of the pack which claims to be measuring the same thing (without receiving payments from Microsoft). This is indeed a complaint about comScore, which is part of the propaganda that the press repeats without investigating and asking key questions (or ask the sceptics what’s wrong with the numbers and with the sources). Murdoch’s press is still airing the same propaganda from ‘research’ firms that are in Microsoft’s pocket. No shame?

“Murdoch’s press is still airing the same propaganda from ‘research’ firms that are in Microsoft’s pocket.”Anyway, Microsoft is “attacking” Google Apps and IDG advertises (in the form of an article, also here for increased exposure) a case study for Live@Edu (do see this leak). It’s claimed to be taking a Google Apps customer, possibly with the usual bribes that Live@Edu offers to those who sell out their colleagues (we acquired leaked documents to show this and there is recent anecdotal evidence).

The truth of the matter is that as much as Microsoft wants to succeed in Fog Computing (Microsoft boosters, press releases, and few others [1, 2] play along), the area is dominated by companies like Google and even Salesforce. The Salesforce lawsuit [1, 2, 3] shows that Microsoft has given up on competing like a technology company and decided to act more like a patent troll. Microsoft’s spat is “the greatest thing that’s ever happened,” says Marc Benioff, the head of Salesforce. He explained it in the context of Microsoft invading other people’s conferences (Microsoft does this to other companies, which just shows what an aggressor it is, like Novell).

Microsoft’s lawsuit against his company hasn’t cowed Salesforce.com chief executive Marc Benioff, judging from his on-stage remarks today.

Benioff spoke in San Jose, Calif. at a launch event for Chatter, the company’s new social networking application for businesses. During that speech, he repeatedly took swipes at Microsoft, noting for example that there were Microsoft representatives handing out fliers outside the event. (On the other hand, Salesforce representatives are a familiar sight outside Microsoft events.)

Microsoft is trying to extract money from Salesforce operations, which run GNU/Linux. This appalling strategy has already worked with former Microsoft executives at Amazon, who pay Microsoft for both GNU/Linux and Windows servers. Microsoft gets paid either way, no matter if people choose Azure, Red Hat on Amazon’s EC2, or Windows on EC2. This is clearly an abuse and it puts in jeopardy a fair market. To make matters worse, Fog Computing potentially gives Microsoft enormous power over people’s sensitive data.

Microsoft hired top lobbyist because it’s trying to control more people’s medical records, this time in the EU/UK as well [1, 2]. With all the typical PR offensives Microsoft is taking more control away from the taxpayers, this time exploiting its relationship with the NHS. According to British news sites [1, 2] and Microsoft boosters like Marius Oiaga, Microsoft it trying to gain greater control over UK healthcare [1, 2] (Canadian healthcare has a similar threat).

This atrocious possibility of giving Microsoft the data of patients is being scrutinised in The Guardian:

The perils of privatised health records

As Microsoft launches its new health records website, ministers must resist the temptation to cut the NHS’s online data service

This whole health lobby is partly backed or assisted by the Gates Foundation, which has just expanded to having London presence (more on that later). Should the NHS let sick people give Microsoft their personal data without an option to opt out? This is a travesty that Canada’s healthcare ought to dodge too. █

Permalink 2 Comments      Send this to a friend

John Dvorak: Vista 7 Was “a Face-saving Vista Re-do”

Posted in GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Security, Vista, Vista 7, Vista 8, Windows at 7:38 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: As Microsoft runs away to Vista 8 vapourware we take a look at its failure to spread Vista 7 in the market (less than 10% market share in business, almost a year after its release)

John C. Dvorak has not been much of an optimist when it comes to Microsoft. And who can blame him? Earlier this month a former Microsoft executive was alleged to have said that Microsoft should lay off 30%-40% of its workforce. Over the past week we have found no headline at all about Vista (containing “Vista” in the headline) and Reuters says that Dell estimated the percentage of commercial PC users who have updated to Microsoft’s Vista 7 as still in single digits.

This helps in debunking Microsoft's latest spin/lies about ‘sales’ numbers of “Windows 7″ (it’s almost the only thing that made headlines about Vista 7 in last week’s news). About Vista 7, argues John Dvorak in a new column, “it was a face-saving Vista re-do.” Within more context:

This particular series of ads was possibly the biggest blunder the company could have made. It revealed a monumental communications ineptitude. To make things worse, I think that Microsoft still hasn’t realized what a bad idea the whole thing was. What the company did realize, however, was that Vista was not doing as well as it had hoped. Microsoft quickly ramped up Windows 7, selling it as though it was something different. Fact is, it was a face-saving Vista re-do. This time, everything was brilliant and on-time. This put the PC back on track, opening up the opportunity for upgrades without having to worry about “bad” PC systems.

But the thing is, there are more machines now that come preloaded with GNU/Linux. Based on market statistics, many businesss have no ongoing plans of leaving Windows XP, despite Microsoft’s discounts and promotions. Here is one new example of it:

Windows 7 Professional is the Windows 7 SKU targeted primarily at small business users. To get these customers to bite, Microsoft is offering them a $100 Southwest Airlines voucher.

Microsoft is giving away unused licences to brag about fake ‘sales’ numbers (we explained this in detail before and also gave examples). Windows XP SP2 is being pushed off a cliff [1, 2], but it’s a risky bet that potentially leads some customers to competitors such as GNU/Linux. “Microsoft sets out options as XP SP3 nears End of Life,” says the headline of another report.

According to Ian Moulster, Windows product manager for Microsoft UK, Vista and XP users will have several options. “They can move to XP SP3 or to a later version of Vista or they can opt for Microsoft break-fix, which is a low level support. That’s not recommended as a long term solution though.”

So staying with XP is not an appealing option and people who picked Vista get burned. One person wonders, “Is Microsoft Windows in danger of becoming the “XP Mode” of the future app world?” (the lock-in modality persists and there is need for legacy compatibility).

Microsoft Jack (Schofield) writes about the imminent death of XP SP2 (can be replaced by Wine under GNU/Linux in many cases). Schofield is not quite retiring and maybe he was pushed out of the Guardian where he rarely writes anymore. That’s the better explanation we have for the fact he writes for ZDNet UK now.

“Well the initial impression is how much it [Vista 7] looks like Vista. Which I think is…uh…the thing I’m not supposed to say.”

–Jack Schofield

Those who still use XP may some day be barred from the Australian Internet because XP will never be secure (Microsoft does not really patch it).

ZDNet Australia has just published a reminder of this:

The Federal Government, alongside the Internet Industry Association (IIA), yesterday launched a code of practice that aims to reduce the amount of zombie-infected computers on the internet.

Zombie-infected computers are PCs connected to the internet that are infected with malware.

It is estimated that 1 in 2 Windows PCs is a zombie PC. In the next post we’ll show (without linking) that Microsoft has begun another round of Vista 8 vapourware. It always means that Microsoft is struggling. █

“In the face of strong competition, Evangelism’s focus may shift immediately to the next version of the same technology, however. Indeed, Phase 1 (Evangelism Starts) for version x+1 may start as soon as this Final Release of version X.”

–Microsoft, internal document [PDF]

Permalink A Single Comment      Send this to a friend