05.31.21
Posted in Office Suites, OpenDocument, OpenOffice, Oracle at 10:53 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Millions of people who use and support the software deserve greater transparency
Summary: StarOffice, OpenOffice, LibreOffice and the languishing AOO (Go-OO is dead already) are still the go-to office suites for Free software users; they’re based on similar if not the same codebase (in the same sense many of today’s Web browsers are based on Chromium) and the business objectives of the main stewards (whose corporate DNA goes into the code) need to be understood because even longtime volunteers aren’t sure what’s going on
During the weekend, amid postings about the Annual Report 2020, TDF or LibreOffice published a blog post entitled “Get printed copies of LibreOffice handbooks!“
Of course there’s nothing morally wrong with selling printed copies of something that’s online, but one reader asked us, “I am curious about where the funds from printed books for LibreOffice go… to the project or to the documentation volunteers?”
“We’ve always been supportive of LibreOffice because unlike Go-OO it had a real purpose, seeing the threat of neglect by Oracle.”So we’ve decided to ask around and research for a bit, as we have some key contacts. “I have not been doing anything there nor following it for ages,” one person told us. “Last I checked, most of the developers had gone over to LO from AOO anyway…” (from Apache OpenOffice to LibreOffice)
Every now and then, maybe a few times per month, the official LibreOffice account interacts with me in Twitter. In fact, we were one of the sites to first announce the LibreOffice project way back in 2010. We’ve always been supportive of LibreOffice because unlike Go-OO it had a real purpose, seeing the threat of neglect by Oracle.
“Having volunteered with both libre and apache openoffice.org, (majority of AOO documentation team going to Libre and not returning) I had felt as though Libre documentation team was all about selling manuals,” said our reader to us. “Just a feeling I had while there. When I went over to AOO (after Libreoffice’s rudeness toward AOO), and we were discussing licensing (cc by 3.0 then libre used cc 4.0), it seemed like the AOO documentation lead person was also moving in this direction (selling printed manuals) or had some work relation with Jean Weber, formerly of AOO, and now at Libre. I’m just curious if the funding for the printed books go to Libre project or to the authors. There are mailing list posts of Jean Weber and AOO where Lulu login/accounts are discussed.”
An informed person whom we spoke to, one who was involved in LibreOffice but especially in AOO, noted that the “latter was languishing.”
“It would be important to know how their finances are arranged,” the person noted. “They have a foundation based in Germany, but as mentioned I have not followed it nor know what their economic sources and priorities are. Perhaps that is published somewhere.”
I noted, based on my understanding, that there are companies like Collabora throwing some “added value” at it and now there’s some introduction of “community edition” or something along those lines… (they called it "Personal Edition" several months back)
“That sounds like it might be an unfortunate change of direction,” the person added. “It could end up “open core” instead soon in one of the worse scenarios.”
Are we moving back in the direction of StarOffice? Hopefully not…
As far as we’re aware, the TDF/LibreOffice folks never fully or entirely withdrew from this ambition of theirs. We’ll be watching this situation closely. The most important thing, or the aspect of utmost importance, is the freedom (libre) in LibreOffice. Dual licensing is one of the worst possible outcomes. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
10.18.20
Posted in Antitrust, Bill Gates, IBM, Java, Microsoft, Oracle, SUN at 3:55 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Gates, a hypocritical businessman and college dropout (he wasn’t a particularly good college student), has turned computing into religious wars (or cults) rather than a technical (scientific) endeavour
Summary: Peace disallowed by Bill Gates, as usual; to him, this is all just a religious war that strives to cull out and eliminate or convert the ‘infidels’ (those who reject his religion); the Bill Gates deposition tapes show his deep concerns and fear of Java APIs
THE Bill Gates deposition has material relevant to the Java API case that’s going to SCOTUS and is already being discussed.
“Microsoft still treats GNU/Linux users in this way, equating geeks with fanatics.”Transcripts are included, but we’ve cut aside the relevant bits, which exposed a deep attitudinal problem. The word “Jihad” was used a lot [1, 2, 3, 4]; if Bill Gates views his business as a “Jihad”, then why not resort to insulting projections, insinuating that people who like Java are “rabid” (his word) religious fanatics. Microsoft still treats GNU/Linux users in this way, equating geeks with fanatics.
The text below refers to Sun‘s NetPC (NC). For those who don’t know what it’s all about, check our wiki pages. Here we go: (“A” is Bill Gates, where “Q” is the interrogator, asking Questions)
24 A. I don't remember seeing it.
25 Q. The subject of this e-mail is "Overview
601
1 slides for Billg/NC & Java session with 14+'s on
2 Monday." Do you see that?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And I think you identified the 14+'s
5 as the -- some group of executives; is that correct?
6 A. No.
7 Q. What is the 14+'s?
8 A. It's people above a certain level,
9 primarily engineers. Also executives, but mostly
10 engineers.
11 Q. It's all the people in the company
12 above a certain level, the 14 level?
13 A. Which are mostly engineers and not
14 executives.
15 Q. How many people are there in the 14+'s
16 group?
17 A. It's a good question. I think around
18 200 to 300.
19 Q. And these would be the people in the
20 200 or 300 top rated jobs in the company; is that
21 correct?
22 A. If top means the best compensation,
23 yes.
24 Q. Now, do you recall the slides that are
25 attached to this e-mail?
602
1 A. I remember when I testified earlier
2 seeing these and saying that I was pretty sure that I
3 never presented these slides.
4 Q. Do you recall whether someone else
5 presented these slides in January of 1997?
6 A. I'm not sure. I remember looking at
7 the slides and thinking probably not.
8 Q. Let me ask you to look at the third
9 page of the exhibit, which is headed "Key Platform
10 Challenge." It is page 2 of the charts and page 3 of
11 Exhibit 383, in which it says "NC & Java are platform
12 challenges." Do you see that?
13 A. Uh-huh.
14 Q. Did you believe in January of 1997 that
15 Java was a platform challenge?
16 A. Not Java the language, but some of the
17 Java runtime APIs that were being promoted to ISPs in
18 the way that Sun and others were talking about
19 enhancing them were platform challenges.
20 Q. When reference is made here to Java, do
21 you understand that to refer to what you refer to as
22 Java runtime APIs?
23 A. I'm not sure.
24 Q. Are you aware of people asserting that
25 Java runtime APIs were a platform challenge in or
603
1 about January of 1997?
2 A. I just told you that we looked at what
3 was going on in terms of the plans of Sun and other
4 people with Java runtime APIs as being a platform
5 challenge.
6 Q. Are you aware of any other platform
7 challenge represented by Java other than Java runtime
8 APIs?
9 A. No.
10 Q. So would it be fair to say that you
11 believe that when reference is made here to Java, the
12 reference means Java runtime APIs since it asserts
13 here that Java is a platform challenge?
14 A. It's the best way to make sense of a
15 document that I haven't seen until my deposition, as
16 far as I know.
A little further down:
15 Q. And did Mr. Stimac tell you that he was
16 thinking about taking a job with IBM?
17 A. I think he did.
18 Q. And did he tell you that one of his
19 concerns was whether IBM's relationship with
20 Microsoft would be a problem?
21 A. I see that in the e-mail. I don't
22 remember it specifically.
23 Q. Do you remember people at IBM being
24 concerned about IBM's relationship with Microsoft
25 being a problem?
666
1 A. No.
2 Q. Do you remember Mr. Stimac telling you
3 that he was concerned about whether IBM's
4 relationship with Microsoft would be a problem either
5 here or -- or at any other time?
6 A. No, I don't remember that.
7 Q. In response to that you say that you
8 told him that "The Java religion coming out of the
9 software group is a big problem." Do you see that?
10 A. Uh-huh.
11 Q. Did you tell Mr. Stimac that?
12 A. I don't remember telling him that.
13 Q. Now, when you talk about the Java
14 religion coming out of the software group, you're
15 talking about IBM's software group; correct, sir?
16 A. I'm not sure.
17 Q. Well, this sentence immediately follows
18 Mr. Stimac purporting to be concerned about whether
19 IBM's relationship with Microsoft would be a problem
20 and immediately precedes a sentence in which you say
21 you told him that IBM refused to big anything related
22 to Backoffice.
And separately (much later)
11 The next paragraph you say, "Overall we
12 will never have the same relationship with IBM that
13 we have with Compaq, Dell and even HP because of
14 their software ambitions. I could deal with this
15 just fine if they weren't such rabid Java backers."
16 Now, when you refer in that sentence to
17 "they" as in "I could deal with this just fine if
18 they weren't such rabid Java backers," you're again
19 talking about IBM; correct?
20 A. Parts of IBM. It's important to
21 distinguish different groups in IBM.
22 Q. And the different groups in IBM would
23 include perhaps, among others, the software group as
24 one and the PC group as another; correct?
25 A. That's right.
669
1 Q. At the end of that you say that you are
2 willing to take some risk in improving the
3 relationship and you think that steps ought to be
4 taken to approach them, and you end by saying "We
5 should position it as let's do some things that are
6 good for both of us but which require some of the
7 rhetoric to be lowered on both sides. On their side
8 I mean Java and NC."
9 And "their side" you're talking about
10 IBM's side?
11 A. I think so.
12 Q. And what you're saying is that you want
13 a message conveyed to IBM that in order to improve
14 the relationship, you want some of their rhetoric
15 lowered on Java and NC?
16 A. No.
17 Q. No? Did you want IBM to lower their
18 rhetoric on Java?
19 A. I actually explain in this message that
20 I thought the rhetoric was actually hurting IBM
21 itself, independent of Microsoft.
22 Q. Did you think it was hurting Microsoft?
23 A. I wasn't sure. In terms of specifics,
24 I wasn't sure.
25 Q. When you say that you could deal with
670
1 IBM's relationship just fine if IBM wasn't such rabid
2 Java backers, weren't you saying that you thought
3 that IBM's rabid backing of Java was bad for
4 Microsoft?
5 A. I know at this time we thought some of
6 the claims around Java were just plain false and
7 weren't doing customers any favors by leading them
8 down a belief that certain things were solved that
9 were not solved.
10 Q. My question, Mr. Gates, is in October
11 of 1997, did you believe that what you refer to here
12 as IBM's rabid backing of Java was something that was
13 hurting Microsoft?
14 A. I can't point to any particular hurting
15 that it was doing. We didn't think it was accurate
16 in terms of what technically could be achieved with
17 Java.
18 Q. Let me put the question this way. In
19 or about October of 1997, did you want to stop IBM
20 from being what you refer to here as a rabid Java
21 backer?
22 A. We thought some of the rabidness was
23 hurting IBM as well as the industry as a whole.
24 Q. Did you believe it was hurting
25 Microsoft, or were you just doing this as sort of a
671
1 public spirited company to try to help IBM from
2 hurting itself?
3 A. I can't point to any particular damage,
4 but we certainly would have preferred if the more
5 extreme statements we didn't think were true, if they
6 weren't pushing those forward.
7 Q. Mr. Gates, let me put it this way. In
8 October of 1997, were you trying to get IBM to reduce
9 its public support for Java?
10 A. I say in here that under some
11 circumstance the rhetoric should be lowered on both
12 sides and that I think that's -- you know, that makes
13 sense in certain circumstances.
14 Q. I don't think you actually say in
15 certain circumstances, do you, sir? You may have
16 meant that, I'm not saying you didn't mean it, I'm
17 just saying those words don't appear here, do they?
18 A. No. It's all about "I am willing to
19 take some risk in improving the relationship and
20 think you should approach them on steps for
21 improvement." It's in that vein that I talk about
22 rhetoric being lowered on both sides.
23 Q. And then you go on to say that you mean
24 on IBM's side they lower the rhetoric on Java and NC;
25 correct?
672
1 A. The rhetoric.
2 Q. And by rhetoric, you were talking about
3 public rhetoric?
4 A. Definitely public rhetoric.
5 Q. And is it fair to say in October of
6 1997 you were trying to get IBM to reduce its public
7 rhetoric in support of Java?
8 A. I don't know what you mean "trying." I
9 talk about a circumstance in which both sides would
10 lower their rhetoric.
11 Q. You were offering to lower your
12 rhetoric if they would lower their rhetoric; is that
13 fair? Isn't that what you say right here?
14 A. In the context -- this is about
15 improving the overall relationship, which is not
16 focused on the rhetoric. It says in the context of
17 that improved relationship, I think both of us should
18 lower our rhetoric.
19 Q. Indeed you say that the improved
20 relationship will "require some of the rhetoric to be
21 lowered on both sides."
22 A. That's a statement about human feelings
23 that if our rhetoric is so high, it will be hard for
24 them to do their side of improving the relationship
25 and vice-versa.
673
1 Q. You then go on to say on their side,
2 IBM's side, you mean Java and NC.
3 A. That's part of the rhetoric I'm
4 referring to.
5 Q. Part of their rhetoric?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. That you wanted them to lower; isn't
8 that true?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Okay. Let me ask you to look at
11 Exhibit 401. This is a message from you to
12 Mr. Ballmer and Mr. Chase with a copy to Mr. Maritz
13 and some other people also given copies dated
14 August 15, 1997 at 4:07 p.m. on the subject of IBM
15 and Netscape; correct?
16 A. Uh-huh
22 years have passed. Mr. Maritz took over a serial GPL violator at one stage, Java is still around, and Oracle goes hardball over Java APIs (after more than a decade of lawsuits it reaches the highest court). Microsoft is still fighting against Java, but it’s mostly a losing battle. Many developers abandoned the Microsoft ‘religion’, so Microsoft bought GitHub with malicious intent. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
09.20.20
Posted in GNU/Linux, IBM, Microsoft, Oracle at 10:28 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Sucking up to dictators, spitting right in the face of freedom
Summary: The Linux Foundation issued statements to the effect of opposing Donald Trump, but its current leadership (people from companies like Oracle, Microsoft and IBM) is a strong proponent of doing as much business as possible with Trump (even in violation of international law)
Permalink
Send this to a friend
07.09.18
Posted in America, Oracle, Patents at 2:58 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Turning something beautiful into something ugly
Summary: A look at the ongoing activity at the USPTO, which is still granting some abstract patents, and some of the resultant shakedowns and lawsuits
THE GROWING uncertainty over US patents that are abstract isn’t enough to deter large actors that either pursue patents or are suing. It’s like “slush funds” to them.
Even after SCOTUS‘ Alice ruling (more than 4 years ago) software patents continue to be issued by the USPTO. This roundup of newly-issued patents (published last night for New Hampshire alone) reveals quite a few such patents, including this from Oracle:
Oracle International Assigned Patent for Assigning Applications to Virtual Machines
Oracle International, Redwood Shores, California, has been assigned a patent (No. 10,007,538, initially filed July 15, 2016) developed by four co-inventors for “assigning applications to virtual machines using constraint programming.” The co-inventors are Serdar Kadioglu, Somerville, Massachusetts, Michael Colena, Hollis, New Hampshire, Samir Sebbah, Medford, Massachusetts, and Mirza Mohsin Beg, Foster City, California.
Software patent.
Watchtroll with its anti-Google agenda has just brought up Oracle America v Google. Remember that Oracle is trying to amass billions of dollars using patent and copyright litigation. Oracle became a patent aggressor because its market power is slipping away.
We found another interesting thing last night. Canadian patent troll WiLAN, citing one of its subsidiaries in this new press release, says it enters into an extortion settlement with Etron. To quote: “Wi-LAN Inc. (“WiLAN”), a Quarterhill Inc. (“Quarterhill”) company (TSX: QTRH) (NASDAQ: QTRH), today announced that its wholly-owned subsidiary, Polaris Innovations Limited (“Polaris”), has granted a license for certain patents owned by Polaris to Etron Technology Inc. and Etron Technology America, Inc. (collectively “Etron”). The licensed patents relate to DRAM integrated circuit and memory devices.”
“Patent quality may have improved, but it does not mean that things are all rosy. Many patents never get tested by a court and are nonetheless used for extortion purposes.”Not to be mistaken for Polaris Industries Inc., which days ago Docket Navigator covered by saying that “a district judge overruled defendants’ [Arctic Cat's] objection to the magistrate judge’s order denying defendants’ motion to compel the production of documents regarding plaintiff’s financial relationship with its subsidiary.” (Polaris Industries Inc. v Arctic Cat, Inc. et al)
Oracle has nearly killed Solaris (it just wanted Sun for its patents and copyrights) and Polaris (both of them) now give a really bad name to the word. Patent quality may have improved, but it does not mean that things are all rosy. Many patents never get tested by a court and are nonetheless used for extortion purposes. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
08.09.16
Posted in Apple, Google, Oracle, Patents at 11:31 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Patents, especially software patents, continue to pose a threat to progress where innovation is a lot faster than in most scientific domains
SEVERAL years ago I developed software designed to help cars navigate. It was a research project funded by the EU. I did not pursue patents, nor did I look up any. In the USPTO — unlike in the EPO — ‘pure’ software patents exist (for now at least) and there are software patents on driving, not just on miniature computing systems that distract from the task of actually driving (the buzzword these days is “infotainment”).
“In our daily links we’ve recently included many news items about the dangers associated with autonomous cars (bugs, back doors, lack of human judgment and no communication — verbal or body gestures — with other drivers).”According to this news, “Google Self-Driving Car Director Chris Urmson Hits Exit Ramp To Pursue Other Projects,” which says a lot about market prospects. In our daily links we’ve recently included many news items about the dangers associated with autonomous cars (bugs, back doors, lack of human judgment and no communication — verbal or body gestures — with other drivers). If Google is having issues with this endeavor (as does Tesla reportedly), who would pursue moving from theory (or even from patents) to reality/practice? My project’s supervisor at the time worked part time for Google (primarily a university professor) and he too wasn’t optimistic about the work. It’s just a very hard task, not just because of lack of patents or anything like this. For similar reasons, voting should not be done by machines (there is extensive literature about the drawbacks) and patent examination cannot be done by machines (no matter what Battistelli and his clueless circle believe or hear from the opportunistic private sector looking for outsourcing).
According to a pro-software patents author, patents on “infotainment” are being pursued not so much by Google and Apple but by automakers. To quote one bit:
According to market research reports, the market for in-car infotainment systems is expected to rise from $14.4 billion in 2016 up to $35.2 billion in 2020.
Putting aside the fact that drivers should focus on driving rather than phonecalls and Internet browsing, it’s not entirely accurate to say that Google stays out of it because Google is pursing a lot of patents on things inside the car, including the driver (which Google hopes to replace with a machine). Cars that are entirely autonomous may be a distant dream, but partial mechanisation — like vocal/visual assistance while parking — is already here and there is nothing innovative about it (it’s actually extremely simple to implement).
“Cars that are entirely autonomous may be a distant dream, but partial mechanisation — like vocal/visual assistance while parking — is already here and there is nothing innovative about it (it’s actually extremely simple to implement).”Speaking of Google, in this new article Florian Müller says that “Google’s integration of Android into Chrome makes a third Android-Java copyright trial 100% inevitable,” even though APIs are not copyrightable (there was a ruling on that a few months back, but there were also patents thrown into the mix). He told me “[i]t’s not about ARC but about the full integration of the Android Marshmallow APIs into Chrome.” Well, as long as there is no copyright on APIs (as the latest judgment acknowledged), Oracle would just be wasting its money and become even less popular.
Regarding Apple-Android/Google (or Samsung being one OEM of several) disputes, Müller didn’t imagine that “Apple would entirely fail to garner support from companies” in its patent wars using design patents, but he later corrected his article and said: “An earlier version of this post was based on the (false) assumption that last week’s widely-reported amicus brief by 111 designers and design educators was the only amicus brief supporting Apple. This misperception was due to the delay with which both the court’s own website and the SCOTUSblog get updated. Actually, a total of 10 briefs were filed in support of Apple. Furthermore, the first version of this post noted an “artsy font” used on the title page of the designers’ brief. However, that font was only used in the version published on Apple’s website.” (links in the article)
These petty patent wars between Apple and Android OEMs are clearly far from over. Apple is losing market share to Android pretty rapidly, so it hopes to simply tax Android rather than beat it (artificially raising the price of Android, henceforth becoming a little more competitive). Well, such is the legacy of dumb patents on every stupid thing. Battistelli has proven to be totally clueless about Apple's patents at the EPO (these were found invalid in the courts after they had been granted by the Office). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
06.27.16
Posted in Apple, Europe, Microsoft, Novell, Oracle, Patents at 9:10 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
A weak and/or incompetent EPO would harm everyone in the world
Summary: A short story about how and why we ended up writing so much about the European Patent Office (EPO) and the impact beyond Europe
THE EPO has become a subject of considerable debate and focus here. It started around 2014 after we had primarily focused on the US patent system, the USPTO.
For those who have not been reading the site since its inception, here is a short introduction.
I had been a GNU/Linux advocate well before this site existed and an opponent of software patents (not patents as a whole) for a little longer than that. People who have themselves developed software don’t find it difficult to understand why copyrights, not patents, are suitable protection for one’s work (protection from plagiarism, misuse, misattribution, and so on).
The earliest goal of the site, back almost 10 years ago, was to end the software patents assault by Microsoft against GNU/Linux and Free software in general — an assault which began if not publicly culminated with the Microsoft/Novell patent deal. Novell took several years to decline after this deal and ultimately, unsurprisingly, Microsoft grabbed Novell’s own software patents, in a joint takeover along with Apple, Oracle, etc. These companies do not want Linux and Android to succeed, not without them being heavily taxed by the proprietary software oligopoly (Microsoft, Apple and Oracle still have ongoing patent/copyright fights against Android).
Apple’s attack on Linux (through Android) officially began in 2010, whereupon we wrote a great deal about Apple and shortly afterwards Oracle joined this war. It had already shown some hostility towards Red Hat, just shortly before the Microsoft/Novell deal in 2006.
For those who are not yet seeing a pattern, let it be spelled out clearly; the rise of Free software and GNU/Linux gave power to new actors such as Google, which made proper use of Free software in order to build back- and front-end stacks (databases, operating systems, AI, Web servers and so on). This meant that gadgets-selling giants, database giants, operating systems giants/monopolies etc. that were and still are proprietary (e.g. iOS, Mac OS X, Oracle, Windows) needed to either crash/crush emergent forces or tax them, using either patents or copyrights (this goes back to 2003 with the Microsoft-backed SCO assault on Linux).
Right now, in 2016, the aforementioned issues are unresolved. Microsoft is still attacking Linux (but more cleverly, with shrewdly-worded announcements that brand/frame patent settlements as bundling deals), Apple still has several patent cases against Android OEMs, and Oracle refuses to give up even after 6 years in the courtroom (against Android through Google). The cause of utmost importance here deals not only with software patents anymore but also with some design patents (Apple v Samsung) and copyright on APIs (Oracle v Google).
About 8 years ago we expressed concerns about software patents in Europe due to FRAND lobbying (from companies like Microsoft) and Brimelow’s loophole “as such”. We thereafter didn’t keep a close eye on the EPO for quite some time. Not much seemed to happen, but new kinds of abuses started to emerge and these seemed to be related to the resurrection of the “EU patent” or “community patent”, this time under a new kind of name and marketing (equating maximalism with union, unity, universality etc.) accompanied by/with repression of staff and suppression of critics. Even the staff union of the EPO, which had existed for several decades, came under unprecedented (even outside the EPO) attacks.
The reason we now focus a great deal on the EPO is that we have reasonably good understanding of the matters involved. We also have many articles on the subject, which helps us create a cohesive story with a lot of cross-referencing. Our goal now is to help other people (EPO insiders as well as politicians who are outsiders) gain an equally good understanding of why the EPO’s management must be chopped laterally and replaced en masse. It is the only way to save the EPO right now. Delegates that make up the Administrative Council probably have a good grip on the current situation, but they are afraid (or tied up by Battistelli’s hand on the budget), so they are not likely to do anything. The EPO needs somewhat of a revolution and strikes/demonstrations are steps towards that.
In the coming days we shall have a lot to write about the EPO and we will devote plenty of time and resources to ensure this historic period in the EPO is properly documented. We welcome feedback from readers and we hope that new material will continue to flow in. Now that everyone in the UK (and increasingly beyond) talks about “Brexit” it looks like Battistelli will definitely fail to deliver on his promises. He will be remembered not as a pioneer manager who compromised the rule of law for some ‘necessary’ reform but as a ruthless tyrant that shattered the EPO’s reputation for many years if not decades to come.
The EPO will outlive Battistelli and it is everyone’s job, especially at the EPO, to fight for patent quality (i.e. defy Battistelli’s ‘productivity’ obsession or lunacy). Remember that patent offices live or die (or make or break if not perish) based on the value or perceived value of their granted patents, i.e. examination that increases certainty in a court of law. Being an ENA graduate, Battistelli perhaps hopes that his predecessor will be left to deal with the aftermath of his atrocious policies (brain drain, low patent quality, reputation problems). Then the blame might be misplaced. A retired Battistelli would have little or nothing to worry about, but what about patent examiners who are far from retirement? How about retired examiners whose pension will be at risk? Given some upcoming Battistelli ‘reforms’, many people’s pensions are already at risk. This is just bad for Europe’s competitiveness across many sectors (medicine, chemistry, physics, telecommunication and many more). As patents get granted and assigned not just to European applicants (only the employees of the EPO are European), this may also means innovation will happen in the courts (lawyers’ strategies with patent trolls) rather than in the laboratories. Patent monopolies that are granted for the sake of being granted (artificially elevating some measure of EPO ‘output’) rather than to promote innovation can retard human progress as a whole. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
04.03.16
Posted in Deception, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Mono, Oracle, Patents, Ubuntu at 6:09 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Harm offensive or charm offensive? “A campaign of flattery, friendliness, and cajolement designed to achieve the support or agreement of others” –Oxford Dictionary
“I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may laugh at my expense — I deserve it.”
–Be’s CEO Jean-Louis Gassée
Credit: unknown (Twitter)
Summary: An analysis of last week’s Microsoft media frenzy, which despite Microsoft’s persistence with and insistence on proprietary software (not to mention its perpetual war on GNU/Linux using software patents) truly succeeded and it looks a great deal like the media strategy championed by Donald Trump
HAVING studied Microsoft and its extensive network of external PR agencies for well over a decade, and having studied the latest PR charm offensive for a whole week (while patiently taking notes along the way), I now feel prepared (on a Sunday when it’s all said and done) to provide my explanation of what happened. In short, it’s a PR campaign. It’s not a new PR campaign; it’s continuation of an existing PR campaign, whose banner is typically “Microsoft loves Linux” (that’s the misleading motto). Those who have followed non-disclosure agreements probably know that Microsoft is still attacking Linux. It’s a demonstration of hatred, not love. The genius of this PR campaign is that it logically reverses what’s true. It’s like BP stating that it loves wind power, the Koch Brothers stating that they love Senator Sanders, and Clinton stating that she loves self-determination.
“The genius of this PR campaign is that it logically reverses what’s true.”At the moment, judging by the reaction of people to this PR campaign, I can see roughly three groups. There are those who are still distrusting Microsoft. There are those who are increasingly confused by what Microsoft is doing, not sure what they’re really up to. The third group is either people who are in the Microsoft camp (profiting from it) or those gullible enough to believe what Microsoft is saying, sometimes even repeating the “Microsoft loves Linux” lie.
In this article we shall break down last week’s ‘news’ into roughly three categories or strands. We are going to show the reality behind all this PR, which was emitted in big quantities (with help from lousy media) and in quick succession. Little time and space were left to respond to the PR.
Microsoft Hates Linux
Dozens of articles, some of which were very long, were published here in 2015 and in 2016 and therein we responded to the “Microsoft loves Linux” lie. We gave actual examples from the news (not old stories) which demonstrate Microsoft’s ongoing campaign of hatred towards GNU/Linux. Microsoft is, as usual (as per its notorious history), using its money in an effort to undermine the competition (GNU/Linux in this case), not just with/through SCO, which it supported financially before dunking money into Novell (Microsoft used Novell to start a campaign of patent litigation and extortion, finally sweeping up Novell’s own patents as a grand finale). We wrote about this a few days ago and also one month ago when media wrongly claimed that it was all over. Here is what FOSS Force has just had to say about it. Don’t be easily fooled. There are no coincidences there. Microsoft-funded Linux kernel lawsuit: 13 years and counting (better headline for this article from Condé Nast) because Microsoft just loves Linux…
“We are going to show the reality behind all this PR, which was emitted in big quantities (with help from lousy media) and in quick succession.”Microsoft hates Linux. It just needs people to believe otherwise whilst attacks go on. Microsoft tries to conceal its real intentions (in the minds of top management, not low-level developers).
Microsoft’s Media Strategy
Last week we explained how the "Tay" story (or non-story) got used as Microsoft opportunism, PR, a distraction, and propaganda. It was the Donald Trump kind of PR strategy. Just mention “Hitler” or something like that and the press will be all over you; and if there’s no such thing as “bad publicity” (as all such publicity can be spun positively given the skilled personnel), then you inevitably win hearts and minds.
“Tay” was not news at all… it was more of a PR stunt. Like the “Microsoft loves Linux” stunt, among other things, as we shall show in a moment. The more shocking the statement, the more press you are guaranteed to receive. Provocation or “rhetoric” is what some call this strategy (in relation to Trump in politics).
“It was the Donald Trump kind of PR strategy.”In a nutshell, all that happened last week was, the media got invited to play a role in a provocative media strategy that baits the reader (including misleading images with hearts in them), someone called Wim ended up being hired by Microsoft because he got offered a higher salary (so he moved from one evil proprietary software giant to another), and finally, as expected, Miguel de Icaza and his colleagues at Microsoft once again openwash .NET. That’s pretty much all that it boils down to. Not much to see here, so why not just move along?
No, Linux (or Ubuntu) Isn’t on Windows
There’s no news here ((2-19] below are headlines we didn’t include in our daily links because they added nothing new), except maybe Vista 10 promotion. It now rides the wave or enjoys the positive publicity of the Linux brand. Some people ‘reviewed’ this supposedly ‘new’ thing [20-24] and some rightly criticised it [25-26].
I personally used Cygwin when I started university more than 15 years ago (one partition of mine ran Windows 98, the last version I ever had). At work and at university I was using GNU/Linux exclusively, so sometimes I needed somewhat of a ‘bridge’.
“The more shocking the statement, the more press you are guaranteed to receive.”Microsoft now claims credit for Cygwin, or sort of claims to have innovated/invented it. What a shame. Did the media not research this properly? Early coverage regarding this came from 3 Microsoft boosters (the night before the actual announcement) and it was highly misleading, probably by design. As we wrote at the time, they’re probably being gamed or fed by Microsoft’s PR agents (if not directly). They published highly misleading ‘teasers’ that set the tone to many misleading articles the following day.
“WSL doesn’t really let you do very much that you couldn’t already do for many years via Cygwin,” one person explained [1] (a reasonably good journalist), so it was all hype and lies. Some comments said the same: “Does anyone understand how this works? I thought Cygwin worked the same way.”
Microsoft is not really offering anything new, just putting Microsoft’s name on old stuff. This quickly raised questions about GPL compatibility.
“Microsoft is not really offering anything new, just putting Microsoft’s name on old stuff.”As FOSS Force put it: “Then there was the twelve hour scare, when news was leaked that Canonical and its newfound buddy Microsoft were bringing Ubuntu to Windows. At first look, that turned out to be something of a non-story, as the Windows version of the Linux-distro-that-would-be-Windows comes without just about everything you might expect to find in a GNU/Linux distribution. What you get, basically, is access to Ubuntu’s implementation of the Bash shell, which we now might call MS-Linux-DOS.”
Many journalists ended up mischaracterising it as “Ubuntu on Windows 10″ (that’s from today!). It’s not Ubuntu on Windows 10. That’s just a gross oversimplification.
“Mister Linux” Nonsense
“Mister Linux” is Mr. Torvalds. Everyone knows Torvalds, more so than people know or recognise Mr. Stallman. How many people even heard the name Wim Coekaerts? Surely not many. Yet Microsoft propaganda sites now make Wim sound like some kind of a huge celebrity; “Mister Linux” is what some of them dub/call him. Yes, someone who worked for a proprietary software firm that attacks Linux/Android using patents is apparently “Mister Linux”. Poppycock! Judge the total of 7 articles about it [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7] and notice how many of them came from Microsoft boosters and/or apologists. Why is it “news” when a company the size of Microsoft hires someone? He’s not even that famous. They make it seem like he is. How convenient. They try to bolster that “Microsoft loves Linux” narrative rather desperately now. They give feet to a myth. What really happened here? Most likely Microsoft offered this man a lot of money. As we noted here over the years, Microsoft offered huge lumps of money to FOSS luminaries, in order for them to join Microsoft. Simon Phipps openly complained about it. Jono Bacon, who managed the Ubuntu community, was among those whom Microsoft offered a lot of money in an effort to poach him. He declined.
Shame on Canonical? No, on Greed and Self Interest.
Canonical is now doing Microsoft’s E.E.E. (embrace, extend, extinguish) for Microsoft. It actively helped the E.E.E. The Canonical employee who did this said in his blog that Microsoft had even sponsored him. What does that tell us in light of the situation Bacon was in? OMG Ubuntu was dumb enough to call E.E.E. (not FOSS) “lovefest” (this reminds us of its Mono enthusiasm). A loaded headline, “Nothing To Worry About Microsoft Newly Found Love For Linux”, misleads the reader by reinforcing Microsoft lies amid E.E.E. There’s no love there. Microsoft has accelerated not only E.E.E. tactics. It also accelerated patent strikes against Linux and Android, but one (the former charm offensive) helps distract from the latter.
Microsoft’s Most Notorious Propagandists Come Out as ‘Experts’
“Speed and competition mean that a lot of so-called ‘journalists’ rush to write things based on hearsay and press releases, which typically means Microsoft and its confidants inside the media.”Mary Branscombe, whom we mentioned here recently , has spent many years acting like a Microsoft PR agent in ‘reporter’ clothing, habitually attacking FOSS and openwashing Microsoft. “New Microsoft, new attitude” says her latest puff piece and she is not alone. Well, it’s clear what the strategy (as in media strategy) is because we quickly saw several of Microsoft’s other anti-Linux actors coming out from the shadow, along with Mary. They’re really attacking by pressing on with E.E.E. agenda. Suddenly, for the first time in months if not years, Rob Enderle rears his head regarding FOSS (he is also femmewashing Microsoft, not just openwashing it this/last week) and so does Al Hilwa. For those who don’t know who he is, it’s a Microsoft mouthpiece, previously salaried by Microsoft [1, 2, 3]. Adrian Bridgwater cites and extensively quotes Hilwa without noting that he’s a person from Microsoft pretending to be an “analyst” now (Linux-hostile). Very disappointing level of journalism, that’s for sure. There’s even worse journalism out there, for example this article which is openwashing proprietary software from Microsoft. There’s no new FOSS, just E.E.E. of other people’s work. Some people may occasionally say, give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt. How can one do this while Microsoft is attacking (covertly) Linux behind the scenes every week? Selective vision works only because of media omission (e.g. of patent deals). Microsoft has managed to blur the gap between journalism and PR by paying large network to have writers who are de facto Microsoft PR people (we named some of them before) and they game the media by quoting people who are close to Microsoft, shifting the focus of news before it’s even announced, and so on and so forth. This post/article about Microsoft E.E.E. thus focuses not on technical issues but on how Microsoft manipulated the media. Speed and competition mean that a lot of so-called ‘journalists’ rush to write things based on hearsay and press releases, which typically means Microsoft and its confidants inside the media. Those who don’t research are bound to repeat their propaganda. We see a lot of the same stuff as it involves EPO PR people, who bombard journalists with their spin (or ‘prepared’ statements).
Developers, Developers, Developers, Use Our Proprietary Software!
Microsoft wants C++ developers (even those developing for GNU/Linux) to use proprietary software that does not run on GNU/Linux (Microsoft Visual Studio). Here is what Microsoft Gavin wrote about Microsoft’s latest proprietary software ‘gift’ (lock-in, E.E.E., and media manipulation). Watch this article and responses to it, e.g. in Reddit. Watch how Microsoft-friendly sites repeated Microsoft’s own words. It’s all proprietary as pointed out here, but now comes Miguel de Icaza with his misleading/distracting blog post. “Microsoft Mono seems to have chosen a license that allows the ongoing threat of software patents,” iophk told us, linking to this older page about licence choices.
“Going back to Xamarin, it’s mostly openwashing (that’s what Mono did) because Visual Studio remains proprietary and .NET is all promises but still no complete code one can compile from the ground up.”XFaCE, linking to an article about this topic from Wired mocks the use of words like “Delights” and “Freeing” (right there in the headline). “WIRED removed comments I’ve seen,” says XFaCE, so we know that comments that are hostile towards this spin got censored out of existence (standard routine at Condé Nast, which now owns Wired). MinceR was “guessing the koolaid must flow uninhibited,” based on what he wrote in IRC. Condé Nast already has an epidemic of comment censorship in Reddit, Ars Technica and apparently that extends to Wired. What you see there is thus HEAVILY sanitised. And in whose favour? So now we know that Condé Nast not only spreads Microsoft propaganda to aid E.E.E. against Linux but also deletes messages of resistors. Back in the days, before Condé Nast bought Wired magazine, this magazine had actually stood up to Microsoft. Now it has a DEDICATED Microsoft section (PR) and it helps Microsoft silence voices of opposition. Now, that is a media strategy, is it not? Some of Condé Nast’s Web sites, based on what we got told by their managers, were actually launched with Microsoft’s funding (Ars Technica UK for sure).
To give another example of poor reporting/journalism, AOL chose the headline “Xamarin CEO Nat Friedman on getting acquired by Microsoft” (don’t laugh, see our page about Xamarin).
Friedman actually CAME from Microsoft, so that’s like Microsoft buying Elop or an Elop-led Nokia). Speaking of Nokia, today we finally found news about Nokia launching an Android phone (5 years too late). How does Nokia feel (especially the rational people who left after 2011) now that Microsoft basically declares Windows ‘mobile’ dead (ish)? To quote this new article from IDG:
Microsoft puts Windows Phone on hold
[...]
Well, now we know why Microsoft’s Windows Phone didn’t appear at Microsoft’s Build keynote on Wednesday: it simply isn’t on Microsoft’s radar screen at the moment.
The question, of course, is whether it will ever be again.
“We’re going to do some cool things with phones, but this year phones are an important part of our family but not the tip of the spear,” Windows chief Terry Myerson told The Verge on Wednesday.
Phones, Myerson added, “is the wrong place for us to lead.”
Going back to Xamarin, it’s mostly openwashing (that’s what Mono did) because Visual Studio remains proprietary and .NET is all promises but still no complete code one can compile from the ground up. Microsoft loves proprietary SQL Server, proprietary Windows, proprietary Visual Studio etc. It wants GNU/Linux users to buy those. That’s how far the “love” goes. For its next act, Microsoft shall probably do something to paint Microsoft Office “open” even when it’s proprietary. Like bribing people in order for ISO to ‘bless’ OOXML.
“The reason “Linux” news get flooded/dominated by Microsoft (again) isn’t that Microsoft is loved or hip. It is just a lot more greased up on the marketing side.”Looking at the media for coverage about this ‘news’, we see that a lot of Microsoft’s boosters wrote about it, with some (few) exceptions [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. It’s Microsoft news, it’s not FOSS news. What’s even more laughable is that when a longtime Mono booster and inadvertent GNU/Linux basher (see the latest in [1, 2]) “joined” the latest .NET (i.e. Microsoft lock-in) advocacy the media made it sound like .NET was widely loved. Microsoft-dominated ‘media’, 1105 Media [1, 2], went even further and labelled the whole event “Spotlight on Open Source” (as if something actually got liberated rather than “embraced”, as in E.E.E.). The same media company (highly and tightly connected to Microsoft) said that “Microsoft Adds Support for Linux Bash Shell on Windows” (nothing to do with Ubuntu or Linux and not even news, as we noted above).
In Summary
The reason “Linux” news get flooded/dominated by Microsoft (again) isn’t that Microsoft is loved or hip. It is just a lot more greased up on the marketing side. Like Donald Trump, it knows how to pull the strings of the media/press — strings which are sometimes already in place (because of financial strings). █
Related/contextual items from the news:
-
It’s also worth noting that WSL doesn’t really let you do very much that you couldn’t already do for many years via Cygwin, which allows a lot of GNU/Linux apps to run on Windows. Cygwin is not as seamless a solution as WSL, but the end result it provides is basically the same. For that reason, some GNU/Linux fans will probably be left wondering what WSL really changes.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Will Windows eventually work its way into computer science courses anytime soon? Probably not, considering a copy of Ubuntu is free.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I just heard from several sources that Canonical and Microsoft are forming a partnership a marriage if you will between themselves. This unholy matrimony, this putrid partnership is not to bring windows to the Linux operating system, it is to bring ubuntu to the windows operating system.
-
Kevin Gallo just announced Bash support on Windows.
If you have never had to interact with the Windows Batch language, this might not seem like such a big deal. Surely Batch could not be substantially worse than Bash, right?
Bash: a language that was neither designed, nor evolved. An adequate solution to a problem that has since become orders of magnitude harder. As arcane as it is useful, as dangerous as it is ubiquitous, Bash: the language that asks how much we are willing to give up for convenience’s sake?
Sure, Bash could be worse. But substantially worse? Bash had one value proposition: it was just good enough. It is difficult to imagine that it would have flourished as it has, if that had that not been true.
But the truth is what it is. Batch is substantially worse. And how much worse sort of beggars belief.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
04.01.16
Posted in Apple, GNU/Linux, Google, IBM, OIN, Oracle, Patents at 2:38 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Publicado en Apple, GNU/Linux, Google, IBM, OIN, Oracle, Patentes at 4:01 pm por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Una solución que sólo los agresores de patentes y sus proponentes como IBM pueden coexistir
Photo fuente (modificada ligéramente): Las 10 Mujeres Más Poderosas en Tecnología Hoy
Sumario: Oracle (de la OIN) esta enjuciando a Google (también de la OIN) por Android (Linux-based) y buscándo casi $10,000,000,000 en ‘daños’ sirve para mostrar que la OIN no es una atajo/solución al problema clave, que son las patentes de software
La guerra de patentes de Apple contra Android todavía esta en los titulares esta semana [1, 2, 3] y también hay un montón de artículos del caso de Oracle contra Android en nuestras diarias links. No hay duda, dado que Oracle reciéntemente se unió a la OIN, su ataque contra Android comprueba que la OIN está muy lejos de una solución. Oracle quiere recuperárse de la compra de Sun al usar patentes de software por la que los trabajadores de Sun trabajaron, junto a derechos de autor. “El caso tendrá ramificaciones mayores para las patentes de software y licensiamento en todo el mundo,” dijo este reportaje.
Aqui esta un nuevo artícule acerca de la Linux Foundation y la OIN. Para citar las partes más relevantes:
Cumplir con los requisitos legales es uno de los elementos clave que las grandes compañías de software sopesan en sus ciclos de lanzamiento. Tienen equipos que comprueban las patentes de software que puedan impactar en su código, asegúrarse de que todos los derechos de autor sean reconocidos y mirar las cláusulas detalladas de uso en cualquier software de terceros que utilicen.
Una de las razones para hacer esto es para evitar litigios costosos de compañías que se conocen como trolles de patentes. Estas son empresas que han comprado grandes grupos de patentes de software. Su modelo de negocio es como sigue, utilizar estas patentes para demandar a los desarrolladores y en la última década hemos visto una serie de demandas de alto nivel contra compañías como IBM, Microsoft, Google y otros. Algunas de ellas han sido rechazadas por los tribunales, pero otros han sido reafirmadas lo que cuesta cientos de millones de dólares en multas y costos.
Mientras que desarrolladores de código de fuente abierta puedan pensar que ellos están inmunes a este tipo de ataque, lo cierto es que no. Pueda ser que una pieza de software publicada como open source es más tarde presuntamente haber infringido una patente de software. Esto podría significar que alguien usando ese software sea encontrado culpable de infracción.
Para reducir el impacto de reclamo de patentes Google, IBM, Red Hat, SUSE, NEC, Philips y Sony crearon el Open Innovation Network. Su objetivo fue crear una pool (grupo) de patentes defensivas que pudiera ser usada para proteger Linux y a sus desarrolladores. Este ha hecho que más de 1946 compañías se unan a la OIN para usar sus patentes para defenderse así misma de ataques.
Cuando tu trabajas en patentes de software para una compañíá – no importa cuán benigna esa compañía sea – tu nunca sabes quién las conseguirá/usará. Vean la respuesta que recibí de de un trabajador de Red Hat (Alexandre Oliva) después de haber escrito esto, habiendo hecho un llamado a Red Hat detenerse en perseguir patentes de software y descolmillar las existentes. Como Oliva lo puso, “cuando me di cuenta de esto hace 6 años, comenze una campaña para que Red Hat convierta su Promesa de Patentes en una licensia actual, pero hasta hora no suerte. hasta que este problema mayor sea arreglado, no más aplicaciones de patentes de mi…”
Un crítico por largo tiempo de la OIN, Florian Müller, fue uno de los primeros en señalar que la OIN no sería efectiva ya que un miembro de la OIN (Oracle) enjuició a otro (Google). El tiene este nuevo post que dice: “Hay un interesante paralelo entre Apple versus Samsung (quiero decir su primer caso, con respecto al cual la Corte Suprema ha otorgado certiorari) y el Oracle versus Google Android-Java litigación sobre derechos de autor: en ambos casos, la mayoría de los cargos en disputa están basados en la teoría de restitución de los beneficios del infractor, y a primera vista, el monto reclamado por los propietarios de derechos parecen muy altísimos. Hay incluso más similaridades. Por ejemplo, en ambos casos, los acusados son protagonistas claves de Android. Pero también hay importantes diferencias reales, no limitados al hecho que patentes de diseño y derechos de autor son diferentes tipos de propiendad intelectual.
Estos casos de alto nivel sirver para demostrar los peligros de las patentes de software (Novell terminó en manos de Microsoft, Oracle en las manos de Apple y Red Hat podría terminar en cualquier lugar, dependiendo de quién lo compre y cuándo) y la inútil que es la OIN. La verdaderos personaje buscando por una reforma deben hacer campaña para la completa abolición de las patentes de software ellos mismos. El próximo post tratará con otras ideas de reforma/estrategias deficientes. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »
Content is available under CC-BY-SA