Credit: Financial Times
Summary: So-called 'analysts', including some from Goldman Sachs, are serving Microsoft's FUD campaign by claiming that Microsoft makes billions of dollars from Android (without any proof)
IN ORDER TO scare companies and keep them away from Linux, Microsoft needs them to believe that Linux is somehow expensive, with the same going for Android and GNU. For a number of years now we have seen purely speculative reports which try to quantify costs that we know nothing about because Microsoft's racketeering operation makes secrecy part of the protection racket. This is a pattern of FUD which we are very familiar with, having seen it in the Novell era as well.
Right now we have
yet another so-called 'genius' trying to tell us that he has an exclusive insight into the income of the racketeering operation. This serves nobody but the racketeering operation and it's not the first time that we see so-called 'analysts' doing this, sometimes even analysts close to Microsoft, including
Goldman Sachs. It's always them, like marketers in suits. We urge people to ignore those so-called 'geniuses', who just like secret services [1] want us to sometimes believe that they have powerful and valuable inside knowledge, even when they're not inside-trading, which is against the law. According to Business 'Insider', "Microsoft is generating $2 billion per year in revenue from Android patent royalties, says Nomura analyst Rick Sherlund in a new note on the company."
What are his sources? Did Microsoft's racketeering operation tell him to write that? And is so, can it be believed? The Microsoft which was caught engaging in financial fraud after an employee had blown the whistle? It would be the perfect FUD. Only speculations are still being passed as 'fact' by some shallow sites that try to make Android look risky. We can recall many such examples, spanning at least 3 years (an early analyst's speculation was the cost of Android to HTC after a patent deal with Microsoft). Since Microsoft-hired lobbyists like
Florian Müller play a significant role in relaying those numbers, we can safely suspect that there is agenda at hand. Previously, when he spread some FUD about payments from HTC to Apple, he was proven wrong by the head of HTC. Patent deals are as much about generating FUD as they are about generating income (if any). Microsoft, along with Apple, is generating Android FUD and
suing Android by proxy now. That's a different thing.
Watch the type of stuff
Apple is patenting right now:
Apple granted patent for location-based camera phone disabling
Last week I was frustrated in my attempt to take a screen grab of a frame from the cartoon Gravity Falls, which I was playing in iTunes on my Mac. The screen grab image showed the player window as gray-and-white checkerboard. Next, I downloaded a 3rd party screen grab application, and it gave me the same result. I ended up taking a photo of the iMac's display with my camera. (The photo is in this post -- it's the one with the cartoony occult symbols). Thanks to Apple's bullshit deal with the studios, the image has crappy video artifacts in it.
This type of patents from Apple were mentioned here before. Apple will help crush protests and also impede legal sharing of data. It is worse than DRM.
Speaking of DRM, Microsoft's allies at Netflix (deep links between those two companies)
are going aggressive with patents, seeking a ban (through the ITC) of something which is not even a physical product. "A trade commission investigated Netflix, although it imports nothing," Joe Mullin correctly pointed out. Perhaps we'll return to covering patents like we used to (not enough time/resources), but this is just another example of software patents doing their damage.
⬆
Related/contextual items from the news:
-
It is a belief that has been central to much of the journalism about spying and spies over the past fifty years. That the anonymous figures in the intelligence world have a dark omniscience. That they know what's going on in ways that we don't.
It doesn't matter whether you hate the spies and believe they are corroding democracy, or if you think they are the noble guardians of the state. In both cases the assumption is that the secret agents know more than we do.
