09.21.11
Posted in GNU/Linux, Google, Patents at 12:46 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Why Google blew it as the company continues to pursue its own security rather than become more of a team player in the FOSS world
ALTHOUGH Android is not as free/libre as one might hope, it is the most likely Linux-based mobile platform to rise to greatness.
Google disappointed us on numerous occasions because rather than antagonise software patents (even with an amicus brief) it just played along with the plot and bought many patents, including software patents. It also filed applications for software patents of its own. Google is in a position where it can afford to play those messy games, but how does that help the rest of us? Android patent defence does not magically indemnify Linux.
So anyway, Google became part of the Big Boys Club and the hoax of a patent reform got passed, not actually resolving the key issues that IDG explains as follows:
“3. No Real Change on Software
“Of critical importance to those of us in the information technology industry are software patents, which I’ve long opposed. While this reform could have been a great time to deal with this problematic issue, that didn’t happen. Only two narrow niches–financial products and tax strategies–are addressed in a limited way, but nothing broader is included to fix the problem overall.
“Android patent defence does not magically indemnify Linux.”“Pro: Patents are limited or clarified somewhat in two narrowly defined business niches.
“Con: Overall, the ongoing software patent debacle continues unchanged, and that can only hurt small developers.”
What a waste of a ‘reform’.
Google has done one thing right when it spoke out about the cartel against Android, but what else is it doing about it? Based on reports like this one or this one, “Android [is] hurt by patent wars, could lose features” (amid call for CEOs to attend the courtroom).
The many articles about the subject (even new timelines) say something along the lines of “Google, Oracle CEOs Said to Make Little Headway in Patent Talks,” but the idea of abolishing software patents altogether is totally off the table. We must remember that Oracle’s older official statement was against software patents and all those “Java” patents are in fact software patents. Has Google explored the possibility of cutting the umbilical cord of this whole attack among others (on other developers too)? Or is Google just interested in defending Google while considering no push to end software patents for good? Here is one particular article on the subject:
oogle and Oracle CEOs will square off in court today to resolve a dispute that may pose the biggest threat to Google’s Android mobile software, now running on more than 150 million devices.
Google’s Larry Page and Oracle’s Larry Ellison were ordered to appear before a federal court magistrate in San Jose after tussling over patents for more than a year. Oracle accused Google of infringing on patents related to its Java software, and a settlement means the companies avoid the risk of having a jury trial decide whether Google owes royalties.
What about explaining to the court or at least to politicians the ridiculousness of those patents in general? These are the politicians who pass a fake patent ‘reform’ to wash their hands. In the sick industry of lobbying surely Google could come up with something. Its foes constantly lobby for more patents (and a global patent system), not to mention embargo. To quote this new report: “A settlement will likely require HTC to pay Apple hefty royalty fees for using its patents. The Taiwan-based company already gives Microsoft $5 for every handset sold, which brings the Redmond, Wash.-based company more revenue than from its Windows Phone sales.”
Android is getting damaged here and in order to resolve the problem for good (before Microsoft sends more and more patent trolls to raise the price of Android) Google will need to strike at the root. Samsung has a huge patents portfolio, so it can afford to seek embargo against Apple as means of deterrence. Quoting the news:
There are now 19 patent lawsuits between Samsung and Apple, in 12 courts in nine countries. In addition to the United States, Germany, and Australia, patent suits are pending in the United Kingdom, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan and South Korea. Apple also has filed patent suits against HTC, Motorola Mobility and others.
Samsung is meanwhile considering more of Bada and it can afford to sue back against aggressors like Apple. But how many developers out there are able to do so? Google too has just grown up patents-wise, but it does not provide much comfort to the FOSS world at large. We must not lose sight of the real problem and the real solution to it. Google was only a potential ally in that regard. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
09.20.11
Posted in GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Servers, Windows at 1:05 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Acid3 results for Internet Explorer 8.0
Summary: Why Microsoft’s erosion in the server side (usage-wise, not revenue-wise) is likely to further motivate erosion on the desktop
HE WHO controls the back room will also dominate the client side, be it cellphones and desktops or whatever. It’s a well known fact and one that must really worry Microsoft.
Major Microsoft outages may lead to ASA intervention for false advertising. There is this new article about the Hotmail outage, sent to us yesterday by a reader. This whole downtime mess helps demonstrate what happens when one relies on Windows and other Microsoft products. Just watch how Microsoft fails to tackle ARM compatibility issues, even in the mythical Vista 8 which lacks support for browser plugins and is likely to suffer a backlash similar to Vista’s when it’s out in 2 or more years. It has been advertised since April 2009, 4+ years in advance (a time period throughout which a GNU/Linux distribution might have 8+ new versions released).
Going back to Web services, this is where GNU/Linux is clearly winning as we noted some days ago. The Inquirer has this to add:
Microsoft’s IIS webserver is the second most widely used webserver daemon after Apache. While it never occupied the top spot, at one point in 2007 it was starting to get close to Apache’s hugely popular webserver software. However since 2008, its market share plummeted and while it still manages to hold onto second place, there’s the best part of 50 percentage points difference between Apache and Microsoft’s IIS and the Vole’s IIS apparently is back to the level of market share that it saw in 1997.
Apache’s HTTPD webserver is popular for two reasons. It runs on just about every operating system out there, and it can be implemented in other products such as Oracle’s own application server products. Microsoft’s IIS, on the other hand, is closed source and runs only on Windows, so it’s no surprise that it lags behind Apache’s more robust and flexible sofware offering.
Microsoft failed so badly that it decided to just hijack Yahoo and eventually iinstalled a henchwoman there. Microsoft might be preparing to formally scoop up Yahoo! and maybe Nokia too, at least at a later stage (when it becomes cheap). Check out the news following Microsoft's passage of Nokia's patents to patent trolls (an antitrust issue):
Finnish mobile phone company Nokia has been deleted from the Stoxx Europe 50 index, a benchmark index owned by Deutsche Börse and the SIX Swiss Exchange Group that tallies the top 50 largest European corporations.
Late in August, Stoxx announced that Nokia would be delisted from the Stoxx 50 index, along with three banks: Intesa Sanpaolo and Unicredit from Italy, and GRP Societe Generale from France. Meaning the former powerhouse mobile phone maker is no longer big enough to be considered one of Europe’s biggest corporations.
Steve Ballmer keeps talking about Windows phones that don’t exist yet (see articles in the the previous post) and Microsoft is trying to make people think of about mythical versions of Windows rather than today’s version of Windows. What does that tell us? █
“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
Send this to a friend
09.18.11
Posted in Antitrust, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Patents at 2:28 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
“…Microsoft wished to promote SCO and its pending lawsuit against IBM and the Linux operating system. But Microsoft did not want to be seen as attacking IBM or Linux.”
–Larry Goldfarb, BayStar, key investor in SCO approached by Microsoft
Up-to-date screenshot of the homepage of the patent troll Microsoft is feeding
Summary: Microsoft’s Mosaid scheme against Android is reportedly seen by antitrust regulators, who are likely to step in
OVER THE years Microsoft has spawned several patent trolls, including the world’s biggest. It also tried to pass patents to patent trolls, but it got caught [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. Microsoft is still a disgusting company that cannot compete and instead punches below the belt, just as it always has (there is a clearly documented history of it). Having hijacked Nokia (essentially a takeover, according to a Nokia manager), Microsoft now turns Nokia into a trolling powerhouse. Having faced probes over CPTN and Nortel patents, Microsoft may now be dealing with yet another probe for feeding an anti-Android patent troll [1, 2]. Well, it was very clear all along:
Mosaid Technology Inc.’s recent acquisition of key cellular patents could spark antitrust investigations in Canada and the United States, a U.S. newspaper has suggested.
The New York Post said Friday that the Ottawa patentlicensing firm is being used by Nokia Oyj and Microsoft Corp. as a vehicle to launch a deluge of litigation against Google Inc. and its massively popular Android operating system.
Mosaid said Friday it has no knowledge of any probes.
The Post, citing unnamed sources “close to Google,” said Mosaid’s acquisition of more than 2,000 cellular patents from Nokia earlier this month, with no cash up front and an agreement to make payments through future licensing deals, was a manoeuvre orchestrated by Microsoft and Nokia to attack Android.
“Mosaid can sue Android supporters for patent infringement without being counter-sued as it does not make any products,” according to one of the sources. “With Mosaid bringing the lawsuits, Microsoft and Nokia could also be shielded from accusations of anti-competitive behaviour.”
“Nokia and Microsoft patents were bundled into a Luxembourg-based holding company called Core Wireless Licensing,” notes Benjamin Henrion based on the article above. Another dodgy transaction like Novell's takeover? This is the topic one should speak about on Software Freedom Day, agreed Henrion, who also linked to this new page, “Dyson Says Patent System Flawed, `Trolling’ Bad Practice”.
James Dyson, founder of Dyson Ltd., talks about the patent system. Dyson also discusses innovation and his approach to design. He speaks with Cory Johnson on Bloomberg Television’s “Bloomberg West.”
The real problem is software patents, not just patent trolls. This is why Google ought to have chosen a strategy other than deterrence with patents, which is ineffective against patent trolls. Let us see how the antitrust investigation — if any — goes. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
09.16.11
Posted in America, Google, IBM, Patents at 12:45 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: How the secrecy everything is shrouded in when it comes to patents helps show that something is not just amiss, it is borderline illegal
OIN members IBM and Google were recently seen making a transaction whose details we do not know. Only the patents whose assignment got changed are a known matter. This was never announced by the companies, so it’s safe to assume that secrecy is part of the strategy. According to one columnist, this whole thing is yet more evidence of the patent system failing. Wasn’t the patent system originally all about disclosure? As in transparency? All we see coming from patents are a pile of NDAs and invisible taxation of everything everyone buys. Here is one remark of interest:
The new acquisition is while good news for Android players, it’s bad news for those who are concerned about the situation. The US patent system is flawed and is discouraging innovation and encouraging bullies to threaten smaller or newer competitors.
Another good news for Android players is that long-time Microsoft partner Intel has put its trust in Android and will be working closely with Google, which means yet another heavyweight to defend Android as and when needed.
It remains unclear how Android can defend itself from patents which the Microsoft cartel passes around to patent trolls like MOSAID, which may in turn be feeding patent trolls around itself. Based on this new report, another secret sale of patents has just taken place. All we know is the cost and the involvement of a patent troll:
Mosaid Technologies Inc. has sold off a handful of non-strategic patents to an undisclosed buyer for $11 million.
The Ottawa patent and licensing company said the sale, which the buyer will pay for over an undisclosed time frame, is part of Mosaid’s plan to focus further on areas of future growth. The five patent families involved were not being licensed by Mosaid and, as a result, were not bringing in any new revenues.
Well, why the secrecy? This usually indicates bad faith. The patent system has become an industry of collusion, retaliation, extortion, and back room deals. But copyrights are not enough according to patenting maximalists, so we must live with this burden apparently. Think of all the “jobs” that would be “destroyed” had patent lawyers not had anything to sue over.
The Harvard Business Review, which is known for its leaning towards big businesses and the mainstream line, has just published a criticism of that latest patent 'reform'. To quote the opening parts:
On Friday, President Obama will sign the America Invents Act, resulting in the largest overhaul of the U.S. patent system in over half a century. The primary result of the legislation will be to transition America from a “first-to-invent” to a “first-to-file” country. Supporters of the new measure argue that it will streamline the patent application process and harmonize America’s system with the rest of the world, and it will allow for more rapid approval and increased certainty in the validity of patents. But this misses the point entirely: the fundamental problem with current patent law has nothing to do with the process for obtaining a patent. The biggest problem is that nobody can tell what a patent covers until they’ve spent months or years working it out, often in the courts.
Some of the most rigorous research on U.S. patents has been conducted by Boston University’s James Bessen and Michael Meurer. They have gone beyond the anecdotes that so often characterize discussions of patent reform and have studied in detail just how patents function, what incentives they create, and how the system could function better. What they found is that America’s patent system only provides positive incentives for innovation in two industries: pharmaceuticals and chemicals. The value that a patent confers on its owner is outweighed by the cost of obtaining, asserting, and defending that patent for almost all American companies. Anyone innovating outside of those two industries would be better off if there were no patent system at all.
Indeed. And for our coverage of the Bessen study, see this post.
It is becoming abundantly clear that if the public understood how the patent system works, there would be an outrage, to use words similar to those of Bill Gates (when his convicted monopolist was s lot smaller). The secrecy is another symptom of a serious problem and it leads to a lot of congresspeople misunderstanding this whole subject. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Google at 6:51 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: What diplomatic cables tell us about Google Earth
Google Earth is a piece of proprietary software, long ago acquired by Google and still boasting Qt. But it has proven quite valuable for particular tasks and according to the following Cablegate cable, even politicians or government employees make use of Google Earth in order to spy on us, the people.
We add emphasis to the following cable:
UNCLAS GABORONE 000570
SENSITIVE
SIPDIS
C O R R E C T E D C O P Y -- CAPTION ADDED
DEPT FOR CA/FPP
DEPT PASS TO KCC WILLIAMSBURG KY
DHS FOR CIS/FDNS
JOHANNESBURG FOR RCO
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: KFRD [Fraud Prevention Programs], CVIS [Visas],
CPAS [Passport and Citizenship],
CMGT [Consular Administration and Management],
ASEC [Security], BC [Botswana]
SUBJECT: FRAUD SUMMARY: BOTSWANA JULY 2009
REF: 09 GABORONE 110
NOT FOR INTERNET DISTRIBUTION
(A) COUNTRY CONDITIONS
(U) Botswana is a politically stable, middle-income country with a
small population of about 1.8 million. While unemployment remains
high at 17.6% and Botswana continues to combat an HIV/AIDS
prevalence of 25%, the government has been lauded by the
international community for the progressive social programs it has
implemented. Batswana [plural for citizens of Botswana] enjoy an
advanced medical aid program, a free education through post-graduate
university, and enterprise facilitation programs. Anti-retroviral
drugs (ARVs) are generally available to most of the population in
need. While employment opportunities for young adults are often
elusive, the social benefits one receives here are good reason to
stay.
(U) The government of Botswana continues to be the largest employer,
and government jobs are considered stable and desirable. Many
people also find jobs in the large NGO sector. The government is
also sponsoring modest initiatives to promote entrepreneurship and
some privatization of selected industries, but these have not proven
successful yet. Recently, traditionally strong sectors of the
economy, especially the mining industry, have felt the effects of
the worldwide economic slowdown; several mines have closed or scaled
back production.
(U) Botswana's greatest problem with illegal immigration stems from
its neighbor, Zimbabwe, from where illegal and legal immigrants are
arriving in great number, especially after the disputed Zimbabwe
elections of Spring 2008. otswana's vast, porous border and
stability are ttractive for those fleeing political oppression,
unemployment, hypr-inflationary markets, hunger,and disease. This
has had still had little bearig to date on visa or ACS operations
in Gaboroe, as post has not noticed any surge in applications from
Zimbabweans or residents of Zimbabwe. The government of Botswana
has been generally welcoming to legitimate refugee and asylees from
Zimbabwe. However, this remains a potential problem as Zimbabweans
attempt to establish residency and find employment in Botswana or
look to move from Botswana to brighter horizons elsewhere.
(U) There is also a sizeable amount of legal migration and temporary
settlement in Botswana. The government of Botswana recruits people
with specialized skills, such as medical expertise or teaching
experience, to work in Botswana. Many of these people stay in
Botswana for many years and can gain permanent residency or
citizenship. Visa applications reflect this, with nearly half of
all applicants coming from third countries.
(U) It will become more difficult for Botswana Immigration or Home
Affairs officials to detect a mala fide applicant for a genuine
passport or a holder of a forged or fraudulent passport as the
population of Botswana becomes more multicultural and citizenship is
extended to those whose ancestry is not of any indigenous tribe.
Similar to the U.S., individuals can acquire citizenship in Botswana
through jus sanguinis or naturalization, and the large expatriate
community has taken advantage of this.
(U) While there has been little reason to suspect that official
documents (i.e. passports, residence permits) produced by Botswana
authorities and seen in conjunction with visa interviews are mala
fide, the quality and technology of such documents are poor,
antiquated, and inconsistent. Fraudulent versions of the low-tech
Botswana passport have been intercepted in several countries,
including the United States, Canada, Brazil, and Cameroon. In the
past, rumors have indicated that fraudulent Botswana passports could
be obtained in Nigeria.
(U) In late December 2008, a newspaper article revealed police
arrests and investigations into the selling or renting of Botswana
and South African passports to allow for easier travel throughout
the region. The article reported that several of the recovered
passports had forged bio data and photo pages. In February 2009,
another newspaper article raised concerns over the integrity of
Botswana's record keeping and accounting for passport applications
and books, primarily for lost, stolen, or damaged passport books.
(U) In a February 2009 change to United Kingdom's visa regulations,
citizens of South Africas and several other southern African
countries, excepting Botswana, now require visas in advance of
visits to the United Kingdom. However, nationals of Botswana still
do NOT require visas to enter the UK or Canada as tourists, thus
making the country's travel document a potentially attractive target
for criminals. The UK continues to closely examine document
security and the quality of the passport issued by Botswana and
expects Botswana to implement plans to introduce a new, secure
passport in 2010.
(U) In November 2008, the government of Botswana announced the award
of a tender to German company Giesecke and Devrient produce a new
e-passport for Botswana. In preparation for the new passport, the
government has centralized all processing of passport applications
in Gaborone. Full details on the price and application procedures
for the new passports are not yet available. However, production of
the new passport is not anticipated to begin until 2010.
(B) NIV FRAUD
(U) Post has received several turnaround reports from DHS concerning
citizens of Botswana. However, few clear trends emerged. The
applicants concealed key elements of their personal details, such as
parents living in the United States, job interviews, or plans to
attend school. DHS found evidence of their plans in their luggage,
often in the form of emails, application forms, or resumes.
(U) Post previously reported on a possible trend involving young,
professional women transiting the United States with the intention
of remaining in Canada (see reftel). Since several similar cases
were refused under section 214(b) in 2009, post has not seen such
applications repeated.
(U) Although post processes relatively few H1B applications, a spate
of recent applications have required additional review. Internet
(including GoogleEarth) and Lexis Nexis searches have indicated that
employers' office spaces were private residences. The number of
employees listed on the potential employers' quarterly tax reports
did not appear to match the total number claimed in petition
materials and in one case, indicated that the employer was H1b
dependent. The applicants were to be consultants and in one case,
the applicant was to be located at a client's office for 90 percent
of his time. Searches showed the office space to be a private
residence and revealed that the client's business was registered in
the name of one of the petitioning companies employees and her
husband. In these cases, the applicants were Indian passport
holders and worked in accounting or IT in Botswana.
(C) IV FRAUD
(U) Post does not process IV cases, but responds to requests for
investigations from other posts or agencies. At the request of the
Fraud Prevention Unit at another U.S. mission, post confirmed as
fraudulent a Botswana passport presented in conjunction with an
immigrant visa case.
(D) DV FRAUD
(U) Several members of the public contacted post to confirm they had
won the Diversity Visa lottery. Some of these people had applied
for the DV program, but others received unsolicited emails informing
them of their luck. These notifications were easily confirmed as
fraudulent because they had arrived via email from addresses that
did not end in .gov. Moreover, they asked for additional personal
information from the applicants and often requested payment to
continue processing the applications. In response, post added the
Department's warning about DV fraud schemes to the Embassy's
website, and put the information into a press release.
(E) ACS AND U.S. PASSPORT FRAUD
(U) Post has not encountered any apparent ACS or U.S. passport fraud
in recent memory. Demand for ACS and passport services is
relatively low. Providing additional passport pages is the most
frequently performed service.
(F) ADOPTION FRAUD
(U) Post does not process adoption visas.
(G) USE OF DNA TESTING
(U) Post has not resorted to DNA testing since at least 2006.
(H) ASYLUM AND OTHER DHS BENEFIT FRAUD
(U) Post has not processed any V-92 or V-93 cases and has
encountered very few cases of lost Green cards or other cases
requiring transportation letters.
(SBU) However, post has processed several cases of Cuban applicants
requesting parole into the United States under the Cuban medical
personnel parole program administered by DHS. Most applicants are
currently working in a medical field for the government of Botswana,
so little fraud is indicated. However, most of their credentials
are from Cuban universities and professional societies and would be
difficult to verify.
(I) ALIEN SMUGGLING, TRAFFICKING, ORGANIZED CRIME, TERRORIST TRAVEL
(SBU) In the past, post received information about a possible
document fraud scheme operating in Botswana. Some of this
information was conveyed to Diplomatic Security via the Embassy of
Botswana in Washington, D.C. A local informant served as another
source (See Reftel).
(SBU) The Botswana police did question the Zimbabwean head of a
consulting service for possibly providing false or altered Botswana
residence documents. He has since been released on bail and the
investigation continues. Post continues to make inquiries about the
status of this investigation, but the RSO has not yet received any
additional information from the police.
(U) In an apparently international fraud scheme, two contacts
reported paying money to find employment in the United States, with
the expectation that they would receive working visas. The
informants paid recruiters for several services, including visa
applications, and both expressed surprise that no visa had been
pre-approved for them. They had transferred all fees, some more
than USD 1,000, to accounts in either Europe or South Africa.
(J) DS CRIMINAL FRAUD INVESTIGATIONS
(U) See part I.
(K) HOST COUNTRY PASSPORT, IDENTITY DOCUMENTS, AND CIVIL REGISTRY
Passport Description:
(U) The passport of the Republic of Botswana is a relatively
low-tech book. The navy cover shows the coat of arms of Botswana
(two zebras and a shield above the word "pula"). The book number is
punched through the front cover and all 64 pages, but it does not
appear on the back cover. Biographic data, including the applicants
name, identity card number, profession, place and date of birth, and
height, are handwritten on the first and second pages.
(U) The photograph is pasted and laminated onto the third page,
under a laminate bearing the coat of arms of Botswana. The bearer's
signature appears below the photograph, often on a small white paper
affixed beneath the laminate. An impressed seal covers the name and
the bottom portion of the photograph. The laminate can become
easly damaged if exposed to water.
(U) Handwritten etails on the validity of the passport and the
barer's previous pssport appear on pages four and ive. [Note:
Botswana authorities usually collec previous passports when issuing
a new passpot, even if the previous passport still contains valid
visas. End note.] The primary fraud prevention device on the
passport pages is a detailed ultraviolet marking. The front cover
tends to split and peel, as does the spine of the passport.
(U) As mentioned in Part A, Botswana announced in November 2008 the
awarding of a tender to German company Giesecke and Devrient to
produce a new e-passport for Botswana. In preparation for the new
passport, the government has centralized all processing of passport
applications in Gaborone. Full details on the price and application
procedures for the new passports are not yet available. However,
production of the new passport is not anticipated to begin until
2010.
Identity Documents:
(U) All Batswana (citizens of Botswana) carry a national identity
card, referred to as the "omang." This is a credit-card sized
document, which records the bearer's name, date and place of birth,
digitized signature, and a digitized photograph contained with an
oval beneath the coat of arms of Botswana. The omang does utilize
ultraviolet fraud prevention features.
Residence Permits:
(U) Botswana provides all foreigners living legally in Botswana with
residence or exemption certificates, and work permits, as
appropriate. These are printed on full-sized sheets of very thin
paper, although they might be handwritten. These residence and
exemption certificates usually contain a photograph of the bearer,
which is pasted onto the form and is not laminated or secured by any
other means. The validity varies, but the certificates can be
extended and extensions are recorded by a stamp on the back of the
certificate. Some bearers will carry the same certificate for up to
20 years. These certificates must be displayed upon entering and
exiting Botswana and many certificates can show severe signs of wear
and tear.
Civil Documents:
(U) Reports of birth and death and other civil documents are
generally printed onto half- or three-quarter-sized sheets of heavy
paper. There are few security features, but there can be a wait of
several days for the Registrar to issue the document.
(U) For reports of birth and death, the hospital or morgue often
issues an initial certificate of birth or death that is later used
as the basis for the full report. The initial report might be more
cursory in nature than the final document. For example, the initial
report of birth might not contain the father's name, although the
family might request that this information appear on the final,
formalized report of birth. Additionally, the father's name can be
added to the formal report of birth many years later.
Difficulties in Confirming Documents:
(U) Botswana maintains few electronic records of issuance for any of
the documents discussed above. The applications for most of these
items have generally been held at the district level, and confirming
issuance of any documents can be a time-consuming process.
(L) COOPERATION WITH HOST GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES
(SBU) Cooperation with host government authorities is generally
good. Local police were willing to assist in an investigation into
an alleged supplier of fraudulent documents and participated
discreetly in interviews with possible sources of information.
Additionally, the government of Botswana has in the past conveyed
valuable fraud prevention information brought to the attention of
their embassy in Washington.
(U) However, record keeping in Botswana is often not computerized,
which can make it difficult to search and confirm certain data
quickly, such as entry/exit records, passport applications, or
residence or work permits. In response to a request, the Department
of Immigration did confirm a passport presented as part of an
immigrant visa application at another post as fraudulent.
(U) Post has met with Immigration Department officials to express
willingness to review suspect U.S. passport and provide more
information on U.S. visas and travel documents. The Immigration
Department, including airport passport inspectors, has contacted
post directly with questions. Post has been able to confirm the
legitimacy of the documents in question.
(M) AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN
(U) Given the high number of third country nationals living in
Botswana, post has generally received nearly 50 percent of all visa
applications from non-Botswana passport holders. South Asian
applicants (those from India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh) comprise the
largest portion of third country applications. Many of these
applicants are young men claiming to be directors in family
companies traveling alone for either vacation in New York or to
attend a trade show with an open registration policy. Others appear
to be established business owners traveling to visit family or to
explore business possibilities.
(U) In 2008 and early 2009, several sources in the local south Asian
community contacted post to provide information on potentially mala
fide visa applicants. Most sources indicated that they hope to
protect the reputation of their communities, especially in the visa
process. They indicated that applicants with existing visas and
previously lawful travel to the United States might plan to stay
illegally on future trips.
(U) Investigations into these claims have produced mixed results.
While certain applicants demonstrated their successful business
interests in Botswana and previous lawful travel to and from the
United States, informal return checks and site visits on other cases
raised some concerns. Attempts to confirm returns of several
previously issued south Asian applicants indicated that they had not
returned to Botswana as originally stated. Site visits and phone
calls to the supposed businesses of several temporarily refused
cases revealed that the employment had been terminated, the business
relocated, or failed to locate the claimed business.
(U) Post will continue to monitor all third country applications
closely and hopes to conduct a full validity study in 2009.
(N) STAFFING AND TRAINING.
(U) In September 2008, the section's one full-time FSN and one
part-time EFM had some refresher fraud prevention training with the
FPU and DHS offices in Johannesburg. Post's sole consular officer
received some additional fraud prevention training at a regional
consular conference in May 2009 in Johannesburg, South Africa.
NOLAN
Suffice to say, the US government does not like it when its detractors use Google Earth. Then it becomes this “evil terrorist” tool. According to ¶2 of the following cable, “In a 50-minute courtesy call on January 8, Tunisian Minister of State, Special Advisor to the President, and Official Spokesperson of the Presidency Abdelaziz Ben Dhia told the Ambassador with “quasi certitude” that the GOT had wrapped up its security operations against the Salafist group with its December 23 and January 3 operations (reftels). The group had intended to target the US and British Embassies, according to the GOT’s investigation of the matter and interrogation of the suspects. In the several houses used by the group, Tunisian security services found highly detailed maps of the US and British Embassies, including some that had been downloaded from googleearth.com, as well as lists with the names of “some officials” of those Embassies. Asked if the GOT security services had also found indications that the group had been planning to target some of the residences of employees of the US, UK, or French Embassies (as had been indicated by Foreign Minister Abdallah, ref A), Ben Dhia responded negatively. He also said that
See those other cables about Tunisia and the US stance based on the following cable:
S E C R E T TUNIS 000053
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
FOR NEA/FO - GRAY; NEA/MAG - HOPKINS AND HARRIS
NSC FOR ABRAMS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/08/2017
TAGS: PREL [External Political Relations],
PTER [Terrorists and Terrorism], TS [Tunisia]
SUBJECT: PRESIDENTIAL ADVISOR SAYS SALAFIST THREAT IN
TUNISIA HAS BEEN NEUTRALIZED
REF: A. TUNIS 44
B. TUNIS 31
C. TUNIS 30
D. TUNIS 16
E. 05 TUNIS 2980
F. 05 TUNIS 2973
Classified By: Ambassador Robert F. Godec for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d).
¶1. (S) Summary: Minister of State and Special Presidential
Advisor Ben Dhia today told the Ambassador with "quasi
certitude" that the Tunisian security services had finished
their operations against the armed Salafist group (reftels),
which had been planning to target the US and British
embassies. He said that GOT security services had found
detailed plans of the embassies, as well as the names of
"some" US and UK embassy officials, in the houses used by the
armed men. Security services also found between 50-60 kg of
locally produced explosives. Twelve of the suspects had been
killed and 15 arrested; among the Tunisian security services,
two had died and three were injured. End Summary.
-----------------------------
Threat Neutralized;
US, UK Embassies Were Targets
-----------------------------
¶2. (S) In a 50-minute courtesy call on January 8, Tunisian
Minister of State, Special Advisor to the President, and
Official Spokesperson of the Presidency Abdelaziz Ben Dhia
told the Ambassador with "quasi certitude" that the GOT had
wrapped up its security operations against the Salafist group
with its December 23 and January 3 operations (reftels). The
group had intended to target the US and British Embassies,
according to the GOT's investigation of the matter and
interrogation of the suspects. In the several houses used by
the group, Tunisian security services found highly detailed
maps of the US and British Embassies, including some that had
been downloaded from googleearth.com, as well as lists with
the names of "some officials" of those Embassies. Asked if
the GOT security services had also found indications that the
group had been planning to target some of the residences of
employees of the US, UK, or French Embassies (as had been
indicated by Foreign Minister Abdallah, ref A), Ben Dhia
responded negatively. He also said that the group had not
intended to target Tunisian interests.
¶3. (S) GOT security services found between 50-60 kilograms of
explosives in the group's residences. Ben Dhia described the
explosives as locally produced, "artisanal" in nature. Ben
Dhia explained that the Tunisian security services had been
monitoring the group since an initial group of six armed men
had crossed the Algerian border. The security services kept
these six suspects under surveillance as they were gradually
joined by 21 others in the Grombalia area. On December 23,
concluding that the group was beginning preparations for
attacks planned to coincide with the end of the year, the GOT
decided to act proactively to take the group down. Noting
that local newspapers had published photographs of one of the
residences used by the group, Ben Dhia explained that some of
the suspects in the house during the December 23 shoot-out
had managed to flee via an open window.
----------
Casualties
----------
¶4. (S) In the aftermath of the GOT security operations, 12 of
the suspects had been killed and 15 arrested, accounting for
all 27 suspects, according to Ben Dhia. As for GOT
casualties, Ben Dhia said there had been two killed and three
wounded. Asked whether the GOT had been able to account for
the support network that would have been required to sustain
the group, Ben Dhia responded that the security services had
investigated this matter, and that they consider the
operation "terminated for the instant."
-------------------
Information-Sharing
-------------------
¶5. (S) Ben Dhia credited the GOT's intelligence liaison
relationships with friendly countries, notably Algeria and
Libya, with producing the actionable intelligence to
neutralize this threat. Thanking Ben Dhia for sharing this
information, the Ambassador also reiterated that the USG
stands reay to help the GOT in the fight against terrorism,emphasizing that "We are all in this fight togethe."
Ambassador also encouraged Ben Dhia to share his information
directly with the British and Frnch ambassadors, and other
key members of the dilomatic corps, a suggestion Ben Dhia
took on boar.
-------
Comment
-------
¶6. (C) In addiion to immediately sharing the above
informationwith his British counterpart, Ambassador will
folow up on this information in a January 9 meeting ith
Minister of Interior and Local Development Raik Belhaj
Kacem.
¶7. (S) While we welcome the pparent effectiveness of the
Tunisian security srvices, and the willingness of two senior
officils to share some information with us, we are troubed
by several issues. First and foremost is the ailure of the
GOT to share information sooner, ad in more detail. Second,
we are struck by the ontradictions in some of the
information we are eceiving. Tuesday's meeting with the
Minister o the Interior may (and we underscore may) produce
more concrete and detailed information. Until we et better
information, we have only bits and piees of what
increasingly appears to be a complex nd dangerou puzzle.
---------
Bio Notes
--------
¶8. (C) Ben Dhia was confident, friendly, nd gracious during
the meeting, and he appeared o be in good health. Twice
invoking President Bn Ali's name, Ben Dhia underscored that
he well nderstands Ben Ali's intentions, specifically noting
that Ben Ali wants tosolidify relations with the United
States. Ben hia also indicated that he comes from a family
o imams; as such, he said, he takes particular umbrae at
the "deviation" of Islam represented by Islmic extremists.
Repeatedly bemoaning how easy itis for Islamic extremists to
manipulate the ignoant, he ventured that were Mohammed to
return toearth today, he would not recognize the Islam that
many practice. Ben Dhia remembered fondly his fist official
trip to the United States, which he ndertook as Minister of
Higher Education at a tie when the USG and Tunisia were
launching an eduational exchange program. He also noted
that hisson travels to the United States "almost monthly."
GODEC
There are many typos in this cable, almost as though it was OCR’d. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
09.15.11
Posted in GNU/Linux, Google, IBM, Patents at 11:31 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Brutal nature of patents
Summary: The upsides, downsides and the nature of Google’s defensive strategy which now includes more patent aggregation
WE seem to lack consensus on the subject of Google’s newly-acquired patents. We’ll therefore present a diversity of angles which are potentially contradictory.
Bloomberg‘s report on Google’s latest ‘purchase’ of IBM patents (just reassignment) states:
Google Inc. (GOOG) bought 1,023 patents from International Business Machines Corp. (IBM) as the Internet search and advertising company bolsters its strategy of defending against smartphone lawsuits.
Transfers recorded by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s website yesterday show Google acquired the patents Aug. 17. Jim Prosser, a spokesman for the Mountain View, California- based company, confirmed the transaction today without providing details or financial terms. Chris Andrews, a spokesman for Armonk, New York-based IBM, declined to comment.
Secrecy. Got to love that, eh? So what does that whole thing mean. We discussed this in IRC throughout the morning and afternoon. Google will does not indemnify other Linux-based platforms and its move helps legitimise software patents. Those are probably the main drawbacks. Google also makes it harder to portray itself as a poor victim.
As a little bit of new background consider this news article:
In July, a consortium led by Microsoft, Apple and wireless industry players such as Research in Motion paid $4.5 billion for 6,000 patents from the now liquidated networking company Nortel. Last month, Google purchased Motorola Mobility for $12.5 billion, in part to gain access to the company’s 17,000 patents. And Eastman Kodak, a company struggling to navigate the digital era, has multiple parties bidding to buy its patent portfolio.
Oh, no. Not another one. The costs are being passed to customers.
“These two seem to have a little coverage of what the specific patents were,” writes to us a reader. He provides links to this article:
The patents cover a wide range of topics from server architecture to wireless devices. Bill Slawski of SEO by the Sea has taken a look at the patents involved and picked out a few that stood out to him. The ones that will probably be of most interest to Google are the ones related to cellular and mobile devices:
* Coordination Of Cellular Telephones In A Residential Area To Obviate Need For Wired Residential Service
* Method And System For Efficient And Reliable Mac-Layer Multicast Wireless Transmissions
* System And Method Of Making Location Updating Management On A Mobile Station, Mobile Station And Mobile Network
* Telephone Information Service System
Here is another article our reader recommends (there are many articles out there, some more useful and informative than others).
Just before 8 AM (GMT) Chips B. Malroy noted that “they bought another 1000+ patents from IBM…”
After I had expressed scepticism he said: “you [are] correct that software patents should be abolished [...] but maybe even Google does not have the pull with the US gov to do that [...] so in the meantime they buy patents [...]I lost the link, but in another story Apple asked to delay their lawsuit against Motorola [...] since they claim that since Google bought Motorola, that Motorola has no standing legally…”
“Perhaps Google exspensive plan to buy all these patents is starting to pay off in court for them and others using Androiders [...] The question is when MS will lose its gravy train of taxing (extorting) android OEM’s in court. [...] Maybe Google does not have to indemmify others, as long as they help them and show up in court, give a few patents like they have in the HTC case with Apple…”
“I am thinking that the days of MS and Apple trolling Android OEM’s is coming to an end.”
–Chips B. MalroyAnother person in IRC noted: “That’s what MS doest — tax OEMs.”
“I am thinking that the days of MS and Apple trolling Android OEM’s is coming to an end,” noted Malroy,
“It would take large action on the part of Google for the harassment of Android sellers to end,” remarked another anonymous person.
Malroy shared the link to the report about Apple stepping away. Is this working? Is Google’s strategy effective after all?
“It’s not the best solution for Google Android or FOSS,” stressed Malroy. “But with the way the US gov is these days, maybe its the best thing short term, as there is just too much money for our politicians to be made here from the lobbyists to keep the patent system” (a point with which i personally agree).
“Patents are out of control and hinder innovation,” writes Air VPN. This is probably something that everyone can agree with. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
09.14.11
Posted in Apple, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Patents at 11:29 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: An accumulation of the latest articles about the USPTO, its so-called ‘reform’, and the reality of patent aggression and trolls
JUST when the SCO case was coming to its very end, we were seeing a rise in patent attacks on Linux, not just copyright attacks. It was also when Linux became a leader in mobile platforms that the attacks truly soared, just as the attack from SCO started when GNU/Linux had gained rapidly on servers. The timing made sense because if someone claims ‘damages’ and demands royalties, it is reasonable to make sure the return is greater than litigation expenses.
Currently, Apple becomes a bit like SCO, as did Microsoft a few years ago. Apple is not invincible at all as it recently lost its main brand, Steve Jobs. Jay from the 451 Group speaks of lessons of SCO in his latest fine article which the editor summarised as follows:
SCO showed that convoluted contract, IP and other courtroom claims make for long, convoluted courtroom processes. Considering the SCO case in its totality, it seems the more the company relied on legal means to compete or limit other competitors, the further it strayed from users, consumers and its core business.
Yes, that sounds just like Apple and Microsoft. Apple is too busy trying to block the competition, so people can lose sight of Apple’s future products; as for Microsoft, just watch what happened in the mobile arena. Microsoft was too busy filing patents; not much real work got done. Linux leapt ahead in the mean time and it is reported that Android does to Apple in tablets what it already did to it in phones. Fantastic! But we must not lose sight of the constant attacks on mobile Linux.
“But we must not lose sight of the constant attacks on mobile Linux.”Red Hat’s Open Source site features an article by Keith Bergelt and it focuses on the mobile patent wars that affect Linux. There are several platforms affected by this and they include MeeGo and WebOS, both of which were weakened recently. Patents had a little to do with it, based on numerous reports. “RIM Patents Rotating Keyboard Keys” we learn from a new article, so there is clearly quite a maze of patents being created not just by Microsoft’s and Apple’s cartel. It affects not only the United States because some of the patents are design related, not purely software (which is controversial too). The FSFE writes about software patents in Europe this week, deciphering the situation in Germany where Apple has most prominently been attacking Android.
There is an analysis from patent maximalists regarding the ruling that may weaken or eliminate a lot of software patents rather than one at a time (reexamination). To quote the part freely accessible to the public:
August 16, 2011, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued its decision in CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., affirming patent-ineligibility of a reexamined software patent. The patent-in-dispute, U.S. Patent 6,029,154, is directed to detecting credit card fraud on the Internet and claims 2 and 3 were at issue. The court’s reasoning recognized that software is still patent-eligible after Bilski, but held that the bar has been raised – which has important implications for the software industry.
Well, based on further analysis in the Oracle vs. Google case, even Google has started working towards the weakening of software patents. It’s very important. Quoting Pogson:
Google has moved for summary judgment that using Java APIs is not copyright violation. Oracle has replied. Oracle is trying to persuade the court that APIs are protectable despite much legal precedent as far back as 1879:” the Supreme Court made clear that publication of a book that explains a particular accounting system gives the author no rights under the copyright laws to prevent others from using the system, as long as no protectable expression from the book is copied. Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1879); see also 17 U.S.C. § 102(b) (“In no case does copyright protection . . . extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.”). Oracle’s Java language books and API specifications give Oracle no greater rights to prevent implementation by others of the APIs using original code.”
Google is now in a position where the low cost advantage of its main operating system (RHEL, Chrome OS and Goobuntu aside) is in jeopardy. Even CNN has a new article on the subject, stating initially that:
If you feel like you’ve been seeing more news about patents than ever before, you have. In July, a consortium that included Apple, RIM and Microsoft made a move on Nortel’s patent portfolio, outflanking Google. In August, Google hit back by proposing to acquire Motorola Mobility in a $12.5 billion deal, largely for its massive cache of patents. HTC and Apple continue to spar in court over patent infringements. And now, Kodak and InterDigital are being eyed for their intellectual assets. Patent lawsuits in the U.S. rose to 2,833 in 2010, up nearly 25% from a decade earlier, according to IP litigation research firm Lex Machina. The 2011 total will almost certainly be higher.
What exactly is going on? How did a seemingly sleepy subject like patents suddenly become an active fault line in American business?
Adding to this the presence of patent trolls like Acacia, it sure seems like the system has become a mess. According to this new article, this massive troll has just extorted yet another company. To quote:
Newport Beach-based Acacia Research Corp., which licenses patents for companies, reached a settlement and licensing agreement with Salt Lake City-based Internet retailer Overstock.com, the company announced Tuesday.
The agreement resolves litigation that was pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
Jerry Brito, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, spoke to Tim Lee on the subject of today’s patent ‘reform’. No real reform has yet been implemented, just a bogus one. The article “How Congress Just Failed to Fix America’s Broken Patent System” has just been published in a reputable site which put forth the following idea:
The second thing you need to know is that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has been so neglected for so many years — literally robbed of funds by Congress, which re-appropriated portions of the agency’s budget for other purposes — that the organization tasked with protecting America’s technological and scientific assets labors with too few staff and a “20-year old technology infrastructure that does not even remotely enable it to take advantage of modern information technology.”
Maybe this is why it has granted a monopoly to almost any patent applicant, which aided the patent trolls, helped patent lawyers make more money, and gave the mere illusion that innovation was on the rise. The latest reform does almost nothing to change this, so the mobile patent wars are probably here to stay for a while longer. We predict a growing level of backlash against the USPTO in years to come. It might suffer the same PR problem as the Federal Reserve.
Looking at Law.com, Ben Henrion finds this article titled “Patent Law’s Passage Spurs Flood of New Complaints”. It quotes Chaikovsky as saying: “At least in the short term, there’s going to be a lot more patent litigation. That means litigators will be busy.”
This new Patently-O Blog about “the International Harmonization of Patent Laws” led Henrion to warning about the “Combination of an English respect for precedent with a Germanic desire for consistency and uniformity” as “EPO ‘caselaw”.’ To quote:
International harmonization has always been seen as a major purpose of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. Every country has its own patent structure as does the European Patent Office. Ongoing differences between the various countries add substantial transaction costs to the process of obtaining and enforcing patents. Many US companies would like European patents, but the prospect is often cost prohibitive.
Although disputed, most would agree that the Leahy-Smith’s new filing-date focus moves the US closer an international patentability norm. Still, a number of important differences remain between US law and the laws in other major patent centers. As a result, the US law has not been internationally harmonized, but it has been shifted in that direction.
See our post about the ambitions to establish the interpol of patent systems. Microsoft craves it. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
09.13.11
Posted in Apple, GNU/Linux, Google, Patents at 10:24 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The public and even Google make some noise over the absurdity of software patents; Apple gets sued by Samsung after it had sued Samsung over Android
Yesterday we published several articles about the excessive intrusion of patents into the smartphones arena. Ars Technica has a similar article about how the fight for smartphones domination became a patent fight.
In the last few weeks, the smartphone industry appeared to produce more lawsuits than phones. Apple briefly managed to stop the sale of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in all of Europe, and is now going after the whole Galaxy line. Back Stateside, Google first complained that Microsoft and Apple were using “bogus patents” to target Android, then spent $12 billion for Motorola and its patent arsenal. These are big, high-stakes fights—and the last company left standing may walk away with control over nothing less than the smartphone market itself.
Incidentally, The Guardian too wrote about it on the same day, claiming that “Lawsuits highlight smartphone ecosystem’s prosperity” (the headline) and as a little bit of background it wrote:
First, a word on the general topic of patents. Feast your eyes on this Wikipedia article and you’ll see that patents, those erstwhile royal decrees, have been around for a long time. In theory, they’re supposed to foster innovation by granting the inventor a monopoly on an original process. In reality, things get complicated. Byzantine patent law has created lifetime employment opportunities for those who are expert in the Talmudic parsing of what is actually, legally patentable.
Back in the tangible, “real-world” days, you could invent a new process to temper steel that would result in taller, safer buildings. In patenting your idea, you’d earn a bit for yourself and encourage others to raise the bar.
More publications explain to their readers the subject of patents from a sceptical point of view. This is progress.
In other news, Google seems to be pushing a bit against software patents. “Fascinating,” calls it Alan Lord. “New claim by Google could essentially render s/w patents irrelevant”. Here is the article in question:
Google urged a federal judge to dismiss a patent-infringement case alleging that it copied Oracle’s Java code, arguing that the code installed on Android devices came from foreign device makers.
It is “undisputed” that Google makes Android software available to foreign manufacturers through download only, Google attorney Robert Van Nest noted. He claims that “downloading the software necessarily requires the foreign manufacturer to copy it.” The copy loaded onto the foreign-made device is not supplied by the United States.
“Google claims that copied code is not patent infringement,” claims someone called “Air VPN” in a Twitter tweet regarding this article.
Perhaps something good might eventually come out from this case, which the Microsoft booster claims to have escalated to CEOs and Groklaw keeps tracking closely [1, 2], insisting that Oracle is unlikely to win. It is worth noting that Samsung has begun showing its teeth. The anti-Linux patent cartels won’t have a day field. “Samsung Slaps Apple With Patent Lawsuit in France” says the headline from Mashable, providing context by writing:”After numerous patent lawsuits from Apple, Samsung has responded with another lawsuit of its own — this time in France.”
When HTC sued the thuggish Apple, Apple and Microsoft proponents/spinners pretended it came out of nowhere. They sought to portray the Motorola deal as a prelude to aggression.
Timothy B. Lee adds fuel to the fire by issuing another call (in Forbes) to squash patents on abstract ideas (including software algorithms). To quote:
So I’m extremely excited that three of the nation’s leading libertarian think tanks—Cato, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the Reason Foundation—have submitted an amicus brief in the case of Mayo v. Prometheus. As far as I know, this is the first time any of these think tanks has filed an patent-related amicus brief with the Supreme Court, and it couldn’t have come at a better time. I’m listed as a co-author on the Cato site, but the brief was actually written for us by the brilliant Christina Mulligan at Yale’s Information Society Project. We benefitted from the able leadership of Ilya Shapiro, who supervises Cato’s amicus program.
Christina did a superb job of explaining how the Federal Circuit’s decisions from the 1990s contradict earlier decisions from the Supreme Court itself. And she also marshals the growing body of empirical evidence that the Federal Court’s experiment with allowing patents on abstract ideas has done serious economic damage. Because the Federal Circuit’s experiment with expanding patentable subject matter started with software and business method patents, the brief focuses pretty heavily on those two categories of patents.
This comes amid a lot of opposition to software patents and even to the latest 'reform', which the patent lawyers community rallies around. Joe McKendrick’s summary about it states that:
Proposed new patent-reform law may merely speed up tangled system; one observer suggests doing away with software patents altogether.
It is not just software patents, but eliminating software patents would be a good start. As another sign of hope being defensible, the abusively-used patents of Rambus [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10] seem to have been sunk for good. Reuters writes:
Two patents that chip designer Rambus (RMBS.O) used to win patent lawsuits against Nvidia Corp (NVDA.O), Hewlett-Packard (HPQ.N) and others have been declared invalid by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, according to legal documents.
Why were they granted in the first place? This system is dysfunctional and irreparable. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
Content is available under CC-BY-SA