Most laptops are sold without the price of Microsoft Windows displayed before the consumer buys it. This is an issue if you want to use another piece of software on your laptop, such another version of Microsoft Windows, or Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD or OpenSolaris. In an answer given by Commissioner Kuneva to Belgian MEP Saïd El Khadraoui (PSE), there is a mention of two decisions pending at the European Court of Justice (ECJ) related to this issue…
The weighty, from 3.88kg (with one HDD) machines come with a nine-cell “85Whr” battery. Operating system? Windows Vista 32-bit and 64-bit, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux WS are the pre-load options.
The Eee Box B202, with an Intel Atom N270 CPU at 1.6 GHz, is available at around $300 for the Windows XP version with 1 GByte RAM and an 80-Gbyte hard drive. The Linux/Easy OS version, for about the same price, has twice the power at 2 Gbyte RAM and a 160-Gbyte drive.
Recently, Sun was touting the fact that more than 150,000 people have joined the OpenSolaris community. This is a pretty big number, particularly since the first release of OpenSolaris, dubbed 2008.05 and developed under the code-name “Project Indiana,” only started shipping in May. That number doesn’t tell the whole story.
Linux is enjoying growth, with a contingent of devotees too large to be called a cult following at this point. Solaris, meanwhile, has thrived as a longstanding, primary Unix platform geared to enterprises. But with Linux the object of all the buzz in the industry, can Sun’s rival Solaris Unix OS hang on, or is it destined to be displaced by Linux altogether?
So Amarok fits just fine, and does so on many platforms that are more exotically different from the KDE desktop than GNOME is. So why does this attitude persist?
…And Microsoft’s war against Free Software, AKA ‘piracy’
Not a week goes by without yet another Microsoft-sponsored pseudo-study. Microsoft’s favourite acronym, TCO, is rearing its ugly head again. We mentioned the roots of this FUD pattern before and here comes the latest.
Microsoft: Windows and Linux offer same TCO in emerging markets
[...]
That’s the conclusion of a recent Microsoft-sponsored study from Vital Wave Consulting, which Microsoft is touting in new posting on the company’s Unlimited Potential (UP) blog.
Microsoft seems desperate to broadcast the message that poor countries should choose Windows and not GNU/Linux. It even shells out money to produce supportive ‘evidence’. It is, in part, a matter of timing, as we have already noted in this post about Kenya, which also showed Microsoft confusing (obfuscating) “piracy” and “GNU/Linux”.
Only last year, Microsoft’s PR icon had an important message to bear and to share:
“It’s easier for our software to compete with Linux when there’s piracy than when there’s not.”
–Bill Gates
It’s worth reading that again. Consider another way of phrasing/interpreting this: “if it were not for ‘piracy’, we would lose.” In other words, so-called ‘piracy’ — the culture of raping and killing (supposable) — is actually on Microsoft’s side. It chooses to characterise sharing which it favours and encourages as a criminal and violent act, hoping to earn sympathy in return for something that begs for guilt.
The statement above was made in a particular context — being China — although the validity is not restricted geographically. Also in reference to China, Gates once expressed his desire to get people “addicted” to Microsoft software:
“They’ll get sort of addicted, and then we’ll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade.”
In other words, addiction comes first, later comes the ‘pumping’. Here in today’s news it can be seen that Microsoft is dumping copies of Microsoft Office almost for free, provided the customer is a young student.
Amazon offers this exceptional deal for £49.99 delivered instead of £99.99. This Microsoft Office 2007 Home and Student edition will cost you only £16.67 per seat.
But… that’s just for students. OpenOffice.org is exceptionally popular among students, so this is no coincidence. Over in Asia, also based on this widely-kited article from Reuters, Microsoft is reducing the price of Office considerably. As always, it blames “piracy” rather than stiff competition.
Microsoft, the world’s largest software firm, is among the hardest-hit victims. Pirated versions of Microsoft’s Office software can sell in China for less than 10 yuan ($1.50).
Microsoft has slashed the Chinese price of its Office suite for home users by more than 70 per cent in a promotional campaign aimed at persuading consumers in the piracy-plagued market that licensed programs can be affordable.
The very same people who Bill Gates admitted he needs to “addict” he and his company are now calling “pirates”, criminals. Having admitted that Microsoft needs “piracy” to compete with GNU/Linux, they now concede that billions of dollars are lost due to “theft”. Which way will it be, Microsoft? There’s no notion such as “theft” in Free software, which users are encouraged to share. The only theft is a case of refusing to share. The GPL makes it an equivalent of copyrights infringement.
Over in Malaysia it’s even uglier. According to reports like this one, there’s a new scare tactics propaganda forcing people to pay for something Microsoft had people accustomed to think of as free. With high pricing already ‘in place’, as well as “addicted” people, the monopoly from Redmond starts squeezing hard. We mentioned this some days ago, but this one has pictures.
Just yesterday, Microsoft Malaysia posted a new advertisement in a Malaysian daily which gloated that it now had control of all the software pirates in Malaysia. This new “feature” targets pirates by making the background of the desktops black, making it easy for law enforcers to fine the law breakers.
How does it feel to have been served “addiction” by the same companies which now sends out the hounds (BSA et al)? █
“[Microsoft] are willing to lose money for years and years just to make sure that you don’t make any money, either.”
“Bill Gates looks at everything as something that should be his. He acts in any way he can to make it his. It can be an idea, market share, or a contract. There is not an ounce of conscientiousness or compassion in him. The notion of fairness means nothing to him. The only thing he understands is leverage.”
It has been an exceptionally busy but productive day to opposers of software patents. Today was the day that software patents were battled around the world and Slashdot covered this in its front page.
“Veteran European anti-software patent campaigners have launched the World Day against Software Patents. They say, ‘The issue of software patents is a global one, and several governments and patent offices around the world continue to grant software & business method patents on a daily basis; they are pushing for legal codification of the practice, such as currently in New Zealand and India.
The following video serves as a good primer to those among us who are new to this debate.
India had a raft of articles on this topic, particularly in the Hindu. Here is a key one:
Picture this. Indian mathematicians came up with the concept of the “zero” — often touted as India’s greatest contribution to civilisation — and got a patent for it. By now they would have raked in inestimable amounts in royalty. Seems preposterous? Members of the Free Software community say that patenting every other algorithm would be somewhat in the same league.
While there has been substantial discussion on how patents will affect the pharmaceutical sector, there has been little debate about its implications on the software industry. To the layman, software patenting sounds like an abstract issue applicable to an even more abstract domain. However, with a growing software industry which is trying to spread its indigenous roots, the issue becomes an important one.
Helios invited GNU/Linux users to help the cause of Free software by striking where it matters the most: legal barriers, among several others.
What Can We Do To Help?
[...]
Are you really motivated and good with research? How about researching patents for obviously bad awards? How about supporting patent reform? Is there something you can do to help support the Software Freedom Law Center?
Earlier today in the minor news, the following post, which contains Adobe’s statements, showed that they are still a tad hostile towards Free software, despite their new membership in the Linux Foundation.
Adobe Answers to Linux Development Questions
[...]
That last answer is very interesting. There is some ridicule out on the WWW and on USENET that looks at the LSB Product Directory and scoffs that LSB is no good and thus Linux is no good. This is one of the usual Fear and Uncertainty through Disinformation (FUD) tactics used by those who hate Linux and want you to hate it too. Obviously companies, like Adobe, are using the LSB tests and certifying for themselves. They are not then certifying with The Linux Foundation to be placed in the LSB Product Directory nor are they using the LSB trademark.
In summary, it’s not all bad, but for over a year Adobe had contributed to the perception that it’s hard to cater for GNU/Linux.
Coming from Adobe, a changed attitude towards software patents is not too surprising, either. Just like Microsoft, it resisted these patents vigorously when it was still small. Now that Adobe is a big franchise, it wants to protect its territory using the very same patents it used to protest against as a small business.
Here is the position of Adobe on software patents in 1994 published by James Huggins:
Let me make my position on the patentability of software clear. I believe that software per se should not be allowed patent protection. I take this position as the creator of software and as the beneficiary of the rewards that innovative software can bring in the marketplace. I do not take this position because I or my company are eager to steal the ideas of others in our industry. Adobe has built its business by creating new markets with new software. We take this position because it is the best policy for maintaining a healthy software industry, where innovation can prosper.
The problems inherent in certain aspects of the patent process for software-related inventions are well-known, the difficulties of finding and citing prior art, the problems of obviousness, the difficulties of adequate specifications for software are a few of those problems. However, I argue that software should not be patented, not because it is difficult to do so, but because it is wrong to do so.
Oracle Corporation opposes the patentability of software. The Company believes that existing copyright law and available trade secret protections, as opposed to patent law, are better suited to protecting computer software developments.
[…]
Compared to adequate copyright and trade secret protections, patent protection is excessively broad and enormously expensive.
CHANGING THE PATENT SYSTEM
Oracle has recommended that patent protection not be provided for computer software or computer software algorithms, for the reasons described above.
Oracle is now a member of OIN, so it’s unlikely to become a patent threat to Free/open source software.
Lastly, the BBC published this article which blasts the patent system for some of its more obvious deficiencies.
The traditional view is that strong patent protection stimulates innovation, reassuring companies that it is safe to invest in research without fear of being stung by rivals.
[...]
The full benefits of synthetic biology and nanotechnology will not be realised without urgent reforms to encourage sharing of information, they say.
Tough day for patents. The word is getting out there; spreading it would help further. █
Small numbers withstanding, there are Free software companies and there are those which merely pretend to be one. Novell falls into the latter class (known as pretenders), to whom “open source” is a mixture of code (Free and non-Free) and also patent-ridden [1, 2, 3, 4, 5].
Taking all that into account, it’s reassuring to find that Novell lost its opportunity in the UK. It lost to a much smaller company that actually cares for, specialises in, and understands Free software.
THE UK government published its list of 12 approved suppliers of software to schools this afternoon and it did not include Novell.
But Sirius Corporation is on the list, making it the first Open Source outfit ever to get on an approved list of suppliers to UK government.
Novell had been shortlisted with sixteen other firms in July. Becta, the education quango that appointed the list, had told them it was looking for firms that could supply both straight and Open Source software, said one of the firms and who preferred not to be named.
Jill Henry, Novell’s partner director, told the INQ yesterday that it had made it onto the list. Today she said she meant that Novell had been on the shortlist. Novell had in fact resigned from the bidding in July.
Open-source company Novell did not gain accreditation, although it was shortlisted. Novell had not responded to requests for comment at the time of writing.
Jill Henry from of Novell UK confirmed her outfit had also won a place on the framework and that it was the first time an Open Source company had won the coveted position. Novell has been on frameworks before, but not in a capacity that would sanction its supply of Open Source software.
Matt Asay was deceived by the report above, which he parroted without checking a secondary source for corroboration.
As The Inquirer reports, two open-source companies, Novell UK and Sirius, have been granted access to the UK’s £80 million ($149 million) Software for Educational Institutions Framework, which enables them to supply software to the UK public sector. There may be additional open-source vendors chosen but the official list won’t be released until Wednesday, September 24.
The breakthrough came when two open source companies – Sirius Corp. and Novell UK – won a place on Britain’s little software list, the £80 million Software for Educational Institutions Framework. The reality is that companies not on the list have scant chance of winning a procurement contract for British schools.
At the end of the day, Novell got nothing. The idea of encouraging the adoption of Free software is for BECTA to dodge proprietary software. Choosing Novell is merely choosing More of the Same™. █
A couple of days ago we wrote about Microsoft’s new anti-VMware Web site. Based on some followups, it soon emerged that Microsoft had used similar memorable tricks like distribution of insidious material at VMware’s own event. Information about this can be found in the comments attached to that previous post. Also worth adding is the following new perspective, which compares these tactics to ones previously used against Novell.
As many of you know, I witnessed firsthand the tactics Microsoft used against Novell during the 1990s when I worked for the once-upon-a-time network operating system leader. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had déjà-vu experiences while watching Microsoft methodically run the same game plan against VMware’s Virtual Center product with Hyper-V and System Center Virtual Machine Manager. Integrations, pricing, and marketing tactics are all repeats of the past.
This vicious attack on VMware is likely to continue [1, 2, 3] and the following article confirms what we saw and stated the last time. Microsoft hardly feels shameful of its use of a girls’ school to accomplish business (FUD) objectives. It’s not the first such incident as Microsoft did this in Singapore some months ago. Girls’ school/s lobbied for OOXML at Microsoft’s behest.
The cards also listed the URL for a new Microsoft Web site called www.vmwarecostswaytoomuch.com, which reflects Microsoft’s strategy of using price to grab market share from its well-entrenched virtualization market foe. The garishly colored Web site, which was registered on Aug. 27, is being hosted for Microsoft by Seattle-based advertising agency Wexley School For Girls.
[...]
“I also recall Microsoft doing something similar to Novell back in the day, and Novell coming back with something like stopthefud.com,” said Ward. “In the end, everybody must look at what is the best solution for their particular situation and make an informed choice on a hypervisor based on actual research, not FUD [fear, uncertainty, and doubt].”
There is again this mentioning of Novell. Ironically and sadly, Novell did not learn its lessons and it’s now an integral part of Microsoft’s FUD campaign. SJVN wrote an article some weeks ago asking Novell and Microsoft to stop the FUD that they disseminated jointly (“intellectual property peace of mind”). They fought against GNU/Linux that’s not SLED or SLES and they still do. It’s also difficult to forget the audiocast in which Justin Steinman warned that other distribtuions might not work (interoperate).
John Dragoon is happy enough to continue this marketing technique. He promotes the Microsoft/Novell site in his blog.
Our partnership has been a lot more than talk and press releases. In fact, our joint investment in an interoperability lab has delivered significant innovation in bi-directional virtualization, document compatibility and cross platform systems and identity management. The best, and I believe most interesting, place to discover all this is at our newly refreshed site at moreinterop.com.
Also mentioned on Saturday was a scoop about Lenovo and SUSE servers. Here are two newer reports, which happen to be showing what Novell strives to achieve.
All are designed to work with Windows Server 2003 and 2008 in addition to the forthcoming Small Business Server 2008 and Essential Server 2008. Yet on the Linux side, Novell — the producer of SuSE Linux — is Lenovo’s “preferred provider,” Tobul said. Lenovo will also be shipping the ThinkServers with Red Hat’s server operating system as well.
They are clearly trying to squeeze Red Hat out. There is another report about it.
The company is launching three tower and two rack x86 servers. ThinkServer TS100 Tower and RS110 Rack and ThinkServer TD100 Tower, TD100x Tower or RD120 Rack come with Microsoft Windows Server or SUSE Linux Enterprise Server from Novell, and Intel Core 2 Duo or Xeon processors.
It’s all about Novell and Microsoft, which are a pair now. Microsoft is happily using Novell to harm other vendors. In theory, it can later proceed to ruining Novell. █
“Our partnership with Microsoft continues to expand.”
IBM vehemently opposed certification of the Microsoft-developed document format in Geneva and in ISO member states. According to IBM, the comprehensive specification contains major errors. IBM also wanted to prevent competition with the Open Document Format (ODF) document standard, which was became an ISO standard in 2006. Developing nations also repeatedly protested against the OOXML standardisation process. But ISO has rejected all accusations against it, despite there having been many reports about irregularities surrounding the approval process.
If IBM follows up these words with deeds, for example by withdrawing from the ISO standardisation process (assuming the latter is not radically reformed), then the next step would be to set up a new international standards body – one where developing countries are given a far larger say. Open source communities in those regions might like to start floating the idea so as to be well-placed if and when official discussions commence.
IBM Corp on Tuesday announced a new policy that may lead to ending its participation in the International Organization for Standardization. The business technology company is frustrated by what it considers poor decision making in the ISO.
IBM is instituting a new corporate policy that, it promises, will formalise behaviour with regards to creating open technical standards. So just what is Big Blue actually doing to encourage improved quality and transparency of tech standards then?
Although most of the thunder of the OOXML adoption battle has now died away, the after effects of that controversial process continue to linger. Some of the residual effects have been intangible, such as hard feelings on the part of at least four National Bodies over their inability to obtain a formal review of their complaints over how the OOXML adoption process was conducted.
IBM obviously is concerned by the recent standards-setting travesty perpetrated by the International Standards Organisation (ISO), with Microsoft’s undue influence, in forcing the fast-track adoption of the Vole’s Office Open XML (OOXML) as a document standard.
To reiterate what I said at the beginning, IBM is more committed to open standards than ever before. IBM believes that open standards are good for customers since they provide more options, better products, and insurance against being locked in by any one vendor or provider.
IBM has also just published Wiki recommendations and the press release is appeneded at a bottom. Yesterday, in relation to this post, a reader contacted us to say: “It reminds me of the recent discussion of deletionism in wikipedia. That might be a specialization within the saturate-diffuse-confuse media strategy: add a bunch of crap, come back and weaken the competing examples, come back again and consolidate the weakened remains of the original competing examples into one competing example, come back and complain about redundancy and remove the remaining competing (original) example.
“Saw it all the time against OpenDocument. We see it now against Java, Perl, Ruby, Python, and even C and C++.” █
WIKI RECOMMENDATIONS
Following are suggestions that were proffered by individuals during the wiki.They do not necessarily reflect unanimous or consensus views.
Government
Call on lawmakers to regulate intellectual property component of standards
Encourage adoption of new procurement rules requiring good ratings from trusted sources
Recognize the existence of “Civil Information & Communication Technology Standards,” the need for government to protect them and promote them through procurement policy
Elevate the importance of standards in the missions of the Departments of Justice and Commerce, and National Institute of Standards & Tech.These agencies would guide the creation, publication, and rewards associated with standards
Elevate the priority of protecting standards in the missions of the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice
Raise government awareness throughout the world to the deliverables of the Interoperable Delivery of European eGovernment Services (IDABC)
Standards Development Organizations (SDOs)
Develop and maintain an organization to create a quality index of existing SDOs and best practices for SDOs to motivate existing and new SDOs
Encourage member-pledges to make early disclosures of intellectual property
Discourage non members from ambushing standards — create organization to expose prior art of patent speculators
Create a clearinghouse to determine the value of patent to standards
Adopt Web 2.0 and 3.0 technologies to enhance transparency during the standards development process
Standards Community
Create standards and intellectual property-oriented clearinghouse with watchdog or accreditation responsibility
Create an organization to apply open source-style ratings to intellectual property policies, such as patent non-assertion covenants.This will encourage more consistency and certainty, and promote free and open source-friendly patent commitments
Apply open-government rules to standards creation process to ensure transparency, limit undue influence, and increase public confidence in standards
Create “commitment registry” for ex-ante disclosures and patent pledges, ideally in cooperation with the US Patent & Trademark Office
Encourage “minimalist” specs while discouraging competition-limiting proprietary extensions.This will limit intellectual property conflicts, and leave room for future development, innovation, accuracy and consensus
Create “Underwriters Laboratory-type” organization to provide patent certification prior to SDO submission
Pilot Peer to Patent-style program to determine what patents may be essential to a standard, and which ones are not
Quasi-Governmental and Non-Governmental Agencies
Define civil ICT standards, and promote their development and use
Harmonize national standards development policies
Elevate mission of UN Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards & UN Development Programme
International Trade Organizations
Call for review and pervasive reform of ISO/IEC JTC 1 directives and processes
Renforce World Summit on the Information Society Declaration of Principles — states that open standards are important to IT diffusion in the developing world
Enourage better application of World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade
Intellectual Property
Call on lawmakers to regulate intellectual property component of standards
Pilot Peer to Patent-style program to determine what patents may be essential to a standard, and which ones are not
Create an organization to apply open source-style ratings to intellectual property policies, such as patent non-assertion covenants.This will encourage more consistency and certainty, and promote free and open source-friendly patent commitments
Create “commitment registry” for ex-ante disclosures and patent pledges, ideally in cooperation with the US Patent & Trademark Office
Encourage “minimalist” specs while discouraging competition-limiting proprietary extensions.This will limit intellectual property conflicts, and leave room for future development, innovation, accuracy and consensus
Encourage member-pledges to make early disclosures of intellectual property
Discourage non members from ambushing standards — create organization to expose prior art of patent speculators
Create a clearinghouse to determine the value of patent to standards
Elevate the importance of standards in the missions of the Departments of Justice and Commerce, and National Institute of Standards & Tech.These agencies would guide the creation, publication, and rewards associated with standards
Elevate the priority of protecting standards in the missions of the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice
Academia
Offer standards courses at engineering schools
Promote academic and policy research and discusssions at law and business schools
What the Mendelson-Lee paper shows is that business schools (like journalism schools) work at the behest of those businesses which pay the bills. And those businesses are frightened of open source.
[...]
One final irony. Mendelson’s chair is sponsored by Kleiner Perkins, the venture capitalists. No one knows more how tough open source is to contain, and the need to go with its flow, than the folks on Sand Hill Road.
Kleiner Perkins?
Seems like another Ignition-like group, i.e. a group of investors containing former Microsoft employees or somesuch. It’s all about interests, so let’s find some.
Going to the Web site of the funders of this anti-Free software ‘study’, here is what you find in the front page: iFund
“KPCB launches $100M iFund in collaboration with Apple”
Looking at those who run the place, it’s possible also to find things like this: (emphasis ours)
Russell joined KPCB after seven years at Microsoft. At Microsoft he helped launch LAN Manager, Microsoft’s first network operating system, then was the marketing manager in charge of Windows for Workgroups, a small-business networking version of Windows. For the first half of 1993, Russell worked directly for Bill Gates, during which time he researched the online market and recommended an entry strategy for that market.
Prior to BEA, Ellen focused on business development and closed technology licensing deals for Tellme Networks and Microsoft’s WebTV division.
So, these are the sorts of people who invest in a study on fighting Free(dom) software. Not much of a surprise there. The previous post contained no information about the source of the money; now we have it. █
“Pearly Gates and Em-Ballmer
One promises you heaven and the other prepares you for the grave.”
Send this to a friend 
IBM has also just published Wiki recommendations and the press release is appeneded at a bottom. Yesterday, in relation to 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA