EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

01.03.08

Dear BBC, Shame on You

Posted in Deception, Europe, FUD, Microsoft at 2:11 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Fool us once, shame on you; fool us for a whole year, shame on us taxpayers

As part of a continued trend at the BBC, which is tax-funded, as well as the media at large [1, 2, 3], it is saddening to see this:

THE BBC is inviting its readers to ask Vole supremo Bill Gates questions.

This has to be seen in context, along with recent developments. The news above is no ‘smoking gun’ in its right. For those who have not followed this saga, it is worth mentioning again that the BBC succumbed to the pressure of Microsoft after those two made a deal. The BBC not only delivers Microsoft’s perspective of the news and gives Microsoft some placements and free columns, but it also acts as an agent of monopolisation with products like iPlayer. Adding insult to injury, the BBC was caught spreading GNU/Linux FUD. This includes claims that only hundreds of Linux-using Brits visit the BBC Web site, which turned out to be a lie of unbelievable proportions.

”It’s just like putting trophies and medals up for sale.“This is a worrisome trend. We live in a world where one can simply buy positive and seemingly-independent publicity. This needs to be stopped. Only a week ago we saw a so-called 'analyst' praising Microsoft twice. It was Frost & Sullivan, which is somewhat of a joke.

It’s just like putting trophies and medals up for sale. Microsoft, which does business with Frost & Sullivan, ‘acquired’ two such medals, where medals is a reference to a quote whose proper attribution I cannot remember. It talks about high society and royals throwing a party with wine, gifts and medals. They exchange awards among themselves to show each other how important they are and then strut around town with objects that symbolize pseudo or non-existent achievements.

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

16 Comments

  1. Nick Reynolds (editor, BBC Internet Blog) said,

    January 3, 2008 at 12:58 pm

    Gravatar

    If people are interested in the BBC’s perspective on these inaccurate allegations about its relationship with Microsoft they can read Ashley Highfield’s recent interview in Groklaw.

    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071118205358171

    see also this:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/ashley_highfield/

    Regarding the question of Linus users Ashley has apologised for this mistake here:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2007/11/open_standards.html

  2. alphadog said,

    January 3, 2008 at 4:19 pm

    Gravatar

    “We live in a world where one can simply buy positive and seemingly-independent publicity.”

    Let’s face it, thanks to the ubiquity of the Internet, we also live in a world where more and more people can be disabused of such false advertising. You, and all bloggers, wouldn’t have a personal soapbox with such widespread effect ten years ago.

    Amen to that.

    - alphadog

  3. Mark Kent said,

    January 4, 2008 at 3:02 am

    Gravatar

    I would be interested in the BBC’s justification for spending over 100 million pounds on a skin for Microsoft’s proprietary Silverlight player, something which will never run on any platform other than Windows Vista with Microsoft’s IE, in an environment where the fastest growing categories of user device are ultra-mobile and non-Windows based, and where there are perfectly suitable alternatives which are multi-platform, which even support DRM, such as the Helix player.
    Further, the BBC’s own research department developed the Dirac codec for the specific purpose of avoiding paying licence-fees to a third-party – why is it now okay to pay 3rd parties with my licence-fee cash?

  4. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 4, 2008 at 3:13 am

    Gravatar

    I suspect that Mr. Reynold felt the need to come here with plenty of hot URLs because there is a lot of scrutiny that his department comes under, and rightly so.

    I have read literally hundreds of articles and blog items about iPlayer and related writings on the BBC’s online media ambition. Every time I read something like that, repulsion and anger occupy the mind. I fail to see how a department can so foolishly become the vassal of a convicted monopoly abuser, let alone take pride in this partnership with Microsoft which may be reciprocal as far as the BBC and Microsoft are concerned. What about the taxpayer? The BBC is an agent for the customer, but it has in turn become an agent for Microsoft. Transitively, taxpayers now have Microsoft as their agent. This is outrageous and I fear that if the BBC can fall victim to this scam, there is little hope for other (private) media companies. I truly hope that the European Commission, which looks closely at this case, will have all the necessary information on the subject.

  5. Nick Reynolds (editor, BBC Internet Blog) said,

    January 6, 2008 at 4:53 pm

    Gravatar

    Regarding Silverlight here is a quote from the Groklaw interview from Ashley Highfield I linked to:

    “…I think most people might have been expecting us to go forward with the Microsoft Silverlight solution, and in fact our recent announcement of using the Adobe suite of products for streaming, I hope, begins to show people that we absolutely haven’t recruited people to sort of strengthen a in-built bias to use Microsoft tools, because that is just not the case.”

    I would be interested to know where this figure of £100 million comes from? Do you have any links or sources?

  6. Lukas said,

    January 6, 2008 at 8:36 pm

    Gravatar

    From what I’ve seen, whenever these people (where Roy is the ringleader and Mark Kent, TaQ and Slated are his posse afaict) are asked for proof to back up their allegations, they respond with “I saw it somewhere, I swear!” or they link to another site with similar unsupported claims as if to say “we aren’t the only ones who are making this claim, so it /must/ be true!”

    For example, I’ve asked several times for proof of Roy’s claim that Silverlight has OS-specific features and he has yet to be able to back it up with any sort of evidence other than “I saw it somewhere, I swear!”

    I’ve tried googling for any info (accurate or not) that claims this and I have yet to find any.

    There are probably plenty of other examples of this type of treachery on this site, but I’m not qualified nor interested in researching/debating all of Roy’s claims – the only reason I’ve even bothered to respond to Roy’s false Silverlight/Moonlight claims are because I was tasked with researching it a bit for my company and so have discovered that Roy’s claims are clueless at best or outright lies meant for slander at worst.

    The first time I asked Roy to back up his claims, I thought “maybe I missed something” but seeing as how he’s never actually able to back up his claims with actual proof, I’ve come to think that there’s a good chance that Roy is making these false claims on purpose in order to discredit Mono/Moonlight and that has made me start to question Roy’s objectivity with regards to everything else posted on this site.

    Just my 2 cents.

  7. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 6, 2008 at 8:48 pm

    Gravatar

    I can’t speak for other people (and there is no posse), but here is some information about the figures.

    The BBC have developed the “iPlayer” at a cost to the BBC license fee payer of £130 Million and rising.

    Here is more.

    We have 1500 fliers to distribute, that focus on the key issue with the iPlayer, and why $130 Million and 4 years of development don’t get you much when you choose Microsoft DRM.

    About Silverlight, I don’t know what the poster is referring to (there is no ‘skin’), but the Guardian said that the BBC was assessing Silverlight for its Web site about 6 months ago. Here, I’ve just found the link.

    The BBC has already experimented with Silverlight and says it is looking for an “embedded media solution”.

    The Register says more.

    The twin elephants in the meeting room will be Microsoft’s Silverlight and PlayReady.

    If Mr. Reylonds wants to challenge this information, he ought to take this dispute over to the sources, not this Web site.

  8. 55v435v said,

    January 7, 2008 at 5:11 am

    Gravatar

    Roy’s answer is the best example ot the tactics Lukas described in his post: evade direct questions, link to some unrelated website, making similarly unproven claims in the same spirit.

    Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from a known (eet), pseudonymous, nymshifting, abusive Internet troll that posts from open proxies and relays around the world.

  9. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 7, 2008 at 5:52 am

    Gravatar

    didn’t escape the question and it’s clear that many features will only be available for Windows (it’s just like .NET versus Mono). Only days ago:

    ..but the linux version is not released yet (and will support only SL 1.1 2.0),..

    Golly! Linux is already ‘behind’. Reject Silverlight while you can, for the same reasons OOXML is being rejected. If you let Microsoft take the lead, it will control who is ahead and whose access is declined. Just take a lesson from ActiveX controls and IE-only Web sites.

    I still insist that I read somewhere (which was a reliable source) that Silverlight will work better in Windows/Vista. Whether it was a question of compatibility of performance is a separate matter.

  10. 454342 said,

    January 7, 2008 at 8:18 am

    Gravatar

    ..and the same FUD from Roy again. (And also trying to stop me from posting again by blocking my IP.)

    Quote in CONTEXT: “Silverlight DO works on Linux and Firefox… but the linux version is not released yet (and will support only SL 1.1 2.0)”

    All that isn’t supported in Silverlight (yet) is WPF – and this was not because of M$ but because of priorization. This hasn’t exactly been news nor a secret, either…

    “…I still insist that I read somewhere (which was a reliable source) that Silverlight will work better in Windows/Vista.”
    Again “I read somewhere…” Is this the kind of quotes that you would get away with in any other sector of life? No, you wouldn’t even get away with it in a tabloid. What makes you think you can get away with it when trying to discredit Silverlight?

    Roy, you troll. And that you claim to be ‘enthusiastic about Linux’ doesn’t make it any better.

    And that you block my IP anytime I post shows you fear of the truth. Your attempts at censorship force me to use proxies and arbitrary user-names each time I post – and it makes you look weak and afraid.

    Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from a known (eet), pseudonymous, nymshifting, abusive Internet troll that posts from open proxies and relays around the world.

  11. 454342 said,

    January 7, 2008 at 8:21 am

    Gravatar

    But go ahead adding silly comments below my posts; it is you who looks more ridiculous each time you do that. ^_^

    Roy, the Linux community is ashamed of you. You are the cousin we hide in the attic.

    Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from a known (eet), pseudonymous, nymshifting, abusive Internet troll that posts from open proxies and relays around the world.

  12. Jeremy said,

    January 9, 2008 at 12:21 pm

    Gravatar

    I encountered my first Silverlight site today. It was a Microsoft page of course (I was at work and was looking for some information that was M$ related). It required me to download and install Silverlight before the I could see any page at all. My response was, “I don’t think so”, and I closed the tab. I will never use Silverlight. We’ve all been down that road, we know where it leads.

  13. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 9, 2008 at 12:34 pm

    Gravatar

    “We’re disheartened because Microsoft helped W3C develop the very standards that they’ve failed to implement in their browser. We’re also dismayed to see Microsoft continue adding proprietary extensions to these standards when support for the essentials remains unfinished.”

    –George Olsen, Web Standards Project

  14. Nick Reynolds (editor, BBC Internet Blog) said,

    January 12, 2008 at 5:09 am

    Gravatar

    The BBC’s estimate of the costs of the iPlayer (as revealed to the Select Committee last week) is £20 million.

  15. Mark Kent said,

    January 17, 2008 at 2:39 am

    Gravatar

    The BBC’s estimate of the cost, from the Director General was:
    More than 20 Million Pounds, but guess what, he couldn’t say how much more! He new why he was going, he’s the Director General, and yet is unable to say whether the cost is 1,000 Million pounds, 500 Million pounds, 200 million pounds, or the figure which has been around for some time, 100 million pounds. All he could say was that it was *more* than 20 million pounds. We *know* it was more than 20 million, and apparently, so does the DG. The spin on this will never end.
    By the way, why are US-based trolls posting on this issue? They pay no licence fee to the BBC, so it’s not their money which is being so catastrophically wasted on a skin for proprietary Microsoft technology, which will never work on anything other than Windows, and will certainly never work on mobile devices effectively. Anyone who says “that’s my 2 cents” is rather giving away their allegience, to a foreign company, which has been in receipt of approximately 100 Million pounds worth of licence-fee cash, I would say.

  16. Slated said,

    January 30, 2008 at 11:16 am

    Gravatar

    @ Nick Reynolds

    Maybe if the BBC’s Chief Financial Officer, Zarin Patel, could come up with something less vague than; “I don’t have the figures to hand, but I believe it was something in the region of twenty million all told, over the last two or three years.” [1], then we could end all the speculation.

    The BBC is publicly accountable to its license fee payers, so how about some public accountability for a change, in the form a published statement of account specifically detailing what that money was spent on, and precisely who was paid.

    In particular, I’d be interested to know exactly how much Microsoft received from the BBC for their encumbered; non-interoperable solution, and any other payments that were made to them in the course of this fiasco.

What Else is New


  1. Beware the Patent Law Firms Insinuating That Software Patents Are Back Because of McRO

    By repeatedly claiming (and then generalising) that CAFC accepted a software patent the patent microcosm (meta-industry) hopes to convince us that we should continue to pursue software patents in the US, i.e. pay them a lot more money for something of little/no value



  2. The US Supreme Court Might Soon Tighten Patent Scope in the United States Even Further, the USPTO Produces Patent Maximalism Propaganda

    A struggle brewing between the patent 'industry' (profiting from irrational saturation) and the highest US court, as well as the Government Accountability Office (GAO)



  3. Patent Trolling a Growing Problem in East Asia (Software Patents Also), Whereas in the US the Problem Goes Away Along With Software Patents

    A look at two contrasting stories, one in Asia where patent litigation and hype are on the rise (same in Europe due to the EPO) and another in the US where a lot of patents face growing uncertainty and a high invalidation rate



  4. The EPO's Continued Push for Software Patents, Marginalisation of Appeals (Reassessment), and Deviation From the EPC

    A roundup of new developments at the EPO, where things further exacerbate and patent quality continues its downward spiral



  5. The Battistelli Effect: “We Will be Gradually Forced to File Our Patent Applications Outside the EPO in the Interests of Our Clients”

    While the EPO dusts off old files and grants in haste without quality control (won't be sustainable for more than a couple more years) the applicants are moving away as trust in the EPO erodes rapidly and profoundly



  6. Links 27/9/2016: Lenovo Layoffs, OPNFV Third Software Release

    Links for the day



  7. The Moral Depravity of the European Patent Office Under Battistelli

    The European Patent Office (EPO) comes under heavy criticism from its very own employees, who also seem to recognise that lobbying for the UPC is a very bad idea which discredits the European Patent Organisation



  8. Links 26/9/2016: Linux 4.8 RC8, SuperTux 0.5

    Links for the day



  9. What Insiders Are Saying About the Sad State of the European Patent Office (EPO)

    Anonymous claims made by people who are intimately familiar with the European Patent Office (from the inside) shed light on how bad things have become



  10. The EPO Does Not Want Skilled (and 'Expensive') Staff, Layoffs a Growing Concern

    A somewhat pessimistic look (albeit increasingly realistic look) at the European Patent Office, where unions are under fire for raising legitimate concerns about the direction taken by the management since a largely French team was put in charge



  11. Patents Roundup: Accenture Software Patents, Patent Troll Against Apple, Willful Infringements, and Apple Against a Software Patent

    A quick look at various new articles of interest (about software patents) and what can be deduced from them, especially now that software patents are the primary barrier to Free/Libre Open Source software adoption



  12. Software Patents Propped Up by Patent Law Firms That Are Lying, Further Assisted by Rogue Elements Like David Kappos and Randall Rader (Revolving Doors)

    The sheer dishonesty of the patent microcosm (seeking to bring back software patents by misleading the public) and those who are helping this microcosm change the system from the inside, owing to intimate connections from their dubious days inside government



  13. Links 25/9/2016: Linux 4.7.5, 4.4.22; LXQt 0.11

    Links for the day



  14. Patent Quality and Patent Scope the Unspeakable Taboo at the EPO, as Both Are Guillotined by Benoît Battistelli for the Sake of Money

    The gradual destruction of the European Patent Office (EPO), which was once unanimously regarded as the world's best, by a neo-liberal autocrat from France, Benoît Battistelli



  15. Bristows LLP's Hatred/Disdain of UK/EU Democracy Demonstrated; Says “Not Only Will the Pressure for UK Ratification of the UPC Agreement Continue, But a Decision is Wanted Within Weeks.”

    Without even consulting the British public or the European public (both of whom would be severely harmed by the UPC), the flag bearers of the UPC continue to bamboozle and then pressure politicians, public servants and nontechnical representatives



  16. Released Late on a Friday, EPO Social 'Study' (Battistelli-Commissioned Propaganda) Attempts to Blame Staff for Everything

    The longstanding propaganda campaign (framing staff as happy or framing unhappy staff as a disgruntled minority) is out and the timing of the release is suspicious to say the least



  17. Links 23/9/2016: Latest Microsoft and Lenovo Spin (Now in ‘Damage Control’ Mode)

    Links for the day



  18. White Male-Dominated EPO Management Sinks to New Lows, Again

    Benoît Battistelli continues to make the EPO look like Europe's biggest laughing stock by attempting to tackle issues with corny photo ops rather than real change (like SUEPO recognition, diverse hiring, improved patent quality, and cessation of sheer abuses)



  19. Journalism 102: Do Not Become Like 'Managing IP' or IAM 'Magazine' (the Megaphones of the EPO’s Management)

    Another look at convergence between media and the EPO, which is spending virtually millions of Euros literally buying the media and ensuring that the EPO's abuses are scarcely covered (if ever mentioned at all)



  20. Journalism 101: Do Not Believe Anything That Benoît Battistelli and the EPO's Management Say (Also Don't Fall for the UPC Hype)

    A survey/review (or an overview) of recent articles about the EPO and why they're wrong (mostly because they parrot the official lies from Battistelli's department)



  21. Patent Law Firms, David Kappos, and IAM 'Magazine' Still Shelter Software Patents by Cherry-Picking and Lobbying

    Amid the gradual collapse of software patents in the United States there are disingenuous efforts to bring them back or maintain a perception that these patents are still potent



  22. Microsoft-Connected Patent Trolls Going Places and Suing Microsoft Rivals, Microsoft Wants More 'Linux Patent Tax'

    Microsoft-connected patent trolls like Larry Horn's MobileMedia are still attacking Microsoft rivals and Microsoft wants more money from Korea, after it attacked Linux with software patents over there (notably Samsung and LG)



  23. Links 22/9/2016: Linux Professional Institute Redesign, Red Hat Upgraded

    Links for the day



  24. Links 22/9/2016: Red Hat's Latest Results, GNOME 3.22 Released

    Links for the day



  25. The Patent Law Firms in the US Relentlessly Lobby for Software Patents Resurgence by Placing Emphasis Only on Rare Outcomes

    Decisions against software patents continue to be ignored or intentionally overlooked by patent law firms, which instead saturate the media with the few cases where courts unexpectedly rule in favour of software patents



  26. Links 21/9/2016: Lenovo Helps Microsoft Block GNU/Linux Installations

    Links for the day



  27. Like Big Tobacco Lobbyists, Benoît Battistelli and Team UPC Are Just Chronically Lying and Manipulating Politicians With Their Lies

    Benoît Battistelli and Team UPC continue to meddle in politics and mislead the public (through the press) about patent quality as well the UPC, which is now in effect sunk inside the ashtray of history



  28. The EPO's 'Investigative' Function is Totally Out of Control and Continues to Get Bigger, Whitewashed by So-called 'Review'

    An update on the situation which still causes great unrest at the European Patent Office (EPO), namely abuse of staff by the so-called Investigative Unit (Eponia's equivalent of unaccountable secret services)



  29. Microsoft and Patent Law Firms in the United States Can't Stop Writing About McRo in a Coordinated Push to Resurrect Software Patents

    Microsoft is pursuing more Linux 'patent tax' (using software patents) and patent law firms are preoccupied flooding the media with their shameless self-promotion which is also software patents promotion



  30. For Abuse Like Plagiarism and Malpractice, the US Patent System is Still World Champion

    Low patent quality, abusive litigation (e.g. by patent trolls) and various other elements that globally discredit the USPTO are only symptoms of a wider problem, which is a greedy system motivated by neo-liberal values rather than professionalism and servitude


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts