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


Florian Müller Seemingly Connected to CCIA (Microsoft Proxy)

Posted in Antitrust, Europe, IBM, Microsoft, Patents at 6:00 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Florian Mueller

Summary: More evidence that the attacks against IBM are actually coming from Microsoft and that Müller plays a role in it (Müller set up his anti-IBM blog when he got connected with CCIA’s Executive VP, who works with Microsoft)

WE keep promising to depart from this overreported subject, but as the plot thickens this becomes harder to avoid. Previous posts about TurboHercules vs IBM are:

  1. Microsoft Proxy Attack on GNU/Linux Continues With TurboHercules
  2. Eye on Security: Windows Malware, Emergency Patches, and BeyondTrust’s CEO from Microsoft
  3. IBM Uses Software Patents Aggressively
  4. IBM’s Day of Shame
  5. IBM Will Never be the Same After Taking Software Patents Out of Its Holster
  6. Thumbs up to Ubuntu for Removing a Part of Microsoft; TurboHercules Likely a Psystar-Type Microsoft Shell
  7. Why IBM Does Deserve Scrutiny (Updated)
  8. Patents Roundup: Fordham Conference for Software Patents in Europe, NZOSS Responds to Pro-Software Patents Lobbyists, and TurboHercules’ Ties With Microsoft Explained

For those who are not aware, Florian Müller became a lobbyist, but whose lobbyist? More recently he became known for his attempts to derail the Munich migration to GNU/Linux. Florian Schießl, one of the people leading the Munich migration, currently writes: “Wow, Florian Müller’s Blog started just a few days ago. Only a PR campaign, nothing to do with #swpat in real, imho http://is.gd/bm4BA #fail” (and to Rui Seabra he says that “the whole #IBM patent story is just another PR stunt by the “famous” lobbyist Florian Müller.”).

Müller is still at it on more than a daily basis. It’s like a nonstop attack on IBM in a brand new blog (it’s the same in Maureen O’Gara’s ‘blog’ [1, 2] at the moment). To clarify again, Techrights believes that evidence is sufficient to call TurboHercules a “Microsoft proxy” (see this article from Timothy Prickett Morgan), but IBM’s overall attitude towards software patents has always been a problem in general. According to this, “IBM Denies Open Source Sellout” (which is true). This is not about IBM “selling out” but about IBM defending itself from Microsoft attacks; nonetheless, IBM does not help Open Source by promoting software patents. As the president of the FFII showed this morning using an IBM document [PDF], “IBM believes harmonisation should occur along lines which endorse the current practice and case law of the EPO.” For the uninitiated, “harmonisation” is a way of bringing software patents to Europe.

All or at least several of the letters exchanged between IBM and TurboHercules are available from TurboHercules (which may have had something to do with the sensationalised, self-serving leak to Müller). Some of the details there reveal IBM’s pride which it takes in software patents and even its contribution to the guidelines developed by the European Patent Office (EPO).

“As for Microsoft, in a perfect world, someone will in due time bring an complaint against Microsoft for arranging antitrust complaints against its competition.”
      –Pamela Jones, Groklaw
Here is Groklaw’s initial take on the TurboHercules vs IBM case (written in “News Picks” before publishing a whole post): “Here’s my take. First, on the author’s use of arguments about Apple and monopoly markets, the courts already ruled that Apple doesn’t have a monopoly in the relevant market, so that analogy isn’t legally on point. Beyond that, remember when Microsoft said their competitors would be having antitrust issues? Remember when Maureen O’Gara was one of the very first to write about the TurboHercules antitrust threat to IBM, almost a year ago? And now Florian Mueller, who disrupted the Munich switch to Linux and later famously tried to use MySQL’s license as a way to block the Oracle-Sun deal, including them suggesting that the GPL license be tossed overboard in favor of a BSD-like license, now appears in the TurboHercules story, attacking IBM. What might that tell us? The Microsoft gang’s all here? That this is a manufactured anti-trust issue? That if you are a competitor of Microsoft, someone will file an antitrust complaint against you? You think? Here’s TurboHercules’s take on why they filed, so you can have the whole picture. I can’t speak for the entire open source community, just for myself. But if Florian Mueller tells me to go to the right, I’m inclined immediately to look to the left or straight up or down for alternative options. As for Microsoft, in a perfect world, someone will in due time bring an complaint against Microsoft for arranging antitrust complaints against its competition. They should put more energy into creating good products. Then they wouldn’t have to resort to such tactics.

A lot more discussion is going on in IRC (logs available online), but here is the gist of it.

“Müller added a LinkedIn connection to Erika Mann, CCIA’s Executive Vice President and head of CCIA’s European office…”One thing that came up some time between March 22nd and March 29th is that Müller added a LinkedIn connection to Erika Mann, CCIA’s Executive Vice President and head of CCIA’s European office (Microsoft and CCIA work together [1, 2]). That was just before he started to attack IBM like he also attacked Oracle some months ago (along with the GPL). He even created a new blog for this purpose.

We are a little saddened to see that Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols (SJVN) points the finger at what he calls “Linux fans”* (hello, hypocrisy) and blames them for IBM’s PR damage.

That’s not to say that Linux doesn’t have its share of internal battles that don’t do anyone any good. Free software founder Richard M. Stallman’s insistence that Linux should be called GNU/Linux puzzles more people than it does bringing anyone to Linux, or GNU/Linux if you insist. In the last few days though, another Linux family fight has erupted.

This time around, it’s open-source developer and anti-patent political lobbyist Florien Mueller accusing IBM of breaking its promises to the FOSS (free and open-source software) community of not using patents against it. Mueller’s is ticked off that TurboHercules, an open-source z/OS emulator company, over its possible misuse of IBM patents, which includes two that’s covered by IBM’s pledge to not sue open-source companies or groups using these patents.

I have several problems with this. First, as Pamela Jones of Groklaw points out, TurboHercules started the legal fight with IBM and the open-source software license it uses isn’t compatible with the GPL–the license that covers Linux. Second, this is really just a standard-issue business fight that involves patents. It does not, as Mueller would have it, show that “After years of pretending to be a friend of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS), IBM now shows its true colors. IBM breaks the number one taboo of the FOSS community and shamelessly uses its patents against a well-respected FOSS project, the Hercules mainframe emulator.”

There is an old problem here. SJVN must understand that patents are probably the #1 barrier to GNU/Linux adoption, so software patents must go. Here is an excellent article/commentary from Dj Walker-Morgan at The H:

Patents could lead to the mutually assured destruction of the software industry and the parading of pledged patents in the opening of a dispute between IBM and TurboHercules threatens to upset the only progress towards a safer world for open source.

Patents are akin to the missiles of the Cold War. The super powers of the software industry have built up large arsenals of them to give them bargaining power. But if all companies who held patents were to pursue all infringements of their patents at the same time, there would be nothing left of the entire IT industry except the legal departments.


That said, it is somewhat essential to isolate the overarching problems with patents from the specific problem of the pledged patents. The former is a systemic problem which requires complex negotiation, legal reforms and an industry wide consensus that the problem exists in the first place. The latter though is a specific problem, one that IBM can immediately resolve by saying “Sorry, those two patents were not meant to be there”. That one move would reassure the community. IBM could, possibly, enhance their good reputation in the community by creating a new 2010 patent pledge which puts more of IBM’s near 50,000 strong arsenal of patents “beyond use” against open source software.

The only real solution is to invalidate them all or issue a legal contract that renders them useless. This is not realistic (too Utopian) given that IBM uses its patents to milk competitors and make over $1 billion per year doing almost nothing. IBM is now obliged to do this for shareholders. This is unfortunate because they use patents as a welfare system that mostly funds lawyers and cannot be afforded by most companies in the same arena**. These companies do complain sometimes, so ideally, IBM should let go and not carry on controlling using patents, however quietly.

Here is what Microsoft is up to these days: [via]

In a recent patent filed at the USPTO, Microsoft has sought to bolster its product offerings with an interesting recommendation engine. Inspired by the recommendation algorithm incorporated on websites like YouTube, Microsoft TV’s recommendation engine will recommend TV shows, movies based on user interests as well as the program’s functional value.

This is just a fence. Who would benefit from such a patent except Microsoft? And doesn’t that involve profiling (euphemism for “spying on”) a user’s activity?

Stephen O’Grady has the following take on the subject of IBM:

The case also illustrates what RedMonk analyst Stephen O’Grady calls “the inevitable outcome of software patents: They get used.”

O’Grady is against software patents, “not for ideological reasons, but because it is self-evident to me that there is no reasonable mechanism for evaluating and granting patents,” he told LinuxInsider.

We wrote about O’Grady’s views on software patents in this older post. He is right on target.
* “Linux”, which is the kernel IBM put a lot of money in, is not the whole of Free software.

** IBM could reform the system if it wanted to (IBM’s Kappos runs the USPTO), but that would not be beneficial to IBM’s shareholders. The “indemnification” advantage IBM markets to customers is also a way for IBM to suppress use of GNU/Linux that’s not from IBM (e.g. plain Debian).

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


  1. wallclimber said,

    April 11, 2010 at 11:34 am


    RE: SJVN

    SVJN is now, and always has been, a fence-sitter. He is almost, but not quite, maybe, sometimes, kind of/sort of, half-heartedly supportive of Free Software…but never without a little jab or two at those who actually take a stand. Meh.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    He really wants GNU/Linux to succeed on the desktop. Trust me, he does. However, he is willing to make concessions (e.g. Flash, software patent deals).

    If GNU/Linux succeeds on proprietary software’s terms, then it’s just another OS X.

    wallclimber Reply:

    “If GNU/Linux succeeds on proprietary software’s terms, then it’s just another OS X.”

    I believe that SJVN would be perfectly okay with that.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    His wife uses a Mac. By the way, I wish Groklaw did more to criticise Apple; it often does the opposite.

    wallclimber Reply:

    Because Groklaw is a blog about the law and technology, I believe that PJ will say plenty when Apple does something illegal. At this point, every rotten thing Apple does mostly hurts itself and its own customers…and makes GNU/Linux look great in comparison. (Hey, what about “Rotten Apples” for a campaign title? :)

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    Someone suggested it, but it sounded a little too aggressive to me.

    Yuhong Bao Reply:

    You said that before, and when you say it, I mention that the entire GUI of OS X is proprietary. That is how proprietary OS X is.

  2. Florian Mueller said,

    April 11, 2010 at 5:09 pm


    I have responded to this on my blog:

  3. Dr. Roy Schestowitz said,

    April 12, 2010 at 9:38 am


    Hi, Florian,

    I have just read your response. Therein, you don’t deny what I wrote (instead you attack straw men, e.g. I didn’t argue that you had not known Erika Mann beforehand). In fact, you dance around the issue just as TH danced around the question about its relationship with Microsoft (which was later made very obvious). Be sure to follow the links and see my explanation of why Microsoft funds CCIA and Black in a very special way; don’t conveniently omit details, please.

    So, Florian, are you in contact with TH and CCIA? You sneakily fail to address this point. Have you been in touch with Carina Oliveri?

    Have a good day.

    Florian Mueller Reply:

    I won’t engage in back-and-forth discussions on this website here, where I only wanted to point out that I have responded on my blog. I will now quickly update my above-mentioned blog post to address these follow-on questions. If there are more questions and I don’t update, then it’s because at some point I’ll believe I can’t be reasonably expected to answer questions that either digress from the original issue or keep going in circles.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    Why are you not willing to engage in a two-way debate/conversation? We can use IRC if you prefer.

    I’ve noticed Hartmut’s argument about CCIA where he refers to 2003-4. Ed Black, CCIA’s chief executive, received $9.75 million in a settlement with Microsoft in November 2004. That makes a huge difference and you know it.

    Report: Microsoft paid CCIA official as part of antitrust settlement

    “The antitrust settlement between Microsoft Corp. and the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) announced earlier this month included a payment of $9.75 million to the CCIA’s president, according to a report published today.

    “Almost half of the $19.75 million total settlement went to Ed Black, who has been the president and CEO of the Washington-based industry organization since 1995, in a deal approved by the CCIA board, according to a report in the Financial Times. The newspaper cited confidential documents in its story.

    “A spokesman from Microsoft declined to comment on the FT report. The CCIA referred questions to Black, who couldn’t be reached. ”


    your_friend Reply:

    He won’t respond here because he can’t. His response on his blog is mostly to accuse BN of bad behavior and ignorance while confirming the facts you dug up.

    He first says it was improper to notice he’s a buddy of Erika Mann but then goes on to say he’s been a friend for ever. Muller basically paints Mann as a soccer mom and his contact as trivial and innocent. The contact may be trivial, but Mann occupies a position that netted a predecessor 9 million Microsoft dollars for betraying Samba and FSFE by dropping out of an important EU anti-trust complaint against Microsoft. Muller goes on and on with distracting details about Linkedin and puffs himself up with his 290 contacts but accuses BN of being rude to have published the contact with Mann. Apparently, truth is something he only wants to share with business buddies and we should all be awed by how many of those kinds of people he knows.

    Muller answers the charge of being an anti-IBM attack dog by throwing more mud on IBM.

    He denies CCIA is doing things that benefit Microsoft by saying that Google, Red Hat and IBM are “members” of CCIA. Like the ISO, it’s the corrupting and embarrassing Microsoft membership that’s the problem. The membership of those other companies does little to change the nature of CCIA’s action, it seems, and we might expect most of them to issue statements and perhaps withdraw if any of them cares what a clown like Muller has to say about them or what CCIA does.

    In short, PJ and others quickly got the TH story right and Muller fails to address any of issues raised. TH is not so much a “conspiracy” as it is the latest proxy trick by Microsoft. The involvement of people like Muller and his 290 Linkedin friends only works to prove the point. Muller has proven himself an enemy of free software and a Microsoft promoter many times in the past. He lends as much credibility to things as MoG, Ed Bott and other raving sell outs.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    He still posts about 2 pieces of anti-IBM spin per day, despite the fact that everyone in the “FOSS” world (as in “fosspatents”) has moved on to discussing the MS-LH connection, not IBM’s long-standing love of patents.

    The “no further comment” policy suits PR departments, not a so-called ‘activist’ (lobbyist).

  4. saulgoode said,

    April 13, 2010 at 1:02 pm


    While it is acceptable to questions people’s motivations for saying what they say, it is no substitute for actually evaluating the validity of what they say. Rob Wier’s criticisms of OOXML are made no less valid because he works for IBM, nor are Miguel de Icaza’s criticism of … well, everything he criticizes, made any less valid because of his motivations to market Microsoft technology (they are invalid because they are invalid :) ).

    If Florian Muller is serving as a proxy for Microsoft in his battle against software patents then Bravo Microsoft! for finally realizing how destructive and illogical software patents are, especially to the Free Software community. Of course, Microsoft has not changed their opinion on software patents, and I seriously doubt that they should wish Mr Muller’s campaign against software patents be in the least bit successful.

    Groklaw’s Miss Jones, regardless of whether her own motivations stem from some alleged association with IBM*, is wrong on several counts:

    1) She claims that TurboHercules requested a license from IBM for z/OS when in fact TH requested that IBM offer licensing to IBM’s z/OS customers that would permit z/OS running on TurboHercules.

    2) She claims that TurboHercules’ complaint to the EU constitutes a lawsuit when in fact it does not.

    3) She equates the EU complaint against IBM’s proprietary z/OS with a lawsuit against an Open Source product.

    4) She presumes her own determination of what constitutes “Open Source” should preempt the judgment of Open Source Initiative.

    5) She suggests that providing a list of applicable patents does not constitute a threat which, while I agree, ignores that the “threat” occurred prior to the list being provided when IBM claimed to have intellectual property which would be infringed by the Hercules software.

    * I don’t believe Miss Jones to be an “IBM shill”, nor do I believe Florian Muller to be a “Microsoft shill” — the point is that the evidence and arguments should presented and analyzed regardless of individual motivations.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    It is worth recalling the T3 case, where Microsoft clearly funds the antitrust complaint.

    Oh, and FWIW, nobody called Florian a “Microsoft shill”. Many companies are involved here and many interests too.

What Else is New

  1. EPO Did Not Want to Take Down One Techrights Article, It Wanted to Take Down Many Articles Using Intimidation, SLAPPing, and Psychological Manipulation Late on a Friday Night

    Recalling the dirty tactics by which the European Patent Office sought to remove criticism of its dirty secret deals with large corporations, for whom it made available and was increasingly offering preferential treatment

  2. The European Private Office: What Was Once a Public Service is Now Crony Capitalism With Private Contractors

    The increasing privatisation of the European Patent Office (EPO), resembling what happens in the UK to the NHS, shows that the real goal is to crush the quality of the service and instead serve a bunch of rich and powerful interests, in defiance of the original goals of this well-funded (by taxpayers) organisation

  3. Microsoft Once Again Disregards People's Settings and Abuses Them, Again Pretends It's Just an Accident

    A conceited corporation, Microsoft, shows not only that it exploits its botnet to forcibly download massive binaries without consent but also that it vainly overrides people's privacy settings to spy on these people, sometimes with help from malicious hardware vendors such as Dell or Lenovo

  4. When the EPO Liaised With Capone (Literally) to Silence Bloggers, Delete Articles

    A dissection of the EPO's current media strategy, which involves not only funneling money into the media but also actively silencing opposing views

  5. Blogger Who Wrote About the EPO's Abuses Retires

    Bloggers' independent rebuttal capability against a media apparatus that is deep in the EPO's pocket is greatly diminished as Jeremy Phillips suddenly retires

  6. Leaked: EPO Award of €880,000 “in Order to Address the Media Presence of the EPO” (Reputation Laundering)

    The European Patent Office, a public body, wastes extravagant amounts of money on public relations (for 'damage control', like FIFA's) in an effort to undermine critics, not only among staff (internally) but also among the media (externally)

  7. Links 27/11/2015: KDE Plasma 5.5 Plans, Oracle Linux 7.2

    Links for the day

  8. Documents Needed: Contract or Information About EPO PR/Media Campaign to Mislead the World

    Rumour that the EPO spends almost as much as a million US dollars “with some selected press agencies to refurbish the image of the EPO”

  9. Guest Post: The EPO, EPC, Unitary Patent and the Money Issue

    Remarks on the Unitary Patent (UP) and the lesser-known aspects of the EPO and EPC, where the “real issue is money, about which very little is discussed in public...”

  10. Saving the Integrity of the European Patent Office (EPO)

    Some timely perspective on what's needed at the European Patent Office, which was detabilised by 'virtue' of making tyrants its official figureheads

  11. A Call for Bloggers and Journalists: Did EPO Intimidate and Threaten You Too? Please Speak Out.

    An effort to discover just how many people out there have been subjected to censorship and/or self-censorship by EPO aggression against the media

  12. European Patent Office (EPO) a “Kingdom Above the EU Countries, a Tyranny With ZERO Accountability”

    Criticism of the EPO's thuggish behaviour and endless efforts to crush dissenting voices by all means available, even when these means are in clear violation of international or European laws

  13. Links 26/11/2015: The $5 Raspberry Pi Zero, Running Sans Systemd Gets Hard

    Links for the day

  14. EPO Management Needs to Finally Recognise That It Itself is the Issue, Not the Staff or the Unions

    A showing of dissent even from the representatives whom the EPO tightly controls and why the latest union-busting goes a lot further than most people realise

  15. Even the EPO Central Staff Committee is Unhappy With EPO Management

    The questions asked by the Central Staff Committee shared for the public to see that not only a single union is concerned about the management's behaviour

  16. The Broken Window Economics of Patent Trolls Are Already Coming to Europe

    The plague which is widely known as patent trolls (non-practicing entities that prey on practicing companies) is being spread to Europe, owing in part to misguided policies and patent maximalists

  17. Debunking the EPO's Latest Marketing Nonsense From Les Échos and More on Benoît Battistelli's Nastygram to French Politician

    Our detailed remarks about French brainwash from the EPO's media partner (with Benoît Battistelli extensively quoted) and the concerns increasingly raised by French politicians, who urge for national or even continental intervention

  18. The Sun King Delusion: The Views of Techrights Are Just a Mirror of EPO Staff Unions

    Tackling some emerging spin we have seen coming from Battistelli's private letters -- spin which strives to project the views of Techrights onto staff unions and why it's very hypocritical a form of spin

  19. Links 25/11/2015: Webconverger 33.1, Netrunner 17 Released

    Links for the day

  20. United They Stand: FFPE-EPO Supports Suspended Staff Representatives From SUEPO

    An obscure union from the Dutch side of things at the EPO is expressing support for the suspended colleagues from SUEPO (more German than Dutch)

  21. Censoring WIPR Article About Censorship by EPO

    A testament to how terrified journalists have become when it comes to EPO coverage, to the point of deleting entire paragraphs

  22. Censorship at the EPO Escalates: Now We Have Threats to Sue Publishers

    Having already blocked Techrights, the EPO's management proceeds to further suppressions of speech, impeding its staff's access to independently-distributed information (neither ordinary staff nor management)

  23. Response to Bogus Accusations That EPO Staff Protests Are Really an Attempt to Derail UPC

    Common myths about staff protests in the European Patent Office (EPO) debunked, with some additional background and general perspective on recent events, the unitary patent (UPC) and so on

  24. New Heise Article Makes It Clear That 'Nazi'-Themed Accusations Against the Suspended Board Judge Were Insufficiently Substantiated

    The personal attacks on a judge who was illegally suspended (a so-called 'house ban') increasingly look like the management's own campaign of defamation, mostly intended to marginalise and punish a judge who spoke about serious charges against VP4 (Željko Topić)

  25. Links 24/11/2015: Asus Chromebit CS10, Second Linux 4.4 RC

    Links for the day

  26. European Central Bank Staff Committee Adds to Growing Pressure on Abusive EPO Management

    The staff representatives of the European Central Bank E-mail their colleagues -- with European Central Bank managers' approval -- regarding the European Patent Office and its attacks on staff unions

  27. Gross Violation of Workers' Rights in EPO: Denial of Christmas Vacation/Leave for Slower Workers

    A look at an E-mail from within the EPO which shows how Christmas is used to squeeze staff, urging them to work even faster (despite speed gains) or lose their Christmas leave

  28. The Bogus Narrative Floated by EPO Management: Our Judges and Examiners Are Armed and Violent

    A look at the union-busting and protest-crushing moves from high-level EPO managers, who are trying to convince politicians that they do so in an effort to stop terrorists and neo-Nazis

  29. Support SUEPO or End Up Like They and Some of the Boards Did

    SUEPO, the fast-growing staff union of the EPO, increasingly needs the support and protection offered by action and participation from staff

  30. NRC Handelsblad (Dutch Evening Newspaper) Speaks About EPO's Refusal to Accept Court Orders From The Hague

    Article explains the depths of the issues inside the EPO and the unacceptable immunity that management at the EPO continues to exploit, shaming or discrediting the very notion of the rule of law in Europe


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


Recent Posts