05.16.08
Posted in Microsoft, DRM, GNU/Linux, Novell, Patents, Europe, America, Patent Covenant, Vista, FOSS at 1:16 am by Roy Schestowitz
At this current pace, the USPTO will be falling down the wastebasket pretty soon (Grand Implosion™), so it remains important to ensure it does not take the EPO down along with it [1, 2]. Here are some highlights from the news.
All Your Typos Are [sic] Belong to Us
VeriSign got criticised out of this planet for profiteering from typos. Now it get the nerve to get a software patent on it.
VeriSign wins patent for Internet typo redirection
[…]
If VeriSign tries to demand licensing fees from others, patent lawyers could claim that similar services existed before Verisign’s was patented. In fact, VeriSign had cited those pre-existing services in justifying Site Finder.
All Your Curve Balls Are [sic] Belong to Use
Will you have a look at this one? It relates to Bilski [1, 2, 3, 4].
So is a curve ball patentable? No one really seemed to want to answer Judge Bryson’s question, and when they did answer the question there was not a lot of intellectual honesty. The answer, of course, should be that a “curve ball” is not patentable because it is still a baseball. There has been no transformation of the baseball in a physical way, so there is nothing new and/or nonobvious.
Microsoft’s Crusade for Intellectual Monopoly
It’s always rather amusing to find articles which speak of “export” when referring to imaginary things that they try very hard to characterise as “property”. All it deserves to be called is a “monopoly”, which in this case applies not to a complex process or a physical product but to human thought — imagination even. The other day we mentioned and commented on Microsoft’s latest patent deal. A day later, Microsoft lovers take their shot at it as well, seemingly trying to create some fear (just what Microsoft needs). Here comes CNET to market some more patent deals:
With Microsoft’s announcement of yet another patent cross-licensing deal this week, it would seem nearly everyone has a deal with Redmond.
CNET has just been acquired, but it also has some promotional arrangements with Microsoft and you must be careful when reading anything from Ina Fried because it’s filled with bias. The reporter is apparently (almost evidently) close to Steve Ballmer. Mary Jo Foley, by contrast, can’t get anywhere near him because she occasionally ‘dares’ to criticise Microsoft (she told me so). Microsoft plays ‘reward and punishment’ with journalists, thereby encouraging them to say positive things, i.e. have more of that existing Microsoft bias. It’s just something to bear in mind, making it a rule of thumb. If you thought that press control in Russia was bad…
Hypocrisy at its finest, yet again.
From Digital Majority
Gratitude goes to Benjamin who has accumulated some good new finds. Here we have what seems like software patent troll du jour.
# May 12
# Fotomedia Technologies LLC vs. American Greetings Corp. et al
# Fotomedia Technologies LLC vs. Fujifilm USA Inc. et al
Plaintiff Fotomedia has filed two separate complaints for patent infringement against 50 different defendants.
According to the original complaints, Fotomedia owns the rights to three patents:
U.S. Patent No. 6,018,774 for a Method and System for Creating Messages Including Image Formation, issued Jan. 25, 2000.
U.S. Patent No. 6,542,936 B1 for a System for Creating Messages Including Image Information, issued April 1, 2003.
U.S. Patent No. 6,871,231 B1 for a Role-Based Access to Image Metadata issued March 22, 2005.
The first complaint names two dozen defendants that offer photo sharing Web sites which the plaintiff alleges infringe the patents, including American Greetings, DotPhoto, Phanfare, PictureTrail, BetterPhoto.com, Kaboose, BubbleShare, Printroom, Scripps Networks, Photogra, Fotki and Zazzle.
Reading further you’ll also find continued attempts to change patent laws in Europe. Typically, reappointments play a role and Sarkozy comes to mind as an example [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. The OOXML scandal was filled with such examples, as was last mentioned yesterday. At the moment in fact, Microsoft appears to be playing a similar card in a proxy fight against Yahoo’s board. But anyway, watch this from the news: (our highlights are in red)
Despite the hard work put into reforming the intellectual property landscape during its presidency of the EU in the first half of this year, Slovenia has admitted there won’t be a breakthrough under its stewardship.
[…]
The only country to oppose this idea is Spain, which has fought hardest against plans to simplify the linguistic requirements of the patent system. The country argues that Spanish is a more important language than both French and German, two of the official languages of the European patent system (the other being English), because of its use in Latin America. It fears that if patents aren’t available in Spanish, then Spain will become an economic backwater.
Spain to the rescue?
But the arrival last month of a new Spanish minister in charge of science and innovation, molecular biologist Cristina Garmendia, gives reason to hope for a change in the Spanish position, Konteas said.
“The Spanish government seems ready to change the focus of the economy from tourism and construction towards innovation-led pursuits. They seem to be going in the right direction.”
Talk about ‘agents for change’. The term is typically used with a positive connotation, unlike “crusader”, which is more imperialistic.
Lastly, have another look at these recent moves in the UK [PDF]. It’s not news, but it’s summarised thusly:
The Intellectual Property Office has revised its guidance on claims relating to computer programs, reflecting the more permissive stance taken by the High Court in the recent Astron Clinica case. The High Court has made a further pro-patentee ruling, this time in the case of Symbian’s application for an improved method of accessing a dynamic link library.
As reported in our last technology update, the practice of the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) of flatly rejecting patent claims to computer program products has recently been overruled. The case law in the area, formulated in the 2006 Aerotel and Macrossan decisions (see our Internet & E-Commerce Update of November 2006) was clarified in January 2008 by the decision of the High Court in Astron Clinica & Ors (see coverage in our last Updated dated February 2008).
It is without doubt that the United States will relentlessly continue trying to ruin the European system until it’s ‘equally ruined’, which passes US disadvantage onto competing economies. To use the hypothetical analogy Peter Gutmann made up to explain DRM in Windows Vista, it’s like cutting off the legs or Olympic athletes and seeing who hobbles best on crutches. Still, better than having the Olympic games delivered via the DRM-crippled Silverblight/Silverbullet/Silverfish, right?
Need it be mentioned that Microsoft has many software patents on this technology? And if Mono’s patron and Microsoft partner Novell likes it, should everyone else accept it also? You ought to see the ‘warm’ welcome Moonlight receives at Digg (mind the comments in particular). █
“One Free Software Foundation-backed group–aptly called the End Software Patents Project–is using the [Bilski] case as a platform to argue that no form of software should ever qualify for a patent. Red Hat also argued that the “exclusionary objectives” of software patents conflict with the nature of the open-source system and open up coders to myriad legal hazards.”
–Court case could redefine business method, software patents
Permalink
Send this to a friend 
View as PDF
05.13.08
Posted in Intellectual Property, Patents, Europe, America at 10:40 am by Roy Schestowitz
Active intervention versus passive acceptance of
intellectual monopoly abuse (and patent trolling)
It was only a few weeks ago that we last showed total indifference inside the United States government amid an evident patent problem. It’s becoming rather hopeless. The latest update seems to suggest that a proposed semi-solution hasn’t just been put on the ice, but almost discarded.
After years of heated debate and lobbying, the Patent Reform Act of 2007, which passed in the U.S. House of Representatives and was scheduled for a Senate vote this session, has been taken off the Senate’s calendar. It can be revived, but its momentum has effectively fizzled.
Apparently, the Senate has better things to do with its time.
Over in Europe came the recent appeal from Microsoft and the analysis from Digital Majority is worth noting.
Microsoft is appealing the decision of the European Commission over the 900M EUR fine. Microsoft is not happy about the patent licensing terms that the Commission has negotiated, and want to tax open source projects, such Samba and Redhat:
Microsoft argues that the licensing terms demanded by the EC violate its intellectual property rights.
Let’s bet that the Microsoft appeal to the ECJ is about patents. My nose is rarely wrong.
Digital Majority also has this good pointer to a new article from the Financial Times. It suggests that the economics of intellectual monopolies are inherently flawed. They are suicidal.
As multinationals become more skillful at managing their intellectual property, there are tax as well as commercial advantages. By holding brands and patents in low-tax countries and charging other subsidiaries for their use, profits are lowered in high-tax countries. Unsurprisingly, these shifts of intellectual capital are unpopular with many tax authorities. Two years ago, Mark Everson, former commissioner of the US Internal Revenue Service, warned that the increasing transfer of intangibles was a “high-risk compliance concern”, adding: “Taxpayers, especially in the high technology and pharmaceutical industries, are shifting profits offshore.”
The only way to shelter monopolies without destruction of the local economy is therefore to expand the bad laws in an imperialistic fashion, thus ensuring that everyone else suffers equally. To use an analogy from Richard Stallman (referring to patents), just because many people have heart attacks doesn’t mean it’s a good thing. █
“Are there some banks that have amassed giant arsenals—the Microsoft(s) of the banking world? (Microsoft had less than a dozen patents before the 1998 State Street decision, and now has thousands, according to a former IPLB reporter who was inside the Microsoft war room a year ago.)”
“Is there a giant settlement, or license agreement, or some other indicator of corporate behavior that would indicate why a particular financial company has a pro-BM patent standpoint? Who are the winners and losers of the first 10 years of biz-meth patent war?
–Why do any financial companies support business method patents?
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
04.25.08
Posted in Law, Microsoft, GNU/Linux, Hardware, Europe, America, Antitrust, Fraud at 11:07 pm by Roy Schestowitz
There is already some fairly strong momentum for ODF across the European Union and now comes a seminar that several high-level officials seem likely to attend.
Seminar on ODF, targeted at municipalities in Belgium.
Guest speakers include product managers from various vendors and representatives of federal and local governments.
We previously showed just how much trouble Microsoft is in, at least in Europe. In fact, amid sagging profits, caused partly by antitrust fines, Microsoft is unlikely to get much of a break. After so much recent abuse the Commission will carry on breathing down its neck. The following article contains some gory details about past and present abuses and includes this incident of blackmail, just like similar ones that were reported last week.
Microsoft’s troubles in Europe are far from over, as Neelie Kroes, The EU competition commissioner, has warned. We review the past and future options for Microsoft and the European Commission.
[…]
During the US anti-trust trials, Steven McGeady, a vice president of Intel, testified against Microsoft, Intel’s most important trading partner, asserting that Microsoft intended to “embrace, extend and extinguish” competition by substituting open standards with proprietary protocols, and claimed that Intel had been warned to cease development of its Native Signal Processing audio and video technology, which promised to vastly improve user experience of the desktop - or else Microsoft would bypass Intel and develop Windows exclusively for AMD and National Semiconductor chips. “It was clear to us that if this chip did not run Windows it would be useless in the marketplace,” McGeady testified. “The threat was both credible and terrifying.”
As a side note, in case you have not come across this in the news yet, Microsoft has just suffered another blow in Europe. Schools in Geneva are switching to GNU/Linux.
About 70,000 students and their 7,000 teachers in the Geneva school district will gradually be moving to Open Source.
The 52,000,000 students in Brazil belittle this somewhat, but when change arrives, you know it’s here to stay. Microsoft did this to itself by choosing bad behaviour over service to its customers. █
“There will always be ignorance, and ignorance leads to fear. But with time, people will come to accept their silicon masters.”
–Bill Gates
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
Posted in Microsoft, GNU/Linux, FUD, America at 10:43 pm by Roy Schestowitz
We previously pointed out, backed by fairly extensive evidence, that Microsoft has a high level of influence and control over the government, especially the Department of Injustice [sic]. Intel is a similar story that is related to that of Microsoft. Consider the following to be some more evidence of this (staffing overlap) and mind the awe-inspiring [**] headline:
Scott Charney: Microsoft’s Ax Man
Microsoft’s implementation of its secure-development lifecycle process has led the industry, said Andrew Jaquith, an analyst at Yankee Group. “They have really been a pacesetter in this area,” he said.
[…]
Still, Microsoft didn’t create the initiative out of choice, Jaquith said. “It was born out of necessity because customers were threatening to defect,” he said. Microsoft once had an internal list, called the executive hot list, made up of “customers so furious with security that they called [Bill] Gates or [CEO Steve] Ballmer personally,” Jaquith said. “In many respects, that caused the trustworthy computing initiative to be born.” Microsoft’s public-relations firm said that the company would not comment on the matter.
[…]
Microsoft hired Charney, who had worked for the U.S. Department of Justice and served as assistant district attorney in the Bronx, at what he said was a unique time.
Also of interest, mind the fact that Andrew Jaquith of the Yankee Group is quoted very extensively here. We last wrote about the Yankee Group just about a week ago. It’s enormously close to Microsoft and is also responsible for a lot of Microsoft’s anti-Linux disinformation (part of the “Slog”). █
___
[**] Ax Ax ([a^]ks), v. t. & i. [OE. axien and asken. See Ask.]
To ask; to inquire or inquire of.
[1913 Webster]
Note: This word is from Saxon, and is as old as the English
language. Formerly it was in good use, but now is
regarded as a vulgarism. It is still dialectic in
England, and is sometimes heard among the uneducated in
the United States. "And Pilate axide him, Art thou king
of Jewis?" "Or if he axea fish." --Wyclif. 'bdThe king
axed after your Grace's welfare." --Pegge.
[1913 Webster]
Ax Ax, Axe Axe, ([a^]ks), n. [OE. ax, axe, AS. eax, [ae]x,
acas; akin to D. akse, OS. accus, OHG. acchus, G. axt, Icel.
["o]x, ["o]xi, Sw. yxe, Dan. ["o]kse, Goth. aqizi, Gr.
'axi`nh, L. ascia; not akin to E. acute.]
A tool or instrument of steel, or of iron with a steel edge
or blade, for felling trees, chopping and splitting wood,
hewing timber, etc. It is wielded by a wooden helve or
handle, so fixed in a socket or eye as to be in the same
plane with the blade. The broadax, or carpenter's ax, is an
ax for hewing timber, made heavier than the chopping ax, and
with a broader and thinner blade and a shorter handle.
[1913 Webster]
Note: The ancient battle-ax had sometimes a double edge.
[1913 Webster]
Note: The word is used adjectively or in combination; as,
axhead or ax head; ax helve; ax handle; ax shaft;
ax-shaped; axlike.
[1913 Webster]
Note: This word was originally spelt with e, axe; and so also
was nearly every corresponding word of one syllable:
as, flaxe, taxe, waxe, sixe, mixe, pixe, oxe, fluxe,
etc. This superfluous e is not dropped; so that, in
more than a hundred words ending in x, no one thinks of
retaining the e except in axe. Analogy requires its
exclusion here.
[1913 Webster]
Note: "The spelling ax is better on every ground, of
etymology, phonology, and analogy, than axe, which has
of late become prevalent." --New English Dict.
(Murray).
[1913 Webster]
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
Posted in Microsoft, Novell, Office Suites, OpenDocument, Europe, America, Antitrust, Open XML, Corel at 3:24 am by Roy Schestowitz
Why is Novell so blind?
Corel was last mentioned earlier this week along with some background about the company’s history when it comes to formats, Linux, and Microsoft. Is Corel collapsing at the moment, based on the news about its CEO resigning?
The CEO of Corel Corp. plans to resign, two weeks after an investment firm that owns a majority stake in the Ottawa-based graphics and desktop applications software vendor offered to acquire all of the remaining shares and take the company private for the second time in five years.
[…]
Ironically, WordPerfect Office X4, a new release that Corel announced last Wednesday, is being touted by the vendor for its strong compatibility with its rivals’ document formats, including Microsoft’s Office Open XML, Adobe’s PDF and the vendor-neutral OpenDocument Format for Office Applications. Corel claimed that X4 is the first office suite to let users import, edit and export PDF documents — including scanned ones — without the need for third-party software.
Whatever happens, this does not look too encouraging, but abuses against WordPerfect have a long history and the case is yet to be resolved in court. Microsoft is trying to ‘pull another WordPerfect’ at the moment using OOXML, which is made deliberately incompatible with everything else in the market (secret extensions and deviations).
A belated reposted Associated Press article about the protest in Norway seems to have just made an appearance in unexpected places.
Roughly 60 data experts staged a rare and noisy street demonstration in downtown Oslo on Wednesday to protest Norway joining adoption of Microsoft Corp.’s document format as the international standard.
[…]
Opponents claimed the move locks out competitors and forces Microsoft customers to keep buying the American software giant’s programs.
The entire world, not just Norwegians, ought to have learned from history and vigorously prevented a repetition of it. Remember what Groklaw wrote about WordPerfect experiences (Microsoft-imposed nightmares). It’s quite a deja vu. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
04.24.08
Posted in GNU/Linux, America at 7:35 am by Roy Schestowitz
Aaron has the details.
By the end of this year 29,000 labs serving some 32,000,000 students will be fully deployed and in active use.
By the end of next year (2009) those numbers will have swelled to 53,000 labs serving some 52,000,000 students.
Savour it. It doesn’t happen every day. Brazil recently decided to migrate half a million voting machines from Windows CE to GNU/Linux, but this one is two orders of magnitude (100 times) more exciting, assuming all goes as planned. Russian regions go through a similar phase and Japan considered moving all schools to GNU/Linux just over a year ago. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
04.22.08
Posted in Microsoft, Patents, Europe, America, Open XML at 10:31 pm by Roy Schestowitz
Patent Poison Inside Our Standards
One good (or very bad) example of software patents in a candidate for standardisation is Microsoft’s OOXML, which might receive the go-ahead in June despite extensively documented corruption. In order to understand the impact of patents in something everyone must use, look no further than Rambus, which has just returned to the headlines.
Rambus, the fast memory designer, has won its appeal to overturn a 2004 Federal Trade Commission anti-trust ruling.
The DC Court of Appeals today decided that the FTC had not established that Rambus had harmed the competition and “therefore that the Commission failed to demonstrate that Rambus’ conduct was exclusionary and thus to establish its claim that Rambus unlawfully monopolized the relevant markets”.
There is a similarly interesting story which is briefly covered by Digital Majority (most links from this point onwards were extracted from there). It speaks of litigation as a barrier to implementation of IEEE standards and it is summarised thusly:
Regrettably, the Court of Appeals has decided not to stay the injunction in the CSIRO v. Buffalo et al litigation during the appeal period. Although Buffalo is confident that the final decision in the appeal will be favorable and that the injunction will be lifted, Buffalo is presently unable to supply wireless LAN equipment compliant with IEEE 802.11a and 802.11g standards in the United States until that decision is issued.
Need for Change Negotiated
At IT World Canada, an article that refers to issues such as RAND’s incompatibility with FOSS are debated further. An interesting concept analogous to “fair use” for patents is proposed and then raised as a possible way to resolve this.
Patent quality is very low in some subject matter, such as software, which creates a practical problem. Patent quality must be assured in each subject matter area., possibly with a rule saying that 50% must be good quality in order for patents to be granted and/or enforceable in that subject matter? It is competition and first mover advantage, not exclusive rights, that drive innovation in software
We need a “Fair Use” doctrine for patent law, possibly carving out interface patents, royalty-free FLOSS implementations, and the activities of private citizens in their home or as amateurs and tinkerers. Patents for producing hardware or other tangibles are often opened up to competitors using RAND (Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory) licensing terms where there is a low per-copy royalty which is offered to anyone. While RAND is appropriate for tangibles, it is inappropriate for software which has a natural marginal cost of zero. RAND excludes from implementation any businesses using peer production methodologies.
As mentioned earlier, however, a patent reform seems to have been given the elbow. The bill is on the ice, but as the article below points out, it’s mainly about stopping patent trolls, not monopoly abusers that defend their territory from friendly ‘intrusion’ and fair co-existence with FOSS.
Patent overhaul spurred by the technology industry is in jeopardy of dying, after facing stiff competition from the pharmaceutical industry.
[…]
The technology industry, which relies a large number of patents, says it wants to change the law to deter “patent trolls,” or firms that hoard patents with the sole intent of enforcing them against infringers – regardless of whether or not the firm has any R&D resources or even a product utilizing the patent.
Formally known as S.1145, the Patent Reform Act opened a rift in the business world: biotech companies, labor unions, inventors, and capital firms squared off against the high tech and financial services industry, with companies like Cisco, Microsoft, Intel, and Bank of America fighting for the bill’s passage.
The ‘Troll Apologists’
Litigious leeches of science and technology still receive the sympathy of a few and the word “troll”, as mentioned above, still angers some people, who see nothing wrong with the practice.
In recent times, there have been concerns that the patent system been abused by opportunistic companies known by the phrase “patent trolls”. It has been alleged that such entities have stunted innovation and spurred unnecessary patent litigation.
[…]
Not everyone fears “patent trolls”. James McDonough of Emory University School of Law prefers to use the euphemism, “patent dealers in the ideas economy”. He has argued that, contrary to popular belief, “patent trolls” actually benefit society: “Patent trolls provide liquidity, market clearing, and increased efficiency to the patent markets - the same benefits securities dealers supply capital markets.” He maintains that “patent trolls” are a useful intermediary in the marketplace.
Others question the very existence of “patent trolls”, suggesting that they are little more than mythological creatures designed to frighten the executives of technology companies at night.
European Lobbying
Over in Europe, we previously saw how Microsoft lobbyists try to phase in software patents by lowering barriers (and potentially quality too). This latest push for the Small Business Act might not actually help small businesses. In fact, it will add further restriction and increase legal activity.
Speaking at the Informal Meeting of ministers for Competitiveness in Brdo (Slovenia) today, Arnaldo Abruzzini, Secretary General of EUROCHAMBRES, reiterated the need for a political commitment at all levels in favour of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs), in particular in relation to the forthcoming Small Business Act.
Further complication of the system would hardly help small businesses, let alone established vendors of low-cost (or free) products. Another danger is unification of the systems, which can have software patents pentrate countries where they are currently not legal. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
Posted in Intellectual Property, Patents, America at 4:42 pm by Roy Schestowitz
The so-called reform, which was proposed as an Easy Fix™ to be applied to the USPTO, has always been rather impotent. It kept the problems in tact where intellectual monopolies could benefit and perhaps harmed some of the smaller players, including the patent trolls. It is therefore not so unfortunate to find that, along with the Government’s consent, changes seem unlikely,
The broken state of this system is likely to persist and perhaps once a real reform is proposed (not ’snake oil’), then it will pass. Perhaps an economic collapse is the only way to bring change so long as the large corporations run the government and — by association — set the rules for the entire country, benefiting themselves.
A Eulogy For Patent Reform?
[…]
Now that high-level talks in the Senate Judiciary Committee have broken down, the opportunity for the patent system’s first major overhaul in 50 years may have been lost — at least for the current legislative session.
There is an interesting new story (an interview) over at Free Software Magazine which shows you just how an already-established intellectual monopoly pushes away disruption using intellectual property law. It’s a fence set up in very much the same way that Microsoft tries to create barriers to GNU/Linux, such as RAND.
Kurt Denke is the owner of Blue Jeans Cable; Monster Cable attacked Blue Jeans Cable on the basis of “Intellectual Property violations”. You should read Kurd Denke’s response. It’s a very enjoyable read, which makes you realise just how knowledgeable Kurt Denke is, on intellectual property law and on cables (!).
Apple is no angel in that regard, either. It keeps the life supply of software patents going.
The filing is titled “Portable Electronic Device for Instant Messaging “, and covers methods for sending, receiving, and viewing ongoing conversations. The proposed GUI is similar to Apple’s current interface for SMS.
It is important to at least be aware of the role of software patents in preventing new entrants into the scene. It’s a status quo padlock. █
“Hey, Steve, just because you broke into Xerox’s store before I did and took the TV doesn’t mean I can’t go in later and steal the stereo.”
–Bill Gates
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
« Previous entries ·
Highlight: Novell was the first to acknowledge that Microsoft FUD tactics had substance. Novell then used anti-Linux FUD to market itself. 
Highlight: Xandros let Microsoft make patent claims and brag about (paid-for) OOXML support. 
Highlight: Linspire's CEO not only fell into Microsoft arms, but he also assisted the company's attack on GNU/Linux. 
Highlight: Microsoft craves pseudo (proprietary) standards and gets its way using proxies and influence which it buys. 
Highlight: The invasion into the open source world is intended to leave Linux companies neglected, due to financial incentives from Microsoft. 
Analysis: Xen, an open source hypervisor, possibly fell victim to Microsoft's aggressive (and stealthy) acquisition-by-proxy strategy.