08.28.08
Posted in Law, Microsoft, Windows, GNU/Linux, Europe, Asia, Antitrust, Vista, Dell at 7:12 am by Roy Schestowitz
The regulators are fast asleep. Apart from the fact that Microsoft makes profit from GNU/Linux preinstalls [1, 2, 3], it’s still nearly impossible to find and then to get them.
Taiwan, China, Poland, [1, 2], and Hungary have formally complained about Microsoft this month, but not the United States. As pointed out yesterday (see the comment at the bottom), the American (US) regulators are indifferent because they are themselves corrupt. Meanwhile, says a reader, Steve Ballmer’s trip to Portugal might be aimed at intercepting Free software.
It’s not grim news all around though. Yesterday, for example, this article showed up and it proves that some people do get in trouble for buying Microsoft. Quebec’s government comes under legal scrutiny, which is not exactly surprising given prior complaints about the procurement process there. It’s equally bad in the UK and elsewhere.
Quebec’s open-source software association is suing the provincial government, saying it is giving preferential treatment to Microsoft Corp. by buying the company’s products rather than using free alternatives.
The lawsuit by Facil was lodged with the Quebec Superior Court on July 15 and made public on Wednesday. In it, the group says the provincial government has refused to entertain competing bids from all software providers, opting instead to supply public-sector departments with products bought from proprietary vendors such as Microsoft and Oracle Corp.
As a side note, speaking of lawsuits, Novell still has a lawsuit against Microsoft and it could win hundreds of millions of dollars. This was mentioned before as a possible reason for Microsoft to buy Novell once it becomes a suitable target (with .NET, patents and all that).
Microsoft may have given up on its old strategy. See the previous post about a patents revenue strategy and recall those SCO analogies . Microsoft suffers from a customer retention issue. Could Microsoft buy out the lawsuit and the competitor? It could be less expensive than buying out threats like XenSource (using Citrix as a proxy) due to competitive bids and a large numbers of players in this space. Naturally, GNU and Linux can spread endlessly between vendors, which keeps them secure from hostile takeovers, but software patents change this. Novell and Microsoft actively try to change this using “licensing”. This exclusionary move shows just why Novell and Microsoft are already becoming the same company.
“This exclusionary move shows just why Novell and Microsoft are already becoming the same company.”Let us return to exclusion at the OEM level. Exclusionary OEM contracts is something that we covered before and this article from the Czech Republic was mentioned some days ago. It shows just how impossible Microsoft has made it to choose an operating system other than Windows (or no operating system at all, i.e. just bare-metal hardware bundles). Over at Groklaw, Pamela just wrote: “Isn’t it ridiculous that it’s nearly impossible to avoid buying Vista on a new computer, even if you have no desire to get Vista? And then Microsoft counts such “sales” as indicating an interest in Vista.”
Going a long way back, you can still find this detailed page on the impossibility of obtaining a Toshiba computer without Microsoft software. Not much has change since then.
I hope that this web page will prove useful to those people who want to purchase a laptop without Microsoft Windows. The short summary is:
* It is near impossible to buy a laptop without Windows
* The Microsoft Software License Agreement allows you to return the software if you do not agree to its terms.
* It is difficult, but not impossible to get Toshiba (at least in Australia) to send you a cheque in return for the Windows License.
Here is another good page, which is no longer live, but it has a copy on the Internet Archive.
My name is David Chun. I am an undergraduate student at UCLA, where I am in the UCLA Center for American Public Policy and Politics. I am working this spring as an intern at the Consumer Project on Technology. On May 25, 1998 through June 3, 1998, I called 12 computer manufacturers, known in the industry as original equipment manufactures (OEMs), attempting to buy computers without a Microsoft Windows operating systems.
This is not competition. It’s free market distortion. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend 
View as PDF
08.27.08
Posted in Intellectual Property, Patents, Europe, America, Asia at 8:27 am by Roy Schestowitz
The world unites in a new Web site against software patents. It’s called “Stop Software Patents”, as opposed to “End Software Patents” and it illustrates just how much resistance from how many different directions is aimed at destroying an anti-social, anti-developers law, or at least prevent it from spreading.
A couple of days ago, we showed just how many continents were affected by a new push from the likes of Microsoft for software patents in more countries. Monopolies on algorithms is all they have left amid severe problems with the business model and with business ethics. The margins erode.
Asia
Joining the Indian fight against software patents [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10], might we soon see Malaysia? There’s an alarming blog post, “Software Patents in Malaysia?”, over at OpenMalaysia. It summarises thusly:
I do hope that En. Noriswadi’s intentions are sincere in that he is looking genuine input from stakeholders. I do also hope that he is more sensitive to aspects of this debate from the FOSS perspective. More importantly he does his homework on the full benefits and disadvantages of software patents.
It is interesting to note that globally, the software patent mess is starting to rear its ugly head yet again. In the EU, Charlie McCreevy is trying to legalise software patents with a US-EU patent treaty, and in India the Patent Office is working on a Draft Patent Manual to allow software patents.
EU
FFII is drumming up support in the fight against software patents. Roberto Galoppini remarks on Italy’s participation so far.
A group of FFII activists have decided to set up big European petitions targeting national legislators of the members of the European Patent Convention to clarify the limitations of patentability.
[…]
In Italy Italian Linux Society and Associazione per il Software Libero have already signed the petition, I hope more will support the initiative soon.
UK
Over in the UK, feedback is sought by the UK-IPO [via Digital Majority]. The most unfortunate turn of events in the UK was covered here before.
This short questionnaire seeks information to help with an assessment by the UK-IPO of the impact of the proposed European Patent Court on UK companies. It is aimed at companies and organisations holding patents.
Copyrights are another interesting issue that came up in the EU due to the likes of McCreevy and Sarkozy [1, 2, 3, 4]. There are those speak for the maximalsts, not the citizens that they purport to be representing. The Register gave some coverage to critics of this power shift (from ‘the people’ to wealthy producers, some of whom are deceased).
A leading academic has warned that the European Commission “wilfully ignored” studies that it paid for whose conclusions disagreed with its policy, and that the Commission is misleading the European Union Council, Parliament and citizens over copyright extension.
Also noteworthy is last week’s scandal (sparking the week before that). It’s about the British government violating copyright law and cashing in at the expense of open sourcerers. Here is the latest from The Open Sourcerer:
I was looking about on-line the other day just following my (rather large) nose around the ‘Anthony Baggett’s theme being used by Number 10 Downing Street’ story. And I came across something I don’t really understand. Perhaps others might be able to shed some light on what might be going on here?
Let’s start with the background: Number 10’s Website, is using a look and feel derived from an original theme by Anthony called NetWorker. The way we know this is by the header that was left in the main stylesheet and almost every other file from Anthony’s original package being left in tact on the server.
It is quite amusing to see the hypocrites from Number 10 choosing to turn ISPs into copyright cops, who operate at the expense of everyone, collectively, under the assumption that everyone in the UK attacks ships (’pirates’). It’s not only a collective punishment, but it’s also hugely ineffective. Nothing prevents people from sharing data without the Internet. They fight a losing battle and turn everyone in Internet services into a nervous and overworked human network monitor. Sooner or later, entire protocols are dropped (throwing the baby out with the bath water). False positive will surely lead to backlash and sharing of perfectly-legitimate content stifled.
Previously in this saga (from the past week):
Going by Hollywood’s terminology, is it fair to call the American a British government “pirates”, “thieves”, and even “criminals” (attributed to Dan Glickman). Even the MPAA has violated copyright law. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
08.26.08
Posted in FSF, Patents, Europe, America, Asia at 2:50 pm by Roy Schestowitz
Representation by Knowledge Commons to the
Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
on the
Draft Manual of Patent Practice and Procedure - Patent Office, India (2008)
This representation addresses the section 4.11 of the Draft Manual, which provides the guidelines for defining what is excluded from patenting vide section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 2005.
The Clause 3(k) has defined what is not patentable in quite unambiguous terms. It is a well settled principle in law that a rule or a guidelines cannot change the substantive meaning of legislation. Unfortunately, this is what the Draft Manual proposes to do in its interpretation of this clause.
Indian Patents Act differs from other Patent Laws in so far as it clearly lays down what is not patentable. The Clause 3(k) is one such clause. The lawmakers were clear in their intention, “A mathematical or business method or a computer programme per se or algorithms are not patentable”. Therefore, through guidelines, what is not patentable under law cannot be made patentable through practices and procedures, as the Draft Manual proposes to do.
It might be noted that the Draft Manual is trying to bring in the amendment to the Patents Act which was subsequently not accepted in the Parliament. The relevant 3(k) amendment was, “a computer programme per se other than its technical application to industry or a combination with hardware; a mathematical method or a business method or algorithms;” By retaining the original wording and not accepting the change that software could become patentable by virtue of a technical application, the Parliament made its legislative intent clear. Therefore, by an interpretation of the act, the Patent Office cannot change the legislative intent that with or without technical application, software would not be patentable.
In trying to reach this interpretation, the Patents Office seems to have copied the relevant sections from the “Manual of Patent Practice guidance for interpreting the Patent Act 1977”, UK. This has been done without any reference that would justify such wholesale lifting of interpretation. We reproduce below what the Draft Manual says in for example 4.11 and what the UK manual says.
Indian Draft Manual 4.11.7
4.11.10 A mathematical method is one which is carried out on numbers and provides a result in numerical form (the mathematical method or algorithm therefore being merely an abstract concept prescribing how to operate on the numbers) and not patentable. However, its application may well be patentable, for example, in Vicom/Computer-related invention [1987] 1 OJEPO 14 (T208/84) the invention concerned a mathematical method for manipulating data representing an image, leading to an enhanced digital image. Claims to a method of digitally filtering data performed on a conventional general purpose computer were rejected, since those claims were held to define an abstract concept not distinguished from a mathematical method. However, claims to a method of image processing which used the mathematical method to operate on numbers representing an image can be allowed. The reasoning was that the image processing performed was a technical (i.e. non- excluded) process which related to technical quality of the image and that a claim directed to a technical process in which the method used does not seek protection for the mathematical method as such. Therefore the allowable claims as such went beyond a mathematical method.
The UK Patent Manual Clause 1.17
Similarly, mathematical methods are not patentable but their application may well be patentable. For example, in Vicom/Computer-related invention [1987] 1 OJEPO 14 (T208/84) the invention concerned a mathematical method for manipulating data representing an image, leading to an enhanced digital image. The EPO Technical Board of Appeal defined a mathematical method as one which is carried out on numbers and provides a result in numerical form (the mathematical method or algorithm therefore being merely an abstract concept prescribing how to operate on the numbers). Thus the Technical Board of Appeal rejected claims to a method of digitally filtering data performed on a conventional general purpose computer, since those claims were held to define an abstract concept not distinguished from a mathematical method. However, they allowed claims to a method of image processing which used the mathematical method to operate on numbers representing an image. The reasoning was that the image processing performed was a technical (ie non-excluded) process which related to the technical quality of the image and that even if the idea underlying an invention may be considered to reside in a mathematical method, a claim directed to a technical process in which the method is used does not seek protection for the mathematical method as such. Therefore the allowable claims went beyond a mathematical method as such because they specified the physical entity the data represented and the technical process in which it was used.
Not only are the sentences lifted verbatim, with only some minor re-arrangements, even the reference to the case in the UK Manual, Vicom/Computer-related invention [1987] 1 OJEPO 14 (T208/84), is not listed in the cases given in the Annexure List of cases for the Draft Manual.
According to the Draft Manual, the allowable claim goes beyond a mathematical method as it specifies a physical entity (signals) and the technical process (image processing). Simply put, what the patent office is claiming is that while a mathematical method cannot be patented, however its application to a specific technical field – image processing in the Vicom case – is patentable.
The problem with this approach is that while the patent office may regard image or signal processing as a technical application, what is being patented is still a mathematical method. The mere fact that it is a mathematical algorithm applied to a specific application with specific physical entities does not change that the content of what is being patented, which is still the mathematical algorithm. Only the scope of the patent is being narrowed by limiting it to image processing.
If the above is accepted, all that would be required for securing software patents for the actual mathematical method is to file separate applications for each of the application of the mathematical method, in this case the digital filtering algorithm. This is merely changing the form of the patent application and not its substance. We find such an interpretation completely contrary to the patent law that has been framed in this country.
The Image Processing case is particularly important, as if it is accepted, all compression techniques would also be patentable on similar grounds. Already, the practices of USPTO and EPO have lead to a situation that a number of standard formats such as JPEG and GIF have come under patent threats. Since any company that uses digital pictures – cameras, images on the web, etc., can be sued for infringing such patents, the potential economic consequence of such patents is enormous. This is why software patents under any garb, are particularly pernicious.
One of the earliest software patents was that of the LMZ compression, which was used in the GIF format. It is now widely accepted in the software industry that such patents are in fact patents of mathematical algorithms. It was because the GIF format came under a patent threat that other formats became popular. However, similar threats now exist for other formats for image processing. In most such cases, the software industry has had to file review applications in USPTO to invalidate such patents. We see no reason why we should follow this tortuous path, when we have a clear law on this on our statuette books disallowing software patents.
The language of Section 3 k) of the The Patents Act, 1970 makes it clear that unlike certain countries, where the Patents Offices have been issuing patents for mathematical or business methods and for software, the Indian Parliament has considered software per se not to be patentable.
The clause that software per se is not patentable would mean that only software as a part of a larger invention of which it is a part could be considered for a patent as a whole provided it meets the criteria of patents given in the Act. This makes clear software “standing alone” is not patentable under Indian law. It is pertinent that as software cannot execute on its own without any hardware, this means that software running on general-purpose data processing machines (computers) do not qualify for patents. The mere addition of conventional data processing equipment to a software application does not turn that application into an invention. Only if the software application is a part of a larger system and the system as a whole is eligible for a patent, can the invention be patented as a whole. This is the intent of the Act and therefore we are sure that the Patent office would take this into cognizance when deciding on patent claims.
If we take this clause of software per se not being patentable with the other part of the clause the intent of the Law becomes even clearer. It is clear from 3 k) above, that any mathematical method or a business method or a mathematical algorithm cannot be patented, irrespective of whether it is embodied in software or not. The non-patentablity of business or mathematical method or algorithm is even broader than the non-patentability of software per se and covers all software applications/computer programs.
All software or computer programs are nothing but a sequence of instructions that convert a set of inputs to a set of outputs. This is the definition of an algorithm.
As per 3 k), a mathematical method is not patentable and as computational methods are a sub-set of a mathematical methods, a computational method is not patentable either.
Computer programs essentially convert an algorithm, business or a mathematical method into a sequence of machine executable steps. All computer programs are therefore algorithms/mathematical or business methods implemented for execution on a computer. As algorithms, mathematical or business methods are not patentable under Indian law, no software or computer program, which can run on general-purpose machines, can be considered patentable. The only exception, which can be read into the Patents Act “computer program per se”, is that computer programs in conjunction with special purpose hardware or equipment, can be considered for patenting as a whole, provided it meets all other criteria of patentability given in the Act.
Courts in all parts of the world have held that subject matter which would have the practical effect of preempting laws of nature, abstract ideas or mathematical algorithms is ineligible for patent protection. This age-old and time-tested precedent effectively establishes the ineligibility for patent protection to laws of nature, abstract ideas and mathematical algorithms. If these could be patented, then in effect one would be patenting the tools of scientific enquiry itself, something no patent law allows, as it would lead to halting scientific progress.
Courts have also held that regarding patentable subject that the inquiry into whether subject matter is eligible for patenting is one of substance, not form. This requires that one look, not simply at the language of the patent claim to see if it recites a structure of multiple steps or components, but also at the practical effect of the claim to see if it in fact covers — or otherwise would restrict the public’s access to — a principle, law of nature, abstract idea, mathematical formula, mental process, algorithm or other abstract intellectual concept. Otherwise, it would make the determination of patentable subject matter depend simply on the draftsman’s art and would ill serve the principles underlying the prohibition against patents for ‘ideas’ or phenomena of nature. By skilled patent drafting, one should not be able to start patenting essentially abstract ideas, mental processes and newly discovered laws of nature or mathematical algorithms.
We are aware that though the Law generally holds that such matters are not patentable, a number of patent offices, particularly the US PTO and the EPO have been granting patents recently for software also. This has already created a situation which Tim Berners-Lee, one of the founders of the World Wide Web, director of the World Wide Web Consortium that sets global standards for the Internet, calls as the biggest threat to software development.
All companies developing emerging technology are threatened by the prospect of patent licensing royalties. You could never find out what patent could possibly apply to what technology. You could never guess what things people might have the gall to say they have patented already. It really is a universal fear. (Tim Berners-Lee at Emerging Technologies Conference at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, September 29, 2004.)
Major software companies such as Cisco, Oracle, Adobe and even Microsoft earlier have come out against software patents. They have held that copyright provides an appropriate level of protection and patenting software is harmful to the software and other industries.
It has also been the basis on which the Small and Medium-sized Business Community in the EU objected to the formalisation of EPO practice and acceptance of software patents. The same argument would apply to Indian software industry as well.
The above clearly shows that no application of mind has taken place in either understanding of the Indian Patents Act or its intentions. While the EPO or the UK practices could be used by the Patent Office to justify what it seeks to do, it cannot do so without first identifying the Patents Act and practices in these countries and the Patents Act and practices in India.
In India, it has been considered patents should be granted only when public good demands granting of such state protected monopolies. This was the practice also in the UK and the US. It is still the basis of the practice in most countries. It is only in the last few decades that the US, followed by the UK, Japan and now the European Patent Office has tried to change the interpretation of their Patents Acts to expand the scope of patentability. This attempt to enlarge the scope is from their national interest as they hold the largest number of patents. Therefore, their belief that strengthening the patent regime internationally will help their companies to build world-wide monopolies.
It is not in India’s national interest or in the interests of its people to expand the scope of state protected monopolies through expanding the patent scope. India’s national interest is best served by restricting the scope of such monopolies. Therefore, the patent regime in India should work on the presumption that patents are to be given only when there is a decisive case for patents. This has been the basis of the Indian Patents Act and is in tune with fundamentals of such legislation world over. It is only the deviation in patent interpretation that has produced a scenario where business methods, software and also mathematical methods are also being patented.
The US Supreme Court has now been correcting some of the excesses that has occurred in the US patents interpretation by the Federal Bench. We see no reason why India should change it understanding of patentability following in the footsteps of the US and the EPO and subsequently need to correct such excesses.
We will not recapitulate the case against software patents. We consider that case is now accepted in Indian law and the Indian Patents Act explicitly prohibits software patenting. We are only concerned here with the attempt to defeat the non-patentability of software patents by an interpretation that runs counter to the Indian law.
We therefore would suggest that the relevant sections of the Draft Manual – namely the section 4.11 should be redrafted keeping the legislative intent in mind. Otherwise, it will constitute a breach of privilege of the Parliament.
Prabir Purkayastha, Knowledge Commons
Sd.-
SP Shukla, National Working Group on Patent Law
Sd.-
G. Nagarjuna, Free Software Foundation of India
Sd.-
Amit Sengupta, All India Peoples Science Network
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
Posted in FSF, Law, Microsoft, Patents, Asia, FOSS at 7:04 am by Roy Schestowitz
Intellectual monopolies are insane and more so with software patents, which pertain to thoughts, not just devices or actual implementation. Béranger illustrates just how mad the USPTO has gone with an excessive number of patents and a lenient set of requirements. Would anyone believe that it takes 9 special ‘inventions’ to merely produce a cardboard box? He ranted about this before.
39 years after the man was on the Moon, a bloody cardboard box is still covered by 9 patents!
But anyway, that’s a distraction and merely some timely reminder of how far patents can go. We wrote about the situation in India quite a lot over the past month [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. FSF India has finally released its official response to new attempts at software patents from the back door. Microsoft, along with its local and American allies, are largely responsible for the changes. It’s not too later to water them down.
Even if other countries made such provisions, India as the world’s largest democracy should not create an society where people at large are excluded from participating in creative engagements. As a country with a large human resource, we have a bigger challenge of harnessing more creativity among the country, and that will happen by bringing each and every citizen under creative participation and not by bringing each and every invention under allowable patents category. India should lead the rest of the world by clearly stating in the manual that computer programs are not patentable in India by any other way and are per se protected only under copyright.
Having reviewed an early draft of this letter, I hoped that the letter (sent on behalf of the FSF) will become an open one at some stage. It contains insights that can be generalised and then used to squash other deform [sic, not reform] attempts. India is not alone. █
Further references:
Those interested in reading the Full text of Section 3(k) relating to software patents can check:
http://osindia.blogspot.com/2008/08/full-text-of-section-3k-relating-to.html
The full Draft Patent Manual is at:
http://ipindia.nic.in/ipr/patent/DraftPatent_Manual_2008.pdf [PDF]
Various comments Received for the Draft Manual (Including Pro Patent)
http://www.ipindia.nic.in/ipr/patent/manual.htm
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
08.25.08
Posted in Microsoft, Patents, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia at 7:06 am by Roy Schestowitz
Even 5 continents if South Africa is considered
A
s the pursuit of Microsoft et al (partners and lobbying arms) for software patents proceeds, the world responds with unrest. This tool of monopolisation fools nobody and those who collaborate with foreign maximalists [1, 2, 3, 4] are bound to get flak. Here’s just a quick roundup of the news. It demonstrates how the world has suddenly awoken to combat to the threat which is software patents.
Europe
FFII has just renewed its action against software patents in Europe. Amidst global slowdown or recession, monopolies will cling onto more control and attempt to change laws despite those previous well-judged rejections.
It is now over three years since the European Parliament threw out a controversial bill that would have brought in software patents.
It was a victory of sorts for those trying to preserve some sanity in the world of computing, but only a partial and temporary one. Those in favour of intellectual monopolies are hardly going to give up, and already have a number of irons in the fire that they will doubtless deploy in due course.
In preparation for that day, people on the other side are beginning to mobilise their forces…
Australia/New Zealand
This combative reaction has also come to the lower parts of the southern hemisphere. While Australia has already been occupied by the Hollywood/Redmond Forces with DMCA and software patents, New Zealand seem to be fighting. It was only a while ago that Richard Stallman visited them, so it could be related.
Greens urge end to software patents
[…]
Ms Turei, who called for greater use of open source and locally developed software, says excluding software from patents would ensure others could develop ideas. Software would still be protected against piracy by copyright law.
The party has promised to investigate “the setup of free municipally owned wireless networks”. Ms Turei says the cost needs to be researched, but the Government would “almost certainly” need to supply funding.
Ms Turei says wider adoption of open source software would reduce costs and lead to investment in local IT businesses, which tend to lose out to dominant software companies such as Microsoft.
“Monopolies have been allowed to form, stifling competition, consumer choice, and indigenous growth of the software industry in Aotearoa/New Zealand.”
The following article appeared just days ago:
The Green Party released its Information Technology (IT) Policy today ahead of a lecture tonight by free software legend Richard Stallman, jointly hosted by Otago University’s Campus Greens branch and the computer science department.
“IT must work for people not the profits of the few. People on both sides of the digital divide should benefit from information technology - IT should not create new mechanisms of inequality. And of course our policy assists people to utilise IT to reduce their impact on the planet,” Greens IT Spokesperson Metiria Turei says.
Richard Stallman also appears to have made and left his impact on the national radio after he had preached about Free software, patents, and even copyrights.
Related to this but older:
Green Party slams Microsoft OLPC involvement
[…]
“Microsoft wants to restrict the greatest profits in the knowledge economy to already established software corporations like itself.
“By installing its programs on these laptops Microsoft hopes to create market domination and vendor lock in. That is unacceptable bribery.
United States
The USPTO seems dead, or at least brain dead. Microsoft’s Page Up/Down patent still leads to a stir around the Web. It has already been mentioned in [1, 2].
With insane patents like these, no wonder the courts are getting overwhelmed and overburdened. Watch what happens in Texas at the moment [via Digital Majority]
Crucial reading for those interested in the notable docket of rocket, the Eastern District of Texas, in this week’s Texas Lawyer. With 232 patent cases filed in Marshall in the past year, trial dates for filing there are now running to 2012. Judge T. John Ward’s patent litigation mill is slowing, but faring.
India
Our recent coverage of the situation in India can be found under [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8].
The protest [1, 2] has just reached The Hindu, part of India’s mainstream press.
Bangalore: While many people take the slogan “Saying no to software patents” to mean the right to usage of free Internet software, the issue of patenting is rooted in a larger milieu, affecting not only users of software, but also those who develop software and service it.
A candle-light vigil at Puttanna Chetty Town Hall organised by members of the Free Software Users Group, originally founded by Richard Stallman more than two decades ago, here on Saturday brought these issues to the fore.
The paper also published this good photo, which may seem familiar.
Here they are (Wipro and Microsoft, friends of the multi-national monopolist [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]) publicly making love again with a press release over the weekend. This clannish activity of Microsoft overseas needs to be stopped. They ruin the systems with their suiters in oder to share the loot. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
08.24.08
Posted in Patents, Asia at 12:34 pm by Roy Schestowitz
FREE SOFTWARE USERS GROUP (FSUG), BANGALORE
23rd August 2008
For Immediate Release
A Candle-light Vigil to Protest Patenting Software
Concerned citizens from all walks of life gathered today in front of the Town Hall for a candle-light vigil to send a message saying no to software patents. This vigil was held in anticipation of the Bangalore Consultation on Draft Patent Manual being prepared by the India Patent Office on the 27th of this month. The protesters main concern is the use of this manual to allow patenting of software through the back door. As of now, software can only be copyrighted and not patented. The protesters believe that Patenting of software would be detrimental to the growth of the software industry in general.
According to Praveen,, a Free Software Consultant and one of the organizers of this protest; “Patenting software would be as absurd as patenting a mathematical equation or an algorithm”. Attempts were made to bring software under the patent regime in 2004 through an ordinance, which was rejected outright by the Indian Parliament. This manual is an effort to legitimise what has been rejected by the Parliament.
This vigil is also a call to rally for software innovations and block potentially harmful patent regime that would act as an obstacle to software development. Renuka Prasad,, a Professor at RV College of Engineering feels that pushing a patent regime in software would tantamount to criminalizing genuine and innocent software programmers.
According to Richard Stallman, “Software patents are the software project equivalent of land mines: each design decision carries a risk of stepping on a patent, which can destroy your project”
In this context, patenting software is violative of the freedom of speech and expression, guaranteed under Art 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution of India particularly in the context of software programmers and developers.
For further information contact
Anivar Aravind Ph: +91- 9449009908
e-mail:
anivar@movingrepublic.org
Vikram Vincent Ph: +91 9448810822
email:
vincent.vikram@gmail.com
For More Details, Please visit
http://fci.wikia.com/wiki/Say_No_To_Software_Patents
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
08.23.08
Posted in Formats, Microsoft, GNU/Linux, Novell, Ron Hovsepian, Servers, NetWare, Hardware, Patents, Asia, Interoperability at 10:18 am by Roy Schestowitz
An Unsuccessful Anti-Red Hat Deal
In previous coverage of the latest development [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13], we stressed that Novell is getting closer to Microsoft and more hostile towards other GNU/Linux vendors.
Sean Michael Kerner summarised the news thusly: “The deal will provide a margin of profitability for Microsoft and help Novell in its fight with Red Hat.”
“Novell has been living in Red Hat’s shadow for a long time.”Novell has been living in Red Hat’s shadow for a long time. Now it finds shelter in Microsoft’s belly pouch where it’s whispering “attack Red Hat”. Novell has, essentially, sidled with a bully to scare all those other kids in the playground.
Despite a lot of this, Novell keeps losing prospective customers to Red Hat based on merit and reputation alone. Here is a new example, as told by a $3-billion-dollar company.
When Sabre began to move from proprietary systems, the company evaluated other open source operating systems including Novell’s SUSE Linux Enterprise but concluded that Novell was not as “mature” or respected as it is today and decided Red Hat was a more “proven” option, he said.
It’s clear that Novell suffered from Red Hat jealously. It lived in a state of uncertainty. It became accustomed to milking the Netware cash cow, which got depleted over time, leading to trouble. Back in 2005, when Red Hat was doing pretty well, Ron Hovsepian said that open source was slowing. It was less than a year later that Hovsepian inherited the helm and Novell strategised on something different.
It’s About Software Patents
Watch the following good post from Don Marti.
Well, some people don’t listen to Julie Bort’s advice. At Microsoft Subnet, she wrote, “At this point in the game, Microsoft should really come clean with a statement that rescinds its Linux/patent/suing threat altogether.”
Good idea, but no such luck. This morning’s press release haul brings “Microsoft and Novell Expand Successful Interoperability Relationship,” which says,
“Microsoft Corp. and Novell Inc. are announcing an incremental investment in their relationship to meet accelerating customer demand for their business model solution, which is designed to build a bridge between open source and proprietary software to deliver interoperability and intellectual property (IP) peace of mind for organizations operating mixed-source IT environments.”
Intellectual property peace of mind. Novell has a solid Linux, and punches above its weight in kernel contributions, so why does the marketing strategy so often come down to whining, “buy from us instead of Red Hat, or Microsoft will sue you?”
Interoperability? Not So Much.
Here’s Peter Judge’s take:
Myself, I think that virtualisation and document interchange are multi-platform by definition, so how much work is there really in those areas?
And at Linux Today:
So much for the “open” protocols MS published if they require special collaboration.
Microsoft deliberately made things incompatible by pushing OOXML with corruption and by plaguing hypervisors with a validation program that only Novell is permitted to be part of. It’s very clearly an anti-Red Hat move. Microsoft and Novell are, first and foremost in this case, anti-Red Hat companies joined by an anti-Red Hat alliance and pro-software patents push.
Watch this comment (complaint) about parroting of a press releases.
I say, good job at parroting Microsoft’s email, sugar-coating this alliance that is going nowhere with either Linux or Windows users. Businesses are not looking to buy into Novell’s Microsoft licensing backdoors either.
Simply put, Novell is being paid by Microsoft to support MS-OOXML. That’s all that’s come out of this alliance — press releases! And has anyone used Novell’s version of OpenOffice? It honestly sucks.
Lastly, please, please name names of anyone you know who is exchanging MS-OOXML documents. They’re not online, that’s for sure. OpenOffice would be smart not to waste their time.
As Matt Asay just put it, “Microsoft wants to ‘build Windows,’ but how about bridges?”
Build bridges, not toll roads.
Through closed standards, aggressive patent FUD, and proprietary Office file formats and SharePoint repository, Microsoft has effectively declared war on the very idea of “breaking down barriers that prevent people and ideas from connecting”…unless you happen to be using 100 percent of Microsoft’s software to do the job.
One of the biggest trends to knock down barriers to true interoperability has been open source and the open standards it espouses, yet Microsoft has sought to impose a patent toll on open source. For those interested in connecting with Microsoft’s technology, Microsoft is glad to oblige, but only on its terms, with Microsoft firmly in control. Open source, however, believes in a very different kind of interoperability.
People are not happy, but press releases from Novell and Microsoft tell a different story. The worst thing one can do is repeat those stories and lend credibility to them. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
08.22.08
Posted in Microsoft, Patents, Asia at 9:02 pm by Roy Schestowitz
As we showed earlier, Bill Gates invests in and/or backs patent trolls, such as Nathan Myhrvold, who is shown above (more examples at the bottom of this new article). But Microsoft too is assembling it own arsenal of software patents, the latest of which seems to be a jaw-dropping patent on PgUp and PgDn. Here are preliminary details:
If patenting the obvious is considered something of an art form in the world of IT, then Microsoft is undoubtedly an old master. The Page Up Page Down patent it has been granted would seem to confirm this…
It’s worth weighing some more information from Mike Masnick and his readers over at TechDirt.
An effective way of ending this madness is firstly to prevent software patent permissions from expanding. India is in the headlines at the moment [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8] and now comes this post from GNU India and from this reputed man from Kerla, V. Sasi Kumar Thiruvananthapuram.
There are indications that the government is again trying to bring software patents, possibly covertly. The first indication of this has been in the draft Manual of Patent Practice and Procedure published by the Patent Office, India, in which they talk about “software per se” and software in association with hardware. This was repeated in the meeting held in Mumbai which was a consultation organised by the government with the public. Whether this move has been engineered by the bureaucracy or by the government under pressure from big corporates, this is not good for the software industry, especially the small scale sector, in India.
It is worth remembering that this latest push for software patents in India is spearheaded by Microsoft et al.
Software patents are a nasty new animal. It could be rose though. Certain types of patents are actually killing people — or rather — let ill people die despite the existence of a simple cure. Glyn Moody revives this old moral debate.
Got that? Indonesia releases the sequences, and the US CDC does indeed patent that information, a situation which could then force Indonesia to pay for vaccines based on its own sequence data to protect its citizens. This probably means that fewer vaccines will be bought, more people will die, more mutations in the flu virus, and more deaths globally. So how, exactly, is this particular intellectual monopoly good for the world?
Patents are not a friend. Software patents are an insane friend… to lawyers. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
« Previous entries ·
