03.21.10
Posted in Courtroom, Finance, GNU/Linux, Novell, SCO at 4:58 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A new disclosure of names of those who fund SCO’s lawsuit against Linux reveals many former members of SCO
A day ago we wrote about SCO receiving $2 million. SCO is desperate for money because it can hardly pay lawyers any longer and its never-ending lawsuit against Linux is virtually all it has left. Based on SCO’s 8-K which covers the Ralph Yarro cash injection, those who are involved in the transaction are “private lenders including Seung Ni Capital Partners, LLC, Jan Loeb, Leap Tide Capital Management, Inc., Steven Shin, Henry C. Beinstein, Stanley A. Beinstein, Neil J. Gagnon, Robert Dyson, WBS LLC, Ne Obliviscaris, Ltd., Darcy Mott, Clemons F. Walker and Herbert W. Jackson (collectively, the “Lenders”). Other than WBS LLC and Robert Dyson, all of the other Lenders listed above are direct or indirect shareholders of the Company.”
“So now we know the list of names,” says Pamela Jones. “It’s that same ole gang of SCOfolk.” Did they put their own money in the jar or could someone have helped them out and provided assurance (as in the case of BayStar, which offered $50 million)? █
“[Microsoft's] Mr. Emerson and I discussed a variety of investment structures wherein Microsoft would ‘backstop,’ or guarantee in some way, BayStar’s investment…. Microsoft assured me that it would in some way guarantee BayStar’s investment in SCO.”
–Larry Goldfarb, BayStar, key investor in SCO
Permalink
Send this to a friend
03.20.10
Posted in Courtroom, Finance, Novell, SCO at 2:36 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: News from the SCO case, including a few major developments
• Novell’s Motion to Allow Evidence: SCO Opened the Door
Yesterday, at the end of the day at the trial of SCO v. Novell, there was a discussion of whether certain evidence could be let in after all, due to something SCO said. Judge Ted Stewart asked Novell to put it in the form of a motion, and they have.
SCO accused Novell in its opening argument four times of slander of title “to this very day”. And in questioning Duff Thompson yesterday, the lawyer asked him if he saw evidence of slander of title to the present, and he said yes. It indicates a desire for damages covering the entire time period.
• First Week of SCO v Novell Jury Trial
• SCO v Novell 2010-3-9
• Monday’s Bankruptcy Hearing Rescheduled for April 7 at 3 PM
• Novell’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari – as text
• SCO vs. Linux: From the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court
The trial between the SCO Group and Novell over the question of whether or not the copyrights to Unix were sold together with the Unix distribution rights has taken another turn. As many SCO witnesses gave hearsay evidence during the oral hearing at the Court of Appeals, Novell filed a petition with the Tenth Circuit Supreme Court. Novell has asked the Supreme Court to clarify whether a copyright is inherently included in a transfer of software distribution rights or whether a distribution contract leaves it up to the buyer to determine which of the copyrights that aren’t explicitly mentioned are transferred.
• Jury picked and trial commences in SCO v. Novell UNIX code copyright ownership dispute
• SCO Group Gets $2M In Funding (see the press release: “The SCO Group Announces $2 Million in Financing”)
• SCO secures funding to preserve company during bankruptcy
The company said that the financing is intended to allow for the preservation of the value of the company’s business while enabling it to proceed with asset sales, support its customer base and pursue litigation against several companies including Novell and IBM.
• SCO Responds to Novell’s Motion to Allow Evidence
• Judge Denies 2 Novell Motions: for Mistrial and to Allow Evidence
• Week 2, Day 6 of SCO v. Novell Trial – The Mistrial Motion, Kim Madsen, Steve Sabbath, Darl McBride
• Novell files Offer of Proof Re Prior Inconsistent Declaration of Sabbath
• Ouch! Judge Stewart denies the jury access to important evidence.
Two of SCOGs witnesses in SCO v Novell contradicted each other between testimony and deposition and Judge Stewart is denying Novell the opportunity to inform the jury of that contradiction. That seems unfair on its face. Novell moved for a mistrial and was denied that as well. You can follow the details on GROKLAW. I was beginning to think the judge was being even-handed but this seems outrageous. SCOG’s case is falling apart and Novell cannot show the obvious holes to the jury. The final instructions to the jury will be drawn up by Judge stewart after submissions by SCOG and Novell. With this apparent bias, there is a huge opportunity for unfairness to lead the jury astray. Perhaps this will correct itself in a sound finding by the jury but without all the relevant evidence they may not be advised to view SCOG’s foot-guns in perspective.
• First week of SCO-Novell trial focused on contract language
• Ex-SCO CEO testifies Novell claim inflicted harm
• Ex-SCO CEO: Novell elusive about IBM link
Novell’s ownership claims were timed to coincide with SCO releases of record earnings, which meant that instead of seeing its stock price jump, SCO’s share value declined, said McBride, who was fired as CEO in October by the bankruptcy trustee.
• Week 2, Day 7 of SCO v. Novell Trial – More McBride and Botosan Opens a Door – Updated
• Novell Anticipates Objections to SCO’s Experts’ Testimonies – The TK-7 Case
• SCO’s Motion to Allow Testimony
• Week 2, Day 8 of SCO v. Novell Trial – McBride’s Admission and Pisano – Updated
• New Proposed Jury Instructions and Novell Tries Again on Prior Ct. Rulings
• Week 2, Day 9 of SCO v. Novell Trial – Jury Hears About Kimball’s Rulings and Botosan – Updated [Slashdot submission]
• Novell to present case in trial against SCO Group
Permalink
Send this to a friend
03.19.10
Posted in Bill Gates, Courtroom, Law, Microsoft, Patents at 10:05 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Intellectual Ventures is said to be attacking companies using its proxies and Microsoft suffers the wrath of the very practice it advocated with investments (patent trolling)
WITH some of its latest patent deals (e.g. Amazon [1, 2, 3]), Microsoft made it abundantly clear that it views racketeering [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7] as an acceptable business model. No Microsoft executives have been arrested for it because we live in a society that typically jails the poor and glorifies the rich. It’s part of the indoctrination system. We are taught that large entities are immune to social responsibilities, whereas small ones can be viewed of “crooks”, “nutcases”, or “terrorists”. Both are harmful and there is room for infinite hypocrisy.
But anyway, Microsoft is quickly finding out that those small “terrorists” — the patent trolls — can cause a lot of damage. Shortly after losing the VirnetX case [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8], Microsoft gets sued by VirnetX again (this time triple damages for Vista 7). VirnetX is of course just a patent troll that contributes nothing to industry, whereas Microsoft is a marketing firm that contributes nothing to industry, except harm and monoculture.
“Usually Microsoft doesn’t develop products, we buy products.”
–Arno Edelmann, Microsoft’s European business security product manager
Here is some more coverage of Microsoft’s loss to VirnetX:
Microsoft has been ordered by a US federal jury in Texas to pay nearly $106m to VirnetX Holding Corporation for infringing two internet communication patents.
Microsoft’s booster Emil Protalinski says that Microsoft will appeal, as usual. It’s the same rollercoaster of exhaustion when it comes to i4i [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12].
“Microsoft is a patent troll or at least a backer of some; one could argue that Microsoft is a patent troll by association…”Based on the words of Microsoft's patent troll at Intellectual Ventures, this massive patent-trolling firm was created after discussions with Bill Gates; he created his own troll to ‘address’ the issue of patent trolls. In order to avoid the “troll” status, Gates and his friends established a model whereby there is reliance on a central hoarder of patents that lends patents to legal attack dogs. This business model has proven successful because some large companies paid "protection money" to Intellectual Ventures under NDAs. Intellectual Ventures has no less 1,000 firms connected to it; these firms are akin to armed mafia people who will go around shooting victims and their families under “mysterious circumstances” unless those victims pay money to the mafia Dons, namely Nathan Myhrvold, Bill Gates, and their ilk (they are financially connected and Gates is part of this vehicle that resembles pyramid schemes). Microsoft is a patent troll or at least a backer of some; one could argue that Microsoft is a patent troll by association and the following new article sheds light on the connection to the father of patent trolling, Ray Niro. We wrote about this connection before
“Kodak Says Intellectual Ventures Behind Patent Lawsuit Filed By Shell Company,” says TechDirt:
It seems that at least one company sued over such a patent is hitting back. Joe Mullin points us to the Legal Pad blog, which notes that Kodak, who has been sued for patent infringement by a shell company (PFI) being represented by Ray Niro (famous for, among other things, being the first person labeled a “patent troll,” as well as suing a bunch of companies he didn’t like with a bogus patent — finally rejected for good, recently — that he claimed covered any website that used a JPEG image), doesn’t believe that it’s really the shell company that’s behind this lawsuit. It’s demanding that Intellectual Ventures take part…
The original report asks, “Will Patent Holder IV [Intellectual Ventures] Show Its Face to Kodak?”
Kodak is trying to draw large patent hoarder Intellectual Ventures into court.
With its 30,000 patents and opaque veil of mystery, IV has shied away from the courts, likely because an allergy to discovery. But with its new money making scheme of selling patents to trolls who then file lawsuits (free reg. req.), you knew that IV would eventually end up in a courtroom.
Here are the basics on the Kodak case:
1. IV sold patent to shell company named Picture Frame Innovations.
2. Picture Frame, represented by Ray “the original patent troll” Niro, sued Kodak for patent infringement.
3. IV co-founder Peter Detkin told me last year that IV is now cutting deals where it sells patents and takes a cut of any money made by filing lawsuits (free reg. req.). So it seemed like IV might have struck such a deal with Picture Frame and Niro.
We wrote about Kodak and patents before [1, 2]. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
03.17.10
Posted in Apple, Courtroom, FOSS, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, OLPC, Videos at 4:18 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
“Patent defence for free software by Andrew Tridgell”
Dr. Andrew Tridgell’s talk from the LCA 2010 conference
Summary: Microsoft’s top “IP” bullies commend Apple’s legal action and Microsoft owes VirnetX $105.75 million for patent violation
BACK in January we wrote about Tridgell’s talk, which is finally available for the public to watch (FFII made a copy). We covered his talk in a post about "Apple's Patent Threat to Linux". We partly predicted Apple’s lawsuit against GNU/Linux, using software patents in fact [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. Now we know that experts allege that Microsoft may have played role in Apple's lawsuit. Microsoft endorses this action publicly (in a Smith's talk) and now Microsoft endorses this in its lobbying blog too. One of Microsoft’s chief racketeers, Horacio Gutierrez, wrote: “Apple v. HTC: A Step Along the Path of Addressing IP Rights in Smartphones”
One of our readers quotes the following portions: “There is a long history of IP litigation in the mobile phone market, and innovation has continued apace [...] as the IP situation settles in this space and licensing takes off, we will see the patent royalties applicable to the smartphone software stack settle at a level that reflects the increasing importance software has as a portion of the overall value of the device.”
“Is this Microsoft-codespeak for, we expect people to start paying us a hardware tax.”
–Anonymous readerThe simple translation is that Microsoft wants tax on Linux phones. Microsoft wants us to pretend that mobile Linux too is Microsoft’s own property (the software layer). Our reader says: “Is this Microsoft-codespeak for, we expect people to start paying us a hardware tax. Something like they suggested to the OLPC developers? It’s in the Comes documents, in references to either ‘investing’ in the OLCP or getting them to stump up a Linux tax, can’t remember the exact words.”
With Apple’s lawsuit against GNU/Linux (via HTC/Android), the impact of Microsoft becomes increasingly suspect. Did Microsoft speak to Apple prior to this action? Either way, Apple is clearly a foe of software freedom and GNU/Linux users should cease viewing Apple as benign just because it competes against (or with) Microsoft.
Apple is clearly having a hard time competing against GNU/Linux. The iPad seems like a train wreck that even former Apple executives are negative about [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]. It appears as though the iPad’s target market is dyed-in-the-wool Apple followers. And surely enough, according to the following numbers, just fans are eventually buying it. [via Glyn Moody]
Orders for the Apple iPad fell sharply over the weekend, indicating that most of the real obsessives bought one on Friday.
As Ghabuntu reminds us this week, iPad is just a “toy” (Apple is irrelevant in places like Africa).
I just keep asking myself, what is it that makes Apple toys so special even if they come at a *huge* cost, both economically and philosophically?
SJVN writes about the iPad and resorts to discussing tablets that are better and run GNU/Linux.
After that, why not a wearable Mac or Linux PC? We’ve already had wearable Linux and Windows PCs, but those early models had all the problems I listed earlier. In 2010, it’s a different story. We may not have flying cars, but we can certainly have wearable computers.
We already know that Asus is looking into running Google’s Linux-based Chrome OS on wearable PCs. Who knows: in 2020, we may look back and see that iPads and tablet computers were only a brief rest stop on the way to wearable entertainment devices and computers.
Dell too is planning to release tablets that run Linux (maybe with GNU). Many of the ARM-based tablets look exceptionally promising.
The myth says that GNU/Linux is trying to catch up with the “Mac” and the “PC”, but when it comes to devices, the very opposite is true. Apple and Microsoft are just taking legal actions (intimidation or rackets) to tax devices such as the Kindle for example [1, 2, 3], which leads to articles like this new one from South Africa (where software patents are illegal but Microsoft vainly breaks the patent law):
Microsoft licensing Linux
[..]
Proprietary giant is licensing open source to its partners. What is going on?
Over the past few weeks Microsoft has been licensing Linux to a number of its partners, most notably Amazon. Although the idea of Microsoft, a company steeped in proprietary software, licensing open source software is ludicrous it’s not completely unexpected. It’s also not the first time Microsoft has played the Linux patent game and we can expect to see more deals in the future. So what’s going on?
[...]
Then in February Microsoft announced a deal with Amazon which it described as covering a “broad range” of products, including Amazon’s Kindle and Amazon’s use of Linux-based servers. Effectively Microsoft is licensing Linux to Amazon on the understanding that it won’t sue the company for infringing on its alleged Linux-related patents.
This is not unlike the agreement struck between Novell and Microsoft in 2006 in which Microsoft agreed to indemnify Suse Linux users against potential patent suits. That deal too attracted significant ire from the open source community.
The most recent Linux patent deal from Microsoft is a deal with Japanese hardware maker I-O Data. Although the specifics of the agreement are not known the two companies said that the the deal “will provide I-O Data’s customers with patent coverage for their use of I-O Data’s products running Linux and other related open source software.” Again, Microsoft is providing an assurance that it won’t file a patent suit against I-O Data for its use of Linux.
This is not the first time that a company has tried to claim Linux patent ownership and used that against other businesses. SCO is the most obvious example and they even went so far as claim that they owned Unix. SCO, fortunately, was never that successful at winning its claim over Linux and Unix. Microsoft on the other hand is a potentially different case.
[...]
Suing a Linux vendor directly over patent claims would be a shortcut to ending up in court. And being hauled into court would force Microsoft to open its books and explain what it is that it claims to own.
For now Microsoft is prepared to rely on compliant partners to create uncertainty around Linux ownership.
It’s a clever strategy by Microsoft and one hard to counteract.
It’s not a “clever strategy”, it’s racketeering and it’s illegal [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. It should be reported by vendors like Red Hat as it probably violates laws introduced with the RICO Act. The racketeering from Gates and Jobs goes quite a long way back. It’s just another SCO-like strategy, going back to around the same time as the SCO lawsuit (2003).
Speaking of SCO, a few days ago it turned out that SCO itself was behind the attacks on Groklaw. SCO was using Sys-Con as its attack dog and Sys-Con is now spreading lies about an important Free software project, leading to this reaction:
O’Gara Cloud Computing Article Off Base
[...]
This is just about the most naïve explanation for whether a product will or will not be stable that I’ve ever read. If Maureen had bothered to email or call any one of the core Drizzle developers, they’d have been happy to tell her what is and is not stable about Drizzle, and why. Drizzle has not changed the underlying storage engines, so the InnoDB storage engine in Drizzle is the same plugin as available in MySQL (version 1.0.6).
Watch the first comment which says: “There’s no reason to be nice to MoG. She’s the same hitwoman who wrote a bunch of pro SCO, anti GPL FUD during that whole trial (while being paid by them, while claiming to be impartial), including publishing a bunch of personal info about the previously anonymous blogger behind Groklaw.”
Few more comments like this follow, but a lot more about the SCO/Sys-Con attack on Groklaw can be found in this new Slashdot discussion.
In other important news, the Virnetx case is over and Microsoft lost. We previously covered this in [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8] and here is the news from Microsoft Nick:
A Texas jury has sided with VirnetX in its patent-infringement lawsuit against Microsoft, recommending an award of $105.75 million.
TechDirt already responds with some witty remarks:
In the last few years, Microsoft has become a bigger and bigger supporter of patents, which is a bit ironic, given that Bill Gates once pointed out that the software industry never would have developed if there had been software patents back in the early days. But, proving that new companies innovate, while older companies litigate, Microsoft has become a big patent hoarder in recent years. But, to date, while it’s used those patents to threaten lots of companies, it seems like Microsoft’s decision to live by patents, is actually costing it quite a bit of money.
Sadly, Microsoft uses patent trolls like Virnetx only to justify its own patent attacks against rivals. Microsoft’s #1 rival is Free software of course (although its embodiment can be companies like Google, IBM, Red Hat, and so on). █
“I’d put the Linux phenomenon really as threat No. 1.”
–Steve Ballmer, 2001
Permalink
Send this to a friend
03.16.10
Posted in America, Antitrust, Courtroom, Europe at 7:25 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Quebec’s government is up to no good again (bidless procurement suspected); the time is right to challenge BECTA legally, just like in Quebec
LAST WEEK we showed that Canada is quietly embracing GNU/Linux. Canada’s National Bureau of Economic Research says that patents harm the poor, so there would be nothing destructive about Free software when it comes to economics.
Citizens of Quebec have already sued their government for allegedly illegal deals with Microsoft [1, 2]. Going further back, Groklaw translated an article from French (it’s Quebec after all), saying that “the general translation is that you can find at the link the documents regarding a lawsuit a company called Savoir-Faire Linux, Inc. has filed in the Superior Court of Quebec against the government’s pension plan for choosing Microsoft software without putting the job out publicly for bid. It seems the law in Quebec is very strict that the government is supposed to publish an invitation to tender for any acquisition of more than $25,000, and this job was a good deal more than that.
“I gather Savoir-Faire Linux’s position is that only open standards, formats and protocols are suitable to match the demands of a public market policy upholding four fundamental principles: act in an transparent way, favor strong competition, favor local economic development, get the best overall cost.”
“…Savoir-Faire Linux, Inc. has filed in the Superior Court of Quebec against the government’s pension plan for choosing Microsoft software without putting the job out publicly for bid.”
–Pamela Jones, GroklawThe headline said: “Savoir-Fair Linux, Inc. sues Quebec government agency over Microsoft”
At the bottom we are appending some more valuable references about the situation in Quebec. It may matter not just because Microsoft is sued in Canada (class-action lawsuit) but also because Glyn Moody reveals more grounds for Canadian antitrust in Quebec:
Does Quebec Hate Free Software?
[...]
What’s particularly disturbing here is that it looks like the regional government doesn’t want anyone to question why it is going with proprietary software, and not giving free software a fair chance – that’s doubly wrong. (Via @akaSassinak.)
Does the regional government want to be sued again? This has already boiled over in Italy and it should also happen in the UK, where BECTA serves Microsoft almost exclusively. The Open Learning Centre has this new post on the subject:
Does Microsoft think “Rip-Off Britain” is an instruction?
In the current economic climate what do you think is the best way to keep existing customers happy and encourage them to spend more with you?
Introduce some special offers perhaps? Add extra value to your products and services? Be even more nice than you are normally?
[...]
Just think about that for a moment. That’s 100,000,000 individual downloads of a free product, the alternative legacy application from Microsoft will soon cost you £430. Oh yes, and those 100,000,000 downloads happened in a year and 16 days…
Brits should learn from Quebec and consider a lawsuit. It’s long overdue and the evidence available for presentation is overwhelming. The British Standards Institute (BSI) too was sued two years ago after it had engaged in what seemed like corruption with Microsoft [1, 2]. █
_____
[1] The Long Road To Free Software in Quebec
The report was overwhelming: “ We have no control over our own information systems! And yet that is the one and only area in which we can achieve the necessary gains in productivity.” That day, I came to understand the many needs that are fulfilled by free software and how it is of crucial importance to our country’s economy.
[2] A Free Software Week quandary
Events this week, mostly at the Université du Québec à Montréal, will promote the benefits of free software and introduce beginners to the open vs. proprietary politics that divide the tech-savvy community.
But the hostility between the two camps is nothing like it was in the past, said Michael Gould, an analyst with Forrester Research. And on the one hand, this is good news for open sourcers.
“A lot of significantly sized companies have been using more open source software,” Gould said. “A lot of the concerns they had, like quality, security and support, have been mostly addressed.”
[3] Oracle shop ditches Unix for Linux on the mainframe
The IT department for the Canadian province of Quebec is consolidating hundreds of Oracle databases — spread across hundreds of midrange servers — onto a new mainframe running Linux on top of z/VM.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
03.14.10
Posted in America, Antitrust, Bill Gates, Courtroom, Microsoft at 4:27 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Canadians demand compensation after Microsoft illegally removed competition, but those Canadians may not know just how deep Bill Gates is inside their government
WE have not forgotten Microsoft’s dirty tricks in Canada (e.g. for OOXML) and exploitation of a Canadian company that ended up ruining OOXML.
Bloomberg and AP finally report on a class-action lawsuit against Microsoft Canada and the Canadian press covers it too:
1. “Microsoft to appeal B.C. court ruling on class action lawsuit
Microsoft Corp. plans to appeal a British Columbia court decision that certified a class-action lawsuit alleging the computer giant illegally got rid of its competition, then raised its prices.
In a ruling released this week, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elliott Myers certified the action on behalf of “all persons in British Columbia who, on or after Jan. 1, 1994, indirectly acquired a licence for Microsoft operating systems and/or Microsoft applications software for their own use.”
That covers pretty well everyone who bought a personal computer, or Microsoft Word or Exel, in the province since 1994, the plaintiffs’ lawyer, J.J. Camp, of Camp Fiorante Matthews, said in an interview. That includes governments as well as banks and other organizations that would have bought thousands of computers, he said. “It’s a very substantial number.”
2. Class-action suit targets Microsoft software
A British Columbia judge has certified a class-action lawsuit against Microsoft that could affect hundreds of thousands of people who have bought personal computers containing Microsoft software over the past 16 years.
The representative plaintiffs — a small Richmond, B.C., computer-consultant company named Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd., and a Vancouver engineer named Neil Godfrey — allege that the software giant engaged in predatory, “anti-competitive” activity in virtually wiping out the competition.
And finally:
3. Judge certifies class-action lawsuit against Microsoft Canada
VANCOUVER, B.C. – A British Columbia judge has certified a class-action lawsuit against Microsoft that alleges the software giant engaged in anti-competitive behaviour that enabled it to charge higher prices for its products.
Justice E.M. Meyers concluded in a ruling released Monday that Vancouver-based Pro-Sys Consultants, which is leading the plaintiffs in the case, has met requirements for certification for the lawsuit to proceed as a class action.
The legal action against Microsoft (NASDAQ:MSFT) was launched in 2006 on behalf of a number of indirect purchasers who acquired Microsoft software from resellers and from those who had Microsoft software pre-installed on their computers.
They argue they were forced to pay more for the software component of their purchase as a result of Microsoft’s anti-competitive actions.
Pro-Sys alleges that the indirect sellers suffered harm from paying prices that were artificially inflated by anti-competitive behaviour.
“This could be the start of cases like the ones the States,” says Chips B. Malroy. “Imagine how many countries, and or class action lawsuits there could be around the world wanting to happen,” he adds.
A Canadian GNU/Linux enthusiast wrote:
I love it. I tried to get the Competition Bureau to act years ago but they declined in deference to the US DOJ. Why surrender sovereignty?
What a lot of Canadians may not know is that Bill Gates invests over $1.5 billion in the Canadian government (it buys him influence). Too many people think that Gates is benign because of that foundation he set up to manage his money, conveniently forgetting Gates' long past of criminal activity. Will Hutton even published the following shocking article where he helps whitewash by claiming that Gates is among the ‘clean’ figures in the list of rich people.
Sixty-two of the 1,011 are Russian oligarchs. Twenty eight are Turkish oligarchs. Even Carlos Slim made his fortune from being the monopolist who controls 90% of Mexico’s telephone landlines and 80% of its mobile phone subscribers. The OECD notes that he charges among the highest usage fees in the world. But hey! He is a billionaire and what matters today are his riches – not the manner in which the money is made. He may have started out as a productive entrepreneur. Today he is using his power to expropriate wealth on a mega scale.
The contrast with his rival Bill Gates could hardly be greater. Microsoft may have had its head-to-head confrontation with the EU Commission over anti-competitive practices, but Gates built his company by innovating around one of the great historic general purpose technologies. Information and communication technology is like the railway, internal combustion engine or air travel – a technology with massive spill-overs and implications for society. It is a classic example of productive entrepreneurship. Gates may not deserve $53bn, he was lucky to be in the right place at the right time with a great university system around him, but he undoubtedly deserves to be rich. Both Gates and Slim are exploiting their market position to get above average profits, but one is more overtly political than the other. Put another way, Gates has grown the economic pie. Slim represents a tax on it.
This is ridiculous. It’s based on the assumption that Microsoft invented computing rather than crippled progress in computing. It merely reiterates PR campaigns and endless lies because anyone with a clue about history knows that Microsoft was taking other people’s ideas — sometimes illegally — and then breaking the law to destroy a once-competitive market, putting instead low-quality and overpriced software while bullying anyone who disagrees in all sorts of creative ways. This is more like a cartel and the reaction to competition includes racketeering [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7] and costs a lot more than crimes of the Russian mafia. The United States government finds him guilty, but one person who posts an article in the Observer/Guardian decides that he knows better. Hasn’t the Guardian done enough Microsoft PR already [1, 2, 3, 4]? █
“The advance planning and sense stimuli employed to capture a $10 million cigarette or soap market are nothing compared to the brainwashing and propaganda blitzes used to ensure control of the largest cash market in the world: the Executive Branch of the United States Government.”
–Phyllis Schlafly
Permalink
Send this to a friend
03.13.10
Posted in Courtroom, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Novell, OSDL, SCO, UNIX at 7:38 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: How SCO orchestrated attacks on Groklaw and other takes on the trial against Novell
WE generally cover the SCO case only when there is a major development. One new post that we found particularly curious is titled “Blake Stowell Email to Maureen O’Gara: ‘I Need You to Send a Jab PJ’s Way’” (SCO also paid O'Gara, who carries on lying about the case).
This shows how corruptible the press really is, but then again it’s Sys-Con [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], which is far worse than Fox. Microsoft also used Maureen O'Gara to send a jab in the Linux Foundation's way (OSDL at the time). Microsoft didn’t do this directly. In order to reduce the risk, it used its main PR agency (there are several), Waggener Edstrom. Anyway, here is what Groklaw writes:
So. Now I know. Now we all know.
Blake Stowell, then the PR guy for SCO, sent an email to Maureen O’Gara, saying “I need you to send a jab PJ’s way,” and then right afterwards she wrote that invasive so-called expose, in which she revealed, or at least intended to reveal, things like who I called on my phone. A la the HP scandal. She got fired for doing it the way she did, and the then-publisher apologized to me publicly, but she says in the deposition she’s not sorry a bit.
We learn this by reading excerpts from her deposition, previously under seal, attached to a letter [PDF] SCO’s attorney sent to the court. SCO doesn’t want the part of her deposition video played where she talks about me and Groklaw. It’s beyond eye-opening, however, despite her pretense, as I see it, that there is no connection between the two events.
They also don’t want the part about an email she sent to SCO, subject line, “I want war pay,” played. It’s allegedly humor. Just chatter. But you know, she is on the list of people SCO owes money to, now that I think of it, filed in connection with the bankruptcy. I wonder for what?
It isn’t acceptable, in my eyes, that SCO’s attorneys invariably smear Groklaw in every filing that mentions it. They don’t just say “Groklaw,” they say “the anti-SCO website, Groklaw.” One can say quite a lot in legal filings, and get away with it, but there is a line where it becomes libel, when it is gratuitous, and that language is gratuitous. There isn’t a media outlet that I can think of, other than Maureen O’Gara’s newsletters, that hasn’t criticized what SCO did. The Wall Street Journal was the first, actually, to suspect there was something rotten in Lindon, if you recall. Would it be acceptable to call it, in legal papers, the anti-SCO newspaper, the Wall St. Journal? I think not, and I suggest they are crossing a line.
Microsoft evangelists (on the payroll) are doing this to Boycott Novell and anonymous Novell employees too. Thus, they would be hypocrites to paint themselves as victims of bad publicity.
Our reader The Mad Hatter writes some more about the SCO case, calling it “SCOicide”.
Due to the interest in the case, Judge Kimbell told both parties to minimize redactions in the documents that they filed, and not to minimize the number of documents filed under seal. Because of this we learned that Caldera had hired people to investigate and prove the transfer of code, and that they reported that they COULD NOT FIND PROOF OF ANY TRANSFER. They filed their reports before the original lawsuit was launched. Darl, the CEO knew that he didn’t have any proof. None. But he went ahead with the lawsuit against IBM anyway.
Other coverage from the latest episode in this case includes:
1. Novell asks for further ruling on Motion in Limine No. 4
Novell has asked the Court to rule further on their Motion in Limine No. 4 [PDF; text]. The Court had previously issued a ruling [PDF] granting that Motion, but Novell now asks for further ruling, stating that “[t]he Court addressed this issue solely in the context of SCO’s covenant of good faith claim. However, Novell’s motion covered all of SCO’s claims, including slander of title. The Court’s prior ruling did not expressly address other claims, so Novell requests the Court to rule on the issue that was left open by its prior order.”
2. Attorney: IBM-Novell worked together to hurt SCO
Novell Inc. lied about owning the copyrights for the Unix computer operating system then collaborated with IBM to damage Unix owner The SCO Group, the latter’s attorney told a federal court jury Tuesday.
In the first day of testimony in a trial to settle a long-running legal dispute between SCO and Novell, SCO went on the attack by calling as its first witness the former CEO and chairman of Novell. Robert Frankenberg testified that despite Novell’s claims of ownership, his intent was to sell the copyrights in a 1995 deal that’s at the heart of the conflict.
The SCO Group claims that Novell “slandered” its title to the Unix system and caused it to lose as much as $215 million in revenue at a time when it was in a related dispute with IBM. SCO had accused IBM of improperly using Unix code for improvements that made the Linux operating system a commercial competitor.
SCO’s 2003 lawsuit potentially put IBM on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars. But then Novell late that year claimed that it, and not SCO, owned the copyrights, meaning SCO did not have a basis for its IBM lawsuit nor for demands that businesses using Linux pay licensing fees.
3. Novell, IBM accused of collaborating to hurt Unix owner, lawyer says
A trial in federal court that could have a major impact on the Linux operating system opened in Salt Lake City on Monday with The SCO Group’s lawyer taking aim at Novell and IBM.
4. Arguments begin in SCO v. Novell over copyrights
5. Day 2 of the SCO v. Novell Trial – Opening argument – Updated Repeatedly – 1st Witness, Frankenberg (more documents)
Would it surprise you to find out that it turns out that apparently one of the jurors might be related to one of SCO’s prior corporate officers? At any rate they have the same last name, and Salt Lake City is a big place, so perhaps not. Novell noticed the similarity in names, according to our reporter today, MSS2, only after jury selection was over.
MSS2 has just sent me his first report of day 2 of the jury trial in SCO v. Novell, with more to come. Today was opening arguments by both sides. And we have lots more goodies for you from two eyewitnesses, MSS2 and Tilendor. We begin with SCO’s opening argument by Stuart Singer. All I can say after reading it is maybe you needed to be there. Or SCO must be a slow learner or Mr. Singer never reads Groklaw, or … well, see what you think.
6. Day 1 of the Jury Trial, SCO v. Novell – Updated 2Xs – We Have a Jury
7. Jury seated in SCO lawsuit against Novell
A jury has been seated to hear the lawsuit in which The SCO Group is claiming Novell interfered with its ownership of the Unix computer operating system and cost it more than $100 million in business.
8. Last-Minute Filings from Judge Stewart, SCO, Novell
9. More Back-and-Forth on Proposed Jury Instructions/Verdict Forms in SCO v. Novell
10. Day 2 of the SCO v. Novell Trial – Opening argument – Updated Repeatedly – 1st Witness, Frankenberg
11. Volunteer Needed for Thursday Trial Coverage
The Salt Lake Tribune then published this somewhat controversial article (also posted here), which led to this rebuttal from Groklaw.
And on it goes until Friday:
12. Day 4 of the Trial in SCO v. Novell – and Novell’s Petition for Certiorari
13. Novell’s Motion to Allow Evidence: SCO Opened the Door
14. Day 5 of the SCO v. Novell Trial & Some Help for Journalists Covering the Trial
Some readers of Boycott Novell have sufficient knowledge about the case and they comment about it in IRC. But for well researched commentary regarding SCO, we recommend that people read Groklaw, which could use more volunteers. █
“…Microsoft wished to promote SCO and its pending lawsuit against IBM and the Linux operating system. But Microsoft did not want to be seen as attacking IBM or Linux.”
–Larry Goldfarb, Baystar, key investor in SCO approached by Microsoft
Permalink
Send this to a friend
03.12.10
Posted in Apple, Courtroom, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Office Suites, Patents at 3:47 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: This week’s latest patent news which has impact on the Free software world
Apple and Microsoft Patent Extortion Against Free Software Goes Almost a Decade Back
PROPRIETARY SOFTWARE companies think alike. Apple’s attack on GNU/Linux [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] turns out to be many years old [1, 2]. At Microsoft too, Bill Gates had spoken about a “Jihad” (his word) against Linux at Intel almost a decade ago. They managed to keep it secret for many years. These CEOs are control freaks who let nothing in their way stop them. Schwartz, the former CEO of Sun, says that “for a technology company, going on offense with software patents seems like an act of desperation, relying on the courts instead of the marketplace….[S]uing a competitor typically makes them more relevant, not less. Developers I know aren’t getting less interested in Google’s Android platform, they’re getting more interested.”
Here is an interesting pick from the news:
The concern is that Microsoft’s Windows 7 mobile operating system has the iPhone’s market in its sights and that Microsoft has a deep background in software patents to back it up.
One worry for Google is that Apple’s legal battle with HTC may weaken the momentum of Android-powered phones.
Apple and Microsoft both share an affinity for software patents and they also cross-license. This means that Apple’s bullying of GNU/Linux with software patents is very beneficial to Microsoft, which pools the same patents as Apple’s. In the news we now have (references not listed before):
• Former Sun CEO claims Jobs threatened lawsuit in 2003
• Apple Tried to Bully Sun With Lawsuit Threats in 2003
• Apple and Microsoft “threatened to sue Sun”
• Ex-Sun CEO dishes dirt: Steve Jobs as Apple “patent troll”
• Former Sun CEO Says Apple’s Jobs Threatened To Sue Co In 2003
• Former Sun CEO Schwartz dishes on patent fights with Jobs, Gates
• Daily Dose – Schwartz: Apple and Microsoft Tried to Sue Me Too!
• Steve Jobs threatened to sue, says former Sun CEO Schwartz
• Former Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz describes Steve Jobs showdown
• Sun fended off Apple, Microsoft IP lawsuit threats
• Former Sun CEO: Steve Jobs threatened to sue us over patents too
• Former Sun Microsystems CEO: HTC Isn’t the First Company to Face Legal Threats From Steve Jobs
• Ex-Sun boss spills the beans on Apple patent threats
• Schwartz on Steve Jobs’ “bullying tactics
• Former Sun CEO Takes Tech Titans to Task Over Patent Trolling
• Former Sun CEO: Tech Companies Suing Over Patents Is An Act Of Desperation
Schwartz tells the story of Steve Jobs calling him and threatening Sun with a patent infringement lawsuit, to which Schwartz quickly warned Jobs that going down that path would lead to a patent nuclear war, as he pointed out how recent Apple products likely infringed on Sun patents. He then tells another story about a visit from Bill Gates, with a similar threat over patents — and a similar response, pointing out that Microsoft clearly copied certain Sun technology. In both cases, the counterweight made the threats go away. This is the whole “nuclear stockpiling” scenario — and, as such, it creates a ton of waste. You have to keep building up those stockpiles just to make sure the other side is too scared to sue you.
• Gates Asked for IP Royalties for OpenOffice from Sun Microsystems
Sometime between 2003 and 2006, Microsoft Chief Executive Officer Steve Ballmer and Co-founder and chairman Bill Gates visited Sun Microsystems. It wasn’t a courtesy visit, according to Jonathan Ian Schwartz, Former CEO of Sun Microsystems. The Microsoft duo were on a mission to convince Scott McNealy, Sun’s then CEO, to enter into a patent licensing agreement with the Redmond company. Moreover, Gates wanted compensation for the patents that Sun Microsystems was allegedly violating with OpenOffice, a rival product of Microsoft’s own Office productivity suite. Sun resisted.
This ought to make GNU/Linux users who defend Microsoft or Apple think twice.
More Apple and Microsoft
The i4i case [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12] is not quite over yet. Microsoft’s defense of software patents is costing it dearly; its cash cow is at stake and it’s still trying to exhaust the plaintiff, as usual [1, 2]. The legal system is built in such a way that it favours those who can endure (afford) more motions, which is why Microsoft manages to get away with many real offences and have charges dismissed. It’s a brute force game.
Two days ago we found out that Apple is getting sued for patent infringement again:
Apple, Research in Motion, and a gaggle of other deep-pocket firms have been slapped with a wide-ranging patent infringment suit by an obscure Texas firm.
The suit alleges that Apple and RIM – plus AT&T, Insight Enterprises, LG Electronics, Motorola, Pantech Wireless, Samsung and Sanyo – are in violation of one or more of seven mobile phone–related patents. The allegedly infringed-upon patents include ones for Bluetooth connectivity, syncing, background processing and other mobile matters.
Here is more about Apple, relating to something that we covered 2 days ago.
More than 100,000 app developers have reportedly signed the iPhone Development Program License Agreement allowing them write software for the iPhone, however few people outside the inner circle of developers have ever seen the documents thanks to a non-disclosure clause included in the agreement.When NASA released the NASA App for iPhone, The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) seized the opportunity to get a copy from the federal government under the Freedom of Information Act.
Google and Facebook Get What They Deserve
Google is not an opponent of software patents and neither is Facebook [1, 2]. This is why the following new lawsuit is probably good news:
• Google, Facebook sued on mobile notworking
Google and Facebook have been sued in New York by a company claiming to own software patents that put social networks on mobile phones.
• Google, Facebook Sued Over Social-Networking Patent
Wireless Ink Corp., which runs the Winksite service, claims that Facebook Mobile and Google Buzz are infringing a patent issued in October. In a complaint filed yesterday in federal court in Manhattan, the company is seeking cash compensation and a court order to prevent further use of its invention.
Let them get sued. Maybe they will eventually learn that software patents are not worth the trouble. They makes this patent system a wasteful farce that does not promote science like it was originally supposed to.
Amazon a Mockery to the USPTO
Amazon’s patent deal with Microsoft [1, 2, 3, 4] showed us that Amazon is not an opponent of software patents, but we already knew that. One of the most infamous examples of Amazon’s shameful patent policy is the 1-click patent, which the USPTO is still unable to bin. Here is the latest development. From Slashdot’s summary/description:
Zordak writes “Amazon’s infamous ‘1-click’ patent has been in reexamination at the USPTO for almost four years. Patently-O now reports that ‘the USPTO confirmed the patentability of original claims 6-10 and amended claims 1-5 and 11-26. The approved-of amendment adds the seeming trivial limitation that the one-click system operates as part of a ’shopping cart model.’ Thus, to infringe the new version of the patent, an eCommerce retailer must use a shopping cart model (presumably non-1-click) alongside of the 1-click version. Because most retail eCommerce sites still use the shopping cart model, the added limitation appears to have no practical impact on the patent scope.’”
This is also covered in:
• Amazon One-Click Patent Slides Through Reexamination
• Amazon.com’s 1-Click patent confirmed following re-exam
• US Patent Office Decides That One Click Really Is Patentable
• One Click Patent Reexamination over – with claims amended and other Amazon applications rejected in light of my prior art
The failure here is the USPTO’s and the greed is Amazon’s. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »
