06.21.08
Posted in Microsoft, Windows, GNU/Linux, Novell, Hardware, Samsung, xandros at 4:57 am by Roy Schestowitz
There are certainly some interesting stories appearing at the moment. In yesterday morning’s news and the British press in particular (e.g. this one, with further commentary here) it was revealed that the desktop product from ASUS — part of the Eee family — will run Windows and not GNU/Linux as initially promised. How come? ASUS says that its Xandros derivative will come later, but why not first? Why the sudden change, what about pricing, and why a distribution that is rendered ‘tainted’ by a software patents deal with Microsoft?
“…Microsoft clearly has a history of getting its top competitors to stop competing.”Going back to Corel days, Microsoft clearly has a history of getting its top competitors to stop competing. Money is typically involved — a transaction for securing a monopoly if you like.
In yesterday’s news, coincidentally enough, practices related to this were described as harmful. And with Corel, Xandros comes to mind again. We are still not sure whether Microsoft gets paid for Linux-based Eee PCs or.
The choice of Xandros and Windows by ASUS gets criticised in this new article (remember the fight against Linux sub-notebooks using crippled hardware and cheap Windows). It’s a good read.
From the same source (Free Software Magazine), here is Seagate getting slammed and even compared to Novell.
It is sad to see a great hardware manufacturer, like Seagate, pandering to the demands of a Convicted Monopolist, like Microsoft, to the extent that they are making life difficult for all their other customers. It seems like Microsoft corrupts everything it touches. The free software community should maintain a complete apartheid from this corporation and with all those who attempt to collaborate with it, like Novell.
Seagate, Novell, Xandros… Microsoft sure gets around. It wasn’t long ago that Microsoft and Seagate got together (there’s this earlier one too). Linux users around the world (across the Web) complained very vocally at the beginning of this year and the end of last year due to Linux exclusion or neglect by Seagate, so this is not news. Hard-drives needn’t be platform dependent; neither should Seagate. They sell hardware.
It goes further. As a side note, surely enough Adobe is once again betraying the Linux Foundation, of which it is a new member. Its newly-announced media player supports Mac OS and Windows but nothing else, so that’s another one to keep in mind.
Last but now least, Samsung has got this new product (described below), but despite the fact that it’s Linux-based, Samsung is definitely to be avoided not just because of the corruption but also because it sold out (Linux developers) to Microsoft.
A style-conscious Samsung digital camera and personal media player (PMP) is built on a MontaVista Linux platform, it was revealed by a reader. Shipping since last year, the Samsung i70 features 7.2-megapixel resolution, 3x optical zoom, and Samsung’s ASR (Advanced Shake Reduction) technology.
It is interesting to see that Samsung uses MontaVista rather than a homebrew Linux platform. Does this mean that MontaVista too could be tainted if put in the hands of companies that signed software patent deals which involve Linux? The ripple effect (or chain reaction) is not a convenience one. Ponder the transitory relationship between ASUS and Microsoft, due to Xandros in the middle. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend 
View as PDF
06.07.08
Posted in Red Hat, Microsoft, GNU/Linux, Novell, Hardware, Ubuntu, Audio/Video at 2:55 pm by Roy Schestowitz
[M]ark [S]huttleworth buys [M]icro[S]oft codecs for Ubuntu
The following observation came up in our IRC channel just a short while ago. It indicates that Ubuntu engaged in licensing of codecs from Microsoft.
<microsoft-spy> schestowitz: you are allowed, Ubuntu licensed Windows Media from Microsoft for Netbooks
<jbh> I don’t know anyone in CA
<moparx> I’ll never understand why a distro (or any foss developer for that matter) would purposefully taint themselves for some of microsoft’s proprietary scraps.
<schestowitz> Gah. Maybe that’s why they don’t allow downloads of it.
<schestowitz> Software patents aren’t even valid where Canonical is.
<schestowitz> ms-spy, got a URL, please?
<jbh> never even heard of netbooks before
<microsoft-spy> schestowitz, how about http://www.canonical.com/netbooks ?
<schestowitz> I believe this is important because given what I know I worry that MS (Mark S.) would do the same with MS for business ‘enterprise’ boxes.
<microsoft-spy> schestowitz, MS does whatever benefits him, proprietary kernel parts etc
<schestowitz> Which MS?
<schestowitz> 
<microsoft-spy> Shuttleworth
<schestowitz> Well, that’s very problematic because he enables Microsoft to control the price of Free software.
<schestowitz> They already cross-licence with Apple, but they play by their own rules.
<microsoft-spy> he just says “All the *applications* in Ubuntu are free software only.”
<schestowitz> Cross-licensing (pardon the typo above) is incompatible with the GPL.
<schestowitz> Yes, but..
<microsoft-spy> so does not include drivers, firmware, codecs, …
<schestowitz> Just to be clear, the issue is not binary/FOSS, but gratis/taxed
<schestowitz> This forbids redistribution, which is also why they don’t permit downloads. It’s like another Moonlight.
If you fail to see why this is bad, then consider looking back at the Red Hat ‘extortion’ story (more in this recent article about the ‘codec incident’). Also recall what Novell did.
In order to defend such plots, Microsoft has been fighting for DMCA around the world — essentially extending beyond the boundaries of the United States. Recently it was Canada that got targeted and in the news you find Red Hat’s founder, Bob Young, entering the ring.
Lulu Inc. CEO Bob Young is a major voice in the open source software industry, but according to him the entire community has been unjustifiably ignored throughout the Canadian government’s copyright reform initiatives.
Last year, the Conservative government vowed to adopt copyright laws which would make it illegal to modify or remove any device or software fitted with a technical protection measures (TPMs). After months of hearsay and numerous delays, the buzz on Parliament Hill now suggests a proposed copyright bill from Industry Minister Jim Prentice is imminent.
In the wake of these rumors — which many industry activists have begun referring to as the Canadian version of the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) — a new open source software alliance has added their name to the lengthy list of opposition to the Industry Minister’s soon-to-be-unveiled legislation.
It’s worth adding that Bob Young is pro-GPLv3 (video).
We wrote about this Microsoft lobby before. As some further relevant readings (external links), consider:
This is a dangerous precedence that Microsoft is setting and It’s sad to see Canonical and Intel playing along. Nevertheless, it’s not surprising given the nearness of Intel and Microsoft. In private, sources told us a few months ago that Mark Shuttleworth negotiated codecs with Microsoft. █
Who’s that fourth chap we don’t know?
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
06.05.08
Posted in Microsoft, GNU/Linux, Apple, Hardware, Patents, SUN, FOSS at 2:26 am by Roy Schestowitz
Here is a roundup of patent-related news that may or may not be relevant to GNU/Linux.
Avistar
Microsoft is said to be “losing grip in [the] patent spat” which involves Avistar [1, 2, 3, 4]. You will find some more details about it here.
Avistar Communications Corporation reported today that the US Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) has rejected Microsoft’s requests for re-examination of 29 of Avistar’s US patents pertaining to audio, video and collaboration technologies.
Also here.
Avistar Communications Corp. said Monday the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office rejected requests by Microsoft Corp. to re-examine 14 of the company’s patents, but will look at nine of them.
As a result of this, shares of Avistar rose sharply.
Infosys
Microsoft’s close partners (and OOXML ‘zombie voters’ [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]) are applying for software patents in the United States, which is interesting because they strive to obtain what they probably cannot in their home country. To whose benefit would such a portfolio be?
Infosys awarded 2 patents by USPTO
[…]
Actual 3D dimensional imaging, which includes a representation of depth information along with amplitude of information is not being used in these cases. This patent addresses the issue of 3D in mobile communication.
Alcatel-Lucent
The legal battle between Alcatel-Lucent and Microsoft has gone on for quite some time [1, 2, 3, 4]. Claims and accusations varied as the two sides were firing shots in both directions. Yes, software patents can be ‘fun’ because they are typically about mutual destruction, not reconciliation and peace (often characterised by sharing). We’ll see more of this shortly when we come to consider Sun and NetApp.
Here is the latest about this case that involves Alcatel-Lucent and Microsoft.
The jury also upheld four Microsoft patents, but found that Alcatel-Lucent didn’t infringe them, and found one Microsoft patent invalid. Microsoft had been seeking damages of $9.5 million on five patent claims.
Alcatel-Lucent judged that ruling as a victory. “We believed from the beginning that Microsoft patent infringement allegations against Alcatel-Lucent were without merit and we presented a strong defensive argument. We are pleased that the jury agreed with us on this, and we appreciate the jury’s time and the careful and thoughtful analysis they gave to this case,” the company said in a statement.
The Seattle P-I published its short take as well.
In the latest twist in the Microsoft/Alcatel-Lucent legal saga, a federal jury in San Diego today found that Microsoft’s Xbox 360 didn’t violate an Alcatel-Lucent patent for video-encoding technology.
Apple
When it comes to software patents, Apple is definitely no friend of open source or GNU/Linux. It ruthlessly files away (never mind quality), some say for defense and vanity purposes only. Here comes another mobile-related patent, just like the ones from Infosys.
Filed last September, the application describes “Touch Screen Device, Method, and Graphical User Interface for Determining Commands by Applying Heuristics” - more simply, the gesture-based user interface found on the iPhone and iPod touch.
Artificial intelligence patents are the equivalent of patenting thought. Bilski and the curve ball patent (hypothetical example) spring to mind.
Sun
Sun’s view on patents is rather ambivalent, but in the face of a patent assault it has been fighting to defend itself and its open source portfolio for quite a while. Groklaw has accumulated many of the relevant documents and it brings readers up to date.
The Order tells us that Sun was able to persuade the USPTO to agree to reexaminations on some of NetApp’s asserted patents, three of them (there are four more), but this one, Order Granting Request for Inter Party Reexamination [PDF] on the ‘001 patent, is the biggie. Sun asked for inter partes reexamination of the ‘001 patent, based on prior art, and the USPTO issued the order granting reexamination of all 63 claims of the patent, finding that a “substantial new question of patentability (SNQ) affecting claims 1-63″ of the ‘001 patent exists.
Fashion
Going a tad astray here, mainly for the purpose of showing patent absurdity applies not only to software, watch again this huge problem which is fashion IPR. [via Glyn Moody]
For the fashion industry intellectual property is a complicated web of legislation and cultural norms. The industry practice of “taking inspiration” from other designers is very common. Equally,
[…]
But even if the work is under copyright, a copy of it may not be a breach of copyright. You see, the design or pattern is an artistic work, but since 17 June 2004, the scope of that protection is limited by the operation of the Designs Act 2003 (Cth). Where someone “reverse engineers” the original you can’t sue for copyright infringement. Rather you would move into the scope of the Designs Act.
How long before people ‘own’ drum beats? The possibilities are endless, so limit on scope is a must.
Hardware
For many years, Microsoft has worked to ensure that hardware works better with Windows. It was more about the hardware than about software. Intel played similar games to coerce partners and gain an unfair advantage (Intel has just been convicted of separate charges, according to Tracy at the IRC channel).
There is a new development here because Microsoft once against enlists intellectual monopolies. Just brought to your by Microsoft and unveiled at Computex: The Licensed Contract Manufacturers Marketplace
The Redmond company announced the Licensed Contract Manufacturers Marketplace at Computex Taipei 2008 in Taiwan, an online hotspot aimed to feature its intellectual property licensing program for hardware.
It’s probably self explanatory. Microsoft is trying to taint everything with intellectual monopolies. It’s crucial to its battle against freedom. The last bit is yet another cornerstone. █
“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
05.28.08
Posted in Microsoft, Hardware, Patents, Europe, Courtroom at 4:47 am by Roy Schestowitz
Smell the lobbyists and patent trolls
The affairs of Microsoft with European leaders is something that was explored here before. Using funds, favours, visits to one’s house and so forth, country leaders can be used to pass specific laws or even to lobby for lock-in such as OOXML. That’s the reality.
“It appears to offer some early hints about another Microsoft ‘propaganda campaign’ for stronger intellectual monopoly.”Apart from direct contact or subversive touch with politicians, there’s lobbying (more indirect and subtle) to worry about as well. It’s harder to track. All of these things are means of changing the rules until they align with a company’s goal.
A new Web page has just been spotted by Digital Majority. It appears to offer some early hints about another Microsoft ‘propaganda campaign’ for stronger intellectual monopoly. It’s part of a whole Web site dedicated to “EU SME Day”. The name says very little about the fact that this revolves around Microsoft. Remember Document Freedom Day and the fake site that was erected to deceive? This one rings deja vu.
Microsoft’s pressure group, ACT, is neither new to us nor is it a friend [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8], but it’s already on the programme.
Fighting for Europe’s Community Patent
The European Commission is again gearing up to launch support for a community patent. Association of Comeptitive Technologies (ACT) to explore where entrepreneurs can directly communicate to policy makers why a community patent must succeeed and what it should look like.
Apart from the typos above (perhaps Microsoft’s spellchecker broke, wasn’t included with Windows by default because you need to purchase Office, or — as mentioned some hours ago — requires a patent licence to be obtained), the role of ACT mustn’t be ignored. Had Microsoft approached this issue directly, it would have less credibility. So it works by proxy here, just as it did when it sent ACT to fight the EU’s antitrust decision, the GPLv3, ODF, and so forth.
The Community Patent is a prelude or a back door to software patents and there are a couple of other rants about software patents which are worth bringing up because they are new. Here is the first one [via Digital Majority], which relates to the Microsoft/Alcatel-Lucent court battles [1, 2, 3, 4].
If Alcatel-Lucent patented this interface, I suppose I should have done the same back in 1987 when I wrote a similar interface for a custom application I was contracted to design. The point is, it’s a CALENDAR! Who owns the patent (or worse, the copyright) on the Gregorian calendar, or the method in which it is used? What about the algorithm used to calculate dates, Easter, leap years, or Daylight Savings Time? It’s not that I’m a huge fan of Microsoft or an opponent of Alcatel-Lucent; I’m neither. But to see items like this make me wonder where the patent issue stops.
Here is a Tech Dirt item which cites a new book on the subject.
James Bessen and Michael Meurer, authors of an important new book on the patent system, have a great post on the problems created specifically by software patents.
[…]
Bessen and Meurer don’t offer a strong recommendation on the best way to solve the problems with software patents, but they tentatively endorse a “subject matter test” — that is, reinstating the ban on software patents — as one part of a solution to the problem.
While the following is not related to software, it is another example of the nature of patents, which seems not to meet the original goals of the system.
Sony, Sanyo, Others Settle LED Patent Complaint
Four consumer electronics companies, including Sony and Sanyo Electric, have settled a complaint that they were infringing a patent on semiconductors related to LEDs and laser diodes used in products such as mobile phones, billboards, Blu-ray disc players and data storage devices, according to lawyers for the patent holder.
Don’t permit this to seem so innocent. To put this in perspective, pay attention to the claimant and recall what we wrote previously about Miss Gertrude ‘Embargo’ Neumark Rothschild. 30 companies, eh? ‘Innovation’ never flourished so much. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
05.27.08
Posted in Microsoft, Windows, GNU/Linux, Novell, Bill Gates, Hardware, Patents, Corel at 11:09 pm by Roy Schestowitz
Speak up, Novell
Software patents are insane. How insane? Totally. If you don’t believe this, here are a couple of new examples:
1. Patent-pending spellcheck software?!
Patent-pending spellcheck software, that is?!
First of all, patenting software or any algorithm based on the idiotic claim that it’s actually a “business concept, method and system” (if not even an “apparatus” when they forcefully include the computer in the patent claim) is theft. It’s slavery. It’d dictatorship with the complicity of the USPTO.
2. Patent breach by ‘virtually all websites’? Pay up, firm demands [Hat tip: gggggg]
A SINGAPORE firm has threatened to sue websites that use pictures or graphics to link to another page, claiming it owns the patent for a technology used by millions around the world.
In a move that has come under fire from the online community, VueStar Technologies has sent ‘invoices’ to local website operators asking for thousands of dollars in licensing fees.
The company, which said ‘virtually all websites’ are infringing on its patent, is also planning to take on giants like Mircosoft and Google.
Now that it’s (hopefully) agreed that software patents are insane, let’s consider the stance of a company whose chief once said: “[I]f people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today’s ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today.” Needless to mention, he had said this when he was locked outside a fence, before he engaged in sheer abuse and corruption to enter; then he decided to build imaginary fences (garden walls) for further protection. He soon became obsessed with them.
The following new article contains some bits of interest (highlighted in red) that reflect on Microsoft’s existing policy.
Likewise, Microsoft promotes its efforts to sign cross-licensing deals, such as the one with Novell, as a way to encourage interoperability. But along with those pacts came Microsoft’s threat of legal action against companies that don’t have a deal in place. In 2007, Microsoft said that Linux infringes on 235 of its patents.
Open-source products are subject to patent litigation if they infringe on Microsoft patents, just as proprietary products face legal action for infringement, said Gutierrez. “There’s no reason why the same laws of nature shouldn’t apply to them as they apply to any other proprietary vendor,” he said.
[…]
Curiously, Microsoft declines to specify which of its patents are relevant to Linux. “We do discuss the details of our technologies and patents with companies that are engaged in good-faith licensing dialog,” said Gutierrez. “That’s the proper context in which to have it, that’s the way it’s handled in the industry.”
But others think there’s probably another reason that Microsoft won’t specify which of its patents are relevant. “As soon as you declare patents you believe are infringed, they become the subject of re-examination,” Rosoff noted.
Rosoff doesn’t think that Microsoft actually intends to sue anyone using Linux. “This is part of a campaign to cast uncertainty over the IP heritage of open-source software,” he said.
According to this, Microsoft ought to have discussed details of the said software patents with Novell. Can Novell share the knowledge with the rest of the world? Or was it never discussed at all, in which case Microsoft is being dishonest?
Shouldn’t Novell, as an almost ‘free rider’ in a world of Free software and a confessed betrayer of the GNU GPL, be obliged to turn transparent about this? Whose side is Novell on? It sure seems like Novell sidled with Microsoft, so it keeps silent in order to continue this “part of a campaign to cast uncertainty,” if one was quoting from the article above. Who could blame Novell? It makes money out of “patent terrorism”. It ought to be more than obvious that Novell sold out to Microsoft in a way much worse than Corel did.
Speaking of Corel, Rex Ballard had the following to say in response to my message last night (about Asustek’s Linux-loaded motherboards):
“Don’t underestimate Microsoft. They do have tactics, which they have been allowed to continue to use under the Bush administration, which makes it very hard for Linux to establish a strong foothold in the OEM distribution channel.
“…COREL offered a motherboard maker Linux licenses at 50 cents/board, and millions of these motherboards were ordered by OEMs and Kiosk dealers alike. The problem was that Microsoft’s OEM license agreement forbade ANY interference with the Microsoft controlled boot sequence.”“This isn’t the first time a motherboard maker has offered Linux as part of their package. The first time, that I can remember, was back in 1999, when COREL offered a motherboard maker Linux licenses at 50 cents/board, and millions of these motherboards were ordered by OEMs and Kiosk dealers alike. The problem was that Microsoft’s OEM license agreement forbade ANY interference with the Microsoft controlled boot sequence. Furthermore, the OEM licenses were sold in bulk, which meant that selling a machine without Windows didn’t save you any money. In fact, if you didn’t meet your minimum commitment order, you could even LOSE money, since the discounts you received depended on your ability to honor a minimum commitment order, usually calculated to be far more licenses than you could actually sell with the machines.
“Since the licenses were non-transferable, the OEMs couldn’t sell them to other OEMs or retailers. Since Microsoft maintained tight-fisted control over the configuration, the OEMs couldn’t pre-install the Linux OS, and were even forbidden from enclosing the Linux distribution disk provided by the Board maker, as part of their configuration.”
Consider this in light of what we wrote very recently about Microsoft’s attack against Linux on motherboards. When Microsoft is unable to use its lawyers to forbid competition, it simply buys that competition. Novell used to be one of the leading players in the Linux world. So was Corel.
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
05.20.08
Posted in Microsoft, Windows, GNU/Linux, Hardware, FOSS, Africa at 11:52 am by Roy Schestowitz
Time seems limited and tight today, but here are a few themes and brand-new stories you might not want to miss. These are categorised using satirical headings, accompanied by quick commentaries. Perhaps tomorrow — just perhaps — time will permit to elaborate further. This stories are all new, so it’s important to at least throw them out there for attention and proactive response/rebuttal.
All Your FOSS Are [sic] Belong to Windows
For background on this issue, see the recent Blender conundrum, whose outcome we don’t know yet. Some decent further analysis of the takeaways from South Africa, which we last mentioned this morning, comes from Glyn Moody. As a reminder, Microsoft is pressuring the government to abandon plans of freedom and crawl back to proprietary prison. That’s the gist of it anyway.
One of the interesting things about Microsoft is that its official commentary on the way things are tends to reveal, rather, how it perceives them. In this case, a completely general open source mandate is morphed into an insane government plot to replace Windows by GNU/Linux.
It’s nothing of the kind, of course; it’s just about regaining control over a core part of government infrastructure, something that open source provides automatically – and that the proprietary Windows never can. But Microsoft just can’t bring itself to admit this, because its entire business model is based on dictating to the customer: Thou Shalt Upgrade to Vista, etc. Instead, it has to frame things in crude, Manichean “Us vs Them”, terms. Let’s hope that its 2015 strategy is a little more nuanced.
Glyn might not be aware of this, but the government indeed plans to move to GNU/Linux. Here is an older reference of interest: (highlight in red is ours, but the article is not longer locatable)
SA Government’s OSS plans revealed
Migration of current systems is also planned. This will be done in a phased approach, beginning with applications such as replacing MS Office with Open Office or KOffice and replacing Internet Explorer with Firefox. This will in time lead up to the operating system, replacing Windows with a Linux distribution. Migration to Apache for the running of government websites has already occurred within a number of departments.
Regarding that latter bit from Glyn (about Microsoft and “Open Source”), Dana Blankenhorn too has commented on that “2015 open source strategy” fluff from The Register, which we critically commented on here.
2015? (Spit take.)
20-ohmygoodness-15?
[…]
Jinkies, even John McCain now says he can get us out of Iraq by 2013.
[…]
In his post, Ramji calls the decision to deliver automated management through System Center across heterogenous environments a “great day.” Great for Microsoft maybe. For the rest of the world, not that big a deal.
That indeed happens to be very self-serving (leaning outwards, to Microsoft’s benefit).
Further to this, consider the tongue-in cheek proposal of a response to Microsoft’s plot.
So, Microsoft puts out its hand and offers help with porting open-source software, to make it run best on the Windows platform. How mean. Understandable from marketing and business point of view, but mean anyway (and hey, that’s my opinion!).
I have a proposal then, a simple one. Since Windows users are already used to trial versions, time-limited, feature-limited, shareware and other pieces of software which they constantly have to “unlock” by using codes found on the net (or keygens), so let it be!
Let’s give Windows users what they already know:
1. Limited editions of Free and Open-Source Software for Windows.
2. Full-featured versions, including source code, for all other Operating Systems.
Aras: Putting the Sheet in Bull-Something
Remember SourceForge and Microsoft? It seems like O’Reilly may be jumping on that same wagon now (been told this half an hour ago). Either way, Microsoft continues to use its partners/fakers to further dilute the meaning and intensity of “Open Source”. It’s a good thing that more people begin to wake up and finally identify the role of the likes of Aras, whose attempt to be associated with “Open Source” (and rave about Microsoft love) seems malicious at best and Microsoft-centric/faithful by the more conservative of yardsticks. Here it is summarised in IT Business Edge:
OStatic blogger Reuven Lerner reiterates that the problem still exists today. Despite OSI’s best efforts and intentions, there really is no one meaning for “open source.” The only way to know what you’re getting is to “read the fine print,” he says, and ask the vendor a lot of questions regarding what open source means for its business.
Microsoft Lawyers: Linux is Illegal!!!11
Not much is new under the Sun. The “patent terrorism” (not our own term, but one that was used by a Sun executive, in reference to Microsoft) is a tactic that lives on. Watch the stance Microsoft’s lawyers continue to take against GNU/Linux.
So here are eight things Microsoft could do to add real teeth to its commitment to openness:
1. Reveal the patents allegedly being violated by open source products, or take back claims that Linux and other open source software violate at least 235 of Microsoft’s patents.
While we haven’t heard more on any patent threats from Microsoft in recent months, they’re still out there. “This is in no way removing the issue of patents in the context of infringement,” one of Microsoft’s top intellectual property execs told me earlier this year, when chatting about Microsoft’s recently announced interoperability principles.
Classic Microsoft: You Win? We Dump.
In other less related news, watch out for Microsoft’s attempted comeback that combats motherboards with embedded Linux. And no, it’s not a EULA this time. It’ll just dump and dump and dump. Microsoft rarely competes. It attempts to just suffocate others. It can be easier because crime pays, assuming there’s poor or absent oversight. █
Quick update: The source which brought up that latest one suggested that motherboards were targeted, but that’s not the case. It sure doesn’t look like it.
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
05.15.08
Posted in Microsoft, GNU/Linux, Hardware, Antitrust, Open XML at 9:52 pm by Roy Schestowitz
Predatory EULA on chip
One exciting recent bit of news is all about Asustek extending the reach of Splashtop and putting it on pretty much every motherboard. This means that tens of millions of PCs are expected to have Linux installed down at the core, essentially (yet arguably) running it as the ‘default’ operating system.
As rudimentary as Splashtop may be at the moment, this could be the start of something greater that will be extended and improved over time. Splashtop also had its kernel patches released to the public (according to Phoronix), so other hardware makers are likely to follow suit. Phoenix has already found itself on a similar boat and Phoenix’ ubiquity is nothing to sneeze at.
In yesterday’s news, The Inquirer made the following important observation:
Asus to ship all motherboards with Linux
[…]
And, for many casual computer users who make use of web-based applications exclusively, Splashtop Linux might be all the operating system they ever need.
This becomes truer as time goes by. An increasing number of applications become Web-based. Not everyone would use them, but some might. Some will.
Splashtop receives a lot of publicity at the moment, but it’s arguably small potatoes compared to Phoenix HyperSpace, which was described here:
Phoenix Technologies’ new HyperSpace is an instant-on environment for laptops, letting users launch a browser or other apps with booting into the OS.
Today, Phoenix Technologies introduced a firmware product called HyperSpace, which allows PCs to run a number of applications separate from the operating system. What that means is that if you use a PC equipped with HyperSpace, you will be able to quick-boot your notebook into a secure Linux environment, where you can use Web browsers like FireFox and pre-loaded Web-aware apps like Google Earth, Picasa, and the like.
[…]
Also, since HyperSpace is a Linux-based platform, Windows viruses won’t affect it.
As Beta News put it at the time, “New Phoenix BIOS will run Linux apps when Windows fails.”
The basic concept is that an embedded Linux OS will accompany the core system firmware or BIOS, allowing instant-on applications to be run from it at any time.
Even Dell expressed some optimism and showed its enthusiasm about such disruptive technologies at the time, but let’s quickly look at Microsoft’s apparent reaction.
BIOS maker Phoenix Technologies Ltd.’s plans to market a new application platform the company claims will solve a number of problems endemic to Microsoft’s Windows platform might be taken as a provocative gesture at their longtime partner. But Redmond’s immediate reaction was nonchalant.
On Monday, the Milpitas, Calif. software maker announced Hyperspace, a Linux-based virtualization platform that will let OEMs bundle cut-down versions of popular open-source software that end users will be able to access instantly, even without booting Windows.
Based on such report you would think that Microsoft does not care, wouldn’t you? However, this new article brings back memories:
Splashtop is not the only such product on the market. A year ago, BIOS vendor Phoenix Technology launched HyperSpace, an equivalent that has yet to turn up on PCs in any numbers. Microsoft’s view on the movement to embed cut-down operating systems is not known, but Phoenix did launch a pre-emptive strike against it to stop it blocking HyperSpace using restrictive Vista end-user license agreements (EULAs). Microsoft relented.
An antitrust complaint from Phoenix Technology, an eternal Microsoft partner (or so it thought) forced the monopoly to fix the anti-competitive EULA of Windows Vista. Microsoft tried to characterise this change as goodwill and a nice gesture, essentially changing the story which was originally told and claiming credit (even glory) for being abusive. The press underplayed this fiasco, but Mary Jo Foley was rather disgusted.
But the real reason for Microsoft’s capitulation became clear on March 7 via a new joint-status report in the Microsoft-Department of Justice case. It turns out BIOS maker Phoenix Technologies (a long-time Microsoft partner) filed a complaint with antitrust regulators about Microsoft’s virtualization restrictions.
Microsoft has tried to manipulate the virtualisation market in a variety of ways [1, 2, 3] because it had fallen so far behind. Microsoft insulted many people’s intelligence when it claimed that a EULA could or could not define the level of security of the O/S, limited by editions of Windows, i.e. featureset being b/locked.
This wasn’t the first time that Microsoft lied or twisted excuses about ’security’ in order to be anti-competitive. Recall the OOXML/file types incident for example.
Speaking of which, OOXML is still a secret as Microsoft continues to disobey rules. Charles complaint about this only a couple of days ago and now he’s now joined by Bob Sutor, not just Rob Weir, among others.
Will it [OOXML] ever be available? Does anyone care? Do any rules apply to this at all? What are the excuses for this? Just like almost ever other aspect of this particular process, dangerous exceptions and precedents are being set.
To sum up, here we have another case study exemplifying total disregard, market abuse, distortion of stories and a strategic fight against Linux, which escapes the media’s attention. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
05.09.08
Posted in Formats, Microsoft, Deception, OLPC, Hardware, Standard, Asia, Antitrust, Ecma, ISO at 10:38 pm by Roy Schestowitz
Abuse is just a standard procedure
There are various picks from the news that are worth commenting on very quickly. Here goes.
Like Father, Like Son
We demonstrated before, using collusion stories for example, just how close Intel and Microsoft really are. There is almost no longer point in denying it, especially when Intel’s CEO suggests so explicitly.
You may wish to know just what approach Intel adopts for ’standards’.
Intel plays games with USB3.0
[…]
This behaviour is not what defines ’standard’, it is what defines ‘proprietary’. Basically if you are competing with Intel, or are perceived to be competing with it, you have to wait and suck down a six-month disadvantage. The last time this happened was USB1.0. Intel played the same games and the standard was so broken it never worked.
If it sounds familiar, it probably ought to.
“There is nothing ethical about what came to be the ‘Wintel standard’.”Another thing never to be forgotten is the OLPC story, which sometimes evokes repulsion. It all began with the Fedora/AMD OLPC, which had Intel respond by offering considerable discounts to Asustek and also started this wave of products where the price was no longer fixed. Intel was dumping free hardware (selling at a loss) in countries like Nigeria just to make OLPC suffocate. Unfortunately, that’s not what Intel permits the mainstream press to tell you, despite strong evidence and actual eyewitness accounts.
OLPC was too disruptive to Microsoft and Intel just could not afford to stay out because it wishes to continue its all-or-nothing kickbacks/dumping crusade to eliminate competition in x86, notably AMD. Microsoft just needs to get as many children as it can “sort of addicted” to Windows (Gates’ terminology). It’s a sick world, but let’s not drift off topic, at least for the time being. There is nothing ethical about what came to be the ‘Wintel standard’.
Microsoft Pulled a China, or China Pulls a Microsoft
Watch what is happening in China
US warns China about standards war
THE FORMER English colony of Virginia has warned the glorious People’s Republic of China that it needs to follow technology standards and not impose them on the rest of the world.
That’s its job.
US Under-Secretary of Commerce Christopher Padilla warned that if China went around creating its own technology standards then it risked “technological isolation”.
Once again, if it sounds familiar, it probably ought to. Noteworthy is also Microsoft’s special relationship with China. Now we come to the main item which affects Free software — as opposed to hardware — very directly. It’s about OOXML.
Whose Pseudo-standard Is It Anyway?
OOXML went private and never yet been out for the concerned public to see. The last complaint seems to have come from Rob Weir, but here is yet another that refers to Microsoft and ECMA disobeying rules and making false promises.
The fact is, nobody outside the Ecma and probably ISO knows how OOXML looks like now. It is particularly cumbersome, not so much because that could amount to one more irregularity against the JTC1’s SC 34, but also because it creates yet one more precedent in the long story of anti-competitive practices by Microsoft. At the time this article is being written, there is no sign of OOXML and according to the loosest estimations, we should have seen it on the 2 nd of May at the latest.
[…]
Now if you care to ask me, what in blazes does this linguistic considerations have to do with OOXML? The repeated and successful attempts by Microsoft to influence the outcome of the OOXML standardization process at the levels of the ISO’s JTC1 and of the national standards body was in itself unseen and the evidence that some large corporations are ready to do whatever it takes to fulfill their strategic objectives. Yet, the incongruous, unexpected behaviour of the standardization world has given way to a near total impunity for the Ecma and Microsoft. No matter how twisted a situation can be, the JTC1’s SC34 should always be followed, and when the rules do not fit the Ecma, then the rules are ignored or simply changed. At this stage, we do not know the reasons for which OOXML has not yet been published. I’m not even requesting the very final, ISO -stamped version of OOXML, but just the final, post BRM, consolidated version of OOXML. That too does not seem to exist. But worry not, some reasons will be made up, almost on the fly, cunningly lame and incredibly mediocre explanations that will show the utter submission to powerful interests of some inside the SC34 and the complete brainwashing of others.
This scandal is not over yet. █
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.