07.09.08
Posted in Microsoft, Intellectual Property, Patents, Courtroom at 2:22 pm by Roy Schestowitz
T
his will be far from the first time that we mention the ACTA, which is a wish list from Hollywood et al to be passed as law [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. According to this update from Glyn Moody, they are indeed above the law and this is troubling for so many reasons.
The extremely pernicious Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) continues to move forward. Here’s what the anachronistic back-slapping club known as the G8 has to say on the subject:
We encourage the acceleration of negotiations to establish a new international legal framework, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), and seek to complete the negotiation by the end of this year.
Remember, this is an agreement that has been drawn up behind closed doors, with input from the industries that depend on intellectual monopolies, and zero input from the rest of us. Democracy? Who needs it?
The effect on software patents is very much related to the scrupulous process seen above. Alcatel-Lucent/Microsoft are still crossing swords over this issue. The case involves the legitimacy of software patents as a whole [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7].
Alcatel-Lucent appeals loss of $1.5 billion award
Appeals court arguments in a battle over MP3 digital music patents between Alcatel-Lucent (ALUA.PA: Quote, Profile, Research) and Microsoft Corp (MSFT.O: Quote, Profile, Research) focused Monday on a joint development pact struck nearly two decade earlier.
What’s at stake here is rather significant. With ACTA passing through as though diplomats are well-greased tubes, there’s little or no chance of defeating the monopolies at a litigious level. The system is broken, sadly enough.
Be sure to read the ACTA [PDF] if you haven’t. It’s a dreadful document that only reached the public diue to a leak (WikiLeaks). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend 
View as PDF
Posted in Intellectual Property, Patents at 4:59 am by Roy Schestowitz
The ‘joys’ of intellectual monopolies
T
he shrewd remarks from Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz continue to impress. He has become quite a vocal critic of the intellectual monopolies principle. The press still covers his unusual take at the moment, amid the creation of his new institute, which will be located nearby. Have a look at this:
US economist Joseph Stiglitz has warned that intellectual property rights are stifling innovation. According to the Intellectual Property Watch news service, the professor, who was awarded a 2001 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences for his work on the relationship of information and markets, said at the opening of Manchester University’s Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation on Saturday that the intellectual property rights regime “closes down access to knowledge”. It was clear, he said, that specific restrictions applied particularly in the patent system.
Stiglitz criticised the current approach of treating copyright and patent rights as “intellectual property”. Intellectual property, he insisted, is public property and not something to be “owned”. It is difficult to prevent others from enjoying its benefits, he said, because it is fundamentally different to, and should not be compared to, the ownership of physical property. This approach creates monopoly power over knowledge that is often abused. Stiglitz gave as an example the current “patent thicket” in software, which results in anyone who writes a successful software program being sued for alleged patent infringements.
This is a very timely observation because yesterday there was this report about the verge of another embargo, which surely will benefit neither science nor consumers. Lawyers? Maybe.
It’s pretty unlikely this case will see Samsung handsets stopped at the US border. Most likely it will rumble on until both sides see an escape that saves face and a sum of money changes hands. So if this is a preliminary skirmish then Samsung has the most men still standing but the battle continues.
Will the world take a lesson from Professor Stiglitz? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
07.08.08
Posted in Law, Intellectual Property, Patents, America at 5:57 am by Roy Schestowitz
H
ow many senior figures does it take convince large companies to set aside greed in favour of science and technology. It has already been shown before that software developers, for instance, favour copyrights and see no need for software patents, which are perceived as a hindrance to progress. Speaking more broadly about Intellectual Monopolies (not just software), noble and Nobel people explain why it’s all wrong. [via Digital Majority]
Intellectual Property Regime Stifles Science and Innovation, Nobel Laureates Say
Patent monopolies are believed to drive innovation but they actually impede the pace of science and innovation, Stiglitz said. The current “patent thicket,” in which anyone who writes a successful software programme is sued for alleged patent infringement, highlights the current IP system’s failure to encourage innovation, he said.
Another problem is that the social returns from innovation do not accord with the private returns associated with the patent system, Stiglitz said. The marginal benefit from innovation is that an idea may become available sooner than it might have. But the person who secures the patent on it wins a long-term monopoly, creating a gap between private and social returns.
Software Patents Even Worse Off
According to the following article, it may be impractical to examine collision in software patents.
An examination process that utilizes the expertise of the industries in which applications lie has now become essential in the very difficult to examine fields of software, pharmaceuticals, and business methods.
This is exactly what Richard Stallman has been arguing for years. In large programs that are written rapidly, there’s no chance of checking for implementation overlaps that are conceptual. There are just too many of them. It’s mathematics at the most fundamental level, but forms of abstraction are used. At the moment, the USPTO is labouring hard only in attempts to re-examine 4 silly patents. What an utter waste of time.
RIM wins delay in Visto patent suit
[…]
The trial was scheduled to begin next Monday in Marshall, Texas, but the judge said a postponement is warranted while the US Patent and Trademark Office re-examines the four disputed patents.
The USPTO, in its current state, should really be reformed or shut down already. Even those who make a living out of the mess which is Intellectual Monopolies are beginning to feel slightly embarrassed by the ‘civil wars’.
…there are a number of companies where there is IP awareness. The problem here though is that they see the IP system in so many different ways and want very different things from it. The recent Patent Reform Act debate in the US showed this very clearly. And what it also demonstrated is that when IP owners fight among themselves, it leaves very big spaces for people with a general anti-IP message to exploit; something that harms all rights owners, no matter what side of a specific argument they are on. The same thing happened in Europe with regard to the CII Directive and could well happen again if there is ever any political agreement on the Community patent and the European patent court.
In other words, they can’t figure out what they want. On the one hand, they want ‘protection’, but then they get stung, so they cry crocodile tears. Which way would it be? Crying because there is legal chaos or crying because people are compelled to share ideas rather than defend ownership of every single idea that is neither genuine not defensible. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
06.22.08
Posted in Red Hat, Microsoft, GNU/Linux, Novell, SLES/SLED, Intellectual Property, GPL, Oracle, IBM at 1:03 pm by Roy Schestowitz
In Part 1, we wrote rather cautiously about Oracle’s relationship with Red Hat and then reiterated known facts about IBM. This is where it gets trickier because we now introduce what’s not sufficiently substantiated but nonetheless worthy of consideration. It seems to have received a nod from Novell.
Some Background Information
Who is Ron Hovsepian? According to Wikipedia, “Hovsepian held management and executive positions at IBM Corporation over a 17 year period, including worldwide general manager of IBM’s distribution industries, managing global hardware and software development, sales, marketing and services.”
Our sources are close enough to Ron Hovsepian himself and it’s interesting to note that he was appointed and made CEO between the time that IBM helped Novell acquire SUSE (Hovsepian Joined Novell in June 2003 and in November 2003 Novell bought SuSE) and just shortly before negotiations with Microsoft began, namely around May or June 2006. Hovsepian was appointed CEO in June 2006 when he replaced Jack Messman. Pay careful attention to the proximity of dates.
Linux as Power, Not Freedom
According to the Linux Foundation’s annual conference (the Summit), which last took place in Austin, representatives might insist that they only care for Linux solutions, not desktops. Novell says that too: “solutions”. In other words, the key element which is Free software, with the GNU GPL at its very core, is viewed as a nuisance, as though its kind of stands in their way. Proprietary or Free, to the big vendors it’s all about power, not freedom.
Richard Stallman’s philosophy and the accompanying licence are seen as discomforting to those who want to produce “solutions”, so ways of working around the licences seems desirable. While every company is acting selfishly for sure, some remember to respect their supplier (volunteer programmers) and recall what they came from. Mutual honour is definitely a prerequisite to the success of this relationship.
Over at IBM, with Irving’s departure (he retired quite recently, having put the company’s focus on GNU/Linux and Free software), one can only hope that the leadership is still truly dedicated to the cause. Bob Sutor makes some solid migrations to GNU/Linux, but he still uses non-Free platforms sometimes. Being a decision-maker, he has impact.
Prelude to Assumption/Hypothesis
We finally turn our attention to the theory of a large-scale collusion — a gentle one nonetheless. At the heart of it we picture a battle played by executives and lawyers behind some people’s backs. Our source never really took the allegations of the OpenDocument Foundation working for Microsoft in disguise too seriously, but they did hurt the ODF cause a lot. Before that, Gary Edwards was leading a small but influent band of OpenOffice.org forkers and disruptors.
According to our source, a lot of what’s at play is related to Novell. Factors and forces that include Novell, Microsoft and ODF are part of it, and surely enough IBM feels bitter with Novell’s ambivalent yet receptive approach to OOXML. The same goes for Sun. We know this for a fact. Miguel’s OOXML affinity, for instance, is a big pain in the neck to them.
Novell informed several different ‘camps’ of FOSS developers about the agreement with Microsoft before it got signed. Mono and Samba developers, for instance, knew about it in advance and had time to voice their opinion. Jeremy Allison told us that he regretted not protesting more loudly.
Ron Hovsepian and other top executives tried to explain to leaders of several projects (primarily those impacted by the Microsoft deal) what that agreement all about. It was essential in order for friction to be reduced before the bomb is finally dropped. After all, Novell needed to make sure that, at least in the future, if possible, these projects will could continue working with Novell. It’s collaboration under Microsoft’s claws.
People who are associated with the FSF knew about this deal in advance as well (at least 2 of them). The legality questions — specially w.r.t. GPLv2 — was explained, but the wound was well understood by Hovsepian et al who disregarded it. There was too much at stake and the GPL wasn’t a priority high enough.
The Theory
Some believe that he idea of the Novell/Microsoft agreement came from IBM and Oracle. They went to Novell with the following plan: Microsoft would be very much interested in two things with Novell: polluting/diluting the Linux brand and message (Microsoft could also have a dent in the Linux market). This is always overlooked,
“Microsoft is very much interested in Novell’s IP. Remember SCO?”Microsoft is very much interested in Novell’s IP. Remember SCO? Remember e-directory? Remember Netware, Groupwise, etc? Well, Novell has a very nice IP portfolio that many companies of similar yield cannot enjoy. In short, that agreement was a boon for Microsoft but we all know this.
From the other side, the whole plan was a poker game that would tie down the hands of Microsoft with Novell and in the end neutralising Microsoft’s IP while IBM and Oracle could attack.
“Perhaps”, says the source, “and I would tend to buy into that option, Novell was quickly overthrown by Microsoft’s dance of the dead. I don’t know.
“The ultimate plan was to strangle Microsoft’s IP and that it was all the idea of IBM and Oracle.”
Take this part with a grain of salt and decide for yourself if it makes sense to you. It sure seems to have struck a nerve with Novell’s CEO.
A Reader’s Take
One reader who was intrigued with the first part about possible secrets behind the Microsoft-Novell deal wrote:
“It sounds as if the whole point of that deal was the patent protection element that Microsoft supposedly slipped in at the last minute and to which Novell didn’t really agree and sloughs off as unimportant. I’ll have to wait and see.
“The comment I really wanted to make here is that I am not really surprised at all at IBM’s involvement here. First, in the days prior to Microsoft’s monopoly, IBM had a similar monopoly in the market for mainframe hardware. They employed similar tactics to Microsoft to fend off competition that wanted to make compatible hardware. See Amdahl. It was IBM who coined the tactic of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Part of the reason Gates took such a hard-core stance in the anti-trust case was that he saw what happened to IBM after they complied with the anti-trust decision that went against them.
“I suppose it’s a bit unreasonable to think that a leopard could completely change its spots. While IBM has undeniably done some important things to promote Linux, one should never forget that their motivation isn’t out of any love for free software. They use Linux as a competitive tool against Microsoft. There is no love lost between these two companies. Consider what happened with OS/2, which was originally a joint project between IBM and Microsoft. Even more recently, consider the time when Microsoft announced their Palladium project, which is embodied in Vista. IBM came out and tried to assuage the fears of the Linux camp that they would be locked out by announcing support for “Trusted Computing.” In the current scenario, obviously without knowing any of the details, I suppose I would nonetheless be safe to say that the Novell-Microsoft deal is something that Novell gets credit for initiating - “coopetition.” That used to have such a nice ring to it, but not anymore.” █
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
06.12.08
Posted in Law, Microsoft, Novell, Intellectual Property, Patents at 2:54 am by Roy Schestowitz
Yesterday we just passed on the news about Red Hat’s settlement. We did this as quickly as possible without expressing a spontaneous opinion or studying the situation. A responsible lawyer’s take was bound to be more valued than most.
It seems as though Red Hat did the right thing given the tough situation it was in. Here is what Eben Moglen said:
“Red Hat’s settlement of outstanding patent litigation on terms that provide additional protection to other members of the community upstream and downstream from Red Hat is a positive contribution to the resources for community patent defense. We would hope to see more settlements of this kind–in which parties secure more than their own particular legal advantage in relation to the third-party patent risk of the whole FOSS community–when commercial redistributors of FOSS choose to settle patent litigation. SFLC welcomes Red Hat’s efforts on the community’s behalf.”
Noteworthy is also the comment “Novell needed this lesson”.
This is what the Novell/Microsoft secret pact should have been - instead of throwing the rest of the open source community under the bus, Novell should have pushed for broader coverage and been open about it all. Look and learn Novell, don’t be so slimy and see how the a real leader operates.
In light of this, there is also the obligatory rant about the sordid mess that is the Intellectual Monopoly system.
This is all wrong.
This is all in the line of the most idiotic pattern of the U.S. judicial system.
Someone sues you. Instead of fighting (if you believe you’re right) and go to the stage where a judge reaches a verdict, what is the common practice in business?
Financial settlements.
Bureaucracy is indeed quite an issue here the the legal system seems unlikely to seek remedies. [via Digital Majority]
Patents for All: The System That Could Not Contain Itself
The myth of an all-seeing, all-knowing Congress capable of riding to the rescue is a well-used excuse for keeping bad decisions on the books. But the question of just what is patentable is far too loaded and complex for Congress to handle — especially given all the other problems the patent system faces and the fact that even modest patent reform legislation has stalled.
Since Microsoft loves to paints itself “a victim” of the patent system. it’s worth having a look at this one. Microsoft is clearly among those that abuse the system in the most shameless of ways.
Last Thursday, Microsoft filed patent application 2008/134,132, which describes a method of “Developing Software Components Based on Brain Lateralization.” At first glance, this sounds quite impressive; direct neural programming interfaces, after all, is the stuff science fiction is made of. Closer examination, however, indicates that our dreams of writing C++ code without that pesky keyboard getting in the way remain elusive. Fancy wording or not, Microsoft is essentially attempting to patent something far more basic: the software Quality Assurance (Q&A) process.
As summarised by Digital Majority: “Read that over, and you’ll notice it mentions neither the brain nor any sort of organizational/methodological principle that could be described as brain-like.” This type of loophole is also exploited by Microsoft in order to pass software patents in countries where they are not legal. Words like “device” or “apparatus” are sometimes used to add a ‘hard’ aspect to an ‘invention’ that does not require it.
The Intellectual Monopolies System seems unfair and broken beyond repair. It is created and maintained by a digital minority that is wealthy enough to afford this and in turn gets nurtured by the very same monopoly it shelters and legalises.
Related to this, some time ago we wrote about ACTA [1, 2], which is — plainly speaking — the output of a conspiracy of Intellectual Monopoly (IPR) owners seeking to enforce claimed rights at all costs, even it the impact is high enough to misplace and abuse basic human rights. There is an update on this. [via Glyn Moody]
A small group of countries opposing the inclusion of intellectual property-related issues in World Trade Organization negotiations has issued their response to an earlier “non-paper” that had called for IP issues to be integrated with the upcoming horizontal, or all-inclusive, negotiations at the WTO.
[…]
The paper is referring to a 26 May proposal, in the form of another “non-paper” seeking to ensure that three major IP issues are on the table for the horizontal trade talks.
None of this is up for public negotiation or scrutiny, which yet again proves that laws covering these issues are passed by few secretive elites. How can the software patent epidemic be cured if special passes are needed? Watch the older quote below and recall ACT’s role in pushing for software patents in Europe. █
“A report published by an EU task force on intellectual property claims that small businesses benefit from a patent system, despite lacking almost any participation by the small business community. Instead, the report, titled IPR (intellectual property rights) for competitiveness and innovation, was written up almost entirely by large corporations and the patent industry. […] The report does note objections from the likes of patentfrei.de and Sun Microsystems, which were recorded at some length in the report. But this does not appear to have impacted the conclusion of the report in any way […] Jean-Pierre Laisne, of ObjectWeb, an open source software community, said that he found the report useless: participants were told that all their contributions would be recorded but at the end only those of Business Software Alliance and Microsoft were used.”
Big businesses boast of patent benefits, for small businesses
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
06.01.08
Posted in Microsoft, DRM, Intellectual Property, Patents, Europe, America at 8:34 am by Roy Schestowitz
Europe and Software Patents
Harmonisation… like the merging of portions of slime
Harmonisation, unlike “contamination” or “pollution”, has a positive connotation. But there is nothing too positive about bringing a system that everyone admits is already broken beyond repair (USPTO) and merging it with one that is still more functional (EPO, among others).
Nevertheless, it is in the monopolists’ interest to force and impose dysfunctional aspects of their own system upon all others. This way, others who live across the Atlantic are equally disadvantaged (”disadvantaged” as in Microsoft ‘Genuine’ ‘Advantage’). And that’s just what McCreevy (also see [1, 2, 3, 4]) appears to be striving to achieve. [via Digital Majority]
The May agenda takes up a number of problems. For starters, the E.U. wants to draw a road map for harmonizing patent law. Progress could be slow, however, because U.S. reform has bogged down in Congress and the European Commission may not have the legal right to amend the European Patent Convention.
Later on, the same folks could travel across the pacific to achieve similar things. Australia and Japan have already been defeated as far as software patents are concerned.
Community Patent… against the free software community
Nicolas Sarkozy’s strong sympathy towards intellectual monopolies [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8] has not been noted for a while, but have a quick look at this new article. [via Digital Majority]
EU hopes for Community patent under French Presidency
[…]
“If there is enough political will, I am confident of having a solution soon, maybe even under the French Presidency,” Vijzak stated.
Much like “harmonisation”, “community” sounds as though it’s a positive thing. This is seemingly about togetherness and happiness, but in reality it’s something altogether different. “Open XML” is a recent case of naming something for better reception (or blind acceptance). There are many more such examples.
“”Open XML” is a recent case of naming something for better reception (or blind acceptance).”Remember, for instance, that Microsoft ‘advertises’ the DRM features in Windows Vista as ones that apply only to “premium content”, but this hides the fact that all content is intended to fall under this category one day. The misuse of words like “advantage”, “premium”, “trusted”, “secure” and “open” are nothing new and they mustn’t lead to the deception that their repetitive use is supposed to achieve. Conversely, there are words like “criminals”, “thieves”, “pirates”, “terrorists”, “hackers” (meaning already deformed), etc. which are merely serving an agenda of daemonisation; expect them to be foolishly echoed in conferences and the media.
Prior art… when there’s no real ‘art’ at all
The sad news from the UK, regarding software patents to be specific, continues to be followed by reports that demonstrate a degree of sanity. Here is one such example that is new.
UK business method patent struck out
[…]
The patent (number 2,171,877) relates to a method of making pre-paid telephone calls that is available for use from any telephone, and t[he] hardware for doing so.
In a ruling dated May 23, His Honour Judge Fysh (sitting as a High Court judge) found the patent invalid on the grounds of obviousness - based on a study of the prior art - and excluded matter under Article 52 of the European Patent Convention.
Overall, it means that the juridical (legal system) is more rational than the lenient patent office (imaginary property system), which probably accepts applications because it is more profitable. The cost is later paid by those who are hit by frivolous lawsuits. The burden is passed to victims and revenue sunk in lawyers’ bank accounts. It’s quite a funny mechanism.
DRM Everywhere, Possession of Universally-accessible Media a Crime
That ugly thing called ACTA [1, 2] is the antithesis of the Declaration of Independence. The following pattern of criticism possibly explains just why.
Criticism from NGOs
Canadian law expert David Fewer, staff counsel at the University of Ottawa’s Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, told the Ottawa Citizen that the discussion paper was very close to a potential Christmas wish-list by Hollywood companies.
Knowledge Ecology International (KEI), in an earlier statement filed to USTR, warned against a lack in differentiation and clearness of core terms, like counterfeiting, infringement or piracy. “Is Microsoft a “pirate” for insisting on the right to continue to infringe the z4 patents in order to use an infringing DRM technology to protect Microsoft software itself from infringement by unauthorised uses?” KEI asked in its statement.
In this particular context, consider again the old sins of the British Library, which seems like a hostage of Microsoft nowadays, if not just its cheerleader [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. This article is not new, but it is timely and it is excellent.
The British Library - ‘The world’s knowledge’ DRM’d and for a price
[…]
DRM is part of the plan, and I encourage you to read the entire Microsoft document. It would make my grandmother roll over in her grave. Some of the librarians at the British Library are deeply troubled too about what DRM is doing to libraries. How will we access the materials if the DRM company goes out of business someday?
If they duplicate what they have done at the British Library, I think it’s fair to say that it is the death of public libraries as we have known them, and the world’s knowledge will be available only DRM’d and for a price.
P.S. DRM doesn’t work.
It won’t block any serious criminals.
All it does is annoy and degrade the honest
… and give monopolies a way to stay that way.
Troll-Eat-Troll World
The verdict on Alcatel-Lucent and Microsoft is already in. These long legal battles between the two companies [1, 2, 3, 4] have the latest infringement claims detailed.
Microsoft Corp. violated an Alcatel-Lucent patent to produce its Xbox video-game player, a lawyer for Alcatel-Lucent told jurors who are considering a demand for $419 million in damages.
“They’ve taken” the patent “and made millions and millions of dollars,” John Desmarais, a lawyer for Alcatel- Lucent, said to the jury.
[…]
A jury in the same court decided last year that Microsoft’s Windows Media Player infringed patents for the MP3 digital-audio standard and awarded Alcatel-Lucent a record $1.52 billion in damages. Senior U.S. District Judge Rudi Brewster vacated that verdict, now under appeal.
In the second trial, another jury concluded April 4 that Microsoft should pay $368 million to Alcatel-Lucent for infringing two patents.
There is meanwhile a warning that patent trolls may be set to attack PaaS.
If the advent of PaaS stirs up a plague of patent trolls to resurrect long-dead patents and bring suits against providers or users it could become a nightmare for the nascent industry. The providers who suffer most will be those based in countries that enforce business methods patents most rigorously: the United States, Australia, Japan and Singapore, according to Wikipedia’s article on the topic. In contrast, “patent protection for business method patents in Israel, China, India, Mexico, and most of Europe is difficult.”
Deep inside, Microsoft has always known this was a recipe for trouble. That realisation had emerged even before it became a monopoly. What an iintellectual waste. █
“If 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.”
–Bill Gates
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
05.29.08
Posted in Microsoft, GNU/Linux, Intellectual Property, Patents at 1:50 am by Roy Schestowitz
It’s already here
How does Microsoft fight GNU/Linux? Just as it explicitly stated in its most recent SEC filing, it’s about education, otherwise known as well-funded brainwashing for ‘IP’. The company said it would approach children. Do have a look. █
Update: It seems clear now that this post lacks context, so here is something to bring you up to date:
1. Can Microsoft teach tots digital-age virtue?
The basis of Redmond’s pitch was a small survey they sponsored where nearly half of the kids polled said they were unfamiliar with the rules and guidelines of using copyrighted media. Microsoft figured tots would be less inclined to steal someone’s IP if they knew about the alleged consequences.
A lot of digital ink was used to slam Microsoft’s scheme. People need Redmond telling them about IP rules like they need Pavorotti schooling them about a well-balanced diet.
2. Threat Of Jail Time Increases Respect For Copyright, Microsoft Says
It’s not clear whether Microsoft’s statement to teen respondents — “When you do not follow these rules you are open to significant fines and possibly jail time” — is entirely accurate, particularly when teens under the age of 18 are involved. Emily Berger, an intellectual property fellow at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, is skeptical. “I think it’s being used as a scare tactic,” she said. “It’s a real stretch of the law to say it’s theoretically possible.”
3. Microsoft training youth to love intellectual property
Take, for example, its commitment to help teenagers understand the importance of respecting intellectual property (read: giving Microsoft more money). It just put out a survey showing that when kids understand the rules of copyright, they’re “less likely to download illegally.”
[…]
The one thing it didn’t explain to teens is why they should retrofit 20th-century copyright laws onto 21st-century realities. Digitization is a fact. The web is a fact. Intellectual property is not the same as real, tangible property, and should be treated and monetized differently.
For information about patents, specifically, see Microsoft’s SEC filing. It’s very revealing.
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
05.22.08
Posted in Microsoft, Apple, Intellectual Property, Patents, FOSS at 11:27 am by Roy Schestowitz
This is just a very quick roundup that serves as a reminder of the “Alice in Wonderland” state we must cope with (or fight against).
Barracuda Versus Software Patents
Linux.com has a new video interview with the CEO of Barracuda. I’ve asked politely for an Ogg Theora version in the comments (they typically produce one for everything they publish). Either way, here’s the summary:
It’s unusual for companies engaged in patent litigation to comment on how the fight is going. But Barracuda Networks CEO Dean Drako has openly sought FOSS community support for his company’s defense again a Trend Micro lawsuit that, while filed against his company, is really about ClamAV. We’ve written about this before, as have others. In this video, however, we’ll let Dean tell you in his own words what’s going on — and why.
We previously wrote about this case in [1, 2]. External links:
- Trend Micro patent claim provokes FOSS community, leads to boycott
- Call for action: Boycott Trend Micro
Intellectual Monopolies Versus FOSS
Dana Blankenhorn has this good new post.
The purpose of copyright and patent rights is not the permanent enrichment of authors, inventors, and their descendents or assigned corporate parents. It is to provide an incentive for the creation and distribution of new work.
Mighty Mouse Versus Apple
Well, isn’t this unfortunate?
Apple sued over Mighty Mouse”
[…]
Apple licensed the right to use the name Mighty Mouse from US broadcaster CBS, which owns the name through its rights to the 1940s cartoon show - Mighty Mouse.
How careful must one be with words? Here is another article about this.
Landover, MD-based Man and Machine (M&M) has filed a lawsuit against Apple and CBS for their use of the term “Mighty Mouse.” Apple uses the name to describe its computer mouse and CBS uses it for a cartoon character.
Weeks ago we saw Microsoft fighting the Dutch dictionary in court. It won. █
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.