07.17.08
Posted in Law, Microsoft, Finance, GNU/Linux, SCO, UNIX, Courtroom at 4:31 am by Roy Schestowitz
SCO has already received its decent share of money from Microsoft and from BayStar (at the very least), through which Microsoft ensured SCO is funded to continue its legal battles against Linux. The decision on Novell/SCO is now in and a preliminary look suggests that Novell, which may be acquired by Microsoft one day, is set to inherit some of SCO’s assets and money.
OK. I’ve read it now once through, and the big picture is this: Judge Kimball did not change anything in his August 10th order, which I was afraid might happen. He could have, had he heard anything that he didn’t know when he made that order. So, SCO breached its fiduciary duty to Novell, converted funds, and so it has to pay. That is ironic, in that this case started with SCO accusing Novell of slander of title, and asking for millions in damages. Instead it has to *pay* Novell millions.
From all of these UNIX/Linux wars, one party among several that benefit is Microsoft. Groklaw opines that Microsoft is the next SCO. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend 
View as PDF
07.16.08
Posted in Law, Microsoft, GNU/Linux, GNOME, Patents, Europe at 7:13 am by Roy Schestowitz
Of agents of intellectual monopolies
For those who are new to this, Mccreevy is actually seen as a troublemaker for his attempt — whether deliberate and informed or not — to bring software patents to Europe. Sadly, this commissioner appears to be wreaking havoc also on the copyrights front. We rarely discuss these issue in this Web site (sometimes we do [1, 2, 3, 4, 5), but a few others like Larry Lessig and Glyn Moody definitely know how much political manipulation is involved here. Bribery isn’t unusual, either. In response to the latest push, Moody writes:
Copyright is supposed to provide an *incentive* to create, not a *reward* for having created. Increasing the term of copyright protection will not suddenly make ageing rockers more creative. Moreover, the prospect of an extra 45 years’ protection is highly unlikely to make young rockers rush out and create more. So this is a pure loss for the public domain. Thanks for nothing, Charlie.
At this worrisome pace, DMCA will take over every single country. Software patents are another serious issue that not only threatens Europe. Another ugly thing to consider is government snooping, often justified using alarming words like “terrorism” and “paedophiles”. Here is a report from Germany:
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed suit against the US government to protest the new Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) recently passed by Congress. The civil rights organisation believes that the far-reaching authority granted by the Act, which has now been signed by George W. Bush, is unconstitutional.
Nevertheless, the same broken laws are brought over to the United Kingdom. The government wants to archive all E-mails and phonecalls. Leaks, careless spendings, and misuse are — as usual — only to be expected.
A central database holding details of everyone’s phone calls and emails could be a “step too far for the British way of life”, ministers have been warned.
Going back to copyrights again, this one article about copyrights versus preservation is worth a look.
Although digital works are ubiquitous and easily duplicated, they also are ephemeral and are at risk of disappearing unless preservation efforts begin soon after they are created, according to a study by the Library of Congress and three international partners.
[…]
Libraries, archives and other institutions currently are hampered in preserving these materials by copyright laws geared toward more persistent, physical works. The study recommended that laws permit preservation institutions to preserve works according to international best practices, which includes making copies for administrative and technical purposes, migrating works to different formats as technology changes, and maintaining backup copies in multiple institutions to protect against catastrophic loss.
So herein the Library of Congress shepherds a study where others too are complaining about data loss and preservation.
Over in the United States, the Library of Congress has already been ‘violated’ by Microsoft [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. In the United Kingdom, the story is similar. Alex Brown is still ’selling’ the British Library some OOXML lock-inware [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].
Contrariwise, the Canadian Library Association seem to ‘get’ it. It chooses ODF. Here is another new example of ODF support. [via Bob Sutor]
This addresses a pretty big speed-bump that people were hitting while trying to share documents in Buzzword. Finally, we added support in this release for exporting documents in Open Document Format (ODF). We’re not done with this format, though! ODF import is coming.
It remains to be seen what GNOME is going to do. It must support ODF, but Miguel de Icaza, a fan of Microsoft’s .NET and OOXML, is still evidently involved in GNOME’s direction. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
Posted in Red Hat, Law, Microsoft, GNU/Linux, SCO, Novell, Patents, SUN, IBM at 6:40 am by Roy Schestowitz
Transparency is needed at all levels
Yesterday we wrote very quickly about Red Hat’s settlement and why it was a bad idea in retrospect. The argument made by Béranger is that they fed the trolls — the patent trolls. Further, he writes: “Now, I don’t think Red Hat was paid by those patent trolls. Going forward to invalidate the patents would still have entitled Red Hat to ask for damages, and the public image of Red Hat would have been even better: hey, software patents can be invalidated, and here’s Red Hat doing it! But, IF Red Hat was indeed paid to shut up, THEN this is even criminal! It’s like making profits on the expenses of other operating systems (the BSDs, Solaris, whatever) not covered by this settlement!”
“The word “settlement” is often an embellishment, a euphemism.”This surely brings back some memories of Novell, but a comparison would be totally invalid. Either way, it serves as an example and precedence to entice more patent trolls and give them just what they want. Settlement = extortion. The word “settlement” is often an embellishment, a euphemism.
SCO too had Microsoft and Sun license UNIX from them (it later turned out to be in vain) just after they had sued IBM and others. All can be done purely for legitimacy. Both Sun and Microsoft could benefit from it. In the case of Microsoft, it was not only an opportunity to inject money; Microsoft went further and arranged a BayStar investment in SCO.
It’s the same with Trend Micro, which cross-licensed quite recently… with IBM. Ironically enough, in response to this, Barracuda then had to buy patents from IBM, which probably cost a lot. Trend Micro used IBM for legitimacy, so in that sense, IBM was part of this messy business. Had they never dealt with software patents, perhaps none of this would come abound. Here is what Barracuda’s CEO, Dean Drako, said quite recently:
“I would much rather spend my time and money and energy finding ways to make the Internet safer and better than bickering over patents.”
The claims made above about Red Hat exposing Solaris and BSD seems to be contradicted by Groklaw:
Most of the agreement is typical language, but Tiller explains the parts that are specific to this agreement, which is groundbreaking. It’s living proof that the GPL can function as intended, and without compromise, while still dealing with US patent law.
[…]
Even such code distributed by Novell and Sun Microsystem is covered. Is that not refreshing? Note also that “Red Hat Product” includes “predecessor versions” of any Red Hat Products, including versions Red Hat or its employees had no involvement in developing. When you think about the Novell-Microsoft patent deal, what a contrast! That covered only Novell’s paying customers, and deliberately excluded the rest of the community. Red Hat, with a deeper understanding of the GPL and the community’s interests, in contrast responds with a very creative, GPL-compatible agreement that reflects how the community has always worked — competition on merit, not on exclusion or proprietary moves.
The press release contains this ugly bit.
Payment
Section 3 of the agreement is entitled “Payment,” but the material on this issue has been redacted here. This is because the parties agreed that this term must remain confidential.
What is this? BECTA and Microsoft? The equivalent of a Memorandum of Understanding [1, 2, 3, 4]? Novell too redacted the hell out of its formal agreement with Microsoft.
More analysis of this comes from Lisa Hoover, whose report ends with:
The 22-page document [PDF] contains affadavits and documents that outline the terms of the agreement, however specifics on any payments that changed hands have been redacted because “the parties agreed that this term must remain confidential.”
Sean Michael Kerner found some bits of this deal discomforting as well.
How can you be transparent about a settlement without discussing money? How much is a patent worth today? I certainly would want to know and I’d bet millions of others would too.
[…]
This is a fantastic thing. Now if Novell had been as community minded when it struck its patent covenant deal with Microsoft the biggest patent threat hovering over the Linux community as a whole IMHO would just go away.
From user ’sandholm’ at Tux Machines:
Isn’t this moot?
Submitted by sandholm on Tue, 07/15/2008 - 11:17.
This is an interesting way for RedHat to try and “save some face”, after their “secret” payoff to Firestar on a patent that was dubious from the start.
Now that Sun has requested the Firestar patent be invalidated, and considering the response from the PTO:
http://lwn.net/Articles/289747/
I guess this is the only way that Redmond…Er…RedHat has figured to try and save some respect.
Linux Journal rightly gives credit to Sun.
Just over a month ago, we brought you the news that Red Hat had washed its hands of long-term patent litigation with Firestar Software over object-oriented software and relational databases. We now learn the deal came just a month too early, as last week the Patent and Trademark Office invalidated the patent in question — the result of a “brother-in-arms” effort by Red Hat competitor Sun Microsystems.
[…]
As for Sun and the Open Source community, it’s a victory for striking down one more prohibitive proprietary roadblock, as well as a protection for all from similar prosecution.
Jonathan Corbet has a good and comprehensive summary too.
Red Hat’s initial press release claimed that this settlement demonstrated the company’s commitment to standing up for the community in the face of patent trolls, and stated that it would discourage any future such cases. At this point it seems fairly evident that Sun has made a better show of standing up for the community and discouraging future cases. What Red Hat has done, though, is to show us how future patent problems could be resolved in the absence of obvious prior art. If one must pay the troll, one would do well to come out with an agreement like this one and, at least, keep the troll away from the rest of the community. Whether patent holders who actually have a legal leg to stand on will be willing to agree to such a settlement remains to be seen; the nature of the game is such that, unfortunately, we are likely to get an answer to that question sooner or later.
There are no easy answers here. For sure, what Sun managed to achieve was more valuable than what Red Hat had done. What Novell did was just selfish in every way.
It surely cost Sun some time and effort. Imperfect solutions seem necessary as long as the payment system is absolutely broken. The next post will discuss further perversion of the law by intellectual monopolies. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
07.11.08
Posted in Law, Microsoft, Deception, FOSS at 3:58 am by Roy Schestowitz
One of the vilest among the Microsoft pressure groups/analysts is IDC. The acronym is very deceiving because it does not reflect on the fact that IDC is just a component in the marketing pipeline. Shall a certain hypothesis require ‘proof’, IDC gets hired by a company that supplies its own data and methods to ensure a biased and self-flattering outcome (for income). To make matters worse, IDC sometimes conceals the sponsorships. Sadly enough, the Linux Foundation too went down this path quite recently. It’s a serious issue that we wrote about many times before.
At the moment, as always, Microsoft is trying to influence lawmakers. How does it go about achieving this? By paying the likes of IDC and using the BSA (another Microsoft lobbying option), which has done a lot of legwork for Microsoft lately. It’s the same old chorus that was seen about 3 months ago (it was also Microsoft+IDC+BSA at the time):
Microsoft has claimed that each dollar it “loses” to software piracy equals $5.50 in “lost opportunities” to the firm’s channel partners.
A Microsoft-sponsored white paper (pdf) released by IT analyst house IDC yesterday highlights the effects of copyright infringement on the software ecosystem across the tech industry.
[…]
The BSA has claimed that the value of just PC software that was counterfeited in 2007 was close to $50bn worldwide.
It’s sponsored by Microsoft. Rest sure that the BSA will carry on trying to pass anti-FOSS laws on behalf of paymasters that including Microsoft Corporation. The BSA is far from a friend of Free software. which renders its job obsolete.
Antagonism to Free software comes not just from Microsoft but from an entire ecosystem that needs to be identified and recognised for its goals.
The same problem that affects Free software also affects indie music. The other day we mentioned G8 playing ball for Hollywood. Behind this you also have alleged corruption from Vivendi and the servitude of the French president.
According to this new article from Heise, the ACTA, which was composed secretly by a few greedy and self-serving elites, is to be integrated into the law with endorsement from G8.
On the second day of the G8 meeting in Hokkaido, Japan, the rising price of food and oil were the focal points, along with climate change. But the heads of the G8 nations also found time to consider the troublesome issue of intellectual property. In their declaration on the global economy published today, they therefore called for an Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) to be adopted by the end of the year.
This is not a democracy. One again, it’s the case involving a handful of monopolies hiacjking the system. rewriting laws the way they see fit. and thus securing (or expanding) their influence and wealth.
In part, Free software isn’t just a case against proprietary software but also a case against political corruption, where affluence is equated to control. It’s about breaking the “golden rule”, namely that those who have the gold make the rules. They get to glorify themselves and daemonise the rest. Case of point below (from times when Microsoft ‘warned’ the government about the ‘great threat’ of open source). █
“Open source is an intellectual-property destroyer […] I can’t imagine something that could be worse than this for the software business and the intellectual-property business. I’m an American; I believe in the American way, I worry if the government encourages open source, and I don’t think we’ve done enough education of policymakers to understand the threat.”
–Jim Allchin, Microsoft
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
07.10.08
Posted in Law, Patents, Europe at 1:17 pm by Roy Schestowitz
The ACTA keeps marching in. but Heise reports that the media lobby’s Internet monitoring proposal has been rejected, at least for now.
The Telecommunications Package will not prescribe uninterrupted monitoring of the internet as demanded by the Conservatives on behalf of the media and entertainment industry. On Monday evening, the Industry, Research and Energy Committee (ITRE) and the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee (IMCO) of the European Parliament voted on around 1,000 changes to the EU Telecom rules, consolidated into over 30 amendments. The compromise proposal put forward by the rapporteur for the draft framework directive, Catherine Trautmann, was accepted. The Conservatives are said to have become more sceptical about “internet monitoring”.
On the other hand, according to Glyn Moody’s conversation with a high-level figure, nothing is over. We’ve recently seen that amendments typically sneak in at the 90th minute.
Of course, that still leaves ground for concern – not about the intentions of Dr Kamall, but about the way in which the proposed amendments might be co-opted by the media industry against ISPs and their customers. It is clearly vital that the proposed changes be drafted as tightly as possible to avoid any function drift.
Charles is concerned enough about the role of Sarkozy that he wrote a letter to his president.
An Open Letter to the the French President Nicolas Sarkozy
[…]
This, is simply not acceptable of a country like France. People should not be forced to live their cultural lives based on how a secretive but powerful lobby would like them to, and oppressive measures should not be enforced against a whole population just because those “happy few” refused to accept that the world has changed since the 1960’s. Culture does not work that way, but one particular industry does, and if it does not change it will die.
A last word, Mr President. I love my country too much to think that the French culture, that is supposedly “in danger,” is a subculture of made up pop singers and evanescent starlets. Not everyone that speaks, writes and sings in French is worth to promote because a record label, or a publisher has acquired its rights and claims it’s the best thing since sliced bread. Perhaps you will remember that no one wanted to read François Villon and so many others; yet they are now considered to be national treasures. Forced consent is not an art. Delusion is not culture.
I therefore ask you, Mr President, to stop this unfair, lobby-inspired legislative agenda on the “Three Strikes” approach and trust you will see truth and fairness in this request.
Stay tuned. This debate is related to that of software patents. It’s an ugly case of rich companies (a tiny privileged minority) writing new laws to serve themselves better at the expense of the digital majority. Such is the nature of software patents that serve monopolies with gigantic portfolios. It’s only there for the solicitors. █
“Idiots can be defeated but they never admit it.”
–Richard Stallman
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
Posted in Law, Microsoft, Europe, RAND at 5:14 am by Roy Schestowitz
“The government is not trying to destroy Microsoft, it’s simply seeking to compel Microsoft to obey the law. It’s quite revealing that Mr. Gates equates the two.”
–Government official
How ‘dare’ anyone mess with Microsoft and impose the law upon it? How ‘dare’ anybody fine the company for refusing to comply with the law? This was mentioned very briefly yesterday and now comes some more coverage. Groklaw writes:
Microsoft to EU Commission: We’re Not the Bad Guy; You Are
Yes, the EU Commission is the defendant. It seems it neglected to believe Microsoft’s experts about how valuable its patents are. And it accuses the Commission of accepting reports from the trustee, whom Microsoft hand-picked, by the way, based on “documents obtained through powers of investigation that the Court of First Instance held to be unlawful.” Whoah. No more Mr. Nice Guy for Microsoft, I see.
The Register writes: Microsoft criticizes EU’s ‘unreasonable’ judgement
According to Microsoft, the Commission made a “manifest error” in deciding its prices were unreasonable saying the prices were “intended to facilitate negotiations between Microsoft and the prospective licensees.”
Among other claims, Microsoft said the Commission had ignored evidence from patent experts on the subject of whether Microsoft’s trade secrets were innovative, and it had denied Microsoft a right to be heard as it failed to give Microsoft the chance to give its views at the end of the period for which it was fined.
A lot of this coverage broke out after the Reuters story bearing the headline “Microsoft says EU court’s fine ‘excessive’.” Electronista suggests that the EC remains very confident about its decision.
The European Commission’s response in court hasn’t been revealed, though the organization maintains that the $1.4 billion fine was “legally sound,” according to spokesman Jonathan Todd.
Ask Scott Fulton what it is which makes Microsoft a spoiled brat, envisioning itself as above international laws. The remedy for this may need to be as radical as the corporate culture. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
07.05.08
Posted in Law, Microsoft, Patents, Europe, Asia, RAND, FOSS at 6:47 am by Roy Schestowitz
This is independence?!?! Or is it monopolistic chaos?
We foolishly believed that on (American) Independence Day we would be seeing plenty of news about liberty and freedom, but instead we found heaps of anti-FOSS moves, especially in Europe where there was no holiday. Let’s start with India though.
India
A couple of months ago we saw resurfacing attempts to make software patents legal in India. Business Standard now has an article about it. [via Digital Majority]
The contentious issue of software patents is rearing its head again, both in India and globally. The Indian Patent Office, for instance, invited companies and institutions to comment on its Draft Manual 2008 — Patent Practice & Procedure (software patents included) this April.
[…]
“We find that the draft manual seeks to introduce software patents, and we believe this is not in consonance with the current legal situation which states that “a mathematical or business method and or a computer program per se or algorithms are not patentable”,” notes Red Hat (India).
[…]
The patent system is also perceived as a hindrance to open source. Open source firms like Red Hat too acquire patents. However, they argue that it’s for “the sole purpose of asserting defensively in the event of a future lawsuit”.
This may develop into another case of David vs. Goliath, where Free software developers haven’t sufficient funds for political manipulation and intervention with lobbyists.
Europe
Over in Europe, Digital Majority identifies some new and irregular activities.
European Patent Office
According to an EPO publication, this establishment now has more authority than it’s supposed to have. It makes the system ripe for abuse.
The EPO Gazette reports that some MEPs members of the Legal Affairs committee visited the EPO in early June. Questions were raised on the democratic control of the Office, and how the Alicante model of the OHIM could also apply to the EPO. One MEP mentioned that the EPO is also taking political decisions.
On the bright side, based on this new finding, it seems safe to say that software patents still face a barrier in Europe — for now.
Method and apparatus for multi player bet auxiliary game
This decision involves a casino game which has been automated. The conclusion of the BoA is the most unremarkable: the invention is not patentable because of lack of inventive step. The remarkable part is the very good explanation of what inventive step, technical contrinbution and further technical effect means.
They say “The Board is of the firm belief, that it cannot have been the legislator’s purpose and intent on the one hand to exclude from patent protection such subject matter, while on the other hand awarding protection to a technical implementation thereof, where the only identifiable contribution of the claimed technical implementation to the state of the art is the excluded subject-matter itself.” And a good quote on further technical effect “it needs to be stressed that the “further” technical effect can not be the same one which is inherent in the excluded subject-matter itself.
Community Patent (Back Door)
The Community patent is frequently mentioned in relation to Slovenia and France. Charles McCreevy seems to play a role in this too although he’s more focused on another back door for software patents: a so-called ‘harmonisation’ plan. The Community patent can work against a community of developers (FOSS) while harmonisation is actually a matter of contamination (but the terminology used here is intentionally deceiving.
Here are some sightings of the status of the Community patent, as seen through the eyes of Digital Majority:
EU Internal Market and Services: Legislative strategy
Commissioner Charlie McCreevy has chosen…
[…]
Work continues on the patent litigation system and on the Community patent. Since the Commission adopted the Communication “Enhancing a patent system in Europe” in April 2007, it has been actively working towards a consensus on the key elements among Member States in the Council under the German, Portuguese and Slovenian Presidency in the Council.
The Sarkozy regime is no friend of FOSS, either. Watch this: French Unveil Presidency Priorities
The French have set the construction of the European Research Area (ERA) as the main research priority for their presidency of the EU.
[…]
Elsewhere, the French pledge to ’strive to make progress towards a Community patent’.
More here: French unveil presidency priorities
The French have set the construction of the European Research Area (ERA) as the main research priority for their presidency of the EU. Other priorities include boosting Europe’s role in space and making progress towards a Community patent.
Microsoft Lobbying
What would an anti-FOSS initiative be like without some Microsoft proxies?
Here you can see the likes the ACT and the BSA joining hands and pushing for the FOSS-hostile RAND.
Both BSA and ACT have long advocated licenses which allow the use of specifications with “Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory” conditions. These “RAND” conditions usually require the users of standards to pay a fee, or reciprocate in another way. Those who advocate free software consider these conditions incompatible with the open source principle.
Jan Wildeboer is an open source evangelist at Red Hat in Europe who supports the plans for the revised EIF version. He explained, in an interview with heise online, “Particularly the stipulation that presumed intellectual property has to be made available without the payment of license fees in open standards complies with a fundamental requirement for open source developers and providers of open source solutions.” He said open standards are generally a “vital component of modern IT infrastructures”, and was surprised that the BSA renewed its call for license fees to be paid for HTTP and DHCP. Wildeboer said this argument has already proved redundant in the debate about software patents.
Microsoft Sued
There’s some comfort to be found in the fact that Microsoft would be suffering from the same poison which it strives to inject into international law. What would be a sweeter revenge than a lawsuit against Microsoft over its GNU/Linux-hostile Silverlight?
Video software developer Gotuit Media has sued Microsoft, claiming that its Silverlight multimedia software infringes several of the company’s patents.
[…]
The suit seeks an injunction preventing Microsoft from using this technology and asks the court to award damages and legal fees.
Alcatel-Lucent Sued
The company which gave Microsoft a hard time over patents [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] has just been stung too. Oracle is the greedy one this time around.
Oracle is suing Alcatel-Lucent, claiming the massive telecom is in violation of a number of Oracle’s patents, according to documents filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Alcatel-Lucent emphatically denies Oracle’s claims and is charging in turn that some Oracle software — including its flagship database — infringes on some of Alcatel-Lucent’s patents
‘Ownership’ of Airwave Frequencies
Ownership of immaterialistic things is only one of the problems with software patents. You may wish to read this new essay on the ‘right’ to ‘own’ knowledge for justification of the criticism.
Two people on opposite sides of the world have exactly the same idea at the same time. Which one of those two people would be most morally justified in claiming to own the exclusive rights to that idea? Should it be the first to dash through the doors of the USPTO office, with a big wad of cash in his hand?
In a timely fashion, on this year’s Independence Day, Linux Journal published this article that criticises the ownership of another immaterialistic thing: spectrum.
The chocolate is cost. The rulemaking proposes making Internet access over that spectrum “free” — in the free-as-in-beer sense. Not the free-as-in-freedom sense. Especially not in the free-as-in-speech sense. And least of all in the free-as-in-markets sense.
[…]
Naturally, lobbying is involved here.
Hollywood’s ‘Ownership’ of the Web
More important than the above is the following urgent matter which is actually about privacy, censorship, and copyrights. Under many people’s noses, the media industry seems to have taken control over legislation for our beloved Internet. Glyn Moody has issued a rushed call for action.
There is a very important EU vote taking place on July 7th on some amendments to telecommunications legislation that threaten to sneak in a number of catastrophic measures…
[…]
Inevitably, that data would leak out – no database is secure, as recent events in the UK remind us – with huge and irreparable damage to the individuals concerned.
Finally, and in many ways most extraordinarily, these amendments effectively give special legal powers to a particular class of private entities, allowing courts and police to be by-passed. This is wrong not only on a practical level – there are countless cases where mistakes have been made in alleging copyright infringement, for example – but also as a matter of principle.
Ben Henrion goes further and labels it “Soviet Internet”.
Amendments to the European Telecommunications directive being rushed through the European Parliament propose a “Soviet internet” where software publishers and internet service providers watch traffic and data for Hollywood. Software and services that run on the internet would have to ask for permission of the regulators.
[…]
Benjamin Henrion, FFII representative in Brussels, rings the alarm bell: “Tomorrow, popular software applications like Skype or even Firefox might be declared illegal in Europe if they are not certified by an administrative authority. This is compromising the whole open development of the internet as we know it today. Once the Soviet Union required the registration of all typewriters and printing devices with the authorities.”
Hollywood’s ‘Ownership’ of ‘Your’ Computer
Although it transcends the scope of this Web site, this is a subject that was discussed here before. Keep an eye on the FOSS-allergic DMCA law, which is fortunately still being challenged by some.
Yesterday, a district court dismissed several claims in the case Coupons, Inc. v. Stottlemire, in which we had, in March, filed an amicus brief. Coupons offers online coupons that consumers can access and print using software provided by Coupons.
[…]
This is because controlling use of copyrighted material is already addressed by copyright law, and addressing it again in the DMCA would upset the careful balance between the rights of copyright owners and those of the public. As the court properly understood, maintaining a clear distinction between access-control claims and rights-control claims “leaves room for individual fair uses, adaptations for the blind, library research, and the other statutory exceptions to copyright.”
Speaking of anti-FOSS laws such as the one above (DMCA), also in the news you’ll find Microsoft expanding its anti-GNU/Linux laptops plot. We mentioned it quite recently.
Will it ever be as little as just $18 for Windows XP on merely any laptop? Perhaps free with subscription (hidden cost) any time soon? In selected nations, Microsoft already experiments around this idea.
Microsoft has loosened the hardware restrictions that PC makers must adhere to in order to install Windows XP on ultra-low-cost PCs, according to documents seen by IDG News Service.
Remember that Microsoft’s executives already admit that GNU/Linux is their number-one competitor. Strategies for fighting this threat include: very cheap software (or trials with attached strings like lock-in or expiry/subscription), laws that forbid FOSS, and prevalent software that excludes FOSS (Silverlight and OOXML for example).
Perils to FOSS come from unexpected directions, which are important to understand. It’s not a matter of side-by-side comparisons of Windows and GNU/Linux, not when some companies refuse to obey existing market laws. █
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.