Summary: News about patents where the system has gone awry (the Apple-HTC case and GMO in Africa)
Android/Linux
YESTERDAY we highlighted HTC's press release where it responded to Apple’s lawsuit against Android [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] (and few argue Chrome OS too, which makes GNU/Linux a target as well). There is some press coverage based on this press release, including:
Microsoft supports Apple’s action [1, 2, 3], which is already casting some shadow on Android. Take this new article for example. It’s about Virgin Media and it says:
Google launched its first Android phone in September 2008, and since then it’s become a favoured platform for smartphone enthusiasts. Earlier this month Apple took steps to sue HTC over its range of smartphones with Google software over allegations of infringing hardware and software patents, but it’s a platform that only seems to be gaining momentum over time.
Verizon Figures If It’s Already Involved In A Patent Lawsuit With TiVo, Why Not Sue Cablevision For Its DVR Too
[...]
Ah, the patent wars. As you’re probably aware, TiVo spent years fighting a big legal battle with EchoStar/Dish Networks over some patents on DVR technology. TiVo won big, and then immediately turned its patent lawyers on some other companies including Verizon. In Verizon’s response to TiVo’s lawsuit, it went nuclear back, accusing TiVo of violating Verizon’s patents on DVR technology — including a patent that the world’s biggest patent hoarding firm, Intellectual Ventures, gave Verizon for the purpose of being used against TiVo.
Seeds
A new article from Salon sheds light on the effect of genetic engineering (read: patents encumbrances) on Ghana:
In the case of GMOs we are dealing with a remarkable concentration of intellectual property ownership in just a handful of corporations. Like all well-endowed corporate actors, these companies do not shy from vigorously lobbying governments in favor of putting into place place legal frameworks that are designed to maximize profits and minimize caution.
[...]
If you google Ghana and genetically modified crops, you will very quickly run into the name Walter Alhassan, a consultant for the Accra-based Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA), and a strong advocate for the position that Ghana’s government “needs to speed up the passage of the Biosafety Bill to the global trend to improve agriculture and food security.”
I’m conscious that I’ve written a lot of negative posts about genetically-modified organisms on this blog. That might lead readers to believe I’m against them. That’s not the case: I am naturally pro-technology, and GMOs are potentially an important tool for addressing many of the world’s most pressing problems. But I have my concerns, and I was pleased to find that Salon’s Andrew Leonard not only shares them, but has expressed them rather well:
I don’t actually have a position on whether GMOs are by definition good or bad for the environment or human health or even the challenge of alleviating hunger in the developing world. My basic stance, in fact, is pro-science: I believe technological advances have greatly advanced human health and affluence, and will continue to do so, if properly regulated. My concern re GMOs has always stemmed from a profound skepticism that profit-seeking corporations can be trusted to responsibly serve the public good. One need look only at the constant stream of reports detailing unethical and criminal behavior by major pharmaceutical companies to realize that this is hardly a hypothetical concern.
In the case of GMOs we are dealing with a remarkable concentration of intellectual property ownership in just a handful of corporations. Like all well-endowed corporate actors, these companies do not shy from vigorously lobbying governments in favor of putting into place place legal frameworks that are designed to maximize profits and minimize caution.
Earlier this month, Greenpeace revealed that Switzerland stays away from genetic engineering. What do they know that others do not know? It’s possible that genetically engineered crops are overall not better, they just happen to be owned by a corporation that markets them as “better” (so it’s privatisation of nature).
The Swiss Parliament has just extended its ban on the cultivation of genetically engineered (GE) plants for three more years. Originally enacted in 2005, Switzerland will stay GE-free until at least 2013.
As we pointed out before, with its support and investments in Monsanto, the Gates Foundation continues to show its patent agenda that puts African lives at risk (Microsoft does the same type of thing that creates dependence). Bill Gates’ attempts to promote Monsanto in India are still met with skepticism and there is even a lawsuit because Monsanto is a pact of bullies who spread experimental, patents-encumbered seeds just to expand their monopoly. We’ve covered the subject in many posts, such as those that we list below. █
FEW days ago we wrote about Microsoft people engaging with and entering "Open Source", possibly in order to change its agenda (although it could innocently be just a side effect). This is known as entryism and if there is no shielding against it, then the outcome can be fatal. One has to be careful of the sort of 'monopoly' on Free/open source licence statistics from a Microsoft-sourced company called Black Duck for instance. (Dis)Information is power and this power tends to be misused when put in the wrong hands. Deception and advertising is how those entities make a living. Likewise, to let former Microsoft employees decide whose voice counts in “Open Source” is rather risky. Last year we showed that Microsoft lobbyists (notably Zuck from Association for Competitive Technology) managed to infiltrate an “Open Source” panel where they subverted collective opinion to affect policies. We took it up to the European Commission and wrote about this in:
Nevertheless, why would such a site promote Microsoft’s agenda? It’s a Windows site and strangely enough, it is registered by The Economist:
Registrars.Registrant:
The Economist Newspaper Limited
25 St James's Street
London, SW1A 1HG
GB
Domain name: EUROPEANVOICE.COM
Administrative Contact:
Manager, Domain economistdomains@comlaude.com
25 St James's Street
London, SW1A 1HG
GB
+44.2078360070 Fax: +44.8700118187
Technical Contact:
Administrator, DNS dnsadmin@economist.com
26 Red Lion Square
London, WC1R 4HQ
GB
+44.2078360070 Fax: +44.8700118187
Registration Service Provider:
Nom IQ Ltd (trading as Com Laude), admin@comlaude.com
44-20-78360070
Address for Legal Service: Nom IQ Ltd (trading as Com Laude), 116 Long
Acre, London, WC2E 9SU. Com Laude is responsible for the registration,
maintenance and management of this domain name.
Registrar of Record: TUCOWS, INC.
Record last updated on 12-Jan-2010.
Record expires on 21-Jul-2012.
Record created on 21-Jul-1999.
Registrar Domain Name Help Center:
http://tucowsdomains.com/help/
Domain servers in listed order:
NSGBR.COMLAUDE.CO.UK
NSUSA.COMLAUDE.NET
NSSUI.COMLAUDE.CH
Domain status: clientTransferProhibited
clientUpdateProhibited
The event it is organising is supported by ACT (the Microsoft front group). The president of the FFII, Benjamin Henrion, publicly warns that “ACT continues to push for software patents in Europe, Innovation Summit at the end of the month in Brussels.” ACT is clearly a front for Microsoft and rather than deny this with counter arguments, Zuck and his colleagues repeatedly defame my character in their Web site. This attitude is telling and it is also used by Microsoft technical evangelists (sometimes a euphemism for AstroTurfers on the payroll). Defamation is what one gets for exposing Microsoft’s nature and modus operandi. Groklaw received similar treatment from SCO.
“ACT continues to push for software patents in Europe…” –Benjamin Henrion, FFIINot only ACT supports this event though. Microsoft’s “eskills” project is there too. Here is some background (more in another page with proof that it’s a Microsoft project in this document/leaflet[PDF]), which ties the project to “Jan Muehlfeit, chairman of Microsoft Europe and co-chair of the European”. We wrote about him in [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] because of his lobbying in Europe. He is allegedly a former communist [1, 2], but that’s not the key point.
It is abundantly clear that Microsoft is actively working towards the goal of legalising software patents in Europe so that it can pursue Free software exclusion (taxing it or making it illegal).
The president of the FFII points to this new post and argues that “Neelie Kroes pushing for software patents in standards, Digital Commissioner Kroes proposes new EU policy of open standards” (she was lobbied by Microsoft).
From the introduction:
AN IMPORTANT POLICY PAPER, A Digital Agenda for Europe – A policy for smart growth and innovation in a digital society, HAS BEEN LEAKED OF WHICH AN EXCERPT IS BELOW. DIGITAL AGENDA COMMISSIONER KROES HAS PROPOSED A SERIOUS MOVE OF THE EU TOWARD OPEN STANDARDS AND INTEROPERABILITY. THESE PROPOSALS ARE ALREADY BEING ATTACKED BY HER COLLEAGUES IN THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION WHO REPRESENT ENTERPRISE, COMMERCE AND INTERNAL MARKET. NEVERTHELESS, THESE PROPOSALS DESERVE CONSUMER AND CITIZEN SUPPORT.
Neelie Kroes has been making many mistakes regarding software patents as of late [1, 2]. We also learn that “DG Enterprise is pro software patents, and hostile to real open standards. They defend patent holders such as Philips and BSA.” In the following new post we are reminded that in the UK at least, software patents are already forcing their way into the system.
In simplified terms the UK Intellectual Property Office (UK IPO) on the other hand follows law and practice in the UK instead where a patent for software can be granted only where the software has a technical effect.
In summary, Microsoft has not given up on changing EU laws to discriminate against Free software. This is a major issue that a lot of GNU/Linux-oriented Web sites continue to ignore. Sometimes, those who point this out are accused of sensationalism or FUD; such accusations are only proof of gullibility and they are counter productive. █
“In the last several days Microsoft has shown that despite claims of acquiring a newly found respect for open principles and technology, developers should be cautious in believing promises made by this “new” Microsoft. [...] There is one other fact clear from this case. Microsoft does not appear to be a leopard capable of changing its spots. Maybe it’s time developers go on a diet from Microsoft and get the FAT out of their products.”
Summary: Despite awakening and realisation of the obvious, Novell carries on promoting and spreading .NET, knowing damn well the consequences for others
Microsoft’s MVP Miguel de Icaza occasionally throws a fit at the company’s hardball patent policy, even when it comes to Mono or Moonlight. He is not giving up on Mono, but it failed to gain a foothold and David Worthington, who is close to Microsoft and Novell [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], writes the following article:
Among the critics is Novell vice president Miguel de Icaza, who said .NET’s focus on Windows has come at the expense of opportunities for Microsoft, and its desire to guard its intellectual property is an impediment on the platform.
“Microsoft has shot the .NET ecosystem in the foot because of the constant threat of patent infringement that they have cast on the ecosystem,” he said. “Unlike the Java world that is blossoming with dozens of vibrant Java Virtual Machine implementations, the .NET world has suffered by this meme spread by [Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer] that they would come after people that do not license patents from them.”
Java — unlike .NET — is actually Free software. Java patents are owned by Oracle, which is in OIN. What justification can Novell give for its support of .NET? The fact that Microsoft is paying Novell? Selling one’s soul is not an action worth commending.
Novell is still creating even more Mono applications and Pinta is one of the latest examples (previously covered in [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). There are already quite a few image editors for GNU/Linux, so aren’t the priorities set improperly here? From The H:
Novell open source programmer Jonathan Pobst has announced the release of version 0.2 of his simple Pinta painting application for Gtk modelled after Paint.NET. The first Pinta update includes a number of updates and new features over the initial 0.2 release from last month.
Going back to Worthington, some days ago he seemingly broke the news about another .NET-boosting project from Novell (one that’s still being covered [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]). In a newer article about .NET, here is how he describes Novell’s role:
Novell, a Microsoft partner, is creating a Visual Studio add-on to target Android, along with another tool for translating .NET applications to native code to execute on the iPhone.
Novell is creating plug-ins for Visual Studio. Who is Novell kidding? In this case, it’s helping Windows and not any other desktop platform/IDE (there are other examples where Novell elevates Windows and Visual Studio [1, 2, 3]). It helps promote proprietary software, yet one of our readers from India says that “FSMK & CPIM didn’t study anything from the FOSS community Response against Novell in Kochi Conference. Novell is in the sponsors list of National Free Software Conference.”
Will they promote .NET/Mono this time around? Either way, having what Worthington called “a Microsoft partner” at the Free Software Conference (not “Open Source”) is not a healthy recipe. █
Summary: Europe’s policy on software patents and the ACTA factor; the MPEG patent pool turns out to be not much of a sleeping giant but an awake one; patents relating to cancer genes continue to needlessly cost lives
Microsoft keeps struggling to change Europe’s patent law and enable taxation of Free software. The FFII’s president, Benjamin Henrion, has tracked some of the latest developments in that regard; they happen to include ACTA.
“Just heard one guy on RTBF Purefm from an anti-piracy org in Belgium that they were pushing for “technical measures” on the ISPs (filtering),” said Henrion, who added that the “European Parliament ITRE committee [is] promoting interoperability and technological neutrality”; he skeptically points to this document[PDF] from the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. ACTA booster Paul Rübig [1, 2] is the reporter and here is the text which alludes to patents (inside “interoperability”):
SUGGESTIONS
The Committee on Industry, Research and Energy calls on the Committee on Legal Affairs, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions in its motion for a resolution:
Recommends that the Commission should:
1. Promote availability of EU-wide licenses for intellectual property rights (IPR);
2. Consider, as a step towards an internal market for IPR, licenses based on the original language, enabling a licensee for a work in one language to distribute it across the EU in that language;
3. Promote interoperability and technological neutrality, allowing content covered by IPR to be distributed regardless of technology or format used, and allowing convertibility of content between formats;
4. Maintain strong protection of IPR while facilitating legal use of works through easily available, one-stop, EU-wide licensing options, supported by transparency regarding the holders of the IPR;
5. Consider effective sanctions to deter infringement of copyright and prevent the losses caused to rights holders as a result, while upholding the principle that, for example, communications providers are mere conduits and as such not liable for infringement occurring through or facilitated by their services;
6. Make full use of sanctions available to it under competition and trade law where relevant;
7. Include, where relevant, an evaluation of the impact relating to IPR, in particular with respect to small and medium-sized enterprises, in all impact assessments;
8. Contribute, through the European Counterfeiting and Piracy Observatory, to the development of common standard procedures and criteria to enable the production of reliable and comparable data on the occurrence and value of counterfeiting and piracy across sectors.
FFII Greece has this new article describing the patent situation in Europe:
This is a presentation I made at an open source conference in Greece, 13 March 2010, at TEI of Piraeus.
Getting involved with software patents seems boring, and, unfortunately, it is, at least for me. I’m a computer professional and I like writing code. I’m a Python/Django fan, and I’m involved in a couple of free software projects. One of them is a state project (and it’s free because I took the opportunity to move it towards the right direction when I saw that the right people were in the right positions). I don’t like politics and legal issues much. However, I do occasionally mess around with copyrights and patents; not because I like it, but because I like being free, and it is a price I pay to defend my freedom.
[...]
I’m in Greece, I create a new invention, and I patent it at the Greek Industrial Property Organisation. What happens in other countries? Could someone from Italy copy my invention? The answer is they can, because the Greek patent is only valid in Greece. In order to solve this problem, many European countries signed the European Patent Convention (EPC) in 1973. Under the EPC, the European Patent Office (EPO) was born. If you are granted a patent by the EPO, then it is practically valid in all countries that have signed the EPC.
Note that the EPC is not a European Union treaty, but a treaty of the 36 countries that have signed it. The EPO is not an EU institution, but an international institution of the 36 countries that have signed the EPC.
“Since EPO failed to change the law, they then attempted to change the court,” quotes Henrion from the article above. This leads us to discussing the ACTA, which has a European Parliament meeting scheduled for 2 weeks from now (Room ASP 1G2).
Henrion has transcoded the following video, which he says is about “Punishing Patent Pirates with freeze of bank accounts.”
Direct link (“European Parliament about ACTA: Punishing Computer Pirates”)
The original video was in a Microsoft format (more here). Henrion claims that “Microsoft sponsors the European Parliament’s infrastructure, so now 600M EU citizens have to pay.” He also shows this parliamentary questioning where the “European Commission confirms they won’t give the ACTA documents to the public, since other countries oppose [it].”
Lastly, and also via Henrion, this article in German shows “ALDI threatened by MPEGLA in Dusseldorf court, the European version of the Eastern District of Texas.”
In this decent new recording, Novell’s former community manager for OpenSUSE asks: “What’s Bilski got to do with open source?”
Joe ‘Zonker’ Brockmeier speaks with Aaron Williamson, counsel at the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC).
The creator of the World Wide Web says that “software patents are a terrible thing”, but often we forget about the patents that actually kill people. We previously gave examples where treatment of cancer was impeded by patents [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. This mostly revolves around a very controversial patent that we mentioned before and is now mentioned in Reuters [via].
New Study Points Out That Gene Patent On Trial Is Very, Very Broad
Myriad Genetics’ disputed patent on the BRCA1 breast cancer gene is “surprisingly broad” and could interfere with future research, three experts said on Tuesday.
Basically, Suk’s whole position is based on the fact that the monopoly rents of designers is decreased by a lack of copyright, but she fails to consider that this leads to greater and more frequent innovation (which we see all the time in the market). What’s even stranger is that she flip-flops her argument in the middle of the paper. She talks repeatedly about how designers need big profits to have the incentive to innovate, but then says that big designers aren’t the ones really threatened. Instead, she claims, it’s the smaller designers. But, those designers didn’t have those big profits to protect in the first place. They’re out there trying to make a name for themselves by designing something new and cool — so they have plenty of incentive to innovate. And if their design this year is copied, that’s great for them because it gives them greater recognition and means the demand for their original products will be even greater the following season.
Do we want to live in a world where knitting can become a punishable offense for ‘infringing’ someone’s design? Seriously, when did the patent system lose sight of its original goals? It’s not there to assist big businesses; rather, it’s intended to protect small businesses with from the minority of the opulent. █
Summary: An inconvenient truth about the Linux Foundation is brought up again now that Linux is attacked with software patents that are named
Linux is a fine kernel, but it is not the Free desktop or the Free software movement; it also does not share all the same values as the FSF and the FFII, for example. Linux has grown to become more than a one-man project and it now falls under the banner of a foundation, which introduced corporate interests from software patents proponents (with large portfolios, evidently) such as IBM, Google, and Oracle. Linus Torvalds worries about software patents and he opposes them, but at the same time he relies on companies that fund Linux development.
Now that Microsoft adds its weight [1, 2, 3] to Apple’s software patents assault on GNU/Linux [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] maybe it’s time for Torvalds to speak up. It’s unlikely that he will.
At the Linux summit, OIN is still somewhat central (it’s like an extension of the Linux Foundation). FFII’s president wrote the following yesterday: “OIN, or the codification of vapour inventions, companies can capture and codify open source “inventions” http://i5.be/aC5”
“HTC strongly advocates intellectual property protection…” –Peter Chou, HTC CEOJust to clarify, even though the OIN can be effective sometimes [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6], it does not aim to end software patents. It might be a hindrance if what isn’t part of the solution is part of the problem. OIN is not a problem, but it’s not a permanent solution, either. It deals with problems as they arise rather than eliminate the problem at its root. The funding sources of the OIN are pro-software patents, so this approach only makes sense to them.
Going back to Apple’s lawsuit that Microsoft endorses, here is HTC’s new and official response, which includes the statement: “HTC disagrees with Apple’s actions and will fully defend itself. HTC strongly advocates intellectual property protection and will continue to respect other innovators and their technologies as we have always done, but we will continue to embrace competition through our own innovation as a healthy way for consumers to get the best mobile experience possible.”
One reader interprets this as endorsement of software patents, whereas another says (about “intellectual property”): “Like copyrighted GPL code?”
China does have software patents, but for Apple to pull this card is simply a sign of misery. We don’t have the same problem in Europe although the TomTom case contests this assumption. The next post will discuss Europe in a lot more detail. █
Summary: Intellectual Ventures is said to be attacking companies using its proxies and Microsoft suffers the wrath of the very practice it advocated with investments (patent trolling)
WITH some of its latest patent deals (e.g. Amazon [1, 2, 3]), Microsoft made it abundantly clear that it views racketeering [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7] as an acceptable business model. No Microsoft executives have been arrested for it because we live in a society that typically jails the poor and glorifies the rich. It’s part of the indoctrination system. We are taught that large entities are immune to social responsibilities, whereas small ones can be viewed of “crooks”, “nutcases”, or “terrorists”. Both are harmful and there is room for infinite hypocrisy.
But anyway, Microsoft is quickly finding out that those small “terrorists” — the patent trolls — can cause a lot of damage. Shortly after losing the VirnetX case [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8], Microsoft gets sued by VirnetXagain (this time triple damages for Vista 7). VirnetX is of course just a patent troll that contributes nothing to industry, whereas Microsoft is a marketing firm that contributes nothing to industry, except harm and monoculture.
“Usually Microsoft doesn’t develop products, we buy products.”
Microsoft has been ordered by a US federal jury in Texas to pay nearly $106m to VirnetX Holding Corporation for infringing two internet communication patents.
“Microsoft is a patent troll or at least a backer of some; one could argue that Microsoft is a patent troll by association…”Based on the words of Microsoft's patent troll at Intellectual Ventures, this massive patent-trolling firm was created after discussions with Bill Gates; he created his own troll to ‘address’ the issue of patent trolls. In order to avoid the “troll” status, Gates and his friends established a model whereby there is reliance on a central hoarder of patents that lends patents to legal attack dogs. This business model has proven successful because some large companies paid "protection money" to Intellectual Ventures under NDAs. Intellectual Ventures has no less 1,000 firms connected to it; these firms are akin to armed mafia people who will go around shooting victims and their families under “mysterious circumstances” unless those victims pay money to the mafia Dons, namely Nathan Myhrvold, Bill Gates, and their ilk (they are financially connected and Gates is part of this vehicle that resembles pyramid schemes). Microsoft is a patent troll or at least a backer of some; one could argue that Microsoft is a patent troll by association and the following new article sheds light on the connection to the father of patent trolling, Ray Niro. We wrote about this connection before
It seems that at least one company sued over such a patent is hitting back. Joe Mullin points us to the Legal Pad blog, which notes that Kodak, who has been sued for patent infringement by a shell company (PFI) being represented by Ray Niro (famous for, among other things, being the first person labeled a “patent troll,” as well as suing a bunch of companies he didn’t like with a bogus patent — finally rejected for good, recently — that he claimed covered any website that used a JPEG image), doesn’t believe that it’s really the shell company that’s behind this lawsuit. It’s demanding that Intellectual Ventures take part…
The original report asks, “Will Patent Holder IV [Intellectual Ventures] Show Its Face to Kodak?”
Kodak is trying to draw large patent hoarder Intellectual Ventures into court.
With its 30,000 patents and opaque veil of mystery, IV has shied away from the courts, likely because an allergy to discovery. But with its new money making scheme of selling patents to trolls who then file lawsuits (free reg. req.), you knew that IV would eventually end up in a courtroom.
Here are the basics on the Kodak case:
1. IV sold patent to shell company named Picture Frame Innovations.
2. Picture Frame, represented by Ray “the original patent troll” Niro, sued Kodak for patent infringement.
3. IV co-founder Peter Detkin told me last year that IV is now cutting deals where it sells patents and takes a cut of any money made by filing lawsuits (free reg. req.). So it seemed like IV might have struck such a deal with Picture Frame and Niro.
Amazon does worse things than killing of trees for books
Summary: What Amazon does not want to tell us about software patents in its recent deal with Microsoft; more reasons to suspect that Dell pays Microsoft for Ubuntu GNU/Linux
ONE of our readers, who goes by the name of “Mad Hatter”, has just explained why he will not link to Amazon anymore. As some people may recall, we called for an Amazon boycott* [1, 2, 3] not just because what Amazon does to the patent system but also because it joined Microsoft’s anti-GNU/Linux racket after hiring many executives from Microsoft (entryism). Here is the explanation about reasons to avoid Amazon:
By signing a deal with Microsoft, for technology that the Free and Open Source Community developed, Amazon has shown a lack of respect for the ‘Intellectual Property’ of the Free and Open Source Software Community. Amazon’s action is an attack on the community. It can also be considered an attack on the Constitution of the United States of America, which states
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
The wording above makes mention only of the Authors and Inventors. The drafters of the U.S. Constitution clearly meant that only the Author or Inventor of a work or invention can speak for that work or invention. Therefore if there are issues with a work or invention, the party who has the issues must approach the Author or Inventor, not a third party such as Amazon. In simple terms, Amazon has no right to admit that the Linux Kernel infringes on Microsoft’s patents, only the Authors or Inventors of the Kernel have that right. By making an admission that they have no right to make, Amazon has engaged in what is known as ‘Slander of Title.’
So if you are considering a lawsuit against a competitor who uses Free and Open Source Software in the product you claim infringes on your patents or copyrights, don’t expect the community to like what you are doing, and do expect them to do something about it.
In other news, Dell appears to be lying about GNU/Linux, Vista 7, and maybe software patents (Dell announced in 2007 that it had joined the Microsoft/Novell deal).
On many occasions before we explained and showed why we suspect that Dell pays Microsoft for so-called “Linux patents”. The potential evidence comes from many places, including videos from Dell. And now we find this disappointing report showing up in the news, shortly after it turned out that Dell sells machines with Ubuntu at a higher price than equivalent machines with Vista 7.
Dell bars Win 7 refunds from Linux lovers
Dell has told a Linux-loving Reg reader that he can’t receive a refund on the copy of Windows 7 that shipped with his new Dell netbook because it was bundled with the machine for “free”.
In October, another Reg reader succeeded in gaining a $115 (£70.34) refund from the computer maker after he rejected the licence for Microsoft’s OS and installed Linux instead. Microsoft’s EULA, you see, provides for such a refund.
One of our readers asks, “If it’s ‘free’ then how does MS factor in the revenue into its accounts? If it’s not ‘free’ then who enthused DELL to not pay the refund?” █
__ * Boycott as an action to correct a corporation’s behaviour, not to ostracise.
Summary: Microsoft is trying to sneak patents-encumbered MPEG formats into the Web using Internet Explorer 9 (IE 9); Microsoft threatens (again) to go after Linux legally
Here is the news article outlining Microsoft’s patent-saturated vision of the Web:
The rough version of IE9 that Microsoft demonstrated includes HTML5 video encoded with a particular technology called H.264. Apple’s Safari also supports this encoding and decoding technology, or codec.
But Mozilla is adamantly opposed to open-source-unfriendly H.264, supporting the rival Ogg Theora codec instead, and Opera is in that camp with its new version 10.5. Google’s Chrome supports both, tying the score at Ogg Theora 3, H.264 3.
Mozilla is fighting for us, but will it be enough? Mozilla is strongly against software patents, just like most companies that are without a monopoly (patent trolls don’t qualify as companies). According to this new post from Miro (formerly known as Democracy Player), the fight for free codecs intensifies and Wikipedia puts its weight behind it.
This is a concept that I had thinking about and trying to nudge towards reality for a long time; I’m thrilled that we’re finally there. There’s a bunch of interesting aspects, but perhaps the heart of it is a chance to bring open video to mainstream users and strike a blow for freedom.
Wikipedia is the most popular site in the world that posts video exclusively in open formats (specifically, theora). The steadfast commitment that the Wikimedia Foundation has to open information, tools, and formats, is amazing. They truly put their values first.
We are respectfully concerned that the W3C suffered some form of entryism in the sense that everyone there is a proponent of software patents, except Tim Berners-Lee, which is just so ironic and sad. Why are proprietary software monopolists given so much control over the Web’s direction? How was it allowed to happen? Even Apple, the company that’s attacking Free software using software patents [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] and getting criticised for having software patents that harm the Web (this goes over a year back), was given a valuable seat, alongside its supportive friend, Microsoft. For those who have not read the past few days’ posts, Microsoft is openly supporting Apple’s action [1, 2, 3] against GNU/Linux. Only yesterday we quoted some of the latest FUD from Gutierrez (endorsement for Apple’s legal team), who led Glyn Moody to writing a sensationalist headline which he pushed into Slashdot. It says: “Is Microsoft About to Declare Patent War on Linux?”
Microsoft’s comments on happenings outside its immediate product portfolio are rare, and all the more valuable when they do appear. Here’s one from Horacio Gutierrez, “Corporate Vice President and Deputy General Counsel”, entitled “Apple v. HTC: A Step Along the Path of Addressing IP Rights in Smartphones.”
By now, all the alarm bells should be going off: this is from Microsoft’s top intellectual monopoly bloke, writing about one of the most surprising and potentially disruptive lawsuits in the world of technology – and one that doesn’t even involve Microsoft directly. Why on earth is he doing it? Answer: because Microsoft has something very important to communicate.
[...]
Translated: smartphones are mostly about the kind of software that Microsoft produces; we have lots of patents in this area, and we are going to collect much more in this area – if necessary, through lawsuits (“continued activity”) of the kind Apple is bringing.
The question, of course, is against whom will Microsoft be bringing those lawsuits? And the answer, presumably, is everyone that makes smartphone software stacks, since these computer-like technologies will doubtless overlap with some of the doubtless broad and obvious patents that Microsoft will claim to have.
Some companies, used to these kind of games, will simply cross-license stuff if they have a big enough portfolio of similarly obvious patents. Others will just cough up some dosh to get Microsoft off their backs. But amidst all these conventional players, there is one very unconventional one: Linux, in its various mobile incarnations.
Taking legal action against *all* companies producing software stacks for smartphones would allow Microsoft to claim with some semblance of plausibility that it was not specifically targeting Linux this time (unlike its previous sabre-rattling statements about patent infringement that were specifically aimed at Linux). But the net effect would be that Linux would be the chief victim of such an approach, since any companies using it in their smartphones are likely to end up doing deals with Microsoft – and hence implicitly accepting its claims – whatever the open source community might think or want. It would be like Novell’s pact with Microsoft, writ large and much worse.
We don’t agree with Moody’s exaggeration here. Microsoft is just beating the bushes (it’s sometimes called “shakedown”) in order to find more sellouts like I-O Data and Amazon [1, 2, 3, 4]. In the next post we will show that Microsoft uses other companies to launch lawsuits against GNU/Linux. It’s very much apparent at this stage and it takes extreme discipline to sincerely deny this. █
