07.08.08
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
07.07.08
Posted in Microsoft, Security, Europe, SUN, RAND, FOSS at 3:56 pm by Roy Schestowitz
The lunacy that was mentioned here a couple of days ago surely continues. In order to keep you up to date, here’s some of the latest.
Brussels
ACT carries on with its fight for RAND terms that essentially leave FOSS out of the cold. They try to enforce these anti-FOSS laws by ridiculing the EU (e.g. “scoring an own goal”) and by calling Free software a “religion” — i.e. daemonising it in ways. They are also camouflaging themselves and their funding sources. They don’t really represent small businesses.
Glyn Moody wrote to explain what ACT actually is and what it tries to achieve.
Both posts now have extensive postings from Mark Blafkin, who is Vice President for Public Affairs at the Association for Competitive Technology (ACT). It bills itself as “protecting small business innovation”, but it also boasts “several Sponsor Members including eBay, Microsoft, Oracle, Orbitz and VeriSign.” Significantly, its offices are located in Washington in the US, and in Brussels in the EU: in other words, it’s a lobbying organisation aimed at swaying the two most powerful political machines.
Watch the comment from Simon Phipps. He understands tis better than most people.
Meanwhile, also in Europe, Microsoft is protesting against old fines. It’s slowing down the process using bureaucracy ahead of more heavy fines.
Microsoft Calls EU Fine ‘Excessive’
[…]
The Commission said it issued the fine because Microsoft did not follow an order in 2004 from Brussels to offer information to competitors on reasonable terms.
Hasn’t ACT done enough ‘protesting’ over this already? Watch this old story.
EU Internet
Many people are probably aware by now of the media industry’s Web grab. For those who are new to this, read the press release Kathy Sinnott’s:
Kathy Sinnott MEP for Munster will be voting against a series of amendments to the European Telecommunications Directive designed to give the EU control over citizen’s internet usage. The proposed amendments to the could force internet service providers to turn over information on customers and monitor their internet usage. It could also force software makers to include spyware in their products to allow not only governments but also corporations to monitor citizen’s activities whether or not they are suspected of unlawful behaviour.
Kathy Sinnott MEP said “I am a great proponent of net neutrality. The reason the internet is what it is today, is that no-one owns it and no company or government has as yet taken control over it. These amendments being pressed by some MEP’s seek to move Europe closer to the Chinese internet model where usage is monitored and where an individual goes online can be curtailed. This will give vast control over our lives to governments and in some cases corporations. I believe that law enforcement agencies should be allowed to pursue specific targets (eg. child pornography, terrorism) but monitoring the entire populace is not the way to go about it. These intrusions into our privacy would be unacceptable and I will be urging my colleagues to vote down all such amendments on July 7th.”
It does affect software, too.
Other amendments added to the packet of laws allow governments to decide which software can be used on the web.
How about this from Bill Thompson, who typically writes about (and in favour of) digital freedom and rights?
Another amendment put forward by Mr Kamall allows that “traffic data may be processed… to ensure the security of a public electronic communication service”, which the campaigners read as giving carte blanche to the content providers to monitor and control what happens on the network on the grounds that copying files or breaking digital rights management counts as a “security” breach.
I’m not so sure.
Nicolas Sarkozy deserves some of the blame. In fact, he deserves a lot of the blame for initiating lots of what we have now. Going all the way up to the source, it turns out that Vivendi-Universal may actually deserve most of the blame for working behind the scenes.
Corruption overflow in the policy-making environment
[…]
At the centre of this story of corruption lies one company, but please, don’t think it is a unique case (others will be quoted below): it is just the most impudent and shameless one. This company is Vivendi (formerly Vivendi-Universal).
Brazil Too
It was hardly surprising to find some sneaky last-minute amendments also in Brazil. It’s the same type of situation over there. [via Simon Phipps]
Downloading files from the Internet to become a crime in Brazil
[…]
Another article from the draft law – article 22 – is also being targeted by ISPs and the law professors. It imposes an obligation to ISPs requiring them to secretly inform authorities of any suspicion of criminal activity of which they acquire knowledge.
According to the professors, the article creates a system of private surveillance and finger-pointing affecting every net user, since ISPs will be obliged to communicate cases in which – according to their own convictions – there would be potentially criminal activity.
In Germany, You Share the PC… with Big Brother
Another reason to avoid proprietary software: Germany now takes further steps to legalise government spyware. Of course, everyone is told that it’s part of the ‘Fight Against Terrorism’.
Terrorism ‘this and that’ (sometimes “paedophiles”) is the perfect excuse for justifying warrentless wiretapping. This one seems like no ordinary measure.
Bavaria has become the first German state to approve laws that allow police to plant spyware on the PCs of terror suspects.
What makes some person a ‘terror suspect’? What is the criterion?
Some laws which were passed to supposedly combat terrorists have already been abused to interrogate an animal activist (by divulging PGP keys). That happened last year.
The “terrorist” term (or “religion”, or “zealot”, or “basement dweller”) is often just an excuse for passing laws or starting something that later expands in terms of scope. You can’t ever say “no” to the “fight against terror” though.
Like any such broad change (for instance, public databases that see data theft due to no encryption, missing laptops and security flaws), it’s only a matter of time before things go out of control, Legalising government spyware? Back doors as standard? What would prevent cybercriminals from entering the very same back door. They already exist by the way. █
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
07.01.08
Posted in Law, Microsoft, Patents, RAND, Open XML, FOSS at 2:41 pm by Roy Schestowitz
Your rights are neither granted nor sold; they are leased
E
arlier in the day we wrote to mention Microsoft’s so-called interoperability 1.0, which practically excludes software that’s licensed under the most prolific licence: the GNU GPL. Digital Majority studied this. Having followed bits of the pertinent details, it turns out that people can purchase Microsoft ‘protection’, as we pretty much predicted long ago. Here are some of the takeaways:
If you don’t trust the OSP (Open Specification Promise), ask for a patent licence at Microsoft. “If you would prefer a written license, or if the formats are not covered by the OSP, patent licenses are available by contacting iplg@microsoft.com” they say on their website.
Benjamin went further and decide to test them.
Benjamin Henrion <bhenrion at ffii.org>
to iplg at microsoft.com
date Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 3:23 PM
subject Request for a written license for ECMA 376 implementation
Dear Microsoft Licensing,
I would be interested to receive a copy of the terms of the proposed
written patent license that you propose for the standard ECMA 376, as
mentioned by one Microsoft employee on the following page:
[…]
It will be interesting to see how this turns out. He sent this from a FFII address, so it might trigger a mental alarm at the receiver’s end.
Speaking of fake interoperability, watch this new Bizarre Cathedral cartoon. And also mind this unrelated but seemingly similar news from last night.
Microsoft adds licensing option for businesses
Microsoft said Monday that it is adding a new licensing option, this one dubbed Select Plus and targeted largely at midsize firms.
Microsoft aspires to become a licensing company as much as a software vendor. Remember SCO?
To be fair, people never really bought any software from Microsoft anyway. They paid for a license to ‘rent’ the software, rendering them tenants of their own computers which they paid for. With recent versions of Windows, the landlord has a convenient kill switch, too. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
Posted in Microsoft, Deception, Patents, GPL, RAND, ISO at 5:24 am by Roy Schestowitz
A few days ago we shared the very brief take from Bob Sutor on that now-infamous Reuters article. It was about denial. Joining the critics now is Tim Bray who wrote:
Especially when ISO’s head honcho Alan Bryden goes on the record to say (quoting from Reuters) that “criticisms that a fast-track process was abused to rush through the Microsoft standard were unfounded” (note Reuters doesn’t use quotation marks, so presumably they’re summarizing Bryden).
Um, excuse me, doesn’t it seem wildly inappropriate for the chief executive of an allegedly-neutral international agency to comment dismissively on an in-progress appeal? If I were on ISO’s Board of Directors or equivalent, I’d be hauling Mr. Bryden in right now for a short unpleasant interview.
Whatever; the damage is done. I really hope my personal impression, based on the OOXML experience, that ISO alternates between bumbling and whorishness, is wrong. The world needs a reasonably competent and transparent standards organization whose integrity is not a standing joke.
To summarise, it’s “business as usual” at ISO, which prefers to ignore some of its own people who confessed that the process had been abused. Microsoft is the same: “Business as usual” after the abuses of the process, the vicious attacks on ODF, and even against people.
Microsoft proceeds as if nothing has happened.
Microsoft on Monday unveiled projects to improve data portability between Office 2007 and other document file formats as part of an interoperability promise
The company also appears to be extending the RAND+OSP folly to other areas where the GPL gets excluded. Watch this bit from its accompanying press release which preceded the announcement.
This documentation is available to anyone on a royalty-free basis under Microsoft’s Open Specification Promise (OSP).
Expect more of the same scheme. “OSP” means “we don’t play with GPL.”
To summarise: Microsoft messed about with ISO, then saw it denying the abuses, and now it proceeds to locking out Free software using pseudo ’standards’. Some things never change, such is as the attitude of Microsoft towards its greatest competitors. █
“Microsoft corrupted many members of ISO in order to win approval for its phony ‘open’ document format, OOXML. This was so governments that keep their documents in a Microsoft-only format can pretend that they are using ‘open standards.’ The government of South Africa has filed an appeal against the decision, citing the irregularities in the process.”
–Richard Stallman, June 2008
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
06.22.08
Posted in Law, Microsoft, Novell, Mono, Patents, OpenDocument, Europe, Asia, RAND, Open XML at 7:15 am by Roy Schestowitz
Same ol’, same ol’
A few days ago, Microsoft appeared to have admitted defeat. The benevolent activists at <NO>OOXML seem to suggest that we must use this to advance and increase the momentum of ODF, adoption-wise.
McKee said what he said as part of his initial opening remarks and did say it as part of a bigger sentence though. So it seems to be an explicit corporate message.
It is time to disseminate the idea that OOXML is dead and that ODF is still the “lingua universalis” for office documents. But the resistance of Microsoft to ODF and its OOXML campaign is also very helpful and essential for the domino project’s success. If Microsoft surrenders prematurely we get difficulties to further grow the community for open standards.
For ODF to win is one thing. The fight for justice after systematic abuses must not end, either. Having witnessed the “greatest scam of computing history”, let’s have a quick look again at where we stand.
Microsoft vs The System
Four important appeals withstanding, the legal fight in the UK [1, 2, 3, 4] seems to be far from over.
The UKUUG officially voiced many of the objections that were flying around at the time (and still are):
* The BSI approved fast tracking OOXML in the absence of a revised draft despite over 1000 comments to the original draft.
* Doing so undermines wider faith in the standards bodies themselves.
* Fast tracking approval in the absence of a single implementation of the format—even from Microsoft—is hard to justify.
* Rejection of the fast track is not rejection of the standard which should be given greater consideration before approval.
* Fast tracking a proposed standard requires a high level of consensus. Something distinctly lacking with regards OOXML.
Heise Online too has published an article covering the very latest.
Microsoft claim that their attempt to establish OOXML as an ISO standard is in the spirit of open standards and interoperability. It is seen by its opponents as Microsoft’s attempt to retain ownership of document formats in the face of the adoption of ODF – the Open Document Format, an open standard already accepted as an ISO standard. OOXML is deemed unnecessary and has been criticised because of the size, imprecision and incomprehensibility of the Microsoft specification document, a document seemingly designed to make it almost impossible for any company, other than Microsoft, to write applications that are OOXML compliant.
Alain Williams, Chairman of UKUUG, said, “We are concerned about future generations being able to access today’s electronic documents. That can only happen with fully disclosed document formats. To ensure continued profits, Microsoft prevents effective competition in word processors by keeping file formats secret. Adopting OOXML would be like setting to sea in a sieve, Lear’s Jumblies might make sense of it, but I can’t.”
The newer and more disconcerting news actually arrives from the US Department of Justice at the moment. Being heavily influenced by Microsoft, it’s hardly surprising that it bends Microsoft’s way and even “applauds” it (according to CNN) for something rather useless and discriminatory. Groklaw has the details on this one and here are some takeaway messages.
Same old, same old. Move the goal post. Vaporous promises. And that is what I fear they will continue to do with OOXML, if it’s ever approved, because they can. Who will stop them? ISO? They seemed to fall into Stockholm Syndrome long ago, the few that were not replaced with Microsoft folks. What is the effect of Microsoft changing the protocols in the compliance work?
For those who do not know or remember, Microsoft pretty much took over ISO (seniors fled). Yet the development above is disconcerting mainly due to RAND. Sadly, it’s not much better in Europe [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12].
Microsoft vs The GPL
WIPO seems to be at it again [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9]. We previously discussed Microsoft’s deliberately-introduced incompatibilities with the GPL and also spoke about its plan to expand, where required, the adjunct laws onto the EU. Watch this report that WIPO will discuss next week and pay special attention to the bits about RAND inside open standards.
(iv) Open Standards
121. Among technology standards, there is particular interest for “open standards”. While there is no universally accepted definition of that term, all open standards have the following common characteristics: (i) the specification is publicly available without cost or for a reasonable fee to any interested party; (ii) any IP rights necessary to implement the standard are available to all implementers on RAND terms, either with or without payment of a reasonable royalty or fee; and
You see? “Open Standards”, according to the above, are permitted even if they are not compatible with Free software.
Interestingly enough, Miguel de Icaza, who is apparently at Microsoft at the moment (he may have come back by now), seems to think that Microsoft forbids access to GPL code. Talk about intolerance. Here it is a portion from his own message:
…from what we know about Microsoft policies (right or wrong) their employees are barred from looking at code under certain licenses (GPL being one of them…
This seems insane. It does make you wonder how Microsoft feels about those selected Novell engineers who see Microsoft’s source code (as confirmed by Justin Steinman, who said this to Matthew Aslett last year). It all boils down to those SCO-type allegations.
One could think further and speculate wildly. If Miguel had worked for Microsoft, he would not be able to tinker with (or poison) GPL software. He did want to work at Microsoft just before he started GNOME, did he not?
The context in which the above was said is an older discussion about ODF and OOXML. In response to the arguments made by de Icaza — all in favour of OOXML — Slated had this to say in USENET (we were given permission to post it in full):
That’s because most of the conclusions de Icaza draws seem to be based on Microsoft propaganda rather than facts (e.g. “the ODF specification is incomplete”).
His bias is palpable, and for equally obvious reasons, given how much time he spends inside the belly of The Beast. However this also means his inside knowledge of Microsoft (both in terms of technical workings and attitude) is very useful to those seeking an insight into how they actually operate.
“If that’s actually true, and Microsoft engineers are not permitted to view GPL sources, then how exactly did Microsoft manage to implement ODF in MS Office?”This “GPL ban” is one such example, and is especially interesting given the Vole’s subsequent support of ODF in MS Office (ironically to the exclusion of their own OOXML), since according to the ODF antagonists (i.e. those steered by Microsoft) it is unimplementable without consulting the sources to OpenOffice.org (see OP), hence the assertion that it’s “incomplete”. If that’s actually true, and Microsoft engineers are not permitted to view GPL sources, then how exactly did Microsoft manage to implement ODF in MS Office?
Hmm, how easily the bigots’ inconsistencies are unearthed.
The specifics of the claim upon which de Icaza seems to base his (Microsoft’s) entire anti-ODF position, is that it excludes definitions for maths formulae [1] (e.g. in spreadsheets), which as explained by the OASIS ODF Technical Committee is beyond the remit of a technical description for an XML format [2]. IOW it’s like the W3C drawing a distinction between markup (HTML) and layout (CSS), and rightly insisting that the two remain separate.
A comment was submitted concerning the inclusen(sic) of a grammar for spreadsheet formulas which conforming implementations should support. While we think that having interoperability on that level would be of great benefit to users, we do not belive(sic) that this is in the scope of the current specification.
The natural (and most technically correct) solution is to have a unique specification for formulae interchange, and that is already being addressed with the draft OpenFormula [3] specification.
Again we witness Microsoft’s utter lack of comprehension of standards, as they stuff (what should have been) a document specification with irrelevant material, much of which is proprietary to Microsoft [4] [5] [6], in addition to a vast litany of technical problems [7]. But then what should we expect from a company that views “standards” as nothing more than a means to lock customers into their products, and subsequently ensure sales of future versions with planned obsolescence?
We are of the view that the format appears to be designed by Microsoft for Microsoft products, and to inter-operate with the Microsoft environment. Little thought appears to have been exercised regarding interoperability with non-Microsoft environments or compliance with established vendor-neutral standards
Having created this monster called OOXML, Microsoft then used bribery [8]; threats [9]; blackmail [10] [11]; and vicious smear campaigns [12] [13] to force OOXML into fast track acceptance, and all with the hot and eager assistance of Miguel de Icaza, Jody Goldberg, Jeff Waugh, the Gnome Foundation, Novell; and other Free Software “advocates” in the “We love Microsoft” cheerleading camp [14], assistance which they gave under the laughably weak pretext of “drilling for docs” [15].
Indeed de Icaza was so determined to help force through this ODF-killer, that he even attempted astroturfing COLA shortly before the final vote, bringing his pal Jesper Lund Stocholm with him for moral support. The timing of this appearance could not have been more obvious.
Context
Well given Microsoft’s apparent lack of enthusiasm for implementing its own (sub)standard [16]; Stuart McKee’s recent comments about the death of OOXML [17]; the final acceptance of OOXML being stalled by formal complaints by NSBs [18]; and the European Commission’s ongoing antitrust investigations into the Microsoft’s criminal behaviour in this process [18], it looks like de Icaza and friends completely wasted their time, and further isolated themselves from the rest of the GNU/Linux community, for absolutely *nothing*.
But don’t waste your pity on their self-induced ostracism. I’m sure their new (crime) “family” Microsoft will welcome them with open arms, if they haven’t long-since already done so. █
____
[1] External link
[2] External link
[3] External link
[4] External link
[5] External link
[6] External link
[7] External link
[8] External link
[9] External link
[10] External link
[11] External link
[12] External link
[13] External link
[14] External link
[15] External link
[16] External link
[17] External link
[18] External link
From the Campaign for Document Freedom
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
06.10.08
Posted in Red Hat, Microsoft, GNU/Linux, Samba, Patents, Europe, Antitrust, RAND at 2:32 pm by Roy Schestowitz
Turn competitor into own cash cow, make it more expensive and thus less desirable
We haven’t sufficient time to write about this in great depth at the moment, but there are various developments in Europe which readers ought to know about. These affect handling of software patents, Free software, and open standards.
Over in the IRC channel, we were told a little while earlier: “ECIS confirmed this morning that Microsoft appeals to the ECJ on patents. this is big news because all the press says they appeal on the “fine”, but in fact they just want certainty to tax Samba and Redhat.” This information is based on private talks with ECIS.
Further to this, consider the fact that the Commission is testing a migration to GNU/Linux and has an embargo proposal on its desk. As it turns out, based on a press release, it spends far too much money on software from the very same company it endlessly reprimands.
Microsoft sucks 8,136,000 EUR each year out of the European Commission
Commission pays Microsoft each year 226EUR for its office infrastructure. Commission has approx 36,000 users. Make the math. Commission makes also “open” tenders which prefers Microsoft products.
In the news you are also likely to find some coverage of the talk from Neelie Kroes. The New York Times, which is biased, picks a rather strong headline: E.U. Snubs Microsoft on Office Systems
Ms. Kroes has fought bitterly with Microsoft over the past four years, accusing the U.S. software giant of defying her orders and fining the company nearly $2.68 billion for violating European competition rules. But the speech was her strongest recommendation yet to jettison Microsoft products, which are based on proprietary standards, and to use rival operating systems to run computers.
“I know a smart business decision when I see one — choosing open standards is a very smart business decision indeed,” Ms. Kroes told a conference in Brussels. “No citizen or company should be forced or encouraged to choose a closed technology over an open one.”
You can find the speech here and you can also find a less critical (or moderate) article here.
The EU’s top antitrust official on Tuesday called for governments to favor open-source software for their own use, taking aim at Microsoft Corp. for ‘locking in’ customers to their proprietary technology.
In other news from Europe, recall the Nokia-Ogg disaster and watch the following curious new appointment.
EICTA, the industry body representing the information and communications technology and consumer electronics industries in the European Union announces that Erkki Ormala has been elected as President and Chairman of the Executive Board. Dr. Ormala is Vice President, Technology and Trade Policy of Nokia Corporation where his responsibilities cover political, regulatory, economic, market access and other business environment related issues. The main Eicta policy issues are in his area of responsibility at Nokia. He takes over from Rudy Provoost, who led the organization for the past four years.
Another change in the European patent system was published or at least highlighted by Digital Majority yesterday.
The council of ministers in Belgium has decided last 23rd of May to proceed with the ratification of the London Agreement, in order to scrap the requirement for translations of patents granted in Belgium in Flemish.
In other patent news, you may find of interest the following end of a patent dispute between Acer and H-P.
A patent war erupted between the two companies last year after HP filed patent suits against Acer accusing the Taiwanese PC vendor of infringing on at least 10 HP patents and sought to block Acer PC imports to the U.S.
Also of interest is this case of patent royalty madness.
The justices unanimously said LG could not enforce its memory-technology patents against both Intel and the computer makers that install Intel’s chips in their machines. The judges said LG’s power to extract royalties was “exhausted” by its licensing agreement with Intel, of the United States.
It was covered here as well. [via Groklaw]
Justice Thomas delivered the Supreme Court’s 19–page unanimous decision that provides some new life to the doctrine of patent exhaustion. The opinion reverses the Federal Circuit and holds that under the exhaustion doctrine applies to the authorized sale of components that “substantially embody” a process patent. Here, Intel’s authorized sale of chip components to Quanta exhausted LGE’s patent rights.
Lastly, there’s the WiMAX patent pool, which made a lot of headlines. What would be the impact on Free software?
Six big technology companies are spearheading a plan to jointly license patents that cover the wireless technology called WiMAX hoping to limit royalty rates that could deter customers from using it.
The participants are Cisco Systems Inc., Intel Corp., Samsung Electronics Co., Sprint Nextel Corp., Alcatel-Lucent and Clearwire Corp., according to people familiar with the situation and a document outlining the group’s plans.
They have scheduled a conference call Monday to announce an organization, the Open Patent Alliance, to gather rights to WiMAX-related patents and license them to makers of computers, networking devices and other products, these people said.
Software patents may not be going away so fast. It is very important to ensure that they stay (or get eliminated) in the very few places where these are seen as valid at the moment. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
05.27.08
Posted in Microsoft, Mono, GNOME, Patents, RAND, Ecma, FOSS at 11:57 pm by Roy Schestowitz
Post contributed by Slated
As some people here probably already know, I am no fan of Mono - not for technical reasons (mostly [3]), but simply for political ones. Specifically, I’m talking about so-called Software Patents, and even more importantly, precisely who owns those patents. In this case, that would be Microsoft, a convicted monopolist with a viciously anti-FOSS agenda, that employs business methods remarkably similar to that of the Mafia.
IMO the mere fact that .NET/Mono is Microsoft technology should be enough to dissuade any Free Software advocate from going anywhere near it [1], but there is a large contingent of Mono “fans” out there, lead by people like Jeff Waugh and Miguel de Icaza, who (either through ignorance; naivety; apathy or even malice) don’t seem to give a damn about whether or not Mono (or even OOXML) endangers the future of Free Software.
Trying to convince people, and especially distro maintainers, that they should stay away from Mono, is therefore extraordinarily difficult, and usually goes something like this:
[P]oint | [C]ounterpoint
P: Don’t use Mono
C: Why?
P: Because it is patented
C: So is a lot of other software
P: Yes, but this is patented by Microsoft
C: So?
P: Microsoft is a convicted monopolist
C: You’re just biased against Microsoft
P: I believe I am justified given Microsoft’s history
C: What history?
P: See [1]
C: What has that got to do with Mono?
P: Microsoft has a history of abusing their “IP” as a weapon to destroy others, and maintain a monopoly
C: But how do you know that Microsoft will try to do that to FOSS?
P: Because they have already made patent allegations against FOSS; have repeatedly expressed their contempt and hatred for FOSS; have established a protection racket for commercial Linux vendors; have admitted that Linux (they mean FOSS) is their number one competitor; and have a sociopathic tendency to violently attack anyone (read: competitor) who threatens Microsoft’s monopoly, using the most unethical and underhand methods they think they can get away with
[At this point, some heavyweight like Waugh enters the debate]
C: Rubbish. Mono only implements the ECMA parts of the .NET framework, which are covered by a RAND covenant to not sue, so you’re whining for no good reason
P: I don’t trust RANDs, especially those underwritten by Microsoft
C: Why?
P: Because, define “reasonable” … and then prove that Microsoft will never revoke their promises. In fact, prove that Microsoft has good intentions in this, or any other endeavour
[This is usually the end of the discussion, although sometimes it goes off on one of the following tangents]
[Either]
C: My country doesn’t enforce software patents anyway, so I don’t care
P: Maybe some day it will (see [2]). What then?
[Or]
“How many of those patent holders would risk losing 30 Billion USD just to strike a blow against FOSS (see Microsoft’s recent failed Yahoo takeover bid)? How many of those patent holders are convicted monopolists?”C: Probably every piece of software ever written violates some patent or another. If FOSS developers were to abandon packages based on possible patents, then there wouldn’t be any Free Software at all
P: How many of those patent holders have the immoral and aggressive tendencies that Microsoft has? How many of those patent holders would risk losing 30 Billion USD just to strike a blow against FOSS (see Microsoft’s recent failed Yahoo takeover bid)? How many of those patent holders are convicted monopolists? How many of those patent holders have made actual infringement claims against Free Software? How many of those patent holders have described Linux as a “cancer”? How many of those patent holders have created a Linux protection racket that attempts to stifle Free Software and line Microsoft’s pockets in the process? How many of those patent holders use bribery and corruption as a matter of standard procedure [1]? How many of those patent holders regularly and predictably stab their own customers and partners in the back whenever any given venture results in anything less than market domination (e.g. “PlaysForSure” and others)?
[And here the debate always ends, but without any resolution]
Occasionally I might get a parting “you’re just being paranoid”, from those too blind/naive/brainwashed to understand the truth.
Well I don’t know if it’ll help, but I recently discovered an article that (I believe) exposes RAND for the sham that it really is (quoted in full):
So much quarreling about open standards. Jason Matusow advocates for a
document format with RAND licensing conditions for the patents. What
does he mean when he talks about RAND? RAND stands for “reasonable and
non-discriminatory”. But Jason Matusow’s company Microsoft lacks honesty
when it talks about “reasonable and non-discriminatory” conditions.
We need to be precise about what reasonable and non-discriminatory
actually means. A restaurant in apartheid South Africa said it allowed
both Boers and English, so was “not discriminatory”. It even let some
Jews in. However it banned non-whites.
Reasonable and non-discriminatory in patent licensing means “we apply a
uniform fee”. However with respect to Microsoft’s legacy OOXML format,
one party controls the standard and the associated patents. All market
players need to license except the patent owner. For dominant standards
it is a tax on the market. It seems highly unreasonable that such
standards should become international standards, mandatory for
government users.
You may find it unreasonable for an ubiquitous standard. But there is a
more insidious aspect. RAND patent licensing conditions are a tool to
ban Free Software, which is entirely incompatible with RAND licensing
conditions. Now one side of the debate blames it on the patent licensing
conditions, the other side on the software licensing conditions.
“The reason I agree with the statement about patents and Free
Software not mixing is that there have been terms written into GPL
licenses that explicitly conflict with software patents. Okay, that is
the choice of the authors and users of those licenses.”
It sounds a bit like: well, you chose to marry an African woman, so we
cannot let you into the restaurant. Free choice, right?
Yes, Matusow calls his standards with RAND conditions “open standards”
and contradicts the commonly accepted definition of “open standards”. We
should speak about shared standards. These shared standards appear to
discriminate less, but they still discriminate against the only real
competitor to Microsoft’s hegemony.
It is true that ISO, driven by simple pragmatism, allows shared
standards. From the ISO/IEC directives:
“14.1 If, in exceptional situations, technical reasons justify such
a step, there is no objection in principle to preparing an International
Standard in terms which include the use of items covered by patent
rights – defined as patents, utility models and other statutory rights
based on inventions, including any published applications for any of the
foregoing – even if the terms of the standard are such that there are no
alternative means of compliance.”
Generally international standards and patents are like water and oil,
and RAND conditions are the soap that allow them to mix. But as the move
towards Open Standards evolves, shared standards get more and more
unacceptable. Shared standards do discriminate and do appear to be
unreasonable.
It is time to adapt the legal definition of reasonable and
non-discriminatory to common sense.
I would also add that not only are ECMA/.NET patent terms unreasonable (how can it be an Open Standard if you have to pay a fee?), but the non-discriminatory terms have already been broken with Microsoft’s exclusive agreement with Novell:
I read the agreement between Xandros and Microsoft, and one of the
excluded products was Mono, so Microsoft promises to not sue Xandros
over their distribution but excluding Mono and a few other products,
i.e. they reserve the right to sue over Mono. I wonder if this is an
interesting preview of on what basis they want to fight the free world.
Interestingly, the Novell deal seems to be different, Mono is not
excluded from the Novell deal. So Microsoft seems to be promising not to
sue Novell over Mono, but keeps the option open for Xandros. Weird but
true.
All in all, it is clear that the ECMA/.Net/Mono patent conditions are far from either “reasonable” or “non-discriminatory”.
Meanwhile, I stumbled upon some old articles that reminded me of how much de Icaza is in love with the Redmond gangsters, and how dearly he’d love to mutate Gnome into the bastard son of Windows:
Gnome to be based on .NET – de Icaza
Learn to love The Beast
By Andrew Orlowski in New York
Published Friday 1st February 2002 17:56 GMT
[Interview]
How much do you love Microsoft’s .NET? Enough to trust your Gnome
applications to its APIs in the future?
That’s what Gnome leader Miguel de Icaza, believes should happen. Miguel
calls .NET the “natural upgrade” for the Gnome platform, and enthused
about the technology in an interview with us at LinuxWorld this week.
Basing Gnome on the .NET APIs will cut development time significantly,
He also had praise for the new Microsoft security model, dismissed the
notion that Redmond was employing embrace and extend to its web services
protocols, and put the message that the community should get over its
beef with The Beast.
“I’d like to see Gnome applications written in .NET in version 4.0 - no,
version 3.0. But Gnome 4.0 should be based on .NET,” he told us. “A lot
of people just see .NET as a fantastic upgrade for the development
platform from Microsoft.
Read the whole article, it’s most revealing.
Miguel loves ActiveX too:
At Microsoft I learned the truth about ActiveX and COM and I got very
interested in it inmediately(sic).
He shows extremely poor taste (in many things).
[1] For anyone still not convinced of Microsoft’s ethical depravity, please see the following:
http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/Dirty_Tricks_history
http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2005010107100653
http://boycottnovell.com/microsoft-critique-resources/
http://boycottnovell.com/2008/05/25/eu-crackdown-astroturfing/
http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html
[2] Proposed US ACTA multi-lateral intellectual property trade agreement
http://antitrust.slated.org/censorship/acta-proposal-2007.pdf [PDF]
And finally:
[3] Why did Microsoft invent .NET (I’m assuming they invented it, rather than their usual MO of simply assimilating it from another source) when there is already Java? To answer this question, you may also like to consider why they “(re)invented” OOXML, Moonlight, XPS and other “fscking kill <vendor>” technologies.
Any supposedly Free Software advocate who can still defend or support Mono at this point, is clearly either irredeemably corrupt or terminally stupid (or possibly both). They are part of the problem, not part of the solution. And yes, the “problem” is Microsoft.
De Icaza, are you listening? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend View as PDF
« Previous entries ·
