[Quote:]

Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer has warned users of Red Hat Linux that they will have to pay Microsoft for its intellectual property.

“People who use Red Hat, at least with respect to our intellectual property, in a sense have an obligation to compensate us,” Ballmer said last week at a company event in London discussing online services in the UK.

The IP laws require that when an IP owner notices an infringement they have an obligation to notify the infringer of the exact nature of the infringement in order to allow them to mitigate the damages by removing the infringement. Failure to do that will render any subsequent claims for damage moot. Microsoft has been at this game so long that any claim they now specify will be laughed out of court.

“Every time an Eolas comes to Microsoft and says: ‘Pay us,’ I expect they eventually would like to go to the open source world [as well],” said Ballmer.

Except they don’t, despite the fact that the source is there for inspection. Apparently, that must mean they aren’t infringing, Steve.

[Quote:]

SCO Group CEO Darl McBride says competition from the open source Linux operating system was a major reason why the company was forced to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on Friday.

In a court filing in support of SCO’s bankruptcy petition, McBride noted that SCO’s sales of Unix-based products “have been declining over the past several years.”

The slump, McBride said, “has been primarily attributable to significant competition from alternative operating systems, including Linux.” McBride listed IBM, Red Hat, Microsoft, and Sun Microsystems as distributors of Linux or other software that is “aggressively taking market share away from Unix.”

Damn Microsoft and their support of Linux!

[Quote:]

Microsoft may have lost in court, but it quickly tried to win the war of media reaction via organisations like CompTIA, the Computing Technology Industry Association and ACT (the Association for Competitive Technology) which both intervened in court on its side.

A statement from CompTIA said the court decision to uphold the commission’s view that Microsoft acted anti-competitively would damage free enterprise in Europe. The Court of First Instance upheld the original verdict and €497m fine.

CompTIA anti-trust counsel Lars Liebler said: “Today’s decision by the Court of First Instance represents a significant blow to free enterprise in Europe. Rather than supporting Europe as the innovation capital of the world, the commission’s policies unchecked may turn the EU into the litigation capital of the world. This decision encourages competitors to bring legal action against each other rather than compete aggressively in the marketplace.”

On server protocols, Liebler said: “The court’s decision to uphold the commission’s order requiring Microsoft to disclose its valuable intellectual property continues the unfortunate trend within the EU to undermine intellectual property rights.

[..]

On the other side, a statement from ECIS, European Committee for Interoperable Systems, welcomed the verdict.

Thomas Vinje, ECIS spokesman and counsel, said: “This is a great day for European businesses and consumers. At long last this decision opens the prospect for dynamic competition in the software industry. No more user lock-in, no more monopoly pricing.

“The European Commission, Commissioner Kroes, former Commissioner Monti and their officials are to be praised for their vision and persistence in the face of 10 years of foot-dragging by Microsoft.

“The time has now come for Microsoft to obey the law. No more blaming the commission for the lack of clarity, no more excuses about complexity. The provision of interoperability information is common software industry practice. Microsoft knows full well what is required and how to provide and now just needs to do it.”

Now if only the EU could allocate that money to Open Source developers… that would counter the Microsoft argument nicely…

[Quote:]

Mobile-gadget makers are starting to take advantage of software-defined radio, a new technology allowing a single device to receive signals from multiple sources, including television stations and cell phone networks.

But a new federal rule set to take effect Friday could mean that radios built on “open-source elements” may encounter a more sluggish path to market–or, in the worst case scenario, be shut out altogether. U.S. regulators, it seems, believe the inherently public nature of open-source code makes it more vulnerable to hackers, leaving “a high burden to demonstrate that it is sufficiently secure.”

If the decision stands, it may take longer for consumers to get their hands on these all-in-one devices. The nascent industry is reluctant to rush to market with products whose security hasn’t been thoroughly vetted, and it fears the Federal Communications Commission’s preference for keeping code secret could allow flaws to go unexposed, potentially killing confidence in their products.

By effectively siding with what is known in cryptography circles as “security through obscurity,” the controversial idea that keeping security methods secret makes them more impenetrable, the FCC has drawn an outcry from the software radio set and raised eyebrows among some security experts.

“There is no reason why regulators should discourage open-source approaches that may in the end be more secure, cheaper, more interoperable, easier to standardize, and easier to certify,” Bernard Eydt, chairman of the security committee for a global industry association called the SDR (software-defined radio) Forum, said in an e-mail interview this week.

Actually, I can think of a reason. Money. I cannot believe the regulators are stupid enough to still believe in “security through obscurity”, so that leaves few other explanations..

[Quote:]

Want to laugh? Microsoft Says It Is Not Bound by GPLv3” — they think they can so declare, like an emperor, and it becomes fiat. It’s not so easy. I gather Microsoft’s lawyers have begun to discern the GPL pickle they are in. In any case it won’t be providing any support or updates or anything at all in connection with those toxic (to them) vouchers it distributed as part of the Novell deal. What a surprise. Novell, still the Microsoft handmaiden, will pick up Microsoft’s slack:

This means that Novell will support those technologies licensed under GPLv3, he said, noting that for those customers who obtain their Linux via a certificate from Microsoft in the future, Novell will provide them with a regular SLES subscription, regardless of the terms of the certificate provided by Microsoft.

What are friends for but to try to escape the consequences of the GPL hand-in-hand? So they are backing out too. Well, folks, how do you like dealing with companies that back out of their commitments? You will not get, I gather, what your voucher said you would. Well, well.

These two — I can’t decide if it’s an elaborate dance like a tango or more like those games where you place a cloth with numbers on the floor and you have to get into a pretzel with your hands and feet to touch all the right numbers. Whichever it is, Novell and Microsoft keep having to strike the oddest poses to try to get around the GPL. If they think this new announcement has succeeded, I believe they will find they are mistaken.

In other words, not to put too fine a point on it, GPLv3 worked.

Microsoft has partially backed out, then, from the Novell deal, and so has Novell, although they PR it with an emphasis on the parts that remain. That was the purpose of the clause. Novell is sticking to Microsoft like barnacles on the bottom of a boat, even when offered a chance to swim away to safety.

[..]

You know what I love about the GPL? Regular lawyers can’t understand it. We’ve seen that over and over. I think it is so different from what they are used to, they can’t get their heads around it, brainiacs though they may be. It seems unnatural to them, and I guess they can’t believe it means what it says. But it means it. And if they think this is the end of their GPLv3 difficulties, it’s not:

Microsoft also said July 5 that its agreement with Novell, as well as those with Linux rivals Xandros and Linspire, were unaffected by the release June 29 of GPLv3 by the Free Software Foundation.

Guess again. Maybe you should reexamine GPLv2 while you are learning on the job. IANAL, but I think those latter deals are probably in violation of v2 as well as v3. Hey, don’t go by me. Ask your lawyer. But the bottom line is this: You can’t disrespect other peoples’ intellectual property and just walk away. As I believe they are going to find out.

And I hereby declare that Microsoft’s EULA does not apply to me.

Oh, wait, that’s true. I don’t own any of their products…

[Quote:]

Red Hat, the largest Linux vendor, and Ubuntu-maker Canonical have both rejected calls from Microsoft to forge a deal similar to the one the Redmond giant signed with Linux distributors Novell, Xandros, and Linspire.

Mark Shuttleworth, Canonical’s CEO, said in a blog posting on Saturday, that Canonical has declined to talk to Microsoft about any agreement that provides legal protection to Ubuntu users related to “unspecified patents”.

“Allegations of ‘infringement of unspecified patents’ carry no weight whatsoever. We don’t think they have any legal merit, and they are no incentive for us to work with Microsoft on any of the wonderful things we could do together,” he wrote.

Shuttleworth said these patent agreements create “a false sense of security” and do not effectively protect the user from a patent suit from a big company like Microsoft.

[..]

No deal between Microsoft and leading commercial Linux distributor Red Hat has happened. After the announcement of Microsoft’s Novell contract, Red Hat said it would not pay an “innovation tax” to Microsoft.

Many companies successfully partner with Microsoft.

All it takes is a clear understanding of just who wears the condom, and who bends over and assumes the position.

[Quote:]

Microsoft does not believe there is an inherent contradiction between its recent statements that free and open-source software infringes on 235 of its patents, and the veiled legal threats that go along with that, and its attempts to reach out and build bridges with the open-source community.

“In fact, one makes the other possible, especially at a time like this, when interoperability is so important. Microsoft recognizes the importance of interoperability, which is why we are doing the things we are in our products, why we created the Interoperability Executive Customer Council, and why we are listening to customers,” said Horacio Gutierrez, Microsoft’s vice president of intellectual property and licensing.

Threatening us with lawsuits is part of their plan to help us… How did I fail to figure that one out…

In other news:

-War is Peace
-Freedom is Slavery
-Ignorance is Strength

[Quote:]

Software has been wiped from thousands of school computers because of a row over Government funding.

Microsoft Office programs have been ordered to be removed from about 25,000 Apple Macintosh computers in schools.

The Ministry of Education did not renew its deal for the programs, meaning that students using the Apple computers will not have access to common programs such as Excel and Word unless the school buys the software independently.

[..]

The problem was over licensing deals said to be worth $100 million over 10 years.

Education Minister Steve Maharey said Microsoft insisted the Government pay a licence fee for all Apple Macintoshes in schools to use Microsoft Office.

But the programs were used on only half the machines.

“The ministry could not justify the extra $2.7 million being given to Microsoft for software that would not be used,” said Mr Maharey.

He said Apple supplied a program similar to Microsoft Office, and NeoOffice, an open-source program developed by volunteers, was also available.

[Quote:]

A study (PDF) funded by Microsoft and carried out by Harvard Business School professor Alan MacCormack aims to determine what kind of features and protections developers want in version 3 of the widely-used General Public License (GPL 3). The study, which uses extremely questionable methodology, concludes that open-source software developers don’t want the GPL 3 to impose extensive patent licensing requirements or prevent agreements like the controversial cross-licensing deal between Novell and Microsoft.

[..]

A brief glance at the methodology behind the study reveals beyond doubt that it is little more than propaganda bought and paid for by Microsoft. MacCormack describes the study as a survey of “key contributors” from major open-source projects. Although 332 emails were sent to various developers, only 34 agreed to participate in the survey—an 11 percent response rate. Of the 34 developers who responded, many of them are associated with projects like Apache and PostgreSQL that don’t even use the GPL.

[Quote:]

“Novell’s activity will be protected by the fact that it was complete as of the date in November, which is the effective date of their deal with Microsoft. [The GPL revisions won't be retroactive.] Microsoft’s activity will begin to disperse patent defenses into the community. When GPL 3 goes into effect, every Microsoft coupon handed to somebody, which results in the shipment of a Novell Server Edition product to that coupon-holder, will result in a conveyance of broad patent defenses to parties throughout the community.

“The goal of this provision was to incent Microsoft to get out of the patent deal with Novell. Microsoft, which fully understands what we are doing and why we are doing it, has elected instead not to withdraw from the deal with Novell, but to throw coupons wholesale out of airplanes. You have been watching for months as Microsoft gave away these coupons — which were supposed to be valuable to Microsoft, and for which it paid a lot of money — as though the coupons themselves were hot, as indeed they are. All of this giving away coupons activity by Microsoft is meaningless and useless. The coupons have no expiration date, and Microsoft can be sure that some coupons will be turned into Novell in return for software after the effective date of GPL 3. Once that has happened, patent defenses will, under the license, have moved out into the broad community and be available to anybody who Microsoft should ever sue for infringement.

“Our goal, in other words, is to add one more layer of probable defense against the Microsoft patent aggression, which Microsoft has just been busy thumping its tub about this week. So, in summary, Novell will be protected for the long haul, and Microsoft will be endangered for the long haul by GPL 3, and that’s as it should be.”

Jonathan Schwartz, head hocho for Sun, has some excellent advice for Microsoft on his weblog…

And Novell responds as well

[Quote:]

Linus Torvalds, lead developer of the Linux kernel, has a sharp retort to Microsoft executives’ statements in a Fortune magazine article that Linux and other open-source code violate 235 Microsoft patents.

“It’s certainly a lot more likely that Microsoft violates patents than Linux does,” said Torvalds, holder of the Linux trademark. If the source code for Windows could be subjected to the same critical review that Linux has been, Microsoft would find itself in violation of patents held by other companies, said Torvalds.

“Basic operating system theory was pretty much done by the end of the 1960s. IBM probably owned thousands of really ‘fundamental’ patents,” Torvalds said in a response to questions submitted by InformationWeek. But he doesn’t like any form of patent saber rattling. “The fundamental stuff was done about half a century ago and has long, long since lost any patent protection,” he wrote.

Microsoft should name the patents that it claims have been violated so the claims can be tested in court or so open-source developers can rewrite code to avoid the violation, Torvalds wrote.

“Naming them would make it either clear that Linux isn’t infringing at all (which is quite possible, especially if the patents are bad), or would make it possible to avoid infringing by coding around whatever silly thing they claim,” he said.

“So the whole, ‘We have a list and we’re not telling you,’ itself should tell you something,” Torvalds said of Microsoft’s stance in the Fortune story. And for good measure, he added: “Don’t you think that if Microsoft actually had some really foolproof patent, they’d just tell us and go, ‘nyaah, nyaah, nyaah!’”

[for SCO, that is:]

The SCO Group, Inc. (”SCO”) (Nasdaq: SCOX), a leading provider of UNIX(R) software technology and mobile services, today announced it has received a Nasdaq Staff Deficiency Letter on April 23, 2007 indicating that the Company fails to comply with the minimum bid price requirement for continued listing set forth in Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(4). The letter gives SCO notice that the Company’s bid price of its common stock has closed under $1.00 for the last 30 business days.

Good news for linux…

[Quote:]

As part of an ongoing effort to secure more patent cross-licensing deals, Microsoft said Wednesday that it has signed a pact with Korea’s Samsung Electronics.

As with Microsoft’s recent deal with Fuji Xerox, the software maker specifically notes that the deal will allow Samsung to offer products using Linux without concern that Microsoft will sue it or its customers.

“This is kind of a theme we expect people will see in future patent cross-licenses that Microsoft reaches,” said David Kaefer, Microsoft’s general manager of intellectual-property licensing.

Thank you Novel for pioneering the future where Microsoft doesn’t even have to use or code for Linux to profit off of it. Thank you for the future where we essentially need Microsoft’s permission to run free software. This “patent indemnity” system is turning patent monopolies into patent cartels as protection rackets.

And Samsung now joins Novell on my blacklist.

[Quote:]

Rep. Homan and his son Doug tried to add their little open standards boost to SB 1974 as quietly as possible. They wanted the modified bill to at least get through its first committee approval before anyone spotted what they had done. But Microsoft’s Florida lobbyists were on the ball and spotted it almost immediately.

“It was like the movie ‘Men in Black,’” says Rep. Homan. “Three Microsoft lobbyists, all wearing black suits.”

Another lobbyist (unaffiliated with Microsoft) who would speak only “on background” laughed at the “Men in Black” description. “I know those guys,” he said. “They even wear sunglasses like in that movie. They are the ‘Men in Black’ of Florida lobbying, for sure.”

A legislative staff employee who would lose his job if he were quoted here by name said, “By the time those lobbyists were done talking, it sounded like ODF (Open Document Format, the free and open format used by OpenOffice.org and other free software) was proprietary and the Microsoft format was the open and free one.”

Two other legislative employees (who must also remain anonymous) told Linux.com that the Microsoft lobbyists implied that elected representatives who voted against Microsoft’s interests might have a little more trouble raising campaign funds than they would if they helped the IT giant achieve its Florida goals.

Note that lobbyists for IBM, Sun Microsystems, and Novell — the only three companies with a major interest in open source who have registered lobbyists in Florida — did not weigh in on this matter. Microsoft was the only company whose lobbyists openly displayed interest in whether Florida should consider legislation that would officially make state agencies a little friendlier to open software standards than they are now.

[Quote:]

Open Letter to Steven Ballmer

It’s come to many in the Linux community’s attention you have claimed again and again, that Linux violates Microsoft’s intellectual property.  Not only that, but it’s been reported Microsoft has convinced businesses to pay for a Linux patent that you can’t provide.

Therefore, this website will serve as a response to this accusation, and within it, a request.   The request is simple, since you, Microsoft, claim to be so sure of yourself: Show Us the Code.

If Linux developers are made aware of the code, then the code can be omitted and Linux can re-write necessary aspects of the kernel or operating system.  This is a fairly simple request and common courtesy. Why wave around lawsuit threats, threats that will cost Microsoft in a court room as well as the defendants? It lacks logic, especially when you consider that there are developers around the world who would be more than happy to work with Microsoft to resolve this issue. Don’t you owe it to your shareholders to work with others to ensure their intellectual property isn’t being violated?

Also, we were under the impression you wanted to work with the open source community. That’s what Port 25 is all about isn’t it?  That’s what the Novell deal is about, correct?  Here’s your chance.  If you’re right you’ll make thousands upon thousands of open-source advocates hush up and make your competitors scramble for ways to not violate your IP.

Linux community members do not want your code.   We don’t want lawsuits.  We don’t want non-free code.   And much to your dismay, we don’t want Microsoft’s code specifically. 

As Slashdot says, if Microsoft answers this challenge — by May 1st — then Linux developers will be able to modify the code so that it remains ‘free’ software. If such infringing code doesn’t exist, we will have called Microsoft’s bluff. And if the campaign garners enough attention and if Steve Ballmer maintains silence, then the community and companies behind Linux can take the silence for the admission that it is.

[Quote:]

Windows is inherently harder to secure than Linux. There I said it. The simple truth.

Many millions of words have been written and said on this topic. I have a couple of pictures. The basic argument goes like this. In its long evolution, Windows has grown so complicated that it is harder to secure. Well these images make the point very well. Both images are a complete map of the system calls that occur when a web server serves up a single page of html with a single picture. The same page and picture. A system call is an opportunity to address memory. A hacker investigates each memory access to see if it is vulnerable to a buffer overflow attack. The developer must do QA on each of these entry points. The more system calls, the greater potential for vulnerability, the more effort needed to create secure applications.

The first picture is of the system calls that occur on a Linux server running Apache.

 

See larger image here. 

This second image is of a Windows Server running IIS.

 

See larger image here. A picture is worth millions of words.

[Quote:]

My father heard about Vista coming on the news. Since he was interested in getting it, he asked me to obtain it and install it on his computer and he would give some cash in return. I told him I was going to do that, but instead I burned an Ubuntu CD and installed it.

Later, when he came home from work, I showed him his new “Vista” install, complete with the latest Office and Solitaire.

Well, it’s been a few days since that and now he says Bill Gates is better than Steve Jobs and brags about how OS X on my iMac is obsolete compared to Vista on his PC.

I will continue with the prank for some weeks, after which I’ll tell him the truth and give him back his money.

[Quote:]

The European Commission has issued a ringing endorsement of open source software, producing a confidence-boost for businesses considering the deployment of Linux and other free software.

In a lengthy report into business deployments of open source software, published in full late last week, the Commission said that in “almost all cases” savings would be made by switching from proprietary to open source software.

The bold findings come in stark contrast to assertions by Microsoft that Linux savings are a myth.

The Commission’s work is based on detailed analysis of open source projects in six European Union countries.

“Our findings show that, in almost all cases, a transition towards open source [produces] savings in the long term cost of ownership,” said the report, which was authored by academics at the United Nations University in Maastricht, Netherlands.

[Quote:]

ACCORDING TO research carried out by French firm Xiti Monitor, use of the Firefox browser continues to grow in Europe.

Since April this year, the geeky alternative to Microsoft’s Internet Explorer gained an extra four percent of the market across the continent.

According to Xiti’s research, the browser is now used by some 23.2 per cent of European PC web surfers - up from 19.4% in April.

There is quite some variation within the continent, however.

[..]

Use of Firefox generally goes up at the weekend in Europe, suggesting that people have the browser on their home PCs and may get what they’re given at work.