Cranky Old Nutcase by The Mad Hatter

I'm moving.

2010-01-04T15:56:00.003-05:00

Yep. Got given a domain name for Christmas. Come on over and look at the new place.

DoubleSpeak from Sookman

2010-01-02T02:08:00.001-05:00

Update - 4:25 PM Saturday: Thanks to a tweet from Barry - here's a link to an article on Torrent Freak, which is about another case of industry insider uploading. In this case the insider was targeted, not the torrent site, however industry seems to regard killing torrent technology as more effective than policing it's employees.

*****

Before I start - A Happy New Year to all - and a milestone - my 101st article!

*****

DoubleSpeak from Sookman

Hum, what to say. Barry publishes an article titled ITIF Report: Strategies for Reducing Digital Piracy.

Now that is exactly what the report is named, no doubt about that. And Barry’s quotes are accurate. But...

Barry isn’t stupid. Doctor Robert D. Atkinson, President of The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation isn’t stupid either. It appears that they know George Orwell too damned well. Remember that beautiful line in Orwell’s classic book 1984, ‘We have always been at war with Eastasia?’

What we have here is a classic form of Doublespeak. To quote Wikipedia’s article on Doublespeak, ‘Doublespeak (sometimes called doubletalk) is language constructed to disguise or distort its actual meaning, often resulting in a communication bypass. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms (e.g., "downsizing" for layoffs) or deliberate ambiguity.’

The euphemism here of course is piracy. What they actually mean is copyright infringement.

But wait you say - doesn’t everyone use the term piracy for copyright infringement? I mean there’s even a Pirate Party which has evolved into a worldwide political movement. Much to my surprise, I found out when researching this article that the usage of the term piracy for copyright infringement actually predates the concept of copyright infringement! From Wikipedia:

For electronic and audio-visual media, unauthorized reproduction and distribution is also commonly referred to as piracy (an early reference was made by Daniel Defoe in 1703 when he said of his novel True-born Englishman : "Its being Printed again and again, by Pyrates"[2]). The practice of labeling the act of infringement as "piracy" actually predates copyright itself. Even prior to the 1709 enactment of the Statute of Anne, generally recognized as the first copyright law, the Stationers' Company of London in 1557 received a Royal Charter giving the company a monopoly on publication and tasking it with enforcing the charter. Those who violated the charter were labeled pirates as early as 1603.[3]

The legal basis for this usage dates from the same era, and has been consistently applied until the present time.[4][5] Critics of the use of the term "piracy" to describe such practices contend that it is pejorative and unfairly equates copyright infringement with more sinister activity,[6] though courts often hold that under law the two terms are interchangeable.[7]

Fascinating. So historically the term ‘Piracy’ was used for ‘Copyright Infringement’ before ‘Copyright Infringement’ legally existed. But we are getting sidetracked. One side of the argument is trying to paint the other side as thieves and murderers. Not a very nice move on their part.

OK you say - everyone called copyright infringement piracy. Why should I? Let me posit you a question. If your entire Ninth Grade high school class decided to take swan diving lessons from the Observation Deck of the CN Tower without parachutes, would you allow peer pressure to make you join them?

Right. You wouldn’t. You’d think they either were idiots, or pod people. But you wouldn’t follow them. So when you are talking about copyright infringement, call it copyright infringement - not piracy.

And remember - these people aren’t idiots. They are using DoubleSpeak to try to gain an advantage in the discussion about Copyright and it’s place in the modern world. By using a pejorative, they wish to convince the general public that their side is in the right, without there being a substantive discussion of the benefits and costs to the public of our current copyright regime. Even more important to them however is that they do not wish under any circumstances to get involved in a discussion of the benefits and costs to the artists of our current copyright regime! Oh my god, that would be terrible!

No. I’m serious. I’m not sure that Barry understand this. He isn’t an artist after all (artist being defined as writer, composer, musician, film maker, photographer, painter, etc. - in simple terms a human or other intelligent being capable of producing works which can be copyrighted). I’m not sure that Robert Atkinson understand it either, after all he’s a gunslinger for hire who’s organization has taken conflicting positions in the past. Both will claim loudly that what they are doing is for the benefit of the artists, while a rational evaluation will show that it’s not the artists that benefit - it’s the middlemen. Specifically the CRIA, RIAA, MPAA, IFPI,, etc., etc.

So what exactly is going on if Barry doesn’t understand what he’s doing? Well, let’s take a look at a story that was in Barry’s Computer and Internet Law Updates for 2009-12-28 about an Italian case where a court has ruled that BitTorrent Sites May Be Censored In Italy according to TorrentFreak (note that this story was sent from Barry’s Blackberry - if you wish to go directly to the article click here.

I don’t know what the legal costs have been for the IFPI (probably the industry organization involved according to an earlier TorrentFreak article, but you have to question if the looked for increase of sales would cover them. There is no proof that I know of, that blocking downloads actually causes an increase in sales. But let’s assume that there is. If 1% of the cost of a $10.00 US Compact Disc was be used for copyright enforcement ($0.10 US), and the cost of legal representation was $10,000.00 US, then they would have to sell an additional 100,000 Compact Discs to break even. But could they afford to spend 1% of their revenues on enforcement? What if they only spent 0.1%? In that case they’d have to sell and extra 1,000,000 Compact Discs. The math makes sense. The economic reasoning doesn’t.

And when you add up every other ‘Enforcement Action’ that has been taken against ‘Piracy’ the economic justification makes even less sense. So as my Dad would have put it - ‘What the hell is going on here?’

After banging my head against the wall for a long time, I’ve finally come up with a theory or sorts. It fits the facts. It makes better economic justification than ‘Enforcement.’ But it does sound a little bit paranoid. Like something a crazy ‘hatred-driven style of Maoist Guard’ might come up with... So let me lay out the evidence that I’ve seen. Almost all of it is public, so unlike the other side I will provide documentary links (yes, I’m being nasty again). When my evidence is anecdotal, I’ll tell you.

*****

Case 1 - OINK.CD

OINK.CD - Oink’s Pink Palace was a torrent site that specialized in music. Music professionals such as Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails was a member. If we can take the industry representative (IFPI) who spoke to reporter at face value the reason for the raid on OINK.CD was pre-release music. Think - pre-release music. Just where would they have gotten that? In other words the industry was using the police to shutdown a service that their own employees were using! They couldn’t catch them on the inside, so they dumped on Alan Ellis, even arranging for a BBC camera crew to film the raid on his flat. Based on statements made by police at the time, it appears that the IFPI lied police and prosecutors (the police statements were bizarre to say the least).

Now this is where it gets anecdotal. I have friends in low places, and they allege that some of the alleged 60 pre-release albums were deliberately uploaded by the labels. If this is true, and it comes out in discovery (this case is under British law, and it is a criminal case, Regina V. Ellis, so I do not know if Mr. Ellis would be able to do discovery on the IFPI or the labels), it could cause problems for the prosecutors.

For an excellent article about the implications of the OINK.CD enforcement effort check out this article at Demon Baby.

Case 2 - EliteTorrents
EliteTorrents was a general torrent site. To the best of my knowledge it is the only torrent site that has the distinction of being taken down by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Their crime? A movie industry insider uploaded a ‘pre-commercial release work’ which hasn’t been identified, but is rumored to be Star Wars Episode 3. Right. A movie industry insider commits an act of copyright infringement (is it copyright infringement if the act was done by someone who worked for the company? It couldn’t be classified as theft - nothing is missing!) Unfortunately for EliteTorrents the torrent (not the video) was uploaded to their server. Result is that the site admin spends four years in jail, another admin gets eighteen months, and an uploaderescapes jail but looses his job. Whether he is the uploader who actually uploaded the file that brought everything down isn’t mentioned, but it is doubtful, since he worked for Lockheed Martin. Oh. and a movie exec says that the release made no difference at the box office.

Case 3 - Demonoid
Demonoid is an odd one. While it is a private tracker, it is so high profile that you could consider it the CIA of the tracker world. Demonoid has been up, and down, many times over the last few years, changing country of origin at least once because of legal issues. Wikipedia has an article describing this.

Case 4 - The Pirate Bay
The Pirate Bay is probably the most infamous torrent site, and people who were involved with it started the original original Pirate Party in Sweden. The Pirate Bay claims that it is legal under Swedish law, and usually posts legal threats to their website, often with smart aleck responses.

In 2008 Nine Inch Nails released their newest album under a Creative Commons license on The Pirate Bay. Their move was apparently a great success, with the band making a good profit. They’ve also allowed their fans to put together their own packages like this one and use the Pirate Bay for distribution.

More recently Director Hanna Sköld released her feature film Nasty Old People. On the front page of her website she put a torrent link. The tracker she choose to host her torrent was The Pirate Bay. It was a great film, if you haven’t seen it I highly recommend it. Oh, and she’s taking donations, I sent her $20.00 US to thank her for her work.

*****

So looking at the cases above, and considering how little economic benefit that industry has gotten from them, why are they doing this?

Easy. It’s an anti-competitive act. If the requirement for Internet Service Providers to block The Pirate Bay stands, Italians won’t be able to enjoy Hanna’s film, or the latest Nine Inch Nails album. By blocking the alternative distribution methods that independent artists are adopting (Finnish producer Samuli Torssonen also uses The Pirate Bay), they limit the market that the independents are using to reach their customers. If the independents can’t distribute using the alternate channels, their only choice is to use the big, established, distributors.

Now that may sound paranoid, but look at the evidence. The actions that the industry organizations are taking aren’t cost effective if what they are doing is trying to increase their sales by blocking ‘supposedly illegal’ downloads of the product they distribute. However if they can manage to convince legislators that Torrent technology should be made illegal, then a competing distribution system cannot form, and all distribution continues through them.

What do you think?

Evil Cyber Empire only possible because of Microsoft

2009-12-31T22:48:00.000-05:00

Barry tweeted a Newsweek article titled The Evil (Cyber) Empire - Inside the world of Russian hackers. What the article doesn't mention (possibly because Microsoft is a Newsweek advertiser) is that what holds the 'Russian Business Network' together is a vast botnet consisting of millions of compromised computers running the Microsoft Windows Operating System.

That's right. Windows. Not OSX. Not Linux. Only Windows.

The problem is that Windows was originally designed as a single user system. When network capabilities were grafted on in Windows 3.11 in an anti-competitive move against Novell, then the premier network software provider, security wasn't considered. When Microsoft belatedly recognized the Internet, and grafted TCP/IP networking onto Windows 95 and Windows NT 4.0, again, security wasn't considered.

Microsoft has never to this day taken security seriously in my opinion. Features such as the infamous ActiveX, which Microsoft eventually had to cripple, are an example of this. Another example is Internet Exploder, the disastrous web browser that Microsoft includes with Windows.

No other operating system has the security issues that Windows has. And quite frankly no other operating system ever will. Even Microsoft has admitted that

No other operating system is susceptible to so many attacks. Even Microsoft has admitted publicly that their products aren't engineered for security.

Sookman found liable for worldwide article inaccuracies

2009-12-30T21:21:00.001-05:00

OK. I’m being mean. I know it. You know it. Barry knows it. But hey, it’s me. This is how I am. Still I feel kind of guilty. It’s like shooting fish in a barrel. Quite frankly I should just forget about Barry, and finish the article I started before Christmas on Canadian attitudes towards Climate Change.

But hell - I declare this ‘Beat up on Barry week.’ In my earlier articles about Barry’s writing (one) (two) I mentioned that I had spotted other inaccuracies, and here’s one:

Fung and Isohunt found liable for inducing worldwide copyright infringement

Like wow, man. Guilty of Worldwide Copyright Infringement! That’s bad. Really bad.

And also totally untrue. Barry even includes a link to the judgement which I gather he didn’t read, because what the judgement says (on page 40 of 46 pages in the PDF version) is:

Even under this stringent “willful ignorance” test, it is apparent that Defendants have “turned a blind eye to ‘red flags’ of obvious infringement.” See H.R. Rep. 105-551(II), at 57. Most importantly, Defendant Fung himself has engaged in unauthorized downloads of copyrighted material; even if those downloads were done abroad and were not actionable under United States copyright law (and thus would not provide “actual knowledge” of illegal activity for purposes of 17 U.S.C. § 512(d)(1)(A)), Fung’s actions show that Fung was aware that infringing material was available on the Defendant websites. Given the “worldwide” nature of the world-wide web, it would have been obvious that United States-based users could access these same infringing materials and thus engage in infringing acts. Defendants provide no evidence to rebut this obvious conclusion that United States-based users would have been able to download the same copyrighted works that Fung himself downloaded.

I included the entire paragraph, but really it’s this sentence that matters:

Given the “worldwide” nature of the world-wide web, it would have been obvious that United States-based users could access these same infringing materials and thus engage in infringing acts.

This is the only time you can find the word ‘world’ in the summary judgement.

Now I’m not a lawyer, but management has to have a basic understanding of the legal system in order to operate. One of the major legal concepts is ‘jurisdiction.’ A court can only issue a ruling for those things it has jurisdiction over. Generally a court in one country cannot issue a ruling about actions in a second country. To give an example, if a user in Germany was to download a movie from ISOHUNT, which is in Canada, a court in the United States would not have jurisdiction.

It would however have jurisdiction over actions in the United States, and that's what the summary judgment is about.

So when I saw the title of this piece, I knew it was wrong, without even having read the judgement. It was impossible. And it’s too bad, because the article is actually really good. It covers the issues well, and while I may disagree with Barry’s writing, and his interpretations, in general he did a good job. Except for the title.

Come on Barry - you can do better than this. And yes, I know my title is as accurate as yours is. I'm trying to make a point.

Now that I’ve completed this, I’m going to pick up the guitar amp that the dogs knocked over, get out my Telecaster, and play some music. Good night all.

God, I love History!

2009-12-30T08:10:00.001-05:00

I really do. You find out the most amazing things, about some of the most amazing people, some of whom may even be related to you - or in this particular case are you!

As many of you know, I'm currently unfit for work. It just hurts too damned much for me to be effective. I am either so much pain that I cannot think straight, or I'm so stoned from the medication that I cannot think straight. I have an MRI scheduled for March 2010, and hopefully it will give the doctors the information that they need to go ahead with surgery. In the meantime, I'm spending far too much time surfing the net, and arguing with people (Hi Barry).

So, I have a new project. I'm writing a book. A history book to be precise, and I am in it.

At this point most people are probably wondering what great historical event I took part in, and know from my age (53) that I wasn't at Pearl Harbor, or on the HMCS Haida when she blew up a train during the Korean conflict. Truth is, like most of us, I didn't take part in any great historical events.

But one thing that I've learned is that history doesn't have to be about great historical events - it is also about the daily life of people like ourselves. The things that we do, and the places that we do them. My thanks to Tony Robinson and the rest of the folks on Time Team for giving me a better understanding of history (Time Team is shown in Canada on TVOntario).

So I'm writing a book about the Schools and Students of the Township of Markham, with the assistance of several delightful ladies who went to school with me.

Why do I think that this will be interesting? To most people it probably won't be. But to us, well it is the basis of what our lives have become today. A bunch of farm kids, going to school in the last of the historical one room school houses, many of which had undergone some expansion - one that I attended had been expanded to have FIVE classrooms.

To us farm kids, it was freaking huge!

It was a different time, and a different world in many ways. Just think - in September 1963 I started Grade 2 at a one room school house, which had a portable classroom added for more space. There I meet a really cute little redheaded girl and her twin brother. The school, the main part of which had been built in 1902, was on land donated by their great-grandfather. Their father, and grandfather had both attended that school. The cute little redheaded girl that I meet on that day in 1963 is now a doting grandmother. I hadn't talked to her in over 20 years when I found her on Facebook last fall. Yes, Shirley, to a large extent this is your fault!

Just before Christmas, Shirley, Linda, Debbie, Joyce, and I started trading memories of school, after I uploaded scans of some of our class pictures. This got me thinking. The Township doesn't exist anymore as a political entity - it disappeared during the reorganization of municipalities in the Province of Ontario which occurred in 1971. Parts of the Township of Markham were absorbed by the Town of Markham, the Town of Richmond Hill, and the Town of Whitchurch-Stoufville.

The Township school board doesn't exist any more either, it was absorbed into the York Region District School Board). None of us knew how many schools the Township ran, or even where all of them were. Some of the buildings still exist - for that matter SS#4 is still in use by the York Region Board. SS#5 is in use too, as a historical classroom. SS#8 is now a restaurant. SS#10 was removed from it's foundations, and moved to Black Creek Pioneer Village. We knew that SS#6 had to exist, and Debbie found a reference to it being classified as a historical building. I'm driving by it today to take a look. SS#7 still exists, but it is boarded up, and I'm not sure who owns the land, or if the building (built in 1902) has been declared historical. Hell, if it hasn't, I'm going to make damned good and sure that it will be.

This may not be as exciting as a war. But it means a lot to me, and my friends. Much of what we are, was formed in those little schools. They educated generations of farm kids, and their story deserves to be told.

And yes, I've volunteered.

Oh, and if anyone knows all the verses of the SS#4 theme song, which we sang on bus trips to drive the teachers crazy, please email what you have to me. I want to record it, and yes, I have the equipment :)

Barry Sookman - I stand by my post

2009-12-29T23:25:00.002-05:00

I feel awful. My ‘Post Nasal Drip’ has reached the point, that if I don’t post this tonight, I’ll have to post it ‘Posthumously.’

I got up this morning, and noticed Barry Sookman had deigned to respond to my criticism. He wrote:

barry said...

I stand by my post. The quotes in my blog were collected several months ago, so any deviations could be due to subsequent changes at the sites.  

Barry SOOKMAN

And yes Barry, I moderate too. Unlike you I approve all responses that aren’t link spam. This is Liberty Hall. You can spit on the mat, and call the cat a bastard. Though I really wouldn’t recommend doing that. Both of my dogs are scared witless of her, and she’s less than half the size of the beagle.

As to your response, I’m sorry Barry, but I just don’t buy this. You remember what was on the sites months ago, but can’t provide any proof? How do we know that your memory is any good? How do we know that you aren’t just making this up?

You are a lawyer. If you went into court with something like this, the judge would have your head, and quite rightly so. I’ve seen what happens to lawyers who don’t do their work properly, and raise the judge’s ire. And I’m not a lawyer, I’ve just been involved in several very interesting lawsuits.

You claim you stand by your post. But you edited it to remove the points I had complained about, did so without indicating to your readers that you had any problems (indeed there is no evidence in the article to indicate that you removed over a third of it). I didn’t even get mentioned in the updated article, though it could be argued that I had more to do with it’s current state than you do.

If you had come out and said, ‘Oops, I messed up,’ I would have had some respect for you. Instead you’ve just gone on my watch list. I’ll be reading everything you post. If you mess up, I’ll let you know. I’ll let everyone else know as well, since I don’t trust you to do so.

Oh, and you still haven’t fixed several other obvious errors. I’ll leave you the job of finding them, it will be good for your soul. And I’ve noticed while you posted the news about Argentina, that you haven’t posted the news about Chile. Naughty, naughty. Trying to hide defeats for your side is typical of the man you are showing us.

Barry the Inaccurate

2009-12-28T22:29:00.001-05:00

Updated Tuesday December 27, 2009 at 12:58 AM

At about 12:30 AM, Tuesday December 29th, Barry sent the following in Twitter:

bsookman

Post Edited: Toying with funny math to downplay Canada's role as a piracy haven (http://www.barrysookman.com/?p=435) 32 minutes ago from WP to Twitter

He fixed most of the errors that I pointed out. Curiously he didn't credit me for spotting them. I wonder why....

**********************************************************************************

Barry Sookman’s most recent post titled Toying with funny math to downplay Canada’s role as a piracy haven is, at best, inaccurate. Since I’m suffering from a nasty head cold I’m only going to cover the most noticeable errors - and then go back to suffering.

In paragraph three, Barry claims that Mininova is down. A quick visit to the site shows that he is in error, that Mininova is still in operation. He also claims that the court ordered it shut down. This is incorrect. The court ordered that certain torrents be removed. Nothing more. Nothing less.

In paragraph four, Barry claims that a court ordered that the The Pirate Bay be shut down. He does not mention that an appeal has been filed. In a later paragraph he claims that The Pirate Bay will be shut down shortly, however the shut down order is on hold until the appeal is complete. To the best of my knowledge a court date has not been picked as yet, and since the shut down cannot take effect until after the appeal, his claim that it will be shut down shortly is specious at best.

So if he is so wrong on those two things, why do we have any reason to believe him when he posts the following quotes:

Graboid: “Graboid Video is completely legal in Canada.”

Where exactly Barry gets this from is unclear. Graboid is headquartered in the Barbados according to their site, and make no such claims. I’d never heard of Graboid before - not that it would do my much good anyways, since it appears to only support Windows, and well, you have to be suicidal to run Windows on a machine that is connected to the internet in my opinion.

PeerGuardian: “Important Technical and Legal Notes: no masking of your address is 100% foolproof. At the same time, remember that in any other country outside of Canada, downloading copyrighted movies and songs puts you at legal risk for copyright infringement prosecution. Hundreds of users in the USA and UK have been fined by the MPAA and RIAA for downloading files in the last three years. Only in Canada is P2P file sharing tolerated legally.”

This appears pretty damning, until you realize that Barry grabbed it from About.com, and that he did a bit of editing (don’t believe me or him - read it yourself). There is nothing like this in the Peer Guardian FAQ, or for that matter on the entire site that I could find.

IWannaDownload: “Canadian Server Location = Completely Legal”

Again, sounds damning, until you try to find those words on IWannaDownload.com. Check out the FAQ and confirm for yourself what I say. It's not there. So where did Barry get it from?

TorrentPortal: “Unless you live in Canada, downloading copyrighted material via P2P may put you at risk for a lawsuit. Canadian users are currently shielded from P2P lawsuits. Canada signed the 1997 World Intellectual Property Organization Internet Treaties, but has not yet ratified them by enacting their provisions into domestic law.”

Wow. These words actually appear on the TorrentPortal website. Shocking. However this is a partial quote, in full it reads (the text missing from Barry's article is in bold):

TorrentPortal is like Google™ in that it only links to .torrent metafiles and takes a cache of such files. None of the data transferred by or stored on TorrentPortal servers is content linked to by .torrent files.
Unless you live in Canada, downloading copyrighted material via P2P may put you at risk for a lawsuit. Canadian users are currently shielded from P2P lawsuits. Canada signed the 1997 World Intellectual Property Organization Internet Treaties, but has not yet ratified them by enacting their provisions into domestic law. Recently there has been class-action suits filed against users who copy and distribute copyrighted material without regard for the law. The MPAA, RIAA and the governments of both England and Australia have taken several thousand users to court demanding thousands of dollars. Your ISP may, on their own judgment, give their logs of your downloading activity to those who request it. In those situations, the more you download and share, the more risk you put yourself at.
Please keep all this in mind before you use any portion of TorrentPortal.   Know your local laws and be sure you are following them.  “Fans who share music are not thieves or pirates. Sharing music has been happening for decades.” - CMCC (Canadian Music Creators Coalition) (Barenaked Ladies, Avril Lavigne, Sarah McLachlan, Chantal Kreviazuk, Sum 41, Stars, Raine Maida (Our Lady Peace), Dave Bidini (Rheostatics), Billy Talent, Sloan, and more!)

By only quoting part of the words, Barry is able to make it sound damning. When you read the rest, including the quote from the Canadian Music Creators Coalition, who are the very people that Barry pretends to represent, it sounds far less damning. And of course what you have is the opinion of the person who wrote it. Lawsuits over distribution of music in Canada happen regularly, and are covered in the media including the New York Post, ZDNet, Vancouver Sun, Semi Accurate, and others. Under our current laws lawsuits are obviously possible - so why is Barry saying that they aren’t? Possibly because the lawsuit I'm using for an example is by an artist against the CRIA member companies. Michael Geist has claimed that Barry is a CRIA Lobbyist. If he is, this may explain why he ignores the proof that lawsuits abour copyright infringement do happen in Canada.

BTJunkie: “BTJunkie has moved to Canada for legal reasons.” -Wikipedia, BTJunkie, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Btjunkie. (BTJunckie still has at least one server operating in Canada. Adding it to the list would really give Canada 5 of the top ten.)

Barry appears to have decided that Wikipedia is accurate, since it suits his purposes. Me being me, I checked the reference link on Wikipedia, and it leads to a site run by a company called RobTex. RobTex has automated tools which allow you to look up the name servers for a site. Since one of the name servers is in Canada, Barry is assuming that at least one BT Junkie server is in Canada. This is not a safe assumption, the location of the name server has no relation to the physical location of the server it points to.

IsoHunt: “In February of 2006, isoHunt and TorrentSpy were the recipients of a copyright infringement complaint from the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America). TorrentSpy eventually shut down and was forced to accept a $100 million settlement; however, because isoHunt is situated in Canada, it has been able to hold off the powers that be for significantly longer.” Slyck.com, “isoHunt Celebrates 6 Years Online”, January 5, 2008.

Here Barry thinks that quoting an online article gives him credence. However considering the lack of accuracy in his own articles, how can we tell that this article is accurate, and in several places it doesn’t appear to be. However IsoHunt is definitely located in Canada. The operator has admitted this. So Barry did get one right.

Now if Barry has any problems with my take on things, I will happily talk to him. But quite frankly his accuracy stinks. I've dealt with a lot of lawyers over the years, and I would not hire a lawyer who is this sloppy in his fact checking.

Hell - I’ll call him tomorrow and see what he has to say :)

Lincoln Spector asks 'Why Can't the Law Get the Crooks?'

2009-12-27T12:17:00.001-05:00

Poor Link. He's just not thinking straight. Rather than asking Why Can't the Law Get the Crooks? he should be asking, why did Microsoft build a house with large Windows that will not lock?

Because that is what they've done. If you had a house, and you didn't lock the doors, and you get robbed, well you failed to take reasonable precautions. In the case of computer operating systems, you don't even have the choice of locking your Windows. Due to Microsoft's incompetence, Windows is wide open to any crook who tries to access it.

Oh, it can be protected. There are certain simple things you can do, like never use Internet Exploder, Outlook or Outlook Express, and Microsoft Office. Add a firewall, and a half decent anti-virus, and you are reasonably safe. Microsoft's auto-update is problematical. Sometimes it's great. Sometimes it's a disaster (and your computer stops working).

Or you could run a properly designed operating system like Gnu/Linux or OSX, and not have to worry.

The sane answer is to avoid Windows.

Doctor Ficsor is wrong again

2009-12-24T02:33:00.001-05:00

Oh dear - here we go again. Doctor Ficsor, you are quickly gaining a reputation for inaccuracy. I was originally going to refute you point by point, but that would have resulted in another long document, and as you stated, this is Christmas. I have children and a wife (never mind two adorable dogs) who would like to see me away from the computer for a while, so I will make this short.

Point Number One:
You have stated that the United States is compliant with the treaty in regards to ‘Technological Protection Measures (TPM)’. According to the wording that you, yourself have provided they are not. Their implementation, known as the ‘Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998’ is defective in many areas. I’ll pick one to demonstrate, specifically the Kindle, an E-Reader marketed by Amazon. The Kindle uses ‘Digital Rights Management (DRM)’ (a more accurate name would be Digital Restrictions Management), another name for a TPM, to prevent copying of the E-Books on the Kindle. According to your reading of the treaty, any legislation is supposed to outlaw ‘circumvention devices’ for any TPM.

However flatbed scanners are sold in many stores. With a flatbed scanner, I have the capability of scanning the book page by page. I can then, using commercially available Optical Character Recognition Software (OCR) transform the scanned pages into a DRM electronic file.

If your statement about the United States being compliant with the treaty was accurate, flatbed scanners and OCR software would not be legally available for sale in the United States, as they allow me to circumvent the TPM on the Kindle.

You may regard this example as ridiculous, however there is nothing in the treaty which allows a country to

Point Number Two:
Article 11, Obligations Concerning Technological Measures, states that:

Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by authors in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty or the Berne Convention and that restrict acts, in respect of their works, which are not authorized by the authors concerned or permitted by law.

This section was written to protect the rights of an author, like you or I. Under this measure, only authors are protected. Publishers are not. Let’s use Canadian singer/songwriter Avril Lavigne as an example. If she writes a song, and records it, and she chose to use a TPM to protect the recording, under the wording of Article 11, if Canada ratified the treaty, you say we would have to enact legislation to prevent the sale and/or manufacture of circumvention devices of any sort. However if her label, RCA used TPM, we would not be required to enact legislation to protect the TPM from circumvention devices.

Or if Avril recorded a song that I wrote (an unlikely eventuality), since she is not the author, again, Canada would not be required to enact legislation to protect the TPM from circumvention devices.

So your blanket statement about the requirements for legislation to control circumvention devices is inaccurate. The requirement exists only if the author chooses to use it. No one else has that ability.

Point Number Three:
I have asked twice now, for you or Barry to supply me one or more peer reviewed cost/benefit studies. So far you have not done so. In fact your only argument is the Lemming argument. If a Lemming runs off a cliff, the other Lemmings have to follow. This makes any Lemming that follows the pact eligible for a Darwin Award, and would definitely improve the Gene Pool.

The obvious inference is that you either can’t or don’t want to supply the information. If you can’t supply the information, because such a study was not done, advocating that Canada sign the treaty would be a breach of fiduciary duty on your par

If you don’t want to supply the information, because the study showed that there either was no benefit, or that implementation would have a negative effect on the citizens of Canada, this would also be a breach of fiduciary duty on your part.

Since, as you pointed out, this is Christmas, I will happily wait until the end of the second week of January, for you to supply this information.

Point Number Four
As I pointed out in my earlier responses, to you and Barry, the Government of Canada is responsible to the citizens of Canada, not to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The Government of Canada has a fiduciary duty to the citizens of Canada, not to the WIPO, or to any other political or judicial body outside the boundaries of this great country.

Canada is a democratic country. For you to suggest that our politicians have a greater responsibility to the WIPO, than to the citizens of this country, which you have done, is insufferable. Your original invitation read more like an order.

Since it is now December 24th, I will wish you a Merry Christmas. Even a Maoist Revolutionary can do that.

Dr. Ficsor is wrong about many things - why should we believe him?

2009-12-23T22:11:00.000-05:00

Dr. Ficsor is right; Prof. Geist is wrong about the WIPO Internet Treaties

Earlier this week, Dr. Ficsor posted a blog inviting Canada to join the international community by ratifying the WIPO Internet Treaties. Dr. Ficsor is an internationally revered copyright scholar and professor and the former Assistant Director General of WIPO. As his posting pointed out, he was also responsible for organizing the preparatory work of the two Treaties, for the 1996 Diplomatic Conference adopting them, and for the first efforts to achieve their adequate implementation, There is no one on the planet who knows more about the treaties or what was intended by them than him.

That wasn't an invitation - it was more like a mugging. That aside, I have this unfortunate tendency not to believe what people say. I guess its a fault in my makeup, that I believe everybody is lying to me, until I've proved otherwise. The problem is that all too often, I find out that they are lying to me. Or at least 'gilding the truth'. The internationally revered copyright scholar and professor. A Google Search on the term Doctor Ficsor returns the following data:

Cranky Old Nutcase by The Mad Hatter: An invitation to Doctor ...I'm a Canadian. Dr. Ficsor's 'An invitation to Canada to join the international community by ratifying the WIPO Internet Treaties' is one of the more ...
tweetmeme.com/.../cranky-old-nutcase-by-the-mad-hatter-an-invitation-to- doctor-ficsor-to-explain-the-value-to-the-citizens-of-canada-in... - 12 hours ago

Ficsor Curriculum vitae - International Symposium on IP Education ...At the World Trade Organization (WTO), Dr. Ficsor is a member of the roster of ... Dr. Ficsor holds a doctor's degree in law and political sciences from the ...
www.wipo.int/academy/en/meetings/iped_sym.../ficsor.html - Cached - Similar

Cranky Old Nutcase by The Mad Hatter: An invitation to Doctor ...Dr. Ficsor's 'An invitation to Canada to join the international community ... glynmoody says: invitation to Doctor Ficsor to explain the value in ratifying ...
astonmartinnews.com/.../cranky-old-nutcase-by-the-mad-hatter-an-invitation- to-doctor-ficsor-to-explain-the-value-to-the-citizens-of-canada... - 12 hours ago

Glyn Moody (glynmoody) 's status on Wednesday, 23-Dec-09 11:16:40 ...23 Dec 2009 ... invitation to Doctor Ficsor to explain the value in ratifying the WIPO Internet Treaties - http://bit.ly/7whl4C fine takedown of codswallop ...
identi.ca/notice/17306530 - 13 hours ago

Meeting of Kyrgyzpatent leadership with Dr. Mihály Ficsor ...12 Jun 2009 ... Dr. Ficsor emphasized that such problems have existed all over the world. He shared experience of other countries in this field. ...
patent.kg/en/news/2009/06/12/430.html - Cached

[PDF] SHORT BIOGRAPHY -Dr. Mihály Ficsor Dr. Mihály Ficsor is a national ...File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
At the World Trade Organization (WTO), Dr. Ficsor is a member of the roster of ... Dr. Ficsor holds a doctor's degree in law and political sciences from the ...
www.fordhamipinstitute.com/ip_conference/.../Mihaly_Ficsor_Bio.pdf

Only the first six finds, which are printed above, were for Doctor Ficsor, and three of them linked to my response to his post on your blog. If the man really was an 'internationally revered copyright scholar and professor' I would expect more hits, and I would not expect the number one hit to be an article critical of his opinions and writing. So we have a virtual unknown trying to interfere in the affairs of a sovereign country. Does this sound as ridiculous to you as it does to me? It doesn't? Don't go away, it gets better.

In his post, Dr. Ficsor took issue with several assertions made by Prof. Geist about the treaties. Yesterday, Prof. Geist responded to Dr. Ficsor in another blog posting. Prof. Geist starts his new blog by attacking Dr. Ficsor trying to paint him as a lobbyist for rights holders. Anyone who follows Prof. Geist will know that he labels almost everyone he disagrees with as a lobbyist, attempting to demonize and discredit them by association rather than by the views they hold. Prof. Geist goes way over the line this time, however, when he tries to lead his readers to believe that Dr. Ficsor’s opinions about the WIPO Treaties are influenced by work he may do in the copyright area. Dr. Ficsor’s views about the requirements of the treaties have been well documented for over a decade. It is shameful that Prof. Geist would attempt to tarnish Dr. Ficsor’s reputation and iconic standing by asserting that he has “joined up with copyright lobby groups” thus suggesting that his views are not honestly held.

Doctor Ficsor's views have been well documented for over a decade? Where? The man is virtually unknown according to Google. Most of the results it tosses up for his name link to my virtually unknown blog! My god man - didn't your teachers tell you to strive for accuracy if you want to be believed? Both you and Doctor Ficsor are fond of making statements, without providing proof. Document, document, document!

And as to Doctor Ficsor's connections to the 'copyright lobby groups', I refer you to my earlier post where I came to the same conclusion. Doctor Ficsor's arguments are so similar to the arguments made by the US Ambassador to Canada in a recent speech. Which happen to be the same arguments made by the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America. Which may not be surprising, as the Obama regime is infamous for hiring RIAA lawyers for sensitive positions in the administration.

Now, let’s examine the substance of what Dr. Fiscor said and Prof. Geist’s responses.
1. Dr. Ficsor’s claim: Dr. Fiscor took issue with Prof. Geist’s assertions that Canada has not fallen behind the EU and Canada’s other trading partners by failing to implement the WIPO Treaties. Dr. Ficsor pointed out that such an inaccurate assertion could only be made by someone who is “ignorant about these facts” or “who intend to hide or drastically misinterpret them for some purpose”.
Response by Prof. Geist. Prof. Geist did not respond or take issue with this claim by Dr. Ficsor.
My Comment: Prof. Geist could not respond. Prof. Geist has consistently tried to confuse the concept of treaty ratification with enacting legislation to implement the treaties. When Prof. Geist says “for all the claims that Canada is years behind, the EU ratification arrived today” he wants his readers to believe that the EU member states only now just passed laws to implement the treaties. The fact is, however, that the EU member states had all implemented the treaties long ago to help foster a legal digital infrastructure for its citizens.

Well, I'm not Professor Geist. As I wrote to Doctor Ficsor yesterday, By your definition the number of lemmings who've gone over a cliff confirms the validity of their migration path. Evolution would not agree with you. Since we Canadians are not lemmings, I see no reason that we need to ratify the 'Internet Treaties'.

Now my apologies if the next bit is a bit messed up. My blogging software has limitations, and I'm not sure that the table will reproduce.

The EU enacted a Directive mandating implementation of the treaties in 2001. The member states enacted legislation implementing Directive 2001/29/EC on the dates set out below:

Country Implementation Date
Austria July 1, 2003
Belgium May 22, 2005
Cyprus May 1 2004
Czech Republic December 1, 2000 (in part)
Denmark December 22, 2002
Estonia October 29, 2004
Finland October 14, 2005
France August 4, 2006
Germany September 13, 2003
Greece October 10, 2002
Hungary May 1, 2004
Ireland January 16, 2004
Italy April 9, 2003
Latvia April 22, 2004
Lithuania January 1, 2004
Luxembourg April 18, 2004
Malta September 2, 2003
Netherlands September 1, 2004
Norway July 1, 2005
Poland April 1, 2004
Portugal August 24, 2004
Slovakia January 1, 2004
Slovenia April 24, 2004
Spain July 7, 2006
Sweden July 1, 2005
United Kingdom October 31, 2003

Again, documentation. You allege that these states introduced laws making them compliant with these treaties. You do not provide the texts of the laws, so that we can assure ourselves that they actually exist. And of course, we have had not opportunity to compare these laws to determine if they actually do bring these states into compliance with the treaties. My documentation indicates that you are telling a whopper here. The WIPO website itself does not agree with you.

And then of course there are other issues. For example it is apparently legal to run a torrent site in Spain, as long as you don't make any money (i.e. have advertising revenue). This interpretation of the law has been upheld in court. How does this make Spain compliant with the treaties? One of the things that the treaties apparently cover is 'notice and takedown', this apparently is not happening in WIPO compliant Spain.

And now we get to the part I love. I'm going to have to chop this into little, teeny, pieces to respond.

2. Dr. Ficsor’s claim: Dr. Fiscor took issue with Prof. Geist’s assertion that Canada has the flexibility to adopt a “made in Canada approach” to implementing the treaties which does not involve providing legal protection for anti-circumvention tools. Dr. Ficsor stated “the professor’s blog seems to suggest a kind of “made-in-Canada” way of implementation that would consist of not implementing certain obligations under the Treaties”, and in particular, not protecting against anti-circumvention tools.
Dr. Ficsor explained why legal protection for anti-circumvention tools was required under the treaties as follows:
“The allegation that the two Treaties do not require protection against the manufacture and distribution of unauthorized circumvention devices is completely groundless. The negotiation history of the Treaties clearly indicates that, although their anti-circumvention provisions finally used a more general language, they had been based on proposals extending to the prohibition of such activities. However, what is even more important is that the obligation to provide for such prohibition also follows from the text of the relevant provisions themselves of the Treaties. Under those provisions, Contracting Parties are obligated “to provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies” against the circumvention of technological protection measures. It could hardly be suggested seriously and without a big amount of cynicism that a Contracting Party is able to provide adequate protection and effective remedies if it only prohibits the very acts of circumvention and leave technological protection measures to their gloomy fate by that. Such acts are normally performed in private homes or offices where, due to privacy considerations, it would be extremely difficult – or quasi impossible – to apply adequate protection. At the same time, it is possible to build adequate defense line if the manufacturing and distribution of unauthorized circumvention devices and services are also prohibited. Since this is possible and since this is needed for an adequate anti-circumvention protection, it follows from the treaty obligations that this should be applied by the Contracting Parties. The EU regulation is based on this recognition and the regulation is duly applied by the Member States. The EU has not chosen an imaginary “WIPO-lite” implementation to fulfill certain obligations and neglect others, since there is no such way of implementing the Treaties; it would be equal not implementing them by adopting a ridiculous theory that for some mysterious reasons the basic principle serving as a basis of any serious agreement – pacta sunt servanda – does not apply to them.”
Response by Prof. Geist. Prof. Geist simply asserts that a proposal for expressly protecting anti-circumvention tools was not accepted into the wording of actual treaties at the Diplomatic Conference. As Dr. Ficsor had already pointed, the Diplomatic Conference adopted the requirement that legal protection be “adequate” and remedies be “effective”. Prof. Geist cites an article from Prof. Samulson which purports to describe the history behind the provisions adopted at WIPO. However, Prof. Geist does not attempt to contradict Dr. Ficsor’s assertion that the requirement for adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies for TPMs does not require legal protection for anti-circumvention tools.
My Comment: It is one thing to claim, as does Prof. Geist does, that a specific proposal for the wording of the treaties was rejected at the Diplomatic Conference. It is quite another thing to make the completely unsupported conclusion that Canada “can be compliant with the WIPO Internet treaties without implementing” protection for anti-circumvention tools. It is noteworthy, that Prof. Samulson, the only authority relied upon by Prof. Geist, does not even suggest in the article quoted that the WIPO treaties do not mandate legal protection for circumvention tools. In fact, she concluded “The inclusion of terms like “adequate” and “effective” protection in the treaty will mean that U.S. firms will be able to challenge national regulations that they deem deficient.”

Such a lot of verbiage, to say so little. There must be "technological protection measures." They must have adequate protection. Oh, woe is me. Of course Barry hasn't bothered explaining several things:
1) If the TPM was adequate in the first place, why would it need legal protection?
2) Why Prof. Samulson was only concerned about US Firms being able to act against laws they deem deficient?
3) Pacta sunt servanda - why good faith only applies to the WIPO, and not the citizens of Canada?
4) What the value to Canada and Canadians is of ratifying these treaties?

And the reason he hasn't, and Doctor Fiscor didn't address these issues is that they have no answers for them. There are no peer reviewed studies showing that ratifying these treaties will have any benefit to the citizens of any country. In fact, there are several peer reviewed studies that state the opposite. So why should Canada ratify? For that matter, if the WIPO is so out of touch with simple cost/benefit calculations, what benefit does Canada, one of the greatest world powers, a member of the G7, the second largest country, the 15th largest economy, get in remaining a member? Possibly you could explain this to me. With documentation. Verifiable documentation.

It is telling that in the face of being directly confronted by Dr. Ficsor, the world authority on the interpretation of the WIPO Treaties, that Prof. Geist did not cite even a single authority that supports his position that Canada can implement the WIPO Treaties without providing legal protection for circumvention tools.
The authoritative texts which have interpreted the obligations imposed by the WIPO Treaties all agree that to be adequate and effective, anti-circumvention provisions must prohibit the trafficking in circumvention tools and the provision of services which can be used for circumvention purposes. For example, the WIPO Guide to the Copyright and Related Rights Treaties administered by WIPO[1] states the following in this regard:
“For these reasons, Contracting Parties may only be sure that they are able to fulfil their obligations under Article 11 of the Treaty if they provide the required protection and remedies: (i) against both unauthorized acts of circumvention, and the so-called “preparatory activities” rendering such acts possible (that is, against the manufacture, importation and distribution of circumvention tools and the offering of services for circumvention)… (iii) not only against those devices whose only – sole – purpose is circumvention, but also against those which are primarily designed and produced for such purposes, which only have a limited, commercially significant objective or use other than circumvention, or about which its is obvious that they are meant for circumvention since they are marketed (advertised, etc.) as such”.

Note again the amazing allegation that Doctor Ficsor, the man who Google knows so little about, is 'the world authority on the interpretation of the WIPO Treaties'. I find this hard to believe. I also find it hard to believe that Google knows so little about this paragon of experts, so I just did another search on the term Mihaly Ficsor and the results were a bit better. I'm insulted though, my blog didn't show up at all. Ah well, fame is fleeting. Here's the first ten hits:

Dr. Mihaly FicsorDr. Mihály Ficsor, one of the best-known experts in the field of international copyright, is a consultant to the International Intellectual Property ...
www.iipa.com/html/Bio_Mihaly_Ficsor.html - Cached - Similar

Ficsor Curriculum vitae - International Symposium on IP Education ...Mihály Ficsor Director Center for Information Technology and Intellectual Property (CITIP) Budapest Hungary. Dr. Mihály Ficsor is a national of Hungary. ...
www.wipo.int/academy/en/meetings/iped_sym.../ficsor.html - Cached - Similar

Mihaly Ficsor stories at Techdirt.22 Dec 2009 ... Check out our CwF + RtB experiment. Brought to you by Floor64 and the Techdirt crew. stories filed under: "mihaly ficsor" ...
www.techdirt.com/blog.php?tag=mihaly+ficsor&edition=techdirt

Meeting of Kyrgyzpatent leadership with Dr. Mihály Ficsor ...12 Jun 2009 ... [On June 9 the meeting took place of Kyrgyzpatent leadership with Dr. Mihály Ficsor, Professor, President of the Hungarian Copyright Experts ...
patent.kg/en/news/2009/06/12/430.html - Cached

Flipkart.com: Mihaly Ficsor Books: Buy in Indiamihaly ficsor: Books Buy & Search Online @ Flipkart.com. Great Discounts, Free Shipping on mihaly ficsor Books: Biggest Online Book Store India.
www.flipkart.com/mihaly-ficsor/ - Cached

Flipkart.com: The Law Of Copyright And The Internet: Mihaly Ficsor ...Buy The Law Of Copyright And The Internet in India. Price:Rs.29749 Free Shipping on The Law Of Copyright And The Internet. Book Review of The Law Of ...
www.flipkart.com/law...mihaly-ficsor/019829901x-gqw3fdu57e - Cached

[PDF] SHORT BIOGRAPHY -Dr. Mihály Ficsor Dr. Mihály Ficsor is a national ...File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
Dr. Mihály Ficsor is a national of Hungary. From 1966 to 1968, he was judge at the Central District Court of Budapest, and, from 1969 to 1975, he was ...
www.fordhamipinstitute.com/ip_conference/.../Mihaly_Ficsor_Bio.pdf

Collective management of copyright and related rights - Google Books Resultby Mihály Ficsor, World Intellectual Property ... - 2002 - Law - 165 pages
books.google.com/books?isbn=9280511033...

Oxford University Press: The Law of Copyright and the Internet ...Mihály Ficsor. bookshot Add to Cart. ISBN13: 9780198299011ISBN10: 019829901X Hardback, 848 pages. Apr 2002, In Stock ...
www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/general/.../IntellectualProperty/?...ci... - Cached

Law of Copyright & the Interne: Mihaly Ficsor: HB Books Buy Law of ...Mihaly Ficsor. (Author) Rating of 0 out of 5 (0 Customer Reviews). + FREE Shipping in India! .... This book by Mihaly Ficsor is written in English language. ...
www.infibeam.com/Books/.../Mihaly-Ficsor/.../019829901X.html - Cached

Let's see. High marks from the International Intellectual Property Association, and the WIPO. However since he seems to be working for both one way or the other, they don't count. Techdirt thinks he's worth covering. No, wait. They don't. They only have one article on him, written at the same time I wrote my response to him. And a couple of hits for his book, which looks like a sure cure for insomnia at 848 pages. And this guy is supposed to be 'the world authority on the interpretation of the WIPO Treaties'? Pardon me, but I have a hard time believing this.

Reinbothe and von Lewinski, in their book The WIPO Treaties, [2] are equally unequivocal about the need to include protection against trafficking of circumvention tools and the provision of services which are made available for the purpose of circumventing technological measures:
“…It may be held that legal protection against circumvention is only meaningful and adequate if it also covers circumvention devices and services, the so-called ‘preparatory acts’… the manufacturing and distribution of devices which permit or facilitate circumvention may potentially cause more important prejudice to rightholders than acts of circumvention. A ‘circumvention only’ approach appears, therefore, to be insufficient…The domestic law of Contracting Parties would have to proscribe devices, products, components or the provision of services which are produced or distributed for the purpose of circumventing protection technologies.”

Fascinating. Google seems unable to find this book. Oh, hold on. Here it is. One of the links is really interesting, it says:

While both the U.S. and EU/German systems prohibit the circumvention of, and the trafficking in, access control devices, the United States regime does not prohibit the circumvention of copy control devices. Consequently, U.S. users who can circumvent a copy control device without trafficking in such devices may make fair use of the copyrighted material. The EU/German system does not permit the circumvention of copy control devices in any respect, but it does require the copyright holder to provide the user, in exchange for compensation, with the means to bypass the copy control devices and make fair use of the copyrighted material. This requirement, which expands the degree to which copyrighted material is made more accessible for fair use, gives the EU/German system a decided advantage over the U.S. regime, though the EU/German system has drawbacks that impair its effectiveness.

Is this possibly what Prof. Geist has been talking about? According to Doctor Ficsor, this isn't allowed. But Barry says Germany is compliant with the treaties. Who do we believe?

Prof. Jane Ginsburg[3] comes to the same conclusion in rejecting the proposition that the WCT does not require protection against trafficking in circumvention tools:

“Such an inference seems unwarranted, because it would significantly diminish the effectiveness of the prohibition. First, limiting the prohibition to the act of circumvention would mean that copyright owners would need to discover and prove the commission of acts that may often occur in private, at the user’s home. This seems both difficult for copyright owners and undesirable to users. Second, outlawing the device as well as the activity is likely to have a greater impact on the provision of circumvention devices; without the device, less circumvention is likely to occur, and it is more effective to pursue a small number of device suppliers than the large numbers of their customers. Moreover, the formulation “the circumvention” should be read in the context of the sentence in which it appears. An interpretation that disfavors effective protection against circumvention by limiting the prohibited conduct to the sole act of circumvention, rather than encompassing the provision of devices as well, would be inconsistent with art. 11’s direction that member States “shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention.”

OK. So circumvention tools are not allowable. But copying tools are. This makes absolutely no sense at all. Any copying tool has to circumvent the TPM. For that matter any device or software which allows access to the work has to circumvent the TPM. In effect, a DVD player is a circumvention mechanism.

Now I know that the argument which will be made here is that the DVD player manufacturer had to take out a licence with the DVD Forum (formerly known as the DVD Consortium). However how does the end user know that the manufacturer has legally done this? Anyone can lie. And quite frankly crooks lie as a matter of course.

But that's a side issue. The point is that players are circumvention devices. The treaties state that circumvention devices are not legal. Therefore DVD players are not legal. None of which makes any sense at all. But we aren't looking at the actual text of the Treaty. It says:

Article 11
Obligations concerning Technological Measures

Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by authors in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty or the Berne Convention and that restrict acts, in respect of their works, which are not authorized by the authors concerned or permitted by law.

Note the word 'authors'. So if I publish a song that I've written, and choose to use Technological Protection Measures, any country that has signed the treaty is required to have in place 'effective legal remedies'. If I'm not the author, there is no requirement for the country to have in place 'effective legal remedies' to protect Technological Protection Measures. Since there is no mention of licensees, there is no requirement to protect technological protection measures used by the licensee.

Possibly this explains the panic that I am seeing in Mihaly and Barry's posts. The Emperor has no clothes.

In recognition of the need to provide rights and remedies against circumvention tools, the international norm of countries that have implemented the WIPO Treaties is to prohibit trafficking in circumvention tools. Countries and territories that have done so include the United States, Australia and Japan. As Dr. Ficsor pointed out, this requirement is also in the EU Directive which has been implemented by EU member states.
Glen Bloom, a well known Canadian copyright lawyer, and the vice-chair of the CBA’s Copyright Technical Committee, expressed the same opinion about the treaties after considering whether Bill c-60, which would not have provided legal protection for TPMs, could have complied with the WIPO treaties:
“‘A plain reading of Articles 11 and 18 of the WIPO Internet Treaties, the definition of “technological measure” and new section 34.02 inevitably raise questions about the adequacy of the protection for technological measures to enable Canada to ratify the WIPO Treaties. In fact, in view of persuasive commentary including in particular the WIPO Guide and legislative developments among Canada’s trading partners, the inevitable conclusion is that Canada’s legislation could not adequately implement its obligations regarding technological measures under the WIPO Internet Treaties without significant amendment to the definition and new section 34.02.”[4]

But only if the person implementing the TPM is the author. A plain reading of the text indicates that this was the intent of those who drafted the treaty.

3. Dr. Ficsor’s claim: Dr. Fiscor took issue with Prof. Geist’s assertions that “the European national implementations show a wide range of exceptions, opening the door to a ‘made-in-Canada’ WIPO approach.”

Response by Prof. Geist. Prof. Geist did not respond or take issue with this claim by Dr. Ficsor.

Ah, but I'm not Prof. Geist. Explain the copying exception in Germany, and the website exception in Spain for me please.

Dr. Ficsor ends his posting by asserting that Prof. Geist’s views “about the obligations under two WIPO Treaties and about the way the EU Member States have implemented them are groundless and misleading.” There is nothing in Prof. Geist’s reply that should change anyone’s opinion’s on the substance of Dr. Ficsor’s rebukes of Prof. Geist.

Ah, but there was in my response to Doctor Ficsor, which you have totally ignored. As yet neither of you have provided us with any peer reviewed studies indicating the economic benefits to the citizens of Canada (or any other country) to ratifying these treaties. You also have not explained by so many other countries have not ratified these treaties:

Austria
Bolivia
Canada
Denmark
Estonia
European Union (but you said that they've signed - I will assume your good faith, and that the page has just not been updated yet)
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Kenya
Luxembourg
Monaco
Namibia
Netherlands
Nigeria
Portugal
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
Venezuela

Some of these countries are EU members, and their status may change when and if the web page is finally updated. However it is curious that they aren't listed as EU member states, but rather separately. Is there something else you are not telling us?

[1] WIPO Guide Geneva 2003 at para CT-11.16.
[2] Reinbothe and von Lewinski, The WIPO Treaties at 141, 144-145
[3] Ginsburg Legal Protection of TPMs at 8.
[4] Technological Measures and Rights Management Information October 25, 2005

While the references look interesting, your failure to link to the sources has me wondering if these documents actually exist, and if they do exist, what their worth is.

In closing - I don't know what Prof. Michael Geist is thinking. I don't know why he responded to Doctor Ficsor in the way he did. I've never meet him, any more than I've ever meet Doctor Ficsor or yourself. And quite frankly it doesn't matter.

What does matter is that:

1) Both you and Doctor Ficsor have inaccurately quoted the treaties
2) Both of you appear to have an undisclosed vested interest in the treaties
3) Both of you have provided no documentary proof that there are benefits to ratifying the treaties
4) Both of you appear to have issues with the truth

And both of you appear terrified that someone will call you out on this. Well, I'm calling you out. What are you hiding, and why are you hiding it?

An invitation to Doctor Ficsor to explain the value to the citizens of Canada in ratifying the WIPO Internet Treaties

2009-12-23T00:49:00.000-05:00

I'm a Canadian. Dr. Ficsor's 'An invitation to Canada to join the international community by ratifying the WIPO Internet Treaties' is one of the more insulting, and incorrect documents that I've perused over the years. So many errors, where oh where should I begin? How about the start?

On December 14, the international copyright community had a big celebration in Geneva at the headquarters of the World Intellectual Property Organizations (WIPO). The ambassadors of 16 Member States of the European Union and the European Union itself deposited their instruments of ratification of the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT). By this, since 10 of new Member States joining the EU in 2004 and 2007 and Belgium had previously deposited their instruments of ratification, all the 27 Member States of the EU and the EU itself will be Contracting Parties to the two so-called “Internet Treaties” within three months bringing the number of Contracting Parties to 88 (WCT) and 86 (WPPT), respectively. This long waited development has confirmed the full validity and ability of the Treaties to duly regulate the protection of copyright and related rights in the digital network environment, and has also made it clear that these instruments have become inevitable standards of this branch of intellectual property.

By your definition the number of lemmings who've gone over a cliff confirms the validity of their migration path. Evolution would not agree with you.

Since, as the then Assistant Director GeneraI of WIPO, I was the main responsible in the Organization for the preparatory work of the two Treaties, for the 1996 Diplomatic Conference adopting them, and for the first efforts to achieve their adequate implementation, it was a particularly great pleasure to me to participate in the last week celebration of this success of the Treaties.

OK, so you have a vested interest, as one of the people involved in drafting this. I'm glad you admit it. I'm rather disappointed that you don't mention that you are a consultant to the International Intellectual Property Alliance (link to your bio included). So you have two irons in this fire, and only have admitted to one. I would consider this suspicious.

Nevertheless, the deposit ceremony has not been for me just a moment of cloudless happiness, since it meant that I should fill now the promise made to my publisher, the Oxford University Press, to prepare a new edition of my book on the two Treaties: “The Law of Copyright and the Internet.” I tried to delay undertaking the quite heavy task of rewriting the now 7-year-old 800-page book which is still quite well selling, and my last defense was that we should wait until the deposit of instruments of ratification of all EU Member States. Now it is over.

It's a terrible thing, being a successful author.

This freshly renewed obligation of mine to pay full attention to the developments around the WIPO Treaties has made me to look around on the Internet, inter alia, by typing “EU ratification WIPO Treaties” in the search site.

Why didn't you try Google, Bing, or Cuil? By using the search on the WIPO site you were limiting yourself.

I have found a reference to the statement made by Francis Gurry, Director General of WIPO, on the occasion of the EU ratification who “noting that the EU plays a leading role in promoting use of the Internet and in developing on-line content, …. said its ratification of the treaties will positively influence the development of creativity within the digital environment in Europe and beyond,” as well as the comments of EU Commissioner Charlie McCreevy: “Today is an important day for the European Union and its Member States and WIPO. We, as a group have shown our attachment to the international system of protection of copyright and related rights. These two treaties brought protection up to speed with modern technologies. As the technological evolution accelerates, protecting creators and creative industries is more urgent than ever.”

Doctor Gurry has worked at the WIPO since 1985, in several positions. He also has a vested interest in this treaty, so forgive me for ignoring his statement. When someone has a vested interest, I do not trust what they say. It is curious that you forgot his title though, I notice you didn't forget yours.

And then you trot out Charlie McCreevy, the man that the Irish Times called 'the worst minister for finance in the history of the State', and who it appears has been in the pockets of foreign multinationals. If you scrutinize his career, it is notable for legislation that has no benefit to his constituents, but has many benefits to corporations, many of which have contributed to his election campaigns. There have been too many questions raised about his legislative actions. Where there is smoke, there isn't always fire, however it is a good possibility.

These declarations correctly reflect the outstanding importance of the EU’s full ratification of the two Treaties which have been duly characterized by the WIPO press release issued on this occasion as follows: “The ‘Internet Treaties’ laid the ground for a balanced system of protection in the new technological environment in areas such as the interactive transmission of copyright content, limitations to copyright and the promotion of technologies that facilitate the distribution and use of creative content.”

Curious. When I read the documents, I didn't see anything that would 'facilitate the distribution and use of creative content', what I saw was an attempt to keep the 21st Century equivalent of buggy whip manufacturers in business, in spite of their technological obsolescence.

However, by browsing through the search “matches,” I have also found something that made me exclaim by surprise: “WHHHHAT?” In the blog of what seems to be operated by a Canadian professor (his name is Michael Geist), the following short report appeared: “The European Union has formally ratified the WIPO Internet treaties. While critics of Canadian copyright law will no doubt use the move to argue that Canada has fallen behind on copyright reform, it is worth noting that: (1) Canada has twice introduced legislation designed to do the same; (2) the European national implementations show a wide range of exceptions, opening the door to a ‘made-in-Canada’ WIPO approach; (3) for all the claims that Canada is years behind, the EU ratification arrived today.”

And this in inaccurate how?

It is hardly understandable on the basis of what kind of logic one may suggest that Canada has not fallen behind just because draft legislation has been designed twice, since neither of the two drafts has been adopted. One single piece of adequately drafted and adopted legislation would be sufficient to implement the Treaties; not only two but even a dozen non-adopted draft laws cannot replace it.

OK, let's start with Beverly Oda, who introduced copyright legislation, and was found to have held a fund raiser with industry representatives. The public was not invited. The public wasn't amused, either.

Even before Bill C-60 was introduced a petition was signed by 1800 Canadians opposing it. That's right. Before it was introduced in Parliament.

Bill C-61 meet similar opposition.

When Industry Canada ran a Copyright Consultation with the public and industry, suggestions ranged from a copyright period not to exceed 15 years, to 70 years after death (you can search here) and included suggestions such as making DRM illegal, vesting copyright in the creator (no transfers allowed), etc. A good summary is here.

Canadians as usual had a wide range of views. Curiously, only the industry bodies backed longer copyright terms, technical protection measures, and other restrictions.

Another statement in the blog implies that it is not well founded to claim that Canada has fallen behind since “the EU ratification arrived today.” Even if one accepted the allegation according to which the EU and its Member States have only completed the implementation of the two “Internet Treaties” with the deposit of the 16+1 last instruments of ratification, it would not change the fact that now all the important trading partners of Canada’s from the US to Japan, from Mexico to the EU and its 27 Member States, from South Korea to Australia, along with a lot of other countries, such as China and Russia, are party to the Treaties – and Canada is not, and even it does not have implementing legislation on the basis of which it could ratify them. However, it is far (in light-years distance) from being true that the EU implementation of the two Treaties took place just around the time when on December 14, 2009, at 6 a.m. the 17 ambassadors handed over the instruments to Director General Gurry. The EU Information Society (Copyright) Directive taking care of the implementation of the Treaties was adopted in 2001 and the great majority of the “old” and “new” Member States completed their legislative implementation and internal ratification process quite quickly after that. The only reason for which they did not deposit their instruments of ratification was a decision announced on the last day of the 1996 Diplomatic Conference according to which the EU and its Member States would deposit their instruments together on the same day. It has become possible this year when some months ago the last two Member States – Portugal and Malta – have also completed their ratification process and joined the others many of which were waiting for them for a number of years.

In other words, there has been a lot of disagreement in the EU about the treaty - else it would not have taken over ten years to get to this point. And there is still strong opposition to the treaty, else the Pirate Party would not now hold two seats in the European Parliament.

Only those may allege that Canada has not fallen quite importantly behind the EU and its Member States (as well as its other important trading parties) regarding the implementation of the WIPO Treaties who are ignorant about these facts (which could hardly be presumed about somebody who seems to be a professor also dealing with copyright) or who intend to hide or drastically misinterpret them for some purpose.

How does accusing those you want to convince to do something that they are ignorant help your cause? This is not the action that I would expect from a man who is supposed to be an experienced negotiator.

The purpose has become evident when I looked around in the website in trying to find out what the weird statement might mean according to which “the European national implementations show a wide range of exceptions, opening the door to a ‘made-in-Canada’ WIPO approach.”

The implementation of the two Treaties in the EU Information Society (Copyright) Directive took place on the basis of a “made-in-EU” approach, the D.M.C.A in the US was adopted in 1998 as a result of a “made-in-the US” approach, the Japanese laws to implement the two Treaties were created following a “made-in-Japan” approach. Thus, it is just normal that, if Canada finally implements the Treaties, it will do so by applying a “made-in-Canada” approach. Any “made-in” approach is acceptable that is suitable for due implementation of all the treaty obligations.

In simple terms, it appears that you are arguing that you should be allowed to interfere with internal Canadian affairs, but that we should not be able to interfere with your affairs.

However, the professor’s blog seems to suggest a kind of “made-in-Canada” way of implementation that would consist of not implementing certain obligations under the Treaties. This turns out when one visits another part of the website which discusses the EU proposal for the IP chapter of a currently negotiated Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement to be concluded with Canada. The professor states that the proposal is “incredibly troubling” and that “when combined with ACTA, the two agreements would render Canadian copyright law virtually unrecognizable as Canada would be required to undertake a significant rewrite of its law.” He refers, inter alia, to the following elements of the EU proposal – relevant from the viewpoint of the implementation of the two Treaties – that are not just troubling but incredibly troubling:

* WIPO ratification. The EU is demanding that Canada respect the rights and obligations under the WIPO Internet treaties. The EU only formally ratified those treaties this week.

* Anti-circumvention provisions. The EU is demanding that Canada implement anti-circumvention provisions that include a ban on the distribution of circumvention devices. There is no such requirement in the WIPO Internet treaties.

* ISP Liability provisions. The EU is demanding statutory provisions on ISP liability where they act as mere conduits, cache content, or host content. ISPs would qualify for a statutory safe harbour in appropriate circumstances. There is no three-strikes and you’re out language (which presumably originates with the U.S.)…

* Making available or distribution rights. The EU is demanding that Canada implement a distribution or making available right to copyright owners.

Let us take a look at these incredibly troubling demands in the EU proposal. Probably, the first one is not among them since any lawyer in a sober state of mind might hardly suggest that if a country accedes to a treaty, its special “made-in” approach of implementation could go so far as to not respecting the rights and obligations under the Treaty. The last demand is of the same nature. The two Treaties obligate Contracting Parties to grant exclusive rights of making available and distribution. Thus, it could hardly be characterized as incredibly troubling to demand that, if Canada at last ratifies the two Treaties, it should not adopt a “made-in-Canada” legislation by not providing for these rights. Then would the inclusion of EU-style statutory provisions on ISP liability in respect of mere conduit, caching and hosting services be incredibly troubling? Hardly; it could not be alleged reasonably that those rules trying to guarantee just a minimum minimorum level of cooperation of such intermediaries – who usually gain a lot as a result of illegal transmissions of infringing materials through their systems – are not justified.

Actually there are a variety of issues with all of the above. The most important is number one.

1) Would the people of Canada benefit from this treaty? If they wouldn't, it should not be ratified.
2) Since Canada has held a Copyright Consultation, and the vast majority of submissions were opposed in whole or in part to the components of your treaty, and Canada is a Democracy, implementation is not possible, at least not unless the consensus changes.
3) The Government of Canada is responsible to the citizens of Canada, not the WIPO staff.

Under the circumstances, implementing the treaty, no matter how important to the WIPO, is not possible.

Thus, what is presumably regarded by the professor an incredibly troubling demand is that Canada should implement anti-circumvention provisions by also prohibiting circumvention devices. This appears to be the case since he adds that “[t]here is no such requirement in the WIPO Internet Treaties.” It seems to follow from this that a “made-in-Canada” implementation of the Treaties preferred by the professor would not be supposed to include such prohibition (although, in the website, there may be found traces of a previous strange campaign that the professor has been waged also against the application and protection of digital rights management (DRM) systems in general).

Actually the correct term is 'Digital Restrictions Management', since the devices and systems exist to restrict the users access.

In respect of anti-circumventing provisions, the EU demands something that is provided in Article 6 of the Information Society (Copyright) Directive and which is duly implemented in the legislation of the Member States. In view of this, there is an obvious self-contradiction in the position of our professor in respect of how he considers the EU’s way of implementing the two Treaties from the viewpoint of a “made-in-Canada” approach he would prefer. There is, since as quoted above, he also states with pleasure that the European national implementations open the door to a “made-in-Canada” WIPO approach.

You still have not explained how the two treaties are of any advantage to the citizens of Canada - or of advantage to the citizens of any country. The two treaties appear to have been written by the industry, for the industry. The one thing that I am surprised is missing, is an exemption for the industry to copyright claims, such as the $6 Billion Class action lawsuit filed against the Canadian Recording Industry Association by artists who allege that their works have been systematically infringed by the big Four record labels.

The allegation that the two Treaties do not require protection against the manufacture and distribution of unauthorized circumvention devices is completely groundless. The negotiation history of the Treaties clearly indicates that, although their anti-circumvention provisions finally used a more general language, they had been based on proposals extending to the prohibition of such activities. However, what is even more important is that the obligation to provide for such prohibition also follows from the text of the relevant provisions themselves of the Treaties. Under those provisions, Contracting Parties are obligated “to provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies” against the circumvention of technological protection measures. It could hardly be suggested seriously and without a big amount of cynicism that a Contracting Party is able to provide adequate protection and effective remedies if it only prohibits the very acts of circumvention and leave technological protection measures to their gloomy fate by that. Such acts are normally performed in private homes or offices where, due to privacy considerations, it would be extremely difficult – or quasi impossible – to apply adequate protection. At the same time, it is possible to build adequate defense line if the manufacturing and distribution of unauthorized circumvention devices and services are also prohibited. Since this is possible and since this is needed for an adequate anti-circumvention protection, it follows from the treaty obligations that this should be applied by the Contracting Parties. The EU regulation is based on this recognition and the regulation is duly applied by the Member States. The EU has not chosen an imaginary “WIPO-lite” implementation to fulfill certain obligations and neglect others, since there is no such way of implementing the Treaties; it would be equal not implementing them by adopting a ridiculous theory that for some mysterious reasons the basic principle serving as a basis of any serious agreement – pacta sunt servanda – does not apply to them.

Why is the theory ridiculous? I just love it when you say outrageous things, and provide no back up to your statement. Let's consider the CSS copy protection scheme used for Digital Video Discs. The system is a total failure. Why should something that can (and was) broken by a college student deserve protection? Because you say so? Sounds like a schoolboy argument to me, not the sort of argument I would expect from a former judge.

What is the value to the citizens of Canada, the United States, the European Union, and the citizens of all of the other states that members of the WIPO in having a TPM installed on their equipment?

In view of this, it is not clear to what the professor might refer when he expresses his pleasure that “the European national implementations show a wide range of exceptions, opening the door to a ‘made-in-Canada’ WIPO approach.” What exceptions to what does he have in mind, what doors could they open, and for what kind of special approach they may serve as a basis? There is no reply to these questions in the blog. Article 5(1) to (5) of the Information Society provide for exhaustively listed exceptions to and limitations of the rights of reproduction, distribution and making available to the public, subject to the three-step test in accordance with the relevant provisions of the WIPO Treaties (as well as the Berne Convention and the TRIPS Agreement). The Member States apply the majority of them truly with certain national variants. If the “made-in-Canada” way of implementing the Treaties consisted in this sort of provisions on exceptions and limitations in accordance with the international norms and subject to the “three-step test,” obviously no conflict would emerge with the Treaties. The EU’s “incredibly troubling” demands hardly form any obstacle in this respect.

Again, you feel free to interfere in Canadian internal affairs. But you would be quite upset if we asked for your removal from your position at the WIPO.

The Information Society (Copyright) Directive also includes well-balanced provisions guaranteeing the applicability of certain exceptions that are important from the viewpoint of public interests. The Member States are obligated to introduce intervention mechanisms for those cases where the owners of rights applying technological protection measures do not provide access to the beneficiaries of such exceptions on a voluntary basis. The majority of Member States have provided for some kind of mediation-arbitration systems as intervention mechanisms. This is the case also in my country, Hungary, where the Copyright Experts Council has been appointed to act as a mediation-arbitration body. Since 2000, I have been the President of the Council which has had the task to act as such a body since May 1st, 2004, the date of Hungary’s accession to the EU. I know the number of cases brought in front of the Council in this connection until today. It is exactly zero. The problems of access by the beneficiaries of the exceptions involved have been prevented on the basis of framework agreements between owners of rights and the beneficiaries of exceptions, and the few potential disputes have also been solved peacefully without the need for formal mediation-arbitration. The experience in our country is similar to what has been found in other countries concerned; it indicates that, if we have heard some noise, it was not because the copyright sky has fallen down under the weight of DRM systems, but rather because the credibility of the doomsday prophesies about blocking access to works by DRM in an unjustified way have collapsed spectacularly.

Since your memory appears to be defective, let me remind you of some cases where 'the copyright sky has fallen' as you so quaintly put it:

1) Amazon deletes 1984 from the Kindle
2) Spore DRM issues
3) Walmart to shut down DRM servers
4) Microsoft shuts down DRM servers
5) Yahoo shuts DRM servers
6) Overdrive goes out of business, DRM books disappear
7) Windows Genuine Advantage server outage
8) Sonic Wall DRM Server Outage
9) Mobipocket DRM Server Fails

I've stopped at nine items, but there's many, many, more. Digital Restrictions Management has cost end users a huge amount of money. Consider the Sony RootKit fiasco, where the DRM opened a security hole on systems running Microsoft Windows (Mac OSX and Linux users were unaffected). Or the time that someone issued the wrong key for a TV show, and those who had bought a 'DRM Compliant' DVR were not able to record the show…

The allegations that may be found in the professor’s blog about the obligations under two WIPO Treaties and about the way the EU Member States have implemented them are groundless and misleading. However, on the basis of what I have seen by reading – masochistically – in the comments added by his devoted followers, this appears to be of no importance for them. What they seem to need is no matter what kind of fuel for their anti-copyright “revolutionary” zeal and blind hatred against what they characterize as “greedy” copyright industries (not seeing – or pretending that they do not see – the authors, performers and other creative and technical contributors whose rights are equally denied if the industries in and for which they work cannot duly exploit copyright). For them, everybody is stupid, traitor and/or the agent of the “big industry” enemy who does not agree with them and does not share the view that free access to works is the only acceptable solution on the Internet. Nobody is more impatient and nobody is more ready to suppress any contrary speech than these “liberal” (alleged) “free-speech” champions. One may become very popular if he serves and organize these kinds of “speak out” campaigns.

And your allegations aren't? What anti-copyright revolutionaries have you found? Who have you found who doesn't want to pay the artists? Why do so many of the artists object to the treaties, to Digital Restrictions Management, to the RIAA lawsuit campaign, and to the 'big industry' (after all, they wouldn't be suing the industry that supposedly represents them if it was doing its job properly - $6 Billion lawsuit, remember?)

I am sure that the policy makers of Canada do not allow being misled and frightened by the noisy group of these “free-access” “revolutionaries” (I hope so since, here in the former “socialist” countries of Central and Eastern Europe, we have had quite bad experience of certain “free access” “revolutionary” collectivist systems constrained on us for several decades). I am sure that they will not let Canada to become an isolated hostage and victim of demagogue campaigns organized in the hatred-driven style of Maoist Guards as during that other brilliant “cultural revolution.” Thus, I hope that Canada will now accept the kind invitation presented on December 14 to join its main trading partners and the mainstream of the international community by ratifying and duly implementing the WIPO Treaties that are indispensable instruments to guarantee adequate and well-balanced copyright protection in the digital on-line environment.

I'll repeat this again. The 'policy makers of Canada' aren't responsible to the WIPO, or to the industry organizations (CRIA, MPAA, RIAA). It is responsible to the people of Canada. You have not shown how this has any benefit to the people of Canada, or the people of the United States, or the people of the European Union, or the people of any other state. All you've done is cry about your precious treaties over and over.

Considering that there have been no studies that I have found which show that the WIPO copyright treaties deliver an advantage to the citizens of any state, I see no reason to adopt them. In fact there are studies such as this excellent one from a researcher at Cambridge which shows optimal copyright term as 14 years. Here's an amicus brief file by researchers from Harvard which states that the economic benefits of further copyright extension are minimal if any. There's also a paper from the
Review of Economic Research on Copyright Issues which calls for further research. We live in a world where cost/benefit rules. At present we don't know what the costs or benefits are, because you haven't published them. And that's the big secret. You didn't publish them, because the answer is that there are no benefits to the citizens. In fact there are significant costs to the citizens, aren't there? And you didn't intend to tell them. Why didn't you intend to tell them? The only conclusion I can reach, is because you were paid by the industry organizations not to. Else, why write two treaties that put the citizens at such a disadvantage?

Dr. Mihály Ficsor,
President of the Hungarian Copyright Experts Council,
former Assistant Director General of WIPO

In closing, for those who aren't aware of how Europe works, Dukes, Knights, and other 'Nobility' no longer exist in most EU member countries. They've been replaced by Doctors. Holding a Doctorate is a necessity if you plan to be anyone in the European Union. This has given rise to at least one Diploma Mill situation. I am not accusing Doctor Ficsor of attending a Diploma Mill, just stating that people with the title of Doctor, whether in law, like Doctor Ficsor, the arts, economics, etc. are very common compared to North America (except in England, where they still have the real thing).

Give me that Microsoft Religion - NOT!

2009-12-21T23:04:00.001-05:00

There's a lot of Microsoft worshipers out there. Jaredhallows is a good example. Goblin of OPEN BYTES posts a negative article about the Zune. Jaredhallows throws a fit, and accuses Goblin of being a Microsoft hater.

I told Lefty (David Schlesinger) that I won't allow Microsoft software on any computer I own. I don't like software that calls home when I'm online. I don't like software that reports anything, however benign, to anyone. I don't like it that I can't turn this 'feature' off. Lefty accused me of being a Microsoft hater.

I don't hate Microsoft. I just have no use for a company that holds so little regard for its customers, and I refuse to buy from them. Do a Google search on the phrase Microsoft screws customers and see how many hits you get. Hell, even Bing, Microsoft's own search engine admits this. Or if you don't trust Google or Bing, try Cuil, a little known search engine that is a nice alternative.

I don't like how Microsoft operates. I'm not afraid to tell everyone why. To those who worship at the altar of Microsft, this is blasphemy. That I don't love Microsoft must mean that I hate Microsoft in their minds. That I'm aware of how badly Microsoft Windows is designed, and am willing to say so, means that I'm a Microsoft hater. Saying that the Emperor has no clothes is being disrespectful to the Emperor. Being disrespectful means that I hate the Emperor.

Microsoft worshipers troll places like Groklaw, ZDNet, The Inquirer, and every other place that has forums, or allows comments, trying to keep anyone who posts from saying anything negative about their Idol. You don't believe me? Go take a look. You say something negative, and the Microsoft Trolls (worshipers) pop up out of the woodwork, accusing you of every crime known to man (and some that they've invented for the occasion).

Because the Microsoft religion, or cult if you will, isn't rational. It can't be rational. When you worship something, it has to have a value to you. Microsoft has no value to the end user, in part because the company has no ethics.

I feel sorry for the Microsoft worshipers, worshiping at the feet of a false idol, worshipers of a false religion.

Crazy Dog Shit Woman

2009-12-19T13:53:00.000-05:00

Well, the other night I was out walking our two dogs, Mark, the half Husky/half Shepherd mix (there’s rumored to be Wolf in his family tree) and Sam, the Beagle. I like walking them when I can. It’s good exercise for me as well.

And all of a sudden I’ve got some woman who I’ve never seen before screaming at me. Well, I’m a song writer. Guess what I did when I got home :) This isn’t the final version, I’m still fiddling with it, so feel free to make comments.

Oh, and the Chorus is her words.

*****

Walking my dogs. Enjoying the night.
car nearly hits us, as it pulls in a lane
Out pops a blonde, nice bod to view
Till she screams and yells at us:

Chorus:
You! Your fucking dogs shit on my lawn
You. Asshole get your dogs off my lawn
You! Your fucking dogs shit on my lawn
You. Asshole get your dogs off my lawn

I try to tell her, it was not us
But she won't stop to hear, She’s screaming even louder now
Her face turns bright red, and veins start to pop
Is her name Krakatoa, or is it Vesuvius?

Chorus:

She wouldn’t listen, not one little bit
So I wrote this song, about people like her
It's hard to know, if she's really insane
Or if she just had, a bad day at work
But it doesn't matter, cause I'm recording this song
If she heard it, would she recognize herself?

End

Novell Moonlight 2.0 Gets Microsoft's Blessing

2009-12-17T18:52:00.000-05:00

Sean Michael Kerner at Linux Planet has published an article titled Novell Moonlight 2.0 Gets Microsoft's Blessing. Now I don't know what he was thinking when he wrote this article - but I get the impression that he thinks that there's something important about Microsoft and Novell extending "Patent Protection" to all users of Moonlight, Novell's Silverlight clone.

He would be far better off to ask "Who cares?"

Really. The only major website using Silverlight/Moonlight is Microsoft.com, and Linux users have no need to go there anyway. They already have reliable, well patched systems.

Besides, HTML5 makes Silverlight and Flash obsolete. Youtube has already implemented HTML5 Video. Not all browsers fully support it yet, but they all will.

I wonder how much money Microsoft and Novell have wasted on Silverlight/Moonlight?

Spam vs Blog Posting - is there a correlation?

2009-12-14T16:35:00.000-05:00

Ah, spam. I remember the good old days in ALT.SEX.CTHULHU when we took great delight in lampooning spam. Of course we got a better quality of spam in those days! Seriously. And we had a lot of fun doing things to it. I suspect that poor researcher who was working on a project about how love had changed in the late 20th Century is probably still freaking out after we filled in her questionnaire...

But that's off-topic. I've noticed a correlation. The more blog posts I make, the more spam I get. Curious, isn't it? Here's the beauties I got today:

Laine Caprice

Discount 0nline Pharmacy, Brand & Generic Medication for Less From Your Trusted Canada ...‎ - Your One-Stop 0nline Pharmacy * We have all popular selling meds for your needs * Get Rx Refills … 1:53 pm

Bernita Lura

Canadian 0nline Pharmacy, Price Beat Guaraanteeed! MoneyBack Guaraanteeed. CIPA Certifi...‎ - Your One-Stop 0nline Pharmacy * We have all popular selling meds for your needs * Get Rx Refills … 12:00 pm

France Brittaney

LongerPenis Size, Max Discount Guaranteeed + Bonus + Money Back Guranteeed zgdyu 8i‎ - Pills For A LargerPenis!! Fast Acting! works within 20 Minutes! Bigger, Harder, Longer … 11:18 am

Augustine Clorinda

Canada 0nline Pharmacy, Buy Canadian Drugs at Wholesale Prices and Save 70-90% dkfhqp gb‎ - Your One-Stop 0nline Pharmacy * We have all popular selling meds for your needs * Get Rx Refills - 10:06 am

Hana Rosalia

Canada 0nline Pharmacy, Buy Canadian Drugs at Wholesale Prices and Save 70-90% yae pvgt‎ - Your One-Stop 0nline Pharmacy * We have all popular selling meds for your needs * Get Rx Refills … 8:12 am

Roslyn Loralee

SexPills at Lower Cost, Find discounted medication with peace of mind. Up to 70% off wh...‎ - Top SexPills On Sale BuyViagra 100mg/50mg/25mg from $1.89/tab BuyCializ 40mg/20mg/10mg/5mg from … 7:42 am

Charlette Vashti

Canada RX Drugs 0nline, BuyPrescriptions and Save over 80%. We Will Beat All Competitor...‎ - Your One-Stop 0nline Pharmacy * We have all popular selling meds for your needs * Get Rx Refills … 5:55 am

me

For you special 80% OFF on Pfizer‎ - View Online Please click here if no image Home | About Us | Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy © Ikum … 5:37 am

Brian

1K - 9K incoming M.oney Wires!‎ - I share with you what others are hiding with intent: C A S H I N G fully automated $1k-$9k Huge M … 5:28 am

Renita Kenyetta

Canadian 0nline Pharmacy, Price Beat Guaraanteeed! MoneyBack Guaraanteeed. CIPA Certifi...‎ - Your One-Stop 0nline Pharmacy * We have all popular selling meds for your needs * Get Rx Refills … 1:13 am

Rene Dena

Perfect Best FakeWatches, FREE worldwide shipping with every order. We carry all rep1ic...‎ - jRo1exRep1ica Watches & More Browse our collection of perfect replicaWatches: jRo1exCartier … 1:01 am

Miss Jerilyn

MaleEnhancement, PenisEnlargement Pills that Work! Try it Risk Free - 100% Guaranteeed ...‎ - Do You Want A LargerPenis? Natural Herbal Pills(100% no side effect Guaranteeed!) Gives You 2-4 … 12:53 am

me

For you special 80% OFF on Pfizer‎ - View Online Please click here if no image Home | About Us | Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy … Dec 13

Tobie Ling

Canadian 0nline Pharmacy, Price Beat Guaraanteeed! MoneyBack Guaraanteeed. CIPA Certifi...‎ - Your One-Stop 0nline Pharmacy * We have all popular selling meds for your needs * Get Rx Refills … Dec 13

Roni Ellan

Canada 0nline Pharmacy, Buy Canadian Drugs at Wholesale Prices and Save 70-90% gkhj sb‎ - Your One-Stop 0nline Pharmacy * We have all popular selling meds for your needs * Get Rx Refills … Dec 13

Raylene Chantay

Discount 0nline Pharmacy, Brand & Generic Medication for Less From Your Trusted Canada ...‎ - Your One-Stop 0nline Pharmacy * We have all popular selling meds for your needs * Get Rx Refills … Dec 13

Lavonia Mackenzie

En1arge YourPenis. {PenisSize}, The Safest & Most Effective Methods Of PenisEn1argement...‎ - Do You Want A LargerPenis? Natural Herbal Pills(100% no side effect Guaranteeed!) Gives You 2-4 … Dec 13

me

Member get 80% 0FF on ALL Pfizer.‎ - Trouble viewing this mail? Read it online No graphics displayed? Click here The e-mail address is … Dec 13

Carroll Maisie

Discount 0nline Pharmacy, Brand & Generic Medication for Less From Your Trusted Canada ...‎ - Este correo ha sido enviado por un usuario de UVG Your One-Stop 0nline Pharmacy * We have all … Dec 13

Hit Booster

Hit-Booster will start sending hits to your website instantly at $0 cost to you!‎ - Hi, my name is Sebastian Foss. As incredible as it may sound you're about to discover a … Dec 13

Stephane Glenn

~BuyViagra Online, 100mg from $0.99. Free Delivery. 100% MoneyBack Guaranteeed buh dh5c‎ - OrderCializViagra Online & Save 75-90% 0nline Pharmacy NoPrescription required Buy Canadian … Dec 13

Jennine Tereasa

Half Price ViagraAndCialix. Free Shipping, Free Consultation! Up to 65% Loyalty Bonus. ...‎ - Top SexPills On Sale BuyViagra 100mg/50mg/25mg from $1.89/tab BuyCializ 40mg/20mg/10mg/5mg from … Dec 13

me

Dear wb receive 80% OFF on Pfizer‎ - If you have images disabled or have trouble viewing this message, please click here. Can't … Dec 13

me

Valued customer 80% OFF on Pfizer.‎ - If you're having trouble viewing this email, see it online the Web. If you're having … Dec 13

Lauryn Maia

0nline Pharmacy, Save on Medications from a safe and reliable canadian 0nline Pharmacy ...‎ - Your One-Stop 0nline Pharmacy * We have all popular selling meds for your needs * Get Rx Refills … Dec 13

Theresia Mathilda

:Buy ViagraOnline. NoPrescription, Free Combo Pack with Order. No tablet splitting hass...‎ - BestSellingRx - Your only source for high quality brand name and generic medications … Dec 13

Thao Elyse

Discount 0nline Pharmacy, Brand & Generic Medication for Less From Your Trusted Canada ...‎ - Your One-Stop 0nline Pharmacy * We have all popular selling meds for your needs * Get Rx Refills … Dec 13

Brian

1K C.ash a day‎ - Believe it or not, There IS a Formula which works, and I will help you set up the pieces to … Dec 13

Postcodeloterij NL

From Information Desk:‎ - From Information Desk: Award Department. 70,Van Eeghenstraat, 1071GK Amsterdam,The Netherlands … Dec 13

Jama Myrtie

Canada 0nline Pharmacy, Buy Canadian Drugs at Wholesale Prices and Save 70-90% onh 4d‎ - Your One-Stop 0nline Pharmacy * We have all popular selling meds for your needs * Get Rx Refills … Dec 13

hallmark.com

You've received A Hallmark E-Card!‎ - Hallmark.com Shop Online Hallmark Magazine E-Cards & More At Gold Crown You have recieved A … Dec 13

24h Movie Downloads

Boredom Be Gone: 80 Million Movies + For Your PC‎ - The Fastest Movie Downloads Online Quick, Easy, Direct & Available 24h Per Day! The web's … Dec 13

Barbara Vera

Canada 0nline Pharmacy, Buy Canadian Drugs at Wholesale Prices and Save 70-90% ahsri g7x‎ - Your One-Stop 0nline Pharmacy * We have all popular selling meds for your needs * Get Rx Refills … Dec 13

Brian

1K C.ash a day‎ - Believe it or not, There IS a Formula which works, and I will help you set up the pieces to … Dec 13

Citizen 2.0

2009-12-14T02:03:00.002-05:00

Interesting article by Andrew Kurjata. Andrew was working on 'Government 2.0' (the opening up of government to the citizens). He is now concerned, in that there isn't a way for 'Citizen 2.0' to participate. This happens to be one of my favorite topics, and one that I offered up a solution for.

Is the solution practical? I think so. But I'm not an expert in IP addresses. If there's someone out there who is, we need some advice. And if there's a hot PHP/Javascript/Perl/Python programmer who could think of how to set this up, I'd be interested in hearing from you. I think this would be a perfect application to use the Afrero GPL license on.

Note that I would be willing to fund part of this.

Planet Gnome and Proprietary Software

2009-12-13T23:12:00.000-05:00

Thanks to Lefty for tweeting about the discussion of whether Proprietary Software should be talked about on Planet Gnome. Lefty's article is here, the thread about the issue is here, and a poll initiated by Lefty is here.

There's several points that I think need consideration:

1) Do we want censorship?
2) Is this censorship (there's nothing blocking these people from posting about proprietary software elsewhere).
3) Does talking about Proprietary Software advance a Free Software project?
4) How do you define Free Software?

Note that I didn't mention 'Open Source', while I believe that the term is an oxymoron, you may think differently, in which case replace Free Software above with Open Source Software. Some of you may find that this doesn't change your answers, others may find differently.

Oh, and the links in Lefty's original article were bad - I've tweeted him, and they may be fixed by now.

The Crunchpad - Victim of the Vulture Capitalists?

2009-12-02T04:53:00.000-05:00

For those who haven't heard, Michael Arrington at TechCrunch has been talking up a device called the 'CrunchPad'. The CrunchPad is in effect the ultimate couch potatoes dream. A lightweight way to surf the internet. The first real tablet PC.

Quite frankly it is a neat looking device. They had talked about keeping the price down, and if it came in at the $300.00 target price, I was going to buy one to support the project (I'm not sure what I'd do with it, but hey, $300.00 isn't that much).

On Novemeber 30th Arrington blogged The End Of The CrunchPad. The story as he tells it is one of greed on the part of the hardware partner, or rather the hardware partner's investors. I'm going to quote Arrington here so you can understand his side:

Chandra also forwarded an internal email from one of his shareholders. My favorite part of the email: “We still acknowledge that Arrington and TechCrunch bring some value to your business endeavor…If he agrees to our terms, we would have Arrington assume the role of visionary/evangelist/marketing head and Fusion Garage would acquire the rights to use the Crunchpad brand and name. Personally, I don’t think the name is all that important but you seem to be somewhat attached to the name.”

If this is accurate, Arrington, and the entire TechCrunch project has been backstabbed, Fusion Garage, the hardware partner.

Interest across the internet has been high. The Register was their usual smart ass selves. The LA Times, The Inquirer, The Washington Post, Gotabemobile, Wir sprechen Online, jkOnTheRun, What Not To Do, Teleread, Clashgear, EricTric, BetterElevation, Techdusts, Engadget, and Gizmondo. There was a lot of interest in this baby. A lot. And there's a lot of disappointed people out there.

So let's get into the fun stuff. I did a quick Google on a couple of things.

The only reference to Chandrasekar Rathakrishnan is on Crunch Base, a part of Tech Crunch. Fusion Garage has an entry there as well. Chandrasekar's profile on Crunchbase is weird. In the incoming links section is the LA Times article about the death of the Crunchpad. His blog is listed but its 404. Luckily our friend, the Google Cache has a copy and based on it, Arrington owns the project:

The collaboration with the Crunchpad project happened as a result of meetings we had with Mike Arrington and co, subsequent to TC50. We worked closely with Louis Monier in getting the software in shape for the hardware prototype B. We continue to work with them in getting the software in shape to make crunchpad a easy to use device. This is where we stand as of prototype-B: (Details over at TechCrunch’s update )

Needless to say, I now have a copy archived, and would be glad to supply if the Google Cache somehow gets sanitized.

In Twitter Arrington and Chandrasekar are still following each other. Possibly they can workout something via Tweet. Who knows. But I'm hoping for a resurrection of the Cronchpad, and for Michael Arrington to get his due. Scoobie has tweeted Chandrasekar

@rchandrasekar I think it would be good for you to come out with your side of the story. Soon. Like now. Don't be "the guy that ruined it"

If he does, I will be updating this.

One final note - a competing Windows 7 device is being touted. I wonder if that had anything to do with the crash of the Cruchpad.

What would you do if Microsoft went bankrupt, and Windows became an orphan product?

2009-11-30T13:33:00.000-05:00

This is a copy of what I've posted on the Daniweb forums in the JEM Report forums, and in the Semi Accurate Forums. I rather expect that in several of these places it's likely to start a flame war - however I think it's a valid question.

This question covers Windows only. I know Microsoft makes a wide variety of other software products (Office, Exchange, etc.), I'm not interested in them, only in the Desktop Operating Systems.

First - unlike the most of you, I've read Microsoft's financial reports, and understand accounting. I know how much money Microsoft has on hand, and how unlikely this scenario is. I'm asking the question to find out what people currently think are their best options, if Windows is no longer available.

Second - this is not a troll. I know there are a lot of Windows fans here. I'm not trying to insult you. I'm asking what you would do in a theoretical situation.

Third - I'm going to be posting the same question in several places. The plan is to write an article based on the feedback I get. I am assuming that a response to this post means that I can quote you in full.

So what would you do if you could no longer buy new copies of Windows?

Be a Martian - Part One

2009-11-26T13:58:00.000-05:00

Caltech/NASA JPL have a new website: Be a Martian. The aim - a drum up interest in the Mars project. The problem, well read these words:

This site was created under a Memorandum of Understanding between NASA/JPL-Caltech and Microsoft.

Yep Silverlight. Silverblight. Silverlie. Whatever you want to call it. This was mentioned on Groklaw where I heard about it for the second time. I'd actually signed up on the website several weeks ago, and posted a complaint about Silverlight at that time, and got no response. This time I decided on the nuclear option. I called.

After a couple of minutes of talking to a very polite receptionist, who finally understood that I was having a problem with a website, I got transferred to Mark in Public Services. I explained the problem to Mark, pointing out that:

1) Most geeks are fans of the space effort.
2) Most geeks don't run Windows.
3) Most geeks refuse to have Microsoft software on their systems.
4) Does CalTech/NASA/JPL really want to annoy their biggest fans?
5) Does Microsoft have the right to force us to run Windows?

Mark had never heard of the website, so I pointed him to it, and he spotted the bit about the Memorandum with Microsoft immediately, and pointed out that of course Microsoft would use Silverlight. And he's correct. Of course Microsoft would use Silverlight. However NASA/JPL is a government institution, with responsibility to the American taxpayers, not Microsoft, and that it could be argued that any memorandum that blocked access to a significant part of NASA/JPL's core constituency might not be legal. I also mentioned that I'm not an American, and I'm interested, that my fondest early memories was watching the sub-orbital Mercury flights.

Mark is going to check into things after Thanksgiving (a point which blows my mind - why don't Americans celebrate Thanksgiving in October when it should be celebrated). He also gave me contact information for several other people, and I will be following up on this.

And yes, Mark knows I intended to blog about it.

Some weeks are nuts

2009-11-25T13:47:00.000-05:00

Let me see. We have a major Australian insurance company dumping Windows.

Free BSD 8.0 is now out. I'm going to VM it and see how it runs.

Microsoft's CFO is leaving. He says he is looking for a bigger job. Does this make sense to you? There aren't many corporations larger than Microsoft.

Boing Boing says that Microsoft is going to pay Rupert Murdoch to remove all of his news sites from Google. They got this from the Financial Times. If both articles are accurate, it looks like Microsoft is prepared to pour more money down the rathole named Bing, trying to make it competitive. Does this add shareholder value? I doubt it.

Good article over at Semi Accurate about how the RIAA and MPAA are contributing to the development and success of P2P.

Here's one I missed when it was first published, which has massive implications for chronic pain sufferers like myself from Scientific
American about a Medical Madoff. Pretty scary. None of the drugs I am on appear to be involved, Thank God.

Visual Studio add-on for Windows devs to target Macs and Linux

2009-11-21T11:40:00.000-05:00

Here's an interesting concept. Mary-Jo Foley reports that Novell has released a Visual Studio add-on so that .NET developers can target Linux and Macs.

This raises several issues:

1) Are there really any .NET developers out there? No, I'm serious. I did a survey a while back on a couple of websites where developers hang out as to what people are using, and .NET was way down the list. I'd have to dig to find the numbers, but less than 1% of the developers who answered the survey were using .NET.

2) Do MAC users need Mono? There's a huge range of MAC applications available already. Mono on the Mac seems like a non-starter.

3) Novell has also come up with an IPhone dev kit for Mono. They seem to be ignoring the huge number of apps available for the IPhone written in C. Does anyone really need Mono on the IPhone?

I think I know what Novell is doing. Novell is targeting the Enterprise, providing a single, unified environment that can be used for Windows, IPhone, OSX, and Linux. Corporate Applications are a lucrative market. There are far more programmers working on internal corporate software than for the major software companies. And it's corporate programmers who use Visual Studio and program .NET applications.

This could be a success for Novell. It's definitely a market that is willing to pay for results, and if Novell can deliver the results, the money will roll in. Could it make Novell profitable? Maybe.

How many companies run a mix of operating systems that would require a cross platform development environment? The IPhone has made some inroads into the corporate market, but is a distant second to Rim's Blackberry devices. If Novell was to add BlackBerry OS capabilities, this would be a real seller. Linux hasn't done well on the desktop, and while it does well in the server room, most .NET applications are designed for the desktop. Corporations who use OSX tend to do so exclusively, and wouldn't employ Visual Studio anyway.

Without the capability to produce applications for the Blackberry OS, I can't see this as bring Novell in enough revenues to stop the slid. And that has to be a concern for any corporate types looking at this as a solution. Buying from a vendor who has financial problems introduces a level of uncertainty that Corporate IT doesn't like.

Monster Cable

2009-11-15T02:07:00.002-05:00

I bought a new Fender Stratocaster today. It was quite a search, and I ended up with a beautiful Left Handed Standard Strat in Candy Apple Red with a Maple neck. I ended up visiting a lot of stores to find exactly what I needed. Now any musicians among you will be shaking your heads. Strats are pretty damned common.

Problem is my left wrist is toast. It doesn't bend, so I can't finger chords with it. This is why I stopped playing ten years ago. Playing right was impossible, and at the time I didn't think switching to playing left (even though I'm left handed) was a reasonable option.

Then I got lucky, when I went with my wife on a guitar hunting spree. I saw a left handed guitar in a store, tried it, and found that all the fingerings I remembered from playing right, just worked. So I decided to switch, and then the problem was finding a guitar. Yeah, I know most guitar stores will order a guitar in for you. But I refuse to buy anything I haven't played. So I started searching, and today I got lucky.

And what's the one thing you need with an electric guitar? A cable. I have several amps, and I have cables, but one thing I learned is that you always keep a cable in your gig bag.

So I go wandering into the cable section, and guess what the first brand I see is? Monster Cable. Now this is probably silly of me, but I expect that the companies I deal with to operate in a moral and upright manner. If they don't, I buy elsewhere. As a musician and a programmer, I know more about "Ineffectual Property" than most people. While I'm not a lawyer, I've had to learn the basics, because it affects what I do.

Monster Cable has been involved in a wide variety of spurious trademark infringement cases. Cases where, Monster Cable has tried to use its size and strength to attack a variety of organizations that use Monster as part of their name.

This is not acceptable to me. I had a very interesting conversation with several of the staffers at the store, which is one of the major musical instrument distributors in Canada. They weren't aware of what Monster had been doing, and at least one of them was totally horrified at what they learned. The Google Search really blew them away.

I have a lot of cables - I have one in each guitar's gig bag (I have a left handed Yamaha bass as well), one with each amp, and 5 or 6 with the recording equipment, one with my wife's Fender Semi, and one with her Peter Cox acoustic (it has a detachable pickup). But I didn't know Monster had an audio line. Since I do now, I'm telling all the musicians I know to avoid them, and suggesting that our local stores not stock them. And I know a hell of a lot of musicians.

If Monster wants my business, they can show so by their behavior. If they don't, they can keep on acting like Monster Idiots, and loose business.

Oh, and as for Noel Lee? He's a lying bastard. Trademark law requirements have nothing to do with what his company is trying to do.

I am emailing Monster Cable a link to this article, and will post their reply, if any.

Update 1 - I've just been told of a report on cables that was broadcast on TV in New Zealand.

Update 2 - Monster Cable has not responded. Since they haven't responded, I will assume that they are in agreement with what I said.

The Americans are insane

2009-10-31T12:39:00.000-04:00

Why do I say this? because they put up with things, that any other industrialized country wouldn't. For example, UPI posted a story today that 106 US banks have failed this year. What the story doesn't mention is that no Canadian banks have failed this year.

It's amazing how a bit of regulation can stabilize an economy.

Microsoft Innovation - Part One

2009-10-30T07:35:00.000-04:00

I've been around for a long time now. Not as long as some, Stallman for instance predates me by a good bit. But I've been around long enough to know a lot about Microsoft, that many people don't know, even though it is public. Microsoft would rather that most of this was forgotten. It's a history of Innovation. Innovation by other companies, which was then copied by Microsoft. Since in many cases Microsoft's competitors no longer exist, due to Microsoft's predatory monopolistic practices, and Microsoft appears to be the only vendor, many people think that Microsoft invented these ideas. They didn't.

Let's go back to the start. What were Bill Gates and Paul Allen doing? Running a company called Traf-O-Data, writing traffic system control programs. Was it the first? No. No innovation here.

What was there next project? Writing a Basic implementation for the IMSAI computer. This was the first time that they used Micro-Soft as the business name. The Basic Programming Language was designed by John George Kemeny and Thomas Eugene Kurtz at Dartmouth University, New Hampshire, USA. Microsoft didn't invent Basic. They didn't invent porting either. Their success at IMSAI helped them win more business from the computer manufacturers springing up at the time, and they ported their Basic to several other operating systems, including CP/M, and gained a bit of a reputation as company that could supply computer language implementations. They supplied several Basic implementations to Commodore and Apple for example. I have fond memories of Basic V2.0, which came with the Commodore C64 computer. I had no problem using my knowledge of Basic from an IBM mainframe to program the C64. Yes, it was limited. But it worked pretty well.

The companies next major shift came with DOS1.0. There are a variety of stories on the internet as to how they got this contract, and several as to how they got the source code. Due to Microsoft's tendency to ask that all settlements be sealed, no one now knows the truth as to what happened. And those who've gone on record, stating one position or another, may not be telling us the truth. That after all is one reason to seal court documents, to hide the truth and there were purportedly several lawsuits.

The most likely variation that I've heard is that Bill Gate's mother was serving on a board with an IBM executive, and told him some of what Microsoft was doing, and pushed him to use Microsoft as a supplier. When the IBM-PC was in design, IBM decided to buy an Operating System, rather than developing their own, and talked to Intergalactic Digital Research and Microsoft. Microsoft got the sale, even though they didn't have a product of their own at the time (this was apparently hidden from IBM). Microsoft bought a product called Q-DOS from Seattle Computer Products, made some modifications, and sold it to IBM. Q-DOS was a CP/M clone, which may or may not have contained CP/M source code (there are stories...). IBM as a backup also planned to offer CP/M as an option on the new computers.

Again, no innovation here. Not even in selling something you don't own, smart traders have done this for years. It cuts down on the inventory requirements!

To be continued...

What do the following products have in common?

2009-10-23T12:12:00.000-04:00

Lefty said...

By the way, I'm attempting to understand this:

"It doesn't matter whether Mono is any good. It doesn't matter whether or not Mono is legal. It doesn't matter whether or not Mono is a patent trap. What matters is that three years ago, Windows XP fucked up. Again."

Are you saying that, because you has a problem with Windows three years ago, no one should use Mono on Linux systems...?

October 21, 2009 6:58 PM

Lefty,

What do the following products have in common?

1976 Ford Explorer Pickup truck.
1978 Harley Davidson
1980 Hyster S40E Forklift
1980 Commodore VIC20
1984 Apple Macintosh

Happiness - With thanks to the Bizarre Cathedral

2009-10-23T11:10:00.001-04:00

Will Windows 8 require a Supercomputer to run?

2009-10-18T19:58:00.000-04:00

We all knew that Windows was getting bloated. Vista was solid proof. However Microsoft's next generation operating system after Windows 7 could be worse.

How do we know this? Well, we don't really. What we do know is that a Microsoft employee wrote on his Linkin account the following:

Working in high security department for research and development involving strategic planning for medium and longterm projects. Research & Development projects including 128bit architecture compatibility with the Windows 8 kernel and Windows 9 project plan. Forming relationships with major partners: Intel, AMD, HP and IBM.

PCPro saw this and published an article on it, and it hit Slashdot.

So what does it really mean? Well, it's quite possible that Robert Morgan isn't going to get a bonus this year. Other than that, nothing really. It's probable that a lot of companies are running research projects into 128 bit computing. Heck, if they aren't doing this, their R&D folks should be fired (look what happened to Intel when they didn't take 64 bit computing seriously).

But it's really unlikely that we'll see anything soon. For 128 bit computing to work, you'd need 128 bit chips. None of the chip makers have taped out 128 bit chips yet (though it's probable that they've run experimental batches). Without 128 bit chips, Windows 8 can't be 128 bit.

Oh, it's quite possible that Microsoft has tried to block Linux and the BSDs from 128 bit computing, by signing contracts with AMD and Intel. However they wouldn't be to block Apple out (Apple supports FreeBSD). And even if they did try to block out Linux and the BSDs, we'd have at least a years warning before a 128 bit chip could hit the streets, which would be more than enough for the Free and Open Source software communities to roll 128 bit operating systems and software, and would also, unless Windows 8 could run 64 bit and 32 bit programs, kill Microsoft's Independent Software Providers.

Straight out, I don't see Windows 8 being 128 bit. The chips don't exist. Even if they did exist, 64 bit computing is still beyond what most of us are using. I could see supercomputers needing it. Maybe.

Open Source vs Free Software - a Philosophical discussion

2009-10-12T13:03:00.001-04:00

Everyone is aware of the huge fuss going on at present. What we have appears to be a conflict between two philosophical viewpoints, fueled by claims that one community is under attack by the other community. This is wrong, and here's why:

Richard Stallman founded the Free Software Foundation in 1985, with the aim of restoring the freedom that had been lost with the advent of the Proprietary Software companies, most especially Microsoft. Specifically the freedom he was talking about was the freedom for the end user to do whatever they want to with the software, with the exception of preventing anyone else from having the same rights. This freedom is often misunderstood to cover programmers only, thus the rise of the Open Source Community.

The Open Source Community has a different view. To quote Wikipedia:

Open source is an approach to the design, development, and distribution of software, offering practical accessibility to a software's source code. Some consider open source as one of various possible design approaches, while others consider it a critical strategic element of their operations. Before open source became widely adopted, developers and producers used a variety of phrases to describe the concept; the term open source gained popularity with the rise of the Internet, which provided access to diverse production models, communication paths, and interactive communities.

So we have a conflict between those who want the user to be free to do what they want, and those who want to build more efficient software faster. Both groups agree on many things, so you would think that there wouldn't that much of a conflict. But those who are closest, often have the biggest fights. Just think of all the brothers and sisters you know.

Where the biggest conflict occurs between Free Software and Open Source is Free Software's insistence on rights for the end user. The Open Source Community tends to be elitist. If you aren't a programmer, you don't matter.

So the Open Source Community feels under attack. We are pushing for user freedom, which means giving the user the same rights as the programmer, which appears to be anathema to them.

The reason I've decided to write about this today, is that I had a rather interesting exchange with Lefty Schlesinger yesterday. I gather that Lefty is very interested in mobile software, and that the GPL V3 scares him. If Linus decided to take the Kernel to Version 3 of the General Public License, Lefty feels that wouldn't be able to use Linux on mobile devices, like cell phones (certain jurisdictions have legislation which states that mobile devices have to be designed in such a way that the user cannot modify them).

While I understand Lefty's problem, I also understand the end user's problem. He can't modify his phone. His rights have been taken away by politicians.

One of Lefty's comments to me was that if the GPL V3 was applied, then companies wouldn't be able to use Linux in mobile devices, and millions of people in poor countries wouldn't be able to afford cell phones. I'm afraid he didn't appreciate my comment that the cell phone manufacturers could do what Apple did, use the BSD licensed kernel instead.

The problem now is that Lefty seems to think he is the head of the Open Source Community, and he is blocking those who disagree with him from posting. If he was sure of his standing, he wouldn't block people.

Microsoft renders Sidekick data completely secure

2009-10-11T21:14:00.000-04:00

Good article on data security, and how Microsoft has raised the bar by
making data from the Danger Sidekick phones totally secure. Its a totally new method, and I suspect we'll see other vendors following suit.

Astroturf in the Climate Change discussion

2009-10-09T01:00:00.001-04:00

Now I mostly write about computer related issues. What most people don't know is that I spent 10 years working in the environmental industry, in regular contact with the Environmental Protection Agency, the California Air Resources Board, and Environment Canada. I'm no longer in the industry, but I learned a lot while I was there, and still have a strong interest. After all, we only have one planet, and I live on it.

Glyn Moody pointed me at a website that has to be seen to be believed. The website, run by a group called CO2 is Green is an incredible collection of lies, half truths, and total and utter bullshit (I grew up on a farm - I know shit when I see it). Let's take it from the top.

Why would labeling CO2 as a pollutant be such a catastrophic decision?

Claims that CO2 is a pollutant are a myth and are absolutely false. In fact, lowering levels of carbon dioxide would actually inhibit plant growth and food production. What we see happening in Washington right now is the replacement of politics for science in conversations about CO2.

They are trying to twist things here. By their logic, since Radon gas is a naturally occurring substance, we should ignore its radioactive properties. So what if people get cancer? Second, increased levels of CO2 have been shown to inhibit plant growth. It's like food. It's good for you. But it's also the primary cause of obesity. Plants and Animals need nutrients in the amounts that their metabolisms are capable of handling. Give them too much or too little, and you have problems.

Could this happen soon?

Yes, Congress and federal regulators are poised to make a misguided and reckless decision that will stifle our long term economic recovery and long-term enhancement of plant and animal life on Earth. The Environmental Protection Agency will hold hearings to justify their plan to label CO2 as a pollutant. Congress will also consider cap-and-trade legislation that, if enacted, will make Wall Street, a few inside investors and the government a fortune, but will cost everyone else in higher food and utility bills.

I love the wording in this section. It's designed to scare non-technical people into backing something that is totally against their best interests. Consider Coal fired power plants, every day the plant has to burn a certain amount of coal to provide power, whereas a wind powered plant requires nothing but the wind. Did you know that the Chinese government has decided that the entire nation will be powered by renewable energy by 2020? Their plan is heavily biased towards wind power, and while there is a cost to build the turbines, and some cost to maintain them, China's fossile fuel emissions would drop to virtually zero if they can do this. And they can. The technology exists. And unlike the democracies, business is not allowed to astroturf. In fact if it does, it can get a bullet in the back of the head.

It's not too late.

Polling indicates that most people will change their opinion when presented with the facts.

If we lie enough to you we may be able to still go on selling you overpriced fossil fuels.

What you can do.

* Educate yourself on how CO2 can further "Green the Earth" by visiting www.plantsneedco2.org.
* Educate yourself on the pending legislation.
* Write a Letter to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. This critical committee will soon hold hearings on legislation to label CO2 as pollution.
* Take action today. Use our tools to write your representative
* Donate to organizations that expose the CO2 myths.

Yes, let's educate ourselves. A quick check with Source Watch tells us you are funded by Exxon Mobil, Shell Oil, Hunt Oil, Lyco Energy Corporation, and Five States Energy Corporation. I consider this relevant information, which you should display prominently on your website, after all, your sponsors should be proud to have their names listed with such an important issue.

About CO2 Is Green

CO2 is Green is a pending 501(C)(4) non-profit organization. Our mission is to support scientifically and economically sound public policy on environmental issues. Currently, we are especially concerned with federal proposals that would interfere with nature's dependence on carbon dioxide (C02).

CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 makes Earth green because it supports all plant life. It is Earth's greatest airborne fertilizer. Even man-made CO2 contributes to plant growth that in turn sustains humanity and ecosystems.

CO2 Is Green is working to insure that all federal laws or regulations are founded upon science and not politics or scientific myths. No one wants the plant and animal kingdoms, including humanity, to be harmed if atmospheric CO2 is reduced. The current dialog in Washington needs to reflect these inalterable facts of nature. We cannot afford to make mistakes that would actually harm both the plant and animal kingdoms.

Now this is where it gets fun. Is this site in the United States? If it is, the new FTC regulations covering blogging may cover it, and force disclosure. On the other hand, the reason to register a 501(C)(4) non-profit organization is often to obscure funding.

Now this doesn't directly affect me. I'm not an American. I'd never be an American. I don't even like visiting America. But I've got a lot of friend who are American, and I don't think that it should be legal for corporations, political organizations, and special interest groups to lie the the American public.

And that's what this website is. One. Big. Lie.

Woof! Woof!

2009-10-07T16:25:00.001-04:00

I like Glyn Moody. He's a very funny guy. His most recent post, Meet Microsoft, the Delusional, is pretty damned hilarious. Woof. Woof.

Soon, Bloggers Must Give Full Disclosure - Title courtesy of the NY Times

2009-10-06T22:39:00.000-04:00

The rest of the article doesn't matter really, it just reiterates that the FTC is going to require bloggers to "disclose" any financial relationships. I wrote about the issue, and how some companies are hoping to avoid like legislation in other countries.

Now I'm a cynical old bastard. So what I think will happen, is that any company that wants to game the system will send their freebies to bloggers in countries that don't have laws covering disclosure. Like Canada.

And of course there's the Free Software issue. I've often written glowingly about Moon OS, so technically I should file a disclosure, because I was given a free copy. So, consider that my disclosure. Along with that I've gotten freebies from the Fedora Project, DreamLinux, Canonical (Ubuntu, KUbuntu, XUbuntu), Gentoo, DesktopBSD, and Sun Microsystems (Open Solaris, Java, VirtualBox). Oh, and of course I also got freebies from Apple (ITunes, ILife).

Oh heck, I forgot - I also got freebies from Google (Gmail, Groups) and Yahoo (mail).

Oh, and I got freebies from Novel (Open SUSE, Mono), but I tossed them, they weren't any good.

Daniweb - the curse of the Interwebs

2009-10-06T09:46:00.000-04:00

There are certain sites that are, well, a bit crazy. Take DaniWeb for instance. Please take it.

I dropped by to post a correction to something one of their trained chimpanzees had written. To do that I had to sign up. This morning I had two emails, both exhorting me to take part.

So I did. With a little post titled Windows? Why would anyone run Windows?

It should be interesting to watch the flames.

Miguel's Mono Minions

2009-10-05T11:37:00.000-04:00

Just heard a new name for the Boycott-BoycottNovell crowd:

Miguel's Mono Minions

It was late at night when I got this, and the meds had kicked in (for those who don't know, I'm in constant pain, and I'm pretty stoned at times) so my mind translated it to

Miguel's Monocephalic Minions

After I stopped laughing (laughing is good - it makes the pain go away) I corrected it. Still, Miguel's Mono Minions - has a bit of a ring to it.

The Enemies List

2009-10-04T19:09:00.000-04:00

Joe McCarthy. Richard Nixon. Bill Gates. All had Enemies Lists. Now we have the so-called Boycott Boys list. To quote Verofakto:

Oh Hi! I take it you are most worried about being listed as one of Schestowitz' abrasive sycophants? David Schlesinger included my original article about the BoycottBoys when he first established the domain, with my permission.

So, I'm one of Schestowitz's abrasive sycophants. Interesting. I didn't know that myself. If you look at the actual listing for me, it says that The Mad Hatter is Pimping his blog on articles about Mono. Wow. I'm Pimpin' M'Blog.

The link goes to a Bruce Byfield blog post titled "Let's Settle the Mono Debate". Neat. Byfield actually knows how to write, so linking me to him looks like a compliment. The only problem is that Byfield is totally clueless, just like Lefty Schlesinger, Verofakto, Jo Shields, and Miguel de Icaza.

It doesn't matter whether Mono is any good. It doesn't matter whether or not Mono is legal. It doesn't matter whether or not Mono is a patent trap. What matters is that three years ago, Windows XP fucked up. Again. It totaled my 4 month old laptop, while I was on vacation, totally killing any chance that I'd be able to get any work done during that time. Fifteen years of using Windows. Fifteen years of fighting the biggest piece of shit on the planet to get any work done. Fifteen years of misery. This time I swore that I'd never use anything from Microsoft again.

When I got home, I tried a Ubuntu live CD on the dead laptop. Everything worked fine - except the wireless card. It took a bit of work to get the wireless card working, but from that point on, the computer ran perfectly.

Imagine my shock when I found out that Ubuntu included Microsoft technology! I did some research, and quickly worked out how to removed it. That done, I sat down and though about what to do. Fitting out the entire Mono team with concrete overshoes was a bit of an over-reaction. Trying to get Mono removed from the default Ubuntu install seemed to be a good idea on the other hand. Anyone who wanted it, would be able to install it from the Ubuntu repositories.

Then I found out that it was in other distributions as well, and often was considered part of Gnome.

So I set out to change things. This got me on Lefty's enemies list. Fine. I'm probably on Miguel's enemies list too. Hell, I know I'm on the Microsoft enemies list (I have people on the inside).
That's just too damned bad. I'm not stopping guys. I want Mono out. I want nothing to do with Microsloth. Ever. Again.

That said, it's a free world (mostly), and if Miguel wants to keep working on something that I think is spectacularly stupid, that's his right. In fact, I think he should keep working on it, because according to what I've heard, his progress is scaring the shit out of some people in Redmond. But that's his choice.

In the meantime, I'm proud to be on Lefty's list. It's a badge of honor.

Oh, and if you want a great, Mono free OS, try Moon OS. It's fantastic. And if you are an absolute pervert, and insist on running Mono, you can install it.

2009-10-02T06:51:00.000-04:00

What's This About?

Our community and the people in it, are under attack. We are being disrupted, we are being defamed, we are being lied to, and, in some instances, we are even having our lives invaded.

Sounds serious. Can you supply any examples?

More importantly, there is a consistent thread running through these attacks, invasions and disruptions. This attack comes not from Microsoft, but from a parasitical pseudo-"community" that attempts to pretend it's actually our community.

Sounds scary.

We are a community of not just coders, but localizers, artists, writers, marketers, conference volunteers, web designers, legal experts, photographers, experience and interface designers, and users who file bugs, make suggestions of provide feedback. This is the community that accomplishes and supports the work on the software we use and love.

Community is important.

We are seeing people making a pretense of involvement in FLOSS and in our community, people who we don't actually know, people who never join us at conferences, don't work in projects, and only participate in mailing lists to instigate flame wars. We are seeing people who seem to be making a sort of religion out of "free software" and issuing their demands to the rest of us to do things their way. These are people who will excoriate you as something less than a "true GNU/Linux user" if you should touch a Macintosh or (heaven forbid!) a Windows box. These are folks who will berate you for buying a piece of software or owning an iPod. These are people who will classify you as a "freedom hater" if you express reservations about the GPL v3.

Ah, now I see where this is going. Let's take this point by point. I don't attend conferences due to health reasons. I do work on a couple of projects, but nothing big, and not main line. But then again, I'm the only one who's capable of doing this stuff, and I'm going to get in done and documented by Christmas. I promise. I do comment a lot. I have an opinion. In fact I've been described many times an extremely opinionated. I'm also a philosopher, and one of my responsibilities has always been technological analysis and prediction. I think Windows is an overpriced piece of junk. I like OSX, it feels a lot like Linux, and I like that I can run Linux on my MacBook. Apple makes excellent hardware. I've never called anyone opposed to GPL V3 a "freedom hater" - I reserve the word "IDIOT" instead.

Our community thrives on disagreement, and we (mostly) deal with it in healthy ways. We reject uniformity of opinion and we always have. In stark contrast, this pretense of "community" insists that their way is the One True Way, and we should all just shut up, learn the catechism, and do their bidding.

As to disagreement - a good example of how well you handle disagreement is on display in Carla Schroder's blog, in her post on sexism. As to the "One True Way", it comes down to this. There are only two important licenses in Free Software. The Modified BSD License and the GPL V3. None of the other serve the philosophical requirements of the Free Software Community. As to the Open Source Community, Open Source is dying due to it's philosophical background.

Our community is founded on reputation, we value people based on their contributions: this is the "rough meritocracy" within which we operate. When the imposters of true community engage in defamation, invasions of personal privacy, taking mailing list disagreements into real life by contacting people's employers, they create a chilling effect—people fear to express themselves as themselves, and reputation is lost.

Imposters? Do you have proof? Do you have proof of invasions of privacy?

These people are the "Faux FLOSS Fundamentalists". They are disrupting and dividing our community with their demands that we do things the way they say, and their tactics of anonymous comment-bombing, mailing list trolling and defaming members of the community.

I have a copy of your enemies list. I'm on it. Nice start to a site, posting an enemies list, with comments. I was amused to see I was on it, since I don't do any of the above. I do tell people what I think - I guess that's a crime around here.

We say enough is enough. We are putting our collective feet down as far as strident demands from complete non-participants in the community go. We are saying "no" to Faux FLOSS Fundamentalism, and people like Roy Schestowitz, Sam Varghese, "Penguin Pete", "Jason" of mono-nono, and the like, as well as the assortment of associated and sympathetic trolls who post endless anonymous comments to blog postings they dislike and start up flame wars on development lists.

Non-participants? Do you have any proof of this? Do you have any proof I post anonymous comments? Starting flame wars I'll admit to. Anyone who has an opinion can start a flame war.

The Faux FLOSS Fundamentalists have nothing to offer the community but their propaganda, their dogma, and their misplaced sense of entitlement. We need to reject those who demand that we all sign up for "Freedom the Way We Tell You To" and we need to make it clear to them that they need to either actually start participating in a meaningful way or simply stop "advocating" at us.

But... You haven't explained what Faux FLOSS Fundamentalism is. How can you object to something that you don't define. And as an aside, you don't seem to be American. I would guess that you are Ukrainian, or Slovac from your attitudes.

Plain old "freedom" is good enough for us.

But it's not good enough for us. I wonder if you see the irony?

Oh, and I did a cap on your enemies list. Interesting. Very interesting.

Open Source is Dead. Long Live Free Software

2009-09-30T23:53:00.000-04:00

I don't know Matt Asay. I've never meet him. I have read a lot of his articles on Free and Open Source software, and he seems to lack a clear understanding of his subject matter, and the English language. Take for instance his recent article Free software is dead. Long live open source.

Mat seems congenitally unable to understand the situation. If it wasn't for Free Software, Open Source wouldn't exist at all. He thinks that Free Software is dying. Or rather that's what he hopes, because he can see the weaknesses of Open Source.

The true weakness of Open Source is it's lack of an ideology. The only think Open Source ever talks about is seeing the code. That's not an ideology, it's a fixation. Even Microsoft has an ideology, that the corporation works steadily towards:

A computer in every home, and Microsoft software on every computer.

I may not agree with Microsoft's ideology. They may not agree with mine. But Mat, Eric Raymond, and the rest of the "Open Source" gurus have no ideology. And without that, they have no end goal. Apart from possibly Pragmatism which they seem to value for some reason.

And what is pragmatism? Glyn Moody interviewed Richard Stallman back in 1999, and Stallman pointed out that they only reason that the Open Source people have anything to play with, is that the Free Software people did all the spade work. So in Mat Asay's case, pragmatism is having someone else do all the hard work.

But that's fine. This is Free Software. We don't need Mat Asay. We don't need Eric Raymond. I'd be quite happy to give them to Microsoft, but oh, aren't they still laying off people while the CEO takes a pay raise?

Linux Ads on the Kim Komando Show

2009-09-27T08:36:00.016-04:00

Ken over at the Helios Project, has arranged for Linux radio ads. Which is really neat. Let's face it, if you don't advertise, people won't know that they have an option. So with the help of a professional voice, an ad was recorded, and they bought space on the Kim Komando show.

Kim apparently specializes in Windows, and refers to herself as America's Digital Goddess. Since she specializes in Windows, I think that is a massive misrepresentation. So there is a bit of irony here, running a Linux ad, on a Windows oriented radio show.

Kim has some interesting listeners. When Ken wrote about the airing of the ad someone named Christopher posted a complaint:

I found your blog because I heard the radio spot today ( I listen to KLBJ during the week and hate their weekend programming for the most part ).

A couple pieces of it sounded like FUD and scare tactics to me. For example "Microsoft controls your data". Give me a break.

At this point several people posted responses asking him if he'd ever read the Microsoft End User License Agreement - which you could tell he hadn't or he wouldn't have posted what he did. And then someone checked his profile.

Christopher

* Age: 36
* Gender: Male
* Astrological Sign: Virgo
* Zodiac Year: Ox
* Industry: Technology
* Occupation: InstallShield / Windows Installer Consultant
* Location: Cedar Park : Texas : United States

About Me

I am a Generalizing Specialist with over 12 years of experience in nearly all aspects of Enterprise Engineering and Software Development with a heavy focus on Deployment Engineering related activities such as Build Automation and Application (Re)Packaging. Chances are if you can name it, I've done it for many organizations including: United States Marine Corps, EDS, McAdams Technologies, Robbins-Gioia, Continental Airlines, Austin Information Systems, Overwatch Systems, Textron, Triangle Technology, Hart InterCivic, Manatron, MultiMedia Games, NoMoreForms, RicherDevelopment, VistaSG, SouceSentry, SANtools and many other clients who prefer to remain annonymous. Please feel free to check out my LinkedIn Profile.

Ah, he's a Windows professional. No wonder he's worried!

Seriously though, Ken has put the Linux ads under a Creative Commons License. If you want copies, he has made them available on his blog in MP3 and OGG formats. I'm not sure what I'm going to do with them, but I've already downloaded them, and maybe, just maybe, I can think of something.

Microsoft Seven Home Parties

2009-09-24T21:59:00.000-04:00

I like Daniel over at Roughly Drafted. The man has a sense of humor. He also has a good understanding of technology, and it's implications. Today he has an article on Microsoft's Windows Seven Home Parties.

Well, someone commented

Get Windows 7 and pass it around to your friends.

I couldn't resist. My response was "It sounds like you are talking about a Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD)."

Seems soo familiar. MicroSoft appears to be trying to play to the only product image they have … virus laden.

And to that I answered "Okay, so it’s not a sexually transmitted disease. In fact, my guess is that anyone who would want to hold one of these parties, probably isn’t capable of procreating, because they don’t have any interest in sex."

Okay, it was a bit nasty. Heck, it was a lot nasty. But it was fun.

Patents

2009-09-21T03:32:00.002-04:00

3-4 years ago I started saying that Patents were the problem, not software patents. For a long time I felt awfully lonely. But now the move to close down the patent system has gone mainstream, articles are even appearing in the Huffington Post.

It appears that a lot of other people have reached the same conclusion that I did, and some of them are in far batter position to get the word out.

Viva la Revolution!

Microsoft Accounting Changes - Image direct linked from ZDNET

2009-09-21T02:09:00.002-04:00

And now Microsoft is playing games with it's accounting. The right hand column is as reported, the left hand column is how it would look as reported under next years method. What they've done is moved certain products to other business units. Note that Client revenue has climbed almost $600,000,000 dollars. Nice. Than note that Client Operating Income has dropped by about $700,000,000 dollars.

What they did was move a money loosing operation under Client, when usually makes a large profit, so that they can hide it better. Obviously its something that the company thinks is important, that they don't want to loose. In this case they don't want to loose Search, so they've moved Windows Live (which includes Search, Online Email, etc) into Client from Online Systems Division.

Now this only works as long as Client reports a strong profit. This means that Microsoft has to successfully destroy the Netbook Menace. Can they do it?

Phones, Phones, Phones Part Deux

2009-09-20T18:16:00.000-04:00

This is getting so frustrating. First, there are some decent phones out there. Second, there aren't very many decent phones out there. Third, there are a lot of totally crappy phones out there.

Right now I'm down to three phones that seem reasonable, the Apple IPhone, the Blackberry Storm, and the Palm Pre. While Android is a fascinating idea, the only Android phones available in Ontario Canada are total and utter crap. It doesn't matter how do the Operating System is, if the hardware is junk.

So let's look at the problems with those three phones:

1) Palm Pre - 5 minute boot time. Keyboard (it has one).
2) Blackberry Storm - It's an IPhone imitation.
3) Apple IPhone - The only carrier that has it is Rogers, and they overcharge.

So what do you do? Me, I think that I'm just going to get a cheap dumb phone, and use it for the next two years. Hopefully the smart phones and the plans available will be better than. But I doubt it. This is Canada, and it appears that the phone companies have the government under their total control.

Phones, Phones, Phones

2009-09-13T11:48:00.000-04:00

Yep, still chasing a phone. I've seen the Palm Pre, the Blackberry Storm, and the Apple Iphone in the last week.

Palm Pre - works fine. Takes close to 5 minutes to start up though, which makes me wonder what else they screwed up. A 5 minute start up is unacceptable.

Blackberry Storm - it's so much like an IPhone that you'd swear Palm just cloned it. Which is what they did of course. It works fine. But it doesn't have the range of software available that the IPhone does.

Apple IPhone - the killer phone. Very nice, works great, lots of apps. Rogers/Fido pricing plans are totally insane. In fact Rogers should fly the Jolly Roger over their building. Truth in Advertising you know.

The Phone Hunt

2009-09-06T17:45:00.000-04:00

In a lot of ways, the computer part of this is going to be easy. The Phone, it could be a nightmare. Let's consider a trip I took last year:

Cell Phone
Palm Pilot
IPod

Now really, this is a bit ridiculous. I'm carrying three pieces of hardware, it would make sense to consolidate. Of course to do that, I'm going to have to spend some money, but let's take a look at what I've already spent:

Palm Pilot - $400.00
IPod 30GB - $350.00
Motorola Razr - $50.00

So I'm carrying $800.00 worth of equipment around with me, each of which has a level of computing power that wasn't available to large corporations until 10 years ago... This really doesn't make sense.

The next consideration is data. My Palm Pilot is old enough that it doesn't have Wifi, but my wife's does, and it's very useful. My son's IPod Touch has Wifi. A phone with Wifi so that I don't use up all my data limit on the first day sounds like a good thing. Unfortunately GREED is a factor in the cell phone game. This means that phones from certain providers don't come with Wifi, even though the identical phone from another provider does.

Telus - let me say this straight out - your service is a huge rip off. No Wifi on your phones. You aren't getting my business.

And then there's the LG Dare. I'm a geek. I want to know what the operating system is on any phone I purchase. Wikipedia couldn't tell me. LG Mobile didn't list it. It took a lot of searching to find out that it uses a proprietary operating system and that it really isn't a smart phone. OK, that one's a dud.

So far I'm getting no where. To many of the phones I've seen are designed for texting, which would be great if I wanted to text, which I don't. Oh well, back to the drawing board.

Heh. CP/M RuleZ!

2009-09-06T14:04:00.000-04:00

No, I'm not loosing my mind - not yet anyway. But there's an article over at Dailymotion on Snow Leopard and some of the comments caught my eye - this is the result.

*****

Heh. CP/M RuleZ!

Yep, I'm that old. Age aside, GNU/Linux is having a huge effect on Apple and Microsoft. Currently most of the real "innovation" is occurring in Free Software projects, such as the Linux Kernel, the KDE and Enlightenment desktop environments, etc. Currently GNU/Linux is technically miles ahead of Microsoft, and somewhat ahead of Apple. Microsoft has no advantages over GNU/Linux, Apple's only advantage is the matchless integration of OSX with Apple hardware.

Right now Microsoft is in deep trouble. Their product is not very attractive compared to the product that their main competitor (Apple) produces. Their product isn't as inexpensive as their other competitor (GNU/Linux). Their product technically is inferior to both.

The only thing allowing Microsoft to continue making sales is their contracts with the computer OEMs. And Windows isn't all that profitable for Microsoft, their major profit center is the business division, which includes Office. Microsoft used to make lots of Office sales to Apple users, but since Apple started selling IWork, and since Apple has added Exchange support directly to the OS, Apple users don't need Office anymore. A long time ago Microsoft back stabbed Apple. Apple remembered, and has now back stabbed Microsoft. Did you know that Microsoft pays Apple to include a copy of Office on every Mac sold? Microsoft has made a lot of money from that over the years, but now people are buying IWork instead, and Microsoft looses out.

Apple has taken over the high end (one report I saw indicated that Apple supplied 90% of computers that sold for more than $1000.00 US), and is moving down market. This puts a lot of pressure on Microsoft. Meantime, Dell and several other manufacturers are offering GNU/Linux systems. Since there isn't a Microsoft Office for GNU/Linux, every one of these systems sold hurts Microsoft badly. That's why Microsoft made XP available to Netbook vendors, and why it strong armed them into selling XP only Netbooks when it could. And it was successful to a certain extent, but it took a huge hit on margins doing it.

Steve Ballmer has stated that cutting margins to increase sales was a mistake, and that they don't intend to do this with Windows Vista 7. Now I don't know what the price was that they charged the vendors for XP. Rumors have had it anywhere from $5.00 to $35.00 US, and any (or all) of that range could be correct. But GNU/Linux costs nothing. So what Steve means is that in the greatest recession since 1929, he's going to hit the hardware vendors with a price increase that they won't be able to absorb. They'll have to pass it in. Anyone selling GNU/Linux systems will be at a huge advantage. They can include better hardware (larger hard drive, more ram) and match prices, or they can include the same hardware, and undercut the competition. Dell, who's flirtation with Ubuntu goes back over 5 years, is the large OEM which is in the best shape to take advantage of this.

Microsoft's recent 10K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission showed the company's weaknesses. It's a long document, and it's accounting-speak, so it's rather boring, but when you put the numbers together, it's rather obvious, that Microsoft is a company that's in trouble. No, I don't mean that they will crash and burn this week, but quite frankly I'd be surprised if the company lasts more than 5 years. Remember - most of their profits come from Office. Apple has just fixed it so that Microsoft's Office market share in the Mac market is going to shrink drastically. Dell and the other OEMS who ship Linux systems are making the "PC" market for Office shrink even further. And Office is the only product that Microsoft makes a lot of money on. They don't make any money on the X-Box 360 - warranty claims have left that product line in the red. They don't make any money on the Zune. They are cutting products (Microsoft Money anyone?) weekly. This is a company in deep trouble, and any ISV which doesn't have a Microsoft exit strategy in place is suicidal.

Buying a new Phone and Computer - the Adventure Begins

2009-09-05T12:00:00.000-04:00

FYI - I will be cross posting this in several places, in part because I'm looking for feedback, in part because I'm going to say some nasty things, and I want a lot of people to see them.

OK. So I'm making the big step. I'm leaving my job for a new opportunity, in which I will be operating independently, and I can make all of my own choices for computer and phone. Here are my requirements (at least those I've thought of so far):

Computer Requirements
01) The computer has to be portable
02) It has to have good battery life
03) I need CAD software that supports IGES and other standard formats
04) It has to be reasonably light (for travel)
05) It has to be durable (both for travel, and also because I would like it to last for 4 years)
06) The operating system has to be 100% reliable (no crashes)
07) It has to be virus proof (and proof against other types of malware)
08) The OS has to be maintenance free
09) Other software required is Mail
10) Other software required is Office
11) Other software required is Contact Management
12) Other software required is Accounting
13) Other software required is PDF Conversion
14) Other software required is Basic Graphic Editing
15) Other software required is Basic Video Editing
16) Other software required is Basic Sound Editing
17) It has to have a built in camera and sound recording for video conferencing

Phone Requirements
01) It has to be a smart phone (mail, web surfing, notes, and appointments)
02) It has to have good battery life
03) It has to be able to use 802.11 wireless when available
04) It has to be reasonably light (for travel)
05) It has to be durable (both for travel, and also because I would like it to last for 4 years)
06) The operating system has to be 100% reliable (no crashes)
07) It has to be virus proof (and proof against other types of malware)
08) The OS has to be maintenance free
09) It has to be able to sync with the computer

Now this is my list to this point - I'd appreciate suggestions as to what computers and phones would be good. I'd also appreciate suggestions as to what ones would be horrible!

I live in Canada, and have to put up with the pack of idiots that we have for wireless carriers, again, any suggestions as to which ones are less stupid and/or venal would be appreciated.

The Endemic Problem with Free Products

2009-08-27T22:21:00.000-04:00

Rob Enderle is an interesting character. He writes diatribes of various sorts, most of which appear to be works for hire. His latest example is The Endemic Problem with Free Products. In this diatribe he tries to show that "Free" products won't be supported properly, and won't deliver the value that "Expensive" products will.

The problem from his point of view, is that there is a damned lot of free products out there, and they are often better than the paid products. Linux, BSD, and Open Solaris are all superior to Windows in performance and capabilities. In fact Windows greated "Expensive" rival Mac OSX is built on one of the BSD variants.

So why, when he is so demonstratively wrong, did he write this? I believe it's because he was paid to write this, to try and make sure that those who don't know any better, never learn about the free alternatives. Note that he didn't attack OSX. OSX isn't free. It's not an alternative to Windows, because you have to buy a Mac to get it.

But it isn't operating systems that Enderle is really trying to protect. What he's trying to protect is Microsoft Office.

Microsoft Business Division, which includes the Office product line produces 32.33% of Microsoft Corporation's revenues. But it produces 59.62% of Microsoft's Operating Income. Go look for yourself if you don't believe me.

So what happens if more people adopt Google Apps or Open Office? It attacks Microsoft's most profitable products. Microsoft is attempting to reduce unlicensed use of Office by extending Windows Genuine Disadvantage to Office. This has been covered by several reputable news organizations.

If you are one of those who is using an unlicensed copy of Microsoft Office, why not get legal? It won't cost you anything. Open Office can legally downloaded and used by anyone. Or you can use Google Docs with their collaboration features.

Of course Microsoft won't like this. But Microsoft liking things is not a major concern to most of us. What is a concern is getting things done, and getting things done legally.

SCO Train Wreck still occuring in slow motion - molasses would be quicker

2009-08-25T22:45:00.000-04:00

Oh dear. The total idiots at The SCO Group finally had a court decision that fell partly in their direction. Partly. The Appeals Court has decided that Summary Judgment was the wrong way to deal with the case, that it should have gone do jury trial, as there were facts which a jury was best able to address. This of course happened just as the trustee was appointed taking control of the company away from management.

What will happen next? It's hard to tell. So far nothing has happened the way I thought it would, when I thought it would. But at present SCO looks like a Zombie from one of the Living Dead films.

Even mostly dead though, they still called an Investor Conference Call, which seems rather silly. Who is going to invest in a company that is in such bad financial shape.

Well, they have one true believer. Maureen O'Gara continues to sing the company theme song. You have to wonder why she is doing this? It gives the impression that they are either paying her (or she has invested heavily in SCO Group stock).

So we'll have to wait and see. But it's in the hands of the Trustee now, and unless someone (possibly from Redmond) is willing to put a lot of money on the line, it looks like the train wreck is nearly over.

Gartner tries for Asshole of the Month club

2009-08-23T22:08:00.000-04:00

Yep. The head of the Microsoft fan club is trying for Asshole of the Month club. Networkworld received an email from Gartner stating that:

Per our Copyright and Quote Policy, available at the link below and at any time from Gartner's home page, other companies may only externally quote, mention, reference or display the Gartner name or Gartner research after first obtaining approval in writing, in advance, from my department. In violation of this restriction, your organization has been using Gartner’s name and research as shown in your blog entry at this link.

Now this is pretty stupid, even for Gartner. Right now the word is spreading all over the internet that they are a bunch of fools and idiots, and quite frankly, I don't think that they'll ever be able to live this one down. Techdirt has a somewhat politer comment on this, if you are interested.

It's sad when a great site goes downhill

2009-08-23T20:55:00.000-04:00

The Inq used to be great. When Mad Mike started it they refused to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements. When you got news, it was real.

Well, now they do sign Non-Disclosure Agreements. And now I don't read the Inquirer anymore.

Trolls, trolls, trolls

2009-08-22T17:52:00.000-04:00

I've been busy for the last week or so, holidays. But I just ran into something I had to share. It's a post on the VisInsights blog titled Buzz Marketing techniques to become illegal in UK?

Why am I pointing this out? Because of a statement near the end:

Marketers globally are continuing to understand and embrace transparent conversations with consumers - it is the only way to have dialogue otherwise governments will begin to regulate as we are seeing happen in the UK.

If you are operating in an ethical manner, why would you be concerned about regulation? Based on that statement, they aren't operating ethically. And we wondered where trolls came from.

ARM Netbooks Soon to Arrive

2009-08-11T23:12:00.005-04:00

=
And AMD netbooks will follow shortly after.

Qualcom built ARM unit displayed in Taipai

AMD Dual Core Neos Arrive

Nvidia Firefly Windows CE Netbook

Now my personal opinion is that the ARM netbooks are going to do really well, if running Linux. In fact if some smart cookie adopts one of the lighter distros such as Crunch Bang that's solidly designed, in place of Xandros and Linpus, they could be killer.

Of course then you've got Nvidia using WinCE on ARM. My first response was to ask how much Microsoft paid Nvidia to use it, as I couldn't think of any other reason to use WinCE (I have two mini-laptops here that use WinCE, and the OS is a freaking disaster. Which was a real disappointment because the hardware was actually quite nice). And then of course there's the name. Firefly was one of the best TV shows in ages, and Nvidia decides to use the name on a piece of junk (no, I haven't seen on, but I've never seen anything running WINCE that was worth the cost).

And last but not least, you've got AMD. Based on what I've read it looks like the Dual Core Neos could be the black horse in this race. They have a lot of raw processing power, but they use more electrical power than the Atom, but a lot less than a Core 2 Duo. Think of a Dell Mini 12 netbook with an AMD dual core Neo. You've got something that has the power for low level media work, but with battery life that's a lot better than a normal notebook. It could be the basis of a whole new niche, the Super Netbook. Install DellOS on it instead of Windows, and Dell's exit strategy from the Microsoft meltdown is assured. This of course assumes that Dell has the guts to actually let the world know that DellOS, a BSD based imitation of OSX exists. My bet is that they don't, Microsoft still has too much hold over them.

Smart like a fox or dumb like an ox - Rupert Murdoch

2009-08-09T19:55:00.003-04:00

It's been all over the news, and the blogosphere. Rupert Murdoch plans to put all of his News Corp. assets behind pay walls. Wikipedia describes News Corp as one of the world's largest media conglomerates. It includes Books, Newspapers, Magazines, Music and radio, Film Studios, Broadcast TV, Satellite TV, Cable TV, Internet sites, and Other assets. This years sales will probably be around $30 Billion US.

The question is - what does he hope to accomplish by doing this? He says that its to increase sales. The problem is that he's got competition that isn't going pay. So what does he have to offer that will make his value proposition such that he can compete with free?

We don't know. We do know that Rupert Murdoch is a very rich man. He didn't get that way by being stupid. Either he's got some plan to add value, or he deliberately wants to Chapter 11 all of his businesses that currently are offering free online content.

Time will tell.

Microsoft Promises to Never Talk About Windows Mobile Again

2009-08-02T14:43:00.001-04:00

Microsoft is not even going to talk about WinMobile in future according to a statement issued by the company:

No more blind cheerleading from Redmond: Microsoft (MSFT) finally admitted that its mobile business needs some work.

At Microsoft’s analyst day in Seattle, Robbie Bach confessed in his finest business school jargon that the company hasn’t “done as good a job as I would like building relationships and getting the right integration with our hardware partners,” according to the WSJ, and vowed to improve: “You’re going to see dramatic improvement in integration.”

He added, “You’ll see our execution rhythm pick up and the quality of our execution improve.”

Based on the quote, the only option they have is to NEVER talk about WinMobile, because blind cheerleading is your only option, when your company is incapable of producing quality software.

For anyone who wants to read the article, it's titled Microsoft Admits Its Phones Are Crappy, Vows To Improve.

Windows 7 and Browser Choice in Europe

2009-08-01T21:23:00.001-04:00

Dave Heiner, Vice President and Deputy General Counsel of Microsoft has posted a message on Windows 7 and Browser Choice in Europe.

I have a feeling that this is going to go over like a lead balloon at the EU Competition Bureau.

It looks great the way he talks about it, but what he's actually saying is:

1) We won't install other browsers on Windows.

2) We will include IE

3) Rather than doing what you asked (the Competition Bureau) what we are going to do is to make the user who buys the computer start up Internet Exploder. When they start up Internet Exploder, we will redirect them to a page that we designed, that will mention other browsers, and we'll design it so that they will just use Internet Exploder because it's too much work to install anything else. Oh, and we are going to change the release version of Windows so that Firefox, Chrome, and Opera will run like molasses in January.

Yeah, I'm cynical.

From Russia with Linux

2009-07-27T22:59:00.002-04:00

The Beez Speaks has a rather interesting post up called From Russia with Linux which covers The Russian Federations anti-trust suit against Microsoft and the major computer OEMS. His conclusion is that all computer systems sold in the Russian Federation may be required to be sold seperately from the Operating System. This would of course be a huge disadvantage for Microsoft against the Gnu/Linux and BSD operating systems, because Windows costs.

It should be interesting seeing if this really happens.

Microsoft Year End Notes

2009-07-26T18:50:00.008-04:00

The actual 10K hasn't been posted on the SEC site yet, so we can only look at the press release. The press release contained "unaudited" numbers, which means that Microsoft's accounting firm hasn't signed off on them yet. That said, they are probably fairly accurate. Putting out an inaccurate press release can attract SEC attention, in a bad way.

Consider these numbers for total earnings (in millions):
4thQ 2009
$13,099

4thQ 2008
$15,837

That's a drop of $2,738,000,000.00, a lot of money in anyone's book. Costs didn't drop anywhere near as much:
4thQ 2009
$ 9,112

4thQ 2008
$10,158

That's a drop of $1,046,000,000.00, again a lot of money in anyone's books. But it means earnings by $1,692,000,000.00 more than costs, which means net income has dropped:
4thQ 2009
$ 3,045

4thQ 2008
$ 4,297

Curiously the dividend for FY 2009 was $0.52 per share, while the dividend for FY 2008 was $0.44 per share. It looks like Microsoft may have been trying to buy the share holder's loyalty. If so, it failed. The price of Microsoft stock was $25.56 on Thursday. On Friday it opened at $23.66 and spent some time as low as $22.98, and ended the day at $23.50.

But there's other numbers of importance. For instance Cash and Cash Equivalents:
4thQ 2009
$ 6,076

4thQ 2008
$10,339

Why did Cash and Cash Equivalents fall? Microsoft made a decent profit, it not as high as usual. Short-term investments were:
4thQ 2009
$25,371

4thQ 2008
$13,323

Total cash, cash equivalents, and short-term investments
4thQ 2009
$31,447

4thQ 2008
$23,662

This raises a question - with this much money available in cash, cash equivalents, and short term investments, why would Microsoft be making arrangements for a loan earlier this summer? Several sites have speculated that Microsoft is in really deep financial trouble. Quite frankly they aren't. In an economy like this Microsoft's report looks great. So why the loan? We don't know. But there must be a reason.

Going further along we see Goodwill. Uhm, this is Microsoft. Who has any "Goodwill" towards the company? XBox360 players who've sufferer the Red Ring of Death? Windows Media buyers who got DRMed to death? Well, Microsoft does list it
4thQ 2009
$12,503

4thQ 2008
$12,108

And it shows a slight increase.

At this point the word "why" keeps coming up?

1) Why did Total assets climb nearly $5 billion?
2) How can Microsoft claim "Goodwill"?
3) Why did total Cash & Cash Equiv go up by $8 billion?
4) Why did Microsoft drop so many product lines - they had enough cash.
5) Why did they lay off over 5000 employees, again they had enough cash.

So OK. Profits are down. Earnings are down. This was expected. So why did the share price drop so fast and so far? Is someone playing with the stock? Probably not. Probably one or two of the large investors looked at the report, and decided that Microsoft just wasn't worth the price, and started selling.

So how does this affect the Free Software Community? In small ways. Microsoft doesn't have as much manuoeuvring room as they did. It's not a huge difference, but it's a difference. At the same time, the company has to be feeling a bit of desperation.

In operating systems they can't compete with GNU/Linux on price or performance. They can't compete with Apple on price or performance. They can't compete with Solaris on price or performance. They can't compete with BSD (any version) on price or performance.

In fact they can't compete with any operating system, on any level. Except for pre-installs. They win hands down there. And you have to wonder why? An inferior product, taking the majority of the consumer, and a fair bit of the small business market. There has to be a reason. And we know the reason. It came out during the Iowa anti-trust case (and yes, I have a copy of the all of the files for Comes vs Microsoft).

In fact they can't even compete on browsers, with pre-installs. Firefox, Opera, and Safari continue to gain market share. Apache owns the web server market, is more stable, and a lot harder to hack. Open Office is taking market share from Microsoft Office. Microsoft can't buy market share in search.

Even taking all that into account, remember the hypothetical $5 million investment I talked about in Numbers - Microsoft Stock Prices Part 1? Curiously you could take the 223,313 shares and sell them for $5,247,855.50! So even after the Friday drop, Microsoft shares are worth more than they were on July 11th!

So yeah, Microsoft isn't what it was. This is the first drop year over year in their history. What will be interesting will be seeing what the company's fiscal performance will be in the first quarter. Will earnings continue to drop? Stay tuned.

Arrant stupidity strikes again

2009-07-23T21:57:00.003-04:00

Every once in a while you hear something so stupid that you can't believe anyone could have said it. In this particular case Anthony Healy, director of the Australasian Performing Right Association, the administrator of music royalties said Without the content industries, the internet would be empty. We want to ensure that the people who make the content are rewarded.

Well Anthony, I'm producing lots of content. Send me some cash. I'm going to email you at the contact information on your website - apra@apra.com.au - right away. I suggest that everyone else do the same.

Found On Road Dead

2009-07-18T15:24:00.003-04:00

Yeah, everyone knows all the smart aleck nicknames for Ford.

Found on Road Dead
Fix or Repair Daily
Fails On Rainy Days
Failure Of Research & Development
Fast Only Running Downhill
Factory Ordered Road Disaster
Four Old Rusted Doors
Ford Owner Really Dumb
Fork Over Repair Dough
Fabricated Of Refried Dung
Fireball On Rear Denting
Frequent Opinion: Really Disappointed

And yeah, there's a couple of thousand more. But hey, they are the only North American car company that didn't go into bankruptcy, so they have to have something going for them, don't they? And I am looking for a new car.

Well it so happens that the Ford Fusion is a really nice looking little hybrid car. Since I'm ecologically minded (yes, climate change is real - I understand the science) and want to keep my ecological footprint as low as possible, a hybrid was high on my list. It has to seat five (we have 3 kids), have good rear seat headroom (both of our boys are over 6 feet tall), get fantastic fuel economy, have a trunk or hatch big enough to hold a couple of guitars and amplifiers. Simple, no?

From this point of view the Ford was looking great. It's reasonably sized, the fuel economy is fantastic, and the Ford Hybrid Technology looks pretty good. Hey, I'm feeling happy at this point.

Then we got to the dealership. Car looks like the pictures. I got a good laugh at the expression on my wife's face when the salesman got in, turned the key, drove the car forward, and parked, all without the engine coming on. Neat. Then I got into the car.

Turns out that the damned thing comes with a Microsoft/Ford Sync system. I told the salesman I wouldn't buy the car because of that. Rather than asking questions about my statement he started trying to explain how great it was, and it was at that point that we walked out.

We aren't buying a Ford.

Oh, and I'm emailing a copy of this to the dealership. If they respond, I'll let you know what they say.

Amazon - Proving that the Kindle is the stupidest thing in town

2009-07-18T15:13:00.002-04:00

OK, so you bought a Kindle, and you bought some books for it. You pick it up to read something, and it's not there. Maybe you meant to buy it and forgot. Maybe Amazon deleted it.

Seriously. When I first heard about this, I thought it was a mistake, but Amazon really does delete books from your Kindle, assuming that you allow it to go online, and since part of the reason to have a Kindle is to be able to buy books while online, well...

No admittedly Amazon has admitted that this was a damned stupid thing to do. Nice of them. The problem is that even though they've promised to never, never, do this again, they shouldn't have done it in the first place. This isn't apparently the first time they've done this, and the only reason that things got hot this time, was the content.

George Orwell's 1984 and Animal Farm.

EU Finds Anti-Competitive Abuse Of Pharmaceutical Patents, Launches Antitrust Action

2009-07-16T19:42:00.003-04:00

I just found out that IPWatch.ORG has an article about a new EU investigation. To quote:

Pharmaceutical companies are manipulating the intellectual property rights system and are “actively trying to delay the entry of generic medicines onto their markets,” a top EU official said of an EU inquiry into the pharmaceutical sector released Wednesday. As a result, there has been a decline in the number of innovative medicines getting to the market, it says.

Those of you who know me, know that I believe that patents are a drag on the economy, and that they make the First World countries less efficient than they could be. Those companies who claim to need patent protection for their innovations are in effect admitting that they are inefficient, and incapable of operating in a 21st century environment.

If they aren't capable of operating, they should be shut down. That's what bankruptcy law is for.

Oh, and they are also admitting that their management is incompetent. Think of it as Evolution in Action.

Numbers - Microsoft Stock Prices Part 1

2009-07-11T21:25:00.002-04:00

Let's take another look at Microsoft's Financial status. If you look on Yahoo Finance, or on MSN Money Central you can see Microsoft's stock prices over the years. Like all public companies Microsoft has an investor section on their website. You can also request hard copies detailing the company's financial status. In most countries publicly held companies like Microsoft are required to supply information to investors. This information is required to be accurate. It's also required to be complete, within certain limits.

The issue is that not enough disclosure is damaging to the investor. If for example, the company is deeply in debt, and the investor is not told, the investor would be making an investment decision with out information which could have a significant affect on the company's ability to make a profit, or even for that matter to survive.

At the same time much disclosure can damage the company. If a competitor knows who the company has signed a large contract with, the competitor knows who is buying the product, and who to target (I know of sales reps who regularly monitor the Investor page on their competitor's web sites for press releases on large sales, so they can target the customers mentioned).

Any large publicly held company's stock price is controlled by a relatively small number of large shareholders, the institutional investors. In the case of Microsoft there are also a small number of employee shareholders who hold a large amount of stock, including Bill Gates (executives are employees too). At Microsoft employee shareholders hold a very significant portion of the company's shares both directly, and through their 401K plans. This is not uncommon at entrepreneurial companies.

Assume that I decide to invest in Microsoft, and that I've got a 5 million dollars. Since Microsoft's current market cap is around $199 Billion US, my 5 million dollars is insignificant, and will have no real affect on the stock price.

Various large investors do have an affect on the share price. Assume that Bershire Hathaway (Warren Buffet's company) decides to take a 20% share in Microsoft. This would tend to drive the share price upward.

But why would anyone invest in Microsoft, or for that matter any other company? Money of course. How much money can you make with Microsoft? It depends on how much you invest. In Microsoft's last quarterly filing we see that they are paying a quarterly dividend of $0.13 per share. My $5 Million investment would equal 223,313 shares at Friday's closing price of $22.39 per share, which would yield $29,030.69 per quarter, or about $116,122.00 per year. If you were to place the same money in a Bank of America checking account which pays 0.10% per year, you would earn $5,000.00, so investing in Microsoft stock would bring you a definite advantage.

Changes in stock prices could also earn you money, if you purchased at the right point. Microsoft may have closed at $22.39 on Friday, but it opened the day at $22.19, so assuming you bought $5 Million at open, in theory you could have sold it for $5,045,065.34 at close. This assumes that the stock price went up. It could also have gone down. Remember Black Friday in October 1929?

Stock price also has a significant affect on what a company can do. Assume that Microsoft wants to purchase a company. Rather than paying in cash, they could pay in stock. If Microsoft wants to make acquisitions using stock, the higher the price of their stock, the more acquisitions they can make. The correct acquisition can help boost the stock price, making more acquisitions possible. One acquisition that Microsoft made was Visio. This was an excellent acquisition, the Visio software is now a very useful part of Microsoft Office.

ACT shoots self in foot

2009-07-11T13:33:00.001-04:00

Nuff said.

Microsoft - the idiot's friend

2009-07-10T19:43:00.002-04:00

I usually try to avoid working on Microsoft systems, but every once in a while, I end up helping a friend out, and it end's up being a totally frustrating experience chasing drivers, cleaning the registry, securing the system, etc. It makes you wonder why even the dumbest redneck from the deep south would bother, never mind a bunch of Canadians from a major cosmopolitan city. Funny that. They're all scared. Scared of having to buy Macs...

Now when you add up the numbers, that is compare equivalent processor, software, hard drive, etc. between a Mac and a Dell, the Dell is usually cheaper. But the trick is that the Mac doesn't need anti-virus software, and the Dell does. Assume that you keep both computers for 4 years, and the Mac is cheaper. You want to make the Mac cheaper yet? Rather than buying Microsoft Office for Mac, buy IWork. It's a lot less expensive, and if this is a home machine, it will do everything you need, a lot faster, and a lot easier than Microsoft Office.

And let's face it. Mac's last longer. I have two machines here, that are 8 plus years old, that run fine. One still has the original OS installed, from 2001! You'll never see a Microsoft OS running with no problems 8 years later. And that's another saving. I know people who spend $100.00 to $200.00 per year with Geek Squad to keep their Windows box running. Factor that in against zero cost to keep the Mac running, and damn, that Mac is looking really cheap.

Now when you consider that almost all of the advantages of a Mac can be had buy running Ubuntu, Fedora, Mandriva, Moon OS, etc. on standard PC hardware (the only disadvantage is that you miss out on the beautifully designed Mac hardware), and not have to pay for any software at all, why don't you do it?

Terminal stupidity?

Microsoft Community Promise & MONO

2009-07-09T21:56:00.005-04:00

Well, since I made my post about the arguments surrounding Mono, Peter Galli of Microsoft has announced that Microsoft will be applying the Community Promise to the ECMA 334 and ECMA 335 specs. But what does this mean?

Get ready for a long post....

The Microsoft Community Promise states:

Microsoft Community Promise
Published: September 12, 2007 | Updated: February 12, 2009

First, what is a promise. The definition from Dictionary.com is 'a declaration that something will or will not be done, given, etc., by one'. This is the first issue, how do you define 'Microsoft' as one? It's an enormous company, and like any company that size, the staff including management constantly changes. The question is does this promise bind Microsoft forever, or just until the next management change?

Microsoft irrevocably promises not to assert any Microsoft Necessary Claims against you for making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing or distributing any implementation, to the extent it conforms to one of the Covered Specifications, and is compliant with all of the required parts of the mandatory provisions of that specification ("Covered Implementation"), subject to the following:

Sounds good so far. You can:
make - to bring into existence by shaping or changing material, combining parts, etc.
use - to employ for some purpose; put into service; make use of
sell - to transfer (goods) to or render (services) for another in exchange for money; dispose of to a purchaser for a price
import - to bring in (merchandise, commodities, workers, etc.) from a foreign country for use, sale, processing, reexport, or services
distributing - to divide and give out in shares; deal out; allot.

And that they do this if the product matches the specification, and includes ALL of the required parts. What if you redesign the application so that it doesn't require a part that Microsoft thinks isn't required? Easy. You aren't covered.

This is a personal promise directly from Microsoft to you, and you acknowledge as a condition of benefiting from it that no Microsoft rights are received from suppliers, distributors, or otherwise in connection with this promise. If you file, maintain, or voluntarily participate in a patent infringement lawsuit against a Microsoft implementation of any Covered Specification, then this personal promise does not apply with respect to any Covered Implementation made or used by you. To clarify, "Microsoft Necessary Claims" are those claims of Microsoft-owned or Microsoft-controlled patents that are necessary to implement the required portions (which also include the required elements of optional portions) of the Covered Specification that are described in detail and not those merely referenced in the Covered Specification.

There are several issues here:

1) This is a personal promise. The word personal has a specific meaning, and that pertains to a person. Microsoft's Community Promise does not apply to a corporation, partnership, charity, or any organisation of of any sort.
2) Then we run into a problem, the words 'you acknowledge'. You is clear. Acknowledge means 'to admit to be real or true; recognize the existence, truth, or fact of'. This implies communication. Since you are not communicating with Microsoft by either vocal speech, or written speech, or even a web form, you are unable to acknowledge to Microsoft that you've benefited.
3) If you take part in a lawsuit which involves patents the promise is void. In simple terms if you attack Microsoft using patents, they'll strike back, and considering the number of patent litigation suits that Microsoft has lost recently, I can't blame them for including this exclusion. In fact I would think they were crazy if they didn't include it.
4) Then it gets into a definition of what is covered, and patents are covered, however it doesn't mention whether it applies to patents that have been invalidated through appeal to the patent board, or whether it applies to patents that have been invalidated in a court of law, or whether it would apply to patents that were legal in one country, but not legal in the country where the action had taken place.

This promise by Microsoft is not an assurance that either (i) any of Microsoft's issued patent claims covers a Covered Implementation or are enforceable, or (ii) a Covered Implementation would not infringe patents or other intellectual property rights of any third party. No other rights except those expressly stated in this promise shall be deemed granted, waived or received by implication, exhaustion, estoppel, or otherwise.

In this portion they mention that Microsoft's patents may not cover your implementation, or may not be enforceable. That's great. If either is true, why is Microsoft making the Promise?

Then they say, 'No other rights except those expressly stated in this promise shall be deemed granted, waived or received by implication, exhaustion, estoppel, or otherwise.' The problem is that so far, it's far from clear what rights Microsoft is granting.

Microsoft then goes into a bit of detail on what the words and phrases mean.

Covered Specifications (the Promise as set forth above applies individually to each of the following specifications)

This promise applies to the identified version of the following specifications. New versions of previously covered specifications will be separately considered for addition to the list and are covered only if specifically listed. In connection with the specifications listed below, this Promise also applies to the required elements of optional portions of such specifications.

Specifications covered as of this date are:

1) HealthVault Service Specification
2) C# Language Specification - Ecma-334, 4th Edition and ISO/IEC 23270:2006
3) Common Language Infrastructure (CLI) - Ecma-335, 4th Edition and ISO/IEC 23271:2006
4) UI Automation v1.0

There are other specifications with special terms.

Covered Specifications with Special Terms (the special terms as set forth on the individual download page for each listed specification apply)

For the applicable terms, please see the official Microsoft download page for the listed specifications.

1) XPS Specification v1.0
2) VBA Language Specification

Microsoft has also published an FAQ

Frequently Asked Questions

The Microsoft Community Promise is a simple and clear way to assure that the broadest audience of developers and customers working with commercial or open source software can implement specifications through a simplified method of sharing of technical assets, while recognizing the legitimacy of intellectual property.

'Intellectual Property' is in invalid concept. Copyright, Trademark, and Patent are valid concepts. By using the term 'Intellectual Property' Microsoft is attempting to obscure the issue as to exactly what is covered. It has to be one or more of Copyright, Trademark, and Patent, however by not specifying which Microsoft leaves developers with no knowledge of what exactly they will be covered for, if anything.

We listened to feedback from community representatives who made positive comments regarding the acceptability of this approach.

Um, which community? Names would be useful.

COMMUNITY PROMISE GENERAL

Q: Why did Microsoft take this approach?

A: It was a simple, clear way, after looking at many different licensing approaches, to reassure a broad audience of developers and customers that the specifications could be used for free, easily, now and forever.

The problem is that it is neither simple nor clear, with the exception of one word, which should have been included in the main section - forever. Since this is in the FAQ, instead of the promise, we can't be certain that the word actually applies.

Q: How does the Community Promise work? Do I have to do anything in order to get the benefit of this CP?

A: No one needs to sign anything or even reference anything. Anyone is free to implement the specifications as they wish and do not need to make any mention of or reference to Microsoft. Anyone can use or implement these specifications with their technology, code, solution, etc. You must agree to the terms in order to benefit from the promise; however, you do not need to sign a license agreement, or otherwise communicate your agreement to Microsoft.

Again, why is this not in the main section? Since it's in the FAQ it's useless.

Q: What is covered and what is not covered by the Community Promise?

A: The CP covers each individual specification designated on the public list posted at /interop/cp/. (Some specifications include special terms; these are noted.) The CP applies to anyone who is building software and or hardware to implement one or more of those specifications. The CP does not apply to any work that you do beyond the scope of the covered specifications.

Q: How is the Community Promise (CP) different from the Open Specification Promise (OSP)?

A: The CP requires that implementations conform to all of required parts of the mandatory portions of the specification. Also, in specified cases (such as where the specifications have uses that exceed those needed to achieve the interoperability needs for which the release under the CP is being made), the CP may have special terms concerning what kinds of implementations are covered.

You must comply to ALL of the required parts of the mandatory parts of the specification. If you don't, because you either don't need to, or because you were able to design an implementation that doesn't require the entirety of the specification, you can't covered. This is a slap in the face to innovation.

Q: If a listed specification has been approved by a standards organization, what patent rights is Microsoft providing?

A: We are providing assurances regarding necessary claims consistent with the scope of our commitments in that organization.

So if Microsoft has a patent that technically is outside the scope of the organization, but which is infringed by your project, even if your project is an implementation that is covered, Microsoft can sue you.

Q: What if I don’t implement the entire specification? Will I still get the protections under the CP?

A: The CP applies only if the implementation conforms fully to required portions of the specification. Partial implementations are not covered.

No partial implementations. No Innovation.

Q: The specification I am interested in has some required portions and some optional portions. Does the CP apply to both?

A: Yes, the Promise also applies to the required elements of optional portions of such specifications.

Again, why does it not say this in the main part of the promise? Anything included in the FAQ isn't technically part of the promise. It may not be legally binding.

Q: Does this CP apply to all versions of the specification, including future revisions?

A: The Community Promise applies to all existing versions of the specifications designated on the public list posted at /interop/cp/, unless otherwise noted with respect to a particular specification.

Now this is the most interesting set of weasel words I have ever seen! A simple yes or no would have given a clear answer. Instead we get something that is open to several interpretations. After reading it several times, the only answer I can give is 'MAYBE".

Q: Why doesn’t the CP apply to things that are merely referenced in the specification?

A: It is a common practice that technology licenses focus on the specifics of what is detailed in the specifications and exclude what are frequently called “enabling technologies.” If we included patent claims to the enabling technology, then as an extreme example, it could be argued that one needs computer and operating system patents to implement almost any information technology specification. No such broad patent licenses to referenced technologies are ever given for specific industry standards.

This is not true. See IBM Contributes 500 U.S. Patents to Open Source.

Q: Is this CP sub-licensable?

A: There is no need for sublicensing. This promise is directly applicable to you and everyone else who wants to use it. Accordingly, your distributees, customers and vendors can directly take advantage of this same promise, and have the exact same protection that you have.

The way this is worded, this may not be compatible with the GPL or BSD licenses.

Q: Is this Community Promise legally binding on Microsoft and will it be available in the future to me and to others?

A: Yes, the CP is legally binding upon Microsoft. The CP is a unilateral promise from Microsoft and in these circumstances unilateral promises may be enforced against the party making such a promise. Because the CP states that the promise is irrevocable, it may not be withdrawn by Microsoft. The CP is, and will be, available to everyone now and in the future for the specifications to which it applies. As stated in the CP, the only time Microsoft can withdraw its promise against a specific person or company for a specific Covered Specification is if that person or company brings (or voluntarily participates in) a patent infringement lawsuit against Microsoft regarding Microsoft’s implementation of the same Covered Specification. This type of “suspension” clause is common industry practice.

It doesn't say this in the main body. Saying this in the FAQ doesn't make it so.

Q: Is the Community Promise intended to apply to open source developers and users of open source developed software?

A: Yes. The CP applies directly to all persons or entities that make, use, sell, offer for sale, imports and/or distributes an implementation of a Covered Specification. It is intended to enable open source implementations. Because open source software licenses can vary you may want to consult with your legal counsel to understand your particular legal environment.

Some really good advice. SEE YOUR LAWYER!

Q: Why does Microsoft obtain patents that apply to specifications to which the Community Promise apply? Is that something that others do too?

A: Microsoft invests a significant amount of resources in research and development efforts. Like any other company that commits such resources to creating new technologies, Microsoft seeks to protect its investment by obtaining patents on the resulting innovations. At a minimum, patents have value in defending Microsoft with regard to patent infringement claims made by others. Many patent owners use their patents defensively to protect themselves against third-party law suits when they make their patents available under reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND or RAND-Z) terms and conditions (including promises like the CP).

This of course brings another question into view. Is software patentable? There are various interpretations of the law on this point by different lawyers, most of which disagree. Until the Supreme Court rules on Bilski no one knows for sure.

Q: What is the difference between copyrights and patent rights and why doesn’t the Community Promise include copyrights?

A: Patents protect the creation or improvement of a novel and useful method, device, process, or material. By contrast, copyrights protect a particular expression or implementation of an invention but not the underlying invention itself. For example, copyright protects the intellectual property rights associated with owning or distributing a copy of the specification as a document. In the particular case of the CP, copyrights in the Covered Specifications are made available by the publisher of the particular specification. When specifications are published by standards setting organizations, those organizations provide the copyright license. When Microsoft is the publisher of the Covered Specification, a copyright license is provided either as a part of text of the Covered Specification itself, or in a separate document. Copyrights in the Covered Specifications are not provided through the CP because, in the instances where the standards organization owns the copyright in the Covered Specifications, Microsoft does not have the ability to provide such rights.

Copyrights and patents are different beasts. If you don't know what the difference is, I suggest you check the articles on Wikipedia, and remember that the laws vary from country to country.

Q: Is this Promise consistent with open source licensing, namely the GPL? And can anyone implement the specifications without any concerns about Microsoft patents?

A: The Community Promise is a simple and clear way to assure that the broadest audience of developers and customers working with commercial or open source software can implement the covered specifications. We leave it to those implementing these technologies to understand the legal environments in which they operate. This includes people operating in a GPL environment. Because the General Public License (GPL) is not universally interpreted the same way by everyone, we can’t give anyone a legal opinion about how our language relates to the GPL or other OSS licenses, but based on feedback from the open source community we believe that a broad audience of developers can implement the specifications.

In simple terms, see your lawyer.

Q: I am a developer/distributor/user of software that is licensed under the GPL, does the Community Promise apply to me?

A: Absolutely, yes. The CP applies to developers, distributors, and users of Covered Implementations without regard to the development model that created such implementations, or the type of copyright licenses under which they are distributed, or the business model of distributors/implementers. The CP provides the assurance that Microsoft will not assert its Necessary Claims against anyone who make, use, sell, offer for sale, import, or distribute any Covered Implementation under any type of development or distribution model, including the GPL. As stated in the CP, the only time Microsoft can withdraw its promise against a specific person or company for a specific Covered Specification is if that person or company brings (or voluntarily participates in) a patent infringement lawsuit against Microsoft regarding Microsoft’s implementation of the same Covered Specification. This type of “suspension” clause is common industry practice.

Again, this would have been better to have been included in the main body rather than the FAQ.

So why didn't Microsoft's lawyers include this in the main body? Microsoft's lawyers aren't stupid (I know one of them, she's a really smart lady). So why did they write it in this confused way?

I don't know. It doesn't make any sense.

Suggestions anyone?

Blog of helios: As the TOYA Boy Turns...

2009-07-07T23:12:00.002-04:00

I just had to share this one - Helios was doing a new install, and some very funny things happened, it's titled: Blog of helios: As the TOYA Boy Turns....

The Mono Firefight

2009-07-05T20:59:00.014-04:00

Well OK, it's not a movie. But with all the excitement we've had lately about Mono I decided to do some research. to find out how it all started. Many links later, I think I've located the start of the current controversy, and a bit better understanding of it. This set of links is not exhaustive. I've no doubt missed many fascinating and well written articles. It is however what I was able to find by back linking from the articles I've read, and I think that it covers many of the important posts, along with some of the less important ones.

For historical reasons I'm starting with a post called Old mono rants from November 2006. I've included this because while it isn't part of the current fuss, it does show that there were concerns that far back. And while this isn't part of it either, there has been a number of posts over the years on how to remove Mono from Ubuntu. Ubuntu versions Hardy Heron and Intrpid Ibex were covered by the Open Sourcerer. He then wrote an article that he called The Mono Effect covering the surge in hits he got after each article. There was also an article at Boycott Novell titled Mono Watch: Where Is It All Coming From?.

But the reat start of the Firefight appears to be this post called ZOMG! TEH PATENTZ! from September 20, 2008 written by Jo “directhex” Shields. The post is an argument that patents aren't dangerous to Mono, and starts:

Out there, clogged in the great wide intertubes, there is a veritable cornucopia of blogs, forum posts, and sites, where people like to discuss an important topic: how TEH PATENTZ will come and doom us all. This in itself is not a silly thing to think. For example, there are companies (so called patent trolls) who do not contribute anything to society, they simply buy others’ patents then make grandiose legal threats to earn cash. Or, in other cases, some companies like Sisvel literally send in the police to raid trade shows, sniffing about for those violating precious MP3 patents like pigs seeking truffles.

Other than the Lolcat style title, and this really cute image:

he's written a well worded critique of the patent system, and why there are probably no dangers in Mono. Jo does reference earlier blog postings, but after having looked at them, I think his post is really the one that started the fur flying.

On October 28, 2008, Jo followed up with an excellent article on the importance of Standards, and how Mono follows them titled Life with Mono: Standards (good for me, good for you too).

The first major negative posting was on the Open Bytes blog, and was titled MONO 2.0 – Beware of a Novell bearing gifts on November 23rd. In it the author had a cartoon depicting Bill Gates of Borg

Things were relatively quiet until the new year, when Neptune235 posted [Mono-list] I need help with FUD to the Mono list at Ximian on January 16th. It was a plea for help, which ended in HELP ME STOP THE FUD! :). He got an answer from Adam Tauno Williams the same day, which said It can't be stopped, it is vague blather. Just ignore it, any attempt to argue with trolls only feeds the flames. He also got an answer from Jonathan Pryor which said Software patents suck. Jonathan isn't too bright. It isn't that software patents don't suck, they do. The problem is that ALL patents suck, and only a total shut down of the Patent System will fix the problem.

Jonathan later expanded on his original answer in a blog post titled How To Defend Against Software Patent FUD - You don't. - Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha¹⁰⁰⁰. on January 19th.

Then someone submitted an idea to Ubuntu Brainstorm on March 30 - Idea #18932: Remove Rythmbox as library player. While all of the other posts are nice background, this is the one that really got the fire going. It was partially based on some comments by the developer of Rythmbox, Jonathan Matthew, which many people took to mean that Rythmbox development was ending. Jonathan posted that his original comments had been misunderstood, but a lot of people missed that.

Coincidently a day later the polar bear excrement hit the rotary oscillator. Yep, on April Fools Day, a programmer named Hubert Figuiere announced that In my attempts to fight my own boredom he'd decided to attempt to port Tomboy, a Mono application to C++ in his blog in an article titled porting to C++. Because of the date most people took his post for a prank. A couple of days later he released Gnote 0.1.0, and a day later Gnote 0.1.1, a bug fix, was released. And the on April 14th he posted to the Ubuntu Forums Ubuntu PPA for Gnote (C++ port of Tomboy). The first response to his post was short and to the point Thanks! Less Microsoft 'intellectual property' in our OS less worries for us!. Jo Shields also responded, and his response was less happy Still missing most of Tomboy's features, and involving wholesale license & copyright violation. Jo never explained how a port could be a copyright or license violation. Possibly some day he will, I'd like to see his explanation. The thread ended up covering 18 pages worth of posts, ending only when a Ubuntu admin, cariboo907, posted The membership has spoken, this is not a democracy, this thread is closed. Please quit trying to push forward your own agenda. Exactly who this was addressed to wasn't clear, as both pro and anti mono posters were involved.

On April 15th Hubert announced that Gnote was now in the GNOME Repositories, and that Gnote 0.1.2 was now available.

On April 19th Jo decided to throw gasoline on the fire. In a post titled Fitting the kitchen sink onto a CD he argued that replacing the bloated C application Rythmbox with svelt mono application Banshee would save space. Those are his words, not mine. He got 122 comments as of when I last checked, so I guess he got people thinking.

While Miguel de Icaza is mostly responsible for Mono, he hasn't made many comments that I could find about the controversy (I expect to be inundated with Miguel quotes now - GRIN) except this one, where he references Jo Shield's post about CD space - Banshee and Tomboy over the weekend.

Then we get into the really fun stuff. What can you say about a post titled I eat FUD like you for breakfast from the 'KILL THEM ALL AND LET A NORSE GOD SORT EM OUT' blog. He references the infamous Tomboy 0.14.1, the future, and a word about Gnote which says:

Some people have started asking about Gnote, Hubert Figuiere's line-for-line port of Tomboy to C++. Our stance on Gnote is that it is counterproductive to maintain identical software in two languages. It will be harmful to the community, especially as these two apps inevitably diverge. It will result in duplication of effort, duplication of bugs, and a lot of wasted time for those who are trying to add value to the user experience, which statement was considered hilarious by those who were arguing that Mono was a waste of effort, being a port of a Microsoft program/technology, that it would be harmful the community and counter productive.

James Westby wrote a response the next day to Jo's suggestion about replacing Rythmbox with Banshee - Banshee as the default mediaplayer?. James wasn't happy about the idea.

Meantime Hubert was soldiering on, an April 22nd he announced Gnote 0.2.0.

The lastest set of instructions for how to remove Mono from Ubuntu was published April 23 - How to remove Mono from Ubuntu 9.04 Jaunty Jackalope.

On the 27th, Jo published the rather strangely titled Deconstruction of Falling Stars where he analysed his traffic. I almost ignored this post, I thought it was about Babylon 5.

And Hubert keeps soldiering on, and announces the release of Gnote 0.3.0.

The first major site to notice anything was happening was LWN on May 1st - Tomboy, Gnote, and the limits of forks. The author didn't seem to understand some of the concepts though.

Jo got back into the act the same day with Don’t gloat about bloat. He raises some good points - though I disagree with him on Evolution and other email clients. I think that they should all be dumped, the majority of people read email online in the 21st century.

And Hubert keeps soldiering on, and announces the release of Gnote 0.3.1. Is this guy a bot?

I like Sam Varghese. He digs and finds out things that other people miss. His The elusive, royalty-free patent licence for Mono published on May 25 was a beauty. If you haven't read it, I'd suggest you do so.

Monobuntu Developer Summit notes from the indefatigable Jo Shields.

And Hubert keeps soldiering on, and announces the release of Gnote 0.4.0. Maybe he's a Dalek?

Someone put in a Brainstorm suggestion - Idea #20016: Keep Rhythmbox don't move to worse alternatives. Brainstorm doesn't show how many people voted, so it's hard to tell whether 28 votes is a significant number or not.

The Me and Ubuntu blog decided to try to cover the controversy in Disinformation Disinfected, Pt. 1.

Sam Varghese wrote an article called How GNU/Linux users can keep Mono at bay on June 1st about the Mononono package.

Linux Journal posted the results of it's annual Readers' Choice Awards 2009 on the same day. The only Mono application which was mentioned was F-Spot, and it didn't win it's category.

The Me and Ubuntu blog's second post was published on June 1st - Disinformation Disinfected, Pt. 2: The False Dilemma. Also, rather quietly a new project was announced, Solang which later in the month would add to the fire.

Ars covered Tomboy in Tomboy note app gains Web sync, showcases power of open Web.

Roy at Boycott Novell published Mono: An Infectious Disease — An Article by Chris Smart on June 2. The name of the article was definitely noticeable.

On June 4, Sam Varghese published Fedora casts Mono into outer darkness. Is Sam a Mormon?

The announcement on June 6 that Banshee 1.5.0 had been released!.

Boycott Novell reported that Ubuntu is Censoring Opposition to Mono by Default on June 6th. Damning if true.

On June 9th Linux Canuck reports Ubuntu is Driving Me Away.

Carla Schroeder published Open Invitation to Mono Proponents to Set the Record Straight on June 11.

Jo Shields volunteered to write a reply, A Guest Essay In Favor of Mono (#1) which he also reposted on his own blog as Here we go again – why Mono doesn’t suck.

Me and Ubuntu published his third part Disinformation Disinfected, pt. 3: Banshee in Ubuntu.

Robert Millan wrote an article Mono in the default install?, which inspired a response Robert Millan in the default troll?.

Boycott Novell reports that Real-time Linux Hacker Bill Huey Called the Mono Plan 'Misguided'.

On the 13th Linux Today published Mono in the Default Debian Install.

A Brainstorm idea was published - Idea #20257: Change Tomboy for Gnote.

In the Ubuntu forums questions were asked question about the banshee switch.....

On the 13th Me and Ubuntu announced that I give up.

There was further coverage at Boycott Novell Fedora “Concerned” About Mono for Legal Reasons, Ubuntu Debate Carries on.

And if you care about flame wars read The very best of anti-Mono zealots.

The on the 14th we get Mono, here we go again.

On the 15th Signs of Mono Unrest, Legal Issues.

On the 16th things for real exciting. Mono, Here We Go Again started the day, and then we had Debian may include Mono in default install, which is clear of grammatically inaccurate, then we had Debian is Not Including Mono by Default, Yet, which is nice and unclear, and then the classic Disappeared Thread. Also someone finally noticed Solang. One commentator (not listed, as it's in Italian) even claimed it was an F-Spot port. Hot day.

And Hubert keeps soldiering on, and announces the release of Gnote 0.5.0. Think about this. It's only been 68 days since he started. I'm really not sure if this guy is human. Maybe he's a Cyberman.

Also on the 17th we get New Push for Gnote in Ubuntu by Default.

On the 20th it's reported that there are Whisper Campaigns Against Gnote.

Now we get to the fun stuff. Should I include my own posts? The one is an earlier version of this article, which doesn't do justice to the complexity of the issue, but here it is anyway - Monotremes and Monotrolls. As you may have gathered, I'm not a fan of Mono.

On the same day, the 21st Stefano Forenza write >a href="http://www.stefanoforenza.com/hands-off-the-gimp/">Hands off the Gimp, and Boycott Novell covered the same issue with Please Don’t Replace the GIMP with F-Spot (Mono).

Linux Insider wrote Is Linux Suffering From Mono? Of course they couldn't answer the question. Right now know one knows for sure, except possibly Steve Ballmer. But people are opiniated, as in Praise the Mono and Pass the Ammo.

And of course someone had to have fun with Jo Shield's name - Mono: Shielding the facts.

The Nixed Report published Why Mono is a Red Herring.

Stefano announced that Solang is in Ubuntu repositories now.

Only one entry on the 24th - Roy posted about Potential Future Replacement for F-Spot Enters Ubuntu. Quiet day. But we know it can't last!

Sam Varghese reports Ubuntu may increase Mono-dependent apps on June 25th.

There there's this idea awaiting moderation at Brainstorm Idea #20425: Evolution causes hassle when de-install(ed/ing). I don't know how quickly ideas are moderated, but this one has been sitting since June 26th.

Roy covers more in Latest Lies and Denials from Mono Advocates, Microsoft.

And then the big guns fire. Richard Stallman issues a statement, Why free software shouldn't depend on Mono or C#. I think this was posted on the 27th, the FSF site does some weird things.

Sam covers Mono again with Ubuntu tech board plays down Mono IP concerns on the 27th.

Jo, the only pledge I can think of is the one you take when you join AA. The Pledge.

OK, so I'm quoting myself again. Got to admit I sure can write (G). Stallman's statement on Mono. I posted this on June 28th. Roy also commented on Stallman's statement with Responses to Richard Stallman’s Verdict on Mono. Learning Ubuntu posted on How to Completely Remove Mono on Ubuntu.

The Mono project got me thinking about Evolution. Evolution is one of the reasons that I abandoned Ubuntu for Moon OS. So I wrote Why Evolution?.

The next day Sam announced GNOME 3.0 may have more Mono apps. Roy at Boycott Novell wrote Microsoft and Novell Still Fight for .NET Inside GNU/Linux, and also GNOME’s Evolution Proceeds as Planned?.

On the 30th Gray Geek posted Why? questioning why there was such a heavy push to get Mono into Linux? On the same day someone submitted an idea to Brainstorm titled Idea #20473: Mono is not as necessary as wine, which is still awaiting moderation. Roy at Boycott Novell wrote More People Say “No” to Mono, Including the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC). ZDnet wondered whether Will Stallman C# Warning Fall Flat. Then poor Sanjeev weighed in. Yes, I'm calling him poor Sanjeev, he didn't know what he was saying, and said something that he shouldn't. I replied to him in detail A Response to: Fuck you, Richard Stallman and other GNU/Trolls. Sanjeev and I talked in IRC after that, and quite frankly he's a real nice guy, who I'd like to meet someday.

Debian felt compelled to state that Mono is not in our default install. I almost missed this on, I was working on my Microsoft Financials post. July First was a busy day, considering it's our national holiday, I didn't get a lot of rest in! Roy wrote Poll: 62% Don’t Trust Microsoft on Mono. Last time I checked it had gone up to 64%. Roy also wrote Who Promotes Mono? Microsoft and Novell, and Sam wrote Ubuntu says yes to Mono, SFLC says no. Oh, and I missed this one until after I'd published this post - My take on the Mono/C# debate. The author is pro-mono.

On the second Debian claims Mono not part of default install.

And to close off, Bruce Byfield write's Let's Settle the Mono Debate and we have one more from Sam Varghese, Mono developer uses f-word to abuse RMS. Poor Sanjeev.

OK, so what does it all mean?

Well there are issues around Mono, including patents. This means that some people, myself included now refuse to use it. Those that are pro-mono don't seem to understand exactly why everyone isn't shouting hosannas over their projects. Indeed one of them classified Tomboy as 'An Exciting Program', which stunned me. Tomboy? Exciting? I didn't think so.

Since neither side is likely to move, to combat has moved to the Distribution level. Fedora is going to get rid of Mono. Ubuntu is going to keep it. It's possible that Mono could be the issue that dethrones Ubuntu from the top of the Distrowatch listing. Fedora has been gaining on Ubuntu for over a year now, and while it's well back, who knows where it will be a year from now.

Microsoft Financials

2009-07-01T22:02:00.006-04:00

Most of you probably don't know that Microsoft's year end is June 30. This year's results are more important than usual, because Microsoft has been under huge pressures for the last two years. The 2008 results didn't show much of this, but this year's results could be disastrous for the company.

Acer introduced the first Netbook late in 2007, and while it used Linux as an OS, it didn't have an immediate effect on Microsoft's results. Only half of the 2008 fiscal year was affected, but only in a limited way, as Netbooks started to grow as a segment. Also while the 2008 fiscal year was the start of the current recession, it wasn't until Microsoft's 2009 fiscal year that the effects were really felt, as illustrated from this image on Wikipedia:

Glyn Moody covered this in an excellent article titled Microsoft's Pyrrhic Victory in the Netbook War, chronicling how Microsoft went from zero OS share in the Netbook market to 70%, but paid a price in profit margins, and sales. Let's take a look at some numbers from Microsoft financial filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Every United States Corporation is required to follow certain regulations, especially publicly held corporations. This allows prospective stock holders to evaluate the company's finances, so that they can make an informed investment decision. The accuracy of SEC filings are sworn to by the management of the company in question, and incidents of deliberate misstatements are exceptionally rare. These numbers are accurate, and certified as accurate by Microsoft's accountants. Whatever Microsoft may be, they aren't Enron. Microsoft's SEC filings can be found here if you wish to check my numbers.

Operating Income (Most people call this sales)
2005 - 39,788,000,000
2006 - 44,282,000,000
2007 - 51,122,000,000
2008 - 60,420,000,000
09Q1 - 15,061,000,000 - projected yearly total - 60,244,000,000
09Q2 - 31,690,000,000 - projected yearly total - 63,380,000,000
09Q3 - 45,338,000,000 - projected yearly total - 60,450,000,000
2009 - ??,???,???,???

We can see from the yearly reports, and the reports for the first 3 quarters of 2009 that Microsoft's historical yearly sales increases are not likely to be repeated this year, unless the fourth quarter has fantastic results. But Microsoft's fourth quarter is not aligned with the traditional heavy sales seasons for personal computers, which are the back to school season (August) and the Christmas season (November and December). While some early shipments to stores may occur in June, most would occur in July for August sale (keeping inventory on the shelf in times of constricted credit is difficult), and of course the Christmas cycle is in the middle of Microsoft's fiscal year, and is reflected by the 09Q2 sales bulge. Microsoft's last fiscal quarter is a consumer spending dead zone, but when you look at the 2008 10K and the 2008 3rd quarter 10Q it shows unexpected strengths:

08Q3 - 44,583,000,000 - projected yearly total - 59,444,000,000
2008 - 60,420,000,000

So Microsoft billed a Billion more than the 3rd Quarter results would have lead us to expect, probably from B2B sales. Will they be able to do that this year? If they do, then Microsoft may beat their 2008 sales. We won't know until we see the 10K, which has historically been released near the end of July.

Operating Income isn't the only measure of a company's health. If your personal expenses are higher than your income, you are in trouble. Company's are no different. Net Income is what you have left after expenses, let's look at that:

Net Income
2005 - 12,544,000,000
2006 - 12,599,000,000
2007 - 14,065,000,000
2008 - 17,681,000,000
09Q1 - 4,373,000,000 - projected yearly total - 17,492,000,000
09Q2 - 8,547,000,000 - projected yearly total - 17,094,000,000
09Q3 - 11,524,000,000 - projected yearly total - 15,365,000,000

Again, a comparison of 2008 yearly and 083Q is in order:

08Q3 - 13,384,000,000 - projected yearly total - 17,845,000,000
2008 - 17,681,000,000

So income for the full year was very closed to estimated income based on 3rd Quarter income. The 2008 Fourth Quarter $1 Billion sales bulge, did not results in a corresponding bulge in Net Income for the year. But that may be covered under another part of the report, "Total Operating Expenses."

Total Operating Expenses is the fun one for you personally. New Guitar, go to a concert or movie, watch the Stanley Cup finals on your wide screen TV (and I'd like to once more call for a renaming of the Detroit Red Wings to the Detroit Dead Things considering their horrible play in the finals this year). It's also a lot of things that aren't fun, but necessary, such as rent, taxes, power, water, cable, etc. Corporate expenses are mostly the boring things, like rent. They also include travel which can be interesting. I've been in every major city in the USA, seen the Vietnam Wall Memorial, the Alamo, the Mississippi River, Mount Saint Helens, stayed at the Doral (if you golf, you'll know what it is) and spent a good bit of time in 5 Star Hotels. The same sort of travel happens at every corporation, including Microsoft, but it's a small portion of the totals (where your trip to Bermuda may be a major expense). Microsoft's call to cut travel expenses, while it's an important part of leadership, really won't have a huge affect on the bottom line.

Total Operating Expenses are extremely important. If you can increase your Operating Income, and reduce your Total Operating Expenses, your Net Income increases, giving you more freedom of action, to spend money on further R&D, asset purchases, pay dividends, etc.

Total Operating Expenses:
2005 - 25,227,000,000
2006 - 27,810,000,000
2007 - 32,598,000,000
2008 - 37,928,000,000
09Q1 - 9,062,000,000 - projected yearly total - 36,248,000,000
09Q2 - 19,752,000,000 - projected yearly total - 39,504,000,000
09Q3 - 28,962,000,000 - projected yearly total - 38,616,000,000

Looking at the numbers so far, what do we see?

Operating Income is probably flat, unless there is a large increase or decrease in Quarter 4
2008 - 60,420,000,000
09Q3 - 45,338,000,000 - projected yearly total - 60,450,000,000

Net Income appears set to drop, again unless something unexpected happened in Quarter 4
2008 - 17,681,000,000
09Q3 - 11,524,000,000 - projected yearly total - 15,365,000,000

Total Operating Expenses appear set to rise slightly, again dependent on Quarter 4
2008 - 37,928,000,000
09Q3 - 28,962,000,000 - projected yearly total - 38,616,000,000

So what does all this mean, if anything? It's an extremely simplified method of looking at Microsoft the company, and attempting to determine it's state of corporate health, in a time where Microsoft is under huge pressures as documented above. Projected Operating Income is flat for the first time in the company's history. Net Income is projected to drop by over $2 Billion dollars. Total Operating Expenses are projected to rise by $700 Million, despite various belt tightening exercises, including the phasing out of many products, the layoffs that have affected 5000 workers so far, and may be expanded to affect more (while hiring continues in India).

Remember, these are projections, and they are almost certainly wrong. Even wrong projections are useful, they give a general guidance on where a corporation may be. If the corporation beats the projections, then their stock becomes more valuable. If the corporation doesn't beat the projections, then their stock becomes less valuable.

Stock price has a huge affect on corporate capabilities. If your stock is work $200.00 per share, and you have 1 Billion issued shares, you can issue a million shares to use in a $200,000,000.00 acquisition. If your stock is worth $20,00 per share, you'd have to issue 10 million shares to fund that acquisition. One scenario dilutes your shares by 0.1%, the other dilutes your shares by 1%, or 10 times the dilution factor.

Another thing to consider is that a very few big investors control Microsoft's stock price. The big institutional investors (pension funds, mutual funds, etc) control the price of the stock, and they base their price targets for the stock on the same SEC reports that I've been quoting. With Microsoft's Net Income being so high, you would think that Microsoft stock might be worth more. The big institutional investors don't think so, and even Bill Gates, with his huge holding in Microsoft stock can't do anything about it.

Let's take another look at those numbers, but with a more sceptical view of the 4th Quarter

Operating Income assuming incomes drops by half in 4th quarter
2008 - 60,420,000,000
09Q3 - 45,338,000,000 - projected yearly total - 60,450,000,000
2009 - 52,894,000,000 - 7.5 Billion Drop year over year

Net Income drops due to drop in Operating Income
2008 - 17,681,000,000
09Q3 - 11,524,000,000 - projected yearly total - 15,365,000,000
2009 - 15,031,000,000 - 2.5 Billion Drop year over year

Total Operating Expenses assuming a 5% drop through cost savings
2008 - 37,928,000,000
09Q3 - 28,962,000,000 - projected yearly total - 38,616,000,000
2009 - 36,685,000,000 - projected 5% drop through cost savings

So we can see that even a devastating 4th Quarter (sales dropping by half is devastating in anyone's book) isn't enough to cause Microsoft to have a terrible year (note that I adjusted taxes downward to reflect the drop in income), though it could limit Microsoft's options moving forward.

The problem is that the news out of Redmond is very disturbing. Microsoft seems to be cutting far more products than I would expect them to based on any numbers I can come up with. Of course there's the online moneypit, which since the launch of Bing may have gotten a lot deeper. There's also one time costs involved with terminating employees, which could push up 4th Quarter costs higher than I think.

At present I believe that it's virtually impossible for Microsoft to run a loss this year. I also believe that the final Net Income numbers will have many corporate executives drooling with envy. The problem is 2010. At present we don't even know if we'll have an economy in 2010. Assuming that the projected "recovery" really happens this fall, what form will it take? Will it be a jobless recovery? If it is, Microsoft is one of the companies who is likeliest to suffer. Businesses won't replace hardware, the primary driver for OS and Office sales, and will look to Free (as in speech) Software to handle more functions where they might have used a Microsoft solution before. Consumers will attempt a variety of life extension routines on existing computers, which won't include installing Windows 7. A lot of units are going to end up being converted to run Linux as viruses continue to run rampant through the Windows ecosystem, especially "average user" computers. Gamers of course will continue running Windows.

So I'm going to go out on a limb - these are my projections for Fiscal Year 2010 at Microsoft

Operating Income assuming incomes drops by half in 4th quarter
2008 - 60,420,000,000
2009 - 52,894,000,000 - 7.5 Billion Drop year over year
2010 - 47,604,000,000 - 5.0 Billion Drop projected

Net Income drops due to drop in Operating Income
2008 - 17,681,000,000
2009 - 15,031,000,000 - 2.5 Billion Drop year over year
2010 - 12,804,000,000 - 2.2 Billion Drop projected

Total Operating Expenses assuming a 5% drop through cost savings
2008 - 37,928,000,000
2009 - 36,685,000,000 - projected 5% drop through cost savings
2010 - 34,000,000,000 - 2.6 Billion Drop projected

My base assumption is that Microsoft's sales will drop by 10% due to the global financial crisis, the pressure on the high end of the market by Apple, and the pressure on the low end of the market by Linux. From that I adjusted taxes down, other income (interest) down, and projected a 7% cost saving through further layoffs, product retirements, and other cost reduction strategies. You end up with a company that is still insanely profitable by most standards, however my assumptions are fairly conservative in many ways.

But all of this depends on what Microsoft's 10K for the entire 2009 Fiscal Year says. It could be better than I've projected, or worse. If it's worse, Microsoft's could go into a downward spiral as management tries to increase sales and control costs at the same time, a recipe for disaster.

And of course all of this affects the stock price. I'm going to cover that more fully in a later post.

A Response to: Fuck you, Richard Stallman and other GNU/Trolls

2009-06-30T20:54:00.003-04:00

You're interested in Richard Stallman? Man, you seem to be sexually confused. I'd get counselling if I were you. I mean you're interested in a 50 plus greying geek? Sheesh.

Comedy aside, as to the rest of what you wrote, it was awfully confused. OK, so you want to rant. Think first. If you don't think, your arguments won't make any sense.

Anyway, I'm taking your comments out of order, but you should be able to figure it out.

It is a rant to express my core belief that freedom is open to interpretation.

I have friends in the People's Republic of China who believe they are free. Do you believe they are free? Are they free? For that matter are you free? There are levels of freedom, but freedom itself isn't open to interpretation. Check out the entry for "FREEDOM" at Dictionary.com, there's no mention of "FREEDOM" being open to interpretation.

Now let's take your GPL section. You start off with:

I believe viral copyleft licenses like GPL are evil.

Really? I think that the GPL licenses were the greatest change to computing since the disk drive was invented.

“Freedom or Death” is not freedom. Wikipedia defines freedom as “Freedom is the right to act according to ones will without being held up by the power of others.” How am I even remotely free if I *have* to license all my code under GPL if I use GPLed libraries? Isn’t the right for a person to release liberal or proprietary software come under his/her freedom too as long as it’s not harming anyone?

I want the freedom to use the BSD or MIT license in my projects. I’m preventing from even referencing GPL libraries (not LGPL) while I’m trying to make open source software available. How is this fair?

People need proprietary software for their livelihood. Yes dual licensing or selling GPLed code is possible - but maybe not completely feasible. A developer hoping to make a living from small games cannot use GPLed libraries because that would violate the law.

If Richard Stallman had to make a living from writing software rather than whatever he does, I’m curious how much of his code he’d really open-source.

I believe that projects can open source re-usable components (google => protocol buffers, facebook => thrift, microsoft => asp.net/mvc).

I will never shun anything because it’s proprietary licensing.

While I prefer open source projects like everyone because you can take a look at the inner working, there are only nine projects who’s sources I have truly looked into with good depth.

My idea of freedom includes the freedom to make it proprietary. It’s your code, you can do what you want with it. I prefer releasing under MIT/X11 license and that’s my choice.

While the GPL is all about choice, it doesn’t give me any real choice. I *have* no choice

Ironically, mono is largely GPL/LGPL as well.

You are totally free. There's nothing stopping you from writing your own libraries, and licensing them under the MIT or BSD license if you want, or from starting a project to produce MIT or BSD licensed libraries.

But when you talk about "Freedom", it's all about you. What about my "Freedom"? Shouldn't I have the freedom to write software, and license it the way I want? Shouldn't I have the freedom to demand payment from you for using my GPL licensed software, in source code if you write something that incorporates my code? The copyright act says I do. And you shouldn't complain that it does, after all, the same copyright act prevents someone from using Windows as the base for something and not compensating your employer.

You talk about fairness. But only fairness as regards to you. Isn't part of fairness compensating a creator for his or her work? So why do you regard compensating me as unfair?

The bit your wrote about "Proprietary Licensing" is really confused. I will however to admit to have an IMac and two MacBooks. But 95% of the software I've installed on them is GPL. The quality is better.

You have the freedom to take any project you write proprietary. You don't have the freedom to take a project I've written proprietary (unless you meet my terms - and I'm expensive).

There are two main mistakes I see in your thinking so far. Your first mistake is that you think that the GPL is about YOUR choice. The GPL is about MY choice. My choice to use it, and to expect anyone who wants to use my project to pay me back by using it. Your other mistake is thinking that this is about "Open Source". It isn't. It's about "Free Software", with free being defined as software that is licensed so that IT CAN NEVER BE TAKEN PROPRIETARY. That's what this is all about.

Now let's look at Patents, FUD, and Mono:

There are two kinds of open source users in the world - People who love open source, and people who hate microsoft and proprietary software. I’m part of the first, which one are you?

I'm the third sort, who love FREE SOFTWARE, dislike OPEN SOURCE, and don't give a shit about proprietary software. As to Microsoft, the company is in deep financial trouble, read their SEC reports.

I know NOTHING about patent law and how dangerous having these applications on your machine can be. In other words, I know as much as you do about all of this

Wrong. Unlike you I know a lot about this, it's part of my job. While there may not be much danger to an individual, there's a lot of danger to organisations, such as the Free BSD Foundation.

Most open source softwares replicate some features which may be patented. Do you think there won’t be patent issues over Openoffice or Gimp which replicate commercial software’s functionality.

An interesting statement, do you have any proof that "Most open source softwares" are infringing, or is this just an opinion?

A mentor of mine told me that patents are to prevent companies from getting sued, not to sue companies.

In that case how come Microsoft sued TomTom? I'm sorry, your mentor doesn't know what they are talking about.

You don’t want to keep a free implementation of a language on your machine, but you are okay with downloading off bittorrent and aren’t worried about getting sued.

Um, what does this have to do with "Free Software" or "Open Source Software"?

GNote represents the limit of FUD to me. Tomboy is awesome and Sandy Armstrong doubly so.

Why is Gnote FUD? It's an example of Free Software at it's best. A programmer had an itch, and scratched it by writing a program, then released it so others could use it. It appears to be just as competent as Tomboy. That said, neither one is worth the time and effort to use in my opinion. But again, that's part of Free Software, the freedom not to use something.

I’m no expert on patents, but “There might be risk” sounds just like “There might not be risk”. At the end the question is whether it’s finally worth it.

You don't appear to be an expert at anything. What I said is "There is a risk". And there is, based on how the Patent Act operates. There is a concept called "Due Diligence", which lays certain responsibilities on organisations like the Fedora Project Board, the Free BSD Foundation, the Ubuntu Foundation, etc.

Please read Jo Shield’s article if my intellectually devoid rant hasn’t convinced you.

I did, and I rebutted it as well. Jo was not happy that I did.

Roy Schestowitz (of boycottnovell.com) is a dick. Period. I would never respect anyone who spends more effort spreading fear and bringing things down rather than contributing anything significant.

Let's see. Roy spots a danger to the community, and talks about it, and that isn't contributing something significant?

On Mono and C#:

Have a look at gnome-do, which runs on mono(http://do.davebsd.com). That thing you’re feeling when you open the link is pure undiluted lust lust.

The thing I feel is undiluted yawn.

Firefox has 80,000 lines of code. The MonoDevelop project has 800,000 lines. The Mono project (just mono) has 8 fucking million lines, let’s not forget the debugger, compiler and gtk# bindings. (ohloh.net)

Number of lines is not proof of quality. If it was, Windows Vista would be one of the most fantastic programs ever, rather than a slow, bloated, hog. In my personal opinion Windows 2000 was a lot nicer.

I have met the nicest and most helpful people I know on the Mono project. Even the most busy and experienced of devs (hello mhutch and lluis!) take time off to help (and spoonfeed) me whenever I need.

Glad you've had a good experience.

C# is plain awesome. I used to think it was bloated and MS specific (just like most of you), but an awesome standard library, coupled with type safety, innovative features and tight IDE integration make it a killer platform for development.

I could go on about how blissful an experience it is to write code in a full featured, statically typed language. But you’re too full of propoganda to listen.

C# seems spectacularly inefficient to me. But hey, whatever turns your crank.

Why Evolution?

2009-06-29T21:33:00.005-04:00

On Groklaw PJ asked:

Why, exactly, is it so hard to get rid of Mono, if Evolution doesn't require it?

I think that PJ's question should have been, why is it so hard to get rid of Evolution, if Gnome doesn't require it?

Think. An email client is not a necessary part of a desktop. An email client isn't even a necessary part of a Linux Distribution. Oh, they can bs useful in some cases, if you wish to use one. But for those who want an email client, each has their own favourite, and this being Free Software, there's a wide range available, each with it's own special capabilities.

And then you have Evolution. It's integrated into the Gnome desktop, to the point where removing it is impossible from a practical point of view. Oh, you can remove it. But when you do, your desktop becomes unstable. It was just like running Windows again as I watched the computer reboot for no apparent reason. Which got me thinking, doesn't the close integration of Evolution into Gnome remind you of how Internet Explorer is closely integrated into Windows, to the point where it cannot be easily removed (if at all?)

When staff at the Gnome project were asked about removing it, and given reasons why removing it was desired (you don't leave unused software installed on a business system), the response was on the lines of "Live with it", and "Removing it will ruin the ability to install updates". This may not seem very important, but consider the following scenarios:

1) Business or Consumer uses webmail only - no need for desktop email client
2) Business of Consumer uses different webmail app - no need for Evolution

Every business I know installs ONLY the software required for the employee to do the job they are assigned to do. This makes support a lot easier for IT, so the ability to customise in this way is very desirable. Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, and Outlook Express are all "integrated" into Windows and can't be removed. With most Linux distributions you can remove almost anything, which makes Linux superior for business use. Unless you pick the Gnome desktop, where for some insane reason the Gnome project has decided to integrate Evolution in the same manner. In effect by making this choice, the Gnome project has declared it isn't interested in being used as a business desktop.

So why is Evolution so tightly integrated info Gnome? I don't know. I do know that Evolution is a Novell project, and my trust of Novell as a company is at an all time low due to their sponsorship of the Mono and Moonlight projects. I know my paranoia is showing by saying this, but if Novell is deliberately trying to poison Free Software through Mono and Moonlight (or just too stupid to know what they are doing), what's to stop them from doing the same thing with Evolution?

Stallman's statement on Mono

2009-06-28T13:44:00.003-04:00

Jo Shields and the other Mono fans have been claiming that Richard Stallman has no problems with Mono. Well, they are wrong. Richard Stallman has real problems with Mono. If you don't believe me, read it in his own words.

For those too lazy to click on a link:

Debian's decision to include Mono in the default installation, for the sake of Tomboy which is an application written in C#, leads the community in a risky direction. It is dangerous to depend on C#, so we need to discourage its use.

The problem is not unique to Mono; any free implementation of C# would raise the same issue. The danger is that Microsoft is probably planning to force all free C# implementations underground some day using software patents. (See http://swpat.org and http://progfree.org.) This is a serious danger, and only fools would ignore it until the day it actually happens. We need to take precautions now to protect ourselves from this future danger.

This is not to say that implementing C# is a bad thing. Free C# implementations permit users to run their C# programs on free platforms, which is good. (The GNU Project has an implementation of C# also, called Portable.NET.) Ideally we want to provide free implementations for all languages that programmers have used.

The problem is not in the C# implementations, but rather in Tomboy and other applications written in C#. If we lose the use of C#, we will lose them too. That doesn't make them unethical, but it means that writing them and using them is taking a gratuitous risk.

We should systematically arrange to depend on the free C# implementations as little as possible. In other words, we should discourage people from writing programs in C#. Therefore, we should not include C# implementations in the default installation of GNU/Linux distributions, and we should distribute and recommend non-C# applications rather than comparable C# applications whenever possible.

OK Jo. You didn't like my suggestion that we get a proper legal opinion. One of the reasons mentioned was that Richard didn't have any problems with Mono. Well, Richard has problems with Mono. Since Richard's supposed approval of Mono was the only valid reason you gave for not getting a legal opinion, what do you say now?

Monotremes and Monotrolls

2009-06-21T19:01:00.001-04:00

Yep. Monotremes and Monotrolls. Monotremes, because they lay eggs. Monotrolls, because in their efforts to get Mono more widely accepted, it appears that they've had the opposite effect. There have been so many articles and posts in the last several weeks, that it's difficult to properly cover them all.

But it's worth trying.

Exactly when the fireworks started I don't know. I know that there has been concerns about Mono for years, and yes, I'm one of those who have been automatically removing Mono from any Linux installs I do for years. However things have really heated up within the last month or so.

One of the earliest articles in the current war was Mono: An Infectious Disease. Nice title. Sure to get both sides fired up. But is the title accurate?

A couple of days later Sam Varghese posted an article titled Fedora casts Mono into outer darkness. Not quite as inflammatory, though it makes one wonder if Sam isn't a Mormon.

But the war didn't really start there. It appears that the person to blame for the war is an out of work programmer, who made an April Fools Day post statingIn my attempts to fight my own boredom, as an unemployed hacker[1], I took on myself to do something: porting Tomboy to C++. It is actually not that hard, just a lot of work to do manually because there is over a dozen of thousands of lines of code. This show me that the door is open to reimplementing Gtk# software (or parts) in C++ with not too many problems, making it easy to have them available for C applications.

Now he wasn't trying to start a war, but that was the effect. On April 6th he posted about the 0.10 release of Gnote, and the comments were interesting. The Tomboy community was outraged that someone could try to out Tomboy, Tomboy. But hey, this is Free Software. Why do you think we have KDE, XFCE, Gnome, Enlightenment, etc. Because someone was scratching an itch.

Of course the anti-mono folks spotted a chance. You get rid of one more mono application, you are that much closer to removing Mono. So then Jo Shields posted an article in Apebox called Fitting the kitchen sink onto a CD. In this article it's pointed out that space could be saved on the Ubuntu CD if certain things were done. These things would have increased the number of programs that depend on Mono in the Ubuntu install CD to three (Tomboy, Fspot, and the newest one would be Banshee).

At this point things started to go downhill fast. Banshee would have replaced Rhythmbox, so the Rhythmbox fans were upset. It would have increased the number of Mono programs, so the anti-mono camp was upset. About the only people not upset were the bloggers like me. We were getting a ton of great copy!

Me and Ubuntu tried to clear up some of the issues, with a series of articles, Disinformation Disinfected, Pt. 1, Disinformation Disinfected, Pt. 2: The False Dilemma, and Disinformation Disinfected, pt. 3: Banshee in Ubuntu, and then wrote a final article I give up.

Various things appeared to be happening in the Ubuntu Forums including accusations of censorship. Linux Canuck declared that Ubuntu is driving me away. Nice good catchy title.

Carla Schroeder offered a chance for Mono proponents to set the record straight and Jo Shields took her up on this, with an article titled A Guest Essay In Favor of Mono.

At which point Robert Millan replied with Mono in the default install? which inspired Robert Millan in the default troll?, and finally The very best of anti-Mono zealots.

So what does it all mean?

It's quite simple. A fairly large number of us have severe issues with Mono. We have concerns about whether Mono should be included as part of a Linux Distribution CD because there is no way to be sure of the legal status of the Mono project at the present time. We don't believe that the Mono cheerleaders are acting and thinking logically. We don't believe their assurances that Mono is unencumbered with Microsoft patents, because quite frankly they cannot make that statement. Only Microsoft can make it, and Microsoft, at present, is remaining curiously silent.

open...: Microsoft cocks a snook at the EU

2009-06-13T01:39:00.000-04:00

Glyn Moody wrote Microsoft cocks a snook at the EU. I often agree with Glyn, but not this time.

Microsoft is trying to make the EU Competition people out to be fools, by delivering a version of Windows that won't give customers what they want, and will block their competitors. Microsoft has a channel, and can get Internet Exploder disks to their customers. The competition doesn't.

In my original response to Glyn, I said that I thought that the EU would see what Microsoft was doing, that the move was pretty naked. It appears that I was right as Microsoft's offer has been declined. Several lawyers are quoted stating the don't understand the EU's move. Well, it's obvious that these poor deluded fools have never dealt with Microsoft...

News on Zotero suit

2009-06-13T01:03:00.000-04:00

Sean made another post on the tenth (don't know how I missed it) stating that the lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice due to lack of jurisdiction. Unfortunately that's all he knows.

What this means so far is that Thomson Reuters is free to bring the suit again, in the correct jurisdiction. The problem is that the term jurisdiction can cover a lot of territory. Say I live in Florida, you live in Oregon, and I sue you in Florida. Unless you have some connection with Florida (like for example you own a winter residence there) the Florida court has no jurisdiction over you. A court can also lack jurisdiction if it is the wrong court, for example some types of suit are required to be tried in Federal Courts, and cannot be brought in a State Court. Jurisdiction in this case is complicated by the release on the Internet of Zotero, is the proper jurisdiction the location it was downloaded, or the location it was downloaded from? Until we can read the written dismissal it's impossible to tell.

The question now is, what will Thomson Reuters do? The term "Without Prejudice" means that they have the option of refiling the case in the correct jurisdiction, wherever or whatever that is. However they have spent a lot of money so far, for no gain, and ruined their reputation with the Academic and Free Software communities. Would pursuing the suit further bring them any gain, or would it cost them more in lost reputation?

And of finally there is the ultimate question - do they even have a case? The basis of the original lawsuit was that the University which underwrites Zotero had once been an EndNote licensee, and the EndNote user agreement prohibits reverse engineering. A lot depends upon the definition of "Reverse Engineering" used by the court which is the correct jurisdiction (and with knowing what the correct jurisdiction is I can't even try to look it up). Another issue is what jurisdiction the license specifies for settling license disputes. Some states implemented UCITA, a set of rules governing license disputes. Other states have implemented anti-UCITA laws. If you live in a State with an anti-UCITA law, the state specified in the license doesn't count, you have to be sued in your state. UCITA has been criticised for being to unfavourable to the licensee, which is why anti-UCITA legislation exists.

Each jurisdiction (damn that word) has slightly different rules for how the court operates, what is allowable, etc. At present there just is not enough information to make an informed guess as to what will happen.

Which is frustrating as all get out. Meanwhile I'll keep on using Zotero. It's a great addon, and it makes my writing a lot easier.

Charlie Demerjian

2009-06-08T16:54:00.000-04:00

Have some interesting news. Charlie Demerjian, ranter par excellence has left The Inquirer and founded his own new site, Semi Accurate :: News for the Everygeek. Guess my last reason for reading The Inquirer is now gone. The same thing happened to it's predecessor (heck, the only reason I go to The Register website at all is to get my BOFH fix.

Notice how many news sources have stopped delivering anything other than pablum? It's advertising. To attract advertising they tone down what made the sites interesting in the first place, and then loose readers. I wonder that the advertisers don't have the brains to figure this out.

Oh, and guess who the biggest advertiser is? Yep. A certain convicted monopolist in Redmond. And the second biggest is also a convicted monopolist. The very companies that would be the targets of much of the more interesting rants. Is it any wonder that sites have to tone down their coverage?

Smart Phone Death Match

2009-06-08T09:18:00.000-04:00

You know, I've been doing a lot of thinking. I said a while back that I really don't think that the Pre is going to sell well. I think I need to qualify this statement considerably. When I say that I don't think the Pre is going to sell well, I'm comparing it to the IPhone. The IPhone has sold spectacularly well, and the IPod Touch has had a halo affect on IPhone sales (same OS, same apps). The Pre doesn't have that. Also the current Pre is CDMA only. It will sell in the US. Palm could sell it in Canada too, and probably will, but most of the rest of the world is GSM, and unless they have a GSM version, they have no hope of matching IPhone sales.

And of course my definition of "selling well" may not be the same as Palm's definition. Say Palm needs to sell 250,000 units per year to make a profit, and save the company. If that's what they need, and they make or exceed that level, then they are doing well, even if their sales are no where near as good as Apple's are with the IPhone.

And of course there's the question of whether the Pre was ever meant to be competition to the IPhone. Maybe it was aimed at RIM instead, and if so, comparing it to the IPhone isn't fair. Maybe it was aimed at Windows Mobile and Symbian. I spent some time trying to remember exactly what the folks at Palm said, and I didn't remember any of them specifically saying that the Pre was aimed at the IPhone. I do remember most of the usual suspects saying that, but we know how accurate they can be - several of them said that Apple was planning to sell 1 million IPhones on the first weekend it was available, when Apple hadn't even built a million phones for the launch.

So is the Pre designed to compete directly with the IPhone? I went to Palm's web page, read the features and specifications, and my conclusion is that it isn't. What it's designed to compete with is Blackberry and WinMobile phones, and against them, it has some real advantages. Oh, Palm wasn't shy about borrowing things from Apple, like the touch screen, or the Apps store. But let's face it, considering what a success the IPhone has been, anyone who doesn't borrow things from Apple would have to be an idiot.

So, yes, I think that the Pre, based on it's own merits, should sell quite well. Palm won't sell as many phones as Apple. But Palm probably doesn't need to sell as many phones as Apple did to have a hit. Hell, Apple probably didn't need to sell as many phones as they did to have a hit (not that you hear them complaining).

Will Palm be able to sell enough phones to stay in business? I don't know. I hope so. Apple and RIM need competition badly. I don't know if any of you have used a Blackberry. I have. They are a terrible phone. And the keyboard? It's total crap. If Palm can take some market share from RIM, RIM will have to get off their duffs and do something. Apple hasn't shown any signs of getting fat and stupid yet, but the competition they've had has been so incompetent, that I wouldn't blame them if they did. So I hope that the Pre helps Sprint keep customers who might otherwise switch to AT&T for the IPhone. Apple needs competition. And while the Pre doesn't really direct competition with the IPhone on features and capabilities, it looks like a hell of a lot better phone than anyone else has come up with so far.

The real loser will be WinMobile. If you compare a Pre with a WinMobile phone, the Pre looks incredible, and since it has the corporate Outlook/Exchange features, who needs a Windows phone?

As to Android, I don't see the Pre and the Android phones as competitors. Pre is going to be business phone. Android is going to be a consumer phone, thanks to the Google name. That said, while Android and the IPhone are both consumer phones, they don't really compete, and neither competes with the Pre. Where it gets interesting is that all of them encroach on WinMobile territory, and all of them attract new users to smart phones, but for different reasons.

It should be interesting seeing how it all works out. After all, Nokia isn't going to roll over and play dead, nor is Sony Erricson, or HTC, or for that matter Microsoft (though their financial issues may limit their capabilities). And you can bet that RIM is making it's plans. Jim Balsillie needs lots of money for his attempt to bring an NHL team to Hamilton Ontario, and RIM is the foundation of his fortune.

Oh Hell

2009-06-07T16:46:00.001-04:00

You know there are some things that really piss me off. Some goof ball using the name "Yggdrasil" posted a comment to my article Trolls and Linux and the rotten little son of a bitch had the gall to call me sensitive!

Actually I find it quite funny. I write about trolls, and lo and behold, Yggie, a fairly well known troll shows up, and proceeds to write a pro-Microsoft screed which accuses me of being dishonest. Think of the odds. I write something critical of Microsoft, on a blog that almost no one knows exists besides a few friends. It gets one mention on a relatively popular site, and I get a pro-Microsoft troll popping up the next day. A fairly well known troll. What does this tell you?

It tells me that no dissent is tolerated. If you are anti-Microsoft, and you get noticed, someone takes action. Someone proceeds to tell you why you are wrong, what you should think, what is allowed and what isn't.

And the evidence is of this everywhere. The Inquirer used to publish a lot of articles critical of Microsoft. After Mike Magee sold The Inquirer, the articles critical of Microsoft dropped off dramatically. Even Charlie Demerjian, one of the best writers at The Inq no longer calls out Microsoft as often, and as hard as he used to (I have no doubt that Charlie will disagree with me on this, and yes, I will let him know that I wrote it). Also check out the comments to the few stories which aren't complementary about Microsoft. The trolls are our in force for every one.

The Register also used to be independent. In the early years, it was very critical of Microsoft, it no longer is. It still publishes The Bastard Operator from Hell but The Reg is but a milksop these days.

Carla Schroder mentions trolls in her CV:

It was not always easy; you definitely need a thick skin in the FOSS world. It's a self-selected group, so it's chock-full of mavericks, the socially-inept, just plain trolls, and all manner of folks who don't understand the importance of courtesy and respect. But these are not representative of the excellent people who really do things. The best FOSS people are polite and pleasant. I do not believe that anyone is so invaluable and indispensable that they can be excused from common courtesy. The world itself is full of mean people, and there is no remedy other than learning how to deal with it. Girls are still often raised to be passive doormats, and they are not taught how to set and achieve goals, or that they are even worthy of going after what they really want. There are no shortcuts; all we can do is dig in, do our best, and not allow the naysayers to derail us.

In the article that started this, Carla got 58 comments. They are interesting reading, and proof that her article is accurate. Ken at the Helios Project has also noticed the trolls, and that they are getting worse.

Now I don't hang out at Paul Thurrott's Windows Super Site. Why would I? I don't use Windows. So why do so many Windows users show up on Linux blogs? Insecurity. They've spent years trying to keep Windows running, through blue screens of death and other disasters, and now they've got to try to make the rest of us put up with the same shit? Are they crazy. Well, yes, They have to be. Either than or they are still living in their parent's basements, and have nothing else to do with their time.

And they reflect the company. Which reflects it's founder. Lazy. Insecure. Greedy.

That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

Tech-No-Media Bovine Excrement (I'm trying to be polite)

2009-06-06T11:47:00.000-04:00

Erlik over at Tech-No-Media just published a post, that looked like it halfway made sense. Up until he wrote "Part fo the success of Netbooks" at which point he went off into fantasy land.

Well, me being me, I had to correct him. And looking at it before I posted it, I decided I liked it, so here it is.

*****

Part of the success of Netbooks is due to the fact that since they ran Windows some consumers have purchased them as the replacement for a full sized laptop.

Pardon Erlik, but you must have been asleep for a good bit of the last couple of years. Netbooks were a success long before Microsoft even noticed that the form factor existed.

Netbooks were a success in spite of Microsoft, not because. Before Microsoft noticed the Netbook market, viruses weren't a problem, Netbooks ran faster, Netbooks didn't have a registry, and so on and so on.

Microsoft's entry into the Netbook OS market was the worst thing to happen to Netbooks.

Just wait. I predict that within 18 months, Microsoft will panic, and start trying to sell Windows CE for ARM based Netbooks. I'm not sure if there's a MIPS version of Windows CE, if there is, they'll offer it for MIPS as well. Microsoft is trying to make everyone think that ARM and MIPS based Netbooks aren't real computers. Well, consumers aren't stupid. They know a computer when they see one, and a computer with a 6 hour battery life that sells for less than $200.00 is a dream come true.

I also bet that we will see 10", 12", and 14" screens on ARM and MIPS powered Netbooks within the year, as the vendors producing them try to take market share from the big Notebook OEMS.

You just watch. Microsoft may think that they've made a smart move, but since Windows XP doesn't run on ARM or MIPS, they've just shot themselves in the foot, because unlike Dell, Acer, Lenovo, etc. most of the makers of the ARM and MIPS based devices aren't current Windows licensees, and Microsoft has no hold on them.

Trolls and Linux

2009-06-06T02:18:00.000-04:00

I was reading an article by Carla Schroder titled "Don't Get Me Wrong, Linux Sucks as Much as Windows". Carla has seen an upswing in the number of trolls, many pretending to be Linux users.

Really, it's not surprising. It's easier for Microsoft to encourage trolls, than it is to fix the problems with Windows, which are of their own making. I'd go into detail, but it's nearly 2:30, and I have yard work to do tomorrow!

But I liked the comment I posted to that article, so I decided I'd post it here as well.

By the way, I love Carla's writing, and recommend her articles highly.

*****

Carla,

This is not at all surprising. Entrepreneur shape their corporations in their own image. Some times this is good. Some times this is bad. Microsoft is a good example of an entrepreneur who is insecure, greedy, and lazy. This evaluation is based on Microsoft's actions as a corporation (I have never meet Bill Gates).

Microsoft holds 90 percent of operating system pre-installs. But it is afraid of Linux (and it was afraid of Netscape, and is deathly afraid of Apple). Why? Considering their market share, Linux should be a minor irritant. Instead you get things like the "Get the Facts Campaign", which was so totally ludicrous that they dropped it. But they dropped long after the damage was done - they made themselves a laughing stock with that campaign.

Another example is the "Laptop Hunters" campaign. Why is Microsoft so scared of Apple? Apple's market share is so small, that the company is only a pimple on the face of IT. True, it's an expanding pimple, but 6 percent? Why even dignify it with a response? Because they don't think they can compete with Apple. Heck, look at the Amazon top 100 list of computers. About the only ones that sell for more than $1000,00 are made by Apple. Microsoft doesn't think that they can deliver an operating system that will make a computer worth more that $1000,00 to consumers.

And then there's ODF support, or should I say lack of support. Microsoft is the only ODF implementer that messed up the implementation. It wasn't for lack of talent, Microsoft has talented employees. Microsoft is scared of ODF, because it can be used (in implemented by a company that isn't deliberately trying to break it) in a wide range of software. No Lock-In. Microsoft doesn't want this. They want people to use Microsoft XML (Microsoft calls it Office Open XML, but while it may be used by Office, it isn't Open since it's impossible for anyone else to implement). If they are using Microsoft XML, they are locked into Microsoft Office. They are scared that given the option, people will use software from other vendors. They are so insecure that they don't believe that they can compete in the Office Suite market without lock in.

Microsoft doesn't want component manufacturers to release their hardware specifications. If component manufacturers do release the specifications, another operating system might be able to use that hardware, and Microsoft doesn't believe that they can compete in the operating system market. So the company tries to avoid having to compete, but making it hard for other operating systems to use the hardware.

Microsoft is greedy. Why would a company sell a sub-standard operating system (Windows Vista 7 for Netbooks) and encourage people to upgrade? Who would produce six different versions of the same operating system, with different capabilities, using 99.99% the same source code, and prices ranging from $114.00 to $340.00? Greed.

Again, Microsoft is greedy. When they eliminated floppy disks as an install medium for compact discs the price of Windows increased, even though the install medium price dropped dramatically.

Microsoft is lazy. Why offer 6 versions of desktop Windows, and 4 or 5 versions of Server Windows, all of which use virtually the same source code? Often the only difference between versions is that one version has an artificial limit of some sort (such as number of users) while the next one doesn't. But it's easier to do that, than to design something that truly is different, with new features that would attract more customers.

Microsoft is lazy. Rather than producing the best operating system in the world, one that would have users beating a path to their door, they produce an operating system that is pedestrian, and then try to block anyone else from the market by exclusionary deals and "Marketing Bonuses".

And of course we have the Internet. Microsoft would rather pay trolls to trash Linux and OSX, rather than producing something that is so much better than Linux or OSX, that you'd be crazy to use either. They would rather use advertising money to "bend editorial views" than produce something that reviewers would love.

With the amount of talent that Microsoft employs, they should be able to totally blow away Apple, totally blow away Linux, and make users so happy that they'd be crazy to use anything other than Windows. They could do this. But they are too insecure, too greedy, and too lazy to do this.

And if they don't change, it is going to kill the company. Read their SEC filings, the company is in bad shape. Not as bad as GM or Chrysler, but unless something is done, the company is headed for deep trouble. The current management team is a large part of this, They were hand picked by the company founder, and reflect his views. Steve Ballmer is a good salesman. He might be a great salesman. But as a company manager, he's terrible.

So, yes. You get a lot of trolls. People who say, "I've been running Linux for 5 years, and it's really not that good," because Microsoft would rather encourage trolls, than make a great product. If you check the Apple news sources and blogs, you see the exact same sort of posts, stating that OSX just doesn't work as well as Windows, that it doesn't support the right software, that it isn't really reliable, etc. Whether it's Linux or Apple that they are attacking, all of these people are lying. The proof is in the targets. Microsoft thinks that Apple and Linux are dangerous. They don't think that the BSD based operating systems are, so they don't get attacked in the same way, or at the same level. They don't think that Solaris is dangerous either, and you'll note in the Solaris blogs that you don't see this sort of attack very much either. You will if they decide either BSD or Solaris is dangerous.

And it's a terrible waste. Because Microsoft, if it wanted, could produce something fantastic. They have the talent. They have the capabilities. They don't have the drive.

Until they get the drive, I'll avoid using Microsoft products, and I'll advise others not to. And when I see trolls, I'll fight them in the forums. I hate dishonesty.

Reuters Lawsuit Against Zotero Dismissed

2009-06-05T21:56:00.000-04:00

This is an important case. Very important.

On one side, we have a major media conglomerate, part of which is a news service. We have all heard of the financial problems that traditional news media have been having recently (at least I hope we all have).

Thomson Reuters (Scientific) Inc. launched a lawsuit against George Mason University The Citizen Media Law Project has copies of the filings here. George Mason University's "Center for History and New Media" had developed a really neat Firefox add-on called Zotero. Zotero is a research tool which is really useful for writers in particular (and now you know what I use). Thomson Reuters was upset because an Alpha version of Zotero had the ability to read the data files of their own EndNote product, a commercial product that competes with Zotero. This functionality was apparently never released in a production version. A complication is that the University has a site license for EndNote.

Today one of the co-directors of the Zotero project, Sean Takats, announced in a blog post, that the case has been dismissed. As of the present time the Judge's order hasn't been posted, and we don't know why he issued a dismissal. And in this case the reasoning is very important.

The entire case appears to be an attack by Thomson Reuters on several fronts:

1) reverse engineering
2) providing a free alternative to proprietary software
3) money against an educational institution
4) intimidation of an educational institution

I am hoping (and a lot of others are as well) that the judge dismissed the case with prejudice, and wrote a scathing attack against Thomson Reuters, who in my opinion acted like a spoiled brat, rather than a responsible corporation in bring this suit.

As I said - this case is important. If the judge dumps on Thomson Reuters actions, it will send a message to other corporate spoiled brats. If he doesn't, it encourages the corporate spoiled brats to act like, well, spoiled brats. Stay tuned, I will be blogging on the dismissal when it's posted.

And the University shouldn't renew it's site license for EndNote, no matter why the case was dismissed.

Asshitiated Press gets ready to go one a rampage

2009-06-03T19:42:00.000-04:00

Arts Technica reports that Asshitiated Press (yes, I do know how to properly spell their name - it's just that I think my spelling is more appropriate) intends to go on a rampage, attacking the billions of web sites that are using "Their Content" in manners that are not consonant with Fair Use.

This has been going on for over a year now, and management at the Asshitiated Press appears to be technical and legal morons. Hell, calling them morons is insulting to morons.

And then we hear all about the plans to make many of the main news sites pay.

The news industry seems intent on destroying themselves in a spectacular and stupid manner. Here's to seeing management walking the picket lines for the next millenia, while the reporters get hired immediately.