"Microsoft agrees not to influence technology decisions of European digital cable operators The European Commission has carried out an investigation into the investments of US software company Microsoft Corp in the European digital cable television industry. This was to ensure that the technology decisions of cable operators are made on merit and that suppliers of set-top box technology can compete with Microsoft on equal terms. The investigation will be closed now that Microsoft and its strategic allies have agreed to abolish or change their so-called "Technology Boards" so that the latter's recommendations are no longer binding."
The Sony rootkit is a good point, since Symantec agreed not to detect it.
"The creator of the copy-protection software, a British company called First 4 Internet, said the cloaking mechanism was not a risk, and that its team worked closely with big antivirus companies such as Symantec to ensure that was the case. The cloaking function was aimed at making it difficult, though not impossible, to hack the content protection in ways that have been simple in similar products, the company said."
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200511131 64717817&query=symantec
I'm pretty sure BetaNews is either run/populated by Microsoft employees or Waggener Edstrom employees. Read their stories on the European Commission v Microsoft.
"If MS wants to keep that going having a completely open spec format kinda limits their "keep buying Word, or you wont be compatible" argument. There has to be another reason but it eludes me."
Perhaps you haven't heard, but OOXML is not anywhere near an open standard. Google: autoSpaceLikeWord95 (...how exactly do you autoSpaceLikeWord95? Decompile Word 95 on Windows 95? Where do you get these programs?), VML (is that even implementable outside of Windows and Internet Explorer? oops!), WMF (ditto), and "referenced" patents. MS is even employing Linux companies to write "translators" that can never fully implement OOXML because of these intentional problems. Just read the Halloween documents where MS says they need to innovate above standards (embrace + extend) or some Comes v MS documents. Google "Microsoft on standards". http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/01/microsoft-on-s tandards.html
I'll have to say, so many people are falling for the Open Office, er, I mean Office Open XML "standard" that MS's PR firm must have been paid very well.
From the OOXML patent promise:
"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 a Covered Specification (Covered Implementation), subject to the following. 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 such Covered Specification, then this personal promise does not apply with respect to any Covered Implementation of the same Covered Specification 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 only the required portions of the Covered Specification that are described in detail and not merely referenced in such Specification. Covered Specifications are listed below.
This promise is not an assurance either (i) that any of Microsofts issued patent claims covers a Covered Implementation or are enforceable or (ii) that 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."
Oh, you mean VML is only referenced and therefore not covered by the patent promise, at the same time MS is throwing their patents around Linux? Too bad it's inherently part of the OOXML spec....
"Journals (Science [biggest journal, of the America Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)], and Nature) have prohibited taking OOXML documents, because they do not correspond to existing standards such as MathML and SVG and are not backwards compatible to Word 2003 and previous. Compatibility packs do not even help.[2][3] As Microsoft will stop selling Word 2003 by July 1, 2007[4], this is a very bad precedent for future-proofing documents.
1] http://www.sciencemag.org/about/authors/prep/docx. dtl "Because of changes Microsoft has made in its recent Word release that are incompatible with our internal workflow, which was built around previous versions of the software, Science cannot at present accept any files in the new.docx format produced through Microsoft Word 2007, either for initial submission or for revision. Users of this release of Word should convert these files to a format compatible with Word 2003 or Word for Macintosh 2004 (or, for initial submission, to a PDF file) before submitting to Science"
"Because of changes Microsoft has made in its recent Word release that are incompatible with our internal workflow, which was built around previous versions of the software, Science cannot at present accept any files in the new.docx format produced through Microsoft Word 2007, either for initial submission or for revision."
"Users of Word 2007 should also be aware that equations created with the default equation editor included in Microsoft Word 2007 will be unacceptable in revision, even if the file is converted to a format compatible with earlier versions of Word; this is because conversion will render equations as graphics and prevent electronic printing of equations, and because the default equation editor packaged with Word 2007 -- for reasons that, quite frankly, utterly baffle us -- was not designed to be compatible with MathML."
Nature's analysis of OOXML: "We currently cannot accept files saved in Microsoft Office 2007 formats. Equations and special characters (for example, Greek letters) cannot be edited and are incompatible with Nature's own editing and typesetting programs"
Only essential software patent rights from a *contributor* are given for GPL use in the GPLv3. So if Apple was just distributing the GPLv3 code, nothing bad would happen to them.
Further, MS didn't accept significant changes when they pushed it through ECMA. Now that they're *Fast-tracking* it through ISO, how exactly how are they going to make changes to the hundreds of contradictions already found when they haven't already changed anything? The vote is set for August, I believe.
ODF will define spreadsheet formulas, in the next version. And come on, the "IBM conspiracy" take from MS is really lame since OOXML is the one with proprietary patented extensions.
I'll take any open standards company I can get, personally.
Yeah, except Novell made money and sales from MS's FUD _to their own product_. They use code from other companies under the GPL and sold them out (their suppliers! talk about suicide), without even consulting with those copyright holders as to whether it violated the GPL, like the FSF and IBM. They established a huge precedent for MS that you see with Linspire and Xandros.
The MS-Novell marketing budget involved FUD towards Red Hat and the May 2007 Fortune magazine article about patents in Linux.
The FSF threw a wrench in that plan.
Except...the GPLv3 relies on copyright law. So you can thank the RIAA for giving them such good weapons like contributory infringement to fight with:)
Copyleft is only as viral as copyright.
Most of the 2002 settlement expires this November. Even Eben Moglen said that the only way to stop Microsoft is with the GPLv3 and the European Commission.
BTW, Microsoft could easily pull Office from the Mac and kill Apple, like they threatened in the mid-90s (unless they complied to install Internet Explorer to kill Netscape)
They got a pass in several cases. The early 90s dead locked FTC investigation. Then the 1994 investigation into per-processor fees, lawsuit against them for Intuit, etc.
I think you'll find that Judge Aaron Sporkin was absolutely correct that the Consent Decree of 95 did nothing at all to restore competition. Same with the 2002 Consent Decree. Microsoft still kills Linux through "Marketing Development Agreements", which are like per processor fees. And they can still employ the latter on system models, which is why Dell has to employ a completely separate model to sell Ubuntu, due to contracts. OEMs have even said that MS's contracts got MORE restrictive after the 2002 settlement.
It's called barriers to entry and network effects. Microsoft employs these anti-competitive tactics frequently. _There is no free market with a monopoly_ and MS reduces innovation while they hold the cards. The European Commission was convinced of this when Jeremy Allison of Samba testified that Microsoft worked with them up until 1998, when GNU/Linux became a threat. MS consistently only uses open standards when they need to get into a market, then they embrace and extend their way to kill competitors. They did it with CIFS and Active Directory, which Samba only partially implements.
BTW, Microsoft worked very hard to increase barriers to entry via increasing the applications barrier to entry, killing Netscape and polluting Java so that only Windows reigns. Microsoft has also referred to themselves as a natural monopoly in court exhibits (comparing themselves to AT&T-- what, they can't take the regulation that position comes with), and the "there can only be one company" quote from Bill Gates in a show on Gary Kildall.
Never mind that the only time MS has reduced prices is when there's competition. Compare prices in the Western World to their "3$" Windows, EDGI discounts to third world governments, instructing Dell and Intel to kill Linux in 2000 (After antitrust), etc. They simply don't care and they must be regulated or broken up. They're a drain on the world's economy.
Except for all the software in SLES that was "GPLv2 or any later version"; except the fact that the FSF already had GPLv3 Draft 2 printed up? Except for the fact the contract at Groklaw and the coupons refer to a product known as "SLES" and _updates_ for the software, and that the coupons MSFT sold and got revenue from have no expiry date?
Yes, it is certainly negligence on the part.
Best scenario: MSFT renounces the patent deal and LEAVES the GNU/Linux revenue stream as long as they don't want to comply with the GPL. That will certainly get them into compliance.
Anyway you're wrong about GPLv3 btw, Samba's already GPLv3, GNU tools, several other Linux apps, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it's cause MS paid them to be idiots. Money's funny that way... Too bad the trust-busters aren't around anymore.
Microsoft actually got in trouble for this type of behavior in Europe.
e rence=IP/01/569&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&gui Language=en
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?ref
"Microsoft agrees not to influence technology decisions of European digital cable operators
The European Commission has carried out an investigation into the investments of US software company Microsoft Corp in the European digital cable television industry. This was to ensure that the technology decisions of cable operators are made on merit and that suppliers of set-top box technology can compete with Microsoft on equal terms. The investigation will be closed now that Microsoft and its strategic allies have agreed to abolish or change their so-called "Technology Boards" so that the latter's recommendations are no longer binding."
The Sony rootkit is a good point, since Symantec agreed not to detect it. "The creator of the copy-protection software, a British company called First 4 Internet, said the cloaking mechanism was not a risk, and that its team worked closely with big antivirus companies such as Symantec to ensure that was the case. The cloaking function was aimed at making it difficult, though not impossible, to hack the content protection in ways that have been simple in similar products, the company said." http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200511131 64717817&query=symantec
I'm pretty sure BetaNews is either run/populated by Microsoft employees or Waggener Edstrom employees. Read their stories on the European Commission v Microsoft.
Nevermind programs like "EDGI" that MS funds, from Comes v Microsoft. They pay for things as far-fetched as schools as long as you buy MS software.
l s=en&hs=WIw&q=edgi+site%3Aedge-op.org+schools&btnG =Search
l s=en&hs=WIw&q=edgi+site%3Aedge-op.org&btnG=Search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=opera&r
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=opera&r
Sharepoint? Use O3Spaces for OpenOffice.org. There's alternatives for *everything* these days.
"If MS wants to keep that going having a completely open spec format kinda limits their "keep buying Word, or you wont be compatible" argument. There has to be another reason but it eludes me."
s tandards.html
Perhaps you haven't heard, but OOXML is not anywhere near an open standard. Google: autoSpaceLikeWord95 (...how exactly do you autoSpaceLikeWord95? Decompile Word 95 on Windows 95? Where do you get these programs?), VML (is that even implementable outside of Windows and Internet Explorer? oops!), WMF (ditto), and "referenced" patents. MS is even employing Linux companies to write "translators" that can never fully implement OOXML because of these intentional problems. Just read the Halloween documents where MS says they need to innovate above standards (embrace + extend) or some Comes v MS documents. Google "Microsoft on standards". http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/01/microsoft-on-
I'll have to say, so many people are falling for the Open Office, er, I mean Office Open XML "standard" that MS's PR firm must have been paid very well.
From the OOXML patent promise:
"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 a Covered Specification (Covered Implementation), subject to the following. 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 such Covered Specification, then this personal promise does not apply with respect to any Covered Implementation of the same Covered Specification 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 only the required portions of the Covered Specification that are described in detail and not merely referenced in such Specification. Covered Specifications are listed below.
This promise is not an assurance either (i) that any of Microsofts issued patent claims covers a Covered Implementation or are enforceable or (ii) that 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."
Oh, you mean VML is only referenced and therefore not covered by the patent promise, at the same time MS is throwing their patents around Linux? Too bad it's inherently part of the OOXML spec....
"Journals (Science [biggest journal, of the America Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)], and Nature) have prohibited taking OOXML documents, because they do not correspond to existing standards such as MathML and SVG and are not backwards compatible to Word 2003 and previous. Compatibility packs do not even help.[2][3] As Microsoft will stop selling Word 2003 by July 1, 2007[4], this is a very bad precedent for future-proofing documents.
. dtl "Because of changes Microsoft has made in its recent Word release that are incompatible with our internal workflow, which was built around previous versions of the software, Science cannot at present accept any files in the new .docx format produced through Microsoft Word 2007, either for initial submission or for revision. Users of this release of Word should convert these files to a format compatible with Word 2003 or Word for Macintosh 2004 (or, for initial submission, to a PDF file) before submitting to Science"
.docx format produced through Microsoft Word 2007, either for initial submission or for revision."
p -marked-down.html "Math markup marked down"0 07/06/04/scientists_hold_off_on_that_upgrade_to_of fice_2007.html
p plications/the_pointless_office_converter_delay.ht ml "The Pointless Office Converter Delay"
1] http://www.sciencemag.org/about/authors/prep/docx
"Because of changes Microsoft has made in its recent Word release that are incompatible with our internal workflow, which was built around previous versions of the software, Science cannot at present accept any files in the new
"Users of Word 2007 should also be aware that equations created with the default equation editor included in Microsoft Word 2007 will be unacceptable in revision, even if the file is converted to a format compatible with earlier versions of Word; this is because conversion will render equations as graphics and prevent electronic printing of equations, and because the default equation editor packaged with Word 2007 -- for reasons that, quite frankly, utterly baffle us -- was not designed to be compatible with MathML."
[3]http://www.robweir.com/blog/2007/04/math-marku
http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/12608/1023/
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/archives/2
Nature's analysis of OOXML:
"We currently cannot accept files saved in Microsoft Office 2007 formats. Equations and special characters (for example, Greek letters) cannot be edited and are incompatible with Nature's own editing and typesetting programs"
[4] http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=519 "July 1: No more Office 2003 for OEMs" by Mary Jo Foley"
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/business_a
"Two important Microsoft topics--interoperability and Office file formats--intersect on the Mac desktop, and they brutally cross like swords.
Two weeks ago, Microsoft broke a promise made in December: The spring beta release of OOXML (Office Open XML) converters for Mac Office. "
Can't be GPLv3, it's (L)GPLv2 only
Only essential software patent rights from a *contributor* are given for GPL use in the GPLv3. So if Apple was just distributing the GPLv3 code, nothing bad would happen to them.
The GPLs all say "in the same spirit". Therefore, you could sue them if they change it to a closed source license or something like that.
webmin generally has a good UI for apache
Further, MS didn't accept significant changes when they pushed it through ECMA. Now that they're *Fast-tracking* it through ISO, how exactly how are they going to make changes to the hundreds of contradictions already found when they haven't already changed anything? The vote is set for August, I believe.
ODF will define spreadsheet formulas, in the next version. And come on, the "IBM conspiracy" take from MS is really lame since OOXML is the one with proprietary patented extensions. I'll take any open standards company I can get, personally.
Yeah..the GPLv3 wasn't already in Draft 2 while Novell and MS were plotting to take on the free world. Idjit.
Yeah, except Novell made money and sales from MS's FUD _to their own product_. They use code from other companies under the GPL and sold them out (their suppliers! talk about suicide), without even consulting with those copyright holders as to whether it violated the GPL, like the FSF and IBM. They established a huge precedent for MS that you see with Linspire and Xandros. The MS-Novell marketing budget involved FUD towards Red Hat and the May 2007 Fortune magazine article about patents in Linux. The FSF threw a wrench in that plan.
Except...the GPLv3 relies on copyright law. So you can thank the RIAA for giving them such good weapons like contributory infringement to fight with :)
Copyleft is only as viral as copyright.
Most of the 2002 settlement expires this November. Even Eben Moglen said that the only way to stop Microsoft is with the GPLv3 and the European Commission. BTW, Microsoft could easily pull Office from the Mac and kill Apple, like they threatened in the mid-90s (unless they complied to install Internet Explorer to kill Netscape)
They got a pass in several cases. The early 90s dead locked FTC investigation. Then the 1994 investigation into per-processor fees, lawsuit against them for Intuit, etc. I think you'll find that Judge Aaron Sporkin was absolutely correct that the Consent Decree of 95 did nothing at all to restore competition. Same with the 2002 Consent Decree. Microsoft still kills Linux through "Marketing Development Agreements", which are like per processor fees. And they can still employ the latter on system models, which is why Dell has to employ a completely separate model to sell Ubuntu, due to contracts. OEMs have even said that MS's contracts got MORE restrictive after the 2002 settlement.
It's called barriers to entry and network effects. Microsoft employs these anti-competitive tactics frequently. _There is no free market with a monopoly_ and MS reduces innovation while they hold the cards. The European Commission was convinced of this when Jeremy Allison of Samba testified that Microsoft worked with them up until 1998, when GNU/Linux became a threat. MS consistently only uses open standards when they need to get into a market, then they embrace and extend their way to kill competitors. They did it with CIFS and Active Directory, which Samba only partially implements. BTW, Microsoft worked very hard to increase barriers to entry via increasing the applications barrier to entry, killing Netscape and polluting Java so that only Windows reigns. Microsoft has also referred to themselves as a natural monopoly in court exhibits (comparing themselves to AT&T-- what, they can't take the regulation that position comes with), and the "there can only be one company" quote from Bill Gates in a show on Gary Kildall. Never mind that the only time MS has reduced prices is when there's competition. Compare prices in the Western World to their "3$" Windows, EDGI discounts to third world governments, instructing Dell and Intel to kill Linux in 2000 (After antitrust), etc. They simply don't care and they must be regulated or broken up. They're a drain on the world's economy.
Except for all the software in SLES that was "GPLv2 or any later version"; except the fact that the FSF already had GPLv3 Draft 2 printed up? Except for the fact the contract at Groklaw and the coupons refer to a product known as "SLES" and _updates_ for the software, and that the coupons MSFT sold and got revenue from have no expiry date? Yes, it is certainly negligence on the part. Best scenario: MSFT renounces the patent deal and LEAVES the GNU/Linux revenue stream as long as they don't want to comply with the GPL. That will certainly get them into compliance. Anyway you're wrong about GPLv3 btw, Samba's already GPLv3, GNU tools, several other Linux apps, etc.