According to Reuters, Apple and Microsoft (among others) are pushing for extended patent protection. They argue that they need broader protection to stop Open Source companies that make their money from services instead of software sales from stealing their “innovations”. The ironic thing is that Apple didn’t mind taking from the Open Source community when it based OSX on FreeBSD, and they also didn’t mind when they based their Safari web browser on KDE’s (One of Linux’s most popular graphical user interfaces) KHTML rendering engine. Now they want protection from Open Source companies? I’m not overly fond of Microsoft, but at least they never claimed they like and support Open Source in business.

Let us look at some facts here, neither Apple or Microsoft invented the Graphical User Interface, neither invented TCP/IP (the protocol used by the Internet and most networks), in fact Microsoft’s early TCP/IP implementation was said to be pulled out of BSD as well. Neither invented E-mail, Instant Messaging, web browsing, digital music and movies, spreadsheets, databases and all manner of other things we take for granted on our PC’s (In fact neither invented PC’s either). That’s right folks all of those REAL innovations were created by other people and companies and copied by Apple, Microsoft and pretty much everyone else. Fortunately the creators of these innovations were not as money grabbing as these two or there is a good chance that the modern PC would look very different from what you are reading this on. I’m saddened and disgusted at how our early pioneers have been replaced with money grabbing opportunists who appropriate the best ideas from others, but patent ever decent idea of their own (and from what I’ve seen they patent a good many bad ideas as well). The older I get, the more I think Richard Stallman might really be onto something.

If you find yourself wondering how software patents favour the big companies, consider that both Apple and Microsoft were very small companies once. Had they been told they had to pay millions in license fee’s to use a Graphical User Interface, or any of the other innovations mentioned above, would either of those companies be as big as they are now? In fact I’d go so far as to say that if GUI’s (for example) had huge patents attached to them, IBM would own most of the software industry as they were one of the very few that were already big enough to have paid big patent licence fees when the GUI was invented by a Xerox research lab.

Nokia is traditionally known for their mobile phones where they hold a significant lead over their competition in the cell phone marketplace. They are apparently looking to expand their horizon and are doing so with a fairly unusual new product. They have released details of the Nokia 770 which is a small touch screen tablet PC with a 4 inch (800×480) screen running a more or less standard desktop Linux. The primary use of said device is to use as an extra Internet device for broadband houses. It has Bluetooth and Wireless for connectivity. Software for the first version will include a browser, RSS reader, multi-media player, Internet radio and an image viewer, the software is apparently user upgradeable and future upgrades will include VOIP and Instant Messaging. Photos of the device have also been made available.

The way all the big cell phone and PDA manufacturers are jumping on Linux is truly astounding. I’d guess that in about 5 years Linux will hold a considerable piece of the market, Mostly due to the fact that there are no license costs owed to the likes of Microsoft because Linux is freely available and has proven to be a stable mature and open platform they can use as a base for their own applications.

Update: You can read an excellent review of a pre-production version of the 770 at jkOnTheRun.

According to Reuters, the FTC has asked 3000 Internet Service Providers (ISP’s) to block customers determined to be infected by Worms and Viruses. Since it is estimated that over 50% of SPAM is sent from infected computers unbeknownst to their owners, blocking them would significantly reduce SPAM and may also reduce the spread of such Viruses. Apparently 25 other countries will be taking part in the campaign so this might become something of a world wide issue before long. The benefits of such a campaign are not limited to a reduction in SPAM and Virus emails, it may also help to curb zombie armies of infected computers being used by unsavoury types to extort money from online retailers and gambling sites.

SecurityFocus’s Mark Rasch has written an article that talks about the legality of removing “Spyware” from users computers without first determining if it is part of a program that they downloaded and which they agreed should install the Spyware in question. It makes fascinating reading and could foreshadow future lawsuits. Basically what it comes down to, is if you download an “adware” program off the net, and while installing it you click “I agree” to the license agreement, and that agreement happens to contain clauses that state you agree to have specific Spyware installed or that you agree to a certain amount of monitoring, is it legal to use an anti Spyware program to cancel your side of the agreement by deleting the Spyware component? The problem is made worse by indistinct and ever changing definitions of Adware and Spyware. In it’s simplest terms, most agree that Spyware is any software that does something they don’t tell you about, but most companies accused of being Spyware providers have different opinions on the subject and there is not yet any industry wide consensus, (Though the US government is making progress defining the legality of it.) Anybody that values their privacy online should read Mark’s column to get an idea of how serious the problem really is.

Microsoft is not having a good time of it in the EU lately. First comes the news that IBM, Nokia, Oracle, RealNetworks and Redhat, under the guise of the “European Committee for Interoperable Systems” or ECIS have been permitted to take part in the Microsoft/EU antitrust case. All of these companies have good reasons to fight for an open interoperable market as they are all Microsoft competitors in one way or another. Microsoft proved with Internet Explorer that including the software with Windows means the majority of people don’t look at alternatives. IE was the underdog for it’s first few versions, and then Microsoft included version 3 with Windows 95B and all of a sudden IE popularity sky-rocketed. It’s a proven theory and it’s the reason the likes of RealNetworks will fight to open up the standards so they can’t be locked out of the Windows desktop market which is still by far the biggest player on the desktop scene.

Microsoft went to a great deal of effort to settle with many of the litigants like Novell, CCIA and Sun, and they spent a considerable amount of money doing so. They can’t be happy that the other side has had such a boost as it looked for a little while that RealNetworks would be more or less alone on the other side for a while. Intervenors, as ECIS are in this case are limited somewhat in what they can do, in this case they have access to the courts files and are able to submit written appraisals of ongoing court discussions. That doesn’t really amount to very much, however since these are the types of companies that the EU is trying to help (along with local software companies), the court is likely to give some credence to their thoughts on the subject. I’m curious to know what effect the news of Microsoft’s OneCare Anti-Virus/Anti-Spyware subscription service will have as that new service is likely to annoy a whole new group of software companies. How much they are annoyed will no doubt be determined by how deeply Microsoft embed the service into their next versions of Windows, but the EU might look at it as a sign of future discontent and that won’t look good for Microsoft.

In other EU/Microsoft news, Microsoft have until June the first to settle with the EU/EC over the antitrust sanctions that have been applied. If settlement cannot be reached in that time frame, the EU will start looking at imposing fines of up to 5 percent of Microsoft’s daily turnover, which could amount to 5 million dollars a day. The main sticking point for compliance appears to be license terms related to the Microsoft’s server protocols which Microsoft has been ordered to make available to competitors in the hope of fostering an open and interoperable server market. Microsoft made them available, but did so in such a manner that it was expensive, complicated and restrictive to get at, and use the data involved. They also did it in such a manner as to lock out their main competitor, Open Source software like Linux and Samba.

There are reports all over about Apple considering the use of Intel CPU’s in their Mac computers. While I’d consider this to be welcome news, I really suspect it is more for the purposes of gaining a price break then any serious consideration of Intel CPU’s. My reasoning behind that is simple, if Apple adopt x86 class CPU’s in their Macs, then they can kiss their Mac hardware monopoly goodbye. If OSX will run on x86 class systems, you can bet your behind that every hardware manufacturer will start selling “Mac compatible” systems. Especially since most Mac hardware nowadays uses the same video cards, hard disks, DVD drives and so on as standard Windows PC’s. There is another possible downside for Apple as well, if they use x86 based systems, then they could suffer from people installing Windows (I can’t imagine why anyone would substitute OSX with Windows, but there is no accounting for taste with some people) or Linux on Mac hardware. (Linux already runs on Mac hardware, but it isn’t anywhere near as popular as it is on x86 hardware.)

Were I to take a wild stab in the dark, I’d guess that this speculation is designed to get Apple a better price for IBM’s new Cell processor that is to be fitted in the Playstation 3 when it comes out. I imagine a multi core Cell processor Macintosh would finally give Apple the sort of performance they’ve been claiming to have for ages.

I cannot verify this with any degree of accuracy, but it looks legit. Microsoft Russia were apparently giving a presentation on SSI (Shared Source Initiative) when their Windows machine developed a problem of some sort and the presentation ground to a halt. A quick thinking presenter then fired up “Alt Linux Master 2.3” a Russian distribution on his laptop and used OpenOffice.org to finish the presentation. The photos of the incident look very convincing and the story has since been picked up by PCLinuxOnline and TheInquirer. If the story is true, I can’t see the Russians being all that impressed by the Microsoft sales pitch, especially in light of the fact that the source code for the copy of Linux and OpenOffice.org used is freely available without all the restrictions in Microsoft’s SSI agreement.