I am twitter and I agree with this post.

The Seattle Times wrote up the story of this extoriton. Of particular note is Microsoft lawyer Gutierez's response to Microsoft extoring HTC on April 27th:

HTC and Microsoft have a long history of technical and commercial collaboration, and today’s agreement is an example of how industry leaders can reach commercial arrangements that address intellectual property,

They had nothng to say about the news that Microsoft is officially a patent troll.

I wonder why Slashdot does not tag stories about Windows malware with "Windows". I know why ComputerWorld and other publishers that deal with WE and take Microsoft advertising money are cowed and don't Call Out Windows. Slashdot should be better than that.

I wonder why Slashdot does not tag stories about Windows malware with "Windows". I know why ComputerWorld and other publishers that deal with WE and take Microsoft advertising money are cowed and don't Call Out Windows. Slashdot should be better than that.

Thanks, Joe, for such amazing display of hypocrisy. Readers can tell for themselves what I wrote above and what they think about me if they care to make that an issue. People interested in the astroturf account jwilcox154 should visit my troll zoo. It is interesting that this account and the AC still follow me so closely though I have only posted in Slashdot a few times over the last two years.

Florian is not a normal Slashdot user. I have put together this time line of Microsoft patent extortion against free software and this analysis of Florian Mueller's defense of the same. Florian tries to portray Microsoft's use of patents as "cooperative" rather than exclusive. To do this he uses the term "livable" and spins any case where Microsoft cooperates with a rival as a case of common cause and beliefs. The above 16 stories in less than a year and Florian's defense of software patents speak for themselves.

US spectrum auctions are inherently corrupt and are a bad idea even if they were not. Google made one attempt to buy spectrum but was quickly out done by incumbents that conspired to keep them out by running up any bids made. Even if it were possible to prevent collusion, a highest bidder wins system will always lead to unreasonable prices.

The solution is an immediate deregulation of all spectrum because licensing is not necessary. See David Reed's Open Spectrum notes for more information.

It's also an article that fails to call out Windows. Directors Desk is run on Windows, so the violation is not so much a case of NASDAQ not being able to "secure their network" as it is a case of no one being able to secure Windows. Most people know by now that sane stock exchanges use GNU/Linux, so they might think this was a GNU/Linux problem. NASDAQ, being very Microsoft/Madoff/crook friendly, did not mention the OS of the failed application either. Perhaps they were belatedly ashamed of being dumb enough to use IIS.

What silme. Anonymous published their smear campaign in full already, including their little charts of who they think Anonymous is. Backing out of conferences will save them the embarrassment of having to answer questions and gives them a chance to smear Anonymous. Given that their primary smear technique was harassment, planting things to discredit and other agent provocateur slime, HGBary's claims of death threats carry no credibility.

We should look to the perspective of the victims to gauge things instead. Try this one on for size:

the revelation of terror tools used so brazenly against political opponents in the private corporate sector is disturbing, to say the least. While the notion of paid political operatives subversively using social media to discredit opponents has long been suspected by many, here we have evidence that these tactics are, in truth, fairly common among those who can afford to deploy them. That commenter who always shows up to hijack a comment thread on a specific topic may very well be working for $250/hour

What a bunch of unAmerican trashbags.

BP got the rewards but everyone else is stuck with the cost of their screw up. BP is paying pennies on the dollar to gulf coast residents for loss of business. They will pay nothing in long term health costs.

As a gulf coast resident and free software advocate who's worked for Fortune 100 companies, the role of Microsoft in Deepwater Horizon was not that surprising. I helped write this report about the problems BP had with Microsoft and other non free software and this follow up report when more details were revealed. I'll be looking closely at NOV. Their lack of cooperation is probably concealing more trouble with the system that's largely responsible for the disaster. Industry needs to dump Microsoft to avoid future calamities. BP technicians thought they were doing as much as they can to fix the problems but they were clearly taking risks they should not have been taking and their solution clearly would have lead to more of the same.

No thanks to yet another way to drive up the cost of free software. How else can Microsoft make distribution on shiny disks competitive again? Patent extortions? That's a whole other issue that strangely has help from ATT in Texas.

Thank you, hairyfeet, for pointing out the obvious anti-competitive nature of pay by the minute internet service. You might want to mention that cable companies already have all the bandwith anyone could want but they use 99% for pay per view movies and other rip off services.

Now, let's look at some possible solutions. Municiple networks and Open Spectrum are winners that make entertainment and telcos very nervous.

Municiple wires work well in Tacoma, Washington which only has 250,000 people, so it should work just about anywhere and it should. Almost all US cable networks were built with monopoly protection and have that obligation to the public.

Open Specturm and free software are really the only way to insure free speech in the future. If you haven't figured it out yet, non free software and network control are two sides of the same coin. It's about the power to shove adverts in your face and control public opinion about issues, just like the good old days of broadcast and switched networks. Only free software gives you control of your computer and only free networks let you share news and opinions with your neighbors. The rest resembles the old USSR more than anything else, the publisher's paradise. We already own what we need to stay free, all we lack is the collective knowledge and will to take it.

The authors of this work may believe that an open Internet will succeed on its merits alone. I don't. However we arrive at it, Network Neutrality is simply not negotiable.

Thank you for your partial quote of the document and your insightful commentary. If anything, "specialized services" are the things that might be granted an exception to rule by a liberal government. Neutral networks are what should be mandated but, as pointed out above, only a tiny fraction of available bandwith is given to customers as "open internet" if the likes of Comcast can be described that way. The rest of it is utilized as wasteful push services. Media companies simply won't give up their lucrative and powerful position as information gatekeepers unless forced by real competition in physical media (hint - giving a movie company ownership of a monopoly cable service is the opposite of a free market) or we are finally granted open spectrum. The FCC should keep itself busy busting spammers rather than upholding 110 year old spectrum laws that no longer make sense. Now, would someone be kind enough to paste the actual text of the article, "On Advancing the Open Internet by Distinguishing it from Specialized Services"? Scribd wants me to have a Facebook page to download the document and I can't read it through whatever nasty software they serve it with.