Is Microsoft Behind Antitrust Claims Against Pretty Much Everyone Else Now?

from the it's-all-politics dept

While some feel that the long antitrust fight against Microsoft ended up having little impact, there does appear to be some evidence that Microsoft recognizes what a pain dealing with antitrust accusations are. That seems to be the most reasonable explanation for why Microsoft seems to be showing up behind the scenes in recent antitrust activity against both Google and IBM. With Google, a few small companies with highly dubious claims have stepped up with antitrust claims against Google, but of course, there's a secret Microsoft connection in that these tiny companies with monetary disputes that are a pittance, seem to have secured the help of some super high-powered lawyers who have a long history of working with Microsoft. Hmm...

And then, last week, the news came out that the EU was investigating IBM for supposed antitrust violations -- and, IBM is now claiming that the small companies involved in the complaints are "proxies of Microsoft." Yes, it looks like rather than actually being about protecting consumers, antitrust activity has now become about saddling competitors with a huge distracting fight.

Of course, IBM's activity is a bit shady here as well. Part of the issue was that they were trying to block these companies that make software emulators of IBM hardware. IBM claims that such emulators "pirate IBM's intellectual property." That seems pretty silly. An emulator shouldn't be seen as infringing. Of course, if IBM is found to be violating antitrust behavior, then it may be its own fault here as well: intellectual property is, inherently, about using monopoly power. But, if you rely on one form of monopoly power, you shouldn't be surprised when another form comes back to bite you.

Filed Under: antitrust, competition, politics
Companies: google, ibm, microsoft

NTP Keeps On Making The Case For Patent Reform As It Sues More Companies

from the milking-it dept

NTP, a patent holding firm that is really just a bunch of lawyers with incredibly broad and questionable patents, is at it again. As you probably know, NTP was locked in a long and contentious patent fight with RIM over NTP's claimed patents covering the concept of mobile email. Even as the US Patent Office was telling the world that NTP's patents almost certainly weren't valid, pressure from investors (and the judge in the case who refused to wait for the Patent Office's final rejection of the patents) resulted in RIM settling the case for $612.5 million. For RIM, it became something of a no brainer. Even though its legal position was strong, its investors were killing the company over the uncertainty (there were threats that the judge could issue an injunction shutting down the entire Blackberry network). Settling the case helped RIM's stock price jump up (increasing its market cap more than the cost of the settlement).

But, from a legal perspective, the lawsuit and the end result became the centerpiece of attention for efforts at patent reform. While I still think that the patent reform process in Congress has been misguided and the end result probably a lot more damaging than helpful, many of the politicians involved will point to the RIM-NTP case as evidence of the problems with the patent system. You might think, then, that NTP's investors might sit back and enjoy the spoils of the RIM settlement, but the company quickly went back out and sued all the major mobile operators in the US for violating its patents. However, judges in those other suits said (unlike the judge in the RIM case) that those trials should wait until the Patent Office has made a final decision on the validity of NTP's ridiculously overbroad patents.

However, NTP is not waiting around. It's now suing again. This time, rather than the mobile operators, it's going after device makers and platform vendors, suing Apple, Google, Microsoft, HTC, LG and Motorola. Basically, it appears that NTP has decided that if anyone does email on a phone, they have to pay NTP.

There might not be a better example of how incredibly screwed up the patent system is than this. NTP was involved in an attempt to do mobile email ages ago (and it wasn't the first actually... but NTP paid off some folks who had prior art). The idea itself wasn't new or all that innovative, and the timing was off, so NTP failed. In a functioning free market, that's a good thing. If a company can't execute, it should fail. Unfortunately, thanks to a ridiculously overbroad patent award, NTP has been able to live on as a bunch of lawyers suing any company that does figure out how to execute.

Perhaps the only good thing coming out of this is that it may help draw more attention to just how broken the patent system is.

Filed Under: email, mobile phones, patent reform, patents
Companies: apple, google, htc, lg, microsoft, motorola, ntp, rim

Microsoft's Comparison To Linux In The Server Market Conveniently Leaves Out Free

from the let-me-write-the-definitions... dept

If you get to define a "market" you can create all sorts of misleading results. Take, for example, this recent blog post from Microsoft, where it tried to show off just how big the company was using a variety of numbers. Thankfully, Charles Arthur, over at The Guardian went through the numbers in greater detail to point out where and how they were misleading. One example, highlighted by Glyn Moody is the claims of Linux server market share, and how it supposedly "failed" to live up to expectations. Here's what Microsoft had in its blog post (which I recreated by hand, because, as Arthur notes, Microsoft's HTML is full of ridiculous crap):

24%
Linux Server market share in 2005. [source]

33%
Predicted Linux Server market share for 2007 (made in 2005). [source]

21.2%
Actual Linux Server market share, Q4 2009. [source]

Now, this might strikes some of you as not sounding right. After all, most of have have noticed that Linux servers seem to be pretty damn common throughout the world. Most of the biggest online companies in the world use Linux, and it's difficult to think of an online startup that doesn't use Linux. Charles Arthur breaks down how incredibly misleading this is:

This is a really interesting one, because it is a distortion of reality that would have Steve Jobs applauding at its subtlety. You look at those numbers and think: wow, Linux servers really aren't popular. How odd, because you'll notice that you come across Linux servers all over the place: Google, Facebook (which runs F5's Big IP, which is Linux), Yahoo, Amazon, Wordpress.com (which hosts millions of blogs), Twitter... so why such a small number? (The only major site I could quickly find that runs Windows Server is eBay.)

Answer: because those "market share" figures are for Linux server licences sold. Microsoft doesn't count them - and because the market research companies can't count them - if money doesn't change hands. True, this indicates that companies selling Linux servers (principally hardware) aren't making headway against Windows Server. But what it doesn't tell you is what progress Linux is making overall on the web. For that, you need Netcraft. And that suggests that Linux has a really big market share.

In other words, to make these numbers come out this way, Microsoft is pretending that "free" Linux servers are not competitors. This is a silly sort of willful blindness. Obviously, free Linux is a huge competitor to Microsoft's servers, and widely used in place of it. To ignore those numbers to try to suggest Linux has less marketshare is to deny reality.

Filed Under: damn lies, linux, servers, statistics
Companies: microsoft

Pakistan Orders Internet Ban On Google, Yahoo, Bing, Hotmail, YouTube, Amazon & MSN

from the have-fun dept

Perhaps Pakistan should just turn off its internet connection? We've already had stories recently about how courts have ordered that both Facebook and YouTube be blocked -- but supposedly both bans had been lifted. Then came the news that there were attempts to put Facebook's founders on trial, potentially for a death sentence, because some users had posted stuff people in Pakistan didn't like. The latest, sent in by Ali, is that a Pakistani court has ordered a whole bunch of popular websites be blocked from access. You may have heard of a few of these: Google, Yahoo, Bing, MSN, YouTube, Amazon and Hotmail. Who are they missing? Ebay? Twitter? I'm sure those will be blocked soon enough...

Filed Under: bing, blocks, hotmail, msn, pakistan
Companies: amazon, google, microsoft, yahoo, youtube

There Is No Such Thing As Search Neutrality, Because The Whole Point Of Search Is To Recommend What's Best

from the can-we-kill-this-myth? dept

It seems that various anti-Google organizations have picked up on this bizarre and misguided notion of "search neutrality" as a key stick with which to attack. The idea is, obviously, a play on the concept of "net neutrality." It's been pushed mainly by AT&T and various anti-Google think tankers, but now it appears that Microsoft is getting into the game, suggesting that "search neutrality" is a problem and pointing a finger directly at Google.

This is ridiculous on so many levels that it's difficult to know where to begin. First, "search neutrality" is not a problem because "search neutrality" makes no sense. The whole point of search is to be biased. The whole point of search is to recommend which sites fit your query best. "Search neutrality" isn't search at all. It's a list of unsorted and totally useless links.

Second, Microsoft should know better than to complain about Google's actions and suggest they're in some way anti-competitive. Remember that, even if the actual penalties (penalties? what penalties?) made the ruling meaningless, Microsoft was a convicted monopolist. Having big competitors point fingers at each other screaming about "anti-competitive" behavior is just silly.

Finally, Microsoft's Brad Smith apparently is claiming that "the biggest lack of competition" is in the search space. Really? Well, let's compare, shall we? According to some recent research, Google has 85% of the market in search. That is a lot, granted. But... what about the operating system? Oh, look. The same research firm shows that Microsoft has 91% of the market. What's next? Operating system neutrality?

Filed Under: neutrality, search neutrality
Companies: google, microsoft

Microsoft Discovers That Bribing People To Use Its Search Engine Didn't Work

from the money-isn't-everything dept

We recently had a discussion about the role of money as an incentive and how it often doesn't work the way people think it should (i.e., money often provides negative incentive -- the opposite of what you would think). I'm actually working on another post about that topic that I'll hopefully finish later today, but here's a quick one demonstrating that point in action.

Way back in 2005, Bill Gates suggested that in the end, Microsoft would be able to beat Google because it had a secret weapon: it could bribe users to use Microsoft instead of Google, by offering them a cut of the advertising revenue. It took a few years, but Microsoft finally turned on that "feature" on a limited basis in 2008, offering cashback for people who bought certain products after searching for them via Microsoft's search engine. Later that year, it expanded the program to regular search. What happened? Not that many people cared enough. Microsoft kept upping the ante, but most people didn't care. They were happy with their Google searches, and even if Microsoft was paying them to use its search engine, it wasn't enough. Well, except for people who figured out how to game the system. But that's not who Microsoft was targeting.

Microsoft has now admitted the program was a failure and is shutting it down. In a blog post about the decision, Microsoft admits that people just weren't that interested:

In lots of ways, this was a great feature -- we had over a thousand merchant partners delivering great offers to customers and seeing great ROI on their campaigns, and we were taking some of the advertising revenue and giving it back to customers. But after a couple of years of trying, we did not see the broad adoption that we had hoped for.

Microsoft admission is quite open and honest, which is actually pretty cool. They don't sugarcoat it. They thought this was something people would like -- as the basic belief that monetary rewards drives activity would suggest -- but found that, in practice, it does not work at all.

Filed Under: bribes, search
Companies: google, microsoft

Return Of Clickfraud Lawsuits?

from the it's-everywhere dept

The issue of "clickfraud" really seemed to die down for a while, but it appears to be back. As you may remember, about five years ago, a bunch of advertisers sued Google over clickfraud. Google took about a year to work out a settlement and we hadn't heard much about the issue for a while. But, of course, there are other web properties that have been building up a pretty big audience with their own advertising programs, and it looks like clickfraud has expanded well beyond Google. In recent weeks there have been articles about Facebook being targeted in a lawsuit over clickfraud, and Microsoft has gone in the other direction, being aggressive in suing a company it accuses of engaging in clickfraud.

But perhaps more interesting is that, despite the settlement, Google is now a target again, from a locksmith who claims that the clickthroughs on his ads jumped up, and he didn't get any new leads from them. He insists the clicks must have come from a competitor, though it's not clear he has any additional proof. Of course, it's difficult to see Google getting pinned with any liability in such a case. It clearly tries to eliminate clickfraud, and as a service provider it shouldn't be held liable for actions by third party scammers.

Filed Under: clickfraud
Companies: facebook, google, microsoft

Microsoft Decides It Can't Compete With Salesforce.com; Sues For Patent Infringement Instead

from the must-we-remind-you dept

Remember back when Bill Gates said:

"If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today... A future start-up with no patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose."

Those days are long gone, apparently. In its latest patent litigation action, Microsoft has decided to sue Salesforce.com for infringing on a bunch of patents. Basically, it looks like Microsoft went through its collection of patents to find whatever they could that Salesforce might possibly infringe on. Take a look at the list:

• 7,251,653: Method and system for mapping between logical data and physical data
• 5,742,768: System and method for providing and displaying a web page having an embedded menu
• 5,644,737: Method and system for stacking toolbars in a computer display
• 6,263,352: Automated web site creation using template driven generation of active server page applications
• 6,542,164: Timing and velocity control for displaying graphical information
• 6,281,879: Timing and velocity control for displaying graphical information (the 164 patent above looks to just be a continuation of this patent)
• 5,845,077: Method and system for identifying and obtaining computer software from a remote computer
• 5,941,947: System and method for controlling access to data entities in a computer network

Amusingly, Microsoft and its super expensive lawyers were apparently in such a rush to file the lawsuit that they put the wrong patent number in on that second to last patent in the filing. Oops. Either way, look over that list of patents and try not to repeatedly shake your head in disbelief at the ridiculously broad nature of each and every one of those patents. And, then, since patent system defenders always remind us that it's the claims that matter, go take a look at the claims and wonder how these patents ever got approved in the first place. Going through that list of patents, you could use them to sue an awful lot of web-based service providers.

Hopefully (though, unlikely), the Supreme Court gets around to issuing its Bilski ruling and puts software patents like these out of their misery. Here's the full filing for anyone interested:

Filed Under: online, patents, software
Companies: microsoft, salesforce.com

Judge Won't Dismiss Antitrust Charges Against Microsoft For Breaking 3rd Party Xbox Memory Cards

from the ruh-roh-microsoft dept

You may remember back in October of last year that Microsoft publicly warned Xbox users who were using 3rd party memory cards for their Xbox that it was about to break those cards, and that users should, instead, transfer data to Microsoft's own cards. Datel, a maker of third party cards apparently sued Microsoft, claiming antitrust violations in this move, and Eric Goldman points us to the news that a magistrate judge has rejected Microsoft's request to dismiss most parts of the lawsuit. Microsoft argued that there was no antitrust violation because Xbox buyers bought the box knowing they could only buy aftermarket parts from Microsoft. Datel responded by pointing out that the warranty that made that point was only presented to the buyer after they opened the box and "therefore, a consumer could not have knowingly and voluntarily accepted it prior to purchase." After looking at a few other factors, the judge refused to dismiss the claim, noting that "shopping for competing products in the Aftermarket is not clearly precluded by any contractual provision into which customers knowingly and voluntarily entered." Datel did lose on a separate complaint, though it can amend and refile. Either way, this is good news for the aftermarket business, and it seems likely that there will be a full trial that looks at this issue. Oh, and we should note that Microsoft just recently decided to target the very same Datel in a patent infringement lawsuit. Gee, I wonder why they picked Datel... Must be part of Microsoft's belief in showing how "important [a] role IP plays in ensuring a healthy and vibrant IT ecosystem." That, or the belief in punishing companies who sue you for antitrust with more legal fees.

Filed Under: 3rd party, antitrust, memory cards, xbox
Companies: datel, microsoft

Microsoft Suggests Android Violates Its Patents... But Gets HTC To Buy A License

from the say-what-now? dept

Ah, the patent games Microsoft plays. For years, it's spread FUD, claiming that open source operating systems, such as Linux, violate its patents -- though it has never detailed what patents or really sued anyone directly over those patents (though some have argued that it has done so with a couple patents tangentially). Now it appears that Microsoft is also claiming that Google's Android violates its patents. Of course, it's not doing so by going after Google. Instead, it's part of what came out in an announcement concerning Microsoft licensing certain patents to HTC specifically to allow HTC to run Android.

Seems a bit strange, right? Why should Microsoft have any say in whether or not HTC can put Google's Android operating system on its phones. The whole thing seems even odder when you realize that HTC was, for a long time, one of the major makers of smartphones running Windows Mobile operating system. But, the complicating factor here might be Apple. Apple, of course, famously went on the patent offensive and sued HTC over its Android phones a couple months ago. So now, with Microsoft doing this deal, it seems to very publicly be entering the patent fight between Apple and Google, which for bizarre reasons is playing out with HTC as the pawn getting bounced around between them all.

Of course, Microsoft's press announcement on this particular deal is hilarious in how disingenuous it is:

The licensing agreement with HTC underscores the important role IP plays in ensuring a healthy and vibrant IT ecosystem.

Uh, no. It underscores the exact opposite. It underscores just how totally screwed up the smartphone market is because of the absolutely ridiculous patent thicket that's been built up around pretty much everything that goes into a smartphone. This deal doesn't show "the important role IP plays." It shows how a big company that has nothing whatsoever to do with a particular fight can suddenly throw its weight around on the topic in an attempt to cause confusion in the marketplace and potentially scare off competitors. It's the exact opposite of what the patent system is supposed to do.

Filed Under: patents
Companies: htc, microsoft