● 07.27.10
●● Antitrust Attacks on IBM Carried Out by Microsoft and its “Satellite Proxies,” According to IBM
Posted in Antitrust, Europe, GNU/Linux, IBM, Microsoft, SCO at 3:23 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: IBM names Microsoft as a source of the complaints (or at least their financier) which target GNU/Linux-powered mainframes
GNU/Linux has several people who may sometimes seem like its friends when obviously they are not. For starters there’s Florian Müller and there are others like Bill Beebe, who sometimes act as apologists for SCO and even this week show some disregard for GNU/Linux (Beebe does not use GNU/Linux and neither does Müller by all indications).
↺ show some disregard for GNU/Linux
As we pointed out yesterday, Müller is again taking shots at IBM (mass-mailing journalists and posting in several places). He is still doing this today, even minutes ago. He is like a true lobbyist and he helps Microsoft’s agenda, whether he acknowledges it or not. Earlier this month it was Kevin McBride who also helped Microsoft’s agenda by boosting SCO's case. SCO is like Microsoft's patent troll, but this one uses copyright allegations and sues IBM using Microsoft funds. Groklaw responds to ZDNet’s poor reporting by emphasising: “Kevin isn’t SCO now. His brother isn’t either.”
is like Microsoft's patent troll
“What strikes me is that the price in June was going up until June 10, when Stewart ruled for Novell (look at the activity for *that* day), and then it dropped back to 0.04 the next day, and that was the highest until July 9, when Kevin McBride posted claims about Linux.” –Pamela Jones, GroklawDarl was of course sacked. Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols (SJVN) made a mistake similar to that of ZDNet and Groklaw corrects him by stressing that “this isn’t SCO talking, in that the brothers McBride are no longer associated with SCO, unless SCO’s current leadership wishes to take credit for this event.”
Separately, Groklaw points out that SCO’s stock rose as a result of this McBride action. “I find this mezmerizing,” says Pamela Jones, “this chart of SCO’s daily share price. What strikes me is that the price in June was going up until June 10, when Stewart ruled for Novell (look at the activity for *that* day), and then it dropped back to 0.04 the next day, and that was the highest until July 9, when Kevin McBride posted claims about Linux. Then you see the price go up to a high today of 0.10. Coincidence?”
Later on Groklaw wrote about the TurboHercules case, noting: “First SCO and now TurboHercules. See a pattern, anyone? I certainly do. Microsoft and its “satellite proxies”. Someone needs to investigate that as an antitrust violation, in my view, using litigation and regulatory process to harm a competitor.”
The term “satellite proxies” is an exact quote from IBM. Now that there is an antitrust investigation in the EU there is also a lively discussion and here is how IBM responds:
↺ an antitrust investigation in the EU
IBM said it is cooperating fully with E.U. regulators and that the allegations are being brought by competitor Microsoft and its “satellite proxies.”
More here:
IBM countered in its own statement that the EC’s accusations “are being driven by some of IBM’s largest competitors — led by Microsoft — who want to further cement the dominance of Wintel servers by attempting to mimic aspects of IBM mainframes without making the substantial investments IBM has made.”
Recall what Microsoft apparently did to IBM in order to restrain critics of OOXML. Here is another report that names Microsoft’s role:
what Microsoft apparently did to IBM in order to restrain critics of OOXML
In a statement, IBM said it “intends to cooperate fully” with the inquires. But it also asserts that the investigations were actually triggered by Microsoft (MSFT). “Let there be no confusion whatsoever: there is no merit to the claims being made by Microsoft and its satellite proxies,” IBM said. “IBM is fully entitled to enforce its intellectual property rights and protect the investments we have made in our technologies. Competition and intellectual property laws are complementary and designed to promote competition and innovation, and IBM fully supports these policies. But IBM will not allow the fruits of its innovation and investment to be pirated by its competition through baseless allegations.”
Microsoft spinners responded to this as follows.
IBM, based in Armonk, New York, said in a statement that “there is no merit to the claims being made by Microsoft and its satellite proxies.”“Certain IBM competitors which have been unable to win in the marketplace through investments in fundamental innovations now want regulators to create for them a market position that they have not earned,” IBM said.Frank Shaw, a spokesman for Redmond, Washington-based Microsoft, said in an e-mail that the company invests in startup companies such as T3 to give customers greater choice. The company isn’t a party to T3’s complaint against IBM, he said.“We do share T3’s belief that there needs to be greater openness and choice for customers in the mainframe market,” Shaw said. “Customers tell us that they want greater interoperability between the mainframe and other platforms.”
Notice the wording. He does not deny Microsoft’s role. “Microsoft wasn’t a party to SCO v. IBM, either, but it gave money that made it possible for it to happen,” Jones explained. “You don’t have to be a party to be involved.” █
“…Microsoft wished to promote SCO and its pending lawsuit against IBM and the Linux operating system. But Microsoft did not want to be seen as attacking IBM or Linux.”
–Larry Goldfarb, BayStar, key investor in SCO approached by Microsoft
Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Permalink Send this to a friend
----------
➮ Sharing is caring. Content is available under CC-BY-SA.