Category Archives: Law

September 11, 2024 · 03:01

A brief recollection

Yesterday I saw an article (source: BBC) that gave me reason to give a little recollection. The article (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckg2dpkpmv1o) giving us ‘Google’s lucrative ad tech business goes on trial’ and the text “A trial beginning on Monday will hear the Department of Justice’s case that the search engine’s parent company Alphabet illegally operates a monopoly in the market.” set me off. You see, I worked on that system as an operator, a technical account manager if you prefer. I worked on this system in 2015. This is important because in the nine following years Microsoft and its ‘system’ Bing couldn’t even remotely get anything working that presented some weak looking imitation. The system was that excellent. And excellent is the operative word. You see before that advertising agencies were taking their clients in some kind of a looting ride. Prices were out of this world for the advertisers. It was a business limited to big business. The Google ad system was made so that everyone had a clear possibility, a fair system that didn’t overcharge, something that wasn’t possible before. That was a new approach to advertising. 

Bid for placeCharged
9.001.28
3.001.27
2.001.26
1.251.25

The setting was that the higher bid was only charged one cent more than the previous one. The advertisement agencies would pocket the difference from $7.62 of the first bidder. Now consider this happening ten thousands of times every day. When you realise this you see how this was the better system. There was no monopoly, customers suddenly had a fair chance to their advertisement options. That part is missing. It is not the fault of the BBC, they merely report. They also give us “Alphabet has argued its success is due to the “effectiveness” of its services – but prosecutors say it has used its market dominance to stifle rivals” which is exactly what I am saying. But the prosecutors are exaggerating (as anyone would suggest). We then get ““It is a really important industry that grabs billions of consumer dollars every year,” said Laura Phillips-Sawyer, a professor at the University of Georgia School of Law.” A statement (possibly taken out of context) from a law professor from Georgia. The less excusable statement was “grabs billions of consumer dollars every year”, that is where my example comes in. This is not the way of this system. It tempers the cost and need for ‘over’ bidding. I gave an example of four, but the list goes on for a lot more. This illustrates the loss of Laura Phillips-Sawyer and how little she knows of this system. So its not “I think all consumers have an interest in this litigation”, I believe that Microsoft minded people want to get into this business and the prosecutor is a possible way for these people to get in. 

As such we see that the statement “Google dominates the digital ad marketplace and has leveraged its market power to stifle innovation and competition” Google innovated this market more than anyone ever considered. The fact that Microsoft has no chance and lacks expertise in software to make any dent in Google application is one part of the evidence. It also didn’t stifle competition, the fact that Microsoft had no option to push anything in Google’s path seems to me that this is the second part of the evidence is also nullified. After decades of ‘exploitation’ of customers, Google gave them all a fair chance. So why doesn’t anyone see that? How come that this is not shown to us all? Is it perhaps that the prosecutor has the ear of those people who lost their golden eggs? I am stating that not only is Google innocent in this, the world doesn’t realise how fair this system is. And the wannabe’s want to hack into this system for their own selfish needs. We are also given “It argues that competition in the digital ad space is growing, not contracting – citing increased ad growth and revenues for companies such as Apple, Amazon and TikTok as proof”, in this I say that the digital ad space is growing because Google made it more fair and as such players like Apple, Amazon and TikTok are given a space where they have millions more to advertise against the once exploitative system. What we do not get to see is that I enabled dozens of advertisers, small business units to get a grasp of advertisement space on. Monthly basis. They had the option to set a budget for as little as $5 a month to get several placements every day. Yes, they might not be above the fold as the expression goes, but they were on the page. The advertisement agencies would not have even talked to those. Now consider that this happens to tens of thousands of customers and realise that the statement “I think all consumers have an interest in this litigation” becomes folly.

When we consider this the statement “Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly” is equally folly. And I wonder who Judge Amit Mehta was serving. Even as the judge was an optional idolising fair play person we need to realise that the Google rank system was re-invented

The eigenvalue problem behind PageRank’s algorithm was independently rediscovered and reused in many scoring problems. 

In 1895, Edmund Landau suggested using it for determining the winner of a chess tournament. The eigenvalue problem was also suggested in 1976 by Gabriel Pinski and Francis Narin, who worked on scientometrics ranking scientific journals, in 1977 by Thomas Saaty in his concept of Analytic Hierarchy Process which weighted alternative choices, and in 1995 by Bradley Love and Steven Sloman as a cognitive model for concepts, the centrality algorithm. (Source: wiki). 

Now consider that Sergey Brin and Larry Page made this system 30 years ago based on ideas dating back to (as quoted) 1895. And then three times more and no one at Microsoft woke up. They were all so focussed on greed and gaining the attention of board of directors at big business. Google focussed on the millions of people working there and getting the attention of people who needed a better option. “As of September 24, 2019, all patents associated with PageRank have expired” and now these systems are under attack. However, the data is already with Google and the larger players (read: Microsoft) will need decades to catch up and they know they are not able to, in case of Microsoft I personally believe that they merely have at most 24 months left until they collapse and that is it for the once computer behemoth. As per now, fr a player like Microsoft, the ad space is a much safer option to recollect lost revenue and keep their head above water. I admit that this is speculative, but it makes the most sense. Even in 1995 I saw how Microsoft was lagging behind, but they had serious problems (read: Netscape) and it get worse after that. But that is not the aim of this article. As I have shown here Google was a true innovator and you need to wonder if monopoly is a valid setting when all the others cannot even get close because their innovators are merely presented spinners, or optionally previous exploiters. How is it a monopoly when there is no other realistic contender for the crown? Is an island with a population of one totalitarian in nature?

Simple questions that are hard to answer. Enjoy your day today, this fine Wednesday where we start yearning for the coming weekend.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

September 7, 2024 · 03:34

Is the media now too corrupt?

That is the question that I saw coming my way (via my brain). I stumbled on an article accusing something bad, in many ways. The issue becomes that there was only ONE source. No one touched the article. Does it make it fake news? Or is the media now so corrupt that Microsoft gets a pass on everything? It is a serious question. You see the story starts with ‘Bombshell allegations that Microsoft is using Chinese employees inside China to oversee DoD, Federal government cloud infrastructure’ after all the anti-China rumbles, they are OK with this? 

The article (at https://lawenforcementtoday.com/bombshell-allegations-that-microsoft-using-chinese-employees-inside-china-to-oversee-dod-federal-government-cloud-infrastructure) gives plenty to worry about. If not Microsoft then at least the media. The setting tarts with “In September 2023, FBI Director Christopher Wray told a conference that China has a “bigger hacking program” than the competition. He warned that Beijing has a “cyber espionage program so vast that it is bigger than all of its major competitors combined.”” And it gets a lot worse after that. We get “Tom Schiller, a senior software developer with a stellar resume, is the CEO of Next Defense, a consultancy agency specialising in Virtual Reality and Artificial Intelligence for defense training. Schiller is a subject matter expert. He reached out to Law Enforcement Today, and what he told us was chilling. He told us of a program hatched between Microsoft and the Obama administration that is directly tied to China and puts our national security in peril.” This is the first setting that the media should have referred to this article. They have no issues copying text on faceless accusations against Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud, but this is not touched? And I waited a fair amount of hours (in case all the media was suddenly asleep). And before you think that this is nothing we get “After the raid, a China-based Microsoft spokesperson emailed, “We’re serious about complying with China’s laws and committed to SAIC’s questions and concerns.” That statement contradicts the Microsoft president’s statement before the House Homeland Security Committee in June 2014, when he said that the Chinese government had previously ordered the company to comply with their laws and probes. He said the Chinese were told that he “was not allowed that and will not.” Schiller also noted that Microsoft has shared source code with China and let them insert their own source code into Microsoft’s proprietary source code. That is a direct contradiction to the Microsoft president’s statement to Congress.” So we get the setting that a key member of Microsoft made a statement to Congress that seemingly is found to be contradictive. Take time to read the article, there is way too much in there and copying the text seems a little overactive, so I am putting a pdf version of that page at the end of the article. So the end does give a hot stick of dynamite. 

We are given “Schiller advised Gimenez that he had alerted the DoD CIO and DISA IG about a possible breach in the US cloud infrastructure. 

“In my expert opinion, the breach has significantly compromised all U.S. Government and DoD cloud services, posing a grave ongoing and present danger to our nation’s security and the safety of the American people. He continued to explain to Gimenez Microsoft’s use of “un-cleared Chinese nationals based in China to conduct and control over 90% of the work and support for the Microsoft U.S. Government and DoD cloud environments,” explaining that the “authorisation agreement…was inadequately written, leaving things open-ended and unclarified.” He told Gimenez that “Microsoft has taken full advantage of this and has in turn used to essentially hand over control of the U.S. Sovereign Cloud to China,” adding that this had “actively been going on since around 2016.” Schiller told Gimenez he has “three additional senior-level whistleblowers from the Microsoft U.S. Government and DoD contract who are prepared to testify.” Schiller asked Gimenez to contact him so a complete briefing of facts could take place.” So lets recap the lessons of history. America goes anti China in a heartbeat. It sanctions Huawei (A Chinese company) and tells Europe to stop handing business deals to Huawei and now we see that China is managing the clouds of the Department of Defence and the US Governments? Where is the logic in this? 

And the way the media is silencing this makes even less sense. They weren’t the source and they could have stuck with their usual BS (like inserting words like ‘alleged’ and ‘anonymous sources let us know’) we see non of that and only ONE article comes up in Google Search? This does not make sense. I will not blame Microsoft without ‘evidence’ but this article is a clear setting of time going back to 2022 and no one saw this? 

I wonder if the media suddenly wakes up, their is something amiss in all of this. It is either one side, or the other side. In this scenario there is no non-side. Oh and the source of this piece was Law Enforcement Today, so I would side with the fact that this is a serious stage for the United States, or do we call them the Peoples Republic of America from this forward?

So have a nice day and remember in China they prefer Long Jing tea, you should have some in stock if you are in America.

Bombshell allegations that Microsoft is using Chinese employees inside China to oversee DoD, FederalDownload

1 Comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Military, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

September 3, 2024 · 19:37

The Saudi Dissent

There is a premise, the utter need of the so called utter mighty to be kept in check. That is not a new saying, it goes back to the days of the roman empire. Some refer to this as ‘power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely’ This is to a larger stage true for all christian based governments. As first piece of evidence I would like to submit the Treaty of Clermont 1094, it set the beginning of the crusades under Pope Urban II. There are examples that go deep into the Roman Empire days with one year having 4 Roman emperors. But this example is the setting we get from a derivation of that saying, but more stated as ‘power corrupts, wannabe powers corrupt a lot quicker’. This is the premise and with this we get to the BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gz8934wrro) The piece has a setting of baloney (as the phrase goes) and with “We were surprised that there was a royal decree to allow the ground interventions,” Jabri says. “He forged the signature of his dad for that royal decree. The king’s mental capacity was deteriorating.” It is a stage where I left the article for the most, but as we now see this being copied all over the western media. It is time to take up the baton calling the media on their BS. You see, what evidence is there? Is it Saad al-Jabri? He is both an alleged traitor and alleged thief. For this I need to take you back to another article I wrote in 2020 (August 11th) in ‘The 51st State’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/08/11/the-51st-state/), I had an issue with him then. The media never caught on it seems. The first was the quote

Gulf News (at https://gulfnews.com/world/gulf/saudi/report-fugitive-saudi-official-misspent-11b-in-government-funds-1.72662340) gives us ‘Fugitive Saudi official misspent $11b in government funds’, and lets face it, if I walked away with $11,000,000,000 I would move to Canada, buy the Edmonton Oilers, or the Calgary Flames, buy a nice mansion in either city, train to be their goalie and live the life until I die. It is a plan, not a plan everyone will embrace, but I like that plan, especially if I have that much money.

We then get :

Oh, and the quote gives is “Al Jabri, a 61-year-old with a doctorate in computer science, was the virtual No 2 in the Saudi Interior Ministry, which was run for years by Mohammed bin Nayef. Al Jabri ran a special ministry fund that mixed government spending on high-priority antiterrorism efforts with bonuses for himself and others, according to documents reviewed by the Journal and interviews with Saudi officials and Al Jabri’s confidants,” the WSJ report read”. In all this and in fact of that accusation of corruption and through that (as well as) “spending on high-priority antiterrorism efforts with bonuses for himself and others”, who else was paid? So in this, how much investigation was done by the FBI, for did they allegedly acquire enough self-funding to be above the law? I am merely asking!

This should have given us the setting that we need to dissect anything the man gives us especially as there is a realistic chance that the Government of Saudi Arabia has a sore feeling about the west being a speaking platform for people like that. If there was ANY evidence, we were not given it and that stage has been around for over 4 years (at present)

Then we get to 2021, the eighth of December in ‘Six of one’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2021/12/08/six-of-one/) There we get a few items, like

So as some might remember “Aljabri gained worldwide attention last year when he filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., alleging he had been the target of a failed assassination plot orchestrated by Mohammed bin Salman”, an assassination attempt? In Canada? So why is the US courts involved? Why is this not set in Canada? Then we get “Sakab Saudi Holding Company, “had no operational business” despite receiving $8 billion US in government funding and was used “almost exclusively” as a vehicle to funnel money to the other companies”. My issue here is not merely whether this is on the up and up, it is happening under the noses (optionally with blessing) of the CSIS, this is an Unites States setting (with $8,000,000,000) and it is happening in Canada. 

As well as:

what we get is “he made at least $385M — and says there’s ‘nothing unusual’ about it”, really? Last time most people made a mere few millions, close to every tax agent within 50 miles came calling for a cup of coffee, but then I must have forgotten about the US and their $8,000,000,000 investment opportunity.

Now we get the first bullet (as the saying goes), these interviews are 4 years old, at no time was there a mention of forged signatures. And this was after 4 years of Yemeni atrocities by Houthi terrorists. So I have issues. Is this some drip-drip intelligence setting? If so, the US and its CIA, as well as the NSA have been sleeping at the wheel and this in pushed onto CSIS territory. 

He did more interviews, as far as I remember the Toronto Star, the BBC, CBC and Wall Street Journal. They all dropped the ball on journalism and now the Times is following them. I have an issue with an alleged criminal with these transgressions to get such a speaking platform. Now, there could be a case that there is evidence and I think that this needs to be shown. Oh, and I have some jealousy issues with any governmental person gets to go home with well over $385,000,000, we all would have that. Perhaps a little more transparency by the CIA would have helped that these positions of government have such pay checks. It as that simple a setting and the CIA should have seen that. These simple ad-hoc statements without evidence is something the media should know better that to merely accept them. It gives the nasty vibe that they are doing the work of governments making Saudi Arabia look bad. It is somewhat of a repetition that Clermont give us in 1094. Didn’t we basically went on a pilferage there, calling it pilgrimage? That was over 1000 years ago and we are still seeing the fallout from that event.

In a ‘fair’ space Saudi Arabia might decide to lower the delivery of oil to Europe and America by 100,000 barrels a day each and offer that to China for the same amount (no real reason that it should cost Saudi Arabia). I reckon China will happily agree and Europe as well as America? Well, you made a platform for a alleged thief and alleged traitor (the display of evidence towards the forged autograph will prove that part). I reckon that these two places will implode a lot faster then they thought. 

That is merely my oversimplification of the Gordian knot. Sometimes it is just better to burn what its tying. As people will shout that I am wrong. This is fair enough, but they opened the door of spouting news without evidence or justification. The interviews going back to 2020 are online and visible. So where is the mention? There is no stage of ‘it was complex’ a non-monarch is accused of forging the monarchs signature. In the western world that is high treason and in the near past they hung people for that (see: Nuremberg trials).

Oh before I forget, I just uncovered a wannabe mole in the CIA. Can I collect please? I know it will not be $385,000,000. Yet a $38,500,000 fee is reasonable (I think). It allows me my apartment in Toronto and a house in Golden Oaks Orlando. So I can celebrate an abundant retirement in Disney World and Universal world (both in Orlando). There is an option that the CIA will object to(fair enough), but then they should give us the evidence, don’t you agree? Lets not forget that the US courts did not allow the Saudi lawyers to present evidence in their courts. Turnabout is such a nasty feeling when you become the object of evidence. 

Still, have a great day. As the Vancouverians are joining us in this Tuesday, the whole planet is now aligned to the same day. Enjoy.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Military

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

August 31, 2024 · 10:20

If you Musk, you Musk

That setting is a much larger setting then we realise. The BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y3rnl5qv3o) gives us ‘Musk’s X banned in Brazil after disinformation row’ and I honestly don’t get it. He has the premise of gaining billions closing in on a trillion in business. We get to see “X, formerly Twitter, has been banned in Brazil after failing to meet a deadline set by a Supreme Court judge to name a new legal representative in the country” and that is merely the beginning. Judge Alexandre de Moraes has suspended X (aka Twitter) until that is done and in addition Musk sets all fines that are outstanding. I have no idea how much that amounts to. The larger premise is that Musk is sitting on IP that could gain him close to a trillion, if only these people had woken up. The current setting is that this case could invigorate a much larger anti-Musk stage and Twitter (aka X) could be banned from a whole range of nations with anti-Musk feelings. That is not a given, but Brazil just opened that door. Basically any nation with a right wing nuisance could entertain that premise diminishing Twitter and as such Jack Dorsey could buy back X/Twitter for 125 million after selling it for $44,000,000,000 not a bad deal for a 3 year gap. I surmised that it was only worth a maximum of 24 billion at that time. As such Jack Dorsey could be making a killing on the deal whilst the value of that company doubles in the first month he regains control. They say that a foolish billionaire and his money are soon parted, but here that expression takes on a whole new meaning.

And it got so far because Twitter/X, Meta and Telegram because they would not set the larger premise. There needs to be accountability and they all were eager to avoid those. Now we see that social media is being thumped on by a whole range of governments. There is such a think as accountability. I already said so in 2013, now we see that governments have had enough and this first case is likely to open the floodgates. 

If is an attack on free speech? No, I do not believe it is so. People should have free speech, but not under the guise of anonymity. If you disagree, say so, but the digital world sees a lot more flames and digital waves when they can say things without revealing themselves. It is the stopgap for chaos to spread their wings. The media has everything to do with this and they are equally guilty (like ‘unnamed sources told us’). So when was that at any time a long standing solution?

Now Elon Musk is cutting his own fingers and soon the solution he had for the world will be largely ignored, and if accepted there will be massive constraints, which would cost him up to 20% from what he could have had. In my book 20% is a lot and when you get close to a trillion it is a lot more than I have ever seen (many like me have that setting).

There is another side to this. At this point Mastodon, Reddit, Threads, Bluesky, Discord, Tumblr, and Truth Social will get to have a place to gain market share against the accounts of Twitter/X. It might not be much, but it is a start. As more nations follow suit there places will gain momentum whilst Twitter/X could she well over 10% of the accounts and even when reinstated, the time gives the others time to get the advertisement revenue that Musk losses. So how will he bring that news to the people who invested in that 44 billion dollar caper? They want to see cash and when that doesn’t come Elon Musk must put up his own cash or lose a lot more. That wasn’t hard was it?

And with the early threat that Musk is pulling out of Europe (October 2023). It becomes an early grave for Twitter. China has its own settings and that will become an increasing pressure whilst one person (aka Elon Musk) gets to live with the invoked byline ‘2022-2025 where has my $44,000,000,000 gone’. A weird setting for a person who at one time had the products that everyone on the planet wanted. 

The higher the climb the harder they fall. Enjoy your day

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

August 29, 2024 · 23:34

Awareness is fuel to any cause

That is the skeptical look I have. You see social media is a flammable stage of all kinds of woke and non woke commitments. Some are real and most aren’t very real in the mindset of anyone else. I am not belittling any ‘cause’ but that is how I feel. We get exposure to a million and one causes and they are the settings for a mere speculated 100,000 people. Everyone has a cause and most of them have a dozen causes. I will not bother you with the amount of influencers touching on any cause that helps THEM get more visibility. It is a crackpot mix of people at times. So when I saw the Middle East Eye give us ‘How the UAE crushes dissent by arbitrarily revoking citizenship’, I became a little more aware. The opinion story (at https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/how-uae-crushes-dissent-arbitrarily-revoking-citizenship) gives us the link to UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan with the stage that he is pictured in Abu Dhabi on 6 December 2023 is a nice touch, but he is not mentioned in the opinion piece, not even once. So why is his picture there? Then we get to the MENA group, which is mentioned once “A report by the Mena Rights Group, published last month, exposed the extensive and troubling nature of this trend”, as such I have questions. With the “the extensive and troubling nature” it is the first mention I see of this. We see the mention “3 March 2011, when 133 Emirati academics, judges, lawyers, students and human rights defenders signed a petition addressed to the president of the UAE and the Federal Supreme Council, calling for democratic reforms”. As such there are seemingly mentions of this since 2011 and this I the first time I hear of it? There is no visible mention of the MENA rights group in Al Jazeera or Arab News, as such I have questions on the validity of this. We see the mention of “Many affected by this practice are either defendants in the “UAE84” trial or their family members.” With a reference that it was “politically motivated and marred by fair trial violations.” As such I raise questions. You see, if that was the case, would it not be in nearly every Muslim writing from Al Jazeera to Arab News, not to mention the Guardian, BBC and a whole range of American woke news casts? Then we get to one of the writers of the opinion piece Jenan al-Marzooqi. Is that a relative of the accused Ibrahim al-Marzooqi? It might be, but I do not know this. The opinion piece is largely a one sided mention relying on the MENA Rights group who was founded in 2018 in Geneva. I would think that if it was an actual counted group a whole range of newspapers (western and Arabic) would have made mention of it, perhaps they did, but this is the first I see of this.

We then see the mention of “citizenship revocation be applied under the principle of proportionality – a principle that was clearly disregarded in this case.” With the word proportionality referring to the link (at https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/newyork/Documents/Human-Rights-Responses-to-Foreign-Fighters-web_final.pdf) a United Nations document. This is funny, but when you read the document the reference is toward “American Convention on Human Rights, art. 20.” A serious notion, if it was not for the setting that this is playing not in America. With the stage of “deprivation of nationality must be in conformity with domestic law” we get an issue, but I am not sure it is an important one. I am not the expert on Emirati law, a setting not raised in this case. That document also gives us “Some States also allow the deprivation of nationality for naturalised mono-nationals, thereby leaving them stateless.” Is that the case in UAE law? If it is the opinion piece becomes largely pointless, if they only had thought of including that point in the opinion piece. Add to this “In July 2016, five of his six children travelled to the US for medical treatment.” Really? 5 of his 6 children? All for medical treatment? It could be, but this one liner gives a serious boost to disregarding this piece (in my humble opinion). And when we get “concluded last month with at least 43 defendants sentenced to life in prison on bogus terrorism charges” where the word ‘bogus’ is a personal view by the opinion writer and could be ignored. You see if it was serious, that line was accompanied with at least one paragraph addressing that setting, giving optional weight to the word ‘bogus’.

The more I read of this article, the more I wonder what Middle East Eye had in mind with this opinion piece. I am not saying it is invalid, it is an opinion piece after all. Validity is given through evidence, or at least that is what I have always believed. Validity and verification go hand in hand. At the end we see one answer and two more linked names. 

  • Jenan al-Marzooqi is a human rights activist and the daughter of Emirati prisoner of conscience Abdulsalam Mohammed Darwish al-Marzooqi
  • Estelle Allemann is a legal fellow at MENA Rights Group
  • Alexandra Tarzikhan is the legal adviser for Southwest Asia and North Africa with the American Bar Association Center for Human Rights.

All very neat, so we have one MENA Rights Group waving their hand for visibility, one activist and a legal adviser linked to the American Bar Association Center for Human Rights.

I would have thought that 2 of them would have created a much better piece. This gets me to the issue of what were they after? You see, I do have legal training, but I am not a lawyer, I have been a Trade Mark Attorney. And as I see it, there are all kinds of verifications missing. Basically, there is no indiction that anything illegal (according to UAE law) was done, or at least the article does not clearly shows this. I did not completely ready the links to the other articles. When a case is made in THIS opinion piece, you have to present the evidence in THIS opinion piece, not link to it. Even if you merely quote it. I feel that more and more media (news and other media) are making a mess of things. They all have to get to the news and opinion pieces faster and as such they create short cuts and deprive the readers of a complete view of the matter, whether it is an opinion piece of now and a legal adviser, as well as a Human Rights person would (or at least should) know this.

We all create awareness, mostly to fuel the fire that lights us. This is not wrong, especially in this social networking world. We have always done this to some degree, but now we have merely increased the visibility of us. Whether that is a good thing remains to be seen. If there is one winner it is the MENA rights group, they got the most visibility here.

Have a lovely day. My Friday starts in 26 minutes.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

August 16, 2024 · 19:36

G-monopoly to the rescue?

Yup, that as the setting that imploded in my mind. It came at the doorstep of my sneaky sneaky creativity. You see when we consider the article at Reuters (with https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-judge-says-monopolist-google-cant-avoid-app-store-reforms-2024-08-14/) we might handle the stage of ‘US judge says ‘monopolist’ Google can’t avoid app store reforms’, we can agree, we can disagree (I disagree) but the setting is a stage that is not merely a mere ‘monopoliser’ it is quite a blanket cover of social inheritance. It comes at the dawn of a legion of Microsoft sycophants (agents of mediocrity) and that is a more dangerous stage then you realise. And always there is Microsoft trying to cut a nice corner for themselves. They failed five times over and they just can’t quit falling short of the rest of the pack where they want to ‘capture’ market share. For the non-regular readers of my blog the list is Adobe, Apple, Amazon, Google and Sony. And the loudest failures are Solarwinds and CrowdStrike. Even within the last week we saw several sources stage the boxing square using the Microsoft version of AI setting the dangerous premise of MAI (Microsoft AI) collecting the optional access of cloud systems. Now this is a premise that it is possible, not the setting that it has or currently is happening. But for reference when L’Oreal sees their revenue dwindle as one of the possible culprits namely Yatsen Holding, Estee Lauder, Avon Worldwide, Revlon, Coty, or CHANEL decides to take that short cut, L’Oreal will have a clear path what to do next. For their reference AWS can be found at Tour Carpe Diem, 31 Pl. des Corolles, 92400 Courbevoie, France. With the optional phone number is 3 315 660 2600.

Am I overreaching? 
It is a fair question, you see, I never much trusted cloud computing under Microsoft, not whilst there are valid options like Amazon (AWS), Apple, Google, and IBM available. I personally feel that Amazon is the superior provider, but I am NOT the best source of this information. I know too little about the G-Cloud, or the IBM version of that. Still the articles I read a few days ago scare my literally out of my skin. So there you have it.

So back to that, mainly judge James Donato in San Francisco. He heard Google and that greed driven Epic. You see Epic is in denial of an important factor. They accused Google of monopolising how consumers access apps on Android devices and how they pay for in-app transactions. The part that everyone seems to overlook is that Apple and Google had a similar plan in motion. This setting allowed Google and Apple to let everyone on-board. The small designers did not have to pay for massive amounts of money to get secure systems on-line. It is all done by these two providers. So they pay a little contribution and Epic immensely enjoyed that part of the equation and as they became more successful there need for more money (for stake holders and share holders) they decided to bite the had that fed them from poverty into wealth. Now that this part is over the hundreds of thousands developers can release an unbridled hatred towards Epic. But that is not merely the end of it. In this day and age of scammers and organised crime Epic is opening the floodgates towards these two players and I reckon that the first case (with evidence) that this is happening, both companies will both set a class action against Epic. So at that point where will the profits of Epic go? I reckon not too much towards their share holders, on the upside for them, litigation and trials are tax deductible. 

And whilst the media is all about the small player (multi billion Epic) against the titans of Industry (Apple and Google) I saw a new light. What if there was a new kind of monopoly game, with 4 players Amazon, Apple, Google and IBM and the board doesn’t represent streets, they represent cloud domains. There are still the utilities Electricity and Water (optionally called cooling) and the parks when all are obtained will give you a server-park item (hotel in the original game) and under that we get servers (up to 4) and the locations united will give you the upper hand in a server domain. The stations become continental backbones and they will have a secondary part. Should you get a station in a location, the servers get a +10% if you have all 4 you get a +20%. Now this is plenty of ‘over shadowing’ this game should have an educational side. So we have locations that invoke cyber security, social networking, AI and Data Warehousing. All have a -1% cost to your locations, if you have all 4 in one side of the board you get -10% costings (or 10% more efficiency). You see this might be a game, but the bulk or current users do not seem to comprehend the dangers that this case invoked. When the masses get to comprehend what is at stake and the fact that this is not completely set to a monopoly driven Google (or Apple for that matter), people might wake up to the danger they are exposing themselves to. And that part has been missing the to flame hungry (for the sake of money) media outlets. 

I always believed that games are a great way to teach people (when it is not Elden ring or Assassins creed) how to look at the image a little more clearly. So in that trend after the new movie yesterday, I decided to create a game for the occasion. It is the best move? OK, I am willing to concede that it might not be, but a free game that millions embrace tends to have a decent impact, more than we get now. And I am alway happy to engage with my sneaky sneaky creativity.

Well, the day is almost over, as such I will snore a forest into firewood and relax for my tomorrow hustle towards a morning with chicken and optionally some chili con carne. Enjoy your day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Gaming, IT, Law, Media

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

August 11, 2024 · 19:40

Setting of the day

On a good day
The Khaleej Times Jost informed me on how a good day comes to pass. Here (at https://www.khaleejtimes.com/uae/meet-the-uae-police-officer-who-uncovered-183-money-laundering-cases-in-15-years) we are introduced to Major Saad Ahmed Al Marzooqi. 

The headline ‘Meet the UAE police officer who uncovered 183 money laundering cases in 15 years’. We are also given “He was recently appointed as the first Emirati member of the Financial Action Task Force’s (FATF) International Cooperation Review Team” and we can be mesmerised, or brag about his abilities, but the numbers imply that he slightly uncovered more than one case a month. There are plenty of police forces all over the world where half of these numbers would imply a stellar career. As we gawk over “exposed 183 money laundering cases that are related to drugs and financial embezzlement. He had also created a database of incidents, which contributed to an increase in convictions from a monthly average of 3 to 14” we need to realise that the increase of 3 to 14 implies that this one person achieved more than any average police station in Europe. 

This is the kind of man the world needs and that will be explained in the next article, because the universe relies on balance and the imbalance we are about to see takes the cake and changes an optional day to night.

On a bad day
Yes like any hero that needs a antagonist to make things interesting, we have Microsoft in two mentions. Now this isn’t directly involving anyone at Microsoft, but the follies are a setting that makes things a lot worse.

First we get Wired (at https://www.wired.com/story/microsoft-copilot-phishing-data-extraction/) who gives us ‘Microsoft’s AI Can Be Turned Into an Automated Phishing Machine’ we get to see “Attacks on Microsoft’s Copilot AI allow for answers to be manipulated, data extracted, and security protections bypassed, new research shows” which is not good, but anything positive can me mauled into a criminal jester for organised crime. The additional “Microsoft raced to put generative AI at the heart of its systems. Ask a question about an upcoming meeting and the company’s Copilot AI system can pull answers from your emails, Teams chats, and files—a potential productivity boon. But these exact processes can also be abused by hackers.

Today at the Black Hat security conference in Las Vegas, researcher Michael Bargury is demonstrating five proof-of-concept ways that Copilot, which runs on its Microsoft 365 apps, such as Word, can be manipulated by malicious attackers, including using it to provide false references to files, exfiltrate some private data, and dodge Microsoft’s security protections.” Now, I haven’t seen this, but Wired has a solid enough level of credibility to not ignore this. And that isn’t all. Bargury gives the world “the ability to turn the AI into an automatic spear-phishing machine. Dubbed LOLCopilot, the red-teaming code Bargury created can—crucially, once a hacker has access to someone’s work email” as I speculatively see it a mediocrity solution to turn the Internet of Things into a machine serving organised crime, optionally the NSA too, well done Microsoft. As I see it, the workload of Major Al Marzooqi would increase fivefold when this hits the open world, actually it already has if I understood the words from Michael Bargury correctly. In this, we optionally an even bigger problem, or at least a lot of corporations will.

You see there is a second message, in this case from Cyber Security News (at https://cybersecuritynews.com/microsoft-entra-id-vulnerability/). They give us ‘Microsoft Entra ID (Azure AD) Vulnerability Let Attackers Gain Global Admin Access’ with the subtext “Security researchers have uncovered vulnerabilities in Microsoft’s Entra ID (formerly Azure Active Directory) dubbed “UnOAuthorized” which could allow unauthorised actions beyond expected controls” Now take these two parts together and the phishing expedition could hit every R&D system on the planet using Azure. I am certain that Microsoft will have some patch coming soon, but in the meantime the bulk of R&D (under Azure) will be vulnerable and approachable by many hacker and especially organised crime, because selling secrets to competitors tends to be a lucrative setting and most corporations aren’t that finicky in acquiring something that raises (and assures) the bonuses of the members of their boardroom. OK, this is speculative on my side, but wonder what some will do to get the upper hand in business, especially if there is a bonus raise involved. 

I wish I had a solution, but my personal feeling is that Microsoft has too many holes, loops and a whole rage of other issues and switching to either AWS, IBM cloud or Google Cloud tends to be an essential first step coming to my mind. Now, if there are sceptics who think that I am anti-Microsoft here, they are probably right. Therefor the Links to the two articles were added letting you look at the stories yourself. In the meantime I remember a story in April and it should be my ‘duty’ to inform SAMI that ‘BAE Systems and Microsoft join forces to equip defence programmes with innovative cloud technology’ had a nice article and with the two articles mentioned, SAMI could lay its hands on a truckload of BAE IP. Not sure how far they will get, but free IP is the way to go I say. So when you realise that a large corporation like British Aerospace with all the civilian and military hardware can be accessed, what chances do you think that Novo Nordisk (Denmark), LVMH (France), ASML (Netherlands), SAP (Germany), Hermez (France), L’Oreal (France) have? I do not know if any uses Azure, but it is a good moment for them to select one of the other companies. They could after the event sue Microsoft for damages, but Delta Airlines is already suing CrowdStrike and I am not sure how that will go. In the end it is my personal opinion that this could potentially bite Microsoft hard and it is one of the reasons I do not let them near my IP.

As I personally see it, the companies racing the be the first to launch their (fake) AI will now have a much larger impact. There were already fake data issues, but now the phishing options that are mentioned and when that gets linked to what Cyber Security News calls “UnOAuthorized” the entire IT game changes dramatically and I have no idea how that will play out. 

As my Sunday is almost over and Vancouver only just started there’s a chance we postulate that the next 72 hours will be an interesting one. Have a lovely day (when you are not on Azure).

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Military, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

August 7, 2024 · 12:36

When does it become a lie?

That is the question. It is not as simple as it sounds and I understand that. But here we are, the BBC gives us an article. I almost passed it, but then I saw something that didn’t read right, so I dug a little deeper. Their disadvantage was that I had just read up on several cases for material, so I reopened it and it is time to give you the fruits of my labour.

The BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy9eegg0rdvo) gives us ‘What could Google monopoly ruling mean for you?’. Well that is an open question but let me run you through the elements. 

“The US said Google was currently paying firms like Apple huge amounts of money each year to be pre-installed as the default search engine on their devices or platforms”. OK, so this is a business proposition. Apple decided that the benefits of Google in their systems would help them in numerous ways and Google was willing to pay this. It was a price for services.

It comes with the repetitive quote “Apple’s Safari browser for example uses Google by default” what the BBC is not giving us is the offset that Apple would have to endure and they were getting $20,000,000,000 as a bandaid, if I got that kind of money I would say “Google slap me silly”. Now we get the parts that matter, it start with “Something that’s easier to imagine is some kind of choice screen, where people opening a browser for the first time are asked whether they’d like to use Google or an alternative like Microsoft’s Bing” This is hilarious. I have had first experience with Bing. Bing influencers were HIJACKING my search and pushing it through Bing. It took me days to undo that damage. Choosing between a bully and Google is not much of a choice. To put it mildly “Google has a 91% marketshare, Bing has 3.86%, where do you get the most bang for YOUR buck?” In this simple setting Google comes out on top EVERY time. And a secondary setting is that Bing has been around for 15 years. It isn’t just that Google is better, Bing has yet to show any level of pure innovation in searches. Microsoft lacks data, innovation and proper etiquette on search engines. 

Now we get to the issue I had, which starts with “Back in 1999, Microsoft found itself in a very similar situation to where Google is now.” You see, Netscape faced new competition from OmniWeb and Microsoft’s Internet Explorer 1.0, it continued to dominate the market in 1995 and beyond. In 1997 Netscape had 72% marketshare. That is, until Microsoft switch off the proverbial oxygen to Netscape and whilst the IE was free for all (it was installed with Windows 95), thing went south in several ways for Netscape and the one ‘ruler’ in those days became Microsoft with its Internet Explorer. Google released its browser in 2008. As such (as I see it) Microsoft wasted 10 years and within 2 years nearly everyone was using Google Chrome. They overwhelmed everyone with innovations. They released Chrome v9 in 2011 and Chrome v17 in 2012. What did Microsoft do? Nada, nothing, zip, zilch. In 2012, responding to Chrome’s popularity, Apple discontinued Safari for Windows, making it exclusively available on OS X (source: ubuntu life) . So here is the first setting. Apple made an educated choice. Create your own and reinvent the wheel or select the wheel maker of choice. Even at this point we need to recognise that Microsoft’s star was faltering and falling. That was then. Now there is a different setting. Then it was which American company gets the cake. Now it is different, China is now a much larger participant. They caught up with the US and even now the UAE and Saudi Arabia are massively catching up with America. They decide to waste the time of Google on trivial matters whilst calling it “monopolising” stating that the others should be given a ‘fair’ share. In this day and age it is handing the handling of the commerce horse to China and all the good it will do the American commerce. Small hint, it will not. 

There really more issues with Microsoft and particular with Edge and particularly Daniel Aleksandersen, who called this “clearly a user-hostile move that sees Windows compromise its own product usability in order to make it more difficult to use competing products.” There are issues with edge as Douglas J. Leith, a computer science professor from Trinity College, Dublin, Microsoft Edge is among the least private browsers. He explained, “from a privacy perspective Microsoft Edge is much more worrisome than the other browsers studied. These two quotes are on different sides of edge. But in aggregating these quotes it is my distinct believe that if Google Search is broken up, the American Department of Justice will receive roses from nearly every big organised crime syndicate. It is a mere believe I have, but after having suffered the edge bullies hijacking my browser and inserting edge ad a search engine against my wishes is the beginning of much more. The Verge accused edge of “spyware tactics”, a setting we have never seen Google use (speculation by me). In this day and age of commerce, the economy and data security you want to play with Google? I think that is a really bad idea.

Enjoy today, it is now midweek, the run to the weekend starts…….now.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

August 6, 2024 · 12:12

The loser iteration

Two days ago I wrote (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2024/08/04/the-judge-shouldnt/) with the headline ‘The judge shouldn’t’, it was part speculative and part what I see (again through my eyes it could be regarded as speculative). Today a mere 4 hours ago we get through the BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0k44x6mge3o) ‘Google’s online search monopoly is illegal, US judge rules’. We are also given “Google was sued by the US Department of Justice in 2020 over its control of about 90% of the online search market.”, so lets take a look back. It started in 1995 and the ‘idea’ was completed in 1997. To turn about the setting in those days Microsoft was merely badgering their lack of knowledge and lam Netscape to get a browser dominance. Two youthful young sprouts namely Larry Page and Sergei Brin were ahead of the pack by a lot. They looked to a solution to search for text in publicly accessible documents offered by web servers, as opposed to other data. Microsoft was still trying to type words like HTTP and the clever people at Microsoft were able to type FTP. In the age of information the Google founders figured a few things out like ‘What are people trying to find’ this was against the grain for Microsoft who thought that corporations were the key and they went to ‘What are corporations willing to pay for’. The subtle difference is that Microsoft was working towards a slice of the $18,843,980,000,000 revenue that the fortune 500 represent. Google on the other hand decided to cater to its 31,000,000 employees. As such one could (oversimplified) cater to the simple fact that it would take Microsoft 9 million years to get as much data as Google. I do emphasis the oversimplification of this. I was not on the mindset of Google at first. You see I was a dedicated Yahoo user. It took 3 years until I saw that Google offered more and better result. As such in 3 years they gained a dominance. They surpassed Yahoo, Excite, Alta Vista and several other players. We can argue that it helped that Microsoft demolished Netscape. And in the decade that followed Google grew in strength and ability to cater to actual users not the CFO’s of 500 corporations. 

So when we see “It is one of several lawsuits that have been filed against the big tech companies as US antitrust authorities attempt to strengthen competition in the industry.” I believe that there is another ploy in play. The mediocrity losers (like Microsoft) want a slice of the cake they have no business being in. It isn’t just the ‘competition’ it is a reversal of technology that is in play. And in that setting the US is damaging the little benefit they have and leaving it all to China and true Chinese innovators like Huawei and Tencent. I reckon that by 2026 the mobile market will be overrun with Huawei in almost every non-americano place. They threw away the benefits when they forced Huawei to release HarmonyOS 5 years ago. 

Now we see that it is available in 77 languages and the turnover (as is) is getting stronger. Even now as EU nations are discarding the fear mongering of anti-China sentiment by American administration, and the strongest response that the EU nations give is ‘Show us evidence’, America has no answer to that other than debatable setting of ‘could’ and ‘expected’ whilst the evidence just isn’t there. And as we see an optional release this year of HarmonyOS NEXT, Android’s bough get broken on their sibling turning adult. So good luck with that.

Now we see a Judge giving us that there is a monopoly setting. I am not debating that (a lack of evidence I have), but the setting that we get from ““Google is a monopolist, and it has acted as one to maintain its monopoly,” Judge Mehta wrote in his 277-page opinion” as I see it, the maintenance of a unique field dominance is begotten by the lack of innovation by people like Microsoft who is spreading itself way too thin.  As evidence I ‘present’ Xbox, Solarwinds, CrowdStrike and the list goes on. You see ‘breaking up’ is merely a first step. They will then open the door and the abusive bully (Microsoft) will gleefully shout “Can I play here too?” With a debilitating browser called ‘Edge’. How is that progress? Don’t get me wrong if there is a decent player that can keep up with Google, even Google will applaud that. My worry is that the ideological setting of letting everyone in the sandbox play is all fine, but there is a reason that mothers do not allow toddlers in a sandbox until they reach a certain age. And bar them from playing when they get too old. The worry that I have is that this setting stops Google from evolving beyond the cookie (which is fine by the exploitative advertisers). The setting of other people’s greed who cannot evolve into newer territories. This could now allow Huawei and Tencent to gain even more innovative sides to push into markets where American stage are auto rejected. Tencent is on the cliffhanger to introduce their solution to 150,000,000 homes and they can get there by 2027. 

This will leave Microsoft in a stage where it has no options and no future. As these Fortune 500 will find ways to rise to new frontiers we will see them seeking IBM and Amazon solutions catering a larger downfall of Microsoft. In that stage there is certain a decent amount of space for Google. As they will hand a corporate solution to their ‘office’ suite Microsoft will lose more grounds. The only thing that keeps them up for some time is Excel. But the world is changing what was once a spreadsheet world now becomes an AWS environment and Google can cater there too. I do think that Googles forced push to breaking up is not a great solution, but Google has overcome harder challenges. 

This and my previous article ‘The judge shouldn’t’ gives us the premise that the Antitrust laws are possibly a little obsolete. Microsoft sees this as their ticket in and it is willing to cater to this as it hurts Apple and Google. Two parts the US desperately needs to work at optimum to stop themselves of being overrun by Chinese innovators. You see 7 years ago ByteDance introduced TikTok (not a Peter Pan crocodile). In 7 years it became a near equal of YouTube that was in play 12 years longer. Now I get that YouTube paved the was, but that is the usual tracks for New innovators, they go over the backs from those who went before. Now consider that and the fact that HarmonyOS is about to go toe to toe with Android in only 4 years. That is what I wrong. Not that we think about antitrust. I partially agree with antitrust sentiments. But we need to see that the greed driven use it to keep up, or not to lose their revenue. But that was never the concern of Google (or Apple for that matter). As I see it in the last decade the face of technology was set by Amazon (AWS), Apple (MacWares), Google (Android, G-wares) and IBM (large solutions and Quantum) they create the innovations, players like Microsoft should go under and seek revenue from the Fortune 500. They were the bees knees weren’t they? 

But as I see it, US District Judge Amit Mehta is allowed by law to hand it all over to Chinese innovators. When the EU, Commonwealth nations, Africa and Asia allow these innovator into their governments America becomes a party of one (with 330 million consumers). So consider that the other regions has over 7,500 million people. As I see it it is a hard lesson that America learns twice. Wasn’t the Google premise of 1997 not enough?

Enjoy your day and ponder what benefit was to be had from optionally breaking up Google and who were the actual beneficiaries (not the consumers clearly).

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Politics, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

August 4, 2024 · 21:00

The judge shouldn’t

I have two things on my mind. The first is the Olympics. I do not follow it every second, but I was ‘witness’ to two events. The first is a Canadian swimmer, I refer to her as Funny Flounder. I have a thing for alliteration. It is Summer McIntosh. This 17 year young swimmer, on her first Olympic challenge got 3 golden medals and one silver one, she also broke a few of her own world records. I reckon that over the next 6 Olympics she will win a lot more. It is amazing that any person at that age can have so much drive and focus. I know I have focus, but I could never achieve that result in any discipline, not even when I was in the height of my fencing days. Then there was the Dutch Femke Bol. I saw her in the last half of the leg she did, going from 4th to 1st and win the golden medal. I have never seen such an achievement and I am happy I did now. Yet, this was not what was occupying my mind. 

On my mind was the article (at https://www.khaleejtimes.com/business/tech/apple-asks-us-judge-to-toss-antitrust-lawsuit) where we see ‘Apple asks US judge to toss antitrust lawsuit’ we are given that it is one of five blockbuster monopoly cases pending against Big Tech companies. It was a story originally by Reuters. We are given “a lawsuit by federal and state antitrust regulators accusing it of illegally monopolising the smartphone market, saying the case would have a judge redesign its popular iPhone”. Fist off, I am not an expert on anti trust lawsuits and it will probably show in a moment.

I stand by Apple in this case. You see these people are in a wrong state of mind (and then some). I do not have an iPhone, I am an Android person and I will remain an Android person. I have nothing against Apple, I have had an iPad since the very first generation in 2010, it my present from me to me to use in University. It never let me down and in 2020 I replaced it with the iPad Air. 

The first never let my down until it was replaced and I am happy with this one too. So I do like the iOS system. My issue was that the world was eager to play down the iPhone for too much and in an age of wannabe’s thinking of their ego we saw the iPhone take the market by storm. It pretty much destroyed Nokia, Motorola and Microsoft (yes they had a mobile once). It headed ahead of Samsung (a brand I hate) and made short work of Google Pixel and Huawei with their assortment of mobiles. Actually the US government reduced the market share of Huawei. So to these antitrust regulators I state ‘Screw you’ (with a clear lack of anti trust laws). You see whilst the others were propagating their own ego’s and hide behind marketing presentations that were there to ‘appease’ the share holders, Apple did something else, they approached the customers, they listened and approach clients with presentations and newish innovation. So whilst they did that and released the ear buds and the smartwatches, the people looked and listened and joined the iPhone crowd. And there is more, The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 has ben around for a while, so where were they when Netscape was murdered by Microsoft? We have United States of America v. Microsoft Corporation, 253 F. 34 as well as the overturning in 2001, after 11 years in court. There is a difference. Apple created iOS in a presumed (by me) towards the IoT (Internet of Things) and Apple has always heralded interconnectivity on their systems. I have two really bad issues with Apple, but not with my iPod and iPad, they always functioned perfectly. 

This matters, because the US regulators are apparently fond of shooting themselves in the foot. 

And that is what will happen if a judge redesigns its popular iPhone. And the setting (as I see it) is that they never minded anything as Apple stayed in its niche market, but now with the smart phone it is different. You see ever since I looked into matters (around 2011) I saw that the stage was going to change. Mobile devices were going to be generic with optional simplified hardware, the power as going to be the software. So 5 devices and one program solution and for the most that is coming to pass. We have Apple, Google, Huawei and Samsung for the most and Microsoft is out of THAT race. The lag that Motorola and Nokia have are just too big. So when I see “The Justice Department, 19 states and Washington, D.C., accuse Apple of an illegal monopoly on smartphones maintained by imposing contractual restrictions on, and withholding critical access from, developers” I say ‘bollocks’ The issue is who are the iOS developers? In 2011 I have cess to the development kits of Apple (schoolwork) and I never entertained it other than the assignments I had. I was an Apple user, not a developer (I regret that a little right now). 

So when we see “an illegal monopoly on smartphones” I say that this is not an illegal monopoly, it is a system setting that they selected, other than Android (Google, Huawei, Samsung) and Windows (Microsoft), actually I am hard to keep a straight face when setting Windows on a mobile phone. Can you imagine the CrowdStrike damage mobile phones might have had to endure? Oh and when we see this did anyone consider the consequences that were on IBM, who basically forced people to rely on IBM hardware. Perhaps HP can rephrase the nightmare they faced on IBM with their printers. 

There is a second tier to this all, we need to consider that The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 is no longer the best way to go about this for more and more devices. As the mobiles become more generic and it will be on the software to trample a path into this all. When we consider that Google now has the Pixel 8a, Pixel 8 Pro, Pixel 8, Pixel Watch 2, Pixel Fold, Pixel Tablet. At least three of these systems are nearly identical, they have 1-2 processors difference. Their difference becomes the software. But that is now, I expect in the next 2-3 years that there will be more devices all powered by the same software and optionally the connecting devices (through the mobile phones) . The lawmakers of 1890 would have never expected this and the differences will grow even more.  And a prime example here is Microsoft. We now get “All you’ll need is a compatible Fire TV Stick, a Bluetooth-enabled wireless controller, and an Xbox Game Pass Ultimate subscription to stream Xbox games. Microsoft is working to allow Xbox Cloud Gaming to stream your entire Xbox library, and not just titles that are part of Game Pass.” Did anyone consider “a compatible Fire TV Stick”? So how long until they revamp the gaming industry with that solution? How long until they (a speculative view) impede devices through that connection where an error stops the Sony Playstation or Nintendo Switch to no longer with with their software because (speculative) software by Microsoft impeded it? Oh, they’ll be all apologetic, but the damage will have been done. We see (at Microsoft) “The Program Install and Uninstall troubleshooter helps you automatically repair issues when you’re blocked from installing or removing programs. It also fixes corrupted registry keys”, so this issue has been around from Windows 7 (2009), and was still around in Windows 10 (2015), so it was an issue for at least 6 years. Do we really want them to get involved? Come to think of it, l I would be on the first plane to Shenzhen if it comes to that. Oh and I haven’t even considered the damage that solution would do to the Amazon Luna. Apple had a solution and it has propagated that solution to all things Apple. They marketed their solution widely and innovatively and innovation is what is missed in many Big Tech companies. Too give another example, last year Apple did something Awesome. We see a meeting with a youthful young sprout (Tim Cook) reporting to Gaia and getting lectured by her. The brilliance was that plenty of companies took a paragraph out of their time to publish that they are on track to be carbon zero. Apple made it a presentation (advertisement) whilst giving a report of their directions. It was funny and it was pretty brilliant. Google and Amazon missed the boat and there was no value in copying that. So that is the innovative presentations that are Apple. The bigger picture is that mobile phones are presented through marketing and Apple marketing slaps the marketing of Google and Samsung. So we see “an illegal monopoly on smartphones” all whilst the others aren’t doing their bit to keep up (or seemingly keep up), so why punish Apple for that?

As I see it the judge has to toss the case, of not for the logic then for the reality that if this setting is pushed and Microsoft steps in, then we come to the conclusion that the US government is merely a tools for Microsoft to stop it from collapsing on itself (my personal view).

Well that was me today. 190 minutes from Monday here now, Vancouver is still pre Sunday breakfast. Have a fun day everyone.

1 Comment

Filed under IT, Law, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,