EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

01.02.09

AMD and Novell: Kisses Then Tears

Posted in Astrum, Hardware, Microsoft, Novell, Patents at 6:59 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Graphics card
Friction in the boards

According to this message from Wednesday, Compiz suffers from a developers vacuum. People move on to forks of this Novell project, notably Compiz-Fusion. This new comment from LinuxToday is about “Novell’s role” and it asks, “Could devs be moving to a different home because of the Microsoft factor?”

It’s worth remembering that Compiz predates Novell’s patent deal with Microsoft. If there is any substance to the argument above, this would not be the first example where developers are leaving Novell because of the Novell/Microsoft patent deal. This actually leads to a different and older story; Novell betrayed partners like Astrum [1, 2, 3] and they got sued for it too, but what about the relationship with AMD?

There are those who insist that hardware acceleration is an area where Novell contributes a lot, but had it not been Novell, it probably would have been more of Red Hat.

“AMD was close to going through with the canning its Novell contract, which would have effectively spelled the death of RadeonHD.”One known example of contribution is the AMD-Novell relationship. But Novell angered AMD in a major way some time ago , despite the fact that AMD and Novell had enjoyed a good relation, as demonstrated publicly in LinuxWorld 2007. It was quite an affair and several press releases came out at the time (this did not recur in LinuxWorld 2008). AMD and Novell were a good match; both were abused by convicted monopolists.

What few people know is that AMD almost cut Novell off on their RadeonHD contract. AMD was getting especially steamed over RadeonHD avoiding AtomBIOS. The RadeonHD developers were not entirely aware of this at the time, and maybe they still don’t know.

A senior AMD official wrote: “And to think I spent the last four months of my life trying to save their sorry asses. What a fool I was. [...] it was scheduled to be finished 5 weeks ago. [...] I escalated high and hard within Novell’s senior management.” It was the Novell developers who were causing the issues, whereas Novell’s management was not the one trying to knock AMD over AtomBIOS. AMD was paying Novell to write a driver to use AtomBIOS, but Novell continued going forward bashing AtomBIOS and avoiding it. The real reason, simply put, was that AtomBIOS is written horribly, or that’s how Novell viewed it anyway. The developers said it was their intention all along to hard-code it with no AtomBIOS.

AMD was close to going through with the canning its Novell contract, which would have effectively spelled the death of RadeonHD.

Were the specs sufficient for anyone else to take over? Hypothetically speaking, for some parts, yes. But for every document that’s publicly available, there are at least three times as many NDA documents than Novell had. However, if they had canned RadeonHD, it’s reasonable to suspect that they would have steered their resources towards Red Hat as they already do for the -ati driver.

NDAs are used all the time when they release documentation that has yet to be sanitised and for documentation and hardware on unreleased products. The danger with Novell is one that revolves around control. It seems like AMD clings on to control. They don’t want the community to leapfrog its own development.

Those NDAs were part of this arrangement and are in some sense akin to what Microsoft arranged with Novell. Microsoft makes source code visible, but only Novell can use it. This leads to a liability path and there’s also the issue of Linux (or broadly speaking, the Free Desktop) depending on Novell’s existence. In a sense, NDAs, just like RAND and software patents, are inherently incompatible with the spirit and goals of the GNU project.

Another related example of control would be Maemo versus the iPhone. In the former case, Nokia lost control of its direction and its equipment, at least in some sense. DRM and all that antifeature fluff wouldn’t be properly enforced; On the contrary — looking at the latter — Apple uses “security” as a codeword for control. It’s prepared to brick iPhones that leap out of its hands (jail-breaking).

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

41 Comments

  1. AlexH said,

    January 2, 2009 at 9:13 am

    Gravatar

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=radeonhd_atombios&num=1

  2. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 2, 2009 at 9:23 am

    Gravatar

    Yes, it was resolved eventually. But it could have ended badly.

  3. Dan O'Brian said,

    January 2, 2009 at 9:38 am

    Gravatar

    I don’t buy that developers are moving away from Compiz because of the deal. You might recall a previous fork of Compiz, called Beryl, that merged back with Compiz after the deal was made.

  4. Dan O'Brian said,

    January 2, 2009 at 9:39 am

    Gravatar

    LOL, big surprise that the “comment on LinuxToday” that suggested developers were moving away from Compiz was due to the deal was none other than your henchman, Jose_X. It all becomes clear, now…

  5. Dan O'Brian said,

    January 2, 2009 at 9:41 am

    Gravatar

    If you read the actual email, here’s why developers are frustrated with Compiz development:

    The reality is that there has been the equivalent of no progress since the merge. We’ve basically only been in maintenance mode. The reason for this, from my point of view, is a complete lack of direction and leadership.

    Did he mention anything about a Microsoft-Novell deal? I don’t see one.

    Maybe you and Jose_X should spend some time reading the articles you link to instead of trying to put words into people’s mouths.

  6. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 2, 2009 at 9:48 am

    Gravatar

    I don’t buy that developers are moving away from Compiz because of the deal. You might recall a previous fork of Compiz, called Beryl, that merged back with Compiz after the deal was made.

    This was suggested only as a possibility (that they left because of the deal).

    LOL, big surprise that the “comment on LinuxToday” that suggested developers were moving away from Compiz was due to the deal was none other than your henchman, Jose_X. It all becomes clear, now…

    “Henchman”? Because the guy left comments this Web he’s now a “henchman”? I had nothing to do with comments that he left there. I just found that one because I read LinuxToday and it was the sole comment on one particular article.

  7. AlexH said,

    January 2, 2009 at 9:53 am

    Gravatar

    @Roy: you’ve also published articles he’s written, so he’s a contributor. I think Dan is on to something – that comment should have at least been flagged as coming from someone you converse with.

    I was going to comment on your berating Novell for contributing, but Dan has done a good enough job on that front.

  8. Dan O'Brian said,

    January 2, 2009 at 9:53 am

    Gravatar

    Considering that both you and Jose_X clearly have an anti-Novell bias, is it really a surprise that he tries to play the Microsoft/Novell-deal card? Not at all. He plays that card no matter what was said. Same as you.

    This was suggested only as a possibility (that they left because of the deal).

    And what evidence is there to support this “possibility”? Considering the Compiz developers have said nothing about the deal, it’s not even a remote possibility. It’s just all in your head. Spin, spin, spin.

  9. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 2, 2009 at 9:53 am

    Gravatar

    AlexH,

    You know very well that I asked him if he waned his comments to be published as a post. You saw that. I did it out in the open.

  10. Dan O'Brian said,

    January 2, 2009 at 9:56 am

    Gravatar

    That doesn’t make him any less of a contributor to this website. He’s not just a reader, Roy. But there you go again, trying desperately to spin it like he’s not involved with this site.

  11. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 2, 2009 at 9:57 am

    Gravatar

    Dan O’Brian,

    And what evidence is there to support this “possibility”? Considering the Compiz developers have said nothing about the deal, it’s not even a remote possibility. It’s just all in your head. Spin, spin, spin.

    Do you know why the fork was created in the first place?

  12. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 2, 2009 at 9:58 am

    Gravatar

    Dan O’Brian,

    That doesn’t make him any less of a contributor to this website. He’s not just a reader, Roy. But there you go again, trying desperately to spin it like he’s not involved with this site.

    By that definition, you and Alex too are contributors.

  13. AlexH said,

    January 2, 2009 at 9:58 am

    Gravatar

    @Roy: that just explains further how he contributes. What’s not to debate is his links.

  14. AlexH said,

    January 2, 2009 at 9:59 am

    Gravatar

    @Roy: er, no. We don’t contribute articles, we just help fact check them.

  15. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 2, 2009 at 10:00 am

    Gravatar

    I converse with people in IRC and in the comments and borrow ideas quite routinely, with attribution. There is nothing new under the sun.

  16. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 2, 2009 at 10:01 am

    Gravatar

    @Roy: er, no. We don’t contribute articles, we just help fact check them.

    Jose did not contribute an article either. I publicly asked him if I could borrow his explanation.

  17. Dan O'Brian said,

    January 2, 2009 at 10:01 am

    Gravatar

    Do you know why the fork was created in the first place?

    Yes, I do. The question is, do you?

    From the wikipedia site:

    Beryl was the project name for the Quinnstorm branch of Compiz, announced on 19 September 2006 after Quinnstorm and the development team decided that the fork had come too far from the original Compiz started by Novell (compiz-vanilla). After the Novell XGL/Compiz team (mostly David Reveman) refused the proposition to merge the Quinnstorm changes with compiz-vanilla, the decision was made to make a real differentiation.[2][3] In 2007, they remerged into Compiz-Fusion.

    Once again, nothing to do with the deal.

  18. AlexH said,

    January 2, 2009 at 10:01 am

    Gravatar

    You published it as a story on this site. How and why is irrelevant.

  19. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 2, 2009 at 10:02 am

    Gravatar

    Dan,

    True, it’s to do with control.

  20. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 2, 2009 at 10:05 am

    Gravatar

    You published it as a story on this site. How and why is irrelevant.

    Yet he does not control what is posted. If I propose something for Groklaw, does that make me a contributor/editor? Of course not. Some things will be rejected, some will be accepted based on the editorship.

  21. AlexH said,

    January 2, 2009 at 10:09 am

    Gravatar

    @Roy: Contributors rarely have any control outside their own articles. Contributor is not the same as “editor”, either.

  22. Dan O'Brian said,

    January 2, 2009 at 10:10 am

    Gravatar

    Roy said,

    True, it’s to do with control.

    Or…

    the development team decided that the fork had come too far from the original Compiz

    Maybe it has to do with the fact that the changes were significant and maybe the original Compiz developers took the conservative approach and decided that they didn’t want to risk the merge? Maybe they felt it was too risky.

    Seeing as how they re-merged later, it seems to me it couldn’t have been about control.

  23. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 2, 2009 at 10:14 am

    Gravatar

    There was a degree of hostility in the forking as I recall it.

  24. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 2, 2009 at 10:15 am

    Gravatar

    AlexH,

    @Roy: Contributors rarely have any control outside their own articles. Contributor is not the same as “editor”, either.

    For me to collect a couple of comments and repost them has you consider Jose a contributor of this site. I’m fine with that.

  25. AlexH said,

    January 2, 2009 at 10:17 am

    Gravatar

    @Roy: it just seems to be a statement of the bleeding obvious to me.

  26. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 2, 2009 at 10:24 am

    Gravatar

    Which statement?

  27. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 2, 2009 at 2:07 pm

    Gravatar

    There are followups now.

    http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2009-01-02-002-35-OS-SW-0001
    http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2009-01-02-002-35-OS-SW-0002

  28. Jose_X said,

    January 2, 2009 at 2:18 pm

    Gravatar

    Guys, I left more comments there (Dan, make sure to read my reply since it applies to some of what you are saying here). There are many possibilities (those I mentioned being hypothetical).

    I’m glad I commented there again before coming to this thread since I was relaxed and in a polite mode (this thread may not have affected me, but this is a high intensity forum so you never know).

    Roy, I do suggest Novell-MS angles whenever these come to mind as Dan and/or others noted above (defensive thinking). I also post here (though not nearly as much as some others). It’s fair to call me a henchmen then. I’m not insulted because the comments speak for themselves.

  29. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 2, 2009 at 2:24 pm

    Gravatar

    They just love making it seem like there is some coordination, as though I ask people to link to this site or leave particular comments in some other Web sites.

    I find that amusing that they — those who accuse the site of being a “conspiracy theory” — are themselves those with crazy theories.

    Communication in this site is done openly (public IRC, comments, etc.), so they can see for themselves all the cogwheels. They can even get involved.

  30. Jose_X said,

    January 2, 2009 at 3:20 pm

    Gravatar

    I am much less of a contributor to this site than the 3 other posters above me.. and I don’t intend to have that change.

    If I didn’t appreciate the content that is so frequently posted here (yes, it has flaws, blah blah), I would not waste so much time on this time sink. Linux Today is a greater time sink. I truly do try to stay away from posting, but some days it’s not worthwhile to even try.

    I think Novell and Microsoft have other forums where they can lead the discussion in pro-Novell ways. These corps don’t offer fair and balanced. This blog serves as a counter to that. Roy *might* help his cause to be more balanced, but that would definitely affect the number of ideas being put out. This site is alpha development. The quality varies. Some of the more widely useful material gets linked to from other more conservative/balanced sites. A lot of the information is very useful nonetheless. Many blog pieces have no or mostly supporting comments. Some with dissenting views don’t even focus on anything substantial. Take the case with this thread. A suggestion was made (and past examples exist as pointed out) that the MS deal may have something to do in some way with some developers leaving compiz. Wow! Sit back and watch the January 2nd carryover fireworks.

    FWIW, from the best I am aware, this case is one of a few instances where I was quoted at the top of an entry on this site. Also, I believe Roy did me a favor in this one case [ http://boycottnovell.com/2008/11/25/jose-on-mono/ ] and in another one (can’t remember the topic this second) based on a request I made in the threads (or in email). I agree with Roy in substance (if not in every detail) in many cases, and I guess he thought that particular message was important enough even though he doesn’t completely agree with all aspects of it (those following along can probably tell).

    I think this compiz situation is interesting and not surprising. If you read my other reply there, you’ll see I am not necessarily assuming ill-will by Novell in saying this issue of losing developers isn’t surprising. There is some sort of pattern of late, and you don’t even have to be against the MS deal to recognize it. [There may be many other patterns, but this one is something that is brought to attention by places like this site. It's the "task" of those in favor of Novell to research and bring up other patterns. I'm sure Novell and Microsoft have plenty of resources to dedicate to that matter and do.. perhaps on their websites.]

    Hmm, Dan, let me be specific on one thing (in case you don’t read my other reply). What we have is one developer making some comments. There is no other reason unless we want to research more to believe the accuracy of that comment. However, taking it at face value, iirc, the reason for the loss of devs was never stated. I obviously go into the article with the Novell-MS deal card at least in the back of my mind. I don’t remember reading anything to suggest that the deal would be ruled out as a reason for developer losses. If I had been a compiz developer, I would have left ship (forked/etc) for just this reason of the MS deal.

    However, as suggested in my second reply on LT, some of those devs missing in action might even be working for Microsoft now. Maybe not.

    Does someone want to shed light instead of just pointing out the obvious (and unlikely case) that another possibility is that none of the devs lost were lost because of the MS deal (or the much more possible case that *some* didn’t leave because of the deal)?

  31. Jose_X said,

    January 2, 2009 at 3:25 pm

    Gravatar

    >> Communication in this site is done openly (public IRC, comments, etc.), so they can see for themselves all the cogwheels. They can even get involved.

    You periodically make references to some amount of communication happening in private (duh). Judging by my experiences with you and this site, I would say that forms the minority of communication.

    In any case, IRC logs and comments on articles are public and open for comments. As others have pointed out, you usually leverage newsfeeds and stories that most people also access or learn about quickly enough.

  32. Dan O'Brian said,

    January 2, 2009 at 3:34 pm

    Gravatar

    If the developers are leaving over the Microsoft-Novell deal:

    1. they’d have said so (the anti Microsoft-Novell crowd are a very vocal group)
    2. they’d have left back in early 2007 (instead, in early 2007 the Beryl project merged back with Compiz). If those devs were against the Microsoft-Novell deal, why would they merge?

    I know you guys like to live in a world where companies are guilty of your accusations until proven innocent, but the reality is that they are innocent until proven guilty. Since you guys have no supporting evidence to show that any of the developers leaving the project are leaving due to the deal, you guys lose – especially since your theory doesn’t even make sense based on the history.

  33. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 2, 2009 at 3:37 pm

    Gravatar

    A modest proposal was all it was.

  34. Dan O'Brian said,

    January 2, 2009 at 3:38 pm

    Gravatar

    Shouldn’t proposals be based on, oh I don’t know, supporting evidence?

  35. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 2, 2009 at 3:43 pm

    Gravatar

    That was hardly the point of the post, just a single paragraph which makes it clear that it’s a speculation.

    Got any comment on the actual post rather than the single point you nitpick, and quite illegitimately so, IMHO?

  36. Jose_X said,

    January 2, 2009 at 3:45 pm

    Gravatar

    [Dan] >> And what evidence is there to support this “possibility”? Considering the Compiz developers have said nothing about the deal, it’s not even a remote possibility. It’s just all in your head. Spin, spin, spin.

    I agree with your other comment that I do look for the Novell angle. I’ll say that my reason for looking for a link to them in this case (and maybe in most other cases) is because if I were in the shoes of the affected party, there is a high prob that I would have eventually left (forked/etc) for just that reason. I am not the only developer that feels this way as has been pointed out by a number of other developers.

    Novell is not the only one making deals with Microsoft, but they appear to me to be the most dependent on Microsoft and working on the most significant contract for Microsoft.. at least of the players that were recognized at some point to be strong community members and who today are publicly and actively still developing.

    I am very much against Monopolysoft’s business agenda; hence, I am very much against this role Novell has taken on. Pro-FOSS developers aren’t *all* just going to quit their jobs over this deal, and there is only so much they could have done or can do today to undo the impact of this deal.

    I rest knowing affected Novell employees probably have fair recourse, and enough of those staying on ship or recently hired probably like the overall goals of the deal. They may even be hanging on waiting for a takeover or employment offer from Microsoft. They may have other offers lined up, but will wait it out some more. ETC.

    This site aims to help protect “community assets” and is not primarily focused on protecting Novell’s hide by any means. Roy, correct me if you disagree.

  37. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 2, 2009 at 3:49 pm

    Gravatar

    Other angles are covered as well, but just as Groklaw does not waste time presenting the pro-SCO views, I usually just link to pro-Novell material on Saturdays when I have more free time.

  38. Jose_X said,

    January 2, 2009 at 4:00 pm

    Gravatar

    Dan, of course there is history to support the suggestion I made. Developers have claimed specifically to have left Novell just for reasons related to the MS partnerships. They don’t have to write up a blog and say so. Some people are private. To others, that might just be one minor (or even major) reason among various (it may have played a discouraging effect).

    It also wasn’t stated that a bunch of developers left all at once. The email said developer count has gone down (lately?). To ignore the beryl situation is what is foolish. Clearly, you can’t expect everyone that went over to contribute to beryl instead of to compiz to put out a press release if a reason for such a move was their new degraded/distrusting opinion of Novell’s business, do you?

    I do think this deal was significant. In their shoes I think I would want to change course as soon as I could. It is a sad thing because other relationships/ties and opinions don’t all change at once, and no one wants to abandon a serious investment if you are still interested in it. People also oftentimes don’t like to jeopardize their jobs if they aren’t in the mood to move, don’t have something else lined up, etc.

    And I also suggested in a later reply that some of these developers might even have gone to work for Microsoft or be working for Novell or for anyone else in private but perhaps also on similar technology.

    Why would people be so sensitive to what happens to Novell the company? Fork and change direction and be at peace and doing what you love.. or not I suppose.

    A site like this is not going to be good for the blood pressure of anyone that is very attached to Novell.

  39. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 2, 2009 at 4:11 pm

    Gravatar

    It can’t be good for the blood pressure of those knowing it’s not ignored or vandalised, either. That’s why they come here.

  40. Sean Tilley said,

    January 3, 2009 at 3:19 pm

    Gravatar

    Wow, BoycottNovell actually had something that perked my interest this time.

    Not to sound like I’m bashing. I think it’s definitely frustrating for the devs at AMD, and especially the ATI branch. However, I’m ecstatic that the Radeon and RadeonHD drivers can at least be under an open license for all. That means theoretically, free distros such as gNewSense will be able to have 3D support!

    At least there’s a bit of silver lining in that.

  41. Paul Gaskin said,

    January 9, 2009 at 7:49 pm

    Gravatar

    Roy doesn’t have any “henchmen”.

    I have seen Novell’s henchmen go after Roy, however.

What Else is New


  1. EPO 'Business' From the United States Has Nosedived and UPC is on Its Death Throes

    Benoît Battistelli and Elodie Bergot further accelerate the ultimate demise of the EPO (getting rid of experienced and thus 'expensive' staff), for which there is no replacement because there is a monopoly (which means Europe will suffer severely)



  2. Links 17/11/2017: KDE Applications 17.12, Akademy 2018 Plans

    Links for the day



  3. Today's EPO and Team UPC Do Not Work for Europe But Actively Work Against Europe

    The tough reality that some Europeans actively work to undermine science and technology in Europe because they personally profit from it and how this relates to the Unitary Patent (UPC), which is still aggressively lobbied for, sometimes by bribing/manipulating the media, academia, and public servants



  4. Links 16/11/2017: WordPress 4.9 and GhostBSD 11.1 Released

    Links for the day



  5. The Staff Union of the EPO (SUEPO) is Rightly Upset If Not Shocked at What Battistelli and Bergot Are Doing to the Office

    The EPO's dictatorial management is destroying everything that's left (of value) at the Office while corrupting academia and censoring discussion by threatening those who publish comments (gagging its own staff even when that staff posts anonymously)



  6. EPO Continues to Disobey the Law on Software Patents in Europe

    Using the same old euphemisms, e.g. "computer-implemented inventions" (or "CII"), the EPO continues to grant patents which are clearly and strictly out of scope



  7. Links 16/11/2017: Tails 3.3, Deepin 15.5 Beta

    Links for the day



  8. Benoît Battistelli and Elodie Bergot Have Just Ensured That EPO Will Get Even More Corrupt

    Revolving door-type tactics will become more widespread at the EPO now that the management (Battistelli and his cronies) hires for low cost rather than skills/quality and minimises staff retention; this is yet another reason to dread anything like the UPC, which prioritises litigation over examination



  9. Australia is Banning Software Patents and Shelston IP is Complaining as Usual

    The Australian Productivity Commission, which defies copyright and patent bullies, is finally having policies put in place that better serve the interests of Australians, but the legal 'industry' is unhappy (as expected)



  10. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Defended by Technology Giants, by Small Companies, by US Congress and by Judges, So Why Does USPTO Make It Less Accessible?

    In spite of the popularity of PTAB and the growing need/demand for it, the US patent system is apparently determined to help it discriminate against poor petitioners (who probably need PTAB the most)



  11. Declines in Patent Quality at the EPO and 'Independent' Judges Can No Longer Say a Thing

    The EPO's troubling race to the bottom (of patent quality) concerns the staff examiners and the judges, but they cannot speak about it without facing rather severe consequences



  12. The EPO is Now Corrupting Academia, Wasting Stakeholders' Money Lying to Stakeholders About the Unitary Patent (UPC)

    The Unified Patent Court/Unitary Patent (UPC) is a dying project and the EPO, seeing that it is going nowhere fast, has resorted to new tactics and these tactics cost a lot of money (at the expense of those who are being lied to)



  13. Links 15/11/2017: Fedora 27 Released, Linux Mint Has New Betas

    Links for the day



  14. Patents Roundup: Packet Intelligence, B.E. Technology, Violin, and Square

    The latest stories and warnings about software patents in the United States



  15. Decline of Skills Level of Staff Like Examiners and Impartiality (Independence) of Judges at the EPO Should Cause Concern, Alarm

    Access to justice is severely compromised at the EPO as staff is led to rely on deficient tools for determining novelty while judges are kept out of the way or ill-chosen for an agenda other than justice



  16. Links 14/11/2017: GNU/Linux at Samsung, Firefox 57 Quantum

    Links for the day



  17. Microsoft: Sheltering Oneself From Patent Litigation While Passing Patents for Trolls to Attack GNU/Linux

    Another closer look at Provenance Asset Holdings and what exactly it is (connection to AST, part of the cartel Microsoft subsidises to shield itself)



  18. The Patent Trolls' Lobby is Losing the Battle for Europe

    The situation in Europe is looking grim for patent trolls, for their policies and the envisioned system (which they lobbied for) isn't coming to fruition and their main casualty is the old (and functioning) EPO



  19. Unitary Patent (UPC) is Dead to the EPO and ANSERA is Not the Answer as Patent Quality Declines and Talented Staff Leaves

    EPOPIC comes to an end and the EPO does not mention the UPC 'content' in it; ANSERA, in the meantime, raises more questions than it answers and IP Kat makes a formal query



  20. Why Honest Journalism on Patent Matters Barely Exists

    Media coverage in the area of patent law is still appalling as it's dominated if not monopolised by those who benefit from patent maximalism



  21. Patent Maximalism Around the World

    A roundup of stories or spin observed over the past week, mostly favouring those who profit from patents rather than creation of anything



  22. Links 13/11/2017: Samsung’s DeX Revisited, Linux Kernel 4.14 Released

    Links for the day



  23. Time for the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) to Disregard Rulings From the Eastern District of Texas

    A look at the latest developments at the Federal Circuit and some bits about Microsoft's extortion using software patents (even after Alice)



  24. Alice (De Facto Ban on Software Patents) Remains Untouched in 2017 and Likely in 2018 As Well

    The patent microcosm (people like Dennis Crouch) is trying to find cases that can contradict Alice (at the higher levels, especially the US Supreme Court) but is unable to find them; as things stand, suing anyone with a software patent seems like a losing/high-risk strategy



  25. The USPTO's Joe Matal (Interim Director) Sounds Serious About Improving the Patent Quality and Services

    An expressed desire to improve the US patent system rather than treat is like a money-making machine, as illuminated in recent days by Patently-O



  26. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Defends Firms From Bogus Patents and US Congress Hears About How PTAB Dodgers Misuse Immunity

    The debate about PTAB is being lost by the patent microcosm, whose attempt to dodge and demonise PTAB merely serves to reinforce PTAB's importance and continued success



  27. Links 11/11/2017: Mesa 17.2.5 and Wine 2.21 Released

    Links for the day



  28. Benoît Battistelli Gives Power to Željko Topić, Not Just to António Campinos

    Topić still derives power from Battistelli, who treats him like his right-hand man



  29. Next EPO President Will Continue a Cooperation Which Does Not Exist

    Kluwer Patent Blog is nitpicking the words of António Campinos and expressing scepticism about progress to be made by Campinos



  30. More Microsoft AstroTurfing by Association for Competitive Technology (ACT) and Mingorance

    ACT, now led by Morgan Reed rather than Zuck, is still meddling in European policy (software patents agenda) and other familar front groups appear at the scene in an effort to influence DG Competition


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts