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


Microsoft Lies to Create Vista 7 Hype Whilst Vista Dies

Posted in Microsoft, Vista, Vista 7, Windows at 7:26 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Publicity stunts galore

TIRELESSLY AND DECISIVELY we have been covering a great deal of manipulation from Microsoft, which is trying to shape the perceptions around Vista 7. Never underestimate Microsoft’s capabilities as a well-lubricated PR machine; after all, much of its ‘success’ is often attributed to marketing, lawyers and illegal activities for which they earned convictions.

Vista 7 (technically Windows 6.1) is making some headlines at the moment, so it’s time to put things into perspective. Other people have already done that, so we reference rather than repeat.

PR and the supposed ‘leak’

It should be clear to all of us that these versions floating around various torrent sites – and especially the beta 1 – are carefully planned by public relations. And it’s brilliant. Why?

* Because they reach their target audience, people with tech skills who are still enthusiastic about Windows and are taking time to download, install and test the operating system. Most of them have blogs and will surely post something about it and creating hype for the next release.
* Zero distribution costs via peer-to-peer networks; no responsibility for download speed or failures.
* Press coverage on all the major blogs with little adverse consequences; even if the review is negative – the release is not official.
* A large, no-consequences, zero logistics, no expense beta test; Judging by ThePirateBay seeder/leecher ratio and the time of upload, more than 30 000 tech savvy people are running Windows 7 beta 1 right now and probably submitting bugs, crash reports and hardware information.
* Frameworks inside Windows 7 allow remote deactivation or ‘crippling’ via de WGA scheme. Your copy of Windows 7 works because Microsoft lets you. And they know a new machine is online the minute Windows connects to the internet.

Glyn Moody hits the nail on the head when he claims that Microsoft is merely inflating an image through illusions, in this case artificial scarcity.

So either they’re saying that they didn’t expect Windows 7 beta to be popular and their infrastructure doesn’t scale, or they’ve let this happen on purpose to generate a little buzz. In other words, in order to make Windows 7 desirable, first you make it unobtainable….

This bogus ‘crisis’ and the phony hype were created in accordance with screenshots of Microsoft’s guerrilla marketing blog. They appeared in The Register and in IDG, which repeatedly published to create a buzz about Vista 7 (more than once).

Vista 7 is just another Vista. It’s a little more advanced, but being a slightly advanced bad operating system does not make it a good one. The early adopters of pre-beta and beta builds just happen to be its anticipating fans, so the coverage will naturally be uneven and biased.

With the digit “7″ in many headlines, it has become abundantly apparent that Microsoft is burying Vista’s promotion, regardless of those $300 million (some sources said $500 million) in renewed advertising budget. The FSF has meanwhile taken the opportunity to declare the death of Vista in this press release, with a similar message at the front page of the BadVista campaign, which was a great success.

On December 15, 2006, the FSF launched its BadVista.org campaign to advocate for the freedom of computer users, opposing adoption of Microsoft Windows Vista and promoting free — as in freedom — software alternatives. Two years later, the campaign has nearly 7,000 registered supporters, the name Vista is synonymous in the public eye with failure, and we are declaring victory.

Vista is likely to be remembered as the point where Windows went horribly wrong and Vista 7 is a frantic response to negativity. The response to 7 is eerily similar to that which Vista received in early 2006 when mostly enthusiastic testers took it for a test drive. Little did they know that the many problems they had experienced would not go away when the beta tag gets removed. Moreover, the average user does not have equally-capable equipment on which to test — or actually use in a mission-critical setting — the operating system.

Even the Microsoft sympathisers at InformationWeek have just acknowledged that “Windows sales and market share, though robust, are in decline. The company’s efforts to expand into new markets are floundering, and key executives are jumping ship.”

Ogg Theora

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


  1. Diamond Wakizashi said,

    January 10, 2009 at 7:44 pm


    Microshit garbageware is disgusting.


  2. aeshna23 said,

    January 10, 2009 at 9:05 pm


    The lifehacker website is extremely interesting to read on this topic. There were people posting to lifehacker who were ridiculously positive about a Windows 7, before the beta was even released. I’m posting from the Windows 7 beta right now and I don’t see a thing different from Vista. I can only conclude that the pro-Windows 7 fans are part of a Microsoft PR campaign.

    Also, Roy neglected to mention how much Microsoft has even bungled its guerrilla marketing:


  3. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 10, 2009 at 9:09 pm



    Can you please elaborate?

    I think I covered the guerrilla marketing extensively (if not here then elsewhere).

  4. Dan O'Brian said,

    January 10, 2009 at 10:33 pm


    aeshna: the thing I heard about Windows 7 is that the following changes were supposed to have been made:

    1. the accessories should all use the new MS Office ribbon
    2. hovering your mouse over a ‘window item’ in the window list (the bar that contains the Start menu, in case my wording is confusing or I’m using the wrong terms or something) should provide a preview thumbnail, one for each tab (Vista only showed the main window thumbnail).

    These are the 2 things that other people have told me were supposed to be in there. Also, supposedly the new Calculator program has a lot more features (financial, programmer, statistics, etc modes).

    More or less, it’s supposed to look and feel just like Vista other than those minor tweaks I mentioned above.

    A coworker of mine told me friday that he was going to install the Windows 7 beta over the weekend to check it out, so I guess I’ll poke him come monday.

    Overall, it sounds like what Roy has been saying, a “.1″ release, which is fair enough, I suppose, but not something I’d jump at the chance to spend the $200 or whatever to upgrade if I was already running Vista. And also not likely to be enough to convince me to run Windows 7 if I was running XP because of not liking Vista.

    But then, I’m not so much a Windows guy anyway.

  5. Shane Coyle said,

    January 10, 2009 at 11:06 pm


    …a “.1″ release, which is fair enough, I suppose, but not something I’d jump at the chance to spend the $200 or whatever to upgrade…

    That’s likely to be a common sentiment, which means that yet again, Microsoft tries to copy Apple and comes up short. ;^ )

  6. AlexH said,

    January 11, 2009 at 4:35 am


    Wasn’t Windows XP “technically” Windows 5.1? Even if not, generally MS has produced something much better after a particularly stinky release – writing off Windows 7 at this point seems a little bit premature.

    We should remember that during the Vista release process MS basically threw away three year’s work. They haven’t made that mistake this time.

  7. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 11, 2009 at 4:55 am


    They reused some of this work (latched parts of Longhorn onto Vista).

  8. AlexH said,

    January 11, 2009 at 5:30 am


    Sure, but significant amounts of it got tossed, including plenty of code which never actually made it into the Longhorn build, and other parts which were ripped out and redeveloped into standalone products (so, not really thrown away, but not contributing to the final Vista product). It was a huge screw-up.

    XP SP2 was developed in the middle as well, and I think people forget that the original XP was pretty deficient in many ways, and it was that OS that they based Longhorn on – it wasn’t until much later that they reset around Windows 2003. With a bit more work SP2 could have been a valid point release just on its own, and put Vista somewhat in the shade too.

    None of these mistakes have been made (so far) this time around, so I think it’s a bit early to think that Windows 7 isn’t going to be successful or popular.

  9. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 11, 2009 at 5:35 am


    That’s what they said about Vista.

    “Vista will be the last nail on Linux’ coffin,” remember?

    Vista almost killed Microsoft, not GNU/Linux

  10. AlexH said,

    January 11, 2009 at 5:47 am


    I’m not going on what they’re saying, I’m looking at what they’re actually doing.

  11. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 11, 2009 at 8:18 am


    What are they doing? Did you try for yourself? Did you see the code?

  12. AlexH said,

    January 11, 2009 at 8:54 am


    Of course I haven’t seen the code.

    I’m talking about the development progress. Vista was a bad release for a number of very public reasons. Assuming that Windows 7 will be as bad, or worse, is an extremely naive point of view.

  13. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 11, 2009 at 9:00 am


    Its performance is equally bad, as shown by benchmarks. Vista 7 is the real “Mojave”.

  14. AlexH said,

    January 11, 2009 at 9:07 am


    Actually, the benchmarks are divided, and in any event comparing an OS in development to one released is a bad idea. Vista in development was substantially worse than it is now.

    Again, you write off Microsoft at your peril. I have no doubt that you will never be able to find a single positive thing to say about the OS because of your narrow mindset, but closing your mind to a reality doesn’t change the reality.

  15. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 11, 2009 at 9:09 am


    Adrian Kingsley-Hughes and Thom Holwerda are Microsoft fans. Their ‘benchmarks’ have no validity in my eyes.

  16. David Gerard said,

    January 11, 2009 at 9:14 am


    I’ve downloaded the beta to try in a VM. After all, there’s important debugging work to be done making sure Cygwin and Mingw are good for Wine, as is Interix!

  17. AlexH said,

    January 11, 2009 at 9:15 am


    But this is exactly the point: you’re basing your opinion on who’s saying something, not what they’re saying. Did they perform the benchmark incorrectly? Is their methodology faulty? Who knows – they’re “Microsoft fans” therefore you write them off.

    And you label practically anyone who says anything positive about Windows as a “Microsoft fan”, which means that in practice you write off the opinion of anyone who doesn’t agree with your mindset.

    That’s fair enough, that’s up to you. But what you’re missing is that your view is completely divorced from reality. Vista was objectively a bad release. Will Windows 7 be? You’ve made up your mind already, and write off anything which doesn’t fit with that view.

  18. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 11, 2009 at 9:42 am


    It’s possible to prove a lot of things (watch the global warming ‘debate’ and Gartner/IDC lies). I know these people’s hypothesis, and that’s all that matters. I haven’t looked at the methods.

  19. Dan O'Brian said,

    January 11, 2009 at 10:24 am


    Roy: your logic in that last comment is so fundamentally flawed, I don’t even know where to begin.

    Hypothesis don’t matter, the facts and the proof do. As a scientist, I would have thought you would have known this.

    Obviously if you cherry-pick the facts, you can “prove” any hypothesis (which is basically what you do). However, in order to disprove someone’s hypothesis, you need to look at what facts they do bring to the table and fit them in with other facts that you can find that they left out.

    Just because someone has different beliefs than you doesn’t mean you should ignore their facts, because maybe it is you who is wrong. If you ignore their facts, then your argument is no stronger than theirs.

  20. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 11, 2009 at 10:27 am


    Hypotheses pose certain questions that methods are established to address in hopes of fulfilling the promise.

    You’re not contradicting what I wrote.

  21. Dan O'Brian said,

    January 11, 2009 at 10:29 am


    You looked at their hypothesis, not their supporting evidence. You threw away their supporting evidence because you didn’t like their hypothesis.

    While yes, their proof may be flawed, they presumably have some sort of supporting evidence. You can’t write it off without at least examining it.

  22. Dan O'Brian said,

    January 11, 2009 at 10:30 am


    This is what you refer to as “shooting the messenger” when it is done to you, Roy.

  23. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 11, 2009 at 10:35 am


    You should take a look at IDG/Gartner ‘studies’ sometimes. I will show in the future how they bow to Microsoft money and change studies.

  24. Jose_X said,

    January 11, 2009 at 4:13 pm


    Dan and Alex are speaking accurately IMO wrt “evidence” and “hypothesis” in general. They are *incorrect* wrt to the major generalizations about Roy’s work and behavior, again IMO, but Roy should take note or at least explain the comment made that sure does sound like he is ignoring evidence and sticking to hypothesis.

    Also, at times Roy does fail. That is not news nor have I seen it denied by anyone. Comments usually rise quickly when someone is upset about something that was said. Clarifications and some debate usually follow based on who happens to have been passing through.

    I think many key arguments are correct when you look across BN’s posts (based on the limited amount I have looked at considering Roy posts like a machine gun round the clock). Well.. the comments section is here to find the probs.. so let’s get to it.

    I don’t know what Roy meant, but I at least partly believe that “statistics can be used to prove anything.” In other words, many of the “studies” we hear about either have flaws or have enough missing details that normal folks with a little experience can figure out that much dirtiness *may* have been involved to lead to the conclusions supportive of the hypothesis the researchers may have wanted to prove all along. Does study X or Y really suggest very much? When studies can’t be confirmed, we’d have to trust on the magical wisdom/honesty of the researcher. [I'm not suggesting anything about the current links or linked authors.]

    I’ll say one thing about benchmarks, they can be gamed by anyone with access to the source code through code paths that will never be used for any real workload (eg, because of security issues and because of other assumptions made that won’t fit). The credibility problem Microsoft and any closed source company WILL ALWAYS HAVE is the closed source (whole or bits), the lack of transparency.

    Of course, if Windows 7 is Vista dressed with things like speed fixex, then one can understand it would perhaps in fact perform better. It may do DRM better, for example. Maybe these alpha OS versions leave DRM off altogether in a number of crucial cases (gaming the benchmark). Many other things can be left off (including security tests and background activity).

    Anyway, with closed source, there can be any amount of cheating. Surely, I don’t expect Adrian K-H or anyone else to have studied all the source code in order to conclude that the benchmark(s) wasn’t (weren’t) gamed.

    The flaws and privacy/security violations of Microsoft products, happening faster, don’t really help my peace of mind.

    Another note on Microsoft credibility: Unfortunately, perception wins out in many purchasing decisions. It seems a large chunk of MSFT’s value comes from perceived brand value: http://www.interbrand.com/best_global_brands.aspx?langid=1000 . I can’t believe their brand does this well, even considering that you aren’t really going to find ranked highly quality but lesser known brands. Microsoft must be doing a great job passing off the blame on product defects. If people don’t know where MSware starts and stops, it’s easy to think the worse portions of it may not be Microsoft after all but hardware issues or “those evil spyware people”.

  25. Jose_X said,

    January 11, 2009 at 4:18 pm


    The last post was longish, and I want to highlight a few portions:

    >> The flaws and privacy/security violations of Microsoft products, happening faster, don’t really help my peace of mind.

    >> Anyway, with closed source, there can be any amount of cheating. Surely, I don’t expect Adrian K-H or anyone else to have studied all the source code in order to conclude that the benchmark(s) wasn’t (weren’t) gamed.

    >> Another note on Microsoft credibility: Unfortunately, perception wins out in many purchasing decisions. It seems a large chunk of MSFT’s value comes from perceived brand value: http://www.interbrand.com/best_global_brands.aspx?langid=1000 . I can’t believe their brand does this well, even considering that you aren’t really going to find ranked highly quality but lesser known brands. Microsoft must be doing a great job passing off the blame on product defects. If people don’t know where MSware starts and stops, it’s easy to think the worse portions of it may not be Microsoft after all but hardware issues or “those evil spyware people”.

  26. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 11, 2009 at 4:23 pm


    With regards to methods, intent can affect the ones used.

    Don’t forget independent-but-Microsoft-commissioned ‘studies’ which led to an “outrage”. They set up Linux servers — badly — in order to demonstrate that it was worse than NT. I think they also got sued when they tried something similar vs IBM.

  27. Jose_X said,

    January 11, 2009 at 4:37 pm


    >> It’s possible to prove a lot of things (watch the global warming ‘debate’ and Gartner/IDC lies). I know these people’s hypothesis, and that’s all that matters. I haven’t looked at the methods.

    I would fix this reply up as follows:

    It’s possible to “prove” a lot of things ….

    I know these people’s hypothesis. I don’t agree with it, and I doubt they have proved otherwise. I don’t want to waste the time to look into the methods, especially when I have found (in cases where I have checked) that so much key information is left off the “studies” in the first place.


    I don’t know Roy’s views, but the above fixes make the statements a little closer to my views. [I don't really know what motivates researcher X or Y, for example, though I can certainly have my suspicions.]


    Microsoft and their credibility problem.

    No wonder they fear transparency and Linux.

    It’s painful when you have to learn about a Microsoft problem for the first time through a virus or malware that caused damage already. .. well, if I didn’t already mind the fact that untrustworthy Microsoft is in control over my information and privacy (were I to use Windows).

  28. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 11, 2009 at 4:41 pm


    I have some antitrust docs that I need to process and publish. They show Gartner and IDC negotiating with Microsoft what they’ll produce. There are prior examples of this that I published. CIOs will hopefully become more open minded because they are being sold mindshare.

  29. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 11, 2009 at 4:45 pm


    I suggest that you keep track of Lessig’s new career direction (he’s changing institutes). He’ll be exploring precisely these issues of mind control through sponsorship

  30. Jose_X said,

    January 11, 2009 at 5:27 pm


    Wrt the link recently posted about brand value…

    Linux getting competitive with Microsoft is by Linux sellers/advocates helping to bring perception in line with reality. Microsoft spends a ton of money on managing that perception for a reason (it pays).

    [Novell and various defenders (eg, of Microsoft) here have definitely done their services for Microsoft's benefit when they generally fail to mention Microsoft problems or downplay them. The other part of their service to Microsoft is in then trying to highlight positives.]

    Microsoft’s brand value (eg, perceived trustworthiness and quality) is crucial to the value of Microsoft’s products and business successes (especially moving forward).

    An example of brand value to Microsoft:
    The key in brand value and in exclusive (“innovations”) is a main part why Microsoft will use WinFOSS to really help Windows without hurting their income and the willingness of people to still pirate their goods. The WinFOSS is intended to help the monopolies be preserved since not everyone wants to pay or steal (duh) and Microsoft can’t afford for Linux to gain serious traction. WinFOSS that Microsoft can leverage most comes from the use of things like mono. [See this http://boycottnovell.com/2008/11/25/jose-on-mono/ and the quote here http://boycottnovell.com/2009/01/11/eric-rudder-on-dot-net/ .]

    Two minor points: One, where brand is really important is among those that make MSware purchasing decisions. Consumers don’t really make their OS choices (when they do, Linux fairs much better than the alleged market share value of one or few percentage points). Two, the brand value “study” has it’s own set of hidden methods and faults or else limited conclusions.

  31. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 11, 2009 at 5:43 pm


    I was going to mention that too because such things are easily bought. It’s like knighthoods (for sale) over here in the UK.

  32. Jose_X said,

    January 11, 2009 at 6:31 pm


    As far as knighthood for sale.. part of the trick is that Gates (like all good business people) sells his own brand (B&F Foundry helps here.. remember the MS brand value quote at over 50 billion usd). Gates brings value to “knighthood”.. at least from the pov of Gates sales pitch. This is why, in exchange for being knighted, he might have actually been given more things. [and mutually supportive: valuable brands like to associate with valuable brands as that further helps everyone in the group.. including with such issues like trustworthiness]

  33. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 11, 2009 at 6:36 pm


    Knighthood for a man who says “Where Are We on This Jihad?”

  34. twitter said,

    January 12, 2009 at 6:20 pm


    If the Prince can call his friends “ragheads” and “pakis” Bill Gates can be a knight even though he talks about Jihad. We can only hope that people work for justice and learn from their mistakes.

    It seems, however, that PC makers having been burnt badly by Vista don’t expect Windows 7 to move hardware. I’ve collected a few Windows 7 reviews here. The relevant and worthwhile reviews are here and here and here.

What Else is New

  1. Public Protests by European Patent Office (EPO) Staff Weaken the EPO's Attacks on the Media

    Where things stand when it comes to the EPO's standoff against publications and why it's advisable for EPO staff to stage standoffs against their high-level management, which is behind a covert crackdown on independent media (while greasing up corporate media)

  2. Why the European Patent Office Cannot Really Sue and Why It's All -- More Likely Than Not -- Just SLAPP

    Legal analysis by various people explains why the EPO's attack dogs are all bark but no bite when it comes to threats against publishers

  3. How the EPO Twisted Defamation Law in a Failed Bid to Silence Techrights

    Using external legal firms (not the EPO's own lawyers), the EPO has been trying -- and failing -- to silence prominent critics

  4. East Texas and Its Cautionary Tale: Software Patents Lead to Patent Trolls

    Lessons from US media, which focuses on the dire situation in Texas courts, and how these relate to the practice of granting patents on software (the patent trolls' favourite weapon)

  5. The Latest EPO Spin: Staff Protesters Compared to 'Anti-Patent Campaigners' or 'Against UPC'

    Attempts to characterise legitimate complaints about the EPO's management as just an effort to derail the patent office itself, or even the patent system (spin courtesy of EPO and its media friends at IAM)

  6. The Serious Implication of Controversial FTI Consulting Contract: Every Press Article About EPO Could Have Been Paid for by EPO

    With nearly one million dollars dedicated in just one single year to reputation laundering, one can imagine that a lot of media coverage won't be objective, or just be synthetic EPO promotion, seeded by the EPO or its peripheral PR agents

  7. EPO: We Have Always Been at War With Europe (or Europeans)

    The European Patent Office (EPO) with its dubious attacks on free speech inside Europe further unveiled for the European public to see (as well as the international community, which oughtn't show any respect to the EPO, a de facto tyranny at the heart of Europe)

  8. What Everyone Needs to Know About the EPO's New War on Journalism

    A detailed list of facts or observations regarding the EPO's newfound love for censorship, even imposed on outside entities, including bloggers (part one of several to come)

  9. EPO Did Not Want to Take Down One Techrights Article, It Wanted to Take Down Many Articles Using Intimidation, SLAPPing, and Psychological Manipulation Late on a Friday Night

    Recalling the dirty tactics by which the European Patent Office sought to remove criticism of its dirty secret deals with large corporations, for whom it made available and was increasingly offering preferential treatment

  10. The European Private Office: What Was Once a Public Service is Now Crony Capitalism With Private Contractors

    The increasing privatisation of the European Patent Office (EPO), resembling what happens in the UK to the NHS, shows that the real goal is to crush the quality of the service and instead serve a bunch of rich and powerful interests, in defiance of the original goals of this well-funded (by taxpayers) organisation

  11. Microsoft Once Again Disregards People's Settings and Abuses Them, Again Pretends It's Just an Accident

    A conceited corporation, Microsoft, shows not only that it exploits its botnet to forcibly download massive binaries without consent but also that it vainly overrides people's privacy settings to spy on these people, sometimes with help from malicious hardware vendors such as Dell or Lenovo

  12. When the EPO Liaised With Capone (Literally) to Silence Bloggers, Delete Articles

    A dissection of the EPO's current media strategy, which involves not only funneling money into the media but also actively silencing opposing views

  13. Blogger Who Wrote About the EPO's Abuses Retires

    Bloggers' independent rebuttal capability against a media apparatus that is deep in the EPO's pocket is greatly diminished as Jeremy Phillips suddenly retires

  14. Leaked: EPO Award of €880,000 “in Order to Address the Media Presence of the EPO” (Reputation Laundering)

    The European Patent Office, a public body, wastes extravagant amounts of money on public relations (for 'damage control', like FIFA's) in an effort to undermine critics, not only among staff (internally) but also among the media (externally)

  15. Links 27/11/2015: KDE Plasma 5.5 Plans, Oracle Linux 7.2

    Links for the day

  16. Documents Needed: Contract or Information About EPO PR/Media Campaign to Mislead the World

    Rumour that the EPO spends almost as much as a million US dollars “with some selected press agencies to refurbish the image of the EPO”

  17. Guest Post: The EPO, EPC, Unitary Patent and the Money Issue

    Remarks on the Unitary Patent (UP) and the lesser-known aspects of the EPO and EPC, where the “real issue is money, about which very little is discussed in public...”

  18. Saving the Integrity of the European Patent Office (EPO)

    Some timely perspective on what's needed at the European Patent Office, which was detabilised by 'virtue' of making tyrants its official figureheads

  19. A Call for Bloggers and Journalists: Did EPO Intimidate and Threaten You Too? Please Speak Out.

    An effort to discover just how many people out there have been subjected to censorship and/or self-censorship by EPO aggression against the media

  20. European Patent Office (EPO) a “Kingdom Above the EU Countries, a Tyranny With ZERO Accountability”

    Criticism of the EPO's thuggish behaviour and endless efforts to crush dissenting voices by all means available, even when these means are in clear violation of international or European laws

  21. Links 26/11/2015: The $5 Raspberry Pi Zero, Running Sans Systemd Gets Hard

    Links for the day

  22. EPO Management Needs to Finally Recognise That It Itself is the Issue, Not the Staff or the Unions

    A showing of dissent even from the representatives whom the EPO tightly controls and why the latest union-busting goes a lot further than most people realise

  23. Even the EPO Central Staff Committee is Unhappy With EPO Management

    The questions asked by the Central Staff Committee shared for the public to see that not only a single union is concerned about the management's behaviour

  24. The Broken Window Economics of Patent Trolls Are Already Coming to Europe

    The plague which is widely known as patent trolls (non-practicing entities that prey on practicing companies) is being spread to Europe, owing in part to misguided policies and patent maximalists

  25. Debunking the EPO's Latest Marketing Nonsense From Les Échos and More on Benoît Battistelli's Nastygram to French Politician

    Our detailed remarks about French brainwash from the EPO's media partner (with Benoît Battistelli extensively quoted) and the concerns increasingly raised by French politicians, who urge for national or even continental intervention

  26. The Sun King Delusion: The Views of Techrights Are Just a Mirror of EPO Staff Unions

    Tackling some emerging spin we have seen coming from Battistelli's private letters -- spin which strives to project the views of Techrights onto staff unions and why it's very hypocritical a form of spin

  27. Links 25/11/2015: Webconverger 33.1, Netrunner 17 Released

    Links for the day

  28. United They Stand: FFPE-EPO Supports Suspended Staff Representatives From SUEPO

    An obscure union from the Dutch side of things at the EPO is expressing support for the suspended colleagues from SUEPO (more German than Dutch)

  29. Censoring WIPR Article About Censorship by EPO

    A testament to how terrified journalists have become when it comes to EPO coverage, to the point of deleting entire paragraphs

  30. Censorship at the EPO Escalates: Now We Have Threats to Sue Publishers

    Having already blocked Techrights, the EPO's management proceeds to further suppressions of speech, impeding its staff's access to independently-distributed information (neither ordinary staff nor management)


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


Recent Posts