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

03.24.09

Does the European Commission Harbour a Destruction of Free/Open Source Software Workgroup?

Posted in Europe, Free/Libre Software, Microsoft at 8:48 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Access to already-leaked documents is denied, despite clear rules that make it an obligation

HAVING WITNESSED some serious injustices where Microsoft's American lobbyists took over Europe and subverted the continent's assessment of Free software, we decided to respond. Recall “Innovation Day” and the Wiki-leaked document that eventually reached Matt Asay at CNET. Since it had become public knowledge that all of this was happening, it was only reasonable to ask for the full details to be revealed. So we embarked on little journey that we shall describe hereon.

The first step was a request for the documents. These should be in the public record, even without getting leaked out. It is, after all, the “free open source” component of the European Software Strategy.

After a long look and some inquiries, we managed to get hold of E-mail addresses from which to request the documents simultaneously, not independently as that would lead to duplication of effort. We sent this to two of the (potentially) responsible people, only one of whom replied, which makes perfect sense.

Here is the first communication:

Request for the Contributions of ACT to European Commission Report

Hi,

I have just read http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10193433-16.html with great concern. This suggests that a Microsoft lobbyist, J Zuck, is tilting a report on open source software against its whole raison detre? Since I can only find this document in Wikileaks (and it is therefore out there already), would it please be possible for me to receive a copy of Zuck’s edits? I have always mailed Zuck and he confirmed to me that he is on this panel.

Could you please send me confirmation that you have received this request and preferably mail me the edits too? This should be an open process

I appreciate your time.

We received a response shortly afterwards:

Dear Mr. Schestowitz,

All request from the press should be directed towards the spokespersons of the relevant area.

We replied:

Hi [anonymised],

Thank you for responding.

Who is the spokesperson in this case? I could find no information about it, but I do know about my entitlement to receive this information:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32001R1049:EN:HTML (Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents)

One of our involved readers responded with “An outrage I say. An absolute outrage! Europe to the Europeans!”

The response we received next is the following:

Dear Mr. Schestowitz,

The document you are referring to is not a European Commission document, but a document that are made by Zuck and many others from industry.

All the European Commission’ spokespersons are listed here: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/communication/contact_en.htm

This page contains the names of about 100 people. We are not able to see who to speak to, having already identified the people who are adequate for this type of communication. So they pushed us away, which was not terribly useful.

Next, we wanted to get an official answer from the Spokesman. We were also advised to prepare a list of E-mail addresses of MEPs of the LIBE committee who are responsible for the pending access to documents directive. We accumulated this information and sent another polite request similar to the one above, namely:

I have just read http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10193433-16.html with great concern. This suggests that a Microsoft lobbyist, J Zuck, is tilting a report on open source software against its whole raison detre? Since I can only find this document in Wikileaks (and it is therefore out there already), would it please be possible for me to receive a copy of Zuck’s edits? I have always mailed Zuck and he confirmed to me that he is on this panel.

Could you please send me confirmation that you have received this request and preferably mail me the edits too? This should be an open process[1].

I appreciate your time.

_____
[1] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32001R1049:EN:HTML (Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents)

[...]

3 days have passed and we received no response from this third person. We omit names to protect their privacy.

Going back to the more responsive correspondent, getting a reply is one thing, but according to the legal base, we must make a “confirmatory application”, so we did. Commission officials are obliged to help us and it is irrelevant who wrote it. What counts is that the Commission is in possession of the document. If they say it is a document of “the industry”, then they are obliged to consult the third party if they are in possession of it. To quote the legal base:

(a) “document” shall mean any content whatever its medium (written on paper or stored in electronic form or as a sound, visual or audiovisual recording) concerning a matter relating to the policies, activities and decisions falling within the institution’s sphere of responsibility;

[...]

4. As regards third-party documents, the institution shall consult the third party with a view to assessing whether an exception in paragraph 1 or 2 is applicable, unless it is clear that the document shall or shall not be disclosed.

[...]

Article 6

Applications

1. Applications for access to a document shall be made in any written form, including electronic form, in one of the languages referred to in Article 314 of the EC Treaty and in a sufficiently precise manner to enable the institution to identify the document. The applicant is not obliged to state reasons for the application.

2. If an application is not sufficiently precise, the institution shall ask the applicant to clarify the application and shall assist the applicant in doing so, for example, by providing information on the use of the public registers of documents.

3. In the event of an application relating to a very long document or to a very large number of documents, the institution concerned may confer with the applicant informally, with a view to finding a fair solution.

4. The institutions shall provide information and assistance to citizens on how and where applications for access to documents can be made.”

Article 7

Processing of initial applications

1. An application for access to a document shall be handled promptly. An acknowledgement of receipt shall be sent to the applicant. Within 15 working days from registration of the application, the institution shall either grant access to the document requested and provide access in accordance with Article 10 within that period or, in a written reply, state the reasons for the total or partial refusal and inform the applicant of his or her right to make a confirmatory application in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article.

2. In the event of a total or partial refusal, the applicant may, within 15 working days of receiving the institution’s reply, make a confirmatory application asking the institution to reconsider its position.

3. In exceptional cases, for example in the event of an application relating to a very long document or to a very large number of documents, the time-limit provided for in paragraph 1 may be extended by 15 working days, provided that the applicant is notified in advance and that detailed reasons are given.

4. Failure by the institution to reply within the prescribed time-limit shall entitle the applicant to make a confirmatory application.

We shared the response that we had initially received with one of our readers to get a second opinion. The person said: “I read that the commission is telling you that the leaked document does not belong to them which means: 1) they are taking distance from their own ESS initiative [OR] 2) they are scared to be identified by it.”

Moreover, said that reader, “you are ENTITLED to get assistance from the commission as long as it is an European commission-backed WG document. So you have to insist and demand this. At the very least you can report on the Commission’s attitude on this and attitude on Zuck.”

Finally, in order to make it more formal and compliant with the directive/regulations, we wrote again to the responsive official who is familiar with these matters. Our message — in full — was as follows:

Document access application purpusant to Article 6 EC/1049/2001

As a reply, please answer the following

1. If you intend that

“The document you are referring to is not a European Commission document, but a document that are made by Zuck and many others from industry.”

is a negative reply upon my 1049/2001 request of access to the document please consider the specific provisions of the regulation that guide your obligation in the formal processing of an application under 1049/2001. For instance you have the formal obligation to “inform the applicant of his or her right to make a confirmatory application in accordance with paragraph 2 of this Article.” and the statement above is not in line with the formalities under 1049/2001.

If your statement was such a negative official reply, please regard this mail as a request for a confirmatory application under 1049/2001 for access to European Software Strategy documents. The origination of the document is irrelevant. You have to state reasons for access refusal. I inform you about the substance of Art 4.4 “As regards third-party documents, the institution shall consult the third party with a view to assessing whether an exception in paragraph 1 or 2 is applicable, unless it is clear that the document shall or shall not be disclosed.”

If you regard it as just an informal preliminary communication please just process the following clarified primary application.

2. I hereby request electronic access to all documents related to the Towards the European Software Strategy process in the possession of the EU-Commission, in particular access to the following documents:
* the list of participants in the industry expert group
* the list of WGs, WGs sleaders and observing Commission officials
* draft contributions of all industry Working groups on a the European Software Strategy
* draft input to all WG prepared by the Commission
* the participant list of the related meeting on January 20th in Brussels
* all submissions from industry to the ESS consultation under the applicable provisions of regulation 1049/2001 which grant me a right of access to all documents mentioned above.

I appreciate your kind assistance. If you feel that you are unable to process my request yourself it is your obligation to forward it to the competent person in the Commission.

Fortunately, a formal acknowledgment was soon received:

Dear Mr Schestowitz,

Thank you for your e-mail dated 20/03/2009 registered on 23/03/2009 I hereby acknowledge receipt.

Yours sincerely,

[...]

Is this how politics are intended to work? Since we already possess evidence of a scandal and it’s all over the press, why can’t those officials come forward and offer the transparency they must, as a matter of law? Since they refuse to make reasonable disclosure upon request, this leaves room for more of a scandal. The first scandal is the involvement and subversion of the panel but the second is the officials’ refusal to resolve the issue or at least bring it to light.

pound puppies.
Keep out while the responsible adults do their thing…

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

5 Comments

  1. Reality Jones said,

    March 24, 2009 at 11:22 am

    Gravatar

    You’re looking for a scandal, but in reality it is more probable that the official who needs to reply to your request has yet to be identified by her or his 90,000 colleagues.

  2. NotZed said,

    March 24, 2009 at 4:27 pm

    Gravatar

    Yes, that is exactly how politics works. Don’t be so naive!

    And one things the Europeans are good at is making the politics complicated.

    The only way to get results is if you have money – soft bribery or wasting it on lawyers.

    Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    NotZed,

    Yes, that is exactly how politics works. Don’t be so naive!

    It was a rhetorical question. The text does not reflect on it.

  3. Ari T. said,

    March 26, 2009 at 2:13 am

    Gravatar

    “Yes, that is exactly how politics works. Don’t be so naive!”

    I can’t see anything naive in requiring openness from administration which is obliged by law to be open.

  4. S. Urukipe said,

    March 26, 2009 at 9:13 am

    Gravatar

    Maybe the first step should indeed have been to find out more about the context (European Software Strategy (NOT OSS Strategy as wikileaks still has it: http://wikileaks.org/wiki/European_Commission_OSS_Strategy_Draft%2C_Mar_2009), organisation of industry participation, type and status of working groups, type of target document from the Commission’s perspective etc.) rather than starting a doubtlessly lengthy process to get another copy of a document you already have. Everything seems to have started with this speach titled “Towards a European Software Strategy” by EU Commissioner Reding: http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/reding/docs/speeches/brussels_20071119.pdf. If you google for the speech title you’ll find many papers by companies and associations that appear to have been drawn up in response. (NESSI has a document that appears to have been drawn up by the Commission as a summary of the input received, here: http://www.nessi-europe.com/Nessi/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=7teEO5hzywY%3D&tabid=304&mid=1571)

    Note that the FSFE has already made some relevant points about the wikileak document and its interpretation (particularly the need to be careful to avoid drawing premature conclusions): http://blogs.fsfe.org/greve/?p=251

    (As to the practicalities of finding the right people in the EU to talk to, note that the FSFE page mentions “DG INFSO” which I think is Commissioner Reding’s department so her spokesman should have the details.)

What Else is New


  1. New EPO Protests Amid Nervous Breakdowns of Spanish EPO Employee (After Institutional Bullying by Battistelli's Goons), Spain Rejects the Unitary Patent (UPC)

    In the face of enormous pressure from non-technical Eurocrats like Battistelli, Spain remains strong and resists the Unitary Patent Court (UPC), which puts more power in the hands of an abusive body that grossly discriminates against Spaniards



  2. Only Half a Dozen Cuban Patents Filed at EPO, But Hugely Unpopular Battistelli Goes to Cuba to Garner Cheap Support

    Now that Spain is antagonising the EPO (and especially the UPC) the President of the EPO helps create some puff pieces in Spanish as he visits Cuba and neighbouring Spanish-speaking nations which are historically renowned for defunct governance and lawlessness (like the EPO itself)



  3. Nepotismo de la UPC, Abusos Políticos, y el Envolvimiento en la UPC de la Firma ¨Legal¨ que la OEP Contrato para Matonear a Techrights

    La Corte Unitaria de Patentes UPC, un sistema arregaldo esta siendo embestida por la gargant de Europa por la OEP. (Nos están metiendo la yuca). Sus grandes clientes (incluso extranjeros), con sus abogados de patentes para que todo el mundo los vea.



  4. Miembro del Parlamente Europe Resalta ¨Las Continuas Violaciones de los Fundamentales Derechos de los Empleados de la OEP¨

    Pregunta a la Comisión Europea de parte de la MEP Portuguesa Ana Gomes, publicado en el sitio del Parlamente Europeo.



  5. Links 11/2/2016: LibreOffice 5.1, HMRC and FOSS

    Links for the day



  6. Microsoft Continues to Use Software Patents to Extort/Blackmail Even More Companies That Use Linux, Forcing/Coercing Them Into Preinstalling Microsoft

    Acer is the latest large OEM to have become a victim of Microsoft's witch-hunt against Android/Linux preloaders, whom Microsoft is coercing into becoming Microsoft's carriers (or face litigation over software patents, with high legal fees if not injunctions or high damages upon secret settlements)



  7. EPO Brain Drain (Even Directors Fed Up With Team Battistelli) and Rumours About Battistelli Becoming President of the UPC

    Words heard through the grapevine of the European Patent Office (EPO), where staff is overwhelmingly against the managers and some people, including high-profile staff, add to the exodus



  8. More Than 20 Years in the Line: European Patent Office and Claims of European Convention on Human Rights Infringement Against Applicants/Stakeholders

    Gross incompetence and potentially an infringement of the European Convention on Human Rights at the European Patent Office (EPO), this time impacting an applicant (one of many in a similar position)



  9. UPC Nepotism, Political Abuses, and UPC Involvement From the Legal Firm That EPO Hired to Bully Techrights

    The Unitary Patent Court (UPC), a rigged system that is being rammed down Europe's throat by the EPO, its big clients (even foreign), and their patent lawyers laid bear for people to see



  10. Member of European Parliament Brings Up “Ongoing Violations of the Fundamental and Employment Rights of the Staff of EPO”

    Question to the European Commission from Portuguese MEP Ana Gomes, as published in the site of the European Parliament



  11. La Oficina Europea de Patentes Pretende que No Pasa Nada y Prepara una Feria de Vanidad

    La estrategia de relaciones públicas de la OEP cuya destructiva estrategia de patentes continua sin disminución (por ahora), se engancha en Colombia y se esfuerza en manufacturar el mito donde el público, examinadores de patentes, y aplicantes de patentes todos estan muy felices con la OEP.



  12. La ‘Internacional’ Commisión de Comercio Impone/Reenfuerza Patentes de Software para Establecer Otro Embargo

    La Comisión Internacional (sic) de Comercio se esta entrometiendo en competición de nuevo permitiendo a un gigante de los Estados Unidos Ciso en este caso, a potencialmente bloquear rivales (no importaciones del extranjero) usando patentes de software.



  13. Links 9/2/2016: Linux in Robotics, Hyperledger Project

    Links for the day



  14. Besieged Benoît Battistelli Mimics 'Damage Control' Tactics of FIFA or Blatter as More Judges Start Getting Involved in EPO Scandals

    Rumours and a new rant from Battistelli reinforce suspicions that actions are being organised behind the scenes, possibly as part of an upcoming, high-level campaign to unseat/dethrone Battistelli, who has become a reputational disaster to the European Patent Office (EPO), much like Sepp Blatter at FIFA



  15. Several Political Parties Directly Challenge the European Patent Office for Ignoring the Law, Not Obeying Court Orders

    Politicians make it crystal clear that the EPO, despite its unique status, cannot just raise its nose at the rulings of courts of law, definitely not in Dutch territory where the EPO operates



  16. Even the Legal Community is Upset at Benoît Battistelli for the Damage He Did to the EPO

    A recent article from lawyers' media (in German) speaks of the great damage (or mess) left by its current president, who has become somewhat of a laughing stock and growingly synonymous with farcical trials even in the circles of stakeholders, not just his own staff



  17. EPO Union (SUEPO) Getting Busted: “More and More People are Joining the Union, but Fewer and Fewer People Dare to Take on Leading Positions There.”

    The union-busting actions taken by EPO management in collaboration with Control Risks (for weak accusations against staff representatives) and FTI Consulting (for 'damage control') as described in a recent article, in the words of SUEPO lawyer Liesbeth Zegveld



  18. Microsoft's Copyrights- and Patents-Based Attacks on GNU/Linux Carry on

    The SCO case is still going on and Microsoft has just signed a patent deal with GoPro over its FOSS-based software, relating to “certain file storage and other system technologies”



  19. The EPO's Benoît Battistelli is the Dictator Who Can No Longer Dictate Like He Used to

    The European Patent Office's mechanism of oversight is starting to work just a little because, based on a new report from Juve, Battistelli is now reluctant to make proposals that would prove unpopular among delegates



  20. La Más Detallada Explicación (hasta ahora) de ¿Qué esta mal con la OEP?

    La insistencia de la OEP que permanece arriba de la ley no sólo est bajo fuego en los medios pero también esta siendo desafiada basado en personas familiares con la aplicabilidad de la ley a organizaciones internacionales.



  21. Links 8/2/2016: Vista 10 Nags Help GNU/Linux, Nautilus Updated

    Links for the day



  22. The European Patent Office “is Acting as Though the Law Does Not Apply to It.”

    An article from Nieuwsuur which provides the words of Liesbeth Zegveld (for SUEPO) and Guillaume Minnoye (for the European Patent Office), reaffirming the EPO's bizarre notion that it is above the law, even in the face of human rights violations and a court ruling against the EPO



  23. Microsoft-Connected FRAND Lobbying (Software Patents Against Free/Open Source Software) in Brussels

    Anti-Free/Open Source software (FOSS) talking points and FRAND (anti-FOSS) lobbying groups in Brussels as seen by proponents of FRAND, who also worked for Microsoft



  24. Latest Propaganda From the EPO's Management an Effort to Make the EPO the Tool of Megacorporations

    A quick roundup of some of the latest spin and paid-for (bought) coverage that helps introduce a distorted patent system whose beneficiaries are not European (or even people)



  25. 'Aversion to Change' Propaganda From the EPO Echoes or Parrots Lenin and Stalin

    The out-of-control EPO management is trying to fool the media by blaming staff representatives for getting fired, simply because they stood up to a highly abusive and megalomaniacal dictator



  26. The Gates Foundation Subjected to Criticism, But Over a Decade Too Late

    Reckoning and accepting the fact that even some in the media now openly speak about Bill Gates' corrupting influence in everything, including politics



  27. Links 8/2/2016: Zenwalk 8.0 Beta 2, Q4OS 1.4.7

    Links for the day



  28. SIPO (China's Patent Office) Taken Over by Patent Maximalists

    A look at China's race to the bottom (decline in quality) when it comes to patents, assuming quite wrongly that quantity is more important than quality and severe penalties for perceived infringement will spur innovation



  29. The Alice Case Continues to Smash Software Patents (This Time OpenTV's); Will the EPO Ever Pay Attention?

    The potency or the grip of software patents in the United States is quickly eroding, but the EPO continues to act as though software patents are legitimate



  30. EPO Staff Responds to Team Battistelli's Expansion to Include French Economic Propagandist on the Payroll

    With strings attached (like string puppets of Battistelli in various units including the Investigative Unit), can the new Chief Economist, who is French and paid by Battistelli, ever be trusted?


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