Summary: Another show with Gordon Sinclair may be the first among many where he is a regular
THIS is our ninth episode. Gordon, Tim, and Roy speak about news from the past two days (everything that matters since the previous show). This show mostly focuses on GNU/Linux, it hardly mentions Apple at all, and Microsoft is secondary at best. Tim’s site, OpenBytes, will soon publish some show notes (we put the audio out there as soon as possible while the news covered is still fresh). We have finally found a way to structure the show such that it covers everything which needs to be covered rather exhaustively.
Today’s show ends with “A Violent Yet Flammable World” by Au Revoir Simone (published in SXSW 2009 Showcasing Artists). We hope you will join us for future shows and spread the word if you enjoy this show. Also consider subscribing to the show via the RSS feed. If you have an Identi.ca account, consider subscribing to TechBytes in order to keep up to date. █
During the discussion of criticisms of Jono Bacon’s “Open Respect” efforts, I couldn’t help but notice a rather striking incongruity between one side being characterized as “the Fedora people”, “the Fedora community”, “certain people in Fedora”, “Fedora is the vocal proponents of this whole protest”; while the other is presented as “people are individuals”, “people are not their jobs”, “something that Jono has taken up as a personal project”, and “it’s not Canonical, it’s him”. How does one reconcile the defense of a person based on his individuality and independence of action while at the same time disparaging others as collectively indistinct from their own project affiliations?
I’m always opposing this habit of people doing things which they say are independent from their paymaster. For example, an ACCESS troll (who now admits in his blog also being a “patent troll”) was attacking his paymaster’s threats outside work hours. There are also examples from other companies like Microsoft ISVs. If someone makes a payment, the context of any action does not matter much; it’s the vested interests. Politics and revolving doors present the same conflicts.
I apologise if I made that sound like a Fedora issue; I phrased it poorly without preparation. I could sense at the time that I said some foolish things in this episode.
The latest writings about the Unitary Patent and agenda related to it, courtesy of the same people, firms and Web sites that spent several years lobbying for the UPC (i.e. for their own wallets)<
The media is full of EPO-sponsored puff pieces about the EPO (very soon Joff Wild and Battistelli will promote software patents again), so we encourage readers to contact authorities in France and tell them what Battistelli has been doing in (or to) the European Patent Office (EPO)
The latest examples of 'synthetic' coverage or fluff about Battistelli's expensive event that he cryptically and mysteriously chose to have at his other workplace in Saint-Germain-en-Laye
With silly new terms such as "4IR" (the EPO used to say "ICT", "CII", "Industry 4.0" etc.) Team Battistelli is hoping to make software patents look/sound acceptable, honourable and inherently innovative or "revolutionary"
In Oil States Energy Services v Greene’s Energy Group, a case which Koch-funded think tanks meddled in (including those whose panel guests send me threatening legal letters), ends up with dissent from a Koch-connected Justice citing or quoting those very same Koch-funded think tanks
The EPO's management is once again scattering/throwing EPO budget at PR agencies and media companies (publishers/broadcasters) to disseminate a bunch of puff pieces and virtually ignore the very obvious conflict of interest, which should be a scandal on par with that of FIFA (resulting in the arrest of its boss, Mr. Blatter)
Science and technology don't seem to matter as much as the whims of the patent (litigation) 'industry', at least judging by recent actions taken by Andrei Iancu (following a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee)
A quick look at some patent trolls that made the news this Monday; we are still seeing a powerful response to such trolls, whose momentum is slipping owing to the good work of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
The many abuses and offenses committed by Mr. Battistelli whilst he enjoyed diplomatic immunity can and should be brought up as that immunity expires in two months; a good start would be contacting his colleagues, who might not be aware of the full spectrum of his abuses
A week's roundup of news about PTAB, which is eliminating many bad (wrongly-granted) patents and is therefore becoming "enemy number one" to those who got accustomed to blackmailing real (productive) firms with their questionable patents
A roundup of patent cases in 'low courts' of the United States, where patents are being reasoned about or objected to while patent law firms make a lot of money
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) continues to reject the vast majority of software patents, citing Section 101 in many such cases, but the likes of Managing IP, Patently-O, IAM and Watchtroll only selectively cover such cases (instead they’re ‘pulling a Berkheimer’ or some similar name-dropping)
A look at existing legal actions, the application of 35 U.S.C. § 101, and questionable patents that are being pursued on software (algorithms or "software infrastructure")
With the wealth of decisions from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) wherein software patents get discarded (Funai being the latest example), the public needs to ask itself whether patent law firms are honest when they make claims about resurgence of software patents by 'pulling a Berkheimer' or coming up with terms like “Berkheimer Effect”
The International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (AIPPI) and other patent maximalists who have nothing to do with Europe, helped by a malicious and rather clueless politician called Benoît Battistelli, are turning the EPO into a patent-printing machine rather than an examination office as envisioned by the EPC (founders) and member states
Following the footsteps of Ron Hovsepian at Novell, Battistelli at the EPO (along with Team Battistelli) may mean the end of the EPO as we know it (or the end altogether); one manager and a cabal of confidants make themselves obscenely rich by basically sacrificing the very organisation they were entrusted to serve
Battistelli’s patent-printing bureau (EPO without quality control) keeps lying about the quality of patents by repeating the word “quality” a lot of times, including no less than twice in the summary alone
Shelston IP wants exactly the opposite of what's good for Australia; it just wants what's good for itself, yet it habitually pretends to speak for a productive industry (nothing could be further from the truth)
The managing director of the 'IP' group at Cantor Fitzgerald is leaving, but it does not yet mean that patent trolls will be starved/deprived access to patents
The EPO continues to collect money from everyone, distributes bogus/dubious patents that usher patent trolls into Europe (to cost European businesses billions in the long run), and staff of the EPO faces more cuts while EPO management swims in cash and perks
How the EPO‘s management ‘explained’ (or sought to rationalise) to staff its opaque decision to send a multi-million, one-day ceremony to Battistelli’s own theatre only weeks before he leaves
The EPO‘s systematic corruption of the media at the expense of EPO stakeholders — not to mention hiring of lawyers to bully media which exposes EPO corruption — in the EPO’s own words (amended by us)
To maintain the perception (illusion) that the EPO still cares about patent quality — and in order to disseminate this lie to EPO staff — a puff piece with the above heading/photograph was distributed to thousands of examiners in glossy paper form
saulgoode said,
November 18, 2010 at 2:34 am
During the discussion of criticisms of Jono Bacon’s “Open Respect” efforts, I couldn’t help but notice a rather striking incongruity between one side being characterized as “the Fedora people”, “the Fedora community”, “certain people in Fedora”, “Fedora is the vocal proponents of this whole protest”; while the other is presented as “people are individuals”, “people are not their jobs”, “something that Jono has taken up as a personal project”, and “it’s not Canonical, it’s him”. How does one reconcile the defense of a person based on his individuality and independence of action while at the same time disparaging others as collectively indistinct from their own project affiliations?
Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:
November 18th, 2010 at 7:30 am
I’m always opposing this habit of people doing things which they say are independent from their paymaster. For example, an ACCESS troll (who now admits in his blog also being a “patent troll”) was attacking his paymaster’s threats outside work hours. There are also examples from other companies like Microsoft ISVs. If someone makes a payment, the context of any action does not matter much; it’s the vested interests. Politics and revolving doors present the same conflicts.
I apologise if I made that sound like a Fedora issue; I phrased it poorly without preparation. I could sense at the time that I said some foolish things in this episode.