02.05.11

Bill Gates Promotes Patent Monopolies

Posted in Bill Gates, Intellectual Monopoly, Microsoft, Patents at 11:56 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Microsoft’s co-founder carries on abusing the system by fostering even more monopolies and lobbying governments/schools so that people follow his own selfish instructions

For a couple of years now we’ve been showing that the Gates Foundation is one of the world’s biggest shills for patents, which are of course a tool for keeping the poor poorer and making the rich even richer. As a quick recap of some posts covering this subject, consider the following:

All that lobbying from Gates is doing enormous damage not just to the United States. Informed people like Glyn Moody criticise him for it. Soon enough (apparently days from now) Gates will add some more minions for lobbying congresspeople regarding patents (maybe software patents) because in Twitter, the highly-informed Jamie Love wrote: “Next week the Gates Foundation will hire a top IPR lobbyist from Microsoft, to work for the Foundation.”

It could not come at a better time now that Microsoft is trying to make patent systems more hostile towards its competition [1, 2] amid the Patent Reform Act of 2011 [1, 2, 3]. Lobbyists are, by definition, distorting the minds of politicians and our IRC regular, “hazzy”, wrote to his congressman some days ago and received this response:

Dear Mr. Bell:

Thank you for contacting my office regarding software patent litigation.

I find the trend towards litigation over software property rights to be very alarming. I understand the toll that this takes on digital entrepreneurship and growth. It has been estimated that the cost of litigating these issues exceeds $11 billion dollars.

There is also a need to ensure that companies, and especially foreign companies, do not rob others of the fruits of their technological ingenuity. The promise of monetary reward and recognition is often what drives many software developers to apply their minds to the technical devices that help make our society prosperous. I believe incentives matter, and I do not plan to enforce an open-source system that tends to remove incentives from our marketplace. I sincerely hope that a reasonable solution can be found to solve this dilemma, and I will be monitoring any related legislation that comes before Congress.

I appreciate the opportunity to hear your concerns.

Sincerely,

Bill Huizenga
Member of Congress

Mr. Huizenga must have been greased up by some lobbyists who told lies on behalf of corporations that employ them to do so. Bill Gates has been one of the super-lobbyists for several years now and to quote CIO.com: “Did you know that there are more than 34,750 registered lobbyists in Washington, D.C., for just 435 representatives and 100 senators? That’s 64 lobbyists for each congressperson.”

Bill Huizenga could have been subjected to the army of lobbyists from Microsoft, the Gates Foundation, or the firm of Bill Gates' dad (Bill). Those Bills can affect patent bills and we’ll catch up with Gates news some time in a couple of months (we last caught up in January) to cover this more properly with a lot of links. It is blind trust in authorities and the corporate press that leads people to disappointment and without delving deeper into such issues, it will be hard to understand why society becomes increasingly hostile towards people (see TSA for example) and increasingly friendly towards corporations (which now demand privacy rights, as though they are people with feelings). In a new piece from OpenSource.com, Rebecca Fernandez raises a point that Techrights routinely raises. Critical thinking is a skill that “our students need… and resources for teaching it,” but guess who’s controlling schools now? That’s right, it's Mr. Gates who bought this system.

Our education system, in all its forms, does a poor job of fostering critical thinking. This is a real problem, because we humans are inclined to embrace ideologies rather than information. There’s nothing more troublesome to society than warring ideologies—and there’s simply no way to find middle ground with anyone who can’t question theirs.

Fernandez says that the US education system “does a poor job of fostering critical thinking,” but this is a feature to those who control this system. A gullible population is more docile and passive.

If people do not respond to the plutocrats’ attack on society, then the PR industry will decide for people how to think and how to feel. In addition to PR, the plutocrat Bill Gates is already buying a lot of press outlets (TV, newspapers, blogs, and so on). He is killing the watchdog journalists. Those whom they used to protect will suffer. They will have their dignity robbed and still worship the same people who robbed them. It all began with lobbyists who were met with apathy and FTAs that relied on secrecy (c.f. ACTA). What we need more of is projects like Wikileaks for this reason precisely. █

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

Permalink Mail Send this to a friend

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

What Else is New

More Media Reports About Decline in Quality of European Patents (Granted by the EPO)

What the media is saying about the letter from Grünecker, Hoffmann Eitle, Maiwald and Vossius & Partner whilst EPO communications shift attention to shallow puff pieces about how wonderful Benoît Battistelli is
Beware Team UPC's Biggest Two Lies About the Unitary Patent (UPC)

Claims that a Unified Patent Court (UPC) will commence next year are nothing but a fantasy of the Liar in Chief, Benoît Battistelli, who keeps telling lies to French media (some of which he passes EPO money to, just like he passes EPO money to his other employer)
Diversity at the EPO

Two decades of EPO with 16-17 years under the control of French Presidents (and nowadays predominantly French management in general with Inventor Award held in France almost half the time) is "diversity at the EPO"
Orrin Hatch, Sponsored the Most by the Pharmaceutical Industry, Tries to Make Its Patents Immune From Scrutiny (PTAB)

Orrin Hatch is the latest example of laws being up for sale, i.e. companies can 'buy' politicians to act as their 'couriers' and pass laws for them, including laws pertaining to patents
Links 17/6/2018: Linux 4.18 RC1 and Deepin 15.6 Released

Links for the day
To Keep the Patent System Alive and Going Practitioners Will Have to Accept Compromises on Scope Being Narrowed

35 U.S.C. § 101 still squashes a lot of software patents, reducing confidence in US patents; the only way to correct this is to reduce patent filings and file fewer lawsuits, judging their merit in advance based on precedents from higher courts
The Affairs of the USPTO Have Turned Into Somewhat of a Battle Against the Courts, Which Are Simply Applying the Law to Invalidate US Patents

The struggle between law, public interest, and the Cult of Patents (which only ever celebrates more patents and lawsuits) as observed in the midst of recent events in the United States
Patent Marketing Disguised as Patent 'Advice'

The meta-industry which profits from patents and lawsuits claims that it's guiding us and pursuing innovation, but in reality its sole goal is enriching itself, even if that means holding science back
Microsoft is Still 'Cybermobbing' Its Competition Using Patent Trolls Such as Finjan

In the "cybersecurity" space, a sub-domain where many software patents have been granted by the US patent office, the patent extortion by Microsoft-connected trolls (and Microsoft's 'protection' racket) seems to carry on; but Microsoft continues to insist that it has changed its ways
Links 16/6/2018: LiMux Story, Okta Openwashing and More

Links for the day
The EPO's Response to the Open Letter About Decline in Patent Quality as the Latest Example of Arrogance and Resistance to Facts, Truth

Sidestepping the existential crisis of the EPO (running out of work and issuing many questionable patents with expectation of impending layoffs), the PR people at the Office choose a facts-denying, face-saving 'damage control' strategy while staff speaks out, wholeheartedly agreeing with concerned stakeholders
In the United States the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, Which Assures Patent Quality, is Still Being Smeared by Law Firms That Profit From Patent Maximalism, Lawsuits

Auditory roles which help ascertain high quality of patents (or invalidate low-quality patents, at least those pointed out by petitions) are being smeared, demonised as "death squads" and worked around using dirty tricks that are widely described as "scams"
The 'Artificial Intelligence' (AI) Hype, Propped Up by Events of the European Patent Office (EPO), is Infectious and It Threatens Patent Quality Worldwide

Having spread surrogate terms like “4IR” (somewhat of a 'mask' for software patents, by the EPO's own admission in the Gazette), the EPO continues with several more terms like “ICT” and now we’re grappling with terms like “AI”, which the media endlessly perpetuates these days (in relation to patents it de facto means little more than "clever algorithms")
Links 15/6/2018: HP Chromebook X2 With GNU/Linux Software, Apple Admits and Closes a Back Door ('Loophole')

Links for the day
The '4iP Council' is a Megaphone of Team UPC and Team Battistelli at the EPO

The EPO keeps demonstrating lack of interest in genuine patent quality (it uses buzzwords to compensate for deviation from the EPC and replaces humans with shoddy translators); it is being aided by law firms which work for patent trolls and think tanks that propel their interests
Grünecker, Hoffmann Eitle, Maiwald and Vossius & Partner Find the Courage to Express Concerns About Battistelli's Ugly Legacy and Low Patent Quality

The astounding levels of abuse at the EPO have caused some of the EPO's biggest stakeholders to speak out and lash out, condemning the Office for mismanagement amongst other things
IAM Concludes Its Latest Anti-§ 101 Think Tank, Featuring Crooked Benoît Battistelli

The attack on 35 U.S.C. § 101, which invalidates most if not all software patents, as seen through the lens of a Battistelli- and Iancu-led lobbying event (set up by IAM)
Google Gets Told Off -- Even by the Typically Supportive EFF and TechDirt -- Over Patenting of Software

The EFF's Daniel Nazer, as well as TechDirt's founder Mike Masnick, won't tolerate Google's misuse of Jarek Duda's work; the USPTO should generally reject all applications for software patents -- something which a former Commissioner for Patents at the USPTO seems to be accepting now (that such patents have no potency after Alice)
From the Eastern District of Texas to Delaware, US Patent Litigation is (Overall) Still Declining

Patent disputes/conflicts are increasingly being settled outside the courts and patents that aren't really potent/eligible are being eliminated or never brought forth at all
Links 13/6/2018: Cockpit 170, Plasma 5.13, Krita 4.0.4

Links for the day
When the USPTO Grants Patents in Defiance of 35 U.S.C. § 101 the Courts Will Eventually Squash These Anyway

Software/abstract patents, as per § 101 (Section 101) which relates to Alice Corp v CLS Bank at the US Supreme Court, are not valid in the United States, albeit one typically has to pay a fortune for a court battle to show it because the patent office (USPTO) is still far too lenient and careless
Buzzwords and Three-Letter Acronyms Still Abused by the EPO to Grant a Lot of Patents on Algorithms

Aided by Microsoft lobbying (with its very many patent trolls) as well as corrupt Battistelli, the push for software patenting under the guise of "artificial intelligence" ("AI") carries on, boosted by Battistelli's own "Pravda" (which he writes for), IAM Magazine
The United States is Far Better Off With the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), So Why Do Lawyers Attack It?

The anti-PTAB lobby (which is basically the pro-troll or pro-litigation lobby) continues to belittle and insult PTAB, having repeatedly failed to dismantle it; in the meantime PTAB is disarming several more patent trolls and removing from the system patents which were granted in error (as well as the associated lawsuits)
Links 12/6/2018: Neovim 0.3 and Wine 3.10

Links for the day
Corrupt Benoît Battistelli Promotes Software Patents in IAM's Patent Trolls-Funded Event in the United States

With less than 3 weeks remaining for Battistelli's term he engages in gross revisionism, lobbying, and even looting of the patent office
The EPO's 'Expert' Georg Weber is Still Advocating Software Patents in Europe (But He Disguises Them Using Buzzwords)

The EPO's overzealous support for software patents continues unabated while the European Parliament looks the other way; this is part of the plan to expand patent scope in Europe and flood the continent with low-quality patents (causing a ruinous litigation boom like in China)
Battistelli's EPO is Outdoing North Korea When It Comes to Propaganda and Abuses Against Staff

Battistelli’s ‘scorched Earth’ approach — his sole legacy at the EPO — has left many workers in mental breakdowns (if not dead), but to celebrate the ‘Battistelli years’ three weeks before the end of his term the Office issues new propaganda material (pertaining exclusively to the Battistelli years, 2010 to 2018) while Battistelli-leaning media offers ‘cover’
IPBC, a Patent Trolls-Funded Event of IAM, is Advancing the Attacks on Section 101/Alice

Andrei Iancu preaches to the litigation 'industry' in an event (lobbying opportunity) organised by the patent trolls' lobby, IAM
PTAB Carries on Undeterred and Unabated, Courts Are Becoming Less Tolerant of Low-Quality Patents

With the shift away from the Eastern District of Texas (EDTX) and with PTAB applying growing levels of scrutiny to patents the likelihood that abstract patents will endure at the patent office or the courts is greatly diminished
Apple v Samsung Not Over, Hearing on a New Design Patent Trial Next Month

Apple's legal battles against phones that have Linux inside them simply aren't ending; meanwhile, there's more evidence that Apple would be wise to simply push for patent reforms, namely further restrictions on patent scope