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

04.08.11

In Defence of Groklaw

Posted in Patents at 12:26 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Taped paper

Summary: Errata and clarifications about Groklaw

Groklaw is one of the best sites on the Internet. In part, Shane and I got our inspiration from Groklaw, which had provided spin-free analysis (free of corporate masters) of GNU/Linux matters. This is important for many reasons; for example, the Microsoft-funded Gartner Group has just unleashed more FUD against open source, having made the same noise in the past, then proven to be wrong later. Over the years we have cited Groklaw a great deal and we also raised concerns when our opinions did not overlap with Groklaw‘s. In this post we’ll address a few of the points in turn, hoping to clarify our position.

We are always careful when interpreting one’s opinions and not misattributing or distorting them. But sometimes we make mistakes, as any site which posts in high volume might occasionally do. For example, our snide remark about Groklaw and patents turns out not to be truthful. To say that Groklaw has ever been anything but 100% against software patents is incorrect. Someone who posted a comment in Groklaw misled us and it’s reasonable to assume that we read this claim in Groklaw and some other site at one stage or another. Like the alleged DDOS attack on Sys-Con, this is not correct and we apologise for propagating the false claims without checking/verifying the facts with Pamela Jones herself.

So basically, just to set the record straight, Groklaw (and maybe Jones too) has always been against patents. There was no change of heart.

Here is the latest good article from them:

SCO has now filed its Monthly Operating Reports for January. They have some inscrutable and/or cynical items and some I don’t recall seeing before. Accounts Receivable = $246,754. Cash on hand at the beginning of the month = $804,709.00. Disbursements = $456,100. Wow. Remember that SCO got a $2M loan not that long ago, yet cash at the end of the month? $601,752.

Novell is having its account emptied by SCO, over time. Guess who is funding all the sides?

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

32 Comments

  1. saulgoode said,

    April 8, 2011 at 4:31 pm

    Gravatar

    To say that Groklaw has ever been anything but 100% against software patents is incorrect.

    I shouldn’t consider someone “100% against software patents” who asserts that one company has the ‘right to sue the pants off’ another because of software patent infringement; or condones the use of software patents as a retaliatory threat to protect particular Open Source projects; or praises the settlement of a software patent lawsuit because the terms are advantageous to Free Software developers.

    The viewpoint that sometimes software patents are acceptable — so long as they’re exploited to the benefit of IBM, the OIN, or the Free Software community — compromises the qualification of being “100% against software patents”.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    Peer2Patent is a good example of how not to solve the problem.

    twitter Reply:

    If you were quoting Groklaw, I’d say you were taking them out of context. As it is, I can say you are just twisting things around to smear PJ, IBM, OIN and the Free Software community and create an impression of community support for software patents. I can assure you that there are few stronger consensus points than the free software community’s wish to eliminate software patents.

    That being said, most people also demand justice and want the law to apply most strongly to software patent proponents rather than the other way around. It is outrageous, though no longer surprising, to see companies like Microsoft use patents as an anti-competitive weapon and being largely immune to ill effects.

  2. saulgoode said,

    April 9, 2011 at 7:55 am

    Gravatar

    If you were quoting Groklaw, I’d say you were taking them out of context.

    The text within single quotes was indeed taken directly from the title of the following Groklaw article: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20100408153953613

    Would you care to elaborate upon how it might have been taken “out of context”?

    As it is, I can say you are just twisting things around to smear PJ, IBM, OIN and the Free Software community and create an impression of community support for software patents.

    You can say a lot of things, your statements would be far less meaningless if you actually addressed the substance of my comments rather than making unsubstantiated accusations about my having twisted things. There are some people who are truly and committedly “100% against software patents” — they see neither worth nor logical foundation in their existence and under no circumstances accept their exploitation towards any purpose.

    It is not a “smear” to distinguish between the views of such people and of those others who feel compromise may be acceptable; it is a simple assertion of fact. Some of those others might be largely opposed to software patents, but if you consider it a “smear” to point out the difference then I submit the problem may lie with what you deem to be acceptable compromise rather than the existence of less compromising opinions.

    twitter Reply:

    I did address the substance of your claim but I don’t think you want to understand it. A person can be completely opposed to software patents and want to see laws applied equally at the same time.

    I’ve read enough of PJ’s writing to know that she believes in equal justice for all, not software patents. Back in 2004 she asked some experts about software patents and concluded, ” no patents on software would be, in my view, the better choice.” Last year, she republished Knuth’s rejection of software patents and elaborated.

    You have twisted PJ’s position against Microsoft’s machinations into into a support of software patents. Attributing an unpopular opinion to someone is a way of smearing them.

    saulgoode Reply:

    A person can be completely opposed to software patents and want to see laws applied equally at the same time.

    If a person ever supports application of law to enforce software patents then they are, by definition, not “completely” opposed to them.

    You have twisted PJ’s position against Microsoft’s machinations into into a support of software patents.

    I’ve done no such thing. I’ve pointed out some times where Groklaw’s position was something other than being “100% against software patents”.

    twitter Reply:

    What you said was that PJ, Groklaw and IBM think, “software patents are acceptable — so long as they’re exploited to the benefit of IBM, the OIN, or the Free Software community.” That’s a smear and far from the truth.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    I agree with “Twitter”. saulgoode, I’ve exchanged many E-mails with PJ over the weekend and she is being smeared a lot (even I fell for the PR against her). Now she announces what I wish we could prevent.

  3. saulgoode said,

    April 9, 2011 at 8:06 pm

    Gravatar

    Twitter:

    What you said was that PJ, Groklaw and IBM think, “software patents are acceptable — so long as they’re exploited to the benefit of IBM, the OIN, or the Free Software community.” That’s a smear and far from the truth.

    How is it not the truth? Respective to each of the points presented:
    http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20100408153953613
    http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20060523104247514
    http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20080611191302741

    Roy Schestowitz:

    I agree with “Twitter”. saulgoode, I’ve exchanged many E-mails with PJ over the weekend and she is being smeared a lot (even I fell for the PR against her). Now she announces what I wish we could prevent.

    Not every expression of disagreement is a smear; and once one starts treating all criticism as smear, he’s not only eliminated the likelihood of refining his own positions, he’s limited his influence on the positions of others. He has reduced himself to the ad hominem denouncement of others rather than advocating his position. Not only does this alienate those with valid concerns, the hypocrisy of his engaging in the very activity he protests soon becomes readily apparent.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    Fair point.

    twitter Reply:

    It is not true that PJ thinks software patents are acceptable and your links prove nothing of the sort. In your links, PJ celebrates the IBM crushing a Microsoft machination against free software using companies, OIN’s interception of patents that were being sold to trolls to harass free software and a Red Hat settlement that passes along GPL3 protections against software patents. You have to exert a lot of mental energy to turn that into a support of software patents where they are of benefit, rather than a desire of basic justice and elimination of software patents.

    That kind of mental energy is called spin. When the truth is spun to attribute a non existent and unpopular opinion to someone, it’s called smear.

    I’ve given you links to PJ’s well researched opinion of the matter, why do you ignore that?

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    saulgoode,

    See the comments from Microsoft Florian in http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2428123

    As you can see, he spins IBM’s self-defence as an “attack”. It’s spin.

    BTW, there is this new snide remark from him:”@schestowitz With Groklie shutting down, all responsibility to fight what you call #mobbyists falls on you now.”

    Groklaw was misinterpreted on purpose. We need to correct this.

    twitter Reply:

    Wow, Microsoft Florian both gloating over PJ taking a rest and menacing you. I predicted the Microsoft gang would do this but hoped that I was wrong and I did not expect them to be so quick.

    He’s wrong, of course. You are not alone at Techrights and Techrights is not alone in the fight for software freedom. The only thing he can promise is that he will concentrate his efforts on you. He might say that these are Microsoft’s marching orders but I doubt he’d publish emails to prove it.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    He sure uses E-mail to issue threats. This was not the first veiled threat from Florian — a threat which generally tried to use the chilling effect if not to threaten with litigation then with risk to one’s job. Some people have their reputation tarnished and some have the employer contacted.

    verofakto Reply:

    He sure uses E-mail to issue threats. This was not the first veiled threat from Florian — a threat which generally tried to use the chilling effect if not to threaten with litigation then with risk to one’s job. Some people have their reputation tarnished and some have the employer contacted.

    You mean it’s similar to what you’ve been trying to do for years to Miguel de Icaza and quite a few other people? I could list them: Nat Friedman, Bruce Byfield, Matt Asay, Ted Haeger, Jeff Waugh (and his wife), Thom Holwerda, Shane O’Neill, Tim O’Reilly, Jo Shields, Bryan Lunduke, Greg Kroah-Hartman, Matt Zimmerman, Window Snyder, Albert Zonneveld, random Wikipedia users you’ve smeared, etc. I could go on.

    By the way, is this a threat? Sure sounds a lot more threatening than Florian’s “snide” comment. You “exchange words” with these people on twitter and identi.ca, do you not? Haven’t you created entire conspiracy theories based on a single twitter exchange? Do you feel it would be unfair to apply the same logic to you?

    twitter Reply:

    There is no logic to your assertions.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    It’s another .NET booster (not Linux) who chats with Florian in Twitter while stalking and smearing me. Funny how he compares legal intimidation to criticism of other people’s biases.

    We take pride in the presence of mobbyists. They help indicate we’re on the right subject.

    verofakto Reply:

    Please answer the question. Is that comment by one of your long-time collaborators a threat, or not? Simple yes or no answer, just like you require of everyone else.

    Please explain how “chatting with Florian in Twitter” and your implied guilt by association is any different than what you do to other people.

    Please explain how criticism of what you do is by definition an attack, while your attacks are “criticism of people’s biases”.

    Please provide evidence that I am a “.NET booster”. I know the low entrance fee you’ve established to get into that club, so please be very specific, as you say when someone makes a negative offhand remark about your activities.

    Finally, please explain how criticisms you receive are attacks and intimidation and a source of pride (apparently), yet what you do to everyone else is righteous justice. IOW, please explain why Miguel de Icaza (for example) shouldn’t take pride on your vapid 4-year slog by adopting your own metrics.

    Simple, yes? Get to it, please.

    Oh, and you might want to man up and tell your friend Mr. Hill here to shut up for once. You might avoid alienating people who might otherwise be squarely on your side. You’re not dumb, so you understand saulgoode’s argument quite well, and it has nothing to do with what Florian or anyone else says.

    twitter Reply:

    No one owes you and your false charges anything.

  4. saulgoode said,

    April 10, 2011 at 1:51 pm

    Gravatar

    … a desire of basic justice and elimination of software patents.

    It is not a matter of justice or popularity (or ethics, or “goodness”). It is a matter of logic.

    If someone is adamantly opposed to cannibalism, yet would consider it acceptable in the case of a plane crash in the Andes and it being the only way to stave off starvation, then that person is not “100% against cannibalism”. This is not a value judgment on that person’s opinion, nor is there any evaluation of the popularity of either viewpoint; it is a simple assertion of the situation.

    That kind of mental energy is called spin. When the truth is spun to attribute a non existent and unpopular opinion to someone, it’s called smear.

    Likewise, when the truth is spun to attribute non-existent yet popular opinion to someone, it’s called propaganda. And asserting that someone has not “ever been anything but 100% against software patents” when they, even if only under some few circumstances, consider them acceptable might be labelled as such.

    But I did not label Roy’s statement to which I originally responded as being either propaganda for Groklaw or a smear against those who are 100% against software patents — to do so would be both unproductive and insulting. I merely corrected what I consider to be an inaccurate statement.

    I’ve given you links to PJ’s well researched opinion of the matter, why do you ignore that?

    I ignored them because showing instances where Groklaw opposed software patents does not address my point. That Groklaw may be largely opposed to software patents I have never disputed. I’ve only disputed that Groklaw has always been “100%” against software patents.

    twitter Reply:

    What you said was that PJ, Groklaw and IBM think, “software patents are acceptable — so long as they’re exploited to the benefit of IBM, the OIN, or the Free Software community.” That’s a smear and far from the truth.

    I’d be happy if you would just say you did not mean what you said.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    twitter,

    I don’t think anyone but Florian and the follow mobbyists have made such a claim, which is a distortion that is unfair to attribute to saulgoode or PJ. I don’t think we contradict one another, it’s more like Balkanisation. Our adversaries try to divide us.

    twitter Reply:

    I would not attribute the above to saulgoode if I were not quoting him. I’d rather he refuted his own statement than run in circles like he does, ignoring the substance of my complaint claiming persecution, intolerance, etc. Because of the nature of saulgood’s charge and evasion, I feel like I’m talking to Florian or some other mobbyist.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    But you’re not, and saulgoode posts good comments.

    twitter Reply:

    But I am quoting him. I’ve truncated some, but I don’t think it takes away from the implied meaning. See above,

    The viewpoint that sometimes software patents are acceptable — so long as they’re exploited to the benefit of IBM, the OIN, or the Free Software community — compromises the qualification of being “100% against software patents”.

    He then links back to Groklaw, where PJ cheers the dismantling of various Microsoft machinations, as evidence of some kind of support of software patents where it is to the free software’s advantage. It would be easy enough for him to say that he does not mean what he said.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    I agree with part of what he said.

  5. saulgoode said,

    April 10, 2011 at 9:09 pm

    Gravatar

    He then links back to Groklaw, where PJ cheers the dismantling of various Microsoft machinations, as evidence of some kind of support of software patents where it is to the free software’s advantage.

    She cheered the employment of a software patent threat of one company against another — it does not matter to the assessment of being “100% against software patents” what companies or products are involved.

    She has praised the OIN for purchasing software patents and Red Hat for settling a patent lawsuit, in both cases thereby rewarding so-called “inventors” who sought software patents, and the USPTO for granting them. It does not matter to the assessment of being “100% against software patents” that those patents are intended as protection of “the Linux ecosystem” or that Red Hat obtained licensing for all Free Software implementations of the patented technology.

    Being “100% against software patents” means that under no circumstances do you support the efficacy of software patents. If all the software in the world were proprietary, you’d still be against software patents; if all software were uncopyrighted, you’d still be against software patents. If all Free Software were excluded and only proprietary software could infringe, you’d still be against software patents.

    You may feel there are worthy reasons for allowing some exceptions in your opposition to software patents; particularly if they can be designed towards the benefit of Free Software. That’s fine. Defend your case; explain your reasoning, even if only to yourself. Examine what factors should justify allowing such an exception. But start by recognizing that you are not the same person as described in the preceding paragraph. That is not to say you are worse. Or better. Merely that you are not the same.

    So, no. I will not be retracting my statements, and I disagree that doing so would at all easy — because I did mean what I said and I did say what I meant.

    twitter Reply:

    I don’t think PJ would agree with your reasoning, and I surely don’t because I understand the intended purpose of software patents and think PJ has thought through the issue and cases very well. Software patents are stupid, immoral facts of law designed to create business monopolies and deny people their software freedom. It is right to turn these immoral laws on their head and punish companies that advocate them until we can get rid of the insane US patent system. PJ’s belief in the even application of existing law does not make her someone that believes software patents are “acceptable.” It makes her someone who does not want to see software patents achieve their intended goal, the elimination of Google, Red Hat, IBM, OIN and software freedom by unilateral application of unjust laws. GPL3 was specifically formulated to preserve software freedom in the face of an insane patent system and unjust laws. If we follow your reasoning, we must declare GPL3 and its authors people who think software patents are acceptable. This conclusion can only be reached by gross oversimplification misrepresentation of facts, sophistry and word games of the kind Microsoft Florian practices.

    I can agree with you that the OIN should not purchase more software patents. I don’t agree that their purchase demonstrates approval of software patents, though it might have rewarded a corrupt system and be a waste of money. That’s not an exception to the belief that software patents are stupid and immoral, it’s a strategic blunder that can be misinterpreted and misrepresented by the malicious. Misrepresenting the act is harmful. OIN should be commended, for example, on their purchasing another pile of software patents that were being auctioned to Microsoft proxies, this interception both avoiding some harm and for exposing Microsoft’s misconduct. PJ can not be faulted for commending OIN’s intentions, much less be called someone who thinks software patents are acceptable because of OIN’s intention to fight them.

    PJ’s endorsement of IBM’s self defense against Turbo Hercules is not an endorsement of software patents either, even though IBM’s lawyers who did the work might believe in software patents. Microsoft carefully crafted the entire case to harm IBM, software freedom and create a false impression that software patents are useful. We should not propagate that false impression even as IBM uses software patents to crush Microsoft’s expendable proxy. Claiming that IBM endorses software patents is the harmful providence of Microsoft boosters like Business Week and Microsoft Florian. IBM may have used software patents in the past but filed briefs in Biski against them. As FFII puts it,

    Although IBM may be earning substantial revenues from its large collection of trivial software patents, it is not sure that unlimited patentability is in the best interest even of IBM. Patent managment generates costs that were not considered in the above calculations. Specialised litigation companies acquire patents in order to go after giants. IBM could perhaps be even more profitable if it didn’t dedicate so much of its ressources to this type of warfare. Building the business strategy on patents is increasingly appearing incoherent with IBM’s strong support for opensource software and the significant business it has generated therefrom.

    We should encourage IBM in this realization instead of censoring them for crushing Turbo Hercules as Florian did. We should also avoid confusing IBM’s software patent portfolio and their perhaps more legitimate patent portfolio of real inventions. Roy did some good research on IBM two years ago.

    If free software patents did not infringe on my software freedom, I would not care about software patents but this is impossible. Part of software freedom is being able to use my computer for any purpose, something that includes providing a service for for money.

    The Red Hat deal you mention is not an endorsement of software patents, or an exception to opposition to the concept, it is an example of how GPL3 is successful in preserving software freedom in a way that defangs the most harmful effects. Red Hat may have had to pay off patent trolls, this is an injustice and not what PJ celebrates. She celebrates the practicality of GPL 2 and 3 in the face of bad laws and she celebrates Red Hat’s expansion of protection beyond the terms of GPL3. Only people like Microsoft Florian would claim this kind of agreement violates the GPL or is some soft of endorsement of software patents and they can only do so by oversimplifying and misrepresenting the case or PJ’s opinion of it. The rest of us look at the case as highlighting the dangers of unjust laws which require careful planning and continuous opposition.

    twitter Reply:

    If we followed your line of reasoning, we’d have to conclude that the authors of GPL3 thought software patents were acceptable. That’s obviously a gross over simplification, but it is that only way to interpret PJ’s opinion of those three cases. Software patents are a stupid and and unjust fact of law. Their purpose is to create business method monopolies and to crush software freedom.

    In the first place, it is not at all clear that IBM is a software patent advocate, much less PJ for cheering the crushing of Turbo Hercules. Microsoft invented the case specifically to harm IBM and free software while creating a false impression of support and utility for software patents. We should not promote that false impression, as you notice BusinessWeek and Microsoft Florian do here. As FFII puts it,

    is not sure that unlimited patentability is in the best interest even of IBM. Patent managment generates costs that were not considered in the above calculations. Specialised litigation companies acquire patents in order to go after giants. IBM could perhaps be even more profitable if it didn’t dedicate so much of its ressources to this type of warfare. Building the business strategy on patents is increasingly appearing incoherent with IBM’s strong support for opensource software and the significant business it has generated therefrom.

    IBM filed against software patents in Biski. We should encourage them in this rather than waste time censoring them for crushing Microsoft’s expendable proxy. PJ’s recognition of this fact is not an endorsement of software patents.

    It is likewise wrong to say PJ accepts software patents for praising OIN’s purchase of patents. This particular purchase may have been a waste of money but OIN’s intentions are clearly to mitigate the harm done by unjust laws. How can that be twisted into a case of the efficacy of software patents rather than their injustice and waste?

    The final oversimplification is probably the most telling. PJ celebrated Red Hat’s patent deal as proof of the protections offered by GPL 2 and 3 in the face of unjust laws. The deal mostly shows the cost and danger of software patents, Red Hat might have been shaken down. We can’t tell because someone demanded a secret settlement. Only a Microsoft Mobbiest could turn that into some kind of acceptance or endorsement of software patents.

    I appreciate your contributions and concerns, saulgood, but I can’t reach the same conclusions you do about PJ, Red Hat, IBM or OIN. It is not clear that any of these accept software patents but it is very clear that PJ is 100% against them.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    @saulgoode

    It’s like the idealism versus pragmatism debate.I think we should strive to eliminate all software patents. Money which is spent on “defensive” software patents should instead be spent abolishing them.

  6. twitter said,

    April 11, 2011 at 12:49 am

    Gravatar

    This is the third and final time I’m going to try to post this here. The previous attempts vanished without a trace.

    If we followed your line of reasoning, we’d have to conclude that the authors of GPL3 thought software patents were acceptable. That’s obviously a gross over simplification, but it is that only way to interpret PJ’s opinion of those three cases. Software patents are a stupid and and unjust fact of law. Their purpose is to create business method monopolies and to crush software freedom.

    In the first place, it is not at all clear that IBM is a software patent advocate, much less PJ for cheering the crushing of Turbo Hercules. Microsoft invented the case specifically to harm IBM and free software while creating a false impression of support and utility for software patents. We should not promote that false impression, as you notice BusinessWeek and Microsoft Florian do here. As FFII puts it,

    is not sure that unlimited patentability is in the best interest even of IBM. Patent managment generates costs that were not considered in the above calculations. Specialised litigation companies acquire patents in order to go after giants. IBM could perhaps be even more profitable if it didn’t dedicate so much of its ressources to this type of warfare. Building the business strategy on patents is increasingly appearing incoherent with IBM’s strong support for opensource software and the significant business it has generated therefrom.

    IBM filed against software patents in Biski. We should encourage them in this rather than waste time censoring them for crushing Microsoft’s expendable proxy. PJ’s recognition of this fact is not an endorsement of software patents.

    It is likewise wrong to say PJ accepts software patents for praising OIN’s purchase of patents. This particular purchase may have been a waste of money but OIN’s intentions are clearly to mitigate the harm done by unjust laws. How can that be twisted into a case of the efficacy of software patents rather than their injustice and waste?

    The final oversimplification is probably the most telling. PJ celebrated Red Hat’s patent deal as proof of the protections offered by GPL 2 and 3 in the face of unjust laws. The deal mostly shows the cost and danger of software patents, Red Hat might have been shaken down. We can’t tell because someone demanded a secret settlement. Only a Microsoft Mobbiest could turn that into some kind of acceptance or endorsement of software patents.

    I appreciate your contributions and concerns, saulgood, but I can’t reach the same conclusions you do about PJ, Red Hat, IBM or OIN. It is not clear that any of these accept software patents but it is very clear that PJ is 100% against them.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    PJ can not be faulted for commending OIN’s intentions, much less be called someone who thinks software patents are acceptable because of OIN’s intention to fight them.

    It ought to be noted that Eben Moglen too has endorsed what the OIN had done. Sheer hatred towards Moglen (whom Florian calls Fidel Castro) shows his attitude to be truly problematic to Microsoft et al.

    We should not propagate that false impression even as IBM uses software patents to crush Microsoft’s expendable proxy. Claiming that IBM endorses software patents is the harmful providence of Microsoft boosters like Business Week and Microsoft Florian.

    Yes, that’s the spin I still saw him spreading and popularising last week.

    The Red Hat deal you mention is not an endorsement of software patents, or an exception to opposition to the concept, it is an example of how GPL3 is successful in preserving software freedom in a way that defangs the most harmful effects.

    Th problematic deal of Red Hat is the secret settlement with Acacia, which even Bruce Perens criticised in an article.

    I should note, three of the above comments from “twitter” were erroneously lodged in the moderation queue, which is why 3 of them are identical when it comes to the arguments made.

What Else is New


  1. Shame on MapR for Pursuing Software Patents While Pretending to Stand for Free/Open Source Software

    The patents gold rush sees another company joining the 'fun', albeit this company should campaign hard against software patents rather than pursue any



  2. Doomsday Scenario in the Back Mirror as Michelle Lee Keeps Her Job (and Much-Needed Patent Reform) at the USPTO

    The future of patent reform, i.e. tackling overpatenting and patent trolls, looks somewhat more promising with today's confirmation of Lee's 'extended tenure' at the Office



  3. Links 19/1/2017: PulseAudio 10.0, Linux 4.9 Longterm Kernel

    Links for the day



  4. Corporate (Wall Street) Media Agrees That Brexit Dooms the Unitary Patent (UPC)

    The nonstop lies or the fake news about the UPC starting "real soon now" don't quite pass a reality check or a basic assessment based on fundamental concepts, such as the UPC's facilitation of subordination (to Europe) in the United Kingdom



  5. Farce of an 'Independence' for the Boards of Appeal as Another Ally of Benoît Battistelli Enters as Parasite Inside the 'Overseer'/Host

    The latest cluster of lies from the President of the European Patent Office (EPO) and direct refutation of false claims of independence for the Boards of Appeal, where the former Vice-Presidents can flock, just like the Mini Minion (Minnoye) of Battistelli



  6. Links 18/1/2017: Red Hat's OpenShift 3.4, Mozilla's New Logo/Branding

    Links for the day



  7. Union-Busting Action by Team Battistelli Takes Heavy Toll, Techrights Will Continue to Expose EPO Injustices to the World

    The Staff Union of the European Patent Office, SUEPO, which faced unprecedented and probably illegal (based on local laws) attacks, is being weakened by the worst President ever, whose own management team seems to be collapsing along with the institution he is destroying in just a few years



  8. A Lot More Fake News About the UPC, Trying to Convince People That the UK is Ratifying (It's Not, It Cannot)

    Response to some of the latest misleading (self-serving) whispers about the fate of the Unified Patent Court (UPC), which is in a deadlock due to Brexit



  9. Rumours Suggest That EPO Management is Aware of Decline in Patent Quality and is Thus Actively Lying About it to the Media/Public

    Whenever Battistelli brags about patent quality he may be consciously and deliberately lying through his teeth if the latest rumours are correct



  10. Links 17/1/2017: GIMP Plans, New Raspberry Pi Product

    Links for the day



  11. Resumption of EPO Propaganda ('Meet the President') Officially Starts Tomorrow

    Yet another one of these foolish 'Meet the President' stunts, scheduled to take place tomorrow morning



  12. Caricature: Battistelli's New Year's Resolution (More EPO Lies)

    The latest cartoon being circulated within the European Patent Office (EPO)



  13. Donald Trump Gives New Hope to Patent Aggressors and Patent Trolls

    Pessimism about the prospects of patent progress or patent reform in an age of staunchly pro-business Conservatives and glorification of protectionism



  14. More Fake News About the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Based on Lobbying Tactics From Bristows UPC and the Preparatory Committee

    Unified Patent Court (UPC) lobbying has gotten so bad that it now infiltrates general media outlets, where people are asked to just blindly assume that the UPC is coming and is inevitable, even though it's clearly in a limbo and is unlikely to see the light of day



  15. EPO Totally Silent for a Month, But Deep Inside There Are Serious Cracks

    The situation at the EPO seems to be pretty grim, even at the top-level management, and the EPO has gone into permanent silence mode



  16. Links 16/1/2017: Linux 4.10 RC4, Linux Mint 18.1 'Serena' KDE Edition Beta

    Links for the day



  17. 'Financial Director' Publishes Fake News About the Unitary Patent (UPC)

    Response to some of the latest UPC propaganda, which strives to misinform Financial Directors so as to enrich the author and his firm



  18. Independent and Untainted Web Sites About Patents Are Still Few and Rare

    Commentary about news sources that we rely on, as well as the known pitfalls or the vested interests deeply ingrained in them



  19. The 20% Rule: Patent Trolling Suffers Double-Digit Declines and Patent Troll Technicolor is Collapsing

    Significant demise or total catastrophe for the modus operandi (method) of going after companies with a pile of patents and threats of litigation



  20. US Supreme Court Did Not End Apple's Patent Disputes Over Android (Linux), More Cases Imminent

    An overview of some very recent news regarding the highest court in the United States, which has been dealing with cases that can determine the fate of Free/Open Source software in an age of patent uncertainty and patent thickets surrounding mobility



  21. Links 15/1/2017: Switching From OS X to GNU/Linux, Debian 8.7 Released

    Links for the day



  22. Number of New Patent Cases in the US Fell 25% Last Year, Thanks in Part to the Demise of Software Patent Trolls

    Litigation and prosecutions that rely on patents (failure to resolve disputes, e.g. by sharing ideas, out of court) is down very sharply, in part because firms that make nothing at all (just threaten and/or litigate) have been sinking after much-needed reform



  23. America Invents Act Improved Patent Quality, But Right Wingers Threaten to Make It Worse Again

    The past half a decade saw gradual improvement in assessment of patents in the United States, but there is a growing threat and pressure from the patent microcosm to restore patent maximalism and chaos



  24. PTAB -- Not Deterred by Courts -- Continues to Invalidate a Lot of Software Patents

    The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) continues to make progress reforming the patent system by eliminating a lot of patents and setting an example (or new standards) for what is patent-eligible after Alice



  25. EPO Abuses Come Under Fire From Politicians in Luxembourg

    Luxembourg is the latest nation in which concerns about the EPO's serious abuses are brought up not only by the media but also by politicians



  26. Constitutionality as a Barrier and Brexit Barriers to UPC Keep the Whole Pipe Dream Deadlocked

    The UPC is still going nowhere fast, but the demise (or death) of the UPC as we know it must not be taken for granted



  27. Links 14/1/2017: Wine 2.0 RC5 and AryaLinux 2017 Released

    Links for the day



  28. Links 13/1/2017: Linux 4.9.3 and Linux 4.4.42

    Links for the day



  29. Brexit Means No UPC (Unified Patent Court)

    Now that Jo Johnson, Boris Johnson's brother, is officially declared the new minister for intellectual property in the UK everything that Lucy Neville-Rolfe wrote is as solid as paper bag on a rainy London day



  30. Patent Trolls and Software Patents: CloudTrade, Patent Practitioners Density, and Via Licensing

    Software patents armament from a British company, charted concentration of the patent microcosm in the United States, and US-leaning patent trolls that prey on China


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