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

04.11.11

Groklaw Defamed by Microsoft Boosters as Pamela Jones Steps Down Victorious

Posted in FUD, Microsoft, SCO at 3:52 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Groklaw and SCO ship
Image credited to Groklaw.net

Summary: Not even a day goes by and the mobbyists already engage in revisionism and distortion of the truth about Groklaw; Techrights responds

THIS is sad to watch. As pointed out to us by a reader last night (see IRC logs, which we have finally caught up with), now starts the revisionism about Groklaw and about Pamela Jones, its esteemed and talented editor. She won’t be able to defend herself and rebut the spin for much longer as her online presence is strictly in Groklaw (due to imposters). We have already attempted to set the record straight, but some people insist on echoing the words spread in a PR-esque fashion by all the usual suspects. Examples of the arguments to watch out for are: 1) Pamela encouraged IBM to sue using patents (they forgot to mention that IBM was provoked to do this by an agitator and disrupter which is partly owned by Microsoft) and 2) Pamela celebrated Red Hat’s patents (well, she actually celebrated Red Hat’s ability to settle litigation by patent trolls, even in a GPLv3-compliant way). This recently developed into somewhat of an argument we intended to put an end to, not to restart

In many ways, the FSF et al. adopted a similar attitude towards patents. Eben Moglen, for example, thanked the OIN for shooting down attempts by Microsoft to pass Linux-hostile patents to patent trolls. Richard Stallman will address the general subject very soon and here is the abstract of his talk:

Richard Stallman will explain how software patents obstruct software development. Software patents are patents that cover software ideas. They restrict the development of software, so that every design decision brings a risk of getting sued. Patents in other fields restrict factories, but software patents restrict every computer user. Economic research shows that they even retard progress.

Meanwhile, as Groklaw helped highlight back in February, Microsoft seems to be turning Nokia into a patent agitator and Muktware claims that the Elop-led “Nokia Confirms They Are Stabbing The Free Software Community”:

Nokia has finally confirmed that they are closing the recently opened Symbian platform. Why is Nokia closing Symbian, when it could have had great potential by being taken care by a wider community? Could there be Microsoft influence? I don’t know.

I am upset with Nokia as the company has betrayed the wider free software community which believed, trusted and invested in platforms like Maemo, MeeGo and Symbian backed by the company. The promises that Nokia made to the free software community have been broken. It’s shameful.

It is even worse if one takes into account the new patent strategy, which came along with Microsoft’s president, Elop [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. They might choose to sue Android phone makers or even Google.

The bottom line is, Groklaw was always against software patents. It actively preached against them and recognised them as a threat. In several E-mails before the weekend I discussed this with Pamela, who clarified her position but permitted no direct quoting (I had not asked for permission). So for anyone who is still fooled by defamation of Groklaw, rest assured that her site strives to deliver an accurate assessment, even if that sometimes mean that discomforting views will get across to readers.

Groklaw not only criticises software patents. Patents in general are in doubt over there and in last week’s news we found an article which gives method for swinging on a swing as an example. It’s titled “Patently absurd system encourages litigation, not innovation” and it says:

For those tempted to laugh it off as the antics of Aussies, note that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office saw fit in 2002 to hand a 5-year-old from Minnesota the exclusive rights to use, sell or license a method for swinging on a swing. (It will surprise no one that his father was a patent attorney.)

These are silly examples that point to a serious problem: Patent offices around the globe are apparently only too willing to grant rights to inventors who haven’t done a whole lot of inventing. And businesses are only too ready to rush their claims to court to gain an upper hand in the market or draw revenue from dubious innovations.

How about “methods for enticing users to access a web site” as the Indian press put it some days ago?

The doodles that Google puts out are pretty familiar to regular users. A recent one relates to Harry Houdini’s 137th birthday, showing a cute cartoon of a suited magician in broken handcuffs. What users may not know is that this doodle stands patented. For a minute, when I first read that, I was pretty amused. “No way!” was my first reaction. However, I took a minute to investigate and sure enough, on March 22, Google was granted a patent titled “Systems and methods for enticing users to access a web site”.

I dreaded scrolling down to read the claims-section of the patent; however, this patent only had four claims. Claims are essentially the heart of a patent application, upon which legal rights are granted/disputed.

Hey, Google, what the heck? Et tu, Google? We stand by our initial evaluation of Google's patent policy.

Moving on from the subject of patents, Groklaw is being defamed in other ways, quite notably by Microsoft Florian. He recycles not only false material from Dan Lyons about Groklaw being “funded by IBM” (a lie which IBM rebutted under oath in the courtroom); now he starts with the very old lie that Pamela does not exist or that the site is composed by a group of people. Well, Florian never shied away from lies, so there he goes again. Watch him getting all chummy with Microsoft MVP Miguel de Icaza [1, 2] and with Microsoft spinner Rob Enderle [1, 2, 3] these days over at Twitter. He mostly speaks to Microsoft people over at Twitter and it’s truly telling. This quite rightly upsets friends of the Groklaw site and one reader suggests (by E-mail): “now that PJ is closing up Groklaw, you might explain what Techrights is about and invite people over.” A member of Groklaw, “spaetz”, noted last night that: “I don’t CARE if she is a woman, a man or a whole legal department.”

Recently we’ve been getting people from Groklaw in the IRC channels and they are very insightful, even eager to help. If Groklaw will no longer be active we sure hope to provide them with a service comparable to News Picks and also some analysis, which is not as legalese-oriented and courtroom-based as Pamela’s (we are neither qualified to do so, nor have we the access to court documents).

Groklaw has been invaluable to us; we could not do without it. Regarding the Novell/CPTN situation, for example, Groklaw noticed the following:

Maureen O’Gara quotes Florian too, of course, which tells you all you need to know, I suspect. But if Florian were correct this time, as opposed to all the prior times, and this deal was a foregone conclusion, so to speak, why would FCO write to OSI at all? And yet… they did. OSI sent their response on April 4th, raising some rather serious questions, and in each case saying that OSI lacks the ability to know the answers, but the FCO has the means and the authority to look into the issues raised. But by April 12th? Does Florian ever predict the future in a way that predicts anything but success for proprietary players any more? List the urls, if you have any. And, more significantly, did he predict that the terms of the CPTN deal would have to morph into the form that they have, thanks to OSI raising concerns with the FCO?

In short, I suggest you wait and see what happens. He doesn’t know. The FCO didn’t write to him, you know, or ask for his views.

For those who do not know what Maureen O’Gara (the fake ‘reporter’ [1, 2, 3, 4]) did to Groklaw, read this from the court (strong evidence, no speculations needed):

“A. [Maureen O'Gara:] PJ is the purported author of the Groklaw site.

Q. What is the Groklaw site?

A. [Maureen O'Gara:] It is a website that follows the SCO case — I should say cases, maybe, but –

Q. And then you did, in fact, write a story about PJ or Pamela Jones, didn’t you?

A. [Maureen O'Gara:] Yes.

Q. So, in 196, Stowell says in the subject line, “I need you to send a jab PJ’s way,” and that’s March 30 2005?

A. [Maureen O'Gara:] Yeah.

Q. And 197 is your May 9 to 13, 2005 issue of Client Server News 2000, correct?

MR. JACOBS: Your Honor, Novell moves into evidence D-14.

MR. NORMAND: No objection, Your Honor.

THE COURT: It will be admitted.

(Novell Exhibit D-14 received in evidence.)

A. [Maureen O'Gara:] Yeah.

Q. And the lead story is Who is Pamela Jones?

A. [Maureen O'Gara:] Yeah.

1665

Q. Right?

A. [Maureen O'Gara:] Yes.

Q. Is there — is there a causal relationship between Blake Stowell’s e-mail to you and the appearance of the story in Client Server News 2000, May 9 to 13, 2005?

A. [Maureen O'Gara:] No.

Q. You did it independently? You did the story on PJ –

A. [Maureen O'Gara:] I have reason to do a story on Pamela Jones that has nothing to do with SCO.

Q. And, in your — in that article you said, “A few weeks ago, I went looking for the elusive harridan who supposedly writes the Groklaw blog about the SCO v. IBM suit.” “

Later on, Maureen O’Gara and the Microsoft/SCO gang would try to portray Pamela as paranoid. As though she had no reasons to be concerned… and now they try to pretend she never existed, either. SJVN rebuts as follows, and not for the first time, either:

During those years, she was frequently attacked by people who claimed she was an agent for IBM. Her privacy was attacked by so-called journalists. Others claimed, and still claim to this day, that there is no PJ. That’s utter nonsense.

Pamela Jones does exist. I’ve met her several times and she’s a friend. She’s also a very private person in her personal life and frankly she doesn’t trust SCO, or its friends, as far as she could throw them. Since she’s been stalked by them, I can’t say that I blame her.

SJVN wrote about him meeting Pamela about 3 years ago when the same old lies about her existence had bubbled up to the surface again, seeking to discredit and de-legitimise the messenger of course.

There are other inaccurate claims about Groklaw; it is not really “Shutting Down”, as some people put it; it does not need Byfield’s “Eulogy”, either (he has been critical of Groklaw over the years, dismissing the likes of Groklaw as "conspiracy theorists"). He wrote:

When I got up this morning, the news was all over Facebook and the free software news sites: Groklaw, the site that was influential in the SCO legal cases, will stop publication on May 16. It’s news that I hear with decidedly mixed feelings.

Well, mixed feelings, eh? So now he can more easily pretend that freedom fighters as “anti-corporations” and/or irrational. To put the situation more correctly, Brad adds that “The site will remain active, and its archives accessible. But no new commentary will be posted.”

Indeed.

For those who are new to Techrights, our aim is to fight FUD which is aimed at Free software (against Linux, Android, and so on). As we mentioned briefly the other day, Gartner is the latest with the FUD baton [via Pogson] and people in Twitter are currently linking to our Gartner FUD and misconduct wiki page because they too realise that we have FUD in our hands. Those who are new to the site may wish to start familiarising themselves with the wiki.

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

14 Comments

  1. twitter said,

    April 11, 2011 at 5:20 pm

    Gravatar

    Don’t turn away the legal people from Groklaw, they can provide Techrights with a whole new section to make up for PJ’s retirement. Groklaw has been around long enough to train dozens of people and the community is large enough to get people into US courtrooms around the country. If there’s someone at Groklaw who’s got the time and guts to do what PJ did, you should offer them an editorship and a subsite, Techrights Legal. Give them the Slashcode they are used to and let them keep roaring. PJ can give you some good guidance on who’s reliable and looking for more.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    Don’t turn away the legal people from Groklaw…

    I did not rule out anything at all; au contraire — I invited anyone who can to join us as we keep growing and now have nearly 13,000 blog posts. If someone new wants to join our efforts, let’s chat in IRC.

  2. Will said,

    April 11, 2011 at 6:12 pm

    Gravatar

    FM has certainly been a busy boy the past day or two. Ever since the Groklaw announcement, he’s been all over the web, posting comments on several news posts about Groklaw–always harping endlessly about PJ’s relative anonymity (including whether or not “PJ” even exists) and/or trotting out his own supposed credentials.

    The thing he doesn’t seem to comprehend is that, the evidence and analysis provided by Groklaw should be judged on their own merits *regardless* of who or where it comes from. It’s like he thinks if he can just discredit one person’s identity somehow, he can discredit the entire legal archive at Groklaw–all the court documents, all the commentary by PJ and a multitude of others, everything, or something like that.

    Of course he’s been rebutted and/or outright slammed everywhere he posts, but I suppose as long as whatever compensation he receives keeps coming in, he’ll keep on spewing.

    Going by Twitter, etc, seems like several members of Team Apologista are openly celebrating this news.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    Going by what I see in his Twitter account (the past 2 days alone), he dedicated over a dozen tweets just to Techrights and his Microsoft-loving chat buddies exceeded his numbers. He even tweeted me directly to say something along the lines of, now we can go after you. He has already threatened several times and he is not as polite as people who see his public communication may think; that’s why we call him mobbyist (like mob). He admits being a lobbyist for a corrupt club:

    http://lwn.net/Articles/437724/

    twitter Reply:

    Byfield also took a swing at Groklaw and Techrights, repeating his “conspiracy theory” slur of Groklaw and accusing Techrights of the same. He says he’s glad PJ is gone and seems to be happy to fling a little dirt on what he hopes is Groklaw’s grave. What a jerk.

    The attention given to Techrights should be seen as flattering. Techrights is a target because it is influential, careful, honest and out of Microsoft control. I’m still surprised by the swiftness and nastiness of the attacks but suspect there’s worse to come.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    FM has been harping about the Byfield piece like half a dozen times today. This is the type of people Byfield has fed, although not intentionally.

    Byfield loves to pretend to be the Fountain of Truth, but he is just like everyone else:

    http://techrights.org/2008/01/07/mistake-bruce-byfield/

    twitter Reply:

    I’m still not sure if Byfield is malicious or just has a big head. Either way, he has a tendency to trash talk a lot of good people in the free software community, often while pretending to praise them or hijacking their voice by recasting their opinion in silly ways.

    I wrote this about him at the time:

    Bruce Byfield * pretends to be reasonable but he exaggerates free software conflicts and throws mud on all sides. Slams of Groklaw and Boycott Novell speak for themselves.

    Defends OOXML, says bad things about Richard Stallman, Gnome, Boycott Novell, Pamela Jones of Groklaw and Alberto Barrionuevo of Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure. It is only fair to link Boycott Novell’s answer. Same thing as above. Different date but less opinionated. Defends Novell/M$ deal and tries to characterize free software advocacy as irrational naivete. Classic “talking about open-source business is like talking about ‘compassionate conservatism’” FUD for Debian, much of which conflicts with the words of wisdom in the last reference.Free Software advocates who oppose M$ are part of a “culture of hate”, self important and scary fanatics.Richard Stallman and Bruce Perens pointed out a long time ago that freedom is a scary thing to talk about. M$’s court proven plots against their competitors and free software are scarier still to people soaked in the hundred billion dollar marketing machine. Only a real coward however will ignore these issues.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    It’s s shame really because Byfield’s technical articles are quite good and I cite them a lot.

    twitter Reply:

    This is probably the worst of FM’s ranting in that thread:

    How can PJ be a “reputable person” without ever having disclosed one past or current employer?

    It’s not about a “disdain for all things PJ”. The problem is that Groklaw has constantly tried to capitalize on many people’s desire for simple fairy-tale-like black-and-white views. Groklaw has, partly in its articles and partly in discussions, engaged in character assassination. The net effect of that big brainwashing effort is that some of the more credulous and less informed people now distrust a very smart analyst like Rob Enderle, very smart journalists like Maureen O’Gara and Dan Lyons, or a very smart author like Ed Bott, only because they comment on certain issues with greater sanity than Groklaw.

    I don’t have a problem if Groklaw cancels its plans and continues beyond May 16. My blog started a year ago, and most of the issues I analyzed aren’t even covered by Groklaw (other than occasional news picks at most). I just think that sites promoting black-and-white thinking and a shoot-the-messenger attitude do people a disservice.

    As PJ would say, “The gang’s all here.” It is amazing that Microsoft Florian would make his bed in the “nest of liars and thieves” so universally reviled by the people he wold claim to represent. I can only hope that whole thread was written by an imposter like Dan Lyons, but I’m afraid it was written by an even bigger imposter, one who pretends to be a lawyer and coder to advocate Microsoft and software patents as he pretends to be against them. Like any good troll, he complains about the very thing he’s doing character assassination. Florian deserves a special place in my Troll Zoo and Poison Pens collection. Because of the amazing influence the man has had on Slashdot, I’ve already got a draft troll zoo entry.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    Somehow I missed that message (a long thread). This is fun to address. FM says:

    The net effect of that big brainwashing effort is that some of the more credulous and less informed people now distrust a very smart analyst like Rob Enderle…

    Who has worked for and with Microsoft. He pretends to be independent while spreading lies for a Microsoft-funded SCO, defaming Groklaw in SCO events, and comparing Linux people to 9/11 plane hijackers.

    , very smart journalists like Maureen O’Gara

    The lady who not only stalked and harassed SCO critics but also “planted” anti-Linux stories in coordination with Microsoft and to this date reposts all her biased opinion pieces as “PRESS RELEASE”, which is what Sys-Con is fine with because Google spamming and libel is what it does, and it got banned for it.

    and Dan Lyons

    An imposter, just like FM. Dan pretends to be a Steve Jobs (piggybacking one man’s glory), FM pretends to be a developer and legal professional, which he is not. Did he finish high school? Some years ago I read about him writing as a teenager, but I don’t know of any academic track record from FM, which is probably why he’s waving his thing in LWN, talking about people whom he merely met, not about measurable achievements. He acts more like a con artist and he reminds me of that megalomaniac Internet troll whom we had harassed us since 2009 (the ACCESS troll).

    , or a very smart author like Ed Bott, only because they comment on certain issues with greater sanity than Groklaw.

    No, it is because he has reasons for spinning and lying. He makes money from Microsoft’s work (books for example). The bias he has was caused by personal interests identical to those of Preston Gralla and Bott also received expensive gifts from Microsoft for being a mouthpiece, which is why I sometimes call him “Bot” or “Bought”.

    Mind you, FM openly chats with the above people, probably not just in Twitter but also in E-mail (at least some of them). Private E-mail is where the shady FM exists and where the core of the lobbying resides. FM is mass-mailing a huge number of journalists (unsolicited mail) in order to inject his name into their articles. It’s a brute-force operation he would rather people never found out about. 1% success rate would be enough for his ego-surfing and the campaign to legitimate his absurd spin that he is assigned (and paid) to pass as “truth”.

    FM is fine with becoming a lobbyist because he has no morals. He lost touch with that notion.

    twitter Reply:

    Yeah, this is FM trying to both rehabilitate Microsoft and smear PJ at the same time. All of the Microsoft journalists were technical idiots who ruined their reputations smearing people and acting offensive in general. I cataloged some of their behavior in my poison pen collection. Now here comes Microsoft Florian to pull a Mojave on the lot and pretend it was all PJ’s fault that people think these poor defenseless journalists are sleaze.

    That Microsoft Florian is chatting it up with the SCO gang pretty much proves that the above thread is really him and puts an end to questions about his character. Thanks for putting that together.

    twitter Reply:

    I have analyzed Florians’s message to Slashdot over the last year and have added him to both my troll zoo and poison pen collection. The level of attention Slashdot editors has given him is disgraceful.

  3. saulgoode said,

    April 12, 2011 at 1:07 am

    Gravatar

    Examples of the arguments to watch out for are: 1) Pamela encouraged IBM to sue using patents (they forgot to mention that IBM was provoked to do this by an agitator and disrupter which is partly owned by Microsoft)…

    If someone encourages software patent litigation then they are not “always against software patents” — the reason behind the exception is immaterial. This is simple English language comprehension at the grade school level. If you say you are always against homicide, it is a contradiction to then say “but it’s OK if you are provoked”.

    If you want to discuss what might or might not justify the use software patents, fine; have that discussion. But if exceptions are to be made then you are no longer talking about being “always against software patents”.

    … and 2) Pamela celebrated Red Hat’s patents (well, she actually celebrated Red Hat’s ability to settle litigation by patent trolls, even in a GPLv3-compliant way). This recently developed into somewhat of an argument we intended to put an end to, not to restart

    The Red Hat/Firestar settlement was a somewhat admirable attempt at being inclusive of all Free Software, but it was not even close to being 100% successful. In order to be covered by the protection of the licensing settlement, one’s code has to be either included in a Red Hat product, or based upon code appearing in a Red Hat product. As encompassing as this coverage may appear at first blush, there are Free Software projects that are not included in Red Hat, nor based upon software included in Red Hat.

    Similarly, the companies and projects comprising the Open Invention Network mutually agree not sue each other over software patents that are incorporated into the “Linux System”. Notably, the agreement does not cover BSD, Minix, OpenSolaris, or millions of other Free Software projects that are not part of the “Linux System”. Again we have an exclusionary patent agreement which purports to provide protection to a particular segment of the Free Software community to the exclusion of other segments.

    Does any of this sound familiar? Because I’m experiencing some difficulty reconciling your intention to put an end to debate on such things with the origins of this website, and the assertion made on your “About this Site” page that “The Web site covers not only the Novell deal (with Microsoft), but it also discusses similar exclusionary and questionable deals.

    Chris DiBona of Google recently estimated that there are 31 million Free Software projects indexed on the web. How many of those projects do you think are covered by the Red Hat settlement? How many of those projects do you think are covered by the OIN?

    Perhaps you would care to explain to those Free Software projects which have been excluded why their arguments should now be silenced while the arguments you’ve been presenting for the last five years about the Novell patent agreement were justified. Is your position not to discuss the OIN and the Red Hat settlement based on some sort of threshold of Free Software that is included in the protection? If so, perhaps you’d care to share what percentage of the 31 million projects need to be covered before we can reject the concerns of those that have been excluded.

    If you do not wish to talk about it then fine, don’t. But if you are going to defend the praise of exclusionary patent deals then don’t be surprised if you’re asked to defend your seeming hypocrisy by those who would denounce such deals. There are certainly those who relish the opportunity to point out inconsistencies, hypocrisy, and compromise in the positions taken by members of the Free Software community; but the solution to this is to discuss and address such problems, not to deny their existence. It is nothing short of impudence to suggest that all those opposed to exclusionary patent agreements — whether entered into by Red Hat, Novell, OIN, or anybody else — are motivated by anything other than full recognition that such agreements have a net effect that is detrimental to the Free Software community.

    Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    saulgoode,

    I agree with your comment and should clarify a few things.

    If someone encourages software patent litigation then they are not “always against software patents” — the reason behind the exception is immaterial. This is simple English language comprehension at the grade school level. If you say you are always against homicide, it is a contradiction to then say “but it’s OK if you are provoked”.

    I was actually responding to arguments FM made, not the one that you made. The point being, IBM was not the real aggressor. So, I do agree with your point, which you made thinking that I had criticised your point. In this case, IBM is accountable too.

    Does any of this sound familiar? Because I’m experiencing some difficulty reconciling your intention to put an end to debate on such things with the origins of this website, and the assertion made on your “About this Site” page that “The Web site covers not only the Novell deal (with Microsoft), but it also discusses similar exclusionary and questionable deals.”

    I don’t think that Groklaw addressed this aspect of the settlement. As before (with IBM), the one to be held accountable is Red Hat, probably not Groklaw. I did in fact criticise both IBM and Red Hat for their patent policy. It is them who are not truly against software patents; if Groklaw commends a defensive action from them, this does not not automatically make Groklaw an endorser of all their policies.

    Chris DiBona of Google recently estimated that there are 31 million Free Software projects indexed on the web. How many of those projects do you think are covered by the Red Hat settlement? How many of those projects do you think are covered by the OIN?

    I have been a critic of the OIN too. I doubt it’s seen as a perfect solution by Groklaw. To attribute OIN’s attitude to Groklaw just because Groklaw sometimes praises the OIN is where we make ourselves vulnerable to misinterpretations.

What Else is New


  1. Immunity of the European Patent Office and Lack of Oversight Within the Organisation Mean That It's a Rogue Entity Above the Law

    In light of remarks from the Attorney General in the Netherlands and in light of some recent and highly disturbing developments (like Board 28 folding for Benoît Battistelli), it is increasingly apparent that the EPO is disconnected from any accountability whatsoever



  2. Benoît Battistelli and Team UPC Are at War With European Democracy, Which They View as an Obstacle to Money and Power

    Some of the latest hints of the vain attitude which EPO managers and UPC-leaning law firms have adopted, as part of their plan to impose the UPC on Europe in spite of public resistance (or apathy due to lack of information and consultation)



  3. Links 1/10/2016: Linux 4.7.6 and 4.4.23, Blender 2.78

    Links for the day



  4. Dutch Court Rules Against SUEPO (in a Reversal), But EPO Management Would Have Ignored the Ruling Even If SUEPO Won (Updated)

    SUEPO loses a case against EPO management, but the EPO's overzealous management was going to ignore the ruling anyway



  5. New Paper Provides Evidence of Sinking Patent Quality at the EPO, Refuting the Liar in Chief Battistelli

    In spite of Battistelli's claims (lies) about patent quality under his watch, reality suggests that so-called 'production' is simply rushed issuance of invalid patents (one step away from rubberstamping, in order to meet unreasonable, imposed-from-the-top targets)



  6. Battistelli Locks EPO Staff Union Out of Social Conference So That He Can Lie About the Union and the Social Climate

    The attacks on staff of the EPO carry on, with brainwash sessions meticulously scheduled to ensure that Administrative Council delegates are just their master's voice, or the voice of the person whom they are in principle supposed to oversee



  7. Unprecedented Levels of UPC Lobbying by Big Business Europe (Multinationals) and Their Patent Law Firms

    A quick look at some of the latest deception which is intended to bamboozle European politicians and have them play along with the unitary [sic] patent for private interests of the super-rich



  8. Links 29/9/2016: Russia Moving to FOSS, New Nmap and PostgreSQL Releases

    Links for the day



  9. Team UPC is Interjecting Itself Into the Media Ahead of Tomorrow's Lobbying Push Against the European Council and Against European Interests

    A quick look at the growing bulk of UPC lobbying (by the legal firms which stand to benefit from it) ahead of tomorrow's European Council meeting which is expected to discuss a unitary patent system



  10. IP Kat is Lobbying Heavily for the UPC, Courtesy of Team UPC

    When does an IP (or patent) blog become little more than an aggregation of interest groups and self-serving patent law firms, whose agenda overlaps that of Team Battistelli?



  11. Leaked: Conclusions of the Secretive EPO Board 28 Meeting (8th of September 2016)

    The agenda and outcome of the secretive meeting of the Board of the Administrative Council of the EPO



  12. Letter From the Dutch Institute of Patent Attorneys (Nederlandse Orde van Octrooigemachtigden) to the Administrative Council of the EPO

    The Netherlands Institute of Patent Attorneys, a group representing a large number of Dutch patent practitioners, is against Benoît Battistelli and his horrible behaviour at the European Patent Office (EPO)



  13. EPO's Board 28 Notes Battistelli's “Three Current Investigations/Disciplinary Proceedings Involving SUEPO Members in The Hague."

    The attack on SUEPO (EPO staff representatives) at The Hague appears to have been silently expanded to a third person, showing an obvious increase in Battistelli's attacks on truth-tellers



  14. Links 28/9/2016: Alpine Linux 3.4.4, Endless OS 3.0

    Links for the day



  15. Cementing Autocracy: The European Patent Office Against Democracy, Against Media, and Against the Rule of Law

    The European Patent Office (EPO) actively undermines democracy in Europe, it undermines the freedom of the press (by paying it for puff pieces), and it undermines the rule of law by giving one single tyrant total power in Eponia and immunity from outside Eponia (even when he breaks his own rules)



  16. Links 28/9/2016: New Red Hat Offices, Fedora 25 'Frozen'

    Links for the day



  17. Team Battistelli Intensifies the Attack on the Boards of Appeal Again

    The lawless state of the EPO, where the rule of law is basically reducible to Battistelli's ego and insecurities, is again demonstrated with an escalation and perhaps another fake 'trial' in the making (after guilt repeatedly fails to be established)



  18. After the EPO Paid the Financial Times to Produce Propaganda the Newspaper Continues to Produce UPC Puff Pieces, Just Ahead of EU Council Meeting

    How the media, including the Financial Times, has been used (and even paid!) by the EPO in exchange for self-serving (to the EPO) messages and articles



  19. Beware the Patent Law Firms Insinuating That Software Patents Are Back Because of McRO

    By repeatedly claiming (and then generalising) that CAFC accepted a software patent the patent microcosm (meta-industry) hopes to convince us that we should continue to pursue software patents in the US, i.e. pay them a lot more money for something of little/no value



  20. The US Supreme Court Might Soon Tighten Patent Scope in the United States Even Further, the USPTO Produces Patent Maximalism Propaganda

    A struggle brewing between the patent 'industry' (profiting from irrational saturation) and the highest US court, as well as the Government Accountability Office (GAO)



  21. Patent Trolling a Growing Problem in East Asia (Software Patents Also), Whereas in the US the Problem Goes Away Along With Software Patents

    A look at two contrasting stories, one in Asia where patent litigation and hype are on the rise (same in Europe due to the EPO) and another in the US where a lot of patents face growing uncertainty and a high invalidation rate



  22. The EPO's Continued Push for Software Patents, Marginalisation of Appeals (Reassessment), and Deviation From the EPC

    A roundup of new developments at the EPO, where things further exacerbate and patent quality continues its downward spiral



  23. The Battistelli Effect: “We Will be Gradually Forced to File Our Patent Applications Outside the EPO in the Interests of Our Clients”

    While the EPO dusts off old files and grants in haste without quality control (won't be sustainable for more than a couple more years) the applicants are moving away as trust in the EPO erodes rapidly and profoundly



  24. Links 27/9/2016: Lenovo Layoffs, OPNFV Third Software Release

    Links for the day



  25. The Moral Depravity of the European Patent Office Under Battistelli

    The European Patent Office (EPO) comes under heavy criticism from its very own employees, who also seem to recognise that lobbying for the UPC is a very bad idea which discredits the European Patent Organisation



  26. Links 26/9/2016: Linux 4.8 RC8, SuperTux 0.5

    Links for the day



  27. What Insiders Are Saying About the Sad State of the European Patent Office (EPO)

    Anonymous claims made by people who are intimately familiar with the European Patent Office (from the inside) shed light on how bad things have become



  28. The EPO Does Not Want Skilled (and 'Expensive') Staff, Layoffs a Growing Concern

    A somewhat pessimistic look (albeit increasingly realistic look) at the European Patent Office, where unions are under fire for raising legitimate concerns about the direction taken by the management since a largely French team was put in charge



  29. Patents Roundup: Accenture Software Patents, Patent Troll Against Apple, Willful Infringements, and Apple Against a Software Patent

    A quick look at various new articles of interest (about software patents) and what can be deduced from them, especially now that software patents are the primary barrier to Free/Libre Open Source software adoption



  30. Software Patents Propped Up by Patent Law Firms That Are Lying, Further Assisted by Rogue Elements Like David Kappos and Randall Rader (Revolving Doors)

    The sheer dishonesty of the patent microcosm (seeking to bring back software patents by misleading the public) and those who are helping this microcosm change the system from the inside, owing to intimate connections from their dubious days inside government


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