09.22.14
Posted in Bill Gates, Finance at 11:46 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Microsoft’s arrogant and famously corrupt co-founder is taken to task by those whom he is trying to bamboozle for monopoly, unlimited cross-generational power, and never-ending profit without risk
THE Gates Foundation is a very megalomaniac organisation. It is Gates’ ego and money-harvesting operation. It is tax exempt because it masquerades as a charity while the reality of the matter is, as reiterated by this report about Cascade Investment LLC, the primary goal is profit, not giving. The article from The Wall Street Journal (owned by a friendly billionaire) and other Wall Street press tries to trivialise it like “The arrangement is simple: Mr. Larson makes money, and Mr. Gates gives it away.” Giving it away to whom? Putting the PR offensives aside (health-washing and education-washing), consider articles like this new one titled “Bill Gates Donates $5.6 Million to Cornell: University that Helped Monsanto Promote GMO rBST”. Unsurprisingly, Bill Gates is a big investor in Monsanto. What a coincidence. Science, charity, education — surely! Or maybe just self interest, greed, and ultimately profit?
In the media, which a lot of the time gets bribed by Gates (he spends around $300 million per year paying media companies), Gates is portrayed as one who supports poor students, poor academics in need of funding, and the solution to world hunger, disease, etc. It could not be further from the truth if one actually looks what he invests in (for profit). It’s a diversion tactic, tactfully implemented and maintained.
“In the media, which a lot of the time gets bribed by Gates (he spends around $300 million per year paying media companies), Gates is portrayed as one who supports poor students, poor academics in need of funding, and the solution to world hunger, disease, etc.”Bill Gates paid The Guardian a lot of money for sponsorship, puff pieces, fake endorsements (at the top of thousands of article), and for silence (i.e. no criticism) on Gates investments.
“Comment is free”, a section of this paper that Gates controls only to a lesser degree (he has already bribed it for silence and grooming, but silencing contributors is a tougher challenge), published the other day an article title “Why the Big History project funded by Bill Gates is alarming”. The article is summarised as follows: “As UK state schools increasingly follow the US model, someone with no background in education could disrupt the learning of thousands of children” (“Big History” is similar to “Common Core” in the buzzword sense. A lot of it started in the paper/journal of record which Gates likes to visit to push his agenda).
Remember what Gates does to occupy the education system (currently through “Common Core”) and what he has done to capture British schools as well (indoctrination), not just British policing. An article by Valerie Strauss, a longtime critic of Gates, was published in a competing journal of record (from which the Gates family got kicked out after misconduct). It is an article titled “Bill Gates wants your kids to learn history this way — and he’s paying to get it into schools”. It’s about the same issue. It’s worth reading.
The bottom line is simple. Be aware that a lot of the press gets paid by Bill and Melinda to praise them. It’s not a donation but a request with strings attached to money. It all helps distract from other evil business practices that Mr. Gates uses to make himself even richer (while pretending to be giving away money).
Thankfully, a lot more people have become aware of this in recent years. Gates’ information warfare is not working quite as he once hoped. It is especially hard to bamboozle educators by preying on ignorance. Teachers have become some of his most vocal critics and they are thirsty for knowledge about Gates’ real motivations, which have nothing to do with human welfare; it’s about corporate welfare of companies that Gates invests in.
Bill has always worked for Bill. Never for the world, which to him is merely a resource for exploitation. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Security at 11:15 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: News reports circulate showing that Home Depot was knowingly careless with its Windows dependency while Microsoft lays off staff focused on security
Microsoft is not a company that cares about security. It seems to care about the security state (i.e. surveillance), which is why it makes its products so easy to infiltrate (by the “Good Guys”). As we showed before, Microsoft’s layoffs focus in part on security-related staff, or staff that’s associated with security state type of stuff (restricting operation of computers, back doors, etc.).
Microsoft uses secrecy as a weapon against fear-induced exodus because layoffs are company-wide and it's not about Nokia but about parts of the company which Microsoft would rather keep secret. To quote one source:
In a statement sent to Channelnomics sister-site CRN UK, Microsoft said the staff reductions in the latest round have been “spread across many business units and many different countries”, but did not go into specifics as to where it is swinging the ax.
“Trustworthy Computing group” is one of the affected units, based on Seattle-based press. Reportedly, according to this press (heavily biased in Microsoft’s favour), the group was “folding into other units”. It’s a clever and rather classic way to disguise layoffs (like the term “reorg”). “A spokesman confirmed that an unspecified number of jobs are being eliminated from the Trustworthy Computing group as part of the changes,” said the report that we cited last week. So by “folding into other units” he basically meant “layoffs”.
It is rather amazing that given all that is known, some businesses and even governments continue to procure and/or purchase more stuff from Microsoft. It’s worse than irresponsible, it’s suicidal. Ask Home Depot why it should not be using Windows anymore. According to reports such as [1], this retailer faces a massive security breach and it’s all the fault of Windows. Staff knew about it and also ignored the issues. It makes it both
irresponsible and suicidal. The company’s name is now tarnished.
Increasingly here in the UK I see businesses that move to Free software and GNU/Linux, usually for security reasons, not just cost savings (the migration itself can be pricey). Some months ago staff at Ryman (a large UK chain) told me that they had moved from Windows to Ubuntu GNU/Linux due to virus infections.
Now that Microsoft is eliminating security jobs people will hopefully realise that Windows security is not improving. It’s only going to get worse. Time to move to GNU/Linux… █
Related/contextual items from the news:
-
Former information technology employees at Home Depot claim that the retailer’s management had been warned for years that its retail systems were vulnerable to attack, according to a report by the New York Times. Resistance to advice on fixing systems reportedly led several members of Home Depot’s computer security team to quit, and one who remained warned friends to use cash when shopping at the retailer’s stores.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Fraud, Patents at 10:50 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Inner circle of Battistelli [PDF]
Summary: A preliminary look at Battistelli’s reign and how regulatory powers got abolished, leaving the EPO reckless and largely unaccountable
THIS is our third (hopefully among many) outline of EPO abuses. It’s the third instalment in a multi-part series about the European Patent Organisation/Office, which is rotten to its core. EPO — like Google — has enjoyed positive public perception for too long. It’s time to shatter the myths of professionalism and innovation.
Having studied dozens of documents and articles about this topic (usually translations because the English-speaking press mostly overlooks these issues), we are shocked to see just to what extent the EPO engages in dirty tactics, conflicts of interest, and revolving doors. It’s no better than the FCC or CAFC.
Readers who saw the first Techrights article on this topic (focusing on Topić’s appointment) sent us some valuable feedback. Alex Weir, for example, told us: “I read with interest your piece on corruption in the EPO, from my personal experience there have been questions regarding the EPO and corruption in relation to EC contracts and relations with China since the late 1990s, I am sure if you dig you will come up with more evidence.”
Today’s article focuses on Battistelli, the EPO’s President. As we keep getting sent more dirt about the EPO it is hard to say just how many future articles will revolve around his own scandals, which are unique because they show how abuses can go all the way up to the top (EPO President is the highest position).
One person told us on Diaspora that “Richard Stallman has said that the EPO is corrupt a few times, before this man [Topić] was put in charge.
“Thanks for bring up the issue.
“It seems to be the fault of the European Commission,” he added, citing this as an example. Quoting Stallman: “The EU administrators said they would let each country decide whether to allow genetically modified crops, but the proposed implementation is a trap. It has legal flaws, so these one-country bans might then be overturned.
“It is not unusual for the European Commission to make treacherous proposals. For instance, the “computer-related inventions” directive was written so it would appear to rule out software patents, but in fact would have authorized them. ”
“He wrote a lot about the EC’s nasty trick at the time,” said the person about Stallman. We too covered it for years, in video form also. The EPO derives its power from an administration which in its own right is relatively immature (like the Union) and ripe for abuse.
So let’s take a look at what Battistelli is not so well known for.
“Here is a link to an interview with Mr. Paul Ernst,” said our source, “who was a member of the (now abolished) EPO Audit Committee.
“His comments on the function of the Audit Committee and its abolition may be of interest.”
Here for example (with emphasis added) is what he said about the Audit Committee:
The dissolution of the Audit Committee at EPO was justified with the argument that the Audit Committee’s tasks are already carried out by Internal Audit and the Board of Auditors (BOA). What is your view on this?
Paul Ernst: The reasoning behind the decision reveals a lamentable ignorance of the fundamental role of an Audit Committee.
The Audit Committee can be seen as an answer to the famous question „who audits the auditor?“
The Audit Committee reports directly to the Administrative Council, whereas Internal Audit reports to the President and has no right to address the Administrative Council directly.
The Audit Committee protects the independence of both audit functions and observes the coordination between Internal Audit and External Audit, and the follow-up given to audit recommendations.
The Audit Committee should also raise its voice if a significant conflict of interest is discovered, e.g. a close relationship between a member of the BOA or the Internal Auditor or the Chair of the governing body and the chief executive.
There is no other institution that plays a similar role. These are significant differences that demonstrate that the Audit Committee does not duplicate the work of the Internal Auditor nor the Board of Auditors.
“Note,” said our source about Battistelli, quoting the following part: “The Audit Committee should also raise its voice if a significant conflict of interest is discovered, e.g. a close relationship between a member of the BOA or the Internal Auditor or the Chair of the governing body and the chief executive.”
“This is precisely the situation that exists between Battistelli (chief executive) and Angermann (member of the BOA),” explains our source. “However, as there is no longer any independent Audit Committee, it cannot raise its voice in the matter … how convenient for Battistelli.
“The problems of EPO governance arising from the abolition of the Audit Committee have been noted by the French Senator Jean-Yves Leconte in an open letter which he sent to French Ministers earlier this year.”
To quote: “En supprimant de facto l’indépendance de l’audit externe des comptes (budget de l’organisation 2 000 M€) la transparence sur les évolutions de l’OEB ne sera plus de mise. Et ceci sera aggravé par l’absence de contrôle interne crédible lié à l’évolution des relations internes à l’institution” (full text of the letter is available in French).
“The point to note here,” says our source, “is that the French Government is fully informed about the various problems at the EPO but it nevertheless supported Battistelli’s re-appointment in June of this year.”
Nationalism first.
“The problems with the EPO’s audit mechanisms were mentioned briefly in a report by WIPR in June of this year,” said our source, pointing us at the article “EPO staff in Battistelli fight”. The article states: “Staff have also claimed that the “overall governance” structure has been weakened by the audit committee being abolished without the administrative council knowing, and that Battistelli has put a “previous collaborator” from the French Patent Office in the “key post” of external auditor.”
Full details of this were made available to us in the form of copies of the Administrative Council documents referred to above (for readers’ information and for future reference).
“These documents are not classified as confidential so in principle they can be made publicly available,” explained our source.
The documents are as follows:
- CA-140-08-EN – 2008 – Audit Committee: possible models
- CA-32-09-EN – 2009 – EPO Audit Committee: draft terms of reference
- CA-33-09-EN – 2009 – Draft decision setting up an Audit Committee
- CA-D9-09-EN – 2009 – Establishing an Audit Committee of the Administrative Council
- CA-100-11-EN – 2011 – Internal appeal against CA/D 4/11
- CA-D4-11-EN – 2011 – Decision of the Administrative Council
- CA-55-11-EN – 2011 – Disbanding the Audit Committee
Notice the trend based on the chronology. Audit no more!
Next week we are going to show the ‘special relationship’ between Battistelli, the notorious Topić (known for corruption in his home coutry), and other administrative elements that seemingly collude to keep themselves and their networks in power, feeding off the European economy to do a disservice to Europe. In parts 4 and 5 we are going to shed more light on how the EPO was captured by hawks and wolves — people who should have never acquired such positions of power where they exploit a public institution for power and greed. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA