Bonum Certa Men Certa

Everybody Knows UPC is Over, Even Those Who Still Attempt to Lie to the Public (and to Their Clients)

John Alty on UPC (former head of Office/delegation, now "Director General for trade policy, Department for International Trade, UK," according to his Twitter profile)

John Alty on UPC



Summary: We examine the latest strands of lies from Team UPC, notably the claims that "clarification" is needed regarding the British government's position and that the UPC can go on without the UK

THE European Patent Office (EPO) still hasn't issued a statement about the UK's position on UPC. It has been almost a month! António Campinos spoke about this to IAM and in some Managing IP event, but his words aren't the official statement; they're rambles full of lies and inaccuracies, as we noted early in the month. His master won't be happy; no UPC job would likely mean retirement (still, better than prison).



This long article is an outline of the past week's observations and developments, which are perhaps best summarised by Alty's tweet at the top. He's not some random person; remember the role he played in the UK's patent policy. He was at times receptive to the EPO's critics, as was his deputy. They're both gone on. They moved on.

Benjamin Henrion reminded himself that "the EPO does not respect the 'rule of law' principle, it cannot be sued for maladministration. 4 constitutional complaints in Germany are pending on this, where examiners prefered [sic] to watch the World Cup of Football in South Africa instead of doing their job..."

The key point here is that there are constitutional complaints in the FCC that do not involve the UPC but are indirectly connected to the complaint against it. The judges (or Justices) can easily see the lack of justice at the EPO and there's plenty of evidence that judges lack independence (they state so openly). We've long argued that the EPO should not have diplomatic immunity anymore. It breeds a lot of corruption and crime. Time to end the impunity by taking away immunity. It's well overdue.

Henrion separately took note of the "RUMOUR [that] UK is discussing to leave the EPO as well. EPO is undemocratic, out of control, and corrupt by NPOs. So 'taking back control' makes sense. Apparently under US trade pressure, which has criticized the UK staying in the UPC as well..."

I have been hearing similar things, from several directions, but there has been no concrete evidence; so the rumour does not have strong feet, other than some circumstantial stuff and rambles from IAM.

Over the past week we've taken stock of various anonymous comments; just about all of them are pessimistic about the UPC, unlike blog posts and articles composed (almost always) by Team UPC. There's a battle between fiction and reality (or common sense).

Henrion found this page which says: "Opening the UPCA to accession by 3rd countries would render the Agreement incompatible with the Treaties. Threat to EU law autonomy and EU control over the conditions of innovation and its legal protection within the Internal Market."

The UPC/A is illegal and unconstitutional. There's a good and very legitimate reason why the FCC sat on the complaint for nearly 3 years, knowing it would die on its own in due course (typical German approach to save face, letting time run out).

Let's examine some of the wishful thinking, which can be split into two categories; one says that UPC will carry on without the UK (impossibility) and another strand focuses on Germany and the FCC. We're still finding far too many lies about UPC in the corporate media. The law firms literally lie without shame.

As recently as this weekend we saw here in Mondaq a piece which insinuates all that's at stake is British participation. We deplore this piece because surely Richard Kempner, George Tebbutt and David Brown (Haseltine Lake Kempner LLP) are aware that if UPC is "not for the UK" (as they put it), then it is not for anybody because UK is mandatory; it's right there in the UPCA's text!

Here's what they wrote:

The UK government has just now made it clear that the UK will not be taking part in the Unified Patent Court (UPC) or Unitary Patent (UP) system. This is a volte face on its previously publicised position, but comes as no great surprise. The UK ratified the UPC Agreement in April 2018 under Theresa May's government, a commitment that would mean the UK would continue to be subject to some EU law and the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), if participation were to continue post-Brexit. However, the current Government confirmed last week that the UK will not be taking part in the UPC or UP in any form, perhaps reflecting its desire to avoid ceding power in any sphere, no matter how limited, to the CJEU.

What does this mean for the future of the UP/UPC?

Plans to implement the combined package of the UP and the UPC systems have been stalled for some time. A constitutional challenge to the UPC Agreement in Germany has held up its implementation, because the UPC Agreement must be passed by the three biggest countries in patent number (Germany, France and the UK), before the UPC can be introduced. The UP will also not be introduced until the UPC is up and running.


No UK, no UPC. Period. Over.

AJ Park's Sam Pearson and Christine Egan (it's a firm of overzealous patent maximalists who push software patents in New Zealand and Australia) also give the illusion UPC can happen without the UK (that's obviously wrong), in effect repeating the chorus of the cult we collectively call "Team UPC". They have promoted in Lexology their piece which says:

The UK government has confirmed that, post-Brexit, the UK will not be part of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) or Unitary Patent (UP) system.

BACKGROUND

Currently, after the grant of a European patent, it becomes what is essentially a ‘bundle of national patents’. Obtaining these national patents is subject to varying translation requirements to validate the European patent in each of the European states of interest, and maintaining the separate patents requires paying separate renewal fees in each country. Patent infringement and revocation proceedings are also conducted at the national level, which sometimes leads to multiple lawsuits regarding the same European patent in different countries, and which sometimes leads to different results.

The proposed UP sought to replace the current system with a single patent right, removing the need for separate post-grant validation. It promised significant savings in translation costs and renewal fees, especially for patent holders who choose to validate in more than a handful of countries. The UP was to be governed by a uniform patent court litigation system, the UPC, which would issue a single court ruling that would then be applicable in all of the EU countries. The idea of the UPC was to harmonise EU law and avoid a patentee having to litigate the same European patent in multiple EU territories.


It's not going to happen anymore. There's even further fragmentation right now due to the pandemic, but that's another story.

Found in Mondaq a few days ago was another piece parroting a similar set of talking points. One cannot participate in something that does not exist and will never exist. But law firms are still chasing the shadow of the dead, publishing articles with headlines like "UK Will No Longer Seek To Participate In Unitary Patent And UPC" (a more accurate headline would imply that therefore UPC is dead in the water). To quote:

The UK Government has confirmed the UK will no longer seek to be part of the proposed unitary patent (UP) or Unified Patent Court (UPC) systems. Given the UPC's alignment with the CJEU, this is not entirely surprising for the UK in a post-Brexit world.

Although it will be unwelcome news for many, the certainty of this new stance may mean the UP and UPC can again pick up momentum, subject to the ongoing legal challenge in Germany and re-working of the agreements without the UK's participation.

Should the UP and UPC agreements be ratified as per the current proposals, UK business will still be able to use the Unified Patent Court and unitary patent to protect their inventions within the contracting EU countries. However, in the UK, businesses will only have the option of protecting their inventions using national patents (including patents available from the non-EU European Patent Office) and UK courts.

UK business will still be open to litigation within the Unified Patent Court based on actions they undertake within the contracting EU countries if they infringe existing rights.


Will? It does not even exist and never will exist.

Watch this shallow puff piece from WIPR, nowadays an EPO mouthpiece. It was promoted with this tweet that said: "A UK parliamentary committee has asked the government to clarify its position on the Unified Patent Court (UPC), after reports that the UK will no longer seek to participate in the project."

They pretend it is about "clarification", but we'll get to that lie in a moment. This same lie was promoted by "Kluwer Patent blogger" right here (Team UPC, obviously), only to be met with hostile comments like the first one that stated: "I can also understand that the UK legal profession might not want to lose the opportunity for UK legal traditions to influence the development of case law of a potential UPC."

Here's the full comment:

I must confess to being a little perplexed by some of the oral evidence given to the EU Justice Sub-Committee on 10 March.

I can understand that the UK legal profession does not want to lose the influence (and, let’s be honest, the income) that it might gain by the UK’s participation in the UPC. I can also understand that the UK legal profession might not want to lose the opportunity for UK legal traditions to influence the development of case law of a potential UPC. What I struggle to understand, however, are all of the other arguments advanced for the UK’s continued participation in the UPC.

The suggestion from Mr Alexander that SMEs will somehow lose out is, frankly, not supported by the evidence. To the contrary, the fees and rules of procedure of the UPC appear to be specifically designed NOT to be “SME-friendly”.

However, more troubling than this is Mr Alexander’s suggestion that the UK’s participation in the UPC would only require the UK to sign up to a tiny amount of EU law. Unless I have missed something, this is pure conjecture that really should not have been presented as if it were an accepted fact.

Even the superficial (masquerading as “in-depth”) analysis commissioned by the EU parliament’s JURI committee spotted that there is no tried-and-tested legal mechanism that can be invoked to facilitate the UK’s continued participation in the UPC: “Maintaining the UK within the UPCA would need innovative legal solutions, as the UPC is an international court applying EU law – and the reason for Brexit was all about not applying EU law any more.”

In other words, nobody knows what it will take to persuade the CJEU to accept the participation of a non-EU Member State in a court that applies EU law. Indeed, based upon Opinion 1/09, it appears that the CJEU would most likely view such participation as being a total non-starter.

I must also beg to differ with the suggestion that the CJEU would likely only have a relatively limited role in resolving disputes before the UPC.

Firstly, the CJEU might need to answer fundamental questions relating to the UPC itself… such as whether the UPC Agreement is compatible with EU law, or whether the set-up of the court means that it is NOT a court common to EU Member States (and so is not able to make preliminary references to the CJEU).

Secondly, the CJEU would be responsible for interpreting provisions such as Article 5(3) of Regulation 1257/2012. That is, they would need to make sense of a provision that, as confirmed by the CJEU in C-146/13, applies NATIONAL law(s) of infringement to cases involving unitary patents. This will not be straightforward, not least because of difficulties in determining how to resolve apparent conflicts between different (national and/or international) laws in the country whose laws are to be applied.

Finally, even if and when those fundamental questions are resolved, the CJEU might then need to consider other tricky questions, such as whether the UPC would be competent to handle SPC disputes in respect of the UK … bearing in mind that, from 2021 onwards, laws governing SPCs and marketing authorizations in the UK will diverge from corresponding EU laws.

I do not exclude the possibility that all of the legal issues outlined above can be resolved in a manner that permits the UK’s (post-2020) participation in the UPC. It is just that I cannot identify, nor have I ever seen or heard, any persuasive legal arguments that would make me confident of such an outcome.

Against this background, the decision of the UK government not to seek to participate in the UPC appears to me to be perfectly consistent with the UK’s red lines with respect to EU law and the CJEU. I therefore suspect that no amount of lobbying from the legal profession will change that decision. Indeed, it is possible that continuing lobbying efforts on the UPC now could backfire in the long term. Thus, much as the UK legal profession seems to be in the early stages of grief with respect to the UPC (mostly denial, but also anger, bargaining and depression), I think that it is perhaps time to start moving towards acceptance.


Pretty much all the comments are like that. People know they're being lied to and they strike back with facts. This is very encouraging to see. Eventually Team UPC might just shut up, fearing the public embarrassment they constantly face. The use or misuse of generic pseudonyms (like "Kluwer Patent blogger") is due to their fear of backlash. They know that they lie, but they don't want to be held personally accountable for these lies.

To her credit, Dr. Hughes from AstraZeneca's "legal" (as in lawsuits) team isn't shy to put her name on her piece. She also has a Twitter account where she writes tweets like: "Lords subcommittee hear from @JuliaFlorence8 and Daniel Alexander QC of 8 New Square on the UK's withdrawal from UPC @LordsEUCom" (linking to her article).

"This ‘hearing’ was a total and complete farce," I told her, and it "says a lot about our political system. Please see explanation in" this article we published the same day as the farcical hearing. Dr. Hughes never responded and they have again deleted a comment that I posted in their blog, which is typical. Rose Hughes has a background in law, but maybe free speech would take another degree. These people don't tolerate dissent, unlike the former and original "Kats" (they have all left).

Henrion wrote: "Boris will have to cross his no-CJEU redline if he ploys to the wishes of the patent litigation trolling industry. The House of Lords have only invited the litigation industry up to now, how come the other industries were not invited?"

Henrion also quoted: "EU Justice Sub-Committee Lord Morris of Aberavon writes to Minister after the UK’s withdrawal from the Unified Patent Court system was reported in the media #upc #uk https://committees.parliament.uk/download/file/?url=%2Fpublications%2F276%2Fdocuments%2F1156&slug=lmtoasunifiedpatentcourtagreement100320pdf [...] UPC in UK: House of Lords wants Boris confirmation that the UK will leave..."

The comments are, as usual, better than the posts (Team UPC). Rose Hughes added: "UPDATE: The EU Justice Sub-Committee has written to the IP minister asking for clarification of the Government's position on the UPC https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/339/eu-justice-subcommittee/news/145496/clarity-sought-on-governments-patent-court-position/" (no, it's not about "clarification").

As noted here and in the comments:

Patent-eligibility of software is not covered by any EU law so fortunately it would not be possible to have any CJEU judgments or referrals on that.

Daniel Alexander was referring specifically to the Biotech directive 98/44/EC not to patent eligibility generally. That directive may be complex but it is definitely niche. I would think that by IPC code, it could only theoretically be applied to a very tiny percentage of patents. It has been in force for 22 years (during which there will have been many thousands of patent cases) with barely any CJEU referrals -the Brustle case (stem cells), clarification of Brustle and Monsanto (non extracted DNA).


Henrion selctively quoted some more comments, e.g. "all non-British IP lawyers and patent attorneys will take care that access to the UPC will be barred for UK citizens one way or the other." http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2020/03/house-of-lords-eu-subcommittee-is-uk.html … #upc #uk [...] "That the CJEU will limit itself to only deal with questions not linked to substantive patent law is a hope of many UPC proponents, but nothing is less sure. If the CJEU thinks fit to decide differently than the EPO, it will do." http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2020/03/house-of-lords-eu-subcommittee-is-uk.html?showComment=1583942528364#c1068020909440043935 … [...] EU-wide iPhone ban via the UPC: "There were also concerns that innovation in the software sector may be stifled by EU wide injunctions." http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2020/03/house-of-lords-eu-subcommittee-is-uk.html …"

It seems to have become widely accepted that UPC is neither desirable nor likely to ever materialise.

What do the most fervent Team UPC people say? Well, Rich Pinckney, who chose to quote another liar over a week ago, wrote this: (also tweeted)

The UK parliament’s House of Lords EU Justice Sub-Committee has reported today here that its Chair, Lord Morris of Aberavon, has written to the IP Minister, Amanda Solloway, asking whether she can confirm recent media reports that the “UK will not be seeking involvement” in the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and unitary patent. The letter was written yesterday, following the Sub-Committee’s meeting in the morning – see House of Lords committee examines effect of UK not participating in UPC. The Sub-Committee notes that the government has not yet made an official statement on its position.


They keep using false narratives like "clarity", "clarify", and "clarification" (as if there's something they don't understand rather than choose not to accept). This same lie can be seen here (from Managing IP). Max says: "EU Justice Sub-Committee writes to @ASollowayUK seeking clarity on UK's position on the #UPC. Committee says government "has yet to make an official public statement on the matter." https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/339/eu-justice-subcommittee/news/145496/clarity-sought-on-governments-patent-court-position/ …"

Terms such as "seeking clarity" are also misused by the anti-Section 101 lobby, or pro-software patents lobby of Coons, Kappos and others. They don't want "clarity"; they combat the law and the general public for litigation (a money hoard).

It has meanwhile emerged, as per this image/tweet of Kirsten Fiedler, Policy Advisor to an MEP (image with the word "algorithms"), that the "The EU seems to be thinking about intellectual property protections for #algorithms - an action plan has been announced in the industrial strategy: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/communication-eu-industrial-strategy-march-2020_en.pdf"

The replies include strongly-worded tweets like: "Corrupt money-driven EPO is already patenting algos, recycling their funky 'technical effect' https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/caselaw/2016/e/clr_i_d_9_1_8.htm … [...] Germany will continue to be a patent troll paradise due to its bifurcated system, as the UPC might allow as well http://www.fosspatents.com/2020/03/german-patent-litigators-comment-on.html … #upc #germany #trolls"

The original Web pages are more gently worded. The EPO has been run by people who flagrantly break laws for about a decade. If the EU facilitates this rather than stop this (of if it does not intervene), it too will go the way of the dodo. The UPC is an EU system and the EU cannot just throw its hands in the air, saying it has nothing to do with the EPO's dirty affairs. Remember that many of today's EPO managers came from an EU agency, the EUIPO. It's actually a scandal in its own right; the recruitment process is profoundly corrupt and SUEPO has begun speaking about it. This is very much an EU issue and there are UPC 'journal' papers about it [1].

Related/contextual items from the news:


  1. The Unified Patent Court and the frustrated promise of IP protection: Investors’ claims in (post-)Brexit Britain [via]

    Tensions between the EU’s legal order and the international investment law regime are not exclusive to the Brexit era, but they certainly gained momentum in the aftermath of this referendum. By incautiously declaring that the UK will remain a party to the Unified Patent System regardless of Brexit, the British government arguably shaped (il)legitimate expectations on the part of investors who aimed at exploiting their intellectual property rights in the UK while benefitting from the judicial protection of the forthcoming Unified Patent Court as much as of the European institutions (and market) as a whole. Indeed, not only the System itself will undergo a process of major rebalancing after London’s departure from the EU, but more importantly, the UK will most probably be unable to retain its membership in the System after the actual delivery of Brexit. These complications trigger a wide spectrum of fundamental dilemmas investing the definition and scope of concepts such as unilateral declaration, indirect expropriation, reasonable expectation, estoppel, and public policy exception, under both EU law and international investment law. It is therefore essential to explore these intersections as to anticipate possible scenarios in the event of both domestic court and international arbitral claims lodged by patent investors pre- and post-Brexit, having due regard for competition concerns on the side of the EU, yet referring to recent Canadian case law which opened the gate to investor-State claims in the field of intellectual property.



Recent Techrights' Posts

Wayland is About Less Choice, About Removing Choices, It's Not About Freedom
IBM insists that it cares about "diversity"
Keeping Things Accessible
Gemini Protocol seems to be growing
Not Much Better Than LLM Slop: Linux Foundation-Funded 'News' Site Writes Linux Foundation 'News', Composed by Linux Foundation Operative, Quoting Linux Foundation Staff
...they get paid (sponsored) to produce this spam. Then they call it "journalism".
Annual Southern California Linux Expo (SCALE 22x) 'Bought' by Microsoft and Microsoft Exceeded Sponsorship Limits by Giving Double the Maximum Permitted Amount
When people get bribed they tend to forget how to utter a simple word: "No."
 
Links 27/06/2025: International Tensions and Contentions Over Plagiarism Perfumed as "Hey Hi" and "Fair Use"
Links for the day
Gemini Links 27/06/2025: Poetry and Censorship by Social Control Media Centralisation
Links for the day
Links 27/06/2025: Journalists Under Fire and Microsoft Has Serious Slop Problems
Links for the day
X is Dying, But Not XServer/X11. Twitter X.com is Dying.
People or businesses or government officials (and departments) that still rely on Social Control Media are playing Russian Roulette with their future online
Escaping Colonialism (or 'Hegemony') Requires Abandoning GAFAM, Microsoft in Particular
Europe is already in the process of abandoning Microsoft
Microsoft Will Shut Down More Studios This Week, Its Media Operatives Will Tell Lies About the Magnitude of the Shutdowns and Layoffs (They Always Do)
Many people who get counted as "workforce" are "temps" or similar
What Linux Foundation 'Research' is: Paid Marketing
What is Linux Foundation 'Research'?
No, IBM Does Not Care About People With Disabilities
"Aktion T4" did not seem to bother Watson
Microsoft's Financial Problems Mean Shutdowns, Not Just Mass Layoffs
If the original rumour is true, then expect almost 30,000 Microsoft workers to be let go this year
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Thursday, June 26, 2025
IRC logs for Thursday, June 26, 2025
The Netherlands: GNU/Linux Measured at All-Time High
Are any Dutch cities going to announce dumping Microsoft?
Gemini Links 27/06/2025: "Interstitial Existence" and Autocorrect
Links for the day
EPO Examiners Point Out to the Heads of Delegations in the Administrative Council of the EPO That the "AI Policy" of the Office is Illegal
"the Central Staff Committee (CSC) asks the Administrative Council to exert its supervisory role and instruct EPO management to enter into genuine dialogue with the staff representation on the AI Policy, to revise the “Leverage AI” target of 90% AI-automated classification in the SP2028 and to put in place the measures supported by staff in the resolution."
Technical People Need Technical Lawyers
Technical Litigants in Person (LIPs) have many real and concrete advantages
10,000+ Articles in About 20 Months (and How We Got Here)
More bloat does not beget efficiency and "bells and whistles" tend to have a hidden cost
French Cities Dumping Microsoft Because They Recognise Software Freedom, Open Standards, GNU/Linux Autonomy
We hope that more French cities - maybe Paris - will follow Lyon.
Links 26/06/2025: Illegal Kangaroo Court (UPC) Failing Scandinavia, K-Pop Agencies Abuse People
Links for the day
Gemini Links 26/06/2025: AuraGem Twitch Proxy is Back and UI Sluggishness
Links for the day
LWN is a Voice of GAFAM (Through Linux Foundation, Their Front Group or Occupying Force Inside Linux)
remember who the chief editor works for and who sponsors many of the articles
Links 26/06/2025: Noise Pollution Considered High in Europe, Mass Layoffs Next Week in Microsoft Confirmed, Very Large in Scale and Scope
Links for the day
The 'Case' of the Serial Strangler From Microsoft is a Lot of Copypasta (Maybe Also LLM Slop) From the Matthew Garrett 'Case'
5RB deserves to know and the matter shall be properly reported in due course (when the time is right)
EPO Squeezing the Staff - Part II - Office Breaks Rules, Ignores Courts, Defies Justice
False promises everywhere
No, I Don't Want Your Latest XYZ, ThankYouVeryMuch...
Wayland is finally ready?
China Keeps Breaking Into Microsoft Systems, So for True Sovereignty, Nations Wary of China Need to Dump Microsoft
Looking at data from Taiwan (not China) and Maharlika (not Philippines, the king is dead and Spain is out), there are encouraging signs
Linux Journal Wants Ads on Its LLM Slop or Ads as 'Articles'
it's basically another BetaNews
How to Kill a Monopoly
in 10 simple steps
IBM - Like Microsoft - is a Dying Company and Perishing Brand ("AI" is a Lie and Decoy)
"Arvind is cutting costs (layoffs, PIPs, forced RTO, etc...) like crazy. IBM offices are closing all over the place in the US."
"Code of Conduct" Invoked When Fedora and Red Hat Users (Since the 1990s) Don't Want to Use Wayland
That is IBM "DEI"
Mozambique: GNU/Linux Rose From 0.5% Last Year to 3% This Year
what (or how) statCounter is measuring
Microsoft Layoffs Next Week: About 10% to be Laid Off in Microsoft Gaming (2 Days Before Independence Day), About 20%+ of XBox Staff
Microsoft is rapidly collapsing
Next Month Marks 11 Years Since Our In-Depth EPO Coverage
The same is happening to Microsoft right now
Free Software Foundation (FSF) Campaigns Against Vista 11, Adds 4 New Associate Members Per Day
If more people understood the underlying principles, more of them would flock to Free software overnight
Canonical Seems to Have Culled Some Sources of LLM Slop From Planet Ubuntu
It's like "junk food", it's not information
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, June 25, 2025
IRC logs for Wednesday, June 25, 2025
On "Weak Claims"
For the record, they sent me unjustified threats, repeatedly tried injunctions (censorship)
EPO Squeezing the Staff - Part I - Burnout and Family Health
more exceptional circumstances
This Month's Mail (MX) Server Survey Shows Microsoft at 0.20% "Market Share"
We need to remind people that desktops and laptops decline (in proportion to other client devices) and at the "back end" GNU/Linux is already dominant and has long been dominant
Links 26/06/2025: Filespooler Guide and Learning to Code
Links for the day
Why Techrights Cannot be Vilified (and Instead It Gets SLAPPed Repeatedly by Microsoft People)
Attack dogs are all "bark"; because they have no actual "bite"
Austrian GNU/Linux Usage Up to About 5% as More of Europe Abandons Microsoft
Since inauguration day the Austrian people have adopted more and more of GNU/Linux
Why the "Wayland People" and "Rust People" Will Lose Hearts and Minds (Same Reasons)
Wayland pushers are fast becoming like "Rust People"
5,600 Pages/Articles Per Year
So far this year we've kept all the promises
BetaNews Beginning to Show What Its True Goals Are
The 'new' BetaNews won't be about journalism. It's trying to sell things.
Microsoft Has Lost "The War"
We'll soon see the 9th or 10th wave of Microsoft layoffs in 2025 alone
Slopwatch: A Wreck and a Dreck, "Flooding the Zone With Dreck" or Flooding the Web With Junk
"Slopwatch" continues today because we have many new examples
Links 25/06/2025: Thwarting More Software Patents, Overlap Grows Between EPO Corruption and Illegal Kangaroo Patent Courts in EU
Links for the day
Links 25/06/2025: Elon Musk’s Lawyers Caught Lying, WhatsApp Faces More Bans
Links for the day
Wayland Pushers Lose the Argument, Use LLM Slop and Chatbots to Make Up Arguments for IBM
Another new low and low blow
Brian Fagioli Created Another Slopfarm Targeting "Linux" After BetaNews Became a Slopfarm of Phantom Accounts and Pseudonyms
Mr. Fagioli even had slop about a dead Torvalds (hypothetical) as clickbait
Wayland is Perfect, Nobody Can Escape Its Perfection! (Or Not)
Do not form on opinion on Wayland based on politics
What is "MATA"?
Think of it as GAFAM or "Meta"
Moral Duty for "Linux Sites" to Speak Out Against LLM Slop
My wife has long complained about "Linux bloggers" keeping quiet and thus passive about a growing problem: slop
In Recent Hours Google News Promoted at Least 3 Slopfarms That Relayed Linux Foundation Propaganda Made by Bots or LLM "Bullshit Generators" (as Dr. Stallman Dubbed Them)
Google is circling down the drain and Google News too is hopeless
Linux Journal is a Slopfarm, It's Experimenting With LLM 'Authors'
Is Slashdot next?
WebProNews is a Slopfarm
Please avoid linking to WebProNews
Microsoft LinkedIn is Dying and Many More Layoffs Are on the Way
LinkedIn is just a failed acquisition of Microsoft. It causes losses and debt.
Gemini Links 25/06/2025: Combinatorial Music and Self Hosting
Links for the day
Richard Stallman Coming Back to Europe This Autumn to Give More Talks
His last talk in Europe attracted about 400-450 people
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, June 24, 2025
IRC logs for Tuesday, June 24, 2025
Social Control Media, Technology & Catholicism: Synod on Synodality review and feedback
Reprinted with permission from Daniel Pocock
How Many More Women Will Managers at Microsoft Strangle and Tell to Kill Themselves (or Try to Kill)?
The world needs to know what happened
The New BetaNews: 7 New 'Articles', All of Them LLM Slop
BetaNews is basically defunct. Nobody writes there anymore.
Another "Told You So!": XBox Mass Layoffs at Microsoft (Many Recent Reports Were Chaff and Spin), Many Other Divisions Affected
With mass layoffs at Microsoft the world would be much better