06.16.20
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 11:16 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: SUEPO Observer responds to the EPO Gazette (text below); we note the connection to the EPO’s misuse of words and meaningless buzzwords to justify illegal patent grants, such as software patents (the misleading buzzwords are even integrated into examiners’ guidelines, imposing superficiality on qualified scientists)
Foster, foster, foster
You may, like us, have heard colleagues complaining about the use of the word “foster” throughout management’s speeches and text, when this word seems to be rarely used elsewhere. The word “foster” is indeed fashionable in the Office: There is hardly a management text where there is not something “fostered” or someone “fostering”. A COO managed to use it twice in the same sentence in an interview for the Gazette.
Often used – and now somewhat hackneyed – the expression “foster our future” also contains a catchy alliteration.
But what does “to foster” means? According to Marriam Webster “to foster” is to promote the growth or development of: encourage. Therefore anything and everything can be fostered, obviously. The fashion of the word is also confirmed by its use in published books in GOOGLE statistics which shows a growing use of the word over time, and two peaks around the 1980 and 2000.
No wonder the word is so fashionable now at the Office: Any trendy managerial gibberish or “revolutionary” concept in the United States finds its way to the EPO about 20 years later, such as “management by objectives”. First, a fashion is developed and taught in the best US universities. About 10 years later the fashion arrives in Europe. Another 10 years later, it finally reaches the Office, at a time when it is abandoned everywhere else, e.g. because it was not working or even dangerous..
Buzzwords are indicators of empty statements which make the communication artificial and simply show a lack of authenticity. They are a symptom of a disconnection from the work floor.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Bill Gates, Microsoft, Patents at 10:58 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Dominating narratives, reaping the profits
Source: Al Jazeera English (2 minutes cut out)
Summary: Interlude or placeholder ahead of part 5 of the ongoing series (“The Gates Press (GatesGate)”) about control of the media that’s used to perpetuate Bill’s and Melinda’s for-profit agenda
Currently, as of this moment, we still prepare to show how the Gates Foundation attacked African charities which it perceived to be a threat to Microsoft’s monopoly. Aside from using Africans as risk-free (litigation is expensive) “clinical trials” — a subject we’ve covered here before — there are many things Africans ought to know about this eugenicist, who isn’t even closeted about it (it runs in his family). He profits a lot from Africa; if he wanted to help, he would fight starvation by providing food, not high-cost (patented, i.e. monopoly) treatments from large companies he’s investing in, tax free, for profit.
Please bear with us as we prepare part 5 of the ongoing series. We leave the above video from Al Jazeera for some background information. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 10:25 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Who needs protective gear anyway?
Summary: SUEPO highlights another way in which EPO management, which enjoys diplomatic immunity, in effect ignores critical guidelines that ensure safety of staff
THE management of the European Patent Office (EPO) has been horrific for at least one decade. Grossly incompetent and corrupt. Longtime readers would already be aware that our sole criticism of President Brimelow was her stance on software patents in Europe (the “as such” episode in particular).
“This sort of nihilism and overconfidence might be expected from Donald Trump; has Trumpism spread to Bavaria?”Now that the EPO is run by crooked officials like António Campinos and Benoît Battistelli (they were crooked even before joining the EPO) should we be shocked that their management skills are appalling and their management colleagues (i.e. their mates whom they gave top jobs) cannot get the very basics right? As SUEPO explained earlier this month (along with the above image):
Masking incompetence?
EPO management demands that staff wear a mask when in the EPO premises since 18 May. We would have expected that, of course, the administration would provide masks to all colleagues and visitors entering the premises without one. It is obviously not an important financial burden for EPO staff, but it is even less so for the Office. Above all, it would have shown that management really cares about staff health and is not reluctant to spend a few Euros per employee per week if it contributes to keep the EPO’s workforce in good health. Unfortunately, this did not happen. Staff must bring their own mask, as stated in the mandatory (!) e-learning module, which VP4 asked all staff to follow in her mass email of 26 May.
We are well aware that this issue is far from being the most significant in the covid-19 episode at the Office. It is sadly just another symptom of our administration’s petty state of mind. One cannot help wondering in whose brain such an “idea” might have sprouted, when any half-competent HR manager should have reminded top management the obvious, i.e. that it is the Office’s responsibility to ensure the health of staff on its premises.
If our administration was not in a position to do the right thing on its own, they might have been able to check how the matter was dealt with in the EPO’s host states.
In Germany the Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales explains: “Zwei klare Grundsätze gelten: Unabhängig vom Betrieblichen Maßnahmenkonzept sollen in Zweifelsfällen, bei denen der Mindestabstand nicht sicher eingehalten werden kann, Mund-Nasen-Bedeckungen zur Verfügung gestellt und getragen werden.
[...]“ (emphasis added)
In The Netherlands the following applies: “Voor medewerkers die een mondkapje moeten dragen en gebruiken in hun werk, zoals medewerkers in het openbaar vervoer, maakt de werkgever afspraken om hierin te voorzien.” which can be translated in English into “For employees who have to wear and use a mouth shield in their work, such as employees on public transport, the employer makes arrangements to provide for this.” (emphasis added)
We let the reader draw their own conclusion.
The above text was sent to us not by one but several readers, who are personally impacted by these terrible EPO policies. Is the EPO eager to just sicken its very own staff? This sort of nihilism and overconfidence might be expected from Donald Trump; has Trumpism spread to Bavaria? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception at 9:44 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Techrights is not in social control media and it helps keep Techrights more focused (and leaving Twitter behind lets me publish more in Techrights)
Summary: The social control media phenomenon (sites like Twitter and Facebook) is counterproductive and corrosive; Techrights isn’t on social control media and I too gradually cut down on it
THE DECISION to leave Twitter 'in spirit' about one week ago was probably the best decision made so far this year. This social control media or ‘flame machine’ is busy promoting another World War right now and it is banning several left-leaning people I know (while letting hate and racism carry on unabated, including from influential accounts). See this new example. The list of things I dislike about the platform:
- Ads, even inside one’s timeline and notifications (it has gotten more aggressive over time). That isn’t always trivial to block.
- Suggestions of topics and people to follow, with no option of disabling those. This infringes on neutrality principles and lets Twitter set the agenda.
- Various kinds of abuse, including death threats and online mobs that distort their targets' words.
- General waste of time and mental clutter.
- Censorship and surveillance.
- Misinformation. Lots of it.
The sole argument I have for not completely deleting the account is that it still gets many impressions (with no extra effort on my part), albeit fewer over time, despite growth in so-called ‘followers’ and number of ‘tweets’ (which peaked around 2019). Here’s the data for the past 4 years (3-4 years ago is, in my experience, roughly the time when Twitter felt like it was already losing its mass appeal, then cutting off access to third-party software and adding loads of ads instead).
May 2020 Summary
Tweets
8,548
Tweet impressions
2.29M
Apr 2020 Summary
Tweets
9,580
Tweet impressions
2.42M
Mar 2020 Summary
Tweets
9,140
Tweet impressions
2.4M
Feb 2020 Summary
Tweets
8,129
Tweet impressions
2.26M
Jan 2020 Summary
Tweets
8,244
Tweet impressions
2.39M
Dec 2019 Summary
Tweets
8,241
Tweet impressions
2.21M
Nov 2019 Summary
Tweets
8,132
Tweet impressions
2.51M
Oct 2019 Summary
Tweets
8,481
Tweet impressions
2.28M
Sep 2019 Summary
Tweets
7,793
Tweet impressions
2.82M
Aug 2019 Summary
Tweets
6,748
Tweet impressions
2.36M
Jul 2019 Summary
Tweets
7,651
Tweet impressions
3.98M
Jun 2019 Summary
Tweets
10.5K
Tweet impressions
4.92M
May 2019 Summary
Tweets
10.7K
Tweet impressions
4.1M
Apr 2019 Summary
Tweets
8,676
Tweet impressions
4.44M
Mar 2019 Summary
Tweets
8,914
Tweet impressions
2.99M
Feb 2019 Summary
Tweet impressions
2.44M
Jan 2019 Summary
Tweet impressions
3.66M
Dec 2018 Summary
Tweet impressions
2.89M
Nov 2018 Summary
Tweet impressions
3.71M
Oct 2018 Summary
Tweet impressions
2.59M
Sep 2018 Summary
Tweet impressions
2.64M
Aug 2018 Summary
Tweet impressions
3.05M
Jul 2018 Summary
Tweet impressions
2.83M
Jun 2018 Summary
Tweet impressions
2.43M
May 2018 Summary
Tweet impressions
2.61M
Apr 2018 Summary
Tweet impressions
3.1M
Mar 2018 Summary
Tweet impressions
2.86M
Feb 2018 Summary
Tweet impressions
2.76M
Jan 2018 Summary
Tweet impressions
3.28M
Dec 2017 Summary
Tweet impressions
2.85M
Nov 2017 Summary
Tweet impressions
3.47M
Oct 2017 Summary
Tweet impressions
5.06M
Sep 2017 Summary
Tweet impressions
12.7M
Aug 2017 Summary
Tweet impressions
5.01M
Jul 2017 Summary
Tweet impressions
7.95M
Jun 2017 Summary
Tweet impressions
6.76M
May 2017 Summary
Tweet impressions
6.81M
Apr 2017 Summary
Tweet impressions
5.23M
Mar 2017 Summary
Tweet impressions
4.88M
Feb 2017 Summary
Tweet impressions
4.27M
Jan 2017 Summary
Tweet impressions
7.06M
Dec 2016 Summary
Tweet impressions
3.92M
Nov 2016 Summary
Tweet impressions
15.7M
Oct 2016 Summary
Tweet impressions
15.7M
As can be seen above, the peak was around the time of the last US election (latest? Last ever?). Back then we also closely covered the EPO scandals and people interacted a lot more about it over Twitter. There was an actual discussion back then. Nowadays? Hardly…
“Those aren’t services but for-profit companies with a political agenda.”It certainly feels (and has felt for a number of years) like Twitter is stagnating. Whatever benefit or appeal it used to have (like using one’s software of choice to access the data) is mostly gone by now. We used to have a real-time IRC timeline for Twitter; this all ended when APIs were withdrawn (after about a decade), leaving us with little access to the underlying communications. The lesson of the whole story? Those aren’t services but for-profit companies with a political agenda. There’s absolutely nothing social about them except social control or social engineering. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in GNU/Linux, Humour, Microsoft, Windows at 7:05 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: GNU/Linux users take far too much for granted; for everything else, there’s mastercard
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Free/Libre Software at 6:10 pm by Guest Editorial Team
Article by Thomas Grzybowski
Thomas Jefferson: “A candle loses nothing when it lights another candle.”
Summary: “Free Software is a Process!”
This essay initiated/emanated from my reading of a popular piece written some years ago by a certain Mr. Eric Raymond: “Homesteading the Noosphere” — an article which I should dismiss immediately. But before I do that, I would like to mention that this cited work contains ad hominem attacks against early pioneers of the Free Software movement and is based upon a profound misdirection. Here I will ignore the attacks and seek to correct the misdirection.
“As people work to create and modify Free Software and distribute it again, the aggregate creative acts give rise to the availability of more, many more useful results.”In his essay, Mr. Raymond immediately places Free and Open-source software in the realm of “property”, making there an analogy to “homesteading” undeveloped land, which is to say: taking, developing, managing, owning property. This preconception is hereby dismissed in the formation of a new ethos.
Software, or Free (Libre) Software rather, does not exist subsumed within the domain of economics, though it may participate there. Culture is the over-arching domain of human social activity and subsumes all forms of economics – be they gift-giving, commerce, or rent-seeking; Free Software is just one manifestation of creativity in our common culture. Free Software (as distinct from other types of software) seeks to more fully participate in the wider cultural domain, and it is this direct and active participation which defines the expression of Freedom implicit in the term Free Software and in the software itself. As people work to create and modify Free Software and distribute it again, the aggregate creative acts give rise to the availability of more, many more useful results. Useful, beautiful software as cultural works are divergently and compoundingly created without limits – growing trees neither proscribed nor bounded. Thus our Freedom propagates.
“In music, as in software, huge corporations seek to define the products and control the markets – thus delineating artificial boundaries and creating scarcity for the art.”Writing software, as an artistic activity, is very closely analogous to textual writing, and also music. Writing and music, as cultural activities, far predate modern commercial practices. Sadly, it has been a major failing of the Free Software community not to recognize this artistic commonality. In music, as in software, huge corporations seek to define the products and control the markets – thus delineating artificial boundaries and creating scarcity for the art. As with a novel or poem, Free Software is not so much in the writing or publishing as in the reading – the using. Like traditional music, each new contributor engages with the original and, more importantly, renews and transforms it in the working of their personal vision into the piece. In our civil society a unification of Free Software with Free Culture would likely mutually reinforce each.
This is not to say that Free Software is purely an art form. Far from it: using Free Software is enjoying Freedom, and this is a practical matter. Freedom is the doing of what one wants with the software. Obviously, freedom is directly related to what is possible – for instance, you may want to use your computer as a flying machine, but you are neither able nor free to do so. If your printer, the printer you paid-for and have in your possession has no software driver, you are indeed unfree to use it to print your document whether you have the sales receipt and copy of a software license or not.
“The first being that it is not the software itself which is free: Free Software is a Process!”Now a word about “Public Domain”. Ideally, our printer-driver and all Free Software would reside together with our commonly-held culture in the Public Domain – but our current socioeconomic environment makes this scenario impractical. Copywriting and licensing are the tools we must use – the legal devices required in this present day-and-age so as to preserve our rights to read, use, distribute, and modify and distribute modifications of Free Software. But we need also understand that Free Software is a notion and practice independent from the license – the license is to protect sharing of the ongoing freedoms attached to the software and preventing diversions into the dead-ends of private property.
“To encourage participation, to encourage more freedom, code should be made as modular and simple as possible.”There are some important implications attendant with our new ethos for Free Software. The first being that it is not the software itself which is free: Free Software is a Process! It is the writer and user of the software who experiences and expands their freedom as they engage with Free Software. Code (text) is a lifeless thing, it might as well be carved in stone or baked on clay tablets. And long-term storage is a museum or resource for mining companies. Software Freedom lives only as the code is read, composed, elaborated-upon, and played (used) – much like music. The only constraints upon or shortages of Free Software come from our lack of participation. Realization that the central nature of the Freedom attached to Free Software resides in the participation of the community should impact the features of the code itself, both the design and the style. To encourage participation, to encourage more freedom, code should be made as modular and simple as possible. When code is modular in its functions, other developers can easily and directly utilize just the pieces that they wish. When code is simple to understand, it is simple to test, to trust, to modify or extend. It is more simple for others to document and more simple for everyone to share.
As we have seen, an application of the ethos outlined above results in a branching tree, or an ecosystem with exponential growth of value to human civilization, all at virtually no financial cost. This is indeed something of a miracle! █
Licence: Attribution-ShareAlike CC BY-SA
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 10:55 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Eye Pee (IP) or Eye Roll?
Summary: Team UPC and its enablers have been lying to us for almost a decade and a half; media too is a casualty because it played along with those lies
OK, so the title is a tad misleading. It’s actually satirical. It’s always worth going back if only to browse the statements made by Benoît Battistelli‘s EPO, the UK-IPO, various Team UPC parties and publications that lobby for UPC under the guise of ‘journalism’…
Later on when they get all flabbergasted they ask, “why do people refuse to trust the media???”
“This isn’t helping ‘unitary’ anything (or unison, or union, or unity); it is seeding discord and distrust; it’s all for litigation giants and patent trolls (at the expense of European citizens and businesses).”Well, we know what to tell them. When the business model is raising money from litigation companies to do their bidding and spread their propaganda this is where we end up. Hundreds if not thousands of misleading articles out there, still all over the Web. Of course it’s not helping that management of the European Patent Office bribes scholars, bribes the media and even blackmails the media. We’re told to expect those sorts of things in Russia or China, but this is happening in the ‘finer’ parts of the very ‘fine’ Bavaria. Why aren’t EU officials doing something to stop this inane agenda? This isn’t helping ‘unitary’ anything (or unison, or union, or unity); it is seeding discord and distrust; it’s all for litigation giants and patent trolls (at the expense of European citizens and businesses). Read any of the 21 new comments here; even people in the patent business have grown worried over this… and Team UPC does not speak for them all. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 10:19 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Juve — like the rest of Team UPC — is lobbying for the UPC (both illegal and unconstitutional) under the guise of ‘journalism’
BACK in the days, before the European Patent Office’s management was bribing and blackmailing publishers (Benoît Battistelli did this ever so shamelessly and António Campinos continues to block sites that expose EPO corruption) Juve did some decent work. A lot of it came from Christina Schulze. But things aren’t the same anymore. About a week ago Juve wrote the usual slant in its biased English site. It's little more than a Team UPC megaphone and has been just that since its launch. Its latest article (by Schulze) is, as usual, not quoting critics of the UPC or hardly mentioning any. Like they don’t exist! Like they have no opinion or their position is simply invalid, uninformed etc. See the screenshot above. Those are some of the most extreme people from Team UPC. One can guess who subsidises this crap.
“Its latest article (by Schulze) is, as usual, not quoting critics of the UPC or hardly mentioning any. Like they don’t exist! Like they have no opinion or their position is simply invalid, uninformed etc.”We’ve mentioned at least twice before and FFII wrote at least two press releases/articles about it. Team UPC is of course going to accentuate the ‘positive’. This morning Bristows’ Myles Jelf writes about this for the second time in a week, claiming that:
As reported here, the German government announced in March that it intended to continue working to enable the introduction of the unitary patent and Unified Patent Court (UPC) system. It has now been reported by JUVE here that the Federal Ministry of Justice is consulting on a new draft bill to enable Germany to ratify the UPC Agreement (and, before it actually ratifies, to consent to the provisional application phase starting). However, if the new draft bill is passed by the requisite majority of the Bundestag (so overcoming the successful ground in Dr Stjerna’s constitutional complaint against the previous draft bill, reported here), there are still potential problems.
Well, Dr Stjerna is ready to take action again, based on some reports and rumours. It’s not as simple as an official slipping in some piece and paper and voila! Done! This whole thing would accomplish nothing; it would only embarrass those looking to break the law, bypass the constitution, spit on the constitution court (Justices) and so on. They’ve already made it clear that the decision goes well beyond that 2/3 majority; they just didn’t get around to discussing all the finer details in their decision. We covered this before, based on reports in German. They’re very explicit about this.
Team UPC, however, tries to make it all seem a lot simpler than it really is; they’ve been doing it for years (the headline above is “German government consults on new draft bill for Germany to ratify UPC Agreement,” which is overly optimistic even by their own admission!) and they won’t stop doing it any time soon.
The media’s role in UPC lobbying has long been reckless and abhorrent. It corrodes trust in media (in general). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »
Content is available under CC-BY-SA