12.03.20
Posted in Europe, Law, Patents at 6:12 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
This is how lawbreaking* becomes ‘normalised’ (moral relativism and a parallel race to the ethical bottom/gutter, where one evil gets justified by presence of a greater one)
Summary: Corruption is contagious; we now see a growing number of EPO stakeholders speaking out against the outrageous attempts by Office management to impose illegal practices on them; they don’t wish to participate in any of this
THE issues associated with surveillance, espionage etc. aren’t directly relevant to the EPO; GDPR violations are too routinely, but the EPO enjoys diplomatic immunity, so who the heck will hold accountable the likes of Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos? Given some of the tactics used by Battistelli half a decade ago, without immunity he would be detained and then sentenced to prison.
“Given some of the tactics used by Battistelli half a decade ago, without immunity he would be detained and then sentenced to prison.”The other day we mentioned that the whole “ViCo” hype is nothing new; putting aside sarcastic remarks about patent trolls targeting “ViCo” providers and users, there’s that old point about very old prior art (“ViCo” is nothing new and similar things could be accomplished technologically before the EPO even existed and probably before NASA landed men on the moon; “Multiple user videoconferencing first being demonstrated with Stanford Research Institute’s NLS computer technology (1968),” says Wikipedia). Here are some prior articles we published about “ViCo”:
Some “ViCo” history:
As we explained before, illegal practices are being justified by autocrats in the name of fake 'novelty' or ‘emergency’ (as if debating patents is really an emergency).
Last night we saw something very relevant; we noticed that that Kluwer Patent Blog decided to respond to this issue, only days or weeks after two or more rants from Dr. Bausch about the impracticality if not illegality of this practice. The post is uncharacteristically (for this topic, not for UPC lies) anonymous, but we can guess it was at least partly composed by Dr. Bausch, who has been increasingly vocal in his condemnations of the EPO lately.
We truly need more attorneys to ‘grow a pair’ and speak out about what goes on at the EPO. Otherwise, as EPO insiders keep warning us, there won’t be an EPO anymore.
From the relatively long post:
Parties should not be forced to accept oral proceedings via videoconference before the EPO Board of Appeals. That is the clear feedback, at least in the responses that have been published, on the EPO’s user consultation regarding a proposed new Article 15a RPBA concerning oral proceedings by videoconference.
The consultation closed on 27 November. In the explanatory remarks, the EPO doesn’t give any reason for the proposal, but it is clear that the corona pandemic has given a boost to videoconferencing. ‘From May to October 2020, oral proceedings were held by videoconference in over 120 appeal cases. Initially, they were held by videoconference only if all parties to the proceedings agreed. This enabled the parties and the members of the Board to become accustomed to oral proceedings being conducted in the new format. It is envisaged that in the near future the Boards of Appeal will extend their practice by holding oral proceedings by videoconference without requiring the parties’ agreement to this format.’
[...]
However, it seems that CIPA didn’t participate in the EPO consultation regarding the proposed new Article 15a RPBA; at least it didn’t publish any consultation response. So it remains unclear what CIPA’s view is regarding the proposed new power of the Board of Appeal to decide to hold oral proceedings by videoconference, even if (one of) the parties opposes this.
In an article of JUVE Patent, most IP professionals react with understanding to the EPO’s temporary extension of videoconferencing to prevent the build-up of further backlogs, and taking into account the problems caused by the corona pandemic. But many say they hope that video hearings ‘will not replace all hearings for good’.
We’ll monitor comments there (at least those that make it through their censorship sieve). “Concerned observer” was first to point out: “My understanding is that CIPA did submit a response to the consultation. It is just that the response has not yet been made publicly available and so very few people are aware of its content. To my knowledge, the views of CIPA’s membership were not surveyed prior to preparation and submission of the response. Make of that what you will.”
Alessandro Cossu then said: “I was wondering whether and when all the responses to the consultation will be made available to the public; my firm also submitted comments but, as of today, I do not even know whether they were correctly received.”
We know that the EPO likes to hide feedback that the management does not welcome.
We predict there will be some high-level legal challenge over this some time in the not-so-distant future. Office management has basically lied about the views of stakeholders — just as it keeps lying about the sentiments of staff. It’s perfectly reasonable to expect this subject to not just go away… especially in light of repeated violations of the EPC, defended in part by scripted puff pieces. █
____
* Included below is the leaked document [PDF] showing that Clinton’s team sought to elevate Donald Trump as he was dirty enough for Clinton to beat in the 2016 election (never mind the consequences if he does get elected).
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:02 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Central Staff Committee representatives explained in very clear terms how Team Campinos (soon 2.5 years in the role) was — and still is — censoring representatives in an attempt to keep staff ignorant, misinformed, and afraid
THIS week we focus on suppressed and censored EPO documents — censored even internally at the EPO. This one refers to Benoît Battistelli‘s union-busting activities and it shows that António Campinos continued covering these up as early as months after getting the job from Battistelli. With an Office basically infiltrated by an arse-covering cabal (averting accountability) public access — or transparency — becomes imperative.
“…it seems increasingly possible that this ‘nicer’ and ‘better’ president won’t even finish his term.”The document’s full text was already published here two years ago. We did not, however, share the message from the staff representation, which went as follows:
[CSC] Disciplinary Cases resulting from a political campaign against SR – not cleared (CSC paper currently censored by the Office)
Ms Bergot (PD43) is currently preventing the publication of a CSC paper on the Intranet. Following a request from the CSC we hereby provide you with the CSC publication and CSC comments on PD43’s email.
CSC publication
In June 2018, the ILO Administrative Tribunal, with a series of judgments, set aside disciplinary measures inflicted on EPO staff representatives / SUEPO officials, and on one former staff member now employed by SUEPO. It is clear to even the inattentive observer that the cases resulted from a political campaign launched by the previous President and his Administration, aimed at weakening any opposition to their plans. In the meantime the new President, Mr. Campinos, has concluded the two cases concerning Malika Weaver and Ion Brumme. However, this does not clean the slate.
Disciplinary cases against further SR / SUEPO officials are still ongoing – We cannot see that the Office has learnt from the other cases.
ILO further requested that the President “shall take into account the instruction to the President contained in Administrative Council Resolution CA/26/16 dated 16 March 2016.” In that Resolution, the Council requested the President to consider the possibility of involvement of an external reviewer for arbitration or mediation. We do not see this happening either.
The Judgments have preserved the President’s dispositive powers. We, for our part, consider that amnesty would be a fair execution of the Judgments. In all cases, it would also serve social peace and justice.
[...]
CSC comments
PD43 makes the upload on the Intranet of the CSC paper conditional to providing the Office with “explicit and unreserved consent” from staff members named in the CSC paper.
The CSC acts responsibly and sees no need for it as:
• The names of the persons cited in the document “Staff Representation Disciplinary Cases – Urgent action needed” intended for Intranet publication have already been made public e.g. in EPO FLIER No.42 published outside the Office.
• Their case has been made public in their respective ILOAT judgment.
• The CSC remains well within the bounds set in Judgments Nos. 911, 2227 and 3156, where it is repeated that interference with the broad freedom of expression a staff association enjoys must be confined to cases where there is a gross abuse or lack of protection of the persons affected by remarks that are ill-intentioned, defamatory or which concern their private life.
Remember this was only a few months after the supposedly ‘nicer’ and ‘better’ president had started his term. Clearly, based on the above, not much changed. Fast-forward two years and staff has lost all patience, only 3% of staff can trust the ‘nicer’ and ‘better’ president, and it seems increasingly possible that this ‘nicer’ and ‘better’ president won’t even finish his term.
How does the Central Staff Committee still keep staff informed? Through the union, SUEPO, as well as by peer. So in a sense, as we explained the day before yesterday, censorship attempts sort of backfire; one way or another the Central Staff Committee can get through to staff and if people want to know something, they’ll find a way, regardless of some lousy and repressive policies imposed by people who dodge accountability. All these people can do is make the information less accessible or more difficult to access. But people freely share documents among one another (outside the workplace, too) and this is how we typically receive copies. An information war is a losing battle when facts just aren’t on your side. How long for can EPO management bribe and blackmail the media; and at what cost? Whose cost? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Debian, GNU/Linux, Microsoft at 2:51 am by Guest Editorial Team
By figosdev
Summary: “What we probably don’t want to do is continue to support Debian or systemd, if we can help it.”
Roy needn’t go far for reasons to delete Debian, he only needs to read Techrights. I mean, look at all this.
I’ve also read (from a source Roy should consider reliable) that Stallman is aware of the problems created by Microsoft systemd, which Debian has used to undermine and divide against its community and developers for years.
In better days, Ubuntu was a nice gateway to Debian, but today it is increasingly monopolistic (putting itself in app-store-like control of Snap — not its development, but its deployment) and acting as a shill for WSL — Ubuntu devs have increasing influence in the Debian world as well.
“I’ve also read (from a source Roy should consider reliable) that Stallman is aware of the problems created by Microsoft systemd, which Debian has used to undermine and divide against its community and developers for years.”I had fewer reasons than this when I migrated from Debian nearly six years ago; none of us get to choose what Roy uses at home, though I often wonder why he persists in relying on such an incredibly toxic distribution.
Then again, migration is often far from simple — and if you count activism, Roy has several full-time jobs.
The goal then isn’t to put pressure on Roy which he can just shrug off as simply as he would not having wings or extra limbs, but to try to make it a bit easier for him to imagine his world without the horrors of Debian. “Better the Devil you know,” sure, but Roy knows that’s really not true.
Surely one of the reasons Roy wouldn’t change his distro is that he would have to change his workflow; this is like gambling with both spare time and extra trouble. A migration that’s smooth as possible would minimise the gamble and instability likely to result from changing distros.
Another thing to consider would be how much control the change is either giving or taking away from Microsoft.
While I could write an article about the long-term advantages of moving to a more modular distro like Tiny Core, as I did before moving to BSD, this article will instead focus on seeking short-term benefits and minimising workflow disruption; if we want to tempt Roy away from Debian, I doubt Tiny Core is the best place to start. I simply went to more trouble to make it suit my own needs than I want to subject Roy to if he even seriously considered doing this soon.
“In better days, Ubuntu was a nice gateway to Debian, but today it is increasingly monopolistic…”I do however, note that Techrights itself has migrated to something more minimalist; perhaps Roy would benefit from using Alpine at home, perhaps not. It should be considered, even though it’s not a choice I would likely make as I believe Alpine has a GitHub-based init system. Although it is a step up from systemd, in terms of being GitHub-based this would make Alpine a lateral move from what he uses now. Though as I said, there are lots of reasons to leave Debian.
I think it is best to let Roy worry about which distro he would move to IF he decided to move, and I would also recommend the following criteria towards that decision:
* A distro that is not itself developed on GitHub, obviously. This counts Void out.
* A distro that does not use systemd.
* A distro that is as close to Debian as possible, but is not Ubuntu or Devuan.
Obviously my first choice for Roy would be OpenBSD, but even for me I decided to switch distros before switching operating systems — for Roy this step would help even more.
Devuan was considered before the Alpine migration I think, and for whatever reason it was dismissed, Roy knows I have others. Besides, I think Devuan has most of the problems that Debian has except for a couple well-known exceptions.
Roy has a setup consisting of several machines and even more screens. He most likely manages those screens with either xrandr or a tool that uses xrandr. Even if Roy were to switch to BSD, this would not likely change. Probably the most trouble I’ve had with more than one screen is from Tiny Core — you need to install the “graphics” package to get a window system and xrandr that can handle more than one screen.
Roy likes Falkon and I confess, I do not keep track of which distros support KDE. I’ve had nothing but complaints about KDE since 4.x (props to Trinity) and their recent cancel-fest was not inspiring. I don’t blame Roy at all for liking Falkon relative to other choices though; web browsers suck.
“I had fewer reasons than this when I migrated from Debian nearly six years ago…”I think Roy makes heavy use of tmux and it is incredibly standard; even OpenBSD comes with tmux included (though I’ve deleted it because it’s developed on GitHub).
You can migrate piecemeal without a plan, but for Roy I recommend a plan (which he can tweak as it suits him) since it will increase both the ease and likelihood of an actual move. The plan is also piecemeal.
As far as I can tell, there are two sane ways to begin this process: one is with a quick and simple assessment of his workflow, and the other is with a plodding, methodical and tedious assessment. If Roy wasn’t always spread among lots of other projects, I would suggest the plodding and tedious assessment; for that, you boot Debian from live and list the installed packages using apt list, then compare this to a list from Roy’s installation(s).
“Obviously my first choice for Roy would be OpenBSD, but even for me I decided to switch distros before switching operating systems — for Roy this step would help even more.”But possibly even before that, I would suggest Roy start by figuring out which of his machines has the “simplest” job in terms of his regular workflow, as I believe he uses each machine a bit differently. The whole process is actually easier if he uses all of the machines for the same things, but I doubt he does. If he uses them all the same way, then he can simply remove one machine from the “RAIL” (redundant array of inexpensive laptops) and redistribute the workflow manually over the other machines.
We are going to assume Roy has a slightly different workflow on each machine, though either way it should be reasonable to assume that one machine has the smallest or simplest workflow. I recommend he target that one for migration.
The priority is to make a reasonably complete list (even if only pen and paper are used) of purposes that machine serves. For the purpose of choosing a distro to switch to, a similar list for each machine would probably be beneficial as well — but we at least need a list for the target machine.
Depending how important that machine is, a full backup with tar or rsync to one of the other machines is obviously recommended; if it is very important, a second backup to standalone media may also be worthwhile.
The machine can then have the new distro installed to it — I’m not certain dual booting is worth the trouble, but Roy knows best. I would lean away from it for this purpose because it simply makes getting used to the new system take more time (and in some ways, more trouble).
“Depending how important that machine is, a full backup with tar or rsync to one of the other machines is obviously recommended; if it is very important, a second backup to standalone media may also be worthwhile.”A reasonable goal is to retain as many of the tools already used on that machine as possible. Some minor workflow goals may change or even improve. The backup of the system should be moved (or copied) back to the target machine, so that it is trivial to access old files. Only the most valuable, high-priority cruft from the old installation should make its way into the new installation as needed, but a repository of all old files can sit under a folder in /root, /home or /opt.
Soon the new machine will be up to capacity in terms of its purpose on the RAIL, and Roy can consider repeating the process with the second-least used machine.
As the migration moves forward, Roy will likely learn some new tools or at least new tricks with existing tools. Even when his migration from Debian is complete, it could be years before his wife wants to migrate; but then this is just about Roy. What distro his S/O uses is really no concern of mine.
“What we probably don’t want to do is continue to support Debian or systemd, if we can help it.”We can’t force Roy to do anything, but perhaps this will offer him a friendly nudge for future consideration. In this short run, this is workflow-disruptive; in the long run, it would inspire new innovations or shortcuts — not entirely unlike the ones that have happened at Techrights lately. What we probably don’t want to do is continue to support Debian or systemd, if we can help it.
Long live rms, and Happy Hacking. █
Licence: Creative Commons CC0 1.0 (public domain)
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA