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


Microsoft’s Copyrights- and Patents-Based Attacks on GNU/Linux Carry on

Posted in GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Patents, SCO at 8:56 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“Microsoft hardly needs an SCO source license. Its license payment to SCO is simply a good-looking way to pass along a bribe…”

Bruce Perens

Summary: The SCO case is still going on and Microsoft has just signed a patent deal with GoPro over its FOSS-based software, relating to “certain file storage and other system technologies”

THE ‘new’ Microsoft is not new. It’s the same old Microsoft — the company that committed crimes to get where it is today. The SCO case makes a return to some headlines, not just in FOSS sites but also in general (but technology-centric) news sites. Groklaw is still uploading new documents [PDF] and FOSS Force wrote: “Judge David Nuffer with the US District Court in Utah gave SCO another day in court last week and returned a judgement against the bankrupt company.”

“It’s the same old Microsoft — the company that committed crimes to get where it is today.”The Register wrote: “The SCO Group has suffered another reversal in its long-running attempt to squeeze some cash out of IBM for allegedly pinching its code and tossing it into Linux and maybe AIX too.”

Remember that this is a Microsoft-funded (in least in part) attack on Linux. It’s over a decade old. It’s nearly 13 years in the making. As Larry Goldfarb from BayStar, a key investor in SCO, once put it: “Microsoft wished to promote SCO and its pending lawsuit against IBM and the Linux operating system. But Microsoft did not want to be seen as attacking IBM or Linux.”

Yes, Microsoft loves to hide between or behind proxies, otherwise it might jeopardise the lie which is “Microsoft loves Linux.” It might make it harder for Microsoft to seduce fools into Azure for GNU/Linux hosting.

When it comes to patents too, there are Microsoft-connected FRAND lobbyists, as we last noted yesterday, on the same day that WIPR wrote: “Companies that own standard-essential patents (SEPs) must stick to their obligation of licensing them on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms, the EU commissioner for competition has said.”

“It might make it harder for Microsoft to seduce fools into Azure for GNU/Linux hosting.”The commissioner ought to have mentioned the problems that SEPs FRAND in its own right poses. It’s incompatible with Free/Open Source software (FOSS), and not by accident. There are standard-essential patents where interoperability between file systems is required. See the Samba case (in Europe, where Microsoft fought for file sharing monopoly) and then recall the Microsoft v. TomTom case, where Microsoft fought for a software patents tax in Europe (where such patents are not even legal), impacting Linux itself. FRAND is a vehicle for pushing software patents into Europe and Microsoft loves FRAND for this reason. Remember when Microsoft did this kind of FRAND lobbying with the BSA.

Right now, after Alice, Microsoft is still utilising software patents in an effort to tax everything, exploiting its monopoly to make the tax inescapable. The ‘new’ Microsoft is extorting Android and Linux using software patents on file systems, still (probably exFAT if not FAT also, as per the TomTom case). This new article from WIPR states: “Microsoft has signed a patent licensing deal with action camera maker GoPro.

“According to statement from Microsoft on Friday, February 5, the agreement covers “certain file storage and other system technologies”.

“And some people honestly believe that Microsoft has changed…”“The terms of the deal, in which Microsoft is the licensor, have been kept confidential.

GoPro, based on its own Web site, uses a lot of FOSS, Linux included (and Android is a key target platform). So what we see here is Microsoft engaging in patent extortion against FOSS, yet again.

And some people honestly believe that Microsoft has changed…

The EPO’s Benoît Battistelli is the Dictator Who Can No Longer Dictate Like He Used to

Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:25 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The European Patent Office became a crude dictatorial monarchy under Battistelli’s reign

Stone king

Summary: The European Patent Office’s mechanism of oversight is starting to work just a little because, based on a new report from Juve, Battistelli is now reluctant to make proposals that would prove unpopular among delegates

THE EPO has been profoundly divided between those who dictate/tell people what to do, usually at the behest of large corporations, and those who try to do a good job as patent examiners or judges. What large corporations desire isn’t a patent office that works for the betterment of society (or advancement of science) but an office that provides protectionism to large corporations (e.g. by means of continental lawsuits, injunctions, damages etc.), so just like in politics, there’s a battle here between the super-rich and everybody else. It’s class warfare.

Here is the translation of a Juve article by Christine/Christina Schulze (whom we mentioned here before)– one that we sought a translation of earlier this week. Some bits have been highlighted by us:

Comment: Warning Shot for EPO President Battistelli

Benoît Battistelli, President of the European Patent Office, has gone too far. It was stupid to link the structural reform of the Boards of Appeal with talk of a change of location and performance-related pay for the judges – both ideas which aroused consternation among the members of the Boards of Appeal. It was a mistake for the supervisory body of the patent office to give its President free rein. However, the representatives of the member states have now patched things up again. The Administrative Council is finally assuming responsibility for dictating the direction of reform of the Boards of Appeal.

It was logical to decide that the new framework for the reforms be drafted by a sub-committee, rather than by Battistelli. The reputation of the organisation has been damaged by the constant infighting surrounding the Office and its President. These days, the once unconditional support of the Administrative Council for the President is wearing noticeably thin. Some influential delegations are becoming increasingly concerned about the future of the Office. However, this is not to say that Battistelli’s position is insecure. The basic tenet of his reform proposals remains intact, and he is still involved in implementing the reforms, even though the framework is being decided by others.

Battistelli ought to learn a lesson from the Administrative Council’s intervention in the structural reforms. The 38 member states are serious in their demand for social peace to be restored in the Office. The public spat between sections of the staff and the management is disrupting the office. Battistelli has had to backpedal on the thorny questions of the location of the legal branch and the performance-dependent remuneration of the judges. He underestimated the unnecessary upset among the members of the Boards of Appeal. The President must finally attempt a consensus-based approach to social dialogue. A first step would be to set up an independent disciplinary procedure against the member of the Board of Appeal who was suspended by the EPO President. (Christine Schulze)

The article from Schulze is pretty fair and decent. It shows that Battistelli increasingly finds himself unable to just impose — blindly — everything he wishes to (or his corporate masters ask him to). Several months ago we mentioned how Battistelli and Roland Grossenbacher possibly (assuming they are the “two Alpha males”) pushed Alison Brimelow (former EPO President) out and now, in light of yesterday’s tweet from the EPO’s official Twitter account, we cannot help wondering if Grossenbacher and Battistelli are rubbing each other’s backs. As we noted here before, there was a demonstration held in Bern, in front of the Swiss Patent Office – home of Mr. Grossenbacher. People don’t like him and don’t trust him. He is viewed as an ally of Battistelli. We alluded to this before. Right now, says yesterday’s anonymous comment, “what drives [Battistelli] is a world-wide consensus amongst the chiefs of the multi-national corporate community” (euphemism for plutocrats).

Here is the comment in full:

Is BB’s [Battistelli] string puller in Paris, Brussels or Washington DC is the question? Wrong question, I suggest.

I venture to suggest it is all of them. Just as with so many other issues (tax law, patent law in the USA) what drives BB, Paris, Brussels and inside the DC beltway is a world-wide consensus amongst the chiefs of the multi-national corporate community as to what’s best for my corporation. This is a consensus arrived at incrementally, in places like Davos, and implemented through intensive and vigorous lobbying activity in the corridors and restaurants of DC, Brussels, London, Paris and Berlin.

Now listen up! What’s good for the corporation is good for its shareholders. The shareholder and the taxpayer are one and the same aren’t they? Ergo, Mr Democratic Politician, what’s good for my corporation (low fees for bulk filers at the Patent Office, and I don’t care how unpredictable and uncertain patent law becomes) is therefore what’s best for all you taxpayers out there. For a model, look at Singapore.

Just as much of what we read in the media is spoon-fed to the journalists by corporate scriveners, so too is the text of statutes drafted and paid for by the corporations. Democratic politicians are terrified of the power of Big Corp to withdraw co-operation and take its job opportunities elsewhere The politicians compete with each other, which of them can make the offer that is most attractive to the itinerant corporations. And what is it from democratic politicians that best pleases the corporate interests? Asymmetry of course. Just like in the world of finance. Get out of the way. Under the guise of pruning mere bureaucracy, eliminate all regulation. Scrap all employment protection legislation. Clear the way for me to take all the profit while you take all the work, all the risk, all the overhead costs, and you suffer all the losses when they strike.

I suspect that folks like BB can’t see how anything could go wrong with this vision of who shall rule the world. And perhaps it is all for the best. After all, unlike Sovereign States, dictators and fundamental religionists, rival corporations don’t have armies that go to war with each other. Not yet anyway.

An immediate comment afterwards said that the above poster “has obviously never heard of Academi!” (better known as Blackwater, before several renames, which evokes memories of Control Risks, its competitor in Iraq and the EPO’s current external ‘Stasi’).

Another person added:

Puppet on a string – can you please expand upon the reasons why an agenda to shut down the Boards of Appeal can be “read between the lines” of statements from BB?

In the absence of any concrete evidence, I cannot say whether or not there really is a conspiracy to increase the importance of the UPC by effectively destroying the Boards of Appeal. Nevertheless, I do find it surprising (I would say “shocking”, but it is hard to be shocked any more in the context of everything else that has happened recently at the EPO) that there are so many unfilled positions on the Boards.

If there is a desire to achieve a certain objective with regard to the Boards, then BB would be acting beyond his mandate if he was doing anything other than merely reflecting the collective will of the AC. With this in mind, please remind me – was there anything in the minutes of the last AC meeting that addressed the unfilled positions on the Boards?

I know that epi wrote to the AC in December 2015 on the issue of unfilled posts. Does anyone have any information on what reply was received (or what action taken) in response to that letter? If the answer to this question is nothing (other than prevarication), then even I would have to concede that there may be something to this conspiracy theory after all…

One recurring theme in our writings has been the EPO’s focus on rich clients, not European interests or even the interests of the world’s population. The EPO under Battistelli has become an instrument of occupation and subjugation. A lot of examiners do not find it acceptable, irrespective of the compensation they receive. A lot of these people are doctors and professors; they’re not desperate for money and they joined the EPO thinking they would do what’s right and what would favour the discipline/s in which they specialise. A lot of underpaid academics stay in universities (teaching/research) for this reason.

La Más Detallada Explicación (hasta ahora) de ¿Qué esta mal con la OEP?

Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:04 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz


Publicado en Europe, Patents at 6:45 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

…y el ¿Porqué la UPC haría todos los asuntos Aún Peor (de Guatemala a Guatepeor)


Sumario: La insistencia de la OEP que permanece arriba de la ley no sólo est bajo fuego en los medios pero también esta siendo desafiada basado en personas familiares con la aplicabilidad de la ley a organizaciones internacionales.

La OEP es una institución avara totalmente fuera de control. No es un servicio público pero un SERVICIO CORPORATIVO AL SERVICIO DE LARGAS CORPORACIONES QUE INCLUSO NO SON EUROPEAS. Es un instrumento de poder para los ricos, he aquí por que sus empleados son bien compensados aunque bajo presión para SIEMPRE OBEDECER A SUS AMOS REALES, que son esas largas corporaciones (o aplicantes mayores que toman la parte del leon de las patentes). No hay elección, no democracia, no libertad. La regla de oro es, ciégamente obedeces lo que te ordenan y aquellos que dirigen a la OEP que hacer (e.g. en enojadas cartas a la OEP) son compañías como Microsoft. Es todo acerca de aparejo del mercado (que de paridad no tiene nada) y potencialmente sacar de competición a rivales potenciales usando patentes. De acuerdo a un sitio de un abogado de patentes, las patentes europeas (en el sentido de la OEP) serán más caras poniéndolas fuera del alcanze de pequeñas compañías europeas. Como los abogados lo pusieron (en un tono positivo): ¨Noten que la renovación de matrículas por aplicaciones por patentes europeas puede ser pagado no más tarde que tres meses por adelantado. Por lo tanto, cualquier renovación de matrículas que venzan a finales de Abril, Mayo o Junio de este año, el presente (bajo) costo puede ser pagado antes del primero de Abril de 2016 para evitar que el costo de la matrícula crezca.

“La OEP es un INSTRUMENTO DE PODER PARA LOS RICOS, he aquí los empleados son bien compensados aunque esten presionados para siempre obedecer a sus amos reales; que son esas largas corporaciones (o aplicantes mayores que toman la parte del leon de las patentes).”Así que los precios de patentes se están disparando mientra que su calidad esta por los suelos (o la esfera de patentes esta siendo ampliada). La OEP esta realmente fuera de control. Es CODICIOSA, apatética (si no hóstil) a los intereses públicos, y claramente necesita ser detenida. Aquellos dentro de la OEP quienes tratan de reformarla consiguen ser severamente castigados, incluso saqueados. Voces de racionalidad son tratadas como criminales, ¨Nazis¨, ¨francotiradores¨, o ¨Mafia¨, ni siquiera como soplones (que en efecto son).

Estamo gratificados de ver este artículo publicado ayer. Mucha gente nos informó acerca de ello. Glyn Moody pasó muchas horas escribiendo un largo, detallado reporte acerca de la OEP. Dió al equipo de relaciones públicas de la OEP una oportunidad para responder a la publicación. Para citar partes de ello:

Imagine un país donde el jefe ejecutivo de una organización pueda agredir a uno de sus empleados, pero cuando esto llega a un tribunal sindical para obtener una compensación, el agredido es informado que nada puede hacerce, por que el jefe ejecutivo disfruta immunidad legal de enjuiciamento. Posiblemente una distante república bananera, puedas pensar, pero fuera de la realidad en Europa.

Y si la presunta agresión y rechazo de queja por motivios de immunidad realmente tuvo lugar en Europa hace un par de décadas. Ocurrió en OEPonia, un raro país que se situa en Europa pero que no es parte de ella todavía.


Pero pronto, con el arribo de la patente unitaria, ello pueda cambiar, dramáticamente alterando el paisaje de patentes de Europa -y el rol de la OEP. Eso hace más recientes problemas en la tierra de OEPonia de interés no sólo a los que habitan este extraño mundo, pero a todos en Europa, ya que el futuro de patentes allí va a ser grandemente afectado por como- o si estos asuntos se resuelvan.


Los asuntos no mejoraron a principios de 2014, cuando 905 de los 4,000 votos echados por los empleados de la OEP apoyaron otro ronda de huelgas, que se llevaron a cabo en Marzo y Abril de aquel año. En aquel entonces, SUEPO publicó un sumario de lo que vió como los problemas principales afectando a la OEP.


Los ¨preocupados empleados¨ de la OEP temían las consecuencias de impulsar un gran número de patentes de baja calidad siendo otorgadas como algo serio: ¨Baja calidad de patentes daña negocios, principalmente PYMEs, inventores privados, y Universidades, ya que los costos legales por infracción y/o litigación son tan altos que normalmente amenazan su fundación financiera.¨


Como señala el blog de IPKat, para el presidente de la OEP suspender a un miembro del Jurado de Apelaciones es un grosera infracción de los fundamenteales reglamentes de la OEP, y resulta que antes que haya un desacuerdo entre la SUEPO y Battistelli dentro de OEPonia interna crisis constitucional. O como un comentador anónimo lo puso en un IPKat post: ¨¿El presidente de la OEP suspendiendo a un Juez? Wow. Parece que OEPonia se esta convirtiéndo en Banania.¨


En un blog post titulado ¨2014, otro año exitoso para la OEP,¨ publicado unos pocos días despues de la reunión del Consejo Administrativo mencionado arriba, Battistelli señaló: ¨Nuestra producción, nuestra productividad y costo de controles todos han mejorados.¨ Talvez fueron el foco de Battistelli en productividad, ahorro de costos, y los crecientes pagos fue capaz de hacer a los otros países miembros de la OEP, que animó al Consejo Administrativo a apoyarlo a pesar del creciente coro de quejas y advertencias al más alto nivel.

En el miso post, B.B. concluyo: ¨Gracias a la productividad de nuestros empleados, la fructífera cooperación con nuestros socios, algunas decisiones fundamentales tomadas por nuestro Consejo y la próxima implementación de mayores projectos, tenemos muchas razones de mirar hacia adelante a 2015 con confianza.¨ Esa confianza resulto fuera de lugar: 2015 resultó mucho más tumultuoso que 2014.


La información acerca del uso de vigilancia de computadoras públicas de parte de la gerencia de la OEP para investigar estos problemas no sólo explican que paso atrás en Diciembre de 2014, trajo también creciente escrutinio de aquellos fuera de OEPonia. Esto incluye una llamada en Junio del 2015 del Comisionario de Protección de Datos de Bavaria por un externo supervisor de protección de datos ser puesto dentro de la Oficina de Patentes Europea.


Una copia redactada de la última carta de la OEP acusando de acoso a Hardon fue publicada por Roy Schestowitz on his Techrights blog, que se ha convertido uno de los recursos principales para seguir la complicada saga de OEPonia, como esta larga lista de OEP relacionados post hacen entender.


No contento con su atentado a debilitar la SUEPO al suspender un número de sus oficiales, la gerencia de la OEP comenzó a atacar al mensajero también. Como notamos arriba, el blog Techrights de Roy Schestowitz ha devenido en una principal fuente de información de lo que esta pasando dentro del mundo de OEPonia. Tanto así que en Julio del 2015 al OEP estaba bloqueando acceso a sus empleados al mencionado sitio de Techrights. En noviembre, la OEP fue más allá, mandando una AMENAZA LEGAL a Schestowitz en la que lo acusaba de difamación.


Al tiempo de escribir esto no esta claro todavía como casi 1 millon de euros que es efectivamente dinero del público será gastado en este atentado ¨de fomentar la presencia de la OEP en los medios.¨


Como consecuencia, la OEP una vez más tienen un incentivo de otorgar tantas patentes como sea posible en orden de incrementar sus ganancias por renovación de matrículas -un problema que afecta al presente sistema de la OEP, como discutimos arriba. El doble peligro aquí es que la introducción de la UPC con una actitud más acomodadora para aprovar aplicaciones, pueda traer (y lo hará) consigo ambos un stilo de patentes a lo Estados Unidos, y trolles de patentes también estilo americano.

Los trolles de patentes son casi desconocidos (por ahora) en la Unión Europea por que al presente es imposible obtener una patente válida en todos los países de la UE. Sin ella, los trolles de patentes tienen que aplicar por patentes en muchas jurisdicciones, antes de enjuiciar a sus victimas por separado, aumentando sus costos de llevar a cabo esta clase de ABUSOS, y multiplicando los riesgos que puedan perder en algún lugar y vean su decepción descubierta. La nueva patente unitaria esta específicamente designada para fácilmente obtener patentes válidas a traves de toda la UE, algo por lo que los trolles de patentes babean.


El problema central es que, como sea que ellos esten ¨sorprendidos¨ o preocupados por ello, ni el Parlamento Europe, ni la Comisión Europea tiene ninguna forma de obligar a la OEP a cambiar su comportamiento. La OEP no es una organización Europea; es literalmente una ley a sí misma.


Si la Unión Europea realmente quiere la imminente corte unitaria de patentes para ayudar a la innovación en Europa, y no ser puesta por los suelos por ella, debe comenzar por reconocer que hay algo podrido en el estado de OEPonia, y comenzar a arreglarlo con audaz y concretas acciones. Anulando la problématica extraterritoralidad de la OEP, y convertirla en una organización de la UE así como finalmente someterla a escrutinio por parte del Corte de Justicia de la Unión Europea, para comenzar bien.

No tiene que decirse mucho mas acerca del artículo, aunque estemos tentados a responder al ¨control de daños¨ embeido allí por la OEP equipo de relaciones públicas. ¨Asombroso artículo en el Reino Unido¨ es lo que dos personas lo llaman (en nuestro canal IRC y otro en IP Kat, a menos que sean la misma persona).

“Abogados de patentes han estado viendo esta información como rumores, informalmente de examinadores y de blogs como IPKat, pero es una maldición verlos todos en un lugar.”
Dentro de los anteriores comentarios en este articulo de arriba encontramos este: ¨Excelente artículo acerca de la vergonzosa interna gobernatura de la OEP. Abogados de patentes han estado viendo esta información como rumores, informalmente de examinadores y de blogs como IPKat, pero es una maldición verlos todos en un lugar.

¨Lo que realmente parece increíble,¨ escribio otro comentador. ¨Pensé que había visto lo peor del sector público mientras trabaje en la NHS (empleado de oficina – mayor trabajo para beneficio de pacientes, empleados medicos – trabajo mayoritario para beneficio de los pacientes; gerentes por su lado trabajan por su propio beneficio) pero esto los sobrepasa en un orden de gran magnitud. Gran articulo pero muy preocupante!¨

En la NHS (Sistema Nacional de Salud) los salarios no se comparan con los de la OEP. ¨Estoy curioso para ver una discusión de cómo la gente es reclutada para la OEP,¨ escribió una persona ayer. ¨Tengo el sentimiento que la historia es de amigos trayendo otros amigos ha ido muy lejos y nadie ha comentado al respecto!¨

Los estándares de reclutamiento de la OEP (por lo menos para la gerencia) reflejan estándares de los países del tercer mundo. Pero eso hemos hemos venido a esperar de la OEP. Todo acerca de su gerencia es maliciosa y arrogante. Esta gente sabe que son immunes y lo muestran. Es completamente VERGONZOSO Y EVIDENTE, como la entrevista a Minnoye (VP1) reciéntemente hizo con la TV Holandesa lo reforzó y mostro una vez más.

“!Pensé que había visto lo peor del sector público mientras trabaje en la NHS (empleado de oficina – mayor trabajo para beneficio de pacientes, empleados medicos – trabajo mayoritario para beneficio de los pacientes; gerentes por su lado trabajan por su propio beneficio) pero esto los sobrepasa en un orden de gran magnitud. Gran articulo pero muy preocupante!”
Reciéntemente hubo una larga discución en IP Kat acerca de la OEP siendo supuestamente immune. Alguien anonimamente dejo un raro comentario que malament asume que la gerencia de la OEP puede hacer lo que quiera a pesar de la EPC, confiando en argumentos que evaden la realidad de la EPC, como si fuera bien por la gerencia de la OEP simplemente desconocerla y dejar The Hague como medio de chantaje político (el comentario uso Romania). Como resultado de este comentario una larga discusión siguió (aunque el comentario no calificó como trolling, probablemente simplemente un caso de malentendido o mala comprensión). En orden de tumbar o enterrar este argumenteo deseamos citar algunas respuestas (no todas).

Un comentador escribió ¨Articulo 4a [EPC] no requiere una conferencia diplomática (por el propósito de cambiar cosas), requiere un conferencia de ministros para discutir asuntos.¨

Otro dijo: ¨La OEP no es una empresa corporativa multinacional. – Es o supuestamente es- una autoridad intergubernamental establecida por un tratado diplomático internacional.¨

“Munich y La Hague estan escritos en piedra en el Article 6 EPC y esto sólo puede ser cambiado por una plena conferencia diplomática p los estados contractuantes.”
Los ¨asientos¨ de la organización estan definidos por ley. Munich y La Hague estan escritos en piedra en el Article 6 EPC y esto sólo puede ser cambiado por una plena conferencia diplomática p los estados contractuantes.

Para citar este largo comentario: ¨Ex-examinador-ahora-abogado-de-patentes [un comentador anónimo] correctamente menciona que el hecho de que la OEP es la primera organización supranacional cobradora de taxes en Europa ha escapado la atención del público hasta ahora. Esto incluso es más cierto para La Corte Unitaria de Patentes la cual divertirá grandes cantidades de dinero para beneficio de los estados contractantes por no contraparte: La Patente Unitaria será enteramente manejada por la OEP, y los costos de litigación serán pagaods por los partidos delante la UPC. ¿Asi qué nos preguntamos porqué los miembros de tal conspiración tan fiéramente se aferran a la immunidad? El eco en los medios del comportamiento de Battistelli y hacer conocer al público que la situación pueda causar un catáclismo para todos los involucrados.¨

¨Si,¨ escribió otra persona, ¨una amenaza a mover una oficina si ellos no consiguen lo que quieren ha sido una táctica de la gerencia anteriormente. Improbablemente nunca se implementó por varias razones logísticas – si la oficina tiene tantos problemas consiguiendo votar por un presidente, ¿qué oportunidades tienen 38 estados de estar de acuerdo rápidamente acerca de quién de ellos consigue una oficina de la OEP? Y ¿cuánto tiempo antes que un edificio sea disponible, dado el tiempo que el nuevo edificio Rijswjk esta tomando? Tal idea de mudanza es posible pero no realista.¨

“Suficentemente divertido,” otra persona añadió. ¨el pasado Jueves el Daily Telegraph (26th Jan, pag 14), hay una pieza escrita por una dama francesa titulada ¨Autoritarianismo es la norma en Francia“. Nada que ver con patentes por supuesto, pero puede explicar la actitude del Sr. B. B.¨

Sr. B o BB significa Battistelli en todos estos comentarios.

“Suficentemente divertido,” otra persona añadió. ¨el pasado Jueves el Daily Telegraph (26th Jan, pag 14), hay una pieza escrita por una dama francesa titulada ¨Autoritarianismo es la norma en Francia“.”
Aquí hay una queja acerca de las condiciones de trabajo: ¨Deberías ver el icónico edificio de la OEP de los setentea en La Hague todavía operando (800 empleados + VP1) medio demolido y los revestimientos de la fachada estan desmoronándose y algunos de ellos cubiertos con una chapas blancas, los lavadores de ventanas no están permitidos ir arriba en la fachada para hacer su trabajo. Alguien me dijo que la disminución de asbestos en la biblioteca fue terminado, los pisos de arriba conteniendo empleados con ventanas operacionales y aire corriente. Aparentemente las ventanas no han sido mantenidas los últimos 20 años y los empleados se quejan acerca de horrendas espacios en sus pequeñas oficinas, la mayoría de ellas con sólo 10 metros cuadrados. El VP1 (gerente de sitio) incluso consiguió conseguir un permiso de las autoridades locales para el sitio de la OEP, el estilo arquitéctonico es llamado ¨Nueva Brutalidad¨ (algunos comentadores usaron esta expresión antes) este estilo se ha copiado en el VP1 estilo gerencial. Hablando acerca de estándares de países del Tercer Mundo en los Países Bajos.. La OEP debería haber sido puesta en su sitio por las autoridades locales on materias de Salud y Bienestar, no son capaces de hacerlo por sí mismos.

En respuesta a la vergonzósa idea de la OEP amenazando moverse a Rumania una persona escribio:

Tal vez no Bucarest, pero que acerca de Riga? (o algun lugar en Polonia donde el gobierno esta implementando una ley similar a la que BB hizo)

De cualquier manera, cualquier estado (hola Alemania) que dice que no puede hacer nada ya que sólo es una voz, debe recordar que este razonamiento fue ampliamente aplicado por los alemanes viviendo en los doce años entre 1933 y 1945.. No fueron alabados por este punto de vista; no es una excusa.

¿Qué podrían estos estados por ejemplo hacer?: forzar a la OEP firmar la (Europea) Carta de Derechos Humanos (o declararlos aplicables) o (algo radical pero un estado puede hacer) anunciar dejar la EPC… Estos son pasos posibles para un simple estado – ellos simplemente QUIEREN salirse e irse (o en pequeño grupo, ejemplo Alemania, los Países Bajos y Francia abandonar la EPC).

Y un tercer punto: Estoy preguntándomen de todas maneras cuando el primer caso termine ante el jurado de apelaciones invocando la falta de una conferencia diplomática (pero querrías tener tal cosoa mientras BB continue reinando?)

Citando la EPC de nuevo, esta persona explica el porqué Art 173 EPC hace la fantasía de Rumania difícil de sustentar:

Disputas entre Estados Contratantes
(1) Cualqier disputa entre Estados Contratantes acerca de la interpretación o aplicación de la presente Convención que no es establecida por negociación será sometida a consideración de uno de los estados afectados al Consejo Administrativo que tratar de crear un acuerdo entre ambos
(2) Si el acuerdo no se alcanza dentro de seis meses desde que la disputa se refirió al Consejo Administrativo, cualquiera de los estados puede someter la disputa a la Corte Internacional de Justicia para una decisión obligatoria.

Así que si hay un sólo Estado Contratante que no esté satisfecho con la interpretación de la EPC, dice el articulo de la EPC 4a, Art 23, Art 146, PPI Art3(4) o el protocolo complementario pueda considerar esta aproximación

Más aún, los parlamentos pueden cambiar la ley, incluseo Grundgesetz Art 24 puede ser cambiado, e.g. para explícitamente sacar algunos principios como Menschenwürde o separación de poderes de immunidad.

Citando Art 173 and Art 4a, otro comentador escribe:

La posición del gobierno es en realidad racional.

Como el gobierno de un estado que hospede a la OEP, debe asegurarse que los organos estatales respeten la immunidad de la OEP al extremo que la OEP tiene y escoja no abandonarlo. Si la posibilidad exista que una corte nacional incorrectamente levante la immunidad de la OEP, entonces el gobierno Holandes esta esencialmente obligado a ayudar a la OEP a apelar contra la decisión de la corte.

Si se considera que la ley internacional lo obliga, el estado Holandes pueda incluso bloquer la corte decisión final, incluso por uno de sus Hoge Raad. (Suponga que la Hoge Raad juzque en favor de SUEPO y que el gobierno Holandes inicialmente permita la ejecución. Ahora otro estado contratante como Hungría considere que los Países Bajos violan la Convención. Hungría puede entonces someter el caso a la Corte Internacional de Justicia por decisión obligatoria (Art. 173 EPC). Si la ICJ juzga a favor de Hungía, entonces los Países Bajos tendrán que ignorar, i.e bloquear la ejecución del juzgado de su más alta corte. Pero el gobierno Holandes puede también por sí mismo decidir que el juzgado de Hogue Raad, aunque de conformidad con la ley nacional, es contraria a las obligaciones internacionales del estado.)

Como estado albergador, dicho gobierno no esta de lado. Todavía esta Art. 20 PPI que requiere que la OEP coopere con las autoridades estatales holandesas en orden de facilitar la observación de regulaciones inter alia acerca de salud pública e inspección laboral. La OEP esta en blatante violacion de ellas. El estado Holandes puede someter una disputa a arbitración internacional bajo Art. 23 PPI. La immunidad de la OEP no la proteje contra la obligación de la decisión (¨premio¨) de un tribunal arbitro (Art. 3(1)(c) PPI).

El estado Holandes también es un estado contratante. Y como tal tiene responsabilidad por el funcionamiente de la OEP, per en este respecto no puede ser distinguido de cualquier otro de los 37 estados contratantes.

Asi que:
(1) Asi que el gobierno como estado contratante, el gobierno holandes trata de exigir a BB una actitud más social y más diálogo
(2) Como gobierno de un estado anfitrión, el gobierno holandes insiste que immunidad de la OEP cuando no sea renunciada debe ser respetada (dentro de sus propios límites obviamente (pero eso finalmente no se ha decidido todavía a nivel nacional).
(3) como gobierno de un estado anfitrión, el gobierno holandes podria eventualmente someter una disputa a un tribunal internacional arbitrario, en orden que la OEP respete sus obligaciones bajo el Art. 20 PPI.

No hay conflicto entre (1) y (2). Mayormente uno se pregunta cuando el gobierno holandes decidirá que el tiempo ha llegado para usar la opción (3).

Art. 172 es citado como sigue:

Art. 4a no tiene nada que ver con una conferencia diplomática de los estados contratantes, tampoco con amendar la EPC.

Art. 172 señala el proceso para amendar la EPC. Requiere una decisión para que la AC sostenga una ¨conferencia de estados contratantes¨, i.e. una conferencia diplomática.

Sin amendar la EPC, la OEP no puede desarce de la rama vacía de La Hague (e.g. transfiriendo empleados a Munich), por que el ¨Protocolo Complementario de Empleados¨ lo prohíbe. La única manera de enmendar este protocolo, es de nuevo, por medio de una Conferencia Diplomática.

Se está volviéndo rápidamente una verguenza nacional (Holanda) y continental (Europa). El gobierno holandes debe intervenir. Necesita intervenir lo más pronto posible.

Aquí hay algunos ejemplos de intervenciones en cuerpos internacionales a pesar de la immunidad:

Hay varios ejemplos de immunidad removida.

1. Dominique Strauss-Kahn (Director Gerencial del FMI). Arrestado en Nueva York por la policía por alegaciones de asalto sexual. El juez rechazó su pedido de immunidad diplomática.


2. Devyani Khobragade (Diputado Consul General del Consulado General de la India en New York City) acusado por las autoridades de los Estados Unidos de cometer fraude de visa y proveer falsos datos en order de ganar entrada a ese país para una empleada doméstica. Fue arrestado al día siguiente por las autoridades federales.


3. Edith Cresson (Comisionaria para la Investigación, Ciencia y Tecnología)
Nombró a un amigo como su consejero personal. (No hizo nada más malo).
La Comisión Europea levantó su immunidad diplomática, para permitirle ser interrogada por las autoridades belgas del poder judicial.


Un comentario temprano tomó nota de este papel [PDF], añadiendo: ¨Muy interesante la relación entre derechos humanos y la immunidad de organizaciones internacionales.¨

En nuestro canales privados nos enteramos de ¨Remedios contra Organizaciones Internacionales Von Karel Wellens¨. Es un libro en la materia.

“Es una cachetada en la cara del sistema judicial Holandes cuando Minnoye abiertamente dijo que rechaza obedecer cualquier decisión de la Corte Suprema.”
¨Pagina 214 y adelante,¨ nos dijeron, puede tocar la materia. Nos dijeron que ¨el pasaje puede ser encotrado por simplemente googling¨. Para citar una parte relevante: ¨Los imperativos derechos humanos pueden guiar o requerir una limitación o rechazo de cortes domésticas de juridicción immunitaria reclamada por organizaciones internacionales, y el actual ejerciso del sistema adjudicatiorio de las cortes. [...] el estado forum no tendrá derecho pero será obligado – en caso donde la organización internacional no haya cumplido con sus obligaciones convenciónales de proveer adecuados mecanismos de arreglo – a negar immunidad diplomática.¨ Esto es de la pagina 214. ¨Incluso más interesánte, nos dijeron, es pagina 215. Es acerca de violaciones a los derechos humanos por organizaciones internacionales. El libro esta en Amazon, pero no hay descripciones o revisiones. Cuesta $ 95. “Es una cachetada en la cara del sistema judicial Holandes cuando Minnoye abiertamente dijo que rechaza obedecer cualquier decisión de la Corte Suprema.” Nos dijo una fuente. ¨Ha despreciado a todo el mundo (y quiero decir no sólo a los examinadores). – En pocas palabras Minnoye se caga en la noticia – Lo más que se es que se encuentra en la segunda prolongación de su mandato, lo que es illegal, ya que las provisiones son que un puede prolongar hasta los 67 y el ya pasó la marca.¨


Links 8/2/2016: Vista 10 Nags Help GNU/Linux, Nautilus Updated

Posted in News Roundup at 7:44 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

GNOME bluefish



Free Software/Open Source

  • OpsClarity Extends Monitoring to Open Source Suites

    OpsClarity’s intelligent monitoring solution now provides monitoring for a growing and popular suite of open source data processing frameworks, including Apache Kafka, Apache Storm, Apache Spark as well as datastores such as Elasticsearch, Cassandra, MongoDB. The solution is intended to enable DevOps teams to gain visibility into how these technologies are dependent on each other and troubleshoot performance issues.

  • The future of the network is open source and programmability, says industry expert

    Network technology has changed considerably in the last 20 years, but most of the changes have been incremental – particularly as they relate the roles and responsibilities of network engineers and administrators.

  • HFOSS: Reviewing “What is Open Source?”, Steve Weber

    This blog post is part of an assignment for my Humanitarian Free and Open Source Software Development course at the Rochester Institute of Technology. For this assignment, we are tasked with reading Chapter 3 of Steve Weber’s “The Success of Open Source“. The summary of the reading is found below.

  • Events

    • Linux.Conf.Au 2016 Videos Now Online

      Linux.Conf.Au 2016 ran last week from 1 to 5 February in Geelong, Australia. If you weren’t able to go to this annual Linux conference down under, the videos from all of the presentations have now been uploaded.

    • First Open Source Scholarship recipients

      Catalyst is delighted to announce the first two recipients of the Catalyst Open Source Scholarship. Recipients Liam Sharpe and Aleisha Amohia will receive $2000 towards study costs each year for the next three years, while they complete their Bachelor of Science degrees. Both are majoring in computer science.

    • coala at FOSDEM 2016

      coala was present at FOSDEM 2016 – it was a pleasure for us to be able to show you what we created at our stand and in the talk.

    • LowRISC

      As well as being open, there are a couple of key features that make LowRISC stand out. According to Alex Bradbury, co-founder of the LowRISC project: “I guess the notable features that we’re looking at adding are tagged memory support and minion cores. Tagged memory gives you the ability to annotate memory locations to, say, limit access for security purposes, and minion cores are very small, simple RISC-V processor.”

    • DevConf 2016 is over

      I have also some notes to android mobile apps. First, I have received some negative comments. I must admit I am not Android user and I am not very familiar with Android UX practices. I can fix something, but you must give me detailed description of it.

      The app required Internals privileges. I am sorry for that mistake, I must check AndroidManifest settings.

      I will try to add some features for DevConf 2017. I hope, I will find some time for that.

  • SaaS/Big Data

    • Apache Spark rises to become most active open source project in big data

      A healthy interest is not a surprise. In Apache Spark’s relatively short life, there’s been much discussion of its ascendancy. In September, Databricks, the company behind Spark, released results from a survey showing that Spark is the most active open source project in big data with more than 600 contributors within the past year, which is up from 315 in 2014. Plus, Spark is in use not just in the IT industry, but areas like finance, retail, advertising, education, health care, and more. That survey also showed that 51% of Spark users are using three or more Spark components.

    • IBM Provides New Analytics Tools, and Big Datasets for Testing

      IBM has already made many big commitments to data analytics and the cloud. It is committing huge finanical resources to Apache Spark for example, and expanding its cloud portfolio. Now IBM has announced four new data services: Analytics Exchange, Compose Enterprise, Graph, and Predictive Analytics.

    • Free RightScale Tool Lets You Compare Public Clouds
    • Eclipse Che Open Source Cloud IDE Now Available in Beta

      Eclipse Che, an open source cloud IDE with RESTful workspaces and Docker-based machines, is now available in beta.

      Che offers a workspace that is composed of projects and its associated runtimes, making its state distributable, portable and versionable. The platform use VMs, containers, and Web services to bring repeatability, consistency, and performance to workspaces.

  • Pseudo-/Semi-Open Source (Openwashing)


    • a lambda is not (necessarily) a closure

      But if you said “it’s a closure” — well you’re right in general I guess, like on a semantic what-does-it-mean level, but as far as how Guile represents this thing at run-time, hoo boy are there a number of possibilities, and a closure is just one of them. This article dives into the possibilities, with the goal being to help you update your mental model of “how much do things cost”.

      In Guile, a lambda expression can be one of the following things at run-time:




      Code pointer


      Let’s look into these one-by-one.

  • Public Services/Government


  • Brexit will make Britain less safe: police chief

    Leaving Europe will make it harder for the U.K. to protect itself against terrorists, according to the director of the European law enforcement agency, Europol.

    “I think it will make Britain’s job harder to fight crime and terrorism because it will not have the same access to very well-developed European cooperation mechanisms that it currently has today,” Rob Wainwright told the BBC in an interview.

  • Sorry EC2 Amazon Visitors

    I’d like to apologize to people using Amazon EC2 to visit this blog. Sadly, a few hundred of your peers decided to be abusive, so I was forced to block most of EC2 subnets from access.

    Having hundreds of IPs in the EC2 IP range crawling this site constantly just cannot be allowed. It isn’t like we post articles more than once a day – sometimes not even once a month.

  • Science

  • Health/Nutrition

    • America Is Flint

      WE have been rightfully outraged by the lead poisoning of children in Flint, Mich. — an outrage that one health expert called “state-sponsored child abuse.”

      But lead poisoning goes far beyond Flint, and in many parts of America seems to be even worse.

      “Lead in Flint is the tip of the iceberg,” notes Dr. Richard J. Jackson, former director of the National Center for Environmental Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Flint is a teachable moment for America.”

      In Flint, 4.9 percent of children tested for lead turned out to have elevated levels. That’s inexcusable. But in 2014 in New York State outside of New York City, the figure was 6.7 percent. In Pennsylvania, 8.5 percent. On the west side of Detroit, one-fifth of the children tested in 2014 had lead poisoning. In Iowa for 2012, the most recent year available, an astonishing 32 percent of children tested had elevated lead levels. (I calculated most of these numbers from C.D.C. data.)

      Across America, 535,000 children ages 1 through 5 suffer lead poisoning, by C.D.C. estimates.

    • The Water Next Time: Professor Who Helped Expose Crisis in Flint Says Public Science Is Broken

      Working with residents of Flint, Mr. Edwards led a study that revealed that the elevated lead levels in people’s homes were not isolated incidents but a result of a systemic problem that had been ignored by state scientists. He has since been appointed to a task force to help fix those problems in Flint. In a vote of confidence, residents last month tagged a local landmark with a note to the powers that be: “You want our trust??? We want Va Tech!!!”

      But being right in these cases has not made Mr. Edwards happy. Vindicated or not, the professor says his trials over the last decade and a half have cost him friends, professional networks, and thousands of dollars of his own money.

  • Security

    • Docker Engine Hardened with Secure Computing Nodes and User Namespaces

      Enterprise systems need enterprise-grade security. With this in mind, Docker Inc. has updated its core container engine with some potentially powerful security measures.

      Docker Inc. has described this release as “huge leap forward for container security.” The company also added a plethora of networking enhancements to Docker 1.10, released Thursday.

    • USENIX Enigma 2016 – Defending, Detecting, and Responding to Hardware and Firmware Attacks
    • Vulnerabilities in Font Processing Library Impact Firefox, Linux: Report

      Security researchers have found vulnerabilities in Graphite, also known as Libgraphite font processing library, that affects a number of systems. The vulnerabilities, if exploited, allow an attacker to seed malicious fonts to a machine. The Libgraphite library is utilised by Linux, Thunderbird, WordPad, Firefox, OpenOffice, as well as several other major platforms and applications.

      Security researchers from Cisco have posted an advisory to outline four vulnerabilities in the Libgraphite font processing library. One of the vulnerabilities allows the attackers to execute arbitrary code on the machine, and among other things, crash the system.

  • Transparency Reporting

    • Jack Straw’s ministries among worst on freedom of information requests

      The former cabinet minister Jack Straw, who has been tasked with considering how to tighten up the Freedom of Information Act, led two of the Whitehall departments most likely to reject public requests for information.

      Straw’s ministries never ranked higher than 15 out of 21 government departments in terms of releasing information in full, according to a Guardian analysis of government-wide figures.

      In 2010, his final year as lord chancellor, the Ministry of Justice was the worst ranked government department, providing none of the information requested more often than any other ministry.

    • Leaked police files contain guarantees disciplinary records will be kept secret

      Guardian analysis of dozens of contracts revealed by hackers shows more than a third allow or require destruction of civilian complaint records

  • Finance

    • The Trouble With the TPP, Day 26: Why It Limits Canadian Cultural Policies

      The intersection between the TPP and Canadian cultural policies is likely to emerge as one of the more controversial aspects of the TPP, particularly given the government’s emphasis on a stronger cultural policy in its election platform. Earlier in the Trouble with the TPP series, I wrote that the TPP fails to protect Canadian cultural policy. I pointed to U.S. lobby pressure to limit Canadian protection of cultural policies as well as provisions that restrict Canada’s ability to consider expanding Cancon contributions to entities currently exempt from payment. I have not been a supporter of mandating Cancon contributions to online video provides such as Netflix, but restricting Canada’s right to do so in a trade agreement is shortsighted, bad policy.

    • What I didn’t read in the TTIP reading room

      TTIP, the EU-US free trade deal, has secrecy written all over it. Those responsible for it live in dread of any public scrutiny. If it was up to me, I would give everyone who’s interested the chance to make up their own minds on the text of the agreement in its current form. Sigmar Gabriel, Minister for Economic Affairs and a top cheerleader for TTIP, has now set up a reading room in his ministry where since the beginning of February German MPs can each spend two hours looking at those texts on which consensus has already been reached.

  • PR/AstroTurf/Lobbying

    • How dark money stays dark: The Koch brothers, Sheldon Adelson and the right’s biggest, most destructive racket going

      How do you stop states and cities from forcing more disclosure of so-called dark money in politics? Get the debate to focus on an “average Joe,” not a wealthy person. Find examples of “inconsequential donation amounts.” Point out that naming donors would be a threat to “innocents,” including their children, families and co-workers.

      And never call it dark money. “Private giving” sounds better.

      These and other suggestions appear in internal documents from conservative groups that are coaching activists to fight state legislation that would impose more transparency on the secretive nonprofit groups reshaping U.S. campaign finance.

      The documents obtained by ProPublica were prepared by the State Policy Network, which helps conservative think tanks in 50 states supply legislators with research friendly to their causes, and the Conservative Action Project (CAP), a Washington policy group founded by Edwin Meese, a Reagan-era attorney general.

    • Fox & Friends Slam Beyonce’s Super Bowl Performance: She Saluted Black Lives Matter And Attacked Police Officers
  • Censorship

  • Privacy

  • Civil Rights

  • Internet/Net Neutrality

    • India blocks Facebook Free Basics internet scheme [Ed: it was a huge danger]

      India’s telecoms regulator has blocked Facebook’s Free Basics internet service as part of a ruling in favour of net neutrality.

      The scheme offered free access to a limited number of websites.

      However it was opposed by supporters of net neutrality who argued that data providers should not favour some online services over others.

      The free content included selected local news and weather forecasts, the BBC, Wikipedia and some health sites.

    • No discriminatory tariffs for data services in India

      Finally we have won. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India has issued a press release some time ago telling that no one can charge different prices for different services on Internet. The fight was on in an epic scale, one side spent more than 100million in advertisements, and lobbying. The community fought back in the form of #SaveTheInternet, and it worked.

    • India Bans Zero Rating As The U.S. Pays The Price For Embracing It

      As expected, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has passed new net neutrality rules (pdf) that specifically ban the practice of zero rating. The rules are relatively clear in that they prevent either content companies or ISPs from striking deals that exempt select content from usage caps.

    • Verizon Gives Net Neutrality A Giant Middle Finger, Exempts Own Video Service From Wireless Usage Caps

      In 2010, Verizon successfully sued to demolish the FCC’s original net neutrality rules. In 2015, Verizon joined the rest of the industry in helping launch a barrage of lawsuits to try kill and kill a more legally-sound and updated version of those same rules. While that case continues through the courts, Verizon has made it clear that 2016 will be the year the telco raises a giant middle finger to the FCC and net neutrality supporters alike.

    • 20 Years Ago Today: The Most Important Law On The Internet Was Signed, Almost By Accident

      The internet as we know it would be a very, very different place if 20 years ago today, President Clinton hadn’t signed the Communications Decency Act. To be fair, nearly all of the CDA was a horrible mess that was actually a terrible idea for the internet. A key part of the bill was about “cleaning up” pornography on the internet. However, to “balance” that out, the bill included Section 230 — added by two Congressmen in the House of Representatives: Ron Wyden and Chris Cox. They had pushed this clause as a separate bill, the Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act, but it didn’t get enough traction. It was only when they attached it to the Communications Decency Act (which had passed the Senate without it), that it was able to move forward. And thus, 20 years ago today, when President Clinton signed the CDA, most of the attention was on the “stopping indecency” part, and very little on the “throw in” of Section 230. And yet, there’s a strong argument that Section 230 may be one of the most important laws — perhaps the most important — passed in the past few decades.

    • It’s Been 20 Years Since This Man Declared Cyberspace Independence

      When digital dystopians and critics of Internet libertarians need a rhetorical dart board, they often pull out a document written by John Perry Barlow, co-founder of the nonprofit Electronic Frontier Foundation, a former cattle rancher and Grateful Dead lyricist. On this day in 1996, Barlow sat down in front of a clunky Apple laptop and typed out one very controversial email, now known as the “Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace,” a manifesto with a simple message: Governments don’t—and can’t—govern the Internet.

    • Also Turning 20 Years Old Today: John Perry Barlow’s Declaration Of The Independence Of Cyberspace
    • Sweden Telecom Official Göran Marby Named To Lead ICANN

      Senior Swedish official Göran Marby today (8 February) was announced as the new president and CEO of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, succeeding Fadi Chehade who leaves the ICANN to join the World Economic Forum in mid-March. Marby will be the first European to lead ICANN, the internet domain system technical oversight body founded in 1998.

  • DRM

  • Intellectual Monopolies

    • Trademarks

      • Ikea loses trademark in Indonesia

        Ikea has lost the right to use its name in Indonesia after a local furniture company was handed victory by the country’s Supreme Court.

        The court said that the trademark belonged to PT Ratania Khatulistiwa, a company based in the city of Surabaya, which manufactures rattan furniture. Rattan is made from palm.

        Although Ikea registered a trademark for its name in Indonesia in 2010, it did not open its first store until 2014.

      • 2015 in Canadian IP cases: trade mark

        Managing IP is rounding up important intellectual property decisions coming out of Canadian courts last year. Trade mark cases included a rare interlocutory injunction in a trade mark case and a ruling on the use of a competitor’s mark in metatags

      • Fox loses appeal over Glee TV series

        But the Court has said it will hear further arguments on the question of whether the trade mark at issue is invalid on the ground that series trade marks are incompatible with EU law.

        The decision, published today, is largely a victory for Comic Enterprises, which operates entertainment venues in the UK featuring comedy and music. It owns a UK trade mark for The Glee Club in class 41, which was registered in 2001 (pictured).

The European Patent Office “is Acting as Though the Law Does Not Apply to It.”

Posted in Europe, Patents at 10:13 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

When people in power simply disregard whatever ruling they don’t agree with

Ignoring rulings

Summary: An article from Nieuwsuur which provides the words of Liesbeth Zegveld (for SUEPO) and Guillaume Minnoye (for the European Patent Office), reaffirming the EPO’s bizarre notion that it is above the law, even in the face of human rights violations and a court ruling against the EPO

SUEPO has uploaded this English translation [PDF] of an article in Dutch. Below we highlighted some bits of interests which are rather unique to this article:

How far does the immunity of the European Patent Office reach?

Written by
Marijn Duintjer Tebbens
Economics reporter

From tomorrow, the most senior judges in our country will consider the conflict between the Management of the European Patent Office and the staff union. It’s all about the question of whether the office can hide behind its immunity, even if it is guilty of human rights violations.

Nieuwsuur speaks to Guillaume Minnoye, Vice President of the Patent Office, and lawyer Liesbeth Zegveld, who is representing the trade union, among others.


The European Patent Office, based in Rijswijk and with 2500 employees, was established to protect the rights of inventors. It is an international organisation and therefore has immunity, which means that it is actually inviolable for a Dutch court.

Last year, however, the Court of Justice in The Hague ruled that the immunity does not apply in a conflict with the staff union. The court also judged that the Patent Office is violating the human rights of its employees through its obstruction of this trade union.

The office refused to accept the court’s verdict and brought the ruling to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court must now rule on the question of how far the immunity of international organisations such as the European Patent Office reaches.

Despite the judgement of the Court of Justice, the European Patent Office believes it does have full immunity.

Lawyer Liesbeth Zegveld

Targeted campaign

The Management and the trade union of the Patent Office have been in conflict since Frenchman Benoit Battistelli began to call the shots. Battistelli is implementing reforms that have met a lot of resistance, resulting in major internal tensions.

According to Battistelli, he is the victim of a targeted campaign by his own staff, aiming to block the reforms. “An orchestrated campaign, the objective of which was to destabilise and discredit the organisation,” he said in October in the newspaper Het Financieele Dagblad.

No law

The staff union, represented by lawyer Liesbeth Zegveld, believes that the top boss of the Patent Office is going beyond all the boundaries in his dealings with the union. And that he is therefore abusing his immunity.

“Despite the court ruling, the Patent Office still believes that it does have immunity,” says Zegveld. “But the Patent Office has no immunity when it comes to protecting fundamental human rights. This is what it is now being sued for.”

She thinks the office is acting as though the law does not apply to it. “The law doesn’t work here. I’ve never actually seen this before. There is no law here.”

European Patent Office Employees take to the streets

This afternoon, European Patent Office employees are taking to the streets. The employees are protesting against the poor working atmosphere within the organisation and the culture of “fear and intimidation”, as some describe it.

The direct reason behind the demonstration is the dismissal of two employees and demotion of a third. Among them the chair of the staff union, Elizabeth Hardon, from the Netherlands.

You’re acting as if we live in a lawless paradise. That’s not the case.

Guillaume Minnoye, Vice President of the Patent Office

Lawless paradise

“You’re acting as if we live in a lawless paradise. That’s not the case,” the Vice President of the Patent Office, Guillaume Minnoye, responds, in Nieuwsuur. According to Minnoye, the Court of Justice did not take sufficient account of the fact that the Patent Office has its own legal procedures, which ensure that complaints from the trade union can always be heard and that submitting an objection is always possible.

The Dutch state is on the office’s side. The government is indeed concerned about the social situation at the Patent Office, but states: “Whether it is accused of human rights violations or other violations of international law does not affect whether or not an international organisation receives immunity.”

Minnoye has done a poor job because he helped reinforce the idea that the EPO is arrogant and overconfident. It vainly believes that no matter what crimes it commits, it’ll never be subjected to any scrutiny because it is exempted from the rule of law. We wrote about Minnoye’s attitude before and also reposted some comments on the matter. Just posted was the following anonymous comment that says:

Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
Done at Vienna on 18 April 1961

Article 9
1. The receiving State may at any time and without having to explain its decision, notify the sending State that the head of the mission or any member of the diplomatic staff of the mission is persona non grata or that any other member of the staff of the mission is not acceptable. In any such case, the sending State shall, as appropriate, either recall the person concerned or terminate his functions with the mission. A person may be declared non grata or not acceptable before arriving in the territory of the receiving State.

2. If the sending State refuses or fails within a reasonable period to carry out its obligations under paragraph 1 of this article, the receiving State may refuse to recognize the person concerned as a member of the mission.

It seems too risky a gambit for Minnoye to just pretend that it’s OK for the EPO to ignore courts at The Hague rather than spin it some other way. Later today we intend to publish some rebuttal to the latest EPO spin in the Netherlands.

Microsoft-Connected FRAND Lobbying (Software Patents Against Free/Open Source Software) in Brussels

Posted in Europe, Microsoft, Patents at 9:54 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Part of a broader push (lobbying) for software patents in Europe

EU lobbying

Summary: Anti-Free/Open Source software (FOSS) talking points and FRAND (anti-FOSS) lobbying groups in Brussels as seen by proponents of FRAND, who also worked for Microsoft

THE EPO‘s Brussels lobbying activities and close connections to Microsoft, which the EPO is stressed enough to threaten bloggers about (for just mentioning it) are of much interest to us. Several months ago we uncovered a new network of Microsoft lobbyists who wish to use FRAND against FOSS. It’s just ACT by another name/mask.

Florian Müller, who had done some work for Microsoft (when he was promoting FRAND), mentioned this nymshift of ACT at the time, elaborating by saying: “The new FairStandards Alliance is based in Brussels, the de facto EU capital. Its website says: “We are friends of FRAND” [i.e. we are enemies of FOSS]” (FOSS and FRAND cannot coexist). This morning Müller wrote more about this ‘alliance’ (lobbying effort), which was mentioned a lot at the end of last year [1, 2, 3]. Suffice to say, as made evident only days ago, the EPO now openly pushed for software patents.

The push for software patents in Europe never ended or stopped.

Latest Propaganda From the EPO’s Management an Effort to Make the EPO the Tool of Megacorporations

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 9:25 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Turf wars: Megacorporations typically seek further protectionism for their dominant positions


Summary: A quick roundup of some of the latest spin and paid-for (bought) coverage that helps introduce a distorted patent system whose beneficiaries are not European (or even people)

THE EPO is starting to focus more and more on propaganda and lies [1, 2], as we noted in our previous post. Truth does not support the EPO’s actions, so reality distortion becomes imperative. We are going to spend a lot of today responding to lies disseminated by EPO managers and their unethical PR team.

“The rules are being changed in favour of lawyers’ biggest clients and patent trolls, much to the detriment of Europeans who are not patent lawyers.”There was a reminder on a Sunday (unusual for IAM) of an EPO-funded pro-UPC propaganda event. This one angle of spin is rather telling. The EPO is liaising with patent lawyers in an effort to change the rules. The rules are being changed in favour of lawyers' biggest clients and patent trolls, much to the detriment of Europeans who are not patent lawyers.

The EPO’s PR team finally decided that publishing only in German is rather tasteless (we mentioned it to them), so it now has an English version of an article originally published in German alone (warning: epo.org link), piggybacking a patent maximalist to help glamourise the EPO, as we noted at the time (patent maximalists serve to reinforce the narrative/mythology that more patents necessarily mean more innovation). Here is the EPO’s PR team again taking advantage of cancer on World Cancer Day despite its activities which harm cancer patients.

“”Several days ago we wrote about EPO price hikes that harm SMEs. Shortly thereafter, as one commenter jokingly put it: “The increased fees are not for patent examination but for essential EPO business like spying on employees and members of the public, buying favorable press reports, organizing inventor of the year events, providing “technical” support to obedient member states, subsidizing private companies like Control Risks or FTI Consulting. To the benefit of European society.”

Does anyone think it’s acceptable for the EPO to waste nearly $1 million (in just a year!) on some US-based PR firm? How about the use of so-called economists to help generate propaganda regarding the economics of patents?

“Regarding examination or not,” one person wrote, “there are several patent systems possible, each with its advantages and drawbacks. But as long as the EPC requires that examination be carried out and as long as the EPO takes a nice fee from the applicants for doing an examination, it is not within mr. Battistelli’s competence, nor within that of the AC, to “take us” to a different system, however modern that may be.”

Battistelli is now lobbying for the UPC, which in no way helps the European SMEs. That’s why FTI Consulting, which is paid by the EPO, now pays publishers for pro-EPO propaganda. As another new comment put it today:

“Isn’t that the cost-saving, modern and efficient way to go? Is that not where BB is taking us all?”

That may well be so.
It’s abundantly clear that he is intent on shutting down the EPO Boards of Appeal.
He has more or less said so publicly on a few occasions or at least it can be read between the lines of some of his propaganda.

But the question in the back of many people’s minds is where is his mandate coming from ? Paris ? Brussels ? Washington ?

BB [Battistelli] is not a “visionary”. He is a technocrat. He is implementing somebody else’s vision. But who is or are the puppet-masters pulling his strings ?

Based on leaked documents, Battistelli prioritises large corporations, even foreign ones. Emanating from our work here, including Spanish translations, is some media coverage in Google News and days ago Juve published another article, titled “Kommentar: Warnschuss für EPA-Präsidenten Battistelli” (we kindly ask readers to help us publish an English translation of it). Battistelli and his mob try to ‘revolutionise’ the system at the behest of large multinational corporations, at the expense of Europe. Should they be allowed to get away with it? Why isn’t Parliament stepping in? Silence is complicity in this context.

“When the mob gains the day it ceases to be any longer the mob. It is then called the nation.”


‘Aversion to Change’ Propaganda From the EPO Echoes or Parrots Lenin and Stalin

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 8:45 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

EPO spinners sharpen their propaganda machine and rewrite history


Summary: The out-of-control EPO management is trying to fool the media by blaming staff representatives for getting fired, simply because they stood up to a highly abusive and megalomaniacal dictator

SUEPO lawyer Liesbeth Zegveld, whom we mentioned here before (e.g. in [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]), spoke to Dutch media about EPO abuses. Zegveld knows these abuses quite well as she was actively involved even a year ago; she defended Hardon personally and wrote some letters on her behalf, too.

Today we present this SUEPO-provided translation [PDF] of this recent press article. It is similar to other articles which were previously mentioned here. It mostly repeats similar facts (it’s relatively accurate) but adds some propaganda from the EPO's PR team. They pretend that change, not abuses, is the real issue here. They pretend that aversion to change is what it all boils down to. See the part under “Consequences” and also some noteworthy bits highlighted in yellow.

Thursday 28 January 2016, 6:17am

Employees protest against ‘intimidation’ at European Patent Office

RIJSWIJK – Employees of the European Patent Office (EPO) in Rijswijk are taking to the streets on Thursday afternoon. The employees are protesting against the poor work atmosphere within the company and the culture of ‘fear and intimidation’, as some describe it.

An immediate cause for the protest is the dismissal of two colleagues and the demotion of a third. The location of the patent office in Rijswijk is the largest international organisation in the Netherlands, with around 2,700 employees.

Those who were fired and demoted work at the EPO headquarters in Munich. They all work for the organisation’s own union. Last week, the sanctions led to a major protest in Germany, with an estimated 1,300 participants. But the upheaval has now reached Rijswijk as well.


The staff claims that the punished employees are facing the consequences of the fact that they dared to criticise the ‘tyrannical’ head of EPO, Frenchman Benoit Battistelli. One of the fired employees is the Dutch chair of the union, Elizabeth Hardon. “It’s outright intimidation,” says the union’s lawyer Liesbeth Zegveld.

An EPO spokesperson says that Battistelli is in the middle of a major reorganisation to modernise the company. “And of course, that can lead to reactions among the staff. Everyone has trouble with changes.” He also says that the head of the company would very much like to enter into a dialogue with the employees to repair the relationship.

Governments have to intervene

Thursday’s protest march will go from the French to the German embassy in The Hague. The disgruntled employees hope to get the governments of both countries and that of the Netherlands to intervene.

Employees of EPO in Rijswijk speak of a ‘culture of fear’ within the company. People are only willing to speak out anonymously, for fear of reprisals. They are saying that people who like posts on Facebook that criticise the organisation, for example, can count on sanctions. ‘Censorship, threats. Working here is no fun anymore,” one of them says.

‘No culture of fear’

The EPO spokesperson denies the culture of fear. He says the company will not accept that people who have great working conditions speak poorly of the company they work at.

The Dutch cabinet has yet to make a clear statement on the issue. In response to questions from the House of Representatives, Minister Lodewijk Asscher (for Social Affairs and Employment, and member of the PvdA (Labour Party) previously underlined that part of the problem is that the board of management of the European Patent Office has legal immunity. That means, among other things, that the Dutch Inspectorate SZW cannot be granted access to the offices in Rijswijk as long as Battistelli does not allow it.

Cabinet must take action

The PvdA and SP (Socialist Party) in the Dutch House of Representatives want State Secretary Martijn van Dam (for Economic Affairs, and member of the PvdA) to take action. He is to mediate and meet with his European colleagues to make sure the ‘legal loophole is closed,’ according to MP Sharon Gesthuizen (of SP).

The European Patent Office is currently building a new office in Rijswijk costing €205 million. Prime Minister Rutte helped Battistelli lay the first stone in the summer of 2014. Protestors also marched in Rijswijk when the first post was driven into the ground.

What shocks us in many of these articles is that despite a track record of sheer lies (recent examples in [1, 2]), the media continues to print the words of EPO management without any fact-checking. To say that it’s the fault of staff representatives that they got fired because they antagonised change is like saying that millions of Russians/Soviets lost their lives simply because they opposed the ‘change’ by a brutal new regime. It hardly qualifies as legitimate defense.

Later today we are going to rebut some lies from the EPO, whose expensive PR strategy is far too easy to bust given enough time.

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »

Further Recent Posts

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 Channels: Come and chat with us in real time

New to This Site? Here Are Some Introductory Resources




Samba logo

We support

End software patents


GNU project


EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com

Recent Posts