04.15.21

The Patent Battles in Europe Are Connected to the War on GNU/Linux (as a Community-Led Effort)

Posted in Deception, Europe, Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, IBM, OIN, Red Hat at 5:01 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Video download link

Summary: Monoplisers of GNU and Linux want us to think that OIN is the solution while they actively lobby for software patents in Europe and the people in charge of Europe’s second-largest institution and Europe’s largest patent office help them; this long video contains thoughts about news from the past couple of days

This video is the first one since Tuesday. Even though we’ve been under DDOS attacks since the start of February these attacks greatly intensified in recent weeks and yesterday it was the worst since it all began. DDOS attacks are possible to mitigate and prevent to a certain degree, but it is time-consuming. The good news is, no damage to data was done and we carry on as usual, unabated and undeterred. If anything, attacks serve to embolden us and indicate we’re “on the scent…” (touching what is true and may anger people with power and connections)

“DDOS attacks are possible to mitigate and prevent to a certain degree, but it is time-consuming.”Moving on, the video speaks of the lies told to JURI by EPO President António Campinos, especially his mumbling about VoIP ‘innovation’ and the UPC. All that ‘high tech’ stuff could be done several decades ago, as we noted here before. But Campinos is terrible when it comes to science and technology; he would not know that…

We then discuss this document from part 17 (published yesterday) in light of the fact that the EPO now writes statements ‘on behalf’ of the German government (who’s in charge of who?) and writes lots of lies in its ‘news’ section (here’s the latest lie about JURI and a puff piece about “art” (warning: epo.org link)), including some truly offensive lies about the EQE (IP Kat reveals there’s no imminent plan to correct that).

Finally, dealing with Free software and GNU/Linux, I discuss what large corporations like IBM (or Red Hat) plan to do for monopoly over the most widely used operating systems, aided by their sponsored lies (defamation) from Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols (SJVN), increasingly a corporate parrot/stooge/poodle rather than a journalist. He wasn’t always like that! We’ve recently explained why people should boycott ZDNet; it’s run by a marketing company, it’s not a news site! It still monetises the illusion (false perception) that it is a source of news…

“Finally, dealing with Free software and GNU/Linux, I discuss what large corporations like IBM (or Red Hat) plan to do for monopoly over the most widely used operating systems, aided by their sponsored lies (defamation) from Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols (SJVN), increasingly a corporate parrot/stooge/poodle rather than a journalist.”At the moment, or earlier this week, ZDNet’s SJVN was promoting IBM’s monopoly agenda. It’s propped up by fake solutions like OIN, which basically reinforce software patents, even after 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Alice, SCOTUS).

Here’s the latest paid-for press release [1, 2] and immediate (hours later) stenography from the corporate poodle (ads disguised as ‘journalism’). As we pointed out in Daily Links yesterday, “Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols no longer works for GNU/Linux but for monopolies trying hard to undermine it and then hijack the whole thing. Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols should be treated accordingly.”

This pretty much sums up what’s covered in the above video.

Richard Stallman’s Honors and Awards (and Why He Resigned in 2019)

Posted in Deception, Free/Libre Software, FSF at 12:19 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Reproduced with permission from here. Licence: Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 4.0).

Richard Stallman has received broad recognition for his work. He has been granted a number of honors and awards, including national and international prizes, induction into the Internet Hall of Fame, and several honorary doctorates and professorships from universities around the world. Here they are listed in chronological order.

Stallman published two concise notes about his resignations from MIT and the FSF.


  • Resignation from MIT
    (Archived)

    16 September 2019 (Resignation)

    To the MIT community,

    I am resigning effective immediately from my position in CSAIL at MIT. I am doing this due to pressure on MIT and me over a series of misunderstandings and mischaracterizations.

    Richard Stallman

  • Resignation from the FSF (Archived)

    written Sep 16, mailed by me Sep 19, posted Sep 24 (FSF)

    To the FSF board,

    I hereby resign as president of the Free Software Foundation and from its board of directors. I am doing this due to pressure on the Foundation and me over a series of misunderstandings and mischaracterizations of what I have said.

    Richard Stallman

            The FSF announced Stallman’s resignation on September 16 (Archived)

    Richard M. Stallman resigns

    by Free Software Foundation — Published on Sep 16, 2019 10:08 PM

    On September 16, 2019, Richard M. Stallman, founder and president of the Free Software Foundation, resigned as president and from its board of directors.

    The board will be conducting a search for a new president, beginning immediately. Further details of the search will be published on fsf.org.

    For questions, contact FSF executive director John Sullivan at johns@fsf.org.

As we can see, Stallman stated the same cause in both cases, namely, misunderstandings and mischaracterizations. We mentioned in the introduction that Stallman was misquoted and misrepresented by mainstream media and, as a result, he was the victim of ad hominem attacks by groups who demanded his removal from public life.

04.14.21

EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag — Part 17: Jawohl, Herr Minister!

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 4:22 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Series index:

  1. The EPO Bundestagate — Part 1: How the Bundestag Was (and Continues to be) Misled About EPO Affairs
  2. The EPO Bundestagate — Part 2: Lack of Parliamentary Oversight, Many Questions and Few Answers…
  3. The EPO Bundestagate — Part 3: A “Minor Interpellation” in the German Bundestag
  4. The EPO Bundestagate — Part 4: Parroting the GDPR-Compliance Myth
  5. The EPO Bundestagate — Part 5: The Federal Eagle’s Disconcerting Metamorphosis
  6. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag — Part 6: Dr Petri Starts the Ball Rolling…
  7. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag — Part 7: Ms Voßhoff Alerts the Bundestag…
  8. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag — Part 8: The EPO’s Tweedledum, Raimund Lutz
  9. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag — Part 9: A Veritable Virtuoso of Legal Sophistry
  10. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag — Part 10: A Faithful Lapdog Despised and Reviled by EPO Staff
  11. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag — Appendix (Benoît Battistelli’s Vichy Syndrome): Georges Henri Léon Battistelli and Charles Robert Battistelli
  12. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag — Part 11: The BMJV’s Tweedledee: Dr Christoph Ernst
  13. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag — Part 12: A Worthy Successor to His Mentor?
  14. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag — Part 13: The Failed Promise of a “Good Governance” Guru…
  15. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag — Part 14: The Notorious Revolving Door
  16. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag — Part 15: Different Strokes for Different Folks
  17. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag — Part 16: An Inimitable Duo
  18. You are here ☞ Jawohl, Herr Minister!

Raimund Lutz, Heiko Maas and Christoph Ernst

Summary: A French-German co-production of “Yes, Minister!” starring Raimund Lutz, Heiko Maas and Christoph Ernst. Directed by Benoît Battistelli.

As we have seen, the matter of the EPO‘s deficient data protection framework was placed on the agenda [PDF] of the Legal Affairs Committee of the Bundestag at its meeting scheduled for 14 October 2015.

“All that remained for Ernst to do was to work the usual EPOnian “copypasta”…”In preparation for this meeting, Christoph Ernst was tasked with drafting the Justice Ministry’s submission to the Legal Affairs Committee.

As explained in the last part, Ernst was assisted in this task by his mentor, Raimund Lutz, EPO Vice-President (and former official of the Justice Ministry), who provided his protégé with a carefully formulated statement of the EPO’s position.

All that remained for Ernst to do was to work the usual EPOnian “copypasta” magic and serve up the result [PDF] in the form of a Memorandum (“Informationsvermerk”) for the Legal Affairs Committee.

Informationsvermerk
Ernst prepared the Justice Ministry’s Memorandum for the Legal Affairs Committee of the Bundestag using the usual EPOnian “copypasta” skills.

In his Memorandum to the Legal Affairs Committee, Ernst parroted the old EPOnian myth about the “close alignment” between the EPO’s data protection framework and European data protection law.

“In his Memorandum to the Legal Affairs Committee, Ernst parroted the old EPOnian myth about the “close alignment” between the EPO’s data protection framework and European data protection law.”The Committee was informed about the EPO’s “relatively high standard of data protection compared to other international organizations” – as if that could be considered a source of comfort!

Ernst also took pains to point out that the establishment of independent external supervision, for example by the European Data Protection Supervisor, would impinge on “the institutional foundations of the EPO” and would require an amendment to the European Patent Convention.

This would in turn necessitate a diplomatic conference of the contracting states which meant that the change desired by the BfDl “could not be implemented easily or quickly”.

When it came to the controversial issue of covert surveillance, Ernst carefully followed the cues provided by Lutz and informed the Committee that “according to the internal law of the EPO, the computer surveillance was lawful and proportionate and did not violate the rights of the person concerned”.

In any case – so the Committee was told – there was no need for concern because anybody who considered that their rights had been violated would have adequate access to “legal protection” via the EPO’s data protection officer – aptly described by Florian Müller of FOSS Patents as a “dictator’s minion” – and via the organisation’s notoriously dysfunctional internal appeal procedures.

Based on these considerations, the Legal Affairs Committee of the Bundestag was informed of the BMJV’s opinion that “a regulatory gap is not considered to exist”.

“When it came to the controversial issue of covert surveillance, Ernst carefully followed the cues provided by Lutz…”Finally, Ernst assured the Committee that “the Justice Ministry will continue – both within and outside the Administrative Council – to ensure compliance with high data protection standards”.

For good measure, the Memorandum concludes with another generous serving of humbug about the “Current social situation at the EPO”.

Ernst explained here that “[t]he BMJV is actively working to improve the situation at the EPO and has been instrumental in initiating a renewal of the social dialogue in the Administrative Council, which is to take the form of a trialogue between the EPO President, the staff unions and representatives of the Administrative Council” and he emphasised that “the BMJV conducts many background discussions with all sides and is continuously striving for a fresh start”.

All of this neatly skirts around the elephant in the room, namely that the underlying cause of the social conflict at the EPO was the failure of the Administrative Council – under Ernst’s stewardship – to enforce its authority over the rogue Office President, the latter-day Corsican despot Battistelli.

It seems that Ernst’s “copypasta” Memorandum was enough to persuade the honourable members of the Legal Affairs Committee that everything was fine and dandy in the fairytale land of EPOnia and that there was no need for further action on their part.

The members of the Committee were also told in no uncertain terms that – even if they were inclined to pursue the matter further – the change desired by the BfDl would require a diplomatic conference and for this reason “could not be implemented easily or quickly”.

And so it was that – with the aid and assistance of the head of the EPO’s Directorate of Legal and International Affairs – Christoph Ernst managed to head Ms Voßhoff and her posse off at the pass, thereby averting the “doomsday scenario” of a public exposure of the deficiencies in the organisation’s data protection framework.

“All of this neatly skirts around the elephant in the room, namely that the underlying cause of the social conflict at the EPO was the failure of the Administrative Council – under Ernst’s stewardship – to enforce its authority over the rogue Office President, the latter-day Corsican despot Battistelli.”To the great relief of Team Battistelli the impending threat of external “interference” in the affairs of the autonomous fiefdom of EPOnia had been successfully neutralised and the spectre of a diplomatic conference was banished for the foreseeable future.

Of course no other outcome could have realistically been expected, given that the German Justice Minister at the time in question was Heiko Maas.

In the next part we shall take a closer look at Justice Minister Maas and his relationship with the EPO during the Battistelli era.

04.13.21

IBM Stroking the Masters

Posted in Deception, IBM at 4:52 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Moments ago: A developer goes to the Masters: Every stroke matters

Also recently: IBM Doubles Down on Masters Being an Acceptable Word in the Context of Technology | IBM: We Can Say It… You Cannot

Background: IBM Fought for ‘Master Race’ and Now It’s Banning the Word ‘Master’ | Let’s Ban Bombings, Not Words (Corporations Taking Away People’s Freedom of Speech So They Can Bomb ‘in Peace’) | “Watson®” is a Lot More Offensive Than “Whitelist” and “Master”

A developer goes to the Masters: Every stroke matters

Summary: IBM continues to diminish its weakly-supported thesis about the word “Master” being inadequate in all contexts and IBM’s front group, the Linux Foundation, has just promoted more of that same self-serving agenda in the corporate media (screenshot below from 5 minutes ago)

linux-dot-com

The ‘Stallman Support’ Web Site and How You Can Support Truth, Not Just Software Freedom

Posted in Deception, Free/Libre Software, FSF at 2:29 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Video download link

Summary: The Stallman Support Dot Org Web site (stallmansupport.org, “In Support of Richard Stallman“), endorsed by Stallman himself, sets the record straight while the corporate media keeps peddling lies and distortions

THE media’s renewed attacks on character (to spite the concepts/ideas) is noteworthy as it represents a growing threat to civil dialogue, to truth, and also to freedom of expression.

RMS on hatredThe video above explains why we’re planning to repost pages from a new site whose content is permissively licensed. At the bottom it says: “This website does not track you. No cookies. No data collection. No statistics. 100% handcrafted without JavaScript.”

In the meantime, if you haven’t done so already, consider signing the letter in Codeberg to up the support tally. What’s at stake here (really!) isn’t just the reputation of a person but the perceived legitimacy of the belief people should control their computers (instead of computers controlling people).

EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag — Part 16: An Inimitable Duo

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 11:31 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Series index:

  1. The EPO Bundestagate — Part 1: How the Bundestag Was (and Continues to be) Misled About EPO Affairs
  2. The EPO Bundestagate — Part 2: Lack of Parliamentary Oversight, Many Questions and Few Answers…
  3. The EPO Bundestagate — Part 3: A “Minor Interpellation” in the German Bundestag
  4. The EPO Bundestagate — Part 4: Parroting the GDPR-Compliance Myth
  5. The EPO Bundestagate — Part 5: The Federal Eagle’s Disconcerting Metamorphosis
  6. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag — Part 6: Dr Petri Starts the Ball Rolling…
  7. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag — Part 7: Ms Voßhoff Alerts the Bundestag…
  8. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag — Part 8: The EPO’s Tweedledum, Raimund Lutz
  9. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag — Part 9: A Veritable Virtuoso of Legal Sophistry
  10. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag — Part 10: A Faithful Lapdog Despised and Reviled by EPO Staff
  11. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag — Appendix (Benoît Battistelli’s Vichy Syndrome): Georges Henri Léon Battistelli and Charles Robert Battistelli
  12. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag — Part 11: The BMJV’s Tweedledee: Dr Christoph Ernst
  13. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag — Part 12: A Worthy Successor to His Mentor?
  14. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag — Part 13: The Failed Promise of a “Good Governance” Guru…
  15. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag — Part 14: The Notorious Revolving Door
  16. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag — Part 15: Different Strokes for Different Folks
  17. You are here ☞ An Inimitable Duo

BfDI Alice

Summary: How the efforts to reform the EPO‘s data protection framework were derailed by the actions of Lutz and Ernst

IN the last part we concluded our long and winding detour to examine the respective roles of Lutz and Ernst in EPO affairs over the last two decades.

Now it’s time to return to the main focus of the present series, namely: how the efforts of the Federal Data Protection Commissioner to push for a reform of the EPO’s data protection framework were derailed by the actions of this inimitable Tweedledum-Tweedledee duo.

“Dr Ernst proceeded to fire off a letter to the EPO’s Directorate of Legal and International Affairs, headed by none other than former Federal Justice Ministry official, Raimund Lutz.”As we saw in an earlier part of the series, the Federal Data Protection Commissioner, Ms Andrea Voßhoff, sent a letter to the Legal Affairs Committee of the Bundestag in July 2015 in which she expressed her concerns about deficiencies in the EPO’s data protection framework, in particular the lack of independent supervisory oversight.

The Legal Affairs Committee of the Bundestag placed the matter on its agenda for a meeting scheduled to take place on 14 October 2015.
At the same time the Federal Government was invited to provide a statement of its position to the Legal Affairs Committee.

In accordance with standard procedures the matter was passed on to the competent government department, namely the Federal Ministry for Justice and Consumer Protection (BMJV) which is responsible for all matters relating to the EPO.

And so it came to pass that the file landed on the desk of a “Ministerialdirigent” by the name of Dr Christoph Ernst.

Dr Ernst proceeded to fire off a letter to the EPO’s Directorate of Legal and International Affairs, headed by none other than former Federal Justice Ministry official, Raimund Lutz.

In his letter to Lutz dated 20 July 2015 [PDF], Ernst noted that Ms Voßhoff had addressed the Legal Affairs Committee of the Bundestag and had reiterated the demand for the establishment of an external data protection supervisory authority over the European Patent Office, referring to “the case of computer surveillance by means of keyloggers and video cameras recently mentioned in the press”.

Ernst then made a request for assistance from the EPO:

In preparation for the discussion in the Legal Committee [of the Bundestag], it would nevertheless be very helpful if the BMJV had a written statement from the European Patent Office at its disposal.

I would therefore ask you to comment on Ms Voßhoff’s letter of 9 July 2015. In particular, I would ask you to explain to me once again in detail the data protection standards applicable at the EPO, the cooperation with the European Data Protection Supervisor and the events in connection with the computer monitoring mentioned above, and their legal assessment under the law applicable to the EPO.

It took some time for Lutz to get back to Ernst but on 2 October 2015 he sent the EPO’s response to the BMJV. [PDF]

This response is full of the usual self-serving waffle and pious platitudes about how the EPO’s data protection framework is “closely aligned” with EU data protection regulations, for example:

The EPO is proud of its long history of data protection. We are one of the first international organisations to have actively pursued data protection, having enacted the first data protection guidelines back in 1992. This policy was revised in 2014 and adapted to current standards of data protection. It is based on generally accepted European legislation, first and foremost Directive 95/46/EC and Regulation 2001/45/EC, which contain all the elements of modern data protection, from the basic principles of data protection to the rights of an individual vis-à-vis the data-processing institution.

When addressing the allegations of unlawful covert surveillance by Battistelli‘s “Investigative Unit”, Lutz adopted a more defensive tone and declined to comment on the specifics:

As far as the specific case is concerned, I ask you to understand that the EPO cannot comment in this context on ongoing disciplinary proceedings of the Administrative Council, but I would like to point out that press articles based on an isolated letter do not provide a reliable basis for assessing our data protection.

The letter continues with further cant and humbug about the EPO’s “conscientious” approach to data protection and the same old phony assurance that “its rules meet European data protection standards”.

Lutz concludes by expressing his gratitude for the support given to the EPO by BMJV via “the letter from the State Secretary Ms Hubig to the Data Protection Commissioner of 7 November 2014″.

As might be expected, the correspondence between the “Ministerialdirigent” Dr Ernst and EPO Vice-President Lutz is worded in an official and formal style.

However, it is apparent from the much more personal tone of the cover e-mail of 20 July 2015 [PDF] which Ernst sent to Lutz that these two gentlemen were on very familiar terms with each other.

The text of this e-mail reads as follows (in translation):

Dear Raimund

Here is an advance copy of the announced communication per e-mail.

Cordial greetings

Christoph

Here we can see that Ernst addresses Lutz by his given name rather than using the more formal “Sehr geehrter Hr Lutz”. The e-mail concludes with “Herzliche Grüße” (“cordial greetings”) rather than with the more impersonal salutation – “Mit freundlichen Grüßen” – which is found in the official correspondence.

With his letter of 2 October 2015, Lutz provided Ernst with the material that he needed to prepare his submission for the Legal Affairs Committee in a manner that would neutralise the impending threat of parliamentary “interference” in EPO affairs.

In the next part we will explain how Ernst used “copypasta” magic to ward off the evil spirit of the Federal Data Protection Commissioner who was threatening to encroach upon the inviolability of Battistelli’s EPOnian fiefdom.

04.09.21

IBM Doubles Down on Masters Being an Acceptable Word in the Context of Technology

Posted in Deception, IBM at 3:37 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Published a few hours ago:

master-ibm-again

Earlier this week:

IBM Masters

Summary: 3 days after this post which disproves IBM's stance or shows its double standards [1, 2] it once again says “Masters” in its official blog (won’t that offend and alienate some people as they insist?)

Hate Letter Against Richard Matthew Stallman (RMS) Backfired So Spectacularly That Signers Asked to Revoke Their Own Signatures and the List Was Then Frozen Permanently (Updated)

Posted in Deception, FSF, GNOME, GNU/Linux, OSI at 3:14 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

They wanted to cancel RMS; instead they canceled their own petition!

RMS petitions latest

Summary: “An open letter in support of Richard Matthew Stallman being reinstated by the Free Software Foundation” tops 6,100 signatures (graph generated just moments ago)

Today we learned that people who had set up the defamatory hate letter “don’t want any more individuals to sign up for some reason” and “oddly, that decision came after several people submitted pull requests asking to get de-listed” (I have heard of a few, spoke to a few, and here’s one more). So it is perfectly possible that the real number of signatures on that RMS hate (defamation) letter may be going down. So they froze the process. Wouldn’t it be embarrassing if the number of signatures started to decrease? “Kind of interesting that they stopped accepting signatures 3 days after the support letter surpassed them,” Artem told us in IRC. So basically, they’re just spreading libel and running away when it backfires instead of retracting and apologising like adults would do. Anyway, the way things are going, it should be clear for everyone to see that the hate letter based on lies was a very bad idea and it’s possible that the blue curve (above) should in fact be going downwards. People realise they were conned and they want nothing to do with this con job anymore. Oh, the irony! Will someone at OSI and GNOME Foundation resign? Maybe the whole Board? Microsoft tenants at the GNOME Board of Directors too…

Update: Graph with numbers added.

RMS petitions at 6100

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »

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

No

Mono

ODF

Samba logo






We support

End software patents

GPLv3

GNU project

BLAG

EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com



Recent Posts