07.14.19
Posted in Deception, Free/Libre Software, FUD, Microsoft, Security, Ubuntu at 12:22 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
One year ago: GitHub as the Latest Example of Microsoft Entryism in Free/Libre Software
Summary: Typical media distortions and signs that Microsoft already uses GitHub for censorship of Free/Open Source software that does not fit Microsoft’s interests
CORPORATE media is toxic rubbish and its business model typically involves serving the companies covered. This is why the media keeps framing the latest GitHub censorship as a GitHub issue (it’s actually Microsoft using its control over GitHub to delete particular ‘naughty’ FOSS [1,2]) and earlier this month Ubuntu received a lot of negative press after its steward’s GitHub account had been compromised. Microsoft was not even mentioned. This is all very typical and we responded to that briefly in our daily links. This is the kind of thing one can expect when Microsoft pays so much money to the media, e.g. in the form of advertising. █
Related/contextual items from the news:
-
GitHub Removed Open Source Versions of DeepNude [Ed: The new company is a Microsoft censorship tool. Every image editor can be used to make fake nudes of people. Even image sequences. Will Microsoft ban image editors too? Don't even think about criticising Microsoft for its crimes in some comments, commits or code at GitHub as they might suspend the account.]
-
Deepfake DeepNude app’s open source versions removed from GitHub [Ed: Microsoft is doing censorship of FOSS and playing/acting as morality police. Maybe banning encryption software (with no back doors) is next on the agenda because of the terror scare.]
Permalink
Send this to a friend
07.13.19
Posted in Deception, Marketing at 10:06 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Just a bubble in the sky, a fictional ‘Heaven’ that’s actually pure Hell
Summary: Buzzwords. Confronted.
What does smart, IoT, AI and cloud even mean? And does “serverless” mean that no servers are necessary any longer? Of course not. But the marketing industry or marketing departments (of companies large enough to be able to afford such in-house departments) are busy hijacking the narratives, replacing technical terms with marketing buzzwords that intentionally misinform and mislead. We no longer have “sysadmins”, now we have “ops”; “servers” become “clouds”; surveillance is “big data” and spies are “data scientists”. The list goes on and on.
We no longer have “sysadmins”, now we have “ops”; “servers” become “clouds”; surveillance is “big data” and spies are “data scientists”. The list goes on and on.Techrights has long rejected these lies and buzzwords, but corporate media works hard to popularise these to the point where people have to rewrite their CVs and sometimes their articles. Novelty is often deduced from one’s use of fashionable lingo, not substance. Patent maximalists are doing the same thing, motivated by patent offices’ embrace of such buzzwords. They’re building up a bubble which courts will later burst, seeing that behind all these seemingly ‘sophisticated’ terms there’s nothing but hype or old ideas/concepts rebranded. Pop! █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, DRM, GNU/Linux, IBM, Kernel, Microsoft, Red Hat at 9:58 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Recent: Azure Running GNU/Linux Isn’t About ‘Love’ But About Control
Summary: Linux, the kernel, has become a corporate playground or a sandbox that’s used to upsell proprietary software, including surveillance; freedom in Linux is gradually being diminished if not completely obliterated and it does not worry the foundations entrusted to guard against it
THE urgent need to return to old topics (hence this reader consultation) was realised some time last year, especially after we had seen various groups — OIN included — becoming mouthpieces of Microsoft and its PR/reputation laundering campaigns (e.g. "Microsoft loves Linux" at OIN). Months ago we also saw Microsoft staff (on Microsoft’s payroll) entering the Board of OSI, then speaking for the OSI in the OSI’s official blog. We responded similarly to the Microsoft/Novell deal, which yielded various other lies. Now there’s the IBM/Red Hat problem. As we noted last night, Alexandre Oliva, who refused to pursue (software) patents at Red Hat, very recently left the company. It’s pretty significant because he was one of the few in that company who truly valued Software Freedom (as in Free/libre software in its purest form). He told me he had declined this push for patents and days ago he told me that he no longer works for Red Hat. These companies no longer attract these high-calibre developers. These companies become incompatible with them. It’s not the developers who change; it’s those companies that change (Oliva cited problems associated with the company’s move to “the cloud” and some likely proprietary, privacy-hostile tools).
All of these things very much matter to Software Freedom (perhaps we should start capitalising that). “It is relevant to the OSI because the LF [Linux Foundation] is using its position to weaken and undermine the GPL rather than advance its for its advantages,” one reader told us. “However … As mentioned, I think the fundamental premise of the LF is wrong: it’s currently about representing the members’ interests inside Linux rather than advancing Linux itself and representing it to the world. That would be a very hard situation to turn around now that it has been allowed to develop for so long.”
We often feel guilty for, having covered European matters so closely for a number of years, dropping the ball on the LF situation. We barely wrote about it until earlier this year, whereupon sources came forth and gave us a lot of additional, invaluable information. Days ago Benjamin Henrion quoted his deceased friend, who suggested starting new initiatives rather than trying to repair broken ones. “I was thinking of that as an option as one way of ‘turning around’ the situation,” one reader then told us, urging us to cover these things at Techrights rather than pressuring the likes of OSI or LF to do the same. “For a new [Linux] foundation to have any relevance,” he added, “it falls nearly 100% on Linus being willing to pull up stakes and move to it. He still owns the trademark but is probably still uninterested in the bureaucracy. And all of that will involve a lot of money. I presume the current group has him tightly by the mortgage and college bills.”
Speaking personally, I’ve become more sympathetic towards Torvalds after what they did to him last year, indirectly removing (or shaming) him from his own project, even if just temporarily. It reminded me of what happened in Docker after Microsoft had gotten involved (Docker is nowadays in Microsoft’s pockets and the founder, who originally came from Red Hat, was pretty much ousted).
Looking at the latest from the Linux Foundation and Linux.com, I am rather frustrated. It has a very long history (OSDN, OSTG, then the golden days with Tina Gasperson and others under SourceForge). Over the past few days I kept asking my wife whether to cover this or how to even approach the issue without offending anyone*. It seems as though some generally good people have been ‘co-opted’ by the Foundation (and its corporate overlords), so I don’t think they deserve blasting, let alone naming. Attached to the pockets of millionaires like Jim Zemlin, these people are just desperate for a job or a gig (they’re vulnerable, poorly-paid writers swimming around ‘big sharks’ like Zemlin, funded by proprietary giants). Linux.com essentially shut down back in April, leaving some people unemployed or partly employed. Days ago we noticed that Linux.com sort of came back to life at a very limited capacity of just a couple of paragraphs a day, authored by “swapnilbhartiya” (the RSS feeds give that identity away; he’s sometimes linking to his own blog, where Foundation puff pieces get posted).
“Looking at the latest from the Linux Foundation and Linux.com, I am rather frustrated.”Well, if the Foundation is trying to revive Linux.com with just one writer doing about 2 paragraphs a day, including Microsoft promotion, then it’s using a site called “LINUX” (.com) to promote “Microsoft” and other Linux-hostile interests. Just before the weekend they advertised Microsoft, rendering it not too hard to see what these sellouts really are…
Some time on Friday they published: “Get a digest of original Linux and open source news and tutorials from Linux.com delivered to your inbox weekly.”
So there is at least some intent or a plan to make something of the site. On Friday morning Google News search results for “Linux” included several items from Linux.com, but 50% of the results were actually about Microsoft (promotion of Microsoft and Azure) and a quarter came from the Linux Foundation, so who’s this good for? You search for Linux, you get Microsoft (articles like this one or this one.) This is what Microsoft wants us to see in search results for “Linux”: Azure, WSL and so on.
“Linux.com essentially shut down back in April, leaving some people unemployed or partly employed.”Eric Brown, who used to write for Linux.com, has just done this Azure piece; there are also AWS pieces in similar sites about devices. What we see here has been brewing for a while and it’s getting worse all the time. My wife too complains about it. She wants to post news stories about Linux in Tux Machines, but RSS feeds are stuffed with Microsoft instead. Whose kernel is it now? IBM’s? Microsoft’s? Intel’s? Can we support Linux if it’s led and controlled by companies that use it to spread DRM? And Microsoft patent traps? Remember that Microsoft is still suing over it.
“Can we support Linux if it’s led and controlled by companies that use it to spread DRM?”We recently began wondering if Linux still holds the same promises of freedom the GNU project initially put forth. “I’d say yes for now,” one reader argued. “And especially support Linus himself. If he moves, follow.”
And when asked “what about other OSes?” (as in supporting Hurd, Guix etc.) this reader said: “Yes, though with caution. The FreeBSD Foundation has a very different structure and goal than the LF but is no less out of the sights of Microsoft. OpenBSD is quite insular but maybe a higher priority for Microsoft to crush. There are also trivial side projects like Haiku OS and ReactOS. I’m not in favor of the latter though it still deserves some respect as an Open Source project. There are also major disruptors flying for now under the radar. Fuchsia is the main one there and it carries a lot of danger along with its positive potential.”
This reader went on to expressing his concerns about IBM. “I really don’t know what to do about the IBM/RHT thing,” I confessed. “Or rather, not sure… that too needs to be clearly defined and time will tell (depending on what IBM does)…”
“Proprietary stuff gets built around “Linux” and then sold/rented. That’s not freedom; that’s arguably a ‘lesser’ form of digital slavery.”“I’m neutral on that,” the reader replied. “Close to 20 years ago, IBM invested $1 billion in the kernel and got that money back with profit within the year. So this purchase might turn out to be quite beneficial for RH. However, there is also a different generation involved at IBM now. Some of these have grown up on anti-GPL rhetoric and some have intentionally funded Poettering to name one of their money attacks. The risk I see from IBM is that they might be following the decommoditization strategy outlined in The Halloween Documents. They are in a position to do so, far more than Microsoft is. However, Microsoft is really trying that with Azure and, I suspect, moving more and more departments’ budgets under Azure to give the illusion of growth. Fake-it-till-you-make-it is admired in the business community and those chumps are Microsoft target still.”
IBM won’t profit from “Linux”; it will profit from stuff like RHEL subscription (supporting systemd and Wayland or other Red Hat-centric things when they break); Microsoft profits from Azure and WSL helps Microsoft push Vista 10 at the expense of GNU/Linux. Surely the likes of Torvalds understand that. How they feel about it and what they do (if anything) about it is another question altogether. Proprietary stuff gets built around “Linux” and then sold/rented. That’s not freedom; that’s arguably a ‘lesser’ form of digital slavery.
“Torvalds is wealthy enough to run the kernel on his own, even without a salary.”The Linux Foundation was supposed to prevent one single company from controlling Torvalds (and by extension the kernel) through salaries; at the end, however, it controls him collectively on behalf of companies that are largely hostile towards freedom. So what is really achieved by that? Torvalds is wealthy enough to run the kernel on his own, even without a salary. █
_____
* I’ve said dozens more things in microblogs over the past week or two, but they were not too significant and might cause offense (although likely to those who deserve it… for helping foes of Linux).
Permalink
Send this to a friend
07.11.19
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 10:57 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Last week: António Campinos is Almost 100% the Same as Benoît Battistelli
Summary: The Frenchmen in charge of the EPO may have a taste (and waste) for wine, but they have no clue how to run a patent office (except into the ground); patent application numbers are meanwhile falling (a reduction in demand)
WITH clueless, nonscientific, law-unabiding people like Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos in positions of power no wonder software patents are being granted in Europe. Even in direct violation of the EPC. Patents are also being granted on life and nature. Anything goes…
“We worry that today’s EPO is already broken beyond repair.”“EPO and EUIPO study finds link between IPR and SME growth” says a new headline, treating words from the past and present agencies of Campinos (EPO and EUIPO) like the fountain of truth. Just as expected, AWA’s Christian Nielsen does not bother pointing out who funded this so-called 'study'…
Yesterday the EPO kept googlebombing “SMEs” (because it's against them and therefore needs to deflect urgently).
The first such tweet said: “How can IP protection support your business? We’ll be discussing that at this event: https://bit.ly/2WuNry0 #startups #IPforSMEs pic.twitter.com/GmqAJBB3qo’ (see those two hashtags)
This hashtag, #IPforSMEs, appeared in another EPO googlebomb (second mention of “SMEs” on the same day).
To quote: “Patents can be used to shape a company’s technology competency profile. http://bit.ly/epoSMEstudies #IPforSMEs pic.twitter.com/l2xZl7Jmpy”
See? It’s “SMEs” everywhere. Pages, tweets, studies…
So the EPO is great for SMEs, right? Just like it’s great when it comes to quality (or so it wants us to believe). The EPO has just released a big report with “Transparency on quality of products and services” in the title. Transparency as in lies? They also say “products” as if applicants are “customers” as JUVE puts it (JUVE is comparing the EPO to a restaurant as if dining and monopolies are comparable).
The patent office mostly known across Europe for corruption (because of Željko Topić) has also just been mentioned in relation to the EPO. “On May 24, 2019, the Croatian Intellectual Property Office closed the public discussion on the new Patent Act draft,” PETOŠEVIĆ’s Anamarija Stančić Petrović wrote. As if they respect the law there. Outlaws seem to be running the patent system in Croatia. They’re thriving. They help foreign giants like Lufthansa crush small, local companies.
“Big drop in the meaning of the word “Innovation” in the past 50 years,” said this one Twitter user, so “say no to Software Patents…”
It was said in relation to the Moon mission (50 years ago) on the same day IP Kat asked in its headline: “Why is there less innovation?”
Patent lawyers overuse and misuse that word. They intentionally conflate it with patents, i.e. with monopolies. IP Kat is citing this March article and says: “According to the article, it is not that older employees are less productive. A study shows that while there may be some drop-off in the physical abilities of senior citizens, it is compensated by enhanced skills in such things as experience and connections. So it is not the decline in productivity of older workers per se.”
Having more and more patents does not mean more innovation and it may actually mean less of it. See how patents slowed down/curtailed by decades innovation in the UAV and 3-D printing space.
We worry that today’s EPO is already broken beyond repair. SUEPO is relatively quiet and there has been no update in over a month from RIP-Kat, which was supposed to be a forum to replace the now-censored IP Kat. One new IP Kat comment from Kant says: “Why did the legislators bother with including [patent] added subject matter as a ground for revocation in the first place?”
This was said in relation to the latest of many eliminations of European Patents in top European courts. The full comment:
What is also amusing is the consideration of German practice regarding added subject matter to be logical. Before the Federal Patent Court, one of the grounds for revocation is the presence of added subject matter. Should such added subject matter however be identified, the patent is not revoked. Instead a conceptual bubble is drawn around the added subject matter and if the rest is novel and inventive, the patent can be maintained, bubble and all.
Why did the legislators bother with including added subject matter as a ground for revocation in the first place?
Things sour at the EPO even further, based on RIP-Kat comments, with false promises reported by insiders. Anonymous commenter wrote: “The rewards exercise is already delayed. No announcement on the bonuses for the performance of 2018 has ever been made. Yes, you read it right. For 2018, and we are now in June 2019! The figures were obviously available in December 2018 and bonuses could have been paid in December 2018, like everywhere else, or in January 2019, but neither HR under the sublime Elodie Bergot, not the top management under Campinos have done anything about it.”
“Anonymous Impunity” then said in response: “Nor do they care. Allegedly 2/3 will receive something, but rumours have it that the COOs have cut that down to less than half of “eligible” employees will receive something. They are noticing the breakdown of the current “rewards” system, and are giving it a big push over the cliff. Also, the delayed payout and the interest on that money awards to something already. It’s prudent management…”
It is utterly terrible management and just as we predicted all along it’s depressing participation in the EPO, both as staff and as applicants. The EPO management lies to everyone yet again (about "quality") as the number of patent applications falls — something that even JUVE nowadays mentions (the aforementioned article about restaurants, comparing a patent/monopoly-granting authority to cuisine!).
Ben Wodecki (IPPro Magazine) wrote about it about a day ago, counterbalanced with contrary claims from the critics and sceptics (quite refreshing for a change, as he used to do just puff pieces). To quote a few sentences/paragraphs:
Much has also been made recently of EPO patents that covered conventional bred plants being granted, when under European law, it is illegal to do so.
Aside from the aforementioned findings, the EPO’s product audits show that there is, according to the office, “room for improvement”.
A decrease in compliance rate was measured in the auditing of grants by the office, which states “a number of improvement actions are being taken”.
A year after Campinos came to the EPO he lies so blatantly and routinely. We absolutely lost all hope that he will introduce necessary changes and based on what JUVE and IPPro Magazine have to say, having spoken to stakeholders, we aren’t alone. They too have lost faith in Campinos. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
07.10.19
Posted in Deception, Microsoft at 5:20 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Microsoft’s bullying tactics aren’t “old news”; the same tactics carry on to this date and they’re the moral or corporate equivalent of doxing
Examples continue to surface which show a distinct pattern (that continues to this date); Microsoft does not appease critics but instead it tries to render them unemployed. We’re starting to see more and more examples (people ‘coming out’, so to speak) of people whose job/livelihood Microsoft attempted to destroy because they had not been friendly to Microsoft’s financial interests. Some of them send us messages. Others write about it publicly in response to our articles. Few were reluctant to tell us their story but only said, in general terms, that it had happened to them too. Microsoft apparently does this a lot. About a decade and a half ago it got caught making ‘dossiers’ on people — a form of intimidation. Wired wrote about it.
Here’s a new example of a user with a karma of 3,771 and almost 7 years in the site Hacker News. This person wrote earlier today: “Years ago, a Microsoft sales associate called my CEO to try to get a member of my team (and probably me) fired because we told Microsoft we were taking a pass on upgrading our company to Vista; too many problems. Similar things have happened to other people in my network. Not saying this is MS policy or anything, but it happens.”
“Microsoft may well bribe people at the Linux Foundation and the media, but it cannot fool the entire world all the time.”An article of ours gained momentum in several places in Reddit and Hacker News (even the front page), e.g. [1, 2, 3], all this despite the relatively old age of the article. Sadly, it’s also a very short article that does not name our 4 recent examples, including my own [1, 2, 3]. It focuses on only one; there are also examples of retributions (see our Wiki page on “Microsoft Retribution against individuals and organisations”) which we’ve been gathering for a dozen years. Some of these examples are very recent, yet Microsoft apologists (e.g. in today’s comments) pretend it’s “old news” or “old Microsoft”. Microsoft is still a very malicious company. oiaohm brought up the report “Microsoft hijacks Android’s share menu w/ ads for its apps” earlier today in IRC (the report is days old), adding that “Microsoft is still finding new underhanded ways.” Yesterday we showed how it was screwing its very own "partners". Nothing has really changed. Months ago Microsoft sued a company for refusing to pay patent royalties (tax, extortion money)... for Android. Microsoft may well bribe people at the Linux Foundation and the media, but it cannot fool the entire world all the time. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
07.09.19
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 8:48 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Extrajudicial agenda, intelligence mocked
Summary: The EPO strives to grant as many patents as possible while constantly lying to the public about the effect on patent quality (or validity, as determined by the underlying laws and judged by courts peripheral to the EPO)
35 U.S.C. § 101 went a long way in improving US patent quality — to the point where even USPTO examiners started to deny many software patent applications. We mostly covered this in past years because this year we focus on the sordid mess at the European Patent Office (EPO), led by Battistelli‘s double who openly supports software patents in Europe.
“All this while lowering patent validity and quality even further (great for blackmail, not so good for litigation).”Patent quality hasn’t only collapsed; it’s continuing to collapse all the time due to rising targets and brain drain (assuring decline in quality of training, too). Law firms, desperate for clients who rely on false promises, are cross-posting their self-promotional pieces which pretend everything is alright (“Revised Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal”). One went as far as promoting the further speed-up or acceleration of examination (as if it wasn’t already bad enough). Phillips Ormonde Fitzpatrick’s Dr Jon Wright wrote this today:
Following a successful three-year trial, the European Patent Office (EPO) and the Australian Patent Office (IP Australia) have agreed to extend… [PPH]
All this while lowering patent validity and quality even further (great for blackmail, not so good for litigation). Cohausz & Florack’s Arwed Burrichter and Natalie Kirchhofer have meanwhile published “EPO Administrative Council adopts new Rules of Procedure for the Boards of Appeal,” neglecting (as usual) to mention the chaotic state and abrupt departure from the EPC. Today’s EPO is not even trying to pretend (not anymore) that it adheres to the EPC or that cares about the autonomy of judges; these judges are unable to enforce the EPC, i.e. the law, without risking severe punishment (like Patrick Corcoran’s).
“Today’s EPO is not even trying to pretend (not anymore) that it adheres to the EPC or that cares about the autonomy of judges…”The EPO has meanwhile tweeted: “The EPO’s 2018 Quality Report is out! For insights into the checks & safeguards of the patenting process, as well as feedback from users & future initiatives, have a look here: http://bit.ly/EPOqualityreport …”
In order to ‘googlebomb’ the word “quality” the EPO has just published a “report” (warning: epo.org link) with the word “quality” in the headline/title, prefaced by:
The EPO today published its third Quality Report since 2016. The 2018 edition delves deeper into the patent grant process, describing the checks and safeguards that are in place at each phase of the procedure at the Office. It offers extensive data analyses at EPO sectors’ level, looks at quality improvement measures taken by the Office, cites feedback provided by users and discusses the initiatives that are planned for the future.
While confirming users’ growing appreciation of the quality of the products and services provided by the EPO, the report also acknowledges scope for improvement in certain areas.
“This report provides our users with a full picture of the way quality is evolving at the EPO and a common basis on which we can continue to move forwards”, said President António Campinos. “Quality is at the heart of our new Strategic Plan and by working with our users and cooperating with all our stakeholders, we now have an opportunity to raise our quality to another level altogether.”
What a liar. What lawyers…
They keep denying the problem, potentially only infuriating stakeholders by insulting them. Where’s the Council amid these lies?
“It’s hogwash and everybody knows it, including those involved in manufacturing such propaganda.”Well, as we explained last week, the EPO (Office) is is buying and securing votes to ensure that nothing changes or that nothing actually improves. It keeps bribing those who vote. Earlier today Schmitt & Orlov wrote that “Gabriel Pecquet, the European Patent Office (EPO) expert, visited the Moldovan State Agency on Intellectual Property (AGEPI)…”
The Moldovan vote is worth as much as Germany’s and Moldova is a lot easier (and cheaper) to ‘buy’. Team Campinos carries on with Battistelli’s tactics and there’s no stopping it. They make up all sorts of groups or panels called “Quality” something. Now there’s a “Quality” report. It’s hogwash and everybody knows it, including those involved in manufacturing such propaganda. They’re being paid to lie; what a waste of money… █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, GNU/Linux, Microsoft at 6:31 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Recent: The Corporate Media Deliberately Distorts the Public’s Opinion on Microsoft and Its ‘Love’ for Linux
When scorpions meet tortoises it rarely ends well
Summary: Microsoft Partner Network (MPN) debacles serve to show that Microsoft is as untrustworthy as ever; those who invite Microsoft to join Linux aren’t helping anyone but Microsoft
AN article mentioned in passing and added to our daily links over the weekend merits special attention. A reader has just sent us one more report on this subject [1] and it’s worth taking it into account now that we’re told “Microsoft loves Linux” (which Microsoft considers to be the biggest competition and called for a "Jihad" against). Yes, the word “Jihad” was used by Bill Gates.
“Little by little, Microsoft seizes greater control/power over its competition. This way Microsoft also controls the narrative.”The short story is, Microsoft is squeezing some of its closest partners and it recently did the same to CERN (hiking costs tenfold!); if this is what Microsoft does to friends, then just imagine what it’s planning to do to actual rivals.
Hours ago (just earlier today) we mentioned a couple more reports (in our daily links) [2,3] from Microsoft apologists — both connected to the Linux Foundation — who eagerly open the door to Microsoft's control over Linux. Little by little, Microsoft seizes greater control/power over its competition. This way Microsoft also controls the narrative. “The “Linux” links these days are all Microsoft spam,” one reader told us, “with only a few exceptions. With the help of Google and its search engine, Microsoft is doing to Linux and GNU/Linux what it did to VistA.” (VA’s FOSS, not Windows)
Before destroying Novell Ron Hovsepian said “Microsoft Corp is using scare tactics to exert pressure on PC vendors not to explore the potential of desktop Linux…”
GNU/Linux is the “most potent operating system competitor,” according to Bill Gates, who now shifts his attention to Android (lots of puff pieces about it earlier this month). ZDNet, a prime promoter of the “Microsoft loves Linux” lie (they’re big Microsoft advertisers with Microsoft staff among them), published an article entitled “What if Microsoft had invented Android?” only 2 days ago.
Microsoft hates Android. Watch what it’s doing to Android/inside Android [4] (other than patent blackmail which carries on) and see older coverage (last week) about Microsoft Partner Network (MPN): “Microsoft’s worst move in 30 years” [5]. Microsoft has not changed; only the PR strategy has changed somewhat. They pretend to be friends or in love with whatever they attack, usually from the inside. █
Related/contextual items from the news:
-
Over the course of the next year, Microsoft will stop allowing its partners to use its software for their own businesses as a perk — and instead, charge them, same as anybody else.
-
Most open-source development work, like the name says, is done in the open. The exception is the first stages of security work. Unpatched security holes, however, are discussed and fixed behind closed doors. Now, Microsoft has been admitted to the closed linux-distro list.
Microsoft wanted in because, while Windows sure isn’t Linux, the company is, in fact, a Linux distributor. Sasha Levin, a Microsoft Linux kernel developer, pointed out Microsoft has several distro-like builds — which are not derivative of an existing distribution — that are based on open-source components.
-
However, it wasn’t all praise. Levin had to prove to the community whether it qualifies to join the list or not. After a long and quite intensive discussion, it all but certain that Microsoft will be accepted into the mailing list, possibly, by the end of this week.
-
If you use a Microsoft app on your Android phone, Microsoft might be quietly advertising its other apps in your “Share” and “Open” menus. Android Police has pointed out that some Microsoft mobile apps add extra options to your menus when you interact with a file. These icons show Microsoft apps that aren’t on your phone, taking up real estate that’s usually reserved for programs you chose to install.
Android Police tested this with multiple Microsoft apps, and The Verge confirmed that it’s definitely happening with Your Phone Companion, an app for syncing Android and Windows devices. When I shared a photo from my phone with Your Phone Companion installed, my sharing menu included an extra icon labeled “Microsoft OneDrive (Install).” Tapping the icon would open Your Phone Companion, then quickly redirect me to the Google Play Store. Android Police found similar results when, say, opening a PowerPoint presentation file with Microsoft Word installed.
-
Microsoft partners have been left “flabbergasted” at the vendor’s decision to withdraw what are seen in some quarters as two key benefits to Gold and Silver reseller partners.
The vendor revealed in an online document that it intends to withdraw the internal use rights it grants to those who are part of its Microsoft Partner Network (MPN).
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 5:09 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
What’s left of them anyway because they censor some 'inconvenient' (to EPO management) comments
Summary: Control of the narrative surrounding the EPO goes far and wide; it’s still possible, however, to occasionally see what people really think
THE European Patent Office (EPO) of Campinos and Battistelli is a master of media manipulation, if not by bribery (as we've just noted) then by threats. They’ve send several English law firms after me. They’re bullies. They’re thugs. They not only abuse their staff but also the media.
The media is nowadays toothless to say the least when it comes to EPO coverage. The Register quit covering the subject for unknown reasons, the BBC apparently spiked a story about it, and this morning we’ve seen several puff pieces from the Financial Times of London, one of the biggest English papers (high circulation). When it comes to blogs (or less organised news media), things aren’t any better. The EPO found allies with some of the very worst blogs. There were two attacks on Monday on 35 U.S.C. § 101. By Watchtroll of course (“Athena v. Mayo: A Splintered Federal Circuit Invites Supreme Court or Congress to Step Up On 101 Chaos” and “Beyond 101: An Inventor’s Plea for Comprehensive Reform of the U.S. Patent System”). They’re basically attacking judges and courts again; the law firms lie about what technical people want and need. The patent zealots know no bounds. Now they bribe politicians, too… this judge-bashing site, Watchtroll, is the favourite “blog partner” of the EPO nowadays; they share their disdain for judges. They both promote software patents in Europe and Watchtroll repeatedly attacked the USPTO‘s Director when she wasn’t its ‘cup of tea’ (she spoke about the problems associated with patent trolls).
“…the EPO decided not to change its behaviour but to change how the media covers it (if at all!).”Readers of ours are likely to see more and more articles bemoaning the media; I’ve sent some E-mails around and it seems growingly evident that there’s an operation of ‘cover up’; the EPO decided not to change its behaviour but to change how the media covers it (if at all!).
After the EPO temporarily banned IP Kat (in all sites) the blog chose to quit covering what people evidently cared about (the EPO’s corruption), censoring comments on the matter too (in bulk even, in one fell swoop, not for violating any terms/conditions). Some of the key people, who used the pseudonym “Merpel” (it’s not a single person, as one insider clarified to us), gradually left and yesterday the blog advertised “Openings for GuestKats and InternKats!”
“One needs to look at comments to actually catch a glimpse of what remotely looks like honest opinions from insiders.”They’re looking for writers as the blog collapsed (sharp decline in relevance) after refusing to cover EPO corruption — the subject that attracted over 90% of comments if not visits. Earlier this summer one of their best writers left too; she had been there for years. So who’s left there? People like Bristows staff/Team UPC (recall “Bristows/IP Kat Still Promoting UPC and Patent Trolls, Also Accused of Deleting Comments and “Brown-nosing” Judges to Help Patent Trolls“) and various novices who may contribute one article per month. Team UPC totally controls the narrative around UPC; those inside the blog who criticised the UPC have already left.
As we’ve been arguing for a number of years, blog posts at IP Kat are usually less informative than comments (of which there aren’t many anymore). Since Friday we’ve seen a number of comments being posted in IP Kat in reply to Justice Arnold throwing out European Patents. After millions of euros were wasted (passed to law firms) an actual court reached the conclusion that the underlying patents lacked merit. We generally trust independent judges a lot more than officials because, as we explained before, judges are to be judged based on the accuracy of their decisions (e.g. how many decisions get overturned), so it’s more about laws than about money. Concepts like ‘production’ are rather meaningless to them. We still wonder, why are some judges mingling with think tanks of patent zealots, trolls, Battistelli, Team UPC etc.? The latest one to speak to Managing IP is Henry Carr and “[t]his is the second in our series of judge interviews. You can read the first, with Mr Justice Arnold, here.”
Justice Arnold is generally OK and his court has, over the past few months, thrown out quite a few European Patents. His latest decision has gotten much attention and attracted much discussion in the comments section; these comments are as close as one can get to ‘proper’ coverage of EPO issues at IP Kat.
“Anonymous” wrote:
I see examination reports from the EPO on a weekly basis that both find a claim contains added subject-matter and then assess the novelty and inventive step of that self-same claim. It is good procedural examination practice that reduces the number of examination reports required. This is because if you successfully overcome the Art 123(2) objection you can have already dealt with the inventive step objection in the same response, rather than requiring the Examiner to then issue an additional report on inventive step.
The English court approach follows the same logic. They assess added subject-matter and inventive step separately so that if the Patentee successfully appeals on one issue the other issue is also dealt with at the appeal stage, rather than requiring a remittance back to the first instance.
In contrast, there is a real procedural issue with EPO Oppositions when a borderline decisions on added subject-matter are regularly issued without any subsequent assessment of novelty and inventive step. This means the Patentee has to appeal and, if successful, the opposition is simply remitted back to the Opposition Division for a further (appealable) decision on novelty and inventive step. As appeals can take 5 years or more, this piecemeal approach can mean the opposition process takes significantly longer than the remaining lifespan of a patent.
There is nothing legally incorrect in what you are saying about the assessment of novelty and inventive step on a claim with added subject-matter. But there is also nothing procedurally wrong in carrying out an assessment of novelty and inventive step of a claim on a conditional basis (i.e. on the basis that the decision on added subject-matter might subsequently be found to be wrong).
Another person said:
I may be being overly simplistic. Is it not just a matter of which rules apply?
In the event that an application is amended during prosecution it is Art 123(2), or I suppose Art 76(1) that apply.
This is of itself a ground of revocation or opposition as the case may be. If there is added matter, the patent or application is invalid. Loss of priority need not be decided (until the matter is rectified should that be necessary). If on the other hand there is no added matter, even if there were to be some link to priority entitlement (which I personally fail to see), then there is nothing to decide.
Loss of priority is a different question, which applies when a priority claiming application introduces new matter as compared to the priority founding case, or when there is a defect in the priority claim. This is not, of itself, a ground of revocation, but depends on the prior art which will become relevant if priority is lost. It is against that prior art which validity or otherwise must be judged.
I don’t see that much is to be gained by muddying the waters.
MaxDrei said: “They know that justice (the over-riding objective of civil litigation in the UK) demands swift revocation of bad patents and equally swift enforcement of patents not found bad.”
Full comment:
I’m both amused and shocked by the postings of “Explanation Please”.
Courts (at least in England) perceive their role as a last resort in a dispute between A, a patent owner arguing infringement and B, a party seeking revocation of the patent and/or a declaration of non-infringement. They know that justice (the over-riding objective of civil litigation in the UK) demands swift revocation of bad patents and equally swift enforcement of patents not found bad. A and B demand nothing less. In the courts, in a real world dispute, with parties going out of business, there is no time for endless ping-pong betwewen the courts of the first instance and those of the second instance. Hence the decisions of the first instance take the issues in sequence, like at the EPO but, unlike at the EPO, they work their way through the issues, using wording equivalent to “But if I am wrong on Art 123(2) then I will go on to consider patentability over the art.” That this could somehow be ultra vires is news to me.
The question arises, in a world where industry, stuck in a costly and time-wasting patent dispute, asks for “early certainty” why don’t all first instance jurisdictions do it this way?
And as for the EPO, the best way I can think of, for Examiners to lose the sympathy of the outside world, is to reveal their ignorance of how business is done, and how patent disputes are resolved, in the real world outside the Ivory Towers in Munich and Den Haag.
Come now, Explanation Please. Explain yourself further please.
This is part of an ongoing discussion about blame being put on examiners rather than the people who bully them or bully the judges (whose decisions are followed by examiners). To quote:
“A claim has for effective date either the priority or the filing date, or in other words the date of the youngest feature in the claim, see Art 54 and Art 89. This is the only point on which I can agree with you.”
We do not agree at all on your “in other words …” insertion. The effective date for a claim is either the filing date of the application or the priority date, whether it complies with Article 123(2) EPC or not. This is clear from Articles 54 and 89.
“due to plain logic a claim infringing Art 123(2) cannot be at the same time new and inventive.”
The EPC does not agree with you. According to Article 56 EPC, a claimed invention involves an inventive step if it is not obvious over the state of the art according to Article 54(2) EPC (read in combination with Article 89 EPC).
The requirement of Article 123(2) EPC is a separate one.
Your position seems to be that a claim that infringes Article 123(2) EPC cannot involve an inventive step. That would mean that a claim that infringes Article 123(2) EPC automatically infringes Article 56 EPC. That is a strange position to take.
“Please give one decision of the Boards of Appeal in which the Board has decided to discuss novelty or inventive step after having considered that the claim infringes Art 123(2).”
One example is T 488/02: claim 1 infringes Article 123(2), is new and is not inventive. Another example is T 1537/07.
I note that you were not able to cite any passage from the Guidelines or Case Law book that supports your position.
Please do not suggest that I am complaining about “all examiners”. I complain about the very few examiners that share your very peculiar view, unsupported by Guidelines or case law. I don’t know how many there are, but they tend to pop up in blog comments.
“The applicant/proprietor will always have an arguable case, but should then divisions refrain from raising objections at all, with the risk of being considered arrogant?”
That is not what I wrote.
My point is that the following is perfectly reasonable in a judgment by an English court as well as in a decision by an opposition division:
(1) decide that claim 1 contains added subject-matter
(2) (since the appeal court/board might disagree with the added-matter objection,) decide that claim 1 is not inventive. Or even that claim 1 is inventive, in which case the request clearly still has to be rejected because it infringes 123(2).
For an English court or for an opposition division of the EPO, there is no shame in acknowledging that reasonable minds may differ. That should not stop the court or the division from taking the decision it considers correct. It just means that it is neither shameful nor illogical to also take a decision on inventive step where that makes sense (= where the extra effort is outweighed by the advantage of possibly avoiding a remittal).
I suppose you have no problem with parallel clarity and added-matter objections. All I am saying is that a parallel objection on inventive step is no different. They are all separate objections. One objection is enough to reject the request, but it is fine to raise two or more objections against the same request or even decide that a request infringes one requirement but complies with certain other requirements. There is no obligation to do more than the minimum, but a division is free to use common sense.
“If a patent is dead as dead can be, for any another reason, it looks at least pointless to me to decide whether the subject-matter claimed was new and inventive.”
Why would it be pointless? If there is an appeal and the board of appeal disagrees with that “another reason”, a remittal has been avoided.
On it goes:
“By the way, there is another case in which it is not possible to compare an invention with the prior art, that is in case the invention is not enabled.”
Also here I do not agree. The claim “1. A composition that help against headaches” is too broad to be sufficiently disclosed and lacks novelty over aspirin.
It is also possible for a claim to a specific embodiment to be insufficiently disclosed (because the application and common general knowledge do not allow the skilled person to carry it out) and to lack novelty or inventive step over a document that does contain all the missing information.
So be careful with general statements about how substantive requirements of the EPC relate to each other.
The sad thing is, such assessments aren’t posted anywhere anymore; not in corporate media, not even in patent-centric blogs. One needs to look at comments to actually catch a glimpse of what remotely looks like honest opinions from insiders. Remember that comments sections are nowadays being ‘sanitised’ (censored) by Team UPC-friendly people, e.g. in Kluwer Patent Blog and other blogs. They even say so upfront, thereby discouraging some efforts to bother commenting (at risk of being muzzled and wasting one’s time). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »
Content is available under CC-BY-SA