09.15.19
Posted in Deception, Free/Libre Software, Google at 9:44 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Massive telecommunications oligopolies (telecoms) are being described as ethical and responsible by means of openwashing; they even have their own front groups for that obscene mischaracterisation and ONF is one of those
DUE TO lack of time we probably won’t (and can’t) keep these “Openwashing Reports” a daily feature but merely weekly, as originally intended. Moreover, once we cover a particular theme or a strand of openwashing we’ll try to move on to the next and merely ‘shelve’ new examples in our Daily Links under “openwashing” (there’s one big batch coming later today). We don’t want to sound too repetitive (with the arguments, not the pertinent new examples), so this series will have a special nature with a certain uniqueness. Today’s “Openwashing Report” is about ONF; it’s the turn of telecoms, based on the past week’s news (there was an event). It’s a pattern we have observed for over a decade and it’s usually the same ‘news’ sites that are the main culprits; we know who funds these (some are transparent about it). They would have us believe that every large telecom company is now “Open”. This is the art of marketing by openwashing…
“They would have us believe that every large telecom company is now “Open”. This is the art of marketing by openwashing…”Disguising ‘interop’ (somewhat of a buzzword) and shims/standards as “open” is another form of openwashing; here’s a new article entitled “How network standards and open source organizations differ” (there’s some fragmentation among these organisations).
“Both open source and network standards organizations want to develop the next-generation network,” it says. “Yet their methods differ, and they can benefit different types of organizations.”
“The Linux Foundation makes Orwell proud by painting surveillance — the opposite of privacy — as a matter of confidentiality!”What’s common to all of them is the nature of members. They relay or transmit a lot of traffic, lots of information of lots of different people. They snoop, they intercept, they analyse and they inform. They’re informants of militaries, governments or — as they prefer for people to think — “advertisers”. The openwashing pattern to watch out for here is pretty simple: surveillance is being framed as “open” or “sharing” or “confidential”. Yes, confidential! The Linux Foundation makes Orwell proud by painting surveillance — the opposite of privacy — as a matter of confidentiality! That’s how deeply dishonest they are.
“They work like a tightly-knit family and it mostly boils down to cost-cutting collaboration, sharing of code among the members.”This weekend we’ve decided to do an article about openwashing in the telecom sector mostly because a lot of new examples are available. It’s because of the event of the Open Networking Foundation (ONF).
How many of our readers are familiar with the Open Networking Foundation (ONF)? Open is a familiar word, sure. But how many people heard of ONF? How many people participated in some form? How much is actually known about it? We are guessing that few of our readers know much. ONF is actually rather secretive. It’ll like an onion one has to peel and it’s not a pleasant (or easy) experience.
They work like a tightly-knit family and it mostly boils down to cost-cutting collaboration, sharing of code among the members. Not freedom. Hardly even genuine openness.
Let’s look at some examples from last week’s news.
Comcast wants to be thought of as “Open” because it shares code with few other giant telecoms (we’ll use abbreviations for “telecommunications”). Watch this puff piece that says “Comcast sent its Senior VP of Next Generation Access Networks Elad Nafshi to the Open Networking Foundation (ONF) conference today to announce that the service provider has rolled out some open source software as part of its Distributed Access Architecture (DAA) buildout.”
The conference was used by Comcast to also issue paid nonsense. From the conference: “The ONF today announced that Comcast has reached production roll-out of the Trellis Open Source Network Fabric as part of Comcast’s Distributed Access Architecture (DAA) buildout.”
“Comcast wants to be thought of as “Open” because it shares code with few other giant telecoms (we’ll use abbreviations for “telecommunications”).”The Open Networking Foundation’s (ONF) conference is more like a PR platform than a real, traditional conference which is open to all. It’s openwashing of surveillance infrastructures. You don’t get to tinker with the code, but wow! Oh yeah! “Open”…
Whatever.
Here’s another puff piece that says “Comcast today said it deployed Trellis, the Open Networking Foundation’s (ONF) open source SDN fabric, in “multiple markets.””
SDxCentral is a ‘tool’ of the Linux Foundation, VMware etc. Those sites are deeply corrupt. They run or ‘operate’ on the cash of companies they cover. So in effect they’re like peripheral PR agencies. Check out their internal blog; it’s nauseating. Imagine the BBC or CNN having a section in which they invite corporations to become “partners” with their own (dedicated) ‘news’ sections, fused together with so-called original ‘news’ (or ‘content’)…
“SDxCentral is a ‘tool’ of the Linux Foundation, VMware etc. Those sites are deeply corrupt. They run or ‘operate’ on the cash of companies they cover. So in effect they’re like peripheral PR agencies.”More openwashing by SDxCentral (PR for the Linux Foundation and various other “sponsors”) can be found here. This one bears the headline “AT&T’s Fuetsch Touts Trellis Deployed in Tier-1 Network” (AT&T uses the above to spy on millions if not billions of people, but let’s celebrate because something is “Open”).
Then there was also Edgecore. This is collaboration among giants. It’s good to collaborate, but it is not about freedom; it’s just a cost-cutting exercise. Watch this press release [1, 2] and accompanying puff piece for ONF: “Taiwan-based Edgecore is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Accton Technology. Historically, Edgecore built boxes that the incumbent telecom vendors, such as Cisco and Ericsson, would buy. These vendors would then re-label the boxes and sell them to their own customers. “With the movement to open source, some of these vendors that used to be in the background are becoming more visible,” said Timon Sloane, VP of marketing with the ONF.”
“This is collaboration among giants. It’s good to collaborate, but it is not about freedom; it’s just a cost-cutting exercise.”Look at this surveillance giants galore [1, 2]. They shower themselves using openwashing, with the Open Networking Foundation’s (ONF) help.
TechDirt published an article under a week ago about how the telecom giants try really hard to distract us with “Big Tech”, blaming the likes of GAFAM as if they’re the sole culprits and privacy violators. In reality, both telecoms and GAFAM are enemies of everybody’s privacy. Google, for example, wants a monopoly on access to your data, i.e. it wants to infringe your privacy and for no other company to do the same (hence “security”). From exclusivity come higher pricing opportunities. You are the product. Remember that! To ISPs the customers have increasingly become just “products” to be “informed on” (e.g. to governments and advertisers).
This past week, for the third week in a row, Google was still googlebombing the word “privacy” to make it seem like it fights for it, not against it, plus openwashing on the side. We saw dozens of examples early in the month and it isn’t stopping. Examples now include [1, 2].
Also get a load of this from Appuals (“Google Talks About The Importance Of Open Source And Open Data In A Recent Blog Post”). A proprietary software company talks about the importance of what it barely does. Google’s openwashing is nothing too new or unique. How many core, important google things are Open Source in their entirety? Same question for Microsoft…
“This past week, for the third week in a row, Google was still googlebombing the word “privacy” to make it seem like it fights for it, not against it, plus openwashing on the side.”Is Google Search Open Source? How about Apps (office suite, Gmail etc.)? Android as in AOSP is “open” mostly for compliance reasons (they make use of many external projects, including Linux). The same goes for Chromium…
Almost nothing is really “open”. Google’s Summer of Code (GSoC) is an extension of the marketing strategy, something along the lines of “don’t be evil…” (a motto that Google has already abandoned officially)
Going back to the main subject at hand, an openwashing consortium of surveillance giants totally ‘orchestrated’ the media this past week. Here’s a puff piece entitled “ONF works on an open source evolved packet core” (who other than giant telecoms has contributed to this?) and to quote:
The original 3GPP evolved packet core was not CUPS compliant, said Guru Parulkar, executive director of the Open Networking Foundation (ONF). Control User Plane Separation (CUPS) of evolved packet core (EPC) nodes provides for the separation of functionality in the S-gateway, P-gateway and MME.
Guess who makes all the commits.
Here’s another new press release (from that same event):
The ONF today announced that the Stratum™ project has been released as open source. Stratum is now available under the Apache 2.0 open source license, and Stratum is forming the foundation for ONF’s next-generation software defined networking (SDN) work.
Based on this press release there has been fluff:
Stratum is a silicon-independent platform designed to let network operators easily integrate new devices from a wide range of vendors, expanding and upgrading their infrastructure in real time. It strictly defines the interface between switches and controllers as an unambiguous “contract,” avoiding proprietary silicon interfaces and software APIs that lock operators into one vendor’s hardware.
Another piece of fluff from the same site:
The ONF today announced that the Stratum project has been released as open source. Stratum is now available under the Apache 2.0 open source license, and Stratum is forming the foundation for ONF’s next-generation software defined networking (SDN) work.
How many companies is that even relevant to? Not many. Only the few which participate.
“How many companies is that even relevant to? Not many. Only the few which participate.”We don’t wish to come across as too cynical. If openashing is the wrong term by which to describe ONF, then we need to come up with another new word. It’s when companies come together to share code and the public can see the code. In the past they habitually did all this, but the public was shut out.
ONF is not a fraud but a vastly better thing than all telecoms having their own pool of proprietary software. ONF is a good thing in general, but it boils down to collaboration, not Open Source or Free software (they’re all, for the most part, against freedom because their surveillance facilitates oppression).
“Remember that Software Freedom includes privacy; the cheapening or departure from freedom (to “Open Source” or “Open” or “Collaboration”) is a sacrifice/compromise whose end goal (or ultimate objective) is to rationalise abuse. It’s about maintaining the status quo, i.e. not reforming anything except the marketing slant.”We’re still thinking what to call all this. It’s not limited to ONF and there are overlaps in the Linux Foundation, whose chief Jim Zemlin rejects Open Source (he uses a proprietary operating system with proprietary on it). We’ve meanwhile noticed that F5 is, perhaps as expected, leveraging NGINX (just Open Core basically) for openwashing purposes. F5 is spying on a lot of traffic, but it prefers to be seen as “Open”. Perhaps that was one of the main ‘perks’ of buying NGINX.
Remember that Software Freedom includes privacy; the cheapening or departure from freedom (to “Open Source” or “Open” or “Collaboration”) is a sacrifice/compromise whose end goal (or ultimate objective) is to rationalise abuse. It’s about maintaining the status quo, i.e. not reforming anything except the marketing slant. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
09.14.19
Posted in Deception, GNU/Linux, Microsoft at 10:03 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
From a brochure of the Linux Foundation (selling press coverage and even "tweets"):
Summary: The ‘media coup’ of corporate giants (that claim to be 'friends') means that history of GNU/Linux is being distorted and lied about; it also explains prevalent lies such as "Microsoft loves Linux" and denial of GNU/Free software
LINUX.COM is practically dead. The Linux Foundation killed it off as a news source. Linux Journal is also gone, but at least the site is still online (at least for now). It is getting harder and harder to find proper journalism about GNU/Linux (a rarity these days) and Microsoft is happy to fill the gap by Googlebombing "Linux" with Vista 10 'spam' — something to which the Linux Foundation actively contributes.
“It’s hardly surprising that we’re all being bombarded with lies such as “Microsoft loves Linux”…”Hours ago Slashdot promoted VMware/Linux Foundation puff pieces from a Linux Foundation-sponsored ‘news’ site. This is the kind of problem we wrote about a few days ago. The same large corporations that control today’s Linux Foundation also control the story/narrative of “Linux”. So in effect there has been a corporate coup not just in the Linux Foundation but also media that covers “Linux”. It’s hardly surprising that we’re all being bombarded with lies such as “Microsoft loves Linux”; yesterday we showed how Microsoft had approached writers and liaised with bloggers in order to dish out these lies. They’re basically trolling us all for a quick buck. █
Alexandre Oliva moments ago: “anyone seen recent articles critical of Richard Stallman, father of open source and main author of linux, as they used to write before they all suddenly came across free software, and some even about gnu some 48 hours ago?”
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 9:30 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
They now rely on EBA to ‘endorse’ such patents (again)
Summary: A calm interpretation of the latest wave of lobbying from litigation professionals, i.e. people who profit when there are lots of patent disputes and even expensive lawsuits which may be totally frivolous (for example, based upon fake patents that aren’t EPC-compliant)
IT OUGHT to come as no surprise that António Campinos — like his ‘handler’ — pushes hard for software patents to be granted by the European Patent Office (EPO). The law does not matter to these people; neither do constitutions. Today’s EPO is totally in the pockets of patent maximalists (just look at all the tweets from Friday; they're in cahoots).
Rather than moan and groan about this sad reality let’s take stock of the latest observations, which merit a rebuttal or two. We hope that by exposing facts we can at least enlighten some examiners; perhaps people in positions of authority can respond accordingly.
Just before the weekend Bristows’ Alan Johnson turned the Kool-Aid nozzle again (link for those curious enough to see it). When Bristows says “Poll indicates businesses’ support for UPC without UK” it refers to propaganda from a UPC think tank; it’s Managing IP's UPC propaganda machine — one that its staff pinged me about in Twitter (as if to impress me with their so-called ‘study’). Suffice to say, it’s a poll that only speaks to and for litigation firms. Bristows is a band of liars, so they spin that as “businesses’ support”; it’s not an independent poll (push polling likely) and it blindly follows that ludicrous idea that a corrupt institution that breaks the law internally would act better outwards. We’ve already written a great deal about the firm behind it; on Friday it spoke — in its very latest article — of “Rising Star Awards”. Paid-for, fake and corrupt awards. The lawyers’ ‘industry’ has been manufacturing these fake ‘endorsements’ for themselves. IAM does this for a living, so why not Managing IP as well? Under the guise of “IP STARS”…
“We hope that by exposing facts we can at least enlighten some examiners; perhaps people in positions of authority can respond accordingly.”It’s that same old business model of lying and calling people/sponsors “STARS”. It’s a common scam/fraud in other domains too; a firm comes with an offer of an award, in exchange for some payment of course; contrariwise, it can blackmail businesses with threat of negative publicity. From Managing IP: “The best rising stars lawyers from across the continent congregated at The Pierre Hotel last night to celebrate Euromoney Legal Media Group’s second annual Americas Rising Stars awards.”
So they booked some expensive hotel in which to give their bogus awards. In the same way they promote the UPC with bogus ‘polls’, after the EPO cooperates with them on UPC propaganda events. IAM does that too. They’re all connected and they fool nobody but themselves. They hope to mislead politicians however. Why?
Look no further than Friday’s post from Kluwer Patent Blog (in which Team UPC admits: “Czech Republic will not ratify UPCA any time soon”… or ever!).
So now they admit they’ve lied about remaining barriers. The opening paragraph states “it may violate the Czech Constitution.”
“So they booked some expensive hotel in which to give their bogus awards.”Not just the Czech Constitution; there are similar issues in Hungary and elsewhere (even the courts ruled accordingly).
Norice that Team UPC is nowadays writing anonymously, e.g. "Kluwer Patent blogger", in order to dodge accountability for lying. “Kluwer Patent blogger” is always or usually Bristows. It’s probably Alan Johnson. Here they go: “The Czech Republic will not ratify the Unified Patent Agreement in the near future, even if the Unitary Patent system takes the hurdles of the Brexit and the German constitutional complaint. According to a Price Waterhouse Coopers (PwC) report on the impact of the patent package, which was commissioned by the national IP office, the Unitary Patent system could have negative financial consequences for Czech SMEs; moreover it may violate the Czech Constitution. Kluwer IP Law interviewed Karel Sindelka, partner and IP expert of the Czech law firm Sindelka Lachmannova, about the PwC report.”
This is the same PwC which was paid by Battistelli a few years ago to lie about EPO staff.
Pressing on, however, who would actually want the UPC? Litigation firms for sure. It’s also pretty clear that UPC would usher in software patents — something that EPO management is still pushing for. It’s lobbying very hard for illegal software while attacking its own judges into approving that. Based on this new blog post: “It appears that the President is broadly in favour of the patentability of computer-implemented simulations…”
“Pressing on, however, who would actually want the UPC? Litigation firms for sure.”Of course!
IP Kat’s blogger adds: “Running a simulation on a computer in order to determine a technical parameter, the President argued, is also not equivalent to a mental act.”
Well, he never wrote a computer program! His sole skill is drinking wine with the ‘right’ people.
The blogger concludes with: “The EBA is independent of the President and is therefore not obliged to follow his opinion.”
“His sole skill is drinking wine with the ‘right’ people.”Lies from Rose Hughes? Probably not. Maybe she’s simply unaware of recent developments. Consider EBA's recent handling of the 'Haar question'. In this newer one, Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) referral G 1/19, the same issues arise. These are serious issues which we’ve mentioned here many times before, as did IP Kat (albeit it’s run by patent maximalists these days). It sometimes spreads lies for EPO management (and censors comments critical of it), so we shall assume good faith and strive to remain polite. Not an easy task when their latest roundup is full of patent maximalism — same as last week! Annsley Ward (Bristows) is dominant in this blog; she’s promoting patent trolls such as InterDigital (again) and also spent a long time promoting software patents in the past. Yes, in IP Kat! It’s also not easy to overlook the professional affiliation of the author of this article; it’s the litigation department of a pharmaceutical giant/monopoly (Rose Hughes works for one) and she constantly comments on the subject of her business. She has just done that again. So the blog lacks independence and it speaks for lawyers, not even scientists inside companies with patents. This wasn’t always the case!
Here’s what she wrote about G 1/19:
One of the more early awaiting referrals before the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA), is G 1/19, relating to the patentability of computer-simulated methods (IPKat post here). The referral has already attracted a large number of amicus curiae from interested parties, including CIPA, EPI and AIPPI. IPKat will review these observations shortly (once this Kat has had the chance to read them all). In the meantime, the EPO has recently announced that the EPO President himself, António Campinos, has taken the unusual move of submitting his own comments on the referral.
The President’s comments can be read in full here. It appears that the President is broadly in favour of the patentability of computer-implemented simulations (in contrast to his view on the patentability of products produced by essentially biological processes…IPKat post here). In summary, the President argues that the case law of the Boards of Appeal already provides that computer-implemented simulations, claimed as such, may be based on technical considerations. Furthermore, these technical considerations may confer inventiveness on the claim. Computer-simulated inventions may therefore be inventive, and thereby patentable.
[...]
Will the EBA agree with the President? The EBA is independent of the President and is therefore not obliged to follow his opinion. Furthermore, as mentioned above, there have already been a large number of observations from third parties submitted to the EBA, some in favour and some against the patentability of computer-simulated inventions (Article 10 RPEBA). Individuals with strong views on this issue [Merpel: such as certain hyperbolic bloggers...], are encouraged to submit their own!
That last remark might be a vague reference to us; I already submitted letters to the EBA a long time ago. That barely had an effect. It would be even less likely to have an effect now that these judges lack independence.
“Many of these patents are fake. Everyone knows it, even the examiners (or SUEPO which represents them), but there’s pressure to grant anyway and it’s expensive to challenge these in courts or even in formal appeals.”Will the judges feel comfortable going against the wishes of Campinos and guard the EPC instead? That’s a risky career choice. Many of these patents are fake. Everyone knows it, even the examiners (or SUEPO which represents them), but there’s pressure to grant anyway and it’s expensive to challenge these in courts or even in formal appeals. 35 U.S.C. § 101 in the US is proving that the USPTO granted far too many such bogus patents as well; Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes reviews (IPRs) aren’t so cheap, however, so most patents will reach their expiration date without proper scrutiny. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 10:05 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
EPO revolving doors totally acceptable when you serve Team Battistelli
Summary: The EPO’s Albert Keyack (Team Battistelli) is now in Team UPC as Vice President of Kilburn & Strode LLP; he already fills the media with lies about the UPC, as one can expect
“REAL SOON NOW!”
That’s what Team UPC wants us to think of the Unified Patent Court (UPC). They keep telling me stuff like this in Twitter, but evidence suggests otherwise. I choose not to reply; they try to provoke for a response they can somehow take out of context. It’s an entrapment and opponents of the UPC call it that. They try to put UPC critics in a position wherein they seem ‘clueless’ about what they oppose.
“They try to put UPC critics in a position wherein they seem ‘clueless’ about what they oppose.”Unitary Patent (UP) rebuttals are necessary; there’s lots of propaganda to come shortly from Team UPC, i.e. from people whose entire career for about a decade was advocacy of UPC (for personal gain in the monetary sense). Lots of new FUD is afoot, no doubt about it, and it’s connected to corrupt EPO officials like António Campinos or like Benoît Battistelli. They stand to gain from the UPC, even if the people of Europe stand to lose. The European Patent Office is just some empty vessel for them — something with which to propel and boost interests of the litigation ‘industry’. If the Office dies in the process, so be it; they don’t really care. If European firms suffer? They couldn’t care any less. The only firms they care about is their own, i.e. law firms, unproductive firms.
“If European firms suffer? They couldn’t care any less. The only firms they care about is their own, i.e. law firms, unproductive firms.”As we shall explain in a later post, Lexology was recently bombarded with lots of shameless self-promotion by a firm with special EPO connections. Lexology is connected to IAM, the EPO’s prime propaganda machine.
Kilburn & Strode LLP’s Carrollanne Lindley wrote some days ago (to be boosted by Lexology) that UPC “would allow central revocation, enforcement and litigation throughout the EU [and] becomes more uncertain in the light of Brexit.”
“Uncertain” as in dead? Here is the whole paragraph which is relevant:
Patents. Clients should be reassured that the implication of Brexit for patents is less substantial as there is little post grant pan-European patent law (in fact the only post grant pan-European law is relatively rare and is at the level of the Court of Justice of the European Union). The European Patent Convention (EPC) is not an EU body. The future of an EU Unitary Patent (UP) and an EU Unitary Patent Court (UPC) that would allow central revocation, enforcement and litigation throughout the EU becomes more uncertain in the light of Brexit.
“Clients”…
This is news? This is what now counts as ‘news’ (in Google News, owing to Lexology as a gateway)?
Private firms’ promotional messages to “Clients” are not news. They’re sales pitch. It’s marketing.
But pressing on, around the same time we saw Kilburn & Strode LLP’s Albert Keyack with his own puff piece (apparently they’ve paid Lexology to promote their stuff, as it shows up everywhere lately).
“As we explained some months ago (after readers too had alerted us), this is a classic case of revolving doors with the EPO (something ordinary EPO staff, such as examiners, isn’t permitted to do; strictly).”Wait, did we say “Kilburn & Strode LLP’s Albert Keyack”?
Yes, that’s the EPO’s Albert Keyack.
As we explained some months ago (after readers too had alerted us), this is a classic case of revolving doors with the EPO (something ordinary EPO staff, such as examiners, isn’t permitted to do; strictly). Now comes UPC advocacy (i.e. lies) from what became the Vice President of Kilburn & Strode LLP. He wrote:
The UK is set to leave the European Union on 31 October 2019 (‘Exit Day’).
[...]
What about the Unitary Patent and the Unified Patent Court (the UPC Agreement)?
As of mid-2019, 16 EU member states (including the UK) have ratified the convention related to the new pan-European patent (Unitary Patent) and pan-European patent court (Unified Patent Court). The EPO, which is not an EU institution, would administer both the granting of these patents and the courts. All that remains for the new system to take effect is the required ratification by Germany (although ratification is currently under consideration by the German Constitutional Court). IP owners would not be able to use the Unitary Patent system to protect their inventions within the UK, and it is unclear whether post-Brexit rulings by the new court would or would not be enforceable within the UK. The UPC Agreement, once enacted, will be available to protect inventions within the 25 (of 28) EU member states that have joined, but rights holders will still be able to obtain equivalent UK patents (enforced in UK courts) to protect their inventions in the UK from either European patent applications designating the UK filed at the EPO, or UK national patent applications filed at the UK IPO – exactly the system in place today.
Notice that optimism. So he has basically already decided that UPC will come “real soon now” (not a direct quote) and somehow the UK leaving the EU would not be an issue at all. This is great propaganda from one of Battistelli’s own ‘chefs’…
“Our Prime Minister’s (not even elected!) own brother was recently “re-appointed as UK IP Minister” as well.”If the Vice President of Kilburn & Strode LLP is such a liar, how much better can their lawyers be? Probably the same ‘gene pool’ as Alan Johnson and Edward Nodder of Bristows LLP. They’ve been doing ‘damage control’ after the UK’s ‘IP Minister’ resigned again (that's four times in 3 years!) — revealing the extent of the chaos UPC hopefuls are facing. Just before the weekend Nodder wrote: “Chris Skidmore re-appointed as UK IP Minister [..]. Mr Skidmore was previously IP Minister between 5 December 2018 and 25 July 2019.”
Our Prime Minister’s (not even elected!) own brother was recently "re-appointed as UK IP Minister" as well. What a mess; it’s all nepotism and corruption. Over and over again. No consequences; no investigation, let alone punishment.
“Nothing “community” or “unitary” or “unified” to see here, except in name. United in greed — the law firms’!”As the FFII’s President has just put it (in reply to an EU chief): “The “rule of law”, but the EPO cannot be sued in court for maladministration. Can you explain how the Unitary Patent is compatible with the treaty then?”
It’s incompatible and unconstitutional. I also responded by saying: “At the same time the corrupt EPO threats to sue me, several times, for exposing its corruption…”
If this is what the EU boils down to under the EPO regime (remember that UPC — unlike the EPO — is an ‘EU thing’), then Team UPC liars and nepotists are becoming a credibility threat to the EU. They’re in effect fracturing Europe, not uniting it. Nothing “community” or “unitary” or “unified” to see here, except in name. United in greed — the law firms’! █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, GNU/Linux, Microsoft at 6:48 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
If you can’t get them fired, ‘charm’ them
Summary: The ways Microsoft depresses GNU/Linux advocacy and discourages enthusiasm for Software Freedom is not hard to see; it’s worth considering and understanding some of these tactics (mostly assimilation-centric and love-themed), which can otherwise go unnoticed
Microsoft loves [to attack] Linux (usually by proxy, in ‘creative’ new ways, as internal Microsoft documents admit and have already revealed). A lot of people aren’t aware of it or in denial about it (especially those whose financial interests intersect with such a convenient denial).
This post explains three such strands of attacks, based on new articles which are only days old.
From Bought Seats to Misleading Media
“Congrats to Zemlin and the Golden Boys (money). They sell out to Microsoft so that you don’t have to (and they profit from it!).”So Microsoft bought some more seats from the Jim Zemlin-led Linux Foundation (this was announced just yesterday). Congrats to Zemlin and the Golden Boys (money). They sell out to Microsoft so that you don’t have to (and they profit from it!). As it turns out, handing over community-run projects to large corporations can be a very profitable activity. About $100,000,000 per year…
Who advocates such an activity? Over the years we’ve named some of the biggest culprits, including Mac Asay, who was turning his back on Open Source to promote proprietary software openwashing. When he worked as COO at Canonical he wasn’t even using GNU/Linux! Just like Jono Bacon…
“Remember that Asay applied for a job at Microsoft and went for interviews there, by his own admission (in his personal blog).”One reader sent us a pointer to this latest article from Asay, asking us: “How did that guy worm his way into regular publication?”
“Adobe paid the publishers,” I responded. “Follow the money.”
At times his articles are published with disclosure, literally stating that they’re sponsored by his employer (at the time), Adobe. He recently moved to AWS after he had repeatedly advocated their malicious exploitation of FOSS projects — causing these projects to become proprietary. One might joke that the job offer from Amazon was a “reward” for what he did. “The US Department of Defense isn’t turning its back on open source,” he now says, “it’s just getting smarter about it.”
No, it’s becoming more proprietary and this is nothing to be celebrated! Unless you work for AWS, in which case it’s very much in tune with the whole ‘cloud’ (Clown Computing) business model. DoD is now outsourcing a lot of stuff to AWS, Asay’s employer.
“Phipps is a tough nut for Microsoft to crack (or buy). We need more like him.”Remember that Asay applied for a job at Microsoft and went for interviews there, by his own admission (in his personal blog). He later brought Microsoft to OSI (after he had gotten a seat there — a seat he no longer has).
Influence from seats in key institutions is prerequisite/prelude to entryism, which is why we were glad to see Microsoft leaving the OSI's Board some time earlier this year. This relieving news may only be temporary; judging by what Simon Phipps tweeted the other day about Stallman, he still views Microsoft as a threat. Phipps has long been resisting entryism by Microsoft, viewing that as a “submarine”…
Phipps is a tough nut for Microsoft to crack (or buy). We need more like him.
From Hate to Fake ‘Love’
If no proprietary software is tolerated by people, then openwashing with ‘fake news’ will be attempted. People who value Software Freedom will be singled out and painted as “extremists” and “zealots” (unless/until they sell out). Microsoft knows these tactics; it’s not even novel as it’s done a lot in politics. Or in religion, which is what Microsoft has become.
“If no proprietary software is tolerated by people, then openwashing with ‘fake news’ will be attempted.”Don’t get us started on Swapnil’s site (not Linux.com but his personal site, which we prefer not to link to); it is a cesspool of marketing spam and lightly-edited press releases. Linux.com is now run by these types. Thanks, “Linux” Foundation… and thank you, Microsoft, for “loving” us.
We’re not sure how many of our readers are aware of/familiar with Jason from Forbes. He’s their only writer who covers GNU/Linux. He does a pretty good job. So now Microsoft targets him…
Yes, they contacted him. Who did? Not a “Linux advocate” as Jason puts it (in his headline) but someone who helps Microsoft, i.e. Windows, Azure etc.
“Microsoft knows these tactics; it’s not even novel as it’s done a lot in politics. Or in religion, which is what Microsoft has become.”We’ve never heard his name before. He merely talks/tells a bunch of lies to Jason, e.g.: “At Microsoft, we have many statements like ‘Microsoft ❤️ Linux’ and ‘Microsoft ❤️ Open Source’, but the one that resonates with me most right now is ‘Microsoft runs on trust,’” Scott tells me.”
Scott?
Not Guthrie?
I’ve been around for a very long time (reading GNU/Linux news all day long) and not even once did I stumble upon this name. Never. He’s a faker. Like a person who climbed a mountain once and then claims to be a “mountain climber”.
What does Scott promote through Jason at Forbes? Open Source? Nope. This is proprietary software. This is Microsoft. This is surveillance. The article — to make matters even worse — comes with a lie, manufactured by Microsoft, as a feature image. The lie is embedded in pixels that are passed around like that. “Microsoft loves Linux…”
“…the way Microsoft manipulates writers into it has been documented here for years. Sometimes these writers ‘blow the whistle’ — so to speak — instead of cooperating with Microsoft.”Yeah, right!
Jason, this time you messed up! You let them manipulate you. The link (URL)? Here. In case someone wants a dose of nonsense.
Jason’s example is one of many; the way Microsoft manipulates writers into it has been documented here for years. Sometimes these writers ‘blow the whistle’ — so to speak — instead of cooperating with Microsoft.
From Openwashing to Googlebombing
What would happen if people started to associate proprietary software with “Open”? Or Windows with “Linux”? What if the vocabulary we all use ceased to have a meaningful purpose and became so ambiguous and confusing that it’s an hopeless exercise in (mis)communication? Someone has just called the above (from Jason) openwashing [1, 2]. The term “openwashing” is catching on; it helps describe what we’re talking about. It’s an attack on language itself, it’s a lexical attack vector.
Here’s an example; so there’s this thing called WSL (or WSL2). Up until recently it was just Windows calling itself “Linux”. We explained the motivation. It is a Microsoft Trojan horse strategy, using “Linux” as a Windows/Azure ‘ramp’. Watch what was published two days ago about “Windows Subsystem for Linux 2″ (it’s part of the headline, which actually entered news feeds about Linux).
“Towards the end of this past week about a quarter of the search results for “Linux” were actually Microsoft something…”The day before we learned of “Cortana and Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL) improvements” (another headline) and last night “Windows 10 Preview Adds Windows Subsystem for Linux 2 on ARM64 Devices” (from Microsoft-connected media). Towards the end of this past week about a quarter of the search results for “Linux” were actually Microsoft something…
Sometimes it’s as much as a half! Like one week earlier.
Microsoft fights us with googlebombing techniques. And it may be winning. It’s working. Instead of seeing GNU/Linux wins (like the big news from Huawei) people see some Vista 10 ‘spam’. Microsoft has resorted to rather effective Trojan horse strategies. These are ‘side perks’; it’s at least partly intentional and they teach these things in marketing schools/colleges.
This is upsetting; “another spying app for Microsoft” is what my wife called this new thing (she covers Android at Tux Machines and is increasingly being presented with Microsoft proprietary surveillance stuff, which Microsoft ‘googlebombs’ Android with).
“Based on mails we’ve been receiving, there are reactionary movements in the making.”She also complained about this “Microsoft PlayReady DRM server on Linux.”
This is the type of stuff she finds when looking for “Linux” news. That’s just leveraged to promote and spread Microsoft malice and lock-in (DRM).
Understanding the game Microsoft plays is essential if we intend to tackle it. We’re merely explaining what we see. Based on mails we’ve been receiving, there are reactionary movements in the making. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Free/Libre Software, Microsoft at 4:39 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The openwashing services of the so-called ‘Linux’ Foundation are working; companies that are inherently against Open Source are being called “Open” and some people are willing to swallow this bait (so-called ‘compromise’ which is actually surrender to proprietary software regimes)
“HOW did we get here?”
Many people ask us such questions…
Ask Jim Zemlin instead.
The “Registrant Contact” for Linux.com is “Jim Zemlin”. So a person who never uses GNU/Linux… owns Linux.com. Great!
A whois lookup shows that “Domain Name: LINUX.COM” has “Creation Date: 1994-06-02T04:00:00Z”
“The “Registrant Contact” for Linux.com is “Jim Zemlin”. So a person who never uses GNU/Linux… owns Linux.com.”So the site turned 25 only 2 months after Zemlin and the Golden Boys (gold, as in money) had fired all the staff. They ended up sacking all Linux.com journalists and editors — actual users of GNU/Linux — without prior notice (lack of funds was definitely not the problem!), only to be replaced by obedient openwashing pros, making the site more ‘in tune’ with the Openwashing as a Service (OaaS) business strategy of the so-called ‘Linux’ Foundation.
The Linux Foundation has been thoroughly and almost entirely captured by inherently-monopolistic corporate interests from the Board downwards, which means it cannot be salvaged or repair itself, only replaced. Entryism kills institution by undermining their goals. This is what happened here. The Linux Foundation’s chiefs (what’s left after many got removed) would likely tell us GPL is a “cancer” (if they could). We were shocked when someone recently told us, based on research he had done, that the last project released by the Foundation with a GPL-like licence was Xen. That was ages ago and since then the Foundation actively attacked the GPL, as we noted some days ago. This is the licence of Linux, which Torvalds loves. The “Linux Foundation” is against the license of Linux.
“The Linux Foundation has been thoroughly and almost entirely captured by inherently-monopolistic corporate interests from the Board downwards, which means it cannot be salvaged or repair itself, only replaced.”We’re meanwhile watching, with increasing levels of concern, SUSE’s retreat to its (or Novell’s) proprietary roots. It’s getting down on its knees again for Microsoft (Friday’s Azure promotion). It’s basically a Microsoft ad in SUSE’s official blog. “This blog was written based on the SUSECON 2019 presentation given by Stephen Mogg, Technical Strategist for SAP and Public Cloud and Mark Gonnelly, Senior Consultant for SUSE Consulting,” it says.
Notice SAP in there as well. SAP has too much control over SUSE these days and one must remember that SAP has long been close to Microsoft (it was almost bought by it) and it attacks Free software behind the scenes, sometimes even publicly. See old posts such as “Shai Agassi, SAP, and Open Source Software” or “Open-source community hits back against SAP“. The insults they threw at Open Source match those Microsoft had thrown before them. Cancer, socialism, you name it…
These companies are looking for ways to portray themselves as “open” without actually changing in any concrete way; same business models, same development paradigms.
“We’re meanwhile watching, with increasing levels of concern, SUSE’s retreat to its (or Novell’s) proprietary roots.”Swapnil made the openwashing image at the top. He actually made this phony nonsense. These liars for hire of the ‘Linux’ Foundation aren’t even using Linux. It’s all Microsoft and Apple stuff in his Twitter feed.
“The thing about the Linux Foundation is,” I wrote yesterday, “many have known for a while that it went awry, but 1) they didn’t say anything and 2) they didn’t understand just how bad it had become…”
One critic of the Foundation (for quite some time) responded: “Was when I was in Seattle on a Moodle gig… There was a foundation [Linux Foundation] event. There was a free pass to the security talks… So mysel+my gentoo friend went. They gave us full passes because they claimed there were no security passes left. Then I saw. Not community! And saw..and saw…”
“Saying that Linux needs Big Corporations to “succeed” is like saying that feminism needs financial support from wealthy white men who dominate the “rich lists” owing to the status quo feminists are looking to tackle…”She has been in the Linux community for decades and her site bemoans a corporate takeover disguised thinly as ‘social issues’. In her own words: “There is a poison spreading within our community. From my perspective, this is coming from people who do not code, who do not understand an inkling of what it is like to be a programmer, a maintainer, and put your heart and soul into a project.”
Some people saw that coming a long time ago. Remember that those looking to cause trouble aren’t critic of the Linux Foundation but of actual Linux developers (vastly different things). Saying that Linux needs Big Corporations to “succeed” is like saying that feminism needs financial support from wealthy white men who dominate the “rich lists” owing to the status quo feminists are looking to tackle…
What would GNU/Linux be if it was 100% dominated and controlled by the companies that compete against it technically and philosophically (as explained in our previous post)? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
09.12.19
Posted in Deception, GNU/Linux, Microsoft at 6:31 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Microsoft reminds us how E.E.E. tactics work; Microsoft is just hijacking its competition and misleading the market (claiming the competition to be its own, having “extended” it Microsoft’s way with proprietary code)
THE ABUSIVE monopolist has already kidnapped one ‘baby’ of Linus Torvalds when it abducted GitHub in a seemingly hostile takeover whose plan goes half a decade back (it was part of a longterm strategy coinciding with the “Microsoft loves Linux” PR campaign).
Microsoft already has the Linux Foundation in its pockets, sending all projects to GitHub. Of course Microsoft paid the Foundation millions of dollars for that. The Foundation is totally compromised and thoroughly defunct — a subject we’ll deal with in our next post.
“Just keep saying “Microsoft Linux” and hope some of this crap you fling at the wall sticks on the wall.”Yesterday Joey Sneddon published “Microsoft Linux Conference Announced, Takes Place Next March” (we mentioned this the other day; “Microsoft Linux Conference” is like the “freshair tobacco convention”).
Just keep saying “Microsoft Linux” and hope some of this crap you fling at the wall sticks on the wall. WSL is actually Windows, but they hijack the brand/name “Linux”. WSL is all bad faith; the whole “Microsoft Linux” club and its event is a fraud; the organiser of this event keeps pestering me in Twitter with trollish comments (I never reply). Mary Jo Foley too is pushing this WSL nonsense right now; she works closely with Microsoft, so this event is clearly strategic to them. Watch the logos they present; with Windows overlaid on Tux. Brand dilution strategy in action…
To these Microsoft media moles it’s more important to push lies like “Microsoft loves Linux” then actually loving Linux. They don’t love Linux; it’s the competition of Windows.
“Yes, nothing says “freedom” like Microsoft PlayReady DRM… or WSL.”“Microsoft now owns Linux,” my wife said half an hour ago, having stumbled upon this morning’s article entitled “IdeaNova Technologies introduces PlayReady server for Linux” (it’s not at all what it sounds like).
“IdeaNova Technologies is to host Microsoft PlayReady DRM server on Linux, allowing customers to deploy Inplay PlayReady License Servers the same scalable way as the Widevine and FairPlay Servers,” the opening paragraph reads. Yes, nothing says “freedom” like Microsoft PlayReady DRM… or WSL. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
09.11.19
Posted in Deception, GNU/Linux at 1:25 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Indistinguishable from ‘blackhat’ marketing
Brochure from the Linux Foundation (LF) reveals how they market themselves to sponsors
Summary: Sponsoring so-called ‘news’ sites is bad enough; it is even worse when such media then covers you and your sponsors, such as Snyk (a Linux Foundation sponsor/member, fancier word for client)
THE Linux Foundation sponsors/members know what they pay for. It has nothing to do with Linux. It’s marketing. Today’s LF is, in effect, a PR agency. It’s a well-connected PR agency; as one of its PR operatives describes himself in his bio, “I am extremely well connected with the industry and very resourceful.”
“It’s their business model. They spy on visitors, study them, and lie to them. They do this for their clients (sponsors).”They use the media to promote their clients (the euphemism is sponsors/members).
“Lie and spy.”
This is what these so-called ‘news’ sites do. It’s their business model. They spy on visitors, study them, and lie to them. They do this for their clients (sponsors).
“It’s obscene and it is antithetical to the core values of Linux, not just GNU. It’s something we’ve come to expect from Microsoft, not the LF.”Over the past week we have researched the subject. We found that the LF spends money paying all the major publications that focus on the LF and then links to them from Linux.com. What have we done other than an “open source investigation” (based on publicly-available information)? Tried to get marketing brochures; they don’t present these to the public and one needs to make a formal request, specifying one’s role in a company, giving a phone number, explaining what the intention is and how the material or “service” will be used. Very secretive. They’re also fusing “sponsored” ‘content’ with legitimate reports.
Waste of LF budget? In effect corrupting media? For sure. But look what sort of partners they choose to work with and pay to. It’s obscene and it is antithetical to the core values of Linux, not just GNU. It’s something we’ve come to expect from Microsoft, not the LF. Maybe they’re not so different after all. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »
Content is available under CC-BY-SA