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

03.12.19

EPO’s Latest ‘Results’ Show That António Campinos Has Already Given Up on Patent Quality and is Just Another Battistelli

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 7:39 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

…And the EPO’s PR People Write the Press Articles

Bureau of Engraving and Printing
Reference: Bureau of Engraving and Printing

Summary: The patent-granting machine that the EPO has become reports granting growth of unrealistic scale (unless no proper examination is actually carried out)

THE European Patent Office (EPO) is driving into a wall at full speed. António Campinos took over from Battistelli, but he’s still pressing the pedal for full throttle, adding yet more advocacy of European software patents in defiance of courts, Parliament, EPC and so on. Europe will pay for it. Businesses and people will get sued; frivolous lawsuits (or pre-settlement).

“Europe will pay for it. Businesses and people will get sued; frivolous lawsuits (or pre-settlement).”The EPO doesn’t care about patent quality anymore. Not one iota!

Here is yesterday’s post from Dr. Thorsten Bausch, a patent attorney. He remarks on the EPO’s shallow effort to divert away from discussion about patent quality in examination in Europe (focusing on speed instead). To quote:

The signals from the contracting member states and earlier user feedback were also mixed, thus raising the question what the EPO will now do with all of this. Spoiler: the EPO document provides no hint whatsoever in any direction; it merely lists the main arguments provided by both opponents and proponents and thus allows everybody to develop an informed own opinion.

For background, in autumn 2017, the EPO presented a proposal bearing the slightly unfortunate, if not downright misleading, title „User-driven Early Certainty“ (UDEC) offering applicants the possibility to postpone the start of substantive examination by a maximum period of 3 years. Let us forget about the title and focus on the substance and the rationale behind it. It was to provide applicants more time, where needed, to decide about the economic relevance and scope of protection for an invention before incurring significant prosecution and validation costs.

I must say that I always found this rationale quite sensible and liked the idea. This may possibly have to do both with my national and my technical background. In Germany such a possibility has existed for ages (more than 50 years, see §28b PatG 1968) and has never since caused a lot of problems or discussions, at least as far as I can remember. One can also hardly argue that the option of deferred examination has greatly harmed innovation or stifled competition in Germany, which was a fear expressed by some opponents against the EPO’s proposal for flexible timing of examination (abbreviated FTE in the following). And in my technical field, i.e. chemistry and pharmaceuticals, I am constantly reminded on how many inventions never make it to market for regulatory or economic reasons and how many applications are dropped in the course of the examination proceedings despite a positive evaluation of patentability by the EPO. If an opportunity existed to defer the examination of these applications at applicant’s request, I do not see why this would cause any harm to the public or applicant’s competitors. And the EPO would have more capacity to examine the urgent applications faster.

Another German has just published a report about Munich I Regional Court, where Qualcomm comes to discover that many of its European Patents are bunk. “It’s also very, very likely that the EPO will revoke those patents,” he wrote, “in which case Qualcomm will have to appeal the Opposition Division’s decision to a Technical Board of Appeal. All of his is taking time, but those cases are pretty clearly going nowhere.”

“The EPO doesn’t care about patent quality anymore. Not one iota!”Well, they know that these patents might never be challenged as it’s too expensive (especially when patents are leveraged in bulk). Herein lies the danger of the EPO’s overpatenting strategy — one that foreign companies are all too eager to exploit while they can.

This brings us to this morning’s “news” (or ‘news’ with scare quotes). Yesterday the EPO wrote: “Tomorrow is the day we will announce the Office’s achievements in 2018. Stay tuned to learn about the key players in innovation.”

“These “achievements” are the granting of false, low-quality, bogus, bunk and fake European Patents,” I told them, “that will cost the innocent accused parties billions in legal fees. Well done, EPO!”

The EPO has already signaled that it accepts all sorts of crazy patent applications (e.g. algorithms as “AI”), so guess what happened? The rubber-stamping operation reports ‘growth’ (in likely invalid monopolies). This was published this morning in the EPO’s site (warning: epo.org link) and then this tweet: “The EPO Annual Report 2018 is out! Demand for patent protection reaches a new high: 4.6% growth in applications filed and 21% more European patents granted.”

“The EPO has already signaled that it accepts all sorts of crazy patent applications (e.g. algorithms as “AI”), so guess what happened? The rubber-stamping operation reports ‘growth’ (in likely invalid monopolies).”“European Patent quality has collapsed and these numbers confirm it,” I told them. Curiously enough before they even published these results to the public there were already press articles about it in the US (Bloomberg) and Ireland (Irish Times). Those articles were published before the EPO even announced the results, which means that PR people had coordinated these articles in advance. As usual…

The takeaway is that the EPO is granting loads of invalid European Patents. But it’s expensive to invalidate these. So large multinationals exploit this corruption of the EPO’s goals. “U.S. companies submitted a record number of patent applications to the European Patent Office in 2018, retaining the country’s status as the most prolific filer,” said the outline from the US. A very high proportion of these won’t be really examined because the EPO has transformed into “rubber-stamping” status. Insiders say so too. The Irish article was eerily similar (same ‘script’) and it was pure spin; no doubt there are more like it right now (more such spin, more articles) and days to come will accompany that slant, just like every year; we shall see who just repeats PR talking points and who actually investigates the claims and puts them in context/perspective.

“Lowering patent quality and granting loads of monopolies is not a success story but a growing danger to Europe.”What are patents-centric ‘news’ sites doing? EPO PR.

Friday’s PR blitz/charm offensive (see our rebuttal in this post) led to puff pieces and PR like this from IPPro Magazine’s Ben Wodecki, who now serves as PR amplifier of EPO management. His colleague is the one who typically gives a voice to SUEPO.

And here we have Managing IP, another longtime megaphone of EPO management (including Battistelli himself), amplifying patent maximalism agenda:

In-house counsel at Barclays and Amadeus, plus a director at the EPO discussed the conundrum of global patent eligibility at a Managing IP conference in London

Yes, go on and suck up to EPO management, just like IAM and others. Wait and watch the amount of spin we shall see this week about EPO “success”. Lowering patent quality and granting loads of monopolies is not a success story but a growing danger to Europe.

03.09.19

From Patents on Chewing Gum to Toothpaste Patents: How the EPO Came to Focus on Speed and Volume, Not Quality

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 12:56 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“The people who are running the Office are to patents what the Trump administration is to climate science.”

Canine dental hygiene

Summary: There’s still no proper quality control in place for European Patents — a severe problem which will only further exacerbate the legal uncertainty associated with all European Patents

THE European Patent Office (EPO) continues to intentionally dodge a debate about patent quality and instead focuses on speed, which is meaningless (by this yardstick, instant grant is “best”, involving no examination whatsoever). An article was published yesterday to highlight a problem with the EPO’s so-called ‘study’ (number of respondents also relatively low). To quote:

Only 627 EPO users answered the survey; more than 300 said they would be in favour of a procedural option for postponing examination.

He noted that the comments against a system for postponing examination “highlighted the downsides for third parties and the public at large that would be caused by prolonging the pendency of applications”.

In this regard, any results would need to be “viewed with care” according to Watson as “third parties would be less likely to comment on a change to patenting procedures than regular patent applicants”.

Watson concluded that he was “not convinced” the data showed an overwhelming need for an overhaul.

Well, the pendency of patent applications isn’t really the main problem; it should hardly be a problem at all as it’s accuracy and precision that matter. Making the wrong judgment is the real problem — a problem that the EPO is unwilling to address, let alone entertain. It denies that a quality problem even exists. The people who are running the Office are to patents what the Trump administration is to climate science.

Sadly for António Campinos and ‘chums’, people are noticing the decline in quality and expansion of scope that now vastly exceeds what’s allowed as per the EPC (e.g. software patents which are basically mathematics and patents on life, both tackled in 35 U.S.C. § 101 at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) after SCOTUS ruled on Alice and Mayo half a decade ago).

“Making the wrong judgment is the real problem — a problem that the EPO is unwilling to address, let alone entertain. It denies that a quality problem even exists.”UDL Intellectual Property’s [sic] Simon Mitchell has just mentioned a subject we wrote about yesterday. If the EPO falsely asserts it can grant patents on life and nature in defiance of its founding document and European Parliament, courts will just throw out these patents and reduce confidence in European Patents, in turn reducing “demand” for them (yesterday the EPO actually used the word “demand” as though it is a corporation selling something).

We have meanwhile found out, based on a pair of press releases [1, 2] (one a correction), that not only did the Office recently grant a laughable patent on chewing gum; now there’s toothpaste. Next on the menu: patents on food recipes?

To quote the company: “Patent No. 2563316 [is] entitled, “Toothpaste for Allergic Desensitization via the Oral Mucosa.” The patent includes claims to the approach of combining allergenic proteins with toothpaste.”

“That’s the same kind of thing Theranos said after the USPTO had given it patents and EPO hailed/lauded the founder, a literal fraud, as champion of innovation.”So they are blending a couple of chemicals. Innovation!

The CEO of this company is quoted as saying: “The grant of this key patent further validates the novelty of the OMIT platform and enables us to accelerate the development of new options for allergy sufferers.”

That’s the same kind of thing Theranos said after the USPTO had given it patents and EPO hailed/lauded the founder, a literal fraud, as champion of innovation.

03.08.19

The Tide Has Turned Against Patents on Life in Europe

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 5:22 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Flora and fauna aren’t inventions

Sad hyena

Summary: “No Patents on Seeds” continues to challenge the utterly bizarre notion that plants, animals and even seeds or embryos are human inventions; thinly-veiled propaganda sites of law firms that profit from such lunacy try to discredit “No Patents on Seeds”

HAVING just commented on software patents being granted by and promoted by the European Patent Office (EPO), let’s examine where they stand on another outrageous kind (or family) of patents. Soon after 'Teffgate' the subject is resurfacing again, thanks to “No Patents on Seeds”.

“EPO lettuce patent hit by opposition from pressure group,” IPPro Magazine wrote some days ago (we mentioned it on Wednesday). “Pressure group No Patents on Seeds has filed an opposition against a European patent on lettuce claiming it is derived from convention breeding,” they said in the opening sentence, repeating the term “pressure group” to describe “No Patents on Seeds” as if it’s some notorious lobbyist that bullies or bribes officials. Why the negative connotation? Doesn’t the pressure come from thugs of Monsanto/Bayer and their lawyers who claim they own life and intimidate if not bankrupt small farmers around the world?

Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review, a propaganda (or “pressure”) site for patents on life, has also just commented on it, dubbing “No Patents on Seeds” an “Activist group” in the headline (first two words) and same in the article. “Activist” is a label once explained by Jacob Appelbaum (Wikileaks) as derogatory; media like The Guardian, he argued, uses the word “activist” to insinuate one lacks legitimacy of a journalist, scientist, historian etc. From the article in question:

Activist group No Patents on Seeds has filed an opposition against a patent on lettuce, owned by Dutch food supplier Rijk Zwaan Zaadteelt.

Announced yesterday, March 6, the activist group has opposed EP 2,966,992 B1, a patent covering lettuce seeds, plants and the harvest of lettuces that grow in a hotter climate.

According to No Patents to Seeds, the trait is supposed to be helpful in adaption to ongoing climate change and the seeds are derived from conventional breedings without any involvement of genetic engineering.

Earlier this week an article by Michael Dow (Madderns Patent & Trade Mark Attorneys) was published under the headline “Are plants patentable in Europe?”

The fact that questions like these are even being asked is significant as it highlights a low level of quality assurance at the EPO. To quote:

The rules keep changing over whether plants or plant products obtained by means of an essentially biological process are patentable in Europe.

Under Article 53(b) EPC (and Article 4 Biotech Directive), European patents shall not be granted in respect of plant varieties or essentially biological processes for the production of plants. Originally, this was interpreted to extend to plants and plant products obtained by means of an essentially biological process.

This was challenged in Broccoli/Tomatoes I ( G 0002/07 & G 0001/08) and Broccoli/Tomatoes II ( G 0002/12 & G 0002/13), following which, it was allowable to have a product claim directed to plants or plant material such as a fruit, even though the plant or plant material might be obtained by an essentially biological process, which is not patentable.

The European Commission considered the issue ( 2016/C 411/03) and took the view that the EU legislator’s intention when adopting the Biotech Directive was to exclude from patentability products (plants and plant parts) that are obtained by means of essentially biological processes.

The Administrative Council of the EPO then introduced Rule 28(2) to modify Article 53(b) EPC. Rule 28(2) states that European patents shall not be granted in respect of plants exclusively obtained by means of an essentially biological process.

So the European Commission does not seem to matter to the EPO, whose terrified-by-the-office judges were willing to reopen the floodgates to these dubious patents.

As we said several times last year, such patents do not contribute to innovation and they only serve to discredit the Office and provoke the public (which occasionally protests in front of the Office).

03.04.19

Unitary Patent (UPC/A) Constitutional Complaint Can be Decided in a Matter of Years (If Ever)

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 1:08 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Bristows should be disbarred for endlessly lying, manipulating the processes and even worse things

A sleepy cat

Summary: Blogs like IP Kat are still beholden to and controlled by Team UPC/Bristows; the same goes for Kluwer Patent Blog because of the blog’s ownership; when facts are assessed by firms other than Bristows, however, the story is entirely different

OUR regular readers can probably remember, as we mentioned it about a dozen times, that Bristows had intentionally spread false rumours at the later part of last year. Their staff did this repeatedly. It’s a classic but nefariously lobbying tactic, akin to AstroTurfing or what people nowadays call “fake news”.

Team UPC at IP Kat (Bristows) has just — a mere couple of hours ago — pushed agenda of patent trolls and FRAND and Brian Cordery (also Bristows) pushed SPC agenda at around the same time at Kluwer Patent Blog. It’s all related, albeit indirectly, to their UPC agenda and in the former case to software patents in Europe.

Hours ago we also saw Mark Bell of Dehns (Team UPC) pushing UPC promotion in a paid ‘article’. These ‘unitary’ patent fantasists have lost a grip/sight of reality, but at least this one is refuting Bristows by casting doubts on the decision’s year, as did JUVE when it said no oral appeals had taken place and it may take long (2020). Bristows pushed this nonsense about 2019 in lots of Web sites; it was almost always Bristows (in other people’s blogs or quoted in some news sites), but Bell says it’s not even certain that a decision will come this year (see headline). To quote:

Once again, the German Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) has listed the “Constitutional Complaint” against German ratification of the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA) on the cases to be decided for the coming year. Followers of this saga will be aware that the case was on the 2018 list but was not heard.

While it appears likely that the UPCA case will now be heard this year (the judge assigned to the case appears to be close to completing the earlier cases on his list), it is still uncertain whether and when this will lead to the UPC being established.

[...]

It is the UK government’s position that it intends for the UK to stay part of the unitary patent system following Brexit. The official guidance omits to comment on what might happen should, as is looking likely, the UPC fail to be established before the UK leaves the EU.

What happens after Brexit is currently unknown, so it is difficult to say with any confidence whether the German constitutional challenge and the UK leaving the EU will prevent the UPC from being established, prevent the UK from participating in the UPC or everything will proceed as planned. The latter in particular would require a number of legal hurdles to be overcome.

The latest developments surrounding Brexit have only further reduced chances of UPC ever materialising, as we recently explained. It’s probably safe to say that the UPC is dead unless there’s some major mischief (again) in the making [1, 2]. Bristows is the boy who cried “wolf!” not thrice but literally hundreds of times (that we’ve noticed). Who would be foolish enough to take their word seriously and what’s the threshold for getting disbarred/sanctioned? They give lawyers a really bad name. They’re chronic liars.

03.01.19

Why Justin Simpson is Wrong About Software Patents

Posted in Australia, Deception, Patents at 1:43 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

CEO and Patent Attorney at Billtrader Pty Ltd

Summary: Yet another boring article lectures us on why software patents are ever so wonderful, based on people who make a living from software patents without having written any software/code

TECHRIGHTS already wrote/published a lot of articles about why software patents are bad. I’ve been writing on the subject since a decade before Alice/35 U.S. — i.e. when the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) had to begrudgingly accept that software patents almost always perish in American courts; the same is happening in European courts, never mind if the EPO promotes software patents in Europe under the guise of “AI”, “4IR”, “ICT”, “CII” “Blockchain”, “IoT” and all sorts of other ridiculous buzzwords.

“It’s some new (albeit tiring, repurposed) propaganda from Justin Simpson.”We were therefore a little curious to see a CEO and Patent Attorney at Billtrader Pty Ltd (small firm) publishing this piece titled “A new type of patent: the software patent”; Australia’s litigation ‘industry’ has been writing more and more about it lately (see this index of articles), but this one page is 15MB in size (yes, 15 megabytes for just a few paragraphs of text; very bad implementation). It’s some new (albeit tiring, repurposed) propaganda from Justin Simpson. Debunking this propaganda is very easy, albeit highly time-consuming (due to length), so let’s just break apart two consecutive paragraphs and dissect these.

“Debunking this propaganda is very easy, albeit highly time-consuming (due to length), so let’s just break apart two consecutive paragraphs and dissect these.”Simpson wrote: “Software has value. Google, Facebook, and Amazon are software companies.”

Water also has value (billions of people depend on water for their very survival) and utilities/water treatment companies make billions of dollars each month. Should we patent water?

“Their core value is created by the clever software they have built.”

Software that is covered by copyrights and is often kept secret (proprietary) anyway. The above three companies very rarely use patents to sue, unlike IBM and Microsoft.

“Those three companies alone are worth nearly $2 trillion. That’s nearly double the GDP of my home country, Australia.”

“Water also has value (billions of people depend on water for their very survival) and utilities/water treatment companies make billions of dollars each month. Should we patent water?”Is he trying to imply that it’s the patents that add up to value? Putting aside the fictional aspects of these speculative valuations…

“So why is it that software is not patentable?”

Well, because empirical evidence does not support claims that they’re needed for innovation and copyright alone already covers the need. There have been a lot of studies about it (scholarly, too).

Here is his explanation however:

“The reason is that the courts must base their decision on existing laws and past cases that were written well before software was invented. Laws that could not have envisaged the nature and role software plays in modern society.”

Similar arguments are being made for patents on life and nature. Will he defend patents on human beings too? Or seeds?

“Articles like these have become common and they’re always pretty shallow.”These boring old arguments (nothing novel about them; every sentence or paragraph is dingo droppings) aren’t going to sway or convince anyone but the target audience of the site, with its patentism (like a religion revolving around worship of patent monopolies).

So the bottom line from Mr. Simpson is, make software patents possible and “bam!” Suddenly the GDP of Australia will be tripled. Right? It’s all about him looking for more clients (more billing opportunities), earning at the expense of people who actually write code.

Articles like these have become common and they’re always pretty shallow. Pure marketing (shameless self-promotion).

02.23.19

Bristows is Still Hoping to ‘Overthrow’ the Courts and Throw Out Ingve Stjerna’s Complaint (About the Likes of Bristows)

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 5:08 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

An attack on judges and courts persists and it’s being waged by litigation fanatics

Bristows LLP and EPO

Summary: In spite of the Unified Patent Court Agreement being a lost cause (thankfully so), Bristows LLP carries on with its 'holy war' against the FCC and against courts that aren’t patent maximalists like the European Patent Office

THE European Patent Office (EPO) may carry on granting European software patents and António Campinos can publicly promote these all he wants (calling them “AI” and other misnomers). European patent courts, however, don’t give a damn. They know their national laws, they can interpret the EPC, and unlike the EPO they don’t regard/consider the EPC to be toilet paper. D Young & Co LLP’s Stephanie Wroe recently published “Added matter: disagreement between Patents Court & EPO” (highlighting the EPO’s departure from the law or caselaw). Here’s a portion, regarding a case we mentioned earlier this month:

Added Matter: disagreement between Patents Court and EPO, plus an injunction covering more than the claimed medical use indication. Novartis Pharmaceuticals UK Limited v Dr Reddy’s Laboratories (UK) Limited [2019] EWHC 92 (Pat).

Because of a different stance on added matter, Novartis were able to obtain a preliminary injunction from the Patents Court of England and Wales preventing Dr Reddy’s Laboratories from launching a generic version of the drug everolimus (which is sold under the name Afinitor). The injunction prevents sales of the generic drug for the claimed medical use and for other medical uses.

This legal war on generics is what UPC boosters are eager to inflame. People die as a result, but few people and their lawyers profit insanely. They write about it all the time. They want embargoes, injunctions, and raids. The sorts of things that make patent trolls all giddy, too… rendering extortion by the likes of MPEG-LA much easier (presumption of guilt with immediate sanctions). Florian Müller said a few days ago that they had done this in Germany earlier this month.

“This legal war on generics is what UPC boosters are eager to inflame”No British firm does more SPC/FRAND/SEP propaganda than Bristows; we covered many examples in the past. So it’s hardly surprising to see virtually all the latest UPC coverage centered around Bristows, including the usual slant.

WIPR has just been quoting Bristows as a primary source on this subject, starting with the following introduction: “On Wednesday, February 20, the BVerfG published the list of cases which it intends to decide this year. The complaint, which was filed by Düsseldorf-based attorney Ingve Stjern [sic], is placed fifth in a list of eight cases allocated to Justice Huber in the Second Senate. In June 2017, the court announced it was delaying Germany’s ratification of the UPC Agreement because of the complaint.”

So then they speak to and/or cite liars from Bristows who repeatedly lied about what happened at 1 AM (lots of posts covering up the abuse, as we noted at the time).

“Funny how they never mention Stephan Harbarth’s controversial background in politics. A lot of this process has been inherently political and politics seem to have been interjected into the FCC, too.”Here is what Team UPC wrote about the above, in effect quoting Team UPC: “He added: “If nothing else, the new listing shows that the German Federal Constitutional Court is not influenced by politics, and in particular Brexit.” Agree.”

“Even within the circles of European patent professionals we’ve seen Bristows occasionally mocked for distortions and exaggerations that do a disservice to the reputation of patent lawyers as a whole.”Funny how they never mention Stephan Harbarth’s controversial background in politics [1, 2]. A lot of this process has been inherently political and politics seem to have been interjected into the FCC, too. Time will tell…

In “German complaint against UPCA ratification on 2019 decision list Constitutional Court,” another new post on this subject, Team UPC gets excited over nothing and this is likely Bristows in "Kluwer Patent blogger" clothing. It’s like Bristows is infecting not only blogs but also news sites with its talking points, which are as usual misleading. Even within the circles of European patent professionals we’ve seen Bristows occasionally mocked for distortions and exaggerations that do a disservice to the reputation of patent lawyers as a whole.

02.17.19

Computing Will Not Necessarily Make the World a Better Place

Posted in Deception at 3:53 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Some power is used for more negative than positive (or as a source for good)

Pakistan earthquake

Summary: The vision of “happy world” (because each person has a so-called ‘smart’ ‘phone’) is a yuppie delusion that overlooks business models and corporate interests

THE world has a lot of serious problems. Natural disasters, climate issues and inequality are among these. Human suffering ensues. These exacerbate things and partly contribute to intolerance, illness, and sometimes even war. But there’s that old myth that distributing so-called ‘phones’ (tracking devices) to everyone will make the world a better place. In reality, it may simply mean more policing and more discrimination.

“In reality, it may simply mean more policing and more discrimination.”Putting aside the privacy abuses associated with these ‘smart’ RFID-like devices with a growing number of sensors and cores (because Web pages and software rapidly become more bloated), there’s also a push to constantly ‘upgrade’, causing even more waste and a loss of social life (actual, real human contact). Some people in poor countries save to buy a ‘phone’ rather than sanitary facilities (e.g. toilets). Not a cheap, ordinary phone for making calls (such phones cost very little) but one of those so-called ‘phones’ that are small computers with minuscule screens and no input devices.

As The Register put it a few days ago, “Hulce has compiled a list of the third-party scripts residing in the top million websites and found that the 100 most common bits of JavaScript eat up about 59 per cent of script execution time.”

Much of that is malicious and not in any way intended to improve the experience of users.

“Giving poor people the ‘gift’ of technology often overlooks the real motivations, e.g. Facebook ‘donating’ Internet access.”Earlier today Booking.com sent an E-mail to everyone who ever used the site, saying: “we’re going to start sharing information between the Booking Holdings brands for the purposes described in our updated Privacy Statement.” Here they go with “data brokers”, surveillance capitalism in action. Companies update their privacy (or surveillance rather) policy and retroactively apply this abuse without asking for consent or giving one the option to opt out. They do this because their corporate lawyers tell them they risk lawsuits for not informing people in advance (even if those people aren’t given any other option). “Thanks again for using us in the past, and look out for an even better Booking.com experience in the future,” the concluding paragraph states. So they now herald that they’re selling all historical data, infringing people’s privacy even more.

In recent years many companies other than Google or Facebook resorted to this “business” model, which is passing around data (renting/licensing access to it) and this, in turn, is being exploited to deny people access to critical services (health, finance) and thus lower security (for people, not for corporations).

A lot of people would rather not know about — let alone understand — the ‘sausage factory’ that’s linking data and creating ‘dossiers’ about people. The “data brokers” ‘industry’, sometimes euphemised as “big data” or “deep learning” and other benign-sounding terms (or job titles like “data scientist”) would face widespread condemnation if not popular uprisings and a call for bans (see GDPR) if more people comprehended just what despicable things it is doing. Giving poor people the ‘gift’ of technology often overlooks the real motivations, e.g. Facebook ‘donating’ Internet access.

02.16.19

WSL is a Misleading Acronym/Name Because There’s No Linux in It, It’s Just Windows

Posted in Deception, GNU/Linux, Microsoft at 7:03 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Similarly, SQL Server does not run on GNU/Linux (it’s another Microsoft lie)

WSL comment
Why “Windows Subsystem for Linux” and not “GNU/Windows”? (from Microsoft GitHub, now in NSA PRISM)

Summary: When Microsoft says “Linux” (as in “Microsoft loves Linux”) what it actually means is Windows and/or Azure

TECHRIGHTS published a number of articles about the WSL entrapment when it was first announced (Canonical’s “gift” to Microsoft). Here’s one of the longer ones. It did not at all herald a change in attitude but a change in strategy. Microsoft’s managers (the Board, i.e. Bill Gates et al) try to prevent people from using proper GNU/Linux with the actual kernel, either as standalone operating system or dual-boot. They try to make things just about functional enough to prevent users from leaving the spyware, Vista 10. This is also about surveillance on one’s files, keys (e.g. SSH), keystrokes, and everything else. It’s about control. It is about back doors.

“Is Microsoft gradually cooking up a hybrid that’s called “Linux” but is actually Windows?”Yesterday we saw an article titled “Windows 10 Will Finally Offer Easy Access to Linux Files”; that’s misleading as there’s no “Linux” in it, WSL is not GNU/Linux and those files are actually on Windows. Is Microsoft gradually cooking up a hybrid that’s called “Linux” but is actually Windows? The confusion alone serves its interests, e.g. calling SQL Server on DrawBridge (Windows) SQL Server for “Linux” when it’s really just some Windows-centric blob. Remember what Steve Ballmer said: “I would love to see all open source innovation happen on top of Windows.”

Embrace and Extend
Credit: unknown (Twitter)

« Previous Page« Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries »Next Page »

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channels: Come and chat with us in real time

New to This Site? Here Are Some Introductory Resources

No

Mono

ODF

Samba logo






We support

End software patents

GPLv3

GNU project

BLAG

EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com



Recent Posts