“It’s like singing to empty tables or a gallery full of ghosts” –Frank Sinatra (audio link)
Summary: FFPE-EPO (pictured above) does a terrible job trying to come across as a legitimate union by receiving ‘gifts’ from management and flying over to do a show on a day of strike
It has become quite a spectacular circus at the EPO. This international body, which calls itself the ‘European’ Patent Office (because the workers are European), increasingly resembles — not only in the labour rights sense — some kind of mining corporation in an underdeveloped country. The only thing missing now is an actual assassination of a union leader.
“It has become quite a spectacular circus at the EPO.”We have seen several photos from the EPO today (day of strike [1, 2]), but the above photo is priceless. Watch the venue. It’s virtually empty. It’s a good thing Battistelli is away (chilling with his bodyguards in London) because he’s trying to influence/change laws in other countries, taking those countries down to his own level. What’s seen above requires some explanation or context. For those who are not familiar with FFPE-EPO, see previous articles of ours such as the following 10 (there were more):
- In the EPO’s Official Photo Op, “Only One of the Faces is Actually FFPE-EPO”
- Further Evidence Suggests and Shows Stronger Evidence That Team Battistelli Uses FFPE-EPO as ‘Yellow Union’ Against SUEPO
- “FFPE-EPO Was Set up About 9 Years Ago With Management Encouragement”
- Fallout of the FFPE EPO MoU With Battistelli’s Circle
- The EPO’s Media Strategy at Work: Union Feuds and Group Fracturing
- Caricature of the Day: Recognising FFPE EPO
- Union Syndicale Federale Slams FFPE-EPO for Helping Abusive EPO Management by Signing a Malicious, Divisive Document
- FFPE-EPO Says MoU With Battistelli Will “Defend Employment Conditions” (Updated)
- Their Masters’ Voice (Who Block Techrights): FFPE-EPO Openly Discourages Members From Reading Techrights
- Letter Says EPO MoU “Raises Questions About FFPE’s Credibility as a Federation of Genuine Staff Unions”
Less than a week ago FFPE-EPO published the following. As one person put it: “It must be hoped when dealing with patent applications, Mr van der Bijl develops higher standards of intellectual level than what can be seen with such pathetic prose hereunder:”
A first quick reaction to a publication about the MoU
Submitted by S van der Bijl on Fri, 01/04/2016 – 15:01
In a publication dated 31 march 2016 SUEPO wrote the following:
“The result is known: Mr Battistelli sent the Investigative Unit after his would-be “social partner” on the basis of vexatious and absurd accusations, thereby demonstrating bad faith. When questioned about the investigations during one of the meetings, Mr Battistelli cynically asked why we felt concerned. Under such circumstances meaningful talks are not possible and SUEPO pulled out. However, a small staff union (about 75 members) in The Hague did sign the proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MoU).”
There are a lot of interesting things to remark about this paragraphe. Let’s have a close look at the circular 341 “Policy on the prevention of harassment and the resolution of conflicts at the EPO”. Article 12 states the following:
1. Upon receipt of an allegation, the investigation unit shall carry out an initial review to assess whether the alleged conduct would, if proven, amount to harassment.
2. This initial review shall establish whether the allegations falls within the remit of the investigation unit. it shall not include any fact finding, or any assessment of the credibility of the allegation. It shall not prejudice the outcome of the future investigations.
3. Under normal circumstances, initial reviews shall be completed no later than 2 months from the date of receipt of the allegation.
4. If as a result of the initial review, the investigation unit finds that the allegation, if proven, would not amount to harassment, it shall close the investigative process. The investigative unit shall inform the complainant and the contact point for conflict resolution in writing of the outcome of the finding.
5. If the complainant is also the victim of the alleged harassment, he/she shall also be provided with a summary of the considerations which led to the decision.
6. If the investigative unit determines that the allegation, if proven, would amount to harassment, it shall evaluate and investigate it in accordance with the provisions below.
An investigation can therefore not be initiated by the president unless he is the victim or the witness to a case of harassment. If the investigation unit was asked to do an initial review it means that a staff member complained about being harassed!
SUEPO claims that this staff member, obviously not being president Batistelli, made a vexatious and absurd (or false) accusation against staff representatives. In other words there was no harassment and in any case, even if there was, this staff member accused the wrong persons. Obviously this staff member accusing SUEPO reps was therefore behaving in bad faith, or at least that is what SUEPO claims.
The investigation unit however studied the case and concluded that there was a case of harassment, informed the persons concerned (according to article 12(4)) and started an investigation (according to article 12(6)). So according to the statement of SUEPO above the wrong behaviour and lies of the complaining staff member were apparently believed by the investigation unit and this investigation unit, knowing that the accusations were wrong (“demonstrating bad faith”) continued nevertheless with an investigation knowing there was no harassment case that could possibly be proven. So, the whole, or at least a substantial part of the investigation unit was involved in a complot to help accuse falsely some union representatives as well.
The alleged complot is getting much bigger now. Then there is an investigation which included also an outside company specialised in such investigations. At this point only the president can intervene and to protect information gathering and the complainant order suspensions (Article 14(2)). So now the president, the PD responsible for personnel and an outside company are all entering in the complot to knowingly falsely accusing union reps.
According to article 15(1) of Circular 341 a Report of the findings is drafted and send to the complainant and the subject of the investigation. Both parties can make additional comments in writing. They probably both did. Apparently the investigation unit and the assisting outside company find the union representatives guilty and recommends that disciplinary procedures should to be started.
The president follows the recommendation and sends it to the disciplinary committee. The disciplinary committee is composed of members nominated by the staff representation and of members nominated by the president of the EPO. The disciplinary committee recommend unanimously that the allegations are proven and recommends a certain sanction to be applied. This means now the entire disciplinary committee, including staff reps, is now included in the complot of sanctioning union reps for something that never happened at all. In the mean time, complainants get harassed for having dared to complain, but of course this also did never happen.
Finally on the basis of the allegations, that never happened, and the harassment of complainants, that also never happened, and the results of the investigation, which were fabricated (by the same investigation unit?), the president takes a decision to apply a heavy sanction.
We will see what ATILO will decide relatively soon but suppose that the ILO tribunal decides to keep the sanction and to follow the disciplinary committee then would that mean that ATILO is also involved the complot of fabricating vexatious and false accusations against union reps.
The main question for you is of course: DO YOU BELIEVE THAT???
And then there is another small detail in the paragraph. FFPE EPO did not sign the proposed MoU. We signed a very different MoU then the one initially proposed. It took a whole year to get to an acceptable formulation for a MoU and the involvement and approval of the central FFPE in Brussels to get to an acceptable MoU of which we are of course very proud even if on some specific details it could be improved.
What’s worth noting about the above, in the words of one reader: “a new star is born: Samuel van der Bijl, chairman of FFPE-EPO.org, a “pseudo unionist” working hard at… defending the EPO President…. how touching! One question though: how come Samuel van der Bijl is so well informed about by nature highly confidential matters such as investigations?”
Chalk this up as another example of gross privacy violations and incompetence of EPO management. They previously did the same thing with journalists in order to defame critics. A lot of the above is made up or ‘sexed’ up. It’s the modus operandi in this wave of union-busting actions.
“EPO has provided funds for their flight tickets to MUC as well as granted time deduction to Samuel van der Bijl and Aldert de Haan who – on a day of office-wide strike – dared to come to Munich to speak to… non striking staff….”
–AnonymousWhat’s in the photo at the top? “It’s about the FFPE Union meeting held today in Munich,” the person who sent/leaked it to us explained. “It’s hilarious,” one regular reader told us, “comical and pathetic at the same time! EPO pays for two flight tickets for FFPE officials and 8 Munich non-striking staff attended.” These photos are apparently being passed around quite quickly right now. Internally, might one argue, they “went viral!”
As one person put it, “since they signed the crap MoU produced by Team Battistelli one may hope that as a return, EPO has provided funds for their flight tickets to MUC as well as granted time deduction to Samuel van der Bijl and Aldert de Haan who – on a day of office-wide strike – dared to come to Munich to speak to… non striking staff. And the result is above expectations: no less than 8 non-striking staff attended (among which one close-to-Bergot-staff-rep Christophe Poizat). FFPE: The EPO management’s supportive union!” █
Send this to a friend
Billion-dollar handshakes: A 1% kind of meeting for the advancement of elite interests…
Summary: With trillions of dollars at stake (over the long run) the rich and the powerful, many of whom evade tax, continue to work behind closed doors (through agents or middlemen) in an effort to change the law in their favour while ordinary people are either uninformed or furious
THE EPO became an instrument of the rich and the powerful (perpetuating their wealth and power), which definitely isn’t what its creators foresaw or had in mind (way back in the EPC days).
Battistelli’s expected trip to London is starting to bear fruit (see this morning’s tweet from Neville-Rolfe) and maybe he can also pay a visit to his London lawyers who are threatening me (two legal firms in London).
“Battistelli’s expected trip to London is starting to bear fruit (see this morning’s tweet from Neville-Rolfe) and maybe he can also pay a visit to his London lawyers who are threatening me (two legal firms in London).”Techrights is quite frankly disgusted by Battistelli’s visit to the UK. He is not British, yet he is bending British law, and at the EPO he makes a mockery of British law while stomping on an Irish judge. To deport or extradite Battistelli would require him to be poor and less well-connected [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. These people, just like in Croatia, can seemingly get away anything. It’s all about one’s status; that’s why people like Julian Assange have an arrest warrant against them (also in London, where he continues to expose/publish rich people’s secrets) and Battistelli is treated like some kind of celebrity.
As we showed several weeks ago, Battistelli is expected to do some UPC lobbying over here. Now we have Bristows LLP staff (Annsley) doing an ‘article’ on Brian Cordery (Bristows LLP). The London-based IP Kat did what seems more like an ad, including UPC PR from Bristows LLP. What gives? Sites outside the UK do the same thing [via] because few people who work for very affluent people stand to gain from it.
“Techrights is quite frankly disgusted by Battistelli’s visit to the UK. He is not British, yet he is bending British law, and at the EPO he makes a mockery of British law while stomping on an Irish judge.”The other day we saw a legal firm citing Jane Lambert [1, 2], a loud proponent of the UPC. Lambert is used to spreading around the impression that irrespective of UK membership in the EU the UPC is inevitable, or some nonsense along those lines. Here we have lawyers quoting other lawyers for ‘support’: “Hopefully the United Kingdom won’t jeopardize the Unitary Patent project with a vote to withdraw the European Union, says Jane Lambert, barrister from 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square in London. ‘However, it could still continue without us’, Lambert told Kluwer IP Law in an interview.”
This ‘interview’ is more like PR or lobbying. It’s designed for perception-setting. Greedy patent lawyers in the UK lick their lips over the UPC, but at whose expense? They don’t mind crushing democracy (the public is not consulted at all) because it’s all about serving themselves and their very affluent clients. Many doubts about the UPC persist, even from people who are within this system. To quote this one new comment:
Final thought – is the Baroness’ interpretation of “European patent” (e.g. meaning just an EP(UK), and not the whole bundle) consistent with the prevailing interpretation of the opt-out scheme?
That is, if “European patent” in Article 83(3) UPCA is interpreted to mean the whole bundle, then how on earth is it that the same term is interpreted to mean something different in the context of Article 26 UPCA?
Another comment says: “The U.K. implementation is nonsense on stilts, but that is what is to be expected when you get a politically driven compromise that resulted in a UPC Agreement and UP Regulation that was not understood by those agreeing it. Let’s see what the courts make of it. It will be particular fun when someone is found infringing by the UPC for acts that a national court would not find infringing. This is the inevitable result of how the UK is proposing to implement the UPC and UP. The fundamental tenets are fundamental. The mental implementation will be fun and mental.”
These are the words of people who actually work in this field. Another comment says:
As far as I can figure, implementation of the UPP will mean that, instead of one (national) law applying to one patent in any given country, there will instead be at least three different laws of infringement to choose from.
For cases brought before the UPC, there will be two possible laws of infringement, namely: (1) for EPUEs, the national law applicable to EPUEs in the Contracting Member State identified under Articles 5(3) and 7 of the UP Regulation; and (2) for not opted-out EPs, Articles 24 to 29 of the UPCA, plus (if necessary) provisions from laws specified in Article 24 of the UPCA.
If we accept the view of the Preparatory Committee (as set out in their interpretative note on Article 83 UPCA), the national courts will, for both opted-out and not opted-out EPs, apply a different (third) law of infringement – i.e. the national law applicable to opted-out EPs.
There are plenty of EP applications that, at present, could qualify for unitary effect. For those applications, therefore, the applicable law will depend upon all of the following factors:
- whether a request for unitary effect is filed (possible up to 3 months after grant); and, for non-unitary (parts) of patents in Contracting Member States of the UPCA
- whether an opt-out is filed, whether the patent is effectively opted out via the commencement of a national court action during the transitional period and whether an opt-out, once filed, is later withdrawn.
Thus, for such patents, all three different laws of infringement are current possibilities. Further, there are many situations in which the law that will actually be applied will not be known unless and until a court action is commenced. This could even affect patents for which unitary effect is requested – as there remains a possibility for that unitary effect to be cancelled and for a national court action to commence.
As such, this situation reminds me of Schrödinger’s famous thought experiment – as we will not know what the result is (i.e. applicable law of infringement) until we “open the box” (i.e. litigate) and find out what the court decides. For such “Schrödinger’s patents”, the possibilities for clever tactics and forum-shopping abound!
The situation could be particularly confusing for those MSs (such as Germany and France) where there is no distinct national law applicable to EPUEs. Whilst the UK’s implementation clearly has its (arguable) flaws, you have to give the IPO credit for attempting to improve matters by providing specific laws for EPUEs and opted-out EPs.
Nevertheless, I have to laugh when I look at recital 25 of the UP Regulation – which appears to assume that introduction of the UPP will improve legal certainty. Much like what happened with the “Bolar” provision, the Commission clearly underestimated the ability of the Member States to create chaos from order!
Right now, as we pointed out before, the EPO’s foreign PR agency (FTI Consulting with a huge budget) is sponsoring UPC propaganda events.
Based on the following E-mail sent around Brussels a few hours ago, over here in Europe this US-based firm (FTI Consulting) promotes similar agenda using events:
From: “Utta Tuttlies [EACD]” [redacted]
Date: 7 Apr 2016 12:13
Subject: Invitation: EACD meets the EU – Expert panel discussion – 28th April 2016
The EACD cordially invites you to the second edition of EACD meets the EU which will take place on April 28th from 18.00 to 20.30 at FTI Consulting in Brussels. The expert panel discussion will focus on “How can communication help with boosting investment in Europe?”.
Boosting jobs, growth and investment is the no.1 priority of the Juncker Commission. With the Investment Plan for Europe, concrete steps have been taken at EU level to bridge the investment gap that emerged as a result of the economic crisis. How can communication help these efforts? How can investment projects and investors find each other? What can be done to improve business confidence? How can the role of different stakeholders such as the EU institutions, national and local governments as well as banks, companies and investors be communicated?
We hope to welcome you to this event! We also invite you to stay up-to-date and engage with us on LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook with the hashtag #EACDmeetsEU!
With best regards,
European Association of Communication Directors
Head of Press & Communications
S&D Group, European Parliament
Meet Our Panelists
We are delighted to announce our panelists who will come together to share their thoughts about how to promote investment in Europe. Bela Dajka, Head of Corporate Communication at the European Commission will moderate the session.
Luc Van den Brande, Member of the Committee of the Regions, Adviser to European Commission President Juncker for the outreach towards citizens
Miguel Gil Tertre, Member of the Cabinet of Vice-President Katainen, European Commission
Matteo Maggiore, Director of Communications, European Investment Bank
Ezio Fantuzzi, International Relations and Media, Asset Management and Real Estate, Generali Group
Venue & Registration
The event will take place at FTI Consulting, 23 Avenue Marnix, 1000 Brussels, Belgium and will be free of charge, compliments of the EACD and our partner, FTI Consulting.
To register, please go to:http://www.eacd-online.eu/activities/calendar/eacd-meets-eu-how-can-communication-help-boosting-investment-europe
Should you have any questions or concerns, please don’t hesitate to contact us via email at email@example.com.
About Our Partner
FTI Consulting, Inc. is a global business advisory firm dedicated to helping organizations protect and enhance enterprise value in an increasingly complex legal, regulatory and economic environment. With more than 4,400 employees located in 26 countries, FTI Consulting professionals work closely with clients to anticipate, illuminate and overcome complex business challenges in areas such as investigations, litigation, mergers and acquisitions, regulatory issues, reputation management, strategic communications and restructuring. The Company generated .76 billion in revenues during fiscal year 2014. For more information, visit www.fticonsulting.com and connect with us on Twitter (@FTIConsulting), Facebook and LinkedIn.
We hope to welcome you in Brussels for this event. Should you have questions or comments, please feel free to contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org.
With best regards,
EACD Coordination Team
37, Square de Meeûs
Tel +32 (0)2 219 22 90
With more than 2,300 members from 42 countries, the European Association of Communication Directors is the leading European network for in-house communicators. In addition to central events such as the European Communication Summit, the EACD hosts Regional Debates and Coaching Days across the European continent, where participants have the chance to meet with their peers from the region and share communications-related experience and ideas with colleagues who also work on an international level.
If you wish to not receive further information on the EACD please unsubscribe here: http://reply.wm13.de/www.eacd-online.eu/unsubscribe/204617
FTI Consulting only pretends to be European (just like many corporations and lobbyists with offices in Brussels or London); it’s actually based in the US. That's where a lot or European patent law (including, potentially, the UPC if it ever becomes a reality) seems to be discussed these days. Talk about loss of sovereignty.
There are very powerful forces that engaged in law laundering (e.g. secrecy laws to indirectly help hide tax evasion) and UPC is one of those things. ISDS in TPP/TTIP is beyond our scope of coverage. Battistelli’s trip to the UK is a disgrace. It happens to coincide with culmination of anger at his Office. People don’t show up at work. There’s a strike. █
Send this to a friend
Publicado en Antitrust, Decepción, GNU/Linux, Microsoft at 9:02 pm por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Córtala o completamente acaba el marrulleo, Microsoft…
“Esta cosa anti-trust explotará. No hemos cambiado para nada nuestras prácticas de negocios.”
Sumario: Las proclamaciones de Microsoft “amor” hacia GNU/Linux no están siendo aceptadas por la comunidad, así que un montón de campaña de PR cae en oídos sordos (excepto aquellos que quieran ser engañados y diseminar aún mas la mentira, e.g. en las compañias de medios financiados o amigables a Microsoft)
EL siguiente mensaje fue publicado no hace mucho en Reddit. Es másc como un blog publicado como submisión en el sitio y es títulado “Recuérden: Microsoft es todavíá (y siempre lo será) hóstil hacia Linux y FLOSS”. Pensamos que vale la pena reproducirlo abajo (sin ninguno de los comentarios) porque alude a muchas cosas que hemos cubierto en este lugar, incluyendo el caso Comes vs Microsoft.
Con toda la “buena” PR y las noticias de Microsoft (aparentemente) se acercar a Linux, es fácil olvidar cómo Microsoft es hostil a Linux y todo el código abierto. Recuerden: Todo lo que hicieron fue conseguir un nuevo director general, la cultura de la compañía todavía es la misma.
Todo lo que ha cambiado es en lugar de odiar públicamente en Linux, Aman ahora públicamente Linux, pero en realidad siguen siendo muy hostiles a Linux. Esto nunca va a cambiar.
Sólo recuerde los archivos de casos de consumo de Iowa (http://edge-op.org/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/), que tiene una gran cantidad de correos electrónicos internos de Microsoft, muchos de ellos básicamente declarar su amor por todas las cosas de Windows y MS y odio para todo lo demás. Todos se encuentran en formato PDF y se han desprecintado (por suerte). Algunos incluso entrar en detalles acerca de su trazado con cosas como el programa Vista Ready con el fin de engañar a los consumidores (que, básicamente, no dan una mierda), etc.
Entonces allí están los documentos Halloween: http://www.catb.org/esr/halloween/
De nuevo, tomen su decisiión – Consigan el FUD, cualquier cosa que escojan. Todo esta allí. Entonces esta lo de Ballmer “Linux es un cancer” etc.
Sí, sí, claro, estoy fuera de mi eje de balancín, esto fue hace todos los años, etc. Pero no es – Microsoft ODIA Linux, esto nunca va a cambiar! Una vez más, la única cosa que tiene el cambio es el CEO y como resultado, el PR. Es probable que encuentres que Nadella ha dicho internamente para todos “públicamente, nos encanta Linux y el software libre, a nivel interno sigue siendo como hasta ahora”; y cambiado la máquina PR como resultado.
Ahora bien, no sé qué Shuttleworth y Canonical están jugando en o qué beneficios pueden obtener de la oferta que hicieron, tal vez más cuota de mercado de Ubuntu (y dinero). Pero no bajar la guardia – Microsoft SIEMPRE odio Linux, incluso si usted no puede ver directamente.
¿De verdad cree que Bill Gates, aunque ya no sea presidente o CEO (que todavía trabaja allí Tho), que realmente dejar que su compañía, sus caminos, sus deseos y dirección, etc. todo vaya por el retrete y que alguien más venga y tomar todo en una nueva dirección? No se … Gates es muy inteligente y despiadado. Mucho más inteligente que eso. Sus / los “viejos” Microsoft maneras del negocio sucios están totalmente arraigados en la empresa. No solo cambio de CEO va a arreglar los caminos de la “vieja Microsoft”.
El “viejo Microsoft” sigue siendo el “nuevo Microsoft”, sólo la cara de la empresa ha cambiado – CEO y PR. Eso es. Microsoft, si pudieran presionar un botón y matar a Linux y a FLOSS durante durante la noche.
Recuerde las “patentes” que tienen que utilizarán para amenazar nuestras forma de desarrollo, aunque no directamente. Microsoft siempre va a ser hostil a Linux y el software libre. ¡RECUERDEN ESO!
Paul Venezia de IDG tiene un razonable buen artículo (él es pro-UNIX/Linux y siempre lo ha sido), el cual publicó esta mañana en InfoWorld. Para citar un poquito: “El hecho que Microsoft ahora soporte SQL Server en Linux no es realmente un desarrollo téchnico — es un movimiento de negocios. Afortunadamente para Microsoft, los ciégos de Ballmer se han ido, y la compañía puede ver que Linux es el OS de preferencia para nuestro futuro, no Windows. Microsoft perdió esa batalla hace tiempo. No sorprende, que los tipos del Azure cloud han tomado la iniciative en empujar Microsoft para apoyar a Linux (y otras tecnologías de open source relácionadas con el cloud, incluyendo Docker, Kubernetes, y varias NoSQL databases).”
“Microsoft no está amando o abrazando a GNU/Linux, excepto en el sentido E.E.E. (recuérden lo que la primera E significa).”Un resumen por Jim Lynch de IDG (también de InfoWorld) dijo más tarde (citando lo de arriba) que “Microsoft ha hecho reciéntemente movimientos para aceptar al Linux de una manera prominente, pero ¿ha tomado la compañía tanto tiempo para hacer esto? Un escritor de InfoWorld piensa que el Embrace de Microsoft hacia Linux pueda ser un poquito, y demasiádo tarde.”
Como explicamos hace un dia, hay un montón de mentiras provocativas Microsoft no está amando o abrazando a GNU/Linux, excepto en el sentido E.E.E. (recuérden lo que la primera E significa).
Hablándo de E.E.E., CSO (IDG) republica y luego se expande en Maria Korolov la propaganda de BlackDuck FUD contra FOSS al decir en lenguaje retórico (allí mismo en el titular) que hay algo malo en “la cálidad del código de open source code”. Black Duck (proviene de un personaje de marketing de Microsoft) es proclamado como sigue:
A medida que se crea el software de código abierto más, el número de vulnerabilidades aumenta también. Software de Black Duck está rastreando actualmente 1,5 millones de proyectos de código abierto.
Vulnerabilidades de código abierto pueden ser particularmente peligrosos, de acuerdo con el ‘vicepresidente de Estrategia de Seguridad Mike Pittenger de Black Duck. Software de código abierto puede ser ubicuo, dijo, y típicamente tiene ningún proceso en el que los parches se envían automáticamente a los usuarios.
Black Duck es de alguna manera similar a Xamarin en el sentido que actúa un poco como proxy de Microsoft. No sería posible sin el “embrace” (como en E.E.E.) de FOSS. Black Duck es una compañíá de software proprietario la que simplemente explota FOSS por mercadeo. Vean todo el largo mensaje arriba y dense cuenta de que estas tácticas no son nuevas en su totalidad. ¿Porqué los mismos errores de nuevo? Aprendan de la historia. █
“No animen nuevas, Java clases de platáformas múltiples, especialmente no ayuden que grandes implementaciones de Win 32 sean implementadas escritas/desplegadas. [...] Promuevan fragmentación del espacio classlib de Java.”
–Ben Slivka, Microsoft
Send this to a friend
Publicado en Decepción, Microsoft, Patentes at 7:49 pm por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
La última cubierta de IAM prácticamente lo dice todo…
Sumario: Propaganda Gratis para e más notorio troll de patentes del mundo de una reviast que es parcialmente financiada por tales trolles e incluso no los llama trolles (habitualmente usa eufemismos para lavar/limpiar su mala reputación)
IAM ‘magazine’, basado en sus vergonzosos anuncios de ayer, hace a Intellectual Ventures su historia de página principal esta vez, sin mencionar la palabra “T” word, como es usual (ellos siempre usan NPE).
“¿Cómo puede IAM esperart ser tratado seriamente por alguién (diferentes a trolles de patentes que adoran esta parcialización?” continúan negando la existencia de trolles y como hemos notado hace unos dias, un escritor que se está alejándose (basado en el anuncio de arriba) es editado por un ¨editor¨ en jefe que se niega tercamente a usar la palabra ¨troll¨ (WiLAN no es llamado troll en este su nuevo artículo). Bueno, los trolles son los que pagan/financian al ´magazine´, así que su imágen es embelleciad y hecha positiva (si algo existe) son acentuados con ástutas palabras y eufemismos en oraciones (como alterando lenguajes de dominación/ocupación con uno de defensa).
¿Cómo puede IAM esperart ser tratado seriamente por alguién (diferentes a trolles de patentes que adoran esta parcialización? █
Send this to a friend
Cut out or altogether drop the sweet talk, Microsoft…
“This anti-trust thing will blow over. We haven’t changed our business practices at all.”
Summary: Microsoft’s claims of “love” for GNU/Linux aren’t being accepted by the community, so a lot of the PR campaign falls on deaf ears (except those wishing to be fooled and further disseminate the lie, e.g. in Microsoft-friendly/-funded media companies)
THE following message was posted not too long ago at Reddit. It’s more like a blog post published as a submission in the site and it is titled “Remember: Microsoft is still (and will always be) hostile to Linux and FLOSS.” We thought it was worth reproducing below (without any of the comments) because it also alludes to many things we covered here before, including Comes vs Microsoft.
Will the all the “nice” PR and news of Microsoft (seemingly) getting close to Linux, it’s easy to forget how Microsoft IS hostile to Linux and everything open source. Remember: All they did was get a new CEO, the company culture is still there.
All that’s changed is instead of publicly hating on Linux, they now publicly love Linux, but are really still very hostile to Linux. This will never change.
Just remember the Iowa consumer case files ( http://edge-op.org/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/ ) which has a lot of internal emails from Microsoft, many of them basically state their love for all things Windows and MS and hatrid for everything else. All are in PDF format and have been unsealed (thankfully). Some even go into detail about their plotting with things like the Vista Ready program in order to trick consumers (they basically don’t give a shit) etc.
Then there’s Halloween docs: http://www.catb.org/esr/halloween/
Again, take your pick – Get The FUD, whatever you choose. It’s all there. Then there’s Ballmer’s “Linux is cancer” etc.
Yeah, yeah sure, I’m off my rocker, this was all years ago etc. But it’s not – Microsoft HATES Linux, this will NEVER change! Again, the only thing that has change is the CEO and as a result, the PR. You’ll probably find that Nadella has internally said to everyone “publicly, we LOVE Linux and FLOSS, internally it’s still business as usual”; and changed the PR machine as a result.
Now I don’t know what Shuttleworth and Canonical are playing at or what benefit they may get from the deal they made, perhaps more Ubuntu market share (and money). But don’t let your guard down – Microsoft will ALWAYS hate Linux, even if you can’t directly see it.
Do you really think Bill Gates, while no longer chairman or CEO (he still works there tho), would really let his company, his ways, his wants and direction etc all go down the toilet and have someone else come in and take it all in a new direction? No… Gates is very smart and ruthless. MUCH smarter than that. His / the “old Microsoft” dirty business ways are fully entrenched in the company. No single change of CEO will fix the ways of the “old Microsoft”.
The “old Microsoft” is still the “new Microsoft”, only the face of the company has changed – CEO and PR. That’s it. Microsoft, if they could, would press a button and kill Linux and FLOSS over night.
Remember the “patents” they have that they will use to threaten our ways, even if not directly. Microsoft will always be hostile to Linux and free software. Remember that!
IDG‘s Paul Venezia has a reasonably good article (he’s pro-UNIX/Linux and always was), which he published this morning at InfoWorld. To quote one bit of it: “The fact that Microsoft now supports SQL Server on Linux isn’t really a technical development — it’s a business move. Fortunately for Microsoft, the Ballmer blinders are gone, and the company can see that Linux is the OS of choice for our cloud future, not Windows. Microsoft lost that battle a long time ago. Not surprisingly, the Azure cloud folks have taken the lead in pushing Microsoft toward supporting Linux (and other open source cloud-related technologies, including Docker, Kubernetes, and various NoSQL databases).”
“Microsoft isn’t loving or embracing GNU/Linux, except in the E.E.E. sense (remember what the first E stands for).”A roundup by Jim Lynch of IDG (also InfoWorld) later said (citing the above) that “Microsoft has recently made some moves toward accepting Linux in a prominent way, but has the company taken too long to do this? One writer at InfoWorld thinks Microsoft’s embrace of Linux might be far too little, and far too late.”
As we explained a day ago, there’s just a lot of rhetoric and provocative lying. Microsoft isn’t loving or embracing GNU/Linux, except in the E.E.E. sense (remember what the first E stands for).
Speaking of E.E.E., CSO (IDG) reposts and then expands on Maria Korolov’s Black Duck marketing FUD against FOSS by saying in the language of rhetoric (right there in the headline!) that there’s something wrong with “open source code quality”. Black Duck (it came from a Microsoft marketing guy) is advertised as follows:
As more open source software is created, the number of vulnerabilities goes up as well. Black Duck Software is currently tracking 1.5 million open source projects.
Open source vulnerabilities can be particularly dangerous, according to Black Ducks’ Vice President of Security Strategy Mike Pittenger. Open source software can be ubiquitous, he said, and typically has no process where patches are automatically pushed out to users.
Black Duck is somewhat similar to Xamarin in the sense that it acts a little bit like a Microsoft proxy. It would not be possible without the “embrace” (as in E.E.E.) of FOSS. Black Duck is a proprietary software company which merely exploits FOSS for marketing. See the long message at the top and realise that these tactics aren’t entirely new. Why make the same errors all over again? Learn from history. █
“Don’t encourage new, cross-platform Java classes, especially don’t help get great Win 32 implementations written/deployed. [...] Do encourage fragmentation of the Java classlib space.”
–Ben Slivka, Microsoft
Send this to a friend
The latest cover of IAM says it all really…
Summary: Free advertising for the world’s most notorious patent troll from a magazine that’s partly funded by such trolls and wouldn’t even call them trolls (it habitually uses euphemisms to launder their bad reputation)
IAM ‘magazine’, based on yesterday’s announcement, makes Intellectual Ventures the front page story this time around, without mentioning the “T” word, as usual (they are always saying NPE).
“Can can IAM expect to be treated seriously by anyone (other than patent trolls who love this bias)?”They are still denying the existence of trolls and as we noted some days ago, a writer who is now moving away (based on the above announcement) is edited by an editor in chief who refuses to say "troll" (WiLAN isn’t being called a troll in this new article of his). Well, trolls are paying the company which publishes the ‘magazine’, so their image is being embellished and positives (if any exist) are accentuated with cleverly-worded euphemistic sentences (like altering languages of domination/occupation with one of defense).
Can can IAM expect to be treated seriously by anyone (other than patent trolls who love this bias)? █
Send this to a friend
Summary: The European Patent Office (EPO) seems to have adopted a “pretend nothing is happening” strategy when it comes to a general strike that’s just a couple of days away
THE staff of the EPO is extremely upset at the management, based on an extensive recent survey. It’s hardly surprising that the staff wishes to go on strike.
Does the EPO inform the world about the imminent strike or does it simply pretend that it’s “business as usual”? Well, considering the fact the the EPO lies to journalists and to staff, don’t expect any honesty or transparency. It’s quite an irresponsible choice actually, as it will erode confidence among those who pay the EPO.
“It’s quite an irresponsible choice actually, as it will erode confidence among those who pay the EPO.”There’s virtually nothing from the EPO in Twitter (on Monday/this week) except some brag about the number of followers (which many people are just buying these days, in order to give a false impression of popularity). This kind of inactivity is rather unusual (only one non-substantial tweet today). There is no word at all about this week’s strike, not even in the EPO’s news section, blog/s, etc. This is what the homepage of the EPO looks like right now:
We can’t help but wonder if this year too there will be fake journalism at the event, with EPO-imposed self-censorship that lasts for a long time.
“How many people are scheduled (maybe with flight tickets) to come to the Office that day?”It’s surely embarrassing to tell one’s clients that thousands of one’s staff (majority of them) voted in favour of a strike because of human rights violations by the management. It’s even worse when they’re told that over 90% of that staff voted for a strike. This would deepen the crisis, but then again, a surprise strike or unannounced interference to normal operation/service would harm the clients too. Quite a dilemma. How many people are scheduled (maybe with flight tickets) to come to the Office that day? What about hearing and appeals? How many people are to make phonecalls and send queries? Shouldn’t they be told about what’s coming just 2 days from now? How long can EPO management suppress the inevitable?
To quote WIPR‘s good new outline: “The strike is scheduled for April 7 and will take place at the EPO’s offices in Munich, The Hague, Berlin and Vienna. In a vote, 91% (3,701) of those who voted on the proposed strike backed industrial action. In order to strike, at least 40% of staff are required to vote on whether to take action. In total, 4,062 out of the EPO’s 6,738 total staff members voted, representing 60%. Once this has been achieved, at least 50% of those must vote in favour of action. Of the 4,062 voters, just 219 voted against strike action, while 142 members of staff said they had no opinion on the issue.”
“It happened before… that they promised a response to scandals but never actually yielded any.”The writer then added: “The EPO is preparing a statement and we will update the story shortly.” By the end of the day there was no update from the PR team of the EPO (it’s well after 1 AM here).
It happened before… that they promised a response to scandals but never actually yielded any. They chose silence because it was probably seen as a better option (“no comment” basically). They did this after WIPR had written about their lawsuit threats.
At 8 o’clock on Monday (night) Kieren McCarthy wrote about this as well and there’s nothing there from EPO PR. Did they seriously think the media/press wouldn’t notice and report this? McCarthy correctly notes: “If SUEPO signs the agreement [MuO] as currently written, it would effectively sign up to the very rules that it is protesting and which led to EPO’s management aggressively targeting the union leaders when they opposed the changes.”
Where’s FTI Consulting at this time of crisis?
When we last wrote about the strike (more background therein about the strike) it was further reinforced that this strike would affect all sites on Thursday. SUEPO has just published this document
[PDF] which we quoted here a while ago. It’s about lawlessness at the EPO. That’s what the strike is primarily about.
A week ago we mentioned Hans-Joachim Frieling’s letter to Süddeutsche Zeitung (now increasingly famous for the Panama leaks), which has just been translated as follows
[PDF]. It’s about lawlessness and here is the English translation with our highlights added:
28 March 2016, 18:59
European Patent Office: Woeful lack of law
“A public authority on the brink of the abyss”, of 3 March:
“European Patent Office” (EPO) is a “super authority” – at least according to the head office – which is established on the soil of Munich. But the power games being played out at the EPO go way beyond local considerations, beyond the intrigue aroused by an obviously power-obsessed boss, and well beyond the interests vested in Munich, Bavaria, and even Germany; they are of major (European-level) importance politically, and of major significance with regard to constitutional law. The cause and core of the scandalous spectacle being enacted on the bank of the River Isar appear to lie in the “immunity” which the EPO was granted in its foundation charter by the states which support it, as an authority which is most specifically not EU. Or the way in which EPO President Benoît Battistelli interprets and applies this “immunity” unimpeded by his Administrative Council, on which the Federal Minister of Justice actually sits; the clear establishment of total autonomy, exempt not only from all straightforward rules of law of the host and location country (such as the law relating to protection against dismissal, law relating to labour tribunals, and many more besides), but even exemption from all protection of basic rights, such as are enshrined in the Bavarian Constitution, the Basic Law (GG) of the Federal Republic of Germany, and in the European treaties and statutes.
It is bad enough that, in the heart of Bavaria, so proud of its constitution, as described by the Süddeutsche Zeitung, a situation could come about in which the presidential will alone prevails, a wilful domination which commits aggressive abuses against, among others, Article 9 Para. 3 GG (Freedom of Formation and Action of Staff Unions); but it is utterly intolerable that the decisions by the President, taken against individuals against this spirit of freedom, which in individual cases threaten their very existence, are not subject to any appeal by way of any effective outside or independent means of legal recourse.
Every German politician, when journeying in totalitarian or otherwise suspect countries, is beset on all sides when on their travels by demands to push hard in favour of the Western “export asset of the state governed by law”. But at the same time, amazingly, they turn a blind eye to the fact that on their own soil an institution exists which denies thousands of employees the essential constituents of that notion of the state governed by law, such as the guarantee of legal recourse and the protection of basic rights. What this means is that, leaving aside all the complexities of international law, the status of the EPO becomes a matter of honour for all those whose task it is to promote the notion of the state governed by law to pursue this not only abroad, but right here, on their own territory, and, if necessary, as in this case, to bring it about. This includes, as a priority, the Minister of Justice, by virtue of his office. But every other constitutional patriot should be urged to this as well – and not least in the media. Even if the present issue could be “cleared up” by a potentially expensively purchased (the SZ reports rumours of a golden handshake of 18 million Euro) or forced departure of President Battistelli, the situation cannot be allowed to remain that the Member States allow their EPO to continue to operate outside the constitutional principles of Europe and of the individual states. Dr. Hans-Joachim Frieling, Munich
The above is also available as French
[PDF] and as Dutch
[PDF] text. The letter does mention rights, but what about privacy rights, which Germany is a lot more conscious of (because of its past) compared to most other nations? We recently found the following commentary which alludes to Süddeutsche Zeitung and goes as follows:
The deficiencies in the EPO’s data protection framework have been of concern to the national data protection authorities in Germany. Already in April 2014, the Bavarian Data Protection Commissioner, Dr Thomas Petri, informed the Federal Data Protection Commissioner, Andrea Voßhoff, of the outcome of his preliminary investigation which concluded that true oversight of data protection issues was missing at the EPO. Ms Voßhoff brought these concerns to the attention of the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection and requested assistance in conducting an examination of measures to remedy the deficiencies, including a possible amendment of the EPC. The Ministry of Justice replied to the FDPC stating that Germany was “only one state of 38” on the Administrative Council and that an amendment of the EPC would require a diplomatic conference.
A year later (in June 2015) the Süddeutsche Zeitung reported on the use of covert surveillance measures at the EPO. Ms Voßhoff sent another letter to the Chairperson of the Committee for Justice and Consumer Protection of the Federal Parliament (Bundestag) to inform the Bundestag. A copy of the letter was sent to the Federal Justice Minister, Heiko Maas, for information. The situation at the EPO was discussed during the 71st Session of the Bundestag Committee for Justice and Consumer Protection which took place on 14 October 2015. The report presented to the Committee by the Ministry of Justice uncritically relied on submissions made by Mr Lutz (VP5), who painted a rather one-sided and overly rosy picture of the state of data protection at the EPO.
There are also other forms of privacy abuses inside the EPO, as we noted in our series about Europatis:
- Jacques Michel (Former EPO VP1), Benoît Battistelli’s EPO, and the Leak of Internal Staff Data to Michel’s Private Venture
- Europatis: “Turnover of €211,800 and Zero Employees”
- Loose Data ‘Protection’ and Likely Privacy Infringements at the EPO: Here’s Who Gets Employees’ Internal Data
- Summary of the EPO-Europatis Series
- Revolving Doors of High-Level EPO Management: Jacques Michel and the Questel Deal With the EPO
Over the next few days we shall accelerate our coverage in order to remind EPO staff why going on strike is justified. There will also be more about privacy violations. █
Send this to a friend
Publicado en America, Deception, Europe, Patentes at 10:13 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Sumario: La última ilustración del cubrimiento parcializado del ‘magazine’ IAM , el cual es un sitio web por maximálistas de patentes para maximálistas de patentes (o lectore nada suspicacez que son indoctinados en maximálismo de patentes)
Hace varios dias atrás explicamos porque IAM no dice/pronuncia "trolles de patentes" (traducción al Español publicada esta mañana). El editor de IAM me dijo explícitamente que no cree en el término “trolles de patentes”, aunque esté claramente definido y es usado comúnmente (incluso por los más altos jueces el año pasado).
No aceptar el término “trolles de patentes” en el 2016 es como no querer aceptar el término “cloud” (el cual tambié es vagamente definido, sin embargo es ampliamente usado). Nosotros personalmente nos preocupamos de que la agenda de IAM incluyen traer a Europa un sistema/agenda al más puro estilo de la USPTO (de [cref baja calidad]). IAM es básicamente Europeo pero es financiado/pagado por muchas firmas en los Estados Unidos, como hemos notado aquí antes. Incluso trolles de patentes de los EE.UU ponen dinero en los cofres de IAM.
“IAM es básicamente Europeo pero es financiado/pagado por muchas firmas en los Estados Unidos, como hemos notado aquí antes.”Una “compañía Koreana reclama que Facebook, Kakao, Line et al estan infringiendo sus patents,” escribió IAM el otro dia (Facebook lo hace también). El escritor, Sr. Ellis, esta completamente en lo correcto cuando afirmó que “las compañías Koreanas no son particularmente conocidas ser proactivas o aggresivas en cuanto se trate de afirmar sus derechos de IP.”
Wild, por el otro lado (es jefe de Ellis), continúa atacando a los críticos de patentes, tales como Rackspace, el cual gasta un montón de dinero y tiempo atacándo las patentes de software (hemos cubierto esto aquí con anterioridad [1, 2, 3]). Par hacer materias cubiertas aquí antes mucho peor, Wild se asocia a sí mismo con el fanfarrón de Gene Quinn (a quien hemos apodado Observador de los Trolles de Patentes), quíen es el más y agresivo proponente de las patentes de software (o por lo menos el más vocal). Para citar la pieza de Wild: “Hace un par de dias Gene Quinn, quien dirige el IP Watchdog blog, tuvo un encontronazo en Twiiter con Van Lindberg, VP of technology en Rackspace, acerca de la validez (o no) de las patentes de software otorgadas por la USPTO.”
“¿Juegos vergüenza de nuevo? ¿Al igual que avergonzar a Alemania más por su falta de acción contra la UPC? ¿Incluso en repetidas ocasiones?”Como hemos notado aquí varias veces en Marzo, Quinn ataca personalmente a todo aquel que no consienta el otorgamiénto de las patentes de software. Es casi tán malo como Andrew Y. Schroeder y le gusta la confrontación (aunque me bloqueó en Twitter despues de perder un largo debate que lo dejó completamente avergonzado).
“Casi todos los profesionales de patentes de software reconocen que el 80% de ellas son inválidas,” Van Lindberg escribió. Por lo que aquí empezó el juego de tirar barro de Quinn y Wild’s. Wild habla a maximálistas de patentes por opinión ‘experta’ en esta declaración y luego termina con las palabras: “¿Debería Lindberg ahora pedir disculpas a IPValue por reportar erróneamente los puntos de vista dela firma? Lo dejare que él lo decida, pero por lo menos él podría querer hacer saber a sus seguidores de Twitter que el consiguió 96% de sus estadísticas mal.”
¿Juegos vergüenza de nuevo? ¿Al igual que avergonzar a Alemania más por su falta de acción contra la UPC? ¿Incluso en repetidas ocasiones?
Hablando de Twitter, Wild es aparentemente muy tímido de hablar a favor de IAM (donde el es el editor), así que usa un raro nombre para su cuenta personal, en la cual alude to spa, cuando escribe cualquier cosa relacionada conmigo.
“Vale realmente la pena pagar por una subcripción a una ‘revista’ tan parcializada al afirmar que los trolles incluso no existen en ella (y en su lugar ellos son acícalados y carácterizados como negocios legítimos)?”La agenda de IAM, la que incluye proteger a la gerencia de la EPO, heraldear la UPC (avergonzándo a sus obstáculos y opositores), acícalando a los trolles de patentes, animándo la acumulación de patentes y defendiendo las necesidades del patentamiento de software, necesita ser entendido por todos los trabajadores de la EPO, pero también el público generaanimándo la acumulación de patentes y defendiendo las necesidades del patentamiento de software, necesita ser entendido por todos los trabajadores de la EPO, pero también el público general. Si el ciudadano Europeo regular piense que no va a ser afectado, cuando esto ocurra va a ser muy tarde, van a tener la yuca/cassaba hasta el cuello. Vale realmente la pena pagar por una subcripción a una ‘revista’ tan parcializada al afirmar que los trolles incluso no existen en ella (y en su lugar ellos son acícalados y carácterizados como negocios legítimos)? Wild es el peor del grupo; algunos de sus escritores son pasables, pero Wild todavía llega a editar todo lo que no le gusta o convenga a sus amos del otro lado del charco, (o cambia las palabras) y eso es un problema. Actualmente he pasado meses leyendo cada artículo (habiéndo malgastado mi dinero en ello) de IAM antes de alcanzar esta conclusion.
Miren este nuevo artículo titulado “Subsidiaria New Marathon proclama movimiento más allá de las patentes en el licensing de tecnologíá”. Titulo alternativo para el mismo artículo: “Subsidiaria New Marathon es un Troll de Patentes” (como es su definición).
“IAM todavía no dice trolles de patentes, no incluso en este último artículo en el cual llama a un troll “NPE”, francamente usualmente lo típico.”“WiLAN, Intellectual Ventures y Spherix,” dice, “todos ellos an entrado en acuerdos reciéntes designados a diversificar sus modelos de negocios en varios grados.”
No dice la palabra “T” (troll) y en su lugar lo suaviza usando palabras como “acuerdos”, “diversificar”, y “modelo de negocios”. Talvez nuestro Primer Ministro debería contratar a Wild para describir el NHS crackdown como “inversión”, bombardeos en Syria com “democracia”, y Proyecto de ley para Poderes Investigadores como “seguridad”.
IAM todavía no dice trolles de patentes, no incluso en este último artículo en el cual llama a un troll “NPE”, francamente usualmente lo típico. █
Send this to a friend
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »