One of many ugly stories that the EPO would never want the public to see
Summary: The European Patent Office (EPO) likes not only to silence but also to bully (repeatedly threatening) its critics, as a new revelation about an old story serves to demonstrate
THE EPO wants to be publicly viewed as a professional European establishment that fosters innovation and creativity. It wants to attract businesses (it now refers to applicants as customers or clients, some of which it likes more than others). In reality, the EPO is a malicious organisation where Chinese standards for human rights and free speech hold true (and are actively enforced quite aggressively). The EPO is very fearful that the European public will find out the truth and then spread the truth. In other to hide the truth it is even eager to attack, intimidate, and impose mental stress on educated/informed members of the public. This makes the EPO an inherently nasty organisation residing at the very heart of Europe with total impunity; it’s on par with the Mafia, at least in some senses, and politicians are too afraid to intervene. Law enforcement is hardly even interested. The EPO is ruled by an elite and guarded by mega-corporations whom this elite obediently serves. This is institutional corruption.
“The EPO is ruled by an elite and guarded by mega-corporations whom this elite obediently serves. This is institutional corruption.”Gérald Sédrati-Dinet contacted Techrights in order to notify us of the abuse which he had suffered from the EPO. He kept rather quite about it until now. They were SLAPPing, or at least threatening to SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) him. The EPO even cataloged it, much like the notorious Investigative Unit (I.U.) at the EPO does. They gave this a case reference, “LogNo 2011/0338″. It makes one wonder just how many people they bullied in 2011. If this is case number 338 in June of 2011 alone, does that mean that they bully around 700 Web sites or so every year? And if so, has it gotten any worse since? That was just shortly after Battistelli, who comes from the “Right to be Forgotten” country (censorship to guard bad people’s reputation), had joined the EPO and gradually decimated oversight, ousting anything which he perceived as a threat to his absolute tyranny.
There seems to be a lot of bullying going on behind the scenes. A lot of people are severely harmed by this, so lower-level employees of the EPO must learn about this and spread the messenger internally. Also see the reference number in the I.U. case against Elizabeth Hardon. It makes one wonder if, under explicit gag orders, they are actually ‘disciplining’ (bullying) about a thousand people per year. It is a full-time job for an entire team. They need to justify their salary by creating ‘demand’, i.e. finding who to bully next (we have learned that they nitpick on very petty things in the workplace). It’s a reign of terror. The only such stories I’ve ever heard of are from my wife (when she worked in Taiwan). We call for the attention of European politicians. This cannot go on like this. The EPO led by Battistelli has already led to a tenfold increase in the number of suicides, according to one recent estimate.
“Unauthorised Use of EPO Logo on the website www.unitary-patent.eu,” is what they claimed. Yes, you heard that right. Using a small (even tiny) logo of the EPO somewhere in a Web site critical of the EPO (and the Unitary Patents which the EPO loves to lobby for so much) leads to bullying. Look at the image above or access the site directly. It’s not even the logo per se (sheared or tapered with a flag superimposed). This isn’t about trademarks but about silencing people who live in Europe and exercise their democratic rights.
“Anything (or anyone) which speaks against the managers is automatically treated like treason, irrespective of the merit of claims.”We strongly urge all readers to learn what happened, examine the evidence, and study the case below. There may be many more like it (hundreds or maybe thousands, but we just don’t know about them because it all happens behind closed doors). That’s how immoral and thuggish the EPO can get so easily. The EPO has already blocked Techrights, so this effort to suppress other Web sites hardly surprises us. These people (the ones running the EPO) act like Chinese ministers, or maybe like Russian ministers. Freedom of speech is not tolerated there. Anything (or anyone) which speaks against the managers is automatically treated like treason, irrespective of the merit of claims. This will be the subject of the next few articles about the EPO and its pertinent units. These are thugs, hired by other thugs. It creates a toxic environment in which good behaviour leads to punishment and/or dismissal while sociopaths get hired and gradually promoted. It is a form of entryism, the hallmark of organised crime within an institution. Recall last year’s explosive story from the large British newspaper, The Independent (“Total corruption: Organised crime infiltrated and compromised UK courts, police, HMRC, Crown Prosecution Service, prisons, and juries”).
“While you are focusing on EPO,” wrote to us Gérald Sédrati-Dinet, an activist against software patents in Europe (which means he is also against the Unitary Patent, as it’s a Trojan horse for software patents), “maybe you’ll be interested by this exchange of emails dating from 2011 when I’ve build the website www.unitary-patent.eu.”
“The first mail is sent by EPO (Sergio De Gregori and Caroline Godeau-Jobmann),” he wrote, “to my hidden contact address provided by Gandi, asking me to stop using EPO Logo on this website. Then, in the second mail, my lawyer, Olivier Hugo, kindly replied to EPO that I will not defer to EPO’s request. The EPO insisted in a third mail. And my lawyer refused once again in a fourth email. Then no news and my website has never changed its banner.”
Gérald Sédrati-Dinet must have suffered pain, including financial injury (having to pay this lawyer for the time), so this kind of bullying from the EPO, which clearly had too little or no merit (as they withdrew), must not be tolerated.
This doesn’t entirely shock us given the EPO’s known (and well-documented) record of censorship and threats, not just against EPO staff but also against external entities. Gérald Sédrati-Dinet asked, “don’t you find interesting to see the pressure put by EPO on any criticism?”
“You can use these emails as you want,” he added, providing the originals as follows:
-------- Mail 1 --------
*De :*firstname.lastname@example.org mailto:email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] *
Envoyé :* mercredi 8 juin 2011 14:37*
À :* xxxxx*
Objet :* Use of EPO Logo on your website Unitary Patent
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
It has been brought to our attention that Unitary Patent is using the
EPO logo on its website http://www.unitary-patent.eu. A copy of the respective web page is
As you are no doubt aware, the EPO logo, as an emblem of an
intergovernmental organisation, is protected under Article 6ter of the
Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property against,
inter alia, unauthorised use by third parties. The EPO uses its logo for
its official activities and has a strong interest in ensuring that it
does not lose its value as an identifying symbol.
We therefore ask you to refrain from using the EPO logo and to *confirm
in writing by 23 June 2011* that you have done so.
If you fail to comply with this request, we will unfortunately be
obliged to pass this matter on to our solicitors in order to take the
necessary legal steps against you.
Sergio De Gregori
Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Sincères salutations
Legal Administration Officer Contract matters & general legal issues |
European Patent Office
Landsberger Str. 187 | 80687 Munich | Germany
Tel. +49 (0)89 2399 5317_
The language used therein is not yet highly threatening, but wait until they threaten not only with legal action but also with heavy legal costs, despite the law not being on their side. At this stage, Gérald Sédrati-Dinet already reached out to a lawyer (we assume at significant expense to him). Here is the lawyer replying:
-------- Mail 2 --------
From: Olivier Hugot
To: "email@example.com mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org" email@example.com
Date: 09-06-2011 20:10
Subject: RE: Use of EPO Logo on your website Unitary Patent
Dear Mr. De Gregori,
I am the attorney of Mr. Sedrati Dinet who operates the website
I am, to say the least, extremely doubtful regarding the legal basis of
As you are no doubt aware, Mr. Sedrati Dinet’s fundamental rights, which
includes the right of Free Expression, at the heart of which you will
find political speech, are protected by various national, European and
international constitutions or conventions (for instance article 10 of
the European Convention on Human Rights).
As such, I am afraid my client will not defer to your request.
Of course, I am available to further discuss this matter with your
solicitor should you deem it necessary.
Best regards, Olivier Hugot
4, place André Malraux
Tél. : + 33.(0)22.214.171.124.83
Fax : + 33.(0)126.96.36.199.84
Well, if Sergio De Gregori and Caroline Godeau-Jobmann already receive a salary and enjoy immunity from the law, then why not keep themselves occupied by acting like a bunch of spoiled brats and threatening a young man who has a point of view and a concern about the likes ofthe EPO? Watch what happens next:
-------- Mail 3 --------
*De :*firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]
*Envoyé :* vendredi 17 juin 2011 09:25
*À :* Olivier Hugot
*Cc :* Frank Hafner; Anna Juda; Sophie Gayout; Claire Lucas; Caroline
*Objet :* LogNo 2011/0338 -- Unauthorised Use of EPO Logo on the website
Dear Mr. Hugot,
I tried to call you for the last few days but could not reach you, this
is why I now send you this e-mail.
Maybe you misunderstood our e-mail or there was some kind of clerical
mistake, but our request was to *refrain from the unauthorised use of
the EPO's logo*, which is -- I am sure, as a lawyer, you are aware --
protected by the Paris Convention against inter alia unauthorised use by
We do not understand how our request could interfere with your client's
fundamental rights, which the EPO, as an international organisation, of
Kindly explain, or have your client refrain from using the EPO's logo.
As already stated, if your client fails to comply with this request, we
will unfortunately be obliged to pass this matter on to our solicitors
in order to take the necessary legal steps against him at his expense.
Sergio De Gregori
Dept. 188.8.131.52 -- General Law and Contract Law
European Patent Office
Landsberger Str. 187 | 80687 Munich | Germany
Tel. +49 89 2399 5025
Yes, they threaten with legal action. This is clearly a threat. To quote: “if your client fails to comply with this request, we will unfortunately be obliged to pass this matter on to our solicitors in order to take the necessary legal steps against him at his expense.”
Classic SLAPP threats. In the US it would be against the law to do so (in many states).
Here is the followup:
-------- Mail 4 --------
*De :*Olivier Hugot
*Envoyé :* vendredi 24 juin 2011 13:58
*À :* 'Logbook'
*Cc :* Frank Hafner; Anna Juda; Sophie Gayout; Claire Lucas; Caroline
*Objet :* RE: LogNo 2011/0338 -- Unauthorised Use of EPO Logo on the
Dear M. De Gregori,
My client operates a website expressing a political opinion with a tag
line “For a Democratic Innovation Policy in Europe”.
One of his means of expression is the use of the EPO logo with the EU
flag piercing it, illustrating his political opinions. The use of the
logo and the text of the website are, thus, protected expression.
You may well disagree with the statements and opinion thereby expressed,
but my client is entitled to express them as an exercise of his
Interestingly enough, your reaction to the use of your logo demonstrates
the policy criticized by my client.
We had similar cases in France, with large international companies,
trying to use trademark protection to infringe upon free speech, yet the
supreme court protected such expression.
For those reasons, my client will not defer to your demands as he
considers his actions to be well within the boundaries of the law.
With kind regards,
We like this sentence, which demonstrates how disgusting lawyers find the EPO’s attitude. “Interestingly enough,” he wrote. “your reaction to the use of your logo demonstrates the policy criticized by my client.”
It’s only then, after making repeated threats (the chilling effect) that the bullies went away without a word. It’s really looking and it easily seems like the abuser here is the EPO, which does what some might call (or coin) trademark-trolling. This blogger is no longer blogging and we can’t help but feel like this bitter experience could only have contributed to this. It’s a chilling thing to go though.
“Even the media is now being bribed by the EPO, in exchange for corrupt coverage.”Do not ever be fooled by the EPO’s misleading branding and public image charade, such as paid-for, self-glamourising events that put in a positive light (for a payment) the President and his repressive regime. Even the media is now being bribed by the EPO, in exchange for corrupt coverage. The EPO euphemistically calls this “media partners”.
These attacks on free speech will carry on not just inside the EPO but also outside the EPO. The EPO’s management is engaging in a war on the non-consenting European public, so it’s basically a regime of occupation. EPOnia, which views itself as exempt from European laws, is exploiting and even misusing European laws (as seen above) in a coordinated effort to muzzle voices it does not like.
We invite people who have had similar experiences to come forth to us. We need to shed light on this misbehaviour in order to suppress repetition thereof and also to make politicians better aware of what really happens inside the EPO, usually behind closed doors (or under DNA/gag orders). █
“The European Patent Office is a Corrupt, Malicious Organisation Which Should Not Exist”
–Richard Stallman, founder of GNU and the Free Software Foundation
Send this to a friend
SCOTUS says no entry!
Summary: SCOTUS refuses to rule that APIs cannot be considered copyright-’protected’, despite common sense and despite Java (which the case is about) being Free/libre software
FOR anyone who has been paying attention, Oracle‘s hostility towards Android is not hard to understand. It is a CPTN member along with Microsoft and Apple and it has shown on numerous occasions over the years that it is eager to antagonise and badmouth Free software. Oracle killed many of the projects that it bought from Sun. Google, on the other hand, is at least trying to appease the Free software community and it has made Android (AOSP) an ‘open’ platform, even if most developers contribute just proprietary software to run on it.
Many of our readers have probably heard the big news by now. SCOTUS has aligned itself with foes of software development [1, 2, 3] (not just Free software development), reaffirming the ridiculous judgement from CAFC. Now that SCOTUS reaffirms the status of APIs as copyrightable, adding to mass surveillance with NDAs and software patents in the United States, why would software companies still choose to be there?
To give Google some credit, it did fight over this matter for nearly half a decade. After pressure from the clueless White House (exactly one month ago), however, reuse of APIs may be impossible and collaborative development with forking may soon be toxic. Today is a horrible day for software development in general and it’s not too clear to us what Google can do next. Some certain types of lawyers probably know Google’s next steps or options and knowing that this ‘legal’ system favours the deeper pockets, there is usually something someone can do given the correct fees (just see how long the SCO case goes on for).
“Google will hopefully continue to fight that case, whatever its options may be.”One reader of ours was disappointed with this article that FOSS Force published today, comparing Google to Microsoft. “Revisionism,” he said, “especially that closing sentence. People hate Microsoft not for the sake of hating Microsoft but because of how it (and its people) behaves and has behaved. It has held computing back at least 20 years and the damage spreads into all domains where desktop computers are used.
“It’s just that Microsoft pays for constant whine against Google. While Google has many shortcomings, it is not a problem like Microsoft has been and continues to be.”
“But on the topic of Google,” he continued, “here’s something fairly current with yet another ****up by SCOTUS” (he linked to the above news).
Google will hopefully continue to fight that case, whatever its options may be. As for Microsoft and Apple, they surely will keep trying to harm the market. They often work together these days (mostly true when it comes to patents, OOXML, DRM, and so on) and as this article by Galen Gruman reminds us:
If you thought Microsoft was finally treating the Mac as an equal citizen, you’ll be disappointed in the reality
Remember that Microsoft and Apple are both on Oracle’s anti-Android side (even publicly, on numerous occasions). These are all proprietary software giants, aspiring to control the entire market by patents, copyrights, litigation, and intimidation. Google simply does not fall under the same category. It deserves the public’s support in this particular case. █
Send this to a friend
Summary: Microsoft reveals its disregard for copyright law which it loves so much to wield as a weapon against its competition and clients
Microsoft, which gives everyone’s personal and very private data to the NSA, likes talking about ‘IP’ and simultaneously claim to have a higher moral ground when it engages in bullying, extortion, and intimidation. Thanks to this pointer linking to ZDNet‘s Microsoft booster (former Microsoft staff), we now know that Microsoft is a copyright abuser. That’s what Getty alleges anyway:
A new Microsoft Corp product that allows website publishers to embed digital photographs on their sites is a “massive infringement” of copyrighted images, Getty Images Inc [GETTY.UL] claimed in a lawsuit filed in federal court in New York on Thursday.
The “Bing Image Widget,” released on Aug. 22, gives publishers the ability to create a panel on their websites that displays digital images supplied by Microsoft’s Bing search engine, according to the lawsuit.
Rather than draw from a pool of licensed images, the lawsuit claimed, the product grants access to the billions of images that can be found online, without regard to whether the photos are copyrighted.
Microsoft wants people to forget these situations where Microsoft shows sheer hypocrisy or double-standard. Microsoft does not care about so-called ‘IP’; if it did, it wouldn’t have shared billions (or trillions) of bits of data collected from individuals using Windows, SKype, and online Microsoft services such as Live/Bing search.
Microsoft is a lying scam. █
Send this to a friend
Summary: The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s judgments on software historically based on dogma and misunderstanding/misrepresentation/misinterpretation of facts, not adherence to rules, logic, or even public interest
NOW THAT Ballnux giant Samsung hoards more patents we should take a moment to remember that not all companies that are using GNU/Linux are actually friends. Even Microsoft claims to be embracing Linux in Android (through Nokia), but its intents are malicious, as we have explained numerous times before. Then there is Oracle, which joined Apple and Microsoft in hoarding Novell patents for malicious purposes. It also sued Google over Android and did some damage to Red Hat with Unbreakable, never mind all the damage Oracle did to Sun projects.
Deb Nicholson (FSF), writing for an established Web site, explained “How The Changing Legal Landscape Impacts Free And Open Source Software Development”. She correctly pointed out the following: “A patent is a limited monopoly granted for certain amount of time (20 years in many places) in exchange for full disclosure. Based on the description in the patent application, a person who is knowledgeable in that field should be able to recreate the invention. Patents used to be reserved for physical processes, new devices and sometimes a limited monopoly on a particular business opportunity. The scope of patentability has expanded in the last few decades and can now include software, as well as business methods and even certain medical procedures. The intent of patents is purportedly to encourage inventors to make investments and create new inventions that might have otherwise been too financially risky to complete. As soon as a patent expires the idea can be freely implemented by anyone.”
Patents, however, are no longer the only risk factor. Consider what the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) recently did. The FSF has just come out with this formal statement:
FSF statement on Court of Appeals ruling in Oracle v Google
The situation then is substantially similar to the situation today. The key difference is that some of Google’s affirmative defenses to claim non-infringement have been eliminated by this new ruling. The FSF now sincerely hopes for the next best thing to Alsup’s original ruling: that Google is successful in its fair use defense.
Notwithstanding our support of Google’s fair use defense, the FSF urges caution to all prospective Android users. Even though the core of the Android system is free, every Android device sold comes pre-loaded with a variety of proprietary applications and proprietary hardware drivers. The FSF encourages users to support the development of Replicant, a distribution of Android that is 100% free software. The FSF also encourages users of any Android-based system to install F-Droid, a free replacement for the Google Play app that allows users to browse, install, and receive updates from a repository of free software Android apps. Replicant uses F-Droid as its default repository.
Generally speaking, CAFC has been a sham for many years as it was also responsible for making software patents legitimate in the United States, before this trend/precedent spread to other countries. In 2012 it was points out that the court stood in the way of stopping software patents and a week or so ago TechDirt cited this article, accusing the person who did this in the court. As TechDirt put it: “Tim Lee recently got to talk to Michel following a talk he gave, and what becomes clear is that Michel is completely out of touch with how much of a problem patents are in the tech world today. Lee knows this subject better than probably anyone else, and when he tried to dig in on key points, it was obvious that Michel’s knowledge of what actually is happening in the industry is based on myths and imagination, rather than reality. For example, when Michel pointed out that he’s “a facts and figures guy” rather than one who focuses on “anecdotes and assumptions,” Lee quickly points to James Bessen and Michael Meurer’s comprehensive book on why patents hurt the tech industry.”
Lawyers defy logic.
Here is the latest relevant article about this, an article from TechDirt about CAFC:
For many years we’ve written about the serious problems with CAFC, the court of appeals for the federal circuit, which is better known as the appeals court where all patent cases go. CAFC was created in the early 1980s under the belief that a more “specialized” court could better handle the more complicated technical issues related to patents. But what really happened is that it basically built a club of patent-friendly judges, who spent nearly all of their time with patent lawyers, and thus took an increasingly patent-friendly view of the world. That one of the key original judges on CAFC was also a long-time well known patent lawyer who almost single-handedly wrote the 1952 Patent Act, seemed to set the tone that has remained throughout the court’s existence.
It is not unusual for this disgraceful court to do this type of thing. TechDirt also gave this other new example one week ago:
A few weeks ago, the Supreme Court smacked down the Federal Circuit (CAFC) for its made up rules that made it almost impossible to enable victims of patent trolls to get the courts to order the trolls to pay legal fees. As the Supreme Court noted, CAFC seemed to set up arbitrary rules for no reasons at all. And this is important, because courts almost never award legal fees, and with the untimely death of patent reform, hopefully this small change will at least help in the meantime.
Notice the tend. CAFC is a not a legitimate court, it has become a pack of software patents (and more broadly patents) boosters. Its latest judgment, as before, should be appealed and brought to SCOTUS, but this is expensive and can take years. █
Send this to a friend
Lawyers deciding on technical issues
Summary: The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) shows us yet again that it does not understand technology and its latest ruling is harmful to the technical community
YESTERDAY we wrote about the menacing CAFC ruling, which basically throws a lot of FOSS under the rug (by extension) for it alleges that APIs are copyrightable and that their reuse does not qualify as fair use. We have already criticised CAFC for being very pro-software patents and for being utterly clueless on technical matters on numerous occasions, so the latest decision from it oughtn’t be so shocking. As Ars Technica put it, “Google, which said it was exploring its legal options, decried Friday’s ruling. The Mountain View, CA-based media giant said the decision “sets a damaging precedent for computer science and software development.””
Google is correct and it will hopefully appeal this decision. What we have here is misuse of copyrights, SCO style, by Oracle.
TechDirt posted the best rebuttal to this decision, attracting hundreds of comments and revealing a lot of holes and mistakes in CAFC’s ruling (the text). Here’s a sample:
Appeals Court Doesn’t Understand The Difference Between Software And An API; Declares APIs Copyrightable
We sort of expected this to happen after the appeals court for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) held its oral arguments back in December, but CAFC has now spit at basic common sense and has declared that you can copyright an API. As we noted, back when Judge William Alsup (who learned to code Java to better understand the issues in the case) ruled that APIs were not subject to copyright protection, his ruling was somewhat unique in that it was clearly directed as much at an appeals court panel who would be hearing the appeal as it was at the parties. Alsup rightly suspected that the judges on the appeal wouldn’t actually understand the issues as well as he did, and tried to break it down clearly for them. Unfortunately, the three judge CAFC panel did not pay attention. The ruling is so bad that legal scholars are suggesting that it may be as bad as the horrific ruling in the Garcia case.
As for the ruling itself… well… it’s bad. The court seems to not understand what an API is, confusing it with software functionality. It also appears to misread Judge Alsup’s ruling, thinking that he’s mistakenly using a fair use analysis to determine whether or not something is copyrightable. But that was not the basis of Judge Alsup’s ruling. He very specifically noted that the “command structure is a system or method of operation under Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act and, therefore, cannot be copyrighted.” The CAFC panel doesn’t seem to understand this at all.
It seems fairly clear that the CAFC judges don’t understand the difference between an API and software. And thus they make a decision that makes no sense. There is no distinction recognized when it comes to the functionality of an API and how it’s entirely different than the purpose of the software itself. This is especially clear towards the end, in which the CAFC ruling misrepresents some discussions on whether certain functionality is best protected by patents or copyright. But the problem is that they misinterpret statements people are making about APIs, thinking that those statements were made about software as a whole. This is just a flat-out fundamental misunderstanding of what an API is, assuming that it’s just software.
Note that “[software]” thrown in before interfaces? Google is talking about whether APIs — “application programming interfaces” — are copyrightable. Not whether or not software is copyrightable. And yet the CAFC doesn’t even seem to realize this. Ridiculously, CAFC then uses its own misunderstanding and misquote, and points to some of the (many) arguments where people argue that patents are inappropriate for software to dismiss Google’s argument about APIs. It honestly doesn’t realize that it’s comparing two totally different things. What lots of people agree on: software shouldn’t be patentable and APIs shouldn’t be copyrightable, but software can be copyrightable and API functionality may be patentable. But by confusing APIs and software, CAFC totally misreads both arguments.
This will probably go to SCOTUS next (unless they decline to weigh in), but in the mean time it spreads uncertainty and doubt, harming not only Free software developers but developers in general. As TechDirt put it, “CAFC has mucked up another form of intellectual property law through a basic (and near total) misunderstanding of technology.” █
Send this to a friend
Privatising everything, even vague ideas
Summary: Patents on everything that’s conceivable are being granted and even APIs are being monopolised, due to overzealous copyright lawyers
YESTERDAY we wrote about Amazon‘s latest crazy patent, using it as an example of how crazy the USPTO has gone. It’s not even an examination centre, it is approving almost everything that comes through, rendering it just a rubber-stamping pipeline like ISO. Ars Technica says that “Amazon’s latest patent is sillier than the peanut butter sandwich patent”, or to put it another way: “Thought the peanut butter sandwich patent was a joke? That one doesn’t even register a chuckle compared to a patent recently granted to Amazon.com. The e-commerce giant now can claim a legal monopoly on the process of photographing people and things against a white backdrop.”
The USPTO is starting to look more like a hoax. Sun employees, whose patents got passed to Oracle, said they had joked about how silly a patent they could get past the USPTO. They even competed over how ridiculous a patent they could slide through. And watch what Oracle is doing with such patents right now. Copyright may be essential for copyleft licences such as the GPL, but what happens when patent attacks on Android are coupled with copyright on APIs? To quote the EFF: “We’re still digesting today’s lengthy decision in the Oracle v. Google appeal, but we’re disappointed—and worried. The heart of the appeal was whether Oracle can claim a copyright on Java APIs and, if so, whether Google infringed that copyright. According to the Federal Circuit today, the answer to both questions was a qualified yes—with the qualification being that Google may have a fair use defense.
“Quick background: When it implemented the Android OS, Google wrote its own version of Java. But in order to allow developers to write their own programs for Android, Google relied on Java APIs. Application Programming Interfaces are, generally speaking, specifications that allow programs to communicate with each other. So when you type a letter in a word processor, and hit the print command, you are using an API that lets the word processor talk to the printer driver, even though they were written by different people.”
Copyright, patents and even trademarks in the US need revisiting. There are many examples where each of those three get misused to censor, to crush competition, to impede innovation, and ban sharing where it’s clearly beneficial, collectively. The waning dominance of the West may, in some awkward way, one day weaken all those artificial barriers that ACTA, SOPA, TPP etc. are trying to prop up. Right now it’s too damn clear that progress is not the goal; protectionism for the top 1% of wealth holder is the goal. █
Send this to a friend
Welcome ‘soft’ censorship
Thomas Wheeler; photo by Andrew Harrer / Bloomberg / December 12, 2013
Summary: The vision of ‘soft’ censorship, long sought after by corporate media, is finally here in the form of slow lanes for 99% of us
NOTHING surprises us when it comes to the FCC’s betrayal, at least not anymore. We wrote a great deal about Net Neutrality (dozens of times before) not because it relates to software but because as a site that drives around 100 GB of traffic per month we are very much affected by the issue and we should probably throw yet another opinion out there, despite the issue being covered very widely (which is good) to shed light on the seriousness of the matter.
One of our readers sent us this link which helps show the role of corporate lobbying in all this. As Mike Masnick put it: “We’ve talked plenty about the big revolving door between government and big business lately, but there are still some moments that are purely insane that show just how broken the system is. On Wednesday, news broke that former FCC commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker has been named the new CEO of CTIA, the main lobbying organization for mobile phone operators. Baker is no stranger to questionable revolving door moves, seeing as just months after she voted to approve Comcast’s merger with NBC Universal, she took a top lobbying job with Comcast. Funny how that works.
“But, in this case, it’s even more ridiculous because, as Jon Brodkin points out, the current head of the FCC, Tom Wheeler, previously was CEO of CTIA as well. And prior to that he was CEO of NCTA (the cable industry’s main lobbying group). And, to top it off, the current head of CTIA is none other than former FCC chair Michael Powell.”
Here is more about it. It’s simply white collar corruption and we should treat it accordingly. Here is an oldish quote regarding Net Neutrality and beyond, from President Obama himself: “I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists — and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president.”
Nonsense. False promises and no hope.
As one article put it, we now have “Net Discrimination” and it is being stamped into law. As another article put it, “FCC guts net neutrality to pave way to tiered internet” and there is similar analysis elsewhere. Well, as usual we have a deceiving headline from the Murdoch propaganda press (we highlighted this pattern before) and as one blog put it, “FCC Plots Murder of Blogs on Behalf of Billionaire Media Lords” (like Murdoch).
The cable and media giants are not really liking it when other points of view are being sent across, especially some in video and audio (which is where traffic gets very expensive). It is clear that for financial reasons some shows will have to shut down as a result of the FCC’s (lobbyists’) latest moves, which were driven in part (as precursor) by Comcast and Netflix. They are banning competition by passing new laws, or at least suppressing competition. There is now a White House petition for Net Neutrality, but these petitions usually prove to be a waste of time; they might generate some press, but the White House is not genuinely interested in serving people, only corporations. There are still some weeks left for things to change, just like in Europe (where Net Neutrality is being defended and finalisation of such a decision is imminent).
What big businesses and lobbyists seek here is protectionism. They are making sure that the Internet becomes useful only for surveillance and propaganda, as much of the rest is censored, made expensive, slowed down, and suppressed behind protocols that make the Web “Hollyweb”.
As we pointed out before, Tom Wheeler is more like a mole, never really committing to Net Neutrality. Some sites provided proof of it while continuing their coverage of the latest developments.
This is not about videos. Like many other policies, “congestion” is an excuse, like “terrorism” and “think of the children!”
They are starting with videos and later, once the presence is already there, expand to more areas and media types, driving small sites out of the Web. What we deal with here is erosion of Internet freedom and rights, promoting the big corporations and subverting equality of speech.
Net neutrality is not just some Utopia. Subscribers who pay for the Internet connection typically bear the costs and if there is a capacity issue, then expansion can be taken care of. People pay for it already. Watch the article many sites have been citing, spinning the news as a discussion about a “Fast Lane”. This is nonsense. As one person put it, “NYT framing is also slavish. It’s not a “fast lane” it’s the ability to throttle and extort everyone that is being allowed. Wheeler’s assertion that this kind of behavior won’t be tolerated ignores prior and ongoing throttling. Shame on Wheeler and the NYT.”
So the rich and powerful will have their traffic and packets treated specially, at the expense of others’. They are also putting DRM in HTML and incorporating other abuses against the Web, including DPI and other forms of surveillance. According to the NYT: “The Federal Communications Commission will propose new rules that allow Internet service providers to offer a faster lane through which to send video and other content to consumers, as long as a content company is willing to pay for it, according to people briefed on the proposals.”
That’s deceiving. They use the same propaganda language that the cable oligopoly has been using all along. It continues by saying: “The proposed rules are a complete turnaround for the F.C.C. on the subject of so-called net neutrality, the principle that Internet users should have equal ability to see any content they choose, and that no content providers should be discriminated against in providing their offerings to consumers.”
It’s not much of a turnaround for those who have watched the FCC being taken over by lobbyists (and revolving doors actions, including from Microsoft). The FCC should be disbanded and a new body put in charge of these issues. The FCC is no longer what it’s supposed to be; it has been hijacked.
It is a turning point in the fight against censorship and the fight for information on the Web. Costs are being used in this type of warfare; So shows like TechBytes will be disciminated against and sent more slowly (if at all) to listeners, unless the host pays additional, prohibitive costs.
Watch another example of corporate press spin: “Internet service providers could strike special deals with Internet companies like Netflix or Skype for preferential treatment, under proposals by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler, violating the ideal of equal access for all consumers”
This is not about fast lanes for large corporations and mass media’s corporate masters; it is about SLOW lanes for those who are not in a list of “approved” media or whatever. It’s ‘soft’ censorship. █
Send this to a friend
Buildings around Sony HQ in Tokyo
Summary: New examples of so-called ‘IP’ being used to oppress society, censor society, and perform extensive surveillance on it
THERE IS some real criticism of the so-called “IP” (intellectual monopolies) movement these days, even in some of the corporate press. TechDirt points out that Newegg has just crushed a patent troll . The problem, however, is that the media mostly tackles the issue which is trolls (tackling one patent at a time) rather than cover the real issue, which large corporations don’t want fixed (right now they lobby against patent scope reform at SCOTUS).
It’s not just about patents, either. Copyright monopolies are getting more draconian over time and according to [2,3], the company which attacks Android using patents (Sony) is now attacking Open Source films using bogus DMCA requests. Over the years we have covered many other reasons to avoid anything from Sony. Now there is yet another reason. This abuse is systematic, not an “oops”. Simon Phipps (OSI) said he had tried to upload the original video (“Sintel”) and was blocked, whereupon he appealed and asked others to do the same. British law and British politics mostly overlook these serious abuses  which are monopolies on ideas and works. British politicians are generally quite horrible; they serve corporations, not people. Just look how many British politicians lobbied against net neutrality in the European Parliament last week.
“What we have right now is the criminalisation of more and more digital activities which were perfectly legitimate activities before digitisation.”Not too long ago, a business of a German living in New Zealand was shut down using an illegal raid along with abuses of surveillance and police powers (and literal stealing of people’s personal and business data ). Dropbox, which was on the leaked PRISM slides as “coming soon” (Microsoft was first in PRISM’s slides/timeline), plays ball with those who are abusing powers , using suspicion alone as justification for suspension and/or censorship. This also means that Dropbox is accessing all files that people are uploading. Copyright provides/equips Dropbox with a convenient excuse for doing so, showing again that copyright, surveillance and censorship typically go hand in hand. Dropbox is definitely something to boycott (better now than later).
The world needs to learn how to share. Corporations need to learn how to cooperate. What we have right now is the criminalisation of more and more digital activities which were perfectly legitimate activities before digitisation. █
Related/contextual items from the news:
MacroSolve is a company that got a lot of (generally negative) attention when it turned full-blown “patent troll” in 2011, suing dozens of companies (including small app development shops) over patent No. 7,822,816, which it claims covers using questionnaires on a mobile app.
Now, a coalition of defendants led by Newegg and Geico Insurance has stopped MacroSolve in its tracks. MacroSolve has dismissed all remaining cases, and it has admitted that it can’t proceed to go forward with a trial that was scheduled to take place this June in East Texas.
Sony Pictures has demanded the removal of the CGI short film Sintel from YouTube due to a claim of copyright infringement. One small problem: they don’t actually own anything in the film.
Sintel, a film by Colin Levy which has been featured before on Cartoon Brew, was created by the Blender Foundation, the non-profit organization which promotes the free, open source 3D software Blender. The crowdfunded short was made using entirely original materials, and was licensed as Creative Commons Attribution 3.0, which means that anyone can freely share the movie.
While Nigel Farage and Nick Clegg kicked around old political footballs like immigration on Wednesday night, there was a glaring omission from the debate: digital rights.
Millions of users lost access to their personal files when Megaupload was raided, and there’s little chance that they will have them returned in the near future. Despite efforts from both Megaupload and its former hosting company to negotiate a solution, the servers are still gathering dust in a Virginia warehouse.
A tweet that appeared late last night took everyone by surprise. The tweet talked about a DMCA notice that blocked a file from being shared on a Dropbox user’s account.
Send this to a friend
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »