Team UPC is Trying to Misuse Copyright Law in Order to Censor Critics of the UPC Collusion (a Scheme to Violate Constitutions and Craft an Illegal Kangaroo Court in Defiance of International Conventions)

Posted in Deception, Europe, Intellectual Monopoly, Patents at 12:19 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Let's get artistic then…

Klaus Grabinski Met António Trump

Received minutes ago over IRC:

Dear Sir, Dear Madam, We noticed that Mr. Schestowitz used a photo from which we are the copyright holders, without our authorization, in a post on the website with the following URL: http://techrights.org/2022/11/21/upc-partners-in-crime/ This use constitutes an infringement on the copyrights of Mr. Johan Liénard and the FPS Economy

according to article XI.165 of the Belgian Code of Economic law. At no time did Mr. Johan Liénard and the FPS Economy agree to the publication of the concerned photo in its present form in the post

We therefore ask you to immediately remove the concerned photo and cease any further use of it. If not, we will feel obliged to take the necessary further steps to obtain the cessation of this infringement.

We thank you in advance for your collaboration and remain, With kind regards, Johan Liénard and Jérôme Debrulle on behalf of the FPS Economy.

Summary: The second time in months [1, 2] that EPO friends and UPC fiends (Jérôme Debrulle named above, he’s a major part of the UPC collusion) engage in a kind of copyright trolling in an obvious attempt to intimidate prominent critics of their illegal actions? The self-incriminating photo is the only one of its kind (taken and disseminated foolishly by the perpetrators) and copyright law must not be misused by rich criminals to cover up their crimes (or prevent press coverage on it); they must be hurting because German media has caught up with this epic scandal and is covering it

This is also fair use (bypassing maximalists):

BELGIUM IS NEUTRAL; Jérôme Debrulle: Go for it!

Bunch of ‘copyright nazis’ and button-feeders for Benoît Battistelli.

By the way, I do not live in Belgium. A “dude with a camera” taking a shot of two men is no work of art. He helped promote white-collar criminality and now he doesn’t like the consequences.

EU Copyright Law

Also see The Quotation Exception under EU Copyright Law: Paving the Way for User Rights (2021)


Wikileaks is Losing Pages. We Replicate Them Here to Preserve Important Information.

Posted in Intellectual Monopoly, Red Hat at 8:50 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Red Hat has a history of ‘IP’ shakedown for censorship’s sake (covering up blunders); Wikileaks had a good example of this, but it has gone offline, so we reproduce it here

IT was recently reported that Wikileaks had been losing pages as the site was having issues. Today I navigated to this page, which turned out to be among those affected:

Wikileaks error

It’s still in the Wayback Machine, but many people cannot find or search/discover it at the Internet Archive.

So here are the contents of the pages which concern Red Hat trying to threaten Wikileaks into self-censorship, using trademarks for the most part:

Category:Red Hat

Red Hat, Inc. (NYSE: RHT) is an S&P 500 company in the free and open source software sector, and a major Linux distribution vendor. Founded in 1993, Red Hat has its corporate headquarters in Raleigh, North Carolina with satellite offices worldwide.

Red Hat based on their operating system product Red Hat Enterprise Linux and management products offers support, training (e.g. certifications like Red Hat Certified Engineer RHCE), and consulting services.

Pages in category “Red Hat”

The following 2 pages are in this category, out of 2 total.


- RHCE exam question 1 (2008)
- RHCE exam question 2 (2008)

These, in turn, link to the following two pages:

RHCE exam question 1 (2008)

Release date
May 26, 2008


From: Mia Bass <mbass@redhat.com>
Reply-To: mbass@redhat.com
Privacy: yes
Privacy: yes
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: wikileaks@sunshinepress.org, usa@wikileaks.org
Subject: URGENT--Removal of WikiLeaks Posting
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Privacy: yes
Message-Id: <20080530124655.33C03394B47@mail.wikileaks.org>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 13:46:55 +0100 (BST)

Dear Sir or Madam:

Red Hat, Inc. (Red Hat) recently became aware that a WikiLeaks
subscriber has posted materials to your site purporting to be Red Hat
Certified Engineer (RHCE) exam questions.  Those documents are found at
the following links:



It is our understanding that WikiLeaks.org is a website aimed toward
revealing information regarding the unethical behavior of various
foreign governments and corporations.  We do not believe that posting
exam content, authentic or otherwise, furthers the overall goal of your
website.  Red Hat neither confirms nor denies the authenticity of these
documents.  If authentic, their presence on your web site may assist
people who wish to cheat on our exam; if not, then the documents mislead
Red Hat exam candidates and is a clear misuse of our brand and
trademarks.  Consequently, it is imperative that both postings are
immediately removed from the WikiLeaks website.

We trust you will understand Red Hat's interests in protecting its
valuable trademark rights and business interests.  Please contact me no
later than 5:00p.m. on Monday, June 2, 2008 to confirm that the postings
have been removed, or if we need to take additional steps to remove the

Mia Bass
Legal Affairs
Red Hat, Inc.
1801 Varsity Drive
Raleigh, N.C. 27606
Direct Tel: +1 919-754-4734
Email: mbass@redhat.com

Wikileaks responds:

From: editor@sunshinepress.org
To: Mia Bass <mbass@redhat.com>
Cc: wikileaks@sunshinepress.org, usa@wikileaks.org
Subject: Re: URGENT--Removal of WikiLeaks Posting
Privacy: yes
References: <20080530124655.33C03394B47@mail.wikileaks.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20080530124655.33C03394B47@mail.wikileaks.org>
Message-Id: <20080530134035.C0D28394BD7@mail.wikileaks.org>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 14:40:35 +0100 (BST)

Dear Mia. Thank you for your letter. We have reviewed the material
at an editorial level.

Our view is as follows:

The documents reveal that, at least in the UK, the Red Hat certificate
is worthless as an unknown number of students are cheating on the
exam.  We have revealed which questions they have access to, placing
all students on a level playing field and in the process destroying
a black market in exam questions.

If Red Hat is to be treated seriously as a provider of test
credentials, then it is obligated to change its exam questions,
review its security processes and the treatment of its staff.  That
Red Hat now seeks to censor the messenger and play ludicrous "we
refuse to confirm or deny" games with the public instead of
"apologising and improving" is cause for concern.

Jay Lim


File | Torrent | Magnet

Further information

United Kingdom
Red Hat

Primary language


File size in bytes


File type information

PDF document, version 1.3

Cryptographic identity

SHA256 bf59611711f0ef737e34acea3ddcbcfffc317115d38c4f26abe2997a4ea46072

RHCE exam question 2 (2008)

Release date
May 26, 2008


File | Torrent | Magnet

Further information

United Kingdom
Red Hat

Primary language


File size in bytes


File type information

PDF document, version 1.3

Cryptographic identity

SHA256 67ad127820dcde13f45ec634fcb96ef39f9c17ddcf3e4f141efe87f81059e2fc

In case Wikileaks never restores that page, we’ve at least got a copy.


Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal on ‘Intellectual Property’

Posted in Intellectual Monopoly at 12:35 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal on 'Intellectual Property'

Source (from today): Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal – Fire


Open Invention Network (OIN) Recognises a Risk Posed to Cryptocurrencies (Danger From Software Patents), But OIN Still Proposes the Wrong Solutions

Posted in Deception, Finance, IBM, Intellectual Monopoly, OIN, Patents at 9:41 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Video download link | md5sum 93f0af36dc02563b8b0cf0931164c1b7

Summary: Square is joining OIN, but it’s another example of banking/financial institutions choosing to coexist with software patents instead of putting an end to them

THIS video concerns the latest high-profile OIN addition. We’ve assessed not press releases but promotional puff pieces from Microsoft-centric sites [1, 2] that favour corporate front groups such as LOT, OIN, and Linux Foundation. They make no effort to question the proposed approach; instead, it is akin to a press release in quasi-interview form.

“OIN itself isn’t evil, but it misleads people by offering the wrong solutions to the community while mostly serving the interests of companies looking to ‘bag’ the community’s work (or privatise it).”We don’t wish to start with all the basics and the history of OIN. We did several videos about it earlier this year, there’s lots more in the wiki, and 188 articles in the OIN category of this blog. OIN itself isn’t evil, but it misleads people by offering the wrong solutions to the community while mostly serving the interests of companies looking to ‘bag’ the community’s work (or privatise it).

Cryptocurrencies are a pollution-related problem, but they’re not inherently evil, either. Patents remain a potent threat to them and we’ve named some of the blockchain patent trolls (they sent nasty and threatening messages to us).

Cryptocurrency companies need to work to abolish software patents, not flock to join the likes of OIN. There’s not much OIN can do to protect them from patent trolls.


António ‘Gap’ Campinos Explains His Plan to Indoctrinate/Brainwash the Public About So-called ‘IP’ (Misleading, Vague Term, Also a Deliberate Misnomer)

Posted in Deception, Europe, Intellectual Monopoly, Patents, Videos at 11:25 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“It has become fashionable to toss copyright, patents, and trademarks—three separate and different entities involving three separate and different sets of laws—plus a dozen other laws into one pot and call it “intellectual property”. The distorting and confusing term did not become common by accident. Companies that gain from the confusion promoted it. The clearest way out of the confusion is to reject the term entirely. “

Richard M. Stallman

2014 Tony:

Video download link

2013 Tony:

Video download link

Summary: António Campinos, back then at OHIM/EUIPO, is talking the typical propaganda about “IPR-intensive industries” (joint propaganda with Benoît ‘Vichy’ Battistelli and a convenient lie we’ve remarked on many times in past years); he also works on perception manipulation, just like large corporations are using schools or schoolteachers to brainwash children for Hollywood, using grossly misapplied words like “piracy” (Campinos uses that word in the interview). We’ve noticed that he keeps talking about “gap”, even several times in succession; not much has changed since [1, 2] (Gap-pinos).


Old Talk by Dr. Richard Stallman About How Patents Work

Posted in Intellectual Monopoly, Patents at 5:42 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Video download link

Summary: Richard Stallman explains how patents work



RMS: These patents last for 20 years, starting from when someone applied for the patent. You see, the patent office issues patents in response to an application. Someone pays an expensive application fee and even more money to the lawyers who draw up the patent so that it will give him a lot of power, and if the lawyers have done this right the patent office sometime


later issues the patent, and the patent is an absolute monopoly on using a certain technical idea.

So the myth that people have is the idea that what is being patented is an entire product. They think that if someone designs a product he will go and quote patent the product unquote. That’s already a mistake.


And they will imagine that if his product was new that nobody else could possibly have patented it before, so he’s the only one who can patent it. And he alone will have a patent on this product. This is completely a myth, because patents don’t cover an entire product. Each patent is a monopoly on using a certain method, a technical method, and that method is probably


just a tiny part in a real product today in a field like software. So today, the situation we really face is that in the one software product there are thousands of different ideas and each of them might be patented by somebody else. So this myth of one patent per product gives people completely the wrong idea


of the system they are trying to think about. And this myth is used very effectively by the lobbyists in favor of software patents.

Another myth that they appeal to is the myth that software patents quote protect unquote the quote small inventor unquote. The lobbyists in favor of software patents are working for


megacorporations. So, when they say that this is good for small companies one must suspect that they are trying to pull the wool over our legislators’ eyes. In fact, the situation is that software patents are mainly good for the megacorporations. You see the megacorporations that are active in the software field get thousands of patents each


and they cross-license with each other, which means that they form a kind of exclusive club and they avoid the bulk of the problems of the system. Meanwhile, with all their patents they can attack anyone else when they want to and as a result, software patents give the megacorporations a certain amount of dominion over all software activities.


Now, another myth that these megacorporation lobbyists frequently cite is the idea that it’s just too hard to deal with anything if the laws are different between different countries. That’s like saying, well, if in your country I don’t need a bodyguard that’s too complex.


Please make me need a bodyguard in your country the same way I need it in that country and in that country. That way I can take the same bodyguard everywhere. There’s no sense in this idea. They can perfectly well deal with being free to write and distribute and use whatever programs they like. It wouldn’t cause them any trouble at all.

And another myth that they like to cite


is the idea that if the US has software patents, that proves it must be the right thing to do.

[audience laughs]

You’ll be amazed at how much mileage they get out of something so utterly absurd. Or they say, the US has software patents, if our country doesn’t offer software patents to our companies


then US companies will have an advantage. It’s actually just the opposite. Any country that doesn’t allow software patents is giving all the software developers and users in that country an advantage, which is that they don’t have to be worried about being sued because of how they wrote the programs they wrote or how someone else wrote the programs they use. They’re safe.


They have protection from patents. You see, every country has its own patent system. They’re all separate. So each country’s patent office issues patents that restrict what people are allowed to do in that country only. So US patents only restrict US companies and individuals and things that are done in the US.


And Canadian patents restrict things that are done in Canada, only. But everyone in the world can get a US patent. They don’t have to be Americans to get US patents. Canadians can get US patents. So Canadian companies can get US software patents and then attack us poor American software developers at home. We’re not safe anywhere.


[audience laughs]

But if Canada rejects software patents but then Canadians at least will be safe at home. No one in the world whether Canadian or American or anything else will be able to get Canadian software patents and sue poor Canadians at home. So in fact, the country that doesn’t allow software patents is giving its own citizens an advantage.


They could attack Americans but Americans couldn’t fight back.

[audience laughs loudly]

Now, most of the time when people describe the workings of the patent system they are people who have a vested interest in the system. Either they’re patent lawyers or they’re part of the patent bureaucracy or they


work in the patent department of a megacorporation. So they have a vested interest in making patents sound like a good system. And they do this in a particular way. The magazine “The Economist” once compared the patent system to a time-consuming lottery, because the effects of any given patent vary tremendously. I’m sure you know what the advertisements


for a lottery look like. They dwell luxuriously on the unlikely possibility that you win. And they never mention the overwhelmingly likely possibility that you lose. And in this way they contrive to give a misleading picture without factually lying. The publicity for the patent system uses the same


principle. The proponents of the system dwell lovingly on what it’s like to apply for a patent and get one, and they ask you to imagine that you’re walking down the street with a patent in your pocket and you can pull it out and point it at people and say, “give me your money”.

[audience chuckles]

So I’m going to try to counterbalance their bias by describing


what the patent system looks like from the other end of the patent barrel, what it feels like to be walking down the street knowing that at any time somebody could pull out a patent and point it at you and say give me all [your money].


Techrights Commends US Supreme Court for Supporting Programmers by Defending Fair Use

Posted in Antitrust, Google, Intellectual Monopoly at 11:10 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Stephen Breyer, U.S. Supreme Court judge

Summary: Stephen Breyer (above), the author of the latest big decision after an 11-year legal battle, is once again doing the right thing from a software developer’s perspective; only two Justices opposed this decision or dissented

Copyright maximalists have suffered a blow; as it turns out, on a holiday, SCOTUS did the right thing by deciding that copyrights on APIs are a disservice to society. As LWN put it, a “long saga of Oracle’s copyright-infringement against Google, which copied much of the Java API for use in Android, has come to an end” (no appeals anymore).

“Although Google itself is a monopoly, a decision against Google in this case would have devastated software development in general, no matter if proprietary or Free software.”A law firms-funded site said “a 6-2 decision authored by Justice Breyer, the Supreme Court has held that Google’s copying of the JAVA API naming convention was a fair use as a matter of law.” Another Oracle proponent said: “This decision was supportd [sic] by six of the nine justices.”

Slam dunk. Press coverage is starting to come out, e.g. HotHardware. Today isn’t just a bright sunny day but also a holiday and an epic milestone in the battle against copyright maximalists and software monopolists. Although Google itself is a monopoly, a decision against Google in this case would have devastated software development in general, no matter if proprietary or Free software.


Patents Are Not Property

Posted in Deception, Intellectual Monopoly, Patents at 5:00 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: The mythology about patents being something one can own and then sell is one among the biggest lies perpetrated and exacerbated in the 21st century, giving rise to ‘extortion factories’ such as patent trolls

THE European Patent Office (EPO) and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) are both run by patent maximalists, Battistelli’s António Campinos and Trump's Iancu. These people view patents as things they’re not. They’re clueless or intentionally wrong, i.e. dishonest.

“They interject themselves into media and create their own propaganda sites, usually with inappropriate terms like “asset” and “property” in the name. So even the very names of these sites are lies.”As Hartwig Thomas put it: “The notion of IP is just a propaganda term which attempts to wrap copyright, trademarks and patents in the respectable cloth of “private property” which is guaranteed in the constitution. But the constitution never meant to guarantee anything like it.”

Josh Landau was quoting Madison on the subject of patents several days ago. To quote:

James Madison is credited with introducing the Patent and Copyright Clause to the Constitution, and defended that clause in Federalist 43, stating “[t]he utility of this power will scarcely be questioned.” But he was well aware that there were dangers to the power, writing in his own papers that the patent monopoly could produce more evil than good.

But it wasn’t just in his private papers that Madison referenced the potential problems patents can create. In the letter to Congress in which he, as President, recommended the establishment of a separate patent office within the Department of State, he also noted those dangers, saying he recommended “further guards [be] provided against fraudulent exactions of fees by persons possessed of patents.”

Patents have since then become like a religion with clergy/preachers who tax everyone; some, without being lawyers, are doing this too (trolls). They interject themselves into media and create their own propaganda sites, usually with inappropriate terms like “asset” and “property” in the name. So even the very names of these sites are lies.

“Even the name of the site and the job/title/role contain the propaganda term. If they repeat the propaganda often enough, they presume, people will eventually believe it. Even politicians, judges and governments…”The headline and each paragraph here, for example, contains the lie and the propaganda term “IP”. That’s just a new example; there are examples like it every day. Even the name of the site and the job/title/role contain the propaganda term. If they repeat the propaganda often enough, they presume, people will eventually believe it. Even politicians, judges and governments…

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »

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

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

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

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

New to This Site? Here Are Some Introductory Resources




Samba logo

We support

End software patents


GNU project


EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com

Recent Posts