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

09.12.20

Richard Stallman Still Works to Improve the Freedom of the Widely-Used RasPi (Produced in the United Kingdom by the Raspberry Pi Foundation)

Posted in Free/Libre Software, FSF, GNU/Linux, Hardware, Interview at 11:48 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

New video from/with Mr. RasPi, Eben Upton

Summary: “As of December 2019, more than thirty million [Raspberry Pi] boards have been sold,” according to Wikipedia and Richard Stallman (RMS) is working to make them more freedom-respecting; Eben Upton takes his advice to heart, making the vision of FSF hardware endorsements (RYF) seem increasingly fruitful and promising

THE “RMS RULES”, as Mr. Raspberry Pi has put it, are being taken seriously as blobs are gradually being removed from new generations of Raspberry Pi (the original was released 8 years ago). A Raspberry Pi computer is currently being used to monitor Techrights and issue visual alerts (with lights and sounds) in case of critical issues/downtimes.

“A Raspberry Pi computer is currently being used to monitor Techrights and issue visual alerts (with lights and sounds) in case of issues/downtimes.”RMS might not be publicly visible anymore (there are very few videos of him from 2020, COVID partly to blame), but he’s still active by E-mail and other means. I speak to him on occasions. Word on the street is (to borrow slang/idiom), he’s waiting for the right moment to make a comeback. He’ll be back (not just as GNU’s head but also public speaker and so on). Don’t strike him out as “retired”, as some have, as he’s extremely active — albeit not in the public eye — for a person in so-called ‘retirement’. His ‘cancellation’ last year failed to complete (he’s in charge of GNU) and it was based on distortions, lies and deception (even internally, inside the FSF).

When I last met RMS in person (a long time ago) I suggested to him that hardware vendors should add a physical switch to laptops’ microphones. He took my suggestion seriously. He’s definitely picky or extremely selective in whose advice he accepts, but people whom he trusts he can be exceptionally amicable and attentive to. The world around him is generally hostile towards him because he thinks for himself and disagrees with many aspects of the status quo. Like Linus Torvalds (awful to compare those two men, I’m well aware) he’s not shy or reluctant to say outrageous things provided they’re factually accurate. That’s what typically gets both of them in trouble. We ought to protect both persons’ freedom of speech. Otherwise the 'speech police' will work to oppress all of us — by extrapolation so to speak — by targeting perceived leaders or influencers, even if just to “set an example…” (deterrence)

The Free software movement (extension of the ‘hacker culture’) was established not to obey authority but to disobey corporate power, question abuse (or misuse) of power, and liberate geeks from financial rulers.

09.01.20

Richard Stallman Explains Why Open Source Misses the Point and “is Not Enough”

Posted in Free/Libre Software, Interview, OSI, Videos at 11:28 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Note: We’re still working on a migration back to WebM/Ogg (default)

Summary: Ignoring the weak English in the above subtitles, this is a public appearance in which GNU’s founder explained why “Open Source” missed the point (that’s Bruce Perens sitting beside him)

08.28.20

“Guy Who Started and Still Maintains Linux” (But Not Managing It Anymore)

Posted in Interview, Kernel, Videos at 3:39 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

2015:

Summary: With the Linux Foundation making all the big decisions (like outsourcing the lion’s share of projects to Microsoft’s proprietary software, GitHub) Torvalds has a lowered sense of ego

“My name is Linus, and I am your God.” –Linus Torvalds (a very long time ago)

Tim Berners-Lee and W3C come to mind as well.

08.27.20

Linus Torvalds Explains Copyleft (Which Linux Foundation Increasingly Opposes)

Posted in Interview, Kernel, Videos at 4:34 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

(Source video here, clip spanning 8m:20s – 9m:10s)

Summary: As we noted some days ago, the Linux Foundation‘s hostility towards copyleft and GPL enforcement goes against the licence of Linux and preference of its founder (which this foundation (mis)uses for its name, in order to attract/secure a lot of money for itself, much like the FSFE)

08.18.20

Daniel Wallace Explains Why He Challenged the GPL (Copyleft) in Court

Posted in Antitrust, Courtroom, Free/Libre Software, FSF, FUD, GNU/Linux, Interview, Law at 10:30 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Richard Stallman
Richard Stallman’s last interview as FSF president

Summary: Almost 15 years ago Daniel Wallace alleged that copyleft (or GPL specifically) was problematic and contravened federal antitrust laws; he lost the case and now he explains to us why he pursued that misguided litigation campaign

OVER the past few days we’ve been studying the GPL challenge that was widely discussed a decade and a half ago after Daniel Wallace, about 60 at the time, had alleged that it was an antitrust violation. He even took it to court. As Wikipedia put it:

Wallace v. International Business Machines Corp., 467 F.3d 1104 (7th Cir. 2006), was a significant case in the development of free software. The case decided, at the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, that in United States law the GNU General Public License (GPL) did not contravene federal antitrust laws.

Daniel Wallace, a United States citizen, sued the Free Software Foundation (FSF) for price fixing. In a later lawsuit, he unsuccessfully sued IBM, Novell, and Red Hat. Wallace claimed that free Linux prevented him from making a profit from selling his own operating system.

We found the current contact details of Mr. Wallace and Ryan, who comes from the same state where Wallace resides, did eventually call him. That was yesterday. “He said it was long in the past and that he was planning to develop a product based on BSD,” Ryan reported. “He wouldn’t go further than that. He just said he’s 74 now and it’s long in the past. He chose not to proceed because he was representing himself pro se and that it would have bankrupted him had he continued to appeal.”

When we started exploring this we wondered aloud who might have funded or ‘bankrolled’ the lawsuit.

“When we started exploring this we wondered aloud who might have funded or ‘bankrolled’ the lawsuit.”“He said it was just his opinion that the GPL doesn’t “hold water” legally,” Ryan continued, “and that giving software away and charging for services prevents others from making competitive products.”

Did Microsoft have anything to do with this (like the SCO lawsuit)? “Doesn’t pass the “sniff test” for Microsoft,” Ryan said, “I think it’s just someone who wanted to knock over copyleft because they had some idea for a product that couldn’t compete. He seemed to not like Red Hat very much. He said that it was dishonest to give the software out for free and charge for services. The court kept saying that he failed to articulate an antitrust argument. They let him amend his complaint 4 times before they threw it out.”

Groklaw wrote a lot about it at the time. Sadly, some Groklaw pages are no longer accessible.

“Groklaw wrote a lot about it at the time. Sadly, some Groklaw pages are no longer accessible.”“He seemed to be under the impression that the GPL requires software to be free of charge,” Ryan said. “It doesn’t. It just makes it hard to sell because someone could take the same source code and come up with a different version. He said he got hit with huge costs for the legal costs incurred by FSF and the three companies (IBM, RH, Novell).”

“Although,” Ryan continued, “he accidentally contributed something to the GPL. Instead of knocking it down, he gave us case law that it provides direct benefits to the market, as decided by the trial judge, and a three judge panel voting unanimously at the Seventh Circuit appeals court. Which can be cited if someone else is ever hit with antitrust complaints regarding a Free Software License. I’d say that Daniel Wallace’s demeanor was more shocked that someone wanted to talk to him and evasive, but definitely kind of blindsided that someone would poke around at that after 15 years.”

It’s never too late to start pursuing answers and clarify.

“He said he was looking into some product based on BSD but wouldn’t elaborate,” Ryan summarised. “I mean, there are small tech companies in the Indianapolis area, so it’s certainly possible that he wanted to make a server offering or a network product, where FreeBSD was competitive with Linux at the time, mostly.”

“In reality, what Microsoft is doing — licence-wise — is far closer to a violation of antitrust law.”“He has very strong opinions that the GPL is illegal under copyright law. He kept saying things like “I couldn’t attack it using copyright law, so I went after it with antitrust law.”.”

As Wikipedia put it: “On May 16, 2006, Judge Richard L. Young dismissed the case with prejudice: “Wallace has had two chances to amend his complaint [...]. His continuing failure to state an antitrust claim indicates that the complaint has “inherent internal flaws.” [...] Wallace will not be granted further leave to file an amended complaint because the court finds that such amendment would be futile.”

In reality, what Microsoft is doing — licence-wise — is far closer to a violation of antitrust law. IBM, Novell, and Red Hat collaborating in the open, or sharing code, isn’t anywhere as problematic as what Microsoft does.

“No less than Bill Gates himself said in a recent Fortune article that Microsoft competes better against Linux in China when there’s piracy than when there isn’t.

“So, Microsoft actively looks the other way as people pirate its software. It builds its market share that way, and lets people get used to the idea of having Windows at a certain price.”

ECT

03.08.20

IAM Works (Lies) for Corrupt EPO Management and for Team UPC, Now Behind Paywalls (Possibly to Limit Critics’ Access, Lowering Scrutiny and Fact-Checking)

Posted in Deception, Europe, Interview, Patents at 8:04 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Promoting illegal software patents in Europe:

IAM CII
Benjamin Henrion has quoted Campinos as saying: “If the German Federal Constitutional Court gives the green light to German ratification, the system can go ahead regardless of Brexit if the political will is there.” He said that it just means “Political will to get software patents through the backdoor” and also quoted the part where Campinos says: “When the EPO was created, the patent system was about supporting innovation in hardware. Now we’re rapidly moving into a software era. More than 1/2 of all patent applications will have some form of content relating to CIIs” (the underlying message is, “send us lots of codefake ‘inventions’ patent applications or software patent applications. We’ll accept them all and call them “CII” or “AI”; just ensure you put your real name on the application and not the name of a computer program like "DABUS")

IAM CII AI
“HEY HI!” (AI) May we offer another buzzword for “CII”?

Summary: European Patent Office puff pieces come not only in German but also behind paywalls, amplifying patently false claims that are justified because these are mere “interviews” (no fact-checking necessary)

THE European Patent Office (EPO) cannot be trusted. The management has skeletons and skulls in its closet and it would go to great lengths to protect enablers, including those who secure the jobs of successors (based on perceived loyalty, kinship, nationality and political allegiances). It’s a cult, it’s a dangerous cabal. Lies become “alternative truths” or “alternative facts” (a Trumpian term) and IAM ‘magazine’ is an extension of this same family. It’s part of the cabal. It won’t bite the palm that feeds it.

“…IAM ‘magazine’ is an extension of this same family. It’s part of the cabal. It won’t bite the palm that feeds it.”As we noted in our previous article, patent quality has collapsed and anybody who dares speak about it gets severe unwarranted bollocking. It’s an unspeakable truth as it harms the cult by refuting its lies. Benoît Battistelli kept making it more expensive to challenge decisions — something that António Campinos does at an even accelerated rate. We covered the upcoming changes this morning (effective next month).

Just like Battistelli, Campinos relies on IAM for information warfare; he uses IAM to spread lies and spin (measuring things like speed as though they are “quality”). From the new interview:

IAM propaganda

Stay classy, IAM! Serve the ‘patent class’.

“Just like Battistelli, Campinos relies on IAM for information warfare; he uses IAM to spread lies and spin (measuring things like speed as though they are “quality”).”The money will keep coming! In the form of event ‘sponsorship’ (bribes) etc.

One can read on, past the paywall, to find North Korea-esque propaganda like the EPO's Working Party on Quality. They name “Working Parties” after lies they strive to disseminate. Remember what North Korea’s DPRK stands for: “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.”

Putting aside the lies about quality, watch the EPO promoting illegal software patents yet again, as recently as a couple of days ago. “How can you use patent analysis to gain insight into the developments of #blockchain? We’ll be talking about that here…” (link omitted)

The EPO itself admitted that these are software patents.

“Let’s just say that if the interview had the word “Campinos” replaced by “Battistelli” it would still make perfect sense. Perfect sense!”The interview has loads of lies in it, but it’s many pages long and would take a lot of time to debunk thoroughly, let alone exhaustively. Let’s just say that if the interview had the word “Campinos” replaced by “Battistelli” it would still make perfect sense. Perfect sense!

In the next article we’re going to remind readers that Campinos is as bad as Battistelli if not worse. Ignore the smiles, the photo ops, and the softly-spoken lies (tone doesn’t determine accuracy or sincerity).

We’ve decided to focus on the lies told about UPC, seeing that it’s still in the news (albeit not as often as 2 weeks ago).

Kluwer Patent Blog tweeted: “Message from the UPC Preparatory Committee: Once Germany will be in a position to ratify the Unified Patent Court Agreement and the Protocol on the Provisional Application, arrangements will be made to deal with the implications of the UK‘s departure.”

“We’ve decided to focus on the lies told about UPC, seeing that it’s still in the news (albeit not as often as 2 weeks ago).”Well, the UPC Preparatory Committee suggests doing something illegal. These people have gone insane — so irrational now that they’re redundant (no job). The UPC Preparatory Committee and its cohorts should have already been criminally investigated when they advertised jobs that do not exist and will never exist. “Then they break AETR,” Henrion told Kluwer, “and a second constitutional complaint will be launched [] UPC boosters are so desperate to have it running at all costs.”

He later called it “UPC boosters dreams” and I reminded him that Ramsey “will be unemployed soon. This liar, a chronic liar, is struggling for his survival. He’s already a circus clown in the eyes of many in the legal community.” [sic]

“They still believe they can get it running,” he told me personally.

Who’s they?

“UPC pusher CIPA is keeping mostly mum at the moment.”EPO management is who or what he was referring to.

UPC pusher CIPA is keeping mostly mum at the moment. One short statement and then it vanished. It’s really loathed at the moment, but not for its corruption and UPC stunts.

The IAM interview (paywalled; the headline says “Exclusive to IAM, the EPO president’s first in-depth interview since getting the job” and it’s many pages of lie after lie) came shortly after Campinos came to London to entertain other publications that lobby for the UPC, notably Managing IP (which did other UPC boosting pieces, based on his speech at their event). Two weeks after IAM puff pieces like “EPO users can expect big changes over coming years, says Campinos” (from IAM’s Editor-in-chief Joff Wild) came the long form puff piece, shielded from critics by a stubborn paywall we’ve managed to get around, exposing silly photos of a sitting Campinos trying to seem gentle and compassionate, even innocent. IAM was retweeted by EPO as saying: “Fascinating, in-depth interview with @EPOorg president António Campinos. His first since taking charge of the office just over 18 months ago.”

“As we said earlier, the same interview could be done with Battistelli and it would be difficult to discern.”He lacks a mouth, doesn’t it? Maybe the policy of his is to duck the media, for fear that his real agenda will be exposed (it’s the same as Battistelli’s).

As we said earlier, the same interview could be done with Battistelli and it would be difficult to discern.

The key part (to us at least) is UPC boosting from the EPO’s favourite paid mouthpiece. UPC is mentioned in the summary and all the references, based on just one little portion of the whole interview (towards the end). I’ve asked them: “Has António paid you yet, like Benoît Battistelli did (to promote the UPC in the United States)?”

Readers should remember where the money came from. Always follow the money and realise that IAM is serving as a pro-UPC PR agency, an extension of the EPO’s (and funded by it).

“Mr. Wild is like the sort of shy schoolgirl, nodding and smiling while parroting everything “the master” (or headmaster) says…”This puff piece ‘interview’ had not a single difficult question, as one can expect from IAM. It was exploited as a UPC boosting opportunity and the EPO’s sole tweet about it said: “In an interview with @IAM_magazine , EPO President António Campinos talks about his vision for the future of the Office, #AI, patent quality, #UP/#UPC and much more. Have a look: https://www.iam-media.com/law-policy/man-plan …”

To spare readers the cost of IAM subscription, let’s just say that on every single point (named above) he spread wonderful lies. IAM didn’t challenge these. Mr. Wild is like the sort of shy schoolgirl, nodding and smiling while parroting everything “the master” (or headmaster) says…

Mr. Wild knows where the money and power is. He’s a money-chasing charlatan.

It’s ridiculous. It’s laughable. This guy calls himself “journalist” (seriously), but his behaviour in IAM exposes him as little but PR agent, often for patent trolls that pay him for press releases and ghostwritten crap (we gave several examples over the years). One comment said “it seems to be paywalled” and I responded by saying: “It’s a feature. It helps keep EPO critics out and away.”

Here’s the part about the UPC, way way down towards the end:

IAM UPC

Can readers count the lies there? We can count more than a dozen. Coronavirus can help distract from EPO corruption and journalists are busy dealing with more urgent issues than proper research and fact-checking UPC claims.

Here’s a new sort of meme we found this morning:

MSServices on UPC
Credit: MSServices on UPC

At this point, as we approach the end of the month when Judge Huber said the FCC would have a decision, the UPC has nothing left to it but lies. It’s a big circus of lies and fabrications.

“So UPC is dead. It doesn’t even matter what Judge (or Justice) Huber does at the FCC.”Cees Mulder wrote this new comment to say: “« London » is explicitly mentioned in Art.7(2) of the UPC agreement as one of the « sections » of the Unified Patent Court.”

So UPC is dead. It doesn’t even matter what Judge (or Justice) Huber does at the FCC. It also doesn’t matter how many robes they prepare for ‘prospective’ UPC judges or how many ‘webinars’ and ‘seminars’ and ‘workshops’ companies like ResearchAndMarkets still plan to ‘train’ people.

The full comment from Cees Mulder is worth reproducing here:

« London » is explicitly mentioned in Art.7(2) of the UPC agreement as one of the « sections » of the Unified Patent Court. If the UK does not wish be part of the UPC, the negotiations have to be reopened after which finding a new agreement would be difficult.

If the UK – after an effective BREXIT – were allowed to stay in the UPC, this would have been a kind of « paradox ». From the beginning Switzerland indicated its desire to join the unitary patent system, but CH was denied access by the CJEU because not being a EU member State. Nevertheless, with the participation of CH (and other non-EU States) the unitary patent system would have been stronger.

Another path to follow is to amend the European Patent Convention (EPC) towards a community patent treaty. My proposal would be to have one official EPO language (English only in Art. 14 EPC), make the boards of appeal truly independent from the Office (establish trias politica in Art. 4 EPC) and add after-grant centralised court proceedings.

If the UK desires to be truly legally independent op the EU, can they live with decisions of the boards of appeal and decisions/opinions of the Enlarged Board of Appeal. Should we fear that the UK will also abandon the EPC?

There are many more comments to that effect, but we cannot keep abreast of everything. We’ve already seen many more comments to the same effect (across a number of sites, social control media, forums and so on).

“Well, if you rely on the words of this “preparatory committee” (an extension of Team UPC) and EPO management for facts about UPC then you might as well listen to Donald Trump and his colleagues portraying Coronavirus as a “plot” or a “hoax” perpetrated by the Democratic Party.”Just don’t rely on so-called ‘advice’ from law firms with their promotional copies in Lexology and other IAM-connected publishers. 90% of them contain lies. They almost always do. Here’s a new one by Jonathan Turnbull , David Webb and Rachel Montagnon (Herbert Smith Freehills), citing the “preparatory committee” and EPO management as if they’re reliable on these matters. To quote:

16. Optimism from the EPO and UPC Preparatory Committee on UPC start date; EU JURI Committee report highlights continuing challenges

We update on the UPC in light of comments made at the EPO and UPC preparatory committee which met in January of this year.

Well, if you rely on the words of this “preparatory committee” (an extension of Team UPC) and EPO management for facts about UPC then you might as well listen to Donald Trump and his colleagues portraying Coronavirus as a “plot” or a “hoax” perpetrated by the Democratic Party.

12.31.19

Richard Stallman’s 1984 (Talk)

Posted in GNU/Linux, Interview, Videos at 2:59 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Credit: Banana Retro

As WebM:


11.23.19

German Constitutional Court Attempts to Distance Itself From Prof. Huber’s ‘Interview’ With Team UPC

Posted in Europe, Interview, Patents at 1:07 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

A possible ethical violation akin to what Randall Rader had done before his career as a judge ended

CAFC corruption

Summary: Critical comments continue to be published regarding Justice Huber’s decision to speak to a mouthpiece of Team UPC about an ongoing case of financial interest to Team UPC

THIRTEEN years ago we barely wrote about the EPO because we thought that the European patent system was reasonably OK and the main problem was the USPTO granting loads of software patents for CAFC (or the above chief judge) to accept. It was CAFC that brought software patents into existence in the first place (decades prior).

Alice/35 U.S.C. § 101 changed a lot, as was the departure of the disgraced Randall Rader (full name Randall Ray Rader, close to Watchtroll and other patent maximalists, even lobbyists). He is in many ways as immoral as the career-climbing António Campinos and sociopath Battistelli. They not only accepted software patents “as such”; they came up with new buzzwords by which to celebrate these.

“It’s all about money, not justice or truth or science or whatever.”We’re now in situation where Europe’s largest patent office grants loads of Invalid Patents (IPs) — patents that have no chance in European courts. The EPO hoped to replace those courts with something that turns such slim chances into presumption of guilt/validity/infringement. It’s all about money, not justice or truth or science or whatever.

Sadly, based on a recent paper, the European Parliament is in the pockets of Team UPC. As Benjamin Henrion noted: “UPC will raise the cost for SMEs, as it is based on the case of parallel litigation over 3 countries https://patentstrategy.managingip.com/Articles/143 #upc #uk The JURIO report commissioned by the European Parliament does not even talk about the problems raised in other countries, like CZ, HU, BE, DE.”

“What was he thinking? Whose idea was it?”And Spain also; very large country. So what we need right now is a proper, legitimate, objective and independent court to step in and explain why the UPC is inherently unconstitutional (for a number of different reasons). Germany is the largest economy that can do this and there’s an impending case on the matter.

Sadly, to our surprise (and other people’s surprise as well), a judge from such a court blew it all. What was he thinking? Whose idea was it? Managing [to Lie] IP did an ‘interview’ with this judge and even the word “bullshit” was used by this judge, who added a sort of self-imposed deadline on himself and his colleagues. Shouldn’t a decision be released when it’s ready and when the time is right? It oughtn’t be rushed and details about the case oughtn’t be divulged, either. That’s just common practice. It seems totally inappropriate — as even patent people agree — for the judge to speak to media, especially media which is so blatantly a megaphone for Team UPC (with stake in the outcome of this case). We’re still seeing new comments on the matter, for example:

“I guess he wanted to say that internal UK politics is no concern of his, his concern being exclusively the DE Constitution and EU law.”

So why did he give his “exclusive” interview to a UK-based IP “penny dreadful” rather than something homegrown and more serious like JUVE ?

There’s nowt as quare as volk …

“Old Shatterhand” wrote:

According to information released by the author it looks that the FCC press spokesman arranged Prof. Huber’s interview with this London lawyer press outlet and that it was conducted on the phone and in English language. As this is indeed an unprecedented move, is there probably more behind this?

If there is one general judicial rule without an exception, it is that judges do not speak to the press about pending proceedings. All the more, why should a German court deem it necessary to address an English publication and one from which it cannot truly expect unbiased reporting? This has been done for a reason. Is the court so fed up with being molested by certain circles trying to influence its decision and apparently even putting pressure on it? Huber’s words pretty much sound like it. Was this unusual step taken to send these circles a message and do so through a channel which the court can assume to reach most of them, trying to put an end to their lobbying activities?

I would not be surprised if there was more to this than meets the eye.

“MaxDrei” said that ‘Prince’ “Andrew thought it a bright idea, to give a press interview. This equally cunning Baldrick-ian plan at the FCC looks to me just as misguided as Andrew’s. From the FCC, I expect better.”

We’re gratified to see that almost every commenter, except some in Team UPC, agrees with our initial reaction. This interview was a mistake and whatever the outcome of the case, people might go back to this incident, using it as evidence of impartiality lacking or lobbying having an effect.

Here’s the full comment:

Thank you Shatter for your surmises. Could it really be though, that the FCC is such a delicate flower, that it finds lobbying from interested parties so intolerable?

If so, I have some advice for the precious FCC PR officer. He or she should think herself lucky they aren’t a politician offering themself for election, and being on the receiving end of Twitter storms including plausible threats of murder. This is a serious threat to the future of representative democracy. If you have a family, do you not these days seriously hesitate before offering yourself for election, and then decide not to do it? Perhaps the precious judges could think a bit about that, and the need to give meaningful protection to those standing for election.

Compared with that, a bit of heckling (about the UPC, of all things) is totally harmless.

Andrew thought it a bright idea, to give a press interview. This equally cunning Baldrick-ian plan at the FCC looks to me just as misguided as Andrew’s. From the FCC, I expect better.

But let’s look on the bright side. Perhaps they are neophytes at PR, and will learn something from the experience.

There has also been discussion about this in social control media. One UPC booster said: “At outset, it should be recalled that, irrespective of the contents, the decision will be rendered by a body of judges (chamber of Senate). Obviously, as reporting judge, ProfH, would have substantial clout in shaping the opinion of that body, however. I understand that [] the answers were given in English (astonishing as it may seem re: “bullshit”). Quote1: “It is quite a detailed process that we follow because we have to look at every detail of how we formulate and word the [ruling].” “But it is likely that we will get along with it.””

Way to discredit the FCC. An own goal.

The lobbying group Managing [to Lie] IP proceeded to pushing some more UPC propaganda, this time in longer form. It starts like this: “Attorneys say ambiguity persists after a European Parliament report said UK membership of the UPC is a legal possibility after Brexit if the EU’s highest court maintains some jurisdiction over patent law”

“There’s no UPC,” I responded to them, “there are many remaining barriers to it, yet here you are pretending that the sole question is UK participation.”

“Way to discredit the FCC. An own goal.”IAM envied. “MIP got a great UPC scoop,” it wrote. “They would never, under any circumstances, make quotes or stories up. It’s not what any of us do. In our market, it would be ruinous.”

But this is what IAM did numerous times (and even worse things). Funny to see IAM speaking about journalistic morality. IAM also tweeted [1, 2, 3]: “For all the renewed UPC talk, especially about UK participation, it’s worth remembering that the British government minister who announced the UK would ratify the agreement was Sam Gyimah, who subsequently left the Conservative Party over disagreements on Brexit policy … It is also worth remembering that Boris Johnson, who was then the Foreign Secretary, actually effected the ratification. But he has travelled a long way on Brexit since then and now favours a far more distant relationship with the EU than he once did … In short, despite UK ratification of the UPC an awful lot has changed politically since then. There is absolutely no guarantee that the UK would now choose to take part even if the CJEU said that it could and Germany’s Constitutional Court gave the agreement the green light.”

Later on IAM wrote an article outside the paywall about it: [via]

Our colleagues on MIP caused quite a stir earlier this week when they broke news that the German Constitutional Court could soon finally issue its long-anticipated ruling on the legality of Germany ratifying the Unified Patent Court agreement. Speaking exclusively to MIP’s Patrick Wingrove, Peter Huber – who is the judge rapporteur in the case – said that, depending on his fellow justices playing ball, his intention is that a decision will be handed down in the first few months of next year.

A lot of controversy was caused by a quote from Huber that rumours the case had been delayed by uncertainties over Brexit were “bullshit”. Although he is sad that the UK is leaving the EU, Huber stated, “we are a court that responds to the constitution and the law, and Brexit is of no concern to us.”

Doubts were cast on Twitter that a German judge would ever use such language in public and the story was labelled by some as “fake news”. However, the substance of the piece, as well as the fact that an interview did take place, were both subsequently corroborated by German publication Juve, so putting to bed any idea that it was not based on reality.

JUVE’s editor Mathieu Klos, who has contacts with the court (he did have some insider insights in the past), wrote: “Yesterday, GCC judge Peter Huber announced a judgment in the #UPC challenge for early 2020. It’s still uncertain whether the court will decide in time for the UK to participate in the new patent court. But the announcement has reanimated the UPC.”

A UPC booster, quoting Klos, added: “With the dust settling over fact that Prof. Huber did give @ManagingIP a phone interview, it may be worthwhile looking at the substance of the verbatim quotes (thread). I understand from @juveVerlag_MK that Prof. Huber did not and did not attempt to convey the Court´s view. [] Prof. Huber ManagingIP comments concerning his ambition to have the UPC constitutional complaint decided early 2020 confirmed by Court though labelled as his personal opinion and accompanied by caveats.”

“Notice how it was only Team UPC mouthpieces covering the words of the FCC’s judge, speaking about the UPC complaint.”The court has no control over its constituent justices? Makes one wonder.

So even the court now recognises that speaking to Team UPC for agenda-steering purposes wasn’t good for the reputation of the court,

We’ve so far seen articles about it in MIP, IAM, IP Kat, Kluwer, Bristows (they pushed this into media, possibly for a fee), putting worthless "tweets" aside. Notice how it was only Team UPC mouthpieces covering the words of the FCC’s judge, speaking about the UPC complaint. Nobody else in the media even touched it.

« 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

No

Mono

ODF

Samba logo






We support

End software patents

GPLv3

GNU project

BLAG

EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com



Recent Posts