09.02.21

OHIM/EUIPO Giving Top Roles to Repeatedly-Convicted Fraudsters is Bad for the Reputation of the European Union

Posted in Europe, Patents at 10:44 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Video download link | md5sum e2528358b724e6f625d14290e0cdfeed

Casino trips: Nobody will ever find out about Enäjärvi! People can read Finnish translationsSummary: Video about part 11 and the current status quo, where EPO officials enjoy an “above the law” status in exchange for protecting powerful corporations and rich people

AS EPO President, António Campinos enjoys diplomatic immunity and since EPO legal cases cannot be appealed upwards/outwards (or barely, e.g. ILO and Dutch Supreme Court, whose outcome/decision the EPO said it would ignore/disregard) he must be feeling like a deity right now. He’s still not complying with the latest high-profile decisions of ILO-AT as far as we know (he has not spoken about it in 8 weeks! It’ll soon be 2 monnths!) and at EUIPO he already had some immunity scandals, so one starts to wonder if Tony is a more suitable short-name for him, seeing that he’s above the law like in a Mafia.

Videos that we publish aren’t typically just a reading of articles; instead, in this case, we focus on how this whole diplomatic immunity mess became possible in the first place. People like Campinos serve the ‘untouchables’, who protect their civil servants (more like moles in civil society) in exchange for the protectionism (denying access by competition). This isn’t a tenable situation. It’s made even worse when those so-called ‘civil’ servants are in fact convicted criminals, who have no capacity to lecture us on obeying laws.

[Meme] António Campinos Poured Bleach on a Convicted Criminal

Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:41 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Reputation laundering and whitening from Tony, son of the “Carnation Revolution”

EU, Martti Enäjärvi: It's OK. Carry on...
Mr. Casino Martti Enäjärvi enabled the corruption of Benoît Battistelli around the same time he himself became a convicted fraudster; the EUIPO of António Campinos helped whiten Enäjärvi’s reputation

Summary: Enäjärvi is a major liability to the EU, not just the EPO, where he basically enabled dictatorship for personal gain

EPO Exposé: The Besieged Baltic States – Part XI – With a Little Help From My Friends…

Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:13 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Series index:

  1. EPO Exposé: The Besieged Baltic States – Part I – More Captured Delegates?
  2. EPO Exposé: The Besieged Baltic States – Part II – Old Wine in New Bottles…
  3. EPO Exposé: The Besieged Baltic States – Part III – Introducing the Finnish “Facilitator”
  4. EPO Exposé: The Besieged Baltic States – Part IV – Martti Enäjärvi and His “Good Brother” Networks
  5. EPO Exposé: The Besieged Baltic States – Part V – A Man With a Conviction…
  6. EPO Exposé: The Besieged Baltic States – Part VI – “A Good Friend of Estonia and a Steady Cooperation Partner”
  7. EPO Exposé: The Besieged Baltic States – Part VII – A Self-Appointed “Select Committee”
  8. EPO Exposé: The Besieged Baltic States – Part VIII – Pulling for the Portuguese Pretender?
  9. EPO Exposé: The Besieged Baltic States – Part IX – António’s Faithful Acolyte in Alicante
  10. EPO Exposé: The Besieged Baltic States – Part X – A Pan-European “Good Brother” Network Celebration?
  11. You are here ☞ With a Little Help From My Friends…

Martti Enäjärvi in Latvia
EUIPO “Special Advisor” Martti Enäjärvi giving “a comprehensive insight into the effective protection of intellectual property rights in Europe” at the Latvian Patent Office in February 2018.

Summary: Having a convicted fraudster as a guest of honour at events and “Special Advisor to the Executive Director” is seen as a good idea by EUIPO; this shows that in this "Big Club" one can commit fraud and still be involved in public duties, so it harms the image of the European Union

In the last part we covered the ceremony held in Tallinn in March 2012 to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Estonian Patent Office.

One of the most noteworthy side-shows at this ceremony was the appearance of Martti Enäjärvi as a guest speaker.

“But apparently nobody was concerned about the potential reputational damage that might result from publicly associating with a convicted credit card fraudster.”Only a couple of months previously in December 2011, Enäjärvi had been found guilty of fraudulent credit card use by the District Court of Helsinki.

Under the given circumstances, you would think that he might have preferred to lie low rather than to parade himself in public or that other members of his peer group might have been inclined to keep their distance from him.

But apparently nobody was concerned about the potential reputational damage that might result from publicly associating with a convicted credit card fraudster.

“At first glance, Enäjärvi’s advanced age – he was 70 in 2012 – and his criminal record would seem to be insurmountable obstacles to further employment following his forced “retirement” from the Finnish PRH in August 2010.”Indeed, even after Enäjärvi’s conviction had been confirmed by the appeal court in December 2012 his former buddies remained loyal and didn’t treat him as a pariah or an outcast.

At first glance, Enäjärvi’s advanced age – he was 70 in 2012 – and his criminal record would seem to be insurmountable obstacles to further employment following his forced “retirement” from the Finnish PRH in August 2010.

But if that’s what you thought, then you would have been seriously mistaken.

On the contrary, far from being abandoned and dumped on the scrapheap, Enäjärvi ended up with a cushy little sinecure at the OHIM/EUIPO where he was awarded a position alternatively billed as “Special Advisor to the President” or “Special Advisor to the Executive Director” (of EUIPO).

His first public appearance in this new role seems to have been in September 2012 at the VIII International Symposium on Intellectual Property in Innovative Economy.

Martti Enäjärvi in Poland
Following “retirement” from the Finnish PRH, Enäjärvi was a guest speaker at a number of International Symposia organised by the Polish Patent Office in collaboration with WIPO.

“Margot Fröhlinger was also present which suggests that the 2011 event was intended to promote the UPC.”The International Symposium on Intellectual Property in Innovative Economy is or was an event organised by the Polish Patent Office in collaboration with WIPO. The first Symposium was held in September 2004 and after that it became an annual event. The venue was the Collegium Novum, the neo-gothic main building of the Jagiellonian University in Krakow.

In 2011, the VII International Symposium held on 7 to 9 September was a major affair attended by “global IP” heavyweights, including WIPO’s Francis Gurry, the EPO‘s Benoît Battistelli and OHIM’s António Campinos. Margot Fröhlinger was also present which suggests that the 2011 event was intended to promote the UPC.

Krakow UPC lobbying
The 2011 International Symposium hosted by the Polish Patent Office in Krakow in collaboration with WIPO was attended by Francis Gurry (WIPO), Benoit Battistelli (EPO), and António Campinos (OHIM/EUIPO).

Enäjärvi was in the audience at the 2011 Symposium as a guest in his capacity as “former Director-General of the Finnish PRH”.

Krakow: Fabrice Claireau
Enäjärvi speaking to Fabrice Claireau (French INPI) at the 2011 International Symposium hosted by the Polish Patent Office in Krakow.

The following year, Enäjärvi appeared at the VIII International Symposium held on 6-7 September 2012 [PDF].

“…he was a speaker rather than just an attendee.”But this time he was in a new role – namely, “Special Advisor to the Executive Director of OHIM” – and he was a speaker rather than just an attendee.

Enäjärvi’s contribution to the 2012 Symposium was recorded in the official gazette of the Polish Patent Office as follows (emphasis added):

Two day sessions were summarized by the former president of the Finnish Patent and Registration Office and now adviser to the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) Martti Enäjärvi. He highlighted that education should lie at the basis of all initiatives and efforts connected with financing of innovation and commercialization of exclusive rights. Only with suitable knowledge one can effectively use the IP protection system. “If you think that education is expensive you should first check how much ignorance costs” – he concluded.

Two years later, Enäjärvi was back in Krakow at the X International Symposium which took place on 4-5 September 2014 [PDF]. On this occasion his contribution was to deliver a talk entitled “Does Poland Need IP Strategy?”

“More recently, Enäjärvi has participated as a guest speaker at various roadshows devoted to the case law of EUIPO’s Boards of Appeal, which deals with disputes concerning trade marks and designs.”In his capacity as “Special Advisor”, Enäjärvi was also involved in the activities of the European Observatory on Infringements of Intellectual Property Rights.

The Observatory – which is managed by the EU trademark agency OHIM/EUIPO – is “a network of experts and specialist stakeholders that brings together representatives from EU bodies, authorities in EU countries, businesses, and civil society … to improve the fight against counterfeiting and piracy”. [sic]

Enäjärvi’s name appears on the list of participants for the plenary meetings of the Observatory held at the EUIPO in Alicante on 21-22 October 2015 [PDF] and 28-29 September 2016. [PDF]

“In May 2018 Enäjärvi was listed as a dinner speaker at an official dinner hosted by EUIPO on the margins of its annual IP Case Law Conference held in Alicante.”More recently, Enäjärvi has participated as a guest speaker at various roadshows devoted to the case law of EUIPO’s Boards of Appeal, which deals with disputes concerning trade marks and designs.

For example, in May 2017 he appeared in his old stomping ground in Estonia at a seminar held in the Nordic Hotel Forum in Tallinn. [PDF]

“It’s not clear whether Enäjärvi is still active as a “Special Advisor” to the new EUIPO Executive Director, Christian Archambeau.”This seminar was organised by the Estonian Patent Office and the Ministry of Justice, in co-operation with EUIPO and Enäjärvi gave a talk entitled “EUIPO and the Protection of IPR in Europe”.

He seems to have recycled the same talk at a similar event hosted by the Latvian Patent Office in February 2018 [PDF] where he was reported to have given “a comprehensive insight into the effective protection of intellectual property rights in Europe”.

In May 2018 Enäjärvi was listed [PDF] as a dinner speaker at an official dinner hosted by EUIPO on the margins of its annual IP Case Law Conference held in Alicante.

It’s not clear whether Enäjärvi is still active as a “Special Advisor” to the new EUIPO Executive Director, Christian Archambeau. Given that he will turn 80 next year, it’s quite likely that he has decided to hang up his EUIPO hat in the meantime.

Meanwhile, back home in Finland, Enäjärvi continues to pursue his domestic “good brother” networking activities, such as those connected with the Paasikivi Society and the Helsinki Finns Club, where he was appointed honorary Chairman in November 2020.

Paaskivi Society event
Left: Enäjärvi at a Paaskivi Society event in 2018 with former Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen.
Right: Enäjärvi was appointed honorary Chairman of the Helsinki Finns Club in November 2020.

Even if he is now retired from his professional activities at the EUIPO, Enäjärvi certainly had a good innings between 2012 and 2018 as a “Special Advisor” to the former Executive Director, António Campinos.

“Isn’t it reassuring to see how the Finnish “good brother” model of cronyism has managed to establish itself as the accepted standard in the upper echelons of the “European IP network”?”There can be no doubt that António did his best to look after an old friend who had fallen on hard times.

Isn’t it reassuring to see how the Finnish “good brother” model of cronyism has managed to establish itself as the accepted standard in the upper echelons of the “European IP network”?

There is only one small problem here: The EU trademark agency OHIM/EUIPO isn’t a private company. It’s a public intergovernmental authority which falls within the remit of the EU.

So you would be entitled to expect that the appointment of a “Special Advisor” to the Executive Director of such an agency would be made in a transparent and accountable manner.

Unfortunately, it seems impossible to find any official record or public announcement of Enäjärvi’s EUIPO appointment and the associated terms and conditions.

In particular it’s not clear whether the appointment came about as a result of a competitive selection procedure or whether it was some kind of ad personam appointment at the sole discretion of the Executive Director.

In addition to that, it isn’t clear how EU citizens might feel about having a convicted credit card fraudster employed as a “Special Advisor” to the Executive Director of the EU’s trademark agency.

“There is only one small problem here: The EU trademark agency OHIM/EUIPO isn’t a private company. It’s a public intergovernmental authority which falls within the remit of the EU.”But then again, they don’t appear to have been consulted about it.

All things considered, the post-retirement career of Martti Enäjärvi at EUIPO raises a lot of unanswered questions and it would certainly be interesting to have some clarification about the role of António Campinos in this affair.

In the next part we will shift our focus back to the EPO and look at how Benoît Battistelli ensured the continuing loyalty of his Baltic fiefdoms after he had successfully completed his power grab in Munich in 2010.

Just Like in China, Even an EPO ‘Emeritus’ Cannot Criticise the Regime of EPOnia…

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

Video download link | md5sum 638f738a177df0ea681dd3bffd7e51b4

Summary: The EPO has created a toxic culture wherein even former staff is afraid of criticising the institution and ends up self-censoring (the “chilling effect”) whilst attacking those still willing to expose the facts

THE EPO is so terrified of criticism that someone who has worked under Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos (at CEIPI and maybe EPO as well) apparently worries about his criticisms only when Techrights merely mentions these. He’s stubbornly defending software patents although they're outside his scope of expertise and he’s lecturing on litigation, which can’t be a good sign (the EPO itself has become highly litigious — as far as threatening to sue bloggers and coughing up millions to squabble with its staff).

“He’s stubbornly defending software patents although they’re outside his scope of expertise…”Although we caught up with his post nearly 3 months late it’s worth responding to it in video, not just in text, especially after discovering just how close the person is to Team Battistelli.

IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, September 01, 2021

Posted in IRC Logs at 2:34 am by Needs Sunlight

HTML5 logs

HTML5 logs

#techrights log as HTML5

#boycottnovell log as HTML5

HTML5 logs

HTML5 logs

#boycottnovell-social log as HTML5

#techbytes log as HTML5

text logs

text logs

#techrights log as text

#boycottnovell log as text

text logs

text logs

#boycottnovell-social log as text

#techbytes log as text

Enter the IRC channels now


IPFS Mirrors

CID Description Object type
 QmZ6148oPPMp2pX337xE644KHZFPGkQGarPVaxV7h8Qd29 IRC log for #boycottnovell
(full IRC log as HTML)
HTML5 logs
 QmQczesspLixZisUbZ2qhXJhPjZjAtVFvU837h3rAYGZpp IRC log for #boycottnovell
(full IRC log as plain/ASCII text)
text logs
 Qme7BoM7JKrF4BN5prYUdXLjfcKtmg8ucpa88zN6v93TMY IRC log for #boycottnovell-social
(full IRC log as HTML)
HTML5 logs
 QmV5HqeFQ4PYCdpBjBqnwyAt2XA1mmR1R4wh7CFMGKcNrm IRC log for #boycottnovell-social
(full IRC log as plain/ASCII text)
text logs
 QmYSG5NPSiwdTCfBPNo1TgKeXdFnJZCEZYD1BG2oTKaPJq IRC log for #techbytes
(full IRC log as HTML)
HTML5 logs
 QmbA33rRSm3y2b77T7VMTBzTPEwe28ynMUiV8AYpKcFcGg IRC log for #techbytes
(full IRC log as plain/ASCII text)
text logs
 Qmdfn4RxMa4xJTmK5aHp27et8ZhDApgToKoZYPc52RNDjP IRC log for #techrights
(full IRC log as HTML)
HTML5 logs
 QmYj5qyykz5jdWcA5mAQajPgWctEo5gJoJ3niTvSXvGMPs IRC log for #techrights
(full IRC log as plain/ASCII text)
text logs

IPFS logo

Bulletin for Yesterday

Local copy | CID (IPFS): QmSqRsSaXYEhkCyiyX1JjT7EvRcR9y8SJru8vSVjuiWdEx

09.01.21

[Meme] Daniel X. Thomas Still Works for Benoît Battistelli

Posted in Europe, Patents at 10:39 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Daniel X. Thomas Still Works for Benoît Battistelli

Summary: Turns out that it’s a rather small world after all… many people still eat from the dictator‘s palm in a crooks’ shelter, ironically a law school (which cannot offer immunity but political protection)

Response to Daniel X. Thomas, Former Director at the European Patent Office (EPO)

Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:47 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The original was posted in a Microsoft site that spies on millions (not that the EPO can ever understand that), hence it is reproduced here without sending traffic to Microsoft, along with our response in-line (fair use doctrine)

G 1/21 – The RPEBA2015 - How to deal with the president’s comments and the amicus curiaeSummary: Techrights takes a moment to respond to Daniel X. Thomas, who worries that his criticism of the way António Campinos handled G 1/21 can get him in trouble

THE Benoît Battistelli regime totally obliterated the independence of the Boards of Appeal at the EPO, including that of the highest boards (TBA, EBA/EBoA etc. not exempted from the bollocking and stacking). While it is true that over a decade ago our main critique of the EPO was its practice of granting European software patents “as such”, we’ve since then covered so many other aspects. Until the EPO’s management started bribing and blackmailing the media (even blogs like IP Kat) there was an opportunity to see lots of abuses; but then, the EPO’s PR budget and legal budget (for lawyers who intimidate bloggers/blogs like IP Kat, Techrights and maybe even Daniel X. Thomas) squashed a lot of that coverage, except here. So now the EPO’s head honcho du jour can focus on just ad hominem attacks on one person (yours truly).

“They constantly defame journalists and staff representatives (sometimes even judges!) and then they accuse them of “defamation”…”It’s worth taking a moment to respond to a public post from Daniel X. Thomas, “Former Director at European Patent Office” (in his own words; this is how he identifies himself, first and foremost). A lot of the ad hominem attacks happen in private, behind my back, and are then used to justify (secret decisions by EPO management) to go as far as blocking IP Kat and blocking all Internet (Web and beyond) access to Techrights — basically an utterly desperate effort to prevent people finding out about crimes of EPO management (they don’t refute articles/accusations, they just attack the messengers; yes, just like in China…) and then they have the audacity to accuse others of what they’re guilty of (projection/hypocrisy). They constantly defame journalists and staff representatives (sometimes even judges!) and then they accuse them of “defamation”…

Chilling.

By the way, now that we use Gemini (gemini:// protocol) people can access all Techrights articles from work, using any of the many Web proxies (there are dozens). Unless the EPO blocks all Gemini Web proxies (i.e. EPO blocks access to literally thousands of different sites!), these dictators cannot block Techrights, except by direct access. They play a game of whack-a-mole. Over gemini:// protocol we serve over 20,000 pages a day.

Before we proceed to the response, which is well overdue, it would be worth pointing out how amusing it is to see EPO managers (even directors!) past and present referring to software patents as “HEY HI” (AI) or “4IR” (along with other buzzwords/nonsense). Well, they clearly never coded or hacked on code, they just push software patents to fill their dirty pockets… and maybe not too shockingly those managers (even directors!) use Microsoft’s proprietary software as their ‘blogging’ platform. Yes, Microsoft — a top proponent of software patents, including the motor behind many of the European front/lobby/pressure groups that influence the EPO on these matters. We wrote about that countless times in the past. We named the culprits and proxies.

To be clear, Daniel X. Thomas seems like a nice person, but he is deeply misguided. The fact that he so openly supports software patents does not surprise me. In fact, what’s the likelihood of an opponent of software patents rising to a director/top-level position at the EPO? I’m not sure why he decided to write this post, but he’s probably just worrying about his pension (he did not retire so long ago) because right now his own words are used against his colleagues, who can retaliate against him. They already attack other EPO pensioners as well. There’s that old saying, “[i]t is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” (Upton Sinclair)

Since he comes from EPO management and he has made tons of money at the management tier there (without having to pay tax) maybe he prefers to think everything is rosy. Also, harm to the EPO’s management puts his own pension at risk.

Thomas:

I have got the “honour” of being quoted in Techrights.

http://techrights.org/2021/06/18/superficial-epo-coverage/

I have again had the “honour” of being quoted in Techrights.

http://techrights.org/2021/06/20/the-epo-games/

Mr Schestowitz takes every opportunity to attack the EPO, and his methods are abject to say the least.

What do you mean by “methods”?

What do you mean by “attack”?

Let’s roll back and clarify the intent of this false narrative.

My profession is under a constant attack from patents, granted by patent offices that ignore caselaw in order to cheat the system, usually for financial gain (and as a favour to “large clients”, i.e. multinational monopolies).

Who is attacking whom?

And what does the word “methods” mean in this context? Reporting the facts? Yeah, some methods…

As we shall see in a moment, he relies on the utterly false premise that my sole criticism of the EPO is for software patents; initially it was the sole issue I was aware of, but about 3,500 articles later I’ve written about so many other issues. It seems like he’s lying and oversimplifying the matter, wrongly implying that the sole problem I have with the EPO is patent scope; as if all is well at EPOnia and, as we shall see in a moment, he insists that it’s OK to grant software patents. He ignores so many other things, such as the constant lying about the UPC after Brexit. We’ll write more about that some time later in the week…

12 hours after we had published this communication a lot of useful comments (3 so far) started showing up here (response to face-saving spin). They cannot keep up with the lies. They try…

Thomas:

It is an “honour” I can do without as I do not agree to see my freedom of opinion repeatedly misused for a campaign against the EPO which I cannot support.

No, Sir. Your freedom to express yourself is protected by the law, but that does not extend to “freedom to have an audience” or “freedom not to be criticised”. You might want to look up the very basics of free speech — something that EPO management never managed to grasp. Heck, it has been blocking this Web site (without explanation/justification) for about 7 years already. It also blocked some other sites and it’s constantly gagging its union, its staff representatives, judge, etc. Yes, even this year

Thomas:

Lots of things might not be optimal at the EPO, but constant slanting it is not a way to help resolving the difficulties the EPO is going through.

“Lots of things might not be optimal” is an understatement — probably one of the (full) decade if not (half) century in the context of the EPO. Why belittle this crisis? Even the EPO itself called it a crisis some years ago (behind closed doors, but somebody leaked it to us).

Thomas:

I have said certain things about the way the first OP in G 1/21 went along, as my concern is the respect of existing legal rules.

It is important to show that even EPO insiders of a very high level (albeit with lower risks of reprisal) admit these issues.

That’s the whole point.

Thomas:

I am convinced that without respect of legal rules we go back to the jungle and the right of the strongest prevails. This is not what I wish for myself, my children and grandchildren.

He keeps bringing up his children (more on that in a moment), which is a bit strange (as if to make it seem like I’m attacking children or something).

Thomas:

What I have said has actually nothing to do with my former quality as EPO staff.

It is not something that just vanishes overnight. The former status is relevant. It’s also what pays the pension (still).

Thomas:

It was the view of somebody interested in the topic as it concerns an institution is am still loyal to. Any objective observer could come to similar conclusions.

Good people concede their loyalty when they become witnesses to bad things.

Thomas:

In view of the constant misuse of my honest opinion, I will now refrain from any statement relating to G 1/21.

How was it misused? It was not. It was quoted (and not out of context). What he wants is selective audiences/mentions.

Thomas:

I do not want to help this person to constantly attack the EPO.

I do not attack the EPO; the reason so many EPO workers read Techrights is that we’re trying to actually save the EPO from those who attack it from the inside.

Thomas:

It should also be kept in mind that beyond the personal attacks against some members of staff, the pet peeve of this person is the possibility of patenting programmes CII or even AI.

“CII” and “AI” is meaningless nonsense. The fact that he’s repeating such meaningless nonsense reaffirms my belief that too many incompetent people make it into top roles at the EPO.

Thomas:

I said it many times, and repeat it once more, contrary to what Mr Schestowitz thinks, CII or even AI are not forbidden by the EPC.

The EPC says nothing about “CII” and “AI”, so quit using buzzwords, which you likely don’t even understand (nobody is meant to understand such lingo).

Thomas:

The simple considerations as to why CII are well patentable under the EPC is apparently too complicated for Mr Schestowitz to enter in his brain. The doctrinal blindness and hatred of this person against the EPO is indeed flabbergasting.

The typical accusation of “hatred” is an old tactic, suggestive of emotion and irrational feelings. We use simple logic and we observe facts, not financial interest (which is all that matters to EPO management — that’s why it breaks the law).

Thomas:

Last but not least, attacking persons for their supposed likeness with other ones or for their hair colour is absolutely abject.

This is false. I am guessing he alludes to the Willy Wonka thing. It’s alluding to “FUDGE” (as in legal fudge), nothing to do with hair colours…

Thomas:

My son and my two grandchildren have red hair, and attacking a person for its hair colour is also attacking my family.

So now he’s trying to make it seem like I personally attacked him and his children. I attacked neither.

Now we’ve entered “crybully” territories.

Thomas:

In view of this turn of events provoked by Mr Schestowitz I have to conclude that this person has managed to silence me due to my status of former staff of the EPO.

Someone from Red Hat once tried the same tactics, basically saying in public that I had “silenced” by merely quoting someone. They try to incite colleagues that way, shifting blame for their own choices/actions.

Did I silence him?

No, someone choosing to not talk anymore is silencing oneself. You know who silences people and sites? The EPO’s management. To the point of blocking them and siccing lawyers at them. They did it to me countless times and I’m not alone.

Thomas:

This does not withhold myself to have my idea about the topic and the procedure used to come to a decision. Some of the amicus curiae are quite eloquent in this respect.

We’ve cited them a lot more than anything from Mr. Thomas. We didn’t even say anything negative about him; quite the contrary!

Moreover, we already know (and proved) that the EPO hid some amicus curiae from the public. It only selectively showed what people had to say. That’s known as censorship.

From the comment, Thomas:

I had to react. No opportunity to bash the EPO is missed by this person. And I do not want to contribute to this!

You did not contribute. You expressed an opinion in public. Now you want to control who can read it?

Thomas:

The more so since it appears that the only drive for this person is to bash the EPO because it grants patents on CII.

Again, totally false! Straw man argument.

Thomas:

I rarely came across such stubbornness and stupidity.

Now we see insults too. I never insulted him. But here he is using swear words.

Thomas:

I feel a deep loyalty to the organisation and I will not support such a behaviour against it.

It seems sad to me that he has “deep loyalty” to Battistelli’s den of corruption.

Update: As it turns out, Mr. Thomas still works for Battistelli.

GNU/Linux 38 This Month

Posted in Deception, GNU/Linux, Kernel at 6:26 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

GNU/Linux Is 38 Years Old This Month (Or Is It 28 Years Old?) – Invidious

Summary: Taylor seems to be reading Techrights

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

Further Recent Posts

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