03.30.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 12:54 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Welcome to the new and ‘reformed’ EPO…
Airport-grade security checks have arrived at the EPO
Summary: A week after the Administrative Council’s historic meeting the EPO only gets more militaristic (shades of Martial Law), not the opposite, as if terrorists dressed in suits are soon going to take over the EPO
THE President of the EPO (for now), Mr. Benoît Battistelli, has no idealogical rivals. He can’t, he’s from Ecole nationale d’administration. No opposition is allowed or tolerated. In Battistelli’s eyes, his opposition is just Nazis and criminals. In his own little mind he keeps pretending he's fighting terror and he is milking terror attacks for personal sympathy (a politician’s tactic).
“There is more hiring of people from the military (also Belgian) and promotion of such people.”Battistelli has already been warned, but he is not changing anything for the better. There is more hiring of people from the military (also Belgian) and promotion of such people.
“I see that following the President’s allegations that members of the BoA are plotting to overthrow him through violent activity, he now believes that authorized representatives may seek to smuggle illicit material into the office,” wrote one new comment this morning, citing this little nugget (epo.org link) which says:
Visitors to the EPO are advised that, as from now, their bags and luggage will be subject to a visual inspection by security.
This measure will be applied in all EPO buildings at all sites.
Thank you for your co-operation.
Does anyone think that patent lawyers, for example, would bring in a bomb or something like that? This isn’t a plane and it’s not even public transportation. Now, consider Battistelli's bodyguards addiction and general paranoia. Why does the EPO need to assume a state of heightened security? There have been no incidents of violence at the EPO, except by the management (institutional violence).
“No way,” told me one person, “they have had minutes of training in what to look for and what to do if they find it.”
USB keys perhaps? The latest attempt to catch/silence whistleblowers (deterrence at the very least)? We don’t know for sure, but we can only speculate.
what next? Strip searches? Groping? Colonoscopy? Welcome to the European Patent Office, where visitors are subjected to keyloggers and hidden cameras in public terminals. And now also airport-grade security theatre. Where is this going to end? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in GNU/Linux, IBM, Microsoft, SCO, UNIX at 12:26 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
See Lawrence R. Goldfarb (Wikipedia)
Summary: SCO case not over yet, and it remains unclear who’s still subsidising the case
The SCO case “rises from the grave again,” says today’s headline from the British media (which broke the story). This story looks like it could be from 2009, 2010 and all the way to 2016. It just never ends. Where does the funding even come from?
“Well, SCO rises from the grave or maybe the reporting was just not accurate. We have been told this for 7 years and even 2 months ago we doubted this was the end of it all.”Well, SCO rises from the grave or maybe the reporting was just not accurate. We have been told this for 7 years and even 2 months ago we doubted this was the end of it all. The reason we didn't really believe it's the end of all that litigation is Groklaw’s pattern (or media quoting Groklaw) of stating it’s all pretty much over. Groklaw is still uploading PDFs which relate to this case and British media cites them (magically knowing where files are located). To quote The Inquirer: “In a filing, Judge David Nuffer argued that “the nature of the claims are such that no appellate court would have to decide the same issues more than once if there were any subsequent appeals”, effectively suggesting that the case had more than run its course.
“On 1 March, that filing was backed up by the judge’s full explanation, declaring IBM the emphatic victor in the long-running saga.
“”IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pursuant to the orders of the court entered on July 10, 2013, February 5, 2016, and February 8, 2016, judgment is entered in favour of the defendant and plaintiff’s causes of action are dismissed with prejudice,” stated the document.
“To successfully E.E.E. something you must give the impression of good intentions.”“Now, though, SCO has filed yet again to appeal that judgment, although the precise grounds it is claiming haven’t yet been disclosed.”
It also states that “it’s unclear who continues to bankroll the case.” Well, maybe ask Microsoft. It insists that it “loves Linux” while pulling an E.E.E. on it (even just a few hours ago). To successfully E.E.E. something you must give the impression of good intentions. █
“…Microsoft wished to promote SCO and its pending lawsuit against IBM and the Linux operating system. But Microsoft did not want to be seen as attacking IBM or Linux.”
–Larry Goldfarb, BayStar, key investor in SCO approached by Microsoft
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 9:40 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
“The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.”
–Friedrich Nietzsche
Summary: For future record and for preservation’s sake, five German articles/letters about the EPO in one place
SUEPO has just translated or at least published translations of some recent articles in German. It’s about the EPO before and after the Administrative Council’s meeting. Since then virtually nothing has changed for the better, so a strike is expected a week from now.
We have gone through translations of articles which Techrights has not yet translated (SUEPO did some duplicate effort by translating about half a dozen articles that we had translated beforehand) and highlighted bits of interest for those who have grown tired of seeing the same stories over and over again (with variation in words rather than substance).
The following article by Katja Riedel of Süddeutsche Zeitung was published when the meeting of the Administrative Council began, so it was probably composed before it even started.
15. March 2016, 18:53 Close up
L’EPO, c’est moi
The European Patent Office is facing a major crisis, and Benoît Battistelli is to blame. Critics accuse him of dictating and not discussing.
By Katja Riedel
Views are widely divided as to what significance the next few days will have for Benoît Battistelli. While those around him are keen to maintain the appearance of normality, his opponents are insisting that the President of the European Patent Office (EPO) is stuck in the middle of a deep diplomatic crisis – indeed, the deepest of his six-year period in office, which has not exactly been lacking in conflicts.
Patents and their economic value ceased being an issue a long time ago. The spotlight is on the divisions between the Frenchman and those loyal to him on the one hand, and sections of the workforce on the other – a conflict in which neither side
is pulling any punches. Battistelli’s opponents are now hoping for a showdown at the meeting of the Administrative Council, which can potentially overrule him, scheduled for Wednesday in Munich. The EPO boss has already recently been at odds with the Council in a dispute over the external investigation into a number of spectacular sackings. The Office, however, is taking a low-key approach: “We are not expecting anything to happen”, says the PR chief executive. No major upsets, no cutting of the Gordian knot – and certainly no resignation.
The strife at the EPO is not only about the reforms which, at the behest of the 38 Member States, Battistelli has been pushing through since 2010, but rather about the boss man himself, and the world which he comes from. The 68-year-old is said to be a person who dictates, not discusses, according to people who have known him for a long time. A man who can quickly be riled if he encounters resistance. He is reputed to be deeply imbued with the centralized French system. What is meant by this is the self-assurance that he acquired at the Ena, that elite Strasbourg college which is seen as the gateway to the key positions in French politics and administration. Perhaps this is why Battistelli has for so long allowed so much to accumulate around him apparently undisturbed. He does not meet his critics face to face, but looks down on them from above, from the top floor of his Munich headquarters, from where he determines the fate of the Office.
It appears that Battistelli has long believed that everything could be turned off, like a dripping tap: The placards demanding his withdrawal as boss of the EPO, placards which lampoon him as the “Sun King”. And the allegedly incriminating documents from his office, and the rumours leaked and spread via Internet forums. One does not need to be a friend of the Frenchman to appreciate that Battistelli would not be prepared to put up with these attacks for much longer. With a stroke of his pen he wanted to get rid of powerful opponents – but this time he may have gone too far. In January Battistelli kicked out the lady chief executive of the union Suepo, together with two of her colleagues, and slashed their pensions. The allegation was that they had threatened other staff representatives, according to Battistelli and an investigation report. The attorney representing the union executive rejects all the accusations, and the dismissal triggered new protests. The Administrative Council then proposed that the controversial disciplinary procedures be investigated by an outside body. For the power-conscious Battistelli, this was an affront. He is supposed to have stormed out of a meeting in a rage, slamming the door behind him. And the Administrative Council has now issued a sharply worded ultimatum, which rapidly circulated on Internet forums and gave opponents the opportunity to hope for a showdown.
The Battistelli circle are insisting that this is by no means the case. The letter was only a draft, a diplomatic tussle, and the demands long passé. Battistelli himself is said to be in the best of moods. But whether that is a poker face or real confidence, the next few days will tell.
Days later came another article by Katja Riedel of Süddeutsche Zeitung. There was relatively firm action, which served to refute Battistelli’s “poker face” gesture. The article does show the shortcomings though. It was published after the Administrative Council’s meeting and the massive protest.
Despite protests, European Patent Office’s Battistelli remains in office
The EPO Administrative Council has adopted a resolution in which the subliminal message is plainly one of condemnation. The wording contains orders for action on the part of the beleaguered President.
By Katja Riedel
Despite loud protests and ongoing demands for his resignation by the workforce, the boss of the European Patent Office (EPO), Benoît Battistelli, continues to remain in office. The Administrative Council of the organization adopted a resolution at its meeting with Battistelli, which was ongoing since Wednesday, which contains orders for the President to act – and also indicates annoyance about his actions. Nevertheless, the Council did not challenge his position at the head of the EPO. They did, however, express serious concerns about the fact that for many months a bitter struggle has been raging between the management and staff of the Office. Battistelli’s opponents had hoped that he would resign, or that the Administrative Council would dismiss him. The employees are up in arms about his stringent reforms, while Battistelli is aiming to trim the Office towards greater efficiency. Staff members have also repeatedly been complaining about serious attacks on their fundamental rights, and also about a range of internal investigation procedures. The Administrative Council, on which representatives of the 38 Member States sit, had already ordered Battistelli last year to restore social peace within the Office, but since then the situation in the international organization, with 7000 employees, has escalated still further. In the interim, a number of leading members of the staff union Suepo have been dismissed by Battistelli, with accusations of serious personal misdemeanours and talk of smear campaigns against the Office management. The union members, by way of their attorneys, vehemently deny any wrongdoing.
Contrary to the demands made just a few weeks ago by the Administrative Council, these controversial disciplinary proceedings are not now going to be investigated by an outside agency, which has been a major cause of dispute between Battistelli and the Chair of the Council. Instead, the agreement now contains the proviso that Battistelli can allow future cases to be examined externally, and agreed on with the Council – a request, not an instruction. The same applies to the engagement of a mediator, which Battistelli has also up to now rejected. It seems unlikely that the resolution is going to calm things down.
Also published on the same day was this article that’s relatively short and does not add anything too new or unique:
Move by Administrative Council aims at ‘Social Dialogue’ within European Patent Office
Thursday, 17.03.2016, 14:34
In the ongoing conflict at the European Patent Office (EPO), the executive management and the staff representation body Suepo look set to abide by the wishes of the Administrative Council and start getting together again.
This was the aim behind a resolution adopted by the Council at its meeting, which EPO President Benoît Battistelli is also said to have agreed to, according to a spokesperson from the inter-state patent authority speaking on Thursday to the Deutsche Presse-Agentur. The key issue in the resolution is to press ahead with the social dialogue at the EPO rapidly, as well as reviewing and reforming disciplinary procedures. On Thursday there was initially no-one available at Suepo to make a comment.
Battistelli has been at the top of the inter-state authority for five and a half years, and is pushing for reforms. These include tightening up on working practices and monitoring performance and time off, something which has prompted a great deal of criticism from the staff representation organization. The EPO recently officially recognized the FFPE-EPA, a union in the European public service sector, although this is said to represent far fewer EPO employees than Suepo, which so far has not been officially recognized.
donaukurier.de, which had published other articles on this subject, wrote and published the following long articles (relatively important or new information highlighted).
Fear, Bullying, Sackings
Munich (DK) At the European Patent Office in Munich, the conflict between the President and the staff is escalating. There is widespread talk of human rights violations, and of being spied on, like the Stasi secret police. But the police and the office of the State Attorney are unable to intervene, because the Office enjoys immunity. Today could be the day of reckoning for the management.
The decisive clause is in Article 8 of the European Patent Convention. This governs the immunity of the European Patent Office (EPO). What exactly falls under this ruling is specified elsewhere: It is written there for instance that “The authorities of the States in which the Organization maintains premises may only enter these premises with the agreement of the President of the European Patent Office”. Put plainly, this means that although the headquarters of the European Patent Office are located in the middle of Munich, beside the River Isar, no German laws apply there. The Convention, an agreement ratified by 38 European states and forming part of international law, stipulates that no police, state attorney, or other national or state body is allowed access. “If the legal protection of an organization is set down in the conventions, then German courts don’t get a look in,” emphasises Sebastian Kolbe, an expert in labour law from the Catholic University of Eichstätt. Former Constitutional Court judge Siegfried Bross even goes so far as to say that, with intellectual constructs like these, Guantanamo could be replicated on German soil.
For many of the staff at the European Patent Office, over the past few months this immunity ruling has become something of a nightmare. Within the Office a bitter conflict has been raging between the management under President Benoît Battistelli, a Frenchman, and a large section of the workforce. And the workforce cannot count on making any recourse to national courts. There are plenty of employees who talk about the fear that reigns among them, but no-one dares to be quoted by name for fear of reprisals. The Office itself flatly rejects any connection between five suicides which have occurred among staff members in the past four years and the circumstances which prevail at work. According to an EPO spokesperson, the Office has worked very closely with the families concerned. “In none of the cases could any causal connection be established between the work and the tragedy.” He went on to speak of the cases being used for exploitation.
It is true that the EPO staff are for the most part very high earners, as well as enjoying a number of taxation privileges. “But anyone who quits or is dismissed, loses everything,” says one female employee, as the Office has its own social
security system and its own schools. Handing in one’s notice means that the children have to leave their school, and there’s no unemployment benefit – not even Hartz IV. Pension claims can be curtailed too.
The conflict is taking no hostages. Among other things, in the past few months two staff council members have been sacked, who were also leading members of the in-house staff union Suepo, and a third has been downgraded. The accusation against
them was alleged defamation of the Office, and having bullied a colleague on the staff council. “An individual and serious instance of misconduct was brought to light,” according to the EPO press office. The sackings are said to be the result of a proper disciplinary procedure, and apparently had nothing to do with the fact that the people concerned were members of the staff council.
What under German law would be virtually impossible, given the high degree of protection of personnel representatives afforded by labour legislation, is possible within the EPO with relatively no trouble at all – throwing out a member of the staff council. Their status is hardly comparable with that of German staff council members, though: The staff council is indeed consulted on some issues, and can submit recommendations, but according to the EPO Code it has no rights of joint discussion with any binding effect.
The background to the dispute lies in the reforms which Battistelli, armed with very wide-reaching powers, has been pushing through since his appointment to office in 2010, and with which he aims to make patent examination more efficient. Many of his measures have incurred resistance from the workforce, and there have even been claims of infringement of human rights.
One bone of contention, for example, is a new ruling regarding sick pay. According to the Federal Ministry of Justice, which is responsible within the Federal Government for the EPO, this ruling stipulates that employees who report sick must be at home between 10.00 and 12.00 hours and between 14.00 and 16.00 hours, which the Office is entitled to check on. According to a Ministry spokesperson, however, the EPO has hitherto restricted this to absolutely exceptional cases. Suepo represents the situation as substantially more serious. Sick employees are only allowed to leave their homes for visits to a doctor which have been notified beforehand, even if the illness lasts for weeks or months. It seems, too, that the doctor appointed by the Office must be allowed access to their homes. The Office spokesperson’s response is that the EPO is an international organization, and would therefore be unable to abide exclusively by German practice. In other Member States, it seems that such rulings are entirely normal. Their aim appears in any event to achieve reform: According to the EPO, since the introduction of the ruling levels of absence due to illness have been “quite substantially reduced”.
Added to this is the “Investigative Unit”, which according to Suepo is notorious in the EPO and regarded by staff members as “worse than the Stasi”. According to an internal guideline, accused persons are obliged to provide unrestricted co-operation with the Investigative Unit, and the right of refusal of testimony does not exist. The investigators have the right, if improper conduct is suspected, to search offices and examine computers. Suepo speaks of “police state methods”, and criticizes the fact that the investigating personnel report only to the President, who is therefore legislator, prosecutor, police and judge, all rolled into one. The Ministry of Justice, according to its own assertions, has several times called on Battistelli to change these guidelines, but so far without success. The risk of self-incrimination, and the prohibition on involving an attorney in the preliminary investigation, are seen as particularly unacceptable. Conversely, the Patent Office is emphatic that Battistelli is prepared to discuss these guidelines. 2016 is said to be the year of consolidation and assessment of the reforms.
The possibilities of Suepo having any effect on the Office are, however, limited. The Union is not recognized by the EPO as a negotiating partner, although it maintains that it represents almost half of the 7,000 or so employees. Instead, at the beginning of March the Patent Office announced a “trail-blazing agreement” with the FFPE-EPO union. President Battistelli spoke of a “milestone in the resumption of the social dialogue”. It seems that from now on the union will be formally recognized as a social partner.
But the FFPE-EPO only numbers some 75 members, and is said to be restricted to the EPO base at The Hague, according to Suepo sources. On the FFPE-EPO homepage, between its establishment in 2008 and the announcement of the concluding of the agreement a few days ago, there is not a single entry. The union did not respond to an enquiry. The Patent Office, however, stresses the fact that the little union is an offshoot “of one of the largest unions in the European public service sector”, and hails the agreement as the beginning of a closer relationship with the unions.
At the same time, Benoît Battistelli made it known in the press release that the”Memorandum of Understanding” signed with the FFPE-EPO is apparently open to all other unions within the European Patent Office. An invitation which Suepo has declined with thanks, since it views the agreement as an “agreement to gag”.
What happens next is at present unclear. Today and tomorrow the Administrative Council meets, which comprises representatives of the 38 Member States. Up to now, they have stood behind the President, but most recently there have signs that they will no longer be covering his back. By way of example, media reports suggest that the Danish chair of the Administrative Council, Jesper Kongstad, has been calling on Battistelli to improve the atmosphere at work, and to allow for an external investigation of the measures taken against the three union executives. Until then, the disciplinary measures should be lifted. In a letter from Kongstad to the other members of the Council, which is doing the rounds on the Internet, he complains that a serious dialogue with Battistelli recently proved impossible, because he left the meeting prematurely. In response to the question as to whether Battistelli is still the right man for the job, the Justice Ministry spokesperson was evasive: “It is also in the interests of President Battistelli to restore social peace in the EPO. To this end, the German side is in regular dialogue with him.”
If the President does not agree to the dismissals being investigated, the Suepo executives still have the possibility of recourse to the International Labour Organization (ILO) in Geneva, but it could take years for a decision to be forthcoming from there. The workforce at the Patent Office appear determined to continue the fight. Last week, 91 percent of more than 4,000 participating employees voted for a strike. Before that, though, the decisions by the Administrative Council will be awaited.
Donaukurier
Intervention by Banavrian politicians was also noteworthy at the time [1, 2] and SUEPO translated one statement about it as follows:
FREIE WÄHLER, Free Voters, want the European Patent Office to toe the line / Schmidt: Bavaria’s status with regard to the protection of employees must be secured – and that means in the whole of Bavaria
By the Editorial Board
Tuesday, 15. March 2016 16:01
Gabi Schmidt – landtagsabgeordnete.eu
(BWP) “Bavaria cannot stand idly by when in the European Patent Office, with its headquarters in Munich, human rights violations are being committed”, declares Gabi Schmidt, social policy spokesperson for the FREIE WÄHLER Free Voter fraction in the Landtag, Bavaria’s regional parliament. On the occasion of the meeting tomorrow of the Administrative Council of the European Patent Office, the FREIEN WÄHLER are seizing the initiative in support of the employees by tabling an emergency motion. In the light of the serious accusations being made by the staff against their employer, action needs to be taken – and taken rapidly. “Even if the European Patent Office is an institution which exists outside any particular state, we must not and cannot shirk our responsibility for what happens on Bavarian soil”, so Schmidt demands.
Employees have reported trickery and subterfuge: For example, the Patent Office is said to have made telephone calls or even unannounced visits, in cases where a staff member has reported sick, simply to check on whether they are really at home, which allegedly means that the person concerned is not even allowed to go for a walk. “There is no identifiable concordance here with German and Bavarian working standards”, says Schmidt, who goes on: “We are therefore calling on the State Government to commit, on a Federal and European level, to raising the employers’ standards. We FREIEN WÄHLER demand that our tried and trusted German and Bavarian standards also apply to the European Patent Office – without any ifs or buts.”
Source: fw-landtag.de
It is likely that next week the press will cover the EPO again because of the strike. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:24 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The state of lawlessness and the perception of gross injustice persists at the EPO, with a general strike scheduled to take place next week
THE media has been rather quiet about the EPO as of late (two weeks after the latest storm), but that doesn’t mean that anything at all is improving. SUEPO‘s new (or newly-aired) Web site now has a translation of a recent report from Thomas Magenheim (11 days old).
With staff strike apparently one week away (not just a protest), the following is worth reposting.
Crisis meeting in Munich
No peace at the European Patent Office
By Thomas Magenheim 19 March 2016 – 09:47
Frenchman Benoît Battistelli is out to reform the European Patent Office. But his hard-line methods and his relationship with the staff have caused massive upset in the Office. No talk, then, of a chance for peace to be restored.
EPO boss Benoît Battistelli takes a hard line with the staff. Photo: dpa
Munich – No major showdown, but social peace is still far from breaking out at the European Patent Office (EPO). That at least is the way things look after the results of the latest crisis meeting of the EPO Administrative Council in Munich. The meeting was needed due to Office President Benoît Battistelli having imposed reforms with an iron hand over the past five years, and, at least in the view of staff representatives, has infringed a whole range of fundamental rights. Most recently, two leading officers of the in-house staff union were dismissed, which led to the escalation of the long-running feud between parts of the workforce and Battistelli within the trans-national organization.
Speculations about resignation
Now the Administrative Council has presented the Frenchman with an array of demands aimed at bringing the social situation back under control. There has already been speculation in various media about the resignation or dismissal of the 68-year-old Office President, and rumours of the amount of his golden handshake and names of his successor have been bandied about.
However, the Administrative Council of the European Patent Office has in fact now confirmed Battistelli in office for a further three years, until mid-2019. At the same time, the Supervisory Board has also reined him in, even if this may not last very long. Essentially, Battistelli is required, within three months, to present a reform of the internal investigation guidelines, and in future to submit disciplinary measures, such as the sacking of employees, to the Administrative Council before implementing them. The Council is insisting on fair proceedings, which implies that they were not necessarily so in the past.
The controversial dismissal of two Suepo officials, among them the Munich-based Suepo chief executive Elizabeth Hardon, is ground where the Council would rather not tread, however. As a focus of the meeting, this demand caused sharp conflict between Battistelli and the Chair of the Council, Jesper Kongstad. The Council, as the supervisory body, are taking the line with regard to new cases that the “possibility of an external examination, conciliation, or mediation” should be provided for, according to one of its resolutions. Battistelli is apparently required “to take into consideration” matters such as this; and that does not amount to a strict order.
Personnel demonstrating every month
The response among personnel representatives of the some 7000 employees has been mixed. As a means of bringing peace to the Office, however, the requirements imposed on Battistelli are apparently not being seen as adequate, if only because the disputed sacking of Hardon and another Suepo official will not now in fact be investigated by an independent party. The Suepo representatives do not want to be named, for fear of being blacklisted. This too is something that runs deep. The tense relationship could change if there were to be formal recognition of the union as a staff representative body, but that it still not forthcoming, even though the Administrative Council apparently already called on Battistelli to do this last year.
This requirement is now back on the agenda of the supervisory body, “due to serious concern about the social unrest in the EPO”. The warning from the Council is clear: Disciplinary proceedings against personnel or union representatives would make the possibility of coming to an accord even more difficult. A structural reform of the EPO Boards of Appeal is also a matter of urgency. Personnel representatives are sceptical about Battistelli falling in line this time with the wishes of the Council, and therefore of the 38 EPO Member States. The word is that real peace will only be possible if the President ups and goes. Until then, the staff are going to continue with their resistance, expressed in particular by monthly demonstrations.
Battistelli, too, has his take on reality. “The Council is satisfied with my work”, he declared in an interview with the “Handelsblatt”. He claims that he still has their full backing. His Office, as a trans-national institution, should not be considered from a purely German perspective. This applies in particular to domestic employees’ rights, which do not apply in the EPO. Comments like that do not bode well for the situation easing any time soon.
What’s noteworthy here is that a fortnight after the meeting of the Administrative Council there has been virtually no progress made by Battistelli. The arguably illegal pension cuts got canceled [EN | ES], but that’s hardly enough to even save Battistelli’s own job (let alone the staff representatives’). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Ubuntu at 8:00 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Or with ‘friends’ like these, who needs enemies?
Summary: Growing realisation that Microsoft is just lying to everyone while actively attacking GNU/Linux behind closed doors (secret deals, bribes, patent extortion and so on)
THIS morning there were many rants online about what Canonical had done with Microsoft in order to help sell Vista 10 and put Ubuntu inside a proprietary hypervisor, complete with keylogging, back doors, and so on. We don’t wish to spend any more time talking about the ramifications (there’s some of that in our latest daily links), but many people labeled it E.E.E. (and rightly so!). We wrote about it last night, also noting what Microsoft had been doing in China and Romania (this is being discussed further in Soylent News today)
“It has a crush on Linux, so it’s trying to crush Linux.”One particular article, sent to us this morning from a reader, says: “Relations with the Red State have come a long way since plans to ‘Dewindowsify’ were announced in 2014, suggesting that Microsoft would be turfed out in favour of a proprietary Linux-based system. This is still going on, and NeoKylin is already in use in some key government systems.”
Right, but Microsoft loves Linux. It says so. It has a crush on Linux, so it’s trying to crush Linux. Based on reports, Microsoft still actively works to undermine this massive migration. If this is a company that “loves Linux”, then we surely lost sight of what an enemy is. Incidentally, as pointing out by this same reader, IDG is pushing Microsoft propaganda again, shortly after attacking GNU/Linux with misinformation (same author). This spin boils down to, Microsoft lost and has no chance of recovery. Hence it won. This is journalism? Not even fact-checking. What next? Another “Microsoft loves Linux” article? They yank these out every other day (here is an example from last week). It’s more like a PR campaign than journalism. █
“One strategy that Microsoft has employed in the past is paying for the silence of people and companies. Charles Pancerzewski, formerly Microsoft’s chief auditor, became aware of Microsoft’s practice of carrying earnings from one accounting period into another, known as “managing earnings”. This practice smoothes reported revenue streams, increases share value, and misleads employees and shareholders. In addition to being unethical, it’s also illegal under U.S. Securities Law and violates Generally Accepted Accounting Practices (Fink).
–2002 story about Charles Pancerzewski, Microsoft
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents, RAND at 7:29 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
It’s not hard to imagine who would benefit from making the abstract patentable
Summary: The UPC also has a FRAND angle/element to it and thus, in many cases, software patents in Europe (patent tax or lawsuits over software, which is typed and copied or distributed rather than manufactured or produced)
THE EPO‘s management, seemingly working for large corporations (not even European)*, keeps trying to undemocratically push the SMEs-hostile UPC, by extension spreading software patents in the European continent/commonwealth/nations and beyond them (the EPO is broader than that). Examiners at the EPO oughtn’t tolerate this as it jeopardises the quality of patents and damages the credibility of the EPO, along with the perceived value of European patents (EPs). We have already presented many articles, citing experts in the field, saying that UPC would bring software patents to Europe.
“Examiners at the EPO oughtn’t tolerate this as it jeopardises the quality of patents and damages the credibility of the EPO, along with the perceived value of European patents (EPs).”One subject we have been writing about for over 9 years is RAND (sometimes known as FRAND for an extra euphemism, “fair”). This new article from the Indian press (where the debate about software patents has been hot recently) speaks about “FRAND” as follows: “The past week had an article on standard essential patents (“SEPs”) by Divya Rajput, and how their licensing on Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms helps several industries to operate and serve customers. Ms. Rajput makes several interesting points, but these points are not grounded in reality and reflect logical inconsistencies.
“We have already presented many articles, citing experts in the field, saying that UPC would bring software patents to Europe.”“There was a time when indentured servitude was considered to be a good thing. Thank God we are not living in those days. Today, it is a criminal offense. Same is true for licensing of SEPs. What was an excellent business practice in the 90s, is not a viable business strategy today. Out of the original five (Motorola, Ericsson, Nokia, Alcatel-Lucent, and Nortel), none remains in providing and manufacturing mobile phones. Rather, all are involved in patent licensing in some form or the other. The cross-licensing rates in those days cannot be used as a bench mark today.”
Well, based on this new report from MIP, UPC remains a Trojan horse for FRAND and thus software patents in Europe (we wrote many articles about this around 2008). To quote MIP (behind paywall): “Our latest UPC scenario looks at a case involving a standard-essential patent. Michael Carter, Nick Cunningham and David Barron consider a defendant’s options in the new court system” (see this recent example).
“…it’s imperative to rebut the claims which come primarily from patent lawyers, the EPO, and gullible journalists who just print whatever they’re told by those former two groups.”Readers should be made aware that in anti-FOSS lobbying circles (e.g. Business Software Alliance or Association for Competitive Technology) FRAND became a byword for software patents or incompatibility with FOSS. They try to phase FOSS out of existence, or simply make it arbitrarily taxable (see what Microsoft is doing to Linux and Android for instance), hence expensive and hard/impossible/verboten to redistribute. The UPC is a very dangerous thing. There is an article in German about it (just published, translations would be appreciated) and given the high (and growing) levels of misinformation in the media about the UPC, it’s imperative to rebut the claims which come primarily from patent lawyers, the EPO, and gullible journalists who just print whatever they’re told by those former two groups. █
_____
* Suffice to say, the EPO is not European but an international body (exempt even from European laws). The only “European” thing about it is the staff. In spite of working for an international body, this staff is also European (EU citizens), hence should have European interests to defend, unlike the management (bossed by or made to please foreign stakeholders).
Permalink
Send this to a friend
03.29.16
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 3:48 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The UPC as envisioned behind closed doors by patent lawyers and their big clients (applicants from other countries/continents) is wrongly/misleadingly portrayed in the media as a desirable thing which offers “unity” or something along those lines
IT IS not only the EPO‘s management that’s pushing hard for UPC; many patent lawyers do the same, regardless of what the European public thinks about it. The public hardly even knows about it because there’s no effort to inform the public. This is why we made it a priority.
“The public hardly even knows about it because there’s no effort to inform the public.”Proponents of UPC just keep renaming it, making it harder to keep abreast of. Well, how many names has it got now? Half a dozen so far and now there are at least three. Dodging negative publicity? Uncertain about what the heck they’re doing behind closed doors? Deficient communication? Too many different languages that basically make the UPC impractical and far-fetched? According to this UPC booster: “Of most interest to the AmeriKat, of course, were Sir Robin’s chapters in Part IV on the patent system and, in particular the Unified Patent Court.”
Well, AmeriKat works for a company that's looking to profit from the UPC. AmeriKat basically spent years promoting software patents and now bats for the Establishment by spending a lot of her time treating the UPC as though it’s inevitable (the same tactics which Clinton proponents use at the moment, misleading those who follow the media). MIP, as of today, speaks to “Alice O’Donkor about her role in creating the Unitary Patent and UPC” (nothing to be proud of, as it’s inherently antidemocratic).
To quote the relevant part:
Despite many obstacles along the way, this work culminated in a 2013 agreement between most EU member states to set up a Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court. The agreement ended decades of deadlock since a single EU patent system was first proposed. It is now expected to come into effect early next year.
“We had to be extremely creative to overcome all types of legal and political difficulties and to find solutions to seemingly unsurmountable problems. That is something that was hard at times, but also very enjoyable,” said Fröhlinger.
She also paid tribute to the “enthusiasm and commitment” to a European project at a time when, in many people’s eyes, the EU does not seem to be moving forward.
One lesson she learned, she said, was not to dwell on difficulties: “You should just think of getting things done and that is amazing what you can do if you are not looking for credit – if you are just trying to get things done.”
Since leaving the European Commission, Fröhlinger has been working at the EPO helping to set up the procedures for the Unitary Patent, and assisting the UPC Preparatory Committee. There is still much work to do before it is ready, she says: “The Unitary Patent is ready; we are trying very hard to help to bring the Unified Patent Court to life.”
WIPR, remarking on the UPC at the end of last week, said: “In the autumn of 2016, Germany is expected to pass draft legislation that will allow for the UPC Agreement to be approved, but there are still some hurdles to overcome, say Ulrich Worm and Benjamin Beck of Mayer Brown.”
“This whole UPC campaign isn’t obeying law or democracy; it’s stomping on both and makes complete mockery of the very notion of democracy (the public was never asked about it, doesn’t participate in the process and so on).”Asking lawyers in Germany (or Mayer Brown International LLP) about the prospects of UPC is like asking a weapons manufacturer about the prospect of future wars (to which they contribute of course). This whole UPC campaign isn’t obeying law or democracy; it’s stomping on both and makes complete mockery of the very notion of democracy (the public was never asked about it, doesn’t participate in the process and so on). Here in today’s British media we see alarmists stating that Brexit would jeoparadise the UPC (even though UPC and EPO are not a EU thing). To quote: “For the European Patent Office (EPO), the body that grants patents, the potential for a Brexit has come at a particularly inconvenient time after several years of efforts to ratify the new unitary patent scheme in Europe.
“The unitary patent is set to be granted by the EPO and will be valid in 26 countries, with a centralised court of enforcement known as the Unified Patent Court (UPC). It was conceived as a way to cut down on the cost, administration and red-tape of filing and enforcing a patent across many European jurisdictions. Under the unitary system, those seeking patent protection in multiple markets can file a single application to the EPO, and if granted, see it have immediate effect across all relevant states and pay a single renewal fee.”
“The UPC would be an absolute disaster for Europe, for the benefit of few very rich Europeans and also some very rich foreigners or patent trolls.”This description of the UPC is highly misleading. It’s almost as though someone from Bristows LLP sent a memo to The Guardian, which did no subsequent fact-checking. The UPC would be an absolute disaster for Europe, for the benefit of few very rich Europeans and also some very rich foreigners or patent trolls. It is disappointing to see the media failing to point this out, instead believing words like “community”, “union”, “unitary”, and “unity” (in reality, further separating the super-rich from everybody else in the economic sense). This also opens the door to software patents in Europe. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA