10.16.15
Posted in Europe, Patents at 10:13 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
But who’s really acting like it, with its very own Stasi-like Investigative Unit?
Corporate imperialism traditionally mischaracterises its antagonists as the ‘naughty’ ones
Summary: Godwin’s Law is proven by Benoît Battistelli and his clique, who are not only illegally suspending high-level and independent staff but also actively defaming such staff — using the old ‘Nazi’ smear — in an effort to forcibly oust such staff
ON FRIDAY NIGHT we explained how the EPO’s management tries to portray all (or most) of its issues as the fault of one person, whose identity is now known to us. Despite efforts to pay the media for positive coverage, we don’t think that corporate media reports/articles parroting the EPO’s propaganda are necessarily paid-for placements; they might just be based on what Benoît Battistelli wrote internally on Friday, or passed to the media in advance.
We have already found someone (who is fluent in German) that can help translate this new article into English (it’s called “The faked up scandal“, or “Der erfundene Skandal“).
“First they came for individual workers like Elizabeth Hardon, then they came for unions (SUEPO), then they came for EBoA (or for other peripheral boards) and soon they’ll go after members of the public, as they already have for fears (silently, under threats).”There seems to be a new campaign brewing within high-floor offices of the EPO building in Munich. First they came for individual workers like Elizabeth Hardon, then they came for unions (SUEPO), then they came for EBoA (or for other peripheral boards) and soon they’ll go after members of the public, as they already have for fears (silently, under threats). “But I wasn’t X” is what the famous “First they came for” poem is followed by. To quote Wikipedia, ““First they came …” is a famous statement and provocative poem written by Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the cowardice of German intellectuals following the Nazis’ rise to power and the subsequent purging of their chosen targets, group after group. Many variations and adaptations in the spirit of the original have been published in the English language. It deals with themes of persecution, guilt and responsibility.”
The EPO is now giving birth and additional powers to a massive, global, new corporate regime, sheltered by the injunctions-happy UPC, cushioned by more global collusions such as TPP. Those who choose to just sit idly at the side are guaranteed to lose in the long term because sooner or later everyone is destined to be affected. The old European order is doomed not in favour of harmony or unity but in favour of further centralisation of wealth and power, protected by new and repressive laws, new overreaching courts, and even the ability of corporations to sue states (I.S.D.S. for instance).
“There is clearly some hypocrisy on the issue of “defamation” because it is often the EPO’s management that defames its own employees, making claims about them without any hard proof, then spreading these claims in order to discredit and belittle them.”The EPO is targeting its opposition not by trying to appease it but by aggressive action and shameless bullying. There is a campaign of defamation going on, they say, alluding to allegations which relate to criminal charges. Certain shady people, likely those in management, have been coordinating smears and manipulating journalists so as to discourage wider discussion of these issues. There is clearly some hypocrisy on the issue of “defamation” because it is often the EPO’s management that defames its own employees, making claims about them without any hard proof, then spreading these claims in order to discredit and belittle them. What a nasty form of abuse.
History remembers one tyrant who became infamous for blaming a group of people for all of his problems. No, that’s not just Battistelli blaming everything on SUEPO or Elizabeth Hardon. Battistelli’s Hardon issue aside, he now has another person to blame and here too we see a familiar pattern of “killing the messenger”.
I am personally familiar with many examples where accusations of Nazi connections, rape, child pornography etc. are fraudulently used to discredit people who speak truth to power. The common goal is to prevent media/colleagues/courts from taking them seriously. People in positions of power are habitually engaging in a “campaign of defamation” against their critics, but they enjoy a two-tier ‘justice’ systems which makes this a punishable offence only for the poor. In EPOnia, which is lawless, it doesn’t even matter what’s ethical or legal. The golden rule (of gold) is the law of the land.
Earlier today (or yesterday depending on one’s timezone) we learned that the goons in the EPO now throw around the “Nazi” smear (dirt-digging perfected). EPO staff should ignore the latest internal EPO communiqué as it is part of a grotesque, ugly, Putin-esque character assassination. Battistelli’s PR strategy has gone truly Godwinian. Here is the internal EPO communiqué which sets the tone of Battistelli’s PR strategy right now (apart from pretending that EPO staff is happy, using terrible propaganda in the making):
On the heels of this paper comes the following internal announcement on
the intranet:
Home —> Organisation —> President —> The President —> Announcements 2015
Defending our values
16.10.2015
Unprecedented disciplinary case
Dear Colleagues
It is my duty to inform you about an unprecedented disciplinary case concerning an employee appointed by the Administrative Council.
In its session of March 2015, the Administrative Council initiated a disciplinary procedure and nominated a Disciplinary Committee, composed of two renowned experts of the Intellectual Property world, two members of the Boards of Appeal and chaired by an eminent UK judge and former judge at the European Court of Justice.
The Disciplinary Committee expressed the view that the relevant rules and principles of law were correctly applied throughout the investigative and disciplinary procedure and assessed the facts brought forward during the investigation.
Among a long list of serious misconducts, including inter alia, abuse of IT system by using unauthorized software and thereby putting at risk EPO systems and data, and storage of items defined as weapons under German law and extremist material (including examples of Nazi memorabilia) at the workplace, the Disciplinary Committee focused on the following acts:
— the unauthorised disclosure of non-public information and critical opinions relating to Board of Appeal activities outside the EPO, while using pseudonyms;
— the spreading of accusations and attacks or threats against the EPO and its members, either directly or indirectly, both inside and outside the EPO.
Then the Disciplinary Committee stated “The appropriate sanction in the opinion of the Disciplinary Committee is dismissal pursuant to Article 93(2)(f) of the Service Regulations.”
On October 15, the Administrative Council endorsed the opinion of the Disciplinary Committee that the appropriate disciplinary measure is dismissal.
Pursuant to article 23(1) EPC, the removal from office of a member of Boards of Appeal is possible on a proposal from the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA). Therefore the Administrative Council decided to request the EBA to make such a proposal.
Until a final decision is taken by the Administrative Council, the staff member shall remain suspended and, in consideration of the serious misconduct now established by the Disciplinary Committee, half of his basic salary shall be withheld.
I am deeply saddened by these events and the subsequent internal and external unfounded controversy, which have seriously damaged both the Office and the Boards of Appeal’s reputation and credibility.
Regrettably, it appears that this individual did not act alone and is one part of a network including internal and external individuals, aiming to destabilise and harm our Office.
These acts represent a direct threat for the future of the staff.
You know that you can count on my determination and commitment to take, with the full support of the EPO’s management and staff, the necessary appropriate measures to avoid such harmful acts occurring in the future, regardless of the status of those involved. Together we will protect our mission, values and integrity.
Benoît Battistelli
President
Our observations will follow in upcoming articles. This is an all-time low for the management, for reasons which we shall explain in the future (it’s 4AM here right now).
Surely enough, Battistelli hopes that German and Dutch media will parrot these claims, which were not even verified, let alone proven by any independent body or a court. Internal investigations inside the EPO are notoriously bad, but then again, many journalists are gullible. These reports/investigations are worthless. They’re driven by agenda (stacked deck) rather than sincere inquiry, based on their recent history.
Remember the golden rule. EPOnia is a monarchy and Battistelli is Sun King. He has the last word on everything. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Intellectual Monopoly, Patents at 8:49 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
One of many ugly stories that the EPO would never want the public to see
Summary: The European Patent Office (EPO) likes not only to silence but also to bully (repeatedly threatening) its critics, as a new revelation about an old story serves to demonstrate
THE EPO wants to be publicly viewed as a professional European establishment that fosters innovation and creativity. It wants to attract businesses (it now refers to applicants as customers or clients, some of which it likes more than others). In reality, the EPO is a malicious organisation where Chinese standards for human rights and free speech hold true (and are actively enforced quite aggressively). The EPO is very fearful that the European public will find out the truth and then spread the truth. In other to hide the truth it is even eager to attack, intimidate, and impose mental stress on educated/informed members of the public. This makes the EPO an inherently nasty organisation residing at the very heart of Europe with total impunity; it’s on par with the Mafia, at least in some senses, and politicians are too afraid to intervene. Law enforcement is hardly even interested. The EPO is ruled by an elite and guarded by mega-corporations whom this elite obediently serves. This is institutional corruption.
“The EPO is ruled by an elite and guarded by mega-corporations whom this elite obediently serves. This is institutional corruption.”Gérald Sédrati-Dinet contacted Techrights in order to notify us of the abuse which he had suffered from the EPO. He kept rather quite about it until now. They were SLAPPing, or at least threatening to SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) him. The EPO even cataloged it, much like the notorious Investigative Unit (I.U.) at the EPO does. They gave this a case reference, “LogNo 2011/0338″. It makes one wonder just how many people they bullied in 2011. If this is case number 338 in June of 2011 alone, does that mean that they bully around 700 Web sites or so every year? And if so, has it gotten any worse since? That was just shortly after Battistelli, who comes from the “Right to be Forgotten” country (censorship to guard bad people’s reputation), had joined the EPO and gradually decimated oversight, ousting anything which he perceived as a threat to his absolute tyranny.
There seems to be a lot of bullying going on behind the scenes. A lot of people are severely harmed by this, so lower-level employees of the EPO must learn about this and spread the messenger internally. Also see the reference number in the I.U. case against Elizabeth Hardon. It makes one wonder if, under explicit gag orders, they are actually ‘disciplining’ (bullying) about a thousand people per year. It is a full-time job for an entire team. They need to justify their salary by creating ‘demand’, i.e. finding who to bully next (we have learned that they nitpick on very petty things in the workplace). It’s a reign of terror. The only such stories I’ve ever heard of are from my wife (when she worked in Taiwan). We call for the attention of European politicians. This cannot go on like this. The EPO led by Battistelli has already led to a tenfold increase in the number of suicides, according to one recent estimate.
“Unauthorised Use of EPO Logo on the website www.unitary-patent.eu,” is what they claimed. Yes, you heard that right. Using a small (even tiny) logo of the EPO somewhere in a Web site critical of the EPO (and the Unitary Patents which the EPO loves to lobby for so much) leads to bullying. Look at the image above or access the site directly. It’s not even the logo per se (sheared or tapered with a flag superimposed). This isn’t about trademarks but about silencing people who live in Europe and exercise their democratic rights.
“Anything (or anyone) which speaks against the managers is automatically treated like treason, irrespective of the merit of claims.”We strongly urge all readers to learn what happened, examine the evidence, and study the case below. There may be many more like it (hundreds or maybe thousands, but we just don’t know about them because it all happens behind closed doors). That’s how immoral and thuggish the EPO can get so easily. The EPO has already blocked Techrights, so this effort to suppress other Web sites hardly surprises us. These people (the ones running the EPO) act like Chinese ministers, or maybe like Russian ministers. Freedom of speech is not tolerated there. Anything (or anyone) which speaks against the managers is automatically treated like treason, irrespective of the merit of claims. This will be the subject of the next few articles about the EPO and its pertinent units. These are thugs, hired by other thugs. It creates a toxic environment in which good behaviour leads to punishment and/or dismissal while sociopaths get hired and gradually promoted. It is a form of entryism, the hallmark of organised crime within an institution. Recall last year’s explosive story from the large British newspaper, The Independent (“Total corruption: Organised crime infiltrated and compromised UK courts, police, HMRC, Crown Prosecution Service, prisons, and juries”).
“While you are focusing on EPO,” wrote to us Gérald Sédrati-Dinet, an activist against software patents in Europe (which means he is also against the Unitary Patent, as it’s a Trojan horse for software patents), “maybe you’ll be interested by this exchange of emails dating from 2011 when I’ve build the website www.unitary-patent.eu.”
“The first mail is sent by EPO (Sergio De Gregori and Caroline Godeau-Jobmann),” he wrote, “to my hidden contact address provided by Gandi, asking me to stop using EPO Logo on this website. Then, in the second mail, my lawyer, Olivier Hugo, kindly replied to EPO that I will not defer to EPO’s request. The EPO insisted in a third mail. And my lawyer refused once again in a fourth email. Then no news and my website has never changed its banner.”
Gérald Sédrati-Dinet must have suffered pain, including financial injury (having to pay this lawyer for the time), so this kind of bullying from the EPO, which clearly had too little or no merit (as they withdrew), must not be tolerated.
This doesn’t entirely shock us given the EPO’s known (and well-documented) record of censorship and threats, not just against EPO staff but also against external entities. Gérald Sédrati-Dinet asked, “don’t you find interesting to see the pressure put by EPO on any criticism?”
“You can use these emails as you want,” he added, providing the originals as follows:
-------- Mail 1 --------
*De :*cgodeau@epo.org mailto:cgodeau@epo.org [mailto:cgodeau@epo.org] *
Envoyé :* mercredi 8 juin 2011 14:37*
À :* xxxxx*
Objet :* Use of EPO Logo on your website Unitary Patent
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,
It has been brought to our attention that Unitary Patent is using the
EPO logo on its website http://www.unitary-patent.eu. A copy of the respective web page is
attached.
As you are no doubt aware, the EPO logo, as an emblem of an
intergovernmental organisation, is protected under Article 6ter of the
Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property against,
inter alia, unauthorised use by third parties. The EPO uses its logo for
its official activities and has a strong interest in ensuring that it
does not lose its value as an identifying symbol.
We therefore ask you to refrain from using the EPO logo and to *confirm
in writing by 23 June 2011* that you have done so.
If you fail to comply with this request, we will unfortunately be
obliged to pass this matter on to our solicitors in order to take the
necessary legal steps against you.
Yours sincerely,
Sergio De Gregori
Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Sincères salutations
Caroline Godeau-Jobmann
Legal Administration Officer Contract matters & general legal issues |
Dir. 5.3.1.2
European Patent Office
Landsberger Str. 187 | 80687 Munich | Germany
Tel. +49 (0)89 2399 5317_
_cgodeau@epo.org mailto:cgodeau@epo.org_
_http://www.epo.org http://www.epo.org/
The language used therein is not yet highly threatening, but wait until they threaten not only with legal action but also with heavy legal costs, despite the law not being on their side. At this stage, Gérald Sédrati-Dinet already reached out to a lawyer (we assume at significant expense to him). Here is the lawyer replying:
-------- Mail 2 --------
From: Olivier Hugot
To: "cgodeau@epo.org mailto:cgodeau@epo.org" cgodeau@epo.org
mailto:cgodeau@epo.org
Cc: "xxxxx"
Date: 09-06-2011 20:10
Subject: RE: Use of EPO Logo on your website Unitary Patent
Dear Mr. De Gregori,
I am the attorney of Mr. Sedrati Dinet who operates the website
http://www.unitary-patent.eu.
I am, to say the least, extremely doubtful regarding the legal basis of
your request.
As you are no doubt aware, Mr. Sedrati Dinet’s fundamental rights, which
includes the right of Free Expression, at the heart of which you will
find political speech, are protected by various national, European and
international constitutions or conventions (for instance article 10 of
the European Convention on Human Rights).
As such, I am afraid my client will not defer to your request.
Of course, I am available to further discuss this matter with your
solicitor should you deem it necessary.
Best regards, Olivier Hugot
*HUGOTAVOCATS*
4, place André Malraux
75001 Paris
Tél. : + 33.(0)1.44.94.83.83
Fax : + 33.(0)1.44.94.83.84
www.hugot.fr http://www.hugot.fr/
Well, if Sergio De Gregori and Caroline Godeau-Jobmann already receive a salary and enjoy immunity from the law, then why not keep themselves occupied by acting like a bunch of spoiled brats and threatening a young man who has a point of view and a concern about the likes ofthe EPO? Watch what happens next:
-------- Mail 3 --------
*De :*sdegregori@epo.org [mailto:sdegregori@epo.org]
*Envoyé :* vendredi 17 juin 2011 09:25
*À :* Olivier Hugot
*Cc :* Frank Hafner; Anna Juda; Sophie Gayout; Claire Lucas; Caroline
Godeau-Jobmann
*Objet :* LogNo 2011/0338 -- Unauthorised Use of EPO Logo on the website
www.unitary-patent.eu
Dear Mr. Hugot,
I tried to call you for the last few days but could not reach you, this
is why I now send you this e-mail.
Maybe you misunderstood our e-mail or there was some kind of clerical
mistake, but our request was to *refrain from the unauthorised use of
the EPO's logo*, which is -- I am sure, as a lawyer, you are aware --
protected by the Paris Convention against inter alia unauthorised use by
third parties.
We do not understand how our request could interfere with your client's
fundamental rights, which the EPO, as an international organisation, of
course respects.
Kindly explain, or have your client refrain from using the EPO's logo.
As already stated, if your client fails to comply with this request, we
will unfortunately be obliged to pass this matter on to our solicitors
in order to take the necessary legal steps against him at his expense.
Kind regards
Sergio De Gregori
Lawyer
Dept. 5.3.1.2 -- General Law and Contract Law
European Patent Office
Landsberger Str. 187 | 80687 Munich | Germany
Tel. +49 89 2399 5025
sdegregori@epo.org mailto:sdegregori@epo.org
http://www.epo.org
Yes, they threaten with legal action. This is clearly a threat. To quote: “if your client fails to comply with this request, we will unfortunately be obliged to pass this matter on to our solicitors in order to take the necessary legal steps against him at his expense.”
Classic SLAPP threats. In the US it would be against the law to do so (in many states).
Here is the followup:
-------- Mail 4 --------
*De :*Olivier Hugot
*Envoyé :* vendredi 24 juin 2011 13:58
*À :* 'Logbook'
*Cc :* Frank Hafner; Anna Juda; Sophie Gayout; Claire Lucas; Caroline
Godeau-Jobmann
*Objet :* RE: LogNo 2011/0338 -- Unauthorised Use of EPO Logo on the
website www.unitary-patent.eu
Dear M. De Gregori,
My client operates a website expressing a political opinion with a tag
line “For a Democratic Innovation Policy in Europe”.
One of his means of expression is the use of the EPO logo with the EU
flag piercing it, illustrating his political opinions. The use of the
logo and the text of the website are, thus, protected expression.
You may well disagree with the statements and opinion thereby expressed,
but my client is entitled to express them as an exercise of his
fundamental rights.
Interestingly enough, your reaction to the use of your logo demonstrates
the policy criticized by my client.
We had similar cases in France, with large international companies,
trying to use trademark protection to infringe upon free speech, yet the
supreme court protected such expression.
For those reasons, my client will not defer to your demands as he
considers his actions to be well within the boundaries of the law.
With kind regards,
Olivier Hugot
We like this sentence, which demonstrates how disgusting lawyers find the EPO’s attitude. “Interestingly enough,” he wrote. “your reaction to the use of your logo demonstrates the policy criticized by my client.”
It’s only then, after making repeated threats (the chilling effect) that the bullies went away without a word. It’s really looking and it easily seems like the abuser here is the EPO, which does what some might call (or coin) trademark-trolling. This blogger is no longer blogging and we can’t help but feel like this bitter experience could only have contributed to this. It’s a chilling thing to go though.
“Even the media is now being bribed by the EPO, in exchange for corrupt coverage.”Do not ever be fooled by the EPO’s misleading branding and public image charade, such as paid-for, self-glamourising events that put in a positive light (for a payment) the President and his repressive regime. Even the media is now being bribed by the EPO, in exchange for corrupt coverage. The EPO euphemistically calls this “media partners”.
These attacks on free speech will carry on not just inside the EPO but also outside the EPO. The EPO’s management is engaging in a war on the non-consenting European public, so it’s basically a regime of occupation. EPOnia, which views itself as exempt from European laws, is exploiting and even misusing European laws (as seen above) in a coordinated effort to muzzle voices it does not like.
We invite people who have had similar experiences to come forth to us. We need to shed light on this misbehaviour in order to suppress repetition thereof and also to make politicians better aware of what really happens inside the EPO, usually behind closed doors (or under DNA/gag orders). █
“The European Patent Office is a Corrupt, Malicious Organisation Which Should Not Exist”
–Richard Stallman, founder of GNU and the Free Software Foundation
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 12:55 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
If only…
Anonymity/masking often the last resort in a tyrant’s self-governed territory (like EPOnia).
Credit: AP Photo, 2014
Summary: Nasty ad hominem tactics, like those which Benoît Battistelli has used against Ms Elizabeth Hardon for several years, are also being used to discredit a judge/official critical of Željko Topić, essentially personifying the EPO’s problems (collectively) and pretending they are all reducible to one single person
WHEN THE CIA or our own British Prime Minister (through the RAF) sends out drones to kill British people (assassination without trial) they wrongly assume they can crush problems by crushing one single person. It’s sometimes known in the intelligence community as “decapitation”. When British authorities waste over $20 million just besieging Julian Assange in an embassy in London they wrongly assume his activism will stop or that he will be forced out (due to health issues) and then Wikileaks will come to an end (because he became a public figure and he is now widely regarded as the face of this courageous site). Nothing and nobody is 100% censorship-resistant and anyone can be driven to suicide given enough torture (even mental alone).
When the EPO’s management singles out and then viciously attacks members of the boards or members of the unions it assumes pretty much the same thing — that it can crush or silence both by bullying or eliminating (firing) their leaders, if not just perceived leaders. There is also scapegoating at play. They try to introduce a model of deterrence and they even hired people who worked in counter-terrorism operations in the middle east, as if EPO staff is the equivalent (in the risk sense) of Islamic terrorism. One day we hope to show just what kind of thugs and goons the EPO hired for the notorious, vindicative Investigative Unit (I.U.).
Earlier today we sought a translation of an article in Dutch and now that we have a full translation we see just how convenient a narrative the EPO presents to corporate media. Using alarming headings like “Nazi Propaganda”, the EPO is perhaps hoping to blame all the issues on one person and then, by generalisation, discredit the EPO’s entire opposition. Here is the English translation of the new article:
High Employee Sabotaged European Patent Office (EPO)
A member of one of the boards of appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) ran a campaign for the past few years, presumably with help from others, with a goal to put the institution in a bad light. The highest administrative body of the EPO wishes, therefore, to dismiss him and possibly file a complaint against him, but it cannot do so for now, because of his independent position.
On Thursday, the administrative council, in which all of the 38 EPO member states are represented, decided to ask the coordinating enlarged board of appeal to confirm the dismissal. Earlier on, the administrative council had refused to do so. This institution, of other members of the courts of appeal and independent members, must formally request the dismissal.
Campaign of Sabotage
The EPO confirmed on Thursday that the high-ranking official, who is an IT specialist, was found guilty of ‘serious misconduct and illegal activities’, after extensive internal investigation. Among other things, he conducted a far-reaching smear campaign against the EPO and its leadership. He also leaked confidential internal information on a matter that was brought before a court of appeal, to a German lawyer specialised in intellectual property issues.
According to EPO sources, with his slander, the official in question, whose identity and nationality are not being disclosed, would have attempted to sabotage the introduction of the European unified patent. He did this either anonymously, or through the use of pseudonyms. The investigation continues to look for accomplices, both inside and outside of the organisation.
Arms and Nazi Propaganda
The investigation on the misconduct, which comprises over 1000 pages, was verified by a British former judge of the European court of justice, who found it to be solid. Furthermore, in the Munich office of the official in question, arms were found, as well as nazi and neonazi propaganda. He was already sent on leave last December, pending the outcome of the investigation.
The EPO has a total of 28 technical boards of appeal, where disputes on (violations of) patents are handled, with 152 members. The EPO has, among others, a major location in Rijswijk, with 2700 employees.
Actually, addressing the headline in this case, the person who is sabotaging the European Patent Office is Battistelli — the very same person whom people are complaining about (Battistelli and his ilk use projection/reversal to paint the saboteur as the victim). Let’s recall how it all started. Looking at SUEPO’s Web site, we have an old interview that reminds us what happened several years ago. From an interview with Kongstad (Administrative Council or AC for short): “A more personal goal for me is that working with the new President of the Office, we will be able to create a much closer cooperation between the AC and the management of the Office, between the AC and staff, and indirectly between management and staff…”
That’s not what’s supposed to happen. Battistelli also crushed the Audit Committee and now he tries to crack down on the boards. To quote SUEPO’s site from around that time:
With an annual operation budget of close to 1.5 billion Euros the European Patent Organisation needs a strong governance mechanism to guarantee good practice and transparency. This is particularly important since due to its immunity the EPO is not subject to the checks and balances common in most national systems.
In order to improve the existing governance, the previous President, Ms Brimelow, proposed the introduction of an Audit Committee (see CA/140/08).
The Administrative Council, at the time chaired by Mr Battistelli, approved the proposal (see CA/D 9/09).
As President of the EPO, Mr Battistelli recently proposed to abolish the Audit Committee (CA/55/11).
The Council, once again, approved.
The Staff Union of the EPO considers the abolition of the Audit Committee premature and instead argues that further measures to strengthen good governance such as the introduction of a whistle-blower policy and a Code of Conduct are necessary before removing existing mechanisms.
The problem for the EPO began well before this judge or official even became anything like an issue. In the Dutch article, the author merely repeats the claims from the EPO’s management, citing their shoddy ‘investigations’ that are more of a sham (recall the so-called 'internal investigation' and see the letter recently sent to Kongstad et al from Ms Hardon’s solicitors about the witch-hunt/vendetta, cynically framed as “investigation”). The EPO is now associating opposition to the EPO’s abuses with Nazi sympathy. Godwin’s Law springs to mind, although it doesn’t quite apply here.
Reminiscence and read up on the politics of character assassination. This fits nicely here, with headings that say “Arms and Nazi Propaganda”.
Better than making “rape” accusations/allegations (Julian Assange) or bogus “child porn” claims (Matt DeDart) to keep supporters away and ensure the media is hostile, eh? This is an attack on people’s dignity. We don’t know what exactly they mean by “nazi and neonazi propaganda” (too vague a term, it’s definitely not memorabilia), but considering the fact that Battistelli now struts around with private bodyguards and hired ‘British Blackwater’ (he signed a contract with this shady firm), the possession of weapons in the office of someone who was illegal fired (on ‘house ban’, whatever that means) can almost seem understandable. Remember that 5 people working for the EPO were found to have committed suicide in just a few years (allegedly a tenfold growth). The EPO isn’t a safe place to be in; EPOnia has a high crime and corruption rate, especially among the very wealthy (the management). There seems to be an effort here to incite the readers and associate a judge (based on some sources it’s a judge) with radicalism, as if he’s just some Nazi gun nut (which is rather unlikely given his high position).
At Battistelli’s EPO, blowing the whistle on misconduct is equated with sabotage, even for claiming — correctly on the face of it — that a person faces many criminal charges (as is often alleged to be the claim spread by the suspended judge). To quote the way SUEPO put it at one point (citing us): “An article titled “Suspicion of High-Level Corruption at the European Patent Office (EPO)” describes the controversial appointment of Mr. Topić as vice-president of the EPO. Since his appointment in March 2012, Mr. Topić has become the subject of a number of critical news reports in the Croatian media: Mr. Topić appears to have a background of corruption and his appointment to the EPO too is believed to be reliant on systemic corruption.”
Since then there has been a court ruling which serves to defend and reinforce our claims. It looks like Topić bribed people to get where he got. Saying so isn’t libelous and isn’t defamatory, based on a judge who studied the case for a very long time.
The person who should be on ‘house ban’ and under grilling/interrogation (euphemistically called “investigation”) is probably Topić, not people who question his integrity. If it’s “defamation” to merely say something about the background of an official, then Europe is no better off than China.
Back in past years SUEPO linked to numerous papers (see these [PDF] 2 PDFs for example [PDF]) critical of the central patent system (before it was even widely referred to as “unitary patent”), so pretending all the trouble started because some single person from the board is pure fiction. Battistelli and his right-hand man, Topić, are just trying hard to get this judge illegally removed, by putting pressure on his colleagues to terminate him. This would help silence everyone else (fear is a strong motivator). According to this new report, his colleagues continue to defend him, like EPO workers defend Ms Hardon (seems like a divide-and-rule endeavor by the ever-so-charming Battistelli). According to this new article from WIPR (published this afternoon):
The supervisory body of the European Patent Office (EPO), the Administrative Council (AC), has resisted an alleged request by president Benoît Battistelli to dismiss a member of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBA) and instead asked that body to make a formal request for dismissal.
In a communiqué released by the EPO on its website yesterday, October 15, the AC said that “pursuant to article 23 of the European Patent Convention (EPC), the removal from office of a member of the EBA is possible on a proposal from the EBA”.
The communiqué was published following the conclusion of the AC’s 145th meeting, held from October 14 to 15.
However, the AC said it believed that the member should be dismissed for the “unauthorised disclosure of non-public information”.
[...]
On Wednesday, October 14, WIPR reported that Battistelli had asked the AC to bypass the EBA and dismiss the member for allegedly spreading defamatory material about the EPO.
That’s hilarious; “defamatory material about the EPO.”
As if the EPO is a person with feelings…
Battistelli has become petty and so has his ilk. They are now acting like a bunch of manipulative bullies, just like Sepp Blatter and his aides. It’s starting to become akin to organised crime.
According to another new WIPR article, in spite of Topić's shameless attempt to crush the protest in Munich (like Cossacks did Pussy Riot in Sochi last year), 900 people are said to have attended the protest. That’s 900 plus around 400 (or more) in Holland, making it over 1,300 in total. To quote WIPR‘s report:
Around 900 people attended a demonstration against the alleged harassment of a member of the Staff Union of the European Patent Office (SUEPO).
The demonstration took place on Wednesday, October 14, in front of the EPO’s Isar Building in Munich and was in support of Elizabeth Hardon, chair of SUEPO Munich, who is in a dispute with EPO management.
[...]
According to SUEPO, the protestors were denied the right to protest on the EPO’s office grounds by management. SUEPO said the EPO’s decision was “utterly irresponsible”.
Because the demonstration could not take place on office grounds, SUEPO said staff and police ended up on the road in close proximity to moving traffic.
[...]
SUEPO said it has tentatively planned another demonstration to take place on November 18.
So in EPOnia (the EPO treats itself like it’s a country within a country, pretty much lawless), not only basic human/worker rights like sick leave are abandoned but also the right to protest. No wonder someone in IP Kat called the president “Battistalinelli” some time yesterday. █
Update: “The FD article is a hatchet job,” told us a reader, “and a regular character assassination which doesn’t address the institutional and legal issues of the case.”
This reader gave us yet another translation of the same article (prepared at the same time as the entirely separate translation shown above). “My comments are interspersed in square brackets,” he explained.
Title: High-ranking official sabotaged EPO
[Nothing less!]
ORIGINAL: Een lid van een van de raden van beroep van de Europese Octrooi Organisatie (EPO) heeft de afgelopen jaren, vermoedelijk met hulp van anderen, een systematische campagne gevoerd om de instelling in een kwaad daglicht te stellen. Het hoogste bestuurorgaan van EPO wil hem daarom ontslaan en mogelijk aangifte tegen hem doen, maar kan dat nog niet vanwege zijn onafhankelijke positie.
TRANSLATION: A member of the EPO BoA conducted in the last years a systematic smear campaign against the Organisation, with the probable help of accomplices. The Administrative Council wants to fire him and possibly lay charges against him, but is impeded by the independence of his office.
[Immunity and independence is a fine and absolute principle when Battistelli is involved, but an unacceptable hindrance whenever anyone else is concerned.]
ORIGINAL: Donderdag besloot de beheersraad, waarin alle 38 lidstaten van EPO zijn vertegenwoordigd, om aan de overkoepelende uitgebreide raad van beroep te vragen om in het ontslag te bewilligen. Die weigerde dat eerder nog. Deze instantie, van andere leden van raden van beroep en onafhankelijke leden, moet formeel om het ontslag vragen.
TRANSLATION: The AC, in which all 38 member states are represented, resolved on Thursday to request the Enlarged Board of Appeals to approve the dismissal. The EBA declined. A request for dismissal must formally originate from this instance.
1) [I didn't translate "van andere leden van raden van beroep en onafhankelijke leden", which is refers to the role and composition of the EBA.]
2) [What the EBA apparently stated in essence was: *WE* are the ones to determine how and when someone should be fired, and if and when WE reach a decision, WE are the ones who are to send a request to the AC for implementation, as provided by Art. 23 EPC, and not the other way around. There is no basis in the EPC for YOU to suggest US what we ought to do, or for YOU to ask US to confirm YOUR decision.]
ORIGINAL: EPO bevestigde donderdag dat de hoge functionaris, een IT-specialist, na uitvoerig intern onderzoek schuldig was bevonden aan ‘ernstige misdragingen en onwettige activiteiten’. Hij heeft zich onder meer een wijdverbreide smaadcampagne tegen EPO en de leiding gevoerd. Ook lekte hij vertrouwelijke interne informatie over een zaak die aanhangig was bij een raad van beroep aan een Duitse advocaat, een specialist in intellectuele eigendom.
TRANSLATION: The EPO confirmed Thursday that the high-ranking civil servant, who is an IT specialist, was found after an internal investigation to be guilty of ‘serious misbehaviour and illegal activities’. He led a widespread defamation campaign against the EPO and its leadership. He has also leaked confidential internal information on a case pending before the Boards of Appeal to a German IP attorney.
[An investigation can seek to gather facts, which are then eventually submitted as evidence in a second step to a legally constituted court, which appraises it and determines guilt at a trial. The party is presumed innocent until proven guilty of having violated some legal standard, which must be pre-established. The charges must be identified at the outset of the proceedings, which are not to be a fishing trip trawling for anything that may eventually stick. Here the guilt seems to have been decided at the outset at the "investigation". The leak accusation is a new one, and unrelated to the events which are purported to have triggered the scandal. If the alleged "defamation" was widespread, how and where was it made public? And there is the reference to the EPO "leadership", probably meaning its President and associates. Who decided that whatever was communicated constituted "defamation"? Is there an absolute prohibition on discussing EPO management with anything but laudation?]
ORIGINAL: De betrokken functionaris, wiens identiteit en nationaliteit niet worden prijsgegeven, zou volgens EPO-bronnen met zijn verdachtmakingen geprobeerd hebben om de invoering van het Europese eenheidspatent te saboteren. Hij deed dat anoniem of door gebruik te maken van pseudoniemen. Het onderzoek gaat nog verder naar mogelijke medeplichtigen binnen en buiten de organisatie.
TRANSLATION: According to EPO sources, the civil servant in question, whose identity and nationality weren’t given, attempted to sabotage the introduction of the European community patent through his insinuations. He did this either anonymously or through the use of pseudonyms. The investigation is probing for further accomplices internal and external to the organisation.
[No, we won't name the individual, but identifying his technical field of expertise is no problem for us. The alleged "sabotage" of the Community patent is a rather odd accusation. But regardless of whatever may have happened — or not: since when having an opinion on this legal contraption worthy of Heath Robinson, and expressing it, anonymously or not, a crime? This institution isn't in place yet, doesn't concern directly the EPO, and rests on arguably shaky grounds. Its many flaws have been underlined by many people who aren't necessarily avowed adversaries of the patent system.]
ORIGINAL: Wapens en nazipropaganda — Het onderzoek naar de misdragingen, dat meer dan 1000 pagina’s telt, werd getoetst door een Britse oud-rechter van het Europese hof van Justitie, die concludeerde dat het deugdelijk was. Ook werden in de werkkamer van de betrokken functionaris in München wapens gevonden en nazi- en neonazipropaganda. Hij werd vorig jaar december al op non-actief gesteld in afwachting van de uitkomst van het onderzoek.
TRANSLATION: Weapons and nazi propaganda — The investigation report into the misbehaviour, with contains more than 1000 pages, was reviewed by a British former judge of the ECJ, which concluded to its validity. Furthermore, weapons as well as nazi and neo-nazi propaganda was found in the office of the civil servant in question in Munich. He was suspended last December while awaiting the outcome of the investigation.
[The judge merely "reviewed" the investigation; it isn't stated that a decision was rendered in a judicial context. This seems an attempt at purchasing credibility. Then comes the association in the same paragraph with "weapons" and "nazi AND neo-nazi propaganda". This is yet another new and deeply shaming accusation. Was this material also "reviewed" by the august magistrate, or does it constitute separate motives? Both "nazi" from "neo-nazi" propaganda? What is the distinction?]
ORIGINAL: EPO heeft in totaal 28 technische raden van beroep, waarin geschillen over (inbreuk op) octrooien worden beslecht, met 152 leden. EPO heeft onder andere een grote vestiging in Rijswijk, waar 2700 mensen werken.
TRANSLATION: There are 28 boards of appeal at the EPO, with 152 members, that adjudicate disputes relative to patents (or their infringement). The EPO has one of its major sites in Rijswijk, where 2700 people work.
[The EPO has nothing to do with infringement proceedings.]
ORIGINAL: Ulko Jonker
Correspondent Den Haag. Geneigd alles te willen weten. Zelden overtuigd. Journalist sinds 1976. ‘Stick to Facts, sir’.
TRANSLATION: Ulko Jonker, correspondent at The Hague. With an inclination to want to know everything. Rarely convinced. Journalist since 1976. “Stick to Facts, Sir”.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Microsoft, Patents at 11:31 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
…While patent lawyers of European SMEs accuse Microsoft of swamping the EPO
Summary: Jeremy Philpott comes to Grant Philpott’s defence after it became evident that Microsoft, a notorious patent bully, is treated like a V.I.P. by the European Patent Office (EPO)
THE EPO’s non-technical managers (the source of so much abuse as of late) are in very poor form. It hasn’t been an easy week for the management, which saw around 1,300 of its own employees protesting in public, despite a terrible protest-crushing effort that caused protesters to risk their lives (more on that in our next post).
We now know for sure that Grant Philpott pushed or pressed patent examiners to treat Microsoft like a V.I.P., ignoring a lot of European SMEs whose patent applications (far fewer) were overdue for much longer a time. One British patent lawyer told us that for SMEs it can take up to 9 or even 20 years (yes, the lifetime of a patent) just to be granted a patent, based on his worst experiences. “This is incredible stuff,” told us one person who is an expert in this field, “and proves what we knew–the EPO has a cosy relationship with Microsoft.” Grant Philpott (not to be confused with Jeremy, whom we last mentioned here 6 years ago and probably hasn’t a family relation with Grant) did not comment on this. Somebody else does. That’s Jeremy (shown to the left, photo from epo.org). All we know is that the EPO’s Web site claims he is “Deputy Spokesperson” in “Communication, Munich” (his bosses are named above him), so he may not have been careful enough. Maybe not so well prepared. He only revealed yet more internal information — information that we ourselves could not obtain, let alone verify. Nice own goal got scored there!
Jeremy Philpott inadvertently only revealed yet more information, without introducing any new defence of these practices (we saw the same spin in WIPR the other day). IAM spoke to the EPO for the other side of the story, pursuing a response that somehow salvages the EPO’s already-tarnished reputation. It resembles what we heard before, but it highlights the special role Microsoft played in all this. Here are some relevant bits from this long article:
The European Patent Office (EPO) has strongly denied claims that a recently leaked memo that refers to “a closer cooperation project with Microsoft” shows that the agency is favouring the interests of big corporate applicants over those of SMEs. In an exclusive interview with IAM, spokesman Jeremy Philpott stated that a pilot project entered into with Microsoft and a group of other large companies is actually designed to ensure that applications from large-scale filers do not swamp the accelerated examination request programme at the expense of submissions from smaller entities.
[...]
Speaking from the EPO press office in Munich, Jeremy Philpott explained that while many larger private practice patent attorney firms have traditionally had key account managers inside the agency who had been able to work with firms to identify issues and problems that clients might be having with their applications, this has not been the case for filings submitted directly by in-house teams. That has made it much harder to deal with any difficulties or to co-ordinate approaches to applicants across different technical areas.
The catalyst for developing the pilot scheme, Philpott continued, came from issues that Microsoft was a having with around 450 applications which it felt had stalled and concerns inside the office that this may lead to a request for accelerated examination for all of them. If this had happened, he stated, it would have led to a situation in which the process would have been jammed by files from just one company.
Instead, Philpott explained, it was suggested to Microsoft that in return for not submitting a blanket request, it would identify a smaller list of files to go through the process and that this would be updated on a regular basis. In that way, the ability to handle accelerated examination requests from other applicants would be safeguarded.
Having developed a communication and coordination strategy with Microsoft it was felt that something similar could also work with other big filers – hence the pilot programme. “By being selective with the big companies we can ensure that the process is not swamped by a small group of applicants and so have kept the capacity for handling accelerated exam requests open to everyone,” said Philpott.
It is the same official spin, which we responded to earlier this week (after WIPR had spoken to the EPO, also seeking comment). It makes little sense, still, even now that they try to refine their ‘damage control’ by making it a bit longer and revealing yet more stunning details of the special relationship between Microsoft and the EPO.
One doesn’t need to be a sceptic of software patents and Microsoft to see what’s wrong here. Not even patent lawyers are convinced by this. In an exchange of about 100 messages today, Tangible IP, a British law firm which claims to work for British/European SMEs, said about the above article the following [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]: “Not that reassuring for smaller corporate filers with in-house attorneys or small advisor firms. I think it’s time for serious analytics and transparency. At the USPTO I can check performance. It’s all very well making a formal complaint but many are recticent to do so for obvious reasons. The observations on competition are interesting. Quality is not the issue….it’s quantity. I doubt Microsoft was threatening to use KIPO on quality basis. They want speed just like SMEs.”
“One more point on this topic,” Tangible IP added, “Microsoft should be encouraged to use USPTO for PCT and not swamp EPO.”
Well, Microsoft is now stockpiling for its ongoing wars against Android, Tizen, Ubuntu, Mozilla/FirefoxOS, GNU, Linux, and so on. Microsoft announced billions of dollars in losses not too long ago (layoffs too), so patent aggression and racketeering may be all it has got left. █
“[The EPO] can’t distinguish between hardware and software so the patents get issued anyway”, —Marshall Phelps, IAM: Microsoft to have 50,000 patents within two years, Phelps reveals
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Microsoft, Security, Windows at 9:27 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Windows doesn’t have bugs, it is a bug (mass bugging without a warrant)
Personal Computer (PC)? Microsoft software acts more like an impersonal covert listening device.
Summary: Why any remnant of the perception of Windows security is simply misguided and unjustified, as recent stories serve to demonstrate
IT IS WIDELY known by now that Microsoft and the NSA collude or secretly cooperate so as to enable remote access into Windows and other Microsoft software/services, such as Skype. Microsoft appeases its government not just by lobbying but also by habitual snitching that helps preserve (sometimes enhance) power. Some say that this is how (and when) the antitrust case got scuttled and those who pardoned Microsoft moved on to secretive FISC/FISA courts (see the curious judges overlap). When they talk about security they mean “national security” and when they utter the word trust they mean “the government [or a corporation] trusting computer users.” It’s all in reverse. Back doors are “security” and “trust” is distrust. Windows is a digital surveillance apparatus on computers with cameras, microphone, etc. (no need for anything sophisticated and expensive like laser microphones).
“Windows is a digital surveillance apparatus on computers with cameras, microphone, etc. (no need for anything sophisticated and expensive like laser microphones).”Malvertising, or Windows malware for financial gain [1], made it into the news earlier this week. “Microsoft Infects Windows Computers With Malvertising” [2] was the headline from FOSS Force and it turned out that Outlook, which sports back doors, remains defective without remedy even on UNIX platforms [3]. The problem isn’t just Windows but Microsoft’s proprietary software as a whole. Who does this whole chaos serve if not an imperial espionage operations? Some are rushing to spin this and they are blaming computers as a whole [4], but obviously there is something to be said about Microsoft making its software deliberately NOT secure. Even file formats are still acting as back door enablers [5] (“In 2015, your Windows PC can be owned by opening a spreadsheet”). We already know, based on many news reports, about FBI (or equivalents) sending malicious files to surveillance targets who foolishly use Windows.
Come on, let’s not pretend that Windows can even be made secure. The objective of the operating system is not security. “Our products just aren’t engineered for security,” a Windows manager once stated publicly. That was before the NSA leaks and after Microsoft and the NSA had reportedly colluded to put back doors inside Windows (1999). █
Related/contextual items from the news:
-
MY, HASN’T THE ANGLER EXPLOIT GROWN? The overseas malware security threat has been caught flashing its side boob at the Daily Mail and affecting UK citizens with a foreign security threat.
[...]
“Malvertising has been one of the main infection vectors and continues to affect large publishers and ad networks through very distinct campaigns, very much like a whack-a-mole game,” Malwarebytes said.
“In addition to spreading via compromised websites, Angler leverages malvertising thanks to several different threat actors who use clever ways to go undetected as long as possible or are able to quickly adapt and get back on their feet if one of their schemes gets too much attention and is disrupted.”
-
I thought about ignoring this one and letting it slide, but it’s too priceless, too typically Microsoft, not to pass on. It seems that Redmond has been inadvertently infecting Windows computers with ransomware through its MSN website. Not to worry, however. The company is happy to hand you a tool to remove the malware, which is akin to locking the door after the horse is gone, as your files will by then be locked up tighter than a waterproof safe.
The news came yesterday, via ZDNet, that Microsoft has “upgraded its malicious software removal tool to tackle TeslaCrypt, or Tescrypt as it calls it.”
TeslaCrypt, a ransomware trojan, became big news early this year when it was found to be targeting computers with a variety of computer games installed. The malware evidently looks for file extensions associated with 40 or so games and encrypts them. The list of games infected includes such popular titles as Call of Duty, World of Warcraft, Minecraft and World of Tanks. From there, the scenario is all too familiar. To unencrypt, users must pay up — the going price is the equivalent of $500 in Bitcoins — to receive the decrypt key.
While media mainly focused on the gaming aspect of TeslaCrypt, lulling non-gaming Windows users in to a false sense of security, it appears that the trojan also targets financial and tax software.
Ho hum. Life as usual in the Windows world, eh?
Trouble is, Microsoft began to notice a major uptick in detections of TelsaCrypt in late August, with the numbers rising from less than 1,000 detections daily to more than 3,500. This coincided with a report from the security company Malwarebytes, which detailed on August 27 a major ad based malware campaign using major news websites — including MSN.com — as drive-by delivery platforms.
-
APPLE ROLLED OUT the latest official version of its Mac operating system last week, but the update crashes Microsoft Outlook. Microsoft has since rolled out an update designed to fix the problem, but it does not appear to have worked.
Microsoft released the Office for Mac 2011 14.5.6 update in response to hundreds of complaints that its email software constantly crashes on the latest Mac OS X El Capitan.
“This update provides the following fixes to improve Mac OS X El Capitan compatibility. The hang situation that occurs during an account sync operation in Microsoft Outlook for Mac 2011 is fixed,” Microsoft claimed.
-
-
Microsoft and Adobe have pushed out their scheduled monthly security updates, with familiar names like IE and Flash once again getting critical fixes.
For Redmond, the October update brings fixes for 33 CVE-listed security vulnerabilities. The updates include a cumulative fix for Internet Explorer and patches to address critical flaws in Windows VBScript/Jscript for Windows Vista/Server 2008 and Windows Shell. Office, the Windows kernel, and Windows Edge also received fixes.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Microsoft, Vista 10, Windows at 8:45 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
“A suffragette is force-fed in HM Prison Holloway in the UK during hunger strikes for women’s suffrage” (source: Wikipedia)
Summary: The pressure on Microsoft grows as belatedly, several weeks after this abuse began, corporate media is starting to realise and publicly acknowledge that Microsoft downloads and sometimes installs Vista 10 on people’s PCs without their consent
HOW CAN one tell that Vista 10 is a disaster? Well, Microsoft has been reportedly force-feeding it and annoying loyal customers by doing that, with the sole goal of gaming the figures and creating the illusion that Vista 10 is a "success" (or "popular". We have seen such attempts at self-fulfilling prophecies for quite some time, even back in the Vista days (the first Vista, which many people and especially businesses or governments rejected for deeply-embedded DRM and other new, ‘innovative’, malicious antifeatures)
“This has been reported for quite some time by numerous individuals/people (maybe companies too), but the media mostly ignored them.”Judging by reactions from readers of The Register, people are fuming. Judging by provocative CBS writers, this is becoming “aggressive” and Microsoft “offer no opt-out”. Is this even legal? Can class action be found to have merit?
“Reports are circulating,” wrote one person, “that some users are being presented with dialog boxes that only give them the option to start the upgrade process or reschedule it for a later date. Others are finding that the Windows Update screen is only offering them the option to begin the upgrade process, with other system updates being hidden from view.”
This has been reported for quite some time by numerous individuals/people (maybe companies too), but the media mostly ignored them.
“According to this ‘damage control’, Microsoft says force-fed ‘upgrades’ (to Vista 10) are an “accident”.”Slashdot now has a long discussion going under the title “Windows 10 Upgrades Are Being Forced On Some Users” (linking to Microsoft Peter’s “Windows 10 upgrade installing automatically on some Windows 7, 8 systems”).
According to this ‘damage control’, Microsoft says force-fed ‘upgrades’ (to Vista 10) are an “accident”. Yes, the media finding this out is… well, an unfortunate accident. That’s not what Microsoft wanted. It has been doing this for nearly a month (judging by our research) and hoped nobody will notice, or at least that the mass media will not have sufficiently hard proof/evidence. How many so-called ‘adopters’ had it imposed on them? A month is a very long time and there are many PCs out there running various versions of Windows. Microsoft has been tricking and manipulating them.
Microsoft Peter’s ‘article’ (duty) to Microsoft reads like an official Microsoft blog post. He wrote: “Microsoft says that the optional update was enabled by mistake.”
But should we believe Microsoft? It has a long history of lying, hence no credibility. The “mistake” is that they got caught by the media while trying to do it silently in order to game figures and bamboozle Windows useds [sic], giving them the false impression that people actually choose to accept this so-called ‘upgrade’. Maybe Microsoft started this softly (few Guinea pigs) and recently got too ‘greedy’ by imposing this on larger pools of Guinea pigs (easier to detect and corroborate for media coverage).
To quote more ‘damage control’ from Microsoft Peter: “We’ve asked Microsoft what’s going on, and the company tells us that enabling the update was done accidentally…”
“Microsoft repeatedly shows and always reminds Windows useds who really owns and controls their PCs.”Who’s “we”? That’s Microsoft Peter. That’s “I”. He is like an unofficial spokesperson in the media (effectively a mole), like Mary Jo Foley in CBS. It’s similar to the nonsense that we heard from him recently, regarding Automatic Update ‘mistakes’. If it sounds like rubbish, then it probably is. If it’s Mirosoft talking rubbish, that’s just normal; it’s Microsoft’s modus operandi.
Microsoft repeatedly shows and always reminds Windows useds who really owns and controls their PCs. Until they decide to install BSD or GNU/Linux…
Here is what Robert Pogson wrote about that:
To really be free those users should switch to GNU/Linux, an operating system cooperatively developed for the world and designed to remain free by the terms of simple licences like the GPL.
Microsoft is utterly desperate right now. First it pretended that Vista 10 was zero-cost (untrue). But People still reject it, so Microsoft force-fed them. It’s as if Microsoft said, “please take it, PLEASE, it’s FREE!” The public, which tried it or just read/heard from people who had tried it said, “nah, it’s buggy and it’s spyware.” It’s then that Microsoft took matters into its own hands and basically sort of hijacked people’s PCs and did whatever the Hell it wished. It’s like a break-in.
“Microsoft is in a terrible situation here, both legally and technically.”According to another new report, “Microsoft now uses Windows 10′s Start menu to display ads” (not just applications and games anymore), which means that Vista 10 spies on the useds even as they click on the screen (not just when they click on the keyboard, but the mouse too). We wrote about this before. Watch how it’s expanding. Windows Update continues to make Vista 10 even more malicious; the spying only escalates.
Microsoft is in a terrible situation here, both legally and technically. People just reject the latest version of its common carrier.
The Register‘s Microsoft booster (Anderson receives gifts from Microsoft as reward for or in exchange for positive coverage) admits that .NET is all about Windows and Microsoft’s latest proprietary operating system, Vista 10, plus the overreaching monopoly (or lock-in for assurance thereof). As he put it: “Microsoft introduced the Universal Windows Platform (UWP) this year: applications that run across many device types, provided that they all run Windows 10.”
“Escape Windows now because based on what Microsoft developers told me last month, it is only going to get worse in the next version (even more surveillance).”So in Microsoft’s view every Windows used [sic] must immediately move to Vista 10, irrespective of data security provisions, performance issues, conformance, compatibility etc. How convenient! The Register shows that Microsoft has also just induced another forced (i.e. PAID) ‘upgrade’ of SQL Server databases. If you don’t ‘upgrade’, you may lose your data or have it leaked (downloaded remotely and maliciously, not just by Microsoft’s back door buddies).
Why on Earth do some people still accept such horrible treatment? Is it the Stockholm Syndrome? Escape Windows now because based on what Microsoft developers told me last month, it is only going to get worse in the next version (even more surveillance). Microsoft makes no apologies for it; they’ll just kill privacy and then declare it “dead”. Privacy violations in Vista 10 continue to get worse; dismount to avoid the chaotic train journey and disembark this non-stop upgrade treadmill today rather than procrastinate, hoping that things will magically get better. Things will only get worse. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Free/Libre Software, FUD at 7:18 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) sure is a powerful seller
Summary: The latest FUD campaign and the latest channel/distribution deal from Black Duck, a fake ‘friend’ of Free/Open Source software (FOSS)
THE Microsoft-connected (in many ways) firm Black Duck continues trying to monetise fear of FOSS — a fear that it is itself inflaming if not creating in the first place.
Based on this new article, Black Duck’s Kevin Bland, sporting a fancy job title for what is essentially a non-technical marketing role, makes some tall tales. He really wants companies to buy Black Duck’s proprietary software (with software patents on it).
“Kevin Bland,” says the article, “director of channels and alliances at Black Duck, said that developers often used existing code to speed up the process of bringing an app to fruition and there could be vulnerabilities incorporated into the fresh application.”
Right, and that never happens when people reuse proprietary software… never. Never ever! Bland’s bland spiel continues: “If you wait until launch then it can cost $25,000 per problem to remedy it but if you identify vulnerabilities during the development stage it is about $25 per vulnerability” (wow, no data to back this up, just a magical factor of 1000:1).
Making up the facts as they go along, eh? Here is the marketing announcement about it and something related to that. To quote: “Kilpatrick was speaking as it was announced that Wick Hill has been appointed value added distributor for Black Duck Software in the UK and the DACH (Germany, Austria and Switzerland) region. Black Duck is a US-based worldwide vendor, whose industry-leading products secure and manage Open Source Software, eliminating the pain related to security vulnerabilities, compliance, and operational risk. The company is partnering with Wick Hill as part of its drive to grow sales and expand its reach in the EMEA region.”
“f Wick Hill wants to expand, it probably ought to stay out of the snake oil business.”So that’s what it’s all about, sales of proprietary software. Wick Hill is desperate to expand to EMEA based on the latest news and press releases [1, 2, 3, 4], with mergers and acquisitions reportedly likely.
If Wick Hill wants to expand, it probably ought to stay out of the snake oil business. Even companies that are close to Microsoft (Xamarin for sure) have publicly dismissed Black Duck’s products as useless. What might Wick Hill attempt to distribute next? Polygraphs, which are based on pseudo-science and are a fraud which only misleading marketing can sell? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:05 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: In response to the EPO’s crackdown on its very own staff a report was issued, but a good translation of it is needed for wider circulation and informed responses
LAST NIGHT Merpel showed a seemingly (on the surface) good start for actions by EPO staff. But read the bottom two paragraphs that say: “Merpel initially thought she detected, in the section dealing with the “social situation” a recognition by the AC that the unrest and low morale in the Office need to be dealt with, in spite of repeated denials from Mr Battistelli.
“[EPO] Communiqué is silent on the ongoing investigation of staff representatives, and especially the accusations against Elizabeth Hardon, Chair of SUEPO Munich and the Local Staff Committee.”
–SUEPO“However, launching a social study “in close co-operation with the President” deprives that study of any credibility. A report which is vetted, contributed to, and possibly edited by the President will be a whitewash. If the people carrying out the study are not able to express themselves freely, i.e. if they work in the office or are engaged and briefed by the management of the office, then it will be a whitewash. It sounds like the AC wants to be project an air of concern, but is in no way interested in properly understanding the issues. If the AC was at all serious about understanding the social situation and dealing decisively with the rot, they would engage an independent, credible firm to investigate the “social situation” and would politely instruct the President to co-operate with the study. That’s not what this sounds like.”
This post was titled “EPO AC says no to Battistelli & yes to the rule of law,” to which the FFII’s President responded with “EPO is not responsible of its acts in front of a court, so the “rule of law” does not exist” (as confirmed by what everyone witnessed earlier this year in the Netherlands). SUEPO remarked on Merpel’s post earlier this morning. It mentioned that this blog post’s “comments note that the Communiqué is silent on the ongoing investigation of staff representatives, and especially the accusations against Elizabeth Hardon, Chair of SUEPO Munich and the Local Staff Committee.”
Speaking of the Netherlands, there is this article in Dutch (we have archived it to bypass a paywall) we want a translation of (to help expand its reach beyond a few — at most perhaps 50 million worldwide — people). Google translates the headline as “High employee sabotaged European Patent Office”, but can anyone who speaks Dutch please help provide a decent translation? Even for just a paragraph or two? We already got one volunteer, but he lacks time, for now…
Posting a translation in the comments section below may do. Accuracy is needed because EPO management is nitpicking (to discredit the messengers). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA