09.23.15
Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:53 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A call for translation of an important article that may help shed light on the modus operandi of the Investigation/Investigative Unit of the EPO, which works with Control Risks Group (CRG), the ‘British Blackwater’
Münchner Merkur, which wrote about the EPO several months ago, is mentioned by SUEPO’s public page for an article with the same headline as this one, “Streit im Europäischen Patentamt eskaliert”.
“We are still trying to learn how the EPO’s secretive Investigation/Investigative Unit is working as it may help explain at least some of the tragic suicides.”According to SUEPO, «Münchner Merkur reports on the threats of dismissal against Elizabeth Hardon, Chair of the Local Staff Committee in Munich and SUEPO Munich Chair: “If Ms Hardon is dismissed, new elections for the staff committee will take place, ‘But who would candidate, unless they are totally subsmissive?’”»
Can anyone help please provide us with a good English translation of this article?
“The article was published in the paper edition Nr. 215 of 18 September 2015,” SUEPO says (no translation available) and a “similar article was published in OVB Online.”
We are still trying to learn how the EPO’s secretive Investigation/Investigative Unit (I.U.) is working as it may help explain at least some of the tragic suicides. Internally, some refer to the I.U. as "the Gestapo", whereas Vice-President Željko Topić is referred to as “Putin”, based on German media. Neither comparison is flattering, but given what we have learned about both, the labels fit. Both will be the subject of ongoing investigations in the coming months. Input is required. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in GNU/Linux, GPL, Microsoft at 5:25 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The “Microsoft loves Linux” lie… on steroids
Summary: Further analysis of Microsoft’s admission that it uses Linux internally and the media’s poorly-researched response to that
EARLIER this week we mentioned GPL-related issues pertaining to Microsoft's so-called 'embrace' of Linux, to put it crudely. Some people in various Web sites have pointed out that since Linux is not AGPLv{X}, this oughtn’t be a problem. “Dirty trick from Microsoft for ACS GNU/Linux distro,” Bob Summerwill called it, because “they stick with GPLv2 so they don’t have to share code.” These are actually legitimate points. Our headline was an open inquiry that said “But Where is the Source Code (GPL)?” This question mark at the end indicated that we were still looking for some answers. It has all been rather vague and widely misreported.
Amid the latest Microsoft openwashing by a Microsoft-associated network of propaganda sites (yes, they still want us to believe that Microsoft is an open source company!) we are looking for clarifications as to what Microsoft is really doing internally, hence secretly. It created some kind of proprietary version of “Linux”, or a derivative thereof. They built things on top of it, modifying GPL-licensed code (it won’t disclose what exactly was changed, when, why, and how).
Here is the ‘damage control’ from Microsoft, courtesy of Microsoft Peter, who previously helped Microsoft amid clear GPL violations that we covered in length [1, 2]. Peter is trying to frame this as something that it probably isn’t, shedding off obligations to release code changes. Given Peter’s history amid GPL violations from Microsoft (we covered this extensively at the time), we cannot take his arguments/claims at face value. A lot of the corporate media continues to refute Peter by saying that “Microsoft Launches Linux Operating System”, that “Microsoft’s love affair with Linux deepens”, or that “Microsoft’s Linux-based cloud OS scores a win for SDN”. They’re obviously paying no attention to Peter, whose employer (an sworn apologist of Microsoft) has spread the ‘damage control’ to two Web sites (identical text, different headlines), one of which pretends to be British.
We continue to be disappointed to find very poor press coverage of this. One financial site was calling this exploitation of Linux code “Microsoft goes open source”. Well, they don’t even release any code, so how can that be “open source”? Lousy journalism.
Either way, since Microsoft hides what it has done and has not yet released any code, all one can do is guess. Relying on claims from Microsoft boosters and apologists is the worst one can do at this stage, especially with history in mind. Remember that Microsoft views the GPL as a “cancer” and moreover, because this so-called ‘cancer’ is so good, Microsoft has violated the GPL until it got caught (repeatedly). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:54 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The Topić connection to EPO-imposed and universally-induced censorship not just of news sites but also sites which speak about the censorship itself, or dare question the integrity of the EPO’s management
EARLIER today we noticed an update from SUEPO, which had updated its public page to include this translation of an important article from Heise Online, a leading German publication focused on IT, even GNU/Linux at times.
SUEPO said that this article “comments on the censorship imposed on SUEPO’s website by the management of the European Patent Office. The article recalls former unusual measures such as the covert surveillance with keyloggers and cameras of semi-public computers within the Office.”
Here is the article’s translation in full, images included:
English translation
Union accuses European Patent Office of Censorship
17.09.2015 18:02 Christian Kirsch
vorlesen
EPO-President Benoît Battistelli
The Office management are accused of having arranged for the staff union to have links to Websites removed which have been reporting on internal conflicts – among them to heise online. The Office denies the accusations.
The disputes between employees and management at the European Patent Office have led to a number of press reports this week. The staff union SUEPO had set up links on its Website to some of these reports, but now all that appear are statements to the effect that pressure from the EPO management has led to the links having to be removed. But the management, when asked, denied exerting any kind of influence in this connection. They say that the union alone is responsible for its Website. The report on heise online, for example, had been quoted in their own internal press review.
Allegedly, the union has been forced to remove links to messages at fosspatents.com and heise.de under pressure from the Office management.
But in the past the Office has done some unusual things. For example the EPO management arranged for public and “semi-public” computers in the Office building to be monitored by cameras and for keyloggers to be installed on them, as patent observer Florian Müller reported. The reason for this is that the management are trying to identify leaks which are spreading “defamatory and injurious” contentions about Vice-President Željko Topić. The allegation is that a number of criminal prosecutions are pending against Topić in Croatia.
As an international organization, the EPO is not subject to any national labour legislation or jurisdiction. Disputes between management and staff are the concern of the International Labour Organization in Geneva. Supervision at the EPO is exercised by a 38-person Administrative Council, who are delegated by the Member States of the European Patent Convention, and in the past they have always solidly backed the EPO management.
Administrative Council in conflict of interest
Critics suspect there are two reasons for this. On the one hand, a large part of the income for the EPO comes from the patent offices of the Member States. Rumours abound, for example, that Germany acquires some 100 million Euro per year, although neither the German Patent and Trademark Office nor the EPO will publish exact figures. On the other hand, members of the Administrative Council would also be reckoning on their chances of securing one of the very well recompensed EPO positions; the career followed by the German EPO Vice-President Raimund Lutz, for example.
On enquiry, the Federal Ministry of Justice confirmed that the Basic Law applies equally to EPO employees, and in particular freedom of speech. The Ministry would make no comment, however, on the present state of affairs.
The article neglects to mention EPO censorship of SUEPO E-mails and also the Office-wide block against Techrights (affecting nearly 10,000 of the biggest stakeholders). These are serious omissions. The inclusion of these would have helped demonstrate how far back these censorship tactics go and how far — in terms of breadth and severity — they generally go. Željko Topić is called by some within the EPO “Putin”; these censorship tactic only serve to reinforce that stigma/comparison, given that the EPO’s management is now officially trying to use Topić as means of justifying the unprecedented censorship, suppressing links to anything which even speaks about this censorship.
The EPO’s management is cleatly out of control and out of touch. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Site News at 3:46 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A few short notes on how we are going to re-align the site with disruptive trends, notably patents-related
ONCE in a few years, as longtime readers probably know by now, we take the time to write a post or two about strategic changes. Once upon a time we focused a great deal on Novell, about which we wrote literally thousands of posts. Novell is no more. It’s not functioning anymore. Later on Microsoft started to increase its patent attacks on GNU/Linux and then on Android, whereupon we turned our attention to Microsoft and then we wrote about patents, for reasons we repeatedly explained. Patents are one of the subjects that we are unique at tackling. Groklaw used to do that too, but the site has been inactive for years.
“Once upon a time we focused a great deal on Novell, about which we wrote literally thousands of posts.”In order to make better use of time and focus on topics that matter and are relevant to the field of interest, we are going to change priorities and better align our strategy with current strands, such as the EPO, the UPC, and software patents in general (in various parts of the world). To make room, time, capacity etc. for this we are going to post less political stuff and less news pertaining to international affairs (mostly in daily links these days, having taken up dozens of hours of research every month). If anyone among our readers opposes such changes, we would be glad to hear and reconsider accordingly. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents, Videos at 2:22 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
“Battistelli, what the helli?”
Summary: The Belgian TV network featured a show which was making fun of Battistelli earlier this month (see the above)
THE gradual spread of the EPO scandals coverage to media outlets all across Europe made this inevitable. We saw this in newspapers, radio, and now it’s on television too. We also saw it in various parliamentary systems, both EU institutions and institutions of member states. It spreads like fire.
The above 10-minute video can be summarised using the following frames:
Someone on IPKat has taken the above screenshots from the video and provided explanations/interpretations in simple English. Going by the pseudonym “Roufousse T. Fairfly” the commenter said:
It required some effort before you can finally look at it, but it was worth it.
It is a sequence from a program on Flemish private TV. The invited star on that particular episode was a singer.
The middle of the show is segment titled “sla de sloeber“, which loosely translates to “hit the rascal”.
I wasn’t familiar with the term “sloeber”, which has many possible, and mostly unflattering, synonyms:
1) Arme kerel
2) Arme
3) Belgisch bier
4) Bier van hoge gisting
5) Een goede vent
6) Hals
7) Iemand die veel tekort komt
8) Pauper
9) Persoonsbenaming
10) Slokop
11) Smeerlap
12) Stakker
13) Sufferd
14) Sukkel
15) Smeerdoos
16) Schooier
17) Schoelje
18) Schlemiel
19) Schurk
20) Stumper
21) Vlegel
22) Zeer arm mens
23) Zielenpoot
The guest is invited to select between one of three rogues:
1) One Michel D., who trafficked blood diamonds into Belgium;
2) Benoît Battistelli, who needs no presentation;
3) Mexican gangster El Chapo Guzmán, who recently escaped a maximum security penitentiary through a two kilometer-long tunnel.
Specimen #2 is chosen, and the singer reminisces about his experiences working for a French company, if I understood correctly.
After an interminable number of commercials equal or greater than 14 (I believe I lost count), the show returns with the effigy of the chosen one affixed to a punchball machine.
Once the scoundrel has been properly sent flying by the avenger’s fist, the calculated result is entered into the high score table.
Pretty silly, but it shows that BB and the EPO are becoming household names, and not thanks to the pointless and expensive non-events called the “inventor of the year awards”.
I close my eyes and picture a scene in a Munich penthouse, with a group of scared stiff assistants drawing straws to designate a “volunteer” for showing and translating the video to Le Président…
Cut to London near the Shard, in a discrete office… A phone rings impatiently… Hullo… Yes? A contract? In Ghent? … OK, sure, we promise we won’t send those bozos who totally bungled that job back In Bruges…
Another pseudonym, “Old man of EPO”, said in response to the above on Monday: “Have to say I’m surprised that Vier had heard of BB. Their intro to him is a bit OTT but, hey, there’s no such thing as bad publicity apparently so I guess it’s not that bad (?) to be matched with a murderous Mexican gang leader. Or maybe not…”
Whether it is negative or positive publicity, well… we shall let readers/viewers decide. Being compared to criminals can hardly be framed as positive because of the legal nature of the comparisons, insinuating perhaps that all of the above three characters belong in a prison cell (if not worse) for very heinous and expensive crimes. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA
