Editors • About the Site • Comes vs. Microsoft • Using This Web Site • Site Archives • Credibility Index • OOXML • OpenDocument • Patents • Novell • News Digest • Site News • RSS

04.10.16

What is Known (and Not Known) About Attacks on Croatian Portal That Exposed Željko Topić, the Notorious EPO Vice-President

Posted in Europe, Patents, Rumour at 5:31 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

People on a mission to destroy/crush and accumulate more power in the process

“I am extraordinarily patient, provided I get my own way in the end.”

–Margaret Thatcher

Summary: Dnevno.hr, a popular news site which wrote many articles about Željko Topić (a locally-disgraced official), has encountered resistance and people from Croatia tell us more about it

THE problems at the EPO exacerbated after the HR department had foolishly hired Željko Topić. Maybe it didn’t do a proper background check, maybe he wasn’t honest enough about his background, or maybe the background was known all along but viewed as compatible with Battistelli’s iron-fisted monarchy-esque regime. Either way, Mr. Topić remains inside the EPO (for now) and it does nothing but discredit the Office (and by extension the entire Organisation).

“It’s hard to tell just how widespread this campaign of silencing really was.”The interesting thing about Željko Topić and other such goons is that they too (like the EPO) tried to take the articles down from a Croatian portal. We were told this by people close to the action and we previously saw what seemed like evidence that more than this one portal was targeted. It’s hard to tell just how widespread this campaign of silencing really was. Topić repeatedly lost a defamation case about it. See for instance some of the following articles (not a complete list):

What we know for a fact is that Topić actively suppresses criticism (by going directly after his critics). We are not sure if he is also behind DDOS attacks, as some people allege based on suspicion but not much more.

“We are not sure if he is also behind DDOS attacks, as some people allege based on suspicion but not much more.”A month ago someone from Croatia sent us an E-mail titled “Cyberattacks to web site Dnevno.hr” — an attack (or several attacks) which we already knew about because people told us about that more than a year ago. To quote just a portion, the “news portal dnevno.hr” had a “short conversation with” this messenger, who spoke to the portal’s “owner, Mr. Michael Ljubas and editor Mr. Drazen Boros.”

“In several topics for discussion,” we got told, “in one moment we open old cyberattack to web site dnevno.hr in period Dec 2014 to Jan 2015.”

“I have had a lot of issues such as the above (DDOS) since I started writing about Topić in 2014.”Based on the message, “there is a doubt/suspicion on the company Moscow Telecom Corp (COMCOR)” and we were advised to get in touch. As a reminder to those who haven’t been following this saga long enough, Techrights too came under DDOS attacks around that time and SUEPO suffered DDOS attacks. It submitted a formal complaint to Dutch authorities shortly thereafter, but nothing has been heard about it since.

We don’t want to relay rumours as nothing other than rumours or lay the blame without hard evidence, but another source of ours with other sources in Croatia suspected, based on what s/he had heard, that it could, in theory, be related to Topić. I have had a lot of issues such as the above (DDOS) since I started writing about Topić in 2014. I am eager to find out more about the correlation, if any, hence I attempted to contact people from Dnevno.hr. That was a month ago. The DDOS attacks against Dnevno.hr are not the subject which we deem news; rather, it was the attempt to convince the site to take articles about Topić offline (effectively deleting them). This reinforces suspicions because there is definitely motivation. Here is the message I sent to Dnevno.hr (with minor redactions), in spite of the likelihood that they don’t speak English:

Dear Dražen Boroš and Michael Ljubas (whose e-mail I don’t have),

I am contacting you regarding Mr. Topić, now EPO V-P and formerly a source of many Croatian scandals (with ongoing court cases). I occasionally post translations of your reports but I also became aware of attacks on your site. I understand that you spoke to [redacted] and were going to contact me too. I am trying to ascertain the details regarding cybergagging, which I heard about from numerous sources for over a year. My site too came under attacks, and only after I started publishing stuff that relates to Mr. Topić (not sure if timing was a pure coincidence and whether it’s Mr. Topić who drew ire).

My plan is to publish a report on the matter and I need further input before doing so.

Sadly, I have not heard back, but shortly afterwards another article about Topić was published in Dnevno.hr, citing Techrights twice. It’s good to see that not only Croatian media makes it into west Europe but also articles from west Europe make it back into Croatia, generally making people better aware of injustices. We published a German translation of the latest article (still no English version). Most EPO workers understand at least German, so this translation may still be helpful. Very few can grasp Croatian (even remotely). Article about the EPO should come out in greater numbers and more should be said about Željko Topić (of SIPO and EPO). There is a lot of information already out there, but it’s usually not accessible to most Europeans, not even 1% of them (Croatia is not a large country/population). We need more articles in English, French, Spanish and German translated from Croatian. One thing that the EPO and Željko Topić’s SIPO have in common is staff suicides, but how many people even know this? There are also WIPO suicides with some commonality to be found in causes. It’s about staff which speaks truth to power or rattles the status quo a little, even if for perfectly justifiable reasons. “The staff representatives,” we recently read about EPO staff representatives, “noted [they] did not share their [EPO's] vision of priority: the “house is burning” and the head of the HR department finds no more urgent things to talk with staff representatives than about their personal rewards? The staff representatives stressed that it was a wrong priority altogether: while there is indeed a large issue of resources of the Staff Representation altogether, and the administration should focus on the fact that many officials are threatened, investigated fired or sick…”

Or having committed suicide (see the WIPO and SIPO suicides). █

Avoiding the Vista 10 Trap and Rejecting Microsoft’s Attempt to ‘Jail’ GNU Inside Windows

Posted in GNU/Linux, Microsoft at 4:25 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

GNU behind bars and gates?

Embrace and Extend
Credit: unknown (Twitter)

Summary: Why Microsoft’s effort to “embrace” (or jail) GNU and Linux inside of Vista 10 should in no way lure people into this mass surveillance software (misleadingly marketed as operating system)

MR. TORVALDS, who wrote a good kernel and then licensed it under the terms of Stallman’s GPL, is still eager to take over the desktop, as a lot of this weekend’s coverage noted [1,2,3]. Given the disinterest in this goal at the Linux Foundation (which now receives money from Microsoft in all sorts of way), this is important. Don’t let Microsoft simply relegate GNU/Linux, making it an ‘app’ of Windows [4]. There’s keylogging and worse things in there. We need to strive for freedom [5] and Stallman has just published an article about the conundrum which is a Free (libre) environment entrapped in a proprietary one (with back doors in Microsoft’s case).

“Don’t let Microsoft simply relegate GNU/Linux, making it an ‘app’ of Windows.”Microsoft is now using Trump methods of associating GNU/Linux with Vista 10. This was a truly clever marketing strategy which dominated the media last week, courtesy of (for the most part) Microsoft boosters with their puff pieces, blurring the lines between freedom and mass surveillance.

Over the past week I’ve read several testimonials in Reddit and other forums from people who escape Windows because of lack of freedom. They move to GNU/Linux for idealogical reasons and practical reasons such as privacy and control. One sort of ‘testimonial’ also came to me personally and said:

I’m about to splurge and buy me a new laptop. I want to go for a slightly older model which won’t come with Windows 10 pre-installed. I now realise that I might just be able to make the jump to Linux as a native OS. The switch would be more for practical reasons than ideological ones. I now realise that I monitor software updates as closely as if they were spam malware attachments, as MS now tries to slip through a Win10 “upgrade” at least once a month. How many times must I say no for them to understand?

My few MS-specific software items would continue to run on the home “mainframe” (an older laptop that is too battered to take on the road, but which is a vast improvement over the ~2003 vintage desktop it replaced). Fortunately, there aren’t too many of them, and none are absolutely essential for mobile use, even though some of them would be really nice to have. I’m now far enough up the learning curve to be able work my way around.

We are likely to hear more such stories in the near future because a lot of people openly complain about Vista 10 and repeatedly say that they’re unwilling to ever accept its terms. Some already move away [6] and Microsoft tries to forcibly make people use it. █

Related/contextual items from the news:

  1. Torvalds prepared to spend next 25 years helping Linux conquer the desktop

    The phrase “year of the Linux desktop” has been around for well over a decade but has become more of a meme rather than a statement of fact. Without a doubt, Linux has seen much success on mobile devices, including smartphones and tablets, as well as servers, network appliances and the emerging “internet of things” device category. However, despite Microsoft stumbling with Windows Vista and Windows 8.x, Linux failed to capitalize on these moments of weakness.

  2. Linux can still beat Windows in the desktop war, and Linus Torvalds is ‘working on it’

    While Linux has lost many battles to Microsoft on the desktop, the war is not over. Torvalds pledges to dedicate the next 25 years of his life to usurping Windows. Will the open source kernel prove victorious on the desktop? It is totally possible. After all, time is not finite, and even the Roman Empire fell. If you follow history, nothing lasts forever and that should ring true for Microsoft’s stranglehold on the desktop.

  3. Linus Torvalds: “I’ll Spend Next 25 Years To Help Linux Beat Windows In Desktop War”

    While Linux and other open source technologies continue to rule the server and mobile markets, the desktop arena is still dominated by Windows operating systems. Linux creator Linus Torvalds knows this fact very well and expresses his commitment to work hard to make Linux a bigger force in the desktop war.

  4. GNU/kWindows

    There has been a lot of talk lately about a most unique combination: GNU—the fully free/libre operating system—and Microsoft Windows—the freedom-denying, user-controlling, surveillance system. There has also been a great deal of misinformation. I’d like to share my thoughts.

    [...]

    Free software is absolutely essential: it ensures that users, who are the most vulnerable, are in control of their computing—not software developers or corporations. Any program that denies users any one of their four freedoms is non-free (or proprietary)—that is, freedom-denying software. This means that any non-free software, no matter its features or performance, will always be inferior to free software that performs a similar task.

    Not everyone likes talking about freedom or the free software philosophy. This disagreement resulted in the “open source” development methodology, which exists to sell the benefits of free software to businesses without discussing the essential ideological considerations. Under the “open source” philosophy, if a non-free program provides better features or performance, then surely it must be “better”, because they have outperformed the “open source” development methodology; non-free software isn’t always considered to be a bad thing.

    [...]

    Secondly, when you see someone using a GNU/kWindows system, politely ask them why. Tell them that there is a better operating system out there—the GNU/Linux operating system—that not only provides those technical features, but also provides the feature of freedom! Tell them what free software is, and try to relate it to them so that they understand why it is important, and even practical.

    It’s good to see more people benefiting from GNU; but we can’t be happy when it is being sold as a means to draw users into an otherwise proprietary surveillance system, without so much as a mention of our name, or what it is that we stand for.

  5. Good bye “open source”; hello “free software”

    Everyone has at least a good reason to prefer software freedom over non-free software products.

  6. Ecuador hospital runs on Linux Mint

    This is the type of Linux desktop deployments we all want to see more of. No drama, just regular users using Linux all day to get their job done.

Church of EPO: How Team Battistelli Engineered the Dismissal of People Not Sufficiently Loyal to Them – Part I

Posted in Europe, Patents at 3:51 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

God Blatterstelli

Summary: A new series which looks back at how Battistelli stacked the deck not only by crushing oversight but also amassing instruments of coercion over staff, with various new pretexts for dismissal

AT THE end of last week we shared a single page from the EPO‘s CoC. There is a lot more to be said about it and this long post shall help the EPO with transparency that Battistelli loves so much to brag about (without actually doing anything to that effect).

Here is the page/leaf in full:

EPO CoC page

As a reminder, in the words of a reader, a lot of this relates to the union-busting activities we have been seeing since the end of 2015 (they truly intensified at that point but didn’t start then). Here is what Battistelli et al pushed through to staff:

EPO on protecting staff

The above was a culmination of something that had been cooking for a while. Consider the full CoC:

Europaisches Patentamt
European Patent Office
Office européen des brevets

CODE OF CONDUCT
FOR THE EPO

EPO’s PUBLIC SERVICE VALUES

- Respect for the individual
- Integrity and accountability
- Impartiality and objectivity
- Compliance with the rules of law
- Quality and professionalism

The European Patent Office’s public service values are a guide to behaviour which should promote the development of a culture of respect. The values are: respect for the individual; integrity and accountability; impartiality and objectivity; compliance with the rules of law; quality and professionalism.

These values, which are all of equal rank, guide our actions and underlie the EPO’s mission, which is to support innovation, competitiveness and economic growth across Europe through a commitment to high quality and efficient service delivered under the European Patent Convention (EPC).

These values apply to all persons working at and for the Office. Staff with managerial responsibilities are expected to promote these values by leadership and example.

This document does not create another legal framework and refers to the existing EPO regulations setting out the formal obligations of its staff. In the event of any conflict between the content of this code of conduct and formal obligations under the EPC or Service Regulations, then those obligations take precedence.

Confronted with an individual or collective breach of these values, all staff must be allowed to exercise freely and in good faith their right to draw attention to it without any fear of reprisal. They may in particular ask their line manager or Human Resources partner, or the responsible unit within Internal Audit and Oversight for advice. I undertake to respect our values and ensure that they are respected.

Benoît Battistelli

President

RESPECT FOR THE INDIVIDUAL

The services provided by the Office are the result of the work done by qualified and motivated staff members. The Office therefore recognises the individual value of each and every employee. Mutual respect, dignity, respect for human rights, nondiscrimination and the promotion of diversity are our guiding principles.

Our keywords

• DIGNITY
• NON-DISCRIMINATION
• TOLERANCE
• TRUST AND RELIABILITY
• LISTENING AND UNDERSTANDING
• POLITENESS
• OPENNESS
• DIALOGUE
• HEALTH
• SAFETY

Our approach

We share the international community’s commitment to respect human rights.

We strive to create a working environment marked by mutual respect.

Mutual respect, trust and the ability to listen are indispensable elements in our professional relations. Each individual’s abilities and talents deserve to be acknowledged.

We take the necessary steps to provide a safe and healthy working environment.

We seek to promote diversity and equal opportunities among employees.

We are committed to not allowing situations to arise which could be prejudicial to the dignity of our colleagues. We make every effort to prevent any form of discrimination or harassment.

INTEGRITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Integrity is an inalienable criterion for our professional conduct. It implies acting with responsibility, accountability, loyalty, discretion and common sense. We resist all forms of corruption.

Our keywords

• HONESTY
• LOYALTY
• FAIRNESS
• CONFIDENTIALITY
• EXAMPLE

Our approach

We act with honesty, responsibility and discretion.

We act with loyalty and solely in the interest of the Office. We perform our tasks under the authority of the President of the Office, except for the specific responsibilities or functions expressly laid down in the EPC or Service Regulations.

We respect the scope of our responsibilities and of the tasks entrusted to us. When delegating tasks, we remain accountable for their execution and results, and therefore managers exercise adequate supervision and control.

We respect the confidentiality of information: we do not disclose confidential information received in the course of our work to unauthorised persons, nor use it for our own benefit or to the detriment of the Office.

Our duty to do our work to the best of our abilities also implies an obligation to share with our colleagues the information necessary to perform their own duties.

We are committed to combating all types of fraud.

We are careful in our external communications and respect our duties of tact and discretion about the Office. In particular, we refrain from making any statement that could be detrimental to it.

IMPARTIALITY AND OBJECTIVITY

The Office and its staff must remain independent of all governments, authorities, organisations or persons outside the Organisation. Our conduct must be impartial and reflect that independence. We tackle situations which could impair our objectivity.

Our keywords

• INDEPENDENCE
• NEUTRALITY
• EQUAL TREATMENT
• IMMUNITY

Our approach

We seek to ensure that nothing which occurs under our responsibility is or could appear to be a direct or indirect act of preferential support for a political, economic, ideological or religious group.

We refrain from doing or saying anything that might call our impartiality and objectivity into question.

Our actions when taking decisions or leading projects are reasoned.

We need to be impartial and objective. We are aware of the risk of potential conflicts of interest, whether actual or apparent. Where possible, we avoid them; where not, we disclose and manage them.

Gifts or other favours might compromise our professional impartiality. Therefore we do not solicit any. And, without the President’s permission, we do not accept any either.

COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES OF LAW

The Office has its own legal system, which must be respected.

The Office and its staff must also respect the applicable national laws of the country they are in and must meet their legal and financial obligations.

Our keywords

• LEGALITY
• JUSTICE
• RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS

Our approach

We respect both the letter and spirit of the Office’s rules and regulations.

We apply these rules and regulations fairly and in good faith.

We act with professionalism and a sense of social responsibility in observing the applicable laws, and respecting customs and traditions of the countries in which we work, contributing responsibly to the welfare of society.

Our privileges and immunities do not prevent us from complying with our obligations under applicable national laws.

QUALITY AND PROFESSIONALISM

The way each of us does our job is reflected in the Office’s overall performance. Our commitment to high quality and efficient public service is a contribution to innovation, competitiveness and economic growth in Europe.

Our keywords

• INNOVATION
• COMPETENCE
• PROFESSIONALISM
• TRAINING
• EXCELLENCE
• EFFICIENCY

Our approach

We give of our best to achieve our professional goals and to offer an efficient public service.

We work with colleagues in a spirit of teamwork and co-operation.

We manage the Office’s resources appropriately and efficiently, in line with the principles of economy and sound financial management.

We strive to maintain, adapt and develop skills within the Office. With the aim of ensuring sustainability, we act in a strategic and long-term perspective, not in our own immediate interests.

We do our best to reach highest international standards and best practice.

The above makes widely available what should have been publicly available all along. It helps accountability (for management, not only those who are managed by abusive management).

Later this week we are going to show how Battistelli essentially engineered the sacking of people whom he viewed as obstruction for his (and his corporate bosses’) agenda. Stay tuned for more. █

With Software Patents in Autonomous Cars Few Giants Want a Monopoly on Driving, Not Just Physical Car Components

Posted in America, Asia, Patents at 2:48 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Mobile car

Summary: How software patents can retard innovation in the autonomous cars space and why it’s the far east (Asia) that’s likely to exploit this obsession with patents

NOW that David Kappos lobbies for software patents after his USPTO career and Battistelli threatens to bring software patents to Europe through EPO/UPC, let’s consider what’s at stake and whether society should tolerate it. People have been driving for many years; there’s nothing novel about it.

Decades ago Martin Goetz had CAFC introduce software patents in the US (the first software patent ever to be granted relates to this) and right now a blog of software patents proponents writes about patents on autonomous cars.

“Media and Sonar Systems have the least number of patent filings with only 396 and 597 patents/patent applications respectively.”
      –Rahul VijhThis matters to me personally as I previously developed an Android app for computer vision on the dashboard (my research field at one time though I usually dealt with medical/biology). I did wonder how many software patents existed in this domain in the US, but I never bothered checking (it’s infeasible). According to the blog: “As with any new emerging technology, focus also shifts to patents and patent ownership trends on that technology. Research shows that technologies such as Adaptive Cruise Control and Anti-Collision Systems have the highest number of patents/patent applications filings, followed by Braking Control Mechanism and Communication Systems. Media and Sonar Systems have the least number of patent filings with only 396 and 597 patents/patent applications respectively.”

That’s a lot of patents. Many are on software. Tesla, which more or less gave up on patents in this domain, gets mentioned later: “Despite the small portfolio size, Tesla oft shares spotlight with Google – and has announced that the new Model 3 cars shipping in 2017 will be able to run in ‘Autopilot’ mode at least on freeways and to “Summon” itself out of its parking spot. But that’s not just why Tesla is dangerous for competition. Tesla’s product seems to be the most advanced commercially-viable implementation of autonomous car technology – seeing how the Model 3 is only expected to cost $35,000, which means the heat is really on for the other larger traditional automobile players (and also on Google and Apple) to commercialize their own autonomous car technology, and make it accessible to regular consumers, before Tesla takes the road from beneath their wheels.”

“That’s a lot of patents. Many are on software.”Looking at today’s news alone, one finds that the US is falling behind in this area, in spite (or maybe because) of patents. Too many patents on this domain (driving as ‘innovation’) hamper progress and new articles indicate that it’s a growing industry that has moved to the far east [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].

Consider for a moment the fact that many of the methods described in such patents have nothing to do with mechanics and everything to do with computer programs (that’s just what autonomy is about). These are software patents on emulation of whatever drivers have been doing for about a century. What’s next? A flood of “on a car” patents? Like “over the Internet” or “on a computer” patents? █

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channels: Come and chat with us in real time

New to This Site? Here Are Some Introductory Resources

No

Mono

ODF

Samba logo






We support

End software patents

GPLv3

GNU project

BLAG

EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com



Recent Posts