06.30.10

IRC Proceedings: June 30th, 2010

Posted in IRC Logs at 6:49 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Read the log

Enter the IRC channel now

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

IEEE Hates Software Freedom, Now Makes it More Official

Posted in GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Patents, Red Hat at 12:39 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: The IEEE’s promotion of proprietary software is made more apparent by its position on software patents after deals with Microsoft and other monopolistic entities; Centrify wants to put Microsoft tax in Red Hat and Fedora

ONE OF THE world’s leading computer scientists is against them, but the IEEE is in favour of them. What are they? Monopolies on algorithms. Professor ‘Algorithm’ Knuth has already explained that “there are far better ways to protect the intellectual property rights of software developers than to take away their right to use fundamental building blocks.” He must be referring to copyrights and/or trade secrets.

The disparity between these views of Knuth (creator of LaTeX, which is Free software TeX) and the views of the IEEE (where Knuth is a special person for several different reasons) ought to be resolved because it’s rather shocking to find this new press release which chooses neither to be neutral nor to reject software patents.

IEEE-USA pleased that Supreme Court’s ruling preserves software patents

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Monday that a new method of doing business can be patented, and that the ability to patent software should not be limited.

What’s not too shocking is the IEEE’s active lobbying for software patents, especially given what we already know about the IEEE and Microsoft, for example. Over the years we have accumulated numerous examples where the IEEE takes a position which is hostile towards software freedom and towards computer science in general. Software patents are bad for all programmers in general, except the large employers of programmers (whose managers exclude competition and thus increase profits, using software patents). It’s “time to boycott IEEE,” writes the president of the FFII in relation to the press release shown above.

Bradley M. Kuhn (FSF/SFLC) takes a constructive approach. Yesterday he released this oggcast/audiocast which analyses the Bilski decision.

Dan Ravicher joins Karen and Bradley to discuss the Bilski case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

This show was released on Tuesday 29 June 2010; its running time is 1:14:22.

Kuhn also posted in his blog some advice for those who want to dodge software patents in the United States, using software licences. He endorses APGLv3, GPLv3, LGPLv3, and Apache-2.0 (they have ‘teeth’ to defend against software patents ambush).

Lots of people are opining about the USA Supreme Court’s ruling in the Bilski case. Yesterday, I participated in a oggcast with the folks at SFLC. In that oggcast, Dan Ravicher explained most of the legal details of Bilski; I could never cover them as well as he did, and I wouldn’t even try.

Anyway, as a non-lawyer worried about the policy questions, I’m pretty much only concerned about those forward-looking policy questions. Looking back at how our community responded to this Bilski situation over the last 18 months, some of it seems similar to what happened while the Eldred case was working its way to the Supreme Court. In the months preceding both Eldred and Bilski, there seemed to be a mass hypnosis that the Supreme Court would actually change copyright law (Eldred) or patent law (Bilski) to make it better for freedom of computer users.

[...]

License your software APGLv3, GPLv3, LGPLv3 or Apache-2.0. Among the copyleft licenses, AGPLv3 and GPLv3 offer the best patent protections; LGPLv3 offers the best among the weak copyleft licenses; Apache License 2.0 offers the best patent protections among the permissive licenses. These are the licenses we should gravitate toward, particularly when now that it is certain that companies with software patents are coming after Free Software. At least when such companies contribute code to projects under these licenses, we know those particular codebases will be safe from that particular company’s patents.

GNU/Linux ought to watch out for Microsoft offshoots of sorts, such as Centrify [1, 2, 3]. Their proposition is compatibility with Microsoft, but what they actually sell is access to Microsoft’s software patents, which have been more or less upheld in the United States but nowhere else. Centrify is trying to bring this Microsoft patent tax to Fedora 13 and Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.5 right now whilst Microsoft continues to mock the need for server interoperability. The company called Likewise also has roots in Microsoft and it operates similarly, by offering a Samba-type product with Microsoft patent tax [1, 2, 3, 4]. For those who still wonder why Microsoft protocols and software patents are counter productive, look no further. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Speedy Deception From Microsoft

Posted in Boycott Novell, Deception, Microsoft at 11:57 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Internet Explorer 9 (IE 9) is not as fast as Microsoft wishes people to believe, according to independent tests

MICROSOFT loves to compare competitors’ real products to products that it has not even released yet (and therefore cannot be benchmarked reliably). Microsoft uses draconian terms in the EULA to prevent parties from conducting and publishing benchmarks. False performance claims are currently being spread around by Microsoft, touting the speed of a product which is not even out in the market.

Ryan Farmer has performed some tests and he concludes that “IE 9 Preview 3 is still really slow…”

That was the answer to your question. “Is it really fair to be bagging on something that’s not even released?”. Yes and no. Normally no, but when Microsoft is already lying about it being faster than the speed of light on a day that God did a line of coke, I’d say they made the damned thing fair game already.

In one of our IRC channels, Ryan said that “IE 9 is as fast as a browser can get without breaking the laws of physics. Lie mode cancel. How does Microsoft manage to make up benchmarks that anyone can download their browser and debunk?”

“There are ways to cheat,” Oiaohm responded to him. LifeHacker has its own benchmarks too. Microsoft is not a winner there, either. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Eye on Apple: Instructing Employees to Lie to Customers

Posted in Apple at 11:38 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: The latest news about Apple’s defective phones that it released in a rush to counter Linux (Android)

• How Apple Wants Employees to Deal With The iPhone 4 Antenna Issues

The iPhone 4 became the talking subject last week after many devices were reportedly losing signal when gripped in certain ways. There were rumors of Apple updating iOS 4 to try to resolve the issue. However, the update was supposed to be released yesterday. Thus far, the company has just refused to accept there’s something wrong with the device.

The Cupertino-based company is so close-minded that it’s training its retail store employees to deal with the situation as poorly and terrible as its PR department and even its CEO Steve Jobs have. According to leaked internal troubleshooting procedures, employees are basically told to deny the antenna issues and advise customers to avoid handling the device in ways that cover the black strip on the antenna. Additionally, Apple tells employees to suggest customers to buy a case and to not offer any for free.

• Apple Hiring iPhone Antenna Engineers (Glyn Moody asks: “shouldn’t they have done this *before* releasing the handset?”)

Apple is hiring three antenna engineers, Engadget has dug out, posting the job ads on 23rd of June, which is when the iPhone 4’s reception issues started getting traction in the media.

• Hey, Apple, you’re holding it wrong

• The way that you hold me

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Links 30/6/2010: Cisco’s Linux Machines; Npad

Posted in News Roundup at 8:36 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Clip of the Day

CLUG Talk 28 July 2008 – Bazaar (2009)

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

The Gates Foundation May Be Turning School Teachers Into State-funded PR Agents

Posted in America, Bill Gates, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Windows at 5:09 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Direct link to deposition video | Full set of the deposition videos (including Ogg Theora versions)

Footage from the Gates deposition (quotes for humour’s purpose only)

Summary: Bill Gates’ indoctrination of children (PR) offloaded onto schools; Gates Foundation staff put in charge of school districts

AS longtime readers probably know, the Gates Foundation spends a lot of money on PR. Recently it has been hiring external PR agencies to polish Bill’s image [1, 2] and tell tall tales about him. For instance, rather than say how he really started in the business (breaking computers), the goal is to have articles like this one, rewriting history and glorifying a convicted monopolist. To quote from the start, they make it sound like a poor kid from a dorm rather than a very rich kid whose father claimed him to be extremely problematic/arrogant as a child (even weeks ago on television):

Microsoft Corporation (Nasdaq:MSFT) is one of the biggest corporate success stories in American history. From its humble beginnings in Bill Gates’ Harvard dorm room, in only 35 years the company grew to become one of the biggest companies in the world.

That’s not quite the story, but let’s carry on. AP has this new article about Gates’ more mature colleague at the time:

Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen reportedly has paid $35 million for an eight-story office building in downtown Tempe, Ariz., creating a buzz in the city over what his real estate company will do with the vacant structure.

More in the WSJ:

Now that quest has yielded its first deal: Vulcan is paying $35 million in cash for an empty eight-story office building completed last year in downtown Tempe, Ariz.

It’s actually harder to find any wrongdoing which involves Allen (maybe except the sabotage of computers to buy computer time), but that’s because he left early, probably before Microsoft turned sour and decided to violate the law under Bill’s watch, with his endorsement.

“Waggener Edstrom is mentioned too (in other articles); it’s Microsoft PR department at the same time that it’s flirting with the Gates Foundation, so there is clear overlap.”Over the years it became hard to criticise these people because they bombard the media with self-congratulating coverage that omits the critiques. It’s as though time is supposed to heal the wounds and new generations of people (youngsters) are to be brainwashed and told a completely different story. This requires an enormous amount of discipline. Waggener Edstrom, Microsoft’s PR department, has been with Microsoft for decades. Pam Edstrom was the lady whose job was to merely change perception about Bill (a bit like carrying one’s golf club for a living) and here we have a new short report about new PR activities which are intended to promote the “Bill Gates” brand. Waggener Edstrom is mentioned too (in other articles); it’s Microsoft PR department at the same time that it’s flirting with the Gates Foundation, so there is clear overlap.

The decision comes after the Holmes Report exclusively revealed that the Gates Foundation was reviewing its PR activities last month. Weber Shandwick wins the business following a pitch that also included Waggener Edstrom and Hill & Knowlton.

We wrote about Weber Shandwick in [1, 2]. A lot of money is spent for these agencies to generate positive press coverage for Bill Gates and fellow investors (Warren Buffett for example), whose tax-exempt operation needs to be seen as worthy of those exemptions from the public. Their activities vary widely but also include tapping the minds of children. We wrote about this many times before because people occasionally complain about it. If the Gates Foundation is taking over public education in the United States [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7], then it’s important to understand what agenda it promotes.

Here is a new speech from the Gates Foundation. They say about schools that “change is necessary.”

Today, I believe we’re on the cusp of dramatic changes to public education in this country. We, as a nation, are having some tough conversations, looking hard at what works and what hasn’t in our schools. Being clearer than ever before on what students need to succeed, and what is less central to success.

To many people those conversations are threatening, because change always causes uncertainty. But at the Gates Foundation, we think they’re vitally important, because more than ever, change is necessary.

This is part of a speech from the Gates Foundation’s Vicki Phillips, who is also mentioned in this new press release (additionally here):

The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) — the independent organization that provides National Board Certification for U.S. teachers — today announced its participation in the Measures of Effective Teaching project, a national effort to help educators and policymakers identify and support good teaching. As part of its involvement, NBPTS will utilize its widely respected National Board Standards and assessment processes to confidentially evaluate videos of classroom instruction — one of six types of data being collected by researchers for the project. A $1.2 million grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation will fund the NBPTS work.

[...]

“This partnership will enrich the data that are so essential to understanding what works in the classroom,” said Vicki L. Phillips, director of education, college-ready, at the Gates Foundation.

Why does the Gates Foundation get to decide what “good teaching” is? Why does it lobby “educators and policymakers”? Do public institutions like the Department of Education really need help from private bodies created by monopolists? Probably not, but they do this anyway.

Here is some more lobbying with money. A lot of money is typically spent brainwashing the young generation to love Gates and that whole mindset of patents/monopolies. It’s PR. By capturing schools Gates ensures public subsidy of this PR activity, where teachers are the equivalent of PR agents. We’ll give some new examples from last week, but examples we’ve accumulated generally span as much as a year. To Bill, it’s not just about technology anymore; how about Microsoft’s ‘Home of the future’ which made the news last week? How about Microsoft’s “School of the future”, whose correlation to Gates we explained last week? Here is another article from last week (at CNN):

The world was watching in 2006 when the Microsoft-designed School of the Future opened in Philadelphia and attempted to reform education.

Despite having four principals, curriculum overhauls, and student technology gaps, the school graduated its first senior class last week, with every graduate having plans for institutions of higher learning.

“This isn’t a school about technology, this is a school about redefining the norm for urban education,” said Mary Cullinane, director of innovation for Microsoft Education, who is also the liaison to the school.

Microsoft’s ‘School of the future’ was also covered by USA Today 11 days ago. It generally got almost a dozen articles in the past 2 weeks alone (and this did not originate from the big corporate press only, just seeded there). Why does a technology/marketing company suddenly decide that it’s in the school business? Is it experimenting with children? And if so, then as we asked last week, why not let BP control US universities and Walmart run the kindergarten system? This hopefully helps get across the absurdity of this.

This is where Gates comes in again. He pushes for a reform in schools and he gets his way by making conditional donations, whereby a school receives some funds only if it implements changes to fit Gates’ model. Last week someone posted the essay “Redesigning college, one course at a time”

The project, the Washington State Student Completion Initiative, will be supported by grants of $5.3 million from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and $800,000 from the Ford Foundation.

Yes, Ford too. Gates is not entirely unique here; there are others like Rockefeller, among other rich families whose investments pose a greater or lesser ethical dilemma.

Watch how the foundation of Bill Gates is using funds to ‘plant’ some staff and bring about the reform sought:

Among the Gates staff participating will be former state Secretary of Education Vicky Phillips, said Bartley.

There are many examples just like that (this just happens to be the latest); no panel involving education can carry on without some cronies who serve private interests. It’s not just Gates’ foundation by the way, but the Gates Foundation is probably more prominent among those who virtually privatise US education. Previous posts gave detailed listings of members of such panels. They are not just elected officials, appointed to represent the public who voted for them. This is a substantial threat to democracy.

An article which was perhaps withdrawn (“The article requested can not be found!”) was published last week under the headline “Gates Grant Boosts Teacher Recruiting”; The article said that “the district’s 7-year reform effort with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation drew them to Hillsborough like a magnet.”

For those who do not know, the Gates Foundation’s better-known experiment in a school district actually involves Hillsborough. We wrote about Hillsborough in:

• Beyond the ‘Public Relations’
• Gates Roundup: Monsanto, Colonisation, Clinton Ties, and Control of Education
• Gates Foundation Roundup: (Mis)Education With Spin; GAVI, Pfizer, Merck, and the African Ventures
• Gates Foundation Roundup: Schools, Vaccines Monopoly, and “Fatally Flawed” Studies
• The World According to Gates: Constructing a System of Profitable Philanthropy
• How the Gates Foundation Blocks GNU/Linux and Free Software in National Libraries, Then Inherits Education
• Gates Foundation Accused of “Steer[ing] State and National Policy in Education” (Monopolising Schools)
• Author Calls for Action to Stop Bill Gates’ Abduction of US Education
• Bill Gates and Microsoft Guard Their Interest in Schoolchildren and Colleges
• US Education Steps Aside for Bill
• Bill Gates and Microsoft Use Government Support to Turn Public Schools Into Private Business

Raytheon (Military Industrial Complex) actually collaborates with Gates in education:

Raytheon, which is based in Waltham, now commits 60 percent of its charitable giving to activities that boost math and science education, Swanson said. The company is working with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to sponsor research on ways to increase the number of technically trained graduates. Raytheon engineers have developed a mathematical model to simulate the performance of the nation’s schools, in an effort to predict which reforms are most likely to succeed.

The supposition/assumption/hypothesis that there is lack of engineers is a load of lies; these lies were spread by Gates himself in order to justify bringing cheap labour from other countries. At the time, Gates was assisted by Jack Abramoff, the criminal lobbyist who has just been released from jail and now works at a pizzeria (the press is having a field day about it).

Here is the most shocking news that we found last week. Gates’ foundation is taking more positions of control in US education:

The Los Angeles Unified school board today could appoint a Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation director as the district’s No. 2 man, possibly setting him up to succeed schools chief Ramon Cortines when his contract expires.

The board is scheduled to vote in closed session on the appointment of John Deasy, the deputy director of education at the Gates Foundation, where he has worked since 2008.

So a convicted monopolist is now put in the position of running entire school districts. More coverage of this can be found in:

1. School reformer named to top LA district job
2. New job for ex-Pr. Geo. schools’ chief
3. L.A. school system poised to hire senior Gates Foundation official [Updated]
4. Controversies Surround LAUSD’s New Hire John Deasy
5. L.A. Unified hires Gates Foundation official as deputy superintendent

This smells a bit like corruption. Seriously, why not just put Microsoft in charge of school districts too? Separately we learn that there are protests following the LAUSD’s decision to lay off 2,500 people including teachers [1, 2, 3]. In summary, Gates is slated for more control in LAUSD while at the same time thousands lose their job due to the LAUSD’s decision. Didn’t the Gates Foundation advertise itself as a blessing to teacher recruitment? Maybe that was just PR or maybe it’s just not related at all. They know how to say what people want to hear (PR 101). Here is an article from 6 days ago:

MANVILLE: Dear Manville: ‘No’ … signed, Bill Gates

[...]

And, even though the foundation “regretfully” rejected Dr. Ruberto’s request, none other than Bill Gates himself wrote Dr. Ruberto to acknowledge the foundation’s decision. While the foundation’s mission includes “improving high school education in the United States,” according to its website, its focus has been on classroom and instruction programs.

Yes, of course. They also affect the curriculum. They can affect the material that gets pumped into millions of children’s minds for hundreds or thousands of hours each. That is some massive PR power. Pedagogues could learn a lesson from people like Rockefeller, who helped raise a generation of people (next generation) to be unaware of the ruthless past and just think of Rockefeller as this rich family that builds massive centres and funds programmes for the public.

One thing which we mentioned last week is the role of NASSCOM (which describes itself as “the premier trade body and the chamber of commerce of the IT-BPO industries in India”) in promoting Microsoft Office in Indian NGOs. Last week it was also covered in the Times of India. Is NASSCOM an extension of Microsoft now? It has a similar effect on Indian education, so the public needs to reject NASSCOM. Here is some news about Microsoft pushing commercial propaganda into the classroom:

Free Office 2010 Classroom Posters Available from Microsoft

Schools interested in adopting Office 2010, can also grab no less than seven free posters from Microsoft, to display in classrooms. Microsoft Education teams in countries around the world can send the posters via snail mail to schools, provided that they are contacted to do so. In addition, the resources are also available for download, although not from an official Microsoft site.

Now they want Microsoft commercials right inside the classrooms. PR knows no bound. Speaking of which, Microsoft is refining the PR routines, based on this new report:

Today Microsoft Advertising and Mediabrands announced developments on the Media Operations Management System (M.O.M.S.), which is described as “an agency agnostic, enterprise-level architecture to connect the marketing ecosystem.”

The Gates Foundation is meanwhile commissioning more self-serving ‘studies’, proving that it’s lobbying, it’s not just a generous giver as PR wishes to portray:

A new study funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation — which has invested more than $150 million in New York City schools — suggests that the small schools have succeeded in boosting graduation rates for the city’s most academically challenged students.

These so-called ‘studies’ are then used by the Gates Foundation to lobby policymakers and change schools. Here is a new example from NYC [1, 2, 3]. The Gates Foundation creates models which it then assesses by paying someone from the outside; when it’s all shown to be working perfectly (according to the Gates Foundation itself), then it gets extrapolated and imposed with pressure from the Gates Foundation. We provided examples of this before. It’s all just done for influence. Think about Microsoft’s “School of the future”.

The American Thinker has a new article titled “Foundations Gone Wild”. To quote the ending:

Many of America’s current tribulations began as foundation do-gooder schemes. If you are exasperated with Windows’ poor security, switch to Apple. If Gates wants to undermine a school system with millions in “help” for his ill-conceived schemes, escape may be far costlier than a Mac. Free money can be expensive.

Fortunately, there is an increasing number of people who manage to understand these schemes and also write about them in respectable publications. Private interests rarely serve the public at large. But given a sufficiently large PR army, people can be led to believe otherwise.

As the Gates Foundation continues to commission self-serving ‘studies’, we are hopeful that people will see these for what they are. To quote another new press release:

“Computer and Internet access at public libraries connects millions of Americans to economic, educational, and social opportunity each year, but libraries struggle to replace aging computer workstations and provide the high-speed Internet connections patrons need,” said Jill Nishi, deputy director of U.S. Libraries at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. “As demand for these services rise, public and private investment to support public access technology at libraries is more critical than ever.”

Conducted by the ALA and the Center for Library & Information Innovation at the University of Maryland, the study provides a “state of the library” report on the technology resources brokered by libraries and the funding that enables free public access to these resources. The study features the most current national and state data available on technology access and funding in U.S. public libraries.

The study, funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the ALA, can be found online at www.ala.org/plinternetfunding.

Yes, this is yet another example where public library policy is being shaped by the Gates Foundation. Does the ALA really need help from the Gates Foundation? Can it not make its own mind? As we showed several times before, the Gates Foundation turns libraries against GNU/Linux:

• Milton Public Library and Other Regional Libraries Deploy GNU/Linux
• How the Gates Foundation Blocks GNU/Linux and Free Software in National Libraries, Then Inherits Education
• Gates Foundation (and Microsoft) Take the Libraries Takeover Global

As always, those who are still sceptical are encouraged to read the original articles for corroboration. There is overwhelming evidence piling up week after week. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Bill Gates Successfully Lobbies Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper Ahead of G8 to Make Countries (Taxpayers) Pay for His Initiatives

Posted in America, Bill Gates, Europe, Finance at 3:40 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Super-lobbyist Bill Gates gives instructions to entire countries that attend G8 so that billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money will get spent on his project; The Gates Foundation expands its presence in Europe as it opens a new branch in London

TODAY’S story is a blatant case of rich people instructing world leaders. The key gem comes from the Vancouver Observer, which does not go far enough to show the result of Bill Gates’ lobbying. Let’s step back for a second and remind ourselves of some of the world’s richest and thus most powerful people, who typically operate within foundations. For foundations to run parts of America (and the world) all that’s needed is vicinity like this from last week:

You could have guessed something was up when Warren Buffett, Bill and Melinda Gates and David Rockefeller Jr. invited a dozen or so wealthy people to dinner.

That’s what’s sometimes referred to as the “Rich Boys Club”. Warren Buffett and Bill Gates pool their money in the same tax-exempt foundation and Rockefeller (foundation) collaborates with them on some projects such as Green Revolution (promoting Monsanto’s monopoly in Africa). They are still lobbying and meeting politicians, even though they were never elected to represent the public. The Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, was lobbied by Bill Gates ahead of G8 in Canada. The article says that “Prime Minister Harper and Mr. Gates spoke about the Canadian government’s flagship maternal, newborn and child health initiative.” It also ends with: “Mr. Gates thanked the Prime Minister for Canada’s decision to make maternal, newborn and child health the focus of development discussions at the G-8 Summit and also thanked Canada for making accountability a priority.” This happens to be similar to what Gates did with Clinton back in March. Gates may be stimulating investments from taxpayers in some of his existing investments (the large portion of his foundation’s activities is for-profit investment). A few days later Canada committed billions of taxpayers’ money, to be funneled into a cause with an identical description to that promoted by Gates even 2-3 weeks ago (“maternal and child health”); not only that in fact, as “Canada Calls for Billions More In G8 Aid For Maternal Health,” according to this report (Harper repeated Gates’ sob stories and convinced other world leaders to put money in it too). How much of a role did Gates’ lobbying of Harper play here? This is also covered in [1, 2, 3, 4]. Watch this article and see how the group of Gates is listed among names of countries, almost a though the foundation is a state now. G8 had other political matters, but why does G8 involve Bill Gates? Is he a government? Does he determine priorities for the world? And if so, on what basis? This guy has tens of billions of dollars in investments (i.e. there are conflicts of interests). To clarify, nobody is against maternal health, but there are many ways of allocating finite public funds to tackle such important issues. It’s almost as though Gates became part of the political agenda of G8 — with all its notoriety that comes from arresting peaceful protesters (at G20 at least). As Cory Doctorow put it last week (courtesy of a reader):

Toronto’s secret ID law used to arrest G20 protestor

Alan sez, “In Canada you’re not required to show ID. Except if you’re in the ‘G20 Zone’. You see, the law allows an exemption to the ‘show ID’ principle for public works. These are usually things like power stations, dams, etc. Well, the government got clever and just declared the entire area a ‘public work’ so police can go around demanding ID. The best part of this? The law that made this happen won’t even be PUBLISHED until after the G20 is over. So nobody knew about it until the cops arrested someone.”

Perhaps these people have some legitimate reasons to be angry (never mind the severity of their mob-like response).

In summary, we find it fascinating that countries committed to investment in some of the very same things Gates has lobbied for in recent weeks. Maybe it’s a coincidence, maybe it’s not. The piece from the Vancouver Observer makes it highly improbable that this was a coincidence. The issue is one of direction; scientists too have been accusing the Gates Foundation of making their field operate the Gates way (monopoly), essentially by controlling panels and money supplies.

Last but not least, the Gates Foundation is expanding to England like it’s a business:

A warm welcome to the Gates Foundation, who officially opened their European office in London today.

[...]

But today at the Gates Foundation he had business in his sights: European businesses that do deals in Africa and keep them secret.

I can’t understand that there are some very well respected companies still indulging in signing secret contracts worth billions of dollars for African resources and we have no idea how much they are paying and to whom. How much is going to the country and how much into people’s pockets? How can a board be quiet about this? It is unacceptable.

They should ask Monsanto and find out the role Gates and Rockefeller play in its promotion in Africa (links below). When they say “feed the world’s hungry” they mean “feed Monsanto’s bank account.” █

1. How the Gates Foundation Privatises Africa
2. With Microsoft Monopoly in Check, Bill Gates Proceeds to Creating More Monopolies
3. Gates-Backed Company Accused of Monopoly Abuse and Investigated
4. Reader’s Article: The Gates Foundation and Genetically-Modified Foods
5. Monsanto: The Microsoft of Food
6. Seeds of Doubt in Bill Gates Investments
7. Gates Foundation Accused of Faking/Fabricating Data to Advance Political Goals
8. More Dubious Practices from the Gates Foundation
9. Video Transcript of Vandana Shiva on Insane Patents
10. Explanation of What Bill Gates’ Patent Investments Do to Developing World
11. Black Friday Film: What the Bill Gates-Backed Monsanto Does to Animals, Farmers, Food, and Patent Systems
12. Gates Foundation Looking to Destroy Kenya with Intellectual Monopolies
13. Young Napoleon Comes to Africa and Told Off
14. Bill Gates Takes His GMO Patent Investments/Experiments to India
15. Gates/Microsoft Tax Dodge and Agriculture Monopoly Revisited
16. Beyond the ‘Public Relations’
17. UK Intellectual Monopoly Office (UK-IPO) May be Breaking the Law
18. “Boycott Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in China”
19. The Gates Foundation Extends Control Over Communication with Oxfam Relationship
20. Week of Monsanto

Permalink A Single Comment      Send this to a friend

06.29.10

More Bilski Analysis/Links (and Microsoft Front Group Commends Florian Müller)

Posted in Courtroom, Microsoft, Patents at 7:53 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: New Bilski links and another possible linkage between Florian Müller and Microsoft

HERE are several new articles/blog posts about the Bilski case.

• High Court Considers H&C Brief in Landmark Bilski Ruling

Noted European patent expert Georg Jakob, who signed onto the amicus brief and coordinated retaining Hopkins & Carley to file the FFII amicus brief had this to say: “Today’s Supreme Court decision highlights the fact that real checks and balances are needed in to stop the patent system from running Amok. We need substantial patent reform in Europe now and real Courts that control the patent office. It might be uncomfortable, but the European Court of Justice can not run away from this responsibility. The core rules of innovation must not be left to apparatchiks, as the U.S.A. has shown us.”

• Bilski v. Kappos: The Supreme Court Declines to Prohibit Business Method Patents

In short, the ruling has done little to clean up the mess the CAFC helped created in 1998, when it decided State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, and opened the doors to patents for novel methods of doing business. That ruling knocked patent law loose from its historical moorings and injected patents into business areas where they were neither needed nor wanted. The results had been nothing short of disastrous: a flood of patent applications for services like arbitration, tax-planning, legal counseling, charity fundraising, and even a “system for toilet reservations.” In its Bilski opinion, the CAFC tried to fix the problem by effectively overruling State Street. Yesterday’s ruling eroded the CAFC’s limits on process patents, and thus missed an opportunity to fix some of the problems with those patents.

• Second Thoughts On Bilski: Could Another Case Get A Direct Ruling On Business Method Patentability?

So, I already wrote one initial post on the Bilski ruling, where the court basically seems to punt on the larger questions of the patentability of business methods by focusing very narrowly on whether or not Bilski’s specific patent is valid. However, as you read through the “concurring” rulings (pdf), it does seem like many members of the court want, very badly, to outlaw business method patents, but weren’t able to do so this time around. The court really had one clear question to look at here: whether or not the Federal Circuit’s “machine or transformation” test for patents made sense. The court ruled that this was not the only test, so the Federal Circuit erred on that part, even if there were plenty of other reasons to reject Bilski’s specific patent. The majority opinion by Kennedy makes it clear that the court is not making any statements on what is “excluded” from patentability. But the concurring opinions seem to have a serious problem with this. There are two concurring opinions and both express concerns about business method patents.

• Botching Bilski

It is truly tragic that this view narrowly failed to prevail – four judges were in agreement, but five wanted the weaker result that became the main opinion – since it encapsulates all that is wrong with the US patent system’s approach to business method and software patents.

Unfortunately, in the wake of Bilski, it will probably be some years before the Supreme Court addresses this issue again, with the result that many more billions of dollars will be wasted on US litigation around software patents. Worse, the botched opportunity to bring some sense to this area is likely to have knock-on effects around the world, which means that we will all suffer its negative consequences.

• Bilski & Warsaw Share Insights

As an entrepreneur/inventor/person who raises money for my companies, the patent system is a rich man’s game, and as I learned not to play poker with millionaires because they will simply raise the stakes until I can’t keep up, large corporations will eventually raise the litigation stakes until I lose.

• Who lost Bilski vs. Kappos besides Bilski & Warsaw? Ten answers

The notion of Free Software is fundamentally incompatible with software patents. Ciarán O’Riordan, the director of the EndSoftPatents.org campaign, made a statement at a European Commission hearing four years ago where he accurately said that software patents and free software don’t mix whether you cut the price of a patent in half or double it.

But the other part of FOSS, the open source community, is equally affected. While it doesn’t emphasize the concept of freedom as much as Richard Stallman and his followers, I know many open source advocates who are no less opposed to software patents than RMS is.

I venture to guess that the Bilski ruling will represent an obstacle to GPLv3 adoption. I wish the whole world could accept the patent clause in GPLv3, which is meant to counter patent licensing deals by FOSS companies and other entities, but under the circumstances it will be very hard to convince businesses and other contributors to FOSS development that this our-way-or-the-highway approach works in the world we (currently) live in.

• Breaking: Biotech and the Supremes: Prometheus Follows Bilski to Highest Court (For Just a Moment)

Yesterday the Supreme Court issued its decision in the highly anticipated patent case, Bilski v. Kappos. Contrary to some expectations, the Court decided Bilski on narrow grounds, leaving the state of biotechnology patents largely untouched.

• Justice Scalia’s Indecision a Victory for the Patent Bar

Bilski v. Kappos was the most-anticipated Supreme Court patent case in a generation. And when it was finally handed down on Monday, it turned out to be the most anticlimactic.

There’s been a raging debate about software and “business method” patents since an appeals court gave the green light to them in 1998. Many people, myself included, hoped that the Supreme Court would place new limits on such patents this term.

But Bilski turned out to be a bad test case. The applicant, one Bernard L. Bilski, tried to patent a “method for managing the consumption risk costs of a commodity.” If that doesn’t sound like the sort of thing patents are supposed to cover, that’s because it’s not. Almost no one other than Bilski and his attorney believed that he should get his patent.

• Guest Post on Bilski: Throwing Back the Gauntlet

Ultimately, Bilski v Kappos says more about how patent law is made in the United States than about patentable subject matter. By setting the clock back to 1982, the Supreme Court is telling the Federal Circuit to try again in devising workable rules for patent law. The Federal Circuit wrote an opinion that was goading the Supreme Court to address the issue of patentable subject matter after nearly three decades. The resulting opinion raises some fundamental and unsettled questions and, unfortunately, gives us the same, old answers.

• Narrow Bilski ruling leaves all options open for the future

The Supreme Court of the United States delivered its ruling on the Bilski landmark case yesterday. A split court issued a very narrow ruling, avoiding broad decisions on patentability. The Court explicitly refused to weigh in on the scope and limits of the patent system, stating that “nothing in this opinion should be read to take a position on where that balance ought to be struck”.

“We are pleased, but we feel the Supreme Court did not go far enough in banning all patents on abstract ideas such as software and business methods”, comments Benjamin Henrion on the outcome. The President of the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII) has a 10 years record of promoting patent reforms in the European Union, often to prevent “deterioration to US patenting standards”.

• Bilski loses, but the patent madness continues

Once upon a time, the U.S. patent system served a useful purpose. It was meant to encourage inventors and innovation. Ha! Boy, was that a long time ago. Now patents, especially software patents, serve only as bludgeons for patent trolls — companies that do nothing but own patents and then threaten to sue companies that actually do something with ideas — or they’re used by big companies to beat up on smaller ones. I had hoped that the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) would do the right thing in the Bilski case and slap both business process and software patents down once and for all. SCOTUS didn’t. While SCOTUS ruled against Bilski, the Court left the door open for IP (intellectual property) patents (PDF Link) to be granted.

• First thoughts on Bilski

I’m afraid that at the end of this brief train ride, my only firm conclusion can be that the real winners here are patent lawyers- this decision creates no new certainties, only uncertainties, which will encourage patenters to spend more money patenting things, and the rest of us to waste time and energy worrying about the problem- time and energy that should have been spent on innovating. But this is a long, multi-layered ruling, and will require a lot of time for the full implications to be truly understood, so take this one-train-ride blog post with a large grain of salt Hopefully more writing tonight/tomorrow.

• US Supreme Court rejects Bilski patent but nothing else

Reaction from the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) was immediate. Eben Moglen, Chairman of the SFLC, said “The confusion and uncertainty behind today’s ruling guarantees that the issues involved in Bilski v. Kappos will have to return to the Supreme Court after much money has been wasted and much innovation obstructed”. Daniel Ravicher, the SFLC’s legal director said the court had missed an opportunity to “send a strong signal that ideas are not patentable subject matter” and that the rejection of the Bilski patent “got rid of a symptom, but failed to treat the real cause”.

• Software Freedom Law Center Responds to Landmark Supreme Court Patent Decision

Attributable to Eben Moglen: “The landscape of patent law has been a cluttered, dangerous mess for almost two decades,” said Eben Moglen, Chairman of the Software Freedom Law Center. “The confusion and uncertainty behind today’s ruling guarantees that the issues involved in Bilski v. Kappos will have to return to the Supreme Court after much money has been wasted and much innovation obstructed.”

• Microsoft was against software patents before it was for them

Given the support of major corporations like IBM — and, perhaps, a “reformed” Microsoft — for patent protection, Mueller lamented that “it is hard to see how the opponents of software patents could successfully lobby the United States Congress.”

Watch Microsoft lobbyist ACT recommending Florian Müller after he privately pointed to their analysis/jubilation. Yes, a Microsoft lobbyist says that Müller “delivers the most insightful analysis of who lost in Bilski”. It’s just a tad interesting. He is now on some sort of a mission to “expose” Groklaw. These are “a couple thousand words on Mueller’s threat to “expose” groklaw’s “bias” in banning certain users (the specific case was Jay Maynard – Hercules maintainer),” writes Barbara. “I think the picture is apropos ” █

Permalink 2 Comments      Send this to a friend