09.20.08

Gemini version available ♊︎

Guest Post: Why Not Mono – Part II

Posted in GNU/Linux, GPL, Law, Microsoft, Mono, Novell, Patents, SCO at 9:33 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

In part I, our reader and guest writer was trying to get the underlying ideas about Mono across. There was a car analogy. Here is a more detailed explanation of the picture (metaphorically speaking).


Microsoft is suing someone for not paying Mono rather than paying for Java makes a big difference in the view of the public eye regarding merit and ultimate success. The public understanding of “which side is morally right” would be accompanied for sure by a slew of Microsoft propaganda, that would say: Mono is an intentional direct rewrite of Microsoft IP and enables free rides based on our IP.

It would be hard to convince why Microsoft should not be entitled to collect royalties for such a big chunk of IP, if Novell does pay Microsoft.

“It would be hard to convince why Microsoft should not be entitled to collect royalties for such a big chunk of IP, if Novell does pay Microsoft.”This makes it so much harder for something like Groklaw to counter the propaganda, which is also something Microsoft learned from the SCO-case.

The idea is basically to show that Mono is something like a specially-designed Trojan horse, that masks itself with free-licensing and therefore makes it seem legit and on the same perceived risk-scale than other technologies.

While the original dotnet is genuine (although it borrows and builds on top of a lot of other ideas – just like cars do built on the same old concepts and evolve), Mono is specifically and superficially created, as to incorporate the very same underlying technology – all the blueprints for copying are purposely thrown on the table, and so letting Mono grow fulfills 2 goals:

Goal No. 1

Keep the other numerous car-makers from advancing their technology (which like Java, Python, etc. are also available for free and libre) and therefore prevent the possibility of building useful stuff with other stuff than Microsoft (these are the apps like navigation, car-radios, etc.) Or short: Draining attention away and diverting the landscape so to prepare conquest (divide and conquer). This is done by the license and cannot be debated on why GPL for Java should be good and GPL for Mono should be bad and therefore perceived with more caution.

Goal No. 2

Lure as many developers into building useful apps (or the entire car) with Microsoft-technology.

In my opinion, Microsoft can’t do that by developing Mono itself, if it wants to sue for licensing afterwards, because it gets harder to release stuff intentionally UNDER GPL (as opposed to their usual proprietary licenses) and later prove you didn’t know what your INTENTION was by pretending to not understood the consequences of the GPL (even v2)…

This is the major point Microsoft learned from the SCO-fiasco, as it was hard to prove that when SCO actively was part of UnitedLinux, it didn’t know exactly what it was doing with their “so-called IP” when releasing it under the terms the GPL…

So Microsoft changes and finds the perfect partner to fulfill its goals: Hurt Red Hat as much as possible, and letting Novell only continue develop “Mono” under its protection-racket as to give this project the perception it is legally save for Novell-users. Otherwise, Microsoft would have been forced to stop Novell from developing Mono or start to sue Novell, while with every day passing by, it would have gotten harder to argue that Microsoft stood there so long seeing what Novell was doing (including Mono in Linux), and not to find a “solution” (=cross-patent-licensing) or litigate right away.

Now as Novell is under Microsoft “guided control”, Microsoft can much more easily claim that Novell started building something that mimics Microsoft-technology as close as possible in the past, then talked with Microsoft about this (and other) technology resulting in “covenants not to sue” and others distributors or users who want to use Mono too (which resembles dotnet not only from the outside (the look of the apps: the car’s shape), but also from the inside (the technology or motor)) should clearly see that Microsoft is entitled to demand royalties from costumers who built their stuff by using a copy of Microsoft-technology to get a “free-ride”…

“Someone has to weigh these arguments in, if s/he choses to defend usage of Mono by claiming it is on the same scale as usage of Java.”It is much, much harder to prove such a case and nurture such a claim for MS with regards to using Java (for example), as MS themselves built dotnet on ideas relating to Java, which could then be proven to be mostly prior art. Java-technology would also get defended by a company like Sun (or Google), and MS had to prove the infringing IP of Java resembling dotnet, which would be easy in case of dotnet vs. mono.

So the litigation-scenario IS a major factor for anyone, who tries to compare the risk of possible litigation on the basis of IP-claims between dotnet and Mono and dotnet and Java. Someone has to weigh these arguments in, if s/he choses to defend usage of Mono by claiming it is on the same scale as usage of Java.

From Microsoft’s perspective and the public viewing of such a case, it is clearly not. Even the possible danger from Sun suing over Java is clearly not comparable, because Sun knew what it did when releasing GPL-Java and would have a hard stand to sue anyone not wanting to pay patent-royalties afterwards. If Microsoft would do the same as sun and release an official “Microsoft-certified” dotnet-variant under GPL, later license demanding through litigation would instantly lose a great deal of appeal.

So Microsoft having set up everything in place in its favor with Novell, now sits back and laughs silently as they have found the ONE weak-spot, with they trying to split FLOSS-land: The GPLv2 only and LGPLv2 only, which are poorly designed to such a clever patent-scam-attack. Microsoft weapon is a GPL-tarnished sword called Mono, developed by Novell.

At least, this is how I perceive this whole Microsoft-Novell-nonsense. Now the hard part is to prove this theory other than to wait and let it prove itself. So all we can and should do is make that threat as transparent as possible by exposing its nature to the fullest by just describing it as precisely as possible without making anything up.

Maybe this analogy helps a little to achieve this goal, and raise the awareness to where the difference (and danger) lies.

Mono, ECMA, Microsoft

Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Reddit
  • email

Decor ᶃ Gemini Space

Below is a Web proxy. We recommend getting a Gemini client/browser.

Black/white/grey bullet button This post is also available in Gemini over at this address (requires a Gemini client/browser to open).

Decor ✐ Cross-references

Black/white/grey bullet button Pages that cross-reference this one, if any exist, are listed below or will be listed below over time.

Decor ▢ Respond and Discuss

Black/white/grey bullet button If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

53 Comments

  1. Dan O'Brian said,

    September 20, 2008 at 12:00 pm

    Gravatar

    Just saw this: http://www2.apebox.org/wordpress/linux/51/ posted by a 3rd party (e.g. non-Novell) Mono contributor.

  2. Roy Schestowitz said,

    September 20, 2008 at 12:22 pm

    Gravatar

    A lot of those who defend Mono have vested interest. I’ll post about it later.

  3. Needs Sunlight said,

    September 20, 2008 at 12:38 pm

    Gravatar

    @Dan: apebox there is off base in key details. Spouts the MS party line there by trying to introduce the undesirable “reasonable and non-discriminatory” clause. That is most definitely *not* part of the EU’s definition of open standards. apebox also fails on grasping the scope of the software patent problem. At this point it is mainly only Europe that is still at liberty, other trade zones have had software patents forced in the backdoor via various trade agreements.

  4. Dan O'Brian said,

    September 20, 2008 at 12:39 pm

    Gravatar

    AFAICT he’s a Debian packager – what’s his vested interest?

    <directhex> i face the usual “zomg noooooooo” resistance as a distro packager
    <Lumpio-> haha
    <directhex> i wonder how much of a stink moonlight packages will cause
    <Lumpio-> Just Do It®
    <directhex> it’s on the TODO, down the line
    * NotJay has quit (Remote closed the connection)
    <directhex> -rwxr-xr-x 1 directhex directhex 1755 2008-08-31 11:01 moon-0.8/debian/rules
    <Lumpio-> Hmm… wonder what the reason behind it all is tbh >_>
    <Lumpio-> Are people afraid of infringing on software patents because American/etc users/developers could potentially suffer?
    <Lumpio-> Or is it just because some people don’t get that they’re null and void in most of the world
    <jeff_> I personally think that it’s because they hate all things microsoft, it’s got nothing to do with patents
    <Lumpio-> hah
    <jeff_> patents is just a convenient whipping boy
    <directhex> jeff_, and i think you’re right
    <directhex> but what THEY think isn’t the FUD they use – so people are lead to believe things who *are* more concerned by patents than microsoft
    <directhex> jeff_, my post is an effort to educate the ignorant. the stupid on the other hand are a lost cause
    <jeff_> nod
    <robertj> I’ve experienced anti-monoism due to this FUD even in countries where software patents are non-existent. So every education effort is appreciated, directhex ;-)
    <jeff_> robertj: that goes a long way toward confirming my theory ;)
    <jeff_> that said, I think that fighting the FUD is a probably a wasted effort. the mud slingers will just step up their attacks and you’ll have to step up your rebuttals ad infinitum. probably better to just make mono more awesome :)
    <LarstiQ> jeff_: then again, I don’t believe people claiming software patents are non-existent here, the patent offices still issue them.
    <directhex> jeff_, educating people who are ignorant but in a position to make a difference is vital
    <jeff_> at the end of the day, awesome software wins out
    <directhex> jeff_, people like those who can say “no mono in my distro. TEH PATENTZ!”
    * vv|food has quit (Read error: 145 (Connection timed out))
    <jeff_> *shrug*
    <jeff_> I suppose, but the mud slingers will just attack you and try to find excuses for why you are defending it
    <jeff_> “he’s a contributor, he’s been brainwashed!”
    <jeff_> it becomes a mess really quickly
    <jeff_> from what I’ve seen, they already resort to such tactics
    <directhex> if microsoft or novell (same thing according to some) want to pay me for doing what i do already – talking about the virtues of kickass software – then absolutely fecking fantastic
    <directhex> ;)
    <jeff_> don’t get me wrong, I appreciate what you are doing – I just don’t want to see you get personally attacked over it
    <zbowling> if I take this offer with this startup, I’ll be leading up all of desktop development… for what they are doing, they liked the idea I pitched to use mono for the core of the desktop client (it works really well for what they are doing)
    * levicc00123 ([snip]) has joined #mono
    <zbowling> maybe a support contract for novell :-)
    <directhex> jeff_, i relish the idea
    <directhex> jeff_, in the words of america’s greatest president, “bring it on”

    This is a snippet of #mono on GimpNET from a few minutes ago. It seems to me that his “vested interest” is fighting FUD and not any sort of financial ties or business reasons.

  5. Roy Schestowitz said,

    September 20, 2008 at 1:15 pm

    Gravatar

    Who does he work for and who do you work for? Is he AlternateAlias from Ubuntu Forums?

  6. Dan O'Brian said,

    September 20, 2008 at 2:15 pm

    Gravatar

    Who does who work for? As far as AlternateAlias from Ubuntu Forums, I haven’t the foggiest idea.

    As for who I work for, as I’ve said on numerous occasions: it’s none of your business.

  7. Dan O'Brian said,

    September 20, 2008 at 2:18 pm

    Gravatar

    Ah, I take it you mean directhex. I have no idea.

    I got confused because I lost track of which thread I was replying on (I thought we were talking about Mr. Steadfast who obviously works for Novell currently).

  8. Josh Bell said,

    September 20, 2008 at 2:20 pm

    Gravatar

    What does it matter who anyone works for? I didn’t realize you needed to have an approved job with an approved distro to come to this site. Is everyone who comes on this site and uses Suse or Mono a troll? Who do you work for Roy? Are you still just a student?

  9. twitter said,

    September 20, 2008 at 2:38 pm

    Gravatar

    There is only one word for people who would like to shrug off patents and chase M$’s tail with Mono, ACTA. Read about it and use any other scripting language to save yourself from an obvious M$ trap.

  10. Roy Schestowitz said,

    September 20, 2008 at 2:52 pm

    Gravatar

    Well, since Jeff works for Novell, I guess he’s ‘protected’ and therefore happy to bet his career and work on Mono.

  11. Dan O'Brian said,

    September 20, 2008 at 3:01 pm

    Gravatar

    AlexH isn’t Jeff, nor is directhex.

    So how is that related to AlexH’s or directhex’s “vested interests”?

  12. Roy Schestowitz said,

    September 20, 2008 at 3:46 pm

    Gravatar

    Who is directhex?

  13. Dan O'Brian said,

    September 20, 2008 at 4:05 pm

    Gravatar

    The guy (or girl?) that posted http://www2.apebox.org/wordpress/linux/51/

    If you didn’t mean of them, who did you mean?

  14. Roy Schestowitz said,

    September 20, 2008 at 4:06 pm

    Gravatar

    Never mind. I’m catching up.

  15. AlexH said,

    September 21, 2008 at 3:17 am

    Gravatar

    This is just another collection of various mud-slinging and FUD against a free software project. So many of these items have been completely refuted time after time, yet zombie-like they are reposted in an apparent attempt to make people believe they are true by repetition alone.

    In the first couple of paragraphs alone it makes credulous suggestions about someone being sued, Mono being a rewrite, and Novell paying Microsoft for it.

    None of which is true, and which is easily verifiable to anyone who cares to check.

  16. Roy Schestowitz said,

    September 21, 2008 at 3:22 am

    Gravatar

    These views come from a consultant totally independent from this Web site. I guess the whole world is wrong then, AlexH. We should just listen to Novell employees and Mono developers…

  17. AlexH said,

    September 21, 2008 at 3:57 am

    Gravatar

    Not necessarily, but having a non-anonymous contributor would help in terms of being able to see what bias the author has.

    Remember, most free software distributions include Mono and Mono applications. So we’re not exactly talking about a minority of people supporting Mono.

  18. aeshna23 said,

    September 21, 2008 at 6:57 am

    Gravatar

    “So Microsoft having set up everything in place in its favor with Novell, now sits back and laughs silently as they have found the ONE weak-spot, with they trying to split FLOSS-land: The GPLv2 only and LGPLv2 only, which are poorly designed to such a clever patent-scam-attack. Microsoft weapon is a GPL-tarnished sword called Mono, developed by Novell.”

    I found this paragraph hard to understand. GPL vs LGPL is suddenly introduced and it results in some vulnerability. What is the author trying to say?

  19. Dan O'Brian said,

    September 21, 2008 at 7:58 am

    Gravatar

    aeshna23: It’s just FUD.

    These views come from a consultant totally independent from this Web site. I guess the whole world is wrong then, AlexH.

    There are more people actively using and contributing to Mono (minus Novell-paid developers) than there are people who oppose it.

  20. Roy Schestowitz said,

    September 21, 2008 at 10:51 am

    Gravatar

    It’s just FUD.

    Baby and bathwater, Dan. You could do better than that.

    Anyway, I got an E-mail from the guy who wrote this. He added:


    The main goal or MS is to bring this message to the public perception:
    If you were a car-maker competing with other car-makers,
    and saw a more-or-less complete functional, exact replica of your top-model driving in masses around the streets
    giving all their “owners” and “passengers” (users) free rides on Linux,
    wouldn’t you want to demand royalties at least from the COMPANIES making money by distributing this IP with Linux?

    Leave aside all those hobby-users (just like in case MS does with regards to pirating their other IP, Windows and Office),
    but predate everyone making money (Red Hat, etc.)

  21. AlexH said,

    September 21, 2008 at 11:22 am

    Gravatar

    Nice. The “Mono is like Microsoft pirated IP” meme comes back again.

    Is Jose_X writing these posts? :D

  22. Roy Schestowitz said,

    September 21, 2008 at 11:30 am

    Gravatar

    No, it’s someone whom I hardly know (I don’t think he ever comments here). But I agree with his assessment.

  23. AlexH said,

    September 21, 2008 at 11:37 am

    Gravatar

    My previous comment wasn’t entirely serious :)

    I can’t really agree or disagree with it, I can barely understand most of it sadly.

  24. Dan O'Brian said,

    September 21, 2008 at 12:18 pm

    Gravatar

    I have to agree with Alex, this “article” is just regurgitating the same unsubstantiated speculatory garbage that you yourself have been spewing. It’s nothing new.

  25. Roy Schestowitz said,

    September 21, 2008 at 12:39 pm

    Gravatar

    Are you arguing that unless new (more) problems with Mono are raised, then all is alright with it?

  26. Dan O'Brian said,

    September 21, 2008 at 12:43 pm

    Gravatar

    Considering all of your arguments have been debunked, yes.

  27. AlexH said,

    September 21, 2008 at 12:47 pm

    Gravatar

    @Roy:

    I think the point is that many of the points that have been raised have been raised before and refuted. You can keep shouting “oh, but patents!” but it doesn’t make it true.

    My main problem with this article is that it’s simply incoherent rambling interspersed with random statements about the GPL and various bizarre legal theories.

  28. Roy Schestowitz said,

    September 21, 2008 at 12:48 pm

    Gravatar

    Debunked in whose mind? Novell employees don’t count because they have vested interests.

    Has this Novell chap ( http://jeffreystedfast.blogspot.com/2 ) removed a post which claims to have ‘debunked’ me)?

  29. AlexH said,

    September 21, 2008 at 12:52 pm

    Gravatar

    How about “debunked in the minds of those who stand to lose the most” – e.g., the companies like Red Hat whose deep pockets would make them an easy and obvious target for legal attack with patents?

    Or are you saying their legal team isn’t sufficiently switched on to realise the threat?

  30. Roy Schestowitz said,

    September 21, 2008 at 12:55 pm

    Gravatar

    I know more stuff than I can publish here and I believe Red Hat is beginning to understand and recognise this threat (circumstantial evidence mostly), which the Groklaw crowd (many lawyers) understands too.

  31. Dan O'Brian said,

    September 21, 2008 at 12:58 pm

    Gravatar

    Roy: I think you provided a bad link. It doesn’t seem to exist.

  32. Roy Schestowitz said,

    September 21, 2008 at 12:59 pm

    Gravatar

    Oops. Slip on the keyboard. Should have been http://jeffreystedfast.blogspot.com/

  33. AlexH said,

    September 21, 2008 at 1:00 pm

    Gravatar

    Dan, shush.

    Circumstantial evidence has convicted many criminals. I’ve seen it on TV. Perry Mason, mostly.

  34. Dan O'Brian said,

    September 21, 2008 at 1:00 pm

    Gravatar

    AlexH: Roy thinks he’s smarter than everyone else, including lawyers who actually know and understand law.

    As you proved a few weeks ago, Roy doesn’t even comprehend a simple aspect of copyright law, nevermind something more complicated like patent law.

  35. Roy Schestowitz said,

    September 21, 2008 at 1:02 pm

    Gravatar

    Well, you have more concrete stuff, such as:

    http://boycottnovell.com/2008/08/15/no-mono-in-fedora-10/
    http://boycottnovell.com/2008/06/02/fedora-no-moonlight/

  36. AlexH said,

    September 21, 2008 at 1:09 pm

    Gravatar

    We know about Moonlight, and that’s fair enough criticism.

    “No Mono in Fedora 10″ is obviously untrue, though. Whether or not it’s on which disc doesn’t seem clear, and even if it’s not in the default install that provides you precisely no legal protection. If it were otherwise, they would ship MP3 support etc.

  37. Roy Schestowitz said,

    September 21, 2008 at 1:11 pm

    Gravatar

    MP3 is another ‘evil’, but don’t introduce other issues to divert attention.

  38. Dan O'Brian said,

    September 21, 2008 at 1:12 pm

    Gravatar

    As has been proven in the past whenever you point to Mr. Steadfast’s blog – he backs up his statements with irrefutable facts.

    Just because you dismiss them simply because he works for Novell, doesn’t make his evidence untrue. Especially since any unaffiliated objective person can verify his proof.

    Let’s take a look at history:

    1. He wrote a blog entry about optimizing Mono’s I/O performance and discovered that in that particular case, it was faster than Java.

    You badmouthed him saying that he was a liar. AlexH and Miles ran the tests and concluded that the numbers Mr. Steadfast gave were accurate.

    Meanwhile, you refused to run the tests yourself, insisting that they were wrong and that anyone who ran the tests and found the data to be accurate were simply biased against Java.

    2. There was another blog post he made about wishing he could have written a new IMAP backend/plugin/whatever for Evolution in C# because it would have saved him time and effort.

    You posted your own article bashing him, GNOME, and Mono saying that Novell was forcing Mono into the core of GNOME.

    Needless to say, you were once again proven to be wrong, not him.

    3. He posted a blog entry debunking the myths about GNOME depending on Mono with factual evidence backing up his statements.

    Once again, you were proven wrong.

    Does anyone else see a pattern, here? Because I certainly do.

    Roy is consistently proven wrong, again and again.

  39. AlexH said,

    September 21, 2008 at 1:13 pm

    Gravatar

    Divert attention? Er, no. I’m giving you an example which disproves your inference behind Fedora’s motives.

    If Mono isn’t on the LiveCD I suggest that it’s rather more to do with trimming packages to fit into 660Mb with a variety of locales and languages than any FUD you’re throwing at it.

  40. Roy Schestowitz said,

    September 21, 2008 at 1:16 pm

    Gravatar

    Maybe, but we don’t know this for sure. What about Moonlight? It’s the SFLC that looked it, remember?

  41. Dan O'Brian said,

    September 21, 2008 at 1:17 pm

    Gravatar

    I remember reading that gNewSense also ships Mono and refuse to drop it stating that Mono is no less-safe than other packages they ship.

    (For those not in-the-know, gNewSense is the FSF-sponsored GNU/Linux distribution).

  42. AlexH said,

    September 21, 2008 at 1:18 pm

    Gravatar

    @Roy: “we don’t know for sure” isn’t license to substitute your own opinion in place of the actual facts.

    “We don’t know for sure” that the core of the moon isn’t cheese.

  43. Roy Schestowitz said,

    September 21, 2008 at 1:20 pm

    Gravatar

    And Monolight [sic]?

  44. AlexH said,

    September 21, 2008 at 1:23 pm

    Gravatar

    And that we know for sure because they’ve issued a statement about it: they’re worried about the issues surrounding XAML, which is fair enough. They can always include it later when the worries are worked out.

    Note, though, that where they do have a worry, not only is the package not on discs they provide, but it’s also not in the repos.

  45. Roy Schestowitz said,

    September 21, 2008 at 1:30 pm

    Gravatar

    The issues still stand.

  46. Dan O'Brian said,

    September 21, 2008 at 1:31 pm

    Gravatar

    Which issues? All of your issues have been disproven.

  47. AlexH said,

    September 21, 2008 at 1:32 pm

    Gravatar

    Why? Because you said so? Doesn’t wash, really.

  48. Roy Schestowitz said,

    September 21, 2008 at 1:34 pm

    Gravatar

    No, because you did not refute the SFLC.

  49. AlexH said,

    September 21, 2008 at 2:40 pm

    Gravatar

    I don’t see anything that the SFLC has published that relates to Mono. Do you care to offer a link to their opinion on Mono?

  50. Roy Schestowitz said,

    September 21, 2008 at 2:43 pm

    Gravatar

    Sure, here you go.

    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080528133529454

  51. AlexH said,

    September 21, 2008 at 2:50 pm

    Gravatar

    I asked for Mono, not Moonlight. They’re separate projects, and I already agree with you that Moonlight has problems currently.

  52. Roy Schestowitz said,

    September 21, 2008 at 2:53 pm

    Gravatar

    Can you please elaborate on that? I ask this because you previously denied it, IIRC.

  53. AlexH said,

    September 21, 2008 at 2:57 pm

    Gravatar

    Previously denied what? It would help if you state your question.

    I don’t see what elaboration you’re asking for. SFLC issued a statement about Microsoft’s Moonlight covenant. Mono, for obvious reasons, doesn’t rely on that covenant and actively avoids Microsoft patents. So the statement about the covenant doesn’t tell you anything about SFLC’s opinion on Mono.

DecorWhat Else is New


  1. IBM's Lennart Poettering on Breaking Software for Pseudo Novelty

    Recently-uploaded ELCE 2011 clip shows a panel with Linus Torvalds, Alan Cox, Thomas Gleixner, Paul McKenney, and Lennart Poettering (relevant to novelty or perceived novelty that mostly degrades the experience of longtime users, e.g. Wayland and systemd)



  2. IRC Proceedings: Sunday, May 15, 2022

    IRC logs for Sunday, May 15, 2022



  3. Links 15/05/2022: Linux 5.18 RC7 and Calls for More Mass Surveillance

    Links for the day



  4. Audio: Mark Shuttleworth Marketed to Young Males, With Sexy Pictures

    The Web is rotting away, old links become broken links within months or years, so I’ve decided to encode a 3-minute segment of the whole as Ogg



  5. What a Difference Half a Decade Makes (When Linux Foundation is 'Having Fun')

    Media shaming campaigns may have taken their toll on the founder of Linux, who is now bossed by someone who rejects Linux and is married to a Microsoft booster. Like Richard Stallman under FSF guidance (and conditions for return, mostly for fear of further media assaults and attack dogs), he has become a more publicity-shy and private person. The Linux Foundation has in effect reduced the founder of what it’s called after (Linux) into a weekly release manager and mascot, whose brand it is gradually diluting/cheapening.



  6. Links 15/05/2022: GNU libiconv 1.17

    Links for the day



  7. [Meme] Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court (UPC) Cannot Be Reconciled With the Law

    Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court (UPC)? Impossible. But Team UPC counts on an endless torrent of fake news managing to convince you (and more importantly politicians) otherwise.



  8. Even Team Battistelli is Sometimes Admitting -- Out in Public! -- That Unified Patent Court (UPC) is Neither Legal Nor Desirable

    Daniel X. Thomas and other people who are “too old to punish” (consequences to their career profoundly minimised owing to seniority) are among those who push back against the Unitary Patent or Unified Patent Court (UPC); any sane person — not a career-climbing litigation zealot — can identify the pertinent facts and realise that what’s going on here is an injustice of unprecedented proportions in the patent discipline



  9. [Meme] Common Sense at EPO

    The European examiners who deal with patents prefer a system that works for science, for Europe, not for foreign megacorporations that amass millions of low-quality patents and weaponise these to discourage competition



  10. Patent Granting at the EPO Has Collapsed by 24% Owing to Much-Needed Industrial Action

    Seeing that the EPO’s management routinely violates the law and even the very legal basis of the EPO’s existence (it is a monopoly in Europe; no body has the authority to compete against it), the EPO’s examiners have embarked on a ‘Work-to-Rule’ campaign — working in compliance with the rules as defined 49 years ago and revised over the decades — and the European Patent Convention (EPC) takes priority over unlawful demands from middle and upper management; this is proving highly effective so far and it will carry on until demands are met, i.e. until the law is obeyed and staff is treated with respect/dignity



  11. [Meme] Milan is a Suburb in London

    As long as Italy is not the UK and London means London “proper” (not the French town called London) the UPCA is invalid and no matter how much Team UPC (and its puppets in EPO management) may plead, this whole system is bound to implode



  12. The Latest Propaganda Tactics of Team UPC: Pretending Unified Patent Court Already Exists and Unitary Patents Are Default When If Fact None Even Exists

    8 years ago Benoît Battistelli said that the UPC was imminent; now, after 4 years of António Campinos, it’s still not here and Team UPC speculators say it won’t happen this year, either; just like the EPO constantly lies (both to the public and to its very own staff) Team UPC continues to lie to itself (self-delusion) and to us; both also routinely break the law, engage in deliberate violations of longstanding conventions, and scrap constitutions, which in turn becomes a breaking point for the EU’s credibility and the legal profession



  13. Links 15/05/2022: More Azure Shutdowns and Windows Security Blunders Aplenty

    Links for the day



  14. IRC Proceedings: Saturday, May 14, 2022

    IRC logs for Saturday, May 14, 2022



  15. Links 15/05/2022: Pika Backup 0.4

    Links for the day



  16. Changes in the Site and the Capsule

    A 10-minute explanation of what we've been up to lately and what's changing; hopefully I'll have a lot more free time in months to come and we'll be able to produce about a dozen posts per day



  17. Links 14/05/2022: Alt Linux 10.0 Released

    Links for the day



  18. Links 14/05/2022: Builder GTK 4 Porting and Raspberry Pi Matrix Dashboard

    Links for the day



  19. Elon Musk is Right About Twitter Faking Its Importance and Using Doctored, Manipulated 'Stats' (or Bots) to Boost Valuation Based on Lies

    Today’s empirical proof that Twitter is totally faking its relevance and reach/influence, based on “Analytics” of my long-inactive account; the SEC will once again — quite likely as usual — let Musk get away with it, killing a company for personal gain as a temporary shareholder who amassed a ton of free publicity (he paid nothing at all and sent the company into a death spiral, pretty much in the same way Microsoft and Icahn did Yahoo! or Microsoft and Elop did Nokia)



  20. Who Brings Home the Bacon (Revenue), Sheela or James (Jim)?

    Sheela (yes, wife of the nontechnical Linux Foundation chief, who equates Microsoft critics with people who kick puppies) has a history working with several companies that are closely connected to Microsoft (not just Bakkt); can that be reconciled as not a conflict of interest?



  21. The 'Original' Linus Torvalds on Self-Hosting

    The fast-aging founder of Linux spoke as shown above (2005); so much has changed since then…



  22. IRC Proceedings: Friday, May 13, 2022

    IRC logs for Friday, May 13, 2022



  23. Links 13/05/2022: NetworkManager 1.38 and Pseudo-Security

    Links for the day



  24. Links 13/05/2022: GCC 12 Becoming Default Compiler in Tumbleweed

    Links for the day



  25. Links 13/05/2022: End of 'About BSD'

    Links for the day



  26. IRC Proceedings: Thursday, May 12, 2022

    IRC logs for Thursday, May 12, 2022



  27. Links 12/05/2022: AlmaLinux OS 8.6 and LibreOffice 7.2.7

    Links for the day



  28. [Meme] Yes, Minister, Yes!

    We’re meant to think that patents — not sharing — are going to save the world



  29. Central Staff Committee of the EPO Reminds the EPO's Management, Yet Again, That It is Breaking Laws

    Sinking quality of European Patents, plus a Patent Granting Process that is not compliant with the law, quite likely mean the EPO drives straight into a wall; the Central Staff Committee is still trying to save the institution, but management is uncaring and unresponsive (these people typically serve a term and leave, so they couldn’t care less about the long-term viability of their employer)



  30. Formalities Officers Team Managers at the European Patent Office Consider Stepping Down

    Formalities Officers Team Managers at Europe's second-largest institution face a growing list of issues; some are even "considering stepping down," according to internal documents


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 Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

Recent Posts