04.22.19

Gemini version available ♊︎

USPTO and EPO Both Slammed for Abandoning Patent Quality and Violating the Law/Caselaw in Order to Grant Illegitimate Patents on Life/Nature and Mathematics

Posted in America, Deception, Europe, Patents at 1:18 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Man with a mission (against mission statements, Constitution, courts etc.)

Trump and Iancu

Summary: Mr. Iancu, the ‘American Battistelli’ (appointed owing to nepotism), mirrors the ‘Battistelli operandi’, which boils down to treating judges like they’re stooges and justices like an ignorable nuisance — all this in the name of litigation profits, which necessitate constant wars over illegitimate patents (it is expensive to prove their illegitimacy)

THE deplorable “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” from Iancu is thankfully backfiring. The vast majority of comments received so far strongly oppose it and the judges at the Federal Circuit fire back at Trump's 'circus clown' Iancu, seeing that this attorney tries to overrule all of their decisions with a stroke of a pen. He also weakens Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes reviews (IPRs) — an issue not overlooked by anybody. Does he try to become an 'American Battistelli'? Certainly.

The Internet Association’s comments on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) eligibility guidance, according to this new tweet, say: “The Guidance appears to stretch too far beyond the Alice safe harbors when it extends eligibility to the mere use of a judicial exception.”

We’ve decided to take a look at the full thing and it’s a really good — if not at times strongly-worded — response. It’s blasting Iancu for his bias and attack on PTAB’s independence. I have read the entire thing and rewrote it as HTML (manually):

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________________

2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
________________________

Docket No. PTO-P-2018-0053
________________________

COMMENTS OF THE INTERNET ASSOCIATION
________________________

William G. Jenks
Jenks IP Law PLLC
1629 K ST NW, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20006

March 8, 2019


TABLE OF CONTENTS

[...]


I. Commenter’s Interest And Initial Statement

The Internet Association is the unified voice of the Internet economy, representing the interests of America’s leading Internet companies and their global community of users.1 The Association is dedicated to advancing public policy solutions to strengthen and protect Internet freedom, foster innovation and economic growth, and empower users. The members of the Internet Association have extensive experience with the application of the abstract idea exception in patent examination, litigation, and post-grant review proceedings.

The Internet Association applauds the USPTO for its continued serious examination of the contours of patent eligibility. The Federal Circuit continues to develop caselaw that informs the eligibility inquiry. But the Office has “the primary responsibility for sifting out unpatentable material” through examination.2 It is fitting, therefore, that the Office periodically updates its guidance to better ensure that issued patents conform with the limits on eligibility set by the courts. The USPTO’s new Section 101 Guidance is a promising start that, with modification, will help the Office fulfill its role in the patent system.3

Structurally, the Guidance preserves the two-step test provided in Alice and Mayo. This structure is necessary if the Office is to maintain a strong correlation between the courts’ development of ineligibility law and the Office’s examination of patents under Section 101. But the Guidance also creates a structural bias against ineligibility rejections when the claims-at issue do not fit neatly into the categories provided. The Office should reconsider. There should not be any structural bias disfavoring (or favoring) a particular rejection. The merits of the individual case should singularly control any eligibility decision made by Office personnel.

Regarding substance, the Guidance incorporates lessons from some of the Federal Circuit’s leading cases but the Office should expand its approach to capture the full scope of eligibility law. In particular, the Guidance should (1) more fully explain how claims directed to data collection, manipulation, and display are to be treated and (2) better incorporate the caselaw’s reliance on improved technology in Step 2A. The Office should also reconsider its reliance on “hypothetical” examples. The Office would do better to build real caselaw into the Guidance.

_____
1 The Internet Association’s members include Airbnb, Amazon, Ancestry, Coinbase, DoorDash, Dropbox, eBay, Etsy, Eventbrite, Expedia, Facebook, Google, Groupon, Handy, HomeAway, IAC, Intuit, Letgo, LinkedIn, Lyft, Match Group, Microsoft, Pandora, PayPal, Pinterest, Postmates, Quicken Loans, Rackspace, Rakuten, Reddit, Snap Inc., Spotify, Stripe, SurveyMonkey, Thumbtack, TransferWise, TripAdvisor, Turo, Twilio, Twitter, Uber, Upwork, Vivid Seats, Yelp, Zenefits, and Zillow Group.

2 Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 18 (1966).

3 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance Dkt. No. PTO-P-2018-0053, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Section 101 Guidance” or “Guidance”).


II. The Section 101 Guidance Properly Relies On The Alice/Mayo Structure, But It Should Be Clarified To Better Show How The Substantive Caselaw Principles Are To Be Applied

The Guidance maintains the Office’s use of the Alice/Mayo two-step test.4 That is altogether fitting. The USPTO should resist any calls for changes to that basic structure. The Federal Circuit’s increased emphasis on what claims are “directed to” under Step 2A warrants the Office’s review and elucidation of that area. Commenters generally support the revised approach but suggest that the Office provide additional clarification in particular areas to reduce Examiner misunderstandings when applying the Guidance.

A. The Guidance should clarify and further elucidate the Office’s approach to claims reciting data collection, manipulation, and display under Step 2A

The Guidance limits the categories of “key concepts” that are “abstract ideas” to: (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, which includes several subcategories, and (c) mental processes.5

The essential clarification needed is that data collection, manipulation, and display fall either within the mathematical concepts category or form a fourth abstract-ideas category. The “mathematical concepts” category, if interpreted in the strictest sense, may not capture the breadth of caselaw, which extends the abstract idea exception to “‘collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis.’”6 These data claims appear in a large number of eligibility cases, and the Guidance should explicitly recognize that claims reciting data (or information) collection, manipulation, and display are also within the “groupings of subject matter” that have been “identified by the courts as abstract ideas.”7

In SAP America, for example, claims focused on “selecting certain information, analyzing it using mathematical techniques, and reporting or displaying the results of the analysis” were “directed to abstract ideas.”8 The Court explained that each of these aspects, “[i]nformation as such,” “collecting information,” “analyzing information,” and “presenting the results” without more, was directed to an abstract idea.9 McRO was distinguished because the “claimed improvement [in the McRO claims] was to how the physical display operated (to

_____
4 Section 101 Guidance at 50, col.3.
5 Section 101 Guidance at 52, cols. 1-3.
6 SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018). (quoting Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
7 Section 101 Guidance at 52, col. 1.
8 SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167.
9 Id.


produce better quality images)” and not “to a mathematical technique with no improved display mechanism.”10

SAP America is not an isolated case. The principles therein have been invoked and followed in multiple, precedential, Federal Circuit decisions holding other data-manipulation claims to be directed to abstract ideas.11 These decisions include precedential cases not cited in the Guidance;12 and at least one precedential case issued after the Guidance.13 These principles should, therefore, be more fully explained in the Guidance—including identifying the appropriate category for such claims–to ensure that they are accounted for during examination.

B. The Section 101 Guidance should be modified to better reflect the caselaw’s emphasis on improved technology

The Supreme Court identified two potential categories of patent-eligible subject matter in its Alice decision: Claims that (1) “purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself” or (2) “effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field” could be more than a simple recitation of the abstract idea applied on a computer.14

The Guidance properly relies on the Supreme Court’s view to link eligible subject matter to improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technical field.15 But the Guidance appears to stretch too far beyond the Alice safe harbors when it extends eligibility to the mere use

_____
10 Id.
11 See, e.g., Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“In sum, the recited claims are directed to an abstract idea because they consist of generic and conventional information acquisition and organization steps that are connected to, but do not convert, the abstract idea—displaying a second set of data without interfering with a first set of data—into a particular conception of how to carry out that concept.”).
12 See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“We find that, under step one, the claims [at issue] are abstract. We conclude that the patent claims are, at their core, directed to the abstract idea of collecting, displaying, and manipulating data.”); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Explaining that “the ‘realm of abstract ideas’ includes ‘collecting information, including when limited to particular content,’ ‘analyzing information,’ and ‘presenting the results … of collecting and analyzing information.’”); see also Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 378, 202 L. Ed. 2d 288 (2018); Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
13 Univ. of Fl. Research Foundation, Inc. v. General Electric Co., No. 2018-1284, slip op. at 10 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 26, 2019) (“[C]laim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of ‘collecting, analyzing, manipulating, and displaying data.’”).
14 Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 225 (2014).
15 Section 101 Guidance at 55, col. 1.


of a judicial exception “in conjunction with a machine or manufacture” or in “a transformation or reduction of a particular article.”16

The Guidance should more closely tie “practical application”—the lynchpin of eligibility analysis in the Guidance—to technological improvement, which is present in all or nearly all the Federal Circuit’s Step-2A cases. The Guidance cites Eibel Process and Diehr to support its additional eligible categories. Eibel Process is linked to use in conjunction with a machine; Diehr to use in a transformation of an article.17 In both cases, the eligible invention claimed improved the technology at issue. In Eibel, the claimed Fourdrinier machine made paper at a pace much faster than prior machines, and the claims, the Court noted, were “for an improvement on a machine.”18 Similarly, the Supreme Court has made clear that “the claims in Diehr were patent eligible because they improved an existing technological process.”19 Thus, mere incorporation of a machine or transformation in the claim does not justify a rule requiring the claims be eligible under the cases cited.

C. The Section 101 Guidance should recognize the legal distinction between claims reciting a result or function without specifying the mechanism that achieves that result or function and claims that recite a technological advance

The Supreme Court has long distinguished claims that merely recite a result achieved from those that specify the method and mechanism for achieving that result. For example, Samuel Morse famously invented and patented the telegraph. But one of his claims failed because it merely recited “electro-magnetism, however developed, for making or printing intelligible characters, letters, or signs, at any distances, being a new application of that power.”20 The claim was “void” because it covered “an effect produced by the use of electromagnetism, distinct from the process or machinery necessary to produce it.”21 The Supreme Court has relied on this key principle while determining subject matter eligibility for centuries.22

The Federal Circuit has repeatedly relied on the same distinction in its post-Alice eligibility analysis. Claims that merely recite a desired result are more likely directed to an abstract idea. For example, in Internet Patents, which is not cited or discussed in the Guidance, the Federal Circuit held ineligible a claim that merely recited a desired “effect or result

_____
16 Id. (punctuation removed).
17 Id.
18 Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 55, 70 (1923). 19 Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223.
20 O’Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 86 (1853).
21 Id. at 120; see also The Telephone Cases, 126 U.S. 1, 534 (1888) (quoting Morse). 22 See, e.g., Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 649 (2010); Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301; Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 592 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 68-69 (1972); The Telephone Cases, 126 U.S. at 534.


dissociated from any method by which [the result] is accomplished.”23 The “character of the claimed invention [was] an abstract idea” because the claim-at-issue contained “no restriction on how the result is accomplished.”24 Thus, the claim was “not directed to patent-eligible subject matter.”25

Multiple precedential Federal Circuit cases rely on this principle to show that claims reciting a mere result or function are more likely directed to abstract ideas.26 On the other hand, claims that recite both a result or function and “an improvement of an existing technology” are typically “directed to” the technological improvement.27

III.The Guidance Should Incorporate And Explain Caselaw

The Section 101 Guidance sets forth the basic steps of examination under caselaw principles. But it fails to incorporate this caselaw directly. The cases are relegated to footnotes with brief parentheticals. This does little to help Examiners understand the distinctions between what is and is not an eligible “practical application.” It is primarily claims that recite the use of abstract ideas to improve the use of machines or to improve industrial processes that are patent eligible in the cases cited.

Given the complexity of the subject matter, the Office can increase the utility of the Guidance by testing the claims and facts of actual cases against each step set forth in the

_____
23 Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
24 Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1348.
25 Id.
26 Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (Under Alice step one, courts “‘look to whether the claims … focus on a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology or are instead directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea.’”) (quoting McRO at 1313); Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Generally, a claim that merely describes an effect or result dissociated from any method by which it is accomplished is not directed to patent-eligible subject matter.”) (internal marks and brackets omitted); Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1265 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Under “the principles emerging from the developing body of law on abstract ideas under section 101, this court has noted that claims that are so result-focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem are frequently held ineligible under section 101.”) (internal marks omitted); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
27 McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[C]laim 1 is directed to a patentable, technological improvement over the existing, manual 3–D animation techniques. The claim uses the limited rules in a process specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result in conventional industry practice. Claim 1 of the ’576 patent, therefore, is not directed to an abstract idea.”) (citations omitted); see also Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims “directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate” eligible).


Guidance. It would also be helpful to explain how the arguments were presented by the parties and either accepted or rejected by the Court. The resulting case studies can then be an integral part of the Guidance and used in place of the “hypothetical” examples the USPTO has provided on its website.28

IV.Examiners Should Retain The Authority To Reject Claims As Ineligible Under Section 101 Without Seeking Director Approval

The Internet Association believes that one structural change—unrelated to the test for eligibility itself—is needed in the new Section 101 Guidance.

The Section 101 Guidance places too high a burden on Examiners that believe a claim is ineligible even if it does not fit neatly into the subject matter categories provided. Presented with such claims, the Examiner must seek out and receive the approval of their Technology Center Director before issuing a rejection.29 This is in addition to the ordinary, proper requirement that the Examiner provide justification supporting the invocation of the abstract idea exception.

Directors are generally multiple levels above an Examiner in the chain of command—and they face numerous demands on their time—making it difficult and time consuming for the Examiner to seek and receive their approval. Fulfilling such a requirement is much harder than, for example, seeking approval from a Supervisory Patent Examiner. There is also no indication that the Examiner will receive the requisite time needed to seek and obtain this approval. Without extra time and under the USPTO’s current press of business, this would add pressure on the examining corps to issue claims that they deem ineligible.30 At a minimum, the Agency should allocate so-called “other time” to ameliorate this bias.

Requiring Director approval thus creates an artificial bias in the examination process that favors not testing the eligibility of patent claims. To the extent a bias should be built into the system, it should favor testing the contours of eligibility law in the USPTO—where applicants have appeal rights both within the Office and to the courts—over issuing categories of potentially ineligible claims unchallenged. Such claims may, if issued, eventually be found ineligible by the courts but only after causing enormous damage through years-long litigation. As between the patent owner and the public, the patent owner is best situated and incentivized to

_____
28 See Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas, available at

https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/101_examples_37to42_20190107.pdf.

29 Section 101 Guidance at 57, col. 1.
30 See, e.g., Michael D. Frakes & Melissa Wasserman, Is the Time Allocated to Review Patent Applications Inducing Examiners to Grant Invalid Patents? Evidence from Micro-Level Application Data, Review of Economics and Statistics (forthcoming) 4, available at https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/3646 (“Importantly, our findings demonstrate … that examiners appear to be operating at the point where time constraints indeed bind.”).


seek a definitive eligibility ruling in cases deemed ineligible through the ordinary examination process.

To be clear, the Internet Association is not suggesting a bias be added in either direction. But any structural bias—including the present bias against Examiner Section 101 rejections—should be removed. Finally, in a footnote, the Guidance suggests a similar burden heightening will be applied to the PTAB judges.31 Commenters likewise oppose the bias created by the process sketched out therein.

V. Conclusion

The Internet Association again applauds the USPTO for its continued serious examination of the contours of patent eligibility law. The Internet Association believes that the USPTO’s approach of considering all views will lead to clearer Guidance and thanks the USPTO for the opportunity to provide its views.

_____
31 Section 101 Guidance at 57 n.42.

It’s just pretty amazing how similar the situation is to the European Patent Office (EPO), where patents on life and nature are being granted in defiance of a directive (similar to Mayo in caselaw form) and António Campinos disguises European software patents using ludicrous buzzwords such as “AI” and “MedTech”. Just spectacular or astounding that he keeps getting away with it. Why is nobody holding him accountable? He does the equivalent of stomping on Alice, i.e. the highest court and 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Thankfully, EPO patent examiners know they’re being manipulated. Just cited by some Team UPC folks and also by SUEPO (even over the long weekend) was this thing we wrote about on Sunday — something on which several comments have been left including the following comment by “Nothing has changed at EPO since Battistelli’s departure” (the poster’s pseudonym on its own says a lot):

In the link below you will find a recent video (in French) about France Telecom scandalous HR practices and the soon to come prominent court case.

Many of the obnoxious HR techniques which were applied at FT – with the despicable effects on staff health reported upon broadly – were also applied at the EPO during Battistelli’s era.

With no surprise, the results of such policies at EPO were similar to those at France Telecom, see : https://www.politico.eu/article/labor-relations-turn-toxic-in-the-european-patent-office/

Obviously the issue of quality at EPO depends first and foremost on the kind of HR policies applied to staff, which presently continue to generate a very negative social atmosphere.

All HR top managers who were behind such despicable HR policies have been maintained in their positions since the arrival of Mr Campinos 10 months ago.

As long as management by pressure and fear goes on and put staff under undue pressure for more production vs. quality, nothing will change. The sweet story-telling of Mr Campinos is fooling no one since he takes no concrete actions to reverse the unhealthy work pressure.

Inevitably more social damages hence quality issues are thus in sight.

The prior comment speaks in length about erosion of patent quality — a subject long explored by SUEPO, which had warned about it for years and weeks ago said that tens of thousands of bunk European Patents are being granted each year.

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.

DecorWhat Else is New


  1. [Meme] [Teaser] Miguel de Icaza on CEO of Microsoft GitHub

    Our ongoing series, which is very long, will shed much-needed light on GitHub and its goals (the dark side is a lot darker than people care to realise)



  2. Gemini Protocol and Gemini Space Are Not a Niche; for Techrights, Gemini Means Half a Million Page Requests a Month

    Techrights on gemini:// has become very big and we’ll soon regenerate all the pages (about 37,500 of them) to improve clarity, consistency, and general integrity



  3. 'Satellite States' of EPO Autocrats

    Today we look more closely at how Baltic states were rendered 'voting fodder' by large European states, looking to rubber-stamp new and oppressive measures which disempower the masses



  4. [Meme] Don't Mention 'Brexit' to Team UPC

    It seems perfectly clear that UPC cannot start, contrary to what the EPO‘s António Campinos told the Council last week (lying, as usual) and what the EPO insinuates in Twitter; in fact, a legal challenge to this should be almost trivial



  5. The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part IXX: The Baltic States

    How unlawful EPO rules were unsurprisingly supported by Benoît Battistelli‘s friends in Baltic states; António Campinos maintained those same unlawful rules and Baltic connections, in effect liaising with offices known for their corruption (convicted officials, too; they did not have diplomatic immunity, unlike Battistelli and Campinos)



  6. Links 21/10/2021: GIMP 2.99.8 Released, Hardware Shortages, Mozilla Crisis

    Links for the day



  7. How Oppressive Governments and Web Monopolists Might Try to Discourage Adoption of Internet Protocols Like Gemini

    Popular movements and even some courageous publications have long been subverted by demonisation tactics, splits along unrelated grounds (such as controversial politics) and — failing that — technical sabotage and censorship; one must familiarise oneself with commonly-recurring themes of social control by altercation



  8. [Meme] Strike Triangulations, Reception Issues

    Financial strangulations for Benoît Battistelli‘s unlawful “Strike Regulations”? The EPO will come to regret 2013…



  9. [Meme] Is Saying “No!” to Unlawful Proposals Considered “Impolite”?

    A ‘toxic mix’ of enablers and cowards (who won’t vote negatively on EPO proposals which they know to be unlawful) can serve to show that the EPO isn’t a “social democracy” as Benoît Battistelli liked to call it; it’s just a dictatorship, currently run by the son of a person who actually fought dictatorship



  10. IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, October 20, 2021

    IRC logs for Wednesday, October 20, 2021



  11. [Meme] EPO Legal Sophistry and Double Dipping

    An imaginary EPO intercept of Administrative Council discussions in June 2013...



  12. Links 21/10/2021: PostgreSQL JDBC 42.3.0 and Maui Report

    Links for the day



  13. [Meme] [Teaser] “Judge a Person Both by His Friends and Enemies”

    Fervent supporters of Team Battistelli or Team Campinos (a dark EPO era) are showing their allegiances; WIPO and EPO have abused staff similarly over the past decade or so



  14. 'Cluster-Voting' in the European Patent Office/Organisation (When a Country With 1.9 Million Citizens Has the Same Voting Power as a Country With 83.1 Million Citizens)

    Today we examine who has been running the Finnish patent office and has moreover voted in the EPO during the ballot on unlawful "Strike Regulations"; they voted in favour of manifestly illegal rules and for 8.5 years after that (including last Wednesday) they continued to back a shady regime which undermines the EPO's mission statement



  15. The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XVIII: Helsinki's Accord

    The Finnish outpost has long been strategic to the EPO because it can help control the vote of four or more nations; evidence suggests this has not changed



  16. [Meme] Living as a Human Resource, Working for Despots

    The EPO has become a truly awful place/employer to work for; salary is 2,000 euros for some (despite workplace stress, sometimes relocation to a foreign country)



  17. Links 20/10/2021: New Redcore Linux and Hospital Adoption of GNU Health

    Links for the day



  18. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, October 19, 2021

    IRC logs for Tuesday, October 19, 2021



  19. Links 19/10/2021: Karanbir Singh Leaves CentOS Board, GPL Violations at Vizio

    Links for the day



  20. [Meme] Giving the Knee

    The 'knee' champion Kratochvìl and 'kneel' champion Erlingsdóttir are simply crushing the law; they’re ignoring the trouble of EPO staff and abuses of the Office, facilitated by the Council itself (i.e. facilitated by themselves)



  21. Josef Kratochvìl Rewarded Again for Covering Up EPO Corruption and the EPO Bribes the Press for Lies Whilst Also Lying About Its Colossal Privacy Violations

    Corrupt officials and officials who actively enable the crimes still control the Office and also the body which was supposed to oversee it; it's pretty evident and clear judging by this week's press statements at the EPO's official Web site



  22. [Meme] Sorry, Wrong Country (Or: Slovenia isn't Great Britain)

    Team UPC is trying to go ahead with a total hoax which a high-level European court would certainly put an end to (if or when a referral is initiated)



  23. How Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway and Sweden Voted on Patently Unlawful Regulations at the EPO

    We look back and examine what happened 8 years ago when oppressed staff was subjected to unlawful new “regulations” (long enjoyed by António Campinos, the current EPO autocrat)



  24. The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part XVII: The Non-Monolithic Nordic Bloc

    We start our investigation of how countries in northern Europe ended up voting on the unlawful “Strike Regulations” at the EPO and why



  25. Proof That Windows “11” is a Hoax

    Guest post by Ryan, reprinted with permission



  26. Firefox Becomes as Morally Reprehensible as Apple, Facebook, or Uber

    Guest post by Ryan, reprinted with permission



  27. Links 19/10/2021: GNU dbm 1.22 and Godot 3.4 RC 1

    Links for the day



  28. [Meme] [Teaser] GitHub an Expensive and Dangerous Trap (Also: Misogyny Hub)

    The ongoing Microsoft GitHub exposé will give people compelling reasons to avoid GitHub, which is basically just a subsidised (at a loss) trap



  29. Norway Should Have Voted Against Benoît Battistelli's Illegal (Anti-)'Strike Regulations' at the European Patent Office

    Benoît Battistelli‘s EPO faced no real and potent opposition from Norwegian delegates, who chose to abstain from the vote on the notorious and illegal so-called ‘Strike Regulations’ (they’re just an attack on strikes, an assault on basic rights of labourers)



  30. Links 19/10/2021: Sequoia PGP LGPL 2.0+, Open RAN Adoption

    Links for the day


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