08.12.19
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 2:06 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
This past weekend: The EPO is Still Violating the EPC Every Day
Not everything one hears is true; there ought to be a verification process. It otherwise helps the EPO’s censorship agenda.
Summary: EPO management lies to everyone routinely (to courts, to the press, to staff and so on); it’s not helping when lies or baseless hearsay are spread about EPO management as it helps Team Campinos censor/block/slander sites that expose EPO corruption (under he guise/pretext that these sites are disseminating lies; Campinos, by the way, has blocked Techrights for over a year without explanation, just like a truly insecure autocrat)
BASELESS hearsay in the European Patent Office (EPO) isn’t helpful. Take for instance this fourth anonymous comment about some rumour regarding Battistelli being Elodie Bergot‘s father. R.I.P. Kat is generally reliable, but the comment in “More scandals” lends credibility to claims of defamation being weaponised against Office management. Crime in the EPO is real and very much profound. The attack on the law itself is undeniable. We’re not even talking about patent quality and scope (a decade ago we worried only about software patents in Europe) but literal crimes committed by the management. These people are truly above the law. There’s no need to make up scandals about Bergot, who would exploit it to just abuse staff some more (as revenge). Battistelli already has two daughters; Bergot isn’t one of them.
“There’s no happiness, no justice, and no compliance with the most basic laws in today’s EPO.”Lies typically come from Office management and its corrupt media. Consider this new SPC framework ‘survey’; imagine another round of hogwash like everything they did for EPO management, Team UPC etc. How many lies have these people spread and who benefited from these lies? This patent zealots’ think tank (‘publisher’), Managing IP, will of course ask only lawyers and law (litigation) firms; nobody else will count or ‘matter’. It’s like EPO management limiting who’s being asked questions for its ‘studies’ (to give the false impression of happiness). Or constantly spreading a bunch of lies about independence of EPO judges. It’s all hogwash; see G 2/19 from last month. There’s no happiness, no justice, and no compliance with the most basic laws in today’s EPO. It might even get worse this winter. AA Thornton’s Stuart Greenwood refers to himself, the author, as a third person (in the headline!) right here, having just commented on Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal in a site owned by IAM‘s owner. Of course it’s a bunch of shallow dross because the site exists only to serve law firms. Check their business model. It’s not pretty.
Let the EPO’s management and the likes of IAM keep their monopoly on lying, otherwise they might give the illusion of parity when it comes to dishonesty (stigmatising their critics). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Free/Libre Software at 3:06 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The substitution of the term “Free” (as in libre) with “Open” is proving to be costly; The “Open Source” people, who sought to make “Free software” obsolete, have totally lost control of the brand, which is nowadays misused to the point of being ‘throwaway’ marketing blanket
THE Linux Foundation and several other so-called ‘foundations’ don’t exist to serve the purposes they claim to support. We recently wrote several articles about how the “Linux Foundation” — Linux only in name — had been reduced to openwashing as a service (example here).
Days ago it seemed like prpl Foundation is something similar; is it just another openwashing foundation/PR front? Mind this press release [1, 2]. They speak of “cloud” and “standards”. Code isn’t even mentioned. As with the Linux Foundation, companies are just buying a ‘badge’ (like the “Linux” trademark for their lapel). Here’s a good example of it about SCADA: “Also look at who else is supporting these open source SCADA applications, such as members of Linux or Eclipse Foundations.”
“We’re quite troubled to see a bunch of people enriching themselves by abusing and selling away the perception of “open”; it’s misleading marketing, it’s reputation laundering or — as we like to call it — openwashing.”That’s just proprietary software; merely paying membership fees to the Linux Foundation and Eclipse Foundation won’t change that. We’re quite troubled to see a bunch of people enriching themselves by abusing and selling away the perception of “open”; it’s misleading marketing, it’s reputation laundering or — as we like to call it — openwashing. Cheapening of the term “open source” (sometimes with a dash as in “open-source”) shows that it isn’t the same as Free software. See “DigiFi Launches the World’s First Open-Source Loan Origination System” (notice the dash). This has nothing to do with open source and it is a clear if not deliberate distortion of the term. It was published days ago. So was “Sustainable beauty brand Beauty Kitchen says open-source collaboration must happen” (dash again). How about this one. An “open-source T-shirt design,” it says (again with a dash). The term open source (or “Open Source”) has never been so broad! Almost completely meaningless. Here’s another nonsensical buzzwords salad that includes openwashing, AI-washing and cloudwashing: “BlazeMeter Continuous Testing Platform harnesses power of multi-cloud, open source, AI-enabling organisations to achieve agility at enterprise scale” (BlazeMeter threw lots of buzzwords into this title/headline).
Where are we going? Where is “Open Source” headed? The brand doesn’t seem to mean very much anymore. Real FOSS is lost in a cloud of noise.
“The Open Source Initiative doesn’t seem too bothered by this.”Last but not least, it turns out that Datical pays sites to post this spammy press release [1, 2] in which Datical presents itself as “open source” while pushing proprietary software (“enterprise edition”); misuse and distortion of the term “open source” (or “Open Source”) is a case of openwashing and it has stretched the de facto definition to the point of being pretty meaningless. The Open Source Initiative doesn’t seem too bothered by this. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Free/Libre Software, Microsoft at 3:01 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The attack on the legitimacy and credibility of Free/Open Source software (FOSS) carries on; we’re supposed to celebrate proprietary software (deeming it “open”) while fearing actual FOSS and striving to make it more proprietary (whereupon it becomes “stronger”)
THIS is the very first of what's going to become a weekly (or biweekly) feature. We’ve had such features before, e.g. our weekly OpenSUSE summaries more than a decade ago. Our goal here is to show the erosion of the Open Source brand, courtesy of companies hostile towards it (and still eager to just misuse the brand). This isn’t about any company in particular; if Microsoft gets mentioned a lot, it’s likely because it’s by far the biggest offender in that regard. We’ll start with Microsoft.
Microsoft
InfoQ publishes quite a few Microsoft puff pieces, but it’s not alone. Last week it said that “Microsoft Research open-sourced TensorWatch, their debugging tool for AI and deep-learning.”
“…if Microsoft gets mentioned a lot, it’s likely because it’s by far the biggest offender in that regard.”If you release code of a little bit of the whole as “open-source”, then it might make it a case of openwashing of what you keep secret and proprietary. It’s not Free software and it’s hardly even Open Source. Microsoft isn’t alone in this. Here’s a new example from Google, “Google’s AI Team Open-Sources Brain Mapping Visualisation Technology” (similar to the above).
Google wants surveillance to ‘seem’ or ‘feel’ ethical, so it resorts to openwashing tactics. IBM does this also. It still wants people’s medical records (a serious privacy violation committed here before).
“Google wants surveillance to ‘seem’ or ‘feel’ ethical, so it resorts to openwashing tactics.”Sadly, the above from Microsoft, a PAC member, was promoted by Linux.com (noted elsewhere earlier this month) by this PAC. It calls itself the “Linux Foundation” and it’s in the business of openwashing. As a result of this, as we noted a week ago, people who search for "Linux" will get the opposite of that. It’s a Microsoft marketing tactic and it’s one that ZDNet helped with about a week ago. This technology tabloid of CBS had a piece entitled “Linux to get Teams client? Microsoft says ‘stay tuned’,” seeking to associate proprietary software from Microsoft with Linux (in the “open source” section). Later in the week ZDNet also published “Enterprise vendors increasingly dominate the open source software scene”. To quote: “Everyone has been enamored with cloud computing in recent years, but it’s another software revolution that has made cloud so ubiquitous and accessible — open source software. The interesting news is that the open source revolution, chugging along for two decades now, is still going strong — to the point where it’s now a huge industry, led by large, non-open-source vendors.”
ZDNet means to say that proprietary software giants increasingly control the term “open source” and it’s based on very biased data: “The consultancy’s analysis of GitHub participation also finds Microsoft to be the largest contributor of talent and expertise to the open source space.”
So this whole ZDNet piece is based on Microsoft data alone; we’re supposed to believe that any FOSS project that isn’t controlled by Microsoft (hosted on GitHub) does not exist or does not count. This has become a common problem with today’s media.
“…we’re supposed to believe that any FOSS project that isn’t controlled by Microsoft (hosted on GitHub) does not exist or does not count. This has become a common problem with today’s media.”Meanwhile, over at Analytics Insight, in a truly bloated page (over 20 MB for one article!), there’s this piece entitled “7 Best Free and Open Source Business Intelligence Tools”. Why is proprietary software from Microsoft listed under “Free and Open Source”? Is this a joke or something? How bad is media becoming?
Also, promoted by Linux.com the other day was this ZDNet article that is similar to few others, e.g. [1, 2]. There’s a profound issue here; corporate media should very well understand that GitHub is proprietary software, but it won’t stop filing more of that proprietary code of this Microsoft trap under “Open Source” sections; that distorts the meaning of “open” anything. We worry that Linux Foundation people keep openwashing GitHub, which is actually proprietary software. Isn’t that in direct defiance of the Foundation’s stated goals? Sure it is.
DeepCode
We’ve meanwhile noticed this couple of new articles about DeepCode. “To use it,” said one article, “developers connect DeepCode with their GitHub or Bitbucket accounts…”
“So basically, DeepCode is a facilitator of Microsoft lock-in.”So DeepCode is shilling Microsoft’s trap and proprietary software. To quote another article: “The bot is now free for enterprise teams of up to 30 developers, open source software, and educational use. Developers get started by connecting DeepCode with their GitHub or Bitbucket accounts…”
Need to become Microsoft serfs to get service? So basically, DeepCode is a facilitator of Microsoft lock-in. Will Microsoft pays them for this betrayal? We’ve seen similar things over the years and took note of them in daily links. We’re led to assume that FOSS projects and developers don’t exist or don’t count unless Microsoft controls them. Never mind the racist and bigoted nature of the platform. Here’s one more article about it. DeepCode is just a big trap. Avoid DeepCode. It’s proprietary, too.
Surveillance… is OPEN!
Days ago proprietary software giant Amazon was openwashing its surveillance operations, just like Google and Facebook do. Check out this piece about PartiQL. Similarly, Facebook outsourced a little bit of code to Microsoft’s proprietary software trap (GitHub) and media thus rushed to paint Facebook as “moral” or “ethical”. This is classic(al) openwashing and its intended effect. MediaNama said “Facebook to open source technologies to curb spread of abusive content” (double marketing). We saw more such openwashing from the site managed by a former editor of ZDNet. In prior weeks there were dozens of puff pieces of this kind (about Facebook).
Open… is DANGEROUS!
We’re supposed to also think that being open and transparent is a great risk. Arun Balakrishnan published this piece (copy of something he had published months prior) entitled “The looming threat of malicious backdoors in software source code”. This is the problem with proprietary software where, unlike what one does with FOSS, code cannot be audited by end users. Then there was Sonatype combining the rude language of Donald Trump and Microsoft to come up with appalling FUD against FOSS: “Activate Your Shield Against Open Source Invasions”
“All sorts of FUD pieces (against FOSS) are nowadays syndicated and inserted into Google News by Security Boulevard — a site created by a manic anti-FOSS person.”We’ve mentioned these because both of the above were pushed by an anti-FOSS site, Security Boulevard, which was founded by a longtime FOSS basher. It does nothing original; it just amplifies/repeats anti-FOSS pieces. It’s pushing lots of Black Duck FUD pieces, as recently as days ago. It’s like a front group of that firm and the ‘sibling’ White Source. That site seems to exist mostly/solely to attack FOSS. It’s pretty damning when one considers who created the site. Is Microsoft meddling with the media here?
All sorts of FUD pieces (against FOSS) are nowadays syndicated and inserted into Google News by Security Boulevard — a site created by a manic anti-FOSS person. And “these are the Microsoft shills’ talking points,” a reader told me days ago (about the above). The connection between these firms to Microsoft and less directly even to the Linux Foundation should disturb everyone.
Mac Asay and the Sold (Out) Press
Meanwhile, there’s more FUD from Mac Asay, whose employer, Adobe, pays the media for paid placements, e.g. in IDG. We’ve mentioned Asay many times in the past. He had sought employment at Microsoft and he’s the one who brought Microsoft to OSI more than a decade ago (we did not forget). So anyway, Adobe pays media companies and now its employee spreads anti-FOSS rhetoric. He does so in CBS too (does Adobe pay them too?).
“IDG was sold to China (a firm that doesn’t care about publishing), which fired almost all the staff, and now it’s selling away its credibility.”It gets yet worse. Check out [1, 2, 3] and ignore the headline. Mac Asay doesn’t want readers to know it, but his employer Adobe paid this publisher (IDG) to post his spin pieces, which the publisher posted in at least three domains this past week! He says “Open source has never been stronger”; what he means to say is that the closing of “open source” is a strength; it’s a reversal of the truth. We greatly worry that IDG now makes money by taking funds from proprietary software giants (such as Microsoft and Adobe). It then lets them warp/distort/hijack the narrative of FOSS, mostly by telling us that openwashing is fantastic. Deception is the business model. Here’s another new example from IDG. “The DBA’s Guide to the Cloud, Open Source and DevOps” is the title, but it’s not actually an article, it’s not journalism. “SPONSOR: QUEST SOFTWARE” says the top of the page. So IDG is just selling space. IDG was sold to a company in China (a firm that doesn’t care about publishing), which fired almost all the staff, and now it’s selling away its credibility. It’s one form of liquidation. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
foolish.]
Content is available under CC-BY-SA