04.30.20
Posted in Deception, Europe, Microsoft, Patents at 5:01 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
What was supposed to be “Best of Europe” (scientists) has become a reckless printing house governed by a kind of “Mafia”
Summary: The EPO is serving the private businesses of former officials and its special partner Microsoft, to which many EPO services are nowadays being illegally outsourced (pandemic as an excuse for breaking the law with no hesitations or qualms)
ANY workers of the European Patent Office (EPO) who are still not angry at their management have clearly not been paying attention. The media certainly looks the other way (some journalists tell me that COVID-19 is their latest excuse for the ‘blind eye’ treatment) whilst EPO management robs the staff, robs Europe, plunders its own treasury for gambling purposes and then lies to everyone while violating just about every law in the book. It is truly astounding. We never knew Europe would tolerate such a thing! We still write a lot about the EPO because there are many scandals to keep abreast of. And almost nobody else covers these anymore. Blogs like IP Kat nowadays actively participate in the cover-up by publishing EPO puff pieces, promoting EPO lies, linking to EPO press releases and deleting comments that highlight EPO abuses. We don’t even mention all the examples here anymore (too many of them). The ‘Kat’ logo is the same, but many things have changed. How astonishing a turnaround.
The EPO’s own communications staff keeps working from ‘templates’ (varying or shuffling mostly the stock photography which accompanies tweets). It is posting short-sighted and poorly-planned tweets like this new one that says: “In this webinar we will present the emergence of #blockchain-related technologies in terms of #patenting activity.”
“We still write a lot about the EPO because there are many scandals to keep abreast of. And almost nobody else covers these anymore.”When “blockchain” is mentioned by EPO managers it is often about illegal software patents illegally being granted in Europe, by the EPO's very own admission (35 U.S.C. § 101 is being bypassed using this same hype wave too). EPO staff is presented with a painful dilemma: break the law or lose your job. Examination guidelines presented by the USPTO a year ago and by the EPO half a year ago seek to compel examiners to allow software patents, even if courts (and the EPC) forbid these. Hours ago the EPO tweeted: “Inventions in #digitalcommunication – whether mobile networks or the internet – make it possible for us to stay connected, work efficiently and live safer and healthier lives. In 2019 the EPO saw a sharp rise in patent applications in this field (+20%).”
The supposed ‘growth’ comes from software patents and for those who missed it, EPO management (Philpott et al) nowadays disguises illegal patents on algorithms using "digi" something (including “digitalisation”). The people who decide on those things aren’t even technical in that particular field. Philpott came from the Army, as did other EPO managers. It’s more like a Mafia than a scientific (in nature) institution and many EPO insiders are well aware of it and speak about it among themselves/one another. We’re familiar with much of the “Office gossip…”
“It’s more like a Mafia than a scientific (in nature) institution and many EPO insiders are well aware of it and speak about it among themselves/one another.”In any event, the EPO nowadays likes to associate with Trump’s ‘wunderkind’ (child prodigy) who seeks to re-allow illegal patents to fake ‘growth’, just like at the EPO. Joined in their attack on patent quality, by deliberately ignoring courts and granting fake patents, the USPTO and EPO have just issued this joint statement [1, 2] (warning: the second one is an epo.org link, which means they can quite likely track clicks and who’s clicking).
The EPO’s and the USPTO’s patent spinners have just posted an old photo of of António Campinos and Andrei Iancu (no masks or gloves); two patent maximalists who serve litigation firms at scientists’ expense…
The EPO wrote: “Together with the @USPTO we stand united in supporting innovators and all those involved in pioneering research, who are essential for the recovery of our economies and societies in such challenging times.”
Actually, the EPO awarded/glorified the very people whose frauds and whose patents are now being used against COVID-19 research. Pay attention to what happened about a month ago with patents of Theranos, after they had been passed to trolls. The EPO gave Theranos a superstar treatment, helping to increase the valuation of a massive fraud.
“Actually, the EPO awarded/glorified the very people whose frauds and whose patents are now being used against COVID-19 research.”Then, retweeted by EPO folks was this USPTO tweet that said: “To support innovation during this crisis, the USPTO and the EPO stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the innovation community.” Read the joint message from the #USPTO and @EPOorg…”
They mean litigation ‘community’ (it’s not a community), not “innovation community.”
These shallow lies fool nobody. Nobody serious anyway…
Hours ago the EPO again pretended to value SMEs. It’s that same old sponsored ‘study’, mentioned repeatedly for a number of years to invert narratives/perceptions; The EPO harms SMEs and innovators. It serves monopolists and law firms that represent those. That’s very easy to see based on the leaked documents; they almost spell it out loud!
Hours ago the EPO tweeted: “You can read the criteria by which proposals for our Academic Research Programme will be rated here…”
“Rated based on how good the so-called ‘research’ would be to the toxic agenda of an EPO coup by litigation fanatics,” I responded to them. “This corrupts academia,” I added.
“It’s rewarding frauds that attack French COVID-19 researchers in the French-hosted festivals (exploited by the EPO’s managers to falsely associate with real scientists); it also bribes media, it bribes scholars…”The EPO basically became a propaganda machine that intimidates journalists, threatens bloggers, bribes publishers (media) and even bribes academia. It was supposed to be a granting authority dealing with patents, but look what it has become. It’s rewarding frauds that attack French COVID-19 researchers in the French-hosted festivals (exploited by the EPO’s managers to falsely associate with real scientists); it also bribes media, it bribes scholars..
We have not written much on this subject, but the EPO is helping coronavirus in its long fight against Europe; those patents of Theranos, which we mentioned above, nowadays attack COVID-19 researchers in courts, even virtual ones. They cannot focus on their job because of it.
And those aren’t even the biggest scandals. The bigger scandals right now are being hidden using a crisis. The scandals aren’t being reported on, except by us (to the extent sources can help us).
“For updates on the measures we are taking at the Office in the current COVID-19 crisis,” the EPO wrote earlier. They say nothing about the outsourcing to Microsoft — an issue we’ll come to in a moment. They just allude to remote services and all. “The EPO Academy provides free-of-charge distance learning courses taught by experts in intellectual property,” says one new tweet, linking to a dubious page. The very top of this list is promotion of illegal software patents (which are being granted in Europe because of buzzwords).
More about the whole remote work ‘thing’ was published this week, but few people will notice it. That’s inside a PDF.
“It seems very much apparent that the EPO is shamelessly pushing Microsoft’s OOXML (proprietary format with vendor lock-in, security issues and so on) instead of vendor-neutral open standards.”“The Official Journal 4/2020 is now available online,” the EPO tweeted today. It does so once in a few months, but this latest one (warning: epo.org link) has a few gems in it. First of all, a shallow dive into the Web page alone (not the PDF).
It seems very much apparent that the EPO is shamelessly pushing Microsoft’s OOXML (proprietary format with vendor lock-in, security issues and so on) instead of vendor-neutral open standards. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has done the same thing, looking to penalise those who are not paying Microsoft any money. Yes, it’s like USPTO works for Microsoft [1, 2], forcing people to become Microsoft customers, passing around documents only other Microsoft customers can view ‘properly’ (even Microsoft refuses to follow or adhere to its own specifications!). To quote:
Definition of “DOCX” under Article 4 of the decision of the Vice-President Legal and International Affairs of the European Patent Office (Directorate-General 5) dated 21 April 2020 concerning the conditions for participating in the pilot project for Online Filing 2.0
DOCX means OOXML. Those who aren’t becoming customers of Microsoft will ‘miss out’…
It comes amid another scandal, one that involved an illegal (violation of EPC) outsourcing to Microsoft Skype. It’s even there in the journal, again sans the foreign monopolist’s name:
Decision of the President of the European Patent Office dated 1 April 2020 concerning oral proceedings by videoconference before examining divisions
Notice from the European Patent Office dated 1 April 2020 concerning oral proceedings and interviews to be held by videoconference
Decision of the President of the European Patent Office dated 14 April 2020 concerning the pilot project for oral proceedings by videoconference before opposition divisions
Notice from the European Patent Office dated 14 April 2020 concerning the pilot project for oral proceedings by videoconference before opposition divisions
And if that’s not bad enough, we’re seeing more CIEPI ads again, just like years ago [1, 2].
António Campinos is sending business to Benoît Battistelli, just like he’s promoting Željko Topić's private business despite lack of qualifications. It’s corrupt, but here they go again:
CEIPI seminars for the EQE pre-examination 2021
CEIPI – European qualifying examination 2021 (“main examination”)
CEIPI/epi – Basic training in European patent law
We could go on and on elaborating on why it’s unethical as well as illegal, but the EPO’s management recognises neither ethics nor law. The only law is, the management does whatever it wants. Behaviour such as this is typically expected from the Kremlin or the Communist Party of China; EPOnia is no better. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in FSF, Google, GPL, Microsoft at 8:17 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Nothing says “copyleft” conference like a repeated GPL violator with a history of attacks on copyleft… at the very top of your page with a massive logo
Source: 2020.copyleftconf.org/sponsors
Summary: If it smells like a rotten plot, then it might as well be one; software freedom won’t be guarded by companies that internally ban the GPL and coordinate public smear attacks on it (as well as its creator)
THERE is something truly disturbing going on at SFC. It’s not new. We mentioned it before. Other people also habitually mention it. SFC has a growing problem of trust or crisis of confidence because people out there aren’t sure what it stands for or who it stands for. Longtime readers are likely familiar with more recent blunders.
Why does SFC take Microsoft money? What does that mean to SFC? What might that say about the origins of Copyleft Conf and its purpose? Remember that in order to keep money coming next year (as well as other future years) they might as well be careful what they publicly say about Microsoft and about its record, e.g. bribery, antitrust abuses, work that kills people and various obvious crimes (with convictions).
The above may not seem like much; after all, it’s less than “slush funds” to Microsoft. But it’s a lot of money for SFC. It helps pay the rent, food and so on. It can make SFC almost dependent on Microsoft. And that’s a problem.
Remember that in politics or political spheres this is how the most classic and likely most common form of bribery works.
We’ve asked SFC for comment on this; we gave them a chance to explain or to clarify. Half a day later the Conservancy’s staff has not replied to this request for comment, so we decided to go ahead with the story and actually type it up. We also extended the offer for response several more hours. So remember; we politely reached out for comment, but they refuse to even explain the above. Microsoft is undoubtedly behind several anti-GPL campaigns, so SFC cannot just claim that Microsoft changed; Microsoft just gave them “some change” (small money or pocket money to Microsoft, but a lot to SFC). All those anti-GPL GitHub-based ‘studies’ remind us that the GPL-hostile agenda of Microsoft has only been taken up several more notches in recent years; those are all Microsoft. Microsoft isn’t only a GPL violator; Microsoft got caught several times.
Why is Microsoft’s name at the very top of a page of something called “Copyleft Conf”? We could go ahead and remark/criticise some of the speakers, but this article can be more powerful when it is impersonal, focusing on issues and companies, nothing ad hominem at all. The Linux Foundation likes to personify some of the bad things it does; that’s a trap. And we won’t fall into it.
So why is an anti-GPL company a “Platinum Sponsor” of this event? That’s an odd thing for something called “Software Freedom Conservancy” to do. But remember that those are the same people who pushed Richard Stallman out of the FSF. Notice how also Salesforce creeps it; it’s the company whose high-level staff did the same, pushing hard for Stallman to be kicked out along with anyone who supports him. This is well documented. So what the heck is this event anyway? Why is it controlled and led by such companies? And not for the first time (we mentioned this before, after the first such event); Microsoft and Google were there last year as well. Yes, the first one was also funded by Microsoft and one might theorise who came up with the idea of having such an event and raise funds for it. Yesterday the SFC wrote about it, as did few others online, mostly in social control media. The E-mail message from Deb Nicholson was reprinted by LWN and it says this:
URL: https://sfconservancy.org/news/2020/apr/29/cc2video/
In February, we ran our second annual [Copyleft Conf](
https://2020.copyleftconf.org/). Thanks to our program committee; Molly
de Blanc, Beth Flanagan, Bradley Kuhn, Deb Nicholson, Nithya Ruff, Josh
Simmons and Haralde Welte, the [schedule](
https://2020.copyleftconf.org/schedule/) was both bold and timely. We
are happy to announce that all the videos of this year’s sessions are
now [available for you to watch.](https://2020.copyleftconf.org/video)
This year’s [keynote](
https://archive.org/details/copyleftconf2020-sebro) was delivered by
[Tony Sebro](https://wikimediafoundation.org/profile/tony-sebro/), who
is Vice President of Counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation, former
General Counsel of Conservancy, and serves on the Outreachy organizer’s
committee. In his talk, Tony wonders whether the community around
copyleft, like those around eschatology and Afro-centric hip-hop, has
lost it’s center and how we might entice new stakeholders to reinvest
in our shared values. His keynote is a great place to start with this
year’s videos.
We also want to especially thank Coraline Ada Ehmke for participating
in Copyleft Conf. She describes our responsibility as technologists and
shared her plan for building a movement to keep technology from being
used by bad actors. Both [her talk](
https://archive.org/details/copyleftconf2020-ehmke) and the [community
discussion](
https://archive.org/details/copyleftconf2020-ethical-lice…) that
followed are available to watch now. The passionate conversation around
ethical licensing was cited by many as a highlight of the conference
and we’re glad we were able to host it at Copyleft Conf.
In case you missed it, our first year’s keynote was Molly de Blanc.
She’s the Manager of Strategic Initiatives at GNOME Foundation. There
was [a Faifcast episode](http://faif.us/cast/2019/may/31/0×68/) where
Bradley and Karen discuss her talk, “The Margins of Software Freedom”
coupled with an onsite interview. Many of the 2019 Copyleft Conf videos
are also [available to watch.](https://2020.copyleftconf.org/video)
We have no way of knowing what 2021 will mean for in-person events, but
we will continue to advocate for and discuss copyleft as a tool for
software freedom — stay in touch by following us on [Mastodon](
https://mastodon.technology/@conservancy) or [Twitter](
https://twitter.com/conservancy) or swing by #conservancy on
freenode.net to talk with folks in real time, any time, but [especially
on Thursdays at 6pm UTC.](
https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2020/mar/12/virtualchat/)
About Conservancy
Conservancy is a resourceful, non-profit organization dedicated to
helping people take control of their computing experience by growing
the software freedom movement, supporting community-driven alternatives
to proprietary software and defending free software builders with
practical initiatives. Conservancy believes that the future of software
should be for everyone.
–
Deb Nicholson <deb@sfconservancy.org>
Software Freedom Conservancy
It may sound all happy and fun, but watch who sponsored this thing (huge logo of Microsoft at the very top; depending on one’s browser it can fill up the whole page!); the event’s message is shrewdly disguised as “ethics” and tolerance; but deep inside the people who run this event and sponsor this event know what they seek to accomplish. Remember VMware‘s deliberate GPL violations and cover-up that we uncovered earlier this week. SFC probably won’t resume litigation and there’s a strong Microsoft connection, which we explained this week.
Always follow the company’s or the institution’s revenue sources (clients, sponsors, venture capital etc.) to better understand who truly owns and controls them, at the very least by financial means post-financial crises.
I asked SFC, both in Mastodon (Fediverse) and in Twitter, why they deemed Microsoft a proper top sponsor (Platinum Sponsor) for such an event. They did not ever bother replying, so perhaps they lack an actual defense of this move. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Microsoft, Patents at 7:21 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
A joke or a farce of a ‘justice’ system, where the platform is controlled by a company that commits a lot of serious crimes and works for the Pentagon, builds internment camps for ICE etc.
Summary: In another major fiasco, EPO management gives Microsoft control over (or insight into) the competitors’ business and highly confidential legal affairs (along with the US government, by extension); it’s likely not legal, it is definitely not constitutional, and EPO staff complains about the laughing stock that the EPO rapidly becomes under António Campinos, who totally exploits the pandemic to shamelessly attack staff and grossly violate the EPC
MR. Campinos rapidly turns out to be even worse than Battistelli. COVID-19 brings out the worst of him and he’s bringing out the EPO to Microsoft, a foreign monopolist whose Skype surveilance is a subject we’ve been covering for over a decade (even before Microsoft bought it).
As longtime readers may recall, half a decade ago we wrote many articles about favourable Microsoft treatment at the EPO and even leaked material to that effect. In our newly-tidied-up wiki pages it can be found. They’re linked from here still. Nothing has improved since; in fact, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) nowadays wants to punish applicants who do not use Microsoft’s proprietary OOXML — that’s how bad it is (but at least both that office and the company are American!).
So a company that lobbies against 35 U.S.C. § 101, lobbies for software patents in Europe, blackmails competitors using patents and so on is taking control of some of the EPO’s ‘crown jewels’.
Is this legal?
Of course not. Common sense!
“Is this legal? Of course not. Common sense!”Is EPO management doing it regardless? You bet! It’s not like they ever allowed ‘pesky’ laws and ‘obnoxious’ constitutions stand in the way of fake ‘production’.
Thankfully, staff representatives already speak about it. The anonymous “Kluwer Patent blogger” wrote about it yesterday.
So while taking another building in Haar (while leaving empty space in existing buildings) the EPO is happy to send venues of EPO… to Microsoft. Only 2 years ago they finished wasting lots of money on a new building and they plan several more at a huge cost (while falsely claiming to lack money for staff!) and now this:
The Central Staff Committee (CSC) of the EPO is very outspoken above the announcement, in the middle of the coronapandemia, that videoconferencing will be the new standard: we’re being rushed into a change which is full of legal and technical pitfalls. In a letter published on the EPO’s internal pages half April, the CSC points out that many high and lower courts in the member states have suspended all oral proceedings which are not absolutely urgent. It “would make sense to align the Office with the practice as well as with emergency provisions of its host countries. This would also appear mandated by the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities.”
The CSC argues: “Holding oral proceedings as distributed videoconferences with the members of the division participating at different locations in the Office or at home is part of your initiative of generalising and making teleworking mandatory, which constitutes a fundamental change in the working conditions of an major part of staff. It must therefore be subject to statutory consultation with the COHSEC and the GCC in accordance with Articles 38(2) and 38a(3) ServRegs.
Since it has been decided to extend the new procedures for oral proceedings in examination beyond the current Corona crisis, in-depth consultation is necessary. The same applies to opposition oral proceedings for which this new procedure appears likewise here to stay.”
The CSC sees various legal issues: “Opposition oral proceedings are by law public proceedings, cf. Article 116(4) EPC. It is not at all clear how this is guaranteed if the hearing is conducted as a ViCo (see e.g. T1266/07, points 1.2 and 1.3). The preliminary guidance given in VP1’s announcement (…) states that if the division “receive[s] requests of public to attend opposition proceedings performed via ViCo” it should “contact [its] line manager”, presumably that of the first examiner. Aside from the fact that the line manager is not competent for interfering with the discretionary decisions of the Divisions, the public does not need to “request” attendance, or to announce it in advance. A possibility for the public to attend should therefore be guaranteed in all cases, regardless of any advance request. The guidance thus brings examiners into a conflict between the expectations of management and the requirements of the EPC.”
“A problem of breach of confidentiality might further arise if members of divisions were not able to adequately isolate themselves, especially during examination non-public OP’s and during deliberations.”
On the technical side there are issues as well, according to the CSC: “a yet unknown number of examiners cannot establish simultaneously both a Skypefor-Business connection and an EPO network connection via Pulse-VPN, as would be required for ViCo OPs, because the network hosts the application documents and the EPO email account. Only either connection works fine by itself.”
This leads the CSC to a very clear conclusion: let’s not do this. “At present there are no clear laws, no guidelines and no technical facilities to allow distributed oral proceedings in examination and opposition proceedings. In the latter case, even “non-distributed” ViCos with divisions on the Office premises would at present not rest on a solid legal basis.
The measures presently foreseen should be immediately halted and reviewed, also involving the Staff Representation.
In view of the additional strain on the examiner’s mental health, we can at present only advise divisions to judiciously choose, weighing all circumstances, whether to conduct oral proceedings by ViCo or rather to postpone them to a later date until circumstances for conducting them either as a classical ViCo from the Office premises or as “standard” proceedings in person are restored.”
This is amazing! See the bit highlighted about.
Are we shocked? Of course not, the EPO breaks the law all the time and as recently as yesterday it openly advertised in Twitter its bribery programme for scholars. Here’s what MaxDrei said about the above (he still comments in IP Kat, where comments critical of EPO for abuses are being censored):
Those running the EPO business are clearly disciples of the “Never let a Good Crisis Go to Waste” school of management thinking. Get in with a measure to cut costs and raise profit levels, regardless of any loss of product quality. Those running the EPO business (management, supervisory Board), it seems to me, have no appreciation of any importance in preserving the reputation of the EPO for the quality of its decisions on matters of fact and law.
Any criticism of setting the VC as default will be waved away as the bleatings of self-interested patent attorney firms, thwarted in their efforts to hold on to high turnover and profit figures associated with in vivo oral proceedings. It’s up to the critics to find lines of argument that are resistant to being fobbed off as mere self-interest. After all, the patents courts of England are now making heavy use of VC technology to keep patent litigation ticking along. Justice delayed is, of course, justice denied. it’s just that these VC Hearings are not used for the cross-examination of vital witness testimony, for which the judge needs to see the witness and their interlocutor face-to-face.
Who can give us examples of unscrupulous use of the VC to frustrate the over-riding objective of doing justice?
“Concerned observer” replied:
It is a matter of fact that a Decision of the President of the EPO cannot have the effect of altering (the interpretation of) the EPC. The President simply does not have the power to amend (on his or her own) the Articles or Rules of the EPC in any way. Any restrictions imposed by the President on the right to be heard are therefore clearly unlawful and unenforceable (by the Boards of Appeal).
Especially in the current circumstances, it is perfectly reasonable for ViCo technology to be offered as an OPTION to parties to proceedings before the EPO. However, for the reasons outlined above, it is unacceptable for proceedings to be conducted by ViCo against the wishes of any party to the proceedings. For opposition proceedings, the use of ViCos also poses problems (as discussed by Max and Attentive) regarding attendance by members of the public.
So why would the President issue such an obviously problematic (and unlawful) Decision?
Frankly, there is no good answer to this question. Indeed, this situation merely serves to illustrate the arrogant and, at times, lawless behaviour of the EPO’s President (and senior management, who must surely also shoulder some of the responsibility for this latest outrage).
This situation also raises another question to which there is no good answer: who will stop the President from trying to ensure that the Decision is both upheld and enforced?
Certainly not the AC, as that has turned into a dog that is wagged by its tail. Perhaps the Boards of Appeal – but only if they still have sufficient independence to risk of opening up another political can of worms. (Bearing in mind that “resistance” from the Boards could lead to another situation where the President, perhaps again enabled by the AC, tries to overturn any inconvenient case law by introducing an Implementing Regulation that overrides the current interpretation of Article 113(1) … and perhaps ultimately to another referral to the Enlarged Board in which the President kindly asks the EBA to agree with his novel interpretation of the EPC.)
Previously, it was clear that the list of “stakeholders” whose voices and opinions that this (and/or the previous) President of the EPO was happy to ignore included (non-senior) EPO staff, EPO staff representatives, Board of Appeal members, the Association of the Members of the Boards of Appeal, national courts and their judges (as illustrated by events in the Corcoran case) and certain (national associations of) professional representatives. To that list we can now add the epi, patent applicants, opponents and interested members of the public.
This poses one more question: is there any stakeholder whose opinion the President will take seriously? The way that things are currently working out, and absent a move by large numbers of applicants to take their cases to national patent offices, I would wager that the answer to this question is “no”.
MaxDrei agreed:
…Concerned’s concluding thought nails it.
The arrogance on the top floor of the EPO can be imagined as a nonchalant shrug of the Presidential shoulders and a casual throwaway remark from him, to the effect that:
“If the Applicants don’t like it, they can eff off and take their cases to the national Patent Offices. But, until a lot of them do exactly that though, I shall keep going with my sociopathic, corporation-style policies. And for exactly the same reason as in all those anti-social corporations, namely, to maximise the “value” that the Chief Executive doles out to the EPO’s shareholders. It is the ONLY duty imposed on the legal person that is a corporation. If that duty is good enough for a corporation, it’s good enough for the EPO too. Especially the EPO. Because what’s good for the EPO shareholders is good for the general public in Europe. End of discussion.”
“Not a friend of obligatoy ViCos” then said: “Imagine that your law firm has a well-functioning SIP/H.323 video-conferencing systems, you receive the conference number and the required information how to dial in with the SIP/H.323 video-conferencing system, and one (!) day (!) before the oral proceedings via ViCo you are informed that despite the official information provided together with the conference number (https://www.epo.org/applying/online-services/proceedings/technical-guidelines.html) only Microsoft Skype for Business can be used, because the examiners sit at home and SIP/H.323 cannot be used in such circumstances…”
Emphasis is ours. So Microsoft is now like a European court? Of course it’s not legal. It’s even worse when they put a criminal company in charge of it — a company that already admitted that it spies on people’s personal E-mails for its business purposes (or putting people in prison for doing things Microsoft itself dislikes).
EPO in 2020: brought to you by Microsoft! █
“Microsoft is, I think, fundamentally an evil company.”
–Former Netscape Chairman James H. Clark
Permalink
Send this to a friend
]
Content is available under CC-BY-SA