There are Gates-sponsored “tweets” (paid-for cruft) added to my timeline today
Posted just over an hour ago:
Update: Two days have passed and it’s still happening. Screenshot below.
“IBM is proud of its patent portfolio, and the fact that they produce patents at a rate of 10 a day. With such an extensive arsenal of patents, backed by unlimited legal funds – what chances are left for the VC backed company? This is like the US going to war against Micronesia.” —Daniel Cohen
Torvalds was sidelined by IBM-connected media around the time IBM had put a bid on Red Hat
All the latest changes to the anti-RMS letter
Summary: People must not forget the role played by IBM in the attacks on the FSF (they still try to take away copyrights from the FSF; many of the 'GNU rebels' or coup leaders are IBM employees, both in 2019 and in 2021)
Summary: The talk was delivered in Bozeman in early 2019
Language: English
Duration: 1 hour, 46 minutes, 44 seconds
Date: February 11th, 2019
Licence: Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 3.0 International (CC BY-ND 3.0)
Summary: This new video discusses the truly absurd situation that we have in ‘civilised’ Europe, where the largest patent office and Europe’s second-largest organisation overall isn’t just abundantly corrupt; it moreover enjoys total immunity, so it breaks the law with complete impunity (while supposed overseers help the cover-up)
THE EPO‘s administration is covering up crimes. Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos aren’t being supervised or held to account by anybody and they exploit that. Not only do they allow patents on just about everything (even monopolies on nature and on life, never mind software patents), they also allow spying on everybody, ranging from staff to stakeholders. Even most monarchies do not go that far.
Is the Administrative Council asleep? No, not really. It’s complicit. It actively helps cover up the crimes. This is unacceptable. And meanwhile the courts have become like rubberstampers.
The sordid mess we currently see inside the EPO is no better than 5 years ago; the main difference is the lack of press coverage and thus the absence of public outcry and political backlash. Guess why the press has been quiet… mostly bribes and threats. █
Postscript: Links from the above video can be found here.
Summary: Do not be seduced by the ‘Open Source’ crowd; it’s looking to accomplish not necessarily things that truly matter to society and actually promote justice
THE TITLE of the blog says “Sentry”; this was a suggestion made by Richard Stallman about a decade ago.
While we recognise that different crowds visit this blog for different reasons (e.g. EPO staff flocking for updates that the media fails to provide) we think that it’s important for everybody — not just computer geeks — to have computers and computing with freedom. Things aren’t improving, that’s for sure…
“Some compromises are essential for some progress, but concessions that throw away already-made progress are a regression.”One key problem is that people fail to grasp what freedom means in this context; putting aside lingual/semantic issues (e.g. liberty versus free as in zero-cost), many people rarely experience the most extreme edge cases or fail to attribute that to computer freedom (or absence thereof). For instance, some people get in trouble with a boss or a spouse because they carry around a tracking device many call “smartphone” and they occasionally post personal information in social control media. Neither of these things is mandatory; few people are strictly obliged to use those.
Recently we’ve been sharing a number of 2019 talks of Richard Stallman, mostly from his summer trip to Europe (he gave about 5 talks that year in places across Europe). These talks are not exactly concise, but taken in their totality (about 10 hours in total) they cover some of the main ‘theses’ put together by Stallman over the past 4 decades. He will turn 70 over a year from now and he wants to ensure his legacy (and the FSF) can carry on for several more decades. Last week the FSF formally advertised a job opening for its public-facing chief (not the same as the President).
We know that Leah Rowe (of SaveGNU.org) has applied for the job because she told us she had wanted that position and moreover had a solid and unique plan. Rowe is widely known for the work on Libreboot and the tantrum thrown half a decade ago.
Software freedom needs to ultimately become the normal. The “Open Source” people don’t like taking about freedom; they’re probably using Windows and Macs and what matters to them is price or marketing aspects, not human rights. In any event, we in Techrights remain focused on important goals associated with real justice, as per the foundational or objective moralities. We don’t want to ‘mob’ our way into a fake or shallow notion of ‘justice’ and we are not caving to tyrants. Some compromises are essential for some progress, but concessions that throw away already-made progress are a regression. █
Summary: EPO is a great place to work; provided you’re in charge of it (connections required; qualifications don’t apply)
THE golden chair
Designed for the heir
Life isn’t fair
People don’t care
The EPO‘s king
Who loves to sing
On a Mediterranean fling
With Bacardi and Sling
Alicante forever
Another BoA endeavour
A judicial lever
With an autocratic flavour
“Hey hi” revolution
Absorb this illusion
“Fourth industrial” delusion
Greenwashing and “inclusion” █
Summary: Why bother with compliance when you can just move the goalposts instead?
2 years after COVID-19 began to spread (Wuhan, China) the ‘cancer’ inside the EPO (“cancer” is what EPO staff compares the management to) is still killing the institution and a decrease is patent applications in already observed
Summary: Documents from the EPO serve to show the nature of the regime’s agenda; it does not concern itself with the Rule of Law and it still — in the latter half of 2021 — tries to leverage an epidemic from 2019 to make crimes the “new normal”
DAYS ago we explained that the so-called 'new normal' of António Campinos was at risk (there’s some early coverage). Are EPO judges getting cold feet about approving the unlawful? In spite of the cold feet associated with defying presidential orders in a regime of terror (Benoît Battistelli already attacked judges in many different ways)?
“As a side note, it seems worthy of a mention that the Administrative Council brushed aside EPO/Microsoft privacy violations…”Regardless, a couple of weeks ago a letter was sent by the Central Staff Committee (CSC) of the EPO. “The orientation document “Towards a new normal” (CA/38/21),” they explained, “has been submitted to the Administrative Council. The administration has informed us that a first meeting of the Working Group on teleworking would take place before the summer break. In preparation of this meeting, we have requested:
The mandate of the Working Group;
The content and outcome of stakeholder consultation and focus groups;
The overview of the savings made by the Office under the “emergency” teleworking guidelines.”
As a side note, it seems worthy of a mention that the Administrative Council brushed aside EPO/Microsoft privacy violations, as instead of tackling the abuse it just issued this laughable puff piece (warning: epo.org link) — yet another one of those self-serving white-washing press releases.
“We are looking forward to constructive and fruitful exchanges on the topic of teleworking”, the CSC continued, listing the four annexes of the letter, which have hyperlinks associated with them:
[...] Annex D1: “Telework in the EU before and after the COVID-19: where we were, where we head to”, Joint Research Centre, European Commission (page 4, figure 4, “Prevalence of telework across EU Member States”)
Annex D2: “The costs and benefits of working from home”, PricewaterhouseCoopers, (pages 4-6, “Impact on employers: direct costs benefits […] 1.681,4 M€ per year in the Netherlands for companies”)
Annex D3: “The impact of teleworking and digital work on workers and society”, European Parliament, EMPL Committee ordered study (pages 59 to 65, figure 22, “cost reductions due to telework”)
Annex D4: “The business case for remote work”, Global Workplace Analytics, (pages 6 to 23, “2-3 days telework reduces the costs by $11.000/employee/year for an average US employer”)
For the purpose of institutional transparency (the public deserves and needs to know) we’re reproducing this letter in full below:
European Patent Office | 80298 MUNICH | GERMANY
Mr António Campinos
President of the EPO
ISAR – R.1080Reference: sc21082cl – 0.3.1/4.4
Date: 22.06.2021Working Group on teleworking: Preparation of the first meeting
Dear Mr President,
Following the invitation of 20 May, the Central Staff Committee (CSC) has now proceeded on 10 June with the requested nomination of participants to a Working Group on teleworking.
The invitation also mentioned that a first meeting would take place before the summer break. In preparation of this meeting, we kindly request the following:
1. Mandate of the Working Group
The topic of teleworking may embrace many aspects. In order to structure the discussions and as a matter of efficiency, we kindly request to be informed of the mandate given to your nominees in this Working Group. For instance:
- Should we understand that a teleworking policy for the mid-term only (CA/38/21, page 17) will be open for discussion?
- Will we define together clear rules for opt-in and opt-out fully explaining the consequences for staff?
- Will the aspect of maintaining a sense of belonging in a hybrid environment be part of the mandate?
- Will we address the special challenge on health and safety of staff (both mental and physical) when staff are teleworking (CA/38/21, page 16)?2. Content and outcome of consultation and focus groups
The document “Towards a New Normal” (CA/38/21, page 13) mentions that at the close of the consultation on 16 April “[i]nternal staff and Boards of Appeal members submitted a total of 195 responses representing 887 people [...] There were also 29 external responses: 15 from European Patent Organisation
member states; 4 from user associations; and 11 from individuals.” Furthermore, several focus group meetings took place on the topic of teleworking.
For the sake of transparency and in order to avoid duplication of work, we kindly request to be provided with:
-more detailed information (in particular anonymized raw data) about the content and outcome of the consultation than is present in Annex 3 of CA/38/21 and the PPT presentation published in Communiqué of 15 June 2021, and
-detailed information about the focus groups which took place.3. Overview of the savings made by the Office under the “emergency” teleworking guidelines
The “emergency” teleworking guidelines put in place on March 2020 in view of the pandemic together with a building occupancy rate capped at 15% significantly increased the number of staff members working from home compared to the Part-Time Home Working scheme. This led to significant savings made by the Office.
Indeed, the budget implementation statement for the 2020 accounting period (CA/10/21) show that the expenses for “travel, stationery, office supplies, mail services, security, transport, insurance and costs for external experts and studies” (page 19, 26 and 41/80) were “€28.3m below budget”.
Further savings were made on cleaning, repairs and maintenance (page 17/80), “staff welfare [...] recorded an underspend of €3.4m (58.4%) owing to a significant reduction in canteen subsidies paid in the year due to the sharp increase in home working” (page 37/80) and “operating expenditure for furniture and equipment was €1m (38.9%) below budget, mainly due to lower costs for rental printing infrastructure due to a fall in use as staff worked from home” (page 37/80).
We kindly request that full transparency is made on the savings made by the Office thanks to the “emergency” teleworking guidelines.
Please find also attached herewith annexed documents to help the discussion:
Annex D1 « Telework in the EU before and after the Covid-19 », Joint Research Centre, European Commission (page 4, figure 4, “Prevalence of telework across EU Member States”)
Annex D2 « The costs and benefits of working from home », PricewaterhouseCoopers , (pages 4-6, “Impact on employers: direct costs benefits [...] 1.681,4 M€ per year in the Netherlands for companies”)
Annex D3 « The impact of teleworking and digital work on workers and society
», European Parliament, EMPL Committee ordered study (pages 59 to 65, figure 22, “cost reductions due to telework”)
Annex D4 « The business case for remote work », Global Workplace Analytics, (pages 6 to 23, “2-3 days telework reduces the costs by $11.000/employee/year for an average US employer”)
We are looking forward to constructive and fruitful exchanges on the topic of teleworking.
Sincerely yours,
The CSC nominees to the Working Group on teleworking
I personally disagree with terms like “remote work” or “teleworking” in their conventional use; in reality, when people leave their homes they become “remote” and “tele” implies distance (i.e. from one’s residence). In practice, the very opposite happens, but the loaded terms seek to normalise the status quo where people sit inside open office cubicles, in glass and metal cages (buildings) where they’re constantly monitored and need to commute back and forth just to use a computer. And maybe receive bollocking from overambitious bosses who don’t even understand the job (or cannot do it themselves). █
Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Guest Editorial Team
Community: Get involved
RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates
Site Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content
Site Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page
IRC Channels: Come and chat with us in real time
Design by Beccary and Weblogs.us · Valid XHTML · Valid CSS · Hosting by Schestowitz · Part of Bytes Media
 | |
Content is available under CC-BY-SA
Editors • About the Site • Comes vs. Microsoft • Using This Web Site • Site Archives • Credibility Index • OOXML • OpenDocument • Patents • Novell • News Digest • Site News • RSS
