08.24.21
Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:10 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Series index:
- You are here ☞ More Captured Delegates?
The Baltic States – far away from the Balkans, but just as susceptible to “capture”.
Summary: “In the upcoming series we plan to take a look at the relationship between the national patent offices of the Baltic States and the European Patent Organisation.”
Just like most of the countries in the Balkan peninsula, the Baltic States – Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia – are small countries which are at high risk of “capture” by rogue supranational organisations such as the EPO.
From the geopolitical perspective, the Baltic States are situated on the fault-line between the Nordic, German and Russian spheres of influence.
“From the geopolitical perspective, the Baltic States are situated on the fault-line between the Nordic, German and Russian spheres of influence.”In the eighteenth century, the territories of what are today Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia were swallowed up by the expanding Russian Empire and remained under Russian hegemony until the end of the first World War.
After the collapse of Tsarist Russia and the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, they enjoyed a brief period of precarious freedom until 1939 when they were once again swallowed up by Russia – this time the Soviet Union.
Stalin’s annexation of the Baltic states was “agreed” with Nazi Germany under the terms of the “secret protocol” to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact signed in August 1939.
“Once they had regained their independence, these countries proceeded to re-establish various state institutions which had been abolished under Soviet rule, including their national patent offices.”After the end of the Second World War, the Russians held onto the Baltic States and they only succeeded in reclaiming their independence in 1991 as a result of the disintegration of the Soviet Union.
Once they had regained their independence, these countries proceeded to re-establish various state institutions which had been abolished under Soviet rule, including their national patent offices.
In the upcoming series we plan to take a look at the relationship between the national patent offices of the Baltic States and the European Patent Organisation.
“In the upcoming series we plan to take a look at the relationship between the national patent offices of the Baltic States and the European Patent Organisation.”There are clear indications that these states belonged to the “large group of smaller countries” which Benoît Battistelli had under his sway and which he was able to influence to the detriment of good governance and the rule of law at the EPO, as publicly reported by the Netherlands delegation back in April 2017.
Amongst other things, we hope to reveal some little known details of the “Baltic Crusade” conducted by Battistelli when he was running for the position of EPO President in 2009/2010.
“Until now Enäjärvi’s role in EPO affairs has been a well-kept secret.”A key figure in this saga was the former Director-General of the Finnish Patents and Registrations Office, Martti Enäjärvi, who acted as a local “facilitator” to open doors for Battistelli in the Baltic region.
Until now Enäjärvi’s role in EPO affairs has been a well-kept secret. Even many EPO insiders fail to appreciate the extent of his behind-the-scenes influence and his hidden contribution to EPO affairs over the last decade and a half.
“In addition to this, we will also look at Enäjärvi’s close links to Battistelli’s successor at the EPO, António Campinos, formerly Executive Director of the EU trademark agency OHIM/EUIPO in Alicante.”The present series will endeavour to cast some badly needed light on these matters.
Amongst other things, we plan to present an in-depth exposé of how Enäjärvi helped to pave the way for Battistelli’s power grab at the EPO. In addition to this, we will also look at Enäjärvi’s close links to Battistelli’s successor at the EPO, António Campinos, formerly Executive Director of the EU trademark agency OHIM/EUIPO in Alicante.
Stay tuned for more coming up shortly… █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Courtroom, Europe, Law, Patents at 2:24 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Video download link | md5sum 4449a20ad1a87e19292b30bd9031f5f5
Summary: The representatives of staff of the EPO, the Central Staff Committee (CSC), are approaching the Heads of Delegation of the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation along with their Chairman; they’re politely asking for better safeguards against systematic abuses of the law, including abolition of workers’ basic rights
The Central Staff Committee (CSC) of the EPO has distributed a letter, an open letter, and readers of Techrights typically ensure that we too can see a copy. This letter only partly concerns the unlawful regulations of Benoît Battistelli — regulations which António Campinos continued to exploit while keeping 100% silent on the court’s outcome (he doesn’t seem to care what tribunals say unless those tribunals are controlled by him).
“The intent is to raise awareness and garner sympathy from the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation (mostly a bunch of legal hacks rather than scientists).”The letter from the CSC mostly concerns the internal Appeals Committee, which was mentioned earlier this year and several times last year. The intent is to raise awareness and garner sympathy from the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation (mostly a bunch of legal hacks rather than scientists).
“On 7 July 2021,” the CSC said, “the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization (ILOAT) delivered several important Judgments on the rules governing the exercise of the right to strike at the EPO. The ILOAT found that virtually every single one of the strike rules blatantly and obviously violated the fundamental right to strike, that the President exceeded his competence when drawing up Circular No. 347 in 2013 and that the Circular is therefore unlawful in its entirety and is set aside. Already in 2015 a national court in The Hague, the so-called Gerechtshof, found that the EPO violated fundamental European rights. In view of the long list of violations of the fundamental right to strike identified by the ILOAT, the question can be raised of why a majority in the internal Appeals Committee (ApC) reached a completely opposite opinion, based on the same facts and arguments.”
Then they spoke of the internal Appeals Committee (ApC). “The members of the ApC are laypersons. However, the Chair and Vice-Chairs are expected to possess the qualifications required for appointment to high judicial office or be lawyers with experience in the area of employment law acquired at national or international level (see Article 111(3) ServRegs). A reasonably objective and informed person might question whether they would at times give up their independence and impartiality.
“The damage caused by the ApC’s massively wrong assessment of the strike rules and their application is considerable, both for the Organisation and for its staff.
- The Organisation is now stigmatised in the public eye as an employer that has been violating fundamental rights of its staff for over eight years and has been depriving them of an important tool for collective bargaining.
- Staff have also definitively lost confidence in the internal means of settling disputes.
Much of the rest of the publication is included in letter form, as shown in the video above, and we’ve decided to replicate it as HTML so that it makes it into IPFS and Gemini space.
European Patent Office | 80298 MUNICH | GERMANY
Reference: sc21102cl – 0.3.1/1.3.1
Date: 13/08/2021
To the Chairman and
the Heads of Delegation of the
Administrative Council of the
European Patent Organisation
OPEN LETTER
System for the settlement of disputes – Proposals for strengthening the Appeals Committee
Dear Mr Chairman,
Dear Heads of Delegation,
On 7 July 2021, the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization (ILOAT) delivered several important Judgments on the rules governing the exercise of the right to strike at the European Patent Office1, introduced in 2013 with decision CA/D 5/13 and Circular No. 347, as well as on subsequent implementing decisions. ILOAT found that virtually every single one of the strike rules blatantly and obviously violated the fundamental right to strike, that the President exceeded his competence when drawing up Circular No. 347 and that the Circular is therefore unlawful in its entirety and is set aside2. The ILOAT furthermore ruled that a salary deduction for absence due to strike participation of 1/20th of the monthly remuneration per day of absence instead of 1/30th as for all other unpaid lawful absences was punitive3 and that the President had abused his power when applying the strike rules and through his interpretation of Circular No. 347, of which he was the author4, justifying high moral damages.
Already in 2015 a national court in The Hague, the so-called Gerechtshof, found that the EPO violated fundamental European rights5.
____
1 Judgments Nos. 4430 to 4435
2 Judgment No. 4430, consideration 16 and decision
3 Judgment No. 4435
4 Judgments Nos. 4432 to 4434
5 The decision of the Gerechtshof was later on set aside by the Dutch Supreme Court, the Hoge Raad, only on the ground that the Organisation could invoke its immunity from national jurisdiction and that the Dutch courts therefore have no jurisdiction (see Judgement of the Gerechtshof Den Haag).
Based on the same facts and arguments the internal Appeals Committee (ApC), by a majority, concluded in the underlying internal appeal procedures that the new strike rules as well as the salary deductions were lawful, that the President did not act ultra vires when laying down the strike rules in Circular No. 347 and that he did not abuse his powers in applying them6. The ILOAT found that the ApC had erred in all these points. In view of the long list of violations of the fundamental right to strike identified by the ILOAT7, this is remarkable and raises the question of why a majority in the ApC reached such an opposite opinion. The members of the ApC are laypersons. However, the Chair and Vice-Chairs are expected to possess the qualifications required for appointment to high judicial office or be lawyers with experience in the area of employment law acquired at national or international level, pursuant to Article 111(3) ServRegs. A reasonably objective and informed person might question whether they would at times give up their independence and impartiality, codified in Article 112 ServRegs.
The Staff Representation has already pointed out several times8 that the unilateral selection and appointment of the Chair and the Vice-Chairs by the President (Article 111(2)(a) ServRegs) does not ensure the required balance in the ApC and does not promote confidence in its opinions. The Staff Representation has therefore repeatedly requested to be involved in their selection and that the GCC be consulted on the appointments, to no avail9.
Internal appeals are procedure where a Committee is composed with an equal number of members appointed by the President and by the Staff Representation, however with the Chair taking alone all procedural decisions (Article 111a(1) ServRegs), leading the debate and making sometimes the difference in the opinions. Therefore, a mutual agreement on their appointment is key for arriving at balanced opinions accepted by staff and for preventing from overloading ILOAT with complaints which could have easily been settled internally. This was the reason why the GAC10 had to be consulted on the appointment of the Chair and Vice-Chairs since the founding of the European Patent Organisation11 until 2013. However, with decisions CA/D 8/12 and 9/12 this consultation process was abolished and the Chair and Vice-Chairs have since then been unilaterally appointed by the President.
____
6 Only in the internal appeals procedure underlying Judgment No. 4432 the ApC concluded that a postponement of a strike ballot had been unlawful, but despite the blatant abuse of power no moral damage was awarded.
7 See, in particular, Judgment Nos. 4430, cons.16 and 4435, cons.15 to 17
8 See for example the letter to the Administrative Council of 31 January 2020
9 Although Staff Representation has been granted an observer status in the last selection procedure for a new chair, this cannot be a substitute for being able to appoint members to the selection board and for the required consultation of staff representation in the GCC.
10 Replaced by the GCC with decision CA/D 2/14
11 Article 110(4) ServRegs, version 1977 (CA/D 9/77)
The damage caused by the ApC’s massively wrong assessment of the strike rules and their application is considerable, both for the Organisation and for its staff.
The Organisation is now stigmatised in the public eye as an employer that has been violating fundamental rights of its staff for over eight years and has been depriving staff of an important tool for collective bargaining, as their right to strike has been severely obstructed at a time when many fundamental reforms were pushed through (inter alia “social democracy”, the new career system, the new salary adjustment procedure, the new rules for the education allowance, …).
Staff have also definitively lost confidence in the internal means of settling disputes and will, in most cases, eventually file a complaint with the ILOAT for protecting their rights. In addition, there is a high risk that many other decisions in appeal cases were also based on opinions where the ApC erred in law.
In view of the fundamental importance of legal certainty and legal peace and in order to restore staff’s confidence in the opinions of the ApC as soon as possible, and to prevent that disputes have to be settled outside the Organisation, we urge you that the Administrative Council takes steps to ensure that:
• Staff Representation is allowed to appoint members to the selection board for the Chair and Vice-Chairs of the ApC,
• the GCC is consulted prior to appointment of the Chair and Vice-Chairs,
• no Chair or vice-Chair may be appointed who does not find consensus in the GCC.
Yours sincerely,
Alain Dumont
Chairman of the Central Staff Committee
cc.: President of the EPO
Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization
In short, there seems to be a tendency to enshrine unlawful rules as “the law”; moreover, “there is a high risk that many other decisions in appeal cases were also based on opinions where the ApC erred in law.”
This is by design; in the past we saw EPO dictators intervening when the ApC got it right; so, as usual, there’s not even any regard/respect to those appointed to assess legality within the EPO. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in DRM, Free/Libre Software at 4:01 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
By Alexandre Oliva and Fernanda G. Weiden
Summary: This article is a draft of a revised version of the one published in the ComCiência magazine on December 10, 2006 [ORG], translated by FSFLA’s translation team.
As you start your brand new car to go to the beach, you realize it won't let you do it. Murphy's law can often make it seem like mechanical failures are nature's way of opposing your wishes. But what if the car manufacturer had reasoned that, by selling you a car that will take you to work but not to have fun at the beach, it would be able to sell you another car specifically for beach visits?
“What's the distance from an electronic failure that gets a Thai official stuck in his automobile [BMW,BM2] to an anti-theft device that deliberately imprisons inside the car anyone not explicitly authorized, restraining her right to freedom of movement under the pretext of stopping a potential crime?”"The Right to Read" [R2R], published in the magazine Communications of the ACM (CACM), one of the best-regarded publications in computing, prophesied in 1996 the pervasive use of software and remote monitoring as tools to control access to knowledge and culture. In the article, textbooks and articles are only available electronically, and students are forbidden from sharing them with their colleagues; monitoring
software on every computer, and severe penalties upon those that merely appear to be attempting to circumvent it, pretty much ensure compliance. After a mere 10 years, we may get the impression that the author got it both right and wrong. Access restrictions are indeed already present in some electronic textbooks and articles, but they have showed up far more often in the entertainment field, limiting access to music, movies, etc. Are we facing a problem even bigger and worse than the CACM article forecast?
DRM, for Digital Restrictions Management, means any technique that seeks to artificially limit, by software, hardware or a combination thereof, the features of a digital device with regards to access or copying of digital content, so as to privilege whoever ultimately imposes the technique (e.g., not the DVD player manufacturer, but the movie industry), in detriment of whoever uses the device. Considering that nowadays microprocessors inhabit not only computers, but also cellular telephones, electronic games, sound, image and video devices, remote controls, credit cards, automobiles and even the keys that open them, it should be at least worrying that all this equipment may be programmed to turn against.
What's the distance from an electronic failure that gets a Thai official stuck in his automobile [BMW,BM2] to an anti-theft device that deliberately imprisons inside the car anyone not explicitly authorized, restraining her right to freedom of movement under the pretext of stopping a potential crime?
In spite of all resources used to keep potential invaders outside homes and cars, as far as we can tell there aren't any anti-theft devices that keep them in, should they succeed in breaking in. This is due in part to respect for invaders' rights, and in part for vendors' fear of imprisoning the device owner himself, his relatives or friends, or of causing them other kinds of physical or moral harm.
DRM systems are portrayed by their proponents as anti-theft devices, similar to those available for homes and automobiles. Oddly, even people who'd never accept an anti-theft device that could imprison themselves are often willing to pay for the restraint on their freedoms imposed by DRM systems.
The same publishers that are powerful enough to pressure customers to pay for the development and adoption of DRM systems also use that power to make authors sign contracts that let the publisher decide what restrictions to impose, all under the pretext of hindering unauthorized access and copying, that cause them alleged losses.
The moral value of sharing, formerly taught at schools as something good for society, through incentives to sharing toys taken to classrooms, is slanderously labeled with a term that also refers to people who attack ships, stealing their cargoes and killing or enslaving their crews [MIC]. The confusion and bias of the term intellectual "property" [NIP], further elaborated in the Orwellian fallacy of copyright "protection" [WTA], turns people's attention away from the fact that copyright was created with the express purpose of growing the body of works available to the whole society, using, as incentive to creation, temporary and limited monopolies granted by society to their authors [EPI].
As a result of these misconceptions, the Brazilian population silently accepted the change to its copyright law, that up to 1998 permitted the creation of complete copies, for personal use, of works covered by copyright, so as to permit only copies of small portions [PNL]. Americans, in their turn, accepted a new delay in Mickey's entry in the public domain, with an extension of the copyright duration for another 20 years [CLG]. These are the first steps to the scenario described in the CACM article [R2R].
Unlike the practice for anti-theft devices, that are designed to respect the users, enabling them to activate or deactivate the system, and to respect even the rights of transgression suspects, DRM takes a far more aggressive posture, treating even the owner of the device as a criminal, without room for presumption or even proof of innocence. DRM takes control of the system away from the users' hands, since, just like the defective Thai car, it doesn't offer an option to turn the system off. Since, in the DRM case, the defect is deliberate [DlD], the control remains in third parties' hands, who use the devices you pay for to promote their interests to your own detriment. In fact, for DRM, you are the invader. But since you pay their bills, they want to keep you not outside, but rather inside, entertained and controlled [EeC].
DRM does not hesitate in trampling over your rights; not only international human rights [HRD,DlD,ADR], but also those guaranteed b copyright laws throughout the world, even restrictive ones like Brazil's [RDA]. Some examples of rights trampled over by DRM are:
-
copying a work that has fallen in the public domain;
-
copying a work, in full or in part, for personal use, study, criticism, legal proof, parody or accessibility;
-
participating in cultural life of the community, enjoying the arts and sharing in scientific advancement and its benefits;
-
being presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial with all guarantees necessary for the defense;
-
holding opinions without interference and expressing them freely;
-
seeking, receiving and imparting information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers;
-
having one's privacy respected and protected by law against arbitrary interferences.
In fact, these systems often collect information and send it to a remote controller, interfering arbitrarily with the user's privacy. In at least one of these cases, that got widely known, a DRM system developer did not hesitate in infringing third parties' copyrights to create a spying program, that installed itself, silently and automatically, in a computer in which a music CD containing it was loaded, and enabled the computer to be remotely controlled, without any option to remove or deactivate it [SNY]. Is it legitimate to disregard others' rights to try and seek bigger profits?
DRM systems are implemented by combining software and hardware. There are several techniques; we cite but a few examples:
-
brutal quality degradation of video cassette recordings made out of DVD (Digital Versatile Disk) reproductions;
-
cryptography that prevents the reproduction of a DVD in any player, requiring multiple licenses to be able to play the same content anywhere in the world;
-
violation of the CD (Compact Disc) specification so as to make it difficult or impossible to play the songs in it on several CD players and general-purpose computers;
-
file formats that are secret or regulated by patents to limit the performance of the content to software or devices with artificially-restricted functionality;
-
authentication mechanisms between digital devices that prevent the propagation of high-quality digital signal to unauthorized devices [WVC], such as from the new high-definition DVD and digital TV standards to analog TVs and VCRs, or even more modern digital devices that refuse to restrain their users' freedoms.
As ways to work around these artificial restrictions become public, enabling people to exercise their rights guaranteed by law, new ever-more-restrictive efforts take their place, in an attempt to avoid alleged losses that disregards actual losses imposed on society, not only because of the increased direct and indirect costs of equipments due to the imposition of unfair restrictions [WVC], but even more importantly because of the unfair restrictions themselves.
Some of these efforts are in the legislative front: USA's Digital Millennium Copyright Act criminalizes the mere distribution of devices or publication of knowledge that enables people to bypass DRM. USA have tried to impose similar legislation on other countries with whom they sign "Free" Trade Agreements [TLC]. Laws that strengthen DRM turn its proponents into private legislators, with powers to unilaterally change contracts, by restricting access retroactively.
Other efforts are in the judicial front: associations that claim to represent the interests of musical authors, but that in fact represent the interests of record labels, have spread fear by suing regular people, accusing them, without proof, of copyright violations [RLS,MdM].
The technical front is not ignored: a security architecture based on a combination of software and hardware, formerly called Trusted Computing, has been co-opted to serve not the interests of computer owners, but rather those of DRM systems [TCM], the reason why we prefer to call it Treacherous Computing [TcC,CTr]. This technique can be used to stop installation or execution of software, against the user's will, or even the creation or correction of such software; to selectively prevent the creation, access or preservation of certain files [IRM]. That is, to prevent a general-purpose computer from obeying user's commands, turning it into a limited entertainment platform, that puts on third parties' hands the decision on what, when and how the user can use or consume. Somewhat like the car programmed to not go to the beach, or the electronic books stored in computers in the CACM article.
All these techniques do a lot to make law-abiding regular citizens' lives difficult, but they can't stop those who run their businesses based on commercialization of unauthorized copies. For the latter, the investment needed to work around the restrictions pays off, so all these restrictions end up missing their goal, while they limit and disrespect freedoms of most of the population.
This disrespect is not new and, in fact, it has made room to make DRM techniques effective. Free Software [FSD], that respects users' freedoms to inspect the program, modify it or hire third parties to do so, and run the original or the modified program, without restrictions, when used to implement DRM techniques, renders them ineffective, since the user would have the power to disable artificial restrictions or add features that had been left out. As a result, laws that prohibit tools to bypass DRM have the effect of prohibiting Free Software for accessing published works.
Software patents [SPE,NSP] are another threat to freedom that a few developed countries are trying to impose upon other countries. A legally-valid software patent, issued in a country that allows such patents, gives the patent holders the power to block, in that country, the development and distribution of software which implements the patented feature. If the companies in a DRM conspiracy have patents on some aspects of the decoding process, they can use these patents as another means to block software that can access the same works but without the restrictions.
It shouldn't be surprising that the Free Software Foundation [FSF] and its sister organizations all over the world denounce the risks of these limitations to individual freedoms [DbD,DRi,EeC], and at the same time update the most widely used Free Software license in the world [Gv3,GPL,Gv1], such that it better defends software users' and developers' freedoms against these new threats. The GNU GPL is the license used by most components of the GNU operating system, and by the Linux kernel, the most common kernel used with the GNU operating system. (Most users unknowingly refer to this combination Linux, but that is properly speaking the name of the kernel alone [YGL].)
Anyone who seeks knowledge or culture in digital formats has her rights threatened by DRM. In fact, the impossibility to preserve society's knowledge and culture in face of all these artificial limitations may cause our civilization to be seen in the future as a dark age, since, unless we can help it, all of our knowledge will have been stored in formats that, instead of ensuring its preservation, in the perfect conditions enabled by digital storage, seek to ensure its unavailability.
"If consumers even know there's a DRM, what it is, and how it works, we've already failed," — Peter Lee, an executive at Disney [Eco]
When you see the acronym DRM in a product's ad, remember that it's not a feature, it's a warning label. Remember that DRM stands for Defectis Repleta Machina, or Defect-Ridden Machine. So, when you get to make a choice, while purchasing movies, songs, electronic books, games, etc, between a form limited by DRM and an unlimited one, prefer the unlimited form, unless you can work around the DRM techniques. When there isn't such a choice, reject monopolized and restricted content, as well as the legal mechanisms, the equipment and the techniques that support them. Use your freedom of choice today, avoiding short-sighted decisions that empower interests that, should they prevail, will restrain any possibility of choice in the future. Spread the word on the risks and support campaigns that do it [DbD,DRi,EeC,BDV]. Join us in the Latin-American anti-DRM campaign, Entertained and Controlled, in the FSFLA [FLA] mailing list [A-D]. █
We thank Richard M. Stallman, Eder L. Marques, Glauber de Oliveira Costa and Fernando Morato for their reviews and suggestions.
[R2R] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
[BMW] http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/22.73.html#subj4
[BM2] http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/hardware/0,39042972,39130270,00.htm
[MIC] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html
[NIP] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml (see also the discussion on Intellectual Property on the [WTA] page)
[WTA] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Protection
[EPI] http://www.fsfla.org/?q=en/node/128#1
[PNL] http://www.petitiononline.com/netlivre
[CLG] http://www.cartacapital.com.br/index.php?funcao=exibirMateria&id_materia=3446 (in Portuguese)
[DlD] http://www.fsfla.org/?q=en/node/101
[EeC] http://www.entretidosecontrolados.org/
[HRD] http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm
[ADR] http://www.fsfla.org/?q=en/node/107
[RDA] https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/Leis/L9610.htm, articles 46 to 48 (in Portuguese)
[SNY] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Sony_BMG_CD_copy_protection_scandal#Copyright_violation_allegations
[WVC] http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt is a good article overall, even if it falls prey of the "content protection" fallacy [WTA] and it mistakes Linux for an operating system name [YGL].
[TLC] http://www.fsfla.org/?q=en/node/117
[RLS] http://info.riaalawsuits.us/howriaa.htm
[MdM] http://overmundo.com.br/overblog/inaugurado-o-marketing-do-medo (in Portuguese)
[TCM] http://www.lafkon.net/tc/, with subtitles at http://www.lafkon.net/tc/TC_derivatives.html
[TcC] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/can-you-trust.html
[CTr] http://www.dicas-l.com.br/zonadecombate/zonadecombate_20061106 (in Portuguese)
[IRM] http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=196601781
[FSD] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
[SPE] http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/swpat
[NSP] http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/en/m/dangers/index.html
[FSF] http://www.fsf.org/
[DbD] http://www.defectivebydesign.org/
[DRi] http://drm.info/
[Gv3] http://gplv3.fsf.org/
[GPL] http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
[Gv1] http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copying-1.0.html
[YGL] http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html
[Eco] http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4342418
[BDV] http://badvista.fsf.org/
[FLA] http://www.fsfla.org/
[A-D] http://www.fsfla.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/anti-drm
[ORG] http://www.comciencia.br/comciencia/?section=8&edicao=20&id=216 (in Portuguese)
Copyright 2006 Alexandre Oliva, Fernanda G. Weiden
Copyright 2007 FSFLA
Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of this entire document without royalty provided the copyright notice, this permission notice and the URL below are preserved.
http://www.fsfla.org/blogs/lxo/draft/defectis-repleta-machina
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA