09.13.22
Posted in Deception, IBM, Microsoft, OIN, Patents at 12:51 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Video download link | md5sum 91caeee27d0c77b7847152283d12b591
Distracting From Patent Reform
Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 4.0
Summary: ZDNet’s SJVN, sponsored by companies like IBM and even Microsoft, wants us to think that the Open Invention Network (OIN) will sort out the issues we’re having with patents, but OIN represents or fronts for big businesses which stockpile software patents and actively lobby in favour of such patents
THIS new article from SJVN misses the point or misses the mark on a number of levels. It mentions SCO, it mentions Microsoft, but it does not mention Microsoft’s role in siccing patent trolls. Massive oversight or deliberate omission?
The article is full of holes and it suggests non-solutions, as usual from SJVN. Notice how SJVN and OIN refuse or fail to speak about software patents as the issue; instead they blame “trolls”. IBM, Microsoft, Linux Foundation etc. are not against software patents; watch carefully who the Linux Foundation and ZDNet collect bribes (or ‘advertising’ money) from! The agenda being pushed here is simply paid for. They don’t want to see the issue from a community lens; they conflate corporations with community; they are in another universe!
“I think so,” agreed an associate, “since they are consciously choosing to promote software patents through selective omission. That implies misdirection if not downright dishonesty.”
The same people do even worse hings; they cancel people who actually talk about the real issue (by publicly defaming them).
This “further emphasises their active, conscious participation in the promotion of software patents against the general backdrop of software freedom,” our associate added. “It goes without saying that software patents are not a matter for software developers or programmers, but an active harm against actual end-users.”
The issues are discussed in the video above. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
09.15.21
Posted in Deception, Finance, IBM, Intellectual Monopoly, OIN, Patents at 9:41 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Video download link | md5sum 93f0af36dc02563b8b0cf0931164c1b7
Summary: Square is joining OIN, but it’s another example of banking/financial institutions choosing to coexist with software patents instead of putting an end to them
THIS video concerns the latest high-profile OIN addition. We’ve assessed not press releases but promotional puff pieces from Microsoft-centric sites [1, 2] that favour corporate front groups such as LOT, OIN, and Linux Foundation. They make no effort to question the proposed approach; instead, it is akin to a press release in quasi-interview form.
“OIN itself isn’t evil, but it misleads people by offering the wrong solutions to the community while mostly serving the interests of companies looking to ‘bag’ the community’s work (or privatise it).”We don’t wish to start with all the basics and the history of OIN. We did several videos about it earlier this year, there’s lots more in the wiki, and 188 articles in the OIN category of this blog. OIN itself isn’t evil, but it misleads people by offering the wrong solutions to the community while mostly serving the interests of companies looking to ‘bag’ the community’s work (or privatise it).
Cryptocurrencies are a pollution-related problem, but they’re not inherently evil, either. Patents remain a potent threat to them and we’ve named some of the blockchain patent trolls (they sent nasty and threatening messages to us).
Cryptocurrency companies need to work to abolish software patents, not flock to join the likes of OIN. There’s not much OIN can do to protect them from patent trolls. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
04.24.21
Posted in GNU/Linux, ISO, OIN, OSI, Patents, Videos at 8:28 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Before working at OSI, whose sole accomplishment so far is an attack on the FSF, she worked for IBM (et al) front group OIN and SFC, which is another attack group that raises money from Microsoft and then attacks the FSF
“WHY on Earth are you picking on Nicholson???”
One might actually say a foolish thing like this, conveniently ignoring the fact that — putting aside irrelevant gender aspects — Nicholson worked for SFC while SFC was attacking Richard Stallman, lobbying and pressing for his removal. At the same time she brought Microsoft money to the SFC for two years in a row, then moved to the flailing OSI, where only months later she and her colleagues started a campaign of defamation against Stallman and an extended campaign to undermine the FSF (using ‘guilt’ by association tactics).
“At the same time she brought Microsoft money to the SFC for two years in a row, then moved to the flailing OSI, where only months later she and her colleagues started a campaign of defamation against Stallman and an extended campaign to undermine the FSF (using ‘guilt’ by association tactics).”The hate letter’s perpetrators actually plotted to redefine Free software and make proprietary software seem "OK" only 1.5 months before they found an excuse to start a vicious attack, helped by media that’s funded by proprietary software giants.
Looking back, there’s a track record of bad deeds. Nicholson’s bosses at SFC — like herself — were given an award a month ago. Can’t they recognise the self-harm they’re doing? De Raadt, Miguel de Icaza, Garrett, Nicholson, Kuhn…
What on Earth is going on and who stands to benefit?
Prior to the stints at the SFC and OSI there was a stint at the Open Invention Network (OIN).
“They clearly do nothing to tackle software patents or patent trolls and they mostly protect monopolies, just like OSI ‘minionry’ does these days.”The totally useless OIN, which we’ve criticised for quite some time (the short story is, they seek to undermine true patent reform and distract from opponents of software patents, instead working to legitimise such patents), is no good. GNU developers we’ve spoken to are saying the same. Some GNU/Linux developers who are threatened by patent trolls also receive no help from OIN. We did a series about this last month.
In the following video, which is rather old by now, we have an almost open (or frank) admission that OIN is of no real use to software developers. It’s for monopolies that cross-licence.
To quote from the video: “You wouldn’t be able to sue IBM for it…”
They clearly do nothing to tackle software patents or patent trolls and they mostly protect monopolies, just like OSI ‘minionry’ does these days. The portion below (Fair Use) is 4:00-5:20 from the full video.
Video download link
Notice how the questions aren’t even being answered (or not properly anyway) until pressed further and further. Roblimo died years ago and I still feel deep sadness over it (I shed tears, too), as he was always nice to me and wanted to hear my side of the story, especially on things which truly mattered (he also put me in the radio 14 years ago when he worked for Slashdot and we debated OOXML). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
04.15.21
Posted in Deception, Europe, Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, IBM, OIN, Red Hat at 5:01 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Video download link
Summary: Monoplisers of GNU and Linux want us to think that OIN is the solution while they actively lobby for software patents in Europe and the people in charge of Europe’s second-largest institution and Europe’s largest patent office help them; this long video contains thoughts about news from the past couple of days
This video is the first one since Tuesday. Even though we’ve been under DDOS attacks since the start of February these attacks greatly intensified in recent weeks and yesterday it was the worst since it all began. DDOS attacks are possible to mitigate and prevent to a certain degree, but it is time-consuming. The good news is, no damage to data was done and we carry on as usual, unabated and undeterred. If anything, attacks serve to embolden us and indicate we’re “on the scent…” (touching what is true and may anger people with power and connections)
“DDOS attacks are possible to mitigate and prevent to a certain degree, but it is time-consuming.”Moving on, the video speaks of the lies told to JURI by EPO President António Campinos, especially his mumbling about VoIP ‘innovation’ and the UPC. All that ‘high tech’ stuff could be done several decades ago, as we noted here before. But Campinos is terrible when it comes to science and technology; he would not know that…
We then discuss this document from part 17 (published yesterday) in light of the fact that the EPO now writes statements ‘on behalf’ of the German government (who’s in charge of who?) and writes lots of lies in its ‘news’ section (here’s the latest lie about JURI and a puff piece about “art” (warning: epo.org link)), including some truly offensive lies about the EQE (IP Kat reveals there’s no imminent plan to correct that).
Finally, dealing with Free software and GNU/Linux, I discuss what large corporations like IBM (or Red Hat) plan to do for monopoly over the most widely used operating systems, aided by their sponsored lies (defamation) from Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols (SJVN), increasingly a corporate parrot/stooge/poodle rather than a journalist. He wasn’t always like that! We’ve recently explained why people should boycott ZDNet; it’s run by a marketing company, it’s not a news site! It still monetises the illusion (false perception) that it is a source of news…
“Finally, dealing with Free software and GNU/Linux, I discuss what large corporations like IBM (or Red Hat) plan to do for monopoly over the most widely used operating systems, aided by their sponsored lies (defamation) from Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols (SJVN), increasingly a corporate parrot/stooge/poodle rather than a journalist.”At the moment, or earlier this week, ZDNet’s SJVN was promoting IBM’s monopoly agenda. It’s propped up by fake solutions like OIN, which basically reinforce software patents, even after 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Alice, SCOTUS).
Here’s the latest paid-for press release [1, 2] and immediate (hours later) stenography from the corporate poodle (ads disguised as ‘journalism’). As we pointed out in Daily Links yesterday, “Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols no longer works for GNU/Linux but for monopolies trying hard to undermine it and then hijack the whole thing. Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols should be treated accordingly.”
This pretty much sums up what’s covered in the above video. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
03.27.21
Posted in Free/Libre Software, FSF, OIN, OSI at 11:11 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Video download link
Summary: The ‘zombie’ body known as OSI is totally destroyed (it cannot even figure out who speaks for it!); it’s incapable of resuscitating itself, so it’s just strapping on a suicide vest and trying everything it can possibly leverage to destroy the FSF
THIS THING CALLED “OSI” was all along an attack on the FSF, which predates it by 13 years. Yes, 13 years. OSI’s unstated goal was to steal the thunder and grab the limelight, referring to Free software by diluted if not misleading terms, which year after year became increasingly meaningless (with terms like “open core” or even "inner source"). For more than 15 years I gave the OSI the benefit of the doubt and occasionally I would use the term “Open Source” even if I favoured software freedom (some audiences know “Open Source” but get battled when the words “Free software” get uttered/used, as if that means freeware and/or shareware because media conditions people to conflate price or limited choice with freedom).
“What have the OSI and FSFE have to show in terms of code? Almost nothing!”I was disenheartened to discover some frustrating leaks about today’s FSFE, which isn’t what it used to be. As it turned out, Simon Phipps (OSI) and FSFE worked to betray the FSF and last year we showed a number of leaked communications to highlight the astounding degree of skulduggery. The openwashing aside and the proprietary software sponsorship aside (both FSFE and OSI take money from Microsoft and spying firms like Google), they actively worked to undermine the FSF. In the case of the FSFE, they exploited the letters "FSF" to raise money based on false pretences. The FSF looks after GNU, a cornerstone of the GNU/Linux operating system used on billions of devices. What have the OSI and FSFE have to show in terms of code? Almost nothing!
There are several more rogue entities in the mix. They’re not working for freedom and they attempt to crush the community — as that’s where the money is (taking people’s freedom away).
“I started reading more about OIN,” one reader told us a few days ago, and “your post was very informative. They even announced in 2019 their partnership with Linux Foundation and Microsoft – I’m interested in those posts too.”
The OSI is extremely upset at us for exposing 100% accurate information about what the OSI turned into. When we say “OSI”, however, we mostly mean the Board; the OSI has no employees anymore, except one temporary member of staff (interim). The OSI is basically defunct and the number of members it has would be rather miniscule. As we pointed out some years ago, their members make up less than 5% of the budget, so it’s almost 100% corporations. This simple fact infuriated the likes of Simon Phipps, mostly because it’s true and he could not formulate actual/factual rebuttals. Sad to be OSI…
In any event, the scoop we got last week said there was “an update on voting process at OSI… if you haven’t heard. Re-vote at OSI was a no go today… but received an email about the future plan in an update?”
So long story short, they’re still unable to do the election and instead they’ve decided to weaponise their Web site and Twitter accounts to attack the FSF. Nice distraction you got there…
And “if you haven’t seen,” our source added, “their plan to restore trust in OSI elections is mentioned.”
“The OSI doesn’t exist to defend people’s freedom.”Nobody trusts them anymore and they’ve not mentioned their members in a very long time, so we can imagine they lost a big number of them. Why would anyone give money to the OSI if the OSI uses that to boost a proprietary software monopoly of Microsoft (GitHub)? That’s insane! That’s where the majority of the OSI’s budget now goes…
“Still do not see exact details regarding the vulnerability,” our source concluded and there’s another elephant in the room: “Anyway, memberships will expire and others will join in the meantime – So… who is eligible to vote when a re-vote happens?”
To make matters worse, the elections are very easy to game. I mentioned this to Simon Phipps and Christine Hall a long time ago. Their response was… not convincing. Not even remotely! “As for the individual memberships,” the source told us, “anyone with a lot of allies or dollars could manipulate the vote.”
It’s already happening. The OSI was up for sale and it got bought. It got hijacked. Now it’s just like a ‘suicide bomber’ organisation, sporting a ‘suicide vest’ (bomb) it’s trying to detonate upon the FSF. Will that succeed? No. The FSF has quite a few members of staff and based on what we’ve heard they’re mostly happy to have the founder back. Seeing the OSI screaming and shouting only proves that the founder was right. The OSI doesn’t exist to defend people’s freedom. They want people to look away from freedom. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
02.24.21
Posted in GNU/Linux, IBM, OIN, Patents at 10:51 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Video download link
Summary: Response to the puff piece entitled “How the Big Banks and OIN Can Lock Out Patent Trolls with Enabled Publications”
OIN does not work for “community” (or for Free software) but for banks and rich monopolies, as we already explained last week. A longtime reader brought to our attention the new article which the video discusses. Not only does this article lack substance (or clarity about what’s actually proposed); it reinforces the view that OIN works for the rich and powerful, not for powerless Free software developers.
“It mostly distracts from those of us who want to truly fix the status quo, e.g. working to abolish software patents.”IBM is very eager to be publicly seen as open and anti-racist, largely because of its past as an abusive and racist monopolist, profiting from racism and overcharging everyone owing to monopoly, guarded largely by patents.
Seeing how OIN has helped the EPO regime (media stunts of Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos), we can’t help but feel like OIN — no matter what its original intention and/or goals might have been — is no ally. It mostly distracts from those of us who want to truly fix the status quo, e.g. working to abolish software patents. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
02.15.21
Posted in Deception, Free/Libre Software, IBM, OIN, Patents at 4:47 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Video download link
Summary: The press release and puff pieces from Bergelt et al won’t tell the public what OIN really does, in practice (which is worse than nothing at all)
THE Open Invention Network (OIN) has been covered here since its inception, back when an IBM person (founding member) ran the whole thing and seemed mostly reasonable, even better than benign, at least at the time (much like the Linux Foundation, which is partly connected not just in the sense that sponsors and agenda overlap). Big banks aren’t our friends; they might be OIN’s friends. OIN isn’t our friend and these people often undo the goals of FFII and other groups that oppose software patents.
“OIN isn’t what it seems or what it claims to be. It exists to serve and protect monopolists.”Nowadays many of us in the Free software world have already grown cynical and critical of the IBM-centric OIN. Adding Microsoft as a member did not lend legitimacy but mostly harmed it, especially in light of the fact that Microsoft continued to attack Linux — sometimes with patents — after it had joined OIN. The video above is a response to this morning’s press release. As we put it earlier on in Daily Links, OIN is not a community (the word “community” is used in the headline) but a front group of software patents proponents looking to openwash their monopolies and striving to make software patents look benign w.r.t. Linux. They say they were “formed to safeguard open source software (OSS)” (no “F” word, nothing about Freedom) and then they call themselves a “community” again. Nowadays companies like to portray themselves as “green”, “open” and even “communities”…
Yes, nothing says “community” like ruthless for-profit corporations that help bomb people…
Keith Bergelt is then quoted naming a bunch of buzzwords and name-dropping hype like “fintech” (one of the many weasel words that software patents’ proponents use). A few hours ago the ‘news’ site ZDNet did a puff piece about the whole thing, as usual. The video above only scratches the surface of what we know and what we’ve shown about OIN over the years. This is just more of the same.
Not too long ago the Linux Foundation was greenwashing big banks, so why can’t OIN? The puff piece keeps mentioning “trolls” and “patent trolls”, but nowhere is it mentioned that OIN never stops trolls and moreover it hired trolls to lead the OIN. What a lousy piece of cheap propaganda.
OIN isn’t what it seems or what it claims to be. It exists to serve and protect monopolists. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
01.04.21
Posted in Deception, Europe, Microsoft, OIN, Patents at 2:24 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Video download link
Summary: The so-called ‘IP’ ‘Tech’ ‘Summit’ (webchats or video streams of lawyers rather than techies) is another example of think tanks, this time hosted by Microsoft to push a controversial software patents agenda, both in Europe and worldwide (by extension)
SOME things don’t change, can’t change, and barely ever change at all. The marketing strategy (e.g. “Microsoft loves Linux”) may change a bit, but underlying tactics or more so objectives are largely the same. The extortion artists from Microsoft are pushing the lie of “IP” to manufacture consent for Microsoft’s ongoing (it never stopped!) patent blackmail and software patents racket.
Shown on the right is the banner of the latest so-called ‘event’ that is ‘hosted’ by Microsoft. And yes, as noted in the video above, that’s Microsoft in Munich — the very same ploy (relocation) that was used to undermine Munich’s already-completed migration to GNU/Linux. Some “love”, eh? Microsoft loves Linux funerals…
Or, as Dave Lane put it many times before, “as I like to point out #MicrosoftLovesLinux like a tapeworm loves a healthy digestive system.”
“Is this blog, which was founded by a scholar, just a think tank of litigation companies?”Either way, let’s consider for a moment what’s shown in this new, albeit belated, post (belated by a whole month), which I’ve remarked on in the video just moments ago.
There has long been this agenda of promoting software patents by calling them “4IR” and other buzzwords like “Hey Hi” (AI), which amount to nonsense. Julian Asquith (Marks & Clerk), quite frankly as usual, did so as recently as days ago (we’ve already included that in our Daily Links). Marks & Clerk openly said that nowadays it’s easier to get software patents in Europe than in the United States. In support of this agenda they still use all sorts of misleading buzzwords and shamelessly promote not only the UPC but also illegal software patents. They receive help from corrupt EPO management that nowadays also besieges judges (especially those who reject software patents) and they receive support from patent propaganda mills which repost their marketing (Lexology). It gets syndicated as “news” (e.g. in Google News).
It’s sad, isn’t it?
Watch what shows up as top results when searching Google News for EPO “news” this morning (it’s just Lexology and Watchtroll, not actual news sites or journalism).
Nobody will ever become aware of crimes committed by rogue officials if this is what Google presents to people. And speaking of Google, it too played a role in the above ‘summit’ (webchats basically) in support of software patents. But Microsoft is mentioned many times, including the opening part: “This year’s Summit was hosted by Microsoft and focused more broadly on global digitalization and its impact on IP, highlighting topics such as artificial intelligence, the internet of things, open data and open innovation.”
“There has long been this agenda of promoting software patents by calling them “4IR” and other buzzwords like “Hey Hi” (AI), which amount to nonsense.”Buzzwords for software patents (“digitalization”, “Hey hi”, IoT”) and the typical openwashing, not with actual source code (“open data and open innovation” — meaningless, especially the latter).
“Hosted by Microsoft” (see the image). The arm of Microsoft that blatantly attacked GNU/Linux in Germany.
The post was published by a UPC pusher and former Bristows spinner (Annsley Merelle Ward), who adores Microsoft and used other Microsoft-organised events to push that same agenda, whitewashing the chief extortionists (such as Smith). She has been distorting facts [1, 2] and her years-long promotion of software patents has long been documented here. Perfect vector for such agenda-setting…
She says: “The AmeriKat’s friends at Dutch IP firm Brinkhof – Alexander de Leeuw, Boukje van der Maazen, Jonathan Santman and Jasmijn de Groot – were on hand to report on this year’s proceedings.”
“The post was published by a UPC pusher and former Bristows spinner (Annsley Merelle Ward), who adores Microsoft and used other Microsoft-organised events to push that same agenda, whitewashing the chief extortionists (such as Smith).”So it’s a sort of secondhand account. For an employer. For a bunch of allies/colleagues at Brinkhof (another litigation firm, though she works at WilmerHale now).
Throughout the text the term “CII” is used sparingly, e.g. “protect an AI/CII invention” (yes, they’re conflating those two things, intentionally).
Why is this sort of junk being published? Is this blog, which was founded by a scholar, just a think tank of litigation companies? Well, yes. Look who’s actually running it nowadays…
Maybe it shouldn’t be so shocking. Here are some portions of the long text:
Many of the AI debates concern the protection and licensing of data sets. Access to data can be restricted and can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Dr. Julia Keim (Microsoft) confirmed that an interesting derivative market has developed where companies claim license fees for the use of their data.
[...]
The IP Tech Summit had an impressive amount of experts on AI and CII patenting. Before going into what they had to say about IP, one cannot help but wonder what we mean when we mention the buzzword “AI”.
[...]
It quickly became apparent that one’s ability to navigate through existing patent law in order to protect an AI/CII invention depends greatly on claim drafting, both in Europe and in the US. The fact that there is no standardized terminology, makes an already difficult topic even more complex. In any event, it was recommended to avoid mathematical equations and terms like ‘neural networks’. Another difficulty is that AI systems largely depend on data, which is difficult to include in a patent application, and that it can be problematic to reproduce an AI achievement due to the large amount of parameters involved (the so-called “replication crisis”). This requires guidance from patent offices. The EPO has already issued guidance on this topic (see here), and guidelines will soon follow from the USPTO (see here). Likewise, Dr. Ulrike Till (Director of the AI Policy Division at WIPO) hinted at the near arrival of guidelines, strategies and instruments applicable to AI and IP prepared by WIPO.
[...]
Thierry Breton (EU Commissioner for the Internal Market) stressed in his keynote speech that “the licensing of standard essential patents is a cumbersome and costly exercise for both patent holders and technology implementers” and that “there is a need for a much clearer and much more predictable framework incentivizing good faith negotiations rather than recourse to litigation.” According to Thierry, this is essential in order to ensure the EU’s lead position in standardization and the internet of things. He referred to the recently adopted IP action plan (available here), which includes initiatives to improve the framework regarding essentiality declarations, licensing and enforcement of SEPs, including a pilot study for the essentiality assessment of SEPs (see here), and further indicated that the European Commission will enter into a sectorial dialogue with industry players in order to find appropriate solutions.
This talks of “EU’s lead position in standardization and the internet of things.”
More buzzwords like IoT with a small “i” (wrong grammar). As EU Commissioner, Thierry Breton nowadays covers up EPO crimes for his friend Benoît Battistelli. What does that make him?
“OIN is what’s sometimes referred to as “controlled opposition”.”Cabals of extortionists patting each other over the shoulder isn’t a legitimate debate or genuine panel but a think tank named after misleading propaganda terms, piggybacking a bucket of buzzwords (even the principal author, named above, admits that those are just buzzwords).
In short, the so-called ‘event’ was a sham and looking at who was actually participating would be quite a giveaway. The video mentions the role played by OIN, which can nowadays be seen in many such panels, sort of faking a “voice” of the “Open Source” “community” when in fact paying lip service to monopolies in a subtle kind of way. OIN is what’s sometimes referred to as “controlled opposition”. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »
Content is available under CC-BY-SA