Abuse Inside the Polish Patent Office (UPRP) - Part VII: Washing Their Hands After Corruption and Abuse
Links 10/06/2025: Jaws at 50 and US Democracy Crushed Very Rapidly (Martial Law Seems Imminent)

If 'Microsoft v Techrights' is Dealt With by a 'Microsoft Court' (or a Court Outsourced to Microsoft)

posted by Roy Schestowitz on Jun 10, 2025

Last month: The Microsofters Have Just Shared Privileged Trial Data With Microsoft

Last year Techrights, which had published correct information about UEFI 'insecurity' or "Restricted Boot" (and its pushers) since around 2012 - a subject we last revisited about a week ago (we keep getting vindicated as every prediction we made became or eventually becomes true!) - received two lawsuits from two Microsofters who know each other [1, 2]. This wasn't meant to hold anyone accountable for libel; it was about censoring a critic, as revealed by their many letters (which they're now desperate to hide). It was possibly about helping Microsoft in a major lawsuit, in which Microsoft may be held liable for 9 billion dollars in damages. More on that later. What's at stake here is the death of their "AI (actually slop) expedition", due to copyrights. They don't want people to talk about it (pouring water on the hype, which turned out to be baseless) and they try to silence people who did (or will) talk about it. It's about instilling fear rather than pursuing justice.

We responded with our own lawsuits. In the lawsuits we filed Microsoft is a party of interest. It's closely involved in this case latter (the employer of the second SLAPP's Claimant at the time of the Publications; he used solicitors to send us an extortion letter in coordination with a separate case, which is likely worse than unethical and may be illegal), as we explained on plenty of occasions before. As recently as half a day ago they sent my wife a letter still trying to hide what they had done and asserting it would be 'illegal' (they use another term or a euphemism/legalese) to show likely illegal things they had done!

This is the sort of logic one can expect from corrupt oligarchs. As if the only trial or hearing they'd accept is one that omits all evidence to be used against them!

This is stacking, and it would moreover be counterproductive to let Microsoft manage the conversations. Microsoft is a UK-hostile entity. It is routinely investigated by regulators here. It never plays fair.

"It [the hearing] cannot be entrusted to the company that's funding one side of it," one person told me recently. This person should know. This person is not some random individual. Imagine walking into some company's headquarters in pursuit of "justice" over the same company's wrongdoing. You'd not do it; the complaint needs an independent, impartial venue. 4 years ago we ran a long series about what that meant in the EPO, where two corrupt officials (Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos) had outsourced everything - even oral hearings - to a foreign company that's also a party of interest and thus has a massive conflict of interest.

For instance, imagine a hearing seeking to invalidate a Microsoft patent... hosted by... Microsoft.

That would make no sense, right?

Asking a court something like "can we do the hearing over telephone (landline) instead of Microsoft Teams?" would probably not work (landline over Microsoft Teams does not tackle the underlying issue; weeks ago someone told me that Microsoft was blocking my landline number!); they'd say it's a policy thing or something with the IT team, hence not negotiable (entities aren't inclined to scrutinise themselves). In my view, which was expressed here many times during the pandemic, all court proceedings should be done in person, no webchats can substitute this process. That would also curtail people who abuse the system from another continent, as working directly - not by proxy - would be a lot harder and more financially prohibitive.

You want to sue someone in another continent? Then go to that continent.

Graveley, the Claimant (might be funded by his big-shot best friend), was a Microsoft employee at the time of his arrest (his claims are attempts to hide very simple facts about it). He had already served Microsoft for many years prior to that as part of Team Mono (imposing it on distros that didn't want or need it along with Microsoft's Jo Shields, who also reared his ugly head in relation to these SLAPPs).

That Microsoft money funds the SLAPP isn't a speculation. It's a fact that the lawyers refuse to deny (about four times already). The money landing in their bank account is Microsoft salaries.

While I intend to send an outline (skeleton argument) before the Hearing, it should be noted that everything there is technically controlled by Microsoft (these things cannot be hosted locally, they're not autonomous in any way). This is very clearly a case of abusive litigation by two American people, professionally and personally connected, filing two connected frivolous cases using the same lawyer and same barrister for strategic reasons (trying to exhaust the defendants' funds, not win a case). There's an impending complaint with the SRA over this abusive litigation (the complaint is progressing because it has merit) and several law firms deem this abusive. That's a simple fact and that's based on the legal/technical term, based on their studying of the filings (press-centric NGOs referred these to them). We already wrote about this before. The conflict of interest was also noted in relation to legislation by someone who had been targeted by the same lawyer, who is now leaving.

In this case, the Claimant created a mass plagiarism tool for Microsoft - one that caused the company to face a $9,000,000,000 class action lawsuit. Quite the accomplishment, and quite the conflict of interest here, too.

Of relevance:

He also begged me several times. Sociopaths don't mean it when they beg. He just wanted me to remove my articles. He didn't want anyone to find out he had been in prison.

Since we're in a civilised country and not still living under effective monarchy like Saudi Arabia's, it is highly crucial, essential, imperative that we highlight business misconduct out in the public [1, 2, 3], without being subjected to harassment or SLAPPing by low-level staff who actually does strangle women but merely asserts that it is "insulting" to have that fact brought up, in spite of us citing official documents, even court documents (not ones controlled by Microsoft). He's bolstered by his buddy [1, 2] ("another former Microsoft researcher", according to him) with a flailing frivolous case, who got sued by us [1, 2] after severe abuse, inciting people to commit acts on violence (this has not aged well with recent events in Los Angeles), etc.

Some people out there who claim to be against nazis actually act a lot like nazis themselves.

Some of them are so violent that they end up in prison. The lawyers know this, but they get paid not to care (or to pretend not to know that Graveley was in jail, as a matter of public record). When proven that they represent bad actors and possible criminals they walk away without even an apology:

"Faithfully". How very polite...

From letters of extortion (about people who merely spoke about crimes that happened) to fake mannerism. "I will give/make you an offer you cannot refuse..."

These aren't even experienced or respectable lawyers but people who as recently as a decade ago worked in restaurants, waiting table. In a small "boutique" law firm they can be promoted very fast, irrespective of merits and skills, just like the "Office Manager" at Sirius... basically a babysitter who the boss turned into an attack dog that he was siccing at his staff, including former staff that the boss had defrauded. Her role was to help cover up the crimes committed against the staff by deflecting simple questions, which were even asked repeatedly. Being a mother and pregnant, she would do anything for money, even participate in really bad things.

Anyway, digressions aside.

To reiterate, the party in the Microsoft-controlled hearing is likely receiving subpoenas related to what he did at Microsoft; he is directly implicated in Microsoft class action lawsuit for 9 billion dollars and even worse abuses that caused the loss of a Microsoft GitHub CEO (these matters were covered in Techrights hundreds of times in recent years).

Published 23 May 2025: Microsoft's ICC email block reignites European data sovereignty concerns

Also: Microsoft tightens privacy policy after admitting to reading journalist's emails | Microsoft defends its right to read your email

Plenty more in the international press only weeks ago:

There are hundreds more. There's no denying that it actually happened.

It would not be unreasonable to hold a face-to-face meeting instead of a web chat facilitated by the same company whose employee is in trial. That's just common sense.

To their law firm: You cannot deny that all your communications (bullying E-mail, rude letters, files) are hosted by Microsoft. You literally type your letters into the Microsoft "cloud" and send/receive everything via Microsoft. And come on, folks, you have a consistent habit of uploading all your documents, including privileged material, to Microsoft, a company that's in crisis (the media does not talk about this properly; the truth is in court documents). It seems like you not only outsourced your "IT" but also your staff due to financial problems [1, 2]. More on that later this week or next week. █

Also see: When You Fail to Filter Your Clients You End Up SLAPPing Reporters on Behalf of Bad People From Microsoft in Another Continent | Nat Friedman Had Left Microsoft GitHub Exactly One Week Before Matthew Garrett Sent His First SLAPP (Which Was an Empty Threat, He Was Abusing the Legal System of Another Continent to Terrorise Critics Who Had Just Unearthed Major Microsoft Scandals)

If 'Microsoft v Techrights' is Dealt With by a 'Microsoft Court' (or a Court Outsourced to Microsoft)

Other Recent Techrights' Posts