Just like IBM (with its Trojan gifts to Europe), its foremost member (and where it originally came from)

Summary: The impact of American multinationals on Europe's policy is difficult to deny; in fact, we're observing the same old lobbying/lobbies still working hard albeit more covertly (typically using front groups)

AT the start of the year we said that "IBM, Which Will Soon be Buying Red Hat, is Promoting Software Patents in Europe" (none of this has changed). IBM's lobbying for software patents in Europe is a subject we've covered for over a decade. About a decade ago IBM said 'on behalf' of Free/Open Source software that patents on software would be beneficial to it or that such software would not be possible without the patents. It was an incredible lie that enraged many people at the time. Remember that the first CEO of OIN was from IBM, a founding member. OIN is now run by a politician, the tennis partner of Timothy Geithner. After his political career he did work that's akin to patent trolls'. OIN is partly managed by patent trolls or 'former' trolls and is similar to the Linux Foundation in the sense that it hardly represents what it's called after. It's somewhat of a PR-centric façade -- a marketing-esque strategy for influence-buying and policy-shaping. It's a corporate front group of very large corporations with about half a million patents and many thousands of patent lawyers. Many if not most patents they deal with are on algorithms. They value these bubbles of theirs at tens of not hundreds of millions of dollars; they don't want to lose that imaginary 'asset' (in essence a state-guarded monopoly).

Also recall David Kappos, who had worked for IBM before becoming the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). After his term there he's a lobbyist (paid by IBM and Microsoft) against 35 U.S.C. ۤ 101, i.e. for software patents. We already wrote several articles about how IBM paid IPO (another front group) to lobby against 35 U.S.C. ۤ 101. Don't expect anyone at Red Hat to comment on it (that would put the future job in jeopardy as takeover looms^*). IBM spoke for software patents as recently as this month (the mock/stacked 'hearings' in Senate) and so did Kappos. Nothing has changed since the declaration of intentions to take over Red Hat.

"OIN is now run by a politician, the tennis partner of Timothy Geithner."Citing this recent report from IP Kat on "4IR" (buzzwords that the European Patent Office (EPO) paid European media to promote), Benjamin Henrion wrote in Twitter: "When the patent industry wants to know about "Open Source", they invite "Open Invention Network (OIN)", which is working for the patent industry. So it loops back to itself, while insulting independent developers at the same time" (referring to Keith Bergelt, who was there alongside Battistelli's friend Yann Ménière). To quote the relevant part about the "EPO study":

The discussion during Panel 2 concerned "Autonomous Vehicles: Changing Markets, Business Models and Institutions" and had a more practical approach: the panelists, Monica Mangnusson (Ericsson), Yann Ménière (European Patent Office), Ruud Peters (Philips) and Matthias Schneider (Audi), and moderator Keith Bergelt (Open Invention Network) discussed various underlying issues concerning the topic at hand, including the EPO study Patents and self-driving vehicles and the role of patents in autonomous vehicles, SEPs and the combination of technology therein. Questions that were raised included: who will be the beneficiaries, i.e., who will be willing to pay a higher price for autonomous cars? Will autonomous cars create more traffic? What is the value assigned to the patents? Is 5G or WiFi technology more suitable? How do carmakers know what needs to be developed?

OIN is facilitating this ludicrous narrative, wherein "Open Source" too was invited. It recently participated in an EPO event that promoted software patents in Europe under the guise of "blockchains". It generally boasts large members that are proponents of such patents. That now includes (formally) Microsoft! They're happy to even repeat PR lies such as "Microsoft loves Linux," rendering them complicit in a campaign of deception.

Microsoft also in the shadows...

Over at the site connected to IAM, a writer now obsesses over Microsoft 'cloud' (NSA surveillance) and António Campinos as EUIPO chief. The headline is a question: "Cloud computing: an answer to cybersecurity?"

The short answer is no because sending all your data to the Pentagon is the very opposite of security, it is a data breach. It's a violation of privacy and basic/fundamental laws. To quote some bits:

The president of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM), Antonio Campinos, recalled how the digital world transformed the fight against counterfeiting, citing an IP Perception Study led by the European Observatory that showed 42% of young people feel that illegal downloading is a legitimate act when done for private use.

[...]

The Director of Microsoft Digital Crime Unit, Juan Hardoy, pointed out...

[...]

Is this a way to promote the Microsoft Cloud server or does Cloud computing really prevent companies from cyber criminality? Companies seem to be pretty divided on this topic.

Which companies? The ones that do the surveillance and those that do not? Whose voice is being aired?

"Innovation and litigation summit" has just been promoted by its organiser, another think tank funded by only one side of the debate (to air only its views). Their own writers admitted this to me last month. This event from the trolls' think tank has nothing to do with innovation, only litigation. Obviously no innovators there, only parasites who sue. And IP Kat has also just published an article about a legalised 'protection racket' scheme. This scam insurance 'industry' is cashing in on patent trolls and that "AYE PEE" cult (people who pretend to themselves that the world would be better off with every single gene and thought privatised and monopolised). What we have here is one bunch of parasites profiting from other parasites; one can eliminate the former to get rid of the other (the latter being this insurance scam). Firms like IBM are the biggest culprits and the firm of Kappos profits from this mess, so don't expect them to abandon their twisted mindset any time soon. Instead they'll mock scholars who do. They will urge small companies to buy "insurance" (for lawyers' fees in case IBM decides to sue, as it often does). ⬆ _____ ^* In a recent public interview with Fedora Project leadership ("Ask Me Anything") they said upfront that people can ask anything except about IBM. This is how afraid they are (of the new/upcoming boss). Some Red Hat staff used to campaign against software patents -- a practice that no doubt IBM frowned upon.