06.29.09
Posted in Africa, America, Finance, Microsoft at 2:45 am by Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Uganda, Ghana, Illinois and Indiana as victims of Microsoft
THIS post is an accumulation of news regarding harmful giveaways.
As part of the growing campaign to send partners to prison, Microsoft is preparing for lawsuits against Windows users/distributors in Uganda, Africa.
MICROSOFT, the world’s leading software manufacturer, has contracted Kampala Associated Advocates to fight software piracy in Uganda.
The reason Uganda was made dependent on Windows in the first place is something that we last wrote about when the BBC published an article covering Microsoft’s colonisation of Africa.
Africans understand to need for autonomy and freedom. As the following new article shows, the Kofi Annan ICT Centre advocates GNU/Linux, but Microsoft is still trying to get Africa (Ghana in this one particular case) to use Windows exclusively. There is a clear reference to MOU, aka "Project Marshall".
Microsoft has been criticised for committing African governments into purchasing its software, denying them the chance to explore other alternatives.
But speaking to Joy News, Mr Iddrisu said government is exploring its options before concluding any such agreement.
“Government has a collaborative relationship with Microsoft to which there is an earlier MOU on the training of public servants in IT skills and IT related matters,” he told Joy FM’s Cobby Graham.
He hinted that his ministry is considering the possibility of using open source as against enterprise software from Microsoft, stressing “We will take a decision which is in the best of our national interest.”
Meanwhile an IT expert at the Kofi Annan ICT Centre, Fred Yeboah, has advocated for the use of open-source alternatives like OpenOffice - a rival to Microsoft Office – and Linux, a competitor to the Windows operating system.
Let it be added that Bill Gates lobbies the UN, probably to have it drop its Free(dom) software favouritism.
United States
There is actually a similar struggle going on the United States. A case in Arizona has just been concluded with more coverage here, in addition to a press release. Last week we wrote about Illinois and Indiana falling victim to Microsoft's dumping and there is more new coverage from Illinois, as well as vocal resistance in Indiana.
An educational software platform consisting of different products from many vendors is the best strategy; it allows for both free and expensive proprietary enterprise products to be used when they are appropriate. It also avoids exactly the kind of lock-in that Microsoft is surely hoping IU falls into by signing this new agreement. If all you know is Microsoft software and your file formats can only be opened by Microsoft software, then what choice do you have but to continue using Microsoft’s products?
My advice to the University administration would be to strongly consider limiting expensive Microsoft deals to Kelley in the future – they’re really the only ones who benefit anyway. Between lock-in, security problems and sheer costs (both upfront and ongoing maintenance and support), everyone loses with a Microsoft-dominated campus.
This is another university that signs a deal with Microsoft — a deal whose purpose to turn students into Microsoft customers. Microsoft is now bragging about this in a press release, neglecting to mention that Live@edu involves bribes to those whose academic institutions they hand over to Microsoft. It is a vicious, vicious strategy. Regulatory authorities ought to look at it. █
VN:F [1.1.7_509]
Rating: 9.9/10 (9 votes cast)
Permalink
Send this to a friend
06.27.09
Posted in Africa, America, Europe, Law, Novell, Patents at 7:38 am by Roy Schestowitz
Summary: More articles on the role of intellectual monopolies in obstructing science
IT WOULD BE USEFUL to be reminded of the fact that Novell uses software patents to advance itself. Here is the very latest addition:
Techniques for dynamically establishing and managing authentication and trust relationships , patent No. 7,552,468, invented by Lloyd Leon Burch of Payson, Douglas G. Earl of Orem, Stephen R. Carter of Spanish Fork, and Robert Mark Ward of Highland, assigned to Novell,Inc. of Provo.
In other news, the Rambus case of patent ambush [1, 2, 3, 4] is mentioned by one who was defending the victims. Updegrove writes:
Most of these suits were brought by Rambus against vendors that refused to pay royalties when they implemented the standard, but these suits almost always resulted in vigorous counterclaims against Rambus, brought by those same implementers. And investigations into Rambus’s conduct were also brought by both the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in the United States, and by the European Commission in Europe. A separate string of cases related to alleged price fixing and other improper conduct by other vendors that participated in the same working group, which ended in record settlement amounts being paid by those vendors to the regulators.
What will the new USPTO director (David Kappos) have to say on the subject? More importantly, how about patent trolls, who are mostly lodged in east Texas? Or how about the abuse of trademarks?
First it was a trademark fight over potatoes, and now lettuce? Eric Goldman points us to a trademark fight over the use of the word “Lettuce” in the name of a restaurant. You see, there’s a restaurant chain called Lettuce Entertain You Enterprises, who apparently got the trademark on “LETTUCE” when used in restaurant or catering businesses.
UK-based lawyers are also wary of “trade marks” misuse.
The IPKat urges his British readers to take careful note of this sudden shift, for their own sakes and for the sake of their consumers. Merpel wonders why HMRC is spelling ‘trade mark’ as ‘trademark’. Is this a major policy shift in terms of traditional British spelling, or merely the result of its eagerness to save time when sending important letters by omitting the spaces between words?
Who are these intellectual monopolies good for anyway (other than monopolists and lawyers)? The ACTA keeps coming under fire and quite rightly so [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13]. it is composed only by large companies.
Glyn sez, “The Anti Counterfeiting Trade Agreement [ed: a secret, non-UN treaty that rich countries are cooking up that will criminalize copyright infringement, sending non-commercial file-sharers to prison; authorize border guards to search your hard-drive and personal electronics for copyright infringements; and require governments to give media giants the power to decide who should and shouldn't have Internet access, without having to prove anything in a court of law] has been making its way in secret for some time, a coalition of consumer groups have now demanded that the text of the directive be made public…”
In the United States, hotspot access is now a patent. Amazing.
Boingo Wireless has been awarded a patent covering the method and apparatus for accessing networks through a mobile device (patent No. 7,483,984).
Over in Europe, FFII’s president managed to get a hold of Bilski’s patent application, saying that it is “included here in the joint appendix” (In re Bilski, Joint Appendix No. 2007-1130). He also warns that Software AG is now lobbying for software patents in Europe.
Regional and national development of industry clusters are a fundamental component of modern strategic economic policy. Although Germany’s Rhine-Main-Neckar cluster has one of the largest global concentration of resources it has not yet developed to the extent of similar clusters in the US, India or Finland. Impediments common to many European clusters include international awareness, access to venture capital, and lack of political support including an underdeveloped European software patent system.
South Africa too makes a mistake by assuming that more intellectual monopolies will advance research. It could not be further from the truth as it is very much the opposite.
[A] proposal in South Africa, that would potentially require patents on certain publicly funded research. While this seems totally backwards for any number of reasons (and many of us believe that publicly funded research should be available to the public since they paid for it), apparently some are concerned that “foreign multinationals” might “misappropriate” the research.
The obvious misconception here is that input will come from abroad and no output will be shared. It not only conflicts with fundamental notions of research but it is also short sighted to assume patents are good use of time. They sting both ways, eventually. █
VN:F [1.1.7_509]
Rating: 7.8/10 (4 votes cast)
Permalink
Send this to a friend
05.20.09
Posted in Africa, FOSS, Fraud, GNU/Linux, Microsoft at 5:31 am by Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Another glimpse at Microsoft’s strategy in the continent of Africa
THERE ARE many valid reasons to be critical of the BBC, some of which we covered in [1, 2, 3, 4]. One of the more disturbing acts, however, is revisionism. See for example:
Last week (while our site was unable to serve) the BBC unleashed one of those familiar denialist-themed articles [1, 2, 3]. Microsoft is known (notorious) for its brutal techniques down south in Africa, so the BBC offered Microsoft the soapbox where it could whitewash what had been claimed.
“Despite the wealth of information that gets around, it’s sad that sometimes reality has a hard time catching up with perception,” said Dr Cheikh Modibo Diarra, chairman of Microsoft in Africa.
“I think that that perception comes from the fact that we are very successful because wherever we are, we are competing respectfully and openly; you can verify that everywhere,” he told the BBC World Service’s Digital Planet programme.
“We are competing respectfully and openly,” exclaims the chairman of Microsoft in Africa.
“Respectfully”?
Like the Kenya blackmail? How about other insulting deeds in Kenya (Microsoft casts GNU/Linux as “piracy”) and what seems like illegal tenders?
“Openly?”
Let us look at some facts.
How about dumping on and insulting South Africans?
How about alleged bribery in Nigeria (in order to hurt Mandriva)?
Let us not forget the fact that African rulers are sometimes affiliated with Microsoft employees, so there is an intersection in interests.
Anyway, the BBC article was fed into Slashdot and stirred up greater debate all across the Web. Glyn Moody calls this neo-colonialism by Microsoft:
Microsoft is stitching up Africa in the cruellest way:
Microsoft is on its way to becoming a dominant brand in Africa, mainly through the deals made with various governments.
“We are very conscious of the environment in which we do business, where our employees and customers live, we always try to empower those communities,” said Dr Diarra.
“Africa is really the last frontier in not only developing technology that is specific to people’s needs, but eventually even developing new business models that will enable the emergence of local software industries, such as young people who have the skills to be able to write their own applications for their own community,” he said.
Fine words, but the reality is that if those “local software industries” do indeed emerge, they will be formed from programmers who are completely dependent on American software for the livelihood: it’s neo-colonialism, pure and simple.
Here is more information.
Microsoft’s approach to give away some of its core software to universities, schools and governments often creates the appearance that just like Open Source software,„Microsoft is also free in Africa“. This statement is often heard, meant both sarcastically and seriously. Software donations and aggressive lobbying are common in many African countries but have not always proven to be a successful strategy.
To offer help to people is not to offer them a dependency. It is hardly more helpful than the offering of predatory debt. █
“Microsoft corrupted many members of ISO in order to win approval for its phony ‘open’ document format, OOXML. This was so governments that keep their documents in a Microsoft-only format can pretend that they are using ‘open standards.’ The government of South Africa has filed an appeal against the decision, citing the irregularities in the process.”
–Richard Stallman, June 2008
VN:F [1.1.7_509]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
Permalink
Send this to a friend
05.12.09
Posted in Africa, Apple, FOSS, Finance, GNU/Linux, Microsoft at 8:40 am by Roy Schestowitz
Steve Ballmer in Windows 1.0 advertisement
Summary: Can students be required to buy a particular product from a particular abusive company that virtually bribes teachers to achieve this?
THE OTHER day we showed that Microsoft had paid South African teachers not to use GNU/Linux. It’s part of an ongoing attack on ODF and GNU/Linux adoption in this country. It’s one among several such attacks on the competition.
In order to achieve its goals, Microsoft has already insulted South Africans and used the Live@Edu stunt (paying students to sell out their peers) to restrict choice ans harm GNU/Linux users at the University of South Africa. This strategy is related to EDGI, which is a programme for fighting the competition by dumping software. This may be illegal.
The latest news from South Africa would suggest that Microsoft’s strategy may be paying off because, as the author puts it, “South Africa’s department of education shuts out FOSS.”
The decision by the department of education to specify proprietary Microsoft software as the minimum requirement for the purchase of laptops by teachers runs contrary to the South African national strategy of open standards and open source software. The government-backed Minimum Interoperability Standards (MIOS) for information systems in government, for example, specifies a set of standards for information sharing within government departments as well as between government and citizens, which specifies formats such as text, OpenDocument Format, XHTML and CSV for document sharing but does not include Microsoft’s Word format.
Has Microsoft suddenly reversed the country’s policies?
For what it’s worth, Apple is no angel either. Using the education system in Missouri Apple or its fans appear to be pushing students to buy a particular product from a particular company.
Missouri journalism students required to buy iPhone or iPod touch?
[...]
Before you protest that it may seem ridiculous, lavish, or favoring Apple to force students to pick up one of these expensive pieces of hardware, Brian Brooks, associate dean of the journalism school, told the Columbia Missourian that the requirement “will not be enforced, however, and there will not be a penalty for students who chose not to buy an iPod touch or iPhone.”
So why require it? Brooks said that it’ll helps students review recorded lectures, but the real reason for “requiring” the purchase is for the benefit of students on financial aid.
Say what? Microsoft is already known to be bribing professors and occasionally it shows, but what about Apple? It does have some academic plans (one DRM per child). █
VN:F [1.1.7_509]
Rating: 8.9/10 (9 votes cast)
Permalink
Send this to a friend
04.18.09
Posted in Africa, Asia, Europe, FOSS, FUD, ISO, Microsoft, Open XML at 4:08 am by Roy Schestowitz
Trust thy institute
Summary: A batch of stories that deserve greater attention
THIS IS A SET of new observations about Microsoft’s affairs in international establishments and governments.
Beware the Black Ducks
It is worrying to find that a purely proprietary software company created by a (former) Microsoft employee is becoming some sort of a self-appointed speaker for FOSS. A few days ago we found Black Duck Software cited in some major publications where its take on open source is embraced without question, despite the company’s sheer hypocrisy (it doesn’t even do open source) and occasional FUD, which is exactly how it makes business for itself. It’s the classic business model to offer medicine which combats perceived risk and newly-created problems.
ISO
The OOXML fiasco is far from over and there is a new scandal brewing. To summarise:
ISO SC34, now heavily controlled by Microsoft people who go to ISO meeting happening all over the planet, has published a report of defects of the pseudo ISO standard ISO29500. They do not provide a definition of what is an “existing document”.
That’s what happens when ISO gets controlled by Microsoft (at least the relevant parts of it).
India
In previous writings about the Bharatiya Janata Party (in India) [1, 2] we placed insufficient emphasis on this party’s level of posturing (potential stunt). We first witnessed it a few days ago and we have readers provide us with more evidence that includes:
The BJP’s awkward embrace of Free Software
[...]
The IT manifesto of the Bharatiya Janata Party has created ripples among software circles with its support for Free and Open Source Software (FOSS), and its opposition to “digital standards.” While the Kerala government has a policy that makes the use of FOSS in government and education mandatory, Tamil Nadu has implemented it in a few departments. Left parties have for long backed the Free Software movement politically. It is surprising that the BJP, with its strong pro-corporate and pro-patent leanings, should back this cause.
[...]
Consider this. As late as January 2009, the BJP government in Gujarat, led by Chief Minister Narendra Modi, inked a deal with the global proprietary software giant Microsoft that includes a Microsoft-developed IT curriculum for high school students, teacher training, certification programmes, and offers free Microsoft software development tools to universities.
This seems like a very easy target for Indian EDGI [1, 2].
Portugal
We’ve just learned that the exclusive benefits to Microsoft are inquired by MPs at the Portuguese Parliament, despite existing complaints about Microsoft corruption in the country. Microsoft also mocks GNU/Linux and publicly frowns upon Free software advocates over there.
South Africa
Speaking of government affairs with Microsoft, Tectonic reports that one of Microsoft’s nightmares in South African has just departed.
SA government loses key OSS advocate
[...]
Besides being the chairperson of the government’s open source workgroup Raffee was also a prime advocate of open source software and standards in government circles as well as more widely in South Africa and the world. Over the past two years he and his department played a key role in the opposition to the OOXML standards process at the International Standards Organisation, hosted the second OpenDocument Format workshop in South Africa and led the battle for South Africa’s Independent Electoral Commission to open up its website to all South African citizens.
[...]
The South African government is still home to many staunch open source advocates but losing Raffee will undoubtedly leave a noticeable hole in its ranks.
We already know what Microsoft did in South Africa [1, 2, 3], which it treated in its fashionable cult-like approach. It even insulted South African people and did everything within its power to derail ODF and GNU/Linux [1, 2, 3] in this strong, stubborn nation which understands the detrimental impact of colonialism.
Knowing what Microsoft did in India and in Massachusetts, namely the overthrow of opposition [1, 2, 3], we decided to check why the man above left the government and asked the author about it. Publicly he replied: “I don’t think he was pushed. But never say never.” Who will replace the guy? That may be the key question. █
“No other large companies as far as I know use their employees as attack dogs to silen[ce] dissent. It’s time for Microsoft to stop this nonsense.”
–The Prickly Prince From Microsoft Strikes Again
VN:F [1.1.7_509]
Rating: 10.0/10 (4 votes cast)
Permalink
Send this to a friend
04.17.09
Posted in Africa, Europe, FOSS, Law, Microsoft, Patents at 2:20 am by Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The latest string of developments in Europe, regarding software patents
ATTEMPTS are being made by companies that include Microsoft and its lobbyists to legalise software patents in Europe, without a democracy even. Digital Majority has found a couple of reports from South Africa; this first one talks about plans to introduce the Community patent, which is merely a back door that would harm the Free software community (so the word community in “Community patent” is actually a malicious reversal).
By protecting the intellectual property rights of inventors and innovators, patents promote innovation and creativity, the lifeblood of Europe’s ability to change with the times and remain competitive.
Given the huge importance of patents and the challenges in managing patent rights across an increasingly borderless Europe, it is no surprise that member states are working towards creating an EU-wide patenting system known as the Community Patent.
The article was seemingly written and published by a pro-patents guy, who apparently makes a living out of it. There is also this second new article from the same publication, regarding software patents specifically.
Particularly in the US and Europe, various parties are lobbying for various amendments to the legislation. Some want the scrapping of the relevant restrictive sections in the legislation so that all kinds of business methods and computer software will always be patentable as long as they are new and inventive.
Over in Germany, where protests have just taken place, some firm or umbrella called BIKT claims that software patents may be unconstitutional.
The discussion of the various aspects of copyrights, patent law and other intellectual property rights are of special significance for the BIKT. The association has published on its internet site a statement related to the current appeal proceedings at the European Patent Office (EPO) regarding the issue of patentability of computer programs and takes a clear stand against the granting of software-related patents.
The BIKT statement was prepared by the lawyer Rasmus Keller from Viersen and is based on his legal study which was published recently. He presents clear arguments explaining that the granting of software-related patents represents an encroachment on the exploitation rights of software developers which cannot be reconciled with constitutional law. As a consequence, the granting of such patents is categorically impermissible.
For those who have not heard yet, Nokia’s profits have just sunk 90% (for this quarter) and Nokia's role in advancing software patents is a sin that must be remembered. The British press still uses a controversial Symbian case to pretend software patents are somewhat legitimate. Here is the latest example:
The Court of Appeal decision also supported the 4-step test for patentable subject matter set out in the Aerotel/Macrossan decision, but cautioned against applying such tests blindly.
The practice notice, issued in December 2008, indicates that the UKIPO will continue to apply the Aeroel/Macrossan test in deciding whether computer-related inventions are excluded from patentability. Observers question whether this will really constitute any shift in UK patent law as one would expect following a decision as significant as Symbian. However, the practice notice goes on to suggest that there will be some change in the way in which the UKIPO assesses software implemented inventions in future.
In particular, the practice notice states that an important factor is “what the program does as a matter of practical reality” and provides an example in which ‘improving the operation of a computer by solving a problem arising from the way the computer was programmed - for example, a tendency to crash due to conflicting library program calls - can also be regarded as solving “a technical problem within the computer” if it leads to a more reliable computer’.
Regarding Brimelow’s ambiguous/bizarre questions that I've already sent a response to, some opine that the first question is not even a valid English question. If someone is very proficient with English, maybe consultation would help. Here is the question, which seems like some sort of circular logic:
“QUESTION 1: CAN A COMPUTER PROGRAM ONLY BE EXCLUDED AS A COMPUTER PROGRAM AS SUCH IF IT IS EXPLICITLY CLAIMED AS A COMPUTER PROGRAM?”
A few years ago, in relation to Microsoft, the EPO board of appeal emitted an equally bizarre response:
1. The claim category of a computer-implemented method is distinguished from that of a computer program. Even though a method, in particular a method of operating a computer, may be put into practice with the help of a computer program, a claim relating to such a method does not claim a computer program in the category of a computer program (point 5.1 of the reasons).
2. A computer-readable medium is a technical product and, thus, has technical character (point 5.3 of the reasons).
This seems like an exercise in confusion; it’s hardly about providing answers but rather about escaping the need. █
VN:F [1.1.7_509]
Rating: 8.6/10 (11 votes cast)
Permalink
Send this to a friend
04.11.09
Posted in Africa, Asia, GNU/Linux, Novell, SLES/SLED, Scalix, xandros at 6:08 am by Roy Schestowitz
SLED
Jupitermedia has published this review of SLED 11 (also here).
Read the rest of this entry »
VN:F [1.1.7_509]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
Permalink
Send this to a friend
04.02.09
Posted in Africa, Apple, Microsoft, OIN, Patents at 6:20 am by Roy Schestowitz
PATENTS — and in particular software patents — have become an important issue to Free software. That is because, having already shown superiority in many areas (e.g. Apache on the server, Firefox on the client side), Free software faces injurious intimidation from miserable companies that — failing to compete based on technical merits — resort to litigation or preemptive threat (FUD). Here are some of the latest tidbits to be aware of.
OIN and ESP
The OIN takes a very different approach to that of End Software Patents (ESP). The former uses the patent system to defend against certain software patents, whereas the latter seeks to abolish software patents altogether. OIN is mostly backed by companies that possess software patents (large corporations), whereas the latter caters for small players which long ago realised that this system only serves as a gatekeeper for status quo — one that keeps competition out of the market. It’s not even about Free software; any small played is equally vulnerable and stifled regardless of its attitude towards Freedom. As Marco Schulze from Nightlabs Gmbh put it, “small software companies cannot afford to go to court or pay damages. Who is this software patent system for?”
Digital Majority has found something rather interesting. About RMS and his work, said head of the OIN:
Because of the legacy of Richard Stallman in the, when you’re trying to drive a new paradigm it almost requires a certain level of extremism and I think, you know, so I am not in any way saying that Richard Stallman’s view was a defective one given the times but I think a more balanced view that we now have the benefit of time and being able to adopt and take is that it’s not about throwing the baby out with the bathwater, all intellectual property is not bad and to be rejected by the open source community. I am not anti patent, I am clearly focused on improving the quality of patents and ensuring that there is greater granularity in what ultimately does get granted by the patent and trademark offices around the world so that the patent system is back to what it was designed to be.
This is why companies like IBM call it “Linux” and distance themselves from a doctrine of ethics (GNU). They quietly cherish intellectual monopolies on software, despite the fact that there is something inherently flawed in them. The South African press has just published an article which recites the words of Geraldine Fraser Moleketi.
In March 2008, the Third Idlelo Conference on Free and Open Source Software and Digital Commons was held in Dakar, Senegal by the Free Software and Open Source Foundation for Africa (FOSSFA). South Africa’s then Minister for Public Service and Administration, Geraldine Fraser Moleketi, stated: “The adoption of open standards by governments is a critical factor in building interoperable information systems which are open, accessible, and fair and which reinforce democratic culture and good governance practices”. The minister further said patents are “exclusive and anticompetitive in their nature” and there is no reason to believe society benefits from monopolies granted on computer program inventions.
It seems clear there is some disunity within government and its agencies, when the Innovation Fund through its funding instruments is urging the filing of patent applications in the ICT sector to enhance economic growth and competitiveness, while on the other hand a government minister suggests that patenting of computer program inventions is undesirable.
Details about this can be found in Tectonic and the video right here in Boycott Novell. We also recommend the new talk from Ciaran O’Riordan regarding software patents. There is a bunch of points in his Web site as well. Georg Greve claimed the other day that “UMTS patent thicket [is] amounting to 10.000 patents, according to France Telecom/Orange.”
Who benefits from this sordid chaos? It is a big maze of unnecessary complexity.
Microsoft and Apple
Someone has found this good page which accumulates information about Microsoft and software patents. Here is a good sample of the type of things Microsoft wants a 20-year monopoly on.
There are many patents held by Microsoft which should have been denied due to the existance of prior art or because they’re self-evident and are not true inventions as defined by U.S. patent law:
* Double-clicking a button (6,727,830)
* Grouping task bar buttons (6,756,999)
* Two-way scroll mouse (6,700,564)
* Task list generated for software developers (6,748,582)
* Using the human body as a conductive medium for power and data (6,754,472) (much prior art done by research labs)
* The equivalent of the sudo Unix command (6,775,781) as old as at least 1980
Mary Jo Foley discusses the novelty of multi-touch because Apple and Microsoft both claim ownerships in the area, despite the fact that neither has really been an inventor. As Bill Gates once said in reference to Xerox (probably the pioneer/inventor of touchscreens too), “Hey, Steve [Jobs], just because you broke into Xerox’s store before I did and took the TV doesn’t mean I can’t go in later and steal the stereo.”
The multi-touch patent game: Who was first?
[...]
While Apple and Palm have tussled over who “owns” multi-touch, Microsoft has kept surprisingly silent.
Apple’s obsession with weird patents has gotten the wrath of The Register yesterday. It was having loads of fun on April 1st.
Another subsection of the filing lists an “electronic device for the inculcation of data-denial modalities among front-line liveware”. This iPod-like device can be securely locked into a trainee’s ear canal, where it will repeat an infinite loop of denial vocabulary until switched off by a prequalified Apple HR officer.
Another joke came from the FFII:
FFII and EPO announce ‘Binaries-As-Prior-Art’
After years of confidential work, the European Patent Office (EPO) and the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII) today announce a radical way to improve software patent quality: Binaries-As-Prior-Art, or BAPA. BAPA combines a database of billions of compiled computer programs (”binaries”) with a powerful Cloud search engine that can find any invention in microseconds.
There is nothing funny about an utterly broken patent system, but good humour on this special day sheds light on obvious problems; it contains or brings out an element of truth. █
VN:F [1.1.7_509]
Rating: 7.0/10 (7 votes cast)
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous entries
