oday my mother spoke to me about Techrights and wished me well. My dad had done the same this morning and also yesterday. He remembered. He said good things. My wife did many things, including cards, food, and flowers.

I am glad that on the 20-year anniversary loved ones recognise the hard work and, in their words, the “sacrifices”.

bout half an hour ago I learned about another classic SLAPP in the UK. That’s transnational oppression/repression.

In our case, in addition to SLAPPs from America, there was also a swatting attempt. This new series about it added two more parts this morning:

oday we learn of a SLAPP from Russia, much like what we get from America except this time from Europe (or Eurasia), not America.

A friend told me that this site has “no RSS or Atom feed though, so not fully professional shop…”

From the article at Barents Observer: (reproduced in full for more exposure and to make censorship harder)

In a surreal case filed with a British court, the Russian fishery tycoon puts the blame on our newspaper for damages inflicted on him by EU sanctions.

According to Vitaly Orlov, he is suffering “serious harm to his reputation” because of articles published by the Barents Observer.

The billionaire has repeatedly threatened our newspaper. The threats have now materialised in a lawsuit filed with the High Court of Justice in London.

Vitaly Orlov is based in Murmansk and has key parts of his business activities in the Barents Sea and the Arctic. He shuns public attention and rarely gives interviews or comments to the press.

On 24 September, a representative of Devonshire Solicitors, a London-based law firm that represents Orlov, showed up at the office of the Barents Observer in Kirkenes, northern Norway, without prior notice. The woman had travelled all the way from the UK to Kirkenes to physically hand over the court papers.

The claims are based on five news articles published by the Barents Observer in the period from 21 May 2025 to 7 January 2026. They all concern Norebo, the company that is 100% owned by Orlov, and cover the international sanctions imposed on the company on 20 May 2025.

In all the articles, we refer to the EU’s 17th Sanctions Package against Russia, in which Norebo is listed. According to the document from the EU Council, Norebo’s fishing vessels have been involved in Russian state intelligence activities.

About two months after the listing in the EU Sanctions Package, Norway followed suit and banned Norebo’s vessels from Norwegian ports and waters. Norebo subsequently took Norway to court, and this case is now coming up.

It is, of course, not the Barents Observer that has found a link between Norebo and Russian intelligence. We have only referred to the EU Council and its sanctions list. We could have added more text from the EU’s Sanctions Package, for example the following:

“Norebo JSC thus implements and supports actions by the Government of the Russian Federation, which undermine or threaten the security in the Union, several of its Member States and third countries by engaging in and supporting actions aimed at interfering with critical infrastructure, including submarine infrastructure.”

The Barents Observer’s coverage of Norebo and the international sanctions is fully in line with normal reporting and internationally recognised journalism codes of ethics. All five articles in question are based on solid references to sources, including Norebo’s own press releases.

Clearly, Vitaly Orlov does not like the Barents Observer shedding light on his company and its activities. As a matter of fact, he is reportedly deeply troubled by the articles—not only economically, but also mentally. In the documents delivered to the court, Devonshire writes that “the Claimant’s reputation has been damaged, and he has been caused continuing distress, hurt and embarrassment.”

The Barents Observer is based in a democratic country where independent journalism and freedom of the press are firmly rooted in the law and society. It is the responsibility and obligation of the press to report on critical developments.

That includes Russia’s biggest fishery company and its activities in the EU, Norway, and elsewhere.

What Vitaly Orlov’s lawsuit boils down to is that the richest man in the Russian fishery industry does not like the Barents Observer.

Orlov is specifically targeting our newspaper. He could have gone after the Norwegian broadcaster NRK, the newspapers DN and Fiskeribladet, or any of the many other media companies that have covered Norebo’s activities and its inclusion in the international sanctions lists. But the Russian billionaire chose to set his London-based lawyers on the Barents Observer.

This hardly comes as a surprise. Orlov knows that the Barents Observer is a small and financially vulnerable company. He wants us to waste our limited time and resources on an absurd case.

Consequently, we see his claims as a dirty attack on the freedom of the press and as an attempt to break our small and independent newspaper.

The billionaire demands that the Barents Observer pay him “damages.” In addition, he also demands an injunction to restrain our newspaper from publishing “the same or similar imputations” in the future.

In other words, Vitaly Orlov demands that the Barents Observer stop writing about him—now and forever. His lawsuit is aimed at punishing and intimidating not only the Barents Observer, but also other media interested in covering his business activities.

Russia extensively uses intimidation as a tool to silence opponents. With a significant degree of success, this tool is applied not only domestically, but also against opponents abroad.

Over many years, the Barents Observer has grown used to attacks and threats from various actors in Russia. Following the start of the war against Ukraine in 2014, Russian authorities and services have actively tried to close us down. The attacks have targeted not only our company, but also our journalists. Half of our staff is now on Russia’s wanted list.

Threats, attacks, and Vitaly Orlov’s court case notwithstanding, the Barents Observer will never abandon its free and independent reporting.

oday it’s a Friday and it’s a first Friday of November.

From what we can gather, permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal will only be considered next year, during or after a Hearing (there’s no date booked for a Hearing yet).

From what I can gather, this can drag on for years to come. We can cope with that. Time isn’t an issue for us.

In the meantime my journalism and investigations go on. The legal challenges are legal challenges and they ought not get in the way of important EPO stories and other exclusive coverage we have.

Days ago I got a lot of material from a new whistleblower. That had nothing to do with patents or the EPO.

he upcoming matches for ManCity are a mixed bag as very soon there will be a hard match against Napoli (is KDB still there?), then an away game against Arsenal 5 days later.

We didn’t go to the ManCity stadium as we typically do on Thursdays. Instead, as planned for days already, Rianne and I went to City Council to study the state of affairs.

I will have a lot more articles than I originally planned.

I now have a notebook full of notes. I wrote many things today. It’s for articles about local authorities failing to provide very basic services. I am told by people in other countries that it’s the same there. One told me “hold their feet to the fire” and another (in the US) urged me to contact local newspapers to increase pressure. From pressure comes change/reform.

One also joked (partly): “I presume that some surrogate to service is available for those who are active customers of hostile foreign entities?”

Well, I assume very rich people don’t need to go through the same channels/routes, but I don’t know enough about this to report on it.

oday I checked usage statistics in some sites and realised that traffic had trebled since we went to yoga. We went to yoga sporadically but a lot in 2022 and mostly in 2023. I’m grateful for these times. It was nice, but it didn’t last long as not many people came to class/practice. Eventually Amy just stopped coming, as there was little point showing up (for free) to facilitate 1-2 (at most 3) people.

We did our share, we showed up and donated to the Resonance Centre, but anyway, those were fun times. But back then, when devoting all my time to writing, the outcome in terms of exposure was nowhere near what it is now.

I think that the fatigue associated with slop helps our credibility and invites more readers.

I’ll carry on writing, emboldened by the growing interest in what I publish.

Maybe we’ll get back to yoga one day. It seems suitable for older people, who are less agile and energetic.

his coming week Techrights turns 20. Originally I thought about doing something very special for that day. Then I realised that it would be rather superficial and dumb. Throwing parties would not be in the “spirit” of that site and it would be better to devote the whole year, as a team, to endeavours associated with site improvement.

We already have some ideas and projects underway.

wo years ago I said I’d likely spend the next 5 years writing about lawfare. Earlier this year I corrected myself and said a decade or more.

I meant it when I said it the first time, it’s just that there’s more to cover and more material becomes available than I can cover (or things happen more quickly than I can properly cover them).

Sometimes I need to stop and do an “outline”, then assess how long it’ll take to cover it all thoroughly enough.

The order of the coverage matters a lot.

Someone has asked me to “move on” (with “my life”), but he is just projecting. Merely explaining how lawfare works in the UK (it’s bigger than just one firm) is prerequisite for change and I’m in a position to explain what happened.

Transparency is not negotiable.

He also goes back to sex.

oday, or very early in the morning, I published a somewhat chronological explanation regarding things that went on and have gone on for 15 years.

“One goal there is to associate UEFI and restricted boot with other crimes,” a community member told me, “via crazy matt [Garrett] among other connections.”

Some of these connections are full-time Microsoft staff. Some of the assisting actors are ‘former’ Microsoft staff that was arrested for strangling women and had done corrupt things. A further connection said illegal things and committed Hate Crimes against my wife and I (already registered with police for years). Two of them already got arrested.

“I’ll go as far as to say it is strategically (and politically) dangerous to keep omitting mention of Garrett’s connection to Restricted Boot,” the community member remarked. “The omission makes it look exclusively like a personal spat and that REALLY hurts TR and TM in the near term and might damage standing with the courts eventually.”

I disagreed on the basis that the Court needs to also be able to assess the character of the people, as it does not easily understand technical mechanisms such as UEFI.

It’s not outlandish to all (universally), but it would not draw the attention when dealing with lawyers.

The community member pointed to an article which said Garrett had “…many problems. Serious problems. Real problems.”

Yes, interpersonal also. His own spouse accuses him of very serious things and those things are in the UK’s National Archives. Garrett’s solicitors were required by the judge to type down what the spouse had said.

“Above and beyond having boosted code to afflict systems with Restricted Boot on behalf of Microsoft” would be the more accurate or important thing to note about Garrett, but some deaf ears it would fall on do not understand what that technically means and why it’s so important.

It’s a question of what audience it targets or a matter of tailoring one’s message based on one’s knowledge.

“If that “on behalf of” should be included or not,” I was told, “I cannot recall the details,” but they’re all in this together (the law firm as well; it doesn’t understand and never comments on anything technical).

I separately said that the threat the solicitors send my way have “…no actual legal grounds”.

It could be mentioned that the threats are “due to criticism over his helping Microsoft get let off the hook about Restricted Boot.”

But again, the judges would not relate to that aspect without me shifting focus to technical matters. The case is not about technical matters.

“By turning it / presenting it as a personal spat it allows s–tholes like social control media an easy out,” a reader remarked, adding that “social control media is a throwaway and not worth the effort but I remain firm on the above otherwise…”

When I write about these legal disputes I ensure that if read by judges they will get across the key message/s as comprehended by a person without a Computer Science background.

It’s never of any concern what a bunch of trolls say in social control media. What they say does not matter, they’re there to provoke and even make stuff up for “likes” and groupthink/affirmation.