Alice (§ 101​) So Big a Concern to Patent Lawyers and Software Monopolists That Lobbying Campaigns and ‘Conferences’ Emerge to Crush or at Least Marginalise/Limit the Courts

Posted in Courtroom, Deception, Law, Microsoft, Patents at 10:21 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Changing the law with think tanks and lobbyists

Fordham IP Conference
Featuring Microsoft-sponsored ‘speaker’ (lobbyist), David Kappos for software patents and against § 101

Summary: Right now there is growing uncertainty over software patents and even US courts, including the highest such court (the Supreme Court), are such a threat to patent aggressors which utilise software patents to startle or bankrupt their competitors that a propaganda campaign becomes widespread

THE USPTO does not wish to comply with courts’ will. The US patent system is so greedy that it continues to grant a lot of software patents, even when most of them, once properly challenged in a court using Alice, get invalidated. There are still the occasional patent cases where in spite of Alice the software patents survive. One such case has just been covered here and it says: “The court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment that the asserted claims of plaintiff’s network security patents encompassed unpatentable subject matter and found that the claims were not directed toward an abstract idea.”

“The US patent system is so greedy that it continues to grant a lot of software patents, even when most of them, once properly challenged in a court using Alice, get invalidated.”Meanwhile, patent maximalists are bemoaning the new post-Alice reality, quoting lots of other patent maximalists or lawyers. “It’s getting harder to patent software,” says the headline of this new article. Well, this sounds like excellent news. Software algorithms should never have been patentable in the first place. The author says: “Software patents have been under increased scrutiny for several years due to their malicious use by non-practicing entities, or patent trolls – persons or companies that do not necessarily invent or manufacture anything, but that purchase patents, often from bankrupt countries, and subsequently sue others for infringement.”

Composed by Charles Bieneman, another new article asks, “How Do Biotech Patent-Eligibility Cases Speak to Computer Patent-Eligibility Cases?”​

“They’re trying to put an end to invalidations under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and they’re funded by large corporations to do so. Their clients (including Microsoft) pay them to mislead politicians and to lie to the public.”To quote the opening paragraph: “The Federal Circuit recently held that a claim of U.S. Patent No. 5,612,179, reciting “methods of detecting genetic variations” was directed to unpatentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Genetic Technologies Ltd. V. Merial, LLC, Nos. 2015-1202, 2015-1203 (Fed. Cir. April 8, 2016). Anytime the Federal Circuit weighs in on Section 101 patent-eligibility, those of us in the patent bar scramble to comprehend the potential impact to pending patent applications and issued patents alike. For those of us who practice in the computer area, the question arises: how are we informed, or are we informed, by a holding concerning patent claims directed to genetic analysis?”

It’s always noteworthy when CAFC throws away patents like these because software patents originally came from CAFC. Notice the trend now. The courts which once supported software patents no longer do. It must be a scary time to be a patent lawyer in this particular area/domain.

In his final part (part of a long paper), Robert Sachs (patent lawyer) makes it clearer that he was just pushing for software patents all along. To quote his final words: “The fictional form of the mental steps doctrine represents a significant and unwise departure from the factual form. The fictional form is untethered from the conceptual and technological attributes of computer design, the nature of human cognition, and the practical reality and value in computer-implemented inventions. The courts should return to the doctrine’s factual form, and avoid a further descent into the fact-free analysis that now characterizes patent eligibility.”

“One sure thing is, software developers are absent/left out of this whole debate.”This is becoming similar to the infamous whitepaper from David Kappos and his recent lobbying for software patents. They’re trying to put an end to invalidations under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and they’re funded by large corporations to do so. Their clients (including Microsoft) pay them to mislead politicians and to lie to the public. Watch another new example of lobbying for software patents, again taking the shape of a “conference”, just like those funded by Microsoft nowadays [1, 2]. As Cathy Gellis put it: “At this conference on IP in software there’s not nearly enough discussion on WHY ON EARTH DO WE NEED IT.”

“Judge Dyk acknowledges that patent law is not limitless, and that patentable subject matter should not be completely unbounded,” Patently-O noted the other day.

Who’s going to win? The courts, the USPTO, or lobbyists and their affluent clients? One sure thing is, software developers are absent/left out of this whole debate. It’s quite a travesty really.

Patent Trolls in the US, Storm of Patent Litigation Expected in China, and Yahoo’s Patents (Potentially on Sale) Become Subject of Intrigue

Posted in America, Asia, Google, Microsoft, Patents, Search at 9:25 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“Along with many other computer scientists, I would like to ask you to reconsider the current policy of giving patents for computational processes.

“There are far better ways to protect the intellectual property rights of software developers than to take away their right to use fundamental building blocks.

“I find a considerable anxiety throughout the community of practicing computer scientists that decisions by the patent courts and the Patent and Trademark Office are making life much more difficult for programmers. ”

Donald Knuth

Summary: The ugly side of patent systems with little or no quality control, including the resultant chaos, as demonstrated in the United States and soon in China too

THE epidemic of patent trolls in the US is a result of the USPTO granting patents on software as if doubling the number of grants can somehow be achieved while maintaining quality. A lot of patent trolls don’t even need to be challenged in courts (which would likely invalidate these patents in this post-Alice era), primarily because their victims — companies and individuals whom they prey on — are too poor to afford many months (if not years after various appeals) in a court of law, thus would rather settle by paying ‘protection money’ to the troll/s. Now there’s a ‘Mafia economy’, motored by the broken US patent system.

Apple, by contrast, can afford to go to court with trolls and based on this new report from Reuters:

A federal judge has rejected another bid by Apple Inc to get rid of a mobile phone patent that a U.S. appeals court said should not have been knocked out of a lawsuit filed by licensor MobileMedia Ideas LLC.

In a ruling on Monday, U.S. District Judge Susan Robinson in Wilmington, Delaware, refused a motion by Apple and its O’Melveny & Myers attorneys to rule on summary judgment that Apple does not infringe the patent or that it is invalid.

Even right here in Europe, despite resistance from the public, patent trolls are already a reality. Over at IAM, patent lawyers now report on patent trolls in Europe (the Openwave troll a.k.a. Unwired Planet, a notorious patent troll of Ericsson). It’s a case that’s based in the UK rather than Texas and as the lawyers put it: “In 2014 Unwired Planet asserted six of its European patents against the defendants, Huawei, Samsung and Google, which were acquired from Ericsson, in both the United Kingdom and Germany. To date, the judgments for three technical trials in the United Kingdom have been handed down. This article examines the third technical trial. After the technical trials have been completed in the United Kingdom, assuming that the proceedings continue, there will be a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms (FRAND) trial to decide on the licensing dispute.”

“Now there’s a ‘Mafia economy’, motored by the broken US patent system.”What can be seen here is how a once-practising (and successful) company has turned into a patent aggressor, even if the aggression is carried out by proxies/shells/satellites/trolls. It’s highlighting a trend (see IBM for example) and it is highly relevant in light of the news about Yahoo, which got hijacked by Microsoft several years ago. IAM looks at the vocation of its patents, noting: “As a point of comparison he highlighted AOL’s sale of a portfolio to Microsoft for $1.1 billion in 2012 and raised the possibility of a consortium bid a la the Nortel auction. Of course, comparing the value of patent assets today with those of 2012 is a bit like comparing the value of your Florida condo in 2009 with what you paid for it in 2006. You quickly end up with two very different numbers.”

Remember what we wrote about Microsoft’s buyout of the patents from AOL (after some preying). Microsoft is one of the worst patent aggressors out there, but it typically hides behind shells. IAM believes that China too might be interested in Yahoo’s patents, noting: “Could, for example, a company looking to grow aggressively in the US that wants the freedom to operate in a notoriously litigious market be interested? The Chinese internet giant Alibaba might fit that bill and others may not want it to get what Yahoo has. That could drive the price up, but even then it’s hard to see how the portfolio goes for $4 billion.”

“It’s a broken system and it will lead to a broken economy where only rogue elements and super-rich actors stand to gain.”To quote an article just published, China patent “quality of the protection is so poor that a flood of litigation is bound to result.”

“Experts expect flood of litigation as a result of huge numbers of Chinese patent filings and poor quality protection,” noted the author in Twitter. As we wrote here many times before, one thing that China has in common with the US is low patent quality, as the goal is quantity, irrespective of the merit/novelty of an application. It’s a broken system and it will lead to a broken economy where only rogue elements and super-rich actors stand to gain.

Remarking on the value of Yahoo’s patents, another person thinks that it may or may not be in the billions (with a B, not an M) and patent maximalists, citing IAM and the latter, e.g. Daniel Ballard and J Nicholas Gross, whom we mentioned here before (not favourably), say “think these [are] generous + assume perfect monetization of these assets-which is impossible in current judicial climate” (probably Alice).

“Whenever Microsoft attacks Android/Google with patents it acts (towards Linux) like a wife beater being seen by an alibi ‘in the action’, then stating calmly “it’s nothing personal, don’t mind what you’re seeing here!””The term “perfect monetization” means litigation and extortion. They make it sound so legitimate with their euphemisms, don’t they? Just like IAM…

There are other patent boosters who wrote about it. They also cited the Murdoch-owned tabloid and criticised it as follows: “The New York Post reported this week that Yahoo’s patent portfolio could be worth up to $4 billion, as the company is currently seeking bidders in an auction for its core businesses. While the company has not explicitly discussed a separate patent sale, the value of the patent portfolio is likely to be a key factor in any ultimate sale price.”

Our main concern is that a Linux foe like Microsoft might try to take these patents, just like it took Novell’s. Remember that at least twice (just recently) Microsoft was abusing Google/Android/Linux with patents. That’s many times so far this year. Whenever Microsoft attacks Android/Google with patents it acts (towards Linux) like a wife beater being seen by an alibi ‘in the action’, then stating calmly “it’s nothing personal, don’t mind what you’re seeing here!”

European Patent Office a Microsoft Stronghold: GNU/Linux and Mac Support Seemingly Just Dumped

Posted in Apple, Europe, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Patents at 8:26 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Microsoft is an EPO V.I.P. (a marriage made in Hell)

Microsoft at EPO

Summary: Yet more examples of preferential treatment for Microsoft at the EPO, which merely helps a foreign company, Microsoft, make sales, e.g. of Windows (even spyware!), and launch lawsuits against GNU/Linux in Europe, having enjoyed a fast lane and outrageous tolerance of software patents (Microsoft even bragged about this)

LAST month we wrote about the worrisome technical relationship between the EPO and Microsoft [1, 2], setting aside preferential treatment for Microsoft as a patent applicant (which does a lot of patent aggression against European companies that ‘dare’ to distribute Linux). The EPO has become just as abusive as Microsoft if not a lot worse and moreover, just like Microsoft, it somehow believes that it is above the law and that it can get away with virtually anything, even mass surveillance without consent.

At 34 minutes past midnight (less than two hours ago) the EPO announced this new release. Well, looking at the download page (warning: epo.org link), we find this:

Windows-only EPO

Windows-only EPO text

These self-explanatory screenshots suggest either that the EPO dumped support for any platform other than Windows or it deliberately leaves these ‘bad’ platforms behind, despite Java being cross-platform. Microsoft must be very, very pleased and happy with its lapdogs at the EPO. To quote the page: “BiSSAP version 1.3.6, currently available only for Windows users. Mac OS and Linux versions will not be updated to be compatible with Java 8.” Whose office is this?

Totally Inappropriate: The European Patent Office is Still Intervening in European Law and Politics

Posted in Courtroom, Europe, Law, Patents at 7:48 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

A lot more than just a patent office…


Summary: For increased influence/power/profit as well as for the personal gain of patent lawyers and their richest clients (usually companies from other continents, with a track record of hazardous patent aggression) the European Patent Office (EPO) continues to promote the UPC, despite it being well outside the scope of the EPO to decide on

“Here’s our latest webinar on the Unitary Patent,” the EPO wrote earlier today. They can’t help themselves, can they? The EPO's lobbying for UPC (at whose expense? The public’s expense!) has got to stop. It promotes the self-discrediting ideas or the growing perception that laws in Europe are decided on by those who profit from them, irrespective of the interests of ordinary Europeans or even European businesses. EPO management has done a lot to legitimise such damaging perceptions. Whose office is it? The Office is just run by Europeans but not for Europeans.

Incidentally, also earlier today there was this post titled “Much Ado About Patents” from IP Kat. It alluded to the UPC and stated: “What do validation rates in EPO patents tell us? These and more questions were subject to economic scrutiny at this morning’s CREATe and Queen Mary hosted workshop.”

“The UPC needs to be dumped. It offers nothing whatsoever to Europe and a lot to non-European actors and their European patent lawyers (agents of corporate occupation).”Well, that’s assuming the speakers are truly independent and the workshop wasn’t set up with an agenda in mind. It didn’t take long for UPC to creep into it: “Leading into the Unitary Patent, there are some interesting questions on the interaction between national patents and EPO bundled patents. Are these patents complements, substitutes or neither? (Do patentees get both national and EPO patents, one or the other, or some other combination?) We have very little understanding as to how these work together on a systematic basis. (We know similarly little about the relationship between national and community trade marks and designs.)”

“Overall,” said the author, “the research suggests that EPO and national patents are complements, and not substitutes.”

So now they want to have not only multiple patent offices (for different jurisdictions) but also multiple patent courts, one for the nation and another for the continent/superstate. What happens if one rules for/against an infringement claims and another does the opposite? This is utterly ridiculous! The UPC needs to be dumped. It offers nothing whatsoever to Europe and a lot to non-European actors and their European patent lawyers (agents of corporate occupation). The UPC is just a Trojan horse.

US Lobbyist for Software Patents, David Kappos, Uses EPO’s Snubbing of the EPC to Spread Misinformation and Patent Monopolies on Software/Algorithms

Posted in America, Europe, Law, Patents at 11:15 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

David Kappos
Source: David Kappos 2013 interview

Summary: How the lawlessness at the European Patent Office (EPO) has a sort of knock-on effect on the US patent system, where powerful lobbies want to cement patentability of software

THE EPO‘s patent scope is a joke. Things got a lot worse in recent years and EPO staff marched the streets to protest against it. There are now patents on plants, sometimes patents on software in spite of a ban, and many patents (more and more of them) get invalidated by courts, which is indicative of declining examination quality, probably caused by pressure from the top.

Last night we spotted (from two places) this new article titled “Mobilisation for start of mass opposition against patent on tomatoes”. It recalls the cause for woes, amid Battistelli’s own reign (not predecessors): “In 2015, the European Patent Office (EPO) granted patent EP 1515600 to Syngenta, which claims tomatoes with a high content of so-called flavonols. These compounds are supposedly beneficial to health. The patent covers the plants, the seeds and the fruits. This so-called “invention”, however, is simply a product of crossing tomatoes from the countries of origin (Latin America) with varieties currently grown in the industrialised countries. Furthermore European Patent Law prohibits patents on plant varieties and on conventional breeding. All in all, around 1400 patent application on conventional breeding were filed at the EPO so far and around 180 patents are granted already.”

“We recently saw David Kappos doing a lot of lobbying for software patents, having been paid by large US corporations that always lobby for software patents.”This is absolutely horrible and several people we hear from are mortified by this trend, including patent lawyers and examiners. Is the EPO turning into another USPTO, where quality control is virtually non-existent any longer (because any such lenience helps profit and passes the toll/bill to the public)? Where are we going with this? As we shall show in this article, this actually helps companies from the US, or globalists whose interests are orthogonal to those of Europe (“sharply divergent”).

We recently saw David Kappos doing a lot of lobbying for software patents, having been paid by large US corporations that always lobby for software patents. Our writings about Kappos are thus reactionary and we hope he will get a life outside of the lobbying sphere, where he merely discredits the US patent system as a whole (the perception that it’s shaped, controlled and paid for by large corporations). The issues are magnified and the controversy deepens now that Kappos contributes to contamination of Europe with software patents. Kappos uses EPC snubs or the EPO’s perturbations of law (under Battistelli’s reign) to lobby for his clients in favour of software patents. To quote Benjamin Henrion from FFII, “Kappos has begun telling clients that patent protection for software is more robust in other countries like CN [China] or EU,” and to quote Kappos: “Courts in other countries like Germany have been moving in the opposite direction” or “It’s time to abolish Section 101, and the reason I say that is that Europe doesn’t have 101″ (it has the EPC actually).

“Kappos and Battistelli have much in common now. They pretend to be ignorant of the law in order to break the law and they’re both actively lobbying politicians. To whose advantage is this patent maximalism working? Kappos even mocks/disregards the highest US court, SCOTUS, just like Battistelli in the host nation, Holland.”It should not be so hard to see that Kappos now uses the out-of-control EPO as a pretext for software patents in the US, where these types of patents diminish (unlike in Europe, which goes the other way under Battistelli’s reign). Kappos isn’t a USTPO official but a lobbyist now (dangerous man, greedy man, whose clients are reckless and aggressive) and various sites that address patent lawyers carry his message (which is probably exactly what he wants and needs). Henrion asked the publisher, “could you make the whole article public?” It is a stubborn paywall, effectively ensuring that only patent lawyers with a subscription to Law 360 can see what their lobbyist, Kappos, is saying (“I found out that you can get the whole article by using their ow.ly link,” Henrion later added, so workarounds exist for those who know them). Mark Cuban “liked” our previous article about Kappos, so it’s important to elaborate on the subject and research it further. Cuban invests a lot of his own money in patent reform in the US, so given suitable information he can hopefully work towards crushing software patents, not just “bad” patents or “trolls” (that’s what his lawyers at the EFF are doing nowadays).

“In the law360 article,” Henrion explained, “Kappos says Europe does not have section 101, and what about art52 EPC? All the exceptions are about abstract matters” (exactly what most/all software patents count as, as per the SCOTUS ruling on Alice).

Kappos and Battistelli have much in common now. They pretend to be ignorant of the law in order to break the law and they’re both actively lobbying politicians. To whose advantage is this patent maximalism working? Kappos even mocks/disregards the highest US court, SCOTUS, just like Battistelli in the host nation, Holland. This is perhaps the first time that dots are connected between Kappos (former USPTO Director), the EPO, and Battistelli. Kappos has essentially declared himself enemy of software developers (not just FOSS developers), with money that comes from proprietary software monopolists. Then there’s the special treatment the EPO offers to Microsoft, so here again there are potentially interesting parallels. Last night I asked IBM’s and Microsoft’s patent chiefs, “how much did you guys at IBM/MS pay to help the attack on software developers using software patents?” Remember that both are paying Kappos for his lobbying work (the latter recently left or got sacked).

Needed Urgently: Information About the Secret Meeting of Board 28 and Battistelli’s Yellow Union, FFPE-EPO

Posted in Europe, Patents at 10:31 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

FFPE-EPO’s very well attended [sic] meeting with members/sympathisers in Munich this month

FFPE-EPO yellow union meeting

Summary: Pursuit of information regarding two very recent meetings which help determine the future of the European Patent Office (EPO)

THE EPO is becoming ever more secretive. There are secret meetings, secret meeting minutes (if any), and this kind of clandestine operation of what’s supposed to be a public service should not be tolerated by the European public.

We are still hoping that someone will send us leaks from the latest Board 28 (B28) meeting, which took place yesterday. All we have is this public comment which says: “Latest news? Well B28 met today and yesterday President and entourage had their first meeting under the MoU with represenatives [sic] of FFPE-EPO. Tick.”

Well, the President’s union, FFPE-EPO (yellow union), helped created pretense of dialogue in an effort to save the President’s credibility if not his job. Notice the strategic timing again. See what we previously wrote about FFPE-EPO:

  1. In the EPO’s Official Photo Op, “Only One of the Faces is Actually FFPE-EPO”
  2. Further Evidence Suggests and Shows Stronger Evidence That Team Battistelli Uses FFPE-EPO as ‘Yellow Union’ Against SUEPO
  3. “FFPE-EPO Was Set up About 9 Years Ago With Management Encouragement”
  4. Fallout of the FFPE EPO MoU With Battistelli’s Circle
  5. The EPO’s Media Strategy at Work: Union Feuds and Group Fracturing
  6. Caricature of the Day: Recognising FFPE EPO
  7. Union Syndicale Federale Slams FFPE-EPO for Helping Abusive EPO Management by Signing a Malicious, Divisive Document
  8. FFPE-EPO Says MoU With Battistelli Will “Defend Employment Conditions” (Updated)
  9. Their Masters’ Voice (Who Block Techrights): FFPE-EPO Openly Discourages Members From Reading Techrights
  10. Letter Says EPO MoU “Raises Questions About FFPE’s Credibility as a Federation of Genuine Staff Unions”
  11. On Day of Strike FFPE-EPO Reaffirms Status as Yellow (Fake/Management-Leaning) Union, Receives ‘Gifts’

Does anyone have any details about this meeting of FFPE-EPO? Let alone the secret meeting of B28? Here is how to get in touch without risk of retribution. We have a decade-long perfect record of protecting sources.

With a Cybersecurity Panel Like This, Who Needs Any More Demands for Back Doors?

Posted in Microsoft, Security at 10:03 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“Anyone wonder why the Microsoft SQL server is called the sequel server? Is that because no matter what version it’s at there’s always going to be a sequel needed to fix the major bugs and security flaws in the last version?”


Michael S. Rogers
“I don’t want a back door. I want a front door.” — Director of the National Security Agency (NSA), exactly one year ago

Summary: The sad irony of the US government taking advice on cybersecurity from a company which it is paying to deliberately weaken security and enable mass eavesdropping on billions of people

Microsoft undoubtedly builds back doors for the NSA (in many of its so-called ‘products’ or services) and yes, based on headlines such as “Obama Names Former NSA Chief, Microsoft and Uber Execs to Cybersecurity Panel” or “Obama appoints tech veterans from Microsoft and Uber to cybersecurity commission”, Obama adds Microsoft to a “Cybersecurity Panel”, where “cybersecurity” basically means “national security”, i.e. back doors in virtually everything digital. Looking at various other reports about this (there were plenty more, some of which focused on Keith Alexander’s role), we cannot help but laugh at the notion of “cybersecurity” coming from those who deliberately weakened security for the sake of domination/imperialism (euphemism “national security”, as if the oppressor risks being occupied or besieged). To quote one article on the subject, “General Keith Alexander (Retired), who headed the NSA during the enormous expansion of its surveillance apparatus — pointed, of course, at you — is the first listed member of the commission. On the one hand, better the devil you know, and what a resumé. On the other, wow.”

“…Obama adds Microsoft to a “Cybersecurity Panel”, where “cybersecurity” basically means “national security”, i.e. back doors in virtually everything digital.”We habitually post in our daily links, under “Security”, various reports about Microsoft’s security failings. We no longer wish to focus on Microsoft (standalone articles), which more and more people realise isn’t really interested in security, privacy etc. especially in light of back-doored and front-doored Vista 10, which — if developed by a small company — would be ruled illegal, malicious software and its developers risk a long jail sentences (being close to government helps here, especially enabling snitches to spy agencies, which in turn empowers the government).

Croatian News Site Explains Where Criminal Cases Against EPO Vice-President Željko Topić Stand

Posted in Europe, Patents at 9:38 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: An English translation of the latest Dnevno.hr article regarding Željko Topić, who was tactlessly picked by President Battistelli after he had developed/earned notoriety in his home country, Croatia

KNOWING the background of one’s leadership, e.g. at the EPO, is a perfectly valid privilege in the Western/modern world. This is why not too long ago we published a German version of this original Croatian article published by Dnevno.hr, whereupon we published some thoughts and fact-finding related to this (Topić trying to remove articles critical of him). English translation of the recent Croatian article from Dnevno.hr is as follows (the yellow highlights are ours):

Nomination at any price

Lobbyist for Pusić’s U.N. bid at the center of an international scandal

Vesna Pusic, Vesna Vukovic

Author: Tomislav Kovać

Sunday, 27 March 2016 at 19:49

Vesna Pusić is due to travel to New York in early April to present her bid as one of seven candidates competing to succeed Ban Ki-moon1. At the moment it is not known who is covering the travel and accommodation expenses for the New York trip of the self-proclaimed candidate Pusić who is linked to a number of scandals.

On 24 February 2016, the British web portal ‘Techrights’, specializing in software, computing and intellectual property topics and based in Manchester – the hometown and stronghold of the legendary Joy Division – published an article entitled “Possible Connections Found Between WIPO Misconduct and a Dozen Serious Criminal Charges Against EPO’s Željko Topić” in which the author Roy Schestowitz relied mainly on an article authored by the investigative journalist Darko Petričić which was published on our website on 4 April 2012.

Here is a link to the original Dnevno article:


During the past month credible sources cited by the UK portal Techrights have been predicting with ever increasing certainty the imminent dismissal of the President of the European Patent Organisation (EPO) in Munich, Mr. Benoît Battistelli. As reported by other EU media, the case of corruption at the EPO bears an uncanny resemblance to the international scandal surrounding Sepp Blatter at the FIFA. According to sources, [this could mean that] all of Bastistelli’s management team at the EPO would also be fired, including a Croatian national, Mr. Željko Topić.

The decision about the predicted personnel changes lies in the hands of the EPO Administrative Council, the highest body of this international patent organization. In addition to these predictions, other dénouements are possible: for example, all of the EPO management members could resign irrevocably from their positions. In any case, Mr. Željko Topić was appointed head of the EPO’s Directorate of General Administration on 28 March 2012 following the vigorous support of his candidacy by the EPO President, Benoît Battistelli. Apart from the aforementioned article, last month on 16 February the portal Techrights published a translation of another Dnevno.hr article on the subject of the EPO entitled:
“A New MUST-READ Article From Croatia About EPO Vice-President Željko Topić, Condemning His Behaviour Even Inside the EPO”.

Allegations of corruption related to the EPO and the case of Željko Topić are also being closely monitored in Brussels, by Ms. Monica Macovei and the Croatian MEP Ms. Ruža Tomašić.


To remind our readers, one of the covert lobbyists for Vesna Pusić is Ms. Vesna Vuković, a diplomat and the former ambassador of the Republic of Croatia to the UN in Geneva, who found herself embroiled in an international scandal because, according to the official record, she was the person who filed certain criminal charges against Željko Topić, the former director of the Croatian State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO).

Following her appointment to important diplomatic functions in Geneva, Vuković apologized to Topić after discovering that the gentleman against whom she had filed criminal charges was a member of the ZAMP brigade and the clique of the former President of Croatia, Ivo Josipović, who had appointed her to this position of high responsibility in Geneva.

During the last days of the former Government, as part of her application for the position of UN Secretary-General Vesna Pusić submitted a vision statement concerning the main activities of that international organization2. Thus on 3 April 2016, Mrs. Pusić will be traveling to New York to present her application as one of seven candidates competing to succeed Ban Ki-moon. At this point it is not known who is covering the travel and accommodation expenses for the New York trip of the self-proclaimed candidate Pusić.

Whether by coincidence or not, neither the Croatian Prime Minister, Mr. Tihomir Orešković, the new coalition Government, the competent Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs (MFEA) nor the Croatian Parliament which expressed its disapproval of the manner in which the candidacy had been submitted, have so far made any official statement concerning Pusić’s candidacy either in public or in front of international institutions.

In addition to the already compromised Vesna Vuković and a few carefully selected officials in the MFEA headquarters in Zagreb, Mrs. Dubravka Plejić Marković, the Ambassador of the Republic of Croatia to the UN and OSCE in Vienna, will also be making use of the “complimentary” state facilities to lobby directly on behalf of Vesna Pusić’s candidacy for this prestigious position at the UN. Ms. Plejić Marković is better known to the Croatian public as the spouse of a lawyer heavily involved in the “Spice” scandal involving the staggering amount of over 400 million HRK [approx. 54 million Euro].

Mr. Vladimir Drobnjak, the Ambassador of the Republic of Croatia at the UN headquarters in New York, who is known for the small detail that his son does not speak Croatian, is also involved. In other civilized countries it might not be possible for someone whose child doesn’t speak the national language to be the holder of a diplomatic passport, but when it come to Croatia it seems that everything is possible.

In mid-2015 Mrs. Vesna Vuković was replaced as Ambassador of the Republic Croatia to the UN in Geneva by Mrs. Vesna Batistić Kos, the personal choice of the diplomatically talented Vesna Pusić. Mrs. Pusić’s private initiative and her non-transparent candidacy for the UN position which was hastily endorsed by the signature of Zoran Milanović in the last days of his Government remain a major unsolved riddle for the Croatian and international public, comparable to the mystery of the appointment of the “Croatophobic” Pusić to the presidency of the Croatian People’s Party (HNS) where she replaced the intensely “Croatophile” Savka Dabčević-Kučar.


The supposition that the criminal charges against Željko Topić are not by any means trivial is confirmed by the fact that Croatian State Prosecutor’s Office for the Suppression of Organized Crime (USKOK) immediately took over the case from the State Attorney’s Office due to the seriousness of the criminal charges. However, after almost 5 years of working on the case, they seem to have decided not to press charges.

The USKOK decision not to pursue the indictment against Topić bears the signature of Ms. Dubravka Krklec who comes from the ranks of Mr. Bajić’s “Bunga – Bunga” female investigators. Since the State Attorney’s Office and USKOK operate along the lines of paramilitary formations a major decision such as the dropping of a criminal indictment against someone like Mr. Topić could not have been taken without the blessings of Mladen Bajić and Dinko Cvitan. As we discovered from unofficial sources, this was the case on which Ms. Sani Ljubičić, the former USKOK investigator and currently the head of the County Attorney’s Office in Zagreb had been working for years.

The case has now been taken over by the Zagreb County Court, that is, by their special department for fighting organized crime and war crimes which declared the charges against Željko Topić to be inadmissible in the court case no. Kir-Us 202/15. As a precautionary measure two separate decisions were issued on that day under the same file reference number. These decisions of the Zagreb County Court bear the signature of the investigative judge Zoran Luburić, a close friend of the president of the Court, Mr. Ivan Turudić.

The case is currently before a three-judge appeal panel of the Zagreb County Court and everyone is reminded of the soap opera and cheap legal games previously seen in the Mustać-Perković case which was played out during the judicial processing of the EU arrest warrant for that infamous duo and where the State Attorney’s Office and some other state institutions sought to obstruct the criminal prosecution of the unmasked State Security Administration (UDBA) agents.

According to several sources in the Croatian judiciary, there are openly voiced concerns in some quarters that in the process of initiating the investigation and proceeding to the detention and indictment of Željko Topić the investigators might at some point be obliged to knock on the door of the unofficial head of ZAMP and the former President of the Republic of Croatia, Dr. Ivo Josipović, as well as that of his cousin, Mr. Mladen Bajić3.


Apart from the State Attorney’s Office and USKOK, Mr. Zeljko Topic is also the subject of attention of the County Attorney’s Office in Zagreb, where his case is being investigated by the investigator Sunčica Blažević, the former right-hand of the guillotined Željka Pokupec. The investigation was opened because of the “disappearance” of a Mercedes vehicle which once belonged to SIPO and is now apparently parked in the EPO garage in Munich with new license plates under the ownership of Željko Topić. In any case, it is a somewhat bizarre detail which seems to more worthy of a backwoods hustler than a person receiving a monthly salary of over 15,000 Euros.

In addition to the Mercedes, during the time that Željko Topić was the SIPO Director, three more official cars, including an expensive Audi A6 Quattro Tiptronic, “disappeared” by means of mysterious sales contracts. A “mythical” investigation of the former SIPO Director was initiated by Željko Jovanović the former SDP minister in the government of Zoran Milanović, who as documented in the criminal file, publicly admitted that the investigation had to be terminated because of pressure from the Pantovčak [the Office of the Croatian President].

It appears that the initial enthusiasm for the project of draining the SIPO marshes soon disappeared as in the case of a number of other supervisory actions launched under the command of the outspoken Željko Jovanović and his deputy Minister at that time, Mr. Saša Zelenika.

Attached to this article we publish a copy of a public complaint to the Ministry of Science, Education and Sports concerning Topić’s diploma following which an investigation was launched at the SIPO. Additionally, it has been reported that, apparently under pressure from the first violin of ZAMP and the former resident of the Pantovčak [Ivo Josipović], the editorial board of an influential Croatian daily newspaper cancelled a travel request from journalists who had already made arrangements for an official trip to the University of Banja Luka where they had detected very clear signs of a possible forgery of the Masters’ thesis of the EPO’s second fiddle, Mr. Željko Topić.


1 Further articles in English about Pusić’s UN bid can be found here:

7 July 2015: Croatian President Cool on Pusic’s UN Bid -


8 March 2015: Vesna Pusic: ‘Europe’ asked me to run for UN Secretary-General -


12 January 2016: Outgoing and Incoming Governments at Odds Over Croatian Candidate for UN Secretary-General-


3 September 2015: Croatian Leaders Row Over Pusic’s UN Candidacy


2 The presentation of Pusić’s candidacy to the Security Council of the UN’s General Assembly is available online at this link:


Pusić’s “Vision Statement” is available online at this link:


3 The relationship between Josipović and Bajić was the subject of an article published in Tjedno on 6 May 2012



“But the public remains completely in the dark about the fact that Ivo Josipović and Mladen Bajić are blood relatives. The blood relationship is admittedly a distant one, but nevertheless they are cousins. Ivo Josipović was born in Zagreb on 28 August 1958, and Mladen Bajić in Split on 28 December 1950 and both originate from the Makarska region. So far neither Josipović nor Bajić have revealed to the public that they are related which in part explains their close collaboration and co-ordinated action.”

The pressure exerted by Josipović on Bajić in the Mustać-Perković case was reported on by Željko Peratović in his “45lines” blog in January 2014:

Will the Supreme Court of Croatia ban the extradition of Josip Perković?


Željko Topić diploma

Željko Topić diploma

Željko Topić diploma

The above contains little new information regarding Željko Topić himself, though we find quite ‘juicy’ the part about the “Mercedes vehicle which once belonged to SIPO and is now apparently parked in the EPO garage in Munich with new license plates under the ownership of Željko Topić.” Can anyone verify this? We have heard rumours to that effect for quite some time and apparently some photos were circulating as well (whereupon Team Battistelli truly panicked). If such photographs still exist somewhere, then we hope someone will share these with us for publication.

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channels: Come and chat with us in real time

New to This Site? Here Are Some Introductory Resources




Samba logo

We support

End software patents


GNU project


EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com

Recent Posts