EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

04.22.17

The European Patent Office Has Just Killed a Cat (or Skinned a ‘Kat’)

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 1:45 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

IP Kat, which historically gave a voice to EPO workers and whistleblowers, has never been the same since the EPO's sanctions

The Guardian view on prosecuting WikiLeaks: don’t do it

Context (in the news this weekend and on Friday):

Summary: The EPO’s attack on the media, including us, resulted in a stream of misinformation and puff pieces about the EPO and UPC, putting at risk not just European democracy but also corrupting the European press

THE EPO‘s thuggery managed not only to silence IP Kat‘s criticisms but also, apparently, to turn it into a UPC propaganda mill, headed not by one but several firms that stand to benefit financially from excess in litigation. The EPO accomplished something similar with IAM and dividends continue to be paid. What gives?

“We are quite justified with our assertion that the blog is Bristows-run these days.”Sometimes we joke that IP Kat has become AmeriKat i.e. Bristows with its UPC agenda. Just look at the blog’s activity in the past week. The 8th post in a row yesterday was from Bristows and later came a ninth. We are quite justified with our assertion that the blog is Bristows-run these days. The Bristows worker says her “new IP idol [is] Brad Smith (Microsoft),” the man who engages in patent blackmail against Linux (we have written about his nefarious activities for over a decade). Need we remind readers that Microsoft bankrolled the event?

The only short break from the Bristows marketing was this EPO puff piece. Vardy offered a little break from the Bristows marathon and accomplished nothing but embellishment of the EPO’s image.

“Vardy offered a little break from the Bristows marathon and accomplished nothing but embellishment of the EPO’s image.”Is this the same IP Kat that wrote about the EPO last year? It has come to our attention that there is a little more going on behind the scenes. Vardy says nothing about the existential threat to the EPO and violations of the law, pretending there’s smooth sailing. So does FRKelly, which in this new piece (“Changes in European Patent Office practice following findings of lack of unity”) completely overlooks the crucial point that EPO search quality is nowadays terrible, as reaffirmed by internal leaks.

“Is this the same IP Kat that wrote about the EPO last year?”FRKelly says that “from 1 April 2017, the EPO now provides applicants with a provisional opinion on the patentability of the invention (or unitary group of inventions) first appearing in the claims together with the Partial Search Report – see notice in the Official Journal of the EPO here.”

But what good are such reports if they are prepared in a rush? Stakeholders have already publicly complained about this. One of them said that even the Spanish patent office (not particularly renowned for leadership in this area) does a better job than the EPO and at a much lower cost.

Where are those anonymous writers at IP Kat who used to write about those things? The founder has retired and the pseudonym shared by multiple people (“Merpel”) is no longer even mentioned in the blog (it used to be habitually thrown into the mix). Where are the Joe Hills and the Rosa Parks? Why do we feel like it’s mostly us, The Register and sometimes Juve that really still care about the EPO? Caring about the integrity of the Office is the opposite of caring about Battistelli’s reputation.

“Stakeholders have already publicly complained about this. One of them said that even the Spanish patent office (not particularly renowned for leadership in this area) does a better job than the EPO and at a much lower cost.”Just look what Bristows has turned IP Kat into! It’s shocking! It’s a disgrace. Even EPO workers tell us that. They are definitely not happy. The most signal that can be derived from IP Kat these days is in the comments. Responding to the EPO’s Margot and Bristows (which carried Margot’s message about the UPC), this one person wrote: “It is amazing to see what is coming out now in order to save the UPC.”

Yes, well…

Truth does not matter at IP Kat when the chronic liars of Bristows run the show. Here is the comment in full:

It is amazing to see what is coming out now in order to save the UPC.

UPC is an agreement reserved to EU member states. This is a fact which seems conveniently forgotten.

As long as UK is member of the EU it might ratify. Once out of the EU it cannot any longer be part of the UPC, at least in the present form.

This means that:
1) the participation of UK in the UPC post Brexit will be part of the bargaining under Art 50. Any more enchanting perspective?
2) provisions have to be found how to transfer pre-Brexit judgements of the UPC into the UK legal system. This might be the easiest part, although it does not appear as simple as it may look at a glance.
3) provisions about enforcement post-Brexit of UPC judgements in the UK have to be devised. This is a point which has been conveniently dodged up to now by all proponents of the post-Brexit participation of UK.

I see here three reasons of great uncertainty. Can, in all honesty and in view of this uncertainty, any representative suggest to his client not to opt-out until any of those points are cleared?

That US industry and PAEs are interested in the UPC is pretty obvious, but should not be taken as a push to satisfy this need.

Here the Commission oversees a great danger and belittles the point of view expressed for instance by IP2P(?) about the danger of trolling. I am not convinced that the harmonisation effect heralded by the Commission will eventually be a benefit for European industry in general and SMEs in particular. In the case of patents subsidiarity might be better.

And now CH and NO should come into the UPC! Ever heard of Opinion 1/09? One should not forget that it was the death knell of EPLA!

As a commenter wrote: is this “knowledge, blind optimism or desperation”? A nice summary!

Responding in another thread — the one in which Bristows tackled those who warn about the UPC and trolls — one person wrote:

Kindly note that the UPC fee for a COUNTERclaim for revocation is between EUR 11k and EUR 20k, depending on the value of the case. Especially if the defendant in the infringement case is an SME, it is unlikely that the maximum revocation fee of EUR 20k will have to be paid, because this only occurs if the value of the case exceeds EUR 2 million.

So a business would need at least 11,000 Euros (at least!) to drive trolls away. And how many trolls would there be under a UPC-like regime? Some patent law firms earn this much in a month, sometimes per person, but for SMEs in Europe that’s a lot of money. It can cost a lot of jobs. And who benefits? Firms like Bristows and trolls. Firms that give bad advice to clients, possibly even an intentionally bad advice…

And back to the propaganda from Battistelli’s right-hand UPC woman (Margot), here is a quoteworthy new comment:

Any idea what I tell my client about UPC cases that are ongoing on Brexit day? For example, if on Brexit day there is an ongoing UPC case where infringement is exclusively in the UK, what happens?

Quite frankly, the statement that “uncertainty is unlikely because legal provision will inevitably be made to deal with the treatment of, for example, pending UPC cases on Brexit day” is ridiculous. That uncertainty already exists and will continue to exist unless and until the specifics of the assumed provision are finally decided on.

Here is another comment:

Uncertainty is not unlikely it is likely! The statement should be read correctly.

That an ongoing case in UK on Brexit day will continue is not at stake here. The uncertainty lies in the how it will happen in the UK. This might be solved if only UK is at stake.

There is however also an uncertainty, but much larger then, on what will happen if it affects not only UK but other contracting states on Brexit day, whether or not it is taken by a UPC court having its seat in UK.

This leads inevitably to the post Brexit enforcement problem.

Not everything revolves around an island bordering the North Sea. After all ridiculous for ridiculous, who is the more ridiculous??

“The UPC may have already been derailed for good, but Team UPC just won’t want to admit it…”It’s quite sad when all that’s left of value in IP Kat are anonymous comments. The blog is otherwise an utter disgrace of no value to anyone, except those in the echo chamber who love being deceived (patent maximalism is music to their ears).

The UPC may have already been derailed for good, but Team UPC just won’t want to admit it (it profits from lying to clients about it) and Luke McDonagh, a scholar from London, said that the General Election this year “will certainly delay Unified Patent Court, may even derail it…”

“Bristows staff (in various different platforms) just lies to everyone, as we have repeatedly demonstrated here over the years.”He was linking to Team UPC’s analysis, which quotes the article by Max Walters, who in turn serves as Bristows’ megaphone. Team UPC said: “In an article in the Law Gazette, Robert Burrows, partner at Bristows, says a start date of early 2018 for the Unitary Patent system could be a more realistic possibility.”

No, it can be altogether called off and it’s the most likely thing given the inherent incompatibility of UPC and Brexit. To quote the more independent view:

In the same article, Luke McDonagh of the Law School at City University London is more pessimistic: ‘It is clear there will be a delay now. Everything is likely to cease pending the election. The decision to ratify may even be up in the air.’

Be careful of anything IP Kat will say in the coming days about UPC (in light of the General Election). Bristows staff (in various different platforms) just lies to everyone, as we have repeatedly demonstrated here over the years. “Nobody said the creation of a new patent system covering all EU member states was going to be easy,” Team UPC added (after the failure). Actually, Team UPC did insinuate this, repeatedly even. Now that they’re losing all their marbles they start engaging in a bit of revisionism, too. It’s an attempt to recover some credibility and save face.

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

What Else is New


  1. This Week Techrights Crosses 26,000 Posts Milestone, 3 Weeks Before Turning 13 (2,000+ Posts/Year)

    A self-congratulatory post about another year that's passed (without breaks from publishing) and another milestone associated with posting volume



  2. No Calls to "Remove Gates" From the Board (Over a Real Scandal/Crime), Only to "Remove Stallman" (Over Phony Distraction From the Former)

    Jeffrey Epstein's connections to Bill Gates extend well beyond Gates himself; other people inside Microsoft are closely involved as well, so Microsoft might want to cut ties with its co-founder before it becomes a very major mess



  3. “The Stupidest [Patent/Tax] Policy Ever”

    It’s pretty clear that today’s European patent system has been tilted grossly in favour of super-rich monopolists and their facilitators (overzealous law firms and ‘creative’ accountants) as opposed to scientists



  4. Meme: Software Patents at the EPO

    The evolution of “technical effect” nonsense at the EPO



  5. IRC Proceedings: Sunday, October 13, 2019

    IRC logs for Sunday, October 13, 2019



  6. Firm of Microsoft's Former Litigation Chief Uses Microsoft-Connected Patent Lawsuit Against GNU/Linux (GNOME Foundation) for New Breed of FUD Campaigns

    The patent troll of Bill Gates and Nathan Myhrvold has fed a patent troll that's attacking GNU/Linux and a firm owned by Microsoft's former litigation chief says it proves "Open Source Software Remains a Target"



  7. "Widespread Adoption" (Did You Mean: Takeover by Monopolies?)

    "Quite a few of them are people that would rather replace David with Goliath, just because he's bigger. Quite a few are already taking money from Goliath."



  8. Links 13/10/2019: Red Hat CFO Fired and KDE Plasma 5.17 Preparations

    Links for the day



  9. Bill's Media Strategy Amid GatesGate

    There are many ways by which to game the media’s news cycle — an art mastered by the groper in chief



  10. Hard-Core Micro-Soft

    The word "core" is increasingly being (mis)used to portray user-hostile proprietary software as something more benign if not "open"



  11. Free Software Timeline and Federation: When Free Software Advocacy/Support is a Monopoly Expansion Becomes Necessary

    Support for Software Freedom — like support for Free software (think Red Hat/IBM and systemd) — should be decentralised and compartmentalised to make the movement stronger and adaptable



  12. Projection Tactics

    The corporate media hasn't been doing its job lately; it has systematically defamed the wrong people, perhaps in an effort to distract from 'big fish'



  13. Meme: Richard Stallman Irrelevant

    Saint IGNUcius — Richard Stallman — just isn’t the Saint Bill Gates is



  14. IRC Proceedings: Saturday, October 12, 2019

    IRC logs for Saturday, October 12, 2019



  15. Links 13/10/2019: Mastodon 3.0, GNU Binutils 2.33.1, and the Road to KDE Frameworks 6

    Links for the day



  16. The New York Times About the Real Epstein-Software Scandal (Nothing to Do With Stallman)

    The media is belatedly catching up with and covering the real MIT scandal which extends far beyond MIT



  17. Openwashing Reports Are on Hold

    The need to stress Software Freedom and shun all that "open" nonsense has quickly become apparent; some of the people who oppose Stallman turn out to be "Open Source" proponents who don't even value freedom of expression (free speech)



  18. Support the GNU Project and Support Free Speech

    Techrights is loyal to Software Freedom and those eager to promote it; it cannot, however, support those who don’t support free speech



  19. Today's EPO is Working for Patent Trolls and the 'Aye Pee' (IP) 'Industry' Instead of Science

    The EPO is making allegiances and alliances with groups that represent neither science nor businesses but instead push for monopolies, litigation and extortion; lawlessness appears to have become the EPO's very objective instead of what it intends to tackle



  20. The Campinos Car Crash

    The EPO is crashing and we know who’s to blame other than Battistelli



  21. Software Patents (or Monopolies on Algorithms) Are Not 'Property' and They're Not Even Legally Valid

    The EPO insists that it's OK to grant patents on just about everything and propaganda terms are being leveraged to justify this dangerous attitude



  22. The EPO's Universal Patent Injustice Concealed With Polyglottic Tricks

    The EPO is fooling nobody; it's desperate to hide the very simple fact that Battistelli did something illegal and over the past few years every decision issued by the EPO was legally invalid (as per the EPC)



  23. Microsoft Tweets in Linux Platforms

    This observation about the Linux Foundation seems very appropriate (and true) now that Linux.com’s sole editor is (re)posting Microsoft tweets (shades of Jono Bacon)



  24. Links 12/10/2019: Rspamd 2.0, Kdenlive 19.08.2, Plasma Mobile Progress, FreeBSD 12.1 RC1

    Links for the day



  25. IRC Proceedings: Friday, October 11, 2019

    IRC logs for Friday, October 11, 2019



  26. MIT Scandal in a Nutshell

    What happened a month ago, explained using a meme



  27. António Campinos, With Diplomatic Immunity, Continues Breaking the Law by Granting Patents the EU and EPC Forbade

    The EPO shows how immunity leads to crimes being committed with total impunity; at this point the EPO's immunity must be removed and judges should be permitted to do their job, which is enforcing the law



  28. EPO is Trying to 'Force-Feed' Europe Some Fake Patents by Hijacking Courts

    Having granted a lot of dubious European Patents (to maintain constant growth despite a decreasing number of applications) the EPO seeks to subvert the court system; so far only the constitutions and the laws are being subverted — to the point where these ambitions are collapsing in Europe’s highest courts



  29. If the EPO Plans to Go 'Virtually' Private (Outside Contracting), Then Failing It Would be Deliberate

    Sooner rather than later EPO workers need to entertain the possibility that so-called 'plan Battistelli' is to enrich a bunch of well-connected people rather than improve the Office or its services



  30. Linux Oughtn't Be Just a Brand

    The non-Linux-using Linux Foundation and how it views the Linux project


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 Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

Recent Posts