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

08.12.17

The Latest Evidence of the Demise of Software Patents in the United States

Posted in America, Patents at 7:01 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Just because something is possible does not mean it’s legal

Dead treeSummary: Even though some software patents continue to be granted, courts in the U.S. almost always reject these, signaling the end of software patents as a potent tool (unless there’s an out-of-court settlement, usually because the defendant is too poor)

WE have always been focused on software patents. It’s a subject we understand, not just from the perspective of software development but also the legal perspective (which we spent over a decade studying).

Anyone who still thinks that software patents are worth pursuing does so at his/her own peril. They’re worthless. Sometimes they’re worse than worthless because pursuing litigation with such patents can cost the plaintiff dearly. Recently, plaintiffs not only wasted money on lawyers (all in vain) but were also forced to cover all the legal fees of the defendant/s. How about that for a deterrent?

“Recently, plaintiffs not only wasted money on lawyers (all in vain) but were also forced to cover all the legal fees of the defendant/s.”Demand for such litigation has understandably fallen. The ‘industry’ associated with such litigation suffers profoundly because the number of plaintiffs and defendants is falling. This new article, titled “Cost of Patent Infringement Litigation Falling Sharply,” has just mentioned Alice and speaks of “the invalidation of hundreds of software patents for covering ineligible abstract ideas.” In reality, by extension, about a hundred thousand patents (or a lot more) may not be invalid; they just haven’t been tested in a court (or PTAB for that matter) yet and might never be tested either. Patent holders don’t want to risk seeing such invalidations, having spent a fortune pursing these patents as though these were valuable trophies.

Here’s more from that article, which focuses also on PTAB (covered a lot this morning):

The PTAB process, known as inter partes review, gives someone accused of infringing a patent another route, in addition to court, for defending themselves by attacking a patent’s validity. With the availability of this less-expensive route, “some of the older knock down and fight to the death litigation is not happening,” Chow said.

[...]

The Supreme Court’s 2014 ruling in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l resulted in the invalidation of hundreds of software patents for covering ineligible abstract ideas.

Worth remembering is the fact that the US is where these patents got started. If the US gives up on such patents, why won’t every other country? The US, one might say, learned from its mistakes. Software patents were like a failed experiment.

Sudhanshu Ayyagari from Baldwins wrote about the subject a few days ago, knowing darn well that there are no software patents in New Zealand (where Baldwins operates and is looking for ‘business’); Software patents are not allowed there, albeit using some loopholes these can sometimes be granted (not necessarily the same as being upheld by courts). Here is what Ayyagari wrote:

This article is the first of a two-part series on the state of software patents in New Zealand and Australia. We begin by examining the guidelines and current practice of software patentability in New Zealand, and comparing this with other major jurisdictions including Europe and the United States.

In most jurisdictions worldwide there is debate over the extent to which patents should be allowed for computer implemented inventions. This has occurred because patent applications targeted towards computers and computer programs allow inventions, previously considered unpatentable to, arguably, become patentable.

[...]

It is apparent that there are a number of areas in which computer programs remain patentable inventions in New Zealand. However, the Patents Act 2013 has increased the difficulty of obtaining broad protection for some computer implemented technologies. It appears that it will be difficult to use computer program implementations (or computer implemented inventions) to obtain patent protection for ideas which are not tied to a particular apparatus or device(s) that contribute in a patentable field of technology.

That’s exactly the same loophole that was adopted by the EPO yet does not guarantee anything in a court of law. The USPTO continues to make it rather easy to get software patents, but how many of these patents have a chance in court? Or even at PTAB?

A case which was mentioned here before (3 days ago to be precise) is now turning from a press release into some press coverage [1, 2] (as we hoped but not necessarily expected), reminding us that software patents are a dying breed (with CAFC reaffirming PTAB’s decisions again). The judges are signaling this and those who refuse to pay attention would likely listen to law firms and continue to have faith in software patents.

From one such news article:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) February 2016 decision invalidating all three patents in Audatex’s patent infringement lawsuit asserted against Mitchell, agreeing that the Audatex patents are abstract and not inventive.

Audatex sued Mitchell in February 2012, alleging that Mitchell’s WorkCenter software infringed three Audatex patents. The Audatex patents detailed a business process for using the internet to process insurance claims including total loss valuations.

Before the PTAB, Mitchell asserted that the Audatex patents simply use well-known technology to generate valuation reports for damaged cars, and are not directed to improving a computer’s functionality.

Here is another one:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed a February 2016 ruling by the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeals Board that invalidated all three patents in Audatex North America’s patent-infringement lawsuit against Mitchell International.

So CAFC is slashing many software patents (in a court, not just a panel) while the patent microcosm is trying to slow the judges down.

Why believe the patent microcosm when every piece of evidence so far this summer indicates that software patents have no feet, so to speak?

Growing Unrest Over Patent Trolls Goes Political

Posted in America, Patents at 6:22 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Senator Eric P. Lesser on Patent Trolls

Summary: Encouraging signs for scientists and technologists: The push for the end of patent trolling (patent assertion by parasitic opportunists against vulnerable people who cannot afford legal defense)

RECOGNITION of the problem is growing. It’s growing so fast in fact that judges who are rightly perceived/believed to favour patent trolls were being called out by leading US politicians, who dubbed them "reprehensible". The role played by the patent office is the granting of low-quality patents such as software patents, which patent trolls use almost all the time (some estimates say 70% of the time). This correlation is well documented.

Four days ago, writing in an AOL news site, Senator Eric P. Lesser wrote the above piece, a fragment of which can be found below:

In a recent episode of the HBO series “Silicon Valley,” Richard Hendricks is getting his tech startup off the ground when he comes face to face with a patent troll: an unscrupulous lawyer who claims Richard’s new company is committing copyright infringement.

The lawyer knows his claim is bogus, but also knows Richard would have to pay him in a legal settlement to avoid battling it out in court.

This is not just the stuff of TV fiction. This is real life, and it’s costing billions of dollars in frivolous lawsuits and lost business opportunities.

With an average lawsuit costing $1.6 million, the deceptive actions of patent trolls add up quickly. In 2015 alone, trolls robbed companies of $7.4 billion. One study puts the number much higher, costing companies $29 billion per year.

The author of this article is not some arbitrary pundit; he describes himself as “the Senate Chair of the Joint Committee on Economic Development & Emerging Technologies, Vice Chair of the Joint Committee on Financial Services, and leads Millennial Outreach for the Massachusetts State Senate. He represents the First Hampden & Hampshire District in Western Massachusetts.”

So this guy operates quite specifically in the fields affected. He speaks to people in that area. They tell him about the trolls. If they manage to abolish software patents for good, everywhere in fact, that would eliminate the lion’s share of trolls, but the debate in media has been centered around “trolls”, not software patents, especially over the past 5 years. Only yesterday in fact Bloomberg published this article titled “How to Slay the Patent Trolls” — an article which tells the story of some small businesses. Here are some portions:

In a recent episode of HBO’s sitcom “Silicon Valley,” a lawyer tries to extort money from a struggling startup by threatening to sue it for patent infringement. The troll, who understands nothing about the underlying technology, owns a patent so broad as to be unenforceable, but knows that the victims of his perfectly legal extortion scheme lack the financial resources to fight him in court.

A recent research paper by economists Ian Appel, Joan Farre-Mensa and Elena Simintzi shows that the show’s humorous scenario isn’t that far from real life. Appel et al. note that patent infringement lawsuits have increased by a factor of 10 since 2000, and that so-called non-practicing entities — basically, companies that own patents but don’t use them to produce anything — account for more than two-thirds of the increase. The cases that go to court obviously represent just a fraction of the times that NPEs put pressure on tech companies — their more typical mode of operation is to send threatening letters. Small businesses are the most common targets. Most of the time, companies cough up the cash, viewing the trolls as merely one more cost of doing business.

[...]

NPEs, or patent trolls, could be one of the forces crushing dynamism in the U.S. A large body of research documents the potential harm that they can do to young, growing companies.

But state governments are fighting back. As of 2016, 32 states had passed laws aimed at limiting NPEs’ use of demand letters. Typically, if courts decide a patent holder’s demand letter was unreasonable, it can impose penalties on the person or company making the threats.

Appel et al. study the impact of these laws on small businesses. The results look encouraging. States that adopted these laws saw a 2 percent increase in employment at small, high-tech companies, and a 14 percent increase in the number of companies receiving venture-capital funding. In states with a larger VC presence — for example, California — the increase in the number of tech startups was particularly pronounced. Information-technology companies — just the kind depicted in “Silicon Valley” — were particularly helped by the laws.

We expect patent reform to further accelerate now that the mainstream media and politicians are eager to make it happen. This is why we see growing desperation and signs of misery in the patent microcosm; they might need to find another kind of job. They might even need to stop harassing (sometimes bankrupting) small businesses.

Pro-PTAB Lobbying Leaves the Patent Microcosm Squirming, Lying

Posted in America, Deception, Patents at 5:54 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The High Tech Inventors Alliance (members below) promotes the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which is invalidating a lot of software patents

High Tech Inventors Alliance members

Summary: The High Tech Inventors Alliance takes another step forward in its defense of the USPTO’s Inter Partes Review (IPR) process (reevaluation of patents at PTAB); the patent microcosm cannot tolerate the views of companies like the above, so quite inevitably a shaming strategy kicks in

AS NOTED in our previous post, PTAB bashing has become EFF bashing. The patent microcosm, i.e. the ‘industry’ of litigation, does not know what to do other than attack PTAB judges. It now attacks actual technology companies, not just their front groups. Not a wise strategy at all…

Watchtroll already attacks PTAB and organises so-called ‘protests’ [1, 2] (patent microcosm under the guise of “US inventors”). It’s laughable! Some might even find it utterly disgusting. Based on the photos, they’ve only managed to gather at most a dozen patent extremists (outnumbered by their placards) to stage a ‘protest’. It’s too pathetic for words. They probably used Facebook — the very same company which strongly supports PTAB — to organise this minuscule anti-PTAB ‘protest’. Imagine the collective laughters.

“The patent microcosm, i.e. the ‘industry’ of litigation, does not know what to do other than attack PTAB judges.”John Thorne, the general counsel of the High Tech Inventors Alliance, wrote for The Hill a few days ago. He described the High Tech Inventors Alliance as “a coalition of top technology companies supporting balanced patent policy and collectively holding more than 115,000 patents.”

“Double checking patents puts exploitative trolls on notice,” says his headline, which precedes an article in defense of patent quality (and PTAB which helps assure that). To quote:

On Friday, a group claiming to represent the nation’s small inventors will demonstrate at the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) building. They will call for an end to the PTO’s Inter Partes Review (IPR) process, a procedure for taking a second look at the validity of patents. Some of the speakers will be genuine small inventors. But behind those little guys will be the big dollars of the biggest big-guy exploiters of the PTO’s missteps and mistakes.

[...]

Consider these facts. Almost 70 percent of this year’s challenged patents are in “high tech,” that is software, hardware and networking technologies. High tech is widely acknowledged to suffer from patent quality problems.

[...]

Over 99.8 percent of all active patents and 82 percent of litigated patents never face an IPR. In all IPR petitions decided through March 2017, the Board began a review of only 47 percent of challenged claims and invalidated only 24 percent. When the Board has handed down a decision on the merits, it has upheld some or all of the challenged claims 65 percent of the time. Furthermore, patentees win before the PTAB on validity issues more often than they do in federal court.

Guess how the patent microcosm is responding to such pieces. It’s just so predictable. Here comes IAM with brain-dead tweets like these [1, 2], basically pretending that the High Tech Inventors Alliance is just Facebook and linking to some article about Facebook — an article which says nothing at all about patents. IAM then says: “Ever wondered why certain BigTech cos are so keen to reduce patent protection in the US? (clue: it has nothing to do with “trolls”) [...] All the big companies named in that WSJ article are prominent lobbyists for further efforts to restrict patent rights in the US.”

“The real (or original) purpose of patents is to help advancement of productive companies…”Notice the language. Techrights member Will Hill responded by saying: “Of course, they confuse privileges with rights. There is no such thing as a “patent right”. Patents are temporary monopolies created by government, ostensibly for some public benefit, not inalienable rights it is futile and tyrannical for government to interfere with. The good of that private benefit should always outweigh the cost of public restrictions, but it clearly does not and the restrictions need to be reconsidered. That’s impossible to see when people are so fundamentally confused about rights.”

Calling patents “rights”, “property”, or even “property rights” (we debunked this before, even back in February 2017 when Patently-O did its typical propaganda) is just so shallow. It is an old trick. Ascribing physical attributes to things that are immaterial concepts is also what they do when it comes to patent applications.

“This is why we can’t have nice things, as the famous saying goes.”The real (or original) purpose of patents is to help advancement of productive companies, even if Facebook is somewhat of a patent bully too. At its core, the patent system is also designed to help protect inventors from productive companies, but trolls are not inventors. Trolls typically prey on inventors (as large productive companies can afford going to court and squash the trolls).

Whether we “like” companies like Facebook or not (I personally hate that company), they actually make something. Unlike IAM, which is a funded lobbying arm of patent trolls and aggressors who make money from litigation alone. This is why we can’t have nice things, as the famous saying goes. Lobbyists like IAM, essentially apologists or advocates for patent trolls.

Our next post will focus on trolls and the growing backlash to them.

PTAB Crushes Another Patent Troll and Patently-O Scrambles to Defend the Trolls, Not the EFF

Posted in Courtroom, EFF, Patents at 5:09 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

IP Watchdog and EFF
Reference: Being for Patent Quality or Against Patenting Excess Does Not Make You Anti-Patents

Summary: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s recent affirmation of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) decision about a notorious “Podcast Patent” continues to enrage and engage various circles of the patent microcosm, where it’s commonplace to pursue exactly what serves to harm inventors

THE SHEER BIAS of Patently-O is getting about as tiresome as Watchtroll’s (picture above). The USPTO is being pressured by these people, so we cannot ignore that. They try hard to shape the patent system in favour of parasites, not inventors, and letting this be (passivity) would be irresponsible.

We noted the other day that universities oughtn’t be exempted from IPRs/PTAB because they actively feed patent trolls. We recently mentioned the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation in relation to this, having already given many other examples.

Well, Dennis Crouch, a vocal member of the patent microcosm, hates the successes of PTAB so much that he now defends the side of a notorious patent troll after the EFF helped defeat this troll. Days ago he wrote this (mentioning also the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation):

The most interesting question addressed by the court is whether the original Inter Partes Review (IPR) Requester – EFF – has standing to to participate as a party. The problem for standing is that EFF is a public-interest organization that promotes online civil liberties. EFF was not threatened by the ‘504 patent, but instead filed the IPR petition as part of its general public interest campaign against “stupid patents.” EFF thus doesn’t appear to meet the “case or controversy” standard required by Article III of the U.S. Constitution.

The Federal Circuit decided a somewhat similar standing question in Consumer Watchdog v. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, 753 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Consumer Watchdog also involved a public-interest organization challenging a patent via AIA-Trial. Standing wasn’t a problem for the trial itself since the PTAB is not an Article III court – and so the constitutional requirement didn’t apply. However, the Federal Circuit dismissed Consumer Watchdog’s appeal (it lost the case at the PTAB) on standing grounds.

EFF case has a slightly different posture since it won at the PTAB – with the patent being held invalid. The appellant Personal Audio clearly has standing since its patent has been judged unpatentable, and the question is whether EFF has standing to participate as an appellee despite its lack of a direct interest in the outcome.

This is a continuation of that old pattern of EFF bashing; some put it more politely than others. Towards the end of the week Crouch revisited the subject and once again argued for limiting PTAB’s authority/reach as follows:

In a short opinion, the Federal Circuit has ruled that the factual basis an attorney fee award need not be decided by a jury — affirming a $4 million fee award that followed a jury trial on the sole issue of whether the plaintiff (AIA) owned the asserted patents. U.S. Patent Nos. 5,455,169 and 7,538,258.

[...]

An important element of the original district court decision here (that was affirmed without opinion) points out a Florida State Regulation that “An invention which is made in the field or discipline in which the employee is employed by the University or by using University support is the property of the University…” R. 6C4–10.012(3)(c) (emphasis added). To be clear, this regulation is not a “contract” with the future inventor but instead a regulation in the Florida code that identifies ownership of the patent right — seemingly in conflict with the statement in Stanford v. Roche that “Since 1790, the patent law has operated on the premise that rights in an invention belong to the inventor.”

With propaganda terms such as “rights” and “ownership” (we’ll tackle these separately later) Crouch has long attempted to make universities (like his employer) untouchable and tried to put extra burden on CAFC so as to slow down PTAB. It’s widely known that PTAB is supported by the technology sector and Josh Landau, who represents many technology companies (through CCIA), wrote about the notorious (and now invalidated) software patent at hand. Two days ago he explained why quality of patents matters:

A while back, I wrote a summary of the STRONGER Patents Act. (The short summary: it is not a good bill.) One of the examples I used was the EFF challenge to the Personal Audio patent.

In a world where STRONGER Patents had passed before EFF’s challenge was filed, none of this would have happened. EFF would have been barred from filing a petition in the first place. Even if they could have, EFF’s crowdfunded campaign would have had to list every person who donated as a “real party in interest” to the review. There would have been earlier appeals of the decision to institute, and Personal Audio could have taken their patent out of IPR in order to amend the claims in trivial ways to avoid the prior art.

STRONGER Patents stacks the deck against IPR ever invalidating a patent, and the end result would likely have been that no one would have tried. Personal Audio would have continued to sue podcasters and to obtain settlements because litigation would have been more expensive than settling. Even though the idea of podcasting, as the Federal Circuit just held, was well-known. Even though Personal Audio didn’t actually invent anything.

That’s the world we’d have if STRONGER Patents passed.

For those who haven’t been paying attention, there’s a growingly public argument between the patent microcosm and the technology industry. The former wants more litigation and feuds (legal work), whereas the latter group just wants to press on with technical work.

We’ll write more about that argument in our next post. We are rather gratified to see this rift because we are pretty certain it will ultimately lead to the microcosm (a parasitic element) getting crushed by politicians. Their lobbyists are outnumbered and they know it.

Microsoft’s Patent Troll Intellectual Ventures is Going After Carriers Now

Posted in America, Courtroom, Microsoft, Patents at 4:38 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Ericsson troll

Summary: Another new lawsuit, this time in Texas (as usual), was filed a few days ago by Microsoft’s largest patent troll, which uses a ‘protection racket’ business model to devastate everyone but Microsoft

THE world’s largest patent troll, Intellectual Ventures, probably enlists IAM as a 'fan', but to those who aren’t in the business of trolling advocacy (some of Microsoft’s so-called ‘news’ site advocate such trolls too), Intellectual Ventures is an enemy.

Having failed to receive ‘protection’ money (settlement), Microsoft’s patent troll is suing again. And guess where… Texas!

Here is what was published a short while ago:

Intellectual Ventures accused T-Mobile and Ericsson of infringing four of its patents related to wireless transmission with their growing Long Term Evolution network in a suit filed Wednesday in Texas federal court.

T-Mobile USA Inc. has partnered with Ericsson Inc. to deploy and develop its LTE wireless network since 2012, according to the new complaint. They also have a partnership over commercially available LTE hardware and software, the suit says.

Ericsson itself is feeding patent trolls; this has already reached Europe as well. Later today we’ll write a lot more about patent trolls.

The Corrupt European Patent Office (EPO) Appears to be SLAPPing Judges Now

Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:11 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Strategic lawsuit against public participationReference: Strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP)

Summary: The dark side of the EPO, which has culminated in suppression of truth-telling, as explained by the official report of the Dutch delegation to the Administrative Council (AC) of the European Patent Organisation (EPO)

THE EPO has a very strong culture of SLAPP. They have already done this to me and to others. Such is the nature of a thug and this behaviour should be expected somewhere like Russia or North Korea, not Bavaria.

Yesterday we finished our series about Germany and Croatia. For anyone who missed it, here are all 10 parts:

While running the above series we got contacted by various different parties that are eager to tell us more. “From the official report of the The [sic] Netherlands delegation to the AC,” one person told us, “which appeared in the “Bijblad bij De Industriële Eigendom” it seems that Željko Topić [EPO Vice-President] is also engaging in SLAPP litigation against the suspended Board of Appeal judge” (source PDF).

“Such is the nature of a thug and this behaviour should be expected somewhere like Russia or North Korea, not Bavaria.”Here is the relevant passage (on page 13):

In de (zich sinds december 2014 voortslepende) zaak van de geschorste technische rechter bij de Boards of Appeal is de (al enige tijd onveranderde) situatie dat de door het EOB-management gestarte strafrechtelijke procedures (in zowel München als Zagreb) tegen deze rechter het voor de AC (nota bene: als disciplinary authority) onmogelijk maken (gezien art. 95 Service Regulations) om de zaak intern af te ronden. Tegelijkertijd is er een onderstroom in de AC die vindt dat het allemaal al lang genoeg geduurd heeft en dat het, alles overziend, beter zou zijn dat de AC de zaak naar zich toe haalt en (met een passende sanctie) afsluit. Wordt vervolgd in de juni bijeenkomst van de AC.

Translation (English):

“We are going to investigate this further in the coming weeks.”In the (ongoing since December 2014) case of the suspended technical judge of the Boards of Appeal, the (for some time unchanged) situation is that the criminal proceedings (both in Munich and Zagreb) initiated by the Office management against this judge make it impossible for the AC (note: in its capacity as disciplinary authority) to conclude the case internally (see Art. 95 Service Regulations). At the same time there is an undercurrent in the AC, which finds that the matter has gone on for long enough and that it would be better for the AC to deal with the case by itself and to close it (with an appropriate sanction). Will be continued in the June meeting of the AC.

See that part about Zagreb? We knew about Munich, but not about Zagreb (Croatia). What on Earth is going on there?

We are going to investigate this further in the coming weeks.

“Lo and behold what the EPO has been reduced to; it not only hired crooked officials but also uses dirty tricks to suppress those alleged to have spoken out about it.”“Reading between the lines,” as our reader put it, “it seems that Topić is using SLAPP tactics to prevent the closure of the still ongoing disciplinary procedure against the suspended Board of Appeal judge.”

Lo and behold what the EPO has been reduced to; it not only hired crooked officials but also uses dirty tricks to suppress those alleged to have spoken out about it.

The Corruption of the European Patent Office and CIPO’s (Canada) Participation in This

Posted in America, Deception, Europe, Patents at 3:39 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Shades of CETA

Sepp Blatterstelli

Summary: Coming back from summertime with vengeance, the EPO’s UPC careerists will use the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) to spread their lies

THE management of the EPO lives in a parallel universe. Either it’s lying a lot intentionally or it simply believes its own lies (delusion, cognitive dissonance). We’ll generally (and generously) assume it’s the latter and continue to rebut the lies.

“What they mean to say is that justice and fundamental logic don’t always triumph in the world of politics (or “realpolitik”) — a world where the German Justice Minister Heiko Maas actively obstructs justice perhaps because he desperately wants the UPC.”We continue to find many incidents where the EPO publicly lies (to journalists, to staff and more). There are several large Web sites out there that are tracking and counting lies of Donald Trump; we could use the same sort of thing for the EPO, but quite frankly we have lost count and it would be a full-time job and require access to the intranet too.

Thankfully, several high-level figures are catching up and are rebutting the lies with us. Regarding the recent 5-page paper from Professor Siegfried Broß, a new comment said this: “Or just another academic brain-fart that will have little or no impact on the world of Macchiastellian realpolitik ?”

What they mean to say is that justice and fundamental logic don’t always triumph in the world of politics (or “realpolitik”) — a world where the German Justice Minister Heiko Maas actively obstructs justice perhaps because he desperately wants the UPC.

“On the face of it, the EPO will continue to lie about the UPC, even though the German government is certainly not ratifying any time soon (if ever).”“Yes,” responded another person to the above comment, “but a very interesting read anyway, because it IS the style of academic brain-fart that constitutional judges come up with. The final verdict and the resulting realpolitik may be very different, but this will be a part of the German Constitutional judges considerations.

“Now, how they will explain it away to allow the continuation of a constitution Germany had wonderfully and practically working in very fine for 40+ years will be another read….”

On the face of it, the EPO will continue to lie about the UPC, even though the German government is certainly not ratifying any time soon (if ever).

Look what is happening in Canada. The CIPO consultation mentioned here the other day (not regarding patent scope on the face of it) was brought up by UPC boosters the other day (Friday) and then came this CIPO tweet about a “roadshow” with the EPO. “Join our #roadshow with @EPOorg on Unitary #Patent & Unified Patent Court,” it said and the corresponding page reveals Battistelli’s UPC liar, Margot Fröhlinger. She is going to tell a whole bunch of lies again. Battistelli pays her to lie like this, even if it’s a waste of money and an insult to the integrity and reputation of the Office. Remember, as per last month’s article from the German media, that EPO literally PAID for ‘press’ ‘coverage’ (for bribed ‘journalism’, about 100 articles in number). For the short EIA ceremony (one afternoon) it’s said that 3 MILLION euros got wasted by Battistelli (reaffirming what we wrote over a year ago). Corruption of the media for this one events helps also corrupt the same media for UPC puff pieces.

“The EPO is lying, it’s violating national laws, it habitually corrupts the media, and it attacks (sometimes viciously enough with a firing or lawsuits) critics who correct the EPO.”Watch what the CIPO page is saying: “Fröhlinger is one of the driving forces behind the creation of the Unitary Patent and the UPC system. She deals with issues such as the development of patent law at the European and international levels, patent law harmonization, the strengthening and improvement of the PPH system, as well as with the implementation of the Unitary Patent and the EPO’s relation with the UPC Preparatory Committee.”

In other words, she has been a key player in attacking constitutions, spreading lies in the media, and also discriminating against particular applicants with programmes like PPH (a so-called ‘highway’ like PACE, which we were first to expose, just before the EPO’s face-saving revisionism). A couple of days ago Awapatent’s Troels Peter Rørdam wrote about this discriminatory processing of patent applications at the EPO. “The EPO and the Eurasian Patent Office, EAPO, have announced the signing of a PPH agreement to enter into force later this year,” he said.

Well, look what the EPO has become. The EPO is lying, it’s violating national laws, it habitually corrupts the media, and it attacks (sometimes viciously enough with a firing or lawsuits) critics who correct the EPO. More on that in our next post…

The EPO has become one heck of a corrupt monster. We won’t be letting it off the hook any time soon. Things aren’t improving and the culture of nepotism only ever deepens.

Under Battistelli, EPO Ceased to Reward Inventors, Rewards Only Battistelli and Fellow Thugs Instead

Posted in Europe, Patents at 3:07 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Related: Information From SUEPO on the Functional Allowance Reveals How Top-Level Management Intends to ‘Rob’ the Cash Cow (EPO Budget)

Ernst Krendlinger

Summary: Benoît Battistelli, who has turned EIA into an event all about himself (same as the EPO’s Web site, now a shrine to Battistelli), has also damaged the mission statement of the EPO and lowered the quality of everything

“Disgruntled examiner,” an anonymous commenter, said the other day (presumably about his/her employer, the EPO): “It’s interesting to see, how far the quality level can fall.”

We wrote many articles about this, but here comes the interesting (and new to us) part:

“There is even an “inventor” who got a prize, yet does not seem to be the real inventor (look at the SME section…). According to https://www.heise.de/tr/artikel/Erfinderpreis-fuer-den-Erfinder-aus-Zufall-3750059.html and https://www.heise.de/tr/artikel/Erfinder-aus-Zufall-3606163.html the inventor was Ernst Krendlinger (though a lot of the information in these articles does not quite fit to the published documents). And my former colleagues tell me, there is yet another person named for the German priority application (they did not want to tell me the name). Maybe someone interested could request “Akteneinsicht” to confirm this?

“It’s disgusting to see low quality even on the pet projects of our beloved president…”

Previously, the EPO awarded a fraud who may be responsible for deaths.

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

No

Mono

ODF

Samba logo






We support

End software patents

GPLv3

GNU project

BLAG

EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com



Recent Posts