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

06.28.18

Eight Years of Battistelli

Posted in Europe, Patents at 9:16 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The latest EPO FLIER (No. 39), published by staff from the EPO (source: www.epostaff4rights.org), is reproduced here in order to give our readers direct access to it.

Reputation and patent quality after eight years of Battistelli: ruined

On 27 and 28 June 2018, the Administrative Council (AC) of the European Patent Office (EPO) will hold its 156th meeting in Rijswijk (near The Hague). The delegations will celebrate the inauguration of the ‘New Main’, one of the most impressive office buildings in the Netherlands. On 25 and 26 June 2014, almost exactly four years ago, the AC held its 140th meeting at the same location. At that time, the Delegations convened to celebrate the laying of the first stone for the ‘New Main’ building, and to consider the renewal of the appointment of Mr Battistelli as the president, for the period from July 2015 to June 2018.

First cracks in Battistelli’s building

In June 2014, we informed the delegations through an open letter1 that “the climate in the EPO … is such that staff members no longer dare to voice dissent, as chances are that the President – using his own yardstick – will interpret it as misconduct or as not being in the interest of the Office.

What had happened to the former model international civil service organisation? One year earlier, in June 2013, the Council had approved new strike rules, which – as a Dutch Appeals Court later ruled – violate the staff’s basic rights2. In March 2014, the AC had passed a reform allowing the president to define the rules for electing the staff committees and to impede the committees’ proper working. Most staff consider also these provisions illegal – several internal appeals are pending. On 4 March 2014, more than 750 Munich staff members had gathered for a General Assembly and mandated their staff union committee to inform the Administrative Council as follows:

The staff has lost trust in Mr Battistelli and is concerned not only about its own future, but also about the negative repercussions on the functioning of the European patent system as a whole. It has become clear that the proper performance of the tasks of the individual staff members, and therefore of the European Patent Office, is incompatible with the continuing presidency of Mr Battistelli.3

About that time, four law firms from different European countries sent a letter4 to the members of the AC on behalf of the EPO’s largest staff union. The letter reminded the delegations of the deleterious social climate within the organisation, governance deficits and their prerogatives.

Our June 2014 open letter1 warned: “Not only ‘New Main’ will be a landmark in the history of the EPO. Your decision on the presidency of the Office for the period after expiry of Mr Battistelli’s term will be remembered. … As you are writing history, please make sure it will be remembered as a moment of inspired leadership, allowing the Office to return to being a place where motivated staff enjoys contributing to the success of Europe.

The Council endorsed the prolongation of President Battistelli’s term.

The following four years of his presidency were characterised by Battistelli’s acts of institutional harassment and revenge5,6 against staff representatives, and ongoing legal harassment, stretching over 3½ years, of a Board of Appeal (DG3) judge, Patrick Corcoran. The institutional harassment of the DG3 member, through President Benoît Battistelli and VP4 Želiko Topić, extended even to national courts and continued after they had learned that the (falsely) accused was innocent7!

False incentives: examiners, open the floodgates!

According to Battistelli, there were good reasons for changing the previous successful career system: Except an exceptional professional conscience and personal motivation, nothing incents them to work harder or to work less.” … “By opening this technical career … we will provide incentives until the very last day of their professional life.8

In 2014, before the introduction of the new system, we warned the delegations that the “intended change in labour law is at the same time an implicit change in the (effect of) patent law.9 We argued that an entirely performance-based career system puts managers and employees under pressure to increase production. With the rule of law being absent, and in a working environment being dominated by fear and intimidation, not only ill-motivated managers but also weak and intimidated ones are tempted to put their subordinate employees under pressure to fulfill even the most unrealistic targets. And in the presence of threats, many of them will fulfill these expectations, while lowering the search and examination standards.“ EPO examiners “will no longer be able to support the priorities of the EU by delivering high quality patents, as maintaining the required professional standards seems to be against the political will of the EPO’s president, and apparently of most of the member states”, we concluded.10,11

When being confronted with strong criticism from several delegations, the president defended his proposal, successfully, with the following words:

We are not here trying to build a reform which is compatible with each of your nation’s, with each of your state’s law. We are trying to build something which is useful for the Office, for the Organisation. So, if in some cases, it is not compatible with the German law, or the UK law, or the French law, this is not the issue. The issue is: is it useful for the Organisation?8

European patent flood

On a 2015 demo flyer, the Munich staff union asked “How many patents does Europe need?12

In the meantime, answers to this question, and to the president‘s leading question as to whether his reform isuseful for the Organisation” have been given by different actors:

When staff representatives informed the member states’ delegations in 2017 that the steep increase in production had been accompanied by a decline in service quality, VP1 and VP2 claimed in an internal announcement to staff that their representatives had “publicly attacked … the quality of the products delivered by EPO staff, without any evidence but unfounded allegations,” and thereby shown “a total lack of respect for the colleagues …13. A few months later, even some of the delegations expressed concerns about a drop in patent quality14.

An independent 2016 patent survey15, conducted by the well-respected German legal magazine JUVE, revealed that less than half of the survey’s participants were happy with the quality of the European patent examination process, and only one in 25 considered the president’s efficiency strategy useful. The survey did not only show that a quality erosion had taken place, but also an alarming level of mistrust in Battistelli (zero percent confidence rating), with the majority of respondents calling for his resignation. Also other critical outside observers have noticed a significant drop in the quality of the services delivered by the EPO16,17.

In a 2018 petition18 to the Administrative Council, more than 900 EPO examiners claimed that they were being prevented by instructions from their managers from carrying out a complete search and thorough patent examination19,20:

We are far too often put in front of the dilemma of either working according to the European Patent Convention (EPC) and respecting the Examiner’s Guidelines, or issuing “products” as our hierarchy demands.’

According to a recent survey, WIPR readers said they believe that the quality of the European patent is endangered21. One reader said that arbitrarily and annually increasing production targets “can only reduce quality”, another claimed that the “current management only seems to care about statistics” rather than the quality of granted patents.

In a recent open letter22,23, four German law firms, who together file about 9,500 European patent applications per year, wrote:

The incentive systems and internal directives appear to be increasingly directed towards rewarding or even requesting rapid “termination” of proceedings and a correspondingly higher productivity. This has resulted in penalization of detailed and thorough assessment of cases. … Patents that have been examined less thoroughly tend to have an erroneous scope of protection”, they said, which “distorts and hinders economic competition within the EPC Member States.” They suggested urgently setting up “new incentive systems for examining European patents so that the high-quality of searches and examinations for which the European Patent Office used to be known will be guaranteed again.

Typically an EPO spokesperson avoided addressing the criticism and instead said24 that surveys and annual quality reports25 showed that “the high-quality levels for which the office is known” was continuing to increase even further.

‘“The EPO takes feedback from all its users seriously and should the authors of the letter have concerns over quality levels then we would encourage them to provide evidence, rather than unsubstantiated claims,” noted the spokesperson.’25

Construction sites

‘New Main’ is far from being finished, but Battistelli insisted on being the president who inaugurates it. Regardless of how much he celebrates ‘New Main’, he leaves behind him a much bigger construction site.

Despite glossy brochures full of self-aggrandisement26, it is clear now that Mr Battistelli’s self-obsessed and destructive management style has been detrimental to patent applicants, third parties and the economy – and unhealthy for staff. His breakneck experiment with patent examination is failing6. L’organisation est tombée en panne!

Battistelli’s failure leaves a herculean task for his successor, who must rapidly restore a healthy social climate and repair the European patent system.

We wish Mr Campinos good luck for mastering this challenge.

________

2 While the Dutch Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) later ruled that the Organisation enjoys immunity from jurisdiction, it did not reverse the decision of the Appeals Court on substance

3 Resolution of Munich staff who gathered on 4 March 2014 in a SUEPO General Assembly (see EPO FLIER No. 4)

4 Re: Social conflict at the European Patent Office (letter from Bourdon & Forestier on behalf of SUEPO, 20.06.2014)

6 The tarnished legacy of an EPO president (Kluwer patent blog, 21.06.2018)

8 President Battistelli, defending his career reform proposal during the Budget and Finance Committee meeting on 20 November 2014

13 Kieren McCarthy, Effort to fire EPO president beaten back – again (The Register, 20.03.2017)

15 JUVE Rechtsmarkt, 2016 Patent Survey, Clear orders (German, English translation)

17 Thorsten Bausch,The EPO’s Vision (III) – Quality (Kluwer patent blog, 05.03.2018)

18 Petition from EPO examiners, (CSC letter to the AC, 09.03.2018)

19 Kieren McCarthy, Patent quality has fallen, confirm Euro examiners (The Register, 15.03.2018)

25 EPO Quality Reports 2016 and 2017

President Benoît Battistelli is Finished, But the Huge Mess He Has Created is Not

Posted in Europe, Finance, Law, Patents at 12:59 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Dutch EPO protest

Summary: Benoît Battistelli is leaving the EPO after another ruinous and disastrous week in which he lost all of his cases against staff representatives (more than 2 years after his union-busting crusade resulted in sackings and culminated in a climate of unprecedented terror inside the Office)

IT’S OVER. He’s done breaking things. Will the EPO survive this breakage? Time will tell.

Benoît Battistelli has just published (warning: epo.org link) his “Farewell Message” and it was promoted in Twitter almost immediately.

“Justice can be notoriously slow, as many EPO insiders are abundantly aware, and laws are selectively applied, typically to protect those in positions of power.”Many serious abuses under his belt. Many people think (or hope) he might get arrested in the future, just like Nicolas Sarkozy. Justice can be notoriously slow, as many EPO insiders are abundantly aware, and laws are selectively applied, typically to protect those in positions of power.

The EPO refuses to talk about justice. Still not a word about ILO/ILO-AT. Still publishing yet more Battistelli photo ops in a construction site which was a failed project (massive losses). They have also just retweeted nighttime pictures from an angle that hides how crude and unfinished this project really is.

“The EPO refuses to talk about justice. Still not a word about ILO/ILO-AT.”Battistelli’s blog post is the same old nonsense which requires a bag within reach (in case of vomiting). It remains to be seen whether António Campinos will carry on with the same stained (full of lies) blog.

We’re still trying to find more coverage about yesterday’s protest.There are tweets in Dutch [1, 2, 3, 4] about the protest at the EPO but barely any press coverage (i.e. the usual). There’s the photo shown above (no faces). SUEPO now links to an article about it — the sole one we saw (so far). One more article about ILO-AT has just been published by WIPR, two days after the historic rulings. To quote some bits:

The International Labour Organization’s Administrative Tribunal (ILOAT) reversed the downgrading of one staff member of the European Patent Office (EPO) and reinstated another in decisions handed down earlier this week.

In case 4042, the ILOAT ordered the reinstatement of Malika Weaver, who had challenged the EPO’s decision to downgrade her for misconduct.

[...]

The SUEPO Munich committee chairman was accused of having actively incited Weaver to unduly pressure C and of forwarding the confidential letter to the Munich committee.

While the disciplinary committee found there was insufficient evidence of Brumme’s active involvement in the exercise of undue pressure, it did find that he had disclosed confidential information.

The committee recommended downgrading, but Battistelli dismissed him.

Earlier this week, the ILOAT set aside the EPO’s decision and ordered the organisation to reinstate Brumme. He was awarded moral damages of €30,000 and costs of €8,000.

In case 4047, another complainant challenged the EPO’s decision to dismiss her for serious misconduct.

The ILOAT found that the disciplinary committee and president hadn’t correctly applied the appropriate standard of proof and remitted the case to be “considered afresh”.

The tribunal backed the EPO in another case, dismissing a complaint against relegation in case 4050.

Out of 75 Judgments, 17 concerned the EPO. Of those 17, the ILOAT ruled against the complainants in 10 cases.

Don’t forget Judge Corcoran, whose case demonstrates that the EPO still refuses to obey ILO and implement resolutions. Will Campinos give any jobs back, reinstating fired workers? Time will tell. The EPO has just said: “This year’s conference will update participants on the reform of the structure of the Boards of Appeal and of the Boards’ Rules of Procedure.”

“But worry not, as a former banker who is loyal to Battistelli (since many years ago) Campinos won’t dare investigate.”“They totally lost their independence when Battistelli repeatedly did illegal things,” I told them. “He should be put on trial.”

But the EPO’s PR people, even after Battistelli says “farewell” (technically his last day is tomorrow), are still bossed by Team Battistelli and they push the same toxic agenda, suppressing particular facts while pushing lies. Their account also retweets UPC pushers from CIPA today. What does the future hold? Campinos is indebted to Battistelli, so it doesn’t look bright. Maybe Battistelli will still be around in Munich next week, sharing alcoholic drinks like very expensive wines at the pub he built for himself (and now Campinos). It’s alleged that he misused money dedicated for the building in the Netherlands to secretly build that 'penthouse' of his. But worry not, as a former banker who is loyal to Battistelli (since many years ago) Campinos won’t dare investigate. Besides, he benefits from this ‘inheritance’.

iPEL (Innovative Patents, Ethical Licensing) is Just Another Patent Trolls’ Scam/Ploy Disguised as ‘Ethical’

Posted in America, Deception, Europe, Patents at 4:52 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

iPEL, PFE and the “ethical” or “SME” slant — similar tricks, same timing

iPEL
Keep saying “ethical” and maybe some gullible people will eventually believe it

Summary: Two PR stunts, one in Europe and another in the US, try to paint notorious patent trolls (nowadays subjected to a hostile litigation terrain) as “good for small businesses”; but nothing could be further from the truth because small businesses suffer from trolls the most

THE PATENT TROLLS are down for the count, but it’s not a knockout just yet. They keep coming up with all sorts of tricks and workarounds. They also try to better disguise themselves using shells and proxies (Intellectual Ventures, for instance, has many thousands of these). Some of these trolls can no longer drag their victims to Texas. Yesterday Docket Navigator took note of TC Heartland in the courts, potentially helping the defendant dodge litigation in patent trolls-centric districts. In Princeton Digital Image Corporation v Ubisoft Entertainment SA, according to the Docket Report, “[t]he magistrate judge recommended denying defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer for improper venue and rejected defendant’s argument that it did not waive its objection to venue because the objection was not available until the court dismissed another defendant.”

“It turns out that, having fed the world’s largest troll (Intellectual Ventures), this Korean company is now feeding some of Canada’s very worst patent trolls.”So no luck this time. But it’s too early to tell the eventuality. Meanwhile, Jacob Schindler from IAM (the trolls’ lobby) spoke of MagnaChip Semiconductor. It turns out that, having fed the world’s largest troll (Intellectual Ventures), this Korean company is now feeding some of Canada’s very worst patent trolls. IAM seems happy about it, as one might expect. IAM is funded by these trolls. Literally. WiLAN, which we last mentioned earlier this year (several times in fact) is the latest recipient for “trolling mode” (what IAM euphemistically calls “monetisation mode”). To quote:

WiLAN announced yesterday that it has acquired a patent portfolio totaling over 85 assets from Seoul-based MagnaChip Semiconductor. The transaction is part of WiLAN’s partnership programme. The deal marks the latest in a steady stream of acquisitions by the Canadian licensing company, and a comeback NPE deal for the Korea firm, which sold patents to Intellectual Ventures in 2009. The USPTO records a transaction from MagnaChip to Carthage Silicon Innovations LLC four days ago. The full assignment documents aren’t yet available, but there are nine listed US assets so far

This troll is Canadian and the so-called inventors Korean. Does that help dodge decisions such as TC Heartland? Is there a precedent for that?

“The trolls know that their public image is deservedly bad, so they’ve initiated some PR campaigns rather than change their behaviour.”Either way, there are some patent trolls which Watchtroll is helping to paint as "ethical" this week, accompanying the highly misleading press release. We already responded to that, but Josh Landau (CCIA) did further research and rebutted as follows some time yesterday:

Non-practicing entities (NPEs) are generally companies with only one asset—their patents. So why would an NPE give away licenses to the only things it can generate value from? If it seems too good to be true, that’s because it might be.

Act Now For A Free Patent License!

iPEL (Innovative Patents, Ethical Licensing) is a new NPE, formed by self-described “patent monetizer” Brian Yates (formerly of IP Prognosis and hundreds of shell companies—more on that below) and Rasheed McWilliams (a litigator). It’s offering licenses to its portfolio until the end of the year, and those licenses are free to companies with less than $5 million in annual revenue.

Free stuff isn’t always good, and the details of the licenses suggest why they might not be all that good for the licensees.

Well, read on; like a true “CCIA agent” — for lack of a better term — Landau comes at the right time/moment and sheds light on this kind of scam/sham, which resembles Patent Factory Europe (PFE), also announced in Europe about a week ago (in ‘partnership’ with IAM). The notion of “ethical” trolls is about as sane as “ethical” oil spills. Don’t fall for it. The trolls know that their public image is deservedly bad, so they’ve initiated some PR campaigns rather than change their behaviour.

US Patent Number 10,000,000 May be a Bogus One, as Per Alice/Section 101

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

It basically processes some signals using a computer algorithm

US patent number 10 million

Summary: US patent number 10,000,000 would likely be invalidated if challenged by an inter partes review (IPR), but it’s being blindly celebrated by the patent microcosm regardless

THE quality of patents at the EPO sure is declining, but what about the US? Well, in the US a lot of patents continue to be granted, but courts reject the lion’s share of these (which are asserted in courts or behind closed doors, instigating potential IPRs).

“People online have long obsessed over US patent number 10,000,000, even before it was named (or even its issuance date known).”Remember the hype about US patent number 10 million? That USPTO-granted patent is likely bogus too, as per the SCOTUS-inspired Section 101/Alice. We sure think so, but the Federal Circuit and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) have not looked at it yet. SCOTUS itself will be busy looking into Helsinn v Teva (mostly a prior art case) — a subject still covered by Kevin E. Noonan (Patent Docs) and other patent maximalists. “The court in Helsinn v Teva appears will rule on the issue of whether the confidential sale or license of a not-yet-patented technology or process qualifies as prior art under the AIA,” Managing IP wrote yesterday.

People online have long obsessed over US patent number 10,000,000, even before it was named (or even its issuance date known). More of this dumb obsession over the mere number of patents rather than their quality/value hasn’t quite stopped yet; there’s still more of that (see [1-3] at the bottom — all from this week).

“Scroll down a bit and nothing will be found except diagrams which correspond to data flow (like pseudo-code), explicitly with a computer/processor named.”Some people (a)(be)mused themselves by asking what would happen if a PTAB IPR rendered it invalid, making a sort of void at that historic point in the series of granted patents. We’ve already mentioned a couple of times that the patent may be abstract. Someone has just said: “The 10M patent issued for a “Coherent LADAR Using Intra-Pixel Detection” last week. It wasn’t deemed to be “abstract”? Weird. It seems like all examiners these days are smoking cigs at a French cafe contemplating existence. Just kidding. Pretty cool!”

So let’s look at it. The USPTO made a special URL for it: https://10millionpatents.uspto.gov/docs/patent10million.pdf

“We understand that this may upset patent maximalists and the person to whom this patent was assigned, but it reads “Section 101″ all over it.”Scroll down a bit and nothing will be found except diagrams which correspond to data flow (like pseudo-code), explicitly with a computer/processor named. So what’s the invention here really? Surely not the methods of acquisition of signals.

We understand that this may upset patent maximalists and the person to whom this patent was assigned, but it reads “Section 101″ all over it.

Suffice to say, patent maximalists would rather obsess over cases which better suit their agenda. Yesterday, for instance, Kluwer Patent Blog covered this (a case from last week):

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board correctly determined that claims 1-8 of a patent for a method for drilling holes for dental implants, held by Sirona Dental Systems GmbH, were unpatentable as obvious in light of prior art, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled. Further, the petitioners, Institut Straumann AG and Dental Wings Inc., failed to demonstrate that claims 9-10 of the challenged patent were unpatentable, as the Board correctly found. However, the Board erred when it denied Sirona’s contingent motion to amend the claims of its patent, and that ruling of the Board was vacated, and the dispute remanded with instructions to the Board to reconsider in light of recent precedent (Sirona Dental Systems GmbH v. Institut Straumann AG, June 19, 2018, Moore, K.).

This case, which was judged (or ruling authored) by Moore, is the exception, not the norm. For a more realistic view of what happens at PTAB see the insanely angry Mr. Gross, who just keeps bashing PTAB every hour of the day. Yesterday he called “MALICE”, said he “[a]lmost fell out of my chair”, used words like “trashes” and went all caps with “THIS IS COMPLETELY FALSE; ENFISH SAYS “RELEVANT” NOT “MANDATORY”…”

“Goodbye software patents. Goodbye US patent number 10,000,000 as well? We might never know unless someone files an IPR or the patent goes to court.”He called “nonsense” and moaned the loss of another patent from big bully IBM. Basically, almost everything perishes at the altar of PTAB and patent maximalists who are connected to patent trolls can’t stand it. There was only one exception to this (“reversal today of §101 rejection at PTAB”).

The sidekick of Gross brought up the much older Bilski case and said: “In Bilski, J Kennedy worried about the risk that he might “create uncertainty as to the patentability of software, advanced diagnostic medicine techniques, and inventions based on linear programming, data compression, and the manipulation of digital signals.””

Why worry? It’s a good thing. Goodbye software patents. Goodbye US patent number 10,000,000 as well? We might never know unless someone files an IPR or the patent goes to court.

Related/contextual items from the news:

  1. Celebrating American ingenuity to the 7th power

    From mainframe computers to mobile devices, from vaccines to cures, American ingenuity underwritten by the U.S. patent system has compounded over time to make our lives longer, more productive and more fulfilling.

  2. From 1 to 10,000,000 – A History of Patents
  3. The USPTO passed up a “golden opportunity” with its Raytheon 10 millionth patent award, expert claims

    The USPTO missed out on a significant chance to have a major impact with its choice for the 10 millionth patent, according to Matt Troyer, director of patent analytics at IP services provider Anaqua. “The news definitely made some noise,” he told IAM, “but this was a missed, one-of-a-kind opportunity to pay tribute to the acceleration of technology, celebrate 228 years of US innovation and pave the way for the next generation of inventors.” Last Tuesday the office issued patent number 10 million to Raytheon’s Joseph Marron for a method of getting real-time readings from LADAR.

Apple Loses Its Patent War Against Android and by Extension Against Linux

Posted in Apple, Courtroom, Google, Patents, Samsung at 3:08 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“We’ve always been shameless about stealing great ideas.”

Steve Jobs

Judge Lucy Koh

Summary: The long battle that Steve Jobs embarked on nearly a decade ago (with his infamous term, going “thermonuclear”) reaches its end and Apple is nowhere near to what the now-deceased Jobs actually wanted because Android dominates the market and these lawsuits are profitable to nobody except law firms

BACK in 2010 we wrote a lot about Apple, particularly about its war on Android, which had begun with a ‘soft’ (vulnerable) target, HTC. Our interest in this case and subsequent cases (e.g. against Samsung) has since then dwindled, but we kept abreast of the more major developments.

“From a legal perspective this case isn’t as interesting as other cases, but the sums (so-called ‘damages’) are higher, so patent extremists were quick to boost it.”Apple and Samsung finally settle, but we weren’t sure if we should bother writing about this because it’s covered very widely already. Like everything “Apple”, when it comes to patents literally all the major papers cover it (while ignoring much more important patent news). That’s not exactly fine, but this is the world we live in and if some headline says “Apple”, then people are more likely to click on it (than a headline that says “§ 101″ or something equally vague to most people).

But really, how can we just ignore such news? The patent maximalists’ sites, e.g. Michael Loney’s, have begun covering it. “Apple and Samsung apparently just settled their patent dispute,” Mark Lemley wrote yesterday and soon thereafter came a lot of media coverage. Sites about patents wrote about it, albeit we can expect a lot more from them in days to come. From a legal perspective this case isn’t as interesting as other cases, but the sums (so-called ‘damages’) are higher, so patent extremists were quick to boost it. They wrote about it last night.

“Just remember that Apple started this dispute and was the bully all along.”So did technology news sites, Android sites, Apple sites, Android-centric news sites like this, corporate media and its “tech” branches (like CBS/CNET). They don’t say anything particularly special or insightful. In fact, the said truce is pretty secretive, so there’s not much that can be said with certainty. A blog post from someone who followed these battles closely for 8 years (Florian Müller) says/concludes with this: “Normally, those companies strike license deals, and when they wind up in court, they typically settle reasonably early. Somehow, it took them a lot longer in this case. And now either one of them has a dispute going that looks like it could become the next long-running one: Apple with Qualcomm, and Samsung with Huawei.”

“Only the lawyers gained from these cases (there was a string of them).”Just remember that Apple started this dispute and was the bully all along. Judge Koh made herself a name out of it. The media loves any case that says “Apple” on it. Müller added that “Judge Koh was quick and presumably overjoyous to grant the DISMISSAL sought by Apple and Samsung post-mediation: ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 6/27/18.”

Koh has since then done other commendable things in her court.

For those wishing to read more details, try this article from Bloomberg:

The biggest patent battle of the modern technology world has finally come to an end after seven years.

Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. told a judge Wednesday they’d resolved the first filed but last remaining of the legal disputes that once spanned four continents. The string of lawsuits started in 2011 after Steve Jobs, Apple’s co-founder who died that year, threatened to go “thermonuclear” on rivals that used the Android operating system. The companies didn’t disclose the terms of the accord.

Only the lawyers gained from these cases (there was a string of them). Why did Samsung and Apple bother? Apple started this! It was an awful and now-notorious strategy of Steve Jobs, who even used words like “thermonuclear”. The supposed brilliance of this ‘genius’ was bad judgment and arrogance. The courts proved it.

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