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

09.09.19

Patent Charlatans and Frauds Are Doing a Disservice to Europe and to Europe’s Patent System

Posted in Deception, Europe, Finance, Patents at 10:44 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Thank you for smoking the EPO’s ‘free’ cigarettes

EPO's free cigarettes

Summary: Tax evasion and UPC lies aren’t going to help the integrity of the patent system; au contraire — those are becoming an existential threat to the system being exploited by law firms (and accountants)

IT OUGHTN’T be so hard to understand that the European Patent Office (EPO) relies on its credibility for survival. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) learned this the hard way and gradually adapted (e.g. respecting 35 U.S.C. § 101). With people like António Campinos and Benoît Battistelli in charge of the EPO, however, hope seems slim. They actively collaborate with predators and abusers. They choose the side of liars and trolls. They abuse truth-tellers and staff representatives. They ignore courts and attack judges. This won’t end well.

Yesterday we saw Accountancy Today moaning that tax evasion for the rich monopolists (via patents) is “still so low” — that’s in their headline!

Another parasitic occupation and a colossal scam? It’s just shameless self-promotion from “Mark Tighe, founder and managing director at specialist tax consultancy Catax” (come to me for your tax evasion needs! I shall figure out how to use patents to deny taxpayers your tax contributions…)

From the article, which was published in a British site:

Patent Box tax relief was phased in from 2013 with the full scheme in place by 2017, offering a reduced rate of corporate tax on all profits made from patents.

In fact, it offers a near halving of the rate of corporation tax paid on intellectual property (IP) related profits to just 10 per cent.

The aim is to incentivise the development of new patented inventions in the UK and build a competitive future economy.

[...]

Just over 1,000 Patent Box claims are made each year, compared to more than 5,600 patents granted on average every year between 2012 and 2017.

The 1,160 Patent Box claims made in 2015/16 had a total value of £754.3 million while the 1,025 recorded so far for 2016/17 are worth £942.5 million. This means the thousands of eligible companies who fail to claim are missing out on six figure sums.

[...]

Happily, patents secured via the UK intellectual property office (IPO) will not be affected by Brexit. More surprisingly, nor will patents obtained through the European Patent Office (EPO) because the EPO is not an EU organisation.

So companies holding patents registered via the UK IPO or the EPO can relax, knowing their patents are still protected and they will still qualify for the Patent Box tax relief.

This “Patent Box tax relief” is a major scam that we covered here many times before, usually in relation to other European countries.

Wouldn’t British Team UPC just love it? It’s not like these people have an integrity; we know whose interests they generally serve…

Regardless, only hours ago IP Kat (British blog) published this post that boosts Team UPC’s lies. IP Kat’s Riana Harvey ended up propping up nothing but the Bristows nonsense and Watchtroll. This comes to show what IP Kat has already turned into: lobbying of the litigation ‘industry’. The cited articles are all bad (under “Patents”); they’re dishonest propaganda and deliberate lies. Just check the comments. In response to the first one (we’ve mentioned this ridiculous piece days ago) one person wrote:

I agree that, if the BVerfG were to dismiss the constitutional complaint, there could be an interesting (theoretical) question about whether the Federal President would be obliged to sign into law the Geman legislation relating to the UPC.

However, I am not sure whether that is the whole story. Just because the Federal President could sign into law legislation that ALLOWS Germany to ratify the UPCA, does this necessarily mean that the Federal President would also be OBLIGED to deposit Germany’s instrument of ratification? Is that not a separate step that would need to be agreed and coordinated with the government?

Regardless of the technicalities of the role of the Federal President, I find it rather fascinating that anyone is still pressing for Germany to ratify the UPC under the current circumstances. This is because the current Brexit deadline of 31 October will have been and gone long before the earliest date that the UPC can possibly (or practicably) come into force. If the UK ceases to be an EU Member State after 31 October 2019, it is difficult to see how the UPCA, which REQUIRES the Participating Member States to be EU Member States, could EVER come into force.

This could turn into a chicken and egg situation, as the preconditions for the UPCA to come into force would not be met … but an amendment to the definition of the Participating Member States (to make the UPCA a valid Agreement again) could not be made until AFTER the unmodified Agreement enters into force.

In other words, it would be totally bonkers for Germany to press ahead with ratification under the current circumstances … and this does not even consider the still unresolved question of whether the UPCA is in accordance with EU law (either with or without the participation of the UK). The position of the German government therefore makes sense to me. What does not make any sense whatsoever is why a firm of attorneys (who, after all, tend to be a rather conservative breed) would advocate for such a reckless and irresponsible course of action. One can only speculate…

Lucky Luke then said that “the purpose of this piece is not about legal coherence. Some circles have long withdrawn from sensible legal discussion, instead resorting to the desperate spreading of wishful thinking…”

Here’s the full comment:

Missing in this remarkable construct is one minor aspect: Support from German constitutional law.

According to Article 59(1) of the German Grundgesetz, the Federal President is Germany´s sole representative in matters of international law, while the initiation of negotiations on the conclusion of an international agreement and the negotiations themselves (including the definition of political objectives and the contents of the agreement) are the sole responsibility of the Federal Government. The role of the Federal Parliament is limited to the legislative proceedings on the agreement’s ratification. A simple Google search will quickly confirm this legal situation.

Hence it is difficult to see why the Federal Government as well as the Federal President would not have full and unimpeded discretion on whether and how to proceed in terms of the UPCA, subject to the overall political situation.

But, yet again, the purpose of this piece is not about legal coherence. Some circles have long withdrawn from sensible legal discussion, instead resorting to the desperate spreading of wishful thinking, often disguised as pseudo-legal theories created out of the blue. Things must indeed be looking rather grim for the UPCA.

There are some more comments in there, providing more information and not lies, unlike the Bristows “articles” that IP Kat decided to cite (Bristows also has key positions in IP Kat itself).

In another thread boosted by IP Kat some hours ago “Concerned observer” wrote about “UPC-promoters bag of tricks to somehow drum up business for the UPC (and, by happy coincidence, for the litigation firms that will be handling the UPC litigation)?”

The full pair of comments:

Small problem – the UPCA cannot be amended unless and until it comes into force. Thus, if the UK leaves the EU without an agreement before the UPCA comes into force, then the UPCA will be dead on arrival – for the reasons discussed in my comment on the previous UPC-related post.

Also, I take issue with your comment that Article 38 of the Statute is “probably not a very important core article”. The reason for this is that the preliminary reference procedure is a cornerstone of the EU legal system and so is an ESSENTIAL prerequisite for compliance with EU law. In my view, there are already strong reasons to doubt the UPC’s compliance with EU law, even with a fully functioning Article 38 of the Statute. However, rendering that Article ineffective (at least for the UK) would make non-compliance with EU law an absolute certainty.

[...]

So there is no “safety net” even under consideration in the UK. This seems to me to be yet another strike against the UPC.

Who in their right mind would risk requesting unitary effect when the UK’s participation remains highly doubtful and when there is no obvious way of recovering rights in the UK for any EPUEs that might, after grant, suddenly cease to have effect in that territory?

This would leave the UPC with only those patents that are not opted out of the system. My understanding is that this would be slim pickings indeed. Thus, even if miracles happen and the UPC struggles into life, it looks like anyone who is inclined to sign up as a UPC judge will be twiddling their thumbs for at least a few years. Or can we expect something else to be pulled out of the UPC-promoters bag of tricks to somehow drum up business for the UPC (and, by happy coincidence, for the litigation firms that will be handling the UPC litigation)?

Well, it doesn’t matter what these pre-filtered comments say, Bristows/Kluwer/IP Kat will carry on pushing pro-UPC lies. Kluwer Patent Blog totally lacks integrity and sadly IP Kat turned away from truth-seeking, instead becoming a distorter of the truth.

This kind of reckless behaviour and sheer refusal to cover EPO abuses will doom these blogs if not the whole system. They’re incapable of telling the truth. This how justice too dies.

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. Sword Group Violates Its Own Commitment by Working for the EPO

    The European Patent Office (EPO) keeps outsourcing its work to outside contractors (for-profit private entities) to the tune of hundreds of millions if not billions — all this without any oversight



  2. In 2020 Canonical No Longer Fights for Freedom

    Freedom requires a GNU/Linux distro other than Ubuntu, which seems unwilling or unable/incapable of speaking about and promoting the ideals of GNU/Linux



  3. We Need to Use the F Word (Freedom) to Promote Adoption of GNU/Linux

    "People get the government their behavior deserves. People deserve better than that." -Richard Stallman



  4. People Who Want to Explore GNU/Linux With Ubuntu See This Today

    "Wait, am I in a GNU/Linux blog or another Windows blog," a visitor might think... or, is Microsoft 'taking over' messaging at Canonical? (Same with code)



  5. Links 4/6/2020: Septor 2020.3, Nextcloud and Blender 2.83

    Links for the day



  6. Hey, Where's Red Hat (IBM)?

    Red Hat is conspicuously silent at these critical times (in its home country); Must be too busy hailing and cashing in on Trump's military (state) while dishing out shallow and self-contradictory diversity PR/fluff…



  7. Microsoft's Latest Vapourware About Supercomputers

    Microsoft has spent almost two decades dropping supercomputers vapourware on the media, but those misinformation dumps always turn out to be 100% hot air, no substance



  8. 2020: A Time for Resolutions or Revolutions?

    There are nonviolent means by which the current system can be corrected; we need to convince peers and relatives to change the way they behave and not cooperate with unjust elements of the system



  9. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, June 02, 2020

    IRC logs for Tuesday, June 02, 2020



  10. The Gates Press (GatesGate) -- Part I: Lost the Job After Writing an Article Critical of Bill Gates for Attacking Some Actual, Legitimate Charities (Because They Had Spread GNU/Linux)

    The sociopaths from the fake 'charity' of Bill Gates would go to great lengths to squash criticism and also to eliminate critics; this series tells the story of some of those personally affected



  11. Don't Fall for the Spin, Microsoft is Laying Off Workers and It's Not Just Because of the Pandemic





  12. All They Want is Litigation, Not Innovation

    It's getting difficult to ignore or to overlook the fact that the 'litigation lobby' (the likes of Team UPC and today's EPO management, guided by groups like the Licensing Executives Society International) doesn't care about innovation and is in fact looking to profit by crushing innovation



  13. Reminder: Microsoft Profits From Crushing Protesters for Donald Trump

    Don't lose sight of the fact that what's going on in the United States right now is very profitable to Microsoft



  14. No, GNU/Linux Isn't at 3% and Windows Isn't at Over 90%, Either

    This ludicrous idea that "Linux" (however one defines it) enjoys just 3% of the "market" is false and it should be treated as laughable spin (it is being widely promoted this week, often by Microsoft boosters looking to make charts where Windows stays at above 90% and Vista 10 is 'gaining'... at the expense of Windows)



  15. Links 3/6/2020: Devuan Beowulf 3.0.0 and Tails 4.7 Released

    Links for the day



  16. Links 2/6/2020: New Firefox Release (77), Debian-based MX Linux 19.2, KDevelop 5.5.2, GNU/Linux Growth on Desktops/Laptops

    Links for the day



  17. Techrights Can Figure Out Source Protection/Anonymisation Whilst Operating Very Transparently

    We're still quite radically transparent whilst at the same time enjoying 100% source protection record; we're also improving the software we use to publish more quickly and efficiently



  18. IRC Proceedings: Monday, June 01, 2020

    IRC logs for Monday, June 01, 2020



  19. This is How GNU Finally Dies

    "Brace for when GNU falls the way that OSI, FSF, FSFE, Mozilla, and the Linux Foundation did."



  20. Latest Microsoft Layoffs Spun as 'Innovation' (There's Always a Positive PR Angle)

    The public is expected to simply ignore the fact that Microsoft is laying off employees (again); instead we're expected to think it's all about Microsoft being very brilliant and innovative



  21. Microsoft Playing the Victim, Irrationally 'Hated' by Victims of Its Abuse

    We're meant to believe that those whom Microsoft bribes against are the opinionated 'haters' and Microsoft is a victim of 'hate'



  22. Links 1/6/2020: Linux 5.7, FOSSlife Born, LibreOffice 7.0 Beta1, Linux Mint 20 Making Early Promises

    Links for the day



  23. Linux Without Linus

    The Linux Foundation seems to be acting like Linus (Linux founder) is somewhat of a liability (forcing him to take a ‘break’ from his own project) while taking even the most notorious proposals from corporations, including those that called Linux a “cancer”



  24. What It Would Take for Linus Torvalds to Leave Linux Foundation Without the Linux Trademark and Without Linux

    It's nice to think that the founder of Linux can just take his project and walk away, moving elsewhere, i.e. away from the Microsoft-employed executives who now "boss" him; but it's not that simple anymore



  25. The Past Does Not Go Away, Except From Short-Term Memories

    People who are drunk on power and money (sometimes not even their own money) like to portray themselves as the very opposite of what they are; but in the age of the Internet it's difficult to make the general public simply forget the past and "move on..."



  26. IRC Proceedings: Sunday, May 31, 2020

    IRC logs for Sunday, May 31, 2020



  27. Links 1/6/2020: OpenMandriva Lx 4.1 2020.05, Linux Lite 5.0 Release, FreeBSD 11.4 RC2

    Links for the day



  28. It's a Common Mistake and Common Misconception/Error to Treat Microsoft as Just Another 'Large Company' (or 'Big Tech')

    What's wrong about Microsoft isn't its size; what's wrong with Microsoft is its behaviour, which isn't just illegal (crimes are the norm) but also hugely unethical



  29. Lessons of Michael Arrington (About Microsoft)

    Microsoft and Bill Gates have a long history bullying their critics; the quote above (or below) shows how even people who advertise with Microsoft are becoming the target of abuse



  30. 'Best' of Both Worlds: GNU/Linux Freedom + Malware With Keyloggers and DRM

    Running a Microsoft-controlled GNU/Linux instance under Vista 10 ("Windows Subsystem for Linux") in the age of virtual machines, dual boot and containers makes as much sense as chopping some carrots to go with the veal meal to appease vegetarian diners


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