10.15.19
Posted in Europe, Patents at 9:48 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
No patents on life and nature? You must have missed the news!
Summary: The absolutely ridiculous patent bar (ridiculously low) at today’s EPO means that legal certainty associated with European Patents is at an all-time low; patents get granted for the sake of granting more patents each year
HAVING just covered software patents in Europe and UPC issues, we now look at the broader picture in the European Patent Office (EPO).
It’s so sad that in less than a decade the EPO managed to earn a reputation worse than that of the USPTO not just because of the scandals but also decline in patent quality. Those two things are of course closely linked. Examiners that Battistelli has not managed to drive away António Campinos either drives to ‘retirement’ or replaces with private companies. It’s as if it’s an actual goal to get rid of experienced examiners and turn their job into a business venture with the likes of Serco, which already do business for the USPTO.
“It’s so sad that in less than a decade the EPO managed to earn a reputation worse than that of the USPTO not just because of the scandals but also decline in patent quality.”When EPO founding documents were crafted and refined half a century ago architects of the system envisioned a system that would serve scientists, be inclusive (not in the nepotism sense), and not be run like a greedy corporation. The EPC was routinely violated in recent years and nobody was held accountable. This is why we end up in such a sordid mess. It’s utterly grotesque.
Check out who’s hammering the news wires this week [1, 2] with stuff like this, in effect self-promotional words for an event that berates quality control:
Many patent applications and patents are lost before the EPO, either before Opposition Divisions or before Appeal due to incorrect original drafting, and added subject matter is a recurrent problem. Learn advanced drafting techniques for successful EPO patent applications.
Many patent applications and patents are lost before the EPO Boards of Appeal due to incorrect original drafting. Added subject matter is a recurrent problem: Amendments made during grant procedure, to take account or new prior art, amount to added subject-matter, often fatal in opposition procedure before the EPO, and national courts.
Giving tips for getting patents from the EPO — even if fake patent monopolies — by employing tricks to exploit deliberate loopholes. Is this what we’ve come to? Also published yesterday was this piece behind the Agrow paywall:
Submissions urge EPO not to patent conventional plants
The European Patent Office (EPO) has been urged not to patent conventionally bred plants in separate submissions from the European Commission and a group of farming and environmentalist organisations.
Such patents should never have been granted in the first place; patents on nature don’t make sense, neither morally nor legally. Anyone who’s granting them does a disservice to common sense and the planet. Similar patents literally cause the death of a lot of people. Back in February we wrote about patents on cancer treatment — the latest of many articles on the subject. Here’s a new press release about another such European Patent:
Onxeo S.A. (Euronext Paris, NASDAQ Copenhagen: ONXEO), (“Onxeo” or “the Company”), a clinical-stage biotechnology company specializing in the development of innovative drugs targeting tumor DNA Damage Response (DDR) in oncology, in particular against rare or resistant cancers, today announced having received a communication from the European Patent Office (EPO) informing the Company of its intent to grant a new patent strengthening the European protection of compounds sourced from its platON™ platform.
[...]
This patent will provide a term of protection valid until mid-2031, which could be further extended until 2036 via the supplementary protection certificate (SPC) system. It completes the already robust set of 9 patent families securing the protection of AsiDNA™ and its related compounds.
Instead of tackling cancer, as it should, the EPO grants monopoly through patents so as to limit who can treat cancer!
Here’s another new statement, coming from esoteric sites like “Golden Casino News”:
Scandion Oncology A/S (“Scandion Oncology”) today announces that the European Patent Office (“EPO”) has granted the company’s patent application for SCO-101 when combined with chemotherapy. Patent is valid until May 2037.
The headline says “Scandion Oncology A/S receives EU-patent for SCO-101,” but that’s just wrong. EPO is not EU. Notice what’s being granted here; the EPO now treats cancer as “business opportunity” rather than something to be cured; the same goes for global warming. If only more people grasped the seriousness of it…
Rose Hughes (working for companies like the above) has meanwhile covered T 1003/19) — a case concerning intention to grant European Patents:
Recent Board of Appeal decision T 1003/19 poses a riddle: when is it not the intention of the EPO to grant the “text-intended for grant? Before the Examining Division (ED) grants a patent application, they send the applicant a copy of the text-intended for grant (“Druckexemplar”) (Rule 71(3) EPC). The text-intended for grant is normally considered to be, as the name suggests, the text that the ED plans on granting. In response to the Rule 71(3) communication, the applicant approves the text-intended for grant by filing translations of the claims and paying the appropriate fees. If the applicant approves the text-intended for grant, the patent is granted.
T 1003/19 related to an appeal from a decision of the ED to grant an application based on a text-intended for grant in which all but one of the drawings pages were missing. The applicant had approved the text-intended to grant. In most circumstances, it is difficult for a patentee to correct mistakes in a granted patent based on a text-intended for grant that they have approved. As stated in the Guidelines for Examination: “Since the final responsibility for the text of the patent lies with the applicant or patentee, it is his duty to properly check all the documents making up the communication under Rule 71(3)” (H-VI-3.1). It is difficult to argue, for example, that it was not the intention of the ED to grant a patent containing a mistake introduced and approved by the applicant themselves (G 1/10, IPKat post here).
[...]
The BA concluded that the applicant had not approved a text-intended for grant. The BA therefore set aside the decision to grant the patent.
There are serious autonomy problems at the EPO as the appeals process is lacking independence and suffering massive backlogs as well.
“Trips to Cambodia and Ethiopia don’t exactly present the EPO as a world leader.”Alex Frost, writing the first reply to this post, said: “We have tried to escalate this problem with the EPO as it is causing huge problems with disgruntled applicants who are being told that they cannot rectify a problem that is in no way of their making.”
Here’s the full comment from Alex:
A welcome decision given the exponential rise we are seeing in the number of errors being introduced by Examining Division at the moment. So far in 2019, just of my own cases, I have come across 5 with significant errors (description pages missing or duplicated; drawings missing etc), all of which were the fault of the EPO (either the Primary Examiner or his/her Formalities officer, presumably). Goodness only knows how many such cases there have been across the whole firm/profession.
This is against a backdrop of, I guess, a similar number (5 or 6 ) such cases of mine with this sort of ED introduced error over the whole previous 25 years of practice. No doubt a part of the problem is the unseemly haste to examine and grant applications at the moment. We have tried to escalate this problem with the EPO as it is causing huge problems with disgruntled applicants who are being told that they cannot rectify a problem that is in no way of their making.
It’s nice to see so lucidly expressed (and publicly recognised) issues aired in IP Kat again, even if only in the comments. The decline in patent quality will accompany a collapse in legal certainty. And then what? Who would then be willing to apply for European Patents or at what cost? What does EPO even know of patent quality? The EPO, in external communications, brags about spreading its lowered patent quality and invalid patents to other continents! “In order to avoid duplication of efforts and provide services on time and at a high level of quality, IP offices need to work together,” the EPO wrote yesterday. Judging by which patent offices today's EPO takes photos with, the future doesn’t seem promising. Does the EPO try to adapt to the standards of countries with not a single European Patent? Trips to Cambodia and Ethiopia don’t exactly present the EPO as a world leader. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Courtroom, Europe, Patents at 8:56 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
It takes courage — not just intelligence — to oppose misnomers such as "artificial intelligence" patents
Summary: Forces or lobbyists for software patents try to come up with tricks and lies by which to cheat the EPC and enshrine illegal software patents; sadly, moreover, EPO judges lack the necessary independence by which to shape caselaw against such practices
THE European Patent Office (EPO) has taken control of another EPO, the Organisation. Battistelli started it and António Campinos continues just that. He even rendered his 'boss' at the Council his 'butler'. Imagine that! How is that even legal/constitutional? Maybe it isn’t. But who’s to actually enforce the law/constitution (or EPC)? This is a circular issue.
Advocacy of software patents by the EPO isn’t news; we saw some forms of it way back in the Brimelow days, but it has been getting worse since and judges have since then totally lost any sense of autonomy and independence. They will probably ‘vote’ (decide) the “usual way” some time soon (patent on software simulation) because Campinos is already meddling towards that outcome! See what happened in G 2/19.
“They will probably ‘vote’ (decide) the “usual way” some time soon (patent on software simulation) because Campinos is already meddling towards that outcome!”Sometimes we still see examples of software patents being thrown out inside rather than outside the EPO. Sometimes even loud proponents of software patents (no, not software professionals) admit it. Such was the case the other day when Bardehle Pagenberg wrote: “Authenticating individuals based on liveness probability: non-technical EPO refused to grant a patent on a method of authenticating financial transactions based on biometric data.”
Bardehle Pagenberg is, in our experience, the most vocal and shameless proponent of these bogus patents. They focus on these. Bardehle Pagenberg’s Patrick Heckeler, having published this page, even promoted another case where:
The first instance examining division refused searching the claimed subject-matter because it allegedly lacks technical character…
Forget about all that “technical” (or “technical effect”) nonsense; it’s the wrong test or criterion/criteria. Same for “problem-solution”. The sole riddle ought to be, does this cover something physical (where that physical thing is strictly required)? If not, then it’s abstract. Throw out the application/patent.
Sadly, however, the EPO adopted clever little tricks and loopholes, such as misuse of words like “machines”; they associate the overused term “AI” with “machine learning” (what it means originally) as if there’s some machine or device somewhere. This week they also repeat the nonsense which is “machine translations” when they say: “What is the role of machine translations in proceedings before the EPO?”
“Sadly, however, the EPO adopted clever little tricks and loopholes, such as misuse of words like “machines”; they associate the overused term “AI” with “machine learning” (what it means originally) as if there’s some machine or device somewhere.”“Those are not “machine translations” but lousy algorithms that take something in and spew garbage out,” I told them, “an incoherent mess for most languages, with no legal validity whatsoever…”
It’s rather worrying to see how the EPO deals with obvious software patents that under 35 U.S.C. § 101 the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) would be pressured to throw out, either at first instance (examination) or Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) — or, failing that, district courts, the Federal Circuit and SCOTUS (no potent challenge to that in 5 years at that level). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Courtroom, Deception, Europe, Patents at 7:25 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.”
Or: Truth is sunshine to the vampires of lies.
Summary: Team UPC (“empire of lies”) is catching up with reality; no matter how hard media has attempted to not cover EPO scandals (after the EPO paid and threatened many publishers that tried), it remains very much apparent that EPOnia is like a theocracy that cannot be trusted with anything
WE CAN quite safely assume that most examiners at the European Patent Office (EPO) aren’t happy with the direction the Office has taken. Staff surveys have repeatedly shown this (with large margins). António Campinos is just more of Battistelli and they carry on lowering patent quality, based on studies they attempt to suppress. They’re meanwhile creating new loopholes/routes to software patenting in Europe and striving to replace ‘naughty’ European courts (that ‘dare’ oppose such patents) with something more ‘obedient’ or complicit. EPO judges are casualties as they’re being terrorised to the point where it’s dangerous (to one’s career) to oppose patent maximalists. Only weeks ago we saw Campinos intervening in favour of software patents. He made remarks about an important upcoming case. Does he not have something better to do (than meddling in legal matters he lacks technical qualifications in)?
“Only weeks ago we saw Campinos intervening in favour of software patents. He made remarks about an important upcoming case.”Who’s in charge of the EPO? Certainly not the law or judges who enforce/review that law. A politician from France/Portugal calls all the shots. These aren’t scientists but politicians! Nontechnical autocrats, people who keep calling patents “property” yet again (they’re not property). “You mean patents,” I told them last night. They never respond. On they go with joint EUIPO lies (now 3 weeks of that disgraced “IP” ‘study’, tweeted and retweeted every single day). Pure pseudoscience and an insult to facts.
Should we be surprised that several nations — not just Germany — openly oppose the handover of patent courts to EPOnia? Or that scholars issue strongly-worded criticisms when they’re not on the EPO’s payroll?
“Should we be surprised that several nations — not just Germany — openly oppose the handover of patent courts to EPOnia?”Team UPC hardcores (apparently a Brit in Munich) are tweeting (quoting) that “rule of law within the EPOrg are criticised. This question is further explosive against the background of the equally pending constitutional complaint against the Unified Patent System.”
Tweets aren't journalism, but this is a translation of a journal. This thread in full says: “Potential impact of G3/19 on DE constitutional complaints; UPC? Prof. Haedicke, GRURInt 2019, 885 on referral G3/19 (from orig German): “This conflict, however, is about much more than the question of the interpretation of A53(b) EPC. It makes it clear that the [EPO President] and the AC seem to have a different understanding of the relationship between the institutions of the EPOrg than the Boards of Appeal. The scope of the judicial control over legislative acts of the AC and the degree to which the AC is bound by the [...] interpretation of the EPC rules by the BoA are controversial. In question is the power of the judiciary to take binding decisions on the interpretation of the EPC which go beyond the individual case. Also affected is the role of the President of the EPO and the system of [...] checks and balances within the EPOrg resulting from the separation of powers.[…] The effects of this dispute thus extend far beyond the concrete question of fact. If the AC were able to change the case law of the Enlarged BoA in order to extend its binding force beyond the [...] individual case, this would enhance the position of the AC, significantly weaken the BoA & strengthen the position of the critics of the EPC to its detriment. The referral may also have consequences for several pending constitutional complaints in which shortcomings in the [...] rule of law within the EPOrg are criticised. This question is further explosive against the background of the equally pending constitutional complaint against the Unified Patent System. It is of great importance to ensure that the relationship between the AC and the BoA [...] complies with principles of the rule of law.”
“It doesn’t matter what some lawyers and politicians at the EPO (and around it) say; at the end of the day the issue is now in the hands of judges the EPO does not control (perhaps with the exception of Stephan Harbarth).”The litigation ‘industry’ refuses to let UPC/Unitary Patent die. Herbert Smith Freehills LLP still mentions it in relation to Brexit (and promoted its take on it earlier this week).
It doesn’t matter what some lawyers and politicians at the EPO (and around it) say; at the end of the day the issue is now in the hands of judges the EPO does not control (perhaps with the exception of Stephan Harbarth).
Widespread condemnation or popular uprise won’t be possible (as happened with the EU copyright directive) if media refuses to cover it. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Bill Gates, Deception at 5:10 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Quote from important article of the New York Times (published over the weekend):
Summary: Media ownership up on display; it’s amplifying false claims for a whole month, whereas truth/correct information gets buried before a weekend is over
ALMOST EXACTLY ONE MONTH after media funded by Bill Gates’ close friend (VICE) slandered Richard Stallman we’re seeing familiar patterns again. This was very much predictable and in recent days we did several articles and memes about it, e.g. this one.
It’s hardly a secret that the Gates Foundation controls a lot of publishers. Through his sham ‘charity’ Bill Gates has bribed a lot of the British media, repeatedly, including the largest publishers. The same is true for most other countries (where the spoken language is not English). Worry not, they’ll drown out with noise any signal about Gates pedophilia connections/acts…
“Keep an eye and bear in mind this is a symptom of media ownership. It’s putting false words in people’s mouths to defame them in order to distract from the written record of someone else…”Radio Active VCs has just noted: “Saturday, when no one is paying attention: Bill Gates had deep relationship with Jeffery Epstein that he’s been lying about. Monday, prime time news drops: Cutie pie billionaire Bill Gates loves to read!”
Citing an article/puff piece entitled Bill Gates Says Anti-Vaccine Autism Groups “Kill Children” (could help distract from real news), this new tweet says: “Don’t know anyone out there “killing children!” Spare us the histrionics!!Meanwhile Bill Gates working w/ child rapist #JeffreyEpstein #Hypocrite” (we’ve come across many similar tweets that assert with confidence Gates is a pedophile looking to hide something he did).
Keep an eye and bear in mind this is a symptom of media ownership. It’s putting false words in people’s mouths to defame them in order to distract from the written record of someone else (see image at the top).
As a side note, isn’t it rather ironic that patent zealots are, as early as this week, celebrating a mass murderer and rapist (also of young indigenous Americans, prepubescent according to historic records) with another ludicrous patent granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in DRM, GNU/Linux, Kernel at 12:08 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
By Pedro Fco. (maslinux.es)
This is a Spanish translation of: Software Freedom Eroding in Linux and Nobody Seems to Care or Oppose This and mirrored over at El Kernel de Linux está introduciendo Open Source Privative Software (Artículo de opinión de Roy Schestowitz)
Summary: Linux, el kernel, continúa su trayectoria o el camino hacia convertirse en software propietario de código abierto (OSPS).
La importancia de la Libertad del Software será entendida más y más (o mejor) con el tiempo. He aquí un nuevo ejemplo de las noticias. Cuando la gente no controla el software, es el software el que los controla a ellos – un punto que Richard Stallman ha estado enfatizando durante décadas.
El jefe de la Fundación Linux y el único editor de Linux.com son usuarios de Mac (este último alardeó ayer de sus múltiples “Macs”), así que no esperes que se preocupen por la Libertad de Software. No lo hacen. No hemos estado hablando mucho (o con frecuencia) sobre ellos últimamente porque son una causa perdida. Nos rendimos. Se apoyan en historias antiestallmánicas. Linux.com se siente como un sitio de Openwashing y Microsoft (nuevos ejemplos a tal efecto).
Mientras tanto, se ha puesto de manifiesto, una vez más, que AMD sigue adelante con la DRM. Como dijo Michael Larabel:
“Soporte inicial de HDCP. Sí, protección de contenido digital de alto ancho de banda. Este soporte para HDCP Linux en el lado de Radeon viene para Raven Ridge y más nuevo. Como se explica en el artículo anterior, es probable que se deba a que los APUs de AMD están llegando a más Chromebooks y, por lo tanto, todo puede ser visto como algo bueno. Para aquellos que no desean soporte para HDCP, la implementación de AMDGPU DC permite desactivarlo como una opción de Kconfig“.
“Más cambios en la AMDGPU para Linux 5.5 seguirán en las próximas semanas“, añadió Larabel. “El ciclo Linux 5.5 comenzará formalmente a finales de noviembre y se estabilizará a principios de 2020. La lista de cambios para esta AMDGPU DRM-Next-5.5 pull inicial a través de esta lista de correo.”
Ese segundo DRM no es el mismo DRM (sólo el mismo acrónimo) y no es algo a lo que se opondría ni siquiera Stallman. Lo preocupante, sin embargo, es que se ha vuelto ‘normal’ lanzar DRM de restricción de usuarios a GNU/Linux (usando palabras/términos técnicos como “HDCP”), la pieza más famosa y conocida del software libre. A los responsables de la Fundación Linux no les importa (ni siquiera usan GNU/Linux) o no se atreven a decir nada – viendo lo que les pasa a los que sí lo hacen.
La gente habla mucho sobre la situación de Stallman en este momento (una segunda ola de llamadas para eliminarlo de GNU) aunque pocos conectan lo que se le está haciendo a Stallman con lo que le pasó a Torvalds hace un año. Se está incitando a la gente contra los que hacen lo correcto. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous Page « Previous Page Next entries »
Content is available under CC-BY-SA