04.23.20
Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:49 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A quick look back at three and a half thousand EPO articles; we exposed a lot of abuse, but the underlying problems aren’t being properly addressed yet
THE DAILY LINKS, which we shall try posting twice rather than just once a day (depending on volume of news and time available), contain several new examples of software patents (wrongly granted by the USPTO) being thrown out because of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Courts do not accept these. Over the past week we also included examples of European Patents being thrown out, citing similar grounds. It’s no secret that António Campinos, on behalf of the European Patent Office (EPO) but not the Organisation, pressures judges to allow software patents. Campinos actively and knowingly violates the EPC; last month he gloated about it in his IAM interview (puff piece with truly easy questions).
“That’s an essential function in a real democracy with checks and balances.”Later this year it’ll be 6 years since we started covering EPO affairs closely. Earlier this week the list of EPO articles listed in our wiki page passed 3,500 entries. But much work and activism remain to be done, seeing how staff is being attacked along with the EPC during a pandemic.
We wish to thank all our sources, who regularly inform us about EPO affairs and sometimes send hard, verifiable material at great personal risk. Without those brave people, certainly we wouldn’t have had much to report. Without them, the general population would be a lot less familiar with the severe problems. If we end up as a sort of ‘conduit’ for aggrieved insiders, so be it. That’s an essential function in a real democracy with checks and balances. For a system of justice to function — including the patent system — it must be seen. Public Relations “tweets” don’t cut it. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Law, Patents at 4:28 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Five years ago Battistelli weaponised the media to libel and falsely label Judge Corcoran as a Nazism sympathiser with weapons in his office (both proven false) and the EPO still proudly associates with judge-bashing blowhards like Watchtroll‘s founder (as recently as yesterday)
Summary: The tradition of demonising judges who enforce the law (sometimes with help from publishers) is alive and well; the EPO seems to have made alliances with patent zealots who attack any judge whose decision isn’t financially useful to them
THE European Patent Office (EPO) is once again openly associating with Watchtroll, a site that attacks judges (even Federal Circuit judges who merely apply the law, notably 35 U.S.C. § 101), much like Battistelli did (António Campinos hasn’t undone that and he’s still pressuring judges in defiance of the EPC).
“How does the EPO hope to attract any talent?”This does not shock us anymore. Seeing the EPO glorifying patent extremists after Campinos had notorious patent trolls on EPO panels is merely more of the same or “business as usual”.
Why does the EPO make it so obvious that it disregards science and actively oppresses innovation for the sake of litigation? How does the EPO hope to attract any talent? If the EPO was a law/litigation firm, that might be fine. But if it is trying to attract scientists to work an examiners, whose sort of appeal does it have? Judges aren’t the enemy; they make money and keep their positions by ruling accurately (low rate of overturned decisions), not granting as many patents as possible. But if judges can be removed by companies and by dictators (or receive bribes from them), then that’s another kind of problem. █
“Their documents display a clear intent to monopolize, to prevent any competition from springing up. And they have used a variety of restrictive practices to prevent that kind of competition.”
–Judge Robert Bork, former US Supreme Court nominee (on Microsoft)
“An analogy [of Microsoft] would be the owner of a toll bridge, which is the only bridge across a river, paying the owner of land to deny access to a site where a competitive bridge is partly built.”
–Judge Robert Bork
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA