12.19.21

Unified Patent Court is a Fake Common Court and Violates CJEU’s Jurisprudence of the Last 10 Years, Will Explode at launch, Says Professor Jaeger

Posted in Courtroom, Deception, Europe, Law, Patents at 8:41 am by Guest Editorial Team

Original at FFII

Prof. Dr. Thomas Jaeger

The Unified Patent Court (UPC) is a court outside of the design of the European Union, and won’t survive a legal challenge at the European Court of Justice (CJEU), says Pr Thomas Jaeger, legal researcher at the University of Vienna, who has analyzed in a paper “Delayed Again? The Benelux Alternative to the UPC” the jurisprudence of the CJEU for the last 10 years regarding international courts that have to interpret EU law.

Over the last 10 years, The European Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has defined a clear jurisprudence on what consists a “common court” between the Member States, via a series of decisions that all follow the same logic: international courts that have to interpret EU law have to have functional links with the National Courts of the Member States, which the UPC does not have.

Pr Jaeger says in his paper:

“the narrative was invented that the UPC is a court common to the Member States. It is not, of course, because the functioning and jurisdiction of the court remained the same as envisaged for the EEUPC.”

He cites the CJEU’s Miles judgment (2011), which explains why the Benelux court is acceptable, and other models like the UPCA are not (lack of functional links with the national Courts of the Member States):

“‘It is true that the Court of Justice has held, in … Dior, that … a court common to a number of Member States, such as the Benelux Court of Justice, [is] able to submit questions to the Court of Justice, in the same way as courts or tribunals of any of those Member States. … However, the Complaints Board [at hand] is not such a court common to … Member States[.] Whereas the Benelux Court … procedure … is a step in the proceedings before the national courts leading to definitive interpretations of common Benelux legal rules …, the Complaints Board does not have any such links with the judicial systems of the Member States. … Moreover, although the Complaints Board was created by all the Member States and by the Union, the fact remains that it is a body of an international organisation which, despite the functional links which it has with the Union, remains formally distinct from it and from those Member States.”

— CJEU’s Case C-196/09, Paul Miles and Others v European Schools, 2011, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62009CJ0196&from=EN

In its Achmea decision (2018) to cancel controversial intra-EU ISDS investment courts, the CJEU recalled the same principle as in Miles (2011):

However, the arbitral tribunal at issue in the main proceedings is not such a court common to a number of Member States, comparable to the Benelux Court of Justice. Whereas the Benelux Court has the task of ensuring that the legal rules common to the three Benelux States are applied uniformly, and the procedure before it is a step in the proceedings before the national courts leading to definitive interpretations of common Benelux legal rules, the arbitral tribunal at issue in the main proceedings does not have any such links with the judicial systems of the Member States (see, to that effect, judgment of 14 June 2011, Miles and Others, C‑196/09, EU:C:2011:388, paragraph 41).

— CJEU’s Case Case C-284/16, Achmea, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62016CJ0284&qid=1639573183575

In a recent interview on Kluwer Patent Blog, Pr Jaeger says the Court design might be challenged by a complaint in front of national courts, of whom the competence was stolen by the Unified Patent Court:

Will the UPC’s legality be tested immediately after its launch, you think? “I have heard from a number of sides that such interest is there, especially since the hurdles for a challenge are low: Any national court whose jurisdiction is removed because of the UPC could put the question of EU law compatibility of that removal of jurisdiction (i.e. of legality of the UPCA) before the CJEU by way of a preliminary ruling. All it takes is a litigant who approaches that court, which would in turn need to ascertain the preliminary question of its continued jurisdiction.”

— Kluwer Patent Blog: ‘Unitary Patent system is an arbitrary and ailing hybrid monster mix’ , Interview of Pr Jaeger http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/12/09/unitary-patent-system-is-an-arbitrary-and-ailing-hybrid-monster-mix/

Links


© Copyright 2021, Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure. The content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

12.18.21

Microsoft’s Chief Architect of GitHub Copilot, Balabhadra (Alex) Graveley, Deletes His Twitter Account a Month After His “Best Friend” Nat Friedman Exited GitHub

Posted in Courtroom, Microsoft at 8:35 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Earlier this month: [Teaser] Meet Microsoft’s Chief Architect of GitHub Copilot, Balabhadra (Alex) Graveley (Updated) | Microsoft Corporation is Still Protecting a Violent Criminal Who Assaults Women (Employing Him as Manager, Protecting Him From Arrest, Paying Him a Salary) | Microsoft GitHub Exposé — Part IX — Microsoft’s Chief Architect of GitHub Copilot Sought to be Arrested One Day After Techrights Article About Him | Arrest/Police Report for Microsoft’s Chief Architect of GitHub Copilot, Balabhadra Alex Graveley | Up Next: Arrest and Police Report for Microsoft’s Chief Architect of GitHub Copilot | Microsoft’s Human Resources (HR) Policy: We Offer Assistance to Perpetrators of Domestic Violence

Balabhadra (Alex) Graveley deleted

Summary: The violent and dangerous man has deleted or deactivated his Twitter account. Docket due this coming Monday.

10.30.21

[Meme] Not in Our Name…

Posted in Courtroom, Deception, Europe, Patents at 4:20 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

European companies and Team UPC

Summary: The UPC fanatics who waged a coup against the EPO (installing politicians like Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos instead of scientists and law/legal experts) are tying to further expand the scope of patents — beyond what is allowable by the EPC — by waging a similar coup against patent courts across the EU; what they claim about "SMEs" is the exact opposite of what is true, but the financial damage caused is the money they put in their own pockets

[Meme] [Teaser] Germany (EPO) Assimilated to Turkish Culture/Dictatorship

Posted in Courtroom, Europe, Law, Patents at 8:15 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Sultan Habip Asan: Strike Regulations? Not even 'Recep' went that far
When politicians just don’t give a damn as dictators attack judges and bloggers are threatened by corrupt corporate raiders we’ve become no better than a monarchy

Look, a patent! UPC fees; Autocracy normalised
Had Recep Tayyip Erdoğan asserted that the EPO (if not complicit elements in EU authorities) are as abusive as him, he’d possibly have a legitimate point at this stage

Summary: The EPO‘s Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos have long been compared to Sultans; tomorrow we’ll see the role of Turkey in the unlawful “Strike Regulations”

10.09.21

The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part VII: Luxembourgish Laxity

Posted in Courtroom, Europe, Law, Patents at 5:12 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Series parts:

  1. The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part I: Let the Sunshine In!
  2. The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part II: A “Unanimous” Endorsement?
  3. The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part III: Three Missing Votes
  4. The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part IV: The Founding States
  5. The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part V: Germany Says “Ja”
  6. The EPO’s Overseer/Overseen Collusion — Part VI: A Distinct Lack of Dutch Courage
  7. YOU ARE HERE ☞ Luxembourgish Laxity

Lex Kaufhold
Do Lex Kaufhold and the other representatives of the EPO‘s founding states realise the damage that they caused by their cavalier rubber-stamping of the unlawful proposals submitted to them by Benoît Battistelli?
And do they have any intention of apologising for permitting serious breaches of the fundamental rights of EPO staff to persist over a period of eight years?

Summary: Today we look at the voting record of the small nation Luxembourg (population of 633,622 inhabitants as of March this year), a founding member state of the European Patent Organisation (EPO) that decided to violate the rights of all EPO staff; for comparison, total EU population is at 447,706,209 and EPO covers more than the EU, so the vote of Luxembourg weighs a lot, as much as Germany’s in fact, with only a thousandths of the total population covered

In the Benelux camp, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg followed its larger neighbour the Kingdom of the Netherlands and voted in favour of Battistelli’s Vichyite "Strike Regulations" in June 2013.

“During his visit to Luxembourg, Battistelli met with the Minister of Economy and Foreign Trade, Etienne Schneider…”An interesting background detail here is the fact that two months earlier – in April 2013 – Battistelli had paid an official visit to Luxembourg to attend a conference marking the country’s 6th annual “Intellectual Property Day”. [PDF]

During his visit to Luxembourg, Battistelli met with the Minister of Economy and Foreign Trade, Etienne Schneider, the Head of the national “IP” office, Lex Kaufhold, as well as with representatives of the national industry, the Business Federation of Luxembourg (FEDIL), and patent attorneys.

“After that “charm offensive” by the overlord of EPOnia, it is hardly surprising that the Luxembourg delegation agreed to endorse all of his proposals at the 136th Meeting of the Administrative Council which took place shortly afterwards.”Speaking at the conference to mark “Intellectual Property Day”, Battistelli acknowledged “the pioneering role of a founding member state of the European Patent Organisation, which is an important partner for the EPO.”

After that “charm offensive” by the overlord of EPOnia, it is hardly surprising that the Luxembourg delegation agreed to endorse all of his proposals at the 136th Meeting of the Administrative Council which took place shortly afterwards.

“In his official photo-ops, Kaufhold likes to project the image of a conscientious administrator who diligently studies his files.”The head of the Luxembourg delegation at the time in question was Lex Kaufhold, who continued to hold that position until the end of 2020. [PDF]

In his official photo-ops, Kaufhold likes to project the image of a conscientious administrator who diligently studies his files.

However, on this occasion he clearly failed to properly scrutinise the unlawful restrictions on the fundamental rights of EPO staff proposed by Battistelli.

Lex Kaufhold working
Head of the Luxembourg delegation, Lex Kaufhold, diligently studying his files. Unfortunately he seems to have overlooked some important details in connection with Battistelli’s “Strike Regulations”.

Kaufhold’s failure to perform due diligence in June 2013 may have inflicted serious moral injury upon the staff of the EPO, but it does not appear to have adversely affected his career in his home country.

In January 2021 he was promoted to a new position as a senior advisor (Conseiller de Direction 1ère classe) in the Office of the Minister for Economic Affairs. According to the official job description, Kaufhold’s new area of competence is advising on “assessment of risks, compliance and internal audit.”

“Kaufhold’s failure to perform due diligence in June 2013 may have inflicted serious moral injury upon the staff of the EPO, but it does not appear to have adversely affected his career in his home country.”Looking at his voting record on the EPO’s Administrative Council and his unqualified endorsement of Battistelli’s Vichyite "Strike Regulations", it’s not immediately evident that he would be the best person for that particular job. But who knows, maybe he has learnt a thing or two since June 2013?

Meanwhile, Kaufhold’s previous position as head of Luxembourg’s national “IP” office has been taken over [PDF] by Iris Depoulain who now represents the Grand Duchy on the EPO’s Administrative Council.

Prior to her promotion, Depoulain’s position at the Luxembourg “IP” Office was “Commissioner for Copyright and Related Rights”. So it’s not really clear how much she actually knows about patents. But hopefully she is a quick learner.

“…it’s not really clear how much she actually knows about patents. But hopefully she is a quick learner.”In any event, it remains to be seen whether or not the fresh-faced Ms Depoulain will prove capable of making a useful contribution to righting the wrongs which have been inflicted upon EPO staff by the Administrative Council during the Battistelli era when her predecessor headed the national delegation.

Iris Depoulain
It remains to be seen whether or not Iris Depoulain can help to steer the Council in the right direction and encourage it to right the wrongs which have been inflicted upon EPO staff during the Battistelli era.

In the next part we will take a look at the delegations representing the United Kingdom and its closest neighbour, the Republic of Ireland.

08.28.21

About Half of the Supposed ‘Growth’ in Patents is Abstract Stuff or ‘Software-Related’ (Patents That Courts Would Quite Likely Reject)

Posted in America, Courtroom, Europe, Patents at 9:37 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Illustrator promptSummary: Despite a disturbing mass-granting trend, wherein quality and legitimacy of patents may matter no more (it’s all about quantity, not quality), the courts are pushing back, both in Europe and in north America; so unless they can miraculously put the courts at the hands of patent maximalists — basically what Team UPC is hoping to achieve to no avail — there’s a massive avalanche ahead (millions of tentatively invalid or fake patents)

LATELY we’ve been writing a great deal about corruption that enabled the lowering of patent quality, human rights, and standards of the sciences (we’re meant to think granted patents and innovations are surrogates). Donald Trump’s regime contributed its fair share to this fiasco (Hungarian/Hungary-born litigation USPTO ‘mole’), but we have our own 'Trumps' right here in Europe (with cross-pollination). They don’t even need to win an election and rally a bunch of violent mobs. We’ve written more than enough about EPO dictators Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos shamelessly promoting patents on software using a plethora of laughable and usually meaningless buzzwords and hype waves. Across the Atlantic they lobbied for the same, seeing that since 2014 (Alice at SCOTUS and 35 U.S.C. § 101) software patents have been mowed down by the thousands in the Federal Circuit and Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), mostly via inter partes reviews (IPRs), i.e. post-grant.

“Lately we’re been writing a great deal about corruption that enabled the lowering of patent quality, human rights, and standards of the sciences (we’re meant to think granted patents and innovations are surrogates).”Earlier this week Eileen McDermott (editor of Watchtroll) wrote about these fake patents and dubious verdicts. She wrote* : “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today reversed a jury verdict for Juno Therapeutics and Sloan Kettering Institute for Cancer Research (Juno), wiping out a $1.2 billion judgment for the entities. The CAFC found that the jury’s verdict with respect to written description was not supported by substantial evidence.”

“CAFC, which still isn’t too eager to allow any of these patents, is without its chief judge Prost (not in charge anymore).”A day or so apart Raymond Millien (also over at Watchtroll) said: “In First Half of 2021, 63% of U.S. Patents, 48.9% at EPO and 40.1% in China Were Software-Related” (so basically questionable if not outright fake patents, even where the law forbids them).

CAFC, which still isn’t too eager to allow any of these patents, is without its chief judge Prost [1, 2, 3] (not in charge anymore). But it’s still insistent. Steve Brachmann (Watchtroll) wrote: “Federal Circuit Affirms [Section] 101 Invalidation of Secure Transaction System Patents in Victory for Apple and Visa…”

“We must confess that we try really hard to find more sources for ‘news’ or noise about patents, but many of the blogs we used to follow have shut down or simply became inactive, especially blogs vocally in favour of software patents.”Here in Europe I constantly find stories about European Patents perishing in courts; well, software patents are also fake patents across the Atlantic — in American courts too…

That’s certainly a relief and good news to software developers.

We must confess that we try really hard to find more sources for ‘news’ or noise about patents, but many of the blogs we used to follow have shut down or simply became inactive, especially blogs vocally in favour of software patents. Their influence is waning, but they will never admit it. That’s just how they operate, projecting confidence to clients while egging them on to pursue more lousy patent and file more lawsuits (even actions that likely go astray at the end, i.e. enriching nobody but the law firms).

To be most frank, having written literally thousands of posts about these issues already, we’d rather focus on new material and revelations. “EPO Exposé: The Besieged Baltic States – Part VI” is due to be published tonight. There has been a lot of interest in this series. We’re also grateful to readers who shifted over to gemini:// and take advantage of better (and lighter) protocols.
____
* All links are omitted in this case because Watchtroll is the only site we refuse to even link to because of its highly aggressive tone and blood-lust-type stance, especially when its founder was still in charge there, constantly attacking judges — left and right — for merely doing the right thing. He has since then softened his tone somewhat.

08.24.21

Expecting the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation to Actually Follow the Law…

Posted in Courtroom, Europe, Law, Patents at 2:24 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Video download link | md5sum 4449a20ad1a87e19292b30bd9031f5f5

Summary: The representatives of staff of the EPO, the Central Staff Committee (CSC), are approaching the Heads of Delegation of the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation along with their Chairman; they’re politely asking for better safeguards against systematic abuses of the law, including abolition of workers’ basic rights

The Central Staff Committee (CSC) of the EPO has distributed a letter, an open letter, and readers of Techrights typically ensure that we too can see a copy. This letter only partly concerns the unlawful regulations of Benoît Battistelli — regulations which António Campinos continued to exploit while keeping 100% silent on the court’s outcome (he doesn’t seem to care what tribunals say unless those tribunals are controlled by him).

“The intent is to raise awareness and garner sympathy from the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation (mostly a bunch of legal hacks rather than scientists).”The letter from the CSC mostly concerns the internal Appeals Committee, which was mentioned earlier this year and several times last year. The intent is to raise awareness and garner sympathy from the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation (mostly a bunch of legal hacks rather than scientists).

“On 7 July 2021,” the CSC said, “the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization (ILOAT) delivered several important Judgments on the rules governing the exercise of the right to strike at the EPO. The ILOAT found that virtually every single one of the strike rules blatantly and obviously violated the fundamental right to strike, that the President exceeded his competence when drawing up Circular No. 347 in 2013 and that the Circular is therefore unlawful in its entirety and is set aside. Already in 2015 a national court in The Hague, the so-called Gerechtshof, found that the EPO violated fundamental European rights. In view of the long list of violations of the fundamental right to strike identified by the ILOAT, the question can be raised of why a majority in the internal Appeals Committee (ApC) reached a completely opposite opinion, based on the same facts and arguments.”

Then they spoke of the internal Appeals Committee (ApC). “The members of the ApC are laypersons. However, the Chair and Vice-Chairs are expected to possess the qualifications required for appointment to high judicial office or be lawyers with experience in the area of employment law acquired at national or international level (see Article 111(3) ServRegs). A reasonably objective and informed person might question whether they would at times give up their independence and impartiality.

“The damage caused by the ApC’s massively wrong assessment of the strike rules and their application is considerable, both for the Organisation and for its staff.

  • The Organisation is now stigmatised in the public eye as an employer that has been violating fundamental rights of its staff for over eight years and has been depriving them of an important tool for collective bargaining.
  • Staff have also definitively lost confidence in the internal means of settling disputes.

Much of the rest of the publication is included in letter form, as shown in the video above, and we’ve decided to replicate it as HTML so that it makes it into IPFS and Gemini space.

European Patent Office | 80298 MUNICH | GERMANY

Reference: sc21102cl – 0.3.1/1.3.1
Date: 13/08/2021

To the Chairman and
the Heads of Delegation of the
Administrative Council of the
European Patent Organisation

OPEN LETTER

System for the settlement of disputes – Proposals for strengthening the Appeals Committee

Dear Mr Chairman,
Dear Heads of Delegation,

On 7 July 2021, the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization (ILOAT) delivered several important Judgments on the rules governing the exercise of the right to strike at the European Patent Office1, introduced in 2013 with decision CA/D 5/13 and Circular No. 347, as well as on subsequent implementing decisions. ILOAT found that virtually every single one of the strike rules blatantly and obviously violated the fundamental right to strike, that the President exceeded his competence when drawing up Circular No. 347 and that the Circular is therefore unlawful in its entirety and is set aside2. The ILOAT furthermore ruled that a salary deduction for absence due to strike participation of 1/20th of the monthly remuneration per day of absence instead of 1/30th as for all other unpaid lawful absences was punitive3 and that the President had abused his power when applying the strike rules and through his interpretation of Circular No. 347, of which he was the author4, justifying high moral damages.

Already in 2015 a national court in The Hague, the so-called Gerechtshof, found that the EPO violated fundamental European rights5.

____
1 Judgments Nos. 4430 to 4435
2 Judgment No. 4430, consideration 16 and decision
3 Judgment No. 4435
4 Judgments Nos. 4432 to 4434
5 The decision of the Gerechtshof was later on set aside by the Dutch Supreme Court, the Hoge Raad, only on the ground that the Organisation could invoke its immunity from national jurisdiction and that the Dutch courts therefore have no jurisdiction (see Judgement of the Gerechtshof Den Haag).


Based on the same facts and arguments the internal Appeals Committee (ApC), by a majority, concluded in the underlying internal appeal procedures that the new strike rules as well as the salary deductions were lawful, that the President did not act ultra vires when laying down the strike rules in Circular No. 347 and that he did not abuse his powers in applying them6. The ILOAT found that the ApC had erred in all these points. In view of the long list of violations of the fundamental right to strike identified by the ILOAT7, this is remarkable and raises the question of why a majority in the ApC reached such an opposite opinion. The members of the ApC are laypersons. However, the Chair and Vice-Chairs are expected to possess the qualifications required for appointment to high judicial office or be lawyers with experience in the area of employment law acquired at national or international level, pursuant to Article 111(3) ServRegs. A reasonably objective and informed person might question whether they would at times give up their independence and impartiality, codified in Article 112 ServRegs.

The Staff Representation has already pointed out several times8 that the unilateral selection and appointment of the Chair and the Vice-Chairs by the President (Article 111(2)(a) ServRegs) does not ensure the required balance in the ApC and does not promote confidence in its opinions. The Staff Representation has therefore repeatedly requested to be involved in their selection and that the GCC be consulted on the appointments, to no avail9.

Internal appeals are procedure where a Committee is composed with an equal number of members appointed by the President and by the Staff Representation, however with the Chair taking alone all procedural decisions (Article 111a(1) ServRegs), leading the debate and making sometimes the difference in the opinions. Therefore, a mutual agreement on their appointment is key for arriving at balanced opinions accepted by staff and for preventing from overloading ILOAT with complaints which could have easily been settled internally. This was the reason why the GAC10 had to be consulted on the appointment of the Chair and Vice-Chairs since the founding of the European Patent Organisation11 until 2013. However, with decisions CA/D 8/12 and 9/12 this consultation process was abolished and the Chair and Vice-Chairs have since then been unilaterally appointed by the President.

____
6 Only in the internal appeals procedure underlying Judgment No. 4432 the ApC concluded that a postponement of a strike ballot had been unlawful, but despite the blatant abuse of power no moral damage was awarded.
7 See, in particular, Judgment Nos. 4430, cons.16 and 4435, cons.15 to 17
8 See for example the letter to the Administrative Council of 31 January 2020
9 Although Staff Representation has been granted an observer status in the last selection procedure for a new chair, this cannot be a substitute for being able to appoint members to the selection board and for the required consultation of staff representation in the GCC.
10 Replaced by the GCC with decision CA/D 2/14
11 Article 110(4) ServRegs, version 1977 (CA/D 9/77)


The damage caused by the ApC’s massively wrong assessment of the strike rules and their application is considerable, both for the Organisation and for its staff.

The Organisation is now stigmatised in the public eye as an employer that has been violating fundamental rights of its staff for over eight years and has been depriving staff of an important tool for collective bargaining, as their right to strike has been severely obstructed at a time when many fundamental reforms were pushed through (inter alia “social democracy”, the new career system, the new salary adjustment procedure, the new rules for the education allowance, …).

Staff have also definitively lost confidence in the internal means of settling disputes and will, in most cases, eventually file a complaint with the ILOAT for protecting their rights. In addition, there is a high risk that many other decisions in appeal cases were also based on opinions where the ApC erred in law.

In view of the fundamental importance of legal certainty and legal peace and in order to restore staff’s confidence in the opinions of the ApC as soon as possible, and to prevent that disputes have to be settled outside the Organisation, we urge you that the Administrative Council takes steps to ensure that:

• Staff Representation is allowed to appoint members to the selection board for the Chair and Vice-Chairs of the ApC,
• the GCC is consulted prior to appointment of the Chair and Vice-Chairs,
• no Chair or vice-Chair may be appointed who does not find consensus in the GCC.

Yours sincerely,

Alain Dumont
Chairman of the Central Staff Committee

cc.: President of the EPO
Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization

In short, there seems to be a tendency to enshrine unlawful rules as “the law”; moreover, “there is a high risk that many other decisions in appeal cases were also based on opinions where the ApC erred in law.”

This is by design; in the past we saw EPO dictators intervening when the ApC got it right; so, as usual, there’s not even any regard/respect to those appointed to assess legality within the EPO.

08.03.21

Four Weeks of Non-Compliance: EPO Only Accepts Courts That It Rigs and Controls

Posted in Courtroom, Europe, Patents at 4:56 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

ILO-AT time
4 weeks tomorrow

EPO President, ILO-AT, I have diplomatic immunity
The media in the US calls such behaviour “fascistic”

Summary: Compliance is for suckers, believes the “Mafia” which runs the EPO; it is not even responding (for three weeks!) to letters from the victims who won the cases; this is bad for Europe's image and it sets a dangerous precedent

Willy Minnoye speaks
There’s no “Real Judge” in the world’s highest or even Supreme Courts, Mr. Vichy and his cohorts believe

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »

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