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

01.13.20

Mansion of Pedophilia – Part VII: Guilty Verdict in Case of Pedophilia (Staff at the Mansion of Bill Gates), But Where Was the Mainstream Media?

Posted in Bill Gates, Courtroom at 2:58 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The media hardly found this conspicuous even though it’s connected to the world’s richest person (at the time)

Guilty highlight

Summary: We take our first glimpse at court documents and a preliminary look (overview) of what the case in question entailed, with updates on the record for almost 5 years

THIS series has begun receiving a lot more attention than we initially expected. Best-selling book authors now link to it and are engaged with growing interest. We maintain our high standards here, notably saying nothing that cannot be verified and proved. This is why it takes a long time to prepare this. Behind the scenes we keep supporting material. We have not yet been challenged on any pertinent facts; if something appears to be missing from the text, we strongly encourage reading prior parts first. Each part depends on preceding parts. For this part we strongly suggest familiarising oneself with the fifth part and six part. Those who are not familiar with the Epstein connection might wish to see what we wrote earlier (this past weekend).

In later parts we hope to show what the police report said, what the lawyers said and today we’ll start dealing with what the court said. Here are all the relevant documents in their index:

Jones page 1

Jones page 2

Jones page 3

Jones page 4

Mind the total number of pages. It’s a lot.

We won’t say anything about the nature of this case (at least not yet). It’s not entirely possible that they lay all the blame on the wrong people and we all know how plea bargain works (we covered examples of the associated issues in the past). Months ago we showed one such example in the case of Eric Lundgren, which we covered in

Sometimes the courts can put forth cases (and police selectively choose charges) that help clearing the names of those with more power, more connections, and more money. It’s not unprecedented. In the case of Chelsea Manning, those who exposed war crimes received the full brunt of the law, unlike those whose crimes were exposed. Manning and Julian Assange may therefore be seen as ‘sacrificial lambs’ — a situation wherein those punished aren’t those who merit any (or most) of the punishment. Looking at the raw court material, the person arrested — an employee of Bill Gates working at his home — was found guilty. It’s about pedophilia, as we explained in part one, part two, part three and part four. This will take a while to digest, but we keep things as concise as we can (and careful check everything for accuracy).

Regarding the above documents and the times, pay attention to this detail:

guilty plea one year apart

As someone told us while researching it: “AND HOW COME IT TOOK A WHOLE YEAR???”

We mentioned this before, also in relation to media coverage…

It happens when journalists are away (holidays).

“This is another reason I want to see the affidavit,” said the person. “And I want to know why a court date wasn’t set immediately days after his apartment was searched???”

We have a large and growing team working on this. Stay tuned for the next part.

This can take a while to properly understand in full. Notice how it runs — in some form or another — until 2018. We still wait for police to comply with record requests. Our pace is partly curbed by our ability to get particular material. We also need to be polite and diplomatic as publication tone/fashion can alienate particular parties.

12.25.19

Mansion of Pedophilia – Part III: Suppressing Information About a Criminal Case Regarding Pedophilia at the Home of Bill Gates

Posted in Bill Gates, Courtroom, Deception at 10:52 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: There has certainly been a degree of coordination with the media (delays and choice of time), in effect suppressing public access to an important case pertaining to crimes of pedophilia

IN part one we explained the importance of these revelations and why they’re grounded in verifiable facts, unlike the Franklin child prostitution ring allegations. In part two we clarified progress in obtaining a full police report. Gates tried hard to deflect or 'neutralise' media attention, but we’re difficult to censor and dissuade. Techrights is a different kind of publisher because it latches onto suppressed topics and doesn’t let go. A lot remains to be shown and we’ve split it into parts in order to make the facts easier to digest while allowing enough time between each part for more sources/informants to contact us (this has historically proven to be strategically significant). There’s a degree of collaboration here and elaborating on that collaboration may jeopardise the investigation. We use encryption, at the very least so as to reduce predictability of what will be published next. So please bear with us as we divulge one bit of information at a time. We write this slowly and carefully. There are some deadlines associated with police activity and we take these self-imposed deadlines into account.

“Why did it take a YEAR for people to report on it? His criminal court file is opened 12/29/2013. They don’t report on it until a year later.”
      –Anonymous
For those just joining us, please read the first and second parts now. As a recap, Bill Gates said (to the media, repeatedly even!) that he was close to Mr. Epstein because he needed to know lots of rich people and Epstein knew lots of rich people. Hello? You’re like the richest American, Mr. Gates (or were at the time). Also, why would you pay MIT through Epstein and not the fake charity? Why fly his child molestation plane when you have a private jet of your own? Saving air miles? Reports say that Epstein’s plane had beds in it (with underage “subjects”). No matter how one looks at it (from which perspective), it doesn’t look too good and the excuses from Gates “don’t compute” — to borrow “geek speak”.

“It’s almost like the attorney was defending Gates and not the employee.”
      –Anonymous
A couple of days ago we published this meme/teaser about this series. Its key message was that there’s a massive — truly massive — police report. There’s also some public information about a legal case, albeit not so much press coverage. Hardly any! We’ll come to this at a later stage in the series (this in itself is quite an injustice that merits further investigation and exposure).

As a source of ours put it: “Why did it take a YEAR for people to report on it? His criminal court file is opened 12/29/2013. They don’t report on it until a year later.”

The timing of a press report? Guess when. We alluded to that earlier in this series.

But wait, it gets worse.

“Have you seen this?”

So said a source of ours. “Look who the employee’s criminal attorney is following on Twitter” (page archived here just in case that changes). Here are screenshots:

A screenshot of Jeff D. Cohen, a lawyer
A screenshot of Jeff D. Cohen, a key lawyer in the case

A screenshot of Jeff D. Cohen, a lawyer
Further details on the 10 people he follows (click for larger view)

“It’s almost like the attorney was defending Gates and not the employee,” our source remarked. We’ll get back to that in a future part.

Concepts such as “coverup trial” come to mind. Saudi Arabia has just sentenced 5 people to death without the court even bothering to mention the mastermind/perpetrator, who controls this court (and also happens to be a close associate of Bill Gates). They try to make it seem as though Saudi Arabia is tough on people who murder journalists without bothering to hold accountable those who do this again and again (usually domestically). Just about nobody doubts who’s responsible at the higher level (recall this interview with PBS, a network funded by Gates).

12.07.19

Fake European Patents (on Algorithms) Leading to Fake Embargoes

Posted in Courtroom, Europe, Patents at 11:21 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

35 U.S.C. § 101 would void corresponding USPTO patents

A dreamworld corporate

Summary: Law firms have gotten their way in Germany; instead of supporting the productive workers the patent system is nowadays promoting the litigation ‘industry’ and it ought to be corrected

CITING Sueddeutsche Zeitung (SZ), which used to cover European Patent Office (EPO) scandals, my online friend said that “BlackBerry wins German patent injunctions against Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram over four (most likely invalid!) software patents” (he pinged Facebook and pinged “Ip2Innovate” about it).

“The Munich I Regional Court ordered a #patent injunction against #Facebook, #WhatsApp, #Instagram,” he said in another tweet. “It’s feature-specific but still, those are simply #softwarepatents that shouldn’t even be allowed in Europe. Germany needs patent reform badly! #BlackBerry is a troll.”

“It doesn’t matter if the software we developed is proprietary or Free software. It doesn’t even matter if we develop software or merely use it.”We’ve said that for years and we hope he will help us (Techrights, FFII etc.) fight back against fake software patents in Europe — an urgent and growing problem!

“I am stunned that the court didn’t stay all five cases over serious doubts concerning the validity of those patents,” he wrote. “When I looked at the claims of the patents-in-suit earlier this year, I quickly concluded that they’d all be highly likely to be annulled…”

This is a pretty decent article about a serious problem. It’s a good article about fake European Patents on software. If the Office grants invalid patents (IPs) that are abstract and incompatible with the EPC, we all suffer as a result. It doesn’t matter if the software we developed is proprietary or Free software. It doesn’t even matter if we develop software or merely use it.

“..they want lenient courts that accept — i.e. presume to be valid in a great rush — invalid patents and then grant injunctions for quick settlements (embargoes/sanctions can be ruinous enough to lead to it, irrespective of justice/truth).”Citing 5 European Patents, he names the following accused functionalities: showing two chat histories in parallel, automatically identifying user profiles containing partly identical data, sharing messages from the chat history, displaying chat history while text is being edited, chatting during gameplay.

There are actually European Patents on those things! Not only are these abstract; they are also trivial and there’s likely ample prior art.

From his post:

Sueddeutsche Zeitung (SZ), a Munich-based newspaper, reported yesterday evening on a set of Germany-wide patent injunctions that BlackBerry–once a smartphone maker, now basically a patent troll–just obtained against Facebook and its WhatsApp and Instagram subsidiaries over a total of four different patents covering chat features.

The injunction is provisionally enforceable. If BlackBerry posts a bond or makes a deposit, it can enforce the injunctions at this stage, though Facebook can appeal to the Munich Higher Regional Court and is, in parallel, challenging the validity of those patents before the Federal Patent Court of Germany. But Facebook has already told the media that the affected services–Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, Instagram–wouldn’t go out of service in Germany: workarounds have been prepared, so the related features would have to be removed.

BlackBerry sued Facebook (with a focus on Facebook Messenger rather than the social media stream) and those two subsidiaries over five different patents, which I listed earlier this year and will list again further below.

[...]

I am stunned that the court didn’t stay all five cases over serious doubts concerning the validity of those patents. When I looked at the claims of the patents-in-suit earlier this year, I quickly concluded that they’d all be highly likely to be annulled by the Federal Patent Court of Germany (which also happens to be based in Munich, which is sort of the Capital of the Patent Movement, at least for Europe). That’s partly because software as such isn’t patent-eligible in Europe. While the courts rarely ever invalidate a patent as a whole on that basis, they do exclude any non-technical features from their novelty and non-obviousness analysis–and it’s hard to see how anything novel or inventive could be found in those patent claims that isn’t just software stuff without a technical effect. I already operated a chat service (as part of an online gaming network) in the 1990s and wrote an IRC client in 2000, so I know a lot of the prior art from hands-on experience.

What I have been able to find out is that BlackBerry, represented by Quinn Emanuel (a great firm that has not so great clients at times), had to narrow multiple patent claims-in-suit during the infringement proceedings just to address the court’s concerns over non-novelty. There are two problem with German patent infringement courts in the context to grant or deny a stay pending a nullity action. First, they apply an unreasonably high standard (and the “guru” from the Dusseldorf appeals court who has been promoting that high standard for many years more aggressively and fanatically than anyone else recently made dozens of employees of a small company lose their jobs–with Quinn Emanuel again on the enforcing side–over a patent subsequently held invalid). Second–though in many cases that’s even more important than the standard–they take only non-novelty (anticipation) arguments seriously and largely refuse to consider obviousness contentions (lack of inventive step) for no good reason (if they can rule on infringement without appointing expert witnesses, they certainly could also assess the existence of absence of an inventive step, but they just don’t want to).

Patent zealots from Mannheim, Düsseldorf and Munich (where António Campinos succeeded Battistelli) want us to think that everything is OK and even thriving. For the litigation ‘industry’? Sure. They don’t seem to care too much about the validity of granted patents; moreover, they want lenient courts that accept — i.e. presume to be valid in a great rush — invalid patents and then grant injunctions for quick settlements (embargoes/sanctions can be ruinous enough to lead to it, irrespective of justice/truth).

12.06.19

The EPO Rejects Innovation

Posted in Courtroom, Europe, Patents at 6:17 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Litigation, litigation, litigation, litigation, even frivolous litigation

Innovation vs Litigation = waste of time and money

Summary: The EPO ceased caring about the needs of scientists whose work involves invention; instead, EPO management crafts increasingly lenient guidelines that yield illegal European Patents (not compatible with the EPC) that heavily-besieged EPO judges are unable to stop

THE European Patent Office (EPO) is led not by a scientist; several consecutive presidents, including António Campinos, had no background in science, so it’s hardly surprising they deem lawyers — not scientists — as those to be served. And they even use terms such as “Clients” or “Customers” (as if the EPO is a private, for-profit corporation whose sole goal is maximising revenue).

“How about databases on the network? Oh, blockchains? Yes, let’s just overcomplicate things.”This very simple (albeit not shallow) observation could not be avoided or overlooked by EPO staff, notably examiners. Who are they even led or managed by? A nonscientific, law-breaking cabal often younger than the examiners themselves? People who choose buzzwords over substance? Mere marketing lingo which they can’t even explain, let alone understand? Earlier this week we saw the EPO promoting software patents in Europe again — patents that are illegal and can only be excused using hype waves few people can grasp. How about databases on the network? Oh, blockchains? Yes, let’s just overcomplicate things.

“A year ago,” the EPO tweeted, “experts in #blockchain discussed its possible impact on the #patent system.”

The EPO has since then distorted its guidelines to permit if not encourage patents on “hey hi” (AI) and stuff like “blockchain” (most algorithms that depend on some database can be spun or twisted that way). Got some data? Got some logic (loops and conditional statements)? Give it to some attorney who can spin that as some “hey hi on the blockchain…”

“X on a car”

“Y on a mobile”

“Z over the Internet”

Remember all those “on a computer” patents?

That fashion is back in Europe, having been borrowed from the US.

“The EPO has since then distorted its guidelines to permit if not encourage patents on “hey hi” (AI) and stuff like “blockchain” (most algorithms that depend on some database can be spun or twisted that way).”Hey, it’s not like examiners can refuse, right? With new guidelines in effect and with growing risk of dismissal, it’s a lot safer for them to swiftly grant these bogus patents. “Patentees Need to Act Fast as the EPO Opposition Timeline Tightens” is the title of what Watchtroll posted yesterday. Watchtroll is a close ally of the EPO and it shares its attacks on judges with EPO management. They’re fantastical patent zealots and this article was of course composed by litigation people, Katherine Green & Emily Hayes (first article in Watchtroll). Taking EPO advice from Watchtroll would seem suitable to EPO management, but not anybody else. Watchtroll is a radical site, which says (this week) that “Now is the Time to Put the PTAB [the court itself] on Trial” (article by Gene Quinn, the founder). Maybe they’ll also call for assassination of patent judges one day (revenge for ‘killing’ patents).

What’s it all about? It’s about PTAB applying the law, 35 U.S.C. § 101, to invalidate patents wrongly granted by the USPTO. So Watchtroll wants the judges themselves to be put on trial! Perfectly normal, right?

In EPOnia the attack on judges has been normalised, as was the attack on the media. The EPO sent threats to journalists and bribed a lot of them as well. So now we’re left with no objective coverage (if any) about EPO scandals. Even past EPO critics (publications) seem to have sacked good writers, replacing them with ‘docile’ corporate writers. Check out this new EPO puff piece from World Intellectual Property Review (WIPR), composed by Rory O’Neill who ended up copy-pasting quotes from the EPO’s press release while offering nothing new, no insights. Is this what qualifies as “journalism” nowadays? Maybe they should also frame every Donald Trump “tweet” as fact and present that as “journalism”.

“In EPOnia the attack on judges has been normalised, as was the attack on the media.”The EPO has meanwhile published this latest nonsense (warning: epo.org link) about a “Working Party”; it used to present “Working Party” for patent quality (obviously a publicity stunt), but this one is for “Guidelines” because the latest EPO guidelines likely violate the EPC in a lot of ways. To quote the press release:

Members of the SACEPO Working Party on Guidelines and the EPO met on 27 November to discuss the annual revision of the Guidelines for Examination in the EPO and the Guidelines for Search and Examination at the EPO as PCT Authority.

[...]

The meeting formed a part of the EPO’s efforts to involve users in the revision of the Guidelines, a goal expressed in the Strategic Plan 2023 that was adopted by the EPO’s Administrative Council in June. During the meeting a move to broaden the spectrum of external involvement through a public online consultation on the Guidelines was unanimously embraced by the participants. The meeting was also used by the Working Party members and the EPO to discuss the details of the planned consultation which should start in March next year.

What next, EPO? Working Party on staff relations? Working Party on transparency? Working Party on workers’ welfare? Working Party on googlebombing the Web with misinformation about a topic of concern?

Now sit back expect the likes of IAM and WIPR to parrot the above (in days to come). This is what “journalism” in the area of patents has been reduced to. The litigation lobby hijacked everything in circulation (even anonymous comments get deleted!) — a mundane lobbying/coup facilitated by threats and bribes.

11.28.19

The Collapse of European Patents Continues

Posted in Courtroom, Europe, Law, Patents at 3:11 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

With or without courts getting involved

Graph extrapolated from the EPO
What good are patents granted in error?

Summary: The European Patent Office (EPO), confronted or challenged by courts that the EPO does not control, sees many of its newly-minted patents thrown out, reducing confidence in the whole system

EACH time an Invalid Patent (IP) gets granted there’s an opportunity for a law firm to make a buck (or euro), if not from application/renewal fees (shared with the patent office) then from frivolous litigation as well. But each such IP (we intentionally twisted this acronym) also harms the image of the office and the law firm. What kind of legal advice are they giving clients/applicants? This is a crisis in the making (early signs of which are nowadays seen and are increasingly visible in the United States).

“It is inevitable, as we’ve warned for a number of years, that many European Patents (EPs) will become IPs.”We’re not against patents; we’re for patent quality. We insist that patents should exist only in domains where their contribution to science/economics are undeniably provable. Yes, it’s about progression and advancement of human knowledge — something that monopolists have long opposed (as it is a form of disruption to the status quo they strive to perpetually exploit).

It is inevitable, as we’ve warned for a number of years, that many European Patents (EPs) will become IPs. If the largest patent-granting authority in Europe strives to just fake ‘production’ by granting loads of IPs, not only will support for this second-largest European institution diminish; it harms the EU’s reputation/credibility as well. It thus becomes a threat to peace, too.

Sara Moran has just commented on the British Court of Appeal looking into an IP:

Therefore the Court of Appeal was entitled to interfere with the trial judge’s assessment of obviousness and to hold that the 181 patent was invalid for lack of inventive step because the skilled team, during routine testing, would have been very likely to have come upon the dosage regime which is the subject matter of the patent.

Why was this patent granted in the first place? Appealing cases to the Court of Appeal (or higher) is unbelievably expensive. Many would have given up before that or never bother with a court battle, instead settling over IPs (patents of no real legitimacy).

“Why was this patent granted in the first place?”But the above case is sadly enough becoming the norm. Earlier this year we covered similar outcomes, even at higher level (the highest possible level). Will EPOnia heed the warning? Of course not! That would be bad for ‘production’…

The following new article/press release from FreshPlaza says that the “Boards of Appeal for the European Patent Office (EPO)” (since it’s besieged and terrorised by Office management, by its very own admission, can it overrule Office management?) has just restored a likely bogus/fake/invalid patent in defiance of the Opposition Division’s findings. To quote:

On November 13, 2019, the Boards of Appeal for the European Patent Office (EPO) reinstated Houweling’s European patent directed to its Ultra-Clima Semi-Closed Greenhouse. The Ultra-Clima European Patent was opposed by eleven greenhouse manufacturers, who combined efforts to challenge the patent. The Opposition Division of the EPO originally proposed revocation of Houweling’s European patent. Houweling disagreed with this finding and appealed the decision to the Boards of Appeal for the EPO. The Boards of Appeal reversed the proposed revocation and finally upheld Houweling’s patent. The Boards of Appeal found that Houweling’s patent meets all formal requirements of the EPO, and claims subject matter that is both novel and involves an inventive step. Houweling’s European patent covers most major countries in Europe.

What’s also noteworthy here is that the patent is a monopoly that decreases (limits/bans) access to something that’s needed to save humanity from catastrophe. Are such patents even desirable (irrespective of whether they’re valid or not)?

We’ve also just seen this new report from pv magazine International about fake patents granted by the EPO in the area of solar energy:

The European Patent Office has revoked SolarEdge’s inverter multi-level topology patent and the Israeli company said it intends to challenge both decisions.

[...]

On November 19, Mannheim Regional Court ruled Huawei had not committed patent infringement in relation to one of the two claims, and a court representative has told pv magazine the second case will be heard by January 7. “The judge declared that Huawei did not infringe on the patent relating to optimizer and inverter architecture and dismissed SolarEdge’s lawsuit directly,” announced Huawei in a statement this morning.

The European Patent Office (EPO) on Thursday responded to a patent opposition case lodged by Huawei against SolarEdge in relation to inverter multi-level topology. “The EPO decided that the SolarEdge patent did not involve an inventive step and the grant of the patent is revoked,” the Chinese manufacturer said.

So much for “green tech” patents, eh? PV-Tech‘s report has said that “German court rules against SolarEdge in Huawei patent infringement case”

So the EPO granted fake patents (monopolies on climate change mitigation techniques) and only lawyers benefited from pointless wars that courts deem fruitless and baseless:

Inverter manufacturer SolarEdge has been dealt a double blow after patent infringement proceedings brought against rival Huawei were thrown out and a European patent held by the firm was revoked.

However, in a statement released today, SolarEdge has confirmed its intent to appeal against the decision.

Last week, Mannheim Regional Court in Germany heard two particular cases brought forward by SolarEdge against Huawei, claiming that the Chinese tech giant infringed on its patents relating to its multi-level inverter topology technology, dubbed HD Wave.

It stems from an original complaint filed with the court last summer, vigorously denied by Huawei at the time, that called for a recall of products infringing on that patent.

But following proceedings heard on 19 November 2019, one infringement claim was dismissed and another deferred.

Imagine how much financial damage (to the firms involved) was caused. No, not the law firms; they always profit from disputes.

“Notice how they’re speaking only to patent and litigation firms in articles about patents (or citing EPO management). That is like speaking only to oil companies in articles about climate.”Who does this EPO policy really benefit? Not SMEs, that’s for sure; they’re harmed the most, but the EPO won’t let such ‘pesky’ facts get in the way. Yesterday a site called Bdaily repeated lies of the EPO, manufactured and paid for by EPO management to mislead the European public. To quote one bit (it’s mostly copy-pasted stuff from lawyers’ mouths): “The report acknowledges that European SMEs have been responsible for some important inventions in diverse fields such as pharmaceuticals, medical technology, clean energy, electronics and computing. Due to their lack of resources however, many SMEs opt to exploit their inventions through collaborations with partners.”

Notice how they’re speaking only to patent and litigation firms in articles about patents (or citing EPO management). That is like speaking only to oil companies in articles about climate. The EPO’s sheer disdain for truth was mentioned here yesterday. It’s a threat to sustained human existence, not just to “business” (which isn’t the same thing; without humans there’s no “business” and no “economy”).

11.16.19

Koch’s Reply to EPO Through ILO and Techrights’ Interpretation of Koch v EPO Documents Help Show That ILO-AT is Played by EPO Management

Posted in Courtroom, Europe, Patents at 4:17 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“Played” an understatement for controlled?

You should re-run the case. When we're about to lose the case.

Summary: Sending cases back and forth, without the complainant being involved, means that justice is in eternal ‘limbo’ and thus the abusive management of the European Patent Office (EPO) — first Team Battistelli and now Team Campinos — can get away with anything the bullies do (no judgment of substance being delivered)

THE gross injustice at the EPO is absolutely astounding. What’s even more astounding is the fact that politicians tolerate this. Astonishing! The EU? It blocks EPO staff that talks about it. “Shut up, little man, you’re interfering with the system!!”

This will, at least for the time being, be the last post regarding Koch v EPO [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]). It’s a case which concerns a dismissed staff representative who suffers from a disability (likely due to the EPO’s working conditions) and the case isn’t being properly handled by ILO-AT. It’s almost like there’s nobody to talk to — no safeguards in other words. Somebody ought to inform the Dutch courts (even the highest one) because if all these courts refuse to intervene — even ECHR (the European Court of Human Rights) — China’s Communist Party will be having a day field. The EPO’s management already clarified, even on Dutch TV, that even if the highest court ruled against it, the orders would be ignored, i.e. disobeyed. Just like China ignoring the ICC regarding the island of Scarborough (among others).

“The EPO’s management already clarified, even on Dutch TV, that even if the highest court ruled against it, the orders would be ignored, i.e. disobeyed.”Are EPO employees being employed outside the rule of law? Is EPO like a sweatshop in China (except the higher pay)? What can management be allowed to get away with? That question concerns/impacts not only thousands of EPO workers but workers in dozens of international organisations (not only those ILO-AT is responsible for).

We’re still trying to digest what we saw in legal documents of Koch. Some of those are public and others we’ve requested so as to better study the case.

The 129th session of ILO-AT is now over. SUEPO has not said anything in its public site. No updates there (for 3 days now)…

“SUEPO has not said anything in its public site.”It is understandable that SUEPO will not want to comment on this case for a number of reasons, but we’re not bound by the same rules EPO staff (and staff unions) are subjected to, so let’s explain again what we have here.

As far as the referrals of cases to the EPO for “re-running” the internal appeals are concerned, these issues refer to the functioning of the EPO’s juridical system in rather general terms, not just to Koch’s individual case/s. In cases AT 5-4532 and AT 5-4384 we see an example of that; these concern very serious issues (AT 5-4532: refusal of an employment medical examination in case of occupational disease;AT 5-4384: irregular dismissal — see these tweets with the parties' latest replies in re AT 5-4532). The complainant could potentially be hit very hard by any flaws of this system.

Unusual in re AT 5-4532 is also the realisation that the EPO attempts to have the fees of its (probably extremely expensive!) lawyers in Geneva (chosen and commissioned by the EPO, of course) to be paid — at least partly — by the complainant, alleging that case AT 5-4532 would be an “abusive and unnecessary” procedure (the EPO in its surrejoinder, para. 62) while the complainant receives just a small early retirement pension under protest. Such course of action reveals the EPO management’s completely unfounded, but extreme hate against the complainant, a former staff representative with disabilities.

“Unusual in re AT 5-4532 is also the realisation that the EPO attempts to have the fees of its (probably extremely expensive!) lawyers in Geneva (chosen and commissioned by the EPO, of course) to be paid — at least partly — by the complainant…”The issue of “re-running” of internal appeals (IAs) by the EPO is particularly noteworthy. The EPO might attempt this in many dozens is not hundreds of cases, impacting a lot of aggrieved (abused) EPO employees. It is particularly serious because the EPO does this (i) after a final decision on them, contrary to the Tribunal’s standard Jurisprudence: Judgment number 2906, under 8., Judgments number 994, under 14., or Judgement number 1006, under 2. and (ii) after their lawful referral to the Tribunal and (iii) without awaiting any decision by the Tribunal on them. The EPO withdraws final decisions and “re-runs” IAs of its own volition/initiative.

Worse yet is the fact that no fresh view on the cases and no fairer or more impartial Opinion by the Internal Appeals Committee (IAC) can be expected from the “re-running”: The reason for this is that — to paraphrase what we we wrote earlier — the IAC’s unbalanced composition reproved by the Tribunal in Judgment number 3785, under 7., i.e. participation of volunteers being nominated by the President or selected by lots(!) instead of being nominated to the IAC by the Central Staff Committee (as the former rules on the IAC’s composition required) was just “legalised” by the EPO in the meantime, by just a change of the respective rules for the IAC’s composition during the Battistelli era.

“…such issues of lawlessness under the EPO’s Service Regulations are now being exploited to also neutralise ILO-AT and ILO-AT apparently allows this to happen!”These issues are likely to concern hundreds of cases of EPO staff against their employer, such cases being lawfully pending before the Tribunal. In the unlikely event that the Tribunal deemed this way of acting by the EPO lawful, the EPO would largely benefit from its own turpitude while staff would remain deprived of access to the Tribunal as the only judicial instance under the Service Regulations for an indefinite (in some cases probably meaning an infinite) period of time. In other words, cases could be referred to the Tribunal and back to the EPO like in a ping-pong game, as the EPO was (probably intentionally) introducing “flaws” in the IAs procedure which it subsequently alleged to mend in a “re-run” IAs procedure, with different flaws in different rounds of repetition of the IA. This way a treatment of a case in substance by the Tribunal could be prevented by the EPO. Put another way, a treatment of a case in substance by the Tribunal could be prevented by the EPO, at least a treatment “within a reasonable time”, contrary to the complainants’ fundamental rights under Article 6 ECHR.

“Re-running” of internal appeals on (the defendant’s initiative only) would be an incredible precedent; such issues of lawlessness under the EPO’s Service Regulations are now being exploited to also neutralise ILO-AT and ILO-AT apparently allows this to happen!

10.17.19

There Won’t be Patent Justice Until Patent Trolling Becomes Completely and Totally Extinct

Posted in Courtroom, Patents at 8:30 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

If the system exists to reward innovation and not punish the falsely-accused

A hanging snake

Summary: SLAPP-like behaviour and extortion/blackmail tactics using patent monopolies are a stain on the patent system; it’s time to adopt measures to stop these things once and for all, bearing in mind they’re inherently antithetical to the goal/s of the patent system and therefore discourage public support for this whole system

THE POSITION that patent trolls ought not exist is not a controversial one. People who never invented or created anything go after those who do; many of the underlying patents are merely purchased — a passage of assignment that probably oughtn’t be permitted. The key concept behind patents and rationale for their existence demand that the end goal should be innovation, progress of science. Sharing of knowledge/methods/understanding can be mutually and collectively beneficial.

The United States has thankfully weakened patent trolls; some went out of ‘business’, some barely survive and others suffered in the ‘sales’ department (selling ‘protection’), quite severely in fact. A lot of trolls we used to cover no longer exist. They don’t formally announce shutdown, but it’s clear that they no longer operate, i.e. no new lawsuits are filed (that’s their sole mode of operation).

As expected, RPX has been waning. We wrote about this several times in recent years. It became less relevant because the US patent system ‘tightened’ and litigation numbers collapsed. It did better when there were lots of patent trolls around. It profits from their existence and patent trolls are like an ally. These trolls, referred to by another name, NPEs, have been mentioned by RPX some ago as follows:

Litigation finance firms have experienced record fundraising in recent years, with private equity firms and hedge funds looking for opportunities to invest in uncorrelated assets that can withstand, or even perform well, in the next economic downturn. With large amounts of capital on hand, and therefore fewer concerns about diversifying their investments, multi-strategy funds are proving to be attractive investment partners for standalone litigation funders. Through such partnerships, a new breed of NPEs has emerged—one backed by more copious and patient capital than those of years past. This article, the first in a series covering the evolving sources of capital for NPEs today, takes a look at two private equity firms and a hedge fund backing notable NPE campaigns.

“12 of the 17 patent suits filed today were filed by #patenttrolls, according to RPX Corp.,” said one Twitter account. “That’s 71%.”

“It’s a very costly thing.”‘Only’ 71%. Sometimes it’s 100%. It used to be even higher about half a decade ago. The back yard of patent trolls is still seeing more software patents granted by the USPTO (patents which courts would likely reject, no doubt even in Texas). It’s a very costly thing. Most of the time wrongly-accused parties aren’t compensated, not even seeing their legal fees covered. Here with the British court system we have this issue as well. Lawyers are very expensive here and earlier this week Anthony Gold’s Robin Stewart wrote “I won in the First-tier Tribunal and the other side was unreasonable: do they have to pay my legal costs?”

Probably not. In his own words:

The Court also commented that their decision did not have the effect that pre-action costs could not be recovered, but rather costs “of and incidental to” the proceedings may include costs incurred before the commencement of the appeal.

As noted in the previous post, the EPO tried to impose severe legal costs upon me for daring to just speak about EPO abuses. EPO management acts a lot like patent trolls, not just working for trolls’ agenda and bottom line. But that’s a subject for another day.

10.15.19

EPO Boards of Appeal Need Courage and Structural Disruption to Halt Software Patents in Europe

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

Software patents and 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).

« 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