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

02.17.19

Computing Will Not Necessarily Make the World a Better Place

Posted in Deception at 3:53 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Some power is used for more negative than positive (or as a source for good)

Pakistan earthquake

Summary: The vision of “happy world” (because each person has a so-called ‘smart’ ‘phone’) is a yuppie delusion that overlooks business models and corporate interests

THE world has a lot of serious problems. Natural disasters, climate issues and inequality are among these. Human suffering ensues. These exacerbate things and partly contribute to intolerance, illness, and sometimes even war. But there’s that old myth that distributing so-called ‘phones’ (tracking devices) to everyone will make the world a better place. In reality, it may simply mean more policing and more discrimination.

“In reality, it may simply mean more policing and more discrimination.”Putting aside the privacy abuses associated with these ‘smart’ RFID-like devices with a growing number of sensors and cores (because Web pages and software rapidly become more bloated), there’s also a push to constantly ‘upgrade’, causing even more waste and a loss of social life (actual, real human contact). Some people in poor countries save to buy a ‘phone’ rather than sanitary facilities (e.g. toilets). Not a cheap, ordinary phone for making calls (such phones cost very little) but one of those so-called ‘phones’ that are small computers with minuscule screens and no input devices.

As The Register put it a few days ago, “Hulce has compiled a list of the third-party scripts residing in the top million websites and found that the 100 most common bits of JavaScript eat up about 59 per cent of script execution time.”

Much of that is malicious and not in any way intended to improve the experience of users.

“Giving poor people the ‘gift’ of technology often overlooks the real motivations, e.g. Facebook ‘donating’ Internet access.”Earlier today Booking.com sent an E-mail to everyone who ever used the site, saying: “we’re going to start sharing information between the Booking Holdings brands for the purposes described in our updated Privacy Statement.” Here they go with “data brokers”, surveillance capitalism in action. Companies update their privacy (or surveillance rather) policy and retroactively apply this abuse without asking for consent or giving one the option to opt out. They do this because their corporate lawyers tell them they risk lawsuits for not informing people in advance (even if those people aren’t given any other option). “Thanks again for using us in the past, and look out for an even better Booking.com experience in the future,” the concluding paragraph states. So they now herald that they’re selling all historical data, infringing people’s privacy even more.

In recent years many companies other than Google or Facebook resorted to this “business” model, which is passing around data (renting/licensing access to it) and this, in turn, is being exploited to deny people access to critical services (health, finance) and thus lower security (for people, not for corporations).

A lot of people would rather not know about — let alone understand — the ‘sausage factory’ that’s linking data and creating ‘dossiers’ about people. The “data brokers” ‘industry’, sometimes euphemised as “big data” or “deep learning” and other benign-sounding terms (or job titles like “data scientist”) would face widespread condemnation if not popular uprisings and a call for bans (see GDPR) if more people comprehended just what despicable things it is doing. Giving poor people the ‘gift’ of technology often overlooks the real motivations, e.g. Facebook ‘donating’ Internet access.

02.16.19

WSL is a Misleading Acronym/Name Because There’s No Linux in It, It’s Just Windows

Posted in Deception, GNU/Linux, Microsoft at 7:03 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Similarly, SQL Server does not run on GNU/Linux (it’s another Microsoft lie)

WSL comment
Why “Windows Subsystem for Linux” and not “GNU/Windows”? (from Microsoft GitHub, now in NSA PRISM)

Summary: When Microsoft says “Linux” (as in “Microsoft loves Linux”) what it actually means is Windows and/or Azure

TECHRIGHTS published a number of articles about the WSL entrapment when it was first announced (Canonical’s “gift” to Microsoft). Here’s one of the longer ones. It did not at all herald a change in attitude but a change in strategy. Microsoft’s managers (the Board, i.e. Bill Gates et al) try to prevent people from using proper GNU/Linux with the actual kernel, either as standalone operating system or dual-boot. They try to make things just about functional enough to prevent users from leaving the spyware, Vista 10. This is also about surveillance on one’s files, keys (e.g. SSH), keystrokes, and everything else. It’s about control. It is about back doors.

“Is Microsoft gradually cooking up a hybrid that’s called “Linux” but is actually Windows?”Yesterday we saw an article titled “Windows 10 Will Finally Offer Easy Access to Linux Files”; that’s misleading as there’s no “Linux” in it, WSL is not GNU/Linux and those files are actually on Windows. Is Microsoft gradually cooking up a hybrid that’s called “Linux” but is actually Windows? The confusion alone serves its interests, e.g. calling SQL Server on DrawBridge (Windows) SQL Server for “Linux” when it’s really just some Windows-centric blob. Remember what Steve Ballmer said: “I would love to see all open source innovation happen on top of Windows.”

Embrace and Extend
Credit: unknown (Twitter)

02.10.19

Which Microsoft?

Posted in Deception, Microsoft at 3:54 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Public or private?

Public or private?Summary: The inconsistencies between public statements of Microsoft and private discussions/actions

“My own point of view is that it’s a fantastic start in treating privacy as a human right,” Satya Nadella, last month when asked about GDPR (which Microsoft violates).

“I do think terrorism with biological or nuclear weapons is something we want to minimize the chance of,” Nadella’s boss (Microsoft Board) Bill Gates when asked about privacy (the company has long worked with the NSA and was the first in PRISM). So if people have privacy there will be nuclear war? That’s it? That’s what the argument boils down to?

“Microsoft loves Linux,” Nadella a few years ago.

“Linux infestations are being uncovered in many of our large accounts as part of the escalation engagements,” Microsoft confidential document.

There are many more examples like that; the key point though is that Microsoft basically appointed a very, very good liar as CEO. Believing him on just about anything is unwise and for those who believe he symbolises “diversity” remember he’s not too keen on women workers (article by a publication that Bill Gates is repeatedly bribing).

02.06.19

The Evolution of Microsoft Embracing Python Like a Python Snake

Posted in Deception, Free/Libre Software, Microsoft at 3:04 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Many new strides in recent months

Tie snake

Summary: Microsoft’s suffocating embrace is, as usual, targeting the market leader, this time Python (a programming star) and the past few months brought disturbing new developments associated with entryism

THE FOLLOWING tweets, starting 2010 and running until this week, tell the story better than a diagram/picture.

Money talks. Microsoft is buying its position inside Python like it did Apache a decade ago [1, 2].

02.02.19

The Berkheimer Case Will Turn One Very Soon and Nothing Has Changed, Just as We’ve Argued and Forecast All Along

Posted in America, Deception, Patents at 12:03 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Last year: Buzzwords and Hyped-Up Patent Cases (Like Berkheimer) Are Still Being Exploited to Promote Software Patents

Valentine's Day

Summary: It is safe to say that in spite of exceptional and rare outcomes like Berkheimer v HP Inc. at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit software patents have not made a comeback (courts keep rejecting these at all levels)

Valentine’s Day is fast approaching and Berkheimer v HP Inc. was decided by the Federal Circuit on February 8th last year (before Moore, Taranto, and Stoll, J.). We said we would not write about U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) matters this year, instead concentrating on the European Patent Office (EPO) unless there’s a major turnaround in the US. As we recently said, nothing really changed due to Berkheimer. It was all smoke and mirrors. Not even the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) gave much of a damn. SCOTUS won’t be looking into 35 U.S.C. § 101 matters any time soon (if ever). In the week to come we expect that some law firms will exploit the ‘anniversary’ to push lies to prospective clients, hoping to attract software patent applicants. Anything for marketing stunts…

01.26.19

European Patent Quality as Awful Under António Campinos as (If Not Worse Than) Benoît Battistelli and Battistelli Makes a Public Comeback

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 11:01 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Even after his financial crimes and other serious abuses Battistelli hopes to become ‘king’ of courts (UPC)

CIPA meeting with Stephen Jones

Summary: The man who destroyed the EPO, Benoît Battistelli, is brought back by the International Trademark Association and Mr. Trademarks António Campinos (former banker), who swapped a seat with him at CEIPI, has done absolutely nothing to repair the damage caused by Battistelli (he just lives on ‘borrowed time’ or ‘grace period’, to borrow the financial term)

THE European Patent Office (EPO) has been covered here for a dozen years (since 2007). But it was only in recent years, more so since 2014, that it really caught our attention. We used to believe that the EPO was only misguided when it came to patents on life (pigs, plants etc.) and algorithms, but then we saw a lot of corruption inside the institution. These two issues are closely connected, albeit separable.

“Over the past couple of days we saw several press releases and articles in which the expected (since December) protests became public.”IP Kat‘s Rose Hughes has just published this article about drawing requirements in patents; she conveniently ignores all the major EPO scandals (as usual) and finds some minor detail. Paul Kemp’s response to this requirement (hiring artists to apply for patent monopolies) was more noteworthy than the article. There’s a whole ‘industry’ surrounding spurious patents and in some cases it’s spurious itself (the drawing). “YES,” he said, “apart from the weighty points raised above in relation mainly to non-mechanical inventions, many if not most mechanical “drawings” are now produced at first instance as 3D models. These commonly represent much greater detail than can be presented as 2D views, and in many cases are capable of animation. 3D PDF formats enable such views to be presented without specialist software (CAD). In preparing specifications I am commonly presented with the 3D model and have to select 2D views which illustrate what I am trying to communicate. Nearly all mechanical inventions move, often in complex ways. This either requires a lot of description, which is not easy to understand (and I have seen more than a few descriptions which are simply wrong) or multiple cartoon animation views.

“Even 2D PDF views accepted by the current filing software are of limited resolution, which removes a lot of detail from large scale drawings. Not a few of my engineering clients regard this as quaint at best (the at worst comments are not reproducible). This goes nowhere to enhance the credibility of the patent system generally.”

This is why, as even some EPO insiders suggest, patents are better off in the form of a wiki page with attached videos (animations) — something that traditional patents cannot capture. Moreover, that would tackle the editing, correction, and evolution of physical inventions. What sort of novelty does the EPO have to offer?

Well, in the EPO’s own words, it’s about buzzwords now, not substance. “Searching for artificial intelligence and machine learning applications is challenging. We’ll be presenting some strategies here,” the EPO wrote in Twitter just before the weekend. They’re mixing two things and in both cases they allude to mathematics, which is obviously not patentable.

A couple of days ago Ibinex News helped the EPO promote some more software patents. After the EPO had written about blockchains (“Watch this video to learn how the EPO deals with #blockchain patents”) Kathleen Rhea, who is “a news writer based on New York [...] passionate about the world of cryptocurrencies, technology and public use cases of the blockchain,” wrote this article that would be more suitably titled “European Patent Office Persuades Organizations to File Patents for Software While Just Calling These Blockchain to Bypass the Ban” (her title is close to that). Those are illegal (to grant) software patents, but the EPO under the leadership of António Campinos is widely known to be operating outside the rule of law. Even EPO insiders overwhelmingly agree on this. It’s just another Battistelli sans the PR gaffes. To quote Rhea:

As the new facets of the blockchain technology unfold, many of the professionals working in the field of intellectual property (IP) are encouraging the innovators/organizations to patent their innovations to further stimulate the development of blockchain technology process. As it is clear from statistics, the number of applications filed for patenting blockchain during 2013⎯17 was 2900. Out of these 2900 applications, 55.4% belonged to China with the US coming a close second in the list. The industry has witnessed an astronomical 280% increase in the blockchain investment during 2017⎯18 and accordingly, the filing of a number of patents is expected to rise further. From the patents already filed, it is clear that obtaining the core technology patent in the field of blockchain is quite a difficult task because of the high level of competition. However, we have witnessed more and more companies applying for patents in the diverse fields of blockchain applications pertaining to the sectors like food tracking, medical records, and drug tagging. In the coming years too, these sectors are expected to witness more growth in the patent filing number.

A lot of things with databases and linked lists in them are being rebranded “blockchain” and in the same vein a lot of algorithms (with “if” and “else” conditional statements) can be spun as “AI”. The net effect is, today’s EPO is still granting abstract patents and it is also granting bogus patents on life and nature (not inventions).

Over the past couple of days we saw several press releases and articles in which the expected (since December) protests became public. “The member organisations of NO PATENTS ON SEEDS! are concerned about the increasing number of patents on plants, seeds and farm animals and their impact on farmers, breeders, innovation and biodiversity,” said one such coalition, having just published this statement in EUbusiness. Campinos himself is also under fire for granting patents on life and nature — a practice he never publicly commented on (he turned a blind eye to that). To quote:

The president, who is Portuguese, is being asked to halt all pending patent applications on plants and animals derived from conventional breeding. These patents cover vegetables, including broccoli and tomatoes. Companies such as Bayer and Syngenta want to monopolise the breeding of the plants and food derived thereof through the misuse of patents. In December 2018 the EPO declared that these patents could be allowed, contrary to a decision made in 2017 by the governments of its 38 contracting states saying that they were prohibited.

Within the last few years, the EPO has granted around 200 patents on food plants such as tomatoes, broccoli, peppers and lettuce derived from conventional breeding and not genetically engineered. After public protests such patents were prohibited in a decision made by the 38 contracting states of the EPO; this decision was also supported by EU Commission and EU Parliament. Now, this decision has been called into question after Syngenta – surprisingly – was successful in a hearing on a patent covering pepper plants in December 2018.

It didn’t take long for IPPro Magazine to publish “Industry groups call on Campinos to stop patents on plants and animals”:

More than 40 organisations have appealed to European Patent Office (EPO) president António Campinos calling for an end to all patents on plants and animals derived from conventional breeding.

The organisations, mostly based around plants and seeds, wrote to EPO president António Campinos calling for all pending patent applications on plants and animals derived from conventional breeding to not be granted.

The patents concerning the group include broccoli, tomatoes, and various other vegetables. The patents belong to companies like Bayer and Syngenta. Patents that cover the process of conventional breeding, as well as on plants an animals derived are prohibited by rule 28(2) for the interpretation of the European Patent Convention (EPC).

In early December, the Board of Appeal for the EPO ruled that a Syngenta pepper plant patent was patentable, causing outrage, with the No Patents on Seeds pressure group accusing the ruling of putting the office into conflict with its 38 member states”.

IPPro Magazine has also just noted that INTA invited corrupt Battistelli to speak at its event. Now that he no longer enjoys diplomatic immunity will he risk arrest? Highly doubtful because he is well connected. As the article put it:

Several key intellectual property leaders including Kate O’Rourke and Benoît Battistelli will be speaking at the International Trademark Association (INTA)’s Europe Conference.

Former Chartered Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys president O’Rourke, and former European Patent Office president Battistelli will speak at the conference, which takes place on the 18 to 19 February in Paris.

O’Rourke will be giving a speech on Brexit, while Battistelli, who is currently President of Conseil d’administration du Centre d’études internationales de la propriété intellectuelle (CEIPI), will be interviewed by INTA’s new president David Lossignol on the future of IP.

Sources of ours have long believed that Battistelli just ‘parked’ himself at CEIPI in anticipation of the UPC — a system in which he hopes to participate in if not lead. Just before the weekend we saw this article from Tai W Nahm (Miller Thomson LLP) and another from Graham Burnett-Hall (Marks & Clerk). It contains the typical UPC propaganda, perpetuating the idea that UPCA still stands a chance. Stephen Blake (also from Marks & Clerk) then promoted software patents like computer vision patents by using the buzzwords created and promoted by the EPO:

With investment announcements coming thick and fast, and testing taking place on ever more roads, might 2019 be the year of the self-driving vehicle (SDV)?

A recent statistical release from the European Patent Office (EPO) might suggest so, or at the very least suggest that momentum is building in this important sector. In 2017, the last year in which figures are available, the EPO saw nearly 4000 patent applications related to self-driving vehicles – up from 922 applications in 2011.

This is a staggering 330% increase in just 6 years! To put it into context, filing in this area has grown more than 20 times as fast as patent applications generally at the EPO.

They’re just reclassifying old stuff and courts would very likely reject these patents, citing national laws and the EPC.

It’s worrying to see that the EPO is just granting loads of low-quality European Patents, hoping that by means of some miracle or magic it can bypass justice (the courts) with a crooked UPC, possibly led by corrupt Battistelli. Yesterday we gave an example of several European Patents being thrown out, including one that was assessed by the highest court in the UK.

UIMP event 2014

Yesterday, judging by new evidence, Florian Müller wrote about a couple more invalidated European Patents; the EPO basically admitted it had granted fake patents to a patent bully with billions of dollars on the line. To quote:

Preliminary opinion of European Patent Office sides with Apple and Intel: two Qualcomm patents invalid

[...]

While the Ninth Circuit’s decision to let Qualcomm appeal the certification of a 250-million consumer class and Judge Koh’s related announcement to stay the $5 billion class action (which builds upon the FTC case, but not the other way round) pending the appeal is good news for Qualcomm, Kerrisdale Capital’s opinion that Qualcomm’s stock may lose half its value and a whopping number of 21 (twenty-one!) inter partes reviews (post-grant proceedings that may result in the invalidation of patents) instituted over the last eight days by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) against Qualcomm are significant setbacks.

Now there’s bad news from Munich, the very city in which a regional court (comparable to a U.S. district court, though only the nation’s top courts are federal courts) recently granted Qualcomm a pair of injunctions over a chip patent against Apple that Qualcomm is enforcing despite an ongoing appeal after posting bonds over more than $1.5 billion–but without getting any serious leverage over Apple as the enjoined products (iPhone 7 and 8) remain widely available through carriers and retailers. Qualcomm has obtained a preliminary injunction barring Apple from telling it like it is, so Apple must not issue press releases or give answers to journalists according to which those devices are available at more than 4,000 points-of-sale. But that preliminary injunction, which according to media reports is based on misleading promotional statements, just puts the next symbolical victory on top of another without representing actual leverage.

I asked the Munich I Regional Court, but the court declined to comment. I also asked the Munich Higher Regional Court about the status of Apple’s appeal of the injunctions, but received no new information. The last thing I heard was that Qualcomm still had time to respond to Apple’s motion to stay the enforcement of those injunctions.

In this particular case, the ramification of hasty or sloppy examination is easy to see; entire product lines are being removed from the market and what if this is done based on a false patent grant? What if this impacted companies a lot smaller than the above? They would suffer the most, at times risking bankruptcy/collapse.

01.25.19

Declining Patent Quality and Lies About Software Patents at the EPO

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 5:21 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Decreasing credibility, improved PR

António Campinos FTI

Summary: The quality of patents — and the legal certainty associated with them — has collapsed even further under the new management; even insiders can recognise the difference, but they just can’t speak about it publicly (for fear of retaliation)

WE REGRET to say and to see that nothing has changed for the better under António Campinos, except the whitewashing. As insiders can attest/say anonymously — as some do — things have gotten even worse in some aspects.

“The relationship may nowadays seem symbiotic because the EPO is also publicly supporting patent trolls.”Yesterday we saw the European Patent Office (EPO) once again associating with patent extremists who attack courts and attack judges, having already attacked a technical Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) until she was replaced by Iancu, who serves law firms and patent trolls, not science and technology. The relationship may nowadays seem symbiotic because the EPO is also publicly supporting patent trolls. This wasn’t always the case. Far from it…

Not too long ago the EPO set up a conference that invited patent trolls to lead a discussion (as lead panelists, not just conferees), promoting illegal software patents in Europe under the guise of “blockchain”. The EPO brought that up again yesterday when it asked: “How does CNIPA deal with #blockchain patents?”

“Well, the EPO even granted patents on chewing gums.”The EPO also retweeted this nonsense which said: “There are 5,050 #patents related to #skiing in the @EPOorg database … #IntellectualProperty is everywhere…”

Well, the EPO even granted patents on chewing gums. EPO insiders are joking at this; they’re upset to see the rapidly-declining quality of European Patents these days. Judges too seem to be realising that there’s an issue.

A new press release, pinned in Associated Press and elsewhere, speaks of a patent being revoked. To quote:

Today the European Patent Office revoked Pacific Biosciences patent EP3045542 with claims to a single molecule sequencing process wherein two strands of DNA are linked by a connecting nucleic acid. The validity of the patent had been challenged by Oxford Nanopore.

The EPO ruled that the claims to a single molecule sequencing process were unsupported in the application and that the application only supported a template-directed synthesis sequencing method. As Pacific Biosciences were unwilling to accept this change, the patent was revoked.

Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review, which promotes patents on life, soon caught up and wrote about the EPO’s granting of invalid European Patents (and then taking these away):

The European Patent Office (EPO) has revoked a patent held by a US biotechnology company, Pacific Biosciences, after its UK-based rival Oxford Nanopore Technologies challenged the validity of the patent.

Oxford Nanopore announced the news in a press release today, January 23. The EPO granted Pacific Biosciences the now-invalidated patent (EU number 304552) in 2016 for “methods for nucleic acid sequencing”.

This has also just happened at the UK High Court (at great cost). As this press release [1, 2] put it, “Regen Lab had attempted to enforce its European Patent No. 2073862 against Estar Medical who, in turn, counter-claimed that the patent was invalid.”

Here’s more, with some context:

Regen Lab’s patent was challenged by Estar Medical. This UK judgment adds to the recent German court’s decision denying Regen Lab’s patent infringement claim against Estar Medical, the European Patent Office preliminary opinion which found the same Regen Lab patent to be invalid on multiple grounds and the venue judgment in New York in which Regen Lab lost its case against Estar Medical.

[...]

Regen Lab had attempted to enforce its European Patent No. 2073862 against Estar Medical who, in turn, counter-claimed that the patent was invalid. The UK Court agreed with Estar Medical’s position and revoked the patent. In its ruling, the UK Court stated that the Regen Lab patent “is invalid for lack of novelty and inventive step. Regen’s application to amend the Patent is refused on the ground that the amended Patent would still be invalid”. The court also found Regen Lab’s owner and CEO, Mr. Antoine Turzi, to be “not a reliable witness”. Estar Medical is pleased that the UK Court ruled in its favor, agreeing that the Regen Lab patent lacks both novelty and inventive step. Estar Medical has remained confident throughout the case of its ability to sell its leading products in the UK and elsewhere and is gratified to see that confidence affirmed by the UK Court.

It ought to be clear by now that there’s a severe patent quality problem and the public pays for it; who profits? Lawyers.

Isobel Finnie (Haseltine Lake LLP) has just commented on a subject which is often discussed these days:

Second medical use claims are used before the European Patent Office (EPO) for inventions involving additional or improved treatments using already known drugs. For example, using a known drug to treat a different disease or changing the dosage regimen of a known drug to provide a better effect or to treat a different patient group. In the context of second medical use claims the EPO has made it clear that the therapeutic effect must be made plausible…

The problem, however, is that there’s no potent body to enforce rules; the appeal boards, for instance, are about 10,000 cases behind and there’s no recruitment, there’s no pretense that this kind of backlog the EPO’s management wants to bother with. Moreover, the appeal boards still lack independence.

In the meantime, as usual, more software patents are being granted; they’re just disguised using fashionable buzzwords. Yesterday the National Law Review published for a law firm (as usual, as the site serves their agenda) an article from Michael T. Renaud. “As previously discussed,” he wrote, “the European Patent Office (EPO) issued new guidelines for the patentability of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) inventions. These guidelines create a seemingly insurmountable threshold for patentability of AI and ML inventions. However, patenting AI and ML inventions within this framework is possible and even predictably likely with historical knowledge of the EPO’s examination practice coupled with creative strategies for the new patentability challenges.”

“Until or unless the EPO takes patent scope and patent quality seriously (those two things are intertwined and related) it does not work for Europe but for law firms and patent trolls.”These are just software patents. The EPO has just tweeted: “How does the EPO deal with the challenges of AI in patent applications? Find out here: http://bit.ly/AIpatents”

There is no such thing as “AIpatents”; those are just software patents where algorithms are spun as “AI”. As usual, however, the Office keeps granting software patents in clear defiance of its own rules, the EPC, EP, courts and common sense. Why does it get called “European Patent Office” if it’s there just to harm Europe? That’s what I told the FFII’s President after he had pointed out this new article from Rose Hughes of IP Kat, in which she promoted European software parents. Here’s one example:

WO2018064591 (Generating video frames using neural networks, see full file here) has now entered the EP regional phase, i.e. it is now in the hands of the European Patent Office. DeepMind took the unusual step of entering the EP regional phase early (5 months before the January 2019 deadline). The majority of applicants wait until the deadline for entering the EP regional phase. Applicants generally request early entry when they wish to achieve a quick grant. Given that DeepMind has purportedly indicated that their patent strategy is defensive, why the hurry?

“EPO Examiner observed that the claimed method had the technical effect of decreasing the computational requirements to generate audio waveform,” Benjamin Henrion quoted and then added: “it is a computer program dude…”

Until or unless the EPO takes patent scope and patent quality seriously (those two things are intertwined and related) it does not work for Europe but for law firms and patent trolls. It’s a sad but real reckoning to some insiders — that realisation that joining the EPO did not mean helping to advance science but to sabotage it.

Team UPC Has Been Reduced to a Self-Satirising Drama Show

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 4:41 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The ‘Milan’ talking point is back again

Milan

Summary: From fashion accessories like gowns and robes to the old delusion of hastily working around Brexit

THE European Patent Office (EPO) isn’t mentioning the UPC. António Campinos isn’t mentioning it either. But Bristows? These fetishists with their UPC 'necrophilia' just can’t help it. In “Milan as a location for the UPC central division?” Alan Johnson from Bristows continues to yank out lies and false news, trying hard to maintain the perception that UPC isn’t dead, it’s just ‘moving’. Last week they focused on and wrote about clothing, now it’s about a fashion capital. How long before something similar gets published in Kluwer Patent Blog?

“Last week they focused on and wrote about clothing, now it’s about a fashion capital.”An article by Ian Rainey and Craig W. Mueller (Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP) has also just been published to say:

Arguably, filing in the EPO is the most common regional patent system, so it merits some discussion. As shown below, EPO member states generally coincide with the European Union. But it is extremely important to note that the EPO has little to do with the EU. Indeed, non-EU counties such as Norway and, in the future, the UK are members of the EPO. In the latter’s case, Brexit should have little effect on the UK’s standing in the EPO.

But that does not mention the UPC, which is an EU system that is therefore affected by Brexit. Also, to claim that “the EPO has little to do with the EU” is to totally ignore the UPC push, which thankfully failed. Not even fabricated rumours, fabricated job openings and so on could save it.

The EPO’s total lack of vision, e.g. granting of terrible patents that courts reject (more on that in our next post), is a real problem — so much so that the EPO asks for help to pretend there’s public input/participation. “Spread the word,” they wrote yesterday. “The EPO is inviting all stakeholders to provide their views on its Strategic Plan 2023…”

“What about quality of patents? Or the rule of law? Nope, not on the agenda.”Will any attention be paid to them though?

“Stakeholder input will play a key role in helping us to formulate our strategic priorities for the next few years,” they claim (warning: epo.org link). “The Strategic Plan will steer all our activities over the period 2019 to 2023 in different areas, be translated into concrete actions and projects and be subject to regular monitoring of progress and achievements.”

What progress and what achievements? What about quality of patents? Or the rule of law? Nope, not on the agenda.

« 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