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

03.27.17

The Crook Goes to Brussels to Lie About the Unitary Patent (UPC)

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 10:10 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Tokarski’s facial expression says it all really…

Battistelli and Tokarski

Summary: The person who spent years lying about the UPC and severely attacking critics (usually by blatantly lying about them) goes to Brussels for another nose extension

THE Liar in Chief, Benoît Battistelli, earlier today said in his so-called ‘blog’ (not clear who composes these and be aware that it’s an epo.org link, so it may compromise readers’ anonymity) that “[l]ast week [he] was in Brussels to speak at a hearing on the Unitary Patent organised by the European Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee (JURI).”

We previously mentioned the EPO’s lobbying activity (a growing aspect of the EPO) in Brussels. Instead of focusing on patents the EPO is now spending huge resources (including paying the media) basically just lobbying. Totally inappropriate! It seems apparent, based on Battistelli’s own words, that the UPC isn’t happening any time soon (if ever). It seems apparent that Bristows et al were all just lying (or “lobbying”) about UPC dates. At this stage, would anyone out there take them seriously any longer? This is far from the first time/case of false predictions for self-serving purposes. March seventh becomes end of March, then “UK remained on track to ratify this year,” according to Battistelli. His predictions too have been awful. They just keep saying it’ll start very soon, but it’s never happening. They have been doing this for years. Team UPC, in social media sites at least, is already boosting Benoît Battistelli’s lies. They love him! Says a lot about them! self-serving sociopaths and liars.

“Team UPC, in social media sites at least, is already boosting Benoît Battistelli’s lies. They love him! Says a lot about them!”As for EPO people, one of them wrote: “A view far far away from reality?”

“As Long as Europe tolerates reality and logic won’t get in the way,” said another.

Nobody at the EPO believes Battistelli anymore. the UPC (like EPO) is collapsing under his terrible ‘leadership’, bogus patents are being granted under growing pressure (not even the patent microcosm is pleased about that), and the last thing we need in Europe is easy, widespread litigation (impacting all of Europe, in one fell swoop). The whole thing is unhinged and dangerous.

“Nobody at the EPO believes Battistelli anymore. the UPC (like EPO) is collapsing under his terrible ‘leadership’, bogus patents are being granted under growing pressure (not even the patent microcosm is pleased about that), and the last thing we need in Europe is easy, widespread litigation (impacting all of Europe, in one fell swoop).”Battistelli (or his PA or PR people or whoever) wrote: “Given the triggering of article 50, which is set for later this week, it was understandable that a point was raised in the hearing on the potential effect of Brexit for the Unitary Patent Package and, specifically, on its timing. Yet there are a number of solid reasons why we have cause to believe that the first unitary patent will indeed be granted at the end of this year.”

No longer the end of this month? So Team UPC has been lying to all of us again. Why are we not surprised? It’s only us who went against the current and insisted that Team UPC was lying. And we were right all along!

Thankfully, the liars from Bristows have not yet ‘infected’ (or co-opted) IP Kat for their usual UPC lobbying. Maybe they are still working on it, so stay tuned. Their damage control won’t be too convincing — no more than Battistelli’s.

“What the EPO says to this day, even very officially, usually turns out to have been a lie.”We are gratified to see that at least one ‘Kat’ is still watching the EPO over there. The other day Mark Schweizer took on Jouve and Schweizer has just posted this article about the boards. Schweizer doesn’t quite continue coverage of the EPO where Merpel left off (he leaves out the elephant in the room, which is the many massive scandals), but at least he expresses some scepticism. What the EPO says to this day, even very officially, usually turns out to have been a lie. This probably, as per the above, just turned out to be the case when it comes to that awful ‘press release’ with Jo Johnson in it (complete with a photo op). Don’t expect UPC ratification in the UK. Johnson must have done his homework and grasped the complexity of the whole situation.

The EPO’s HR Roadmap Retrospective

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 9:23 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

HR Roadmap Retrospective

Summary: A look back at the terrible ‘accomplishments’ of the Jesper Kongstad-led Administrative Council, which still issues hogwash and face-saving lies, as one might expect from a protector of Battistelli that lies to national representatives and buries inconvenient topics

“The HR Roadmap has been strongly supported by the Administrative Council,” a reader told us today.

“According to Council document CA/39/14 (06.06.2014), the HR Roadmap comprises reforms including the “Code of Conduct”, strike regulations, “Social Democracy”, improved “well-being”, a reform of the Internal Appeals system, a review of the harassment and investigative procedures, social reports, promoting a “renewed social dialogue”, …”

The caricature “HR Roadmap – Retrospective” illustrates some of its major achievements (up to now).

03.24.17

Bernhard Rapkay, Former MEP and Rapporteur on Unitary Patent, Shoots Down UPC Hopes While UPC Hopefuls Recognise That Spain Isn’t Interested Either

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 9:27 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

When even UPC proponents admit that the UPC (in its present form) may be dead in the water…

Bernhard Rapkay
Photo credit: Official Web page of Bernhard Rapkay

Summary: Germany, the UK and Spain remain massive barriers to the UPC — all this in spite of misleading reports and fake news which attempted to make politicians believe otherwise (for political leverage, by means of dirty lobbying contingent upon misinformation)

TODAY it’s Friday. Monday will be the 27th of the month, i.e. just two days before Article 50. Must be pretty depressing a time for UPC hopefuls… did all of their lobbying fail? Did they sacrifice what was left of their reputation in vain? The supposed ‘expectation’ of ratification on the 7th of March was a long time ago (false prediction, as usual) and we don’t expect anything to happen by the end of this month. Fallback dates are meaningless if nothing concrete has changed; in this particular case, things only got worse (read on for details).

“The supposed ‘expectation’ of ratification on the 7th of March was a long time ago (false prediction, as usual) and we don’t expect anything to happen by the end of this month.”With just 5 days left for Team UPC to lobby (even fewer weekdays that are working days), they are growing visibly irritated if not stressed. They have attempted to lie, spread fake news (or at best distortions), and shame politicians in an effort to bamboozle Jo Johnson into a Unitary Patent sellout, which defies the very fundamental interpretation of the law, taking into account Article 50.

Monika Ermert, writing for Intellectual Property Watch last night, caught the gossip about what Rapkay (German politician with the Social Democratic Party of Germany) had said and published this short piece, from which we quote the non-EPO/Battistelli part (totally aloof and disconnected from the reality):

Bernhard Rapkay, former rapporteur for the legislative package for the community patent, was highly sceptical.

The German Parliament on 10 March passed the ratification documents, and Rapkay said he does not expect a much longer delay there, despite some reports over a lack of a quorum for the middle of the night decision. But he was wary of the Brexit government in the UK. Slawomir Tokarski, director of Innovation and Advanced Manufacturing in the European Commission’s Directorate General Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (DG GROW), said that ratifications have to be in by 29 May, otherwise it would be too late to finalise the process this year.

We spotted that earlier than the above as well, but there was no formal article about it. The UPC is a great sham that would give Europe nothing but patent trolls, lots of injunctions, and software patents (as the EPO seems ever so eager to grant them in spite of the rules). Nobody, not even patent examiners, should be interested in the UPC. Maybe a tiny portion of the population (less than a thousandth of Europe) would benefit from it.

“The UPC is a great sham that would give Europe nothing but patent trolls, lots of injunctions, and software patents (as the EPO seems ever so eager to grant them in spite of the rules).”Prior to the report from Ermert we caught this tweet which said: “Quote from today’s hearing on the Unitary Patent, Committee on Legal Affairs, EP (http://bit.ly/2nGfe19 ) #upc #unitarypatent”

This, in turn, quoted another person: “Bernhard Rapkay, ex MEP and rapporteur on unitary #patent: “unfortunately I hold no great hope that the UK will ratify” #Brexit”

So there he goes. Honest person, for a change.

“Fortunately,” he should have said, not “unfortunately.”

Nobody in Europe really wants this monster. It’s no more benign than ACTA and the TPP were.

“Nobody in Europe really wants this monster. It’s no more benign than ACTA and the TPP were.”UPC hopefuls try to look elsewhere, clawing or grasping at more positive visions, like Battistelli’s and the EPO’s delusional lies. Christopher Weber, whose views on the UPC are not necessarily all that positive (relatively apathetic), wrote a series of tweets to say [1, 2, 3]: “Former EU MP Rapkay very skeptic re. #UK ratification based on his years of experience w/ #UK reluctance wrt #ECJ [...] Battistelli replied that he believes in what the #UK government stated on ratification of #UPC [...] EU Parliament committee remains optimistic that #UPC will start soon.”

Which committee would that be? One that’s a bunch of moles, as a result of entryism by Team UPC and its lobbyists/facilitators?

Speaking of moles and lobbyists, Manuel Rey-Alvite Villar from Bristows vindicates us by proving we were right all along about Spain [1, 2]. All that fake news from Bristows (even published in the weekend!), including some about Spain, was all in vain. By Manuel’s own admission [1, 2], the Spanish government continues to reject the UPC. Mind the responses from Francisco Moreno, who includes citations and says [1, 2, 3]: “With the rules of procedure already adopted, what influence could have ES judges/representatives? So French judges would be able to influence the development of the CJEU (but not Spanish ones, as we joined the EU in 1986) [...] My understanding is that ES nationals who are European Patent Attorneys could qualify as representatives [...]”

They would be, bluntly speaking, just moles like Team UPC, which is stacking the deck (or panels) in an effort to accomplish the unthinkable and the outrageous.

“UPC hopefuls try to look elsewhere, clawing or grasping at more positive visions, like Battistelli’s and the EPO’s delusional lies.”Bristows wrote: “The minutes of the debate record that Ms Moraleja noted that she was initially inclined to support joining the system, but changed her mind after learning more about the background of the project and discussions with stakeholders. Most of the concerns she expressed are language considerations. It is PP’s view that the system discriminates against the Spanish language, and therefore benefits foreign companies. The MP noted that Spanish is an official working language of WIPO and the EUIPO, and that it is a strategic priority for Spain to defend the use of Spanish in European institutions and, more broadly, its position as a language of technology.”

Nonsense! Spain should defend its language and it should also defend its SMEs from the UPC, as it’s not just a matter of language (requiring interpreters, who are typically expensive). The whole thing is a coup of patent law firms and their richest clients.

We are still seeing loaded questions which wrongly assume that the UPC is inevitable, e.g. this one: “Which country will get the the third central #UPC court? Can the UK still get it after #Brexit?”

Maybe no country will get any courts. Dr. Ingve Björn Stjerna wrote a paper about it earlier this year.

“Spain should defend its language and it should also defend its SMEs from the UPC, as it’s not just a matter of language (requiring interpreters, who are typically expensive).”Bristows was not (as one might expect) alone in ‘damage control’ over Spain. Other outposts of Team UPC begrudgingly admit that all the lobbying in Spain (and fake news which was an integral part of the lobby) was in vain. To quote Team UPC itself: “Spain will not join the Unitary Patent system. That became clear today during a session of the Spanish parliament. Earlier this month, the parliamentary committee for economics, industry and competitiveness had approved a motion of the socialist party PSOE, requesting the government to reconsider joining the system. Only the Popular Party, which runs the minority government in Spain, voted against the motion.”

It was never really anything to begin with, but it was taken out of context by Team UPC and EPO mouthpieces like IAM. It’s rather clear by now that Team UPC was playing mental games earlier this month, basically lobbying at truth’s expense, not only in Spain but also in Germany and Britain. Only a fool would still trust anything that Bristows says. They’re not just the patent microcosm but core people of Team UPC, having been lobbying Spain with loaded statements, false headlines and so forth.

What good is a lawyer that lies for a living? It might be comforting for a day or two (maybe a week), but bad advice leads to pricier consequences. Guess who foots the legal bills?

“There is still time for Europeans to sign the UPC petition, which now has 133 signatures, including 24 from CEOs.”Here again is Manuel Rey-Alvite Villar from Bristows, stating: “I find it unrealistic that Spain remains out indefinitely, missing the formative years means no ES input in key case law and decision making…”

Well, get out of your Bristows bubble or echo chamber. It ain’t happening, but UPC events have been so thoroughly stuffed by the “choir” that nobody dares yell out that the emperor is naked. The UPC is a sham. In reply to the above, Benjamin Henrion wrote: “UPC will be a paradise for trolls, better stay away.”

Moreover, the “UK should use Brexit as an opportunity to avoid Software Patents,” noted a person who opposes software patents, knowing what the true implications of UPC would be (it’s against SMEs, not for SMEs). There is still time for Europeans to sign the UPC petition, which now has 133 signatures, including 24 from CEOs.

03.23.17

“Terror” Patent Office Bemoans Terror, Spreads Lies

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 12:16 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Concerns over 'terror' Patent Office
Translation here

Summary: Response to some of the latest utterances from the European Patent Office, where patently untruthful claims have rapidly become the norm

TRUTH is a scarcity at the EPO these days. It has become the exception rather than the norm. Coming from an institution which has science and rule of law at its core (examination and prosecution that oftentimes follows), this is worse than embarrassing. It’s a disaster! It is an ever-deepening crisis, to quote the Board of the Administrative Council. Why don’t they pressure for immediate, wide-ranging change? The Register has had some nice comments to that effect; it’s all about nepotism and mutual protection at the top, including the Chairman of the Administrative Council, who protects rather than supervises the President (like he’s supposed to, as per the EPC).

“Europe has a balanced patent portfolio,” the EPO wrote yesterday. “with innovation spread over many tech fields.” But 'evil tongues' from inside the Office keep telling us that all of the EPO’s numbers are basically bogus numbers that include applications not paid for, applications in the ‘wrong’ language etc. They are desperate to bolster a misleading narrative, wherein the number of applications grows. But actually, as per the simple facts, it’s going down. See for example some recent rebuttals of ours, e.g.:

Yesterday the EPO wrote (belatedly) that “European patent applications from Iceland declined in 2016…”

“They are desperate to bolster a misleading narrative, wherein the number of applications grows. But actually, as per the simple facts, it’s going down.”At the time these ‘results’ were announced the EPO only trumpeted the positives by nitpicking — a very unscientific thing to be doing anywhere (especially so inside the EPO, which is supposed to stand for science).

“As in most European nations,” I responded to them, the EPO “is worthless to them under Battistelli” (most European nations saw a decline in the number of applications for EPs).

“To make matters worse, most of these nations miraculously vanish when the EPO pushes propaganda and lies,” I told the EPO after it had tweeted: “Check out the geographic coverage offered by European #patents!”

“At the time these ‘results’ were announced the EPO only trumpeted the positives by nitpicking — a very unscientific thing to be doing anywhere (especially so inside the EPO, which is supposed to stand for science).”Suddenly they show all the member states, but without any numbers on them (as it would mean minuses all over the map, except in few and sometimes very small nations/populations). Have they got no shame?

Most embarrassing, however, was this utterly improper message from Benoît Battistelli. It would be more or less acceptable coming from anyone but him and EPO insiders already fume at the sight of Battistelli stating “we firmly believe in the core values of tolerance, openness and equality…”

The EPO promoted this message early in the morning, whereupon I asked: “Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds coming from Battistelli?”

“It’s easy to see why Battistelli likes to exploit terror attacks any time they happen.”Battistelli is milking another terror attack, as usual. He has done that at least half a dozen times before. He is a hypocrite because his own regime is openly accused of terrorising staff, even in the mainstream media. The way he implements a regime of terror isn’t anything like ISIS; it’s not like a Battistelli-steered limousine is plowing through a crowd of SUEPO-led protesters by the Isar but rather psychological torture that sometimes leads to suicides and generally spreads fear. Battistelli wants people to fear him rather than respect him, so it’s no wonder 0% of stakeholders and 0% of staff tolerate him (when asked about it confidentially, not by a Battistelli-commissioned firm).

It’s easy to see why Battistelli likes to exploit terror attacks any time they happen. It’s a lot more powerful than a questionable bicycle tale. He is painting himself as the victim fighting a threat, failing to see how hypocritical he looks to his own ‘inferiors’ (who are vastly superior to him intellectually and ethically).

03.22.17

The EPO is Lying to Its Own Staff About ILO and Endless (Over 2 Years) EPO Mistrials

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 7:56 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Maintaining convenient illusions using sheer lies and distortion of facts

Claude RouillerSummary: The creative writing skills of some spinners who work for Battistelli would have staff believe that all is fine and dandy at the EPO and ILO is dealing effectively with staff complaints about the EPO (even if several years too late)

ON “ILOAT decisions,” as per what the EPO‘s ‘Employment Law’ wrote a week ago (Target group: DG4, DG5, President-DG0, DG1, DG2, BoA), there aren’t many facts or much information. Lazy(ier) EPO staff might actually believe these ‘Employment Law’ people, in spite of the Office’s history defying labour law and then falling back on “immunity” (after losing high-profile cases). We don’t honestly think that ordinary staff is gullible enough to swallow this spin from ‘Employment Law’. It’s just an echo chamber (“DG4, DG5, President-DG0, DG1, DG2…”), telling one another what they want to hear and might actually believe. The statements can later be (re)used for lobbying purposes.

“Lazy(ier) EPO staff might actually believe these ‘Employment Law’ people, in spite of the Office’s history defying labour law and then falling back on “immunity” (after losing high-profile cases).”We wrote many articles on the subject and thought a rebuttal would be in order. “That’s how the ILOAT decisions were presented to the EPO staff,” a source told us, giving us the complete text for independent assessment.

Shall we start? In quotes, in the remainder of this article, are the EPO’s own words.

“ILO is not at all effective at dealing with EPO complaints. The ILO has repeatedly complained that it’s unable to cope with the load. It always blames the EPO.”“Report on the 123rd session of the ILOAT At its 123rd session, the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization (the Tribunal) delivered 97 judgments involving 21 Organisations. In total the Tribunal dismissed the complaints in 60 judgments and granted them, partly or in full, in 37 judgments.”

Notice the artistic pretense here (intended to disguise gross imbalance): 21 organisations. Among nearly 100, of which EPO is just one. About half of all the complainants are coming from the EPO. Mind this crucial omission. Does that not merit a mention? The above offers no breakdown of which organisations actually had judgments delivered. It is widely recognised as a fact that the ILO typically returns the complaints to complainants or to the Office (in other words, doing nothing at all, sometimes citing inadmissibility). ILO is not at all effective at dealing with EPO complaints. The ILO has repeatedly complained that it’s unable to cope with the load. It always blames the EPO.

“The EPO just implemented a workaround to more or less dodge compliance.”“The judgments have been exceptionally delivered in two steps with 4 judgments on 30 November 2016,” the EPO said. We’ll get to that, as we have repeatedly covered these judgments last year.

“The EPO took specific measures to address the orders contained in the two judgments delivered in November 2016.”

The EPO just implemented a workaround to more or less dodge compliance. We wrote about that. It’s a total disgrace.

The EPO says: “These judgments concerned the composition of the Appeals Committee (No. 3785) and the competent authority to hear a request for review (No. 3796).”

This has not been addressed.

“Nice selective quoting right there.”Now watch Team Battistelli leaping to exploit “immunity!” by stating: “The judgment delivered by the Dutch Supreme Court on 20 January 2017 whereby the Court upheld the legal protection available to staff of the EPO through the internal…”

What on Earth does it have to do with that? The judges there clearly did not understand, as per the ILO’s own statements, that ILO was incapable of dealing with the EPO’s ‘scatterback’ of complaints.

“As for the EPO,” says the EPO, “33 judgments were delivered in total, with 2 judgments on 30 November 2016 and 31 on 8 February 2017. In his introductory statement of the public delivery on 8 February 2017, the President of the Tribunal noted with satisfaction that: safeguarding the role of the Tribunal in the legal protection of staff of international organisations.”

“Notice terms like “high success rate”. It’s utterly offensive to the victims of Team Battistelli.”Nice selective quoting right there.

“Out of the 33 judgments involving EPO, the following figures are worth highlighting. 25 judgments confirmed in full the position of the Office. This is a high success rate in absolute (i.e. when compared to the EPO’s own figures) as well as relative terms (i.e. when the EPO is compared to other international organisations).”

Notice terms like “high success rate”. It’s utterly offensive to the victims of Team Battistelli.

“3 judgments in which the substance of the challenged decisions was not at stake but where, due to the length of the procedures, moral damages have been awarded to the complainants (Nos. 3782 and 3795 for the duration of the internal appeals procedure and No. 3792 for a medical issue).”

How much was that damage (compensation)? They don’t want to say. It’s so meager that it’s typically offensive; it doesn’t even cover the lawyers’ bills.

“…Team Battistelli will brush these under the carpet.”“2 cases were lost on the substance (No. 3781 regarding school fees – Article 120a ServRegs – and No. 3788 regarding the computation of reckonable experience).”

Yes, just 2.

“3 judgments referring cases back to the EPO for resuming the internal procedures, without any comment on the substance of the challenged decisions. The decisions concerned relate to the right to strike and the New Career system (Nos. 3786 and 3796).”

In other words, Team Battistelli will brush these under the carpet.

“On the substance the following needs to be highlighted. In judgments Nos. 3786 and 3796 the Tribunal confirmed its case law (No. 3700, consideration 7) concerning the competent authority to hear a request for review or an appeal. Hence the Tribunal interpreted the applicable provisions (Articles 107(2), 109(2), 109(4) and (110(1) ServRegs) as follows.

“For employees appointed by the President, all requests for review must be lodged with, and decided by, the President; For employees appointed by the Council: requests for review against individual decisions concerning them and taken by the Council must be lodged with, and decided by, the Council, whereas requests for review against individual decisions concerning them and taken by the President must be lodged with, and decided by, the President.

“Furthermore, the Tribunal conveyed the following messages to the stakeholders. Defendant organisations need to handle staff requests and internal appeals diligently (judgments Nos. 3782, 3795 and 3792). Thus the Tribunal confirms its case law that dealings between an organisation and its staff should comply with the duty of care and due diligence.

“The overall message from the EPO: don’t complain about the EPO.”“Complainants should pay attention to the following messages. Care needs to be taken to identify the right decision to be challenged and to exhaust all internal means of redress before filing a complaint (judgments Nos. 3779, 3780, 3791, 3811).

“If a given situation has already been settled through previous judgments further cases raising the same topic will therefore be rejected on the same grounds (judgments Nos. 3786, 3789, 3806, 3810).”

More creative nitpicking:

“Several cases were found to be clearly devoid of merits as they raised “entirely unsubstantiated allegations [of harassment] and amount[ed] to mere assertions” (judgment No. 3806, consideration 6) and a further complaint was considered as being “no more than a collateral attack on judgment 3426″ (judgment No. 3807, consideration 4) or “speculative assertions” (judgment No. 3808, consideration 5).

“Contact Claude Rouiller (ILOAT) at claude.rouiller@hispeed.ch to tell what the EPO thinks of his Tribunal.”“To conclude, the Tribunal stressed again the respective responsibilities of the stakeholders for the functioning of the legal protection of staff through a system of internal and external means of redress. It is of paramount importance for all stakeholders to preserve it by using it in line with the above.”

The overall message from the EPO: don’t complain about the EPO. The ILO is too weak and understaffed to handle these complaints and we’ll waste EPO budget on lawyers who will exhaust them to the point of inaction.

Of course, anyone who read the above message might have been led to the belief that all is “greener pastures” at EPO and Battistelli is just a victim of meritless complaint. Contact Claude Rouiller (ILOAT) at claude.rouiller@hispeed.ch to tell what the EPO thinks of his Tribunal. It’s disgraceful. He ought to know about this.

EPO’s Georg Weber Continues Horrifying Trend of EPO Promoting Software Patents in Defiance of Directive, EPC, and Common Sense

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 7:29 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

IP Watch too has noticed the EPO’s shameless lobbying for software patents at CeBIT

CII at EPO
This EPO presentation from just months ago spoke of software patents (“CII”). Photo credit: EPO Patent Information Conference 2016 (Grant Philpott)

Summary: The EPO’s promotion of software patents, even out in the open, is an insult to the notion that the EPO is adhering to or is bound by the rules upon which it maintains its conditional monopoly

WE HAVE just read with great interest this report from IP Watch, which published some critical articles about the EPO lately, in spite of the risks associated with the EPO’s bullying of journalists and bloggers. Last year we took note of the EPO’s promotion of software patents in Europe, specifically (although not limited to) CEBIT in Hannover [1, 2].

An “EPO Official Aggressively Promotes Software Patents At CeBIT Fair,” IP Watch wrote in a report this afternoon, helping/seerving to remind us that the EPO is a rogue institution which ignores all the rules in the name of increasing grants and destroying patent quality (not to mention validity rates). To quote IP Watch:

At the world‘s biggest computer fair, the CEBIT in Hannover, Germany today, an official of the European Patent Office promoted patents for computer-implemented inventions (CII), also called software patents by critics. CII continues to grow considerably, according to EPO.

While mathematical methods, programs for computers, and presentations of information are excluded by the Europe Patent Convention, that in no way stops CII, said EPO’s Georg Weber. There is a fix in the European Patent Convention which allows the software patenting nevertheless, he said.

Article 52.3 states that patentability for computer programs (and some other subjects) are excluded “only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject matter or activities as such,” Weber said.

The EPO therefore would grant CII patents after a two-hurdle test. To pass hurdle one, an application just has to have a “technical character.” When someone has an algorithm, but no one knows what the algorithm is doing, it cannot be patented, Weber explained to the CEBIT audience.

“If it is used for encryption, though, it is already technical and the first hurdle is passed,” he said.

With statements like these, we doubt Georg Weber will impress anyone but Team Battistelli. Software patents are extremely unpopular inside and outside the profession of programmers. What’s behind all this and whose idea was it to promote software patents in European expos? Can they not see how damaging this is to the reputation of the EPO? Judging by some of the latest comments posted regarding news articles, people have come to accept that the EPO flagrantly and intentionally disregards the EPC. That makes the EPO somewhat of an invalid office — one that defies the very treaty that gave it an existence (and monopoly in Europe).

“That makes the EPO somewhat of an invalid office — one that defies the very treaty that gave it an existence (and monopoly in Europe).”Some people out there, e.g. IAM, didn’t get the memo that the EPO just flagrantly violates the EPC. Earlier today IAM published this thing from Turkey (let’s not start an argument about its membership in the EU, as opposed to the EPO), titled “Direct applicability of European Patent Convention while invalidation actions pending”

“Article 138/3 of the European Patent Convention,” says the author (patent microcosm), “is inconsistent with Turkish national patent law, so the IP courts and the Turkish Patent and Trademark Office previously refused to apply Article 138/3 in national invalidity proceedings. However, recently the Istanbul IP Court applied Article 138/3 and accepted claim limitation in national proceedings.”

“Maybe IAM should put at risk all these perks from the EPO and belatedly produce a report about the EPO.”As we all know (thanks to know-it-all tyrants with giant egos), the Rule of Law in Turkey currently suffers a similar crisis to that inside the EPO, which neither obeys the EPC nor ILO (among many other things). To think that the EPO under Battistelli still has anything to do with the EPC is like believing that the Central Intelligence Agency spreads “freedom and democracy” or “Microsoft loves Linux”.

IAM, a loud promoter of software patents (and even trolls that use these), is still close to the EPO. It helps bolster the illusion of patent quality under Battistelli while Battistelli's PR firm pays IAM. Maybe IAM should put at risk all these perks from the EPO and belatedly produce a report about the EPO. Right now these people willfully opt to be silent about it, and occasionally promote the UPC. Unlike IP Watch

03.21.17

What the Patent Microcosm is Saying About the EPO and the UPC

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 4:21 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The patent microcosm is the military-industrial complex of the patent world

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

Summary: Response to 3 law firms and today’s output from them, which serves to inform or misinform the European public at times of Big Lies and fog of (patent) war, revealing the true nature of 21st century asymmetric patent warfare and lobbying

THE EPO is not the only ‘department’ accusable of spreading lies. Around the EPO — just like the USPTO for that matter — there are various legal firms looking forward and eagerly awaiting for a bite at the EPO’s corpses (like hyenas).

“The last thing Battistelli wants is a process that helps highlight (or quantitatively determine) the rapid demise in patent quality under his watch — something which insiders believe is intentional.”Simon Kahn of Boult Wade Tennant, for example, has just published this article that helps remind us that patent parasites and trolls will benefit if Battistelli gets his way (eliminating patent quality, oppositions, appeals and so on). “Nevertheless,” Kahn notes, “the low cost of EPO Oppositions and their central effect on the European Patent across all the countries in which it is in force, still makes them a valuable tool. It should be borne in mind that an Opposition can only be filed within nine months of the European Patent’s grant, so keeping track of patents in relevant sectors can be of great benefit.”

Battistelli shortens such appeal/opposition windows, raises the associated costs, understaffs the appeal broads, demotivates them and so on. The last thing Battistelli wants is a process that helps highlight (or quantitatively determine) the rapid demise in patent quality under his watch — something which insiders believe is intentional. We recently published EPO leaks (from which the EPO attempted to distract on the same day) that show admissions from the inside that patent quality control is an utter disaster.

“If they’re not a mere victim of EPO deception, then they are willfully complicit in a disinformation campaign, which doesn’t bode well for Awapatent (albeit Battistelli will love them for it, forever and a day).”As is usual, patent law firms are too afraid to express their concerns about all this (maybe because they benefit financially from overpatenting, or maybe for fear of retaliation). Earlier today Awapatent took the role of Battistelli and EPO ‘mouthpiece’, repeating claims about EPO ‘results’ and even repeating patently false claims. If they’re not a mere victim of EPO deception, then they are willfully complicit in a disinformation campaign, which doesn’t bode well for Awapatent (albeit Battistelli will love them for it, forever and a day).

Speaking of patent law firms that spread lies, watch this latest Bristows tweet and corresponding — cough cough — article. They are are lying about Germany again (we debunked this in [1, 2], among other posts). They say a German “bill makes it possible for Germany to ratify the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPC)(Drucksache 18/11137 here) and the other to implement the unitary patent system into German law (Drucksache 18/8827 here).”

“Don’t they realise that they actively work against everyone in Europe except themselves, and possibly their largest clients that are not even European (American pharmaceutical giants, for instance)?”Actually, as per the rules, it’s probably an invalid ‘vote’, more like a publicity stunt from Team UPC. A 1:30 AM (yes, AM!) vote with just 5% of the German politicians is about as valid one person in a classroom coming to school at 4 AM to act as a Students’ Union. As one can imagine, patent lawyers’ media continues to promote these claims, but the “UPC is clearly against the interest of Europe (except some law firms in Europe, preying on legitimate businesses),” I told them.

Well, to their credit, they did share my words to their followers. Don’t they realise that they actively work against everyone in Europe except themselves, and possibly their largest clients that are not even European (American pharmaceutical giants, for instance)? The patent microcosm is doing a lot to disgrace itself each time it lies to the public and to public officials about the UPC (and its effects on European businesses), in a purely lobbying (in nature) effort to tilt laws in their favour.

Tough Day for the EPO’s Media/Press/PR Team, Trying ‘Damage Control’ After Important Techrights Publications

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 3:45 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

EPO damage control

Summary: In an effort to save face and regain a sense of legitimacy the EPO publishes various things belatedly, and only after Techrights made these things publicly known and widely discussed

Poor Benoît…

The EPO is collapsing around him and simply going on mysterious money-sharing tours (an issue we’ve mentioned since 2014, in relation to Croatia) raises more questions than ever…

“The above is a great example of ‘damage control’.”The USPTO never in its entire history earned the same level of disgrace that Benoît managed to ‘accomplish’ in just a few years on the job. Tonight we have much planned for publication, as sources multiply and truth is becoming too much for Benoît to bear (most of the large European nations already want him ousted, only to be outmaneuvered by this Danish man who keeps Battistelli’s salary secret).

The above is a great example of ‘damage control’. It doesn’t get any greater than that and it feels like they play catchup while we, thanks to our sources, are virtually running circles around the PR team of Team Battistelli whom it serves so diligently (nothing but 100% loyalty is tolerated by the ‘king’).

What we see here is responsive or reactionary publication. Earlier this year, for example, just hours after we had leaked these internal E-mails about patent quality the EPO came up with some recycled old news about “quality” in an apparent effort to distract and divert away from the leaks.

“What we see here is responsive or reactionary publication.”This evening, less than 24 hours after our post about it (see what we posted earlier today, just after midnight), the EPO published this nonsense (warning: epo.org link). In it, the PR people conveniently do not mention the date, as it happened quite a while back (with strategic timing) and they chose not to report/mention anything about it (as it would raise the very questions we raised this morning — causing internal rumours that are definitely damaging to Battistelli). Only after Techrights had reported on it the EPO felt like it needed to pretend to be transparent. In Twitter it wrote (a short while ago): “President Battistelli signed bilateral co-operation plans with heads of the patent offices of Latvia and Lithuania”

Why was the EPO silent for so long about it? The question is rhetorical.

“You know that Techrights exposed your crooked dealings,” I told them in Twitter, “so again you manipulate history” (to make it seem like they were open about it all along).

“The EPO is just getting desperate and trying to appear more popular than it really is.”Speaking of the EPO’s Twitter account, compare these statistics that we shared earlier this year to the latest. In 2 months EPO gained just 22 fake “followers” and just 36 real followers. Is this SEO? SPAM farming? Whatever it is, for the sake of comparison, in the same period of time I gained ten times as many legitimate followers and there are hardly any “fakes” associated with me. The EPO is just getting desperate and trying to appear more popular than it really is. The rapid growth in “follower” count magically stalled when we pointed this out. Maybe they read what we write on a regular basis and respond accordingly. This comes to show that our sources have a real impact.

Earlier today in Twitter the EPO continued to mention nations where there was a decline in patent applications (it only started doing this after we had criticised it for omissions). One tweet said: “Norway is the only Nordic state to register growth in patent applications in 2016, up 1.8%”

That’s one out of three if not one out of seven. “Aren’t you going to add the map from which you removed Scandinavia?”

That’s what I asked them. For those who missed it, the EPO decided it doesn’t recognise Scandinavia because it didn’t like the numbers from Scandinavia. We addressed the subject in the following previous posts:

The last among the above was published earlier today. They haven’t shared that map since. Instead they said, more humbly than usual: “Finnish companies filed fewer patent applications at the EPO in 2016″

“Earlier today in Twitter the EPO continued to mention nations where there was a decline in patent applications (it only started doing this after we had criticised it for omissions).”No excuses!

Bravo!

That’s the first time we’ve seen an honest tweet from the EPO about its results. Brutally honest. “Well done,” I said to Finland, “people there seems to have realised that EPO is a rogue institution…”

“How can Battistelli and his cronies explain that, other than play dirty games with statistics and attempt to distort the figures for lobbying purposes?”It’s not just Finland. The majority of Europe also saw decline in demand [sic] for EPs. How can Battistelli and his cronies explain that, other than play dirty games with statistics and attempt to distort the figures for lobbying purposes? Maybe Donald Trump and Benoît Battistelli can have alternative facts as a good “topic” for discussion some day, perhaps debating how to hide the fact that demand [sic] for EPs nosedived in the US last year.

Earlier today the EPO wrote: “The EPO will be at #LESI2017 http://www.lesi2017.org/ We look forward to seeing you all at our booth!”

“We encourage readers to send us material as it’s evident that EPO management is squirming and grappling with the facts.”I asked the EPO: “Do French applicants know that as supposed retaliation against French politicians Battisetlli got them demoted?” (in the patents examination pile)

Guess what happened to patent demand [sic] in France? It’s down.

We encourage readers to send us material as it’s evident that EPO management is squirming and grappling with the facts.

« 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