Patent lawyers don’t see it that way
Reference: “If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail”
Summary: Inability to comprehend the nature of patents as double-edged swords leads to confusion which is actively promoted by those who profit from this confusion and reduce society to an endless cycle of litigation rather than cooperation
THE following thoughts and corresponding articles are about the US, but lessons from these are equally applicable to the EPO, where the quality of patents is totally out of control (number of patents granted allegedly rose 40% in just one year!).
“We have been writing about a vicious war between the interests of law firms and the interests of the industry at large — something which in Europe culminates in the battle over UPC.”In the eye of a patent lawyer, more patents mean more business and more business means more personal wealth (for the lawyer at least). But at whose expense? Where does the capital come from and and where is the value creation, so to speak? We have been writing about a vicious war between the interests of law firms and the interests of the industry at large — something which in Europe culminates in the battle over UPC.
Is overpatenting desirable?
Are many disputes desirable?
“Granting lots of crappy patents does not make one a “powerhouse” but a fool who serves the patent microcosm.”How about lawsuits, injunctions, patent thickets and the monopolies these tend to guard?
Yesterday we found this new article titled “The surprising rise of China as IP powerhouse” — an article which for the most part admires China’s patent bubble. This whole article is a colossal mess and quite bluntly nonsensical. Granting lots of crappy patents does not make one a “powerhouse” but a fool who serves the patent microcosm. The only reason the patent microcosm in the West keeps mentioning China — a retreat or reduction of all arguments to just “China!” [1, 2] (the talking point about China is that it grants a lot of patents and is hence “leading”) — is that it envies the future of Chinese patent lawyers, even if this vision dooms China’a large producing industry.
The notion that companies need to stockpile patents is typically promoted by people whose occupation is just that. They try to justify their own existence and rationalise their never-ending salary (from companies that create dedicated, in-house ‘IP’ departments). Uber, which was recently sued by Google, must be foolish enough (or misinformed) to believe that stockpiling patents by purchasing is a good idea, but watch what IAM wrote yesterday. Incredible! What can they possibly do? Sue Google in retaliation? Nobody would win in such endless litigation battles except law firms, as usual.
“The notion that companies need to stockpile patents is typically promoted by people whose occupation is just that.”Following AIA the United States went from attempting to maximise patents and litigation to trying to reduce them. This means invalidating in bulk a lot of existing (previously granted) patents and discouraging litigation, primarily but not limited to troll litigation. Suffice to say, the patent ‘industry’ is up in arms over it. It spreads malicious (and false) rumours about officials who are responsible for it, it creates “task forces” to lobby, it misleads politicians about it and maybe pays (bribes) some of them too.
Just watch last night’s Patently-O links from Anthony McCain, half of which were about PTAB, which Patently-O is trying to slow down in spite of steady and healthy growth (covered here last night). PTAB is reducing the number of patents by crushing the bad ones and setting an example. Who could possibly object to that?
“The more patents PTAB invalidates, the better. But the way the patent ‘industry’ sees it is warped by its greed (desire for money, not science/advancement), which necessitates more and more patents.”Watchtroll, which habitually attacks PTAB, is cited as saying that the rules need to be changed, making PTAB a lot less effective. It’s being masked as “improvement” (to quote: “By adopting these improvements to the IPR process the system will become fairer, afford patent owners more due process, and protect patent owners from harassment and hardship while still fulfilling the statutory mandate to provide an alternative forum for administrative resolution of validity challenges.”), but it’s actually the very opposite of improvement. The Shire case, a famous PTAB case, is recalled in another blog of the patent microcosm and the USPTO is then accused of misleading about PTAB numbers, as if PTAB’s justice should be measured by the percentage of cases affirmed or reversed (PTAB is usually petitioned to look into already-dubious patents, so reversals, i.e. invalidations, are to be expected). To quote:
Currently, the USPTO measures decision outcomes of ex parte appeals in three different ways: affirmed, affirmed-in-part, or reversed. This is highlighted by the USPTO’s recently released statistics on outcomes of ex parte appeals for FY2017. These stats show that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) very frequently upholds Examiners on appeal, with a 55% affirmance rate. This rate is consistent with previous years’ affirmance rates. These affirmed rates suggest a job “well done” by the USPTO. However, the way the USPTO counts affirmances yields counterintuitive and misleading results, especially with cases involving multiple grounds of rejection. Indeed for accountability purposes, this way of measuring appeals cloaks the USPTO’s Examining Corps failures.
The more patents PTAB invalidates, the better. But the way the patent ‘industry’ sees it is warped by its greed (desire for money, not science/advancement), which necessitates more and more patents. Just like weapons manufacturers always crave for more wars, conflict, instability, and arms races… █
Send this to a friend
Back to medieval mentality and censorship of truth about questionable statistics
Summary: The European Patent Office (EPO), desperate to save face while patent applications cease to be properly examined, turns to post-truth “alternative facts” and outright distortion of numbers
THE IMAGE above helps explain the atmosphere among EPO workers, who are unable to grasp why their managers would lie so blatantly and so much. Wasn’t the EPO supposed to be a friend of researchers, as it last proclaimed yesterday? Doesn’t the EPO value proper research and statistics? Well, judging by how it presented the latest ‘results’, Battistelli’s EPO is overtly anti-scientific and hostile towards facts/truth. Recall the following posts from last month (among more):
Not even the USPTO ever resorted to such shameless lies. How does the EPO expect to maintain or earn respect? As testament to the unpopularity of the EPO, recall this Juve survey. How unpopular is the EPO these days? Watch the EPO’s forums, which were last promoted earlier today by the EPO; Not a single forum post/reply in 4 days! Most forums have been entirely untouched since 2016 (if not earlier years). It’s abandoned. It’s a ghost town.
What about EPO news? Nothing. Almost nothing for at least a week, except the occasional brag (usually press releases) about patents that should never have been granted, such as this one from today. It says: “According to the EPO, the patent will formally grant on May 10, 2017. The EPO’s decision to grant this patent follows its March 24, 2017 notice of intent to issue the patent, which was not challenged by any third party. This European patent will be nationalized in, and cover, approximately forty European countries, including Germany, Italy, France, Spain and the Netherlands. As provided by relevant European legislation, third parties will have nine months from the issue date to oppose the patent in the EPO.”
This was bundled together with all sorts of other new articles about CRISPR, e.g. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7], but none mentioned the EPO. The very fact that the EPO is willing to grant monopolies on genome makes the EPO look worse than ever (even the USPTO denies such patents). Will any staff of DG3 remain at Haar in order to bury this bogus patent as soon as possible? Battistelli has done everything he could to ensure they're paralysed and unable to demonstrate (and thus object to) the chronic decline in patent quality.
The above image contains all the English text.
This “unbelievable statistical manipulation from management,” as someone put it, shows the management “converting 54% into 7.73%.”
The two passages written in German say: “If the renowned legal journal JUVE reports that 54% of industry representatives are no longer happy with the quality of our patent process, then we should be worried” and “at the end of November 2016 JUVE surveyed the patent departments of 168 international technology companies… 24 companies completely answered the survey, a response rate of 14.3 percent” (translation errors may still be possible).
For those who have watched the EPO closely over the past few years and especially the past few months, such lies would not seem too shocking. They’ve lost all credibility. Earlier today the EPO wrote: “The world’s most inventive minds come together for a celebration of their achievements on 15 June.” (link to
One might expect scientists to attend, but even reckless frauds are coming and receiving awards. Not to mention Battistelli, whose awards come from himself…
Fraudsters as “inventors”?
Lies as “statistics” and “research”?
Assembly line as “science”?
This is really characteristic of everything that is wrong with the EPO these days. The boss of the EPO has no scientific background at all and he only started flirting with so-called ‘IP’ 10 years before his retirement age. █
Send this to a friend
Having already flung multiple false rumours at Michelle Lee, Watchtroll does it again, this time aided by IAM
Watchtroll is a bullying campaign whose goal is not justice but patent maximalism, i.e. self/personal gain
Summary: The aforementioned lobbying and foul play, striving to get rid of the USPTO Director who helped PTAB succeed, trolls fail, and patent quality improve
THE USPTO has been under attack by a whispering campaign and a witch-hunt led by patent maximalists, including Watchtroll and IAM. They are eager to install their own cronies and destroy any progress that has been made reforming the patent system.
“Sadly, Watchtroll’s campaign against Michelle Lee continues.”Watchtroll is now complaining about Alice (yet again, maybe the thousandth time), as if the death of software patents was a bad thing. It says “data shows that the US Supreme Court’s decision in Alice has crushed much of the nascent financial technology (fintech) patent market and affected software package sales rates.”
What is this “patent market”? Patents are not a market. The market actually produces something (other than patents) and sometimes uses patents to restrict competition. Sadly, Watchtroll’s campaign against Michelle Lee continues. Having written almost a dozen attack pieces against her (that we have noticed), it now latches onto PTAB's latest (attempt to appease thugs like Watchtroll), takes a horrifying photo of Lee, and repeats its unverified claim that “[t]he timing of the announcement is curious given that Michelle Lee’s days seem numbered as Director of the Office.”
“IAM, another malicious site that has participated in this lobbying/witch-hunting campaign, amplified this nonsense yesterday.”According to who? Watchtroll itself?
IAM, another malicious site that has participated in this lobbying/witch-hunting campaign, amplified this nonsense yesterday. Patent maximalists of IAM, not just Watchtroll, wrote this:
Interest groups gear up for fight with Trump administration over USPTO budget
In a clear bid to play up a rivalry that Trump is all too aware of, it alleges that this is playing into the hands of China and its voracious patenting efforts.
The one bright spot, according to the lobbyist, is that new Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, “really understands the patent system”. As IP Watchdog reported recently, Ross has been busy interviewing prospective candidates for the position of USPTO Director with former Johnson & Johnson IP executive Phil Johnson and former Federal Circuit Chief Judge Randall Rader both still in the running. With the budget clouds gathering over Washington DC, whoever is appointed faces perhaps the most daunting task in IP.
What we see here is that same old Chinophobia [1, 2] that the software patents lobby has resorted to quite a lot recently (never mind Lee’s ethnic origins) and then repetition of claims made only by a site of liars and thugs, who habitually spread falsehoods. They are still engaging in a whispering campaign against the USPTO Director, having already spread false rumours against her several months back. It’s not a crime to do this; it’s just unethical and outright nasty. They create scandals out of nothing. They try to make their own prophecies become a reality. Team UPC uses similar tactics.
“They are still engaging in a whispering campaign against the USPTO Director, having already spread false rumours against her several months back.”“PTAB procedure should be free of charge,” Watchtroll got told by Benjamin Henrion. Remember that Watchtroll not only criticises PTAB but also insults it. It just can’t stop harassing Lee, even by spreading bogus conspiracy theories about Google and her. Months ago it said she had resigned, but clearly that was false, as confirmed by an official statement from the administration. The label “fake news” came into existence because of politically-motivated (or financially-motivated) sites like Watchtoll, not irresponsible satirical sites. █
Send this to a friend
No shame is the name of his game, where Martial Law (to Hell with the EPC!) and perceived emergencies are agents of change
“…we firmly believe in the core values of tolerance and openness. Such attacks will never destroy these principles, nor the European values of cultural diversity, tolerance and mutual respect.” ~Benoît Battistelli today.
Summary: As usual, Benoît Battistelli resorts to exploitation of disasters to bolster the narrative of Battistelli himself as an heroic protector from terror (even when it’s him who terrorises everyone, even bloggers)
NOTHING that the Liar in Chief does surprises us any longer. Battistelli’s reputation is in the gutter both among his employees and among stakeholders (like clients) [1, 2]. Both rated him at 0% — a fact he can only attempt to deflect/distract from while comparing his staff (or their representatives) to “Mafia”. If Battistelli was a Corsican general like Napoleon, he would have already started a distant/imperialistic/expansionist war to bolster his sunken reputation. Syria might do. Battistelli’s awful leadership has destroyed the reputation of the EPO (both Office and Organisation). That’s half a century of reputation-building down the drain, impacting the résumés of former employees, devaluing decades-old EPs, and so much more. If EPO was a publicly-traded company with market value, it would have driven away shareholders and risk bankruptcy by now (there are already fiscal issues).
“Can’t they see that they merely reinforce their stigma as chronic liars?”A lot of people out there refer/allude to the EPO’s boss, Battistelli, as a Frenchman, which is technically correct but it’s an Italian name and he’s from Corsica, where his name is apparently associated with the Mafia. No wonder he runs the Office like the Sicilian Mafia, based on what insiders say. The mainstream media has already compared his regime to "terror", yet he has the nerve to condemn terror every single time it happens somewhere. Projection much? Another PR stunt? FTI Consulting's idea? Now Battistelli is milking Sweden (as usual, he always does this). At around the same time (this afternoon) the EPO retweeted Mikk Putk, a Patent Attorney who apparently fell for the latest publicity stunt and wrote that “EPO offers grants for academic research,” alluding to the latest PR/publicity stunt, trying to paint the EPO as a friend of researchers — the very thing it is not (at least not anymore). “Use [of misuse] of applicants’ money” is what one person at IP Kat comments called it today, linking to our rebuttal/response. How much worse can the PR strategy of the EPO get? Can’t they see that they merely reinforce their stigma as chronic liars? No other public institution is obsessing so much over terror attacks (to the point where about 20% of ‘news’ is just that). Battistelli’s chronic paranoia and weird fetishes are making the EPO more and more of a laughing stock. █
Send this to a friend
Like Martin Goetz who patented a sorting system [sic] in 1968 and others who were painting software patents with the “brakes” brush
Summary: Another emergent loophole for asserting that patents on software somehow have merit (not abstract), merely because of the context in which they are used
PATENTS on driving/driver-related activities have become a plague that not only feeds several high-profile patent trolls but also Google. A lot of cars now come with computers and companies like Microsoft exploit this for patent blackmail (lately against Toyota).
The other day the Docker Report published this outline of a § 101 case:
The special master recommended denying defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that plaintiff’s vehicle camera system patent encompassed unpatentable subject matter because defendant failed to establish that the asserted claims were directed toward an abstract idea.
That’s a shame. A lot of software patents these days get disguised as “with a car”, “on a car”, “in a car” etc. (one among several similar patterns pertaining to “device”, “phone”, “Internet”, “cloud”, “AI” and so on). These are still software patents.
“A lot of software patents these days get disguised as “with a car”, “on a car”, “in a car” etc. (one among several similar patterns pertaining to “device”, “phone”, “Internet”, “cloud”, “AI” and so on).”Jake Grove says in his new article (titled “Key IP Challenge: Protecting Vehicle Software”) that “[p]atents can provide broad coverage for software,” much to our surprise. Do patents cover software in the US? No, not anymore. Or barely (the outcome is typically negative when judged by courts, so only legal bills encumber both sides). These patents can be pretty worthless in the US these days. Just look at these latest figures from boosters of software patents, Fenwick & West. “With the close of the first quarter of 2017,” they say, “there have been some interesting patterns developing in AliceStorm.”
“Do patents cover software in the US? No, not anymore. Or barely (the outcome is typically negative when judged by courts, so only legal bills encumber both sides).”This was promoted by software patents proponents, as they give some Alice figures/updates with the expected slant (their obvious goal is to bring software patents back). They have clients who rely on this outcome, as this other new post discloses by saying: “My client SHzoom filed a request to make the Trading Technologies decision precedential. CQG attempted to leverage that motion as a further reason for the case to be reheard, arguing in their respose that “SHzoom’s Motion requesting that the panel’s decision in this case be made precedential should be denied. Its arguments further illustrate why CQG’s Petition for rehearing en banc should be granted.””
Trading Technologies is basically reduced to trolling.
The bottom line is, software is not patentable and examiners need to watch out for the trick of ascribing these to vehicles. █
Send this to a friend
The trolls’ ‘news’ site just won’t leave India alone (simply refusing to let go)
Summary: Lobbying site IAM continues to serve as the vehicle/front for patent parasites that cannot stand India’s patent policy and perpetually try to derail it
INDIA banned software patents a long time ago and many times so far this year IAM has attempted to shame and ridicule India into changing its mind. Articles about it from this year alone include:
“The last thing India should do is allow software patents, facilitating yet more of that blackmail (‘protection’ money without even a trial).”Today, Joginder Singh of LexOrbis tries to promote software patents in India (just published). This piece of his was printed by IAM last week, whereupon we debunked it here (just before the weekend). This morning, IAM published this piece about one of the world’s biggest patent bullies, Qualcomm [1, 2], as it takes on the Indian market. “Little surprise that telecoms companies led the way as licensors continue to file new infringement lawsuits in the mobile phone space, many targeting Indian and Chinese manufacturers,” IAM said. “Qualcomm retained its position as the top overall patent filer in the country, but it put a lot more space between itself and the number two company, Philips, increasing its applications by 55%. Microsoft and Toyota also increased their activity enough to break into the top 10.”
Suffice to say, Microsoft is another one of those companies that blackmail legitimate rivals and abuse a dominant position in the market. The last thing India should do is allow software patents, facilitating yet more of that blackmail (‘protection’ money without even a trial).
IAM is a truly malicious network pretending to be a news site; all it does is drive agenda in exchange for money. We believe/think that in order to shield itself from scrutiny (save face), IAM did not publicly speak about its EPO propaganda (‘survey’) this year, unlike before (prior years). Only Battistelli mentioned it publicly one month ago. █
Send this to a friend
Battistelli’s EPO and litigation firms resort to lies, distortions and outright bullying of critics
Summary: Response to the latest lies and half-truths that are being disseminated by a bunch of litigation businesses aided by Battistelli and his henchmen (or henchwomen, like Margot Fröhlinger)
TECHRIGHTS is anything but new to the UPC plans, which were known as all sorts of other things over the years (“harmonisation”, “EU Patent” etc.) and people can find articles on the subject going nearly a decade back. We are on pretty solid ground when it comes to the subject and we can easily spot lies, then report them in public. Not many other sites are both capable and willing to do this. We are neither obsessed, nor do we respond in vain. It has become very apparent that Techrights has become the #1 enemy of Team UPC (a conspiracy of few law firms looking to make a lot of money from the UPC and thus lobbying for it at huge private expense). This post is an assorted rebuttal to some of the latest lies, as well as observations made by various people who prefer to remain anonymous.
The other day someone asked: “Did the UKIPO really say that the UK government was fully on track with regard to the UPC? Can’t find it.”
“We are on pretty solid ground when it comes to the subject and we can easily spot lies, then report them in public.”We wrote about that the other day, after we had spotted something rather dodgy at Managing IP.
We suppose that it’s possible someone said something on the phone, but it’s definitely not an official statement. Yet they paint is as official policy, just like they framed a 5% vote at 1:30 AM as something very official (more on that later, for this nonsense is still being repeated by Team UPC). Lies by omission have become a common strategy among Team UPC, which means we must always dig deeper and fact-check everything they say. Remember these highly misleading claims about Spain back in March. How can they get away with that?
“Allusions” and “Omissions” is what someone we spoke to called it. This person too recognises that Team UPC is being rather disingenuous. “Great way of communicating with the world,” this person sarcastically dubbed it, but they are desperate, no doubt, albeit it’s no excuse for this strategy, which clearly involves misleading potential clients.
“Is this the new normal?”
Well, apparently so.
“Did the UKIPO really say that the UK government was fully on track with regard to the UPC? Can’t find it.”
–AnonymousWe have stressed this repeatedly in this site and elsewhere: nothing that Team UPC says should be taken seriously (without a barrel of salt).
As one person put it the other day: “Quite frankly, the opinion of this author whose firm is heavily invested in the UPC is as biased and thus irrelevant as that of the other UPC proponents. They are all in vain trying to cherrypick from the apparent mess something to suit their needs and further their agenda. Whether it’s Tilmann, Mooney, Hoyng or now Mr Smyth.”
“Yes,” somebody later told us, “they all have a vested interest in this succeeding…”
But at what cost?
What we now have is an unprecedented mess, wherein lawyers can be assumed liars (at least about the UPC) and customers are habitually being misled. Many of them don’t even realise this. In the mean time, business are being lied about, not just to. The UPC is definitely not desirable to us who create things (e.g. software), yet patent lawyers tell the world, politicians included, that businesses want the UPC. They don’t. They don’t need patents in other countries if at all. Some have signed a petition to clarify this and a group representing SMEs condemned claims that UPC is desirable to SMEs. AstroTurfing like the EPO now?
“They are all in vain trying to cherrypick from the apparent mess something to suit their needs and further their agenda. Whether it’s Tilmann, Mooney, Hoyng or now Mr Smyth.”
–AnonymousYesterday someone anonymous wrote: “Even in-house lawyers (not patent attorneys, but the other kind, who can call themselves ‘patent attorneys’ for no sensible reason I can think of) are planning to risk their employers’ assets by taking the unitary patent route. In regards to the ‘assertion’ “How numerous are likely to be CJEU referrals by the UPC anyway?”, was the same question asked by Smythe et al when the SPC regulation was drafted?”
Only a fools would put any eggs in the UPC basket, as it's a sinking ship.
Last night we found this new article titled ‘Europe’s unitary patent system will boost Korean firms’ (a blatant lie right there in the headline).
We can’t help but speculate; Did Battistelli’s hired PR firm pay for these lies to be printed, or did Team UPC pay for these lies to be spread in Korea? Who knows… all we know is, “Margot Froehlinger, the principal director for unitary patent, European and international legal affairs at the European Patent Office ECCK” managed to seed these lies in yet another continent’s press (maybe there is similar coverage in Hangul). She has become Battistelli’s most prominent mouthpiece on UPC matters, as we noted here before [1, 2, 3]. Irrespective of Margot Fröhlinger, we have spotted yet more self-serving nonsense printed as though it was factual.
Marks & Clerk Distortions
“Even in-house lawyers (not patent attorneys, but the other kind, who can call themselves ‘patent attorneys’ for no sensible reason I can think of) are planning to risk their employers’ assets by taking the unitary patent route.”
–AnonymousWatch this new puff piece/marketing disguised as an article in the Scottish Legal. The headline says nothing about it being an advertisement for Marks & Clerk, which promotes software patents in Europe and is regularly helping Battistelli’s agenda. Further down in this ‘article’, which parrots EPO talking points, it’s made apparent that it’s not from a journalist but from “Tim Hargreaves, chartered (UK) and European patent attorney, and partner, at Marks & Clerk’s Edinburgh office…”
His colleague is meanwhile lobbying for the UPC. The first sentence of this new ‘article’ of hers (marketing by Karen Fraser from Marks & Clerk) is an utter lie. It repeats the above-mentioned lie/fabrication:
Following the UK Government’s announcement that it will ratify the Unified Patent Court Agreement, the Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court (UPC) are expected to go live in December 2017, subject also to ratification of the UPC Agreement by Germany. Applicants will then have a choice between obtaining the “traditional” bundle of national patents that has always been available under the European Patent Convention (EPC), and a unitary patent on the basis of European patent applications granted by the European Patent Office. This applies to all newly filed European patent applications and to currently pending European patent applications, as long as they are granted after unitary patents become available and as long as they currently designate all participating states.
That’s a gross representation of what is actually happening. Francisco Moreno said: “Useful information if the go-live date is December 2017 or later. Waste of time if this unitary patent system never becomes available…”
“Waste of time if this unitary patent system never becomes available…”
–Francisco MorenoBased on where it stands in the UK (which the above article is about), it’s not going anywhere, hence it is, as Francisco Moreno puts it, “waste of time” (and money, which firms like Marks & Clerk would pocket after they gave misleading/poor advice).
British Special Interests
Remember that firms like Marks & Clerk or Bristows are trying to write the very law that would govern them (if they succeeded at this mass manipulation campaign that is still ongoing). The UPC “is just a theory and pipe dream at this stage,” I told this former ‘Kat’ (David Pearce), “but lawyers lie. That’s what they’re paid for.”
“UK courts are thorough and generally get it right. A good proportion of asserted patent are invalid in some way.”
–David Pearce“Obviously,” he said in relation to another thing, noting that those lobbying for the UPC are “mainly big litigation firms who have something to gain.”
Like IAM and its funding sources, which include the EPO’s PR firm that paid IAM for pro-UPC events?
On another occasion, David Pearce responded to IAM and Erick Robinson, after they had said that “unlike Germany or China, the UK invalidates patents like they are going out of style. Sort of like the US.”
“Not a very fair assessment,” he said. “UK courts are thorough and generally get it right. A good proportion of asserted patent are invalid in some way.”
“Like IAM and its funding sources, which include the EPO’s PR firm that paid IAM for pro-UPC events?”Later today we are going to write about UK courts ruling in favour of a patent troll — a subject already covered here the other day. It would have been far worse if UPC was in effect.
German Special Interests
Postponed again (as always) is the UPC ratification process in Germany. It’s in a limbo. The UK is not ratifying, hence (as expected) the Germans have no point ratifying either. The crucial point is, the UK cannot ratify, or cannot stay in the UPC after leaving the EU. But UPC hopefuls try to spin that with “Postponed is not abandoned – German proverb.”
“The UK is not ratifying, hence (as expected) the Germans have no point ratifying either.”Christopher Weber and Alexander Esslinger are still fantasising, saying that “[t]he process of formal ratification of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Agreement by the UK is unlikely to be completed until mid-July,” citing Team UPC. So once again they are pushing back the dates. Not too long ago they pushed back as far as 2018. They must have realised by now that even believing their own lies would be rather unreasonable.
Bristows, in the meantime, repeats the old lies about Germany (the magnitude of the distortion is a must see). Bristows’ Richard Pinckney wrote the other day [via] that “the laws authorising Germany to ratify the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Agreement and to amend the national patent law have been approved by the Bundestag (parliament) and the Bundesrat (Federal Council), the draft law (bill 18/11238) to enable Germany to ratify the UPC’s Protocol on Privileges and Immunities (PPI) is at an earlier stage.”
“They must have realised by now that even believing their own lies would be rather unreasonable.”Did he mention that only about 5% voted? No? Not convenient a fact? How much longer will they carry on with these fantasies? Nick Kounoupias, a “UK solicitor and IP expert” by his own description, published this article titled “Was it a dream?”
“UK patents will remain unaffected,” he explained, “and US based businesses and individuals owning UK patents will still be able to enforce UK patents within the borders of the UK. However, overseas businesses operating within the UK could still obtain unitary patents and deal with the new UPC but only for use outside the UK.”
“As we see it, the UPC is a dead — or at best dying — project, but those who counted so much on it succeeding refuse to see it and try to blind others too.”That’s a loaded statement which assumes that the UPC will somehow become a reality, with or without the UK participating. “Patent law has not yet been harmonized across the EU,” Benjamin Henrion wrote, “so there should be little change to the present position…”
As we see it, the UPC is a dead — or at best dying — project, but those who counted so much on it succeeding refuse to see it and try to blind others too. They still believe they can somehow salvage this thing by gross distortion while the EPO goes down in flames. █
Send this to a friend
Source: David Kappos interview with Intellectual Property Magazine (2010), modified by us
Summary: The ruthless attempts to run over companies that create software and don’t have ~50,000 patents (including software patents) definitely carry on, and this serves to show just how crooked the process of legislation has become, complete with lobbyists, think tanks, and subversive agents of monopoly
EARLIER this year we took note of IBM establishing a sort of "task force" (their word) with IPO, in which IBM took leadership with clearly malicious intent like resurgence of software patents. It was hardly even made secret, they just didn’t advertise this to geeks who are ‘supposed’ to think that IBM is a ‘friend’. It’s an enemy now. For what it’s worth, participating in it were the other ‘usual suspects’.
“Rewriting [Section] 101 in an echo chamber called IPO,” Benjamin Henrion noted yesterday (after we had spotted this too), there was activity in which “no developer involved, only large companies again…”
“It was hardly even made secret, they just didn’t advertise this to geeks who are ‘supposed’ to think that IBM is a ‘friend’.”Watch who’s in there: IBM’s Manny Schecter, David Kappos (worked for IBM and still paid by IBM, with a USPTO period in between and no ‘cool-off’ time), and even Bob Stoll!
MIP wrote about it: “The cover story assesses the chances of a change to the test for patentable subject matter under Section 101 in the US. Calls for changing 101 are increasing. In January, for example, a proposed amendment from the Intellectual Property Owners Association provided one concrete way to do it. We spoke to patent practitioners including IBM’s Manny Schecter, Cravath’s c and Drinker Biddle’s Bob Stoll to assess what impact 101 is having now and what should change.”
“All they care about is money and if they get to shape the law, guess whose money they will pocket or at whose expense they will enrich themselves…”So here they are. A bunch of self-serving, greedy, manipulative lobbyists trying to rewrite the law for personal gain. Where is the outrage? In another post, this one behind a paywall, it says that “The ABA has proposed an amendment to Section 101, which follows an IPO subject matter eligibility proposal in January. The president of AIPLA has told Managing IP his association’s board will likely approve a 101 proposal within the next six weeks”
Well, we must never ever let the American Bar Association (ABA) or AIPLA override or rewrite US patent law. It’s like letting oil companies and their lobbyists write up environmental regulations! All they care about is money and if they get to shape the law, guess whose money they will pocket or at whose expense they will enrich themselves… █
Send this to a friend
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »