UPC ratification and other favours among the real motivations and paid-for media the means
Summary: The truly terrible reality behind EIA16, which is nothing other than self-serving Battistelli propaganda which costs a lot of money and distorts European media
THE EPO (Organisation) as a whole merely embarrasses itself with the silly (and risky) EIA16 charade, which is somewhat like a beauty pageant dressed up as “science”. It mirrors what Blatter was doing at FIFA in his last days.
Just over an hour ago the EPO's PR folks retweeted the following from Carlos Moedas (with the photo at the top): “Inspiring #EIA16 opening ceremony with EPOorg President Mr. Battistelli and Prime Minister Costa” (Moedas is European Commissioner for Research, Science and Innovation, so he too is being lobbied and was perhaps invited to be brainwashed).
“Battistelli, who had the EPO cover the costs for this charade of his, is about as crazy as Blatter (totally out of touch with reality).”Mr. Battistelli is lobbying Portugal very much as expected, as correctly predicted in our previous coverage of this. To use the words of someone from the EPO who saw that: “My stomach churns as this theater is absurd!”
The EPO shows us that not only politicians can buy the media. Mr. Battistelli does the same thing; he literally paid an estimated millions of Euros to the media (the exact number is unknown to us, but we can extrapolate based on last year).
Battistelli, who had the EPO cover the costs for this charade of his, is about as crazy as Blatter (totally out of touch with reality). He apparently said: “Our ambition is that the European Inventor Award becomes the Nobel Prize for innovation” (who does he think he is, Alfred Nobel? No wonder he wastes a fortune on six unnecessary bodyguards, demonstrating his megalomania and having the EPO cover all the costs with dubious pretexts).
“EIA2016 may not effective enough a distraction (e.g. from today’s protests), but does Battistelli care? He doesn’t pay a dime for this. He’s draining the Office dry just to cover his own behind right now.”viEUws, which is a media partner of the EPO this year (we assume it got paid by Battistelli’s EPO, but we don’t know how much), continues to to do puff pieces, having already produced some for Battistelli several months ago (as it already did a softball questions ‘interview’ with Battistelli). How much was spent on this? The EPO certainly paid a lot of money to the Financial Times (London) to play along with this charade and it still shows. More EPO-sponsored propaganda from the Financial Times can be seen today and it’s part of a broader wave of puff pieces in France, in Germany, and several other countries (the EPO paid another half a dozen media companies).
EIA2016 may not effective enough a distraction (e.g. from today’s protests), but does Battistelli care? He doesn’t pay a dime for this. He’s draining the Office dry just to cover his own behind right now.
The EPO is collapsing while spending millions of Euros hiding this collapse. Battistelli has totally destroyed the EPO and if he’s not ejected later this month, there will be serious consequences. Board 28 certainly knows this. █
Send this to a friend
Article as ODF
Publicado en Europa, Patentes at 4:35 pm por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Cabildeándo al público y a sus representatntes al pagar firmas privadas para decir lo que el Presidente dese decir y pagar a reporteros a repetir lo mismo como loros
El alto costo/peaje de un jefe republicano con visión empresarial no científica: Benoît Battistelli utiliza las mismas tácticas que los gigantes del petróleo con el fin de poner en duda la incertidumbre/elenco de hechos probados, por lo general mediante el pago de las personas a engañar a los funcionarios públicos y privados, con lo que se perpetúa el daño y la miseria causando daños severos en la reputación de la oficina tradicional-científica en el largo plazo
Sumario: El modelo de propaganda de Benoît Battistelli es ilustrado usando detalles acerca de diferéntes contratos que firma no sólo con firmas PR pero también con compañíás dueñas de los medios y firmas de ‘investigación’ (con ataduras fináncieras)
ESTE post se basa en los dos documentos adjuntos en la parte inferior. Ellos pueden parecer bastante banales (basado en plantillas), pero en una etapa posterior que se va a proporcionar un cierto contexto crucial. Estas son las ofertas para la propaganda, que la EPO es ahora reconocido internacionalmente por (si no es notorio por). La EPO incluso da contratos a compañías bien fuera de Europa para estos fines maliciosos y necesidades percibidas (desperdicios). En la primera parte hemos dado un ejemplo del Reino Unido y en la segunda parte de los EE.UU.. Detectar el patrón perturbador aquí. La EPO es internacional, no es Europea. Sólo tiene “Europeo” en su nombre y el personal es europeo.
“La EPO es internacional, no es Europea. Sólo tiene “Europeo” en su nombre y el personal es europeo.”
A la EPO le gusta esparcir divertidos infographics y videos acerca de sus llamados ‘resultados’ que no son un resultado exácto del exito de la EPO, a menos que uno adopte una yarda/aproximamiento neoliberal y arregle los libros [1, 2, 3].
El matrimonio por conveniéncia de la EPO y IAMahora pretenden queesta cosa dudosa que ellos llaman ‘encuesta’demuestra la cálida de la EPO y temprano hoy la EPO publicóuna pieza de lavandería acerca de ello (warning:
epo.org link), citando a sus viejos socios (a los cuáles la firma PR de la EPO paga), aún citando el mentiroso en jefe: “” La calidad es nuestra prioridad estratégica “, dijo el presidente de la EPO Benoît Battistelli. “Hemos sido certificada ISO 9001 para nuestro proceso de concesión desde 2014 y se amplió para abarcar todo el proceso de patentes el año pasado. afirmación de nuestra alta calidad de los usuarios es un crédito para el personal de EPO que aumentó su producción en un 14% en 2015, en un momento cuando las aplicaciones se elevaron un 4,8% más, todo ello sin comprometer la calidad. Estos buenos resultados nos inspiran a seguir mejorando la calidad de nuestros servicios “” (repetición de afirmaciones dudosas si no de mentiras absolutas).
Recuérden que bajo el régimen de Benoît Battistelli la EPO literalmente paga a organizaciones de los medios como CNN grandes cantidades de dinero. La EPO no sólo miente al por mayor; también desperdicia cantidades extraordinarias de dinero que pagan los medios para repetir las mentiras y el pago de los ”estudios‘ fálsos, artículos de escritores fantasma, etc. Escandaloso, seguro que sí, pero ¿dónde está la responsabilidad en Eponia?
“La EPO no sólo miente al por mayor; también desperdicia cantidades extraordinarias de dinero que pagan los medios para repetir las mentiras y el pago de los ”estudios’ fálsos, artículos de escritores fantasma, etc. Escandaloso, seguro que sí, pero ¿dónde está la responsabilidad en Eponia?”
En los documentos a continuación vemos algunos detalles sobre los contratos secretos (que no hemos visto todavía, por lo que las más fugas son bienvenidas). Bueno, la primera dice “Objeto del contrato” es “Prestación de servicios de consultoría para el diseño y ejecución de los centros de evaluación para puestos de dirección de la Oficina Europea de Patentes”, mientras que el segundo dice “Prestación de servicios de consultoría para e-Business Research y barómetro los estudios del departamento de EPO servicios en línea, que consisten en el diseño mutuo de cuestionarios, entrevistas a clientes de EPO en varios países y seguido de análisis y la presentación de resultados “.
La mejor analogía es la Fundación Gates (veán nuestra Wiki acerca de ella). Desde hace varios años ha estado llevando a cabo los llamados «estudios» para su trabajo de lobby que ayudan a Bill (y su esposa) de beneficio mejor de sus inversiones corporativas y ahogan puntos de vistas opuestos en plataformas como paneles, la literatura, etc. Hemos escrito muchas artículos que proporcionan cientos de ejemplos de esto. La EPO se parece mucho a Bill Gates, en el sentido de que ambas compañías sobornan a los medios para “plantar” sus propios “artículos” que es nada menos que las piezas sean glamour. La gente no está acostumbrada a ver los artículos críticos de Bill Gates porque él paga por tantas piezas de hojaldre que ahogan todo lo contrario (periodismo de investigación). La última vez que nos registramos (que utiliza para seguir de cerca este), Bill Gates estaba gastando $ 300 millones por año sobornando esencialmente los medios de comunicación. Lo llaman “promoción” o “comunicaciones”, pero en la práctica se trata de pasar las cajas de dinero en efectivo para las organizaciones de medios de comunicación, con lo cual se convierten en portavoces como “socios de los medios” de Battistelli. Nuestros lectores son lo suficientemente inteligente para saber que muchas compañías de medios de comunicación son la estenografía o PR (piezas de hojaldre) para la venta. Que en realidad es su modelo de negocio (para sobrevivir). Las compañías de medios necesitan “amortiguador” todos los anuncios y puff/piezas disfrazadas de periodismo legítimo (costoso) para ocultar el modelo de agenda real/negocio, pero es cuando la gente como Battistelli tiran un millón de dólares a la CNN que realmente escuchan la marcha registro “ka-ching”.
Acerca de esta llamada ‘encuesta’ o dos de Battistelli (hay muchas en camino), poniéndo aparte el cubrimiénto de prensa corrupot este nuevo comentario dice: “Estas en lo correcto, los resultados de encuesta al personal son pésimos. Los indicadores de estress están fuera de la escala. Me pregunto ¿si el “estudio social” conducido por la gerencia de la EPO encontrará muchas causas similares de preoucupación?
“Nuestros lectores son lo sufici entemente sabios para darse cuenta que muchas compañíás de los medios son estenógrafos o PR (piezas de hojaldre) a la venta.”
“Sin el deseo de disminuir la importancia del estudio en poner de relieve la difícil situación actual de los empleados de EPO, no pude dejar de notar algunos números que (o al menos deberían) dar a los abogados de patentes un motivo de alarma.
“En particular, parece que sólo el 30% de los encuestados cree que se les proporcionó el tiempo necesario para realizar su trabajo correctamente. Esto significa que 7 de cada 10 encuestados (66% de los cuales eran de DG1) creen que – al menos no siempre – realizan su trabajo al nivel que les gustaría. En combinación con los múltiples indicadores que apunta a la preocupación por una disminución de la calidad (por ejemplo, más del 90% de los encuestados cree que la importancia de acuerdo con la calidad ha disminuido en los últimos 3 años), esto hace que sea bastante claro que los médicos están tratando con una EPO que está marchando con rapidez por el camino a un examen normal “rápido y sucio”.
“Todo muy bien, pero es que lo que los usuarios quieren? Lo dudo mucho – sobre todo porque los derechos de examen ciertamente no han disminuido en los últimos años “.
Esto fue dicho en relación con esta nueva encuesta, que va a ayudar a refutar la propaganda de Battistelli en la fabricación (ver los documentos abajo).
“Recuérden que el Presidente de la EPO actualmente está tratándo de deshacerce de las Salas de Recurso por completo, en esencia asegurándose incluso de que haya menos control de calidad.”
Calidad de la examinación en la EPO sin duda alguna ha declinado, basado en el apuro de procedimiéntos de lo que tenemos evidencia concreta (incluyendoalgo por lo cual la EPO me amenazo de sacarme de la Red). Ahora suena como si la EPO esta promoviéndo las patentes de software en los US o tratándo de ‘importarls’ bajo la bandera de la “ICT” (de nuevo), basado en tweets de hoy. Marks & Clerk (promotores de patentes de software) publicaronesta nueva pieza hoy lo que sugiere que otro tipo de controversia de las patentes, a saber, las patentes sobre la vida, todavía está en la agenda de la EPO. Para citar: “La Junta de Apelación de la EPO y el Reino Unido Tribunal Supremo han publicado recientemente decisiones contradictorias sobre la validez de la patente europea Regeneron Pharmaceuticals para el desarrollo de anticuerpos terapéuticos de plataforma VelocImmune.”
Recuérden que el Presidente de la EPO actualmente está tratándo de deshacerce de las Salas de Recurso por completo, en esencia asegurándose incluso de que haya menos control de calidad.
Servicios – 422718-2015
02/12/2015 S233 European Patent Office – Services – Contract notice – Open procedure
Germany-Munich: Provision of consultancy services for the design and execution of assessment centres for management positions in the European Patent Office
1. Entidad adjudicadora:
La Organización Europea de Patentes (EPO), actuando a través de la Oficina Europea de Patentes: la Sede, Bob-van-Benthem-Platz 1, 80469 Múnich, Alemania, dirección postal: EPO, 80298 Munich, Alemania.
La Organización Europea de Patentes es una organización intergubernamental creada de conformidad con la Convención Europea de Patentes, que entró en vigor en 1977. En la actualidad cuenta con 38 Estados miembros (Albania, Alemania, Austria, Bélgica, Bulgaria, Croacia, Chipre, República Checa, Dinamarca, Estonia , Finlandia, Antigua República Yugoslava de Macedonia, Francia, Alemania, Grecia, Hungría, Islandia, Irlanda, Italia, Letonia, Liechtenstein, Lituania, Luxemburgo, Malta, Mónaco, Países Bajos, Noruega, Polonia, Portugal, Rumania, San Marino, Serbia, Eslovaquia, Eslovenia, España, Suecia, Suiza, Turquía y Reino Unido). El órgano ejecutivo de la EPO es la Oficina Europea de Patentes que se encarga de la búsqueda y el examen de las solicitudes de patentes europeas y concesión de patentes europeas. Emplea a aproximadamente 6 700 personas en la sede de la EPO en Munich, una sucursal en La Haya / Rijswijk (Países Bajos) y sub-oficinas en Berlín y Viena (el número de Estados miembros y los miembros del personal indicado puede cambiar).
2. Procedimiento de adjudicación:
Concurso abierto con la concesión discrecional de contrato.
3. Descripción del contrato:
(A) Objeto del contrato:
Prestación de servicios de consultoría para el diseño y ejecución de la evaluación de los centros para puestos de dirección en la Oficina Europea de Patentes.
(B) División en lotes:
(C) Si procede, depósitos y garantías exigidos:
(D) Principales condiciones de pago:
Dentro de los 30 días después de la aceptación.
(e) Requisitos exigidos por la ley:
4. Lugar y plazo de ejecución:
(A) El lugar en el que el contrato se va a realizar:
Sede como en 1,
sucursal en Rijswijk,
Sub-oficina en Viena y
Sub-oficina en Berlín.
(B) Duración del contrato:
El contrato se ha establecido un periodo de 3 años con derecho a la EPO para ampliar esta duración dos veces por 1 año cada una.
6. Las solicitudes de los documentos de adquisición y recepción de las ofertas:
(A) Nombre y dirección del servicio en el que los documentos de adquisición y la aclaración de los documentos de adquisición
se podrá solicitar:
Oficina Europea de Patentes
Central de Contratación 482, Tender No.1982
Patentlaan 2, 2288 EE Rijswijk (ZH)
Los documentos de adquisición serán remitidos previa solicitud por escrito o por correo electrónico.
(B) Fecha límite de recepción por la EPO de solicitudes de los documentos de adquisición:
- 17/12/2015 (12:00), hora de Europa
(C) la fecha límite de recepción por la EPO para las solicitudes de aclaración:
- 05/01/2016 (12:00), hora de Europa
- Las preguntas deben ser enviadas por correo electrónico.
(D) Fecha límite de recepción de las ofertas / número de copias que se enviará:
- 01/25/2016 (12:00), hora de Europa
- Las ofertas deben presentarse en el original.
(E) Dirección a la que las solicitudes de aclaraciones y las ofertas deben enviarse:
Al igual que en el punto 6 (a).
Por favor presentar ofertas por correo y no por fax o correo electrónico. serán excluidas las ofertas presentadas por fax o correo electrónico.
(F) Lengua o lenguas en las que las solicitudes de aclaración y las ofertas deberán redactarse:
Los documentos de adquisición estarán disponibles en Inglés.
7. Criterios para la evaluación de los oferentes ‘know-how, capacidad y fiabilidad para cumplir el contrato:
Las ofertas de los licitadores que no cumplan los criterios de selección establecidos en los documentos de adquisición y / o cuyas circunstancias son tales que ponen seriamente en duda su fiabilidad financiera y profesional (véase el artículo 2 de las condiciones generales de la oferta, disponible bajo www.epo. org) no será considerada para la adjudicación del contrato.
Licitadores conocimientos, capacidad y fiabilidad para cumplir el contrato se evaluará sobre la base de la información y las pruebas presentadas en respuesta al cuestionario en el Anexo 1 de las condiciones generales de licitación y su cuestionario adicional (s) incluido en la Adquisición Documentos.
8. Plazo durante el cual el licitador está obligado por su oferta:
6 meses siguientes a la fecha límite de recepción de las ofertas indicados en el punto 6 (d).
9. Criterios para la adjudicación del contrato:
El contrato se adjudicará al licitador cuya oferta se prefiere con respecto a la capacidad del ofertante para satisfacer las necesidades de la EPO y
requisitos que vayan a ser medidos por:
• Aspectos técnicos (60%)
• precio (40%)
10. Otras informaciones:
Se espera que la adjudicación del contrato que tendrá lugar en el primer trimestre de 2016.
Servicios – 106290-2016
30/03/2016 S62 European Patent Office – Services – Contract notice – Open procedure
Germany-Munich: Provision of Consultancy services for e-Business Research and Barometer Studies of the EPO Online Services department
OPEN INVITATION TO TENDER 1978
1. Awarding Authority:
The European Patent Organisation (EPO), acting through the European Patent Office: Headquarters, Bob-van-Benthem-Platz 1, 80469 Munich, Germany, Postal address: EPO, 80298 Munich, Germany.
The European Patent Organisation is an intergovernmental organisation set up pursuant to the European Patent Convention which entered into force in 1977. At present it has 38 Member States (Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and United Kingdom). The executive body of the EPO is the European Patent Office which is charged with the search and examination of European patent applications and granting European patents. It employs approximately 6 700 staff at EPO headquarters in Munich, a branch at The Hague/Rijswijk (NL) and sub-offices in Berlin and Vienna (the number of Member States and staff members indicated may change).
2. Award procedure:
Open invitation to tender with discretionary award of contract (Framework Agreement).
3. Description of the contract:
(a) Purpose of the contract:
Provision of Consultancy services for e-Business Research and Barometer Studies of the EPO Online Services department,
consisting of mutual design of questionnaires, interviewing EPO clients in several countries and followed by analysis and
reporting of results.
(b) Division into lots:
(c) Any deposits and guarantees required:
(d) Main terms concerning payment:
Invoices are to be paid by the EPO within 30 days of acceptance of the report for individual tranches.
(e) Qualifications required by law:
4. Place and period of performance:
(a) Place at which the contract is to be performed:
• Primarily off-site: further described in the procurement documents.
• Liaison and reporting activities, if requested: The EPO Branch office in Rijswijk.
(b) Duration of contract or time limit for delivery or completion of services/work: The contract has a duration of 3 years with the possibility of 2 extensions of 1 year each. Individual tranches of work shall have expected completion dates defined in the associated commission form. The final report shall be delivered electronically.
Proposals for variants, the effect of which would be to reduce significantly the rights and safeguards of the EPO, are not allowed.
6. Requests for the Procurement Documents and receipt of bids:
(a) Name and address of department from which the Procurement Documents and clarification of the Procurement Documents may be requested:
European Patent Office
Central Procurement the Hague 4.8 (Tender 1978)
Patentlaan 2, 2288 EE Rijswijk, the Netherlands
P.O. Box 5818, 2280 HV Rijswijk, the Netherlands
Procurement Documents will be forwarded upon written or E-Mail request.
(b) Final date for receipt by the EPO of requests for the Procurement Documents:
- 13.4.2016 (12:00), CET
(c) Final date for receipt by the EPO of requests for clarification:
- 13.5.2016 (12:00), CET
- Questions must be submitted by letter or E-Mail.
(d) Final date for receipt of bids/number of copies to be sent:
- 3.6.2016 (12:00), CET
- The bid must be submitted in 1 original, to be marked as such, including the Price Offer Form, 1 paper copy without the Price Offer Form, and 1 copy in electronic form (i.e. USB or CD-ROM) without the Price offer Form as searchable PDF.
(e) Address to which the requests for clarification and bids must be sent:
As in point 6(a).
Please submit bids by post only and not by fax or E-Mail. Bids submitted by fax or E-Mail will be excluded.
(f) Language or languages in which requests for clarification and bids must be drawn up:
The Procurement Documents will be available in English only.
7. Legal form of the grouping in the event of a joint bid:
If several bidders submit a joint bid, they must be jointly and severally liable for the performance of the obligations under the contract. A declaration to this effect, duly signed by all members of the grouping and appointing a representative that is authorised to act on behalf of all members, must be submitted with the bid.
8. Criteria for assessing bidders’ know-how, capacity and reliability to fulfil the contract:
Bids from bidders who do not fulfil the selection criteria stated in the Procurement Documents and/or whose circumstances are
such as to seriously call into question their financial and professional reliability (see Article 2 of the General Conditions of
Tender, available under www.epo.org) will not be considered for contract award.
Bidders’ know-how, capacity and reliability to fulfil the contract will be assessed on the basis of the information and evidence
submitted in reply to the questionnaire in Annex 1 to the General Conditions of Tender and any additional questionnaire(s)
included in the Procurement Documents.
9. Plazo durante el cual el licitador está obligado por su oferta:
6 meses siguientes a la fecha límite de recepción de las ofertas indicados en el punto 6 (d).
10. Criterios para la adjudicación del contrato:
Los criterios de adjudicación y su ponderación relativa son los siguientes:
Aspectos técnicos: 60%
Aspectos financieros: 40%
La evaluación de los aspectos técnicos se basa en las respuestas de los oferentes a las condiciones técnicas a través de sus respuestas al cuestionario ‘Criterios de adjudicación ».
11. Otras informaciones:
Se espera que la adjudicación del contrato que tendrá lugar en el segundo trimestre de 2016.
Send this to a friend
Article as ODF
Publicado en Decepción, Europa, Patentes at 7:04 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Los chacales de Battistelli juegan juegos morales y manipula (o paga) a los medios, todavía
Reference: Demoralization (warfare)
Sumario: Habiéndo acabado de pagar a largos medios de comunicación, Battistelli y sus contratántes privados producen más desinformación con la cuál indoctrinan al público y fabrican consentimiento para el régimen de Battistelli
Hay material acerca de la EPO en circulación ya que muchas personas están preocupadas acerca de la Oficina y quieren que salvar/redimir a la Organzación. Publicamos 6 artículos acerca de la EPO ayer y hay mucho más por venir. En los próximos dias nos enfocaremos en algo de la desinformación propagadad por Battistelli y sus chacales. No es acerca de las distracciónes (como la alegada bicicletay la próxima extravaganzaenLisboa) pero acerca de los llamados ‘estudios’ con los cuáles Battistelli intenta usar para cabildera a los medios, politícos, etc. Estos financiados (y comisionados) ‘estudios’ de Battistelli, comos son el modelo neoliberal donde incluso la ciencia es simplemente negocio, no más legitimos que los‘estudios’ financiados/fabricados por Mosantoaquellos que necesitan ser escrutinizados perpetuamente. Battistelli esta peleándo una guerra informativa. El también compara a sus críticos con Nazis y criminalescuando habla a los políticos.
“Battistelli está peleándo una guerra informativa.
Aludiéndo ala última encuesta tecnológica, esta persona escribió: “aquí estan los pésimos resultados de la encuesta Tecnológica a los empleados en riesgos psicosociales [...] ellos ilustran el mandato de Battistelli (2010 al 2016) y hablan por sí mismos” (mostrando el rol que Battistelli mismo ha jugado al comparar diferentes periódos de tiempo).
Battistelli esta tratando de comisionar una falsa encuésta de una compañíá astuta (Wellkom). Supuestamente para distraer atención de sus abusos y echar la culpa a otros.
“Battistelli esta tratando de comisionar una falsa encuésta de una compañíá astuta (Wellkom).
“En cuanto a Wellkom”, un lector nos escribió, “para lo que vale la pena Miré hacia arriba” Andrea Jutta Phillips “- que es una combinación poco común de dos nombres alemanes y un apellido Inglés – y se salió con lo siguiente. Es un sumario de un sitio de información legal español, proporcionando un extracto del Diario Oficial de la Región Española de Murcia. El nombre aparece en la parte difuminada de la página. La página completa está disponible con un registro de ensayos. El título del anuncio es: “Citación un Contribuyentes en Ignorado domicilio, o por no saber, o haberse NEGADO una cédula de sacrificar las exigencias notification, Para Ser notificados por comparecencia.” No se da ninguna fecha. Estos son convocatoria pública para los contribuyentes de absentismo, una medida de último recurso cuando no hay una dirección conocida por el servicio, o la parte que se niega a aceptar la notificación. Parece un consejo local tenía la intención de subastar alguna propiedad para la solución de los impuestos no pagados. A consecuencia de la gran burbuja inmobiliaria española? Ninguno de los cónyuges Phillips parece tener una gran huella en Internet, por decir lo menos“.
Sintónicenos para la parte 2 ya que vamos a mostrar la total falta de transparencia en este proceso.
Send this to a friend
Removing the ‘burden’ of quality control
Summary: The erosion of patent quality at the European Patent Office seems ever more evident and inevitable, especially if the UPC becomes a reality (opening doors to software patents) and makes the boards of appeal marginal
NOW that the EPO is in full propaganda mode and there are dedicated hashtags for purchased press coverage I’ve decided to stay home and cover more closely some EPO affairs, in addition to all the other stuff (unrelated to EPO). The EPO is totally out of control. It’s run by lunatics who believe their ‘circle’ can just buy votes, ‘studies’, press ‘coverage’ etc. How far can this go before the EPO implodes or politicians invoke some magic law that can hold Battistelli accountable?
Good explanation of why the EPO management is effectively trying to demolish the boards (a little oversight or accountability) was posted by an anonymous blogger as per information that initially came from IP Kat and angered the EPO management enough to have the site banned (media analysis/sources seem to suggest this was the final straw which did it).
Here is the core of the analysis, which is accompanied by numbers:
This shows that the increase in fees has dramatically affected ex parte appeals, with appeals before the increase averaging at about 1200 a year and in the first full year after the increase amounting to only 864 appeals (a 28% decrease).
The increase in fees has affected inter partes appeals less, with the number of appeals in opposition roughly tracking the number of grants (roughly 2.5% of grants end up with an appeal in opposition).
If a mere 50% increase in appeal fee has resulted in such a drastic change in applicant behaviour, what effect might the huge proposed increase have?
It is to be hoped that the Administrative Council will recognise that an effective appeal system is essential to maintaining quality at the EPO, and will not increase the appeal fee [at all].
“A few thoughts on the effect of the last big increase in appeal fees can be found here,” s/he wrote in IP Kat. The numbers seem to support the hypothesis that fee hikes directly impact the number of appeals. It demonstrates that Battistelli’s plot would squash the boards in the same way the Tories in the UK destroy the NHS, claiming failure or lack of demand (which they themselves created or led to, respectively).
“Well, with lower/declining quality of patents, which is a known issue (see how the EPO accelerates examination under pressure), not many appeals by the applicants would be needed, especially if massive fee hikes are implemented.”One critical comment on the above says: “Perhaps a table of number of grants against number of ex-parte appeals may help (or refusals even). Given the increase in productivity, could there be a simpler link – less refusals = less appeals”
Well, with lower/declining quality of patents, which is a known issue (see how the EPO accelerates examination under pressure), not many appeals by the applicants would be needed, especially if massive fee hikes are implemented. The value of EPs (European Patents) would itself decline, making the relative cost of appeal disproportionately high. This may be good for ‘production’ figures that don’t account for quality and use more convenient (easily-measurable) yardsticks like number of granted patents, repeating the USPTO's mistakes (patent saturation necessarily means deflation). As one person put it this morning, “when it comes to management at the EPO, the dumber, the better.” Under Battistelli it’s all about loyalty (to Battistelli, not to the EPO as an Organisation), not brains or skills. No wonder people are leaving in droves and brain drain is repeatedly being reported to us [1, 2, 3, 4].
“No wonder people are leaving in droves and brain drain is repeatedly being reported to us.”Another new comment says that “private practice are receiving more and more applications for patent attorney positions from EPO examiners.” Here is the full comment: “Rumours – confirmed by some industry sources – are numerous that industry and private practice are receiving more and more applications for patent attorney positions from EPO examiners. While I see more and more advertisements on Linkedin re. recruitment of examiners.”
There is also a discussion there which compares the USPTO and the EPO (not on quality but on staff regulations). The same person says: “Well, that USPTO regulation makes perfect sense. And is a good example for the EPO, if not yet in place. For the interest of applicants, not for the direct interest of the EPO. So still… Conflict of interests of the EPO… outside counsel to SUEPO? Investigative agency hired by the AC to investigate too close family ties at the top of the EPO? I am still very much in the dark what such legitimate interests of the Office may be.”
“On the surface, today’s EPO has a lot of scandals and enough to make it Europe’s leading pariah, but it’s disconnected from oversight so it keeps behaving like a rogue regime, mostly uninterrupted (outside intervention is not sufficiently effective).”Apparently, conflict of interests is absolutely verboten for all staff except Team Battistelli, where people even bring family members to roles with massive salaries. Making this situation ever more comical, it’s these family members who are also then put in charge of identifying issues like conflict of interests (Human Resources).
The EPO. What a house of cards…
The EPO now bans access to sites which are critical of the EPO and at the same time pays the media to say what Battistelli tells the media to say about the EPO. These sponsored/bought articles (by EPO) should in their own right be a huge scandal (waste, press abuse, misleading the public) and as more ‘media partners’ start to issue their puff pieces we kindly ask readers to keep us informed (some of this coverage is not in English). On the surface, today’s EPO has a lot of scandals and enough to make it Europe’s leading pariah, but it’s disconnected from oversight so it keeps behaving like a rogue regime, mostly uninterrupted (outside intervention is not sufficiently effective). The EPC inadvertently created a monster and this monster is called Battistelli. █
Send this to a friend
Also a longtime SUEPO basher
Summary: The latest UPC propaganda and where it is coming from (or who for); a kind request for realisation that IAM is not a legitimate source of news/information but mostly propaganda (preaching, not reporting)
THE EPO scandals, based on statements made by EPO spokespeople, have a lot to do with the UPC. As Dr. Glyn Moody put it earlier this year (page 6 of a very long article):
When asked by Ars, the EPO’s spokesperson mentioned the imminent arrival of the unitary patent system as an important reason for revising the EPO’s internal rules: “the EPO needs to be fit to efficiently handle all tasks as the authority appointed to deliver and administrate Unitary patents once the scheme enters into force, which could already be this year. Its importance is likely to increase both at European and international level, and that needs to be reflected in our capacity to respond to new demands for our services.”
The EPO’s central role in the unitary patent system means that an organisation that is not subject to EU rules or laws will wield a key power: to grant or refuse EU-wide patents on inventions. The EPO will receive 50 percent of the patent renewal fees charged for unitary patents, with the rest being shared out among the other EU countries, just as EPO earnings are today.
As a consequence, the EPO will once more have an incentive to issue as many patents as possible in order to boost its revenue from renewal fees—a problem that besets the current EPO system, as discussed above. The double danger here is that the introduction of the unitary patent, implemented with a more accommodating attitude to approving applications, could bring with it both US-style patent trolls, and US-style patenting.
Patent trolls are almost unknown in the EU because it is currently impossible to obtain an EU-wide patent. Without it, patent trolls would have to apply for patents in multiple jurisdictions before suing their victims in each of them separately, increasing the cost of carrying out this kind of bullying, and multiplying the risk that they would lose somewhere and see their bluff called. The new unitary patent is specifically designed to make it easy to obtain patents across the EU—something that patent trolls will relish.
Some people, especially those who would profit from trolls or whatever (litigation and defense/offense), just don’t seem to ‘get’ it. They just focus on how much money they would get. Aistemos Blogteam earlier today published “Europe, Utopia and the Unified Patent Court”. There is no Utopia here at all. To quote the concluding words:
We do need to know how patent strategists, litigators, portfolio managers and investors think, and their insights can be valuable. But we also need a lot more firm information before we can obtain a clearer view as to whether this carefully-planned and extensively revised scheme for litigating Europe’s patents is better, the same as or worse than the patchwork of national courts that preceded it.
Well, it’s time to abolish or mothball and shelve the UPC rather than pretend it’s inevitable and “prepare” or learn it. Don’t study what’s uncertain. Of what benefit is the UPC anyway and to who? Surely the quality of the pro-UPC propaganda has rapidly deteriorated. Joff Wild, the EPO’s mouthpiece and UPC propagandist (EPO pays for such stuff), is not just a trolls denialist (pretending no such problem exists) but also one who would not mind trolls taking over Europe. Why are people taking him seriously? Earlier today IP Kat wrote: “Joff Wild, the editor of IAM (Intellectual Asset Management), is one of the most astute observers of intellectual property as business assets. IPKat is delighted that Joff has offered to share his thoughts on the current state of patent valuation.”
“Well, it’s time to abolish or mothball and shelve the UPC rather than pretend it’s inevitable and “prepare” or learn it.”He is paid by companies that prop up the system and strive for patent maximalism, so how objective is he really? He literally helps set up events for patent trolls, in which their reputation is being collectivity laundered.
But here’s why we still have ‘beef’ with Wild, putting aside his dangerous betrayal of sources. Shortly after IAM's latest EPO propaganda that in spite of the EPO's decline tries to pretend everything is great (and the EPO later conveniently cited this) we have more bogus claims, or lies, to put it more bluntly. Were SMEs surveyed by IAM? No. There’s the usual selection bias (MIP too is now surveying only the choir, ignoring more than 99% of the population) and empty assertions from Wild about SMEs. “The two most immediate risks,” he says to IP Kat (or Neil Wilkof says based on a discussion with him), “are: the U.S. Supreme Court cases going against patent owners, so reinforcing the anti-patentee narrative in the US and making US patents even less attractive; and the UK voting to leave the EU, so delaying the UPC by two or three years at a minimum, or maybe even killing it off permanently. A lot of people are placing big bets on the UPC. A delay, let alone de facto abandonment, is likely to cause a significant negative market reaction.”
“They must be thinking of predators and opportunists from across the Atlantic, not legitimate European businesses, maybe just lawyers’ firms. “No, no, no. They must be thinking of predators and opportunists from across the Atlantic, not legitimate European businesses, maybe just lawyers’ firms.
It is an established fact that SMEs are against the UPC (they say so themselves) but watch how Wild, writing in his own site today (with “SMEs 4 the UPC” right there in the headline), puts together completely nonsensical prose which acts more like reality-distortion, not facts passage. To quote one part:
SME advance – It’s rare to find anyone running a European SME confident enough to talk in detail about patents, let alone willing to do so. That’s what made the contribution of Rubén Bonet, president and CEO of Barcelona-based Fractus, so welcome in this morning’s “Europe’s chance to lead” plenary session. The company is a designer, manufacturer and licensor of optimised antennas, and was spun out of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona in the late 1990s. It holds over 200 patents and applications covering 50 inventions, and is no stranger to the courts in the US and elsewhere. That, of course, makes it an exception. As Bonet acknowledged, most SMEs do not engage with the patent system, regarding it as a waste of time and money. The UPC, though, could change that, he said. The key would be to maintain current quality standards at the EPO and to ensure that the new court regime also functions to the highest standards. With such quality you have predictability and with that you have the ability not only to pan long term, but also to attract investment. There is nothing more disastrous for a tech-based SME, Bonet observed, than to be awarded a patent, to build a business around it and then to have it invalidated a few years further down the line. The delivery of high-quality patents makes that scenario far less likely. In terms of UPC predictability, Bonet said, it will be important to get eh damages regime right and also to ensure the availability of injunctions. With these things in place, plus high-quality grants, he stated, litigation would actually less likely as parties would have a much clearer idea of what the outcome of going to court would be. All of this would make SMEs with European patent portfolios more attractive to VCs and may even make it easier to secure money from the banks against the assets. What’s not to like from an SME perspective? (JW)
“What’s not to like from an SME perspective?”
What a nonsensical rhetorical question. Wild is hijacking their voice or preaching to them. This is lobbying or advocacy, it’s not news.
A later part from Wild (JW) is revealing more intersections with EUIPO, as we foresaw [1, 2]:
From UPC to UIPC – It’s no great secret that the European Patent office was not best pleased when the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM), which grants Community trademark and design rights, was rebranded the EU IP Office earlier this year. It looked like a bit of a land grab, given that even though the agency has no patent remit, patents are very much part of the IP family. At the very least, it was argued in Munich, the name change might cause confusion and give an opportunity for unscrupulous operators to fleece unsuspecting punters for a few Euros. With that in mind, it was interesting to hear Margot Fröhlinger – the EPO’s Principal Director of Patent Law and Multilateral Affairs and a 2016 inductee into the IP Hall of Fame – talk about her hopes for the Unified Patent Court during her induction speech. Fröhlinger has spent long years, first at the European Commission and latterly at the EPO, helping to drive the UPC agreement and it was her fervent personal hope, she said, that once it is up and running the court’s remit should eventually be extended to cover trademarks, designs and other forms of EU-wide IP rights – a UIPC, if you like. There is no doubt that such a view would not be terribly popular in OHIM headquarters down the coast from Barcelona in Alicante; but although there would be a number of practical issues to resolve before such a move could take place it does make some sense for a continent that for a long time has seen merit in specialised IP dispute resolution fora. (JW)
We used to be polite towards IAM and give it the benefit of the doubt, but there’s no point being too polite to the EPO and its propagandists as lack of antagonism would let them eat Europe alive, without resistance/opposition.
Every EPO employee should know by now IAM’s role as it relates to the EPO. There should be no confusion/ambiguity here. Whether intentionally or inadvertently, IAM does an enormous damage to Europe (its economy, not the patent law firms perhaps). It must be the ENA way… █
Send this to a friend
Selective media coverage as a biasing strategy
Summary: Sites of patent lawyers continue to tell only a fraction of the whole story, focusing on one single old case involving Microsoft (which supports software patents) rather than the full picture (Alice and PTAB crushing software patents in the United States)
PATENTS on software are worse than inessential. They’re extremely harmful, especially but not only to software developers (irrespective of the type of software and whether it’s proprietary or not). They are being promoted for (self) gain by billionaires and patent lawyers, as we noted in our previous post. So why are we still hearing software patents advocacy? Well, for one thing, patent lawyers have a grip on the media. They even have their own media sites and these often look like news sites (basically marketing/sales disguised as analysis or reporting). This post presents some of the latest propaganda on these matters.
According to this recent post from a patent lawyers’ site: “A court was easily able to analogize claims of two patents directed to electronic messaging to manual communications processes; the court consequently granted a motion for summary judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Mobile Telecommunications Technologies LLC v. Blackberry Corp., No. 3:12-cv-1652-M (N.D. Texas May 12, 2016).”
“They’re extremely harmful, especially but not only to software developers (irrespective of the type of software and whether it’s proprietary or not).”Notice the “invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101″ part. We’re seeing lots of that today, but patent lawyers would rather de-emphasise or ignore such things. “US Pat 8,545,575,” wrote Patent Buddy the other day. “This is the patent a UT Judge held invalid under 101/Alice” (the SCOTUS ruling on Alice in 2014).
There’s more of that, e.g. Patent Buddy’s “Portable Data Storage Device Patent Unpatentable Under 35 U.S.C. § 101″ (same grounds).
The cited decision is described as follows: “In a final written decision, the Board found claims of a patent directed to a portable data storage device unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”
And from the decision: “The underlying concept of claims 13 and 14, particularly when viewed in light of the ’720 patent specification, is conditioning and controlling access to content based upon payment. This is a fundamental economic practice long in existence in commerce. We are, thus, persuaded, based on the ’720 patent specification and the claim language, that each of claims 13 and 14 is directed to an abstract idea.”
“They even have their own media sites and these often look like news sites (basically marketing/sales disguised as analysis or reporting).”Looking at the site best known for software patents advocacy, they now have an article titled “Avoiding Alice Rejections with Predictive Analytics” (trying to find loopholes around the law). “Having affirmed the claim construction,” says another such site, “the Federal Circuit likewise affirmed summary judgment of noninfringement, adding that disclaimer applied to both literal infringement and to infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.”
This is actually about CAFC, not SCOTUS. CAFC is responsible for bringing software patents to the United States in the first place.
3 days ago Ping Hu and Michael McNamara of Mintz Levin tried hard to cherry-pick cases to bring back software patents, in spite of SCOTUS. Their ‘article’ was titled “A New Hope for Software Patents?” It looks like an analysis, but it’s shameless self-promotion, as usual. Mintz Levin wasn’t alone here. Patent lawyers are so desperate to spread one single case (Enfish v Microsoft) to the appeals folks in order to save software patents. See “The PTAB Applies Enfish” (the case everyone leans on for legitimisation of software patents). It says: “However, relying on the recent Enfish decision, the PTAB found that the claimed method did not recite an abstract idea. Id. at 15. In so finding the PTAB faulted Petitioner’s argument for failing to analyze the claims as a whole. Id. at 15. The PTAB went on to analyze the claimed method under the second step of the Alice test and found that it too was not met. Id. at 16. The PTAB found that, like the claims in DDR Holdings, the challenged claims are necessarily rooted in computer technology. Id. at 17.”
“CAFC is responsible for bringing software patents to the United States in the first place.”PTAB is not stupid (or corruptible or greedy like the USPTO), so almost every software patent that comes there will end up dead. The blog post “Corelogic, Inc. v. Boundary Solutions, Inc. (PTAB 2016)” says: “On May 24, 2016, the U.S. Patent Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a decision denying institution of covered business method (CBM) patent review of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,957 owned by Boundary Solutions.”
That’s more of the same, obviously. Even Apple is now running to the PTAB, having found itself on the receiving end of abuses it's now so renowned for. To quote IAM: “Shortly after Smartflash won a $533 million infringement decision against Apple early last year this blog pointed out that the NPE [troll] was still unlikely to ultimately receive such a big payout. For one thing the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has shown its predilection for over-ruling big district court awards, particularly from the Eastern District of Texas and particularly damages awarded to NPEs.”
What’s noteworthy here is that Apple, which uses software patents against Android (and by extension Linux) suddenly does not like them (because they’re used against Apple) and resorts/retreats to PTAB for reprieve. How pathetic is this? Double standards all over this…
“What’s noteworthy here is that Apple, which uses software patents against Android (and by extension Linux) suddenly does not like them (because they’re used against Apple) and resorts/retreats to PTAB for reprieve.”Regarding PTAB, also see MCM v HP Briefs. To quote Patently-O: “MCM-Petition-and-Appendix: (1) Whether inter partes review (IPR) violates Article III of the Constitution; and (2) whether IPR violates the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution. Response Due June 30, 2016.”
The inter partes reviews are carried out by PTAB, which we need a lot more of (the EPO equivalent, E/BoA, is being crushed by Battistelli these days).
Going back to Enfish v Microsoft, 3 weeks later patent lawyers still try to prop up this one single pro-software patents ruling. CoffyLaw published this promotional piece and Bastian Best is cherry-picking cases again, citing Michael Best who latches onto CAFC. Fish & Richardson PC, which we mentioned here many times before, also joins the opportunists with a so-called ‘analysis’ or comparison between Enfish and TLI (a case which soon after Enfish crushed software patents at the same court). Meanwhile, a Microsoft-connected patent lawyers firm (Shook Hardy and Bacon LLP) is trying to expand patent scope with a so-called ‘analysis’. The common thing (or theme) here is that they only pay attention to what suits their agenda. It’s not analysis, it’s propaganda.
“The common thing (or theme) here is that they only pay attention to what suits their agenda. It’s not analysis, it’s propaganda.”Owing to patent lawyers’ hype and media saturation, Enfish v Microsoft is now widely known only for reinforcing software patents in the US. “Enfish Could Not Save Patents Asserted Against Nvidia,” Patent Buddy wrote, citing this PDF. So obviously there’s not much impact to Enfish v Microsoft after all.
Why does the media keep covering it like it’s a groundbreaking decision? Here is the corporate media mentioning it almost a month later, stating: “The court wrote in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp that any “improvement to computer functionality itself” overcomes the abstract idea exception to patent eligibility that holds that what is abstract can’t be patented.” Yes, but how many similar cases were decided/ruled against software patents? Why are these being ignored? Selective attention? Or just propaganda dressed up as ‘reporting’? These are rhetorical questions really. █
Send this to a friend
Time to bring the patent offices under control (to serve inventors, not billionaires)
Summary: In the patent microcosm — just like the Military–industrial complex — a conflict of interests has been created wherein demand is being artificially created for undesirable things, typically for the empowerment of those who are already very powerful
The previous post dealt with the role played by Shelston IP and AJ Park in the south east. They basically serve the agenda of what’s sometimes referred to as the “Empire of Corporations” (class, not geography, multinational imperialism by profit, not people). The EPO under Battistelli is pretty much the same and the EPO now relies on globalisation to drive the agenda of the super-rich (already enjoying special EPO treatment), like those whom Battistelli like to hang out with a lot (Sarkozy, Lagarde and billionaires).
“There are many legitimate reasons for staying in the EU, but UPC isn’t one of them, unless you’re IAM or a patent lawyer.”Right now there’s lots of talk here about Brexit (Britain exiting the EU), which I am personally against. IAM’s Joff Wild, who is obviously very close to the EPO, only cares about Brexit because it might jeopardise the UPC and a couple of hours ago he wrote: “For one, the opinion polls in the UK are now pointing ever-more firmly towards a win for the Leave side in the country’s upcoming referendum on its membership of the European Union. As discussed on here previously, should Brexit be the result on 23rd June that is likely to have major implications for the future of the Unified Patent Court. It will be interesting to hear what people have to say about this. My sense is that very few have registered that it could happen, but there is now a very real possibility it will. The consequences for the global patent market could be pretty negative – especially given the current uncertainties in the US, another issue that we will be focusing on over the next two days.”
Let is be clear that the UPC helps patent trolls, multinational giants, and software patents (i.e. all the things IAM loves so much). There are many legitimate reasons for staying in the EU, but UPC isn’t one of them, unless you’re IAM or a patent lawyer. The above serves to illustrate just to what degree forces associated with the EPO and with patent chaos push agenda here. It’s almost as though Europe’s patent policy totally ignores the interests of the European people and is steered directly (and usually behind closed doors) by a bunch of patent lawyers and profiteers. This is appalling, but it doesn’t just happen in Europe. It’s an international problem.
“This is appalling, but it doesn’t just happen in Europe. It’s an international problem.”Looking at the US, the patent system there is literally run by people from industry (e.g. IBM or Google, who have corrupted the very purpose of the patent system) — people who later turn into lobbyists. Is anybody surprised that US patent policy is now optimised for huge corporations (protectionism) rather than invention? Patents are now being criticised by The Scientist (US), as part of the article “Do Patents Promote or Stall Innovation?”
This does not suggest that all patents are bad, but some oughtn’t be granted and there are domains, such as the abstract or nature, which oughtn’t be covered by patents. The article, as an example, says that “a patent dispute between biotech companies Sequenom and Ariosa Diagnostics on a related theme—the analysis of naturally occurring fetal DNA” is not good. Almost everyone would agree, except perhaps the giants that are already worth billions and established a monopoly using patents on things which they did not even develop (maybe merely discovered or utilised).
“There are alternative routes of operation and even protection of one’s ‘secret sauce’ (or source code), for example copyright law for software.”Now, consider India’s policy on abstract patents like software that in no way promote the interests of India. In the case of drugs, secrecy is one option and sharing of knowledge across companies (collaboration) are suitable business models too, albeit today’s giants would resist these with passion, for obvious reasons, and they also have a massive lobbying budget that goes a long way in a country like India. A new article from MIP, titled “India’s first National IPR Policy maintains position on affordable drugs,” says that the “India government has unveiled the first National Intellectual Property Rights Policy that sets out seven objectives and relevant guidelines to promote the country’s IP regime, and has resisted pressure from the United States to amend the patent law regarding access to cheap drugs”
In the words of a pro-software patents Web site, “Bad Patents Can Harm A Startup Company” and to quote the opening paragraph: “One of the options for the inventor is to not to file a patent, but simply to keep their invention secret. The most common examples are the formula for Coca Cola or Colonel Sander’s secret herbs and spices. Both of these examples could have been patented, but were not. From a business standpoint, these were the right decisions.”
“The policies from India show a certain strength in the face of bullying from the likes of USTR.”It’s not always patenting that works best to promote innovation (if patents promote innovation in the first place). There are alternative routes of operation and even protection of one’s ‘secret sauce’ (or source code), for example copyright law for software.
The policies from India show a certain strength in the face of bullying from the likes of USTR. What about east asia? Will it surrender to Western demands? Well, the part of it that’s a former British colony, Hong Kong, seems to be heading in the wrong direction, just like Singapore (another former British colony). To quote MIP: “The Legislative Council (LegCo) has completed its Bills Committee stage scrutiny of the Patents (Amendment) Bill 2015. The Bill introduces several important changes, including an original grant patent system for standard patents in addition to the existing re-registration system as well as a substantive examination procedure in the short-term patent system.”
“It often boils down to one nation’s “rights” (as in “intellectual property rights”) to exercise control over many others.”China will hopefully not be fooled by these policies in Hong Kong which would hurt the Chinese economy, unless Beijing wishes to see more Chinese giants becoming victims of Microsoft blackmail (patent shakedown for NSA-leaning spyware).
A lot of the world’s patent policy and debates are imperialistic by nature. It often boils down to one nation’s “rights” (as in “intellectual property rights”) to exercise control over many others. Those many other nations have elements in them which can be viewed as “enemies within”, e.g. patent lawyers, whose goal aligns with the foreign occupier, and they are willing to lobby domestically to advance nationally-harmful policies for personal gain–a sort of loot shared by the occupier with the facilitator/collaborator. If only more people could see that… █
Send this to a friend
Reputation laundering with sound bites like the ‘new Microsoft’
Summary: A look at the reality behind today’s Microsoft and what proponents of Microsoft (often connected to the company) want us to believe
THE aggressive company which is widely hated/loathed (and deserves this hatred, which is well earned based on its actions) just can’t help doing evil. Those who try hard to convince themselves that Microsoft has changed must not have noticed that the management is virtually the same and the company continues to operate like a death squad, attempting to prematurely destroy anything which resembles potent competition, based on suspicion alone.
“Those who try hard to convince themselves that Microsoft has changed must not have noticed that the management is virtually the same and the company continues to operate like a death squad, attempting to prematurely destroy anything which resembles potent competition, based on suspicion alone.”Several years ago we explained what Microsoft was hoping to achieve when it took over Skype (soon thereafter to enter NSA’s PRISM, right after Microsoft which was the first in the whole programme and had already provided back doors to the NSA for over a decade). Recently we saw Skype support for GNU/Linux (which was handed over to Microsoft) gradually being withdrawn and this new thread in Reddit says that “Microsoft is lobbying the Indian government to link peoples’ National IDs with their Skype calling” (no source to verify this with).
Microsoft has turned Windows into something as privacy-hostile as Skype itself, if not a lot worse. With Skype, for example, Microsoft spies on people’s private conversations and even follows links; in Vista 10 Microsoft has a keylogger, which spies on everything (even password typing) in real time. Vista 10 should be made illegal, as it is clearly malicious software and should be treated as such. Ironically enough, Microsoft is almost trying to make it impossible not to use Vista 10 and despite that, as Vista 10 infection rates are increasing, very few people actually use this ‘free’ (so-called ‘bargain’) piece of malware. As one report put it, “Windows 10: less than 15 per cent of those who can upgrade have bothered” and “The big question is whether Microsoft will hit the 20 per cent mark by the time the free offer is over.”
“Microsoft has turned Windows into something as privacy-hostile as Skype itself, if not a lot worse.”This is a disastrous result given the way Microsoft fooled and bamboozled people into installing it, even using malware tactics. According to some reports, Microsoft has just made it virtually impossible not to use this malware (one must supply an ‘upgrade’ date) and anyone who still thinks there’s a ‘new Microsoft’ must be either very gullible or bribed.
This new article, “Microsoft Meets Open Source,” is based on a Big Lie. It is not hard to see that Microsoft is attacking FOSS (Open Source), but this site is doing too many sponsored ‘articles’ (advertisements) these days, such as this one (see disclosure). We expect a lot of the usual Microsoft apologists to pretend Microsoft is fine and dandy and indeed, looking at the company’s boosters, we see exactly what’s expected. Microsoft Peter, for instance, continues to attack FOSS using Oracle’s lies. As iophk put it, “now Microsoft has spoken” (alluding to Peter, who very often relays the company’s positions) and given Microsoft’s propaganda sites’ effort to ‘Linuxwash’ SQL Server (also openwashing it, referring to Microsoft’s own employees/mouthpieces), we identify the old strategy which is to associate SQL Server (among other such pieces of proprietary software) with FOSS.
“We expect a lot of the usual Microsoft apologists to pretend Microsoft is fine and dandy and indeed, looking at the company’s boosters, we see exactly what’s expected.”Don’t fall for it. Some people do, but others have been falling for it for a number of years. Sam Dean, who works for a media company that has been receiving Microsoft money to embed propaganda within the articles (and got caught), is still promoting Microsoft proprietary software and repeats the Big Lie, starting with: “According to more and more people, Microsoft may have finally, truly warmed up to Linux and open source. CEO Satya Nadella (shown) has been much in the news for his comments on how he “loves Linux” and he has noted that much of the Azure cloud platform is Linux-based.”
That’s nonsense. It’s a media strategy which we explained before. What is the ‘real Microsoft’, which one might call the ‘new Microsoft’? It’s hardly any better than a patent troll. As Richi Jennings put it the other day in his IDG headline, “Xiaomi feeds Microsoft patent troll — pays patent toll” (Jennings quotes various comments about it).
“What is the ‘real Microsoft’, which one might call the ‘new Microsoft’? It’s hardly any better than a patent troll.”This article quotes Mary Jo Foley (a longtime Microsoft mouthpiece) as saying: “Microsoft is both continuing to collect patent royalties from Android [and defending] antitrust charges in China. … Some outlets are saying Xiaomi “bought” these patents [not] licensed them.”
We wrote about this the other day, noting that this came from Microsoft -- not Xiaomi -- and Xiaomi paid Microsoft for patents. Here is what the patent propagandists have said over at IAM: “Whichever way you look at it, the deal between Microsoft and Xiaomi which was announced earlier this week has to go down as one of the most significant of the year so far. There are the terms of the deal itself – Xiaomi gets 1,500 patents from the software giant’s global portfolio, Microsoft gets Office and Skype pre-installed on Xiaomi’s Android phones and tablets and the two sides put in place a cross-licence (which it’s probably safe to say is more valuable to the Chinese company).”
“What kind of drug does one have to take to believe Microsoft is a friend?”IAM, which is funded by patent trolls, has always been so Microsoft-friendly that it makes one wonder. Even its Web site, unusually enough, is Windows-powered (in 2016!) and another new article about Xiaomi says that “Xiaomi absorbs patent fund operator Zhigu as it re-shuffles IP team”. This too mentions the Microsoft extortion: “Yesterday, this blog covered a major deal between Xiaomi and Microsoft that saw the Chinese company acquire 1,500 patents along with a cross-licence. While the financial details are unknown, the fact that Xiaomi is now likely among the top 200 or so holders of US patents has to be seen as a coup for the smartphone startup. It also comes just three months after some big changes to its relatively young IP function.”
The bottom line is, Microsoft spreads malware, it spreads it forcibly, it lies about its proprietary software being “open” and it goes after the “open” rivals (such as Android) using software patents. What kind of drug does one have to take to believe Microsoft is a friend? █
Send this to a friend
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »