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

06.05.16

Microsoft is Still an Evil Company, Don’t Believe the Reputation Laundering ‘Campaigners’

Posted in Asia, Deception, Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Patents, Vista 10, Windows at 12:13 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Reputation laundering with sound bites like the ‘new Microsoft’

Linen

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 Recently we saw Skype support for GNU/Linux (which was handed over to Microsoft) gradually being withdrawn and this new thread in Reddit says that “Microsoft is lobbying the Indian government to link peoples’ National IDs with their Skype calling” (no source to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?

06.04.16

Battistelli is Destroying the European Patent Office and Wasting a Lot of Money Hiding This Fact

Posted in Deception, Europe, Marketing, Patents at 2:58 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

EPO Frame Breaking

Summary: Too busy paying journalists, PR firms, so-called ‘research’ firms (funded by EPO budget to the tune of millions per year) and other actors that help distort the reality (a rapid EPO decline), Mr. Battistelli has now become a huge liability to the entire Organisation and EPO staff should fight to save the EPO

SOME big stories about the EPO are coming next week and they’re nothing to do with the charade that’s now known (at least internally) for promoting frauds, not just those which the EPO falls for (yesterday it laughably enough warned others about fraud). The EPO keeps promoting the charade which wastes millions of euros of EPO budget and does not want the public to know that it pays the media for puff pieces relating to this charade, amongst others. The latest ‘survey’ of the EPO’s BFF, which the EPO now inevitably brags about, is one such example of paid media.

The EPO would like to make examiners at the EPO redundant (replaced by algorithms) and pretend there’s still potent examination, not just patent filing/registration. That’s the ‘ENA way’. Yesterday the EPO promoted a prelude to this. We are already seeing a reduction in patent examination quality and Battistelli is demolishing the Boards of Appeal little by little (understaffing and now fee hikes). The EPO is collapsing and while this collapse is happening Battistelli spends millions of euros on PR agencies and media companies, as well as commissioned 'studies' which attempt to distort this reality (that’s their job).

Looking at recent IP Kat comments, we come to realise that more and more people inside and outside the EPO (those who interact with examiners) come to grips with the above reality. It’s pretty grim. As one person put it:

What is kind of shocking about the proposal to have a self-financed DG3 because of self-financed UPC-courts is that it shows an utter lack of understanding of the function of DG3 and the UPC-courts by BB [Battistelli] and his freaks.
DG3 is a judicial instance, there to correct/review 1st instance decisions … such a correction mustn’t cost a lot of money for the appelant(in particular SMEs).
DG3 should be regarded as a futher liability of the EPO(rg) … similar to the AC – I do not think that they are self-financing.

… but well, what could one expect from BB …

Battistelli’s latest puff piece and masterpiece (warning: epo.org link) does not show him with violent tyrants, for a change. Why not show him with the people whom he habitually hangs out with rather than pseudo-royalty from Britain?

“An appeal fee of 7.350 Euro is insulting,” one person noted. “I am surprised that nobody so far mentioned that such a fee is a clear disincentive to file with the EPO in the first place.” Here is the full comment:

An appeal fee of 7.350 Euro is insulting. I am surprised that nobody so far mentioned that such a fee is a clear disincentive to file with the EPO in the first place.

For that amount of money, you can get your application translated into French/Dutch, file it as national application, and you get the search report together with an opinion from the EPO. After that, you pick just the two or three countries you are interested in and go there directly. Go for Germany – biggest market, no translation needed for filing and search, France/Netherlands – you already have the application, and Great Britain. That will secure two additional search reports (DE, GB). With some luck you will have a good overview of the relevant prior art. Infringement in Düsseldorf (DE), period. No hassle with EPO appeal fee, UPC, etc. All things considered, you are likely cheaper even without an appeal.

Sure, that strategy is not fit for everybody. As alternative, go EPO for the search, either with an EP or a PCT, and then proceed on national level, again completely sidestepping EPO examination and appeal. Going PCT will also avoid the nasty exchange of search results, making sure that the EPO does a proper search instead of considering mainly the national search report. The EPO did not lower the search fee when that exchange was introduced, although it is supposed to save time.

Poor guys who want 4 or more countries:)

reply to the above

The goal is to destroy/eliminate if not just marginalise the appeals process. Goodbye to EPO quality!

As another person put it:

Be careful with France. A direct French regional phase from a PCT filing isn’t possible; the application will have to go through the EPO. So you will need a FR either a FR first or second filing. As a bonus, a first filing will give you an EPO Search and opinion. Mais pour ça, il faut rédiger la demande en français.

Let’s not talk about the utter idiocy of the “PCTdirect” thing currently peddled by the EPO, where applicants are encouraged to amend their second filing in order to overcome objections of the authority who handled the first filing. If you like endangering your Paris priority and finding new reasons to go all the way to the EBoA, this one’s for you…

My suspicion is that through impossibly high work quotas, the EPO examiner will have no other practical option but to rubber stamp whatever is filed, without looking at it too closely, unless he feels suicidal and/or wants to end up a homeless wino sleeping under the bridge. But everything is fine, since the EPO is ISO 9001 certified.

Here is a reference to neoliberalism in relation to this:

As Lord Darlington observed, more than a century ago, a cynic is a person who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.

Do we have more cynics in the world today? I think so. Everywhere one looks (as a patent attorney) one sees Administrative Council members, business people, economists and politicians monetarizing everything, as fast as they can, putting a price on everything, with nary a thought about the value that they are destroying.

But there are a few straws in the wind (politicians take note). In particular, the economists heading up research at the IMF have started to put out Papers that argue that neoliberalism is routinely destroying more value than it creates. It is easy to price everything, very hard to quantify “value”. Measuring what you can measure and dismissing any thought about anything else might be excusable in a professor of economics but not for a politician or business person.

So perhaps it’s not too late for the AC, first to see the error of BB’s Master of Business Administration ways, and second to do their F-ing job, namely exercise some control over their attack dog, and curb the beast. In 40 years since the creation of the European Patent Convention, it has come to be the world’s premier (go to) corpus of rational patent law, thanks to DG3 at the EPO. Europe has precious little “soft power” in the world today, but here is a jewel in its soft power crown.

Meanwhile BB, in what seems to be a bizarre and ever-more emotional fit of pique, is bent on wiping it out, regardless of the cost. In my opinion, a disgrace, a tragedy, and deeply lamentable.

The following last comment on this subject is referring to the attack dog of Battistelli, who faces criminal charges in Croatia:

Just two quick points.

As far as I was aware, it’s not BB who claims to be an MBA but the one who signed off on this.

http://www.dziv.hr/files/File/go-izvjesca/godisnje_izvjesce_2010.pdf

Apropos exercising control over the attack dog, haven’t you ever heard the old adage “Don’t bite the hand that feeds you”. The guys to exercise control are the ones in the ministeries. Refer to Article 4a EPC. Long overdue by now.

Our goal is not to destroy the EPO but to save it. The one destroying the EPO right now is Battistelli, along with his team which has blind loyalty to him. Battistelli ought to be sacked this month in order to save the EPO.

06.02.16

Closer Look at Players in Battistelli’s Information War: Part III (Buying the Media, Manufacturing ‘Studies’ With Secret Contracts)

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 6:01 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Lobbying the public and representatives by paying private firms to say what the President wishes to say and paying journalists to repeat that

Exxon knew
The high cost/toll of an unscientific business-minded Republican boss: Benoît Battistelli uses the same tactics as oil giants in order to shed doubt/cast uncertainty on established facts, usually by paying people to misleading the public and public officials, thereby perpetuating damage and misery while severely damaging the reputation of the traditionally-scientific Office over the long run

Summary: Benoît Battistelli’s model of propaganda is illustrated using details about many different contracts which he signs not only with PR firms but also with media companies and so-called ‘research’ firms (with financial strings attached)

THIS post is based on the two documents appended at the bottom. They may seem rather banal (based on templates), but at a later stage we are going to provide some crucial context. These are tenders for propaganda, which the EPO is now internationally renowned for (if not notorious for). The EPO even gives contracts to companies well outside Europe for these malicious purposes and perceived needs (waste). In part one we gave an example from the UK and in part two from the US. Spot the disturbing pattern here. The EPO is international, it is not European. It only has “European” in its name and the staff is European.

“The EPO is international, it is not European. It only has “European” in its name and the staff is European.”The EPO likes to spread fancy infographics and videos about so-called ‘results’ that are not even accurate a measurement of EPO performance, unless one adopts a neoliberal approach/yardstick and cooks the books [1, 2, 3].

EPO and IAM with their marriage of convenience now pretend that this dubious thing which they call a 'survey' demonstrates quality at the EPO and earlier today the EPO released a white-washing piece about it (warning: epo.org link), citing the old partners (which the EPO's PR firm pays), even quoting the liar in chief: “”Quality is our top strategic priority,” said EPO President Benoît Battistelli. “We have been ISO 9001 certified for our granting process since 2014 and this was extended to cover the whole patent process last year. Users’ affirmation of our high quality is a credit to the EPO staff who increased their production by 14% in 2015, at a time when applications rose a further 4.8%, all without compromising quality. These good results inspire us to continue improving the quality of our services”” (repetition of dubious claims if not outright lies).

Remember that under Benoît Battistelli’s regime the EPO literally paying media organisations like CNN huge amounts of money. The EPO not only lies a lot; it also wastes extraordinary amounts of money paying the media to repeat the lies and paying for bogus ‘studies’, ghostwritten ‘articles’, etc. Scandalous it sure is, but where’s accountability at Eponia?

“The EPO not only lies a lot; it also wastes extraordinary amounts of money paying the media to repeat the lies and paying for bogus ‘studies’, ghostwritten ‘articles’, etc. Scandalous it sure is, but where’s accountability at Eponia?”In the documents below we see some details about secret contracts (which we have not seen yet, so leaks are more than welcome). Well, the first says “Purpose of the contract” is “Provision of consultancy services for the design and execution of assessment centres for management positions in the European Patent Office” whereas the second says “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.”

The best analogy we found for this is the Gates Foundation (see our Wiki about it). For a number of years it has been conducting so-called ‘studies’ for lobbying purposes that help Bill (and his wife) profit better from his corporate investments and drown out opposing views in platforms like panels, literature, etc. We have written many articles that provide hundreds of examples of this. The EPO is a lot like Bill Gates in the sense that both bribe media companies to ‘plant’ their own ‘articles’ which are nothing less than glamour pieces. People are not used to seeing articles critical of Bill Gates because he pays for so many puff pieces that it drowns out the signal (investigative journalism). Last time we checked (we used to track this closely) Bill Gates was spending $300,000,000 per year essentially bribing the media. They call it “advocacy” or “communications”, but in practice it means passing crates of cash to media organisations, whereupon they become mouthpieces like Battistelli’s “media partners”. Our readers are wise enough to know that lot of media companies are stenography or PR (puff pieces) for sale. That in fact is their business model (if they survive). Media companies need to ‘buffer’ all the ads and puff/planted pieces with legitimate (costly) journalism to hide the real agenda/business model, but it’s when people like Battistelli throw a million bucks at CNN that they really hear the register go “ka-ching”.

Regarding this so-called ‘survey’ or two from Battistelli (there are numerous in the pipeline), putting aside corrupt media coverage this one new comment said: “You’re right, the results of the staff survey are truly appalling. The indicators of stress are almost off the scale. I wonder if the “social study” conducted by the EPO management will find any similar causes for concern?

“Our readers are wise enough to know that lot of media companies are stenography or PR (puff pieces) for sale.”“Without wishing to diminish the importance of the study on highlighting the current plight of EPO employees, I could not help but notice a few numbers that will (or at least should) give patent practitioners cause for alarm.

“In particular, it appears that only 30% of respondents believed that they were provided with the necessary time to perform their job correctly. This means that 7 out of every 10 respondents (66% of whom were from DG1) believe that they are not – at least not always – performing their job to the level that they would like. Combined with the multiple indicators pointing to concerns about a decrease in quality (e.g. over 90% of respondents believed that the importance according to quality has diminished within the last 3 years), this makes it pretty clear that practitioners are now dealing with an EPO that is marching swiftly down the road to a “quick and dirty” examination standard.

“All very well, but is that what the users want? I very much doubt it – especially as examination fees have certainly not decreased in recent years.”

This was said in relation to this new survey, which is going to help refute Battistelli’s propaganda in the making (see the documents below).

“Remember that the EPO’s President is now trying to crush the Boards of Appeal altogether, in essence assuring there is even less quality control.”Examination quality at the EPO without a doubt declined, based on the rushing of processes for which we have hard evidence (including some that the EPO threated me to take offline). It now sounds like the EPO is promoting software patents in the US or trying to ‘import’ them under the “ICT” banner (again), based on today’s tweet. Marks & Clerk (software patents pushers) published this new piece today which suggests that another controversial type of patents, namely patents on life, is still on the EPO’s agenda. To quote: “The EPO Board of Appeal and UK High Court have recently issued conflicting decisions on the validity of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals’ European Patent for the VelocImmune therapeutic antibody development platform.”

Remember that the EPO’s President is now trying to crush the Boards of Appeal altogether, in essence assuring there is even less quality control.


 
Services – 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

2015/S 233-422718

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.

3. Description of the contract:
(a) Purpose of the contract:
Provision of consultancy services for the design and execution of assessment centres for management positions in the European Patent Office.
(b) Division into lots:
Not applicable.
(c) Any deposits and guarantees required:
Not applicable.
(d) Main terms concerning payment:
Within 30 days after acceptance.
(e) Qualifications required by law:
Not applicable.

4. Place and period of performance:
(a) Place at which the contract is to be performed:
Headquarters as in 1,
Branch office in Rijswijk,
Sub-office in Vienna and
Sub-office in Berlin.
(b) Duration of contract:
The Contract shall be provided for a period of 3 years with a right for the EPO to extend this duration twice by 1 year each.

5. Variants:
Not permitted.
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 482, Tender No.1982
Patentlaan 2, 2288 EE Rijswijk (ZH)
The Netherlands
E-Mail: mntenderclarifications@epo.org
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:
- 17.12.2015 (12:00), CET
(c) Final date for receipt by the EPO for requests for clarification:
- 5.1.2016 (12:00), CET
- Questions must be submitted by e-mail.
(d) Final date for receipt of bids/number of copies to be sent:
- 25.1.2016 (12:00), CET
- Bids must be submitted in original.
(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:
English.
The Procurement Documents will be available in English.

7. 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.
8. Period during which the bidder is bound by his bid:
6 months following the final date for receipt of bids indicated in point 6(d).
9. Criteria for the award of contract:
The contract shall be awarded to the bidder whose bid is preferred regarding the bidder’s ability to meet the EPO’s needs and
requirements which will be measured by:
• technical aspects (60 %)
• price (40 %)
10. Other information:

Contract award is expected to take place in the first quarter of 2016.

 


 
Services – 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
2016/S 062-106290
PUBLISHED NOTICE
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:
Not applicable.
(c) Any deposits and guarantees required:
Not applicable.
(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:
Not applicable.
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.

5. Variants:
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
e-mail: dhtenderclarifications@epo.org
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:
English.
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. Period during which the bidder is bound by his bid:

6 months following the final date for receipt of bids indicated in point 6(d).
10. Criteria for the award of contract:
The award criteria and their relative weighting are as follows:
Technical aspects: 60 %
Financial aspects: 40 %
The evaluation of the technical aspects will be based on the bidders’ responses to the Technical Conditions through their answers to the questionnaire ‘Award criteria’.

11. Other information:
Contract award is expected to take place in the second quarter of 2016.

Closer Look at Players in Battistelli’s Information War: Part I

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 7:04 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Team Battistelli plays morale games and manipulates (or pays) the media, still…

Information warfare
Reference: Demoralization (warfare)

Summary: Having just paid large media organisations, Battistelli and his private contractors produce more misinformation with which to indoctrinate the public and manufacture consent for the Battistelli regime

THERE’S material about the EPO in circulation as many people are truly concerned about the Office and want the Organisation to save/redeem it. We published 6 articles about the EPO yesterday and there’s a lot more on the way. In the coming days we shall focus on some of the misinformation from Battistelli and his goons. It’s not about the distractions (like Battistelli’s alleged bicycle and the upcoming extravaganza in Lisbon) but about the so-called ‘studies’ which Battistelli intends to use for lobbying the media, politicians, etc. These Battistelli-funded (and commissioned) ‘studies’, as per the neoliberal model where even science is just a business, aren’t more legitimate than Monsanto-funded ‘studies’ and these need to be scrutinised perpetually. Battistelli is fighting an information war. He also compares his critics to Nazis and criminals when speaking to politicians.

“Battistelli is fighting an information war.”Alluding to the latest Technologia survey, this one person wrote: “here the appalling results of the Technologia staff survey on psycho social risks [...] they illustrate Battistelli’s mandate (2010 to 2016) and speak for themselves” (showing the role that Battistelli himself has played, by comparing different time points).

Battistelli is trying to commission a bogus survey from a rather dodgy company (Wellkom). It’s supposed to distract from his abuses and shift blame.

“Battistelli is trying to commission a bogus survey from a rather dodgy company (Wellkom).”“Regarding Wellkom,” one reader wrote to us, “for whatever it’s worth I looked up “Andrea Jutta Phillips” — which is a rather uncommon combination of German given names and an English surname — and came up with the following. It is a teaser from a Spanish legal information site, providing an excerpt of the Official Journal of the Spanish Region of Murcia. The name appears in the faded part of the page. The full page is available with a trial registration. The title of the notice is: “Citación a contribuyentes en ignorado domicilio, o por no saber, o haberse negado a firmar cédula de notificación, para ser notificados por comparecencia.” No date is given. These are public summons for truant taxpayers, a measure of last resort when there is no known address for service, or the party refuses to accept notification. It seems like a local council was intending to auction off some property for settling unpaid taxes. A consequence of the great Spanish real estate bubble? Neither one of the Phillips spouses seems to have a large footprint on the Internet, to say the least.”

Stay tuned for part 2 as we are going to show the lack of transparency in this whole process.

05.30.16

[ES] La EPO esta Excelente, Dice Sitio de ‘Noticias’ Conectado a Ella

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 4:15 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

English/Original

Article as ODF

Publicado en Decepción, Europa, Patentes at 9:30 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Es como preguntar a Les Echos acerca de la EPO en medio de distracciónes ceremonialesdonde un montón de Dinero cambia de manos

Afghanistan hospital

Referencia (investigarse a sí mismo)

Sumario: Los caraduras de la revistaIAM, viejo aliado de la EPO, da la impresión a la gente de que en la EPO todo esta bien y dandy aunque claramente ese no es el caso

Hay un montón de como distraer y de que distraer actualmente en la EPO. También hay un gran cantidad de dinero destinado a relaciónes públicas (casi un millón de dólares, €880,000 para ser preciso, gastado en ‘ayuda de afuera’ para una firma que paga a la ¨revista¨ IAM).

Una muestra limitada puesta en tál encuesta es suficiéntemente malo; lo que es peor es que ellos son lectores exclusivos (selecciónados) de un sitio pro-EPO, ¿así que cuán confíable eso puede ser?”

El cabildeo de la EPO para la UPCactualmente es una cosa diariayel sr. Battistelli tiene uno bueno (efectivo) trapo de propaganda en IAM, que acaba de salir conesta tonteríá. Escoger un ángulo pro-EPO en el titular, es una especie de extraña cherry picking de datos. “El resultado repite lo que la oficina hizó con su encuesta del año pasado”, dice, pero recuerda que la EPO tiene una historia reciente de ‘correo basura’ en el juego de apuntalar/arreglar sus propias encuestas [1, 2].

“Hemos recibido más de 600 respuestas en total,” dice IAM varios párrafos más abajo (de esto no se hace hincapié, porque este número es relativamente bajo). Simplemente hay más de 10 veces ese número de empleados de EPO - ¿a quién quieren engañar?-. Una muestra limitada puesta en tál encuesta es suficiéntemente malo; lo que es peor es que ellos son lectores exclusivos (selecciónados) de un sitio pro-EPO, ¿así que cuán confíable eso puede ser? Probablemente tan confiable como una investigación de Facebook acerca de su propia censura de temas de moda o una sonda del Pentágono acerca de sus propios crímenes de guerra (de ahí la referencia anterior).

Con ayuda de FTI Consulting, CRG y aparentemente guardaespaldas/agencias de seguridad (contratos secrétos, pase de Con ayuda de FTI Consulting, CRG y aparentemente guardaespaldas/agencias de seguridad (contratos secrétos, pase de grandes cantidades de riquezas a manos privadas) La EPO no es más una oficina de patnetes pero una cada vez más maleánte agencia de propaganda que ataca agresivamente a quienes se atrevan a cuestionara su propaganda”

Esto es algo a lo que la gente se ha acostumbrado pero que no está preparada para aceptar. La EPO es una organización maliciosa admite que hay una crisis debido a la gerencia. ¿Comenzará la gente a quejarse a sus delegados acerca de los alegatos de ‘compra’ de votos de Battistelli o ¿la gente necesita más evidencia? Una auditoría interna no lo hará. Como una persona lo puso temprano hoy, “muéstrame la propuesta detallada y prueba concreta que será puesta ante el CA y veré que puedo hacer con mi queja al representante de mi país to de CA.”

Nunca confíén en algo que la gerencia de la EPO diga, sea acerca de bicicletas, armas, Nazis, e incluso sus llamados ‘resultados’ [1, 2, 3]. Con ayuda de FTI Consulting, CRG y aparentemente guardaespaldas/agencias de seguridad (contratos secrétos, pase de Con ayuda de FTI Consulting, CRG y aparentemente guardaespaldas/agencias de seguridad (contratos secrétos, pase de grandes cantidades de riquezas a manos privadas) La EPO no es más una oficina de patnetes pero una cada vez más maleánte agencia de propaganda que ataca agresivamente a quienes se atrevan a cuestionara su propaganda.

05.26.16

The EPO is Doing Great, Says EPO-Connected ‘News’ Site

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 9:30 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Like asking Les Echos about the EPO amid ceremonial distractions where a lot of money changes hands

Afghanistan hospital
Reference (investigating oneself)

Summary: IAM ‘magazine’, a longtime ally of the EPO, gives people the impression that all is fine and dandy at the EPO even though that’s clearly not the case

THERE IS a lot to distract with and distract from right now at the EPO. There is also a huge marketing budget (almost a million dollars, €880,000 to be precise, spent on ‘outside help’ from a firm that pays IAM 'magazine').

“Very limited sample sets in such a survey are bad enough; what’s worse is that they’re all self-selecting readers of a pro-EPO site, so how reliable can that be?”The EPO’s lobbying for the UPC is now a daily thing and Mr. Battistelli has a good (effective) propaganda rag in IAM, which has just come out with this nonsense, choosing a pro-EPO angle right there in the headline, a sort of odd cherry-picking of data. “The result repeats the one the office achieved in last year’s survey,” it says, but remember that the EPO has a recent history of ‘spamming’ to game/prop up its own polls [1, 2].

“We received over 600 responses in total,” says IAM several paragraphs down (this is not emphasised because this number is relatively low). There are more than 10 times that number in EPO staff alone. Very limited sample sets in such a survey are bad enough; what’s worse is that they’re all self-selecting readers of a pro-EPO site, so how reliable can that be? Probably as reliable as a Facebook investigation into its own censorship of trending topics or a Pentagon probe of its own war crimes (hence the reference above).

“With help from FTI Consulting, CRG and apparently bodyguard/security agencies (secrets contracts, passage of great wealth to private hands) the EPO is no longer a patent office but increasingly a thuggish propaganda agency that goes aggressive on anyone who dares to question the propaganda.”This is something that people have become accustomed to but are not prepared to accept. The EPO is a malicious organisation that admits there is a crisis due to the management. Will people start complaining to their delegates about alleged 'buying' of votes by Battistelli or do people need more evidence? An internal audit won’t do. As one person put it earlier today, “show me the detailed proposal and concrete proof that it will be put before the AC and I will see what I can do about my complaining to my country’s representative to the AC.”

Do not ever trust anything that EPO management says, whether it's about bicycles, weapons, Nazis, or even so-called ‘results’ [1, 2, 3]. With help from FTI Consulting, CRG and apparently bodyguard/security agencies (secrets contracts, passage of great wealth to private hands) the EPO is no longer a patent office but increasingly a thuggish propaganda agency that goes aggressive on anyone who dares to question the propaganda.

05.24.16

[ES] Interrumpiendo la Propagánda Distractante de Battistelli: los Empleados de la EPO Protestará de Nuevo en una Quincena

Posted in Deception, Europe, Marketing, Patents at 12:33 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

English/Original

Article as ODF

Publicado en Decepcción, Europa, Marketing, Patentes at 1:28 pm por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Blatter and Qatar

Sumario: La exágerada extravagancia (desperdicio de dinero) en la Ceremonia de Premiación al Inventor Europeo de la EPO tendrá que competir por atención de los medios con miles de empleados de la EPO (en todaslas sedes de la EPO) marchándo en las calles para protestar por los abusos de la EPO

LA EPO se convirtió en un gran foco de escándalos y es la culpa de Battistelli conjuntamente con su ‘circulo’, quienes subvierten la democracia y trabajan burlando (si no atropellándo) a la EPC. En esta etapa, para las personas que trabajan en la EPO, la pregunta clave para contestar no es“¿por que protestar?” pero “¿porqué NO protestar?”

En unos pocos años, habiéndo existido y prosperádo por muchas décadas (casi la mitad de un siglo), la Oficina (EPO) se ha convertido en fuente de burla y una fuente de escándalos sin precedencia en Europa. Esto causa daño a la institución (o Organización) en su totalidad, trayéndola a un estado de crisis (por admisión propia) si no al borde del colapso. ¿Qué futuro habra para los examinadores de la EPO si completamente incompetentes idiótas y sinverguenzas como Battistelli permanencen a cargo por unos años más? La EPO ahora dañá la legitimidad de la Unión Europea en su totalidad. Esto no es bueno.

En unos pocos años, habiéndo existido y prosperádo por muchas décadas (casi la mitad de un siglo), la Oficina (EPO) se ha convertido en fuente de burla y una fuente de escándalos sin precedencia en Europa.”

Temprano este mes oficiáles Franceses observaron una protesta en la EPO en Munich. Otros oficiales Franceses se han dado cuenta de la situación. Como alguién cercano a estas acciónes lo puso (no a nosotros directa o indirectamente): “El gobierno Frances ha sido informado completamente del problema causado por su compatriota el Sr.Battistelli, entre otros por el Sr. Pierre-Yves Le Borgn’, el Sr Philip Cordery, Srta. Claudine Lepage y otros. Pero no hemos visto mucho esfuérzo (diplomático o de otra manera) del gobierno Frances para enfrentar la situación. Por lo tanto me parece [sic] que debemos recordárselo al gobierno Frances. La demostración ha sido autorizada por las autoridades locales competentes en Alemania.”

Separádamente en relación a estas acciónes, una persona escribió: “Los empleados no deberían esperar que el calvario llegue de su propio impulso y resolver los problemas de la EPO, o que rescate a sus empleados. Para mi el observador de afuera notará el estado de decadencia (cantidad, calidad, motivación, servicio, etc…), será demasiado tarde. He aquí es ahora el tiempo que los empleados demuestre al mundo que la EPO no es como su ¨Presidente¨ lo describe, o dejar que la Gazette intente hacerlo pareces. De acuerdo a la Technologia Survey, la realidad hoy es que la situcación en la EPO es peor que nunca: para aquellos“férus de Benchmarking”, es reportadamente peor que la crisis en la France Télécom lo fué…”

La EPO ahora dañá la legitimidad de la Unión Europea en su totalidad. Esto no es bueno.”

Hay varios falsos ‘estudios’ preparándose en este momento. Sabemos acerca de estos y sabemos que fuéron designados (por la gerencia de la EPO) para hacerse propaganda. Son como grupos de interes o cabilderos, no encuéstas genuínas o investigación, por razones notadas aqui este mes. En adición a estos llamados ‘estudios’ (producidos para ayudar a influenciar a políticos) también hay ese estúpido evento de propaganda el cual se esfuérza en crear falso cubrimiénto de prensa de “socios en los medios” de la EPO. SUEPO ha organizado una demostración que coincidirá con este evento de propaganda, pero no esperamos que los “socios en los medios” de la EPO incluso menciónen tal demostración, habiéndo sido testigos de como ellos borraron parrafos enteros cuando cometiéron el horrible ‘error’ de cubrir el crticismo durante el evento mismo. He aquí las palabras de la SUEPO, notándo la falta de progreso de Battistelli (debería ser despedido brevemente después de este evento al menos que se las arregle para ‘comprar’/asegurar su puesto de maneras nefástas por las que ya es conocido. Para citar: “No hay progreso en los reclamos de los empleados (ver e.g. la última llamada a la huegla: “Ilegalidad en la EPO”). También no hay señal que el sr. Battistelli intente respetar la resolución de Marzo del Consejo Administrativo. Al contrario: nuevas controversiáles reformas estan planeados (plan de salud de la EPO, procedimiénto de despido, obligaciónes posterióres al empleo), algunas ya para ser decididas en la próxima reunión del Consejo Administrativo el 29-30 de Junio. Para resáltar la falta de progreso al Consejo Administrativo una demostración es planeada en cuatro sitios para el Jueves 9 de Junio. La demostración coincidirá con la ceremonia de premiación al Inventor Europeo de la EPO en Lisboa.”

Esto es un oportunismo astuto. La huelga debería coincidir con la reunión del Consejo Administrativo, pero el equipo Battistelli usó lo que pareció (en ese momento) tácticas dilatorias. “La demostración coincidirá con la ceremonia de premiación al Inventor Europeo de la EPO en Lisboa,” dice lo de arriba. Va a dañar al equipo Battistelli donde duele más por que la gente de relaciónes públicas de la EPO está trabajando el fin de semana de nuevo (ambos Sábado y Domingo), ayudándo a distraer de los escándalos [1, 2] usando la mencionada ceremonia. Simplemente es ‘control de daños’ y esto es todo lo que han estado haciéndo por un mes ahora. ¿Puede la SUEPO aplastar este evento de propagánda? Si no, ¿Cómo tomar como objetivo al ‘baby’ de Battistelli, la UPC?

La huelga debería coincidir con la reunión del Consejo Administrativo, pero el equipo Battistelli usó lo que pareció (en ese momento) tácticas dilatorias.”

De acuérdo a este nuevo tweet, El equipo Battistelli todavíá esta en modo de profecía autocumplible (tratándo de pretender de que ya es un hecho, cuándo incluso no lo es) acerca de la UPC. Para citar: “Es interesánte que los tipos de la cabina de información de la EPO en la AIPLA estaban confíados que Brexit fallaríá–Whistling pasando el cementerio?”

Recuérden que la UPC está en riésgo en lo que viene a Brexit y es cualquier cosa pero algo definitivo por varias otras razónez. Incluso el vocero de la EPO, escribiéndo acerca de casi novia de la EPO, finalmente reconoce que Brexit importa (algunos abogados británicos trataron de negar esto anteriórmente). Para citar las columnas de hoy del editor de IAM: “En un mes y un día el electorado del Reino Unido decidirá el inmediato y talvez permanente futuro de la propuesta patente unitaria de la EU y el régimen de la Corte de Patentes Unitaria. Eso es porque el 23 de Junio, los Británicos votarán si el Reino Unido permanecerá siendo un miembro de la Unión Europea. Como discutimos anteriórmente aquí, si ellos votan por permanecer, dentro de un año podemos esperar ver ambas la UPC y la patente Unitaria en su lugar.”

Pero también hay otras barreras, la menor de todas es la salida Británica, así como Finlandia (un referéndum allí seríá lelos de una llamada cercana basado en encuéstas) y la larga oposición del fiero pueblo Español.

Nada enojaría más a Battistelli y sus chácales ver su difunto ‘proyectoUPC irse en una trayectoria para abajo.”

Invitamos a los trabajadores de la EPO a unirse a una buena causa y ayudar a la economía de Europa. Pedimos recordar a su gerencia no patentar todo lo que exista bajo el Sol (trampa común cuando se máxmimiza el parámetro malo, como un negociánte en vez de un científico) y si esto signfica rechazar a la UPC, entonces sea así.

Nada enojaría más a Battistelli y sus chácales ver su difunto ‘proyecto’ UPC irse en una trayectoria para abajo. Esto no sólo lo vengaría (por sus muchos abusos) pero también serviría para restaurar a la ‘antigua’ EPO, antes de toda esas mamadas como “Patente de EU” o “Comunidad de Patentes” o “UPC” se asomen por la ventana, con la ayuda y colaboración de grandes aplicantes (incluso no Europeos, simplemente un grupo de billonarios y sus cabilderos buscando a someter al resto del mundo). La UPC tiene muchas similaridades/parecidos con la TPP y la TTIP, como hemos explicado antes.

05.22.16

The Circus of Patent ‘Reporting’ (by Omission) on the Subject of Software Patents in the US and USPTO Bias

Posted in America, Deception, Patents at 3:20 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Like asking army generals about the needs of war…

Creating war

Summary: A look at some of the latest oddities in the US patent system and much of the reporting about software patenting (more or less monopolised by those who profit from it, not harmed by it)

THE USPTO keeps snubbing SCOTUS (the Supreme Court) and ignoring decisions like those which annihilate software patents, unlike the Enfish v Microsoft decision [1, 2, 3]. What kind of a rigged office is this? And it’s not even a private company, it’s portrayed or framed as an institution that exists for the common good.

Based on what we constantly find online, patent lawyers are now selling services (like a webinar in this case) around the uncertainty, promising to be the ‘experts’ for getting around the rules at the USPTO (while the USPTO often accommodates this, for various different nefarious reasons). Some people in this meta-industry even produce some kind of ‘cheatsheet’, or “Top Ten 101 Patent Eligibility Patent Drafting Rules…and an Enfish Sideshow,” as one patent attorney has just put it, linking to this PDF.

“See what David Kappos is doing nowadays on behalf of large corporations that pay him, including his former employer.”The USPTO, as we noted here several days ago, is heavily biased, sometimes by omission. It just wants to grant more and more patents, so restrictions (like patent scope limitations) are considered to be an ‘enemy’ and a perceived threat to ‘results’ (or ‘growth’). Matt Levy, whose wife works at the USPTO, has just posted a list of USPTO case studies following additional reports (patents ‘industry’ sites [1, 2]) which say that the USPTO adopts a pro-software patents decision, incorporating it into the examiners’ guidance. Why not do anything about a decision from the same court that was against software patents just a few days later? Or many dozens before it, which were also against software patents (at CAFC)? Let’s face it, this system is rigged and money (or moneyed interests, or large corporations with their lobbyists) determine what happens. See what David Kappos is doing nowadays on behalf of large corporations that pay him, including his former employer. Kappos was the Director of the USPTO until not so long ago, namely a few years. Like David Petraeus (see image above), the former CIA Director, David Kappos now makes a killing by selling influence and suggesting horrific policies to his ‘connections’ (doors have revolved). Kappos is paid to do this. His mouth is basically up for sale. He is a lobbyist of the most dangerous kind and thus a source of shame to the system he came from (as it’s indicative of institutional corruption).

As one might expect, especially because we showed dozens of examples in the past week alone, patent lawyers continue to ignore almost every CAFC case and instead cherry-pick to add ‘detergent’ to their shameless never-ending brainwash. Here are 4 new examples [1, 2, 3, 4]. They just keep cropping up at an amazing pace, sending across the message that software patents are now magically patentable again, provided one hires the ‘witty’ lawyers who write these columns. It’s all marketing. Lawyers are typically liars, with few exceptions in many people’s experience. They have a client to serve, they’re not judges. Brainwash from them can be found aplenty in the Oracle v Google case right now, where the jury and judge hardly know what FOSS and API are. Lawyers of Oracle mislead them every day (we post a lot of links about this case) and the more ignorant the judge and jury remain, the better off Oracle will be. In fact, this whole case is ludicrous and should have been thrown out before it even reached a court. Unfortunately, not programmers assess such cases for their actual merit (or lack thereof).

“They just keep cropping up at an amazing pace, sending across the message that software patents are now magically patentable again, provided one hires the ‘witty’ lawyers who write these columns.”Some of these same patents ‘industry’ sites now use the aforementioned cases to further stretch the limits of patenting (see “Patents For Self-referential Computer Database Are Not Categorically Unpatentable as Abstract”), but it isn’t exactly shocking, is it? We found only one single new report about the Vehicle Intelligence case (a case we have covered here for months), which resulted in software patents being chucked away, as is usually the case after Alice. That’s not what the patents ‘industry’ wants people to hear about, so it nonchalantly ignores this ruling.

« Previous Page« Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries »Next Page »

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channels: Come and chat with us in real time

New to This Site? Here Are Some Introductory Resources

No

Mono

ODF

Samba logo






We support

End software patents

GPLv3

GNU project

BLAG

EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com



Recent Posts