01.26.21

EPO President António Campinos is Still Not Listening, According to Internal EPO Documents

Posted in Europe, Patents at 11:25 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Video download link

Summary: Increasingly arrogant and unaccountable management of Europe’s second-largest institution (EPO) has left staff disillusioned but still defiant; there’s clearly unsuitable or unfit-for-purpose management at the EPO, self-selecting based on nepotism/loyalty so as to cover up abuses

THE staff representatives of the EPO have circulated this 50-page document [PDF] about a recent ‘meeting’ with António Campinos (online chat, so not a meeting per se). The concluding words say that they don’t sense of feel like anything has changed since Benoît Battistelli except attitudinal aspects (the tone). Staff continues to suffer, examiners are besieged by growing workloads and declining benefits/compensation, and the general consensus among managers is that staff has no role in decision-making processes, not even a place in such panels.

“Less than a third of the EPO ‘products’ are associated with the EU, so it’s not even clear whether it deserves “European” in its title.”Now that the EPO is run by almost no scientists at all there’s a worrisome embrace of mindless buzzwords and political language is being weaponised to lie to everybody. Promises are being broken, a pandemic is being leveraged to wage a war on dissent, pensioners at risk are being robbed, and the money piled up in EPOnia gets diverted into an illegal gambling scheme from which only EPO managers stand to gain. To make matters worse, the EPO still lacks any sort of oversight, either at pan-European/EU level or national level. This basically means that the people who do all this are unaccountable and accordingly arrogant.

The Central Staff Committee summarised this report as follows:

Report on the GCC meetings of 26 November and 10 December 2020

In the November GCC meeting, no real dialogue took place: the President was not prepared to move an inch from his initial proposals. He claimed that he would not re-open the discussion on the SAP.

In the December GCC meeting, two Circulars (Nos. 364 and 367) were on the agenda for consultation. Both Circulars were amended as the result of litigation by staff (as regards recognition of PhDs and abolition of house arrest, respectively). The changes are positive but the Circulars as a whole are far from being satisfactory.

Both GCC meetings are examples of how not to conduct a social dialogue: there is no genuine debate. Our arguments are ignored when they don’t suit the Administration. Even if there are indeed some mini-steps in the right direction, the President and his Administration remain unwilling to acknowledge the deep-rooted, structural faults of many of the reforms that have been forced on staff in recent years.

It’s hard to understand why a continent like Europe allows this abuse to persist. It just carries on and on for a decade or longer. It is perfectly clear that the EPO breaks multiples laws, yet nobody has ever been convicted or prosecuted for it. What’s more, it’s very clear that many EPO policies aren’t geared towards advancing Europe but rather to enrich a bunch of law firms and multinationals based outside Europe. Less than a third of the EPO ‘products’ are associated with the EU, so it’s not even clear whether it deserves “European” in its title. The staff is European, but the objectives are not. We certainly hope that media across Europe will pay closer attention, but as I pointed out in the video the “Mafia” (what EPO insiders call management) is bribing and blackmailing publishers/bloggers, especially those who dare investigate the EPO. Or produce/share evidence

Because the media says I'm a nice manThroughout the video (multimedia is faster to do than text) I spend some time assessing the character of the current EPO President, based on hundreds of hours of reading (since 2016 when we first mentioned him). As the meme on the right says, there’s a tendency to focus not on substance but on attitudes or a shallow perception of empathy; “Because the media says I’m a nice man…”

The media in the pockets of patent litigation lawyers spent a lot of time (and space) selling this idea that Campinos is a very nice man, despite lack of actual evidence of substance. The EPO workers are strongly encouraged not to fall for those tricks. Campinos is definitely not there to protect staff but to protect Battistelli, a fellow Frenchman who arranged this job for him. Nothing is going to change as long as Campinos remains President.

Kluwer Patent Spin and Distortion of Facts (Regarding UPC and More)

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 3:04 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Video download link

Summary: Kluwer Patent Blog disgraces the firm that puts its name on it; instead of sticking to facts they’re distorting the facts and the sole/principal goal is to manipulate/mislead the public and public servants

THE video above was spontaneously made in response to yesterday’s piece by Matthieu Dhenne (Ipsilon) and the prior piece by Thorsten Bausch (Hoffmann Eitle). Dhenne tells lies and Bausch mostly responds to the nonsense of Juve (still turning a blind eye to abuses by António Campinos as EPO President).

Kluwer Patent BlogLike Benoît Battistelli, Dhenne wants the UPC to be based in France just because of money while rumours persist that Battistelli wants to be at the head of it. This isn’t reporting and not an analysis, either; it’s lobbying for monetary gain.

“This isn’t reporting and not an analysis, either; it’s lobbying for monetary gain.”As noted towards the end of the above video, almost all if not all (I checked quickly, there might be one exception or a pair) are in the patent litigation and consultation business. The views of people outside that sphere aren’t entertained at all. See below.

Law/litigation firm

01.25.21

EPO Staff Representation Complains That EPO Management Exploits Pandemic and ‘House Arrests’ to Overwork Staff, Lower Quality

Posted in Europe, Patents at 2:38 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Video download link

Summary: The EPO keeps breaking its promises to workers; not only are key employees seeing their net salary cut (inflation factored in) but pensioners too are being robbed and in the meantime the total time spent on work is increasing

THE Central Staff Committee of the EPO bemoans the state of things, and rightly so! Benoît Battistelli left a mess at the Office and António Campinos isn’t tidying things up. He makes things yet more messy and senior staff leaves (usually early retirement) as quality collapses.

“Last week the representatives circulated a document about exploitation of the pandemic to lower the time spent on each application (or “product”), compelling examiners to work from home from dusk till dawn.”Office insiders have already demonstrated the nosedive; but the management suppresses such insiders, wrongly assuming the problem will magically go away by making the messengers go away.

Last week the representatives circulated a document about exploitation of the pandemic to lower the time spent on each application (or “product”), compelling examiners to work from home from dusk till dawn. We’ve decided to reproduce this document with slight redaction/s:

Munich, 22.01.2021
sc21004cp – 0.2.1/1.3.3

Target setting in DG1 for 2021

Even more business than usual during a pandemic

Dear Colleagues,

The target setting exercise for 2021 will be completed by 31 January. Many colleagues have had increased individual targets compared to 2020 with unreachable objectives imposed on them. This comes in sharp contrast with the promises made by Mr Campinos.

A “holistic” approach?

In his Communiqué of 2 December 2020, Mr Campinos promised a “holistic approach for goal setting”. According to the Cambridge Dictionary, holistic means “dealing with or treating the whole of something or someone and not just a part”. The exercise in DG1 is actually “reductionist”. Examiners are merely imposed a productivity objective decided by the Administration and without any justification apart from the usual untenable principle that one should continuously at least be more productive than the year before. The timeliness objectives are as far-reaching as no late priority 2 or 3 files by the end of the year with no regard as to whether it is attainable or meaningful. The behaviour objectives mention that examiners are expected to learn to accept diverging opinions in contradiction with the top-down process of the current goal setting.

More business than usual during a pandemic?

In his Communiqué of 8 January 2021, Mr Campinos announced that a review of the (individual) targets would take place in order to take the effects of the pandemic into account1. Nevertheless, the prevailing principle is still “do more”. This trend is sustained by a still competition-based rewarding exercise which disregards completely the circumstances of each individual during the pandemic.

Unattainable Objectives vs Performance Assessment

The Guide to Performance Development 2020/2021 published on 10 December 2020 states that the goals must be SMART and attainable. This guide was published after the first round of discussion of objective setting in June/July 2020. Obviously, now

____
1 “Any colleague affected by the pandemic in a way that might necessitate a review of their targets should speak to their line manager.”


management hides behind the outcome of this first round of discussion in order not to change anything.

The Guidelines on performance development (Circular 366)2 state that performance assessment is absolute, i.e. specific levels of performance are expected. However, management does not disclose what these levels are and carefully hides the ranges of performance allowed around these levels. Section IV sets out the roles and the responsibilities: “[t]he employees are responsible for meeting the expectations discussed with their manager (….) and are expected to contribute proactively to the goal setting”. It is clear that unattainable objectives should not be set and that there will be consequences at the time of assessment.

Our advice: Be very cautious

For the above reasons, we recommend that you be conservative and realistic when estimating your performance for 2021 and do not commit to unattainable objectives for which you alone will be responsible and will have to bear the consequences.

In order to avoid a negative performance assessment at the end of the year, we suggest that you carefully estimate the impact of the pandemic on your daily work and any other personal circumstances that you can already foresee for this year and set yourself a reasonable target (this is also in line with the Communiqué of 8 January 2021). Bear in mind that the agreement you will reach with your line manager will be regarded as a common approach, and not as a managerial request.

In fact, in uncertain times like in the current pandemic, nobody can predict the likelihood of achieving a particular outcome. Discussing objectives seems reasonable, but committing to a target is not. [Redacted]

Take care of yourselves and your loved ones.

Your staff representation

____
2 https://extra2019.internal.epo.org/sites/codex/documents/english.pdf


[Redacted]

Speaking for myself, as a home worker (for about 14 years now), I’ve not seen any increases in expectation/demands of “productivity”. Employers have no right whatsoever to exploit this pandemic to increase an expectation of time spent on work-related tasks/’remote working’ (e.g. converting time previous spent commuting into time spent on toil/work). We saw some complaints from inside Microsoft which said this was done there; imagine being paid for a 9-5 job when in fact working 8-6 (adding up the time of travel, but putting additional work strain on people). I heard from people inside Microsoft who wake up at 4AM or 5AM to start working.

Life is about much more than work and making money. A life spent just working is a life without time to actually use or enjoy that money. By the time people retire from work they’re very much limited in what they can physically do.

01.21.21

Hey Hi (AI) is Just a Trojan Horse for Illegal Software Patents, According to EPO Management and Litigation Firms It’s in Bed With

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 10:37 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Video download link (because video rebuttals are easier, faster, and nuanced)

Summary: The longtime pushers or the lobby of patent profiteers just carry on pushing for software patents, nowadays latching onto the inane and unwarranted media hype around Hey Hi (AI) — a hype wave that was co-opted by EPO management to grant unlawful patents

THE following mail was sent to a large number of people, urging them to “draft AI patent applications so that they fulfill what’s in the guidelines” of the EPO after Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos misused buzzwords to make software patents look like they’re somehow noble and so incredibly innovative that applications with Hey Hi (AI) in them should be accepted and then granted as patents. In the video I discuss the following message, which is disturbing for a number of reasons (he’s also pushing it all as a static video this week).

From: Bastian Best <mail@bastianbest.org>
Subject: Patenting AI in the EPO guidelines

Hi -

Did you know that the EPO’s patent examination guidelines have a dedicated section on AI and machine learning? But in my opinion they are too restrictive for a number of reasons. I’ll show you why in today’s podcast. At the end of the episode, I’m also sharing some of my best tips for how to draft AI patent applications so that they fulfill what’s in the guidelines.

WATCH ON YOUTUBE

You can also listen to this on your favorite podcast platform. Right now, it’s on Spotify and Pocket Casts, and other platforms will follow soon:

SUBSCRIBE TO THE PODCAST

I’m excited for your feedback. Let me know what you think, and which topics you want to hear about in the future?
Talk to you soon,
Bastian

PATENTS FOR THE DIGITAL FUTURE
bastianbest.org • #TheBestPractice
LinkedIn
YouTube
Instagram
Website
Copyright © 2021 Bastian Best, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you signed up at bastianbest.org or because I know you personally and thought you might like it.

Mailing address:
Bastian Best
c/o BARDEHLE PAGENBERG Partnerschaft mbB Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte
Prinzregentenplatz 7
Munich 81675
Germany

The author of this is a longtime proponent of software patents, and not because he’s coding or anything. In fact, he ‘hijacked’ the handle “swpat” or “swpats” in Twitter, only to use that to promote this toxic agenda… even though that abbreviation (and hashtag) is typically used by critics and opponents of software patents. Gaining visibility by abducting the critics’ venues or avenues isn’t exactly an ethical trick.

bastian-best-ai

The Central Staff Representatives (CSC) of the EPO Are Petitioning to End the Assault on EPO Staff

Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:49 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Ice-covered sign

Summary: The EPO, just one month after the staff went on strike, is about to receive a compelling petition to stop the assault on EPO staff

The EPO’s staff union (SUEPO) and the Central Staff Representatives from the CSC are joining hands again to protect staff from the scams of Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos. Of course the media is not mentioning any of this and so-called ‘news’ sites about patents are far too busy lying about the UPC (the EPO’s management issued a puff piece about Canada earlier this week, reaffirming commitment to litigation rather than innovation and presumption of innocence). In the meantime, however, we’d like to share the latest impending action at the EPO, which follows strikes and mass-mailing campaigns (end of last year).

“…they’re taking away money from existing staff and even old pensioners who are already stressed enough trying to avoid a lethal virus (lethal to their age group).”“Please do not forget to take part in the petition against the implementation of the new Salary Adjustment Procedure (SAP),” the Staff Representation wrote, stressing the importance of collectively opposing the SAP, which we shared a lot of documents about last year. The word “Adjustment” is a misuse of the term; in reality, they’re taking away money from existing staff and even old pensioners who are already stressed enough trying to avoid a lethal virus (lethal to their age group). Here’s some text from the call for participation in the petition — a call that was extended in the deadline sense:

Due to the current Coronavirus measures at the EPO, the partial lockdown (max 15% occupancy) in all sites till the end of January and the extra week of holidays allocated by the President from 4 to 8 January, the CSC has decided to extend the limit date to take part in the petition till the 31st of January.

For the second time in EPO history a new Salary Adjustment Procedure has been adopted without the consent of the Staff Representation and its implementation next year will have an unprecedented deleterious impact on the evolution of our salaries and pensions. Instead of an adjustment of about 3.8 % in July 2020 in Germany and The Netherlands (2.73% in Austria), EPO staff and pensioners will get 0.5% in January 2021 (0.36% in Austria). This does not even keep up with the living costs in our host countries (HICP Inflation: DE 0.80%, NL 1.70%, AT 1.10%) ! For more details about how the new SAP [...]

In order to massively show our discontent to the Administration, please join us in agreeing to the petition to the President and to the delegations in the Administrative Council against the implementation of the new SAP by sending an e-mail (content does not matter) before Sunday 31 January from your EPO-account [...]

The petition itself reads as follows and it’s dated one week before Christmas Day. We strongly encourage each and every member of staff to join this petition as the risk associated with doing so is little to none. There’s a lot that collective action can accomplish, even if the media looks the other way.

Munich, 18.12.2020
sc20190cp – 0.2.1/0.3.2

Petition against the implementation of the new Salary Adjustment Procedure

I note that

• for the second time in EPO history a new Salary Adjustment Procedure (SAP) has been adopted without the consent of the Staff Representation,

• the implementation of the new Salary Adjustment Procedure will have an unprecedented deleterious impact on my salary (and future pension), by not even keeping up with the living costs at my place of employment,

• I have a legitimate expectation that my remuneration (and future pension) keeps pace with the living costs at my place of residence, which were the conditions of employment in force when joined the EPO,

• I further have a legitimate expectation that my remuneration develops in parallel with that of civil servants in European countries, which were the conditions of employment in force when joined the EPO,

• the implementation of the new Salary Adjustment Procedure will impact staff far beyond the declarations of intent made by the President,

• the implementation of the new Salary Adjustment Procedure violates the principle of equality of purchasing power, which requires that the purchasing power of an entry in the salary table is the same irrespective of the country of employment or retirement.

I express

• my extreme disappointment and dissatisfaction regarding the implementation of the new Salary Adjustment Procedure by which the current Administration neglects its duty of care and will stop honouring my legitimate expectations that my remuneration keeps up with the living costs at my place of employment and that it respects the principles of parallelism and parity of purchasing power.

I urge the Delegations in the Administrative Council and the President

• to postpone the application of the capping mechanisms of the new Salary Adjustment Procedure,

• to maintain in the meantime the Salary Adjustment Procedure without capping,

• to reopen the discussions with the Staff Representation with a view to finding a workable agreement on an amended new Salary Adjustment Procedure which respects the principles of parallelism with salary evolution of national civil servants and equality of purchasing power in all places of employment taking into account in a commensurate manner the long-term sustainability of the EPO.

If the majority of the staff joins the petitioners (Staff Representation), and if the Delegations in the Administrative Council still ignore the petition, that will say a lot about the state of the EPO, where the Administrative Council has 0% (yes, zero, i.e. no degree of trust) among staff, based on last year’s survey.

01.19.21

Team UPC Keeps Pretending That UPCA Can Still be Resurrected (Even Without the UK, Which is Strictly a Requirement)

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 5:14 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Video download link

Summary: The latest distortion of facts regarding the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Agreement (UPCA) as seen from the lens of people who seek to profit from such distortion

IT IS flabbergasting, isn’t it? Team UPC refuses to move on. The lobbying, the lying, the distortion of reality, and malpractice (like giving their clients advice that they know to be bad).

The above video, based on [1-3] below, isn’t the most unique of things and we could probably do rebuttals to/about other nonsense such as [4-6] instead (though it would likely amplify FUD). Why is the media turning into such a propaganda machine? Because that’s just where the money is. There’s more to be gained (financially, not in terms of reputation) by lying to people than by informing them. In the EPO the best of liars literally get promoted; it’s like a job requirement. In the media people get berated by their bosses for exposing EPO abuses (I’ve heard stories to that effect). Why are liars being rewarded and why is the public tolerating that (by apathy)?

Items from the video (with commentary added):

  1. Bundestag’s response to the UPC constitutional complaints [Ed: The UPC lobby is becoming ever more desperate now]

    The Bundestag’s Committee on Legal Affairs and Consumer Protection has reported here the following from its meeting on the two constitutional complaints filed in the German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht – BVerfG) against the draft legislation enabling Germany to ratify the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Agreement and its Protocol on Provisional Application:

  2. Intellectual property after Brexit [Ed: “The impact of Brexit on patents will be felt only in respect to the unitary European patent,” it says, but there’s no such thing. UPC is just dead. They propagate this spin.]

    The existing procedure for obtaining a European patent and then validating it in countries selected by the applicant will remain unchanged. This is because the grant of European patents is governed by the European Patent Convention, to which the UK is a party. Despite leaving the EU, the UK has not renounced this convention, and thus European patents validated in the UK will remain in force. Entities from the UK will still be able to apply for the grant of a European patent and seek validation of the patent in any country that has signed the convention. Similarly, entities from outside the UK will be able to follow the same procedure to seek validation of patents in British territory.

    The impact of Brexit on patents will be felt only in respect to the unitary European patent. The UK has announced that it will not take part in this system, which means that a unitary European patent will not exert effects in British territory. To obtain protection there, it will thus be necessary to validate the European patent in the UK or obtain national registration there.

    [...]

    Brexit will have an impact on most businesses in the EU and the UK. Owners of filed or registered EU trademarks and Community designs must soon decide on obtaining or maintaining their rights in the UK. In this respect, they should examine their portfolio, the scope of use, and plans for the future, so that they can base their decisions on business realities. Businesses should also—ideally with the help of counsel—analyse their strategy for intellectual property and commercial contracts, so that after 31 December 2020 they continue to effectively protect their exclusive rights in both the EU and the UK, and exercise their rights without risk.

  3. “A drawn-out UPC process would damage democracy” [Ed: JUVE quit being a news site and chose to be propaganda lobby for Team UPC. The horrendous logic of JUVE’s Mathieu Klos is, we need to rush courts to force-feed Europe something that is not legal (for fear that time will make more people aware of it).]

    Federal president Frank-Walter Steinmeier has once again halted the ratification process at the request of the Constitutional Court. This too is a normal process. It does not allow any conclusions to be drawn about how the court will assess the complaints.

    JUVE Patent is aware that the German government intends to quickly deposit the instrument of ratification for the protocol on the provisional applicability of the UPC with Brussels. This should set in motion the preparatory work for the UPC. The government plans to send the instrument for the actual agreement to Brussels once UPC preparations are complete.

    This is what the government has agreed with the other UPC member states. Four months after Germany takes this step, the court must actually open its doors.

    [...]

    The UPC must not ultimately fail due to a time problem. That would be constitutionally worrying.

  4. Linux malware authors use Ezuri Golang crypter for zero detection [Ed: This is wrongly blaming "Linux" and "golang" because people can use Linux and code malware/write code in Go. This is what Microsoft-connected sites keeps doing, because "Microsoft loves Linux..."]
  5. Dnsmasq vulnerabilities open networking devices, Linux distros to DNS cache poisoning

    Seven vulnerabilities affecting Dnsmasq, a caching DNS and DHCP server used in a variety of networking devices and Linux distributions, could be leveraged to mount DNS cache poisoning attack and/or to compromise vulnerable devices.

  6. New FreakOut botnet targets Linux systems running unpatched software [Ed: Almost all the server-side software runs on "Linux", some of it is secure if patched, but when sysadmins neglect to patch that software, let's just blame the platform]

01.18.21

Sites in Bed With the EPO and UPC ‘Covering’ the ‘News’ Without Mentioning Any of the Overt Abuses

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 6:13 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Video download link

Summary: It is rather sad that blogs like IP Kat have turned into proponents of abusive EPO management and Team UPC increasingly resorts to lying using pseudonyms (to avert criticism and accountability); much of the rebuttal or response that’s hinged on reality/facts can only be found in comments, which are still subjected to a face-saving moderation process (conducted by Team UPC)

Biden Trump: Stole his thunder; Wants to stop the 'steal'

EVERY now and then we stumble upon misinformation, half-truths, and outright lies about the EPO and UPC. It’s counterproductive and harmful to those who do it; lies provoke people and beget responses, which in turn disgrace lie tellers. Look no further than the very major blowback in the comments regarding Team UPC’s spin after the ratification efforts have again been tossed out (32 comments at the moment, almost all of which negative, except Team UPC showing up in the comments if or when it feels courageous enough to speak). It seems like Bristows LLP not only writes misleading blog posts (anonymously of course) but also comments on those posts. It’s like an army of shills and liars. They turn their entire firm into a laughing stock. Earlier today we saw other sections of Team UPC trotting out those same lies about UPC being merely “delayed” — an utter lie they certainly tell their clients in order to save face. What will happen when clients realise that money they paid those firms was deposited in a sewer of lies? Money down the drain, almost literally…

Invoked the constitution, spread rumours about him being 'funded by Russia'The above video also speaks about “ViCo”, which is not legal for reasons we explained here several times before. Not only have the Boards of Appeal lost their independence; stakeholders too don’t enjoy fair trials and due process. That’s of course perfectly fine in the eyes of Rose Hughes (AstraZeneca) whose latest article is a megaphone for those who agree with the employer. Due process? EPC? Not interested…

To quote:

The COVID-19 pandemic will change many aspects of life as we know it. One particularly prominent change has been the accelerated adoption of video-conferencing (VC) as a risk free way of ensuring business continuity. The European Patent Office (EPO) has not been left behind, with the ready adoption of oral proceedings by VC as the new norm. However, the European patent community is divided over whether this is a welcome and inevitable modernisation of EPO proceedings or a dangerous erosion of the right to be heard that should not outlast the pandemic.

Before COVID-19, all EPO Opposition Division and Boards of Appeal oral proceedings required in person attendance at the EPO by all the parties. The global pandemic, and the accompanying plethora of national lockdowns and travel bans across Europe, initially caused all in-person oral proceedings to be postponed. To keep the business of the EPO going, the EPO was forced to transition to oral proceedings by video-conference (VC). It now seems, with the introduction of a new rule of procedure of the Boards of Appeal, that oral proceedings by VC might well become the default from now on.

No, the EPO was not “forced to transition to oral proceedings by video-conference” as it was a choice to bypass the law and then make it permanent, even against the will of involved parties.

It is hardly surprising that — quite frankly as usual — the comments are dissenting (at least those that were permitted/authorised to appear).

Proof of the pudding wrote:

It is difficult to know what to make of the submissions from CIPA and the IP Owners Association. I know for a fact that members of both have expressed views directly contrary to the submissions made by the organisations (for example, Bardehle Pagenberg is currently listed as a member of the IP Owners Association).

It is also worth noting that the submission of Business Europe was strongly against the making VICOs the default mode, and that the submission of epi advocated (again) making face-to-face the default mode as soon as the pandemic is over.

The most remarkable thing about the consultation exercise, however, is that the EPO has not commented upon the CONTENT of the submissions that it received. Combined with the extremely short period (2 weeks) that stakeholders had to prepare and submit their comments, this is both extremely unusual and highly suspicious. Why bother asking for comments if you are not going to reveal which changes were made in the light of those comments, and why those changes were made?

SUEPO has not said anything since last year, but certainly it can relate to that comment, which mostly echoes the sentiments of EPO staff. Here’s another new comment:

As per the post ending hint, the debate is inevitably affected by (heavy) business considerations. As long as the ViCo was presented as an emergency – thus, intrinsically pro tempore – solution to hold OP so as not to freeze EPO business, that’s fine. But taking advantage of the situation to draconianly eternalize ViCo, all the more (probably? Need to see how the “appropriate” will be construed) as default option, leaves me uncomfortable. Forgetting for a second the diverging interests of UK and German firms, the key point to me is whether EPO stakeholders feel that moving from in person to ViCo OP may lead to an unfair treatment by the EPO or a risk for legal/technical misunderstanding of the party’s arguments. If this is the case, yes, the change is negative and should be strongly opposed. But if the argument is simply that the importance of the proceedings in writing would overwhelm the OP, then I see little room to complain. We are brutally invited to play a different game, with different rules. Personally, I would have adopted different solutions for ex parte and inter partes proceedings. Also, the fact that the UK firms are against a mixed solution makes me think that that being physically in front of the Board – assuming the Board is in the EPO premises, of course – is somehow perceived as being advantageous (or maybe only preferable to have your client accept a negative decision)

As I explained in this video, the most disheartening thing (to me at least) is how this blog, IP Kat, turned from critic of EPO management into its cheerleader. The likes of CIPA infiltrated the blog, adding to the likes of Bristows and AstraZeneca. No wonder the media is so worthless in this area/domain and most of the signal (facts, not noise and lobbying) has been relegated to comment sections.

01.14.21

Patent Propaganda and UPC Jingoism Instead of Actual News

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 2:13 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Video download link

Summary: Today’s so-called ‘news’ about the EPO (Europe’s second-largest institution) and the failed UPC is nothing short of shameless propaganda

TODAY’s stock of articles about the EPO and the UPC has thus far been appalling, albeit more or less as usual.

Yesterday we mentioned the Kluwer spin (probably Bristows in disguise) and today we see Bristows doing so directly, along with another law firm that lobbies for patents on life (as does the media operative of Team UPC). Meanwhile, as of a few hours ago, the EPO wants us to think (warning: epo.org link) that more monopolies is a great accomplishment, even illegal monopolies that lack a legal basis. The EPO’s first press release of the year (2 weeks after the start of the year) isn’t even about the EPO. The video discusses some of these things.

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »

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

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

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

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

New to This Site? Here Are Some Introductory Resources

No

Mono

ODF

Samba logo






We support

End software patents

GPLv3

GNU project

BLAG

EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com



Recent Posts