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

07.07.20

[Humour] IAM Ranked Top for Quality of EPO Propaganda

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 6:54 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Star Trek Hailing: Captain, patent quality is slipping rapidly. Excellent! Just as planned.

Summary: Contrary to what the European Patent Office (EPO) keeps saying, patent quality is slipping very fast in Europe (based on the EPO's own analysis!) but patent trolls-funded publishers deny that

When They’re Done With Patents on Foods and Recipes They’ll Have Patents on Fashion, Taste and Smell

Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:51 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

António’s spark for fashion is well documented around the Web

António Campinos in Alicante Press
Photo credit: Alicante Press

Summary: The mental dysfunction — an infectious condition — that says everything in the world must be patented should be resisted; it overlooks the fact that patents were introduced to protect/promote actual invention, not thoughts, feelings, nature and art

MR. António Campinos came from the area of trademarks (EUIPO), which is used heavily by the fashion industry along with copyright law. Nowadays the European Patent Office (EPO) grants all sorts of crazy patents on life and nature, especially when they get genetically modified (even by natural means like breeding). That’s crazy enough; examiners of the EPO can understand why that’s unethical. Even the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is rather strict about those sorts of things, but the EPO cares about nothing but so-called ‘production’ (especially after 2010, i.e. since Benoît Battistelli came, ushering in software patents as well, another thing that the USPTO is hesitant about, more so because of 35 U.S.C. § 101).

“Your boss Mr. Campinos is being dressed up and wrapped up in ridiculous gowns and showered with voyeurism awards by the people whose agenda he serves — the same people whom his father fought until his early death in Africa.”How many people know about patents in clothing, including shoes? A recent dispute between Adidas and Nike brought that back to light (half a dozen articles in last week’s and last month’s Daily Links covered that). Imagine being a scientist, enlisted to examine patents on fashion items instead of something like physics and engineering. This is where today’s EPO is heading, for it wrongly asserts that the more patents it grants, the better off Europe (and science) will be. That’s rubbish. It is the sort of rubbish promoted in ‘news’ sites that are owned and controlled by law firms. They profit from such illusions.

Our cordial message to EPO examiners is, engage in civil and polite dissent if not disobedience. The monopolists will never cease expansion of patent scope, provided there’s no pushback (from the public, public officials, and workers). It’s not about innovation and it’s definitely not about economic benefit (except their own). Your boss Mr. Campinos is being dressed up and wrapped up in ridiculous gowns and showered with voyeurism awards by the people whose agenda he serves — the same people whom his father fought until his early death in Africa.

07.05.20

António Campinos Should Speak to Peasants, Not Litigation Lawyers

Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:06 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“A campino (Portuguese: [kɐ̃ˈpinu]) is a cattle herder in the Portuguese region of Ribatejo. Campinos work on horse-back, using a long pole (a pampilho or lance) to manage and direct the herd. Campinos are also known for their distinctive attire, which consists of a green and red stocking cap with a tassel, white shirt with full sleeves, red vest, short dark trousers and white stockings. This is similar to the traditional attire of the forcado, the difference being mainly in the colours.”English Wikipedia

Hill Top Town

Summary: Mr. Campinos does not work for campinos but against campinos; he represents the people who sue or threaten them using ludicrous patents that should never have been granted (e.g. in Ethiopia)

ANY time António Campinos is going around the world he would inevitably take photo ops with a bunch of lawyers/officials but never poor people. Unlike his father, he does not even pretend to care for the common people. The Battistellis are renowned if not notorious for Mafia connections; French officials warned about Mr. Battistelli before he became President of the European Patent Office (EPO); he then removed these officials. The EPO never recovered from this ‘Mafia-like’ culture.

“Don’t be misled by the name. António does not work for the campinos. He works for the Mafia.”The EPO lost sight of the world’s population and its needs. Not only did it grant loads of patents on life and nature. It also impeded access to medicines and green technology (granting patent monopolies in that domain means restricting access to solutions).

Judging by a recent survey, Campinos has fooled almost nobody with his one-on-one meetings. 2 years down the road people rightly view Campinos as the force of occupation (Portuguese as a language did not spread by peaceful means). Whose occupation? Maybe Battistelli’s Mafia. A lot of the same thugs, Battistelli’s mates and their relatives, are still in positions of power. Campinos keeps them for himself.

Don’t be misled by the name. António does not work for the campinos. He works for the Mafia. Think Antonio Balsamo.

Christine Lambrecht (German Minister of Justice and Consumer Protection) Ignores the Fact That Even Patent Experts Reject the Unitary Patent (UPC)

Posted in Deception, Europe, Law, Patents at 5:41 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

And “more than 71.4 % of judges no longer support the UPC,” based on a recent survey

Christine Lambrecht
Photo source

Summary: The debacle single-handedly caused by and attributable to Christine Lambrecht, who is eager to appease litigation lawyers, is made yet worse by the fact that people in this domain/profession reject what she’s trying to ram down people’s throats

PRESIDENT António Campinos from the European Patent Office (EPO) has said nothing about the FCC’s decision except that foolish praise of the ludicrous statement from Christine Lambrecht. Campinos disregards judges and courts almost as much as Benoît Battistelli did (if not more so). Later he’ll wonder why only about 3% of the staff trusts him based on a recent survey.

“Brexit is, in its own right, an incompatibility for the UPC.”Last week we became aware of an article in which a law firm called Cohausz & Florack explains: [via Lexology]

The UPC is now being widely questioned. According to a Juve survey of more than 600 patent experts in April 2020, 55.3% actually reject it. Only 33.6 % of those questioned still support it. The result is even clearer among the attorneys and judges surveyed: 56.5 % and 59.4 % of patent attorneys and attorneys-at-law respectively and more than 71.4 % of judges no longer support the UPC. Industry representatives are also rather skeptical: 43.5 % of company representatives stated that they no longer support the current UPC.

According to Juve, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in particular see a negative impact through the UPC. “The main reason is the increased costs”, says Dr. Natalie Kirchhofer, patent attorney and partner at COHAUSZ & FLORACK. “For innovative SMEs in particular, these costs, which are many times higher than those incurred in the enforcement of own inventions before the UPC, play an important role in their competitiveness”. Gottfried Schüll, patent attorney and partner at Cohausz & Florack, is also critical of the lack of jurisdiction of the national patent infringement courts for granted EP patents, which will come eventually with the UPC: “This means that patent owners who are looking for inexpensive legal protection need to resort to national German patents. European patent law is becoming a law for corporations. SMEs, the pillar of German competitiveness, will not benefit from the advantages of European unification of patent protection. In fact, the opposite is the case”.

“Even for large corporations with huge patent portfolios, for example in IT, e-technology, communication technologies and the pharmaceutical industry, uncertainties are to be expected under the UPC – among other things, about which legal remedies are possible under the UPC and how these are influenced by national experience through the choice of local chambers”, says Dr. Arwed Burrichter, patent attorney and partner at COHAUSZ & FLORACK.

As Great Britain was still involved in the drafting of the UPC Rules of Procedure, these are also significantly influenced by common law aspects. These are now no longer accessible to professional representatives at the UPC, since, due to Brexit, the British colleagues are no longer available. There is therefore no essential basis for a consistent application of the law.

Brexit is, in its own right, an incompatibility for the UPC. FFII is working on a statement or complaint to that effect already.

D Young & Co LLP’s Jonathan DeVile has meanwhile noted: [via Lexology]

At the end of March 2020, EPO President Campinos pronounced strong support for the statement by the German Minister of Justice and Consumer Protection, Christine Lambrecht, of her intention to remedy the deficiencies in the legislative procedure which led to the German Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) declaring the agreement by the German Parliament (Bundestag) of the Unified Patent Court and the Unitary Patent (UPCA) to be void. So was that just another bump in the road for the UPCA?

The Unified Patent Court and the Unitary Patent Agreement (UPCA) was agreed in 2013 and enough countries had ratified the agreement for it to come into existence, that is, if Germany had ratified. Of course the concept of the UPCA is even older than the European Patent Convention; the UPCA being its latest incarnation.

Even after the Brexit vote in 2016, the UK Government under Prime Minister May ratified the UPCA in 2018, perhaps encouraged by a legal opinion obtained by the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA) that the UPCA was an international treaty and therefore open to the UK after Brexit. Then came a complaint in 2017 filed by a private citizen to the German Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) that the vote in the Bundestag violated the constitutional rights of German citizens.

In March 2020 the FCC ruled partially in favour of the complaint that the vote in the Bundestag in 2016 for Germany to adopt the UPCA was unconstitutional and therefore void. The Bundestag requires a majority of two thirds of its members to adopt an Act affecting the constitutional rights of German citizens. According to the FCC, although those members of the Bundestag present at the time voted unanimously to adopt the UPCA, the formal requirement for a majority of two thirds of the members of the Bundestag had not been satisfied. However there is some nuance in respect of the analysis and the conclusion in reaching this decision by the FCC, which would appear to have wider ramifications.

It has since then been noted that the substance of the complaint gives additional grounds for rejection of UPCA and therefore what Lambrecht is doing will merely disgrace the Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection, making it seem like it’s neither for justice nor for consumers. The title of the above article says “end of the road” and it seems growingly apparent that law firms are sort of ‘bailing out’ and giving up on the UPC. Whether another incarnation of UPCA will materialise is another question; it can take a decade or more. Without the UK, moreover, the value of such a system (and consent for it) would be greatly reduced.

“If “lobbyism” drives the Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection, then it makes Germany as a whole look like a ‘banana republic’.”Back in March we explained that the UPC had died due to Brexit. Another blow was the constitutional complaint in Germany, then the UK’s official position (rejecting the UPC) and finally the FCC’s decision, which was the final nail in the coffin.

And speaking of nail in the coffin, Lambrecht political career may be over. What she did in the Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection disgraces not only the ministry but the person who has only led it for about a year.

Lambrecht should listen to constituents and experts, not a bunch of lobbyists. If “lobbyism” drives the Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection, then it makes Germany as a whole look like a ‘banana republic’. People are already complaining and damage is done based on underlying facts.

07.04.20

[Humour] A Union in Whose Interests?

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 6:06 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Star Trek Nuclear Wessels: You don't simply sign a memorandum of understanding with Battistelli and expect staff to understand

Summary: The union-busting ‘yellow union’ (the one that helped Benoît Battistelli marginalise SUEPO) is unable to represent staff any longer

FFPE EPO Has Rendered Itself Obsolete by Liaising With Benoît Battistelli

Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:46 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

EPO meme

Summary: FFPE EPO has been left out of staff representation, demonstrating that liaising with the oppressor is a self-deprecating move which must be avoided (the only remaining potent union is SUEPO)

THE union friendly towards management of the European Patent Office (EPO), Benoît Battistelli included, has sealed its fate. Many rightly perceive or consider it to be a ‘yellow union’ and yesterday it sent the following message to staff in The Hague:


From: EPO EMAIL SERVICE <epoemailservice@epo.org>
Sent: 03 July 2020 16:08
Subject: To all TH staff: Message from the Committee of the FFPE EPO

Dear colleagues,

For those who voted for us in the elections and have now no representation in the staff committee: please consider joining us as member of our union so that we stand stronger!

We are the only union who has signed a MoU with EPO management, which permits us to discuss staff related issues directly with the President.

Despite not being elected, we continue our work as a union, to defend your interests, in particular your right to equal treatment.

The Committee of FFPE EPO

Marleen Kroeders Patrick Kools Aldert Jan de Haan


Why are they bragging about being in bed with the management? This isn’t a good selling point, is it?

“FFPE,” as a person told us, “the management-friendly union [...] apparently did not see the relation between signing a MoU and not getting elected…”

Well, indeed.

Included below, for the uninitiated at least, are past articles about FFPE EPO.

  1. In the EPO’s Official Photo Op, “Only One of the Faces is Actually FFPE-EPO”
  2. Further Evidence Suggests and Shows Stronger Evidence That Team Battistelli Uses FFPE-EPO as ‘Yellow Union’ Against SUEPO
  3. “FFPE-EPO Was Set up About 9 Years Ago With Management Encouragement”
  4. Fallout of the FFPE EPO MoU With Battistelli’s Circle
  5. The EPO’s Media Strategy at Work: Union Feuds and Group Fracturing
  6. Caricature of the Day: Recognising FFPE EPO
  7. Union Syndicale Federale Slams FFPE-EPO for Helping Abusive EPO Management by Signing a Malicious, Divisive Document
  8. FFPE-EPO Says MoU With Battistelli Will “Defend Employment Conditions” (Updated)
  9. Their Masters’ Voice (Who Block Techrights): FFPE-EPO Openly Discourages Members From Reading Techrights
  10. Letter Says EPO MoU “Raises Questions About FFPE’s Credibility as a Federation of Genuine Staff Unions”
  11. On Day of Strike FFPE-EPO Reaffirms Status as Yellow (Fake/Management-Leaning) Union, Receives ‘Gifts’
  12. Needed Urgently: Information About the Secret Meeting of Board 28 and Battistelli’s Yellow Union, FFPE-EPO
  13. In Battistelli’s Mini Union (Minion) It Takes Less Than 10 Votes to ‘Win’ an Election
  14. FFPE-EPO Going Ad Hominem Against FICSA, Brings Nationality Into It
  15. Leaked Letter Reveals How Battistelli Still Exploits FFPE-EPO (Yellow Union) to Attack the Real EPO Union, SUEPO
  16. FFPE-EPO is a Zombie (if Not Dead) Yellow Union Whose Only de Facto Purpose Has Been Attacking the EPO’s Staff Union
  17. FFPE-EPO, the EPO Management’s Pet/Yellow Union, Helps Union-Busting (Against SUEPO) in Letter to Notorious Vice-President

[Humour] Bigger is Always Better When You’re a Deluded Maximalist

Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:15 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

More monopolies = more innovation?

EPO: Our Numbers Are the Biggest; Trump: My Covid-19 numbers are too

Summary: The EPO totally lost sight of its mission; it’s just speeding everything up, very carelessly, not minding quality and accuracy/certainty/legal validity

‘Managing Intellectual Property’ Managing to Become Uncritical Parrot of EPO Management

Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:08 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Talking points, but nothing to the point

Managing IP lying

Summary: Managing to amplify the EPO’s lies isn’t hard; one just needs to copy, paste, edit a little; then they call it ‘journalism’, irrespective of the proven track record of EPO management lying to staff and to the media

THE ‘news’ site Managing Intellectual Property (Managing IP for short), funded by litigation firms and patent trolls, is currently parroting tall tales and incredible claims from a chronically-lying and deeply corrupt EPO management. Says a lot about Managing IP and its ‘journalism’ (public relations) standpoint, so let’s tackle it. We mentioned that so-called 'report' the other day and complained about media complicity for two years under António Campinos (they still push the lie/fiction that he resolved the issue which was Benoît Battistelli).

Well, under a mishmash of items they put “EPO report” and basically parroted talking points from chronic liars and spinners; no scepticism, no scrutiny, no fact-checking; it’s just droning on and on in ‘parrot mode’, noting what “BoA president Carl Josefsson told Managing IP” (Josefsson knows his ‘true masters’, who gave him this job). Here’s a quick paragraph-by-paragraph rebuttal:

EPO and BoA target speed and efficiency

Notice the loaded title and wording (or framing). Slowness and inefficiency wouldn’t have sounded too good. The goal of the patent system is neither of those two things. Accuracy is a lot more important.

Settled cases at the EPO’s Boards of Appeal have increased by nearly 50% in the last three years, according to the organisation’s annual report published this week.

Settlement and justice are not the same thing; there are many ways to “settle” things, with neither party being necessarily satisfied.

Procedural slowness can lead to unwanted settlements at times, potentially out of sheer desperation or sense of dead end ahead, such as in the case of people defaulting on a mortgage. We’ll come to that in a moment (below).

“Settled cases” aren’t a surrogate or a measure of access to justice or legal recourse. Fee changes may also have played a role (considerable cost hikes).

In 2019, the BoA received 3,292 technical appeal cases, 8.6% more than in 2018. In total, 3,254 of these were settled, a 19.1% increase compared with 2018. This amounts to a total increase of 46% since January 2017.

Increase in appeals isn’t a good thing, is it? One might say that this implies growing injustice and more disputed decisions.

The above numbers may sound big, but are they really? Against a backdrop or backlog of about 10,000 cases last year

So they’re just playing fast and loose with statistics to give some misleading impression of “growth”…

A growth in what exactly?

Don’t ask.

The BoA has also increased its capacity, recruiting 17 additional technically qualified members over the course of last year.

17 more people who lack independence from the Office and whose hiring standards were significantly lowered.

Hurray to racing to the bottom. How many have meanwhile left? It does not say.

In its report the BoA said it is “well on track” to meet its five-year objective to settle 90% of cases within 30 months.

Speed. Is that the sole measure of performance? Ask patent examiners how they feel about it…

Last year also marked the finalisation of the BoA’s Rules of Procedure. The new rules entered into force in January this year and are targeted at increasing efficiency, predictability for parties, and harmonisation.

Fluff and marketing nonsense. The BoA’s Rules of Procedure have done nothing to tackle the lack of autonomy and further introduced negative changes — except perhaps for litigation firms. Notice that word “harmonisation” again; they told us that UPC would bring about “harmonisation” — by which they meant abolishing the BoA (all of them).

Last year, BoA president Carl Josefsson told Managing IP that the revised rules will reduce a party’s options to amend its case as appeal proceedings progress, and make it more difficult to withhold submissions for tactical reasons.

The same Josefsson who was put there by Battistelli and his mates.

Meanwhile, the EPO annual review for 2019 , also published this week, showed that the office dealt with a record number of patent applications. It received 181,406 European patent applications, up 4% on 2018’s figure.

When you lower the standards people race to get lousy patents. And they get them! They can pass these to trolls. As they do. And never mind if almost two-thirds of these don’t come from Europe. It’s a siege.

The EPO has also provided an update to its Strategic Plan 2023, which was published last year. The EPO wanted core focus areas to include building an engaged organisation; modernising the IT systems; and delivering high-quality products efficiently.

Again it’s a bunch of marketing nonsense from the nontechnical people who run the EPO. Notice words like “products”; maybe they think they’re running a store or a factory floor.

By the way, they’re not “engaged” (ask SUEPO!) and they’re not “modernising the IT systems” but outsourcing it to companies like Google and Microsoft (from another continent).

According to the annual review, 2019 brought IT modernisations as well as a paperless search pilot. The EPO also expanded its geographical coverage, including by signing validation agreements with Georgia and reinforcing partnership agreements with Ethiopia, Argentina, Malaysia, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil and ARIPO.

How many European Patents come from these nations? Better not ask. But they thought it would sound good. Maybe add Cambodia again, with its zero European Patents…

« 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