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

04.07.20

The Fall of the UPC – Part XIV: Media Owned and Controlled by Law Firms Did Not Properly Cover the Decision of the German Constitutional Court (FCC)

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 5:16 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

No financial incentive to accurately cover the facts; distorting the facts is more profitable

The Law Society Gazette

Summary: We take another look at the shallow if not deliberately misleading coverage in sites that are literally owned and run by law firms, for the benefit of law firms rather than informing the public

THE credibility of the European Patent Office (EPO) is at stake and definitely at risk due to its misleading “press release” (statement in its “news” section, quoting António Campinos) about the UPC/A after the decision in Germany. The career of Battistelli is likely over; he’ll never be in ‘unitary’ anything and he’s rapidly aging in the country with some of the highest death tolls right now (for that age group).

“The way we see it, UPC/UP/UPCA was a dying thing or a zombie for 3 or 4 years, either due to Brexit, the complaint in Germany, or both. Team UPC just couldn’t get itself to admit this.”But what about the credibility of publishers and law firms, notably mouthpieces of Team UPC and leading proponents of UPC, who often themselves participated in drafting the UPC/A? We want to ensure that people know the full story and can look back at what was said after the UPC had died. The first major blow was in February (UK) and the second in March (Germany). There were many other, albeit somewhat smaller, blows in prior years. The way we see it, UPC/UP/UPCA was a dying thing or a zombie for 3 or 4 years, either due to Brexit, the complaint in Germany, or both. Team UPC just couldn’t get itself to admit this.

A few months ago Patrick Wingrove at Managing IP ‘entrapped’ Justice Huber, giving rise to a bunch of false reports about how the complaint would be dismissed (how wrong were they!) and these charlatans in rigged media (de facto lobbyists of Team UPC) continue to show their true face. This week alone one can see Wingrove et al assessing and ranking litigation venues (places in the US) based on how much blackmail and harassment goes on there. It’s like the Army rating/ranking countries by how many bombs it drops on them.

Anyway, this is consistent with what we’ve pointed out for years. The litigation giants run a lot of the media, directly or indirectly, telling us endless lies about the UPC. Now, in April 2020, one can look at all the lies they told over the years. Their misleading articles are still online.

“The litigation giants run a lot of the media, directly or indirectly, telling us endless lies about the UPC.”Now, one might expect them to stop lying, seeing that the UPC hit the final wall. But no…

The media in the pockets of Team UPC — just like Team UPC itself — will carry on lying to us.

Since we’ve mentioned Managing IP, which is in the pockets of the EPO and Team UPC, let’s consider Wingrove’s colleague (Max), who used to write for Law Gazette. How many people even know who owns Law Gazette? It's a misleading title/name; it makes it look like some official and independent journal. We wrote about it before and it’s clearly a privately-owned propaganda platform, where the main writer is now Michael Cross.

Want to see what Law Gazette published through Michael? Let’s start with this article that said “decade-long attempt to create a unitary patent and enforcing court across European states appeared finally dead last night when Germany’s highest federal court ruled that the decision to join it had been taken unconstitutionally. Following the UK’s indication that it would not participate as planned, this means that two of the three required lead jurisdictions have pulled out.”

“Michael Cross, to be fair to him, hasn’t done a totally bad job.”Only France is in; Battistelli is all on his own.

Michael Cross, to be fair to him, hasn’t done a totally bad job. He has been a little more balanced than most, but he soon followed with some puff pieces like this one, which is spin: “A German ruling to void membership of the Unified Patent Court highlights the fragility of supranational institutions. But is the UK ready to take advantage of this window of opportunity?”

Well, the UK already has its own patent system and for a number of years we’ve heard rumours that the UK might also quit the EPC (hence the EPO).

Michael Cross later also changed the headline of the published article. “News focus: A court too far?” became “Unified Patent Court impasse – what now?” with a different URL, but the content is the same (there might be more articles, but we found 3 on this topic, including this duplicate).

“Well, the UK already has its own patent system and for a number of years we’ve heard rumours that the UK might also quit the EPC (hence the EPO).”“In itself,” the article says, “the ruling does not kill the UPC or the Unitary Patent it is supposed to regulate.”

No, Michael Cross. It does actually. It doesn’t explicitly say so, but common sense and basic understanding of the process would lead to the obvious conclusion. Do you await an officially-issued death certificate?

“Stop spinning for your employer,” I wrote, “the law firm which owns the publisher…”

“Speaking of law firms as publishers, this is exactly what IP Kat became and it worries us greatly because IP Kat used to be a prominent critic of EPO management.”When Max more or less ran the site he did a mostly OK work. He was relatively balanced and he spoke to EPO critics as well. Michael Cross is a step in the wrong direction. The articles mention no critics of the UPC, only Team UPC talking points and even the Law Society president (quoting one’s own boss!). If these people wish to undertake journalism seriously, then they must also speak to people whose agenda is different from the employer’s (a law firm).

Speaking of law firms as publishers, this is exactly what IP Kat became and it worries us greatly because IP Kat used to be a prominent critic of EPO management. The people who ran IP Kat a few years ago are no longer there (almost everyone left), leaving a vacuum filled by litigation firms and virtually no scholars. The EPO coverage almost always comes from AstraZenecas’s (Big Pharma) legal department.

“So now they do ads for patent and copyright maximalists.”The other day in IP Kat we saw Magdaleen Jooste giving a platform to 4iP Council, a major part of Team UPC. “4iP Council launched a practical interactive web guide,” it says,” 4 Reasons 4 Copyright. The guide helps innovative European businesses to understand the strategic value of copyright as an intellectual property tool. The four key benefits of copyright, namely: competitive edge, reputation, collaboration and funding, are discussed in the guide. Get more information here.”

So now they do ads for patent and copyright maximalists. Front groups. As we pointed out very early in this series, the only coverage of the FCC’s decision at IP Kat was Team UPC puff pieces. It was almost as though Team UPC ‘runs’ the blog. This once-courageous blog turned from critic to booster of UPC, including spin of it (even megaphone of Team UPC/Hoying!). “Anonymous” wrote three Fridays ago:

Dear Mr Hoying,

Start reading the decision of the FCC before uttering the expectation that it might be possible to “try to draft a text that would make it possible for European Economic Area countries and perhaps even other countries to join”.

The FCC has made it abundantly clear: the UPC is only open to EU member states. If the UPC is not yet fully dead, the EPLA is!

Benjamin Henrion then said: “The Court also trashed the way UPC’s Rules of Procedure [...] Mr Ramsay will have to look for another job?”

Here’s the full comment:

The Court also trashed the way UPC’s Rules of Procedure were made by this unelected Administrative Committee without parliamentary involvement:

“UPC rules of procedure were enacted by the Administrative Committee, whereby Art41 did not provide for parliamentary participation as the relevant legal basis in this respect and did not contain any express authorization for the UPC judges to undertake fundamental rights.”

Mr Ramsay will have to look for another job?

Maybe there were more comments, but the blog censors some (usually those that don’t favour Team UPC or EPO management). So only the above pair of comments can be seen, both hostile towards the original post (but not hostile enough to be deleted).

In another thread in the same blog a retired attorney wrote:

Yes, I am glad we are both well. The times might already be, as you say, “difficult” but they are going to get a whole lot more “difficult” before they get better. Let us hope that debating patent law, while confined at home, achieves something useful to all of us.

Times are only difficult for Team UPC. For people who are busy remote-working (e.g. coding) life will be better now because risk of being sued is vastly reduced.

Software Patents Remain Junk Patents in the United States (Not Enforceable), Whereas the EPO Keeps Granting Them and Promoting Them

Posted in America, Courtroom, Europe, Patents at 2:37 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

When it comes to abstract patents, the EPO has become worse than its American counterpart because there’s no oversight

A demolition sign

Summary: We take note of the positive outcomes in the US, where courts continue to reject software patents, but in Europe the largest patent office, which sought to replace all the courts, still acts as if patent law does not exist and patents can be endlessly printed irrespective of their merit (or validity as judged by actual courts)

THE latest Daily Links (published yesterday with more to come later today) contain yet more new examples of 35 U.S.C. § 101 ‘taking out’ bad (invalid) patents granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Courts at all levels are rejecting such patents. District courts, the Federal Circuit, even the USPTO’s own Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which processes inter partes reviews (IPRs) without interference from SCOTUS (this highest of all courts defended IPRs).

Alice, which soon turns 6, isn’t being challenged by SCOTUS. Yesterday someone also wrote that “SCOTUS denies cert. in INO Therapeutics v. Praxair Distribution, 19-1103, re whether a method of treatment is patent eligible.”

Alice, which soon turns 6, isn’t being challenged by SCOTUS.”“SCOTUS is not controlled by patent maximalists,” I’ve told him, “and the same goes for the Federal Circuit under Judge Sharon Prost, so there’s not much to correct…”

This kind of trend is why we almost stopped covering US patent cases around December of 2018. It was a conscious decision to focus more on the EPO, instead.

Yesterday the EPO wrote about “Videogaming” again. This is how the EPO is recklessly and shamelessly promoting illegal software patents in Europe these days [1, 2]. The EPO tweeted: “#Videogaming and IP: what are the challenges and how can you overcome them? The recording of our expert #webinar on just that is now available.”

“Next month we turn 13.5 years (we started in November 2006) and it’s clear that we have not prevented the EPO from granting illegal patents on software.”The webinar very clearly spoke about software patents, with the EU too in the mix.

The EPO then tweeted: “Which countries are innovating the most in the field of computer technology? Find out in this analysis of our latest patent statistics: https://bit.ly/DigitalisationIndex … #EPOPatentIndex”

Terms like “computer technology” or “digital technology” — in the context of patents at least — nowadays mean illegal monopolies on algorithms (more often than not or just typically). Also see this additional EPO tweet (from yesterday as well). The categories are misleading by design. Many of these are just bogus software patents that courts would toss out. This is how the EPO fakes ‘growth’; it even admits that this is the main or sole ‘growth’ area.

Next month we turn 13.5 years (we started in November 2006) and it’s clear that we have not prevented the EPO from granting illegal patents on software. They just keep changing the language they use, but the practice remains the same. So in case anyone still wonders why we focus so much on the EPO, this is why. The EPO keeps gloating about exporting these practices to other continents as well.

The Fall of the UPC – Part XIII: A Death Worth Celebrating and Many Lies Worth Debunking

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 1:45 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Scoreboard/scoresheet coming next

Scoreboard

Summary: We take stock of positive responses to the decision made by the German constitutional court (FCC) 2.5 weeks ago; we also explain why it has taken so long to piece together firm-by-firm scoresheet for UPC lies

THE UPC is dead. But it’s not the end of it. Now is a good time to look back at all the lies told, not only for years prior to the death but also immediately afterwards. This site has long focused on countering lies and setting the record straight, especially in areas that are well understood by us. Well, in recent years we studied the European Patent Office (EPO) very closely, going well beyond our original scope of software patents in Europe and seeing how Battistelli broke more laws that we can recall offhand (but we have it documented, thankfully). António Campinos is more of the same, but by the time he settled in at the Office the EPO had already gotten the media “under control” (bribes and intimidation go a long way).

“This site has long focused on countering lies and setting the record straight, especially in areas that are well understood by us.”Quoting some lies and borderline parody from Campinos, the EPO has made its ridiculous public statement on the topic (the UPC’s death). We don’t intend to revisit that anymore, unless of course those same lies from the EPO persist. There will be at least 3 more parts from what we can piece together at the moment, maybe as many as 5 more. We’ll post our concluding words at the end, itemising and summarising past parts. We want this to be the most comprehensive rebuttal out there. We spent literally weeks researching this and we’re getting close to the point where Techrights can do full debunkings, or further hammering regarding UPC lies, having gathered plenty of evidence of it. We’ll name the lying law firms one by one. The order of the mentions matters; that’s perhaps the hardest part: outlining.

“We’ll name the lying law firms one by one.”The key objective is to find as many legal opinions as possible, from as many firms as possible, not only prominent voices of Team UPC and pushers of Benoît Battistelli‘s agenda (the António Campinos policies are the same). Last month we published Everybody Knows UPC is Over, Even Those Who Still Attempt to Lie to the Public (and to Their Clients). Remember that there are many firms out there — SMEs included — that spent much of their hard-earned money on this lie. Law firms lied to them and became rich(er) by lying. This is not acceptance.

Over at FFII, an automated translation of the FCC’s decision (not the formal English version) was archived. “Decision of the German Constitutional Court on UPC in english translated by Google Translate is here,” wrote the FFII’s President. It’s probably an historic decision — so historic that UPC boosters now dig into the personal life of the judge’s wife!

The FFII’s President’s also revisited this old publication [PDF], nearly a decade old (“UPC: some good reading for the evening “The Unified Patent Court: help or hindrance?”…”); it’s from 2012. “We heard the rumor that Mr David Cameron was asked by the large UK pharmaceutical firm GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) to remove the CJEU as having a say in patent law (articles 6 and 8). That was the condition to have a deal with the UK. Now that the UK has left, you know why the CJEU was removed from having a say over patent law, and software patents in particular,” said the FFII’s latest press release, mentioned and quoted in part here.

So one can more or less see whose interests are being pushed/advanced in the UPC. This needs to end. Otherwise the Rule of Law ends.

“So one can more or less see whose interests are being pushed/advanced in the UPC.”Quoting Glyn Moody’s article here: “The EPO has long been a controversial institution: it is not part of the EU, its premises enjoy extraterritoriality, and its executives are granted diplomatic immunity that effectively places them outside the law…”

Had the complaint been judged also based on its deeper substance, this issue would likely have been brought up. There are still some additional complaints about the EPO at the FCC; the aspect of illegality might be brought up by the FCC later this year or next year (because of Coronavirus).

“Also the Unitary Patent did not have compulsory licensing,” Benjamin Henrion (FFII) recalled, “which is crucial in a period of pandemic…”

This is particularly relevant right now because some liars have attempted to exploit the pandemic, making bogus claims about how the UPC’s fall somehow helps the virus spread. It’s really laughable a claim!

The developer of Devuan, who is Italian (where the most people died from Coronavirus), wrote in light of the FCC’s decision: “Software patents are a danger for small companies that cannot afford defense, especially against patent trolls. http://blog.ffii.org/eu-software-patent-court-stopped-by-constitutional-court-patent-industry-will-try-again/ … big up \o/ to @zoobab and @FFII for the hard work keeping #Europe a safe place for developers and digital innovators…”

“A UPC without the UK and without compatibility with various constitutions across Europe is a non-starter.”He was taking note of a mention of the press release. There’s also a mention of “UPCv2.0″, citing a German and quoting him: “So there is widespread consensus that re-ratification (subsequently to renegotiation) is a question of ***when***, not ***if***. interestingly, the two patent firms as well as Patentverein say or at least imply it’s also a question of ***how***” (it’s not trivial as they want us to believe).

A UPC without the UK and without compatibility with various constitutions across Europe is a non-starter. They might try something else, call it something else, but that too would likely fail. They tried several times before and it always fails. Let’s face it: UPC was all along a wishlist of corrupt people trying to buy the law and then milk the law. It is a sort of white-collar malpractice if not corruption that relies on bribery of the media as well (to play along with the corruption). In the next few parts we’ll highlight lies from Team UPC and its media partners, which made no effort whatsoever at fact-finding and fact-checking. They’re too busy trying to sell this dud called “UPC”.

04.06.20

When the Decision is OK and the Judge’s Motivations Are Also OK

Posted in Europe, Humour, Patents at 5:53 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The UPC decision sucks, guys! WE NEED TO FIND 'DIRT' ON THE JUDGE... Oh. OK. Nothing. Let's check the wife.

Summary: Justice Huber made the right call; but the bullies and charlatans who conspired to undermine laws and constitutions will never be satisfied

The Fall of the UPC – Part XII: Doing the Unthinkable by Blaming the Judge’s (Justice’s) Wife?

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 5:31 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

When you cannot discredit the messenger (or the decision), look at his or her family?

JUVE tabloid
Stay classy, JUVE (context)

Summary: Team UPC and its media partners never cease to amaze us; anybody who stands in their way is either portrayed as a Russian stooge or too ignorant to be worth talking to

TEAM UPC is in ‘damage control’ mode. ‘Locked up’ inside the house, these people probably still worry a lot more about the FCC’s decision than about Coronavirus.

The European Patent Office (EPO) has said nothing about it except one misleading statement in the “news” section, quoting António Campinos who isn’t a jurist (neither was Battistelli). It’s really, really pathetic.

I was rather shocked but not entirely surprised to see the ad hominem attacks on the (presumed) chief judge in this case, Justice Huber. This wouldn’t be the first time, so I was prepared for such a spectacle.

The main spectator, for me at least, was Benjamin Henrion, who read many articles and comments at the time. He did a fine job highlighting all sorts of seemingly minor things. We took note and it’s worth reporting on that, even if a fortnight or so belatedly.

“I really struggle to understand why JUVE threw away its credibility like this, in effect becoming a mouthpiece of EPO management. It was a slow process.”First of all, JUVE called the decision “dark day” even though it’s a very good decision that’s beneficial to the vast majority of the population. Who did JUVE quote? Winfried Tilmann. What on Earth are they thinking? We’ll mention him and his firm in later parts of this series about the UPC’s fall. This is what JUVE quoted: “This formal objection can be eliminated by a new vote with a two-thirds majority. Fortunately, the Federal Constitutional Court has rejected all factual objections to the constitutional complaint as inadmissible or unfounded.”

This is patently false, as we shall explain in later parts that also mention Tilmann et al. I am neither a lawyer nor a judge, but this is very basic. You don’t need a law degree to understand that this is a lie. It is a blatant falsehood from Team UPC, but JUVE is OK with it; it’s printing lies, as it has done for at least 2 years (prior to that it did some decent work). I really struggle to understand why JUVE threw away its credibility like this, in effect becoming a mouthpiece of EPO management. It was a slow process.

Who else did JUVE quote? As noted here, “Kevin Mooney, long-time proponent of the UPC and partner at the London office of Simmons and Simmons…”

He said: “We must wait to see how great a priority this for the German Parliament. The UPC is not dead.”

JUVE printed this nonsense. Did JUVE contact UPC critics? No. Other than the complainant JUVE spoke to nobody. It’s like critics of the UPC don’t even exist to them.

“JUVE printed this nonsense. Did JUVE contact UPC critics? No. Other than the complainant JUVE spoke to nobody. It’s like critics of the UPC don’t even exist to them.”Mooney lied to our Parliament, so why not lie to pro-UPC media as well?

Speaking of pro-UPC media, we have not lost sight of Patrick Wingrove, who ‘entrapped’ Justice Huber. He’s still writing for Managing IP, a pro-UPC think tank, where as recently as days ago he acted as cheerleader for patent trolls in Texas [1, 2] (several times in succession).

JUVE did something similar to what Managing IP had done. It put the Justice inside the media. Here’s JUVE’s editor writing a tweet: “Friday’s decision was a huge setback for the #UPC. The trial focused on two main parties. JUVE Patent was lucky to speak to judge rapporteur Peter Huber, and complainant Ingve Stjerna. Read all about the judge and the lawyer, beginning with the judge: https://bit.ly/the-judge-behind-the-decision … pic.twitter.com/710A3m8Cfa”

So we see that the judge is again speaking to a publication that’s very blatantly an extension of the UPC coup. First Managing IP and now this. As we said in three articles a few months ago, judges ought not participate in this… it harms the perception of the court’s independence. Trials by media should be tossed out; they’re like online lynch mobs. They want people to focus on sentiments rather than factual substance.

“So we see that the judge is again speaking to a publication that’s very blatantly an extension of the UPC coup.”But wait. It gets worse.

Just when we thought JUVE was losing its credibility as an impartial publication it came up with this piece calling Justice Huber “the mastermind” (connotation with a crime).

Christina Schulze wrote: “Today the German Constitutional Court declared the German UPC Act of Approval void. Peter Huber, as judge rapporteur, is the mastermind behind the decision. Up to now, his contacts to the patent scene have been mainly private and through his family. This has changed with the UPC case. The issues involved fit perfectly into Huber’s legal history.”

Schulze did some splendid work when SUEPO’s conflict with Battistelli ‘boiled over’, so she should know better. Why does she start to involve the wife of the judge? They’re personifying the decision quite needlessly to discredit it. That’s like UPC zealots looking for ‘dirt’ on my wife to discourage me from writing. Some things ought not be done. Henrion sort of played along by tweeting: “You wonder if they were discussing about patents in bed: “His wife had made a career in Jena, and there were no suitable openings in the Bavarian justice system. In the end she moved to the Federal Patent Court.” https://www.juve-patent.com/news-and-stories/people-and-business/straight-shooter-the-judge-behind-the-german-upc-decision/ …”

“Schulze did some splendid work when SUEPO’s conflict with Battistelli ‘boiled over’, so she should know better. Why does she start to involve the wife of the judge?”Various outspoken Team UPC cranks and nuts went further than Henrion. This is tabloid-level reporting and it serves to discredit the professionalism of JUVE. What next? Paparazzi photos?

Schulze’s ‘boss’ Mathieu Klos did a non-step ‘marathon’ of UPC advocacy for at least a week after that, with misleading headlines like these (this isn’t reporting, it’s lobbying amplified) and selectively quoting in tweets, e.g.: “The UPC needs an unlikely majority to survive” “Hubris could finish off the UPC” “The UPC needs a will, as well as a way” and “The UK will move on without the UPC” Read JUVE Patent’s opinions on the future of the #UPC: https://bit.ly/39rMzAR”

JUVE is just selling agenda here. The UPC is illegal and unconstitutional. It’s also promoted by a ‘Mafia’, people who commit serious crimes at the EPO with complete impunity if not complicity of the EU. The FCC might look at a small portion of these abuses later this year and maybe issue further decisions as well.

Henrion quoted from JUVE: “Less visible is a growing lack of interest in the European integration project among the population as a whole, which the new patent court would stand for.”

“JUVE is just selling agenda here. The UPC is illegal and unconstitutional. It’s also promoted by a ‘Mafia’, people who commit serious crimes at the EPO with complete impunity if not complicity of the EU.”That has nothing to do with patents.

“Normal,” Henrion said, but “the UPC is not an EU agency, nor an EU project” (it’s another supranatural court living or floating in a vacuum).

Henrion went on to quoting further issues with the UPC, citing the legal experts (not Team UPC): “The UPC also violated Art. 3 (2) TFEU, the rule of law (Art. 2 sentence 1 TEU) and the right to effective defense (Art. 47 (2), Art. 48 (2) GRCh).” #RuleOfLaw @dreynders https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2020/02/rs20200213_2bvr073917.html [] “The Unitary Patent Court does not meet these requirements, so the UPC affects the autonomy of Union law and the system of legal remedies.” [] German Ministry of Justice: “The Federal Government issued an opinion on 15 December 2017. It considers the constitutional complaint to be inadmissible (a), but in any case unfounded (b).” [] “Article 262 TFEU already provides for the possibility of transferring sovereign powers to the EU, but instead the decision was taken to establish a patent court on an international legal basis that is outside the institutional framework of the European Union will” [] “The German Bundestag gave its opinion on the procedure by letter of 22 January 2018. He also considers the constitutional complaint to be inadmissible (a), or at least unfounded (b), due to the lack of the right to appeal and a sufficiently substantiated justification.” [] “The institutions to be set up by the Convention should not become independent because it was ensured that changes to the agreement by the Administrative Committee would not be made without the consent of the Bundestag” [...]” (there are further grounds upon which the UPC/A should be thrown out).

“When media and academia are bribed — unlike judges — we can typically discard their output. It’s stained.”Now, we’ve said a lot of negative stuff about JUVE. It never quotes us, it never reaches out to any UPC critics, but at least it did speak to Stjerna, whom it mentioned and quoted (“If, despite these problems, the German government continues to adhere to the Convention, a new constitutional review by the Constitutional Court will have to be considered, possibly of a complaint from a company. [...] The court did not even rule on the substantive complaints and even hinted at further constitutional deficits of the agreement.”) as noted by Henrion. The typical excuse for not quoting any UPC critics is to say something like, “they don’t understand!!!”

There remain a bunch of other complaints about the EPO; but the media might — probably will — look the other way (EPO paid it to ignore EPO scandals). When media and academis are bribed — unlike judges — we can typically discard their output. It’s stained.

As noted here in a tweet, even the Watchtroll pundits said that “Stjerna’s analysis shows that for first instance litigation, reimbursable cost under the UPC exceed reimbursable cost under the German regime by a factor of 3.64 on average…”

“Sir Henry Carr, QC,” Henrion noted, “summed it up in his testimony to parliament: “This complex structure is likely to be far more costly and burdensome for SMEs than the existing system in the UK.” https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2020/03/24/death-funeral-birth-german-courts-decision-upc-may-not-end/id=120104/ …”

“So-called ‘studies’. You know who paid for these studies. The same patent office which also pays various European publishers to lie to everyone about the UPC.”Suffice to say, the old lies regarding “SMEs” will prevail. Team UPC will keep telling us that “SMEs” stand to benefit from the UPC. The very opposite is what’s true.

A few days ago the EPO wrote: “When filing a patent application, you’ll want to consider not just the countries you want to target, but the ones most important to your competitors too. Why? Find out in our SME case studies…”

“The UPC push,” I’ve responded, “means that the so-called ‘SMEs’ you like to speak of are vulnerable everywhere and won’t benefit in any way from increased breadth…”

The EPO also wrote (again with the #IPforSMEs hashtag) that “[a] patent application can have significant business value, even though the patent is still pending. It was the case for one of the companies in our SME case studies…”

So-called ‘studies’. You know who paid for these studies. The same patent office which also pays various European publishers to lie to everyone about the UPC.

The Fall of the UPC – Part XI: Lies Told by Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie (BDI) in Süddeutsche Zeitung

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 4:07 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

FTI and Süddeutsche Zeitung

Summary: Today we look at misleading claims (or lies) published by Süddeutsche Zeitung after the Germans’ constitutional court (FCC) had pointed out the obvious, namely that UPC ratification would be in violation of the German constitution

THIS week we’ll start to properly tackle some of the biggest lies told by Team UPC. Today and over the next few days we shall take a look at what was said and then assess the accuracy. Are clients of law firms being misled? Are correct expectations put in place and across? Readers can assess for themselves, based on what we’ve ‘harvested’ and found out about. It took more than 2 weeks and it’s as exhaustive a survey as we could make it.

As a quick reminder, it took the European Patent Office (EPO) more than one week to merely mention the FCC’s decision and sort of respond to it. António Campinos decided to rely on some politician (like his dad and like Battistelli, his ‘professional dad’), never mind if what that politician said was unrealistic and rightly raised a few brows. The EPO’s dream of ‘legalising’ software patents in Europe (by capturing the courts) is now dead. Over the coming years expect many European Patents to be invalidated. The same thing happened in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) after Alice, a SCOTUS decision which turns 6 quite soon (early summer).

“It took more than 2 weeks and it’s as exhaustive a survey as we could make it.”The EPO does not seem to worry too much about the validity of patents it grants.

“EPO cannot be sued for maladministration,” Benjamin Henrion pointed out the other day, and “this does not seem to concern the German Ministry of (In)justice: “The Federal Government believes that effective legal protection against decisions of the EPO exist. She currently sees no further need for reform.” http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/19/178/1917809.pdf …”

This is the politician that the EPO decided to rely on as if breaking the law and violating the Constitution is as German as Apfelstrudel.

As long as the EPO is a cash cow for and of Germany, however, some parts of the German government (or some political parties) will look the other way and do nothing. They’ll play along passively, irrespective of the veracity of the EPO’s words and crimes (same for The Netherlands as we found out a few years ago). It’s not only a cash cow but a ‘sacred cow’. EPO “Mafia” exploits that “sacred” status to get away with virtually everything…

“As long as the EPO is a cash cow for and of Germany, however, some parts of the German government (or some political parties) will look the other way and do nothing.”“German government answers to FDP about the EPO are here,” Henrion wrote separately.

We wrote about it a week ago.

Separately, on another day, Henrion noted that “BDI complains about the UPC FCC: “Süddeutsche Zeitung, a published in its electronic version a complaint of BDI claiming that the decision on the UPCA by the FCC was not helping industry” http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/03/27/despite-fcc-ruling-germany-wants-to-push-ahead-with-unitary-patent-system/#comment-36730 …”

Which industry? Litigation is not an industry (a ‘meta-industry’ per se) but arguably a parasite that negatively impacts even the automobile industry Germany thrives in. There are many articles to that effect and it is a contentious battle of interests. What’s at stake is the future of Germany’s economy. Heavy industrial producer or ‘paperwork capital’?

Henrion tried to make sense of the text.

“Article about BDI here,” he added, citing this Süddeutsche Zeitung piece. Remember the old days when Süddeutsche Zeitung still criticised the EPO? It didn't last long. In past years we explained the dirty tricks EPO management used to muzzle its critics.

“Litigation is not an industry (a ‘meta-industry’ per se) but arguably a parasite that negatively impacts even the automobile industry Germany thrives in.”Henrion said or quoted: “BDI and SMEs: They even go as far as to claim that the UPC could help restore economy after the Corona episode. If we were April 1st, it would be good joke. http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2020/03/27/despite-fcc-ruling-germany-wants-to-push-ahead-with-unitary-patent-system/ [] UPC will install EU-wide software patents, using the EPO doctrines “the UPC would be to establish authoritative interpretations of the EPC and validity assessment rules, to which the EPO Boards of Appeal should give considerable weight.” [...]”

In the next few parts we’re going to look a little deeper into false claims originating from law firms, which spent a lot of money investing in “lobbying” for the UPC, wrongly assuming they would recover these costs in increased or ‘enhanced’ litigation across borders. They not only harmed themselves financially; it’s likely that their clients wasted billions of Euros based on false hopes and maladjusted expectations (that UPC was coming “real soon!” or whatever).

04.05.20

EPO is Just Like Some Cruel Political Party and Not a Patent Office

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 10:02 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

There’s even a red flag to match the corporate ‘revolution’

USSR wall

Summary: The “cabal” which runs today’s EPO (even the word “Mafia” seems suitable here) isn’t acting — not even remotely — like a patent office; it’s a patent-printing operation (“protection money” as income) that uses shallow political stunts to manufacture consent with the EU’s ‘generous’ assistance

“D

igitalisation” and “Digital Technologies”, as we’ve noted in the previous post, are some of the latest weasel words for software patents in Europe. Politicians like António Campinos and ‘Mafioso B’ have replaced technical terms with buzzwords like “4IR” and “hey hi” (AI). They seem not to understand that most European Patent Office (EPO) staff are technical people, who would likely view those cheap marketing terms (basically sheer nonsense) as insults to their intelligence. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is at least run by someone with some technical background; the EPO hasn’t had such a president for nearly 15 years.

“Here come the politicians with their “little guy” propaganda.”But anyway, a patent office run by politicians and so-called ‘public servants’ would inevitably start to behave like nothing but a political entity, complete with oaths, nepotism and PR stunts intended to divert attention away (from profound scandals).

The other day the EPO tweeted: “Every fifth application at the EPO is filed by an SME.”

Oh, the precious, poor little “SMEs”…

Here come the politicians with their “little guy” propaganda.

“In other words,” I responded to them, “80% of patents likely go to large monopolists looking to shield a monopoly (also: many of these SMEs are not European)…”

It doesn’t sound as good when framed in this way, does it? But that’s just what’s happening.

It’s also noteworthy that the EPO pushed this political crap on a weekend (Saturday, yesterday), conflating patenting with science — as does the EU. The EPO and EU politicians now cooperate in their propaganda. This is an EU/EC Twitter account.

“That’s like the politician Battistelli constantly writing about terror attacks and earthquakes etc. in the “news” section of the EPO. He seems to think the EPO is some sort of political office or a political party like the corrupt French party he’s associated with (his boss there was arrested for corruption).”But here’s the main rub.

The EPO is supposed to be about science, not politics. So what’s the deal with this ‘news’ item (warning: epo.org link), published only days ago and accompanied by this tweet: “The EPO wishes to express its deepest sympathy for the people of Italy and the lives lost to Covid-19, their loss is felt by us all. As an act of solidarity in these difficult times, the Office lowered the Italian and EPO flags at its sites in Munich and the Hague.”

That’s like the politician Battistelli constantly writing about terror attacks and earthquakes etc. in the “news” section of the EPO. He seems to think the EPO is some sort of political office or a political party like the corrupt French party he’s associated with (his boss there was arrested for corruption).

Why only Italy, EPO? France is the one losing the most people at the moment; there are record-breaking death tolls in France, for several days in a row. Italy is only fourth for casualties now (daily deaths), so the EPO’s PR ploy did not age well. What about Spain, France, UK, US…?

“Who will oversee the budget, which is millions of euros for just a few hours of ceremony? This is, once again, a recipe for major corruption like embezzlement.”I also asked the EPO: “What about Spain?” For several days in a row more Spaniards died from COVID-19 (than Italians). No sympathy from the UPC because they oppose UPC in Spain? Is this what the EPO politicians had in mind? Their ‘pet project’ is dead (UPC going nowhere) and about a week later they use the “news” section of the EPO to suck up to Italians. With all due respect to Italians, isn’t it beyond the EPO’s scope to issue such statements in the “news” section? Cheap PR stunts? Politics in a patent office? This shows that Campinos, son of a politician, is just another politician like Battistelli. That helps explains unprecedented levels of corruption, which also implicate the EU (e.g. Campinos bringing all his mates from EUIPO).

Speaking of political stunts, which somehow neglect the death toll in France, guess where the next EIA will go. Got it? France again. Sort of. Monaco. In the EPO’s own words: “The European #InventorAward 2020 will be postponed until 2021. Our utmost priority is the health of our finalists, guests and staff in the current situation caused by the Coronavirus. The event will take place in June 2021 in Monaco.”

How many times in the past decade was EIA held in France (yes, we know about the special sovereignty of Monaco)? Did the Corsican Battistelli relocate from Paris to Monaco or something? Who will oversee the budget, which is millions of euros for just a few hours of ceremony? This is, once again, a recipe for major corruption like embezzlement.

We’ve meanwhile noticed that EPOPIC is still scheduled to go ahead this year (3-5 November 2020 in Tallinn, Estonia) (warning: epo.org link)

“Remember that this is the same EPO that rewarded a massive fraud whose patents are now used against cures for COVID-19, not to mention the litigation over ventilators.”The EPO is not a technical workplace these days; it’s a political institution immune from oversight and the Rule of Law. The politicians are unaccountable. So the colossal corruption is perhaps predictable. If there’s no punishment, what’s to prevent the crime taking place?

Remember that this is the same EPO that rewarded a massive fraud whose patents are now used against cures for COVID-19, not to mention the litigation over ventilators. A French company shared the legal documents. If the EPO wants to help Europe at this time, it will just suspend operations for a few months (it can afford to pay staff on leave). This isn’t the time — nor the place — to glorify those monopolies which basically harm (or slow down) research for cures, vaccinations and various other mitigations, e.g. methods of helping the ill breathe. Three days ago the EPO published this in the “news” section: (warning: epo.org link)

The EPO’s Standing Advisory Committee (SACEPO) earlier this week held its user consultation meeting for the first time by video conference (ViCo). The spring meeting of the SACEPO Working Party on Rules on 31 March looked at measures to further facilitate the use of ViCo in oral proceedings in examination and opposition. In view of current travel restrictions due to the Covid-19 outbreak, user representatives recognised that ViCo contributes to a more efficient and sustainable European patent system.

Notice how, instead of doing something concrete to help COVID-19 research, the EPO offers selective words of sympathy/empathy and looking for ways to grant yet more monopolies, even remotely. So if the EPO was a political party, it wouldn’t be a really nice one but a greedy and cruel one. Business first, lives… later. If ever.

Digitalisation and Digital Technologies as a Ploy to Justify Illegal Software Patents

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 9:00 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Hey hi! My name is “Digital”! I shall be your servant today.

Digital hello

Summary: Say “hello” to the next weasel word/s; from the “hey hi” hype wave we’ve now moved to something “digital” (which can mean just about anything, including algorithms of all sorts)

THE way the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) deals with 35 U.S.C. § 101 does not really determine the eligibility of software patents in the US. The way high courts such as the Federal Circuit (or above, namely SCOTUS) deal with such patents is what matters. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes reviews (IPRs) also play an important role, especially when decisions become examples or precedents. Here in Europe the appeals are dealt with not by impartial judges but ‘glorified’ (or elevated) examiners who are terrified of European Patent Office (EPO) presidents like António Campinos and ‘Mafioso B’ from Corsica. These under-qualified presidents not only allow software patents in Europe but actively advocate these; they even pressure judges to do the same. They gleefully violate the EPC and then they wonder why staff is dissenting? More than 80% of the EPO’s staff is eager to go on strike, but ‘Mafioso B’ made it a lot harder.

“They gleefully violate the EPC and then they wonder why staff is dissenting? More than 80% of the EPO’s staff is eager to go on strike, but ‘Mafioso B’ made it a lot harder.”The UPC is dead (we have a lot more to publish about that), but software patents are not because the EPO keeps granting them. Sure, courts would typically throw them out and there will be no “unified” or “unitary” court to change that.

“Digital technologies” is one of the latest smokescreens EPO management uses to describe — in rather broad and vague terms — patents on algorithms. The EPO did that again just before the weekend when it tweeted: “Digitalisation is fuelling a growth in patenting. But who’s filing the most European patent applications in this field? This analysis of our latest patent statistics provides some insight: https://bit.ly/DigitalisationIndex … #EPOPatentIndex”

DigitalisationIndex…

PatentIndex…

“First Campinos fell in love with “hey hi” (AI) and now it’s “digi” this, “digi” that. The EPO keeps promoting illegal software patents disguised using “Digitalisation” or “Digital technologies”…”We’ve named all this nonsense before…

It’s like a broken record/tune now…

First Campinos fell in love with “hey hi” (AI) and now it’s “digi” this, “digi” that. The EPO keeps promoting illegal software patents disguised using “Digitalisation” or “Digital technologies”…

Pay attention, dear EPO examiners.

Less than half a year ago the EPO had introduced and then also imposed new guidelines which compel examiners to grant “hey hi” patents (algorithms with glorified buzz and novelty-inducing ambiance). So examiners are in a tough place; obey orders from EPO management or respect the EPC. Cannot do both (risk of unemployment in increasingly-uncertain times in Europe).

The other day we noticed that Slaughter and May’s Catherine Cotter (whom we’ll mention a lot in the coming week because of UPC lies) celebrates the EPO breaking the law with buzzwords and hype waves. “Digital technologies take top spot in EU patent applications in 2019″ was her headline, pushed by her boss (Slaughter, aptly-named firm) in the patent microcosm’s platforms.

“Less than half a year ago the EPO had introduced and then also imposed new guidelines which compel examiners to grant “hey hi” patents (algorithms with glorified buzz and novelty-inducing ambiance).”Another one of the patent microcosm’s platforms published “Patenting CIIs: ‘no one knows where to draw the line’” — a paywalled piece by Karry Lai who’s pushing illegal software under the misleading guise of “CII” (the lie manifested by the EPO). “Australian in-house counsel and lawyers reveal their struggles with the “black hole” that computer-implemented inventions seem to fall into,” the summary says. Well, Australian courts and to some degree the patent office as well reject these patents. There’s no “black hole” per se. It’s just the law.

Going back to the EPO again, watch this other tweet posted a couple of days ago. At the top of this page the EPO promotes illegal patents on software. They’re so shameless about it.

Who are you kidding, Mr. Campinos? Take off the mask. You’re another Battistelli and you’d even celebrate patents (monopolies) on basic and rudimentary masks at this time. We’ll say more on the latest PR blunder in our next post. It’s related to this.

« 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