10.24.20

Juve Patent’s Love of Patent Trolls and Their Misinformation

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 6:35 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

As if “budget” (money) is the thing to worry about…

'Relocation would have minimal consequence on UPC budget'

Summary: The press ‘gutter’ known as Juve (basically propaganda disguised as ‘news’ since years ago) has gotten to the point where the publisher is just an extension of lawyers and liars

THE above is not satirical, only deeply flawed and false.

Juve trollIt’s also part of a worrying pattern we’ve taken stock of in recent years. Like IP Kat, the site changed its tune, in effect defecting to crooks who took over the EPO, turning it over to litigation fanatics (profiteers, not scientists) and patent trolls. Nowadays Juve is oftentimes a mere megaphone of Team UPC, relaying ‘useful’ lies as headlines (facts need not matter when your paying clients/subscribers like to hear and then disseminate those lies).

It’s almost 2021 (2 months from now). UPC is nowhere. Looks like JUVE is still a lobbying site (in English and in German). For the people who have lied again and again.

“BBC asserting patents,” a reader told us yesterday, quoting from Juve Patent’s LinkedIn (Microsoft) feed:

UPDATE: The next wave of SEP disputes has started in Germany.

Three members of Sisvel Group’s DVB-T2 Patent Pool have filed complaints against Chinese television manufacturer TCL Technology.

The BBC and Rai – Radiotelevisione Italiana have filed before the Regional Court Düsseldorf, while LG filed the infringement claim at the Munich Regional Court.

A first hearing in the latter case is expected for March 2021.

At the centre of the dispute is the next generation of broadcasting digital television on terrestrial networks.

With Juve lobbying for the UPC, imagine how much worse it can get. Maybe time to rename or rebrand as “Juve Patent Troll”. They still routinely call patent extortion “FRAND” (misnomer) as if blackmail is “fair”, “reasonable” and “non-discriminatory”…

Juve is always happy to quote patent lawyers, but never Germans… unless they’re German lawyers. This helps perpetuate their microcosm delusions. No licence to sue? Then your voice does not count and does not even exist.

It’s always a problem when the press becomes a force of occupation against public interests.

10.23.20

[Meme] When EPO Staff Claims to be ‘Ill’ or ‘Sick’… During a Pandemic’s European Peak

Posted in Europe, Humour, Patents at 5:00 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Feeling unwell? Open up the door… or else.

EPO Checking Up on Ill Staff

Summary: Gotta check and verify that those ‘lazy’ EPO examiners aren’t just faking being ill (in order to not meet “production” targets)

The EPO Has Relegated or Lowered Itself to Extremely Poor Standards

Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:48 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

EPO: one day it hopes to become a 5-star office again

EPO stars

Summary: Today’s EPO continues to reaffirm the image of global weakness; having failed to improve the working conditions and quality of the work (its actions did the exact opposite), it’s nowadays begging China to send over lots of workload irrespective of quality or merit and it is outsourcing the functions of the Office to the United States

THE ambitious-but-unqualified management of the corrupt EPO (led by Benoît Battistelli and then his mate, António Campinos) not only exploits COVID to do illegal things (of which we’ve lost count). Judging by its latest couple of “press releases” [1-2] (or so-called ‘news’ as the EPO’s site puts it), it’s liaising more and more with China while establishing whitewashing groups to not only pretend quality is high (it’s not; the opposite is true) but that the illegal practices are in compliance with the law. So many comparisons can be made/drawn between today’s EPO and CPC. Greenwashing included (it’s still being floated in ‘the news’… which is reducible to EPO press releases). See [3-5] for the template-based ‘news’ coverage about the EPO and China’s office. Do journalists still exist (to actually investigate and fact-check things, including background reading)?

Just keep mentioning “quality” (as if people don’t really know what that word means; see the new quote at the bottom/on the right).

EPO quality quoteThe world’s biggest patent aggressors push ahead [6-7] in Germany with lousy software patents that should never have been granted.

Patents on genetics are still on the agenda [8], as well as other dubious patents [9], whose scope goes as far as Turkey [10] (we’re being reminded by IAM).

“It’s hard to find any media scrutiny of the EPO any longer; almost all coverage is just based (in the template sense) on EPO press releases, promoted actively by the EPO’s press team (friends of Campinos).”A couple of decades ago Europe stood out as a leader in this space (the USPTO had noticeable issues, ranging from process to scope). Now it’s little but a stooge of CPC, looking for opportunities by lowering the patent bar. This is saddening as it harms Europe’s competitiveness.

We’re still surveying the news and closely watching EPO affairs. To the best of our ability anyway (insiders don’t say as much as they did years ago).

EPO insiders, please consider trickling out to us more information. The more we know, the more EPO staff will know. It’s hard to find any media scrutiny of the EPO any longer; almost all coverage is just based (in the template sense) on EPO press releases, promoted actively by the EPO’s press team (friends of Campinos). COVID killed whatever was left of media in this space.

Remember the days IP Kat was a hard-hitting site with decent comments about the EPO? Nowadays that blog is full of ads for the EPO and comments that bring up EPO corruption get zapped (never to appear). Because IP Kat isn’t run by the same people (since years ago)… we used to exchange amicable E-mails with the ‘Kats’, but today’s ‘Kats’ treat us like an enemy (and Campinos like an ally).

Related/contextual items from the news:

  1. Meeting of the SACEPO Working Party on Rules (warning: epo.org link)

    User representatives were informed that more than 1 200 oral proceedings have been held by VICO so far this year, and that many users have by now had the opportunity to test and discover the advantages of oral proceedings by VICO – such as reduced costs, air travel and risk of infection, as well as the level playing field VICOs create for practitioners irrespective of their location. Suggestions relating to virtual “break-out rooms” and a shared base for document exchange during oral proceedings were discussed, as well as issues relating to recordings. SACEPO members were also invited to provide feedback on a proposal to amend EPC rules to address certain specific aspects of the taking of evidence by VICO.

  2. Joint communiqué EPO-CNIPA pilot starts on 01 December, 2020 (warning: epo.org link)

    Chinese patent applicants will be able to designate EPO as ISA, giving them an additional option for their international search

    A two‑year pilot between the European Patent Office (EPO) and the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) will enable nationals and residents of the People’s Republic of China to select the EPO as their International Searching Authority (ISA) for applications filed in English under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT).

    [...]

    PCT applicants who are nationals or residents of the People’s Republic of China and whose international search was performed by the EPO as ISA will also be able to file a request for international preliminary examination with the EPO. They should pay the corresponding fee directly to the EPO, pursuant to PCT Chapter II.

    The EPO establishes international search reports (ISRs) and written opinions (WO/ISAs) which provide an applicant with a clear evaluation of their invention’s patentability and so with a solid basis for taking timely and informed decisions as to whether or not to enter the various national/regional phases under the PCT, in particular the European phase. In addition, with an ISR and a WO/ISA from the EPO, Chinese applicants wishing to accelerate the prosecution of their application can enter the European phase earlier, request early processing and have their file examined without a supplementary European search.

  3. Chinese Applicants Will Soon be Able to Select the European Patent Office as Search Authority in PCT Applications

    ISA for there PCT applications. The pilot, which starts on December, 1, 2020, will be limited to a total of 2,500 applications in the first 12 months and 3,000 applications in the second 12 months.

    [...]

    It is not clear what the uptake of this program will be among Chinese applicants. In addition to the language requirement, the EPO international search fee is currently 1,775 Euros (~$2,100 USD) versus only 2,100 RMB (~$315) for the CNIPA international search fee. Further, these fees must be paid directly to the EPO in Euros, which can be hard for Chinese applicants due to restrictions on currency transfers overseas. Also, as Chinese applicants often rely on Chinese government support for PCT applications, which is capped, Chinese applicants may not be able to afford to select the EPO as ISA. For example, Shanghai provides an extra 10,000 RMB (~$1,500 USD) subsidy for each granted PCT national phase entry patent application (versus filing via Paris Convention).

  4. China, Europe to start pilot program on international patent search

    The China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) and the European Patent Office (EPO) will launch a two-year pilot program that enables Chinese patent applicants to designate the EPO as an additional option for international searches, sources with the CNIPA said.

    The program, which will start on December 1, will be open to applicants filing with either the CNIPA or the World Intellectual Property Organization’s International Bureau as the receiving office. Chinese nationals and residents can select the EPO as their international searching authority for their applications filed in English under the Patent Cooperation Treaty.

    [...]

    During a transitional phase, applicants filing their international applications with the CNIPA as the receiving office and choosing the EPO for the international search will be required to pay the international search fee directly to the EPO in euros, read the communique.

  5. China, Europe To Start Pilot Program On International Patent Search

    The pilot program is one of the outcomes of the comprehensive strategic partnership between the two intellectual property (IP) offices and will help Chinese applicants to acquire IP protection in Europe, said Shen Changyu, head of the CNIPA.

  6. Conversant wins Germany-wide standard-essential patent injunction against Daimler in Munich: third court loss for Daimler in as many months

    PCT applicants who are nationals or residents of the People’s Republic of China and whose international search was performed by the EPO as ISA will also be able to file a request for international preliminary examination with the EPO. They should pay the corresponding fee directly to the EPO, pursuant to PCT Chapter II.

    The EPO establishes international search reports (ISRs) and written opinions (WO/ISAs) which provide an applicant with a clear evaluation of their invention’s patentability and so with a solid basis for taking timely and informed decisions as to whether or not to enter the various national/regional phases under the PCT, in particular the European phase. In addition, with an ISR and a WO/ISA from the EPO, Chinese applicants wishing to accelerate the prosecution of their application can enter the European phase earlier, request early processing and have their file examined without a supplementary European search.

  7. This week in IP: Brexit threatens designs, Ferrari wins parts battle, Nokia enforces injunction

    Nokia announced on Tuesday, October 20, that it would pay a collateral of €3.25 million ($3.84 million) to enforce its injunction against Chinese company Lenovo in Germany for infringing its video-compression technology patents.

    The Finnish telecoms company won the injunction from the Munich Regional Court on September 30 after it ruled that the defendant, a Chinese computer firm, was an unwilling licensee because its engagement in licence negotiations was insufficient.

    The injunction will stop the sales of Lenovo PCs, laptops and tablets that use Nokia’s standardised H264 decoding or encoding functionalities in Germany, but will not affect already-purchased products.

    “Legal action is never our preferred option, but Lenovo have been unwilling to enter into discussions, despite a clear judgment confirming their unauthorised use of Nokia’s patented technology,” said a Nokia spokesperson.

    “Lenovo can easily resolve this matter by accepting their responsibilities and agreeing a licence on fair terms. Our door is open for Lenovo to resolve the matter through good-faith negotiation.”

    Nokia has active cases against Lenovo in the US, Brazil and India. The company has been on a winning streak this year, having won the lawsuit it filed against Daimler in Mannheim, and the case brought against it and Avanci in the Northern District of Texas.

  8. Onxeo Receives Notice of Intent to Grant a New Patent Enhancing the Protection in Europe of AsiDNA™ Combined with PARP Inhibitors

    Onxeo S.A. (Euronext Paris, NASDAQ Copenhagen: ONXEO), hereafter “Onxeo” or “the Company”, a clinical-stage biotechnology company specializing in the development of innovative drugs targeting tumor DNA Damage response (DDR), in particular against rare or resistant cancers, today announced that it has received from the European Patent Office (EPO) a notice of intent to grant a patent which strengthens the protection in Europe of AsiDNA™, its first-in-class inhibitor of tumor DNA repair in combination with PARP inhibitors (PARPi). This patent protects in particular the method of use of AsiDNA™ in combination with PARP inhibitors in the treatment of certain cancers for which the DNA repair pathway via homologous recombination (HR) is not impaired or deficient, these HR-proficient cancers being mostly insensitive to treatment with PARP inhibitors.

  9. Amgen Cholesterol IP Suit Restarts As EPO Decision Looms
  10. Turkey

    Turkish courts and judges are not bound by decisions of foreign courts. Nevertheless, since Turkey is a party to the EPC, the decisions of the EPO may influence the Turkish courts to some extent, especially if the disputed patent is a European patent validation. Having said that, it is at the discretion of the IP court to suspend the infringement action in cases where there is a post-grant opposition proceeding before the EPO.

10.21.20

The European Commission is Still M.I.A. Regarding EPO Corruption (and the EPO’s Management Plays Dirty, as Always)

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 8:38 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Battistelli-Breton photo-op

Summary: There’s no change in the EU; the EUIPO and EPO enjoy complete and total immunity/impunity, with the Commission being manned by those who are deeply complicit

YESTERDAY morning, Anastasiia Kyrylenko over at IP Kat was boosting Microsoft’s propaganda/pressure group ACT (Association for Competitive Technology), along with all sorts of other patent maximalists, which TechDirt rightly warns about this week (Watch Out: The Patent Maximalists Are On The Warpath To Destroy Innovation And Empower Patent Trolls).

“…notice the role then played by the European Commission, which is not yet answering hard (but perfectly legitimate) questions about EPO corruption.”As usual, by the standards of today’s “Kats” (loyal to Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos, unlike the people who left the blog in recent years), there’s also EPO PR tucked in to say this:

The last week of November will be a treat for fans of geographical indications. First, the Joint EUIPO/EPO Interactive webinar, “Geographical Indications and Food Technology”, will be held on November 24 (follow here for the registration and details). On November 25 and 26, the European Commission will give an online conference, “Strengthening geographical indications”, to discuss the prospective GI reform in the EU.

“Geographical Indications” (GIs) aren’t a patent thing (it’s the EUIPO‘s ballpark), so EPO is in it for so-called “Food Technology” (funny term for sure). Is that a new name for all sorts of things looking to create and cement monopolies on foods, including GMOs (like patents on seeds, plants, fruit, animals and genetics/bodies)? But more importantly, notice the role then played by the European Commission, which is not yet answering hard (but perfectly legitimate) questions about EPO corruption.

The EPO's silent changeIs the European Commission with the likes of Mr. Breton merely an extension of this corruption now? Consider its stance on the patently unconstitutional UPC. Breton ignores constitutions and court rulings/caselaw. It has meanwhile been noticed by Benjamin Henrion, potentially poised to file another constitutional complaint (FFII is raising money this week), that the EPO plays dirty with both words and actions. It’s shown to the right, albeit only in “tweet” form (it merits more than just “tweets”).

(Re-)Making up the story as they go along? Does Team UPC control both the Commission and the EPO?

10.19.20

Ongoing (Albeit Secret) Campaign of Patent Extortion Against GNU/Linux Distributions Using Software Patents, Even Expired Ones in Europe

Posted in Europe, Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, OIN, Patents at 8:07 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

OIN is MIA, as usual (it exists to protect monopolies, not GNU/Linux)

Danish Post Letter Boxes

Summary: GNU/Linux distros attacked by software patents, even in Europe where no such patents are supposed to exist (or have any legal bearing)

JUST over a month ago Techrights became aware of a serious issue, which had been going on for months prior. The public was never made aware and the message we received was private. This article will name neither the distributions nor the aggressors, as naming either might reveal the nature of an ongoing dispute and have a negative impact on the outcome.

“Are they trying or at least hoping to make it sufficiently uncomfortable if not stressful for small (community-based) distros of GNU/Linux to the point were they shyly shut down, going offline without explaining the real reason (for fear of being sued as means of retribution, akin to NDAs)?”As a little recap, the EPO under the corrupt management of Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos has been gleefully granting software patents in Europe. Not many people are aware of the negative consequences (or truly care). Those have a highly detrimental effect on software developers and packagers across Europe. The impact is very negative when it comes to Free software and proprietary software alike. It harms European competitiveness and harms the profession (programming) globally. Who benefits? A bunch of parasites who cannot code and never coded anything.

To quote a message that we received, a patent troll “started harassing me and stating that I must license their [redacted] patents. But these are software patents and I am based in [redacted]. We are a small, open source project, so I don’t know what their game is. They’re asking for a couple of million dollars, based on fees from every download, including [redacted] downloads which we release at no charge.”

Letter from trollIt is a GNU/Linux distro used by a lot of people. A lot of people.

“My worry,” said the person on the receiving end of threats, “is that we may look like an easy target or they’re trying to set a precedent. Despite these software patents not being valid as pure software patents, I can see that they are enjoying success in German courts such as Mannheim and Düsseldorf.”

Are patent trolls and their legal representatives getting so bored and unoccupied during the pandemic that they’re started a Cold War against GNU/Linux?

On the nature of the threats received: “What worries me is that they’re emailing me, and not serving me by paper. German courts have considered this to be sufficient and they’ve already stated that I am obligated to reply and that they’ve made me a FRAND offer. But some of these patents have expired and I do not understand how this can be FRAND if they are forcing me to license expired patents. Further — I can’t see how this can be FRAND when they’re not consistently enforcing any level of compliance across other companies and open source projects. I’d not wish this on my worst enemy, but it is surprising that Canonical / Ubuntu are skirting legal issues but we (a small project) are in such a predicament.”

Or else!OIN membership has apparently not prevented this. Not at all. We’ll hopefully have an update on this some time soon. As a reminder, Canonical / Ubuntu went as far as licensing lousy codecs (software patents) from Microsoft more than a decade ago. Canonical / Ubuntu isn’t what it seems on the surface and it never really helped the battle against software patents.

Are they trying or at least hoping to make it sufficiently uncomfortable if not stressful for small (community-based) distros of GNU/Linux to the point were they shyly shut down, going offline without explaining the real reason (for fear of being sued as means of retribution, akin to NDAs)? If so, this would not be unprecedented in relation to Free software projects. We covered many examples in the distant past.

Can the leadership of the aggressor shed a light/clue regarding motivations? Is this a proxy battle in a bigger war? What’s the endgame here?

Stay tuned. We cannot say much more at this point (not safely anyway, without potentially causing harm by escalation).

10.13.20

We’ve Relegated UPC ‘Fake News’ to Our Daily Links (Because It Has Gotten Increasingly Ridiculous)

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 3:51 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Anything like the Unified Patent Court (UPC) is simply unconstitutional; but law firms and ‘news’ sites (working for these law firms) are still in denial about the simplest of facts as they continue spreading baseless optimism ahead of another Bundestag charade

EARLIER TODAY it became apparent that Team UPC isn’t as dead as the UPC itself and no amount of critical comments (e.g. blog comments) and clear intent to file further complaints would discourage misinformation.

“At the end of the day the German ministry of injustice will look very foolish and Team UPC will have to explain to gullible clients — yet again — why there have been so many misleading blog posts.”Some time later this month Bundestag chums might vote, but the short story is, as the FCC already publicly stated, the number of people voting wasn’t the sole problem. The Justices spoke about this with the German media and it has since then got even more complicated (e.g. UK de-ratifying UPC/A). Nevertheless, seeing headlines such as Germany hastens second ratification of Unified Patent Court, German draft UPC ratification bill in parliament, chance of new constitutional challenges (the comments are more accurate than this post), German Parliament refers UPC bill to committees for consideration on first reading, and Germany tries again to ratify Unified Patent Court-Agreement one might be tempted to think that this still stands a chance.

Sorry, no.

“The facts and the law are not on Team UPC’s side; they know it!”Having spoken to a bunch of people familiar with this situation, there will almost certainly be chaos if there was somehow a positive vote (an unlikelihood in its own right). At the end of the day the German ministry of injustice will look very foolish and Team UPC will have to explain to gullible clients — yet again — why there have been so many misleading blog posts. Aggressive political lobbying may be effective at the level of Bundestag, but not courts like the FCC.

So, long story short, we don’t expect anything major to happen this month (except perhaps yet another constitutional complaint, shall it be needed). The facts and the law are not on Team UPC’s side; they know it!

For the time being whenever we stumble upon misleading ‘articles’ and blog ramblings (usually Bristows LLP at its own site and anonymously at Kluwer Patent Blog) we’ll likely add them to Daily Links with a correction/comment. The UPC is too dead to spend a lot of time on. We’re almost in 2021 now. They told us UPC would start in early 2015. See below.

[Cartoon] Internal EPO Caricature About the Direction the Office Has Taken

Posted in Europe, Humour, Patents at 5:25 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The malicious EPO gossip

Summary: The “malicious gossip” at the EPO in Munich (Bavaria, Germany)

10.09.20

EPO Management is Making Patent Examiners Poorer and Shuts Out the Union

Posted in Europe, Patents at 12:18 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Orange virus, Orange Battistelli

Reform of the education allowance

Summary: Sitting on billions of euros it was never supposed to even keep (and which it is still illegally placing/betting on a risky gamble), EPO management proceeds to pillaging and plundering EPO staff some more (knowing it’s virtually impossible to gather and protest during a pandemic that is re-surging across Europe)

THE other day an EPO insider, concerned about Team Campinos acting like the bullies of Benoît Battistelli, shared very harshly-worded communication that not only talks down but also threatens staff. This isn’t how you get your staff motivated; it’s how you get people stressed, sometimes depressed, possibly contemplating suicide.

“This isn’t how you get your staff motivated; it’s how you get people stressed, sometimes depressed, possibly contemplating suicide.”“Reform of the education allowance,” we’re now told, is underway. It’s more of an ‘act of abolishment’/abolition, not “reform” (a euphemism of course, ‘fostering’ the president’s longstanding propaganda war).

“Here is a document that was published yesterday on the non-public area of the The Hague website,” a source told us. “It clearly shows that the EPO management has no interest in continuing the social dialogue with the largest union in Office.”

We’ve converted it into HTML as follows:

8 October 2020
su20014hp

Reform of the Education Allowance – SUEPO is not invited to the negotiation table

Dear SUEPO Members,
Dear colleagues,

On 03-08-2020 we sent this Open Letter1 to the President, to which he replied on 31-08-2020. We understand from this reply that the intended Education and Childcare reform envisages redistribution of allowances in a harmonized manner, office wide.

The President mentions in his letter that a working group established at the Staff Representation level is the only official forum for discussion. We do not dispute this statement. Indeed, the discussion is under the responsibility of Staff Representation, whereas the Union is responsible for negotiating with management the terms and conditions of a reform. This main difference is evidently known and we do regret that the EPO management is not willing to negotiate with SUEPO The Hague, the larger Union in the EPO, when at the same time it appears management is sitting with FFPE2, which – as the last (several) Staff Representation elections have evidently illustrated – has minimal support in The Hague. The way management addresses the two unions is not only a case of different treatment, it is a clear avoidance of the major EPO social partner, which steers away from a successful reform.

In fact, the general ideas presented in the Education and Childcare Reform publication in the intranet created a cry out in most of the places of employment. Colleagues are confused, can’t understand the why’s, “what for” and “why now”, and induced a substantial – and unnecessary – wave of stress among these colleagues. This unfortunate situation would have been avoided should SUEPO have been involved in the plans of reform. On the opposite, choosing to exclude the larger stakeholder leads the EPO to a difficult political and social situation. We do regret that EPO centralised management style has mislead – yet again – a reform which was stated as intended to be fair. But even worse, we fear that insisting in excluding SUEPO The Hague from the table will only deepen the bias towards a Munich-centralised vision.

In this sense, SUEPO The Hague is of the impression that the administration did not inform the President fully on the costs of a crèche, the need of after school care and its costs, the fact that on average the yearly school fees in The Hague are 14.200 euros whereas the European School of Munich costs 16.700 euros. What else was omitted? This is unfortunate yet entirely avoidable. Nevertheless, it’s the Presidents call to choose which sources of information he wishes to hear.

Meanwhile, the propaganda machine continues unabated3 and makes it seem as if all is pink and fluffy in social-dialogue-land. Read carefully: your staff representatives that participate in the Working Group, and the colleagues that
showed their discontent by e-mail are still waiting for a first concrete sign that indeed the Office proposal was a mere “draft initial” proposal and that site-specific conditions will be looked at. For now, the administration seems adamant to solely start discussing transitional measures – but this only makes sense once we know where we are heading. If you take the train, you want to know up-front whether you’re heading to Novosibirsk or rather Barcelona to decide what to put in your luggage…

SUEPO regrets to see that social dialogue has remained just a title and in fact still does not represent a different approach to solve arising tribulations, something SUEPO and staff are anxiously awaiting.

Your SUEPO Committee
_____
1 Open Letter on Changes to the Education Allowance
2 As evidenced by an intranet publication on 23-09-2020 – note that it is not clear who is the author / responsible of this publication?
3 Cf. intranet publication of 05-10-2020: Update on social dialogue

“The destruction of the EPO continues cheerfully,” our source noted, “all at the expense of the patent holders and ultimately the staff.”

There’s talk about EPO management dismantling the EPO and laying off many examiners in the process. Because when you don’t care about patent quality who needs examination anyway, right? Right?

« 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