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

09.14.16

East Asian Patent Activity Viewed by IAM ‘Magazine’ as ‘Proof’ of “IP’s Growing Strategic Role”

Posted in Asia, Intellectual Monopoly, Patents at 4:43 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“Anyone who says they’re good for you is a liar, or badly informed. And hiding patents behind copyright & trademarks in “intellectual property” is like sugar hiding behind fat and salt. Patents are the sugar of technology.” –Pieter Hintjens, yesterday [1, 2]

The profit motive
The patent maximalists view patents like the war industry views bombs

Summary: The latest fine example of the mentality or the mindset of people who are making money from peddling patents even when these are not needed, let alone desirable

EARLIER THIS month we wrote about the rise of patent trolls in east Asia. There are several new examples of that and regarding a case which we covered here before Dr. Glyn Moody has published “Chinese State Patent Troll Absorbed By Smartphone Maker Xiaomi, Adding To Its Patent Hoard”, citing the same report that we did (from IAM). “The absorption of Ruichuan IPR Funds by Xiaomi,” he explained, “which must have taken place with the Chinese government’s approval — is clearly part of the same strategy of bulking up in the patent department as it prepares to expand abroad. The big question is whether Xiaomi is planning to use its new portfolio purely defensively, so that it can sign cross-licensing deals, or whether it will start going on the offense and sue Western companies in their home markets too.”

As Moody noted a few months ago, China is now using Texas courts to sue large US companies, more or less like trolls, proving that the trigger-happy system in the US can actually work against the US and undermine its dominance in the area of technology.

“IAM views the deal as just a bunch of patents, but it’s the kind of misguided view which assumes patents are physical assets.”IAM has published quite a few articles recently about Japan alone [1, 2, 3, 4] and in them we see IAM’s loaded statements and headlines, insinuating that because patents are being used for corporate wars in Japan it means that patents are desirable. That’s the same logic as “there are many wars, thus we need nuclear weapons” (irrespective of their effect or death toll, not just mutually-assured destruction). Another newer article mentioned the acquisition by HP of Samsung’s printer business (or a bundle of Samsung patents if one thinks the IAM way) and added that “Samsung Electronics announced yesterday that it had reached an agreement to sell its printer business to HP for $1.05 billion. The deal, which will see Samsung shed a significant number of IP assets, marks the beginning of a new chapter for the Korean company as it seeks to slim down and refocus on core business areas.”

Samsung has a large number of patents (the largest by some criteria, as measured in particular patent offices), but the company rarely if even uses them to sue. It’s not quite in the Korean tradition (the same goes for LG). IAM views the deal as just a bunch of patents, but it’s the kind of misguided view which assumes patents are physical assets. The use of the term “IP”, moreover, is misleading.

05.01.16

[ES] Análisis de los Últimos Datos de Lex Machina Acerca de la Litigación de Patentes Muestra Como está Declinándo

Posted in Intellectual Monopoly, Patents at 3:47 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

English/Original

Article as ODF

Publicado en Intellectual Monopoly, Patentes at 4:19 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz


Lex MachinaSumario: el Professor Mark Lemley de Lex Machina resalta las tendencias en litigation al colectar y analizar datos relacionados con patente y concerniéntes a monopolios intelectuales en general; actualmente muestra una sequía de litigaciones (muestran que ha disminuído)

El reportáje Hatch-Waxman/ANDA [Abbreviated New Drug Application] de Lex Machina revela un repunte en llendao de casos,” MIP escribió el otro dia, “también como los grandes participantes y firmas de leyes en litigación de patentes ANDA” (con baja calidad de patentes, por seguro habrá mas juicios).

Encontramos interesante que MIP optó por centrarse únicamente en ANDA (un solo aspecto entre muchos) debido a que las cifras de Lex Machina no muestran un aumento en los litigios en general. ¿Sesgo de selección? Cherry-picking tal vez, como medios/método de cualquier abogado para la construcción engañosa (pero no obstante afirmaciones no falsas)? Como un sitio maximalista de patentes acaba de decirlo, “informe de litigios de propiedad intelectual muestra tendencias a la baja en la patentes” y citar al autor (que no es partidario entusiasta de las patentes de software): “La propiedad intelectual de análisis de litigio firma Lex Machina ha publicado recientemente un informe que identifica las tendencias en litigios de propiedad intelectual durante el transcurso del primer trimestre de 2016. el primer trimestre produjeron algunos acontecimientos interesantes en lo que respecta a la disminución de ciertos tipos de litigios en todo el mundo IP. De hecho, se podría argumentar que el número de casos de propiedad intelectual presentada fueron tendencia a la baja en todos los ámbitos durante el primer trimestre de 2016.

Incluso si la Oficina de Patentes continúa ignorando la realdida post Alice, las courtes ciertamente no lo hacen.”

“Informes regulares de litigios de patentes publicados por Lex Machina en los últimos meses nos han dado una idea de los patrones de los últimos años. Un post de principios de enero sobre las tendencias de litigio durante 2015 refleja los fuertes incrementos en los litigios sobre patentes y el dominio de ciertos cortes de distrito de Estados Unidos en recibir esos casos. Un informe de 2015 de litigios de patentes más grande publicado por Lex machina Marzo Abril US mostró los mejores litigantes y afirmó patentes en el curso de ese año.”
Como vamos a mostrar en consiguientes posts, las patentes de software siguen muriendo en los EE.UU., sin importar lo que los grupos de presión/cabilderos están tratando de lograr. Incluso si la Oficina de Patentes continúa ignorando la realdida post Alice, las courtes ciertamente no lo hacen. La oficina de patentes es, en general, recibiendo incentivos para conceder cada vez más patentes, mientras que los tribunales producen juicios basados en la ley.

04.30.16

Analyses of the Latest Data From Lex Machina About Patent Litigation Show Some Litigation Declines

Posted in Intellectual Monopoly, Patents at 4:19 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Lex MachinaSummary: Professor Mark Lemley’s Lex Machina highlights litigation trends by collecting and analysing data related to patents and pertaining to intellectual monopolies in general; now it shows litigation droughts

“Lex Machina’s Hatch-Waxman/ANDA [Abbreviated New Drug Application] Report reveals a spike in case filing,” MIP wrote the other day, “as well as the biggest participants and law firms in ANDA patent litigation” (with low quality of patents, more lawsuits are assured).

We find it interesting that MIP chose to focus only on ANDA (one single aspect among many) because the figures from Lex Machina don’t show a spike in litigation overall. Selection bias? Cherry-picking perhaps, as any lawyer's means/method for constructing misleading (but nonetheless not false) statements? As a patent maximalism site has just put it, “IP litigation report shows downward trends in patent” and to quote the author (not the overzealous supporter of software patents): “Intellectual property litigation analytics firm Lex Machina has recently released a report identifying trends in IP litigation which have played out over the course of the first quarter of 2016. The first quarter saw some interesting developments in regards to decreases in certain types of litigation throughout the IP world. In fact, it could be argued that the number of IP cases filed were trending downward across the board during 2016’s first quarter.

“Even if the patent office continues to ignore the reality post Alice, courts certainly do not.”“Regular patent litigation reports released by Lex Machina in recent months have given us some insight into patterns forming over the past few years. An early January post on litigation trends during 2015 reflected steep increases in patent litigation and the dominance of certain U.S. district courts in receiving those cases. A larger 2015 patent litigation report published by Lex Machina in March showed us the top litigants and asserted patents during the course of that year.”

As we are going to show in later posts, software patents continue to die in the US, no matter what the lobbyists are trying to achieve. Even if the patent office continues to ignore the reality post Alice, courts certainly do not. The patent office is in general incentivised to grant more and more patents, whereas courts produce judgments based on law.

04.27.16

[ES] Una Fársa de Sistema: ¿Cómo la SIPO, USPTO, y cada vez más la EPO se Convierten en Llenado de Patentes (No Se Requiere Propia Examinación)

Posted in America, Asia, Europe, Intellectual Monopoly, Patents at 7:53 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

English/Original

Article as ODF

Publicado en America, Asia, Europe, Intellectual Monopoly, Patents at 11:29 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Una crítica al decline en la calidad de patentes en algunas de las más grandes oficinas de patentes del mundo, donde aspiración parece ser neo-liberal en el sentido económico

El sistema de patentes – colectivamente hablando – no está funcionando como se suponía que lo fuése. En lugar de fomentar la innovación realiza la innovación hacia abajo, de la misma forma que las leyes de derechos de autor en todo el mundo en estos días otorgan un monopolio más largo que la vida de una persona, lo que significa que el incentivo para producir trabajos más creativos no es muy alta.

En lugar de fomentar la innovación realiza la innovación hacia abajo, de la misma forma que las leyes de derechos de autor en todo el mundo en estos días otorgan un monopolio más largo que la vida de una persona, lo que significa que el incentivo para producir trabajos más creativos no es muy alta.

Basado en estas noticias, las patentes de hardware son demandadas cada vez más por las empresas de Estados Unidos , debido al sistema de patentes de Estados Unidos (pero por compañías asiáticas), lo que significa que el sistema de patentes de Estados Unidos no es ni siquiera necesariamente servir los EE.UU., que sirve una clase particular de personas en los EE.UU. y en el extranjero (corporaciones y multimillonarios).

Sitios como IAM, maximalistas de patents (por admisión propia), continúan tratándo de convertir lo negativo en positivo al decir que en China “las subvenciones [están] creciendo más rápidamente que las aplicaciones” (esto se debe a que la oficina de patentes de China es cada vez como una broma, más que un sistema de archivo de un sistema de patentes con el examen de fase/barrera). Por otra parte, la USPTO también es así, sobre todo en los últimos años ya que algunas barreras para la concesión de patentes se doblaron, dispararondóse (casi el doble). Uno podría tener la impresión de que la USPTO es sólo una oficina de registro ahora? No hay control de calidad. Por marcas comerciales y patentes por igual; el afán de lucro llevado a esta (neoliberalismo). El profesor Mark Lemley acaba citado J Breyer diciendo que la USPTO “ha sido la emisión de miles de millones de patentes que no deberían haber sido emitidas – Me exagerar, pero sólo algunos.” Http://1.usa.gov/1Wmel7j

Bueno, “miles de millones de patentes” suena como un esquema de una patente por persona de algún tipo. Teniendo en cuenta que algunas patentes son lo suficientemente triviales parecen haber sido automáticamente generada por un algoritmo o de pensamiento por un estudiante de escuela primaria, esto no sería tan impensable (si las tasas de patentes eran menos prohibitivos).

La realidad del las patentes en los EE.UU. está cambiando ahora mismo.

Nicola Searle de IP Kat ha señalado correctamente notando “He tenido la intención de hacer un post hace algún tiempo acerca de por qué las patentes son una mala indicación de la innovación (lo he mencionado antes, pero en realidad no entrado en detalles.) No es un sesgo anti-patentes, es un pro-buen enfoque datos. En cuanto a estrategias de presión y de patentes …

Bueno, tal vez es tiempo que Searle haga un post sobre ello. Es la segunda vez en una semana que él dice algo a ese efecto y abogados de patentes se estresan por ello (en la sección de comentarios).

La realidad del las patentes en los EE.UU. está cambiando ahora mismo. Como este nuevo comunicado de prensa dice, “Las patentes de software en la Ley América Inventa Ley (AIA) son muy difíciles de alcanzar a través de la USPTO.” Son aún más difícil de defender en un tribunal. Para citar a todo el párrafo:

“Esta patente cubre un elemento importante en la fundación de nuestra plataforma de acoplamiento móvil y representa la singularidad de nuestra propiedad intelectual gamification”, dijo el CEO de Blue Calypso, Andrew Levi. “Las patentes de software en el post Leahy-Smith América del Inventa Ley (AIA) era son muy difíciles de alcanzar a través de la USPTO. Anticipamos la expansión de nuestra cartera de patentes para cubrir un amplio conjunto de propiedad intelectual en esta zona, así como los demás.

A ellos les importa ni la justicia ni la innovación (que son básicamente términos de marketing para ellos).

No se preocupen, sin embargo, como los abogados de patentes y sus medios están listors para el rescate’. Ellos están atacando AIA, Alice, PTAB, y todo lo que amenaze a los maximálistas de patentes y agresores. He aquí el término escuadrón de la muerte de patentesde nuevo, mostrándose en el ‘analysis’ de IAMdeCuozzo en SCOTUS. Porque si, llamar falsas, inválidas patentes, ¿“invalidote hace un ejecutor? Unescuadrón de la muerte de patentes”? Escribimos acerca desobreuso de eufémismosy términos de demonización aquí antes. Sitios como IAM son culpables como cualquiera de bias. He aquí más artículos que encontrámos anoche [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. MIP dijoqueLa Corte Suprema ha escuchado argumentos orales en Cuozzo Speed Technologies v Lee, la primera Corte Suprema de considerar una apelación de la decisión PTAB” (PTAB de por sí es una apelación, ¿así que porqué tanto más en términos de matrículas deberíán ser añadidos para mantener a los pobres inventores privados de sus derechos o quebrados?).

Basado en estos ejemplos de anoche [1, 2, 3], los abogados de patentes simplemente están tratando de vender sus servicios. A ellos les importa ni la justicia ni la innovación (que son básicamente términos de marketing para ellos.

De nuevo vemos a la CAFC envolverse, a pesar de su record de ser pro-aplicante o amigable con ellos (irrespectivamente del contexto y la ley, e.g. acerca de patentes de software).

Más negocio para los abogados ‘IP’ Se observa en este momento (incluso los colores están convirtiendo en monopolios) Debido a que más pleitos y disputas están siendo medidos en Europa. Como parte de la nueva serie de ayer sobre marcas comerciales en MIP [1, 2, 3] encontramos esta titulada “Los casos de cálculo de la EUvan hacia arriba” y que dice: “2015 fue un año de clara mejora sobre 2014 para las decisiones de diseño de la Corte de justicia y del Tribunal general de Luxemburgo. David Stone explica, sin embargo, que el progreso todavía necesita ser hecho para proporcionar seguridad a los diseñadores y profesionales “(las patentes de diseño estadounidense están bajo el escrutinio de SCOTUS, pero eso no es lo mismo que los diseños registrados). Como Patently-O lo puso ayer: “Después fue protocolizado apelación de Coleman, el Circuito Federal rechazó el” factorizar “regla de que muchos habían leído en Richardson. Como se mencionó anteriormente en este blog, Apple v. Samsung y otra vez en Ethicon v. Covidien, el tribunal insiste en que Richardson no lo hizo, de hecho, requiere la eliminación de los elementos funcionales de las reivindicaciones de patentes de diseño.

De nuevo vemos a la CAFC envolverse, a pesar de su record de ser pro-aplicante o amigable con ellos (irrespectivamente del contexto y la ley, e.g. acerca de patentes de software). La CAFC está plagada de corrupción, especialmente en los últimos años (cubrimos esto varias veces antes). No es mucho mejor que la EPO, que después de haber subvertido medios franceses para la propaganda hace un año lo está haciendo de nuevo, a pesar de los riesgos. la calidad del examen no sólo se redujo debido a las políticas de Battistelli, pero también hay conversaciones acerca de reemplazar los examinadores con máquinas (así es como van a trabajar los sistemas de archivo, capaces de detectar duplicados en el mejor).

No es mucho mejor que la EPO, que después de haber subvertido medios franceses para la propaganda hace un año lo está haciendo de nuevo, a pesar de los riesgos.

Un lector nos recuerda un viejo artículo de una víctima conocida de este sistema, y señaló: “Sus conversaciones son largas (que tiene muchos otros), sino que empiezan a explicar, de forma indirecta, lo que está pasando con la EPO y desastres similares . La conclusión es que no hay democracia en Europa, la estructura de poder está fuera de eso y los participantes reales tienen desprecio por la democracia activa.”

¿Cuándo habrá democracia en Europa si llega a haberla después de todo? Al presente unos pocos billonarios y corpóraciones del otro lado del charco deciden por todos nosotros. Hace tres días Obama mencionaba que por el mejor interés del mundo necesitamos una Europa Unida ¿pero bajo quién? ¿Bajo el dominio de las corporaciónes de su país?Se está convirtiéndo como en los EE.UU., donde los partidos son comprados’ (o vendidos a los que dan máß), elecciónes son a la venta, y la USPTO es un poco más que una herramiénta de la Sagrada Familia: IBM, Microsoft, Apple, HP y otros. ¿Y necésitamos más decir acerca del sistema Chino?

04.26.16

A Farce of a System: How SIPO, USPTO, and Increasingly the EPO Too Turn Into Filing Systems (No Proper Examination/Filtering Required)

Posted in America, Asia, Europe, Intellectual Monopoly, Patents at 11:29 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: A critique of the declining quality of patents in some of the world’s biggest patent offices, where the aspiration seems to be neo-liberal in the economic sense

THE patent system — collectively speaking — isn’t functioning like it was supposed to. Rather than encourage innovation it slows innovation down, in the same way that worldwide copyright laws these days grant a monopoly longer than a person’s lifetime, meaning that the incentive to produce more creative works isn’t quite there.

“Rather than encourage innovation it slows innovation down, in the same way that worldwide copyright laws these days grant a monopoly longer than a person’s lifetime, meaning that the incentive to produce more creative works isn’t quite there.”Based on this bit of news, hardware patents are getting US companies sued, owing to the US patent system (but by Asian companies), which means that the US patent system isn’t even necessarily serving the US, it serves a particular class of people in the US and abroad (corporations and billionaires).

Sites like IAM, maximalists of patents (by their own admission), keep trying to spin a negative as a positive by saying that in China “grants [are] growing more quickly than applications” (that’s because China’s patent office is increasingly a joke, more like a filing system than a patent system with examination phase/barrier). Then again, the USPTO is also like this, especially in recent years as some barriers to patenting got removed and patent numbers soared (nearly doubled). Might one get the impression that the USPTO is just a filing office now? No quality control. For trademarks and patents alike; the profit motive led to this (neo-liberalism). Professor Mark Lemley has just quoted J Breyer as saying that the USPTO “has been issuing billions of patents that shouldn’t have been issued — I overstate, but only some.” http://1.usa.gov/1Wmel7j

Well, “billions of patents” sounds like a one-patent-per-person scheme of some kind. Given that some patents are trivial enough to have been automatically-generated by an algorithm or thought of by a primary schools student, this would not be so unthinkable (if the patent fees were less prohibitive).

“The reality of patents in the US is changing right now.”IP Kat‘s Nicola Searle has just correctly noted that “I’ve been meaning to do a post for some time on why patents are a poor indication of innovation (I’ve mentioned it before but not really gone into detail.) It’s not an anti-patent bias, it’s a pro-good data approach. As for lobbying and patent strategies…”

Well, maybe it’s time for Searle to do a post about it. It’s the second time in about a week that she says something to that effect and patent lawyers get all worked up about it (in the comments section).

The reality of patents in the US is changing right now. It’s long overdue. As this new press release puts it, “Software patents in the post Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) era are very difficult to attain from the USPTO.” They’re even more difficult to defend in a courtroom. To quote the whole paragraph:

“This patent covers an important element in the foundation of our mobile engagement platform and embodies the uniqueness of our gamification intellectual property,” said Blue Calypso CEO, Andrew Levi. “Software patents in the post Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) era are very difficult to attain from the USPTO. We anticipate expanding our patent portfolio to cover a broad set of intellectual property in this area as well as others.

“They care neither about justice nor innovation (which are basically marketing terms to them).”Worry not, however, as patent lawyers and their media are in there for ‘the rescue’. They’re attacking AIA, Alice, PTAB, and whatever else threatens the patent maximalists and aggressors. Here is the term “patent death squad” again, showing up in IAM’s ‘analysis’ of Cuozzo at SCOTUS. Because yes, calling bogus, invalid patents “invalid” makes you an executioner? A “patent death squad”? We wrote about the overuse of euphemisms and demonisation terms here before. Sites like IAM are as guilty as anyone of bias. Here are ten more articles we found on the subject last night [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. MIP said that “The Supreme Court has heard oral arguments in Cuozzo Speed Technologies v Lee, the first Supreme Court case to consider an appeal of a PTAB decision” (PTAB is itself already a kind of appeal, so how much more in terms of fees should be added to keep the poor inventors disenfranchised or broke?).

As one might expect, based on these examples from last night [1, 2, 3], patent lawyers are just trying to sell their services. They care neither about justice nor innovation (which are basically marketing terms to them).

“Once again we see CAFC getting involved, despite its track record of being applicant- or plaintiff-friendly (irrespective of the context and the law, e.g. on software patents). “More business for ‘IP’ lawyers is noted right now (even colours are becoming monopolies!) because more lawsuits and feuds are being measured in Europe. As part of yesterday’s new series about trademarks at MIP [1, 2, 3] we found this one titled “EU design cases looking up” and it says: “2015 was a year of definite improvement over 2014 for design decisions from the Court of Justice and the General Court in Luxembourg. David Stone explains, however, that progress still needs to be made to provide certainty for designers and practitioners” (in the US design patent are under SCOTUS scrutiny, but that’s not the same as registered designs). As Patently-O put it yesterday: “After Coleman’s appeal was docketed, the Federal Circuit disavowed the “factoring out” rule that many had read in Richardson. As discussed previously on this blog, in Apple v. Samsung and again in Ethicon v. Covidien, the court insisted that Richardson did not, in fact, require the elimination of functional elements from design patent claims.”

Once again we see CAFC getting involved, despite its track record of being applicant- or plaintiff-friendly (irrespective of the context and the law, e.g. on software patents). CAFC is rife with corruption, especially in recent years (we covered this several times before). It’s not much better than the EPO, which having subverted French media for propaganda a year ago is doing so again, in spite of the risks. Examination quality not only declined because of Battistelli's policies but there are also talks about replacing examiners with machines (that’s how filing systems are likely to work, capable of duplicates detection at best).

“It’s not much better than the EPO, which having subverted French media for propaganda a year ago is doing so again, in spite of the risks.”A reader has just reminded of us an old article from a well-known victim of this system, noting: “His talks are long (he has many others) but they start to explain, indirectly, what is going on with the EPO and similar disasters. The bottom line is that there is no democracy in Europe, the power structure is outside that and the real participants have active contempt for democracy.”

When will there be democracy in Europe if ever at all? Right now few billionaires and non-EU corporations decide for all of us. It is becoming a lot like the US, where political parties are being ‘bought’ (or sold to the highest bidder/s), elections are up for sale, and the USPTO is little more than a corporate tool for very large corporations like IBM and Microsoft. As for China’s system, need we say more?

04.03.16

EUIPO y sus Sospechosa Relación con la EPO

Posted in Europe, Intellectual Monopoly, Patents at 12:41 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

English/Original

Publicado en Europe, Intellectual Monopoly, Patents at 7:40 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Demasiádo sigilo para una supuesta sociedad demócratica

Men's shade

Sumario: Un montón de actividad bajo el telón (conferencias de acceso limitado, contratos secretos, arreglos sigilósos), se diluyen en cuánto se trata de la EUIPO (formerly OHIM), EPO, and WIPO)

Desde hace bastánte tiempo hemos estado escuchando acerca de la relación entre la EPO y la EUIPO, el cual es un nuevo nombre para una existente entidad. Siempre es importante asegurarse que tales entidades Europeas se adhieran y obedescan intereses Europeos, o poniéndolo claramente, los intereses de las personas ordinarias de todo el mundo en vez de simplemente los intereses de corpóraciones masivas (usualmente extranjeras). Recuerden la época en que patentes MONOPOLIZABAN los tratamientos contra el cancer en Europa, actitud criminal que afectaba a los pacientes de cancer. Como resulta basado en nuevos reportajes (e.g. [1, 2]), GSK considera no mantener un monopolio (usando patentes) en ciertos tratamientos contra el cancer, al menos en naciones pobres. Esta es la clase de noticias que la gente quiere escuchar.

“Siempre es importante asegurarse que tales entidades Europeas se adhieran y obedescan intereses Europeos, o poniéndolo claramente, los intereses de las personas ordinarias de todo el mundo en vez de simplemente los intereses de corpóraciones masivas (usualmente extranjeras).”IP Kat, que reciéntemente celebro su 10,000 blog post, toma una mirada a este nuevo libro acerca de leyes para diseño y patentes en Europe — un interésante coctel o mescla (para reusar las palabras de Battistelli). Ne es siempre claro si robo de diseños puedan ser prevenidos usando marcas, derechos de autor, patentes o alguna rara combinación de ellas). Eso es donde la EUIPO tiene su lugar. Respondiéndo a este nuevo artículo acerca de Fordham 2016 (un evento que críticamente mencionanos en Inglés anoche y Español esta mañana), una persona escribió: “El más importante resultado de tal reunión es el consenco en como debe ser pronunciado EUIPO” (como si el nombre fue lo que importa y no lo que es decidido en una cerrada camara de eco en Nueva York, incluso no en Europa -una señal más de lo que nos quieren imponer (UPC) desde el otro lado del charco. Despierta Europa!-)

Par citar a IP Kat:

Dimitris Botis (Director Adjunto de Asuntos Jurídicos en el recién nombrado EQUIPO) fue el siguiente Para discutir el futuro del sistema de marcas de la EU, en particular el comercio reciente marca paquete de reforma consiste en la Directiva 2015/2436 y el Reglamento 2015/2424. El mayor cambio en el Derecho de marcas de fondo es la supresión del requisito de representación gráfica que significa que será más fácil para registrar las marcas no tradicionales. El impacto exacto de este cambio en la práctica de presentación y tipos de marcas que pueden ser aceptados no se verá hasta que las normas de aplicación son emitidos el 1 de octubre de 2017. El cambio más grande es la segunda a la prohibición funcionalidad a “otras características”. En la actualidad existe también un requisito expreso para mayor claridad y precisión en la especificación de los bienes y servicios que se especifican para la marca. Se basará en el “sentido natural y habitual” de términos (es decir .interpreted literalmente). La nueva estructura de tarifas y niveles, un nuevo sistema de “pago-por-clase” es también un gran cambio. Ha habido una reducción moderada de la tasa de solicitud y la reducción sustancial de las tasas de renovación. Dimitris también señaló que también hay nueva marca de certificación de la EU que puede ser registrado para garantizar la certificación de la calidad, el material, el modo de fabricación, etc, pero no se puede utilizar en relación con el origen geográfico. A nivel institucional, no habrá cambios en la terminología – hola euipo! Pero no sólo sus cambios en la terminología, hay un cambio en la estructura de administración. Los cambios van a tomar en un sabor más política (la Comisión de la EU tiene dos asientos ahora). El nuevo Reglamento también requiere una mayor cooperación entre los Estados miembros. Trevor Cook, de Wilmer Hale dijo que el cambio es realmente sólo de carácter técnico y no generan un gran impacto en el Derecho de marcas de fondo. Dimitris acuerdo, pero los cambios técnicos asegurará un funcionamiento más eficiente

He aqui lo que Michael Loney escribió por MIP en Nueva York:

Dos primeros para Fordham: debut de Dimitris Botis y la primera charla de alguien de EUIPO (OHIM fué cambiada de nombre el 23 de marzo). Él resume los cambios en el paquete de marcas de la EU, en las que hubo una sesión en la mañana y otra en la tarde

Se dice que los cambios fueron “enmiendas dirigidas” para mejorar la previsibilidad y la accesibilidad, y la más importante es la supresión del requisito de representación gráfica (a partir de octubre 1 2017).

El siguiente es Antony Taubman de la WTO, que describe su estancamiento como “muy arraigado” sin trabajo en el proyecto GI durante cinco años (por ejemplo). Es aquí en Nueva York para cosecha “ideas”, añade.

Interesante notar, como se ve arriba, que OHIM fue oficialmente cambiada renombrada del 23 de Marzo y esto fue hecho sin publicidad. Juzgando por el nombre simplemente, la IPO podría convertirse algúnd dia en una organización paraguas para la Oficina/Organización de Patentes, asumiéndo que “IP” es realmente lo que es (simplemente un término paraguas para derechos de autor, marcas, patentes, y talvez también secretos de comercio).

“Interesante notar, como se ve arriba, que OHIM fue oficialmente cambiada renombrada del 23 de Marzo y esto fue hecho sin publicidad.”Algunas personas dentro de la EPO comparan a Pinocho Battistelli con Gurry (ahora muy conocido por los escándalos de la WIPO) y Campinos, quien es rumoreado ser a remplazo de Battistelli y al presente lidera la OHIM, alias EUIPO.

Como una persoa escogió ponerlo, “WIPO, OHIM, EPO: ¿tres de una misma clase?”

OHIM es probablemente el nombre antiguo ahora, pero aquí es donde la analogía va:

El 24 de febrero, una audiencia del Congreso de Estados Unidos se llevó a cabo en la rendición de cuentas de la WIPO. El Jefe de la WIPO, Francis Gurry, está acusado de faltas graves y las represalias contra los denunciantes, entre los cuales es el presidente del Sindicato del Personal de la WIPO, que fue despedido sumariamente de un año y medio atrás 1. El jefe de la tercera internacional oficina de objetos, el Sr. Campinos, ha logrado hasta el momento para permanecer fuera de la vista del público. Esto puede, sin embargo, ser sólo cuestión de tiempo. Oímos de personal en la Oficina de que él tiene un estilo de gestión y la falta de respeto al estado de derecho que son muy similares a las del Sr. Battistelli. Las tres oficinas de PI internacionales tienen estructuras muy diferentes: la OEP es totalmente independiente, la WIPO es un organismo de la ONU y la OAMI es una agencia de la UE. Ellos, sin embargo, parecen sufrir los mismos problemas. ¿Cómo? Tal vez porque las causas subyacentes son los mismos: un órgano rector que es casi totalmente dependiente de la cabeza de la oficina para su información, un montón de dinero y la falta de transparencia que permite a la cabeza de la organización que utilice ese dinero para aumentar su personal influencia, todo rematado con la inmunidad. Desde las mismas causas tienden a provocar el mismo efecto, la eliminación de los directivos responsables no resolvería los problemas. Lo que se necesita es una reforma de la gobernanza de estas organizaciones, empezando por una mayor transparencia y rendición de cuentas – que el órgano de gobierno y al público.

Propria “transparencia y acountabilidad” — como lo de arriba lo pone — podría por lo menos informar al público de lo que esta sucediéndo en la OHIM. Hay muchísimo sigilo. En la EPO, por ejemplo, contratos de la alta gerencia son altamente guardados, tanto como secretos son los contratos compañíás como Microsoft y Gemalto. Estos no son organismos públicos. Ellos actúan como organismos privados [1, 2] which enjoy immunity from the law.

Expandiéndonos en la Oficina de IP de la Unión Europea (EUIPO), lo que la hace sonar como parte de la EU (a diferencia de la EPO, el cual la EPC trajo a existencia):

Justo después que Sr Battistelli asumió su cargo, empleados y el público fueron informados que acuerdos bilaterales habían sido firmado entre la EPO y la WIPO, y entre la EPO y la OHIM. Parece que el contexto de esos acuerdos nunca fué hecho público. Vistasos de ello pueden ser encontrado en otros documentos, e.g. CA/24/14 (puntos 51-57), por ejemplo, explica que la EPO continuará participando como observador en los cuerpos de la OHIM y sus grupos de trabajo. Por lo que hasta ahora sabemos, OHIM también tiene observadores en el Consejo Administrativo de la EPO.

En una basis más permanete, Sr Telmo Vilela, antiguo compañero de trabajo del Sr Campinos en la Oficina Portuguesa de Patentes, fue contratado por la EPO en DG5 pero fue transferido a la oficina del Presidente ni bien se presentó la oportunidad. Más aún de acuerdo al CA/24/14 (punto 57) cooperación IT entre la EPO y la OHIM está prevista con el objetivo de “allanar el camino para la implementación proyectos y actividades en armonización y interoperabilidad”. El Sr Campinos es tambié el candidato favorito del Sr Battistelli para su succeción como Presidente de la EPO. Un poquito más de información: OHIM cambiará su nombre al de European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) más tarde este mes.

Vale la pena notar que Pinocho Battistelli intentó ser la cabeza de la WIPO antes que se vuelva el emperador de la EPO. Hay un sentido de sobrecubimiento aquí, alguno implicando a Željko Topić, VP4 en la EPO. Un tópico qiue la SIPO tiene en común con la EPO y la WIPO son suicidios de emplealos (usualmente voces disidentes).

Queda tanto secreto en torno a estas instituciones (y abusos extremos contra los críticos o las personas que se ‘atreven’ explorar la verdad) que uno tiene que cavar más profundo y más profundo. Ciertamente hay una gran cantidad de material de estas personas están ansiosos por ocultar (porque ya lo están ocultando, incluso cuando hay una profundización de la crisis).

04.02.16

EUIPO and the Shady Relation to the EPO

Posted in Europe, Intellectual Monopoly, Patents at 7:40 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Too much secrecy for a supposedly democratic society

Men's shade

Summary: A lot of back room activity (limited access conferences, secret contracts, shady deals) muddies the water when it comes to EUIPO (formerly OHIM), EPO, and WIPO

FOR quite some time now we have been hearing about the EPO‘s relation to EUIPO, which is more or less a new name for an existing entity. It is always important to ensure that such European entities adhere to and comply with European interests, or more generally the interests of ordinary people all around the world rather than massive corporations (usually foreign). Recall the time patents were used to monopolise cancer treatments in Europe, harming cancer patients. As it turns out, based on new reports (e.g. [1, 2]), GSK considers not keeping a monopoly (using patents) on certain cancer treatments, at least in poorer nations. This is the kind of news people want to hear.

“It is always important to ensure that such European entities adhere to and comply with European interests, or more generally the interests of ordinary people all around the world rather than massive corporations (usually foreign).”IP Kat, which recently celebrated its 10,000th blog post, takes a look at this new book about law design and patents in Europe — an interesting and dangerous cocktail or mix (to reuse Battistelli’s words). It’s not always clear whether design ripoffs can be prevented using trademarks, copyrights, patents, or some weird combination thereof. That’s where EUIPO comes into play. Responding to this new article about Fordham 2016 (an event we mentioned critically in English last night and in Spanish this morning), one person wrote: “The most important outcome of such a get-together is what is the consensus on how we should be pronouncing EUIPO” (as if the name is what matters and as if it’s to be determined in some closed echo chamber in New York, not even in Europe).

To quote IP Kat:

Dimitris Botis (Deputy Director of Legal Affairs at the newly named EUIPO) was next to discus the future of the EU trade mark system in particular the recent trade marks reform package consisting of Directive 2015/2436 and Regulation 2015/2424. The biggest change in substantive trade mark law is the deletion of the graphic representation requirement which means that it will be easier to register non-traditional marks. The exact impact of this change on filing practice and types of marks that can be accepted will not be seen until the implementing rules are issued on 1 October 2017. The second biggest change is to the functionality prohibition to “other characteristics”. There is now also an express requirement for clarity and precision in specifying the goods and services that are specified for the mark. It will be based on the “natural and usual meaning” of terms (i.e .interpreted literally). The new fee structure and levels with a new “one-fee-per-class” system is also a big change. There has been a moderate reduction of the application fee and substantial reduction of renewal fees. Dimitris also pointed out that there is also new EU Certification mark which can be registered to ensure the certification of the quality, material, mode of manufacture etc, but cannot be used in relation to geographical origin. Institutionally, there will be changes in terminology – hello EUIPO! But its not just changes in terminology, there is a change in management structure. The changes will be taking on a more political taste (the EU Commission has two seats now). The new Regulation also requires more cooperation between the Member States. Trevor Cook from Wilmer Hale said the change are really only technical in nature and do not generate a huge impact on substantive trade mark law. Dimitris agreed but the technical changes will ensure more efficient operation.

Here is what Michael Loney wrote for MIP in New York:

Two firsts for Fordham: Dimitris Botis’s debut and the first talk by someone from EUIPO (as OHIM was renamed on March 23). He summarises the changes in the EU trade mark package, on which there is a detailed session tomorrow afternoon.

He says the changes were “targeted amendments” to improve predictability and accessibility, and the most important is the abolition of the graphic representation requirement (effective October 1 2017).

Next up is Antony Taubman of WTO, who describes his logjam as “well-entrenched” with no work on the GI project for five years (for example). He’s here in New York to “harvest ideas” he adds.

Interesting to know, as noted above, that OHIM was officially renamed on March 23rd as it was barely advertised. Judging by the name alone, the IPO might one day become an umbrella organisation for the Patent Office/Organisation, assuming that “IP” is really what it is (just an umbrella term for copyrights, trademarks, patents, and maybe also trade secrets).

“Interesting to know, as noted above, that OHIM was officially renamed on March 23rd as it was barely advertised.”Some people inside the EPO are comparing Battistelli to Gurry (now best known for the WIPO scandals) and Campinos, who is rumoured to be a replacement for Battistelli and currently heads OHIM, aka EUIPO.

As one person chose to put it, “WIPO, OHIM, EPO: three of a kind?”

OHIM is probably an old name now, but here’s how the analogy goes:

On 24 February, a US congressional hearing took place on the accountability of WIPO. The Head of WIPO, Francis Gurry, stands accused of serious misconduct and of retaliation against
whistle-blowers, among whom is the chairman of the WIPO’s Staff Union, who was summarily dismissed a year and a half ago 1. The head of the third international property office, Mr Campinos, has thus far managed to stay out of the public eye. This may, however, be only a matter of time. We hear from staff at OHIM that he has a management style and disrespect for the rule of law that are very similar to those of Mr Battistelli. The three international IP offices have very different structures: the EPO is fully independent, WIPO is a UN agency and OHIM is an EU agency. They nevertheless seem to suffer from the same problems. How come? Maybe because the underlying causes are the same: a governing body that is almost entirely dependent on the head of the office for its information, lots of money and a lack of transparency that enables the head of the organisation to use that money to increase his personal influence, the whole topped up with immunity. Since the same causes tend to lead to the same effect, removing the responsible managers would not solve the problems. What is needed is a reform of the governance of these organisations, starting with more transparency and accountability – to the governing body and to the public.

Proper “transparency and accountability” — as the above put it — would at least inform the public about what the heck is going on at OHIM. There’s just way too much secrecy. In the EPO, for example, contracts of top management are a closely-guarded secret, as are contracts with private companies such as Microsoft and Gemalto. These aren’t public bodies. They act like private bodies [1, 2] which enjoy immunity from the law.

Expanding on the European Union IP Office (EUIPO), which makes it sound like part of the EU (unlike the EPO, which the EPC brought into existence):

Soon after Mr Battistelli took over, staff and the public were informed that bilateral agreements had been signed between the EPO and WIPO, and between the EPO and OHIM. It seems that the content of these agreements has never been made public. Glimpses can be found in other documents, e.g. CA/24/14 (points 51-57), for example, explains that the EPO will continue to
participate as an observer in OHIM bodies and working group meetings. As far as we know, OHIM also has an observer in the meetings of the Administrative Council of the EPO.

On a more permanent basis, Mr Telmo Vilela, a former co-worker of Mr Campinos in the Portuguese patent office, was hired by the EPO in DG5 but was transferred to the President’s office as soon as the opportunity arose. Furthermore according to CA/24/14 (point 57) IT co-operation between the EPO and OHIM is foreseen with the aim of “paving the way for the implementation of projects and activities based on harmonization and interoperability”. Mr Campinos is also Mr Battistelli’s favorite candidate for his succession as President of the EPO. A final bit of information: OHIM will change its name to European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) later this month.

It is worth noting that Battistelli had attempted to be head of WIPO before he became ruler of EPO. There is certainly a great degree of overlap here, some potentially implicating Željko Topić, VP4 at EPO. One thing that Topić’s SIPO has in common with the EPO and WIPO is staff suicides (usually dissenting voices).

There remains so much secrecy around these institutions (and extreme abuse against critics or people who ‘dare’ to explore the truth) that one must dig deeper and deeper. There’s certainly a lot of material these people are eager to hide (because they’re already hiding it, even when there's a deepening crisis).

10.16.15

EPO is Trademark-Bullying Its Critics, Trying Repeatedly to Remove Bad Publicity With Help From Menacing Legal Threats (SLAPP)

Posted in Europe, Intellectual Monopoly, Patents at 8:49 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

One of many ugly stories that the EPO would never want the public to see

Unitary patent

Summary: The European Patent Office (EPO) likes not only to silence but also to bully (repeatedly threatening) its critics, as a new revelation about an old story serves to demonstrate

THE EPO wants to be publicly viewed as a professional European establishment that fosters innovation and creativity. It wants to attract businesses (it now refers to applicants as customers or clients, some of which it likes more than others). In reality, the EPO is a malicious organisation where Chinese standards for human rights and free speech hold true (and are actively enforced quite aggressively). The EPO is very fearful that the European public will find out the truth and then spread the truth. In other to hide the truth it is even eager to attack, intimidate, and impose mental stress on educated/informed members of the public. This makes the EPO an inherently nasty organisation residing at the very heart of Europe with total impunity; it’s on par with the Mafia, at least in some senses, and politicians are too afraid to intervene. Law enforcement is hardly even interested. The EPO is ruled by an elite and guarded by mega-corporations whom this elite obediently serves. This is institutional corruption.

“The EPO is ruled by an elite and guarded by mega-corporations whom this elite obediently serves. This is institutional corruption.”Gérald Sédrati-Dinet contacted Techrights in order to notify us of the abuse which he had suffered from the EPO. He kept rather quite about it until now. They were SLAPPing, or at least threatening to SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) him. The EPO even cataloged it, much like the notorious Investigative Unit (I.U.) at the EPO does. They gave this a case reference, “LogNo 2011/0338″. It makes one wonder just how many people they bullied in 2011. If this is case number 338 in June of 2011 alone, does that mean that they bully around 700 Web sites or so every year? And if so, has it gotten any worse since? That was just shortly after Battistelli, who comes from the “Right to be Forgotten” country (censorship to guard bad people’s reputation), had joined the EPO and gradually decimated oversight, ousting anything which he perceived as a threat to his absolute tyranny.

There seems to be a lot of bullying going on behind the scenes. A lot of people are severely harmed by this, so lower-level employees of the EPO must learn about this and spread the messenger internally. Also see the reference number in the I.U. case against Elizabeth Hardon. It makes one wonder if, under explicit gag orders, they are actually ‘disciplining’ (bullying) about a thousand people per year. It is a full-time job for an entire team. They need to justify their salary by creating ‘demand’, i.e. finding who to bully next (we have learned that they nitpick on very petty things in the workplace). It’s a reign of terror. The only such stories I’ve ever heard of are from my wife (when she worked in Taiwan). We call for the attention of European politicians. This cannot go on like this. The EPO led by Battistelli has already led to a tenfold increase in the number of suicides, according to one recent estimate.

“Unauthorised Use of EPO Logo on the website www.unitary-patent.eu,” is what they claimed. Yes, you heard that right. Using a small (even tiny) logo of the EPO somewhere in a Web site critical of the EPO (and the Unitary Patents which the EPO loves to lobby for so much) leads to bullying. Look at the image above or access the site directly. It’s not even the logo per se (sheared or tapered with a flag superimposed). This isn’t about trademarks but about silencing people who live in Europe and exercise their democratic rights.

“Anything (or anyone) which speaks against the managers is automatically treated like treason, irrespective of the merit of claims.”We strongly urge all readers to learn what happened, examine the evidence, and study the case below. There may be many more like it (hundreds or maybe thousands, but we just don’t know about them because it all happens behind closed doors). That’s how immoral and thuggish the EPO can get so easily. The EPO has already blocked Techrights, so this effort to suppress other Web sites hardly surprises us. These people (the ones running the EPO) act like Chinese ministers, or maybe like Russian ministers. Freedom of speech is not tolerated there. Anything (or anyone) which speaks against the managers is automatically treated like treason, irrespective of the merit of claims. This will be the subject of the next few articles about the EPO and its pertinent units. These are thugs, hired by other thugs. It creates a toxic environment in which good behaviour leads to punishment and/or dismissal while sociopaths get hired and gradually promoted. It is a form of entryism, the hallmark of organised crime within an institution. Recall last year’s explosive story from the large British newspaper, The Independent (“Total corruption: Organised crime infiltrated and compromised UK courts, police, HMRC, Crown Prosecution Service, prisons, and juries”).

“While you are focusing on EPO,” wrote to us Gérald Sédrati-Dinet, an activist against software patents in Europe (which means he is also against the Unitary Patent, as it’s a Trojan horse for software patents), “maybe you’ll be interested by this exchange of emails dating from 2011 when I’ve build the website www.unitary-patent.eu.”

“The first mail is sent by EPO (Sergio De Gregori and Caroline Godeau-Jobmann),” he wrote, “to my hidden contact address provided by Gandi, asking me to stop using EPO Logo on this website. Then, in the second mail, my lawyer, Olivier Hugo, kindly replied to EPO that I will not defer to EPO’s request. The EPO insisted in a third mail. And my lawyer refused once again in a fourth email. Then no news and my website has never changed its banner.”

Gérald Sédrati-Dinet must have suffered pain, including financial injury (having to pay this lawyer for the time), so this kind of bullying from the EPO, which clearly had too little or no merit (as they withdrew), must not be tolerated.

This doesn’t entirely shock us given the EPO’s known (and well-documented) record of censorship and threats, not just against EPO staff but also against external entities. Gérald Sédrati-Dinet asked, “don’t you find interesting to see the pressure put by EPO on any criticism?”

“You can use these emails as you want,” he added, providing the originals as follows:

 

-------- Mail 1 --------

*De :*cgodeau@epo.org mailto:cgodeau@epo.org [mailto:cgodeau@epo.org] *
Envoyé :* mercredi 8 juin 2011 14:37*
À :* xxxxx*
Objet :* Use of EPO Logo on your website Unitary Patent

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

It has been brought to our attention that Unitary Patent is using the
EPO logo on its website http://www.unitary-patent.eu. A copy of the respective web page is
attached.

As you are no doubt aware, the EPO logo, as an emblem of an
intergovernmental organisation, is protected under Article 6ter of the
Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property against,
inter alia, unauthorised use by third parties. The EPO uses its logo for
its official activities and has a strong interest in ensuring that it
does not lose its value as an identifying symbol.

We therefore ask you to refrain from using the EPO logo and to *confirm
in writing by 23 June 2011* that you have done so.

If you fail to comply with this request, we will unfortunately be
obliged to pass this matter on to our solicitors in order to take the
necessary legal steps against you.


Yours sincerely,

Sergio De Gregori


Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Sincères salutations

Caroline Godeau-Jobmann
Legal Administration Officer Contract matters & general legal issues |
Dir. 5.3.1.2
European Patent Office
Landsberger Str. 187 | 80687 Munich | Germany
Tel. +49 (0)89 2399 5317_
_cgodeau@epo.org mailto:cgodeau@epo.org_
_http://www.epo.org http://www.epo.org/



The language used therein is not yet highly threatening, but wait until they threaten not only with legal action but also with heavy legal costs, despite the law not being on their side. At this stage, Gérald Sédrati-Dinet already reached out to a lawyer (we assume at significant expense to him). Here is the lawyer replying:

 


-------- Mail 2 --------

From: Olivier Hugot 
To: "cgodeau@epo.org mailto:cgodeau@epo.org" cgodeau@epo.org
mailto:cgodeau@epo.org
Cc: "xxxxx"

Date: 09-06-2011 20:10
Subject: RE: Use of EPO Logo on your website Unitary Patent

Dear Mr. De Gregori,

I am the attorney of Mr. Sedrati Dinet who operates the website

http://www.unitary-patent.eu.

I am, to say the least, extremely doubtful regarding the legal basis of
your request.

As you are no doubt aware, Mr. Sedrati Dinet’s fundamental rights, which
includes the right of Free Expression, at the heart of which you will
find political speech, are protected by various national, European and
international constitutions or conventions (for instance article 10 of
the European Convention on Human Rights).

As such, I am afraid my client will not defer to your request.

Of course, I am available to further discuss this matter with your
solicitor should you deem it necessary.

Best regards, Olivier Hugot


*HUGOTAVOCATS*
4, place André Malraux
75001 Paris
Tél. : + 33.(0)1.44.94.83.83
Fax : + 33.(0)1.44.94.83.84
www.hugot.fr http://www.hugot.fr/



Well, if Sergio De Gregori and Caroline Godeau-Jobmann already receive a salary and enjoy immunity from the law, then why not keep themselves occupied by acting like a bunch of spoiled brats and threatening a young man who has a point of view and a concern about the likes ofthe EPO? Watch what happens next:

 

-------- Mail 3 --------

*De :*sdegregori@epo.org [mailto:sdegregori@epo.org]
*Envoyé :* vendredi 17 juin 2011 09:25
*À :* Olivier Hugot
*Cc :* Frank Hafner; Anna Juda; Sophie Gayout; Claire Lucas; Caroline
Godeau-Jobmann
*Objet :* LogNo 2011/0338 -- Unauthorised Use of EPO Logo on the website
www.unitary-patent.eu

Dear Mr. Hugot,

I tried to call you for the last few days but could not reach you, this
is why I now send you this e-mail.

Maybe you misunderstood our e-mail or there was some kind of clerical
mistake, but our request was to *refrain from the unauthorised use of
the EPO's logo*, which is -- I am sure, as a lawyer, you are aware --
protected by the Paris Convention against inter alia unauthorised use by
third parties.

We do not understand how our request could interfere with your client's
fundamental rights, which the EPO, as an international organisation, of
course respects.

Kindly explain, or have your client refrain from using the EPO's logo.
As already stated, if your client fails to comply with this request, we
will unfortunately be obliged to pass this matter on to our solicitors
in order to take the necessary legal steps against him at his expense.

Kind regards

Sergio De Gregori
Lawyer
Dept. 5.3.1.2 -- General Law and Contract Law
European Patent Office
Landsberger Str. 187 | 80687 Munich | Germany
Tel. +49 89 2399 5025
sdegregori@epo.org mailto:sdegregori@epo.org

http://www.epo.org

Yes, they threaten with legal action. This is clearly a threat. To quote: “if your client fails to comply with this request, we will unfortunately be obliged to pass this matter on to our solicitors in order to take the necessary legal steps against him at his expense.”

Classic SLAPP threats. In the US it would be against the law to do so (in many states).

Here is the followup:

 


-------- Mail 4 --------

*De :*Olivier Hugot
*Envoyé :* vendredi 24 juin 2011 13:58
*À :* 'Logbook'
*Cc :* Frank Hafner; Anna Juda; Sophie Gayout; Claire Lucas; Caroline
Godeau-Jobmann
*Objet :* RE: LogNo 2011/0338 -- Unauthorised Use of EPO Logo on the
website www.unitary-patent.eu

Dear M. De Gregori,

My client operates a website expressing a political opinion with a tag
line “For a Democratic Innovation Policy in Europe”.

One of his means of expression is the use of the EPO logo with the EU
flag piercing it, illustrating his political opinions. The use of the
logo and the text of the website are, thus, protected expression.

You may well disagree with the statements and opinion thereby expressed,
but my client is entitled to express them as an exercise of his
fundamental rights.

Interestingly enough, your reaction to the use of your logo demonstrates
the policy criticized by my client.

We had similar cases in France, with large international companies,
trying to use trademark protection to infringe upon free speech, yet the
supreme court protected such expression.

For those reasons, my client will not defer to your demands as he
considers his actions to be well within the boundaries of the law.

With kind regards,

Olivier Hugot


We like this sentence, which demonstrates how disgusting lawyers find the EPO’s attitude. “Interestingly enough,” he wrote. “your reaction to the use of your logo demonstrates the policy criticized by my client.”

It’s only then, after making repeated threats (the chilling effect) that the bullies went away without a word. It’s really looking and it easily seems like the abuser here is the EPO, which does what some might call (or coin) trademark-trolling. This blogger is no longer blogging and we can’t help but feel like this bitter experience could only have contributed to this. It’s a chilling thing to go though.

“Even the media is now being bribed by the EPO, in exchange for corrupt coverage.”Do not ever be fooled by the EPO’s misleading branding and public image charade, such as paid-for, self-glamourising events that put in a positive light (for a payment) the President and his repressive regime. Even the media is now being bribed by the EPO, in exchange for corrupt coverage. The EPO euphemistically calls this “media partners”.

These attacks on free speech will carry on not just inside the EPO but also outside the EPO. The EPO’s management is engaging in a war on the non-consenting European public, so it’s basically a regime of occupation. EPOnia, which views itself as exempt from European laws, is exploiting and even misusing European laws (as seen above) in a coordinated effort to muzzle voices it does not like.

We invite people who have had similar experiences to come forth to us. We need to shed light on this misbehaviour in order to suppress repetition thereof and also to make politicians better aware of what really happens inside the EPO, usually behind closed doors (or under DNA/gag orders).

“The European Patent Office is a Corrupt, Malicious Organisation Which Should Not Exist”

Richard Stallman, founder of GNU and the Free Software Foundation

« 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