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

01.27.20

EPO: Goodbye to the Rule of Law and Hey Hi, AI!

Posted in Deception, Europe, Law, Patents at 6:04 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Oh, hi! Welcome to the EPO, where examiners are now forced to violate the EPC.

On maths, stats, hey hi, technical contribution

Summary: The EPO’s embrace of buzzwords — no longer a unique EPO strategy (it has already spread elsewhere) — puts examiners in a very bad position and they’re grappling with nerve- and mind-racking dilemmas (risk of unemployment for truly upholding the EPC)

THE “HEY HI” (AI) buzzword is pure magic. Things are “innovative” just by virtue of being labeled “HEY HI” (AI) and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) nowadays exploits this buzzword — boosted by at least two years of unprecedented media hype — to discard/disregard 35 U.S.C. § 101. The hype is also exploited by abusive WIPO and occasionally in Munich’s abusive think tanks, which serve litigation firms.

“Using new guidelines the EPO more or less forces examiners to allow such illegal patents (or risk losing the job).”As noted here before, WIPR’s puff piece “IP5 hold joint AI response meeting” (based on EPO fluff alone) contributed to the idea that media was ‘captured’ by maximalists and European Patent Office (EPO) management, pushing for software patents in Europe at every turn not because software professionals want these but because litigation firms want these. António Campinos meddling in a Board decision (upcoming case) regarding the matter is another insult on top of an injury (caused mostly by Battistelli).

The other day, promoted through a network of law firms was this piece by Yasar Celebi (CMS Netherlands) which leverages “HEY HI” (AI) as means by which to bypass the EPC and grant patents on algorithms. To quote:

Under the European Patent Convention (EPC), you can’t patent software ‘as such’. Case law shows that software is patentable when it can be presented as a new, non-obvious technical solution to a technical problem.

The European Patent Office (EPO) has amended its guidelines to provide more clarity on the circumstances under which inventions in the field of AI are patentable. According to these guidelines, AI-based inventions are patentable as long as the method used serves a technical purpose. For example, the use of a neural network in a heart-monitoring apparatus for the purpose of identifying irregular heartbeats makes a technical contribution and is thus, in principle, patentable.

It boils down to maths and statistics, but when the EU is seen promoting this whole AI hype (not even a new thing, it’s decades old) we’re supposed to ignore that simple fact and resort to vague nonsense like “technical contribution” (or “effect”) and tolerate grants of illegal (invalid) patents. Using new guidelines the EPO more or less forces examiners to allow such illegal patents (or risk losing the job). In other words, they’re compelled to break the law to comply with rules or put in a position where they must choose between employment and obeying the law.

01.22.20

Linux Foundation (LF) Now Dominated by Lots of Microsoft People and LF Chiefs Join Microsoft in Smearing GPL/Copyleft

Posted in FUD, GNU/Linux, GPL, Law, Microsoft at 9:26 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Against the licence of Linux itself? They treat Free software like some ‘hippie’ thing, leaving the original developers institutionally homeless and without representation of any kind (except theoretic/symbolic).

A licence

Summary: We continue to see additional evidence which serves towards reinforcing our view that the so-called ‘Linux’ Foundation is actually hostile towards many things that are associated with Linux (unlike those looking to exploit/hijack Linux for proprietary ends)

THE freedom of all software is under attack. So-called ‘permissive’ licences are advocated by proprietary software giants, looking mostly to exploit and control projects. That much should not be surprising. It’s a widely known fact. Our debates with Microsoft managers have made it abundantly clear that Microsoft still isn’t tolerating the GPL and it has this ‘offshoot’ called Black Duck (there have been several more since it was acquired), whose management came from Microsoft and admitted that its original goal was to discourage GPL adoption. Black Duck is so toxic that Simon Phipps kicked these people out; he ejected them from OSI and rejected their money, whereas Jim Zemlin welcomed them. What does that say about him?

“Black Duck is so toxic that Simon Phipps kicked these people out; he ejected them from OSI and rejected their money, whereas Jim Zemlin welcomed them.”About a week ago we learned there was an article on the way that related to things we had published (not about Black Duck; FOSS Force really ought to write something about Black Duck’s history). Earlier this week it finally came out; it was Bruce Byfield’s thought-provoking piece about the Linux Foundation. Byfield notes that the “Linux Foundation has not only accepted Microsoft as a Platinium member, but awarded it two seats on the board of directors: one representing Microsoft directly, and the other representing the Microsoft-owned GitHub.”

That’s not indirectly, that is Microsoft directly. The new PR trick is for companies to pretend to be smaller than they are (Alphabet Google does this too, e.g. YouTube).

Notice how they get more seats over time. It’s all about money.

“So the chief technical person of the LF, which has Microsoft et al in key positions, publicly spreads GPL FUD, citing Microsoft proxies as his source.”Also, remember that the the Vice Chair (of the Board) worked for Microsoft and there are Microsoft developers in key positions, cushioned by Greg K-H, who himself worked indirectly for Microsoft (or on Microsoft projects) while on Novell/Microsoft payroll.

The interesting part — to me at least — is in the comments/discussion. For those who don’t know, Chris Aniszczyk is “currently a CTO at the Linux Foundation” (according to him). Notice what he wrote.

So the chief technical person of the LF, which has Microsoft et al in key positions, publicly spreads GPL FUD, citing Microsoft proxies as his source. LF staff is now joining Microsoft in attacking the GPL, even in public. Not just any staff but chief staff of the LF, echoing Microsoft-connected (WhiteSource/Black Duck) FUD against the GPL. It’s consistent with some stuff we saw in the past and commenters such as “Mike” respond:

> “Does the FSF or SFC have corporate member or developer seats or just individual seats only? It seems you are only hearing one side fo the story that’s inaccurate.”

That’s pretty ironic considering what the Linux Foundation did to its community representation. The Linux Foundation tells only the corporate side of the story. Like any corporation, trusting them with your well-being is a stupid thing to do.

“Mike” responds to Bruce Byfield as well:

The *relative* decline of GPL and copyleft is only natural when viewed in terms of volume of code being produced.

There is far more corporate funded code than ever before – and that code is almost universally stamped with ‘permissive’ licenses. Lots more open-washing today than ever.

There are plenty of new copyleft projects out there, but that doesn’t fit the corporate driven narrative.

Licence popularity-wise, Microsoft proxies (WhiteSource/Black Duck) are mostly measuring things based on Microsoft GitHub (it is a proprietary trap for corporate exploitation). We’ve complained about this for half a decade or longer. But even other Microsoft-sponsored ‘analysts’ do the same thing, treating anything that Microsoft does not control as though it does not exist and ought not be counted. Should it be surprising that copyleft-leaning projects (e.g. GNU) aren’t interested in the proprietary trap which is GitHub? That’s like measuring collective societal wealth based only on who shops at Hugo Boss stores/outlets. The picture one sees is distorted by the narrowness of the target audience/client base.

“Licence popularity-wise, Microsoft proxies (WhiteSource/Black Duck) are mostly measuring things based on Microsoft GitHub (it is a proprietary trap for corporate exploitation).”Mike’s replies make sense. And Chris then responds to Chris, more or less nailing it, arguing that the LF “treats desktop Linux users, as well as users of open source software on Linux and other operating systems, as orphans…”

We’ve said something similar several times in the past.

Here’s the full comment:

To me the point is that the Linux Foundation is doing nothing whatsoever to advance desktop Linux, and treats desktop Linux users, as well as users of open source software on Linux and other operating systems, as orphans, even though they were the first boosters of Linux development. At LF, if it’s not software being developed for commercial and enterprise users, or if it’s designed to be used on a desktop or laptop instead of in a data center or industrial device, it doesn’t exist.

Bruce Byfield did note: “A more cynical interpretation is that, from its very start, the Linux Foundation has been a slow coup, gradually usurping an authority to which it has no right. Ask me on alternate days which one I believe.”

“This may not be a deliberate thing, but unwittingly the LF let entryism be ‘welcomed’ or ‘tolerated’ in the Board, not foreseeing the negative effects on the ‘pragmatic’ and PR front.”Byfield also mentioned how he had lost his job at Linux.com. Less than a year ago the same thing happened all over again (the LF fired all staff and editors without as much as a prior notice). The site has not been the same since. It’s an embarrassment and it is pretty dormant.

What Byfield says about the “slow coup” makes sense. This may not be a deliberate thing, but unwittingly the LF let entryism be ‘welcomed’ or ‘tolerated’ in the Board, not foreseeing the negative effects on the ‘pragmatic’ and PR front. What good is an institution which does not guard its mission statement and spirit and only counts money, even from its biggest opponents?

01.19.20

Judges Reject EPO Patents on Life as Constitutional Complaints Against the EPO Pile Up in Germany

Posted in Europe, Law, Patents at 3:45 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

5 challenges and counting…

Pile of old books

Summary: EPO judges throw out patents on life (CRISPR at least); there’s now growing hope that they’ll have the courage to do the same to patents on software

THERE HAS been mostly good news coming from the European Patent Office (EPO) in recent days. We hope there will be positive impact and perhaps an end to software patents in Europe.

“As fewer readers may know, there are currently quite a few constitutional challenges against the EPO.”As most readers know/are aware of, Team Campinos/Battistelli is unscientific and perhaps anti-scientific. The sole goal is granting as many patents as possible, irrespective of what the science says and what scientists need. It’s not in vain that examiners are protesting and it is not without reason.

As fewer readers may know, there are currently quite a few constitutional challenges against the EPO. Richard Gillespie wrote about Constitutional complaints against the EPO in Germany just under a day ago. There’s a decent roundup right there, naming 2 BvR 2480/10, 2 BvR 421/13, 2 BvR 756/16, 2 BvR 786/16, and, 2 BvR 561/18:

Patent Attorneys like myself are not known for their love of excitement. For example, I like reading lists. One regrettably exciting item that appears to have slipped off the ‘things to look out for in 2020’ lists that I have seen is the outcome of the constitutional complaints against the EPO in Germany. The outcome of these complaints could have potentially explosive implications for patent practice in Europe and they have not received enough attention.

At present there, are five constitutional complaints relating to the European Patent Office (EPO) before the German Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG), namely, 2 BvR 2480/10, 2 BvR 421/13, 2 BvR 756/16, 2 BvR 786/16, and, 2 BvR 561/18. At issues is the lack of sufficient legal remedies at the EPO against negative decisions of the Boards of Appeal. I believe there is a clear risk that the BVerfG will uphold at least some of the constitutional complaints relating to the EPO. Such an outcome would likely mean that the European Patent Convention (EPC) in its present form is incompatible with the German constitution.

My reasoning is as follows: according to these complaints there is a question (amongst others) on whether or not Articles 19(4) and 103(1) of the German constitution (i.e. the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany) have been violated. Article 19(4) states that if any person’s rights are violated by a public authority, they have recourse to the courts. Article 103 deals with the right to a fair trial.

[...]

As noted in by Vissel (GRUR Int. 2019, 25) it is instructive to note the submissions of the Federal Republic of Germany during the Travaux Préparatoires of the EPC (emphasis added):

“The delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany opposed this request [to delete para. (b) of Art. 135]. It pointed out that the application of a national procedure should be possible not only in cases in which the applicant suffered a loss of rights as a result of the omission of an act but also where the European Patent Office had given a negative decision. It was in precisely these cases that there was a constitutional problem in the Federal Republic of Germany. The Basic Law required that every administrative act should be capable of being examined by a court. The Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office, although similar to courts of law, were not in fact courts proper so that the possibility of recourse to a German Court had to be maintained. It should, however, be borne in mind that the Federal Republic did not at present intend to avail itself of the option available under para. 1(b). However, even if this option were applied, there would be little danger of any delay in the procedure since it was unlikely that proceedings would be initiated before the German patent authorities and the German Court after the European procedure had been concluded.”

Hence, the provision of Article 135(1)(b) EPC was drafted for a situation in which the Boards of Appeal of the EPO could no longer be seen as independent courts.

This was a situation that had occurred within the German Patent Office when appeals against decisions of the Office were conducted internally. There was a constitutional complaint against the internal appeals of the German Patent Office because of a lack of sufficient legal remedies at the German Patent Office. This complaint was upheld and it ultimately lead to the establishment of the German Federal Patent Court.

We assume readers are aware of the constitutional complaint against the UPC and we have repeatedly shown that the press does not properly cover this (if at all). Amplifying the EPO's lies is not journalism and here’s a new example of it (“New EU Patent System On Course For End Of 2020, Says EPO”). The EPO lies and some people copy-paste the lies, just like so-called ‘reporters’ who publish “Trump says” pieces. From the outline:

Progress is being made towards the implementation of the EU’s new patent system, but the UK’s insistence on severing all ties with the European Court could spell the end for its participation.

Could or will? Will. Has. This is hardly news.

The EPO’s management has meanwhile moved on to its new lie (warning: epo.org link), having published this piece in which patent maximalists from all around the world push software patents agenda under the guise of “emerging” and “HEY HI” (AI). The EPO attributes this propaganda to “IP5” and says:

The five largest intellectual property offices held the inaugural meeting of their joint Task Force on New Emerging Technologies and Artificial Intelligence this week in Berlin. Known as the “IP5”, the five offices – which are the EPO, the Japan Patent Office (JPO), the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO), the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) and United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) – together handle about 85% of the world’s patent applications. The meeting was organised jointly by the EPO and KIPO.

Launched at the IP5 annual meeting last June in Incheon, South Korea, the new task force will explore the legal, technical and policy aspects of new technologies and AI, their impact on the patent system and on operations at our five offices. The aim is to pinpoint which areas can most benefit from joint IP5 responses, ranging from employing AI to improve the patent grant process, to applying the patentability requirements to inventions in the field of AI, and handling applications for inventions created by machines.

“This task force is the IP5 offices’ first joint response to a changing global patenting landscape and evolving user needs in the field,” said Christoph Ernst, the EPO’s Vice-President for Legal and International Affairs, opening the event. He added: “New emerging technologies and AI touch upon almost every aspect of daily life and seem to question the traditional models for the generation and utilisation of knowledge flows and decision-making. This translates into considerable challenges in IP, and the task force is a chance for us to demonstrate that we, as the world’s leading offices, are agile and responsive to change.”

It’s very clear that Campinos, Iancu and the others just want to grant as many patents as possible, no matter the legality of these. This includes software patents.

Having said that, this EPO agenda has just suffered a major setback because CRISPR patents turn out (again) to be fake patents. This can, by extension, doom many other European Patents on life and nature.

The EPO has just tweeted: “Heinz Müller, #patent expert at @ige_ipi, will talk about the #patent landscape of #CRISPR at this event in Zurich…”

Maybe the EPO did not get the memo, but around the very same time (maybe the same day) judges found the courage to say no to CRISPR patents.

A site advocating for such patents (pressure group of the “life science” monopolists) wrote:

In a dramatic reversal, a European Patent Office’s (EPO) board of appeal has upheld the revocation of a Broad Institute CRISPR/Cas9 patent.

Yesterday, the board indicated that it would refer several key issues at the heart of the case to a higher panel, potentially triggering a lengthy delay.

But today the board has announced that, after consideration, it is already equipped to decide the case and agreed with the earlier Opposition Division ruling that the Broad’s patent lacks a valid priority claim.

Daniel Lim, partner at Kirkland & Ellis, said the decision was “quite the change of heart” from the board.

“I can imagine that the stakes involved in this case and the level of interest and scrutiny have not made the Board’s life easy,” he said.

Yesterday’s proceedings opened with the announcement that the board intended to refer at least three questions to the EPO’s enlarged board of appeal.

This has also been covered by Rose Hughes (AstraZeneca), who said:

The Board of Appeal (3.3.08) finished hearing submissions on priority from the parties this morning. Proceedings were then adjourned until the afternoon whilst the Board conferred. The parties undoubtedly had a tense lunch. The Board was either going to decide on the issue of priority or refer the issue to the EBA for clarification. There was a strong feeling following the comments made by the Board of Appeal on Day 3 that a referral to the EBA was likely. However, news came soon after recommencement of the proceedings that the Board of Appeal was to dismiss the appeal. [In a classic fake news saga, Merpel watched with bemusement today the ongoing proliferation of reports that the Board of Appeal had referred the matter to the EBA].

The immediate impact of the referral would have been to prolong the dispute. Even if the EBA had accepted the referral (far from certain), any decision from the EBA would not have been the end of the matter. The EBA is there to provide clarity on points of law. After a EBA decision, the case would then have had to be sent back to the Board of Appeal. Those wishing for legal clarity will welcome the Board of Appeal’s decision to settle the matter today.

On the other hand, a fact easily forgotten amidst the all the excitement over this week’s appeal hearing, is that the patent in dispute, EP2771468, is far from being the Broad Institute only patent relating to CRISPR. Whilst today is the end of the road for EP2771468, there are 5 divisional applications in the same family as the patent in dispute: EP2784162, EP2896697, EP2940140, EP2921557, EP3144390.

[...]

The patent family of EP2771468 is also, of course, not the only family relating to CRISPR. There are many other patents relating to aspects of CRISPR technology, owned by the Broad Institute and other parties, most notably University California Berkeley.

Could this be the most courageous decision these judges have made in recent years? More importantly, will there be ‘consequences’ for it? Will they soon decide to rule out software patents (‘simulation’) as well? Let’s hope so.

01.16.20

The European Patent Organisation Continues to ‘Piss All Over’ Separation of Powers

Posted in Europe, Law, Patents at 10:15 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Nobody speaks for judges’ loss of independence anymore (the European Patent Office controls them instead of the other way around)

AYE PEE everywhere AYE PEE? Does it mean invalid patents (IP)?

Summary: The EPO continues to scatter invalid patents (IPs) that are European Patents (EPs) all over Europe and nobody can stop this, not even the judges of the EPO because they lack independence (by their very own admission)

THE U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) deals with both patents and trademarks, so sometimes it wants a “collective” term for both. “AYE PEE” (“IP”) is a misnomer though; “IPR” is even worse because it adds one more lie, falsely implying that patents aren’t just “property” but also “rights” (they’re neither).

António Campinos — like Battistelli — has no excuse for (mis)using legal terms. He runs a patent office, not a “patents and trademarks” office (though he was in EUIPO before) and so far this week we saw the EPO ‘tweeting’ terms like “IP” several times per day. More than the usual…

Remember that any time they push software patents in Europe in defiance of the EPC (or 35 U.S.C. § 101 in the US) they basically try to tell us that code doesn’t need copyrights but patents. That’s baloney. Ask actual developers and coders…

“The law firms want us to view nature and life as “sciences” which are therefore “inventions” that merit patents. Sounds ridiculous? Of course! Because it is.”The EPO’s misleading terminology is contagious and it originally comes from litigation firms/lawyers. In the copyright domain they’ve dubbed infringers “pirates” — same word as used to describe people who raid boats, murdering ship crews (or turning them into hostages if they’re ‘lucky’).

Conflating patents with “AYE PEE” (“IP”) — and that’s how patents are described in this new and typical press release about the EPO [1, 2, 3] — is no laughing matter. It has significant harms.

How about the term “life science”? We wrote several articles about that back in 2018. The law firms want us to view nature and life as “sciences” which are therefore “inventions” that merit patents. Sounds ridiculous? Of course! Because it is.

Nowadays, as the EPO violates all the laws, it can’t seem to see how ridiculous it is. Life Sciences [sic] Intellectual Property [sic] Review has just published:

The European Patent Office (EPO) will refer several questions in the Broad Institute’s ongoing CRISPR patent case to the enlarged board of appeal, meaning the case is set to drag out further.

The appeals board hearing the case made the announcement at the start of proceedings in Munich this morning, January 15.

Under the European Patent Convention (EPC), the enlarged board of appeal is a higher panel which reviews questions of “fundamental importance” that have been referred to it by a lower appeals board or the EPO president.

Speaking in Munich this morning, the appeals board hearing the Broad’s case also clarified that making the referral would mean the current proceedings would be adjourned.

The Broad Institute gave “emphatic objections” to the decision to refer the issues in question, LSIPR understands.

AstraZeneca at IP Kat (guess who’s side is taken on CRISPR) has insinuated judges are cowards even though we see Campinos already meddling in their cases, partly in the open (pushing them to allow software patents). To quote AstraZeneca Kat:

A week before Christmas, the Court of Justice of the EU handed down its judgment in IT Development SAS v. Free Mobile SAS (case C-666/18). The question, referred to the CJEU by the Paris Court of Appeal was, in short, whether the Enforcement Directive (2004/47) and the Software Directive (2009/24) are applicable to those cases in which the infringement of IP rights (the unauthorized alteration of a computer program) also constitutes a breach of contract (typically a licence agreement) between the parties.

In the case, the plaintiff, IT Development, granted a licence to the respondent, Free Mobile, for use of a software package. The plaintiff alleged that the respondent had modified the software in breach of the licence agreement and, accordingly, it sued for “contrefaçon” (a non-contractual type of IP infringement action under French law). The Tribunal de Grande Instance dismissed the suit, arguing that there was no case of liability in tort, given that the respondent “was clearly alleged to have failed to perform its contractual obligations, providing a basis for an action for contractual liability, and not for the tortious act of infringement of software copyright”.

On appeal by the plaintiff, the Paris Court of Appeal asked the CJEU–
whether Directives 2004/48 [Enforcement Directive] and 2009/24 [Software Directive] must be interpreted as meaning that the breach of a clause in a licence agreement for a computer program relating to the intellectual property rights of the owner of the copyright of that program falls within the concept of ‘infringement of intellectual property rights’, within the meaning of Directive 2004/48, and that, therefore, that owner must be able to benefit from the guarantees provided for by that directive, regardless of the liability regime applicable under national law.

As usual, the comments at today’s IP Kat are vastly better than posts. The second comment said: “The world is not so simple as expressed above. Let’s say the priority application contained a rechargeable battery and a charger developed for that battery. These two aspects were developed by two companies and they file a joint application. It turns out that only the charger is novel so the company which developed the charger files an application on it own for the charger claiming priority. Should it be denied the right to priority simply because the EPO has interpreted “any” in a manner contrary to its normal meaning?”

“MaxDrei” took issue with the term “chickening out”:

I sympathise with the Board and think it true but a bit harsh, to characterize a reference as “chickening out”. If ever there was a case deserving of analysis by the EBA, this is it.

I disagree that the crux of the dilemma is special treatment for Americans. I see it, rather, as the burden which the EPO Boards of Appeal carry, to craft a body of law which the rest of the world is unable to disparage, which the RoW can accept as a template for development of its own national jurisprudence.

For example, the existing “Gold Standard” at the EPO is, to my mind, more or less unassailable. But, on matters of ownership of rights, the EPO has less experience, less case law. Further, the way the EPC sets it up, the EPO is not tasked to be the final arbiter of ownership of rights. The EPC envisages this to be a job for the courts.

Then there is the important universal issue of “proportionality”. As Robin Jacob has said: who wants to be a patent attorney, when one moment of inattention to one formality or another can blow away for ever all possibility of any patent rights whatsoever. My view is that one should refrain from punishing excessively something in the nature of a simple oversight. Rather, one should strive to find a remedy that is proportionate and which balances the interests of the parties in dispute.

Sometimes it takes an extreme set of circumstances to expose a defect in the intellectual foundation of the established case law. And once such a shift in perceptions has occurred, one can never again be satisfied with the established case law. So when a TBA is faced with such an extreme example, and inclined to find fault with the established case law, it should put aside any considerations of discourtesy towards esteemed colleagues. Rather, it should work out why the established law is wrong, and then write a Decision so well-reasoned that all those esteemed colleagues reading it with a mind willing to understand will grudgingly accept the force of the argumentation.

Only the next comment mentioned the independence issues:

I concur with MaxDrei, in particular, because

1) the priority issues at stake ARE a point of law of fundamental importance,
2) Art. 112(1)(a) EPC (in contrast to Art. 112(1)(b) EPC) does not require diverging case law,
3) Art. 112(1)(a) EPC does not explicitly require that the questions is decisive for the acutal case (see German version: “hierzu” instead of “hierfür”, i.e., the referral is to be required for a uniform application of the law or for answering a point of law of fundamental importance (and not for the actual proceedings),
4) the external members of the EBoA have to be involved for anwering points of law of fundamental importance, because
a) they are truly independent (e.g., their main income does not come from the EPO),
b) they are less biased from an established (sometimes very questionable) practice of the EPO and/or case law of the BoA.

Like we said earlier this week, we wish “MaxDrei” and others still remembered the outcry of the judges. They aren’t happy being stuck there in Haar with the Office meddling in their affairs. Why is nobody mentioning that anymore?

01.14.20

Systematic Abandonment of the Independence of Judiciary at the EPO (or Collective Amnesia)

Posted in Europe, Law, Patents at 7:07 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Derk Visser at EIP

Summary: The ‘constitution’ or the convention upon which the EPO is based (known as EPC) is routinely violated and nobody seems to care anymore; the EPO governs itself and conducts itself without as much as a fundamental legal text

European Patent Office (EPO) President António Campinos has done absolutely nothing to undo Battistelli‘s attacks on the autonomy of EPO judges. Nothing! To make matters worse, Campinos is already meddling in upcoming/ongoing cases, including one that shapes EPO policy on software patents in Europe. So one might say that Campinos is no different — or potentially worse — than Battistelli.

Isn’t it fascinating that EPC experts aren’t saying a darn thing anymore? Does that seem normal to them? In the age of Donald Trump have we buried the fundamental tenants of “separation of powers”?

In the blog of a company that pays him, the famous Derk Visser (author of a famous book) and the EPI (they like to make it all lowercase) push for more patent maximalism through the besieged boards that are illegally bullied by the Office (an EPC violation). Yesterday he published “When is a sub-range novel?”

The December issue 4|2019 of the journal epi Information contains four interesting contributions to the discussion on the novelty test for sub-ranges as used by the EPO.

The EPO has a special novelty test to determine whether a claimed numerical sub-range of a known broad range is novel over the known range. A sub-range must comply with each of the three criteria of the test. The criteria are, that the sub-range (i) must be narrow compared to the broad range, (ii) be far removed from known examples within the broad range, and (iii) is not an arbitrary specimen of the prior art but another invention (purposive selection, new technical teaching).

The test was formulated in 1985 by the technical board of appeal in decision T198/84 and subsequently used broadly within the EPO. Recently, several articles have criticized the test. In 2013 Thomas Leber of the EPO regarded compliance of the three criteria with the EPC questionable (see JIPLP, vol. 8, issue 7, July 2013, pages 561-565). More recently, I argued that the three criteria are incompatible with recent EPO case law on novelty (epi Information, issue 4|2019, page 27-33).

The latest edition of the Guidelines for Examination in the EPO, which entered into force on 1 November 2019, has removed the purposive selection criterion from the test (see section G-VI, 8(ii)). However, the latest edition of the book Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office, 9th edition, published July 2019, still mentions the three criteria of the test (see chapter I.C.6.3.1). In addition, the book mentions a large body of contradictory case law about the purposive selection. Roel van Woudenberg argues in his recent article, that the purposive selection criterion should be kept in the test, as being consistent with the disclosure test used for novelty (see epi Information, issue 4|2019, page 34-39).

[...]

The above course of events shows that only because the President of the epi had written a letter to the EPO, did users of the EPC learn about the development of the case law and the adoption of the two-part test by most boards of appeal. If the President of the epi had not submitted his request, the users of the EPC would still be unaware of the development of the case law and, as a consequence, would still be uncertain about what test for novelty of a sub-range to use in appeal cases.

“The latest edition of the Guidelines for Examination in the EPO,” as Derk Visser calls it, contains serious violations of the EPC, e.g. allowing illegal software patents under the guise of “HEY HI” (AI). Derk Visser should understand this better than anyone, but maybe he’d rather look away. It helps sell more copies of his book.

These patent maximalists aren’t honest. They’re profit-driven and they know what kind of system brings them more money. For instance, they like to tell us all that rich countries are rich because of patents but in practice they reverse cause and effect. It’s because they’re rich they come up with protectionism and monopoly mechanisms (to maintain inequality, imperil competition). The EPO does so-called ‘studies’ to perpetuate these lies. They (mis)use words like “property”, “assets”, “right” and “invention”…

Now, citing the famous Derk Visser, whom we recently mentioned here (like a month earlier and past years), IP Kat‘s patent maximalist Rose Hughes (there are a few of them who 'took over' the feline blog in recent years) does a “me too”. It is mere repetition. Does the European Patent Institute (EPI), a front group of litigation companies, control the EPO’s decision-making process nowadays? This is insane. But the connections between EPI and EPO go quite a long way back (like exposing whisleblowers and quelling dissent).

Here’s what the AstraZeneca attorney wrote:

According to the European Patent Institute (EPI), the law on the novelty of selection inventions is unclear, given the diverging opinions of the Boards of Appeal. In view of this purported lack of clarity, the EPI president (Francis Leyder) wrote a letter to the President of the EPO requesting the President to refer the issue to the EBA. The President of EPI cited a number of recent Boards of Appeal decisions that did not apply the “purposive selection” criteria (including T 1233/05, T 1131/06, T 230/07, T 1130/09, T 2041/09, T 378/12 and T 1404/14) and a two recent decisions that did (T 66/12 and T 673/12). In the view of EPI “[i]t is clear from the above that there are clearly two incompatible lines of Board of Appeal decision as to what are the criteria to be used in deciding whether a sub-range is novel”. The President of EPI therefore suggested a referral from the EPO President to the EBA, that might ask the following question:

“What are the criteria to be used in assessing the novelty of a claim where the allegedly distinguishing feature of the claim relative to a prior art document is a sub-range of a broader range disclosed in that prior art document”.

[...]

It seems that proponents of a referral with respect to selection inventions can now only hope for a referral by a Board of Appeal (Article 112(1) EPC). Indeed, EPI urges parties in appeal proceedings who find themselves involved in a case where the use or not of the “purposive selection” criteria is influential to the case, to request the Board to refer the issue to the EBA. The opposing view is that a referral is not necessary, as the Boards of Appeal do seem to be following the approach now set out by the guidelines. Indeed, Roel van Woudenberg could be said to be pushing the issue merely because he disagrees with the removal of the purposive selection criteria (as argued his article cited by EPI).

Selection inventions have always been a hotly debated issue. In another article cited by EPI, authored by Derk Visser, it is argued that all three criteria listed in the guidelines are inconsistent with recent case law on novelty. As with second medical use inventions (another form of selection invention), critics are keen that an inventor should not “get something for nothing” by salami slicing (or as some-would have it, “sashimi slicing”) the prior art. The boarder question surrounding the EPI recent request for a referral on sub-ranges is whether the EPO is currently striking the right balance on selection inventions. What do readers think?

As usual, comments are a tad better (for the few who still comment there or have their comments approved). MaxDrei would be better off pointing out that EBA at EPO lacks independence now, by its own admission. It’s compelled to allow violations of the EPC by the Office. But he tackled this from another angle:

Robin Jacob has been known to advise audiences that “We can learn a lot from the Americans. Watch carefully what they do. And then make sure not to make the same mistake that they did.”

Observing what the Supreme Court of the USA does to patent law, one might think that, over here, a reference to the EBA can sometimes be premature.

As here, I think. The case law of the EPO emerges like Darwinian evolution. I mean, survival of the “fittest” line of legal logic. Is that not how the best EBA case law has emerged, over the last 40 years? It will do so here, I would think.

Sometimes patience is called for. Given time, things will all work out for the best. Meanwhile, our advocacy skills will decide which of the rival lines will prevail. For me, the “seriously contemplate” test can be reconciled with the Gold Standard, and makes a lot of sense.

The EBA and the other boards (BoAs) still lack their independence. Even with the UPC in its deathbed we remain stuck with courts that don’t have the ability to properly enforce the EPC and nobody talks about it anymore (IP Kat in 2020 has no connection to IP Kat of 2015. Different people!), so we ought to change that.

The next comment, “In reply to MaxDrei,” says, “I think that the proponents of a referral have a different conceptual view of law, namely as a system where there is some correct answer “out there” to any legal question (that just needs to be divulged by the judges, the Enlarged Board in this case). This correct answer is then not affected by the pleadings of the parties or our advocacy skills, such that there is also no such thing as a premature referral. Any delay just increases legal uncertainty for parties (and EQE candidates, perhaps), in this view. The epi President indeed uses “lack of clarity” a few times in his letter. Perhaps the proponents of a referral have a somewhat Dworkian view, whereas the wait-and-see attitude of the EPO fits with the Hartian view.”

This “lack of clarity” nonsense is used routinely by the anti-35 U.S.C. § 101 lobbyists in the US. So-called Section 101 ‘reform’ is a joke. Coons et al took bribes/money from litigation firms and have attempted since 2017 — always in vain — to sell laws for those who bribed them. It’s corruption. EPI just does more of the same thing here.

There are a couple more follow-ups there this morning, including mentions of evergreening:

Thanks to egna for that suggestion of a contest between Dworkian and Hartian schools of thought. I must say, that had not occurred to me but I daresay he has his finger on the point.

egna also flags up the difficulties faced by EQE candidates. Quite right too. But in the greater scheme of things, we are talking about the rather short 18 month period covered by Art 54(3) and industry uncertainty about prior art generated within that brief period. That’s not the largest source of legal uncertainty in patent law in EPC land, is it?

Personally, I think the bigger mischief lies in deciding obviousness according to a rubric written differently in the Supreme Court of each separate national jurisdiction of the 38 EPC Member States. Why can’t they all accept the established case law of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO, as they do (more or less) already on other repercussions that derive, directly and unambiguously, from acceptance the EPO’s “Gold Standard”.

Well that’s indeed the thing, isn’t it, Attentive. Consider the skilled person, interested in the “disclosure” of a document, wanting to milk it for everything derivable from it. The Gold Standard limits the “disclosure” to that which is “derivable” directly and unambiguously, from the document. But the imaginary addressee has at its disposal, to assist in the task of deriving stuff, all the common general knowledge that can be imputed to the hypothetical skilled person. Under those conditions, what the skilled person is deemed to seriously contemplate during the contemplation of the document can be seen as within the ambit of that which the skilled person derives, directly and unambiguously, from the document.

Or, to put it another way, when one deems the skilled person to be the possessor of an enormous reservoir of common general knowledge, one necessarily imputes to that imaginary being subject matter that it cannot help but “contemplate” seriously and inevitably, when performing the task of deriving disclosure from the document.

Or, to put it another way, is not the “implicit” disclosure and what the reader will “seriously contemplate” two ways of expressing much the same thought?

After all, we here in Europe do need a pragmatic solution to the “Art 54(3) art” problem which balances the need for fair protection, as between the earlier and the later Applicant, with reasonable legal certainty for the public. The AIA solution in the USA, in making all 54(3) art available for obviousness attacks, fails that test by giving too much power to the first filer. Rendering nugatory any 54(3) attacks on later filings awards too much protection to the later filer, and enables anti-social evergreening by bulk filers. A golden middle way is needed.

Going back to the whole “lack of clarity” nonsense, we’ve just seen more of that from Bloomberg’s Decker. It’s that latest spin by the patent maximalists, in relation to this new article about SCOTUS not wasting time on fake patents such as software patents. Decker decided to spin it like this: “Solicitor General in both Berkheimer and Hikma v Vanda (a method of treatment case) had said SCOTUS had created confusion over 101 but neither was good venue, perhaps because CAFC had upheld some claims in each case. Athena was suggested as an alternative.”

The Solicitor General advised against SCOTUS revisiting the issue. We covered this before. Benjamin Henrion’s response was: “SCOTUS Justices on Monday also rejected appeals to clarify the rules regarding software patents. The Supreme Court’s action leaves it to Congress to resolve an issue that’s created a legal gray area for such discoveries…”

No, that has nothing to do with Congress, but on goes Decker by tweeting: “The three software cases are HP v Berkheimer (scotus had asked for SG a year ago; SG said perhaps Athena a better area); Garmin v Cellspin and Power Analytics v. Operation Technology.

The Solicitor General (SG) actually took an OK position. And nothing is going to change. Coons et al haven’t made progress since 2017. Coons et al are hardly even mentioned by the media anymore.

Going back to Europe, nothing has changed at the EU/EP since summer. They made a statement on European Patents which pertain to and cover life/nature. They oppose these.

Recently, the EPO entertained the possibility of allowing automatically-generated patents, but perhaps foreseeing the chaos this would entail it ‘bailed out’ (albeit there’s an appeal on its way, based on press reports).

Earlier this week SS Rana & Co said:

In a landmark ruling, the European Patent Office (EPO) has rejected two patent applications[1] wherein request was lodged with the EPO for designating machine (Artificial Intelligence) as an “inventor”[2].

The ground cited for rejecting the aforementioned patent applications is that the patent applications did not meet the requisite requirement as enumerated under the EPC that an inventor designated in the application should be a human being, not a machine.

The above artificial intelligence inventor namely, “DABUS” has been in news ever since patent applications were filed with the EPO on behalf of DABUS. DABUS has been invented by Dr Stephen Thaler, Founder & Board Chairman at Imagitron, LLC.

But the EPO still allows illegal (as per the EPC) patents on software provided they’re wrapped up as “HEY HI” and that’s a very serious problem. As recently as this week KEI explained this whole “HEY HI” thing to the USPTO when it said: “In Europe the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has also declared on various occasions, particularly in its landmark Infopaq decision (C-5/08 Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagbaldes Forening), that copyright only applies to original works, and that originality must reflect the “author’s own intellectual creation.” This is usually understood as meaning that an original work must reflect the author’s personality, which clearly means that a human author is necessary for a copyright work to exist. The second option, that of giving authorship to the programmer, is evident in a few countries such as the Hong Kong (SAR), India, Ireland, New Zealand and the UK. This approach is best encapsulated in UK copyright law, section 9(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (CDPA), which states: “In the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken.” Furthermore, section 178 of the CDPA defines a computer-generated work as one that “is generated by computer in circumstances such that there is no human author of the work”. The idea behind such a provision is to create an exception to all human authorship requirements by recognizing the work that goes into creating a program capable of generating works, even if the creative spark is undertaken by the machine.” (more on that in the upcoming installment of Daily Links).

01.11.20

The Moment That EPO ‘Club Med’ (Nepotism Galore) Pretends It’s Actually Elected Officials and Lawmakers

Posted in Europe, Law, Patents at 1:37 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Antithetical to science and to fact-finding, an insult to the concepts of democracy and separation of powers (private corporations and their unelected proxies as both executive and legislative branches)

You need to obey the law. Listen, Sonny. We don't obey no law! We are the law!
The EPO is like a family business or the Mafia (in countries controlled by their underworld)

Summary: The EPO has let the mask slip off yet again, exposing itself or unmasking itself as little but an extension of Team UPC (i.e. a cabal of litigation firms, not scientists)

READERS of Techrights hurriedly contacted us yesterday regarding this typical late Friday fluff (warning: epo.org link) from European Patent Office (EPO) management or Team Campinos/Battistelli. It looked shallow on the surface and indeed it turned out to be just a statement on the subject of UPC, merely a “parade of suits”. No substance, only lies. Corrupt people do corrupt things and want to corrupt courts (to protect themselves), whereupon they strive to violate constitutions and so on…

“Corrupt people do corrupt things and want to corrupt courts (to protect themselves), whereupon they strive to violate constitutions and so on…”So okay… what was actually said there? The summary (below the shallow headline/title) states: “António Campinos, President of the European Patent Office (EPO), and his team met today with the Chair and members of the executive group of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Preparatory Committee, as well as with the Chair of the Unitary Patent Select Committee, to take stock of the state of play of the preparations to implement the Unitary Patent package.”

So they had… a meeting! Wow. Shocking. That Team UPC is in bed with the EPO (one might say steers the EPO) is hardly a secret. This coup goes quite some time back. Also notice some of the people named there; they’re indebted to Battistelli, for reasons we mentioned before. Aside from loud proponents of software patents in Europe we seem to be seeing rather openly corrupt officials and now they want to enforce/impose their corrupt and illegal acts on the court system, too.

“That Team UPC is in bed with the EPO (one might say steers the EPO) is hardly a secret.”Will they get it? Naaaa… incredibly unlikely. They know it themselves (deep inside they’ve nearly given up), but they fake positivity and enthusiasm. It’s their lobbying strategy.

The EPO then tweeted : “EPO President Campinos: “We are confident that the necessary steps can be accomplished in time for the Unitary Patent package to become operational at the end of 2020.” More on today’s meeting on the status of the preparations of the #UnitaryPatent here: https://www.epo.org/news-issues/news/2020/20200110.html …”

This was “liked” by CIPA and others (the ‘usual suspects’).

“…they want to enforce/impose their corrupt and illegal acts on the court system, too.”So I responded (which I rarely do directly, i.e. in direct response form): “There’s not much to be said about ‘unitary’ patents and EPO granting any as nothing actually happened but a photo op, a group photo op, with text to accompany the lobby. The usual nonsense. This is the first time in a long time something is said about the subject and they may have dragged into people who aren’t even associated with it just to give fictional scale, an illusion of broad support…”

It didn’t take long for Benjamin Henrion to respond separately and independently: “CJEU won’t have a say on patent law, how foolish is that?”

He had elsewhere stated: “If no-CJEU is Boris redline, i wonder how it plays with biotech patents and the UPC London court, where the CJEU has the last word.”

Of course they don’t wish to talk about CJEU; it’s one of several elephants inside their room.

“Of course they don’t wish to talk about CJEU; it’s one of several elephants inside their room.”I later pointed out “the law does not exist in today's EPO. It’s violated as a matter of routine. They moreover have kangaroo courts to justify Battistelli's illegal acts and media is being bribed to not report on that. [...] JUVE reported that the number of applications decreases and all the good examiners are leaving or have left. Institutions die when the people who run them abandon.”

Ask EPO insiders. They know it. They’re aware. They admit it. They’re rightly concerned. SUEPO’s “January 2020 press articles” (posted yesterday or thereabouts) has in it “The 10 most popular articles in 2019: EPO guidelines, EPO unrest, SPCs and UPC” (Kluwer Patent Blog).

“Ask EPO insiders. They know it. They’re aware. They admit it. They’re rightly concerned.”Ulf Leckel and other cheerleaders for the litigation agenda ended up copying the ridiculous headline of the EPO (“The EPO and representatives from EU Member States call for the speedy implementation of the Unitary Patent package”), which isn’t just assertive but also somewhat delusional.

Delusion you say?

Yup.

Over at Kluwer Patent Blog, “Kluwer Patent blogger” (usually Bristows) said that “[t]he meeting made it clear that the EPO is ready to register the first Unitary Patents and that the Preparatory Committee has advanced its work as far as possible.”

Delusional much?

“What on Earth has happened to the EPO? It’s behaving like a government of a very primitive and brutal country.”Team UPC has quoted from that: “Maybe Campinos, Ramsay, Debrûlle wanted to convey a message of hope to supporters of the UP system, but leaving out any reference to these 2 elephants in the room will not help to convince that the UP & Unified Patent Court will really start functioning at the end of this year.”

So even Team UPC is aware that it’s unrealistic. First comment quotes: “Our users – and in particular SMEs – will strongly benefit from it because it will make Europe more competitive in relation to the United States and Asia.”

The commenter said it “reminds me of “War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.” Honestly, how on earth could the UPC be beneficial to SMEs? Do these people really believe that nonsense? I can imagine the UPC to benefit quite a few parties, but the SMEs are not among them to be sure.”

Jan Van Hoey then said: “After Brexit, the AETR caselaw will kick in. AETR was used during the EPLA discussions to legally exclude non-EU member states like Switzerland. Italy should use the AETR to reclaim the London court in Milan. And this EPO and other NPO press release looks like “We want the unitary renewal fees in our pockets”. The UK cannot stay in UPC, it has to be renegotiated so that art6-8 (supremacy of the CJEU) is reestablished.”

As Henrion told me (quoting the above or paraphrasing): “the latest EPO article on UPC can be seen as “UPC will give us renewal fees in our pockets”..”

“It’s totally embarrassing and it tarnishes Europe’s image.”These people are totally insane and corrupt. They crush our laws and constitutions for money.

What will they tell us on January 31st? For at least 13 years they've told us that UPC was just around the corner (consider this article from 7 years ago, as it did not age well, under the headline “The unitary patent: coming soon to a European country near you”)

Define “soon”…

Aside from the delusional press release and tweet from the EPO we saw (on Friday) more greenwashing and other tweets that are lies, myths, bluff and fluff, decorated with wind power photos (stock photography for greenwashing). What on Earth has happened to the EPO? It’s behaving like a government of a very primitive and brutal country. It’s totally embarrassing and it tarnishes Europe’s image.

01.04.20

A Microsoft-Sponsored Open Source Initiative (OSI)

Posted in Law, Microsoft, OSI at 11:49 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Mr. Phipps assured me this would not happen after OSI had taken Microsoft’s money (despite Microsoft’s ongoing attacks on software freedom)

OSI at Microsoft

Summary: Today’s Open Source Initiative does not seem so dedicated to software freedom or even to Open Source; money from proprietary software companies can’t have helped and the above photo op says it all (OSI Board at Microsoft)

Bruce Perens (Open Source Definition) on Thursday January 2nd at 05:43:15 UTC 2020, quitting his own creation 22 years later:

Josh,

Well, it seems to me that the organization is rather enthusiastically
headed toward accepting a license that isn't freedom respecting. Fine, do
it without me, please. I asked Patrick to cancel my membership, and I would
have unsubscribed from OSI lists, including this one, if your server was
working. I own an interest in 10 Open Source companies and manage a 50
Million dollar portfolio investing in them. That will keep me involved
enough.

    Thanks

    Bruce

On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 9:18 PM Joshua R. Simmons <
josh.simmons at opensource.org> wrote:

> That's out of line, Bruce. I'm not sure where this FUD is coming from, but
> it's inappropriate.
>
> Regardless of my own views, I quite value Bradley's contribution, as well
> as Van's engaging the process and responding to criticism in good faith.
>
> I've been following the discussions closely and, frankly, it seems a
> decent model of critical civil discourse. Let's keep it that way.
>
> (Apologies for the re-send, had to square away some issues with my mailing
> list membership.)
>
> Josh Simmons, VP at Open Source Initiative (Tax ID 91-2037395)
> @joshsimmons <http://twitter.com/joshsimmons> | josh at opensource.org | 1-707-600-6098
> | bluesomewhere on Freenode
> ad astra per aspera 🚀
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 8:53 PM Bruce Perens via License-review <
> license-review at lists.opensource.org> wrote:
>
>> Don't waste your time, Bradley. They were told not to listen to you,
>> either.
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 6:29 PM Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn at ebb.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I can't find an example when OSI approved a novel copyleft license that
>>> hadn't yet been used in practice and therefore had no track record of use
>>> for any FOSS project.  It was once somewhat common for OSI to approve
>>> licenses that were used by only one entity, and most of those licenses
>>> were
>>> never used beyond the one project, and even most of those entities have
>>> deprecated those by now.  (OSI also made a decision to cease considering
>>> such single-use licenses.)  Rapid acceptance of a novel licenses, so far
>>> unused in practice, causes confusion in the FOSS community.
>>>
>>> Folks have shouted down Bruce as he wonders how Van's license will be
>>> used
>>> in practice.  I think Bruce has made a useful point on this thread: as a
>>> general matter, it's relevant that we consider how the license impacts
>>> users' *and* software publishers' software freedoms in *practice*, not
>>> merely *in theory*.
>>>
>>> In that regard, I'd like to know if the project that plans to use this
>>> license will be inbound=outbound (i.e., is the entity that's promulgating
>>> this new license willing to bound themselves by the license terms)?  Van,
>>> could you tell us, on behalf of your client (who appears to be the only
>>> potential licensor interested in this license), what their contribution
>>> plans are regarding this license?  Are they planning to accept
>>> contributions
>>> under this license, and thus be bound by it for their FOSS projects?
>>> If not, why not?
>>> --
>>>
>>> Bradley M. Kuhn - he/him
>>>
>>> Pls. support the charity where I work, Software Freedom Conservancy:
>>> https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> License-review mailing list
>>> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>>>
>>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Bruce Perens - Partner, OSS.Capital.
>> _______________________________________________
>> License-review mailing list
>> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>>
>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>>
>

-- 
Bruce Perens - Partner, OSS.Capital.

Press coverage (may misrepresent the above, with context): Bruce Perens quits Open Source Initiative amid row over new data-sharing crypto license: ‘We’ve gone the wrong way with licensing’

In Russian: Брюс Перенс покинул организацию OSI из-за разногласий, касающихся лицензии CAL

12.30.19

When Your Father is a Top Lawyer You Know How to Game (Break) the Law and Get Away With Crimes

Posted in Bill Gates, Law at 1:49 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

‘Accidental’ felon: playing the ‘innocent fool’ card (only the father can use that as an excuse now [1, 2])

I have no idea what you're talking about when you say 'ask.' - Bill Gates, in his deposition for the Microsoft antitrust trial

Summary: A little bit of background about Bill Gates and his history of lots more than ‘infractions’ w.r.t. the law

Quora (among other sources): Has Bill Gates been arrested once or twice?

Charges: Allegedly, Gates was taken in for running a red light and driving without a license. The Story: Although details are sketchy and records have been lost over time, Microsoft founder and CEO Bill Gates was arrested on reckless driving charges on December 13, 1977 for a second time in New Mexico after speeding in his Porsche, running a stop sign and driving without a license. While much of the information regarding the arrest of Bill Gates in New Mexico remains unclear, a spokesperson for the Albuquerque Police has stated that no records of the arrest were found after exhaustive efforts to locate the details surrounding themugshot. Although varying reports indicate that Bill Gates was arrested at least two times prior to his 1977 arrest, very little is known about Gates’ previous violations and citations. On April 29, 1975 in Albuquerque, New Mexico, however, reports indicate Bill Gates was arrested by the Albuquerque Police Department on charges of speeding and driving without a license. Since both New Mexico arrests are strangely similar in nature, it’s often difficult to corroborate the details surround the events in Albuquerque. However, another report suggests that Bill Gates was involved in a third violation after being hit by a vehicle that ran a stop sign. Other sources have suggested that Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen was traveling with Gates in his Porsche at the time of his 1977 arrest, although there is no hard evidence to support the claim. A spokesperson for Microsoft has commented that Bill Gates does remember being taken into custody over driving without a license and a traffic violation, adding, “It is well-known that when Bill was young he didn’t have a very good driving record.” In addition to the New Mexico arrests, in 1989 Bill Gates was arrested over a decade later on suspicion of drunk driving charges, but the counts were later reduced.

WSJ (News Corp.): Raising Bill Gates

Spend time with the family of Bill Gates, and eventually someone will mention the water incident.

The future software mogul was a headstrong 12-year-old and was having a particularly nasty argument with his mother at the dinner table. Fed up, his father threw a glass of cold water in the boy’s face.

[...]

Over the table, he shouted at his mother…

Geni: William H. Gates, Sr.

He attended the University of Washington (UW) under the G.I. Bill, where he earned a B.A. in 1949 and a law degree in 1950. While at Washington he joined the Chi Psi Fraternity. He practiced law until 1998, primarily with the law firm which he co-founded as Shidler & King in 1964, later known as Preston Gates & Ellis LLP; the firm was merged into the firm now known as K&L Gates, although Bill Gates, Sr. is not affiliated with the firm. Gates also served on the board of Planned Parenthood.

PBS (now paid by Gates): Transcript: Bill Moyers Interviews Bill Gates

GATES: When I was growing up, my parents were almost involved in various volunteer things. My dad was head of Planned Parenthood. And it was very controversial to be involved with that. And so it’s fascinating. At the dinner table my parents are very good at sharing the things that they were doing. And almost treating us like adults, talking about that.

The Sun (News Corp.): Bill Gates refuses to explain why he went on Jeffrey Epstein’s notorious ‘Lolita Express’ plane four years AFTER the paedo was released from prison

Bill Gates refuses to explain why he went on Jeffrey Epstein’s notorious ‘Lolita Express’ plane four years AFTER the paedo was released from prison

[...]

The flight was said to have been on Epstein’s luxury Boeing 727 – dubbed the Lolita Express because it’s been claimed it was used as a mid-air sex lair.

The jet’s detailed sale prospectus, as seen by The Sun Online, describes the 29-passenger interior as “tailored to enhance the experience during long range travel”.

Mac Observer: The Gates Foundation Profits From Private Prisons

Philanthropists Bill and Melinda Gates run the Gates Foundation, which recently increased its stake in Serco Group Plc, a private, for-profit prison in the U.K.

« 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