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

06.22.20

Reminder to German Readers: Please Lodge Polite Complaints Against the Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection (“BMJV”) Trying to Undermine the Constitution

Posted in Europe, Law, Patents at 5:21 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

First mentioned before the weekend (when we posted a lot of other things; this one is very important)

Tragedy of X the Wise: Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz,

Summary: The Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz (“BMJV”) is trying to cause a constitutional crisis in Germany — all this for the sole purpose of appeasing litigation fanatics, including patent trolls and large firms that aren’t even German (let alone European)

THE other day we took note of this address, to which comments can be sent:

Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz
Referat III B 4
Z. H. Frau Lehmann
Mohrenstr. 37
10117 Berlin / Germany
poststelle@bmjv.bund.de
Fax ++49 30 18 580 9525

“We urge German citizens to ensure the Ministry of Justice knows it is at least supposed to enforce justice, not to line the pockets of law firms with branches (and lobbyists) across Germany.”They will likely expect E-mail (and the German language, obviously). A bit of background can be found here and here. The short story is, the Ministry of Justice [sic] and Consumer Protection [sic] is trying to bypass if not ignore a key judgment from the constitutional court of Germany (FCC). People online, even folks from the legal community, have expressed shock and said it was suggestive of Team UPC ‘infiltrating’ the Ministry of Justice, in effect turning matters of law (and constitutions) into pure lobbyism. Should corporations write the very laws that govern them?

We’re still seeing lots of lobbyism in the media. There’s no media anymore, no real journalism…

Our latest Daily Links contained 4 more links about Germany’s position on the UPC being halted by the FCC and Brexit. Those were all from publishers on the side of Team UPC, so not worth emphaising or reporting on (we already did at least 3 rebuttals to some); one of those came from Managing IP, which does sponsored garbage/ads (people who are litigating speak about “Inventing” — something they never did!). The findings are all UPC spin [1, 2, 3, 4]; not even one single objective article about this! The findings or this batch boils down to two law firms, the FT which was bribed by the EPO for UPC lies and puff pieces (we gave examples of these in the past), and the typical Managing IP nonsense; they pretend that the issue isn’t constitutions and laws but “uncertainty for the life sciences industry” [sic] (it’s a misnomer).

We urge German citizens to ensure the Ministry of Justice knows it is at least supposed to enforce justice, not to line the pockets of law firms with branches (and lobbyists) across Germany.

06.20.20

How to Tell the German Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection (“BMJV”) That Violating the Constitution is Not Acceptable

Posted in Europe, Law, Patents at 12:11 am by Guest Editorial Team

Related: Self-Harming Acts: Germany’s Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection Cares Neither About Justice Nor Consumers (or German SMEs) | FFII Takes Stance Against the German Federal Ministry of Justice for Breaking the Law to Appease Team UPC

German bill

Summary: Techrights urges European readers to write to BMJV officials, reminding the BMJV that a constitution exists and bypassing it for a bunch of litigation zealots is totally unacceptable (it’s also an embarrassment to Germany and — by extension — to the EU)

“There is a public consultation by the German Government on their new UPC Bill,” a reader has alerted us. We expect European Patent Office (EPO) officials like António Campinos and maybe even CEIPI/Benoît Battistelli to play a role in such a ‘consultation’, aside from Team UPC of course…

“This won’t end well. It’s a constitutional crisis.”“Relevant links are included in a recent post on Ingve’s website,” the reader told us, implicitly urging us to do something. “The BMJV seems not to be interested in comments beyond the circle of persons expressly addressed,” Ingve notes. Well, maybe the public ought to surprise them with a wake-up call; the BMJV is supposed to work for justice, for consumers, for the public, not a cabal of litigation firms, patent trolls and foreign monopolists. Remember that UPC is designed to partly bypass the restriction/ban on software patents in Europe.

Here’s Ingve’s text:

The German Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection (“BMJV”) recently published a draft bill on the Agreement of 19 February 2013 on a Unified Patent Court (German language) and, as reported in the press, sent it to different recipients with the opportunity to comment. An official communication of the BMJV on this matter is not known here.

The letter of the BMJV dated 08/06/2020 (German language), provided by third parties, is addressed “to the associations and institutions interested in patent law” ( “an die am Patentrecht interessierten Verbände und Institutionen”) – the specific addressees are currently unknown here – and allows them to submit comments on the aforementioned draft bill until Friday, 03/07/2020. The BMJV seems not to be interested in comments beyond the circle of persons expressly addressed.

Should you have not received the aforementioned letter from the BMJV, but would still like to comment on the draft bill, you should send your comments within the specified time limit – preferably by e-mail – to:

Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz
Referat III B 4
Z. H. Frau Lehmann
Mohrenstr. 37
10117 Berlin / Germany
poststelle@bmjv.bund.de
Fax ++49 30 18 580 9525

If you wish, you can send me a copy of your statement to info@stjerna.de.

The BMJV is said to have been ‘infiltrated’ by the Team UPC types; that’s the only explanation some people (who comment on the Web) have for its ridiculous behaviour. It’s pure ‘lobbyism’, not law. BMJV isn’t even interested in what the German (or European) public has to say. This won’t end well. It’s a constitutional crisis.

06.17.20

Germany Has a Major Constitutional and Reputational Crisis Due to Team UPC

Posted in Courtroom, Deception, Europe, Law, Patents at 9:22 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

All the ‘lobbyism’ has revealed the German republic to be little better than some ‘third-world’ countries or ‘Trumpland’

The drill team

Summary: When BMJV is willing to go ahead with something which is unconstitutional (UPCA was already intercepted by Germany’s constitutional court) it says more about BMJV than about the true prospects of the UPC, which for a variety of reasons remains dead in the water

THE MEDIA may not be saying much about it, but comments in this post (likely fluff from Bristows) include: “Why is the ministry not doing a public consultation? A public consultation was apparently denied in the past by some CDU or CSU member of the Bundestag who then became a judge on the Stjerna complaint. What a coincidence.”

We wrote about this several times before.

The same person later added: “The legal arguments raised there [in Belgium] were that the EPO cannot be sued for maladministration (rule of law, art2 TFEU), the discrimination of languages (difference of treatment between french and dutch speaking companies) and equality before the law (legally binding for french speakers vs non-legally binding for dutch speakers). The language of the defendent under the UPC can also be forced, which seems to be contrary to some international treaties. Any ideas which treaties are covering this problem?”

Another person said: “If the German Government – as a major driver behind the reform – wants to stand the slightest chance of bringing the UPCA in force in unamended form, it must happen before the UK finally leaves the EU, currently envisaged for the end of this year. After this has taken place, amendment becomes plainly inevitable. They know that any UPCA revision will require highly unwelcome concessions from their side, causing them to beat this dead horse as if there was no tomorrow.

“Part of the problem is that many of the individuals involved have a personal stake in the fate of the UPCA as it stands, be it of a merely financial nature, be it career prospects, be it both. As long as the major decisions are made by the always same people, who also bear the responsibility for what has happened so far and are thus strongly biased towards the one particular outcome serving their needs, unlikely as it may be to achieve it, reason will have no place in this.”

“Concerned observer” then wrote: “So let me summarise. The German government passes a law that the BVerfG voids the grounds of unconstitutionality. Subsequently, a written question is submitted to the European Commission, asking them to confirm whether CJEU case law precludes Germany from ratifying the UPC Agreement. The German government responds to all of this by presenting a draft law that the BVerfG has very clearly warned would also be unconstitutional. In other words, the German government has decided to press on despite very clear reasons to believe that the end goal would be unlawful. And all of this carried out in public, where an informed (and, in parts, highly sceptical) profession can clearly see what is going on. You have got to hand it to the persuasive powers of those pro-UPC lobbyists!”

The same person later added: “To quote the BMJV’s statement: “Es kann aber nicht so verstanden werden, dass es einen Kammerstandort in einem Nicht-Vertragsmitgliedstaat errichten beziehungsweise belassen möchte”. (“It cannot, however, be understood to mean that it wishes to establish or maintain a chamber in a non-contracting Member State”)

“This statement is clearly contrary to the position adopted by the BMJV between the Brexit vote and issuance of the UK government’s statement regarding non-participation in the UPC. However, it also makes no sense.”

“Each participant to the UPC Agreement is designated as “Contracting Member State”. Thus, a NON-“Contracting Member State” is simply a State that is not party to the UPCA. The BMJV’s statement is therefore based upon the false premise that the UK is no longer a “Contracting Member State” to the UPC Agreement.”

“It is so unbelievably disappointing to see such misdirection and misrepresentation emanating from a body that is supposed to be tasked with upholding the rule of law in Germany. Frankly, this has all of the makings of a major scandal.”

The reply said: “Why overlook the wording “Member State”? The UK cannot be a Contracting Member State any longer for the simple reason that it is not a Member State.”

MaxDrei said: “You only realise how precious was The Rule of Law after you have dumped it.”

He later also said: “The irony is that the UPC as presently constituted will help non-European corporations to dominate the European market, more than ever. Just look at what has happened with the EU Registered Designs regime.”

There’s lots more in those 27 comments. “Comments are closed.” The final comment said: “In case you hadn’t realised, most freedom of information legislation includes exemptions for information relating to … wait for it … international organisations …

“And the EPO is an international organisation.

“So the BMJV has a perfect get-out-of-jail card to prevent any embarrassing disclosures on that front.”

Benjamin Henrion dumped in this meme, having written a couple of FFII pages about a looming complaint, which hours ago he told me he was seriously pursuing. He says “we will launch a crowdfunding campaign to sack the UPC in Germany” and at this moment “I am looking at which “platform” to use…” (asking for recommendations)

A meme by Benjamin Henrion
A meme by Benjamin Henrion

Myles Jelf (Bristows) has just mentioned this. Why does Bristows mention something like that? One wonders….

The FFII (Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure) has published a press release commenting on the German government’s consultation on a new draft bill to enable Germany to ratify the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Agreement (reported here). The FFII lists problems that it considers arise with the unitary patent and UPC system, and maintains that if Germany ignores those problems “there will be a second constitutional complaint filed immediately”.

Our understanding is that Stjerna would follow up as well. So the whole thing would end up being a stain on the name of BMJV. No, we don’t expect BMJV to succeed, except in soiling or spoiling what's left of its reputation.

06.16.20

The ‘Stronger’ Patents Act (STRONGER Patents Act of 2019) Killed by Coronavirus

Posted in America, Law, Patents at 5:03 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Long live the SCOTUS determination on Alice

EFF on STRONGER Patents Act of 2019

Summary: The STRONGER Patents Act of 2019 (or 2018, or even 2017) is nowhere to be seen this year; it’s safe to say that all momentum is gone now, along with the push to bring software patents back

THE situation in the US isn’t too encouraging when it comes to patents. It’s not so discouraging, either. Basically, the USPTO carries on granting many software patents in defiance of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Yesterday Patently-O said that “[i]t is a slow patent news day,” albeit we found quite a few items and put them in Daily Links. For instance, there was this bounty against a patent troll with a “patent [that] generally relates to a customer computer and vendor computer that are interconnected by means of a network.” (Abstract? Seems likely.)

“We just didn’t envision something like COVID-19 coming along, in effect ending all hope and suspending any remaining ‘progress’ that the lobbyists were claiming.”Due to our focus on the EPO we haven’t been covering American patent affairs lately (barely at all this year, except in Daily Links), but this is likely a positive thing. What we post is typically reactionary, i.e. a response to displeasing things such as falsehoods and injustices. From what we can gather, based on recent court outcomes, software patents aren’t coming back to the US any time soon. Remember how last summer there was an effort to make patents even weaker with a bill called “STRONGER”? Where is that now? After 3 consecutive summers, this time around nothing is even being tabled to that effect. It’s dead. It’s finished. Just as we predicted all along.

Does this surprise us? Not at all. We just didn’t envision something like COVID-19 coming along, in effect ending all hope and suspending any remaining ‘progress’ that the lobbyists were claiming. Big law firms reportedly cut salaries and lay people off. This means fewer lawsuits and it is likely also caused by fewer lawsuits being filed. As one site put it: “Major law firms have been attempting to manage their expenses by using the cost-cutting measures of salary cuts and benefits reductions, and some have even gone so far as to conduct furloughs and layoffs.”

06.15.20

FFII Takes Stance Against the German Federal Ministry of Justice for Breaking the Law to Appease Team UPC

Posted in Europe, Law, Patents at 9:44 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

A banana market

Summary: Like a ‘third world’ country, Germany decides to attempt something which it very well knows to be illegal as well as unconstitutional, severely harming the reputation of the EU in the process (not only Germany’s)

THIS is a quick highlight of an issue that’s not likely to be mentioned in the corporate media, only in blogs controlled by Team UPC. We’ve mentioned this before, expressing the view that a constitutional crisis is likely imminent in Germany because its “Ministry of Justice” actively works to undermine justice.

“Why they’re willing to put themselves in such an embarrassing position can only be explained by asserting that lobbyists control this government.”The following statement was issued yesterday by Benjamin Henrion, bearing the headline “Brexit: FFII rejects the proposal by the German Ministry of Justice to present the Agreement on the Unified Patent Court (UPCA) to the German Parliament for ratification” (“AETR” is brought up again):

The United Kingdom has ratified the UPC Agreement, and unless a formal request is sent by the UK government to the Council of the EU expressing its decision to undo the earlier ratification of the UK of the UPCA, the UK must still be considered a Contracting Party to the UPCA.

This means that the German Federal Ministry of Justice is proposing to the German Parliament, the ratification of an agreement with a “third state” of the European Union. In view of case law “AETR”, 22/70 of the Court of Justice, EU Member States may not enter into obligations with “third states” which affect European Union rules.

[...]

In view of Article 31 of the Vienna Convention (1969) on the law of the Treaties, a Treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.

This means that the UPCA must be read as it is written, and a likely witdrawal of the UK can not result in an interpretation of how UPCA may be interpreted if the UK would no longer be there.

This means:

1) that the Federal Republic of Germany may not (in view of case law “AETR” of the CJEU) ratify the UPCA, as long as the status of the UK, as ratifying party of UPCA, has not been clarified.

2) In view of Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the law of the Treaties, the German Government may not present UPCA for ratification to the German Parliament with an interpretation of how the UPCA would be interpreted if the UK would no longer be party to it.

Presenting a Treaty for ratification to the German Parliament with an interpretation of how the UPCA will be interpreted if the UK is no longer participating, is clearly violating the spirit of the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties.

There’s also this new press release, “Unitary Patent: Germany is ignoring Brexit, European law, its Constitutional Court and Italians” (we covered this last week) and to quote:

The German government is pushing for a second vote on the Unitary Patent at the Bundestag. By signing an internal treaty with the UK as signatory, Germany is ignoring Brexit, and will violate EU law. The government has resorted to a very creative interpretation of the agreement in order to ignore the Brexit problem, showing its dedication to see the UPC agreement entering into force ‘whatever it takes’, at the risks of alienating Italy, with an automatic relocation of the UPC court from London to Paris instead of Milan. With the German Presidency starting in a few weeks, Germany risks to undermine [sic] the functioning the European Union.

[...]

If Germany ignores all those problems and push the ‘ignore’ button on all this issues, there will be second constitutional complaint filed immediatly. [sic]

Concerned people should trigger a debate in each national parliament and ask their politicians to request a debate in the Council of Ministers, in the European Parliament, and in each and every parliament in Europe, asking for a legal opinion of their legal service, like the European Parliament did in 2007 with the resolution on EPLA.

Germany’s government is only doing something shoddy here; it’s self-harming and it’s unlikely to let the UPCA through. Why they’re willing to put themselves in such an embarrassing position can only be explained by asserting that lobbyists control this government.

06.13.20

Self-Harming Acts: Germany’s Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection Cares Neither About Justice Nor Consumers (or German SMEs)

Posted in Deception, Europe, Law, Patents at 9:44 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

BMJV position

Summary: Just like back in March, BMJV persists in fronting for litigation giants, both in defiance of the German constitution and in defiance of basic logic (as if justice isn’t the goal but merely an excuse by which to bypass the law)

FOLLOWING condemnations for an official acting utterly dismissive about the FCC’s decision back in March (tossing out FCC ratification by admitting and accepting the constitutional complaint), the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection (BMJV) issued the above statement, which is contemptible. Will EPO President António Campinos use that again for spin doctoring and will Benoît Battistelli have plans for Paris?

Probably not. The way we see it, BMJV mostly harms its own reputation and Germans too rightly complain about it. What good is a BMJV that deliberately ignores the German constitution? What part of “Justice” does it not understand?

“The way we see it, BMJV mostly harms its own reputation and Germans too rightly complain about it.”“Germany ignores Brexit,” one reader told us. “There are rumours that this has been inspired by the Tilmann paper,” the reader said.

A rough translation: “The fact that Great Britain broke the Convention as a result of the Leaving Brexit does not prevent its implementation: The Regulations for Entry into Force in the Convention and its Logs should ensure that all three are involved in the contract States, the Federal Republic of Germany, France and Great Britain, already participate in the judicial system at the start of the Unified Patent Court. In this respect, it should be avoided, for example, due to the different duration of the ratification procedures the treaty initially entered into force with only one or two of the three states occurs. The reference to this has the purpose, the point in time of entry into force among those actually involved in the contract coordinate. Regardless of the fact that UK approval currently exists a departure from Great Britain has no influence on the applicability of the entry into force regulations in any case because these are to be interpreted in such a way that if one of these three states can not be foreseen by anyone, the entire entry into force for the does not hinder remaining participants.”

“…are they eager to openly promote what Germany’s top court deemed to be unconstitutional?”This is of course nonsense. It makes no sense for a lot of reasons and it makes one wonder if BMJV is run by lobbyists, not politicians. In fact, “this is totally insane,” the reader told us. What are the people inside BMJV hoping to accomplish here? First of all, this won’t pass. Secondly, they only stand to suffer (in terms of reputation) and further embolden people who grew tired of the EU, arguing that it disregards all sorts of laws and constitutions.

We note with concern that World Intellectual Property Review (WIPR) and its sister lobbying site, “Life Sciences Intellectual Property Review,” are pushing for this illegal and unconstitutional plot again [1, 2], based on “EC official” (which again harms the EU’s image). What are they hoping to accomplish? Breton was already bad enough… are they eager to openly promote what Germany’s top court deemed to be unconstitutional?

We’ve meanwhile noticed this new comment citing the “recent research paper from Dimitris Xenos,” a paper we alluded to here, and to quote:

The joint EPO-EUIPO study released last year has to be seen in the framework of the support given by the EPO to the UPC. European SMEs have been the fig leave behind which big industry and a select group of IP lawyers were hiding to push the UPC through. The same group is also advocating the necessity of the UPC in order to help the users of the patent system to recover from the damages caused by COVID-19. Please don’t pull my leg.

A recent research paper from Dimitris Xenos, “The Impact of the European Patent system on SMEs and National States and the Advent of Unitary Patent”, published in Prometheus, Vol. 36, No. 1 (March 2020), pp. 51-68, comes to the conclusion that “objective evidence shows that the new legal/institutional developments amplify existing imbalances in technological and economic capacities that are already observed between and within member states, and between them and non-EU states in the current global conditions of technological competition”.

The figures used in the study, albeit older, are comparable to the actual figures, so that the conclusions in the paper are also valid today.

One of the conclusions of the paper is that “Objective evidence has emerged, albeit ex post, showing that the position of SMEs is very weak under the EPO system as their share of annual European patents granted is less than 10% and 17% in patent applications. These statistical results contradict the official justifications of the UPP, which focus on benefits for SMEs”.

A further one is “the democratic control of industrial property in national markets is an essential responsibility of the state. Yet, the state is being stripped of democratic control by the EU’s new, pseudo-federal patent system”.

In all meetings I have been in which the topic IP and SMEs was discussed, it was very clear that SMEs are frighten of IP as they consider themselves as underdogs in IP matters. This is for two main reasons. Firstly they cannot afford to spend a lot of money for IP, and secondly they constantly fear the threat of litigation stemming from large companies with deep pockets. They do not have a chance against them!

With the creation of the UPC it was question a long time ago of a kind of IP insurance for SMEs, but this idea has disappeared. Even without the UPC, the idea is worth thinking about.

Nothing against SMEs being made more aware of IP rights, but it has to be seen in the framework of their limited budget.

I have seen SMEs shaken by attacks from big companies, and even then, having to struggle to survive, they were in the end not able to afford patent protection.

I would therefore consider the present guest post as not looking at the deeper roots of the problem. Offer SMEs a safety net in litigation matters would be a beginning. Offer them real incentives to invest in IP, and help them to bear the cost!

It does not have to be for a lot of countries, but the patent they might obtain have to be solid and resisting attacks. But alas, this is not the case. Too many patents do not resist a strict scrutiny, and crumble at the first push. SMEs cannot afford huge portfolios of patents. Once one or two of their patents have been nullified, they turn their back to IP.

One of the problems is also their absence of lobbies. If a SME closes, the number of job losses is very small. They cannot say, like the big industry, if the state does not give us money we will lay off hundreds if not thousands of people.

That’s the reality! Support for SMEs is badly needed, but also money.

At the moment it seems like Breton et al with their “European champions” just want to help multinational monopolies through the UPC; they don’t care about SMEs and they certainly don’t care about the rule of law. Just like BMJV, what we have here is a crisis and an insult to democracy. One easily gets the impression that so-called ‘public’ officials/servants are in fact serving nobody but large firms. This kind of behaviour can only lead to more EU exits and make radical parties seem “equally bad” (even AfD or UKIP).

05.26.20

The GitHub Takeover Was an Extension of Microsoft’s War on GPL/Copyleft (Because Sharing Code to Anyone But Microsoft is ‘Piracy’)

Posted in Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, GPL, Law, Microsoft at 11:01 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Shortly after the takeover was announced Microsoft managers also told me explicitly that they’d discourage GPL

Dutton before and after: We're releasing our source code; hmmm... someone has turned that into proprietary software

Summary: Licences that make it easier for Microsoft to ‘steal’ (or a lot harder for Free software to compete against proprietary software) are still being promoted by Microsoft; its GitHub tentacles (see GitHub’s logo) further contribute to this agenda

WHEN FUD from Microsoft ‘proxies’ like Black Duck and WhiteSource isn’t enough to keep developers and companies off copyleft (as adopters or releasers) there’s GitHub to make decisions or choices for people. RMS (Stallman) warned about this half a decade ago. Now that Microsoft controls GitHub the matter becomes ever more urgent.

“RMS (Stallman) warned about this half a decade ago. Now that Microsoft controls GitHub the matter becomes ever more urgent.”With some exceptions, like EA choosing GPLv3 for its latest code release, we too often hear about companies and governments* “going open” by basically shelving source code in the proprietary software trap of Microsoft (GitHub), often under a so-called ‘permissive’ licence (which means Microsoft can take it, change it, give nothing back). This is the wet dream of proprietary software giants. Free code! Not free as in freedom. Free as in “people out there will fix bugs for us” and “give us code” (to improve our proprietary software that these people will later need to pay for). This ‘labour farming’ practice has long been encouraged by Microsoft and others.

If you do not support these sorts of scams, delete GitHub (well, technically it's not truly possible). Then, choose licences Microsoft et al hate the most. Those licences are most effective at putting an end to proprietary software. That’s why they hate such licences so much. The InnerSource Commons (ISC), run by a Bill Gates lackey, shows us what they’re pushing for; the person previously (at Sun Microsystems, now part of Oracle Corporation) crafted a licence whose goal was to be as incompatible as possible with GPL**. Black Duck was, by its own admission, created by a Microsoft guy to discourage and exterminate GPL. Those aren’t even secrets; it’s all in the public domain.
_____
* The Government of India now gives Microsoft control over its mass surveillance tool, as covered hours ago in [1, 2].

** As per Wikipedia: “Simon Phipps (Sun’s Chief Open Source Officer at the time), who had introduced Cooper as “the one who actually wrote the CDDL”,[19] did not immediately comment, but later in the same video, he says, referring back to the license issue, “I actually disagree with Danese to some degree”,[20] while describing the strong preference among the engineers who wrote the code for a BSD-like license, which was in conflict with Sun’s preference for something copyleft, and that waiting for legal clearance to release some parts of the code under the then unreleased GNU GPL v3 would have taken several years, and would probably also have involved mass resignations from engineers (unhappy with either the delay, the GPL, or both—this is not clear from the video). Later, in September 2006, Phipps rejected Cooper’s assertion in even stronger terms.[21] Similarly, Bryan Cantrill, who was on Sun at that time and involved in the release of CDDL licensed software stated in 2015 that he and his colleagues expected in 2006 the fast emerge of CDDL licensed software into the Linux ecosystem and the CDDL being not an obstacle.[22]“

05.25.20

The Attitude of António Campinos Toward Courts and Toward Justice Same as Benoît Battistelli’s

Posted in Europe, Law, Patents at 6:45 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

EPO lapdog: I said we'd not obey courts; I didn't even show up for trials against me ...while AC acted as Office lapdog

Summary: 6 years down the road we’re still dealing with unaccountable tyrants who laugh at the law, laugh at lawmakers and disregard law enforcers (like the Trump regime across the Atlantic)

“If you’re seeking #patent protection in one or more EPO member states,” the European Patent Office (EPO) wrote this morning, “you can choose either to follow the national procedure in each or to take the European route, which confers protection in all the member states in a single procedure.”

They give the false impression that the UPC exists; what procedure do they speak of exactly? If you want to sue a company with a single procedure, than it’s done one state at a time. You would then need to validate in individual states and sue in each one individually, so no wonder European Patents are mostly of Germany and non-European countries (hardly a European system, except in name).

Suffice to say, António Campinos kept lying about the UPC, which Benoît Battistelli hoped to be the head of, enshrining software patents in Europe as “legal” in clear and direct violation of the EPC (like today’s USPTO casually ignores Alice/35 U.S.C. § 101).

“How can a patent office lecture us on patent law and the need to obey authority when it not only breaks the law all the time but also laughs out at law enforcers?”But this is the kind of mentality that doomed the UPC; all that lying and the attacks on judges (or people attempting to uphold the EPC) backfired spectacularly. The EPO lapdog known as the “AC” was far too subservient; it’s like it became a branch or an extension of the Office, which is totally not acceptable. Notice how in direct violation of the law, exploiting the COVID-19 crisis/emergency, the Office outsourced the legal processes to Microsoft. Just over a week ago we were once again also reminded that the judges exiled to Haar lack their independence from the Office and “Kant” responded to “MaxDrei” (comment appeared this morning) to say:

In another place MaxDrei wrote:
“So let’s zoom in on the notion of the separation of powers between the legislative, judicative and executive branches of government. The EPC’s EPO is not the legislative branch. It should confine itself to the other two pillars of the Rule of Law, right?”

The problem arises is that the AC can only amend A53(b) under A33(1)(b) by a unanimous vote, which is not required for a rule change. If the AC by means of a change of the rules is also empowered to amend the articles, this is contradictory to the wishes of the contracting states as expressed by the EPC.

So here we are more than half a decade since Battistelli imposed an illegal “house ban” on Judge Corcoran and nothing is changing, except all the judges are collectively punished and now reside or work somewhere in Haar (or home). Maybe they even do all their work over Microsoft webstreams, again in violation of the underlying rules, which the EPO is happy to simply ignore.

“The patent barons insist that patent monopolies must carry on flowing, even if they’re granted by people with pyjamas at home.”How can a patent office lecture us on patent law and the need to obey authority when it not only breaks the law all the time but also laughs out at law enforcers? What a totally bizarre institution the EPO has become; with billions in its coffers (it’s not supposed to have that money!) instead of giving staff a paid leave amid unprecedented global crisis it forces them to work at the same pace from home with kids around them and insuffifient access to necessary equipment. The patent barons insist that patent monopolies must carry on flowing, even if they’re granted by people with pyjamas at home.

« 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