05.28.22

Blaming Patent Examiners Who Respect the Law

Posted in Europe, Law, Patents at 1:51 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Just blame the CSC and SUEPO?

F***! Just blame SUEPO

’Dedicated tribunal could help settle labour disputes at the European Patent Office’

Summary: The latest comments here are quite revealing; the EPO not only breaks the law with impunity but it also challenges the very legal system (like courts) with total impunity; Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos are, in that regard, no better than Putin, just more temperamental

05.23.22

[Meme] Jorgotta Be Kidding Us, Campinos!

Posted in Europe, Law, Patents at 7:44 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

EPC: can't patent this! Monopoly Tony

Summary: Monopoly Tony (António Campinos) runs the EPO by attacking the very legal basis of the EPO’s existence

05.12.22

Central Staff Committee of the EPO Reminds the EPO’s Management, Yet Again, That It is Breaking Laws

Posted in Europe, Law, Patents at 2:22 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Video download link | md5sum fd3e324afc255b0cdb9fc138073829f0
EPO Does Not Care What the Law Says
Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 4.0

Summary: Sinking quality of European Patents [1, 2], plus a Patent Granting Process that is not compliant with the law, quite likely mean the EPO drives straight into a wall; the Central Staff Committee is still trying to save the institution, but management is uncaring and unresponsive (these people typically serve a term and leave, so they couldn’t care less about the long-term viability of their employer)

EARLIER this year the higher-level management of the EPO (Team Campinos) received a letter of concern that people won’t find in suepo.org and epo.org, so we’re sharing the latest correspondence below.

“Notice that between 10 March 2022 and 4 April 2022 nothing happened. In other words, the super-busy management took 4 weeks to reply.”As it turns out, the EPO violates many rules, including EPC rules, and maybe even ILO ruling would be negatively affected. Not to mention EU regulations! This happens not less frequently than in the Benoît Battistelli era. It has probably gotten a lot worse since then. Here’s the letter from 4 weeks ago. Notice that between 10 March 2022 and 4 April 2022 nothing happened. In other words, the super-busy management took 4 weeks to reply. Here we go:

Reference: sc22045cl
Date: 14.04.2022

European Patent Office | 80298 MUNICH | GERMANY

Mr Steve Rowan
Vice-President DG 1

By email

OPEN LETTER

Formal deficiencies in the electronic Patent Granting Process vs standards for electronic identification

Dear Mr Rowan,

In our open letter of 10 March 2022, we addressed the problem that the current electronic file flow is inadequate to reliably provide properly authenticated actions of the Examining Division where such authentication is a legal requirement of the EPC. In that letter, we also suggested possible remedies. In your reply of 4 April 2022, you unfortunately do not refer in any satisfactory manner to either the problem of authenticated signatures in the electronic file flow nor the suggested solution of introducing electronic signatures into the system.

We do not agree that any deficiencies of the tools provided to the patent examiners to perform their duties should be remedied by simply giving further instructions, be they internal or public, to the examiners, line managers or formality officers. Rather, it can be expected from an organisation that regards itself as one of the leading patent offices in the world to work with tools that – if not at the forefront of technology – meet at least widely recognised standards. In the specific case, such a standard is e.g. set by EU Regulation No 910/2014 on electronic identification means or in the Verordnung über die elektronische Aktenführung (EAPatV) of the German Ministry of Justice. In particular in view of the implementation of


the Unitary Patent it can be expected from the Office to be aware of and apply such standards.

More specifically, it is technically possible to implement an electronic file flow in which each time the EPC requires the signatures of the examining division, the relevant document is electronically signed by each examiner at the moment the examiner signals their approval in the tool provided to control the electronic file flow (currently the Patent Work Bench). The advantage of such an approach is that the validity of the electronic signature and the authenticity of the signed document as well as the identity of the undersigned can be verified later, enhancing legal certainty and increasing trust in the actions issued by the Office. We already referred to severe problems with the signature of an examiner on Search Reports that had been changed without his knowledge and with designating staff as Authorized Officer in public documents who in fact never see those documents (AT-ILO Judgments Nos. 1344, respectively 2417). Furthermore, the Legal Board of Appeal emphasised in decision J 16/17 in all clarity that the requirement laid down in Rule 113(1) EPC (signature and name) is not just a mere formality but an essential procedural step in the decision-taking process.

We are aware that it is the task of DG4 to provide the tools for examiners. However, we think that DG1 should define their technical requirements. Otherwise, DG1 may receive tools that are new and shiny, but inadequate for the work examiners have to perform. Should DG4 currently lack capacity and/or expertise to implement electronic signatures for the electronic file flow, the Office could also make use of expertise in the European Patent Network, e.g. in the German Patent and Trademark Office, which seems to have been working with a functioning system implementing the standards since 2020.

The Central Staff Committee is confident that after your first somewhat evasive answer to our constructive proposal, you are now addressing the real problem and working on a sustainable solution in the interest of staff, the Office and the public.

Yours sincerely,

Alain Dumont
Chairman of the Central Staff Committee

How long can EU officials turn a blind ever to EPO misconduct? These scandals rapidly become a liability to the EU itself.

In the words of the staff representatives: “In this open letter to Vice-President DG1, we address again the legal requirement of signature authentication in the electronic file flow. It can be expected from an organisation that regards itself as one of the leading patent offices in the world to work with tools that – if not at the forefront of technology – meet at least widely recognised standards, also in view of the implementation of the Unitary Patent. We are confident that after a first somewhat evasive answer to our constructive proposal, he is now addressing the real problem and working on a sustainable solution in the interest of staff, the Office and the public.”

The attempt to forcibly impose “Unitary Patent” is yet another act of abuse or criminality; they knowingly do something illegal. But that’s a different subject.

05.08.22

Debian is Not Defending Volunteers by SLAPPing Other Volunteers, It Just Tarnishes the Community’s Reputation and Brand

Posted in Debian, GNU/Linux, Law at 7:38 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Video download link | md5sum 1639f04d8aa93b37596fc72b3d7457c7
Debian Trademarks and SLAPP
Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 4.0

Summary: Volunteers of Debian face an unwelcoming gesture not because of critics online but because it seems clear that Debian leadership misuses very limited Debian funds to SLAPP disgruntled volunteers; the project is not in good hands and this needs to be corrected before it gets yet worse

THE video above is an expression of an opinion, not to be taken out of context by selective quoting (hence the licence). It deals with a couple of blog posts [1, 2] about Debian — through SPI — doing to a former volunteer what ICBM — via Fedora and some external law firm — did to that same former volunteer*. Internet tribunals deem that kind of SLAPP a form of “harassment” (to quote directly) as it’s a slap across to face to the notion of free speech online.

“Some people donate hard-earned money thinking that they help Free software projects and their money ends up landing in the bank accounts of millionaire bullies who use Microsoft Windows to type threatening letters to people who actually develop Free software.”By curious coincidence, Francis Gurry (WIPO) comes from the same university as the volunteer and Julian Assange too comes from there. WIPO has long been a big bully, fronting for corporate bullies. That they’re now going under the skin of volunteers is a really low blow, even if their laws get weaponised by opportunistic lawyers who never even used GNU/Linux and don’t have the most basic understanding of how the Free software community actually functions. Debian ought not waste its constrained budget literally paying bullies, as happened before. I too have been a victim of such bullying, even as recently as months ago. Some people donate hard-earned money thinking that they help Free software projects and their money ends up landing in the bank accounts of millionaire bullies who use Microsoft Windows to type threatening letters to people who actually develop Free software.

The Debian trademark is now being mishandled by few individuals working for large corporations, just like the Linux Foundation misuses the "Linux" brand.
____
* They just don't care about the people who did all the work without being paid for it. How’s that for gratitude?

05.02.22

[Meme] Belarussian Roulette

Posted in Europe, Law, Patents at 11:13 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Belarussian Roulette
Will EPO survive another decade? Place your bets now.

Summary: Belarus Battistelli (shown above) has gambled with the very survival (and money) of the EPO, which nowadays seems to rely on breaking the law, replacing legitimate patent judges with kangaroo courts that approve European Patents granted in clear violation of the EPC

05.01.22

IAM: Paid by the EPO’s Nepotism Club (Management) to Glorify Illegal Agenda (and in Turn ‘Legitimise’ It, Imposing That on EPO Examiners)

Posted in Deception, Europe, Law, Patents at 3:21 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Software patents, plus the plot to legalise them in courts by changing patent courts with kangaroo courts that aren’t constitutional and are based on nothing but mischief, lies, and gross obstruction of justice

Harry Strange, Diego Black and Karl Barnfather: Machine-learning patents at the EPO: how to overcome the pitfalls: Software; Litigation profiteers

How revised EPO guidelines affect treatment of AI inventions: More buzzwords; Patent profiteers

Software patents, Illegal

Like they've said for a decade already (EPO pays them for UPC fake news)

Adam Houldsworth: How the UPC will reshape European FRAND/SEP strategies: You say this every year. Again?

Summary: The EPO‘s faithful megaphone is still at it; not only does it promote European software patents as it also helps Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos promote fake news about the UPC (this has been going on for years; they never apologised for their fake/fabricated “news” about UPC, motivated by their need to mislead politicians)

04.17.22

Team UPC and Corrupt EPO Management Have Fast Become a Severe Crisis of Legitimacy for the European Union

Posted in Deception, Europe, Law, Patents at 5:56 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Some recent headlines (lies, fake news):

(UPC on track to open late 2022 or early 2023 | Bristows) Liars can be ignored after lying so much; No, it is illegal; So now it's 'next year' again?

(Inaugural meeting of the Administrative Committee of the UPC | Allen & Overy LLP - JDSupra/JD Supra) Webchat/Conflict of interest; Lobbyists looking to crush the law

(Interviews with candidate judges for the Unified Patent Court have started | Kluwer Patent blogger) Team UPC: ???   No, they also did this half a decade ago. It's a lobbying tactic.

The comments (as usual) smash this jingoistic nonsense — a call to break the law and violate constitutions:

Patent robot

APRIL 6, 2022 AT 7:35 PM

The PAP already started with the (withdrawn) ratification of the UK, as required by the LAW, and the UPC will start with a seat in London, as required by the LAW.

Again: is all this LEGAL?

Attentive Observer

APRIL 6, 2022 AT 10:17 PM

If I am not wrong there should have been a declaration according Art 31/32 VCLT in order to replace the necessary ratification of the PAP by the UK with IT. This was announced by Mr Ramsay, but further to this announcement nothing seems to have actually happened in this matter.

Has such a declaration ever been signed or has the secretariat of the commission simply created a “fait accompli”?

How is it possible that an advisory committee convenes in order to select judges if this legal “home work” has not been carried out?

I would think if there is an institution in which the rule of law should be a prime concern, it is the UPC.

Or are vested interests such that the rule of law is simply ignored?

One of those…

APRIL 7, 2022 AT 8:11 PM

If organisations which have been created to apply a specific law refuse to do so, but still hold the requirements of this law against their employees……

Looking at a famous Art. 4a CBE.

It just shows, law is for those who are not strong enough to ignore it.
Management can simply ignore it.

No Administrativ Council seat member makes a step to risk his seat, same in the UPC apparently.

William Garry

APRIL 7, 2022 AT 7:51 PM

No parliament involved in the interview of those judges.

‘Democracy’ has been stolen.
LightBlue
APRIL 8, 2022 AT 9:34 AM
William, the EU has certain problems with judges being appointed by politicians, referencing Poland and Hungary for example (though ignoring other countries where judges are political appointments, such as Germany).

Simona Fonzi

APRIL 8, 2022 AT 10:20 AM

Another recent CJEU decision in PL Holdings vs Poland on the legality of international courts dealing with EU law recalls the role of National Courts:

http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2021/05/05/is-there-room-to-hope-for-non-treaty-based-isds-in-the-eu-remarks-on-ag-kokotts-opinion-in-case-c-109-20-poland-v-pl-holdings/

“AG Kokott concludes that individual arbitration agreements between investors and Member States concerning the “sovereign application of EU law” are compatible with Articles 267 and 344 TFEU ***only if national courts*** can comprehensively verify the award’s compliance with EU law and refer the matter to the CJEU if necessary.”

“Third, for such non-treaty-based arbitrations over “sovereign measures for enforcing EU law” to comply with Articles 267 and 344 TFEU, the resulting award must be open to “comprehensive” review by the Member State courts as to its compatibility with EU law.”

Yes, but!

APRIL 11, 2022 AT 6:17 PM

That in many countries judges are actually appointed by politicians is common.

For the highest French Court, the Conseil Constitutionel, the President of the Republic, the chair of the Parliament and of the Senate have the right to appoint. Even former presidents of the republic are members as of right. The appointments are thus highly political.

In Germany the same applies to the German Federal Constitutional Court. The right to present candidates is given to the parties in the parliament. The new President of the GFCC was directly appointed from his seat as MoP to the GFCC. When one realises that he was one of the MoP which had much more income from other duties than that earned as MoP, doubts can be raised whether he is as independent as he claims to be. He was a very active lawyer.

In other words some designation of judges are highly political and there is not a lot to be done about it.
If those highest judges are former judges or renowned legal scholars showing a free mind, there is not much to be said about their political appointment.

The problem starts when there the appointment is the result of co-opting friends and buddies (as was the case for the drafting committee of the rules of procedure of the UPC), or with intent to push aside actual judges which are not abiding by some party line, like in Poland.

For the time being, I would give the judges appointed to the UPC the benefit of the doubt.

In any case as said by another commenter, the legal home work for those judges has not been done, cf. the “ratification” of the PAP and Art 7(2) UPCA.

This put a shadow on the appointing body and on the appointed judges.

The EPO has become a weapon against the EU’s credibility. Thank Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos for that?

(US Cos. Rebound From Dip In European Patent Applications | Law360) Compliance and quality lowered; Software patents

More European software patents? Or proper patents one can successfully enforce in a court? (A real court, not UPC unicorns and kangaroos)

04.04.22

EPO Continues to Violate Laws and Fundamental Rights of EPO Staff (Which an International Court Recently Told It Was Violating)

Posted in Europe, Law, Patents at 12:00 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Video download link | md5sum 2ea6391b2ce184eb1add2e3c99d23a10
EPO Continues to Violate Laws
Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 4.0

Summary: The Central Staff Committee of the EPO lashes out at the EPO’s administration for persisting with illegal tactics; it should be increasingly clear to Mr. Breton and other Eurocrats that the EPO’s administration isn’t subjected to oversight by anybody, not even judges of the ILOAT

THE EPO is a criminal institution, run by Mafioso- or Mafia-like elements trying to convert the institution into cash by breaking all the basic rules and foundations of this institution. What best describes the process by which Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos seized and then maintained their positions of power is “Organised Crime”. They closely coordinated this institutional power grab for years. ILO has repeatedly complained, in several formal publications in fact, that the EPO had slipped out of control; ILOAT considered kicking out the EPO.

“ILO has repeatedly complained, in several formal publications in fact, that the EPO had slipped out of control; ILOAT considered kicking out the EPO.”The new letter, which is shown above, explains the severity of the situation. We’re reproducing it below in HTML form (for conversion to plain text and GemText).

The Central Staff Committee says that the EPO’s “administration published an unsigned announcement the day after the strike to provide the participation rates. The percentage of staff participating increased when compared to the last strike in December 2020, but on closer inspection, some of the details seemed off.”

They wrote about this over a week ago. But by now they’ve had more time to study the situation. “We thank the colleagues who assisted us by reaching out to share their experiences,” they say. “This publication explains what we have learnt about the reliability of the purported figures and the reluctance from the administration to fully acknowledge the right to strike.”

Here it is:

Munich, 04/04/2022
sc22040cp

What are the real strike figures?

The administration published an unsigned announcement the day after the strike to provide the participation rates. The percentage of staff participating increased when compared to the last strike in December 2020, but on closer inspection, some of the details seemed off. We thank the colleagues who assisted us by reaching out to share their experiences. This paper explains what we have learnt about the reliability of the purported figures and the reluctance from the administration to fully acknowledge the right to strike.

Strike participation rate: who cares about accuracy anyway?
The official announcement states that 24.45% of staff officewide participated in the strike action. However, HR management informed us that this number only includes those whose participation was successfully registered in the strike tool, which is managed solely by the administration. We had contacted the administration in the days before the strike to point at the many errors and bugs (including disappearing registrations) in the tool experienced by staff, but they decided it was not necessary to act. This prompted SUEPO to publish advice that registration in the faulty tool was actually not a legal requirement and an email to the line-manager would suffice. HR management also informed us that staff on sick leave who registered in the tool were not counted in the figures, and we wonder whether this is also the case for other forms of leave. As such, we find it difficult to trust the numbers published by the administration, and we conclude that the reported 24.45% participation rate is only the minimum percentage. From the echoes received, the strike participation seems to be substantially higher.

Strike day production numbers: misleading and lacking context
The administration could not refrain from adding the bizarre and triumphant statement to the announcement that “despite the strike, our Office’s production remained strong: in the course of the day 1 357 products were finalised.” They did not provide any context for the number in general, but from the dashboards we find that the cited figure was -310 products below plan1. In addition, they neglected to mention that the day of the strike coincided with an unusually high number of production points from DEAD coding (around 300 compared to the daily average of around 60; found via an appropriate epoque query). This apparent attempt to mislead staff did not go unnoticed, and colleagues contacted us to inform us of the “coincidence” of having DEAD points assigned to them on the day of strike. They also shared their feeling that the tone of the announcement was disrespectful and contemptuous.

_____________
1 See snapshot on page 2 of “SUEPO action of 22 March 2022: A striking success”, SUEPO paper of 24 March
2022 (su22017cp)


Our demands to the President
At a time the EPO pretends to increase transparency, the strike organisation on the part of the administration scores far below all benchmarks. From an Office putting in place micro-management and precisely counting products or tasks fulfilled by every single individual staff member, such negligence confirms that the administration is only reluctantly acknowledging the right to strike after the ILOAT (e.g. judgment 4435; see report) ordered to put an end to eight years of illegal strike regulations.

In light of these events, we have sent three demands in a letter to the President:

• that our concerns with the strike registration tool be addressed and the instruction to register in a tool be removed
• that he allows an observer from the strike organising body (union / staff representation) to oversee the counting of the strike participation figures
• that clarification be provided for colleagues who desire to strike during periods of leave (sick, annual, parental/family, home, other unpaid).

It is to be expected that the administration desires to defend its position during strike actions, but it should also show integrity when doing so and avoid presenting misleading production figures. Freedom of association also requires that management does not interfere into the organisation and in particular when it comes to requisitioning, registering and counting.

The Central Staff Committee

Suffice to say, insulting the intelligence of staff is counter-productive (to say the least) and can incite the staff to go on more strikes. All we have here is another Battistelli.

« 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