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

12.01.19

Maximalists Cherry-Picking the So-Called ‘Corbyn’ ‘Leak’ for Their Patent Agenda While the US Lobbies Britain for Software Patents and Worse

Posted in America, Europe, Law, Patents at 3:30 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Not Jeremy Corbyn’s and not a leak, either

Some buzzwords for algorithms
Let’s examine the originals. And more importantly, let’s look at the right part (about a dozen pages out of nearly 500 pages) and what it tells us about software patents in Europe as seen by the US, where 35 U.S.C. § 101 restricts the USPTO like the EPC is supposed to restrict the EPO (they use buzzwords as loopholes and workarounds)

Summary: A quick look at what last week’s media coverage may have missed and what patent maximalists don’t want to tell us about confidential trade-related documents

THE European Patent Office and US Patent and Trademark Office are both interested in software patents. What’s not to like? More income!!! António Campinos (like Battistelli) continues to undermine the EPC and the EPO nowadays brags about getting the US to adopt software patents using a bunch of nonsense like “hey hi” (they both use the same tactics, as we’ve shown here many times before).

The ‘leaks’ often attributed (in last week’s media reports) to Corbyn were not actually his or his party’s. They had been posted to Reddit weeks ago. They were published under the title “Great Britain is practically standing on her knees working on a trade agreement with the US” (seems apt).

We’ve made local copies of these files for longterm preservation purposes. There are six PDF files in a compressed archive.

Here’s the relevant stuff:

UK-US policy leak

UK-US policy leak

UK-US policy leak

UK-US policy leak

UK-US policy leak

UK-US policy leak

UK-US policy leak

UK-US policy leak

UK-US policy leak

UK-US policy leak

UK-US policy leak

UK-US policy leak

UK-US policy leak

UK-US policy leak

UK-US policy leak

UK-US policy leak

Points 25-26 in page 124 are of much relevance. Is the US pushing for software patents and patents on life/nature in the UK and Europe as a whole? It certainly seems so. Those parts deal mostly with patent scope. USTR is pushing corporate agenda of Big Pharma and other large multinational monopolists.

“The ‘leaks’ often attributed (in last week’s media reports) to Corbyn were not actually his or his party’s.”Let’s look at what patent maximalists and UPC boosters like AstraZenecaKat aren’t telling us. As we said last week, the United States found itself baffled by UPC moves of the British government and the issue was raised days later by AstraZenecaKat, only to attract a bunch of interesting comments that we quoted here yesterday. Revocator wrote:

I’ve read the papers (well, the IP-relevant bits), and there was one tidbit regarding the US position on the grace period that intrigued me hugely. Namely, the US negotiators appear to have noted that SOME EPO member states do have such a grace period. The British seem to have essentially retorted that those countries may be small and irrelevant enough to get away with that, but that the UK would jeopardize its position within the EPC if it did the same. Now, does anyone know which EPC countries do that (if any)?
On another, entirely different subject, left unmentioned by the IPKat, it comes as no surprise that the US negotiators were particularly insistent in registering their displeasure with the EU’s PGI system…

“Revocator,” MaxDrei replied, “could it be that the USA is eying the 10 year term petty patent/utility model GBM system in Germany, with its 6 month grace period? After all, in the USA they call Registered Design rights “Design Patent” rights so it’a easy for them to suppose that GBM’s are utility patents with a grace period and the EURD is a 25 year patent with a grace period.”

“In summary, the US ‘bullies’ an already-embattled Britain (due to that controversial referendum) into granting the US corporations endless powers, protectionism and codified monopolies.”I’ve quickly read all the above. There’s no need to rephrase things. It’s pretty clear as it is. In summary, the US ‘bullies’ an already-embattled Britain (due to that controversial referendum) into granting the US corporations endless powers, protectionism and codified monopolies. They’re bargain-hunting. This is what happens when one negotiates out of position of considerable weakness. As the old saying goes (or hashtag), “Well Done Brexiters…”

Donald Trump lobbied for Brexit (before and after becoming President, before and after the referendum as well) and now he’s eager to pocket the UK. Media has mostly focused on the US-centric privatisation of the NHS, casting aside almost everything else.

11.30.19

Management of the EPO is Afraid of Scientists and Judges

Posted in Europe, Law, Patents at 8:22 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Cuno TarfusserLast year: It Wasn’t Judges With Weapons in Their Office, It Was Benoît Battistelli Who Brought Firearms to the European Patent Office (EPO)

Summary: Lawlessness prevails at Europe’s second-largest institution as the managers (i.e. people with connections, not skills, some with notorious military background) try to suppress both science and justice (much like the Trump administration across the ocean); this has become a parasites’ paradise and a bottomless pit for graft (theft)

THOSE who follow our series about Thierry Breton will be very well aware that Breton accomplished most things because of people who knew rather than things he knew. He left a destructive tail behind him (many dead people, too) and there are lots of parallels/overlaps with the EPO, as we noted in part 17 yesterday.

“Not many people were enraged; sites/sides owned and controlled by patent maximalists viewed Battistelli as a liability and were happy to accept just about anyone but Battistelli (even if it’s another Battistelli).”Battistelli managed to rig the process and spurn the judge (Cuno Tarfusser) who wanted to become President of the European Patent Office (EPO), instead ‘fixing’ the appointment process for a longtime friend and compatriot, António Campinos. Not many people were enraged; sites/sides owned and controlled by patent maximalists viewed Battistelli as a liability and were happy to accept just about anyone but Battistelli (even if it’s another Battistelli).

“EPO management carries on as if nothing happened.”Things have not changed at the EPO and a strike is likely imminent (5 out of 6 workers voted in favour a couple of days ago). We are grateful to each courageous person — usually examiner — who votes for a strike. The EPO needs to be fixed to avoid total collapse and great economic harm to Europe (the US is a cautionary tale in this regard).

EPO management carries on as if nothing happened. A day after the vote for a strike it was ‘business as usual’ and retweeted by EPO on Friday was this UK-IPO tweet that said: “Come and join us and the @EPOorg at the @TheCIPA in #London on 5 or 6 Dec. We will be providing an update on our latest and upcoming online service developments.”

“All they want is litigation, litigation and more litigation.”So EPO management is once again mingling with patent and litigation zealots instead of scientists. CIPA is a very integral part of Team UPC, lobbying our politicians by endlessly lying to them. All they want is litigation, litigation and more litigation.

There’s meanwhile that rekindled ‘debate’ (fake news) about UPC, manufactured by CIPA’s friends at Managing IP. Don’t fall for it. They’re pestering judges in Germany, as usual. These people couldn’t care any less about the law and about the Constitution. They’d burn the Magna Carta on Bonfire Night if they could.

“The latter two men are both parked elsewhere at the moment; one heads a law school (yes, a criminal heading a law school!), whereas the second is meanwhile creating a private firm in Zagreb.”The UPC will never exist, but in the meantime the Office relies on a panel of terrified judges, whose colleague was driven close to insanity after years of bullying by Battistelli and his Croatian Mafioso. The latter two men are both parked elsewhere at the moment; one heads a law school (yes, a criminal heading a law school!), whereas the second is meanwhile creating a private firm in Zagreb. What they’ve made of the EPO’s tribunal is a sordid mess in Haar. The judges there have repeatedly complained — even in public — that they lack autonomy/independence. But their decisions, likely made in violation of the EPC (not the judges’ fault!), are still being adopted as de facto EPO practice. Just promoted in Mondaq (shortly before the weekend) was this article by HGF Limited (law firm) regarding a Technical Board Of Appeal decision:

Inherency is not relevant to the novelty of a “purpose-limited product claim” filed in accordance with Article 54(5) EPC.

The EPO’s Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.09 in T0694/16 has clarified that claims to purposively selected patients for treatment with a known drug is novel over the prior art treatment of a broader and/or overlapping patient group with the same drug.

If there is a functional relationship between one or more biomarkers and responsiveness to treatment with a drug, and the claim defines the drug for use in the treatment of a patient defined by said biomarkers, then the presence of this functional relationship confirms that the purposive selection of the patients is an essential technical feature qualifying the claim(s), and this must be taken into account when assessing novelty.

In a separate thread from the latest one that concerns the EPO “The Convention Watchdog” wrote about the Boards Of Appeal (BoAs):

Labelling the co-applicants approach an EPO approach appears somewhat misleading. Requiring that co-owners of the priority right exercise their right in common has been widespread practice in the member states to the Paris Convention outside the US and is present practice in the EPC Contracting States as exemplified by the recent decisions in the UK HTC v Gemalto , [2013] EWHC 1876 (Pat), at pt. 131 f., confirming Edvards v Cook, [2009] EWHC 1304 (Pat), at pt. 99, and in Germany, BGH – Drahtloses Kommunikationsnetz, GRUR 2019, 271, at pt. 60ff. The co-applicants approach is an expression of the general legal principle that jointly owned rights have to be exercised in common. It protects the co-owner of the priority right against the exploitation of this right without his participation.

There’s an upcoming BoA case regarding software patents in Europe and Campinos already meddles in the case to get the ‘desired’ (by him and patent maximalists) outcome. The EPO is so broken that it’s not even sad; it’s almost infuriating as they also seem to be defrauding the public and their staff.

Imagine what would happen if Tarfusser, a former International Criminal Court (ICC) judge, was given the top position. How many EPO officials past and present would face the court and be arrested?

11.28.19

The Collapse of European Patents Continues

Posted in Courtroom, Europe, Law, Patents at 3:11 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

With or without courts getting involved

Graph extrapolated from the EPO
What good are patents granted in error?

Summary: The European Patent Office (EPO), confronted or challenged by courts that the EPO does not control, sees many of its newly-minted patents thrown out, reducing confidence in the whole system

EACH time an Invalid Patent (IP) gets granted there’s an opportunity for a law firm to make a buck (or euro), if not from application/renewal fees (shared with the patent office) then from frivolous litigation as well. But each such IP (we intentionally twisted this acronym) also harms the image of the office and the law firm. What kind of legal advice are they giving clients/applicants? This is a crisis in the making (early signs of which are nowadays seen and are increasingly visible in the United States).

“It is inevitable, as we’ve warned for a number of years, that many European Patents (EPs) will become IPs.”We’re not against patents; we’re for patent quality. We insist that patents should exist only in domains where their contribution to science/economics are undeniably provable. Yes, it’s about progression and advancement of human knowledge — something that monopolists have long opposed (as it is a form of disruption to the status quo they strive to perpetually exploit).

It is inevitable, as we’ve warned for a number of years, that many European Patents (EPs) will become IPs. If the largest patent-granting authority in Europe strives to just fake ‘production’ by granting loads of IPs, not only will support for this second-largest European institution diminish; it harms the EU’s reputation/credibility as well. It thus becomes a threat to peace, too.

Sara Moran has just commented on the British Court of Appeal looking into an IP:

Therefore the Court of Appeal was entitled to interfere with the trial judge’s assessment of obviousness and to hold that the 181 patent was invalid for lack of inventive step because the skilled team, during routine testing, would have been very likely to have come upon the dosage regime which is the subject matter of the patent.

Why was this patent granted in the first place? Appealing cases to the Court of Appeal (or higher) is unbelievably expensive. Many would have given up before that or never bother with a court battle, instead settling over IPs (patents of no real legitimacy).

“Why was this patent granted in the first place?”But the above case is sadly enough becoming the norm. Earlier this year we covered similar outcomes, even at higher level (the highest possible level). Will EPOnia heed the warning? Of course not! That would be bad for ‘production’…

The following new article/press release from FreshPlaza says that the “Boards of Appeal for the European Patent Office (EPO)” (since it’s besieged and terrorised by Office management, by its very own admission, can it overrule Office management?) has just restored a likely bogus/fake/invalid patent in defiance of the Opposition Division’s findings. To quote:

On November 13, 2019, the Boards of Appeal for the European Patent Office (EPO) reinstated Houweling’s European patent directed to its Ultra-Clima Semi-Closed Greenhouse. The Ultra-Clima European Patent was opposed by eleven greenhouse manufacturers, who combined efforts to challenge the patent. The Opposition Division of the EPO originally proposed revocation of Houweling’s European patent. Houweling disagreed with this finding and appealed the decision to the Boards of Appeal for the EPO. The Boards of Appeal reversed the proposed revocation and finally upheld Houweling’s patent. The Boards of Appeal found that Houweling’s patent meets all formal requirements of the EPO, and claims subject matter that is both novel and involves an inventive step. Houweling’s European patent covers most major countries in Europe.

What’s also noteworthy here is that the patent is a monopoly that decreases (limits/bans) access to something that’s needed to save humanity from catastrophe. Are such patents even desirable (irrespective of whether they’re valid or not)?

We’ve also just seen this new report from pv magazine International about fake patents granted by the EPO in the area of solar energy:

The European Patent Office has revoked SolarEdge’s inverter multi-level topology patent and the Israeli company said it intends to challenge both decisions.

[...]

On November 19, Mannheim Regional Court ruled Huawei had not committed patent infringement in relation to one of the two claims, and a court representative has told pv magazine the second case will be heard by January 7. “The judge declared that Huawei did not infringe on the patent relating to optimizer and inverter architecture and dismissed SolarEdge’s lawsuit directly,” announced Huawei in a statement this morning.

The European Patent Office (EPO) on Thursday responded to a patent opposition case lodged by Huawei against SolarEdge in relation to inverter multi-level topology. “The EPO decided that the SolarEdge patent did not involve an inventive step and the grant of the patent is revoked,” the Chinese manufacturer said.

So much for “green tech” patents, eh? PV-Tech‘s report has said that “German court rules against SolarEdge in Huawei patent infringement case”

So the EPO granted fake patents (monopolies on climate change mitigation techniques) and only lawyers benefited from pointless wars that courts deem fruitless and baseless:

Inverter manufacturer SolarEdge has been dealt a double blow after patent infringement proceedings brought against rival Huawei were thrown out and a European patent held by the firm was revoked.

However, in a statement released today, SolarEdge has confirmed its intent to appeal against the decision.

Last week, Mannheim Regional Court in Germany heard two particular cases brought forward by SolarEdge against Huawei, claiming that the Chinese tech giant infringed on its patents relating to its multi-level inverter topology technology, dubbed HD Wave.

It stems from an original complaint filed with the court last summer, vigorously denied by Huawei at the time, that called for a recall of products infringing on that patent.

But following proceedings heard on 19 November 2019, one infringement claim was dismissed and another deferred.

Imagine how much financial damage (to the firms involved) was caused. No, not the law firms; they always profit from disputes.

“Notice how they’re speaking only to patent and litigation firms in articles about patents (or citing EPO management). That is like speaking only to oil companies in articles about climate.”Who does this EPO policy really benefit? Not SMEs, that’s for sure; they’re harmed the most, but the EPO won’t let such ‘pesky’ facts get in the way. Yesterday a site called Bdaily repeated lies of the EPO, manufactured and paid for by EPO management to mislead the European public. To quote one bit (it’s mostly copy-pasted stuff from lawyers’ mouths): “The report acknowledges that European SMEs have been responsible for some important inventions in diverse fields such as pharmaceuticals, medical technology, clean energy, electronics and computing. Due to their lack of resources however, many SMEs opt to exploit their inventions through collaborations with partners.”

Notice how they’re speaking only to patent and litigation firms in articles about patents (or citing EPO management). That is like speaking only to oil companies in articles about climate. The EPO’s sheer disdain for truth was mentioned here yesterday. It’s a threat to sustained human existence, not just to “business” (which isn’t the same thing; without humans there’s no “business” and no “economy”).

11.23.19

Britain ‘Taking Back Control’ From the Wrong Institution; the EPO is the Greater Culprit

Posted in Europe, Law, Patents at 12:20 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Europe’s second-largest institution, the European Patent Office (EPO), is vastly more problematic than the EU

EU is not the problem. The EPO and its immunity is the problem.Summary: The institution which poses risk to the European economy isn’t the EU/EC/EP but a certain unaccountable monopoly-granting authority which ceased to obey even its own rules and instead became a ‘cash machine’ of gambling officials who are corrupt and uncaring (they don’t care about Europe, they only care about how to rob Europe)

IT IS probably safe to say that people who have patents or deal with patents in the UK are pro-EU. There are various intuitive markers that suggest so. Techrights core members are also pro-EU and our series about Breton is motivated by concern for the EU’s reputation (if Macron’s choice/nomination goes ahead and becomes an appointment — in effect reaffirming some views of staunch EU critics).

António Campinos is a former EU official and Battistelli is connected to Breton and others. It’s rather sickening because the deeper we look into it, the closer this whole cabal seems. These people openly promote software patents in Europe, no matter what actual software professionals say, and they’ve made Europe more receptive/open towards such patents than the US is (after 35 U.S.C. § 101 caselaw stabilised a year or two ago).

“The EPO was established to promote science, innovation and so on. Nowadays, however, the EPO makes it abundantly clear that it exists and operates for litigation and predation.”The EPO is not listening to Europe; far less so than the EU, that’s for sure…

The EPO is far too busy traveling the world, granting the lion’s share of European Patents to people and companies that aren’t even European.

The EPO was established to promote science, innovation and so on. Nowadays, however, the EPO makes it abundantly clear that it exists and operates for litigation and predation. It’s also bribing our media and our scholars. It’s corrosive to European democracy on more than a single front, which is why it has become such a central issue here in Techrights.

Maybe it’s time for nations not to ponder “exits” from the EU but from the EPO (unless the EPO sobers up and starts to obey the EPC; right now it deliberately violates the EPC and then hides the effect).

11.21.19

Justice Peter Huber Speaking to a Front Group of Team UPC May Compromise the Integrity of the FCC and Its Outcomes

Posted in Europe, Law, Patents at 12:37 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

We're Germany's highest court, we don't succumb to pressure. We just give exclusive interviews with insights to pressure groups.

Summary: The public reaction, even from some legal professionals, isn’t too positive, seeing how judges from BVerfG (FCC) speak to the mouthpieces of Team UPC (biased and in the pockets of the litigation ‘industry’)

IT IS rather worrying. Earlier today we recalled some conflict of interest and now we see bad words shared with Team UPC’s media, almost as if Team UPC gets some sort of ‘magical lane’ into constitutional courts, too.

“Looking at some early comments about Huber’s remarks, pretty much all the comments (at this time) speak about how inappropriate it was for him to speak to this co-called ‘media’ (think tank, lobbyists, pressure group) — the same thing we initially stated.”Why would a high German judge (a “justice” even; like SCOTUS judges) be speaking to a hive of misinformation and trolls? It’s funded by many Team UPC firms and worse. Was he not aware? The contents of the interview have already caused some controversy and we shall come to that in a moment.

Suffice to say, Team UPC is totally exploiting this. Gregory Bacon of Bristows is now openly bragging about this FCC judge speaking to Team UPC about the constitutional complaint. “If the BVerfG’s decision is that the complaint be dismissed,” he wrote, “this removes one factor holding up the start of the proposed unitary patent and UPC system, but the other factor, i.e. Brexit, remains.”

There are several more factors, but Bristows ignores these. Because it’s inconvenient…

But everyone knows Bristows is a pack of liars. Even some university professors share that sentiment.

Looking at some early comments about Huber’s remarks, pretty much all the comments (at this time) speak about how inappropriate it was for him to speak to this co-called ‘media’ (think tank, lobbyists, pressure group) — the same thing we initially stated.

MaxDrei said:

I find it regrettable that a judge of Germany’s highest court should use the B word in an interview with a journalist. Competition with the over-touchy, over-reactive Tweeter in the White House is not what I expect from the court.

Let’s think about it a bit more calmly. Suppose the journalist had avoided inclusion of the provocative word “delay” in their question. So; for example: “Is BREXIT slowing down the process of coming to a judgement?”. Would Judge Huber’s answer to the question thus expressed have been quite so intemperate?

So I wonder, did MIP deliberately include the provocative word “delay” in order to goad the judge into a response that generates more publicity for MIP or, worse, to give the judge an opportunity to give his court a more edgy presence with the public?

“Concerned observer” soon followed:

Is it just me, or is the interview provided by Justice Peter Huber highly irregular?

I am struggling to recall a prior occasion on which a lead judge on a case discussed that case with the media prior to providing their judgement. Whilst the interview arguably only touches upon minor details, it is surely contrary to the interests of justice for a judge to make public pronouncements on ANY matters related to a case prior to final judgement. And to make such pronouncements to the media (instead of directly to the parties to the case) is also most peculiar.

Perhaps most troubling of all is that Justice Huber is quoted as saying “Brexit is of no concern” to the BVerfG. This could perhaps be interpreted as referring solely to the timing of the BVerfG’s judgement. However, given that the precise legal identity of the UPC (and, therefore, of the Participating States to that court) could well be a crucial issue upon which the BVerfG needs to decide, that statement is careless at best.

And back came MaxDrei with this:

In MIP, the by-line below the title of the Huber interview report is “Patrick Wingrove, London”. So was the interview conducted in English or in German. I guess that Judge Huber has good English but is not bi-lingual or an English native speaker. Did Judge Huber give answers in German, later translated by MIP into English, or did he actually give in English his answers to these supremely delicate and controversial matters?

In particular, his “no concern of mine” answer sounds flippant but I give him the benefit of the doubt. I guess he wanted to say that internal UK politics is no concern of his, his concern being exclusively the DE Constitution and EU law. Dragging the UK into his deliberations is indeed not needed. This year it is the UK. Next year it could be another EU Member State.

MaxDrei also asked in IP Kat:

Can anybody tell me whether Judge Huber gave his replies to MIP in his native German, or in English? I mean, “no concern of ours” and “bullshit” strike me as unlikely to have emerged from the mouth of a Supreme Court judge offering comment on one of the cases in his pending docket.

Is MIP sexing the answers up? Or is it Peter Huber who is looking to raise the profile of his court?

Thinking also about another recent leap into the arms of the press, a recent BBC interview, that old advice to “Look before you Leap” springs to mind.

Watch the replies: “Max, the interview was in English.”

“When the top/key judge in your case uses the word “bullshit” (even in English!) something is likely amiss.”MIP too commented: “The interview was conducted in English.”

Looking at social control media, Birgit Clark (former ‘Kat’) wrote: “We can always ask the BVerfG press office? I am slightly puzzled by the choice of vocabulary…” (alluding to “bullshit”)

When the top/key judge in your case uses the word “bullshit” (even in English!) something is likely amiss. But the key issue isn’t that he spoke out like this but who he spoke with.

Alex Robinson (Team UPC, he calls himself that) said: “No, as in we won’t see a decision in 2020? (I maintain some scepticism about this too as it has already been on the list for 2018 and 2019!)”

“There seems to be great uncertainty about how it came about and in past years we saw some media — and Bristows in particular — claiming to have gotten a word from institutions without being able to verify that; they possibly lied, they may have made the whole thing up, wholly or partially. We wrote about those incidents many times.”He also said: “If there is no interview then why is MIP claiming there is? All very peculiar.”

There’s confusion even among colleagues. Max Walters wrote: “I’d also be intrigued to hear what they have to say…”

There seems to be great uncertainty about how it came about and in past years we saw some media — and Bristows in particular — claiming to have gotten a word from institutions without being able to verify that; they possibly lied, they may have made the whole thing up, wholly or partially. We wrote about those incidents many times. These people play very, very dirty games. They’re immoral and desperate.

“Never understood why FFII eV was denied access,” Benjamin Henrion said, “while the EPO or the BDI could file an amicus brief, and have privileged access to the case which is “secret” #transparency #favouritism”

“These people play very, very dirty games.”The same goes for various Team UPC ‘reporters’ (lobbyists of the litigation giants who are also close to Battistelli). Why are they getting special treatment? CEIPI (Battistelli) tweeted: “The case holding up the Unified Patent Court will be decided in the first quarter of 2020, according to Justice Peter Huber of the German Federal Constitutional Court #UnifiedPatentCourt #UPC #UnitaryPatent #Brexit cc: @xavier_seuba @TeresaCalixto https://twitter.com/ManagingIP/status/1197201103751983105″

So CEIPI (Battistelli) too is smelling ‘blood’.

What’s noted above is very much noteworthy. If judges are eager to rub shoulders with Team UPC lobbyists, what does that tell us about the case — and worse — what does that say about the FCC’s impartiality?

As someone has just put it in very general terms: “It’s a lobbying lollapalooza in Brussels right now. Everywhere you turn conferences, meet-ups and “events”. The sad irony is that for mainstream media, EU policy news right now is boring. We’ll get to it when the sausage is pretty much made and the debate lines set.”

“To see judge/justice Huber mingling with these lobbyists is at the very least concerning. It can harm also the reputation of his FCC colleagues.”Earlier this week the EPO bragged about lobbying Brussels (we responded to that) and litigation events are being set up by MIP with direct support from the EPO. Quite a few of these are pro-UPC events, so what does judge/justice Huber’s interaction with MIP tell us?

All these “events” are lobbying platforms (like "FOSSPatents Conference" for FRAND), bankrolled by particular businesses for particular outcomes, findings, stacked panels etc.

To see judge/justice Huber mingling with these lobbyists is at the very least concerning. It can harm also the reputation of his FCC colleagues.

Injustice at Every Level Would Simply Doom the Entire Patent System

Posted in Europe, Law, Patents at 11:45 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Lack of respect for the fundamental laws and for constitutions (or the EPC) means the culprits cannot lecture the public on the need to obey the law

We break the law because we need to run an office to apply the law
And they hope to also enforce the law (with the UPC)

Summary: Repeated failure to restore the Rule of Law and enforce accountability/oversight in Europe’s patent system renders the entire system moot; it is a case of adherence to basic constitutional pillars

UTTER LAWLESSNESS has long been a problem in EPOnia. Stakeholders cannot sue anyone but other stakeholders, staff cannot sue the management (no matter the circumstances or severity of grievances), and ILO-AT seems to be ‘in bed’ with EPO management. The EPO’s judges are openly complaining that they lack the independence they require (as per the law) and examiners say they cannot do their job properly anymore.

Only patently dishonest people would claim that there’s no problem at the EPO. The future isn’t rosy, either. The EPO has issued the “news” “European Patent Office launches new Espacenet, improving access to world’s largest free collection of patent documents” (warning: epo.org link), soon to be boosted by Watchtroll (stenography from litigation fanatics and patent trolls).

“Only patently dishonest people would claim that there’s no problem at the EPO.”The quality of patents granted by the European Patent Office (EPO) under
Campinos and Battistelli is rapidly decreasing, as will the value of these documents. All those software patents would likely perish in practice (e.g. in European courts, if challenged).

As someone noted earlier today in IP Kat comments:

Alice, Mayo and Myriad attempted for policy reasons to limit what was patentable in the computer-related and biotech field. Part of the reasoning was to make sure the ‘building blocks of innovation’ were not monopolised, i.e. stayed part of the commons. The IP community reacted by simply seeing the increased uncertainty, as you say, but there are much broader ramifications. Unfortunately economists have not jumped in and given us the numbers for how much the economy would benefit or lose. They only do the easy analyses, and don’t tackle the really complex things. And if economists don’t do this, then government has no way of seeing the real impact of what the Supreme Court was doing. So government sees no point in trying to protect the commons, because in trying to do so it will only see the criticism of the IP and R&D community, without any means to look at the gain.

The EPO has meanwhile moved in the opposite direction of the US. It’s introducing all sorts of laughable patent ‘families’ and uses buzzwords like ‘hey hi’ (AI) to justify granting patents on mathematics. And who’s gonna stop that? The EPO is virtually above the law and when it breaks laws nobody is held accountable. This means that lots of Invalid Patents (IPs) or bogus European Patents (EPs) are being given for those likely to just use them in bulk for blackmail or against small actors for ‘protection money’. This is the very opposite of justice.

“…this is a repetition of the same mistakes which led to the granting of loads of fake patents — patents that simply would not withstand challenge outside the EPO.”Surely Max Walters (longtime writer for the patent microcosm) knows that quicker oppositions would mean sloppier ones, i.e. ones that are likely to leave fake patents in tact. But today he echoes a similar ‘report’ from WIPR ‘sphere’ (more patent maximalists in the EPO’s pockets) by saying that lawyers “welcome opposition speed but want clearer BoA data”. To quote: “In-house lawyers in the pharmaceutical industry say data showing that EPO opposition procedures are speeding up provides clarity but that more information should be published on how successful subsequent appeals are.”

Speed is the wrong thing to measure. As we noted earlier this week, this is a repetition of the same mistakes which led to the granting of loads of fake patents — patents that simply would not withstand challenge outside the EPO. The EPO now hopes to ‘steal’ all the courts — a subject we’ll tackle in the next post.

11.17.19

The Open Invention Network Has Become a Guard Dog of (Some) Patent Trolls and It Misrepresents Us Under the Guise of ‘Open Source’

Posted in Deception, Europe, Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, IBM, Law, News Roundup, OIN, Patents, Standard at 2:19 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Defending software patents and trolls. Calling them “charities” was likely the last straw.

2 dogs

Summary: The Open Invention Network (OIN), in collaboration with Fraunhöfer, is promoting software patents and all sorts of other nonsense as part of ‘open’ standards in a new paper sponsored by the EU and edited by the former EPO Chief Economist Nikolaus Thumm (not Battistelli's choice); this is another reminder of the fact that OIN misrepresents Free/Open Source software (FOSS) developers and their interests

The Open Invention Network (OIN) is somewhat of a scam. It wasn’t always like this. Ignore their use (or misuse) of the Tux logo and the brand “Linux”; then, check the pertinent members instead. Check the leadership. OIN will truly serve Linux only when it finally combats software patents, i.e. when pigs fly (“OIN OIN!”). As we showed earlier this year, “Today’s Open Invention Network is Run by Former Patent Trolls, Connected to and Backed by Microsoft”

Today’s OIN already calls some patent trolls “charities”, works with them, even hires from them. OIN does not speak for FOSS. It speaks for patent bullies like IBM that also happen to rely on FOSS for some things. OIN is convenient for the likes of IBM. Right now OIN even promotes patents and software patents as part of standards. What are they thinking? Who on Earth thought it would work out well? With the likes of Microsoft as celebrated OIN members, the brain might ‘have gone somewhere else…’ (to put it in more subtle terms)

OIN does not oppose software patents (it never did, since its very inception); its members, especially the big ones, oppose 35 U.S.C. § 101 and are big “customers” of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Yes, the word “customers” is used by them. They are, in a lot of ways, part of the problem, not the solution to it.

“OIN does not oppose software patents (it never did, since its very inception)…”You know something has gone wrong when you see OIN acting as more of a front group for proponents of software patents, manned by patent trolls instead of FOSS proponents. These are people who actually sued Linux (in the previous employer). Unfortunately, many people lost sight of how OIN changed over the years. Therefore, they can’t quite see the changes.

As Henrion noted the other day: “OIN and Fraunhöfer, the foxes in the henhouse, behind the an awful study on how patents in standards are ‘compatible’ with FLOSS…”

With ‘representatives’ like these…

Knut Blind

EU paper

He added that “[t]hey should have read the GPL” and citing the GPL he quoted: “Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, IN EFFECT MAKING THE PROGRAM PROPRIETARY. [...] To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone’s free use or not licensed at all.”

“…many people lost sight of how OIN changed over the years.”“OIN is in the same ‘club’ that opposes and badmouths copyleft,” I told him (check what IBM et al use for licensing of choice). They only adopt GPL when “there’s no choice” (e.g. Linux kernel). “Software patents ought not even exist and after Alice (which Microsoft and IBM attack via their front groups and corrupt lobbyists like Kappos selling ‘connections’) such patents are likely bunk, invalid anyway.”

I was reminded of this again some hours ago because of this new blog post. It’s by Mirko Boehm from OIN, who blocked me in Twitter so we know he has much to hide… (some of his tweets are appalling)

“Their paper uses propaganda terms such as “Intellectual Property Right (IPR)” and I’ve circulated this for discussion in IRC.”“I already tweeted about it,” Henrion told me, “as the fox in the henhouse. We cannot tolerate lobbyists of OIN and Franhofer to write such papers with public money, as they have an interest. This has basic conflict of interests problems.”

Their paper uses propaganda terms such as “Intellectual Property Right (IPR)” and I’ve circulated this for discussion in IRC. For obvious reasons we’d rather not quote the paper or link to it directly (there’s an indirect link above). Instead, we shall leave readers with this OIN tweet:

Mirko Boehm on Fraunhofer as charity

11.16.19

EPO Running ILO’s Tribunal (ILO-AT) ‘in a Loop’ to Perpetually Delay and Drain the EPO’s Complainants (Aggrieved Staff) Out of Money

Posted in Europe, Law, Patents at 12:55 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

ILO won’t deliver justice, but it invites you to the long (and very expensive) ride

Loop

Summary: ILO’s Administrative Tribunal — a court for aggrieved EPO staff and other international organisations’ staff (usually known as ILO-AT for short) — is a major farce; when “time is money” and lawyers charge as much as 400 euros an hour the EPO’s management can exploit/misuse its cash reserves to also game justice and buy legal outcomes

AS we've just explained, Koch v EPO [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] is an important case/appeal as it shows how useless ILO-AT has become. ILO is aware of the problem (it spoke about it several times), but it has not tackled the problem. Instead, it’s meeting with EPO management while snubbing staff representatives/unions. This helps show whose side ILO is taking, as one might expect from an international organisation created for and by the rich and the powerful, not the besieged and the powerless.

Several months ago we took time to study the above case. The next post will deal with the latest (the 129th session of the Tribunal has just concluded). If anything, this only reaffirmed our negative view of ILO and ILO-AT.

“This helps show whose side ILO is taking, as one might expect from an international organisation created for and by the rich and the powerful, not the besieged and the powerless.”From the EPO’s reply in Koch’s case (AT 5-4384) we know that the Tribunal (ILO-AT) issued Judgment number 4131, and that it thereby seems to “row back” from its former standard Jurisprudence which used to be considered rather competent and decent, at least during the good old times of Justice Mary Gaudron.

While it has been the Tribunal’s standard Jurisprudence that organisations may not withdraw final decisions (withdrawal would contravene the principle of good faith, for instance), see Judgment number 2906, under 8., Judgments number 994, under 14., or Judgments number 1006, under 2., as the Tribunal seemed to allow the EPO withdrawal of final decisions and “re-running” of internal appeals (IAs) on its own initiative; see Judgment number 4131, under 5. — yet that specific case was irreceivable for a different reason (the appeal concerned an intermediate step and therefore failed), i.e. cons. 5 of Judgment 4131 was irrelevant to the decision in that case.

Yet, it would be the end of Rule of Law if the Tribunal went further in the direction set out in Judgment 4131, under 5., and allowed the EPO to withdraw final decisions and to “re-run” appeals on its own initiative, without the complainant(s) being involved, also in other cases; see the arguments in para. 22 and subsections of this reply [PDF] — many of them are general, some more specific to Koch’s case. The clear risk is that cases will go back and forth between the EPO and the Tribunal without ever being treated in substance by the Tribunal.

“The clear risk is that cases will go back and forth between the EPO and the Tribunal without ever being treated in substance by the Tribunal.”Even worse: In the meantime the EPO “legalised” the unbalanced composition of the Internal Appeals Committee (IAC) which had been reproved by the Tribunal in Judgment no. 3785, under 7., i.e. participation of volunteers being nominated by the President or selected by lots(!) instead of being nominated to the IAC by the Central Staff Committee (as it used to be). And now, disturbingly, the Tribunal mentioned the IAC (of 2018 and thus composed according to the EPO’s new rules from the Battistelli era) as “properly constituted” in Judgment 4131, under 3. — which, of course, the EPO’s lawyers already used against Koch, to prevent the treatment of the case in substance, though the case is already delayed for 6 years since Ms. Bergot’s adverse decision of September 2013 against Koch.

On the “good” side: the remark under cons. 3 of Judgment 4131 was not relevant to that particular case, as it failed for a different reason. Yet, if this route is continued, it would also mean that the Tribunal would no longer respect the principle of non-retroactivity embraced by it in the past — see under 22.2.8 of the reply — and that it would help the EPO benefit from its own turpitude, not just once, but multiply, as the repetition of the IAs would be purely formal (the composition of the IAC not having changed, just having been “legalised” by the EPO). Such “re-running” would generate more delay, more work and higher costs for complainants and potentially prevent treatment of certain cases in substance (like Koch’s cases, which she is unable to treat in parallel, in two instances, see para. 22.1.7 and 5.1 of the reply).

« 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