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

10.20.19

European Patent Office and US Patent and Trademark Office Cranks Discovered Buzzwords, Stopped Worrying, Started Granting Patents They Know to be Fake

Posted in America, Deception, Europe, Patents at 2:53 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

So software is just A.I. or hey hi!

Summary: The world’s patent repositories are being saturated with loads of junk patents or patents that have no legal bearing but can still be leveraged for extortion purposes; the EPO is resorting to lies and artificially-elevated buzzwords to justify granting such fake (yet ruinous) patents

ALL the patent maximalists have left now is numbers. Lots and lots of numbers. Big numbers. A number of what exactly? Patents. Yes, entries on some computer system. One single computer in an ordinary desk can contain all those entries. A supercomputer can generate this much text in less than one second. What good are patents whose quality doesn’t matter? Whose practical utility is questionable? What does this system even strive for? Ask WIPO, whose sole obsession is seeing a rise in numbers, even if much of that rise is attributable to low-quality patents from China — patents that WIPO staff cannot even grasp because few people there can read Mandarin!

“Ask WIPO, whose sole obsession is seeing a rise in numbers, even if much of that rise is attributable to low-quality patents from China — patents that WIPO staff cannot even grasp because few people there can read Mandarin!”WIPO is a symptom of a broader problem because today’s leadership of the European Patent Office (EPO) and Trump’s chosen leadership for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) are truly appalling. Not only Iancu by the way! António Campinos — like Battistelli — totally lacks background in science, yet he has the audacity to meddle in legal cases regarding the fate of software patents in Europe (yes, he has already meddled in an upcoming legal case). Can Mr. Campinos even explain how a computer works? Are his computer skills limited to use of Microsoft Office? Regardless, António Campinos continues to post pointless photo ops while breaking the law every single day. He just proves that he’s no different; he’s another Battistelli. He still ‘rides’ his ‘grace period’.

The latest EPO puff piece mentions Cambodia (warning: epo.org link) with no European Patents at all [1, 2]. It’s about EPO and WIPO, best known to WIPO employees for its abuses against employees. “To strengthen international co-operation on patents,” the EPO wrote, “a delegation from the EPO met with representatives of IP offices from around the world on the fringes of the Assemblies of the Member States of the WIPO in Geneva last week and signed a number of agreements.”

In the carefully-prepared statement which glorifies Campinos (less qualified than most EPO examiners!) the EPO has also just amplified the "hey hi" hype: “EPO representatives also participated in an event organised by WIPO Director General Francis Gurry at which the implications of Artificial Intelligence for the global intellectual property system were discussed.”

“António Campinos continues to post pointless photo ops while breaking the law every single day. He just proves that he’s no different; he’s another Battistelli.”There are two aspects to this buzzword in the context of patents; one is automatically-generated patent applications (using algorithms) and another is patents on algorithms with some “logic” in them (that would be pretty much every algorithm with a conditional statement, i.e. a decision, in it). This is more of that sickening propaganda of the UN/WIPO. They seem to have become so fascinated by if not obsessed with fashionable buzzwords — to the point where they’ve facilitated patents on just about anything. This problem is well recognised inside and outside patent offices, but few seem courageous enough to talk about it, especially in the media which is by far the biggest culprit (mindlessly spreading these buzzwords and superficial hype).

One need not look far to find those complicit in the scourge of misinformation. Days ago at IP Kat Hayleigh Bosher published some nonsense about “Artificial Intelligence”, saying that “Chapter 2 focuses more specifically on the unique factors of AI, elaborating on AI as a legal phenomenon.”

AI, AI, AI, AI, AI, AI, AI, AI, AI, AI, AI, AI…

“This problem is well recognised inside and outside patent office, but few seem courageous enough to talk about it, especially in the media which is by far the biggest culprit (mindlessly spreading these buzzwords and superficial hype).”Just keep repeating that nonsense…

The lawyers are totally exploiting buzzwords and hype to further their litigation agenda

Here’s another new example of patent hype with “hey hi” slant, this time in the Wall Street Journal ( Jared Council’s “Can an AI System Be Given a Patent?”) and a new cartoon (“‘Artificial’ Intelligence”). Over at Law360 they’re disguising bogus, bunk, fake software patents as “hey hi!” (“Self-Driving Vehicles’ Neural Networks Present IP Conundrum”). To quote: “Artificial intelligence has been dubbed the fourth industrial revolution. In part, the development of AI has been spurred by our desire for automation, and there is no better nexus of these two areas than in the automotive industry, where the holy grail of automation is self-driving, or autonomous, vehicles.

“The lawyers are totally exploiting buzzwords and hype to further their litigation agenda ““There are already vehicles available that implement a degree of automation — Tesla Inc. was first to market with its autopilot feature, and many of the more traditional manufacturers are following suit with their own implementations.”

Notice the addition of another buzzword in the first sentence: “fourth industrial revolution.”

The EPO paid European media to spread this nonsense as well; it even made abbreviations for it (4IR, not TFIR). Then it bragged — in inward and outward publications — that the South Korean media copied or rather parroted this propaganda (we covered that at the time). It’s important to take note of the patent offices’ active role in dissemination of such nonsense.

They’re then calling “hey hi” any algorithms with some “logic” in them. They rewrite examination guidelines accordingly, knowing that applicants would get the request for algorithm monopolies OK’ed by the examiners, as per the new guidelines (applicants also get major discounts if they're Microsoft customers with OOXML).

“They’re then calling “hey hi” any algorithms with some “logic” in them.”Notice what’s happening at the USPTO right now. Michael Borella, a proponent of software patents (litigation is his ‘business’), writes about the Office crafting new tricks for getting fake patents or software patents courts would almost certainly throw out. So does Dennis Crouch, a longtime proponent of software patents with ties to Watchtroll. To quote Borella: “Under Dir. Iancu, the USPTO has taken a seemingly broader view of eligibility than the Supreme Court, albeit much narrower than before Bilski, Alice, and Mayo. In January 2019, the PTO published a set of Patent Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG). On October 17, 2019, the PTO released a new set of revisions based upon public comments. “All USPTO personnel are expected to follow the guidance.””

So just like at the EPO he compels examiners to basically break the law or deviate from caselaw; those guidelines are likely not legal. Iancu, the corrupt Trump appointee, 'does a Battistelli' by deviating from the law. Here’s more from Borella and his colleagues:

Early today, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office released an update to its January 2019 Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Unlike the January Guidance, which represented a significant change in how the USPTO applies § 101 in examination and PTAB proceedings, this October Update is primarily an effort to clarify issues brought up by public comments on the January Guidance. While not exactly much ado about nothing, the October Update provides few changes to USPTO’s stance on § 101.

The USPTO basically breaks the law. Responding to a tweet from Crouch, Benjamin Henrion wrote [1, 2]: “When does someone submit them to court? This is reopening the floodgates of software patents without a mandate. Better copy the European Patent Convention art52 exceptions, including computer programs.”

“Welcome to the post-law patent regime. It no longer even pretends to adhere to law.”“The EPO brags about copying its flagrant violations of the law to other continents,” I responded, “America included…”

So the EPO’s “hey hi” hype has officially spread to the USPTO, as was the practice of basically ignoring courts and ignoring the law. They grant illegal patents.

Speaking of buzzwords like “AI” and “4IR”, how about other hype waves? Just several days ago Frances Wilding and David Lewin (Haseltine Lake Kempner LLP) published in Mondaq (original [PDF]) this “Review Of Blockchain Patenting At The EPO” and to quote:

The two charts show similar paths of increase in the numbers concerned, though the numbers for European patent applications are on a smaller scale. So far a total of just over 400 European patent applications which mention the term “blockchain” anywhere have been published and just over 190 European patent applications which mention the term “blockchain” in the claims have been published. It seems reasonable to expect that further European “blockchain” applications will feed continued growth in published European patent applications even beyond the estimate made for the full year of 2019.

Liars and charlatans are riding hype waves and set up events to hype up these things even further in the context of patents; throw some words like “blockchain” into a patent application and patents on algorithms are magically ‘OK’? Welcome to the post-law patent regime. It no longer even pretends to adhere to law.

“The True Hypocrite is the One Who Ceases to Perceive His Deception, the One Who Lies With Sincerity,” Said André Paul Guillaume Gide (Nobel Prize in Literature)

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 1:05 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Managing IP lying

Summary: Lies flow like water in the realm of EPO and its publishers, whose sole role is dissemination of deliberate falsehoods, misnomers and misinformation

ALMOST everything that the European Patent Office (EPO) says or “tweets” is a lie. Almost everything! António Campinos and Battistelli are professional liars with a track record to prove it. It makes them ‘perfect fits’ for a patent office that deceives, breaks the law, and then cover that up. Perfect!

Let’s look at some new examples and examine them.

“The EPO bribes scholars and it bribes media (publishers). It manufactures co-called ‘events’ with phony ‘panels’ that are crafted (pre-selected or filtered) for overall bias.”The EPO’s communications department is perfectly happy to lie to everyone. This newly-promoted video is a lie because the EPO supports patent trolls and law firms at the expense of inventors. It also assists non-European monopolies/giants. 3.5 weeks later the EPO still pushes this rigged propaganda about who benefits from patents. Industries that can afford to buy or make monopolies for themselves pay significantly higher wages, no doubt, but at whose expense? How many of these firms are even European? They’ve just spoken about “SMEs” yet again and then added: “Our staff’s professional development is highly important to us. We’re focused on equipping them to reach their full potential and guide them as they increase their capabilities, skills and competencies.”

This is a shameless and deliberate lie. Just ask any member of (EPO) staff. The very opposite is true.

The EPO has meanwhile promoted its forums for the first time in ages. “The forums are a joke with just about 1,000 threads in 5 years,” I told them, “or about one per two days. It’s a “dead zone” and an embarrassment to something that’s Europe’s second-largest body.”

The EPO is hardly being listened to. Watch how many “likes” or “RTs” it attracts in Twitter. Hardly any. They barely ever receive comments. We suspect that many of the so-called ‘followers’ are paid-for fakes — a subject we covered here several times in the distant past.

The EPO therefore relies on outside help with the lies. The EPO bribes scholars and it bribes media (publishers). It manufactures co-called ‘events’ with phony ‘panels’ that are crafted (pre-selected or filtered) for overall bias. We know who profits from these lying platforms; it’s the likes of IAM and Managing IP. We need to call them out on it.

In recent days Managing IP published many articles about this thing called “London IP Week” and posted tweets like this: “In a lively discussion at a London IP conference, a licensee and licensor debated the merits of the German injunction system and what ‘non-discriminatory’ means in the context of FRAND…”

FRAND is a lie. Every letter in this acronym is a deliberate lie, crafted by the litigation and trolling ‘industry’ for spin (distorting public discourse). Do the above participants feel any remorse about perpetuating these lies? They are complicit. They profit from the lies. Be sure to also see articles like this new one about trademarks. This is classic Managing IP dishonesty, treating everything like the only people who exist in this world (or whose voice counts) are lawyers! They even defended this position to me, stating very clearly that they write for lawyers. “Lawyers reflect on the ideal qualities for whoever replaces Mary Boney Denison, who is retiring as USPTO commissioner for trademarks at the end of this year,” says the summary. What do non-lawyers say? That doesn’t matter. There’s also this “SkyKick TM opinion”. Similarly, and predictably, whenever they cover patents they only take into account one side of the ‘argument’ (business). To them, only people who profit from litigation count. Sadly, this perfectly describes today’s EPO management as well. A long time ago it quit caring about science; instead it became all about litigation, looking for ways to spur law firms’ activity. In the next post we’ll explain how that relates to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the granting of software patents in Europe.

10.19.19

The EPO Cannot Guard Fake European Patents From Scrutiny (in the Long Run)

Posted in Europe, Patents at 11:26 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Put It Somewhere Else Patrick: You take all these fake patents. Then make sure independent counts don't touch them.

Summary: Legal certainty associated with newly-granted European Patents is already pretty low and as long as the EPO refuses to acknowledge that its courts (or boards) lack autonomy the EPO merely brushes a growing problem under the rug

ANY TIME European Patent Office (EPO) presidents promote software patents and demote/punish judges who can put an end to these illegal patents they merely reinforce the idea or the “perception” — a word they habitually use — of institutional lawlessness. President António Campinos is happy to crush perfectly legitimate challenges to President Battistelli‘s illegal attacks on judges, which likely render years of rulings legally invalid (remember what ILO-AT said about hundreds of cases involving disciplinary actions against EPO staff as well).

Jane Evenson and Ella Wells (CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP) have put in Lexology their new article about the “Revised Rules of Procedure of the European Patent Office Boards of Appeal, which are due to come into effect from 1 January 2020.”

It’s quite long, there’s nothing new or exciting in there (we wrote about that countless/dozens of times before, stressing that nothing was done to restore independence), and it says:

The Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal are the rules that govern the way appeals are conducted at the European Patent Office (EPO). The EPO has recently approved changes to these rules, which are due to come into effect from 1 January 2020. The new rules (known as “RPBA 2020″) can be found here. The EPO has said that the aims of the revisions are to increase (i) efficiency, by reducing the number of issues to be treated, (ii) predictability for the parties, and (iii) harmonisation.

[...]

In addition to the changes listed below, a list of appeal hearings expected to be heard by each Board will now be published at the beginning of every working year, allowing parties to more effectively budget and plan for hearings.

How many hearings? With a backlog of 10,000+ cases (appeals) justice itself is clearly not a priority at the EPO, only mass-granting operations. And speaking of such operations, Bart van Wezenbeek has just highlighted this case of Bayer, highlighting the limits of oppositions as well (under pressure to hurriedly decide):

Bayer was not granted an injunction in preliminary proceedings because the Court found that there was a serious chance that Bayer’s patent would be held invalid. The fact that the patent had survived opposition before the EPO was of no influence since new, closer prior art had subsequently been found.

So an actual court found a patent that even EPO oppositions had upheld to be likely invalid. Regardless of it, embargoes were attempted by Monsanto’s owner with its notorious past. This is the kind of problem caused by EPO injustice — a problem that isn’t at all being addressed by EPO management. The avalanche will come one day.

10.18.19

New EPO Meme: Who Wants to Make Billions From a ‘Public’ Monopoly?

Posted in Europe, Patents at 2:24 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

EPO meme
Credit/source: “What has become of you, EPO? Staff was once proud to work for, it feels like ages ago. Since then, it seems that #Fear and #oppression have become the norm rather than the exception. #patents #Europe #workplace #society #democracy #Germany #Netherlands #Austria #ruleOfLaw”

Summary: What was supposed to be a cash-balanced patent office became a money-making monster that fakes ‘crises’ to attack hard-working examiners

10.17.19

There Won’t be Patent Justice Until Patent Trolling Becomes Completely and Totally Extinct

Posted in Courtroom, Patents at 8:30 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

If the system exists to reward innovation and not punish the falsely-accused

A hanging snake

Summary: SLAPP-like behaviour and extortion/blackmail tactics using patent monopolies are a stain on the patent system; it’s time to adopt measures to stop these things once and for all, bearing in mind they’re inherently antithetical to the goal/s of the patent system and therefore discourage public support for this whole system

THE POSITION that patent trolls ought not exist is not a controversial one. People who never invented or created anything go after those who do; many of the underlying patents are merely purchased — a passage of assignment that probably oughtn’t be permitted. The key concept behind patents and rationale for their existence demand that the end goal should be innovation, progress of science. Sharing of knowledge/methods/understanding can be mutually and collectively beneficial.

The United States has thankfully weakened patent trolls; some went out of ‘business’, some barely survive and others suffered in the ‘sales’ department (selling ‘protection’), quite severely in fact. A lot of trolls we used to cover no longer exist. They don’t formally announce shutdown, but it’s clear that they no longer operate, i.e. no new lawsuits are filed (that’s their sole mode of operation).

As expected, RPX has been waning. We wrote about this several times in recent years. It became less relevant because the US patent system ‘tightened’ and litigation numbers collapsed. It did better when there were lots of patent trolls around. It profits from their existence and patent trolls are like an ally. These trolls, referred to by another name, NPEs, have been mentioned by RPX some ago as follows:

Litigation finance firms have experienced record fundraising in recent years, with private equity firms and hedge funds looking for opportunities to invest in uncorrelated assets that can withstand, or even perform well, in the next economic downturn. With large amounts of capital on hand, and therefore fewer concerns about diversifying their investments, multi-strategy funds are proving to be attractive investment partners for standalone litigation funders. Through such partnerships, a new breed of NPEs has emerged—one backed by more copious and patient capital than those of years past. This article, the first in a series covering the evolving sources of capital for NPEs today, takes a look at two private equity firms and a hedge fund backing notable NPE campaigns.

“12 of the 17 patent suits filed today were filed by #patenttrolls, according to RPX Corp.,” said one Twitter account. “That’s 71%.”

“It’s a very costly thing.”‘Only’ 71%. Sometimes it’s 100%. It used to be even higher about half a decade ago. The back yard of patent trolls is still seeing more software patents granted by the USPTO (patents which courts would likely reject, no doubt even in Texas). It’s a very costly thing. Most of the time wrongly-accused parties aren’t compensated, not even seeing their legal fees covered. Here with the British court system we have this issue as well. Lawyers are very expensive here and earlier this week Anthony Gold’s Robin Stewart wrote “I won in the First-tier Tribunal and the other side was unreasonable: do they have to pay my legal costs?”

Probably not. In his own words:

The Court also commented that their decision did not have the effect that pre-action costs could not be recovered, but rather costs “of and incidental to” the proceedings may include costs incurred before the commencement of the appeal.

As noted in the previous post, the EPO tried to impose severe legal costs upon me for daring to just speak about EPO abuses. EPO management acts a lot like patent trolls, not just working for trolls’ agenda and bottom line. But that’s a subject for another day.

EPO Staff Union and Staff Representatives Ought to Demand EPO Stops Bullying Publishers and Censoring Their Sites

Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:06 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

As it stands at this moment, or for the past half a decade, the EPO is hardly better than the Communist Party of China

Wall in China

Summary: An often neglected if not forgotten aspect of EPO tyranny is the war on information itself; EPO management continues to show hostility towards journalism and disdain for true information

Back in 2015 or thereabouts Battistelli‘s EPO sent several law firms after me for exposing EPO corruption, trying to cause me to run away or spend a lot of money on lawyers. A year earlier they had blocked Techrights. Don’t they realise that when they gag their staff they render whistle-blowers very much necessary and therefore inevitable?

“In my view, in light of what they did to me, Battistelli and Campinos are no better than patent trolls.”It is very much worth noting that the pretender António Campinos has neither reverted/removed the ban of Techrights (information banned from EPO staff) nor has he retracted persistent legal threats towards me. In prior years when I condemned software patents in Europe the EPO did not block my site because it thought it could instead ignore it; clearly the EPO decided that when EPO corruption is exposed they should overzealously silence the messenger. EPO staff has, in effect, lost the right to read at work; the EPO ‘babysits’ staff by blocking (deleting) from that staff accurate and authentic information, as if the EPO is a religion/cult. Is Techrights “blasphemous”?

In my view, in light of what they did to me, Battistelli and Campinos are no better than patent trolls. SUEPO and the CSC ought to bring up (e.g. in their lists) the threats EPO issues to bloggers (not just yours truly) and the Office-wide censorship of ‘inconvenient’ sites. The EPO is a dangerous entity if it polices the media and suppresses the sharing of facts even outside the EPO (while flaunting diplomatic immunity).

Bribes, Lies, Fundamental Violations of the Law and Cover-Up: This is Today’s European Patent Office

Posted in Europe, Patents at 1:19 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Cover-up
Reference: Cover-up

Summary: It has gotten extremely difficult to hold the conspirators accountable for turning Europe’s patent office into a ‘printing machine’ of the litigation industry and amassing vast amounts of money (to be passed to private, for-profit companies)

ANOTHER DAY passes and the European Patent Office (EPO) is, as usual, breaking the law. It’s also intentionally harming Europe while deflecting. There were no less than two “SME”-themed tweets from the EPO yesterday, citing its own ‘sponsored’ (bribed-for) ‘studies’…

Distracting from EPO leaks again? How much damage does the EPO wish to cause Europe?

Not to worry — they’re cooking the books and manufacturing some more false claims by bribing scholars for ‘studies’ on so-called ‘IP’. For over 3 weeks they’re been repeating these lies every single day. They try to make these lies seem “scientific…”

Ménière is a pseudo-scientist of Battistelli (and now António Campinos). He’s nowadays pushing for patent maximalism using the pseudoscience they call “economics” along with buzzwords such as “4IR”. Yesterday the EPO’s Twitter account helped spread this pseudoscience by saying: “Innovation in #AdditiveManufacturing is growing exponentially. Our Chief Economist Yann Ménière presented this data at our recent conference in The Hague, where we also fostered internal knowledge exchange & harmonised best practices.”

They added “#3Dprinting #patenting” as if to say it’s desirable. Ask anyone who’s in 3-D printing just to what extent patents in that domain suspended innovation and how long for (decades!) because it’s a very well known case against patent maximalism/maximalists.

We’ve also just seen in this very dodgy new page and site (Golden Casino News) a statement about “3D-based damage marking technology”:

The European Patent Office, EPO, has taken the decision to allow another European patent for Episurf Medical (NASDAQ: EPIS B). The decision was taken at an oral proceeding at the EPO in Munich , Germany. The patent, entitled “System and method for creating a decision support material indicating damage to an anatomical joint” covers Episurf Medical’s 3D-based damage marking technology which constitutes a central part of the Episealer® implant system as well as the Epioscopy® joint visualisation system.

Certainly sounds like a software patent and an area I worked in (my Ph.D. thesis is about that).

It’s not hard to see that the EPO does exactly the opposite of advancing science in Europe. All it strives to achieve is more litigation in Europe. The EPO’s stance on the EPO-connected UPC is an eternal reminder of that.

The UPC is thankfully dead and ‘unitary’ patents are actually just fiction/fantasy. The EPO had spoken about them for years until a couple of years ago. It stopped mentioning that. Team UPC has been silent for months; it no longer even mentions Milan (as London substitute), which has just been brought up by Hogan Lovells’ Riccardo Fruscalzo in relation to other patent matters in Lexology.

IP Kat hasn’t mentioned the UPC since summer and the only words/allusions there regarding EPO scandals are in comments. Here’s one new comment from MaxDrei, who replies to a comment we quoted here earlier in the week:

As to Alex Frost’s “in no way of their own making” I wonder, whether that reminds anybody else but me of a case before Robin Jacob, in which the dispute with the Patent Office was about whether a document had indeed been filed at the Patent Office. Robin Jacob concluded that the representative was the author of Applicant’s misfortune, pointing out that there was a good reason why the Patent Office issues receipts for docs filed and if the rep cannot be bothered to check them, any resulting misfortune is his own fault.

Can anybody recall the case reference?

A “patent attorney” said, “I think the EPO has lost sight of the fact it needs to be more ‘user-friendly’ and it is becoming a place where mistakes have a disproportionate effect.” To quote the entire comment (with a later one appended):

Now that we have the EPO post grant limitation proceedings, I really don’t know why we cannot have post-grant correction for any error. The EPO has the mechanisms to do this easily, and it should try to be more helpful to applicants/patentees

[...] I think the EPO has lost sight of the fact it needs to be more ‘user-friendly’ and it is becoming a place where mistakes have a disproportionate effect. We patent attorneys should not need to be professors or be capable of seeing a small error in 400 pages of description to do our routine job. Can we really say that third parties have been substantially disadvantaged by a patent proprietor reinserting pages into a specification which were clearly missing? It should be far simpler to correct errors, and should not need references to 3 or 4 TBA decisions. In particular the system should not be punitive in any way, which it seems to be whenever it says it was up to the applicant to get it right. As I say the EPO has forgotten it is providing a public service, and should be more user-friendly to its users

Kant wrote:

Re substance or composition
Since A53(c) refers to “surgery or therapy”, it follows that a substance or composition for use in such a method is not required to have a therapeutic effect if used in a method of surgery. The therapeutic effect case law arose under EPC1977 with regard to Swiss Type claims which related to pharmaceutical preparations. Accordingly, the previous case law should not be used to limit the meaning of the EPC after a change in the law.

Notice how they all keep citing the EPC as if the EPC still matters; the EPO violates the EPC every day and then covers that up. Thankfully the examiners are close to another revolt. They’re well aware of what’s happening and they don’t like it.

10.15.19

EPO Staff Resolution Against Neoliberal Policies of António Campinos

Posted in Europe, Finance, Patents at 11:56 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Last week: EPO Leak: António Campinos Announces Impending Cuts While Outsourcing to Private Firms Like Serco

EPO general assemblies resolution

Summary: “After Campinos announced 17 financial measures,” a source told us, “staff gathered at multiple sites last week for general assemblies. The meeting halls were crowded. The resolution was passed unanimously and without abstentions.”

« 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