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

01.16.20

Microsoft is a Market Leader in Lying and Corruption

Posted in Deception, Microsoft, Patents at 11:11 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Recent: Microsoft Continues to Get Away With Serious Crimes Very Cheaply

Music Night Club
Keep spinning, Microsoft…

Summary: Microsoft is working hard to describe itself as the exact opposite of what it is and what it has been; ‘Internet rot’ helps a lot with this agenda, not to mention control of the media (the narrative)

TO distrust Microsoft is not to “hate”; not any more than a cop chasing a thief does so out of “hatred”…

Microsoft did more than plenty to lose trust; it also lost antitrust cases. Microsoft is a convicted abuser. It continues to exist, sure, because political ties help a lot..

“Microsoft did more than plenty to lose trust; it also lost antitrust cases. Microsoft is a convicted abuser.”Several new readers of ours (we’re definitely growing so far this year) have asked for more indexes that help document particular patterns of abuse; thankfully, several folks have also offered help with it. Over time the site will improve and we’ve been made aware of large-scale legal actions that fish evidence out of Techrights. Some of these actions are against Microsoft (e.g. for sexism), but some pertain to patents — our ‘bread and butter’ in recent years.

It’s really regretful that many articles about Microsoft’s past crimes are vanishing from the Web. ‘Internet rot’ will make many not-so-flattering articles and quotes rot away, allowing PR ‘puff pieces’ to fill the gap with revisionism and marketing. That’s a huge problem and this is why we must take stock of old articles too (because their domains expire, along with copies). Only this way material and quotes can be verified. Obfuscation facilitates denials and societal/historical amnesia.

The other day we quoted Bill Gates and someone told us he was unable to locate the source of that quote. Eventually it was found on a quotes sites. “Then AZQuotes would be the source,” he said, but actually that site merely makes a copy of the original (with context, source and even date missing). “A very long time ago,” I responded, “about a decade [back] I got the quote copied into my notes from somewhere I saw as reliable.”

“That’s a huge problem and this is why we must take stock of old articles too (because their domains expire, along with copies).”Sometimes it seems like the death of many news sites will benefit most those whose past is full of evil deeds. They can craft a fictional history for themselves, hoping nobody will dig any deeper.

“Yes,” the person above noted, “that rot has been happening for a while. It even applies to articles promoting open standards. I supposed unlike with print, there is no authoritative copy archived anywhere on the planet. That’s one reason I donated to the Internet Archive this year, another was the FSF’s mistreatment of RMS and ongoing refusal to fix things up on any level so far.”

“The Internet may forget, but the Internet Archive never forgets (as long as it’s sufficiently funded).”We’ve often used the Internet Archive to highlight Microsoft’s older crimes. We’ll soon use the Internet Archive to show some really embarrassing things about Gates and his family. The Internet may forget, but the Internet Archive never forgets (as long as it’s sufficiently funded).

The person continued: “But back to the general rot, this quote has disappeared from Spaf’s home page in recent years: “Securing an environment of Windows platforms from abuse – external or internal – is akin to trying to install sprinklers in a fireworks factory where smoking on the job is permitted.” (by Prof. Eugene H “Spaf” Spafford, father of the field of Internet Security)

“Speaking of revisionism, Microsoft is once again trying to rebrand itself as anti-patent trolls. Yes, Microsoft…”“Governments could legally end Microsoft in an instant, with or without force, if the politicians were not so thoroughly bribed by Bill, Bill’s dad, and their friends.”

“Yes,” I responded, but “this is applicable to many kinds of companies. In more than one country.”

Speaking of revisionism, Microsoft is once again trying to rebrand itself as anti-patent trolls. Yes, Microsoft…

There’s this new article (behind paywall) with the title “Apple, Microsoft and BMW urge EU to stop patent trolls” and it’s mentioned in some tweets this week.

How can Microsoft — and Apple too to a lesser degree — pretend that it opposes trolling? Together with IBM and OIN it recently said the same thing, never mind if Microsoft is one of the world’s biggest trolls and it’s arming many as well. Microsoft has outsourced the trolling to a subsidiary and to proxies, so is Microsoft asking the EU to stop itself? Nope. Those liars just hope to magically change the written record.

“How can Microsoft — and Apple too to a lesser degree — pretend that it opposes trolling?”Take note of this tweet/reply: “When we sold our patent about 10 years ago – only co we could find to by it was a Patent Troll 1/3 owned by Microsoft execs…” (by DataInforms (@DataInforms) January 16, 2020)

Intellectual Vultures we assume (see the reply from the former Microsoft employee, Rick Falkvinge, and see our wiki on “Intellectual Vultures”).

What DataInforms said on Twitter was seen alongside similar replies, such as: “They dont give a shit about innovation. The only reason why they changed their minds is, because they ran into some patent-walls for stuff that THEY want to profit / patent. If they could, they would gladly file those patents. Big companies dont have morals.”

“So now Microsoft claims to be champion of the fight against patent trolls.”There’s also this : “What i know have Apple on one hand been fighting patent trolls since the 80:ties. On the other hand they are acting like trolls to gain marketing and legal advantages. I guess that goes for all the big ones.”

So now Microsoft claims to be champion of the fight against patent trolls. What a bunch of liars and crooks. They sued Foxconn over Linux less than a year ago.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Only the next comment mentioned the independence issues:

I concur with MaxDrei, in particular, because

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

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

Zealots of Team UPC (Patent Litigation) Now Attacking the Courts and the Judges, Removing Their Mask on the Face of Things…

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 9:39 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

And in other news, Kieren McCarthy of The Register is back to debunking the EPO’s lies

The UPC will be a titanic success. Oops. SNAP!

Summary: The tactics of Team UPC aren’t changing, only the shamelessness associated with these tactics is changing (because it looks like the end of days to them)

TEAM UPC — unlike managers at the European Patent Office (EPO) — is not above the law. It can also be held accountable.

We’ve privately seen communications from these people urging strongly for software patents in Europe and it’s no secret that they like Battistelli. They tried to pretend otherwise when he was unpopular and when he became too much of liability to their ’cause’ (profit) they wanted him replaced. They replaced him with another Frenchman, António Campinos, this one younger and more ‘orange’… but the goals are the same.

“The UPC(A) has been practically dead for 3 years. UPCA proponents just didn’t give up lying about it… “Yesterday we saw this tweet which said: “Bad news for the #UPC? UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson stated that the UK would not extend the Implementation Period beyond 31 December 2020; and that any future partnership must not involve any kind of alignment or ECJ jurisdiction.”

This cites IAM, which the EPO paid to promote the UPC.

The UPC(A) has been practically dead for 3 years. UPCA proponents just didn’t give up lying about it

Sometimes, albeit not so often, even Team UPC sort of ridicules itself for its false predictions and empty promises.

“Of course they all know — deep inside at least — that the UPCA is illegal/unconstitutional.”Thomas of Team UPC is nowadays attacking the courts/judges (first because of speed, now other things; this is at least the second time this week). Give it up and move on, Thomas. Maybe move out of Munich. You’re only there for the money.

Of course they all know — deep inside at least — that the UPCA is illegal/unconstitutional. But they don’t really care as long as they can profit from it.

Thomas speaks of an “outside view on DE Constitutional Court’s particularities of a UK barrister.” It can be found here and here, e.g. stating that the German Constitutional Court (FCC) “sits with an even – yes even – number of Judges (two Senates of 8). The idea is that more than a bare majority is required to rule any law unconstitutional.”

“These people have been harassing judges with falsehoods, provoking for replies and imposing on them deadlines that fellow judges did not even agree on/consent to.”Well, this thread or cluster of ‘tweets’ is not a form of journalism; it’s just a “Barrister at Blackstone Chambers” pushing his agenda.

These people have been harassing judges with falsehoods, provoking for replies and imposing on them deadlines that fellow judges did not even agree on/consent to. It’s just like Watchtroll’s raves about abusive judges (who behind the scenes collude with the litigation firms) and rants about anything that upholds 35 U.S.C. § 101. It’s tasteless. It’s disgusting. They also lie a lot. Knowingly. Intentionally.

Thankfully, this morning the media caught up with them. Not the typical corporate/mainstream media but someone who really understands these issues and is based in the US. “The dream of a single European patent may die next month – and everyone is in denial about it” has been published by Kieren McCarthy, who covers EPO scandals again (first time in ages).

“Let’s hope that Mr. McCarthy intends to carry on covering these issues; he has hardly done that for years.”Pro-UPC people are cherry-picking/quoting Team UPC’s talking points only, whereas the FFII’s President takes note of: “Can a non-EU country be a part of a UPC? If the answer is no, the entire thing needs to be redesigned because the UK was a compulsory signatory. If the answer is yes, then where and how do you draw the line? Can JP join the UPC? Can the US?”

Here’s the opening bunch of paragraphs (it’s pretty long and detailed):

It has been years in the making and Europe’s largest law firms are smacking their lips in anticipation but the long-held dream of a single European patent system may die next month – and everyone appears to be in denial.

“It would be realistic to expect the UPC to be operational in early 2021,” said the head of the Unitary Patent Court (UPC) Preparatory Committee, Alexander Ramsay, in November. That confident prediction came just one week after the lead judge in a case against the UPC at German’s Constitutional Court said he expected the court to finally decide it in the first quarter of this year.

Similar confidence abounds in the intellectual property world; large law firms already have plans to handle what they believe will be a sudden influx of clients from smaller specialist patent law firms because, with a single patent stretching across Europe, it will be that much more important to make sure you get issued one, and defend it.

Industry journals continue to be convinced that the German court process is little more than an annoyance; a delay that is holding back the unitary patent’s introduction rather than an existential threat. And the man who almost certainly brought the case (he has yet to officially admit it), German lawyer Ingve Stjena, is being treated as part-joke, part-pariah by his profession.

And yet. And yet. The reality is that Stjena’s complaint isn’t frivolous, or wrong-headed. In fact, there’s a very good chance that he is absolutely correct. And if the German court does ultimately reject his case it may have to go to some trouble to explain its way around his legal arguments for the UPC’s unconstitutionality.

Let’s hope that Mr. McCarthy intends to carry on covering these issues; he has hardly done that for years. Team UPC needs more fact-checking in the media (or the little that's left of it).

01.14.20

It’s Only Factual and Truthful to Point Out That About Half of the EPO’s Management Committee Are From the President’s Nation (and Many Are Underqualified Friends of His)

Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:51 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The (dual) French-Portuguese national only exacerbated the nepotism stigma

French EPO

Summary: The patent-granting extravaganza of what a reader and contributor of ours likes to call “Club Med” will result in great pain (not just for the Office but for Europe as a whole); pointing out who’s to blame (the culprits) is an exercise in practicality

THIS morning we quoted an anonymous comment that spoke of “hispanoportofrench friends” of the President of EPOnia. It was hardly racist or bigoted. It was a factual, accurate observation.

“When assessed outside the EPO (where judges are still being terrorised) all those abstract patent are void, null and bunk…”There’s lots to be criticised at EPOnia, even on purely technical grounds (what we did until 2014). Here’s one new example. Having highlighted this latest instance of advocacy for software patents in the European Patent Office (EPO), Benjamin Henrion said there’s a “WIPO deadline for comments [which is] c14 feb,” quoting the fragment “Computer-assisted inventions and their treatment under patent laws have been the subject of lengthy discussions in many countries around the world” from this document [PDF] that alludes to “computer-assisted inventions” (like computer-generated stuff or patents that are granted on such generative processes).

When assessed outside the EPO (where judges are still being terrorised) all those abstract patent are void, null and bunk; No honest law firm would advise clients to pursue any, knowing the EPC and 35 U.S.C. § 101 in US courts (the USPTO sees many of its recently-granted patents perishing there).

“It’s a money-grab. It’s a bubble. It will implode.”Team Campinos/Battistelli is a clueless bunch of non-scientists and all they seem to ‘understand’ is that they want as many patents to be granted as possible (and as quickly as possible because sooner or later stakeholders will realise the futility of European Patents). It’s a money-grab. It’s a bubble. It will implode. They won’t return their bonuses when that happens.

Not too long ago “MaxDrei” could be seen responding to an apparent EPO insider who is sick and tired of EPO nepotism, kakistocracy, and lies. He said:

I regret the reference in that last contribution to “hispanoportofrench friends”. Reflect on the point that the poster known as “Attentive Observer”, perhaps the most vociferous critic ever of the (French) immediate past President, might also be from that part of the world. Please don’t imply that there is one bucket in which all “hispanoportofrench” people fit. The distress is when an admirable, expert and socially valuable institution (such as a large hospital or Patent Office) becomes victim of a coup by a self-serving and incompetent managerial class that is interested only in pleasing its “make hay while the sun shines” ignorant, blinkered and greedy investor employers.

That said, I seriously regret a loss of balance in the EU, resulting from the withdrawal of the UK from Europe. An OD or a TBA composed of three active members is perhaps the safest way to get to sound decisions. Any “rogue elephant” can be guided onto the right path, but only if there is an elephant one on each side of the rogue.

In the EU, the Big Three were, until recently, DE, FR, GB. With the departure of GB, there is increased likelihood of the EU taking a succession of wrong turns, thereby bringing about the demise of the whole thing

Then there’s this response: “You are so right Maxdrei. All hispanportofrenchs do not belong to the same bucket. By the way I am and EPF too. Unfortunately (luckily?) most of us are not among his ‘friends’ saving the world. We are rather easy to spot: you can find us in front of a PC, trying somehow to make the EPO functioning, against all odds. Good luck everyone!”

“One reader and contributor of ours likes to call the collective “Club Med”.”That stigma about Mediterranean counties is an extension of what used to be a stain on France’s reputation (by admission from several French politicians on the record). One can debate if Iberian Portugal counts as Mediterranean (it faces the Pacific Ocean) and whether Corsican Battistelli is Mediterranean as he lives and works up north (Paris area and now Strasbourg). One reader and contributor of ours likes to call the collective “Club Med”. The term “hispanportofrenchs” seems to have combined some of the familiar faces in top EPO management, more so than ever after Campinos brought lots of buddies.

Stranger Than Fiction: Team UPC’s Mental Condition

Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:41 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

2015: UPC coming next year. Closes eyes; 2020: I've already said. Next year.

Summary: Team UPC’s delusions continue to unmask UPC proponents (in 2020) as totally and entirely detached from reality

THE people at the top floors of the European Patent Office’s (EPO) building in Munich must be getting a little nervous. Battistelli‘s career is practically over, António Campinos sees patent quality plunging, and he is meanwhile lobbying for software patents in Europe, seeing that — as per reports from JUVE — demand for European Patents is decreasing. By ignoring the law and kicking aside 35 U.S.C. § 101 the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office managed to fabricate ‘production’ (more monopolies granted), but as per this week’s news (more in Daily Links), SCOTUS continues throwing all these patents to the curb, as do Federal Circuit judges and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The trend has been rather clear; a very small proportion of patents tested in courts manage to withstand factual scrutiny (witnesses, experts, testimonies etc.). It’s considered a crisis of confidence (in patents) and certainty (in litigation).

“It’s considered a crisis of confidence (in patents) and certainty (in litigation).”Patent law firms see the writings on the wall, so they’ve attempted a sort of entryism in the courts system (people like Judge Rader). But it won’t work, it only serves to alienate people and Rader’s court was consistently overturned by SCOTUS. As Benjamin Henrion put it earlier today, “if Boris [Johnson] has the CJEU as a redline, he will have a hard time defending UK staying in UPC. Cameron was heavily lobbied by GSK to remove the CJEU as having the last word on patent law. In the US, the match SCOTUS vs CAFC shows those patent courts are deviant: 8-0 !”

CJEU would be a key part of UPC, as envisioned/codified in UPCA. Cameron’s UK stance on that matter may be revisited in the future (we’ve heard stories).

So in a matter of about a fortnight the UPC might be squashed for good. But never mind facts; the EPO certainly doesn't let facts get in its way. We find it unsurprising but still absolutely hilarious that Bristows‘ Richard Pinckney has just published “EPO confirms it is ready to grant unitary patents” (I can also confirm I am ready to receive a trillion dollars. I confirm, so…)

“Berlin would not go ahead, irrespective of the BVerfG’s decision, if there’s Brexit. It looks like imminently there will be.”No words can describe how those posts from Bristows make the firm look. Even Team UPC ridicules Bristows. These people are beyond delusional; they’re mentally defunct.

Bristows admits that “[a]lthough the EPO’s report of the meeting refers to hope that the BVerfG’s decision will allow Germany to ratify the UPC Agreement and calls for the speedy implementation of the UPC system, it does not refer to the potential effect of Brexit on the system.”

Berlin would not go ahead, irrespective of the BVerfG’s decision, if there’s Brexit. It looks like imminently there will be Brexit.

Funnily enough even a loud Team UPC proponent has just tweeted: “DE Constitutional Court: Acc to the Court, of the 37 cases listed to be dealt with by the 2nd Senate in 2019, 10 were resolved. #UPC #ListOfLies Bundesverfassungsgericht – Jahresvorausschau 2019 https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/DE/Verfahren/Jahresvorausschau/vs_2019/vorausschau_2019_node.html …”

“Team UPC needs to screw its head back on if it wants to have any credibility left when nobody even mentions the UPC anymore.”Yes, “ListOfLies”…

Way to alienate the court…

“Don’t despair,” I responded. “UPC is “Ready to Roll” because Team Campinos bought some wine and stored it at the top floor’s cellar. Bristows says “EPO confirms it is ready to grant unitary patents”…”

Team UPC needs to screw its head back on if it wants to have any credibility left when nobody even mentions the UPC anymore. In 2020, saying “UPC is coming” is like saying that “Saddam has weapons of mass destruction” (in hindsight it was a massive liability to claim so). Several law firms will have their reputation tarnished and clients upset (over false promises) when all this UPC jingoism turns out to have been a lie, orchestrated principally to make “sales” (based upon wrong assumptions).

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

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

Derk Visser at EIP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

Here’s what the AstraZeneca attorney wrote:

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Earlier this week SS Rana & Co said:

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

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

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

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

The Media’s Obligation is Not to Repeat the Lies of EPO Management, But Money Changes Things

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 6:32 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“There is no kind of dishonesty into which otherwise good people more easily and frequently fall than that of defrauding the government.” –Benjamin Franklin

I've heard the EPO does bad things. For 100,000 euros we'll quit talking about those things.

Summary: The ridiculous lies about prospects of the Unified Patent Court are now spreading to EPO-friendly publishers — few powerful people to whom truth isn’t valued as much as the customers (their subscribers and sponsors are law firms)

THE European Patent Office (EPO) wants us to think that it’s imperative to believe anything it says.

António Campinos is a ‘master class’ deceiver — more so than Battistelli, a brute whose general discourse serves to alienate a lot of listeners (his English is also relatively weak).

Quite late on Friday (the latter part of the day) the EPO issued another bundle of lies [1, 2]. All the comments we’ve seen about it are negative. All of them. When I called them out on it — as I dud — my tweets were even “liked” by Team UPC people; yes, even they must have been bemused by what the EPO said.

“Quite late on Friday (the latter part of the day) the EPO issued another bundle of lies.”But the media?

Haha, the media…

That’s another story altogether.

World Intellectual Property Review (WIPR) is relaying EPO propaganda again. WIPR used to have some decent writers who checked facts (the same thing that happened to IP Kat, which we’ll deal with separately in our next post). World Intellectual Property Review (WIPR) has ‘rebranded’ the headline “EPO hopeful that Unified Patent Court will be operational this year”; now it is just “EPO ‘confident’ of 2020 UPC resolution” (still misleading propaganda amplified, not fact-checked). Over in the ‘corporate’ media, IAM is pushing jingoistic EPO talking points, which have been relayed or spread in more sites (having received money to do this; Lexology is connected to that same money now).

“World Intellectual Property Review (WIPR) is relaying EPO propaganda again.”It has become super hard to find proper journalism on patent matters (as opposed to lobbying by litigation thugs, trolls and lawyers). The ‘Banana’ blog is still just copy-pasting everything the EPO publishes, passing it on as fact under the heading “IP News Center” in Google News (“EPO and other representatives hold meeting to implement Unitary Patent package”).

Where are the actual investigations? Where is the balanced journalism that used to exist?

As an anonymous commenter (EPO insider by the sound of it) put it 3 days ago: “One way to – temporarily – survive at this disaster is to avoid getting into contact with anything published from EPO management” (and Team UPC).

Here’s the full comment:

You see, your problem is that you keep reading such announcements and taking them seriously, genuinely believing that the ones who made them have at least a faint idea of what they are talking about. Guys, this is not the case anymore.

One way to – temporarily – survive at this disaster is to avoid getting into contact with anything published from EPO management. It is a pity that posting screenshots is not allowed here. 90% of the announcements appearing in our Intranet – and forwarded to hundreds of displays installed everywhere in the office – are:
– condolences to colleagues who suddenly died. Every single time using exactly the same identical words.
– congratulations to new EPO directors who keep arriving, at a pace of one per week, directly from the EUIPO,
– advertisements from our pres and his hispanportofrench friends smiling, visiting places and helping the world.
If it was not a disgrace it would almost be funny.

Yes, 10% or the announcements are still useful and related to patents, but “we are confident that the necessary steps can be accomplished in time for the Useless Posts package to become operational at the end of 2020”.

The article it’s attached to is not 100% bad, albeit it does relay many of the EPO’s lies without bothering to refute these. Benjamin Henrion quoted some bits, especially replies as they’re miles better than puff pieces from these UPC advocates. Among them [1, 2, 3, 4]: “UPC lies: “As 2/3 of the applications stem from outside the EU, the big beneficiaries are US, Japanese and other Asian countries, and not Europe. How stupid to give those countries the possibility to have one point of attack when starting litigation in EU” [...] When Downing Street makes clear that the CJEU will not have any influence in UK, it looks bad for the London Section of the Central Division [...] Why has the basic fee for infringement be set at 11 000EUR, and the basic fee for a nullity action or a counterclaim for nullity set at 20 000EUR? There is a clear advantage for the patent proprietor. Why this disproportion? To help SMEs? [...] Why have countries like Poland and the Czech Republic decided not to join the UPC? If the perspective for their industry would be as rosy as is pretended by those people, they should have jumped at the possibility to join the UPC…”

“When we leaked these documents or at least published for those who had leaked these documents the media in Germany and elsewhere in Europe did cover the underlying issues. But since then the EPO has systematically paid some of the critical publishers, whereupon they self-censored and quit covering EPO leaks.”Yesterday the EPO tweeted a bunch of stuff about SMEs and “startups”. Their own leaked documents show discrimination against them. When we leaked these documents or at least published for those who had leaked these documents the media in Germany and elsewhere in Europe did cover the underlying issues. But since then the EPO has systematically paid some of the critical publishers, whereupon they self-censored and quit covering EPO leaks.

Back in 2014 we started receiving leaks about the EPO, way back when the European Patent Office had a relatively good reputation (still). People were eager to make it publicly known that things weren’t as rosy as it might seem. We still cover the subject a lot. 6 years later we still watch these matters very closely and we still receive a lot of information. The work/output speaks for itself, we believe, but one aspect relevant to the above is that the media got threatened and bribed (they tried this several times on us too). Nowadays, nobody covers these issues but us.

“People were eager to make it publicly known that things weren’t as rosy as it might seem.”Most EPO workers (about 7,000) read Techrights for real understanding or EPO affairs, for verified information, not ‘waffle’ and PR.

We’re the only site the EPO blocked (they temporarily blocked IP Kat and things have never been the same since). But workers can read the site outside work.

The EPO has not sent us any kind of threat since 2016. Maybe their lawyers realised that their intimidation tactics would merely backfire. Here we are about 3,000 articles later. We still report on these issues. With the collapse of 3 or 4 other blogs that used to frequently cover EPO abuses (their staff changed or the sites ceased operating), we’re likely the only ones left to cover these issues without repeating all the self-serving lies of litigation professionals.

01.12.20

EPO Management Already Meddles in (Illegally and in Clear Violation of the EPC) BoA Cases. Now It Does the Same to Bundesverfassungsgericht (FCC, Germany’s Constitutional Court).

Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:08 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Judges afraid of me? OOPS!

Summary: Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) cannot be left alone by Team UPC, its media front groups (or pressure groups with publication as a weapon) and the EPO’s active ‘harassment’ of those assessing legality; this merely reinforces many people’s negative views (the EPO operating outside the rule of laws which govern it)

THE recent setbacks for the UPC must have gotten the litigation firms in Munich (or its suburbs) rather nervous. More and more of them now realise that the UPC will never come about.

“That’s like the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) lobbying SCOTUS by lying to it on the (non)issue of 35 U.S.C. § 101. What would the judges think and feel?”European Patent Office (EPO) President António Campinos is already meddling in a case regarding software patents in Europe, which are illegal. He has leverage over the already-terrified judges, who were collectively bullied and punished by Battistelli, the man who gave Campinos this job. Their location in Haar doesn’t give them safety, it merely gives them a warning (from the President of the Office). You’re one stone-throw away from a “difficult legacy”

Looking at the latest replies to one article about the truly ridiculous late Friday press release, we now see “The Convention watchdog” stating:

The wishes expressed by the EPO and its Administrative Council which outcome they expect from pending proceedings may influence the Boards of Appeal in their decisions. This approach will certainly not work with the Bundesverfassungsgericht.

That’s like the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) lobbying SCOTUS by lying to it on the (non)issue of 35 U.S.C. § 101. What would the judges think and feel?

Another comment alludes to the EPO’s repeated lies about SMEs and the UPC’s effect on them:

High costs and lengthy proceedings make the EPO route objectively challenging for SMEs. There are reasons for the continued reliance on national filings and alternative tools when they are available, such as utility models in Germany.

If the EPO really wants to be on par with other prominent patent systems in terms of attractiveness for SMEs, why not look at a 50% reduction of all fees for SMEs and individual applicants, as in the US ?

“MaxDrei”, apparently a retired patent attorney, already envisions the UPCA process being rebooted, this time without the UK (this can take years; drafting, discussion, ratifications and so on — in the face of growing resistance in more EU member states):

Just a thought, but could it be, that departure of the UK from the EU will ease re-negotiation of the UPC, allowing it to come into force sooner rather than later (or not at all).

I mean, lawyers in England find it so hard to reconcile their system of law with that on the European mainland. And civil law practitioners from the remainder of the EU, in discussion with nit-picking English lawyers, find it hard to appreciate where those English lawyers are “coming from”.

True, the Republic of Ireland also has English law but RI is a relatively small EU Member State, with no delusions that it is the true carrier of the flame, the fount of all logic, and all nations in Western Europe should follow its lead.

So, from now on, legal discussions between the 27 remaining EU Member States, on all legal issues, not just patents, should proceed more smoothly and efficiently. That would go wider, extending for example to any legal discussions between the EU and any or all of China, Japan, Korea.

Meanwhile, lawyers in England will be more free to get into a warm and self-congratulatory huddle with their cousins in the USA.

Based on documents published by Corbyn (they had been published elsewhere beforehand) just before the latest election, the US has some plans.

All these issues aren’t properly explored by IP Kat anymore; the team there has changed profoundly. It’s not hard to see that today’s EPO is lawless and it disregards the EPC in a lot of ways, but all IP Kat had to say this past week boiled down to book promotion — a book called “A Practitioner’s Guide to European Patent Law”; is the law even followed? “The book’s approach consists of summarizing national and EPO case law for each of the 14 (plus one, see below) topics,” it said, “and identifying the common principles. To make the task manageable, the book limits the analysis to four (arguably the most influential) European jurisdictions: England and Wales, France, Germany and the Netherlands.”

Yesterday we saw also IAM, which had been paid by the EPO to promote and lobby for UPC, saying that “The EU should not contemplate abandoning the Unified Patent Court system” (that’s just typical IAM).

Joff Wild posted as “opinion” these thoughts:

Earlier this week the UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson played host to the new President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen. As is usually the case with such meetings, it was followed by an official communiqué from the British government giving its account of what was discussed. The document issued totalled a few paragraphs, one of which read:

The PM was clear that the UK would not extend the Implementation Period beyond 31 December 2020; and that any future partnership must not involve any kind of alignment or ECJ jurisdiction …

Only a day or two later the EPO issued the ridiculous press release, which has so far received nothing but condemnation in comments we saw about it. It’s delusional.

« 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