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

02.14.19

Outline/Index of the Alexandre Benalla/Battistelli Scandal

Posted in Europe, Patents at 2:59 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Alexandre Benallas selfie

Summary: Our writings about the scandals implicating Benalla and the European Patent Office (EPO)

“EPO Lawlessness Again”

Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:20 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

According to Florian Müller, an activist against software patents in Europe and a famous software developer

Mark Kokes
This man is gone, but his toxic legacy lives on

Summary: Blackberry uses bogus European Patents (on software) for lawsuits; “all of them pure software patents. Patents on programs for computers as such,” as Müller puts it

THE European Patent Office (EPO) can never get itself to obey the law. In that regard it is at least consistent and António Campinos is no exception but perpetuation.

“This is the kind of scenario we’ve long warned about (since 2006). Europe is being infiltrated by armies of patent bullies, who nonchalantly leverage software patents.”Referring to software patents by another/any other name, yesterday the EPO wrote: “There has been a very steep rise in the number of European patent applications related to autonomous driving.”

The EPO then uttered or name-dropped 3 buzzwords/hype waves in one tweet; all mean software patents which the EPO’s granting authority is not allowed to grant (4IR, AI, blockchain). To quote: “How do you see the impact of the technologies of the fourth industrial revolution (e.g. #AI, #blockchain, etc.) on the functioning of the patent system?”

We got accustomed to such tweets. There are several likes these (software patents advocacy) every day.

It has meanwhile turned out, based on RPX, that Blackberry leverages ridiculous software patents, granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), against companies like Facebook (we covered this before) and now there’s this new find from Mr. Gross: “New owner of Blackberry patents sues Apple for infringement; USB charging features: https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/13230734 … Complaint identifies licensing deals with LG, Samsung and Huawei, only Apple is holdout!”

Florian Müller has meanwhile just published this post about what BlackBerry does in Europe: “BlackBerry suing Facebook and its WhatsApp and Instagram subsidiaries over five European software patents in Munich”

As the former director of the European NoSoftwarePatents campaign I always find it shocking what kinds of patents the European Patent Office (EPO) grants despite the exclusion of “programs for computers as such” from the scope of patentable inventions according to Article 52 of the European Patent Convention (EPC).

Post-grant reviews often do away with those patents, but rarely ever on the basis of Art. 52 EPC per se. What typically happens is that the Federal Patent Court of Germany or other courts of competent jurisdiction categorize some claim limitations as “non-technical” and purposely ignore them in their novelty or inventiveness analysis. Whatever little remains then is often anticipated by, or at the very least obvious over, the prior art. But, unfortunately, efficiency gains (reduced data volumes, increased processing speeds, economic use of screen space etc.) often serve as an excuse for circumventing Art. 52 EPC.

Tomorrow the Munich I Regional Court will hold a first hearing in one of eight BlackBerry v. Facebook/WhatsApp/Instagram cases over a total of five different patents–all of them pure software patents. Patents on “programs for computers as such.”

“EPO lawlessness again,” Müller dubbed it in a message to me. “This week I just became aware of a series of software patent lawsuits brought by BlackBerry against Facebook/WhatsApp in Munich (five software patents in total). Those patents are totally ridiculous. No “further technical effect” or anything like that. It’s unbelievable what kind of crap the EPO granted. Interestingly, the patent-in-suit that will be discussed tomorrow was filed in 2005, the year that the EU Parliament rejected the proposed software patents directive… I’ll blog about it because I haven’t been able to find ANY report on those Munich cases (just on the U.S. litigation between BlackBerry and Facebook) on the Internet. Mainstream media…”

This is the kind of scenario we’ve long warned about (since 2006). Europe is being infiltrated by armies of patent bullies, who nonchalantly leverage software patents. IBM even lobbies for these Europe, contrary to Red Hat which opposed such patents and is being bought by IBM.

Unitary Patent (UPC) is All About Imposing Patent Maximalists’ Ideology of Greed and Self Interest on Courts in the Name of ‘Unification’ or ‘Consistency’ or ‘Community’

Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:33 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Recent: Concerns About Stephan Harbarth’s Unitary Patent (UPC) Vested Interests and His Entrance Into the Constitutional Court That Decides on UPC

The three Frenchmen
Michel Barnier and another couple of pro-UPC Frenchmen

Summary: Pushers of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) are upset that they don’t always get their way when independent judges get to decide; as it turns out, many European Patents are just fake patents, more so under António Campinos (shown above with other prominent UPC boosters)

YESTERDAY at Kluwer Patent Blog, a longtime booster of the UPC (because of this site’s ownership), John Collins and Sumer Dayal published this long post that said “[t]he “plausibility” requirement reflects UK case law’s harmonisation with the practice and decisions of European Patent Office (EPO). On the other hand, the Full Court clarified that “classical insufficiency” is the relevant test in Australia.”

These people just hope to override courts, as usual, or compel them to act as one, across nations and continents, based on criteria set by lobbyists of the litigation ‘industry’. Here’s more:

The “plausibility” requirement reflects UK case law’s harmonisation with the practice and decisions of European Patent Office (EPO). On the other hand, the Full Court clarified that “classical insufficiency” is the relevant test in Australia.

[...]

The UK Supreme Court noted that the UK would be the only EPC jurisdiction (up to that time) to find the relevant claims to be insufficient. Lord Sumption considered that it would be “unfortunate” if courts in other EPC jurisdictions came to different conclusions, but noted that much depended on “how far the factual and technical evidence before the foreign court was the same“.

The harmonisation of sufficiency law would certainly be of assistance to the commercial interests lying behind second medical use patents. However, the approach of the UK Courts, as evidenced by the decision of the UK Supreme Court, continues to be skewed towards finding reasons to invalidate patents, rather than to uphold them.

That term, “harmonisation” among others (harmony being the theme), has long been misused by Team UPC, predating the time it was even known as “UPC”. They called it “Community”, too, exploiting the goodwill or feel-good buzz.

“…these people will never rest until patent maximalism reigns supreme at all levels, including the Supreme Court.”ResearchAndMarkets also promoted a lawyers’ event “for the Pharmaceutical Industry” on Tuesday, with the UPC mentioned in it too [1, 2]. These are paid press releases. We saw similar press releases from ResearchAndMarkets in the recent past and these too mentioned the UPC.

“Corruption seems to be everywhere patent maximalism is to be found.”Isobel Finnie (Haseltine Lake LLP) then used the buzzwords “Biotech Innovators” to promote an “UK IPO – EPO Operation” for patent maximalists when she wrote (trying to needlessly rush examination like the European Patent Office (EPO) does):

Unfortunately, due to backlogs at the UK IPO, applicants in the field of biotechnology have had to wait longer than 6 months to receive the UK IPO’s search results. To tackle this backlog and to ensure that the UK IPO can continue to issue search reports quickly, the UK IPO announced on 1 February 2019 that they have signed a co operative searching agreement with the European Patent Office (EPO). Under this agreement, the EPO will perform 200-300 searches per year for UK applications relating to biotech inventions. The agreement will last for at least two years and is based on similar co-operation agreements which already exist between the EPO and other EPC contracting states including Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Monaco and San Marino.

This is positive news for biotech innovators because all applicants using the UK IPO can expect to receive the valuable information they are seeking in a useful time frame.

Although UK applicants cannot chose whether their UK application is searched by the EPO, the search report will indicate which authority has performed the search and applicants whose searches are performed by the EPO may be entitled to the following additional benefits.

Firstly, where the EPO has completed the search for a UK application, a later filed European application claiming priority from the UK application could be eligible for a refund of up to 100% of the European search fee. Similarly, a later filed PCT application claiming priority from the UK application could be eligible for a refund of up to 84% of the international search fee where the EPO is the International Search Authoring (ISA). In view of the fact that the search fee for a UK application is currently only £150 – compared to €1,300 for a European application and €1,775 for an international search by the EPO – this could result in significant cost savings for applicants.

We are watching these things closely; there’s an effort by law firms to destroy the courts' independence; these people will never rest until patent maximalism reigns supreme at all levels, including the Supreme Court. We see the same thing in the US, where 35 U.S.C. § 101 (US Supreme Court/Alice) is now under attack by the new Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), appointed by Trump after he had worked with his firm. Corruption seems to be everywhere patent maximalism is to be found.

Battistelli’s Bodyguard, Part V: Mediapart Explains the ‘Raid’ Attempt, Reporters Without Borders Involved

Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:32 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The EPO too has a culture of silencing/intimidating critics

Summary: Mediapart, an investigative site that unearths a lot of incriminating things about Battistelli’s former bodyguard Alexandre Benalla, was the target of a raid attempt some weeks ago

THIS is the last part of a series of 5 English translations of French publications regarding the Benalla affair. Benalla had worked clandestinely at the European Patent Office (EPO) before the so-called ‘Benallagate’ broke out.

The above video accompanies this publication, for which we have the following English translation.

After the attempted search, our live press conference from Mediapart

Find the video of our press conference held live from Mediapart on Monday afternoon, following the attempted search this Monday morning, as part of an investigation opened by the prosecutor’s office into, among other things, the invasion of Alexandre Benalla’s privacy.

This Monday morning, at 11:10 am, two prosecutors accompanied by three police officers wanted to search Mediapart’s premises as part of an investigation opened by the prosecutor’s office for (among other things) violating Alexandre Benalla’s privacy, following our revelations last Thursday.

This investigation, which concerns the recordings revealed by Mediapart, is likely to compromise the confidentiality of the sources of our newspaper. That is why we refused this search, an unprecedented – and particularly serious – act in Mediapart’s history (see our article here).

Watch a video of our press conference with Edwy Plenel, our lawyer Emmanuel Tordjman and our journalists working on the Benalla, Marine Turchi, Antton Rouget and Fabrice Arfi case (as well as Christophe Deloire of Reporters Without Borders -RSF-), which took place at 4pm at our offices.

Previously in the Benalla affair in relation to the EPO:

  1. Alexandre Benalla, Macron’s Violent Bodyguard, Was Also Battistelli’s Bodyguard
  2. It Wasn’t Judges With Weapons in Their Office, It Was Benoît Battistelli Who Brought Firearms to the European Patent Office (EPO)
  3. Benoît Battistelli Refuses to Talk to the Media About Bringing Firearms to the EPO
  4. Guest Post on Ronan Le Gleut and Benalla at the French Senate (in Light of Battistelli’s Epic Abuses)
  5. The Man Whose Actions Could Potentially Land Team Battistelli in Jail
  6. French Media Confirms Alexandre Benalla Just One of Six Battistelli Bodyguards, Employed at the Cost of €8,000-€10,000 Per Month (for Benalla Alone!)
  7. Corrupt Battistelli Paid a Fortune (EPO Budget) for Outlaw/Rogue ‘Bodyguards’ From Firm Linked to Russian Oligarch Iskander Makhmudov

Something tells us this isn’t the end of it. Will media delve deeper into Benalla’s affairs at the EPO? Will somebody be held accountable for it? Will António Campinos ever mention it? Battistelli totally refuses to talk to the media about it.

02.13.19

Battistelli’s Bodyguard, Part IV: Suspected Offenses of Forgery and Possible Falsification

Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:25 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Falsification scandals have been common at the European Patent Office as well

Mediapart selfie
Source: En pleine présidentielle, Benalla dégaine son arme pour un selfie

Summary: In a very underworld fashion, Benalla continues to break the law and create yet more scandals

THIS is the fourth part of a series of 5 English translations of French publications regarding the Benalla affair. Benalla had worked clandestinely at the European Patent Office (EPO) before the so-called ‘Benallagate’ broke out.

This article from 4 weeks ago deals with diplomatic passports granted to the armed-and-dangerous Benalla:

Alexandre Benalla in custody in the investigation of his diplomatic passports

The investigation was also extended to the offences of “forgery” and “use of forgery” after a report by the Presidency of the Republic.

Alexandre Benalla was taken into custody on the morning of Thursday 17 January in the investigation into the use of his diplomatic passports after his dismissal from the Elysée this summer, the Paris prosecutor’s office said, confirming information from the Le Parisien.

This investigation, opened on 29 December, in particular for “breach of trust”, “unauthorised use of a document proving professional status” and “carrying on an activity in conditions likely to create confusion in the mind of the public with the exercise of a public function”, was also extended on Wednesday 16 January to the offences of “forgery”, “use of forgery” and “improper obtaining of an administrative document” after a report from the Presidency of the Republic, the public prosecutor specified.

President Emmanuel Macron’s former collaborator has already been at the origin of a political storm last summer, after being identified on videos violently arresting demonstrators in Paris on May 1, 2018, while he was present alongside the police as an “observer”. For these facts, he has been charged twice.

Suspicions of falsification

The Benalla affair had bounced back in December, after the revelations of Mediapart and Le Monde that the former Elysée employee still had diplomatic passports despite his dismissal and that he was travelling on business with African leaders. This information led to the opening of a new preliminary investigation at the end of December, and the resumption of the work of the Senate committee investigating this case since July.

On Wednesday, before this committee, the director of the cabinet of President Patrick Strzoda said that after his dismissal from the Elysée, Mr Benalla had used diplomatic passports some 20 times between 1 August and 31 December 2018.

Mr. Strzoda also reported that Mr. Benalla had been in possession of two service passports, the first issued in 2016, “well before” his arrival at the Elysée, the second on 28 June 2018. Both were invalidated on 31 July 2018.

The Director of Mr. Macron’s Private Office added that the request for the second service passport had been made by Alexander Benalla to the Ministry of the Interior by a letter headed by the Chief of Staff of the Elysée, but “typed” and unsigned. In other words, “we suspect that Mr. Benalla made a forgery,” Mr. Strzoda said, before stating that the case had been brought to court.

These statements contradict the statement made by Alexandre Benalla at his own sworn hearing on 19 September that he had left the diplomatic passports in his Elysée office after his dismissal. The former head of mission is to be heard again by the Senate’s committee of inquiry on Monday 21 January.

Previously in the Benalla affair in relation to the EPO:

  1. Alexandre Benalla, Macron’s Violent Bodyguard, Was Also Battistelli’s Bodyguard
  2. It Wasn’t Judges With Weapons in Their Office, It Was Benoît Battistelli Who Brought Firearms to the European Patent Office (EPO)
  3. Benoît Battistelli Refuses to Talk to the Media About Bringing Firearms to the EPO
  4. Guest Post on Ronan Le Gleut and Benalla at the French Senate (in Light of Battistelli’s Epic Abuses)
  5. The Man Whose Actions Could Potentially Land Team Battistelli in Jail
  6. French Media Confirms Alexandre Benalla Just One of Six Battistelli Bodyguards, Employed at the Cost of €8,000-€10,000 Per Month (for Benalla Alone!)
  7. Corrupt Battistelli Paid a Fortune (EPO Budget) for Outlaw/Rogue ‘Bodyguards’ From Firm Linked to Russian Oligarch Iskander Makhmudov

The final part will be published by week’s end. It will include a video.

Battistelli’s Bodyguard, Part III: Mars, France Close Protection (Benalla’s Family), and Russian Oligarchy

Posted in Europe, Patents at 12:35 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Emmanuel Macron told Benalla, “you’re going to eat them,” according to Benalla

Benoît Battistelli

Summary: An article which examines the business background of Benalla, the outrageous salaries, the severance indemnity pay, and contract with a Russian oligarch close to Vladimir Putin

THIS is the third installment of a 5-part series regarding the Benalla affair. Benalla had worked clandestinely at the European Patent Office (EPO) before the so-called ‘Benallagate’ broke out.

Today’s translation reveals transcripts from conversations Benalla was having about Macron with Vincent Crase, former head of security for the LREM party. It also explores business aspects of the operation. In spite of the scandal, Benalla is still employed with a monthly salary of 12,474 euros.

“Macron is like a madman”: Mediapart publishes recordings of Alexander Benalla

Mediapart publishes an enquiry on the former collaborator of the Elysée, based on unpublished audio recordings.

The Benalla case continues… The investigation website Mediapart is publishing, on Thursday 31 January, a new enquiry based on numerous documents, including unpublished audio excerpts.

“You’re going to eat them. You’re stronger than them.”

According to the revelations of our colleagues, Alexandre Benalla maintained important links with the Elysée for several months after his indictment. Mediapart publishes excerpts from a discussion held on 26 July between Emmanuel Macron’s former collaborator and the former head of security for the LREM party, Vincent Crase.

We hear Alexandre Benalla claiming the personal support of the Head of State on several occasions. The latter, he said, had sent him a support text message – which the Elysée denies. “He (Emmanuel Macron) does more than support us….. He’s like a madman[...]. And he said like that, he said, he said, he said to me: “You’re going to eat them. You’re stronger than them,” Benalla told Crase.

In the excerpts from this discussion, Alexandre Benalla does not at any time show any concern about the press revelations about him. He even uses a light tone, and seems to enjoy what is happening to him.

“It’s a good experience….. At 26, if you will, there are not many people living… who provoke two parliamentary committees of enquiry, who block the functioning of Parliament…”

“I’m going to put together a list for the Europeans.”

This discussion between Alexandre Benalla and Vincent Crase is all the more surprising as the two men, both indicted in the case of the May 1st violence, met on July 26th in clear violation of judicial control which prohibits them from any contact, recalls Mediapart.

And yet, Alexandre Benalla’s serenity is “total”, our colleagues write. The former collaborator claims to have the whole Elysée behind him. While Vincent Crase asks him who supports him, Emmanuel Macron’s former adviser answers:

“By the president, Mrs. (Brigitte Macron), Ismael (Emelien), who advises me on media and company.”

Ismael Emelien is not the only point of contact from Benalla to the Elysée,” adds Mediapart. He also continued to regularly visit Ludovic Chaker, a chargé de mission to the Chief of Staff of the President of the Republic. Our colleagues mentioned in particular a dinner in a Parisian restaurant on November 13, 2018. “He came by because Chaker and I had sent him a selfie,” says Nicolas Bays, an ex-member of parliament who was there that day.

“We often asked about him, at that time he had just been taken out of the Elysée for his coup de force on the Place de la Contrescarpe. Alexandre told me: “Nicolas, you’ll see, I’ll bounce back, I’ll get them all, I’ll put together a list for the Europeans, I’ll talk about security, immigration, they won’t be able to come and get me on these subjects. I told him he was unconscious, he couldn’t do that to the boss.”

A contract with a Russian oligarch

In his investigation, Mediapart also reveals that Alexander Benalla is personally involved in a security contract with a Russian oligarch close to Vladimir Putin, who is also suspected of having links with the mafia. And that he lied about it on January 21 before the Senate committee of enquiry, which questioned him.

According to Mediapart, the former collaborator of the President met several times with the oligarch’s representative in France, businessman Jean-Louis Haguenauer, in the winter of 2017.

After the revelations of the May 1st affair, Alexandre Benalla is concerned about the repercussions it could have on the Mars security company, which belongs to Vincent Crase. In one of the excerpts published by Mediapart, we hear him warn the latter:

“Here you have to cut the branch. You have to change port to do what we planned to do and transfer… [...] You have to get out of the box.”

Finally, in mid-October, the two men set up another company, France Close Protection, run by a relative of Benalla and housed in the same domiciliation centre as Mars. In November, Alexandre Benalla is registered as an employee, reports Mediapart. And he already receives a first salary of 12,474 euros, while he was receiving a severance indemnity pay after leaving the Elysée.

Previously in the Benalla affair in relation to the EPO:

  1. Alexandre Benalla, Macron’s Violent Bodyguard, Was Also Battistelli’s Bodyguard
  2. It Wasn’t Judges With Weapons in Their Office, It Was Benoît Battistelli Who Brought Firearms to the European Patent Office (EPO)
  3. Benoît Battistelli Refuses to Talk to the Media About Bringing Firearms to the EPO
  4. Guest Post on Ronan Le Gleut and Benalla at the French Senate (in Light of Battistelli’s Epic Abuses)
  5. The Man Whose Actions Could Potentially Land Team Battistelli in Jail
  6. French Media Confirms Alexandre Benalla Just One of Six Battistelli Bodyguards, Employed at the Cost of €8,000-€10,000 Per Month (for Benalla Alone!)
  7. Corrupt Battistelli Paid a Fortune (EPO Budget) for Outlaw/Rogue ‘Bodyguards’ From Firm Linked to Russian Oligarch Iskander Makhmudov

The next part will likely be published some time tomorrow.

Battistelli’s Bodyguard, Part II: Fishing Expedition for Sources in the Alexandre Benalla ‘Underworld’ Scandal

Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:47 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Protecting criminals from those who expose them

Control Risks

Investigation Unit

Summary: An utter lack of respect for the privacy of the media and of its sources, in the name of protecting the privacy of those convicted of crimes, as seen in France just like the European Patent Office

THIS is the second part of a series of 5 (part one here) regarding the Benalla affair. Benalla had worked clandestinely at the European Patent Office (EPO) before the so-called ‘Benallagate’ broke out.

As it turns out, France is now mimicking the EPO modus operandi. The EPO hired a dodgy private firm to help spy on the staff, as we noted in:

The next translation comes from a reader, who read “Mediapart s’oppose à une perquisition de ses locaux dans l’affaire Benalla” and put it all in English as follows:

Mediapart opposes a search of its premises in the Benalla case

The leaders of the information site say they refused a search conducted in the context of an investigation for a restriction of Benalla’s privacy.

The Paris Public Prosecutor’s Office opened an investigation into “restriction of privacy” and the conditions for recording a conversation between Alexandre Benalla and Vincent Crase in late July, after its broadcast last week by Mediapart, it was reported on Monday from a judicial source.

The online media reported that on Monday morning it refused a search of its premises, where two prosecutors and investigators who wanted to seize the recordings in question as part of this procedure came forward. “There are diligences to find our sources, it is a particularly worrying situation,” denounced Fabrice Arfi, co-responsible for the online newspaper’s surveys, to AFP.

Mediapart had published on Thursday excerpts from a recording of a conversation between Alexandre Benalla, Emmanuel Macron’s former advisor, and Vincent Crase, former LREM employee and reservist gendarme.

According to the news website, this conversation took place on 26 July, a few days after the two men were indicted for violence against demonstrators on 1 May 2018 and in violation of their judicial control.

The judicial source specified that the opening of the preliminary investigation, which also concerns the “unlawful possession of devices or technical devices likely to enable the interception of telecommunications or conversations”, took place following the receipt by the Paris prosecutor’s office of “elements”, the nature of which has not been specified.

A source close to the investigation added that it was not triggered following a complaint from Alexandre Benalla.

“As we are in the context of a preliminary investigation, we have the right to refuse a search and we have therefore obviously refused it, allowing us to comment on this unprecedented situation in the history of the newspaper, and which we consider particularly serious for the newspaper,” also explained Fabrice Arfi.

Previously in the Benalla affair in relation to the EPO:

  1. Alexandre Benalla, Macron’s Violent Bodyguard, Was Also Battistelli’s Bodyguard
  2. It Wasn’t Judges With Weapons in Their Office, It Was Benoît Battistelli Who Brought Firearms to the European Patent Office (EPO)
  3. Benoît Battistelli Refuses to Talk to the Media About Bringing Firearms to the EPO
  4. Guest Post on Ronan Le Gleut and Benalla at the French Senate (in Light of Battistelli’s Epic Abuses)
  5. The Man Whose Actions Could Potentially Land Team Battistelli in Jail
  6. French Media Confirms Alexandre Benalla Just One of Six Battistelli Bodyguards, Employed at the Cost of €8,000-€10,000 Per Month (for Benalla Alone!)
  7. Corrupt Battistelli Paid a Fortune (EPO Budget) for Outlaw/Rogue ‘Bodyguards’ From Firm Linked to Russian Oligarch Iskander Makhmudov

The next part will be published either later today or tomorrow.

02.12.19

Innovating the Idea That Software Patents (Monopolies on Algorithms) Are Covering ‘Artificial’ ‘Intelligence’ (AI and ML as Loopholes)

Posted in Europe, Patents at 2:57 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

AJ Park and NSA

Summary: Patent law firms around the world love this new trick, which is framing software that makes decisions as “AI” (magically rendering it patent-eligible only in offices but not in courts, which the EPO hopes to replace/override anyway)

RECENTLY, including earlier today, we wrote about the ‘AI’ nonsense. Both the European Patent Office (EPO) and the USPTO use this nonsensical term, albeit it seems like the EPO started it. More recently WIPO too followed, along with the UN (that it’s a part or extension of).

“…this “AI” hype had started just before António Campinos became President of the EPO.”What on Earth is going on? Some hours ago IP Watch published this piece, behind paywall, about yet more of the same. Corrupt WIPO is promoting software patents (illegal almost everywhere) under the guise of “AI” and Catherine Saez played along by writing: “Artificial intelligence is with us to stay, and you can expect solutions to great challenges, but governments should be prepared to invest in education and research to keep up with the two global leaders of the field: the United States and China. This is in essence what several speakers said recently at an event held at the World Intellectual Property Organization.”

We might also add that much of this “AI” hype had started just before António Campinos became President of the EPO. It started at the end of Battistelli’s reign of corruption. Not that Campinos ended this corruption…

“It started at the end of Battistelli’s reign of corruption.”An article by Anton Blijlevens and Brook Dyer of AJ Park has also just been published under the title “European Patent Office Releases Guidelines On AI Patentability”.

For those who don’t know, AJ Park has long lobbied for software patents [1, 2, 3] in Australia and in New Zealand; well, now it’s pleased that EPO management calls software patents “AI” to cheat the system, warp the whole discussion and then grant fake European Patents. Blijlevens and Dyer wrote:

In November last year, the European Patent Office (EPO) released guidelines relating to the examination of patent applications for artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) based inventions. These guidelines, G-II 3.3.1, provide clarification on how patent applications for inventions relating to AI and ML will be handled by the EPO.

The patentability of AI and ML based inventions has received interest of late, partially due to media hype and the growing expectations and concerns surrounding AI and ML technologies. In May last year, the EPO hosted an international conference to discuss the challenges of patenting AI and ML inventions. Last June, the heads of the patent offices of China, Japan, Korea, Europe, and the United States (the IP5) jointly noted that the impact of AI and ML on the patent system was one of their top strategic priorities.

The newly released EPO guidelines address the issue of the patentability of AI and ML based inventions. The guidelines provide that inventions relating to AI and ML are based on ‘computational models and algorithms for classification, clustering, regression and dimensionality reduction, such as neural networks, genetic algorithms, support vector machines, k-means, kernel regression and discriminant analysis.’

These are all algorithms and I wrote about most of these, worked with them (programming) and explained these 15 years ago in university. It’s not novel and it’s clearly abstract; it’s mathematics. These aren’t novel or emerging because they have been around for a very long time. The theory behind them has been explored for decades and there’s plenty of literature (mostly equations). So just because people now apply “ML” to do X, Y and Z we’re supposed to think it’s unprecedented and “innovative”? There may not be prior art in patents because patents on mathematics are generally not permitted.

“The site they link to is a patent maximalists’ site that helped the EPO promote UPC and habitually spoke to corrupt Battistelli.”Some hours ago the EPO wrote: “Recent survey of IP professionals shows EPO is the best IP office for patenting AI technologies. Thank you for your trust in us!” (links to this recent page which we mentioned last week)

Trust? Whose? Patent maximalists’ maybe. The site they link to is a patent maximalists’ site that helped the EPO promote UPC and habitually spoke to corrupt Battistelli.

According to this site, the EPO is best for software patents (if framed as “AI”); so brags the EPO, which also habitually links to its media partner, IAM. They’re like propaganda mills of the EPO, based in London and closely connected to law firms in London.

“Judge Corcoran’s last bit of work dealt with such a patent application, which he rejected.”The EPO then wrote: “Business and commercialisation experts in the field of #MedTech should attend this event in Lund, Sweden: http://bit.ly/CII_medtech”

“CII_medtech” leads to a page titled “Computer-implemented inventions in Medtech with focus on value of patents for SMEs” (warning: epo.org link).

By “CII” the EPO means software patents (not allowed), but painted as “life-saving” (‘Med’ Tech) and “for SMEs” (the ‘small guy’). Incredible spin right there. Judge Corcoran's last bit of work dealt with such a patent application, which he rejected.

“Never mind if blockchains are software. So the EPO shamelessly promotes software patents which are not allowed.”The EPO then went on to writing: “#Blockchain and #patents? Hear what experts have to say on these two topics that are of relevance to your work…”

Last time the EPO brought “experts” to speak about blockchains these were patent trolls from the US. Never mind if blockchains are software. So the EPO shamelessly promotes software patents which are not allowed. The Office is blatant about this. It doesn’t even hide it.

Perhaps the EPO was all along gambling on bypassing the courts and replacing national judges with dependent (on the EPO) ones. How anarchic would that be? EPO managers or Team Campinos would suddenly be in charge of everything. Maybe Battistelli would then become chief of the UPC.

Max Walters of the patent microcosm’s press apparatus meanwhile spreads the typical misinformation and promotion of the awful UPC (his bosses want the UPC). Earlier today he published this alarmist piece that says this about the UPC:

Elsewhere the IP guidance reiterates concern regarding the UK’s participation in the planned Unified Patent Court (UPC). It warns: ‘It is unclear whether the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) would regard the participation of a non-EU member state in a UPC system with the power to refer matters to the CJEU as lawful, and in particular whether participation in the unitary patent part of the UPC is possible.’

The ability of solicitors to represent clients in the court would also be in doubt, the Society warns.

Whether the UPC comes into being at all is up in the air pending the completion of a constitutional challenge in Germany, one of the countries that must ratify the UPC agreement.

We are watching closely what Stephan Harbarth does next [1, 2] because it seems plausible that Team UPC is once again (as before in the Bundestag) relying on mischief in the FCC (throwing out the constitutional challenge in Germany based on financial ideology of a UPC ‘true believer’ with vested interests in the outcome).

« 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