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

03.29.20

The Fall of the UPC – Part IX: Campinos Opens His Mouth One Week Later (and It’s That Hilarious Delusion Again)

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 8:40 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The funny thing? Even Team UPC isn’t buying the spiel of António Campinos, deputy clown of wannabe UPC chief.

Reichstag in Berlin

Summary: Team Campinos said nothing whatsoever about the decision of the FCC until one week later, whereupon Campinos leveraged some words from Christine Lambrecht to mislead everybody in the EPO’s official “news” section

THE European Patent Office (EPO) is definitely and undoubtedly a constant source of fury but also an occasional, part-time source of entertainment and amusement because amid all the scandals there are cover-up attempts and hollow face-saving ambitions that verge on black comedy. It’s not everyone’s cup of tea, but humour is the best medicine when corruption is neither pretty nor funny.

In the previous part (part 8) we covered Team UPC’s shameless spin. It painted the UPC’s death as “life” and bad news (to them) as “actually good news in disguise” or something along those lines. Psychologists and psychiatrists leverage if not ‘prescribe’ such methods.

“Psychologists and psychiatrists leverage if not ‘prescribe’ such methods.”Over at Bristows, the latest blog post is Gregory Bacon’s spin that says: “Although the complaint regarding the Bundestag majority was held to be admissible, that was only by the narrowest majority of the Senate’s eight Justices, i.e. five votes to three.”

Like athletes who say, “I lost only by two seconds.”

Courts don’t work that way. The decision doesn’t come with a “score”.

“Yeah, Johnny, I lost the case, but some people in the jury liked me… see you when I get out of prison!”

It is definitely worth noting that the EPO (management, President, Vice Presidents) waited silently for whole week and abstained from saying anything at all about this blow in the FCC (Team UPC keeps breaking the law) until some lying politician opened the mouth and was possible to quote selectively. EPO management never looked this desperate.

“It is definitely worth noting that the EPO (management, President, Vice Presidents) waited silently for whole week and abstained from saying anything at all about this blow in the FCC…”For those who missed it (this did not receive much publicity), in the German language Christine Lambrecht wrote this little page and the EPO jumped all over it, tweeting the sheer spin of Campinos (warning: epo.org link) as though it is “news”. To quote:

The European Patent Office (EPO) strongly welcomes the announcement of the German government to continue its support for the introduction of the Unitary Patent system in Europe.

In a statement made yesterday on the country’s ratification of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Agreement, German Minister of Justice and Consumer Protection Christine Lambrecht expressed her intention to “carefully evaluate the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court and examine possibilities to remedy the identified lack of form still in the current legislative period.”

The EPO’s official “news” section has increasingly become a platform of propaganda. For a whole week nothing at all was said about the FCC’s decision. And now this from Christine Lambrecht?

They don’t even pretend to be objective. The above is a bunch of nonsense (quotes) from Campinos. He’s ‘pulling a Battistelli’ again. He’s neither honest nor good. He’s a charlatan and a fraud.

Even biased lawyers who run IP Kat (not the old site called IP Kat; it changed) have just reiterated the nature of this decision, saying “this decision will set the UPC back 5 years!”

“They don’t even pretend to be objective.”Magdaleen Jooste wrote: “The German constitutional court upholds complaint against UPC Agreement and implementing act! Read the decision here. It is reported that this decision will set the UPC back 5 years! The main reason for the decision was that the act by which Germany was to ratify the UPC Agreement, was not passed with the required parliamentary majority. Léon Dijkman provided a detailed analysis of the decision by the German constitutional court.”

We probably won’t quote many comments from that blog anymore; IP Kat censors many comments, ‘sanitising’ views it does not agree with because they don’t share the agenda of today’s IP Kat editors.

Anyway, the above “news” from the EPO site makes it rather clear that the “clean” EPO management (Campinos and his mates from EUIPO) is still looking to break the law and violate countless constitutions. It cherry-picks polticians that it selectively cites like a one-party military-turned-state North Korea.

If this does not repulse patent examiners, we wonder what will…

My friend Benjamin Henrion translated Lambrecht as saying: “I will continue to work to ensure that we can provide the European innovative industry with a single European patent with a European patent court.”

You cannot.

“Anyway, Lambrecht may wear something that says “Europe” on her lapel or sleeve. She might also wave a bunch of yellow-blue flags, but clearly Lambrecht misses the point. What Europe needs is a lot more than shallow rhetoric — the type of thing EPO staff has grown tired of.”“Well, Chinese and American industries as well,” Henrion remarked, for “2/3 of patents in Europe are given to them…”

“Most of their “clients” aren’t European. It’s a class (monopoly) thing, not a regional thing,” I told him

Just because the “E” in EPO says “European” doesn’t mean it works for Europe and for Europeans. It employs many, sure, but whose agenda does their work serve? Usually very rich people’s. No, not rich Europeans. Just rich people. Corporations. Multinationals. Monsanto, Exxon, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon…

Huawei untrustworthy? Serving the Chinese military? Danger to Europe? Guess who receives the most European Patents…

Anyway, Lambrecht may wear something that says “Europe” on her lapel or sleeve. She might also wave a bunch of yellow-blue flags, but clearly Lambrecht misses the point. What Europe needs is a lot more than shallow rhetoric — the type of thing EPO staff has grown tired of. Trampling on workers — and on all people — in the name of “unity” won’t make people more united; it might unite them against those who misuse those shiny labels in the service of goals that crush human rights.

Team UPC megaphones absolutely adore Lambrecht for what she said. JUVE is among them. JUVE reinvented itself as lying propaganda and we’ll say a lot more about JUVE’s role in UPC lobbying later in this ongoing series. As Henrion put it: “German Ministry of Justice keeps pushing for the UPC, JUVE interprets it as “Bundestag will vote again” https://www.bmjv.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2020/032620_Patentreform.html … https://www.juve-patent.com/news-and-stories/legal-commentary/german-government-announces-intention-to-move-forward-with-upc/ … This is not possible as Rules of Procedure are not made by parliament(s).”

“We’ll have a lot more to say about JUVE’s poor coverage later in this series.”True, it is not possible. If anything, this serves to show that the German Ministry of Justice does not understand the law. Yes, the irony. One might expect this from Donald Trump’s USDOJ, not Germany’s Ministry of Justice.

JUVE’s editor tweeted: “UPC latest: just six days after the judgment of the German Constitutional Court, the German government announces its intention to move forward with the Unified Patent Court.”

Did you fact-check, JUVE?

We’ll have a lot more to say about JUVE’s poor coverage later in this series.

What’s being suggested here is illegal and there would be further complaints against overt corruption. This, we might add, might be expected from Donald Trump. Are his grandfather’s relatives still in Germany and getting involved in such reckless politics based upon will and dogma rather than underlying laws and a constitution? Does the FCC have its authority diminished to mere “advisory”?

It’s not only us pointing this out by the way; “Kluwer Patent blogger” (oftentimes Bristows) published “Despite FCC ruling, Germany wants to push ahead with Unitary Patent system” and tweeted this bunch of nonsense only to be blasted in the comments, as usual. Immediately one person wrote: “And don’t forget the Rules of Procedure made by an administrative committee, which is contrary to the caselaw of the FCC, and caselaw of the ECHR on art6.”

“Even Team UPC boosters don’t quite buy the laughable spiel of Campinos and Christine Lambrecht; nor should they if they choose to become grown-ups and realistic rather than jingoistic self-serving liars.”“Concerned observer” wrote: “From the Ministry that brought you the late night shenanigans that ultimately killed the law approving the UPCA we are now served up a new strategy that has all the makings of another farce.

“Why prolong the agony and uncertainty? Why not state the obvious and acknowledge that, at the very least, the first step that will need to be taken is renegotiation and amendment of the UPCA? What is to be gained by not admitting that it will take more than just another vote in the Bundestag?

“Deeply disappointing.”

A vocal UPC booster in Munich quoted: “So a simple re-run of the previous approval law with the same UPCA text will not work. It would most probably also be contrary to EU law if Germany were to ratify an agreement that transfers sovereign rights (part of its jurisdiction)to an international court that is currently/2 https://twitter.com/kluwerblogger/status/1243477267629641728 [] partly located outside the EU and in a state which has explicitly declared that it is not minded to follow EU law and does not want to be subject to the jurisdiction of the CJEU.“

Even Team UPC boosters don’t quite buy the laughable spiel of Campinos and Christine Lambrecht; nor should they if they choose to become grown-ups and realistic rather than jingoistic self-serving liars. No, UPC isn’t for “SMEs” and it was never designed for them, either. The exact opposite is true.

Pretending EPO Corruption Stopped Under António Campinos When It is in Fact a Lot Worse in Several Respects/Aspects (Than It Was Under Benoît Battistelli)

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

Focus on presidential composure/temper misses the point when about 85% of workers want to go on strike

Berlin Alexanderplatz

Summary: Germany’s eagerness to keep Europe’s central patent office in Munich (and to a lesser degree in Berlin) means that politicians in the capital and in Bavaria turn a blind eye to abuses, corruption and even serious crimes; this won’t help Germany’s image in the long run

THE European Patent Office’s (EPO) corruption under António Campinos has been documented here since 2018 and as recently as this month. There’s no concrete reason to believe — only shallow PR ploys to swallow — that he’s better than Battistelli. He’s a continuation of Battistelli and further regression along the very same lines. The agenda or the goal is the same; it has nothing whatsoever to do with innovation or competitiveness.

“The agenda or the goal is the same; it has nothing whatsoever to do with innovation or competitiveness.”In our next post we’ll highlight the latest nonsense from Campinos. It’s about the UPC. SUEPO cited only The Register rather than some law firms on this matter. Rightly so! SUEPO has also, as it promised it would, produced these two English translations [PDF] of German Bundestag discussions [PDF]. We’d like to reprint these in HTML form below (the English version; there’s also French and the originals are both in German). From the document with the questions:

German Bundestag
19th Legislative Period

Printing Material 19/17383
02/25/2020

Brief Inquiry

of members of parliament Roman Müller-Böhm, Stephan Thomae, Grigorios Aggelidis, Renata Alt, Nicole Bauer, Jens Beeck, Dr. Jens Brandenburg (Rhein-Neckar), Sandra Bubendorfer-Licht, Dr. Marco Buschmann, Britta Katharina Dassler, Hartmut Ebbing, Dr. Marcus Faber, Daniel Föst, Otto Fricke, Thomas Hacker, Peter Heidt, Katrin Helling-Plahr, Markus Herbrand, Torsten Herbst, Katja Hessel, Manuel Höferlin, Reinhard Houben, Ulla Ihnen, Olaf in der Beek, Dr. Marcel Klinge, Daniela Kluckert, Pascal Kober, Carina Konrad, Konstantin Kuhle, Ulrich Lechte, Dr. Martin Neumann, Dr. Wieland Schinnenburg, Matthias Seestern-Pauly, Frank Sitta, Dr. Hermann Otto Solms, Bettina Stark-Watzinger, Katja Suding, Michael Theurer, Dr. Florian Toncar, Gerald Ullrich, Sandra Weeser, Nicole Westig, Katharina Willkomm, and the parliamentary party FDP

Position and Procedure of the European Parliament

[Material omitted which the reply reproduced]

We ask the federal government…

[Questions omitted which the reply below quoted]

Berlin, 30th January 2020

Christian Lindner and parliamentary party

Berlin, 30 th January 2020

Christian Lindner and parliamentary party

____
General Production: H. Heenemann GmbH & Co. KG, Printing and Offset Office, Bessemerstraße 83–91, 12103 Berlin,
www.heenemann-druck.de

Distribution: Bundesanzeiger Verlag GmbH, PO Box 10 05 34, 50445 Cologne, Telephone (02 21) 97 66 83 40, Fax (02 21) 97 66 83 44, www.betrifft-gesetze.de
ISSN 0722-8333

To avoid repetition we’ve cut out the introduction and questions above, leaving them in tact below, instead.

The responses (to the questions listed below) are really quite the extraordinary ‘coverup’ with ridiculous excuses and dismissive revisionism. Here it goes:

German Bundestag
19th Legislative Period

Printing Material 19/17809
03/11/2020

Reply
of the federal government

regarding the brief inquiry of member of parliament Roman Müller-Böhm, Stephan Thomae, Grigorios Aggelidis, other members of parliament, and parliamentary party FDP

– Printing Material 19/17383 –

Position and Procedure of the European Parliament

Preliminary Note of the Inquirer

The European Patent Office (EPO) is the executive body of the European Patent Organization (EPOrg) with headquarters in Munich and has the function to check patent applications and to grant European patents. The EPO was created by international agreement and is a multinational institution with the status of a legal entity (https://www.epo.org/ about-us/foundation_de.html). It was agreed that the EPO will have legal immunity and that only the special rights created by the member countries is legally binding for the EPO (cf. Article 8 of the European Patent Agreement). The competence for legally binding decisions rests with the member countries of the organization in the course of a corresponding conference (https://www.epo.org/about-us/governance_de.html).

In the recent past, the EPO was confronted with widespread criticism. This varied from the announced use of financial means, to the quality standards of patents, to the treatment of employees, and to insufficient independence of the complaint’s offices (https://suepo.org/public/ex18052cdp.pdf, p. 4 and 5). A group of 924 employees criticized that the accelerated procedure during the evaluation of patents would be performed at the expense of quality. In their opinion, this is due to the requirements regarding productivity of the employees of the old management. Correspondingly, the international union within the EPO, the Staff Union of the European Patent Office (SUEPO), especially criticized that the introduced scoring system would incentivize the examiners to produce masses of patents with low quality (https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Europaeisches-Patentamt-Patentpruefer-rebellieren-gegen-Qualitaetsverluste-3997082.html).

Besides that, the Federal Audit Office last year criticized the decision by the EPO that the assets of the office are supposed to be used in a financially speculative way (https://www.wiwo.de/politik/europa/rechnungshof-scharfe-kritik-an-finanzgebaren-des-europaeischen-patentamts/22722052.html). In the view of the Federal Audit Office, this is not necessary and may entail higher risks. Additionally, it is objected that through the investment transactions of the EPO, a “shadow budget” is managed in an international agency with public funds that is not covered by the international constitutive act of the member countries and violates democratic principles
______

The reply was transmitted on behalf of the federal government by writing through the federal ministry of justice and consumer protection dated 10th of March 2020.
Additionally, the printing material contains – in small font – the question text.


(Petra Sorge, Die unheimliche Wette, WirtschaftsWoche vom 22. Juni 2018, S. 35). This continues in a general criticism regarding the state of labor and the legal controls of the EPO (http://www.deutschlandfunk.de/europaeisches-patentamt-deutsches-arbeitsrecht-gilt-hier.724.de.html/?dram:article_id=347579).

Moreover, employee policy was criticized for some time. Employees of the EPO mostly appeared anonymously towards the press, according to their own statements due to fear of sanctions (Petra Sorge, Die unheimliche Wette, WirtschaftsWoche vom 22. Juni 2018, S. 36). Besides that, the right to strike for employees were limited by internal regulations and sick employees were ordered to stay home. Furthermore, measures against critical employees were introduced, such as key logger. There is also talk about an EPO internal investigation unit for employee matters (Petra Sorge, Wo kein Richter …, Cicero vom 3. Mai 2018). The former judge at the Federal Constitutional Court, Dr. Siegfried Broß, says that there are substantial deficits concerning the employment status of the employees. There are employee representatives, but they do not have any constitutive participation rights. Instead, they could only issue recommendations to which the president is not bound (https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/europaeisches-patentamt-deutsches-arbeitsrecht-gilt-hier.724.de.html?dram:article_id=347579).

The Federal Republic of Germany, as member country of the EPO, has a joint responsibility for the EPOrg. With the changed conditions caused by the change within management as of 1st July 2018 (https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Europaeisches-Patentamt-Chef-Battistelli-tritt-ab-Campinos-tritt-an-3857253.html) and in light of the previous events regarding the EPOrg, according to the inquirer, the question arises, whether and to what extent from the perspective of the federal government, the situation at the EPOrg has changed with the new management.

1. Did the federal government have knowledge about the published accusation in the press of a loss in quality during the patent application examination and the granting of patents as compared to the previous management of the EPO, and how does the federal government assess it?

For the federal government, the quality of the patent assessment by the European Patent Office (EPO) is an important issue. Quality management and quality control must be secured sustainably within the workflow of the EPO. The federal government therefore welcomes the goals, the new president of the EPO has set himself in his strategy plan for 2019 to 2023. The achievement of these goals will be evaluated by the federal government on the basis of annual quality reports performed by the president of the EPO.

2. Did the federal government have knowledge about the published accusations in the press of the “shadow budget” and the financial risk management as compared to the former management of the EPO, and how does the federal government evaluate it?

The cited press reports are known to the federal government. The EPO issues a budget annually, in which also financial investments are considered and explained transparently. A so-called shadow budget does not exist. An appropriate risk management is in place.

Germany had voted against the new investment guideline for the management of cash funds during the 156th meeting of the supervisory board dated 27th/28th of July 2018 on the basis of the statement issued by the Federal Audit Office.


3. According to the federal government, are there deficits in terms of financial management and the treatment of employees at the EPO?

a) If so, what measures would the federal government assume then?
b) If no and from the point of view of the federal government, are the existing rules at the EPO regarding financial management and treatment of employees sufficient?

According to the federal government, there are no deficits as regards financial management at the EPO. The federal government welcomes that the new president of the EPO wants to improve the social climate and treatment of employees, and has introduced initial measures in the course of the strategy plan 2019 to 2023.

4. Did the federal government have knowledge about the published accusation in the press of a violation of rights of employees caused by surveillance and curtailing of labor laws as compared to the former management of the EPO, and how does the federal government assess this?

5. According to the federal government, were there any complaints filed with police with respect to the EPO?

6. Did the federal government have knowledge about the published accusation in the press of employee surveillance by internal investigation groups of the former EPO management, and how does the federal government assess this?

7. Did the federal government have knowledge about the published accusation in the press of a curtailing outsourcing of the complaint’s office under the former EPO management (Petra Sorge, Wo kein Richter …, Cicero vom 3. Mai 2018), and how does the federal government assess this?

Questions 4 to 7 are answered together.

The questions involve confidential disciplinary procedures to which the federal government does not take position. This also applies to the procedures before the internal complaint’s offices.

8. In the view of the federal government, is there a “legal” control that was itself instituted by the EPO, (Petra Sorge, Wo kein Richter …, Cicero vom 3. Mai 2018) which itself ensures an effective legal protection?

9. In the view of the federal government, is the current of the complaint’s offices task as an authority, without being bound to restrictions, sufficiently met?


10. In the view of the federal government, is there a necessity to change the “legal” control system at the EPO?

a) If so, how should it be restructured in the view of the federal government?
b) If no, is it the opinion of the federal government that a legal control at the EPA is sufficient?

Questions 8 to 10 will be answered together.

It is the view of the federal government that an effective legal protection exists against decisions by the EPO. The federal government does not see any need for reform at the moment.

The European Patent Organization (EPOrg) was granted immunity by the national jurisdictions of the member countries as an international organization in the course of its official activity. This corresponds to a normal approach in all international organizations. Consequently, international organizations are not bound to national jurisdictions.

The EPO is a body of the EPOrg (cf. Article 4, Section 2a) of the European Patent Agreement (EPA). The employees of the EPO have the right for an appropriate legal protection before international courts (Administrative court of the International Labor Organization (ILOAT)) (cf. Article 13, Section 1 EPA).

For disputes that affect patent decisions of the EPO, the independent complaint’s offices are responsible. The employees of the complaint’s offices are not bound to instructions during their decision making and are only subjected to the European Patent Agreement (cf. Article 23, Section 3 EPA).

At the 148th meeting of the supervisory body of the European Patent Organization dated 29th/30th of June 2016, the supervisory body approved a comprehensive reform of the complaint’s offices, which further strengthened the autonomy of the complaint’s offices. The reform is effective as of 1st of July 2016.

11. How does the federal government assess the impact of the legal independence of the EPO from national and European law as regards the collaboration of the EPO with the EU member states to solve the criticism towards the EPO?

The immunity granted to the EPA complies with the normal approach at international organizations. It influences the objective collaboration between the EPA and their member states just as little as with other international organizations.

12. Is the federal government in dialogue with the EPO regarding the accusation or several accusations, and if so, how?

a) If so, what results have been achieved so far?
b) If so, what goals does the federal government pursue with a dialogue?

The federal government is in a continuing dialogue with the EPO as regards different issues. Important issues for the federal government are especially patent quality, social climate, and long-term financial stability.


13. In view of the federal government, has the situation as regards the accusation or several accusations improved with the new management?

The federal government especially welcomes the measure that the new EPO president took to improve social climate. This also includes discussions with individual employees as well as regular dialogues with stakeholders. The federal government also supports the intended measures for a further improvement in all other areas as outlined in the strategy plan for 2019 to 2023 by the EPO president.

14. Does the federal government plan to take political as well as legal actions, should the accusations against the EPO continue under the new management, and if so, what?

The federal government has no reason to believe that the accusations against the EPO will continue under the new management.

______

General Production: H. Heenemann GmbH & Co. KG, Printing and Offset Office, Bessemerstraße 83–91, 12103 Berlin, www.heenemann-druck.de

Distribution: Bundesanzeiger Verlag GmbH, PO Box 10 05 34, 50445 Cologne, Telephone (02 21) 97 66 83 40, Fax (02 21) 97 66 83 44, www.betrifft-gesetze.de
ISSN 0722-8333

We don’t plan to — as we lack time for it at this moment — examine each and every fallacy in the reply. There’s a load of whitewashing lies and embellishments. But let’s consider just the past few days’ EPO abuses, highlighting the fact that nothing is really changing and nothing has changed. They want us to believe that a little presidential shuffle — with the previous president’s mate put in power — solved everything.

Let’s focus on technical abuses and deviation from (i.e. violation of) the underlying laws. This is a topic we had covered for a number of years before we started focusing on big EPO scandals (in the middle of 2014). I’ve observed these issues for nearly 20 years, primarily as a coder.

“I’ve observed these issues for nearly 20 years, primarily as a coder.”As recently as days ago the EPO started advertising this thing called “DigitalisationIndex”. Earlier this past they started misusing terms like “digital technologies” quite a lot; we took note of that several times. They’re looking to justify granting illegal software patents (European Patents on algorithms) under the guise of “Digitalisation”.

Their apparently first tweet on this said: “#Digitalisation is triggering patenting growth. What regions do patent applications in this field come from? Check out this analysis of our latest patent statistics to find out: https://bit.ly/DigitalisationIndex … ”

“Hey hi” (AI) and “4IR” are among the latest buzzwords EPO uses to grant illegal patents on abstract ideas (“ICT” and “CII” are considered too old and not sufficiently exciting). The EPO is run by a bunch of people who choose buzzwords over substance, partly because — as their professional background reveals — they’re simply not technical. It corrodes the image of the EU as some of these people come from EU jobs, notably EUIPO, and the EU actively participates in this promotion of patents on algorithms. In other words, EU officials too are increasingly playing a role in the violation of the EPC. German government officials don’t seem to mind as long as that generates activities on German soil. But that’s a problem. Is lawfulness being compromised for raw profits that are temporary and ruinous to one’s credibility? Also, at whose expense does this activity take place? Europe has far more to it than a bunch of patent litigation lawyers. Earlier today I chatted with somebody about the devastating effect of this patent regime on the European automobile industry. That somebody writes many blog posts on this subject and he’s German.

“Is lawfulness being compromised for raw profits that are temporary and ruinous to one’s credibility? Also, at whose expense does this activity take place?”The corresponding new page (warning: epo.org link) is tied to the so-called 'results' and it provides excuses for lowering the bar, notably buzzwords: “As the fourth industrial revolution (4IR) materialises, it’s not just our factories that are getting smarter – it’s our hospitals, homes, appliances, cars, and wearable devices too. In 2019, digital communication became the new leading field of patent applications at the EPO while computer technology was the second fastest growing. These two technical fields are enabling 4IR by providing the tools for turning technical applications in other fields into smart devices. They are also powering further developments in areas such as artificial intelligence (AI) and 5G.”

Who wrote this? A technical person or a marketing professional? Likely the latter.

Speaking of marketing, check out this truly shallow EPO ‘news’ from Friday (warning: epo.org link), accompanied by a tweet with the hashtag #EarthHour (greenwashing).

“You only do this because COVID-19 shut you down,” I responded. “Quit the greenwashing…”

“A lot of actual EPO news gets lost in a sea of puff pieces.”Maybe this “news” was designed to distract from the other “news” published on the same day. It was a Campinos lie, which we’ll deal with in our next post.

A lot of actual EPO news gets lost in a sea of puff pieces. Even 3 weeks later some sites are still reprinting EPO press releases as though they’re “news” or “reporting”. The EPO posted this new page (warning: epo.org link) on the same day (“Notice concerning the electronic authentication of decisions and other documents relevant to the decision-making process”) and promoted it in Twitter, in effect overwhelming the site with enough distraction and obfuscation — a subject we shall deal with in our next post.

The EPO’s “decision-making process” is notoriously bad and it is the subject of several ongoing complaints in the German constitutional court. Not only is oversight lacking; judges and examiners are moreover being bullied, so they cannot uphold the EPC (which was supposed to strictly govern the Office).

“…the EPO is making it harder to appeal. It’s going to get vastly more expensive.”And speaking of decision-making process deficit, Emma Foster (Marks & Clerk) reminds us that, effective next week, the EPO is making it harder to appeal. It’s going to get vastly more expensive. This is what she published just before the weekend: “The European Patent Office (EPO) usually reviews its fee structure every two years. In line with this, the EPO has announced that fees will increase from 1 April 2020. We have summarised the fee increases for many frequently paid fees in the table below, most of which are in the region of 4%.

“However, the appeal fee has increased substantially from €2255 to €2705, which equates to an increase of around 20%. The EPO will continue to offer a reduced appeal fee to a) small and medium-sized enterprises; (b) natural persons; and (c) non-profit organisations, universities or public research organisations (i.e. appellants as defined in Rule 6(4) and (5) EPC). The appeal fee for these appellants will soon be €1955, which represents around a 4% increase to the current fee.”

“Even if the EPO committed mass murder in broad daylight, the government would likely help the Office come up with excuses for it.”Before Campinos raised the costs Battistelli had done the same, especially when it comes to ‘transactions’ (Battistelli might call them “products”) that challenge the Office and can serve to expose the collapse of patent quality.

Sadly, judging by the replies at the top, this doesn’t concern or bother the ruling politicians in Germany. Even if the EPO committed mass murder in broad daylight, the government would likely help the Office come up with excuses for it. Heck, in this age of Coronavirus they might even send complainants to 'quarantine' in Haar. Messengers of truth are “poison kitchen” to the EPO’s management.

03.27.20

The Fall of the UPC – Part VIII: Team UPC Celebrates Death, Not Life

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 5:04 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Any dying wish? UPC by next year? Not gonna happen, buddy

Summary: Team UPC plays psychological games now; it is trying to twist or spin its defeat as good news and something to be almost celebrated; it is really as illogical (and pathetic) as that sounds

TEAM UPC is beyond insane. It’s clinically insane. It’s devoid of sanity and reality. That’s the impression one can get by looking at responses to the FCC’s decision, which was handed down last Friday.

In this part we wish to tackle one particular pattern we’ve come across and may come across again in days or weeks to come.

Team UPC didn’t take the decision too well and ad hominem tactics are adopted again, as we’ll note in future parts. It’s not even the first time.

“The UPC itself was a blow to Europe. Team UPC had to lie and cheat a lot to get it as far as it has gotten.”Despite much evidence that European businesses do not want the UPC (lawyers have lied on ‘their behalf’) days ago we saw this is a Big Lie from LexisNexis (in an upcoming ‘webinar’): “How the Collapse of the UPC is a damaging blow to Europe”

No. It is not. The UPC itself was a blow to Europe. Team UPC had to lie and cheat a lot to get it as far as it has gotten. Then, judges (or Justices) assessed the evidence of the lying and cheating, whereupon they did the right thing.

LexisNexis may be a bunch of self-serving liars, but as noted in past years "Reed Tech (a LexisNexis company) ... is the government contractor that carries out the printing of US patents."

It’s just part of the patent ‘printing machine’, even literally.

But that’s just where the ‘fun’ begins…

Move over, LexisNexis, Christian Liedtke over at Watchtroll does necrophilia. “Death at a Funeral – or Birth? Why the German Court’s Decision on the UPC May Not be the End” (say what?)

This was the headline.

Wishful thinking again.

“Team UPC spins the death of something it has long lobbied for as a good thing.”Christian Liedtke says “the coffin to be far from shut. Instead, the UPC may have been given a second lease on life…”

Oh…

OK.

So when something dies it is actually “given a second lease on life…”

Interesting spin you got there, Mr. Liedtke.

I see.

So when something dies it actually comes to life. What are you, a karma or zombie enthusiast?

Team UPC spins the death of something it has long lobbied for — at very great and considerable expense — as a good thing.

If it is, indeed, a “lease on life,” then why are you all bemoaning last week’s decision?

“So even the negative (to them) is suddenly a positive?”After all… “lease on life,” you know?

That’s like a mother saying, “good riddance to my dead kid” because “now I’m going to get pregnant again…”

But Mr. Liedtke wasn’t alone. Oh no…

Charlotte Kilpatrick has just just published “UPC: defeat could be opportunity for growth” (so now they’ll go about flaunting and bragging about how their defeat is actually a Good Thing™).

“Recent setbacks from the UK and Germany could be a starting point for needed reforms, according to in-house counsel,” the summary says.

So even the negative (to them) is suddenly a positive? Make up your minds, will you?

That’s like a failing presidential candidate saying, “it is good that I lost because I learned some lessons and next time I can do better…”

Or, “it’s good at I failed at the sporting event because it gives me something to strive for.”

“Team UPC, please do not bring booze to the funeral. You’re obviously too drunk already.”This infantile kind of thinking is just so typical of Team UPC.

To quote these delusional ones: “Those who have gone into full mourning over this decision, calling it the death knell of the UPC, may find the coffin to be far from shut. Instead, the UPC may have been given a second lease on life, and those with substantive concerns about the UPC may end up wearing the black ribbon in the long run.”

What? No further comment needed. Team UPC, please do not bring booze to the funeral. You’re obviously too drunk already.

When Your ‘Business’ is Just ‘Patent Portfolio’

Posted in Patents at 8:38 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Can't think of a business model... But I'll figure something out

Summary: Hoarding loads of patents may seem impressive, but eating them to survive is impossible if not impermissible

LOT Network is a One-Man (Millionaire’s) Operation and Why This Should Alarm You

Posted in Deception, Microsoft, OIN, Patents at 7:55 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Promoting and protecting software patents while pretending to protect people (from patent trolls)

Ken Seddon
From LOT Network’s latest IRS filing [PDF]. The self-appointed chief pays himself a salary of over half a million dollars, tax exempted, for 45 hours of work. All this by collecting membership fees for his glorified ‘patent club’.

LOT Network outline
Swinging from big profits to big losses and then no visibility anymore. They surface again in the media to tell us what an awesome company Microsoft is, even as purveyor of patent blackmail and backer of the world’s biggest patent trolls.

Summary: The ugly story of Open Invention Network (OIN) and LOT; today we take a closer look at LOT and highlight a pattern of ‘cross-pollination’ (people in both OIN and LOT, even at the same time)

LAST night we learned something a tad disturbing. We had heard all sorts of things about OIN and LOT Network, whose business model is similar; they are in some sense inseparable and their “charity” (or “non-profit”) status is as dubious as the Linux Foundation‘s because they’re corporate front groups.

Remember that the enemy of OIN (and LOT) isn’t the likes of Microsoft (heck, they spread the lie that “Microsoft loves Linux” now that Microsoft is a member!). The enemy of OIN is the community of developers. Real communities. Or people like us, who oppose software patents. OIN is big patent pool if not cartel protecting software patents, including Red Hat’s. They tell us those patents are “OK” and “Safe”. Need we mention that since Red Hat’s CEO became President at IBM (appointment effective next month) the company has filed yet more extortionate lawsuits against companies, using dubious software patents? Nothing is really changing, but they want to extinguish their critics. They were very giddy to see Richard Stallman go because of an online lynch mob and dishonest press (IBM-connected media — even the very same publisher — participated in this defamation a year after it had caused Linus Torvalds to be removed from his own project though he returned later).

“Remember that the enemy of OIN (and LOT) isn’t the likes of Microsoft (heck, they spread the lie that “Microsoft loves Linux” now that Microsoft is a member!). The enemy of OIN is the community of developers. Real communities. Or people like us, who oppose software patents.”When people from the community of developers “join” OIN are they signing away their autonomy to Microsoft, IBM etc. just like with CLAs? Building a large community-hostile aggregation, in effect thinking they defend themselves from patent trolls (OIN and LOT do no such thing; this is false marketing; They’re even run by trolls and oftentimes help trolls).

Look who’s running them. Look closely. Those people are opposing authentic and legitimate causes of actual activists, looking to abolish software patents.

“Now, as it turns out, based on new information, OIN and LOT Network are run by the same people or have ‘cross-pollination’ (people with E-mail addresses in both domains).”Remember that the same people run IBM and OIN’s first CEO came from IBM. Also bear in mind that IBM still lobbies against the community’s interest when it comes to patent law.

Now, as it turns out, based on new information, OIN and LOT Network are run by the same people or have ‘cross-pollination’ (people with E-mail addresses in both domains). People like Valer Mischenko. Alarm bell and warnings all over this, so we’ve ended up researching the matter.

The trigger point was the affiliation of Valer Mischenko. We don’t know if he works for OIN, LOT, and if the two are connected. All we know is that he’s still listed as working for OIN and he’s mass-mailing developers to get them to join LOT. So he’s wearing two hats. Or swapping hats.

8 years ago he still worked for NLnet and published this article with a bio that said “Before he started working with NLnet in 2007 he worked as Operations Manager and Director within several bigger and smaller ICT companies in The Netherlands and abroad.”

“LOT is connected to IAM, the patent trolls’ front group.”Then he moved to OIN. As per a page from four years ago: “Long involvement in open source and open innovation. Currently helping to build out a no-fly-zone around Linux with Open Invention Network.”

He is listed here as “Regional Director, Licensing” at OIN, noting that: “Previously he was general director of NLnet Foundation, a charity which stimulates network research and development in the domain of Internet technology. Prior to NLnet he worked as COO within several ICT companies.”

But now he has a LOT address. LOT is connected to IAM, the patent trolls’ front group. They’re proud of this. LOT has long been advocated by Microsoft circles as well… and weeks apart Microsoft joined both LOT and OIN (LOT first), whereupon it received lots of marketing/PR in return. It’s almost as though there had been a defection, with OIN’s Mirko Boehm perpetuating Microsoft lies such as “Microsoft loves Linux” (well, maybe he loves the money they offered).

LOT identifies itself as “Promotion of Business (Community Improvement, Capacity Building)” and Mischenko called it a “non-profit.”

“Hope to see you among our members soon,” he wrote to one developer. We imagine he sent it to countless others, trying to get them to sign this second and latest version of their agreement form. We can see what LOT Network gets from it. As for developers? They get virtually nothing out of it. That acts more like a waiver, like a CLA.

“That acts more like a waiver, like a CLA.”Notice how, at present (or most recently), LOT was losing millions of dollars to enrich a millionaire and oligarchs (billionaires) he fronts for. Remember where he came from (before LOT). We covered this in the past.

At first he managed to cover his humongous salary, which would make him a million bucks in less than 2 years. But in recent years he reported massive losses… (though he still netted a huge salary)

“At first he managed to cover his humongous salary, which would make him a million bucks in less than 2 years.”He then sold out to Microsoft (months later). The filing corresponds to about 10 months earlier and no more filings are available… since 2017 (that we can access anyway).

Let’s examine what they try to get developers to sign electronically (we reproduce this in full below in case they change it, which is likely if not inevitable):

THIS LOT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is entered into upon the undersigned LOT User’s submission of a signed copy of the completed Agreement to the LOT Administrator, and is effective as to that LOT User upon the date of such submission (the “Effective Date”), whereby such LOT User becomes a party to this Agreement on behalf of itself and its Affiliates and becomes bound by the terms and conditions. This Agreement is by and between the undersigned LOT User and all other current and future LOT Users.

NOW THEREFORE, each LOT User agrees as follows.

1. License Grant and Release
1.1. Grant of License and Release. With respect to each of its Subject Patents, and subject to the conditions and limitations of this Agreement, each Licensor hereby grants to every Licensee a present, fully vested and irrevocable (except as provided in Section 2 below):

(a) worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, non-sublicensable, non-transferable (subject to the provisions of Section 2 below) license to make, have made, operate, have operated, use, sell, offer for sale, import, and otherwise distribute Products and Services at any time on or after any Transfer of the respective Subject Patent to an Assertion Entity; and

(b) release, effective immediately prior to first Transfer of the respective Subject Patent to an Assertion Entity, of any and all claims, liabilities and damages for all Infringement of the respective Subject Patent occurring prior to the date of such Transfer of the respective Subject Patent.

1.2. Waiver and Immunity. With respect to each Subject Patent of the Licensor, the License constitutes a present, fully vested and irrevocable (except as provided in Section 2 below) waiver of the right under the respective Subject Patent for any Assertion Entity to make any Patent Assertion of the respective Subject Patent against any Licensee or with respect to any Licensee’s Products and Services. The License further includes immunity following first Transfer of the respective Subject Patent to an Assertion Entity for use, reproduction, and further sale, offer for sale, and distribution of the Licensee’s Products and Services by a distributor, reseller, re-licensor or customer of the Licensee, including reproduction and distribution of authorized copies of software sold or otherwise distributed (including by license of copies) by such Licensee.

1.3. No Other Rights. Except as expressly set forth in Sections 1 and 2 no license or right under any Patents is granted by this Agreement, whether by implication, estoppel, or otherwise. For the avoidance of doubt, the Licenses do not release any claims, liabilities or damages for Infringement or otherwise restrict or limit any Patent Assertion of a Subject Patent that has not been Transferred to an Assertion Entity, including against any Licensee or with respect to any Licensee’s Products and Services.

1.4. Return of Financial Benefit. Each LOT User agrees that any payment due to or received by such LOT User or its Affiliates (a “Receiving LOT User”), after becoming a LOT User or its Affiliate, resulting from any Patent Assertion by an Assertion Entity against an entity that at the time of the Patent Assertion is a LOT User or its Affiliate (a “Paying LOT User”), to the extent that such Patent Assertion is based on any of the Receiving LOT User’s Patents that were Transferred by the Receiving LOT User to an Assertion Entity less than two (2) years prior to the Receiving LOT User becoming a LOT User or its Affiliate (and where the payment due or received is not the result of an agreement between the Receiving LOT User and the Paying LOT User), will be immediately cancelled or returned to the Paying LOT User against whom such Patent Assertion is made.

1.5. Full Force and Effect. All Licenses granted in this Agreement are intended to and shall run with the Subject Patents to which they pertain for the full duration of such Subject Patents and be binding on subsequent owners and licensees. Any transfer or grant of rights in or to a Licensor’s Subject Patent(s), whether by such Licensor or any subsequent transferee, shall be subject to the Licenses and continuing obligations of this Agreement with respect to such Subject Patent(s).

2. Assignment, Change of Control, Withdrawal and Amendment
2.1. Assignment. Subject to the provisions of Section 2.2 below and except as set forth in the next sentence, no LOT User, Licensor or Licensee or their respective Affiliates may assign this Agreement or its rights hereunder, including but not limited to by operation of law, and any attempt to do so shall be void. A LOT User may assign this Agreement to its Affiliate solely as necessary to effect a corporate reorganization of such LOT User that does not constitute a Change of Control.

2.2. Change of Control.

(a) LOT User. In the event that a LOT User undergoes a Change of Control, whether during or after its Participation Period, by an acquirer that is not and does not become a LOT User or an Affiliate of a LOT User within its Participation Period during the six (6) month period after the effective date of such Change of Control, then the LOT User and all of its Affiliates will be deemed to have withdrawn from this Agreement, effective six (6) months after the effective date of such Change of Control. Notwithstanding Section 6.1, an acquirer and its Affiliates prior to the Change of Control will not be considered to become an Affiliate of the LOT User under this Agreement merely by virtue of having acquired Control of the LOT User.

(b) Affiliate of a LOT User. If an Entity ceases to be an Affiliate of a LOT User and does not become a LOT User prior to the time it ceases to be an Affiliate, then such Entity will be deemed to have withdrawn from this Agreement, effective as of the date it ceases to be an Affiliate of the respective LOT User.

(c) Notice. In order to allow the LOT Administrator to determine a withdrawal date under this Section 2.2, the LOT User agrees to inform the LOT Administrator within thirty (30) days of a Change of Control of the LOT User of the fact of such Change of Control and its respective effective date.

2.3. Withdrawal. A LOT User may withdraw from this Agreement by sending the LOT Administrator a written announcement that declares the LOT User’s intent to withdraw and is signed and submitted by an authorized representative of the LOT User. The existence and date of each such announcement will be published on the LOT website. The LOT User’s withdrawal will be effective as to such LOT User and all of its Affiliates six (6) months after it sends the withdrawal announcement.

2.4. Scope of Rights Following Effective Date of Withdrawal.

(a) Inbound Licenses. The Licenses granted to a LOT User or its Affiliate that has or is deemed to have withdrawn will remain in effect only with respect to Subject Patents of Licensors that were Transferred to an Assertion Entity prior to the date on which such withdrawal is effective.

(b) Outbound Licenses. All Patents of a LOT User or its Affiliate that are Subject Patents as of the date on which withdrawal or deemed withdrawal is effective as to such Entity shall remain Subject Patents and will remain and continue to be licensed following withdrawal to all Licensees existing as of the date of withdrawal and to all Licensees that become an Affiliate of an existing Licensee after the date of withdrawal, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, including Subject Patents Transferred to an Assertion Entity after the date on which withdrawal is effective.

2.5. Amendment. Provisions regarding amendment of this Agreement are set forth in Exhibit B, incorporated into this Agreement as if fully set forth herein.

3. Warranties
3.1. Disclaimer. EACH LICENSOR OFFERS THE PATENT LICENSES GRANTED HEREIN “AS IS” AND MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND CONCERNING ITS PATENTS.

3.2. Representations and Warranties. Notwithstanding Section 3.1, each LOT User represents and warrants that:

(a) it is duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of its jurisdiction of organization and that it has the full right and power to grant the licenses, waivers, immunities, covenants and releases set forth herein;

(b) this Agreement has been duly authorized, executed and delivered by such LOT User and is enforceable against such LOT User;

(c) it has and covenants that it will continue to have and exercise the rights necessary to cause its Affiliates to be bound by the obligations of this LOT Agreement (including the obligation to grant the Licenses with respect to the Subject Patents in accordance herewith); and

(d) it will not use or cooperate with any Financial Investors, Holding Companies, or non-Participating Business Groups for the primary purpose of circumventing its obligations under this Agreement.

4. Disclaimer of Liability
IN NO EVENT SHALL ANY LOT USER OR ANY OF ITS AFFILIATES BE LIABLE UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, OR BY VIRTUE OF GRANTING ANY LICENSES HEREUNDER, FOR ANY INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING LOST PROFITS, OR FOR ANY OTHER PUNITIVE OR SPECIAL DAMAGES, WHETHER UNDER A THEORY OF WARRANTY, CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE, OR OTHERWISE, EVEN IF SUCH LOT USER OR ANY OF ITS AFFILIATES HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES PRIOR TO SUCH AN OCCURRENCE.

5. Miscellaneous

5.1. Relationship of the Parties. This Agreement does not create any relationship of agency, partnership or joint venture among the LOT Users or their Affiliates.

5.2. No Impact on Reasonable Royalty or Equitable Relief. Each LOT User and its Affiliates agree that this Agreement does not reflect a royalty that any LOT User or its Affiliate might otherwise have negotiated with respect to any Subject Patents. Each LOT User and its Affiliates further agrees that this Agreement is not intended to, and they will not argue that this Agreement is, relevant to whether an injunction is available or what would constitute a reasonable royalty or a measure of damages for Infringement of any Subject Patents in any dispute outside the scope of this Agreement.

5.3. Third Party Beneficiaries. Each LOT User and each of its Affiliates is an intended third party beneficiary of this Agreement. Except as expressly provided herein, nothing in this Agreement is intended or shall be construed to give any Entity, other than LOT Users and their Affiliates, any legal or equitable right, remedy or claim under or in respect of this Agreement or any provision contained herein.

Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and understanding of the LOT Users and their Affiliates with respect to the subject matter hereof.

5.5. Bankruptcy. Each LOT User acknowledges and agrees that from and after the Effective Date, and notwithstanding any limitations or conditions in Section 1 or 2 that may apply, (i) this Agreement is an executory contract as that term is used in Section 365 of the United States Bankruptcy Code; (ii) the License granted by each Licensor to each Licensee under this Agreement is subject to Section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code; (iii) for the purposes of Section 365(n) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Subject Patents constitute “intellectual property” within the scope of Section 101 of the Bankruptcy Code; and (iv) in the event that any bankruptcy is filed by or against a Licensor, or the Licensor is adjudged bankrupt or insolvent, and the trustee in such bankruptcy rejects this Agreement, each Licensee will have the right to exercise all rights provided by Section 365(n), including but not limited to the right to retain its license rights under this Agreement and any agreement supplementary to this Agreement.

5.6. Costs. LOT Users will pay fees for ongoing costs and operation of LOT Network Inc. and the LOT Administrator in accordance with Exhibit A.

5.7. General Release Waiver. With respect to the releases granted by it in this LOT Agreement, each Licensor voluntarily and with full knowledge of its significance, expressly waives and relinquishes any and all rights they may have under any state or federal statute, rule or common law principle, in law or equity, relating to limitations on releases. SPECIFICALLY, EACH PARTY HEREBY EXPRESSLY WAIVES ANY RIGHTS IT MAY HAVE UNDER CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1542 WHICH PROVIDES THAT: “A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM OR HER MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR.”

5.8. Release for LOT Administrator and LOT Network Inc. Each LOT User releases the LOT Administrator, LOT Network Inc. and their directors, representatives and successors from, and covenants not to action with respect to, any liability associated with their administration of this Agreement.

5.9. Notice. All notices and communications pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by the Entity giving such notice and shall be deemed to have been given upon receipt or upon tender by electronic mail with a follow-on hardcopy using a priority or express courier, postage prepaid to the noticed party as follows: (a) in the case of the undersigned LOT User, to the email and mailing addresses provided on the signature page hereto, which addresses may be updated by notice from such LOT User to the LOT Administrator; and (b) in the case of the LOT Administrator, to the email and mailing addresses for the LOT Administrator as of the date of notice as specified on the LOT website.

5.10. Section Headings. The Section headings contained in this Agreement are for reference purposes only and shall not in any way control the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement.

5.11. Governing Law. This Agreement will be interpreted, construed, and enforced in all respects in accordance with the laws of the State of New York, without reference to its choice of law principles.

6. Definitions
6.1. “Affiliate” means, with respect to a first Entity, any Entity that directly or indirectly Controls, is Controlled by, or is under common Control with such first Entity, but only for so long as such Control exists; provided, however, that:

(a) in the event that a LOT User is or becomes Controlled by a Financial Investor, then such Financial Investor (and any Entities that (i) are Controlled by such Financial Investor, (ii) are not Affiliates of such LOT User other than because of their common Control by such Financial Investor, and (iii) do not exist for the primary purpose of attempting to avoid having Patents be subject to this Agreement) will not be considered Affiliates of such LOT User for so long as such Financial Investor remains a non-Assertion Entity; and

(b) in the event that a LOT User is or becomes Controlled by an Entity (“Holding Company”) that Controls a group of Entities that conduct substantially separate and identifiable businesses (each such Entity and its Controlled Affiliates, a “Business Group”), then such Holding Company (and any Entities that (i) are Controlled by such Holding Company, (ii) are not Affiliates of such LOT User other than because of their common Control by such Holding Company, and (iii) do not exist for the primary purpose of attempting to avoid having Patents be subject to this Agreement) will not be considered Affiliates of such LOT User for so long as such Holding Company remains a non-Assertion Entity, provided that one or more of the Business Groups that becomes a LOT User together with its Controlled Affiliates (“Participating Business Groups”) (x) owns or controls at least 10,000 active U.S. Subject Patents at the time of becoming a LOT User, and (y) has aggregate consolidated revenues, exclusive of revenue derived from Patent Assertions, measured over the full twelve (12) months preceding the date it becomes a LOT User of greater than $1 billion. Any such LOT User will confirm whether it is subject to this Section 6.1(b) upon written request from another LOT User.

6.2. “Assertion Entity” means an Entity and each one of its Affiliates if such Entity and all its Affiliates collectively derived from Patent Assertion more than half of their total consolidated gross revenue measured over the full twelve (12) months preceding a particular date (other than as a result, during such twelve (12) month period, of a damages award or settlement obtained in such period from patent infringement proceedings brought by such Entity or its Affiliates against one or more other Entities based on such other Entities’ sale or distribution of one or more infringing products or services that compete against one or more bona fide commercial products or services of such Entity or its Affiliates, provided that such Entity and all its Affiliates collectively did not derive (or were not awarded or did not otherwise obtain the right to derive pursuant to a settlement) from Patent Assertion an amount equaling more than half of their total consolidated gross revenue measured over the full twenty-four (24) months preceding the particular date). Without limiting the foregoing, the following will be counted as revenue derived by an Entity from Patent Assertion for purposes of this definition (i) royalties and other monetary compensation arising from grant of releases, licenses, covenants not to sue or other rights to Patent(s) for the primary purpose of deriving royalties or other monetary compensation under such Patent(s), where such rights are not granted in connection with Products and Services provided by such Entity or its Affiliates relating to such Patent(s) (which shall be counted as revenue at the time of receipt), (ii) monetary compensation arising from settlement of Patent Assertion (which shall be counted as revenue at the time of receipt), (iii) damages awarded arising from a Patent Assertion (which shall be counted as revenue at the time of award, even if not collected), and (iv) imputed revenue of $100,000 for each Infringement complaint filed for a Patent Assertion (which shall be counted as revenue at the time of filing). In addition, an Entity and each of its Affiliates will be deemed to be an Assertion Entity if the Entity or any of its Affiliate has, as of a particular date, a goal or plan approved by senior management or a senior executive (or under which the Entity has begun to receive revenue) to derive from Patent Assertion, either directly, or indirectly through one or more of its Affiliates, more than half of the total consolidated gross revenue of such Entity and its Affiliates collectively in any twelve (12) month period including or after that particular date.

6.3. “Change of Control” means, with respect to a first Entity:

(a) direct or indirect acquisition (except for transactions described in clause (b) below), whether in one or a series of transactions, by a second Entity or related Entities of Control of the first Entity; or

(b) a merger, consolidation or other reorganization or recapitalization of the first Entity with a second Entity or a direct or indirect subsidiary of such second Entity, provided that a result of the consummation of such merger, consolidation or other reorganization or recapitalization, whether in one or a series of related transactions, is that the holders of Control of the first Entity immediately prior to such consummation do not Control, immediately after the consummation, the Entity surviving such merger, consolidation or other reorganization or recapitalization, or its direct or indirect parent Entity. The “effective date” of a Change of Control is the date on which the relevant acquisition, merger, consolidation, reorganization or recapitalization (as applicable) occurs under applicable law.

6.4. “Control” means (i) the ownership, or the direct or indirect control, of more than fifty percent (50%) of the voting stock or other voting ownership interest of an Entity, or (ii) the sole power to elect, appoint, or cause the election or appointment of, directly or indirectly, at least a majority of the members of the board of directors (or such other governing body that exercises a similar level of control) of an Entity. The terms “Controlled” and “Controls” shall have a correlative meaning.

6.5. “Entity” means an individual, corporation, trust, partnership, joint venture, limited liability company, association, unincorporated organization, or other legal or governmental entity.

6.6. “Financial Investor” means an Entity that is not an Assertion Entity and its primary business is investing in equity securities or debt of non-Assertion Entities (examples of a Financial Investor are a venture capital firm or a private equity firm).

6.7. “Infringement” means direct or indirect infringement of a Patent.

6.8. “License” means the license rights, releases, waivers and immunities granted in Sections 1 and 2 of this Agreement, subject to the terms, conditions and limitations herein.

6.9. “Licensee” means, with respect to each Subject Patent of a Licensor: (i) each LOT User who is within its Participation Period at any time that the respective Licensor or any assignee, transferee or successor has, or after which the Licensor or any assignee, transferee or successor later obtains, the right to grant licenses, releases, waivers or immunities with respect to such Subject Patent of or within the scope granted in the License; and (ii) each Affiliate of such LOT User that is or becomes an Affiliate of the LOT User at any time during such LOT User’s Participation Period, subject to Sections 2 as applicable.

6.10. “Licensor” means a LOT User and each Entity that is, was, or becomes, an Affiliate of such LOT User during the LOT User’s Participation Period. For avoidance of doubt, each LOT User and each of its Affiliates referenced in the prior sentence shall remain a Licensor with respect to its Subject Patents, even after submission of a withdrawal announcement as set forth in Section 2.3 or Limitation Announcement as set forth in Exhibit B.

6.11. “LOT Administrator” means LOT Network Inc. or other Entity appointed by LOT Network Inc. or its successor that administers the LOT website, including receiving and publishing on the LOT website the name of Entities that submit this Agreement, withdrawal announcements (as set forth in Section 2.3), Limitation Announcements (as set forth in Exhibit B), and the associated dates of such announcements. The Entity acting as the LOT Administrator may change from time to time as determined by the Board of LOT Network Inc. or its successor and such change will be announced on the LOT website.

6.12. “LOT User” means an Entity that agrees to this Agreement by means of submission to the LOT Administrator. Once an Entity becomes a LOT User, it remains a LOT User for purposes of this Agreement.

6.13. “Participation Period” means, with respect to a particular LOT User and each of its Affiliates, the period commencing on the date such LOT User signs this Agreement and transmits it to the LOT Administrator and ending on the effective date of withdrawal or deemed withdrawal of such LOT User or its respective Affiliate (as set forth in Section 2) or applicable Limitation Date (as set forth in Exhibit B). A LOT User or its Affiliate may have more than one Participation Period, if it withdraws or is deemed to have withdrawn from the Agreement or issues a Limitation Announcement and subsequently re-enters into this Agreement, provided that a withdrawing LOT User under Section 2.3 may not re-enter this Agreement for a period of at least six (6) months after its withdrawal or issuance of a Limitation Announcement.

6.14. “Patent” means any patent, utility model, inventor certificate, or equivalent right, including but not limited to a design patent or design registration, and any application for any of the foregoing anywhere in the world, including originals, continuations, continuations-in-part, divisionals, results of reexamination, renewals, extensions, and reissues, and claims contained in such patent, inventor certificate, utility model, or equivalent.

6.15. “Patent Assertion” means either of the following assertions of rights under a Patent against another Entity: (i) asserting (including but not limited to via a written or oral demand) a claim of Infringement of such Patent for the primary purpose of deriving royalties or other monetary compensation under such Patent, or (ii) the commencement or subsequent pursuit of a claim, action or proceeding in a judicial, administrative or other governmental body, including but not limited to a court (in any country) or the U.S. International Trade Commission, based in whole or in part on a claim of Infringement of such Patent.

6.16. “Products and Services” means, with respect to an Entity, any and all products (hardware and software), technologies, components, and services, including but not limited to any software that is used, licensed or otherwise distributed (including as open source software) by or for the respective Entity, and all authorized copies of same. For purposes of the License granted to each Licensee, Products and Services also include any activities of the Licensee that, in the absence of this Agreement, would constitute inducement to infringe or contributory infringement (or infringement under any other analogous legal doctrine in the applicable jurisdiction) of the Licensors’ respective Subject Patent.

6.17. “Subject Patents” means (i) all issued Patents and pending Patent applications owned or licensable (directly or indirectly) by a Licensor at any time during its Participation Period, and (ii) all Patents that at any time issue on or claim priority (directly or indirectly) to any such Patent under (i) above for which Licensor or any assignee, transferee or successor has or later obtains the right to license, whether during or after its Participation Period, provided that the grant of a License to an applicable Licensee does not require payment of royalties or other consideration by Licensor to third parties (except for payments among Entities that form part of Licensor or to third parties for inventions made by the third parties while employed by Licensor) unless someone other than Licensor (or its assignees, transferees or successors) agrees to pay such royalties or other consideration on behalf of the applicable Licensee. If a Licensor has any interest in a Patent or an Entity that owns or controls a Patent (including the right to withhold consent for Patent Assertion of such Patent) at any time during its Participation Period, but does not have the right to grant licenses, releases, waivers and immunities of the full scope set forth in this Agreement, then such Patent will be considered a Subject Patent only to the extent Licensor has the right to grant licenses, releases, waivers or immunities within the scope set forth in this Agreement. Licensor grants such licenses, releases, waivers and immunities to the maximum extent it has the right to do so without requiring payment of royalties or other consideration to third parties as set forth above, and agrees to withhold consent for Patent Assertion by any Assertion Entity against any Licensee or with respect to any Licensee’s Products and Services to the extent it has the right to do so. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Patent will not be considered a Subject Patent of a financial institution as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 20 solely by reason of being held by such financial institution (i) as trustee for a beneficiary that is not an Affiliate of such financial institution, or (ii) as a result of foreclosure or enforcement of a security interest in order to transfer the Patent to a third party that is not an Affiliate of such financial institution to satisfy an underlying financial obligation based on monies lent and secured by such Patent.

6.18. “Transfer” or “Transferred” to an Assertion Entity means any of the following with respect to a Subject Patent, whether during or after a Participation Period of the applicable Licensor: (i) the assignment, sale, exclusive license, or transfer, in whole or in part, of such Patent to an Assertion Entity, whether by Licensor or any subsequent transferee or exclusive licensee of the Subject Patent, or (ii) acquisition of ownership or control of the Subject Patent by an Assertion Entity (including any circumstance in which Licensor or any subsequent transferee owning or controlling the Subject Patent is or becomes an Assertion Entity or Controlled by an Assertion Entity or in which any Assertion Entity obtains any right to enforce or otherwise make Patent Assertions of the Subject Patent), with the earliest date any Entity owning or controlling such Patent is or becomes an Assertion Entity or Controlled by an Assertion Entity being deemed to be the effective date of such Transfer. For avoidance of doubt, any condition of a License based on Transfer of a Subject Patent to an Assertion Entity will be deemed satisfied at all times following the date of first Transfer of the Subject Patent to an Assertion Entity, even if the Subject Patent is subsequently transferred to a non-Assertion Entity.


A-1 Fee Schedule. The annual fee per LOT User is set forth in the following fee schedule, to be paid to LOT Network Inc. or its successor (“LOT Network”) as specified on the LOT website. An Entity that joins part way through LOT Network’s fiscal year will pay a pro-rata portion of the annual fee for that year. The pro-rata portion will be due at the time of signing.
Fee Schedule:
LOT User’s Annual Revenue LOT User’s Annual Fee
less than $5 million Free
between $5 million and $10 million Free
between $10 million and $25 million Free
between $25 million and $50 million $5,000
between $50 million and $100 million $10,000
between $100 million and $1 billion $15,000
greater than $1 billion $20,000

A-2 Updates. The Fee Schedule in Section A-1 of this Exhibit A may be updated from time to time by the Board of Directors of LOT Network in accordance with its Bylaws, and such updates shall not constitute an amendment of this Agreement. The current Fee Schedule will be posted on the LOT website by the LOT Administrator. LOT Network may waive or discount fees from time to time for particular LOT Users or for particular periods of time to attract new LOT Users or for other purposes approved by the Board of Directors of LOT Network in accordance with its Bylaws.

A-3 Failure to Pay Fees. If a LOT User fails to pay the annual membership fee due under this Exhibit A within ninety (90) days of receipt of an invoice, such delinquent LOT User and its Affiliates shall not receive the benefit of any Licenses to any Subject Patents assigned or otherwise transferred by any Licensor to any Entity that is not a LOT User or an Affiliate of a LOT User during a period of delinquency that extends from the date ninetyone (91) days after receipt of such invoice until such delinquency is cured.


B-1 Procedure. An amendment may be put to a vote under this Exhibit B only upon approval in writing of the Board of Directors of LOT Network Inc. or its successor (“Board”) in accordance with its Bylaws. The Board will determine the amendment submission procedure and the voting procedure and may publish further details on the LOT website. Unless otherwise determined by the Board, the following voting procedure will apply. Following approval of putting an amendment up for vote by the Board as set forth above, the then-current LOT Users qualified to vote will be notified of a proposed amendment via email with no follow-on hardcopy (notwithstanding Section 5.9). Such LOT Users will have 30 calendar days to vote by responding by email to the LOT Administrator at the following email address: admin@lotnet.com. If a LOT User fails to vote within the time period designated, the LOT User’s vote will not be counted. If a LOT User joins while an amendment is pending, that LOT User will be permitted to vote on the amendment that is currently pending but the time period to vote will not be extended for such LOT User.

B-2 Approval. Amendment of this Agreement requires vote in favor of the amendment by at least eighty percent (80%) of all LOT Users who timely vote and who, at the time of the vote, are within their Participation Period, have not submitted a Limitation Announcement or announcement of the LOT User’s intent to withdraw, have paid any fees due under Exhibit A, and own at least one active, issued US patent in the USPTO assignment database that is a Subject Patent. The terms of an amendment shall take effect upon the date of such approval (the “Amendment Effective Date”) which will be published on the LOT website. Notice of such approval will also be given to all LOT Users via email with no follow-on hardcopy (notwithstanding Section 5.9). Upon taking effect, such amended terms shall apply with respect to and amend this Agreement regarding any LOT User and its Affiliates who, by the end of the Publication Period, have not issued a Limitation Announcement as specified below in Sections B-3 of this Exhibit B.

B-3 Dissenting LOT User May Submit a Limitation Announcement. The terms of the amendment shall be published on the LOT website for a period of sixty (60) days after it is approved (the “Publication Period”). Any LOT User that voted against the adoption of such amendment (a “Dissenting LOT User”) may submit a written announcement signed and submitted by an authorized representative of the Dissenting LOT User to the LOT website before the end of the applicable Publication Period declaring the Dissenting LOT User’s intent to limit the scope of its participation under this Agreement to the terms in effect immediately prior to the Amendment Effective Date and to the Patents of itself and its Affiliates that are Subject Patents hereunder immediately prior to the Amendment Effective Date (“Limitation Announcement”). Any such amended terms shall not apply with respect to any LOT User and its Affiliates who, on or before the end of the applicable Publication Period, have issued a Limitation Announcement. The existence of each Limitation Announcement and the date of its submission will be published on the LOT website.

B-5 Scope of Rights Upon Limitation. The Licenses granted to and by a Dissenting LOT User and its Affiliates will be subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement in effect immediately prior to the applicable Amendment Effective Date (“Limitation Date”). The Licenses granted to a Dissenting LOT User and its Affiliates will remain in effect after the applicable Limitation Date only with respect to Patents that are Subject Patents of Licensors as of the Limitation Date, including those Transferred to an Assertion Entity after the Limitation Date. All Licenses granted to Licensees with respect to Subject Patents of the Dissenting LOT User and its Affiliates as of the applicable Limitation Date will remain in full force and effect and continue to apply to each Licensee (including those Entities that become an Affiliate of a LOT User after the applicable Limitation Date), including with respect to Subject Patents Transferred to an Assertion Entity after the Limitation Date. For avoidance of doubt, all Patents of a Dissenting LOT User or its Affiliates that are Subject Patents as of its Limitation Date shall remain Subject Patents subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement after such Limitation Date.

LOT is not a “techie” thing but a lawyer thing. “LOT Users will pay fees for ongoing costs and operation of LOT Network Inc. and the LOT Administrator in accordance with Exhibit A,” it says. So they’re in effect paying one person’s massive salary. What do they get in return? Pretty much nothing. Maybe their logo on a page. Only if they’re a big company that pays high membership fees anyway…

“Microsoft certainly gets its money’s worth from LOT; who would be foolish to participate in this?”They later uses these pages for marketing and PR purposes.

Funnily enough LOT promotes itself by citing articles about itself in Microsoft tabloids like ZDNet, which were happy to promote LOT and Microsoft, making false claims about patent peace just months before another Microsoft lawsuit. Microsoft certainly gets its money’s worth from LOT; who would be foolish to participate in this?

Faking Production With Fake Patents on Software

Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:47 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

I'll give you more patents... Don't mind me when I change the guidelines

Summary: The EPO with its illegal guidelines (in violation of the EPC) can carry on churning out millions of fake patents that European courts would only waste time on and small companies be blackmailed with (they cannot afford legal battles)

ERLIER this month we wrote about the European Patent Office’s (EPO) 'results', confronting some media which merely parroted the EPO’s claims. Some of that media had been paid by the EPO, so no wonder…

Adding to preexisting strains on fact-checking processes was also Coronavirus, which had already been spreading across the German borders. So basically, as usual, no real reporting could be found about false claims from António Campinos and his ‘butlers’ from EUIPO. His predecessor too managed to control the media, if not by bribery then by threats (intimidation by lawsuits). Whatever they claimed was reprinted as “fact”; no further analysis needed, critical skills or scepticism suspended altogether.

It’s no secret that the EPO uses increasingly broad and vague terms to refer to illegal software patents that courts across Europe reject (and forget about UPC!), so imagine the EPO tweeting: “If you’re interested in patenting trends in different fields of technology, click here…”

Hmmm…

“Technology…”

That’s almost like saying “Science…”

The EPO also tweeted: “EPO President António Campinos: “The rapid rise of digital technologies is the most striking trend from our 2019 index … The digital transformation of the economy is now fully reflected in the #patent applications reaching the EPO.””

So now it’s “digital technologies…”

Could that mean… let us see?

Judging by the IAM interview from earlier this month, Campinos is eager to grant patents on software. He does not seem to care what the law says and he keeps lying about the EPC and the EPO’s bogus framework for bypassing it.

A “rapid rise” in illegal patents, Mr. Campinos? Or valid ones?

It seems increasingly clear that the EPO fakes ‘growth’ by undermining the EPC and granting patents that should never have been granted in the first place. Such patents should be revoked because those patents are illegal. Since the Oppositions and the Appeals are under the thumb of the Office, the only way to get them revoked independently is to take them to courts, which can be hugely expensive. This means that today’s EPO leaves a sordid mess of hundreds of thousands of IPs (Invalid Patents) instead of EPs. We already know who will pay the price for that and who benefits financially from this fakery.

Also retweeted by the EPO around the same day was this EU account, which tweeted: “Behind every video game, there is an intricate bundle of IP. The European Patent Office @EPOorg and the EUIPO – European Union Intellectual Property Office @EU_IPO have recorded a webinar on the technical and non-technical IP rights involved: http://ow.ly/ycOT50yT0AD”

Here is the EU openly promoting illegal software patents together with the EPO (this harms the EU and its perception of lawfulness, obviously) and with the EUIPO, which is where the EPO ‘hires’ from (are there any hiring processes or are any at all needed when Campinos just ‘hand-picks’ old friends?). Remember who runs the EUIPO and why.

The EPO was then also promoting such illegal patents under the guise of “CII”. It’s illegal, but they get away with it again and again. The EU is seemingly fine with it! Who cares what the law says, right?

The EPO wrote: “The recorded webinar on “Videogaming and IP: how to play the game” is now available here…”

We wrote about this at the time; it was very obviously about software patents.

Later in the week the EPO wrote: “#5G and #AI are drivers of growth: patent applications at the EPO in digital communication grew by nearly 20% in 2019. The second-fastest-growing field was computer technology (+10%).”

Oh, we see…

Technology becomes “digital” and now it’s “computer technology”…

Could that be…?

Here’s the term “computer technology” again: “European patent applications from Sweden up +8.0% in 2019, boosted by increases in patent filings related to digital communication & computer technology.”

What is this computer technology?

It’s an umbrella term that means or includes illegal patents that EPO examiners were not supposed to grant (but the EPO breaks the law with impunity to crush staff, fake ‘performance’, and loot the institution).

We remind readers that examiners who refuse to grant those patents (i.e. those upholding the law, not disgraceful guidelines) will be reprimanded and likely fired.

Does it say “AI”? Then grant! Novel!

Buzzwords in place of illegal patents on algorithms?

“HEY HI” (AI) is certainly a popular misnomer nowadays.

Of course EPO management will continue to deny that this is a violation of the law. In recent days it wrote: “Have you got suggestions on how to improve the EPC and PCT-EPO Guidelines? Submit your feedback here…”

It also wrote: “Give us your feedback on our EPC and PCT-EPO Guidelines in our public consultation…”

They give the impression that the policy is from and for the public, but watch who submits input.

Yes, litigation firms. Today’s EPO does not bother with anyone else. Once in 12 months it throws a piece of metal or glass at some scientists it invites on stage, but that’s about it. It’s a misleading charade called “Inventor Award”…

Anyway, the EPO breaks the EPC regardless of what people are saying because the litigation ‘industry’ just wants as many patents and lawsuits as possible, even if lawsuits that go nowhere (they get paid either way).

Every single day this month we can see the EPO promoting software patents without explicitly calling these what they are.

“Self-driving vehicle technologies are making strong progress,” the EPO tweeted, as “EPO study confirms: http://bit.ly/SDVstudy” (so EPO pays someone to say something for the EPO!)

“A lot of these are bogus software patents,” I responded, “and I should know having written and published code in this domain.

“EPO keeps breaking the law (which nobody holds it accountable for)…”

With the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Out of the Way Focus Will Return to EPO Corruption

Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:04 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Nuked out of orbit, we don’t expect to hear much about the UPC in the coming years

Speak about EPO corruption. Promote UPC

Summary: Expect the European Patent Office (EPO) to receive more negative attention now that the ’cause’ of UPC is lost and there’s no point pretending things are rosy

I HAVE spent the past week studying very carefully all (or by far most of) the coverage about the decision that came out exactly a week ago, rendering the UPC more dead than ever (we’ve considered it dead since 2017 or 2016). “The Fall of the UPC – Part VIII” will hopefully be out by day’s end and we expect more than 10 parts in total. We group and present the coverage in a logically-coherent manner, e.g. clustering false claims that the UPC dying is actually “good news” for the UPC (yes, it has really gotten that absurd!).

We have meanwhile noticed that SUEPO does good work in Deutscher Bundestag. “On 25 February 2020,” it says, “the FDP parliamentary group submitted a “Kleine Anfrage” concerning the functioning of the EPO to the German Government. The English and French translations are available soon.”

“We don’t expect Team UPC to rear its ugly head for a while (except when spinning what happened a week ago), so hopefully we’ll be able to cover EPO corruption more frequently.”Well, since “English and French translations are available soon” and we prefer never to rely on automated translations (the EPO oughtn’t rely on these, either) we’ll wait until more material surfaces.

There’s also a reply which is dated 2 weeks ago. “The reply dated 11 March 2020,” SUEPO wrote this week, “was published by the German Government yesterday, read more here.” [PDF]

SUEPO-supportive voices called it “Questions and answers about the situation at the European Patent Office [...] The #EPO has faced widespread #criticism in the recent past. This ranged from the announced use of #financial resources, to the #quality standards of #patents , to the treatment of #employees, to a lack of independence of the boards of appeal.”

We don’t expect Team UPC to rear its ugly head for a while (except when spinning what happened a week ago), so hopefully we’ll be able to cover EPO corruption more frequently. Several scandals and big news are being “lost in Corona”.

“Several scandals and big news are being “lost in Corona”.”It’s a shame really; but journalists have priorities and some told us openly that due to Coronavirus they would not cover the latest EPO corruption scandal. I tried to mention it in IP Kat comments, but of course they deleted what I wrote. IP Kat in 2020 is ‘in bed’ with António Campinos and his patron.

Speaking of Campinos, the EPO has just shared these selective statistics: “In 2019, European companies accounted for the largest share of patent applications at the EPO in transport.”

Only transport?

An earlier tweet said: “The top 10 patent applicants at the EPO in 2019 include four companies from Europe, two from South Korea, two from the US and one from each of China and Japan…”

“The FCC is already receiving flak (from Team UPC) for calling out UPC abuses.”So only the minority are actually European! And barely a third of European Patents are actually European. So this system isn’t for Europe but for monopolists worldwide.

In the next post we’ll explain the role illegal software patents played in these statistics.

The FCC is already receiving flak (from Team UPC) for calling out UPC abuses. It named only one abuse, but it could name far more (it stopped at the first, nullifying the whole thing). Remember that it has several cases in the pipeline about EPO abuses.

03.25.20

‘Team UPC’ Last Week

Posted in Europe, Humour, Patents at 6:06 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

FCC issues ruling Friday. Oh. Not what I expected.

Summary: The looks on Team UPC’s faces 5 days ago (before and after the 9:30AM announcement)

« 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