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

02.15.20

Anatomy of a Crime and Protection From Prosecution

Posted in Europe, Finance, Fraud, Law, Patents at 10:25 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Context: Did Battistelli ‘Steal’ ~100,000,000 Euros From the EPO?

Illegally Gambles EPO Money and Loses 97 million euros in one year... Gets to Run a Law School

Summary: It’s hard to forget what António Campinos hides for his friend

Today’s EPO is a Fraud Managed by Frauds

Posted in Europe, Finance, Fraud, Patents at 10:08 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

These are the people who instruct the EPO on management of billions of euros it’s not supposed to even have

Mercer tax

Summary: Beneath the scandals associated with systematic abuse against staff, union-busting (silencing whistleblowers) and en masse granting of invalid patents — the hallmark of grotesque maladministration — lie a bunch of even greater crimes

THE NEXT batch of Daily Links will contain a bunch of ‘news’ items (we use scare quotes because the authors are law firms, not actual journalists) about “DABUS”, CRISPR and Brexit/UPC. The European Patent Office (EPO) has said nothing new in quite some time and António Campinos has published no photo ops for a number of weeks. The short story is, more CRISPR patents are being pushed onto the EPO, more software patents are rejected by courts (all software patents are likely invalid in Europe), Team UPC keeps lying to itself — to the point of hilarity — in the midst of Brexit, and IP Kat (now AstraZeneca) hopes for a reversal after BoA — in defiance of the spirit of a crook — said “no” to patents on CRISPR. Across the Atlantic it’s also more or less the same; 35 U.S.C. § 101 continues to crush software patents, Koch-funded scholars want a “STRONGER” scam, and the whole Coons-led effort turns out to have been a miserable failure (again, for the third year in a row).

“It does not seem and it does not even ‘feel’ like anything is improving (certainly not quality of patents)…”It is profoundly disappointing that EPO staff is still unable to find justice. It’s not entirely shocking or surprising; we should still aim higher. How are patent examiners expected to do their job properly when they clearly lack the liberty to apply the law as they see fit? Patent maximalists have hijacked key institutions and there’s no restitution.

It’s far too easy to grow tired of responding to the EPO’s inane tweets (almost a dozen of these every day), in which they promote a lie about 50% of the time (the rest are pure fluff or repetition). It does not seem and it does not even ‘feel’ like anything is improving (certainly not quality of patents) and days ago there was a meeting which discussed austerity measures implemented by Campinos while spending billions of euros on new (and unnecessary) buildings, not to mention gambling. Need we add that Mercer with his shiny ‘reports’ now decides how to run the EPO, based on a hoax?

“And perhaps more importantly, is it lawful to bribe the media and bribe academia to not talk about these issues?”We couldn’t help but notice that SUEPO mentioned INPI scandals yesterday (it’s all in French). Don’t forget that many INPI people and their families are still in charge of today’s EPO, never mind its French-born and French-taught president Campinos, an old friend of Battistelli who owes a lot to him and would do anything to cover up his crimes. Ironically this criminal now runs a law school — the same one previously run by Campinos. Do they teach law there in order to train people to break it? And perhaps more importantly, is it lawful to bribe the media and bribe academia to not talk about these issues?

02.14.20

Another New ‘Clown’ for the UPC ‘Circus’

Posted in Europe, Patents at 2:32 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

UPC is Dead, Chris Skidmore is a Dad

Chris Skidmore is a Dad

Summary: A former writer of IPPro Magazine (which seems to be defunct now) reports another shuffle — perhaps the fifth in a few years — of “IP” [sic] Minister for the UK; it doesn’t bode well for the Unified Patent Court (UPC)

WE HAVE long argued that the UPC's death may be overshadowed by this joke that’s a replacement of “IP” [sic] Minister every year if not several times a year (twice a relative, or sibling, of our Prime Minister).

“IP [sic] Minister changes hands yet again,” pointed out a writer from Managing IP [sic] after he had spent years as a megaphone for Team UPC. He cited this tweet, which in turn cites Ben Wodecki’s article behind paywall. It says “[t]he UK minister responsible for IP, Chris Skidmore, has been sacked following yet another cabinet reshuffle.”

“Skidmore out as UK IP minister changes again The UK minister responsible for IP, Chris Skidmore has been “promoted” following yet another cabinet reshuffle,” the tweet added. The tabloids were poking fun yesterday (screenshot above).

At the end of last year we noted that Wodecki’s publisher (IPPro Magazine) had almost gone completely idle. Its last tweet is dated September 6th and its Web site is broken at this time:

IPPro Magazine down

Wodecki’s articles there mostly relayed the EPO’s lies and propaganda, whereas his colleague Barney Dixon gave a voice to SUEPO and ordinary EPO staff. Wodecki now writes for an older site with “IP” [sic] in its name.

The fate of IPPro Magazine isn’t out of the ordinary. In recent years we named several other sites of patent maximalists; they too had been perishing. One of the sites we named was Patent Docs, which 7 years ago (2012) wrote about the “power to grant the first unitary patent in Spring 2014.”

This article did not age well. Did it? Many of those patent maximalists are liars and some have lied for well over a decade. Some still do in 2020, even after Brexit. From what we can gather, nobody in Team UPC speaks about the news regarding Chris Skidmore. Not too convenient a fact, eh?

02.13.20

Free Software is Being Abandoned by Opponents of Software Patents and It’s Being Attacked by Patent Trolls

Posted in Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, IBM, Patents, Red Hat at 4:38 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

…then, companies that are arming those trolls suddenly pretend to come to our 'rescue'

Manny Schecter: (But I make  IBM's policies and decisions on these issues
Daily lobbying for software patents continues; IBM’s Manny Schecter still cites patent trolls as credible allies and recent management changes haven’t put an end to that, so Red Hat’s 12-year chief is now president of an aggressive proponent of software patents.

Summary: The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is rotting away as an advocate against software patents; Patents on algorithms are still being granted (even when courts repeatedly reject these) and Red Hat’s Chief Patent Counsel remains Manny Schecter, one of the loudest proponents of such patents (citing the likes of Adam Mossoff this week, in effect Koch operatives); this is a very big problem because Free software projects come under a barrage of lawsuits, using patents like those IBM lobbies ferociously to legitimise

THE NEXT batch of Daily Links will contain what we believe to be the first report [1] regarding Mycroft getting sued by a patent troll, using two software patents (relatively) recently granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). It’s about patent numbers 9,794,348 and 10,491,679. The Register says that covers handling of “voice commands from a mobile device to remotely access and control a computer.” We have not examined these closely, but certainly that sounds like software patents with ample prior art. Mycroft is not so well funded and therefore it might be perceived as vulnerable (easy shakedown), but it will fight back nonetheless. At what cost?

The whole thing comes only a few months after the GNOME/Shotwell lawsuit, demonstrating that we in the Free software world cannot ignore bad patent law, invalid patents being granted and endless corruption at the European Patent Office (EPO), where António Campinos openly promotes illegal software patents in Europe (the EPO did that as recently as yesterday in Twitter).

The EFF likes to speak about 35 U.S.C. § 101 (albeit not much lately), but it never ever speaks about EPO corruption and rarely does it protect Free software specifically. For those reasons, among others (for example, some key staff of theirs leaving), we cannot rely on the EFF. The same goes for CCIA, whose blog which deals with the subject (“Patent Progress”) has not been particularly actively lately. We watch these things closely, over RSS feeds and beyond. Since the beginning of the year the EFF has written only a single blog post on the subject and it concerned design patents, not software patents.

We really need to speak out more loudly about these issues; sadly, almost everyone is ignoring the toxic role played by IBM (fear of ‘offending’ IBM?) and nobody in the Free software world speaks about EPO corruption. How come? Come on, people, those are the biggest issues or barriers. Ignored at one’s own peril.

If Mycroft ‘goes under’ due to this lawsuit, which can cost like a million bucks (appeals cost a fortune), all we’ll have left are listening devices.

Related/contextual items from the news:

  1. Startup Mycroft AI declares it will fight ‘patent troll’ tooth and nail after its Linux voice-assistant attracts lawsuit

    An AI startup is battling a patent-infringement lawsuit filed against it for building an open-source Linux-based voice-controlled assistant.

    Mycroft AI first learned trouble was brewing when it was contacted by a lawyer at Tumey LLP, a Texas law firm focused on intellectual property, in December. In an email to the startup’s CEO Joshua Montgomery, the legal eagle claimed Mycroft AI’s technology infringed two US patents – 9,794,348 and 10,491,679 – belonging to Tumey’s client, Voice Tech Corp.

    Voice Tech’s patents described a system for handling “voice commands from a mobile device to remotely access and control a computer.” Mycroft AI develops voice-assistant software that runs on Linux systems, including Raspberry Pis and its own standalone Mark I and II gadgets, and responds to spoken requests, such as setting alarms and reminders, searching the web, and so on. You can add more features by installing add-ons called skills.

02.11.20

Sometimes ILO-AT is Good for Nothing But Law Firms in or Around Switzerland

Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:03 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

ILO and the UN contribute to the negative image surrounding them by not only abandoning but also draining resources of the labour force

Papers on face

Summary: ILO-AT’s latest judgements are out. But ILO — and by extension the UN — are still morally deficient and they give the impression that don’t care about people (or that ILO is in bed with the same businesses WIPO (UN) serves, i.e. no better than WB/IMF).

IF WIPO wasn’t bad enough, how about ILO? On the surface it may seem like it exists to protect workers. It’s in the mission statement, too.

Don’t let mission statements deceive you. Words on a Web site (or paper) are cheap. We want to see action, we need to examine track records. Even ILO’s own workers are disgruntled. The media wrote about it years ago.

When it comes to handling abuses of European Patent Office (EPO) management, ILO has been nothing short of appalling. It’s exceptionally sad as it is EPO workers’ last if not sole recourse. A top court in the Netherlands was even led to believe that the ILO’s tribunal is functional; well, by the ILO’s own admission (several reports and papers), it’s struggling badly and cannot keep up with EPO complaints — to the point where it considered throwing out the EPO (leaving it under no outside scrutiny/authority). ILO only contributed even further to those negative perceptions when it met António Campinos instead of staff or staff representatives. Is ILO just the “mop-up man” of EPO autocrats? Does it have a real court or a kangaroo court? Is the sole goal clearing the ‘backlog’ no matter what (or how)? Does that mirror the EPO’s misguided strategy? Playing ‘ping-pong’ with appellants (bouncing them back and forth in “no man’s land”)?

Some days ago we saw and wrote about tweets from Dr. Koch, a former staff representative at the EPO, whose appeal to ILO was ‘shelved’ for no less than 6 years! What sort of justice is that? And yet worse, she retorted, “My cases AT 5-4384 and AT 5-4532 were indeed deemed moot – the ILOAT did it!!”

“Don’t let mission statements deceive you. Words on a Web site (or paper) are cheap. We want to see action, we need to examine track records.”“I refer to Judgment no. 4256: my initials are on page 10 of that judgment. The complainants are not even compensated for the costs we made – we just “may[!] be entitled to costs in the resumed appeals”.

“As far as I’m concerned, there won’t be any “resumed appeals” with THIS Tribunal and even less with the EPO from my side in any nearby future, due to their procedural conduct.

“ILO seems fine with it. After a century of its existence it became another FIFA.”“My health severely deteriorated since 2015, I have a lot of stress-related inflammatory symptoms and feel unable to continue, especially since I was repeatedly set 30-days terms by the ILO-AT. I occasionally worked far beyond my limits to prevent this outcome and will be offline for a while from tomorrow.

“And, contrary to some other unfortunate EPO colleagues, I have no(!!) intention whatsoever to commit suicide – I just want you to know, for precaution…

“Please feel free to publish.”

She also wrote about this in Twitter yesterday. Tweets of relevance follow:

Over the years I have come across similar tricks — usually in political contexts. This is designed to drive appellants to exhaustion, causing them to lose morale/health, become broke, or both. It’s a game where those with deeper pockets always win. ILO seems fine with it. After a century of its existence it became another FIFA. The EPO’s lawyers made a fortune from this abuse — at times physical — of vulnerable people. How well do they sleep at night?

The European Patent Office Continues to Violate the European Patent Convention (EPC) With Impunity While the European Commission Lets That Happen

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 6:07 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

A blindfolded horse
A blindfolded horse

Summary: The European Commission (and Union) can be seen as increasingly complicit in the EPO’s abuses; this means that the EPO has become a liability or source of accountability for the integrity of Europe as a bloc

THE Web site of the European Commission has long promoted buzzwords and hype waves favoured if not created by management of the European Patent Office. We pointed this out in the past.

This is particularly disturbing.

“If or when this spills over to the EU, it becomes risk of more exits from the EU.”Do we wish the corruption of the EPO to spread to the European Commission and Union? Remember the nepotism and entryism which implicate both (António Campinos giving top EPO posts to his EU mates, mimicking the notorious appointments of his successor and selector). There was a further sign of this in a tweet posted by the EPO yesterday. I responded to that in Twitter (not that they even respond with any substance).

“Nepotism, bribes, lies, union-busting etc.” are an integral part of the EPO in recent years and “it’s a den of corruption at every level, every aspect (including inwards).” If or when this spills over to the EU, it becomes risk of more exits from the EU. In recent days some people pointed this out to EU officials, citing Techrights for examples…

Remember that critics of EPO corruption are often pro-EU people who are genuinely concerned about what they see.

“Software patents lack legal basis in the EU, neither the EPO with its invention and novlang of the ‘technical effect’ can render it patentable,” Benjamin Henrion wrote/quoted yesterday, citing this EU paper [PDF], a recent formal publication from the “Publications Office of the European Union.” The first words of both the abstract and the body are “Artificial intelligence” (AI). It says “AI relies heavily on software and data. While software as such is not patentable, it may be protected by copyright and trade secrets (or even by patent law in the case of computer-implemented inventions (CIIs)) if certain requirements are met. There is an ongoing debate about the adequacy of the current IP system to cope with AI technologies18 as well as about the implications of AI for existing standards of patentability. The following paragraphs review the key requirements for protection of AI by patent and copyright law.”

Later it speaks of “Fourth Industrial Revolution” and then says that “[f]or several years now, the courts have struggled with the issue of whether to grant patents in new fields of invention, particularly computer software (Kohlhepp, 2008). The eligibility of software, including AI software, to receive patent protection is an intricate issue. Generally, computer programs “as such” are excluded from patentability at the EPO (Article 52(2)(c) and (3) of the European Patent Convention (EPC)), but the exclusion does not apply to computer programs having a technical character…”

There’s further discussion there about the EPO’s guidelines (the complete reference is Iglesias, M., Shamuilia, S. Anderberg, A., Intellectual Property and Artificial Intelligence – A literature review, EUR 30017 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2019, ISBN 978-92-76-14178-5, doi:10.2760/2517, JRC119102.).

In our latest Daily Links we included several new articles about DABUS and CRISPR patents at the EPO. These show that the EPO continues to flagrantly disregard the EPC and judging by the paper above, the EU and EC are more or less fine with it.

Incidentally, “NLO attorneys Marta Alvarez Guede and Katelyn Bernier” have just published this piece of marketing (“The six big ways the US and Europe differ on software patents”) or lawyers pretending to be journalists. Software patents are bunk in US and in European courts (35 U.S.C. § 101 puts curbs/limits on USPTO examiners and EPO examiners cannot grant software patents in Europe… unless they’re spun as “hey hi” (AI) or some other buzzword), but liars from IAM won’t tell anyone that. They’re paid to mislead and here’s more of the same:

The USPTO and EPO do not see software-related inventions in the same way. NLO attorneys Marta Alvarez Guede and Katelyn Bernier highlight what applicants must understand about the offices’ different approaches

According to the European Patent Convention (EPC), a patent can be granted in any field. However, it does not regard computer programs as inventions if claimed as such, while methods for performing mental acts, playing games, doing business and presenting information are excluded from patentability altogether.

Under the approach followed by the EPO, a claim directed to a computer program will not be excluded from patentability under Article 52 of the EPC if it contains at least one feature that is considered to have technical character. In this way, it is sufficient that a claim is directed to a device or a method implemented in a computer to avoid exclusion. The non-technical features of such a claim will be ignored when assessing an inventive step.

The EPC provides no general definition of what is technical, but relevant case law before the EPO Boards of Appeal gives some indication of what constitutes ‘technical character’. In particular, a claim to a computer program is not excluded from patentability if, when running in a computer, it provides a further technical effect going beyond the computer’s normal behaviour. Such further technical effect could be saving computer resources such as memory, processor time or energy, or controlling further processes.

The judges of the EPO Boards of Appeal lack independence (they say so themselves) and as recently as months ago they were pressured by Campinos to rule in favour of software patenting.

Where’s the European Commission when one needs it? Oh, that’s right, issuing silly papers with buzzwords like “hey hi” and “4IR” in them — the same nonsense that EPO management bribed European publications to spread far and wide.

The National Law Review has meanwhile also published this piece where Laura Morelli (McDermott Will & Emery) pretends the UK can negotiate a place in the UPC. It’s not possible, it’s an EU system. UPC means EU. But on she goes anyway, conflating that with another matter (EPC):

The European Patent Office (EPO) is established under the European Patent Convention (EPC). It is separate from the EU and counts among its contracting states the EU Member States as well as non-EU Member States. European patents will, therefore, continue to cover the UK without the impact of Brexit.

In contrast, the impact of Brexit on the Unitary Patent (which establishes a unitary patent enforceable in all participating Member States) and on the Unitary Patent Court (which provides a unified court system with exclusive jurisdiction for litigation relating to Unitary Patents and European Patents) remains uncertain. Although ratifying the UPCA on 28 April 2018 in the midst of the Brexit process, thereby expressing its willingness to remain within the framework of the Unitary Patent and Unitary Patent Court, the continued involvement of the UK in such system will need to be negotiated.

It cannot be negotiated unless the UK rejoins the EU, but this is just the typical kind of spin we see from UPC fanatics every day this month. We’ve come to witness in Europe the same lies and abuses that are often condemned when they happen across the Atlantic. Don’t let this become ‘normalcy’.

02.10.20

EPO Staff Representatives to Challenge Ridiculous and Unnecessary Austerity Measures

Posted in Europe, Patents at 12:18 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Running out of money or stealing that money?

CSC Munich meeting

Summary: The EPO’s President of Nepotism “is currently finalizing his “package” of financial measures in order to reduce an alleged coverage gap of 5.8 B€ following a heavily biased and flawed Financial Study,” according to EPO staff representatives who have already demonstrated it’s a fake crisis that distracts from the real crisis and profound corruption

THE call for a strike last year resulted in 5 out of 6 workers of the European Patent Office (EPO) voting in favour. This clearly showed that António Campinos had solved virtually none of the issues caused by Benoît Battistelli.

Here we are three months later and SUEPO has just published a Staff Commitee document (Publication on behalf of LSCMN) which is introduced as follows:

Mr Campinos is currently finalizing his “package” of financial measures in order to reduce an alleged coverage gap of 5.8 B€ following a heavily biased and flawed Financial Study (see the CSC paper, Decision to forget €6bn in Financial Study).

The last meeting of the Working Group (WG) Finance took place on Friday 7 February and it is now time to report on the latest developments and the intentions of Mr Campinos concerning a new Salary Adjustment Procedure.

That is why the Local Staff Committee Munich invites all staff to a General Assembly on Tuesday 11 February, at 15.30h in the Canteen of Pschorrhöfe 1-4.

Agenda:

- Report of the WG Finance: Salary Adjustment Procedure

- Resolution of Staff of the EPO in Munich

- Any other business

We expect the General Assembly to be concluded at 16:00h. We will remain available for questions and discussions afterwards.

The flyer invitation can be found here.

The above text says more than just the flyer. But it’s on “behalf of LSCMN”, so it can be interpreted not as SUEPO’s own words. The only financial issue at the EPO is that corrupt Battistelli gambles the money away and it causes losses (somebody else’s gain). SUEPO ought to get someone/s like Euro/Interpol involved.

You’re Almost Guaranteed to Lose the Argument When You Call People Who Plant Seeds ‘Pirates’

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 3:54 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

What have patent propagandists (maximalists) sunk to?

They called me to arrest you for planting teff... Seriously? I have my laptop here. What's the EPO's Website?
António Campinos is “The Captain Now”

Summary: The EPO’s patent maximalists are damaging the reputation of the institution and harm its perceived legitimacy (people are getting fed up instead of fed)

THE European Patent Office (EPO) has seen many protests, not only from its own staff but also the public. There were protests against software patents in Europe, many against patents on life/nature, and Battistelli worked to crush protests, being the authoritarian he always was.

About a week ago we said that “The EPO Would Declare It a Success Story If It Granted a Million European Patents a Year“; we said that the EPO further discourages challenging invalid patents. Battistelli raised the prices of appeals and Campinos does the same again. ‘New’ boss, as the saying goes, is the same as the old one… (and chosen by him)

As one patent person put it over the weekend: “EPO Announces Changes To Official Fees From 1st April 2020Most fees increase by about 4-5%, but appeal fee rises by about 20% for appellants that do not qualify as a natural person, an SME or a non profit organization (from €2255 to €2705).”

Wow, what a ‘bargain’…

This money will go into Battistelli’s notorious gambling venture and the cost will discourage scrutiny of the EPO’s work. A win-win… for Team Battistelli.

This old FFII page (“Unitary patents and software”) has meanwhile been recalled and Jan Philipp Wilhelm, writing in mainstream German media, touched the subject of ridiculous patents on teff. DW (Germany, land of Bayer/Monsanto) promotes — right there in the headline (“The fight against biopiracy”) — the malicious lie that planting seeds is “piracy” i.e. it’s so morally bad that it’s like Somalis who murder seamen. To quote:

Teff, also known as dwarf millet, is to Ethiopia what maize is to Mexico and rice is to China: the country’s most important foodstuff, the basis for the national dish injera — a soft, spongy, pancake-like bread — and an important part of its cultural heritage.

Farmers in the Ethiopian highlands started cultivating teff 3,000 years ago.

Perhaps understandably, many Ethiopians are annoyed that a Dutch company holds a patent on processed teff flour. To this day, in some European countries, no flour from the gluten-free and nutrient-rich super grain may be sold without paying royalties to the Netherlands. This could soon change, and it if it does it will be partly due to the private initiative of a German lawyer.

Why on earth (or Earth) are patents being granted on seeds in the first place? The EPO only makes itself more enemies each time it does so; then it does photo-ops in Ethiopia to distract from all the bad publicity [1, 2].

« 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