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

03.27.20

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)

The Fall of the UPC – Part VII: Lies and Revisionism About the Reasons for the UPC’s Ultimate Demise (to Leave the Door Open for More Failed Attempts)

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 5:49 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“FAKE NEWS!!!!!!” This is how Team UPC’s so-called ‘news’ sites respond to a high court’s decision (an infantile approach because of their rejection of reality)

FCC Rejected UPC?

Summary: The media was lying in a hurry, in a coordinated effort to distort the meaning of the FCC’s decision or belittle the impact of this decision; Techrights will carefully watch and respond to these lies

THE press coverage about the death of the UPC is starting to end. Much of it came on Friday and Monday. As for tweets? Well, not many of them anymore. It’s settled anyway. The record is settled. But Team UPC is still trying to distort it and litigation firms keep lying about what happened and what will happen next. We’ll keep this series running until, inevitably, things are quiet or “mum”. It might take a while, maybe spilling onto April.

“We’ll keep this series running until, inevitably, things are quiet or “mum”.”So let’s start with some accurate coverage, coming from people who actually work in technology as opposed to litigation. Yesterday we saw the article “Double Blow To The EU’s Long-Delayed Unified Patent Court, But Supporters Unlikely To Give Up” (accurate summary). The opening paragraph says:

Remember the EU’s unitary patent plan? No surprise if you don’t — attempts to create a unitary patent system across the region have been dragging on for decades. Back in 2012, Techdirt noted that the European Parliament had finally approved the plan to set up a new Unified Patent Court (UPC) for the EU, but it still hasn’t come to fruition. Recently, the scheme has been dealt two major blows that are likely to delay it further, even if they don’t kill it off entirely.

In its current incarnation it’s dead (where death means no more attempts; they need a reboot/respawn) and there’s no guarantee that it will ever materialise. Ever.

“In its current incarnation it’s dead (where death means no more attempts; they need a reboot/respawn) and there’s no guarantee that it will ever materialise. Ever.”In a site of Team UPC, lobbyist and booster of Team UPC for a number of years, an author who already admitted the death (in Twitter at least) speaks of “UPC ‘soul searching’”. Max Walters summarises: “Lawyers across Europe say the UPC project could be open to future challenges even if the German parliament meets the required two-thirds majority” (the rest is behind a paywall).

Many, many barriers exist, including those inside the complaint. There are further complaints waiting to be submitted/filed shall the need arise.

It’s worth noting that another UPC propagandist (“JUVE Patent”) has just promoted this myth: “This formal objection can be eliminated by a new vote with a two-thirds majority. Fortunately, the Federal Constitutional Court has rejected all factual objections to the constitutional complaint as inadmissible or unfounded.”

No, it did not!

As Benjamin Henrion put it, “they read the decision as only the 2/3 majority problem…”

Well, here they lie again and JUVE keeps printing these lines.

As Shawn put it in our IRC channel, “if they don’t agree with you, change history, great tactic…”

Are they going to start repeating this lie for years to come?

“Well, here they lie again and JUVE keeps printing these lines.”Well, if they do and whenever they do we shall call out the liars.

Here’s what another UPC propagandist wrote in Twitter: “Reading German Constitutional Court decision, the UPC is not dead but is on life support. Question is whether the will exists to revive it. Right now, that’s very doubtful.”

Life support?

What does that even mean?

“When the EPO’s PR firm pays you to lie for the UPC,” I responded to them, “and advocate the UPC you call corpses “technically alive” (maintaining the lie to maintain one’s income)…”

I was referring to IAM taking money from the EPO’s PR firm to promote the UPC worldwide. It’s no secret that EPO money corrupts the media and Team UPC relies heavily on bribed and/or infiltrated media. This is a problem we touched on in previous parts. It’s like a separate, albeit big, issue. There are several aspects to it, e.g. media taking bribes, media taken over by law firms, and media selectively quoting only particular law firms with a particular agenda. Bristows LLP does this a lot. Gregory Bacon (Bristows) responded to the decision on Friday with “German Constitutional Court upholds UPC complaint”

This title is correct, for a change (they typically lie a lot), but the rest is a lie. His colleague Brian Cordery (Bristows) was meanwhile pushing injunction agenda in the UK by reprinting for Katie Cambrook and Ben Millson. They hope for and want lots of injunctions (embargoes) in their aggressive UPC. So they don’t care about underlying facts.

“There are several aspects to it, e.g. media taking bribes, media taken over by law firms, and media selectively quoting only particular law firms with a particular agenda.”As Benjamin Henrion put is on the day: “There will be calls to mod the German Constitution to make it UPC compatible “Any conferral of judicial functions on international courts modifies this comprehensive allocation of jurisdiction and, is an amendment of the Constitution in substantive terms” https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2020/bvg20-020.html …”

Let’s change the dog to match the tail?

Over at WIPR (World Intellectual Property Review) there was yet more of the typical lying or embellishments. It is a marketing/spam/PR site, which once upon a time did actual journalism (e.g. about EPO abuses). Is it still a news site? Consider this as a new example.

How is this “news” and not an ad?

WIPR’s business model is bare and naked for all to see.

It’s neither news nor information.

Here’s their opening tweet from Friday: “NEWSFLASH: German court deals hammer blow to UPC. The German Federal Constitutional Court has upheld the constitutional complaint filed against the country’s Unified Patent Court legislation.”

True, and here’s the corresponding article. But watch the content. What is this, a joke?

Henrion quoted from there: “Gordon Harris, global co-head of IP at Gowling WLG, says that it is almost “inconceivable” that this will go back before the German parliament until that renegotiation process is complete.”

“Over at WIPR (World Intellectual Property Review) there was yet more of the typical lying or embellishments.”“No kidding,” Henrion remarked.

Misframing the issue to add a loaded statement? “Team UPC is a pathetic bunch of self-important liars,” I told him. How long can the lies go on for?

Another shameless lie, a Big lie, was quoted here based on another WIPR article: “Yet, that does not change anything about the fact that most of industry is rightly in favour of the system even without the UK, and time for improvements isn’t a bad thing, is it?”

“Time to prepare the next phase,” Henrion responded, suggesting “thousand of companies [rally] against the UPC…”

Will these publishers pay attention? They almost never quote actual companies as opposed to law firms which claim to speak for companies (and deliberately misrepresent these).

They’re paid to lie. Lying is their occupation.

Here’s what WIPR tweeted on the above article: “UPC analysis: is a UK ‘litigation hub’ on the horizon? Today’s decision from Germany may herald the end of the Unified Patent Court, but UK litigators are looking forward to the opportunities.”

“Sooner or later someone from the EPO will say something and one can be pretty certain this will be a lie, supported only by the above publications which lie deliberately.”Litigators. That’s it.

Because the UK has nothing but litigators in it, right? No actual companies. Just lawyers!

Lobbying for the UK to become a haven for patent trolls and failing to see how evil that is, sites like WIPR actively work to undermine real British companies.

António Campinos and Benoît Battistelli have still not said a thing, nor has the EPO. Total silence.

Sooner or later someone from the EPO will say something and one can be pretty certain this will be a lie, supported only by the above publications which lie deliberately.

03.24.20

The Fall of the UPC – Part VI: Drowning in Material

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 10:49 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Drowning

Summary: We’re starting to see few good reports on the subject of UPC being rejected by the constitutional court of Germany; we also have a rapidly-growing ‘buffer’ of rather blatant examples of disinformation (which we’ll tackle as best we can)

THIS week has been hectic. I work from home. I do have more time in my hands, but the time is spent doing a variety of things (work and gardening) and news feeds are full of UPC reports such as those typical self-promotional lies from law firms (sites like Lexology), drowning out actual journalism from the likes of Kieren McCarthy (The Register). Good to see him still habitually covering the affairs of the European Patent Office (EPO).

“They’ll be back for more (a fourth time) with new lies and slogans.”At the moment we have a pile of drafts with links and information. These will definitely be expanded and eventually published, but we don’t know when. Hopefully on or before the weekend.

“We’re devoted to setting the record straight based on facts, not litigation profits.”As FFII correctly points out, Team UPC has not totally given up. They’ll be back for more (a fourth time) with new lies and slogans. The publishers that support them (and are sometimes funded by them) perish however; prominent voices of Team UPC moreover leave and retire. Can they build much momentum again? We doubt it, but time will tell…

We’re ready. Bring it on.

But UPC(A) as we know it is dead. Dead, dead, dead. Those who claim otherwise may be braindead. We’ll mention some if not most of them in the next few parts of this long series. We’re devoted to setting the record straight based on facts, not litigation profits. Our track record (getting things right regarding the UPC) speaks for itself.

FFII: EU Software Patent Court Stopped by Constitutional Court, Patent Industry Will Try Again

Posted in Europe, Patents at 9:52 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Original at FFII.org

Summary: The third attempt to validate software patents in Europe via a central patent court (UPC) has been stopped by the German Constitutional Court. The Unified Patent Court (UPC) would have given the keys of the kingdoms to the patent industry, and the last word over software patentability. FFII predict that the patent industry will continue to push for an UPC v2.0.

Brussels, 23 March 2020 — The third attempt to validate software patents in Europe via a central patent court (UPC) has been stopped by the German Constitutional Court. The Unified Patent Court (UPC) would have given the keys of the kingdoms to the patent industry, and the last word over software patentability. FFII predict that the patent industry will continue to push for an UPC v2.0.

The Unitary Patent was the third attempt to validate software patents in Europe. Software patents are a danger for small companies that cannot afford defense, especially against patent trolls. The UPC court was an international court located outside of the European Union (EU) and outside of the realm of the European Court of Justice (CJEU). This patent court would have had the last word over software patentability, and patent law would have operated in its own bubble.

The Constitutional Court cancelled the ratification over several points, such as 1) a 2/3 majority vote in the Bundestag was required to transfer the national competence to judge patents to an international court; 2) the rules of procedure of such court could not be made by an unelected Administrative Committee, but needed involvement and ratification of Parliament(s); 3) the judges of the UPC are not independent nor do they have democratic legitimacy.

Benjamin Henrion, President of FFII, comments:

The patent industry will try again to push for an UPC v2.0, learning from the obvious legal mistakes they made. But that won’t resolve the fundamental problems that Europe is shooting itself with 2/3 of the european patents granted to non-european companies.

Having a captive patent court without the judicial oversight of the European Court of Justice (CJEU) is also dangerous for society. FFII has recently learned the reason why the CJEU was removed from the 2012 deal:

We heard the rumor that Mr David Cameron was asked by the large UK pharmaceutical firm GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) to remove the CJEU as having a say in patent law (articles 6 and 8). That was the condition to have a deal with the UK. Now that the UK has left, you know why the CJEU was removed from having a say over patent law, and software patents in particular.

Specialized patent courts have shown a dangerous bias for patent maximalism, including on the question of software patents (cfr Alice decision in the US). The recent decisions of the American Supreme Court correcting 17 times those patent courts should have inspired Europeans. As Judge Rifkin said in 1951 about specialized patent courts:

Patent law does not live in the isolation and silence of a Trappist monastry. It is part of a broader set of laws.

The decision of the German Constitutional Court is probably not the end of the story, as many patent litigators are already calling for a revised version of the treaty. The appetite to get it done will be nevertheless lower with the UK’s departure, which has always been the second country for patent litigation after Germany.

Furthermore, the German Constitutional Court still have to decide soon over 4 other complaints, where complainants have raised the issue that the European Patent Office (EPO) cannot be brought to court for maladministration, in breach of the “rule of law” principle. If the court finds the EPO not in line with fundamental rights, this might have a bigger impact over the current system.

Henrion finishes:

“European software industry need to wake up if it wants to survive, software patents and their patent trolls need to go.”

Links

03.23.20

The Fall of the UPC – Part V: Pretending That Opponents of the Unitary Patent Simply Don’t Exist

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 9:28 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Even if that works against 99% of the people out there

Kluwer Patent Blog
Kluwer Patent Blog right now. Where are UPC critics? 4 articles in 3 days, but only from lawyers/attorneys.

Summary: It’s difficult if not totally impossible to find articles from impartial journalists — let alone from actual scientists — about the failure of the Unitary Patent and UPC Agreement (UPCA)

WE have long complained about bias in media which covers patents, especially UPC matters. It’s all captured. It’s not even media but self-serving lobbying disguised as information.

Enter Kluwer Patent Blog.

Classic.

Stay classy, Kluwer Patent Blog…

Who runs Kluwer Patent Blog? Look at the sidebar.

Innovators?

“It’s a coup. Germany’s Justices saw that, but they’ve put it more politely in their written decision.”No, thank you.

Kluwer Litigators Blog would be a suitable blog title.

Nevertheless, there’s at least one person at Kluwer Patent Blog who we generally trust. It’s Thorsten Bausch (Hoffmann Eitle). Even EPO examiners trust him, for he defended Judge Corcoran and repeatedly criticised EPO management. Here’s one EPO insider citing his initial blog post which spoke about the FCC’s decision, saying that “this decision also means that at least the FCC will most likely not establish unsurmountable hurdles against the establishment of the UPCA. Negotiations about the future shape of the UPCA can therefore be started or resumed without a further sword of Damocles hanging above the negotiators’ heads.”

Notice the first comment from Jan Verbist: “The other deeper legal problems raised by Stjerna were not addressed.

“So the other problems are still there.”

Lots more in there. We don’t have the time needed to comment on comments or even every single article (there will be lots more in days, weeks if not months to come).

Stjerna and Bausch aren’t the only Germans to speak out against the whole UPC ‘conspiracy’ (remember that Stjerna used to work for one of the most vocal UPC booster). One German (Axel H. Horns‏), citing the decision in German, tweeted: “German Constitutional Court kills #UPC die do formal reasons (Unmatched 2/3 quorum in German Bundestag)”

It’s a coup. Germany’s Justices saw that, but they’ve put it more politely in their written decision. This politeness is now being exploited. As noted here, UPC judges: “b) The constitutional identity of the Basic Law was also violated due to the insufficient legal status of the judges. There is no legal basis for their selection and appointment, nor for the authorization to intervene in fundamental rights through judicial activity.”

Fellow Germans, such as Alexander Esslinger on Twitter, said that the “German Constitutional Court declares law for accession of Germany of the #UPC unconstitutional…”

“Justices at the FCC show that law can prevail sometimes,” I told him, “even if belatedly (years late)…”

He agreed.

Going back to Bausch, last night he published this follow-up. “By now,” he says, “the decision by the Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) voiding the German law approving the ratification of the UPC Agreement has gone viral in the patent world, though fortunately not pandemic. Most of the usual suspects have already taken position for one side or the other, so I thought I might likewise throw my five cents in. [...] The decisions of the FCC on the four constitutional complaints relating to insufficient legal protection against decisions of the Boards of Appeal, which is closely related to the question whether the Boards of Appeal are (independent) courts, may now be awaited with even more tension.”

Florian Müller, another German, tweeted that the “Federal Constitutional Court nullifies ratification of Unified Patent Court Agreement by German legislature, holds that it amends Basic Law (Germany’s de facto constitution) by conferring judicial authority on international body => high quorum => not met.”

The current UPC (or UPCA) is dead and future attempts at it probably are too. There are several barriers that haven’t yet been looked at and further ones that can be submitted.

Watch the rubbish from JUVE, a German publication that became utter trash in recent years, merely a shameless vehicle of UPC lies and propaganda; as noted here, it said: “The Bundestag can now save the situation by voting on the Act again with a 2/3 majority. Organising a quorum and a two-third majority in the context of Coronavirus will be a major challenge.”

Even without it, doing a ‘secret’ vote at 1:30AM or repeating the same shambolic act with more people present would do nothing to redeem the UPCA from other arguments against it. They focus only on the principal reason for acceptance of the complaint as if the rest do not exist. The Justices didn’t even need to look into these. So the other complaints remain and there may be further ones (if necessary). One UPC booster said: “However, whether there is appetite – given the current other pressing issues and impact of Brexit – remains to be seen. There also seems to be room for further attacks, which the Ct did not have to decide upon: https://twitter.com/UPCtracker/status/1240929583433728000?s=20 …”

An “appetite”?

Whose appetite?

“The other complaints might cause more breathing problems to the patent community,” Benjamin Henrion noted in response to Axel H. Horns‏. He was ready submit an additional one. And based on very strong grounds.

Let’s face it.

The UPC is dead. For at least several more years it won’t be progressing in any shape or form. Let’s work to fix EPO in the meantime, if possible. There’s not much going on, except perhaps the lock-downs, in the meantime. We need to stop Campinos harassing the judges to permit illegal patents and the nepotism too deserves broader attention. German journalists say they won’t cover that because of Coronavirus.

As Henrion said: “UPC in Germany: and don’t forget the other 4 complaint against the EPO construction not respecting the rule of law, they might cause more breathing problems to the patent establishment…”

It seems rather clear that a lot of Germans who aren’t part of the ‘conspiracy’ aren’t happy with the actions of Team UPC. Müller did a whole article about it, noting that “[s]ix years ago, a broad industry coalition warned against the risks of the UPC turning Europe into a trolls’ paradise.” [via]

He’s quoting Team UPC talking points, then adding:

In addition to those reactions to yesterday’s ruling, let’s not forget that the UPC’s Rules of Procedure have previously been–and without a doubt will again be–a subject of debate. Six years ago, a broad industry coalition warned against the risks of the UPC turning Europe into a trolls’ paradise.

In that context, access to injunctive relief is the most important issue–as it is in the German patent reform debate. Earlier this week, the Federation of German Industries (BDI)–the largest industry association in Europe–was forced to retract a submission (particularly on injunctive relief) that the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection had already published on its website, as the statement misleadingly suggested that large parts of the German economy backed a permissive approach to patent injunctions. This setback for patent enforcement extremists proved that the companies advocating–as did the aforementioned UPC Industry Coalition–a more balanced patent system are ever more influential. There’s a strong connection between a future “UPC 2.0″ effort and the ongoing process for a reform of Germany’s Patent Act: whatever comes out of the national legislative process will inform–if not dictate–the position the German government will have to take when the UPC Agreement is renegotiated. The stakes could hardly be higher, and a growing number of stakeholders are perfectly aware of this while some others are still clueless as to what it takes to influence patent legislation.

Bausch’s articles on the matter were OK, almost outnumbered but not outclassed by Team UPC. Thomas Musmann (Rospatt Osten Pross) or Hetti Hilge/Dr. Simon Klopschinski (whichever), for instance, wrote about it (it’s in Twitter too, observed by EPO insiders) and there’s one piece by “Kluwer Patent blogger” (maybe Bristows again), citing EPLIT, Wouter Pors et al.

So did IP Kat, where Anastasiia Kyrylenko says “Bird & Bird is also closely monitoring major IP conferences and provides you with an updated information on their status.”

Notice how Wouter Pors and Bird & Bird sort of vanished in recent years. The UPC complainant, who used to work for them, must know some of their darker secrets. It’s worth noting that in so-called ‘diverse’ posts there are conspicuously missing views and opinions. Nobody among the UPC critics is cited, quoted or even mentioned in Kluwer Patent Blog, a de facto front group of the litigation zealots. 4 articles, all of them from the patent ‘industry’ and 2 of them from just a megaphone of patent trolls’ legal representatives.

“It’s worth noting that in so-called ‘diverse’ posts there are conspicuously missing views and opinions.”EPO insiders are seeing these and the corresponding tweet mentions Bausch by name, saying “Mixed reactions to ruling German Federal Constitutional Court in case Unified Patent Court…”

The word “positive” comes from Stolmár & Partner IP, which said: “where does this leave the UPC? Actually, not in a bad position. (…) Of course, with the current corona crisis ongoing, the UPCA won’t be the top priority for some months to come. In addition, one question remains: will the other member states still go forward with the UPC, despite UK having withdrawn from the project? But overall, we take this decision rather positively.”

So they seem to imply the decision is positive… because it’s helping the UPC?

Where are the people claiming that UPC is a bad thing? They represent perhaps 99% of Europe’s population, yet they’re muted.

The Fall of the UPC – Part IV: IP Kat Became Just a Team UPC Megaphone

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 6:33 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

A baffled cat

Summary: Willem Hoyng (Drafting Committee of the UPC’s Rules of Procedure) is ‘writing’ IP Kat right now; has the blog turned into the very thing it fought to expose?

TEN or so years ago I ‘discovered’ IP Kat, which I had already linked to many times beforehand. It wasn’t a bad blog. There were some scholars there and they weren’t too shy or afraid to say the truth about the ‘religion’ they call “IP”. It’s not sacred and some things are based on lies or mythology — essentially the same thing.

The reaction of IP Kat to the news from the FCC was rather predictable, as were the comments, which are nowadays dissenting (not agreeing with original authors on this topic). About the fall of the UPC one person said: “That is a real shame, but when we do this we should do it properly – we have the rule of law for a reason

“…. And breathe ….

“The reaction of IP Kat to the news from the FCC was rather predictable, as were the comments, which are nowadays dissenting (not agreeing with original authors on this topic).”“Stay safe and well people…”

A former ‘Kat’ (“Tufty”) had been saying similar things. Past writers of that blog weren’t all giddy about the UPC, but nowadays the blog is run by people from AstraZeneca and Bristows — exactly the sorts of people who we can expect to push for the UPC.

The first article about the FCC’s decision came from IP Kat‘s Léon Dijkman, who kindly reminds us that today’s ‘Kat’ or “IP Kitten” or whatever is Team UPC, close to Team UPC, or surrogate.

IP Kat (again Léon Dijkman) then became a megaphone of the Drafting Committee of the UPC’s Rules of Procedure (part of Team UPC, in effect the conspirators in this coup). The ‘feline’ blog rapidly shows what an utter sham it has become (all the older staff/writers left).

So it’s literally Team UPC composing this ‘feline’ blog now?

“As reported earlier,” Dijkman wrote, “the German constitutional court has upheld the constitutional complaint against Germany’s accession to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court [UPC Agreement, Katpost here, German decision here, English press release here]. 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.”

“So it’s literally Team UPC composing this ‘feline’ blog now?”And then, believe it or not, it’s just a copy-paste of Team UPC. There’s also a stupid cat photo, asking us to moan, assuming people are led to actually wanting the UPC.

A parallel universe opens.

This is the blog which only half a decade ago wrote about EPO corruption. Nowadays it deletes comments of people who mention it.

Now watch how the ‘Kats’ cover UPC matters. Check the authors.

They’re not merely “UPC boosters” but people who created it, looking to violate the law to profit from this violation. So “boosters” is an understatement; “Crooks” wouldn’t be impolite in this context.

The FFII’s President spoke and commented (or quoted comments on it, e.g.: “UPC boosters will go to the European Commission as we noticed after the software patent directive: “the project is not dead yet, and we must keep in mind that we have tried to come to a harmonized European patent law for 70 years now” [] Prediction: the patent mafia will go to the European Commission “The project is not dead yet, and we must keep in mind that we have tried to come to a harmonized European patent law for 70 years now: waiting a few years more is not the end of the world.” [] UPC Rules of Procedures and its unelected Administrative Committee reacts to the German Constitutional Court decision by not mentioning that their “committee” had no legal basis in a democratic society, time to send the sauce…”

“So today’s ‘Kats’ have become not guardians of Europe but of patent trolls, Team UPC, and monopolists.”As usual, all the substance is in the comments (what’s left of them). Last week the ‘Kats’ censored a comment of mine (which I had attempted to post), so you just know they’re more like a guard dog/gatekeeper, not a “cat”.

As recently as a week ago they wrote about a massive German patent troll, IPCom, while promoting the “FRAND” ploy (every letter in this acronym is a lie). And guess who wrote it! As Sophie Corke has just recalled: “IPCom also made an appearance in GuestKat Léon Dijkman’s commentary on proportionality and FRAND in France (FRANDce?) – this time, relating to two sets of proceedings in a dispute with Lenovo.”

So today’s ‘Kats’ have become not guardians of Europe but of patent trolls, Team UPC, and monopolists. It’s sad. But that’s just what happened. And remember when you read comments there that they already deleted the ones they don’t like (for not suiting their current agenda).

« Previous Page« Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries »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