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

12.01.19

Maximalists Cherry-Picking the So-Called ‘Corbyn’ ‘Leak’ for Their Patent Agenda While the US Lobbies Britain for Software Patents and Worse

Posted in America, Europe, Law, Patents at 3:30 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Not Jeremy Corbyn’s and not a leak, either

Some buzzwords for algorithms
Let’s examine the originals. And more importantly, let’s look at the right part (about a dozen pages out of nearly 500 pages) and what it tells us about software patents in Europe as seen by the US, where 35 U.S.C. § 101 restricts the USPTO like the EPC is supposed to restrict the EPO (they use buzzwords as loopholes and workarounds)

Summary: A quick look at what last week’s media coverage may have missed and what patent maximalists don’t want to tell us about confidential trade-related documents

THE European Patent Office and US Patent and Trademark Office are both interested in software patents. What’s not to like? More income!!! António Campinos (like Battistelli) continues to undermine the EPC and the EPO nowadays brags about getting the US to adopt software patents using a bunch of nonsense like “hey hi” (they both use the same tactics, as we’ve shown here many times before).

The ‘leaks’ often attributed (in last week’s media reports) to Corbyn were not actually his or his party’s. They had been posted to Reddit weeks ago. They were published under the title “Great Britain is practically standing on her knees working on a trade agreement with the US” (seems apt).

We’ve made local copies of these files for longterm preservation purposes. There are six PDF files in a compressed archive.

Here’s the relevant stuff:

UK-US policy leak

UK-US policy leak

UK-US policy leak

UK-US policy leak

UK-US policy leak

UK-US policy leak

UK-US policy leak

UK-US policy leak

UK-US policy leak

UK-US policy leak

UK-US policy leak

UK-US policy leak

UK-US policy leak

UK-US policy leak

UK-US policy leak

UK-US policy leak

Points 25-26 in page 124 are of much relevance. Is the US pushing for software patents and patents on life/nature in the UK and Europe as a whole? It certainly seems so. Those parts deal mostly with patent scope. USTR is pushing corporate agenda of Big Pharma and other large multinational monopolists.

“The ‘leaks’ often attributed (in last week’s media reports) to Corbyn were not actually his or his party’s.”Let’s look at what patent maximalists and UPC boosters like AstraZenecaKat aren’t telling us. As we said last week, the United States found itself baffled by UPC moves of the British government and the issue was raised days later by AstraZenecaKat, only to attract a bunch of interesting comments that we quoted here yesterday. Revocator wrote:

I’ve read the papers (well, the IP-relevant bits), and there was one tidbit regarding the US position on the grace period that intrigued me hugely. Namely, the US negotiators appear to have noted that SOME EPO member states do have such a grace period. The British seem to have essentially retorted that those countries may be small and irrelevant enough to get away with that, but that the UK would jeopardize its position within the EPC if it did the same. Now, does anyone know which EPC countries do that (if any)?
On another, entirely different subject, left unmentioned by the IPKat, it comes as no surprise that the US negotiators were particularly insistent in registering their displeasure with the EU’s PGI system…

“Revocator,” MaxDrei replied, “could it be that the USA is eying the 10 year term petty patent/utility model GBM system in Germany, with its 6 month grace period? After all, in the USA they call Registered Design rights “Design Patent” rights so it’a easy for them to suppose that GBM’s are utility patents with a grace period and the EURD is a 25 year patent with a grace period.”

“In summary, the US ‘bullies’ an already-embattled Britain (due to that controversial referendum) into granting the US corporations endless powers, protectionism and codified monopolies.”I’ve quickly read all the above. There’s no need to rephrase things. It’s pretty clear as it is. In summary, the US ‘bullies’ an already-embattled Britain (due to that controversial referendum) into granting the US corporations endless powers, protectionism and codified monopolies. They’re bargain-hunting. This is what happens when one negotiates out of position of considerable weakness. As the old saying goes (or hashtag), “Well Done Brexiters…”

Donald Trump lobbied for Brexit (before and after becoming President, before and after the referendum as well) and now he’s eager to pocket the UK. Media has mostly focused on the US-centric privatisation of the NHS, casting aside almost everything else.

11.30.19

Management of the EPO is Afraid of Scientists and Judges

Posted in Europe, Law, Patents at 8:22 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Cuno TarfusserLast year: It Wasn’t Judges With Weapons in Their Office, It Was Benoît Battistelli Who Brought Firearms to the European Patent Office (EPO)

Summary: Lawlessness prevails at Europe’s second-largest institution as the managers (i.e. people with connections, not skills, some with notorious military background) try to suppress both science and justice (much like the Trump administration across the ocean); this has become a parasites’ paradise and a bottomless pit for graft (theft)

THOSE who follow our series about Thierry Breton will be very well aware that Breton accomplished most things because of people who knew rather than things he knew. He left a destructive tail behind him (many dead people, too) and there are lots of parallels/overlaps with the EPO, as we noted in part 17 yesterday.

“Not many people were enraged; sites/sides owned and controlled by patent maximalists viewed Battistelli as a liability and were happy to accept just about anyone but Battistelli (even if it’s another Battistelli).”Battistelli managed to rig the process and spurn the judge (Cuno Tarfusser) who wanted to become President of the European Patent Office (EPO), instead ‘fixing’ the appointment process for a longtime friend and compatriot, António Campinos. Not many people were enraged; sites/sides owned and controlled by patent maximalists viewed Battistelli as a liability and were happy to accept just about anyone but Battistelli (even if it’s another Battistelli).

“EPO management carries on as if nothing happened.”Things have not changed at the EPO and a strike is likely imminent (5 out of 6 workers voted in favour a couple of days ago). We are grateful to each courageous person — usually examiner — who votes for a strike. The EPO needs to be fixed to avoid total collapse and great economic harm to Europe (the US is a cautionary tale in this regard).

EPO management carries on as if nothing happened. A day after the vote for a strike it was ‘business as usual’ and retweeted by EPO on Friday was this UK-IPO tweet that said: “Come and join us and the @EPOorg at the @TheCIPA in #London on 5 or 6 Dec. We will be providing an update on our latest and upcoming online service developments.”

“All they want is litigation, litigation and more litigation.”So EPO management is once again mingling with patent and litigation zealots instead of scientists. CIPA is a very integral part of Team UPC, lobbying our politicians by endlessly lying to them. All they want is litigation, litigation and more litigation.

There’s meanwhile that rekindled ‘debate’ (fake news) about UPC, manufactured by CIPA’s friends at Managing IP. Don’t fall for it. They’re pestering judges in Germany, as usual. These people couldn’t care any less about the law and about the Constitution. They’d burn the Magna Carta on Bonfire Night if they could.

“The latter two men are both parked elsewhere at the moment; one heads a law school (yes, a criminal heading a law school!), whereas the second is meanwhile creating a private firm in Zagreb.”The UPC will never exist, but in the meantime the Office relies on a panel of terrified judges, whose colleague was driven close to insanity after years of bullying by Battistelli and his Croatian Mafioso. The latter two men are both parked elsewhere at the moment; one heads a law school (yes, a criminal heading a law school!), whereas the second is meanwhile creating a private firm in Zagreb. What they’ve made of the EPO’s tribunal is a sordid mess in Haar. The judges there have repeatedly complained — even in public — that they lack autonomy/independence. But their decisions, likely made in violation of the EPC (not the judges’ fault!), are still being adopted as de facto EPO practice. Just promoted in Mondaq (shortly before the weekend) was this article by HGF Limited (law firm) regarding a Technical Board Of Appeal decision:

Inherency is not relevant to the novelty of a “purpose-limited product claim” filed in accordance with Article 54(5) EPC.

The EPO’s Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.09 in T0694/16 has clarified that claims to purposively selected patients for treatment with a known drug is novel over the prior art treatment of a broader and/or overlapping patient group with the same drug.

If there is a functional relationship between one or more biomarkers and responsiveness to treatment with a drug, and the claim defines the drug for use in the treatment of a patient defined by said biomarkers, then the presence of this functional relationship confirms that the purposive selection of the patients is an essential technical feature qualifying the claim(s), and this must be taken into account when assessing novelty.

In a separate thread from the latest one that concerns the EPO “The Convention Watchdog” wrote about the Boards Of Appeal (BoAs):

Labelling the co-applicants approach an EPO approach appears somewhat misleading. Requiring that co-owners of the priority right exercise their right in common has been widespread practice in the member states to the Paris Convention outside the US and is present practice in the EPC Contracting States as exemplified by the recent decisions in the UK HTC v Gemalto , [2013] EWHC 1876 (Pat), at pt. 131 f., confirming Edvards v Cook, [2009] EWHC 1304 (Pat), at pt. 99, and in Germany, BGH – Drahtloses Kommunikationsnetz, GRUR 2019, 271, at pt. 60ff. The co-applicants approach is an expression of the general legal principle that jointly owned rights have to be exercised in common. It protects the co-owner of the priority right against the exploitation of this right without his participation.

There’s an upcoming BoA case regarding software patents in Europe and Campinos already meddles in the case to get the ‘desired’ (by him and patent maximalists) outcome. The EPO is so broken that it’s not even sad; it’s almost infuriating as they also seem to be defrauding the public and their staff.

Imagine what would happen if Tarfusser, a former International Criminal Court (ICC) judge, was given the top position. How many EPO officials past and present would face the court and be arrested?

The Unified Patent Court (UPC) is Dead and Alexander Ramsay is Only Making a Total Fool of Himself

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 6:27 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Sadly, Ralph Jimmy Schulz has also just died (5 days ago of pancreatic cancer at the age of 51), according to Benjamin Henrion, but he fought a good fight against evil agenda

UPC meme
Zoobab’s (Benjamin Henrion) new UPC meme

Summary: The Unified Patent Court (UPC), or “Unitary Patent” as some like to call that vision (it was known as many other fantasies), is doomed; any attempts to claim otherwise are met with scorn and ridicule — to the point where even Team UPC is mostly keeping quiet these days

THE patent system in Europe languishes. Litigation? Not the same thing. After the European Patent Office (EPO) had granted loads of Invalid Patents (IPs), which were wrongly enshrined as European Patents (EPs) because Campinos and Battistelli break the rules (software patents are illegal in Europe for a number of reasons, not just the EPC*; the same goes for patents on life and nature), litigation that’s frivolous saw a sharp rise. Pertinent figures from Germany have been published in annual studies and we wrote several stories about these. So, in short, patent quality down, litigation up. As expected. And that’s not even counting the number of assertions/shakedowns happening outside courts…

“So, in short, patent quality down, litigation up. As expected. And that’s not even counting the number of assertions/shakedowns happening outside courts…”The courts, which are national, are currently an important obstruction to fake patents. As we keep showing, many EPs are nowadays rejected and invalidated by such courts. Law firms, joined by EPO thugs who shamelessly violate the EPC, tried hard to replace these courts. They lied, they broke laws, they sought to subvert a lot of constitutions in a great hurry/rush (before the public finds out), but thankfully they failed. They failed for a number of different reasons. And the longer these things drag on, the harder it becomes for them (more constitutional challenges arise, along with independent studies that demonstrate how awful, illegal and undesirable the UPC/A really is).

On Thursday the JUVE propagandist in chief (on UPC it's a megaphone of Team UPC) tweeted: “Here’s the exclusive JUVE Patent interview with #UPC Prepatory Committee chair, Alexander Ramsay. Ramsay explains how the constitutional delay has worked to the committee’s advantage, and why the UK should remain part of the European #patent project.”

So they have “exclusive” (yes, EXCLUSIVE) “JUVE Patent interview” with a known liar. Only months ago they admitted to the Financial Times that they had been faking progress to maintain their self-made illusion that UPC had a chance. At the same time they used psychological warfare (like spreading deliberate lies) against German Justices in the FCC — to the point where one of them gave an “exclusive” (totally inappropriate [1, 2, 3]) interview to a Team UPC front group/pressure group. These people play dirty. I responded to JUVE yesterday (Friday), joking about that part that says “the constitutional delay has worked to the committee’s advantage…”

“These people play dirty.”What an utter lie!

“Oh, I see,” I responded. “We got caught violating constitutions across Europe and that… and that, well… “worked to the committee’s advantage”

“Smoking is good for you,” was my analogy, “makes your lungs stronger!”

Thank you for smoking!

This is the sort of laughable argument style we’ve become accustomed to. Watch Team UPC getting burned in the comments (that even Team UPC allows past strict moderation; yes, they censor comments). It’s very revealing everywhere one turns. Team UPC isn’t believed by anyone except Team UPC and we’ve even seen some longtime UPC proponents changing their mind/tune. Even IAM a year ago.

Taking note of something we covered some days ago (US stance on UPC), AstraZenecaKat wrote about such patent fanaticism (extremism?) and how Donald Trump’s government uses the EPC as a vehicle of patent maximalism in the UK. It goes beyond what we covered a day after the leak:

This Kat was probably not alone in being slightly bemused by the recent media reporting on the leaked “451-page dossier” describing US/UK talks on future trade arrangements. The BBC reportsthe dossier as showing that the US is interested in “extending patents” in the UK. How strange. Is the US government proposing some novel form of patent term extension currently unavailable to patentees in the UK? Fear not, IPKat is here to provide some clarity!

It turns out that, contrary to media reporting, the dossier does not mention anything radical with respect to patent term extension. However, there are some interesting insights to be gained from the dossier on the potential battleground for IP rights in future US/UK trade negotiations. Most notable is the US government’s position on grace periods for disclosure before patent filings, which are not permitted under the European Patent Convention (EPC).

[...]

The US delegation was also interested to hear the UK government plans with respect to the UPC. [Merpel: wouldn’t we all?] The US expressed surprise that the UK government had ratified the UPC agreement before the UK’s exit. The US mentioned that US stakeholders were strongly in favour of the UK participating in the UPC. The UK replied that “we intend to stay part of the agreement through the implementation period…Beyond this is subject to negotiation”. This position was described in the subsequently published FEB white paper. The dossier thus does not make us any the wiser with regards to the UK’s intended negotiating position in post-Brexit negotiations with the US. Whether the UK will be able to be a member of the UPC after Brexit was discussed in a recent report from the European Parliament think-tank (IPKat: Can the UK become and stay a member of the UPC?)

[...]

The dossier therefore does provide some tip-bits of interesting information regarding US/UK thinking on IP protection and its relation to drug pricing. Reassuringly, despite the media reporting, there does not appear to be anything radical “on the table” with respect to patent term or data exclusivity. The US position on grace periods is the most concerning of all the issues under discussion. It would be an extraordinary act of self-harm for the UK to withdraw from the EPC, and this would have significant disadvantages not only the UK but also the US and third parties such as China and Japan. However, the dossier highlights throughout many areas that still need clarification. Final negotiating positions between the US and UK will also be highly dependent on the UK’s negotiating position with the EU following Brexit.

As usual, especially with AstraZenecaKat, the better and more informative tidbits are in the comments (those that are allowed anyway; they still censor comments).

“Let’s be honest,” a certain “Anonymous” wrote in the responses. “The reason the US think the UK might be able to introduce a grace period is because they don’t, and will never, understand that the EPC isn’t related to the EU. Further the US is strongly in favour of the UK participating in the UPC which would, of course, be impossible if the UK isn’t part of the EPC. The big issue is the possible extension of UK data exclusivity for biologics from 8+2 to 12. The public would undoubtedly see this as extending “patents” for pharmaceuticals.”

Oh, pharmaceuticals like AstraZeneca. We’ve been rather disturbed but not surprised to see this blog relaying pro-UPC lies.

Another comment said: “We in the UK need to be honest about our future position in the world. We need to belong in some way to a big powerful trading block. The US would be a natural ‘home’ once we leave the EU. Risking that over a grace period disagreement does not seem sensible. The sooner we see that bringing ourselves into alignment with the US brings a lot of benefits, the more clearly we can develop our post-Brexit relationships and alliances. We can be the ‘gateway’ to Europe for the US if we compromise a little on our laws. It will be a delicate balancing act to please both the US and the EU, but surely we have little choice now?”

Well, if anything, the above shows that “brexit” is about selling the UK to Donald Trump and equally dubious corporations (as his). The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is limited in reach and scope (more so due to 35 U.S.C. § 101), so they want a corrupt EPO, where the quarter of all patents are granted to the US (almost the same as the number of patents granted to Europe!).

As an elderly (and apparently very experienced) attorney, MaxDrei, then put it: “If the UK leaves the EU it will have little or nothing of that ongoing business.”

It’s a good comment and it’s one among several that condemn the UPC. To quote in full:

The comment from “Honesty” is hard to swallow. The EU is indeed a big Bloc, with 600 million consumers and, within it, the UK is one of the “Big 3″ Member States. So, a Big Fish in a Big Pool.

As the 51st State of the USA though, with zero representation in the US Congress, it is not even a Fish, and in a pool only half as big. And what’s all this nonsense about a “bridgehead” into Europe. The EU is already fully cognisant of the threat of a deregulated UK free-riding the European market. Use of force to effect a landing on the European Mainland is not an option except in times of war.

As we are now, given our language and professional skills, we in the UK should be filing at the EPO the Lion’s Share of everything sent to the EPO by both Asia and The Americas. If the UK leaves the EU it will have little or nothing of that ongoing business.

Is there no limit to the skill with which Westminster politicians squander in a few decades the huge reserves of soft power built up by the UK over centuries?

Well said. UPC is, as we’ve been saying for years, part of a trend, part of which is neo-liberal policies that are ruinous to all except very few, usually foreign few (foreign to the country where these policies are implemented). As we put it earlier this month, "Europe is Under Attack" (except the Bretons, Battistellis and Lagardes of Europe). Their ‘handlers’ know what they want and how to get it. We still have one final part to publish in the Thierry Breton series; then we’ll prepare the epilogue.
________
* It’s saddening to learn that Jimmy Schulz, who fought software patents in the political arena, has perished. “RIP Jimmy Schulz,” Henrion wrote last night, “one of the initiators of the motion, warned that trivial patents or patents harm small and medium-sized software developers https://www.ip-watch.org/2013/04/22/german-parliament-sends-message-stop-granting-software-patents/ [] RIP Jimmy Schulz, German MP software developer and opposed software patents…”

11.29.19

Many European Patents Lack Validity and Blogs/Press Won’t Talk About That

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

Many European Patents Lack Validity. But reporting on such facts won't be good for my readers. So I look the other way while taking payments from patent maximalists.

Summary: The persistent denials from the EPO and inability of the media to cover the news (as opposed to EPO puff pieces) may mean that the avalanche of European Patents will carry on as long as the Office survives

THE USPTO can no longer grant patents on life as hastily and as easily as before. We’ve been including several links to news reports about it (in Daily Links). Mayo and Myriad (in 35 U.S.C. § 101 it’s mostly the former) contributed to this after SCOTUS overturned decisions made by the Federal Circuit. Here in Europe the European Patent Office (EPO) typically ignores justice, laws, courts, and judges. How can it? It can! It’s above the law! Look what Battistelli got away with; António Campinos covers it all up and continues promoting software patents in Europe, even by intervening (one might say “meddling”) in legal cases of BoA regarding software patents. Isn’t it astounding that here in Europe we haven’t the Rule of Law? Nontechnical career-climbing alcoholics can push around judges and punish entire courts by sending them to Haar just to ‘make a point’…

Where’s European media? Sorry, it’s dead. It’s composed by law firms, as we’ve just noted again. It’s like regulatory capture.

“Where’s European media? Sorry, it’s dead. It’s composed by law firms, as we’ve just noted again.”What about blogs? Sorry, they’re also captured by the litigation giants, more so after threats from the EPO. Rose Hughes (AstraZeneca) still leads IP Kat‘s way when it comes to EPO coverage, never touching any of the ongoing scandals, occasionally promoting UPC lies, and intentionally failing to note that the EPC is being violated. IP Kat is the opposite of what it used to be. Yesterday she wrote

Notably, Dirk Visser is not a supporter of the Board’s reasoning in T 1933/12, describing their justification of the co-applicant approach as “poor” (The Annotated European Patent Convention, Article 87(1)). Mr Visser further argues that the co-applicant approach of T 1933/12 is inconsistent with the EPO’s reasoning that all applicants (X and Y) of the priority application (or their successor(s) in title) are named on the subsequent application claiming priority (as in the CRISPR case). The latter is based on the understanding that X and Y are a legal unity that cannot be divided, whilst the co-applicant approach permits a change of the legal unity of X+Y into X+Y+Z.

[...]

The GSK patent was revoked on grounds other than invalid priority. GSK has appealed the decision. In reply to the appeal, Eli Lilly has argued that it was incorrect for the EPO to apply the co-applicant to the patent. Lilly particularly cites T 205/14 and T 517/14 in which the Board (3.3.01) required, in a situation analogous to that in the case in EP 1965823 (GSK), evidence of a transfer of the right to priority to the additional applicant (Z) of the PCT application from the applicants (X+Y) of the priority applications. None-the-less, the position of the Opposition Board in EP 1965823 is broadly in line with a number of opposition division decisions, e.g. EP2940044, and the Guidelines for Examination.

There is another pending appeal challenging the co-applicant approach. The case relates to one of AbbVie’s Humria patents (T 1837/19). In this case, Abbott Laboratories was listed as the applicant for the PCT application for all designated states apart from the US. The applicant-inventors of the US provisional applications from which priority was claimed were listed as the applicants for the US designation. The opponent has argued in their Statement of Grounds of appeal that the EP application is just one of the bundle of applications making up the PCT application, and that the EP application is different from and therefore does not include the applicants of the US provisional.

Unlike the issue at stake in the CRISPR appeal, the case law supporting the co-applicant approach is flaky at best. However, it seems likely that we will soon receive clarity on the legality of the co-applicants approach from the Boards of Appeal. Will the Boards of Appeal follow the more lenient approach to priority represented by the co-applicant approach followed by the opposition division, or will we see a tightening up of the requirements?

Well, these Boards of Appeal lack independence (the Office breaks the law). Should not that be mentioned? Notice that many of the above companies are partners and rivals of AstraZeneca, the writer’s paymasters. But the affiliation with AstraZeneca isn’t entirely concealed (to be fair to her). It’s not properly disclosed, so still…

“The lack of actual journalism in the area of patents is a very major crisis and even blogs have been hijacked by patent zealots. They’re a multi-billion-dollar ‘industry’ which produces nothing at all. Except agony.”The quality of European Patents continues to collapse and as we mentioned earlier in the week, many of them perish in courts. No wonder the number of European Patent applications is decreasing. The EPO granted a bunch of fake patents and only lawyers have benefited; it doesn’t matter to them who wins disputes, only that the disputes go on and on (more legal bills).

PR Newswire UK (press release site) has just published this press release about a high-profile dispute over a European Patent:

On November 19, 2019, the Mannheim Regional Court heard two cases brought by SolarEdge, an Israeli provider of power optimizers and solar inverters, claiming that Huawei’s PV optimizers infringed on its patents. The court concluded that Huawei did not infringe on SolarEdge’s patent for one case, and deferred the hearing for the other case due to insufficient evidence. On November 21, 2019, the European Patent Office (EPO) heard a patent opposition case brought by Huawei against SolarEdge. The EPO decided to revoke SolarEdge’s patent relating to the inverter multi-level topology.

A Huawei spokesperson welcomed the court’s decision. As one of the world’s largest holders of intellectual property rights, Huawei actively protects its own intellectual property rights and fully respects the rights of others. Huawei advocates the use of legal means to resolve disputes over intellectual property rights, and insists on taking legal action to protect its rights and interests.

Robin Whitlock of Renewable Energy Magazine has also just mentioned this fake European Patent:

The court heard the two cases on 19th November 2019, in which Israeli provider of power optimisers and solar inverters SolarEdge claimed that Huawei’s PV optimisers infringed on its patents. On 21st November 2019, the European Patent Office (EPO) heard a patent opposition case brought by Huawei against SolarEdge. The EPO decided to revoke SolarEdge’s patent relating to the inverter multi-level topology.

A Huawei spokesperson welcomed the decision by the court that the company did not infringe on SolarEdge’s patents along with the court’s decision to defer the second case on grounds of insufficient evidence.

The Huawei spokesperson said that as one of the world’s largest holders of intellectual property rights, Huawei actively protects its own intellectual property rights and fully respects the rights of others. The spokesperson added that Huawei advocates the use of legal means to resolve disputes over intellectual property rights, and insists on taking legal action to protect its rights and interests.

We derive no pleasure from such news; we feel somewhat vindicated, sure, but what we have here is a couple of companies wasting a lot of money (potential salaries for more workers) on a baseless dispute due to a fake European Patent. Who profits from all this? Lawyers. In-house or otherwise (for smaller companies it’s even more expensive as they lack the staff to deal with this).

Kilburn & Strode LLP and Freddy Thiel have meanwhile published and promoted this self-serving puff piece about the firm’s own lawyers who look to exploit the EPO for endless litigation. In their own words:

The quality of a patent can be directly linked to the relationship between in-house attorney and inventor (and outside counsel, if involved). It is quite possible that, without a good rapport, an attorney may find it hard to get the required attention from the inventor. They may miss much of the detail needed to produce a patent application that stands up in front of the EPO, where flexibility post filing is much more limited.

[...]

Keep asking questions, even ones that may seem obvious. Sometimes obvious questions elicit the best answers.

“I’ve never been afraid of telling an inventor that I know nothing about the tech. Simple questions often lead to finding a key ingredient to the recipe for the perfect invention capture. Sometimes popping a simple question or a remark can lead the inventor to think about the fundamental aspects of the invention, which they may otherwise have been overlooked. Inventors are generally much smarter than the EPO’s “Skilled Person” and often disregard what could end up being patentable inventions.The risk with a simple question is that it could cause the inventors to roll their eyes. You can back up a simple question by pointing out an inconsistency or gap in their discussion of the invention to show your true level of understanding and bring them back on board.”

Imagine that this is what counts as ‘journalism’ (and shows up in Google News as EPO and patent “news”). The lack of actual journalism in the area of patents is a very major crisis and even blogs have been hijacked by patent zealots. They’re a multi-billion-dollar ‘industry’ which produces nothing at all. Except agony.

5 Out of 6 EPO Workers Vote for a Strike as Quality (and Validity) of Patents Continues to Fall

Posted in Action, Europe, Patents at 4:05 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

By all means go on strike, as things will only exacerbate otherwise (for all of us)

Graph extrapolated from the EPO
Graph extrapolated from the EPO’s own numbers

Summary: Examiners are being pressured to grant illegal patents (e.g. software patents ‘dressed up’ as “AI” or “hey hi”), leading to erosion of the job’s integrity and damage to the reputation of European Patents

THINGS have not improved at the European Patent Office (EPO) since António Campinos hopped on the saddle and the penthouse of Battistelli. One can argue that things got even worse (compared to 2018) and quality of European Patents is quantifiably and verifiably worse. The EPO sometimes calls software patents just “software patents” (no made-up buzzwords) and gets away with granting these.

“The EPO sometimes calls software patents just “software patents” (no made-up buzzwords) and gets away with granting these.”Will workers be going on strike again? Judging by these results, it’s very much possible. A strike ballot was initially planned in summer, but Campinos managed to buy some time. Well, not anymore. “There was a strike ballot in Munich today,” Märpel wrote on Thursday night, having “learned that 83% of staff voted in favour of the strike. Märpel wonders what is next.”

That’s about 5 out of 6 people, under an intimidating atmosphere, as we noted when the protest/demonstration was covered in the media. As we put it a fortnight ago, “EPO management in Rijswijk tried hard to prevent workers from protesting on their free time (lunch break), reaffirming that same old belief that nothing is changing at the EPO and nothing will change without truly disruptive action…”

Well, disruptive actions may be about to begin. Suffice to say, EPO management won’t say a word about these. It never does. It pretends no issues exist. That’s their “official policy”. Sometimes they drown out the media with puff pieces to dilute the signal with noise, as happened earlier this month (we wrote several articles to highlight this).

“Sometimes they drown out the media with puff pieces to dilute the signal with noise, as happened earlier this month (we wrote several articles to highlight this).”So what does Campinos have to show after nearly 1.5 years at the Office? What has he? What was accomplished?

“Four patent applications are filed worldwide every minute,” the EPO bragged yesterday. As the patent maximalists are so mentally detached, they probably think each of these applications is some major invention rather than a ploy of large companies (evergreening, slight modifications etc.) and it’s interesting to see the EPO so openly bragging about patent applications’ pace rather than merit/quality. “We could write a script to generate more than that on just one computer,” I told them, citing the likes of SCIgen, which isn’t even new.

Benjamin Henrion asked: “How many PPS (Patents Per Second) can it generate to flood the system?”

“EPO brags about 0.07 patent applications per second today,” I replied, and “I assume WIPO considers each of these to be sacred… China already games WIPO with a torrent of low-quality patents and amid decline in numbers (in other countries) Gurry and his criminal colleagues (this is well documented) are happy to accept this gaming…”

“China is perhaps the only large country that formally allows software patenting…”Maybe we can call this “patent doping!”

Henrion took note of this tweet which quotes: “China nominated a candidate to head the WIPO [...] The Chinese bid poses a challenge for the United States, which has been pushing to contain China’s rise as a technological superpower…”

China is perhaps the only large country that formally allows software patenting and Henrion noted that the EPO lies about it, arguing that “Computer programs is the only item of the list that is not clickable, plus spreading lies about business methods and software being patentable in the US” (citing the EPO’s E-courses). There’s a screenshot there. We’ve included it at the bottom, knowing that Twitter plans to eliminate millions of legitimate accounts some time very soon (including dead people’s accounts).

EPO's E-courses

EPO management (the likes of Campinos and Grant PolPott) likes to use buzzwords such as "hey hi" (machine learning) to disguise algorithm as something else, something unique. They also overuse the term because “hey hi” can generate patent applications and maybe granted patents [1] (there’s a tendency to conflate this with something else as the confusion contributes to the agenda of patent maximalists).

In [1] below there’s a new article about it, mentioning the EPO’s overdue decision on the matter.

“If the patent playground is a playground of those who profit from litigation (not actual scientists), whose agenda will be promoted and how will laws be shaped? In whose favour?”It’s no secret that the ‘European’ Patent Office uses such buzzwords and lies to let itself grant illegal software patents in Europe [2] (new article about it, albeit behind paywall) and Karl Barnfather (Withers & Rogers) continues to reaffirm what we’ve long said about media coverage regarding patents. It’s composed directly or indirectly by law/litigation firms, not journalists. It’s quite a crisis.

If the patent playground is a playground of those who profit from litigation (not actual scientists), whose agenda will be promoted and how will laws be shaped? In whose favour?

“Have you seen the new Espacenet? It’s got new features & functions,” the EPO wrote yesterday.

“The discussion forum is a dead zone,” I told them, “so one can guess not many people use Espacenet (why would they? These searches make one liable with treble damages)…”

“Well, “mock oral proceedings” are becoming routine, just like the real thing (where every trial is a mock trial, as justice does not exist).”“Trade marks can add value to #patents and extend protection beyond the life of a patent,” the EPO added. They’re basically marketing EUIPO. Trademarks are symbols and names. So what the EPO says is akin to fusion of totally unrelated laws. In practice many businesses resort to evergreening if they want patent perpetuity.

The EPO then said: “We’re running a seminar where you can take part in mock oral proceedings designed to let you experience a variety of events in real time, in a variety of roles, with the support of a tutor.”

Well, “mock oral proceedings” are becoming routine, just like the real thing (where every trial is a mock trial, as justice does not exist). We’ll say more about it in our next post.

Related/contextual items from the news:

  1. Can artificial intelligence systems patent their inventions?

    Throughout history, innovation has been the result of direct human intervention that creates a technical solution to a practical problem. For hundreds of years, nations around the world have sought to incentivize innovation by giving inventors the right to protect their creations with patents. Recently one legal team has pressured patent offices around the world to answer one question: Can patent protections be extended to inventions developed by technology, not humans?

    Late last autumn, patent applications were filed with the UK Intellectual Property Office and the European Patent Office on behalf of an artificial intelligence inventor known as “DABUS,” which creates new ideas by altering the interconnections among a set of neural networks in the system. Once those ideas are generated, a second set of neural networks analyzes them to reinforce any that are novel or useful. DABUS is the invention of Dr. Stephen Thaler, President and CEO of the St. Charles, Missouri-based neural networking firm Imagination Engines.

    [...]

    At the origin of the legal team filing the patent applications on DABUS’s behalf is Dr. Malte Köllner, Head of Dennemeyer’s Frankfurt office. He instigated an international attorney team to submit patent applications on behalf of DABUS in Great Brittain, Germany, Europe, Taiwan, Israel and the US, as well as a PCT application. The idea to file patent applications listing an AI inventor was born in the Frankfurt office following a discussion on the topic with patent attorney Markus Rieck and Ryan Abbott, a professor of law and health sciences at the University of Surrey. Dr. Köllner said that filing these patent applications was the right way to get patent offices to consider how they will address the growing issue of innovation from AI platforms. “If the court finds some solution, that is fine, but it should not simply ignore the fact that machines are inventing,” Dr. Köllner said. “We are beginning a debate and inviting both patent offices and courts to decide on how to deal with this issue. This is a question whose time has come.”

    [...]

    Over at the EPO, a decision on the fate of the DABUS patent applications is expected on November 25.

    Eventually, patent offices around the world will have to find a solution how to handle this new phenomenon that AI is contributing to inventions. “It is an international discussion, and it will be interesting to see how different countries will come up with different solutions,” Dr. Köllner said.

  2. New European Patent Office guidelines protect AI and machine learning ‘inventions’

    Withers & Rogers Karl Barnfather examines the European Patent Office’s ‘Guidelines for Examination’, which took effect on 1st November

Team UPC is So Drunk on Kool-Aid That It Has Become Truly Comical!

Posted in Europe, Patents at 3:03 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Where yu’ goin’ mate?

Nach Spandau!

UPC and Berlin

Summary: The lies and fabrications of Team UPC show no signs of abatement; now they just do so for our amusement and in the process they compromise what used to be reasonably OK blogs

THE US knows that the UPC is doomed. António Campinos hasn’t even mentioned it for about a year and Battistelli became virtually invisible (absent from the media since the Benalla scandals). As for the European Patent Office (EPO)? Well, it formally mentioned it about a month ago, for the first time in about a year. But notice the pattern though; what used to be on everybody’s lips on a daily basis is very seldom even alluded to.

“Did everyone notice who runs IP Kat since 2-3 years ago?”So who still mentions it? Usually media sites that are in Team UPC’s pockets. Most of the media stopped printing lies for lying lawyers, but some stand to benefit from perpetuating the lies. Heck, some of them are literally owned and edited by Team UPC! Did everyone notice who runs IP Kat since 2-3 years ago? These are patent maximalists whose clients include patent trolls and proponents of software patents in Europe (who never even wrote a single line of code in their entire lives!).

Last night we saw Kluwer Patent blogger (Bristows quite likely) publishing this nonsense with the typically misleading headline in Kluwer Patent Blog (only hours after we had complained about these headlines from Kluwer Patent Blog). The text is almost the same as in Bristows’ blog, so we assume it’s Team UPC running ahead with JUVE's utter nonsense (coordinated fluff) while guarding against opposing comments, as usual. Yes, they delete some comments from this blog. Bristows staff does this (we produced evidence of that before). “According to Ramsey,” it says, “the announcement by judge Huber in an MIP interview earlier this month, that the FCC is likely to decide the UPCA case in the first quarter of 2020, is “very good news because it’s fast approaching.””

“That phone interview with Patrick Wingrove received mostly scorn and condemnation (except from Team UPC)…”So here they are alluding to judge Huber after that inappropriate interview with a Team UPC advocacy front, Managing IP (even the courts/colleagues distanced themselves from it [1, 2, 3]). That phone interview with Patrick Wingrove received mostly scorn and condemnation (except from Team UPC) and yesterday Wingrove decided to defend the JUVE piece, writing to me in Twitter about it (I hadn’t spoken to him) and then promoting his latest UPC piece to me (“UPC: businesses still on hold despite Judge Huber announcement“).

It wasn’t an “announcement”, but never mind facts. And even Team UPC doubts the self-imposed deadline that he named would be honoured, judging by past experiences.

“…the niche that is Team UPC loved that interview, whereas everyone else just kind of looked at each other, mystified by the decision of a judge to speak directly to Team UPC, dropping words like “bullshit” in the process.”For those who aren’t aware, Managing IP has long worked with the EPO on UPC advocacy events. It’s wrong for judges to speak about ongoing cases with the media; it’s even more wrong to speak to a site like Managing IP (because of its relation to the UPC). The way I see it, Managing IP and Wingrove are trying to save face; the niche that is Team UPC loved that interview, whereas everyone else just kind of looked at each other, mystified by the decision of a judge to speak directly to Team UPC, dropping words like “bullshit” in the process.

And for the second time in a week, we might add, Wingrove and colleagues framed the perpetrators of legal bullying (such as Team UPC) as the poor victims. They’re been doing this kind of thing for months; if they think that lawyers are the marginalised, depressed, poor people, then they certainly need to screw that head back on. I’ve dealt with abusive letters from lawyers for at least a decade and these people do not deserve sympathy. They make many people’s lives a lot more miserable and usually poor, too (some go bankrupt due to frivolous litigation).

11.28.19

Understanding Thierry Breton: Thierry and the EPO’s “Sun-King”

Posted in Europe, Patents at 11:43 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Overview

Understanding Thierry Breton

Further parts pending review and research


Atos headquarter
Atos headquarter on the banks of the Seine in Bezons

Summary: Revolving doors galore in the EPO, Atos, and French politics

The corporate headquarters of the French multinational Atos are located on the banks of the River Seine, on the Quai Voltaire in Bezons, a municipality located in the northwestern suburbs of the Greater Paris area.

Bezons is part of the administrative department of Val-d’Oise which borders on the neighbouring department of Yvelines where Saint-Germain-en-Laye is located.

Saint-Germain-en-Laye and Atos
Saint-Germain-en-Laye just a stone’s throw away from Bezons…

Saint-Germain is quite literally just around the corner – or perhaps more accurately just around the bend of the river – from Bezons.

So when Atos CEO Thierry Breton appeared as the guest of honour of EPO President Benoît Battistelli at the European Inventor Award extravaganza held in Saint-Germain-en-Laye on 7 June 2018 he didn’t have far to travel and he could pride himself on minimising his environmental footprint in accordance with company policy…

Atos and a car
Atos strives to minimise its environmental footprint…

Techrights readers will recall that Battistelli is a minor luminary of a notoriously corrupt and Libyan-funded mafia-like entity: the French political party known as the Union pour un mouvement populaire (UMP) which rebranded itself in 2015 as Les Républicains.

“In 2010 his close connections with the Sarkozy/Lagarde faction of the UMP helped him to move up in the world when he was parachuted in as head of the European Patent Office.”Battistelli has been involved in local politics for the UMP in Saint-Germain-en-Laye for many years as the deputy mayor for culture. In his day job he was a career civil servant who ended up as the head honcho at the French national intellectual property office (INPI).

In 2010 his close connections with the Sarkozy/Lagarde faction of the UMP helped him to move up in the world when he was parachuted in as head of the European Patent Office. Lagarde supported Battistelli’s candidacy as EPO president and issued a congratulatory press release following his election in 2010.

Battistelli in UMP
In 2010 INPI boss Battistelli was parachuted in as head of the EPO by the notoriously corrupt and Libyan-funded UMP under the leadership of Sarkozy

Once installed at the EPO, Battistelli proceeded to wreak havoc and conduct a managerial “reign of terror” over the next eight years. He was aided and abetted in this by his faithful sidekick, the “Great Dane” Jesper Kongstad, who according to insider sources at the EPO, is reported to have been in receipt of an upper-management salary (of the order of € 15K per month net of tax) which was allegedly paid to him “off the books”.

“It has been rumoured that Kongstad’s premature departure was linked to an internal Danish government investigation into the allegations that he had been illicitly pocketing a generous “supplementary income” from Battistelli from 2010 onwards.”Kongstad always strenuously denied these allegations but very few at the EPO are inclined to give much credit to his self-serving denials.

It’s a known fact that Kongstad had to step down unexpectedly from his position as AC chair in 2017. It has been rumoured that Kongstad’s premature departure was linked to an internal Danish government investigation into the allegations that he had been illicitly pocketing a generous “supplementary income” from Battistelli from 2010 onwards.

As Battistelli’s excesses at the EPO generated ever-increasing negative PR and he was openly denounced as a “disgrace” to France, he became an embarrassment to his political patrons.

“Kongstad always strenuously denied these allegations but very few at the EPO are inclined to give much credit to his self-serving denials.”His cronies on the EPO Administrative Council also started to fret about his managerial style and the increasing public scrutiny of EPO governance. In March 2016 they passed a resolution expressing “deep concerns” about the social unrest at the EPO. This turned out to be little more than a timid slap on the wrist. Subsequent events showed that the AC was nothing more than a “toothless tiger” that lacked the backbone and resolve to call its errant subordinate to account.

In the end Battistelli got off lightly. He was allowed to serve out the remainder of his term of office and ride off into the sunset with a golden parachute rumoured to have been of the order of € 600K.

Readers of Techrights will also be familiar with the European Inventor Award (EIA) ceremony, an annual multi-million Euro boondoggle shamelessly exploited by Battistelli and his cronies as a vehicle for self-aggrandisment.

The last event of Battistelli’s tenure was held on 7 June 2018 in the Théâtre Alexandre Dumas in Saint-Germain-en-Laye which came under his personal remit as deputy mayor for culture.

“One of these buddies, Atos CEO Thierry Breton, was selected as chairman of the jury for the EIA boondoggle in 2018.”In the normal course of events, such a curious “coincidence” would qualify as a textbook example of illicit influence-peddling and improper diversion of public funds.

But hey, folks, let’s not get too excited about such hypothetical irregularities. Remember that we’re talking about a “dangerous cocktail” of EPO immunity and French political intrigue.

In other words, “business as usual” for Benoît and his buddies.

One of these buddies, Atos CEO Thierry Breton, was selected as chairman of the jury for the EIA boondoggle in 2018.

Battistelli-Breton photo-op
Thierry Breton (right) with EPO boss Battistelli and the Secretary General of the cultural organisation Francophonie in Saint-Germain-en-Laye (7 June 2018)

The EPO Web page showing the composition of the 2018 jury has disappeared from the official website but an archived version is still accessible here.

“The EPO Web page showing the composition of the 2018 jury has disappeared from the official website…”The organisation of the EIA extravaganza is shrouded in impenetrable opacity and there isn’t a lot of openly available information about the connections between the two UMP foot-soldiers, Breton and Battistelli. So nobody can say for sure how Breton ended up as chair of the EIA jury in 2018.

At the moment we only have a few fragmentary pieces of the jigsaw puzzle. For the rest we have to rely on guesswork and speculation.

It has been noticed that, during Battistelli’s tenure at the EPO, Atos was awarded a number of juicy contracts for the provision of IT services at the EPO.

“It has been noticed that, during Battistelli’s tenure at the EPO, Atos was awarded a number of juicy contracts for the provision of IT services at the EPO.”EPO tendering procedures are another “riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma” where it is difficult to obtain detailed information. As far as can be determined, the EPO had never awarded any tenders to Atos prior to 2013.

Once upon a time back in 2002, that is to say well before the Battistelli era, Atos submitted an unsuccessful bid for the provision of “managed storage services, capacity management and related services” in accordance with the EPO International Open Tender 2002/0586/Tp.

On that occasion the bid was rejected due to non-compliance with the tender requirements. There is no record of any EPO contract being awarded to Atos over the next decade.

However, in 2014, as Battistelli was in the middle of his initial five-year term as EPO president, Atos was awarded a deal worth almost € 830 K under the terms of contract no. 2013/0207 which related to the provision of “business services”.

Atos money

In 2017, the initial contract was extended by a further € 1.7 million bringing the total value of the contract to around € 2.5 million.

Atos NL

Documents from 2018 reveal that as Battistelli’s reign at the EPO was drawing to a close Atos was awarded two more juicy contracts, one “for the provision of business analysis support services and business operational support services” worth a cool € 11 million and another “for the provision of Identity and Access Management services” worth almost € 5 million.

Atos and EPO

Atos NL millions

But it’s not just about a one-way cashflow from the EPO to Atos.

There are also indications of a transfer of “intangible cultural assets” in the reverse direction.

“There are also indications of a transfer of “intangible cultural assets” in the reverse direction.”Some insiders have pointed to an uncanny similarity between the management practices adopted at the EPO under Battistelli and those which Breton helped to pioneer in France from the 1990s onwards.

As explained by one commentator, “Breton-style management” is an expression that became idiomatic in France. It evokes “a way of managing by means of the exertion of considerable pressure on the employees of an organisation, relying heavily on recriminations and unachievable objectives in order to increase their productivity”.

This was how Breton established his reputation as a “cost killer” at France Telecom where he was appointed CEO in 2002. It was also how he eroded the morale of the company’s employees in record time, with the tragic consequences that are all too well known.

Breton-style management
French union members in Paris at the trial of France Télécom executives who pursued “Breton-style management” practices (May 2019)

During his time at Atos Breton is reputed to have introduced quotas for “low performers”. This refers to a practice where the ability of firm’s employees to achieve their objectives is assessed on an annual basis and where it is stipulated in advance that 20% are to be rated as “unsatisfactory”, i.e., effectively branded as potential candidates for dismissal.

“The similarities between “Breton-style management” and the EPO’s “Social Democracy à la sauce Battistelli” are so pronounced that it’s difficult to believe that they are purely coincidental rather than a deliberate “cultural enrichment” of EPO flowing from the clandestine off-radar collaboration between Breton and Battistelli.”Setting a predetermined quota for the number of “incompetent” staff is an idea that appealed to Battistelli and he was keen to implement it at the EPO. However, his successor Campinos seems to have back-pedalled on that one – at least for the moment – following resistance from the staff union at the EPO.

The similarities between “Breton-style management” and the EPO’s “Social Democracy à la sauce Battistelli” are so pronounced that it’s difficult to believe that they are purely coincidental rather than a deliberate “cultural enrichment” of EPO flowing from the clandestine off-radar collaboration between Breton and Battistelli.

Breton’s connections with Battistelli should not be regarded solely as a case of cross-border money and influence trafficking by UMP cronies. The Atos CEO is likely to have been interested in cultivating the relationship in the hope of furthering his own IT business interests.

“He has invested considerable effort in trying to position Atos as a “European champion” in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and it is probable that Atos hopes to jump on the “Hey Hi” patenting bandwagon which has been gathering steam in recent years.”Breton has been keenly aware of the commercial and monetary value of patents since his time at Thomson Multimedia due to the significant revenue generated by that company’s “IP portfolio”. Thomson’s records show that in 1998 its income from patents and IP licencing agreements was already a modest but respectable € 67 million. After it began reaping revenues from RCA patents in 1999, this rose to € 278 million in 1999 and by 2002 it had reached a whopping € 506 million.

So Breton would have had little difficulty in understanding the strategic value of having his own personal hotline to the 10th floor penthouse of the EPO Isar Building.

He has invested considerable effort in trying to position Atos as a “European champion” in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and it is probable that Atos hopes to jump on the “Hey Hi” patenting bandwagon which has been gathering steam in recent years.

Atos hey hi
Thierry getting ready to jump on the “Hey Hi” patenting bandwagon?

The first step in this direction took place in December 2010 when Atos and Siemens announced their intention to form a global strategic partnership to create a “European IT champion”. The planned partnership involved Atos acquiring Siemens IT Solutions and Services for the sum of €850 million.

Atos was advised on the deal by Rothschild & Cie Banque and the key Rothschild contact was a certain Emmanuel Macron. The deal was completed following approval by Atos shareholders at an Extraordinary Shareholders Meeting on 1 July 2011.

Siemens will expand financing opportunities for its customers with its own bank /  Atos Origin und Siemens gründen führenden europäischen IT-Service-Dienstleister
Siemens and Atos CEOs announcing a “global strategic partnership” (December 2010)

Shortly afterwards at a press conference to announce the EPO’s annual results in March 2012 Siemens was honoured as “Europe’s leading innovator in 2011″ and Battistelli appeared in a photo-op with Siemens CEO Peter Löscher.

Press conference: Battistelli and Siemens
Battistelli presenting a certificate to Siemens CEO Peter Löscher (March 2012)

It remains unclear if this was just a coincidence or whether it was part of a co-ordinated campaign orchestrated by Battistelli and Breton to “love-bomb” the newly acquired German partner of Atos with unctuous Gallic charm.

“Shortly afterwards at a press conference to announce the EPO’s annual results in March 2012 Siemens was honoured as “Europe’s leading innovator in 2011″ and Battistelli appeared in a photo-op with Siemens CEO Peter Löscher.”Whatever the truth of the matter may be, Atos has continued to develop the AI branch of its operations.

Earlier this year, in September (copy here [PDF] without paywalls), it announced the opening of its first AI Laboratory in Germany. To be more precise: in Munich where the EPO headquarters are located.

Annette Maier and Breton
Annette Maier, Managing Director Google Cloud DACH, Thierry Breton, Atos CEO and Ursula Morgenstern, CEO Atos Germany at the opening of the AI Lab in Munich

Battistelli may have departed the Bavarian capital and returned to his old stomping-ground in Saint-Germain-en-Laye. But this doesn’t mean that Thierry’s hotline to the 10th floor of the EPO’s Isar Building has been disconnected.

Let’s not forget that one of the members of the European Inventor Award jury in 2018 was none other than Battistelli’s designated successor, EUIPO boss António Serge de Pinho Campinos.

“Let’s not forget that one of the members of the European Inventor Award jury in 2018 was none other than Battistelli’s designated successor, EUIPO boss António Serge de Pinho Campinos.”The EIA boondoggle at the Théâtre Alexandre Dumas in June 2018 would have provided an ideal opportunity for some bonding between Breton, Battistelli and his successor Campinos over a few bottles of expensive French plonk, preferably some Mouton Rothschild.

Although he is reputed to hold French citizenship, Campinos has no known connections to the UMP. But he is a long-serving member of the EU technocratic elite and has spent much of his career working at the EUIPO (formerly OHIM) which comes under the remit of the Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship.

And as if we haven’t encountered enough revolving doors already, the next Commissioner for the Internal Market is none other than … wait for it, folks … former Atos CEO, Thierry Breton!

Breton buys democracy
The newly appointed EU Commissioner for the Internal Market…

So it can be seen that all the preconditions for a smooth and fruitful working relationship between the president of the EPO and the next Commissioner for the Internal Market are already in place.

“And as if we haven’t encountered enough revolving doors already, the next Commissioner for the Internal Market is none other than … wait for it, folks … former Atos CEO, Thierry Breton!”It shouldn’t come as much of a surprise if the new Commissioner decides to include a visit to the EPO in Munich as part of his initial tour of duty in the coming weeks… let’s just wait and see…

And if all those revolving doors haven’t made you too dizzy, stay tuned for the next and final part of this series where we will take a look at how Thierry ended up in his latest position as “Macron’s joker” in Brussels.

JUVE Has Become Little But a Team UPC Propaganda Site

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 12:21 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Yet another one of those… (and follow the money)

The true journalism

Summary: JUVE, which used to do some real journalism a few years ago (including coverage of EPO corruption), lost staff, lost direction, and reinvented itself as an English-speaking propaganda platform for UPC hopefuls (litigation firms and patent trolls)

True journalism seeks the truth, not what is profitable. And likewise, a good patent office adheres to justice, not profit (the flagrantly neo-liberal approach of Campinos and Battistelli). Papers have been published to explain how profit motives doomed the USPTO, whose granted patents rarely withstand courts’ scrutiny these days, owing largely to 35 U.S.C. § 101.

“Don’t expect the UPC to ever exist.”The thugs who run the EPO hope to cheat justice by ousting judges, driving many of them to ‘exile’, and working to replace the courts with something they can control. It’s a major coup, it is unconstitutional, and it involves a lot of lying (to the public, to politicians, to stakeholders and so on). But people at several levels have caught up and more or less scuttled the UPCA, probably for good. Don’t expect the UPC to ever exist. Ask the US, don’t just take our word for it.

But welcome back Amy Sandys of JUVE. She is doing UPC propaganda again. JUVE is evidently compromised — nothing like the site it was several years ago. As we noted several months ago, JUVE is nowadays a megaphone for Team UPC. Today’s article is part of a known pattern, entitled “The UPC will be operational in early 2021” (a lie as a title; yes, the headline even!)

“Shame on JUVE and it’s a shame to see it committing suicide (reputation-wise).”We’ve seen these sorts of “fake news” headlines in Kluwer Patent Blog over the years. Loads of these! We’ve lost count. It’s as if the job of a journalist is to drop quotes from propagandists with vested interests (Alexander Ramsay in this case).

Team UPC (Bristows’ Gregory Bacon) links to it on the same day, within hours, just to say: “JUVE has reported here on its recent interview with Alexander Ramsay, Chair of the UPC Preparatory Committee, in which Mr Ramsay described the remaining preparations for the opening of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and said it was realistic to expect that to be in early 2021.”

With this piece of propaganda ‘planted’ in JUVE, on goes Team UPC lying to the whole world again and again.

Shame on JUVE and it’s a shame to see it committing suicide (reputation-wise). Even the tweets have been equally misleading as of late. That’s just where the money is when your subscribers are the patent microcosm, especially in Germany (where lots of legal ‘action’ takes place these days).

« 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