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

06.13.19

EPO Spreading Patent Extremists’ Ideology to the Whole World, Now to South Korea

Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:27 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

In the EPO’s very own words:

EPO on CII

Summary: The EPO’s footprint around the world's patent systems is an exceptionally dangerous one; The EPO amplifies the most zealous voices of the patents and litigation ‘industry’ while totally ignoring the views and interests of the European public, rendering the EPO an ‘agent of corporate occupation’

THE European Patent Office (EPO) said it would change. It said that António Campinos would correct the negative legacy of corrupt Battistelli, who not only phased in software patents under the guise of “4IR” and similar nonsense (buzzwords like ‘Industry 4.0’) but also severely attacked the staff, causing major brain drain. The EPO may never recover from it as recruitment relies on reputation, which can take decades (or entire generations) to earn/recover.

“Henrion (the FFII’s President) is one of not so many who are actively engaging on behalf of the software community.”Benjamin Henrion (FFII), a concerned software developer like yours truly, wanted to submit feedback for the EPO’s vision. He had done so before and so did I (I wrote some letters more than a decade ago). Days ago he complained [1, 2, 3]: “EPO 2023: “and in line with our terms of use.” was added between the first and last round of consultations https://www.epo.org/about-us/office/consultation.html#tab3 […] They moved the link to here: https://www.epo.org/about-us/office/consultation.html#tab3 […] Seems the EPO removed the contributions to the EPO 2023 ‘public’ consultation from its website #epo @EPOorg cannot find back the link. They need to be “transmitted” to the administrative council for “adoption” somewhere in June https://www.epo.org/about-us/office/strategy.html#tab3 … http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2019/04/20/epo-publishes-draft-strategic-plan-2023-and-holds-a-new-consultation/ …”

Henrion (the FFII’s President) is one of not so many who are actively engaging on behalf of the software community. As we showed last month, the EPO made it difficult for non-lawyers/attorneys to even submit any feedback. As Henrion put it: “EPO “users” are patent applicants, fully captured institution “Membership should not be limited to stakeholders defined as “users” of the system stricto sensu, but reflect the broader impact and interest of society in the patent system as a whole” http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponot.nsf/0/8C1A0ABD4D38E2CEC12583D600407D56/$File/No_Patents_on_Seeds_10052019_en.pdf [] EPO a totally captured institution: “While the stakeholders participating at the AC meetings such as BUSINESS-EUROPE,EPI are heavily weighted in favour of vested interests in obtaining patents, other civil society organisations are not represented at all” http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponot.nsf/0/8C1A0ABD4D38E2CEC12583D600407D56/$File/No_Patents_on_Seeds_10052019_en.pdf …”

So they just basically don’t care what the European public has to say; they care about what some law firms and foreign corporations say. Whose institution is it and who is it actually accountable/answerable to?

See this other new tweet: “Considering that EPO is financed by fees for patents issued it is in their motivation to grant as many patents as possible.”

This has completely and entirely corrupted the EPO. It’s all about money; not science, not Europe, not innovation.

Ben Wodecki has also just published this article which relates to what’s quoted above. Anyone with high school education surely understands that humans did not ‘invent’ nature or ‘create’ seeds. This is robbery aided by corrupt EPO officials (‘pirating’ from nature or stealing from the Commons, privatising or monopolising what always existed). To quote Wodecki:

No Patents on Seeds has demanded that loopholes allowing companies to obtain European patents on conventionally bred plants and animals need to be closed.
The group warned that patents granted by the European Patent Office (EPO) that cover fish reared on specific plants could “become a precedent for many other patent applications”.

Patents covering conventionally bred plants and animals are prohibited by rule 28(2) for the interpretation of the European Patent Convention (EPC). However, the European Patent Office has come under fire for granting patents on what some claim are conventionally bred patents on plants and animals.

The group has called on current prohibitions like rule 28(2) of the EPC to be implemented more effectively.

[...]

“If this strategy is successful, companies will in future claim more and more such food monopolies.”

The EPO’s management seems blind (perhaps intentionally) to common sense. It asked already-intimidated judges to weigh in; as if they can tell the emperor (to his face) that he’s naked…

Stupid buzzwords that this corrupt EPO has spread and paid to promote (we’ve already covered how it paid media companies for this) are still being picked by Korean media. The EPO even bragged about it some 12-13 months ago; after it had paid the media it spoke about how media in South Korea used those same terms — terms that are used to enable/legitimise bogus patents that courts would certainly reject, e.g. software patents. Here’s the latest from The Korea Herald (headline modified from “Top global IP offices discuss cooperation in ‘Industry 4.0’ era” to “Top IP offices forge patent cooperation system in ‘Industry 4.0’ era” some time around Thursday morning, based on timestamps).

Notice ‘Industry 4.0’ in the title/headline; we don’t want to repeat all the lies and nonsense here; reproducing it won’t help. “Under KIPO’s chairmanship,” says the summary, “top IP policymakers seek ways to strengthen partnerships, discuss impact of AI” (here they go again with “HEY HI!” — a subject we’ll touch later on in another article). There’s also a Campinos photo op in there (further down the article) and it says:

On Tuesday, he met with EPO President Campinos to sign a memorandum of understanding to test a sharing process of screening information.

Currently, KIPO and EPO have access to each other’s patent screening data but the range is limited to patents that are past 18 months from application and are thus subject to public disclosure. Should the MOU take effect, starting July 1, the two offices will be able to access to undisclosed patent data for screening reference.

Well, the good news is, Mr. Campinos managed to board the plane to Korea. Maybe they had to reroute him to the south; he thought he was flying to a dictatorship like his; we’ve already used the North Korea analogies (comparisons to the EPO) about a dozen times before. These are still apt analogies.

06.12.19

Leaked Financial ‘Study’ Document Shows EPO Management and Mercer Engaging in an Elaborate “Hoax”

Posted in Europe, Patents at 3:51 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Purveyors of ‘fake news’ inside what’s supposed to be a scientific institution

How One Family’s Deep Pockets Helped Reshape Donald Trump’s Campaign

Summary: How the European Patent Office (EPO) lies to its own staff to harm that staff; thankfully, the staff isn’t easily fooled and this whole affair will merely obliterate any remnants of “benefit of the doubt” the President thus far enjoyed

THE EPO has been under a (soon) decade-long attack from Campinos and Battistelli, who not only integrated European software patents into their agenda (in defiance of courts and Parliament) but have also attacked the staff and misused EPO money (Campinos might soon give a lot of EPO money to Third Reich goons).

“SUEPO has been too patient with Campinos (strike postponed) in spite of him repeatedly showing that nothing will change, except for the worse.”As we recently mentioned here on several occasions, there’s a fake 'crisis' being manufactured/claimed (not the real crisis) to push so-called ‘solutions’. “The delicious propaganda by EPO top managers to middle managers,” a source tells us, can be seen in this Manager Toolkit (English) [PDF].

As it turns out, there’s already a response to it. “The aim is here disseminate false information and make the deteriorations — sorry, the “reforms” to soon come — more acceptable to joe-average EPO staff although these are new unjustified thus unfair cuts,” the source adds. Here is the position of the Central Staff Committee (CSC) on the same financial study.

Zentraler Personalausschuss
Central Staff Committee
Le Comité Central du Personnel

Munich, 07.06.2019
sc19081cp – 0.2.1/1.3.2

The Financial Study: Yet Another Hoax (part 4)

At the EPO financial studies tend to be a pretext for cuts in staff benefits. The
latest study by Mercer and Wyman is no exception. Our previous publications showed that the study deliberately underestimates expected income from fees as well as the return on cash reserves, and overestimates staff costs. The present publication lists these misrepresentations and adds some more.

Recapitulation

The 2019 EPO Financial Study by Mercer and Oliver Wyman assumes1 that:

- between 2018 and 2038 the EPO will not raise its procedural and renewal fees except once, by 4%, in 2020. For the remaining period the fees are assumed to remain constant (page 115). A correction for inflation is not foreseen.

- between 2018 and 2038 the national renewal fees on patents granted by the Office will remain constant (page 116). A correction for inflation is not foreseen.

in sharp contrast during the same period EPO salaries are assumed to increase at a rate of 2.24% above inflation (page 119).

- without providing any underlying data, the study assumes that the costs of pensions and other post-employment benefits (incl. tax compensation) will almost triple over the next 20 years (pages 66-67, page 123).

- The study foresees no further transfer of operational surpluses to the RFPSS, although with a 4.8% return above inflation over the last 20 years (6.3% over the last 5 years) the money would be well placed (RFPSS/SB 41/19, page 2, Fig. 3).

the study assumes that operational surpluses will not be transferred to the EPOTIF either (page 63). The EPOTIF was recently created with the very purpose of shielding EPO capital from inflation and is expected to deliver a return of 4% above inflation (CA/F 10/18 para.10).

- instead expected operational surpluses are assumed to be parked as “other financial assets” with an average annual return of between – 0.03% and 0.78%, i.e. well below the level of inflation2.

- as indicated above, over the last 20 years the RFPSS had a real return of 4.8%. The actuaries who evaluate the RFPSS assume a long-term return of 3.5%. The Financial Study assumes a return above inflation of only 2.1% (FAQs). This transforms today’s 104% coverage (CA/61/17 point 79) into a 2 billion euro gap in 2038.

This is a long list of extremely unlikely assumptions. There may be more, e.g. in the assumptions for the patent processes which we have not checked in detail. We also have doubts about the assumed 2 years increase in longevity (page 122) and the constant 53.87% non-examining staff “as percentage of job groups 1-4” (page 112). At present examiners make up about 64% of our total staff.

___
1 Unless otherwise indicated, the page numbers in the list refer to the Financial Study.
2 Financial Study pages 120 and 122; the return is not explicitly mentioned but can be calculated from the data in the tables.


What about an effort by the Office?

The EPO’s financial situation is excellent – maybe even too good3 – and this despite the recent high costs of the “New Main” building in The Hague and significant losses in IT.
The Financial Study nevertheless wants us to believe that the EPO faces a significant financial gap and that now is the time to do something about it by cutting costs, staff costs. But what about other costs? Is Mercer pointing at possible savings elsewhere? Are the Member States contributing to the effort? Is Mr Campinos leading by example – even if only symbolically? It doesn’t seem so.

The Mercer study assumes 600 million euro in building costs. The real sum may be as much as 1.14 billion euro (CA/43/19, Figure on page 32). Some building maintenance is indeed necessary. But part of the money is for one of Mr Campinos’ pet projects: creating glass-walled offices. Mercer does not comment on these costs.

Mr Campinos strategy document points to another – potentially significant – sink for EPO money: cooperation with the Member States4. The most recent figure that we have seen for cooperation costs is about 25 million euros per year (CA/19/15). Mr Campinos now proposes to “maximize the impact of cooperation” with a new model that will be “all-inclusive and equally open to all member states”. The Council delegates as heads of the national patent offices are all potential beneficiaries of these cooperation activities. For the President the cooperation budget is an efficient tool to reward member states that support him in the Council and punish those that don’t. So we expect the cooperation budget to increase considerably despite the allegedly bad financial situation of the Office.

Finally there is the annual Inventor of the Year event. The sums concerned are relatively modest by EPO standards – a few million euro at most. But is promoting one inventor over the other (with a possible impact on the value of the invention) compatible with the EPO remaining neutral in the exercise of its functions? And is it (to use Mr Campinos’ words) “handling significant amounts of taxpayer’s money with due diligence, due process and careful legal assessment”? We do not think so.

Conclusion

The 2019 Financial Study is a very plump attempt to justify a further reduction of staff benefits while the Office continues its spending. Staff is not fooled.

The Central Staff Committee

____
3 Art. 40(1) EPC stipulates that the EPO’s budget should be balanced. We question whether with an operating surplus of about 20% the EPO budget qualifies as « balanced ».
4 Read: cooperation with the national patent offices (NPOs).

“Make your own opinion,” the reader concludes, “who do you think lies here?”

Mercer (sponsor of sites like Breitbart) and professional liars like Campinos, who only a couple of years ago attacked staff at the EUIPO in the name of ‘cost savings’…

SUEPO has been too patient with Campinos (strike postponed) in spite of him repeatedly showing that nothing will change, except for the worse.

06.11.19

Measuring Patent Quality and Employer Quality in Europe

Posted in Europe, Patents at 1:06 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Weeks ago: The Quality of Patents is Connected to the Quality of Life of Patent Examiners

Apple and scale

Summary: Comparing the once-famous and respected EPO to today’s joke of an office, which grants loads of bogus patents on just about anything including fruit and mathematics

WE LIVE in volatile times when law sort of matters ‘in principle’ but not in practice. Sometimes one needs to waste an extraordinary amount of money and spend years in several different courts for ‘justice’ (bar waste of time and money) to ‘prevail’. This extends across from staff affairs to quality of their work or patent quality. European Patent Office (EPO) Presidents Campinos and Battistelli promote software patents in Europe, which are very clearly not valid, no matter if you call them “CII” or “Hey Hi!” (AI) or whatever…

We also live in volatile times when the press as a whole is in decline and journalism hardly exists; ‘news’ about patents is directly or indirectly composed by patent law firms and as of SundayIP Kat team is sad to say farewell to GuestKat Rosie Burbidge, who is leaving the blog after 2.5 years.”

Less quality left there; she was one of their more decent writers. More patent trolls’ lobbyists like Bristows will take advantage of this vacuum, as they already have (some UPC propaganda was published there as recently as last week). Here is what IP Kat wrote, repeating what Burbidge had said in her last post (last week):

The IPKat team is sad to say farewell to GuestKat Rosie Burbidge, who is leaving the blog after 2.5 years. An expert in trade marks, designs and everything fashion, Rosie is now a partner at Gunnercooke and the author of European Fashion Law (EdwardElgar:2019). We wish her all the best for her future endeavours, and we look forward to continuing our collaboration with her in some other capacity. Thanks Rosie!

Thanks, Rosie. Indeed. We’re no foes of IP Kat, but the blog took a turn for the worse over the years — to the point where instead of exposing Battistelli corruption it went to him (for handshakes and photo ops). It’s embarrassing. From soliciting information from EPO insiders to mass-deleting all comments about Campinos!

Each month that passes we feel more ‘lonely’; it feels like nobody other than us is eager to cover EPO abuses. What happened to courage and integrity? Have all media companies become just PR/marketing companies? Is that their last remaining business model?

Here is the EPO, again (as in every day this past month), offering ‘bribes’ to scholars if and only if they serve the toxic agenda of corrupt EPO management (we wrote about it as recently as this year and before that as well). The EPO does this not only to academia but also to the media. It helps keep the media on their side. Even silence alone would serve the agenda of lowering patent quality and abusing EPO staff.

The same day the EPO also wrote: “It’s not mandatory to appoint a professional representative when applying for a European patent, but it may be helpful.”

Leaked correspondence from inside the EPO (yes, we’ve published it) debunks this advice from the EPO, which discriminates against applications/applicants who don’t hire from the patent microcosm.

It is meanwhile made more apparent that the EPO’s advocacy of software patents spreads to the media, maybe even for a fee. New Electronics now glorifies a source of great nuisance to software developers with fake patents on maths (these are not valid patents, but it’s the EPO's fault, which offers special rewards for those). Watch what the most vocal promoters of algorithm patents keep tweeting this week; they cite EPO cases as caselaw, even though actual courts (not the EPO’s) reject software patents in Europe. Based on another new piece, EPO judges already grapple with patent quality questions, but as is widely known (to everybody) they have no autonomy/independence; they’re bullied by patent maximalists at the Office. So we’re left to rely on judges outside the EPO.

European Patents are losing their prestige very fast; too many bad ones are granted and even patent maximalists now admit that courts aren’t tolerating them. Here’s a new example from this week:

Patents afford great protection for inventions, but have high threshold in order to ensure that few patents that disclose nothing new are issued. AS one can imagine from common sense, anything that is patented needs to not be obvious, as this would allow for the protection of something that lacks sufficient invention to merit protection. After all, if it is obvious, how can you claim you’ve invented or found it? Even with this is mind, what makes a patent ‘obvious’? In a long awaited decision by the UK Supreme Court, the matter was (finally) put to bed, at least in the UK.

The case of Actavis Group PTC EHF v ICOS Corporation concerned a dosage patent owned by ICOS (EP1173181), which related to the use of tadalafil (more commonly known as Cialis) in a dosage form for the treatment of sexual dysfunction. The patent was exclusively licenced to Eli Lilly. Actavis initiated proceedings to revoke the patent, arguing that it was obvious (among other points), with the matter ultimately ending up with the Supreme Court.

The UK Supreme Court squashed quite a few European Patents lately; this won’t be good for the EPO, whose own figures show that it is aware of the problem (but won’t talk about it in public).

Granting More Fundamentally Wrong Patents Will Mean Reduced Certainty, Not Increased Certainty

Posted in America, Europe, Patents at 12:10 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The rush to promote software patents completely overlooks the fact that courts keep rejecting them

Coons bribed

Summary: Law firms that are accustomed to making money from low-quality and abstract patents try to overcome barriers by bribing politicians; this will backfire because they show sheer disregard for the patent system’s integrity and merely lower the legal certainty associated with granted (by greedy offices) patents

Funded by patent litigation firms, the glorified bill which patent maximalists promoted last week is already a thing of the past. Just like last year and the year prior to that. It’s like an annual ritual and this time it’s marketed as “bipartisan” because there are two (a couple) politicians from ‘opposing’ corporate parties behind it; they’re not from oppositing sectors/interests, just a different letter on their lapel (the D/R duopoly). They’re buying laws (but will fail, yet again, as before) by stacking panels and putting together a show.

“They’re buying laws (but will fail, yet again, as before) by stacking panels and putting together a show.”Judging by reactions in patent maximalists’ blogs, we can more or less tell that expectations are low. They give it a shot, but even they realise that those Senate hearings were stacked. In “Two Observations on Last Week’s Senate Hearings on Patent Eligibility Reform” Gene Quinn (Watchtroll) has just said that the status quo is a “disaster”. He’s right. A disaster to patent trolls and parasitic law firms like his…

What they cannot deny, however, is that firms that actually produce things like the status quo a lot better and fully support AIA.

Senate members (other than Coons and his sidekick) can just look who’s promoting the Coons coup (bill): literally the lobby groups of patent trolls and the politicians funded by their law firms. It’s a form of corruption or bribery, but they prefer calling that “campaign contributions”. Of course Michael Rosen of the American Enterprise Institute (a front group for extremists like Trump and platform for patent trolls) has just backed this Coons coup — a coup against the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and 35 U.S.C. § 101. Seeing that inter partes reviews (IPRs) invalidate a lot of software parents, they just had to say something. Rosen had done this for years, typically citing the Koch ‘scholars’. Bought, paid-for bills won’t go very far. Who took the bill (invoice)? Follow the money of Coons. He has just hit the lobbyists’ media and tweets that cite Coons are patent maximalists’. He’s also boosted and amplified by patent trolls’ front groups such as IAM (e.g. here and here). Not a single productive company is supporting this. As the CCIA put it in a tweet a few days ago: “The guy *whose patents were invalidated in Alice* thinks this is a bad, overbroad bill.”

“…European Patents have got one heck of a crisis; the courts keep rejecting them again and again.”The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is already attempting to water down or ignore 35 U.S.C. § 101; that would have no impact on courts however. There are a couple new cases (in our daily links) wherein Federal Circuit judges throw out software patents. Nothing has changed!

Over here in Europe nothing is changing either, not at the courts anyway. Sure, there are software patents in Europe (wrongly granted by the EPO), but they won’t withstand judges’ scrutiny. Yesterday the EPO wrote:

Nearly 18 000 patent applications relating to self-driving vehicle technologies have been filed with the EPO in the last decade, almost 4 000 of them in 2017 alone. More interesting findings on #patents and self-driving vehicles here: http://bit.ly/SDVstudy #SelfDriving

“Many of these (not all) are fake patents and bogus patent applications that should be rejected as software patents,” I responded, “but EPO will grant them anyway…”

As we shall show in our next post, European Patents have got one heck of a crisis; the courts keep rejecting them again and again. This mirrors much of what we see in the US (more so over the past few years).

On the subject of self-driving vehicles, mind this new article that says:

The need to promote innovation through open source software (OSS) and a desire to protect patent rights may be contradictory interests for businesses investing in artificial intelligence (AI) and autonomous driving

They interject the “AI” nonsense into it; those are software patents. Earlier this week an Israeli law firm and some other law firm showed that Israel (IPLO) may be trying to allow software patents under the guise of “HEY HI!” (AI) — the same kind of patents that the EPO elevated to Inventor Award “finalist” (an Israeli company which uses the term “AI”, as per the EPO). From the article: “It seems clear that, at this point, AI implemented inventions will be reviewed by the IPLO under the same rubric as software or computer-implemented inventions..”

Notice the use of the term “computer-implemented inventions” (CII) and “AI”. The EPO helped popularise these lies. Some of these recent patents are on fictional/theoretical things. They’re designed mostly for hype and marketing — the idea that these cars are “safe” because of some patents and “HEY HI!”

06.09.19

Patent Quality Continues to Slip in Europe and We Know Who Will Profit From That (and Distract From It)

Posted in Europe, Patents at 9:44 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The “big litigation” lobby

Red hat on a girl

Summary: The corporate media and large companies don’t speak about it (like Red Hat did before entering a relationship with IBM), but Europe is being littered and saturated with a lot of bogus software patents — abstract patents that European courts would almost certainly throw out; this utter failure of the media to do journalism gets exploited by the “big litigation” lobby and EPO management that’s granting loads of invalid European Patents (whose invalidation goes underreported or unreported in the media)

THE MEDIA coverage about patents is deeply depressing because the publication houses that cover the subject are either owned by law firms or have law firms as subscribers/sponsors. This means that rarely do we witness dissent/objection to the status quo, especially in the corporate media. It also censors comments.

Law Gazette and Managing IP's role in UPC promotion and patent maximlism was noted here previously and IAM is even worse than these; right now it’s glorifying Roche patents that are likely responsible for the deaths of many poor people. Yesterday we discovered that Max Walters now works for patent maximalists (Managing IP) rather than that law firm-owned ‘news’ site (Law Gazette); speaking only to lawyers, as usual, instead of for lawyers. “Germany’s top court has refused a request for a compulsory licence, a decision that reaffirms the high bar that must be met, according to German and UK lawyers,” says the summary. And according to everybody else, what is it? One of their writers recently confronted me about this, insisting that because their target audience is only lawyers then it’s OK to just ignore everybody’s views that don’t agree with lawyers’.

“We duly take note of the fact that Bristows continues its silent ‘takeover’ or exploitation of IP Kat in order to promote patent trolls’ agenda, including the UPC, usually through Annsley Merelle Ward.”Sadly, the same has happened to IP Kat for a number of years; they have less objectivity or fewer scholars and more lawyers as their writers. They’re now publishing lies for 4iP Council (via Bristows). It’s “courtesy of Axel Ferrazzini (Managing Director of 4iP Council)” says an article titled “The Higher District Court of Düsseldorf in [patent troll] Unwired Planet puts some further constraints on SEP owners” [sic] (the article is full of misnomers and euphemisms, just like the title).

We duly take note of the fact that Bristows continues its silent ‘takeover’ or exploitation of IP Kat in order to promote patent trolls’ agenda, including the UPC, usually through Annsley Merelle Ward. It’s very, very sad as IP Kat did some good work covering European Patents/EPO issues (years ago when it was composed by very different people). It routinely brought up patent quality as well. What is it now if not a parrot of the status quo? Over the past few months we saw only one comment about EPO scandals in there (it was posted a few days ago).

Remember Heise covering EPO scandals? Yes, they did that routinely. A German-speaking person brought this new article to my attention last night (it’s dated yesterday and has plenty of comments):

#NotNice #AI (sic!) as a #swpat #Backdoor ! cc: @schestowitz

Headline: more US pat’s on GER/EU

Künstliche Intelligenz: Deutschland weit hinter USA

US-Unternehmen reichten 2018 doppelt so viele KI-Patente in Deutschland ein wie einheimische Firmen, die in Fahrzeugtechnik und Erkennungssystemen führend sind.

https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Kuenstliche-Intelligenz-Deutschland-weit-hinter-USA-4442899.html

Yes, “AI” again. Hey hi, hey hi, hey hi!

On Friday the EPO tweeted: “The Advanced Driver Assistance System developed by this Israeli computer scientist & his team at @Mobileye uses a single-lens camera & cutting-edge AI to spot & avoid traffic hazards in real time.”

“Those patents aren’t even valid (courts would reject them).”By “cutting-edge AI” they mean yet more software patents in Europe and nowadays they want to give awards for fake patents on software (not valid). It’s not just this tweet; there have been lots more like it over the past week or two (a bit repetitive even), wherein the EPO was glorifying such patents and offering special awards for these. Those patents aren’t even valid (courts would reject them). Will Battistelli think differently from courts? We shall find out soon.

European Inventor judges
EPO President António Campinos (or his ‘brilliant’ team) made Battistelli a judge (see image at the top, with the notorious politician suitably dressed for his cold heart)

Last night we caught Sara Moran’s summary of a decision from the Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Civil Division), we assume regarding a British patent (UK-IPO grants these) or more fake European Patents (typically rejected by courts only after lots of money had been wasted on predatory lawyers who love such litigation mess). Outside the paywall it uses language similar to what we often hear/read at the EPO (e.g. “added matter” and “inventive step”): “The Court of Appeal dismissed Synthon’s appeal against the Patent Court’s finding that the patent in suit did involve an inventive step over the prior art, and Teva’s appeal against the Court’s finding that certain claims of the patent were invalid for added matter.”

“Such outcomes don’t suit the agenda of patent maximalists, so they usually just look the other way, hoping that their clients won’t notice (as it would harm their confidence in such patents and lawsuits).”Every week we find at least one case of European Patents perishing in courts (at great expense to the defendant). But the media almost never covers that; we need to rely on press releases, sporadic blog posts and so on. Such outcomes don’t suit the agenda of patent maximalists, so they usually just look the other way, hoping that their clients won’t notice (as it would harm their confidence in such patents and lawsuits).

Corporate Front Groups Like OIN and the Linux Foundation Need to Combat Software Patents If They Really Care About Linux

Posted in EFF, GNU/Linux, Kernel, OIN, Patents at 8:44 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The EFF does more for Linux than groups that drape themselves in Tux logos and even put “Linux” in their name

Alex Moss, EFF

Summary: The absurdity of having groups that claim to defend Linux but in practice defend software patents, if not actively then passively (by refusing to comment on this matter)

A NEW week is about to commence. No more bogus ‘hearings’, which are stacked and stuffed with lobbyists and think tanks like IBM’s David Kappos (his handlers now include Microsoft as well because it’s funding his front group). We don’t expect the law to change, but they had their little show for a few days. The audience of patent extremists loved it! They had even paid for it [1, 2].

Where are the supposed “Linux” groups? They never even submit a single brief! Never! Even ACLU got involved in this patent debate (well outside the ACLU’s scope of operations), not to mention CCIA.

Any comments from the “Linux” groups? No, nothing. Absolutely nada.

OIN is probably in favour of software patents (same side as Microsoft and IBM), so it prefers to just keep its mouth shut. Its leadership now includes patent trolls. It’s just farcical considering their Linux- and Tux-themed initiatives, which in the past they claimed would help Linux (looking for ways to induce Linux coexistence with software patents).

“Any comments from the “Linux” groups? No, nothing.”People need to seriously ask themselves why the Linux Foundation and OIN never do even as much as issue a statement on this subject (takes a lot less effort than preparing briefs or preparing for hearings in Senate). Their silence merely enables if not empowers those who pose the greatest threat to Linux, GNU and Free software in general.

Suffice to say, last week’s hearings were all just a farce; our latest response to it mentioned Benjamin Henrion's (FFII) remarks as well as the EFF's (which posted the above photo in Twitter). Henrion is rightly upset. “EFF and others are just decoration,” he argued, “senators @ChrisCoons and @senthomtillis have no intention to seek for the right barriers to protect software developers from patents. Those hearings are just a joke! No software developer was even invited!”

They just try to give an appearance (or perception) of balance; or to shallowly lend legitimacy to these hearings. We saw similar hearings in past years and these had just about nobody (zero people) with ‘dissenting’ views; obviously nobody did anything technical, it was a consistent, monotonic parade of lawyers/attorneys.

“We saw similar hearings in past years and these had just about nobody (zero people) with ‘dissenting’ views; obviously nobody did anything technical, it was a consistent, monotonic parade of lawyers/attorneys.”As I told Henrion this morning: “Where was the Linux Foundation in these hearings? Did IBM (Manny) keep Zemlin in his little pocket? Software patents are a threat to Linux too.”

“I think that 99% people did not look past the organization’s name and got a rude shock last fall when LT [Linus Torvalds] was temporarily kicked out and then brought back in under reduced authority,” one reader told us about the “Linux” Foundation (another reader of ours calls it “the Linux-destroying Foundation” for about 5 years now).

Henrion is still the President of the FFII, but it’s underfunded and barely active. This means that operations like the “Linux” Foundation, which has an annual income of about $100,000,000, basically suck up all the capital (and voices) to do just about nothing for Linux (in this domain). Even the EFF doesn’t have anywhere near this kind of budget and yet it does something on the matter. Why?

“Why is the OSI quiet? What about OIN and the Linux Foundation? They’re worthless. Bloody worthless as we say here… and worse — they’ve morphed into organisations that arguable undermine people’s freedom.”The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) sent some nontechnical people to speak (obviously only in support of the bill), but the supposed ‘defenders’ of Linux, groups like OIN and the Linux Foundation, could not bother in any way whatsoever? Not even a short statement? Check out the Boards and the management, not to mention key members; they don’t actually oppose software patents, not even when momentum to squash these for good is already there. At the moment, software patents face unprecedented legal uncertainty in the United States’ courts, owing to 35 U.S.C. § 101/Alice (SCOTUS); by asserting such patents against a suspected (merely accused) party not only are you at risk of losing these patents; in some cases you’re forced to then pay all the legal expenses of the accused. So litigation is rarely a good option with these. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes reviews (IPRs) made it easier to squash litigation and the Federal Circuit very rarely accepts software patents as valid (there were rare exceptions in recent years).

Why is the OSI quiet? What about OIN and the Linux Foundation? They’re worthless. Bloody worthless as we say here… and worse — they’ve morphed into organisations that arguable undermine people’s freedom.

06.07.19

This Week’s US Senate Hearings on Patents Are a Farce, Just as Expected

Posted in America, Deception, Patents at 12:59 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Surrounded by wolves and hyenas. Watch David Kappos at the side.

Alex Moss, EFF

Summary: With few exceptions like the EFF (that’s Alex Moss above), Senate hears testimonies from stacked panels (full of lobbyists and think tanks), set up for the sole purpose of misleading Senate and helping them buy a law

The US Senate hearings that patent maximalists allude to are subjective beyond belief; it is pretty astounding just to what degree billionaires and their lawyers can infiltrate politics and even subvert the legal process (i.e. change courts’ outcomes). They keep trying to virtually buy laws, in effect convincing already-bribed politicians while presenting them with a parade of lobbyists.

“Here is Mossoff’s employer flaunting a law firms-bribed politician in a Watchtroll forum. It’s all connected.”At the back of our mind we can already envision those who say, “it was always this way!” or “that’s just typical politics!” But that does not mean there’s no point highlighting the issue, pointing out what’s going on.

So-called 'hearings' (whose hearings? Well, it's full of think tanks, Koch-funded 'scholars', lobbyists like Kappos and so on) are just about finished by now (or this week). Benjamin Henrion wrote: “Senate swpat hearing; when you invite only the patent community, no software developer invited “most of whom are arguing in favor of statutory reform that would tighten-up the law of eligibility.” https://patentlyo.com/patent/2019/06/hearings-continue-before.html … [] Senate hearing 3rd part next Tuesday: IBM; Qualcomm, Nokia, Interdigital = 4 patent trolls, no space for freedom of programming https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/the-state-of-patent-eligibility-in-america-part-iii …”

That’s like the European Patent Office (EPO) only minding the views/interests of those with loads of patents, as we noted last month. The above hearing is also consistent with other such hearings, which we criticised for the same reasons.

“EFF staff attorney @alexhmoss is explaining to the Senate IP Subcommittee on IP why the proposed reform to Section 101 of the Patent Act would be a disaster for software developers, small businesses, and the public,” the EFF tweeted this week with a photo (we’ve mentioned this EFF role earlier this week). It’s part of a long series of chained/clustered tweets about 35 U.S.C. § 101/Alice.

Where are programmers? None invited to this hearing? Patent maximalists (not examiners) from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) are there.

Speaking of the EPO’s narrow-minded view, why has there been no President there with a scientific background for over a decade now? Battistelli has no qualifications other than background in a notorious sociopaths factory, ENA. He didn’t even work in the area of patents until his mid-fifties. He thinks that patent office “success” means as many patents as possible, including illegal European software patents. Yesterday Henrion posted a photo of European protests and said: “Software Patents back in the US, time to reprint the yellow tshirts…”

They’re not back. Some people are attempting to bring them back.

It is worth noting, as per Henrion and a Red Hat employee (former activist against software patents), that Koch-funded liars dedicated to the domain of patents block their critics [1, 2]; some of them apparently reported me to Twitter (misreporting) in an effort to silence me after I had merely mentioned them. It’s not just Mossoff by the way; there are several of them in these hearings who are Koch funded.

Another critic noted that the CCIA “tweeted regarding the accuracy of his [Mossoff's] work earlier this week…”

Here is what was said by the CCIA about Mossoff [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]: “I see that @AdamMossoff of @cpipgmu has been added to the witness list for the first 101 hearing. Given that, I figured I’d resurface a couple older threads, explaining the fundamentally flawed nature of the data he worked with, flaws he has neither acknowledged nor corrected. https://twitter.com/PatentJosh/status/1007729695293673472 … [...] More @AdamMossoff failures. the ‘200 application overcame its 101 rejection and was later abandoned. Under Mossoff’s logic, this abandonment was caused by 101. Yeah, I don’t get it either. https://twitter.com/PatentJosh/status/1007322592267685889 … [...] Here’s an example of @AdamMossoff bad data: 14/118458 received a 101 rejection—but not an Alice/Mayo-type patentable subject matter rejection. That’s because it’s a cold fusion patent. Cold fusion and perpetual motion are basically the only kinds of usefulness rejection we see. https://twitter.com/PatentJosh/status/1007392368516108288 … [...] Some more @AdamMossoff greatest hits. Reviewing 100 applications from his dataset (which was supposed to contain applications that were abandoned due to 101), I found that *11%* had never received a 101 PSM rejection. https://twitter.com/PatentJosh/status/1007471451673382912 … [...] If the last thing you want to do is kill software, this bill is the worst way to achieve your goals. [...] While we are moving towards majority of enforcement by innovator companies, majority of patent suits is still NPE-based.” (NPE means patent troll)

Here is Mossoff’s employer flaunting a law firms-bribed politician in a Watchtroll forum. It’s all connected.

Lobbying for Watchtroll

Mossoff is part of a network of Koch-funded lies. Billionaire oil tycoons are buying US laws and ‘sponsoring’ supposed ‘intellectuals’. The EPO advertises a similar kind of program almost every day in Twitter.

A Dunch business wrote about António Campinos:

Wasn’t that the same guy who loudly campaigned before the Administrative Council a year ago that he was going to reduce litigation? Well, the truth is, the opposite seems to be true!

We’ve meanwhile noticed that James Nurton (now at Watchtroll) is the latest to do a Christian Archambeau puff piece; he used to do Battistelli puff pieces and now he does the same for the EUIPO (the EPO and EUIPO have been almost inseparable lately).

06.06.19

António Campinos Given an Extension to Prove He Respects the Rule of Law

Posted in Europe, Patents at 2:35 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“Many harvests have passed since the passage of the nation’s first modern labor laws, and all that time, generations of farmworkers have been shut out of bedrock federal labor standards, such as overtime pay and collective bargaining. But New York’s farmworkers may soon see a new dawn for labor rights, as lawmakers consider groundbreaking reforms and the courts open the door to unionization.” (Article published earlier today)

Summary: President Campinos managed to avert a strike coinciding with the next meeting of the Administrative Council; but that might only be temporary a reprieve

THE Staff Union of the European Patent Office (EPO), or SUEPO for short, appears to have postponed the strike now that there’s a sense that collective bargaining is possible.

António Campinos is given more time to show that he’s not just another Battistelli. This was noted by SUEPO in the afternoon (after someone had chatted with IPPro Magazine’s Barney Dixon) and people still take note. Key passages:

SUEPO said it had decided not to strike “this time”. A source close to the staff union said its patience had reached its limits, hence the call for the strike.

The source said previous “deleterious” policies and management that had arrived under previous EPO president Benoît Battistelli, had remained in place one year after Campinos’ arrival.

However, during Campinos’ meetings with the CSC and SUEPO he had shown signs of “compromise”.

The source added: “SUEPO is a responsible social partner and decided to give him a chance, therefore it suspended the called strike for now. However, SUEPO will monitor his concrete actions (or lack thereof) and if need be, will go back to its members again.”

Do we think Campinos will change course? Not really. But one can hope. He’s a master manipulator.

« 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