THE MANAGEMENT of the EPO does not obey very basic laws, so why obey patent law? Or honour European Parliament? Or even the German parliament (or Bavarian authorities) for that matter?
"As long as one works for Battistelli, one will never be punished or held accountable for anything."This core problem, which is lawlessness, prevails and runs deep inside the EPO these days. As long as one works for Battistelli, one will never be punished or held accountable for anything. Extrapolated immunity? These people just protect one another and if one snitches on a colleague in management there's risk of retaliation; sooner or later, like in the Mafia, people start hiring from their own family to assure blind loyalty or sometimes hire famous criminals whom they have moral leverage over. This is today's EPO.
Just like last year (and later in the same year), in the very same event, Georg Weber promotes software patents. He knows the law and he understands the problem, but using new buzzwords Georg Weber is promoting the same abomination again. As the EPO put it a few hours ago: "EPO expert Georg Weber is speaking at #CEBIT18 about patents for #Industry40."
"...like in the Mafia, people start hiring from their own family to assure blind loyalty or sometimes hire famous criminals whom they have moral leverage over. This is today's EPO."Industry 4.0, ICT, CII, 4IR and other marketing nonsense can be viewed as surrogates for software patents. The EPO recently organised a conference using the "AI" buzzword; it was all about software patents. Google is filing software patent applications aplenty, even on other people's work as we noted yesterday. There's this new article titled "Google's DeepMind Files AI Patents," which reminds us that "AI" is growingly becoming a loophole of choice by which to patent software. Also see yesterday's article about "AI", pushing that same old software patents agenda using the "AI" buzzword, courtesy of the man behind Microsoft's (and prior to that IBM's) patent blackmail strategy, Marshall Phelps.
"Industry 4.0, ICT, CII, 4IR and other marketing nonsense can be viewed as surrogates for software patents."The EPO keeps shuffling between buzzwords. The EPO now links to this page (warning: epo.org link) in which the EPO is (as usual) avoiding the word "software" when it comes to patents (but it still grants 'algorithm monopolies' which go well beyond copyrights).
To quote that page about Weber's talk:
Patents are a controversial topic in ICT, but they play an important role. Whatever your views on patents, if you work in an innovative field, you need to know about them.
If you can understand the pros and cons about patenting versus secrecy or an open-source approach, or the interaction between standards and patents, you will be in a better position to take the right strategic decisions for your innovations. And if you know where to find information on other people's patents, you will be able to use that information to your advantage.
"Don't fall for the buzzwords because several times last year he explicitly said that he supported software patents and insisted on it."This is really dangerous because EPO patent maximalists/extremists like Battistelli are using UPC as a Trojan horse by which to bring software patents to every nation in Europe (bypassing the national patent laws). They want to impose a 'unitary' patent on algorithms, which bypasses several burdens, such as litigation in the actual target's (accused party's) country; that also leaps past the national laws/restrictions. Why would that ever be allowed? Who even decided on this? Short-sighted or corrupt politicians (or clueless, having never bothered to even read what they vote on) allow a bunch of law firms, notably Team UPC, to write their law in another country.
The Dennemeyer Group has just published this promotional piece titled "The Validation Of European Patents Can Be Very Expensive." To quote:
The validation of European patents can be very expensive. Budgetary constraints may hinder, limit or influence the selection of the different states where a user may wish to secure protection. The lack of visibility over the applicable translation regimes and procedural requirements often makes it difficult to reach a cost effective, tactical and strategic decision.
The Dennemeyer validation web application offers you access to a method for validating a European patent in your preferred states based on a given budget.
By relying on different parameters, for example, the geographical location, and/or the applicable translation regimes and indicators such as gross domestic product or most frequently designated countries, you can speed up the decision making process, reduce the likelihood of errors and align the costs with your planned budget.
"To recapitulate, what these people hope to accomplish/obtain here is a 'unitary' law that throws out all those laws in pertinent nations that disallow software patents, among other 'pesky' (to litigation) things."Really? Who says forthcoming? The UPC is very much stuck and has been stuck for about a year with no impending resolution, just lockdown/lockout at the FCC.
To recapitulate, what these people hope to accomplish/obtain here is a 'unitary' law that throws out all those laws in pertinent nations that disallow software patents, among other 'pesky' (to litigation) things. The EPO is a very potent threat to technology all across Europe. Cui bono? A bunch of law firms of course... ⬆
