Comments for Techrights

Comment on EPO and the Art of Distraction, Disinformation by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Dr. Roy Schestowitz — Fri, 25 Nov 2016 09:41:40 +0000

But still, Battistelli is working his way up. Four is greater than zero (in former French colony).

Comment on EPO and the Art of Distraction, Disinformation by Anton_P

Anton_P — Fri, 25 Nov 2016 09:36:41 +0000

According to this site:

http://knoema.de/atlas/Monaco/topics/Forschung-und-Entwicklung/Patentantr%C3%A4ge/Patentantr%C3%A4ge-Gebietsfremde

Monaco manages around 4 (yes, four!) international applicatons per year. Hardly worth the air far for the signing ceremony, I would have thought.

Comment on Microsoft Loves Linux Patent Tax by fredex

fredex — Thu, 24 Nov 2016 19:24:56 +0000

Of course M$ loves Linux,… they’re allegedly making billions of dollars off it, without having to lift a finger.

don’t expect that to change until such time as their victims get a collective spine and sue them for fraud, or some such.

Comment on Threats to Dismissed EPO Staff Representative Allegedly Hold Pension (Blackmail Point) to Silence Him Even After Unjust Dismissal, Munich Goes Protesting for Him by Politelyours

Politelyours — Mon, 07 Nov 2016 21:10:50 +0000

Laurent is right. We heard a talk (by Laurent) red out loud on today´s demonstration. He says, although Battistelli demonstrates strenghth and makes us believe he is strong, he is not. He is weaker than we are and he is at the end and not without our continued struggle. I do not know him personally, but the history has shown that dictators will lose at the end when the oppressed (mass) raise their voice. It will not be the first time and not the last, but it will be our victory! So we have to stick together and forget the lies we already know are just lies.
Let´s not kill the messenger!

Comment on Leaked: Minutes From the Administrative Council of the EPO Regarding the ‘Reform’ (Exile) of the Boards of Appeal by Anton_P

Anton_P — Wed, 26 Oct 2016 13:01:41 +0000

The appeal fee comparison with the USPTO is somewhat disingenuous. An appeal at the USPTO costs between $200 and $800. For applications and ex parte matters, a fee of forwarding the matter to the appeal boad costs between $500 and $2,000. For an inter-partes appeal there is an extra brief fee of between $500 and $2,000, and a hearing fee of between $325 and $1,300.
https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-payment/uspto-fee-schedule#PTAB Fees

An inventor applicant who has had his application rejected thus has to pay $1,025 to have the matter considered by the appeal board with an oral hearing, much less than the current EPO appeal fee.
Inter partes gets expensive but still only costs $6,100 max.

Comment on Leaked: Minutes From the Administrative Council of the EPO Regarding the ‘Reform’ (Exile) of the Boards of Appeal by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Dr. Roy Schestowitz — Wed, 26 Oct 2016 08:56:14 +0000

Thanks, I did not even know it was publicly accessible. Maybe it wasn’t at the time. Anything worth highlighting in it?

Comment on Leaked: Minutes From the Administrative Council of the EPO Regarding the ‘Reform’ (Exile) of the Boards of Appeal by Anton_P

Anton_P — Wed, 26 Oct 2016 08:27:52 +0000

The approved version of CA/43716 Rev 1 is to be found here (warning EPO link):
http://www.epo.org/modules/epoweb/acdocument/epoweb2/221/en/CA-43-16_Rev._1_en.pdf

I could not spot it in your otherwise excellent review of the council hearing.

Comment on EPO Spokesman Lies to IP Watch in Order to Save Face and Save the King (Battistelli) by One of those...

One of those... — Thu, 20 Oct 2016 20:52:00 +0000

Heh, in the disciplinary committee are not “staff representatives”.
SR does not have the man-power to send elected ones there, plus management has attacked several of the DC members, so they refused to send SR into the DC….
So, Management randomly “drafted” staff members from a list of “volunteers” and assigned the DC duty as “representatives for staff”.
ILOAT already said s.th. about this….. But management has further decreased SR manpower by not appointing new SR members…

Comment on Leaked: Outcomes of 149th Administrative Council’s Meeting at the European Patent Organisation by One of those...

One of those... — Tue, 18 Oct 2016 19:39:20 +0000

The image above shows the EPO – internal summary of the AC meeting as seen by the president…

At http://www.epo.org/service-support/updates/2016/20161017.html you’ll find the public summary of the same council meeting as reported by the AC secretariat…

Minor details, but impressive how these details translate….

Comment on Echo Chamber’s Lobbying: Team UPC Citing Team UPC as ‘Proof’ Regarding the UPC by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Dr. Roy Schestowitz — Thu, 06 Oct 2016 10:59:05 +0000

Unitary or unified patent court.

Comment on Echo Chamber’s Lobbying: Team UPC Citing Team UPC as ‘Proof’ Regarding the UPC by ricegf

ricegf — Thu, 06 Oct 2016 10:54:25 +0000

What’s a UPC?

Comment on Dutch Court Rules Against SUEPO (in a Reversal), But EPO Management Would Have Ignored the Ruling Even If SUEPO Won (Updated) by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Dr. Roy Schestowitz — Tue, 04 Oct 2016 12:19:31 +0000

I was extra careful not to say anything about the Juve article before/until a German-speaking person handed over the whole thing.

There are still some articles I wish we had translations of so that I can properly respond to them (some DE, some IT, now one in FR).

Can anyone do this one for us?

http://business.lesechos.fr/directions-juridiques/droit-des-affaires/brevets-et-marques/le-paquet-brevet-suspendu-au-brexit-300551.php#

Comment on Dutch Court Rules Against SUEPO (in a Reversal), But EPO Management Would Have Ignored the Ruling Even If SUEPO Won (Updated) by flintstone

flintstone — Tue, 04 Oct 2016 12:12:24 +0000

Yes, I was a bit too fast. I have now seen the update, and even that “One of those” had already published a comment similar to mine…

Comment on Dutch Court Rules Against SUEPO (in a Reversal), But EPO Management Would Have Ignored the Ruling Even If SUEPO Won (Updated) by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Dr. Roy Schestowitz — Tue, 04 Oct 2016 11:52:23 +0000

I had typed and published the article before the translation from Petra was ready, hence one needs to read the update and the correction to get a better picture. It’s also why I don’t like to rely on automated translations for anything.

Comment on Dutch Court Rules Against SUEPO (in a Reversal), But EPO Management Would Have Ignored the Ruling Even If SUEPO Won (Updated) by flintstone

flintstone — Tue, 04 Oct 2016 11:09:29 +0000

Please note that, as is written near the end of the text, this is only the opinion from the Advocate General. The court itself could theoretically disregard this opinion, when it delivers its verdict (expected on 20.01.2017). I personally don’t believe that they will disregard it. In any case, it is rather sad that the EPO appeals on its immunity rather than to deal with the problem identified by the lower court.

Comment on Software Patents Are Against the First Amendment, Rules a CAFC Judge in Historic Decision That is Another Nail in the Software Patents Coffin by Needs Sunlight

Needs Sunlight — Tue, 04 Oct 2016 11:05:38 +0000

Software as expression goes further back than 2015:

http://archive.arstechnica.com/wankerdesk/2q99/freespeech-1.html

It is, after all, covered by copyright and that has to do with expression.

Whether that expression is speech or not is also rather settled, and not something new:

“Communication does not lose constitutional protection as “speech” simply because it is expressed in the language of computer code.”
http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise50.html

I suspect that the ADD nature of social media and the proliferation of shills and astroturfers on the topic have caused people to forget. A lot of people like to pretend that the noise coming from social media is somehow informing or empowering them and giving them a leg up on the world so to speak rather than the exact opposite. Also, average people only remember things for a few months at best, especially when that thing is outside the area of their immediate interest. That is why M$ brings up the same attacks and disinformation again and again every 18 months or so.

Comment on Dutch Court Rules Against SUEPO (in a Reversal), But EPO Management Would Have Ignored the Ruling Even If SUEPO Won (Updated) by One of those...

One of those... — Fri, 30 Sep 2016 20:08:09 +0000

The above article is just an opinion of an “expert” advising the court.
Whether the judges follow this advice or not remains to be seen, decision expected for 20 January 2017.

Comment on Team UPC is Interjecting Itself Into the Media Ahead of Tomorrow’s Lobbying Push Against the European Council and Against European Interests by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Dr. Roy Schestowitz — Fri, 30 Sep 2016 09:46:16 +0000

They have failed to compel the UK to ratify (they tried hard). They are currently trying to swap London (ASAP!) with Milan, then make the UPC somehow a reality (without any major overhaul and rename). They hope that with or without Brexit/Art. 15 the UK will join in and they'll capitalise on their efforts to ratify EU-wide thereafter. Saying that UPC is lost is realism; but trying to salvage it somehow is another thing. It needs to be scuttled. It's a real danger to everyone but oligarchs (and their lawyers whom they pay).

Comment on Team UPC is Interjecting Itself Into the Media Ahead of Tomorrow’s Lobbying Push Against the European Council and Against European Interests by Anton_P

Anton_P — Fri, 30 Sep 2016 09:37:44 +0000

I don’t get this current anti-Bristows rhetoric. To me it appears that Johnson is saying that the UPC is dead in the water and it is time for the relevant institutions to recognise this and deal with it. How is this lobbying for the UPC?

Comment on As Part of So-called ‘Reforms’, the EPO’s President is Gradually Eliminating the Boards of Appeal, Not Just Their Independence by One of those...

One of those... — Thu, 15 Sep 2016 19:42:38 +0000

[i]THE EPO is an office like no other office, but WIPO is a close match because it too is unaccountable[/i]

At least with WIPO the member states are picking up their responsibilities and are not hiding behind the reports as presented by the management.
The 1000 pages report which got locked away by WIPO management and replaced by a wishy-washy 4 page “summary” written by management-selected “experts”.

The full report will be published and only edited to remove names to protect the persons concerned…

http://www.ip-watch.org/2016/09/14/group-of-nations-demand-un-investigative-report-on-wipo-director/

I heard EPO management is not too happy about that, as a lot of the attacks on the independent audits and staff representation and union representation has been modeled on WIPO doings and any issues broght against the EPO management approach has been brushed aside by argueing “this is best practice in international organisations”.

Nevermind that there is no definition of “best practice”, and “best” from which point of view….