09.25.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 12:45 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Reference: “With French Election Over, Unions Fear Layoffs”
Summary: A somewhat pessimistic look (albeit increasingly realistic look) at the European Patent Office, where unions are under fire for raising legitimate concerns about the direction taken by the management since a largely French team was put in charge
PDF FILES WITH GRAPHS in them (internal EPO data) have already taught us all we needed to know (we learned from them what examiners are seeing). Patent quality at the EPO is dying if not dead. It’s only a matter of time before the public finds out about it and applicants come to grips with it. This would have a devastating effect on anyone who was granted an EP (European Patent) before Battistelli and potentially affect the valuation of companies to the point where they’re becoming insolvent.
“One might hesitantly say that union-busting agenda is intended to set the tone or prepare the ground for appalling ‘reforms’, such as layoffs.”What we’re seeing inside the EPO is horrifying for outside observers and even mortifying for insiders. It looks like they’re about to lose their jobs. Battistelli, a nontechnical charlatan, even thinks he can replace human operators and examiners with machines. What a lunacy this is!
It’s easy to see why Battistelli attacks staff that speaks out, notably staff representatives. These people are seeing the writings on the wall and speak to colleagues about it. The latest attack on staff (blaming everything on them, especially the senior ones) reinforces the belief that the EPO will replace highly-specialised examiners with junior workers (or rubberstampers) on short-term contracts and no lucrative benefits that are necessary to attract true talent (the EPO is no longer an attractive employer).
“It’s easy to see why Battistelli attacks staff that speaks out, notably staff representatives. These people are seeing the writings on the wall and speak to colleagues about it.”The so-called ‘social study’ will be the subject of future posts of ours. “There seem to be some interesting discrepancies between the “Social Study” and “OHSRA”,” one reader told us. Prepare for some major debunking of the EPO’s management with its talking point for next month's conference. Given the spending waste of over a millions Euros per year on PR, expect some media to repeat the lies as early as next week (starting tomorrow). Managing IP is already coordinating with the EPO a release of a bogus ‘interview’ with Battistelli (part 2), in which he will be allowed to spread his latest misinformation (which he himself commissioned with EPO budget). Managing IP is generally regarded as somewhat of an EPO mouthpiece these days.
“Battistelli has put the EPO on a euthanasia plan.”Putting aside the so-called ‘social study’ and conference (actually lobbying the Administrative Council just before an important meeting where social climate is on the agenda), let’s not forget that EPO managers “harass, attack/charge methodically their victims on Fridays and/or on their birthdays or before holidays,” as one insider told us last night. Let’s also not forget that they lie about their mistreatment of these people, they allegedly make “demonstrably fabricated accusations,” (we saw that in Munich and now it’s happening in The Hague) and they presently witch-hunt representatives in virtually all branches including Berlin (even the President of SUEPO Central was warned). No wonder SUEPO’s Web site has not been updated for nearly a fortnight now! Nothing but silence…
“EPO staff is rightly concerned and unless Battistelli and his cronies drop their agenda immediately (the UPC is already failing for them), everyone in Europe will suffer, not just EPO staff.”One might hesitantly say that union-busting agenda is intended to set the tone or prepare the ground for appalling ‘reforms’, such as layoffs. The EPO is unable to hire talent, and even after lowering the employment requirements the hiring is far too slow and members of the recruitment team are leaving (high staff turnover). We saw reports about it and the numbers speak for themselves. Battistelli has put the EPO on a euthanasia plan. Those who don’t leave or retire early will be increasingly — more and more over time — be pushed out or face growing demands that are not fulfillable. It’s like they were set up to fail, so that Team Battistelli can replace them with low-wage, obedient staff that are on limited contract, making them disposable and without pension liabilities. It does not make fiscal sense for Europe, but maybe it makes fiscal sense to Battistelli and large corporations that wish to amass tens of thousands of patents (each!) in Europe. They just want another USPTO.
The next post will present more facts supportive of what was stated above. EPO staff is rightly concerned and unless Battistelli and his cronies drop their agenda immediately (the UPC is already failing for them), everyone in Europe will suffer, not just EPO staff. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Apple, Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, Patents at 11:48 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A quick look at various new articles of interest (about software patents) and what can be deduced from them, especially now that software patents are the primary barrier to Free/Libre Open Source software adoption
THE previous post spoke about misleading coverage which would have us believe there’s a software patents rebound in the US. There is none of that, it’s just wishful thinking.
According to this new Slashdot post, linking to a report already mentioned in our daily links, in spite of the huge number of payment technology software patents being crushed (about 90% of them!), Accenture (somewhat of an evil and manipulative Microsoft ‘proxy’ in the UK) rushes for software patents in that area. As we noted here a few months ago, patents in this area are a growing cause for concern because they can undermine innovation. Things like Bitcoin and even Free/Libre Open Source software are affected profoundly. It’s not necessarily companies like Accenture and Microsoft that sue, but Microsoft has many patent trolls out there. Those trolls are no longer just a problem in the US; even in east Asia’s markets they are a growing problem or an epidemic (patent trolls spread there and there are new reports to that effect from publications that deny the existence of patent trolls).
Speaking of patent trolls, Joe Mullin has this new article about the latest moves from Mr. Horn. He summarised that as “Company backed by Nokia, Sony, and MPEG-LA gets a $3M verdict.” MPEG-LA is a massive obstruction to Free/Libre Open Source software, for reasons we covered here many times over the years.
“MPEG-LA is a massive obstruction to Free/Libre Open Source software, for reasons we covered here many times over the years.”Times are rough for those who develop software whenever software patents maintain some potency and patent trolls have an incentive to sue, not just to threaten. According to last week’s post from Patently-O the “patent act authorizes district court to award enhanced damages.” But only if you actually read patents, so don’t. Willful infringement can induce further penalties. To quote Patently-O regarding Halo [1, 2]:
The patent act authorizes district court to award enhanced damages. 35 U.S.C. 284 (“the court may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed”). In Halo v. Pulse, the Supreme Court held that the statute grants district courts discretion in awarding enhanced damages – although noting that the punitive damages should ordinarily be limited to egregious infringement – “typified by willful infringement.” In rejecting the Federal Circuit’s Seagate test, the Court held proof of “subjective willfulness” is sufficient to prove egregious infringement. “The subjective willfulness of a patent infringer, intentional or knowing, may warrant enhanced damages, without regard to whether his infringement was objectively reckless.” Halo at 1933. As with other punitive damage regimes – proof sufficient for an award does not necessitate such an award. In patent cases, punitive damages remain within the discretion of the district court even after sufficient evidence establish the egregious behavior.
Another interesting article from Patently-O speaks about obviousness and prior art, along the lines stating that:
In response to being sued for patent infringement, Apple filed for inter partes reexamination of ClassCo’s Patent No. 6,970,695. That litigation (originally filed in 2011) has been stayed pending the resolution here. Although the patent had survived a prior reexamination, this time the Examiner rejected the majority of the patent claims as obvious; the PTAB affirmed those rejections; and the Federal Circuit has now re-affirmed.
The patent relates to a “caller announcement” system that uses a phone’s speaker (rather than screen or separate speaker) to announce caller identity information. The system includes a “memory storage” that stores identify information being announced.
The examiner identified the prior art as U.S. Patent No. 4,894,861 (Fujioka) that teaches all of the claimed elements (of representative claim 2) except for use of the phone’s regular audio speaker (rather than a separate speaker) to announce a caller’s identity (claimed as the “audio transducer”). A second prior art reference was then identified as U.S. Patent No. 5,199,064 (Gulick) that taught the use of the audio transducer for providing a variety of call related alerts.
What’s interesting here is that Apple, which uses software patents against rivals (including against Linux/Android), suddenly fancies invalidating one. Had there been no software patents, none of this mess would be necessary. Moreover, no money would flow into the pockets of patent law firms at the expense of developers and people who purchase products. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Deception, Patents at 10:57 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
It’s not alleged infringers who resort to foul play but those who game the system to classify everyone and everything “infringer” (so as to tax everyone and everything)
Photo from Reuters
Summary: The sheer dishonesty of the patent microcosm (seeking to bring back software patents by misleading the public) and those who are helping this microcosm change the system from the inside, owing to intimate connections from their dubious days inside government
“The district court found all of Sprint’s asserted claims invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2.”
This is one among various new stories which speak of the tightening of patent scope in the USPTO or outside of it, i.e. the kind of stories that patent law firms don’t want the public to see. It’s not good for lawyers’ business. The stories patent lawyers refuse to cover are notably stories where CAFC smashes software patents to pieces with Alice (or §101) as the basis (it happens almost all the time). How can they overlook so many cases which involve either PTAB or the courts? Are they that biased and dishonest? Yes, apparently they are. Here is another case covered this past week by Patently-O. It says that CAFC “affirms that Affinity’s challenged claims invalid as directed to an abstract idea. when “stripped of excess claim verbiage”, Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 7,970,379 “is directed to a broadcast system in which a cellular telephone located outside the range of a regional broadcaster (1) requests and receives network-based content from the broadcaster via a streaming signal, (2) is configured to wirelessly download an application for performing those functions, and (3) contains a display that allows the user to select particular content.” Slip opinion.”
“Even today, on a weekend, McRO still pops up in news feeds.”A few articles that we mentioned before, e.g. [1, 2], continue to resurface in news feeds along with others (new ones [1, 2, 3, 4]), serving to distract from cases like the above. The patent microcosm in the US is still trying to resurrect software patents and misleading or selective coverage seems to have become the means, as was the case earlier this year with Enfish. The cherry-picking involves even two patent lawyers at Watchtroll — a site which blasts the UN for what it calls an “Attack on Patents”, dubbing the UN’s report “fundamentally flawed” because it’s not good for maximalists. We’re not sure whether to laugh or cry because in the eyes of these people patent scope is just a nuisance or a travesty, rather than the thing which serves to legitimise the patent system and sometimes even protect investment in research (not the case when it comes to particular domains). At the middle of the month we said that software patenting proponents can go on for weeks milking McRO [1, 2] and this is exactly what is still happening (for nearly a fortnight now). Even today, on a weekend, McRO still pops up in news feeds. Why just McRO and why not the many other CAFC cases which deemed software patents invalid? That’s part of their propaganda tactics. It’s sad and we challenge anyone out there to prove that it’s untrue.
“Just more wishful thinking from patent maximalists looking for the right moment to stack statistics and issue some self-serving, deceiving statements.”A patent attorney who promotes software patents (and confronted yours truly on the subject before hiding behind a block) relies on small sample set of just 4 (yes, four!) to lie about the status quo. The other day he wrote: “Over the past 2 weeks, District Courts have denied motions to dismiss patent infringement cases based on 101/Alice 3X and granted 1X.”
Based on that tiny sample set he said: “We may be seeing the beginning of the end of the patent slaughter by Alice. It will take awhile for the USPTO to catch up.”
Are these patents (on software) coming back? Not by a long shot. Just more wishful thinking from patent maximalists looking for the right moment to stack statistics and issue some self-serving, deceiving statements. Same as Team UPC (see proponents of the UPC having a go again this weekend, e.g. in the IP Kat‘s comments [1, 2, 3], copying in their Google Plus posts into IP Kat while repeating the old tired talking points).
“They hope to attract more business, i.e. patent applications, litigation, etc.”The patent microcosm (both in the EU and the US) continues to lobby for its own interests and lies about all sorts of things. This leads us to the assumption that patent lawyers can be dishonest to the extreme and that their assessments of the status quo are more like shameless self-promotion, not objective advice. They pretend not to see what they prefer not to see. They are not helping clients, they are misleading them. They hope to attract more business, i.e. patent applications, litigation, etc.
The McRO hype one sees in the media this month is in vain; it was the same with Enfish. It barely changed anything at all. Even proponents of software patents (for many years now) — those who do not necessarily gain financially from them (as they just write about the topic) — go with the headline “Despite the CAFC’s recent 101 decisions don’t expect a deal frenzy or rapid rises in patent values”. To quote this article from the end of last week:
Over the summer, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued three decisions in software patent cases which, collectively have resolved some of the questions hanging over just what is eligible for patent protection. The most recent decision, McRO (dba Planet) v Bandai Namco Games America which was issued last week, has made arguably the biggest impression on the patent-owning community. Microsoft’s IP head Erich Andersen declared in a blog post that the decision “strengthened the law related to software patent eligibility under Section 101 of the Patent Act”.
Now bear in mind that’s what IAM says. It is typically amplifying Microsoft and their former ‘IP’ people (heck, their entire online system is heavily/purely Microsoft-based, which is rather unusual in this area of computing). Even IAM does not believe that McRO is going to change much. Regarding the person they cite, we have mentioned the above from Erich Andersen at least thrice since the McRO decision, noting that it proves just how much Microsoft pushes for software patents (even paying a lobbyist, David Kappos, for this purpose). Has David Kappos already registered as a corporate lobbyist? If not, he should. It would embarrass the USPTO for sure, but disclosure requirements for public officials are imperative. Is the USPTO’s pension plan so appalling that former officials need to turn into lobbyists for money (corrupting influence)?
“Even IAM does not believe that McRO is going to change much.”Speaking of corrupting influence, Randall Rader, the corrupt CAFC judge (we wrote about it before), joins the industry after he left (or was ejected) in disgrace. Systemic corruption doesn’t get any worse than this…
Here is what IAM wrote about the subject:
It’s all happening at China’s latest high-tech darling LeEco – one of the country’s fastest growing brands. Recently, it has pulled off a series of apparent coups as it continues to shore up its IP credentials ahead of expansion at home and abroad. But it also seems that one high-profile name has left the company after a matter of months.
Randall Rader, former chief judge of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and one of the world’s most renowned IP jurists, signed a “strategic cooperative agreement” with LeEco while visiting the company’s headquarters in Beijing, according to a report yesterday from Beijing-based IP agents firm Sanyou.
Speaking to IAM, a spokesperson for LeEco’s IP department confirmed that Rader will be formally collaborating with the firm, but could not give further details; so, we’ll have to wait for more information on his role. When Rader quit the CAFC back in June 2014, China, and the Asia-Pacific region more broadly, featured significantly in his post-retirement plans. What exactly he will bring to the company isn’t clear. Perhaps his participation points to a belief on the part of LeEco management that they could potentially be involved in a lot of litigation once they enter the US market in earnest. Alternatively (or additionally), Rader is well-known as an IP teacher, so could be working with LeEco IP personnel to bring them up to speed with key international issues and doing in-depth training.
Recall articles of ours like "The Corrupt Judge Rader (of CAFC) Still Pursuing Bad (More Aggressive) Patent System in the US" and "Judge Randall Rader Redefines “Patent Troll”". Expect to hear more about this scandalous figure in years to come, this time due to his capacity inside the private sector (like revolving doors). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
09.24.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 3:08 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The Battistelli ‘revolution’ is just a gory mess
Reference: Joseph-Ignace Guillotin
Summary: The gradual destruction of the European Patent Office (EPO), which was once unanimously regarded as the world’s best, by a neo-liberal autocrat from France, Benoît Battistelli
THE extremely unpopular Battistelli regime at the EPO has turned the entire institution (or Organisation, not just the Office) into a laughing stock. We used to think it paled in comparison to the USPTO (about a couple of years ago), but after publishing more than a thousand articles about the EPO it seems evident that the EPO sets the standards for abuse at international bodies (worse by far than WIPO and broader in terms of scale). Right now there are attempts to blame low-level staff for this.
Due to Team Battistelli, the Office is rapidly losing public support. It took more than 40 years to gain credibility and Battistelli ruins it all in just a few years if not as little as months. He even harms the very function of the Office by killing patent scope and patent quality. Dr. Glyn Moody retweeted Stephen Curry regarding an article we mentioned the other day in relation to the EPO; the situation with regard to patent scope has gotten him upset enough to say “this is yet another reason why we need to abolish patents…” (we presume he meant as a whole because these patents serve to discredit the system’s goals).
Yesterday the EPO was trying to associate itself with aerospace, even though the EPO is run by a right-wing politician who knows zilch about science and detests people who are scientists. He treats the Office like a crude production line and it shows. At the same time the EPO is inherently rotten from the top down (the rot comes/starts from the head) and it is all crooked when it comes to bidding and tenders. Watch the latest nonsense from the EPO. They try to give an impression of transparency and accountability when in fact, as one comment put it today (emphasis is ours):
US becoming an EPO memberstate says…
BB [Battistelli] appoints A. Keyak [sic] a US national based in Washington as a “EPO Delegate to the United States” furthermore he gets carte blanche to establish a network within the Office to support him in his future role.
It is clear that DG5 again has not read the EPO Serv. Regs, as to who can be appointed by the EPO and at what distance he has to reside from the EPO buildings,… home working on a permanent basis from Washington and not being a national of one of the EPO Member states is clearly something for the IU or are some Chinese, Japanese delegates to come as well? … furthermore should the AC not be informed about BB’s industry lobbyist activities behind the scenes for attracting foreign investments to France.
Keyack’s bizarre role was last mentioned yesterday and we wrote a lot more about him before [1, 2]. How on Earth does Battistelli keep his job in the face of all those scandals? The answer is, total lack of accountability; what used to exist of it (or left of it) has been deliberately shut down by Battistelli, with a supine, cowardly Administrative Council consenting to it.
Judging by the latest propaganda from the EPO, it’s all business as usual. Watch the latest publicity stunt which they promoted in Twitter, their Web site (warning: may be trackable) and even the European authorities’ platform. To quote the last of these (pertaining to patent scope or patents on seeds and plants):
The Community Plant Variety Office was pleased to host a workshop with many officials of the European Patent Office (EPO) in Angers on 21 and 22 September.
[...]
Martin Ekvad, President of the CPVO and Heli Pihlajamaa, Director Patent Law at the EPO, welcomed the fruitful and very useful workshop for both organisations and look forward to further cooperation.
The organisation and participation of the two organisations in conferences, courses, workshops and other meetings of mutual interest with the aim of maintaining high quality decisions in both institutions will complement this cooperation.
So the EPO is lobbying in Parliament and the Commission (recall what happened and who attended Battistelli’s hugely expensive lobbying event) while at the same time claiming immunity from both and denying the rules as they were put together in the EPC (e.g. exclusion of software patents*).
Here is Barker Brettell LLP speaking about how the EPO is entering a phase of turbulence by basically making a mockery out of the patent examination process, rushing it all as if speed can be attained without compromising quality. To quote this new article: “The European Patent Office (EPO) brought in new guidelines on 1st July 2016 which aim to simplify [sic] the opposition procedure and deliver decisions faster. Here we report on the impact of the new guidelines. Full details of the changes and a useful animation can be obtained via the EPO website.
“The opposition procedure provides third parties with the opportunity [sic] to challenge the validity of European patents centrally, by filing an opposition within nine months of grant. After the opposition deadline has passed a third party must undertake separate national invalidity proceedings, which can be more costly, complex and time consuming. As such, the opposition procedure is popular and approximately four per cent of all granted patents are opposed. According to the EPO annual report (2015) 31 per cent of opposed patents were revoked, 38 per cent were maintained in amended form and 31 per cent survived unamended.”
Given the systematic marginalisation of the appeals process by Battistelli, this has got to be some kind of a joke. It’s clear that Battistelli just wants to rubberstamp everything very quickly, leaving little or no opportunity for in-depth reassessment. It’s truly a recipe for disaster and possibly the end of the EPO as we know it. Some time soon we shall provide more details from the inside, shedding more light on how terrible things have gotten. █
____
* CEN and CENELEC would like to help poison Europe with FRAND, based on this recent publication. They want to advance patents you cannot work around and must pay for, even when they’re likely invalid in Europe.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 2:24 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Team UPC has no sense of shame or humility because it wants more money and power
Summary: Without even consulting the British public or the European public (both of whom would be severely harmed by the UPC), the flag bearers of the UPC continue to bamboozle and then pressure politicians, public servants and nontechnical representatives
THEY JUST NEVER give up, do they? Perseverance is therefore required from both sides.
Team UPC, a small group of self-serving patent law firms, is trying to steal democracy and hijack the law in a truly undemocratic if not antidemocratic move. They brainwash public officials, throw incentives at them, and then pressure Battistelli's British photo op mate, Lucy.
“Team UPC, a small group of self-serving patent law firms, is trying to steal democracy and hijack the law in a truly undemocratic if not antidemocratic move.”IP Kat (whose staff/writers include Bristows LLP staff who exploited the platform for UPC lobbying for a number of years now) published this piece in the afternoon. It must be like the hundredth so-called ‘analysis’ of Brexit and the UPC (we put analysis in scare quotes because these are typically composed by Team UPC or think tanks/pressure/interest groups like CIPA).
As we have demonstrated here many times in the past, the UPC is extremely undesirable to the vast majority of European businesses and after a Brexit referendum it is dead and buried, no doubt about it at all. Unless… Team UPC can pull some dirty tricks that they have up their sleeves, hence our eternal vigilance.
“So,” says IP Kat, “while it may be legally possible for the UK to overcome the requirements of Opinion 1/09 by a new agreement, it could still be very politically sticky to sell a treaty which proposes the ongoing supremacy of EU law over the UK – even within the relatively limited context of patent disputes before the UPC.”
“They brainwash public officials, throw incentives at them, and then pressure Battistelli’s British photo op mate, Lucy.”In other words, any attempt to ratify the UPC right now would be extremely antidemocratic and flirting with “corrupt”.
Meanwhile, as pointed out to us by one reader, one of the latest so-called ‘analyses’ of the UPC and Brexit came from Edward Nodder from Bristows LLP (attempting to rebrand as “Bristows UPC” in order to capitalise on change/transitions induced by their own lobbying). The wording is extremely revealing and it piggybacks Battistelli cronies like Margot Fröhlinger [1, 2, 3, 4]. The villainous Bristows (Team UPC) dare say “that not only will the pressure for UK ratification of the UPC Agreement continue, but [...] a decision is wanted within weeks.”
So they play dirty. Bristows has, all along, been a major contributor to this dirty play.
“Nodder did not dare point out that not a single person at AIPPI (which he wrote about) believed the UPC would happen (based on a quick straw poll at the event).”To quote further: “Despite universal agreement that the UPC would be better with UK participation, there is an unwillingness, in some quarters at least, to wait for the UK. Dr Froehlinger said that under the EU principles of sincere cooperation, the UK should either ratify or withdraw from the UPC Agreement. She said that under streamlined procedures other countries could make modest amendments to the existing Agreement and re-ratify quickly – within months – and hence go ahead without the UK. Thierry Sueur believed the unitary patent and UPC system to be important for innovation and growth in Europe. In such a new regime London would lose the pharmaceutical branch of the UPC’s central division, but Dr Froehlinger would not be drawn upon whether the political negotiations on the fate of this branch (which city or cities would host it) would involve only France and Germany, or other countries, nor would she speculate on how long such negotiations might take.”
Nodder did not dare point out that not a single person at AIPPI (which he wrote about) believed the UPC would happen (based on a quick straw poll at the event). Bristows are enemies of European interests and they will definitely continue to fight for the UPC. It’s their project (along with few other law firms and EPO facilitators). It’s our project to ensure they do not succeed as it would undermine Europe for very few people’s enrichment and power hoard. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 11:46 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
On the same night as this, maybe for similar reasons:
Summary: The longstanding propaganda campaign (framing staff as happy or framing unhappy staff as a disgruntled minority) is out and the timing of the release is suspicious to say the least
THE ABOVE SCREENSHOTS, taken from the first phase of a propaganda campaign (to culminate with a so-called 'conference' intended to influence the Administrative Council), would not be exactly shocking to EPO staff. It’s part of an effort by Battistelli to dismiss and discredit any claims that he abuses staff, strategically at a point when the Administrative Council brings up the subject. It is an infamous politician’s trick (see what the US government did on the very same day as the debut of the film “Snowden” and simultaneous calls for Presidential pardon).
“The quick summary: Blame the staff for all the problems.”Lots of EPO coverage is planned for this weekend and we decided to begin by getting this propaganda out of the way. It wasn’t — as far as we are aware — expected to come out last night, which makes one wonder. If this propaganda about the social climate was released prematurely late on a Friday, then maybe they try to bury or distract from something. Are they trying to suppress discussion about it? Has Team Battistelli lost its mind again? Why did the social study appear on the intranet at such strategic timing (when few would even notice the release)? Why has nobody covered it yet? Journalists are obviously away for the weekend (see what the FBI has just done, as Wikileaks pointed out 19 hours ago). It’s a big document, no doubt, and staff might be taking it home for the weekend. The Financial Study and Occupational Health and Safety Risk Assessment have appeared also.
The quick summary: Blame the staff for all the problems. Expect us to say more about it in the near future. The above is just somewhat of a preview. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
09.23.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:41 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Next photo op: puppies?
Summary: Benoît Battistelli continues to make the EPO look like Europe’s biggest laughing stock by attempting to tackle issues with corny photo ops rather than real change (like SUEPO recognition, diverse hiring, improved patent quality, and cessation of sheer abuses)
ONE of the many things that EPO management is routinely criticised for is lack of diversity (both gender and race). Today, tactlessly enough, Benoît Battistelli published himself posing for photo op with a black boxer. It’s like US politicians who pose for photos with black baseball/basketball/football players (or other athletes) to ‘prove’ they are not racist and thus attract votes/consent from the black population/community. Remember that Battistelli is inherently a politician, so he has these tricks/routines up his sleeve. These tricks might be effective in charming the general population, but EPO examiners are not this gullible. It’s embarrassing for them. It’s like the EPO has become a political party. Employees of the EPO are not sure whether to laugh or sob. Not too long ago Benoît Battistelli did a photo op along with Cambodia (with zero patents at the EPO!).
“It’s like US politicians who pose for photos with black baseball/basketball/football players (or other athletes) to ‘prove’ they are not racist and thus attract votes/consent from the black population/community.”We expect a Battistelli photo op with Neelie Kroes (with Bahamas shell companies) and José Manuel Barroso (Goldman Sachs revolving doors) next… because photo ops can supposedly solve all issues (ask FFPE-EPO which helped Battistelli create a perception of peace with ‘unions’). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 8:06 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
How ‘professional’… media repurposed as a shadow EPO platform
Summary: Another look at convergence between media and the EPO, which is spending virtually millions of Euros literally buying the media and ensuring that the EPO’s abuses are scarcely covered (if ever mentioned at all)
THE previous post about the EPO bemoaned poor press coverage that merely propagated lies of the EPO. Stakeholders were not at all contacted as part of fact-checking. That’s churnalism, not journalism.
“As rebutting/debunking the lies requires some basic knowledge of this system and also no professional loyalty to it, Techrights is often alone in responding to such misinformation.”In this second part we plan to tackle some more of the same things and bring to light unexplored issues pertaining to the EPO under Benoît Battistelli.
AIPPI World Congress
James Nurton (aforementioned EPO ‘stenographer’ of sorts) attended the AIPPI World Congress and wrote a bunch of articles. As we don’t think these relate directly to the UPC we won’t dig into each one of these, but MIP (Managing IP, Nurton’s employer) omitted disbelief that the UPC will become a reality from its reports, as we already noted the other day. Agenda by omission? Nokia, based on this new report from WIPR, shares this view on UPC disbelief. To quote:
The UK’s ratification of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Agreement is politically “very unlikely” at the moment, according to Nokia’s head of European litigation Clemens Heusch.
He was speaking in a session yesterday, September 20, at the 2016 AIPPI World Congress in Milan about the implications of Brexit on the UPC.
Heusch said that instead, negotiations were likely to play out over two years once article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty has been invoked.
Commenting on the negotiations, Heusch said it was essential for the UK to stay in the common market or some form of free trade agreement, so the talks will be a great chance to include the UPC.
Sadly though, on UPC among other topics, the IAM and MIP staff are just megaphones amplifying the EPO’s liars like Margot Fröhlinger [1, 2, 3]. See IAM’s “The UK risks losing current UPC goodwill if it dithers on ratification for much longer, warns Froehlinger”. We already wrote about these appalling lies from Battistelli (alarmists for UPC), but it doesn’t bother those who have an agenda to sell or drive. It would be rather saddening if people had actually read these sites and believed everything they say. As rebutting/debunking the lies requires some basic knowledge of this system and also no professional loyalty to it, Techrights is often alone in responding to such misinformation.
Puff Pieces Become the Norm
Going back to MIP, “Meet AIPPI’s first Chinese President” was published and an interesting discussion developed around this tweet. “Here’s EPO and Managing IP in the same bed,” I said. “Soon, another Battistelli puff piece (lies) [is going to come] from them (re “social”),” I added, knowing what Nurton said in part 1 of a so-called Battistelli ‘interview’. “I hope you’ll consider fact-checking before publishing a piece which claims (outright lies) EPO staff is happy,” I told them. “A lot of EPO staff are on the verge of suicide and deem it a nightmare to work there; many quit, life over money.”
As one person put it, “”communications duets” are old-PR-style stuff – don’t hv to declare ad interests on soc med.”
One person (maybe an insider) said s/he was “waiting for the explosive amba interview.”
“We are still waiting for a response from AMBA,” MIP replied, so there has been no progress.
“Sadly though, on UPC among other topics, the IAM and MIP staff are just megaphones amplifying the EPO’s liars like Margot Fröhlinger.”“I would not be AT ALL surprised,” I told them, “if they fear even replying (for fear or retribution); the contrary would shock me; You do a sterling job covering some issues, but please don’t become another Battistelli ammo against EPO staff; you would not only be on the wrong side of history but also, to some degree, potential contributor to future suicides; in case you ever wonder why you made yourself ‘the’ story, it’s because you picked a side, and it’s the wrong side of history; Yes, journalism requires hearing the other side, even if not independent and still under fear from Battistelli.”
So certainly it seems like MIP will continue to be Battistelli’s platform, unless they change their mind after public criticism [1, 2, 3, 4]. Don’t they know that AMBA is afraid? Therein lies the core of the story they should write.
Hardly Even Trying to Look Separable Anymore
“Thanks @ManagingIP,” the EPO wrote, “for the highlights from the #AIPPI2016. See what the EPO President pointed out: http://www.managingip.com/Article/3586954/Read-the-highlights-from-the-AIPPI-World-Congress.html …”
It’s like MIP is now cooperating with the EPO and watch the article the EPO cites, with an image of Battistelli (accompanied by his lies) on the right-hand side. We previously highlighted similar signs of cooperation/coordination between those two (part 1 of the interview).
“So certainly it seems like MIP will continue to be Battistelli’s platform, unless they change their mind after public criticism.”In the mean time, the EPO itself has just promoted (in Twitter) Battistelli’s self-congratulatory puff piece (warning: this is a link to the EPO’s site which they can use for tracking/harvesting IP addresses). The “EPO’s Early Certainty initiative” that Battistelli speaks of is basically a way of ensuring lowered patent quality, i.e. the very opposite of what the EPO needs.
Repeating anything Battistelli says, Annsley Merelle Ward from Bristows is still pushing/promoting the UPC for her employer, as usual [1, 2]. Here are the relevant parts of from what she published this morning: “The core theme running through EPO President Benoit Battistelli’s address was the importance of quality and efficiency at the EPO in the face of an increasing quantity and complexity of applications. [...] Alongside these efforts, M. Battistelli described the “Early Certainty from Search (ECfS)” scheme which requires that all incoming searches are issued with written opinions within 6 months and for which the backlog of searches was cleared in mid 2016. Importantly, as of 1 July 2016, the Early Certainty scheme was expanded to cover examination and opposition as well. The aim is for timelines by 2020 of 6 months for a search and its opinion; 12 months on average for examination; and 15 months for a standard opposition.”
Absolutely terrible. We shall say more about it some time soon (with accompanying documents). it’s a rat race, or a race to the bottom.
“A lot of the IP-centric media — rather than help expose the abuses of the EPO (Merpel is hardly active anymore) — chose to play along with Team Battistelli.”“Finally,” she added, “M. Battistelli touched on the Unitary Patent (UP) and stressed his view that despite Brexit the UP will happen – it was just a question of when. If the UK ratifies (which he believes is legally and politically possible), the EPO expects to grant the first UP next year; otherwise it will be delayed several years as it will not be possible to launch the UP until after the UK has left the EU. In the Q&A session, in response to a question about his vision for 2025, he said (with only a touch of irony) that he hoped the UP would finally be a reality by then!”
Yes, that says 2025! Battistelli might be nearly 80 by then (and maybe deceased).
But anyway, never let a good opportunity to “build relationships” with the EPO, right? A lot of the IP-centric media — rather than help expose the abuses of the EPO (Merpel is hardly active anymore) — chose to play along with Team Battistelli. That’s where the big money is. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
Content is available under CC-BY-SA