12.11.16
Posted in Patents at 2:13 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Does changing an organism genetically (by selective breeding or gene editing) give one ownership of anything new of its kind?
Summary: In an age of patented pigs (EPO) and plants/seeds it’s important to keep an eye on the CRISPR patent dispute
OUR previous post covered the Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS) upcoming decision on Life Technologies Corp. v Promega Corp. — a case that can certainly impact patent scope at the USPTO, much like Mayo did.
In related news, CRISPR will be challenged quite soon and the patent microcosm isn’t too happy about it. “Open Source Advocates Want CRISPR Technology to Be Free,” one patent maximalist wrote (paraphrasing the headline). Well, “Open Source Advocates” are not alone in this and the key question here is patent scope, not cost. As Benjamin Henrion put it, “does it take the form of a computer program?”
Well, patents on life are certainly a step too far. We need to ask ourselves who benefits here. See the new article titled “This Is How the CRISPR Trial Will Determine Our Future” (from Vice):
Arguments in a trial to determine ownership of CRISPR, a gene editing technology, started Tuesday in Virginia. The outcome will determine who gets ownership of an incredibly lucrative and incredibly powerful tool that has the potential to “treat” genetic disease.
Two groups are contending for the editing technology patent: on one side is MIT’s Broad Institute and Harvard University, and on the other is the University of California, Berkeley.
The first patent for this technology was filed in 2012 by University of California, Berkeley, researchers for their work describing how genes could be edited in-vitro, The Scientist reported. Later in 2012, researchers at Harvard and MIT filed a patent for editing genes in eukaryotic cells—like those in a forming baby. The UC Berkeley researchers claimed the second patent violated their patent, and this week’s trial will determine who gets intellectual rights to the technology.
The following article was sent to us by some readers over the weekend:
They lined up early Monday morning for ringside seats at the most sensational scientific showdown in the modern era.
The moment the doors opened, lawyers, reporters and hedge fund investors raced for a spot in the cramped, windowless U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in Alexandria, Va.
The tension in the room was electric, as the historic fight for the patent rights to the CRISPR gene editing technology got underway.
CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) is a revolutionary gene editing tool that allows scientists to edit DNA with unparalleled ease and precision. Two prominent public institutions — MIT and Harvard’s Broad Institute and University of California Berkeley — are locked in a legal cage match, fighting to privatize CRISPR.
It could be months before a victor emerges, but the winner will walk away with billions of dollars in licensing fees and total control over one of the world’s most important scientific discoveries.
The Atlantic too has explained the importance of this case:
Nobody could recall such a long line at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. On Tuesday, more than an hour before the scheduled hearing for a bitterly contested patent dispute over the gene-editing tool CRISPR, a line of lawyers, journalists, and biotech industry execs had snaked through the lobby and across the giant Christmas tree that bedecks government-agency headquarters at this time of the year.
Of course, the dispute over CRISPR is no ordinary patent battle. CRISPR is a potentially revolutionary technique that is so broadly useful across medicine, agriculture, and industry that it could earn the dispute’s winner billions of dollars. Lawyers for the University of California, Berkeley, and the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard both argue that their scientists had invented CRISPR first.
The hearing was part of something called an interference proceeding—a piece of patent law that is quite literally archaic now. On March 16, 2013, the U.S. patent system switched the way patents are awarded: Previously, a patent was granted to the very first party to invent something; now, a patent simply goes to whoever files a patent application for an invention first. As it happened, Berkeley filed its initial patent just one day before the March 16 switchover. So here we are trying to figure out who invented CRISPR first.
“CSIRO [of CRISPR infamy received] a fair amount of undeserved bad press,” IAM wrote (defending CSIRO, obviously!), “some even going so far as to label it a ‘troll’” because it is (see our wiki page about it).
Will this madness finally end, at long last?
More patents do not imply more innovation. The Appeals Court, according to this new article from Mike Masnick, also reminds us that “Patent Infringement Is Good For Competition”.
“Of course,” Masnick writes, “if you’re playing along with the home game, you should already be scratching your head. After all, patents themselves are monopolies. So, if anything, you’d think that any antitrust argument would be focused on the patent holder rather than the patent infringer. But, here, RTI is arguing that the patent infringement itself is a form of an antitrust violation, as it’s part of BD’s effort to foreclose competition.”
Faulty logic. For over a decade we have said the same thing about patents, even back when Microsoft used them to expand its monopoly and assert authority or reign over Novell (and by extension GNU/Linux). If only more people cared to study the real (original) purpose of patents and their impact on competition, a lot of those puff pieces about “innovation” would be long gone. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Patents at 1:36 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Better hurry up before Trump ruins the Supreme Court
Summary: Additional and belated remarks about Apple’s patent attacks on Samsung’s Android phones and the upcoming Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision on Life Technologies Corp. v Promega Corp.
THINGS are about to change for the better at the USPTO because upcoming SCOTUS cases won’t challenge Alice (applicable to software patents) but instead jeopardise other kinds of patents.
Regarding the unanimous decision in favour of Android or Linux or Samsung (depends on how one looks at it), there have been endless streams of articles by now. We saw hundreds of articles in English (about 300 articles!) about it, not counting all the Apple fan blogs and articles in other languages. There’s also my personal take on it, as covered the other day (hours after the decision had been handed down). For those looking for some decent coverage, see Jurist, AOL, Ars, El Reg or even lesser known sites. Less objective (for either side) were IP Watch, MIP, TechDirt, and Bristows staff at IP Kat. Be careful of Apple advocacy sites disguised as news sites. Even SJVN decided to cover it, although it’s typically outside his scope. Florian Müller did a blog post about it and said: “Large parts of the (U.S. and global) tech industry will breathe a sigh of relief now.”
“We must understand that when it comes to patents the quantity (the more, the merrier) and quality (more is less or less is more) should be grounded on evidence-based analysis, not Battistellite ‘logic’ and Republican instincts.”“Yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling,” he later added, “means design patents won’t spell doom for alleged infringers anymore, but a lot depends on the Fed. Circuit” (CAFC). “The Supreme Court said what the Fed. Cir. got wrong; but now the same Fed. Cir still has to get it right,” he continued. “In 2017, we’ll see what happens.” As we noted here before, only the lawyers win in these disputes that last half a decade or longer.
IAM always complains when patent scope is restricted and this time was no exception; they’re hardly even closeted about their patent maximalist bias.
The net outcome here is a major loss for another kind of patent. We must understand that when it comes to patents the quantity (the more, the merrier) and quality (more is less or less is more) should be grounded on evidence-based analysis, not Battistellite ‘logic’ and Republican instincts. The EPO now moves in the opposite direction, broadening patent scope rather than tightening it.
SCOTUS is going to tackle another kind of patents quite soon (Life Technologies Corp. v Promega Corp.), as an article by Dennis Crouch, another from MIP, and more from patents-centric sites state with concern. Many articles have appeared in recent days and most of them are from the patent microcosm. We too mentioned this case before.
We continue to worry that Trump-appointed Justices (new appointees) to SCOTUS will ruin all/most of the patent progress made in recent years. Conservative think tanks, for example, are out in full force calling for the end of Alice as we know it. We’ll cover that separately later tonight. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 12:29 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Croatian media helps Battistelli promote the UPC in Croatia, yet the EPO says nothing about it and the subject of criminal charges against the EPO’s Vice-President (Topić from Croatia) isn’t even brought up
SO-CALLED ‘reform’ at the EPO turns out to be a race to the bottom of everything, except litigation (more and more of it). “Residents of EPC contracting states can perform all procedural steps before the EPO,” the EPO wrote the other day, but “not in their language,” Benjamin Henrion responded. In other words, services are getting poorer (we have heard such stories from British applicants who complained that the EPO could not even properly deal with English). Imagine what a mess the UPC would be when it comes to languages — a subject we covered here many times before. It’s one of the main reasons Spain opposes the UPC, which will probably never take off anyway (not in its current form). If people need to hire the patent microcosm for services such as translations, not just legal advice, who is this whole system good for? Surely the middlemen, not the inventors. It’s especially prohibitive — from a financial point of view — to SMEs, which is why they oppose the UPC (don’t believe what the EPO and Team UPC say on ‘their behalf’).
“Quite a few people wrote to us about it, yet the EPO keeps absolutely quiet about it.”The EPO’s lies have become so routine that they’re mundane and banal now. EPO workers hardly believe anything their management says (and rightly so!). In fact, even EPO-friendly media like MIP refuses to accept this latest lie, not a study (commissioned by the EPO and EUIPO themselves, to assess themselves!). “This study by @EPOorg & @EU_IPO analyses the contribution of IPR-intensive sectors to the EU economy,” the EPO wrote a couple of days ago, but what they generally do is attribute the success of any domain where patents are grantable to the EPO and EUIPO, then pretend that they are worth trillions. We already mentioned this lie, which is habitually being used to promote the UPC.
The EPO is meanwhile providing a sort of UPC ‘attack map’, almost as though it’s pitching/speaking to patent trolls and showing off to them just how many companies in how many nations they’ll be able to attack with an EP and one single court ruling (in a foreign language).
Amid all this nonsense from the EPO’s Twitter account there is absolutely no mention and no announcements about Battistelli and his visit to the country where his bulldog is accused of serious crimes, as we first noted yesterday morning. Quite a few people wrote to us about it, yet the EPO keeps absolutely quiet about it. No Battistelli photo ops with Željko Topić’s protectors/successors at SIPO Croatia? Did he meet them to say something?
“This time, for a change, Battistelli did not just dispatch some UPC ‘lobbyist’ like Margot Fröhlinger or Grant Philpott.”Regarding “Battistelli in Zagreb,” one reader told us, “State media servis [sic] of Republic of Croatia – HINA, (www.hina.hr) made [an] interview with B. Battistelli.”
Here is coverage (see screenshot above) other than HINA news about Battistelli in Zagreb.
We waited patiently for more information as quite a few people appear to be talking about it and they are generally disturbed by this for numerous reasons.
“Regarding Battistelli’s visit to Zagreb,” one reader told us having sent more information, “I got this from Croatian sources.” We remind readers that Topić has quite a few enemies (or victims) in Zagreb and they too are eager to see this man facing justice, even arrested like some of his old friends. To quote the information we received:
Battistelli and Topić were guests at the celebration of SIPO’s 25th Anniversary which took place in Zagreb on December 9th.
According to information from sources in Croatia, the preparations for the event took place in great secrecy and the SIPO didn’t make any prior public announcement on its web site.
The celebration was formally held “under the auspices of the Government”, but the Croatian Government refused to contribute financially.
The Assistant Minister of Science Krešo Zadro was sent as the Government representative. This could be interpreted as a subtle diplomatic snub to Battistelli who prefers to have his events attended by top-ranking Ministers.
Sylvie Forbin, a deputy Director of WIPO and Christian Archambeau from the EUIPO also participated.
Unofficial sources say that the SIPO Director Kuterovac got funding for the event from EPO and WIPO.
A puff piece with photos is likely to appear on the SIPO website next week.
Here’s the link to the SIPO website
http://www.dziv.hr/hr/novosti/
http://www.dziv.hr/en/news/
A short report about the event appeared on the Croatian news portal “Panopticum”.
http://panopticum.hr/2571-2/
This report does not mention that Topić was in attendance.
An English translation follows
SIPO Celebrates 25 Years
Text: B. Dobrijević
Photo: S. Hoffmann
In Zagreb, on Friday, 9 December 2016, the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) celebrated its 25 years of existence. The celebration took place in the NCB under the auspices of the Croatian Government. The introductory remarks at the celebration were made by the Director of the institution, Ljiljana Kuterovac, and there was a welcoming speech on behalf of the Government of Croatia from the Assistant of Minister of Science, Kreso Zadro. The meeting was also welcomed by the President of the EPO, Mr. Benoit Battistelli, the Deputy Director General of WIPO in Geneva, Mrs. Sylvie Forbin, and Christian Archambeau, Deputy Executive Director of the EU Office for Intellectual Property (EUIPO) in Brussels.
We recall that after the establishment of the Republic of Croatia as an independent and sovereign state, it was necessary to establish the appropriate national institutions and, on 31 December 1991, a national body responsible for the protection of intellectual property which now bears the name of the Croatian State Intellectual Property Office was established.
The presence of Christian Archambeau is noteworthy because of his past role at the EPO. We wrote about him before.
Another message we have received says that the underlying/hidden purpose of Battistelli’s visit was UPC promotion. For the uninitiated, there are still many barriers to the UPC (not just Spain, which we mentioned above) and in relation to the UK see our “UPC Scam” 7-part series, plus two short followups:
“Battistelli [was] lobbying for Unitary Patent project in Croatia,” told us a reader, citing the Croatian media as proof:
This article which just appeared gives a clue as to what Battistelli was up to in Zagreb.
RH pozvana da se priključi projektu jedinstvenog europskog patenta
(“Croatia invited to join the European Unitary Patent project”)
http://direktno.hr/en/2014/eu/70154
I don’t have a full translation but the gist of it is given by this passage:
“Hrvatska je, uz Španjolsku, jedina zemlja Europske unije koja se još nije priključila projektu jedinstvenog europskog patenta, rekao je u razgovoru za Hinu predsjednik Europskog patentnog ureda Benoit Battistelli i savjetovao Hrvatskoj da zbog razvoja i širenja svojih patenata u EU to svakako učini.”
Translation:
“Croatia, along with Spain, is the only country in the European Union which has not yet joined the European Unitary Patent project , said the President of the European Patent Office Benoit Battistelli in an interview with the news agency Hina he advised that Croatia should make sure to do so in view of the development and expansion of its patents in the EU.”
This time, for a change, Battistelli did not just dispatch some UPC ‘lobbyist’ like Margot Fröhlinger or Grant Philpott. He went there himself and it would be valuable to know if he met some SIPO/government officials to discuss Topić's criminal charges. For a number of years now Team Battistelli went to great lengths to cover this up. Maybe there will be some photo ops and creative writings at the EPO’s “news” section and Battistelli’s “blog” next week (as early as tomorrow). When people search for stuff like “SIPO EPO” or “Croatia EPO” they’ll be a lot less likely to learn about the real story rather than some silly “anniversary” alongside UPC puff pieces. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 11:34 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Decline in quality of patents requires decline in quality (and salary) of examiners and judges, too
Summary: The latest observations, based on information from various sources, regarding the working conditions and strategy of the European Patent Office
THE EPO is in shambles, but the management continues to pretend that everything is rosy. In fact, continuing a trend of greenwashing (and patenting of plants) the EPO now brags about this event report (warning: epo.org link) — something about “climate change mitigation” and reputation laundering of the EPO’s French Chief Economist Yann Ménière, whom we wrote about before (also recall the former Chief Economist's negative take on the EPO's current policies). This “yes men” phenomenon at Battistelli’s French-centric EPO has shut the door on dissent, scepticism, and plurality of views. Now it’s eliminating many members of staff too. Those who haven’t left yet (e.g. early retirement) seem to be on limited time, or on a short lifeline. They are expected to produce more than they feasibly can (while providing a decent service), they are expected to not fall ill (they cannot afford loss of days), and there are other unreasonable demands that drive them away if not to illness, then to incapacity or even suicide. Battistelli is working people to death, sometimes literally. Labour rights receive nothing but scorn from Team Battistelli and new hires may struggle to join the union (SUEPO) because of Battistelli’s (and Bergot’s) shameless attacks on people wishing to sign up and those enlisting them.
“Those who haven’t left yet (e.g. early retirement) seem to be on limited time, or on a short lifeline.”Hiring of low-paid interns instead of full-time staff at the EPO is something that the EPO continues advertising this month (almost every day now). There are variations therein and the ‘job’ openings (scare quotes because these are internships, not commitments) range from external boards to internal patent assessment. Are these internships or internments? To many people the EPO feels like a prison, only a little less tolerable and inviting (but with a higher salary to almost compensate for that daily ordeal).
“Universities, research centres and technology transfer officers should have a look at this,” the EPO wrote on a separate occasion a few days ago. I responded with: “Do they know that as guests they’ll be spied on with hidden cameras and keyloggers?”
The EPO is apparently having some other guests these days; one of them, Bastian Best, habitually visits the EPO and is proud of it (he knows about the surveillance). He wrote ahead of the latest EPO event about software patents: “Looking forward to terrific speeches on #industry40, #IoT and #softwarepatents!”
“Under Battistelli, anything goes. “Production” is measured in cancerous terms. Quality is merely a nuisance. Good examiners are a nuisance. Prior art searches are a nuisance (as they lower grant rates).”It seems as though even insiders — people who actually examine patents — noticed that they are granting software patents. Some tell us about it, though it’s clearly against the instructions from the European Parliament. Pressure from the top compels them to do this. Any “methods for playing games are not patentable in Europe,” Benjamin Henrion wrote in response to this tweet seeking to associate games with patents (“Throwback Thursday patent – Monopoly game invented by C B Darrow in 1935.”)
Under Battistelli, anything goes. “Production” is measured in cancerous terms. Quality is merely a nuisance. Good examiners are a nuisance. Prior art searches are a nuisance (as they lower grant rates). In fact, judging by this new comment, there’s a plan for getting rid of people by means of a crooked justice system and some believe that the disgusting yellow union of Battistelli will help:
Having read that monsieur le President wishes to amend the ServReg once again, I wonder whether he has consulted the FFPE-EPO as per their beloved Memorandum of Understanding….
This all being so short term, I suppose not.
Has FFPE said anything yet?
Will they draw conclusions from this, or will they once again underline how important it is to sit at a table?
To quote the above: “Has FFPE said anything yet?”
No, they are about as non-existent or secretive as Battistelli himself. Their Web site is still a fossil, too. They’re like Battistelli moles, so the less they say, the better. Whenever they speak out we receive a leak and it makes FFPE-EPO look even worse.
On the prospects of FFPE-EPO being used as a weapon by Battistelli (against SUEPO) this one person wrote: “They are probably licking their lips at the prospect of being appointed by the President to the committees where they can sit in judgment on the appeals of their SUEPO colleagues…”
With a yellow FFPE-affiliated union inside the EPO it’s important to be selective and careful who to trust and speak to. Snitches and other forms of betrayal seem to have become a dirt-digging mechanism, preceding some disciplinary procedures. In the Stasi days one might have labeled the likes of FFPE-EPO “informants”.
If the above comments have substance to them, it would be classic yellow union move — fighting the unions off against one another while management supports/arms/protects only one side (the small one) to suppress the real union.
“EPO has become an experiment for wanna be fascists,” said this additional comment. “Examiners were worthy of high salaries to prevent/ avoid corruption from applicants (patents are after all serious business). Now they are being bought off by threats and Battistelli bonusses.”
Punishing many people collectively and reducing their salaries based on docility is another tool of an oppressor. Interns aside, read the following comment:
And where do you think the volunteers from staff members for this may come? I suspect even if not consulted, there may be a retrospective approval once they can get a bit more power. And more of a chance of a bonus?
Speaking of which, BB had announced his intention to give a’collective bonus’ for 2016 – but only to about 70% of staff. Particularly to those who ‘contributed significantly to the success of major office wide projects’. Mmm.
Battistelli is playing a toxic (to the reputation of the EPO) game with budget and money that’s not even his (applicants pay to maintain their EPs). He is said to have repeatedly incentivised (bribed) for votes, he definitely paid for media bias, etc. Corruption is quickly becoming synonymous with the EPO and those who will suffer most are EPO workers unless their contact only lasts a few months (like interns’).
Welcome to a brave new EPO. Maybe it should be renamed SEPO (“S” for “Sordid”) to better resemble the name “SIPO” (in China and in Croatia). After all, SIPO seems to have become Battistelli’s role model for labour/human rights and patent quality. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA