07.04.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:16 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Those who are trying to warp and subvert Europe’s patent system/s so as to benefit large corporations (often from abroad) are not getting their way and may simply have to give up trying
Frederic Henschel, a partner at the US law firm Foley & Lardner LLP, has just published at Science|Business this article titled “Could Brexit be a death knell for the European Unitary Patent and the Unified Patent Court?”
The substance of the article is about as pessimistic (if not more pessimistic) than the headline insinuates, much like yesterday's analysis from the EPO-leaning IAM. It’s not looking too good for the UPC anymore. To quote Henschel, “UK withdrawal from the EU will fundamentally change the basic scope of the Unitary Patent and the associated Unitary Patent Court. This could permanently jeopardise the launch of the European single patent” (key word here is permanently).
“Not only UK applicants would be excluded as the UPC may never get off the ground at all.”Henschel also recalls the scam privately perpetrated by Team UPC (still busy trying to 'hack' the law). They advertised jobs that don’t exist and may never exist at all (in the future). We were right all along about it, so where is the responsibility or liability for wasting applicants’ time? To quote Henschel: “Applications for a position as UPC judge were being accepted until 4 July 2016 [i.e. today], but UK applicants may now be excluded from consideration. Given the prominent role the UK has historically played in patent law, removing UK citizens as potential UPC judges would be a notable loss of talent.”
Not only UK applicants would be excluded as the UPC may never get off the ground at all. Without the litigation capital, namely London, the whole basis of the UPC is at risk. It’s not a reconcilable problem.
There are several more articles like the above (we offered a media survey last week) and this latest one does not cover UPC aspects although it does speak of the profound impact of Brexit (whether an exit is implemented at all at the end or simply abandoned, as it increasingly seems likely to be a referendum falling on deaf political ears).
“Without the litigation capital, namely London, the whole basis of the UPC is at risk.”Earlier today MIP continued its UPC series, laying out a scenario about a (likely) dead project. That’s just what we have come to expect from patent lawyers’ Web sites, ones where the writers are associated directly (e.g. through Bristows) with Team UPC. “In the latest in our series of UPC scenarios, Laura Whiting and Inmaculada Lorenzo explore the options for a pharmaceutical patent owner faced with a potential infringer manufacturing its product in Spain,” MIP writes. Well, Spain vigorously opposes the UPC, so there’s something a little odd about this scenario. It seems like self promotion in the form of an article, much like this EPO spam from yesterday (paid ‘article’ in Reuters, titled “EPO intends to grant patent”). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 3:42 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
How to frame an assault on independence as “greater independence and improved efficiency” [sic]
Summary: Distancing itself even further from reality and from truth-telling, the European Patent Organisation resorts to reality distortion and EPO communications people called their face-saving lies “news”, after they had lied both to staff and to journalists
Greater lies from the EPO were finally promoted in the Organisation’s or Office’s Twitter account today (the account is called EuropeanPatentOffice but the username is “EPOorg”, which is contradictory unless they refer to the domain name). This came out several days after we had offered a translation of this pack of lies. Ironically enough and probably by coincidence this happened on the same day as the US celebrations of independence day. The President of the Boards of Appeal will be controlled by appointment by Battistelli, based on my careful reading of the EPLAW analysis as well as some press articles about it. The above tweet and accompanying/corresponding “news” item isn’t amusing; it’s actually rather disgusting as it grossly misrepresents what Battistelli and his goons did behind closed doors. Words are no longer enough to express the disgust; maybe more caricatures would help. CA/29/16, which we wrote about last night, showed further potential retaliatory tactics. So where is the substance for that “independence” nonsense?
“This is a typical tactic in politics. One puts forth an absolutely horrible proposal/bill and then lets it be slightly improved for initially-sceptical parties to approve under the supposition that the watering down somehow had them accomplish something.”“CA/29/16 Rev1 is certainly an improvement over the original,” wrote one person today. “but it is still far from being acceptable.”
This is a typical tactic in politics. One puts forth an absolutely horrible proposal/bill and then lets it be slightly improved for initially-sceptical parties to approve under the supposition that the watering down somehow had them accomplish something. To quote further from that comment: “It is good that we no longer have a vague reference to the “legitimate interests of the Office”. But what could possibly be meant by “integrity of the EPO’s appeal system”? And why has the option of forbidding a member of the BoA to take up a new position been retained?”
Perhaps more importantly, who will be appointed to run/manage the people whom Battistelli wishes to crush? The President of the Boards of Appeal is appointed in part by Battistelli himself and then there’s the issue of HR and IT (i.e. Bergot and other Battistelli cronies) meddling in Boards of Appeal activities, recruitment and so forth. This is independence???
“The Organisation is a lot more loyal to the Office (Battistelli) than to anybody else, which perpetuates and strengthens the perception that Battistelli has “got them by the balls,” to use a crude slang term.”As the above comment put it, “I struggle to think of any potential conflict of interest that could not be dealt with by instead placing limitations upon the ex-member’s future interactions with the EPO. If those limitations make a new position untenable, then that is a problem for the ex-member to sort out with his or her new employer. But forbidding a member to take up a new position is just an unenforceable restraint of trade (and an infringement of human rights).”
Another person rightly argued that “the amendments are cosmetic. If you check my concerns (and those of CIPA or AMBA) you can see by yourself that they have not been addressed.”
“It’s militarised, it enjoys special treatment (even immunity from law enforcement) and while striving to merely maintain some illusion of independence it actively eliminates the independence as envisioned and codified by the EPC.”“There is not much point in being consulted if no-one listens to you,” wrote another person. What can the public deduce from total apathy towards AMBA? The Organisation is a lot more loyal to the Office (Battistelli) than to anybody else, which perpetuates and strengthens the perception that Battistelli has “got them by the balls,” to use a crude slang term. Given the lack of gender diversity at the Organisation’s management, the term can be almost taken literally. Under Battistelli, the Organisation and Office are almost synonymous (no proper seperation or effective oversight) — to the point where the EPO's lawyers use the words "Organisation" and "Office" interchangeably, and thus wrongly.
One person asked: “What’ll be the free rooms in the Isar building be used for?” More personnel under direct supervision of “him”? More toys (IU, …) he can send out to other buildings? I fear his bodyguards are in “need” of a readyness room. His right hand [Bergot] and her bodyguards too? More luxury apartments?”
Whatever is going on at the EPO, it’s like there’s a presidential palace is not fortress. It’s militarised, it enjoys special treatment (even immunity from law enforcement) and while striving to merely maintain some illusion of independence it actively eliminates the independence as envisioned and codified by the EPC. This is a coup. Battistelli ‘hacked’ the EPC. It’s now a task/duty of everyone conscious and brave enough inside the EPO to restore order and honour the EPC. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
07.03.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:54 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Lawless state of affairs does a disservice to the services offered by the EPO
Summary: Some of the latest input regarding Battistelli’s (mis)behaviour and the Administrative Council’s passive acceptance of such behaviour
THE USPTO may be notably poor when it comes to patent quality, but at no time in the recent past were there any scandals there that come anywhere close to what happens at Battistelli’s EPO. Battistelli has done so much damage to the EPO that it may take the Office decades to recover from it. The latest Battistelli scandal (among many) is extending to the whole Organisation, as the Organisation’s Administrative Council (AC) foolishly and recklessly plays along with Battistelli. As one person put it over the weekend or just before the weekend:
It appears, that the AC desperately felt the need to do something about the independence of DG3.
There are procedures at the german Bundesverfassungsgericht this year (the link is somewhere above). If the judges there see a lack of independence of DG3, it may cause quite some trouble, like an amendment to the EPC (http://www.stjerna.de/index_htm_files/Unitarypatent_Constitution.pdf, check out point 2).
Maybe this is why the AC felt the need to it quick?
Here is another comment about the massive fee hikes and what they will mean for SMEs, i.e. the large majority of European businesses:
It’s very difficult these days to follow the reforms at the EPO. So many different developments and proposed changes. Which of them are before the AC for decisions is difficult to understand. I hope at least the AC follows the situation.
RE: Considering that the present cost coverage for an appeal is 6.3%, the AC aims at increasing the cost coverage within the next five years to 20 to 25%.
On the one hand, an appeal fee of about 5000-7000 euros probably strengthens the case before national courts on the absence of independent judicial/quasi-judicial review of EPO grant/revocation decisions.
On the other hand, such a new appeal fee effectively diverts from the EPO patenting route small and middle size businesses/innovation, since they need fully disclose and make public their inventions while a review of EPO decision would have a 5000-7000-euro barrier. And this is just to start an appeal, without attorney costs, etc. And this all just for one patent.
Besides, it seems extremely disproportional to me to charge 5000-7000 euros a patentee who validates 3-4 countries and a patentee who validates 20+ countries. At the same time, also SMEs should be able to patent 38 countries.
Last but not least, an increase of BoA appeal fee seems to be indirect increase of patenting costs, given that now an appeal fee is already being paid, i.e. included in an entire series of EPO fees.
This entire policy appears to have been aimed at crushing the appeals process, hence/thereby speeding up examination and not doing the job properly. As one person put it later in the day, “it will be really difficult to get the applicants back to the EPO [...] once the current President has left.” Here is the entire comment:
I cannot help but wonder.
I hear that the Council extended the appointments of some members of the Enlarged Board having participated in the latest disciplinary decision. Nice sign. However, the Council should have suspended or dismissed the President, for interference with proper application of justice. That would have solved the independence issue, too.
It would also have bought enough time to finally organize the conference of ministers, overdue since 2012. Reshaping DG3 would definitely have merited such a conference, as would the UPC.
The impression I get is that all the Council is interested in is cash, i.e. as many patents and renewal fees as possible. As long as the President provides this cash, the Council will not stop him. Downside: once the applicants have voted with their feet and the cash flow drops, it will be really difficult to get the applicants back to the EPO. But that is unlikely to happen in the next one or two years, i.e. once the current President has left.
“Mr. Battistelli,” said some insiders, “appears unable to deliver what the AC has requested from him in its March resolution.” He not only continues his war on DG3 but also on staff representatives. In other words, he attacks both the Office and the Organisation. What a total mess.
Now that Bavarian authorities get increasingly upset or at least worried about the EPO, Team Battistelli pulls a fast one. According to insiders, “cooperation with the local authorities” was recently established as a largely political move:
On 19 April 2016 Mr. Battistelli met the Bavarian Minister of Justice, Mr. Winfried Bausback. According to the report on the intranet signed by Mr. Lutz (VP5) “the meeting participants expressed their willingness to enforce the links and exchanges between the Office and the Land of Bavaria.” In this context we refer to Article 20(1) EPO PPI that reads: “The Organisation shall co-operate at all times with the competent authorities of the Contracting States in order to facilitate the proper administration of justice, to ensure the observance of police regulations and regulations concerning public health, labour inspection or other similar national legislation, and to prevent any abuse of the privileges, immunities and facilities provided for in this Protocol.” In our opinion Data Protection forms part of the “similar national legislation”.
“Thus far we have seen very little of any such cooperation,” note the sources, so it seems like a hand-waving/white-washing exercise, much like the MoU with FFPE-EPO.
More of the same concerns about patent quality or examination/search exhaustion/depth were brought up in The Register. More people now advise other people not to apply for EPO patents. This is the kind of Battistelli-induced damage we have been warning about for years. “Filing a patent application in the USA is so much easier,” one person said, “and has a far greater chance of being granted. There’s a reason the likes of IBM file all their applications there after all. Besides, who really wants an EU patent anyway? Seriously!”
Here is a response to this:
Having a greater chance of your patent being accepted sounds like a great thing, except that it isn’t.
At all.
You could replace every patent office in the world with a stamping machine – come along, put your patent docs in the machine, get them stamped – Bingo – you have your patent.
Then all that remains is fighting out the validity of that patent in the various courts around the world, with rooms full of lawyers from all of the other companies that self-stamped their patents. The result is zero certainty in the validity of your patent and a fortune spent on lawyers with zero certainty of the outcome.
Patent applications need to be checked very carefully in order to ensure that the applicant can have a very high degree of certainty that their patent is actually valid – with that certainty companies can make decisions regarding investment and further research.
See also https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2178-boy-takes-swing-at-us-patents/ and somewhat rounded corners.
Well, the EPO could be going down a similar route and some say it already does. See “Increasing the PACE” (MIP article) as a euphemism for prioritising large foreign businesses and granting patents to them in bulk and at a higher pace. Later this week we shall shed more light on how it happens in practice and what it means to examination quality.
“One point has to be made clear,” said this commenter. “All EPO activities are paid by the renewal fees.” Well, Battistelli dooms it and he might finish his term before money runs out and budget dries up. To quote:
One point has to be made clear. All EPO activities are paid by the renewal fees.
None of them (including search, examination and opposition and not even mentioning the PR events of Battistelli or his bodyguards) cover its costs with the procedural fees.
The cost coverage factor of opposition, for instance, is similar (slightly lower) than that of an appeal.
Thus, BB’s [Battistelli] argument about the need for an increase in appeal fees in order to cover the costs is, as usual, completely disingenuous.
If that is not the reason which is the real reason?
“I believe the situation is now so bad and dangerous at the EPO,” wrote the following person:
I believe the situation is now so bad and dangerous at the EPO that it is time that public, patent attorneys, economists and company bosses assemble and act together. Make a petition, use your professional or private network if you know politicians, journalists, economists, write to ministers or representatives. We need to inform them that the whole European Patent System is at risk. Companies, economy, research will be endangered if the EPO continues on this track.
About the other reform voted at last AC, namely “risk of conflict of interest”, it is appalling that it appplies to DG3 members. A very clear conflict of interest exists at the moment at the EPO : the President and VP who force excessively high targets on examiners : EPC vs production and objectives. It is the representatives sitting at the AC : EPC vs money for grants, money for dentists, money for cooperation projects.
Based on comments and articles like the above, it increasingly seems like there’s a gentle avoidance (if not boycott) of the Office by stakeholders. The EPO had to hire (at the expense of millions of Euros) crisis management professionals after Battistelli had hired his mates and thugs. Did he not foresee the backlash? EPO examiners are not as naive as he needed them to be.
We honestly strive to save the EPO rather than destroy it because the current trajectory is a massive threat to current staff and former staff (pensions). It would damage Europe’s leadership and welfare. Former EPO workers, not just stakeholders like attorneys, are rightly concerned about the EPO. The EU’s future may depend on it to some degree. “This procedure which lead to the acceptance of the amended documents is the reason why the UK voted “exit”,” one person wrote about Battistelli’s behaviour. “First day clear NO! Some amendments overnight, and all public input, opinions,… are forgotten and the proposal is accepted anyway. Sounds like Bruxelles….”
The following comment was also posted in relation to this bunch of “amendments” and it said:
Reading the decision of the council linked above:
The last word on budget and information stays with Battistelli.
Proposal for appointments and re-appointments are delegated to the president of the boards. However, they are made dependent on the whim of the president of the board, himself dependent from Battistelli for his appointment or reappointment (the Boac has only a rubber-stamping function because the crucial power to propose the chairman of the Enlarged board and give an opinion on his reappointment is not delegated).
The drafting of the Rules of procedure has been moved from the presidium to the boac where Battistelli is again sitting and the users and the members of the boards . are excluded.
Costs of the appeal (ultimately paid by the users in form of sloppy dg1-style treatment of the appeals and/or higher fees) are going to increase because of the move into a new building.
In summary: the council abandoned the idea of an independent judiciary. They gave control over it to Battistelli(at least previously they could decide who was going to serve as VP3), whose contempt for the rule of law is known and told the users to mind their business.
If it is true that the initial reactions to the office proposal were (rightly) negative one wonders what happened behind the closed doors of the council that led 35 delegates to be satisfied with just a couple of purely cosmetic amendments.
This “contempt for the rule of law,” as the above puts it, is exactly why the EPO under Battistelli’s leadership can continue to degrade/erode trust. This might even mean that foreign investors walk away and foreign companies may become less interested in European patents. Look what a mess or liability Battistelli has become not just for the Office/Organisation but also for Europe as a whole. As a side note, Battistelli's political ally Nicolas Sarkozy has just announced preparations for a 2017 presidential bid. In politics there aren’t quite the same age limitations as in this patent sector. Might Battistelli return to ruinous politics having ruined the excellent EPO in just a few years? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:28 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The EPO-connected IAM expresses some rather pessimistic views regarding the Unitary Patent regime, which was constructed secretly by (and for) patent law firms
THE EPO may have gotten a friend (or friends) at IAM, but Battistelli does not always get what he wants (even after backing a pro-UPC event organised by IAM with funding from the EPO's PR firm). “The UPC,” some insiders noted, is definitely “not for DG3″ (which Battistelli is crushing right now) and earlier today (a Sunday even!) IAM’s editor in chief published “It would be politically wrong and morally indefensible to ignore the Brexit vote and plough on with the UPC,” echoing a lot of what we have said this past week. Is it realistic, pessimistic, or a sobering sip from a non-Kool-Aid harsh reality for IAM, a longtime advocate of the UPC? Here is the part about expectation of at least 2.5 years before anything happens: “Probably the biggest IP casualty of the Brexit vote is the proposed Unified Patent Court and the EU unitary patent regime. Until the UK leaves the EU its ratification is needed for the system to come into being, so realistically that probably means a minimum of two and a half years’ delay from here. Given all the time and money that has been invested in preparing for what was thought to be its imminent introduction, that’s a big blow.”
“Perhaps democracy is treated by patent circles the same way that EU authorities and the UK government treat democracy.”Regarding Team UPC’s (like so-called 'expert' teams) effort to work around the barrier, here is what IAM says: “Perhaps in part because of that investment, over the last week there have been several suggestions (here and here, for example) that there may be ways to bypass the Brexit vote in order to get the UPC up and running in any case. I think that would be a terrible mistake. [...] The UPC already has its critics. They consider it to be the result of a deal done behind closed doors, designed to benefit nobody but big corporations and patent lawyers. That may be an entirely mistaken viewpoint, but one way to reinforce it and to give it more traction is to ignore the implications of the Brexit vote and to concoct a way for the UK to participate in the UPC.”
IAM isn’t exactly happy with the situation. The closing words from the editor are “The people have spoken, the bastards.”
Yes, that’s very professional. Perhaps democracy is treated by patent circles the same way that EU authorities and the UK government treat democracy. The ‘bastards’… because back room deals of patent lawyers (complemented by photo-ops of Battistelli with heads of offices and politicians) should apparently instruct elected officials and steer Europe’s entire policy on patents in one fell swoop (against people’s will and for lawyers, who would profit even more from if the UPC ever became a reality). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Patents at 5:32 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Censorship in IP Kat. Again.
Summary: The troublesome pattern of sanitisation of comments (presumably based on agenda rather than commenting policy) continues at IP Kat, which prides itself in being the most popular blog for IP matters
LAST month we tried to protect IP Kat from EPO censorship (by generating backlash or Streisand Effect, which eventually seemed to have worked), but IP Kat does not reciprocate. To make matters worse, it blatantly censors polite comments of mine and even lets an anonymous commenter (unnamed person) label me a “foreign power”, “Daesh”, “communist/anarchistic”, or “anti-IP” (yes, no kidding!). This comment is not at all rational and some EPO workers have already responded to it online with some shock (new lows of character assassination).
“This comment is not at all rational and some EPO workers have already responded to it online with some shock (new lows of character assassination).”The comment almost seems like comedy, but the tone is serious. It says: “Reading all these insider comments above about “decreasing patent quality”, “criminal international organisation”, “applicants should go to national patent offices”, “admin council not caring about staff” etc..etc.. it appears to me that there might be some darker forces at play here. Who has any interest in discrediting a good employer and an organisation that delivers an excellent product in this way? Perhaps some foreign power? Perhaps some communist/anarchistic or anti-IP rights organisation? Daesh? Who knows.. It says a lot that a lot of confidential documents and information ends up on the website of the very secretive anti-IP organisation Techrights.”
Taking into account a pattern of IP Kat censorship (which readers have been telling us about for months), I kept my response to this polite (and this time I saved it too, as previously IP Kat just deleted my comment, of which I had no copy, and was unable to send me a copy upon repeated requests as there’s usually some ‘paper trail’ in E-mail form). Be the one to judge whether my rebuttal, which I thought was imperative as I had been ‘defamed’ (not just by Battistell’s standards), is worthy of deletion:
Wow. What an accusation. Congratulations for reducing everything to “foreign power” “Daesh” “communist/anarchistic” or “anti-IP”. This comment is not at all rational. First of all, “criminal international organisation” is not a term from me, “decreasing patent quality” is somewhat of a consensus and “applicants should go to national patent offices” is an opinion I’ve increasingly seen expressed and it gives me no solace as an ardent supporter of the EU (I’m a German living in the UK, so calling me “foreign power” is ludicrous, set aside “Daesh”); regarding “communist/anarchistic” — again, totally baseless. I support neither Communism not anarchism. As for “anti-IP”? I spent over a decade fighting against software patents. Everyone who has read Techrights that long (or even for one week) knows this. This opinion is expressed repeatedly, but those who try to discredit the messenger would rather misrepresent the messenger, whereupon criticism becomes trivial. I know these tricks, they’re commonplace. Remember that the patent system was all along dependent on quality control, not just for its its legitimacy but also for perceived value (per granted patent). The same goes for copyright law.
You said “it appears to me that there might be some darker forces at play here.” Right, let’s ignore how Battistelli has been ruining the EPO to the point where his approval rate is 0%; why not call his critics “dark forces” and believe that Battistelli’s critics are “snipers”, “Mafia”, and armed “Nazis” [sic]? Maybe the “darker forces” are not his critics; maybe they’re even anonymous comments in Google’s Blogspot. Who knows…
You called my site “secretive anti-IP organisation Techrights.” Actually, it’s one of the most transparent sites out there. We are huge proponents of transparency at all levels in society (see daily links), as it helps guard against corruption and mischief. We used to even publish IRC logs on a daily/weekly basis (since 2008) until Control Risks with the Investigative Unit started scraping them in an effort to crack down on people (they never succeeded because thankfully we’re technically ahead of them).
You also said: “It says a lot that a lot of confidential documents and information ends up on the website” (we don’t even publish everything; far from it!).
The last point serves to demonstrate that people with access to such documents and information trust Techrights more than they trust their bosses. Why use that to discredit me and my site?
I welcome people to challenge my track record and check if I’m “anti-IP” as “European patent examiner” claims. I have published nearly 21,000 articles in Techrights with focus on justice for software development (my profession). We in the software spheres have copyrights for code; software developers generally don’t wish to pursue patents because they know that such patents would slow down development, increase development cost, and potentially be used against them, quite famously by patent trolls (in the majority of cases NPEs rely on software patents and prey on SMEs that would settle without challenge).
Best regards and with true sincerity,
Roy Schestowitz
Quite a few comments have been approved since (including later ones in the same thread), so it’s abundantly clear they deleted mine. Apparently I have not even a right of self-defense, whereas pseudonymous/anonymous people comparing me to “Daesh” is absolutely fine. Well, Battistelli sure view as everything he doesn’t like as terrorism, as we’ve documented here before.
Out of frustration perhaps I decided to send a message to Merpel, whom I consider the most likely person to be empathetic among the Kats (she and I previously exchanged quite a few messages on the subject of comment moderation policy). I asked: “Can you please tell me who deleted my defence of myself from defamatory accusations like “Daesh”? And why?”
“Apparently I have not even a right of self-defense, whereas pseudonymous/anonymous people comparing me to “Daesh” is absolutely fine.”This is similar to previous inquiries like these, which eventually went unanswered. Jeremy is no longer the boss of the blog, so it’s hard to tell who has the last word on such matters. I later contacted Jeremy as well, but still, no reply….
Hours ago, seeing that IP Kat was still active in moderation (even on a Sunday evening) I just came to the conclusion that not much would come out of it and posted the following in social media:
It seems like @ipkat is censoring my polite comment again, even when I merely defend myself from defamatory accusations in #ipkat
please have a quick check to understand why @ipkat censors my comments on @EPOorg – fear of #censorship (again)?
Honestly, I can only hypothesise there’s a power play at #ipkat where several writers offer #epo and #upc protectionism, dodge the truth
Remember that there is no single person who is ‘the Kat’ (especially after Jeremy left), it’s just a collection of people from different background with potentially conflicting interests
What I worry about is that we’re all getting a sanitised view of comments and thus on @EPOorg happenings @JeremyTheKat
We need courageous writers with little loyalties to salaries/employers and power to speak truth to power
I don’t want to waste energy bickering over reporting standards with #ipkat but if you deal with thugs in the case of #epo then grow a pair
Remember that there is no single person who is ‘the Kat’ (especially after Jeremy left), so #ipkat is a mix of less cohesive writings
Reluctance to criticise #epo at #ipkat isn’t a Merpel thing. I think she’s genuinely concerned for EPO (not the management), has colleagues
#ipkat not consistent on EPO; it’s just a collection of people from different backgrounds with potentially conflicting interests
#ipkat should not be terrified of getting banned by #epo – it doesn’t need Office-bound/inbound traffic, people read after/outside work
The articles critical of #epo at #ipkat declined noticeably in terms of frequency after I told them EPO had threatened me.
Control over the view-ability of opinions is control over a story, like editorial control, or meddling in affairs rather than reporting them
I am increasingly convinced that only weeks after signing #FTIConsulting contract (they now “follow” me) #EPO started intimidating journos
Two things happened shortly after #epo signed #FTIConsulting contract (recently broadened): defaming the accused, bullying journalists
#FTIConsulting are scum of the Earth now just for promoting #fracking for their clients who in essence poison people to death [1/2]
#FTIConsulting became the #epo external apparatus before (apparently) taking control of journalists to defame ‘unwanted’ judges [2/2]
In my humble assessment, Judge C from the Appeal Boards and #SUEPo should start preparing legal action against #FTIConsulting
When Adelson bought Las Vegas media to defame a judge who had ruled against him (for his abuses), big scandal. Not when #FTIConsulting & #epo
#epo may still (for now) enjoy legal immunity and #battistelli laugh himself to sleep, but #FTIConsulting hasn’t that. Sue those bastards.
It’s probably no coincidence that European journalists received threats while fake ‘journos’ planted libel just weeks after #FTIConsulting deal
The number of #epo scandals is ever-growing, but journalists are intimidated into cooperation or silence
It may be time to revisit (probably later tonight) the EPO’s gagging campaign against the media. #epo #FTIConsulting #battistelli #de #nl
Will #battistelli write some blog post about #bangladesh on Monday to create the illusion that he cares and worries for people’s lives?
Still no reply from #ipkat or @JeremyTheKat regarding their #censorship of my defence, so I’ll take that as a “no comment”. They’re active.
There are a few more, but they may be less relevant rants. The above may seem less polite than my comment which was censored; well, that’s just what happens when you take people’s voices away and it may be fear (of the EPO) — not disdain — that causes it. We don’t know just how many other comments (regarding the EPO) are being silently deleted like this. People aren’t getting the full story! And they don’t have a platform in which to complain about censorship, hence they contact Techrights about it.
I don’t think that IP Kat folks hate me or anything like this (some chat with me amicably online, even in public). Maybe they don’t want my name to show up in their comments for fear of another censorship campaign by the EPO itself (blocking the entire IP Kat blog). As noted above, much of this weirdness began after I had informed them about the EPO's bullying (SLAPP) of bloggers. Don’t let the EPO management get its way and shape the story. That’s just what they want! █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:34 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Whatever Battistelli wants from the Administrative Council (even collective punishment) he still gets
Summary: The Boards of Appeal (BoA) at the EPO have just been dealt another blow by Battistelli and new texts shed light on further crackdowns, not independence
Team Battistelli (i.e. Battistelli and his flunkies) habitually lies to staff and to journalists. Truth does not seem to matter anymore. On Friday we dissected the pack of lies released under the umbrella of "news" by EPO management after it had crushed the Boards of Appeal even further, paving the way for — as one person correctly noted — even more punishment (potentially collective punishment, which is hugely controversial and merely serves to discredit the whole Organisation).
With help/cooperation from his blindly loyal payees in the Administrative Council, Battistelli may have just engineered dismissal of the judge who allegedly spoke about Battistelli’s right-hand man (criminal charges in Croatia). To quote:
Why this reform is urgent?
21. (…) the President of the BOA will be responsible for proposing disciplinary action to the Administrative Council with regard to the members, including the Chairmen, of the BOA and the members of the EBA.
5. (…) the President of the BOA shall be appointed by the Administrative Council on a joint proposal made by the BOAC and the President of the Office (sic).
After this reform, the suspended member of BOA could be easily dismissed on proposal of the President of the BOA (for sure a BB [Battistelli] good friend).
The members of the Enlarged Board who dared to organize the public oral proceedings will be in trouble too.
This is exactly what we had in mind all along. The above puts it nicely citing the relevant paragraphs. Another comment says:
If the AC really were concerned about the independence of the BoAs, then why did they approve amendments that arguably make the Boards less independent (at least in some respects)?
It is not like they could not judge the effect of the proposals upon independence: AMBA’s comments on that point were unambiguous.
By the way, does anyone have a copy of CA/29/16 as amended that they are willing to make available? I am willing to wager that the most problematic issues with that proposal were not adequately dealt with by the amendments.
AMBA does not matter to Battistelli as it’s probably seen as an obstacle to his agenda. Regarding CA/29/16, says another comment: “I think those were only the proposal documents. As far as I understood the text wasn’t agreed as so much time was spent on DG3? The DG3 document was amended to drop references to non-DG3 staff with regard to these documents but wasn’t that just a nicety and CA29/16 would continue to be applicable to all staff if approved?”
Someone did eventually upload or link to CA/29/16 (annotated). We have made local copies of the following PDFs for long-term preservation purposes (differences shown at the top for those who are not eager to open PDFs on the World Wide Web):
Here you go:
CA/29/16 Rev. 1: Post-service integrity: prevention of conflicts of interest
CA/29/16 Add. 1 Rev. 1: Post-service integrity: prevention of conflicts of interest: comparison between existing and new text
“The amendments made by the Admin Council in CA/43/16 Rev.1 might not do everything you want,” one person wrote, “but they do address some of your concerns. They are more than “purely cosmetic”. Please read the actual document itself, not just the summary on the EPLAW blog. For example, the BOAC now has to consult users about amendments to the Rules of Procedure, not just the EPO President. The actual wording is to be proposed by the new President of the Boards of Appeal, advised by the Presidium.”
Yes, but who will be choosing or consenting to (or contrariwise, vetoing) a new President of the Boards of Appeal? See the comment above. “What is truly missing here is a comparison with national provisions/case law applicable in similar national cases,” another person wrote. “What is even more missing is an independent court capable to test proportionality and application of these CA/29/16 provisions. First of all, it goes about compensation for lost time and opportunities.”
“Battistelli just wants the perception of justice and a perception of independence, albeit it’s not clear at all how the latest changes would help achieve this.”The matter of fact is, as usual, national laws are largely ignored. They’re seen as obstacles. Battistelli just wants the perception of justice and a perception of independence, albeit it’s not clear at all how the latest changes would help achieve this.
Citing Robin Jacob at ‘IP and Other Things’ the above quotes the following “for the AC [Administrative Council] of the EPO,” s/he said. It goes like this: “And the wider our experience the more we can develop what I think is a key attribute – the ability to put yourself in the place of the other man or woman, whether they be litigant or witness or anyone else. This attribute – empathy-is precious; beyond just the courts it is one of the greatest protections against cruelty and one of the greatest forces for peace.”
It sure sounds like he was talking about Battistelli even though he certainly was not. What happens at the EPO right now is hugely damaging to the perception of lawfulness. Not only has the Office made some truly dubious hirings but it also viciously attacks those who are brave enough to bring up the subject. It’s the kind of behaviour one might expect from the Pentagon, so why not at the increasingly-militaristic EPO?
“What happens at the EPO right now is hugely damaging to the perception of lawfulness.”“EPO Stooge” wrote: “All of the alleged “decisions” of the administrative council (i.e. 43/16 and 29/16) are proposals only, it it clearly says in every case “for decision” on the cover page. In contrast, all decisions of the AC clearly state “Decision of the Administrative Council for/to/…”. I haven’t seen any official statement of the AC yet and what BB posts on the EPO’s intranet (quoted several times above) has a credibility rating of close to 0%, at least if its face value is concerned. Before jumping to conclusions, lets wait for both explicit decisions and an official statement by the AC (in a hidden niche on the EPO.org homepage). It should come out next week. There’s a lot of tactical moves going on, on both sides of the EPO/AC fence.” Well, another comment from “EPO Stooge” said: “Please disregard my latest comment re official AC statement on 148th meeting, just saw it (http://www.epo.org/about-us/organisation/communiques.html#a25). I’m very surprised that they actually did allow proceedings for a removal to a new building in Munich, after initial strong words against it, including those of influential members like Grossenbacher. Depressing. Deeply intransparent.”
Well, there he goes. Battistelli received everything he wanted and due to obsession over this one single matter there was no time at all to discuss his gross abuses (and failure to address demands) while he got the usual protection from his ‘clients’ and friend, Mr. Grossenbacher (the story of Brimelow led some to the suspicion that it was Grossenbacher along with Battistelli who had elbowed her out [1, 2, 3]). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 2:51 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Article as ODF
Publicadoen Europa, Patentesa las5:44 pmpor el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Mucho para ‘unitaria’ y ‘la mejor oficina de patentes (basado en los expertos conectados a la EPO)
Sumario: Las políticas regresivas de Battistelli y su completo mal comportamiénto motiva a la gente cada vez más a evitar a la EPO, lo que sirve a reforzar la observación de que Battistelli se ha convertido en un riesgo existencial de la EPO con sus treméndos gastos en su propia glorificación, militarización y dudosos contratos secrétos
EL LEGADO de Battistelli — sin importar cuando deje la Oficina— será una para los libros de historia. Battistelli no será recordado por nada pero por ser un tirano quien es odiado ampliámente por sus propios empleados ya que su grado de aprobación se mantenió en un 0%, creando advertencias de una crisis dentro de la Organización. Algunos gerentes de alto mando se han ido (o decidido dejar el bote) desde entonces.
Temprano esta noche El Register compuso una pieza acerca de los últimos ataques a las Salas de Recurso, acerca de los cuales la Oficina orguillosamente miente (la Oficina esta acostumbrada a mentir a sus empleados periódistas y los demás). He aquí una porción del artículo:
Un esfuerzo para expulsar de la Oficina Europea de Patentes (EPO) a su presidente Benoit Battistelli llegó a nada esta semana, cuando representantes de los países europeos pasaron dos días ´trabajando´ en una propuesta de reforma.
La reunión del Consejo de Administración de la EPO en Munich había amenazado con convertirse en un enfrentamiento sobre el comportamiento cada vez más autocrático de Battistelli – una situación personal de la EPO alentado por el intento de entrega de documentos legales al presidente y el envío de mensajes a los miembros del consejo para pedirles que le despidan.
El consejo decidió hacer caso omiso de manera efectiva las continuas disputas entre el personal y la gestión, sin embargo, en batea los temas del programa correspondientes a su próxima reunión de octubre.
En cambio, la reunión se centró en la reforma de Juntas de la organización de Apelación (BOA), que a su vez habían sido objeto de controversia debido a los esfuerzos de Battistelli para permitirse a sí mismo poderes adicionales sobre lo que se supone que es un órgano independiente y el proceso.
El Consejo rechazó la Powergrab, se autoriza un sistema de reforma que vio unas nuevas Juntas de Comité de Apelación de configurar como un subsidiario del Consejo de Administración, y un Presidente de nueva creación de la Junta de que va a absorber algunos de los poderes actualmente en poder del Presidente de la EPO.
Al momento, el único comentario allí dice “Tán Europeo,” el cual muestar a que grado Battistelli ha desgraciádo a Europa, no sólo a la EPO. Él ha creado resentimiénto en contra de las instituciónes de la UE y desconfianza en contra de los Franceses, lo que notamos anteriórmente como una buena razón para que los políticos Franceses se deshagan de él.
“Battistelli no será recordado por nada pero por ser un tirano quien es odiado ampliámente por sus propios empleados ya que su grado de aprobación se mantenió en un 0%, creando advertencias de una crisis dentro de la Organización.”
George Brock-Nannestad, un comentarista ocasional que escribe sobre el EPO, dejó un comentario en términos muy fuertes hoy. Dijo que “no es responsable de recomendar la obtención de una patente a través de la EPO,” directamente como resultado de las acciones de Battistelli que pueden matar a la Oficina en el largo plazo. No tome la EPO por sentado; cuando millones de euros se gastan en esencia la compra de los medios de comunicación y decenas de millones de euros son arrojados a empresas privadas sin ni siquiera una licitación probablemente necesitamos contadores forenses para hacer una visita, si Eponia lo permite (ni siquiera un agente judicial apenas se permite cerca del buzón de correos y autoridades croatas luchan para invocar con éxito Zeljko Topic, quien se niega a asistir a las audiencias sobre su presunta corrupción). Este es el comentario completo de Brock-Nannestad:
El desarrollo, o mejor dicho, terminando de la calidad en la EPO es muy triste y otro golpe a la estabilidad que permite un cierto grado de complacencia de los profesionales.
Al parecer, nadie entre los que se encargan de llevar a cabo la carta y las intenciones del CPE tiene ninguna perspectiva histórica. Al igual que los políticos sólo se preocupan de ser re-elegidos y de la financiación de su asiento [casi como en los EE.UU., donde la recaudación de fondos parece ser la principal actividad de los elegidos para el Congreso, al menos por algunos informes].
Sin embargo, los cambios que se pueden llevar a cabo en un año a lo que era un sistema de procesamiento de la solicitud completa tendrá repercusiones en más de 15 años, y aquellos usuarios que necesitan tener en cuenta dónde colocar su dinero “seguro” no puede correr el riesgo de obtención de patentes superficialmente brillantes que ocultan debilidades estructurales, y por otro lado no pueden tolerar las patentes de calidad similares de sus competidores actuales o futuros.
Para los consultores a las empresas más pequeñas, por lo menos, la lección es clara: ya no es responsable es recomendar la obtención de una patente a través de la EPO, y las soluciones más pronto alternativos se encuentran sobre una base individual, mejor, porque entonces las reformas en la EPO se no sentirse.
El problema restante será una sobreabundancia de patentes indignos de competición, agravado por la facilidad con la que los padres sabios esperan que la Unificado de Patentes sea obtenible, es decir, que defensas pueden las empresas más pequeñas reunir contra las patentes que van son los irritantes (casi) trollls? No estamos previendo un movimiento para eliminar la oposición europea como medio legítimo de defensa (pero quién soy yo para predecir nada?), Y eso es lo que se necesita.
9 meses (y mucho más, si usted tiene una conciencia temprana) es sin duda suficiente para estructurar búsquedas complementarias y estudiar los argumentos insignificantes de patentabilidad que vemos más y más. En efecto, existe una cuestión de costos, pero las empresas más pequeñas han acoplan entre sí en el pasado con el fin de proteger sus intereses mutuos, y el pago de una cuota de socio oposición patente corresponde de algún modo de acuerdo con su volumen de negocios. Y recuerda que, debido a la asimetría de la CPE, el titular perdedor no puede ir a los tribunales para tratar de revertir la decisión y con ello ganar más tiempo extorsión. Incluso si la EPO fuera a rechazar todas las oposiciones, los oponentes aún tienen los tribunales disponible.
Creo que tenemos que pensar de esta manera, y los miembros de CA no será realmente en oposición: sus oficinas de patentes, una vez más tienen responsabilidades, y si no pueden levantarlas ahora, debido a la complacencia y la fuerte dependencia de los contratos de servicios de examen de EPO, lo harán b … .y así tener que recargar sus baterías. El proyecto EPO será un paréntesis en la historia, un grupo de expertos de grandes dimensiones se desintegrará, y no habrá sacrificios humanos. Vamos a celebrar los 30 años durante los cuales tuvimos el orgullo, pero hay que seguir adelante.
Mi candidato para un único país de Europa en los que sería conveniente aplicar en todos los casos, es Alemania. En función de su bolso y competitivo situación en la que elegiría otros países también. Estamos de nuevo a antes de 1978! Por suerte todavía hay algunos profesionales por ahí con experiencia que va tan atrás.
Un ex/antiguo examinador de la IPO del Reino Unido sostiene que los delegados del CA “que no deseen mostrar ignorancia seguiran a la manada” y he aquí estan aceptando las propuestas de Battistelli, no importa el dinero y el gratuito cuidado dental. Para citar:
Me temo que hemos visto a BB utilizando el principio de la acreditación con buenos resultados (BBB = “Bullshit cerebros de los deflectores», y lo que veteranos de las Fuerzas Armadas del Reino Unido dicen). No sé nada acerca de los delegados del CA, pero parece ser una ley de la naturaleza (como se expuso hace muchas décadas en el libro de texto clásico “Ley de Parkinson”), que el tipo de persona que termina en un comité como el AC, tiene pocas veces tenía “manos en” la experiencia en la operación del día a día de la organización a la que representan (a menudo después de haber llegado de otro campo a nivel alto), y, no queriendo demostrar la ignorancia, tenderá a seguir a la manada, especialmente si argumentos se presentan con suficiente fuerza.
La EPO, sostiene esta persona, es “cara e impredecíble. Pueda ser buena para los grandes jugadores (i.e. corporaciónes multinacionales) , pero no es una solución sensible para las PYMEs.” Lo mismo es verdad para la UPC, por la cual Battistelli lucha y trabaja duro para imponerla:
Las patentes nacionales son de repente mucho más atractivas. Sobre todo porque muchos de los principales estados de patentes han relajado sus requisitos para la aplciación local. La ruta nacional es ahora altamente rentable, y mucho menos riesgoso que poner todos los huevos en la canasta de EPO. nuevo régimen de apelación de la OEP hace que toda la ruta EPO sea demasiado cara e impredecible. Puede estar bien para los grandes corporaciónes multinacionales, pero ya no es una opción razonable para las PYMEs.
He aquí una explicación del porque los delegados del CA no están hablando acerca de los abusos de Battistelli y sus muchas ofensas dignas de despido; en vez de ello, él ataca más aún a aquellos a quienes abusó (castigo colectivo es una posibilidad por defender a un colega) así que los delegados simplemente siguen la corriente:
Tras reflexionar sobre ello, es posible que algunas (deliberadas) tácticas interesantes pueden haber sido empleados por BB en la última reunión del CA.
La razón para la reflexión es la siguiente: ¿por qué fue la discusión de la reforma de la Boas tan urgente (. Es decir, no 1 punto en el orden del CA), sea tan complejo (es decir, la participación de múltiples propuestas que, sin una buena razón, estaban atados juntos por la Oficina) y tan controversial (es decir tan abiertamente en contra del sentido común como para garantizar un intenso debate en la reunión de la CA)?
Tal vez podría ser que BB cree que la mejor forma de defensa es el ataque. Si es capaz de controlar la agenda y acondicionar el ambiente atándolos con un debate sobre el primer punto, luego cuidadosamente elude un problema que podría haber realmente lo visto en la línea de fuego. También gana meses (en lugar de sólo unos días) para preparar su defensa a cualquier crítica que se derivan de la debacle reciente Eboa (artículo 23 del CPE).
Bien puede ser mucho más complicado que eso. Sin embargo, si realmente era así de simple, a continuación, los delegados a la AC tienen que despertar al hecho de que BB bien puede jugar con ellos para los tontos.
Definitivamente debo señalar, mi intención en caso de que se entiende mal, que soy un gran defensor de la UE y también un defensor de la EPO como un proyecto para toda la UE (y más allá de la UE). Sin embargo, lo que sucede en este momento dentro de la EPO significa que Europa perderá toda su competitividad y dañará su reputación. Mientras más pronto nos deshagamos Battistelli y sus compadres, mejor. Estamos llegando al punto en que hacerlo podría ser demasiado tarde (salas de recursos ya están siendo hundidas, por lo que la situación es irreversible y la decision es prácticamente irrevocable).
Permalink
Send this to a friend
07.02.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:23 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Article as ODF
Publicado en Europa, Patentes at 5:02 pm por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Tratándo de mantenerse a flote de un fracaso total incluso sin cambiarle de nombre (como en sus previos intentos)
Sumario: Los desésperados intentos para irse al fondo con la Corte Unitaria de Patentes y el esfuerzo mal guíado/intenciónado de Battistelli para reducir la calidad de patentes y hacerla aumentar, además de creciéntes pagos por matrículas (para desánimar apelaciónes, retiros, etc)
Los llamados ‘equipos expertos ‘ que conspiraron (conjúntamente con la gerencia de la EPO) para crear y pasar (enyucarnos) la UPC se encuéntran en un estado pobre al presente. ‘Brexit’ los dejó sin habla o en retirada.
MIP acaba de publicar un artículo originalmente compuesto antes del voto ‘Brexit’. Habla de las Salas de Recurso, a los que la UPC amenazó de hacer redundantes (basados en algunas especulaciónes pero no todas). Ahora nos enteramos que aunque la UPC no se haga realidad las Salas de Recurso está en serios problemas. Battistelli simplemente quiso aplastar el control de calidad todo este tiempo, haciendo a la EPO como a la nefasta USPTO donde la llamada ‘producción’ se dobló en materia de años (porque el control de calidad raramente es aplicable).
“Ahora nos enteramos que aunque la UPC no se haga realidad las Salas de Recurso está en serios problemas.”
Escribiéndo acerca de la EPO y la UPC hoy, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP nos recuérdan que viven en un mundo de fantasía. Se habla antes de existir de un “Tribunal de la Patentes Unificado (UPC)” a pesar de que no hay tal corte y una apertura no se hace una realidad ahora (o nunca).
“El Comité Preparatorio de la UPC y el Comité Selecto de la EPO han emitido una declaración conjunta diciendo que van a continuar con su trabajo previsto a pesar del voto Brexit,” MIP informa hoy. Bueno, ‘Brexit’ hace que sea imposible hasta que engañan/engartuzen, de alguna manera, ya que probablemente lo harán. Nos esperaba esto cuando escribimos sobre ello la semana pasada y al comienzo de esta semana. UPC simplemente significaría más trolls de patentes en Europa, menor calidad de las patentes (incluyendo quizás las patentes de software), y una acción más legal en todas partes. Es el sueño húmedo de un maximalista patente.
“¿Cuánto tiempo puede durar esto y quién va a pagar el precio de las patentes concedidas erróneamente?”
La EPO está de caída. Las grandes corpóraciones multinaciónales son otorgadas patentes en grupo/al por mayor (aliénando a las PYMEs las que son su mayoríá en el paisaje Europeo) y en relación con el artículo mencionado ayer y hoy temprano en Techrights ahora hay este anunciio oficial “la EPO lanza su rápido otorgamiénto de patentes con Australia” (warning: epo.org link). La EPO también toma nota de los cambios en pagos “retorno de dinero por retiros” (temprano hoy), asi que talves piensan compensar por baja calidad de patentes por alta cantidad de patentes otorgadas asi como mayores pagos. ¿Cuánto tiempo puede durar esto y quién va a pagar el precio de las patentes concedidas erróneamente? Estas son preguntas retóricas.
Europa esta a pueras de sufrir por ello (talvez por muchas decadas) como resultado de las terribles políticas de Battistelli y su fantasía de la UPC (promovidas por sus patrones al otro lado del charco), las que son un desperdicio de tiempo, energía y dinero. Nunca antes el sistema de patentes europeos ha estado en tal situación de confusión.
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