12.26.16
Posted in America, Deception, Patents at 3:35 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Fenwick & West’s Bilski Blog is not a service; it’s marketing
Summary: Looking at some of the latest promotions of software patents in the US and where this is all coming from (and why)
THE stature of software patents proponents isn’t quite what it used to be (they speak from a position of weakness now) and potency of software patents is at an all-time low. As one legal site put it the other day, a lot of these people now hope that Trump will magically change something (to their advantage). The article states that “Brendan S. Lillis, an associate at Phillips Lytle LLP, concentrates his practice in all areas of intellectual property law, with particular emphasis on patent preparation and prosecution and opinion work in the software, mobile applications and electronic arts.”
“We are generally quite open and frank about the parasitic nature of most patent law firms out there.”The problem is, Lillis works for an industry that profits from litigation and applications that precede litigation. They view things from an entirely different perspective, in the same way that an arms industry views peace negatively (or apprehensively, if they’re publicly polite about it). A legal firm, Banner & Witcoff Ltd, has just given small businesses some really bad advice (to pay legal firms), but what is the point if a small business can barely even afford going to court?
We are generally quite open and frank about the parasitic nature of most patent law firms out there. They pretend to care about “small businesses”, the “small inventor” etc. but all they care about is themselves and huge corporations that bring them the most income (for protectionism). Don’t fall for their marketing pitch!
“Federal Circuit judges spar over software patents,” said the headline from lawyers media the other day. “Will they ever agree?” (behind paywall)
“Notice how, at the same time, pro-software patents sites such as IAM want us to believe that CAFC suddenly loves software patents and things are somehow changing.”Well, in the majority of cases the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) rules against software patents, which is all one needs to know. Fenwick & West’s Sachs kept track of pretty much all these cases and generated charts based on these. These charts were very helpful. But what Sachs means by “gift” is software patents. These people are making no (successful) endeavor to hide their agenda/subjective interpretation. Instead of showing some objectivity they are just promoting their own business (profit). They are producing and showing lots of charts and along/between the lines they also interject opinions about whether the outcome is desirable or not — quite unprofessional if this was scholarly work. What they are trying to accomplish at the blog (if it can be called that, as it’s growingly looking like marketing) is squashing of Bilski and Alice. Wolves in sheep’s clothing is what they are and they are exploiting the name Bilski (of the famous patent case) to do this. To quote from their latest post, “Alice Brings a Mix of Gifts For 2016 Holidays”:
As I previously reported, the monthly data showed a drop in the number of invalidity decisions as well as an overall downward trend in the invalidity rate for district court decisions. In December thus far there’s been an uptick in such invalidity decisions (seven thus far) and a few more may issue in the before the year is out. The dotted line above shows the invalidity over three month periods, to smooth out the monthly fluctuations; overall the trend has been downward.
Nonetheless, in October, I cautioned that “I would prefer to see these numbers hold for several months,” because the Federal Circuit “continues to affirm more invalidity decisions than it reverses.” This fact still holds true: there have been nine decisions by the Federal Circuit since October, and they have affirmed ineligible subject matter in seven of them (77%).
Notice how, at the same time, pro-software patents sites such as IAM want us to believe that CAFC suddenly loves software patents and things are somehow changing. They aren’t. That’s usually just agenda disguised as news — something which IAM does a lot of. Therein lies the business model of IAM. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.23.16
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 7:13 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Photo credit: British government (official profile)
Summary: The British economy, which is dominated by SMEs, would be greatly harmed by the Unitary Patent if it ever became a reality, but echo chambers of the patent microcosm intentionally misrepresent such businesses and lobby politicians
THE EPO‘s management, led by an autocrat who has promoted the UPC for many years, would like us to believe that the UPC is an SME ‘thing’ (the very opposite is true).
Yesterday we saw MIP, which organised UPC propaganda events (funded by the usual suspects), trying to piggyback Sean Dennehey for UPC promotion. We wish to ensure that Dennehey knows what/who the UPC really is for, as these UPC propaganda events were set up specifically for the purpose of brainwashing public officials. The people who organise and fund such events are chronic liars, as we have chronicled here for a number of years. “Dennehey took on the role of acting chief executive following the Brexit vote earlier this year,” MIP explains, “when the IPO’s former head John Alty moved to the newly created Department for International Trade.”
Dennehey is actually a good guy. Since he took over the UK IPO (or UK-IPO) he has done something useful for a change — something that can help small businesses. He oughtn’t be seduced into the toxic illusion that the UPC would somehow help SME; it would, in reality, harm them the most.
The article from MIP is behind a paywall, but based on what is said about it (e.g. this tweet which says “Sean Dennehey outlines UK’s ‘very firm commitment’ to #UPC in wide ranging interview in @ManagingIP”), Dennehey simply ignores the fact that UPC is not compatible with Brexit and would definitely harm the UK, all for the gain of patent trolls, foreign companies, and their lawyers, which may (not necessarily) be based in London.
Why is the UPC highly unlikely to happen in the UK? revisit this 7-part series:
We remind readers that Lucy has just left her job, after she foolishly promoted the UPC, defying logic and even getting slammed for it by domain experts. As this comment from yesterday put it: “And the Baroness is now moving on (to presumably greater things rather than as any disciplinary action). New hand on the tiller? And which direction will the joining go? Steady as she goes, or hard about and head for safe waters??”
Even an ode was put together about this (already!) and it spells out “SACKED”:
S o Lucy lasted 24 weeks at full throttle
A UPC genie needs to be squeezed back in the bottle
C ould be a rolling stone gathers no moss
K ing Batters loses a chinchilla,is mourning the loss
E ager beaver sought to lay the ghost
D id Lady Garden apply for the post?
Sean Dennehey ought to know, based on discussions he had with EPO staff, that not everything he is being told by Battistelli is true. That’s applicable to the UPC as well.
He has already resisted Battistelli in the last meeting (disciplinary procedures ‘reform’ in October) and resisted the exile of the appeal boards last week (latest meeting). The latter vote did not manage to sway the overall balance against countries whose vote Battistelli is allegedly buying, but it sends out the message that large European economies don’t act like chinchillas of Battistelli. They increasingly antagonise this crazed tyrant who is burying the Office and greatly harming stakeholders (like EP holders).
The EPO should actually staff the grossly understaffed boards, but all it does under Battistelli is throwing of interns at them (tweet from yesterday, along the same lines as earlier this month); that’s how Battistelli kills them (along with other measures), some say in order to demonstrate their ‘failure’ (same tactics which are being used against the NHS) and then propose UPC as the ‘fix’. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.22.16
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 9:19 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Just doin’ his Joff…
Summary: Criticism of the continued, ever-accelerating erosion of patent quality at the European Patent Office (EPO) and shameless attempts by Battistelli to cover it up using money (EPO budget thrown at the media)
THE very few times that IAM merely took note of EPO scandals these mentions became top stories, according to figures published today by IAM’s editor. Shouldn’t IAM take that as a clue and actually engage in journalism, instead of persisting in propaganda for Battistelli? (see above)
“Shouldn’t IAM take that as a clue and actually engage in journalism, instead of persisting in propaganda for Battistelli?”The EPO, as even insiders tell us, continues to grant patents it should never have granted at all. This includes software patents. Even examiners who are against software patents eventually grant them (under pressure) and this new article should make furious anyone who has EPs. Values of EPs erode because patent quality ceased to exist under Battistelli. As the article puts it: “The European Patent Office (EPO) continues to grant many patents relating to antibodies, and in doing so applies the same patentability criteria as to other inventions. However, some commentators have suggested that antibodies are regarded as a special case by the EPO when evaluating inventive step / obviousness.”
For those who are not familiar with this domain, antibodies are (based on Wikipedia) “Y-shaped protein produced mainly by plasma cells that is used by the immune system to identify and neutralize pathogens such as bacteria and viruses.”
“The EPO, as even insiders tell us, continues to grant patents it should never have granted at all.”File this under another case of “patents on life” — a subject which even the USPTO has not been all that gullible about. Does Europe want to privatise or monopolise even fuctionalities associated with biology or the human body (naturally-recurring and found in nature)? Where does this end?
Brian Cronin, a Patent Attorney from the UK (who works in Switzerland now), has just published this article about “European inventive step” and having read the whole thing from Watchtroll (the rudest element of the patent microcosm) we are left unconvinced; nowhere does it mention the erosion of patent quality; instead if repeats the empty claims (from EPO management) of leadership on quality grounds, citing IAM of course. It concludes with this paragraph:
The EPO proudly boasts that it is consistently rated number one for patent quality among the world’s largest patent offices based on user surveys. Patent quality is also a major objective for the USPTO, who are striving to improve their lower user ratings. This article suggests that a contributing factor to the EPO’s perceived high quality is the coherent way inventive step is handled, this involving the institution of examining divisions and use of the problem-and- solution approach by the examiners and by EQE-qualified practitioners. As opposed to this, the USPTO’s lower rating can in part be explained by its piecemeal handling of obviousness and less coherent input. Improving patent quality is a mantra of the USPTO management. If they could take steps to improve the coherence in handling obviousness, improved quality would follow.
At the moment what we are seeing is that the USPTO actually does improve patent quality, resulting in less litigation and abuses, whereas under Battistelli the EPO goes in the opposite direction. Weeks ago an international patent law firm publicly stated that it’s now easier to get software patents in Europe than in the US, in spite of Europe’s ban on such patents. Lawfulness is long gone from the EPO.
When will IAM stop producing lies (whilst receiving payments from the EPO’s PR firm) and when will EPO management stop citing IAM as ‘proof’? We have already given examples where the EPO also bribes mainstream European media for puff pieces, which Battistelli later cites to support his dubious claims. Such is the corrupting influence of the Battistelli-led regime. It corrupts the media as a whole at the (very high) expense of people who apply for and maintain EPs (renewal). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.21.16
Posted in America, Asia, Deception, GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Patents at 8:39 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Scare tactics and vengefulness from the Patent Maximalists’ Lobby
Summary: The growing embrace of “China” as the convenient bogeyman for those who oppose patent reform and wish to see a resurgence of patent chaos, from which they personally profit at victims’ expense
THE USPTO may be in self-perpetuating denial about it, but software patents are a dying breed in the US as courts don’t tolerate them. The EPO, in the mean time, moves in the opposite direction, but we’ll leave the EPO out of this post’s scope.
Unhappy With Insufficient Number of Lawsuits and Collateral Damage
Paul Morinville, a prominent opposer of patent reform in the US (and part of Watchtroll’s ilk), whines that “PTAB procedures are now invalidating nearly 90% of all patents they evaluate.” Yes, so what? Alice and other cases are pretty clear about it and PTAB, unlike patent examiners, is not being pressured to just bless every patent in the name of “production” or “success” (again, a growing problem at today’s EPO).
Morinville picks on Google (large company as his latest scapegoat) and some of his online friends already heckle me for pointing that out. To quote his article: “Over the next decade, the Supreme Court would eliminate injunctive relief and then for all intents and purposes, invalidate their patents first under Bilski and then under Alice. The courts also changed the way claims were written, thus invalidating thousands of patents retroactively. The America Invents Act’s PTAB procedures are now invalidating nearly 90% of all patents they evaluate. The courts also radically reduced damages for patent infringement.”
That’s good. But wait until Morinville brings up the bogeyman again — the same bogeyman that David Kappos has been summoning recently.
Let’s Envy China
“With China strengthening its patent system,” Morinville says, in probably the most ludicrous part of the whole article. China is actually weakening patents by granting almost everything that comes through SIPO’s doors, causing a patent hyper-inflation and an epidemic of trolling. How is that desirable to anyone but the patent microcosm? These anti-AIA think tanks and lobbyists (like Morinville), who want more lawsuits and more litigation, continue to infest the Web and a lot of them congregate around Watchtroll these days. This pattern of China-blaming or China-shaming mirrors what the Democratic Party in the US has been doing with Russia as of late.
Watchtroll wants the USPTO and the courts to start another race to the bottom and give/approve patents on everything, just like SIPO in China. One might call it “the litigation lobby” — for all it want is more and more lawsuits (which the lobby profits from). Watch another new Watchtroll article, this time by Steve Brachmann, the henchman of Quinn. So people who don’t even develop anything insist that “China” is the threat and that “Chinese patent guidelines” are a threat to the US rather than to China itself.
What kind of post-truth nonsense have we sunk to here?
Watchtroll, in another new article, says “Keep it Cordial” while Quinn attacks everyone who does not agree with him, even judges (see the image at the top).
What a nasty Web site this is. For IBM’s patent chief to occasionally link to it probably takes some guts because it says a lot about IBM, which has gone rogue (even IBM employees now protest/object to the management over that infamous Trump fawning).
China’s Growing Trolls Epidemic
China’s situation with regards to patents is not good. As we have been pointing out since the summer, SIPO grants far too many patents, including software patents. “This is especially true for software patents where the scope of patent protection is rather vague,” says this new article from China, which also mentions Xiaomi, a company that got trolled through India, as we noted before. To quote the relevant part:
As Chinese smartphone brands work to carve out a spot in the major-league global smartphone industry, they are increasingly being dragged into an international patent war with foreign tech firms.
The latest case saw San Francisco-based audio tech firm Dolby Laboratories lodge a lawsuit against Chinese smartphone companies Oppo and Vivo in India, accusing them of infringing on its patented technology. Back in 2014, Chinese tech firm Xiaomi was barred from selling phones in India after Sweden-based Ericsson filed a complaint with an India court alleging patent infringement.
The Ericsson-Microsoft patent trolls strategy (using trolls as proxies) was mentioned here twice this month [1, 2] and Xiaomi is again being mentioned by the Microsoft Windows-powered IAM (with other Microsoft connections). It is again embellishing Microsoft's patent extortion against Linux as follows:
The May agreement between Microsoft and Xiaomi was undoubtedly the IP deal of the year and it was also an excellent example of how patents can play a role in broader commercial agreements. Under the terms of the deal, Xiaomi undertook to pre-load Microsoft products on to more of its mobile devices, the two sides agreed to a cross-licence and the US software giant transferred 1,500 patent assets to the Chinese company. The transaction provides an excellent foundation for Xiaomi as it looks to grow its business in the US and for Microsoft as it continues its penetration of the Chinese market.
This is misleading. All we have here is patent extortion by Microsoft against Linux, even in China where the government of China took a strong stance against it (even leaking a list of Microsoft patents that are secretly being sued to blackmail Chinese companies like ZTE). We believe that Huawei, the world’s leading Android OEM these days, is still able to resist Microsoft’s Mafia-like tactics. Microsoft repeatedly failed to sign a patent deal.
The bottom line is, China has become a dangerous place patents-wise. Is that desirable to anyone but the patent microcosm? Of course not. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.20.16
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 11:29 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
It must be almost the tenth time Benoît Battistelli pulls this trick in order to paint himself as sympathetic, concerned, and victimised
Summary: An incredible little essay signed by Benoît Battistelli, whom some colleagues hold accountable for the premature deaths of (up to) more than half a dozen EPO staff
THE EPO boasts the biggest liar in the world. Sepp Blatter is a Saint and an angel compared to him. The USPTO has some issues, but nobody ever dares compare it to anything like the EPO, where some executives would probably be in prison if they were not above the law. In some people’s views or minds, Battistelli employs terror tactics for ultimate control and he breaks national laws in the process. Yes, even Dutch politicians openly call it that and defend the characterisation with terms like “Gestapo” and “Reign of terror”. It’s almost an objective interpretation.
“Such are the symptoms of psychopathy; Battistelli’s mental state seem to have made him incapable of admitting any errors; instead he attacks anyone who dares tell him the truth, even delegates over whom he has no authority.”Benoît Battistelli is a master of institutionally violent autocracy, yet he pretends to be a victim of violence. He is a master of hypocrisy, lies, etc. while he accuses others of falsehoods. Such are the symptoms of psychopathy; Battistelli’s mental state seem to have made him incapable of admitting any errors; instead he attacks anyone who dares tell him the truth, even delegates over whom he has no authority. May the European authorities do to him what they did to Sepp Blatter, but they probably lack the authority to do so. They cannot even enter EPO facilities without prior permission (e.g. to independently investigate suicides).
And now, as we predicted last night, the EPO’s President shamelessly exploits the Berlin attack (warning: epo.org link). How about victims (fatalities) of the EPO's legal bullying and Battistelli's reign of terror? Did Battistelli fail to spot the hypocrisy? Is he senile or something?
“European Patent Office condemns blind hatred,” he wrote, yet anything Battistelli does seems to be driven by vengeance and hatred. Spot the hypocrisy from this man who turned the EPO into a “reign of terror”. He complains about terrorism now.
Benoît Battistelli speaks of “inclusive society based on fundamental principles of freedom, equality and justice.” Seriously? Signed by Battistelli?
“Says the man who keeps breaking German law and insists it’s OK because he’s enjoying immunity and impunity.”He says “sympathy goes to the victims, their families, relatives and friends.” Except those whose family and relatives Battistelli rebuked after his “Gestapo” drove loved ones to suicide?
“As a symbol of our solidarity with Germany and the German people,” Benoît Battistelli continued…
Says the man who keeps breaking German law and insists it’s OK because he’s enjoying immunity and impunity.
Benoît Battistelli says the “attack will never be able to destroy these principles, nor our values of cultural diversity…”
What principles? Benoît Battistelli must be a sick, demented person if he wrote all the above himself and didn’t merely sign it. He speaks of “tolerance and mutual respect.” That’s like Stalin or Pol Pot speaking of tolerance and mutual respect.
Another new low for the EPO… pass the vomit bag. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.18.16
Posted in America, Deception, Patents at 4:40 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Reference: Historical revisionism
Summary: Rebuttal to some recent articles from sites of (and for) the patent microcosm, or the meta-industry which wants more and more patents (hence more and more litigation)
PATENTS are a two-edged sword and for patent lawyers it means double-dipping. They profit both from the plaintiff and the defendant, or the aggressor and the victim. When people speak of the benefits of patents they often neglect to mention the harms; only one group benefits irrespective of the outcome.
“When people speak of the benefits of patents they often neglect to mention the harms; only one group benefits irrespective of the outcome.”The US, at a national level, wanted so badly to use patents against China and now China is schooling them using their own weapon. As the trolls’ voice (IAM) puts it, “[f]or US patent owners, a key element of their China strategies could be about to get much harder” (I have also heard this personally from an old friend who pursued or at least explored the option as recently as months ago).
The patent strategy of the US is clearly not working. The US is killing its very own businesses — especially small (or local) businesses — and only a growing meta-industry benefits. Watchtroll, part of this meta-industry, is now attacking another politician who does not agree with him and his grubby, money-grabbing hands. We don’t want to entertain IAM or Watchtroll too much (they are the opposition’s voice), but we are hardly surprised by these posts of theirs that border on personal attacks, lobbying disguised as news, and shameless self promotion.
“As one can expect, patent law firms ignore all the decisions they don’t like, then amplify rare exceptions.”Speaking of shameless self promotion, in these times when it’s widely agreed that software patents have become a waste of time and money (after Alice in particular) law firms like Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP don’t want us to know the facts and instead cherry-pick cases to construct a flawed narrative. Hunter Freeman and Seann Patrick Lahey from McNair Law Firm give tips for overcoming a de facto BAN on software patents. Imagine if they gave such tips in areas of criminal law, immigration, etc. (like ways to avoid prosecution for rape/murder). It’s surreal, yet it has become so banal. This banality is now so prevalent that we must not simply ignore it. Here is Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP cherry-picking PTAB/CAFC cases. As one can expect, patent law firms ignore all the decisions they don’t like, then amplify rare exceptions. Why? To mislead prospective/existing clients. They fight an information war.
“Having been awarded a software patent in 2016 is no small achievement,” says this new press release as if software patents are likely to survive courts like the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC).
In the “PTAB Litigation Blog”, a blog run by a self-serving firm rather than unbiased observers, more of the expected bias can be found this past week. “The PTAB Currently Places The Burden Of Proof For Claim Amendments On The Patent Owner,” it says (as should be, rightly so). Is there a problem with that?
“It’s typically a sign of one firm’s financial failure if not bankruptcy, resulting in re-employment elsewhere.”Baker Donelson, another person from the meta-industry, is downplaying PTAB IPRs that are being used to invalidate many thousands (by extrapolation) of software patents in the US. Curiously, based on Donelson’s link in his article (IAM-hosted), the author’s employer is being absorbed. “Baker Donelson will combine with the well-respected national law firm Ober|Kaler as of January 1, 2017,” it says. Yet another example of one legal firm collapsing onto another in the post-Alice era? We’re losing count. It’s typically a sign of one firm’s financial failure if not bankruptcy, resulting in re-employment elsewhere. Sustainability of such firms is declining, spurring a panic and frantic attacks on Obama’s patent policy.
Let it be understood that software patents are not potent and CAFC has done virtually nothing to stop PTAB from invalidating software patents even outside the courts. Let it also be clear that the meta-industry (or patent microcosm as it’s sometimes called) created a misleading picture and constructed a parallel reality in order to further its agenda and embellish its bottom line.
“The era of software patents is over and the only opportunity for a rebound might be Justices and USPTO Director appointments by Trump…”See this new report about Verint Systems Inc. v Red Box Recorders that says “Plaintiff Verint asserted six patents against Red Box (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,774,854, 5,790,798, 6,510,220, RE43,324, RE43,386, and 8,189,763) in the District Court for the Southern District of New York. Red Box rebutted, asserting that all claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 due to being directed to patent-ineligible abstract ideas.”
That’s Alice and if it’s pursued all the way up to CAFC or SCOTUS expect all these patents to be thrown away. The era of software patents is over and the only opportunity for a rebound might be Justices and USPTO Director appointments by Trump, which is why the meta-industry already lobbies him so unbelievably hard (more on that in the next few posts). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.15.16
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 10:26 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
UPC is dead, but those who spent years promoting it just don’t want to see it (or anyone else to see it)
Summary: The lobby for UPC continues to behave as though the UPC will be a reality “real soon now!” (maintaining an illusion of momentum) even though the reality is rather grim as Britain prepares to exit the EU
THE prevalence and frequency of lies emanating/coming from the EPO (Team Battistelli) and from Team UPC is verging the unimaginable*. For those who still think that the UPC is just around the corner, read the following recent series of articles:
Unlike Battistelli, Team UPC, etc. we have no vested interest (let alone financial interest) besides the truth. A good analogy here would be the “WoMD” claims about Iraq. Some of these people know they are lying through their teeth (unless they actually believe their own lies), but there’s so much money at stake, so they cannot help themselves.
Germany, based on this one patent law firm, wants UPC and patent litigation to be managed around Germany, but with Brexit here in the UK the UPC is essentially in a deadlock. Here is what the firm said:
Yesterday the draft by the German Federal Government for the implementation of the UPC Agreement was published. In this draft the Federal Government gives some statements on the costs and expected case number. The German Federal Government will invest the one-time sum of €1 million for starting the Central Division in Munich and expects a further €450,000.00 of yearly operational costs. Starting the four Local Divisions is expected to cost about €2 million and additional yearly operational costs of €900,000.00.
An article by Robert Smyth and Todd B. Buck of Morgan Lewis also entertains the UPC right now, in spite of the obvious issues due to Brexit. There were also many comments about it in IP Kat this week and last week, clustered around the usual Bristows UPC propaganda that is so habitually posted in IP Kat these days (the site is used by Bristow for propaganda purposes because nobody reads news from Bristows’ own site). Brexit has effectively made the UPC impossible (for the UK at least, if not all of Europe), but the fantasy lives on and Bristows staff writes:
Yesterday, the UK’s deputy permanent representative to the EU, Shan Morgan, signed the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities of the Unified Patent Court. The Protocol is necessary for the UPC and its judges to carry out their activities. The UK was the final remaining compulsory signatory to the Protocol to sign. The others – France, Germany and Luxembourg – signed the Protocol on 29 June 2016 (soon after the referendum). The UK still needs to pass national legislation to implement the Protocol before it can ratify. This will be done by way of a statutory instrument (SI). The UK’s signature of the Protocol will be recorded on the Council’s website shortly.
Just some words on a Web site (again) won’t remove the obvious legal barriers, not to mention the public backlash that would ensue. Ordinary businesses do not want the UPC; parasitic firms like Bristows do. Bristows is clearly in the propaganda business, not just the patent business. This distortion of facts does the firm no favours. █
______
* Speaking of EPO lies, see this new EPO tweet linking to an article with sentences like “there were roughly 250 patent applications per 100,000 people” and conflating it with innovation/invention. Only a fool or a liar like the EPO’s PR department would use number of patents (expensive for people in poorer countries) as a measure/yardstick for inventiveness.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.11.16
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
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
Content is available under CC-BY-SA