03.15.16

Battistelli Unsurprisingly Rejects Opportunity to Salvage His Status, EPO Strike Likely to Proceed Soon

Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:04 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: The outcome of today’s meeting with Benoît Battistelli results in the imminent initiation of a strike action, which Battistelli keeps trying to delay/block

The EPO’s Central Staff Committee extended an olive branch to Benoît Battistelli, but he has clinched onto none of it. He’s too stubborn and proud of himself, even when he takes law into his own hands (from the hands of those qualified to do so).

The report on today’s meeting is already available and here it is as HTML:

Zentraler Personalausschuss
Central Staff Committee
Le Comité central du Personnel

15.03.2016
sc16045cp – 0.2.1/0.3.2

Dear colleagues,

The meeting between the Central Staff Committee and the President has just finished. It lasted for just over two hours. The President was accompanied by VP 1, VP 2, VP 4, PD 4.3 and further advisors. Some Local Staff Committee members were present, but – as they declared with any intervention – only in an observer role. Although all agenda items were addressed and CSC made constructive proposals, the President was unwilling to concede in any way to any of the petitioners’ requests.

As your interlocutor in the recent call for strike (91% of staff voted in favour), we asked the President to take a position on the following questions. His responses are summarised below:

● Will you lift the disciplinary punishments against Elizabeth Hardon, Ion Brumme and Malika
Weaver?

The President stated he was strictly bound by the rules: for the disciplinary punishments, firstly a management review must be filed, and due procedure (ultimate review by ILO-AT) will follow. The President did not accept the CSC’s proposal compatible with the existing rules to receive legal advice and reconsider his decisions straightaway. Neither, despite long pendency times for a procedure before ILO-AT, the President did not accept our proposal to subject the decisions to external, independent review by involving renowned legal experts. The President was not aware that one management review request had already been filed; however, PD 4.3 confirmed that this was the case.

● Will you lift the disciplinary sanctions against the former members of the Internal Appeals Committee?

Again, the President declared he was bound by the rules. In this case, the time for management review had expired and he did not intend to revise the respective decisions.

● Will you stop the disciplinary threats, investigations and retaliations against further Staff Representatives?

The President did not comment on this question.

● Will you be ready to revise the Investigation Guidelines together with the Staff Representation based on a mandate that is agreed by both parties?

The President declared he would consider a future review. However, he regarded any kind of revocation as legally and politically impossible and rejected making such a proposal to the Council. Furthermore, any amendments resulting from a future review could not be applied retroactively. The CSC stressed that favourable decisions could have a retroactive effect. The President did not accept working together with the Staff Representation under an agreed mandate, since such an agreed mandate would simply be used as a veto right in the President’s opinion.

● Will you be ready to adapt the strike regulations according to the judgment of the Dutch Court?

The President stated that there were many contrary decisions delivered by national courts that raised the issue of immunity. The President set forth that the judgment in question had been already referred to the Supreme Court with the support of the Dutch government.

● Will you be ready to revise the health, sick-leave and invalidity regulations together with the Staff Representation based on a mandate that is agreed by both parties?

The President acknowledged reviews were necessary and in progress. Referring to the upcoming social study, the President declared this would be a useful indicator of necessary change. Therefore, he could not contemplate a major review before autumn.

● Which further concessions are you willing to make?

No further proposals were made.

The President did not agree that the Office is in crisis. He was of the opinion that he had the full support of the Council with this view. Therefore, the CSC cannot see any reason yet to postpone the strike. Nevertheless, our final decision in this regard will only be taken following the outcome of the meeting of the Administrative Council.

Your Central Staff Committee

If Battistelli “did not agree that the Office is in crisis,” then he is clearly delusional, probably as self-deluding as the people who published this nonsense today in Munich. One person online called it “DEPRESSING & DISGUSTING!!! Nothing but LIES!”

If someone can send us a translation, we can prepare a rebuttal. There is a big PR campaign going on and if left unchallenged it can fool a lot of people in Munich and beyond. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Overthrowing Battistelli Only Part of a Bigger Job (Restoration of Quality and Human Decency at the European Patent Office)

Posted in Europe, Patents at 3:37 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: A status report one day before the staff’s demonstration and readers’ thoughts on what may be needed at the European Patent Office in order to attain peace

THE EPO is in a transitory phase right now. Battistelli’s job is at stake and more clarify will be given/provided tomorrow or the day after tomorrow. Philip Cordery wrote about this yesterday and we require an accurate translation of it. Based on the opening paragraph (automated translation from Google): “At my request, the European Affairs Committee held a hearing on March 1 the President of the European Patent Organisation (EPO), Mr. Battistelli. This was the question the functioning of the office, on the eve of the introduction of the unitary patent, but also on the social situation deteriorated in the Intergovernmental office.”

“Battistelli’s job is at stake and more clarify will be given/provided tomorrow or the day after tomorrow.”In French (until there is a proper translation this will be a more accurate text): “A ma demande, la Commission des affaires européennes a auditionné le 1er mars dernier le président de l’Organisation européenne des Brevets (OEB), Monsieur Battistelli. Il s’agissait de l’interroger sur le fonctionnement de l’office, à la veille de l’introduction du brevet unitaire, mais aussi sur la situation sociale dégradée au sein de l’office intergouvernemental.”

There is also coverage in Handelsblatt right now (newspaper published in Düsseldorf): “Der 68-jährige Franzose Benoît Battistelli leitet seit 2010 das Europäische Patentamt, kurz EPA. Battistelli antwortet erstmals in einem deutschen Medium auf die massive Kritik an ihm. Zum Interview lädt er in die EPA-Zentrale in München. In der Chefetage im zehnten Stock ist der Ausblick auf die Landeshauptstadt prächtig.”

In the English media, especially patents-centric media, one article speaks about tomorrow’s demonstration. As MIP put it: “EPO staff have voted overwhelmingly in favour of strike action, but the SUEPO union has postponed organising a strike until after this week’s meeting of the Administrative Council” (summary).

Here is how IP Watch put it:

Over several years, Battistelli has angered SUEPO members by making changes to, among other things, employee strike, health and sick leave rules, internal appeals and investigation guidelines, and by firing three of the union’s representatives, SUEPO said in a 9 March statement.

The last demonstration took place on 17 February, the same day as a meeting of the AC Board, a sub-group of the full panel. The board gave Battistelli a document seen by IP Watch setting out its “very precise expectations from the Office management” on social and disciplinary issues, according to a 17 February summary of conclusions.

The document was necessary “as it appears that there are no other means of conveying the Council’s recurring concerns expressed over the past months,” it said. The board “has to deplore an obvious lack of willingness from the part of the President to embark on an overdue open discussion with the Council on contentious issues – foremost the social dialogue.”

[...]

Staff representatives are “all just waiting” to see what happens this week, said the knowledgeable source. Something is moving in the AC but what and why is unclear, the source said. In any case, the union will not strike without trying again to find a solution, the source added.

As we noted earlier on, Battistelli has received another chance, which he is likely to throw away based on his attitude towards Board 28. Patent quality is definitely getting worse at the EPO, as the previous post already explained (and the EPO ‘results’ are basically bunk). From a technical perspective alone, Battistelli has been a failure, so why was his term even extended at all? Just so that he can finish his effort trying to implement the UPC, which he so badly craves and lobbies for?

“The last rumours on Campinos as a likely successor of Battistelli at the EPO urge me to get this out of my chest,” one reader told us.

“Regardless of this last rumour,” the reader added, “it’s been a while [so] I wanted to vent this out and in fact I think Suepo and possibly most of the staff at EPO should be made aware of it (for what is possible to conceive the making “aware” such a union).”

“The downward spiral had been started, at least, with president Ingo Kober at the end of ’90s.”
      –Anonymous“My statement is simple,” told us the reader, “kicking out and/or replacing Battistelli would now actually turn into an easy way out for the largest number of managers to keep the status quo as far as possible. And a lot of them do have this interest.”

We have been hearing the same kind of opinions for quite some time. It does not, however, mean that nothing whatsoever will change after Battistelli is out of the building. There are other people who have been the source of various problems and we named some of them before. Not all have been brought in (mostly as imports from France) by Battistelli.

“The general increasing pressure for productivity has since then selected, with a common and anthropologically natural set of mechanisms, a whole little army of “willing executioners” in all lines of management, in every department.”
      –AnonymousTo put it with some names in the words of an anonymous reader: “The state of things with incompetent management, understaffed and exploited or unemployed personnel, all things affecting human resources, productivity pressure, decreasing quality, personal exploitation, personal favours, nepotism, other obscure or parallel or somehow hidden networks, such as freemasonry, have a long history in EPO. The downward spiral had been started, at least, with president Ingo Kober at the end of ’90s. The general increasing pressure for productivity has since then selected, with a common and anthropologically natural set of mechanisms, a whole little army of “willing executioners” in all lines of management, in every department. Some of them have become well established household names, such as Willy Minnoye, Yann Chabod, Karin Seegert, Patrick Bodard, Ludwig Kirst, Albert Koopman, Oswald Schröder, Milena Lonati, Christian Archambeau, Ebe Campi, Theano Evangelou, Omer Bullens, Jacques Michel, Richard Flammer, the entire platoons of directors of the examining departments and clerk units, which are the first line of management above examiners and clerks. Some of them might have lost their state of grace after entering in conflict with their once protectors or simply after that these had changed, some other left the office, often for the same reason, other times, having found better things to do. It’s the case of Schröder, Lonati, Campi, Michel, Archambeau. But most of them are still there, even if in another place and function.

“Not all names above have have had anything to do with most heinous practices (but chances are high that they all have witnessed them, at least), but they are just examples that the uncontrollably harsh reality at EPO is older than Battistelli’s office terms and is made possible by a plethora of otherwise still obscure names, which every day do their bit for their own personal cause at expense of others. And they are many.

“We might be very wrong if we think we are just talking about petty misdemeanor here: old mean corridor rumours, gambits to gain favors, to step ahead of others, to serve superiors and get from them a pat on the shoulders, a nice sentence or a higher marking on your notation.”
      –Anonymous“They were there already, long before Battistelli came, they had been nicely selected, placed and replaced by previous administrations. They made possible all the abusive and unrefrained behaviour of a number of managers, directors and principal directors before and now they made possible for Battistelli and his court to do what they do. In essence they are their tools. All these apparently minor characters are responsible every day: they actively take decisions to submit the request of disciplinary procedures to the president, spy on people, issue threats, break rules of the internal Statute (the EPO Service Regulations), manipulate and falsify minutes and reports, bend the procedures of internal appeals, break any rule that otherwise would automatically have the local Police alerted and operating, steal and falsify documents, enter and manipulate digital accounts and computer hard disks, stalk employees at home and wherever possible, (at times simply by using the skills of Control Risks, other times on their own means, using local manpowers, who can be easily bought or easily intimidated: doctors, mail couriers, local bureaucracy…).

“They all do what they do without having Battistelli or any of his strict associate lurking over their heads in their offices. They all do these things actively and willingly: that means within their full discretionary power. They could refrain from such practices, if they only wanted. Once they receive an instruction, they still can chose time and context for it. If they had just a decent threshold for humane values they could surely contribute to de-escalation of what has caused years of pain and abuse to so many people (the suicides being only the tip of an iceberg. But no, why not please the boss? Only because a colleague seems under stress? So they go for it. After all, what else do they have in their lives…

“They had been behaving this way for decades, only more increasingly and relentlessly in recent times time and indeed at a wonderful rate now, under brilliant B.

“At the time where another not too forgotten predecessor was in charge, Mr Lionel Baranes, a somehow exceptionally courageous Vice President, especially by the standards of EPO, who got so much in conflict with this boiling underground of “creative managers” that his term had to be curtailed by using the reason that he was of the same nationality of the President: that would not do. Oh, but that is not much of a problem now, is it? He left with an open letter to the Office with statements along the lines of “the human resources are in a disastrous state”. Didn’t he know enough?

“We might be very wrong if we think we are just talking about petty misdemeanor here: old mean corridor rumours, gambits to gain favors, to step ahead of others, to serve superiors and get from them a pat on the shoulders, a nice sentence or a higher marking on your notation.

“Sure, all this happens, but there are more consistent issues suffering from all this: think of all procedures at a higher scale and for higher purposes. They simply are shaped by the same type of mental habit. Also because they are made by the very same kind of people. If once you wanted a pat on your shoulders from your director, by harassing Mr and Ms, one day you might want to get, say Microsoft, Nestlé, Volkswagen or any other big corporation to pat on your shoulder and maybe show their appreciation more consistently…

“How can we think these thick layers of humanity that make the scaffold of EPO’s human resources and technical resources management will simply stop by changing the very tiny top of the pie? It would be a great mistake to believe it. And how about all those people who know, who always knew and saw and heard, but always kept looking away? Do we think they will become finally active on the good side? Not for one minute. On the opposite: it’s also their interest to keep hiding their past (and present) passive complicity.

“So if any interest in reforming EPO is to be taken seriously, it surely should go well beyond ditching Battistelli in the vain hope that it all will change for the better. Most likely it won’t unless further, deeper work is done.”
      –Anonymous“Making Battistelli the scapegoat for what actually has happened at all levels in the EPO for two decades before his term can be a strong temptation. It would also serve the purpose to give off the façade, for the suddenly increased public attention, that an end is being put to maladministration, actually allowing the decades old tradition of mismanagement and abuses to go on as if nothing had happened.

“So if any interest in reforming EPO is to be taken seriously, it surely should go well beyond ditching Battistelli in the vain hope that it all will change for the better. Most likely it won’t unless further, deeper work is done.

“Now, to cast light into the deeds of older and less spotlight-loving management layers of EPO, is what Suepo and finally the Examiners should strive for.

“Especially the Examiners should finally stop being prey of their comfortable and well paid fears, by showing much more openly their direct support to protest and to the people directly hit by abusive unjust measures.” █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Consequences of Straining Staff: Patent Quality at the European Patent Office Has Gotten Rather Terrible

Posted in Europe, Patents at 2:33 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Squeezing not only staff but also the EPO’s (traditionally) good reputation for short-term gains

Summary: A look at some recent news and personal perspectives on the status quo of today’s European Patent Office, where examiners’ performance is measured using the wrong yardstick and patent quality is severely compromised, resulting in overpatenting that the public pays for dearly

THE EPO ‘results’ are being debunked already, but the EPO’s PR team keeps spreading that today, regardless of all the scrutiny [1, 2]. How much longer is this sustainable for?

Earlier today we spotted English language Chinese media citing the EPO’s ‘results’ which are basically embellished if not a half-truth/lie (or intentionally bad statistics).

“How much longer is this sustainable for?”Why is the EPO risking damage to its integrity and record on truth? Well, it already lies to journalists and to staff, so there’s probably not much reputation left to lose.

The other day we noticed EPO-friendly media citing the USPTO‘s Senior Counsel as follows:

USPTO Senior Counsel Mark Cohen notes that aggressive antitrust enforcement like that sought in the Hitachi Metals case could affect patenting activity in general, adding: “This can be of great concern in the non-SEP space, where a patentee may have a choice whether to disclose an invention or keep a proprietary method secret.”

Actually, this is what many in the software field do. They rely on hiding source code, copyright on Free software (that everyone can study, inspect and modify as long as copyleft is respected), and there’s hardly any room for antitrust enforcement in such a setting. There’s no rigid requirement imposed, nor are there patent lawsuits and shakedowns. India has been getting it right on software patents for many years and as WIPR put it a few days ago:

The revised guidelines on computer-related inventions by the Indian Patent Office imply a reversed position on whether software inventions should be patentable. Abhishek Pandurangi of Khurana & Khurana reports.

After the Indian Patent Office (IPO) published the first set of guidelines for examining patents for computer-related inventions in August, in February the office introduced an amended set of rules.

While the previous guidelines were kept in abeyance in response to strong protests by critics, a revision was expected, but surprisingly the IPO has replaced an excessively liberal set of guidelines indicating that any software is patentable with a contrary one which almost indicates that no software patents are allowed.

This article from Abhishek Pandurangi serves to remind us that much of the world (large populations) does not accept software patents, whereas the EPO increasingly does, unlike the US where Alice keeps marginalising them.

“The answers to the questions about patent leniency may actually be found in anonymous comments from insiders.”Simply put, under Battistelli there is a huge patent maximalism problem. Patent scope gets broadened in pursuit of additional profits, rendering any performance requirement invalid (comparing apples to oranges, if not actually patenting apples and oranges, which now seems possible at the EPO). Yesterday we saw this announcement titled “EPO Revokes a Patent of Biogen, Inc.’s (NASDAQ:BIIB) Top-Selling Tecfidera”. Why was this patent granted in the first place? Working under pressure or in rush? Inclination to lower the patent bar and issue/grant bogus patents? Whatever it is, as the article put it: “The European Patent Office (EPO) has revoked European Patent EP2137537, a method of use patent concerning Tecfidera, last week. If left unresolved, the move will take a big hit on Biogen’s balance sheets because sales of Tecfidera account for a third of its overall revenue in 2015.”

The answers to the questions about patent leniency may actually be found in anonymous comments from insiders. While many comments on the debunking of EPO ‘results’ have come from EPO apologists (if not worse) who are simply shooting the messenger, some of them come from insiders who acknowledge the problem (we have been hearing about these problems for a while). To quote:

I accept that life always involves compromises. But it is distressing to see EPO examiners slowly turning into the three wise monkeys (that is, if you don’t look too hard for problematic prior art, and don’t think too hard about strict compliance with all of the provisions of the EPC, then examination becomes a lot simpler… and faster).

I fully understand what is driving this process, as applicants, the EPO and national patent offices all stand to benefit. However, it does look like it could be the beginning of a process of erosion of the fundamental bargain with the public that underpins the whole patent system.

I am not saying that where we stand now is definitely unacceptable. Instead, I am merely pointing out that what appears to be a drive from the EPO for “examination light” represents a potentially dangerous trend that needs counterbalancing with strong input from voices representing the public interest.

I say this not as a “patent denier” but rather someone who believes in the patent system, and who wants to cherish it for many years to come.

Think about it. If the pendulum swings too far in terms of permissiveness, then there are certain to be cases where aggressive patent owners assert blatantly invalid patents against competitors with shallow pockets – potentially aided by the €11k fee at the UPC for filing a counterclaim for invalidity. It will not take many cases where a patent owner can be painted as a bad actor for there to be overreactions in the opposite direction. If you have any doubts about what can happen, then witness the effect that lobbying by anti-patent pressure groups has had on “gene” (or other “natural phenomenon”) patents in the US and Australia. Scary stuff!

I agree that some of the professed aims of the ECFS system are laudable. Indeed, there is no point prioritising cases where everyone is happy to let sleeping dogs lie. However, it is not hard to see that much of what is prioritised by ECFS are the “easy wins”, where examination is very straightforward.

The inevitable short term hike in productivity figures produced by ECFS is not to be welcomed for two reasons. Firstly, it will leave a rump of “clearly difficult” cases that no examiner wants to tackle – because the time taken to sort them out will be too detrimental to the examiner’s apparent productivity. Secondly, it is likely to provide a strong temptation to examiners to keep their productivity figures high by waiving through “borderline” cases – ie. treating them as if they are also “easy wins”.

Nobody expects the EPO’s search and examination to be exhaustive. However, they will be doing us all a favour if a way is found to reward examiners for doing their job properly – and not just speedily. In this respect, it is important to acknowledge that it is impossible to constantly drive down the time taken to search and examine applications without compromising on quality. The best that you can hope for is an acceptable balance between speed and quality. Thus, management initiatives that seek to constantly increase productivity look increasingly like a drive to reach the bottom of the barrel.

Here is another noteworthy and long comment:

Based on our own experience and talking to others in the profession, it seems that for some examiners getting examination reports issued quickly involves being totally unhelpful, simply not dealing with issues or throwing in a load of amendments and gambling on the applicant just accepting what is given to avoid remaining in examination.

I have recently seen a first examination report to issue on amendments filed in 2011 in response to the EESR. Unfortunately, an amendment shown on a manuscript amended copy of the claims filed with the response did not make it into the clean copy of the claims. The amendment was described at length in the covering letter and is shown clearly on the manuscript amended copy. Rather than examine the claims as including that amendment or call the representative to ask him to submit a clean copy of the claims that included the amendment, some four plus years after the filing of the response, the examiner examined the claims as those the amendment did not exist. Furthermore, despite the fact the representative’s letter explained various reasons why other features of claim 1 distinguished over the cited prior art, the examiner has just parroted the objections from the EESR without giving any clue as to why he/she disagrees with the representative’s analysis. So about as helpful as a chocolate teapot. However, somewhat craftily, an allowable dependent claim has been allowed.

In a case of my own, we submitted amended claims on entering the regional phase accompanied by a two-part letter explaining the basis for the amendments. Ahead of the search report we got a note from the examiner saying that no basis for the amendments had been supplied when the amendments were filed and if this was not supplied within a month or two, I don’t remember which now, the amended claims would not be searched. We were given no more information than that so wrote back pointing out that we had filed a two page letter explaining the basis for the amendments. The response from the examiner was to issue a partial search report with the comment that neither our first letter or our second letter explained the basis for amendments. As far as I can make out, since the **** has not been sufficiently helpful to provide any useful indication, he just did not consider the explanation of the amendments to a couple of claims sufficiently complete. Leaving aside whether he is entitled to ask for further detail at that stage, we might have been able to move things forward if he’d just said asked us to provide additional explanation of the amendments made to particular claims instead of sending out a communication which was misleading and, basically, factually incorrect.

These are just two examples I am aware of and I am guessing that neither I nor those I know in the profession are being singled out for special treatment.

Basically we are seeing cases that already suffer from long delays in examination making no meaningful progress because examiners are simply bloody-minded, unhelpful or do not take the trouble to explain the issue. How much this is down to the mindset of individual examiners and how much a response to management pressure, I really do not know; whatever , it is not doing the reputation of the EPO any favours.

As the above put it, “cases that already suffer from long delays in examination [are] not doing the reputation of the EPO any favours.” Discriminatory practices aren’t the solution to this.

Not only delays are the problem; patent quality too is a serious issues, including grants of software patents in spite of the EPC. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

German High-Quality Video About the European Patent Office

Posted in Europe, Patents, Videos at 1:17 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: A high-quality version of the Kontrovers BR TV program about the EPO with subtitles for the deaf

LAST night we published the transcript of the following video. Today we make available the high-quality version of the recent video.

It looks as though the scandalous EPO management is desperate to bury this video, which means it needs to be secured. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

English High-Quality Video About the European Patent Office

Posted in Europe, Patents, Videos at 1:16 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: A high-quality version of the Kontrovers BR TV program about the EPO with English subtitles

LAST night we published the transcript of the following video. Today we make available the high-quality version of the recent video.

It looks as though the scandalous EPO management is desperate to bury this video, which means it needs to be secured. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

French High-Quality Video About the European Patent Office

Posted in Europe, Patents, Videos at 1:14 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: EPO Kontrovers BR TV video in a better (high-quality) format and with one little correction in the French transcript

LAST night we published the transcript of the following video. Today we make available the high-quality version of the recent video.

It looks as though the scandalous EPO management is desperate to bury this video, which means it needs to be secured. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

EPO’s Central Staff Committee Asks Benoît Battistelli to Undo Union-Busting Activities and Obey the Dutch Court’s Judgment

Posted in Europe, Patents at 12:55 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Not that he’s likely to accept these offers (of concessions)…

The CSC extends an olive branch to Monsieur Battistelli

Summary: Amid strike preparations and a very difficult Administrative Council meeting (starting tomorrow) the EPO’s President is given a chance to acknowledge his errors and act to correct them

SEVERAL days ago the Chairman of the Administrative Council was contacted in an effort to de-escalate things by undoing Monsieur Battistelli's union-busting actions. Here’s the latest Communiqué from the Central Staff Committee (CSC) of the EPO. It suggests that they really are after a peaceful resolution, wherein staff representatives (SRs) get their jobs back and get re-integrated into the workforce.

Zentraler Personalausschuss
Central Staff Committee
Le Comité central du Personnel

15.03.2016
sc16043cp – 0.2.1/0.3.2

Dear colleagues,

The Central Staff Committee has accepted the invitation to see the President in the afternoon of 15 March 2016 in Munich to discuss the last call for strike (link). This is the afternoon before the meeting of the Council. A previous meeting on 24 February 2016 with Ms Bergot on the same matter did not lead to any progress (link).

As your interlocutor in the recent call for strike (91% of staff voted in favour), we will ask the President concrete questions, including the ones below and will come back to you with his replies as quickly as possible.

• Will you lift the disciplinary sanctions against Elizabeth Hardon, Ion Brumme and Malika Weaver?
• Will you lift the disciplinary sanctions against the former members of the Internal Appeals Committee?
• Will you stop the disciplinary threats, investigations and retaliations against further Staff Representatives?
• Will you be ready to revise the Investigation Guidelines together with the Staff Representation based on a mandate that is agreed upon by both parties?
• Will you be ready to re-establish an appropriate IAC system?
• Will you be ready to adapt the strike regulations according to the judgment of the Dutch Court?
• Will you be ready to revise the health, sick-leave and invalidity regulations together with the Staff Representation based on a mandate that is agreed upon by both parties?
• Which further concessions are you willing to make?

Your Central Staff Committee

All the above bullet-points seem perfectly reasonable considering the bizarre nature of the allegations and Battistelli’s failure to carry out the judgments as they were handed over from the Disciplinary Committees — something which Board 28 became distraught over (it called for a suspension of these dismissals and an external re-evaluation of them). █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Microsoft Acusado de “Trolling con Patentes” Mientras Que Los Estados Unidos se Mueve Cerca a Restringir a los Trolles de Patentes

Posted in America, Microsoft, Patents at 11:59 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

English/Original

Publicado en America, Microsoft, Patentes at 7:37 pm por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“La Comisión no puede unilateralmente quitar un derecho fundamental de defensa.”

–Horacio Gutierrez, hypocrita de Microsoft quien colecta ‘dinero de protección’ de compañías que usan/distribuyen Linux

Sumario: Agresores de patentes como Microsoft y entidades no-prácticantes que llevan las patentes de software al Distrito Este de Texas para extraer dinero de compañíás productivas que han atraído hacia ellas atención (celos) de gente que puede ponerles freno

Los reciéntes artículos acerca de la agresión de patentes (4 artículos acerca de ello [1, 2, 3, 4] han atraído bastante tráfico (el cache de nuestro server obtuvo 22,986,674 hits en las últimas cuatro semanas) y ha traído un montón de artículos en toda suerte de medios, incluyendo medios en otros lenguajes. Este hilo titulado ¨Microsoft trolleando a Linux con patentes pueda que se este exténdiendo a la cadena Azure de microsoft¨, por instancia, links a este artículo que a su turno nos cita y dice:

Microsoft ha lanzado otra campaña anti-open source en las últimas semanas, apuntando prominentes compañíás de Linux y Software Libre. Ellos están atentando limitar el desarrollo de open-source con compras, trolling de patentes, así como cobrar ¨regalíás¨ por productos que usan Linux. Sus esfuerzos reciéntes los tienen AGARRANDO PATENTES DE TECNOLOGÍA DE OPEN SOURCE iNCLUYENDO SOFTWARE DESARROLLADO POR CANONICAL, desarrolladores de la más popular Linux distr, Ubuntu.

[...]

Esta no es la primera vez que Microsoft ha usado esta metodología para tratar de obstaculizar innovación en la comunidad de open source. Usaron tecnologías similares el 2006 al entrar en un ´arreglo´ de patentes con Novell acerca de su venta de Linux productos de empresa. Han hecho lo mismo al aplicar por patentes en ´su´ tecnología llamada Continuum, (a similar software, llamado Convergence, ha estado siendo desarrollado en Canonical en los años anterióres) y firmar otro ´arreglo´ de patentes con Rakuten Inc. que cubre aparatos Android y Linux. Microsoft usa estos ´acuerdos´ para perseguir al software de código libre que daña considerablemente sus margines, tulliendo innovación al ir alrededor de las protecciones proveidas por el licensing de open source. Usan estos casos como precedente para ESTABLECER QUE LINUX Y OTROS SOFTWARE DE CÓDIGO ABIERTO ES SU PROPIEDAD INTELECTUAL. Estos casos típicamente son cubiertos por los medios corporativos con gran parcialismo, pintando al pobrecito Microsoft protegiendo ´su´ propiedad intelectual, cuando en realidad lo opuesto es la verdad.

[...]

En los ambientes actuales legales de desarrollo de software, el open source no es más suficiente para protejer contra compañíáß cuyo interés es poner zancadillas, como hemos discutido en un previos artículo. Microsoft ha hecho lo mismo en el pasado, así que no hay nada que los detenga de hacerlo de nuevo con el blockchain y cryptocurrencies? Nada al presente. Todo lo que toma es un ´arreglo´ de patentes con una compañíá pequeña que no puede financiar una batalla legal para empezar el proceso en cadena en el ecosistema para llevar la bola de Microsoft a rodar de nuevo.

Microsoft no es un clásico troll de patentes porque todavía tiene sus propios productos en el dominio mobil. ¿Pero por cuánto tiempo?

“Microsoft no es un clásico troll de patentes porque todavía tiene sus propios productos en el dominio mobil. ¿Pero por cuánto tiempo?”De acuerdo con este artículo de MIP ¨TC Heartland será escuchado hoy 11 de Marzo [eso fué hace días]. El caso busca voltear el caso de 1990 en el Circuito Federal VE Holdin versus Johnson Gas Appliance, que dió a los dueños de patentes más opciones de enjuiciar¨ (usualmente en el Distrito Este de Texas [1, 2, 3]).

“Hace unos pocos meses,” escribió otro autor,¨Yo estaba en el Distrito Este de Texas Banco y conferencias Bar, y empecé a hablar con un juez federal de distrito acerca de sus puntos de vista de la desaparición entonces inminente del Formulario 18, la forma que esencialmente hizo suficiente para una denuncia por infracción directa para incluir sólo acusaciones escuétas de los hechos. Su respuesta fue, “que va a ser la infernal Regla 12.¨

El mismo autor fue interrogado posteriormente (en el titular): ¨¿Qué Pasaría a Casos de Patentes si Ellos no Pueden Ser llenados en Texas?¨

“Wadhwa no es un troll de patentes pero más un académico y empresario. Contraste sus puntos de vista con aquellos de Neil Wilkof (IP Kat), quien tremprano hoy dijo que estaba suavizando la imagen de los trolles de patentes y minimzando los asuntos asociados con ellos.”“Así,” dijo, “¿A dónde nos lleva esto? Muchas veces tenemos que moverlos, no sólo casos llevados por NPEs [trolles]. Incluso así, un decente número de casos permanecen en la misma localidad. Que Delaware y Nor California serían las más populares no es sorprendente, dado que muchos acusados tienen sede en Delaware o Silicon Valley. Talvez más sorprendente es que el Distrito Este de Texas permanezca tercero en la lista, aunque con un menor número de casos. Esos caso probablemente sean llenados contra negocios vendiendo bienes patentados de tiendas localizadas en ese distrito, aunque haya algunos acusados en nuestra muestra que tenían sede allí.¨

Un nuevo artículo por Vivek Wadhwa, a quien habitualmente citamos aquí, desea poner un punto final a esta costosa y espurea/frívola litigacion. En AOL escribió el otro día: ¨Lo que es bueno para la innovación es un próspero ecosistema en el cual compañías construyan en ideas mutuas y constantemente se reinventen a sí mismas en vez de tratar de poner zancadillas una a otra en las cortes.

“Es suficiente malo cuando grandes compañíás con bolsillos profundos batallan una a otras, pero para compañías nuevas, juicios pueden ser faltales.¨

“Innovadores en ciernes tienen que vivir en constante temor de que un troll de patentes saque una pistola grande y los ponga en quiebra. Para compañíás nuevas, esto es de mayor preocupación que alguie robe sus ideas.”

Wadhwa no es un troll de patentes pero más un académico y empresario. Contraste sus puntos de vista con aquellos de Neil Wilkof (IP Kat), quien tremprano hoy dijo que estaba suavizando la imagen de los trolles de patentes y minimzando los asuntos asociados con ellos. El escribió: ¨En Noviembre 2013, como Kat reportó previamente, más de 60 profesores de propiedad intelectual enviaron una carta al Congreso de los Estados Unidos, estableciéndo su critica del sistema de patentes y sugerencias para una reforma. Entre otras cosas, la carta discute el efecto global negativo de los trolls de patentes sobre la innovación …”

Lo que todo el mundo parace estarse dando cuenta. Es difícil de negar.

“Curiosamente, ya que Kat lo ha sugerido en otro lugar, el emblema de riesgos (u oportunidades) en el potencial para ampliación del trolling de patentes, específicamente Intellectual Ventures, parece que su presencia pública ha bajado significativamente.”
      –Neil Wilkof¨En una palabra,¨ Wilkof añadió, ¨parece simplemente haber un murmullo acerca de la materia. Curiosamente, ya que Kat lo ha sugerido en otro lugar, el emblema de riesgos (u oportunidades) en el potencial para ampliación del trolling de patentes, específicamente Intellectual Ventures, parece que su presencia pública ha bajado significativamente. Sea causa o efecto de la más general decadencia del troll de patentes es una pregunta intersante. Más aún, Kat se pregunta si la dificultad en definer lo que se entiende por un troll de patentes también ha contribuido a este descenso “.

Intellectual Ventures es un masivo troll de patentes conectado a Microsoft (uno de varios) y de verdad ha sufrido despidos. Sin embargo, hay miles de satélites alrededor de Intellectual Ventures, así que es difícil decir si esta disminuyendo, creciendo or simplemente metamorfoseando.

Entre la gente que defiende a los trolles de patentes (y consiguen ser financiados por ellos, e.g IAM ´magazine´) es común ver que ¨troll¨ es una palabra indefinida y raramente la mencionan (como vampiros que les ponen ajos en frente). Miren este comentario en este artículo de Wilkof, que dice: ¨el mar de cambio en las cortes, efectivamente revirtiéndo State Street y encontrándo (vez tras vez) la materia de reclamo ineligible que se haga valer la NPE. Despues de todo, muchos de los reclamos sostenidos por las NPEs son métodos de negocios con una contribución a artes útiles que podemos resumirlo como ¨hazlo en la red¨. Accionistas han retumbado que tales reclamos simplemente no cortan más la mostaza.¨

Lo que el/ella/ellos quisieron decir es, esto esta ¨en la red¨ patentes de software; esa es una de las más populares herramientas de los trolles de patentes.

“Se escribió mucho acerca de la LEY DE PATENTES así como la Ley de Innovación habiéndose explicado en varias ocasiones que estos están diseñados para ayudar a las grandes empresas y trolles de patents a expensas de la sociedad, en lugar de ayudar a la sociedad en su conjunto, a expensas de los trolls de patentes.”Ahora que los trolles de patentes están de regreso en la agenda en los Estados Unidos (primera vez desde el receso de Verano en el Congreso), algunos escritores pretenten que necesitamos trolles de patentes para la ¨innovación¨. Este ejemplo dice: ¨Nuestra futura economía está basada en la innovación, como las muchas compañías de ciencias de la vida y de la biotecnología que se están desarrollando en Kentucky. No sólo es nuestra industria ayudando a afrontar algunos de las amenazas para la salud más grandes del mundo, pero lo que están haciendo al crear la próxima generación de puestos de trabajo”.

¿Este tipo piensa que innovación no puede suceder sin patentes en cada dominio? O ¿qué combatir a los trolles de patentes es algo malo para los negocios pequeños? Pretender que impedir la ola de trolles de patentes actualmente puede dañar a los pequeños negocios (a los que usualmente los trolles de patentes EXTORSIÓNAN hasta que quiebren) es engañoso a lo mejor. Aquí esta otro nuevo ejemplo de las noticias “S 1137 (the PATENT Act) and HR 9 (the Innovation Act),” dice esta persona, ¨cambiaría la manera que los juicios de patentes son manejados. El nuevo proceso crearía un complejo y oneroso labor de retazos legal para pequeños y medianos negocios así como inventores defiendan sus patentes. Mientras que largas corporaciones y sus equipos de abogados de alto precio serían insignificantemente impactados por los cambios en esos proyectos de leyes, aquellos sin los recursos para defender sus patentes estarán [jodidos] devastados.¨

We wrote a great deal about both the PATENT Act and Innovation Act and explained repeatedly that these are designed to help big corporations at the expense of patent trolls, rather than help society as a whole at the expense of patent trolls. It does not, however, mean that these so-called ‘reforms’ are undesirable or detrimental to small businesses which actually produce things (i.e. not patent trolls).
Se escribió mucho acerca de la LEY DE PATENTES así como la Ley de Innovación habiéndose explicado en varias ocasiones que estos están diseñados para ayudar a las grandes empresas y trolles de patents a expensas de la sociedad, en lugar de ayudar a la sociedad en su conjunto, a expensas de los trolls de patentes. No significa, sin embargo que aquellas llamadas ¨reformas¨ son indeseables o detrimentales para los pequeños negocios que actualmente producen cosas (i.e no trolles de patentes). █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend