12.18.16
Posted in America, Europe, Patents at 5:16 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Team Battistelli and their minions in the media continue to promote the abomination which is software patents
Summary: Front groups or media companies associated with (and funded by) the patent microcosm drive the agenda which would ruin local companies for the sake of parasitic elements
B
attistelli is (unfortunately) European and he uses the laughing stock which the EPO has become to promote software patents in India (see our Indian angle on that, published earlier tonight). IAM, the EPO’s mouthpiece of choice, has just advertised IPBC India 2017, yet another IAM event (like those that are supported by the EPO and even funded by the EPO’s PR firm). One can bet they’ll push software patents in India pretty soon, having done so already from their site which is based in the UK. Battistelli, according to some very large British law firm, has made the EPO more friendly towards software patents than the USPTO is. In spite of the European ban on software patents! That’s how bad things have become! Mischief would be an understatement; “Corruption” might give us more legal threats from Team Battistelli.
“Battistelli, according to some very large British law firm, has made the EPO more friendly towards software patents than the USPTO is.”Meanwhile, over in the US, the President of IPO sent a letter (from December 9th) that urged Trump to bring back software patents to the US. Under “Policy and Advocacy Experience” it says about Lee's successor at the USPTO, “The Director must be capable of effectively taking the international stage in WIPO, EPO, JPO, and in other international agencies, and advocating for U.S. positions on international IP matters.”
EPO and WIPO? Seriously? Both are human rights abusers that drive workers to suicide. As a software patents proponent put it, “Kevin Rhodes Sends Trump Transition Team Letter Describing Qualifications USPTO Dir.” Above is a screenshot of the two pages of the letter, in case Rhodes et al decide to remove it later (as often turns out to be the case, based on one’s latest agenda as epi serves to show).
If that Director “belongs to the family,” as Benjamin Henrion put it, then IPO will be happy. He didn’t mean family literally; hiring from one’s actual family is Battistelli’s French specialty [1, 2, 3, 4]. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
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
Posted in Europe, Patents at 3:43 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Benoît Battistelli an international catastrophe and a major source of embarrassment to Europe
Summary: Battistelli, promoting his agenda even in India, names “computer-implemented inventions” in relation to yet another patent maximalism event — like those that strive to expand the number of patents irrespective of their quality and regardless of rules mandated by governments
THE EPO is so thoroughly out of control that one egoistic person, Benoît Battistelli, can break national laws, drive a lot of people to suicide (he is culpable in at least one such case), punish many innocent people, and even threaten to steal/claw back their pensions after unlawful dismissals. He now promotes software patents not just in Europe (where these are basically illegal, not that EPO bothers obeying the law) but also in India (where it is also against the rules). This total lunatic whom some people refer to as a “man” is an embarrassment not just to France (as several French politicians openly say) but an embarrassment to Europe, to the whole world, and to human kind. Compassion if not in his dictionary and — like Apple — his lexicon is dominated by ‘i’. Watch this latest “blog” post of his (warning: epo.org link), promoted soon thereafter by his PR drones, where he speaks of “computer-implemented inventions” (CII) — much like other descriptions of this event. CII is just an old EPO dodge from the notorious term “software patents”; it’s basically the same thing and even though they are excluded in both Europe and India Benoît Battistelli has the audacity to say this nonsense. It’s not attributable to cluelessness but to selfishness or malice and the obedient chinchillas of the Administrative Council have become so spineless and supine that we cannot expect them to even bring up the subject of patent quality (they were supposed to do so days ago in their quarterly meeting, but we have heard nothing about it).
“If clueless people like Battistelli maintain their job and break all the rules and laws without facing consequences, then even India (where corruption is notoriously high) can have a good laugh at us.”Just like last year, at this somewhat strategic time in fact, the EPO resorts to more greenwashing of EPO patents, as if it’s saving the world or something (or the world would be devastated if it wasn’t for patents that actually prevent competition and further suppress work on green energy).
The EPO has become so dark a place that it’s not even amusing but alarming. If clueless people like Battistelli maintain their job and break all the rules and laws without facing consequences, then even India (where corruption is notoriously high) can have a good laugh at us. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.17.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 9:23 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Roles have been reversed, in complete defiance of the EPC
Reference: The tail wagging the dog
Summary: The profound absurdity of today’s EPO, where one person controls everything and retaliates against anyone with the authority to express criticism, has been made even more apparent
IT was almost exactly 3 days ago when we first published information about the new person in charge of the EPO’s Boards of Appeal (confirmed later by German media). 2 days after Techrights the EPO itself mentioned what we had reported, stating that (warning: epo.org link) “Carl Josefsson currently serves as Senior Judge of Appeal at the Svea Court of Appeal in Stockholm and was jointly proposed by the President of the EPO and the AC`s Board of Appeals Committee. He will take up this new role with effect from 1 March 2017. The post of President of the Boards of Appeal is an entirely new position. The appointment is for a period of five years and the incumbent may be reappointed.”
The EPO also said: “In addition to the appointment of the BoA President, the Administrative Council approved the choice of Haar, Munich, as the new location for the Boards of Appeal Unit. The move to Haar’s 8inOne building is scheduled for summer 2017 and will involve over 200 staff of the Boards who currently work in the Isar building of the EPO.”
Having posted the results of the AC (Administrative Council) vote on the move to Haar at around the same time as the above [1, 2] (also two days ahead of the EPO), it’s now the EPO’s turn to distract from all the negative publicity by saying: “You have until 9 January to sign up for judicial internships at the EPO boards of appeal! http://buzz.mw/b1owx_f”
Who needs full-time staff anyway, right? Especially considering the fact that the boards have been grossly understaffed for years…
The attack on these boards basically carries on and “one has to wonder why there is an AC at all,” wrote this one person. To quote the comment in full:
What a disaster! What chance reversing the proposed fee increases for appeals?
If changes such as this can be waved through by the AC, despite being totally contrary to the wishes of the users (and all common sense), then one has to wonder why there is an AC at all. If Monsieur le President can always get the AC to rubber-stamp his proposals (no matter how insane), then why not cut costs by getting rid of the requirement for their approval?
And still no attention from the mainstream media… especially in Germany. Looks like the AC is not the only thing that BB controls!
This complete lack of coverage is a subject we have been writing more and more about over the past month.
The EPO's PR team (even peripheral PR people) have effectively silenced the German media while serious crimes (by German law) are conducted by Battistelli and his thugs on German soil. Yet another person asked: “Are we going to see the EPO pay for the installation of a lift at the Haar S-bahn station to allow representatives in wheel chairs to reach the new building?” Another person wrote:
Any news on the suspended member of the Boards of Appeal?
And has Battistelli suffered any consequences for having blatantly disregarded a direct order from the AC? Or, for that matter, for having interfered with the independence of the Boards of Appeal?
The EPO becomes a more defunct place by the day, with the AC having lost its independence, much like the Boards of Appeal. All they have is pretense now, or the mere perception of separation of powers. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.16.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 9:23 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Remember where UPC money and support come from (Battistelli and his PR agency)
Summary: Response to some British blogs that want us to believe that the UPC is about to come true, even in the face of very obvious barriers and facts that are not convenient to Team Battistelli and Team UPC
THE EPO is not alone in lying about the UPC. Team UPC helps with that and all of them do so for personal gain, not because the UPC would be desirable to Europe.
Joff Wild’s wild and loaded latest headline (“As the UK moves closer to UPC ratification, there could be a litigation spurt at the new regime’s birth”) wants us to forget that the UK simply cannot ratify the UPC. We have already explained this in the following series of recent posts:
Wild, being an habitual Battistelli mouthpiece and UPC pusher (the EPO even supported Wild's pro-UPC events), now repeats Bristows’ talking points, first in Twitter and then in a “blog” that says:
The UK’s ratification of the Unified Patent Court agreement moved one step closer yesterday with the confirmation that it had signed the UPC’s Protocol on Privileges and Immunities. This provides EU privileges and immunities to the court’s judges in those countries hosting divisions of the court and signing it was a necessary step on the path to the UK’s full membership of the system.
What a misleading pile of rubbish. This does not change anything when it comes to tackling the main barrier, which is Brexit. And without London there is no UPC, either.
Responding to the latest from Team UPC ("Bristows UPC" to be precise), we have some new public comments that remind Team UPC to get off its high horse. Bristows’ site is pretty much dead (maybe a few visitors per week, not even much activity), so like a parasite it's now preying on a host, IP Kat. A lot of the pro-UPC talking points get posted there by Bristows staff and the responses are more or less the same. IP Kat readers are not gullible enough. As the first comment put it:
This is so unreal! How can they ratify an agreement that depends on EU membership??? Would the EY really go ahead with spending money on this stillborn part of the UPC? What do they think they are doing???
UPC is dead here and Bristows refuses to accept it, having invested much time and money on UPC propaganda, marketing (not the same thing, includes a rebrand), etc. Here is the next comment:
My guess is that no one actually read the UPC article in detail and that therefore no decision maker is really aware of Art. 20 and Art. 21 of the UPC agreement. We should not forget that politicians often are no lawyers and get a lot of knowledge via Powerpoint from their staffers who might be general lawyers but no IP experts.
At least this is my explanation for what is going on.
My second theory is that Italy was heavily lobbying that the seat of the court is going to Milan rather than London and the UK government felt that it is necessary to stop this at least for the time being by indicating that they will ratify.
One person says in this comment that Lucy did what she did “so as not to block the UPC for other EU member states. Since the UK will be out of the EU, it does not really care what the other EU states get up to and if they want their UPC system, let them have it.”
Another person explained it like this:
To me, it would appear to be a tactical exercise in frustration, something that successive UK governments have been very good at ever since the UK became a member of the EU – pre-23/06/2016 : we want in, but we don’t really want to play in the same schoolyard as everyone else – post-23/06 : now we want out, and we’ll be damned if anyone else is going to grab the main venue court (glares at Italy and Germany alike) and take it away from London until we’ve hammered out “the best deal possible” for the rest of the exit proceedings. It thus gives the UK government another iron to put in the fire and keep warm while both the EU and UK (ir)responsible ministers bluster about principled positions. Sometimes cynicism really is the mother of all diplomacy. It really all makes perfect sense.
In reality, what Lucy did is likely to further delay things and put the whole system in a deadlock which is contingent upon Brexit. This, in part, is why the UPC won’t be going anywhere any time soon. Another comment on the topic said:
Well, it looks like there was some truth in the well-informed rumours that I heard:
http://ipkitten.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/will-uk-industry-suffer-from.html?showComment=1481284766354#c8489500711255308227
What you make of this will, I guess, depend upon which side of the UPC fence that you sit.
With the UK legal profession being the principal beneficiary of the move to ratify, I guess that the government decided that it may as well benefit from the extra tax revenue that will come its way from the bumper profits that will be generated by UK lawyers. Set against that, the (very obvious) disadvantages for “industry” probably looked a bit less concrete.
It’s just a shame that the system has now been set up so that no one in their right mind (or at least no one who wants patent protection in the UK) will seek to obtain unitary patents… which, coupled with all of the opt-outs that will be filed, could make the workload of the UPC very light indeed!
Team UPC is not sober. It’s drunk on Kool-Aid. If it’s not deliberately lying (the self-fulfilling prophecy method), then we should worry about the mental state of people who wish to inherit and dominate Europe’s legal/juridical system for handling of patents. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:53 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Even some large nations with not so many patents (and no consent to the UPC) recently got greased up by Benoît Battistelli
Summary: The Administrative Council of the EPO reaffirms its characterisation as a bunch of docile chinchillas by doing the unthinkable and trashing the appeal boards, which will be headed by a UPC-centric person (who “belongs to the patent establishment,” as the President of FFII puts it)
THE EPO is in crisis and the EPC in its current form is insufficient and inadequate for saving it. Battistelli allegedly uses EPO money to buy votes, exploiting the lunacy which is giving every tiny nation the same democratic weight as large nations. As we put it last night, the Administrative Council of the EPO is now compromised and complicit. It’s just an extension of Team Battistelli (at least parts of it, especially small nations).
As one new comment put it, “within the EPO [...] Mr. Battistelli has the final word on any result.” Here is the comment in full (LP is Prunier, IB is Brumme, and EH is Hardon, all of whom represent EPO staff):
As far as I interpret the results and feedback given, at least LP is well funded for now by his colleagues.
Yes, a more formal and possibly obligatory scheme would be preferred, but those schemes have the drawback of attracting the eyes of the financial authorities, and the need to pay taxes (income taxes/gift taxes) when certain amounts of support are exceeded.
I do not know how well the system works for IB.
Nor have I heard anything about EH’s financial situation.
I also agree with your latest sentence, but having it “within the EPO” will always mean, that Mr. Battistelli has the final word on any result.
The vote on Haar was a disaster and we believe we were the first to cover it. “It’s decided,” one later comment said. “Oh no.”
“They have only themselves to blame for being such a bunch of “poesjes”,” one person said. “Not a whimper of protest … like lambs to the slaughter …”
So Battistelli’s war or retaliation against the Boards (for challenging his authority) carries on…
How many more auditory functions, as originally envisioned by the EPC, will Battistelli attack while maintaining the perception that he obeys the EPC? Battistelli has already crushed at least 4 such functions by our count (unions, Audit Committee, BoA, AC).
Today, confirming what we got yesterday afternoon (published later), the following showed up in the comments:
Result of the AC voting on moving the BoA to Haar:
Yes 21 BE DK MC PT AL BG GR ES HR IS MK RO SM CY MT LT FI LU LV SE RS
No 7 GB IE LI CH FR ML NO
Abstain 7 CZ EE IT PL SI DE HU
It´s good to have so many countries who hardly ever see a patent deciding the fate of the EPO.
That last remark is similar to last night’s remark. We hope to get our hands on the rationale behind each country’s “Yes” vote. Leaks may be needed.
Here is someone having a go at Mr. Ernst, whom some sources believed would replace Battistelli (he can still be his successor):
Also nice to see the host state Germany taking a principled position …
BA [sic] ABSTAINING !!!
Thank you Mr. Ernst.
The following makes an observation that we thought about last night:
According to Techrights knows the votes: 21 Yes, 7 No, 7 Abstain.
Spain being the biggest country to vote yes, NL, GB, FR vote against, DE abstain.
What happened to the old “no vote without the support of the big three and the host countries”? Here we have the opposite….
Regarding Spain, we suggest our readers revisit the following recent series:
We have not yet seen a single article about the above news. Nothing!
Novagraaf is currently distracted by nonsense “news” from EPO, or attempts to distract from erosion of patent quality at EPO. The same goes for LSIPR, which once again gives the EPO a platform.
No wonder people at the EPO are upset. Has the media been silenced by FTI Consulting or something? Except when it comes to puff pieces that serve the EPO’s management? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:06 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Pitchforks come from management of the EPO, which keeps threatening if not also attacking the staff
Summary: A 12-point explanation of why EPO staff is right to be mad and anger is justified not just for ethical reasons but legal reasons too
THE COMMENTS in The Register are rarely posted by EPO insiders, so there’s usually not much (new) information in them. An exception, however, could be found yesterday because someone expressed lack of understanding regarding the motivation for protests and strikes. Someone who is likely an EPO insider posted a detailed, enumerated response, which we have decided to reproduce below:
Where to begin…
1. Staff elected representatives. The EPO decided a new system was better and organis ed it’s own vote half way through the year, with different rules. The same people were elected basically but now they are under the direct control of the head of HR.
2. Three elected members have since been dismissed. Another has been demoted. We don’t know why. It is a disciplinary offence to reveal why or even that you are subject to disciplinary proceedings. Others are rumoured to be also threatened.
3. The EPO recognises a union with about 50 members (out of ca. 6900 staff). The union of ca. 3000 members is not.
4. The staff must ask the EPO if it (the EPO) will agree to organise a strike ballot. The EPO has said no on occasions but the ballot is organised according to the EPO’s rules – no communication to staff is allowed. The staff still voted overwhelmingly for a strike.
5. The Dutch High Court declared that the staff did not have the rights according to the UNHRC. The EPO declared immunity and ignored it (but also appealed – to a court it will ignore…).
6. The ILO-AT has just decided that the current appeals system at the EPO is not legal (since 2014). All decisions should be re- done as the EPO chose the staff representatives themselves. The EPO had demoted the two previous representatives for their attempt to have a fair syste.
… will I go on….
[...]
OK. And:
7. Staff are concerned that a suicide on-site could not be investigated by Dutch authorities (immunity!).
8. A member of the Boards of Appeal (a judge so to speak) has been suspended for 2 years (s/he is not allowed to say why but the top management have made particular negative statements to the press concerning the person which are not part of the case, it seems). Internal bodies have not supported the President’s actions but the member is still suspended on reduced pay.
9. The Administrative Council have urged and “stressed” that the President should involve them or independent judges in disciplinary cases involving elected staff representatives. He has still dismissed one since that, without informing the AC in advance.
10. Public computers at the EPO were discovered to be being monitored by software, seemingly contrary to Bavarian law.
11. Staff’s contracts of employment (and future pensions) have been unilaterally altered with no consultation.
12. In all disciplinary matters the committee recommends but the President decides irrespective. Under the committee formed by the EPO, judged deficient by the ILO, the proportion of successful appeals by staff has hit rock bottom.
If someone out there can think of anything to add to the above list (there’s plenty more), consider adding comments below.
EPO management has repeatedly attempted to invert the narrative, painting unions as aggressors and management as the victim. Battistelli even paid some newspapers to construct and reinforce this bogus narrative. With over a million Euros per year spent on peripheral PR agencies, well… some people might actually fall for it. The rebellious element at the EPO is the management with its so-called ‘reforms’ that are totally irrational; Extremely upset, indignant staff is trying to actually protect the Office from this clueless management. We too wish to save the Office. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.15.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:09 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
What good is the Administrative Council if Battistelli can tame/control it with EPO budget?
Reference: The Yes Men
Summary: The breakdown of results of the vote on exodus of appeals staff, which will probably be exiled to Haar in a few months
“Shameful voting,” one of our readers called it, with “21/7 in favour of Haar move…”
We could use some more information in case someone has it, like what each country argued (if anything). Here are the results of the vote to send the appeal boards away, with potential ramifications for EPO staff in Berlin (if there is something to the rumours):
“Yes” votes came from BE, DK, MC, PT, AL, BG, GR, ES, HR, IS, MK, RO, SM, CY, MT, LT, FI, LU, LV, SE, RS
“No” votes came from GB, IE, LI, CH, FR, ML, NO
Abstained from voting: CZ, EE, IT, PL, SI, DE, HU
We could say a lot more about why each county was likely to vote for or against, but it would be better to wait for some transcripts, minutes, or leaks. █
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