12.22.16
Posted in Apple, Microsoft, Patents at 8:48 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
As we correctly predicted way back in 2011…
Nokia suing everyone… except Microsoft.
Summary: Few days before Christmas Nokia decides that the backlash from the media would be minimal enough to finally show its true colours and rear its ugly head again, putting a tax on phones that actually sell (unlike Nokia’s)
VERY LATE LAST NIGHT (as late as 2 AM) we wrote about a story which Nokia probably hoped the media would not notice/cover all that much (hence the timing/date in the year). Nokia is a patent troll now. “Meanwhile,” as this article puts it, “Apple has accused Nokia of using the ‘tactics of a patent troll’.” It’s not just about Apple as Nokia will go after Android OEMs next (if it hasn’t already).
It’s the ‘Microsoft effect’. The company likes turning other (usually vulnerable) companies into a pile of patents, weaponised against Microsoft’s rivals. There are many examples of that which we’ve covered here over the years.
“It’s the ‘Microsoft effect’. The company likes turning other (usually vulnerable) companies into a pile of patents, weaponised against Microsoft’s rivals.”We have already found about a hundred reports about this in English, in spite of Christmas absence of many reporters (even from large British publishers, US publishers and several people at IDG [1, 2]). The Finnish English-speaking media touches the subject and Wall Street media puts it behind a paywall. Tripp Mickle and Matthias Verbergt say that “Apple Inc. and Nokia Corp. filed competing lawsuits over intellectual property used in the iPhone and other Apple products.”
Worth seeing in this case is what Apple finds out about the network of trolls (typically shrouded in secrecy). With evidence admissible by the courts about the patent trolls of Nokia and Microsoft we can improve our information here (growingly extensive and occasionally praised by people who come here in order to understand cryptic trolls.). Florian Müller says “First court hearings in the new Nokia v. Apple dispute will most probably take place in Munich in a few months. I’ll probably go and listen.”
“We believe that the date of the press release was designed (or intended) to dodge negative press coverage.”He also quotes Apple’s spokesperson as saying that Nokia “is now using the tactics of a patent troll to attempt to extort money from Apple…”
He is “not mincing words anymore,” Müller adds, and someone from Finland agrees with him. Finns do not blindly support Nokia. We speak to some Finns who are extremely upset at Nokia. It’s a national embarrassment to some.
As for IAM, it thinks it’s favourable to have patent lawsuit from a troll-like Nokia, but it lacks a vital
disclosure; Nokia’s patent troll MOSAID (now called “Conversant”) has paid IAM, which recently did a lot of puff pieces for it. Maybe that’s just IAM’s business model…
IAM says “Apple is against patent owners doing what they want with their patents to maximise their value.”
Whose value? And to whose advantage? And at whose expense?
“Not sure how that helps R&D,” IAM says, but Benjamin Henrion has already responded to them by saying “that helps P&L [patents and litigation], not R&D.”
We believe that the date of the press release was designed (or intended) to dodge negative press coverage. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.21.16
Posted in Apple, GNU/Linux, Google, Patents at 8:31 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
When all else fails, throw patents at the competition (through trolls so as to avert counteraction)?
Image from BusinessKorea
Summary: With billions of dollars at stake (maybe over a trillion in the long run), the attempt to claw revenue using patents rather than actual sales has become complicated because of plurality of intermediaries, which Apple is trying to tackle with a new antitrust complaint
“In a major antitrust lawsuit Apple charged that Acacia is illegally breaking terms of patents acquired from Nokia,” according to The Street. This is pretty major news and definitely something that warrants a 2 AM article. Florian Müller has already produced a long blog post about it, accompanied by or coupled with the relevant documents.
“Readers can find details like a detailed history in our Wiki page about Acacia, including the hiring (by Acacia) of people from Microsoft and this troll’s repeated attacks on GNU/Linux.”As a reminder to our readers, Acacia is a Microsoft-connected troll. Readers can find details like a detailed history in our Wiki page about Acacia, including the hiring (by Acacia) of people from Microsoft and this troll’s repeated attacks on GNU/Linux.
“For a long time,” Müller wrote today, “I had hoped someone would finally do this. Last year I called out Nokia and others on their privateering ways, and it turned out that Nokia had industrialized the concept of privateering to a far greater extent than anyone else. My list of PAEs fed by Nokia contained all of the defendants in Apple’s antitrust suit–Acacia and Conversant (technically, Apple is also suing particular subsidiaries of those)–and more. That post prompted attempts by Ericsson and Nokia to explain away their privateering ways.”
Nokia‘s patents have also been passed to another anti-Linux/anti-Google troll called MOSAID (renamed “Conversant” since). These were, for a fact, passed at Microsoft’s instructions, as reported in the mainstream media at the time. There’s more on that in the Korean media. When it comes to patents, Nokia is still enslaved by or subservient to Microsoft.
“What does the future of dying mobile giants have in store then?”The full story isn’t just Apple hitting back at Nokia. “Breaking news,” Müller wrote later, “Nokia sues Apple in US and Europe over alleged patent infringement […] Venues: Eastern District of Texas, three German courts: Düsseldorf Mannheim Munich…”
Europe is a growing and increasingly attractive hub for patent parasites already, I’ve told Müller (who probably agreed). Germany and sometimes the UK (London) are favoured among those parasites (see Ericsson's troll choosing London for legal attacks — quite unprecedented a move for such an entity). “For the troll that Nokia is now,” Müller noted, “suing Apple in the ED of Texas is very appropriate. […] When Nokia was still making mobile devices, it had a predilection for the District of Delaware. Now: Eastern District of Texas. Times change…”
I told him that BlackBerry does the same thing now, having lost the market (to which Müller nodded with a retweet). We wrote about this earlier this week and earlier this year.
What does the future of dying mobile giants have in store then? Passage to trolls (the PAE type) that will tax everyone, everywhere? “Something big always seems to happen at Christmas in the patent market,” IAM wrote. “Remember the RPX Rockstar patents purchase a couple of years ago?”
Remember that IAM is partly funded by MOSAID/Conversant, i.e. part of the same ‘gang’. As for Rockstar, we wrote quite a few articles about it, e.g. [1, 2]. It’s like a front for Microsoft (Rockstar Consortium is a patent troll owned by Microsoft, Apple, BlackBerry, Ericsson, and Sony). As for RPX, it’s also a patent troll, with Microsoft having joined it 6 years ago.
“My list of PAEs fed by Nokia contained all of the defendants in Apple’s antitrust suit–Acacia and Conversant (technically, Apple is also suing particular subsidiaries of those)–and more.”
–Florian MüllerNina Milanov, an occasional EPO sceptic, told Müller, “I hope Apple sees it through. Every time you settle, to some extent the troll has won.”
True.
“Last time Nokia sued Apple in Germany,” Müller responded, “it was extremely lucky. Key patents have expired. Will be more interesting this time around.”
If Apple gets to the bottom of all these satellite proxies that are patent trolls, it will be a good service not just to Apple but also to Android/Linux. iOS and Android command the market and all that the losers can do right now is attempt to tax those two. Even Oracle is trying to accomplish that. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:49 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The Chinchilla Man of the Administrative Council too, under Battistelli’s instructions (tail wagging the dog), tried to remove a judge
Summary: The Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation is coming under fire for its role in weakening the appeal boards and the confidence in already-granted EPs (European Patents) continues to erode
EARLIER TODAY we noted that a comments thread about the EPO‘s patent scope had turned more interesting than the ‘article’ (self-promotional piece) itself. People have been noting that this diversionary tactic from the EPO can backfire pretty badly on the EPO.
“Julian Cockbain” (possibly a pseudonym but not for sure) said that “the problem is not with Tomatoes II but with the EBoA’s craven reaction to the Biotech Directive in G-1/98. Correctly decided then, the problem would not have arisen now…”
“One more example of the fundamental lack of accountability of the executive in the European patent system.”
–AnonymousWe have been writing about this for a number of years. The EPO should never have granted patents on plants, seeds and animals in the first place. Now it pays the price and people will lose confidence in their EPs. The following three comments were all posted anonymously, presumably by domain experts afraid of retaliation for their open expression of views. “The decision by the President of the EPO [that's Battistelli] to stay all the concerned proceedings cannot be appealed before the Boards. One more example of the fundamental lack of accountability of the executive in the European patent system,” said one comment. Yes, it helped expose how out-of-control the EPO has become.
Another comment said that “it’s clear that in the long term the Enlarged Board cannot remain independent of the EU, particularly once [sic] the UPC is up and running” (that should be if, not once). The boards are in general under attack from Battistelli, who is pushing hard for the UPC and will sort of oversee the boards until a UPC booster finally becomes their President (see some background on Carl Josefsson's role in UPC training). To quote the full comment: “The EPO chose to bring itself under the jurisdiction of the EU when it brought the Biotech Directive into the EPC rules. Now it has to stay proceedings to sort this all out. There is no point granting/maintaining patents which are not valid according the Biotech Directive. It’s clear that in the long term the Enlarged Board cannot remain independent of the EU, particularly once the UPC is up and running and presumably the CJEU will then be looking at patent cases at lot more regularly as the final appeal court for the UPC. We clearly cannot have 2 final patent courts in Europe and this is a good opportunity to start the process of allowing the CJEU to take over the responsibilities of the Enlarged Board.”
“As the EBA did not abide by the wishes of the AC (and of the president) in this matter, it was relocated to Haar.”
–AnonymousOne person asked: “Why bother about separation of powers? It started with the house-ban of a member of the BA by the president of the EPO a while ago. It continued. As the EBA did not abide by the wishes of the AC (and of the president) in this matter, it was relocated to Haar. As long as the AC has not amended the Rules, there is no objective reason to stay any proceeding. By staying the proceedings, the BA are also touched. Another good way to retaliate.”
We recently argued that the Administrative Council was complicit and under the control of Battistelli rather than it being the other way around (as it ought to be). As the Administrative Council is controlled by Battistelli's pet chinchilla (alluding to the darker side of his life), this is hardly surprising. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:15 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
So long Lucy and thanks for nothing…
Summary: ‘Battistelli’s women’ seem to have been removed from their job, only days after Battistelli’s Vice-President Mini Minion (Minnoye) quietly announced his early exit from the EPO
THE EPO‘s management is starting to shake up as affairs have been rocky and criticism comes from the European media (except German media) on a more regular basis. As for Lucy, showing off her connections to Battistelli (see photo above), she too is out, not long after we leveled/directed criticism at her, speaking against what she did (as did other people, usually anonymously).
For details regarding what Lucy did, revisit this 7-part series:
Combine this with the planned departure of Minnoye, a principal/key part of Team Battistelli. We are not the only ones celebrating the news about EPO’s Vice-President Minnoye resigning. Here is a new comment (from today) about it:
Let VP1 never forget that life and the world are what we make them by our social character; by our adaptation or want of adaptation to the social conditions, relationships, and pursuits of the world.
To the selfish, the cold, and the insensible, to the haughty and presuming, to the proud, who demand more than they are likely to receive, to the jealous, ever afraid they shall not receive enough, to those who are unreasonably sensitive about the good or ill opinions of others, to all violators of the social laws, the rude, the violent, the dishonest, and the sensual, to all these, the social condition, from its very nature, will present annoyances, disappointments, and pains, appropriate to their several characters.
The benevolent affections will not revolve around selfishness; the cold-hearted must expect to meet coldness; the proud, haughtiness; the passionate, anger; and the violent, rudeness.
Those who forget the rights of others, must not be surprised if their own are forgotten; and those who stoop to the lowest embraces of sense must not wonder, if others are not concerned to find their prostrate honour, and lift it up to the remembrance and respect of the world.
Lucy Neville-Rolfe is out too, only a few weeks after her UPC debacle. Here is the only report about it (that we have found so far). Interesting timing. Perhaps she didn’t like what people said or maybe her supervising authority took into account what people had said about her appalling decisions. Hard to tell without some leaks that help shed light on that foolish, ill-informed move from Lucy…
“Out,” MIP says this afternoon, “Baroness Neville-Rolfe.” This news is evidently very fresh: “The government announced today that Baroness Neville-Rolfe has been appointed as Commercial Secretary (Minister of State) at the Treasury, meaning she will leave her current post at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS).”
What will that mean for the Unitary Patent? Nothing good, that’s for sure. The assurances came from Lucy (intention to ratify), so what happens now?
This following new comment suggests somewhat of a chaotic situation in EPO HR (and by extension the management) right now, just shortly after Bergot had another go at entrapping SUEPO (only to be rebuffed). Someone who looked at the phone book said this about Bergot and Nadja Merdaci-Lefèvre (mentioned last year):
Also heard another interesting development so far remained rather unoticed but which shows that there are big cracks in Battistelli’s galaxy:
The FR ex Lieutnant-colonel from intelligence services (don’t laugh) who had been recruited at administrator’s level by PD HR to officially deal with “social dialogue and communication” (actually she worked at preparing files to charge SUEPO officials to get them fired) and then bombarded within no time at director’s level (after another fake selection procedure), would now be back to square one (see the phone book).
Game over, exit the “social dialogue” work with PD HR.
Apparently a sudden and rather unexpected change of both dept and function (now she is simple Private “head of service” position in charge of security). At first glance this position would suit better her profile but when one remembers the shamble around the dismissals…one may worry for “security at EPO”.
In any case something big must have happened between the two ladies who once were the best pales in town. Trusting PD HR is a risky bet: the later acts exactly as her mentor (Battistelli) does: find one to blame with her wrongdoings.
Loyalty is really overrated
If anyone could kindly take it upon him/herself to investigate this and send us some information, we would greatly appreciate it. Where there is smoke there is usually a fire. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 9:06 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Those who will suffer the most are investors in EPs that no longer have a high perceived (or even practical) value
Summary: People correctly point out that the institutional crisis at the EPO extends to aspects other than fake trials against staff and affects actual stakeholders, who have pumped billions of Euros into the EPO only to see EPs turn to dust (or their value diminish considerably)
THE EPO has been rather quiet after the latest meeting of the Administrative Council, but union-busting attempts are still being made, even a week or so before Christmas.
At IP Kat, writers are still publishing friends’ and colleagues’ pieces. First it was Bristows that 'hijacked' IP Kat for UPC propaganda (to reach a broader audience and promote an agenda); now it’s EIP that sort of does the same with Darren Smyth having a colleague over, at least with disclosure (“This Kat is grateful to his colleague Andrew Sharples”). As a reminder, Smyth too is part of the UPC echo chamber and this article about the EPO was mentioned here briefly earlier this week. We will cover this today because the comments are noteworthy, more so than the article itself. As nearly everyone points out, the EPO behaves irresponsibly, as usual, probably in preparation for spin about patent quality at the EPO.
“One could argue that there is no provision in the EPC to deny applicants the patent they are entitled to by staying the proceedings and that the EPO is therefore acting “contra legem”,” one person wrote. Here is another take on it:
It is outrageous that the EPO is staying proceedings, whilst presumably still collecting renewal fees. I would love to know the legal basis for doing this.
The staying of opposition proceedings is perhaps even more absurd. This will simply mean that opposed patents will remain valid and enforceable unless and until a national court decides on their validity. If the EPO thinks the patents aren’t valid the indefinitely staying opposition proceedings is achieving the exact opposite as it has completely removed an Opponent’s opportunity to invalidate a granted European Patent.
“I can understand the EPO carrying on with searches for first applications and PCT filings but for other EP application,” another person insisted, “it does not make sense. If the EU guidance finds its way into the EPC, applicants might wish to withdraw their application and the search fee will only be refunded if the search has not yet started. Further, with publication of the search report, the applicant would be required to respond to the objections raised, for which they would not have the benefit of knowing how the rules were to be changed.”
“Jurisprudence is not highly esteemed in the EPO These days,” noted another person. “The EU-Commission, responsible for the BioT Directive, the model for Rule 26 EPC, can dictate how Article 53b and Rule 26 EPC are to be applied. Separation of Powers?”
Well, that is long gone! Look at the EPO itself. It’s a clusterfunk [sic]. Another person wrote that “the evidence, moral argument or even legal basis for “Patent protection is not appropriate for such procedures and their products” appears nowhere. Wish I could say that this surprised me.”
Lack of respect for actual laws is now a hallmark of everything that happens at the EPO, including so-called ‘disciplinary procedures’. A comment from another thread claimed that the attack on actual “independent” judges (collective punishment) whom Battistelli does not like “is mere retaliation, not only from the president but also from the AC.” Here is the full comment:
By no means I approve the transfer to Haar. But one thing has to be clear: it is mere retaliation, not only from the president but also from the AC.
Both have never accepted that the EBA has not acted in the way they wanted in the case of the suspended member.
It therefore remains a disgrace if the legislative and the executive try to interfere with the judicial. Separation of powers is a fundamental guarantee which should not be tampered with.
One of the members of the EBA who participated in the decision Art 23 has retired. Normally when a chairman of a BA retires, there is an article in the internal journal of the EPO (the Gazette). For this chairman, there is nothing. Is this a mere coincidence? I doubt it.
And going back to the other thread, another comment along the same lines:
It would be very interesting to read or watch an interview with the Administrative Council members presenting their vision(s) on the implementation of rule of law at the European Patent Office.
In particular, how the cornerstones of rule of law are seen by the Administrative Council:
Legality, i.e. legislative powers belonging to a representative body;
Balance/separation of powers, i.e. balance of legislative, executive, and judicial powers;
Independent judiciary, i.e. review of decisions and interpretation of law by an independent body.
The European Patent Office is in charge of taking generally binding decisions for the territory of 38 European countries, which implies adherence to rule of law as a fundamental principle of governance.
“The European Patent Office is in charge of taking generally binding decisions for the territory of 38 European countries,” says the key part, yet not many people — certainly not the German media — ever bother reporting about the many scandals. A comment posted in The Register offered the following advice to EPO staff (similar to advice from Florian Müller):
Find alternative work?
Those who really matter, those who scrutinize patents, are highly skilled. Surely they would be warmly welcomed in almost any tech company. When the EPO just grinds to a halt that should concentrate a few of those flabby minds.
Leaving the EPO can actually make things worse in the sense that it lets Team Battistelli replace veteran staff with temporary, clueless, inexperienced “rubber-stampers”, fulfilling what seems to be his awful vision for the EPO (replace the “P” with an “R” for Registration). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
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
Posted in America, Patents at 8:16 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Because protectionism alone does not breed creativity and innovation
Summary: Signs that the patent system is on the one hand improving, thanks to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), but on the other hand it continues to deny choices in the market by altogether blocking products
THE Justices of SCOTUS may soon be ending patent trolls' business model, irrespective of patent scope restrictions (like Alice at SCOTUS), which USPTO barely cares to respect anyway (it’s left for courts to do the job that USPTO examiners fail to do). As one new article puts it: “In a move that may shake-up U.S. patent law, the Supreme Court this week decided to hear a case about where patent owners can file lawsuits—a case that will likely put an end to a special Texas cottage industry that has been a thorn in the side of big business.”
Not just “big business”. In fact, that mischaracterises the entire problem because big businesses can usually afford going to court where they challenge the trolls. Small businesses cannot afford to do this and they suffer the most, usually quietly (under gag orders/instructions upon settlement).
Who does the current patent law work for best if not big businesses? Merck recently got awarded 2.5 billion dollars in supposed 'damages' in one single case. Who lost this patent case? Poor people who will die as a result of lowered/no access to drugs. As a medical news site put it the other day: “A federal jury awarded $2.54 billion in royalties to Merck, which owns the patents that Gilead allegedly infringed upon to create its two blockbuster hep C drugs, Sovaldi and Harvoni.”
So Merck not only gets a lot of money but also maintains a monopoly that will enable Merck to further jack up prices. Who benefits from this?
Another item of news deals with the ITC‘s decision to block Arista products — a subject on which we wrote in the past [1, 2]. MIP says the following about the latest twist:
The ITC’s ruling, administered by Judge Mary Joan McNamara, found that Arista had imported into the US two components for routers and networking systems that infringe upon Cisco’s patents, in violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act. Arista plans to request a full review by the Commission, according to its press release.
As we pointed out before, when denying sales of Arista products those who suffer the most are ordinary people, not just Arista employees (the smaller company). Getting the patent system in tune with or in alignment with public interests is crucial. Otherwise people will simply cease to respect patent law — in the same way (and for similar reasons) a lot of people already regard copyright law to be tilted in favour of conglomerates and non-producers. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.20.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 1:08 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Union busters in sheep’s clothing (another couple of traps from Battistelli and his mate’s wife)
Summary: Battistelli and his goons continue to try exploiting the politeness and good manners of staff representatives, but perhaps it’s time to step up the activity of the union (making it akin to activism, as they’re clearly not dealing with an ordinary ‘partner’)
SO THEN… Elodie Bergot, the mistress of injustice at the EPO (Battistelli’s henchwoman who throws false charges at people in order to render them unemployed, especially if they’re in the union), has been trying to entrap SUEPO again, in order to save face or keep up appearances, making it appear as though Battistelli is interested in union recognition while in reality he busts the unions like a madman, even when explicitly asked by his ‘supervisors’ (turned chinchillas) to refrain from doing so. What an evil woman! It’s not exactly surprising considering how she got her job at the EPO [1, 2, 3, 4]. Perfect fit for Battistelli. Here is the latest letter, dated yesterday, sent by SUEPO in response to the above letters, which are laughable at best given some of the latest developments.
19 December 2016
su16141cl – 4.6
Re-opening of discussions
Dear Mr Battistelli,
We refer to the letter of Ms Bergot dated 12 December 2016, inviting SUEPO to “resume discussion on the recognition of unions”. Before any return to the negotiation table, we need to clarify what the discussions should be about:
- Any discussion on how to “negotiate” would, we believe, be superfluous in a system that was broadly “in line with fundamental rights”.
- Any further discussion to try and persuade SUEPO to accept the same MoU signed by FFPE is pointless when, as stated in Ms Bergot’s letter of 14 November 2016, the Office is unwilling to deviate in any way from the existing text. If the Office is not open to negotiating a MoU to the satisfaction of both parties, there is nothing to discuss. A MoU should be the formal, written acknowledgement of a negotiated and agreed procedure on a particular issue: it is not a capitulation from one party to the unilaterally determined terms and conditions of another. For the avoidance of any doubt, we believe your MoU is so biased, that it practically asks the Union to abdicate its fundamental rights. Under these circumstances, there would appear to be nothing further for us to discuss on the current proposal.
- However, as you stated in the last Administrative Council meeting you would be prepared for to hold discussions without any precondition. Thus, this could be a way forward. We would like to remind you that these discussions should be held within the tripartite negotiation framework.
Furthermore, we remind you that prior to resuming discussions, we asked the Office to assure our officials that they will enjoy a safe environment within which negotiations take place. Again, this would normally be a “given” in a system broadly “in line with fundamental rights”. However, as recent events have clearly shown, this seems to be far from the case in the EPO, where the President apparently ignores even the instructions of the highest legislative and supervisory body in the EPO, the Administrative Council.
As already indicated by the staff representatives and repeated in the last Council meeting, the basis to restart any social dialogue is to follow-up and implements the Council resolution of March this year.
One of the stipulations was that disciplinary proceedings need to be “seen to be fair”: this means that pending the provision of revised and new investigation and disciplinary proceedings, any ongoing investigation or disciplinary proceedings must be suspended. Please note that this was reiterated by the Council.
Furthermore, the already imposed disciplinary sanctions against staff representatives and union officials need also to be seen to be fair. Again, in line with the Council resolution, this would require to withdraw or at least suspend the sanctions pending a review of the cases with “the involvement of an external reviewer or of arbitration or mediation”.
We note that in the recent Council you committed to present revised investigation, disciplinary and dispute resolution procedures for approval in the June 2017 Council. We are prepared to contribute to any discussions on these issues within the framework of the tripartite negotiations.
We also note the attempt in the final sentence of Ms Bergot’s letter (of 12 December 2016) to dictate who may or may not be part of SUEPO’s negotiating team. Any such limitation constitutes an interference with our fundamental freedom of association.
To conclude: the reopening of any discussions (including those on union recognition) is in your hands: commit to implementing the unanimous Council resolution; commit to recognising and enforcing fundamental rights; be open to bona fide negotiations through genuine dialogue; treat us as an equal social partner. Under these very normal conditions, we can surely work something out.
Our message to SUEPO: don’t fall for it.
Readers of ours have been insisting for a while that SUEPO has been far too gentle and courteous with Battistelli, who is an aggressive, manipulative thug. There’s no room for negotiation with someone like this, unless one wishes to be hired by him to become a mercenary.
People we speak to (not even from the EPO) believe that SUEPO should escalate and start treating Battistelli as a combative, irrational person, not as a President. Otherwise they might continue to be crushed and repressed. One thing they can do is represent themselves anonymously (no names, no publicly-known structure).
“Bureaucracy is spreading like cancer cells,” argued another person. So is corruption, bribery, fraud, etc. The EPO is full of that and it threatens those brave enough to point that out. Here is the full comment, which deals with the lack of large countries voting to send appeal boards away (while Battistelli gives "carrots" to small countries whose vote are of equal weight).
If the big ones complain about being outvoted by the small countries, why did neither UK, FR,… request a weighted vote?
This has a financial impact, so they have a right to request it…
What about INCOMPETENCE? why should EPO’s admin council be better staffed than the EU? Bureaucracy is spreading like cancer cells. Those who dispose upon expertise are mobbed until they shut up so that minions and accolytes of the tyran concentrate all power to serve the will of the chosen one…
If you could see them live you would not believe it ! pathetic, sad, and of course self-destructing
At the EPO, as another person put it, “Private Minnoye ends his professional career in disgrace.” The following long comment explained this also in relation to the staff union, SUEPO:
After having served the soup to his master loyaly during 5 years, having endured all kinds of vexatious statements from Battistelli who is known to behave like a spoiled child, having worked 24/7 (even with broken rips!!!) to please his Chef at all costs, Private Minnoye ends his professional career in disgrace.
Sent home some would say kicked out almost like a SUEPO official, “for private reasons” the official story telling has it. However little birds have it that VP1 would have lost his position after numerous failures among which those below for which “a head at to roll” and preferably not that of the Grand Battistelli of course:
- Minnoye would have embarassed himself (no worries: he did not notice it) and the EPO when he gave his amazing interview to the Dutch TV (remember when he stated one day before the Cassatie hearing that the EPO would not respect the decision of the Cassatie should it be against the EPO, or that all investigations against SUEPO officials were a mere ‘toefal’);
- Minnoye would not have been able to manover via his usual ‘free masons’ network and avoid the public debate soon to be organised in the Dutch parliament (about despicable social situation at EPO);
- Minnoye would also pay for the work quality which is going down the drain as never before (major applicants in particular in NL and DE would have complained at the highest political levels);
- A culprit had to be found for the miserable failure of the IT Roadmap (above and over 100 Mio EUR of EPO money (actually applicants’ money) were wasted in a few years by a handful of utterly incompetent actors). Here Battistelli decided to preserve his personal friend (René Kraft (FR) whom he recruited and bombarded at the head of IM with all freiraum to do what he wanted and who so far pathetically failed to deliver a single IT program worth 1/10th of the price paid). The solution was a no-brainer for Battistelli: protect his friend Kraft and get rid the old flemmish Private Minnoye;
- Finally the EPO ‘Trump-like bling tower’ in construction in TH (by a FR star architect) is late on schedule. This is likely to have a little (read A LOT OF) impact financially with costs sky rocketing soon. Thereto Minnoye is said to have failed (as site manager for The Hague to keep this on tracks).
Remember ABBA’s lyrics ?
Money, money, money
Must be funny
In the rich man’s world
In another thread someone mentioned the yellow union, FFPE-EPO, as follows:
the Union FFPE-EPO always points out, that the beloved MoU is a “Gentleman’s Agreement”.
Now it becomes clear, why the “official union” never complains. They knew right from the start how they’ll be treated, and are happy to sit at a table, to discuss things that are neither urgent, nor in need of their input anyway….
Here is a message about Mr. Prunier (LP) from SUEPO. Ion Brumme and Laurent Prunier are currently receiving bread funds (“Broodfonds”) from colleagues whom they represented and defended (with one-off donations and standing orders). The message said:
I supported IB with a one-off, and subsequently supported and will support LP with monthly donations for the next years to come. But I only get feedback from LP, as I am not in the mailing lists for Munich…
They both risked a lot for us, and for that I would be more than ungrateful if I would not spend a bit…
I hope they continue their fight, and see the money as a kind of salary to invest their time for the union and the fight against the way the rules have been implemented.
But life is frustrating, and I do understand that they may need some time to take a step backwards.
Especially LP with what happened in his private life recently.
The EPO is not a patent office. It has become something political and something deeply disturbing where budget is thrown at relatives, friends, and is increasingly used as a vehicle for corrupting the media, buying ‘favours’, mislead the public and so on. SUEPO needs to get even stronger and if fear of retaliation (or “reprisal” as they call it) is enough to discourage some from participating, then harness anonymity-preserving tools and give the EPO’s management a good fight because the EPO simply self-detonates under Battistelli (that’s exactly where the EPO has been heading).
Staff unions exist to exercise of exert control over the institutions staff works for; right now there is one person turning not just the Office into a toy (for him to break) but also the Administrative Council into a toothless laughing stock. The whole Organisation is compromised and staff has a duty to serve stakeholders, including Europeans, not just some lunatic in a suit.
Save the EPO before it’s too late. █
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