06.01.16
Posted in Europe, Patents, Rumour at 3:52 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Article as ODF
Publicado en Europa, Patentes, Rumour at 6:32 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Manterse ocupado en laOficina frente al Consejo Administrativo, el cual no ha sido infiltrado en el mismo grado (algunos dicen que allí sucede lo mismo)
Sumario: El ‘cabezilla’ de la EPO, Sr. Battistelli, esta tratándo de mantener a sus confidentes alegadamente (parte de la familial cabal, comoel Sr. Minnoye y Željko Topić) juntos por varios años más, incluso desafíando reglas acerca de la edad de retiro
El “molino de rumores de la EPO,” nos dice una fuente, esta resonando con especulaciónes y murmuros acerca de lo que podría pasar en Junio cuándo el Consejo Administrativo se reuna de nuevo y tenga oportunidad de despedir a Battistelli. Battistelli debería haberse retirado hace rato, y sigue recibiéndo un salario astronómico (lo mismo se puede decir del Sr. Minnoye, quien tuvo un momento anciano en TV cuando se olvidó que las leyes necesitan ser obedecidas).
“El contrato normal para Vice-Presidente de la EPO es por 5 años así que su nombramiénto caduca en Mazo/Abril del 2017.”
–Anonymous
Ahora que Battistelli de quien se rumorea que ‘compra’ votos para garantizar que no sea despedido (a pesar de no cumplir con alguna de las peticiones del Consejo de Administración) tenemos nueva información informal, o más bien, los rumores no verificados.
“Las últimas noticias del molino de rumores de la EPO,” nuestra fuente nos dice, envuelve a ambos Battistelli y su chacal de confíanza Željko Topić, quien enfrenta graves cargos en su contra en su país natal.
“Topić,” nos dicen, “fue nombrado como VP 4 de la EPO en Marzo del 2012 asumió su cargo en Munich en Abril del 2012. El contrato normal para Vice-Presidente de la EPO es por 5 años así que su nombramiénto caduca en Mazo/Abril del 2017.
“El caradura de Battistelli debe permanecer como Presidente de la EPO hasta Junio del 2018 y ahora desvergonzadamente parece querer mantener a Topić por otro año. No puede vivir sin él.
“Hay 38 estados miémbros en total, y una mayoríá de tres cuartos es necesario para remover al Presidente.”
–Anonymous
“Las últimas noticias del molino de rumores de la EPO es que Battistelli tiene la intención de proponer una prórroga de la designación del tema para el Consejo de Administración durante la próxima reunión de los días 29 y 30 de junio. Según fuentes confiables hay una gran cantidad de oposición a la prórroga propuesta entre muchas delegaciones por lo que será interesante ver si esto conducirá a otro enfrentamiento entre Battistelli y el Consejo”. Esperemos que sea así y se deshagan de este desgraciado.
¿No sería escandaloso si Topic, quien enfrenta a muchos cargos criminales, reciba un respaldo de los jefes de las oficinas nacionales (Consejo de Administración)? Esto serviría para desacreditar, por extensión/asociación, un montón de todo este sistema (la Organización), lo que demuestra que la EPO es trastornada e incapaz de auto-regulación.
“Battistelli ha perdido ahora el apoyo mayoritario del Consejo Administrativo,” nuestra fuente añadió, “pero de acuerdo a fuentes dentro todavía hay un bloque de alrededor de 12 países que continúan apoyándolo. Hay 38 estados miembros en total, y se necesitaría una mayoría de tres cuartas partes de remover al Presidente. Mientras que aún tiene el apoyo de 12 países residual que podría ser difícil para el Consejo de despedirlo”.
Ya que todos los países, grandes y pequeños, tienen la misma voz, envío de dinero de su manera de asegurar su apoyo a Battistelli no debería ser demasiado difícil. Lo explicamos la semana pasada.
“Mientras el todavía tenga apoyo de esos 12 países a los que rompió la mano, puede ser díficil para que el Consejo Administrativo lo despida.”
–Anonymous
“Sin embargo,” nuestra fuente concluyó, “no es fácil de hacer predicciones fiables sobre esto porque de acuerdo a las reglas de votación de EPO las abstenciones no cuentan como votos. Así que si algunas delegaciones decidieron abstenerse, esto reduciría la mayoría necesaria para tomar una decisión. La “mayoría de tres cuartos” se basa en el número exacto de votos emitidos sin incluir las abstenciones”.
Para aquellos que deseen contactar a sus delegados nacionales, aquí están los detalles de contacto. Ellos merecen tener acceso a la información que Battistelli y sus chácales suprimen, por amenazas a bloggers y a los representantes, censura descarada y directa (de bloggers y representantes sitios/E-mail), auto censura por medio de monitoring/vigilancia (usando BlueCoat) y lo demás.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 3:48 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Article as ODF
Publicado en Europa, Patentes at 9:02 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Sumario: Jesper Kongstad, Presidente del Consejo Administrativo de la Oficina Europea de Patentes, ayuda a demostra que incluso la EPO no es lo suficiéntemente inteligente para detectar un obvio scam
JUSTOantes del pasado fin de semana mencionamos el scam ‘Nigeriano’ (E-mail pleas por fondos)del que la EPO cayó victima, lo cual es curios o ya que la EPO, en su cuenta Twitter, advierte a la gente como sus aplicantes acerca de falsas solicitudes de pagos (mientras la EPO cayó victima de ello). Vimos acerca de ello los últimos meses. Hablándo de la cuenta Twitter de la EPO, la gente PR de la EPO está trabajando los fines de semana de nuevo (esto es de hoy, Sábado) y por 3 días seguidos la EPO continúa promoviéndo a la UPC en Twitter (sin esconder su agenda y su metida de pata donde no tiene autoridad). No hay sentido de integridad allí. Francamente, no estamos seguros que es peor, los scammers o la gerencia de la EPO cuyos abusos cuestan más dinero.
“Esta es la historia detrás de Jesper Kongstad” Fraude Nigeriano”,” una persona nos dijo. En realidad es una traducción de un artículo que menciónamos el otro día. “Recuerde que este artículo en la prensa danesa,” esta persona nos preguntó, “Nigeria-Svindel – Jesper Kongstad” (artículo en danés).
El DKPTO se terminó en una situación embarazosa después de un ‘empleado gerencial’ fue engañado por un simulacro electrónico y transferido 900.000 euros a un banco chino. A pesar de que el dinero se devuelve al DKPTO al final el director de JK es consciente de que algo tiene que suceder como consecuencia de la vergüenza.
El 11 de mayo de este año un “empleado gerencial ‘de la DKPTO, que está dispuesta bajo el Ministerio de Comercio y Crecimiento, fue atacado por un -sham llamado ‘FRAUDE PARA LOS CEO’.
El empleado recibió un correo electrónico de una persona que se hizo pasar por el director de la DKPTO, y el correo declaró que el director quería una transferencia de 900.000 euros a un banco chino para la compra de acciones de una empresa china – todo hecho con discreción.
Después de que el empleado había intercambiado correos con la persona que pretende ser JK, una transferencia de la considerable cantidad de 900.000 euros fue arreglado.
Sólo dos días después, cuando el director falsa de nuevo en contacto con el DKPTO con el fin de tener otro 900.000 euros transferidos a un banco chino, el empleado empezó a sospechar y contactó a su superior que se contactó con el director [JK].
INVESTIGACION INTERNA
El dinero se recuperó unos días más tarde con la ayuda de la policía y el ‘Danske Bank’. Sin embargo, el daño importante ya había sucedido, que es base para la investigación por parte de la policía y la investigación interna con el fin de entender cómo el DKPTO podría ser engañado por lo que en general se conoce como un “Nigeria-mail ‘- aunque un espécimen muy sofisticado.
En este momento el estado es que nos encontramos en medio de una investigación. Tenemos abogados que trabajan en la investigación y la policía está involucrada. El primer par de días que estuvimos ocupados recuperar el dinero, pero ahora vamos a tener una investigación de cómo podría terminar tan mal dice JK a BT.
Como no podía suceder que un empleado gerencial fue engañado por lo que muchos conocen como una especie de Nigeria-mail?
El problema central en esta situación es que el control se puede poner en su lugar pero si los empleados no son lo suficientemente atentos estos errores van a ocurrir. En este momento me centro en el personal. Con-personas como en este caso, se están volviendo más y más sofisticados. Es posible que deberíamos haber dado cuenta de que algo estaba mal en esta correspondencia, pero se llevó a cabo de una manera muy inteligente. Técnicamente visto el parecido era muy buena y las personas detrás había hecho un trabajo elaborado. Que habían escrito el correo de una manera similar a la forma en que escribo, explica JK, que también explica que el correo fue escrito en Danés que significa que el correo se distingue de la mayoría de sham-mails que terminan en la bandeja de entrada de personas ordinarias.
NO SABEMOS LO QUE HAY DETRAS
Cuando se dice que habían copiado tanto las características técnicas y la forma en que escribe, no nosotros, entonces sospechar que se trata de algo interno en el DKPTO o alguien a quien usted conoce?
En este momento la policía está llevando a cabo una investigación, así que no puedo decir antes de que sepamos más, pero no creo que es algo interno. Y, no sabemos quien es la persona que está detrás.
¿Cuáles son las consecuencias para el empleado gerencial?
Este es un asunto personal y no voy a comentar sobre eso.
¿Cuáles serán las consecuencias para el DKPTO?
A pesar de que hemos conseguido que tenga el dinero devuelto hemos tenido un golpe en la cara. Y, que dará lugar a aumento del control entre otros para la transferencia de dinero, de manera que en el futuro las tres firmas serán necesarios en lugar de dos. He estado en contacto con nuestros técnicos de IT que dicen que nada puede evitar que los correos como el que recibió el empleado. Y, no es seguro que se puede hacer algo en relación con el procedimiento. Por lo tanto, se trata del factor humano en el que tenemos que mejorar en la localización cuando la gente trata de engañarnos. Y, estas personas que intentan engañar – no sólo a nosotros – son al menos tan hábiles como somos o incluso mejor.
El punto clave aquí, la inteligenci y/o estupidez de la EPO (y la DKPTO) deberían ser escrutinizadas.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 3:41 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Article as ODF
Publicado en Europa, Patentes at 10:00 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Que bonito niño en su bicicleta!
Sumario: Los últimos ‘rumores’ de la bicicleta y como está siéndo usada basado en expectaciónes de los empleados de la EPO, para introducir más ataques en los derechos humanos y del trabajador
EL Vice-Presidente (uno de varios) de la EPO es por muy lejos una persona confíable, pero algunos en los medios repiten como loros sus dudosas afirmaciónes sin escepticismo. Ayer WIPR publicó el “A el Presidente de la EPO le ‘cortaron’ los frenos de su bicicleta”, atribuyendo esto a un correo electrónico en vez de a un mensaje interno (intranet) los cuáles fuímos los primeros (y probablemente el único) sitio que los publicó. Hubieron otros errores en los artículos, pero algunos han sido corrégidos. Para citar las palabras concluyentes:
La tensión entre el personal y la administración de EPO ha aumentado en el último par de años como Battistelli ha introducido políticas que los trabajadores han sido descontentos con. Ha habido numerosas manifestaciones y huelgas en la oficina.
WIPR en contacto con la EPO por teléfono para solicitar un comentario, pero el departamento de comunicación dijo que no podía hacer comentarios sobre el asunto hasta mañana porque hoy es un día de “puente”.
No hay respuésta por parte de ellos basados en los hechos de que no vemos actualizaciónes substantivase. Bueno, excepto “UPDATE at 3.22pm: Una fuente de WIPR en la oficina confirmó que el mensaje fué envíádo por Topic.” Esto añade nada nuevo. Similar a lo que pasó cuando indagamos acerca del matoneo legal del sinceramente suyo.
Mientras tanto, aludiéndo a las mayores protestas en Francia, hay una nueva línea de comentarios no sólo en The Register pero también en IP Kat. Para citar algunos:
Tal vez no debemos olvidar que Battistelli es Francés. Como es probable que haya escuchado en las noticias, Francia está en huelga general debido a las nuevas leyes de trabajo. Si he entendido bien, la nueva ley hará que sea más fácil despedir a los empleados. Hace unos meses, un ministro también dijo que no veía razones por las que los funcionarios públicos deben tener un contrato permanente. Y al igual que Battistelli salario es un escándalo, los sueldos de los gerentes es actualmente un escándalo en la prensa francesa.
Tal vez este es también el futuro de la Oficina: examinadores en 2 contratos años, disparados automáticamente al final del período y son impedidos a trabajar después. Después de un año de paro sin prestaciones, que estarían encantados de firmar por otros dos años de período fijo, con un salario reducido. Parece una situación de ganar-ganar para Battistelli.
En el contexto de esta hipótesis, no veo ninguna razón por la cual los abogados de patentes europeas disfrutar de una licencia de por vida, por cierto. Tal vez ellos también tendrán que volver a aplicar como representante cada dos años también.
A lo cual la respuesta fue:
“Es probable que ya los haya escuchado en las noticias, Francia está en huelga general debido a las nuevas leyes de trabajo.”
Eso nunca habría sucedido si Hollande había seguido el ejemplo de “Presidente” Battistelli y promulgado nuevas leyes de huelga.
Hey mi bicicleta!
(Pero asegúrese de comprobar los frenos de primera …)
Finalmente:
Un artículo publicado en el Register de la “bici Affair” en la OEP:
línea de corte del freno de la Oficina de Patentes de euros prez – aka cómo decir que no eres popular
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/05/26/epo_battistelli_very_unpopular/
Hubo una docena de comentarios (en el The Register). La gente generalmente ve este “Asunto de la Bicicleta” más como un chiste que una causa de preocupación. Esto ha atraído más publicidad negativa que haber generado simpatíá. Donde sea que gente como Battistelli y su chacal a la mano derecha son menciónados en los medios, esta garantizado generar simpatía y simplemente aumentar el resentimiénto contra los empleados de la EPO. Ahora que las cosas se complican para el chacal de Battistelli surge la esperanza de una acción concreta contra él. ¿Será despedido Battistelli en las próximas semanas? He aquí el porque de que sí debería serlo, a no ser de que ya haya ‘comprado’ apoyo suficiénte (como alegadamente ha sucedido). La EPO es un catástrofe de mi… en estos días y a menos que se hagan cambios en la cabeza, ciertamente todo empeórara — y rápidamente! Hay gran protesta a venir en todas las sedes de la EPO. ¿Qué tomará a la Gerencia y el Consejo para ver como terminar esta “crisis” (como ellos la llaman)? Los Seis Guardias Pretoriános de Battistelli están costando una fortuna y dándoles unos millónes para retirárse temprano (como el Manchester United acaba de hacer con Van Gaal) definitivamente valdríá la pena.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
05.31.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 12:40 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: LinkedIn, one of several giants that spy on people to determine what’s on their mind and what’s similar to them, has yielded the above (for EPO)
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Asia, Europe, Patents at 5:47 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A look at the Singaporean, US, and Chinese patent systems, which are all becoming more aggressive and more disconnected from public interests, in favour of large multinational corporations
THE following article is an outline of various bits of patent news that are too short to merit an article of their own.
Singapore as Hub for Patent Trolls
We recently wrote about Creative (what’s left of it) staging a patent war against Android and by extension against Linux [1, 2]. What was interesting about it might be the role of Singapore, not Texas. Singapore is increasingly becoming a venue of patent trolls, not just notorious tyrants, tax evaders, and exploited labour from south Asia (I know about this having studied the country for about 4 years and visited the country as well). Based on IAM, a proponent of patent trolls, Singapore’s role as a litigation and/or trolling hub is on the rise. Here is the part about Creative:
There are, though, exceptions to this broad trend. Creative Technology is one clear example. The company was a pathfinder in the field of MP3 and audio products, and as its device business has declined, it has turned to its patent portfolio to shore up its balance sheet. In March it launched US patent litigation against Samsung, LG, Lenovo and others over an MP3 player patent that has previously yielded a $100 million settlement with Apple. Nevertheless, the amount of legal and transactional IP expertise in Singapore probably exceeds the ability of local companies to put it to use.
Appeals
Putting aside various pieces that are less relevant to us, Lexology published “Pending Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) Final Written Decision Does Not Require Stay and Does Not Justify Rule 60 Relief: WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp.”
“This is basically about tilting the system against defendants/challengers and in favour of patenters (as usual), by giving them an opportunity to change their patent (or application) after it had been granted.”PTAB increasingly creeps in or enters the debate because it helps demolish software patents, albeit not at a pace high enough to undo the USPTO's terrible work (not doing quality assessment or prior art search, just granting almost everything that arrives as an application, sooner or later).
Writing about Inter Partes Reviews at PTAB, Patently-O recently noted that: “In a short opinion, the Federal Circuit has reaffirmed the USPTO’s tightly restrictive approach to amendment practice in Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings. Under the rules, a patentee has one opportunity to propose amendments or substitute claims. However, the motion to amend will only be granted if the patentee also demonstrates in the motion that the proposed amendments would make the claims patentable over the known prior art. See Idle Free Sys., Inc. v. Bergstrom, Inc., IPR2012–00027, 2013 WL 5947697 (PTAB June 11, 2013).”
This is basically about tilting the system against defendants/challengers and in favour of patenters (as usual), by giving them an opportunity to change their patent (or application) after it had been granted. Are any rules at all capable of passing which seek to restore sanity and fix this system, except when Congress or the Supreme Court get involved (the former gave us PTAB and the latter gave us Alice)? Shearman & Sterling LLP writes in favour of secrecy in “The Patent Agent Privilege” (more on secrecy later) and judging by some of the upcoming major patent cases, claim construction at the PTAB may be under attack already (as part of Cuozzo Speed v Lee, which we wrote about before).
“When will patent applications not be presumed eligible by default, even when challenged by PTAB (whereupon the patenter gets a rather bizarre right to alter the patent)?”Speaking of Congress, remember that PTAB only came after the America Invents Act (AIA) and some patent lawyers treat it as an obstacle which they want to get rid of rather than respect or honour (the same goes for Alice). A guest post in Patently-O, composed by a person who “received a (gratis) copy of this text” to write a review about it, isn’t particularly positive about it. Jason Rantanen says about this book, “Patents After the AIA,” that “the authors were under significant time pressure in getting this project out the door” and he points out many problems with the book. Well, this is what one ought to expect from political and self-serving ‘books’.
How far will this terrible system go? When will patent applications not be presumed eligible by default, even when challenged by PTAB (whereupon the patenter gets a rather bizarre right to alter the patent)?
First They Went After Your Software (Abstract), Now After Your Life
Any patents on life at the USPTO should be seriously considered the pinnacle of institutional failure. Some companies now claim to ‘own’ the food chain (usually through GMO monopolies) and some claim to ‘own’ health treatment, DNA/genome, etc. Such privatisation or looting of the Commons is turning what’s public (and abundant in nature) into private property of few who are extremely affluent.
“Such privatisation or looting of the Commons is turning what’s public (and abundant in nature) into private property of few who are extremely affluent.”Nevertheless, ethics thrown aside, patent lawyers love these; the more, the merrier (more income). “Elena S. Polovnikova is an attorney with Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP,” says her biography, and here she is promoting patents on life at the site which is most notorious for software patents advocacy. Patents on life now exist at EPO (most controversial such patents) and at the USPTO. Companies like Monsanto want to own everything in nature using patents, which they themselves ‘interject’ into fields by what many call GMO ‘contamination’. Watch IAM ([1] below) playing a role in pressuring India, a large victim of Monsanto (where many farmers commit suicide due to it), into this massive scam which is patents on life/biology. Watch IAM running sponsored ‘analyses’ (paid-for ads) [1, 2] to that effect. Shame on IAM. There’s an evil aspect to it and it is now a wholly parasitic business (associated with bureaucracy around this). No wonder groups march to the EPO sites to protest such patents. It’s just about as unethical as it can get, probably even worse than software patents.
Openwashing the USPTO
Speaking of IAM with its endless propaganda, watch it serving as the USPTO’s megaphone (de facto marketing) while the USPTO itself is openwashing (with “Open Data”) the whole operation (“Patent and Trademark Office Uses Open Data to Bring Patent Info to the Masses”).
“When will sanity be restored and when will the USPTO recognise that its role should be to promote innovation, not grant and promote monopolies?”Bringing monopolies to “the masses” is more like inducing willful patent infringement, thereby making “the masses” more legally liable and thus indebted. When will sanity be restored and when will the USPTO recognise that its role should be to promote innovation, not grant and promote monopolies?
China and SEPs
The USPTO, as we explained earlier this month, had amended its guidelines in lieu with a pro-software patents decision (involving Microsoft, which seems rather happy about it). The SIPO in China did something similar before that. The USITO woke up to it a long time later and wrote:
The guidelines for infringement have two major changes:
1) It deleted the clause about standard-essential patents (SEPs)
2) It deleted the clause about joint infringement
These “standard-essential patents” are basically a weapon against FOSS, very much like FRAND. These are patent thickets which deny entrance by FOSS contenders — the same sorts of thickets which IAM keeps promoting (it's all about patent conglomerates that use patents to perpetuate and guard their dominance).
Secrecy in the Eastern District of Texas
In other news of interest, the EFF recently managed, after a huge endevaour and some repeated failures, to unseal details of a patent case. Watch how Blue Spike, a parasite which we covered here before [1, 2] (it had won the EFF's Stupid Patent Of The Month award two years ago), sought to keep itself immune/safe from criticism:
In a victory for the First Amendment and public access to court proceedings, a magistrate judge ruled in favor of EFF’s motion to unseal documents in a patent case in the Eastern District of Texas. This means that the patent owner in that case, Blue Spike, will no longer be able to shield from the public its arguments about how the defendant infringes its patents. Also, the court has indicated that it will publish public versions of important rulings that, until now, had been completely hidden from the public.
[...]
In its response, Blue Spike did not dispute that the First Amendment applied. Instead, it argued that because EFF wanted to write more blog posts about Blue Spike—posts Blue Spike felt were disparaging—the public should not be allowed to examine Blue Spike’s claims of infringement. In other words, because Blue Spike does not agree with EFF’s commentary about its litigation, it contends that we (and the public at large) should not see the relevant court records at all.
We are not hoping to abolish the patent system but to see a system which actually promotes innovation, transparency, sharing of information and so on, not extortion, secrecy, protectionism, and deception. █
Related/contextual items from the news:
-
The battle over the Indian patent sought by Gilead Sciences for its Hepatitis C drug Sofosbuvir (branded Sovaldi) seemingly came to a conclusion last week when the country’s patent office reversed course to grant the US drug maker protection for the compound. It’s another reminder that while India is well-known to be a difficult jurisdiction for pharmaceutical innovators, things don’t always play out according to that script. But last week also saw the public airing of troubling accusations of political pressure brought to bear on patent examiners in this high profile case. As the country mulls reforms to its IP system, it’s important that these questions be addressed.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Europe, Patents at 4:37 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
While Shelston IP continues to lie and grossly misrepresent for software patents
Steve Ballmer’s people are still doing Ballmer’s dirty work
Summary: Microsoft, which is renowned (or notorious) for patent extortion against Linux, is still a big contributor to software patenting policy and Shelston IP — much like Microsoft’s front groups — pretends to speak for small businesses in an effort to spread software patents outside the US (in spite of Alice)
EVER since the Enfish v Microsoft decision we have written nearly half a dozen posts to demonstrate how patent lawyers and other self-serving proponents of software patents came out of the woodwork to mislead the public about Alice even though as of days ago [1, 2] “US Pat 8,336,772, Data storage; Smartflash; Claims 1,5,8,10 killed @ PTAB w/101/ Alice [...] Four claims of ’772 Smartflash Patent Asserted Against Apple Killed at the PTAB w/ Alice 101: https://dlbjbjzgnk95t.cloudfront.net/0801000/801293/cbm2015-00031_final_decision_45.pdf …” (in other words, Alice continues to crush patents).
Joff Wild, a proponent of software patents, spoke to Microsoft’s former ‘patent Mafia’ chief (remember that Microsoft still engages in software patents-based extortion against Linux) and much as we hypothesised at first (and wrote about it), it was a happy loss for Microsoft because software patents gained from it. Watch him celebrating a legal loss for Microsoft because it’s a win for software patents that patent lawyers and the USPTO exploited to open the door to new propaganda. To quote Wild (who misspelled Enfish everywhere including the headline): “The US Court of Appeals recently handed down its decision in Entfish [sic] v Microsoft, a case which concerned issues connected to the patentability of software. Unlike many other post-Alice judgments CAFC and lower courts have issued, the Entfish [sic] decision looked to be good news for software patent owners. But the extent of that goods news was less clear. In a recent IAM blog, the opinion was mixed. However, Bart Eppenauer – managing partner of the Seattle office of Shook Hardy & Bacon and the former chief patent counsel at Microsoft – is in no doubt.”
“Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. is not exactly an objective observer and it is worth noting that Bart Eppenauer came from a company that ran front groups which pretended to speak for small businesses (i.e. hijacked their voices) to promote software patents all around the world.”It’s rather interesting how to see just how often Wild speaks to people from Microsoft (past and present). Both are leading proponents of software patents, so this probably makes sense. Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. is not exactly an objective observer and it is worth noting that Bart Eppenauer came from a company that ran front groups which pretended to speak for small businesses (i.e. hijacked their voices) to promote software patents all around the world.
In other news, having mentioned how Shelston IP lobbies for software patents in Australia and asks other firms to do the same thing (while falsely pretending to be spokespeople for innovation), we now find another such call from Shelston IP, this time titled “A call to action: save software patents from regulatory obliteration!”
“Shelston IP pretends that it speaks for startups and SMEs — those who actually get harmed the most from software patents.”To quote the outline: “The Productivity Commission has recently released a draft report recommending software and business methods be specifically excluded from being patented. Shelston IP believes that such action would be harmful to Australia’s technology start-up sector, in particular to SMEs whose competitive advantage resides in innovative software interfaces and processes.”
That’s a lie. Shelston IP are terrible liars. Shelston IP pretends that it speaks for startups and SMEs — those who actually get harmed the most from software patents. In reality, those who pursue software patents in Australia are companies like Microsoft and IBM. But nice lobbying effort, Shelston IP; thanks for reaffirming the view that many lawyers are liars.
For a change (not propaganda), a new article by Ante Wessels (FFII) warns about CETA, one of those atrocious deals that threaten to introduce software patents in more and more places. Wessels explains the similarities w.r.t. ACTA:
But, I do not see what was footnote 2 in ACTA, and is footnote 33 in the EU – Singapore agreement, the right to exclude patents from the scope of the civil enforcement section.
All the strong enforcement measures (damages, injunctions, provisional measures) will be available for software patent trolls.
The strong enforcement measures further create problems for access to knowledge and taking part in culture, for remix artists, and for inventors involved in sequential invention – like software developers.
This is reminiscent of some of the effects the UPC would have. It’s all about empowering large corporations and trolls (not even European ones) at the expense of small European businesses. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 3:48 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Yet another dodgy contract between Battistelli’s EPO and private contractors overseas, this time in an effort to whitewash or cleanse the image of the EPO’s current regime
“The dude behind the OHSRA [Occupational Health Survey],” explains to us a reader, is someone that’s now the subject of gossip and rumours.
“Although the EPO systematically brushed aside all risks’ warnings issued by SUEPO/staff reps for the past years,” this reader continues, “5 suicides later something had to be done ASAP: the EPO is currently organising a white-washing exercise to story-tell the public that it cares for its staff whereas the production pressure has never ever been so high and the level of psychological stress explodes, according to some insider information.
“Whilst on the one hand the EPO shoots big time at messengers (e.g. SUEPO officials alerting staff and reporting that the HR policies implemented by “Mrs-spouse-from-Battistelli’s-right-arm” are known to be dangerous) on the other hand the EPO hired a weird very structure (see below) to perform an Occupational Health Survey office-wide (as you may expect with no genuine involvement of staff representation and after a non-public selection procedure whilst pretending otherwise.
“Here the information about this “serious provider”.
First company:
WELLKOM LIMITED
Check filing history and the first PDFs.
The company is registered in a private house, has two owners (Mr Phillips and his presumed wife, 2nd PDF), had massive assets: GBP 2 (just over 2 euros).
It looks like an empty shell.
Second company:
WELLKOM CORPORATE SERVICES LIMITED
Check the first PDF:
Same postal address as above. In 2014, went from GBP 87,000 assets… to GBP 190,000 debts.
“…the EPO is currently organising a white-washing exercise to story-tell the public that it cares for its staff whereas the production pressure has never ever been so high and the level of psychological stress explodes, according to some insider information.”
–Anonymous“But no worries,” our reader said, “now the EPO is here to help.” This isn’t the only such ongoing ‘study’ or ‘survey’ whose so-called ‘findings’, based on information we have received, were more or less decided in advance. We gave examples of these before. If there’s no open tender or procurement process, then there’s lots of room for folly, e.g. staff getting an old friend (or worse — family) a fat contract. Recall the story about Questel's deal with the EPO and its relation to Jacques Michel, who now receives sensitive data from the EPO, under the umbrella of Europatis [1, 2, 3, 4]. As people here in Britain say, “it’s as dodgy as f%$#.”
As we pointed out several weeks ago, Battistelli made such private contracts virtually invisible to anyone (so much for “transparency”!), unless they get leaked.
We now know that the EPO (not a private entity) is paying a fortune for six bodyguards to march around Battistelli, paying a fortune (almost a million dollars) to a PR company based in the US, and paying for military-connected Control Risks (we don’t know the amount paid, as no leaks relating to this ever reached us). The EPO is so rotten in fact that even the police is now disregarded and the premises are policed by a Croatian thug who faces many criminal charges in his home country. To quote a comment from yesterday:
If there ever was any foul play (something which I mightily doubt) then the President ought to call in the police to conduct a proper investigation at the EPO, and not take matters in his own hands, or trust one of his creatures to spin some conspiracy theory.
IIRC, there are precedents where the national police was allowed to enter the EPO offices for cases of petty theft. But on the other hand, from my own experience, it is nearly impossible to get a German policeman to lift his derrière from his chair for a case of theft or vandalism involving a mere bicycle.
What does the President have to fear, if his allegations are true? He could hardly invoke his personal impunity, sorry, the EPOrg’s immunity, to justify his barricading.
A version of this sordid affair could become in a few years the canvas for an episode of the dreadful “Tatort” series…
How many dodgy dealings does the EPO need to be involved in (never mind many suicides and human rights abuses) before the German authorities send independent investigators on-site? It cannot go on like this. As a reminder, tomorrow in the afternoon this subject will be discussed in the Bavarian Parliament (covering Munich), and not for the first time either. Based on a recent program from Bavarian television, at least some of the suicides at the EPO were the fault of the management (we had to remove copies of this program). Wellkom’s job is apparently to lie about it or make up a false narrative with which Team Battistelli can lobby or alter the record.
As a side note, over the past 2 years we have received alarming messages about panicky doctors who are extremely concerned about suicidal tendencies among EPO staff, caused directly because of the workplace (expectations, intimidation, workload and so on). We were kindly asked not to quote these directly (as these messages can reveal identities), but such relatively old messages sure help substantiate what was said above. To pretend otherwise is to mislead, or to produce propaganda for personal gain. Is Wellkom that desperate? Given its grim financial situation, it might be. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
05.30.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 11:27 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Topićanda style
Summary: EPO promotion disguised as reporting or journalism, as seen in the media partners of the EPO well before these partnerships even begin
THE EPO‘s technical department seems to be infatuated with Microsoft and it’s not going to do the EPO any favours. Has the brain drain taken its toll? Maybe that’s why there’s so much outside help for media, security, investigation etc. Neoliberalism and privatisation using secret contracts.
Meanwhile, looking at the daily nonsense from the EPO over at Twitter, the PR people are ever more desperate to create a distraction from the EPO’s horrible track record. They ask: “Which of this year’s finalists deserves the Popular Prize?”
“Has the brain drain taken its toll?”“You have until tomorrow to decide,” they say, but don’t forget the tactics (like multiple vote castings per person and spammy promotion [1, 2]) employed by them over the past month.
Earlier today the EPO promoted this link to a new puff piece from the French media about this event. The EPO’s “media partner”, Les Echos (which censored itself for Battistelli and his goons), already does puff pieces, even before the propagandistic event took place. What’s next? How much does this whole charade cost? It’s a secret as usual; that’s the Battistelli tradition. █
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