Editors • About the Site • Comes vs. Microsoft • Using This Web Site • Site Archives • Credibility Index • OOXML • OpenDocument • Patents • Novell • News Digest • Site News • RSS

12.16.15

Links 16/12/2015: Linux Foundation Expansion, Mesa 11.1

Posted in News Roundup at 3:59 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

GNOME bluefish

Contents

GNU/Linux

Free Software/Open Source

  • “Open-Source Windows” ReactOS 0.4 Steps Closer With A Release Candidate

    ReactOS, the open-source operating system aiming for binary compatibility with Windows programs and drivers, is finally closer to its next big release: v0.4.

    ReactOS 0.4 has been talked about for more than a year and it’s been a while since the last big update, but now it looks like ReactOS 0.4 is on finals with the first release candidate having been pushed out hours ago. If you are anxious for ReactOS 0.4, you can download RC1 right away via SourceForge.

  • Another gaze into the crystal ball..this time, open source

    Open source.

    2015 was a fairly important year for open source technology. There was no doubting that Linux had made major inroads into enterprise computing. Android and Chrome OS continued their dominance, and plenty of other open source projects were gaining serious ground.

  • 9 Open Source Internet of Things Platforms
  • 16 Open Source Hardware Tools for the Internet of Things

    A survey of the open source hardware tools that are enabling the flexible, integrated design that so naturally fits with the Internet of Things.

  • 9 Open Source Operating Systems for the Internet of Things
  • 6 Open Source Middleware Tools for the Internet of Things

    Middleware tends to be the unsung hero of technical infrastructure. Middleware doesn’t prompt great debates, like Windows vs. Apple vs. Linux OS debates of years past, and there are no TV ads for middleware. Yet middleware – the software that sits between the OS and applications – is an essential element, especially for the Internet of Things. Among other tasks, middleware often provides messaging services so different apps can connect with one another. It also helps ease the work involved with the development of apps that get services from other apps. So the six open source middleware tools on the following pages may not stir a lot of argument, but they are highly important in enabling the vast, far-flung world of the Internet of Things.

  • 5 Advantages of Using Open Source Software

    Open source software (OSS) i accessible under a software authorization that enables individuals to access the source code and customize it according to their needs, thus providing the capability to tailor the software for different jobs. The program license keeps the right of the individual to modify and customize it in any way they desire.

  • The Golden Age Of Open Source Has Arrived

    Finally — the golden age of open source has arrived.

    Companies 20 years ago built monopolies on licensed software; today, free and open–source code fertilizes economic growth. The way to win at tech is no longer to own code, but to serve customers — and service has open source at its roots.

    Like cloud storage and hardware components, coding languages hold little value by themselves anymore. The services around the code are what differentiate commodity companies from those with market value in the billions. Tesla released all of its patents to the public in 2014, jump-starting a new ecosystem of electric vehicles without threatening its own dominance.

    Facebook’s entire data-center architecture is available via Open Compute, and its Apache Cassandra, released into the wild, has become a cornerstone of many an enterprise database. And that didn’t stop the social giant from reporting $12.46 billion in revenue last year.

  • Nine Reasons for Using Open Source Software

    For years, I’ve wondered why anyone still bothers with proprietary software. Around the turn of the millennium, they might not have found an open source alternative, but today, that situation is rare enough that it comes as a surprise.

    Force of habit is a likely explanation, but often users simply don’t know what they don’t know. In fact, thanks to obsolete rumors, sometimes what users believe about open source is the exact opposite of the truth.

  • BitPay Releases New Version Of Open Source Bitcoin Wallet

    BitPay, a global bitcoin payment service provider, on Tuesday rolled out version 1.6.1 of its open source bitcoin wallet Copay.

  • Cloud Foundry launches code certification effort, IBM, HPE, Pivotal on board

    The Cloud Foundry Foundation on Wednesday launched a certification program. The certification is the first aimed at ensuring portability across platform-as-a-service offerings across multiple vendors and clouds. The Cloud Foundry Foundation is collectively owned by 55 member companies.

  • Using Blender to prepare for orthopedic surgeries

    The planning of orthopedic surgeries is a difficult process. In a lot of ways, it’s like working while wearing a blindfold; a surgeon can’t see the bone that needs to be worked on until during the actual surgery, when time is most critical. Even with X-rays and CT scans, the raw data can be difficult to interpret correctly. Fortunately, open source software can (and does!) help reduce the guesswork.

  • Web Browsers

  • SaaS/Big Data

    • Open source cloud tools offer risk, reward with AWS

      Logging AWS resources can be cumbersome, but is necessary to ensure nothing goes awry. Open source tools help aggregate and visualize AWS resource data.

    • OpenStack Security and Monitoring Solutions Spread Out

      There is news rolling in on the OpenStack front, especially for organizations interested in cloud monitoring and security. Mirantis and Palo Alto Networks, a company focused on security, have announced a joint partnership and the availability of Palo Alto Networks next-generation security as a virtual network function (VNF) within the Mirantis OpenStack distribution.

  • Databases

    • Google Revamps Cloud SQL Service with New Pricing, Higher Performance
    • Changes Coming For PostgreSQL 9.5

      The PostgreSQL 9.5 release change-log was recently updated in Git to reflect all of the latest changes for this next version of this database server due out in 2016.

      The changes in Git yesterday now provide an up-to-date look at the PostgreSQL 9.5 additions. Some of the PostgreSQL 9.5 features worth mentioning include row-level security control, addition of Block Range Indexes (BRIN), “substantial” performance improvements for sorting, “substantial” performance improvements for multi-CPU machines, and much more.

  • Oracle/Java/LibreOffice

    • ownCloud and Collabora Announce LibreOffice Online for ownCloud Server

      Today, December 15, ownCloud, Inc. and Collabora have just announced a partnership to bring a new tool for LibreOffice and ownCloud users, based on the LibreOffice Online project and the robust, open-source ownCloud Server self-hosting cloud storage solution.

    • Collabora + ownCloud Release CODE For LibreOffice Online

      CODE is a distribution of LibreOffice Online and OwnCloud Server, providing an easy way to let developers/enthusiasts run untested feature additions and updates. CODE is basically for research and development with new features and the pairing of ownCloud and LibreOffice Online. In 2016, the two companies plan to provide a commercial solution based on Collabora CloudSuite and ownCloud Server.

    • Collabora Online Developer Edition (CODE)

      Today we release an easy way to get stuck into playing with LibreOffice online alongside ownCloud – please do checkout the CODE page and have a play. The purpose of my blog here is to credit the people involved in the development so far: currently all of the core work is by Collabora – that’s something we hope that making it easier to get involved will improve.

    • LibreOffice user interface changes

      In our class, I asked students to do their own usability test as a final project, from capturing the Personas, documenting the use Scenarios, defining the Scenario Tasks, and moderating a usability test on their favorite open source software project. To get them ready for the final project, I had students moderate a “mini-project.” I selected the topic for the mini-project, based on what open source software everyone claimed some level of familiarity with.

  • Pseudo-/Semi-Open Source (Openwashing)

  • FSF/FSFE/GNU/SFLC

    • ARMv8.1 Support Added To GCC Compiler

      While the LLVM Clang compiler has been working on ARMv8.1 support since earlier this year, the developers focusing on GCC have been working on it still but the first bits have been committed to trunk this morning.

  • Public Services/Government

  • Licensing

    • Law schools lag behind on open source law

      Many organizations use at least some open source code within their programs. So it is surprising that recent graduates who work with companies using open source software are usually ill prepared (or not prepared at all) to deal with open source legal issues. However, it is not the attorneys’ fault.

      Open source legal training is not easy to find, and if available it is not cheap. In the Bay Area, some law schools support an “open movement” policy. For example, some of them create and promote their own commons, meaning that the journals’ articles are uploaded and distributed for free online. The schools’ open access policies allow attorneys to stay up-­to-­date on their education, without the stress of paying for a subscription. (See SCU commons and UC Hastings.)

    • Why I’m not using your open source project

      There’s a peculiar mix of altruism and egotism that goes into releasing an open source project. On the one hand, you might be solving a problem that others are struggling with, and sharing your solution will save them a lot of time. On the other, the near-fantastic rock star status of those who have created successful open source projects (think John Resig, Ryan Dahl, and Linus Torvalds) drives people to overshare in the hopes of also achieving such status. This has resulted in a glut of open source projects being released into the wild and their creators venturing out on marketing campaigns to attract users.

  • Openness/Sharing

    • Open Hardware

      • 5 favorite 3D printing projects of 2015
      • FAQ: OpenRISC
      • Hands-on with Simblee, connecting things to the cloud through smartphones

        Arduino-compatible chip lets makers embed cloud-connected mobile apps right in their devices.

        Earlier this year, Ars Technica got a demonstration of a technology that seeks to change how we interact with embedded computing technology—tying together Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) communications, Arduino-style microcontroller technology, and mobile Internet connectivity. The chip at the core of the technology, called Simblee, allows device developers to build and deploy their own mobile applications without having to write iOS or Android code or having to publish their applications through an app store. Eight months have passed, and Simblee Corporation’s eponymous chip is now shipping to pre-order customers and is for sale through electronics distributors.

  • Programming

    • The next generation of continuous integration

      This new approach to CI has been implemented at scale in the OpenStack project to manage the CI of all the different sub-projects. To give you an idea of the scale, every day OpenStack handles 1,000 proposed patch sets, 7,500 posted comments and votes on Gerrit, 16,000 test environments spawned, and 250 changes merged (source).

    • GCC 5.3 Optimization Level Tests From -O0 To -Ofast

      Here are some fresh tests of Fedora 23 with the GCC 5.3.1 compiler when running a series of benchmarks after the binaries were compiled each time with an assortment of optimization levels.

    • prpl Foundation Launches prpl.works to Mobilize Open Source Developers

      The prpl Foundation today revealed prpl.works, an online community by and for open source developers and users. Active for just a few weeks, the community has already reached over 40,000 developers from around the world.

Leftovers

  • Science

    • Everything You Know About Latency Is Wrong

      Okay, maybe not everything you know about latency is wrong. But now that I have your attention, we can talk about why the tools and methodologies you use to measure and reason about latency are likely horribly flawed. In fact, they’re not just flawed, they’re probably lying to your face.

  • Security

  • Environment/Energy/Wildlife

    • Watch: Seth Meyers Explains Why Fox’s Coverage Of The Paris Climate Agreement Was A Joke
    • Indonesia to name firms linked to forest fires

      Indonesia is set to name the companies responsible for illegal fires that led to this year’s transboundary haze crisis. The firms, which mainly run plantations on concession land in Sumatra and Kalimantan, will also have their business licences suspended while a decision is made on whether to initiate legal proceedings against them for breaching environmental laws.

    • Falling Oil And Gasoline Prices Bring Back Memories Of Right-Wing Media Hypocrisy

      With global crude oil prices at their lowest point in seven years, and gasoline prices approaching their lowest point of President Obama’s term of office, Media Matters remembers Fox News’ hypocritical coverage of the relationship between presidential policy initiatives and fuel and energy markets.

    • Indonesia forest fires cost twice as much as tsunami clean-up, says World Bank

      Indonesia’s economy took a $16bn hit this year from forest fires that cloaked south-east Asia in haze, more than double the sum spent on rebuilding Aceh after the 2004 tsunami, according to the World Bank.

      The fires and resulting haze are an annual occurrence caused by slash-and-burn land clearance. But the blazes in 2015 were the worst for some years, causing air quality to worsen dramatically and many to fall ill across the region.

      In a quarterly update on the Indonesian economy, the World Bank said the fires had devastated 2.6 million hectares (6.4m acres) of forest and farmland across the archipelago from June to October.

    • Fires cost Indonesia US$16b, twice the tsunami bill: World Bank

      Indonesia’s economy took a US$16-billion hit this year from forest fires that cloaked Southeast Asia in haze, more than double the sum spent on rebuilding Aceh after the 2004 tsunami, the World Bank said Tuesday (Dec 15).

      The fires and resulting haze are an annual occurrence caused by slash-and-burn land clearance. But the blazes in 2015 were the worst for some years, causing air quality to worsen dramatically and many to fall ill across the region.

      In a quarterly update on the Indonesian economy, the World Bank said the fires had devastated 2.6 million hectares (6.4 million acres) of forest and farmland across the archipelago from June to October.

      The cost to Southeast Asia’s biggest economy is estimated at 221 trillion rupiah (US$16.1 billion), equivalent to 1.9 per cent of predicted GDP this year, it said.

      In contrast, it cost US$7 billion to rebuild Indonesia’s westernmost province of Aceh after it was engulfed 11 years ago by a quake-triggered tsunami, with the loss of tens of thousands of lives, the bank said.

      “The economic impact of the fires has been immense,” said World Bank Indonesia country director Rodrigo Chaves.

    • CNN Debate Ignores Climate Change, Does Not Ask GOP Candidates About Historic Paris Agreement

      Three days before CNN hosted the fifth Republican presidential debate, leaders from every country in the world struck a historic climate change agreement in Paris to reduce fossil fuel emissions and face up to one of the greatest threats facing our country and our planet. The Paris agreement was a front page story in newspapers throughout the U.S. and around the globe. So considering that the Pentagon says climate change “could impact national security” and experts have identified a relationship between global warming and the rise of ISIS, the issue clearly belonged in the December 15 CNN debate, which co-moderator Wolf Blitzer described as a “discussion about the security of this nation.”

  • PR/AstroTurf/Lobbying

    • What Gets Asked at Debates–and Who Gets Asked It?

      The 536 questions asked in the first four Republican debates, four Republican undercard debates and two Democratic debates were divided into six categories: economic, social, international, immigration, environment and non-policy questions. If the same question was asked to multiple candidates, it was counted each time, but clarifying and follow-up questions to the same candidate were not counted.

      FAIR also studied the percentage of questions each candidate was asked. While moderators clearly took candidates’ positions in opinion polls into account when distributing questions, some seemed to get asked more—or less—based on media assumptions about who was and was not a serious contender.

    • Fox’s Sean Hannity To Sen. Rand Paul: “I’m Not So Sure If I Agree With All The Geneva Conventions”
    • Adding to CNN’s Sizeable Dossier of Misreporting on the TWA Flight 800 Crash

      With stunning regularity, CNN’s reporters and producers have, for the last twenty years, egregiously misreported on the evidence and eyewitness accounts pertaining to TWA Flight 800. More recent crashes, this time Metrojet’s demise, are regularly seized upon to craft news packages in which the TWA Flight 800 crash is mentioned at length. These mentions consist of repeating the same “official source” false narrative that CNN and other major news outlets have been promulgating for years, even though the public is now well aware that at least half a dozen key members of the official Flight 800 crash investigation have presented evidence showing that the official probable cause of the crash is untenable and that the physical evidence indicates that explosive ordnance caused Flight 800’s demise.

    • CNN’s John Avlon: “Broad Strokes” Of Marco Rubio’s ISIS “Plan Are Not That Different From Barack Obama”

  • Censorship

    • Senate Passes Bill Banning Non-Disparagement Clauses

      Despite it being transparently obvious that non-disparagement clauses hidden in fine print serve the singular purpose of deterring complaints about bad products and services, companies still deploy them with little fear of retribution. To date, only one state has actually banned the use of non-disparagement clauses: California.

      The issue appears to have finally reached the critical mass needed to propel it onto the national legislative radar. Back in May, multiple representatives started pushing for a federal ban on these clauses, prompted in part by the high-profile KlearGear debacle, in which a couple had their credit rating ruined by the online retailer in its pursuit of a BS $3,500 fee tied to its (nonexistent at the time of the negative review) non-disparagement clause.

  • Privacy

    • EFF confirms that the DEA has deleted its phone call database

      Earlier this year, it was revealed that the NSA’s massive surveillance program had a precursor: the Drug Enforcement Administration’s USTO, which monitored almost every international call American citizens made since the 1990′s. Now, the EFF has confirmed that the program was killed in 2013, and that most of the data it collected had already been purged. The non-profit was able to dig deeper into the situation, since it filed a case against the DEA earlier this year on behalf of Human Rights Watch, and a federal judge has recently ordered the agency to answer all of HRW’s questions about the program.

    • Carly Fiorina says government needs a way to ‘work around’ encryption

      Carly Fiorina wants the government to be able to “work around” encryption to aid intelligence agencies and law enforcement in thier investigations, she told Breitbart News on Monday.

      The Republican presidential candidate and former HP CEO shifted the focus of her campaign to national security two days before the last Republican debate of 2015.

      “One of the places we need help is to deal with all of these encrypted communications,” she said. “You can’t outlaw encryption. Encryption protects American consumers from identity theft, and all the rest of it. But we have to be able to work around it where necessary to give our investigators the information they need. I’d ask the private sector’s help in that.”

    • Congress Drops All Pretense: Quietly Turns CISA Into A Full On Surveillance Bill

      Remember CISA? The “Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act”? It’s getting much, much worse, with Congress and the administration looking to ram it through — in the process, dropping any pretense that it’s not a surveillance bill.

    • Teens face social media ban in EU data protection shake-up

      New data protection rules being discussed on Tuesday mean that teenagers below the age of 16 will have to get permission from parents to access social media websites and apps.

    • Change is coming: are you prepared?

      Specific to the UK, the UK Data Protection Act requires every data controller, from the largest enterprise to a sole trader, to register with the Information Commissioner’s Office (unless exempted). It ensures that organisations are not collecting or using data unduly, and that the data that is collected is protected and used only in a manner that complies with the articles within the Act.

    • NSA Propagandist John Schindler Suggests Boston Marathon Terrorist Attack Not “Major Jihadist Attack”

      NSA propagandist John Schindler has used the San Bernardino attack as an opportunity to blame Edward Snowden for the spy world’s diminished effectiveness, again.

      Perhaps the most interesting detail in his column is his claim that 80% of thwarted attacks come from an NSA SIGINT hit.

    • Fact-Checking the Debate on Encryption

      As politicians and counter-terrorism officials search for lessons from the recent attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, California, senior officials have called for limits on technology that sends encrypted messages.

      It’s a debate that has repeatedly recurred for more than a decade.In the 1990s, the Clinton Administration directed technology companies to store copies of their encryption keys with the government. That would have given the government a “backdoor” to allow law enforcement and intelligence agencies easy access to encrypted communications. That idea was dropped after sharp criticism from technologists and civil liberties advocates.

      More recently, intelligence officials in Europe and the United States have asserted that encryption hampers their ability to detect plots and trace perpetrators. But many have questioned whether it would be practical or wise to allow governments widespread power to read encrypted messages.

    • Twitter Users Hit By ‘State-Sponsored’ Hackers

      It’s the type of message no Twitter user wants to receive: their account has been targeted by “state-sponsored actors” attempting to swipe their email address and phone number.

      But that’s exactly the news that an array of Twitter users, many who do privacy- and security-related jobs, began to get on Friday. Among those targeting: programmers working on Tor, a browser that helps users maintain anonymity online. While Twitter hasn’t revealed how many users were targeted, one public list includes 35 accounts belonging to security researchers, privacy activists, and developers.

    • Christie’s PAC Scoops Up Voter Data Across New Hampshire

      For months, a political action committee supporting New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has been scooping up data about New Hampshire voters who show up at other Republican candidates’ campaign events across the Granite State.

      While voters have been willingly turning over these data — their names, email addresses, zip codes and candidate preferences — it’s unclear whether they realized the information was benefiting Christie.

      The America Leads effort springs from a simple campaign reality: When people want to see political candidates in person, they usually need to show up early. “And then while they’re waiting, they’re on their mobile phones,” said Kurt Luidhardt, who runs digital operations for the America Leads PAC. “And a lot of them are on Facebook, looking at what their friends and other folks are saying on Facebook.”

    • Europe Finally Agrees Tough New Data Protection Rules

      Late yesterday European institutions finally agreed the text of new data protection rules (GDPR), more than three years after new regulation was proposed.
      The 28 Member States of the European Union will have two years to transpose the provisions of the GDPR into their national laws, with the regulation set to come into force from 2018.

  • Civil Rights

    • Saudi Arabia announces 34-state military alliance to fight terrorism

      Saudi Arabia has announced the formation of a 34-state Islamic military coalition to combat terrorism, according to a statement published on the state news agency, SPA.

      “The countries here mentioned have decided on the formation of a military alliance led by Saudi Arabia to fight terrorism, with a joint operations centre based in Riyadh to coordinate and support military operations,” said the statement, which was released on Tuesday.

    • All LA schools shut down over message sent from 8chan’s e-mail host, cock.li

      The “credible” threat that caused the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) to close all schools on Tuesday was sent from cock.li, the “meme” e-mail host that also provides e-mail services for 8chan, the 4chan splinter site.

      School officials in New York and Los Angeles reportedly both received threats from madbomber@cock.li but only LAUSD took it seriously. All 640,000 LAUSD students were unable to attend classes on Tuesday.

      Vincent Canfield, the founder of cock.li, posted a copy of the subpoena he received from a New York detective on his own website and included audio recordings of polite but brief conversations with two officials from the New York Police Department (NYPD) Intelligence Bureau.

    • Jack Straw Responds to Alex Salmond with Blatant Lie

      It has been a source of astonishment to me that journalists are prepared to continue to publish Straw’s denials of involvement in torture, when there is indisputable documentary proof that he is lying. I offered these documents to the Guardian years ago, but was not surprised when that Blairite rag refused to publish.

      I was however surprised by this. When Straw criticised Salmond on Monday, I immediately offered these documents to the National as proof that Straw was lying. The National too refused to publish. Firstly they said that they had to consult their lawyers about whether the government would sue them. Then they said they could not work out how to condense the information into a short article (which begs the question why it had to be short). They then said they were too busy.

  • Internet/Net Neutrality

    • Add Verizon To The Growing List Of Companies Tap Dancing Around Net Neutrality With Zero Rating

      That’s a lot of sponsoring. More simply, the technology lets you pay Verizon to get a leg up over your competitors, who may not be able to afford to pay Verizon for the same privilege. It’s an idea that’s been highly criticized for the fact that it puts smaller companies (and especially independents and nonprofits) at a distinct and immediate market disadvantage. And while some implementations of zero rating may seem better than others (like T-Mobile’s Binge On, which exempts all video from usage caps), the precedent of giving an ISP this kind of authority remains troubling to those intimate with the telecom industry’s long, long history of anti-competitive behavior.

  • DRM

    • Light Bulb DRM: Philips Locks Purchasers Out Of Third-Party Bulbs With Firmware Update

      The world of connected devices is upon us and things have never been better. Criminals can access your email account by breaking into your fridge. Your child’s toys and your television record your conversations and send them to manufacturers’ servers, where criminals are (again) able to access them. Your home thermostat goes HAL 9000 and attempts to set your house on fire. And, now, your light bulbs won’t do the one thing you expect them to do: produce light.

  • Intellectual Monopolies

Unanimous Negative Opinion on the Proposal of Benoît Battistelli to Eliminate Basic Rights at EPO

Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:34 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Union busting high on the agenda at the EPO right now

Union busting

Summary: A look at the opinion letter of General Consultative Committee (GCC) members about the EPO’s latest effort to muzzle staff representatives, use financial sanctions against them (impacting legal defence), and ultimately sack them

THERE is a meeting today regarding Benoît Battistelli’s EPO and there is an opportunity to scrutinise it at the Council.

Just before it starts or ends we wish to post Annex 3 of an aforementioned letter because there are some bits there which merit comment (or emphasis in larger fonts):

ANNEX 3

Opinion of the GCC members elected by staff
on document GCC/DOC 15/2015 (CA/99/15)

Periodical Review of the Service Regulations
i) Amendments to Article 2 of the Service Regulations
ii) Amendments to Article 95 of the Service Regulations

“Under the trivialising title of “periodical review”, the President proposes radical cuts in the rights of staff and their representatives.”The members of the GCC elected by staff give a unanimous negative opinion on the proposal of the President to amend Articles 2 and 95 of the Service Regulations (ServRegs) for the following reasons.

Under the trivialising title of “periodical review”, the President proposes radical cuts in the rights of staff and their representatives. The Council would be ill-advised to approve such drastic proposals, which will bring into disrepute the Organisation, the Office, as well as the respective Contracting States. All the more so in a session where it has to decide on the further suspension of one of its appointees.

i) Amendments to Article 2 of the Service Regulations

“The Council would be ill-advised to approve such drastic proposals, which will bring into disrepute the Organisation, the Office, as well as the respective Contracting States.”The amendments allegedly aim to align the terms of office for appointments in statutory bodies (normally based on calendar years) with the terms of office of staff representatives (three years from the 1st of July to the 30 th of June). It also aims to improve stability, consistency and efficiency in the bodies concerned.

However, the amendments do not succeed in aligning the terms of office, because the extension will still be “within the limits of the terms of office of the Staff Committee members”, i.e. it will have to end on 30th of June and cannot be extended until the end of a calendar year. Furthermore, staff representation is already appointing in a stable and consistent way to the various bodies, not the least due to its scarce manpower and due to the need to gain experience, since external (i.e. not elected) experts cannot be appointed since the entry into force of “Social Democracy”. Thus the declared aims are not relevant.

The proposed Article 2(6) is so sloppily drafted that it encompasses the GCC itself (Article 2(1)(b) ServRegs) and the Appraisals Committee (Article 2(1)(g) ServRegs), which was until now not a joint committee. We are however ready to appoint to the latter Appraisals Committee as soon as Article 110a(3) ServRegs will be been amended accordingly.

“The proposed Article 2(6) is so sloppily drafted…”In actuality, the new regulation aims to avoid a new “call for volunteers” to sit in the Appeals Committee pursuant to paragraph 1(d) ServRegs, which was organised by the President of the Office regardless of any statutory provision in December 2014. By so doing, he intends to perpetuate a practice and a resulting composition of the Appeals Committee, which are regarded as illegal by the Staff Representation and is being challenged by appellants.

“By so doing, he intends to perpetuate a practice and a resulting composition of the Appeals Committee, which are regarded as illegal by the Staff Representation and is being challenged by appellants.”The amendments also conflict with Article 36(2)(a) ServRegs, which provides that the Central Staff Committee (CSC) alone shall be responsible for making appointments to the bodies under the Service Regulations. The President of the Office will resort to the proposed Article 2(6) to extend the mandate of staff representatives against the will of the CSC and/or to prevent the CSC from replacing staff representatives. It is also unclear whether the provision will prevent an appointee from stepping down from a statutory body on his own volition.

ii) Amendments to Article 95 of the Service Regulations

Pursuant to Article 95 ServRegs, the appointing authority may decide to suspend an employee if an alleged misconduct is so serious that it becomes incompatible with his/her continuing in service, for instance if continuation of service would be against the interests of the Office, would endanger the investigation process or even other employees. Suspension is not a disciplinary sanction: it is essentially an interim measure until the appointing authority decides on a disciplinary sanction following the completion of a statutory disciplinary procedure. Until then, the suspended employee is presumed to be innocent.

“A salary reduction is warranted if the foreseeable disciplinary measure would also have a financial effect, i.e. only in case of relegation in step, downgrading or dismissal.”The appointing authority may also decide to withhold part of the remuneration, up to half of the employee’s basic salary. A salary reduction is warranted if the foreseeable disciplinary measure would also have a financial effect, i.e. only in case of relegation in step, downgrading or dismissal.

Presently, Article 95(3) ServRegs is the only provision protecting employees against excessively slow investigation and disciplinary procedures: if no final decision is given within four months from the date of suspension, the employee shall again receive his/her full remuneration and the employee is entitled to reimbursement of the amount of remuneration withheld.

“It de facto negates the interim character of a suspension and turns a salary reduction into an illegal financial sanction and possibly a financial hardship for the employee.”Similar protecting provisions are included in the Service Regulations of other International Organisations, either in the form of a fixed duration for a suspension (e.g. non-extendable six months in the EU regulations), or in a more flexible form, with an advance written statement setting out and justifying its duration (UN and WHO). They aim to balance the interests of both parties in having speedy and expeditious investigative and disciplinary procedures.

After the abolition of Article 95(3) ServRegs the EPO would be the only international organisation that would have no provision in place for assessing the duration of a suspension, with or without salary reduction. Suspension (on a reduced salary) may go on for an unlimited, or disproportionately long, period of time, without the necessity for the appointing authority to justify it The amended Article will also have immediate effect on all suspensions ongoing on the date of its entry into force.

This is unacceptable because:

  • It tips the balance completely on the side of the appointing authority by removing any incentive for the President or the AC to investigate speedily the alleged misconduct and decide in a reasonable time.
  • It de facto negates the interim character of a suspension and turns a salary reduction into an illegal financial sanction and possibly a financial hardship for the employee. Such a disproportionate decision may in principle be challenged with the ILO-AT but the review is limited due to the discretionary nature of the decision and a judgment will be long to come.
  • The additional punishment resulting from a disproportionately long suspension is not foreseen in the exhaustive list of disciplinary measures pursuant to Article 93(2) ServRegs.
  • A disproportionately long suspension is against ILO-AT case law (e.g. Judgment No. 2698), which require a speedy procedure, and against Article 6(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights, which states that everyone is entitled to a fair trial within a reasonable time. It is a violation of the EPC, for much the same reason.
  • Applying it to ongoing suspensions makes it retroactive, thus contrary to recognised principles of law (ex post facto laws).
  • Extending the suspension until the date of re-appointment in the case of a member of the Boards of Appeal (most notably the member suspended by the Administrative Council in December 2014) will de facto amount to a removal from office and circumvent Article 23(1) EPC.
  • It may lead to court cases against Contracting States before the European Court of Human Rights.

According to the Office, the (investigative and disciplinary) procedure is presently normally completed with the time frame of four months. A more flexible time frame is thus desirable only in exceptional case. As a result, we recommend to maintain the time frame for suspension to a fixed period (e.g. the present four months) and make an extension possible only in exceptional cases, with the extension set and duly justified by the appointing authority in advance, as is the case in many international organisations (UN, WHO).

The GCC members elected by staff

Notice how much of the above is basically just devised in a timely fashion by Battistelli in order to crush the unions. Even one who is as blind as a mole can see it. █

“Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.”

–Samuel Adams

Battistelli’s Furious Love Affair With French Power: Part II

Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:49 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Alain Pompidou
Source: EPO Web site via the Internet Archive

Summary: Christine Lagarde’s connections to Alain Pompidou (above), former President of the EPO, and also Benoît Battistelli, current President of the EPO

IN this series’ teaser and in part one we focused on Benoît Battistelli’s professional relationship with Largarde, who is known for serving foreign (mostly US and/or corporate) interests inside Europe. This echoes a lot of what we are seeing in the EPO these days and we shall cautiously proceed before getting to the ‘meat’ of the story. There is some background which needs to be presented.

Not a Personal Attack

In this series we are presenting just facts, which we carefully verify and check with various sources. Where there is doubt or uncertainty we will present it as such and always attribute where possible. We don’t want to go ad hominem; we leave that to Battistelli himself. As a new comment put it last night, at Battistelli’s EPO “Control Risks were hired to prepare the charge-sheet and the barristers were hired to plead the case” while another person correctly noted that “At the European Patent Office, you do not get a working contract.” It’s no man’s land. It’s effectively operating outside the law and there is no genuine due process.

“There is some background which needs to be presented.”The EPO does not want the public to think that it has legitimate critics. It defames the critics. There are only ‘armed’ ‘Nazi’ ‘Mafia’ ‘snipers’ exposing EPO abuses, or so we’re supposed to think. Last year the EPO personally attacked at least 2 critics (staff representatives), possibly defaming them in the process. This year it has done so to more than 2 people, so it is only getting worse. The EPO will sooner or later try to discredit reporters as well (probably pile more ‘dirt’ on them), just as it does to everyone ‘daring’ to expose the EPO. That’s just the modus operandi du jour.

Today we’re going to drop the “Rothschild” word/name, which often gets wrongly associated with all sorts of conspiracy theories. What we actually allude to here is an affluent French family whose relevance to the story will become apparent in future parts of this series.

Lagarde and Baroness Philippine de Rothschild

The following toasting photo shows Largarde in her then role as French Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries toasting with Baroness Philippine de Rothschild at Vinexpo, the world’s biggest wine fair, 18 June 2007 in Bordeaux, southwestern France.

“The EPO does not want the public to think that it has legitimate critics.”Baroness Philippine de Rothschild was the owner of the French winery Chateau Mouton Rothschild.

Here she is shown delivering a speech during the dinner of Conseil des Grand Crus Classes of 1855 hosted by Chateau Mouton Rothschild on June 16, 2013 in Pauillac, near Bordeaux, France.

“We note in passing that her adopted son Alain Pompidou was a former President of the EPO.”As might be expected, Baroness de Rothschild was well-connected in French high society. Here you can see her with Claude Pompidou, the widow of former French President Georges Pompidou. More information about Claude Pompidou can be found in Wikipedia.

We note in passing that her adopted son Alain Pompidou was a former President of the EPO. Seeing some circles yet?

Baroness de Rothschild was closely associated with a charity operated by Madame Pompidou (“Fondation Claude Pompidou”) which issued a statement of appreciation following her death in 2014 (in French).

“It’s not about what you know but who you know and who likes you.”Needless to say, as the owner of Chateau Mouton Rothschild, Baroness de Rothschild was also a significant player in the French wine industry. This will be the ‘meat’ of our story, as we shall come to at a later stage because it involves Battistelli.

Here’s a local copy of the speech photo from 2013 without the Getty Images watermark (arguably qualifies as fair use, under “criticism” and limited access to the venue). Part III will delve deeper into the connection of all this not just to Alain Pompidou, former President of the EPO, but also Battistelli, current President of the EPO. It sure looks plausible that in order to become President at the EPO you need to be well-connected. It’s not about what you know but who you know and who likes you. Recall our series “EPO: It’s Like a Family Business” (part one, part two, part three and part four). █

Speech

UPC and Patent Trolls: The Connection Revisited

Posted in America, Europe, Patents at 4:47 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Lesser explored aspects of so-called ‘unitary’ hogwash

Napoleonic Europe

Summary: Looking back at a New Scientist article (a year before Benoît Battistelli’s EPO literally paid the New Scientist for puff pieces) which criticised the strengthening of Europe’s patent laws

UPC lobbying/promotion/meddling by EPO isn’t a particularly big scandal compared to other EPO scandals, but it definitely worth noting, especially considering last night's senseless self-serving propaganda which later made it into Twitter.

The UPC and the “East Texas” patent troll problem are not far apart. Yesterday we shared a cautionary tale, having done so before regarding the Eastern District of Texas.

“Referring to your recent articles about the “East Texas” patent troll problem,” one reader told us, “you might be interested in the following critique of the UPC which appeared in the New Scientist last year” (under the headline “Strengthening Europe’s patent laws will weaken them”).

This one particular article from New Scientist, unlike some others, is not sponsored by the EPO.

To quote the relevant parts:

Europe’s high-tech firms are threatened by patent reforms that will expose them to one of the worst features of the US system, says a patent expert

[...]

Under the EUP, a system of national patent courts will be set up. The verdict of any such court will be valid and enforceable in all countries that have ratified the treaty. It is, of course, important that their decisions are correct, unbiased and have a high standard of integrity. After all, when a court concludes that a patent has been infringed, the consequences can be serious. In 2006, for example, US company NTP obtained an infringement order against the maker of Blackberry mobile devices. The settlement cost Blackberry more than half a billion dollars.

So it is not a good omen that the signatories to the EUP include Bulgaria and Slovakia, two countries that are ranked very low in the World Economic Forum’s rating of judicial independence. Of 142 countries, Bulgaria is ranked 104th and Slovakia 116th. To put this in perspective, Zimbabwe is ranked 118th.

Why does this matter? When a patent holder initiates legal action, they generally get to choose the jurisdiction where the proceedings will take place. This creates an incentive for courts to gain a reputation for being favourable to patent owners, so as to attract business.

This “forum shopping” is already a real problem. In the US, the notorious Eastern District of Texas court is significantly more likely then other US patent courts to find in patent holders’ favour. Unsurprisingly, it is a popular venue for patent litigation. There is little to stop Bulgarian or Slovakian courts becoming the European equivalent.

This is the kind of thing we have been warning about. When software patents strike (as has just happened in Texas again) we are always reminded of one of the biggest failures of the US patent system. Last night we found in the news two new articles, “Activision Sued Over Fantasy Sports Software Patent Infringement” and “Patent owner sues EA, Activision, Zynga, and more over sports games”. To quote the latter: “Texas-based Virtual Gaming Technologies, LLC is suing a number of game publishers over patents it holds relating to fantasy sports and, more specifically, realtime reports of sports information in games.”

It’s basically a patent troll attacking a lot of companies, located in different places, in one fell swoop. Do we want these in Europe as well? Of course not. █

12.15.15

Very High Proportion of EPO Staff in Berlin Goes to the Streets to Protest and to Defend SUEPO From the Union Busters

Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:51 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

EPO Berlin for SUEPOSummary: Benoît Battistelli’s union-busting EPO is in a state of disarray as employees from all across Europe find the courage to openly demonstrate against Team Battistelli and in favour of SUEPO, the most popular staff union with many decades of operation behind it

THE EPO scandals keep piling up and staff is catching up. Earlier this month nearly half of all EPO staff took it to the streets and protested. How many members of staff? Over 2,000 in Munich, including Directors (see photos from the following week, when another protest attracted a similar number of staff), about 800 in the Netherlands, and now, according to this account, “Ca.150 SUEPO Colleagues in Berlin went also public today to show solidarity with the hunted union officials!” There is also a photograph there (copied above).

“The harder Team Battistelli attacks the unions, the more it discredits itself. Defaming the union leaders isn’t helping either.”150 is a lot considering the total number of EPO employees in Berlin (most of them are in Munich). Many of them also very quickly signed a petition in support of the suspended representatives, as we showed nearly a fortnight ago. It seems safe to say that almost a majority of EPO staff is now brave enough to openly and proudly (even in front of the employer) protest in favour of SUEPO. Everyone seems to be defecting away from Team Battistelli and loyalties are rapidly shifting. The harder Team Battistelli attacks the unions, the more it discredits itself. Defaming the union leaders isn’t helping either. It just serves to show the sheer hypocrisy of Team Battistelli, which used to allege “campaign of defamation” (meaning dissemination of truth) against itself. █

Ahead of Tomorrow’s Administrative Council Meeting EPO Staff Representatives Warn Heads of Delegations About Union Busting and Other Abuses

Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:13 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Union busters extraordinaire

Control Risks

Summary: Many staff representatives from the EPO, including a few who are suspended, complain to the delegates about union-busting actions from Battistelli and his ilk, which now includes outside help from Control Risks

IT IS beginning to seem abundantly clear to more and more people (or groups) that Benoît Battistelli’s EPO is dysfunctional. It continues to ‘function’ only because stressed examiners use their stamps sparingly, under direction from assertive and abusive bosses who try to meet misguided targets and approve applications in bulk for large applicants. In simpler terms, examiners are urged to play ball for international corporations rather than do their job properly and research things adequately/exhaustively. This isn’t quite a patent office or an examination centre; it’s becoming more like a rubber-stamping operation and it will hurt badly in the long term, e.g. after EPO patents get invalided with European courts' intervention.

” It continues to ‘function’ only because stressed examiners use their stamps sparingly, under direction from assertive and abusive bosses who try to meet misguided targets and approve applications in bulk for large applicants.”There are other issues inside the EPO (too many to list again, but see this short primer) and everyone seems eager to inform the delegations about these. Sent yesterday was the following polite (non-combative) message signed by a lot of EPO staff representatives (not a SUEPO thing). It deals with one specific attempt to change the rules so as to basically crush the EPO’s staff even further:

European Patent Office | 80298 MUNICH | GERMANY

To the
Heads of Delegations
of the Administrative Council
of the European Patent Organisation

centralSTCOM@epo.org
Reference: sc12715cl – 0.3.1./3.1
Date: 14.12.2015

Proposals for changes in the Service Regulations

Dear Madam,
Dear Sir,

You will attend the upcoming Administrative Council on 16 December 2015.

President Battistelli has tabled with document CA/99/15 a proposal for two further amendments to the Service Regulations.

1. Extension of disciplinary powers

Under the current disciplinary measures, the President can suspend an employee accused of a “sackable offense” for up to 4 months.

With the first amendment, the President now seeks from you the power to suspend employees for an undetermined period of time (with the option to reduce the salary by half). Such power has also retroactive effect, in that it will apply to suspensions already started. These would be unprecedented powers. No international organization has the power to keep an employee accused of misconduct suspended sine die. Approving this proposal will open the door to egregious abuse, and will introduce a provision manifestly contrary to fundamental rights.

2. Power to appoint staff representatives to statutory bodies

The Service Regulations give, and have always given, the Central Staff Committee the prerogative of appointing its chosen nominees to a number of statutory (consultative) bodies.

With the second amendment, the President wants the power to appoint his staff representative of choice to statutory bodies.

The background for his request is the following. At the end of 2014 the CSC refused to appoint any nominees to the Appeals Committee, pending resolution of severe problems that made the Appeals Committee dysfunctional and unworthy of the role of “quasi-judicial” body. In Annex 1 you will find the reasons. Instead of solving the problems, so that bona fide nominees could be appointed, the President pressured some staff representatives to volunteer and appointed them. The CSC has not appointed the current “staff representatives” in Appeals Committee; they do not enjoy any mandate from staff. The President seems to be satisfied with this situation, and wants the power to perpetuate it.

For the avoidance of doubt, the CSC is prepared to appoint nominees to the Appeals Committee as soon as the dysfunction of which it has complained is tackled satisfactorily. The Administrative Council may want to take this up in the context of the social study. The matter is important; the ILOAT is now openly complaining about the governance of EPO which causes major troubles to all parties involved (see parts 10 and 18 of Annex 2).

For more details, the members of the GCC elected by staff have given a unanimous negative opinion on the proposal (Annex 3)

Prohibition of further employment (for opinion) – forming part of CA/98/15

Hidden among the various provisions1 concerning the reform of DG3 is also a proposal that affects all staff: a “cooling-off” period, prohibiting unspecified activities, for unspecified periods of time, affecting unspecified groups of employees. Waivers can be granted “on a case by case” basis, all at the discretion of the President.

The text seems to suggest that this is commonplace in national systems. It is not. Cooling off periods of this kind are legitimate only in certain industries, for instance to prevent an employee leaving the firm from and join a competitor, and thereby potentially “poaching” customers or benefitting the new employer with knowhow from the old one. Even in those cases, the restriction is not only time-limited, but also geographically. Furthermore, the restrictions are typically well-defined and announced in advance (and not retroactive). None of this is clarified in the proposed text, and far too wide a discretion is left to the President. More importantly, it is difficult to see what disadvantage the Office may suffer if a staff members leaves and joins, for instance, a patent attorney firm – he cannot poach “customers” from the EPO, and the knowhow is not a problem since it is published in the Guidelines… The insertion of such a provision seems to suggest that the Office is preparing or expecting a massive exodus of examiners and or members of DG3. However, such a scenario has never been openly brought to the attention of staff. Should that be indeed the case, introducing such a provision will essentially hit examiners and DG3 members who are not yet in a pensionable age and are long enough working for the Office: they have lost their competitiveness to return to the industry on the one hand and should they be prevented from staying in the patent profession will further destroy any professional expertise which they have gained during their working period at the EPO. On the other hand, the Office does not seem to have the same scruples when employing overnight staff coming either from the industry or from the patent attorney profession. Once more, such practices are only demonstrating the hubris of our employer.

Such restrictions do not appear to serve any purpose other than “locking in” staff members and prevent them from earning a living when the leave the EPO. As such, these restrictions are not only unnecessary, but profoundly unjust and vexatious.

Tax adjustment – CA/93/15 Rev 1 + Add 1

Also on the table is a proposal to modify the tax adjustment regime. We take note with disbelief that the Office has not even considered consulting the Pensioners on this matter.

Our opinion on this is already with you, as is the opinion the Pensioners’ Association. The Staff Union has also commissioned a legal study by a reputed law firm with a view to providing the necessary legal support to pensioners from January 2016 should the proposal be adopted. It provides solid elements to invalidate the decision (Annex 4).

From the foregoing, it should be abundantly clear that, with the first three proposals mentioned above, the President is seeking further unfettered power for him to do as he pleases. The fourth seeks to disadvantage pensioners for unclear reasons.

The circumstances that have led you to approve the commissioning of a social study should be sufficient to convince you that the Council would be well advised to resist the proposals.

We urge you to reject the proposals in question.

Yours sincerely,

The Central Staff Committee

We confirm that the above letter was legitimately decided by the Central Staff Committee
_____________
1 CA/98/15, §34-37

What the above says, in very simple terms, is that Battistelli tightens the screws on already screwed people and also makes it easier to bust the unions, or put some more moles inside them (overriding the whole function of staff representation). We saw some of it done before, but there’s an effort to exacerbate/escalate.

Annex 2 was already covered here before. IP Kat wrote about it too. Annex 3 and Annex 4 can be shared some other day, but we deem Annex 1 important for the reasons to be stated at the bottom:

ANNEX 1

Zentraler Personalausschuss
Central Staff Committee
Le Comité central du Personnel

03.12.2014

sc14305cp – 0.2.1/5.2

Dysfunctions within the Internal Appeals Committee

Dear colleagues,

We have previously informed1 you that some serious problems have to be resolved before we can nominate staff representatives to the Internal Appeals Committee (IAC). This was the essential message in a letter we sent to the President on 3 October 2014.

Since then, some of you have asked us for more details so that you can better understand what our concerns are. Whilst normally we would have preferred to remain discrete, following the initiation of severe disciplinary procedures against our nominees, we now feel we have no option but to make full and frank disclosure of the root causes of this conflict.

The dysfunctions within the Internal Appeals Committee:

1. After having been defamed in public, the Staff Representation nominees Aurélien Pétiaud and Michael Lund are now as individual staff members facing the prospect of severe disciplinary proceeding2 on disingenuous grounds. This is nothing but retaliation from the Administration, with the aim of further intimidating staff and their representatives to not carry out their special duties.

2. When the members of the IAC nominated by the Staff Representation indicated that they would not be available for a session of hearings, the sessions were held without them rather than either rescheduling them or calling on their nominated deputies. A later session in September was cancelled, even though the nominees were available and the CSC had indicated that new nominations, required through the introduction of “social democracy”, could not take place before the end of the session.

3. Under this new system, colleagues with considerable experience and legal expertise can no longer assist staff with their appeals unless they are also elected staff representatives. This means staff either have to contest their case alone against a whole team of lawyers defending the Office (clearly contrary to the principle of equality of arms), or staff representatives have to take over the task of assisting them. In this event, the elected staff representatives nominated to the IAC would be
_____________
1 Open letter to the President, “Nominees to the IAC”: http://www.epostaff.org/archive/sc14214cl.pdf
2 Public knowledge

confronted with a conflict of interest: being simultaneously “judge” and, even if not directly the appellant ́s counsel, one of this counsel’s close associates3.

4. In a very underhanded and disingenuous way, VP4 and VP5 have jointly attacked4 the integrity of our representatives in the IAC by alleging both a conflict of interest
and intent to sabotage the IAC. The President further supported these allegations in Communiqué 61.

5. In the (now extremely) rare cases where the IAC finds unanimously in favour of the claimant, the President simply ignores the recommendation and decides against5 the claimant without reason.

6. In at least one case, the Office submitted an additional brief after the IAC had already issued their opinion to the President. Nevertheless, the IAC Chairman decided to include it in the file6.

7. Previously, the IAC sent its recommendation to both the appellant and the President at the same time. This practice was abolished in January 2013 although the IAC at least informed the appellants that the recommendation had been dispatched to the President. With the new Rules of Procedure introduced in 2014, now even the provision of this procedural information has been abolished. Consequently, the appellant does not know when the clock starts counting so that he can calculate when the period to deem an implied final rejection will be completed and he can file a complaint to the ILO-AT. Appellants are left in the dark as to the fate of their appeal7.

8. Certain appeals are subjected to summary proceedings because they are found to be “manifestly irreceivable by … majority vote8”, based solely on the submissions of the
Defendant9, i.e. without even hearing the claimant.

9. In other cases that are not deemed to be manifestly irreceivable, the parties are heard only on the issues of receivability. An opinion is issued (systematically in favour of the Office) on this point alone, without considering the merits10 of the appeal itself.

10. Secretarial support is offered only to the “majority” to formulate their opinion. The minority must write its own divergent opinions, normally within very tight deadlines. If they miss this deadline, the President will receive only the majority opinion signed by the Chair and the other members of the majority. These opinions sometimes include
_____________
3 Public knowledge
4 VP4 and VP5 Communiqué of 30.09.2014:
http:/my.internal.epo.org/portal/private/epo/organisation/dg4/?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/epo/intranet/orga
nisation/dg4/vp4/announcements/2014/1412095173469_functioning_of_the_settlement_of_disputes_system
5 Public knowledge
6 See meeting of 11 August 2014 and relevant correspondence, all available from the IAC Chair’s public calendar.
7 Public knowledge
8 New (hard to find) Rules of Procedure
9 See meeting of 7 October 2014 and relevant correspondence, all available from the IAC Chair’s public calendar.
10 Reported to us by appellants

the majority’s perceptions of the minority opinion, thereby abusing our nominees by
name11.

11. In at least one case, the Appellant’s lawyer was surprised to receive only the majority opinion. When the lawyer enquired after the “missing” minority opinion, it transpired that although the minority opinion had been produced in good time, the IAC chair had not forwarded it to the President because it was “not in the appropriate form”. We can only interpret this to mean that it was too critical; there is no formal requirement of “appropriate form”12.

12. Similarly, the IAC annual report is now provided only to the President, although in the past it was always provided to both the President and the CSC. Since logically it should be provided to all parties who make up the IAC, i.e. both the Administration and the CSC who each nominate members, this can only be interpreted as another example of increasing partiality in the functioning of the IAC.

13. PD53 manages all the Office’s legal teams pleading against appellants (D532). The current IAC Chair previously worked for many years under PD43’s direct hierarchical line, but upon her nomination to the IAC, she was officially transferred to DG5 where she reports directly to VP5. Yet, when she also became Head of the IAC Secretariat (Dir. 0.4), it was PD53 who announced the appointment. Moreover, the IAC Chair’s public calendar reveals she has had numerous meetings with PD53 (and PD43), but never once met with the Staff Representation. Interestingly, one of the topics of these discussions were the IAC minority opinions13. Such behaviour suggests there may be serious grounds to believe that PD 5.3 is trying to maintain an undue and unnecessary degree of informal influence on the actions of the IAC Chair.

14. IAC rules of procedure (RoP) have been elaborated by the IAC chair in collaboration with DG514, but without either input or approval of the nominees of the staff representation (or of the Staff Representation itself). Moreover, these RoP are not to be readily found15 either on the intranet or in paper form, even though the IAC already relies on them to conduct their business.

It is beyond credibility that so many problems are just an unlucky coincidence, particularly when many have come about through changes to established practice greatly influenced by the introduction of “social democracy”.

We believe this degradation in staff protection demonstrates an orchestrated campaign by Management to destroy the last bastion of our so-called internal justice. With all these problems yet to be resolved, we hope you understand why it is impossible for the CSC to nominate representatives on the IAC.

_____________
11 This is a complaint we received from our nominees in the IAC.
12 Attorney’s name withheld for confidentiality reasons
13 See meeting of the Chair with PD53 on 16 June 2014
14 See the appointments between the chair of the IAC and PD53/staff of D532 on 29 April and 3 June 2014.
This information is available from the IAC Chair’s public calendar.
15 LSC The Hague publication of 4 November 2014:

http://main07.internal.epo.org/projects/babylon/acerep.nsf/0/BF58D43D60B94127C1257D8500455194/$FILE/Lost%20in%20the%20Net%20Change.pdf

To nominate representatives in the present circumstances would not only be an utter waste of time and precious resources, it would also risk exposing our new representatives to severe retaliation in the event that they would be strong enough to speak out against the same or similar machinations which Aurélien and Michael so valiantly opposed.

In other words: Staff may be better served by us exposing the charade than by trying to flog a dead horse. We ask for your understanding.

With regret and consternation,

The Central Staff Committee

To emphasise the closing words: “We believe this degradation in staff protection demonstrates an orchestrated campaign by Management to destroy the last bastion of our so-called internal justice.” The letter mostly deals with actions that constituted a gross attack on “the Staff Representation nominees Aurélien Pétiaud and Michael Lund” who had “been defamed in public” (like Hardon and the suspended judge). See the pattern here? Even a year ago they rightly concluded with: “To nominate representatives in the present circumstances would not only be an utter waste of time and precious resources, it would also risk exposing our new representatives to severe retaliation in the event that they would be strong enough to speak out against the same or similar machinations which Aurélien and Michael so valiantly opposed.” █

More Than Half of US Patent Lawsuits Filed in the Patent Trolls’ Docket, the Eastern District of Texas

Posted in America, Patents at 3:58 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The US market is being overrun by patent trolls that famously use software patents

United States District Court for the Eastern District of TexasSummary: The cautionary tale of the US patent system, where a lot of today’s legal ‘action’ involves firms that produce and invent nothing, preying on those that do

THE patent trolls' capital, better known as the Eastern District of Texas, is in the news again because of some new numbers from Lex Machina, which we cited here dozens of times before. WIPR says that “The number of patent complaints filed at Texas district courts reached a record level in November [...] total number of complaints filed was 851. [...] Lex Machina said the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas accounted for the majority of the complaints, with 467 being filed in the jurisdiction. Most of the filings were made between November 22 and 30.”

“More than half of the complaints, many of which from patent trolls without a doubt, were filed in the Eastern District of Texas.”Got that? More than half of the complaints, many of which from patent trolls without a doubt, were filed in the Eastern District of Texas. What does this tell us or remind us?

In other timely news, “High Quality Printing Inventions” (LLC, which suggests non-practicing) becomes the latest parasite to attack companies that basically print things. To quote this new article: “A recently-formed Delaware-based limited liability company called High Quality Printing Inventions, LLC, has been filing patent infringement cases in the U.S. District Courts in a litigation campaign against several printing companies using common web-to-print functionality. It appears that High Quality Printing Inventions is a non-practicing entity, a patent troll, formed for the sole purpose of seeking royalty payments.

“Well, as we warned here before, Benoît Battistelli’s EPO threatens to bring the same kind of ‘economy’ to Europe.”“The patent includes 20 claims covering web-enabled print systems that include product specification and design interfaces that utilize templated documents to create mass-customized business forms or brochures. The patent is US Patent 6012070:A Digital design station procedure. The claims describe common functionally of systems that many printing companies have offered in web-to-print storefronts, collateral management and e-commerce platforms for years.”

Well, as we warned here before, Benoît Battistelli’s EPO threatens to bring the same kind of ‘economy’ to Europe. To some degree, it is already happening. █

Battistelli’s Vision of UPC is Closer Contract With Major Applicants (Abroad), Contrary to European Interests

Posted in Deception, Europe, Law, Patents at 3:38 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Who is this man kidding anyway?

Benoît Battistelli quote

Summary: Benoît Battistelli’s EPO is adopting an imperialistic approach that would allow foreign companies such as Microsoft and Apple to issue Europe-wide injunctions, claim more in ‘damages’, pressure for higher ‘royalties’, and so on (but it’s all for EU-based SMEs, honest!)

THE EPO does not surprise us when it openly lobbies for UPC. Just over an hour ago the EPO published this self-promotional (for management, not examiners or boards) nonsense. (warning: link to epo.org)

WIPR already has some coverage which says nothing special or new; it presents little except only one side’s views. Battistelli is parroted and views are also offered from “Graham Burnett-Hall, partner at Marks & Clerk, a firm of patent and trademark attorneys” (conspicuously absent is a public interest group or an outsider’s representative).

“What’s amazing here isn’t that the EPO lobbies for the UPC but that the public is kept totally in the dark and the EPO gets away with it.”As expected, patent maximalists and patent lawyers like IP Magazine are happy about the UPC (a tax on everything in Europe, including more lawsuits and injunctions). They call this “[a] ‘Hugely significant’ occasion for EU #patent system after preparations for the unitary patent completed” (UPC is a case of fast-tracking things before the public even gets the chance to vote).

UPC ties into ever broader things like TPP and TTIP. It’s a sort of globalism poorly implemented so as to punish the poor and benefit only those who are already rich and still getting richer, by redesign of laws to annul their tax, impede their competition, give their corporations sovereignty over government etc.

What’s truly amazing here isn’t that the EPO lobbies for the UPC (we have seen that for quite a while and reported it on occasions) but that the public is kept totally in the dark and the EPO gets away with it. It’s as though Europe is occupied and oppressed by a group of people. This isn’t a functioning democracy. ‘Patent’ offices that lobby aren’t really patent offices but an entirely different kind of monster. On social media I’ve joked earlier on: “What is this lobbying firm called EPO? Oh, wait, it’s not a lobbying firm per se. It’s the European Private Office. A 'public' service…”

We hope that even existing staff of the EPO can see why this is plainly unrest and morally wrong. The EPO isn’t supposed to decide how Europe is run; instead it should be the public deciding how Europe is run and how the EPO is run, under the control of European politicians; everything is in reverse right now, so the tail is effectively wagging the dog.

“Look what a mess has been left here. Battistelli fights everyone and everyone now fights back against him.”Earlier today we showed that even well-known European patent lawyers were getting fed up with Battistelli. Well, the European Patent Lawyers Association (EPLAW), which previously expressed concerns about Benoît Battistelli’s EPO [1, 2] and even cited Techrights for support, now speaks of the “Structural Reform of the Boards of Appeal”. Guess whose side EPLAW it taking. The following statement is self explanatory: “Before the meeting of the AC in which the President’s proposal will be discussed in the course of this week, the Association of the Members of the Boards of Appeal (AMBA) raises its voice and makes even more critical comments. According to AMBA, the new proposals manifestly take no account of AMBA’s submissions, despite assurances that they would be reflected in any proposal. Furthermore, they take no account of the comments of the AC members in the Council meeting of March, or of the user survey results; rather it misrepresents them. All the changes are said to be detrimental to both actual and perceived independence. Instead they place considerably more power in the hands of the President of the Office.”

Look what a mess has been left here. Battistelli fights everyone and everyone now fights back against him. This is very poor leadership and any remnant of reputation that the EPO gained for several decades is being lost in just a couple of years. Earlier this evening the FFII’s Benjamin Henrion wrote: “Well EPO is not responsible in front of a court, so there is no procedure if the EPO does not work. That’s why it needs to be dissolved, or reintegrated in other democratic structures.”

Looking at Henrion’s old site, Digital Majority, we find this old news pick saying that the “EPO staff blame Admin Council for EPO woes”. To quote what was there at the time:

Last week a dramatic EPO document fell into our hands. “Governance of the EPO: a Staff Perspective” documents internal conflicts in the EPO, staff versus management, in which the Administrative Council (AC) and President have almost totally lost the confidence of the EPO staff. In 2004, just 8% of staff expressed trust in the AC, and 28% in the President. In 2006 this figure had fallen to 4% and 7%.

The report – written by staff representatives – avoids criticism of the President, and focuses its ire on the Administrative Council, citing the conflict between national and personal interests, and those of the EPO.

Looking at a related site for a submission of the EPO representative on the Commission’s ICT Task Force report we have:

Raise awareness of the patent system among SMEs: The EPO may develop a project which aims at increasing the understanding and the use of IP by SMEs. The main concept entitled “train the trainers” is to provide trainings for specific target groups in the field of protection and exploitation of IP and IP management, with the main focus given on patenting. The relay done by the staff already working in direct contact with SMEs will ensure multiplier effects of the training given and SMEs will be expected as final recipients.

Well, we now know, thanks to a large degree to leaks (from several simultaneous sources), that the EPO does not give a damn about European SMEs. It cares neither about Europe nor SMEs as it now gives priority to foreign giants (hence the correction of Battistelli’s new statements at the top). This is what happens when the EPO is operated outside democratic controls. A serious overhaul is well overdue; the UPC isn’t it. The UPC is further escalation in the wrong direction. We fear that some people inside the EPO still believe what the EPO's management tells them about the UPC (or what patent lawyers tell them). Does anyone still believe the EPO’s management? █

« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »

Further Recent Posts

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channels: Come and chat with us in real time

New to This Site? Here Are Some Introductory Resources

No

Mono

ODF

Samba logo






We support

End software patents

GPLv3

GNU project

BLAG

EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com



Recent Posts