10.29.16
Posted in Asia, Patents at 12:02 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Another new example of software patents advocacy that somehow creeps in, finding its way into the mainstream press in India
THE subject of software patents in India keeps coming up, even though it has been more or less resolved for at least a decade. Lobbyists of multinational corporations like Microsoft and IBM, or Indian patent lawyers trying to attract more business (like frivolous lawsuits), keep bringing it up and the latest such effort comes from Venkatesh Ganesh, who bemoans the ban on software patents. The argument? Poorly made:
Hardware clause makes software patenting difficult
Changes in India’s software patent laws are stoking heartburn among companies that are looking to file patents in India, which could impact investment flows into the country.
Companies based in India and elsewhere depend on patents to protect their intellectual property and attract investments to succeed in a competitive marketplace. However, some minor changes to the patent guidelines have caused a major headache.
This is a complete fantasy or fairy tale. Who or what are those companies? Those oppressing India, like Microsoft which still actively derails the country’s software policy? Those that work for foreign corporations under the guise of being “Indian”?
Citizens of India shouldn’t be gullible enough to believe the above and newspaper editors need to start filtering or fact-checking material that they publish. Too often they just copy-paste some lobbying material from patent law firms for the illusion of “balance”. That’s not how true journalism is done. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 11:43 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
In the US, for example, it’s widely known that trolls rely a lot on software patentability
Summary: Another piece of evidence or a European Commission report (akin to that of GAO in the US) which demonstrates that Battistelli’s policies would bring patent trolls to Europe
TOMORROW (in Techrights) will be all about the USPTO — a system so severely ruined/tainted by patent trolls that it’s widely regarded as the model not to follow, yet the EPO is trying to become more like the USPTO (before the ongoing reforms which actually repair the USPTO). Nowadays, under Battistelli, the EPO even markets software patents.
Today’s EPO is in shambles because of Battistelli’s coup which removes people who openly don’t agree with him, terrifies people who secretly disagree with him, and installs (in power with astronomical salaries) many of his cronies, usually from France/INPI. Battistelli has made the EPO a laughing stock and an embarrassment to Europe. Not too long ago Team Battistelli added a French Chief Economist (Yann Ménière) who seems more or less like a Battistelli “yes man” or Pet Chinchilla ([ref 96056 reference here]) who will be speaking for the EPO in Australia pretty soon (we mentioned that a few days ago).
What does the previous/former Chief Economist think? Obviously something very different. He no longer needs to be a Battistelli “yes man”. His salary does not depend on it.
When EPO mouthpiece and patent maximalist IAM does not gloat about Clinton (who is a large corporations’ tool and a corporate front) because of her stance on patents it actually mentions the position of the EPO’s former Chief Economist. Put another way (without IAM’s spin), the EPO under Battistelli is evidently brewing or creating an epidemic of patent trolls. They will soon come to Europe as well, more so if the UPC becomes a reality. Here is what IAM wrote:
The continued issuance of high quality patents is the key to preventing the widespread activities of troll-like patent assertion entities in Europe, a new report from the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre has concluded.
Based on work undertaken by a team led by the centre’s senior fellow Nikolaus Thumm, a former chief economist of the European Patent Office, Patent Assertion Entities in Europe. Their impact on innovation and knowledge transfer in ICT markets takes a detailed look at the activities of PAEs in Europe and explores how these may develop under the Unified Patent Court regime. In addition to ensuring high quality patents, the report also recommends that policy makers focus on enabling transparency around patent ownership, ensuring excellence at the UPC and providing more clarity around FRAND licensing and standards essential patents.
“The institutional and legal framework in Europe has not allowed the more negative consequences associated with PAEs to materialise to the same extent that it has, according to some economic literature, in the US,” the report states. “Moreover, some of the negative consequences that we have identified are currently hypothetical and are based on stakeholder evidence which could be susceptible to bias.”
Responding to a patents maximalist (who wrote: “Is this an evidence-based conclusion or just wishful thinking from people outside the patent system who don’t understand it?”), IAM noted: “Report was compiled under the leadership of former chief economist of the EPO, who knows patent system pretty well!!”
The former Chief Economist of the EPO, in that case, essentially warns that patent quality declining (what the EPO does under Battistelli), if this continued, would be a boon to trolls. Battistelli is the trolls’ friend. Does he mind? Does he even know? The man is patently clueless and dangerous.
Here is what IP Watch wrote about the same news:
A new report by respected economists under the European Commission has found that problems of patent assertion entities in Europe could be better controlled if patent quality stays high in the region. It also found that the majority of patent assertion entities in Europe have focused on vulnerable targets – mainly in the telecommunications sector – and the report provides significant research on such entities operating in the European Union. The findings shine light on the key role of standard essential patents, with suggestions for policymakers and predictions about the impact of the prospective changes to the European patent system.
Looking at MIP, we haven’t yet found coverage of it (maybe we’ll find some later), but it did say that “[p]atent prosecution is taking place against a backdrop of the press claiming many patents should not have been issued, allegations that patent examiners shirk their responsibilities and the technology industry being exasperated by the Alice aftermath” (actually, Alice is improving patent quality, which is good).
MIP separately noted that the “cost of global filing quickly climbs into the multi-hundred-thousand dollar range.”
Put another way, patents are for the 1% only. Only the super-rich can afford them. It helps the SMEs in no way whatsoever. In light of this, watch how another site has just fallen for the bogus ‘study’ from EUIPO and the EPO, joining the ranks of few others who parroted the lies [1, 2]. To quote from the article:
IPR-intensive industries generated more than 42% of the EU’s economic activity in the period, with the total value of that activity amounting to €5.7 trillion. The majority of EU trade with the rest of the world also stemmed from IPR-intensive industries, the report said.
EPO president Benoît Battistelli said: “Our second joint report confirms the benefits of patents and other IPRs for the European economy. Intangible assets are increasingly important for innovative companies today, especially for SMEs, but also for research centres and universities. We again see that this has a positive impact on jobs, growth and prosperity. But in order to remain competitive in the global economy, Europe needs to encourage even further the development and use of new technology and innovations.”
These are lies right there in the numbers (even MIP refuted these numbers 3 years ago) and in the statement from the Liar in Chief, Benoît Battistelli. It has nothing whatsoever to so with SMEs. These are the same utter lies which he used to promote the UPC. With patent trolls imminent and already arriving at London (because of his policies that opened the floodgates to crappy patents), those who will suffer the most are European SMEs.
Battistelli is a truly destructive man whose remembered legacy should be that he practically killed the EPO or put it in a death spiral, along with Europe itself. Where’s Wallonia when we need it so badly? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 10:55 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Your latest coverage about Europe’s most important subject is several months old, in a British blog…
Summary: IP Kat’s awkward silence about the European Patent Office (in the face of many historic/critical events) demonstrated again, in light of the news that the EPO’s Boards of Appeal might soon be sent to ‘exile’ (likely a long-term deprecation plan to mask patent quality degradation)
PEOPLE who rely on IP Kat for EPO news won’t get the information they deserve, unless they look very closely at the comments added to a very, very old thread (see above). The site has been totally quiet about it since the EPO threatened by means of blocking the site, as it first did to Techrights. Has IP Kat just surrendered to the bullies? Will there ever be any criticism of the EPO there (ever again)?
The EPO was mentioned very briefly only in “Friday Fantasies” (yesterday) where there’s a small section that reads:
New EPO Enlarged Board referral: does the gold standard apply to a bitten apple? Tufty the Cat brings us news on the latest EPO Enlarged Board referral in the appeal case of T 437/14, which considers if the “gold standard” test for assessing any amendment for compliance with A123(2) EPC must also be applied to the type of undisclosed disclaimers that would otherwise be allowable under G 1/03.
There is much bigger news regarding the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeals, but IP Kat isn’t talking about it. Only its readers do and the only place where it would not be off topic is a thread from the summer. “It seems that 63% of the voters do not agree with the move of the BoA to Haar,” this commenter wrote. To quote:
the Budget & Finance Committee of the Admin Council has approved the “resettlement” of the Boards of Appeal to Haar.
13 votes in favour, 8 against and 15 abstentions.
It seems that 63% of the voters do not agree with the move of the BoA to Haar.
Abstentions, however, are not taken into consideration when counting the votes.
The move to Haar, therefore, has been approved by 61% of the voters.
Magic at the EPO!
The response to which was:
BoA: To the great silent majority of the B28 and AC we ask your support.
BB: Hmmm…the Silent Majority is a phase used by Homer to describe the dead!
And here is the latest very curious input:
It seems to me that this is a case in which weighting of votes in accordance with Article 36 EPC would be justified.
Weighting of votes
(1) In respect of the adoption or amendment of the Rules relating to Fees and, if the financial contribution to be made by the Contracting States would thereby be increased, the adoption of the budget of the Organisation and of any amending or supplementary budget, any Contracting State may require, following a first ballot in which each Contracting State shall have one vote, and whatever the result of this ballot, that a second ballot be taken immediately, in which votes shall be given to the States in accordance with paragraph 2. The decision shall be determined by the result of this second ballot.
I wonder if the AC delegates have actually read the rule book?
http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/ar36.html
Therein alone is an article idea for IP Kat to go with, but where’s Merpel and what happened to this site? Has all the media been silenced by means of payments and intimidation? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA