EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

04.22.16

Korean Companies Make the Case for Design Patents While the Bigger One Asks the US Supreme Court to Shoot Some of Them Down

Posted in America, Asia, Courtroom, GNU/Linux, Google, Patents at 8:05 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Reaching the conclusion that these patents (related to software patents) are excessive and counterproductive?

Samsung phone

Summary: In spite of amassing many design patents of its own, Samsung is willing to intercept/undermine all of them, in order to shoot down Apple’s demands against Android/Linux

THE United States’ patent office, the USPTO, continues to grant design patents, which are rather controversial in Europe.

Design patentees by scale/number have just been presented by Patently-O, which said: “Design patents continue to be a popular protection scheme for developers of consumer products and screen displays. Top ten assignees thus-far in 2016 with most recent examples…”

“Samsung has not (historically at least) been aggressive with patents.”It’s Samsung at the top, then LGE (which Apple was often accused of copying — design-wise — when it first introduced the iPhone). Both are Korean companies and one comment rightly points out: “One might not be surprised to notice Samsung highly aware of the potent properties of design patents.” Samsung currently challenges the potency of such patents, taking it all the way up to the Supreme Court. If anything, this may indicate that Samsung only begrudgingly patents designs, maybe in the hope of leveling these for defensive purposes when companies like Apple strike (with nuclear connotations). Samsung has not (historically at least) been aggressive with patents.

“A Federal Circuit ruling has placed Coleman Co. in a stronger position to sue a competitor for infringement of its design patent relating to personal flotation devices.”
      –Bloomberg BNA
Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC, a lawyers’ firm (obviously), has just published this article about design patent constriction as figures about design patents suggest a sharp increase amid a SCOTUS case about/against it. As we explained here a few times before, many design patents are similar and related to software patents (interfaces in particular). Their very existence is challenged in courts again, as this new article serves to show. It seems as though once again it’s CAFC deciding on the matter. To quote: “A Federal Circuit ruling has placed Coleman Co. in a stronger position to sue a competitor for infringement of its design patent relating to personal flotation devices.”

The fate of design patents has billions at stake; not just billions of dollars/pounds/yen but also billions of people.

In Battistelli’s Mini Union (Minion) It Takes Less Than 10 Votes to ‘Win’ an Election

Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:28 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The Minion
Reference: The Minion

Summary: A look at the minuscule size of Battistelli’s endorsed union, which seems to have just a few dozen active members

THE FFPE’s EPO branch, which is management-leaning, was mentioned here before in various articles such as:

  1. In the EPO’s Official Photo Op, “Only One of the Faces is Actually FFPE-EPO”
  2. Further Evidence Suggests and Shows Stronger Evidence That Team Battistelli Uses FFPE-EPO as ‘Yellow Union’ Against SUEPO
  3. “FFPE-EPO Was Set up About 9 Years Ago With Management Encouragement”
  4. Fallout of the FFPE EPO MoU With Battistelli’s Circle
  5. The EPO’s Media Strategy at Work: Union Feuds and Group Fracturing
  6. Caricature of the Day: Recognising FFPE EPO
  7. Union Syndicale Federale Slams FFPE-EPO for Helping Abusive EPO Management by Signing a Malicious, Divisive Document
  8. FFPE-EPO Says MoU With Battistelli Will “Defend Employment Conditions” (Updated)
  9. Their Masters’ Voice (Who Block Techrights): FFPE-EPO Openly Discourages Members From Reading Techrights
  10. Letter Says EPO MoU “Raises Questions About FFPE’s Credibility as a Federation of Genuine Staff Unions”
  11. On Day of Strike FFPE-EPO Reaffirms Status as Yellow (Fake/Management-Leaning) Union, Receives ‘Gifts’
  12. Needed Urgently: Information About the Secret Meeting of Board 28 and Battistelli’s Yellow Union, FFPE-EPO

“Amazing numbers for a “recognised social partners”!!!”
      –Anonymous
“Results of the FFPE-EPO elections held [this week] in The Hague,” one source told us. “To get an idea,” added this source, “here are some hallucinating figures about the FFPE-EPO and their elections held [this week] in The Hague. Amazing numbers for a “recognised social partners”!!!”

There is “no further comments needed,” our source said, quoting just the text below:

Dear members of FFPE EPO,

Today the elections for the new FFPE EPO committee took place. The results of the elections are the following:

· Participation rate: 41% ————> 76*0.41 = 31

· Valid ballots: 97% ——————> 31*0.97 = 30

Results per candidate:

1. Michiel Sonius: 29% —————->30*0.29 = 9

2. Aldert Jan de Haan: 23% ———->30*0.23 = 7

3. Samuel van der Bijl: 16% ———>30*0.16 = 5

4. Andrey Afanasiev: 16% ————>30*0.16 = 5

5. Gyorgy Vida: 13% —————–>30*0.13 = 4

With apparently just 76 members it seems clear that nobody is likely to have joined since the deal with Battistelli. One is left wondering why more than half the members didn’t even bother voting; maybe they’re still registered (annual membership) but were among those whom we were told left in anger (as a direct result of the MoU).

The Chaos in the EPO Impacts Stakeholders

Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:10 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Even the French National Institute for Industrial Property (INPI) is complaining…

Paris, france

Summary: The service at the EPO is quickly becoming unsatisfactory and leads to complaints even from Battistelli’s home country

Nearly a week after we published a translation which reveals an upcoming lawsuit against the EPO SUEPO provides its own English translation and adds this second translation of an article mentioned here earlier this week. Amid “crisis” (the word used by Board 28) it tackles a problem which was covered before by Merpel (French workload lowered in priority) and here is the full article in English, complete with quotes from Pierre-Yves Le Borgn’.

European Patent Office backlog causing concern for France

An industrial dispute weighing down the European Patent Office (EPO) is increasingly causing concern for its contracting states, particularly France, where delays in reviewing applications submitted to the institution are worsening.

According to several sources, for the last year, some applications sent to the European Patent Office (EPO) by the French National Institute for Industrial Property (INPI) are being returned with delays of one to two months compared with the usual turnaround time, which could have consequences for patent applicants.

The EPO carries out the “prior art search” for French companies: a comprehensive review of the state of knowledge and technology to assess whether something is a genuine invention, Alain Michelet, President of the French Patent and Trademark Attorneys Institute (CNCPI) told AFP.

Companies have one year from the start of the search to initiate protection procedures abroad. So, the longer the research takes — lately, up to 11 months, compared with the usual nine — the less time the company has to decide, which especially penalizes small entities that do not have the same financial footing and expertise in industrial property as large corporate groups.

What is causing the delays? “Last year the EPO completely overhauled its working procedures”, it says, which “may have caused delays for specific user groups.” “We are working to put this right and we foresee the delay will be gone in a few months’ time.”

Reprisal

But for Yves Le Borgn, the Socialist Party MP for French nationals living abroad, whose constituency includes Germany where the EPO has its headquarters, “it is not ruled out that this could be retaliation” on the part of the institution’s President, the Frenchman Benoît Battistelli, against France, critical of his methods as the head of an institution with a poisonous social climate. Other sources interviewed have the same interpretation.

Does this mean that Mr. Battistelli has given the express instruction to let the French applications slip? “I have no evidence as such, but putting together everything that I have heard, I cannot rule out the idea of a causal link,” says Mr. Le Borgn.

Michelet refuses to speak of deliberate delays.

He argues that France is one of the few among the 38 member countries to have the EPO carry out the “prior art search”. This is subcontracting work which understandably does not have the same priority for the EPO as reviewing its own files.

>> Read: Benoît Battistelli: Many Apple patents would not have been granted in Europe

Occupying the post since 2010, Mr Battistelli, formerly of the Ministry of Finance and the former INPI chief executive, has been working to reform the institution with its 7,000 highly qualified, well paid employees, who enjoy many benefits including generous welfare and pension schemes.

Battistelli has launched a series of reforms of, for example, career management or sick leave rules.

Demonstrations and strikes

“I don’t want to raise the charges. So the only solution (to stay competitive) is to increase efficiency, which implies reforms”, he told AFP recently. “My policy is not to reduce the package of social benefits. It is a policy of developing activities, of cost control and improved efficiency to pay for our social system in the long term.”

It is, though, a difficult pill to swallow. The Office has for several years been the arena for social tension punctuated with strikes, demonstrations and alleged smear campaigns. The workers’ union Suepo condemns the “dictatorial” methods.

“There is a small group of people with Suepo at the centre, who resist change”, is Mr Battistelli’s analysis.

His successor at INPI, Yves Lapierre, who represents France on the EPO’s Administrative Council, says: “the reforms are necessary, it is important to put them in place, but I do wonder about the methods used”.

In mid-March, the Administrative Council of the EPO, which had reappointed Mr. Battistelli in June, asked the two sides to “work to find a solution.”

Michelet seeks to reassure. “I have a commitment from Mr Battistelli that by autumn the problem will be resolved.”

However, Mr Le Borgn sees a much deeper problem of governance in an organization “which is not sufficiently controlled by its member states.”

The above serves to reaffirm something we learned about last year. Citing another French text (“L’érosion de l’obligation, pour les Etats membres, de garantir le droit d’accès au juge au sein des organisations internationales?”), SUEPO quotes an opinion/commentary and states:

See here for a critical commentary Ms. Anne-Marie THEVENOT-WERNER on two recent ECHR judgments that concern violations of human rights in international government organisations. The article is in French.

Résumé

In its decisions Perez and Klausecker rendered on 6 January 2015, the European Court of Human Rights reaffirms its case law derived from the decisions Waite and Kennedy and Bosphorus. However, the way it applies the principles allowing the Court to engage a State’s responsibility for violations of the human rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights may lead to an erosion of the obligation of a State to protect these rights, as the Court seems to require implicitly their protection to be “manifestly deficient”, including in the framework of the proportionality test developed in the decision Waite and Kennedy. In the end, the Court protects in any way possible the autonomy of International Organisations. This might lead however to the hardly desirable consequence that International Organisations and their Member States are free not to apply the same standard of human rights protection as the Convention offers to acts and omissions of the Organisation – even to Organisations where all Member States are a Party to the Convention.

For all we know, a Munich State Attorney is now pursuing criminal charges against the European Patent Office, so things are about to get interesting.

EPO Integrity on the Line: The Story of Željko Topić’s Controversial Diploma – Part V

Posted in Europe, Patents at 3:50 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: The final part about a cause for concern and a cause for backlash against EPO management, which has a growing legitimacy problem

In part one and in part two we showed reports about the controversial certificate of Željko Topić, the EPO Vice-President who is embroiled in many scandals in Croatia. Part three showed Topić’s response and part four showed that it left the Croatian press unconvinced. On the 30th of March the following year (2013) a letter was sent from German media, Süddeutsche Zeitung to be precise (they now do coverage of the Panama Papers mega-leak), to Croatian media in an effort to corroborate or establish the accuracy of accusations. The text which follows is a translation from the original Croatian. The accuracy of the translation is not guaranteed. The original article can be found at tjedno.hr.

We have added highlights in yellow in order to make quick reading simpler.

Topić's certificate
The German media are following the Master from Banja Luka with interest.

TWO DIFFERENT YEARS APPEAR ON TOPIĆ’S DEGREE CERTIFICATE

Written by: Franjo Dobrović

Saturday, 30 March 2013

In late February this year, the internet portal Tjedno received an official e-mail enquiry from the reputable German daily newspaper, the Süddeutsche Zeitung. It contained a request for facts and information relating to several articles which we had published about Željko Topić, the former Director of the State Intellectual Property Office of the Republic of Croatia (DZIV) and currently a Vice-President of the European Patent Office (EPO) whose headquarters are located in Munich.

The e-mail from the newspaper’s Belgrade office was signed by Mr. Florian Hassel, who introduced himself as the Balkans correspondent for the Süddeutsche Zeitung. We complied with his request and below we bring you the text of the e-mail received from the leading Bavarian daily newspaper (which is read throughout Germany):

“Dear Sir,
I am Florian Hassel, the Balkans correspondent for the Süddeutsche Zeitung, a leading German newspaper. Together with my colleague Christopher Schrader I have been following all of the charges and allegations against Mr. Željko Topić, an assistant director of the EPO in Munich.
On 11 April 2012, Franjo Dobrović published an article on Željko Topić, the then director of the State Intellectual Property Office (DZIV), in which he stated that there were six investigations or court proceedings being conducted against him.

We would be interested to know which attorney or judge conducted/has been conducting these investigations/court proceedings, as well as how many cases are involved.
Also, Mr. Dobrović wrote about a case heard in the European Court of Human Rights, in which it has been said that Mr Topić allegedly paid 500,000 HRK to the then Minister of Education Dragan Primorac in order to obtain his position at the DZIV. Could you please tell us which case Mr Dobrović is referring to?
Thirdly, Mr. Dobrović wrote that the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and other ministers of the Croatian Government were in the possession of confidential documents concerning these and other allegations against Mr. Topić.
Would you be able to tell us more about who drafted these documents and when?
Finally, we would like to know what happened after the publication of your article in Croatia?
Was the investigation completed or stopped, and was there or will there be a lawsuit against Mr. Topić? I would also like to ask you to direct me to someone from the Croatian Government or the judiciary whom I could contact with further questions.
Any information or assistance that you provide to us will mean that every article published in Süddeutsche Zeitung will clearly state that the portal “Tjedno” was the first to publish information regarding this case.
Regards
Florian Hassel, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Correspondent for the Balkans”

The same journalist recently published an article in the Süddeutsche Zeitung describing how corruption still rules in Croatia [1]. This article attracted a lot of attention in the Croatian media. And as we have indicated above, prior to that he also expressed interest in the specific case of Željko Topić.

To remind our readers, Željko Topić, the former Director of the DZIV, voluntarily handed in his notice on 30 April 2012, only several months after having been re-appointed by the newly elected government of Zoran Milanović. He subsequently departed for Munich to take up a new position as a Vice-President of the European Patent Office (EPO). To begin with, it would be helpful to know who recommended Mr Topić for re-appointment and whose signature is to be found on the document submitted to the Prime Minister Zoran Milanović for initialling on 26 January 2012. It would also be worthwhile to hear the opinion of the EPO on the subject of Croatian copyright protection. Of particular interest is the information that the current director of the DZIV, Ljiljana Kuterovac, was appointed a couple of days ago as a member of the supervisory board of the EPO Academy in Munich for a term of three years!

In passing we mention that the description of Mr. Topić’s current position and other details about his person can be found on the official website of that international organisation: www.epo.org

According to the information that we received from our German journalist colleagues, Topić’s net monthly salary in his new job at EPO in Germany amounts to approximately 15,000 EUR.

JOVANOVIĆ CLAIMS THAT TOPIĆ IS PROTECTED BY JOSIPOVIĆ

Željko Topić acquired his master’s degree in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In Croatia the holder of a master’s degree is exempted from the requirement to sit the state examination, irrespective of whether or not the master’s degree is in any way relevant to the official duties performed in the civil service. In practice, the present case indicates a complete ignorance on the part of the former DZIV Director Topić concerning the basic principles governing the functioning of the civil service in Croatia. Failure to fulfil official obligations constitutes a serious violation of official duty as specified in detail in Article 99 of the Civil Servants Act [2].

Furthermore, in the case of an omission or inappropriate conduct by any member of staff, including the Director, the procedure concerning violations of official duty in the civil service is prescribed in detail. Disciplinary proceedings are to be instituted by the competent Minister of the state agency under whose remit the DZIV falls, which in this particular case is Minister Željko Jovanović.

The failings on the part of Minister Jovanović in relation to the supervision of the DZIV are not accidental. This assertion on our part is not baseless and without foundation because Minister Željko Jovanović of the Ministry of Science, Education and Sport of the Republic of Croatia has himself stated unofficially that Topić enjoys the protection of President Ivo Josipović and a political-legal clique in whose vanguard the state leadership itself stands. Jovanović ‘s statement was made in the middle of last year on the premises of the Croatian Social Democratic Party in Zagreb and in the presence of several witnesses, one of whom was a correspondent of the Deutsche Welle [i.e. the German public-sector international broadcasting service]. And while our honourable Minister sticks pedantically to the letter of the law, mercilessly dismissing primary and secondary school principals from office throughout the length and breadth of “our beautiful homeland” [3] merely because they have transgressed by enrolling one or two students more than they should have or due to other banalities, he does not dare to interfere with such a corrupt bigwig or to take any action concerning the operations of the DZIV.

However, Jovanović is not the only person entrusted with the task of providing cover for this “intellectual Taliban”. The lever of protection has been transferred from the Pantovčak [4] to Gajeva Street 30 in Zagreb, which is to say to the State Attorney’s Office of the Republic of Croatia (DORH) and the Bureau for the Suppression of Corruption and Organised Crime (USKOK). Despite the fact that they have been inundated with complaints of a manifestly serious nature against the former Director of the DZIV, these two institutions that are responsible for criminal prosecutions have thus far valiantly resisted the barrage of fire from the aggrieved citizens of the Republic of Croatia in their attempt to call both Željko Topić and the DZIV to account on the basis of substantially similar charges relating to activities of an inherently corrupt nature. According to the information provided by foreign legal experts, there is a distinct prospect of international criminal proceedings against Mladen Bajić, as well as his recently discovered “relative” Dinko Cvitan (their wives are related), because of the blatant obstruction of investigations and the damage which they are causing to Croatian citizens and to the common good in the present case [5].

Against this background nobody was surprised by the recent statement of the President of the Republic of Croatia that he would like to see his powers extended to include the right to personally nominate the State Attorney General. This was perceived by the general public and in legal circles as a demand to fulfil some kind of a “musical request” and, as we can see, it would be a perfectly fitting extension of the prevailing practices of patronage and clientelism. Perhaps he would like to extend the existing “family connections” which have already been exposed to other “family” members …

For those who are not so knowledgeable about the secrets of the Pantovčak, let it be noted that our honourable President Josipović recently started a similar initiative to impose his preferred candidate, in the person of his security advisor Saša Perković, as the head of the Security and Intelligence Agency (SOA). However, that proposal was blocked politically and met with forthright and unanimous rejection [by the government of Zoran Milanović].

MASTER’S DEGREE ISSUED 12 YEARS AFTER ORAL EXAMINATION

Željko Topić, being an economist who completed all of his academic studies, including the “famous” master’s degree, in Banja Luka, submitted the documents issued by the University of Banja Luka when taking up employment in the civil service of the Republic of Croatia. Some of these documents, in particular his “degree certificate”, were published by our portal in an article in June last year.

According to unofficial sources, as in other cases of DZIV supervision, the competent Ministry under the control of Željko Jovanović did not find anything amiss in this particular instance ! However, an analysis of the disputed documentation issued by the University of Banja Luka in the case of “Mr.Sc.” Topić, as well as several preliminary “field inquiries” on our part, have revealed a number of inconsistencies to which we would like draw attention. In order to assist the reader in understanding our analysis of the contentious master’s degree certificate which led to a complaint about Željko Topić being submitted to the Ministry of Science, Education and Sports, we have published this document alongside the present text for reference.

Let’s go through the details one step at a time …

  • Two different years, i.e. dates, are indicated on the degree certificate.
  • One year is indicated as the date of the oral examination. The year of issue is different, with no indication of the precise date on which the certificate was awarded.
  • The difference between the date of the oral examination and the year in which the certificate was issued is 12 years.
  • It is highly unusual that the certificate for a master’s degree which was completed in 1989 does not bear the attributes of the former Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) but rather those of the Republika Srpska [an autonomous administrative region of Bosnia and Herzegovina].
  • It remains unclear why the degree was issued in 2001, i.e. twelve years after the oral examination, and only indicates the year, but not the precise date on which the certificate was awarded.
  • The thesis title stated on the certificate differs from the title stated on the thesis itself.
  • Given that the date of the oral examination falls within the period of hard-line socialist self-management [i.e. in the SFRY], the title of the master’s thesis on the degree certificate sounds rather futuristic and is “outside of time and space”.

Taking account of the various points that are noted above, there seems to be little doubt that Topić’s degree certificate is a forgery. Perhaps the mysterious visitor to the Pantovčak, who commutes regularly between Banja Luka and the Presidential Palace once a month could provide more information about this matter and he might be able to assist us in arriving at the final answer to the open questions. On whose account this enigmatic gentleman travels between Banja Luka and Zagreb and who pays his monthly expenses, whether this comes from the national budget or from the Office of the President, these are things which are at present unknown. But let us hope that the official Visitor’s Book at the Presidential Palace will not disappear mysteriously as it did during the era of the former President, Stjepan Mesić.

We conclude by noting that it is not the role of the media to draw up a bill of indictment nor is it our intention to defame anyone. Our task is merely to draw attention to irregularities, to provide news coverage about them and to protect the public interest. We leave everything else, including the drawing of conclusions and the taking of appropriate measures, to the competent national institutions subject to the proviso that they function properly and in accordance with the fundamental principles of a constitutional republic governed by the rule of law.

Notes

[1] “Zaghafte Reformen reichen für den EU-Klubausweis”, 26 March 2013. [“Half-hearted reforms suffice to secure EU club membership”] http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/kroatien-zaghafte-reformen-reichen-fuer-den-eu-klubausweis-1.1634355
[2] Article 99 of the Croatian Civil Servants Act relates to “Severe Breaches of Official Duties”. Article 99(1)(j) categorises “the use of inauthentic documents to secure privileges in the service” as a severe violation of official duties. http://www.vsrh.hr/CustomPages/Static/HRV/Files/Legislation__Civil-Servants-Act.pdf
[3] An ironic reference to the Croatian national anthem.
[4] “Pantovčak” refers to the Presidential Palace in Zagreb.
[5] Mladen Bajić is the current State Attorney General and Dinko Cvitan is the current head of the Office for the Suppression of Corruption and Organised Crime (USKOK).

Based on the above, there’s still some cause for concern and for suspicion about the academic past of Topić, set aside many of those other issues. EPO has done itself a great disservice by adding Topić to its ranks.

Microsoft’s Patent Blackmail Against Linux Not Enough to Keep Microsoft Afloat, Many More Layoffs Coming

Posted in GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Patents at 3:35 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Many thousands of additional layoffs at Microsoft are reported as the effort to extract lots of ‘protection money’ from Linux falls short of expectations

Matt Rosoff, a Microsoft booster who is professionally close to Microsoft as we pointed out before [1, 2, 3, 4], says “A huge shift in the Android market is hurting Microsoft” (previous headline was, “Microsoft Android patent-licensing revenue falling”).

“In the release,” he wrote, “Microsoft noted that its patent-licensing revenue was down 26% from a year ago. And it’s because of Android.”

“Microsoft may be a dying/rapidly declining company, but it doesn’t mean it won’t try to poach GNU/Linux professionals and ‘steal’ the industry as part of the “extend” phase of E.E.E.”Nevertheless, this strategy evidently continues. Yes, Microsoft’s extortion against Linux is still a core business now that layoffs are unstoppable, in spite of massive tax evasion.

According to this new article, “18,000 Job Cuts Loom in Sight for Microsoft Employees” and to quote: “Microsoft is also cutting 5.500 more jobs because they want to focus on its mobile and cloud productivity software, including Windows Phone, Office 36, Skype, Windows Azure, Bing and OneDrive.”

Microsoft may be a dying/rapidly declining company, but it doesn’t mean it won’t try to poach GNU/Linux professionals and ‘steal’ the industry as part of the “extend” phase of E.E.E. Vigilance is required here.

[ES] El MOU de Battistelli el Arreglo Fotográfico Con el Instituto Profesional de Representantes Ayuda a Disfrazar el Duro Criticismo de la EPO

Posted in Europe, Patents at 3:05 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

English/Original

Article as ODF

Publicado en Europe, Patentes at 8:25 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Decem­ber

EPI letter

Abril

Benoît Battistelli and Antonius Tangena

Sumario: Benoît Battistelli se va ala camitacon Antonius Tangena (EPI) apenas unos meses después de que la EPI critizase a la Organización/Oficina Europea de Patentes

ALfinales del año pasado vimos a la EPO caerbajo criticísmo de la EPI. Poquísimo despuésla EPI silénciosamente removió este criticismo hacia la EPO. Techrightslo preservó para referencias futúras y ahora la EPO firma un MOU con la EPI. Así es, miren lo que la gerencia de la EPO (líderada por Battistelli) ha hecho a un crítico.

¿Qué hubo detrás de este MOU y porqué exáctamente fue firmado, sino para salvarse la cara?

“El Presidente de la EPO, Benoît Battistelli,” dice el sitio web de la EPO (desde anoche), ” se reunió con una delegación del Instituto de Represtántes (EPI) y firmó un memorando de entendimiento sobre la formación/preparación de los agentes autorizados.”
El arreglo fotográfico muestra a Antonius Tangena, quien no hace mucho escribió: “la EPI considera que es esencial para la apariencia de independencia que los nombramiéntos y renombramiéntos son hechos objetivamente y que tener miémbros independiéntes en la BoA y la BoAC asegurarán que es vista con competencia y que es asesórada independiéntemente.”
Estos son los consejeros que Battistelli continua aplastándo. ¿Qué hubo detrás de este MOU y porqué exáctamente fue firmado, sino para salvarse la cara?

[ES] El Parlamento Bávaro Discute los Abusos de la EPO

Posted in Europe, Patents at 3:04 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

English/Original

Article as ODF

Publicado en Europe, Patentes at 8:04 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Flag of Bavaria

Sumario: La intervención Bavaria causada por los asuntos de la EPO es ahora materia de noticias en Alemania

TEMPRANO esta semana notamos que los abusos de la EPOirían a ser abordados por el parlamento Bávaro. Preguntámos por detallesdespués de lo cual dos personas nos escribiéron acerca de ello el mismo día. Uno dijo: “Cerca de 40 personas del público atendiéron. ARD/BR también estuvo presente, esperen información de la TV/Radio. Moción rechazada por la CSU. La moción debería ser debatida en pleno en el futuro. (¿futuro cercano?)”
Aquí es la noticia en la BR. La parte pertinente es “a partir de las 08:00″ (BR, 19 de Abril 18:00 el año 2016), disponible hasta el 26 de abril de 2016 “, señaló la SUEPO.
La SUEPO también hizo un breve post sobre ello 24 horas después más de que ocurriera (“Informe sobre la sesión del Parlamento de Baviera sobre la petición urgente en relación con la situación de los empleados de la EPO”).
Parece ser un proceso contínuo que esta lejos de estar hecho y terminado.”

“Ayer”, escribió la SUEPO, “el Comité de Asuntos Federales y Europeos (Ausschuss für Bundes- und Europaangelegenheiten) del Parlamento de Baviera (Bayerischer Landtag) discutieron la situación en la oficina. El partido “Freie Wähler” propuso una moción, Tomando nota de las deficiencias en las políticas de personal de la EPO (parte 1) y exigiendo al gobierno nacional a trabajar para mejorar las condiciones de trabajo en el EPO, en particular hacia una revisión de las directrices de investigación impugnados (parte 2 de la propuesta). La segunda parte de la moción que aprobó por unanimidad. La primera mitad, no obstante, que no fue apoyada por la mayoría de la fracción CSU. Como consecuencia, el movimiento en su conjunto no fue aprobada. El siguiente paso, será discutido en una sesión completa del Parlamento en unas pocas semanas “.
Una persona nos dijo en línea que la “moción [consiguió] ser votado por el partido de gobierno #csu a nivel de comité. En espera del enfrentamiento en el debate y la votación final en el Pleno #fw”
Parece ser un proceso contínuo que esta lejos de estar hecho y terminado.

04.21.16

Battistelli’s MoU and Photo Op With the Institute of Professional Representatives Helps Disguise Its Harsh Criticism of the EPO

Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:25 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

December:

EPI letter

April:

Benoît Battistelli and Antonius Tangena

Summary: Benoît Battistelli does a photo op with Antonius Tangena (EPI) only months after the EPI criticised the European Patent Office/Organisation

AT THE end of last year we saw the EPO coming under criticism from EPI. Shortly afterwards EPI silently removed this criticism of the EPO. Techrights preserved it for future reference and now the EPO signs an MoU with EPI. Yes, look what EPO management (led by Battistelli) has just done to a critic.

“What was behind this MoU and why exactly was it signed for if not to save face?”Last year EPI wrote a letter denouncing the EPO and then deleted it, only to pose with Battistelli a few months down the line (warning: epo.org link). EPI never explained why it deleted its own letter (or who inside the EPI decided to remove it).

“EPO President Benoît Battistelli,” says the EPO’s Web site (since last night), “has yesterday met with a delegation from the Institute of Professional Representatives (epi) and signed a Memorandum of Understanding on the training of professional representatives.”

The photo shows Antonius Tangena, who not too long ago wrote: “epi considers that it is essential for the appearance of independence that the appointments and re-appointments are made on objective grounds of competence and having independent members and BoA members on the BoAC will ensure that it is seen that such competence is independently assessed.”

These are the boards that Battistelli continues to crush. What was behind this MoU and why exactly was it signed for if not to save face?

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

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