02.15.16
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 6:33 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Publicado in Decepción, Europe, Patents at 9:25 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Guerras de grass: Las grandes corporaciones generalmente buscan mayor proteccionismo para sus posiciones dominantes
Sumario: Un rápido repaso de alguno de lo último en propaganda y cubrimiento (comprado) que ayuda a introducir un distorsionado sistema de patentes cuyos beneficiarios no són Europeos (o incluso gente)
La OEP esta comenzando a enfocarse más y más en propaganda y mentiras [1, 2], como notamos en nuestro pasado post. La verdad no apya las acciones de la OEP, tanto que distorsión de la realidad se hace imperativo. Vamos a pasar mucho tiempo del día respondiendo a las mentiras diseminadas por la gerencia de la OEP y de su no ético equipo de relaciones públicas.
“Las reglas estan siendo cambiadas en favor de los grandes clientes de abogados y de los trolles de patentes, para el detrimento de los Europeos que no son abogados de patentes.”Hubo un recordatorio en un Domingo (inusual para IAM) de un evento de propaganda para la UPC financiado por la OEP. Esto es un giro de angulo declaratorio. La OEP se esta ALIANDO CON ABOGADOS DE PATENTES PARA CAMBIAR LAS REGLAS. Las reglas estan siendo cambiadas en favor de los grandes clientes de abogados y de los trolles de patentes, para el detrimento de los Europeos que no son abogados de patentes.
El equipo de PR de la OEP finalmente se decidió públicar sólo en Aleman es desagradable (se lo mencionamos), así que ahora hay una versión del articulo originalmente publicado sólo en Aleman (advertencia: epo.org link), llevando a cuestas a un maximalista de patentes a ayudar a tirar flores a la OEP, notamos al momento (maximalistas de patentes sirven para reenforzar la narrativa/mitología que a más patentes, más innovación). Aquí esta el equipo PR de la OEP de nuevo tomando ventaja del cancer en el Dia Mundial del Cancer a pesar de sus actividades en contra de los pacientes del mal.
“La subida de precios no son para la examinación de patentes pero para esenciales negocios de la OEP como espiar a sus empleados y miembros del público, comprar favorables reportajes de prensa, organizar eventos del inventor del año, proveer ayuda ¨técnica¨ a estados miembros obedientes, subvencionar compañías privadas como Control Risks o FTI Consulting. Para beneficio de la sociedad Europea.”Hace algunos días escribimos acerca de la subida de precios en la OEP que perjudican a las PYMEs. Poco después, como un comentador graciosamente lo puso: ¨La subida de precios no son para la examinación de patentes pero para esenciales negocios de la OEP como espiar a sus empleados y miembros del público, comprar favorables reportajes de prensa, organizar eventos del inventor del año, proveer ayuda ¨técnica¨ a estados miembros obedientes, subvencionar compañías privadas como Control Risks o FTI Consulting. Para beneficio de la sociedad Europea.
¿Alguién piensa que es acceptable para la OEP desperdiciar casi $1 millon de dólares (en sólo un año) en una compañía de Relaciones Públicas (PR) de los Estados Unidos? ¿Qué acerca de los llamados económistas para ayudar a generar propaganda acerca de la economía de patentes?
¨Acerca de examinar o no,¨ escribió una persona, ¨hay muchos sistemas de patentes disponibles, cada uno con sus ventajas y desventajas. Pero mientras la EPC requiere que la examinación sea llevada a cabo y mientras que la OEP saca provecho de matricula de los aplicantes por hacerlas, no está dentro la competencia de Battistelli, no dentro d la AC, a ¨llevarnos¨ a un sistema diferente, sin embargo tan moderno que sea.¨
Battistelli esta ahora cabildeando por la UPC, que en NINGUNA MANERA AYUDA a las PYMEs Europeas. Por eso que FTI Consulting, que es PAGADA POR LA OEP, publica propaganda pro-UPC. Como otro comentador lo puso hoy:
“¿No son los ahorros, modernidad y eficiencia a lo que vamos? ¿No es allí donde BB nos esta llevando?”
Eso bien pueda ser.
Es abundantemente claro que su intento es traerse abajo al Jurado de Apelaciones de la OEP.
Más o menos lo ha dicho públicamente on unas pocas ocasiones o al menos puede ser leído entre lineas de su propaganda.
Pero la pregunta en la cabeza de muchas personas es ¿DE DÓNDE SU MANDATO VIENE: PARIS, BRUSELAS, WASHINGTON?
BB [Battistelli] no es un visionario¨. Es un tecnócrata. El está implementado la visión de alguién más. Pero ¿Quié o quienes son ls marioneteros jalando sus cuerdas?
Basado en documentos expuestos, Battistelli PRIORITIZA LARGAS CORPORACIONES, INCLUSO EXTRANJERAS. Emanando de nuestro trabajo aquí incluyendo algunas traducciones al Español, hay algun cubrimiento en los medios en Google News y hace unos días atrás Juve publicó otro artículo titulado: “Kommentar: Warnschuss für EPA-Präsidenten Battistelli” (amablementle pedimos a nuestros lectores a ayudarnos a publicar una traducción al Inglés). Battistelli y sus chacales tratan de ¨revolucionar¨ el sistema a favor de las grandes corporaciones multinacionales, a costo del pueblo Europeo. ¿Deberían ser permitidos de salirse con la suya? ¿Porqué no interviene el Parlamento? En este contexto el silencio es complicidad. █
“Cuando la multitud gana el día, deja de ser multitud. Entonces pasa a ser llamada la nación.”
–Napoleon
Permalink
Send this to a friend
02.14.16
Posted in Patents at 5:25 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
One of the few things we remember Justice Scalia for…
Summary: A digest of recent news about (primarily) software patents and people who oppose or promote them in the United States
THE laws of the land are dynamic; it’s an ever-changing thing. They adapt to new societal standards and humanitarian perspectives, as well as emerging trends (such as airplanes, computing, and atomic science). Patent law landscape, like many other legal landscapes, constantly changes in lieu with court rulings, including those that come from SCOTUS. Incidentally, Justice Scalia, who has just died, once told Microsoft: “You can’t patent, you know, on-off, on-off code in the abstract, can you?” (we covered that nearly a decade ago as we interpreted that as nuanced opposition to software patents).
Software Patents Rot
“Patent law landscape, like many other legal landscapes, constantly changes in lieu with court rulings, including those that come from SCOTUS.”Today’s long article deals with some of the latest developments in the United States, where software patents — quite notably in fact (more so than the rest) — are a dying business area. The same cannot be said about hardware patents. Earlier this month, for example, we once again learned how “Nvidia claimed that Samsung Galaxy phones and tablets containing Qualcomm’s Adreno, ARM’s Mali, or Imagination’s PowerVR graphics architectures all infringed its patents on core GPU technologies.”
Samsung, which has a large trove of patents of its own, launched a counterstrike and lost. Compare this to the OpenTV case which we recently covered. It showed patents on software falling flat on their face. Here is another new article about the OpenTV case. It describes the patent in question as follows: “The ‘081 patent focuses on expediting program-to-program accessibility for programs that require credentials for access. Accordingly, the 081 patent discloses storing additional permissions in an interactive TV application that can access other applications. An example embodiment included an application for processing a credit card transaction used in the context of a shopping application.”
Software Patents Disguised as Hardware
“Some companies get away with patenting software by misleading examiners and courts, characterising software as hardware, or a combination thereof.”The above is quite clearly too abstract a patent. This is a software patent. Courts wouldn’t tolerate it. Some companies get away with patenting software by misleading examiners and courts, characterising software as hardware, or a combination thereof. Microsoft even bragged about doing this. Apple is now being sued with such patents. To quote a new article, “Apple rolled out 3D Touch last year for the iPhone 6s and iPhone 6s Plus after introducing a similar Force Touch feature with the Apple Watch. However, one firm claims it’s been working on the same technology for 20 years and has the patents to back it up. Now it’s taking Apple to court.” Consider this new press release titled “PacStar® Receives Hardware and Software Patent Awards”. When technical employees of a company are unable to do their work because of software patents and liability everywhere (impossible to keep track of patents in one’s area because of their vast number) one has to wonder if software patents ever do any good to innovation. Irrespective of the domain, patents provide a sort of protection, but in some domains the patents do a lot more damage (overall) than good.
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
PTAB has been getting a lot of press recently. IAM, for example, noted in relation to what it dubbed dark IPRs: “Those rates have dropped off since the early talk of “patent death squads” at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), but there’s no doubt that the new review procedures have re-shaped the litigation dynamic for patent owners and alleged infringers in a way that few expected.”
From patent maximalists such as IAM it should not be surprising to see those who treat patents harshly characterised as “patent death squads”. We mentioned this before.
“Apple is the top petitioner at the PTAB,” Patent Buddy noted the other day, “with 228, 111 of which were filed in 2015.”
“This is an example of patents when used for protectionism, price fixing, etc.”Here is another very recent article which mentioned PTAB as follows: “A federal court has upheld a previous ruling by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, declaring Stan’s NoTubes’ U.S. Patent Number 7,334,846 to be valid. The patent protects technology used in Stan’s rims ZTR rims, sales of which exceeded 350,000 between 2004 and 2011.”
“You just wonder how Stan could get a patent over such rim design,” Benjamin Henrion wrote before he asked them for more information (they apparently provided none). There’s some new evidence in Dennis Crouch’s blog that patent ‘fraud’ can cost dozens of millions of dollars in damages. A lot of patents at the USPTO are utter nonsense (we’ll get to that later). “How crazy patent law is,” wrote Pranesh Prakash, “especially in the USA,” is illustrated by this news he highlighted. It’s about Lexmark, which Dennis Crouch’s blog covered as well. This is an example of patents when used for protectionism, price fixing, etc.
“In the UK,” this recent analysis stated, “a party who receives unjustified threats that they will be sued for infringement of a patent, trade mark or design right has a statutory right of redress.” Would the EPO guard such rights? What about the UPC?
“It is rather revealing that patent lawyers are rather afraid of the PTAB, which they compare to a “death squad”. The negative connotation serves as somewhat of an insult to PTAB’s role.”Returning to PTAB and the US, MIP recently published an article (behind paywall) which was summarised as follows: “Scott A McKeown discusses three important Patent Trial and Appeal Board cases that addressed the important issue of estoppel, and looks ahead to this year with the Federal Circuit continuing to work through appeals and the Supreme Court set to rule on Cuozzo”
Dennis Crouch’s blog wrote a couple more posts about PTAB [1, 2]. In the first one Michelle Lee’s role is mentioned as follows: “The Patent Act includes a number of roles of the USPTO Director, including issuing and rejecting patents[3], making copies of patent documents, classifying patents, etc. The Director does not personally make these decisions, but delegates them to the Commissioner for Patents and other PTO employees. That structure is usual for administrative agencies and also highlighted by the statutory structure.[4] Both the commissioner and the “other employees” are – by statute – placed into the role of general management and duties.”
“This isn’t a system optimised for progress but for lack of change.”Jason Rantanen later wrote on “Strategic Decision Making in Dual PTAB and District Court Proceedings”.
It is rather revealing that patent lawyers are rather afraid of the PTAB, which they compare to a “death squad”. The negative connotation serves as somewhat of an insult to PTAB’s role.
Who Benefits?
In the US, especially nowadays, people fret and small business feel paranoid about patent trolls (these can and sometimes do cause bankruptcies) whilst large companies bicker over software patents to manage and secure monopolies in their field/s of operation. This isn’t a system optimised for progress but for lack of change. Patents throttle or pace it down. Who benefits other than patent lawyers and big businesses with full-time patent lawyers (among their regular staff)?
“I’ll pause here to suggest that Adobe got away with something here,” another post from Dennis Crouch’s blog stated. “It is unbelievable to me that Adobe’s counsel did not know of the published application – the sole child application of the patent that was the subject of an infringement lawsuit.”
“Who benefits other than patent lawyers and big businesses with full-time patent lawyers (among their regular staff)?”Adobe is one of those large corporations which hoard software patents and guard their area of operation using patents (to keep Free/Open Source software away or at bay).
Patent Trolls
Only one kind of entity other than large corporations can benefit from software patents. This entity is parasitic. “Patent Trolls Target Nearly 50 Connecticut Businesses, Filing Suits in Friendly Texas Court” was the title of a recent article. “Over 50 MO businesses have been sued by patent trolls in the Eastern District of TX,” this one person said. The article quotes a victim as follows: “I know firsthand how detrimental patent trolls can be to small businesses, as my Connecticut small business was recently the victim of abusive patent litigation in which bad patents were used as weapons of financial intimidation against my small business. $100,000 in legal fees and ten months of litigation later, we successfully defended against these frivolous lawsuits, explained Michael Skelps, General Manager of Middlefield-based Capstone Photography recently in a published report.”
It is worth remembering and making a mental note of the fact that software patents are only truly enjoyed by patent trolls, large corporations, and their patent lawyers. It’s a tax on everything and it leaves about 99% of society just passing money to that (less than) 1% which is patent trolls, CEOs (or other high management, including shareholders), and lawyers specialising in patents.
A Case Apart: Software Patents Propagandists
The patent maximalists of IP Watchdog talk about ‘consumerism’ with patents, or the sales of patents as though they are physical products. Well, they typically defend patent trolls, so in a way it makes sense. Patent trolls in the United States typically use software patents. The impact of these practices don’t matter to patent maximalists, except as they pertain to their income as mediators or middlemen. Based on my conversations with the founder, Quinn, who keeps promoting software patents, he has very poor comprehension of how computers work (cannot tell the difference between code and data for instance), but nonetheless wants more patents on computer programs.
“It’s a tax on everything and it leaves about 99% of society just passing money to that (less than) 1% which is patent trolls, CEOs (or other high management, including shareholders), and lawyers specialising in patents.”To quote the above post from these guys: “We have been tracking the market since 2009 and have a database of nearly $7 billion of available patents, and we have tracked about $2 billion in patent sales.”
Now they’re meeting personally with the head of the USPTO (Michelle Lee), as reported here recently, thus becoming somewhat of a mouthpiece for the USPTO and its self-serving agenda. It’s sad to say that the USPTO has no incentive to address and resolve such issues.
The Donald’s Trump ‘logic’ of blaming China for everything is further amplified by Quinn, who links to the lobbyists’ press. A similar angle is being used by IAM, which has just written to say: “Over the course of the dispute, the ITC has slapped import bans on four models of BMC face mask, while a German court has also ordered several of the Chinese company’s models off the market.”
“Looking at the type of people who write for IP Watchdog these days, it clearly became some sort of biased cesspool of patent lawyers — people without a clue when it comes to technology.”Quinn and patent maximalists don’t like Sanders because rather than knock China for “knockoffs” he has been quite consistent with his patents-hostile rhetoric, especially when it comes to medicine.
Looking at the type of people who write for IP Watchdog these days, it clearly became some sort of biased cesspool of patent lawyers — people without a clue when it comes to technology. The other day they published a piece by Louis Hoffman, who describes himself as “a patent attorney licensed to practice law [...] Louis J. Hoffman, P.C., now known as the Hoffman Patent Firm.”
Hoffman is bemoaning and chastising SCOTUS for its decision on Alice. Watch how propagandists for software patents shamelessly spin the strength as a weakness. Even the headline says “The USPTO harms the economy with over-aggressive, haphazard Alice-based 101 rejections” (actually, these rejections are good news, except for patent lawyers).
“At this stage, more so than ever before, patent lawyers are just desperate to convince people (especially clients that give them money) that software patents are not dead/dying in the USPTO (or in various US courts that issue judgments).”The patent quality recalibration is good news for businesses in the US as it’s actually serving to restore some quality control, after the number of patents granted (per year!) nearly doubled because of declining examination standards. The USPTO only reluctantly changed its practices; watch how, over at Twitter, it sort of spread lies with its joke about obviousness; everything you send USPTO with a wad of cash is “non-obvious” nowadays. This ought to change, starting with software patents (which at the current pace may one day occupy the lion’s share of granted patents, unless they’re stopped at a categorical level). As Henrion put it, “you miss the subject matter test. On purpose?”
At this stage, more so than ever before, patent lawyers are just desperate to convince people (especially clients that give them money) that software patents are not dead/dying in the USPTO (or in various US courts that issue judgments). They are, in essence, misleading their clients. They give them poor advice, maybe willfully. Watch this new article titled “Still Alice: Not all software patents are being invalidated under Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l” (well, the large majority of them are being invalidated).
“We now have a new example where patent lawyers are reaching out to patents that are not software patents to make software patents look legit.”It doesn’t matter if a few (maybe a handful of) patents survived the Alice test in a court of law. Many are being invalidated (here are some statistics which suggest well over 80% get invalidated) and that’s enough to devalue them, discourage applications, deter against litigation, etc.
We now have a new example where patent lawyers are reaching out to patents that are not software patents to make software patents look legit. Here is one new example where a proponent of software patents (a patent attorney of course) uses an example which he even admits isn’t a software patents.”The invention considered by this US decision,” he admitted, “relates to signal transmission rather than software, as such. It does, however, require the application of a mathematical concept just as many software patents do, and so is highly relevant to software patents.”
Well, but it’s not a software patent, is it?
The EPO-Funded IAM ‘Magazine’
“IAM is funded by patent trolls in the sense that it organises pro-trolls events, with funding that comes from some of the world’s most notorious patent trolls.”Going back to IAM, here they are gloating or bragging about rise in patent litigation. When patent lawyers celebrate litigation (it is undeniably on the rise in patent cases, hence more income for the lawyers) one should remember their vested interests. This one particular site, IAM, is now being paid to promote the UPC as well (more lawsuits with higher damages). Even the EPO pays for this bias. “If you work at an NPE,” another new IAM article stated, “please click here to complete your survey.”
“NPE” meant patent troll. IAM is funded by patent trolls in the sense that it organises pro-trolls events, with funding that comes from some of the world’s most notorious patent trolls. Here we see the EPO-funded blogger pretending that SMEs should worry about lack of EPO advice. The EPO-funded IAM speaking about EPO is always a good laugh. There are much worse issues for European SMEs to worry about and the EPO is not their friend, not by a long shot. In some of their other articles, IAM bloggers mention patent thickets on devices (many of which use Linux, some BSD) and rank companies in terms of the number of patents they have (a misguided yardstick). To quote the latest such example: “South Korea’s conglomerates own some of the world’s largest patent portfolios. MDB Capital research published in issue 72 of IAM ranks Samsung Electronics’ portfolio in 1st place in terms of active US assets, with fellow Korean entities LG Electronics, SK Hynix, LG Display and ETRI also featuring among the top 100. Hyundai Motor’s portfolio comes in at 137th place and is also marked out as one of the top 20 fastest-growing portfolios, with a year-on-year compound annual growth rate in application filings of 24%.”
“Companies that spend much of their time (and budget) chasing patents will achieve little and pass a lot of wealth to patent lawyers, not R&D.”The gold rush for patents misses the point. As litigation against Samsung continues to show (see the example above), having many patents of ones own does not guard against bans imposed by the ITC, for instance. Companies that spend much of their time (and budget) chasing patents will achieve little and pass a lot of wealth to patent lawyers, not R&D.
Patent Lawyers and Maximalists: A Trojan Horse in Europe
IAM isn’t the only culprit here. Marks & Clerk, a contributor to the EPO-funded, pro-UPC propaganda in the US this month (paying the likes of IAM, which is similarly UK-based), serves as EPO megaphone and says: “Oppositions at the EPO provide an effective way of mitigating disadvantageous patent grants. However, although effort should primarily be spent focusing on argumentation, it is also important to avoid clerical errors before submission. One error that can occur, particularly when an opposing party has multiple divisions and/or subsidiaries, is inconsistency between documents with regards to the name of the opposing party.”
“We sure hope that Europe won’t follow the footsteps of the US when it comes to patents.”John Alty (UK-IPO) has expressed his interest in Google patents that cover little more than driving a truck (but by a computer). It’s quite telling that some people in the UK wish to emulate the US system, but these people are in the patent ‘business’. The London-based IP Kat has just promoted a book whose title contains the misleading propaganda term “intellectual property” (comparing patents to objects) and the Switzerland-based (but English-speaking) IP Watch published this article which was titled “Year Ahead In Biotech IP: Patents On Plants Under Fire, Biopharma Introspection, Plant Treaty Fund” and now (after a rewrite) is titled “The Year Ahead In Biotechnology And Intellectual Property”. It alludes to EPO patents on plants, which are not popular in Europe. This serves to demonstrate Europe’s growing trend of patent maximalism (to game the numbers and show expansion where there’s none that’s actually concrete).
We sure hope that Europe won’t follow the footsteps of the US when it comes to patents. The US seems to be withdrawing or moving away from software patents. It all boils down to a SCOTUS ruling. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
02.13.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:08 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
More legal power, but whose?
Summary: The European Patent Office (EPO), once a source of great pride for increasingly-unified Europeans, not only wants to enjoy impunity but also wants to attain new powers, despite demonstrating that its interests are anything but European and are often detrimental to Europeans, not just to European inventors
THE image of the EPO was tarnished a long time ago because of staff protests, press articles, and so on. These protests and press articles were the outcome of something, not the cause of that something. It’s not a made-up scandalisation (as EPO management so often tries to frame it with help from its buddies in the German media, notably Süddeutsche Zeitung); it’s very much deserved, and EPO management deserves all the blame. Never before was the EPO a Pariah in the eyes of Europe. The EPO was once internationally regarded as one of the best; now it’s renowned (or notorious) as the biggest human rights violator, more so than SIPO (both the State Intellectual Property Office in Croatia and in China).
Things took a turn for the worse when Battistelli, who tries hard to improve his image this month, took over and brought his mates. Did he not expect any backlash? EPO management basically became a clique. It’s tribalism. People generally know that the EPO is as scandalous an entity as FIFA, even if there are not (yet) disciplinary measures taken against management. Yesterday the President of the FFII told the EPO it’s “time for the European Parliament to step in to stop patent maximalism. They will be powerless with the non-EU Unitary Patent Court.”
“Things took a turn for the worse when Battistelli, who tries hard to improve his image this month, took over and brought his mates.”The term “patent maximalism” — a term that we believe we sort of coined here — is gaining widespread use. The above person now writes regarding language barriers (obstructions to UPC) as well — a subject we covered here a lot recently, mostly in relation to Spain and to Sweden. Glyn Moody, who wrote a detailed article about the EPO at the beginning of this month (criticising both the EPO and the UPC), responded by asking, “do you have a link for that? I think this is going to become a hugely important issue for UPC…”
“In my twitter history,” the President of the FFII. “I already mentioned about the fact that the Court will be running in English only. Let me dig.”
We already covered this subject quite frequently and heavily here, as far back as more than half a decade ago (when UPC wasn’t yet known as or referred to as “UPC”).
We kindly remind readers that EPO-funded pro-UPC events are to take place (including one in the US later this month). The EPO wants to take it international. We also wish readers would pay attention and consider who promotes the UPC. A so-called ‘news’ site that helped the EPO with pro-UPC propaganda (recently with a softball questions Battistelli ‘interview’) now promotes so-called ‘free’ ‘trade’ deals, again with other such ‘interviews’. Media presence isn’t hard to accomplish; there are always those who are gullible or corruptible, some with an operational Web site and a budget.
“Is the EPO serving inventors or is it looking after patent lawyers?”Remember that EPO managers allocated a massive budget for media positioning. They even hired a US (yes, US!) PR firm to handle the task, which makes one wonder who’s so crazy about the UPC anyway. Maybe the patent trolls lick their lips….
“Save this info,” the EPO wrote yesterday about presence/positioning of EPO at CeBIT, liking to a page whose contents is little more than software patents lobbying. Maybe the proponents of software patents lick their lips too….
Also (re)posted yesterday by the EPO was this photograph showing patent lawyers sharing a room with EPO staff. Is the EPO serving inventors or is it looking after patent lawyers? We suspect the latter, not to mention large corporations that are the main source of these lawyers’ income (and EPO revenue). The EPO only needs to maintain the illusion/perception that this isn’t the case, but any such cross-pollination (large corporations, patent lawyers, and EPO bureaucrats) serves to reinforce the idea that they’re all colluding for money and power. It’s protectionism. They want more for themselves and less for everybody else. To quote an interesting new comment from yesterday:
By the way it the decision at stake is T 339/13:
http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t130339eu1.html
It is interesting to note that the Board of Appeal finds it inventive to mimic the purring of a cat. I would have thought that it is notorious that cats purr, especially when being stroked.
It is difficult to see what can be inventive in moving a cursor on a virtual cat and in response thereto receiving a gentle purr.
In other news about the EPO, watch how generic medicine comes under attack by EPO patents. To quote yesterday’s news: “In the fourth quarter of 2015, a generic competitor unilaterally withdrew its appeal in the case regarding the validity of the Alimta vitamin regimen patent before the Technical Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO). In view of the withdrawal of the appeal, the decision of the Opposition Division of the EPO finding the patents valid is final, and there cannot be further validity challenges to the vitamin regimen patents for Alimta centrally before the EPO.”
“Consider what the European Cancer Patient Coalition wrote two years ago to Battistelli.”What would be the effect of this decision on the general European population? Consider what the European Cancer Patient Coalition wrote two years ago to Battistelli.
IP Watch also published this article yesterday, covering what the EPO’s spinners did to seed PR (positive coverage) about seeds and plants. To quote IP Watch: “The issue of the interplay between patents and plant variety rights heated up last year when the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal upheld patents for plants or seeds obtained through conventional breeding methods, throwing plant breeders’ position into question.
“Before any more powers are passed to the EPO (e.g. the UPC) there needs to be assurance that the EPO isn’t just a Trojan horse serving foreign corporations under a .org domain and the misleading “European” label.”“The rulings prompted the European Parliament to ask the European Commission to investigate the matter, and the Netherlands, which holds the EU Presidency from 1 January – 30 June 2016, to promise to address the imbalance between the two systems (IPW, Biodiversity/Genetic Resources/Biotech, 19 January 2016). The EPO and CPVO said they wanted to increase their exchange of information on the subject.”
Judging by how things have progressed as of late, it won’t be long before the EPO is as much a lobbyist of Monsanto as the USPTO already is. Before any more powers are passed to the EPO (e.g. the UPC) there needs to be assurance that the EPO isn’t just a Trojan horse serving foreign corporations under a .org domain and the misleading “European” label. One needs to also ensure that the EPO actually obeys the law. At present, it obviously does not. █
“The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one`s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.”
–Henry Mencken
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:52 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
And it’s a thoughtcrime to not wish to attend
Summary: President of the EPO, the self-absorbed Battistelli, as described by those who attended his self-glorification event earlier this month
OVER A week ago we learned or became aware of an EPO propaganda event in Rijswijk. We then (very shortly afterwards) posted some details about it (this can be found in a previous article) and would like to post more information for the record.
“In several units, staff members took leave beforehand to avoid being on the list of available candidates for the “volunteer” selection process carried out by the line managers.”
–AnonymousAs we received feedback from a person who participated in the “Meet the President” event and many people were often even forced to attend, there’s low risk of identities becoming known to the ‘gestapo’ [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7].
The “Meet the President” event in Rijswijk was described by an anonymous source as follows:
Many staff tried to escape from being selected as “volunteers” to meet the president. In several units, staff members took leave beforehand to avoid being on the list of available candidates for the “volunteer” selection process carried out by the line managers. That’s why the administration selected many “volunteers” amongst the probationers: they could not easily refuse the offer.
A “volunteer” to meet the President made the following observations:
I went to the Shell building as I was “volunteered” to attend. I saw a ‘white crowd’ [a group of colleagues in white solidarity T-shirts] gathering in the cafeteria as I went through the check point with two security personnel.
“I went to the Shell building as I was “volunteered” to attend.”
–AnonymousAfter a while the reception area in front of the Auditorium was very full of other “volunteers”. Then I heard whistling and noise coming from outside the entrance. The president had arrived.
A bit later I noticed the president asking the servant for a cup of coffee or tea and waiting at the counter in the front area, since hot drinks were apparently all finished. I had come without any expectation and was drinking my coffee (to stay awake in the presentation) somewhere in the crowd but had no interest at all to go talk to the president, and apparently nobody else had either. People were chatting all around but all backs turned to him. He looked extremely alone, almost like a leper and maybe he also felt so. His body language showed enough: hunchbacked and looking down, avoiding eye contact with his staff. This must have lasted not even a minute but it seemed much longer. It was very different from other occasions some years ago when he was mingling with staff and talking to us with panache and confidence.
“[Battistelli] looked extremely alone, almost like a leper and maybe he also felt so. His body language showed enough: hunchbacked and looking down, avoiding eye contact with his staff.”
–AnonymousFinally he got his cup and a girl politely said something to him and he looked happy for a moment. Then Mr. Philpott [a Principal Director] went to say something to him, and a bit later an accompanying person came along, and they went away. We were asked to enter the Auditorium and I went in quickly to find some inconspicuous seat in the middle. The whole speech was EPO-televised so that all staff could see it [on their computer screens]. I noticed a security guard upstairs in the back next to the control room, just like in the flier cartoon [No. 7 "Meet the President"]. But worse was that, when it was over and we were leaving the Auditorium, there were at least 10 security people standing outside, two guarding each exit door. It was bad enough that this whole exercise was just propaganda, but this in particular I found distressing and sad.
The previous report we got on the subject was rather revealing as it also mentioned the propagandistic content of the ‘speech’, which showed an irritated Battistelli. Based on the above text, we find it curious that Battistelli and Philpott may be relatively close (it just says he was among the few who personally approached Battistelli). We find it curious because legal strongarming against Techrights came to a large degree through Philpott. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Patents at 3:50 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Publicado in GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Patents at 9:05 pm por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
El ¨nuevo¨ Microsoft es como la nueva MAFIA, aunque con mucho mejor mercadeopor secretos arreglos de patentes
Como Microsof t anuncia sus tratados de patentes actualmente (cubriendo Android y Linux), usando ambiguedad y eufemismos (¨Acuerdos¨ realmente son secretos asentamientos de patentes)
Sumario: Acer es el último gran OEM que se ha convertido en la caza de brujas por parte de Microsoft contra preinstalladores de Android/Linux, a quienes esta coerciendo en convertirse en transportistas de Microsoft (o enfrentarse a litigaciones sobre patentes de software, con altos costos legales sino bloqueos con altísimos costos por arreglos secretos).
Este artílo cubre una materia sobre la que he estado escribiendo por lo menos una década, frecuentemente de manera dedicada (especialmente el ´arreglo´ de Novell con Microsoft, que puso en riesgo a todo GNU/Linux).
“La frecuentemente repetida (por lo general por los sitios promueven a Microsoft) afirma que “Microsoft ama a Linux “son tonterías de golf. Todos los que han seguido las noticias por más de un año o dos seguramente ya lo saben.”Este artílo sin duda enojará algunas personas en Microsoft, quienes han estado tratando de silenciare este sitio de varias maneras (incluso ellos contactaron my empleador). En este artílo no pretendo ser alarmista pero simplemente explicar su ultima estrategia de ABRAZA, EXTIENDE Y EXTINGUE (E.E.E), especialmente en contra del lider de mercado (excediendo a Windows en el mercado), Android. Todo tiene que ver con patentes, o para ser más específico, patentes de software. Las dubias prácticas de la OEP promovidas por Microsoft (al presionar a sus oficiales) se han convertido en la norma [http://techrights.org/2015/10/16/genesis-of-epo-microsoft-ties/], pero dejaremos eso para otro día, ya hemos escrito un montón acerca de la OEP, no sólo acerca de patentes de software en Europa).
Más extorsiónes de patentes por parte de Microsoft han sido reveladas, TODAVÍA CONTINUA LUCHANDO CONTRA LINUX (que actualmente esta encarnado en relativamente sistemas cerrados tales como Android) usando PATENTES COMO ARMAS por las cuales imponer SPYWARE en todo el mundo. Una vez más, patentes de software o MONOPOLIOS EN ALGORITMOS DE SOFTWARE estan siendo usados por extraordinario apalancamiento y Microsoft pone un ENGAÑOSA etiqueta en arreglos de patentes, tal como las corporaciones sobornan políticos pero disfrazan sus arreglos bajo la mesa como compromisos de discurso o contribuciones de campaña, entre otros hoyos semánticos. La frecuentemente repetida (por lo general por los sitios promueven a Microsoft) afirma que “Microsoft ama a Linux “son tonterías de golf. Todos los que han seguido las noticias por más de un año o dos seguramente ya lo saben. Hemos escrito algunos artílos acerca de esto el año pasado por ejemplo:
“Básicamente él es un sucesor como Joachim Kempin quién no sólo disparó contra animales ilegalmente (y fue arrestado por ello) pero también famosamente dijo ¨Estoy pensando en golpear más duramente a las OEMs que en le pasado con Anti-Linux. [...] para que ellos bailen delicadamente”.”Lo de arriba discute y une a artículos acerca de cinco grandes compañías a quienes Microsoft CHANTAJEÓ (frecuentemente explícitamente) usando patentes en la misma manera que lo hace en contra de Acer, un relativamente promotor de GNU/Linux, incluso en some desktops. ¿Está Microsoft amenazando con enjuciarlos? SI, vean lo que hizo a Samsung. Acordaron un arreglo hace casi un año, sobre el cual Samsung acordó convertirse en su VASALLO (esto fué confirmado más tarde). No es difícil ver lo que pasa aquí; incluso la tristemente célebre ayayera de Microsoft Mary Jo Foley reconoce el rol del chantaje de patentes, usando nonombradas patentes de software por las que Microsoft ha estado usando para derribar/destruir OEMs en todo el mundo, incluso donde las patentes de software no són válidas. La ayayera de Microsoft escribió esto hace unas horas, citando Nick Parker (Vice presidente Corporativo, Equipo Original Manufacturador de Microsoft). Básicamente él es un sucesor como Joachim Kempin quién no sólo disparó contra animales ilegalmente (y fue arrestado por ello) pero también famosamente dijo ¨Estoy pensando en golpear más duramente a las OEMs que en le pasado con Anti-Linux. [...] para que ellos bailen delicadamente¨. Basado en el presente OEM jefe de Microsoft, en palabras de Mary Jo Foley:
De Mayo pasado, hubieron 31 OEMs que acordaron preinstallare aplicaciones y servicios de Microsoft en sus tabletas y teléfonos. Algunos de otros nombres grandes incluyen Samsung, Dell y Pegatron. Hoy en día hay 74 socios de hardware en 25 países en la lista (solicité a Microsoft por una lista al día de los fabricantes de Android que son partes del grupo.)
Aunque los oficialess de Microsoft no dirán explícitamente que los arreglos de preinstallación están atados a su contínua campaña con la que esta persiguiendo más pagos por regalías de patentes por parte de los fabricantes de Android. El blog post de hoy menciona que ¨alineamiento de PI (propiedad intelectual) es una figura importante¨ en esos acuerdos.
En Octubre pasado el arreglo de Microsoft con Asus combinó su licencia de Office app con un arreeglo de patentes sobre Android.
Esto no es inclusión de Microsoft sofware en esos aparatos. Microsoft no hace software ultimamente, sólo hace MALWARE/SPYWARE como Vista 10 (el SUEÑO DE LA NSA HECHO REALIDAD constantemente esta grabando lo que escribes) o Skype (siempre grabandote), con su inabilidad de salirse de los ´updates´ secretos [1] e incluso bloquear la vigilancia masiva en sus ordenadores [2], basado en nuevos artículos (vean abajo).
“La última estrategia de Microsoft contra Linux – como preveí que allá por los días de Novell – es HAGA LO QUE LE DECIMOS O LO VAMOS A DEMANDAR CON PATENTES “”.Recuérden que distribuidores de Android no incluyen MALWARE de Microsoft por antonomasia/fuera de la caja porque lo quieran. Microsoft AMENAZA CON ENJUICIARLOS. La última estrategia de Microsoft contra Linux – como preveí que allá por los días de Novell – es HAGA LO QUE LE DECIMOS O LO VAMOS A DEMANDAR CON PATENTES.”
¿Donde está la RICO Act cuando actualmente necesita ser enforzada?
El amor de Microsoft por Linux es el amor de una serpiente Pitón por corderos. Simplemente le gusta tragarlas. Es delicioso. Es acerca de devorar. Cuando dije esto en Twitter una persona respondió diciendo: ¨Esta industria tiene poca memoria, estamos en el estado de ¨ABRAZA¨ en el ABRAZA, EXTIENDE Y EXTINGUE¨ (E.E.E). █
Contenido relacionado de las noticias:
-
Despues de efectivamente dar a todo el mundo el tratamiento silecioso en cambios a los updates en su ´os´, Microsoft ha creado una página para brevemente enlistar sus updates cuando son emitidos. NO se rinden a la presión pública de los usuarios al tirar una bola sobre el muelle y esperar que tu vayas tras ella entonces todo el ruido se irá.
¨Despues de escuchar al público acerca del nivel de comunicación para los updates de Windows 10, decidimos implementar un nuevo sistema de comunicar los updates al sistema operativo,¨ dijo un vocero de Redmon tempran¨Despues de escuchar al público acerca del nivel de comunicación para los updates de Windows 10, decidimos implementar un nuevo sistema de comunicar los updates al sistema operativo,¨ dijo un vocero de Redmon temprano.
-
Analista revela que Window 10 esta amasando un enorme datos de usuario a pesar de bloquear las tres opciones de rastreo
Todos sabemos que Windows 10 espía a los usuarios. Lo hemos reportado incluso cuando ellos publicaron us Prevision Técnica de Windows 10 en Agosto de 2014. Después de un año que la versión final Windows 10 fue entregada al público, Microsoft confirmó que Windows 10 espíaba a los usuarios en Noviembre de 2015. Añadió en ese momento que no pudo evitar su telemétrico programa para espíar a sus usuarios.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 3:46 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Publicado en Europe, Patents at 11:10 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
A pesar de la propaganda (financiada por la OEP de casi un MILLON DE DOLARES POR AÑO) del Grupo FTI pro UPC
Escándalo de la OEP en España
Sumario: Enfrentando enorme presión de no-tecnicos Eurocráticos como Battistelli, España permanece FUERTE y RESISTE la Corte Unitaria de Patentes (UPC), que pone más poder en las manos de un cuerpo ABUSIVO que grotescamente discrimina contra los Españoles.
MESES despues de que cubrimos los escándalos españoles [1, 2, 3] que implicó a un Vicepresidente de la OEP todo lo que encontramos en los medios de comunicación españoles son piezas de hojaldre acerca de la OEP, generados después que Battistelli visitó Latinoamérica, sacudió unas manos, firmó algunos papeles, después regreso a su castillo en Munich (castillo del que sus empleados escapan a traves de las ventanas a sus muertes, debido a impropios manejos, basado en el sindicato de empleados).
“Explicales más acerca de cómo ‘Gestapo’ de la OEP trata a un líder sindical español, lo que le causa una crisis nerviosas y activamente le impide decir nada acerca de lo que está pasando.”Otra acción (una protesta en este caso, no una huelga todavía) contra la gerencia de la OEP va a tener lugar en menos de una semana. Detalles en el sitio público de la OEP fueron publicados ayer como sigue: ¨En Febrero 17 el llmando Jurado 28 (oficialmente: ¨Jurado del Consejo Administrativo¨) tendrá su segunda reunión en lo que va del año. El Jurado 28 es el ultra secreto propagandista del Consejo Administrativo. La SUEPO invita a todos los empleados a demostrar su inconformidad frente al edificio Isar, empezando a las 12:30 p.m.
¨Con esta demostración queremos apelar a los miembros del Jurado 28 refleccionar en las reformas unilaterales impuestas en sus empleados por (sic) Sr. Battistelli, casi todos ellos quiebran las normas Europeas legales y democraticas, y en muchos caso violan derechos fundamentales.¨
“Pregunta a los delegados que están en el Consejo que investiguen el salario de Battistelli, que curiosamente sigue siendo un secreto muy bien guardado (su predecesora dio a conocer la suya).”Parecen estar en su mira delegados a quienes algunos de nuestros lectores (no sólo empleados de la OEP) pueden contactar. Expliquenles más acerca de cómo ‘Gestapo’ de la OEP [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7] trata a un líder sindical español, lo que le causa una crisis nerviosas y activamente le impide decir nada acerca de lo que está pasando. Pregunten a los delegados que están en el Consejo que investiguen el salario de Battistelli, que curiosamente sigue siendo un secreto muy bien guardado (su predecesora dio a conocer la suya).
Un importante evento que nos dimos cuenta ayer es que España puede estar continuamente dando el dedo medio a la gerencia de la OEP (ojalá tenga manos de pianista) incluso a nivel nacional. Esto es importante por que España es un país grande. Hay muchos aplicantes que vienen de España, ni mencionar examinadores de patentes. ESPAÑA NO NECESITA EL RÉGIMEN DE LA UPC. Se opusó abiertamente incluso hace media década cuando fué referida como la Patente de la UE no UPC (el nombre de la no deseada ´reforma´ continua cambiando con el tiempo en un esfuerzo de contrarrestar su publicidad negativa). La situación esta bien como es. España tiene los recursos de dirigir una oficina de patentes y cortes de patentes, así que España ha antagonizado a la UPC muchas veces en el pasado. La UE/OEP trato de CHANTAJEAR A España para aceptarla. Pero tales maniobras van a enajenarla aún más. España no cambió su posición ante tal chantaje (ante lo cual nos quitamos el sombrero) y basado en esta nueva entrevista con WIPR la Oficina de Propiedad Española permanece consistente y fuerte. Para citar el articulo: ¨El director general de la Oficina de Propiedad Intelectual Español ha apoyado la decisión de su gobierno de rechazar la Patente Unitaria y dijo que los estados miembros de la Unión Europea estan forzados a refleccionar en la importancia del lenguaje Español y su tecnología¨.
“Un importante evento que nos dimos cuenta ayer es que España puede estar continuamente dando el dedo medio a la gerencia de la OEP (ojalá tenga manos de pianista) incluso a nivel nacional.”Hablando to WIPR, Patricia García-Escudero dijo que ella permanece en la decisión del gobierno de no participar en la patente y la presente Corte Unitaria de Patentes (UPC). ESO SON HUEVOS SEÑORES DE LOS OTROS PAÍSES MIEMBROS DE LA UE, APRENDAN Y SAQUEN LA CARA POR SUS PROPIOS PAÍSES Y NO SE DEJEN APLASTAR POR LOS DESEOS DE GRANDES CORPORACIONES DE ARRUINAR EL FUTURO DE SUS NUEVAS GENERACIONES.
¨El año pasado, la Corte de Justicia de la Unión Europea terminó el último desafío legal al Acuerdo de la UPC.
¨El hueso de la discordia fue la exclusión del Español como lenguaje oficial de la UPC, lo que España describió como lo que es: DISCRIMINATORIO. Los lenguajes oficiales son Inglés, Frances y Alemán.
““El Español es uno de los lenguajes más hablados en el mundo (segundo después de Chino), y es usado ampliamente en el Internet. Así que queremos que el Español sea considerado como un lenguaje oficial de la UPC,” dijo Garcia-Escudero.”
“Más países deberían seguir el ejemplo de España y defender a Europa de los trolls de patentes de software, y las masivas empresas extranjeras que deseen demandar (y sacar de la competencia) a una gran cantidad de las PYMEs europeas (en muchos países) de un sóla tiro.”Para el PUEBLO Español y para le Oficina de Propiedad Intelectual Española esto es lo correcto dado el MALTRATO hacia España y al pueblo Español de parte de la OEP. (Vean en Español: "A La Oficina Europea de Patentes (OEP) no le gusta el Español, Así que PorQué los Espańoles la Toleran?"), sin mencionar su desprecio por la lengua de Cervantes -una materia que cubrimos ampliamente aqui con anterioridad.
Más países deberían seguir el ejemplo de España y defender a Europa de los trolls de patentes, las patentes de software, y las grandes corporaciones extranjeras que deseen demandar (y sacar de la competencia) a una gran cantidad de las PYMEs europeas (en muchos países) de un sóla tiro. Eso es lo que la OEP existe prácticamente (IGNOREN LA PUBLICIDAD DE LA OEP Y SU MARQUETEO DE LA UPC DE PARTE DE LOS ABOGADOS DE PATENTES QUIENES GANAN CON LOS JUICIOS DE PATENTES). █
“El día en que el sector de software forme claramente un frente contra las patentes de software, como la industria farmacéutica lo hace por un sistema de patente unitaria … será el día en nuestra causa este cerca de ganar.” —Pieter Hintjens (former FFII President), Entrevista en Fosdem07
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 3:42 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Publicado en Europe, Patents at 10:30 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Los TIRANOS encuentran en Cuba un aliado fácil, especialmente aquellos que literalmente matan (en una carnicería) a su oposición
Castro y el Presidente de Indonesia Sukarno en la Habana, 1960 (Recuerden las Masacres de Indonesia o el Genocidio Indones)
Sumario: Ahora que España esta antagonizando a la OEP (y especialmente la UPC) el Presidente de la OEP ayuda a crear piezas de hojaldre en español cuando visitó Cuba y sus vecinos hispano-hablanetes que históricamente son renombrados por su gobernabilidad desaparecida así como su ilegalidad (como la OEP misma)
“Me has hecho leer Juventud Rebelde & Gramma después de tantos años,” Eduardo me dijo esta mañana. “Estos cubanos no se dan cuenta en lo que se están metiendo (o la yuca que les están arrimando.)”
Eduardo nos ha ayudado a producir y publicar muchas traducciones de articulos acerca de la OEP y proveniendo originalmente de Sudamérica, no está feliz de ver lo que la OEP esta haciendo a la gente pobre, familias pobres, comañías que nunca se volverán ´startups´ ya que las patentes de software las ahogan, e incluso al generoso pueblo Español. La OEP trabaja para las GRANDES CORPORACIONES, usualmente a costa de los demás.
“Hombre” Eduardo añadió, “me has hecho leer Juventud Rebelde & Gramma después de tantos años,”. “Estos cubanos no se dan cuenta en lo que se están metiendo al suavizar las relaciones con la OEP. No esteremos de acuerdo en todo pero esos #!@@*, etc, se están infiltrando en todos los rincones del mundo.”
“La OEP trabaja para las GRANDES CORPORACIONES, usualmente a costa de los demás.”Battistelli ha estado en toda suerte de tours mundiales reciéntemente, en su mayoríá en países opresivos como China y algunos países Latinoamericanos con raramente alguna patente pero con IMENSAS ATROCIDADES (violaciones de los derechos humanos al por mayor). Esto es ¨tan divertido¨ nos dijo uno de los empleados de Battistelli el otro día, ¨su viaje a Latinoamérica.¨
“¿Qué miércoles podemos conseguir de Cuba (o Cuba de nosotros)? Patentes cubanas registradas en la OEP in 2014: 7!”
Aquí esta el “artículo de Gramma acerca de la visita de Pinocho a Cuba,” Eduardo nos dijo, translating this original en Español.
“Parece que estos cubanos no se dan cuenta en lo que se están metiendo,” enfatizó de nuevo.
Estoy poniendo la traducción al ingles por favor lean los originales (sigan los links) ya que no obtuvimos permiso para publicarlos
EPO’s President Visit Cuba
The EPO’s president Mr. Benoit Battistelli, arrived yesterday to our country where he was received in the OCPI (Cuban Office of Intellectual Property)
Author: Orfilio Peláez | orfilio@granma.cu
January 22 2016 19:01:13
The EPO’s president Mr. Benoit Battistelli, arrived yesterday to our country where he was received in the OCPI (Cuban Office of Intellectual Property)
During your stay you will sign a memorandum of understanding with that of the Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment, whose purpose is to promote bilateral cooperation in the field of industrial property.
He informed Granma Sandra Rodriguez, a specialist in communication OCPI, the senior manager will also hold a meeting with the president of the Chamber of Commerce of Cuba, and visit the Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, at which he will give a lecture on European patent system.
The European Patent Office was created on October 5, 1973 and has offices in the cities of The Hague, Berlin, Munich and Vienna.
Lo de arriba es una pieza de hojaldre. Aquí esta el articulo de Juventud Rebelde traducido al inglés:
Estoy poniendo la traducción al ingles por favor lean los originales (sigan los links) ya que no obtuvimos permiso para publicarlos
Patents Offices Will Subscribe Memorandum of Understanding
EPO’s President, Benoit Battistelli, will sign this coming Friday a Memorandum of Understanding with the Cuban Office of Intellectual Property to promote cooperation activities regarding intellectual property matters.
Juventud Rebelde
digital@juventudrebelde.cu
January 22 2016 13:24:44 CDT
EPO’s Presidente, Benoit Battistelli, will sign this coming Friday a Memorandum of Understanding with the Cuban Office of Intellectual Property (OCPI), reported ACN
The document’s subscription follow the purpose to promote cooperation activities regarding Intellectual (Industrial) Property between both institutions, reported to ACN OCPI specialits.
They added that the program of the visit to Havana by French Battistelli also includes a meeting with President of the Chamber of Commerce of Cuba.
In addition, a tour of areas of the Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, where he will give a lecture on the European Patent System.
EPO came under the European Patent Convention, also known as Munich Patent Convention, signed on 5 October 1973.
EPO is based in The Hague, Berlin, Munich and Vienna, and even is receiving Office for applications in the Patent Cooperation Treaty administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
Battistelli has served as an official in European institutions, has the title of Professor Honoris Causa by the Renmin University, based in Beijing, PRC, and an Honorary Doctorate awarded by the Menendez Pelayo International University in Santander, Spain, among others distinctions.
WIPO granted in April its Gold Medal for Cuban medicine to Itolizumab [http://www.juventudrebelde.cu/cuba/2013-11-13/demuestran-eficacia-de-anticuerpo-monoclonal-en-el-tratamiento-de-la-psoriasis/], a humanized monoclonal antibody recognizing leukocyte antigen CD6 for the treatment of autoimmune diseases, particularly psoriasis, said the MSc Maria de los Angeles Sánchez Torres, director of OCPI.
This is a product of the Center for Molecular Immunology [http://www.juventudrebelde.cu/cuba/2016-01-16/ampliara-centro-de-inmunologia-molecular-de-cuba-sus-productos/], indicated for severe psoriasis, a chronic inflammatory skin disease that affects about 125 million people worldwide, he said.
Although there are countries that are engaged in scientific research in Latin America, proportionally Cuba, with 10, has the greatest number of gold medals has WIPO, a specialized agency of the UN, created in 1967, in Geneva (Switzerland) and with 187 member states at present.
Todavía no estamos seguros on no nos decidimos a apostar si Cuba se arriesga (o si pone en peligro) su creciente reputación por asociarse o afiliación con Battistelli o tal vez la reputación de Battistelli es tan mala que verlo con oficiales cubanos actualmente mejore su imagen. Eduardo va por la segunda opción.
Noten que basado en lo de arriba Battistellii también se reunió con el Presidente de la Camara de Comercio de Cuba. La OEP misma reciéntemente publicó algunas piezas de hojaldre acerca de esta reciénte visita/evento, el cual (hipotetisamos) se orquestró entre otras cosas para diseminar cubrimente positivo en el lenguaje Español. Esto es lo que la gerencia de la OEP llama gerencia de percepción – típico término para esta estrategia – o lo que es llamado campaña de posicionamiento en los medios (quota). Uno podría legitimamente preguntarse si el equipo de relaciones públicas de la OEP ´ayudó´ (por medio de escritores de ficción) publicar las piezas de hojaldre de articulos de arriba. Eduardo menciona la clásica estrategia de desinformación para hacerla parecer como algo positivo en las mentes de los Latinoamericanos que están desinformados de como Colombia ha vendido el futuro de sus desarrolladores y abierto las puertas al Colonialismo digital aún más, ahora pasa lo mismo con Cuba, cuyo gobierno propició un acuerdo de paz entre la guerrilla colombiana y el gobierno de ese país para reasumir su vida civil limpios de polvo y paja después de tanto genocidio contra los campesinos colombianos.
Recuerden que España es una espina al lado de la OEP y en orden de generar algún débil reportaje en Español de Battistelli para no necesariamente visitar a España (a Battistelli lo queremos en Pamplona la primera semana de julio para soltarle los toros de San Fermín). Los lectores de habla hispana chocarían con muchas noticias de Latinoamerica también.
“Recuerden que España es una espina al lado de la OEP y en orden de generar algún débil reportaje en Español de Battistelli para no necesariamente visitar a España.”Acerca de patentes cubanas, nos dijo una persona, ¨por supuesto que los Estados Unidos serían su primera opción, Cuba y Panama (y por extensión toda Latinoamérica) no cuentan¨ (definitivamente no en la OEP, así que tal vez Battistelli espere cambiar eso).
Nuestra próxima publicación ayudará a demostrar por que la OEP esta desesperada por cobertura favorable en Español. LA ÚLTIMA COSA QUE LA OEP QUIERE AHORA ES QUE EL PUEBLO ESPAÑOL SE DE CUENTA DE SUS SERIOS ABUSOS – abusos que trata de encubrir a toda costa, incluso aplastando los derechos humanos, aplastar las uniones, sus abogados, delegados políticos, reporteros y así. Tomó un largo tiempo para las personas fuera de los circulos alemanes y holandeses darse cuenta de lo que la gerencia de la OEP ha estado haciendo. Un montón de españoles todavía no tienen idea de estos sucesos por que los medios españoles raramente los cubren. █
“No tocaré en Cuba hasta que no haya más Castro y haya una Cuba libre. Para mí Cuba es la prisión más grande del mundo, y yo sería muy hipócrita si fuera a tocar alli.”
–Pitbull
“A Battistelli lo queremos en Pamplona la primera semana de julio para soltarle los toros de San Fermín.”
–Clamor de un Preocupado Ciudadano Español
Permalink
Send this to a friend
02.12.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:15 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Like the mock trials recently used against EPO staff representatives?
Photo of UPC mock trial by Sofia Willquist (context)
Summary: A look at the latest wave of lobbying for the Unitary Patent Court (UPC), courtesy of patent lawyers who profit from patent disputes, and the utterly shameless marketing from the European Patent Office (EPO)
“UPC mock trial before the Swedish-Baltic court in Stockholm. Historic moment!” That’s what Sofia Willquist just wrote. One can imagine — and be correct about — what Willquist does for a living.
Benjamin Henrion asked her, “was it in Swedish?”
“The UPC may be exciting to patent lawyers (and their biggest clients), but not to anybody else, definitely not to Spain, which got blackmailed over its stance on the UPC.”“Yet another argument for Swedes to challenge this language discrimination at the ECHR in Strasbourg,” he added later. “UPC court in Sweden will be in English. Where is the Swedish language? Time for Strasbourg,” he wrote, clarifying that: “As far as I know, English is not an official language of any of those states.”
Imagine being an Italian or Spanish person such as a small business owner, then suddenly getting sued from abroad (e.g. US) for allegedly infringing on a patent, only to be forced to hire lawyers and interpreters (for defence of one’s innocence) because a trial in a foreign language is being imposed without choice, irrespective of the native/local language in the territory of alleged infringement. Oh, wouldn’t the trolls just love it! Texans can comprehend British accents.
“Pay close attention to who’s promoting the UPC.”We wrote about language aspects of the UPC yesterday, in relation to Spanish (by some criteria, the world's most spoken language). See our article "A La Oficina Europea de Patentes (OEP) no le gusta el Español, Así que PorQué los Espańoles la Toleran?"
The UPC may be exciting to patent lawyers (and their biggest clients), but not to anybody else, definitely not to Spain, which got blackmailed over its stance on the UPC. Spain has had its share of scandals (some involve a Spanish Vice-President at the EPO [1, 2, 3]) and there are some puff pieces about the EPO in Spanish right now, but one cannot lose sight of the fact that the UPC is driven to a large degree by few people's greed, even political abuse. Watch Alexander Esslinger (“patently German”) marketing the UPC this week with “Kevin Mooney: #UPC opt-out fee would most likely be 0 EUR instead of 80 EUR as originally planned” (the real cost is being passed to the public, not the applicants for example, so this misses the point).
“Watch out as the UPC basically became one of several Trojan horses, alongside TTIP, TTP, and so on.”Pay close attention to who’s promoting the UPC. See our recent article "UPC: To Understand Who Would Benefit From It Just Look at Who’s Promoting It (Like TPP)". The EPO is funding pro-UPC propaganda events. There are even patent lawyers that rebrand themselves to capitalise on the UPC. Here we have UPC advocacy from “Bristows UPC” (basically Bristows LLP rebranded to reach out to potential clients). They wrote yesterday that: “The UPC Preparatory Committee has published locations so far confirmed for the UPC divisions, including addresses and photos. The information, published on the UPC website here, will be added to as more locations are confirmed, but it currently comprises: the Court of Appeal in Luxembourg; four local divisions in Germany (Düsseldorf, Hamburg, Munich and Mannheim) the Nordic-Baltic regional division based in Stockholm (covering Sweden, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania), and the German branch of the central division (in Munich but in a different location from the local division). It should be noted, however, that the UK government decided last year that the UK branch of the central division and also the UK’s local division will be in the newly-built Aldgate Tower in London, and therefore it is expected that this information will be shortly be included.”
Watch out as the UPC basically became one of several Trojan horses, alongside TTIP, TTP, and so on. It’s about benefiting those who already benefited for many years and became very affluent thanks to policies (like tax exemptions and bans/sanctions of competition). Think along the lines of I.S.D.S. It boils down to protectionism.
“The EPO is now trying to paint itself as a proponent of plant varieties; all this while promoting the Monsanto agenda.”One can rest assured that the EPO will continue lobbying for the UPC. The managers (essentially top managers) seem to have made it their number one objective and the EPO's PR team works overtime, even on January first. At least three tweets with 404 errors were posted yesterday (on Thursday) by the EPO’s Twitter account. Yes, in three different tweets from @EPOorg the links to the EPO’s site were broken. The EPO is rotting, but Team Battistelli still tries to maintain a perception of legitimacy. Yesterday there were no less than two ‘news’ items in the EPO‘s Web site, one pertaining to patents on plants (looks like a public relations stunt/exercise, where a patent office that notoriously allows patents on plants does some photo-op with “Plant Variety Office”). To quote the EPO’s spinners: “The two organisations agreed to further strengthen their relationship through the exchange of information in the area of plant-related patents and plant variety rights. The Arrangement was signed in Munich, where the CPVO delegation, led by President Martin Ekvad, was welcomed by EPO President Benoît Battistelli.”
Don’t laugh. They actually mean it. The EPO is now trying to paint itself as a proponent of plant varieties; all this while promoting the Monsanto agenda. Incidentally, in yesterday’s news in English (Swiss Info) there was this article that said: “The European Patent Office (EPO) has rejected a request by Nespresso to revoke a patent owned by the Ethical Coffee Company (ECC), which is now calling for the halt of sales of infringing Nespresso machines in Germany. [...] For its part, Nespresso expressed its disappointment in a statement, and said it plans to appeal the EPO decision.”
“The EPO has become one massive scandal.”At the EPO, corporations (not SMEs) are patenting just about anything these days; the EPO allows this in order to drive up the numbers, just like in the US. There are “100 million patent documents” which the EPO now brags giving access to (warning: epo.org link). Imagine having to do ‘research’ on patents (with this kind of volume) in order to avert wilfull infringement. “You can subscribe to PATSTAT’s worldwide bibliographical patent data,” the EPO wrote, “covering nearly 100 million patent documents from more than 90 authorities worldwide. Optionally, you can also include worldwide legal status patent data and online access to European Patent Register data will be available soon.”
With the UPC, for instance, the archive would be further broadened. How many individual/independent inventors (or SMEs) can afford to deal with this mess? Who profits from EPO’s extensive and ever-growing patent archive, not to mention expensive storage/scanning? Who profits from patent searches? Remember what a French Former VP is doing right now [1, 2, 3, 4]. The EPO has become one massive scandal. The UPC would further empower these lunatics. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
Content is available under CC-BY-SA