02.24.16
Posted in Law, Patents at 9:59 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
EPO parallels aplenty
The thug in chief, Francis Gurry. Photo source: WIPO
Summary: The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) comes under attack for ignoring US law and attacking those who report issues with that, as told by people from the inside just hours ago
THE latest WIPO scandal has been covered and debated in many Web sites by now. It’s not a subject we follow closely (although we covered WIPO in the distant past), but we do occasionally mention it in daily links. At the core of the matter (or issue) there is lack of transparency, as it serves to hide abusive practices. But moreover, as this is a United Nations body at hand (i.e. no friend of the US), there’s the issue of loyalty to North Korea, which the UN does not exclude. Servers and routers from the US were being sent to North Korea, so the House Foreign Affairs Committee mostly worries about this for political reasons, notably fear of countries that don’t bend the US’ way, both militarily and when it comes to so-called ‘IP’ policy (not just patents). Then there’s a similar issue arising from cooperation with Iran. We put aside the political matters (Francis Gurry is from Australia, not the US) and deal mostly with the response to staff which expressed concern/dissent. WIPO had no whistleblower policy in place at the time, so Dr. Brown, for example, was operating based on gut feeling when she spoke to her boss, Gurry. Brown wrongly assumed that the US would protect her actions, but this was not the case. A lot of what happened inside WIPO is similar to what’s happening at the EPO, where the crisis has some resemblance if not also connections to WIPO. We watched it live and made notes about the video. Here is the full (raw) broadcast:
Among the issues raised: gross human rights violations, attacks on unions, intolerance of whistleblowers, “theft of DNA” (whatever that means), infringement of property rights (or approaching without authorisation and then confiscating personal belongings), DNA-level or other Orwellian forms of surveillance, and (re)election of a head without any sane democratic process. WIPO resorted to threatening or demonising people using journalists too, all while threatening to “take down the article and issue an apology” when the reporters didn’t suit WIPO’s agenda (similar to what EPO had done to me). Pooley mentioned the person who had “committed suicide” like in the EPO, amid all the scandals and the vicious attack on those who spoke about it. For people who work at the EPO the above video might be of interest. It’s only hours old. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents, Videos at 9:35 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The EPO’s staff union, SUEPO, shares an English (by subtitles) version of a recent interview with SUEPO’s lawyer
THE unrest at the EPO and the protests organised by staff have gotten plenty of coverage from Dutch media. That was at the end of last month. We have some English translations of articles in Dutch, e.g. [1, 2]. Here is the video posted a week ago and made public on YouTube (and accessible as Flash from SUEPO’s Web site). It’s reposted below in WebM format in order to help bypass software patents, DRM, JavaScript, cookies etc.
Due to the way YouTube works, one must open the video in YouTube in order to see the English subtitles. Mind the part which speaks about the EPO’s Investigative Unit [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7].
Hopefully the above can help broaden the reach of this important, is not historic, information. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Europe, Fraud, Patents, Rumour at 12:33 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Investigative journalism from Croatia and this week’s probe into WIPO misconduct (and subsequent attack on the whistleblowers, including legal threats against bloggers) help put together a broader picture
Having spent some time separating facts from rumours (there are plenty which we still investigate) about the EPO, we are now ready to proceed to something new, or rather a new kind of scandal that nobody seems to have paid attention to.
Based on what we are hearing (and that’s not just a rumour), there is immense pressure on managers at the EPO to pretend that they support the President, even if deep inside they don’t. As one anonymous comment put it yesterday: “Certainly the letter will be signed by the various Minnoye, Topić, Casado, Lutz, Bergot, Hannard, McGinley, Requena et al. and by a bunch of fearful PDs and directors. But the letter will not help them. On the contrary, it will prove that the staff was right in their protest. If Kongstad’s letter is not a joke, the crisis is unavoidable and BB must either give in or go. Of course, with cooperation money and with secret deals BB convince some delegations to vote against the draft letter and create new obstacles. But the conflict will remain unsolved and explode again after few weeks. A good advice to BB: Monsieur, pack your luggages and go back to Saint-Germain-en-Laye.”
This mirrors something that we saw before with Željko Topić (letters of intent and perhaps forced ‘apologies’ under threats). One reader told us: “I am hearing interesting rumblings about the senior management “petition” to the AC. Some PDs are giving the Directors a “free vote” as to whether they sign or not, others are telling them that if they don’t sign it there will be grave consequences.”
Yet another comment said: “It should also be investigated whether Mr Kongstad received monthly payments from a secret budget of department 4.3 if proven, it would be scandalous! Mr Del Pozo, PD Finances, should finally come out with the truth about all that he had to sign. Soon or later all the dirty tricks and manoeuvres will be uncovered!”
This is not yet known to us, so it should be classified as a rumour. There is definitely some kind of an H.R. crisis at the EPO right now. There’s no denying that [1, 2]. Tomorrow we are going to show a leaked message from Topić, relating to H.R. Today, however, we wish to share something different, also relating to Topić.
As vigilant readers may have already noticed (it’s everywhere in the news right now), WIPO is in big trouble. As EPO-funded media put it: “The long saga that has unfolded since then WIPO deputy director general James Pooley made a number of serious allegations against the organisation’s director-general Francis Gurry in a report of misconduct filed in April 2014 may be drawing to an end. News stories from several sources – including the Fox News website and The Register – state that a report into the claims undertaken by the UN’s Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) has been submitted to Gabriel Duque, the chair of WIPO’s General Assemblies.”
Here is how WIPR put it
A joint subcommittee at the US Congress will hold a hearing this week on whistle-blowers and accountability at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
The hearing, scheduled for tomorrow, February 24, is expected to reference the results of a pending UN investigation into WIPO and hear from ex-employees at the organisation.
James Pooley, a former WIPO deputy director, Moncef Kateb, ex-president of the staff association, and Miranda Brown, an adviser to WIPO’s director general Francis Gurry, will be witnesses.
So what does it have to do with EPO? Glad you asked. Apart from the fact that Battistelli may be the next Gurry, there is something interesting about Topić. A reader sent us the details. Another newly-translated Croatian article from 2012 helps support this reader’s claims.
“Referring to the recent Techrights posting,” wrote this reader, the “Dnevno article from 5 February 2016 includes a mention of the role of the former Ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Ms. Vesna Vuković, as part of the “diplomatic network” of the former Croatian President Ivo Josipović who failed to secure re-election in 2015.
“The English translation of another older article from 2012 which describes the role of Ms. Vuković in more detail. In view of the recent speculation about a link between Battistelli and the “Bygmalion affair” in France, it would be interesting to know whether any EPO funds got diverted to Croatia to support Josipovic’s re-election campaign in Croatia during 2014/2015.”
Here is the Dnevno article in English with our emphasis in yellow:
A DIPLOMATIC CHAMELEON
Vesna Vuković hosts Mr. Topić in Geneva despite having systematically reported him to the State Attorney’s Office and the USKOK*
[*The Croatian State Prosecutor’s Office for the Suppression of Organized Crime and Corruption]
Author: Darko Petričić
Wednesday, 4th April 2012 – 11:19
The new government is persistent in its strange attempts to bolster Mr. Željko Topić, against whom a dozen serious criminal charges have been filed. These charges not only appear to tally with each other but are dispersed over a broad timeline and encompass many diverse sections and articles of the Criminal Code. Neither the State Attorney’s Office (DORH) nor the Croatian State Prosecutor’s Office for the Suppression of Organized Crime and Corruption (USKOK), have taken any action so far for reasons known to only to themselves.
During the last month, we witnessed the attempts of the new government to make bizarre appointments starting with the cases of Mr. Ferenčak at JANAF and Mr. Kovačević at HEP and culminating in the notorious case of Željko Topić at the State Intellectual Property Office (DZIV).
The DZIV – identified but not yet fully explored as an international epicenter of corruption in Croatia
There would be nothing strange about all this, if it wasn’t for the small but interesting detail that a dozen serious criminal charges have been filed against Željko Topić which not only appear to tally with each other but are dispersed over a broad timeline and encompass many diverse sections and articles of the Criminal Code. For reasons known only to themselves neither the State Attorney’s Office nor the Croatian State Prosecutor’s Office for the Suppression of Organized Crime and Corruption (USKOK) have taken any action so far, although many insiders who are familiar with the affairs of the DZIV and its operations as well as with the activities of Željko Topić believe that the USKOK urgently needs to move into that state institution with their best agents in order to carry out a thorough investigation of the allegedly serious wrongdoings.
Among the criminal charges filed against Mr. Topić, and in this case also the representative of the international company Lufthansa in Croatia, are two complaints filed by the owner of the international AirPlus trademark. It is interesting to note that the current Ambassador of the Republic of Croatia to the UN in Geneva is the co-signatory of these criminal charges against the Director of the Croatian State Intellectual Property Office, and the representative of Lufthansa in Croatia, the attorney Andrew Matijević. In addition, over the phone, she advised some legal representatives of the owner of the Airplus trademark about what needed to be done. It might have been concluded that her main concern was to have these charges relating to the most prominent unlawful activities at the Croatian State Intellectual Property Office dealt with.
Furthermore, in the summer of 2010, Mrs. Vesna Vuković personally contacted the Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Dubravko Palijaš with urgent requests to accelerate the processing of the previously reported criminal acts. So it is patently obvious that Ms. Vesna Vuković was involved in the pressing of charges against of Mr. Topić and that she was personally motivated to do so. But that’s not the end of the story. Together with the owner of the Airplus trademark, in the summer of 2010 she co- signed the letters addressed to the USKOK and the National Council for Monitoring and Combating Corruption in Croatia and provided the legal framework of the complaint which requested the dismissal of the Director of Croatia Airlines, Mr. Ivan Mišetić, based on the published news that he simultaneously occupied two positions of control – one of which was in Buzin [near Zagreb], and the other on the Lufthansa Supervisory Board in Frankfurt am Main. The story about this case was first covered by the journalist Joseph Bohutinski in the weekly magazine “Business” and was later republished in several other media.
Following that complaint, Mr. Ivan Mišetić was dismissed in the autumn of 2010 and everything else, especially his public statement concerning the termination of his employment relationship with Croatia Airlines, is a trite and fabricated story for public consumption. However, nothing has happened since then in the competent institutions of the Republic of Croatia regarding the issue of criminal liability for damage to the national airline and there is still no information as to whether the person in question paid taxes in Croatia for the unlawful supervisory position which he held for many years in the German Lufthansa or whether his income from that source has remained “invisible” to our tax administration. To this day there is still no answer to the following scandalous question with its manifold implications for issues relating to politics, corruption and privatization: Is Lufthansa the hidden owner of Croatia Airlines and, if so, who facilitated this?
Vesna Vuković – moral and professional diplomatic ‘chameleon’ of the Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs (MVEP)
What is particularly striking is the highly unusual behavior of our Ambassador in Geneva and her official position in relation to the above matters. As a matter of fact, from the date of her appointment until now, she has received the above mentioned Director of the State Intellectual Property Office, Mr. Željko Topić, as her guest on at least two occasions because her job description and activities include following the activities of an international institution called the “World Intellectual Property Organization” (WIPO) whose headquarters are located in Geneva and of which the Croatian State Intellectual Property Office is a member. The evidence of this can easily be found on the official websites the of the Croatian State Intellectual Property Office and the WIPO.
She knew – or at least she must have known – who Mr. Željko Topić was immediately after his first visit to Geneva. In accordance with the structure of the Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs (MVEP) as well as from the point of view of security and information exchange with Zagreb headquarters, she should have been obliged at that point to write an official note and officially send it to the competent minister, with a copy to the Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs (MVEP) Sector VII in charge of information and safety.
According to the Croatian Foreign Affairs Act, the general regulations of the MVEP and the professional obligations of any ambassador, they have to function as State Attorneys. For example if, when traveling by public transportation, they accidentally overhear a conversation describing actions which threaten the security of the Republic of Croatia or learn of a criminal offence and the names of persons associated with it, immediately upon arriving at their office or embassy, they must report this in writing to the competent state bodies according to their internal organization. The proof of this can be found in the thousands of diplomatic dispatches which are currently being published by Wikileaks in a manner which illustrates the aforementioned problem by means of the publication of confidential emails between the embassies of various countries around the world and the capitals of their countries of origin and vice versa.
Why did Ambassador Vuković failed to act in the appropriate manner? Considering that a key role in her irregular and unlawful appointment to the position of the Croatian Ambassador in Geneva at the beginning of last year was played by one of the advisors to President Josipović to the detriment of other candidates and considering that, according to the information available to us, the President of the Republic of Croatia is one of the main patrons of the incriminated DZIV Director, Ms. Vuković may very well have concluded that she should be at the disposal of her new “boss” even though he is only one of the shapers of Croatian foreign policy. This supposition is supported by the fact that the legal representative of the Director of the DZIV, Mr. Željko Topić, in one of the aforementioned criminal proceedings is Silvio Hraste from the Zagreb law firm on whose premises part of election headquarters of Ivo Josipović during his Presidential campaign was located, according to some unofficial sources.
For the moment it remains unclear as to how Minister Željko Jovanović was dragged into this dirty game and why, for more than a month now, there have been no official reports of the inspection of the Croatian State Intellectual Property Office by the competent ministries which was conducted more than a month ago on 2 February 2012. It took only one day to complete the inspection of the Croatian State Intellectual Property Office which was conducted under the control of Mr. Saša Zelenika, Deputy Minister to Mr. Jovanović. We do not know whether or not the leaders of the WIPO in Geneva are familiar with this first-class corruption scandal and its epicenter in Croatia. However, according to our sources this case may soon acquire an international dimension.
Before his election as President, Ivo Josipović was a frequent guest at the Croatian State Intellectual Property Office and in the office of the Director, Mr. Topić. Since he relied on the staff of the Croatian Composers’ Society (ZAMP) to fill the most important positions in the Croatian State Intellectual Property Office, he was certainly very interested in making sure that the international component responsible for intellectual property in Geneva was “covered” by a reliable person in the ambassadorial “network” as he himself likes to call it. All of this is the obvious proof of the operation of a parallel system of government inside our country and on an international level.
One has the impression that the current relations between the Pantovčak [the President's Office] and Geneva are based on the same pattern as the already famous “Čačić’s axiom” [attributed to the former Deputy Prime Minister Radimir Čačić]: “No Government, from now on you talk only to me! – and involve bypassing the official protocol at the Zrinjevac [the Ministry of Foreign Affairs]. There’s nothing new about this. As the first President of the Republic of Croatia, Franjo Tudjman, used to say: “Tie the horse where I tell you.” This sentence usually referred to Croatian foreign policy actions and the inter-Governmental appearances of the then Foreign Minister Mate Granić who was never completely trusted by Tudjman.
EPO H.R. must have been utterly poor for quite a while if it actually hired a man with dozens of criminal cases against him, according to the above article. On numerous occasions we already covered the UN and the Lufthansa aspects, though not WIPO. Readers can find coverage on these in older articles.
Our reader has remarked on the above article as follows:
As the article about Ms. Vukovic refers to the WIPO in Geneva, the links about the shenanigans in that organisation which are appended below might also be of interest:
There should be a live webcast here for anybody interested starting at 14:00 Washington time on 24 Feb (that’s later today):
http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/hearing/joint-subcommittee-hearing-establishing-accountability-world-intellectual-property
Some reports:
Congress to quiz WIPO whistle-blowers
http://www.worldipreview.com/news/congress-to-quiz-wipo-whistle-blowers-9608
Where is the Report on the Allegations From WIPO Whistleblowers?
https://www.whistleblower.org/blog/122922-where-report-allegations-wipo-whistleblowers
Secret UN report finds against controversial WIPO chief
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/22/wipo_whistleblower_report/
Pressure grows on WIPO DG Gurry after submission of UN report and further explosive Pooley claims
http://www.iam-media.com/blog/Detail.aspx?g=b7e820d7-ba8f-4e30-a385-0aadd2315000
Pooley’s written testimony can be found here:
“Based on my experience I can report to you that the vast majority of the people at WIPO are competent, dedicated and deliver as required, many of them well beyond that. But this belies a profoundly serious problem with governance. The agency, in my opinion, is run by a single person who is not accountable for his behavior. He is able to rule as he does only with the tacit cooperation of member countries who are supposed to act as WIPO’s board of directors. And he is ultimately protected by an anachronistic shield of diplomatic immunity.”
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA16/20160224/104528/HHRG-114-FA16-Wstate-PooleyJ-20160224.pdf
Miranda Brown’s testimony is here:
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA16/20160224/104528/HHRG-114-FA16-Wstate-BrownM-20160224.pdf
Interestingly enough, we found two of the above reports ourselves (IAM and WIPR), but didn’t quite imagine that other people also noticed them. There is now another interesting dimension to explore; if there a connection (even if slight/meager) between what happens in WIPO and what happens inside the EPO (except the legal threats sent to bloggers in order to silence them)? Željko Topić might be just one link among several more that we just don’t know about (yet). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:03 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Just look what a disgrace the European Patent Office (EPO) has led Europe to…
Summary: A glance at the latest news regarding the Unitary Patent Court (UPC), which is effectively an antidemocratic EPO-led push to tilt the system in favour of patent trolls, large corporations (even from abroad), and their patent lawyers
THE EPO is today’s most urgent subject as there’s a major turning point that may soon have the Office massively reformed. The Office desperately requires reforms at many levels and areas, for the sake of Europe, for the sake of science, and for the sake of EPO workers (not bureaucrats). As a software developer, I too have much at stake. The ‘fat cats’ with their massive salaries at EPO management have other motivations in mind.
Based on this new tweet, there will soon be more lies, propaganda, and damn lies from EPO management. They’re cooking the books and expanding patent scope so as to game the numbers (not comparable year-to-year). “Let’s start the countdown,” said the official Twitter account, “we’ll be announcing our yearly figures in 10 days! Stay tuned to learn about patenting trends: #EPOresults” (that nobody would believe).
Wow! Marketing and publicity stunts. Even a “countdown”!
“The Office desperately requires reforms at many levels and areas, for the sake of Europe, for the sake of science, and for the sake of EPO workers (not bureaucrats).”Will that be as accurate as the other propaganda apparently still in the making? Propaganda which tries to portray EPO staff as happy and satisfied while the very opposite is true?
The EPO’s core issue is that it’s steered not by scientists but by selfish political bureaucrats like Battistelli. One of their latest projects is the UPC, which would definitely harm Europe as a whole (we explained the reasons many times before).
When the EPO-funded media doesn’t just utter patent maximalism (it does it almost every day nowadays) it promotes the UPC (referendum angle), conveniently not disclosing its relationship with the EPO. This long IP Kat thread about the viability of the UPC makes it clear that it’s anything but a done deal. We are not going to comment on all the Brexit/EU thing (it’s a little off limits or out of scope), but let’s just say that contrary to what the EPO says and what its paid ‘publishers’ are saying, the UPC is possible to stop. If it gets any further, it will undermine Europe’s interests and facilitate further passage of wealth to the rich, including the rich who live abroad (outside Europe). Only their patent lawyers would share the loot.
“The EPO’s core issue is that it’s steered not by scientists but by selfish political bureaucrats like Battistelli.”Here one can see the EPO-funded and UPC-loving IAM still pushing for the UPC (that’s twice in one week, from Wild in particular). Journalism or lobbying? Certainly the latter mixed with a little of the former for perceived legitimacy. Just look who foots the bill. Remember that IAM receives EPO money to organise a pro-UPC event in the US right now. Yes, in the US. And remember which firm the EPO hired to help the lobbying; it’s a Washington-based firm. That’s quite revealing, is it not? It shows who's likely to benefit.
To quote Wild (article headline is “Why there’ll be no equivalent of the Eastern District of Texas at the Unified Patent Court”): “Last Thursday a room-full of leading Silicon Valley IP professionals joined IAM for our Inside Europe’s New Patent Market – Winning Strategies for the UPC Regime conference at the Golden Gate Club in San Francisco. Over the course of the day, delegates were given insight and inside information on the new system from a speaking faculty composed of European patent litigators and attorneys, senior in-house IP managers and intermediaries, as well as Margot Fröhlinger, principal director of patent law at the EPO.”
“Just look who foots the bill.”UPC would certainly bring patent trolls to Europe. As MIP put it the other day: “Will patent trolls qualify for SME fee discount in #upc? A big concern raised by panel at #ipwomen forum!”
UPC as an open door to lots of embargoes was also noted earlier this week, with a link to this article from lawyers’ media in the UK. To quote the opening bits: “The UPC will have jurisdiction over a market as big as that in the US and it will have the power to grant interim injunctive relief extending over this whole market.
“This is outright mockery of European democracy.”“Assessing the way the UPC might consider applications for interim injunctions will help businesses evaluate whether the benefits of embracing the new unitary patent and UPC outweigh the risks.
“There are clues to how the UPC might review applications for interim injunctions in the underlying legal framework for the Court. Practices could differ from what companies are used to in proceedings before the national courts in Europe.”
“We invite more resistance to the UPC.”Another lawyers’ site takes note of the latest UPC moves in Germany, stating that “draft legislation is supposed to pass the parliamentary chambers (Bundestag and Bundesrat) in Summer 2016.”
We have already explained the role of nepotism and abusive/dirty politics in this. The UPC truly is a travesty and some of the funding for UPC propaganda comes from the EPO and patent lawyers. This is outright mockery of European democracy.
If Battistelli fails to bring about the UPC, then even his rich masters will ‘plonk’ him like a fish. We invite more resistance to the UPC. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Law, Patents at 7:11 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Won’t take no for an answer…
Summary: The growing conflict between public interests, government patent policies, and rich people (or their corporations) who want it all, not to mention their lawyers/lobbyists
TODAY’S EPO openly promotes software patents in Europe, in effect, metaphorically, spitting on the EPC on which it was founded. This is what happens when maximalists are foolishly put in change. What happens in the US right now is also interesting. Corporations there control the government more so than in Europe, and some increasingly take their government to court over alleged ‘damages’ (i.e. policies that don’t favour said corporations).
Never forget CAFC’s introduction of software patents several days ago. Now, see this latest post about CAFC, which says: “As a starting point for most claims against a government is with sovereign immunity. The U.S. Government claims sovereign immunity against suits except where waived. In the patent context, the U.S. government has waived its immunity, but limits the procedure and form of recovery. In particular, 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a) provides that “the owner’s remedy shall be by action against the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims for the recovery of his reasonable and entire compensation for such use and manufacture.” The statute also provides cover for contractors or other non-government-entities who infringe the patent “with the authorization or consent of the Government” so that those actions must also be pursued against the U.S. Government. The Court of Federal Claims is located in the same Madison Place building as the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.”
As we noted in passing in the previous post, ISDS (and its encapsulating ‘hosts’, e.g. TTIP/TTPP) is becoming a growing danger. Can corporations, in the guise of “investors”, sue the government for taking action against software patents? Can patent trolls too foresee lawsuits against the US government, over Alice at SCOTUS for example? SCOTUS (US Supreme Court) typically rules in favour of corporations, with or without Scalia at the helm, and this new report from WIPR says “US Supreme Court hears arguments on enhanced damages” (who after all would benefit from that?).
Yesterday we found this new paper from Martin H. Snyder of Main Sequence Technology Inc. The abstract says: “Patent systems have not successfully adjusted to the advent of the Information Age. Law developed during the Industrial Age generates harmful distortions when faced with process-based inventions that result in new and useful information. Congress and the courts have attempted solutions, but they are unsatisfying in aspects of repeatability and lack of coherent separation of subject matter eligibility and patentability, with such separation seemingly implicit in the scheme of the patent act. A unifying doctrine of eligibility for information inventions is needed that adheres to standing patent law, court procedures, and normative expectations. Courts should require that process-based inventions have an identified result, which should be construed as a matter of law. Current Markman procedures should be expanded and treated as both eligibility and probable cause phases of the validity inquiry. There is a bar on inventions considered to be abstract ideas, as well as a bar on patenting printed material. These longstanding bars exist because virtually any human activity may be characterized as a process, thus bringing unlimited patent rights into direct conflict with other Constitutional rights. Despite those bars, thousands of computer and biotech patents have issued that constructively cover information and/or the utility derived therefrom. Finding disqualifying abstraction in eligibility and disqualifying abstraction in patentability requires different tests. If a process-based invention’s result is found to comprise information, a new test for eligibility should be applied. The current Alice test should be applied to the patentability inquiry. Abstraction is a continuum on linguistic and semiotic levels, requiring social conventions to create meaning. Finding justiciable meaning in social conventions creates insurmountable challenges to ethical enforcement of intellectual property rights. The literal root of the word abstract means to “draw away”, or consume. The proposed eligibility test requires that the information-consumer of a process-based invention’s result may not be a human being. Because non-human intelligences are a new fact in the world, products of human ingenuity, and essential actors in the Information Age, if the information-consumer is non-human, the information result of such a process-based invention should be patent eligible, subject to statutory and common law patentability requirements. There have been other proposed approaches to solving this problem, but all fall short for various reasons. This proposed new test focusing on the information-consumer is simple to apply across the arts; is technology neutral, intuitively appropriate, empowering of innovation in the Information Age, and highly fitted to American ideals.”
What we have here is a corporate lobbying (de facto lobbying) trying to push for software patents in “paper” form (academic guise), much as David Kappos did last year. These people profit from software patents and they are increasingly upset at their government for ending a lot of software patents after a SCOTUS ruling. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Asia, IBM, Patents at 6:23 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Oh, the poor baby, IBM…
Summary: The rather revealing response from patent aggressors and maximalists to the current international trend, which (with the exception of the EPO in Europe) cracks down on software patents
PUTTING aside the EPO for a moment, much needs to be said about software patents in general. According to these new raves [1, 2], companies continue to disguise software patents as hardware, in this particular case “patents for its groundbreaking WOS Object Storage software.”
“IBM should take the hint and stop lobbying for software patents in Europe and Zealand, not to mention India.”Remember that not only in Europe, New Zealand and India has it become hard (if not impossible) to patent “abstract” software, unless it’s described as tied to some physical hardware (like “storage”). In the US too, much more so after Alice, it has become harder to patent software, and especially to assert a software patent in a US court of law. As the FFII’s President correctly pointed out, however, “ISDS tribunals will be able to interpret the “patents for all fields of technology” of TRIPS in order to grant swpats [software patents] and trump Alice.” We may cover this subject some other day.
Don’t underestimate the tricks of patent lawyers. Their biggest clients are large corporations, often foreign. Many of them depend on software patents for a living. Here is Australian patent lawyer Justin Blows dissecting a US case (Ameritox Ltd v Millennium Health) and saying, “Does this explain software patentability in the US?”
To quote Blows: “People trying to understand the patentability of software, particularly in the US, often go to the US Supreme Court decision Alice. To many this decision is difficult to understand.
“Consequently, it is always interesting to have a Judge comment on what they think Alice is about.”
Now, remember how Manny Schecter (IBM) was pushing India towards software patents? Here he is highlighting “More stats on the rise in 101 #patent application rejections after the Alice decision” (IBM must not be happy about it) and here he is sort of lobbying (shaming tactics) for software patents in India, rather than just recognise that things have changed. It’s rather insulting to Indians.
IBM should take the hint and stop lobbying for software patents in Europe and New Zealand, not to mention India. Dear Indians, please take note of what IBM has been doing in your country (see this Wiki page about software patents in India for background), even after India's latest shoot-down of software patents (there were additional press reports about it, e.g. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15] on Monday on Tuesday, with Tuesday links in the higher numbered citations).
For the IBM chief, based on his tweet, it’s a case of copy or innovate. Nice false dichotomy he got there. Either you patent software (meaning innovation) or you don’t, meaning you just copy, or rip off. Who is he kidding? Is it now fashionable to use anti-China tactics against Indians?
Going back to the US case, see this article titled “Who Is Alice, And Why Is She Driving Patent Attorneys Mad As Hatters?”
This new article states: “Every so often, the Supreme Court hands down a case that causes a seismic shift in our legal system. Constitutional law professors wax poetic about Marbury v. Madison and McCulloch v. Maryland. News analysts loudly denounce Citizens United: “Corporations aren’t people!” But ask a patent attorney for an example of such a case and you are likely to witness a ten-minute diatribe on the shortcomings of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (2014).”
There are some very interesting statistics there from Juristat (the ones Schecter linked to). As the text explains: “This line represents the percentage of all patent rejections based on section 101. In May 2014, that percentage was only 7%. By August 2014, it nearly doubled to 12%. As of August 2015, section 101 rejections made up 15% of all rejections issued at the USPTO. That’s a massive increase, especially considering that software patents represent only a small portion of applications handled at the USPTO.”
Watch what Alice has been doing to software patents in the US. As it turns out, there is patent arms trade between China and the US right now, as Intel offloads a lot of patents onto Xiaomi. Remember that Intel is a proponent of software patents and has many software patents of its own (we covered this in past years). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:40 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The Federation of International Civil Servants’ Associations (FICSA) is “calling on the delegations of the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation to intercede with EPO Management”
THERE is plenty to write (and unveil) today about the EPO, so we shall start with the easy stuff.
Last night (I stayed up until after 4) a request was made to transcribe this document [PDF] which is shown below as images:
One person sent us a manual transcription:
FICSA
Ref: 69th Council EPO
Geneva, 12 February 2016
Dear Sir/Madam,
I have the honour to share with you FICSA Resolution 69/4 calling on the delegations of the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation to intercede with EPO Management in order to ensure that all staff representatives may defend the interests of staff without fear, threats, intimidation or retaliation and that the recently dismissed staff representatives and SUEPO officials be reinstated without delay. This Resolution was unanimously adopted by the members of the Federation of International Civil Servants’ Associations (FICSA) attending the 69th session of the Council at the headquarters of the ICAO in Montreal from 25 to 29 January 2016.
The FICSA Council therefore requests your full support in ensuring that the above issue is properly addressed and that normal staff/management relations are restored at the European Patent Organisation.
The Federation places high importance on healthy relations between management and staff representatives and as such looks forward to hearing from you in due course.
Yours sincerely,
Diab El Tabari
President
To:
Ms. Elzbieta Bienkowska, EU Commissioner
Mr. Battistelli, President of the EPO
Council Secretariat
SUEPO Central
FICSA Executive Committee
Resolution 69/4
THE STATUS OF STAFF/MANAGEMENT RELATIONS AT THE EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE (EPO)
The Council of the Federation of International Civil Servants’ Associations (FICSA) at its 69th Session (ICAO Montreal, 25 to 29 January 2016),
Noting that in the course of 2014, 2015 and 2016, the basic principles of freedom of speech and right of association were severely undermined at the European Patent Office (EPO),
Noting further that the President of the EPO went beyond the recommendations of the disciplinary committees and punished arbitrarily and disproportionally Ms. Elizabeth Hardon, Chair of the Local Staff Committee in Munich and Chair of the Staff Union of the EPO (SUEPO) Munich by dismissing her with a 20% cut of her pension rights and Mr. Ion Brumme, Member of the Central Staff Committee Munich and former chair or SUEPO Munich by dismissing him and Ms. Malika Weaver, Member of the Central Staff Committee in Munich and Treasurer of SUEPO Munich, by downgrading her 8 steps,
Noting further that the recent deterioration in the working relations between EPO Management and the Staff Committee members has recently led to unfounded investigations and allegations which may lead to further retaliation,
Calls upon the delegations of the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation, in the interest of restoring effective staff/management relations and mutual respect, to intercede directly with the EPO Management in order to ensure that the dismissed staff representatives and SUEPO officials are reinstated without delay and that all staff representatives can defend the legitimate interests of staff without fear, threats, intimidation or retaliation in keeping with the basic principles of freedom of speech and right of association.
Another person wrote to us this morning: “Here’s the requested OCR, that’s easier than a translation [of a French article]. Practically zero polishing required, the source material is perfect.”
Ref.: 69th Council EPO
Geneva, 12 February 2016
FICSA
Federation of International Civil Servants’ Associations
Fédération des associations de fonctionnaires internationaux
GENEVA FICSA Secretariat Room Dep.201 Palais des Nations CH-1211 Geneva
10 Switzerland
Telephone: (41 22) 917 3150
Facsimile: (41 22) 917 0660
Email: ficsa@unog.ch
http://ficsa.org
Dear Sir/Madam,
I have the honour to share with you FICSA Resolution 69/4 calling on the delegations of the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation to intercede with EPO Management in order to ensure that
all staff representatives may defend the interests of staff without fear, threats, intimidation or retaliation and that the recently dismissed staff representatives and SUEPO officials be reinstated without delay. This Resolution was unanimously adopted by the members of the Federation of International Civil Servants’ Associations (FICSA) attending the 69th session of the Council at the headquarters of the ICAO in Montreal from 25 to 29 January 2016.
The FICSA Council therefore requests your full support in ensuring that the above issue is properly addressed and that normal staff/management relations are restored at the European Patent Organisation.
The Federation places high importance on healthy relations between management and staff representatives and as such looks forward to hearing from you in due course.
Yours sincerely,
Diab El Tabari President
To: Heads of Delegation to the European Patent Organisation
Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation
Encl.
cc. Ms. Elzbieta Biehkowska, EU Commissioner Mr. Battistelli, President of the EPO Council Secretariat SUEPO Central FICSA Executive Committee
Bioversity • BIPM • CERN • CSSA • CTBT0 • ECB • ES0 • FA0 • Global Fund
• IAEA • IARC • ICAO • ICC0 • ICO • IFAD • IL0/ITC Turin • IM0 • IOC •
I0M • IPU • ITER • ITU • 0PCW • PAH0 • SCBD • UNAIDS • UNESCO • UNFCCC •
UNGSC • UNRWA • UNWT0 • UPU • WHO • WIP0 • WM0 • WT0/0MC
Resolution 69/4
THE STATUS OF STAFF/MANAGEMENT RELATIONS AT THE EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE (EPO)
The Council of the Federation of International Civil Servants’ Associations (FICSA) at its 69th Session (ICAO Montreal, 25 to 29 January 2016),
Noting that in the course of 2014, 2015 and 2016, the basic principles of freedom of speech and right of association were severely undermined at the European Patent Office (EPO),
Noting further that the President of the EPO went beyond the recommendations of the disciplinary committees and punished arbitrarily and disproportionally Ms. Elizabeth Hardon, Chair of the Local Staff Committee in Munich and Chair of the Staff Union of the EPO (SUEPO) Munich by dismissing her with a 20% cut of her pension rights and Mr. Ion Brumme, Member of the Central Staff Committee Munich and former chair of SUEPO Munich by dismissing him and Ms. Malika Weaver, Member of the Central Staff Committee in Munich and Treasurer of SUEPO Munich, by downgrading her 8 steps,
Noting further that the recent deterioration in the working relations between EPO Management and the Staff Committee members has recently led to unfounded investigations and allegations which may lead to further retaliation,
Calls upon the delegations of the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation, in the interest of restoring effective staff/management relations and mutual respect, to intercede directly with the EPO Management in order to ensure that the dismissed staff representatives and SUEPO officials are reinstated without delay and that all staff representatives can defend the legitimate interests of staff without fear, threats, intimidation or retaliation in keeping with the basic principles of freedom of speech and right of association.
If someone starts writing an English translation of the article from France, please let us know so that we can reduce the chance of duplicate (simultaneous) efforts. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
02.23.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 10:52 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Like Putin’s referendum at gunpoint
Summary: Staff of the EPO criticises Battistelli’s (and apparently Minnoye’s as well) pathetic attempt to pressure line managers into signing a statement in support of Battistelli
The latest EPO leaks, especially two of today’s [1, 2], truly back claims that Battistelli may be on his way out and it’s only down to compensation or some ‘pesky’ technicalities. We have received additional information. That was just moments ago.
Top level and lower level managers at the EPO aren’t happy to sign a letter in support of Battistelli, based on the number of leaks we have been receiving about it (quite a lot). Above is a screenshot and here is the text it came with: “Petition as a last resort: After having consistently ignored petitions coming from staff, Mr B now starts petitioning himself: But does he seriously believe that coercing his managers into signing such nonsense is going to help? EPO top management consistently ignored, despised and humiliated the line managers for years. But now as the dear president is in deep trouble, they remember their existence. Dear EPO line managers: please sign and support the EPO top management in their holy fight! And promised, when this is over, they will resume ignoring, despising and humiliating you, because they can, and because they think that you deserve it.”
“Top level and lower level managers at the EPO aren’t happy to sign a letter in support of Battistelli, based on the number of leaks we have been receiving about it (quite a lot).”The letter is self-humiliating because just like Željko Topić’s alleged letters of intent to himself (covered here last week), such actions serve to reinforce widespread allegations of poor character. What was Battistelli thinking? Was he drunk on some "dangerous cocktail"? This is similar but not identical to the Streisand Effect.
As one other readers of ours put it: “It seems that EPO top management is trying to coerce all line managers into signing a petition to the AC. Amongst other requests, the petition claims ‘to remain firm on ethics and not to tolerate misconduct’. This item is a reference to the Investigation Guidelines, which are now even openly criticised by the Board 28 delegations. But Mr Battistelli needs to maintain them since the Investigation Guidelines are a cornerstone of his management-by-intimidation approach. All line managers are expected to sign the petition. They must show that they are loyal to the party line. They are not happy since they know that ‘captain’ B’s titanic is sinking. Many of them probably experience the act of being forced into signing this ridiculous piece of paper as another humiliation. Those who sign will lose even more of the respect of their staff.”
Let your delegates know what Battistelli is scheming to do in order to form a false perception about his leadership and supposed popularity. █
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