01.13.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:04 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Publicado in Europe, Patents at 7:04 pm por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Eliminando/purgando a los mensajeros, prohibiendo revelar esta purga
Sumario: Intentos de sileciar al personal de la OEP son más amplios de lo que es generalmente conocido a su personal.
La OEP – sorpresa, sorpresa! – no es una institución ordinaria. Es SECRESIVA, MIENTE (mucho y al más alto nivel), y quiebra las reglas como si no existiera ninguna.
Un punto importante que vale la pena hacer/resaltar ahora mismo es que el personal de la OEP ha sido mantenido a oscuras y mucho de su personal no comprende completamente cuan mala la situación es. Hay una distorción de la realidad, para hablar. Muchas personas con las que hablamos para hacer esto más evidente. ¨En otra materia,¨ nos dijo una fuente, ¨los detalles (acerca de suspensiones) comenzaron a alcanzar urgencia ni bien ocurrieron. Me fué dicho los nombres de las partes envueltas, y el tráumante tratamiento de los colegas en The Hageu, con quienes estaba familiarizado, pero no pude completamente saber lo que hacer con la información porque no podía revelar los nombres de los involucrados (Jesus Areso, Laurent Prunier, Malika Weaver, Brumme, Michels). Entonces hay el caso contra Elizabeth Hardon.
Techrights esta enterado de las otras partes. La OEP no quiere que nadie sepa acerca de esto. Predecimos que más tarde este mes un nuevo escándalo será revelado y saldrá en la prensa, como que la OEP esfuerzos silenciadores de sus acuerdos de no-revelación serán inefectivos. Hay material explosivo a punto de reventar. █
“El precio de la libertad es eterna vigilancia”
–Thomas Jefferson
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Patents at 4:57 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Publicado en America, Patents at 6:35 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
No sólo la OEP arma extorsiónadores de patentes
Sumario: La USPTO esta finalmente siendo acusada por compañías y personas que están sufriendo por las patentes (aquellos a quienes habitualmente se las otorga), de habilitar ¨extorsiónadores y chantajistas¨ citando un periódista respetable quien atendió o cubrió una sessión.
La reciéntemente finalizade exposición CES en los Estados Unidos, reveló los primerors CES ataques [1, 2] de los que estamos enterados. En realidad sólo en Europa hemos escucahdo/visto tales escenas antes [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13]. Compañías que estuvieron en la CES reportaron que se quejaron a la USPTO acerca de lo que está pasando. Un altamente respedado periodista escribió que ¨la industria tecnológica todavía odia a los trolls de patentes, pero esta comenzando a haver buenas cosas que decir acerca de la agencia de govierno que otorga las patentes esos trolls convierten en extorsión legalizada.¨
“Cuando acusamos a la OEP de hacer algo similar la OEP nos AMENAZÓ CON ENJUICIARNOS.”Bueno, compañías como MICROSOFT hacen lo mismo también, no sólo los trolls de patentes. Chantaje es lo que es, or un ¨extorsiónador de patentes.¨ Hemos estado diciendo esto por años. Cuando acusamos a la OEP de hacer algo similar nos amenazó con enjuiciarnos. El report continua con: ¨Eso fue la sorprendente conclusión de un panel de discusión en la CES el pásado viernes en la mañana que puso en el ojo público algunos de los más criticos del presente sistema de patentes – y fue intoducido por Michelle Lee, el Director de lo Oficina de Patentes y Marcas de los Estados Unidos.¨
La USPTO todavía otorga patentes de software (y otorgó mucho más antes); estas son la clase de patentes que casi todos los trolls de patentes están usando, así que la USPTO DEBE SER POR LO MENOS PARCIALMENTE RESPONSABLE. Desde que la Corte de Apelaciones por el Circuito Federal (CAFC) dió la luz verde a las patentes de software la USPTO ha otorgado cientos de miles de patentes de software. CAFC, como lo hemos mostrado antes, esta CORRUPTA en varios niveles (vea los artículos pasados) y he aquí ALTAMENTE FAVORABLES. Frentes representates de los abogados de patentes como el Post-Grand Practice Group (ENRIQUECIÉNDOSE CON EL MAXIMALISMO DE PATENTES) se han aferrado a la CAFC, como era de esperarse, diciendo ¨eficacia de objetiva evidencia de lo no obvio (i.e indices secundarios) gira en la habilidad de demostrar un ¨nexo¨ entre la evidencia y el sujeto de la patente reclamada. Esto es porque tal evidencia no puede ser de acuerdo al peso sustancial ausente un *nexus a la invención reclamada. Cuando es señalado fuera en un correo anterior un obligando mostrando de *nexus es más probablemente en las artes imprevisibles donde formulaciones específicas, dosificadas y como es más fácilmente correlativamente a lo secundario indica éxito comercial y mucho tiempo-sentida pero de necesidades no resueltas.”
“Es evidente que compañías que producen tecnología (excluyendo MONOPOLIOS que usan sus marcas y sus patentes no producción) están NO SATISFECHAS con el status quo.”El arreglo de palabras en el artículo/blog de arriba está designado a confundir (son díficiles de leer/seguir por que la claridad no es el objetivo). Lo que están tratando de aludir, en términos simples, es que lo ¨no-obvious¨ (i.e, la dificultad de conseguir una idea) puede ser demostrado por reclamos (en la aplicación de patentes) y la evidencia. Mucho de este lenguaje extraño (o crypticos) términos es la manera que los abogados de patentes hacen negocios. Ellos hacen el lenguaje (leguliyada) díficil de entender para mucha gente (incluso para el examinador quienes son puramente técnicos) y de esta manera TIMAR a la gente a otorgar lo que no es otorgable (patente-ineligible).
Todavía necesita emerger un movimiento fuerte y lo suficiente comprehensivo para antagonizar aquellos como la CAFC, la USPTO, y a los abogados de patentes porque todos ellos son PATENTES MAXIMALISTAS. Esto los BENEFICIA DIRECTAMENTE. Es evidente que compañías que producen tecnología (excluyendo MONOPOLIOS que usan sus marcas y sus patentes no producción) están NO SATISFECHAS con el status quo. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
01.12.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 12:30 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Justice requires transparency, not darkness
Summary: Shedding light on the way in which managers in Munich’s EPO headquarters try to silence their critics and shoot the messengers, preventing even disclosure of these acts of silencing and shooting (potential firing)
Benoît Battistelli proudly claimed earlier today (mentioned just one hour ago by the EPO at Twitter) that there are “unprecedented levels of transparency”. One has to be seriously misinformed to actually believe him.
The EPO‘s management has not stopped attacking the unions, as we made very clear earlier this week. There’s just more secrecy. The management, or Team Battistelli in Munich, shows extreme hypocrisy as it’s apparently OK for management to ‘leak’ information about ‘investigations’ into board members (or judges) but not for ordinary members of staff to do the same. The EPO just tries to control the narrative and only the EPO’s ad hominem attacks on the accused are deemed acceptable. Reactionary comments about the accusers are deemed treasonous. What kind of institution has the EPO become and how can it ever expect to earn back the respect it once had?
“What kind of institution has the EPO become and how can it ever expect to earn back the respect it once had?”Several weeks ago we wrote about media coverage that was very critical of the EPO’s treatment of judges (see the JUVE translation from Techrights regarding EPO management and Battistelli). SUEPO has a new translation (not the same one) in English [PDF] and in other languages. To quote the public site, “JUVE comments on the failure of EPO President Benoît Battistelli to push his proposal of reform of the Boards of Appeal. Translations of the article are available in English, French, and Dutch.”
As we explained here in about a dozen articles before, “reform of the Boards of Appeal” is a euphemism or misnomer because the real goal — given the reluctance to fill empty poisitions and the eagerness to drive them away (among other factors) — is to crush them. It’s about “reform” to the same degree that union-busting is “investigation”.
In order to demonstrate what the EPO witch-hunts staff representatives for we’ve decided to share snippets of text and rebut based on our common sense and general understanding of the whole situation. Accompanying every snippet (or similar snippets from letters sent to different people) are our thoughts, not the thoughts of the accused (whom we never even spoke to anyway).
3 examples are aligned horizontally for the sake of comparison, showing how 3 staff representatives at the EPO were targeted with letters within less than a week since the first one (only days apart).
“Confidential” is ludicrous enough as it is given the nature of the allegations below; “Personal” is somewhat misleading because, as we shall show, several of the same letters were sent to several people. There’s nothing so personal about it. It’s almost impersonal. The original intent here was to divide and rule, i.e. prevent people from communicating with one another, then crush them in isolation. Solitude makes them weaker and makes legal defence more expensive if not altogether financially-prohibitive, thus unavailable, or too limited to be effective. Any request of secrecy needs to justify itself; just slapping the word “Confidential” on everything wouldn’t fly as it shows paranoia and gives the public reasons for suspicion, concern, and distrust. It typically breeds misconduct.
They seem to be using some very ancient office equipment to stamp these letters, so dreams of going fully digital/electronic still seem elusive at the higher floors of the EPO’s main Office.
This opening template (3 letters) shows lack of creativity, does it not? A lot of these letters can probably be ‘folded’ onto just one with special extra phrases, specified for individual recipients. The person who did so was in fact so lazy or sloppy that a lady was referred to in the letter sent to her as “Mister”.
SUEPO sign-up is being targeted, but why? Is it because a massive new number of staff members has decided to join? Is somebody feeling threatened? How come all this time the EPO’s management had no issues with SUEPO sign-ups? Does it need to take examples from 3 years ago to suddenly claim that it’s wrong to join SUEPO? This kind of retreat to events from 2 years ago (or even further back) shows that the EPO is so utterly desperate for ‘dirt’ on convenient scapegoats that — just like the Stasi in East Germany — it is now ‘hitting’ the archives (mass surveillance) and scanning the shelves for pretexts and retroactive justifications. It even looks for informants with some character-assassinating ‘dirt’ that can be retrieved/reconstructed from several years ago. That’s what some call “scraping the bottom of the barrel.”
Here we have some repetition of an allegation and the appeal to “legality”, which — coming from the EPO’s mouth (after disregarding what was legal or illegal) — is laughable.
Here they are threatening staff and redefining or reframing rules so as to give feet to the accusations.
Now the EPO pretends — yet again! — that it finally cares about EU law and host states. This is comical. It’s like that time the EPO twisted British defamation law to silence critics. The EPO likes the laws of host states only when it suits the EPO’s crooked management.
Here we have Lutz et al (probably) appealing to German law, which is funny given all that people have been saying about Lutz with his bizarre interpretation of German law (which he is supposed to understand). It was Lutz who put his name on the notorious “rights” statement — a controversial internal memo which served as a prelude to suspensions affecting SUEPO.
Here we can see a very hypocritical EPO. It says it cares for freedom of communication. Well, everyone must ask it why it threatens bloggers and gags its own staff, driving many people into the harbours of anonymity and pseudonyms (for their own protection). This isn’t the first time that the EPO pretends to care about freedom of expression, privacy, and so on. These are shots in the foot because people who say these things at behalf of the EPO beg to be ridiculed for their infinite hypocrisy.
The hypocritical EPO is now nitpicking on secrecy while ignoring risk of reprisal from an infamously aggressive EPO.
EPO pretends to care for national law again? Selective at best, pathetic at least.
So the EPO, an institution which disregards court orders and abuses a lot of staff (with ongoing ILO cases), pretends to speak for justice. That’s like BP speaking for climate or Microsoft speaking for Linux.
The EPO refuses to tolerate lawsuits against the EPO. Big surprise here. Having eliminated whatever was left of oversight, Battistelli now crushes anything which dares to challenge his (mis)conduct. That’s the hallmark of empires. Only civil disobedience or interference from the outside can put an end to it.
The hypocritical EPO talks about standards and accuses legitimate critics. Do they have any mirrors at the EPO building in Munich (high floors in particular)? Better yet, get some stakes and garlic, too. These people at the top fail to objectively assess what they themselves are doing and have been doing for years.
The hypocritical EPO remarks on basic human rights, respect, principles of law, common sense, accountability, integrity etc. Even a drunk official would be able to spot the hypocrisy when typing such a thing.
Here are the vague accusations of negligence, as if it doesn’t matter what explanation is given, the EPO’s accuser (and judge etc.) will reject it. This is not justice, it’s a “discharge” sheet.
This is epic hypocrisy on secrecy. Gag orders are fine for EPO management, but not for staff, even if for their own protection from an increasingly abusive management.
EPO hypocrisy on leaking details of an ongoing investigation. Didn’t EPO managers use the media to personally attack a judge just weeks after paying nearly a million bucks to a PR firm? Benoît Battistelli is becoming like Sheldon Adelson.
This is only confidential by EPO management’s definition. The motivation for secrecy is self-serving. Anyone with a clue can see that.
Watch how they are arrogantly reject the existence of more than one side in this mock ‘trial’, declaring opposing views invalid and disregarding them completely. That’s arrogance and self-righteousness.
EPO talks about integrity and ignores its own sins of compromising an investigation with Dutch and German media. That’s a recurring theme of hypocrisy or double-standard.
PR strategies employed, painting bullyish investigators [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7] as the victims.
Arrogance is showing again. The representation is incorrect because we say so? What kind of pretense of justice is this?
EPO management pretends to guard privacy of low-level workers rather than protect itself from accountability (and potentially prosecution).
EPO guards the secrecy of its in-house Stasi and pretends that blowing this cover would expose the identity of poor victims. “Think of the children…”
Panicking that other offices become aware of the antics of EPO Munich management? Is that what it’s all about? It sure sounds like information itself, not people, is the enemy here.
EPO Munich management evidently panics because it can see that the public knows what is happening and that things got out of hand.
This again is an EPO modus operandi, keeping not just the public but also workers and their representatives in the dark. We hereby declare a gag order because what we do here is embarrassing…
So there we have it. It is now easier for more people to see what the true nature of the allegations was all along. Seeing it in context, there is plenty of hypocrisy, a very low barrier/standard at hand, and plenty of manipulation by an increasingly paranoid EPO management. █
“Truth never damages a cause that is just.”
–Mahatma Gandhi
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Patents at 9:21 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Where money calls the shots corporations and their owners almost always get their way at the public’s expense
Summary: Commentary on the US patent system and why it has never quite healed itself, nor will it ever be able to heal itself if large corporations dominate political figures
BEFORE we were focused on the EPO we had been writing literally thousands of articles about the US patent system (USPTO), which is utterly dysfunctional, unjust, and detrimental to human progress.
IP Watch, a site mostly critical of the existing systems or frameworks, has just said that “More than 50 members of the United States Congress today sent a letter urging the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) to exercise their legal authority to require medical patents that have emerged from government-funded medical research projects to be licensed on reasonable and affordable terms for public use.
“It helps show that patents are often more to do with protectionism than innovation or public service. It’s about corporations, not about people.”“The letter [pdf], rooted in a growing public concern with the rising prices of prescription drugs, argued that failure to use this measure would drive an image that the American government funds projects with taxpayer money that allow profiteering from struggling patients and families rather than simply earning enough profit to provide for future research and the researchers’ own incomes.”
It is easy to spot the inherent problems here, seeing the absurdity of granting a patent monopoly, a government-enforced monopoly, derived from tax money which the government ordered to be given. It helps show that patents are often more to do with protectionism than innovation or public service. It’s about corporations, not about people.
A new article from bankers’ media alludes to the CLS Bank case, which is better known by the plaintiff’s name, Alice. Here is what it says about software patents:
A landmark case in this area was the 2014 decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that patents on software related to an electronic escrow service were found to be unpatentable, since the patent’s claims were drawn from abstract ideas.
“I think there’s a movement in the courts and in Congress to restrict the scope of software patentability,” Knight said.
Yes, well, once upon a time there was a healthy debate out there about whether software patents should be abolished. Those days were gone after large corporations had hijacked the debates and warped these into debates about patent trolls (meaning small entities that typically use software patents, often against large entities/corporations). All of these “reform” (for large corporations) talks virtually vanished (from the media and from politics) right after the summer break. It all got squashed and lost all its momentum. This is politics. It’s total nonsense when it’s clogged up by sponsors, donors etc.
“…once upon a time there was a healthy debate out there about whether software patents should be abolished.”Florian Müller tells IP Troll Tracker (Steph): “I agree that a focus on trolls is poor justification for reform. Trolls are merely a symptom of the underlying problems.” He also asks “So you also feel that patent reform advocates have been too timid so far in their portrayal of problems and proposals?”
This was after he wrote a long rant about the role of political correctness (or maybe the sixth sense which is campaign contributions money) in the reluctance to put to rest the bad patent system which promotes extortion rackets. To quote the apolitical part (not GOP promotion):
U.S. patent reform advocates have been disappointed term after term, presidency after presidency. Washington has a “do nothing” reputation, but a sea change appears to be around the corner and it may also create an environment in which, at long last, the massive and dramatic problems caused by a broken patent system may be addressed more forcefully and courageously than before.
Political correctness has terrible effects because it prevents politicians, the media and the general public from discussing the real issues without mincing words, and when you can’t even talk about the real issues, you’re very, very unlikely to identify and implement solutions.
Political correctness is the root cause of many problems not only in such contexts as immigration policy or the problem with certain ethnicities’ crime rates.
There are many areas in which a dogma has been turned into an axiom. Even though I’m an environmentalist (my house has a groundwater heat pump and uses groundwater temperature for cooling), I’d like there to be a more open discussion of the causes of global warming. Just an example.
Political correctness is also a huge problem in the debate over U.S. patent reform. Organizations and individuals probably feared that they would be “anti-American” if they simply said that the U.S. patent system is broken and fails to serve true innovators.
In all those congressional hearings on patent reform that I watched, each and every politician repeated the mantra of the U.S. patent system being key to innovation and allegedly being the envy of the world, when the reality is that it’s the laughing stock of patent and industry professionals in the rest of the world. Over the years I’ve talked to so many patent lawyers from Europe and Asia, and even to patent examiners (though not the ones the EPO leadership accuses of having been in contact with me), about the overall situation, and no one believes that U.S. juries are qualified to determine infringement and validity issues, no one has ever disagreed with me that the Federal Circuit is generally too patent-holder-friendly, and no one has ever disagreed with me that the quality of USPTO-granted patents is generally even lower than that of European patents.
Impactful patent reform in the U.S. won’t happen until at least a significant percentage of all politicians and stakeholders participating in the debate will start to tell the truth, which is that most information and communications technology patents are invalid as granted, that a high percentage of all claim construction decisions are reversed on appeal, that even those patents that are not invalid and are ultimately deemed infringed generally don’t protect anything that justifies a 20-year monopoly, and that there is no point in incentivizing “being first to file” when the combination of copyright, trademarks, trade secrets, and the first-mover advantage in relatively fast-moving fields are more than sufficient to protect investment in innovation. Reform advocates must place more emphasis on the fact that ever more U.S. patents are not granted to U.S. companies, just like most European patents are not held by European companies. It must be said that the correlation between patents and innovation in a country is hardly a causation of patents promoting innovation, that patents increasingly serve as a substitute rather than an incentive for innovation, and that studies linking patents to innovation are often based on circular logic, considering each patent an innovation.
Less is more. How can anyone seriously believe that patent inflation has anything to do with increased innovative activity? Would anyone believe that merely printing more money creates prosperity? Reform advocates should talk about how to gradually bring the number of patents granted per year down to a fraction of the current rate.
The US patent system isn’t the only one permitting patents on software. Under the EPO’s regime (like Brimelow’s “as such” loophole) many companies apply for and get software patents in Europe. The patent lawyers like it because it means more business (income) for them. Looking at sites of patent lawyers (IAM for instance), we do find very recent evidence that the patent system doesn’t quite function as was originally intended (when patent laws were conceived as means as providing an incentive to those publishing their physical inventions). As part of Xiaomi’s notorious campaign to amass thousands of patents, it now reportedly buys Broadcom patents. So, here again we have hardware-related patents being passed around, sold, changed in terms of ownership/assignment, serving to show that as a reward for innovation patents don’t quite function, not as stated on the tin. They’re more like weapons or tools of coercion.
“One way to tackle these issues is to inform the public, not politicians, who are easily influenced by corporate cash (bribes/donations/revolving doors) and are therefore unlikely to become part of the solution.”“In an assignment dated 23rd October 2015 and recorded with the USPTO on 7th December,” IAM wrote, “US semiconductor company Broadcom transferred 19 US patent assets to an entity named Xiaomi H.K. Ltd.”
In similar news, “Qualcomm asks U.S. court to force Apple, Samsung and others to surrender documents” and “Public patent licensing company index declined 24.4% in 2015″.
The term “patent licensing company” can be viewed as a gentler term for patent trolls, such as the Microsoft-connected Acacia, which habitually attacks Linux with patents. According to this report from IAM, Acacia is not doing too well. To quote: “Capping off 12 months of slumping share prices was the resignation in late December of Acacia CEO Matthew Vella. His exit came after the NPE was on the wrong end of a damaging decision in the Eastern District of Texas as a jury found in favour of the defendants, including Alcatel Lucent, ruling that the Acacia patent was invalid and not infringed. If that ruling had gone the other way it’s fair to say that Vella would probably still be in a job.”
Irrespective of this one patent troll and putting aside the impact of Alice on software patents, the problem is far from resolved and some of Müller’s observations (not the political slant) have earned praises from critics of the patent system, such as Jamie Love. One way to tackle these issues is to inform the public, not politicians, who are easily influenced by corporate cash (bribes/donations/revolving doors) and are therefore unlikely to become part of the solution. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:33 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Calm before the storm?
Summary: On the surface, things may seem calm at the EPO, but under this façade lie very serious issues, whose affected parties are banned from speaking about
LATER TODAY we will release some EPO material which we hope will remind people why the EPO is dangerous. Everyone at the EPO’s management tries to play up the UPC while EPO scandals continue to surface and according to this survey from WIPR:
Developments in Europe concerning trademark reform and the Unified Patent Court (UPC) were noted by respondents as the most important changes.
At the close of the year, the European Patent Office announced that the unitary patent was “legally” and “technically” ready for lift off. However, UPC member states are still waiting for the ratification by the UK and Germany (as well as a number of other countries).
In May, the UPC took a major leap forward after Spain’s challenge to the legality of the agreement was struck down by the Court of Justice of the European Union.
“SUEPO resumed their posting on http://www.suepo.org page,” one person told us (SUEPO’s public page updated for the first time in four weeks). There is also this new (corrected) press release about controversial patents on cancer treatments at the EPO. Other than that, the EPO has been reasonably quiet. It has been almost invisible, maybe by intention. The EPO Forums (based on proprietary software by the looks of it) that have been there for several years and attracted only a few hundreds of threads are quite miserably being promoted in Twitter this week. It’s likely or at least possible that even the forums in SUEPO attracted more activity than the EPO Forums. Heck, even IP Kat comments about the EPO are more frequent than postings in the EPO Forums. How pathetic is that?
As a comment from IP Kat put it the other day:
2016!.. another year of “Esprit de service” among the BB [Benoît Battistelli] goon squad, a group that is amiable in the extreme, looking for full concurrence on every topic, with a complete absence of upsetting bickering that could ruin their cosiness. A comfortable consensus built around an illusion: that everyone in the squad had a perverse addiction to power. Yet no one questioned it. The main victim of the EPO’s “Esprit de service” is critical thought, which leaves behind a muddy trail of irrational…actions.
Later today we are going to release something new. There is no reason to withdraw EPO flak as all the EPO abuses persist and no reparations or revocations have been reported as yet.
It sometimes seem like keeping a low profile became the PR strategy of the EPO in 2016. That was the NSA’s strategy before Snowden leaked a lot of documents to the press. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:10 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Publicado in Europe, Patentes at 5:57 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Yendo tras los chivos expiatorios a la cabeza sólo retrocedería la patentización así que…
Sumario: Una mirada a lo que básicamente constituye otra fase en el esfuerzo de la OEP de despedir críticos y asustar al resto de ellos.
No ha habido muchas sugerencias públicas acerca de la OEP últimamente. La OEP cuentas (web site, twitter, etc.) con las justas están activas, los administradores de la Unión de Empleados de la OEP (SUEPO) están fuera, y el ¨presidente de la OEP el señor Batistelli¨, nos dijo una persona hoy, ¨estarán en Colombia, SudAmerica en Enero 29, hablando de las Patentes Unitarias. Aquí tenemos evidencia que el CABILDEO DE LA UPC continua. NO INTERFERIRÁS EN LOS PLANES DEL seńor BATISTELLI.
“La gerencia de la OEP ha cometido un grave error cuando intentó silenciar opositores en vez de apaciguar por entendimiento mutuo, concesiones, reconocimientoes, etc.”Una protesta de empleados [cref [cref viene en una semana y media (apoyo para los empleados de la OEP unión esta alto ultimamente)], concidiendo con algunas decisiones acerca del futuro de los representantes de los empleados.
La gerencia de la OEP ha cometido un grave error cuando intentó silenciar opositores en vez de apaciguar por entendimiento mutuo, concesiones, reconocimientoes, etc. Varios miembros pasan volantes entre ellos, el boletín de la SUEPO, links a sitios de noticias, su sitio web, y así. Mientras más gente lee, más gente apoya a las uniones y recela de su gerencia. Los empleados están mayoritariamente en apoyo de la SUEPO, sigue lo que SUEPO dice, sea en su web site, o los boletines ocacionales. Solía ser ¨SUEPO Informa¨, un lector nos dijo, y era un simple asunto de The Hague.. Hubom mas on menos cuatro encarnaciones de SUEPO, uno por cada sitio [DH, BE,MN, VI], En adición a la representación de sus empleados, con diferentes agendas y personalidades. Batistelli parece manejar lo impensable: Une los sitios en una fuerza.¨
“Batistelli parece manejar lo impensable: Une los sitios en una fuerza.”
–AnónimoLas acusaciones contr las cabezas de la SUEPO son chocantes no por que son severas pero por que son indicativa de un desesperado efecto de la gerencia de la OEP de APLASTAR todas las uniones (comenzando con la más grade, SUEPO). Si todo sigue como lo planeado, dentro de pocos días empleados de la OEP serán notificados de esas rídiculas acusaciones. No hay proceso judicial, como no hay separación entre acusador, juez, y ejecutor, etc. Es un CIRCO! Teatro. Designado para dar la impresion de debido proceso, pero es hecho en secreto, por que sigue los standares de North Korea. Avergonzaría a cualquier pais de Europa, incluso aquellos que fueron parte de la Unión Sovietica. Abajo con Batistelli! █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
01.11.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:28 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Publicado in Decepción, Europe, Patents at 9:03 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Bueno para los abogados y sus super afluentes clientes MALO para el resto…
Efecto de goteo de patentes: grandes corporaciones arriba, debajo sus abogados de patentes, y el público jodido (con juicios, embargos, bloqeos y saqueos).
Sumario: Recojo de información de abogados de patentes, para quienes cualquier clase de apropiación corporativa o monopolio (a traves de patentes) es considerado GANANCIA.
Los portavoces de la OEP y de los trolls de patentes, no pueden detenerse (NI LO HARÁN). Y cuando se mueven (hablan) MIENTEN. Nuestras mándibulas colectivas (no sólo la mía) están por los suelos cuando vemos a IAM decir: ¨El títular es que los jucios de patentes en los Estados Unidos baten records. La realidad es que nunca ha sido duro ser demandante.¨
Las reynas del drama, ¨Demandante¨ simplemente significa AGRESOR DE PATENTES, y en muchos casos estos agresores son patent trolls, como aquellos que págan a ´iam´ (nos cuesta decire esto). Cifras de Patentes Unidas y Lex Machine son cítadas por iam (cuyas fuentes y descubrientos fueron mencionados antes) y iam NO ESTA NEGANDO EL INCREMENTO DE LITIGIOS, sólo encontrado algunos medidas para revolver esas cifras en FAVOR DE LOS ABOGADOS DE PATENTES, quienes reciben dinero de los trolls de patentes. Recuerdén que iam is financiado (a través de eventos) para los más agrésivos trolls de patentes (está explícitamente en su lista de promotores). Hemos cubierto esto antes. Los propagandistas de patentes de ´IAM´ van tán lejos para revolver noticias acerca de las guerras de patentes como si fuesen buenas noticias (en largos artículos).
La gente puede pensar que somos crueles e inmisercordiosos con ´IAM´, pero esta gente es PELIGROSA, ellos están hablando a Manny Schechter, quien promueve patentes de software para IBM [1, 2] así como pare gente de influencia como Wouter Pors (quien en ocasiones crítica a la OEP) usan a ´IAM´ para promover para promover a la Corte Unitaria de Patentes. Hace unos días escribió: ¨la retificación del acuerdo de la Corte Unitaria de Patentes (UPC) por parte de Alemania probablemente será pospuesta hasta Setiembre del 2016 y será decisiva para que el systema de Patente Unitaria (UP) salga en vivo. Woter Pors, socio de la firma de abogados Bird & Bird, ha dicho en una entrevista con Kluwer IP Law. Trece retificaciones son necesarias para que el nuevo systema europeo de patentes comienze a funcionar, incluyendo aquellas de Francia, Reino Unido, y Alemania. Hasta ahora sólo ocho países incluyendo Francia, han retificado.¨
Entonces estaba citando al portavoz de la OEP ´iam´ revista, como sigue: ¨En un reciente reporte de ´iam´, se seńaló que hasta ahora no han habido signos de cuando Alemania retificará el acuerdo de Corte Unitaria de Patentes.
El llamado ´iam’simplemente empuja a Alemania a hacerlo (por lo menos tres veces hemos notado). Al fondo dice: ¨Wouter Pors is uno de los expositores en la Conferencia del Paquete Unidad de Patentes, el 4 y 5 de Febrero 2016 en Amsterdan.¨
Esta es una pro-Corte Unitaria de Patentes promovida por abogados de patentes, notablemente NLO, ¨una de las más grandes firmas europeas proveyendo consejo especializado en el campo de propiedad intelectual en todos sus aspectors por más de 125 años,¨ de acuerdo con la página de sus partidarios.
Se dice que costará unas €1000 para atender, asegurándose que todos los participantes harán eco de esas nefastas propuestas con no divergencia. Es un evento de abogados para abogados, y SUS MULTIBILLINARIOS CLIENTES (compañías como IBM y Microsoft).
Recuerden que es evento pro-UPC promovido por la OEP a través de FTI Consulting, ´iam’está organizando esto. Todos ellos están TRABAJANDO JUNTOS PARA CONSEGUIR MÁS DINERO PARA ELLOS Y SUS RICOS CLIENTES (largas corporaciones multinacionales) al costo de todos los demás. El systema de patentes tiene un moño ribbon rojo, asegurándose que todo quien interactue con el esta presionado a pagar a un abogado (como compartimos en una historia de una PYME).
Dicho ayer por un sitio de un abogado de patentes (linked a una ínvestigación), la barra de patentes se ha convertido en una necesida para muchos. El abstracto dice que la ¨mayoría de abogados no pueden representar clientes en la Oficina de Patentes. La posibiidad de un crítico debate acerca de su tamaño y estructura de la barra de patentes es sorprendentemente dado que innovadores gastan billones de dolares cada año en servicios legales en la oficina de patentes.
Para citar a un periódico (unas semanas atrás): ¨muchas compañías sólo contratan abogados de patentes con experiencia relevante en la área tecnólogica, y no simplemente confían en status de ¨abogado de patentes¨ como calificación.¨
Todo este enredo de patentes y altercados en corte (o con examinadores) es negocio grande para los llamados ¨non-producing¨ actors (aquellos que acumulan patentes) y no los mismos inventores. Los inventores son simplemente los que pierden dinero. PARA QIÉN ES ESTE SYSTEMA REALMENTE? Seriamente, hablen a las PYMEs acerca de sus experiencias negativas con la OEP.
Miren que pasó esta semana en el CES Tech Show de Las Vegas, basado en éste nuevo reporte de la BBC. Para citar al reportero: ¨Los oficiales confiscaron todos los vehículos de una rueda de la compañía y sacaron los letreros y avisos de una compañía rival de Silicon Valley por una supuesta infracción de patentes.¨
Yay, innovación!
Es como la situación de la mafia Sisvel de patentes [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13] sólo en los Estados Unidos. Ellos trabajan grandes compañías. Miren al trístemente célebre ´IAM´ defendiendo esto! Ellos DISFRAZAN ESTO COMO AYUDAR AL PEQUEÑO O A LOS INVENTORES, cuando obviamente es exactamente lo CONTRARIO (sólo lo que estan en el mismo negocio son los que están de acuerdo con ´iam´, ejemplo Jeremy Phillips).
No es falta de consideración o rudo señalar quien y donde están. Florian Muller, por instancia parece haber cambiado de opinión para verdaderamente oponerse a software patentes y aquellos que la usan contra Linux. Sin considerar su pasado (INCLUYENDO PAGOS DE MICROSOFT), deberíamos darle la bienvenida de regreso a la lucha contra las patentes de software en Europa y todo el mundo. █
________
* Despues de bloquear mucha gente que no estaba de acuerdo con ellos, ´IAM´ decidió que era futil (no puedes magicamente evitar el criticismo público) y ahora est desbloqueando todos aquellos que fueron bloqueados, supuestamente por ¨año nuevo¨ [1, 2, 3].
Permalink
Send this to a friend
01.10.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:45 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Threatening letters sent to people inside the EPO to coerce them into silence, or impose a total lack of involvement in unjust show trials (union-busting moves)
R
epresentatives of EPO staff are under extreme pressure because management of the EPO is squeezing them really hard whilst attempting to maintain the appearance of calm (like the bogus ‘social’ dialogue initiated at the middle of last year). People mustn’t be misled by the appearance of calm. It leads to dangerous passivity and can only ever prevent justice.
“People mustn’t be misled by the appearance of calm.”We have decided to disclose the following letter sent by Team Battistelli a few months ago. One can clearly see the level of threats (to one’s job) for merely discussing an ongoing bogus ‘investigation’ (in practice union-busting). Notice the severity of the threats in page 1:
In page 2 we finally see what the EPO laughably deems “violence” (the PR strategy which paints EPO management as the victim). It’s some private posting which was already removed anyway.
Here again are demands for secrecy. What kind of human rights standards are these? How can the EPO pretend to be a public institution? It abuses people (to whom ILO is too slow to help) and those who dare to speak about this abuse are themselves being accused of abuse (for merely communicating these matters). It is a cyclic thing.
The EPO is an exceptionally abusive enterprise. Thankfully, actions are being taken against the EPO at several levels right now, as we shall show in the coming weeks.
EPO staff needs to start communicating these matters and properly organise against this abusive management. █
“By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.”
–Benjamin Franklin
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