03.07.16

Software Patents Are a Dying Breed in the United States and the EPO Should Take Notice

Posted in America, Europe, Patents at 9:49 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Software patents are rotting away internationally, but will the EPO adapt accordingly?

Summary: A roundup of recent news about software patents in the United States and what this means to Europe, where the patent office is now in a state of transition and must quickly restore quality rather than quantity

TECHRIGHTS spent nearly a decade writing about software patents and my activism against software patents predates this Web site. It’s only now, or any time after the 2014 decision on Alice, that considerable headway can be celebrated. The Bilski case (at SCOTUS) just wasn’t enough.

Patently-O has this up-to-date list of “Pending Supreme Court Patent Cases 2016″ and its author recalls SCOTUS Justice Scalia. “Following Justice Scalia’s death,” he notes, “the Supreme Court simplified its docket by denying certiorari to a set of patent cases, including: Arthrex v. Smith and Nephew; STC v. Global Traffic Technologies; ePlus v. Lawson Software, Inc.; Media Rights Technologies v. Capitol One; Alexsam v. The Gap; ULT v. Lighting Ballast Control; and Achates v. Apple.”

“All in all, software patents everywhere have no room in the docket, as courts (even in Europe) deem them invalid and it is time to recognise this new reality.”Patent Docs, another patents-centric site, says that the “USPTO Issues Performance and Accountability Report for FY 2015″, not quite noting that the USPTO only cares about money, not quality (very much the Battistelli delusion/lunacy).

Patent lawyers, based on this new article from lawyers’ media, still try to figure out how to continue fighting the courts over software patents after Alice. It’s not easy for them to accept deflation in the number of patents. They think of it like a business, which is antithetical to the patent system (as it was originally conceived a long time ago). Does the US still have an open-handed approach when it comes to software patents, or is it becoming just a stretch of imagination prevalent among patent maximalists who give bad advice to potential or existing clients? As one patent attorney put it the other day, “ITC ruled that two Jawbone patents asserted against Fitbit are Ineligible under Alice/ 101: http://assets.law360news.com/0767000/767622/1078594-575628.pdf”

So even the overzealous and biased ITC, not just the typical courts, is not antagonising software patents? This may be unprecedented.

Patent maximalists over at IAM said this morning that “Chinese companies see US pendulum swinging back, while validity becomes more of an issue at home”. It’s about PTAB, which is increasingly being used to invalidate software patents even without them being used litigiously. To quote IAM: “Chinese companies may be using PTAB as a handy tool for now, but one defensive risk analyst I spoke to in Shenzhen expressed the views that the prevalence of invalidity challenges in the US is more a temporary opportunity than a ‘new normal’.”

Earlier this year we wrote about how a Chinese company had its products seized at a trade show, only to see the case against it dropped altogether. What is this? It sure made the US patent system blush a bit, as though its victims (not the so-called ‘pirates’ or ‘thieves’) are Chinese. This is not justice. It’s just a bunch of goons storming a trade show because of patents and confiscating actual products.

All in all, software patents everywhere have no room in the docket, as courts (even in Europe) deem them invalid and it is time to recognise this new reality. There should be no software patents in Europe, for instance, regardless of the spin/wording, e.g. if they’re “as such” or not (whatever that even means!). It puts the EPO‘s reputation at risk. In any patent system, rejection/acceptance rate does not in itself say anything, especially if it wrongly accepts and rejects applications (overworking the examiners means poorer identification of prior art, hence uncertainty, usually resulting in an erroneous grant). Based on sources of ours who are applicants at the EPO (several such people who already have patents in national patent offices), the EPO rejects legitimate patent applications whilst overpatenting e.g. granting patents on software. What message does that send out? What does this mean to the so-called ‘results’ that Battistelli brags about in him awkwardly scripted speech)? And if courts keep finding “EP” patents invalid, wouldn’t that devalue “EP” patents and lead to degradation of confidence? A lot of inventors in Europe are rightly upset at the EPO right now. Their already-granted patents lose value (or perceived value).

The EPO is not a cash cow for Europe if the money comes from Europeans. Ask European patent applicants (not massive corporations from abroad) who spent as much as the value of a whole house how they feel after failing to get even one patent because of EPO misconduct whilst others (massive corporations) receive a fast lane and get "EP" patents in bulk. It’s a sordid mess and a sham.

If Christoph Ernst becomes the EPO’s President some time this spring (or maybe later this month), then he can use his background in economics/law to amend policy so as to better comply with the EPC (i.e. no software patents). Moreover, for Ernst (or another potential president) the first step to take should be to restore/recognise the status of SUEPO and bring back dismissed representatives. They too expressed concerns about patent scope, even many years ago. SUEPO was right all along. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Avoid IBM Until It Rescinds/Retracts/Reverses Its Weaponisation of Software Patents

Posted in IBM, Patents at 8:47 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Already missing Samuel Palmisano…

The “good guy”, before and after the patent aggression era at IBM. Photo credit: Gage Skidmore

Summary: IBM, which boasts the world’s largest patent portfolio, is transforming into a patent aggressor (with software patents to make matters even worse) and negative reaction from the market may be needed to put an end to this

IBM spent well over a decade telling the Free/Open Source software (FOSS) world that IBM is the “good cop”, or that its stockpile of software patents was somehow acceptable because of OIN (originally run by a guy from IBM) or something along those lines. Well, the mask is off now. IBM is becoming a patents company, a close partner of Apple (Android foe), and it is eager to make income from patents rather than products. As IAM put it the other day (IAM on IBM): “The assignments involving Globalfoundries entities probably reveal the company’s acquisition of IBM’s semiconductor unit – a deal for which Big Blue paid almost $1.5 billion to wash its hands of what had become, for it, an unsustainable business. IBM itself was the second most prolific assignor of assets (15,260) last year.”

A lot of these IBM patents can now be used offensively by other companies, not just Globalfoundries but many others too. This is bad news because IBM’s patents head honcho is pushing for software patents [1, 2] (expansion of them to more countries) and then suing with them (we covered patent aggression from IBM last week). This is what typically happens when patent holders get desperate for cash.

“IBM can now basically sue just about any Internet company, including tiny ones, or otherwise receive “protection money”.”“According to the most recent complaint,” WIPR wrote, “IBM has made repeated attempts to negotiate a licence with Groupon but the company has refused to take one.”

To “licence” is a euphemism for “get protection money” and it sure sounds like Microsoft’s modus operandi when it comes to Linux. Good journalists noted that “IBM is pushing big Internet companies to pay patent licensing fees in part because IBM invented the Prodigy service, a precursor to the modern Web.”

IBM can now basically sue just about any Internet company, including tiny ones, or otherwise receive “protection money”. This leads to a certain chilling effect and discourages startups.

“There are no “good” or tolerable software patents. When companies are in good (financial) mood their shareholders don’t encourage suing competitors, but watch what’s becoming of IBM.”There are companies out there, such as Google, which despite getting more and more patents (including software patents and other new examples) never sued other companies with patents, not even when provoked. This does not guarantee, however, that when Google suffers its demise (all companies will die one day), especially if that happens within the timeframe of the next two decades, it will actually refrain from resorting to patent aggression. The only real solution here is to abolish software patents, irrespective of whom they get assigned to (whether to Red Hat with GNU/Linux, IBM with OIN and layoffs, or Google which is thriving at least for now). There are no “good” or tolerable software patents. When companies are in good (financial) mood their shareholders don’t encourage suing competitors, but watch what’s becoming of IBM. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

No, Biggest Patent Troll of 2014 is Not eDekka But a Microsoft-Connected and Bill Gates-Funded Patent Troll (or Extensive Network Thereof)

Posted in Bill Gates, Microsoft, Patents at 8:17 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Microsoft’s Bill Gates and Nathan Myhrvold. Credit: Reuters

Summary: A timely and imperative remark, reactionary in the sense that it responds to a new article, about the misconception that patent trolls are lone wolves and often small entities rather than conglomerates in disguise

A FEW days ago we stumbled upon an article by Joe Mullin, wherein he calls eDekka “Biggest patent troll of 2014,” even though Intellectual Ventures (a Microsoft proxy in some sense) is far bigger and still very active (it has a few thousands of satellites). “Biggest patent troll” by what criterion? Number of lawsuits by one single entity (not a proxy)?

“”Biggest patent troll” by what criterion?”The article from Mullin (otherwise a fantastic journalist by the way) says:

In 2014, no company filed more patent lawsuits than eDekka LLC, a Texas-based company with just one asset—US Patent No. 6,266,674. Fully 168 patent lawsuits came to a sudden halt in October, when US District Judge Rodney Gilstrap stopped the litigation campaign in its tracks.

eDekka’s patent, which had been used to sue a wide array of online retailers, described nothing more than “the abstract idea of storing and labeling information,” Gilstrap found. Those were “routine tasks that could be performed by a human” and didn’t meet the standard for getting a patent. Gilstrap ruled the patent invalid.

eDekka was covered here many times before, even as recently as 2.5 months ago.

“Look at the patent syndicates of billionaires who now even pay the media to paint themselves as “charitable” individuals — something that better known trolls cannot afford to do (to Gates, for instance, spendings on the media cost approximately $300,000,000 per year).”IAM, which is literally receiving money from patent trolls (we wrote about this before), recently — in fact as recently as last week — wrote about the world’s biggest patent troll (also Microsoft-connected troll) and said that: “Fifth-ranked Searete LLC – well-documented as an Intellectual Ventures affiliate – made most of its assignments to the patent firm’s Innovation Science Fund.”

Searete is a part of it. Searete (see our Wiki) and Intellectual Ventures are both are connected to Bill Gates (even financially). Bill Gates, a pseudo philanthropist who uses his foundation for tax-exempt investment in patents, has created an ever-growing large network of patent trolls whose activity increases his personal wealth (this network also attacks Microsoft’s rivals). Don’t get distracted by eDekka and other massively smaller patent trolls. Focus on the big issue. Look at the patent syndicates of billionaires who now even pay the media to paint themselves as “charitable” individuals — something that better known trolls cannot afford to do (to Gates, for instance, spendings on the media alone cost approximately $300,000,000 per year). █

“Intellectual property is the next software.”

–Nathan Myhrvold, Microsoft patent troll

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Atrapado: Battistelli Presidente de la EPO Publicamente miente Acerca del Estado de su Organización, Así que Acerca de su Contrato Secreto, Salario y otros Ocultos Beneficios?

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 7:32 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

English/Original

Publicado en Deception, Europa, Patentes at 11:32 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

¿Y cómo un líder que está MINTIENDO a los medios puede ser tolearado por la Organización?

Benoît Battistelli: Mis relaciones son excelentes.

Sumario: La credibilidad de Benoît Battistelli esta rápidamente siendo disminuida por dudosas declaraciones, medias verdades, torcer la verdad, e incluso mentir abiertamente (¿que más esperan de Pinocho?)

RETORCIÉNDOSE para salir de la maraña que el mismo ha creado, el Presidente Battistelli, muy pronto simplemente Sr. Battistelli, hace declaraciones que encontrará difícil de defender (si es propiamente confrontado).

Lo que Battistelli dice de su supuesto ¨éxito¨ no es verdad. Lo hemos escuchado de muchas fuentes, ambas dentro y fuera de la EPO. La gente sabe que los datos que los publicistas de la organización se enorgullecen son en su mejor caso porpaganda. No es atípico mentir a los empleados de la EPO e incluso a los periodistas. Es una verdadera (o falsamente) equivocada estrategia porque tarde o temprano algun recipiente de las mentiras se dará cuenta, se sentirá traicionado, y enojado. Entonces simplemente dejan de creer al niño que sigue gritando ¨lobo!¨ En verdad es una estrategia a corto plazo.

“Es una verdadera (o falsamente) equivocada estrategia porque tarde o temprano algun recipiente de las mentiras se dará cuenta, se sentirá traicionado, y enojado.”¨Actualmente conozco mucho de datos internos,¨ nos dijo una persona, ¨pero desafortunadamente es muy sensitiva.¨ Mucha gente tiene mucho que decir pero estan con miedo de hacerlo. El emperador esta calato pero hay un esperado castigo para aquellos que lo digan a la multitud. Represalias, con efectos demostrables (como el despido de representates), evita que la verdad salga a la luz. Es entonces cuando la gente necesita confíar en habladurías, o como los medios lo llaman ¨rumores¨.

¿Cuándo los ¨ resultados¨ de la EPO serán escrudiñados por el público? ¿Hay allí afuera algún periodista decente? ¿Preparado a embarcarse en un proyecto más difícil que simplemente ¨parrotear¨ al equipo de PR or editar correos electrónicos para ellos (escritura fantasma)? Por instancia, este nuevo artículo de la prensa de abogados mencionó al equipo PR “Rainer Osterwalder, un vocero de la EPO” y atribuyó a él estos dudosos números. Estos individuos no son científicos, son vendedores y para que hagan esto son pagados.

Relacionado con algo que publicamos el Sábado (y que ya hemos traducido al Español), un lector dijo que nos perdimos la más interesante parte de los datos de IAM (de las capturas de pantalla que hablan de una encuesta en un sitio amigable con la EPO). El 2012 “68% de encuestados dijo que la calidad de la EPO es “excelente” o “muy buena”, eso es una alza del 62% desde 2011.” Sin embargo, el 2015 “la EPO calificó mucho mejor entre encuestados de practica privada, alcánzando un 62% en ambas excelente o muy buena.” No estamos exactamente seguros como eso esta de acuerdo con Pinocho Battistelli que dice: ¨Más usuarios han confirmado que están altamente satisfechos con la calidad de nuestros productos.¨

“El emperador está calato, pero hay un castigo esperado para aquellos que se lo digan a la multitud.”Eso es actualmente un punto justo. Sin embargo no creemos que Battistelli actualmente escribió aquel argumento. El simplemente puso sus posaderas en una silla de estudio, leyendo un guión en Inglés con una foto de Munich de fondo con algunos telones de fondo dinámicos (Cesar de Alemania en su propia mente). De cualquier manera, el hecho que él divulgue estas mentiras que viene de sus compadres de IAM (se rascan la espanda entre ellos) mientras llaman a esto ¨independiente¨ es algo divertido. Si no cómico, es VERGONZOSO. Daña la imcredibilidad de Pinocho Battistelli (o lo que quede de ella).

El salario de Battistelli es probablemente la materia que mucha gente habla en estos días. ¿Qué si el presidente ha simplemente escondido/disfrazado/cancelado sus bonuses (talvez cambiando de nombre al paquete de beneficios), consiguió un nuevo contrato, y oró que nadie descubra el anterior? Muchas cosas son probables en teoría y sin evidencia dura la gente se queda preguntándose.

“En Abril del 2015 su salario fue reportado como 250k Euros,” notó un lector nuestro, recordando este artículo titulado "Tregua en el Refugio de Taxes de la Oficina Europea de Patentes".

“El salario de Battistelli es probablemente la materia que mucha gente habla en estos días.”¨Si la figura anterior fue correcta esto presumiblemente indicaría que la figura ¨nueva¨ de 300k se refiere a su salario después de la extensión de su contrato el verano del 2015,¨ este lector añadió. ¨Lo que permanece sin respuesta es que pagos adicionales él tiene encima de su salario básico. El niega cualquier extra ¨bono¨. Eso pueda ser formalmente correcto por que pagos adicionales puedan no ser designados como ¨bonos¨ en el contrato. EL PROBLEMA REAL AQUÍ ES LA FALTA DE TRANSPARENCIA ACERCA DE LOS TÉRMINOS DE SU CONTRATO. Incluso ni siquiera el Consejo administrativo que lo nombró ha sido permitido de investigar/revisar su contrato.

Bueno, el Sr. Kongstad sabe lo que hay en el contrato. Lo hemos señalado muchas veces anteriormente. ¨IAM,¨ nuestro lector añadió, ¨el que es mejor conocido por las piezas de hojaldre de la EPO, se enojó acerca de la falta de transparencia el 2010¨ y escribió: ¨La falta de transparencia alrededor de la elección del Sr. Battistelli como el próximo presidente de la EPO nunca fué una idea buena. Donde nombramiento de ejecutivos son hechos a oscuras y sin ninguna explicación abierta, es allí donde siempre emergen rumores. Y eso es exactamente lo que está pasando hoy.¨

“Kongstad es una de las pocas personas que conoce (y aparentemente firma) el salario de Battistelli.”Casi al final el Sr. Kongstad también fue mencionado: ¨Encima de todo esto, no hacer los términos públicos es totalmente destructor a sí-mismo. Como la hoja informativa de la SUEPO declara: ¨…parece claro que si el Sr. Kongstad siente que tiene que ocultar el contrato, entonces hay algo que quiere esconder¨. El simple hecho es que si tu no eres transparente en tu proceso de selección, dejas espacio para la duda. No sabemos porque Benoit Battistelli fue escojido para ser el próximo presidente de la EPO así como tampoco los términos en los que dirigiría el cargo. Mucha gente dentro de la burbuja Europea de patentes probablemente pensarán que esto no es un deseable estado de cosas, pero al final simplemente recogerán sus hombros y continuarán con ello. Sin embargo, la mayoría de Europeos no están dentro de la burbuja y muchos de ellos sospechan o estan dudosos acerca de las patentes y de aquellos que administran el sistema de patentes. Esta aparentemente ausencia total de transparencia (y escrúpulos) no los ayudarán a cambiar de actitud.¨

Kongstad es una de las pocas personas que conoce (y aparentemente firma) el salario de Battistelli. Talvez la ruptura es ahora parcialmente motivada por intereses egoístas, principalmente Kongstad tratando de asegurar/salvar su propio trabajo. Como IAM señalo hace 6 años, es simplente raro que el contrato sea mantenido en secreto; sugiere que están escondiéndo algo. Si Pinocho Battistelli voluntariamente hace declaraciones acerca de ello a los medios pero al mismo tiempo rechaza mostrar su contrato (incluso los pasados), entonces no está diciendo la verdad total (que esperaban de Pinocho). Su predecesor lo hizo, así que no sería algo sin precedentes. No sería defensible esconderlo debajo de una roca; no hay excusa válida aquí porque ninguna existe.

“La incertidumbre lleva a la gente a especular, y esto a veces va en contra de Battistelli. Pero es mejor para él no decir nada en absoluto que decir algo que más tarde podría lamentar (a menos que no le quede mucho tiempo de todos modos).”Podríamos usar confirmación (pistola humeante, no rumores) acerca del salario de Battistelli, pero la respuesta a la pregunta no sería tán simple, definitivamente no tán simple como Battistelli desee que aparesca. Tuvimos mucha gente diciendo los números, pero hay alguna variación en ellos, y parece variar de acuerdo a definiciones. Más gente aparte de Kongstad conoces su salario actual, ¨pero como puedes imaginar eso es muy confidencial,¨ como una fuente lo puso. La incertidumbre deja a la gente especulándo, y a veces va en contra de Battistelli. Pero es mejor para él no decir nada en absoluto que decir algo que más tarde podría lamentar (a menos que no le quede mucho tiempo de todos modos).

En el pasado cuando escribimos acerca de las demandas irracionales de compensación notamos (parafráseando un poco) que esto ha servido para probar un montón de lo que hemos escrito con anterioridad, pero la parte acerca del salario de Battistelli tenemos muchas dudas como si sirviera para sugerir que su salario ´real´ fue elevado a casi 2 millones de euros (anuales). Otra posibilidad es que el número no es correcto y que son actualmente 10 años de su salario, basados en una extrapolación de un salario más bajo. De cualquier manera, esto es donde la inaceptable ¨clandestinidad¨ de Battistelli acerca de su salario (su predecesora reveló la suya) lo ha perjudicado aún más.

“Nada que temer, nada que esconder,” dicen los medios de los billonarios a nosotros…

“Otra cosa,” nos dijo una fuente, relacionada a la falsa carta de apoyo.

¨Han habido tantas revelaciones que pienso que pronto pueda ser posible tener una lista conjunta de ellas acerca de quien firmó y quien rechazó haber firmado tan estúpida petición,¨ nuestra fuente nos dijo, y ¨eso será totalmente interesante. Muy clara las reacciones de los PDs¨

Bueno, aquellos que la firmaron (o permitieron que la firmen con su nomber) pueda ser que se lamenten de esto más tarde (días/semanas más tarde) por una no necesaria/evitable verguenza, especialmente despues de que Battistelli sea historia. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

03.06.16

The EPO’s Media Strategy at Work: Union Feuds and Group Fracturing

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 8:39 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Apologies to Mr. Lucas for this famous meme’s reuse

Adding the caption/s to the photo op is an easy game to play now

Summary: The efforts to demonise SUEPO using ‘good child’ FFPE EPO are well underway, with insults flying both ways (classic union-busting pattern where one side is embraced to help discredit/malign/alienate/mischaracterise/undermine another)

THE EPO’s management is rather frantic/panicky about the negative press coverage (here is German radio coverage for those who might want to send us a summary or a translated transcript). So, as one might expect, in cooperation with outside help (FTI Consulting) the PR team keeps bombarding journalists with self-created (strategic) distraction, such as the above photo op and (dis)infographics about so-called ‘results’.

“This is clearly the intention; timing isn’t a coincidence here.”We are worried that the EPO’s scandals (here is a primer for the uninitiated) may somehow be brushed aside because of the charm offensives, aided to a large degree by the FFPE EPO MoU, which we wrote about in [1, 2, 3, 4]. This is clearly the intention; timing isn’t a coincidence here. In fact, based on documents, the day of the signing was chosen by the EPO’s management. It hardly feels like a two-sided agreement because EPO management calls the shots at all levels, even before the signing of a binding agreement. Would anyone trust an abusive partner to somehow be less abusive (or even violent) after marriage, as if matrimony alone would magically soften the person?

Speaking of coincidences, someone sent me “Coincidences at EPO” over the weekend, listing them as follows (verbatim):

Please be informed of more coincidences at EPO:

(Coincidence 36) Current FFPE-EPO’s treasurer Michiel Sonius recently became a manager in team Battistelli.

(Coincidence 37) The four other FFPE-EPO committee members have Dutch names.

(Coincidence 38) The FFPE-EPO union received office space within the EPO premises, whereas union SUEPO was ejected from EPO premises a year ago.

(Coincidence 39) SUEPO has 3400 members who feel Battistelli is bashing them and their union. FFPE-EPO claims to have 70 members, at least one of which feels bashed by SUEPO.

(Coincidence 40) By signing a MOU two weeks before the AC meeting, Battistelli gets EPO staff to quarrel over details. He can now fully focus on votes for his survival.

Looking at SUEPO’s public site, there has been no word from there since the MoU. They probably know well enough that lashing out at (or bashing) FFPE EPO would be immediately exploited/framed/interpreted as SUEPO being excessively combative and unnecessarily divisive. We have read and published leaked documents from Microsoft where there are explicit admissions of this strategy, namely finding or accentuating differences between groups (e.g. BSD/GPL) in order to incite them against one another. It’s related to the divide-and-conquer (or divide and rule) strategy, somewhat akin to sectarian violence.

Even with SUEPO saying nothing at all, and with only some anonymous comments posted at IP Kat, an apologist of FFPE EPO (or rather, someone who chooses to view or portray FFPE EPO as the victim) wrote:

What you see here is union-bashing….exactly what Suepo accuses the EPO management of. The message seems to be clear: if you do not agree with Suepo you are wrong. This is what happened to the independent staffreps, they were bullied away.
Samuel, you have my respect for trying to fing a solution to the current situation!
EPO staff, if you want to be represented by bullies, vote Suepo again next elections.
After all, they have been very successful so far.

This is a very provocative comment. Unsurprisingly, it immediately led to responses such as: “Just the opposite, as an EPO outsider I find the comments very factual and informative. I doubt it very much that the information is coming from a sole source, or SUEPO as your posting suggests. FFPE-EPO is a new actor on the scene, so it is normal that they get scrutinized at the beginning and have to face some wisdom of the crowds. As Mr van der Bijl as a chairman of the FFPE-EPO is about to resign, it may be an opportunity for you to shape the EPO future differently and put your candidacy forward. Good luck!”

“At that stage, if not well beforehand, Battistelli too might already be out of the Office (for good), perhaps back in Corsica (with or without a forced exile from Eponia).”A lot of this is true. The comments don’t come from SUEPO (nothing suggests so) and the current Chairman must finish his term next month, so who knows what will happen then? At that stage, if not well beforehand, Battistelli too might already be out of the Office (for good), perhaps back in Corsica (with or without a forced exile from Eponia).

Looking at some other comments which people posted on Sunday, one says (about the provocative comment, which merited a reply): “Nonsense. What you see is valid criticism of both the content of the MoU and the timing. Given the present situation, the timing is unfortunate at best and downright suspicious at worst. The fact that half the membership of FFPE-EPO were against the signing of the MoU, and some members have even left the union precisely because of this, speaks volumes.”

“As you know, it is prohibited to express outside opinions without a previous authorization from the EPO administration.”
      –AnonymousWriting to Samuel van der Bijl (referring to him by name), one other person wrote: “While all EPO staff (including staff representatives and SUEPO elected members) have to remain anonymous on the Web, I´m happy to see that you enjoy a privileged status and you can sign your comments with your name. As you know, it is prohibited to express outside opinions without a previous authorization from the EPO administration. Then my question: Did you get the authorization from the president to comment on IPKAT, and then you act as a EPO spokesman? Or next Monday will you be investigated by our investigation unit and probably dismissed?”

Here is another comment:

Firing elected unions members.
The AC asked for revision.
It’s illegal in most of the European countries.
It’s not only legally but also morally indefensible.
FFPE signs a MOU with people claiming the indefensible and furthermore proud to do so (see TV reports, interviews, etc, etc.).
FFPE complains to be a victim.

FFPE is being opportunistic, it’s not a victim. It’s misguided, if anything (or at best), and it has only itself to blame for its horrible decision. How could it not foresee these consequences? As one very recent comment put it: “The only reason to sign such a pamphlet is opportunism. It doesn’t give any rights except to send twice a year a management approved email to all staff. Compared to the “acquired rights” from the pre-BB [Battistelli] era, this is just a joke. If BB & Co would be genuinely interested in staff, they would respect the elected representatives – at least what they have to say (play the ball and not the person …). I guess FFPE will learn the hard way what it means to have a Pyhrric victory.”

“FFPE is being opportunistic, it’s not a victim. It’s misguided, if anything (or at best), and it has only itself to blame for its horrible decision.”“If I understand rightly,” said another person, “disagreeing with FFPE-EPO is considered Union-bashing? You and the union are free to make whatever decisions you like. But not to allow criticism or comment is setting the bar a little low. Abuse or threats or intimidation should be deplored and not permitted. But to point out the folly of only 24 people voting for a MoU which will have knock-on consequences affecting 6500+ staff is hardly unallowable, surely?”

From the above we learn quite a bit of new stuff, even if not everything is verifiable. If it’s true that most FFPE EPO members OPPOSED the MoU with Team Battistelli (see the comments), then by signing it with the management anyway the FFPE EPO’s Chairman demonstrated that his group is as undemocratic as the EPO’s management. That’s just self-discrediting a move. “only 24 people voting for a MoU which will have knock-on consequences affecting 6500+ staff,” said this comment. 24 people out of 75 is less than a third. That’s far from a majority.

“That’s one of the classic elements of yellow unions in principle and in practice.”Regarding the person who wrote “disagreeing with FFPE-EPO is considered Union-bashing,” let’s consider how laughable a dichotomy that is. It’s not a case of either one agrees with the signing of the MoU or one bashes this union. Far from it.

FFPE EPO, having fallen into Battistelli’s trap, probably created a rift, as expected all along; it’s a fracturing strategy — an unfortunate situation which helps distract staff and resort to infighting rather than fighting the real abusers (Team Battistelli). That’s one of the classic elements of yellow unions in principle and in practice. That’s why yellow unions are banned in many places. It’s a ban that came about due to situations such as this.

According to this comment, half of FFPE EPO’s members have quit because of this back-stabbing deal with Battistelli. Is this true? Can anyone verify?

“They’re in the job of crushing movements of activists, whistleblowers, competition and so on, not just unions.”To Battistelli, FFPE EPO is just something to exploit and throw aside. It’s collateral damage. We now enter a new (apparently predictable) phase in union-busting action. The forces behind union-busting are demonising SUEPO and they needn’t even do this directly. Watch what Control Risks and FTI Consulting have done for EPO management. Absolutely despicable an act, not doubt, and both firms are on the wrong side of history. Consider the history of Control Risks in Iraq (the invasion) and known Stasi connections. Helping the EPO with union-busting moves is ‘small peanuts’ to them. Don’t forget FTI Consulting's role in dirty energy AstroTurfing, either. These people know what they are doing. They’re in the job of crushing movements of activists, whistleblowers, competition and so on, not just unions.

The following new comment calls SUEPO “immovable object”, creating or reinforcing a narrative where SUEPO is just some bad stubborn boy (spoiled brat) rather than a genuine union that’s pursuing justice for workers. To quote the comment in full:

What I’ve seen for quite some time is an irresistible force (Battistelli) coming up against an immovable object (SUEPO). The inevitable result is the present train wreck.

What is needed is flexibility on both sides. We haven’t seen it from either side.

SUEPO has been an immovable object since before Battistelli arrived. Because of Battistelli’s inflexibility, SUEPO is even less likely to be flexible now. They are so deeply entrenched in their position that there is no way for them to change. And they criticise anybody on the staff side who isn’t equally immovable.

It appears the Admin Council has privately been telling Battistelli to be more flexible, even though supporting him in public. But he has ignored them. As a result, he might lose their support at the March AC meeting. Maybe they will force him to be more flexible, or maybe they will replace him.

But that would still leave a problem. If the management does become more flexible, when will SUEPO become more flexible? I don’t see it happening. They are still the same old immovable object.

“Basic human rights & labor rights aren’t negotiable,” responded one person to the above, “full stop!” The above spins the situation somewhat. It puts the blame and the burden on SUEPO, as if the whole situation is SUEPO’s fault.

Here is another new comment:

About BB’s statement in the Dutch press: “…I sincerely hope that SUEPO realize that their “empty seat” is not to the advantage of employees or of the patent office. ”

Does the reader observe here that BB is missing SUEPO? …maybe putting a pair of empty boots near the “empty seat” to remind him that there is still an important invisible party in the room.

The latest comment says: “Shame on you Mr van der Bijl and FFEP : this is the regime that you now support.” It points to the BR “Kontrovers” program on YouTube (just posted here).

Right now the EPO’s management has a cowardly, weak, incapable partner which it calls a union. It’s on the verge of being just a corporate union, as it won’t be able to rock the boat and it hardly ever tried to. As this one comment put it the other day: “Just to put this in perspective, the union which has signed this MOU represents only 1% of staff, is biased towards one specific nationality (Dutch), was set up specifically to complain about the expat privileges of non-Dutch staff and is only open to staff in the Netherlands. Thus it is not even slightly representative of the majority of staff at the EPO.

“There is now a fictional (perceived) fiery feud between unions (as will be framed by Team Battistelli although there’s no public confrontation between the two), so the tension has been misplaced and Battistelli can soon allege that there’s a “civil war” or infighting (not involving him personally), reinforcing his fictional narrative of ‘unreasonable’ SUEPO which is intolerant to negotiations and is basically “Mafia” or “dangerous cocktail”.”“The FFPE btw are something of a laughing stock at the EPO and haven’t even been active for years – their public pages haven’t been updated since 2008 I believe.”

We noticed that too. And if it’s true that half of their members have just left (we need confirmation, as for now it’s just a rumour), then all FFPE EPO will be (or be remembered for) is a silly photo op (PR ammunition) that will be used as ‘evidence’ later this month (by Team Battistelli) that there is peace for our time. There isn’t. There is now a fictional (perceived) fiery feud between unions (as will be framed by Team Battistelli although there’s no public confrontation between the two), so the tension has been misplaced and Battistelli can soon allege that there’s a “civil war” or infighting (not involving him personally), reinforcing his fictional narrative of ‘unreasonable’ SUEPO which is intolerant to negotiations and is basically "Mafia" or "dangerous cocktail". █

Update/Postscript: Near the time of publishing the above another comment was added — this one from “Former SUEPO official” — and it echoes some of our sentiments, then mentions the vote for a strike. To quote the comment in full:

I must confess to be deeply disturb by the current trend of these comments. Whilst I do not appreciate the move of the FFPE, I appreciate even less the aggressive tone and the words used against FFPE members and Samuel van der Bijl, presumably from many embittered SUEPO supporters.

My opinion is that they are doing a pretty bad job at trying to defend the interests of staff: the document they signed is not helping to solve any of the problems affecting staff and they have apparently not even realised that with the pressure on the president they could have amended the document to something potentially useful. That looks pretty bad for wannabe staff representatives.

But this is nothing more than my opinion. And everyone must respect diverging opinions. I understand that the perspective of being recognised officially as a representative union despite systematically failing to have FFPE candidates elected as staff representatives (even with a tailored-made elections rules unknown in Europe and in the democratic world) overweighted all the other aspects. This step matches well my opinion of the strategic thinking of the successive FFPE leaders until now.

Regardless how pitiful it looks, FFPE has the right to choose this path. Their opinion can be properly challenged and battled against. But some of the posts above target the FFPE as a whole or its head. I fear their authors have forgotten through their emotions that the FFPE is neither responsible for the current situation nor the stupid rat race into which examiners are forced to enrol. The office will not last very long this way, the public and the service we are supposed to provide are blatantly ignored, the applicants will soon feel the unwanted consequences of these mad policies, and the staff will be left with nothing.

If we want to change to course of destruction set by the president, all the staff must be united. FFPE members, SUEPO members, ethical managers that still believe in the office if any are left, non union members, and even former staff members or families! Infighting is a luxury we cannot afford if we still want to have a chance. And whilst the signature of FFPE on this document is not the smartest idea of the year, we have all made mistakes. Past cannot be changed but we should all (at least try) to make things better in the future!

For instance, FFPE and SUEPO could both call clearly to massively vote in favour of the strike on Tuesday. Individually, you can all participate to the strike! For those you have never participated to a day of strike, sometimes cowardly taking a day off or faked strike participation, change it NOW! Please show that you are worth serving the European public and have values!

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Kontrovers: German Program (With Subtitles) About the European Patent Office

Posted in Europe, Patents, Videos at 8:23 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: English subtitles added to last week’s investigative report (TV program) about the EPO

“SUEPO Munich” uploaded the following yesterday. This is a two-part video of the program we mentioned here the other day.

The attacks on the unions continue, especially because SUEPO’s popularity grew enormously, necessitating some form of character assassination (the subject of our next post). █

Permalink 2 Comments      Send this to a friend

Vote for EPO Strike This Tuesday in Order to Replace EPO Management

Posted in Europe, Patents at 11:44 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Strike, a famous painting by Stanisław Lentz

Summary: In order to dethrone the tyranny created and protected (by expansion of an inner circle) after Battistelli had been undemocratically put in place, vote this Tuesday for a strike, enjoy an extra day (or more) off, and watch the Administrative Council (AC) explaining to Battistelli that he needs to leave (not just a ‘house ban’)

IRRATIONAL people probably still think that the Office will survive the latest storm. Well, it will, but not with Battistelli. He will have to go soon. The EPO’s Twitter account (i.e. the PR team) is even working on a Saturday now, propping up puff pieces it managed to get The Local to publish (twice even!). Working on a Saturday isn’t normal. It is very rare (we saw that only once before, even on new year's day when hogwash was desperately needed). This is telling. They are probably hoping to save the king, as the famous saying goes. They disseminate the propaganda, even with awkward videos of Battistelli lurching on a pew in a studio with many cameras, reading a script with dubious claims (some of them outright lies). How much more pathetic can it get for Battistelli? They scheduled this propaganda probably to coincide with a TV program they are desperate to bury and distract journalists from.

“How much more pathetic can it get for Battistelli?”The other day we received information from a reader, noting that “the call for strike is a genuine call the strike, by genuine staff.” There is no doubt about it and when we wrote about it last month we didn’t see documents which later showed us that non-vote would be misleadingly presented by Battistelli and his circle/crew as lack of interest (we covered this days ago). Our source further reinforces this belief, stressing that if the ballot turnout is poor on March 8^th, Battistelli “will argue that he has the majority of staff behind him. This will influence the AC and might jeopardise their plans to sack him in the meeting on 16/17 March.”

“So please go and vote for a strike, and more importantly tell others to do the same.”Yes, this was realised a while back when we became aware, based on numerous documents, that Battistelli was planning to have a sort of Crimean ‘election’/’referendum’. If people come by the thousands to vote for a strike, there’s no opportunity for retribution, even if the process somehow tracked people’s votes. So please go and vote for a strike, and more importantly tell others to do the same. It’s strength in numbers and the more people vote in favour, the better protected colleagues (who do the same) will be. This is an opportunity to show to the AC not only that people are fed up with Battistelli — demonstrably a terrible leader — but are also prepared and willing to take the risk (with keyloggers of all) of voting for a strike. With proven support for a strike from EPO staff (effectively a vote of zero confidence in the management), delegates need not fear voting against Battistelli, who terrified them to make an example, at the next meeting (10 days from now). █

“No man will make a great leader who wants to do it all himself or get all the credit for doing it.”

–Andrew Carnegie

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Busted Battistelli: EPO President Publicly Lies About the State of the EPO, So What About His Secret Contract, Salary and Other Undisclosed Benefits?

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 11:32 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

And how can a leader who is lying to the media be tolerated by the Organisation?

Summary: Benoît Battistelli’s credibility is rapidly being diminished by dubious statements, semi-truths, truth-bending, and even outright lies

SQUIRMING to get himself out of a mess of his own creation, President Battistelli, soon to be just Mr. Battistelli, makes statements which he will find hard to defend (if properly scrutinised).

What Battistelli says about his “success” is untrue. We heard it from multiple sources, both inside and outside the EPO. People know that the data which EPO marketers brag about is at best spin. It’s not atypical to lie to staff of the EPO and even to journalists. It is a bad-spirited thing. It is a truly (or falsely) misguided strategy because sooner or later the recipients of lies find out, feel betrayed, and then get angry. Then they just stop believing the boy who keeps crying “wolf!” It’s thus a short-term strategy.

“It is a truly (or falsely) misguided strategy because sooner or later the recipients of lies find out, feel betrayed, and then get angry.”“I actually know lots of insider data,” told us one person, “but unfortunately it is too sensitive.” A lot of people have a lot to say, but people are afraid to say it. The emperor is naked but there’s expected punishment for those who say this to the crowd. Reprisal, with demonstrable effects (like dismissed staff representatives), prevents truth from getting disseminated. That’s when people increasingly need to rely on hearsay, or as the media calls it, “rumours”.

When will the “results” data of the EPO be publicly subjected to fact-checking? Are there any decent journalists out there? Prepared to embark on a harder project than just parroting the PR Team or editing E-mails from them (ghostwriting)? For instance, this new article from lawyers’ press mentioned the PR team‘s “Rainer Osterwalder, a spokesman for the EPO” and attributes to him these dubious figures. These people aren’t scientists, they’re marketers and this is what they’re paid to do.

Relating to something we published on Saturday (and have just translated into Spanish), one reader said that we missed the most interesting part of the IAM data (from the screenshots that speak about a survey of readers in an EPO-friendly niche site). In 2012 “68% or respondents stated that the EPO’s quality is either “excellent” or “very good”, that’s up from 62% in 2011.” However, in 2015 “the EPO did even better among private practice respondents, achieving 62% at either excellent or very good.” Not exactly sure how that agrees with Battistelli stating that: “More users have confirmed that they’re highly satisfied with the quality of our products.”

“The emperor is naked but there’s expected punishment for those who say this to the crowd.”That’s actually a fair point. However, we don’t believe Battistelli actually wrote that talking point. He just sat there in a studio on a chair, reading an English script with a photo of Munich superimposed on the background with some dynamic backdrops (Caesar of Germany in his own mind). Either way, the very fact that he spreads this misleading stuff and it comes from his buddies at IAM (they rub each other’s back) while calling this “independent” is in itself somewhat amusing. If not just comical, it’s outrageous. It damages Battistelli’s credibility (what’s left of it).

Battistelli’s salary is probably the subject many people are speaking about these days. What if the President has just hidden/concealed/canceled his bonuses (perhaps renaming the benefits package), got a new contract, and prayed nobody would find the old one/s? A lot of things are theoretically possible and without hard evidence people are left wondering.

“In April 2015 his salary was reported as 250k Euros,” noted a reader of ours, recalling this article titled "Truce at the Tax Haven of the European Patent Office".

“Battistelli’s salary is probably the subject many people are speaking about these days.”“If the earlier figure was correct this would presumably indicate that the “new” 300k figure refers to his salary following the extension of his contract in the summer of 2015,” this reader added. “What remains unanswered is what additional payments he gets on top of his basic salary. He denies getting any “bonus”. That might be formally correct because additional payments might not be officially designated as a “bonus” in the contract. The real problem here is the lack of transparency about the terms of his contract. Not even the Administrative Council who appointed him appears to have been allowed to inspect the contract.”

Well, Mr. Kongstad does know what’s in the contract. We pointed this out several times before. “IAM,” our reader added, “which is otherwise best known for its EPO puff pieces, got upset about the lack of transparency back in 2010″ and wrote: “The lack of transparency surrounding the selection of Benoît Battistelli as the next president of the EPO was never a good idea. Where senior appointments are made in the murk and without full explanation or disclosure there is always room for rumours to emerge. And that is exactly what is now happening.”

“Kongstad is one of the very few people who know (and apparently sign off) Battistelli’s salary.”Towards the end Mr. Kongstad too gets mentioned: “On top of this, not to make the terms public is entirely self-defeating. As the SUEPO newsletter states: “… it seems clear that if Mr. Kongstad feels he has to hide the contract that there is something to hide”. The simple fact is that if you are not transparent in your selection process, you leave room for doubt. We don’t know why Benoît Battistelli was chosen to be the next president of the EPO and we do not know under what terms he will hold the post. Most people inside the European patent bubble will probably think this is not a desirable state of affairs, but in the end they will just shrug their shoulders and get on with it. However, most Europeans are not inside that bubble and a good number of them are suspicious of or dubious about patents and those who administer the patent system. This seemingly total absence of transparency will not help to change their minds.”

Kongstad is one of the very few people who know (and apparently sign off) Battistelli’s salary. Maybe the rift is now partly motivated by self interest, namely Kongstad trying to secure/save his own job. As IAM pointed out 6 years ago, it’s just odd that the contract is kept secret; it suggests that they are hiding something. If Battistelli is willing to make statements about it to the media but still refuses to show the contract (including past contracts), then he is not telling the full truth. His predecessor did disclose her salary, so it wouldn’t be unprecedented a thing to do. It wouldn’t be defensible to hide under a rock; there’s no use of a valid excuse here because none exists.

“The uncertainty leaves people speculating, and it sometimes works against Battistelli. But it’s better for him to say nothing at all than to say something he might later regret (unless there’s not much time left for him anyway).”We could use confirmation (smoking gun, not hearsay) regarding the salary of Battistelli, but the answer to the question wouldn’t be so simple, definitely not as simple as Battistelli wishes for it to appear. We had a lot of people tell the number/s, but there is some variation there and it seems to vary depending on definitions. More people than just Kongstad know the actual salary, “but as you can imagine that is very confidential,” as one source put it. The uncertainty leaves people speculating, and it sometimes works against Battistelli. But it’s better for him to say nothing at all than to say something he might later regret (unless there’s not much time left for him anyway).

Back when we wrote about the unreasonable compensation demands we noted (to paraphrase a little) that this served to prove a lot of what we wrote before, but the part about Battistelli’s salary we very much doubted as it would serve to suggest that his ‘real’ salary was hiked to almost 2 million euros (per annum). Another possibility is that the number is not correct and that it’s actually 10 years’ salary, based on extrapolation of a much lower figure (salary). Either way, this is where Battistelli’s unacceptable secrecy about his salary (his predecessor disclosed hers) actually harmed him even more.

“Nothing to fear, nothing the hide,” says the billionaires’ media to us…

“Another thing,” told us a source, relates to the bogus letter of support.

“There have been so many leaks that I think soon it may be possible to get a list together about who signed and who refused to sign that stupid petition,” our source told us, and “that will be quite interesting. Very telling the reactions of the PDs.”

Well, those who signed it (or allowed it to be signed in their name) might regret this later (days/weeks down the line) because of an unnecessary/avoidable embarrassment, especially after Battistelli is history. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend