02.23.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 10:10 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A call for help in documenting complaints about human rights abuses at the European Patent Office (EPO)
UPLOADED a short while ago (to Google, which also operates Blogspot and GMail, neither of which offers true privacy to say the least) was this document [PDF] which serves to highlight concerns about the EPO’s abuses. We don’t have the text (needs OCR and/or careful manual work) and would love for someone to provide it.
Here is page 1:
Here is page 2:
We’re drowning in material at the moment, so if anyone could please post the text (e.g. down below in the comments), that would be great. It’s worth an entire article of its own, in order to do justice to this action.
More usefully, however, given the circumstances affecting Frenchmen (and a Frenchwoman) we also need a native French speaker to accurately translate this new article, which one of our readers dubbed “Suicides, Burn-out, discriminations à l’Office européen des brevets (OEB)” (that’s EPO in French). To quote the opening paragraph (not a translation): “Suicides, Burn-out, discriminations et licenciements des délégués syndicaux à l’Office européen des brevets (OEB) et à la Banque Centrale Européenne (BCE)… Syndicats et élus politiques tirent la sonnette d’alarme sur le mal-être des salariés dans les institutions européennes. En cause, notamment, l’impunité juridique de ces institutions : elles ne relèvent d’aucune législation nationale, ne sont soumises à aucun contrôle extérieur et instaurent leurs propres règlements. Décryptage.”
The coming few articles will focus on more urgent and emergent subjects. We must always prioritise in order to get things out at the right time. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 9:30 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Another new leak regarding the emperor’s last stand, as the upcoming Administrative Council meeting (in March) may reveal, for the first time ever, a Chairman (Jesper Kongstad) who has lost trust in Battistelli, the President of the Office
THE EPO is in a state of disarray and the lunatic dictator acts accordingly, aided by his increasingly-notorious circle of dictators whose livelihood depends on their chief dictator. This afternoon we urgently published a leak that we had gotten from 3 independent sources. The following article serves to reaffirm the authenticity of some things we got from many other sources, so it’s definitely not likely to have been faked or manipulated (we compared the sources to ascertain accuracy).
On a more personal note, my wife’s flu is meanwhile passing/progressing to me as well, just ahead of a very busy day (of reporting on EPO matters). It’s really quite a personal struggle (it’s 2 AM now), but nothing compared to the abuse some staff representatives at the EPO have been subjected to.
One source of ours said about the last post that s/he “got a copy of this document that ha[d] been circulating about lately. Source unknown, thus: authenticity not guaranteed. It could originate from any of the 38 delegations.
“Kongstad looks as if he is distancing himself from his old accomplice Battistelli, and positioning himself for the postbellum period.
“The last paragraph of the draft resolution is a hint that Battistelli — or the future EPOrg president — could be made much more accountable to the AC [Administrative Council], and his actions would be more narrowly controlled. But then the AC members (and the governments who send them) would have to come up with actual, visible, policies for the Patent Office.
“If there is any truth to the rumour that Battistelli intends to walk away with “his” loot no matter what, then he undoubtedly possesses some means of leverage over JK [Jesper Kongstad]. Remember, JK and Battistelli “negotiated” together the President’s secret employment contract, with its perks, bonuses and all.”
Glyn Moody was especially astonished by the part which said: “Unfortunately, we have not been able to engage in a meaningful dialogue with the President” (from the leak we published).
One anonymous comment said to us earlier today that “BB [Battistelli] and his supporters have prepared a ridiculous letter in support of the management and against the above draft letter/decision. The letter denies the existence of a social conflict and states a support for the course of action taken by BB. The President is clearly blackmailing the managers and so many directors are facing a dilemma: sign it or not? They know that if BB survives they will have a hard life. I hope you’ll receive copy of it and that you’ll post it here. It will show the extent of madness of the EPO high management. No letter will help BB. He’s bound to fall soon.”
Well, we got the letter from several sources, not only one, and both of the below examples are in agreement (formatting and typo variations only). It’s definitely authentic, there’s no prank here. Here it is (version 1):
Letter to the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation
From: the management of the EPO
We have been made aware of a draft decision some delegations intend to present to the next March 2016 Administrative Council session.
We would like to share with you our concerns. We take this exceptional step as this is commensurate to the seriousness of the consequences of the draft resolution, if adopted.
Firstly, we would like to point out that we are committed to the mission and goals of the Organisation. To that respect, we have supported and implemented the reforms and new policies stemming from the 5 roadmaps unanimously adopted by the AC in 2011 and 2014. These reforms have already borne fruit and the Organisation is now healthier than ever and is equipped to deliver first class services (Unitary patent, quality, timeliness…) At the same time the reforms have increased the long term sustainability of the Organisation, while maintaining a very attractive package and excellent working conditions for its staff. This healthy situation benefits directly the European economy, the Member States, and EPO’s staff.
Concerns from the staff occur in all countries and Organisations in period of substantial transformation. Despite this, the staff is currently highly performing and committed to the mission and goals of the Organisation.
We are aware that Officials of the EPO are being put directly or indirectly under pressure. The Office and more and more of its officials at all levels of the hierarchy including elected staff representatives have been and are subject to defamation campaigns internally and externally, personal threats and harassment.
In that respect it is the Office’s duty of care to address the situation and proceed under the EPO’s regulatory framework, to establish the facts and when needed, engage in disciplinary procedures. The respondents have regulatory means of redress including the request to a review of the decisions.
Under the current circumstances we urge you to consider that the proposal submitted to the AC will undermine the position of all managers to successfully pursue the changes initiated in the road maps as decided in the Administrative Council and will create unfortunate precedents which will jeopardize seriously the management of the Organisation and its capacity to ensure its operations effectively now and in the future.
We fully support the Organisation’s mission and its fundamental values. Therefore we urge the Administration Council, before taking any decision on the matter to give careful consideration to this letter:
- to remain firm on ethics and not tolerate misconduct;
- to focus on the great achievements and improve the positive image of the Organisation;
- to endorse the on-going initiatives of the Office in the social dialogue (recognition of unions, social study, current review of regulations, social conference).
We are convinced that the implementation of the reforms is a solid basis for a solid EPO fit for the future.
Formatting is the source’s own. Another person separately got hold of the original. “I was in the process of sending you the text which VP1 (Willy Minnoye) wanted his subordinate directors to “voluntarily” endorse when the scoop came out at IPkat. At least you’ll have the full version, in case it hasn’t already reached you through a dozen other correspondents.”
Well, that’s an overestimate of how many people sent the letter to us, but here’s the cleaned-up OCR version of the same document (version 2 of n):
Letter to the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation
From: the management of the EPO
We have been made aware of a draft decision some delegations intend to present to the next March 2016 Administrative Council session
We would like to share with you our concerns. We take this exceptional step as this is commensurate to the seriousness of the consequences of the draft resolution, if adopted.
Firstly, we would like to point out that we are committed to the mission and goals of the Organisation. To that respect, we have supported and implemented the reforms and new policies stemming from the 5 roadmaps unanimously adopted by the AC in 2011 and 2014. These reforms have already borne fruit and the Organisation is now healthier than ever and is equipped to deliver first class services (Unitary patent, quality, timeliness…). At the same time the reforms have increased the long term sustainability of the Organisation, while maintaining s very attractive package and excellent working conditions for its staff. This healthy situation benefits d,rectiy the European economy, the Member States, and EPO’s staff.
Concerns from the staff occur in all countries and Organisations in period of substantial transformation. Despite this, the staff is currently highly performina and committed to the mission and goals of the Organisation.
We are aware that Officials of the EPO are being put directly or indirectly under pressure. The Office and more and more of its officials at all levels of the hierarchy including elected staff representatives have been and are subject to defamation campaigns internally and externally, personal threats and harassment.
In that respect it is the Office’s duty of care to address the situation and proceed under the EPO’s regulatory framework, to establish the facts and when needed, engage in disciplinary procedures. The respondents have regulatory means of redress including the request to a review of the decisions.
Under the current circumstances, we urge you to consider that the proposa1 submitted to the AC will undermine the position of all managers to successfully pursue the changes initiated in the road maps as decided in the Administrative Council and will create unfortunate precedents which will jeopardize seriously the management of the Organisation and its capacity to ensure its operations effectively now and in the future.
We fully support the Organisation’s mission and its fundamental values Therefore we urge the Administrative Council, before taking any decision on the matter to give careful consideration to this letter:
- to remain firm on ethics and not tolerate misconduct
- to focus on the great achievements and improve the positive image of the Organisation
- to endorse the on-going initiatives of the Office in the social dialogue (recognition of unions, social study, current review of regulations social conference).
We are convinced that the implementation of the reforms is a solid base for a strong EPO fit for the future.
Imagine what would happen to staff that refused to sign this letter. IP Kat is meanwhile deleting comments as if there’s suddenly some fear of a lawsuit over the content of comments (we were told by some people about IP Kat‘s censorship for a while now) and here is the latest from Merpel, who wrote in the third person’s narrative: “Merpel has been receiving a stream of rumour and hearsay since last week, indicating a serious bust-up between EPO President Benoit Battistelli and the members of Board 28 (the sub-group that runs the business of the Administrative Council). Notably, Mr Battistelli has apparently lost the crucial support of Mr Jesper Kongstad, the Chair of the Administrative Council, who had until now been one of Battistelli’s key defenders. The final meeting allegedly culminated in an ultimatum to Mr Battistelli to which he allegedly responded by walking out of the meeting.
“Merpel has been slow to pass on these reports as she prefers to report verified facts and not mere unsubstantiated rumour. As a result much of the comment moderation over the last week on this site has involved repeatedly deleting well-intended reports of what the latest whispers around the EPO were saying – deletions which Merpel justifies on the basis that the whispers were not always in agreement and were rarely substantiated.
“Merpel has however received from several sources, some of which are normally reliable, the text of a letter attributed to Mr Kongstad and addressed to the AC delegates. This draft letter is accompanied by a draft resolution for the AC to sign off on at its meeting in March. Merpel strongly suspects that the text which is being passed around the EPO is not the final draft that will be (or has been) sent by Mr Kongstad, but the gist of the communication is clear nonetheless.”
So far, the main false rumour that we have come across relates to Bergot. The rest turned out to be accurate.
To quote further from Merpel:
In what appears to be a sign that Mr Battistelli is not going to bend the knee without some resistance, a remarkable letter has been drafted by those most loyal to Mr Battistelli addressed to the AC “from the management of the EPO”. This letter has, Merpel understands, been presented to EPO managers and directors for their signature – purely voluntarily, you understand.
The letter is drafted as an attempt to persuade the AC to vote against the resolution drafted by Board 28. While it studiously avoids mentioning Mr Battistelli it urges the AC to support “the Office” and to vote against the proposals of Board 28.
This letter of support says (and Merpel doesn’t joke about such matters) that the Organisation is “healthier than ever”. It warns that the proposal drafted by Mr Kongstad will undermine all EPO managers and will jeopardize the reforms that are underway. The AC should, according to this letter, focus on the Office’s “great achievements” and endorse the Office’s social dialogue, not criticise and undermine it.
Merpel does not yet know how many managers have signed the letter, or what the implications might be for either agreeing or declining to sign it. She will keep readers updated when significant developments occur.
[...]
Given the unprecedented implications of these developments, and the fact that feelings are running extraordinarily high, Merpel has decided at least for now to disable the comments facility on this post and she will be disallowing comments on other posts that address these developments. If readers have any concrete and verifiable further news to share, please email merpel.mckitten@gmail.com.
It’s only getting worse. First there was a ban on totally anonymous comments and now this? Is the EPO sending some E-mails to IP Kat?
Now that IP Kat rejects comments about the EPO (except when it comes to the UPC), we wish to remind readers how to get in contact with us securely. We wouldn’t trust GMail for anything as the EPO works closely with Google — not just on translations — and the EPO’s I.U. claims to have already intercepted several communications (not ours but Florian Müller‘s) that relied on GMail (the exact circumstances are not known as documents we have seen and publicly shared don’t specify the methods).
Noteworthy is the comment above about why this letter puts enormous pressure on people to obey the tyrant and pretend to support him (even while wishing he’d be fired). Whoever signs this letter, well… the Administrative Council and its Chairman (Jesper Kongstad) should feel free to disregard/dismiss them, as they are obviously signing under pressure (compelled to endorse or risk one’s job). It’s like a Crimean election. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Europe, Patents at 8:36 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Original/English
Publicado in America, Europe, Patents at 11:16 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Ye esta sucediendo aquí en el Reino Unido…
Sumario: El rol jugado por las patentes cada vez más promovido por sus beneficiaros maximalistas de patentes, pesan más que creación, innovación y producción, las que patentes en principio supuestamente debian promover
TROLLES de patentes son un gran problema pero los medios corporativos, cuyos dueños son/o son influenciados por grandes corporaciones, no prestan atención a la realidad de que los trolles de patentes casi siempre usan patentes de softwared. Aquí es donde el problema es mayor. Es el núcleo del problema. Patentes de software nunca debieron haber existido en primer lugar, como la evidencia siempre lo muestra que son contra productivas.
Aquí vemos un nuevo artículo de los medios masivos Británicos, que fue sumarizado esta semana (un par de días atras) como sigue: ¨Apple ha sido ordenado a pagar un gran multa a una pequeña compañía por infringimiento de patentes. Así que ¿porqué estamos celebrando esta victoria de un ´David´? Por que el pequeño tipo es un ´troll de patentes´, impidiendo innovación al abusar del sistema, dice Rhodri Marsden¨ (no dice nada acerca de la naturaleza de la agresión de patentes de Apple, incluso de sus 6 años de guerra de patentes contra Linux/Android).
Como lo pusimos a principios del mes, ¨el caso VirtnetX contra Apple nos Muestra NO el problema con los Trolles de Patentes Pero con Las Patentes de Sofware.¨
En otras noticias, como notamos ayer, ¨Fondo de Invenciones de IV (Intelectual Ventures) se Une a Fraunofer en Europa¨ (Fraunhofer es un notorio actor cuando se trata de patentes de software en Europe).
Los bloguers financiados por la OEP escribieron una articulillo para Intellectual Ventures, EL TROLL DE PATENTES MÁS GRANDE DEL MUNDO. Estos bocas financiadas por trolles (también reciben dinereo de la OEP) fueron con el titular ¨El Fondo de Invenciones de Intellectual Ventures se une a Fraunhofer en una jugada mayor en Europa¨. La UPC ayudaríá a estos trolles a joder más a Europa, DANDO TRABAJO A ABOGADOS DE PATENTES QUIENES GANAN CON MAYORES LITIGACIONES o como el presidente de la FFII lo llama ¨calentamiento de patentes¨.
¿Quién se ´conformaría´ con los trolles de patentes? Estoy usando ´conformaríá´ como en resignacion bajo sufrimiento al no encontrar una mejor traducción. Adivine. Son las PYMEs Europeas, que conforman la mayoría de la industria aquí (no tenemos Googles e IBMs aqui exceptos ramas de esas firmas). Convierte a las PYMEs un atractivo objetivo para los trolles de patentes especialmente en Europa. RECUERDEN EL OBJETIVO DE LA UPC CON AYUDA DE LA OEP ES SUBJUGAR A TODAS LA PYMEs EUROPEAS. Para citar a Unidos por Una Reforma de Patentes (de el otro día): ¨Sabía usted que los trolles de patentes están desproporcionadamente dañándo a pequeñas compañías, más vulnerables firmas?¨ Hay una valuable referencia allí con información adicional y hace link a este documento (publicado menos de un año atrás por James Bessen et al). Wall Street, i. e. las grandes corporaciones traspasan sus IPOs (lease patentes de software) (y con ello sus masivos departamentos legales) promueve y por lo meno defiende a los trolles de patentes en su prensa. ¿Está alguien sorprendido por ello?
“Las Patentes de Software nunca deberían haver existido en primer lugar, como la evidencia siempre sirvio para demostrar que ellas son contra-productivas.”La Asociación Industrial de Computadoras y Comunicaciones, financiada por grandes negocios, ahora se enfoca en las universidades – no AGRESORES como Microsoft o Apple como el problema.
“‘Innovación’”, escribio en respuesta esta persona, “¿Es una pieza de papel con la cual tu puedes enjuciar a otros?”
“Mentalidad retorcida,” añadió esta persona anónima.
El contexto de esta maldirectiva deben ser reportajes acerca de CMU, los cuales no sólo atacaron el anonimato (socavando Tor para el gobierno de los Estados Unidos) pero también atacan compañías practicantes usando patentes. Como WIPR lo puso: ¨Carnegie enjuició Marvell en la Corte del Distrito Oeste de Pensilvaniaia en los Estados Unidos el 2009, clamando que la compañía ha vendido billones de chips usando ´su´ tecnología.¨
Esto probablemente se va a convertir en una suerte de ¨impuesto¨ a productos que todo el mundo compra. Vean partes de la discución con Patent Buddy acerca del financiamento de las universidades en los Estados Unidos y de como se relaciona con tales batallas legales de patentes. ¨Carnegie Mellon,¨ como fue puesto en una etapa, ¨ha convertido a las Universidades de los Estados Unidos en trolles de patentes¨ (link a CMU).
¨En estos días en los Estados Unidos,¨ Patent Buddy me dijo, ¨los abogados de patentes están haciendo tanto o más dinero que los ingenieros.¨
¿Qué acerca de las externalidades? Todos estan excepto abogados de patentes.
“Convierte a las PYMEs un atractivo objetivo para los trolles de patentes especialmente en Europa.”La respuesta a el fue eso ¨en un mundo mejor deberían hacer un mejor trabajo.¨ Y en ello sigue (detalles en Twitter)…
Mirando algun cubrimiento de prensa encontramos eso, basado en una declaración formal, ¨Mrvel Technology Group LTD. (NASDAQ: MRVL), un silicon integrador global y Carnegie Mellon University, una universidad de investigación privada, anunciaron hoy haber arreglado su jucio de infringimiento de patentes. Las partes han resuelto el caso en terminos aceptables a ambos, incluso un acuerdo de pagos de Marvell to CMU de $750 millones, sin continuos pagos de regalías.¨
Aquí esta lo que los maximalistas de patentes escribieron: ¨La mediación ordenada por la corte finaliza con un acuerdo de pagos de $750 m para arreglar el juicio de siete años por infringimiento de patentes entre Marvell Technology Group y Carnegie Mellon University” (vean el pasado de CMU).
“CMU no produce nada actualmente.”Esto no es una patente de software, pero el problema aquí es diferente. CMU no produce nada actualmente. La fuente de dinero de CMU como es notada arriba, es también relevante a esto. De un punto de vista económico, el único que pierde es el público.
Incidentalmente, como lo señalo el presidente del FFII el otro día, “Olimex [esta] obligada a aplicar por patentes de software en order de obtener financiamento de la UE,” lo que es un gran ¨desperdicio del dinero público¨ (también puede ser usado para obligar a pagar al público despues).
Aquí esta el relevante bid de un blog post publicado hace dos días:
Esto da asombrosas oportunidades a compañías Bulgaras para convertirse competitivas globalmente.
Desafortunadamente la más interesante area de la innovación es cargada con mas papeleo y algunas cosas que son consideradas totalmente inaceptables con nuestra Fuente Abierta manera de pensar. Por instancia uno de los requisitos es aplicar por patentes para la innovación, para proteger la inversión de la UE en tu compañíá. Suena lógico pero, efectivamente serrucha el piso a todas las compañías que trabajan con Tecnología de Código Abierto.
¿A qué esta llegando la UE? ¿Esta tratando de impedir el espíritu FOSS y la cultura de compartir al urgir a la gente a patentar su software, a pesar de las reglas (como las de la EPC) que no las permiten? Seguro que hay algo podrido en la OEP, que necesita urgentemente ser arreglado. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 12:09 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A document from Jesper Kongstad (Administrative Council’s Chairman) assertively calls for corrective actions inside the Office, as the Organisation as a whole now fears the mess it has succumbed to
TECHRIGHTS has a lot of stuff to publish regarding the EPO. It will come out gradually in the coming days as some of it is time-sensitive, there’s rather explosive stuff among it, but still not enough time to publish it all (I work full time and my wife’s illness, apparently a flu, is not helping either). We do, however, want to put out there the following text from Jesper Kongstad as soon as possible, as later remarks and rumours will depend on it.
To Heads of Delegation of the Administrative Council
11 February 2016
Update on B28
Dear colleagues,
At its meetings of 2 and 17 February, B28 concentrated on the issue of the social unrest within the EPOffice. In addition, a meeting took place on the 10 February between the Administrative Council Chairman, Deputy Chairman and the Chairman of the BFC, and the President, VP5 and the President’s Chef de Cabinet. The aim was to explore the possibility of the cooperation between the President and the Council to address various social issues, and in particular the disciplinary cases involving SUEPO leaders.
The Council members of B28 reiterated what the Council has stated repeatedly, not least that the handling of disciplinary cases was one of the major obstacles to reaching consensus with the trade unions on an MOU. We also made clear that these disciplinary cases had triggered very serious concerns as the political level about the proper functioning of the organisation.
Unfortunately, we have not been able to engage in a meaningful dialogue with the President. We therefore saw it as unavoidable to translate the serious concerns of the Council members into a formal request to be addressed to the President. A copy of B28′s draft document setting out this request is attached. Its aim is to give a fresh and strong impetus to solving the most important and urgent problems currently facing the organisation.
At the B28 meeting on 17 February, the President rejected the document, in particular questioning the legal basis of the first and second requests. On the question of legality, it is obvious to us that there is no obstacle whatever to the Council making requests to the EPoffice President. It is then for the President to respond positively to such requests. We are convinced that there are solutions which are legally possible, the more so as no one is likely to challenge the requested external review and parallel suspension of pending cases.
It is intended to submit the attached proposal to the Council, for a decision at its March meeting, making a formal request to the President. Unfortunately, it was not possible to discuss the March Council agenda as a whole before the President left the B28 meeting. Nevertheless, you will receive the agenda for the March meeting in due time.
On behalf of B28 Colleagues,
Best regards,
Jesper
DRAFT
DECISION
The AC, in its capacity as supreme organ of the EPOrg -
having repeatedly expressed its deep concerns about the social unrest within the EPOffice;
having repeatedly urged the EPOffice President and the trade unions to reach
consensus on an MOU which would establish a framework for negotiation between
social partners;
noting that disciplinary sanctions and proceedings against SUEPO leaders have,
among other reasons, jeopardised such consensus;
noting without taking position on the justification of these disciplinary sanctions and proceedings, that they are widely questioned;
recalling the importance and urgency of the structural reform of the BOA;
recognising the important institutional role of the AC and its dependence on a well-resourced
and independent secretariat;
Request the EFOffice President -
to agree to an external review of the disciplinary sanctions and proceedings against SUEPO leaders;
to suspend these disciplinary proceedings pending the outcome of the review;
to submit to the AC a draft revision of the Staff Regulations which incorporates investigation guidelines (including the investigation unit) and disciplinary procedures which have been reviewed and amended;
to achieve, within the framework of the tripartite negotiations, an MOU simultaneously with both trade unions, which would have no pre-conditions or exclude any topics from future discussions;
submit proposals to the AC at its June 2016 meeting, after discussion in B28, for immediate implementation of the structural reform of the BOA, on the lines of the 5 points agreed by the AC at its December 2015 meeting and of the legal advice given by Prof. Sarooshi, and taking into account comments from the Presidium of the BOA;
to submit proposals to the AC at its June 2016 meeting, after discussion in B28, for reinforcement of the AC secretariat and a clarification of its position in terms of governance.
Those who have additional input can securely drop it within our reach. We already have a backlog of material, but at the end we cover everything that is suitable for publication, as soon as no sources are at risk. Tomorrow there will be a guest appearance from Željko Topić. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Patents at 3:38 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
As if patents are a matter of national security
Summary: A couple of news stories and what they serve to highlight with respect to the theory and practice of patents
THE USPTO is probably the world’s most aggressive patent system. Rather than foster innovation it does a lot to harm it, usually benefiting (enriching) just a few large corporations that receive the lion’s share of patents and deter/suppress competition this way.
As a new example of the USPTO’s aggression consider Joe Mullin’s article which says that an “Archery company sues LARPer over patents, then files gag motion to silence him” (suppression of information about aggressive action is something that the EPO did to me several months ago). To quote Mullin:
When Jordan Gwyther started Larping.org, a website that promotes his favorite hobby, he didn’t expect it would lead to him being sued for patent infringement over foam arrows. And when he spoke out about the lawsuit, neither he nor his attorney saw what was coming next: the patent-owner filed papers in court last week asking for a temporary restraining order (TRO) that would keep Gwyther quiet.
Curiously, almost on the same day (as the above article), the EFF published “EFF Defends Live Action Role Players’ Right to Criticize Patent Suit,” where it said: “The First Amendment guarantees that even patent owners are subject to the slings and arrows of public criticism. Today EFF has submitted a motion and amicus brief asking the court to reject a patent owner’s attempt to silence criticism of its lawsuit.”
Another new article by Joe Mullin speaks of the “hoverboard” raid that we covered here some days ago because after the raid the litigation got mysteriously dropped. “The Chinese defendant lawyered up, defended itself—and wants attorneys’ fees,” according to Mullin’s summary.
The original idea behind patents was very different from this. Had the founders of patents foreseen the above, would they have created such new laws? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Apple, Courtroom, Patents, Samsung at 3:25 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The arrogant Apple is so certain that it invented everything
Summary: Apple’s relentless patent war on Android shows no signs of stopping, even several years after Steve Jobs, who had started this mess, died
Half a decade ago, after shamelessly suing HTC, Apple started suing Samsung, which was already a leading Android OEM, using software patents and design patents that are often indistinguishable from software patents. Remember who started this war. Always remember that it wasn’t Samsung reaching out to patents. It was Apple under Steve Jobs' megalomania. This case might soon reach the Supreme Court, SCOTUS, but there’s no confirmation yet.
“The final section of Samsung’s petition [to SCOTUS],” Florian Müller wrote the other day, “stresses the “enormous national importance” of the petition. This sounds to me like “this should be reviewed, but at the very, very, very least there should be a call for views of the Solicitor General (CVSG).” Or maybe I tend to read too much between the lines.”
“I appreciate that both Samsung and Apple are willing to fight this to the bitter end,” wrote this one person. “The process is as important as the result” (and very expensive thus far).
Apple has been drawn rather heavily into PTAB as of late; we wrote about PTAB earlier this month on numerous occasions. According to this new blog post, a biotechnology patent is about to be reviewed. Remember that quite a few Apple patents, including some in Europe, got invalidated in the process. “One-fifth of all IPR petitions denied institution according to 2015 PTAB report,” says IP Watchdog. To quote the former post, the said patent family “is likely the most famous patent family in biotechnology. With claims that cover basic steps in generating therapeutic antibodies, these patents are gatekeepers in an industry that has shown unprecedented growth—currently, half of the 10 top-selling drugs in the world by sales are therapeutic antibodies. Through licensing to antibody manufacturers, Genentech—one of the owners of the Cabilly patents—is expected to reach a billion dollars in royalties from this patent family by 2018.”
Well, it sure seems like Apple is hoping to make billions, not just a billion dollars, out of patent royalties alone. Apple is hoping to become a patents firm, as Android keeps growing and it’s hard to stop it without artificially elevating prices of Android devices. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Asia, Law, Patents at 3:05 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Publicado en Asia, Law, Patents at 7:42 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
No población cuerda (i.e. gente insuficentemente indoctrinada por maximalistas) deberían tolerar patentes de software
Sumario: India una vez más ha logrado dirigir la política pública en la dirección correcta, pero sólo después de una imensa presión del público
MUCHOS meses atras hubieron nuevos y bien fundados temores que el cabildeo de patentes de software (Microsoft, IBM y los demás) estaba de nuevo logrando avances en India. Casi logran sus objetivos de nuevo, pero el público despertó, las ONG hablaron, y el gobierno vino bajo presión que pronto después temporariamente bloqueo esta estúpida iniciativa (similar a los esfuerzos recientes de la ¨madre¨ ¨Teresa¨ Zuckerberg de India queriendo ¨ayudar¨ a los pobres de India -Facebook). Si esto no es el Poder del Pueblo trabajando, entonces es algo que las poblaciones de los países Occidentales deberían aprender y emular, e.g, cuando se movilizen contra TPP, TTIP, UPC, etc. Para aquellos que no hán estado siguiendo estos eventos, esta página de Wiki puede ayudar (lista cronológica de articulos en la materia).
“Las patentes de software en india siempre han sido como un zombie que continua tratando de regresar a vida por que las megacorporaciones (usualmente extranjeras) cabildean por ello.”Esta mañana encontramos el artículo en Ingles “La Ofician de Patentes de India dice no a las patentes de software de nuevo”. Clama que la más alta oficina de patentes de la India ha dicho NO a las patentes de software en los guias para examinar invenciones relacionadas con computadoras, que fueron publicadas el pasado 19 de Febrero.¨
Otro artículo, esta vez viniendo de un sitio legal, dice: ¨El Controlador General de Patentes, Diseños y Marcas ha emitido una Ordenanza fechade este Febrero 19, 2016 publicando guías revisadas para invenciones relacionadas con computadoras. Las presentes guías estan en tono con las provisiones el el Acta de Patentes de 1970 (como revisadas).¨
Eto son buenas noticias. Las patentes de software en india siempre han sido como un zombie que continua tratando de regresar a vida por que las megacorporaciones (usualmente extranjeras) cabildean por ello. Ellas todavía no pueden colonizar el país por legislación. Anivar, un viejo apoyo nuestro (casi una década) de India escribe: ¨Las nuevas guias de patentes para software siguen el espíritu de la ley India de patentes claúsula 3(k).¨ (Más aún links al PDF original que esta en Ingles). Mientras tanto en los Estados Unidos, las patentes de software están debilitándose. Europa y Nueva Zelanda están bajo suficientemente presión pública para evitarlas – por lo menos ahora – de formalmente tolerar patentes de software (más de ello más tarde hoy).
Esta semana ha comenzado con muchas buenas noticias en el frente de patentes. Esten sintonizados. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Patents at 2:55 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Original/English
Publicado en America, Patents at 8:37 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
“Si fuera a llenar el tanque de su coche con tinta de Hewlett-Packard o Lexmark, le costaría $ 100,000,” dijo Gerald Chamales, presidente de Rhinotek Computer Products, un fabricante de cartuchos de tinta y tóner de Carson (Los Angeles County), que son compatibles con las impresoras de marca. “Si llenase una piscina olímpica con tinta de los cartuchos de inyección de tinta HP o Lexmark, le costaría $ 5.9 mil millones con B.” – See original article
Sumario: Revisión del cubrimiento de prensa acerca del caso de patentes de Lexmark, donde el grotesco SOBREPRECIO de la tinta fue defendido por el Circuito Federal
LAS noticias han sido dominadas hasta cierto grado por reportajes acerca del Circuito Federan haciendo un deservicio a la sociedad (de nuevo).
Como la EFF (Fundación De Frontera Electrónica) lo puso esta semana: “El Dictámen del Circuito Federal da privilegios a los dueños de patentes en vez de a los consumidores en los productos que ellos compran¨
“El Dictámen del Circuito Federal da privilegios a los dueños de patentes en vez de a los consumidores, y asegura incluso menos competencia en el mercado de reventas.”
–EFFSin duda, muchas firmas y sitios de abogados estan escribiendo acerca de esto ahora mismo, e.g. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14].
Vale la pena notar el hecho que firmas de abogados escribieron 10 veces más artículos que otros sitios de noticias generales (o sitios de tecnología) acerca de este caso, e.g. [1, 2]. Mucha gente no entiende patentes tampoco los reporteros. Ellos usarían frases como ¨patentes de inventos¨ o ¨hacer patentes¨. La propaganda trabaja para ellos y no piensan fuera de ella.
“En este caso, el tribunal sostuvo que este tipo de restricción es aplicable para Lexmark, pero sólo porque el producto de Lexmark está protegida por derechos de patentes.”
–Dennis CrouchAquí esta el mejor reportaje que hemos encontrado en esta materia (hasta ahora). TechDirt, que ha cubierto esta materia por más de una década (yendo atras hasta 2004 si no antes), escribió: ¨si tu fallas bloquear la competencia de una manera, aparentemente tu puedes hacerlo de otra -y enventualmentee terminarás en la Corte de Apelaciones del Distrito Federal, quienes enredarán todo y matarán a la competencia por tí. La compañía de printers Lexmark ha estado en guerra contra distribuidores alternativos de tinta por más de una década. Como estarán enterados tinta para impresoras es vergonzósamente CARÍSIMA, con tal estimado (de hace más de una década) de que en order de llenar una píscina olimpica con ella, te costaría $5.9 BILLIONS (si con ¨b¨) en la caja registradora de tu tienda local. Los fabricantes de impresoras notablemente han tomado un ¨regalo de impresora y ´baratísimas´ de bajo costo, y compensarla con seriamente sobretasados precios por tinta en su negocio. Esta clase de negocio trabaja hasta que alguién sale y trata de vender tinta más barata.¨
Suficientemente decir este caso es acerca de coservar los precios artificialmente CAROS (muchísimos mas altos en magnitud que los costos de producción). Una respuesta publicada por Dennis Crouch dijo: ¨Me sorprendió la plena decisión del Circuito Federal en el caso Lexmark de re-afirmar Mallingckrodt – DAR AL VENDEDOR EL PODER DE BLOQUEAR LA FUTURA REVENTA Y REUSO DE UN PRODUCTO PATENTADO. Mi sorpresa se basa en la larga tradición de la ley de propiedad Americana de promover el flujo libre de comercio al rechazar servidumbres que limitan la alienación e reuso de bienes. Para ser claro, las cortes han enforzado contractos entre partidos voluntarios para este fin, pero esas mismas cortes han rechazado permitir convenios restrictivos para aferrarse al bien y bloquear cualquier subsequente comprador. Aqui, la corte sostuvo que este tipo de restricción es enforzable por Lexmark, pero sólo por que es un producto Lexmark cubierto por derechos de patentes.
“Recuerde que CAFC es responsable de muchas otras decisiones igualmente sin tacto.”No fue la primera vez que el blog de Crouch cubrió este caso en días reciéntes (mencionamos esto unas pocas veces en los posts de la semana pasada). Básicamente, Lexmark TUERCE Y DOBLA LA LAY POR PRECIO ARREGLADO/ALZA DE PRECIOS. Otras compañías como HP, sin duda se beneficiarían de esto a expensas del público. Para citar el blog de Crouch: ¨Las presumpciones son de alguna importancia para aquellos operando en el terreno. Aquí la Corte de los Estados Unidos presumirá que las ventas de un producto no acaban con los derechos de una patente estadounidense. Esto para un importador significa que debe obtener un permiso/licensia de esos derechos para evitar querellas (asumiendo un válida así como una patente infringida). Por supuesto, que la licensia puede ser implícita de esos derechos para evitar querellas proveyendo noticias del intento importador. En adición, dependiendo del lugar de ventas, UCC 2-312 (o su equivalente foránea) puede crear un presumpución de licensia dependiendo de la situación.¨
Cuando leyes son promulgadas para protejer modelos de ventas o a largas corporaciones a expensas del público, ¿Son esas leyes legítimas? ¿No deberíamos sentirnos libres de desafiarlas o mejor aún, ponernos en desobediencia civil? Recuérden que la CAFC es responsable por muchas otras decisiones sin tacto. También fue la CAFC LA QUE COMENZÓ LAS PATENTES DE SOFTWARE, NO SÓLO EN LOS eSTADOS uNIDOS SINO EN TODO EL MUNDO. En el pasado hemos mostrado evidencia de corrupción institucional dentro de la CAFC. █
“Cínico es el hombre que conoce el precio de todo y el valor de nada.”
–Oscar Wilde
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