05.07.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:45 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Article as ODF
Publicado en Europe, Patents at 8:06 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Benoît Battistelli y sus perros de ataque no dejan de atacar a los ciudadanos Europeos y socavar los intereses de la EU
Sumario: La ocupación de Battistelli favorecedora a los intereses de los EE.UU., así como sus gigántes clientes corpórativos (o jefes)llegan al norte, apróximandose incluso a la frontera con Russia
Benoît Battistelli and su Guardia Pretoriana están llendo a varios lugares. Ellos están mercadeándo la UPC a países que ahora están considerando renunciar a la EU completamente (arriésgando su plan por a UPC completamente).
Si Battistelli diese la cara a los ciudadanos Europeos, lo único que conseguiría son tomates pódridos. Él lo sabe. Asi que esta encontrándo maneras de arreglar los debates, manteniéndolos limitados a su propio coro, típicamente a puertas cerradas (u onerosas entradas para ¨participacion¨). Aquí se nos muestra ¿como rellenar/emplear paneles como el Consejo Administrativo de la EPO (ya empleado/rellenado por cabezas de supuestas NPO -que llamaríamos para ganancias de los gigantes corpórativos no Europeos). ¿Cómo creen en las palabras de estas supuestas agencias por ¨non-profit¨ quienes repiten todo el coro de Battistelli, quien es más falso que dólar Colombiano? Basados en fotos públicas y posts, e.g. [1, 2], PATLIB 2016 fue empleada/rellenada con NPO; ¿Dónde esta el factor balance? La propia propaganda de la EPO fue pronto promovida por la misma gente de relaciónes públicas (PR) de la EPO, quienes derramaron luz acerca del cabildeo de Benoît Battistelli por la UPC en Finlandia. Para citar sus propias palabras (advertencia: epo.org link, firmada por Battistelli en su blog, también promóvida por su propia obediente personas de PR): “Durante su visita a Helsinki, el Presidente de la EPO se reunió con Jari Gustafsson, Permanente Secretario del Ministerio Filandés de Economía y Empleo – que se transformará en Desempleo si Battistelli se sale con la suya- , y los representativos de compañias Filandesas incluyendo including Nokia, KONE, Orion, UPN y Beneq. Los voceros industriales altamente alabaron la ¨calidad¨ del trabajo examinador en la EPO y en el proceso hecho en una tramitación ágil y a tiempo. Da risa escuchar esta propaganda corpórativa, o como una ávida lectora neoyorkina lo puso ¨corporate bullshit¨.
“El Presidente también dio entrevistas a los medios de comunicación de negocios y tecnología Finlandeses. Aquí la atención se centró en gran medida de la patente unitaria y sobre la evolución del sistema europeo de patentes.”
“A finales de enero, Finlandia se convirtió en el noveno país en ratificar -joderse a sí misma - el Acuerdo del Tribunal Unificado de Patentes (UPC), que necesita 13 ratificaciones (entre ellos Francia, Alemania y el Reino Unido) para entrar en vigor. Los socios finlandeses y europeos coincidieron en que cuando la patente unitaria se implemente – con suerte a comienzos del 2017 – traerá “beneficios” a las empresas europeas finlandeses y otras, especialmente las PYME y universidades, ofreciendo más libertad de elección, aumento de la seguridad jurídica y una administración simplificada.”
La UPC dañará a los negocios Europeos, incluyendo a los negocios Filándeses [1, 2], pero a la EPO no le importa un comino los interéses Europeos, solo sirve a sus amos -La Sagrada Familia (IBM, Microsoft, Apple, HP entre otros) del otro lado del charco. Como la TTIP, es un esfuérzi para dar a las grandes corpóraciones (usualmente extranjeras) un reino libre sobre toda Europa. Récuerden la controversial aceptación de patentes en plantasde la EPO (vetada y vigorósamente opuesta por las autoridades Europeas) y leaneste nuevo artículo del Dr. Glyn Moody en la materia. Récuerde sólo esto: la EPO no es Europea y no le importa lo que es bueno para Europa ni lo signifique properidad para los ciudadanos Europeos. La EPO frecuéntemente promueve políticas que directamentedañan a Europay no es un accidente o falla en su diseño.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:37 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Article as ODF
Publicado en Europe, Patents at 5:19 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
El último Reporte del Dr. Ingve Björn Stjerna
Sumario: Un detallado análisis académico de la Corte Unitaria de Patentes (o Unificada) de Europa revela/concluye/afirma que esta siéndo mercadéada o promovida usando una engañosa premisa y promesa
La patente unitaria “y el sistema judicial – Un Regalo Envenenado para las PYMES es el título de un nuevo libro del Dr. Björn Ingve Stjerna, a quien nosotroshemos mencionado aquíantes, porque estudió de muy cerca la UPC durante mucho tiempo (incluso antes de sea conocida como “UPC”). Basado en el PDF del reportaje (permiso otorgado a nosotros para exibir una copia), existe una gran brecha entre la verdad/realidad y demandas de su promoción (publicidad). Las PYME a menudo son explotadas por los defensores de la UPC, que “secuestran” la voz de las PYMEs y dicen hablar en su nombre cuando dicen que la UPC serviría mejor a las PYME, y no las grandes corporaciones que a menudo vienen de fuera de Europa.
Como el reporte afirma en relación a Europa, “Las PYMEs son por mucho los empleadores más grande en Europa, sus problemas ar los problemas de sus empleados y por consecuencia de un gran número de ciudadanos Europeos. Por esta simple razón, esta materia merece una discusión amplia en los Parlamentos Nacionales de los estados miembros afectados de la EU. De los 25 estados miembros que han firmado la UPCA, hasta ahora sólo 9 – de los 13 necesarios para su establecimiénto –, 16 ratificaciónes todavía están pendientes. En la medida que, cualquier ciudadano interesado debería traer la materia a la atención de sus MEP de su constituency y demandar que prior a su ratificación, una ampli discusión Parlamentaria de los pros y cons del “paquete de patentes” debería tener lugar. Si va a entrar en fuerza es su versión presente, las PYMEs especialmente tendrán que vivir con ella y ello no será de ningúnam manera para su ventaja.”
Ya escribimos varios posts acerca del por qué la UPC no tiene nada que ofrecer a las PYMEsEuropeas y por lo tanto debe ser rechazada. No hay ventajas que podamos ver, lo único que hay son desventajas. Es una estafa. Cuando los abogados de patentes y sus medios de comunicación afirman que la UPC servirían a las PYMEs uno tiene que parar y preguntarse qué tipo de clientes tienen (seguro que potenciales trolles de patentes o de sus pobres víctimas).
Para citar el resumen de la ponencia:
El 16 de febrero de 2016, el Ministerio de Justicia y Protección del Consumidor de Alemania presentó dos piezas de un proyecto de ley para la ratificación del Convenio internacional sobre el Tribunal Unificado de Patentes. Después de que los honorarios para la “patente unitaria” se han fijado y una propuesta de las tasas judiciales y los límites de gastos de representación reembolsables en el tribunal de patentes unificado ha sido proporcionadas, la promesa política que el nuevo sistema podría apoyar a las pequeñas y medianas empresas (PYME) podrán ser evaluadas de conformidad con la realidad. No es una sorpresa que no se este cumpliendo. Más recientemente, incluso la Comisión Europea declaró que el riesgo de costo sería tan significativa que las PYMEs requerirían un seguro para cubrirlas, admitiendo al mismo tiempo que actualmente carecen de seguro disponible. Una visión general sobre el deseo y la realidad en cuanto a los costos de la “patente unitaria” y el Tribunal Unificado de Patentes.
Frente al cabildeo de la EPO por la UPC (incluso hace un mes atrás en el Reino Unido) es importante para los ciudadanos Europeos levantar su voz para ayudar a detener a la UPC, la cual es una injusticia sin precedente tales como la TTIP y la TPP. De ninguna manera es por los intereses de los Europeos; au contraire.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Asia, Australia, Deception, Europe, Patents at 7:25 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Article as ODF
Publicado en America, Asia, Australia, Deception, Europe, Patentes at 7:36 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Necesitamos más soplos, e.g. soplos UPC, para sacar a la luz a quienes están moviéndo a las mariónetas
Polución de patentes y “calentamiénto global de patentes,” como Benjamin Henrion ocasiónalmenete lo llama [1, 2]
Sumario: un sumario de noticias del fin de semana y hoy, con énfasis en los elementos dentro del sistema (o los medios) que impulsan políticas reacciónarias/recesivas que los beneficia financiéramente a costa de todos los demás
Hay progresos ocurriéndo hacia la justicia de patentes, aunque hay elementos egoístas que son parásiticos y no-productivos. Ellos batallan para mantener el status quo, e incluso hacerlo peor. Abajo están los últimos ejemplos.
Estados Únidos
El otro día mencionamos el último movimiento decepcionante de la CAFC, que en esencia defendió a los trolles de patentes en los EE.UU. (donde se usan las patentes de software por extorsión, incluso cuando estas patentes no resistir el escrutinio de un tribunal). Que la CAFC apoye a los trolles de patentes de soporte no sorprende a nadie dada la historia de CAFC. Joe Mullin reacciona de la siguiente manera: “los defensores de la reforma de Patentes que esperaban”apagar al Distrito Este de Texas ” estan con cara decepción de hoy, cuando el tribunal superior de apelaciones de patentes de Estados Unidos resolvió (PDF) en contra de una transferencia de lugar en una disputa entre dos empresas de alimentos.”
No esperen que la reforma de patentes provenga de la CAFC, el iniciador de ellas mismas. De ¿SCOTUS? Talvez. ¿Hay una apelación pendiente en la agenda? ¿Alcanzará esto a SCOTUS?
Australia
Hay una nueva moción para persuadir al gobierno Australiano para prohibir las patentes de software (oficialmente). Es parte de una moción más amplia que también sugiere algo de los siguientes cambios como cubrimos hace unos días:
En su proyecto de informe publicado el viernes por la comisión recomienda que se deben tomar medidas para “reequilibrar” las leyes de propiedad intelectual existentes con un nuevo sistema que equilibre los intereses de los titulares de derechos y usuarios.
La comisión dice que mientras que un buen sistema equilibra los intereses de los titulares de derechos y usuarios, sistema de IP de Australia se ha inclinado demasiado a favor de los titulares de derechos de propiedad intelectual vocales y naciones influyentes exportación.
El abogado de patentes de Mark Summerfield, junto con otros maximalistas de patentes (con quienes coquetea online), ya atacó/burló a la Comisión por haberse atrevido a hacer estas sugerencias. Tal vez pone en peligro su fuente de ingresos, que es básicamente guerras de patentes, la confrontación, ruido de sables, etc.
“Ahora que un Comité de Australia propuso la prohibición de swpats,” Benjamin Henrion observó correctamente, “IBM (Sagrada Familia) y otros agentes de patentes llama al movimiento” defectuoso “…”
Mencionamos al jefe de la patentes de IBM y su respuesta ayer (señalado hacia el final).
India
La India todavía está bajo fuerte ataque por los cabilderos de patentes (por casi un año, y se intensífico el último verano). Los medios Indios acaban de publicar esta opinión que se resume como sigue: “Para crédito de los hacedores de políticas que constantemente han estado rechazándo besar a este puerco llamado ‘patentes de software’, a pesar de estar maquillado con el lápiz labial de la ‘innovación’” (no sólo en software).
El artículo se titula “Cerdo con Lápiz labial” y “El cerdo en cuestión es el régimen de patentes de software que defienden algunos corporaciones multinacionales (CMN)”, señala el autor. Indios deben involucrarse en este proceso y proporcionar información con la que hacer frente a los grupos de presión, que nunca se c
Korea
La ‘Revista’ IAM, un maximálista de patentes, quiere que creamos que “trollear” es ahora “unidad de obtención de ingresos” (pidiendo ‘dinero de protección’, mientras que apenas, nada en absoluto desarrollan cualquier cosa). En relación con las patentes de software IBM en Corea (se llama a estas patentes “Fintech”) que insta al país, que es tradicionalmente no agresivo/asertivo en el sentido de las patentes, para trollear más. IAM en es financiado por los trolles de patentes (en parte). Como jodes IAM, como jodes …
EU
En el continénte donde los oficiales de la EPO cabildean regularmente a los oficiales de la EU, a pesar de que la EPO es un cuerpo no-Europeo, hay un contínuo esfuerzo de implantar/enyucar las patentes de software a los estados miembors.
Aquí la MIP se esta conviertiéndo en la plataforma de los máximalistas de patentes quienes advocan por la UPC (para vender sus servicios). Bueno, de acuerdo a este tweet, el artículo es “promovido” (i.e. promocional) y dice:
La posibilidad de exclusión que ofrece el artículo 83 UPCA presta mucha atención a las opciones de los titulares de patentes se enfrentan con respecto a su estrategia de presentación. Nos centramos aquí en estrategias de defensa en el nuevo marco legislativo, en particular sobre las acciones ante los tribunales nacionales.
[...]
Estas incertidumbres hacen que sea difícil para las partes poner en práctica una estrategia defensiva. ¿Vale la pena invertir en una acción de nulidad ante un tribunal nacional, antes de la entrada en vigor de la UPC? Suponiendo que tales elecciones del impacto de un acción titulares de patentes en absoluto, tendrá que evitar por completo el uso de la UPC, o sólo impedir el uso de la UPC para una acción de nulidad?
Con las “incertidumbres de la UPC se hace díficil para las partes implementar una estratégia defensiva,” para que así recurran a los abogados de patentes. La UPC es muy buena para los agresores y abogados de patentes, es mal para el resto de nosotros.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
05.05.16
Posted in IBM, Law, Patents at 8:51 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The ‘Microsoft syndrome’ strikes or spreads to IBM, its cross-licensing buddy
Photo source (modified slightly): The 10 Most Powerful Women in Technology Today
Summary: Deservedly if not belatedly too, more and more pundits come to recognise the rogue element which is IBM, having promoted software patents all around the world, utilised software patents aggressively (to attack/marginalise/tax rivals), lobbied the government to antagonise the Supreme Court’s decision on Alice (using former IBM staff which it had somehow snuck into the USPTO), created bogus solutions to the side effects (such as patent trolls) and so on
“Patent Trolls have already begun to try & discredit the FTC PAE Report & it’s not even been released yet,” Anti-Software Patents wrote earlier this week. All this while the software patents lobby trash-talks SCOTUS (and one particular Associate Justice in particular), PTAB, an Australian report against software patents etc. As we showed here in recent days, IBM played a major role in this lobby. Are they thugs or trolls? Or both maybe?
“Patent Trolls have already begun to try & discredit the FTC PAE Report & it’s not even been released yet”
–Anonymous“PTABWatch”, a blog of patent lawyers (Marshall Gerstein & Borun LLP) now evokes David Kappos again (his lobbying is now funded by massive patent aggressors including Apple, IBM, Microsoft etc. but he came from IBM) and to quote the relevant portion: “In a recent speech at a Federal Circuit Judicial Conference, David Kappos, former Under Secretary of Commerce and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, suggested § 101 should be abolished because recent case law in this area has resulted in “a real mess.” Like many practitioners, Mr. Kappos reiterated that courts can ensure basic concepts are not patented while protecting innovation by applying other areas of patent law to make sure patents are novel and non-obvious. Consistent with Mr. Kappos’s criticisms of the developing case law on § 101, Sequenom recently has sought the Supreme Court’s review of the Federal Circuit’s application of § 101 in the Ariosa decision, and many companies and industry organizations have filed amicus briefs supporting Sequenom. What will happen remains to be seen, but there is a growing and significant consensus (among practitioners at least) that something needs to be done at a higher level to clean up this “real mess.” Until such time, this blog will keep a close watch on the developments of decisions relating to §101 in IPRs and how patent eligibility is being viewed at the PTAB and the courts.”
It should be clear that the same forces which lobby for software patents often, unsurprisingly, oppose patent reform. Pieter Hintjens, who has not much time left to live, reminisces: “well, they were just lying. IBM was the one that broke the US patent system to allow software patents.”
“IBM was the one that broke the US patent system to allow software patents.”
–Pieter Hintjens“IBM says software patents drive OSS development,” he recalls (from a 2009 article). We never forgot that.
Now that IBM openly attacks companies using software patents John C. Dvorak publishes the article “IBM Is the World’s Biggest Patent Troll” in which he says:
IBM’s real value is with the R&D folks who have helped IBM top the list of companies with the largest number of US patents granted year after year. This has never stopped growing. Last year it was 7,355 patents granted for IBM (followed by 5,072 for Samsung and 4,134 for Canon, with a big drop-off after that to Qualcomm with 2,900 and Google with 2,835).
The patent system is out of control since many of these patents are idiotic software algorithm or blocking patents, designed to keep others away from certain technologies. The point, though, is that IBM has been leading this pack for over two decades and shows no signs of slowing down. That is unless you think 7,355 is slowing down from its 2014 tally of 7,534 patents. In 2013, it secured a mere 6,809.
These numbers are outrageous when you stop to consider that patents were intended to protect small inventors and companies. Now the system is used to dominate that small fry. Good work, USPTO.
Many of IBM’s current patents are about data analytics and so-called cognitive computing, like Watson. It in turn collects “over” a billion dollars a year from licensing, which sounds low to me. I say this because on its licensing page, IBM claims to have 250,000 experts who will work with you to find the right patents for your company.
Those experts likely generate at least $100,000 in business each every year, which I think is conservative. You do the math and that’s $25 billion. This makes sense when the company claims to drop $6 billion into R&D each year. In fact, it would not surprise me if most of its revenues were from licensing, and far more than $25 billion. IBM’s overall revenues are around $82 billion.
With puff pieces like this new one about IBM, no wonder few people care to have noticed what IBM recently turned into (amid layoffs).
“Just last week, the Federal Circuit declined to fix this problem, leaving it up to Congress or the Supreme Court to act.”
–EFFPatent trolling is a very serious problem in the US and CAFC, which brought software patents to the US, refuses to stop these trolls [1, 2]. The trolls typically use software patents. Here is an MIP report about it and here is the EFF expressing frustration over it: “As the law stands now, patent owners have almost complete control over which federal district to file a case in. That’s a major problem. It lets patent owners exploit significant differences between courts, an advantage that the alleged infringers in patent suits don’t have. It effectively leads to outcomes being determined not by the merits of a case, but rather by the cost of litigation. Just last week, the Federal Circuit declined to fix this problem, leaving it up to Congress or the Supreme Court to act.”
“Mossoff just can’t help attacking the messenger for trying to stop patent trolls.”Trolls’ apologists aren’t idle either right now. Consider Adam Mossoff, who works for some kind of patent maximalism think tank (“The Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property at Mason Law promotes the scholarly analysis of IP rights and the creative innovation they make possible,” by its own description), so it’s not too shocking that he keeps protecting patent trolls, attacks their critics, and now picks on the EFF. Mossoff just can’t help attacking the messenger for trying to stop patent trolls. This isn’t a new thing from him.
“How to Kill a Patent Troll” is a new article which speaks about what patent trolls are and then promotes the IBM-connected RPX as the solution. It’s not the solution at all. To quote portions from this article:
Anecdotally, NPEs are trolls. But Cohen, Gurun, and Kominers wanted some hard proof. For that, they turned to data from RPX Corporation, which maintains a database on NPE litigation going back to 1977. (RPX also offers its clients a novel and slightly odd solution to patent trolling: It buys patents from NPEs before they start suing others for licensing fees. RPX asserts they are not themselves patent trolls.)
Both the RPX data and other sources make it clear that NPEs are predominantly trolls, mainly because of who NPEs go after: cash-rich tech companies. Cohen, Gurun, and Kominers calculate that the likelihood of getting sued by an NPE is roughly 16 percent among companies with the most cash, roughly double the baseline rate. By comparison, the likelihood of getting sued by a practicing entity—that is, a company that actually worked to create its patents—is less than five percent. NPEs are also more likely to sue firms with small legal teams and those dealing with other lawsuits. In other words, they go after companies with the biggest wallets and the fewest available minutes.
They conveniently neglect to mention that RPX is now a powerhouse of huge ‘patent trolls’ such as IBM. Not good advice at all… this is even more useless than OIN, which was also (co-)created by IBM and was originally led by IBM staff, Jerry Rosenthal. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:06 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Benoît Battistelli and his attack dogs can’t help attacking Europeans and undermining EU interests
Summary: The US-leaning corporate occupation by Battistelli and his big corporate clients (or bosses) comes up north, approaching even Russia’s border
Benoît Battistelli and his bodyguards are going places. They’re pushing the UPC into countries that now consider quitting the EU altogether (jeopardising this entire UPC plot as a whole).
If Battistelli had to face actual citizens of Europe, he’d get nothing but rotten tomatoes. He knows that. So he’s finding clever ways to rig the debates, keeping them limited to his own choir, typically behind closed doors (or expensive entrance fees). Here is how to staff/stuff panels like the Administrative Council of the EPO (already staffed/stuffed by NPOs’ heads). Based on publicly available photos and posts, e.g. [1, 2], PATLIB 2016 was staffed/stuffed with NPOs; where’s the balancing factor? The EPO’s own propaganda was soon promoted by the EPO’s PR people, who shed light on Benoît Battistelli’s lobbying for UPC in Finland. To quote their own words (warning: epo.org link, signed by Battistelli in his blog, also promoted by his obedient PR people): “During his visit to Helsinki, the EPO President met Jari Gustafsson, Permanent Secretary of the Finnish Ministry of Economy and Employment, and representatives of major Finnish companies, including Nokia, KONE, Orion, UPN and Beneq. The industry speakers highly praised the quality of the examination work at the EPO and the progress made in the timely processing of their applications.
“The President also gave interviews to Finnish business and technology media. Here the focus was strongly on the unitary patent and on developments in the European patent system.
“In late January, Finland became the 9th country to ratify the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Agreement, which needs 13 ratifications (including France, Germany and the UK) to enter into force. The Finnish and European partners agreed that when the unitary patent arrives – hopefully at the beginning of 2017 – it will bring benefits to Finnish and other European companies, especially SMEs and universities, by offering more choice, enhanced legal certainty and simplified administration.”
The UPC would harm European businesses, including Finnish businesses [1, 2], but the EPO cares not at all about Europe’s interests. Like TTIP, it’s an effort to give large corporations (usually foreign) free reign over Europe. Recall the EPO’s controversial acceptance of patents on plants (vetoed and vigorously opposed by European authorities) and read this new article from Dr. Glyn Moody on the subject. Remember only this: the EPO is not European and it does not care what’s good for Europe. The EPO often promotes policies that directly harm Europe and it’s not an accident or a design flaw. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Microsoft, Patents at 7:45 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Become a Microsoft client first, then the EPO will be willing to serve you…
Summary: The European Patent Office (EPO) continues to show technical and bureaucratic anomalies that have essentially turned it into agent of monopolisation, benefiting firms from across the Atlantic
THE EPO‘s Microsoft favouritism [1, 2, 3] was explored here before and it’s only getting worse the deeper we look. Remember the French CIO who flushes money down the toilet (not literally)? We still wish to see what kind of contract he and/or his colleagues signed with Microsoft (leaks might be imperative). We might never find out, however, for reasons that are explained below:
Financial (de-)regulation
In October Mr Battistelli submitted to the Council a document, CA/38/15, entitled “Periodical review of the Financial Regulations”. As most documents produced by the Battistelli administration it claims to increase efficiency, this time in procurement. And as with most documents produced by the Battistelli administration, its title is misleading: the document proposes the introduction of a new procurement procedure “with negotiation”, as opposed to the normal tender procedure where the requirements are set out and published in advance, i.e. the same and clear (transparent) for all potential competitors. The CA document (point 15) claims to have been “inspired” by the procedure with the same name recently introduced in the EU (Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014). The EU regulation should itself already raise eyebrows because it reduces transparency. But the EPO is taking things several steps further. In the EU the new procedure is meant as an exceptional procedure to be used only in specific defined situations. In the EPO it is meant as a full alternative to the normal open tender mechanism. We refer again to point 15 of CA/38/15 “the new procedure is applicable to all procurements below the threshold without any specific justification.“ The threshold will be one million (!) euro. The EU directive foresees that combinations of smaller lots, the value of which, if added up, reach the threshold, fall under the normal rules. CA/38/15 does not bother with such niceties. The EU directive sets out compliance audit and enforcement measures. None of these are mentioned in CA/38/15. Mere telephone conversations between an examiner and applicant require minutes to be recorded and made public. For the new up-to-one-million-euro negotiations foresee no recording, let alone publication of the negotiations. Last but not least the “efficiency” (apparently 4-6 weeks) foreseen with the new procedure is truly frightening: this hardly leaves the time forthe submission and evaluation of several serious offers. The overall impression is the Mr Battistelli has given himself the power to award direct placements of (over) one million euro at his discretion.
Battistelli’s EPO is worse than a joke. It’s structured and further optimised to mask/hide misconduct. There is no transparency and it’s easy to see why. As the old saying goes, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear, right? Well, presumably, Battistelli has a lot to fear.
Meanwhile, judging by this tweet from earlier this week, the EPO’s new Web site is causing issues for Firefox users (proprietary Web browsers of firms from the US work however). How many Free/Open Source software (FOSS) Web browsers remain usable at the EPO then? How many people who work with or for the EPO can even still use any operating system other than Windows, which comes with US back doors and is now officially malware?
Nina Milanov wrote: “I have some problems with your new web site? Don’t you support Firefox any more? IE and Chrome seem to work.”
Well, both IE and Chrome are proprietary and we suppose Milanov uses these on Windows, which is also proprietary. On numerous occasions this year I reported Web site issues (over at Twitter) to the EPO. The whole Web site is a mess and it was built using all sorts of proprietary software, so this should not be surprising (proprietary browser plugins are at times needed).
The EPO supports Microsoft like no other body in Europe, in our humble assessment. It is also hyper-sensitive about bloggers who mention this (enough to threaten them), so we urge EPO staff to leak to us any details they have about the technical relationship, never mind the well-documented nepotism. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Europe, Patents at 7:22 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
EPO is not really European (US firms rely on it), so it shouldn’t be unthinkable for the US to launch a probe
Francis Gurry. Photo source: WIPO
Summary: The US takes more and more actions against WIPO for abuses against workers, but why not the European Patent Office (EPO) as well?
EARLIER this year we mentioned Federal/US scrutiny against WIPO. Why go only as far as WIPO though?
Crucial fact to note here is that both Gurry and Battistelli (two notorious self-righteous sociopaths) competed for the same WIPO post. Members of the US Congress should investigate EPO abuses (it’s not a European body but an international one), but instead they go after WIPO ([1] below). The main difference is that EPO employs European citizens, whereas WIPO employs (and habitually abuses) US citizens, among others.
There is meanwhile a WIPO event in Geneva (Europe) and it is expected to have software patents promotion, as Benjamin Henrion noticed yesterday (Battistelli and his EPO maximalists surely would approve such a move). █
Reference/s:
-
WIPO Director General Francis Gurry was investigated after charges were levelled by a deputy director that he wrongfully ordered DNA samples to be taken from several unknowing staff members, and that he improperly influenced a WIPO contract to steer it toward a particular businessman. The congressional members said Gurry is “engaging in a lobbying effort to prevent disclosure of the report or to have the report heavily redacted.” Redacted means sections are blacked out.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:10 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Largely French management the culprit, so can French politicians correct these ills?
As protests grow broader, larger venues required (Consulat Général de France à Munich above)
Summary: Next Wednesday at lunchtime staff of the European Patent Office will march to the French consulate in Munich in pursuit of labour rights, human rights etc. (not just of EPO staff but also, by extension, all staff in such unaccountable international institutions)
YESTERDAY it was announced by the staff union of the EPO that “actions [shall] continue at the European Patent Office” (the usual template), just shortly after French politicians had shown interest in the pleas of this union (we speculate there is a strategic correlation). “On Wednesday 11 May 2016,” unnamed SUEPO officials wrote (it’s highly risky identifying oneself these days), “a demonstration will take place in Munich (Germany) starting from the Kurt Haertel passage at 12.15h and ending at the French consulate.”
We have only found one instance of press coverage about it so far. It came from WIPR this morning and it provided some background as follows:
Staff members at the European Patent Office (EPO) will hold another demonstration next week, a month after nearly 3,000 workers went on strike.
According to the Staff Union of the European Patent Office, the next demo will be held on May 11.
The protest, at the EPO’s Munich branch, will start at Kurt Haertel passage, next to the EPO, at 12.15pm (local time) and end at the French consulate.
Last month, more than 2,600 staff went on strike in what an EPO source claimed was the highest number of strikers the office has seen.
According to the source, 2,078 employees were on strike for the full day, while 579 people went on a half-day strike. The total number of strikers throughout the day stood at 2,657 across the EPO’s four sites.
If thousands of workers are brave enough to go on strike in this climate of fear and intimidation by EPO management, then surely several thousands can gather in front of the French consulate (pictured above). █
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