03.14.16

EPO Rumours About Antonio Campinos as Replacement for Benoît Battistelli

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

Antonio Campinos: potential EPO reformer or more of the same?

Summary: Information about the man who is rumoured to be parachuted in to replace Battistelli and continue some of his less desirable legacy

Later this week the Administrative Council of the EPO (Organisation) will be gathering to speak about the Office, so I took a whole week off work (just so that I can properly cover the outcome). We have been receiving various EPO rumours recently, some easier to substantiate than others. Today we wish to share a particular strand of rumours. It’s about Battistelli’s succession, or rather his replacement (succession implies graceful transition without effective change in policy/direction).

“It’s about Battistelli’s succession, or rather his replacement (succession implies graceful transition without effective change in policy/direction).”We have already published many articles about Christoph Ernst [1, 2, 3, 4] and in particular his stance on software patents (which is of special interest to us). Scroll down to the part about Christoph Ernst in this post about the last Administrative Council meeting to see what he said about Battistelli

The relevant part is this:

To paraphrase Mr. Ernst, the Head of the German delegation (to the best of my knowledge): “The president reports positive developments. I do not
share this view.[...] The president has spoken 40 minutes, of which only 2 minutes on the social situation.”

That was 3 months ago and things have changed a lot, particularly in light of the Board 28 intervention with its leaked letter and leaked conclusions.

“A competent “outsider” with a credible track-record would probably be more acceptable to EPO staff but at the moment no such candidates are visible.”
      –AnonymousWe now believe — albeit with great caution — that we know about another candidate for Battistelli’s position (EPO presidency). “To try and sort out the current mess at the EPO,” one person told us, “you would probably need someone of mythical proportions like Hercules. As can be seen from the names which are currently being bandied about, any prospective candidates are likely to come from the “inner circle” of the Administrative Council. The problem here is that the Administrative Council is or at least appears to have been so heavily complicit in the activities of the current “regime” for so long now that all of its members are potentially “tainted”.

“In reality, the Administrative Council is a diverse body and there are undoubtedly some people there who have been critical of Battistelli’s misdeeds and excesses. So it’s probably a little unfair to tar all its members with the same brush. But the point is that EPO staff are likely to be understandably sceptical about any successor to Battistelli who comes from the ranks of the Administrative Council.”

It is worth noting here that even Battistelli himself came from the Administrative Council, where he’s alleged to have been one of the (perhaps) two “alpha-males” who pushed Brimelow out, paving the way to Battistelli’s ‘takeover’ with a secretive contract (Brimelow’s contract wasn’t secret). We wrote about this several times last year.

“During his time as President of the Directive Council of the Portugese National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI), Campinos also sat on the Administrative Council of the EPO.”
      –Anonymous“A competent “outsider” with a credible track-record would probably be more acceptable to EPO staff but at the moment no such candidates are visible,” a person told us. “Another name that we [collectively speaking] are starting to hear with increasing frequency as a potential replacement for Battistelli is that of the current President of OHIM: António Campinos. We [collectively speaking] are bit sceptical about Campinos because from what we [collectively speaking] have been able to gather he is another “insider” who also seems to have close connections to Battistelli and other members of the “inner circle”. Some information about Campinos follows.”

Suffice to say, this serves to legitimise claims that Campinos is in the rumour mill (we heard this before), if not a contender too. We kindly ask readers to treat this as coverage of the state of rumours, not necessarily of any concrete discussions, e.g. at the Administrative Council or Board 28. “Campinos is currently being mentioned as a possible replacement for Battistelli,” told us one source, “but so far these are only rumours.”

More background information about Campinos

As noted above, studying the background of potential future presidents is better off done before an appointment/announcement as this can leave room for veto power/opposition. Remember the bizarre, undemocratic, opaque process by which Battistelli inherited (if not stole) Brimelow’s position. We wrote about this before. Here is what a reader told us about Campinos:

António Campinos is the current President of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs).

OHIM is basically the “European Trademark Office”.

However, in contrast to the EPO, it is not an autonomous international organisation.

It is an EU agency entrusted with managing EU trade mark and design registration systems as well as promoting cooperation and convergence initiatives with national IP offices in the European Union.

For more information see the official website.

---

Campinos has been President of the OHIM since 2010.

He previously held the roles of IP Commissioner and President of the Directive Council of the National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) of Portugal and Chairman of the Ad Hoc working group on the Legal Development of the Madrid System for the International Registration of Marks.

From 2005 to 2007, he was head of the Portuguese delegation to OHIM’s Administrative Board, becoming Chairman in 2007, prior to his election as President. Since 2013, Mr Campinos has also served as President of the Administrative Council of the Centre d’Études Internationales de la Propiété Intellectuelle (CEIPI).

SOURCE: https://www.epo.org/learning-events/european-inventor/jury.html

During his time as President of the Directive Council of the Portugese National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI), Campinos also sat on the Administrative Council of the EPO.

---

There is regular cross-contact between the OHIM and the EPO in the field of IP and Campinos often features in press releases with Battistelli or appears at the same IP events.

For example:

2011 – EPO and OHIM agree closer cooperation

https://www.epo.org/news-issues/news/2011/20110504.html

December 05, 2013 – IP contribution study unveiled in Brussels

https://oami.europa.eu/ohimportal/sl/web/observatory/news?p_p_id=csnews_WAR_csnewsportlet&p_p_lifecycle=0&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-1&p_p_col_count=2&journalId=520482&journalRelatedId=manual/

Official Launch of New EU-China Intellectual Property Cooperation

“Building on the solid foundations created by the previous EU-China projects IPR1 and IPR2, the a new action will be implemented over a period of three years by OHIM, the EU´s largest intellectual property agency, in partnership the European Patent Office as partner. On the Chinese side will be the Department of Treaty and Law of the Ministry of Commerce, coordinating the Chinese contribution to the cooperation action, with the participation of more than 15 Chinese IP authorities.”

http://www.ag-ip-news.com/news.aspx?id=31995&lang=en

Training Centre for European patent judges opened in Budapest

https://www.unified-patent-court.org/news/training-centre-european-patent-judges-opened-budapest

There isn’t necessarily anything suspicious about any of this.

It can be seen as part and parcel of routine professional contacts between the Directors of two intergovernmental European IP bodies.

However, it should be noticed that Campinos seems to have quite a cosy relationship with the EPO because he managed to get appointed as a jury member for the European Inventor Award which is one of Battistelli’s favourite annual extravaganzas.

European Inventor Award – Jury members

https://www.epo.org/learning-events/european-inventor/jury.html

---

It has been discovered that there is an even more interesting connection which involves the Menéndez Pelayo International University (UIMP) in Spain.

A key player here seems to be the former Director of the Spanish Intellectual Property Office and current EPO Vice-President, Alberto Casado Casado Cerviño who as people may recall got a mention in an article published in a Spanish newspaper last year:

http://www.elconfidencial.com/economia/2015-11-26/suicidios-espionaje-nepotismo-la-oficina-europea-de-patentes-es-un-polvorin_1107057/

What is interesting here is that Casado Cerviño, Battistelli and Campinos regularly appear as guest speakers at IP seminars organised by the UIMP.

http://www.uimp.es/agenda-link.html?id_actividad=62I9&anyaca=2015-16

[Editor’s note: we have decided to locally store the PDFs proving it [1, 2], including an English version, as these may become unavailable in the future]

These connections seem to go back to at least 2011 when Casado Cerviño was still Director of the Spanish Intellectual Property Office and a member of the Administrative Council and they have continued after his appointment as EPO Vice-President (see the attached PDFs).

Casado Cerviño was appointed as EPO Vice-President in 2012:

https://www.epo.org/news-issues/news/2012/20120905_de.html

By a curious coincidence, Battistelli was awarded with an honorary doctorate from the UIMP in July 2014:

http://www.uimp.es/institucional/doctorado-honoris-causa.html

Maybe Spanish contacts/readers can provide more information about these connections.

---

In his role as President of the OHIM, Campinos regularly meets with the Directors of national Intellectual Property Offices.

Some interesting photos can be found on the websites of these national Intellectual Property Offices.

For example:

http://www.dziv.hr/en/news/memorandum-of-understanding-signed-between-ohim-and-the-office-%28sipo%29,55.html

One can guess that Campinos was not amused to see this photo re-appear in an article entitled “Criminal proceedings pending against Topić in six cases” which was published by the Croatian news portal tjedno.hr in April 2012:

http://www.tjedno.hr/protiv-topia-se-vodi-est-postupaka/

That’s not suggesting that Campinos had any involvement in the alleged irregularities at the SIPO Croatia but we guess that it must have embarrassing for him to have his official photograph with Topic “recycled” in an article reporting about these matters.

An English translation of this article will be published at a later date.

Campinos and Battistelli: more information about EPO & OHIM cooperation

According to a 2010 article from James Nurton (MIP), Campinos won praises from WIPO. “At WIPO,” Nurton noted, “he won plaudits for his ability to encourage parties with different priorities to reach consensus.” Remember that Battistelli nearly became head of WIPO, which is now deep/mired in scandals of its own and may have other EPO connections. “Campinos was interviewed by Managing IP [MIP] in 2008,” Nurton concluded.

A reader added some bits to elaborate on/comment about possible overlaps between Campinos and Battistelli:

In 2013 EPO and OHIM jointly launched a Report on the economic performance of IP-intensive industries in the EU.

The report was subsequently criticised by Annette Kur and Dietmar Harhoff of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition: “In September 2013, EPO and OHIM jointly launched a Report on the economic performance of IP-intensive industries in the EU. Ever since its publication, the Report has been cited as bearing proof to the economic importance of IP, thereby bolstering claims for further enforcement-enhancing measures and policies. However, the eagerness with which the Report is instrumentalized for political purposes ignores the fact that, as the economists performing the study themselves have emphasized, their findings do not provide evidence regarding the causal relationship between IP and the economic data. Instead of serving a better understanding of the economics of IP, such politically tainted over-interpretations might actually discredit the analytical results and the advances in setting up a comprehensive database of IPR utilization at the firm level.”

See also this article published by IP Watch, “Researchers Say EPO/OHIM Study Is A Tale Without A Message”

A PDF of the EPO/OHIM report bears the signatures of Battistelli and Campinos.

---

Based on information coming from reliable sources who are close to the action, Campinos seems to be the preferred successor candidate of the Battistelli-Kongstad axis inside the Administrative Council.

It has also been suggested that he may have political support at EU level.

Apparently some people in Brussels are getting worried that the current turbulent situation at the EPO could have an adverse effect on the planned timetable for the introduction of the Unitary Patent. In these circles it seems that Campinos is viewed as someone who could be parachuted in to stabilise the situation at the EPO.

If Battistelli’s position inside the EPO is so weakened that he is forced to depart prematurely, the “game plan” in these circles seems to be to install Campinos as a “safe pair of hands” who can be trusted to manage any fallout arising from the sudden “regime change”.

It also seems that those supporting Campinos on the Administrative Council (i.e the pro-Battistelli faction led by Kongstad) are hoping that he can be relied upon to keep as many skeletons as possible from the Battistelli era safely in their closets.

A copy of the critique by Annette Kur and Dietmar Harhoff has been made local for future reference and long-term preservation. It responds to a report signed both by Battistelli and Campinos.

The notion that Battistelli would need to be thrown aside while maintaining his agenda isn’t totally outlandish. As this one comment put it this morning, EPO policies may be “the very same ones where the TTIP was “negotiated”. [...] pump for the UPC.” Here is the comment in full:

I do not for one moment believe that it was the management of the EPO who decided anything. They are only the obedient “implementers” and certainly not the master strategists.

The “decisions” are more likely to have been made behind closed doors in some smoke-filled rooms in Brussels or elsewhere. Maybe the very same ones where the TTIP was “negotiated”.

Don’t forget: lots of “dodgy patents” increases the probability of litigation and could be seen as a handy way of priming the pump for the UPC.

In this context some senior appointments at the EPO in recent years might be worth a closer investigation.
Such as: http://www.managingip.com/Article/3016676/Moves-Margot-Frhlinger-joins-EPO.html

This relates to what we wrote about last night and responds to a comment quoted therein.

In summary, Antonio Campinos has a history of being on the side of Battistelli, whereas Christoph Ernst has an (at least recent) history of criticising Battistelli. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Por Su Sobrevivencia, Microsoft Se Está Convirtiéndo en Una Agresiva Compañíá de Impuestos Sobre Patentes Así Como de Advertising, Obliga a Usuarios de Windows a Moverse a Su Ritmo

Posted in America, Deception, Microsoft, Patents, Vista 10, Windows at 8:04 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

English/Original

Publicado en America, Decepción, Microsoft, Patentes, Vista 10, Windows at 9:43 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

También Disfrazándose De Abierto por contratos gubernamenteales, especialmente donde el gobierno solicita standards y código

Un leopardo puede pintarse algunas machas, pero un leopardo todavía es un leopardo

Sumario: Los últimos estragécios movimientos de Microsoft y como se relacionan con su ¨calentamiento con open source¨ o ¨ama a Linux¨ desfile de PR

Las ganancias de WINDOWS se están encogiendo. Android (Linux) esta agarrándo la parte del leon en el mercado y el precio de Vista 10 cayó hasta casi zero. Esto es porque Microsoft esta ahora usando patentes en un esfuerzo de hacer dinero de Android y otros sistemas operativos basados en GNU/Linux, como el sistema operativo Chrome. Como Simon Phipps lo puso esta mañana [1], ¨Microsoft anunció que exitosamente ha extraido patentes de Wistron de Taiwan por el uso de Android y de Rakuten de Japón por su uso de Linux y Android. Aunque se ha adormecido en su agresión de patentes ultimamente, tiene un largo historial y les genera unas impresionates ganancias. [...] Microsoft quiere que miembros de las comunidades de Android y Linux paguen por licencias de patentes o se enfrentena a destructivos juicios.

“…Microsoft utiliza su openwashing de SQL Server como una táctica de excusa/propaganda, como lo demuestra el último artículo de abajo.”Para Microsoft, sin embargo, extorsión de patentes no es suficiente. La compañía es tan codiciosa que, basado en [2] (un ayayero de Windows quien se queja de su dirección), ahora escaló a un forzado ´upgrade´ a Vista 10 poniéndo más advertisement en el [3], e incluso bloque screens (no cubrimos esto por falta de tiempo por mucho cubrimiento de EPO).

A pesar de ello, todavía están los despidos de Microsoft (escribimos acerca de ellos temprano en la semana) y ahora el gobierno de los Estados Unidos, a pesar del fuerte cabildeo de Microsoft, se inclina hacia FOSS [4] (hay un montón de cubrimiento de prensa acerca de esto ahora mismo e.g [5-11], Microsoft usa su openwashing (pretensión de abierto) de su servidor SQL como táctica de excusa/propaganda, evidenciado en el último artículo de abajo [12]. █

Elementos/Relacionados contextuales en las noticias:

1. ¿Ama Microsoft al open source? Sólo cuando es conveniente

   Pero mientras esto ha estado sucediendo, tu no has estado enterandote de la otra parte de Microsoft. Simúltaneamente con Eclipse y SQL anuncios, Microsoft también anunció que exitosamente extrajo licencias de patentes de Wistron de Taiwan por el uso de Androiid y de Rakuten de Japón por el uso de Linux y Android. Aunque ha habido una completo adormecimento en agresión de patentes últimamente, esto tiene una larga historia y les genera un montón de dinero.

   Si, eso es correcto: Con una cara, Microsoft quiere que lo perdonemos y olvidemos los comentarios de ¨cancer¨, sus sucios trucos, y sus arreglos de estándares. Incluso cuando el cadaver de SCO estuvo todavía tibio siguiendo la Redmon-financiada guerra contra Linux, Microsoft quiere que no miremos más de una década de hostilidad y lo aceptemos como un miembro con derechos completos ya que se muestra con código, dinero y adulaciones. Pero con la otra cara, Microsoft continua forzando a miembros de las comunidades de Android y Linux a pagar dinero a montones por ¨licencias¨ de patentes o se enfrenten a litigación destructiva.

2. Advertencia! Windows 7 y 8.1 ¨Updates de Seguridad¨ Es Básicamente Un Windows 10 Downloader

   Microsoft tiene un Windows 10 ad-generador/downloador en su último update de seguridad KB 3139929. Este update de ´seguridad´ es para usuarios de IE11 que todavía estan usando Windows 7 y 8.1. Así que, antes de instalar cualquier ¨Arreglo¨ del Martes, tomen un momento de mirar lo que hay adentro.

3. Windows Arreglo KB 3139929: Cuando un update de seguridad no es un update

   If Microsoft’s documentation is correct, installing Patch Tuesday’s KB 3139929 security update for Internet Explorer also installs a new Windows 10 ad-generating routine called KB 3146449.

   Mucha gente – compañías presentes incluídas – sienten que poner un generador de propaganda dentro de un supuesto update de seguridad cruza la línea. En realidad, tienes que preguntartelo tu mismo si existen todavía algunas.

   [...]

   Si la documentación es comprobada, el intrusivo consigue Vista 10 ha alcazado nuevos bajos niveles.

4. Aprovechándose del la ingenuidad estadounidense a través de software de código abierto y reutilizable – White House continua impulsando códig open source federal

5. La Casa Blanca Continúa Impulsando un Código Abierto Federal

   La Casa Blanca emitió un público diseño para comentarios que apoyaría hacer el código usado por agencias federales sea abierto el pasado Jueves.

   Es parte del continuo esfuerzo de la administración de Obama de hacer los sistemas de cómputo del gobierno más eficientes al usar programas de código abierto y de hacer público el código escrito por agencias gubernamentales dentro y fuera del gobierno.

6. 3r Memo de Políticas de OMB en una semana tiene como objetivo la compra de software

   La ocupadísima semana de la Oficina de Gerencia y Presupuesto continuó el Jueves con su tercer memo de prácticas en siete dias.

   Conjuntamente con un diseño de consolidación de datos y un final mandato para cada agencia establecer un Club de Compradores para adquisiciones Innovativas, OMB tiene en la mira que el software que se usa en esos centros de datos y sea comprado por esos expertos en procuración.

   El Jefe de Informática Tony Scott publicó un diseño de políticas de software de código abierto el 10 de Marzo con el gold de reducir compras dobles y tomar ventaja de las mejores prácticas de la industria.

7. ¿Estás listo a compartir to Código?

   La Oficina de Gerencia y Presupuesto ha publicado un diseño de prácticas para mejorar como código personalizado es desarrollado por el gobierno – incluyendo aquel desarrollado por contratados – es comprado y distribuído.

8. La Casa Blanca quiere más compartible, código reusable

   La Casa Blanca esta buscando hacer que el código de software usado por las agencias federales sea más abierto, compartible y reusable. El 10 de Marzo un blog post del CIO Federal Tony Scott anunció un nuevo diseño de política federal que crearía un nuevo set de reglas para el uso de código personalizado y/o desarrollado por el gobierno federal.

9. La Agencias tendrían que responder ante los nuevos requerimientos bajo un diseño de politicas de OMB

   La Casa Blanca emitió un diseño de políticas que requeriría que las agencias federales abran una significante parte de su código. Bajo esta propuest, la Oficina de Gerencia y Presupuesto, pilotearía el requerimiento de compartir públicamente todo el código personalizado desarrollad dentro de las agencias federales y por lo menos 20% de código nuevo de terceros que trabajen para ellos.

10. OMB se prepara para convertir todo el código federal a open source

    La administración ha estado mirando a usar las mejores prácticas el el desarrollamiento de software, usando tiendas de innovación com 18F y el Servicio Digital de los Estados Unidos para probar y promover métodos como desarrollo agile y hacer uso del código abierto.

    Ahora, el entero gobierno federal se embarcará en ello. La Oficina de Gerencia y Presupuesto publicó el primer diseño en la Política de Fuente de Código, un mandato para hacer todo código desarrollado federalmente abierto a cualquiera.

11. Nueva Politica de la OMB aputa hacer el código de las agencias federales open source

    La Casa Blanca publicará un diseño de políticas el Jueves para compartir código fuente dentro de las agencias federales, incluyendo un programa piloto que hará una porción del código federal open source.

12. Microsoft Tratando de Engatusar a los feds a probar su nuevo SQL para Linux

    Analysts dicen que este movimiento le permitiría competir más efectivamente con Oracle e IBM, quienes desde hace tiempo producen Linux compatibles databases.

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Rodeo de Patentes: Trolls de Patentes, Reforma de Patentes, Ignorancia Voluntaria de IAM, Paranoia de PTB y Bragas Largas

Posted in America, Patents at 7:38 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Original/English

Publicado en America, Patentes at 12:38 pm por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Sumario: Una mirada a las noticias de patentes de los Estados Unidos, enfocándonos principalente en los trolles de patentes o las patentes de software (su arma preferida)

Las Payasadas de los Trolles se Extienden

“Las acciones de “ServiceNow (NOW) subieron el Martes,” dice este artículo, ¨con palabras de que pueda arreglar algunas de sus litigaciones de patentes con la compañía privada BMC Software, evitando un largo juicio a empezar el próximo Viernes.¨

“El costo de ir a juicio (además de todos los recursos que suelen derivarse de ello y, además, de su duración, que pone a uno en duda e incertidumbre) es mayor que simplemente arreglarse por anticipación.”Esto es lo que frecuéntemente pasa cuando se trata de patentes de software. El costo de ir a juicio (más las apelaciónes que siguen y más aún su duración que causa duda e incertidumbre) es mayor que simplemente arreglarse. Eso es lo que causó la aparición de los llamados ¨trolles de patentes¨, aunque compañíás con productos reales hacen lo mismo (nuestro próximo post tratará de Microsoft, que ha creado una entidad troll llamada “Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC”).

Patent Reform in the US

“En su Patently-O Patent Law Journal ensayo,” dice esta publicación, “James Daily reporta los resultados de su investigación en la firma de estas cartas abiertas [acerca de la reforma de patentes que se enfoca en los trolles de patentes]. Encuentra, entre otros que los que firman la segunda carta son (1) probablemente contribuyentes al Partido Repúblicano y (2) probablemente están registrados como abogados de patentes.¨

“Los republicanos suelen representar (o apoyar) lo que es bueno para las grandes CORPORACIONES, que también son representadas por los abogados de patentes (por lo tanto “derrocha “dinero a todos ellos, a expensas de todos los demás).”Esto era de esperarse, pero recibiendo un recordatorio que refuerze esa expectación puede ayudar. Los republicanos suelen representar (o apoyar) lo que es bueno para las grandes CORPORACIONES, que también son representadas por los abogados de patentes (por lo tanto “derrocha “dinero a todos ellos, a expensas de todos los demás).

IAM No Sabe Quienes son los “Trolls” (Sigue al Dinero)

¿Porqué todavía vemos tántos trolles de patentes en los Estados Unidos? ¿Porqué la gerencia de la EPO quiere traérlos a Europa con la UPC? y ¿Porqué amigos de la gerencia de la EPO (sitios como IAM) reciben dinero para promover la UPC para suavizar la imágen de los trolles de patentes? Sigan al dinero. No es difícil.

“Es realmente obvio que el Distrito Este de Texas es amigable a los trolles de patentes.”Consideren este nuevo artículo de los compadres de los trolles de patentes quienes también reciben dinero de ellos (cuyo Editor en jefe no sabe cuanto dinero se recibe de promotores), Cuando escriben acerca de ellos, se las arreglan para no mencionar la palabra “troll” (porque pueda ofender a la compañía paterna de IAM, que también es financiada por los trolles). Aquí esta el último ejemplo que dice que ¨mientras el Congreso espera, la Corte de Apelaciones por el Circuito Federal (CAFC) esta lista para enfrentarse a una de las más controversiales aspectos del infringimiento de los casos de patentes en los Estados Unidos – el espinozo asunto de compras. Casi todos los lados del debate de reforma estan de acuerdo que no es saludable en un despropórcionado largo número de casos en cualquier campo que sea escuchado por sólo un juez. El año pasado, de acuerdo con Lex Machina, 2,540 patent casos fueron sometidos al Distrito Este de Texas – 43.6% del total de juicios sometidos en ese país. De aquellos, 1686 fueron aplicados con el juez Rodney Gilstrap. A pesar de las habilidades juiciales de este juez, la falta de pluradidad no pone al sistema de patentes de los Estados Unidos en buena luz.¨

Asombrosamente, el artículno no dice una palabra acerca de los trolles. Sorpréndentemente, no miran la correlación entre el Distrito Este de Texas, los trolles de patentes, e incluso de las patentes de software.

“El Tribunal Supremo de los Estados Unidos se negó lunes a volver a escuchar los argumentos de Pi-Net International Inc., que vio su apelación en el Circuito Federal en un caso contra JPMorgan descartado después de que utilizara el formato de trucos para ocultar el hecho que su escrito de apelación era demasiado largo.”
      –Law 360¨Por supuesto,¨ añadieron, ¨si la CAFC o el Congreso obstaculizar la capacidad de los demandantes de patentes de traer sus casos en el Este de Texas, finalmente veremos silos dueños de patentes se congregaron allí no porque las cortes les dieron un juicio fácil, pero porque es el único lugar en el cual ellos han sido capazes de obtener un juicio ¨justo¨.¨

Es realmente obvio que el Distrito Este de Texas es amigable a los trolles de patentes. Incluso abiertamente lo publica, como fue ampliámente cubierto en la prensa algunas semanas atrás. ¿Cómo pudo IAM perderse este hecho crucial?

Temor de PTAB (Jurado de Juicios de Patentes y Apelaciones)

La Asociación de Dueños de Propiedad Intelectual, que esencialmente es un grupo cabildero de los super-ricos (no sólo cualquier dueño de patentes), esta tratándo de demoler previas reformas que fueron introducidas por una corte conocida por elimnar un montón de patentes de software, especialmente despues del caso Alice. Hay también un artículo ¨Circuito Federal [CAFC] se prepara ya que la PTAB impulsará más Revisiones AIA¨, que esta relacionado con lo que escribimos hace dos días.

Las Patentes Conservan el Precio de Tinta Altísimos Como El Firmamento

Para entender el amplio impacot del maximalismo de patentes miremos no más alla que la historia de Lexmar, que continúa siendo materia de análisis de abogados, e.g. [1, 2, 3, 4] en dias reciéntes.

¿Demasiádo Trabajo? !Inadmisible!

No pudimos evitar notar este nuevo artículo que dice que “El Tribunal Supremo de los Estados Unidos se negó lunes a volver a escuchar los argumentos de Pi-Net International Inc., que vio su apelación en el Circuito Federal en un caso contra JPMorgan descartado después de que utilizara el formato de trucos para ocultar el hecho que su escrito de apelación era demasiado largo.”

Mucho puede decirse acerca de esto, acerca de los descarados abogados que disfrazaron el tamaño del resumen a la corte que juzga basado en el número de palabras (en vez de su mérito). █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Links 14/3/2016: Linux 4.5, KaOS 2016.03

Posted in News Roundup at 7:00 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

03.13.16

Microsoft Accused of “Patent Trolling” While the United States Moves Closer to Restricting Patent Trolls

Posted in America, Microsoft, Patents at 7:37 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“The Commission cannot unilaterally take away a fundamental right of defense.”

–Horacio Gutierrez, Microsoft hypocrite who collects ‘protection money’ from companies that use/distribute Linux

Summary: Patent aggressors like Microsoft and non-producing firms that take software patents to the Eastern District of Texas in order to extract money from producing companies have attracted unwanted attention from people who can put a stop to it

The recent articles about Microsoft’s patent aggression (4 articles about it [1, 2, 3, 4]) have attracted a lot of traffic (our cache server got 22,986,674 hits in the past 4 weeks) and this led to a lot of articles in all sorts of media, including non-English media. This thread titled “Microsoft Linux patent trolling might be extending into the blockchain with microsoft Azure”, for instance, links to this article which in turn cites us and says:

Microsoft has launched another anti-open source software campaign in the last few weeks, targeting prominent Linux and free software companies. They’re attempting to limit open-source development with buy-outs, patent trolling, and charging royalties for products that use Linux. Their recent efforts have them grabbing up patents for open source technology including software developed by Canonical, publishers of the most popular Linux distribution, Ubuntu.

[...]

This isn’t the first time Microsoft has used this methodology to try and hamper innovation in the open source community. They used similar techniques in 2006 by entering a patent agreement with Novell software concerning the sale of enterprise Linux products. They’ve done the same thing recently by applying for patents on their Continuum technology, (a similar software, called Convergence, had been in development at Canonical in the years prior) and Signing a patent deal with Rakuten Inc. that covers Android and Linux devices. Microsoft Uses these agreements to go after open-source software that hurts their margins, attempting to cripple innovation by circumventing the protections provided from open-source licensing. They use these cases as precedent to establish that Linux and other open source software is their Intellectual Property. These cases are typically covered by mainstream media outlets with considerable bias, painting Microsoft as protecting against infringement, when in reality the opposite is true.

[...]

In today’s legal and software development environments, open source licensing is no longer enough to protect projects that companies have an interest in kneecapping, as we’ve discussed in a previous article. Microsoft has done this in the past, so what’s stopping them from doing it again with the blockchain and cryptocurrencies? Not a whole lot at present. All it takes is a patent agreement with a smaller company that can’t afford a legal battle to start the process in the blockchain ecosystem to get Microsoft’s ball rolling again.

Microsoft is not a classic patent troll because it still has its own products in the mobile domain. But how long for?

“Microsoft is not a classic patent troll because it still has its own products in the mobile domain.”According to this article from MIP, “TC Heartland will be heard today March 11 [that's days ago]. The case seeks to overturn the 1990 Federal Circuit case VE Holding v Johnson Gas Appliance, which gave patent owners more options on where to sue” (usually Eastern District of Texas [1, 2, 3]).

“A few months ago,” wrote another author, “I was at the Eastern District of Texas Bench and Bar Conference, and I started talking to a federal district judge about her views of the then-imminent demise of Form 18, the form that essentially made it sufficient for a complaint alleging direct infringement to include only barebones allegations of the facts. Her response was, “it’s going to be Rule 12 hell.””

The same author later asked (in the headline): “What Would Happen to Patent Cases if They Couldn’t all be Filed in Texas?”

“Wadhwa is not a patent troll but more of an academic and entrepreneur. Contrast his views with those of Neil Wilkof (IP Kat), who earlier today was softening the image of patent trolls and downplaying the issues associated with trolls.”“So,” he said, “where does this leave us? Many cases would have to move, and not just those filed by NPEs [trolls]. Even so, a decent number of cases could have stayed in the same location. That Delaware and Northern California would be the most popular is unsurprising given how many defendants are incorporated in Delaware or headquartered in Silicon Valley. Perhaps more surprising is that Eastern Texas remains third on the list, albeit with a much smaller percent of cases. These cases would likely be filed against retailers selling patented goods from stores located in that district, though there were some defendants in our sample that were headquartered there.”

A new article by Vivek Wadhwa, whom we habitually cite here, wishes to put an end to all this costly and spurious/frivolous litigation. In AOL he wrote the other day: “What’s best for innovation is a thriving ecosystem in which companies build on each other’s ideas and constantly reinvent themselves—instead of trying to slow each other down in the courts.

“It’s bad enough when big companies with deep pockets battle each other, but for young companies, lawsuits can be fatal.

“Fledgling innovators have to live in constant fear of a big player or patent troll pulling out a big gun and bankrupting them. For startups, this is a greater concern than someone stealing their ideas.”

Wadhwa is not a patent troll but more of an academic and entrepreneur. Contrast his views with those of Neil Wilkof (IP Kat), who earlier today was softening the image of patent trolls and downplaying the issues associated with trolls. He wrote: “In November 2013, as this Kat previously reported, over 60 intellectual property professors sent a letter to the United States Congress, setting out their critique of the patent system and suggestions for reform. Inter alia, the letter discussed the negative aggregate effect of patent trolls on innovation…”

Which everyone seems to be well aware of. It’s hardly deniable.

“Interestingly, as this Kat has suggested elsewhere, the poster child for the risks (or opportunities) in the potential for scaling-up patent trolling, namely Intellectual Ventures, seems to have a significantly lowered public presence.”
      –Neil Wilkof“In a word,” Wilkof added, “there simply seems to be less buzz about the subject. Interestingly, as this Kat has suggested elsewhere, the poster child for the risks (or opportunities) in the potential for scaling-up patent trolling, namely Intellectual Ventures, seems to have a significantly lowered public presence. Whether a cause or effect of the more general decline of the patent troll is an interesting question. Moreover, this Kat wonders whether the difficulty in defining what is meant by a patent troll has also contributed to this decline.”

Intellectual Ventures is a massive Microsoft-connected patent troll (one of several) and it indeed suffered layoffs. Nevertheless, there are also thousands of satellites around Intellectual Ventures, so it’s hard to tell if it’s shrinking, growing, or just morphing.

Among people who defend patent trolls (and sometimes get funded by them, e.g. IAM ‘magazine’) it’s common to see claims that “troll” is undefined and the word hardly gets mentioned at all. Look at this comment on Wilkof’s article, which says: “the Sea Change at the courts, effectively reversing State Street and finding (over and over again) ineligible the claimed subject matter that is being asserted by the NPE. After all, most of the claims asserted by the NPE’s are business methods with a contribution to the useful arts that we can summarise as “do it on the internet”. Investors have rumbled that such claims simply don’t cut the mustard any more.”

What he/she/they mean to say is, these are “over the Internet” software patents; that’s one of the most popular weapons of patent trolls.

“We wrote a great deal about both the PATENT Act and Innovation Act and explained repeatedly that these are designed to help big corporations at the expense of patent trolls, rather than help society as a whole at the expense of patent trolls.”Now that patent trolls are back on the agenda in the US (first time since last summer’s recess at Congress), some writers pretend that we need trolls for “innovation”. This one example says: “Our future economy is based on innovation, like the many life science and biotechnology companies being developed in Kentucky. Not only is our industry helping to tackle some of the world’s greatest health threats, but we are doing so while creating the next generation of jobs.”

This guy thinks that innovation cannot happen without patents in every single domain? Or that combating patent trolls is someone bad for small businesses? Pretending that curbing the wave of patent trolls can actually harm small businesses (which trolls usually extort until they’re bankrupt) is misleading at best. Here is another new example from the news. “S 1137 (the PATENT Act) and HR 9 (the Innovation Act),” says this person, “would change the way patent lawsuits are handled. The new process would create a complex and expensive legal patchwork that would make it nearly impossible for small and medium-sized businesses and inventors to defend their patents. While large corporations and their teams of high-priced attorneys will be impacted little by the changes in these bills, those without the resources to defend their patents will be devastated.”

We wrote a great deal about both the PATENT Act and Innovation Act and explained repeatedly that these are designed to help big corporations at the expense of patent trolls, rather than help society as a whole at the expense of patent trolls. It does not, however, mean that these so-called ‘reforms’ are undesirable or detrimental to small businesses which actually produce things (i.e. not patent trolls). █

Permalink A Single Comment      Send this to a friend

EPO Under Benoît Battistelli: Nepotism, Misinformation, Poor Patent Quality, Terrible Working Conditions, and Increase in Prices

Posted in America, Asia, Europe, Patents at 6:45 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Descending to Chinese standards on integrity, quality, and human rights

EPO President Benoît Battistelli and SIPO Commissioner Tian Lipu (even the red flags match). Credit: EPO Web site.

Summary: A look at the ugly legacy of Battistelli, who has turned an Office with international reputation into a ‘factory’ like the USPTO or SIPO (in China)

THE EPO has not been doing a good job preserving its reputation when it let software patents slip in (from the back door) and later, based on a leaked document, started treating patent applications in a discriminatory fashion and an embarrassing manner. “There is nothing in the EPC which allows the EPO to handle applications differently,” wrote this person earlier today.

Based on a lot of sources, some of which chose to do this publicly, EPO 'results' are bunk and some rightly suggest that an external audit of these ‘results’ is urgently needed. As this little poem put it earlier today:

C ould it be I’m getting pendantic?
O r is granting patents so romantic?
O ver embellishment of the statistics
K nown now for years by realistics
E xternal audit,lay the books bare
D oes this AC really care?

It might not be enough to do an external investigation into the union-busting activities; the Office as a whole needs to come under outside scrutiny. Moreover, verification of the so-called ‘results’ is desperately required. Some EPO examiners (choosing to comment anonymously for their own protection) admit that examination quality is poor now, especially under Battistelli. As one person put it earlier today (sarcastically):

Please forgive me if my post is a bit off topic. I have to tell it.

I’m one of the few “fossiles” left in The Hague. Those who started more than 30 years ago, performing searches through mountains of paper and providing both the colleagues in München and our applicants with prior art indicating the novelty destroying “X” documents and the position of the competitors.

Then came BEST, with its holy 14% productivity increase, together with the non-written rule: “Find anything against claim 1, and don’t waste your time looking for the other claims.” What was passed over is that following this dirty search many applicants were able to restore novelty after the first communication. And so, a new search was then required. At least for those of us having a bit of professional pride left, and of course for free. Farewell state of the art. Farewell complete searches. Cut the corners and hurry up.

Thanks to ISO 9001, the quality at the EPO improved far beyond any hope. Short ago, I’ve had the traditional new-year meeting with my director. Here is what I learned. Quality millesime 2016 is having no search or examination files in the red list (read “delayed”), no more than 3 published patents older than 6 months awaiting to be classified, no grants from a colleague in the examining division awaiting signature since more than 2 weeks. Highly important matters, as one can imagine. But not for inventors, not for the applicants and not for all those who pay for our work. The content of the search report/search opinion/communication interests NOBODY. Copy/paste an article of the Süddeutsche and it will reach the representative unnoticed. Like a fig leaf hiding the attributes of a horny satyr, our search strategies are now made public. Useless nonsense in terms of quality as only those who want to see can see. And being blind is so convenient for an examiner eager to reach a high productivity. How many times, as chairman, have I seen the sentence “the preparation process being novel then the product is novel too”. But thanks to ISO 9001 we are the champions of the world.

Gloria in excelcis Battistelli.

“This all ends up looking less like Europe of old and more like the US,” another person wrote, noting:

In my experience, ECFS has resulted in some EPO examiners becoming more and more inclined to take a superficial view of compliance with the provisions of the EPC, and to go for as many “easy wins” as possible.

The result? More patents of questionable validity and, worst of all, more patents with claims that are completely unclear. This means more (and much harder) work, and greater expense, for third parties seeking to clear the way.

This might just be acceptable if the OD was a reliable arbiter, diligently weeding out the dodgy claims that somehow made it through the coarse filter of examination. However, given the number of times that my eyebrows have been raised when reading 1st instance decisions, I don’t think that the OD can be relied upon to deliver justice often enough.

This all ends up looking less like Europe of old and more like the US – with a significant percentage of dodgy patents being granted and with 3rd parties being reluctant to challenge due to the high costs and uncertainties involved. Perhaps we can live with that. However, should the management of the EPO really be the ones deciding that this is where we end up? It does not seem the most democratic way of proceeding.

Quality at the USPTO is horrible and it’s not surprising that the number of patents is soaring, not because of growth in innovation. China is more or less the same. On the 1^st of April (and it’s not a joke) the EPO will be increasing fees, in spite of its poor service, as D Young & Co wishes to remind us right now, noting: “Not all fees are increasing and where they are, compared with past rises, the increases are relatively small (2% maximum).”

In short, EPO in its current state of affairs grants patents sparingly, distorts statistics about patents, increases patent fees, treats applications from large corporations as a matter of priority and so on. How can Battistelli tell (with a straight face) to the Administrative Council that he has done an acceptable job? As we shall show later tomorrow, Battistelli is on his way out (high probability as there are already succession plans). █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

L’Office Européen des Brevets (OEB/European Patent Office) Kontrovers Coverage

Posted in Europe, Patents at 1:24 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Bayerisches Fernsehen

Summary: The Bayerischer Rundfunk (BR) program covering the European Patent Office with French subtitles added

THE Kontrovers program below helps explain why suicides are said to have grown tenfold under Battistelli's regime. EPO management finding itself scrutinised in the BR Kontrovers TV coverage was revealingly noteworthy, so in addition to the original in German we now host a French version too:

Last but not least will be the English version, which probably targets the broadest audience because of the nature of our readership. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

European Patent Office Kontrovers TV Coverage (English Version)

Posted in Europe, Patents at 1:23 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

One man’s story gets told (televised even) so that others won’t have to go through what he did (implicating what EPO staff memorably calls ‘Gestapo’ [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7])

Summary: A television program which demonstrates the correlation between aggressive EPO management and staff suicides preserved as a cautionary tale

HAVING just published the original in German and also the French version (subtitled), we now publish the English version that was shared here in Flash form before (via YouTube).

This Kontrovers program provides food for though to delegates, who can be directly contacted (e.g. with concerns) ahead of this week’s Administrative Council meeting. They too get bullied by for expressing dissent.

There are two main themes/ways in which EPO management tries to justify its abuses and iron-fisted governance approach (suicides unsurprisingly grew tenfold); one is to say about the employees that they’re “well paid” (or something along those lines, as it monetary compensation exempts them from human rights) and the other is all about “results” (which is a basically a lie). █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend