02.03.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:45 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
…and Why the UPC Would Make Matters Even Worse
Summary: The EPO’s insistence that it remains above the law is not only coming under fire by the media but is also being challenged based on people who are familiar with the applicability of law to international organisations
THE EPO is a greedy institution totally out of control. It’s not a public service but a corporate service for very large corporations that are not even European. It is an instrument of power for the rich, hence the staff is well compensated though pressured to always obey the real masters, who are these large corporations (or top applicants that take the lion’s share of patents). There is no choice, there is no democracy, there is no freedom. The golden rule is, you blindly do what you’re told and those who tell the EPO what to do (e.g. in angry letters to the EPO) are companies like Microsoft. It’s all about rigging the market and elbowing potential rivals out of the way, using patents. According to a patent lawyers’ site, European patents (in the EPO sense) will be priced further out of the reach of small European companies. As the lawyers put it (in a rather positive tone): “Note that renewal fees for European patent applications may be paid no more than 3 months in advance of the due date. Therefore, for any renewal fees falling due at the end of April, May or June 2016, the current (lower) amount can be paid early, before 1 April 2016, in order to avoid the fee increase.”
“It [EPO] is an instrument of power for the rich, hence the staff is well compensated though pressured to always obey the real masters, who are these large corporations (or top applicants that take the lion’s share of patents).”So the prices of patents are going up while the quality is going down (or patent scope being broadened). The EPO is truly out of control. It is greedy, it is apathetic (if not hostile) to public interests, and it clearly needs to be stopped. Those inside the EPO who are trying to reform it get punished severely, even sacked. Voices of rationality are treated like criminals, "Nazis", "snipers", or "Mafia", not like whistleblowers (which is what in effect they are).
We were gratified to see this article published yesterday. Many people told us about it. Glyn Moody spent months writing a long, detailed report about the EPO. He gave the EPO’s PR team an opportunity to respond prior to publication. To quote parts of it:
Imagine a country where the chief executive of an organisation can allegedly assault a member of staff, but when the latter goes to a labour tribunal to obtain compensation, the complainant is told that nothing can be done, because the chief executive enjoys legal immunity from prosecution. Possible in a distant banana republic, you might think, but out of the question here in Europe.
And yet the alleged assault and rejection of the complaint on the grounds of immunity did indeed take place in Europe a couple of decades ago. They occurred in EPOnia, a strange land that is both in Europe, and yet not a part of it.
[...]
But soon, with the arrival of the unitary patent, that might change, dramatically altering the patent landscape of Europe—and the role of the EPO. That makes some recent troubles in the land of EPOnia of interest not just to those who inhabit this strange world, but to everyone in Europe, since the future of patents there is likely to be greatly affected by how—or whether—things are resolved.
[...]
Matters didn’t improve in early 2014, when 90 percent of the 4,000 votes cast by EPO staff supported another round of strikes, which took place in March and April of that year. At the time, SUEPO released a summary of what it saw as the chief problems besetting EPO.
[...]
The “concerned staff” of the EPO feared the consequences of a drive towards greater numbers of lower-quality patents being issued would be serious: “Low quality patents will harm business, primarily SMEs, private inventors and Universities, since the legal costs for an infringement and/or litigation procedure are so high that they normally threaten their financial foundation.”
[...]
As the IPKat blog post points out, for the EPO President to suspend a Board of Appeal member is a gross infraction of the fundamental rules of the EPO, and turns what before was a disagreement between SUEPO and Battistelli into EPOnia’s very own constitutional crisis. Or as an anonymous commenter on the IPKat blog post quoted above put it succinctly: “The president of the executive suspending a judge? Wow. Sounds like Eponia is turning [into] Banania.”
[...]
In a blog post entitled “2014, another successful year for the EPO,” published a few days after the Administrative Council meeting mentioned above, Battistelli pointed out: “Our production, our productivity and our cost controls have all improved.” Perhaps it was Battistelli’s focus on productivity and cost-savings, and the increased payments he was able to make to the EPO’s member countries, that encouraged the Administrative Council to support him despite the growing chorus of complaints and warnings at the highest level.
In the same post, Battistelli concluded: “Thanks to the performance of our staff, the fruitful cooperation with our partners, some landmark decisions taken by our Council and the coming implementation of major projects, we have every reason to look forward to 2015 with confidence.” That confidence turned out to be misplaced: 2015 would prove to be even more tumultuous than 2014.
[...]
The information about the EPO management’s use of surveillance of public computers to investigate these issues not only explained what had happened back in December 2014, it also drew increased scrutiny from those outside EPOnia. This included a call in June 2015 from the Bavarian Data Protection Commissioner for an external data protection supervisor to be deployed at the European Patent Office.
[...]
A redacted copy of the EPO’s latest letter accusing Hardon of harassment was published by Roy Schestowitz on his Techrights blog, which has become one of the main resources for following the increasingly complicated saga of EPOnia, as this long listing of EPO-related posts makes plain.
[...]
Not content with this attempt to weaken SUEPO by suspending a number of its officers, EPO’s management started to attack the press, too. As noted above, Roy Schestowitz’s Techrights blog has become one of the prime sources for information about what is happening within the world of EPOnia. So much so that in July 2015 it emerged that the EPO was blocking access by staff to the Techrights site. In November, the EPO went even further, sending a legal threat to Schestowitz that accused him of defamation.
[...]
At the time of writing, it’s not yet clear how almost 1 million euros of what is effectively public money will be spent in this attempt “to address the media presence of the EPO.”
[...]
As a consequence, the EPO will once more have an incentive to issue as many patents as possible in order to boost its revenue from renewal fees—a problem that besets the current EPO system, as discussed above. The double danger here is that the introduction of the unitary patent, implemented with a more accommodating attitude to approving applications, could bring with it both US-style patent trolls, and US-style patenting.
Patent trolls are almost unknown in the EU because it is currently impossible to obtain an EU-wide patent. Without it, patent trolls would have to apply for patents in multiple jurisdictions before suing their victims in each of them separately, increasing the cost of carrying out this kind of bullying, and multiplying the risk that they would lose somewhere and see their bluff called. The new unitary patent is specifically designed to make it easy to obtain patents across the EU—something that patent trolls will relish.
[...]
The central problem is that, however much they are “surprised” or concerned by it, neither the European Parliament nor the European Commission has any way to compel the EPO to change its behaviour. The EPO is not an EU organisation; it is literally a law unto itself.
[...]
If the European Union truly wants the imminent unitary patent system to help innovation in Europe thrive, and not be throttled by it, it must begin by recognising that there is something rotten in the state of EPOnia, and then start to address it with bold and concrete actions. Rescinding the problematic extraterritoriality of the EPO, and making it an EU organisation ultimately subject to scrutiny by the Court of Justice of the European Union, would be a good place to start.
Not much more needs to be said about the article, although we are tempted to respond to the ‘damage control’ embedded there by the EPO’s PR team. “AMAZING article in UK” is what two people called it (one in our IRC channel and another in IP Kat, unless it’s the same person).
“Patent attorneys have been seeing this information coming out as rumours, informally from examiners and from blogs like IPKat, but it’s damning to see it all in one place.”
–AnonymousAmong the earlier comments on the article above we have this: “Excellent article on the ludicrous internal governance of the EPO. Patent attorneys have been seeing this information coming out as rumours, informally from examiners and from blogs like IPKat, but it’s damning to see it all in one place.”
“It really does beggar belief,” wrote another commenter. “I thought I’d seen the worst of the public sector while working in the NHS (clerical staff – mostly work for patients’ benefit; medical staff – mostly work for patients’ benefit; managers – work for their own benefit) but this outstrips it by an order of magnitude. Great article, but very troubling!”
In the NHS the salaries are nowhere as high as in the EPO. “I am very curious to see a discussion of how people are recruited to the EPO,” one person wrote yesterday. “I have the feeling that the story of friends bringing other friends in has gone too far and none is commenting it!”
The EPO's recruitment standards (for management at least) mirror the standards of third world countries. But we have come to expect that from the EPO. Everything about its management is malicious and quite arrogantly so. These people know they’re immune and they show it. It’s quite shameless and blatant, as the interview Minnoye (VP1) recently did with Dutch TV served to show/reinforce.
“I thought I’d seen the worst of the public sector while working in the NHS (clerical staff – mostly work for patients’ benefit; medical staff – mostly work for patients’ benefit; managers – work for their own benefit) but this outstrips it by an order of magnitude. Great article, but very troubling!”
–AnonymousThere was recently a long discussion in IP Kat about the EPO being supposedly immune. Someone anonymous left a bizarre comment which wrongly assumes that the EPO management can do anything it wants in spite of the EPC, relying on arguments which evade the reality of the EPC, as if it’s OK for EPO management to just disregard it and leave The Hague as means of political blackmail (the comment used Romania). As a result of this comment a long discussion ensued (though the comment doesn’t qualify as trolling, probably just a case of misunderstanding or mis-comprehension). In order to tackle or bury this argument we wish to quote some replies to it (not all).
One commenter wrote: “Article 4a [EPC] does not require a diplomatic conference (for the purpose of changing things), it requires a conference of ministers to discuss things.”
Another said: “The EPO is not a multinational corporate enterprise. It is – or is supposed to be – an intergovernmental authority established by an international diplomatic treaty.”
“Munich and The Hague are cast in stone in Article 6 EPC and this can only be changed by a full diplomatic conference of the contracting states.”
–Anonymous“The “seats” of the organisation are defined by law. Munich and The Hague are cast in stone in Article 6 EPC and this can only be changed by a full diplomatic conference of the contracting states.”
To quote this longer comment: “Ex-examiner-now-patent-attorney [an anonymous commenter] correctly mentions that the fact that the EPO is the first supranational tax-raising organ in Europe has largely escaped public attention so far. This is even more true for the Unitary Patent which will divert huge amounts of money for the benefit of the contracting states for no counterpart at all: Unitary Patents will be entirely managed by the EPO, and the litigation costs for such patents be born by the parties before the UPC. So why wonder that the members of such conspiracy-like association so fiercely cling to immunity? The echo in the media of Mr Battistelli´s behaviour and the raising public awareness of the situation might indeed trigger a cataclysm for all parties concerned.”
“Yes,” wrote another person, “a threat to move an office if they don’t get their way has been a mgt. tactic before. Unlikely ever to be implemented for various logistical reasons – if the office can have so much trouble getting a new president voted in, what chance the 38 states quickly agreeing which one of them can get an office of the EPO? And how long before a suitable building is available, given the time the new Rijswijk building is taking? Such an idea of a move is possible but not realistic.”
“Funnily enough,” another person added. “in last Thursday’s Daily Telegraph (26th Jan, page 14), there is a piece written by a French lady entitled “Authoritarianism is the norm in France”. Nothing to do with patents of course, but it could partly explain Mr. B’s attitude.”
Mr. B or BB means Battistelli in all of these comments.
“Funnily enough, in last Thursday’s Daily Telegraph (26th Jan, page 14), there is a piece written by a French lady entitled “Authoritarianism is the norm in France”.”
–AnonymousHere is a complaint about the working conditions: “You should see the 1970s iconic EPO building in The Hague, still operational (800 staff+ VP1) half demolished and the façade claddings are crumbling away some of them are covered with white sheeting, the window washers are even not allowed to go up the facade. Somebody over there told me that the asbestos abatement of the old library was done underneath staffed upper floors with openable windows and air grids. Apparently the windows have not been maintained for the last 20 years and staff complain about horrendous droughts in their small offices, most of them only 10 sqm. The VP1 (site manager) even managed to get a user permit from the local authorities for the EPO site, the architectural style of that main building is called “New Brutalism” (some of the previous commenters used this expression before) this style seems to have rubbed off on the VP1 management style. Talking about third world country H&S standards in The Netherlands.. EPO should have been put right by the local authorities on H&S matters; they are not able to do it by themselves.”
In response to the ludicrous idea of the EPO threatening to move to Romania one person wrote:
Perhaps not Bukarest, but how about Riga? (or somewhere in Poland where the goverment is implementing similar law as BB did)
Anyway, any state (hello Germany) that says it cannot do anything since it has only one voice, be reminded that this reasoning was also widely applied by Germans living in the 1000 years between 1933 and 1945 … they were not really praised for this point of view; it is a no-excuse.
What could these states for example do: go for the EPOrg to sign the (European) Charte of Human Rights (or to declare them applicable) or (a bit radical but s.th. a single state can do) announce to leave the EPC … these are possible steps for a single state – they just WANT to have to go them (or in a small group, eg consider Germany, The Netherlands and France to leave the EPC).
And a third point: I am anyway wondering when the first case ends up before the Boards of Appeal invoking the lack of a diplomatic conference (but would you want to have such a thing while BB is reigning?)
Citing the EPC again, this one person explains why Art. 173 EPC makes the Romania fantasy difficult to substantiate:
Disputes between Contracting States
(1) Any dispute between Contracting States concerning the interpretation or application of the present Convention which is not settled by negotiation shall be submitted, at the request of one of the States concerned, to the Administrative
Council, which shall endeavour to bring about agreement between the States concerned.
(2) If such agreement is not reached within six months from the date when the dispute was referred to the Administrative Council, any one of the States concerned may submit the dispute to the International Court of Justice for a binding decision.
So if there is only one Contracting State which is not satisfied with the interpretation of the EPC, say for EPC Art. 4a, Art. 23, Art. 146, PPI Art.3(4) or the Protocol on Staff Complement, he might consider this approach.
Moreover, parliaments may change the law, even Grundgesetz Art. 24 could be changed, e.g. to explicitly take out some principles such as Menschenwürde or separation of powers from IO immunity.
Citing Art. 173 and Art. 4a, another commenter writes:
The NL government’s position is in fact rational.
As the government of a host state of the EPO, it must ensure that state organs respect the EPO’s immunity to the extent that the EPO is entitled to it and chooses not to waive it. If the possibility exists that a national court incorrectly lifted the EPO’s immunity, then the Dutch government is essentially obliged to aid the EPO in appealing against that court’s decision.
If it considers that international law obliges it, the Dutch state might even have to block execution of a final court decision, even of one by its Hoge Raad. (Suppose e.g. that the Hoge Raad rules in favour of SUEPO and that the Dutch government initially allows the execution. Now some other contracting state like Hungary considers that The Netherlands violates the Convention. Hungary can then submit the case to the International Court of Justice for a binding decision (Art. 173 EPC). If the ICJ rules in favour of Hungary, then certainly The Netherlands will just have to ignore, i.e. block execution of, the judgment of its highest national court. But the Dutch government could also itself decide that the Hoge Raad’s judgment, although by definition in conformity with national law, is contrary to the Dutch state’s international obligations.)
As a host state, the Dutch state is not completely sidelined. There is still Art. 20 PPI that requires the EPO to cooperate with the Dutch state’s authorities in order to facilitate the observance of inter alia regulations concerning public health and labour inspection. The EPO appears to be in blatant violation of this obligation. The Dutch state may therefore submit a dispute to an international arbitration tribunal under Art. 23 PPI. The EPO’s immunity does not protect against the enforcement of the decision (“award”) of the arbitration tribunal (Art. 3(1)(c) PPI).
The Dutch state is also a contracting state. As a contracting state it bears responsibility for the functioning of the EPO, but in this respect it cannot be distinguished from any of the other 37 contracting states.
So:
(1) as the government of a contracting state, the Dutch government tries to push BB towards a more social attitude and more dialogue
(2) as the government of a host state, the Dutch government insists that the EPO’s immunity when not waived must be respected (within its proper limits, obviously, but those have not been finally decided yet even at the national level)
(3) as the government of a host state, the Dutch government might eventually decide to submit a dispute to an international arbitration tribunal in order to force the EPO to respect its obligations under Art. 20 PPI.
There is no conflict between (1) and (2). At most one may wonder when the Dutch government will decide that the time has come to invoke option (3).
Art. 172 is cited as follows:
Art. 4a has nothing to do with a diplomatic conference of the contracting states, nor with amending the EPC.
Art. 172 lays down the procedure for amending the EPC. It requires a decision by the AC to hold a “conference of the contracting states”, i.e. a diplomatic conference.
Without amending the EPC, the EPO cannot empty the branch in The Hague (e.g. by transferring people to Munich), because the “Protocol on Staff Complement” forbids that. The only way to amend this protocol is, again, by means of a diplomatic conference.
It is quickly becoming a national (Dutch) and continental (Europe) embarrassment. The Dutch government must step in. It needs to intervene as soon as possible.
Here are some examples of interventions in international bodies despite immunity:
There are several examples of immunity lifted.
1. Dominique Strauss-Kahn (managing director of the International Monetary Fund). He was arrested by NY police over allegations of sexual assault. The judge rejected Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s claim of diplomatic immunity.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/02/nyregion/strauss-kahns-claim-of-diplomatic-immunity-is-rejected.html?_r=0
2. Devyani Khobragade (Deputy Consul General of the Consulate General of India in New York City) was charged by U.S. authorities with committing visa fraud and providing false statements in order to gain entry to the United States for a domestic worker. Khobragade was arrested the next day by U.S. federal law enforcement authorities.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-25458531
3. Edith Cresson (European Commissioner for Research, Science and Technology)
She appointed a friend as personal advisor. (She did nothing else wrong).
The European Commission lifted the diplomatic immunity of Ms Edith Cresson, to allow her to be questioned by the Belgian judicial authorities.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/cresson-s-immunity-lifted-1.245668
An earlier comment took note of this paper [PDF], adding: “Very interesting for the relationship between human rights and the immunity of international organisations.”
In our private channels we learned of “Remedies against International Organisations von Karel Wellens”. It’s a book on the subject.
“It´s a slap in the face of the Dutch justice that Minnoye openly said he would refuse to follow any Supreme Court decision.”
–Anonymous“Page 214 and forward,” we were told, may touch the subject. We were told that “the passage can be found by simply googling”. To quote a relevant part: “The human rights imperative may lead to or even require a limitation or rejection by domestic courts of jurisdictional immunity claimed by international organisations, and the actual exercise of the courts´ adjudicatory system. [...] the forum state will not only be entitled but will be obliged – in the case where the international organisation has not complied with its conventional obligation to provide adequate alternative setlement mechanisms – to deny jurisdictional immunity.” This is from page 214. “Even more interesting,” we were told, is page 215. It is about human rights violations by international organisations. The book is available for sale by Amazon, but there is no description or reviews. It costs $95. “It´s a slap in the face of the Dutch justice that Minnoye openly said he would refuse to follow any Supreme Court decision,” told us a source. “He´s despised by everybody (and I mean not only examiners). As far as I know he´s at his second prolongation of service, which should be illegal, since the provisions are that one can only prolong to 67 and he´s passed the mark.” █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Microsoft, Patents at 5:32 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
[Correction: It turns out we got confused as Rovi and Rovio are not the same company. Rovi is actually a patent parasite. Rovio often gets sued by patent trolls. Therefore, some of the statements below are misplaced.]
The birds get even angrier and nastier
Summary: Once known as a game maker and later made notorious for mass surveillance on gamers, Rovi now liaises with the world’s largest patent troll
BASED on an EPO-funded (yes, the EPO pays the media now) Web site that’s also paid by patent trolls (e.g. sponsors of events it organises for trolls to change/improve their image), Rovi has just agreed to “join forces” with Microsoft’s patent troll which is also the world’s largest patent troll. To quote the EPO-funded ‘news’ site: “Digital entertainment company Rovi and Intellectual Ventures (IV) announced yesterday that they are combining their respective patent portfolios relevant to over-the-top content (OTT) technology and will offer them for licensing as a single package.”
“How is being connected to a patent troll going to be beneficial to a game developer?”It turns out investors have not been happy. As the EPO-funded ‘news’ site put it: “Although investors appear to have reacted badly to news of the link-up, the potential benefits look pretty clear for Rovi. The addition of complementary assets from IV’s wide-ranging patent portfolio could enhance its offering to prospective licensees and give it an even stronger hand in negotiations.”
Complete nonsense. How is being connected to a patent troll going to be beneficial to a game developer? This is hogwash from patent maximalists who refuse to even use the word “trolls”.
The EPO-funded ‘news’ site, incidentally, also puts lipstick on the latest pig (pun intended, reference to Angry Birds) which is the Microsoft-dominated Nokia (now acting more like a giant patent troll inside Europe). Yesterday we wrote about Nokia's patent attacks on Android, which are becoming public only years after Microsoft got involved.
The reason this site exists in the first place (for those who don’t know) is Microsoft’s patent war on Free/Open Source software. This includes Android, which is the platform that companies like Rovi target primarily. Intellectual Ventures has been attacking Android itself with software patents. It’s all part of Microsoft’s patent stacking (legal term) strategy against Linux and Free software. They try to make it less potent if not nonviable a competitor by artificially elevating costs associated with software, using software patents. █
“The genesis of this idea was when I was at Microsoft. We had a problem with patent liability. All these people were coming to sue us or demand payment. And Bill (Gates) asked me to think about if there was a solution.” —Nathan Myhrvold, WSJ: Transcript: Myhrvold of Intellectual Ventures
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Europe, Patents at 5:13 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The huge cost (even to innocent parties) of patent maximalism motivated by self-importance and greed
Summary: Far too many bogus patents (patents that should not be granted in the first place) and spurious patent lawsuits that end up in favour of the defendant serve to show the external cost (or externality) when it comes to low-quality patent systems that strive to grant a lot of patents irrespective of merit
LAST year we wrote quite a lot about software patents in Europe, including in Germany’s courts, where Apple had been trying to block Android/Linux (Germany is strategic for many such lawsuits). Well, according to this interesting new piece from IP Kat, “German Federal Patent Court (partially) invalidates 80% of litigated patents” and here are the numbers for software patents: “For software and telecommunications patents, the invalidation rate is even higher at 88% (58% totally invalid, 30% partially invalid, 12% maintained). Patentees fare slightly, but only slightly, better on appeal, as the win rate for appeals against decisions invalidating a patent is higher (60%) than the win rate for appeals against decisions maintaining a patent (40%).”
“It’s a very big deal when patents are ruled invalid in courts because it means that patent offices simply failed to do their job properly and as a result many companies may have to spend a lot of money that they’ll never redeem (even when acquitted).”Many people read this piece within hours and many comments there alluded to the EPO. People have strong feelings about this. It’s a very big deal when patents are ruled invalid in courts because it means that patent offices simply failed to do their job properly and as a result many companies may have to spend a lot of money that they’ll never redeem (even when acquitted). This is a serious injustice. It also serves to show the real cost of patent offices that associate the number of patents with “innovation” (and thus embark on a patents gold rush).
As revealed by a patent maximalists’ blog the other day, patents are now being found invalid in the courts only upon appeal (i.e. even more legal charges) because examiners granted too easily (or pressured to grant by management, if the example of the EPO’s Grant Philpott was to be generalised). The same blog also spoke about patent trolls with software patents. We wrote a great deal about NewEgg’s defense from such trolls in recent years (NewEgg deserves kudos for its policy on this matter). To quote the blog: “In the appeal, the Federal Circuit noted that – this time, NewEgg was the one with an unreasonable position — demanding a “de novo review of the district court’s findings” despite recent Supreme Court precedent to the contrary. However, the Federal Circuit followed its usual practice of requiring each party to bear its own costs of the appeal.”
“The patent offices need to come under an examination.”So once again it’s an appeal and no legal fees will be reimbursed. The cost of fraudulent patent lawsuits (invalid patents) is passed to the defendant, which even if proven innocent still loses (a lot of money). What kind of justice is this? The UPC can potentially bring a lot more of this to Europe and given the statistics above (from Germany) we shouldn’t have to tolerate it. The patent offices need to come under an examination. Currently they just don’t have any effective form of oversight; quality is hardly imposed from the outside, except perhaps the Supreme Court, the EPC (old), and so on. Why are so many bogus patents granted in the first place? Some of the evidence we had showed for that the EPO threatens to sue us over, some remains in tact.
Consider this new analysis from a patent lawyers’ site. It is titled “Monsanto Patent On Virus-Resistant Melon Revoked” and it says: “The patent application was filed with the EPO on 21 December 2006 and the grant of the patent became effective on 4 May 2011. The patent has since been opposed by, inter alia, numerous NGOs.”
Do NGOs and persistent political pressure need to act as oversight for greedy offices where there’s insatiable aspiration to increase the number of patents, even if by unethically broadening patent scope (e.g. to forms of life)? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Patents, Samsung at 4:29 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Publicado en GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Patents, Samsung at 8:14 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
“Se cree que ls monopolios de patentes impulsan la innovación, pero que en realidad impiden el progreso de la ciencia e innovación, dijo Stiglitz. La “maraña de patentes,” actual en la que cualquier persona que escribe un programa de software con éxito es demandado por supuesta infracción de patentes, pone de relieve el fracaso del sistema de propiedad intelectual para fomentar la innovación, dijo.”
–IP Watch on Professor Joseph Stiglitz
Sumario: Microsoft ha convertido a Nokia en un troll de patentes que ahora ataca a Linux y Android.
Microsoft ha convertido Nokia en un anti-Adroid/Linux troll de patentes, como se esperaba. ¿Está alguién sorprendido? Preveímos esto desde el principio. Asi como otros (incluso aquellos que Microsoft pago por ´reportajes´).
Como Florian Muller lo puso esta mañana: ¨Como lo sospeché, el pacto de patentes de 2013 Nokia-Samsung esta lejos de ser comprehensivo: litigación todavía una posibilidad¨ (en aquel entonces él todavía era cercano a Microsoft).
Para citar el blog de Muller: ¨La realidad que muchas de las aserciones de patentes de Nokia contra HTC fallaron (aunque HTC fue forzado al final a pagar por licencias en cualquier términos) puede hacer que prospectivos licenciadores sientan que pueden probar suerte en la corte.
¨El próximo anuncio de Nokia-Samsung, cuando este sea dado, será probablemente un comunicado ¨pescado o carnada¨. No hablarán por siempre. En algún momento se pondrán de acuerdo o Nokia los enjuiciará. Por mi parte recomendaría a Samsung (si me lo preguntaran, obviamente no lo harán) que no sobrepaguen.¨
“Microsoft también pasó patentes de Nokia a trolles de patentes como MOSAID (ahora llamada Conversant).”¨Así que ¿Microsoft ama a Linux, si? Por ello destruyeron Nokia después que Nokia se ´atrevió´ a ser uno de los mayores contribuyentes de Linux (casi numero uno). Microsoft también pasó patentes de Nokia a trolles de patentes como MOSAID (ahora llamada Conversant).
El reporte que todos van a citar en los próximos dis es este. El Wall Street Journal escribió: ¨Nokia Corp espera ganar más de 1 billón de dollares en cash por su portafolio de propiedad intelectual en los próximos tres años, incluyendo las ganancias de su pacto con Samsung Electronics Co. firmado hace más de dos años.¨
Aparentemente, Nokia quiere mucho más dinero que esto. ¨NOKIA ES UN TROLL DE PATENTES ahora, extorsionó 1 Billon de dolares de Samsung,¨ escribió el presidente de la FFII (Fundación para una Infraestructura de Información Libre) esta mañana. Revisaremos esta materia más adelante (hay muchos más urgentes temas que cubrir ahora). █
“Microsoft está pidiendo a la gente a pagar por las patentes, pero no van a decir cuáles son. Si un tipo entra en su tienda y dice: “Es un barrio peligroso, ¿por qué no me pagas 20 dólares y me aseguraré de que estés bien,” eso es ilegal. eS CRIMEN ORGANIZADO.”
–Mark Shuttleworth
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:12 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Publicado in Europe, Patents at 5:50 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Image credit: Benjamin Henrion at FOSDEM
Sumarior: Debates acerca de la UPC estan siendo peleados por profesionales de software (entidades prácticantes) y elementos PARÁSITICOS como los abogados de patentes.
LLa OEP frecuentemente otorga patentes de software, a pesar de la prohibición de estas en Europa. De acuerdo a un tweet de Benjamin Herrion esta mañana, el Padre del Software Libre, Richard Stallman, dijo que las patentes de software regresan con la Corte Unitaria de Patentes. Hemos estado diciendo esto por largo tiempo, pero algunas personas rechazan aceptarlo, a pesar de mucha evidencia o profesionales de leyes quienes estan diciendo lo mismo. Esto NO ES una teoría o una mera hipótesis; es una realidad.
“De acuerdo a un tweet de Benjamin Herrion esta mañana, el Padre del Software Libre, Richard Stallman, dijo que las patentes de software regresan con la Corte Unitaria de Patentes.”Otra cosa que la UPC ayudará a traer a Europa es un ELEMENTO PARÁSITICO DEL EXTRANJERO, MAYORMENTE DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS, ya comenzo asuceder. La semana pasada, o hace algunos días, los abogados de patentes advirtieron que traería trolls de patentes a Europa (no los llaman trolls, sólo entidades ¨no-prácticantes y entidades de aserción de patentes¨). Otros abogados de patentes todavía promocional duro por la UPC y se remarcan de acuerdo a ello. Los medios de abogados públicamente se enorgullecen (e.g. en Twitter) secciones enteras acerca de ello. Tratan de capitalizar por cambio sin importarles el daño. Este sitio dijo: ¨Finlandia rectifica el Acuerdo por la UPC y su Protocolo, el Reino Unido se alista por la rectificación con un poquito de complejidad legal, las publicaciones de la UPC estan abiertas a todos y sus ´mejoras´ al IT sistem de ella (como si ya existiera y sólo detalles menores quedan por decidir).
Bueno, firmas de leyes en Londres y los medios de abogados del area pueden tratar de darnos la impresión que la UPC es inevitable e incluso que es buena, pero es un HORRIBLE ERROR y traería a la UE en linea con los Estados Unidos (el más notorio nefasto sistema de patentes), donde la gente es arrastrada a Texas por juicios acerca de patentes de sofware (en cortes que tradicionalmente son amigables a las patentes de sofware). █
“El personal de la Oficina Europea de Patentes se declararon en huelga acusando a la organización de la corrupción: en concreto, el maquillamiento de los estándares para las patentes con el fin de hacer más dinero.
“Una de las formas en que la OEP ha hecho esto es mediante la emisión de patentes de software en desafío al tratado que lo prohibió.”
–Richard Stallman
Permalink
Send this to a friend
02.02.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:33 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Team Battistelli looks frail as SUEPO’s new Web site appears (public debut apparently earlier today)
Summary: SUEPO, the largest staff union of the European Patent Office, shows signs of strength rather than signs of weakness amidst attacks on the staff and a lot of media coverage, political interventions, and much more
EARLIER today we noticed some changes over at suepo.org. We don’t have contacts at SUEPO, so we have been asking for help figuring out what exactly is happening. “If anyone can shed light on what’s going on with SUEPO Web site,” I wrote this evening in Twitter, “please contact me securely/anonymously.” Well, nobody seems to know anything based on the responses received so far. We can, however, speculate quite safely based on recent and historical information.
“It’s quite clear to see what Team Battistelli is trying to achieve here.”As we have been saying for a number of months, based on numerous different sources, more people join SUEPO and contribute money to SUEPO, even to fired representatives based on reliably information that we have. The EPO’s management, in the mean time, tries to starve SUEPO (with financial sanctions) by attacking strategically those who are signing up new member and build up collective protection (legal shield), dealing with functions like treasury. The treasurer of SUEPO, Malika Weaver, was downgraded. That’s quite a warning shot sent her way. It’s quite clear to see what Team Battistelli is trying to achieve here.
Now, on to the site. Today, when making a routine visit to suepo.org we were greeted by an unfamiliar face and various error messages whenever attempting to access material that SUEPO had published. It’s almost as if the site now links to a different physical machine with another filesystem, or another home directory. Yet another incarnation (there were several with different content over the years) appears to have been launched without prior notice/announcement. SUEPO, by far the largest staff union of the EPO (with several decades of history), changed a lot over the years (mergers included); in its Web site a lot of content was deleted/gone from sight but can still be found using the Internet Archive.
“Yet another incarnation (there were several with different content over the years) appears to have been launched without prior notice/announcement.”Whatever the site is serving at this moment is still work in progress and some links are broken, documents are missing, some text cannot be located, and based on some searches there’s an improved structure but still a lot of missing content. We made backup of what used to exist just in case. It’s a good thing, especially in retrospect, that we had also made backups of many (not all) SUEPO documents (like PDFs) just in case of cessation or takedown (either voluntary or enforced/imposed). Given the bad experience with DDOS attack on SUEPO’s Web site we can’t help wondering if SUEPO is implementing a site redesign or Team Battistelli is now attacking the site’s administrators/maintainers/authors, who now have disclaimers everywhere*.
The final statement from SUEPO (before the change/overhaul) provided a good overview of recent articles on the staff dispute. As it’s no longer visible, here it is copied in full below:
A demonstration took place on Thursday 28 January 2016 in The Hague. About 900 colleagues gathered in front of the Peace Palace — the seat of the International Court of Justice — and walked peacefully from the nearby French Embassy to the German Embassy.
The mobilisation was very strong. The demonstrators were joined by Dutch Members of Parliament Ms Sharon Gesthuizen and Mr John Kerstens, French Member of Parliament Mr Philip Cordery, and a delegation of FNV, the largest Dutch union.
The aim of the demo was:
- To express our support :
- to the SUEPO-Munich officials whom Mr Battistelli has dismissed (Els Hardon and Ion Brumme) and severely downgraded (Malika Weaver);
- to the SUEPO-The Hague officials Jesús Areso and Laurent Prunier who are targeted despite their health conditions.
- To remind Gemany, The Netherlands and France that they bear a particular responsibility. They are among the most influential EPO Member States. Benoît Battistelli and his closest associates are French officials. Germany and the Netherlands are host states, where the violations of Fundamental Rights are taking place.
Dutch Media have given extensive coverage. Among the various TV programs, NOS nieuwsuur stands out for the interview with Vice-President (DG 1) Willy Minnoye, who stated that the fact that only personnel guilty of misconduct is targeted, and that the fact that five (5) of the latest targets are all SUEPO officials is a pure coincidence. He also announced that the EPO does not agree with learned judges of the Dutch Court of Appeal that violations of fundamental rights trump the Organisation’s immunity, and that if in cassation the Dutch Supreme Court (who held a hearing on 29 January 2016) were to agree with the Court of Appeal, the EPO would not obey the Supreme Court, either. See the whole reportage on nos.nl by clicking here.
Further TV reportages:
Web/Newspaper articles:
- “Hoe ver gaat de immuniteit van het Europees Octrooibureau?” (Nieuwsuur, 28/01/2016)
- “Medewerkers Europese Octrooi Organisatie in protest tegen ‘angstcultuur’” (de Volkskrant, 28/01/2016)
- “Personeel protesteert tegen ‘intimidatie’ bij Europees Octrooibureau” (omroepwest.nl, 28/01/2016)
- “Protest tegen ‘intimidatie’ bij Europees Octrooibureau” (nos.nl, 28/01/2016). Translations are available in English, French and German.
- “European patent office staff to demonstrate against ‘intimidation’” (DutchNews.nl, 28/01/2016)
- “Onderzoek naar sociale situatie Octrooibureau” (nos.nl, 28/01/2016)
- “EPO staff to hold demo in The Hague” (WIPR, 28/01/2016)
- “Van Dam begint onderzoek naar Octrooibureau” (nu.nl, 30/01/2016)
- “If you go down to the Hague today… be sure that you close your eyes” (IPKAT, 28/01/2016)
- “Medewerkers Europese Octrooi Organisatie zijn tirannie beu en gaan de straat op” (de Volkskrant, 28/01/2016)
- “‘Wat als het octrooibureau martelt?’” (nrc.nl, 30/01/2016). Translation is available in English.
- “Να πάρουν θέση τα κράτη μέλη του Ευρωπαϊκού Οργανισμού Ευρεσιτεχνίας” (kkuneva.eu, 29/01/2016)
- “Verziekt klimaat in Rijswijk” (deondernemer.nl, 29/01/2016)
If someone knows for sure what is going on or what has been going on at the Web site of SUEPO, please let us know (either in the comments below or private message, IRC, and so on).
One person wrote this afternoon: “Board 28 meeting in Munich today. Did anybody hear any news?”
Has anybody got any information about this or about SUEPO’s site? We are still pursuing information about both (no connection implied) and will update readers when details become available. Due to crackdowns on dissent on the EPO, the flow of information has been made very limited, at least in public sites. People inside the EPO are afraid of hesitant to talk, sometimes even to their colleagues. █
_____
* Here, just in case, is the latest snapshot of SUEPO’s static Web site, which either undergoes maintenance/redesign (unless it is in some way being gagged right now, as was the case before, necessitating the disclaimer at the bottom of all the pages).
Postscript: As of the time of publishing (this article was drafted several hours ago), the site appears to have reverted back to the previous form, so maybe there’s still some testing underway. It’s unlikely to have been just an accident.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:24 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Press report from Munich, highlighting the crisis of leadership at the EPO, where the President is increasingly viewed as a villain
Münchner Merkur, the Munich-based media (newspaper), is no stranger to the EPO scandals as it wrote about them before (we published several translations). SUEPO has just uploaded this latest article [PDF]. It’s an image of the original in German (with OCR applied). Pinned under “Europäisches Patentamt” the article is titled “Es kracht an allen Ecken und Enden” and SUEPO published the following translation, adding that “Merkur reported in an article dated 21 January 2016 about the recent dismissals of two staff representatives/union officials” (and downgrade for another plus more likely on the way).
The following is the English translation as HTML:
EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE
It’s all falling apart
With two union members being thrown out, the President of the European Patent Office is again coming under fire. And this time some of the opposition is from the Administrative Council.
By Thomas Magenheim-Hörmann
Munich – The European Patent Office (EPO) is coming in for criticism for more than just its practice of issuing patents for plants and animals (see box). For two years the management and staff have been locked in bitter conflict, not about money but about basic rights and labour rights issues. And now the President of the Office, Frenchman Benoît Battistelli, by his decision to dismiss two leading staff union executives without notice, has sparked off a new wave of protests. As well as this, for the first time the EPO Administrative Council, the supervisory body of the trans-national authority, has perceptibly recoiled from Battistelli’s plans for reform. True, there have been no actual calls for his resignation, “but there is clear criticism of the situation in connection with the management of the Office”, is the word from sources close to the Council.
The representatives of Germany and a number of other states on the Council are said to have set things in motion. In the first instance, this is not an issue of easing the situation at the Office. The Chief Executive of the Office in-house staff union, Suepo, Elisabeth Hardon, together with another Suepo executive, have just been dismissed without notice, while the Suepo Treasurer has been downgraded within the Office, and served with a three-year ban on promotion.
The Office, which is not an EU organization, and is not subject to German labour law, is maintaining that the trio of employees have been involved in bullying, discrediting the management of the Office, disclosing confidential information, and providing other employees with improper legal assistance. The people concerned have been fighting back by way of their lawyers, with the statutes of the Office preventing them from making any public statements on their own.
It is true that two of the three unionists have already been fired, but there remains the possible sanction of having their pensions cut, which in the case of Hardon has already been reduced by a fifth. Her attorney is demanding an independent investigation of the accusations laid against his client, all of which are being strenuously denied.
The around 4000 employees at the EPO head office in Munich are in an uproar. Yesterday there was another demonstration on the street, following a spontaneous protest march a few days ago in reaction to the dismissal of their union representatives. “The union has been decapitated”, says one Suepo representative, who did not dare to give his name. Disciplinary proceedings are also said to be in
hand against a number of union members at the EPO locations at The Hague and Vienna, which has been confirmed by sources close to Battistelli. “Everyone is shocked”, says one employee about the mood in the Office. “It’s all falling apart”, says another, who up to now has defended Battistelli’s actions.
And for the first time, the President may be feeling some resistance from the Administrative Council. During a recent internal discussion, two of the Frenchman’s reform steps were rejected, and the plug pulled on some of his actions. The Council is now drawing up guidelines from which Battistelli must take his cue in future. As well as this, an independent social study has been commissioned, which is aimed at giving the Council a view of the conditions at the Office without the rose-tinted spectacles. The members of this supervisory body are said to be becoming concerned about the increasing deterioration of the social climate within the Office, according to a communique from the Council. All the parties concerned must be prepared at last to reach some comprises and put an end the situation which is damaging to the Office as well as to its public image.
The Council had already called on the management to conduct recognition discussions with Suepo, to which the management responded by throwing out leading union executives and initiating a range of disciplinary measures against Suepo members. Battistelli recently declared that Suepo is not a staff representative body, but more a Mafia-like conspiracy. Now he is starting to encounter mistrust, and from the Administrative Council too. Staff representatives and Suepo have nothing good to say about their boss.
More protests are planned, in a trail of staff protests leading to the office of the Bavarian State Chancellor and beyond. Hardon is not really through with Battistelli either. She is aiming to carry on as an external union leader, simply because there is no-one within the Office who dares to take her place.
The EPO Administrative Council meets again in March. And it is starting to look as if Battistelli can no longer rely on them as a body, which up to now has backed him all the way.
Melon patent revoked.
The European Patent Office has revoked a patent relating to a conventionally cultivated melon. The Opposition Division based its decision on Wednesday, after several hours of debate, on insufficient practicability. The company which had applied for the patent had apparently not described with sufficient precision as to how the melons could be cultivated, according to EPO spokesman Rainer Osterwalder. The conventionally grown plants are resistant to a specific virus. The EPO issued the patent in 2011. A competitor and a number of environmentalist organizations had lodged the appeal.
It is correctly (and implicitly) noted that contacting delegates may have proven helpful as they are already taking steps against Battistelli. Rainer Osterwalder from the PR team is also mentioned, specifically in relation to the granting of patents that should never have been granted. We wrote about these patents on melons last month. The EPO is expanding the scope of patents so as to meet and exceed goals, by compromising patent quality. Managers are rushing/pressuring staff to grant more quickly, inappropriately checking for prior art under great pressure from management (we showed evidence of this before, but the EPO then threatened to sue in order to suppress this hard evidence). That’s where large foreign corporations (such as Monsanto in the case of melons) are more likely to benefit. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA