12.04.15
Posted in Europe, Patents at 9:45 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Posted by what seems to be an EPO patent examiner (or some other EPO staff)
Summary: The EPO’s rotten influence over the media is having unintended consequences, detrimental to a high degree not just to the EPO’s management but also to its media partners
THE Battistelli-led EPO waltzes and dances from one scandal to the next, now shaming Apple in EurActiv despite Apple being a prolific applicant. Apple‘s patent wars against Samsung (or Android/Linux), covered by EPO critic Florian Müller, seems to have just culminated in over half a billion dollars (reluctant payment). At the same time, over at Texas (the trolls' docker), Apple is said to have been sued by a “two-month-old company,” to quote WIPR‘s headline. As the author framed it: “A company that was formed nearly two months ago has sued multinational business Apple for allegedly infringing a patent covering mobile phones.
“Anything one sees in the media regarding the EPO one must suspect could be part of the EPO’s €73,000-per-month reputation laundering campaign (leaked here a week ago).”“In a lawsuit filed at the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on Wednesday, December 2, Iris Connex claimed Apple’s iPhone 5 model and all models produced since then have infringed the patent.”
This serves to show just how broken the US patent system that Battistelli increasingly emulates really is, despite growing efforts to thwart software patents there*. This is the type of mess that the unitary patent, or UPC, promises to bring to Europe (a subject we increasingly cover these days). Now that the EPO muddies the media (or pays the media) for positive coverage it is easier to fall for the brainwash (from the likes of IAM) and not get the facts. Google News deems the EPO’s own site a credible source of news (see result number 2 below) and this site is, for the most part, also flooding search results for other EPO-related searches.
Anything one sees in the media regarding the EPO one must suspect could be part of the EPO’s €73,000-per-month reputation laundering campaign (leaked here a week ago). █
___________
* According to Patent Buddy, “US Pat 7,756,855, Asserted Against Google; Killed by Alice/101;” The Docket Report says: “The magistrate judge recommended denying without prejudice defendants’ motion to dismiss the asserted claims of plaintiff’s data compression patents because claim construction had not occurred and defendant failed to establish that the claims were directed toward an abstract idea.”
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Apple, Deception, Europe, Patents at 6:40 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A bunch of EPO puff pieces served through the Web this week, and they don’t stand up to basic scrutiny based on facts
ALTHOUGH Wikipedia calls EurActiv “independent”, we oftentimes wonder why it promotes corporate interests and all sorts of villainous ‘trade’ deals. Over the years it has also been a platform for Microsoft lobbyists in Europe. In our humble assessment, there was always something dubious if not odious about EurActiv‘s agenda.
“In our humble assessment, there was always something dubious if not odious about EurActiv‘s agenda.”Yesterday we noticed this article (puff piece, EPO-sponsored?) from EurActiv, complete with softball questions for Battistelli, almost staged. Why not just make it a “guest post” of Battistelli, as if he was a journalist using this platform? Questions include loaded ones like: “Will the first unitary patents be granted in 2016?”
Well, UPC is not even a reality yet. Talk about jumping the gun…
The title of the piece is click-bait (probably for more hits/traffic) and a response to it has just been posted in IP Kat, saying:
Have you seen this?
Battistelli: Many Apple patents would not have been granted in Europe
In response to a question regarding “patent war” litigation between tech companies such as Samsung (a closer-contact-with-major-applicants-pilot-project member) and Apple (NOT a closer-contact-with-major-applicants-pilot-project member), Battistelli states that the reason this ‘patent war’ is “happening mainly in the US and not Europe” is “because there are many patents in the US granted to Apple which would have not been granted in Europe because we are more rigorous and more selective than in the US. In my [Battistelli's] view, this ‘patent war’ is largely due to dysfunction of the US system.”
What a remarkable statement!
Battistelli manages – in fewer than 50 words – to appear not only to defame Apple’s patent portfolio, but also manages to pooh-pooh the US system as “dysfunctional”!
I guess Battistelli doesn’t remember that the infamous “slide to unlock” patent (EP1964022) was granted by the EPO, and only later invalidated by the German Bundesgerichtshof…
(http://ipkitten.blogspot.fr/2015/09/apples-european-slide-to-unlock-patent.html)
He probably also doesn’t recall that the reason the Apple-Samsung ‘patent war’ is fought mainly in the US is because Apple and Samsung have agreed to end all patent lawsuits outside the US between themselves.
I wonder if Battistelli would be willing to identify individual Apple patents granted in the US that would-not-be or were-not granted in Europe?
How should Apple feel about such statements..?
How should Apple investors feel about such statements?
We too were surprised that Battistelli can pretend Apple is in no way abusive in Europe (we wrote a lot about it). Has he lived up a tree for the past 3-4 years? Is he willfully misleading or just misinformed? We don’t know what’s worse…
“The whole piece was basically constructed to be a megaphone for Battistelli and be some kind of positive “media presence” for the EPO.”The whole piece was basically constructed to be a megaphone for Battistelli and be some kind of positive “media presence” for the EPO. We kindly ask readers to recall that the EPO is 'planting' puff pieces in the media and spends obscene amounts of money doing so right now (newly-leaked contract), so we can only make guesses about EurActiv‘s motivations. We are seeing some other pro-UPC pieces right now, in lawyers’ Web sites (no mainstream reach though). One of them has just parroted the EPO: “According to a publication on the website of the European Patent Office (www.epo.org), significant progress has recently been made towards the unitary patent. The Select Committee, which was set up by the original 25 member states participating in the unitary patent, has agreed on the distribution of income generated by the payment of the uniform renewal fees to the European Patent Office (EPO).”
We don’t know what motivated the writers to just repeat the EPO’s claims. The EPO has a very poor record on accuracy and honesty. Remember what it told The Register earlier this week about freedom of the press. It was almost hilarious.
Meanwhile, the EPO-sponsored bloggers from IAM are shaming Germany into accepting the EPO’s ambition of making UPC a reality (more injunctions, damages, patent scope), but this does not exactly surprise us. We have come to expect this from IAM, which has written virtually nothing about EPO scandals (lies by omission). It mostly did ‘damage control’ for the EPO amid these scandals.
“The EPO has a very poor record on accuracy and honesty.”Looking at IP Kat for a moment, one new article speaks about a new topic and states that “The Technical Board wanted to know whether a notice of appeal that was filed after the time limit according to art. 108 EPC was to be deemed inadmissibleor not filed (note that this question is different from the one in G2/14, where the notice was filed timely, but the fee was paid late. G2/14 was terminated because the patent in question lapsed for non-payment of the annual fee).”
Another new article speaks about the big scandal regarding discriminatory treatment of applicants. “Merpel is also a bit annoyed,” she said, “because she has heard of European attorneys being asked about the new PACE provisions by applicants in Japan, who apparently heard it from visiting Examiners well before this announcement. Merpel is not against Examiners visiting applicants, but it is unhelpful to say the least to announce changes to users of the European patent system who require representation without representatives having been given the chance to inform themselves.”
Well, imagine what would happen if everyone applied for PACE. This whole system is a sham. It’s designed to eliminate patent neutrality while maintaining the illusion that it doesn’t.
Watch this new comment that says: “Not only letters to applicants are changed.
“Nowadays, Eponia is more concerned about generating, artificially, positive media coverage, not actually correcting its many ills.”“I was involved in a case where the division had decided to grant, and all members had signed. The director went to the second examiner and the chairman and stated that he did not agree, and that they should have consideration for their staff reports.
“He then went to the entrusted examiner and said that the grant would not go out and a refusal should be written.
“When the first examiner went to consult with the other two members they said that the director had already been to see them and please do the refusal (obviously in fear of reprisals).
“So what does the poor first examiner do? Write a refusal (keeping the original signed and dated grant, since Mr. Director was swiftly before pension and the examiner feared a rebuke from DG3 if the file would be appealed). Yes, strange happenings in EPONIA.”
Nowadays, Eponia is more concerned about generating, artificially, positive media coverage, not actually correcting its many ills. Do these people wonder why even politicians took an interest in this wasteful media manipulation?
The protest in Munich is going on right now. We hope to find some press coverage about it as early as Monday, if not in Sunday newspapers (Germany has several of those).
Colonel Battistelli must be feeling like there’s a dire need to brainwash his staff right now. █
“Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.”
–Napoleon Bonaparte
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Courtroom, Patents at 5:54 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: As the dawn of a new, post-software patents era is upon us, those who were making money from conflict are bemoaning the state of affairs
In order to salvage whatever reputation it has left, the USPTO must follow the example of SCOTUS (US Supreme Court) and limit the granting of patents on software. This doesn’t mean that software patents are already dead, but little by little we may be getting there. It’s only bad news for society’s richest people.
“This doesn’t mean that software patents are already dead, but little by little we may be getting there.”According to the bankers’ media, Goldman Sachs now uses patents versus competition from the likes of Bitcoin. “Goldman Sachs,” explains this article, “has made a patent application for a cryptocurrency settlement system in a move that underlines bank hopes that the architecture behind bitcoin can revolutionise global payments.
“The application for a new virtual currency, dubbed “SETLcoin” by the bank, said it would offer “nearly instantaneous execution and settlement” of trades involving assets including stocks and bonds.”
“They are abstract and are therefore not suitable or worthy of patent grants.”We previously wrote many articles here about patents which relate to electronic payments. The challenges are being tackled not with innovation but with patent monopolies. Remember that the famous Alice case too involved a bank (CLS Bank). Patent lawyers are incidentally whining again, alleging that the sky is falling because the Supreme Court did its job and told the public the truth about software patents. They are abstract and are therefore not suitable or worthy of patent grants.
“”Innovators” is what the lawyers basically call monopolists, for the most part.”Here we have another legal firm, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP, calling the possible end of software patents (or the beginning of the end) “wreaking havoc” as if it’s the most terrible thing to even happen (to them at least). To quote their new article: “The Alice Corp. decision and its progeny have been wreaking havoc at the USPTO. In addition to increasing costs, it has cast a shadow on our patent system. Innovators are seemingly unable to get patents without jumping through the ill‑defined “abstract idea/significantly more” hoop. Worse still, if your application ends up classified as a Business Method application, you could face a never‑ending string of § 101 rejections for the time being. Clearly, new approaches are needed to get past perfunctory rejections that dismiss claims as mere abstractions.”
“Innovators” is what the lawyers basically call monopolists, for the most part. In their minds, more patents absolutely imply more innovation. It’s nonsense. By lowering the bar (and the accompanying fees) every patent office can increase the number of patents. This does nothing for innovation. In many cases, innovation can only be retarded by this.
So, after this dramatic opening they say: “Rejections under § 101 generally contain a statement about what “abstract idea” the claims represent, along with a statement that any “additional elements” do not constitute “significantly more” than that idea. It’s quite difficult to get over this first hurdle. The Interim Eligibility Guidance from July asserts that abstract ideas “need not be old or long‑prevalent.” Combined with the Supreme Court’s statement in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014), that “all inventions . . . embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas,” it is clear that the USPTO considers very few claims to not include some abstract idea.”
And rightly so. USPTO is doing what’s long overdue because it must become more harmonious with courts’ decisions, otherwise confidence in patents will decline and almost every patent granted by the USPTO will be viewed as bogus, invalid, incapable of withstanding scrutiny in court.
“Some articles in the media are overwhelmingly dominated by views of profiteers to whom terms like ‘innovation’ mean nothing; they never innovated anything in their lives, they just engineered disputes, threats, and lawsuits, often on behalf of some large and powerful institutions.”At the end, watch how the lawyers are selling themselves to help confuse examiners and get around the rules: “request an interview with the examiner to get clarification as to which elements are abstract. In your next response, argue that the technological elements of the claims are outside of that abstract idea. This will force the examiner to more clearly explain the rejection, which will prepare your application for appeal or – better yet – result in the withdrawal of the rejection.”
Meaning, pay a patent lawyer (i.e. a parasite) to see how you can patent software despite increasingly hostile rules (examination guidelines).
Yesterday at a Christmas party I had a chat with a retired MSP from London (he used to work as a programmer with Fortran before becoming a manager). When I explained to him some of these issues he ended up saying that if patent lawyers end up dried of income, he would very much applaud it. Some articles in the media are overwhelmingly dominated by views of profiteers to whom terms like ‘innovation’ mean nothing; they never innovated anything in their lives, they just engineered disputes, threats, and lawsuits, often on behalf of some large and powerful institutions. Litigation is not production.█
“Never confuse motion with action.”
–Benjamin Franklin
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Patents at 5:25 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
‘Peace’ with Microsoft does not ensure peace with its satellites
Summary: An update regarding Canon’s débâcle with Intellectual Ventures, the world’s largest and most abusive patent troll, created and funded by Microsoft and Bill Gates
TECHRIGHTS has been writing about the world’s largest patent troll, Intellectual Ventures, for many years. The strong links to Microsoft are impossible to ignore and the attacks on Linux are not at all surprising.
“…Microsoft continues to attack Linux using software patents, often via its patent troll, Intellectual Ventures.”Last month we wrote about this troll's attacks on Canon (which uses a lot of Linux in its products). We used that to make the case that even with a Microsoft patent deal, one cannot be defended from Microsoft’s trolls. Well, the Microsoft patent troll is said to have just ‘settled’ (means extortion money extracted after Canon thought it had peace with Microsoft). As IP Hawk put it: “Looks like IV and Canon have settled. Seeing stay pending dismissals on the dockets.”
Does anyone other than parasites actually believe that Intellectual Ventures is worth existing?
According to the EFF (as of this week): “It’s easy to file a patent complaint. All a patent owner has to do is say that they own a patent and that the defendant infringed it. The patent holder doesn’t even need to identify which product of the defendant’s they believe infringe the patent, or specify which claims of the patent they’re asserting. It’s an absurdly simple process, and unscrupulous patent tolls routinely take advantage of that fact.
“That might have changed this week—the Judicial Conference of the United States has instituted a rule change that includes eliminating the form that’s been used for patent complaints for decades. We hope that the change makes it harder for patent trolls to hit defendants with information-free complaints, but we’re not breaking out the Champagne yet.”
Well, as we have shown here before, Microsoft continues to attack Linux using software patents, often via its patent troll, Intellectual Ventures. Companies are even sued in bulk, in conjunction, with very broad claims. Anyone capable and eager to defend this status quo with a straight face is either working for Microsoft (if not a similar patent aggressor) or some patent lawyer who profits from patent lawsuits. Monopolising the market by abusing the system is still Microsoft’s expertise. █
“Children are often taught “computer skills” that are really “Microsoft Windows skills” – how to use Microsoft’s operating system and its Office suite (its two monopolies) – rather than the possibilities of making computers do what you want. As such, children are being equipped to be uncreative office workers, just as those at the end of the 19th century were equipped for the routine of adding up huge lists of numbers in the accounts departments of big companies.”
–The Guardian
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:44 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Misplaced priorities at the EPO and more evidence either of more exits (resignations) or an expansion to further empower tyranny, not patent examination
SEVERAL sources have independently told us about EPO brain drain. People hand in their resignations in relatively high numbers. The President’s Praetorian Guard, nonetheless, isn’t being shrunk. The EPO’s Napoleonic ‘president’ (fancy job title, more so than in the USPTO) already surrounds himself with bodyguards, some say he wants to have a limousine (we haven’t been able to verify this claim), and even if all talented examiners were to leave the EPO, lavish lifestyle and obscene expenditure for the almighty ‘president’ mustn’t and wouldn’t be compromised.
“They ought to say something about the high suicide levels, the abuse of staff, and violations of European law, human rights, privacy etc.”According to this new job ad (location being Munich and The Hague), there are many vacancies expected, perhaps because many people are leaving. “In 2016,” says this ad, “the European Patent Office plans to recruit more than 200 engineers and scientists to work as patent examiners. Are you interested in joining an international team at the forefront of technology?”
They ought to say something about the high suicide levels, the abuse of staff, and violations of European law, human rights, privacy etc. They should inform applicants also about the ‘gestapo’ (as staff calls it) [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. As this new comment in IP Kat put it yesterday:
The problem at the EPO is the general lack of respect for it employees contrary to the managments [sic] professions to the contrary.
At a meeting of the president with a group of employees, he was questioned on the wisdom of introducing the fully electronic file and paperless office. First of all there are frequent disruptions in the working of the EPOs computer systems at present. This hinders examiners in the processing of files. At present an examiner can pick up on another file, and continue the other file later. With a paperless office the examiner would be fully dependent on the computer systems working. If these were to fail then the examiner would be hindered from working. This would impede production (which would result is a negative personal report) unless the examiner would work overtime to make up for the lost time. Secondly the ergonomics guidelines state that an employee should not work more that 6 hours on a PC (a tool was introduced by the EPO to advise examiners to stop after 6 hours) or risk health issues. Introducing the fully electronic file would mean examiners will be expected to work on a PC for on average 8 hours per day (considering examiners have a fixed 40 hour week). To this Mr Batistelli replied that new computer screens (which do not yet exist) would solve the problem (this would maybe solve eye problems but not RSI risks). He then continued that he would be happy if examiners would really work 8 hours per days. Thank you Mr. Batistelli! So much for respect for employees.
Furthemore [sic], the Head of the Investigation Unit, during a meeting where the workings of this Unit were introduced, was questioned. First of all he was asked whether it was true that an employee being investigated was not allowed legal council. He stated that this was correct. He was then asked if the information would be used in disciplinary proceedings. To this he stated that it was merely to see if a disciplinary proceedings should be conducted, suggesting that the information would not be used. It was then stated that if the information obtained during the investigation were to be used would this information not be illegally obtained evidence because of the lack of legal representation. To this he replied in an agressive [sic] manner that if the employees of the EPO didn´t like it the [sic] could leave, at which [point] a large group left the room. This felt a lot like intimidation. Where do you go to request an investigation of the head of the investigation unit for intimidation? So much for respect.
To then expect EPO employees to treat the management [sic]with respect is maybe a little too much, although it would have maybe been better not to stoop down to come closer to the low level management exemplifies.
The EPO is now hiring even more people for its 'gestapo'. That is perhaps the EPO’s ‘growth area’ right now. More of the above.
Someone has notified us of a curious new vacancy at the EPO — a vacancy which suggests that either Battistelli lost his assistant or is looking to recruit more. Here are the details from the EPO’s site (screenshots shown below to reduce the chances of tracking by the EPO’s ‘gestapo’).
Below is an opening for a personal assistant to Monsieur le Président (http://www.epo.org/about-us/jobs/vacancies/other/int-ext-5918.html):
Just as a bit of complementary reference material from the public EPO site: Two separate openings for an investigator are advertised, one in the Hague and the other in Munich (http://www.epo.org/about-us/jobs/vacancies/other.html)
But both entries point to the same URL ( http://www.epo.org/about-us/jobs/vacancies/other/int-ext-5918.html)
This is probably the reason why the Central Staff Committee document states that it isn’t clear how many two investigators are sought. Here is the ad for the ‘gestapo’ career:
These are, for now, the only jobs publicly advertised in “other” (not in outside Web sites but by the EPO itself):
Patent examiners? Not in this section, but either way, this isn’t really the focus of the EPO. Not interested. The EPO isn’t about patent examination anymore. It is rubber-stamping at a higher PACE [pun intended] for large corporations because they bring more income. █
“History, in general, only informs us what bad government is.”
–Thomas Jefferson
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Microsoft, Vista 10 at 3:39 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
No ‘new Microsoft’…
“In the last several days Microsoft has shown that despite claims of acquiring a newly found respect for open principles and technology, developers should be cautious in believing promises made by this “new” Microsoft. [...] There is one other fact clear from this case. Microsoft does not appear to be a leopard capable of changing its spots. Maybe it’s time developers go on a diet from Microsoft and get the FAT out of their products.”
–Jim Zemlin, Linux Foundation Executive Director
Summary: The company which respects nobody’s secrets now openly promotes what some consider the equivalent of SOPA, revealing double standards and malicious ambitions
The so-called ‘new Microsoft’ is still very evil, but usually behind closed doors (secrets). The media strategy of Microsoft has been to portray itself as “open” and reformed, but what is Microsoft really doing?
Well, based on reports such as “Microsoft, US senators want to grease wheels of trade secret theft cases” or “Microsoft promotes the value of trade secrets as senate committee discusses new bill”, not much has changed. Microsoft takes the lead in an assault on society’s collective interests.
“The media strategy of Microsoft has been to portray itself as “open” and reformed, but what is Microsoft really doing?”To quote The Stack: “A spokesman for the Microsoft On The Issues website has expressed the company’s support for new legislation that would reform the legal framework for companies wishing to protect their trade secrets in a cloud-centric world where such information is frequently forced to reside on networks.
“In the post Microsoft’s Assistant General Counsel of IP Policy & Strategy Jule Sigall rallies behind business and academic concerns supporting the proposed Defend Trade Secrets Act 2015 (DTSA), which goes before the United States Senate Judiciary Committee today.”
“Microsoft takes the lead in an assault on society’s collective interests.”The ‘new Microsoft’ is apparently so ‘open’ that it lobbies for an especially nasty pro-secrecy bill. That’s the real Microsoft. There is another article titled “Why legal experts are up in arms over the trade-secrets bill Microsoft loves”.
The article from Noyes says: “At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday, lawmakers heard arguments over a bill that has garnered passionate support from Microsoft but been compared by others to the controversial SOPA copyright act.”
“Cortana makes any device with Windows a listening device or a bug.”Microsoft has even gone public with this move: “Their view was echoed in a blog post by Jule Sigall, Microsoft’s assistant general counsel of IP policy and strategy, who described the importance of trade secrets in the development of Cortana.”
Cortana makes any device with Windows a listening device or a bug. It’s a nasty antifeature. Vista 10 in itself serves to prove that Microsoft goes deeper into the surveillance business, amassing people’s secrets (this is apparently what Microsoft’s interest in trade secrets is really about).
“Due to anti-class action clauses, it’s not likely that class action against Microsoft (over Vista 10) would be successful.”According to recent reports, users of Vista 10 (usually just people who were forced to use it because they bought a new computer and Microsoft had pressured OEMs to bundle Vista 10) consider class action over Vista 10 (“others can’t even get the Start menu working after upgrading from Windows 7 and 8.1,” says this article). This so-called ‘operating system’, which is basically a keylogger (sending every single event over the network, broadcasting it to ‘mother ship’) and hence very inefficient too, is a reminder of how much Microsoft respects secrets. Microsoft wants to snoop on everyone while keeping its own secrets. Due to anti-class action clauses, it’s not likely that class action against Microsoft (over Vista 10) would be successful.
There are many other problems with Windows, including back doors. What does that really say about Microsoft’s approach to secrets? There are back or bug doors in all versions of Windows (some say since 1999 when Microsoft first built these back doors, perhaps in order to appease the US government amidst antitrust disputes) and not only governments but all sorts of other groups still take advantage of it, sometimes to extort people using their data. Remember Stuxnet and also note that Conficker is still alive, making botnets out of Windows-running PCs. As The Inquirer put it the other day: “Conficker feeds a botnet, and Check Point said that the malware was found in 20 percent of all attacks anywhere and can enable the smooth passage of other types of infection. Check Point reckons that there were 1,500 malware families in action in October.”
The bottom line is, Microsoft lobbies for secrecy and something which is akin to SOPA, revealing hypocrisy in the sense that Microsoft does not at all respect secrecy. The company has done enormous damage not just because of its back doors (which made Windows easy to remotely take over) but also its extreme data collection practices in Vista 10. How can this company honestly lecture the world on trade secrets or generally about secrets? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.03.15
Posted in America, Europe, Patents at 7:31 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Legacy of the likes of IBM’s David Kappos and his predecessors
For mega-corporations, yes.
Summary: A roundup of patent news from the US and some relations between that and Europe, which risks repeating the mistakes of the patently-occupied (by large corporations’ interests) USPTO
NOT ONLY the EPO is resorting to dubious privatisation of public services. Its apparent role model, the USPTO, is doing so too. This week’s report from WIPR reminded us that: “Professionals from Serco will review patent applications and sort them into the appropriate classification. Serco has been contracted by the USPTO since 2006 to provide this service.”
“Software patents now do what even the British Prime Minister could not successfully do. They combat encryption itself, effectively banning it if not discouraging its use (for transactional security purposes).”This isn’t particularly surprising given that the USPTO is little more than a rubber-stamping warehouse, run by and for large corporations (see where its directors come from and who takes the lion's share of patents). It used to be IBM’s turf and now it’s Google’s. As Andrew Orlowski put it last week: “The nomination of former Google lawyer Michelle Lee to run the US Patent and Trademark Office has been hailed as a victory for Silicon Valley. In 2007 Lee said the patent system was “out-of-balance” and needed “to be remedied”. But does she still think that?”
Well, nothing has been done so far by Michelle Lee. Like Obama or Kappos before her, it was all Hope and Change, but nothing really happened. Kappos himself is now a patent maximalist (he profits from it), calling for software patents, which are not permitted in Europe (for good reasons).
As noted here a few days ago, patent trolls love software patents and this is starting to happen in Europe too. Software patents now do what even the British Prime Minister could not successfully do. They combat encryption itself, effectively banning it if not discouraging its use (for transactional security purposes). Who benefits here?
“If the US patent system did not permit patenting of software, none of this would have happened.”See Tim Cushing’s “Patent Troll Sues Everyone For Infringing On Encryption-Related Patent By Encrypting Their Websites” (the FSFE’s Matthias Kirschner took note of these events). An article by David Kravets says that, unsurprisingly, this happens in Texas again. “A Texas company,” he wrote, “is suing some of the biggest names in tech and retail, claiming their HTTPS websites infringe an encryption patent titled “Auto-Escrowable and Auto-Certifiable Cryptosystems.” CryptoPeak Solutions has filed about six dozen cases in all, and they began hitting the patent-troll friendly venue of the Eastern District of Texas in July.”
Here is a lawyers-centric report about it and a hackers-centric report that says: “Texas-based company CryptoPeak Solutions LLC has filed 66 lawsuits against many big businesses in the US, claiming they have illegally used its patented encryption method – Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) – on their HTTPS websites.
“Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) is a key exchange algorithm that is most widely used on websites secured with Transport Layer Security (TLS) to determine what symmetric keys are used during a session.”
If the US patent system did not permit patenting of software, none of this would have happened.
This one lawsuit (or large set of lawsuits) grabbed a lot of the media’s attention, but as Joe Mullin put it: “New patent lawsuits hit an all-time high in November, with many plaintiffs likely hoping to avoid new pleading rules that came into effect yesterday. A whopping 790 lawsuits were filed last month, with at least 212 filed on a single day: Monday, November 30.” Also see “Patent Lawsuits Set One-Day Record with 257 New Cases, Most Filed in Texas”, an article by rich people’s press. The article starts as follows: “Remember patent reform? Congress proposed laws earlier this year aimed at curbing haywire patent litigation, but it appears not everyone got the memo. On Monday, dozens of patent plaintiffs targeted firms ranging from Apple to Airbnb, and set a one-day record with 257 new cases filed, ensuring 2015 will go down as another bumper year for patent lawyers.”
A lot of these lawsuits boil down to software patents, which are under attack in the US, thanks to the Alice case. PatentBuddy, citing IAM’s article, says that “David Kappos Discusses the 101/Alice Rejection of the Lip Sync Patent, McRO v Sony” and Professor Mark Lemley says, linking to this PDF: “Patentable subject matter is here to stay — en banc Fed Cir denies review in Sequenom with only Newman dissenting.”
This shows that software patents themselves are still a subject of debate even in the US, where software patents originally came from.
“The management and the high-level staff at the EPO already permit patents on life, serving the likes of Monsanto.”We regret to learn that even some British software companies are basically ignoring the evidence and still deciding to pursue software patents (not just in the US). Sage Group, according to this new report, is becoming more like Trading Technologies. Instead of focusing on development of better software it is focused on acquiring patents on software. To quote the British media: “A number of its products, such as Sage Impact and Sage Live, have recently won innovation awards and an increased number of new patents will be coming from the firm.”
Why are these large proprietary software firms and their lobbying front groups in Europe so insistent on being granted software patents? Because they are software monopolists in their area and they want to limit or block competition using patent lawsuits. How does that ever improve innovation? It’s all about protectionism and in the field of software, owing to its inherent nature, workarounds are often not even possible.
The patent scope at the EPO is slipping out of control under the current management. “The European Patent Office (EPO) has quietly adopted,” according to this new article patents “relating to human embryonic stem cells (hESCs).”
What will they patent next? The management and the high-level staff at the EPO already permit patents on life, serving the likes of Monsanto. This has got to stop. patents like these aren’t for innovation; they’re all about protections from rivals, supporting and broadening existing near-monopolies. █
“An unexciting truth may be eclipsed by a thrilling lie.”
–Aldous Huxley
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:41 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Responds to explosive leaks which show a massive new PR contract with an American company
Summary: The EPO’s information war (with a $80,000-per-month budget dedicated just to reputation laundering and spin) upsets French politician Pierre-Yves Le Borgn’
A FEW days ago we wrote about Pierre-Yves Le Borgn’. He was being informed by EPO staff representatives that the EPO‘s President, Frenchman Benoît Battistelli, was lying about them in private letters (written in French). This isn’t unusual for Battistelli; we already covered several similar examples. In the world of Team Battistelli, you can only be in one of two teams; either Battistelli’s team or the enemies’ team. It’s a lot like nations under autocratic regimes (such as North Korea’s). Dissent is neither normal nor tolerated. There is no sense of democracy or even of free speech. Moreover, there is hardly a rule of law; the President (or Dear Leader) is the law, with the President’s guards being the unaccountable enforcers. Internally, at the EPO, these are referred to as "the gestapo" because of their actions [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7].
“Stuff keeps coming in,” told us a French-speaking person last night. “There is something new at the Web site of MP Le Borgn’.
“A strongly-worded letter signed “Les examinateurs exaspérés” ["The exasperated examiners" or "the fed up examiners"] reviews the profoundly toxic atmosphere at the EPO.
“Techrights is mentioned prominently on page 2.
“I’m quite sure at this point that a translation will pop up quickly. I nevertheless include an OCR version in case you want to run it through a translator.
Here is the text of the letter [PDF], which is basically a scanned copy:
Munich, le 30 novembre 2015
ASSEMBLÉE NATIONALE FRANCAISE
A l’attention de Mr. Le Borgn’, Député
Rue de l’Université 126
75355 Paris 07 SP
France
Monsieur le Député,
Tout d’abord permettez-nous de vous exprimer notre reconnaissance pour vos prises de position courageuses et vos interventions en vue de rétablir la Justice et la moralité dans l’Office européen des Brevets.
A deux reprises déjà le conseil d’administration de l’Office a demandé au président Battistelli de reprendre le dialogue social. Sa réponse a été la mise à pied de toute évidence injustifiée de trois dirigeants élus de notre syndicat, la SUEPO. Des investigations ont été ouvertes contre eux. Les accusations de l’Office ne semblent pas du tout reposer sur des bases solides, et ont été formellement réfutées par des juristes allemands. Les sources juridiques qu’invoque l’Office sont actuellement inconnues et pour le moins douteuses. Aucune contre-argumentation crédible ne semble avoir été présentée qui mette en défaut les conclusions des avocats consultés par la SUEPO. A La Haye des membres de la SUEPO et de la Représentation du Personnel ont aussi été soumis à des interrogatoires où ils ont dû subir d’inacceptables pressions psychologiques. Dans le courrier qu’il vous a adressé, le président Battistelli déclare que ces séances auraient été enregistrées. Une question se pose d’emblée: quelle est la légalité de tels enregistrements? Les unités d’investigation à qui sont confiées ces enquêtes et ces interrogatoires disposent d’un pouvoir inquisitorial inacceptable totalement en dehors du cadre de l’éthique et de la sécurite juridique garanties à leurs citoyens par les democraties europeennes modernes.
A travers ces dirigeants de la SUEPO, ce sont 7000 fonctionnaires qui sont agressés par les agissements du président Battistelli. En deux heures s’est organisée une manifestation groupant 2000 personnes en face du bâtiment « Isar », siège de l’Office. Compte tenu du nombre d’employés à Munich, cela est énorme.., et constitue bien sûr ce que le président Battisteffi aura sans doute encore l’audace d’appeler « une minorité ». L’indignation et l’écoeurement sont à leur comble. Il est grand temps que soit mis un terme à cette culture du mépris du personnel et que le conseil d’administration de l’Office fasse enfin entendre sa voix en ce sens.
Nous en avons assez d’être traités comme le cheptel du président Battistelli. Nous avons tous étudié dans les écoles et universités les plus prestigieuses, et nombre de nos collègues sont détenteurs de diplômes de doctorat. La plupart d’entre nous sont issus de l’industrie, où ils ont occupé des postes à responsabilité ou des fonctions managériales. Ils pourraient avec certitude donner d’utiles leçons à la direction de l’Office et enfin lui apprendre les bonnes pratiques dans ce domaine.
Empreinte de crainte et de suspicion, l’ambiance de travail est des plus sinistres. Qui à l’Office a encore confiance dans son ordinateur ou dans les photocopieuses, parfois même dans ses collègues? Nous en sommes venus à nous méfier des téléphones mis à disposition dans nos bureaux à tel point que pour communiquer sur des sujets les plus anodins, nos collègues en viennent à ne plus utiliser que leurs. « Handys », non sans avoir jeté un regard circulaire autour d’eux pour s’assurer que leur conversation ne soit pas écoutée. La confiance a totalement disparu dans les relations entre employés et supérieurs hiérarchiques: à tort ou à raison, nous craignons constamment d’être victimes d’un coup fourré. Il ne faut donc pas s’étonner que dans cet environnement toxique les collègues désabusés réagissent de plus en plus nombreux par une « démission interne », certains ayant d’ailleurs déjà exprimé que le matin, c’est avec la haine de leur employeur qu’ils franchissent les portes de l’Office.
C’est encore avec la plus vive inquiétude que nous constatons que des mesures d’intimidation de journalistes ou de «bloggers » orchestrées par l’Office sont mentionnées sur le «net» voyez par exemple
http://techrights.org/2015/11/27/epo-reputation-laundering/
http://techrights.org/2015/11/27/epo-information-warfare/
Cette source, ainsi que des informations internes dignes de foi, semblent clairement indiquer que l’Office a maintenant débloqué un budget de l’ordre de 800 000 € pour des campagnes de presse. Comment et dans quels buts ces considérables montants d’argent public seront-ils utilisés? Cette question ne préoccupe apparemment pas le conseil d’administration. La direction de l’Office ne se gêne pas pour traîner dans la boue les membres du personnel qui osent exprimer une opinion dissidente, en particulier s’il s’agit des dirigeants syndicaux ou de la représentation du personnel. L’étape suivante sera-t-elle de museler la presse et de taire les critiques par des campagnes de diffamation et d’intimidation, ou d’abuser des cours de justice européennes pour parvenir à ces fins?
Nous voudrions bien signer cette lettre de nos vrais noms, mais voilà! Vous n’ignorez pas que l’Office s’est adjugé les services de l’inquiétante firme « Control Risks », apparemment impliquée dans un certain nombre de scandales concernant l’espionnage illégal de journalistes, de clients et d’employés de firmes en Allemagne. La crainte qu’étant connus nous puissions être victime d’une implacable vengeance reste donc fondée.
L’Office doit respecter la légalité et la justice telles qu’elles existent dans les démocraties européennes modernes. Nous ne voulons pas plus que le rétablissement de nos droits et le respect de notre honneur.
Vous exprimant notre confiance, nous vous prions, Monsieur le Député, d’agréer l’expression de nos sentiments respectueux.
Les Examinateurs exaspérés.
Any accurate translation of the above would be very much appreciated. I cannot speak or comprehend French myself.
“If they honestly believe that their target audience is going to be so gullible, then it says a lot about their dim views of the outside world.”As Pierre-Yves Le Borgn’ appears to be a reader of Techrights now, we wish to point out that a lot of what the EPO’s management is going to tell him cannot be trusted. They have created a very warped version of reality, where staff dissent is compared to Nazism or terrorism (like what recently happened in Paris). We have many examples where the management was trying to play a connotation game so as to insinuate that if you sympathise with SUEPO (or with the suspended judge), then you are “with the terrorists” (famous words from George Bush) or with violent neo-Nazis. This sort of psychological war suggests to us that many in the EPO’s management (or PR department) don’t even act like grown-ups. If they honestly believe that their target audience is going to be so gullible, then it says a lot about their dim views of the outside world.
Incidentally, text circulating inside the EPO right now speaks of “Victimisation” and covers the projection tactics of the management. “It looks like some public sympathy for management is sought because “allegedly” they have been receiving threats (verbal and physical),” wrote a person, “both inside and outside the Office for their actions. A PD has been reported even mentioning police involvement yesterday… No such thing has come back to our well-informed ears and clearly, if any of these “events” were true (and we would welcome any feedback if this were the case), I and I am sure any staff and staff representatives would condemn such acts. Portraying what many perceive as perpetrators of institutional violence as victims reminds of the “pompiers pyromanes” (pyromaniac firefighters). In any case it is yet another step in today’s conflict logic with no way out. Can the public afford a conflict that never ends?”
“We have never heard of anything non-peaceful from EPO protesters.”We wrote about this at least thrice before. It seems like a totally bogus narrative. We have never heard of anything non-peaceful from EPO protesters. Perhaps it’s just an agent provocateur strategy — something which an aggressive media strategy backed by a $80,000-per-month budget (plus union busters like CRG) actually saw worthwhile.
If someone actually heard of physical threats, please speak out. The only time we hear of such things it’s done by the management to scapegoats among the staff, who are the “real victims,” to quote the above person. “On the fact side,” the person added, “as you know many staff representatives office-wide are being targeted by different forms of attacks including (but not limited to) threatening letters, disciplinary procedures and suspensions. In particular the big duty stations of The Hague & Munich are hit extremely hard: those that have resigned already (6 I think) or have been regularly sick are trying to compensate for the last wave of the last five 100% Staff Representatives that are either suspended or sick.”
Speaking of “exhaustion”, the person writes: “In other words, staff should not wonder why their remaining representatives are close to exhaustion…”
“They make an example out of several representatives and therefore intimidate the rest.”It’s a form of psychological war. They make an example out of several representatives and therefore intimidate the rest. Classic union-busting procedures. Coca-Cola went as far as actually assassinating some union leaders. Now, that’s how you create real, total fear.
“On the positive side,” wrote the above person, “this situation seems to be perceived by staff and an increasing number of feedback and offers to help is flowing in. This is also explaining the appearance of the latest spontaneous, sometime somewhat chaotic, actions, such as petition and call for strike… In this sense staff of the big duty stations seems to understand that sticking together, helping each-others and eventually stepping-in has unfortunately become the necessary way forward to keep staff voice heard.”
As we wrote in our previous article, there are record-breaking numbers right now. The efforts to malign, demonise and incite against staff representatives are obviously not working. They just serve to reinforce the management’s departure from truth. It’s an information war. It’s a high-budget information war.█
“In war, truth is the first casualty.”
–Aeschylus, Father of tragedy
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
Content is available under CC-BY-SA