04.08.16

La EPO esta en Huelga, Battistelli Escapa a Londres con su Guardia Pretoriana para más Cabildeo por la UPC, FTI Consulting Va a Bruselas

Posted in Deception, Europe, Law, Patents at 4:52 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

English/Original

Article as ODF

Una sacudída de manos de un Billón de dólares: Una reunión de un 1% de clase para el avance de los interéses de la élite…

Sumario: Con trillónes de dólares en riesgo (a largo plazo) los ricos y poderosos, muchos de ellos evaden taxes (su
no aparición en los Papeles Panameños es algo sospechoso ¿Quiénes financian a ICIJ?), continúan trabajando a puertas cerradas (a traves de agentes e intermediaros) en un esfuerzo de cambiar la ley a su favor mientras que la gente ordinaria este no/des informada o furiósa

La EPO se ha convertido en un instrumento de los ricos y poderosos (perpetuando su riqueza y poder), lo que en definitiva no es lo que sus creadores preveyeron o tuvieron en mente (tiempo atrás en los dias de la EPC).

“El esperado viaje de Battistelli a Londres está empezando a dar sus frutos (ver el tweet de esta mañana de Neville-Rolfe) y tal vez él también puede hacer una visita a sus abogados de Londres que me amenazan (dos despachos de abogados en Londres).”

Techrights esta cláramente disgustado por la visita de Battistelli’s al Reino Unido. El no es Inglés pero esta torciéndo las leyes Británicas, y la EPO hace burla de las leyes de ese país, al mismo tiempo de zapatear encima de un juez Irlandés. Para deportar o extraditar a Battistelli sería necesario que el sea pobre y sin connecciónes [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. Esta gente como en Croacia, puede parecer que se salgan con la suya en casi todo. Todo tiene que ver con su status; por eso personas como Julian Assange tienen órdenes de arresto en su contra (también en Londres, donde él continúa exponiéndo los secretos de los ricos) mientras que Pinocho Battistelli es tratádo como una celebridad.
Como hemos mostrado hace unas semanas, Battistelli está haciendo cabildeo por la UPC. Ahora tenemos al empleado de Bristows LLP (Annsley) haciéndo un artículo acerca de Brian Cordery (Bristows LLP). El basado en Londres IP Kat hizo lo que parece una propaganda, incluyendo PR por al UPC de Bristows LLP. ¿Qué es lo que dá? Sitios fuera del UK hacen lo mismo [via] por que la poca gente que trabaja para los multimillonarios tienen ganancia de ello.
“Techrights esta cláramente disgustado por la visita de Battistelli’s al Reino Unido. El no es Inglés pero esta torciéndo las leyes Británicas, y la EPO hace burla de las leyes de ese país, al mismo tiempo de zapatear encima de un juez Irlandés.“
El otro dia vimos a un firma legal citando aJane Lambert [1, 2], a un vociferoso proponente de la UPC. Lambert esta acostumbrado asepararse alrededor de impresión que, independientemente de la pertenencia del Reino Unido en la UE la UPC es inevitable, o alguna tontería por el estilo. Aquí tenemos abogados citar a otros abogados de “apoyo”: “Esperamos que el Reino Unido no pondrá en peligro el proyecto de patente unitaria con un voto de retirar la Unión Europea, dice Jane Lambert, a partir abogado 4-5 mesón del gris Square en Londres. “Sin embargo, todavía podría continuar sin nosotros”, dijo Lambert dijo a Kluwer de IP Law en una entrevista.

Esta ‘entrevista’ es más que propagandoa PR o cabildeo. Es diseñada para establecer la percepción. Codiciósos abogados de patentes en el UK se relamen los labios por la UPC, ¿pero a costa de quién? NO les interesa aplastar a la democracia (el público no es consultado de alguna manera) por que todo es acerca de sus propias ganancias y la de sus clientes. Muchas dudas acerca de la UPC persisten incluso de personas dentro de este sistem. Para citar este nuevo comentario:

Pensamiento final ¿es la Baronescaof interpretacion de la “Patente Europea” (e.g. significando sólo un EP(UK), y no toda la enchilada) consistente con la prevaleciente interpretacion del esquema de salirse?

Eso si “Patente Europea” en Article 83(3) UPCA es interpreatado significar en su totalidad, entoncens ¿cómo es posible que el mismo término es interpretado significar algo diferente en el contexto de artículo 26 UPCA?

Otro comenterio dice “La implementación Reino Unido se tiene sentido en zancos, pero eso es lo que es de esperar cuando se obtiene un compromiso impulsado políticamente que resultó en un acuerdo de la UPC y el Reglamento UP que no fue entendido por los que acepten la misma. Vamos a ver lo que los tribunales hacen de ella. Será divertido especialmente cuando alguien está infringiendo encontrado por la UPC por actos que un tribunal nacional no encontraría infractor. Este es el resultado inevitable de la forma en que el Reino Unido tiene previsto ejecutar en la UPC y UP. Los principios fundamentales son fundamentales. La aplicación mental será divertido y mental “
Por lo que yo puedo entender, la aplicación de la UPP se quiere decir que, en lugar de una ley (nacional) para la aplicación de una patente en un país determinado, no habrá lugar al menos tres leyes distintas de infracción para elegir.
Para los casos llevados ante la UPC, habrá dos posibles leyes de la infracción, a saber: (1) para EPUEs, la legislación nacional aplicable a EPUEs en el Estado miembro contratante contempladas en los artículos 5 (3) y 7 del Reglamento UP; y (2) No se ha optado por EPs de salida, los artículos 24 a 29 de la UPCA, más (si es necesario) las disposiciones de las leyes mencionadas en el artículo 24 de la UPCA.
Si aceptamos la opinión del Comité Preparatorio (como se indica en su nota de interpretación del artículo 83 UPCA), los tribunales nacionales, por tanto optado por fuera y no EPs optado de salida, aplicar una ley diferente (tercera) de la infracción – es decir, la legislación nacional aplicable a EPS optado-out.
Hay un montón de solicitudes EP que, en la actualidad, podría calificar de efecto unitario. Para esas aplicaciones, por lo tanto, la ley aplicable dependerá de todos los siguientes factores:

- Si la solicitud de efecto unitario se presenta (posible hasta 3 meses después de la concesión); y, para no unitario (partes) de las patentes de los Estados contratantes miembros de la UPCA

- Si se presenta una opción de exclusión, si la patente se optó efectivamente a cabo mediante el inicio de una acción de corte nacional durante el período transitorio y si una cláusula de exclusión, una vez presentada, se retira más tarde.
Por lo tanto, para este tipo de patentes, las tres leyes distintas de infracción son las posibilidades actuales. Además, hay muchas situaciones en las que no se conocerá la ley que realmente se aplica a menos que y hasta que una acción judicial se inicia. Esto podría incluso afectar a las patentes para las que se solicita efecto unitario – como sigue habiendo una posibilidad de que el efecto unitario a ser cancelado y para una acción nacional Tribunal pueda comenzar.
Como tal, esta situación me recuerda famoso experimento mental de Schrödinger – ya que no se sabrá cuál es el resultado (es decir, la ley aplicable de la infracción) hasta que “abrir la caja” (es decir litigate) y averiguar lo que decida el tribunal. Para este tipo de “patentes de Schrödinger”, las posibilidades de tácticas inteligentes y abundan los foros de conveniencia!
La situación podría ser especialmente confuso para estos SMS (como Alemania y Francia), donde no hay una ley nacional distinta aplicable a EPUEs. Mientras que la implementación del Reino Unido tiene claramente sus defectos (discutibles), hay que darle el crédito salida a bolsa para tratar de mejorar las cosas, proporcionando leyes específicas para EPUEs y EPs optado-out.
Sin embargo, tengo que reír cuando me miro en el considerando 25 del Reglamento UP – lo que parece dar por supuesto que la introducción de la UPP mejorará la seguridad jurídica. Al igual que lo sucedido con la disposición “Bolar”, la Comisión subestimó claramente la capacidad de los Estados miembros para crear el caos del fin!
Ahora mismo como hemos señalado antes, la firma extranjera de relaciónes públicas PR de la EPO (FTI Consulting con un enorme presupuesto) está financiando eventos de propagánda para la UPC.

En base a la siguiente dirección de correo electrónico enviado por Bruselas hace unas horas, por aquí en Europa esta firma con sede en EEUU (FTI Consulting) promueve la agenda similar usando eventos:

From: “Utta Tuttlies [EACD]” [redacted]

Date: 7 Apr 2016 12:13

Subject: Invitation: EACD meets the EU – Expert panel discussion – 28th April 2016

To: [redacted]

Cc:
Dear [redacted],

El EACD le invita cordialmente a la segunda edición de EACD cumple con la UE que tendrá lugar el 28 de abril 18,00-20,30 de FTI Consulting en Bruselas. La mesa redonda de expertos se centrará en “¿Cómo puede ayudar la comunicación con impulsar la inversión en Europa?”.

Fomentar el empleo, el crecimiento y la inversión es la prioridad N ° 1 de la Comisión Juncker. Con el Plan de Inversiones para Europa, medidas concretas se han tomado a nivel de la UE para reducir la brecha de inversión que surgió como resultado de la crisis económica. ¿Cómo puede ayudar a estos esfuerzos de comunicación? ¿Cómo pueden los proyectos de inversión e inversores encontrarse unos a otros? ¿Qué puede hacerse para mejorar la confianza de las empresas? ¿Cómo se puede comunicar el papel de las diferentes partes interesadas, como las instituciones de la UE, los gobiernos nacionales y locales, así como los bancos, las empresas y los inversores?

Esperamos darle la bienvenida a este evento! También le invitamos a mantenerse al día y participar con nosotros en LinkedIn, Twitter y Facebook con el hashtag #EACDmeetsEU!

Con los mejores deseos,

Utta Tuttlies
Miembro de la Junta
Asociación Europea de Directores de Comunicación

Jefe de Prensa y Comunicaciones
Grupo S & D, el Parlamento Europeo

Conoce a nuestros panelistas

Estamos encantados de anunciar nuestros panelistas que se reunirán para compartir sus pensamientos acerca de cómo promover la inversión en Europa. Bela Dajka, Jefe de Comunicación Corporativa de la Comisión Europea será el moderador de la sesión.

Luc Van den Brande, miembro del Comité de las Regiones, Asesora de la Comisión Europea Presidente Juncker para la difusión hacia los ciudadanos
Miguel Gil Tertre, miembro del Gabinete del Vicepresidente Katainen, Comisión Europea
Matteo Maggiore, Director de Comunicaciones, el Banco Europeo de Inversiones
Ezio Fantuzzi, Relaciones Internacionales y Medios de Comunicación, Gestión de Activos y los inmuebles, Grupo Generali

Lugar y Registro

El evento se llevará a cabo en FTI Consulting, 23 Avenue Marnix, 1000 Bruselas, Bélgica, y será de forma gratuita, cortesía del EACD y nuestro socio, FTI Consulting.

Para registrarse, por favor vaya to:http://www.eacd-online.eu/activities/calendar/eacd-meets-eu-how-can-communication-help-boosting-investment-europe

Si tiene alguna pregunta o inquietud, por favor no dude en ponerse en contacto con nosotros por correo electrónico a info@eacd-online.eu.

Sobre nuestro socio

FTI Consulting, Inc. es una firma de asesoría de negocios global dedicada a ayudar a las organizaciones a proteger y mejorar el valor de la empresa en un entorno jurídico, reglamentario y económico cada vez más compleja. Con más de 4.400 empleados localizados en 26 países, los profesionales de FTI Consulting trabajan en estrecha colaboración con los clientes para anticipar, iluminar y superar los retos de negocios complejos en áreas tales como investigaciones, litigios, fusiones y adquisiciones, asuntos regulatorios, gestión de la reputación, las comunicaciones estratégicas y reestructuraciones. La Compañía generó 0.76 millones de dólares en ingresos durante el año fiscal 2014. Para obtener más información, visite www.fticonsulting.com y conectar con nosotros en Twitter (@FTIConsulting), Facebook y LinkedIn.

Tu contacto

Estimado [redactado],

Esperamos darle la bienvenida en Bruselas para este evento. Si tiene alguna pregunta o comentario, no dude en ponerse en contacto con nosotros en info@eacd-online.eu.

Con los mejores deseos,

Stefanie Schwerdtfeger
Equipo de coordinación EACD
37, Plaza de Meeûs
B-1000 Bruselas
Tel: +32 (0) 2 219 22 90
stefanie.schwerdtfeger@eacd-online.eu
Con más de 2.300 miembros de 42 países, la Asociación Europea de Directores de Comunicación es la primera red europea para comunicadores en-casa. Además de los eventos centrales, como la Cumbre europea de comunicación, la EACD acoge debates regionales y entrenamiento Días en todo el continente europeo, donde los participantes tienen la oportunidad de reunirse con sus pares de la experiencia de la región y compartir relacionada con las comunicaciones e ideas con colegas que también trabajar a nivel internacional.
Si usted no desea recibir más información sobre la EACD suscripción aquí: http://reply.wm13.de/www.eacd-online.eu/unsubscribe/204617

FTI Consulting sólo pretende ser Europea (simplemente como muchas corporaciones y cabilderos con oficinas en Bruselas or Londres); está actuálmente basada en los E.E. U.U. Donde mucho de las leyes europes (potencialmente incluyendo la UPC si alguna vez se convierte en una realidad) es discutida en estos dias. Colonización viniendo del otro lado de Europa. Vaya pérdida de la soberanía. Despiérta Europa!

Hay verdaderas fuerzas poderósas torciéndo las leyes (e.g. leyes de privacidad para fomentar lavado de dinero) y la UPC es una de esas. ISDS in TPP/TTIP es más allá de nuestro cubrimiento. El viaje de Battistelli al Reino Unido es una DESGRACIA. Sucede en un momento de culminación de cólera en su Office. Por favor, NO TRABAJEN. Hay una HUELGA. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Desde los Militares de los Estados Unidos a la Banca Internacional y la ´Revisión´ Externa de las Investigaciones de la EPO (Golpes a la Unión y Guerra contra los Disidentes)

Posted in America, Europe, Finance, Patents at 4:39 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

English/Original

Publicado en America, Europe, Finance, Patents at 7:51 pm por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“En orden de ayudaa a proteger acountabilidad el Banco Mundial GAP monitorea las actividades prestamistas y prácticas corporativas del Banco al proveer refugio y protección a personas se denuncien malas prácticas dentro del Banco. El Banco al igual que otras instituciones internacionales goza de inmunidad de las leyes nacionales mientras persigue su objetivo de desarollo substancial en países medianos y pobres. El Banco como resultado no puede ser enjuiciado por sus empleados y si es sujeto a retalaciónes después de denunciar corrupción un soplón queda sin protección fundamental. Acountabilidad en el Banco requiere libertad de expresión de sus empleados, sin miedo a represalias. Sin efectiva protección para aquellos que denuncian corrupción los fondos pueden ser divergidos y los objetivos del Banco ignorados.”

Banco Mundial. Fuente/GAP. El Banco Mundial es famoso (or notorio) por muchos déstapes.

Sumario: Una mirada al marco de la revisión externa de las investigaciones en la Oficina Europea de Patentes, donde las investigaciones son un innuendo para atacar al síndicato y la eliminación de puntos de vista diferentes

La EPO continúa mostrando un perfil de militarización (vean algunos reciéntes ejemplos), incluso cuando el Jurado y el Consejo solicitan amistad y reconciliacion. Otro punto de vista digno de notar es que unos pocos en la gerencia de Battistelli (si alguno) son actuálmente científicos.

¿Es esta una oficina de patentes (científica) o simplemente una brigada de multinacionales con antecedentes en financias¿ ¿Es acerca de imposición y dominación o verdadero liderazgo que acompañe a los interéses de los ciudadanos y sus empleados?

“La revisora externa de las Investigaciones de la EPO es Olivia Graham,” nos dijo alguién. “¿Dónde/Cuándo ha sido ella una investigadora?

“Es digno de notar que Sebastian Bauer de la Unidad Investigativa fue “Oficial de Etica” para el Banco Mundial en Washington.”Olivia Graham se llama a sí misma (tengan cuidado, las URL de LinkedIn pueden exponer la identidad de uno a la persona mientras esté conectado) “Consejero de Ética en el Fondo Monetario Internacional, en Washington” y dice haber pasado 8 años de su vida con los Militares de los US, luego el Banco Mundial, UN, el Fondo Internacional Para Desarrollo Agrícol (IFAD), y finalmente el IMF.

Es digno de notar que Sebastian Bauer de la Unidad Investigativa fue “Oficial de Etica” para el Banco Mundial en Washington. Si sólo ética fuese el objetivo… la conección con el IMF (si existe alguna) con la EPO o Pinocho Battistelli ess Christine Lagarde [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].

La UPC no debería caernos como un shock total, parece como si gente en posiciones de poder en la EPO y alrededor de ella están más interesados en intereses corporativos que en ciencia y ellos están dispuestos a usar la fuerza para detener aquellos que se crucen en el camino o cortesmente cuestionen su agenda. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Links 8/4/2016: OpenMandriva Lx3 Beta 1, ubuntuBSD 15.10 Beta 4

Posted in News Roundup at 4:21 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

04.07.16

US Patent Trolls Epidemic and Microsoft/Intellectual Ventures’ Latest Contribution to That

Posted in America, GNU/Linux, Google, Microsoft, Patents at 5:24 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

‘Managing’ the competition using software patents…

Summary: Some of the latest developments in the United States, where the number of lawsuits is high, potency of software patents is on the decline (at the courts at least), and Microsoft too explores the potential of patent extortion, just like patent trolls (shown above are Bill and Nathan, two close friends from Microsoft and Intellectual Ventures, respectively, although there are strong connections and clear financial overlap)

“Out of the 47 patent lawsuits filed today, 37 were filed by patent trolls,” said United 4 Patent Reform (that makes it 79% of lawsuits). No doubt it’s a big issue, but how many of these were using software patents, which the USPTO loves so much in spite of court rulings?

“That’s a lot of lawsuits and it doesn’t even count any of the secret settlements, which not only patent trolls are reaching with their victims but also companies like Microsoft sign as a form of covert attack on Linux.”Is the patent bubble bursting or is this just premature optimism? According to the patent maximalists from IAM, who have a patents review for 2015 (composed by patent lawyers) and some Asian angle (sanitised as usual): “The number of patent litigation cases in the US dropped dramatically in the first three months of this year, reaching levels not seen since 2011 – the year when the America Invents Act was signed into law. A total of 947 new patent lawsuits were filed between January and March, according to data from Unified Patents, down from 1,554 in the fourth quarter of 2015. That is the lowest number since the third quarter of 2011 when 924 new cases were filed.”

That’s a lot of lawsuits and it doesn’t even count any of the secret settlements, which not only patent trolls are reaching with their victims but also companies like Microsoft sign as a form of covert attack on Linux. Incidentally, new potential patent attacks from Microsoft against Linux have been brought to our attention a couple of hours ago. Having destroyed Yahoo, Microsoft now wants its patents (just like Novell with CPTN). Not too long ago an article from BI, citing News Corp. (more of a tabloid in this case), claimed: “The report said that companies like Microsoft, Amazon, Salesforce, and LinkedIn have been closely following Yahoo’s sales process because they realize the intrinsic value of the company’s massive patent portfolio, which includes 6,000 intellectual properties in the field of mobile, data, and advertising technology.”

We already saw how Microsoft weaponised MOSAID (since then renamed to Conversant, an IAM sponsor) using Nokia’s patents, after Microsoft had hijacked Nokia. This too was an attack on Linux, e.g. in Android and ChromeOS form (distribution).

“Having destroyed Yahoo, Microsoft now wants its patents (just like Novell with CPTN).”As we noted a bunch of days ago, the Supreme People’s Court of China is increasingly concerned about what goes on in the patent litigation space (China is about as lenient as the US when it comes to patent examination) and MIP has just written a new report about it. Writing about PTAB, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board which is invalidating a lot of software patents these days, MIP says that it is “likely help to reduce the rate of institution of trials” and that the “USPTO dropping a proposed pilot programme” (the USPTO is an obstacle to any form of change that jeopardises near-zero quality control).

It sure looks as though right now the US remains too ripe a platform for patent trolls and extortion because of software patents, ease of litigation (including preferential venue/court selection), and various other factors that we covered here before. According to this new report a “Jacksonville tax software company thwarts patent infringement lawsuit,” but that comes at a high cost. To quote: “A Jacksonville tax preparation software company has emerged victorious in a lawsuit that claimed it violated another company’s patents for computerized tax preparation.

“The lawsuit was filed in February 2015 by Aatrix Software Inc. based in Grand Forks, N.D., against Greenshades Software Inc. claiming the Jacksonville firm infringed on two patents. Those patents essentially covered filings to the Internal Revenue Service for payroll taxes.”

“We already saw how Microsoft weaponised MOSAID (since then renamed to Conversant, an IAM sponsor) using Nokia’s patents, after Microsoft had hijacked Nokia.”So it had to pay patent lawyers for a whole year because of two software patents which were invalid (bogus) all along, owing to USPTO incompetence (if not institutional corruption). How many firms can even afford to do this? Many would just settle to dodge the legal fees, which certainly serve nobody except lawyers (at both sides, plaintiff and defendant alike).

In other news about patents, the Intellectual Ventures-connected Rovi is suing Comcast and patent maximalists indicate that it’s filed, as usual “in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. In the complaint filed, which is quite detailed and very long (174 pages), Rovi is asking for a preliminary injunction, a finding that Comcast’s infringement is willful and deliberate, a finding that the case is exception and attorneys fees are appropriate, as well as damages for the infringement.”

“Europe already has patent trolls (Joff Wild denies that they exist). IAM probably wants more of them because they pay IAM.”Take this with a barrel of salt because it comes from the propaganda site of Quinn (pro-software patents spin), who now accuses courts of doing an improper job because they follow SCOTUS (Quinn, like Kappos, thinks he knows better than the Justices, and they both get paid for this shameless spin).

Going back to IAM, it turns out that Ericsson’s shell game with patent trolls is getting harder to follow as the shell is renamed for the third time (Ericsson’s patents becoming Openwave, then Unwired Planet, now something else). To quote IAM (which as usual neglects to say what Unwired Planet really is): “Speaking to IAM after the most recent UK decision, Teksler gave no hint that the firm’s position would soon change so dramatically. In quotes not included in the blog piece published on 29th March, he stated that he was looking forward to a further UK trial slated for October that would focus on how Unwired Planet reached its FRAND licensing rates. “We are hopeful that the court will confirm our approach and provide a much needed FRAND licensing framework for the industry,” he told IAM editor Joff Wild. Whether that trial now goes ahead remains to be seen.” Europe already has patent trolls (Joff Wild denies that they exist). IAM probably wants more of them because they pay IAM. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

European Patent Office Half Empty Today

Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:26 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

What the EPO would look like with EPO-FFPE and the likes of them promoted to management roles amid brain drain [1, 2, 3, 4]

Summary: The European Patent Office (EPO) is in so sordid a state that nearly half of all the workers were willing to take a salary cut and not show up at work, as an act of protest against Benoît Battistelli’s lawlessness

THE EPO was headless today as Benoît Battistelli left the country and his yellow union was flown in to do some propaganda and incite against SUEPO (see photograph above). Thankfully, they spoke to just 0.1% of the staff. Quite a success, eh? Worth the flight tickets which Battistelli reimbursed them for?

“Waiting for the king (in his own mind) to resign is misguided as Battistelli lives in a fantasy world.”Either way, based on this report, the number of absentees is huge. To quote The Register: “An estimated 2,700 employees – 40 per cent of all staff – at the European Patent Office went on strike Thursday, representing a significant challenge to EPO president Benoît Battistelli. [...] The strike is just the latest in a heated fight between staff and EPO management: a fight that the administrative council has given Battistelli until its next meeting in June to start resolving. Last month, Battistelli received a zero per cent confidence rating in a staff survey.”

Yes, well, it’s a crisis when your boss has zero per cent confidence rating and maybe it’s a sign that he needs to be sacked (possible in about a week). Waiting for the king (in his own mind) to resign is misguided as Battistelli lives in a fantasy world. █

“An earthquake would be needed for the Administrative Council [...] not to support my major proposals.”

–Benoît Battistelli

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Samsung to Potentially Challenge Design Patents in the US Supreme Court While Filing Patent Applications for Designs

Posted in America, Apple, Courtroom, Law, Patents, Samsung at 3:57 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Defensive, offensive, or just outright dumb and unnecessary? Hypocritical for sure.

Summary: Dumb patents on very dumb/trivial ideas (like gate-locking, or slide to unlock) still a subject which the higher US courts deem worthy of Supreme intervention (while Samsung itself joins the problem with new patent filings)

KOREAN giant Samsung, the market leader in the Android space, is an attractive target for patent lawsuits, even though conventionally Korean companies aren’t combative patent aggressors themselves (they don’t deserve the pricey defendant’s treatment). There’s no escaping the aggressors for Samsung, which even got attacked using EPO patents on software and designs (Samsung won as the EPO patents turned out to be bogus, i.e. erroneously granted).

“There’s no escaping the aggressors for Samsung, which even got attacked using EPO patents on software and designs (Samsung won as the EPO patents turned out to be bogus, i.e. erroneously granted).”Samsung is pursuing design patents of its own now, based on the latest news, e.g. [1, 2, 3] (we found more than a dozen articles about this one) and Apple’s attack on Samsung using design patents is still a subject of discussion, even 2.5 weeks after it was news. This one new blog post says: “Oral argument has not yet been scheduled, but I imagine it will be held sometime in October or November after the Court returns from its summer recess. For now, at least, it seems likely that the Court will still consist of only eight, not the full complement of nine, justices.”

By extension, a lot of design patents will be considered/assessed by SCOTUS, but why were they being granted in the first place? Designs are often covered by laws other than patent law. In the context of patents it’s common for callback functions, i.e. software (behaviour), to be incorporated into the static (visual i.e. plottable) design.

“In the context of patents it’s common for callback functions, i.e. software (behaviour), to be incorporated into the static (visual i.e. plottable) design.”As we pointed out here a long time ago, design patents are in many cases just a subclass of software patents, hence they both need to go away. MIP does not quite agree and in a very recent post about “design rights” (not quite the same as design patents) it said: “After attending the recent INTA/AIPPI conference on “Designs: Into the Future”, James Nurton summarises what there is to love about designs – and also a few reasons not to love them. On the following pages, we also look in depth at the recent Trunki decision in the UK and the pending Apple v Samsung case in the United States”

The Trunki case has been mentioned many times in our daily links. It’s truly dumb and some might call it outrageous. But it’s not about patents. There is hardly a connection/parable here. Either way, to conflate or interject it into the Apple v Samsung would only mislead. █

Permalink A Single Comment      Send this to a friend

The United States Still Has Software Patents Because of USPTO Greed, Incapacity for Criticism/Change

Posted in America, Patents at 3:06 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The USPTO’s previous Director now a kind of lobbyist who works for software patents proponents, including his former employer

Summary: Criticism of US patent scope, which still leaves room for software patents because of corporate resistance to change/reform, motivated by USPTO maximalism (trying to grow numbers irrespective of quality)

THE USPTO is the main remaining barrier to abolition of software patents. The US Supreme Court already ruled on the subject, but the USPTO, which is powered by greed (just see what former Director Kappos is doing these days), refuses to obey the courts until it must, as it damages the USPTO’s reputation and valuation of patents.

“Innovation needs no patent protection,” a new article from The Hindu (published moments ago), speaks specifically about software patents in India and says (specifically citing the US as a problem): “The lack of clear boundaries in software means that even law-abiding software developers who intend not to violate another’s patent have no clear means of avoiding it. With 15,000-plus e-commerce patents (2010) in the U.S. alone, it is not possible to eliminate the risk of a patent infringement lawsuit. Frivolous lawsuits by U.S. patent trolls account for nearly 38 per cent of all patent litigation in the U.S. The problem of software patents ends up increasing the cost of software for all of society.”

“Actually, considering the original idea behind patents, secrecy oughtn’t be needed (nor protected).”If patents are about publication, which is what they were about in the first place (at time of their inception), how come so much secrecy and even talks of an appeal to the US Supreme Court, SCOTUS (regarding secrecy)? According to this new article: “Given the dissenting opinion in this case, a further appeal to the Supreme Court is not inconceivable. Unless and until that happens, however, communications between a patent applicant and their patent agent that are directly related to the preparation and prosecution of a patent are entitled to privilege. The difficulty will be in recognising when the line is crossed and, in grey areas, it is very likely that we will continue to see attorneys copied into correspondence.”

Actually, considering the original idea behind patents, secrecy oughtn’t be needed (nor protected). Why should SCOTUS resources be wasted on such matters? Besides, as we have already shown for nearly 2 years, the USPTO hardly cares what SCOTUS says. Courts continue to smash software patents to pieces, whereas the USPTO continues granting software patents. As this new article/blog post points out today, the issue is further complicated by the notion of computer-generated patent applications and minds as computer metaphors. “Courts now routinely,” says the author, use a particular subcategory “to invalidate claims for software inventions that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper.””

“Nobody benefits from all this red tape except monopolists and their lawyers (the monopolists already have them among staff, and the legal costs scale fine with their huge business base).”We saw such wordings before (“pen and paper” analogies), even in court rulings. The second aforementioned article (both from Bilski Blog) notes: “As the AlphaGo-like computers continue to help human predict the unpredictable and make fast breakthroughs, it also raises important questions about inventorship and challenges our present patent system. To have a well-functioning patent system in the digital age may require a rethinking of inventorship by our courts and legislature.”

Nobody benefits from all this red tape except monopolists and their lawyers (the monopolists already have them among staff, and the legal costs scale fine with their huge business base).

“Patent systems without restrictions on scope are bound to become just filing systems that are ultimately obsolete.”According to another new article from today, Uber gives yet another reason for a boycott as it pursues software patents to ensure monopoly whose overall (societal) cost would be huge. “It’s unclear how Uber’s new patent could affect Lyft’s application of its own “Prime Time” dynamic pricing feature,” wrote the author, “if at all. In recent years many in Silicon Valley have argued the process for obtaining software patents is flawed.”

Later today we are going to to touch several related matters. Patent systems without restrictions on scope are bound to become just filing systems that are ultimately obsolete. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

On Day of Strike FFPE-EPO Reaffirms Status as Yellow (Fake/Management-Leaning) Union, Receives ‘Gifts’

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 12:13 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“It’s like singing to empty tables or a gallery full of ghosts” –Frank Sinatra (audio link)

Summary: FFPE-EPO (pictured above) does a terrible job trying to come across as a legitimate union by receiving ‘gifts’ from management and flying over to do a show on a day of strike

It has become quite a spectacular circus at the EPO. This international body, which calls itself the ‘European’ Patent Office (because the workers are European), increasingly resembles — not only in the labour rights sense — some kind of mining corporation in an underdeveloped country. The only thing missing now is an actual assassination of a union leader.

“It has become quite a spectacular circus at the EPO.”We have seen several photos from the EPO today (day of strike [1, 2]), but the above photo is priceless. Watch the venue. It’s virtually empty. It’s a good thing Battistelli is away (chilling with his bodyguards in London) because he’s trying to influence/change laws in other countries, taking those countries down to his own level. What’s seen above requires some explanation or context. For those who are not familiar with FFPE-EPO, see previous articles of ours such as the following 10 (there were more):

1. In the EPO’s Official Photo Op, “Only One of the Faces is Actually FFPE-EPO”
2. Further Evidence Suggests and Shows Stronger Evidence That Team Battistelli Uses FFPE-EPO as ‘Yellow Union’ Against SUEPO
3. “FFPE-EPO Was Set up About 9 Years Ago With Management Encouragement”
4. Fallout of the FFPE EPO MoU With Battistelli’s Circle
5. The EPO’s Media Strategy at Work: Union Feuds and Group Fracturing
6. Caricature of the Day: Recognising FFPE EPO
7. Union Syndicale Federale Slams FFPE-EPO for Helping Abusive EPO Management by Signing a Malicious, Divisive Document
8. FFPE-EPO Says MoU With Battistelli Will “Defend Employment Conditions” (Updated)
9. Their Masters’ Voice (Who Block Techrights): FFPE-EPO Openly Discourages Members From Reading Techrights
10. Letter Says EPO MoU “Raises Questions About FFPE’s Credibility as a Federation of Genuine Staff Unions”

Less than a week ago FFPE-EPO published the following. As one person put it: “It must be hoped when dealing with patent applications, Mr van der Bijl develops higher standards of intellectual level than what can be seen with such pathetic prose hereunder:”

A first quick reaction to a publication about the MoU

Submitted by S van der Bijl on Fri, 01/04/2016 – 15:01

In a publication dated 31 march 2016 SUEPO wrote the following:

“The result is known: Mr Battistelli sent the Investigative Unit after his would-be “social partner” on the basis of vexatious and absurd accusations, thereby demonstrating bad faith. When questioned about the investigations during one of the meetings, Mr Battistelli cynically asked why we felt concerned. Under such circumstances meaningful talks are not possible and SUEPO pulled out. However, a small staff union (about 75 members) in The Hague did sign the proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MoU).”

There are a lot of interesting things to remark about this paragraphe. Let’s have a close look at the circular 341 “Policy on the prevention of harassment and the resolution of conflicts at the EPO”. Article 12 states the following:

1. Upon receipt of an allegation, the investigation unit shall carry out an initial review to assess whether the alleged conduct would, if proven, amount to harassment.
2. This initial review shall establish whether the allegations falls within the remit of the investigation unit. it shall not include any fact finding, or any assessment of the credibility of the allegation. It shall not prejudice the outcome of the future investigations.
3. Under normal circumstances, initial reviews shall be completed no later than 2 months from the date of receipt of the allegation.
4. If as a result of the initial review, the investigation unit finds that the allegation, if proven, would not amount to harassment, it shall close the investigative process. The investigative unit shall inform the complainant and the contact point for conflict resolution in writing of the outcome of the finding.
5. If the complainant is also the victim of the alleged harassment, he/she shall also be provided with a summary of the considerations which led to the decision.
6. If the investigative unit determines that the allegation, if proven, would amount to harassment, it shall evaluate and investigate it in accordance with the provisions below.

An investigation can therefore not be initiated by the president unless he is the victim or the witness to a case of harassment. If the investigation unit was asked to do an initial review it means that a staff member complained about being harassed!

SUEPO claims that this staff member, obviously not being president Batistelli, made a vexatious and absurd (or false) accusation against staff representatives. In other words there was no harassment and in any case, even if there was, this staff member accused the wrong persons. Obviously this staff member accusing SUEPO reps was therefore behaving in bad faith, or at least that is what SUEPO claims.

The investigation unit however studied the case and concluded that there was a case of harassment, informed the persons concerned (according to article 12(4)) and started an investigation (according to article 12(6)). So according to the statement of SUEPO above the wrong behaviour and lies of the complaining staff member were apparently believed by the investigation unit and this investigation unit, knowing that the accusations were wrong (“demonstrating bad faith”) continued nevertheless with an investigation knowing there was no harassment case that could possibly be proven. So, the whole, or at least a substantial part of the investigation unit was involved in a complot to help accuse falsely some union representatives as well.

The alleged complot is getting much bigger now. Then there is an investigation which included also an outside company specialised in such investigations. At this point only the president can intervene and to protect information gathering and the complainant order suspensions (Article 14(2)). So now the president, the PD responsible for personnel and an outside company are all entering in the complot to knowingly falsely accusing union reps.

According to article 15(1) of Circular 341 a Report of the findings is drafted and send to the complainant and the subject of the investigation. Both parties can make additional comments in writing. They probably both did. Apparently the investigation unit and the assisting outside company find the union representatives guilty and recommends that disciplinary procedures should to be started.

The president follows the recommendation and sends it to the disciplinary committee. The disciplinary committee is composed of members nominated by the staff representation and of members nominated by the president of the EPO. The disciplinary committee recommend unanimously that the allegations are proven and recommends a certain sanction to be applied. This means now the entire disciplinary committee, including staff reps, is now included in the complot of sanctioning union reps for something that never happened at all. In the mean time, complainants get harassed for having dared to complain, but of course this also did never happen.

Finally on the basis of the allegations, that never happened, and the harassment of complainants, that also never happened, and the results of the investigation, which were fabricated (by the same investigation unit?), the president takes a decision to apply a heavy sanction.

We will see what ATILO will decide relatively soon but suppose that the ILO tribunal decides to keep the sanction and to follow the disciplinary committee then would that mean that ATILO is also involved the complot of fabricating vexatious and false accusations against union reps.

The main question for you is of course: DO YOU BELIEVE THAT???

And then there is another small detail in the paragraph. FFPE EPO did not sign the proposed MoU. We signed a very different MoU then the one initially proposed. It took a whole year to get to an acceptable formulation for a MoU and the involvement and approval of the central FFPE in Brussels to get to an acceptable MoU of which we are of course very proud even if on some specific details it could be improved.

What’s worth noting about the above, in the words of one reader: “a new star is born: Samuel van der Bijl, chairman of FFPE-EPO.org, a “pseudo unionist” working hard at… defending the EPO President…. how touching! One question though: how come Samuel van der Bijl is so well informed about by nature highly confidential matters such as investigations?”

Chalk this up as another example of gross privacy violations and incompetence of EPO management. They previously did the same thing with journalists in order to defame critics. A lot of the above is made up or ‘sexed’ up. It’s the modus operandi in this wave of union-busting actions.

“EPO has provided funds for their flight tickets to MUC as well as granted time deduction to Samuel van der Bijl and Aldert de Haan who – on a day of office-wide strike – dared to come to Munich to speak to… non striking staff….”
      –AnonymousWhat’s in the photo at the top? “It’s about the FFPE Union meeting held today in Munich,” the person who sent/leaked it to us explained. “It’s hilarious,” one regular reader told us, “comical and pathetic at the same time! EPO pays for two flight tickets for FFPE officials and 8 Munich non-striking staff attended.” These photos are apparently being passed around quite quickly right now. Internally, might one argue, they “went viral!”

As one person put it, “since they signed the crap MoU produced by Team Battistelli one may hope that as a return, EPO has provided funds for their flight tickets to MUC as well as granted time deduction to Samuel van der Bijl and Aldert de Haan who – on a day of office-wide strike – dared to come to Munich to speak to… non striking staff. And the result is above expectations: no less than 8 non-striking staff attended (among which one close-to-Bergot-staff-rep Christophe Poizat). FFPE: The EPO management’s supportive union!” █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend