Posted in America, Patents at 9:37 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
When the Establishment serves Power rather than Justice
Photo credit: Evan Guest, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.
Summary: As the number of patents granted by the USPTO doubles (in just a few years), lawsuits leap through the roof, small businesses are severely harmed, and the political debate, the corporate media, the patent office and so on are all controlled by predators whose interests align with patent lawyers, patent lobbyists and their large clients (multinationals)
THE USPTO is the world’s most dominant patent system. It issues patents on software even though it’s becoming much harder a thing to enforce in a court of law, especially after Alice. Patent lawyers are still trying to undo or reverse Alice because it hit them where it hurts: patent scope.
Longing for Scalia/GOP Influence
Pro-patents (or patent maximalism) Web sites bemoan what they call “Change Inventorship on Issued U.S. Patent” and even long for corporations-leaning Justices like Scalia (see this new article by Louis Carbonneau), who died earlier this month, leaving SCOTUS more liberal (or leftist) than before.
“Patent lawyers are still trying to undo or reverse Alice because it hit them where it hurts: patent scope.”As of last week, we have begun seeing the debate about patents resurfacing in US politics, even if it’s the same old misguided debate about “patent trolls” rather than about patent scope. Here is the latest lobbying by patent maxlmalists (for USPTO lenience and greed). It says: “The U.S. government has a bad history of taking money from the USPTO. Since 1991, $1 billion has been skimmed from the office’s budget during the appropriations process and diverted to unrelated agencies. This isn’t taxpayer money, but fees paid to the USPTO by patent and trademark applicants (i.e., inventors and brand owners).”
“All these conclusions came together,” wrote a respected patents blog the other day, “to confirm a finding that Colvin had intent-to-defraud the USPTO.”
Foxes and Hen Houses
Well, generally speaking, the problem with the USPTO is that it’s run by a lot of lawyers and thus it serves lawyers. The examiners there, who are mostly qualified scientists with practical experience, don’t have much of a say. It more or less mirrors what happens in the EPO in the policy/scope sense. “Join free IP Seminar “Overcoming Alice in Electronic Signal Processing”, March 10, Munich,” wrote European patent lawyers the other day.
“Patent lawyers have a twisted view on things, where laws and rules are seen as obstacles to leap over rather than something that should be respected and obeyed.”Well, “Overcoming Alice” is like “Overcoming the law,” or simply getting around the rules. Patent lawyers have a twisted view on things, where laws and rules are seen as obstacles to leap over rather than something that should be respected and obeyed.
Watch this this article by Nicholas Landau (Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP). After the Alice decision at SCOTUS level (2014) the patent lawyers still struggle as they try to convince the public that software patents are legitimate and potent. They are not. That’s ill advice. “Due to the rapidly shifting requirement for subject matter eligibility,” says the author, “some patent examiners seem to believe that, when it comes to software inventions, they are entitled to assume the invention is not patent eligible subject matter under § 101, and it is the applicant’s duty to prove otherwise.”
Well, “some patent examiners seem to believe…”
“Not too long ago Apple managed to bamboozle EPO examiners into granting it software patents, only to have them invalidated in a court (several times in fact).”So much for respect to examiners. They’re viewed as naive and misguided by patent lawyers.
Apple’s Bogus Software Patents
Not too long ago Apple managed to bamboozle EPO examiners into granting it software patents, only to have them invalidated in a court (several times in fact). These were invalidated only after the defendants had spent millions (in legal fees) and years in the courts defending Android/Linux. See this new article (among many on the subject) titled “Appeals Court Dumps Apple’s Slide To Unlock Patent, Tosses Massive Jury Award Against Samsung In The Trash”. To quote this non-mainstream/non-conformist piece from TechDirt: “Apple may have been able to convince a jury that Samsung violated a bunch of its patents, on concepts like “slide to unlock,” but apparently the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) disagrees. Despite the court’s reputation for regularly expanding the power of patents (and getting smacked around by the Supreme Court for doing so), CAFC has sided with Samsung and tossed out a jury’s $120 million award and with it some Apple patents — including “slide to unlock.”
“This is the outcome of the infamous “thermonuclear war,” to quote the megalomaniac Steve Jobs, who simple could not stand competition.”This is a software patents — a callback functionality on a mock-up/design/UI.
This is the outcome of the infamous “thermonuclear war,” to quote the megalomaniac Steve Jobs, who simple could not stand competition. Watch what people think of this misguided war. Even former Apple proponents are upset at Apple right now. Who is this good for anyway? Patent lawyers of course. As many people consider Apple to be anything but a patent troll (even if it does no manufacturing, mostly branding and design), it ought to be clear that the problem does not boil down only to patent trolls. We wrote about this very recently
More Patent Litigation for Happier (Richer) Patent Lawyers
See this new article from IP Watch. It says: “The United States worked hard over the last five years to reduce patent infringement suits. Congress enacted patent reform, the courts handed down important anti-patentee rulings, and the US Patent and Trademark Office began a campaign of energetically rejecting patents and patent claims. Despite all this, from 2014 to 2015, new patent infringement suits increased 18 percent and the number of defendants sued for patent infringement increased 21 percent. What went wrong?”
“It is an epidemic of feuds which software patents are a large cause of and patent lawyers are beneficiaries of.”MIP also looked into litigation figures from 2015 and any way one looks at it, there’s more litigation, which is hardly a positive development. It is an epidemic of feuds which software patents are a large cause of and patent lawyers are beneficiaries of.
Excessive Focus on Patent Trolls, Not Patent Scope
When it comes to US public policy, only “trolls” are currently mentioned as the problem. Matt Levy (CCIA) focuses on patent trolls, as usual, not on software patents, noting that “Tyler, TX Brags About Its “Friendliness” to Patent Trolls”. Here is what patents do to small companies, as put in the words of United for Patent Reform the other day: “In 2014, 62% of companies sued by patent trolls had revenues <$100M. Ask Congress to protect #smallbiz & #fixpatents http://bit.ly/1FgqNiT ”
“Even when cases are dismissed the legal costs can rarely be recovered by the damaged defendant (except in rare cases, like NewEgg’s recent win).”Remember that this is a matter of life or death to them. To successfully shoot down a patent it can cost millions of dollars. Even when cases are dismissed the legal costs can rarely be recovered by the damaged defendant (except in rare cases, like NewEgg’s recent win). To quote another new tweet: “Patent trolls sued 4000+ companies in 2015, incl. homebuilders & other #smallbiz. Congress needs to #fixpatents”
Nearly a year after it was reintroduced and met with widespread support from House Republicans, the Innovation Act, designed to subdue “patent trolls,” has lost momentum after various businesses, universities, and conservative groups deemed it harmful to innovators.
Before the bill died in the Senate, the Innovation Act passed the House in 2013 after a substantial bipartisan vote of 325–91. A new bill reintroducing the Innovation Act, H.R. 9, which was formulated last July, has since passed the Judiciary Committee with a 24–8 vote.
Why not tackle the sorts of patents which patent trolls are using? They are not going after some utility companies over use of particular screw and pipe designs. They almost always use software patents. Therein lies the problem. Here is a new press release that says “Knowledge Group’s webcast entitled: “Emerging Issues: Patent Trolls and Deceptive Tactics – Impacts and Implications Explored!””
“What about large companies that act like patent trolls and extort/blackmail small companies similarly?”What about patent scope? Not noteworthy? What about large companies that act like patent trolls and extort/blackmail small companies similarly? The patent propaganda alliance (“Innovation Alliance”) has released this misleading statement on the matter, without even stating who’s funding it anyway. It’s patent maximalists. The patent propaganda alliance pretends to represent SMEs with tweets such as CPIP’s. It says: “Great to see recognition of importance of patents to startups at today’s hearing!” Well, neither entity cares about startups. These are just patent maximalists and they pretend to speak for small businesses, just like Microsoft’s ACT does.
“Get the facts straight,” Gary Shapiro (president and CEO of Consumer Technology Association) wrote the other day. “Patent trolls drain $1.5B a week from the economy…”
Here is his article, “Patent trolls drain US economy,” which says: “To preserve our nation’s entrepreneurial spirit and grow our innovation economy, patent trolls must be driven back under the bridge where they belong. Letting them run amok is, well, patent nonsense.”
“Well, they should work hard to abolish software patents in the US, as that too would contribute a lot to trolls’ demise.”The Consumer Technology Association (CTA) even issued a press release to express opposition to patent trolls, but what about patent scope? Not a word.
Another new article, “What retailers can do about patent trolls,” was published the other day by Beth Provenzano. “We’ve been talking about patent reform for a while,” she wrote, “and for good reason. The number of patent disputes reached a record high last year, and retailers are often the targets of “patent trolls” — companies that own patents for technologies they didn’t invent and don’t use.”
“All that these things are doing is patent tax collection, like a vigilante knocking on every door to collect money for the vigilante that’s supposedly intended to protect from the patent Mafia.”Well, they should work hard to abolish software patents in the US, as that too would contribute a lot to trolls’ demise.
Protection Money and the Vigilante Non-Solution
The solutions proposed by patent maximalists are not solutions but merely additions to the problem. ‘Protection money’ and vigilantes in the patent world don’t make anyone any safer (overall), but this is what IAM is proposing in this article. To quote: “As a network designed to provide coverage from patent suits, Freedom has some obvious parallels with the License on Transfer Network (LOTNet). LOTNet was launched in 2014 by a group of operating companies led by Google. Those that join agree that if they transfer any patents to an NPE then the other members of the network automatically receive a licence to those patents. This is in large part because the vast majority of NPE lawsuits involve patents developed and filed by operating companies.”
There is actually one such patent vigilante that calls itself “Freedom”? All that these things are doing is patent tax collection, like a vigilante knocking on every door to collect money for the vigilante that’s supposedly intended to protect from the patent Mafia. Therein lies exacerbation of the issues/problem, but then again, when you’re a patent lawyer, it’s “mo’ problems, mo’ money.” █
Summary: A quick look at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and why patent lawyers, patent trolls (who typically use software patents) and other patent aggressors are afraid of it, more so after Alice (a landmark 2014 case against abstract software patents)
THOSE who are not patent lawyers might not know that PTAB, according to Wikipedia, “was formed on September 16, 2012 as one part of the America Invents Act.”
“Patent lawyers, suffice to say, are growing nervous and comparing PTAB to all sorts of terrible things.”That was less than a couple of years before Alice, which effectively killed many software patents in the US (and shed doubt on the rest). The EPO too has boards of appeal, even though Battistelli seems to be trying to crush them (the unfilled open positions strategy, as the BBC reported on earlier today — the latest round of Tories versus NHS), possibly because of the UPC (some speculations insinuate this). At the same time he opens the door to software patents, which the boards have historically been relatively sceptical/critical of.
According to this new article from the EFF: “Today EFF filed our response brief in the appeal of our successful challenge to Personal Audio’s podcasting patent. Back in April 2015, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ruled in our favor and invalidated all of the patent claims we challenged. Personal Audio appealed this decision to the Federal Circuit.”
We covered this at the time (April 2015, just under a year after Alice) and we were pleased with the outcome. Patent lawyers, suffice to say, are growing nervous and comparing PTAB to all sorts of terrible things.
“Watch what a tragedy this has become for business method and software patents.”Consider this MIP article titled “PTAB taking a harder line on CBM institution”. It says: “More covered business method petitions are now being denied institution by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board than granted, with the Board seemingly narrowing what qualifies as a CBM patent” (that’s good, but not for patent lawyers).
Also new from MIP is this article titled “Institutional change: PTAB issues to watch in 2016″. To quote: “PTAB petition filing has increased every year since the post-grant proceedings became available in September 2012. According to figures from Docket Navigator, a record 1,797 petitions were filed last year, up 7% on the 1,677 filed in 2014. Inter partes review (IPR) petitions accounted for 92% of the filing last year.”
Watch what a tragedy this has become for business method and software patents. It’s about time. Let the patent lawyers squirm, twist the facts, and whine… █
While patent lawyers try to create “confusion” about the law in India
Confusion? Not at all. No software patents.
Summary: One final post about India’s ban on software patents and patent lawyers’ denial or obfuscation of this simple fact (along the same lines of US patent lawyers post-Alice)
As The Wireput it the other day: “Multinational software companies are naturally displeased with the Indian patent office’s new guidelines disallowing patents for computer programs.”
“There’s no confusion about it. It’s the law.”IBM’s latest response is quite telling. We wrote a great deal about IBM’s role in the patenting of software in the US and efforts to make it so in Europe and New Zealand too. The above article is one of about two dozen English articles we’ve found about the latest news (here are a couple more which we didn’t cite before [1, 2]). There are of course also some articles from patent lawyers and their biased media. MIP, for example, said in its headline that “Confusion reigns over patenting of computer programs”. Actually, “patenting of computer programs” is not allowed in India. There’s no confusion about it. It’s the law.
Watch how patent lawyers in India (probably working for foreign companies such as IBM or Microsoft) worry and express concerns out in public, even though it’s clear that the Indian population does not agree with them.
“People in India sure need to know who’s who and thereafter discern between innovators and parasites.”We recently saw Singh & Associates writing: “What is the date of grant of patent or in other words on which date the patent is deemed to be granted. This seems to be a simple question with the simple answer, but that is not the case. In this regard, Hon’ble Delhi High Court heard a bunch of petitions where all of the petitions had this common question of ascertaining date of grant of patent. In general sense patent is said to be granted when it is approved by the Controller of Patents and no further objections are in its way. The said petitions raised the question of date of Patent in context to validity of a pre-grant opposition as introduced by the Patent Amendment Act, 2005.”
Well, patent lawyers in India are always looking for business. The more patents get filed, the more money they make. The more patent litigation, the better (for them).
People in India sure need to know who’s who and thereafter discern between innovators and parasites. █
Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:13 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Topić on the left, wearing shades in the shade
Summary: Some much-needed transparency in the cases (some among many) against Željko Topić, who is now crushing staff unions at the European Patent Office (EPO)
Benoît Battistelli’s right-hand man, Željko Topić, was said to have faced “a dozen serious criminal charges,” but the exact number may not be known to anyone other than Topić and his highly expensive lawyers whom we mentioned here before. When dealing with EPO scandals, there are many different kinds of scandals. It’s not some singular scandal but a large number thereof. The same applies to Topić in Croatia. One of the scandals which we wrote about several times in the past involved German airliner Lufthansa. This is the most detailed explanation published here thus far.
“For your information,” a reader told us, there is a new article titled “ŽUPANIJSKI SUD ISTRAGU PROTIV ŽELJKA TOPIĆA PROGLASIO NEDOPUŠTENOM” (TOPIĆA being Topić). “The report appeared on the Web site of the Croatian news portal tjedno.hr on 23 February,” said our the reader.
Might anyone among our readers be able to get a quick translation? Our understanding, based on a source, is that this update from Croatia says: “Is everybody equal before the law?”
“According to the report,” the reader told us, “in proceedings before the Municipal Criminal Court of Zagreb, the presiding judge Zoran Luburić dismissed two criminal complaints against Željko Topić as “inadmissible”.
“Mr. Frgačić has filed both criminal and civil complaints against Topić in relation to the Lufthansa/Airplus dispute.” –Anonymous“It seems that the plaintiff in these cases was Mr. Rikard Frgačić who according to our information has lodged an appeal against the decisions of the Criminal Court.
“The Judge Mr. Luburić apparently rejected the criminal complaints against Topić on the grounds that the matter relates to the Lufthansa/Airplus trademark dispute which is still pending before the SIPO following a decision of the Administrative Court to send Mr. Frgačić’s case back to the SIPO for re-examination.
“Mr. Frgačić has filed both criminal and civil complaints against Topić in relation to the Lufthansa/Airplus dispute.
“So, the matter is still open in civil proceedings. As far as the criminal proceedings are concerned, as mentioned above, Mr. Frgačić has filed appeals against Mr. Luburić’s decisions to dismiss his criminal complaints.”
“So, the matter is still open in civil proceedings. As far as the criminal proceedings are concerned, as mentioned above, Mr. Frgačić has filed appeals against Mr. Luburić’s decisions to dismiss his criminal complaints.” –AnonymousIt’s this kind of cases that led us to actually speaking to the familiar parties directly.
“Mr. Frgačić might be able to provide you with more details about the recent court decisions,” our source noted. We have been in touch with Topić’s victims for over a year and also spoke to Frgačić more than usual lately. The EPO won’t tell its staff anything about it, but Topić is still under a barrage of legal cases, some of them more severe than others. Criminal cases are numerous. We are going to do our best to keep readers abreast of developments in this area, as too few people out there can comprehend Croatian. Lack of information — a vacuum that no doubt the EPO benefits from — only serves Mr. Topić right now. To prove his innocence he will have to win a lot of court cases, some of which he repeatedly loses (and then appeals because he can afford it — unlike his victims — supported by a massive salary from the EPO). █
For some years, one is questioning ever more insistently, if appropriate governance and management control of the EPO and WIPO exist.
Both cases have similarities (immunity, harassment of internal and external critics), but also differences (EPO problems seem more serious and closer to Spain).
In this post I deal with the situation in the EPO, leaving for later WIPO.
The EPO has threatened some people with legal action for allegedly defaming in their blogs about the EPO. I therefore ask the reader to be cautious when analyzing the information and do not take as true what they read. Obviously, the allegations that are brought against the EPO do not come from me. In any case, it is not my intention to defame the EPO, but to gather information about problems that seem to exist. I have tried to include the views involved (including EPO).
EPO
Like any international organization, the EPO and its President enjoy immunity and the national courts have no jurisdiction on its legal conflicts. Like any embassy, EPO buildings are inviolable and the authorities of the countries where the EPO is installed (e.g. Germany and the Netherlands) cannot enter buildings without the authorization of the President of the EPO.
A great power (immunity) brings about great responsibility. The question is, is immunity being used responsibly?
EPOnia
With this pejorative name, EPOnia, we want to get across the concept that the laws, rights and principles that are common in any European Democracy, do NOT apply in the EPO.
The Unions are not recognized and it seems that some of the workers’ representatives are the subject of investigations, without being able to turn to a lawyer, without being able to tell other colleagues who are under investigation and cannot claim the right not to testify against him (obligation to cooperate). Some of these workers, one of them Spanish, allegedly suffered anxiety attacks after interrogation and needed medical care.
As a result of these investigations, two of the workers representatives were fired. In both cases, the President of the EPO decided to impose harder sanctions than those recommended by the Disciplinary Committee. A National French Deputy has criticized the layoffs.
A Netherlands Court determined that the immunity of EPO could not go against the law, recognized in the European Convention on Human Rights to a fair trial within a reasonable time. Labor disputes can be addressed by employees at the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organisation, but can take more than 10 years to be resolved and can be summarily dismissed.
Another Netherlands Court also pointed out that the EPO has not been respecting the workers right to strike. EPO ignored the ruling. The case is under the Netherlands Supreme Court. In case that this Court confirm the contested judgment, the EPO would seem that it will ignore it again.
EPO installed keyloggers on the computers for anyone to use in the common zones of its building in Munich, to find out who was talking about its highest management. This had quite an impact in Germany, where suspicions regarding espionage are understandable.
As a result, a member of the Board of Appeals, a quasi-court, which handles appeals against decisions of the EPO patent and establish jurisprudence and, in principle, should be independent of the President of the EPO, was suspended by the President of its functions (can not enter the EPO), which only could have agreed by the Board of Appeals itself. The Board of Appeal has determined that it cannot confirm the President’s decision, because it has not been the result of a process with sufficient guarantees. Recall that the Board of Appeal is the only instance to which an applicant may appeal when he is refused a European patent with unitary effect and should therefore have a clear independence of the EPO.
In Ensuring
The EPO President is supervised by the Committee of Administration [Administrative Council] of the EPO, in which representatives of Member States of the EPO, typically the CEOs of their patent offices, sit.
While the Board has maintained a favorable position to the President, it seems that this may change. Thus, the Board may request the President that the dismissal of workers laid off be on hold until there is a review, where investigations are to be regulated, and that the unions be recognized and the Chamber of Resources be reformed formally. █
Publicado en Europe, Patents at 7:00 pm por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Sumario: Parece altamente probable y ciertamente una posibilidad de que Battistelli pronto renuncie, dejando a la OEP alguna oportunidad de recuperarse después de su histórico (en un pésimo sentido) periódo
Temprano hoy encontramos un grupo de interesantes tweets de los medios financiados por la OEP, que en vez de repetir la última mentira de sus representantes de relaciones públicas (PR) actualmente reconoce que Pinocho Battistelli esta sumergido en profundos – muy profundos – problemas. Cuando incluso un sitio financiado por la OEP admite eso, existe un problema serio (el departamento PR todavía lo niega y es pagado por hacerlo) uno tiene que reconocer que la situación luce grave. Para citar Iam ¨Si Benoit Battistelli realmente esta en conflicto con el Consejo Administrativo de la OEP, como se rumorea, eso no es una situación sostenible.¨
“Cuando incluso un sitio financiado por la OEP admite que existe un problema serio (el departamento de relaciones públicas todavía lo niega y es pagado por hacerlo) uno tiene que reconocer que la situación luce muy grave.”No hay sentido en negarlo de nuevo (el conflicto). La autenticidad de los documentes y la exáctitud de la información ya han sido verificadas.
¨Es difícil ver a Battistelli acordardo a renunciar,¨ IAM añadió, ¨lo más probable es verlo irse.¨ El ya amenazó hacerlo el año pasado, pero nuevos reportajes sugieren que ahora se resume a dinero. Urgentemente requerimos una traducción de este nuevo articulo (en Holándes) titulado “Franse despoot wil 18 miljoen bij vertrek”. FTI Consulting le ha fallado a Battistelli. No pudo salvar la reputación de la OEP debido a la enorme nariz de Pinocho, significando que él tiró los $1,000,000 (presupuesto oscuro/dinero PR) por el toilet. ¿Quiere el más de 20 millones de dólares ahora (20 veces más de lo que pago a FTI)? ¿Después de todo el daño que ha causado? Sabemos ahora cual es su salario y podríamos revelaro en una fecha tardía (no es algo urgente). Battistelli – según se informa – básicamente quiere unos 30 – 40 años de salario presidencial (!Que tal Concha!) Un plan de ´bienestar’no tan malo para un hombre aproximándose a los 70…
IAM entonces trajo un punto de Battistelli, indicando que ¨Battistelli cree – con alguna justificación – que el ha hecho lo que el Consejo Administrativo quiso que haga: aumente la producción y ganancias.¨
Fanfarroneándo acerca del crecimiento de patentes otorgadas – lo que Pinocho frecuentemente hace (recuerden la charada ¨Conosca al Presidente¨ a principios de mes) – es engañoso por decir lo menos y mucho de ello es basado en mentiras también. Estan ´cocinando´ los libros. Son astutos con estadísticas y esperan exitosamente engañar a los medios, como ya han hecho frecuentemente, explotando candidez de los no-técnicos reporteros con un grado universitario en un lenguaje en Europa.
“Para aclarar una vez más, apoyamos la OEP, en principio (no hay intención de destruir la OEP), pero la EPO tiene que retornar a la EPC.”Temprano hoy bromee que Battistelli debería pronto aplicar por un trabajo en la SIPO (China), donde hay casi cero control de calidad asi com cero derechos humanos (probablemente negativo, menos que cero en la OEP ahora mismo).
Para aclarar una vez más, apoyamos la OEP, en principio (no hay intención de destruir la OEP), pero la EPO tiene que retornar a la EPC. Vean cómo la OEP está tratando de ‘masajear’ las “Guías para la examinación” en diversos eventos, algunos de los cuales se dieron a conocer o re-anunciaron hace incluso horas. La EPO se pregunta: “¿Cuál es el impacto de las modificaciones en las nuevas directrices para el examen? Discutir con expertos en Oslo el 7 de abril … ”
¿En qué estan basados estos cambios/enmiendas? Definitivamente no la EPC, que definitivamente y inambiguamente PROHIBIÓ las patentes de software (sean estas ¨como tales¨ o no).
Solicitando comentrarios en una última propaganda de la OEP (falsos números de patentes serán compartidos la próxima semana), un lector nos dijo: ¨OK es sólo un estupido desfile de relaciones públicas de nuevo. Han estado haciendo esto por años. No puedo decir cuando empezo (antes o después de Battistelli), pero Pinocho ya había hecho el mismo show cuando estuvo a cargo de la oficina Francesa de patentes. Pensé que podía ser algo diferente, debería aprender a no sobreestimarlos.¨
Regresando a IAM, en su cuente de Twitter dijo: ¨Esta claro que dado los reciéntes titulares acerca de los últimos despidos de representantes de la unión así como el agrandamiénto del Jurado de Apelaciones han asustado a algunos en la AC.¨
“Lo que todo esto significa,” IAM añadió, “es algo que tiene que ceder ante la OEP. Cuando eso pase no será algo bonito.”
“Battistelli no puede tolerar transparencia (ya que él sólo puede escribir/crear entradas en blogs posts titulados “transparencia”) porque la transparencia revelaría graves abusos como los keyloggers, cámaras ocultas (los huéspedes que vienen a la OEP de orientación), y peor aún – todo tipo de CARGOS CRIMINALES GRAVES EN CROACIA.”IAM entonces dijo que ¨la OEP esta en crisis esta tarde. Su estructura gubernamental claramente no se ciñe a este propósito. Es tiempo de transparencia plena.¨ Como le expliqué a IAM, no (falta de) ¨transparencia¨ es el problema. Es lo que el sigilo ha servido a ocultar… hasta ahora. Battistelli no puede tolerar transparencia (ya que él sólo puede escribir/crear entradas en blogs posts titulados “transparencia”) porque la transparencia revelaría graves abusos como los keyloggers, cámaras ocultas (los huéspedes que vienen a la OEP de orientación), y peor aún - todo tipo de cargos criminales graves en Croacia.
El fondo del asunto es este: cuando la gente a quien Pinocho esta pagando reconoce que el pueda estar saliendo realmente significa algo.
Un final (segundo) recordatorio: Por favor urgentemente necesitamos una traducción del artículo “Franse despoot wil 18 miljoen bij vertrek” (link arriba) ya que sirve a confirmar aún más que Battistelli saldrá pronto (es sólo materia de dinero ahora). Cuando escojan o preparen una traducción por favor informenos su intención para asegurarnos que no haya duplicación de esfuerzos (dos o más personas trabajando en una traducción al mismo tiempo). Ya tenemos a alguien trabajando en una traducción de ¨Problemas de Gobernanza en Organizaciones Internacionales: la EPO¨ Hoy recibimos tres traducciones de tres artículos en Holándes, asi que sigan sintonizándonos por más… █
Publicado en Europe, Patents at 5:56 pm por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Sumario: Un nuevo publicado PDF derrama luiz en la grave injusticia planeada por la Corte Unitaria de Patentes, el nuevo secreto y dañino sistema, cuyos arquitectos son en su mayoría abogados de patentes y otros que gana con ellas sirviendo a las grandes corporaciones internacionales
Más evidencia, irónicamente proveniente de los más acérrimos promotores de la UPC comienza a salir a luz; revelando la verdadera fea cara del nuevo ´bebito´ de la OEP, la UPC (la OEP gasta muchísimo dinero promoviéndola). Hay un lado muy oscuro a la UPC en Alemania, donde los abogados de patentes incluso interfieren con el sistema legal en un esfuerzo de arrimárnos el caballo de Troya de la UPC [1, 2]. Es un golpe de estado donde los ciudadanos Europeos no tienen idea de ello.
De acuerdo a este nuevo comentario en un nuevo artículo de IP Kat, la OEP guíada por Battistelli esta ansiosa por ´incrementar´ los números de las supuestas patentes que otorga, no simplemente extendiéndo/expandiendo la esfera de patentes (la UPC probablemente acomodaría las patentes de software, como personas en altas posiciones nos advierten). Como el comentador lo puso, ¨Veo la correspondiente patente de EP que ha sido ya otorgada después de que el examinador levanto una objeción relacionada a un reclamo prioritario citando una thesis de PhD. La previa formulación parece questionable como si revelara la ¨misma invención¨ según la jerga de la OEP. La oposición inevitable debería ser interesante.¨
“11K por una declaración de no violación parece un poco prohibitivo. Nada alentador/promotor una actitud de “la-manera-clara.” –AnonymousComentando en este nuevo artículo de la ayayera de la UPC Annsley Merelle Ward (also IP Kat, no sólo sitios promotores de la UPC), una persona dice “11K por una declaración de no violación parece un poco prohibitivo. Nada alentador/promotor una actitud de “la-manera-clara.”Bueno para los titulares de patentes cuando los infractores son de poca monta.”
La UPC, como sitúa en el momento, tiene una barrera mayor. No són países que no la firmarán (España, Reino Unido en el caso de Brexit etc.) pero un actual debate democrático (la UPC es anti-democrática). Ahora mismo todo este proceso esta ocurriendo a puertas cerradas. Como una clase de tratado secreto. Sus Cortes estan siendo establecidas en Londres antes de que haya un referéndum Británico, en orden de hacer que la barrera de salida (salida de la UPC) increíblemente alta.
“La acción de la UPC para revocar una patente costará 20.000 euros. Las acciones por infracción por lo menos 11.000 euros. Los abogados no están incluidos!” –Kristof NeefsPor más indicaciones la UPC (a pesar de la secretividad internacional) – en realidad lo advertimos desde hace tiempo. Será un ASESINO DE PYMEs si alguna vez se hace realidad. Como otra persona (Kristoff Neefs, quién dice que es un abogado de media, IP y tecnología) lo puso: “La acción de la UPC para revocar una patente costará 20.000 euros. Las acciones por infracción por lo menos 11.000 euros. Los abogados no están incluidos! ”
Managing Intellectual Property (MIP), un proponente de la UPC (como la mayoría de abogados de patentes alla afuera), pretende que la UPC esta aquí ya (pero no es inevitable).
Lo que necesita hacerse ahora mismo es diseminar información acerca de la UPC, donde el público Europeo (más de 95% de ellos) no sabe nada acerca de ella. Presentemente, la UPC ESTA SIENDO PROMOVIDA POR LA MISMA GENTE QUE SE BENEFICIARÍA DE ELLA, mientras los demás no tiene voz ni voto. Serían buenas noticias para los parásitos de patentes y abogados de patentes (miren quien estan excitados por ello) y sabemos a costas de quién. Todos serán perjudicados. Recuérden nuestro reciénte articulo titulado ¨UPC Entendamos Quién Se Beneficiaria de Ella Mirando quienes la estan promoviendo (Like TPP)¨.
“Esto es como Koch Industries celebrándo la aprobación del ISDS.”CIPA también esta promoviendo la UPC ahora mismo. Recuerden lo que ella representa. Es simplemente una horda de abogados de patentes cabildeando por sus intereses en el mismo corazón de Europa. Tratando de perjudicar a todos mientras que nadie presta atención. Como la CIPA lo puso: ¨El #Comite Preparatorio de la UPC confirma que no habra multa por salirse. Gran voto de confianza en el nuevo sistema!¨ A los ayayeros de la UPC (como Jane Lambert en este caso) sólo les interesa la membresía en la UE por las patentes!
Esto es como Koch Industries celebrándo la aprobación del ISDS. Cualquier cosa como ISDS daría tal poder a tan maliciosa corporación de contaminar sin interferencia del gobierno (por que esta interferencia puede perjudicar a sus dueños de acciones). Necesitamos detener a esta gente antes de que sea muy tarde. La UPC es un enorme peligro para Europa, la que es una economía basada en las PYMEs. ¡DESPIERTA EUROPA! █
Publicado en America, Law, Patentes at 7:11 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
No aceptaremos NO por una respuesta…
Sumario: El creciente conflicto entre el interés público, políticas gubernamentales de patentes y los multibillonarios (o sus megacorporaciones) que lo quieren TODO, sin mencionar a sus abogados, ayayeros y cabildeadores
HOY EN DÍA la OEPabiertamente promueve las patentes de software en Europa, en efecto, metafóricamente, escupiéndo en la EPC sobre la cual fue fundada. Esto es lo que pasa cuando los maximalistas tontamente son puestos en cargo. Lo que pasa ahora mismo en los Estados Unidos también es interesante. Las Corporaciones allí controlan al gobierno mas que en Europa, tanto así que algunas estan llevando a su gobierno a corte sobre supuestos ¨daños y perjuicios¨ (i.e políticas que no favorecen a dichas corporaciones).
Nunca olviden la introducción de patentes de software por la CAFC (Corte de Apelaciones del Distrito Federal) hace varios días. Ahora vean esta última proclamacion acerca de CAFC, que dice: ¨Como punto de partida para la mayoría de reclamos de patentes de software contra un gobierno es con immunidad de soberanía. El gobierno de los Estados Unidos reclama immunidad soberana contra juicios excepto cuando renuncie a ella. En el contexto de patentes , el gobierno de ese país ha renunciado a su immunidad, pero limita los procedimientos y formas de recuperación. En particular la U.S.C 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a) provee que el ¨remedio para el dueño sera por acción contra el gobierno de los Estados Unidos en la Corte Suprema de Reclamos Federales para recuperación de compensación razonable por tal uso y manufactura.¨ El estatuto también provee cubierta para cotratantes y otras entidades no-gubernamentales que infringen la patente ¨con autorización o consentimiento del Gobierno¨ así que aquellas acciones deben también ser perseguidas contra el gobierno de los Estados Unidos. La Corte de Reclamos Federales esta localizada en el mismo edificio Madison que la Corte de Apelaciones del Circuito Federal.¨
Como hemos notado en pasando la pasada declaración, ISDS (y sus encapsulantes ´hosts´, e.g TTIP/TTPP) se están convirtiéndo en un creciente peligro. ¿Pueden corporaciones bajo el disfraz de ¨inversores¨, enjuiciar al gobierno por tomar acción contra las patentes de software? ¿Pueden preveir los trolles de patentes tambien juicios contra su gobierno sobre Alice en la SCOTUS por ejemplo? Usualmente SCOTUS emite juicos a favor de las corporaciones, con o sin Scalia a la cabeza, y este nuevo reportaje de WIPR dice ¨La Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos escucha argumentos sobre daños y perjuicos¨ (¿Quién despues de todo se beneficiara de ello?).
Ayer encontramos ese nuevo reporte de Martin H. Snyder from Main Sequence Technology Inc. El abstracto dice: “Los sistemas de patentes no se han ajustado exitosamente al advenimienteo de la era Informática. Leyes desarrolladas durante la Era Industrial genera distorsiones dañinas cuando son enfrentadas con invenciones basadas en procesos que resultan en nueva y útil información. El Congreso y las Cortes han intentado soluciones, pere ellas son insatisfactorias en aspectos de repetición y faltas de separación coherente de materia y patentabilidad, con tal separación aparentemente implícita en el esquema del acto patentatorio. Una doctrina unificable de elegibilidad para información de invenciones es necesaria que se adhiera a la presente ley de patentes, procedimientos de cortes, y expectaciones normátivas. Las Cortes deberían requerir que las invenciones basadas en preceso produzcan un resultado identificable, que debería ser construído como materia de ley. Presentes procedimentos Markman deberían ser expándidas y tratadas como ambas elegibilidad y fases de causas probables de la validez inquirimiento. Hay un estandar en invenciones considerados ideas abstractas, así como tambien estandar en imprimir material patentable. Estos antiguos estadares existen por que virtualmente cualquier actividad humana puede caracterizarse como un proceso, trayendo así unlimitados derechos de patentes que van en directo conflicto con otros derechos Constitucionales. A pesar de esos estándares, miles de patentes de computadoras y biotecnológicas son otorgadas que constructivamente cubren información y/o la utilidad derivadas de ellas. Encontrar abstracciones descalificatorias en elegibilidad y descalificación en patentabilidad requiere diferentes exámenes. Si una invención basada en un proceso resulta en contener/comprometer información, un nuevo exámen por elegibilidad debe ser aplicado. El presente examen de Alice debe ser aplicado a la solicitud por patentabilidad. La abstracción es un continuoum de linguísticos y semióticos niveles, que requieren convensiones sociales para crear significabilidad. Encontrar significado justificatorio en convenciones sociales crea impasables desafíos a la obligación ética de los derechos de propiedad intelectual. La raíz literal de la palabra abstracto significa ¨incomprensible¨, o consumir. El propuesto test de elegibilidad requiere que el consumidor de información de una invención basada en un proceso no sea un ser humano. Porque inteligencias no-humanas son una nueva realidad en el mundo, producto del ingenio humano, y esenciales actores en la era informática. Si el consumidor informático es no humano, la información resultante de tal proceso debería ser elegible de patentes, sujetas a estatutos y leyes comúnes de patentabilidad. Han habido otoras propuestas para resolver este problema, pero todas fallaron por varias causas. Este propuesto nuevo examen enfocándose en el consumidor informático es simplemente aplicable a través de las artes, neutral tecnológicamente, apropiado intuitivamente, impulsando la innovación dentro de la Era Informática, y altamente ceñida a los ideales Americanos.”
Lo que tenemos aquí es un CABILDEO CORPORATIVO (de hecho cabildeo) tratándo de impulsar por patentes de software en la forma de ¨papel¨ (disfráz académico), tanto como el que hizo David Kappos el año pasado. Esta gente hace sus ganancias por las patentes de software y están cada vez más molestos contra el gobierno por que terminó muchas patentes de software despues del dictámen de SCOTUS. █
Content is available under CC-BY-SA