Summary: Another signal that whatever progress was made at the USPTO (tightening patent scope among other improvements) could soon be crushed by a Republican administration

THE US patent, copyright, trademark etc. system is likely to change under the new President. He has some rather notorious experience trying to tilt the trade marks system to his own advantage, being a reckless billionaire who was born very rich and privileged. Protectionism (perpetuating might, power, and money) comes naturally for Trump.

An opportunity to advise the USPTO is reportedly being given, but megacorporations and their lobbyists (and/or lawyers) will surely dominate the proposals and ensure that virtually nothing changes for the better.

“Protectionism (perpetuating might, power, and money) comes naturally for Trump.”As expected, the new President will herald an era for billionaires (like Donald Trump) and their copyright/trademark/patent monopolies. IAM thinks that patent reform will be put on hold. Here is why: “In her keynote speech USPTO Director Michelle Lee predicted that once patent reform did come back on the agenda it would be more targeted than previous, more comprehensive proposals.”

According to this article from IP Watch: “Now in her final weeks in office, United States Patent and Trademark Office Director Michelle Lee today looked back over the Obama administration’s work on patents and made predictions for the next administration due to take over in January. She hailed the outgoing administration’s successes and said to expect a continued focus on a strong IP system, legislative changes on hot button issues but not right away, and continued engagement around the world.”

Here is what Wall Street’s media said: “President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to head the Patent and Trademark Office will likely be very different from Director Michelle K. Lee, who was Google’s top patent attorney before heading the PTO.”

“Under Kappos’ leadership the USPTO granted terrible patents and led to a mess that only in recent years (post Alice, Mayo and AIA) started to improve a bit.”Whoever is picked next, it hopefully won’t be yet another corporate lobbyist turncoat like David Kappos. Under Kappos’ leadership the USPTO granted terrible patents and led to a mess that only the recent years (post Alice, Mayo and AIA) started to improve a bit.

Found via Patently-O prior to all the above was this publication from the USPTO itself (directy).

MIP is meanwhile chatting with the commissioner for trademarks at USPTO. It doesn’t seem like she too will be removed from her position. █

Non-cooperation movement is needed here

Summary: The envoy of the US is trying to tell India how to run the country (stricter laws regarding copyrights, trademarks, and patents), as a condition for foreign investment by multinational corporations

PUTTING aside the EPO for a moment (we plan to cover Željko Topić later this week and USPTO over the weekend), earlier today we found some articles from Indian news sites. The US is, quite frankly as expected (see Cablegate to understand how it works), trying to bully India into the entrapment which is patent maximalism, maybe even software patents which are currently not legal in the country (and less so in the US as well, taking Alice into account).

“The US is, quite frankly as expected (see Cablegate to understand how it works), trying to bully India into the entrapment which is patent maximalism, maybe even software patents which are currently not legal in the country (and less so in the US as well, taking Alice into account).”Based on reports like this one [1, 2] (cross-posted), the US makes improving relationships with India contingent upon bending over to US corporations, changing patent laws for them. To quote one key paragraph: “He said that on the persuasion of the US government the present government of India has taken some initiatives to amend and make stronger IPR laws.” Other news reports [1, 2] look at another angle and the “USPTO continues to move forward with its Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative (EPQI),” says Patently-O today, “and is hosting a set of five Quality Forum events over the next month in DC, Milwaukee, KC, Baton Rouge, and Portland.”

So while the US itself acknowledges the problem with too broad a patent scope (see the recent report from GAO [1, 2]), it seems perfectly fine screwing around with patent scope in other continents, including Europe. Guess whose economies would be harmed and for whose benefit. █

Summary: The grim vision of the EPO which is losing all its talent (over time), becomes more like a production line (quality does not matter), and produces propaganda for "media positioning" (or “placements”) — all under the guise of ‘studies’

“Who will be stupid enough to apply to be hired under these conditions?”

This was the question asked earlier today in relation to the EPO under Battistelli’s regime. The full comment says:

1: so they can fire you at will and prohibit you to work afterwards or they keep your pensions? Who will be stupid enough to apply to be hired under these conditions?

2: the EPO will decrease costs but not lower the fees? What will they do with the excess money?

Given the decline in patent quality under Battistelli, we expect fees to have to decline and the same goes for salaries. The EPO is becoming another USPTO and some people believe that eventually it will be another INPI (i.e. no patent examination at all, or only a truly superficial check before filing). Regarding the notion of “excess money”, some figures from the secretive Office actually suggest financial losses/deficit. There’s no likely rebound now or ever, until or unless pensions (long-term liabilities) get gradually cut, well-paid staff replaced by new and relatively unskilled/underpaid/overworked workers (there is lack of interest in EPO jobs either way), and patent applications flow in like water and granted in bulk while they last (to the point of exhaustion, whereupon examiners become redundant). Watch this new EPO job ad (from today). Pay attention to the skills required (just two languages and a Masters degree). The EPO is experiencing brain drain. Managers know it. They’re desperate for job applications now, but they’re failing to attract enough of them, or so we’re told by insiders. Standards have truly declined.

“Staff of the EPO isn’t even being told what’s going on; examiners are constantly being lied to by the management.”How can they possibly attract more interest from the public amid unprecedented scandals? How about puff pieces resulting from a so-called ‘study’ (stooping so low as to generate bogus, self-commissioned ‘studies’ is the latest trend), such as the one we mentioned last night?

The EPO-IPO (EPO+EUIPO) already finds some clueless (or docile, or without any critical skills) stenographers to parrot claims from this ‘study’ of theirs (which they paid for). To quote: “The study, published on 25 October, says this number equates to almost €5.7 trillion annually. It covers a broad range of IP rights, including patents, trademarks, designs, copyright, geographical indications and plant variety rights.”

Wow! “€5.7 trillion annually.” Big numbers there, but what does that allude to? Just a big number to occupy some headlines and add some prestige to institutions with a turnover/profit 5 orders of magnitude lower (i.e. about 100,000th of the above figure). Here is the laughably shallow part (among others):

António Campinos, executive director of the EUIPO, said: “The rapidly changing nature of business in the 21st century means that the EU and global economy relies strongly on intellectual property rights such as trademarks, designs, patents and other rights.”

Will you take over all the above, António? As some believe you would? There’s no telling, only speculations. Staff of the EPO isn’t even being told what’s going on; examiners are constantly being lied to by the management.

“Maybe the EPO will just fire a lot of examiners and hire some more “paper pushers” to cope with the increased throughput (or inflow) of crappy applications and crappy grants.”In other (more minor) news, the EPO is said to have changed requirements. “In the past,” says the article, “it was common for a patent holder to execute an assignment in favor of an assignee, without the assignee signing the document. Under the new Guidelines, the EPO will no longer accept an assignment document that uses the single-signature format.”

Maybe the EPO will just fire a lot of examiners and hire some more “paper pushers” to cope with the increased throughput (or inflow) of crappy applications and crappy grants. After all, it’s not as though detailed, thorough, comprehensive and even exhaustive search (potentially with several appeals to the boards) are what Battistelli wants. He just wants a Chinese production line, akin to what he sees in SIPO (for which he has profound affinity). Work conditions, correspondingly, degrade greatly. █

Summary: EPO and EUIPO in collaboration for the promotion of the notion that they are both necessary (and reinforced speculations about growing overlap between them)

RUMOURS have been swirling for quite some time — both within and outside the EPO — that growing overlap between the EUIPO and the EPO is likely if not inevitable. This does not necessarily imply unification; at the very least it means collaboration. There are already some HR overlaps, as we pointed out earlier this year [1, 2].

EPO collaborations are not out of the ordinary. When the EPO does not privately boast collaborations with Stasi-connected spying agencies (Desa/Control Risks) and PR firms it publicly brags about collaboration with other patent offices. Watch this new article from the Korea Herald:

Korea, EU see surge in intellectual property rights exchange

[...]

In 2015, the EPO proceeded 6,400 applications from Korea, making the country the fifth-largest source of European patent applications, according to Pihlajamaa.

In EPO’s company rankings, Samsung and LG have been among the four largest company applicants for six years.

These are incorrect English terms, starting in the headline and continuing inside the article. Not “exchange” is at stake here but expansion. And it mostly benefits large/multinational corporations, like those which the EPO gives preferential treatment to. Imagine if the public at large knew this. The EPO has been trying to change the story since; it was an act of revisionism and damage control. Now they say that this preferential treatment is available to everyone, everywhere, which practically defeats the purpose of it. In a sense, this programme was undermined once exposed publicly.

Going back to the EUIPO, the EPO said: “What is the contribution of IPR-intensive sectors to the European economy? Stay tuned & you’ll find out on Tuesday.”

“The EPO has been trying to change the story since; it was an act of revisionism and damage control.”The tweet says Tuesday after it said Monday (tweet deleted for the mistake in it). So that’s tomorrow, not today. Expect lots of hogwash and protectionism advocacy. Why is this significant? See this other tweet which demonstrates overlaps between the EPO and EUIPO: “#EUIPO and @EPOorg will shortly launch a new study on the contribution of #IPR-intensive industries to the #EU economy. Stay tuned!”

The EPO retweeted this, adding to growing evidence of the overlap.

The EPO also wrote: “What are the economic benefits for Europe of patents, trademarks, designs and other forms of IP? Find out on Tuesday #IPvalue #IPRindustries”

As the EPO under Battistelli threw away the notion patent quality (for “production”, i.e. quantity), all of this is doomed. It’s just beneficial to trolls (wait and watch!) and to large corporations that patent in bulk. Given the reputation of EPO ‘studies’ as of late, we don’t expect the above to be anything but propaganda — something to be used to ‘plant’ puff pieces in the media later this week.

“It’s possible that something pretty big is happening (other than the relentless UPC efforts) and only few people at the top are “in the know”…”“Just #3daysleft until we publish a further EU-wide study of the impact of IP rights on the European economy,” EPO PR people wrote, adding hashtags like #IPvalue #IPRindustries (which themselves smack of propaganda, not true studies).

Imagine what would happen if the EPO was shut down and folded into the EUIPO (the USPTO already deals with patents and trademarks in tandem). Would patent applications be dealt with by a process of registration only (like in France)? The US, based on this new post from Patently-O, moves in a similar direction (“Maria Pallante Out as Chief of Copyright Office: New Calls for Unified US Intellectual Property Office”).

Never say never. It’s possible that something pretty big is happening (other than the relentless UPC efforts) and only few people at the top are “in the know”… █

IN OUR fourth part of the series we wrote about a company connected to the Chairman of the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation (EPO), but there’s a side story that merits a mention at least in the addenda.

We managed to find a copy of a product brochure for the birth pool marketed by FJORDBLINK MEDICAL ApS [PDF]. The product brochure is dated May 2015.

“According to official CVR records this company ceased trading on 10 October 2013. It is unclear what has exactly has happened to the “FJORDBLINK” trademark registered by FJORDBLINK MEDICAL P/S or who, if anybody, is the current assignee.”There is a small mystery here that we have been unable to solve so far. The brochure refers to the name “FJORDBLINK” as a registered trademark. According to our research, the trademark is indeed registered both in Denmark and also as a European trademark [PDF] with the EUIPO in Alicante [PDF]. In Denmark it is registered under the number VR 2011 02145.

As a European trademark it is registered under the EU Trademark number 011266764. However, as we noted in a previous article the trademark was not registered by FJORDBLINK MEDICAL ApS (CVR number 25942507) but by another entity with a confusingly similar name: FJORDBLINK MEDICAL P/S (CVR number 33392737).

The CVR number 33392737 leads to a defunct limited partnership company by the name of FOME P/S with an address at Vibelandsvej 8, Valby, 3200 Helsinge. Between 31 December 2010 and 11 April 2013 the company operated under the name FJORDBLINK MEDICAL P/S and its registered address was in Randers where Helle Jahn Jørgensen resides.

According to official CVR records this company ceased trading on 10 October 2013. It is unclear what has exactly has happened to the “FJORDBLINK” trademark registered by FJORDBLINK MEDICAL P/S or who, if anybody, is the current assignee.

If anyone wishes to help us find out, please get in contact. █

The patent maximalists view patents like the war industry views bombs

Summary: The latest fine example of the mentality or the mindset of people who are making money from peddling patents even when these are not needed, let alone desirable

EARLIER THIS month we wrote about the rise of patent trolls in east Asia. There are several new examples of that and regarding a case which we covered here before Dr. Glyn Moody has published “Chinese State Patent Troll Absorbed By Smartphone Maker Xiaomi, Adding To Its Patent Hoard”, citing the same report that we did (from IAM). “The absorption of Ruichuan IPR Funds by Xiaomi,” he explained, “which must have taken place with the Chinese government’s approval — is clearly part of the same strategy of bulking up in the patent department as it prepares to expand abroad. The big question is whether Xiaomi is planning to use its new portfolio purely defensively, so that it can sign cross-licensing deals, or whether it will start going on the offense and sue Western companies in their home markets too.”

As Moody noted a few months ago, China is now using Texas courts to sue large US companies, more or less like trolls, proving that the trigger-happy system in the US can actually work against the US and undermine its dominance in the area of technology.

“IAM views the deal as just a bunch of patents, but it’s the kind of misguided view which assumes patents are physical assets.”IAM has published quite a few articles recently about Japan alone [1, 2, 3, 4] and in them we see IAM’s loaded statements and headlines, insinuating that because patents are being used for corporate wars in Japan it means that patents are desirable. That’s the same logic as “there are many wars, thus we need nuclear weapons” (irrespective of their effect or death toll, not just mutually-assured destruction). Another newer article mentioned the acquisition by HP of Samsung’s printer business (or a bundle of Samsung patents if one thinks the IAM way) and added that “Samsung Electronics announced yesterday that it had reached an agreement to sell its printer business to HP for $1.05 billion. The deal, which will see Samsung shed a significant number of IP assets, marks the beginning of a new chapter for the Korean company as it seeks to slim down and refocus on core business areas.”

Samsung has a large number of patents (the largest by some criteria, as measured in particular patent offices), but the company rarely if even uses them to sue. It’s not quite in the Korean tradition (the same goes for LG). IAM views the deal as just a bunch of patents, but it’s the kind of misguided view which assumes patents are physical assets. The use of the term “IP”, moreover, is misleading. █

Article as ODF

Publicado en Intellectual Monopoly, Patentes at 4:19 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Sumario: el Professor Mark Lemley de Lex Machina resalta las tendencias en litigation al colectar y analizar datos relacionados con patente y concerniéntes a monopolios intelectuales en general; actualmente muestra una sequía de litigaciones (muestran que ha disminuído)

El reportáje Hatch-Waxman/ANDA [Abbreviated New Drug Application] de Lex Machina revela un repunte en llendao de casos,” MIP escribió el otro dia, “también como los grandes participantes y firmas de leyes en litigación de patentes ANDA” (con baja calidad de patentes, por seguro habrá mas juicios).

Encontramos interesante que MIP optó por centrarse únicamente en ANDA (un solo aspecto entre muchos) debido a que las cifras de Lex Machina no muestran un aumento en los litigios en general. ¿Sesgo de selección? Cherry-picking tal vez, como medios/método de cualquier abogado para la construcción engañosa (pero no obstante afirmaciones no falsas)? Como un sitio maximalista de patentes acaba de decirlo, “informe de litigios de propiedad intelectual muestra tendencias a la baja en la patentes” y citar al autor (que no es partidario entusiasta de las patentes de software): “La propiedad intelectual de análisis de litigio firma Lex Machina ha publicado recientemente un informe que identifica las tendencias en litigios de propiedad intelectual durante el transcurso del primer trimestre de 2016. el primer trimestre produjeron algunos acontecimientos interesantes en lo que respecta a la disminución de ciertos tipos de litigios en todo el mundo IP. De hecho, se podría argumentar que el número de casos de propiedad intelectual presentada fueron tendencia a la baja en todos los ámbitos durante el primer trimestre de 2016.

“Incluso si la Oficina de Patentes continúa ignorando la realdida post Alice, las courtes ciertamente no lo hacen.”

“Informes regulares de litigios de patentes publicados por Lex Machina en los últimos meses nos han dado una idea de los patrones de los últimos años. Un post de principios de enero sobre las tendencias de litigio durante 2015 refleja los fuertes incrementos en los litigios sobre patentes y el dominio de ciertos cortes de distrito de Estados Unidos en recibir esos casos. Un informe de 2015 de litigios de patentes más grande publicado por Lex machina Marzo Abril US mostró los mejores litigantes y afirmó patentes en el curso de ese año.”
Como vamos a mostrar en consiguientes posts, las patentes de software siguen muriendo en los EE.UU., sin importar lo que los grupos de presión/cabilderos están tratando de lograr. Incluso si la Oficina de Patentes continúa ignorando la realdida post Alice, las courtes ciertamente no lo hacen. La oficina de patentes es, en general, recibiendo incentivos para conceder cada vez más patentes, mientras que los tribunales producen juicios basados en la ley.

“Lex Machina’s Hatch-Waxman/ANDA [Abbreviated New Drug Application] Report reveals a spike in case filing,” MIP wrote the other day, “as well as the biggest participants and law firms in ANDA patent litigation” (with low quality of patents, more lawsuits are assured).

We find it interesting that MIP chose to focus only on ANDA (one single aspect among many) because the figures from Lex Machina don’t show a spike in litigation overall. Selection bias? Cherry-picking perhaps, as any lawyer's means/method for constructing misleading (but nonetheless not false) statements? As a patent maximalism site has just put it, “IP litigation report shows downward trends in patent” and to quote the author (not the overzealous supporter of software patents): “Intellectual property litigation analytics firm Lex Machina has recently released a report identifying trends in IP litigation which have played out over the course of the first quarter of 2016. The first quarter saw some interesting developments in regards to decreases in certain types of litigation throughout the IP world. In fact, it could be argued that the number of IP cases filed were trending downward across the board during 2016’s first quarter.

“Even if the patent office continues to ignore the reality post Alice, courts certainly do not.”“Regular patent litigation reports released by Lex Machina in recent months have given us some insight into patterns forming over the past few years. An early January post on litigation trends during 2015 reflected steep increases in patent litigation and the dominance of certain U.S. district courts in receiving those cases. A larger 2015 patent litigation report published by Lex Machina in March showed us the top litigants and asserted patents during the course of that year.”

As we are going to show in later posts, software patents continue to die in the US, no matter what the lobbyists are trying to achieve. Even if the patent office continues to ignore the reality post Alice, courts certainly do not. The patent office is in general incentivised to grant more and more patents, whereas courts produce judgments based on law. █

Article as ODF

Publicado en America, Asia, Europe, Intellectual Monopoly, Patents at 11:29 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Una crítica al decline en la calidad de patentes en algunas de las más grandes oficinas de patentes del mundo, donde aspiración parece ser neo-liberal en el sentido económico

El sistema de patentes – colectivamente hablando – no está funcionando como se suponía que lo fuése. En lugar de fomentar la innovación realiza la innovación hacia abajo, de la misma forma que las leyes de derechos de autor en todo el mundo en estos días otorgan un monopolio más largo que la vida de una persona, lo que significa que el incentivo para producir trabajos más creativos no es muy alta.

“En lugar de fomentar la innovación realiza la innovación hacia abajo, de la misma forma que las leyes de derechos de autor en todo el mundo en estos días otorgan un monopolio más largo que la vida de una persona, lo que significa que el incentivo para producir trabajos más creativos no es muy alta.”

Basado en estas noticias, las patentes de hardware son demandadas cada vez más por las empresas de Estados Unidos , debido al sistema de patentes de Estados Unidos (pero por compañías asiáticas), lo que significa que el sistema de patentes de Estados Unidos no es ni siquiera necesariamente servir los EE.UU., que sirve una clase particular de personas en los EE.UU. y en el extranjero (corporaciones y multimillonarios).

Sitios como IAM, maximalistas de patents (por admisión propia), continúan tratándo de convertir lo negativo en positivo al decir que en China “las subvenciones [están] creciendo más rápidamente que las aplicaciones” (esto se debe a que la oficina de patentes de China es cada vez como una broma, más que un sistema de archivo de un sistema de patentes con el examen de fase/barrera). Por otra parte, la USPTO también es así, sobre todo en los últimos años ya que algunas barreras para la concesión de patentes se doblaron, dispararondóse (casi el doble). Uno podría tener la impresión de que la USPTO es sólo una oficina de registro ahora? No hay control de calidad. Por marcas comerciales y patentes por igual; el afán de lucro llevado a esta (neoliberalismo). El profesor Mark Lemley acaba citado J Breyer diciendo que la USPTO “ha sido la emisión de miles de millones de patentes que no deberían haber sido emitidas – Me exagerar, pero sólo algunos.” Http://1.usa.gov/1Wmel7j

Bueno, “miles de millones de patentes” suena como un esquema de una patente por persona de algún tipo. Teniendo en cuenta que algunas patentes son lo suficientemente triviales parecen haber sido automáticamente generada por un algoritmo o de pensamiento por un estudiante de escuela primaria, esto no sería tan impensable (si las tasas de patentes eran menos prohibitivos).

“La realidad del las patentes en los EE.UU. está cambiando ahora mismo.”

Nicola Searle de IP Kat ha señalado correctamente notando “He tenido la intención de hacer un post hace algún tiempo acerca de por qué las patentes son una mala indicación de la innovación (lo he mencionado antes, pero en realidad no entrado en detalles.) No es un sesgo anti-patentes, es un pro-buen enfoque datos. En cuanto a estrategias de presión y de patentes …

Bueno, tal vez es tiempo que Searle haga un post sobre ello. Es la segunda vez en una semana que él dice algo a ese efecto y abogados de patentes se estresan por ello (en la sección de comentarios).

La realidad del las patentes en los EE.UU. está cambiando ahora mismo. Como este nuevo comunicado de prensa dice, “Las patentes de software en la Ley América Inventa Ley (AIA) son muy difíciles de alcanzar a través de la USPTO.” Son aún más difícil de defender en un tribunal. Para citar a todo el párrafo:

“Esta patente cubre un elemento importante en la fundación de nuestra plataforma de acoplamiento móvil y representa la singularidad de nuestra propiedad intelectual gamification”, dijo el CEO de Blue Calypso, Andrew Levi. “Las patentes de software en el post Leahy-Smith América del Inventa Ley (AIA) era son muy difíciles de alcanzar a través de la USPTO. Anticipamos la expansión de nuestra cartera de patentes para cubrir un amplio conjunto de propiedad intelectual en esta zona, así como los demás.

“A ellos les importa ni la justicia ni la innovación (que son básicamente términos de marketing para ellos).”

No se preocupen, sin embargo, como los abogados de patentes y sus medios están listors para ‘el rescate’. Ellos están atacando AIA, Alice, PTAB, y todo lo que amenaze a los maximálistas de patentes y agresores. He aquí el término “escuadrón de la muerte de patentes” de nuevo, mostrándose en el ‘analysis’ de IAMdeCuozzo en SCOTUS. Porque si, llamar falsas, inválidas patentes, ¿“invalido” te hace un ejecutor? Un “escuadrón de la muerte de patentes”? Escribimos acerca desobreuso de eufémismosy términos de demonización aquí antes. Sitios como IAM son culpables como cualquiera de bias. He aquí más artículos que encontrámos anoche [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. MIP dijoque “La Corte Suprema ha escuchado argumentos orales en Cuozzo Speed Technologies v Lee, la primera Corte Suprema de considerar una apelación de la decisión PTAB” (PTAB de por sí es una apelación, ¿así que porqué tanto más en términos de matrículas deberíán ser añadidos para mantener a los pobres inventores privados de sus derechos o quebrados?).

Basado en estos ejemplos de anoche [1, 2, 3], los abogados de patentes simplemente están tratando de vender sus servicios. A ellos les importa ni la justicia ni la innovación (que son básicamente términos de marketing para ellos.

“De nuevo vemos a la CAFC envolverse, a pesar de su record de ser pro-aplicante o amigable con ellos (irrespectivamente del contexto y la ley, e.g. acerca de patentes de software).”

Más negocio para los abogados ‘IP’ Se observa en este momento (incluso los colores están convirtiendo en monopolios) Debido a que más pleitos y disputas están siendo medidos en Europa. Como parte de la nueva serie de ayer sobre marcas comerciales en MIP [1, 2, 3] encontramos esta titulada “Los casos de cálculo de la EUvan hacia arriba” y que dice: “2015 fue un año de clara mejora sobre 2014 para las decisiones de diseño de la Corte de justicia y del Tribunal general de Luxemburgo. David Stone explica, sin embargo, que el progreso todavía necesita ser hecho para proporcionar seguridad a los diseñadores y profesionales “(las patentes de diseño estadounidense están bajo el escrutinio de SCOTUS, pero eso no es lo mismo que los diseños registrados). Como Patently-O lo puso ayer: “Después fue protocolizado apelación de Coleman, el Circuito Federal rechazó el” factorizar “regla de que muchos habían leído en Richardson. Como se mencionó anteriormente en este blog, Apple v. Samsung y otra vez en Ethicon v. Covidien, el tribunal insiste en que Richardson no lo hizo, de hecho, requiere la eliminación de los elementos funcionales de las reivindicaciones de patentes de diseño.

De nuevo vemos a la CAFC envolverse, a pesar de su record de ser pro-aplicante o amigable con ellos (irrespectivamente del contexto y la ley, e.g. acerca de patentes de software). La CAFC está plagada de corrupción, especialmente en los últimos años (cubrimos esto varias veces antes). No es mucho mejor que la EPO, que después de haber subvertido medios franceses para la propaganda hace un año lo está haciendo de nuevo, a pesar de los riesgos. la calidad del examen no sólo se redujo debido a las políticas de Battistelli, pero también hay conversaciones acerca de reemplazar los examinadores con máquinas (así es como van a trabajar los sistemas de archivo, capaces de detectar duplicados en el mejor).

“No es mucho mejor que la EPO, que después de haber subvertido medios franceses para la propaganda hace un año lo está haciendo de nuevo, a pesar de los riesgos.”

Un lector nos recuerda un viejo artículo de una víctima conocida de este sistema, y señaló: “Sus conversaciones son largas (que tiene muchos otros), sino que empiezan a explicar, de forma indirecta, lo que está pasando con la EPO y desastres similares . La conclusión es que no hay democracia en Europa, la estructura de poder está fuera de eso y los participantes reales tienen desprecio por la democracia activa.”

¿Cuándo habrá democracia en Europa si llega a haberla después de todo? Al presente unos pocos billonarios y corpóraciones del otro lado del charco deciden por todos nosotros. Hace tres días Obama mencionaba que por el mejor interés del mundo necesitamos una Europa Unida ¿pero bajo quién? ¿Bajo el dominio de las corporaciónes de su país?Se está convirtiéndo como en los EE.UU., donde los partidos son ‘comprados’ (o vendidos a los que dan máß), elecciónes son a la venta, y la USPTO es un poco más que una herramiénta de la Sagrada Familia: IBM, Microsoft, Apple, HP y otros. ¿Y necésitamos más decir acerca del sistema Chino?

THE patent system — collectively speaking — isn’t functioning like it was supposed to. Rather than encourage innovation it slows innovation down, in the same way that worldwide copyright laws these days grant a monopoly longer than a person’s lifetime, meaning that the incentive to produce more creative works isn’t quite there.

“Rather than encourage innovation it slows innovation down, in the same way that worldwide copyright laws these days grant a monopoly longer than a person’s lifetime, meaning that the incentive to produce more creative works isn’t quite there.”Based on this bit of news, hardware patents are getting US companies sued, owing to the US patent system (but by Asian companies), which means that the US patent system isn’t even necessarily serving the US, it serves a particular class of people in the US and abroad (corporations and billionaires).

Sites like IAM, maximalists of patents (by their own admission), keep trying to spin a negative as a positive by saying that in China “grants [are] growing more quickly than applications” (that’s because China’s patent office is increasingly a joke, more like a filing system than a patent system with examination phase/barrier). Then again, the USPTO is also like this, especially in recent years as some barriers to patenting got removed and patent numbers soared (nearly doubled). Might one get the impression that the USPTO is just a filing office now? No quality control. For trademarks and patents alike; the profit motive led to this (neo-liberalism). Professor Mark Lemley has just quoted J Breyer as saying that the USPTO “has been issuing billions of patents that shouldn’t have been issued — I overstate, but only some.” http://1.usa.gov/1Wmel7j

Well, “billions of patents” sounds like a one-patent-per-person scheme of some kind. Given that some patents are trivial enough to have been automatically-generated by an algorithm or thought of by a primary schools student, this would not be so unthinkable (if the patent fees were less prohibitive).

“The reality of patents in the US is changing right now.”IP Kat‘s Nicola Searle has just correctly noted that “I’ve been meaning to do a post for some time on why patents are a poor indication of innovation (I’ve mentioned it before but not really gone into detail.) It’s not an anti-patent bias, it’s a pro-good data approach. As for lobbying and patent strategies…”

Well, maybe it’s time for Searle to do a post about it. It’s the second time in about a week that she says something to that effect and patent lawyers get all worked up about it (in the comments section).

The reality of patents in the US is changing right now. It’s long overdue. As this new press release puts it, “Software patents in the post Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) era are very difficult to attain from the USPTO.” They’re even more difficult to defend in a courtroom. To quote the whole paragraph:

“This patent covers an important element in the foundation of our mobile engagement platform and embodies the uniqueness of our gamification intellectual property,” said Blue Calypso CEO, Andrew Levi. “Software patents in the post Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) era are very difficult to attain from the USPTO. We anticipate expanding our patent portfolio to cover a broad set of intellectual property in this area as well as others.

“They care neither about justice nor innovation (which are basically marketing terms to them).”Worry not, however, as patent lawyers and their media are in there for ‘the rescue’. They’re attacking AIA, Alice, PTAB, and whatever else threatens the patent maximalists and aggressors. Here is the term “patent death squad” again, showing up in IAM’s ‘analysis’ of Cuozzo at SCOTUS. Because yes, calling bogus, invalid patents “invalid” makes you an executioner? A “patent death squad”? We wrote about the overuse of euphemisms and demonisation terms here before. Sites like IAM are as guilty as anyone of bias. Here are ten more articles we found on the subject last night [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. MIP said that “The Supreme Court has heard oral arguments in Cuozzo Speed Technologies v Lee, the first Supreme Court case to consider an appeal of a PTAB decision” (PTAB is itself already a kind of appeal, so how much more in terms of fees should be added to keep the poor inventors disenfranchised or broke?).

As one might expect, based on these examples from last night [1, 2, 3], patent lawyers are just trying to sell their services. They care neither about justice nor innovation (which are basically marketing terms to them).

“Once again we see CAFC getting involved, despite its track record of being applicant- or plaintiff-friendly (irrespective of the context and the law, e.g. on software patents). “More business for ‘IP’ lawyers is noted right now (even colours are becoming monopolies!) because more lawsuits and feuds are being measured in Europe. As part of yesterday’s new series about trademarks at MIP [1, 2, 3] we found this one titled “EU design cases looking up” and it says: “2015 was a year of definite improvement over 2014 for design decisions from the Court of Justice and the General Court in Luxembourg. David Stone explains, however, that progress still needs to be made to provide certainty for designers and practitioners” (in the US design patent are under SCOTUS scrutiny, but that’s not the same as registered designs). As Patently-O put it yesterday: “After Coleman’s appeal was docketed, the Federal Circuit disavowed the “factoring out” rule that many had read in Richardson. As discussed previously on this blog, in Apple v. Samsung and again in Ethicon v. Covidien, the court insisted that Richardson did not, in fact, require the elimination of functional elements from design patent claims.”

Once again we see CAFC getting involved, despite its track record of being applicant- or plaintiff-friendly (irrespective of the context and the law, e.g. on software patents). CAFC is rife with corruption, especially in recent years (we covered this several times before). It’s not much better than the EPO, which having subverted French media for propaganda a year ago is doing so again, in spite of the risks. Examination quality not only declined because of Battistelli's policies but there are also talks about replacing examiners with machines (that’s how filing systems are likely to work, capable of duplicates detection at best).

“It’s not much better than the EPO, which having subverted French media for propaganda a year ago is doing so again, in spite of the risks.”A reader has just reminded of us an old article from a well-known victim of this system, noting: “His talks are long (he has many others) but they start to explain, indirectly, what is going on with the EPO and similar disasters. The bottom line is that there is no democracy in Europe, the power structure is outside that and the real participants have active contempt for democracy.”

When will there be democracy in Europe if ever at all? Right now few billionaires and non-EU corporations decide for all of us. It is becoming a lot like the US, where political parties are being ‘bought’ (or sold to the highest bidder/s), elections are up for sale, and the USPTO is little more than a corporate tool for very large corporations like IBM and Microsoft. As for China’s system, need we say more? █

Publicado en Europe, Intellectual Monopoly, Patents at 7:40 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Demasiádo sigilo para una supuesta sociedad demócratica

Sumario: Un montón de actividad bajo el telón (conferencias de acceso limitado, contratos secretos, arreglos sigilósos), se diluyen en cuánto se trata de la EUIPO (formerly OHIM), EPO, and WIPO)

Desde hace bastánte tiempo hemos estado escuchando acerca de la relación entre la EPO y la EUIPO, el cual es un nuevo nombre para una existente entidad. Siempre es importante asegurarse que tales entidades Europeas se adhieran y obedescan intereses Europeos, o poniéndolo claramente, los intereses de las personas ordinarias de todo el mundo en vez de simplemente los intereses de corpóraciones masivas (usualmente extranjeras). Recuerden la época en que patentes MONOPOLIZABAN los tratamientos contra el cancer en Europa, actitud criminal que afectaba a los pacientes de cancer. Como resulta basado en nuevos reportajes (e.g. [1, 2]), GSK considera no mantener un monopolio (usando patentes) en ciertos tratamientos contra el cancer, al menos en naciones pobres. Esta es la clase de noticias que la gente quiere escuchar.

“Siempre es importante asegurarse que tales entidades Europeas se adhieran y obedescan intereses Europeos, o poniéndolo claramente, los intereses de las personas ordinarias de todo el mundo en vez de simplemente los intereses de corpóraciones masivas (usualmente extranjeras).”IP Kat, que reciéntemente celebro su 10,000 blog post, toma una mirada a este nuevo libro acerca de leyes para diseño y patentes en Europe — un interésante coctel o mescla (para reusar las palabras de Battistelli). Ne es siempre claro si robo de diseños puedan ser prevenidos usando marcas, derechos de autor, patentes o alguna rara combinación de ellas). Eso es donde la EUIPO tiene su lugar. Respondiéndo a este nuevo artículo acerca de Fordham 2016 (un evento que críticamente mencionanos en Inglés anoche y Español esta mañana), una persona escribió: “El más importante resultado de tal reunión es el consenco en como debe ser pronunciado EUIPO” (como si el nombre fue lo que importa y no lo que es decidido en una cerrada camara de eco en Nueva York, incluso no en Europa -una señal más de lo que nos quieren imponer (UPC) desde el otro lado del charco. Despierta Europa!-)

Par citar a IP Kat:

Dimitris Botis (Director Adjunto de Asuntos Jurídicos en el recién nombrado EQUIPO) fue el siguiente Para discutir el futuro del sistema de marcas de la EU, en particular el comercio reciente marca paquete de reforma consiste en la Directiva 2015/2436 y el Reglamento 2015/2424. El mayor cambio en el Derecho de marcas de fondo es la supresión del requisito de representación gráfica que significa que será más fácil para registrar las marcas no tradicionales. El impacto exacto de este cambio en la práctica de presentación y tipos de marcas que pueden ser aceptados no se verá hasta que las normas de aplicación son emitidos el 1 de octubre de 2017. El cambio más grande es la segunda a la prohibición funcionalidad a “otras características”. En la actualidad existe también un requisito expreso para mayor claridad y precisión en la especificación de los bienes y servicios que se especifican para la marca. Se basará en el “sentido natural y habitual” de términos (es decir .interpreted literalmente). La nueva estructura de tarifas y niveles, un nuevo sistema de “pago-por-clase” es también un gran cambio. Ha habido una reducción moderada de la tasa de solicitud y la reducción sustancial de las tasas de renovación. Dimitris también señaló que también hay nueva marca de certificación de la EU que puede ser registrado para garantizar la certificación de la calidad, el material, el modo de fabricación, etc, pero no se puede utilizar en relación con el origen geográfico. A nivel institucional, no habrá cambios en la terminología – hola euipo! Pero no sólo sus cambios en la terminología, hay un cambio en la estructura de administración. Los cambios van a tomar en un sabor más política (la Comisión de la EU tiene dos asientos ahora). El nuevo Reglamento también requiere una mayor cooperación entre los Estados miembros. Trevor Cook, de Wilmer Hale dijo que el cambio es realmente sólo de carácter técnico y no generan un gran impacto en el Derecho de marcas de fondo. Dimitris acuerdo, pero los cambios técnicos asegurará un funcionamiento más eficiente

He aqui lo que Michael Loney escribió por MIP en Nueva York:

Dos primeros para Fordham: debut de Dimitris Botis y la primera charla de alguien de EUIPO (OHIM fué cambiada de nombre el 23 de marzo). Él resume los cambios en el paquete de marcas de la EU, en las que hubo una sesión en la mañana y otra en la tarde

Se dice que los cambios fueron “enmiendas dirigidas” para mejorar la previsibilidad y la accesibilidad, y la más importante es la supresión del requisito de representación gráfica (a partir de octubre 1 2017).

El siguiente es Antony Taubman de la WTO, que describe su estancamiento como “muy arraigado” sin trabajo en el proyecto GI durante cinco años (por ejemplo). Es aquí en Nueva York para cosecha “ideas”, añade.

Interesante notar, como se ve arriba, que OHIM fue oficialmente cambiada renombrada del 23 de Marzo y esto fue hecho sin publicidad. Juzgando por el nombre simplemente, la IPO podría convertirse algúnd dia en una organización paraguas para la Oficina/Organización de Patentes, asumiéndo que “IP” es realmente lo que es (simplemente un término paraguas para derechos de autor, marcas, patentes, y talvez también secretos de comercio).

“Interesante notar, como se ve arriba, que OHIM fue oficialmente cambiada renombrada del 23 de Marzo y esto fue hecho sin publicidad.”Algunas personas dentro de la EPO comparan a Pinocho Battistelli con Gurry (ahora muy conocido por los escándalos de la WIPO) y Campinos, quien es rumoreado ser a remplazo de Battistelli y al presente lidera la OHIM, alias EUIPO.

Como una persoa escogió ponerlo, “WIPO, OHIM, EPO: ¿tres de una misma clase?”

OHIM es probablemente el nombre antiguo ahora, pero aquí es donde la analogía va:

El 24 de febrero, una audiencia del Congreso de Estados Unidos se llevó a cabo en la rendición de cuentas de la WIPO. El Jefe de la WIPO, Francis Gurry, está acusado de faltas graves y las represalias contra los denunciantes, entre los cuales es el presidente del Sindicato del Personal de la WIPO, que fue despedido sumariamente de un año y medio atrás 1. El jefe de la tercera internacional oficina de objetos, el Sr. Campinos, ha logrado hasta el momento para permanecer fuera de la vista del público. Esto puede, sin embargo, ser sólo cuestión de tiempo. Oímos de personal en la Oficina de que él tiene un estilo de gestión y la falta de respeto al estado de derecho que son muy similares a las del Sr. Battistelli. Las tres oficinas de PI internacionales tienen estructuras muy diferentes: la OEP es totalmente independiente, la WIPO es un organismo de la ONU y la OAMI es una agencia de la UE. Ellos, sin embargo, parecen sufrir los mismos problemas. ¿Cómo? Tal vez porque las causas subyacentes son los mismos: un órgano rector que es casi totalmente dependiente de la cabeza de la oficina para su información, un montón de dinero y la falta de transparencia que permite a la cabeza de la organización que utilice ese dinero para aumentar su personal influencia, todo rematado con la inmunidad. Desde las mismas causas tienden a provocar el mismo efecto, la eliminación de los directivos responsables no resolvería los problemas. Lo que se necesita es una reforma de la gobernanza de estas organizaciones, empezando por una mayor transparencia y rendición de cuentas – que el órgano de gobierno y al público.

Propria “transparencia y acountabilidad” — como lo de arriba lo pone — podría por lo menos informar al público de lo que esta sucediéndo en la OHIM. Hay muchísimo sigilo. En la EPO, por ejemplo, contratos de la alta gerencia son altamente guardados, tanto como secretos son los contratos compañíás como Microsoft y Gemalto. Estos no son organismos públicos. Ellos actúan como organismos privados [1, 2] which enjoy immunity from the law.

Expandiéndonos en la Oficina de IP de la Unión Europea (EUIPO), lo que la hace sonar como parte de la EU (a diferencia de la EPO, el cual la EPC trajo a existencia):

Justo después que Sr Battistelli asumió su cargo, empleados y el público fueron informados que acuerdos bilaterales habían sido firmado entre la EPO y la WIPO, y entre la EPO y la OHIM. Parece que el contexto de esos acuerdos nunca fué hecho público. Vistasos de ello pueden ser encontrado en otros documentos, e.g. CA/24/14 (puntos 51-57), por ejemplo, explica que la EPO continuará participando como observador en los cuerpos de la OHIM y sus grupos de trabajo. Por lo que hasta ahora sabemos, OHIM también tiene observadores en el Consejo Administrativo de la EPO.

En una basis más permanete, Sr Telmo Vilela, antiguo compañero de trabajo del Sr Campinos en la Oficina Portuguesa de Patentes, fue contratado por la EPO en DG5 pero fue transferido a la oficina del Presidente ni bien se presentó la oportunidad. Más aún de acuerdo al CA/24/14 (punto 57) cooperación IT entre la EPO y la OHIM está prevista con el objetivo de “allanar el camino para la implementación proyectos y actividades en armonización y interoperabilidad”. El Sr Campinos es tambié el candidato favorito del Sr Battistelli para su succeción como Presidente de la EPO. Un poquito más de información: OHIM cambiará su nombre al de European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) más tarde este mes.

Vale la pena notar que Pinocho Battistelli intentó ser la cabeza de la WIPO antes que se vuelva el emperador de la EPO. Hay un sentido de sobrecubimiento aquí, alguno implicando a Željko Topić, VP4 en la EPO. Un tópico qiue la SIPO tiene en común con la EPO y la WIPO son suicidios de emplealos (usualmente voces disidentes).

Queda tanto secreto en torno a estas instituciones (y abusos extremos contra los críticos o las personas que se ‘atreven’ explorar la verdad) que uno tiene que cavar más profundo y más profundo. Ciertamente hay una gran cantidad de material de estas personas están ansiosos por ocultar (porque ya lo están ocultando, incluso cuando hay una profundización de la crisis). █

Summary: A lot of back room activity (limited access conferences, secret contracts, shady deals) muddies the water when it comes to EUIPO (formerly OHIM), EPO, and WIPO

FOR quite some time now we have been hearing about the EPO‘s relation to EUIPO, which is more or less a new name for an existing entity. It is always important to ensure that such European entities adhere to and comply with European interests, or more generally the interests of ordinary people all around the world rather than massive corporations (usually foreign). Recall the time patents were used to monopolise cancer treatments in Europe, harming cancer patients. As it turns out, based on new reports (e.g. [1, 2]), GSK considers not keeping a monopoly (using patents) on certain cancer treatments, at least in poorer nations. This is the kind of news people want to hear.

“It is always important to ensure that such European entities adhere to and comply with European interests, or more generally the interests of ordinary people all around the world rather than massive corporations (usually foreign).”IP Kat, which recently celebrated its 10,000^th blog post, takes a look at this new book about law design and patents in Europe — an interesting and dangerous cocktail or mix (to reuse Battistelli’s words). It’s not always clear whether design ripoffs can be prevented using trademarks, copyrights, patents, or some weird combination thereof. That’s where EUIPO comes into play. Responding to this new article about Fordham 2016 (an event we mentioned critically in English last night and in Spanish this morning), one person wrote: “The most important outcome of such a get-together is what is the consensus on how we should be pronouncing EUIPO” (as if the name is what matters and as if it’s to be determined in some closed echo chamber in New York, not even in Europe).

To quote IP Kat:

Dimitris Botis (Deputy Director of Legal Affairs at the newly named EUIPO) was next to discus the future of the EU trade mark system in particular the recent trade marks reform package consisting of Directive 2015/2436 and Regulation 2015/2424. The biggest change in substantive trade mark law is the deletion of the graphic representation requirement which means that it will be easier to register non-traditional marks. The exact impact of this change on filing practice and types of marks that can be accepted will not be seen until the implementing rules are issued on 1 October 2017. The second biggest change is to the functionality prohibition to “other characteristics”. There is now also an express requirement for clarity and precision in specifying the goods and services that are specified for the mark. It will be based on the “natural and usual meaning” of terms (i.e .interpreted literally). The new fee structure and levels with a new “one-fee-per-class” system is also a big change. There has been a moderate reduction of the application fee and substantial reduction of renewal fees. Dimitris also pointed out that there is also new EU Certification mark which can be registered to ensure the certification of the quality, material, mode of manufacture etc, but cannot be used in relation to geographical origin. Institutionally, there will be changes in terminology – hello EUIPO! But its not just changes in terminology, there is a change in management structure. The changes will be taking on a more political taste (the EU Commission has two seats now). The new Regulation also requires more cooperation between the Member States. Trevor Cook from Wilmer Hale said the change are really only technical in nature and do not generate a huge impact on substantive trade mark law. Dimitris agreed but the technical changes will ensure more efficient operation.

Here is what Michael Loney wrote for MIP in New York:

Two firsts for Fordham: Dimitris Botis’s debut and the first talk by someone from EUIPO (as OHIM was renamed on March 23). He summarises the changes in the EU trade mark package, on which there is a detailed session tomorrow afternoon.

He says the changes were “targeted amendments” to improve predictability and accessibility, and the most important is the abolition of the graphic representation requirement (effective October 1 2017).

Next up is Antony Taubman of WTO, who describes his logjam as “well-entrenched” with no work on the GI project for five years (for example). He’s here in New York to “harvest ideas” he adds.

Interesting to know, as noted above, that OHIM was officially renamed on March 23^rd as it was barely advertised. Judging by the name alone, the IPO might one day become an umbrella organisation for the Patent Office/Organisation, assuming that “IP” is really what it is (just an umbrella term for copyrights, trademarks, patents, and maybe also trade secrets).

“Interesting to know, as noted above, that OHIM was officially renamed on March 23^rd as it was barely advertised.”Some people inside the EPO are comparing Battistelli to Gurry (now best known for the WIPO scandals) and Campinos, who is rumoured to be a replacement for Battistelli and currently heads OHIM, aka EUIPO.

As one person chose to put it, “WIPO, OHIM, EPO: three of a kind?”

OHIM is probably an old name now, but here’s how the analogy goes:

On 24 February, a US congressional hearing took place on the accountability of WIPO. The Head of WIPO, Francis Gurry, stands accused of serious misconduct and of retaliation against
whistle-blowers, among whom is the chairman of the WIPO’s Staff Union, who was summarily dismissed a year and a half ago 1. The head of the third international property office, Mr Campinos, has thus far managed to stay out of the public eye. This may, however, be only a matter of time. We hear from staff at OHIM that he has a management style and disrespect for the rule of law that are very similar to those of Mr Battistelli. The three international IP offices have very different structures: the EPO is fully independent, WIPO is a UN agency and OHIM is an EU agency. They nevertheless seem to suffer from the same problems. How come? Maybe because the underlying causes are the same: a governing body that is almost entirely dependent on the head of the office for its information, lots of money and a lack of transparency that enables the head of the organisation to use that money to increase his personal influence, the whole topped up with immunity. Since the same causes tend to lead to the same effect, removing the responsible managers would not solve the problems. What is needed is a reform of the governance of these organisations, starting with more transparency and accountability – to the governing body and to the public.

Proper “transparency and accountability” — as the above put it — would at least inform the public about what the heck is going on at OHIM. There’s just way too much secrecy. In the EPO, for example, contracts of top management are a closely-guarded secret, as are contracts with private companies such as Microsoft and Gemalto. These aren’t public bodies. They act like private bodies [1, 2] which enjoy immunity from the law.

Expanding on the European Union IP Office (EUIPO), which makes it sound like part of the EU (unlike the EPO, which the EPC brought into existence):

Soon after Mr Battistelli took over, staff and the public were informed that bilateral agreements had been signed between the EPO and WIPO, and between the EPO and OHIM. It seems that the content of these agreements has never been made public. Glimpses can be found in other documents, e.g. CA/24/14 (points 51-57), for example, explains that the EPO will continue to
participate as an observer in OHIM bodies and working group meetings. As far as we know, OHIM also has an observer in the meetings of the Administrative Council of the EPO.

On a more permanent basis, Mr Telmo Vilela, a former co-worker of Mr Campinos in the Portuguese patent office, was hired by the EPO in DG5 but was transferred to the President’s office as soon as the opportunity arose. Furthermore according to CA/24/14 (point 57) IT co-operation between the EPO and OHIM is foreseen with the aim of “paving the way for the implementation of projects and activities based on harmonization and interoperability”. Mr Campinos is also Mr Battistelli’s favorite candidate for his succession as President of the EPO. A final bit of information: OHIM will change its name to European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) later this month.

It is worth noting that Battistelli had attempted to be head of WIPO before he became ruler of EPO. There is certainly a great degree of overlap here, some potentially implicating Željko Topić, VP4 at EPO. One thing that Topić’s SIPO has in common with the EPO and WIPO is staff suicides (usually dissenting voices).

There remains so much secrecy around these institutions (and extreme abuse against critics or people who ‘dare’ to explore the truth) that one must dig deeper and deeper. There’s certainly a lot of material these people are eager to hide (because they’re already hiding it, even when there's a deepening crisis). █

Summary: The European Patent Office (EPO) likes not only to silence but also to bully (repeatedly threatening) its critics, as a new revelation about an old story serves to demonstrate

THE EPO wants to be publicly viewed as a professional European establishment that fosters innovation and creativity. It wants to attract businesses (it now refers to applicants as customers or clients, some of which it likes more than others). In reality, the EPO is a malicious organisation where Chinese standards for human rights and free speech hold true (and are actively enforced quite aggressively). The EPO is very fearful that the European public will find out the truth and then spread the truth. In other to hide the truth it is even eager to attack, intimidate, and impose mental stress on educated/informed members of the public. This makes the EPO an inherently nasty organisation residing at the very heart of Europe with total impunity; it’s on par with the Mafia, at least in some senses, and politicians are too afraid to intervene. Law enforcement is hardly even interested. The EPO is ruled by an elite and guarded by mega-corporations whom this elite obediently serves. This is institutional corruption.

“The EPO is ruled by an elite and guarded by mega-corporations whom this elite obediently serves. This is institutional corruption.”Gérald Sédrati-Dinet contacted Techrights in order to notify us of the abuse which he had suffered from the EPO. He kept rather quite about it until now. They were SLAPPing, or at least threatening to SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) him. The EPO even cataloged it, much like the notorious Investigative Unit (I.U.) at the EPO does. They gave this a case reference, “LogNo 2011/0338″. It makes one wonder just how many people they bullied in 2011. If this is case number 338 in June of 2011 alone, does that mean that they bully around 700 Web sites or so every year? And if so, has it gotten any worse since? That was just shortly after Battistelli, who comes from the “Right to be Forgotten” country (censorship to guard bad people’s reputation), had joined the EPO and gradually decimated oversight, ousting anything which he perceived as a threat to his absolute tyranny.

There seems to be a lot of bullying going on behind the scenes. A lot of people are severely harmed by this, so lower-level employees of the EPO must learn about this and spread the messenger internally. Also see the reference number in the I.U. case against Elizabeth Hardon. It makes one wonder if, under explicit gag orders, they are actually ‘disciplining’ (bullying) about a thousand people per year. It is a full-time job for an entire team. They need to justify their salary by creating ‘demand’, i.e. finding who to bully next (we have learned that they nitpick on very petty things in the workplace). It’s a reign of terror. The only such stories I’ve ever heard of are from my wife (when she worked in Taiwan). We call for the attention of European politicians. This cannot go on like this. The EPO led by Battistelli has already led to a tenfold increase in the number of suicides, according to one recent estimate.

“Unauthorised Use of EPO Logo on the website www.unitary-patent.eu,” is what they claimed. Yes, you heard that right. Using a small (even tiny) logo of the EPO somewhere in a Web site critical of the EPO (and the Unitary Patents which the EPO loves to lobby for so much) leads to bullying. Look at the image above or access the site directly. It’s not even the logo per se (sheared or tapered with a flag superimposed). This isn’t about trademarks but about silencing people who live in Europe and exercise their democratic rights.

“Anything (or anyone) which speaks against the managers is automatically treated like treason, irrespective of the merit of claims.”We strongly urge all readers to learn what happened, examine the evidence, and study the case below. There may be many more like it (hundreds or maybe thousands, but we just don’t know about them because it all happens behind closed doors). That’s how immoral and thuggish the EPO can get so easily. The EPO has already blocked Techrights, so this effort to suppress other Web sites hardly surprises us. These people (the ones running the EPO) act like Chinese ministers, or maybe like Russian ministers. Freedom of speech is not tolerated there. Anything (or anyone) which speaks against the managers is automatically treated like treason, irrespective of the merit of claims. This will be the subject of the next few articles about the EPO and its pertinent units. These are thugs, hired by other thugs. It creates a toxic environment in which good behaviour leads to punishment and/or dismissal while sociopaths get hired and gradually promoted. It is a form of entryism, the hallmark of organised crime within an institution. Recall last year’s explosive story from the large British newspaper, The Independent (“Total corruption: Organised crime infiltrated and compromised UK courts, police, HMRC, Crown Prosecution Service, prisons, and juries”).

“While you are focusing on EPO,” wrote to us Gérald Sédrati-Dinet, an activist against software patents in Europe (which means he is also against the Unitary Patent, as it’s a Trojan horse for software patents), “maybe you’ll be interested by this exchange of emails dating from 2011 when I’ve build the website www.unitary-patent.eu.”

“The first mail is sent by EPO (Sergio De Gregori and Caroline Godeau-Jobmann),” he wrote, “to my hidden contact address provided by Gandi, asking me to stop using EPO Logo on this website. Then, in the second mail, my lawyer, Olivier Hugo, kindly replied to EPO that I will not defer to EPO’s request. The EPO insisted in a third mail. And my lawyer refused once again in a fourth email. Then no news and my website has never changed its banner.”

Gérald Sédrati-Dinet must have suffered pain, including financial injury (having to pay this lawyer for the time), so this kind of bullying from the EPO, which clearly had too little or no merit (as they withdrew), must not be tolerated.

This doesn’t entirely shock us given the EPO’s known (and well-documented) record of censorship and threats, not just against EPO staff but also against external entities. Gérald Sédrati-Dinet asked, “don’t you find interesting to see the pressure put by EPO on any criticism?”

“You can use these emails as you want,” he added, providing the originals as follows:

 

-------- Mail 1 --------

*De :*cgodeau@epo.org mailto:cgodeau@epo.org [mailto:cgodeau@epo.org] *
Envoyé :* mercredi 8 juin 2011 14:37*
À :* xxxxx*
Objet :* Use of EPO Logo on your website Unitary Patent

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

It has been brought to our attention that Unitary Patent is using the
EPO logo on its website http://www.unitary-patent.eu. A copy of the respective web page is
attached.

As you are no doubt aware, the EPO logo, as an emblem of an
intergovernmental organisation, is protected under Article 6ter of the
Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property against,
inter alia, unauthorised use by third parties. The EPO uses its logo for
its official activities and has a strong interest in ensuring that it
does not lose its value as an identifying symbol.

We therefore ask you to refrain from using the EPO logo and to *confirm
in writing by 23 June 2011* that you have done so.

If you fail to comply with this request, we will unfortunately be
obliged to pass this matter on to our solicitors in order to take the
necessary legal steps against you.


Yours sincerely,

Sergio De Gregori


Best regards / Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Sincères salutations

Caroline Godeau-Jobmann
Legal Administration Officer Contract matters & general legal issues |
Dir. 5.3.1.2
European Patent Office
Landsberger Str. 187 | 80687 Munich | Germany
Tel. +49 (0)89 2399 5317_
_cgodeau@epo.org mailto:cgodeau@epo.org_
_http://www.epo.org http://www.epo.org/

The language used therein is not yet highly threatening, but wait until they threaten not only with legal action but also with heavy legal costs, despite the law not being on their side. At this stage, Gérald Sédrati-Dinet already reached out to a lawyer (we assume at significant expense to him). Here is the lawyer replying:

 


-------- Mail 2 --------

From: Olivier Hugot 
To: "cgodeau@epo.org mailto:cgodeau@epo.org" cgodeau@epo.org
mailto:cgodeau@epo.org
Cc: "xxxxx"

Date: 09-06-2011 20:10
Subject: RE: Use of EPO Logo on your website Unitary Patent

Dear Mr. De Gregori,

I am the attorney of Mr. Sedrati Dinet who operates the website

http://www.unitary-patent.eu.

I am, to say the least, extremely doubtful regarding the legal basis of
your request.

As you are no doubt aware, Mr. Sedrati Dinet’s fundamental rights, which
includes the right of Free Expression, at the heart of which you will
find political speech, are protected by various national, European and
international constitutions or conventions (for instance article 10 of
the European Convention on Human Rights).

As such, I am afraid my client will not defer to your request.

Of course, I am available to further discuss this matter with your
solicitor should you deem it necessary.

Best regards, Olivier Hugot


*HUGOTAVOCATS*
4, place André Malraux
75001 Paris
Tél. : + 33.(0)1.44.94.83.83
Fax : + 33.(0)1.44.94.83.84
www.hugot.fr http://www.hugot.fr/

Well, if Sergio De Gregori and Caroline Godeau-Jobmann already receive a salary and enjoy immunity from the law, then why not keep themselves occupied by acting like a bunch of spoiled brats and threatening a young man who has a point of view and a concern about the likes ofthe EPO? Watch what happens next:

 

-------- Mail 3 --------

*De :*sdegregori@epo.org [mailto:sdegregori@epo.org]
*Envoyé :* vendredi 17 juin 2011 09:25
*À :* Olivier Hugot
*Cc :* Frank Hafner; Anna Juda; Sophie Gayout; Claire Lucas; Caroline
Godeau-Jobmann
*Objet :* LogNo 2011/0338 -- Unauthorised Use of EPO Logo on the website
www.unitary-patent.eu

Dear Mr. Hugot,

I tried to call you for the last few days but could not reach you, this
is why I now send you this e-mail.

Maybe you misunderstood our e-mail or there was some kind of clerical
mistake, but our request was to *refrain from the unauthorised use of
the EPO's logo*, which is -- I am sure, as a lawyer, you are aware --
protected by the Paris Convention against inter alia unauthorised use by
third parties.

We do not understand how our request could interfere with your client's
fundamental rights, which the EPO, as an international organisation, of
course respects.

Kindly explain, or have your client refrain from using the EPO's logo.
As already stated, if your client fails to comply with this request, we
will unfortunately be obliged to pass this matter on to our solicitors
in order to take the necessary legal steps against him at his expense.

Kind regards

Sergio De Gregori
Lawyer
Dept. 5.3.1.2 -- General Law and Contract Law
European Patent Office
Landsberger Str. 187 | 80687 Munich | Germany
Tel. +49 89 2399 5025
sdegregori@epo.org mailto:sdegregori@epo.org

http://www.epo.org

Yes, they threaten with legal action. This is clearly a threat. To quote: “if your client fails to comply with this request, we will unfortunately be obliged to pass this matter on to our solicitors in order to take the necessary legal steps against him at his expense.”

Classic SLAPP threats. In the US it would be against the law to do so (in many states).

Here is the followup:

 


-------- Mail 4 --------

*De :*Olivier Hugot
*Envoyé :* vendredi 24 juin 2011 13:58
*À :* 'Logbook'
*Cc :* Frank Hafner; Anna Juda; Sophie Gayout; Claire Lucas; Caroline
Godeau-Jobmann
*Objet :* RE: LogNo 2011/0338 -- Unauthorised Use of EPO Logo on the
website www.unitary-patent.eu

Dear M. De Gregori,

My client operates a website expressing a political opinion with a tag
line “For a Democratic Innovation Policy in Europe”.

One of his means of expression is the use of the EPO logo with the EU
flag piercing it, illustrating his political opinions. The use of the
logo and the text of the website are, thus, protected expression.

You may well disagree with the statements and opinion thereby expressed,
but my client is entitled to express them as an exercise of his
fundamental rights.

Interestingly enough, your reaction to the use of your logo demonstrates
the policy criticized by my client.

We had similar cases in France, with large international companies,
trying to use trademark protection to infringe upon free speech, yet the
supreme court protected such expression.

For those reasons, my client will not defer to your demands as he
considers his actions to be well within the boundaries of the law.

With kind regards,

Olivier Hugot

We like this sentence, which demonstrates how disgusting lawyers find the EPO’s attitude. “Interestingly enough,” he wrote. “your reaction to the use of your logo demonstrates the policy criticized by my client.”

It’s only then, after making repeated threats (the chilling effect) that the bullies went away without a word. It’s really looking and it easily seems like the abuser here is the EPO, which does what some might call (or coin) trademark-trolling. This blogger is no longer blogging and we can’t help but feel like this bitter experience could only have contributed to this. It’s a chilling thing to go though.

“Even the media is now being bribed by the EPO, in exchange for corrupt coverage.”Do not ever be fooled by the EPO’s misleading branding and public image charade, such as paid-for, self-glamourising events that put in a positive light (for a payment) the President and his repressive regime. Even the media is now being bribed by the EPO, in exchange for corrupt coverage. The EPO euphemistically calls this “media partners”.

These attacks on free speech will carry on not just inside the EPO but also outside the EPO. The EPO’s management is engaging in a war on the non-consenting European public, so it’s basically a regime of occupation. EPOnia, which views itself as exempt from European laws, is exploiting and even misusing European laws (as seen above) in a coordinated effort to muzzle voices it does not like.

We invite people who have had similar experiences to come forth to us. We need to shed light on this misbehaviour in order to suppress repetition thereof and also to make politicians better aware of what really happens inside the EPO, usually behind closed doors (or under DNA/gag orders). █

“The European Patent Office is a Corrupt, Malicious Organisation Which Should Not Exist”

–Richard Stallman, founder of GNU and the Free Software Foundation

Summary: SCOTUS refuses to rule that APIs cannot be considered copyright-’protected’, despite common sense and despite Java (which the case is about) being Free/libre software

FOR anyone who has been paying attention, Oracle‘s hostility towards Android is not hard to understand. It is a CPTN member along with Microsoft and Apple and it has shown on numerous occasions over the years that it is eager to antagonise and badmouth Free software. Oracle killed many of the projects that it bought from Sun. Google, on the other hand, is at least trying to appease the Free software community and it has made Android (AOSP) an ‘open’ platform, even if most developers contribute just proprietary software to run on it.

Many of our readers have probably heard the big news by now. SCOTUS has aligned itself with foes of software development [1, 2, 3] (not just Free software development), reaffirming the ridiculous judgement from CAFC. Now that SCOTUS reaffirms the status of APIs as copyrightable, adding to mass surveillance with NDAs and software patents in the United States, why would software companies still choose to be there?

To give Google some credit, it did fight over this matter for nearly half a decade. After pressure from the clueless White House (exactly one month ago), however, reuse of APIs may be impossible and collaborative development with forking may soon be toxic. Today is a horrible day for software development in general and it’s not too clear to us what Google can do next. Some certain types of lawyers probably know Google’s next steps or options and knowing that this ‘legal’ system favours the deeper pockets, there is usually something someone can do given the correct fees (just see how long the SCO case goes on for).

“Google will hopefully continue to fight that case, whatever its options may be.”One reader of ours was disappointed with this article that FOSS Force published today, comparing Google to Microsoft. “Revisionism,” he said, “especially that closing sentence. People hate Microsoft not for the sake of hating Microsoft but because of how it (and its people) behaves and has behaved. It has held computing back at least 20 years and the damage spreads into all domains where desktop computers are used.

“It’s just that Microsoft pays for constant whine against Google. While Google has many shortcomings, it is not a problem like Microsoft has been and continues to be.”

“But on the topic of Google,” he continued, “here’s something fairly current with yet another ****up by SCOTUS” (he linked to the above news).

Google will hopefully continue to fight that case, whatever its options may be. As for Microsoft and Apple, they surely will keep trying to harm the market. They often work together these days (mostly true when it comes to patents, OOXML, DRM, and so on) and as this article by Galen Gruman reminds us:

If you thought Microsoft was finally treating the Mac as an equal citizen, you’ll be disappointed in the reality

Remember that Microsoft and Apple are both on Oracle’s anti-Android side (even publicly, on numerous occasions). These are all proprietary software giants, aspiring to control the entire market by patents, copyrights, litigation, and intimidation. Google simply does not fall under the same category. It deserves the public’s support in this particular case. █

Microsoft, which gives everyone’s personal and very private data to the NSA, likes talking about ‘IP’ and simultaneously claim to have a higher moral ground when it engages in bullying, extortion, and intimidation. Thanks to this pointer linking to ZDNet‘s Microsoft booster (former Microsoft staff), we now know that Microsoft is a copyright abuser. That’s what Getty alleges anyway:

A new Microsoft Corp product that allows website publishers to embed digital photographs on their sites is a “massive infringement” of copyrighted images, Getty Images Inc [GETTY.UL] claimed in a lawsuit filed in federal court in New York on Thursday.

The “Bing Image Widget,” released on Aug. 22, gives publishers the ability to create a panel on their websites that displays digital images supplied by Microsoft’s Bing search engine, according to the lawsuit.

Rather than draw from a pool of licensed images, the lawsuit claimed, the product grants access to the billions of images that can be found online, without regard to whether the photos are copyrighted.

Microsoft wants people to forget these situations where Microsoft shows sheer hypocrisy or double-standard. Microsoft does not care about so-called ‘IP’; if it did, it wouldn’t have shared billions (or trillions) of bits of data collected from individuals using Windows, SKype, and online Microsoft services such as Live/Bing search.

Microsoft is a lying scam. █

Summary: The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s judgments on software historically based on dogma and misunderstanding/misrepresentation/misinterpretation of facts, not adherence to rules, logic, or even public interest

NOW THAT Ballnux giant Samsung hoards more patents we should take a moment to remember that not all companies that are using GNU/Linux are actually friends. Even Microsoft claims to be embracing Linux in Android (through Nokia), but its intents are malicious, as we have explained numerous times before. Then there is Oracle, which joined Apple and Microsoft in hoarding Novell patents for malicious purposes. It also sued Google over Android and did some damage to Red Hat with Unbreakable, never mind all the damage Oracle did to Sun projects.

Deb Nicholson (FSF), writing for an established Web site, explained “How The Changing Legal Landscape Impacts Free And Open Source Software Development”. She correctly pointed out the following: “A patent is a limited monopoly granted for certain amount of time (20 years in many places) in exchange for full disclosure. Based on the description in the patent application, a person who is knowledgeable in that field should be able to recreate the invention. Patents used to be reserved for physical processes, new devices and sometimes a limited monopoly on a particular business opportunity. The scope of patentability has expanded in the last few decades and can now include software, as well as business methods and even certain medical procedures. The intent of patents is purportedly to encourage inventors to make investments and create new inventions that might have otherwise been too financially risky to complete. As soon as a patent expires the idea can be freely implemented by anyone.”

Patents, however, are no longer the only risk factor. Consider what the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) recently did. The FSF has just come out with this formal statement:

FSF statement on Court of Appeals ruling in Oracle v Google

[...]

The situation then is substantially similar to the situation today. The key difference is that some of Google’s affirmative defenses to claim non-infringement have been eliminated by this new ruling. The FSF now sincerely hopes for the next best thing to Alsup’s original ruling: that Google is successful in its fair use defense.

Notwithstanding our support of Google’s fair use defense, the FSF urges caution to all prospective Android users. Even though the core of the Android system is free, every Android device sold comes pre-loaded with a variety of proprietary applications and proprietary hardware drivers. The FSF encourages users to support the development of Replicant, a distribution of Android that is 100% free software. The FSF also encourages users of any Android-based system to install F-Droid, a free replacement for the Google Play app that allows users to browse, install, and receive updates from a repository of free software Android apps. Replicant uses F-Droid as its default repository.

Generally speaking, CAFC has been a sham for many years as it was also responsible for making software patents legitimate in the United States, before this trend/precedent spread to other countries. In 2012 it was points out that the court stood in the way of stopping software patents and a week or so ago TechDirt cited this article, accusing the person who did this in the court. As TechDirt put it: “Tim Lee recently got to talk to Michel following a talk he gave, and what becomes clear is that Michel is completely out of touch with how much of a problem patents are in the tech world today. Lee knows this subject better than probably anyone else, and when he tried to dig in on key points, it was obvious that Michel’s knowledge of what actually is happening in the industry is based on myths and imagination, rather than reality. For example, when Michel pointed out that he’s “a facts and figures guy” rather than one who focuses on “anecdotes and assumptions,” Lee quickly points to James Bessen and Michael Meurer’s comprehensive book on why patents hurt the tech industry.”

Lawyers defy logic.

Here is the latest relevant article about this, an article from TechDirt about CAFC:

For many years we’ve written about the serious problems with CAFC, the court of appeals for the federal circuit, which is better known as the appeals court where all patent cases go. CAFC was created in the early 1980s under the belief that a more “specialized” court could better handle the more complicated technical issues related to patents. But what really happened is that it basically built a club of patent-friendly judges, who spent nearly all of their time with patent lawyers, and thus took an increasingly patent-friendly view of the world. That one of the key original judges on CAFC was also a long-time well known patent lawyer who almost single-handedly wrote the 1952 Patent Act, seemed to set the tone that has remained throughout the court’s existence.

It is not unusual for this disgraceful court to do this type of thing. TechDirt also gave this other new example one week ago:

A few weeks ago, the Supreme Court smacked down the Federal Circuit (CAFC) for its made up rules that made it almost impossible to enable victims of patent trolls to get the courts to order the trolls to pay legal fees. As the Supreme Court noted, CAFC seemed to set up arbitrary rules for no reasons at all. And this is important, because courts almost never award legal fees, and with the untimely death of patent reform, hopefully this small change will at least help in the meantime.

Notice the tend. CAFC is a not a legitimate court, it has become a pack of software patents (and more broadly patents) boosters. Its latest judgment, as before, should be appealed and brought to SCOTUS, but this is expensive and can take years. █

Summary: The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) shows us yet again that it does not understand technology and its latest ruling is harmful to the technical community

YESTERDAY we wrote about the menacing CAFC ruling, which basically throws a lot of FOSS under the rug (by extension) for it alleges that APIs are copyrightable and that their reuse does not qualify as fair use. We have already criticised CAFC for being very pro-software patents and for being utterly clueless on technical matters on numerous occasions, so the latest decision from it oughtn’t be so shocking. As Ars Technica put it, “Google, which said it was exploring its legal options, decried Friday’s ruling. The Mountain View, CA-based media giant said the decision “sets a damaging precedent for computer science and software development.””

Google is correct and it will hopefully appeal this decision. What we have here is misuse of copyrights, SCO style, by Oracle.

TechDirt posted the best rebuttal to this decision, attracting hundreds of comments and revealing a lot of holes and mistakes in CAFC’s ruling (the text). Here’s a sample:

Appeals Court Doesn’t Understand The Difference Between Software And An API; Declares APIs Copyrightable

[...]

We sort of expected this to happen after the appeals court for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) held its oral arguments back in December, but CAFC has now spit at basic common sense and has declared that you can copyright an API. As we noted, back when Judge William Alsup (who learned to code Java to better understand the issues in the case) ruled that APIs were not subject to copyright protection, his ruling was somewhat unique in that it was clearly directed as much at an appeals court panel who would be hearing the appeal as it was at the parties. Alsup rightly suspected that the judges on the appeal wouldn’t actually understand the issues as well as he did, and tried to break it down clearly for them. Unfortunately, the three judge CAFC panel did not pay attention. The ruling is so bad that legal scholars are suggesting that it may be as bad as the horrific ruling in the Garcia case.

[...]

As for the ruling itself… well… it’s bad. The court seems to not understand what an API is, confusing it with software functionality. It also appears to misread Judge Alsup’s ruling, thinking that he’s mistakenly using a fair use analysis to determine whether or not something is copyrightable. But that was not the basis of Judge Alsup’s ruling. He very specifically noted that the “command structure is a system or method of operation under Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act and, therefore, cannot be copyrighted.” The CAFC panel doesn’t seem to understand this at all.

[...]

It seems fairly clear that the CAFC judges don’t understand the difference between an API and software. And thus they make a decision that makes no sense. There is no distinction recognized when it comes to the functionality of an API and how it’s entirely different than the purpose of the software itself. This is especially clear towards the end, in which the CAFC ruling misrepresents some discussions on whether certain functionality is best protected by patents or copyright. But the problem is that they misinterpret statements people are making about APIs, thinking that those statements were made about software as a whole. This is just a flat-out fundamental misunderstanding of what an API is, assuming that it’s just software.

[...]

Note that “[software]” thrown in before interfaces? Google is talking about whether APIs — “application programming interfaces” — are copyrightable. Not whether or not software is copyrightable. And yet the CAFC doesn’t even seem to realize this. Ridiculously, CAFC then uses its own misunderstanding and misquote, and points to some of the (many) arguments where people argue that patents are inappropriate for software to dismiss Google’s argument about APIs. It honestly doesn’t realize that it’s comparing two totally different things. What lots of people agree on: software shouldn’t be patentable and APIs shouldn’t be copyrightable, but software can be copyrightable and API functionality may be patentable. But by confusing APIs and software, CAFC totally misreads both arguments.

This will probably go to SCOTUS next (unless they decline to weigh in), but in the mean time it spreads uncertainty and doubt, harming not only Free software developers but developers in general. As TechDirt put it, “CAFC has mucked up another form of intellectual property law through a basic (and near total) misunderstanding of technology.” █

Summary: Patents on everything that’s conceivable are being granted and even APIs are being monopolised, due to overzealous copyright lawyers

YESTERDAY we wrote about Amazon‘s latest crazy patent, using it as an example of how crazy the USPTO has gone. It’s not even an examination centre, it is approving almost everything that comes through, rendering it just a rubber-stamping pipeline like ISO. Ars Technica says that “Amazon’s latest patent is sillier than the peanut butter sandwich patent”, or to put it another way: “Thought the peanut butter sandwich patent was a joke? That one doesn’t even register a chuckle compared to a patent recently granted to Amazon.com. The e-commerce giant now can claim a legal monopoly on the process of photographing people and things against a white backdrop.”

The USPTO is starting to look more like a hoax. Sun employees, whose patents got passed to Oracle, said they had joked about how silly a patent they could get past the USPTO. They even competed over how ridiculous a patent they could slide through. And watch what Oracle is doing with such patents right now. Copyright may be essential for copyleft licences such as the GPL, but what happens when patent attacks on Android are coupled with copyright on APIs? To quote the EFF: “We’re still digesting today’s lengthy decision in the Oracle v. Google appeal, but we’re disappointed—and worried. The heart of the appeal was whether Oracle can claim a copyright on Java APIs and, if so, whether Google infringed that copyright. According to the Federal Circuit today, the answer to both questions was a qualified yes—with the qualification being that Google may have a fair use defense.

“Quick background: When it implemented the Android OS, Google wrote its own version of Java. But in order to allow developers to write their own programs for Android, Google relied on Java APIs. Application Programming Interfaces are, generally speaking, specifications that allow programs to communicate with each other. So when you type a letter in a word processor, and hit the print command, you are using an API that lets the word processor talk to the printer driver, even though they were written by different people.”

Copyright, patents and even trademarks in the US need revisiting. There are many examples where each of those three get misused to censor, to crush competition, to impede innovation, and ban sharing where it’s clearly beneficial, collectively. The waning dominance of the West may, in some awkward way, one day weaken all those artificial barriers that ACTA, SOPA, TPP etc. are trying to prop up. Right now it’s too damn clear that progress is not the goal; protectionism for the top 1% of wealth holder is the goal. █

Thomas Wheeler; photo by Andrew Harrer / Bloomberg / December 12, 2013

Summary: The vision of ‘soft’ censorship, long sought after by corporate media, is finally here in the form of slow lanes for 99% of us

NOTHING surprises us when it comes to the FCC’s betrayal, at least not anymore. We wrote a great deal about Net Neutrality (dozens of times before) not because it relates to software but because as a site that drives around 100 GB of traffic per month we are very much affected by the issue and we should probably throw yet another opinion out there, despite the issue being covered very widely (which is good) to shed light on the seriousness of the matter.

One of our readers sent us this link which helps show the role of corporate lobbying in all this. As Mike Masnick put it: “We’ve talked plenty about the big revolving door between government and big business lately, but there are still some moments that are purely insane that show just how broken the system is. On Wednesday, news broke that former FCC commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker has been named the new CEO of CTIA, the main lobbying organization for mobile phone operators. Baker is no stranger to questionable revolving door moves, seeing as just months after she voted to approve Comcast’s merger with NBC Universal, she took a top lobbying job with Comcast. Funny how that works.

“But, in this case, it’s even more ridiculous because, as Jon Brodkin points out, the current head of the FCC, Tom Wheeler, previously was CEO of CTIA as well. And prior to that he was CEO of NCTA (the cable industry’s main lobbying group). And, to top it off, the current head of CTIA is none other than former FCC chair Michael Powell.”

Here is more about it. It’s simply white collar corruption and we should treat it accordingly. Here is an oldish quote regarding Net Neutrality and beyond, from President Obama himself: “I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists — and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president.”

Nonsense. False promises and no hope.

As one article put it, we now have “Net Discrimination” and it is being stamped into law. As another article put it, “FCC guts net neutrality to pave way to tiered internet” and there is similar analysis elsewhere. Well, as usual we have a deceiving headline from the Murdoch propaganda press (we highlighted this pattern before) and as one blog put it, “FCC Plots Murder of Blogs on Behalf of Billionaire Media Lords” (like Murdoch).

The cable and media giants are not really liking it when other points of view are being sent across, especially some in video and audio (which is where traffic gets very expensive). It is clear that for financial reasons some shows will have to shut down as a result of the FCC’s (lobbyists’) latest moves, which were driven in part (as precursor) by Comcast and Netflix. They are banning competition by passing new laws, or at least suppressing competition. There is now a White House petition for Net Neutrality, but these petitions usually prove to be a waste of time; they might generate some press, but the White House is not genuinely interested in serving people, only corporations. There are still some weeks left for things to change, just like in Europe (where Net Neutrality is being defended and finalisation of such a decision is imminent).

What big businesses and lobbyists seek here is protectionism. They are making sure that the Internet becomes useful only for surveillance and propaganda, as much of the rest is censored, made expensive, slowed down, and suppressed behind protocols that make the Web “Hollyweb”.

As we pointed out before, Tom Wheeler is more like a mole, never really committing to Net Neutrality. Some sites provided proof of it while continuing their coverage of the latest developments.

This is not about videos. Like many other policies, “congestion” is an excuse, like “terrorism” and “think of the children!”

They are starting with videos and later, once the presence is already there, expand to more areas and media types, driving small sites out of the Web. What we deal with here is erosion of Internet freedom and rights, promoting the big corporations and subverting equality of speech.

Net neutrality is not just some Utopia. Subscribers who pay for the Internet connection typically bear the costs and if there is a capacity issue, then expansion can be taken care of. People pay for it already. Watch the article many sites have been citing, spinning the news as a discussion about a “Fast Lane”. This is nonsense. As one person put it, “NYT framing is also slavish. It’s not a “fast lane” it’s the ability to throttle and extort everyone that is being allowed. Wheeler’s assertion that this kind of behavior won’t be tolerated ignores prior and ongoing throttling. Shame on Wheeler and the NYT.”

So the rich and powerful will have their traffic and packets treated specially, at the expense of others’. They are also putting DRM in HTML and incorporating other abuses against the Web, including DPI and other forms of surveillance. According to the NYT: “The Federal Communications Commission will propose new rules that allow Internet service providers to offer a faster lane through which to send video and other content to consumers, as long as a content company is willing to pay for it, according to people briefed on the proposals.”

That’s deceiving. They use the same propaganda language that the cable oligopoly has been using all along. It continues by saying: “The proposed rules are a complete turnaround for the F.C.C. on the subject of so-called net neutrality, the principle that Internet users should have equal ability to see any content they choose, and that no content providers should be discriminated against in providing their offerings to consumers.”

It’s not much of a turnaround for those who have watched the FCC being taken over by lobbyists (and revolving doors actions, including from Microsoft). The FCC should be disbanded and a new body put in charge of these issues. The FCC is no longer what it’s supposed to be; it has been hijacked.

It is a turning point in the fight against censorship and the fight for information on the Web. Costs are being used in this type of warfare; So shows like TechBytes will be disciminated against and sent more slowly (if at all) to listeners, unless the host pays additional, prohibitive costs.

Watch another example of corporate press spin: “Internet service providers could strike special deals with Internet companies like Netflix or Skype for preferential treatment, under proposals by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler, violating the ideal of equal access for all consumers”

This is not about fast lanes for large corporations and mass media’s corporate masters; it is about SLOW lanes for those who are not in a list of “approved” media or whatever. It’s ‘soft’ censorship. █

Summary: New examples of so-called ‘IP’ being used to oppress society, censor society, and perform extensive surveillance on it

THERE IS some real criticism of the so-called “IP” (intellectual monopolies) movement these days, even in some of the corporate press. TechDirt points out that Newegg has just crushed a patent troll [1]. The problem, however, is that the media mostly tackles the issue which is trolls (tackling one patent at a time) rather than cover the real issue, which large corporations don’t want fixed (right now they lobby against patent scope reform at SCOTUS).

It’s not just about patents, either. Copyright monopolies are getting more draconian over time and according to [2,3], the company which attacks Android using patents (Sony) is now attacking Open Source films using bogus DMCA requests. Over the years we have covered many other reasons to avoid anything from Sony. Now there is yet another reason. This abuse is systematic, not an “oops”. Simon Phipps (OSI) said he had tried to upload the original video (“Sintel”) and was blocked, whereupon he appealed and asked others to do the same. British law and British politics mostly overlook these serious abuses [4] which are monopolies on ideas and works. British politicians are generally quite horrible; they serve corporations, not people. Just look how many British politicians lobbied against net neutrality in the European Parliament last week.

“What we have right now is the criminalisation of more and more digital activities which were perfectly legitimate activities before digitisation.”Not too long ago, a business of a German living in New Zealand was shut down using an illegal raid along with abuses of surveillance and police powers (and literal stealing of people’s personal and business data [5]). Dropbox, which was on the leaked PRISM slides as “coming soon” (Microsoft was first in PRISM’s slides/timeline), plays ball with those who are abusing powers [6], using suspicion alone as justification for suspension and/or censorship. This also means that Dropbox is accessing all files that people are uploading. Copyright provides/equips Dropbox with a convenient excuse for doing so, showing again that copyright, surveillance and censorship typically go hand in hand. Dropbox is definitely something to boycott (better now than later).

The world needs to learn how to share. Corporations need to learn how to cooperate. What we have right now is the criminalisation of more and more digital activities which were perfectly legitimate activities before digitisation. █

Related/contextual items from the news:

1. Newegg and friends crush a patent troll

   MacroSolve is a company that got a lot of (generally negative) attention when it turned full-blown “patent troll” in 2011, suing dozens of companies (including small app development shops) over patent No. 7,822,816, which it claims covers using questionnaires on a mobile app.

   Now, a coalition of defendants led by Newegg and Geico Insurance has stopped MacroSolve in its tracks. MacroSolve has dismissed all remaining cases, and it has admitted that it can’t proceed to go forward with a trial that was scheduled to take place this June in East Texas.

2. Sony issues fraudulent takedown for Blender’s open source movie

3. Sony Demands Removal of Open-Source Indie Short ‘Sintel’ From YouTube

   Sony Pictures has demanded the removal of the CGI short film Sintel from YouTube due to a claim of copyright infringement. One small problem: they don’t actually own anything in the film.

   Sintel, a film by Colin Levy which has been featured before on Cartoon Brew, was created by the Blender Foundation, the non-profit organization which promotes the free, open source 3D software Blender. The crowdfunded short was made using entirely original materials, and was licensed as Creative Commons Attribution 3.0, which means that anyone can freely share the movie.

4. Defend your digital rights in the European elections this May

   While Nigel Farage and Nick Clegg kicked around old political footballs like immigration on Wednesday night, there was a glaring omission from the debate: digital rights.

5. 1,103 Megaupload Servers Gather Dust at Virginia Warehouse

   Millions of users lost access to their personal files when Megaupload was raided, and there’s little chance that they will have them returned in the near future. Despite efforts from both Megaupload and its former hosting company to negotiate a solution, the servers are still gathering dust in a Virginia warehouse.

6. Dropbox will block if you shared ‘pirated’ files

   A tweet that appeared late last night took everyone by surprise. The tweet talked about a DMCA notice that blocked a file from being shared on a Dropbox user’s account.