Posted in Courtroom, Deception, Microsoft, Patents at 3:44 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
“Reality distortion field (RDF) is a term coined by Bud Tribble at Apple Computer in 1981…” –Wikipedia
Shook, Hardy and Bacon L.L.P. with a slant
Summary: Another new example of software patents advocacy from IAM, with help from Microsoft’s people (or ‘former’ people)
NOT only patent trolls, the PR firm of the EPO and various patent law firms send money IAM’s way. Joff Wild has quite a few hands feeding him and these tend to be ardent advocates of patent wars (they profit from wars). It’s not really a news site, even if Google News recognises it as such. It is agenda. Sometimes it’s marketing.
Earlier today IAM gave readers the impression of software patents resurgence. As we have been showing here for a number of months, this could not be further from the truth and this claim comes (or sourced) from Microsoft’s former Patent Counsel, Bart Eppenauer. Joff Wild previously gave Bart Eppenauer a voice/platform in his Microsoft-powered site for similar reasons. It is not too shocking to find the site once again being composed, by proxy, by Microsoft folks in order to promote software patents, like those which Microsoft uses to continue its war on GNU/Linux, Android, ChromeOS, and Free software in general.
“It is not too shocking to find the site once again being composed, by proxy, by Microsoft folks in order to promote software patents, like those which Microsoft uses to continue its war on GNU/Linux, Android, ChromeOS, and Free software in general.”Wild wants us to believe that just two decisions (among many thousands) at CAFC (a corruptible court by the way), one of which involved Microsoft directly, somehow mean “eligibility nightmare the US software and biotech industries have been going through may – just may – be coming to an end.”
Well, the very opposite is true as SCOTUS refuses to revisit anything that pertains to Alice and litigation fell sharply. Lies by omission, selection, cherry-picking or just wishful thinking? Microsoft, a lobbyist for software patents, is hardly a reliable or objective source regarding software patents (especially in cases that involve Microsoft) and Joff Wild is experienced enough to know this. Does IAM even make an attempt to hide its agenda (and Microsoft’s) any longer? It has been getting pretty shallow.
This is what we often allude to as the problem of patent lawyers dominating if not abducting the media and thus controlling (or distorting) the message. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 3:05 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
But those capable of firing Battistelli continue to sit on his lap, enabling top-down imposition of neo-liberal policies
Summary: The EPO’s social affairs have become so bad that they are now comparable to the widely-disgraced Nicolas Sarkozy regime (‘union’) with the Bygmalion affair
THE EPO has a serious credibility problem. It’s the fault of Battistelli. Some people tell us that interest in the EPO’s services has been lost somewhat under Battistelli, even though it may take a year or two for people to actually see this (as there is a certain lag in the inflow/pipeline). The EPO’s forums have eerily quiet (enough for the EPO to publicly encourage people to participate in this dead zone) and the EPO repeated its lies a few days ago (lies about the boards of appeal losing their sovereignty by having a new manager appointed by Battistelli). Also noteworthy is this statement about Lithuania. Remember how Lithuania and Battistelli signed a deal with particularly curious timing and circumstances. Whatever is going on at the EPO right now (at the top-level management), it’s usually rather awkward. Not only do they lie to staff and to journalists; they also mislead some people in management, maybe even themselves. It’s embarrassing. It makes Europe look bad and it makes France look even worse. At the end of last month Renaud Lecadre wrote an article in the French media, accusing Battistelli of attacking EPO union/s. Here is SUEPO’s relatively new translation of the article with highlights on important bits:
Report
French Boss sows the seeds of anti-unionism at the European Patent Office
By Renaud Lecadre — 28 June 2016, 17:01
Benoît Battistelli, in March. Photo Emmanuel Dunand. AFP
Benoît Battistelli, President of the European Patent Office, appointed to the job under Nicolas Sarkozy, is coming under fire for staff union discrimination. His fate will be in the spotlight on Wednesday and Thursday when the Administrative Council meets.
At the European Patent Office, a French boss is sowing the seeds of anti-unionism
The only continental administrative body presided over by France, the European Patent Office (EPO) is in utter upheaval. The President, Benoît Battistelli, propelled into power in 2010 by Nicolas Sarkozy, is accused of drifting into dictatorship, discrimination against staff unions, and of denying the least legal challenge to his own little empire. A case of the leadership going off course, which will be coming under scrutiny on Wednesday by the Administrative Council of the EPO, which has its headquarters in Munich but also with a branch office in The Hague. And the risk is that the French presence among the international institutions will be eroded just that little bit more.
So what is Battistelli’s management accused of? In particular, at least three suicides of staff members during his tenure, one actually at the workplace. “Every case is a tragedy, and no-one understood the reason for their action,” was Battistelli’s view of the deaths, when Libération met him last month in Paris. Not surprisingly, the in-house unions have a different take on events: “All he sees are people who he thinks are incompetent and incapable, but no-one can be right all of the time against what everyone else thinks. France’s entire reputation among the international institutions is at stake,” says one French member of SUEPO (Staff Union of the European Patent Office).
Bringing the unions to heel
The EPO employs 6,700 international personnel, on a world market for patents which is fiercely competitive. Inventors (or would-be inventors) are at liberty to opt for any national,
European or Asian office, with a view to getting their inventions patented. “Competition is hard, and the difference in costs between the different offices is considerable,” says Battistelli in justification for his stance. “At the EPO we need to work more and work better. And that’s the programme for which I was appointed”. Liberal be damned; whatever executive role he may playing, the main aim seems to be to bring the unions to heel.
SUEPO won 70% of the votes in the staff elections. Battistelli suppressed his in-house union, banning them from using the internal messaging service, and initiated disciplinary procedures against seven of its executives, before attempting to set up a puppet union of his own – which polled 1% of the votes. “I have been an enthusiast of dialogue with the unions for a long time,” says Battistelli in his defence. Then he ushers in another initiative: Submitting the right to strike to an internal referendum under his tutelage, and with identification of the voters. Unfortunately, despite this close monitoring, in April 90% of the staff (of a 55% turnout) voted in favour of the latest strike.
When you’re up against the boss, where do you turn? SUEPO went to the Court of Appeal in The Hague, which in February 2015, ordered the EPO “to allow free access, and not to block
emails deriving from suepo.org”, ruling that the protection of union rights was “manifestly deficient”. Battistelli viewed this as a crime of lèse-majesté, an infringement on his executive authority, and took refuge behind the judicial immunity of his international institution. For very good reasons, namely: “The principle of immunity is not to protect people in a privileged position, but to protect against interference by outside nations.” SUEPO immediately interpreted this as: “A black pit for internal democracy, and for union and legal rights.” The EPO boss does not refute this, but refers in turn to “serial litigants”, “inadmissible” in his eyes, then stands his ground on his own rights as an executive: “There are no class actions when it comes to social affairs”…
Sabotaging the bicycle
Up to now, France has backed the French president of a continental institution. Last April, Emmanuel Macron received Benoît Battistelli at Bercy. “You have my support in all you are doing to adapt and modernise the EPO,” the first president is supposed to have said, at least according to the second one. And what about everyone else? Another demonstration by the staff of the EPO, at Munich or The Hague, without stopping in front of the French consulate… “Bercy is trying to understand his psychopathology,” is how one French union member tried to come to terms with events. “France must take on its responsibilities,” says William Bourdon, advocate for SUEPO. “It is regrettable and dangerous that a European institution which is supposed to be setting an example is so little under its control.”
On Wednesday, at the meeting of the Administrative Council, the EPO is going to be taking another look at its resolution adopted last March, when a previous Council expressed its “deep concerns about the social turmoil inside the Office”, then noted that “the internal sanctions and disciplinary procedures have been widely challenged by public opinion”. It may well be time to turn words into deeds. The President, reinstated last year for a three-year mandate, maintains that he is a victim of a “press campaign”, and will defend his stance to the death. His latest initiative: A press release complaining about the sabotage of his bicycle in the EPO car park, with the brake cables cut, a “deliberate act of vandalism personally aimed at the President”. Since then he has assigned himself six bodyguards.
Renaud Lecadre
The above correctly notes, as we pointed out before, that this whole affair and all these scandals are not at all beneficial to France (just to a few French individuals whom Battistelli gave high salary jobs). This fosters/creates a negative impression and French politicians are rightly concerned about this. It could become another Bygmalion affair. As for the bicycle angle, it has become somewhat of an internal joke. The above article focuses on Battistelli’s attacks on unions but not on his attacks on judges (those who assess and reassess patents, as this new example serves to remind us. There is an attack not only on EPO (Office) staff but also the Administration/Organisation (no wonder there are suicides, as noted above). Even stakeholders/applicants are negatively affected.
“Inventors deserve recognition for their incredible contributions to making our lives better,” the EPO wrote some days ago. “Help us do this,” they added, basically appealing for help with Battistelli's next PR and lobbying event. What they ought to say is that “Battistelli deserves recognition for his incredible attacks on staff, making our lives miserable.” That would at least be honest. On Friday also they did this kind of thing with a “startups” slant, pretending that the EPO under Battistelli cares about SMEs while effectively pushing them to the back of the line. Classic neo-liberalism!
As a reminder of Battistelli’s attacks on the boards, consider Sonja Behrens’s report with highlights on important bits. SUEPO provided the following English translation in its public site:
EPO Dispute: Judges feel threatened by Office Boss Battistelli
The decision taken last week by the Enlarged Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) to stop disciplinary proceedings against a suspended judge is, in a sense, a
settling of scores with Office President Benoît Battistelli. Specifically, present members of the EPO Boards of Appeal also feel themselves threatened, according to the document. Under these circumstances, their independence as judges is no longer guaranteed.
For many months a bitter dispute has been ongoing within the Office, with its 7,000 strong workforce, between the management and a large number of the employees and the staff unions. This has been prompted by the efforts at reform initiated by Battistelli – and the methods with which he intends to put his plans into practice. Employees complain of interference with their basic rights, including by way of internal investigation procedures.
The dispute over the suspension from office of a judge is the high point of the conflict – so far. The proceedings started to become noticeably unusual when the Enlarged Boards of Appeal arranged for a public hearing in the suspension proceedings, so as to ensure transparency in what was already a contentious issue, whereupon Office President Battistelli
intervened in writing. He demanded a hearing behind closed doors – and that, as the judges saw it, was impermissible meddling in the proceedings.
Judges see a “general, abstract threat”
According to the decision which JUVE has in its possession, Battistelli had argued that a public hearing was unlawful. The personal presence of witnesses from the Office was something he considered unnecessary for the proceedings, and nor would he authorise it. Moreover, the Enlarged Boards of Appeal were apparently not even allowed to investigate the matter again. And on top of all this, he made it clear that he would do everything in his power to ensure that business at the Munich patent authority could in future be run in an orderly fashion.
The court viewed this as a “general, abstract threat”, which affected every member of the Enlarged Boards. The intervention by the President, and thereby the Executive, was impermissible in terms of legal procedure, according to the judges, because Battistelli is not a party to these proceedings. The judges see their independence, which is firmly anchored in Article 23 of the European Patent Convention (EPC), as being fundamentally undermined.
Off-centre from the outset
Last autumn the Administrative Council of the EPO, on which representatives of the 38 Member States sit, called upon the Enlarged Boards of Appeal responsible to recommend dismissal in the disciplinary proceedings against the suspended judge. In so doing, the Administrative Council were already bowing to pressure from the President, who at the end of 2014 had imposed a ban on the former member of the Board of Appeal from entering the premises, and had him escorted out of the Office building in Munich. Over the following months, despite the uproar, the Administrative Council did not distance itself from the proceedings which had been initiated, nor from Battistelli’s most recent letter.
The suspended judge maintains, among other things, that the investigations against him incurred formal procedural errors – and for this reason alone the presumption of innocence could no longer be entertained in this respect, becausethe Office itself had broken the confidentiality of the proceedings.
In view of the circumstances, last week the Board of Appeal refused to dismiss the accused judge. The proceedings were terminated without a substantive decision, and, specifically on the significant grounds that, in view of the threats from the Office management, an independent ruling was impossible. As well as that, the Board recommended that the suspended judge be reimbursed for all the costs of the proceedings. They did not, however, regard themselves as empowered to order the compensation. The judges also accorded with the defendant’s wishes that the decision be made public.
Whether Battistelli, in the top position at the Office, continues to enjoy the support of the Administrative Council will become clear soon enough: At the end of June the Council is actually scheduled to rule on the reform of court procedures within the EPO. (Sonja Behrens)
The above seems reasonably accurate (we cannot see anything which is clearly wrong) and it alludes to Battistelli's media attacks on the accused judge (violating the EPO’s already-low standards for internal investigations). How can anyone take Battistelli seriously when he keeps breaking his own rules? Now he attacks even justice itself. “I fail to see how it increases or enhances the autonomy of the Boards of Appeal,” one person wrote about Battistelli’s coup last week. Here is the comment in full:
The point as I see it is the following:
Under the “old” arrangements, the judicial bodies (Boards of Appeal and EBA) adopted their own Rules of Procedure which were then subject to approval by the appointing authority (the AC which is the EPO “legislative”).
Under the new arrangements the Rules of Procedure for the judicial bodies will now be adopted by a sub-committee of the AC (the BOAC) and presumably then approved by the AC itself pursuant to Article 23 (4) EPC (which has not been changed).
In other words: the Rules of Procedure will now be adopted by a sub-committee of the “legislative” and approved by the “legislative” itself.
I cannot see this as being anything other than a transfer of competence from the judicial organs (who previously disposed of the competence to adopt the RoP) to the legislative (which now disposes of both the competences to “adopt” and to “approve” the RoP).
Undoubtedly this is all just one small detail in the grand scheme of things.
But I fail to see how it increases or enhances the autonomy of the Boards of Appeal or even the “preception of independence” so close to the heart of the EPO President.
To me it seems to be a very clear erosion of autonomy.
But maybe I am missing something?
“BB’s [Battistelli's] original proposal (that he should have sole responsibility) was absolutely wrong,” wrote another person, in a comment which some interpreted as pro-Battistelli views:
Back to Basics
I think what you are missing is that in most jurisdictions, court rules of procedure are produced on a collaborative basis. Yes, the judges themselves should be at the heart of it, but the fairest and most efficient outcome is achieved when other points of view are also taken into account. This is how it works in the UK and UPC, for example.
The requirement for separation of the judiciary from the executive arm of the EPO means that BB’s original proposal (that he should have sole responsibility) was absolutely wrong.
But the current situation where the Boards have sole responsibility and don’t have to listen to other views is not necessarily the best either.
Sure, you can argue about whether the proposed solution achieves the best balance. But it is more balanced than either of the above alternatives. And it does mean that the Boards themselves will still be drafting the rules, even though others will also have a say which they don’t at the moment.
At least one person thought that the above may have been “the President’s sock-puppet”:
Looks like the President’s sock-puppets are busy today.
Under the current arrangement, the Boards don’t have the sole responsibility.
There is a classical “separation of powers” arrangement whereby the Boards “propose” (i.e. adopt the rules) and the AC “disposes” (i.e. approves).
Under that arrangement the AC can exercise a certain amount of control over any proposed changes to the RoP by withholding its approval.
Now we go to an arrangement where the AC will both “propose” (via the BOAC) and “dispose”.
As Back to Basics said that seems like a transfer of competence from the Board to the AC. All of the power is now concentrated in the hands of the legislature (AC).
In a situation where the legislature is subservient to the executive (President) that is worrying.
And as for “others” having a say, pray tell how is that supposed to come about?
Not everyone agreed with this interpretation. One later response to it said:
Looks like the President’s sock-puppets are busy today.
The President employs sock puppets who describe his proposal as “absolutely wrong”?
Get real.
Now we go to an arrangement where the AC will both “propose” (via the BOAC) and “dispose”.
Or instead of making things up, we could actually read CA/43/16 Rev.1. The RoP will not be proposed by the AC. Nor by the BOAC.
They will be proposed by the President of the Boards of Appeal, advised by the Presidium. See new Rules 12c(2) and 12b(3)(c) EPC.
And as for “others” having a say, pray tell how is that supposed to come about?
See the Regulations of the Boards of Appeal Committee, Article 4(2)(i):
Quote:
[the BOAC shall] “carry out, where necessary, user consultations on matters of direct concern to users,such as proposals to amend the Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal and of the Enlarged Board of Appeal.”
Comments thereafter focused on the lack of consultation and oversight:
Regarding the others, did the document not deal with this by saying that the IP world would not be represented as only some areas of the BoAC’ s remit would concern them? Will need to check the wording but I thought it was rather curt and direct.
In fact in the explanatory notes to CA 43/16, it is stated:
” 20. In the user consultation carried out by the Office, users said they would like to be
granted observer status on the BOAC. Given that the BOAC will deal with a variety
of issues which are of no direct interest to users, this is not deemed appropriate.
However, where necessary, the BOAC should carry out broad user consultations,
in particular on proposals to amend the RPBA/RPEBA.”
What you are missing, Back to basics, is a picture of the President and the National delegations on holidays on a beach – possibly separatedly – sipping cocktails and yawning at your legal analysis that will change absolutely nothing.
Can you see it now? Yes? I thought so.
Sorry to be blunt – nonetheless, you may have a point in your analysis.
“To render them independent,” noted another person, “the Boards will be moved outside Munich in the middle of nowhere. The rest are just details that do not affect independence.”
This led to a long discussion about the ‘exile’ of the boards (to a yet-unspecified location):
To render them independent the Boards will be moved outside Munich in the middle of nowhere.
The same sick idea crossed my mind too…
Excerpt from the EPO Codex, Circular 115 of 10 March 1983, “Guidelines regarding travel in the interest of the service at the place of employment”:
(1) The place of employment shall be regarded as:
[...]
b) the districts listed in the annex for employees in post in [...] Munich.
[...]
The Munich area covers:
Aschheim
Baierbrunn
Brunnthal
Buchendorf
Dachau
Dingharting
Dornach
Eching
Eichenau
Feldgeding
Feldkirchen
Garching
Gauting
Germering
Gilching
Grasbrunn
Gräfelfing
Gröbenzell
Grünwald
Günding
Haar
Harthausen
Heimstetten
Hofolding
Hohenbrunn
Höhenkirchen
Ismaning
Karlsfeld
Kirchheim
Krailling
Lenstetten
München
Neubiberg
Neukeferloh
Neuried
Oberbiberg
Oberhaching
Oberschleißheim
Olching
Ottobrunn
Parsdorf
Percha
Planegg
Pleining
Puchheim
Pullach
Putzbrunn
Pöring/Poing
Sauerlach
Schäftlarn
Siegertsbrunn
Starnberg
Straßlach
Taufkirchen
Unterföhring
Unterhaching
Unterpfaffenhofen
Unterschleißheim
Vaterstetten
Wangen
Zorneding
Is this list applicable to the definition of “Munich” for, say, the purpose of Art. 6(1) EPC?
And that list can be modified by the President, as attests footnote 2:
Modified by decision of the President on recommendation of the GAC.
Technically he could define Kreuzberg, Wedding or Marzahn or even Bremerhaven, Frankfurt/Oder or Gelsenkirchen as being part of the definition of “Munich”, and no one would be able to do anything about it.
Another bit of input regarding the location, as per the EPC:
Excerpt from the EPO Codex …
I don’t think it is necessary to look that far.
The EPO branch at The Hague (Art. 6(2) EPC) is located in Rijswijk. Rijswijk is a fully independent municipality whose only connection to The Hague is that it borders The Hague.
According to Visser, The Annotated EPC:
- When the EPC 1973 was concluded, the offices of the IIB (predecessor of the EPO branch at The Hague) were located in The Hague. When the EPO actually started, the IIB had moved to Rijswijk. There has never been an EPO office in The Hague.
- During the revision of the EPC in 2000 it was “decided (I’m not sure in what sense… probably simply agreed among the delegations) that “any geographical location in the EPC should be interpreted broadly, e.g. The Hague should mean the province of South Holland and Munich the country of Bavaria. Any geographical allocation would at some point restrict the reallocation of offices.”
I guess one should be able to find this passage somewhere in the minutes of the 2000 diplomatic conference.
So… Munich = Munich area? Why think so small?
So DG3 could be relegated to the fortress in Landsberg or some old pigsty around Augsburg without further ado. Hof might be remote enough for the President’s taste. That’s a not nice thought to start the week-end with…
I was well aware of the very long-standing resistance of the borough of Rijswijk against its annexation by The Hague, but never really made the connection with the EPO. The ugly dovecote in Rijswijk was however inherited from the IIB.
Weren’t there plans to create a new site in ZH about 20 years ago? The name “Voorburg” resonates in my brain cells, but I’m not sure that was the place. This suburb is currently amalgamated with Leidschendam. I heard it “sous le manteau” that a plot of land had even been acquired, to be later cast off, yielding a beautiful profit set in bright red numbers. Anyway, it ain’t the kind of story you would normally read in the Gazette.
I checked Art. 6 in my own copy of Visser, the French patent office is characterised as “disorganised”. I don’t think this is the proper assessment, but then my edition dates back from when BB was still the head honcho there. 
The upheaval around the so-called “Areas of Competence” clearly was just starters.
“IIRC,” one person wrote, “the enlarged Board of Appeals already decided, that The Hague means anywhere in the Netherlands, and Munich is therefore interpreted as anywhere in Bavaria…. Will try to refind that sometime….”
Citing this page, it’s later noted that “[i]t was Leidschendam and if I’m not mistaken the EPO made a loss on the plot of land. An architectural design competition had been held and the project was awarded in 1990 (building to be finished near the end of 1994), but patent filings collapsed so it was all cancelled.
“I believe that the Dutch authorities that bought back the land for a lower price then again made a nice profit by changing the zoning regulations to make it suitable for housing. But I might not have all the details right.”
We recently heard some rumours about missing floors in the new building of the EPO in the Netherlands, but insiders told us that these rumours were false.
Looking at another thread at IP Kat, one person asked: “Why is this blog still silent about the Administrative Council approving the proposed reform last Thursday, with only some relatively minor amendments? This approval is apparently perceived as unbelievable by anybody (except the EPO administration) who dares to express an opinion on the matter.”
Yes, well, there has been little or nothing on the subject, except in anonymous comments from people who are likely insiders. Going back to the original thread, people can see that the President of the EPO is left controlling the other “President” (BOAC) by appointment, which demonstrates how the Administrative Council effectively helped Battistelli destroy the boards’ independence. To quote:
“Now we go to an arrangement where the AC will both “propose” (via the BOAC) and “dispose”.”
It seems a bit more subtle to me.
Previously, it was the presidium of the boards that drafted the RoP.
Now, it is the president of the boards. The presidium only advises the president of the boards.
So this power has moved from the presidium to the president of the boards.
Here comes the rub: the president of the boards will be hand-picked by the EPO president (sure, a “joint proposal” by the EPO president and the BOAC).
No big deal, because once appointed he’ll be independent? Let’s see…
Will his reappointment after expiry of his 5-year term be essentially automatic? Or will the EPO president have a big say in this?
We’ll know soon enough how reappointment of the president of the boards will be handled.
Whatever happens next at the EPO (the past few days have been disappointingly quiet, even at SUEPO’s Web site), the perception of a Battistelli-led EPO is negative enough to merit immediate change. How will it come about? Perhaps stakeholders will vote with their feet or fees. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in News Roundup at 2:46 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Article as ODF
Publicado en Europa, Patentes a las 9:23 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Sumario: Continuándo una tradición de secretividad y negociaciónes astutas entre sus beneficiaros prospectivos, la UPC es debatida en Munich por Battistelli y el Equipo UPC (en su mayoríá firmas de leyes de patentes), llegando a nada pero mentiras y no un significativo cubrimiénto de prensa
El pasado mes y a principios de este publicamos casi media docena de artículos acerca del colapso de la UPC despues de Brexit (vean la Wiki de la EPO por detalles). Es un problema para la UPC y este se está convirtiéndo cada vez más aceptado dentro de las firmes de patentes. Por ejemplo, citando el artículo de Henschel el cual menciónamos el otro día, Benjamin Henrion dice [1, 2] que “las leyes de patentes de la UE serán alemanizadas con la ausencia del Reino Unido. “Jueces de la UPC fueron aceptados hasta el 4 de Julio, pero jueces aplicantes del Reino Unido pueden ahora ser excluídos”” (El Equipo UPC hizo publicidad de trabajos que no existían y probablemente nunca existirán, lo que revela un montón del equipo UPC y su falta de ética).
Henrion señaló que “la UPC tiene demasiados problemas.” Aparte del problema de que la UPC es un ataque a la democracia misma, hay problemas técnicos con su aplicación ahora, especialmente debido a Brexit. Esto fue previsto por muchos críticos distintos a Henrion e incluso la EPO lo admitió este último mes. “Brexit amenaza a la inseguridad jurídica, costos más altos para las marcas, dicen los abogados,” de acuerdo con la IP Watch, pero preguntar abogados acerca de los costos es como pedirle a los fabricantes de armas de guerra la paz (este artículo está detrás de un muro de pago por cierto). Hay un par de nuevos artículos sobre el EPO en este momento, pero ambos están en alemán [1, 2] (traducciones serían muy apreciadas) y el segundo es acerca de Brexit. En muchos sentidos, la UPC está muerta, pero Battistelli tratará de salvar a su “bebé”. Las últimas mentiras de la EPO (advertencia: epo.org link, vinculados a la cuenta de Twitter de la EPO) dicen que hay “un fuerte apoyo para el paquete de Patente Unitaria”, sino como Henrion les dijo correctamente “cuando se pregunta a la comunidad de las patentes, eso es como predicar su propia iglesia! “(que sólo han preguntado equipo de la UPC a puerta cerrada)
“Otro problema aparte es que la UPC es un ataque en la democracia misma, hay problemas técnicos con su implementación ahora, expecialmente debido a Brexit.”
La UPC sin duda cuenta con el apoyo de la colusión de auto-servicio que la creó en primer lugar, o al menos la planeó. ¿Por qué es que epo.org básicamente se convirtió en un sitio de la propaganda Battistelli en lugar de algo científico? ¿Qué van a pensar las empresas? A las pequeñas empresas de toda Europa no les gusta la UPC. ¿Le importa a la EPO sobre ellos en absoluto? Sobre la base de este artículo de equipo de la UPC, Margot Fröhlinger dijo que ninguno de los usuarios y empresas disponibles expresó reticencia a continuar con el impulso de la patente unitaria. “Cualquier cosa que ellos decidan lo harán”, por citar directamente “, la UPC seguirá adelante. La línea de base de esta conferencia podría haber sido: donde hay voluntad, hay un camino”.
Pero ¿voluntad de quién? El equipo de la UPC es un grupo de depredadores, que no representan los intereses de Europa. Max Brunner (Ministerio de Justicia – Francia) es citado diciendo: “El proyecto es bueno para los negocios.-leáse grandes corporaciónes non-europeas – Por lo tanto tenemos que continuarlo”.
Pero la “UPC es dañina,” notó Henrion. Las PYMEs en Europa levantaron su voz en contra de ella, habiéndo descubierto sus realidades. El equip UPC está basicamente de nuevo, malrepresentando a Europa y a los negocios Europeos. Glyn Moody dijo que cuando la UPC dice “bueno para los negocios, significa malo para el público aquí: más monopolios, más arreglo de precios” (a costa del pueblo Europeo).
Moreno, otro crítico UPC, citó al Kluwer Blog de Patentes (parte de un ala del equipo de la UPC) como diciendo “El Reino Unido tiene ahora que tomar ciertas decisiones políticas. Cualquier cosa que decidan, la UPC seguirá adelante “(suena bastante vano y asertivo).
Miren quien promovió esta “Conferencia de Munich” y el post del blog de la patente Kluwer. Y otra en el blog de Patent WatchTroll hay una columna de Bird & Bird sobre “Implicaciones Brexit” (Kluwer Blog de Patentes está conectado a Bird & Bird, que es una parte fundamental del equipo de la UPC). Los defensores de las patentes de software en Europa como Bastian Best van más lejos al promover este seminario en Londres y diciendo: “Este será un interesante seminario” Protección de Patentes de Invenciones relacionados con el software en Europa y EE.UU.”” (en otras palabras, la promoción de las patentes de software en a pesar de la EPC).
“En el caso de la UPC, como uno podría esperar, es un grupo de firma de abogados de patentes que escribe las leyes a puertas cerradas (no transcripciónes publicadas) y luego piden a los políticos que les pongan la estampa de goma..”
Quizás lo más interesante será la composición de los asistentes a este seminario Londres. A juzgar por este Tweet Publicado hace varios días (“Post Conferencia #Brexit #UPC en #EPO en #Munich mañana http://bit.ly/29y0AAT @ EIPLegal de Rob Smith Lundie asistir – buscar actualizaciones”), Battistelli también estaba allí ( “#UP #UPC actualización de conferencias – #Battistelli proporciona visión personal de #brexit en #UPC – ya sea Reino Unido ratifica o retraso UPC hasta Reino Unido deja UE”). Bueno, Battistelli habrá dejado para entonces (se puede tomar 2,5 años) y la EPO se encuentra actualmente en un estado de crisis (de la propia creación de Battistelli). La UPC, ya que se previó está muerto / morir, pero persisten las fantasías de la UPC y sus creadores continuar como si nada hubiera pasado (“#UP Conferencia #UPC: Dr. Carsten Zulch: jueces técnicamente cualificados significa bifurcación en virtud de la UPC sólo tiene sentido en circunstancias limitadas …” )
“Las leyes de la UE [están] escritos por las grandes corporaciónes”, señaló Henrion “, y luego se preguntan por qué la gente votó por Brexit. Especialmente cuando espectro podría ser liberado en su lugar”.
“Cuando no hay transcripciones escritas de lo Miembro del Parlamento Europeo dice en la comisión”, agregó, “no seas sorprendido porque la gente vota por #brexit [...] hace 15 años solicité por escrito transcripciones de las discusiones en los comités de el Parlamento Europeo, estamos todavía muy lejos “(fuente)
En el caso de la UPC, como uno podría esperar, es un grupo de firma de abogados de patentes que escribe las leyes a puertas cerradas (no transcripciónes publicadas) y luego piden a los políticos que les pongan la estampa de goma. Recuerde que la UPC Chair comité selecciónadoes parte de la colusión para anular la ley en Europa y este tweet de la conferencia dijo “#UP Conferencia #UPC: Cátedra UPC comité selecto – Reino Unido todavía podría ratificar y políticos mensaje Brexit puede o no puede encontrar el camino para mantener Reino Unido en … “(todo especulativa).
“Dado el tiempo que Brexit podría tomar, esto parece cada vez más un escenario pausible,” MIP escribió acerca de ello.
“Vimos la misma falta de cubrimiénto rodeando a la TTIP y la TPP en los pasados años; esto se cimentó en secretividad y a veces en complicidad.”
“No hay críticos de la UPC están hablando ahí”, señaló Henrion, con una link a esta página. Esta conspiración de auto-enriquecimiento mediante patentes abogados y sus grandes clientes requiere mantener al público afuera de ello, inconsciente y totalmente al margen. Estas personas están tratando de embestir a la UPC por las gargantas de nuestros políticos y cuanto más el público se entere, peor será para el equipo de la UPC. “Preparaciones del Reino Unido para la ratificación #UPC están acabados”, escribió Patently German. “La ratificación, sin embargo, será decisión del nuevo PM espera que asumirá el cargo en septiembre” (tienen problemas mucho más urgentes que tratar con distinta UPC).
Como de costumbre, todas estas reuniones secretas no estaban cubiertos por los medios de comunicación. Había un montón de mentiras sobre él en la página web de la EPO y los blogs equipo de la UPC. Battistelli, a expensas de la EPO, comprá artículos ” en ” los medios de comunicación europeo, a veces “artículos” o piezas de hojaldre a favor de la UPC (algunos de sus ‘socios de los medios’ lo ha hecho desde el año pasado). Qué desgracia ! Vimos la misma falta de cubrimiénto rodeando a la TTIP y la TPP en los pasados años; esto se cimentó en secretividad y a veces en complicidad.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 12:04 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
English/Original
Article as ODF
Publicado en Europa, Patentes a las 12:44 pm por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Ayudándo a los opresores y agresores
Sumario: La agresiva firma legal basada en Londres (reciéntemente contratada por la EPO), Mishcon de Reya, sale a luz de nuevo en materias que son de relevancia para la EPO y nosotros análizamos esas correlaciónes
EL LAVADO DE REPUTACIÓN es un objetivo grande y contínuo en la EPO. Ya que Battistelli y sus chácales están tratando de controlar la prensa, por ejemplo, silenciando las voces críticas y usarla para difamar a las voces críticas dentro de la organización. Vean el tweet de hoy de la EPO. Este premio rinde millones de euros de presupuesto de EPO a las empresas privadas, incluyendo los medios de comunicación, pero la EPO no quiere decir esto al público. Además, la EPO desperdicia dinero en abogados los que utiliza para enviar cartas de amenaza a los críticos, como los que se atreven a hablar de la conexión EPO-Microsoft. Para obtener información sobre esta conexión véanse los artículos anteriores, tales como:
El último de ellos trata de la UPC, la que esperamos que probablemente no se haga una realidad El día de hoy la EPO escribió: “La EPO se complace en informar a los usuarios de su software de presentación en línea tiene una nueva actualización que ya está disponible” (siga los enlaces a la página de descargas y vea cómo todo sigue siendo centrado en Microsoft).
Recientemente hemos pensado en algún tipo de acción conjunta FFII contra de la UPC, pero al ver que Brexit ya está enviando a la UPC por el desagüe, esto podría no ser necesario en absoluto. Esta semana, la FFII Ante Wessels se ve en algunos asolapamientos entre la resolución de controversias entre inversores y Estados (ISDS), el sueño húmedo de las grandes corporaciones, y la UPC (que sirve para poner de relieve las conexiones / TTIP TPP):
La UPC y ISDS: ¿quién tendría que pagará los premios al daño?
[...]
el abogado de inversiónes Pratyush Nath Upreti argumenta que los inversores podrán utilizar la solución de diferencias entre inversores y Estado (ISDS) para impugnar las decisiones del Tribunal Unificado de Patentes (UPC). [1] Los inversores podrían utilizar, por ejemplo, un tratado bilateral de inversión holandesa para impugnar las decisiones de la UPC. Upreti identifica los tratados de inversión holandeses como adecuados para la búsqueda del convenio y advierte de litigios de propiedad intelectual más frívola de solución de diferencias entre inversores y Estados.
Esto plantea una pregunta. ¿Quién iba a soportar las costas procesales y de las indemnizaciones?
Si los inversores utilizan un tratado de inversión holandés los Países Bajos será el demandado. Las decisiones de la UPC pueden considerar toda la zona de la UPC (casi toda la UE). ISDS premios a daños pueden incluir beneficios esperados. Holanda podría llegar a tener que pagar los costos de litigio y premios daños, incluidos los beneficios esperados para casi toda la UE.
No es exactamente una noticia de que la UPC y ISDS servirán a las grandes corporaciones y a sus abogados agresivos como Mishcon de Reya (que también trabaja para Microsoft en su parte frontal de agresión de patentes). Por consiguiente, era interesante ver a mi abogado publicar “Algunos pensamientos a -El desafío legal Mishcon de Reya en el artículo 50 ” (link directo a la fuente). A modo de recordatorio, Battistelli se opone Brexit porque perjudica sus planes para la UPC -y a sus amos del otro lado del charco – Ahora sus abogados en Londres (quienes me amenazaban y me acechaban online por un tiempo después de que cartas de amenaza fueran envíadas por otra empresa en relación con artículos sobre los lazos amorosos entre Microsoft y la EPO) paso y tratar de tomar las medidas que salvar la UPC y sin duda ayudará a Microsoft demasiado (un gran cliente de Mishcon de Reya en la cara de ella). Es un mundo pequeño después de todo, pero la superposición de intereses, como se ha explicado anteriormente, todo podría reducirse a coincidencias. Un patrón emerge, sin embargo, al ver como Mishcon de Reya ayuda y/o trabaja para entidades agresivas.
James Nurton, quien entrevistó a Battistelli algunos meses atrás, dio a conocer el día de hoy “Brexit 10 días sus: últimos avances”. Es sobre el impacto de Brexit, que no hace a la EPO feliz. Para citar Nurton: “Los prácticantes dicen que han tenido muchas consultas acerca de la presentación de marca y diseño de los derechos nacionales del Reino Unido de los clientes que quieren asegurarse de que tienen protección en el país después delo que sucede con Brexit.”
Suponemos que estas investigaciones significan dinero (por hora); así que no es tán malo después de todo para algunos de ellos…
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA