11.28.17
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 7:57 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Money down the drain, draining everyone’s reputation
Summary: EPO stakeholders (mostly users who apply for European Patents and their renewal) have inadvertently contributed to quite a disease which not only jeopardises the integrity of the Office but also the worth of patents, the integrity of media, and integrity of academia
THE EPO certainly knows how to control the media. The secret? Throw money at the media. Failing that, threaten the media.
The EPO has, for at least a decade, notoriously used IAM for all sorts of propaganda (UPC, patent ‘quality’ etc.) — to the point where IAM now seems to shy away from even covering EPO matters. It’s a sensitive relationship. Well, reposted from IAM earlier today was this article regarding “Deferral Of Examination” at the EPO — a subject previously covered here (when it was posted in IAM’s Web site and the firm’s own). There’s not much to see there because it was composed by UPC and software patents proponents. It’s one big club and litigation is its currency. And speaking of UPC (litigation), recently the EPO had two universities (academia) paid in order to promote the UPC. This means that the EPO moved on from corrupting media to corrupting academia. Some allege that this was done very specifically in order help influence the German courts system regarding the UPC (i.e. against Europe’s interests). “Read more about the impact of #patent protection on trade & FDI in innovative industries in this study,” the EPO wrote today, not quite noting who was behind this so-called ‘study’.
The EPO’s corruption of the media/public outlets, including stacking of panels and manipulation of public debates, is truly troubling. It’s like we’re dealing here with Monsanto/Bayer (a big scandal in Germany about this today), not a public institution.
And speaking of media, watch today’s terrible puff piece from World Intellectual Property Review (WIPR). It’s about the interview we’ve mentioned 3 times already (Saturday, Sunday, and Monday). They found a way to spin it and this spin was poorly-received (by EPO staff [1, 2]). Regarding the spin on this, one insider said: “Let me guess who’s next in-line publishing a preposterous article about the disturbed situation at the EPO? Perhaps IAM? It would add insult to injury…”
It’s a lot of gross revisionism by those willing to put their name behind their words, i.e. those who suck up to the EPO rather than risk alienation. It’s a salad of supportive words for Battistelli basically; “A spokesperson for the EPO said the office was pleased with the interview,” said the author, “which reflected the “overall support of the Council to the reforms and the acknowledgement of their very positive results, in particular in terms of quality of products and services delivered by the EPO”.”
Incredible! What a bunch of liars. Here is how it started:
Benoît Battistelli’s tenure at the European Patent Office (EPO) has been “undoubtedly positive” but there has been a “heavy-handed approach”, the chairman of the Administrative Council has said.
Christoph Ernst was interviewed in November by legal news website JUVE, which asked him the following question: “The EPO is constantly dogged by infighting between the Council’s management and its staff; the launch of the Unified Patent Court is clouded with uncertainty. The outlook is rather dismal, isn’t it?”
His response was that the situation was “certainly not as bad as that”.
Then starts a series of (almost) compliments to Battistelli. Shame on WIPR for quoting the firm the EPO sent to bully me several times. Here it is:
Joshua Marshall, associate at Fieldfisher, said: “Battistelli’s tenure has not been without its challenges. Many of the issues have been internal in terms of the EPO’s procedures and the staff which it employs.”
They are belittling the issues after Battistelli paid them to literally threaten me and try to silence Techrights (several times in fact, through several members of staff).
The EPO is a sick, sick place. Seeing it from the outside is enough to sicken. One can only imagine how dark and sickening (depressing if not leading to literal illness) it is from the inside. The sickness is infectious and now we have media and academia falling ill, too. The ‘virus’ propagates using stakeholders’ (users’) money and spreads in a fashion that severely undermines Europe’s reputation and European democracy. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Patents at 7:17 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Previously: Putting Radicals and Foes of Technology in Charge of Patents
Summary: A government which is run by billionaires, some of whom work directly with Putin’s family (Wilbur Ross for example), is choosing for the USPTO to be run by the very industry it’s supported to govern (just like the FCC, EPA, and soon HHS, to name a few)
“President Donald Trump’s Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross is doing business with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s son-in-law, a bombshell new report revealed Tuesday.” That’s today. The report was published just a short while ago and confirmed what was alleged before, based on leaks.
“Classic “revolving doors” example.”That’s the man who, just earlier today, put Iancu (the name is apparently Romanian, not Russian) from the patent ‘industry’ in charge of the USPTO. Classic “revolving doors” example. The new USPTO Director is Iancu, as noted 10 or so hours ago here (see direct link to the source; it’s not textual).
Who needs to “drain the swamp”? Whoever comes after Trump (and his cabal of oligarchs), who nominated Iancu after Wilbur Ross had conducted interviews. This is a Director whose view on patents we covered here before [1, 2, 3]. Truly disturbing. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:58 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Photo source
Summary: The EPO went to the “Science Days” event in Munich, wherein a proponent of software patents delivered a presentation that seems to allude to software patents (but not directly because these are not allowed)
EARLIER today the EPO linked to its site, which said (warning: epo.org link) about Munich “Science Days”: “The EPO also contributed to the event with a lecture by Director for ICT Georg Weber on “Industry 4.0 – the technology landscape of tomorrow”. Attended by some 200 people, the presentation shed light on the information side of patents and its benefits for the public, and generated numerous comments and questions from the audience.”
“Industry 4.0″ is the sort of buzzword/term that Grant Philpott, his colleague, often appears to be using when he pushes software patents. We covered some examples before.
“This is hogwash as he promotes software patents in Europe and these are notorious when it comes to crushing startups.”Earlier this year Georg Weber also openly advocated software patents in Europe (not legal as it stands, but the EPO does not obey rules anyway). EPO managers try to emulate China (SIPO), where anything goes, including any software patent.
The event’s organiser quoted George [sic] Weber as saying that the “EPO is committed to supporting #startups & #MSMEs to reducing Patent pendency, complexity & cost~”
This is hogwash as he promotes software patents in Europe and these are notorious when it comes to crushing startups. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Courtroom, Patents at 5:32 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Related: National Law Journal Believes That Gorsuch as Supreme Court Justice Would be Opponent of Patent Reform
Reference: Neil Gorsuch
Summary: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is being decided on at the highest level (US Supreme Court) and the new arrival at the court weighs in on the subject, based on reporting and transcript from inside the court (the case officially began yesterday)
TODAY’S US Supreme Court is pro-patent reform. We have seen many decisions to that effect, especially in recent years, and with Scalia’s death we have a Trump nominee/appointee added to the mix. Not much is known about him as far as patents go, so people are left to mostly speculate/interpolate based on past judgments.
Oil States (a PTAB case dealing with the abilities, such as inter partes reviews, to thwart or ‘steal’ so-called ‘property’ like patents) officially began yesterday as far as hearings go. There’s no set deadline for this case’s decision, but it is not imminent.
The corporate media (even in London) took note of it yesterday and so did Wall Street media. The coverage, however, isn’t exactly great. It’s not too accurate and may sometimes seem one-sided. Susan Decker’s premise, for example (one she put right in her headline), is an old and famous lie. It says that PTAB controversy is about “tech versus pharma” rather patent trolls/lawyers (with low-quality patents) versus the rest of us. We recently saw this same falsehood disseminated by the corporate media of London [1, 2], which the EPO had incidentally paid. To quote Decker:
Tech companies like Google and Apple Inc. cheered in 2011 when Congress created a review system for deciding whether the federal agency that issues patents is getting it wrong.
Thousands of invalidated patents later, the Supreme Court is considering whether Congress got it wrong.
The high court hears arguments Monday on whether to put a halt to a system that lets companies go to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to challenge patents rather than relying only on courts. It’s designed to be a low-cost alternative to lawsuits, and the review system is popular with tech companies and retailers that get sued often by patent owners.
Critics call the review board a “death squad” because it uses a different legal standard than courts and is more likely to cancel a patent. Drugmakers such as AbbVie Inc., which rely on patents to fend off competitors, say the system violates their constitutional right to a jury trial.
The misleading and offensive term “death squad” (comparing judges on patent matters to executioners) is believed to have come from a disgraced/corrupt judge, Mr. Rader. Why does the media keep repeating this term? Decker even put it right inside her headline (“Patent ‘Death Squad’ Pitting Tech and Pharma Heads to Supreme Court”).
Do we want a serious debate about this? One in which patents don’t get “killed” or “survive”? One in which patents are not being called “property” which is “owned” or whatever? The article was composed using the terminology of the patent ‘industry’. It impacts the readers’ (mis)understanding of the subject at hand.
Looking directly at blogs of the patent ‘industry’, we are starting to see clues about where the hearings are going. The patent ‘industry’ will attempt “trial by media”, so we need to watch and counter any falsehoods. According to Patently-O, finally we can see where Gorsuch stands on patents (he is relatively young and has no prior experience in this area). He said: “[W]e have a number of cases that have arguably addressed this issue already, like McCormick, for example, in which this Court said the only authority competent to set a patent aside or to annul it or to correct it for any reason whatever is vested in the courts of the United States.”
Well, PTAB is a bit like a court, in a similar sense that BoA at the EPO has the authority to deliver enforceable decisions. PTAB has a chief judge, just like BoA has various technical judges. So what’s the issue? Gorsuch should know that the issue at stake here is whether the government can, in general, regard patents to be “property” and then assert that it can violate so-called ‘property’ ‘rights’ (patents are neither, contrary to how Patently-O tries to spin it).
Patently-O has also just published this reasonably long article from Dmitry Karshtedt, who concluded as follows (with highlight on Gorsuch):
Returning to the public-private rights debate, Chief Justice Roberts discussed the Schor test and whether the multi-factor analysis of Schor is conducive to investment backed-expectations. Mr. Stewart contended that, whatever the test, PTAB adjudicates private rights because liability for past money damages are not involved. The question then came up whether the PTAB can adjudicate infringement, to which Mr. Stewart responded that probably not because money damages are involved. Justice Gorsuch then asked whether the PTAB can perhaps declare non-infringement, to which Mr. Stewart responded that there is no tradition of the PTO’s making that determination. Justice Gorsuch asked about the PTO’s tradition of cancelling patents, and Mr. Stewart’s response was that the issue is really about deciding patentability, which the PTO has been doing since 1836.
In rebuttal, Ms. Ho reiterated her point that Congress cannot condition a grant of a patent on taking away litigants’ structural rights and reinforced the point that appeals are not a sufficient form of Article III supervision. She ended with the point that, again, IPRs resolve disputes between two private parties.
There’s so much spin there and the problem is often ill-defined. They try to assert that patents are a “property” (they are not) and that determining patentability is equivalent to verifying one’s guilt in a scene of a crime. That’s nonsense!
In the USPTO, based on another new article, PTAB says it “will not place the burden of persuasion on a patent owner [sic] with respect to the patentability” and instead leave petitioners/challengers to do so. To quote what is outside the paywall:
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board confirms that In light of the Aqua Products decision it will not place the burden of persuasion on a patent owner with respect to the patentability of substitute claims presented in a motion to amend
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has released guidance in light of the Federal Circuit’s en banc Aqua Products opinion.
The very concept of amending patents that have already been granted seems odd to us. Once a patent has been granted, it is what it is. It can then either be defended or invalidated, not edited. In any event, PTAB bashers will throw at PTAB anything they can in an attempt to discredit it and thus influence the judges, especially Justices. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 3:58 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Campinos is coming within 7 months, but will much talent be left to welcome him?
Summary: As one last ‘gift’ from Battistelli, EPO examiners are put closer to the door (exit) and in order for Campinos to have any prospects of saving the EPO the Council led by Christoph Ernst must stop it
A COUPLE of news sites have already written about the new “career system” (which is anything but, for it actively eliminates careers). Yesterday afternoon Dugie Standeford from IP Watch wrote about it as well. He later changed his headline (“More Patent Grants” became “More Productivity” later in the day) and here are some excepts:
Fear is a “real factor,” as numerous staff members are being investigated and disciplined, he said.
Another problem is that training for new examiners has decreased in quality compared with 10 years ago, the source said. The past system was based on seeking to recruit the very best applicants with the highest skills for this specific job, who speak several languages and have a desire to serve the public, he said. New recruits are placed on time-limited contracts that require them to learn their jobs in one year, and are given production targets that are far too high for newcomers so soon after recruitment, he said. Examiners who aren’t fully trained in the need for thorough prior art searches can’t do them properly, he said, adding that makes patent quality the “elephant in the room.”
The chronic state of pressure means staff members feel unwell; and staff surveys organised by the employee representatives and a consultant in the field of psycho-social risks at work show significant deterioration in morale and health, said the source.
[...]
Campinos is still many months from taking office. In a 23 October letter to Campinos (available here), USF said it and its affiliated SUEPO branches are “looking forward to substantial improvements especially on social dialogue, rule-of-law and employment stability issues during your mandate.”
In a 3 November response (also available on Kluwer Patent Blog), Campinos wrote: “In the different managerial positions on my career path, and especially in my current tenure as Executive Director of the European Union Intellectual Property Office, I have always prioritised human resources matters and have developed an open and fruitful relationship with the representatives of the staff and their associations. In this sense, I look forward to continuing the cooperation between the EPO and the Union Syndicale Fédérale once I take up my duties as president of the European Patent Office next year.”
EPSU’s Goudriaan said he read Campinos’ statement “as a start of a more constructive dialogue in which the issues that have been raised by the staff and their union can be addressed and dealt with. There are quite a few and you have inherited a rather unfortunate situation which included a hostile approach towards the union and its delegates.”
The way things are currently going, we are growingly pessimistic about any prospects of a turnaround under Campinos. There will be nothing left for him to save if this brain drain continues and quality of EPs declines this low, populating the pool of EPs with so many dubious patents. The system is being flooded with patents that are granted too quickly by people who are decreasingly experienced. This is a recipe for disaster.
What makes us ever more concerned about brain drain is the plan of making staff more sackable, or simply out of work by virtue of a contract expiring. Sent 5 days ago was this letter [PDF] that SUEPO describes as a “[l]etter from the European Public Service Union to Mr. Christoph Ernst, Chair of the Administrative Council of the European Patent Office.”
Here is the full text:
Ref : JWG/cb
Brussels, 23 November 2017
Chair person of the Administrative Council of the
European Patent Office
Mr. Christoph ERNST
ernst-ch@bmjv.bund.de
council_secretary@epo.org
Subject: Employment Framework at EPO
Dear Mr. Ernst,
We have been informed by our colleagues of USF, our affiliate in the European institutions, agencies andinternational organisations, that the current management of EPO has proposed the introduction of a new Employment Framework. This framework would recruit EPO staff on the basis of fixed-term contracts. This is again a proposal that is not discussed and negotiated with the unions. It increases precariousness, insecurity and has negative consequences for the well-being of workers. Employers and unions as well as the European Commission and Member States have committed to fight against precariousness and have high standards regarding health and safety of workers. This was recently confirmed again by the EU social summit in Gothenburg and the EU pillar of social rights signed there.
A new employment framework that takes into account the needs of workers, their rights and improves health and safety and well-being, and at the same time seeks to strengthen the work of EPO might well be worthwhile. This is best done through social dialogue and negotiations rather than impose precariousness.
As a Federation with affiliates across Europe and including in public administrations and agencies (8 million members in 260 affiliated unions) we find the proposed model of putting workers on fixed term contracts dubious. It increases the risks of corruption, of revolving doors and of mixed interests. This undermines EPO as part of the European public service in which people in Europe can have confidence for its expertise, high standards and independence. It might make it even more difficult to ensure a geographically well-balanced organization.
We ask you and the EPO Council therefore not to adopt this framework.
On a more personal note: introducing such a comprehensive reform just before the new Director Mr. Campinos takes office smells of bad administration, and frankly of cynicism. It makes the work of Mr. Campinos more difficult to have a proper social dialogue almost setting him up for failure. We look forward to your answer. As previous correspondence has not always been answered, I would appreciate if you can inform us of the standards for response to letters. Those of the European Commission (response within 20 days) seem reasonable as the European Ombudsman has indicated.
Yours sincerely,
Jan Willem Goudriaan
EPSU General Secretary
cc. Commissioner Thyssen cab-thyssen@ec.europa.eu; Agnes Jongerius (MEP) agnes.jongerius@europarl.europa.eu ,
Mr. Battistelli council@epo.org , USF usf@unionsyndicale.eu Bernd.Loescher@consilium.europa.eu
So they too have noticed the changes or spoke to SUEPO about these. It’s not hard to see the writings on the wall. Will Dr. Ernst see these too? Certainly he’s smart enough to know what is happening, so the question is, will he care? There are many comments being posted about him right now. It’s based on a JUVE interview. We wrote about this interview twice before (on Saturday and on Sunday). The comments were recommended by SUEPO, which said: “We strongly suggest you to read also the comment section!”
If SUEPO recommends these, then they must be good. People rightly point out Ernst’s hypocrisy or opportunism:
Well, for years Christoph Ernst was head of the German delegation to the Administrative Council of the EPO. Did he there oppose any of the controversial measures pushed through by Battistelli, including various attacks against union members, or any of the series of AC decisions which stroke a – probably – fatal blow to the independence of the Boards of Appeal?
The Boards of Appeal are grossly understaffed and have already lost a judge whom Battistelli illegally attacked, then defamed.
As we noted earlier this morning, Benoît Battistelli and Željko Topić continue to bully this judge. If Christoph Ernst wanted to put an end to all this, he probably could, but he uses evasive language in his JUVE interview. He is just slightly better than Jesper Kongstad in that regard, but both are complicit by inaction (Kongstad previously became complicit in this case by taking action against the judge, requesting his removal).
See why the EPO is in such a sordid mess? Everyone’s hands (at the top) are dirty and people just use one dirty hand to wipe another, then save face (otherwise they would actually touch their face and the dirt become frontally visible).
The second comment is very long and informative:
It is a bit easy to complain about the present president a few months before he leaves.
For a start I doubt very much that the present tenant of the 10th floor has strengthened the position of the EPO. I even have strong doubts. Future will tell if the patents granted in last five years will have the same resiliency as those before he started his crusade against staff. That things could and even should change at the EPO is not part of the debate. What is however tragic and should not have happened is the way things have been made to change. It boils down to consider that EPO staff was a lazy bunch which only deserved a kick somewhere. This is the idea with which the present president came to the EPO. In this endeavour he got all the support from the AC, and Mr Ernst is not a member of the AC since last year.
Mr Ernst did not oppose a lot of the amendments introduced in the staff regulations. he positively voted much of them, even when other big countries were much more reserved on the issue. He did oppose a few, and as far as is known, the changes in status of the Boards of Appeal. But not much more.
Mr Ernst would be more credible now, had he requested systematically a vote with a qualified majority. This would have avoided that when voting over some very important changes, that the votes of some small countries to have a much higher weight than they actually deserve. I have nothing against small countries, but the tenant of the 10th floor knows how to make small countries vote his way. And this not with his own money, but that of the users of the system.
When one sees for instance, that the changes for the Boards, especially sending them to Haar in order to improve the perception of their independence (sic), were voted mainly by countries having hardly an application going at the EPO, one wonders whether he was as concerned at the time as he makes out now. In spite of what Mr Ernst claims, the Boards of Appeal have not gained in independence. In order to receive a further 5 year contract, a member must have produced enough. In which judiciary system is the continuation of the work as judge subjected to quantitative constraints? In the past the Praesidium of the Boards could propose its rules of procedure. Nowadays, it is heard, but the rules of procedure are decided by the Boards of Appeal Committee. I could go on.
When looking at what happened in the AC, it was at least for the last 5 years the tail wagging the dog. The president was controlling the AC and not the AC controlling the president. Let’s see if Mr Ernst has the real will and power to revert to the former situation. In older times it even happened that the AC refused to accept the budget of the president…..
The first exercise when Mr Ernst can show whether he wants the Council to control the Office and not the other way round, is whether the present tenant of the 10th floor will manage to get the most stupid reform he thought off through: 5 years contracts for examiners as off 01.01.2018.
If Mr Ernst, and other members of the Administrative Council of the EPO wants an organisation which is not just a bunch of mercenaries for a short length of time, but rather wants a perennial organisation, the AC will have to oppose strongly such a move. If this move is approved 6 months before the arrival of a new president, then it is not only to despair from the AC and its members, but it will also be a blow in the face of the incoming president.
If people stay for 5 or 10 years, then there is clearly no chance that they get involved in union matters or the like. But is then the EPO still in a position to deliver the quality of work which has made its reputation?
When the Principal Directors began to get 5 years contracts, the effect was clearly to be seen. From 3 ½ years onwards, the thought was only: what can I do to get my renewal? This is the best way to stifle critics, but the damages brought about through the attitude “Yes prime minister”, leads in general to a cultural collapse. Is this the future the member states wish to the EPO? Then they will be killing the cash cow.
Let’s hope Mr Ernst realises well the immense responsibility he has taken over, and that he will bring back to the institution the urgently needed peace and quiet.
The next couple of comments say:
So, Herr Ernst sees a need for improvement in the “social culture” prevailing under President Battistelli at the EPO. I suppose the AC’s lengthy complicity in the culture of Battistelli leaves Herr Ernst unable to call it how it really is, in the area of employee relations at the EPO. Ever the optimist, I will suppose that Herr Ernst well knows already, and here is alluding to, Team Battistelli’s utter contempt for what we in Europe are most proud of, namely, due process, a fair trial and The Rule of Law. That, gentle readers, is a disgrace, an embarrassment for Western European civilisation and social values. The sooner M. Battistelli (and his flunkeys and hangers-on, one floor down from the President’s penthouse) are out on the street, the better. I await for the AC (and the incoming President) to set a good example to the rest of the world. It is not as if the EPO can’t afford to treat its employees fairly, is it?
I understand that the document concerning contract staff has recently been removed from the AC December meeting, after the meeting of the Board 28 which organises the agenda. The Budget and Finance Committee had recently not decided on the document. At the moment contracts unde this scheme cannot begin on 01.01.2018.
In reply to the above:
Believing in fairy tales is a dangerous thing given the current brutal regime and in particular the pronounced taste of PD HR to pick on those who work hard to pay her salary.
The situation is a little more subtle than what you present here:
a) the point is still is still on the agenda of the December AC for information
b) the “cunning plan” of Mrs Bergot (after her debacle during last AC meeting with a pathetic presentation of it lacking any substantive work) is to review her deficient document and have it back for the March 2018 Council for decision
So much for “off the table”
On Monday evening someone wrote:
That the document about the 5 years contracts for examiners has been removed from the agenda of the AC is a good thing. It is to be hoped that this document has disappeared for good!
But if the AC would have done his job, such a document would never have been submitted. It is only since the AC gave the present tenant of the 10th floor the freedom to fool around that such an action was even thought of.
It shows clearly and abundantly that some people claiming to be “managers” in the higher ranks of the EPO have not the faintest idea what the work of examiners consists of. If they had inquired, they would have realised how stupid this proposal is. That the top management of DG1, or its new form (Super PDs), did not even try to dissuade HR to present such a document is certainly not to be put to its credit. But they want their contract to be renewed….
As far as Mr Ernst is concerned, did he oppose the way the president blatantly disregarded separation of powers between the Boards of Appeal and the management of the EPO? Did he also forward the decision of the Disciplinary Committee of the AC to the Enlarged Board so that the latter was merely invited to rubber stamp this decision, what it refused to do? If this is the case, his words are shallow.
As a lawyer working in the Ministry of Justice of the largest contracting state of the EPO one can suppose that Mr Ernst should know what separation of powers means, and what respect this notion deserves. He should also know that a mere quantitative assessment of the work done by a judge is not a way on deciding on the career of a judge.
And later that evening someone added:
My comment was purely intended to be factual. No spin intended.
However, I now understand that a replacement/amended ‘ orientation’ document has been tabled for December for ‘opinion’ rather than decision or information. The document has limited some aspects e.g. a maximum percentage of contract staff and a maximum number of renewals. It is explained as being as a result of comments previously made.
We certainly hope that Dr. Ernst is reading these comments. His interview with JUVE does not allow comments (it’s in paper form only, or online PDF) and only 2 months after he began his work people aren’t exactly pleased. He’s like a gentle form of Kongstad. We expect Campinos, Battistelli’s choice for President, to also be a gentler form of Battistelli. Battistelli was (and still is) a politician, whereas Campinos is a former banker. The EPO was supposed to revolve around science, but nowadays it’s pure politics and lies are so habitual that it often resembles the White House in 2017. Europe can do better than that. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Asia, Europe, Patents at 3:03 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
When corruption becomes the norm journalism becomes an enemy
Reference: Loose Patent Scope Becoming a Publicity Nightmare for the EPO and Battistelli Does a China Outreach (Worst/Most Notorious on Patent Quality)
Summary: The already-opaque EPO continues to be getting more secretive and the main strategic ally seems to be China, best known for low patent quality and a wealth of frivolous litigation
“Last week was case law conference,” a source told us. “In [the] past it was always recorded and could be seen on the EPO’s web site. Not this time. Because of many questions expected to criticise reform? Attorneys are not happy.”
This isn’t the first time the EPO reduces transparency while Battistelli boasts about “transparency” in his so-called ‘blog’. The only ‘transparency’ we now have at the EPO is leaks. People from the inside take great risks to expose the rot and the abuses. A lot of things that the EPO used to publish (e.g. salary of the President) are now secret, yet Battistelli has the audacity to speak about “transparency”.
“A lot of things that the EPO used to publish (e.g. salary of the President) are now secret, yet Battistelli has the audacity to speak about “transparency”.”Published yesterday in Battistelli’s ‘blog’ (warning: epo.org link) and then promoted by the PR team was the assimilation to SIPO, which is no accomplishment. It was also covered on the same day by the Chinese state media, noting that the EPO is now similar to China’s SIPO. Is Battistelli so proud to be emulating China? Where people are put in prison for exposing corruption? Where patent quality has sunk to bottom low? Where litigation is soaring to the point where patent trolls flock there and based on last night’s article from Managing IP, patent litigation has just become an ‘app’? China seems very eager to help patent extortion and patent trolls and “[t]o facilitate the use of mediation and minimise its caseload, the Beijing IP court has launched a “Faxin WeSue” platform. The platform operates via a mini programme, an app built into WeChat – China’s popular messaging service…”
Coming soon to the EPO? An ‘app’ for making demand of payments using dubious European Patents (EPs)? Whatever happens with the UPC (or doesn’t happen), things look grim for 'SIPO Europe'. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 2:42 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Concerns expressed not only about the management style of Benoît Battistelli but also his disregard/disdain for science (or patent assessment)
YESTERDAY, somebody wrote to us regarding the EPO. It was about stress as measured among French workers. There are various but few French companies where the working conditions were reported to be notoriously toxic like at the EPO (including suicides).
Here is the message in question:
I have found this article in the morning news:
Un quart des salariés français sont dans un “état d’hyperstress
The title translates “one fourth of the French employees are in an hyperstress condition”.
I hope you understand the French content. It is remarkable to see that it applies to 100% to the brave new EPO. Are these kinds of managerial skills taught at the ENA? This is an excellent perspective for the next employer of Monsieur Battistelli, his curriculum fits perfectly.
As we noted earlier this month, Battistelli and his colleagues in politics are notorious in their own town, too. There are press articles about it (in French). They’re considered to be tyrannical.
In Battistelli’s mind, based on the latest proposed ‘reforms’ (to be covered shortly), the goal it to make examiners obsolete (along with patent quality).
4 days late this comment was approved by IP Kat (only yesterday it appeared, but it was posted 5 days ago):
Well , it may help not to mix technologies, functionalities and examiner targets. Ansera uses off the shelf technologies for performing searches, nothing that Google has not been doing for ages or any modern data retreival system. Not sure the EPO can seriously pretend to be a reference in searches while keeping technology of the 80’s. What is different in Ansera from say Google, is that it supports the query language unique to the EPO and yes , surprise surprise, searching with classes. I think that by now everybody knows that ANYTHING is used as an excuse for higher targets.
SUEPO has been warning about this for years. These things do not work well. In fact, it’s incredible that decisions on these matters are made without consulting examiners who understand the technicalities. Who knows how low a quality European Patents (EPs) from the past few years might be. It remains to be learned from statistics about litigation, and that may take years if not a decade to become visible. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA