06.13.19
Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:41 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The makers of software and games in Europe will have to spend a lot of money just keeping patent trolls off their backs — a fact that seems to never bother EPO management because it profits from it
THE concept of “patent trolls” has long been understood and realised in Europe; rarely did these parasites fulfill their wishes, but I spoke to some people who were victims of trolls, even here in Europe; truly disturbing stories (sleepless nights, fear of being assassinated etc.) because trolls are dodgy to say the least; they’re often just charlatans, frauds and thugs, greedy opportunists looking for a buck until they get caught (sometimes arrested) or stripped of their so-called ‘assets’ (which they sometimes lie about).
The European Patent Office (EPO) has been eerily close to front groups of trolls — sites and fronts that are literally funded by the trolls. António Campinos has been doing so even more than Battistelli; he not only promotes software patents in Europe but routinely meets with trolls who leverage these for blackmail. Campinos never fooled me; look no further than what he had done to EUIPO before he left it. The man is a disgrace and he comes from a disgraced Portuguese bank. My friends from Portugal are always amused when I name this bank. Battistelli came from ENA and Campinos, who studied in France, made his career in a rogue bank. So this French duo is a perfect companion for the charlatans, frauds and thugs patent trolls tend to be (they have threatened me too).
“So this French duo is a perfect companion for the charlatans, fraud and thugs patent trolls tend to be (they have threatened me too).”There are of course also law firms that are particularly close to trolls; they view the trolls as clients, they habitually represent them in courts. There’s a great degree of overlap between them and Team UPC, which lobbied for a fast lane/track for trolls. Any unitary ‘patents’ would be more economic not for SMEs but for enforcers such as trolls, to whom concept such as “scope of operation” does not apply; it’s inapplicable because they make nothing at all and merely sue those who do, as often and as widely as possible. Matteo Pes, a patent attorney, has just admitted: “Personally I’m battled. On one side, I would welcome courts with judges specialized in IP and expedite proceedings. On the other side, the UPC seems a top-down reform, expensive, that could easily put SMEs out of the games. And I like SMEs…”
Notice that he responded to Team UPC with their usual lies (which we won’t reproduce here). A truly nasty and malicious firm, Bardehle Pagenberg, a firm which lobbies for illegal software patents, has also just published shameless self-promotion titled “European Patent Opposition Proceedings”; they probably find that their troll ‘clients’ don’t get too easy a time in tribunals/courts.
What chance does the UPC stand anyway? Leaping past the stage of justice and onto kangaroo courts? Judging by how things are going, there are far too many barriers to it. Among them: Hungary, Germany, the UK and even Czechia. We’ve lost count, but Benjamin Henrion (FFII) has just highlighted this article titled “Ratification of UPC Agreement in Czechia postponed. Forever?”
To quote:
Last year the Czech Industrial Property Office and the Ministry of Industry and Trade commissioned a study on the overall impacts of the patent package on the Czech Republic. The Czech Republic signed the UPC Agreement but has not ratified it yet.
The study was carried out by PWC. Its conclusions include clear recommendation not to hurry with ratification but rather to wait for the system to be implemented in countries that have already ratified the package, and for their experience with its functioning.
The study quotes among the main reasons for postponement the legal and constitutional hurdles and the likely negative economic impact on Czech SMEs. While SMEs play a major role in the Czech economy they hardly apply for any patents. According to the study less than 0,1% of all European patent applications was filed by Czech companies. For instance, in 2016 the total number of patent applications filed by CZ companies with EPO amounts to 185, most of these applications originate from large enterprises such as Skoda Auto or Zentiva. The study concludes that if patent package is ratified the Czech SMEs would be passive recipients of the new system not its active players. Though the total numbers of European patents validated in the Czech Republic is rapidly growing (in 2016 almost six thousand EPs were validated in Czechia), this amount corresponds to only 6,5% of all European patents. Things could however drastically change for SMEs if patent package comes into force and it is ratified by Czech Parliament. Suddenly not merely thousands but dozens of thousands of unitary patents are likely to flood the Czech economy. This would significantly increase the SMEs costs for freedom to operate clearance searches and obviously the likelihood of patent infringement disputes against Czech SMEs as well. The study points out that Czech SMEs may lack necessary financial resources for clearance searches and for their effective defence in patent litigation at UPC should they be sued for patent infringement.
The differences in terms of litigations costs between the current system in Czechia and proposed UPC system would be immense and could lead to liquidation of many Czech SMEs who could not afford to defend themselves at UPC even if the patent claims raised against them would be unsubstantiated.
The EPO is so desperate for the UPC that it tries to pretend that it listens to the public (it is not) and it spends a fortune on some stupid ‘festival’ in which it associates itself with scientists (there’s another one coming soon). Days ago the EPO also published this belated English translation (warning: epo.org link) of an article that says or speaks of “Moon talk, astronauts and inventions at the Deutsches Museum.” The EPO’s obsession with space and with greenwashing is part of the PR strategy. They want to make it seem as though corrupt people are actually science champions for humanity. Today’s increasingly corrupt EPO management is deeply pathetic, but it is still trying to associate itself with science and scientists while mostly hiring lawyers (in-house lawyers too) to attack scientists/staff while weaponising patent trolls. No doubt the trolls are loving all this; they foresee the future of mass litigation, which is already reported as a present issue by those who put together the numbers. Litigation in Germany is soaring and trolls count for the sharp rise.
Days ago we took note of the exceedingly promotional press release from Americorp Investments (e.g. “Americorp’s newest patent allows for creation of customized wagers”, “Americorp Investments And Arrow Gaming Expand Gaming Portfolios” and “Americorp Investments awarded additional US gaming patent”). These suggest it has no plans other than becoming a patent troll with bogus software patents, even at EPO member states (the EPO is explicitly mentioned in all those). Americorp Investments shows all the classic hallmarks of a patent troll preparing for a shakedown campaign (behind the scenes if possible), using a string of utterly ridiculous press releases. To quote one portion:
Americorp Investments, a company focused on acquiring, developing and commercializing innovative technologies for the gaming industry, announced Tuesday that it has been awarded an additional patent by the United States Patent Office. This patent is the 25th U.S. patent for gaming granted to Americorp or its affiliate Arrow Gaming. Americorp and Arrow also hold six gaming patents issued in Japan and the Philippines and have 37 gaming and related blockchain technology patents pending in the EPO and PCT countries and jurisdictions worldwide.
More of these patents are being granted — patents that must be rejected as bunk and void. Stop patenting maths! This troll is going after companies, demanding money for patents that would cost money to challenge. We’ve covered such stories before, namely game makers that are blackmailed by the likes of Americorp. This time it matters to us even more because of the explicitly-stated role of the EPO. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:27 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
In the EPO’s very own words:
Summary: The EPO’s footprint around the world's patent systems is an exceptionally dangerous one; The EPO amplifies the most zealous voices of the patents and litigation ‘industry’ while totally ignoring the views and interests of the European public, rendering the EPO an ‘agent of corporate occupation’
THE European Patent Office (EPO) said it would change. It said that António Campinos would correct the negative legacy of corrupt Battistelli, who not only phased in software patents under the guise of “4IR” and similar nonsense (buzzwords like ‘Industry 4.0’) but also severely attacked the staff, causing major brain drain. The EPO may never recover from it as recruitment relies on reputation, which can take decades (or entire generations) to earn/recover.
“Henrion (the FFII’s President) is one of not so many who are actively engaging on behalf of the software community.”Benjamin Henrion (FFII), a concerned software developer like yours truly, wanted to submit feedback for the EPO’s vision. He had done so before and so did I (I wrote some letters more than a decade ago). Days ago he complained [1, 2, 3]: “EPO 2023: “and in line with our terms of use.” was added between the first and last round of consultations https://www.epo.org/about-us/office/consultation.html#tab3 […] They moved the link to here: https://www.epo.org/about-us/office/consultation.html#tab3 […] Seems the EPO removed the contributions to the EPO 2023 ‘public’ consultation from its website #epo @EPOorg cannot find back the link. They need to be “transmitted” to the administrative council for “adoption” somewhere in June https://www.epo.org/about-us/office/strategy.html#tab3 … http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2019/04/20/epo-publishes-draft-strategic-plan-2023-and-holds-a-new-consultation/ …”
Henrion (the FFII’s President) is one of not so many who are actively engaging on behalf of the software community. As we showed last month, the EPO made it difficult for non-lawyers/attorneys to even submit any feedback. As Henrion put it: “EPO “users” are patent applicants, fully captured institution “Membership should not be limited to stakeholders defined as “users” of the system stricto sensu, but reflect the broader impact and interest of society in the patent system as a whole” http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponot.nsf/0/8C1A0ABD4D38E2CEC12583D600407D56/$File/No_Patents_on_Seeds_10052019_en.pdf […] EPO a totally captured institution: “While the stakeholders participating at the AC meetings such as BUSINESS-EUROPE,EPI are heavily weighted in favour of vested interests in obtaining patents, other civil society organisations are not represented at all” http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponot.nsf/0/8C1A0ABD4D38E2CEC12583D600407D56/$File/No_Patents_on_Seeds_10052019_en.pdf …”
So they just basically don’t care what the European public has to say; they care about what some law firms and foreign corporations say. Whose institution is it and who is it actually accountable/answerable to?
See this other new tweet: “Considering that EPO is financed by fees for patents issued it is in their motivation to grant as many patents as possible.”
This has completely and entirely corrupted the EPO. It’s all about money; not science, not Europe, not innovation.
Ben Wodecki has also just published this article which relates to what’s quoted above. Anyone with high school education surely understands that humans did not ‘invent’ nature or ‘create’ seeds. This is robbery aided by corrupt EPO officials (‘pirating’ from nature or stealing from the Commons, privatising or monopolising what always existed). To quote Wodecki:
No Patents on Seeds has demanded that loopholes allowing companies to obtain European patents on conventionally bred plants and animals need to be closed.
The group warned that patents granted by the European Patent Office (EPO) that cover fish reared on specific plants could “become a precedent for many other patent applications”.
Patents covering conventionally bred plants and animals are prohibited by rule 28(2) for the interpretation of the European Patent Convention (EPC). However, the European Patent Office has come under fire for granting patents on what some claim are conventionally bred patents on plants and animals.
The group has called on current prohibitions like rule 28(2) of the EPC to be implemented more effectively.
[...]
“If this strategy is successful, companies will in future claim more and more such food monopolies.”
The EPO’s management seems blind (perhaps intentionally) to common sense. It asked already-intimidated judges to weigh in; as if they can tell the emperor (to his face) that he’s naked…
Stupid buzzwords that this corrupt EPO has spread and paid to promote (we’ve already covered how it paid media companies for this) are still being picked by Korean media. The EPO even bragged about it some 12-13 months ago; after it had paid the media it spoke about how media in South Korea used those same terms — terms that are used to enable/legitimise bogus patents that courts would certainly reject, e.g. software patents. Here’s the latest from The Korea Herald (headline modified from “Top global IP offices discuss cooperation in ‘Industry 4.0’ era” to “Top IP offices forge patent cooperation system in ‘Industry 4.0’ era” some time around Thursday morning, based on timestamps).
Notice ‘Industry 4.0’ in the title/headline; we don’t want to repeat all the lies and nonsense here; reproducing it won’t help. “Under KIPO’s chairmanship,” says the summary, “top IP policymakers seek ways to strengthen partnerships, discuss impact of AI” (here they go again with “HEY HI!” — a subject we’ll touch later on in another article). There’s also a Campinos photo op in there (further down the article) and it says:
On Tuesday, he met with EPO President Campinos to sign a memorandum of understanding to test a sharing process of screening information.
Currently, KIPO and EPO have access to each other’s patent screening data but the range is limited to patents that are past 18 months from application and are thus subject to public disclosure. Should the MOU take effect, starting July 1, the two offices will be able to access to undisclosed patent data for screening reference.
Well, the good news is, Mr. Campinos managed to board the plane to Korea. Maybe they had to reroute him to the south; he thought he was flying to a dictatorship like his; we’ve already used the North Korea analogies (comparisons to the EPO) about a dozen times before. These are still apt analogies. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in FSF at 4:59 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: We received this anonymous letter and have published it as a follow-up to “Reader's Claim That Rules Similar to the Code of Conduct (CoC) Were 'Imposed' on LibrePlanet and the FSF“
I have never attended LibrePlanet. I have considered attending several times over many years, but I have always been turned off by the policies described around the event. These are not welcoming policies, they are stifling.
They are worded in a way that is difficult to find fault with — but what is not difficult is to figure out how they might be unfairly or unevenly applied to people.
“And yes, it is unreasonable to consider RMS a person who needs to be controlled.”I don’t mean that RMS (Richard Stallman) enjoys an unfair exception to the rules. If LibrePlanet’s rules are so stringent that Stallman runs afoul of them, then the problems are clearly with the rules themselves. And while the rules themselves have always steered me away from the event, I never thought they would be used to try to exclude Stallman himself.
There is no Free Software without Free Speech — the freedom to code is a subset of the freedom to self-express. And yet today, there are people from Debian, Red Hat, GNOME, Creative Commons and even the FSF itself who would throw away freedom of speech for the need to control people unreasonably.
And yes, it is unreasonable to consider RMS a person who needs to be controlled. He is a grown man, with problems like everyone else — in fact he has the exact sort of problems that your rules suggest you don’t want to discriminate against.
If you honestly don’t know what that means, I suggest you read “When Nerds Collide” by Meredith Patterson. It is the best article on the subject, and it talks about the stifling trend of controlling speech to the point of absurdity in geek-laden communities.
“It is talked about briefly in the biography once sold by the FSF, it was used in dishonest ad hominem attacks from both OSI president Simon Phipps and OSI co-founder Eric Raymond.”Stallman did not grow up in a time when he was likely to be diagnosed with his disability or condition. It is talked about briefly in the biography once sold by the FSF, it was used in dishonest ad hominem attacks from both OSI president Simon Phipps and OSI co-founder Eric Raymond.
While a disability is not a blank cheque for allowing unwelcome behaviour, it should at the very least not be a reason to discriminate unfairly against a person who created the very reason your Free Software movement exists.
What the hell is wrong with you people? If you wish to be anything but hypocrites, you would be creating a safe space for free speech, not a Trojan horse for unscrupulous people and narcissists to kick founders out of events hosted by their own organisation.
“Some of the same people participating in that debate have tried to pressure the FSF board of directors to stifle Richard Stallman’s contributions at LibrePlanet.”In 2014, Debian used a set of community guidelines to stifle a vital debate about the future of Debian. Some of the same people participating in that debate have tried to pressure the FSF board of directors to stifle Richard Stallman’s contributions at LibrePlanet.
Since that time, the quality, reliability and security of Debian have gone downhill. It was an operating system I had relied on, and raised funds for. But what Debian decided to do was hand over a major portion of its development to an arrogant, obnoxious, condescending German developer, who now works for a monopoly that assisted actual nazis in genocide — a monopoly who (unlike other such companies, such as Siemens) has never apologised for or admitted their thoroughly-documented participation in those atrocities.
This is a developer who won a Pwnie Award not just for his poor commitment to security, but his notoriously terrible attitude about it.
“This is a developer who won a Pwnie Award not just for his poor commitment to security, but his notoriously terrible attitude about it.”Well done, Debian! And you think you have a moral right to decide whether Richard Stallman is “safe” enough for LibrePlanet.
Obviously, the future of Free Software is what’s at stake here. If there is no freedom of speech, there is no “Free as in speech” either.
The future of Free Software is corporate policy, corporate control — and monopolies influencing development and silencing even the most important of critics.
This is not about who is “welcome” at events. It is about making valuable contributions unwelcome. How far along this doublespeak has gotten, to infect the FSF itself.
This is not about safety, any more than secure boot is about security. Like secure boot, this is about making these events safer for corporate sponsors.
“This is not about safety, any more than secure boot is about security. Like secure boot, this is about making these events safer for corporate sponsors.”As much as pointless, dehumanising nonsense like putting shoes on conveyor belts is security theatre, what you are doing is creating diversity theatre — you say you are doing it to be inclusive.
There was a time when everyone was welcome in Free Software, and all you had to do was decide to participate.
Today, it is about making people feel more welcome by kicking the most necessary voices out for saying things that might make someone uncomfortable.
You are fighting implicit and perceived exclusion with explicit and actual exclusion. And unless your desire is to silence people, you are doing a terrible job.
This goes against the foundations of education. Honest education cannot be determined solely by who is comfortable. Teachers must be free to teach facts regardless of whether people feel comfortable with those facts.
This goes against science. Facts cannot be determined by what people would simply like them to be.
“This goes against science. Facts cannot be determined by what people would simply like them to be.”This goes against freedom. If you only allow participation and communication from people you like, then there is no freedom– you are simply controlling everything.
There is a comic by Randall Munroe, which implies rather plainly the ridiculous argument that freedom of speech isn’t threatened unless the government is doing it.
Let’s be serious — if there is no culture of free speech, if the people will not stand up for the rights of others to speak — then the government certainly isn’t going to either.
You are engineering a future with no freedom, with no philosophical foundation for Free Software.
LibrePlanet isn’t Libre — it is subjugated by the desire to make speech “safe” for everyone.
“LibrePlanet isn’t Libre — it is subjugated by the desire to make speech “safe” for everyone.”Freedom of speech is not safe. And as Benjamin Franklin said, “[t]hose who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither.”
I am confident that Franklin would not be welcome at your events either.
That only makes a complete sham of your event — and people should rightly boycott it and just enjoy the (very nice) videos made there.
Through your content policy about the LibrePlanet videos, others may comment and participate in a way that you don’t control. That would probably be a better option than funding LibrePlanet at this point.
This trend does not bode well for the future of Free Software, or the Free Software Foundation. They have made admirable efforts (KIND) towards guidelines that are less likely to exclude someone with Stallman’s disability and gifts.
“Without diversity of opinion and diversity of personality, there is no freedom of speech (nor reason for it).”We should continue to try to make LibrePlanet more inclusive again. But only if we are honest about what inclusion really means. Our efforts to do so must not allow narcissists to exclude the most important critics and philosophers from sharing their points of view — all we will achieve is to steer the conversation towards something that could be very wrong.
Without diversity of opinion and diversity of personality, there is no freedom of speech (nor reason for it). These codes of conduct are about uniformity and control, they are not about safety. You should be absolutely ashamed of your dishonesty and manipulation — and your attacks on freedom.
You are hypocrites as well as liars, and you will destroy Free Software if people are foolish enough to cede control to you.
It would not be possible to say these things at LibrePlanet. And that is precisely the problem.
No free speech, no Free Software — FREE RICHARD! █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA