05.17.21

[Meme] Virtual Prisons for Virtual Hearings (Haarings)

Posted in Europe, Humour, Patents at 5:47 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Found guilty… before the hearings even started

I hereby found you guilty and sentence you to 10 years in virtual prison behind metal bars; In what?!

5 more years... in virtual prison

Summary: Today’s EPO has a truly twisted notion of the “rule of law”

President of the Boards of Appeal, the Star of the Haar Show

Posted in Europe, Humour, Patents at 5:31 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

President of the Boards of Appeal Calle Josefsson in Bandcamp
Calle Josefsson in Bandcamp

Summary: It’s best in the metal version; burn in Hell, Lesley Gore

It’s my party

I’ll shout if I want to
Shout if I want to
Pout if I want to

“Outsourced when I want that”It’s my country
I’ll bow when I want to
Break the law when I want to
Hide when I want to

It’s my courtroom
Outsourced when I want that
Spied if it suits me
But not when I need my privacy

It’s my Office
I serve the agenda
Illegal agenda
Remove these addenda

I’m the queen of my courtroom
Working from my bathroom
Sometimes from my bedroom
Always in legal vacuum

My enlarged board is grand
Controlled by my wand
Playing with sand
Rejected on remand

It’s my party
I’ll shout if I want to
Shout if I want to
Pout if I want to

It’s my secret
I’ll hide when I need to
Lie when I need to
Run when I need to

You too would quit tweeting if it happened to you…

Virtual ‘Courts’ Aren’t Courts and Aren’t Suitable Substitutes, Either

Posted in Courtroom, Europe, Law, Patents at 4:08 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Video download link

Summary: The cheapening of the concept of justice, even as the pandemic that serves to justify that cheapening is gradually being brought under control, is the real issue that should be debated in Haar (or from private homes, probably somewhere around Haar); whether it’s compulsory or not ought to be a side question

FOLLOWING last night's publication we thought it would be worth doing a quick video, even if just to explain some of the context and interject personal opinions, experiences etc.

I’m not opposed to technology; au contraire!

But at the same time I strongly reject the idea of ‘virtual’ hearings, for a whole lot of different reasons. In fact, I strongly urge EPO workers to look up the well-known (and widely-publicised) issues associated with the practice, both from a human rights perspective and the principles of due process/access to justice. There’s extensive literature on that subject. Generally speaking, the technology which now facilitates this isn’t new at all; it’s decades-old.

The Office has warped the question; instead of debating the legality of the practice they’ve all twisted it into a question like, should you seek the consent of both parties in a dispute when choosing to hold unlawful and unconstitutional ‘hearings’?

“Generally speaking, the technology which now facilitates this isn’t new at all; it’s decades-old.”Some time later today we shall publish “The EPO’s War on Justice and Assault on the Law — Part 10: A Faustian Pact?

I drop some hints in the above video; I allude to people who sell out and betray their causes in pursuit of money — quite likely the type of money they don’t truly need and will likely lack time (given their age) to ever enjoy/spend fully. It is an ego trip. Like heavy metalists on hard drugs, except without the music and the needles.

05.16.21

Haar Song

Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:36 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Haar's Town Hall
Photo by AHert. Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

Summary: The conduct of the Office in Munich is ‘overseen’ by a court in “a municipality near Munich,” according to Wikipedia (not inside Munich, so that in itself is a violation of the EPC)

Sir, yes, Sir

You whom we adore
Abusive to the core
Political points to score

Courts were set aside
Taken for a ride
President must abide
Lawfulness on the slide

Sir, yes, Sir
Whom we must not abhor
Let’s ignore the gore
Rubber-stamping is what we’re for

Stockholm syndrome afoot
Office continues to loot
Resistance is entirely moot
Corruption at the root

The EPO’s War on Justice and Assault on the Law — Part 9: Squeezing Out the Lifeblood of Democracy?

Posted in Europe, Law, Patents at 6:59 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Previously in this series:

EPO discourse
Not much sign of a lively Habermasian discourse at the EPO’s Boards of Appeal in Haar these days.

Summary: The lack of public discourse at the EPO (where tyrants like Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos make up the rules and then have them rubber-stamped by kangaroo courts) helps explain an atrocious policy and moral abyss, which recently led to acceptance of European software patents and mass surveillance disguised as “access to justice”

EPO sources relate that, in his capacity as the Thane of Haar, Carl Josefsson is extremely reluctant to allow any staff committee or union activities on the Boards of Appeal premises.

According to the EPO Staff Regulations, staff have the right to be represented by a local staff committee “where more than fifty staff members are in active employment in a place of employment”.

“…Carl Josefsson is extremely reluctant to allow any staff committee or union activities on the Boards of Appeal premises.”At the end of 2020 the Boards of Appeal had a total of 256 staff, comprised of 196 persons working as chairs and members of the Boards and 60 ancillary staff in various management/administrative support positions.

On this basis, EPO staff members in Haar clearly have a statutory right to be represented by a local staff committee.

But inside sources report that Josefsson has stubbornly resisted the establishment of such a local committee, despite repeated requests from the EPO’s Central Staff Committee.

In addition to this, the once highly active Association of the Members of the Boards of Appeal (AMBA) appears to have become almost completely defunct during Josefsson’s tenure.

“…inside sources report that Josefsson has stubbornly resisted the establishment of such a local committee, despite repeated requests from the EPO’s Central Staff Committee.”AMBA was formed in 1999 to protect the interests of the members of the Boards of Appeal.

According to its statute, the aims of the association include “monitoring issues of relevance for the judicial function of the members of the Boards of Appeal with a view to safeguarding their independence” and “promoting the members’ self-government as members of a judiciary”.

At the bottom of the home page on the Association’s website there is a “Timeline of Independence” which is supposed to show “the most important events in the history of the boards”.

This timeline contains a total of 45 entries starting in September 1973 with the “Travaux Préparatoires” for the European Patent Convention (scroll to the bottom of the page).

“AMBA was formed in 1999 to protect the interests of the members of the Boards of Appeal.”The timeline ends in December 2016 with “Carl Josefsson appointed President of the EPO’s Boards of Appeal” (scroll to the bottom of the page).

It seems that, as far as AMBA is concerned, the appointment of Carl Josefsson in December 2016, is the “End of History”. Francis Fukuyama, eat your heart out!

The AMBA website hasn’t been updated to register Josefsson’s reappointment in December 2020.

The most recent postings on the website are links to:

• the 2020 Annual Report of the Boards of Appeal (which was released on 12 April 2021);
• the revised Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal (dated July 2019).
• a communiqué about the 159th meeting of the Administrative Council held on 27 and 28 March 2019.

All of the above relate to information that is already publicly available via the EPO’s official website, here, here and here. (Warning: epo.org links)

“The AMBA website hasn’t been updated to register Josefsson’s reappointment in December 2020.”It seems like the AMBA website has been reduced to nothing more than a selective “mirror” of the official EPO website.

As a matter of fact there haven’t been any postings originating from AMBA itself since December 2016 when it issued a statement [PDF] about a “Resolution Against the Relocation of the Boards of Appeal to Haar” which had been endorsed by the majority of its members. Here it is:

AMBA Statement on the Reform of the BoA page 1

AMBA Statement on the Reform of the BoA page 2

It’s well known inside the EPO that, during the Battistelli era, AMBA did its best to keep a low profile.

According to reliable sources, the members of its executive committee were afraid that they might end up being targeted by Battistelli’s Investigative Unit and suffer the same fate as SUEPO officials, such as Laurent Prunier.

“According to reliable sources, the members of its executive committee were afraid that they might end up being targeted by Battistelli’s Investigative Unit and suffer the same fate as SUEPO officials, such as Laurent Prunier.”But although AMBA was more or less reduced to operating underground during those days, it still continued to function and it was capable of organising petitions and resolutions to protest against Battistelli’s abuses, even if these were routinely ignored by the Administrative Council.

Nowadays, under Josefsson’s regime, AMBA seems to have been completely neutered. Indeed, if appearances are to be believed it has been effectively killed off as a functioning association representing the interests of the members of the Boards of Appeal.

“Nowadays, under Josefsson’s regime, AMBA seems to have been completely neutered.”To borrow a phrase from Josefsson’s old buddy, the radical Swedish journalist, Per Wirtén, one might well ask: What happened to the “cascades of debate, quarrel and chatter” that make up “the lifeblood of democracy”?

While we are waiting for “Calle” to answer that question, in the next part we will try to figure out what exactly he gets from the “Faustian pact” that he has concluded with the EPO.

EPO.org is a Really Awful Source of Information

Posted in Europe, Patents at 9:30 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Video download link

Summary: The site that bears a .org suffix is actually more like a private corporation lying about itself in order to save face and attract more money — or in other words funds that will be squandered and stolen by corrupt administrators

THE propaganda coming out of the EPO is extremely expensive at the moment. As I point out in the video above, we recently saw documents suggesting that over 10 million euros are wasted on all that reputation laundering and media campaigns. It certainly looks as though António Campinos spends more money than Benoît Battistelli ever did on such nonsense. Is the EPO a patent office or a publicist? What on Earth is going on here?

Perfect argument: patent infringement again; But I have diplomatic immunity!More importantly, the EPO quickly became a liability and a risk to the EU. It drags down the image of Europe as a whole, not just the EU/EP/EC as institutions. While disguising itself as tolerance and unity, the EPO actively undermines the rule of law and it acts as an agent of corporate occupation against Europeans, and especially against small firms based (and founded) in Europe.

Perception management campaigns are extremely expensive and they can be counterproductive. They certainly don’t fool EPO insiders, many of whom are exceptionally reluctant to grant European software patents (they tell us about it, but if such applications are disguised as “Hey Hi”, then guidelines compel them to violate the EPC, which was supposed to govern the EPO).

“The video goes through some of the latest shallow fluff from epo.org — a site that turned from a shrine of Battistelli into an “Hey Hi” algorithm that generates puff pieces with the name António Campinos thrown here and there.”At the moment there’s not even a proper tribunal at the Office; the Appeals Committee is flawed, the Boards of Appeal are a bunch of 'roos (especially the higher level ones), and ILO doesn’t seem to give a damn. ILO-AT became a toothless tiger in the face of an above-the-law institution that flaunts diplomatic immunity.

The video goes through some of the latest shallow fluff from epo.org — a site that turned from a shrine of Battistelli into an “Hey Hi” algorithm that generates puff pieces with the name António Campinos thrown here and there.

05.15.21

[Meme] When All That Matters is ‘Production’ and ‘Timeliness’

Posted in America, Europe, Patents at 11:38 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

A patent on animal toy

A patent on a portable display

A patent on organising files

A patent on mail

A patent on cat exercise

A patent on swing

Chong And Judge: GUILTY! For swinging a swing?
Give him the death sentence!

Summary: The EPO has gone down the same route as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) when it comes to patent quality; as if the goal is to grant 11 million patents (most of them in just a few decades) rather than assess the impact of such patents

The EPO’s War on Justice and Assault on the Law — Part 8: The Radical Student “Brotherhood”

Posted in Europe, Law, Patents at 11:14 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Previously in this series:

Per Wirtén, Andreas Miller and Alf Håkan Bengtsson
Per Wirtén, Andreas Miller and Alf Håkan Bengtsson – what would these former student radicals make of Josefsson’s abandonment of the libertarian left-wing principles that he once claimed to espouse?

Summary: The latest part in this series explores the roots of Judge Josefsson; that can help explain how Benoît Battistelli constructed his stacked EPO ‘court’, which he and António Campinos basically control to rubber-stamp whatever illegal practices they engage in (in pursuit of money and power, at the expense of the law)

During his student days in Sweden, Carl Josefsson was associated with a group of left-wing libertarian “intellectuals” including Per Wirtén, Andreas Miller and Alf Håkan Bengtsson.

Wirtén, Bengtsson and Miller – subsequently pursued relatively prominent careers in journalism. Miller is now the chairman of Ledarna, which is an idiosyncratically Swedish institution: a trade union for managers!

“Miller is now the chairman of Ledarna, which is an idiosyncratically Swedish institution: a trade union for managers!”According to Swedish sources, the members of this group, including Josefsson – were affiliated to the “Social Democrats for Faith and Solidarity”, a branch of the Swedish Social Democratic Party with a distinctly religious tinge of Lutheranism, and more commonly known as “Broderskapsrörelsen” (“Brotherhood Movement”).

Josefsson’s closest “brother” in this group was Per Wirtén.

“Josefsson’s closest “brother” in this group was Per Wirtén.”Wirtén’s journalistic career began as the editor of a pro-Palestinian student newsletter “Palestinian Front”. In the late 1980s, together with Josefsson, he started a radical youth magazine called “800 degrees”, which was published under the sponsorship of the “Brotherhood Movement”. The magazine’s title came from a protest song by the Swedish punk band Ebba Grön.

Later on, one evening in the early 1990s, Wirtén and Josefsson met with Andreas Miller in Stockholm’s famous Café Opera and the trio started talking about setting up a new progressive magazine.

At a second meeting which took place in the Pelikan Restaurant in the Södermalm district of Stockholm, Alf Håkan Bengtsson was also invited to attend.

Café Opera and the Pelikan Restaurant in Stockholm
Café Opera and the Pelikan Restaurant in Stockholm – favourite haunts of Josefsson and his student friends.

These discussions ultimately led to the setting-up of a new magazine containing reports, interviews and essays on politics and culture from a libertarian left-wing perspective.

The magazine first appeared in 1993 under the name “Politikens, kulturens & idéernas arena”. In 2003 the name was shortened to “Arena” and in 2017 the magazine switched to online-only format.

“Arena” is published by Arenagruppen, a non-profit association which describes itself as “the leading progressive platform for public debates in Sweden”. Arenagruppen operates as a non-partisan left-wing think-tank, publisher and interface for various political, civil, academic and trade unionist actors. The CEO of Arenagruppen is one of the founders of the Arena magazine, Alf Håkan Bengtsson.

“The CEO of Arenagruppen is one of the founders of the Arena magazine, Alf Håkan Bengtsson.”According to its website, Arenagruppen aims “to promote a public debate characterized by breadth and diversity”:

“We strive for different voices to be heard. Conversation, dialogue and mutual respect are the basis of a viable democracy. We have a strong belief in the possibilities of democracy. Democracy is a way of making decisions about our common affairs but also an ideal. Hierarchical and authoritarian ideas are in opposition to our view of democracy. Structures and values ​​that hinder the free development of human beings should be criticized.”

Per Wirtén was editor-in-chief of the “Arena” magazine until 2010. Since then he has operated as a freelance journalist and author, amongst other things writing for the Swedish daily newspapers Expressen, Sydsvenskan, and the website DagensArena.

“In 2017 Eva Wirtén was awarded an Advanced Investigator Grant from The European Research Council for the project ‘Patents as Scientific Information, 1895-2020 (PASSIM).”In his personal blog, Wirtén has occasionally given a plug to articles by Carl Josefsson to whom he refers as “my old buddy” (“min gamla kompis”).

For example, in 2014, Wirtén praised a piece by Josefsson which had appeared in the Svenska Dagbladet:

“His article is about the difficult relationship between legal interpretation and democracy. […] Calle [Josefsson] lays it out clearly. The law can not be legitimized by any natural rights but only through democratic discussions and decision-making processes. The rule of law and self-determination are the two fundamental foundations of democracy and cannot be separated.”

In 2015, under the heading “Lawyers seize power” Wirtén plugged another article by Josefsson which had been published in the Svensk Juristtidning.

“We cannot stand idly by in the face of the lawyers’ claims to power. It is time to wake up. We need to learn more about the relationship between democracy and law. […] We can start by reading an article in Svensk Juristtidning (1/2015) in which Carl Josefsson writes both educationally and polemically. Almost 25 years ago, he was one of the initiators of the Arena magazine and is now a member of the Court of Appeal. […] Josefsson refers to the German legal philosopher Jürgen Habermas, who argues that the role of the courts is not to guard the boundaries of politics (the liberal tradition) but to enable democracy by broadening its conditions. […]

Law is thus not above democracy, but should be immersed in the cascades of debate, quarrel and chatter that we perceive as the lifeblood of democracy.”

“They sound like the kind of people who might be interested in the governance of international IP offices.”Per Wirtén’s wife, Eva Hemmungs Wirtén, is Professor of Mediated Culture at Linköping University, Sweden. She describes herself as “an interdisciplinary scholar with a broad set of research interests, ranging from book history to the history of information and patents” and has authored a number of books on intellectual property topics, including a history of intellectual property rights [sic] and regulations entitled “No Trespassing: Authorship, Intellectual Property Rights, and the Boundaries of Globalization” (2004).

“No Trespassing” surveys the landscape of IP law in general, and copyright law in particular, and investigates how IP law has become the handmaiden of a greedy and rapacious transnational capitalism.

Carl Josefsson gets a mention in the preface to “No Trespassing” as one of “those persons who have carefully read and commented on the manuscript in its various stages of completion”.

In 2017 Eva Wirtén was awarded an Advanced Investigator Grant from The European Research Council for the project ‘Patents as Scientific Information, 1895-2020 (PASSIM).

She is a frequent contributor to academic journals and some of her publications can be found on ResearchGate.

In “How Patents Became Documents, or Dreaming of Technoscientific Order” (2019; local copy [PDF]) she makes the following critical observations about the international patent system:

“Indeed, one wonders whether Eva Wirtén has ever broached the topic with her husband’s old buddy, “Calle” Josefsson.”“Perhaps more so than any other intellectual property, patents have come to epitomize an intellectual property regime gone berserk. Given controversies surrounding the relative success or failure of the current intellectual property regime, for many patents now symbolize the dark underbelly of an ongoing and dangerous commodification of knowledge in research and science …”.

In “Out of Sight and Out of Mind” (2020; local copy [PDF]) she presents a critique of “the cultural hegemony of intellectual property”. Referring to the “[t]he hair-raising absurdities of an ever-expanding intellectual property regime … [that] appear to have no boundaries, moral or otherwise” she explains how intellectual property rights [sic] “within the larger context of globalization … produce a very specific, unequal ordering of the global cultural and political economy”.

Eva Wirtén is an executive director of the International Society for the History and Theory of Intellectual Property (ISHTIP). ISHTIP is an academic group which “promotes and supports scholarly investigation of the national histories of patent, copyright, and “related” rights; the diverse “roads not taken” in the evolution of these legal structures; contemporary countertrends; and the laws and norms that have been devised in non European cultures around the world to manage intellectual production and exchange”.

“On the contrary, the only things Josefsson seems to be concerned about these days are production figures and “timeliness”.”According to its website, ISHTIP “works to promote, coordinate, and disseminate critical inquiry into IP”, and its aims are “to re-frame – to broaden and deepen – current IP debate”.

They sound like the kind of people who might be interested in the governance of international IP offices. Indeed, one wonders whether Eva Wirtén has ever broached the topic with her husband’s old buddy, “Calle” Josefsson.

That seems like a rather remote possibility because Josefsson himself seems to have decisively cast off the outer veneer of radicalism and “social democracy” which he cultivated in his student days.

Since he took over the helm at the Boards of Appeal there hasn’t been much sign of “the cascades of debate, quarrel and chatter that we perceive as the lifeblood of democracy”.

“One is left to wonder what his former “brothers” – Per Wirtén, Andreas Miller and Alf Håkan Bengtsson – would make of “Calle” and his abandonment of the libertarian left-wing principles that he once claimed to espouse?”On the contrary, the only things Josefsson seems to be concerned about these days are production figures and “timeliness”.

One is left to wonder what his former “brothers” – Per Wirtén, Andreas Miller and Alf Håkan Bengtsson – would make of “Calle” and his abandonment of the libertarian left-wing principles that he once claimed to espouse?

In the next part we will take a closer look at how “social democracy” has fared at the EPO’s Boards of Appeal since Josefsson took up his position in Haar in March 2017.

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channels: Come and chat with us in real time

New to This Site? Here Are Some Introductory Resources

No

Mono

ODF

Samba logo






We support

End software patents

GPLv3

GNU project

BLAG

EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com



Recent Posts