11.28.22

António Campinos Could Not Possibly Choose a Worse Time to Show Solidarity With Communist China

Posted in Asia, Europe, Law, Patents at 4:00 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Video download link | md5sum e351efabf345d1d3812764f6bf7bf92d
EPO Loves Red China
Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 4.0

Summary: The Unified Patent Court or “Unitary Patent” gets promoted in the same blog post or news item that celebrates dictatorship; that seems appropriate given the nature of the Unified Patent Court, which is a gross violation of laws and constitutions in a high-level institutional way

ISN’T it astounding that EPO management is promoting something unconstitutional, illegal and in defiance of international conventions while bragging about a close relationship with China’s government? The king is always right. Right? Ask the courts. They would agree (the king appoints judges). Call it a legacy of Benoît Battistelli, who had inherited the strategy from his French idol, who died so suddenly. Several months ago they did the same with the Saudi regime (old tradition), just days apart from opportunistic pinkwashing. Call it the ‘Qatar effect’ of the patent world; the Unified Patent Court is basically celebrated by crooks and criminals. They know exactly what they’re doing; they know they undermine the law whilst at the same time advertising themselves as “legal professionals”.

As noted in the video, António Campinos is doing another photo op. The EPO has its very own “Pooh” (potty-mouthed kangaroo king):

I'm the F***ing president --EPO President Campinos

Imagine he was arrogant enough to literally approve this for publication today (considering all the other news about China):

Far vs Close: Annual bilateral meeting of EPO and CNIPA heads

As noted in the video above, China isn’t even particularly strategic to the EPO. South Korea and Japan have historically been a lot more signficant, but they have a functioning democracy, unlike China and the EPO (and its latest arrival, Montenegro).

11.26.22

Legislating Against Free Software in the United States and in Europe, Thanks to Lobbying by Microsoft et al

Posted in Deception, Free/Libre Software, Law, Microsoft, Security at 12:49 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Video download link | md5sum 593aae11b7e5e06b971a2f29012bf9c6
Microsoft Lobbying Against Software Freedom
Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 4.0

Summary: There’s legislation that would discriminate against Free software, boosted by Microsoft and its creeping interests, which include the so-called ‘Linux’ Foundation (a force of corporate occupation against the GNU/Linux community and its collective interests*)

About a year ago Dr. Andy Farnell explained how companies like Microsoft had worked to privatise the Commons, e.g. hoarding Free software in sites like GitHub (proprietary) and then censoring, plagiarising etc. in the interests of “core infrastructure” etc. They tell us they’re protecting us while stealing from us and denying basic freedom in the digital realm. They tell us we must give up control in the interest of “security” and let ‘responsible’ companies like Microsoft manage us. Noticing a recurring theme here?

Remember this is the company that uses crimes to impose proprietary software on people — software that already has (partly-hidden) back doors in it — ones that cannot be detected easily or removed. Microsoft is not people’s boss, but it might feel like it can boss politicians, even outside the United States. Hence this legislation in the US, which can now be seen (similar shades) in the EU.

Yesterday this new episode of “Enterprise Linux Security” was published to say: “Supply chain attacks in open source software projects are a real possibility. In fact, we’ve covered actual incidents in previous episodes of this podcast. In this episode, Jay and Joao discuss developing legislation that will require the components within open source projects to be a part of a bill of materials (among other requirements).”

But the malware is sent from Microsoft (GitHub/NPM) most of the time. Shouldn’t this "supply chain" be taken out of the hands of Microsoft and the NSA?

Meanwhile, here in Europe the NLnet Labs team is warning that “the proposed Cyber Resilience Act” would work against Free software (which NLnet supports). This refers to this old (15 September 2022) proposal which claims it “bolsters cybersecurity rules to ensure more secure hardware and software products.”

The consultation is now closed and the very top shows a Microsoft front group, “ACT | The App Association (Belgium)” [sic] under “Public consultation … Feedback and consultation period 16 March 2022 – 25 May 2022″ (finished half a year ago).

One reader has asked, “where the fuck is the EFF on this?”

Well, EFF has been busy attacking the father of Free software, defaming him while promoting Microsoft's surveillance.
_____
* The ‘Linux’ Foundation does not speak for GNU/Linux users but for antagonistic, sometimes outright hostile, corporations that look to undermine software freedom, promoting fake security that in effect means corporations control the community and hijack the narrative [1, 2].

11.25.22

[Meme] Kiss the Ring (of the Patent Litigation Mafia)

Posted in Courtroom, Europe, Law, Patents at 5:50 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Ringleader Benoît Battistelli was widely known for his disdain/rejection of judges with integrity

It's not legal; It's not constitutional; But we'll call it... 'the legal system'

Summary: Patent litigation giants and their international lobbies/clients are working to create an absurd situation where the courts themselves exist in violation of constitutions, laws, and international conventions (they're also run by corporations)

[Meme] Judges That Break the Rules to Get Richer

Posted in Courtroom, Europe, Law, Patents at 12:39 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

FFII on Klaus 'Kangaroo' Grabinski

Klaus 'Kangaroo' Grabinski: Hurry up! It's illegal!

Summary: The EPO‘s latest controlled ‘judge’ is a proponent of software patents and opponent of proper due process or presumption of innocence; can they fake their way into a Unified Patent Court? It would be a breach of laws, constitutions, and conventions, dismissing any notion that the “legal industry” honours legality while tarnishing the reputation of some key institutions and governments.

11.22.22

Nokia and Airbus Elected as Judges at the Unified Patent Court, an Unheard of Corruption of Justice

Posted in Courtroom, Database, Europe, Fraud, Law, Patents at 3:16 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

By Benjamin HENRION/The Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure e.V. (FFII)

UPC kangaroo court

Brussels, 16th November 2022 — Nokia and Airbus got their patent lawyers elected as part-time technical judges at the forthcoming Unified Patent Court (UPC). Europe is witnessing corporate capture of its Justice system. Being ‘judges’ in the morning and ‘ patent lawyers’ in the afternoon. The Unified Patent Court is way worse than the appointment of judges in Poland.

Technical judges are part-time judges (half judge, half employee of a private company) without a law degree, and are usually patent attorneys working for law firms, or inside patent departments of large corporations (Nokia, Airbus, 3M, Orange, Agfa, etc…).

Benjamin Henrion, president of FFII, call for their immediate removal:

“Nokia as part time judge at the Unified Patent Court, this is a joke right? Europe is witnessing corporate capture of its Justice system. This is a frontal attack on the independence of the judge, and judges should not receive any side salary. This is worse than the case of Polish judges.”

Nokia has been very active a patent troll company, and is eager to influence the Unified Patent Court validating software patents in Europe, without any possible involvement of the European Court of Justice.

In the history of the project, there were rules forbidding this corporate capture of Judges in the failed European Patent Litigation Agreement (EPLA) project in 2004, banning any side remunerated activity:

CHAPTER I JUDGES – Article 6 Incompatibility of other functions
(1) Apart from being members of other courts orboards of appeal of the European Patent Office or national patent offices, judges of the European Patent Court shall not pursue any gainful occupation unless authorised by the Executive Committee. Nor shall they occupy any political or administrative office.

— Draft Statute of the European Patent Court, Working Party on Litigation, 16.2.2004 https://www.uaipit.com/uploads/legislacion/files/1259753423_3_EPLA-20040216-Draft_Statute_of_EPCourt.pdf

There is also jurisprudence (Grosam Vs Czech Republic) at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg on violation of Art6(1) with side remuneration of judges:

(iii) The existence of guarantees against outside pressure

134. As concerns the existence of guarantees against outside pressure, the Court observes that two-thirds of the chamber’s members, the lay assessors, worked and received their salaries outside, which inevitably involved their material, hierarchical and administrative dependence on their primary employers and thereby could endangered both their independence and impartiality (see Oleksandr Volkov, cited above, § 113).

— Grosam Vs Czech Republic, European Court of Human Rights, 2022 https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-217806%22]}

Countries participating in the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA) seem to wilfully ignore those rules, and some politicians want the Agreement to enter into force at any cost.

Links

11.17.22

António ‘I’m the F***ing President’ Campinos Arranges Meeting With EPO Staff to Lie About Staff’s Position and Then Crush the Most Basic Rights of Staff

Posted in Europe, Law, Patents at 12:57 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Video download link | md5sum 5aadd21fbc4d921a25cf1391df217344
Health of EPO Staff
Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 4.0

Summary: The Central Staff Committee at the EPO cautions that an EPO policy “document constitutes a misrepresentation of the situation at the EPO and instrumentalises the Working Group on “Health & Safety Services” to introduce further restrictions on the rights of sick employees” (a highly relevant topic at the moment)

THE health of EPO (European Patent Office) workers is a subject that the union and the representatives of staff constantly speak about. A recent survey showed that EPO staff is generally depressed and demoralised. That can’t be good for health. Under Benoît Battistelli‘s regime a lot of EPO workers chose to end their own lives (jumping into tracks, jumping out of windows at work, apparently self-immolation too).

The way things have gone under António Campinos (so far it’s worsening), expect no better.

The Central Staff Committee of the EPO is circulating following message among members of staff:

Health matters: Further restrictions on the rights of sick staff

Dear colleagues,

With document CA/85/22, the administration is proposing several changes to the Service Regulations, to be submitted to the COHSEC, the GCC and finally the Administrative Council in December 2022. They will affect sick staff, particularly in relation to:

- The distinction of tasks in the Occupational Health Services (supporting staff) and in the Medical Advisory Unit (advising the President in administrative decisions);

- The exchange, use and access of medical information;

- The arbitration procedure for medical opinions;

The video above isn’t dealing with the pertinent points, but it shows the open letter preceded by some context [PDF] like arrangement of meetings.

The short story is, Mr. Campinos wants a bunch of people to say they speak for staff and then orchestrates a meeting to tick some boxes and ultimately claim that staff has been consulted. A familiar strategy! Then, he and his regime distort the position of staff (or basic facts/reality) to make life worse for the staff. It’s a cruel strategy that introduces likely illegal conditions and tarnishes the image of Europe (the EPO is Europe’s second-largest institution) while exacerbating the patent examination process. Should Europe’s second-largest institution by run by psychopathic nihilists?

11.10.22

Microsoft is Sued for Copyright Violations (Under Guise of ‘AI’) and Microsoft-Bribed Open Source Initiative Backs the Infringer, Microsoft

Posted in Courtroom, Free/Libre Software, Law, Microsoft, OSI at 12:13 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Stefano Maffulli defected. He is paid about $150,000 per year for this defection.

Focusing on legal aspects of AI

Summary: The Open Source Initiative (OSI) is so obscenely corrupt that it literally helps Microsoft violate the GPL and makes excuses for it, as part of a Microsoft-funded series; Stefano Maffulli is nothing but a Microsoft-funded shill, occupying a leadership position in an organisation that was supposed to call out Microsoft

Update: And if that’s not bad enough, they’ve just published another page about it:

Microsoft-funded hogwash

And then updated another:

More AI BS

It’s like the priority at OSI nowadays is Microsoft cover-up, shielding it from prosecution while it is attacking Free software.

Update #2: A few hours ago they did it a fourth time (in 2 days!). Notice the date. This was 3:55 GMT on 12/11/2022.

Want more AI? Try Mastodon!

OSI, funded by Microsoft, is constantly writing about “AI” to make it seem OK that Microsoft attacks Free/Open Source software under the banner of “AI”.

11.06.22

The European Union’s Unspoken-About Blunder: EPO (Patent-Granting Office) Coup and Ongoing Coup Against Patent Courts

Posted in Europe, Law, Patents at 7:29 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Video download link | md5sum b84d35a08a7dc4bb537710b6cea80ec1
Rectifying Lawlessness at EPO
Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 4.0

Summary: The EPO‘s “f*cking president” António Campinos (he actually referred to himself as “the f*cking president”) is going to face more and more challenges as scrutiny from outside the patent microcosm becomes inevitable if not imminent

The “patent microcosm” — an old term that refers to self-serving groups with no consideration or any regard/respect to “externalities” – is dominating the EPO and the overseeing body (mostly representatives of national patent offices, but not of nation states) must be challenged. The UPC lobby and the people who hijacked the EPO (overlapping groups) make people’s lives miserable, both inside the EPO and outside the EPO. The same people who hijacked the EPO (large corporrations and international law firms) try to do to patent courts what they did to Europe’s largest patent office, but that aspect shall be covered in the next post and today’s final video.

We’ve sadly not spent much time lately covering EPO scandals or even the lack of UPC progress. It’s mostly a matter of prioritising based on urgency. It has been about 3 weeks since we last covered EPO staff affairs except more minor aspects. The above video talks about this petition, which was brought up again some days ago in light of the union communicating “upwards”, seeking to get member states to intervene and disrupt EPO corruption (such as the violations of the EPC, resulting in European software patents among other monstrosities).

Some days ago the following message was circulated among examiners (for the most part):

Strong support for the petition to the Administrative Council to call for a Conference of Ministers of the Contracting States under Article 4a EPC

Dear Colleagues,

In total 1016 EPO staff members support the petition to the Administrative Council to call for a Conference of Ministers of the Contracting States under Article 4a EPC.

We would like to express our sincere thanks to all the signatories for their clear support. This strong signal has been sent to the Chairperson and to the Heads of Delegations of the Administrative Council in an open letter.

It is now up to the Administrative Council to ensure that the conference is convened as soon as possible. We will continue to monitor the progress of the issue and will keep you informed of further developments in a timely manner.

Your SUEPO Central Bureau

SUEPO is well aware that the Chairperson is pretty much in the pocket of Campinos. Nothing will be done by the Chairperson unless his own job is at risk; but this is what happens when the “patent microcosm” is being put in charge of the “patent microcosm”. Heck, maybe he’ll get a high-paying job at the EPO later on (like Dr. Ernst, his predecessor).

Here is the open letter to with annexes merged: (as discussed in the video at the top)

INTERNATIONALE GEWERKSCHAFT IM EUROPÄISCHEN PATENTAMT
STAFF UNION OF THE EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE
UNION SYNDICALE DE L’OFFICE EUROPEEN DES BREVETS

Zentraler Vorstand Central Executive Committee Bureau central

21 October 2022
su22052cl – 0.3.1 – 5.3

To the Chairperson
and to the Heads of Delegation of the
Administrative Council of the
European Patent Organisation

SUEPO Central Executive Committee

OPEN Letter

To the members of the Administrative Council of the EPO
Call for a Conference of Ministers of the Contracting States under
Article 4a EPC

Dear Mr Chairperson,
Dear Heads of Delegation,

In total 1016 EPO staff members support the following petition on a call for a Conference
of Ministers of the Contracting States under Article 4a EPC and ask you to act accordingly:

“We, staff members of the European Patent Office (EPO) and the signatories of this petition, perceive that the development of the European Patent Organization (EPOrg) has increasingly departed from the structure and its mission as foreseen under the EPC and it appears that no appropriate countermeasures will be taken.

Therefore, we consider an external review of the EPO’s situation by a Conference of Ministers of the Contracting States under Article 4a EPC to be expedient; such a Conference is anyway long overdue in view of Article 4a EPC.


We call on you to have anew a close look:

- at the development and administration of the organization’s resources, in particular the alarming reduction of staffing levels in the core tasks;
- at the development of EPO employment law, at the (absence of) internal dialogue with social partners; and
- at hidden attempts to de-centralize the EPO towards National Patent Offices and weaken the roles and competencies of the various organs defined under the EPC.

We also call you to reflect on whether the strategic governance of the EPO is compatible with the long-term continuity of the Organization’s existence and with the future fulfilment of its mission, also in the context of its role in the Unitary Patent system.

We ask you to transmit this petition to your Ministries in order to convene such Conference without delay.”

Additional more detailed information can be found in the annexes to this letter.

Yours sincerely,

C. Lopes
Chair of SUEPO The Hague

I. Brumme
Chair of SUEPO Munich

T. Czogalla
Chair of SUEPO Berlin

J. Schaaf
Chair of SUEPO Vienna

Copy: President of the EPO, A. Campinos

Attachment: Detailed information on the petition


1 – 1 Date 30.09.2022

Update on the petition to the Members of the Administrative Council of the EPO to call for a Conference of Ministers of the Contracting States under Article 4a EPC

When the petition was launched in June 2022, compelling reasons had already been published as to
why such a Conference of Ministers of the Contracting States is necessary and, in fact, overdue. Since then, more events have occurred that speak for such an external review of the organisation and thus for the support of the petition, which are:

- The production demands for examiners are to be increased – increases of up to 10% are in the air – and this despite the fact that quality has fallen further;
- The office’s practice concerning patentability of business methods under Article 52(2)(c) EPC has become unclear again; and
- More embarrassing ILOAT Judgments showing the EPO’s violation of fundamental rights were issued three months ago and while implementation could be smooth and easy, it has yet to occur.

In more detail:

In the meantime it has been announced by senior managers and line managers that examiners will be required to produce more and that production pressure will be significantly increased for the coming year. This is even though staffing levels in core tasks are alarmingly low, examiner productivity is at its limits and at the same time the quality of issued patents has further deteriorated to below 75% compliance rate. In team meetings the figure of an increase of up to 10% of production has bee mentioned (see also the corresponding CSC publication 1). It seems that management no longer has any meaningful answers to manage the office’s workload.

Concerning the assessment of patentability of business methods in substantive examination (Article 52(2)(c) EPC), a recently started debate illustrates that this issue still seems to be very unclear. A clear guidance at the level of the Contracting States of the EPC seems to be necessary.

In early July the ILOAT issued inter-alia the Judgments no. 4550 and 4551, the latter clarifying that again the EPO has violated fundamental rights of staff freedom of association for roughly a decade. With the Judgment, the ILOAT lifted the presidential ban on Staff Committee sending mass emails to staff.

However, even after repeated requests by the Staff Committee and SUEPO, the President has not yet removed his technical restrictions on Staff Representation in the office’s email system that were put in place to enforce the ban. Currently, it looks like the Office continues to refuse to comply with the court’s ruling and allows the illegal email ban to remain in place. It seems that the ILOAT will have to be called again in this matter, this time simply to obtain the enforcement of its judgment.

Thus, not only has the fear that further embarrassing ILOAT Judgments will be issued against the organisation been confirmed, but it is compounded by the lack of willingness in the office leadership to recognise the highest court having jurisdiction over the organisation and to comply with the EPC. This procedure could put the existence of the organisation, and thus our own, in jeopardy. It is unclear whether the Administrative Council can or wants to put a stop to this.

In view of the above, an external review of the situation of the EPO by the Contracting States has become even more urgent.

This external review is claimed by the petitioners to the Members of the Administrative Council of the EPO to call for a Conference of Ministers of the Contracting States under Article 4a EPC.

_____
1 Open letter of the Central Staff Committee to the EPO President on the subject “Unsustainable productivity increase of +10% for 2023” dated 22.09.2022,


[Redacted: a letter previously published here]


[Redacted: a letter previously published here]


Detailed information on the PETITION
To the Members of the Administrative Council of the EPO Call for a Conference of Ministers of the Contracting States under Article 4a EPC as launched by SUEPO Central in the EPO on 07.06.2022.

We, staff members of the European Patent Office (EPO) and the signatories of this petition, perceive that the development of the European Patent Organization (EPOrg) has increasingly departed from the structure and its mission as foreseen under the EPC.

It appears that the EPO is being more and more transformed into a profit center, which is – in our view – inappropriate for a public service with quasi-judicial bodies responsible for granting monopoly rights by sovereign acts, which have a wide impact on their owners, their competitors and on the public. The fact that almost all management decisions are made on the basis of financial figures calculated according to the accounting standards applicable to the private sector (IFRS) rather than to the public sector (IPSAS) has led to reforms focused on savings on the expense of staff and downsizing of staff in core business to an amount which endangers the good functioning of the EPO. Core tasks are evaluated increasingly more on a financial perspective, wherein internally a link between the number of patents granted and the financial health of the EPO is openly communicated. The EPO career system further adds to an individual preference for granting of a patent over refusing a patent
application.

Internal quality control mechanisms have been implemented, by which the President of the European Patent Office has increasingly assumed the position of an additional higher ranking, but hidden instance in the patent granting procedure above the Divisions defined pursuant to Articles 15, 18 and 19 EPC. This not only questions the authenticity and legal validity of the Division’s decisions but also leads to strong influence to quickly grant patents. While surveys among external “stakeholders” ran by the EPO appear to show a high quality of the EPO patents, internal audits disclose that since years more than 20% of the European Patents have severe deficiencies and shouldn’t have been granted.

Backlogs in examination and search are increasing and it appears that for tackling the problems the current line management is tempted to return to outdated management approaches like “challenging people” measures and management “by fear”, which are unworthy of a modern organization like the EPO with highly qualified personnel. At the same time the EPO plans to reduce the staffing level in core tasks even further. This adds to current plans squaring with a large-scale decentralization of EPO tasks, including transfer of tasks to NPOs. Such significant amendments of the Organization’s structure fall outside the prerogatives of the President or the Administrative Council as defined in Articles 10 and 33 EPC. Furthermore, such a decentralization of EPO tasks would also affect the legal certainties of the validity of the patents granted by the EPO.

Apart from that, virtually all reforms of employment law since 2013 have been legally challenged, a number of which were already considered as null and void by the ILOAT (see e.g. Judgments 4430 to 4435 or 4482) or even in breach of fundamental rights; no significant investments have been made for reviewing the other reforms at stake. The EPO has obviously been unable to develop and apply new policies in line with legal constraints as defined by the ILOAT, so that further embarrassing judgments are to be expected.

All these issues have not been appropriately tackled due to the long-lasting failure of the EPO Administration to engage in a genuine social dialog with the staff representation and trade unions, who have drawn attention to them repeatedly to no avail.

Therefore, we consider an external review of the EPO’s situation by a Conference of Ministers of the Contracting States under Article 4a EPC to be expedient; such a Conference is anyway long overdue in view of Article 4a EPC.

We call on you to have anew a close look:
- at the development and administration of the organization’s resources, in particular the alarming reduction of staffing levels in the core tasks;

- at the development of EPO employment law, at the (absence of) internal dialogue with social partners; and

- at hidden attempts to de-centralize the EPO towards National Patent Offices and weaken the roles and competencies of the various organs defined under the EPC

1 – 2


We also call you to reflect on whether the strategic governance of the EPO is compatible with the long-term continuity of the Organization’s existence and with the future fulfillment of its mission, also in the context of its role in the Unitary Patent system.

We ask you to transmit this petition to your Ministries in order to convene such Conference without delay.

The non-exhaustive list of signs of derailment of the EPO includes:

Management of core business and Quality:
• Staffing level in core business has been reduced significantly during the past years and the office plans to continue the reduction of staffing level in core tasks by 25% of examiners and by 50% of formalities officers;
• Since the beginning of 2021 until the end of April 2022 an increase of the examination backlog by about 12% and search backlog by 5% is visible;
• Rather than adapting the recruitment plans in core business to the actual situation the Office continues to focus on prioritizing and re-shuffling examiners tasks in examination and search;
• The latest figures of the internal quality audit disclose a decreasing trend of quality of grant decisions from an already low compliance rate of 80% in April 2021 down to less than 75% at the end of March 2022.

Decentralisation initiatives:
• The EPO has proposed a new „mobility” program which includes secondment of patent examiners between the EPO and NPOs without limitations; it further focuses on harmonization of IT structures between NPOs and the EPO rather than primarily investing in the tools to support the core work;
• By the reorganization of 1 April 2022, EPO examining divisions and EPO formality officers were artificially separated geographically to different sites, without any added value for the EPO work procedures;
• The Office has departed from long-term and permanent employment towards high rotation short-term contract jobs for the members of the Divisions defined pursuant to Articles 15, 18 and 19 EPC.

Legal Certainty of Sovereign acts:
• Over the past years the President of the European Patent Office has issued instructions by which he increasingly assumed the position of an additional higher ranking, but hidden instance in the patent granting procedure above the Divisions defined pursuant to Articles 15, 18 and 19 EPC. Every notified action of the Division like a communication, summons to oral proceedings, refusal decision or grant of a patent application requires approval of the line manager in substance, although she or he is not a member of the Division;
• No legal means are available for the members of the Divisions for redressing interferences, like unlawful orders of the line manager to issue a communication instead of a decision to refuse an application as no legal instance is available (see e.g., Judgment 4417);
• The current electronic file and workflow system systematically implements resulting interference by management with the Division’s responsibilities and tasks and does not ensure an appropriate authentication of signatures of the responsible members of the Division.

2 – 2

Sooner or later they will need to (re)convene and all those massive problems will have piled up by then. Will they have the guts to admit they neglected/ignored the issues to the point where the patent system got flushed down the drain, instead rendering itself a cookie jar for law firms and monopolists?

« 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