09.13.16
Posted in America, Deception, Patents at 6:37 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
IP Watchdog is turning into a blatant attack dog of patent law firms
Summary: The latest new developments in the software patents landscape, including some of the latest vicious attacks on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which invalidates software patents at a rather high pace
IT CAN be truly sickening to see what goes on in the US amid the demise/end of software patents. As we noted the other day, the patent law firms fight back and they fight back dirty. Left unchallenged, they will have a lot of leeway and possibly discourage participation by those who merely apply the law. They’re bullies with ‘class’.
“Left unchallenged, they will have a lot of leeway and possibly discourage participation by those who merely apply the law.”Litigation and blackmail has a new euphemism, “Monetization”, over at patent law firms’ news sites. To them, it’s all about the money, never mind innovation, justice and so on.
After Alice, which put an end to many software patents, the monetisers come up with articles like “How to Overcome Rejections Based on the Alice Decision”. Litigation and prosecution, moreover, are described in terms from consumerism, e.g. “Repeated Clients”. What on Earth? Have they no tact. They pretty much show what they stand for and it’s nothing but money in this case. Watch this new example of marketing (“Patent Services USA Offers Inventors Who Conducted Invention Research Elsewhere with Investment Protection Up to $1,200″). Again, all about money…
“What ever happened to the promise of innovation and protecting the “little guy” (or gal, or inventor)?”What ever happened to the promise of innovation and protecting the “little guy” (or gal, or inventor)? Well, that’s all just pillow talk now. The system has been taken over by other interests.
Google wants to control your car along with the State (whatever the state may be) and files/pursues a patent on that. So much for innovation, eh? Big Brother must be very pleased.
“Watchtroll has got an agenda and it’s not even hiding it.”Well, continuing their attacks on PTAB/AIA, as expected and noted here the other day, Watchtroll and chums now pick on Google in the article “How the America Invents Act Harmed Inventors” (yet another PTAB/AIA attack piece, one among many recently). One Twitter account linking to this said: “How the America Invents Act Harmed Inventors – OR, How Google et al Stole Thousands of Inventions.” (Google is mentioned thrice in this article)
Watchtroll has got an agenda and it’s not even hiding it. More than 90% of (tested in courts/boards) software patents on this area (payments) are dead/dying, but Watchtroll is cherry-picking to make it seem otherwise. Another new Watchtroll piece is an attack on PTAB, as usual. Watchtroll is attacking PTAB almost every day now, for PTAB is invalidating software patents in lieu with Alice. In other words, it’s just doing its job and applying (or carrying) justice. How dare these people uphold the law? Resorting to insults like "Impotence", Watchtroll and chums have already turned the site into some kind of attack site (nonstop attacks on PTAB for invalidating software patents in the US, as can be seen almost every day these days over at Watchtroll). Here is another new example, this one from yesterday. If anyone deems Watchtroll (IP Watchdog) a legitimate source of information, now is a good time to reassess and reconsider.
“The title of this new article is “The CAFC finally issues the Planet Blue decision and it’s good news for US software patent owners,” but it could also be typed as “The CAFC finally issues the Planet Blue decision and it’s bad news for US software developers” (because software developers generally loathe software patents).”According to the EPO’s mouthpiece, which is also a longtime proponent of software patents (blatantly so): “The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued its long-awaited decision in the McRO Inc., DBA Planet Blue v Bandai Namco Games America et al case. This involved two patents relating to lip synchronisation which had been ruled invalid on Section 101 grounds by the Central California district court months after the Supreme Court handed down its controversial Alice decison in June 2014. Owners of software patents in the US were hopuing that the CAFC would use this case to provide more clarity on the thorny subject of eligibility, and it looks like that has happened.”
The title of this new article is “The CAFC finally issues the Planet Blue decision and it’s good news for US software patent owners,” but it could also be typed as “The CAFC finally issues the Planet Blue decision and it’s bad news for US software developers” (because software developers generally loathe software patents).
Writing in another Web site, here we have another sort of attack on AIA and PTAB (behind paywall). The summary says: “An interview with McDermott Will & Emery partner Bernard Knight Jr., who served as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s general counsel from 2010 to 2013 as the America Invents Act went into effect.”
“They mostly write about PTAB and complain (rudely or politely, depending on their style) about it for trashing software patents (their lifeline which taxes software developers and users).”Yes, because a USPTO insider would be truly objective about Congress enforcing/imposing restrictions on the USPTO? Another lawyers’ site has just written about Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) at PTAB. It’s quite clear that patent law firms in the US are freaking out. They mostly write about PTAB and complain (rudely or politely, depending on their style) about it for trashing software patents (their lifeline which taxes software developers and users).
In other news, design patents (sort of like software patents) are being advocated by patent maximalists at Watchtroll, i.e. those who profit from them no matter who loses and who wins. Apple patents so-called solutions to problems that aren’t real, unless Utopia for humanity means making phonecalls inside the shower. It also patents non-original designs and then drags companies in the courtrooms over it. Samsung was wealthy enough to insist on appeals and this will soon reach the US Supreme Court. Florian Müller has the latest on that. Earlier today he wrote a long post and concluded: “If the Supreme Court (or Judge Koh on remand) finds that Apple failed to identify the relevant “article of manufacture,” then there won’t have to be another jury trial–and the clear message to the rest of the world would be that rationality has been restored with respect to design patent damages, period.” █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 4:35 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Staring at their phones while Team UPC advocates the antidemocratic UPC
Photo credit: Managing IP tweet, but modified (cropped) slightly
Summary: A look back at how a publication which calls itself “news” has in fact converged with the EPO and the predators (Team UPC) in an effort to peddle lies and help advocate the UPC
“I refuse to propagate such blatant lies from Battistelli about reforms disclosed in a staged interview published by #managingip,” one person from the EPO wrote today. Some people are demonstrably unhappy about Managing IP propagating the lies of Battistelli, as recently as last week (more to come later this month in part two).
“It’s all lies! (Proven),” the above person added, “Destroying SUEPO and EPO is Battistelli’s only and true goal! This is a personal vendetta.”
We agree. This is well documented, but each time Managing IP chooses to play ball with Battistelli it further alienates people associated with the EPO, where Battistelli 'enjoys' a 0% approval rating. Nobody trusts him, but some people choose to say nothing about it just to keep the salaries coming in (to pay the mortgage or whatever).
For the shared mission which is UPC (shared among only the patent microcosm and destined to harm everyone but this microcosm) media is now coalescing and receiving some favours in exchange for power, money, politics etc. (much like media which promotes particular Presidential candidates in the US right now, neglecting to give even an illusion of balance/impartiality).
When Web sites like IAM and Managing IP choose to repeat EPO lies (earlier today the EPO spoke of “optimis[ing] patent prosecution” and it’s hard not to think of its lobbying for the UPC and Battistelli’s PR) they do themselves enormous damage. Last week we wrote about Managing IP‘s UPC advocacy event [1, 2] and earlier today, under multiple URLs [1, 2, 3], Managing IP became Fröhlinger’s megaphone (Fröhlinger is a longtime UPC propagandist and Battistelli loyalist). To quote the relevant portion:
Margot Fröhlinger of the EPO gave a historical account of previous failed attempts to create a unitary patent system in the EU before 25 member states agreed in 2011 to proceed through the enhanced cooperation procedure. In a nutshell, they failed because of disagreement over language and the associated court system. Fröhlinger said the Brexit result was hugely disappointing, but hopes history won’t repeat itself because the system is nearly ready and, in her view, “very important” to the Single Market. She said: “There is hope that the system will not come to a halt. It will go ahead. There is too much support and too much investment.” To her mind, the question now is whether the system will go ahead with or without the UK. She said: “It’s now a political issue not a legal one because it is relatively easy to change an agreement which is not yet in force.”
The two key UPC Agreement provisions which require amendment are Article 89, to remove the requirement for UK ratification, and Article 7(2), which deals with the UK’s Central Division seat. She went on to explain how this solution may be achieved. The first step is for the other member states to convene a diplomatic meeting on the margins of an EU Summit or the Competitiveness Council meeting to discuss possible amendments. This must include the UK. In terms of agreement by member states, “only a qualified majority is needed”. But she expressed concerns over likely disagreements which will cause delay. “There is a risk that other member states will start throwing in their amendments.” In terms of seat, she said France, the Netherlands, Germany and Italy are all likely to stake a claim. Getting all of the amendments approved quickly would depend on the constitutions of member states, but if all goes well we shouldn’t expect years of delay. “Most member states will be able to do a simplified ratification,” she said, citing Denmark as an example where another referendum won’t be required. “So we could be looking at 6 to 9 months delay not 5 years.”
The expectation was that the system will start operation next year. With the uncertainty over the UK government’s Brexit policy and plans, “how long can other member states wait for the UK to make a decision?” That was a question put to the panel. “Member states shouldn’t wait too long. Perhaps a matter of months,” Fröhlinger responded. “If there is no sign of UK’s participation at the Competitiveness Council meeting this month or in November then member states should act quickly.” She added: “Germany’s ratification should go ahead to avoid giving bad signal to other countries.”
Fröhlinger envisages no major legal obstacle to the continued participation of the UK in the UPC after its exit, provided it accepts Chapter IV of the UPCA, and, moreover, other member states want the UK to be part of it. She takes comfort in the CJEU’s decision in challenge to the Unitary Patent Regulations. “The CJEU demonstrated extreme pragmatism,” she said, but then went on to warn that the CJEU’s Opinion 1/09, which dealt with the UPCA’s predecessor, is open to interpretation. “There are no guarantees in life so no one is sure if the CJEU will agree on the legality of UK’s participation if challenged,” she added. Fröhlinger also fears the risk of unravelling the compromises in the UPCA but questions if the CJEU will be “politically insensitive”. She believes the CJEU will give “its blessing” to the system again when called up.
As we noted here last week, the event lacked any criticism of the UPC and it’s no surprise; when one needs to pay over 1,000 Euros merely to attend for a day (not even give a talk) this is nothing but an echo chamber where Microsoft and the EPO, for example, try to shape Europe's patent law. Very nefarious stuff and that’s not even covering all the dubious connections between Microsoft and the EPO (as covered here many times before). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
09.11.16
Posted in America, Deception, Fraud, Patents at 7:16 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Distracting from the accusations
Summary: The USPTO is found to have been burning taxpayers’ money and the patent microcosm, which profits from this entire sort of ‘racket’, is trying to defend or belittle these findings
THE USPTO has been dealt a serious blow which we mentioned here very briefly the other day (billing fraud, similar to what's alleged to be happening at the EPO).
It is no surprise that examiner misconduct and fraud is defended by IAM ‘magazine’, but having followed their sources we are left worried. Here is what IAM wrote to excuse/dismiss it all (the headline is “accusations against USPTO staff may have less meat than reported”):
But according to Matt Levy, patent counsel with the Computer Communications Industry Association (CCIA), the numbers from the OIG’s report should be put in context. Earlier this week, in a letter to the editor of the Washington Post, Levy claimed that the report exaggerated the scope of the problem. When broken down, he calculates that the waste amounts to an average of six minutes per examiner at the USPTO (he went into further detail in an IP Watchdog post here).
I reached out to Levy for a little more detail on his reasons for writing the letter. Here’s his response: “It seemed pretty clear that the OIG was making the problem look far worse than it was. I’ve written about the GAO’s report on quality, and I’ve been hopeful that it would garner some attention. Unfortunately, the scandal that the IG’s report created seemed likely to suck up all the oxygen. My goal was to bring a little perspective and, hopefully, help focus the conversation back on patent quality.”
Most patent owners would probably agree with Levy. That isn’t to denigrate the latest findings of the OIG but the more fundamental problem for the US patent system is the quality of the grants that it makes. That was certainly one of the main findings of IAM’s most recent benchmarking survey which was elaborated on by a more recent piece of research by Colleen Chien of Santa Clara University
Putting aside that last paragraph which is IAM's self-promotion (of propaganda), watch who they’re using to support their position. Remember which companies are behind CCIA, never mind Watchtroll (IP Watchdog) and other USPTO friends/buddies. It’s like a sort of coverup attempt because a lot of the above piggybacks Matt Levy from CCIA. It is a man whose wife works for the USPTO, i.e. his household receives a salary from the USPTO — something that should probably be mentioned (he personally asked me not to mention this again, but it’s hard given these circumstances and given that Levy gave away this potential conflict of interest himself, in his own blog). Watch what he wrote in response to the original piece (filed under “opinions”). His wife works for the USPTO, yet he does not disclose this in his letter to the editor (regarding the USPTO). How is one supposed to simply ignore this? The echo chamber in defense of fraud isn’t something that’s a minor detail that can be trivially overlooked. Found via this tweet are some vicious attacks on Florian Müller for bringing up the issue. A former IP Kat writer is slamming him for stating the obvious and he responds with: “Doesn’t matter due to fee diversion. Ultimately it is taxpayers’ money anyway.” Patent law firms too are against taxpayers now [1, 2, 3, 4]? Or implicitly in defense of billing fraud? How would that make them look? It is hard to explain to the patent microcosm its unwanted role (as it relates to practicing developers) [1, 2], but Müller did try and at the end he wrote a summary of his position as follows [1, 2, 3, 4]: “Some patent folks are being too emotional about USPTO fee diversion to think things through correctly. Let’s enlighten them now: Question was: if employees steal from USPTO, are taxpayers the ultimate victims? Yes. There are 2 independent ways to prove this. First, every $ less that the USPTO can send to Treasury (fee diversion) is a $ more that taxpayers have to contribute to pay for something. Second, fee diversion goes both ways: if theft contributed to a USPTO deficit, taxpayers would have to close the gap.”
“Slamming the watchdog isn’t easy (shooting the messenger which is independent) and if nefarious tactics are used to belittle the problem itself, what does that tell us about the accused (collectively) or their spouses?”I have exchanged quite a few E-mails about this subject since (Müller expressed some views) and it’s saddening to hear that patent law firms implicitly threaten alienation in retaliation for stating of the obvious. By doing so they probably risk only isolating themselves even further, turning software developers like myself and Müller into a foe.
For those who want to hear opinions from sites not run by software developers, consider reading “Patent office employees steal millions from American taxpayers”. To quote: “A new report from an independent watchdog found that employees of the Patent and Trademark office billed the government (AKA, the taxpayers) for 300,000 hours they never worked, costing the American people $18.2 million.
“Many employees work from home, and the report found numerous instances of time logged without any work being completed.
“The amount of wasted man-hours that could have been spent reducing the patent backlog is astounding, not to mention the millions of taxpayer dollars that were wasted paying employees for work they were not doing,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) told the Washington Post.”
Working from home for the USPTO is something which Levy’s wife has been doing. It’s a shame that he did not disclose that in his letter of response to this piece from August 31st (“Patent office workers bilked the government of millions by playing hooky, watchdog finds”).
Slamming the watchdog isn’t easy (shooting the messenger which is independent) and if nefarious tactics are used to belittle the problem itself, what does that tell us about the accused (collectively) or their spouses? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
09.08.16
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 11:19 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Media as cheerleaders, not journalists
Summary: Managing IP (MIP), in addition to IAM, is pushing the EPO’s agenda, including the antidemocratic UPC, which MIP dedicated an entire event (even a couple) to
THE EPO is not a friend of Europe. Heck, it’s not even a friend of its own staff! See staff surveys about it.
Two days ago we wrote about MIP-EPO intersections (we refer to Managing IP as MIP for abbreviation) and earlier this week, just after Labor Day in the US (a long weekend), the EPO kicked off a series of propaganda (a seemingly new campaign). This means we’ll cover the subject more often and issue rebuttals more frequently than last month. We have a lot of material that we are eager to publish.
Battistelli is trying to grease up delegates/participants of the Administrative Council and pave the way to the UPC even if by truly nefarious tricks like entryism and lobbying. We won’t let him have his way. The guy is a liar. That’s an understatement actually. He’s thuggish, he’s manipulative and one might even say “corrupt” based on some of the recent appointments at the EPO’s management. The reason he has managed to keep his job (thus far, maybe until the term’s end) is a serious set of flaws in the EPC (which Battistelli ignores anyway) and the EPO’s detachment from national laws (Eponia makes up its own laws with no external review or discretion, then changes the laws as it goes along while management is allowed to break these laws).
Margot Fröhlinger (mentioned here for her UPC lobbying before) came from the EPO to MIP’s UPC advocacy event (there are actually two such events this week, for maximal impact). According to this MIP account (they have several), “Margot Fröhlinger believes UPC will go ahead with or without the UK. UK’s participation post-Brexit not a problem.”
Really? Will the EPO be lobbying with wishful thinking and self-fulfilling prophecy attempts? Again? Another tweet said: “Fröhlinger says there is a risk, no guarantees, but hopes CJEU will agree to UK participation in UPC.”
There’s also a photo in there. The EPO is a rogue organisation, so we are expecting it to game this debate and do whatever it takes to push forth such an antidemocratic UPC deal. It would push TTIP/TISA/CETA/TPP as well if it had to. ISDS would be very much in ‘the spirit’ of Battistelli.
Watch how MIP emphasises EPO views, which MIP entertains by setting up those two events. “That’s certainly one view,” it said. Well, good, so where are the opposing views? Oh, wait… that’s not part of the programme. They have essentially created a platform for EPO and UPC lobbying, trying to steer policy in the presence of people whom they try to influence. We saw that before in the US. We’ll get to that in a moment (IAM was responsible for that).
MIP then notes that “Winfried Tilmann of @HoganLovellsIP thinks if UK doesn’t ratify UPCA before Brexit, then door will be closed.”
Nice alarmism there from Winfried Tilmann, who is a Battistellite that mentioned earlier this year and at the start of the year. The truly ‘balanced’ panel of MIP sure begins to smell rather fishy. Is this a debate or an echo chamber? Maybe it’s more like a church where UPC is the undisputable religion.
“Lots of ‘different’ [sic] views on UPC,” claims MIP, but it just happens to be the case that all of them are in favour of the UPC, even though in reality the UPC would probably harm more than 99% of Europeans. No public interest groups are present (or speaking) at this event. When Managing IP says “Lots of different views on #UPC” it means it in the same way that Presidential Debates in the US, controlled and funded only by the two major parties, call the debates “different views” (it’s controlled, scripted, no hard questions and no absolutely public representation/intervention).
Going back to notable tweets, “George Moore of Sandoz: UPC without UK isn’t fatal.System beneficial. Cordula Schumacher: UK’s experience in early stages ideal” (assuming that passing the UPC would be “ideal”, which is in itself overly loaded and presumptuous a statement).
As expected, anti-FOSS and pro-software patents promotion creeps into this EPO-leaning event, in the form of FRAND. “According to Joachim Feldges, there is difference in opinion between German courts on Huawei v ZTE SEP FRAND guidance,” one tweet said. Another said: “Matthias Schneider of Audi: Needs to be clarity on what good value is re security & FRAND isn’t all about royalty rate.”
They are talking about SEPs, i.e. patents you are not allowed (or unable) to work around. We already mentioned how FRAND was on the agenda as well (before the event) and why it’s about software patents a lot of the time. “There is a view here that @EPOorg & @The_IPO are predictable on computer-related inventions. But be careful with drafting,” said another tweet. Just renaming software patents “computer-related inventions” won’t magically make them patentable, as software patents are clearly NOT legal in Europe. Here is what the FFII’s Benjamin Henrion said about it: “yet another quote to show that UPC is about swpats [software patents] after all.”
Mind the fact that the EPO is now promoting next week’s event about software patents (in part). The EPO is going to America! Yesterday it said: “Why is it important for US industry to protect its inventions in Europe? Find out at this event”
Today it said: “Join this event to find out about the differences between US & European practice for ICT patent applications” (“ICT” is just the latest weasel word/phrase).
Going back to the MIP event, this tweet said: “Here is what Graham Burnett-Hall of @marksandclerk thinks of BREXIT. He remains optimistic on UPC” (picture/photo included in there).
Wow, what a ‘diversity’ of views. Everyone is in favour of UPC (as intended), even if they know it’s unlikely to ever happen. Someone left the following comment in Techrights regarding this event, possibly conflating IAM with MIP, but here is what it said:
{i}[IAM]“We’re not in the business of promoting #UPC or #Unitarypatent – just providing a platform for discussion!”{/i}
Well, they’re right. They get paid for,prviding a meeting space for discussions among IP professionals.
The issue is extremely few want to discuss the advantages of “status quo”, which is incidentally also the current status “post-brexit-vote”. There is not more money for those advocating this position, but there may be more money in it for those who hope to profit from a change. So one side sees a chance to “invest”, the other sees no improvement in their position, so no need to invest, as any investment into defending “status quo” can never earn that money back.
So only one side will come in large numbers…
So of course the discussions will go towards one topic, and within that one topic be very one sided…
The IAM panels will include the “UPC will not happen” opinions, but those will usually be brushed aside for being “opposed to changes”…
Also, too me it felt like they do not want to have a look at real politics. The current brexit situation does not allow politics to do much in this regard right now, but this seemed to be out of grasp for their minds.
They want a change to happen, and find it difficult that politics sometimes cannot and will not listen to “expert”.
And the VolksWagen diesel scandal showed us where it goes when politicians listened too long to the opinions of “experts”…
Whoops, I am mixing topics again….
Yes, it wll be one-sided, but there will be a few who are of the opinion to stop UPC for the time being,and continue discussions once Britain has finally filed their article fifty notification or officially decided to stop the whole brexit discussion. But no discussion=no money for panel organisers. So IAM will continue holding panels. And advertise them. I just wishes they would try to attract a discussion starting from the other side.
E.g. “UPC is dead, what now?”
The discussion in situ may still go the old ways, but they would appear less biased.
Here we have Maarten Mooij of Nokia lying. It’s well established that the UPC would help patent trolls (they too know it!), yet this tweet said: “Maarten Mooij of Nokia doesn’t see a major change re NPE activity in Europe if UPC comes into force. Depends on case law though” (NPE is a euphemism for troll; Nokia itself helps patent trolls right now, as we last covered earlier in the week).
Jumping the gun again (as there's no UPC_, here is another UPC ‘genius’. “David Barron @GowlingWLG_UK: panel on SEP litigation in Europe, incl how it might play out in UPC (if)” (photograph in the tweet).
Nice propaganda event MIP has got going on for Battistelli in both France (his home country) and Germany (home of the EPO). Does all this lobbying pay well in attendance fees? Maybe favours in the long run? We don’t know for sure, but they’re now running a series of puff pieces with Battistelli. From the “litigation panel,” says this morning’s tweet, we have “Joachim Feldges @AllenOvery estimates there are about 100 SEP cases pending in Germany” (see what we wrote about SEP above).
That’s good for the patent litigation industry (patent law firms), no doubt about it. It’s also good for the patent mafia, firms like Sisvel that raid expos/events and confiscate (or steal) products “because patents!”
Is this the vision of Europe that we want? Where is the public in all this? What we have MIP presenting to us are very large corporations, their patent lawyers, and the EPO. Where are the rest of the European stakeholders? Maybe they cannot afford to pay over 1,000 Euros to attend a one-day event in which they cannot even speak (just listen). We wrote and complained about this a month ago.
Wise men and women are in the audience after all, but they’re paid to lie and promote the UPC. They can’t quite admit in public that the UPC is a sham. According to this: “In Munich for #EUPATENT16: no one in audience thinks that UK will ratify #UPC agreement”
Right…
Meanwhile in IP Kat Annsley Merelle Ward from Bristows (major UPC boosters) tries to create some more false hopes that UPC will happen, piggypacking David Davis and manufacturing a misleading headline (“Does David Davis want to ratify the UPC Agreement?”). Read the sole comment there from Ellie Wilson. It says: “I noticed that at the Managing IP European Patent Forum this week Margot Frohlinger of the EPO has suggested that UK could either join UPC via a separate agreement or under Article 142 of the EPC.
“This is not really news – in terms of the massive uncertainty, or the need for external agreement if the UK is to participate at all – as much as it is perhaps interesting because of the source.
“Maybe, maybe it justifies having a bit of optimism, but, like Amerikat, I’m not holding my breath.”
“No one except [the EPO's] Fröhlinger,” Henrion joked about (almost religious) belief in the likelihood of UPC. Fröhlinger is bossed by Battistelli who does not tolerate dissent (he has already proven this with extreme actions).
So what’s all this charade about and why are they not just going on stage (not audience) to acknowledge this pessimism? EPO and Team UPC (mostly self-serving litigators) will likely rename and redo UPC, then try to implement it without the UK. Nym-shifting or eternal morphisms isn’t new for for UPC. It has had many names and identities over the years, dodging criticism all the time. Battistelli has been promoting this since well before it was known as “UPC”.
Speaking of Battistelli, do rumours of a UPC based in Paris with Battistelli as its head not far-fetched after all? The above event is in France too and this tweet says: “Caroline Casalonga of Casalonga leading session on getting evidence in patent litigation in France/UPC” (photograph therein).
Here is why we think a lot of this charade is very closely connected to the EPO, and MIP isn’t just commissioning or organising such an event for spontaneous desires. The EPO retweeted its Managing IP puff piece (interview with Battistelli) a very short time after it had been published (maybe minutes). It’s like they had the whole thing timed and coordinated all along. Did it work as planned, Battistelli et al? An intersection between the event and this puff piece? They are going to cover the ‘social’ [sic] nonsense of Battistelli in future part/s. More lies, more money and power for Battistelli. Will some of this money ‘trickle down’ to MIP? The EPO certainly launched a well-executed (if not so shallow) propaganda campaign so we shall do a reactionary anti-propaganda series of posts.
Regarding claims that AMBA’s views were ignored by MIP (while Battistelli continued to lie about the boards), MIP responded (via) to one who asked: “I heard also you interviewed amba. Will you be soon publishing it?”
“We haven’t interviewed AMBA yet,” MIP replied, “but have written to request an interview – watch this space.”
Well, perhaps they need to ask the EPO for permission. After all, reality check with AMBA might interfere with Battistelli’s interview (the already-published part 1 in particular).
For those who think that the EPO’s latest wave of propaganda involves only MIP, think again. A self-selecting survey (just ~600 people who are already inside the IAM cult) is being used to spread EPO propaganda about patent quality. They are relying on a very small and biased sample set (population), as any scientist with the faintest clue about statistics should be able to immediately tell. The editor in chief of IAM published this piece, not disclosing the very close if not incestuous relationship with the EPO. “In order to get a better idea of why the EPO does so well and the USPTO lags behind,” he wrote, “earlier this year we worked with Professor Colleen Chien of the Santa Clara University School of Law, and a former White House senior IP adviser, to develop a follow-up survey designed to drill deeper into our readership’s opinions of both offices. During June readers were emailed and invited to take part. We got approximately 650 responses. Below Colleen Chien summarises some of the main findings.”
With “approximately 650 responses” from people who are self-selecting, how legitimate is this bound to be? Also, they are not even sure how many people exactly have participated (notice the word “approximately”)? What kind of survey is uncertain about th size of the data? it’s just very easy to rig such things, e.g. to select who to E-mail and how often, in order to get the desired outcome, never mind loaded questions or push-polling. Remember that IAM has EPO money on its table, so will it risk delivering an output that’s not desirable to the Battistellites? We very much doubt that. By spreading a lot of money through PR agencies, the EPO has polluted a lot of news sites and metaphorically poisoned the well. IAM is not a legitimate source of information about the EPO and we are going to show that behind the scenes Battistelli uses this propaganda from IAM, and occasionally drops citations into letters to “media partners” (i.e. paid-for coverage) of the EPO in support of his ludicrous claims, just like the most dishonest politicians out there.
Going back to MIP, they don’t take our criticism too well. They offer so much “balance” that their STARS account blocked me in Twitter. They don’t like opposing views, do they? They blocked me in Twitter not because I abused them (I didn’t even talk to them!) but because I highlighted their bias by linking to things they said. They want invisibility. They just don’t want me to see what goes on in their UPC events. As I put it yesterday, “Managing IP is going to learn, just like IAM, that blocking someone from visibility is 1) ineffective 2) increases criticism 3) futile” (someone then added: “4) a mark for very poor journalistic performance”).
With advocacy of the antidemocratic UPC and a human rights violator, Battistelli of the EPO, we cannot assume that information from MIP can be taken without a grain of salt. Earlier today we showed how it published a “Sponsored Post”. That was last night! MIP is rapidly going down the bin, along with IAM (it too does sponsored posts)…
The timing of EPO propaganda is perfect because they try to push several objectives/talking points ahead of October’s meeting of the Council. They not only dump Battistelli lobbying on all Twitter followers but they are also still 'spamming' universities. Here are the latest 5 examples [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. They don’t quite realise how foolish it makes them look. They are wasting millions of Euros on this nonsense.
Regarding Battistelli’s “Social Conference”, one EPO insider sent us the following (to illustrate the attitude of staff towards Battistelli these days):
Dear Roy,
The mere thought of it makes me feel sick…
This is no joke: the EPO will organise in October a “Social Conference”. They dare! After having disciplined dozens of staff, fired staff representatives and union officials, downgraded others, put thousands under huge pressure, deny sickness to many, refuse promotion to pregnant women and soon (according to well placed insiders) stop granting social leave which are in the Codex with all sorts of “friendly advise” such as “think of your career….”.
The official EPO propaganda has it (quote verbatim):
“The conference will focus on all social-related aspects and will be based on the outcomes of the Financial Study, Social Study and OHSRA currently under finalisation. Themes to be discussed will be Social Dialogue, Financial sustainability and social package,
Well-being at the workplace, and Change management and readiness to change.
All interested stakeholders will be invited to participate: representatives from the Office’s management and staff, as well as members of the Staff Committees and recognized trade union, and delegates of the Administrative Council. To facilitate the discussions and interactions, general presentations by the consultants in charge of the studies will be followed by 8 to 12 thematic workshops.
The Social Conference will take place in Munich, Isar building, over the course of a full day on Tuesday 11 October. It is a unique opportunity for a wide range of participants to assess and discuss the challenges faced by our Organisation. If you wish to participate in the conference, please contact your line management by 14 September at the latest as places in the meeting rooms are limited.”
HERE THE RESULTS OF THE 2016 TECHNNOLOGIA OFFICE WIDE SURVEY (AFTER 2010, 2013 WITH THE SAME QUESTIONNAIRE)
https://suepo.org/documents/43311/54961.pdf
https://suepo.org/documents/43311/54951.pdf
So not only does the EPO ignore the Technologia survey (from a renowned French consulting which worked among many others on France Telecom’s debacle, the Renault Technopole one) but when they are about to sack Laurent Prunier, Central Staff Representative and SUEPO Official in TH (and perhaps others who too are in the death row, in particular in TH), they dare to write about “well-being at the workplace”.
Wicked!
Furthermore, to illustrate the attitude of staff towards Battistelli, one person has just come up with the following ode that spells out EULOGY:
E UREKA was the former in-house publication
U ncensored, informative and short of fabrication
L atest Gazette, lots of pictures of our Batters
O nce again Pravda style, credibility in tatters
G lorified half-truths, with a hand of sleight
Y es, only the obituaries seemed to be dead right
The “usual problem,” one person explained, is that “the EPO is not part of the EU…” (“…but a part of Hell!” added this remark about it). Here is a new comment from Tuesday. It too speaks about the structural deficiencies:
The AC has a clear conflict of interest, which under a different situation would be considered intolerable. But who cares about the EPO? It is a bit like putting the CEOs of Samsung, LG, Nokia etc. in the governing board of Apple. It is clear that this would not work to improve Apples success, and it is the same at the EPO.
The ILO does not respect the right to be heard, because she does not hold hearings even when they are requested, but this is apparently legally acceptable. Who cares?
I believe the drafters of the EPC were honest and upright men who could not envision that a generation would come after them who had a different moral standard.
The ILO is the only independent review employees of the EPO have when in dispute (the first two instances are internal and cannot be considered independent).
But hey, if you get paid a lot you should just accept being robbed of your rights…. so stop complaining, you are still not doing so bad. “We consulted you (according to the management of the EPO), even though the representatives did not agree to the changes requested, “so we can change your work contract, rules an regulations. WE only need to consult you, it is nowhere written that you have to agree for us to introduce changes which are detrimental to you”. In a national setting this would be unacceptable, and an employer would be taken to court. But not so with the EPO because the EPO has immunity.
But no immunity is absolute, and should never be, because absolute immunity corrupts.
We invite feedback and information regarding the EPO even through we already have plenty which we intend to publish soon. September is going to be a very busy month. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
09.06.16
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 9:59 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Time and space virtually ‘rented out’ to EPO management (another IAM-like propaganda mill in the making)
Summary: Managing IP reinforces the view or the perception that when it comes to the European Patent Office (EPO) it’s only a little better than an external PR department
THE EPO is wasting over a million Euros per year on spurious PR like pro-UPC events in another continent. There is also a lot of hogwash now that the EPO expels the independent judges or the boards they’re part of. Shortly after Battistelli was demolishing the boards and putting lipstick on the pig (see our translation of the hogwash) James Nurton is again, having done a softball ‘interview’ with Battistelli earlier this year in order to help him cover up/whitewash amid peak of a crisis (boiling point), jumping to his rescue. There is this new ‘Managing IP’ (MIP) nonsense titled “EPO President Battistelli on appeals reforms”. Why not just reprint a prepared (by the EPO’s PR team) ghostwritten piece? They frame this as an interview, but any fool can see what it really is. It’s supposedly behind a paywall (“$/trial,” as they put it in Twitter less than an hour ago), so the choir gets preferential access to the lies, the rest will find it harder to rebut (let alone see). This is a common tactic when suppressing criticism. The same goes for attendance at events where dissent is being discouraged/disallowed (e.g. by limiting who can speak and charging a furtune to attend, with exceptions/discounts to ‘desirable’ guests).
“…James Nurton is again, having done a softball ‘interview’ with Battistelli earlier this year in order to help him cover up/whitewash amid peak of a crisis (boiling point), jumping to his rescue.”What on Earth is happening to MIP? It’s even a multi-part Battistelli series, clearly prepared in advance to be released in conjunction with today’s UPC advocacy event. “This is the first of a two-part article,” Nurton wrote. “A further interview with Battistelli, on the social situation at the Office, will be published later this month.”
So, basically, they are planning to publish complete and utter lies like those we explained under an hour ago (the so-called 'social conference' and social report/study).
Shame on MIP. They’re not journalists, they’re actually Battistelli’s propagandists now. Some EPO staff is attending (not willfully) their UPC event, which they have advertised as follows: “Our #EUPatent16 forums take place this week in Munich (Tuesday) & Paris (Thursday) incl. panels on #UPC, #UnitaryPatent, #Brexit & #Frand”
This is a UPC promotion event. Make no mistake about it. Look who has speaking positions. It was mentioned here before, not just a month ago but also days ago. Hastags like #Brexit #EUPatent16 #UPC and #UnitaryPatent are being used by MIP to promote this and even #Frand (yes, the anti-FOSS, pro-software patents Trojan horse!)
“Come on,” they told me this morning. “We’re not in the business of promoting #UPC or #Unitarypatent – just providing a platform for discussion!”
“This is a UPC promotion event.”Yeah, right…
Another ‘conference’ brought to you by EPO, sort of…
“I can say very much the same,” said someone about the EPO a short while ago. “Management is loyal only to hidden agendas, power and weak moral.”
The problem is, MIP agreed to do the EPO management’s work. This shows that their integrity is flaky to say the least. They also profit from this event (over a thousand Euros for each person to attend a one-day event, assuming standard charges).
“I know you claim to have a neutral position,” I replied to them, “but the speakers’ lineup will likely omit any opponents,” as usual.
“They also profit from this event (over a thousand Euros for each person to attend a one-day event, assuming standard charges).”Well, perhaps foreseeing a backlash for licking Battistelli’s boot, MIP wrote to me this morning, hours before the puff piece and around the time the aforementioned event started.
“Disagree,” they added. “Based on our previous events, we expect a full range of views from speakers & audience. You should come to one!”
I replied with “€1095 for a one-day event about the #upc (plus plane tickets) [is] well beyond my means. Event for the rich to preach to the rich.”
“Our events are free for in-house counsel, academics & R&D professionals,” they replied. “Come next year as our guest!”
“We are very sad to see MIP becoming a lot more like IAM, which is the propaganda mill of Battistelli, still.”Well, being a guest at an event with thugs like Team Battistelli (and their bodyguards) doesn’t sound all that safe and besides, the place will be stuffed/stacked with pro-UPC people. It’s like entering the lion’s den.
We are very sad to see MIP becoming a lot more like IAM, which is the propaganda mill of Battistelli, still.
As an aside, the EPO’s PR people have been 'spamming' universities even today (this morning onwards). They don’t publicly mention or endorse MIP’s event, but it’s clear that they’re very much embedded in it. It’s not at all hard for outsiders to see. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 9:08 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Big lies from a chronic liar [1, 2]
Source (original): Rospatent
Summary: Battistelli is attempting to purchase (i.e. pay for, at the EPO’s expense) an alternate reality wherein EPO staff is absolutely delighted and the social climate is fantastic — all this for the purpose of evading accountability for his systematic abuses that left him with 0% approval rate (literally!), suicidal/depressed staff, and notable brain drain as well as considerable decline in the quality of work [1, 2]
EARLIER this year and last week we mentioned the so-called ‘social conference’ [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], which relates to the social study [sic] commissioned by the liar (Battistelli) and his goons, relying on gross omissions and hired propaganda mills. Battistelli, being a politician, would go as far as necessary to protect his horrible regime, even if that means lying and insulting people’s intelligence.
Next month, at a very strategic time (no coincidence there), the EPO will release Battistelli’s massive and expensive propaganda, unleashing a large bundle of lies to justify not bringing up union-busting and violations of the law in the Administrative Council’s (AC) meeting. Wait and watch. Team Battistelli will continue to shamelessly rubbish justice and try to cover it up with a large bundle of lies, as usual.
The following new comment on the subject is quite revealing:
the stated purpose of the social conference is:
- presenting the results of the occupational health and safety risk assessment (ohsra) and the social study
- forming working groups to discuss these results
- work shops (by now these two points will be done on the same day as the presentations)
- expected results of the working groups and the workshops are
-_- an analysis how the previous reforms influenced the results of the social study and the ohsra
-_- suggestions how the previous reforms need to be amended to restore social climate, of course without an impact on the results of these reforms (so continued abolishment of steps and career, lower salaries, increased work pressure, less secure pensions for newcomers, …)
Both results will be presented to the AC, together with an analysis of the administration of these results, as well as an opinion on the studies by the administration.
How can the administration coordinate the working grouos, and work on their own analysis, as well as waiting for the results and form an opinion on that all on the same day, without most of all that already pre-written?
I bet they even prepared an analysis to be presented by the staff representative groups (FFPE, and the official Staff Representation)
I also wonder how they expect Staff Representation as well as FFPE to be able to actively particiate in all areas, when they do the working groups all at the same time, and will not allow sufficient “experts” to participate; no chance to discuss among themselves, and still deliver opinions on the same day which will be seen as representative of “all staff” if favourable for management, or “dissenting opinions of disgruntled single individuals” (a.k.a. violent and vocal minority) when not in favour of previous and future management actions.
I expect this whole exercise to deliver even more pre-cooked management “Bullshit-Bingo” catchwords without content, but used as justification to push the border of our legal issues even further….
We have loads of new material regarding the EPO. A lot of it will have been published before the so-called ‘social conference’ and we expect some press coverage to that effect, scrutinising the Battistelli regime in some form ahead of the next AC meeting. Dirty laundry will help convince delegates and journalists that everything Battistelli and his yellow ‘union’ say can be disregarded. For those who forgot what FFPE stands for, here is a reminder of past articles:
- In the EPO’s Official Photo Op, “Only One of the Faces is Actually FFPE-EPO”
- Further Evidence Suggests and Shows Stronger Evidence That Team Battistelli Uses FFPE-EPO as ‘Yellow Union’ Against SUEPO
- “FFPE-EPO Was Set up About 9 Years Ago With Management Encouragement”
- Fallout of the FFPE EPO MoU With Battistelli’s Circle
- The EPO’s Media Strategy at Work: Union Feuds and Group Fracturing
- Caricature of the Day: Recognising FFPE EPO
- Union Syndicale Federale Slams FFPE-EPO for Helping Abusive EPO Management by Signing a Malicious, Divisive Document
- FFPE-EPO Says MoU With Battistelli Will “Defend Employment Conditions” (Updated)
- Their Masters’ Voice (Who Block Techrights): FFPE-EPO Openly Discourages Members From Reading Techrights
- Letter Says EPO MoU “Raises Questions About FFPE’s Credibility as a Federation of Genuine Staff Unions”
- On Day of Strike FFPE-EPO Reaffirms Status as Yellow (Fake/Management-Leaning) Union, Receives ‘Gifts’
- Needed Urgently: Information About the Secret Meeting of Board 28 and Battistelli’s Yellow Union, FFPE-EPO
- In Battistelli’s Mini Union (Minion) It Takes Less Than 10 Votes to ‘Win’ an Election
- FFPE-EPO Going Ad Hominem Against FICSA, Brings Nationality Into It
Sheer propaganda “is good enough for political operators such as BB [Battistelli],” says the following new comment:
Thanks for the explanation. It seems that we have yet another example of a classic BB strategy, namely “consultation” in the form of allowing others to speak but having no intention of listening to them (let alone taking heed of anything that is said).
Of course, this strategy has nothing to do with the dictionary (or commonly understood) definition of “consultation”, but is good enough for political operators such as BB.
Quite frankly, the whole charade is just an insult to the intelligence of the staff representatives and all neutral observers. Not that this will stop the AC swallowing the results hook, line and sinker. What a debacle!
In another thread, one regarding privacy, the EPO's privacy violations (including medical data protection) are brought up again, noting that “patent processing at the EPO is not in compliance with EU standards for data protection.”
Here is the comment in full:
A patent is worth a lot of money.
Personal data are the bibliographic data, payment method, communication with the EPO but also the application (claims/description).
It is incredible that the patent processing at the EPO is not in compliance with EU standards for data protection.
Coming up soon are more articles about data protection abuses, the race to the bottom at the EPO, union-busting activities and highly negative social atmosphere at the Office. We urge readers to relay information about those things to both journalists and delegates as Battistelli prepares to lie to them in a big way. They need to be properly informed in order to counter his claims. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
08.29.16
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 12:41 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Prepare for some EPO propaganda about staff being happy, even when the Organisation admits there is a crisis and the President has a 0% approval rate
Summary: The European Patent Office (EPO) has done absolutely nothing to improve the work atmosphere, it just alters the marketing strategy somewhat
THIS week, while on retreat in Wales, I intend to dive into hundreds of EPO documents. There is a lot of ‘dirty laundry’ in there (plenty of documents), but now isn’t the best time to write about them because not many people — both staff and journalists — will pay attention (many are still on holiday). Don’t let the silence be mistaken for pacification. We expect that Battistelli will misinterpret this silence and predict it won’t take long for the "Social Study" propaganda to come out (they have renamed it and expect to release it in several weeks, surely with journalists to be contacted to play along and spread/embed the EPO's lies).
“It may sound benign, but given the undisputed decline in EPO patent quality, is it worth bragging about?”There’s a similar/analogous situation at WIPO. IP Watch is playing along with WIPO’s PR/face-saving statements [1,2] (see below) today, whereas the EPO keeps rather quiet. In some promotional press releases, low quality control for EPO patents gets ignored and companies brag about intent to grant at the EPO. It may sound benign, but given the undisputed decline in EPO patent quality, is it worth bragging about? How long before the “Battistelli effect” is understood by all applicants?
For the first time in quite a while SUEPO published something today (not just a link). The workers are coming back (those who have not left or retired). “The London-based lawyers, Bretton Woods Law, specialise in the Rule of Law, International Human Rights law and International Administrative Law,” SUEPO explained this morning, sporting two PDFs that we made public a few months ago (these got leaked to us). “At the request of SUEPO, Bretton Woods Law produced a legal opinion concerning the actions of the President of the EPO, and the responsibility of the Administrative Council as well as the Member States of the EPO with respect to staff,” SUEPO continued. “In an Annex to the above document a number of the reforms are considered in the light of basic legal and democratic standards in Europe.”
“Expect September to be a busy month for EPO coverage.”One document is 22 pages long and the latter is 25 pages long. That’s a lot to read. But these are both well written and structured.
The EPO has not had any announcements for a while (other than the earthquake — Italy’s, not Battistelli's — getting exploited). Universities are still 'spammed' by the EPO (new examples in [1, 2], even repeatedly today) and sometimes this pushing truly works, as it comes not only from the EPO to all Twitter ‘followers’. It’s promotion of Battistelli's next lobbying event (if he survives this long at the EPO).
Expect September to be a busy month for EPO coverage. Nothing at all has improved (for many months). In fact, things got worse. Those who wish to send us information can do so securely using anonymity-preserving methods of choice. █
Related/contextual items from the news:
-
Staff dissension? A thing of the past, according to WIPO. Staff are being included and are at the center of everything. And (after a major upheaval, including the firing of the oppositionist Staff Council president in 2014 followed by staff protests outside the building), the report states: “Finally, staff are at the front, left, right and center in organizing elections for a WIPO Staff Council through which, for the first time, all staff members will have the opportunity to exercise their right to vote.”
-
The choice of hosting countries for new WIPO external offices and the Medium Term Strategic Plan 2016-2021 are among the hottest subjects of the week, according to several regional groups speaking at the opening today of the World Intellectual Property Organization Program and Budget Committee. Separately, the United States again called the attention to a 2015 treaty protecting geographical indications which they said should not be automatically administered by WIPO. And members called attention to audit and oversight issues at WIPO.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
08.26.16
Posted in Deception, EFF, Patents at 2:28 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Black or white: either you’re a patent maximalist or you are “anti-patents” (or “anti-patent” as Watchtroll puts it, see below)
Summary: Like IAM, which tries to portray sceptics and critics of software patents as “anti-patents”, IP Watchdog (or Watchtroll as we call it) is ‘trolling’ the Electronic Frontier Foundation, simply because it expressed an opinion that patent maximalists cannot tolerate
Watchtroll’s site, being the usual loud-mouthed proponent of software patents (sometimes even very rude), responded to a topic on which we commented this morning. Daniel Nazer (EFF) noticed that this “New IP Watchdog post [is] slamming “DC Based Electronic Frontier Foundation, a leftist anti-patent activist coalition”” (it’s not anti-patent, it is pro-patent quality, as are we).
Here is the relevant passage from the post: “Another incursion into research university governance and operations is now underway. And this time all research universities are affected. Led by the DC Based Electronic Frontier Foundation, a leftist anti-patent activist coalition that has initiated a 50-state legislative campaign to shrink research university patent licensing rights at the state level. (See) The measure’s purported objective is to prevent publicly funded university research patents from being licensed to so-called “Patent Assertion Entities” (PAEs, also known by the pejorative term “patent trolls”).”
Like IAM's editor in chief, they are also in denial about the trolls problem, just like people who are in denial about climate change (because this reality, once realised by the public, is a threat to one’s business).
The OSI took note and wrote about my article via Former OSI Dir. Jim Jagielski who wrote: “Shows the danger of s/w patents… is it time to finally squash them once and for all?”
Carlo Piana, a famous lawyer for Samba and generally a very nice intellectual (against software patents) wrote on Friday: Has anybody, ever, read a #patent on software without thinking “WTF”? Honestly. And now I have read like 100 of them. And I’m no developer.”
Benjamin Henrion (FFII) responded: “the state urgently needs to intervene between me and my keyboard to save innovation!”
The matter of fact here is clear; anyone with a keyboard and some rudimentary coding skills is affected by software patents and the population in general suffers from slowed innovation and artificially increased prices (often due to lawyers’ fees and patent trolls if not billionaire patent bullies such as Microsoft and Apple). We wrote about it this morning. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
Content is available under CC-BY-SA