03.09.16
Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 8:01 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Image credit: Joeri Beetz
Summary: What the EPO’s PR team, which is leaning on the media along with FTI Consulting (which enjoys a secret budget of nearly 80,000 euros per month), tells us about EPO “results” is basically just a big lie, or propaganda hinged on misleading statistics
THE abuses by the EPO’s management are rarely being justified, except being painted as a necessary consequence of improving productivity, output, results, or something along these lines. People who insist on justice and human rights are being portrayed as obstructions to productivity and an obstacle on the road to necessary reform. But anyone who’s smart enough to work as a patent examiner at the EPO knows that it’s poppycock. I did review papers for international journals in the past and I know that rushed jobs under pressure yield nothing but inaccurate, sloppy, worthless work. Poor papers can fall through the net and an unhappy peer reviewer can wrongly reject decent papers or lose track of them.
Over the past year we repeatedly mentioned (several times in fact) the reasons why the EPO’s “results” are just worthless lies. We alluded to that, based on numerous sources, both external and internal. It’s just propaganda, as we even noted last year. The numbers don’t mean a thing. Or alternatively, they don’t mean what gullible journalist are (mis)led to believe.
“This also includes PCT applications filed in China, that will never be translated into any European language.”
–Joeri BeetzWell, thankfully enough patent lawyers took note of Joeri Beetz’s article, which can be found here. In his own words: “In the first week of March, just like in any other year, the EPO has published its patent filing statistics for the previous year. Just like in any other year, the main goal is to show that the EPO has become even more important. Although the number of direct EP filings has been more or less constant over the last decade (+2.7% in 2015, similar level to 2005), a year over year growth scenario is presented by adding all PCT applications. With ‘all’, I don’t mean just the PCT applications filed at the EPO or entering the European phase (fees paid, examination requested, …), but really ‘all’. This also includes PCT applications filed in China, that will never be translated into any European language. Of last year’s growth of 4,500 applications (+1.6%), 2,821 are PCT (+1.3%) and 1,679 direct EP (+2.8%). [...] Other interesting numbers from the WIPO: Last year the EPO as PCT Receiving Office, received 7.2% less applications and the EPO was selected as International Searching Authority in 11.1% less applications. With a decreasing amount of total PCT applications (-9.4%), this is of course not a surprise. It is, however, interesting to see that the use of the EPO as ISA goes down faster than the number of filed PCT applications (both total and with the EPO as rO). Apparently, the EPO is becoming less popular as a searching authority. EP regional entries for PCT applications grew 6% this year (EPO count). It has to be taken into account that regional entries represent PCT applications that were already filed about one and a half year before. Therefore this number does not only reflect the preferences of applicants in 2015, but also in the two or three years before.”
That’s just the gist of it. There are even more angles from which to tackle this and people who actually work inside the EPO told us that these numbers are misleading. Nevertheless, the EPO’s Twitter account is reposting and recycling them several times per day (since the 3/3 propaganda day). Here is the British media mindlessly parroting what the EPO's PR team probably told them to write (they also lie to journalists and staff). Corporate lobbyists’ media did the same by issuing/reposting a press release (as we noted before, the EPO actually paid for press releases to spread its misleading “results” propaganda).
“Apparently, the EPO is becoming less popular as a searching authority.”
–Joeri BeetzRelaying EPO “results” propaganda in Switzerland or in Swiss media too is a ‘thing’, based on these two new examples [1, 2]. Did authors actually fact-check? of course they didn’t. They don’t behave like journalists but more like EPO writers ‘on loan’. This is why we’re seeing a lot of the media unquestionably passing around the claims.
By the way, the reason Switzerland has many patents per capita isn’t what the EPO wants us to believe. Patents are indicative of wealth, not innovation, as those with money are patenting stuff spsringly, unlike those who actually implement stuff, like Indian programmers (where software patents are aptly verboten).
“EPO insiders, one of whom has access to such data, admits that there’s something amiss and yet — all facts be damned! — the media keeps falling for it.”Francis Jeffrey, who has patents assigned to him, told us the other day: “This effect was worsened by the addition of renewal fees: USPTO has imposed quadrennial fee since Clinton/Bush administration.”
Don’t think that only the above demonstrates the invalidity of the EPO’s “results”. We previously covered other such indicators. EPO insiders, one of whom has access to such data, admits that there’s something amiss and yet — all facts be damned! — the media keeps falling for it. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents, Rumour at 7:22 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Battistelli wouldn’t do what Blatter did, would he?
Whispering about what people close to Battistelli (his ‘clergymen’) have allegedly been whispering to directors at the EPO
Summary: A growing number of claims that directors at the EPO are being promised big favours in exchange for the pretense that they support the megalomaniacal President, whose days are numbered
SOME things are mere rumours, but when heard from several sources that agree with one another independently, then these “rumours” may in fact be real, or something close enough to a reality.
For quite some time we’ve abstained from remarking about rumours sent to us in comments. It’s about potentially more alleged bribery at the EPO. Several people have told us that Battistelli uses not only scare tactics and intimidation to get support but also bribes. Based on some of the latest rumours, Battistelli is more or less bribing people (e.g. with promotion) to support him. If anyone can leak material proof to us, that would help a great deal, but all we have for now are the claims sent to us, as well as the following new comment:
How can you work for an organisation, where the so called President is trying to bribe senior managers and directors, and vice presidents to support him against his fight with the Administrative Council, Unions and staff?
I happened to be in an area last week, where a vice president was speaking with some directors, and I heard him say “The president will reward you for your support during this matter”. What is that meant to mean, that the President is paying for support, as he knows that he has overstepped the mark this time, and certainly not the first time. Unfortunately, it is not his personal money that he pays with, no it’s the office money, which he is giving away as though there is an endless supply.
Another new comment says:
Not all employers are allowed to vote.
Anyway it states that 91 per cent of the 4062 employees who voted, voted to strike.
We have had enough, as now the Vice Presidents are using bribery as their new weapon. “You support the President, and l will see that you are rewarded”.
Time for a change, not just the President, but also the Vice Presidents!
We have been getting even more reports that the EPO’s President, Battistelli, is incentivising/bribing managers, but concrete proof is needed. Here is another new comment which relates to the documents we leaked an hour ago:
According to an article in the SDZ
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/behoerde-in-muenchen-europaeisches-patentamt-behoerde-am-abgrund-1.2889015
“Battistelli is said to be prepared to compromise on four out of six issues [of the letter of Board 28], but significantly not with regard to disciplinary procedures and external monitoring – the key points.”
It’s a lose-lose situation for him: either straightforward reject any request of review and risk dismissal by the AC now, or accept an independent review that will show the disgraceful way in which the staff reps were dismissed, and suffer a public humiliation AND dismissal later.
And we have not yet heard about the fate of the DG3 member: a second failure in obtaining his dismissal would only add to the embarrassment of the AC that was misled by the president …
Grab the popcorns and a beer, sit back and enjoy the spectacle of the next AC …
There will be a protest that day. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:00 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Unrest at the European Patent Office will be on display next week when the President’s bosses are convening and discussing him
THE EPO scandals led to an imminent strike (date to be decided on and confirmed pretty soon). It’s the beginning of the end of Battistelli’s regime. Not even an earthquake can stop it because more and more people in the Administrative Council now have the courage to stand up to the bully (this earthquake joke’s context being a really dumb statement from Battistelli).
Based on MIP, “EPO action latest: demonstration due next Weds to coincide with Admin Council meeting. Decision on timing of strike after that.”
“The cause for the strike is being made up by trolls, or those who deliberately misinform about the cause (it doesn’t look as though they speak innocently, i.e. out of ignorance).”Bergot and her relatives (or their friends) gave a requirement of 5 working days before the strike, so this probably leaves (maybe deliberately) too little time to make the strike coincide with the Administrative Council’s meeting, especially if there’s induced procrastination (like not receiving or opening letters on time). We saw these tactics before. Either way, the Administrative Council will again be reminded that its members are expected to help staff, not the oppressors (Battistelli et al) — something which is very likely to happen based on newly-leaked documents.
The strike action is already being trolled. The cause for the strike is being made up by trolls, or those who deliberately misinform about the cause (it doesn’t look as though they speak innocently, i.e. out of ignorance). We don’t want to entertain or feed the trolls, giving them more visibility than they deserve, but some of our readers probably know what’s being alluded to here.
Anyway, here is WIPR‘s report on the upcoming strike:
Calls for the reinstatement of union officials dismissed from their posts at the European Patent Office (EPO) intensified yesterday after members of staff voted overwhelmingly in favour of a strike.
In a vote for strike action, 91% (3,701) of those who voted backed industrial action, it was confirmed yesterday, March 8.
In order to strike, at least 40% of staff are required to vote on whether to take action. In total, 4,062 out of 6,738 staff voted, representing 60%.
[...]
A spokesperson for the EPO told WIPR that a social dialogue between staff and management at the EPO is important, but noted that strikes do happen.
“Battistelli under pressure like never before after EPO union members overwhelmingly back strike action” was the headline from an EPO apologist, who wrote:
The firing and downgrading of the SUEPO officials, though, has changed the entire dynamic at the office. In retrospect, it seems that Battistelli misread previous lack of support for industrial action among the examiner corps for acceptance of his changes; while at the same time over-estimating the backing he had on the Administrative Council, a body that has always been extremely political. Now he finds himself in a very difficult situation. He may seek to point to the fact that 50% of staff members have not supported strike action, but the obvious comeback is that over 90% of the members of the office’s biggest union – the only ones who took part in the vote – did. It is unlikely that they are unique in their discontent. If, though, Battistelli accedes to the Administrative Council’s request for an external review of the disciplinary measures he took, that will be seen as a significant dent to his authority.
[...]
We will have to wait to see how this plays out. But one thing is certain: Benoît Battistelli is under pressure like he never has been before; today his leadership of the EPO is in crisis.
If anyone can provide us information about the timing of the strike and why it does not coincide with the Administrative Council’s meeting, we would truly appreciate it. No doubt Bergot and Battistelli can come up with all sorts of lies to sabotage — in hope of altogether preventing — the strike. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:23 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Board 28 (B28), which is rumoured to be in the process of ejecting the EPO’s President (Battistelli), has a rather revealing set of conclusions
THE EPO is about to go on strike (more on that later tonight). When Battistelli said his relationships were excellent he was either delusional or lying through his teeth. Based on documents leaked to Techrights today, there is no major rewording of the Board's stance on Battistelli. We hereby present the agenda of the B28 meeting (after conclusions were drawn up), dated 9th of March, 2016 (that’s today). The following is the agenda and minutes of the rather secretive B28 meeting (15th of February).
B28/4/16
Orig.: en
Munich, 09.03.2016
SUMMARY
OF
CONCLUSIONS
of the
71st meeting of
BOARD OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE COUNCIL
Munich, 17 February 2016
SUBMITTED BY: Council Secretariat
ADDRESSEES: Administrative Council (for information)
This document has been issued in electronic form only.
1. The Board of the Administrative Council (“the Board”) held its 71st meeting in Munich on 17 February 2016, with Mr Kongstad in the chair.
Ms Erlingsdóttir, Mr Asan and Mr Kratochvíl had informed the Chairman that they were not able to attend.
2. The Board adopted the provisional agenda set out in B28/3/16 e.
3. The Board presented the President with a paper, drawn up by the members shortly before the present meeting, which listed the Board’s very precise expectations from the Office management regarding the items on today’s agenda – in particular on the social and disciplinary issues.
4. The President considered that there was no major issue with four of the five topics which were addressed in this draft but asked for clarification regarding the legal basis for the direct instructions given to the President for individual procedures under his competence. He drew attention to the potentially huge risks in terms of governance.
5. The Board members considered the document to be self-explanatory. They stressed that it should not have come as a surprise, taking into account the numerous signals given by the Administrative Council over a significant period of time. The document is simply meant to achieve clarity. It is deemed necessary as it appears that there are no other means of conveying the Council’s recurring concerns expressed over the past months. Beyond the formal (undisputed) issue of Article 10 EPC, the Board has to deplore an obvious lack of willingness from the part of the President to embark on an overdue open discussion with the Council on contentious issues — foremost the social dialogue.
6. The President disagreed and reminded his letter sent to the AC delegations on 15 February explaining the possible ways forward but has to maintain his position for legal reasons concerning the instructions related to the disciplinary cases.
7. The meeting was adjourned before the other issues on the agenda could be examined.
Next week will be historic for the EPO, so I took several days off work. We have a lot of stuff in our backlog, so stay tuned. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:47 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Elodie Bergot (PD Human Resources) circulates a message regarding the overwhelming call for strike action at the European Patent Office
THE EPO cannot withstand Battistelli. That’s rather clear at this point, based on yesterday's ballot (which we covered very briefly last night). We actually knew the results 3 hours before the article from The Register, but there was no official source. Now there is and we want to accurately document this for future record.
No less than 5 people (yes, that’s right) sent us the letter from Bergot, in addition to those telling us the results, but we wanted to get it all organised for publication as this is an historic moment. One comment said last night that “Result of ballot: 55% of ask[ed] staff voted for strike. Far more than membership of both unions combined.”
“If someone is interested about the results of the ballot at the EPO,” said another person: “4062 voters (60%), of which 3701 in favor of the strike (91%). I notice that none of the above values is a “minority”.”
It’s likely that everyone who voted already found out the outcome last night. “Congratulations EPO,” added another person. This is a big win for the staff, but not for the management, which is subservient to Battistelli. As one person told us at 7 last night: “The results of the vote at the EPO: 4062 voters (60%), of which 3701 in favor of the strike (91%)! If you consider that most propably the Directors, Managers tec. were “kindly” requested not to vote, it’ an impressive result. So much for the minority!”
So if everyone could vote without fear (almost everyone who voted was voting against, so the mere act of voting itself says a lot), there would be even better a turnout and greater an opposition. “Just in case that you did not yet receive it,” told us one person, here are the official words. “Ballot result,” as this source put it, are outlined below:
Strike ballot of 8 March 2016
08.03.2016
Publication of the result
Dear colleagues,
I hereby announce the result of the vote on the call for strike signed by 754 staff members and received by the Office on 10.02.2016.
The number of employees entitled to vote is 6738. The necessary quorum is 40% representing 2696 votes.
The total number of votes cast is 4062 representing 60,3% of the employees entitled to vote.
The quorum has therefore been reached.
The result of the vote is as follows:
· Votes in favour of a strike = 3701
· Votes against a strike = 219
· No opinion = 142
The number of votes cast in favour of a strike is 3701 representing 91,1% of the total votes cast.
Staff have therefore voted in favour of a strike.
Following our rules, before a strike can go ahead, the President must receive a prior notice at least 5 working days before commencement of the strike. The prior notice shall specify the following;
· The grounds for having to resort to the strike;
· The beginning and duration of the strike;
· The scope of the strike, including which sites are concerned.
Elodie Bergot
PD Human Resources
“This is the internal Elodie Bergot version,” told us another person, laughing at the words “Dear Colleagues”…
“There was no embargo indication,” told us this person, “but I suggest you Wait until tomorrow morning, just in case. I don’t know how many could have read it this evening already.”
Well, based on our sources, it’s safe to say that a lot of people read it and passed it around. Even in the evening. Perhaps thousands of people already saw it and later on we’ll show that some even posted it online (on the public Web).
Here is the second version we were sent (without formatting). It’s identical to the above.
Strike ballot of 8 March 2016
08.03.2016
Publication of the result
Dear colleagues,
I hereby announce the result of the vote on the call for strike signed by 754 staff members and received by the Office on 10.02.2016.
The number of employees entitled to vote is 6738. The necessary quorum is 40% representing 2696 votes.
The total number of votes cast is 4062 representing 60,3% of the employees entitled to vote.
The quorum has therefore been reached.
The result of the vote is as follows:
· Votes in favour of a strike = 3701
· Votes against a strike = 219
· No opinion = 142
The number of votes cast in favour of a strike is 3701 representing 91,1% of the total votes cast.
Staff have therefore voted in favour of a strike.
Following our rules, before a strike can go ahead, the President must receive a prior notice at least 5 working days before commencement of the strike. The prior notice shall specify the following;
· The grounds for having to resort to the strike;
· The beginning and duration of the strike;
· The scope of the strike, including which sites are concerned.
Elodie Bergot
A partial text was posted online and only hours ago authorised by the moderator of IP Kat. Here it is:
Meanwhile…
The EPO has tonight announced, as reported by Suepo, concerning a strike call by 754 EPO staff:
“Dear colleagues,
I hereby announce the result of the vote on the call for strike signed by 754 staff members and received by the Office on 10.02.2016.
The number of employees entitled to vote is 6738. The necessary quorum is 40% representing 2696 votes.
The total number of votes cast is 4062 representing 60,3% of the employees entitled to vote.
The quorum has therefore been reached.
The result of the vote is as follows:
Votes in favour of a strike = 3701
Votes against a strike = 219
No opinion = 142
The number of votes cast in favour of a strike is 3701 representing 91,1% of the total votes cast.
Staff have therefore voted in favour of a strike.
Following our rules, before a strike can go ahead, the President must receive a prior notice at least 5 working days before commencement of the strike.”
The AC meets on Wed 16th March and there are 5 working days before that.
The formatting is even more deficient there. Another source sent us a screenshot, which we included at the top. This will hopefully help convince journalists that none of the text was tinkered so as to ridicule Bergot, who is extremely unpopular inside the Office. “That is the official notice from Elodie about the strike,” told us one source. “Next week is going to be fun :-)”
It looks like the next meeting of the Administrative Council will coincide with the strike. Will staff be marching in Brussels on their day off? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:28 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: A new cartoon about FFPE EPO receiving recognition from Team Battistelli, or rather, Team Battistelli getting recognised by a very small union
As the EPO‘s Benny and Willy already have their caricatures, it would be unfair to leave FFPE EPO, which signed an MoU with them [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], unloved. “In case you want to use it,” someone told us, here is the latest cartoon/caricature.
In the meantime, glancing over at IP Kat, the following new comments stand out:
Munich examiner
As examiner in the EPO Munich since over 10 years I have barely heard of FFPE. Never have I received a document, publication, communication, invitation from this union.
So when they were being reported upon in the press, I rushed to their website to see who they were and what they were up to. Maybe I would consider joining a second union too, why not, the more opposition the better. Imagine my surprise when I found out the website was frozen at 2008.
What have they been doing all this time? What do they stand for? What do they stand against?
How can a group of people claim to be a union, when staff do not know what they are up to?
Then I was told by some older colleagues that FFPE was created in The Hague for Dutch colleagues. Fair enough, then it’s not for me I conclude.
Again, not the end of the story, when on this blog the Chairman of FFPE insists that they have more nationalities among their members and are open for membership at all places of employment.
They have never informed me of that. Interesting they should use a public platform to broadcast this important information.
This seems a very unusual way of representing staff’s interests. How can they know what my interests are if they never sought contact with me? Not once since 2002, when I joined the office.
On the other hand I was very quickly informed by Suepo on how to join Suepo, what their views were and how to find their publications. Also, which union official to ask for help in different cases. I had all the information to make a choice.
Very, very unusual “union” this FFPE.
And also:
Did anyone notice Art 12 of the MoU :
“The parties have to agree on the subject matters that will be subject to negotiations” then it is easy for the President to discard an important topic by saying that the management does not agree to discuss it.
Furthermore, a time limit for negociating will be fixed at the beginning; 1 month with a single meeting for example may be called negociations.
No good faith from the EPO clearly in this MoU.
As we are about to show, Team Battistelli is extremely unpopular right now. It’s desperate for anything that can help it look otherwise. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
03.08.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:59 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Checkmate
Summary: Overwhelming support for the imminent strike, demonstrating that the vast majority of the staff at the European Patent Office wants change and Battistelli’s relationships are anything but “excellent”
WHILE we don’t know the original source (e.g. E-mail, phonecall) of these numbers, Kieren McCarthy now has them and it is looking like the call for strike was a great success:
Staff at the European Patent Office (EPO) have voted overwhelmingly to strike for a third time in a direct challenge to EPO president Benoît Battistelli.
Over 91 per cent of the 4,062 employees who voted on Tuesday were in favor of the strike, which was called in large part to protest continued disciplinary hearings against three leaders of the organization’s main union, SUEPO.
The timing is significant. The EPO’s Administrative Council – which is made up of 38 country representatives – is due to meet in Munich next week and one of the items on its agenda is the president’s handling of a breakdown in communications between his team and the staff union, which represents roughly half of all EPO employees.
[...]
When staff threatened to strike, Battistelli restricted their rights to do so, which led to actual strikes that then drew media attention to the problems.
[...]
It remains to be seen whether Battistelli will be able to persuade the council not to take action against him next week. That already-difficult task is going to be made a whole lot harder, however, by the sight of half the organization’s staff walking out the building in protest against his rule.
A lot of this agrees with our predictions (thousands voting in favour, leaving Battistelli humiliated). It also looks like SUEPO got the job done. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 10:47 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Software patents in Europe have become an issue so serious that some companies now consider the European Patent Office (EPO) more friendly towards software patents than their country of origin (US/USPTO)
OUR core concern (and original concern) about the EPO was its growing lenience on and friendliness towards software patents, contrary to the EPC (on the basis of which the EPO exists). A patent system without quality control/assurance is bound to collapse, devaluing all the patents it ever granted.
According to this new post from IP Kat, “Dennis Crouch, in a post titled “US Patent Applicants Heading to the EPO,” notes that many practitioners believe that the EPO is less restrictive in its application of patent eligible subject matter than the USPTO. [Is that the beginning of a new myth? What do you think?] Interestingly, he also notes that recent data from the EPO supports that belief and that the Unified Patent Court will only make those EPO patents more valuable. Others have said it, but will the UPC be a troll friendly zone?”
The UPC means an open door to yet more software patents, more patent trolls, and more litigation. Good for patent lawyers, trolls, and non-European corporations, that’s for sure. In the comments section a regular reader wrote the following response:
Mike you ask what we the readers think, on the issue whether the EPO is more permissive on patent eligibility than the USPTO.
Well, given that the EPC, Art 52, is more restrictive on eligibility than Section 101 of the US patent statute, it certainly would be interesting, if it were indeed the case. Me, I am sceptical that Europe really is more permissive on business method eligibility than the USA.
Mike, I suggest to you and other readers that an important factor in the USPTO’s current strictness on eligibility is nervousness about the consequences of letting claims through to issue. Owners of issued US patents can use them to intimidate accused infringers in ways not known in Europe. That’s because of the notion in the USA that it has a “strong” patent system which deters folks from infringing. If you choose to operate within the ambit of a duly issued claim, you are “betting the farm” ie putting your entire business at risk. The US patent system is one in which there is a high presumption that issued patents are valid and enforeceable, and that wilful infringement can be punished by triple damages.
Whereas in Europe there is far less fear of infringing.
In Europe, nobody gives any deference to the work of the EPO. A patent owner has to prove the fact of infringement and the infringer has only to get to a “more likely than not” standard of proof to blow away the asserted claim. That being the case, the EPO can take a relatively relaxed view on eligibility/patentability, and let 50:50 claims through to issue, to give the striving Inventor his or her “day in court”.
Readers, keep in mind that the filtering the USPTO does on “eligibility” the EPO chooses not to do under Art 52 EPC. The strongest filtering is left at the EPO till we get to obviousness under Art 56 EPC. No other Patent Office in the world confines itself to technological obviousness, or has a “technological arts” test for obviousness. That’s how it can filter out business methods under the obviousness filter. Nobody else has the “Problem and Solution Approach” so everybody else (including the USPTO) has to do the difficult filtering under the “eligibility” section of its Statute.
It is troubling to see that a professor such as Crouch, whose knowledge in this area is beyond doubt (it’s what he does for a living), believes that the perception of the EPO under Battistelli is this bad. It’s perhaps widely perceived to be a software patents-friendly zone now. When Marshall Phelps worked for patent aggressor Microsoft he said the the EPO “can’t distinguish between hardware and software so the patents get issued anyway” (pretty damning if true).
In the mean time, one of our readers is assessing the stance on software patents as it relates to the only person who (so far) is rumoured to be Battistelli’s replacement (Christoph Ernst). Germany is known to be more software patents-friendly than most of Europe, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that Ernst would misinterpret the EPC in the same way that Brimelow and Battistelli did. Here is what this reader wrote to us this afternoon:
It’s hard to find much of anything. That which is found is neutral, political in wording. He’s mentioned several times in these annual reports, but no detail:
http://www.dpma.de/docs/service/veroeffentlichungen/jahresberichte_en/dpma-annualreport2011_barrierefrei.pdf
http://www.dpma.de/docs/service/veroeffentlichungen/jahresberichte_en/dpma_annualreport2013.pdf
http://www.dpma.de/docs/presse/jahresberichte/dpma_annualreport2014.pdf
Either he’s not in the 2015 report or there is no such report ready yet.
This one appears to be him also, but I am not able to wade through it:
http://eureka.sbs.ox.ac.uk/4509/1/WP1301.pdf
It did also have an alternate spelling of his name in addition to the common spelling.
http://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/dp/dp11024.pdf
I’ve skimmed a few more from other authors but, again, can’t wade through them. Though I might be misinterpreting it looks like there is a large pool of people who wish to interpret number of resulting patents with ‘quality’ of research.
It is of couse perfectly reasonable to believe that Ernst is just one among several who will be considered as Battistelli’s replacement. It’s also plausible that the rumours are false and that he is not at all being considered for this job. █
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