01.30.16
Posted in Microsoft, Patents at 8:30 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Xerox: from making machines to just feeding patent trolls and turning into a USPTO-sanctioned troll
Summary: The company best known for (and internationally synonymous with) photocopiers is now little less than stockpile of patents which are being passed to patent trolls (desperate reach for money) and have become part of a broader problem
THE EFF has just explicitly denounced software patents and now it now takes on a software patent from Xerox, whose patents were famously used against Linux at the hand of a Microsoft-connected patent troll called Acacia. That was almost 9 years ago. We have a whole category for Fuji Xerox, which had connections to Novell, signed a patent deal with Microsoft (implicating Linux), helped Microsoft extort other companies that used Linux, and itself became a massive patent troll. Today’s Xerox is a very malicious company. It is just a patent parasite these days. There aren’t many actual products with the Xerox logo on them anymore, but Xerox still cannot be characterised as non-practicing (strictly speaking).
“We have a whole category for Fuji Xerox, which had connections to Novell, signed a patent deal with Microsoft (implicating Linux), helped Microsoft extort other companies that used Linux, and itself became a massive patent troll.”To quote yesterday’s EFF article (reposted by TechDirt soon thereafter): “This month’s Stupid Patent is awarded to Xerox, who on January 19, 2016 was awarded a patent on essentially the library circulation card, but done electronically.”
There is already press coverage about it. The trolls expert, Joe Mullin, said: “Once a month, the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s crack team of patent lawyers reaches deep into the US Patent Office’s giant sack of freshly issued patents. Then they pull out one of the shadiest, saddest, painfully obvious, never-should’ve-gotten-even-close-to-issuance patents and subject it to public scrutiny.
“This month, EFF attorney Vera Ranieri selected a highly questionable Xerox patent and yanked it into the bleak January sunlight. US Patent No. 9,240,000, entitled “Social Network for Enabling the Physical Sharing of Documents,” boils down to a system of sharing documents online. It looks like exactly the kind of patent that shouldn’t have made it through the system, considering new guidelines put in place as a result of the Supreme Court’s Alice Corp. v. CLS decision.”
“Not just trolls but large companies too are to blame. The inherent, core problem here is software patents.”The significance of Alice is rightly being brought up and it should be noted that Xerox patents have a tendency to travel around and end up being used as a weapon at the hands of patent trolls. Not just trolls but large companies too are to blame. The inherent, core problem here is software patents.
“Ford [...] has joined RPX,” says this new article from patent maximalists, and it has “taken a licence with Intellectual Ventures,” which is Microsoft’s biggest patent proxy/satellite (there are more and Intellectual Ventures attacked Linux with patents as recently as last year). RPX is an example of patents being pooled by large companies that act like patent trolls, whereas the latter is patent trolls galore (Intellectual Ventures reportedly has thousands of satellite ‘enforcement’ entities that take companies to court if they don’t obey the Mafia’s Don, Nathan Myhrvold).
To quote the EPO-funded site:
While GM stays away from the patent market, it looks like the plan for Sidecar may be to become a lot more engaged with it. I got in touch with company CEO Sunil Paul who said that he wasn’t able to talk publicly about the company’s strategy beyond what has been said to date. So, instead, I asked a couple of licensing experts how they might approach monetising the 6356838 patent and any future granted ones. Their response was, “yeah, good luck with that”; and there was only one reason – Alice.
The Alice case and the question of patentability in the USPTO after 2014′s Supreme Court ruling on Alice will be the subject of our next post. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
01.29.16
Posted in Europe, Patents at 11:22 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Battistelli’s vision of the EPO is extremely grim
Photo credit: Gizmodo
Summary: A look back (about a dozen years) to the days of Benoît Battistelli walking around with bodyguards whilst only a French officer at INPI
THERE are a lot of things that EPO staff does not know. The flow of information is impeded by an atmosphere of terror, which is a top-down thing (imposed from the above, i.e. from the management).
“I noticed some references to Battistelli’s bodyguards in your articles on TechRights,” one reader told us. “It seems that Battistelli’s penchant for bodyguards pre-dates his current job at the EPO.”
Battistelli had every window frame in EPO buildings screwed shut.”
–AnonymousOur reader continued: “I recently came across a humourous French blog post from 2004 which reports on Battistelli’s public debut as Director-General of the French Institut Nationale de la Propriété Industrielle (INPI) at the “Enjeux Press Preview” which took place on Monday, July 5, 2004. At the end of the report, it is mentioned that on that occasion Battistelli was accompanied by two bodyguards.
“The French blog post by Jean-Bernard Condat [from Paris] can be found here. I add an English translation [PDF] which attempts to capture the whimsical humour of the original. Feel free to share it with your readers!”
Under Battistelli, the EPO looks rather reminiscent of a war zone. He even uses war-type language to keep the staff under control, as if he is fighting a large legion of terrorists with weapons of mass destruction. His staff's representatives he simply called "Mafia". Well, it sure seems like if there’s a combative element inside the EPO, this is something that Battistelli brought into the EPO rather than inherited from Brimelow, his predecessor. This isn’t leadership; it’s monarchy; it’s repressive. To quote parts of the PDF (which incorporates pictures and more):
Benoît Battistelli, the new Director-General of the INPI, makes his public debut
[...]
BATTISTELLI remains unperturbed and replies that “he is not personally an ayatollah of IP rights for SMEs”.
[...]
BATTISTELLI rises to depart and his two bodyguards follow him. The concert is over.
“Battistelli had every window frame in EPO buildings screwed shut,” one person told us recently. “That is how he “prevents” further on-site suicides. No more jumping out of windows. But colleagues mutilate themselves in their offices now. Battistelli dislikes the bloody mess they leave behind. He decided to silence them by starting an investigation procedure against them. Once the procedure started, employees do not have the right to talk about any detail. He must know better – this is a time bomb.”
It’s like those anti-suicide nets in Foxconn (China). “They are not actually solving the issue,” as my wife put it when I asked her about it, they’re just “implementing a workaround.” █
“Never murder a man who is committing suicide.”
–Woodrow Wilson
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 10:44 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Internally known as Meany Minnoye
Photo of the protest at The Hague courtesy of Marieke Manschot
Summary: As the ‘damage control’ person for EPO management, which is extremely unpopular these days, Guillaume Minnoye ended up just insulting the Dutch legal system and reinforcing workers’ negative perception of their management
YESTERDAY we published 5 articles about the protest at The Hague (see this Wiki for a complete list or check this couple of later articles). All the articles we found were in Dutch, except for one article from Dutch News (which writes in English). This means that we are still waiting and hoping to find some translations. Here is yet another article about the protest or related/surrounding events, titled “Medewerkers Europese Octrooi Organisatie zijn tirannie beu en gaan de straat op. By our rough count, there are now at least 10 different Dutch articles about the latest developments. That’s not even counting blogs! This probably means that the protest had the desired outcome. Despite having nothing to do with football or celebrities (e.g. FIFA or David Bowie), the matter is now mainstream news, at least in Holland.
“SUEPO has called for independent mediation between it and the EPO several times to no avail. In the meantime, Union officials are sacked, demoted, subjected to secret investigations and made sick.”
–AnonymousYesterday we posted a video of VP1 Minnoye (a better video is now available though Twitter). Minnoye was mentioned here several times before, e.g. in [1, 2, 3, 4] (he’s no friend of Techrights, which he reportedly moans about).
By agreeing to speak for the EPO (maybe it was the default choice for language-related/lingual reasons) Guillaume Minnoye put himself in the firing line. We’d like to share just a sample of (the more polite) responses to his appearance on Dutch TV.
One person wrote that this “pathetic VP1 [is] stating “his door is always open” when he is one of the most aggressive ones towards SUEPO officials is an absolute must see” and the response was this: “Does the revelation by SUEPO in October that VP1 met a journalist of the Financiele Dagblad shortly before the latter published confidential information relating to a disciplinary procedure against a judge to discredit him (http://techrights.org/2015/10/19/benoit-battistelli-smears/) perhaps explain the sudden mad hunt then triggered against the Union?”
We wrote about this at the time. A Dutch article probably defamed an EPO/board judge. If Minnoye was behind it, then maybe some time in the future Minnoye can be sued for defamation. See the hypocrisy here?
“EPO VP Minnoye seems to be singing from the same hymn-sheet as the Dutch government.”
–Anonymous“This is a bit weird,” another person wrote. “The Dutch government seems to deliberately show a Janus-face regarding this issue. On one hand they now start an independent investigation into working conditions and are publicly negative about EPO management, but on the other hand they are extremely dismissive of the decision reached by the The Hague Court of Appeal (and in my view disrespectful regarding the judiciary) in SUEPO v EPO last year. They formally were allowed to join the proceedings in appeal at the Hoge Raad (supreme court) last year on the side of EPO. According Volkskrant in that case, oral arguments are heard today (Friday 29).
“I wonder if these are two fully separate processes, or whether it is a deliberate attempt to act socially but at the same time maintaining the image of an international organization friendly privileges respecting nation….”
Regarding the investigation to be launched into the EPO’s practices, one person noted that “no social study will be performed by the Netherlands. They “just” refer to the study of the Administrative Council as Tweedy Chambers mentions….”
The following comment agrees:
Yes, the “social study” is not being done by the Dutch government, but was something forced on the President by the AC in what someone correctly called its “hand-wringing” mode. If I remember rightly BB announced that it would be done in “close co-operation” with himself. Whatever about the study’s so-called independence after this statement the AC is simply kicking the ball down the road.
SUEPO has called for independent mediation between it and the EPO several times to no avail. In the meantime, Union officials are sacked, demoted, subjected to secret investigations and made sick.
For Merpel’s information about the sick Union official: in the “good old days” if the EPO’s doctor disagreed with a treating physician about an employee’s sickness, there was a dispute resolution mechanism involving one of a panel of third specialists to which they could jointly refer the case. This worked well, too well for it to be allowed to continue under BB. I do not know if he bothered to send an office doctor in this case, but rather formed his own opinion. It would not be the first time that he has ignored medical opinion, even from a doctor of the office, when it has suited him.
“The literal translation,” noted another commenter about a related matter, “is: The government worries on the social situation within the Patent Office, but remarks that it is irrelevant for the question whether or not an international organisation has immunity if it is accused of violations of human rights or other violations of international law.”
“Did you hear that, excellent judges of the Supreme Court? Don’t even BOTHER to render a decision! Because “the Rule of Law and Human Rights will never apply at the European Patent Office!”
–AnonymousAnonymous then wrote: “Congratulations to my management. Have just watched the National News on Dutch TV. EPO and this sordid story – news item number 5 (and the apparent wonderful production figures over the last few years didn’t feature once in the item – we were even the item before Iranian President’s visit to France !). All this when there are an awful lot more important things going on in the world. Rather sad. Some say that there is “no such thing as bad press”, some also say that “what goes around, comes around”,, all we know he’s managed to make a mountain out of a molehill by trying to use a hammer to crack a nut,,,”
One person had written that “Minnoye declaring to the NL TV that should the Cassation case be lost for the EPO they will simply disregard its application ….” (we don’t have a translation of what he said, but let’s assume he did say so).
“Did you hear that,” joked one commenter, “excellent judges of the Supreme Court? Don’t even BOTHER to render a decision! Because “the Rule of Law and Human Rights will never apply at the European Patent Office! NEVER! Mwuhahahahaha!!”
If this is the sort of mentality that Minnoye brings to the EPO, what does that say about Minnoye?
Here is another new take on it:
EPO VP Minnoye seems to be singing from the same hymn-sheet as the Dutch government.
I’m not 100% sure whether I correctly understood this article from NOS but the last line seems to say that the Dutch government takes the position that immunity of an IO has to be accorded precedence over alleged violations of human rights and other international law:
“De regering maakt zich weliswaar zorgen over de sociale situatie bij het Octrooibureau, maar stelt: “voor de vraag of een internationale organisatie immuniteit toekomt (is) niet van belang of haar mensenrechtenschendingen of andere schendingen van internationaal recht verweten worden.”
http://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2083389-hoe-ver-gaat-de-immuniteit-van-het-europees-octrooibureau.html
Maybe a Dutch native speaker can clarify ???
The Hague is probably best known (or internationally-renowned) for international justice, but the EPO has made a laughing stock out of it. Instead of the The Hague being synonymous with criminal justice (e.g. war crimes) it may soon become synonymous with docility and complicity for the betterment of corporate power. As this one comment put it:
Really? Are they not thinking about the consequences? Do the really want to have a decision that would discredit the whole system of International Organizations in the Netherland?
What credibility wold be left e.g. for
Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia
International Court of Justice
International Criminal Court
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
Permanent Court of International Justice
Special Court for Sierra Leone
Special Tribunal for Lebanon
“Oh, but wait: we are allowed to violate human rights and international law in order to enforce human rights and international law”?
Would it not be easier to dump Battistelli?
Whatever is happening in The Hague right now (politically or otherwise), this is an embarrassment to the Dutch and it’s the EPO’s fault. Dutch politicians ought to get more actively involved in order to salvage what’s left of this city’s courts’/tribunals’ reputation, especially after last year’s ruling, which Battistelli simply snubbed and disregarded. Earlier today I exchanged a few words with John Kerstens. He is one among several Dutch politicians who should be commended for having the courage to confront the out-of-control EPO management, which even threatens politicians and delegates. █
“It is strangely absurd to suppose that a million of human beings, collected together, are not under the same moral laws which bind each of them separately.”
–Thomas Jefferson
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 9:43 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
How to get there (in Brussels)…
Summary: Current leader of the FFII, Benjamin Henrion, will deliver a talk about software patents and their relation to the Unitary Patent Court this Sunday in Brussels, Belgium
AFTER his previous talk at CCC (we gave a headsup at the time), Benjamin Henrion now prepares to deliver a talk not too far from European Parliament. Previously he spoke about it near the EPO in Berlin/Munich. What will he speak about? The UPC, or “Software Patents v3.0″ as he calls it. From the abstract:
The Unitary Patent is the third major attempt to legalize software patents in Europe. The European Patent Court will become the Eastern District of Texas when it comes to software patent disputes in Europe. As happened in America, the concentration of power will force up legal costs, punish small European innovators, and benefit large patent holders.
The second attempt to codify EPO software patents failed in 2005, after many years of debate, the directive was rejected under the request of large multinational corporations, that prefered the creation of a central patent court over the debate on software patents.
The Unitary Patent Court is a deeply flawed project, as it is based on dubious economic studies, a rogue patent office (the EPO), a court stuffed with biased patent specialists, and is out of parliamentary control. It will participate to global patent warming, rubberstamp software patents, multiply the number of patent trolls, and increase the entry cost for defendants, which is already out of reach for many of us.
This talk is on Sunday at 10 AM (Room UD2.218A). We hope to publish a video recording of the talk once it’s done.
Speaking of Brussels, the EPO wants some lobbying muscle over there. This would include UPC lobbying for sure. Can actual programmers and engineers (like Henrion) beat the lobbyists? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in EFF, Patents at 9:27 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The Electronic Frontier Foundation looks like it may be returning to direct criticism of software patents rather than particular groups of actors that exploit them, e.g. patent trolls
OVER the years (since 2006 when Novell paid a lip service to the EFF with some money) we have been both supportive and critical of the EFF’s approach towards software patents. We last wrote about it a few days ago. Other articles on such matters include:
Based on this new article from the EFF (published very recently), not only is the EFF capable of naming software patents explicitly (it was always about “stupid” patents and “trolls” as of late); it’s also prepared to slam them. To quote some relevant paragraphs:
In December, over 3,000 of you rallied in support in support of a proposed Department of Education (ED) policy that would make ED-funded educational resources a lot more accessible to educators and students around the world.
You weren’t the only ones: the Free Software Foundation, Creative Commons, Public Knowledge, the Software Freedom Conservancy, and numerous other pro-user groups spoke up. Together, we all sent a loud message: Team Internet is on the side of open education.
Browsing through all 147 comments, a pattern quickly emerges. Open web advocates, open education groups, and many education professionals all support the idea of ED-funded resources being shared widely under open licenses (though we might quibble on a few specific details). One group kept confusing us, though: universities. Why were some universities opposing a rule that would directly benefit their students and faculty?
When you dig a bit deeper, it looks like universities’ opposition to open licensing has nothing to do with students’ access to educational resources. What’s really playing out is a longstanding fight over how universities use patents—more specifically, software patents. Open education just happens to be caught in the crossfire.
[...]
Software Patents Ruin Everything
The AAU statement questions “whether the Department has the legal authority under 35 USC 212 to issue a requirement to openly license all computer software source code developed with grant funds.” This is a reference to a law enacted in 1980, commonly known as the Bayh-Dole Act. Before Bayh-Dole, universities couldn’t apply for patents for inventions created using federal funding; instead, the government itself was responsible for patenting federally funded inventions [.pdf]; when it did so, it would only let others use them under nonexclusive licenses.
After Bayh-Dole, a whole industry of university tech transfer offices began to appear. Each tech transfer program has its own policies—some are more flexible and friendly to the inventors’ wishes than others—but they all ostensibly exist to sell or license faculty inventions to third parties. Some of them also assert their patents directly, as the University of Wisconsin-Madison did in its recent suit against Apple.
It’s important to note here that the ED proposal doesn’t touch patents at all. Since the proposal covers software, it’s possible that grantees might want to apply for patents for a few of the works covered under the policy. But there’s nothing in the proposal to stop them from doing that: not every open source license that would comply with the policy requires that creators give up patent assertion rights.
Remember that software patents are fueling trolls, so any discussion about patent trolls often evades the core issue and instead deals with symptoms (much to the chagrin of large corporations). The EPO-funded IAM 'magazine', which often grooms patent trolls, accepts payments from trolls, and even organises events for them, is openwashing patents right now (“open innovation”) and demonstrates what happens when patent profiteers speak to other patent profiteers. IAM has become like some sort of think tank for trolls and maximalists. Here it is going soft on trolls and so-called patent assertion entities. On the other hand there are sites like IP Troll Tracker, which is now congratulating Florian Müller for criticising the US patent system. All in all, it’s nice to see that the EFF now speaks a little more about software patents, not just trolls. We encourage the EFF to do more of that. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Apple, Patents, Samsung at 9:03 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Original/English
Publicado en America, Apple, Patents, Samsung at 7:29 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Esta reciente foto de Rick Frenkel (del Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng) nos muestra y recuerda que Frenkel todavía esta combatiendo a los troles de patentes.
Sumario: Eventos reciéntes en el mundo de los trolles de patentes, incluyendo los relacionados a Apple y Linux/Android, donde las batallas de patentes de software persisten y se han convertido en un factor considerable.
La decadencia de Apple puede ser explicada en muchas maneras (Android/Linux tiene mucho que ver con ello). Pero estamos particularmente interesados en la asquerosa estrategia de litigación de patentes de Apple, que motivo nuestro llamado a un BOYCOTT hace media decada (el que seguimos motivando), despues de sus primeros ataques (contra una menos armada HTC). La OEP comparte la culpa aquí como que facilitó muchos de esos ataques por erróneamente otorgar patentes que más tarde fueron encontrada ser invalidas.
Los más vocales proponentes de patentes de software nos han hecho recordar que ¨Samsung va a pagar a Apple aproximadamente $546 millones en daños como parte de una continua disputa de infingimiento de patentes entre los dos gigantes.¨
“La OEP comparte la culpa aquí como que facilitó muchos de esos ataques por erróneamente otorgar patentes que más tarde fueron encontrada ser invalidas.”Esto es acerca de patentes de software. Apple las esta usando para sacar ganancias de productos rivales pero también para prohibirlos. Pero es una espada de doble filo por que Apple también ha sido demandada por un monto similar (medio millón de dolares) por un trol de patentes. Esta vez, como siempre, son patentes de software (los trolles de patentes rarámente usan otra clase de patentes). El desgraciado troll de patentes VirnetX quiere que ej jurado le dé medio millón de dólares de Apple. Hay algo poético acerca de esto, dada las noticias de arriba. Cuando un troll de patentes ataca a Apple, como este nuevo artículo de Joe Mullin ayuda a mostrar, grandes cantidades de dinero son exigidas. ¨Un juicio reciéntemente empezó en el lugar perferido de las patentes: East Texas,¨ escribió Mullin, ¨ y es uno grande. VirtnetX, una compañía poseedora de patentes que dice ser dueña un buen número de ellas relatadas a Networks Privados Virtuales (VPNs), se está enfrentando a Apple.
¨VirnetX dice que la VPN tecnología usada por Apple, así como su mensajero reconocedor de caras, infringen patentes de la compañía. Un jucio comenzó hoy, y VirnetX busca $532 millones en daños.¨
“Esto es acerca de patentes de software. Apple las esta usando para sacar ganancias de productos rivales pero también para prohibirlos.”Hemos escrito mucho acerca de VirnetX y East Texas en el pasado. Esto es un gran ejemplo de lo que las patentes de software hacen a los trolles de patentes.
Hablando de East Texas, parece que el rastreador de trolles de patentes (Rick Frenkel) esta ocupadísimo ahora mismo. Escribió bastante acerca de Fish & Richardson PC, especialmente cuando el padre de trolles de patentes, Sr. Niro los enjuició (antes que Frenkel y su empleador Cisco fueran enjuiciados). Recuerden que lo que trajo problemas al rastreador de trolles de patentes (muchos articulos acerca de esto aquí). Fish & Richardson tuviero que ver mucho con ello directa o indirectamente. Fish & Richardson es una compañía que trabajo por multinacionales como Samsung y Nokia en patentes. Ahora expresa amor de la UPC (hace menos de un día en medios de abogados). La publicación de ellos ayer dice: ¨el próximo gran paso por la UPC sera la selección de jueces. Aproximadamente 1,300 personas han expresado su interés, incluyendo muchos jueces altamente calificados, abogados de leyes y abogados de patentes. El comite preparatorio es esperado adoptar una selección de procedimiento en su reunión de Febrero 24-25, 2016 y comenzar el proceso inmediatamente despues.
“Resulta que el Rastreador de Trolles de Patentes Todavía los esta combatiendo.”Fish & Richardson en sí es una firma de abogados de patentes, y una que representa clientes que les puede traer muchísimo dinero cuando una compañía como Apple, por no hablar de algunos pequeños trolles de patentes, tomen ventaja de la UPC por juicios de gran escala sin fronteras. Tengan esto en mente; ven que podrida esta la UPC; MUESTRA QUIÉN SE BENEFICIARÍA DE ELLA. Por supuesto no las PYMEs europeas.
Suficientemente interesado, Joe Mullin ha escrito esta pieza acerca de trolles de patentes que atacaron Newegg y rápidamente se lamentaron. Resulta que el Rastreador de Trolles de Patentes Todavía los esta combatiendo. Los juicios de difamación en su contra de parte de los trolles no lo han detenido. Ante lo cual nos sacamos el sombrero delante de tan magnífico caballero. Para citar de la de arriba: “Latham & Watkins socio Rick Frenkel, quien representa a Newegg en algunos de sus casos de patentes. Frenkel y Cheng hicieron una parada para barbacoa y pasteles fritos en un reciente viaje a la zona activa de patente de este de Texas “. Buen provecho Señores. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Deception, Patents at 8:49 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Original/English
Publicado in America, Deception, Patents at 6:45 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Ayudando a los trolles de patentes cuya arma preferida son las patentes de software
Robert L. Stoll habla en un evento de la Chemical Heritage Foundation, no confundiral por la AVARA, socia de Koch Industries, anti-ciencia extremista de derecha grupo llamado la Heritage Foundation (photo source)
Sumario: El último ejemplo de covertura parcializada e incompleta acerca de patentes, donde la gente que hace sus ganancias de ellas pretenden hablar de los intereses de los Estados Unidos en vez de ellos mismos y las GIGANTES CORPORACIONES DE DONDE PROVIENEN.
Los reportajes de los medios en materias como patentes son pobres sino completamente terribles. A los medios de comunicación les gusta hablar con los abogados de patentes en vez de hacerlo con la gente que actualmente son impactadas por las patentes. Estos medios también conversan con los oficiales del systema de patentes, como el trístemente celebre David Kappos, empleado de IBM que lideró la Oficina de Patentes y Marcas de los Estados Unidos (USPTO) y ahora HACE DINERO DEL MÁXIMALISMO DE PATENTES DENTRO DE UNA FIRMA PATENTE-CENTRICA (de oficina pública a buitre privado, o puertas giratorias). El promueve patentes de software estos días bajo la dirección de sun no so encubiertos amos.
“A los medios de comunicación les gusta hablar con los abogados de patentes en vez de hacerlo con la gente que actualmente son impactadas por las patentes.”Hablando de IBM, como notamos aquí el otro día, Forbes continúa incentivando a la acumulación de patentes (¨¿Porqué las Ganancias de la Propiedad Intelectual de IBM continúa declinando?¨) por razones que tienen que ver con la propiedad (de los medios). Mientras las grandes corporaciones dominen los medios, la parcialidad estará impregnada y mucha gente lo tomará por establecido, a menos que lean medios alternativos o blogs como este.
La propaganda persiste hoy dia, cortesía de lo que The Hill engañosamente titula ¨contribuyente¨ (suena inocentemente suficiente); apoyado por LOS ABOGADOS DE PATENTES QUIENES AMAN LAS PATENTES DE SOFTWARE. El chacal Robert L. Stoll reciéntemente ha publicado en los medios de los cabildeadores un ataque en los tests relacionados con Alice. El titular dice: ¨La nueva materia selectiva de patentes hiere la competitidad en los Estados Unidos¨. Que tal TONTERÍA. De nuevo la USPTO o algun abogado de patentes PRETENDE QUE LAS PATENTES DE SOFTARE SON BUENAS PARA LA ECONOMÍA DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS (tal vez sólo es buena para su propia ocupación parasitaria, al contrario de la economía real). ¨Por esta razón,¨ concluye, nuestras cortes deben reexaminar el criterio de ¨dos puntas¨ en materia de elegibilidad de patentes. La economía innovadora de los Estados Unidos y los trabajos que ella crea no puede sobrevivir por mucho tiempo el abandono de la amplia materia subjetiva para la elegibilidad de patentes, que nos ha hecho lideres en innovación el último siglo. -Pueden creerlo la economía de todo un país o solo de las grandes coporaciones. Ellos pretenden ser los Estados Unidos (tal vez sean sus dueños) pero que decir de las pequeñas y medianas empresas que son las más perjudicadas por este injusto systema-.
“Las políticas por las que ellos abogan también AYUDAN A LOS TROLES DE PATENTES Y PROPONENTES DE LAS PATENTES DE SOFTWARE COMO IBM (de donde proviene Kappos).”¿Qué trabajos ha tenido Stoll que actualmente hayan producido algo? ¿Ha escrito Stoll alguna vez una simple línea de códig en su vida? ¿Quién es Stoll de todas maneras? Por su propia descripción, ¨Stol es socio y co-presidente del grupo de propiedad intelectual Drinker Biddle & Reath así como anterior comisionado por patentes en la Oficina de Patentes y Marcas de los Estados Unidos.¨ De acuerdo a su perfil de trabajo: ¨Gano su grado en Leyes de la Universidad Católica mientras trabajaba por la USPTO. Recibió su bachiller en Ingeniería Química de la Universidad de Maryland,¨ Nada que ver con software entonces.
Es triste que aquellos leyendo medios corporativos/corriente principal son expuestos a los puntos de vista de aquellos símilares a Stoll y Kappos. A ellos NO LES IMPORTA la ¨Innovación de la economía de América y los trabajos¨ como sostienen. Les IMPORTA SÓLO SUS TRABAJOS, que envuelve chantaje económico (´impuesto´ de patentes) a aquellos que realmente crean cosas. Las políticas por las que ellos abogan también AYUDAN A LOS TROLES DE PATENTES Y PROPONENTES DE LAS PATENTES DE SOFTWARE COMO IBM (de donde proviene Kappos). █
“Si quieres persuadir, debe apelar al interés más que el intelecto.”
–Benjamin Franklin
Permalink
Send this to a friend
01.28.16
Posted in Europe, Patents, Videos at 9:06 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
“Value your freedom or you will lose it, teaches history.”
–Richard Stallman
Summary: A clip just extracted from today’s segment about the EPO’s union-busting actions that caused unprecedented disputes and may soon lead to strikes
THE EPO scandals have already attracted the attention of Belgian TV and Dutch TV. In Croatia, matters which implicate an EPO Vice-President also attracted the attention of Croatian TV (more than once even).
The following video is an excerpt taken from a much longer programme (about one hour in total). It is tonight’s TV broadcast about the EPO (it’s all in Dutch). The colours got distorted due to some conversion difficulties, but it’s the audio that matters a lot more. We made the file small enough for steaming locally (more resistant in the face attempted takedowns, like bogus DMCA requests that discard Fair Use provisions and pursue censorship).
If someone has the time to prepare a transcript or preferably a translation of the above, that would significantly improve our records. People who work at the EPO must fight both for their individual rights and their group rights, such as the right to organise. █
“I don`t believe in quotas. America was founded on a philosophy of individual rights, not group rights.”
–Clarence Thomas
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