02.23.16

Apple May be Forced to Convince the Supreme Court That It is Entitled to Money That Android Companies Have Been Making

Posted in Apple, Courtroom, Patents, Samsung at 3:25 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The arrogant Apple is so certain that it invented everything

Summary: Apple’s relentless patent war on Android shows no signs of stopping, even several years after Steve Jobs, who had started this mess, died

Half a decade ago, after shamelessly suing HTC, Apple started suing Samsung, which was already a leading Android OEM, using software patents and design patents that are often indistinguishable from software patents. Remember who started this war. Always remember that it wasn’t Samsung reaching out to patents. It was Apple under Steve Jobs' megalomania. This case might soon reach the Supreme Court, SCOTUS, but there’s no confirmation yet.

“The final section of Samsung’s petition [to SCOTUS],” Florian Müller wrote the other day, “stresses the “enormous national importance” of the petition. This sounds to me like “this should be reviewed, but at the very, very, very least there should be a call for views of the Solicitor General (CVSG).” Or maybe I tend to read too much between the lines.”

“I appreciate that both Samsung and Apple are willing to fight this to the bitter end,” wrote this one person. “The process is as important as the result” (and very expensive thus far).

Apple has been drawn rather heavily into PTAB as of late; we wrote about PTAB earlier this month on numerous occasions. According to this new blog post, a biotechnology patent is about to be reviewed. Remember that quite a few Apple patents, including some in Europe, got invalidated in the process. “One-fifth of all IPR petitions denied institution according to 2015 PTAB report,” says IP Watchdog. To quote the former post, the said patent family “is likely the most famous patent family in biotechnology. With claims that cover basic steps in generating therapeutic antibodies, these patents are gatekeepers in an industry that has shown unprecedented growth—currently, half of the 10 top-selling drugs in the world by sales are therapeutic antibodies. Through licensing to antibody manufacturers, Genentech—one of the owners of the Cabilly patents—is expected to reach a billion dollars in royalties from this patent family by 2018.”

Well, it sure seems like Apple is hoping to make billions, not just a billion dollars, out of patent royalties alone. Apple is hoping to become a patents firm, as Android keeps growing and it’s hard to stop it without artificially elevating prices of Android devices. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Es Oficial: La Muerte de las Patentes de Software Reafirmada en India.

Posted in Asia, Law, Patents at 3:05 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

English/Original

Publicado en Asia, Law, Patents at 7:42 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

No población cuerda (i.e. gente insuficentemente indoctrinada por maximalistas) deberían tolerar patentes de software

Sumario: India una vez más ha logrado dirigir la política pública en la dirección correcta, pero sólo después de una imensa presión del público

MUCHOS meses atras hubieron nuevos y bien fundados temores que el cabildeo de patentes de software (Microsoft, IBM y los demás) estaba de nuevo logrando avances en India. Casi logran sus objetivos de nuevo, pero el público despertó, las ONG hablaron, y el gobierno vino bajo presión que pronto después temporariamente bloqueo esta estúpida iniciativa (similar a los esfuerzos recientes de la ¨madre¨ ¨Teresa¨ Zuckerberg de India queriendo ¨ayudar¨ a los pobres de India -Facebook). Si esto no es el Poder del Pueblo trabajando, entonces es algo que las poblaciones de los países Occidentales deberían aprender y emular, e.g, cuando se movilizen contra TPP, TTIP, UPC, etc. Para aquellos que no hán estado siguiendo estos eventos, esta página de Wiki puede ayudar (lista cronológica de articulos en la materia).

“Las patentes de software en india siempre han sido como un zombie que continua tratando de regresar a vida por que las megacorporaciones (usualmente extranjeras) cabildean por ello.”Esta mañana encontramos el artículo en Ingles “La Ofician de Patentes de India dice no a las patentes de software de nuevo”. Clama que la más alta oficina de patentes de la India ha dicho NO a las patentes de software en los guias para examinar invenciones relacionadas con computadoras, que fueron publicadas el pasado 19 de Febrero.¨

Otro artículo, esta vez viniendo de un sitio legal, dice: ¨El Controlador General de Patentes, Diseños y Marcas ha emitido una Ordenanza fechade este Febrero 19, 2016 publicando guías revisadas para invenciones relacionadas con computadoras. Las presentes guías estan en tono con las provisiones el el Acta de Patentes de 1970 (como revisadas).¨

Eto son buenas noticias. Las patentes de software en india siempre han sido como un zombie que continua tratando de regresar a vida por que las megacorporaciones (usualmente extranjeras) cabildean por ello. Ellas todavía no pueden colonizar el país por legislación. Anivar, un viejo apoyo nuestro (casi una década) de India escribe: ¨Las nuevas guias de patentes para software siguen el espíritu de la ley India de patentes claúsula 3(k).¨ (Más aún links al PDF original que esta en Ingles). Mientras tanto en los Estados Unidos, las patentes de software están debilitándose. Europa y Nueva Zelanda están bajo suficientemente presión pública para evitarlas – por lo menos ahora – de formalmente tolerar patentes de software (más de ello más tarde hoy).

Esta semana ha comenzado con muchas buenas noticias en el frente de patentes. Esten sintonizados. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Lexmark Muestra Patentes Contra los Intereses Públicos y Contra la Competencia

Posted in America, Patents at 2:55 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Original/English

Publicado en America, Patents at 8:37 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“Si fuera a llenar el tanque de su coche con tinta de Hewlett-Packard o Lexmark, le costaría $ 100,000,” dijo Gerald Chamales, presidente de Rhinotek Computer Products, un fabricante de cartuchos de tinta y tóner de Carson (Los Angeles County), que son compatibles con las impresoras de marca. “Si llenase una piscina olímpica con tinta de los cartuchos de inyección de tinta HP o Lexmark, le costaría $ 5.9 mil millones con B.” – See original article

Sumario: Revisión del cubrimiento de prensa acerca del caso de patentes de Lexmark, donde el grotesco SOBREPRECIO de la tinta fue defendido por el Circuito Federal

LAS noticias han sido dominadas hasta cierto grado por reportajes acerca del Circuito Federan haciendo un deservicio a la sociedad (de nuevo).

Como la EFF (Fundación De Frontera Electrónica) lo puso esta semana: “El Dictámen del Circuito Federal da privilegios a los dueños de patentes en vez de a los consumidores en los productos que ellos compran¨

“El Dictámen del Circuito Federal da privilegios a los dueños de patentes en vez de a los consumidores, y asegura incluso menos competencia en el mercado de reventas.”
      –EFFSin duda, muchas firmas y sitios de abogados estan escribiendo acerca de esto ahora mismo, e.g. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14].

Vale la pena notar el hecho que firmas de abogados escribieron 10 veces más artículos que otros sitios de noticias generales (o sitios de tecnología) acerca de este caso, e.g. [1, 2]. Mucha gente no entiende patentes tampoco los reporteros. Ellos usarían frases como ¨patentes de inventos¨ o ¨hacer patentes¨. La propaganda trabaja para ellos y no piensan fuera de ella.

“En este caso, el tribunal sostuvo que este tipo de restricción es aplicable para Lexmark, pero sólo porque el producto de Lexmark está protegida por derechos de patentes.”
      –Dennis CrouchAquí esta el mejor reportaje que hemos encontrado en esta materia (hasta ahora). TechDirt, que ha cubierto esta materia por más de una década (yendo atras hasta 2004 si no antes), escribió: ¨si tu fallas bloquear la competencia de una manera, aparentemente tu puedes hacerlo de otra -y enventualmentee terminarás en la Corte de Apelaciones del Distrito Federal, quienes enredarán todo y matarán a la competencia por tí. La compañía de printers Lexmark ha estado en guerra contra distribuidores alternativos de tinta por más de una década. Como estarán enterados tinta para impresoras es vergonzósamente CARÍSIMA, con tal estimado (de hace más de una década) de que en order de llenar una píscina olimpica con ella, te costaría $5.9 BILLIONS (si con ¨b¨) en la caja registradora de tu tienda local. Los fabricantes de impresoras notablemente han tomado un ¨regalo de impresora y ´baratísimas´ de bajo costo, y compensarla con seriamente sobretasados precios por tinta en su negocio. Esta clase de negocio trabaja hasta que alguién sale y trata de vender tinta más barata.¨

Suficientemente decir este caso es acerca de coservar los precios artificialmente CAROS (muchísimos mas altos en magnitud que los costos de producción). Una respuesta publicada por Dennis Crouch dijo: ¨Me sorprendió la plena decisión del Circuito Federal en el caso Lexmark de re-afirmar Mallingckrodt – DAR AL VENDEDOR EL PODER DE BLOQUEAR LA FUTURA REVENTA Y REUSO DE UN PRODUCTO PATENTADO. Mi sorpresa se basa en la larga tradición de la ley de propiedad Americana de promover el flujo libre de comercio al rechazar servidumbres que limitan la alienación e reuso de bienes. Para ser claro, las cortes han enforzado contractos entre partidos voluntarios para este fin, pero esas mismas cortes han rechazado permitir convenios restrictivos para aferrarse al bien y bloquear cualquier subsequente comprador. Aqui, la corte sostuvo que este tipo de restricción es enforzable por Lexmark, pero sólo por que es un producto Lexmark cubierto por derechos de patentes.

“Recuerde que CAFC es responsable de muchas otras decisiones igualmente sin tacto.”No fue la primera vez que el blog de Crouch cubrió este caso en días reciéntes (mencionamos esto unas pocas veces en los posts de la semana pasada). Básicamente, Lexmark TUERCE Y DOBLA LA LAY POR PRECIO ARREGLADO/ALZA DE PRECIOS. Otras compañías como HP, sin duda se beneficiarían de esto a expensas del público. Para citar el blog de Crouch: ¨Las presumpciones son de alguna importancia para aquellos operando en el terreno. Aquí la Corte de los Estados Unidos presumirá que las ventas de un producto no acaban con los derechos de una patente estadounidense. Esto para un importador significa que debe obtener un permiso/licensia de esos derechos para evitar querellas (asumiendo un válida así como una patente infringida). Por supuesto, que la licensia puede ser implícita de esos derechos para evitar querellas proveyendo noticias del intento importador. En adición, dependiendo del lugar de ventas, UCC 2-312 (o su equivalente foránea) puede crear un presumpución de licensia dependiendo de la situación.¨

Cuando leyes son promulgadas para protejer modelos de ventas o a largas corporaciones a expensas del público, ¿Son esas leyes legítimas? ¿No deberíamos sentirnos libres de desafiarlas o mejor aún, ponernos en desobediencia civil? Recuérden que la CAFC es responsable por muchas otras decisiones sin tacto. También fue la CAFC LA QUE COMENZÓ LAS PATENTES DE SOFTWARE, NO SÓLO EN LOS eSTADOS uNIDOS SINO EN TODO EL MUNDO. En el pasado hemos mostrado evidencia de corrupción institucional dentro de la CAFC. █

“Cínico es el hombre que conoce el precio de todo y el valor de nada.”

–Oscar Wilde

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

02.22.16

The European Patent Office’s Head of Recruitment and Talent Management Quits, More People Reportedly Exit Quietly

Posted in Europe, Patents, Rumour at 11:10 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Remember these ridiculously Orwellian recent recruitment efforts in LinkedIn?

Summary: Even Elodie Bergot’s circle is suffering brain drain as a Director reportedly quits, and she’s not alone (pending confirmations)

SEVERAL sources have independently taught or informed us that the EPO suffers brain drain not only at the examination tier but also the managerial/secretarial tier. The crisis is ascending higher up to the top-level management and some rumours falsely suggest that Elodie Bergot is out after her highly suspicious — if not incredible — promotion. She’s not out. “The woman who resigned is Edda Feisel,” we learned, “head of “Recruitment and Talent Management”. Elodie was her line manager.” Nevertheless, the rumours around Bergot continue to swirl and sometimes get distorted in transmission (broken telephone). As one person put it: “Lots of other rumours flying around (i.e. Board 28 demanded that Elodie goes), but the Director resignation seems to be the only fact.”

“The crisis is ascending higher up to the top-level management…”“Upon reflection,” told us another person “it would be surprising that this kind of information should circulate so quickly over a weekend.

“Concerning Elodie, the word I got back is that the news are false, or more likely that someone confused somebody else for her. A woman has indeed just left the HR department, but it wasn’t Elodie but a person lower down the ladder who wad been recently hired and was still in her probation period. Reasons for the sudden departure [are] unknown.”

Having inquired further about the Elodie Bergot rumours, one person said: “If it is true, then Battistelli might be cutting ballast loose in order to survive himself.”

We shall reserve further commentary about the situation until we have something concrete and confirmed, whereupon we’ll give updates and disseminate other rumours that came our way (some go as far as suggesting that even Željko Topić may be on his way out, perhaps to be replaced by Elodie Bergot). Wouldn’t that be an incredible career leap? Either way, it’s a rumour which is hard to believe, so please send further information to help us separate facts from rumours. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

“Bavarian Government is Unable to Become Involved in the Business Operations of Supra-national Organizations” Like EPO

Posted in Europe, Patents at 10:34 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

It must be fun being above the law…

Summary: The European Patent Office (EPO) continues to enjoy the protection of the German political system, which clearly has little or no interest when it comes to ending the EPO’s abuses

Earlier today we noted that Germany cannot be entrusted to handle the patent system (examination, courts, and so on) for various reasons including self interest. As further evidence of the problem consider the latest SUEPO update which states: “Surrounding the demonstration planned in Munich on 20 January, SUEPO Munich sent a letter to Herrn Ministerpräsidenten Horst Seehofer. A reply has been received on 5 February by Dr. Marcel Huber, MdL Minister of State. Translations of the reply are provided in English, French and Dutch.“

The tldr; version of the below is, I didn’t attend and can’t do anything, but will circulate the concern. It’s not entirely pessimistic but it’s not optimistic either. It’s like a template response one typically receives from politicians or reasonably apathetic national delegates. Here is the full version contained in the PDF:

Chief Executive of the Bavarian State Chancellery
Minister of State for Federal Affairs and Special Tasks
Dr. Marcel Huber, MdL (Member of the Provincial Government)

By E-mail
else_marianne@yahoo.com

Bavaria.
The Future

Chair of SUEPO Munich
Dr. Elizabeth Hardon
P.O. Box 31 02 07
80102 Munich

Your communication of
Your Ref.

Our communication of
Our Ref. B II 3–1353-872-279

Munich, 05.02.2016
Direct line: 089 2165-2290

SUEPO Demonstration on 20 January 2016

Dear Madam, Chair of SUEPO

I wish to thank you for the presentation of your petition on 20.01.2016. Due to the closed meeting lasting several days of the CSU fraction of the Provincial Parliament in Wildbad Kreuth, I regret that it was not possible for me to receive your petition personally. I have nevertheless read this with care, and I have been fully informed of the course of the demonstration and of your demands.

The Munich patent centre enjoys an outstandingly fine reputation in Germany and Europe, and the employees of the EPO have played a major part in achieving this. Nevertheless, I
must ask for your understanding that the Bavarian Government is unable to become involved in the business operations of supra-national organizations. I have, however, been informed by the State Ministry of Justice that my colleague, Minister of State Prof. Dr. Winfried Bausback, MdL, has raised the issue of your concerns in a discussion with the Federal Minister of Justice. The problems within the EPO are known to the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection, and active efforts are in hand there towards improving the situation and reviving the social dialogue.

I have forwarded a photocopy of your petition and of this letter to my colleague, Minister of State Prof. Dr. Winfried Bausback, MdL, such that your arguments will also be taken into
account there.

With my best regards
Signed
Dr. Marcel Huber, MdL
Minister of State

What good is the rule of law when it cannot be enforced and arrogant people like Minnoye openly state that they would not obey court orders? Why isn’t Germany taking action here? Just look how its media, as usual [1, 2], totally ignored the latest protest in Munich and recall the element of patent lobbying in the German justice system [1, 2]. Bavaria and by extension Germany is becoming a facilitator of a banana republic, EPOnia. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

More Political Action in France, Still Firmly Against the Largely French EPO Management

Posted in Europe, Patents at 10:10 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Claudine Lepage is the latest French Senator to get involved in the scandal created by her fellow countryman, Benoît Battistelli

THERE is a lot happening inside the EPO right now, even if the corporate media and EPO management say nothing about it. There’s some kind of a "blackout" which we are still trying to tackle and there are covert political actions underway (we shall publish the details one day when the time is more suitable).

SUEPO has just updated its public-facing page and revealed a letter from Claudine Lepage. To quote SUEPO:

[Claudine Lepage] Politique sociale à lOffice européen des Brevets : ma question au ministre

(22/02/2016)

On 5 February 2016, Claudine Lepage, French Senator, reported on the social situation in the European Patent Office. Translations are provided in English, German and Dutch.

Here is the letter in English (as HTML):

Social policy at the European Patent Office: My question to the Minister

Posted on 5 February 2016 by admin

For a number of years I have been regularly called upon to intervene with regard to the social situation at the European Patent Office. Essentially, a form of management which is authoritarian and arbitrary, which has been condemned, among others, by the Court of Human Rights at The Hague, is causing massive dysfunction within the institution. There have been a number of suicides over the past few years, and, most recently, the dismissal has been announced of a number of employees, among them members of the staff union executive. I must again urgently draw the French government’s attention to this situation, by submitting a written question to the French Minister Emmanuel Macron:

Claudine Lepage is calling the attention of the French Minister of the Economy, Industry, and Digital Affairs to the situation at the European Patent Office (EPO). This intergovernmental organization and its 7000 highly qualified staff members, recruited from among the 38 Member States, unquestionably make a huge contribution to innovation, competitiveness, and economic growth within Europe. For a number of years, however, the authoritarian and arbitrary social policy of the Office has been incurring great difficulties, in particular with regard to the fundamental rights of the individual, and the violation of social law. We must emphasise that four suicides in 32 months have occurred among the personnel, a deplorable situation. Above all, in February 2015, the Court of Appeal at The Hague, to which recourse was made by representatives of the staff, condemned the social policy adopted by the EPO, ruling it contrary to fundamental rights. The French President of the Office, however, refuses to respect this decision, on the pretext that the Office enjoys a status of immunity. This management, which must be strongly subject to censure, is causing a direct impact on the reputation of France among international institutions. Claudine Lepage is demanding to know whether measures will be taken to remedy this situation, which can only become worse, and which threatens the very future of the institution, at the very moment at which, after 30 years of negotiation, an agreement has been reached on the unitary European patent, with the EPO being entrusted with seeing this put into effect.

Separately, SUEPO catches up with the words of Ana Gomes, which we covered here in English and in Spanish. SUEPO has just added two translations:

[Ana Gomes] Written question to the European Commission: “Re-establishing fundamental rights at the European Patent Office”

(22/02/2016)

On 17 November 2015, Ana Gomes (S&D) posed a written question (French and English versions) to the European Commission regarding the re-establishing fundamental rights at the European Patent Office. Translations are provided in German and Dutch.

An article which we mentioned here when it was published and later mentioned again in Spanish also got the attention of SUEPO. At the end we got a translation of the article, but so has SUEPO. Here is what SUEPO has just released:

[JUVE] Kommentar: Warnschuss für EPA-Präsidenten Battistelli

(22/02/2016)

On 2 February 2016, JUVE reported on the structural reform of the Boards of Appeal proposed by Benoît Battistelli, President of the EPO. Translations of the article are provided in English, French and Dutch.

SUEPO’s English translation is different from ours, so for the sake of completeness we place it below as HTML:

Comment: Warning Shot for EPO President Battistelli

Benoît Battistelli, President of the European Patent Office, has gone too far. Trying to combine the structural reform of the Boards of Appeal with the questions of location and performance-related payment for judges was not a good move. Both issues have stirred up anxiety among members of the Boards of Appeal. And the fact that the Administrative Council of the Patent Office let the President have his way was a mistake too. But now the representatives of the Member States have backtracked. At long last, the Council is taking on its responsibility of setting the course with regard to the Boards of Appeal reforms.

The decision to have a sub-committee lay down new guidelines, and not Battistelli himself, is a sign of things to come. The perpetual turmoil surrounding the Office and its President has seriously damaged the reputation of the patent authority, and there are clear indications now that the once unrestrained support for the President shown by the Council is starting to dwindle, and a number of influential delegations are even voicing concerns about the future of the Office. But that does not mean that Battistelli himself is wavering. The basic features of his reform proposals are still being maintained, and he is still involved with the specific pursuit of the reforms; but decisions about the guidelines are now in other hands.

Battistelli needs to take a lesson from the move made by the Advisory Council with regard to the structural reform. The 38 Member States mean business with the demand that social peace be restored within the Office. The public rift between some sections of the staff and the management is creating a split in the Office. When it comes to the thorny questions of the location of the court branch and performance-related emoluments for the judges, Battistelli needs to backpedal. He has underestimated the unnecessary unease among the members of the Boards of Appeal, and it is now essential for the President, at long last, to approach the matter of social dialogue with a focus on consensus. A first step would be independent disciplinary proceedings against the member of the Board of Appeal who was suspended by the President.
(Christina Schulze)

It’s probably important to focus right now on who’s leaving and what happens to Battistelli’s inner circle. Please get in touch regarding these matters. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

New EPO Rumours About Benoît Battistelli’s Potential Role in the Bygmalion Affair

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

EPO: The French connection and a rumoured link to the Bygmalion affair

Summary: Benoît Battistelli’s strong links to Sarkozy and new reports about a corrupt network around Sarkozy lead some people to the suspicion that Battistelli too could (just could) be implicated

THE EPO is in a terrible state right now. This might soon leave the Office looking for new management. “Here is an update about the latest rumours at the EPO,” one reader wrote to us, taking note of something which we were never quite aware of, even though we knew that Battistelli was close to Nicolas Sarkozy, who is widely vilified by now (and for good reasons).

“It seems that there is talk of a link to the “Bygmalion affair” in France,” our reader told us. “The “Bygmalion affair” concerns the funding of Sarkozy’s failed Presidential election campaign in 2012. The latest rumour is that Battistelli is also under investigation in France for having allegedly “redirected” EPO funds to help finance Sarkozy’s election campaign.”

“This might soon leave the Office looking for new management.”
      –AnonymousIf true, then he and Željko Topić might have another — pardon the pun — topic for discussion.

“So far this is only an unconfirmed rumour but the allegations seem plausible,” our reader told us; nonetheless it is circulating in the Office right now. “Battistelli is a member of the same political party as Sarkozy and he even holds an elected political office in France as a town councilor in St. Germain-en-Laye,” our reader added.

As a matter of fact, according to the ILOAT in Geneva such party political connections are not supposed to be allowed for international civil servants [PDF]: “…an international civil servant, though entitled to hold his own political views, must stand aloof from demonstrations of adherence to a political party. Integrity, loyalty to the international civil service, independence and impartiality are the standards required of an international civil servant and they require him to keep clear of involvement in national party politics.”

“Battistelli is a member of the same political party as Sarkozy and he even holds an elected political office in France as a town councilor in St. Germain-en-Laye.”
      –AnonymousWe took note of this before, but if there is also a connection to the aforementioned scandal, then further debates are worth entertaining. “Another interesting coincidence worth mentioning,” our reader said, “is that Battistelli persuaded the Administrative Council to abolish its independent Audit Committee in 2011. This meant that all the audit functions at the EPO were under the direct control of the President!”

“Honi soit qui mal y pense!

“It’s incredible to think that the Administrative Council would have agreed to such a move but they did. They may now be about to discover the consequences of their monumentally stupid decision to abolish the Audit Committee!

“If there is any substance to the rumours about a connection to the “Bygmalion affair”, it is very likely that the Ides of March are approaching for Battistelli and his crew.”

We also received some rumours regarding Bergot’s department, but we shall say more about that a little later today (as we meanwhile leave a window of time for further affirmation or refutation). Our reader “didn’t hear anything about Bergot,” s/he told us. “But at the moment everything is possible if the rumours about Battistelli’s link to the “Bygmalion affair” are true.

“Sarkozy was President of France until 2012 so the picture that is starting to emerge is that Battistelli was “planted” into the EPO by Sarkozy in order to siphon off funds for party political purposes in France.”
      –Anonymous“Some background information about Sarkozy and Bygmalion can be found here [in English] or here.

“The subscription article from mediapart.fr states that so far 32 people have been implicated in the “Bygmalion affair” so this is a major political scandal in France. If there does turn out to be a link to the EPO, then it will be political dynamite on a European level. Sarkozy was President of France until 2012 so the picture that is starting to emerge is that Battistelli was “planted” into the EPO by Sarkozy in order to siphon off funds for party political purposes in France.

“If Battistelli really did siphon off funds for Sarkozy, then the Administrative Council of the EPO is also seriously implicated in the affair because those geniuses were the ones who agreed to Battistelli’s proposal to abolish the EPO’s independent Audit Committee in 2011 as previously covered by Techrights.

“At the moment it’s too early to predict where exactly this is going to lead but some serious “doo-doo” is likely to hit the fan pretty soon.”
      –Anonymous“If an independent Audit Committee had still been in existence in 2011 and 2012 it’s doubtful as to whether any kind of financial irregularity on the scale being suggested could have taken place.

“At the moment it’s too early to predict where exactly this is going to lead but some serious “doo-doo” is likely to hit the fan pretty soon. And it won’t be pleasant for Battistelli and his crew.” █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Germany, Which Allows People in Europe and Abroad to Patent Software (EPC Shunned), Simply Cannot be Trusted With the EPO and UPC

Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:47 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

A Germany-centric court and filings system would further empower the software patenting agenda

Summary: Germany’s attitude towards software patents makes it even more abundantly clear that it’s not suitable to take the lead in a Europe-wide patent system

THE situation in Europe is dire because of ill-situated bureaucracy. Just look at what Team Battistelli has done. It’s Europe’s embarrassment and shame. Europe needs to put the EPO under control of citizens and/or their representatives. Right now it’s above the law (detached from the European Union), thus dangerous. It’s largely controlled by German authorities that shelter it (see how German media treats this subject [1, 2]) because it’s beneficial to the German economy in various ways.

Now that patent trolls penetrate Europe along with software patents (close correlation exists between these two) we are reminded that: “The costs of a lawsuit from a patent troll are astronomical, and can reach tens of millions of dollars.”

“Just look at what Team Battistelli has done. It’s Europe’s embarrassment and shame.”This mostly hurts small businesses, which Europe is composed of in many pertinent countries (more so than in the US). “How NOT to make EU innovative” is what Professor James Bessen wrote about the article “Get Ready for Patent Wars as IP Europe Consortium Is Unveiled” (we mentioned this article before).

Bastian Best, a German national who is a patent lawyer, wrote again about last month’s post (the blog is in favour of software patents, as is the case with every lawyer’s blog) about German’s acceptance of software patents under certain scenarios, provided lawyers cleverly use words to mislead examiners and judges. Of interest to this bizarre situation (Germany being open to software patents) are the following older articles of ours (among others):

• USPTO Starts Rejecting Software Patents While Germany Mistakenly Overrides the Law and Approves Microsoft’s
• Siemens Betrays Germans by Legalising Software Patents in Europe
• Germany Against Software Patents
• Software Patenting Under Attack in Germany
• Microsoft’s Anti-Linux/Android Patent (FAT) Collapses in Europe, But Microsoft-backed Xamarin Tries to Interject Other Microsoft Patents Into Google Gear
• After the Demise of Microsoft’s FAT Patent

Recall Microsoft’s FAT patents in Germany — patents which were used against a lot of companies that use Linux, even a Dutch company (TomTom) which Microsoft took to court over it. These are software patents which are still being used against Linux (we last covered an example earlier this month). We recently wrote about Germany’s special role in the UPC [1, 2] and we continue to worry that Germany’s notable tolerance of software patents (never mind tolerance of Battistelli’s abuses) will spread to other countries, including the UK where the UK-IPO has also been relatively friendly towards software patents. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend