EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

12.18.17

“As an EPO Employee, I Am Actually Embarrassed by the Behaviour of the President and the Administrative Council”

Posted in Europe, Law, Patents at 2:51 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

EPO hiding evidence

Summary: Voices of condemnation and disgust are still reverberating within and outside the European Patent Office — an institution that now proudly and flagrantly operates outside the Rule of Law

THE EPO debate slowed down a bit over the weekend. SUEPO is saying nothing new and we haven’t received information that wasn’t published already.

It sometimes helps when we turn our attention to blog comments, especially in legal blogs, as some come from anonymous EPO insiders. We try to keep record of such comments because some tend to simply vanish (i.e. disappear after a moderator decides to censor).

IP Kat has a history or a track record of nuking entire comment threads about the EPO (in bulk, even 40 comments all at once) and about the UPC (Bristows typically does this censorship, even in other blogs).

We’ve been skipping some of the less relevant comments, e.g. gossip. Looking at the latest and very rare blog post from IP Kat (which touches EPO scandals) we see something familiar. Based on this comment, the ‘Kat’ continues to delete comments about the EPO which it deems who-knows-what:

I have to wonder why my reply has not been posted. The reply was not offensive -verily, it recognizes that the author of the piece here made a special effort to include a reminder of the comment moderation policy.

Sorry folks, but the exchange of dialogue won’t be happening here.

We have therefore decided to take what does show up (gets past moderation, which has become super-strict and leads to self-censorship; names, including “Battistelli”, do not show up at all).

This, in our view, can impact many things including the UPC:

Judicial independence, or lack of it, is quite a meaty topic

Indeed. And if US Anon was familiar with Article 32 of the TRIPS Agreement he might even realise that the EPO shenanigans could have repercussions beyond Europe.

http://www.cptech.org/ip/texts/trips/32.html

It was previously noted by some eagle-eyed observers that an emissary of the “heavenly sovereign” (Tenno)was present at the famous EBA hearing on 14 June 2016.
Was this a mere coincidence … ?

Then, responding to what we are pretty certain was an incorrect claim:

really?
Has Mr. C been heard on the charges? If not, which I assume, then they again commit to the same fault as in the previous procedure and objected by ATILO.

This was said in response to claims that Judge Corcoran got suspended again. We have seen no evidence to support that. Having said that, there’s strategic legal bullying against Corcoran in Croatia and Germany (probably intended to slow him down and encumber him with legal bills/costs).

“The current legal system allows to keep him in legal limbo for the rest of his career,” the following comment said. “This is definitely not acceptable.”

Here is the full comment:

A good question, whether a Board of Appeal member, after not being re-appointed, may be subject to disciplinary action by the Office President, for alleged acts while being a Board Member.

Well, the Council did initiate disciplinary proceedings, meaning there are proceedings pending. Starting new proceedings over the same allegations would be forbidden by most jurisdictions “Non bis de eadem re sit actio”.

Could the Council turn over these proceedings to the Office President? Hm, considering the judgments, that would appear to be excluded. The next most senior management representative, as suggested by the judgments, may not have sufficient rank. I venture to say that all Vice Presidents suffer from the same bias as the President. So, in this concrete case, I do not see how such a transfer could be done, assuming it is legal in the first place.

What is much more striking is the total lack of remedies for the concerned board member. Having to wait for years without getting a decision on the merits is not acceptable in terms of labour law. There should be a fast track procedure.

I did not see a message terminating the disciplinary proceedings, hence, it seems that these proceedings are still pending. The Board member has no means to speed up the issue, or to ask a court to order a stop of these proceedings. He has to wait until a decision is taken. The current legal system allows to keep him in legal limbo for the rest of his career. This is definitely not acceptable.

The next comment came from EPO staff. “As an EPO employee,” it said, “I am actually embarassed by the behaviour of the President and the AC, as they have been publicly shown to be malicious, incompetent, and incapable of either understanding or following the rule of law.”

The full comment:

To be honest, the guilt or not of Mr. Corcoran is one issue that has largely been overlooked during this sorry saga. If he did post (offensive) comments about the President or one of his friends from a PC located on EPO premises, even if in a public area, then he was clearly taking a big risk – why he did not do this from home or from an Internet cafe is something only he can know.

The simple fact is that the President and the AC came up with ZERO evidence of any “crime”(for wont of a better word), but continued to harass Corcoran nevertheless, so sure were they that he had done something wrong. The first case presented to the BoA was a joke – “here’s a pen-drive with 1000 documents on it, we’re sure you can find something incriminating in them”. I mean, come on, if that was the best “evidence” that they had, then the whole case was pretty thin from the get-go.

It is clearly quite possible that Corcoran did do something that he possibly shouldn’t have, but we will never no, so badly has the case been handled. As an EPO employee, I am actually embarassed by the behaviour of the President and the AC, as they have been publicly shown to be malicious, incompetent, and incapable of either understanding or following the rule of law.

“I know that the EPO works according to its own laws,” the next comment said, “but does that include ditching the maxim that a person is presumed innocent until he is proved guilty?”

The EPO is “unaware of issues like independence of the judiciary, presumption of innocence, right to be heard, due process, etc.”

So said the following:

I have followed this story for years, and there is one thing that really puzzles me. If all this is true, then what we see is not less than the slow and thorough demolition of an individual in the public eye, including his own colleagues. These, however, are sais to be judges, so they are not unaware of issues like independence of the judiciary, presumption of innocence, right to be heard, due process, etc. But all we have heard so far in support of their peers is … deafening silence.
One can only hope for them that the whole story is made of shameless lies.

Then someone spoke about the underlying nature of the alleged comments:

I am interested in your comment that “making adverse public comments on the internet about a colleague would be a disciplinary offence in most workplaces, even if they are not defamatory”.

Whilst I agree that this is likely true for a “normal” workplace, I question whether it is appropriate to apply such a general rule to the facts of this particular case.

The first reason for this is that, as I understand it, the “public comments” were made pseudonymously. Hence, the public was not in a position to confirm whether the comments really were made by an employee of the EPO. (Indeed, the manner in which the true identity of the commenter was “revealed” is, in my view, much more problematic than the content of the comments… but that is another story.)

The second is that it could be argued that there was a public interest in the information revealed by the comments, with the consequence that the commenter could be afforded the status of a “whistleblower”. This could either wholly or partly undermine any disciplinary case against Mr Corcoran, depending upon whether he revealed any “confidential” information that was not connected to the “wrongdoing” that he was seeking to expose.

With these factors in mind, I would be inclined to dismiss all disciplinary charges against Mr Corcoran. However, I am not in possession of all of the relevant facts… though I strongly suspect that the same could be said of the delegates to the AC.

Not even delegates to the AC know what this ‘case’ is all about. This is why we want to publish something related to the court papers. Almost 3 years ago we learned that Corcoran was merely ‘collateral damage’ caught in the net at a time many EPO employees spoke about abuses and passed material around. The fishing expedition, which involved illegal surveillance, chose the poor judge as somewhat of a scapegoat to be demonised (portrayed as a violent Nazi) and made an example of. It’s like a long-lost twin brother of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan now runs the Office; the modus operandi is a reign of terror, totally unfitting within the context of Bavarian culture (Battistelli is an Italian name and he comes from Corsica).

Battistelli Feels as Though He’s Above the Law, So No Wonder He Pursues Software Patents in Europe (Against the Rules)

Posted in Europe, Patents at 2:07 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Days ago: The EPO Has Found ‘Creative’ New Ways to Bribe the Media and Promote Software Patents

Software patents under the European Patent Convention
Reference: Software patents under the European Patent Convention

Summary: Using the fairly new buzzword, “4IR”, the EPO continues to promote software patents, conjoined with other three-letter buzzwords (“ICT”, “CII” and so on) and nothing is being said about the latest scandals, which the EPO is eager to prevent anyone knowing about

THE EPO has not yet said anything about last week’s epic meeting.

Having published numerous 4IR “tweets” and “retweets” (almost most of Monday’s, in different languages, e.g. this one) to distract from the latest EPO scandals, now comes the chief tyrant, Battistelli, with this ‘blog’ post. (warning: epo.org link)

“They seem unable to talk about anything other than 4IR (not just today but last week too).”This has already been promoted by the EPO’s Twitter account. They seem unable to talk about anything other than 4IR (not just today but last week too).

It isn’t about a ‘study’ but about the EPO passing money for German media to hype up “4IR” everywhere. It won’t be long before terms like “evidence-based” are banned at the EPO (under Battistelli or Campinos) as they’re not interested in facts. They want the press to report only what the EPO pays for.

“They want the press to report only what the EPO pays for.”What did Battistelli say today anyway (if he wrote that ‘blog’ post at all)? He refers to software patents specifically now (those are banned), he just calls them “CII”. A few days ago we explained how “4IR” relates to that. “For the EPO as a whole,” Battistelli posted, “we will also finish implementing a significant reorganisation on 1 January so that our core structure reflects the evolutionary changes that are inherent in ICT, CII and more widely the 4IR.”

Well, on 1 January there are much bigger things happening (further attacks on staff), but Battistelli must be lacking the time to write ‘blog’ posts about that.

Against the rules and against the rights of workers, the EPO continues to stride forward (while its reputation sinks and the number of patent applications declines).

“Against the rules and against the rights of workers, the EPO continues to stride forward (while its reputation sinks and the number of patent applications declines).”The EPO retweeted someone as saying: “It’s really fantastic to hear @EPOorg President Battistelli talk about the impact their #patent landscape report on industry 4.0 is having within the patenting community…”

You just know someone is gullible when a sentence starts with “It’s really fantastic to hear EPO President Battistelli…”

Battistelli is a chronic liar. He is just trying to distract from his abuses, which were confirmed by ILO about 12 days ago. The “4IR” nonsense was, in our assessment, coordinated and also timed to help distract from ILO. Some sources claimed that the EPO had been told about the ruling of the Tribunal before it was delivered. There was another kind of distraction, posted at almost the exact same time as the live stream from ILO. We covered that too.

But all taken into account, at the end of the day life goes on at the EPO. It’s like no scandal — no matter how big — will get Battistelli punished, reprimanded, or even sacked. Europe has its very own Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

“It’s like no scandal — no matter how big — will get Battistelli punished, reprimanded, or even sacked.”A few hours ago the EPO wrote: “Experienced epi tutors from around Europe will help you prepare for the #EQE pre-examination paper 2018.”

This is the same EPI (or epi) which enjoys an ‘incestuous’ relationship with EPO management and helped snitch on those who warned about EPO abuses.

Can someone in Germany or Croatia (who speaks German or Croatian, respectively, depending on the court) fetch a file on the Patrick Corcoran case for us to publish/explain? We have the case reference number. We strive to accumulate and expose as much information as possible about this case, which is classic legal bullying (the EPO tried the same thing against yours truly).

Alice v CLS Bank (SCOTUS, 2014) Has Had a Profound Effect on 2017 as Nearly No Software Patents Upheld at a High Level

Posted in America, Law, Patents at 3:04 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), which birthed software patents, no longer wants them

The year 2014

Summary: As 2017 nears its end (less than two weeks left), a look back reveals a terrible year for proponents of software patents and a milestone for opponents of software patents

THE latest battle is won, but not yet the war. Following Alice the USPTO rejects many software patents and CAFC, the highest court below the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS), is no longer interested in software patents. It rejects these virtually all the time. Lawyers are still shaken by this de facto end/ban of software patents (in the US at least) because it harms their income. They only care about their cash register. 6 days ago a leading publication of patent lawyers wrote about it as follows:

I’m gonna weasel out and say they’re both good points. Some software patent owners do continue to press claims that might arguably have been eligible five or 10 years ago, but clearly are not any more. As of August, the Federal Circuit had summarily affirmed more than 50 ineligibility opinions, according to research by Boston University’s Paul Gugliuzza and Stanford’s Mark Lemley. By the time those cases reached appeal (and probably far sooner), those patent owners were forging ahead with slim to no chance.

On the other hand, U.S. District Judge Gregory Sleet of Delaware socked Inventor Holdings with fees for all of the litigation dating back to when the Supreme Court decided Alice v. CLS Bank in 2014.

To affirm, the Federal Circuit indulged a fictional world where the law of patent eligibility became crystal clear the day Alice was decided, at least for patent claims involving “implementations of economic arrangements using generic technology,” such as the Inventor Holdings patent.

Alice v CLS Bank was one among several relatively recent (in SCOTUS terms) decisions in which SCOTUS overturned a CAFC decision. Where CAFC had promoted/emboldened patent maximalists the Justices at SCOTUS put an end to that. Faruki Ireland Cox Rhinehart & Dusing PLL wrote about Impression v Lexmark a few days ago. It’s one among the very latest SCOTUS decisions to overturn CAFC decisions. SCOTUS is pretty clear about patents; these monopolies have gone way too far in terms of scope, venue-shifting and so on. Justices at SCOTUS recognise this. They are gradually putting an end to that.

So what has the patent microcosm got left to do? Usually finding loopholes. They try to patent software in spite of the restrictions. Here’s a new example that says: “Securing intellectual property (IP) can be a major hurdle for startups at the best of times. But software – and in particular AI — brings its own unique challenges.”

“AI” is just another buzzword and law firms try to exploit it to patent software even though software patents are pretty much banned (not officially).

How about blockchain patents? We wrote quite a lot about these earlier this year and it seems pretty clear that it’s a bubble. Well, here’s a new press release that shows the ongoing gold rush [1, 2]. Never mind if such patents are most likely void. Maybe these sneak past examiners. Maybe past PTAB, too. Maybe district courts. But CAFC is not likely to tolerate these anymore.

The times are changing. Tough time for patent maximalists, no doubt…

See what happened in Amgen v Sandoz (CAFC) some days ago:

The Federal Circuit has ruled that Sandoz did not forfeit its preemption defence and the BPCIA preempts state law remedies in its biosimilars dispute with Amgen. The decision makes clear that brand biologic companies have no remedies available against a biosimilar applicant who is refusing to engage in the patent dance

Here’s another patent maximalist weighing in:

On remand, the Supreme Court directed the Federal Circuit to determine whether the failure to provide the information and data [under § 262(l)(2)(A)] is a violation of California law of unfair competition and conversion.

In its decision here, the Federal Circuit holds that the BPCIA preempts any state laws that would create liability for failure to comply with the requirement for providing information and data.

This isn’t about § 101, but it’s still interesting as it shows a change in views. CAFC is no longer what it used to be. Not even close… Rader is out and the tune has changed.

Alice at SCOTUS (the software patents eliminator) causes trouble not only for classic patent trolls but for a variety of entities which exist solely for litigation purposes. Even Kluwer Patent Blog, which typically focuses on Europe, wrote about it four days ago:

Affirming the district court’s decision, the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court’s reasoning that, once the Supreme Court issued its decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International in June 2014. 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), the patent infringement claims were objectively without merit and should have been voluntarily withdrawn.

This is the effect of Alice. The patent microcosm tries to ‘scandalise’ Alice, but it was a rational and long-overdue decision. The CCIA’s Josh Landau, writing in Patent Progress 3 days ago, tackled the use of the term “Alice Storm” — a term which is being spread by proponents of software patent (who still try to ‘scandalise’ SCOTUS).

Landau said this:

You might be familiar with Bob Sachs’ term “Alice Storm.” Sachs and his co-authors over at Bilski Blog argue that “Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank has had a dramatic impact on the allowability of computer implemented inventions.”

I disagree, and some newly released data from the Patent Office seems to back me up. Alice has had a limited impact overall, and much of that impact is centered on patent applications that were drafted before Alice (and her Federal Circuit children, like DDR Holdings and McRO) was decided. For the “Alice Storm”, you don’t even need an umbrella.

And on it goes…

Alice was a case of justice, not politics. It was not a “storm” but a ruling at the highest level. Don’t let the patent extremists distract from that…

CAFC was also mentioned in relation to Arendi and § 103 a few days ago. IP Watch explained that “[s]ince the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc. last August,[1] many patent commentators have asserted that the decision marked a significant change in the analysis of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, especially as a weakening of single-reference obviousness grounds. Notwithstanding this decision, petitioners and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board have continued to rely on single-reference obviousness to assert and find that claims are obvious.”

Well, the the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which we covered in the previous post, has become an Alice-enforcing mechanism and more generally a SCOTUS-enforcing mechanism. SCOTUS will likely cement PTAB’s role in the new year. That’s the consensus even among PTAB foes.

And speaking of PTAB foes, the most anti-PTAB site, Watchtroll, has just promoted this long new article from Gene Quinn, who is speaking to the choir (comments are pro-software patents). “Software Patent Eligibility at the Federal Circuit 2017″ is his headline and it’s a long list of software patents rejections, including for example RecogniCorp, LLC v Nintendo Co. Quinn fails to reveal his bias; he starts by whining about SCOTUS and only then lists the cases:

The judicial exception at play when computer implemented inventions are claimed is the abstract idea exception. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has never defined the phrase abstract idea, and neither has the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Similarly, there is no definition for significantly more. Therefore, in practice, deciding whether a claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea and/or adds significantly more than the abstract idea has proved to be rather subjective. Notwithstanding, the United States Patent and Trademark Office has created a Quick Reference Guide based on current case law.

[...]

[On RecogniCorp, LLC v Nintendo Co.:] The patent in question, U.S. Patent No. 8,005,303, sought to encode images in a way that required less memory and bandwidth.

There’s no conclusion in this article, maybe as the conclusion would have to be that software patents are very dead at CAFC and Watchtroll does not wish to spell it out.

RecogniCorp, LLC v Nintendo Co. (Supreme Court) was also recalled by Patently-O a few days ago. There are no patents on algorithms anymore, so no ‘joy’ for RecogniCorp. That’s just the new reality. Whether patent extremists accept it or not should not matter; they’re not, after all, arbiters of law.

PTAB Helps Defend and Encourage Work by Actual Technology Companies in the US, the Patent Trolls’ Lobby is Upset

Posted in America, Law, Patents at 1:40 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Parasitic firms find it harder to troll

High Tech Inventors Alliance members

Summary: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which continues to invalidate software patents by the thousands, comes under attack from the expected sites, namely those that are fronting for patent trolls and parasites

THE appeal board/judges at the USPTO are very popular. Everyone loves them. Except parasites with low-quality patents.

The High Tech Investors Alliance, a pro-PTAB group which was created not too long ago, explains that having no potent software patents (and other low-quality patents) is a good thing. Here is what the media said some days ago:

The High Tech Investors Alliance has responded to contentions that recent legislation and US Supreme Court decisions, including the Alice Corp v CLS Bank case, have weakened the US patent system.

In an open letter, the association, whose members include Adobe, Amazon, Google and Intel, said that the facts “tell a completely different story”.

“Innovation has thrived—indeed exploded—as measured by ever significant metric. Research and development spending, venture capital investment, startup activity, and patent applications each have increased dramatically, while the US GDP has grown by a healthy 9 percent to the highest level in history,” it explained.

As usual, it’s worth checking the response from the patent extremists. Have they got any valid arguments against PTAB? Not really.

IAM continues with its anti-PTAB rhetorics, also in India, typically by speaking to maximalists. Here is what it wrote some days ago about India’s Intellectual Property Appellate Board:

In the meantime, the upshot for rights holders is that a key part of the patent system simply does not work. Essenese Obhan of Obhan & Associates calls the situation “disastrous” for patent owners, explaining: “All appeals from controller orders remain pending, as a result of which patent owners whose patents were wrongly refused by the patent office are stuck while their patent term slowly expires”. While clients can approach the court on a writ regarding opposition and revocation cases, doing so adds to their cost burden.

As a reminder, IAM keeps lobbying India for software patents. We covered examples earlier this year, for example in:

  1. China Adopts Software Patents and IAM ‘Magazine’ (Lobbyists) Continues to Shame India Into It
  2. IAM Just Can’t Stop Pushing for Software Patents in India
  3. IAM ‘Magazine’ as Megaphone for Chamber of Corporates (CoC), Which Tries Shaming India Into Software Patenting
  4. IAM Helps Enemies of India’s Interests Lobby for Software Patents in the Country
  5. IAM ‘Magazine’ in a Campaign to Destroy India’s IT Industry and Help Patent Trolls There
  6. IAM is a Think Tank for Patent Trolls, Software Patents, the EPO, Microsoft, and Whoever Else is Willing to Pay
  7. The Patent Microcosm’s Failed Push for Software Patents Resurgence in the US and Similar Attempts in India and China

Over at Managing IP, another site of patent maximalists, Fitzpatrick was entertained with a so-called ‘study’ (likely biased because of the firm behind it). To quote:

For the first time, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has upheld the majority of claims in IPR proceedings for four consecutive quarters, a Fitzpatrick 2016 study reveals

They are trying to promote the illusion that PTAB is getting weaker, probably in an effort to attract more business.

Patently-O, another site of patent maximalists, said this a few days ago: “Post-AIA patent applications are now trickling up to the PTAB in ex parte appeals from examiner rejections. In the recent decision Ex Parte Kirk, APPEAL 2017-003486, (Patent Tr. & App. Bd. Oct. 26, 2017), the Board affirmed an examiner’s obviousness rejection based upon the combination of a 102(a)(1) reference (an application published prior to Kirk’s effective filing date) and a 102(a)(2) reference (an application published subsequent to Kirk´s effective filing date, but filed prior to that date). In the appeal, the Board did not expressly consider the propriety of applying 102(a)(2) references to the obviousness analysis. See also, Ex Parte Linkedin Corp., APPEAL 2017-005043 (Patent Tr. & App. Bd. Sept. 25, 2017).”

PTAB is certainly working as hard as ever and is doing the right thing. It also eliminates many software patents. To quote the latest examples, courtesy of the pro-software patents Patent Buddy:

  • PTAB Affirms Examiner’s Rejection under 101 in another patent directed to Tracking Technology: https://storage.googleapis.com/pbf-prod/pdfs/2017-12-07_14699105_175209.pdf … [link]
  • PTAB Affirms Examiner’s Rejection of Correlation Software Patent Application under 101/Alice: https://storage.googleapis.com/pbf-prod/pdfs/2017-12-07_10119995_175211.pdf … [link]
  • PTAB Affirms Examiner’s Rejection of Peer-to-Peer Claims in an Apple Patent Application under 101/Alice: https://storage.googleapis.com/pbf-prod/pdfs/2017-12-07_12286488_175213.pdf … [link]

The next post, which is about Alice, will show that software patents are weaker than ever. They’re basically being revoked even if they were granted before Alice. Thanks to PTAB for the most part…

Patent Misconceptions Promoted in Media Dominated by the Patent Microcosm, Not Actual Innovators

Posted in Deception, Patents at 12:41 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Wong way

Summary: Examples from the media where popular myths have been promoted over the past few days, taking advantage of passivity and silence among those who actually create and invent

THE POPULAR media does not always inform readers/watchers. There’s agenda to pass along and it dominates broadcast/papers. As we have been saying for years, it’s rare to see actual technologists writing about patents; instead, it’s typically law firms that do so.

Some days ago we saw this press release [1, 2] about new videos. To quote the opening paragraph:

Prof. John Rizvi, Esq, renowned AV-rated and one of the first board certified patent lawyers in the United States, and creator of the inventor platform, The Patent Professor®, has released a groundbreaking educational animation video library designed to simplify arcane and complex aspects of patent law for entrepreneurs seeking to accelerate and win patent approval with the United States Patent Office (USPTO) for their ideas.

So what we have here is once again patent lawyers. They try to get the message across.

Over at Watchtroll, Shai Jalfin published an article on Friday and it was about cross-licensing — a practice by which 2 or more very large companies cooperate to exclude smaller rivals, in essence bringing together patent portfolios to erect a bigger fence and ensure no litigation among them. Jalfin himself admits that “the duopoly profit attained by cross-licensing can be greater than the profit from a monopoly scenario.” So yes, it’s about exclusion and domination. To quote:

According to a study conducted by the Boston University School of Law, in 2011 patent litigation by so-called patent trolls cost US software and hardware companies a staggering $29 billion. Although that staggering figure has been discredited, few seriously doubt the reality that patent enforcement through litigation campaigns create risk for technology users and imposes a financial burden on industry. Even more modest assessments suggest a figure that is still over $7 billion.

One of the most common motivations, therefore, for cross-licensing agreements is to avoid spending valuable resources on suing and counter-suing for alleged patent infringement. Cross-licensing allows companies to reach an out-of-court settlement in which they barter their respective IP value and rights. The infringer/competitor now becomes an ally.

But cross-licensing is not just a barter to fend off intellectual property lawyers or reduce licensing fees – it can and should be the basis of forward-looking alliances that encourage knowledge flow and spur post-licensing innovations. Studies have shown that the duopoly profit attained by cross-licensing can be greater than the profit from a monopoly scenario.

“A patent gives a right of ownership on the invention,” said another new blog post from the patent microcosm, but a patent is a monopoly, it is not an ownership. The blog post is titled “All you need to know about patents and how to protect your idea,” but it’s full of misconceptions too. From the introduction:

A patent gives a right of ownership on the invention. As an inventor, a patent gives you the exclusive right to control uses of your invention. You can either stop others from making, using or selling your invention without your permission, or you can choose to commercialise your right by letting them use your invention for a fee.

We saw some other examples in recent days, including “Meet the Patents: Where Signiant Leads, Others Follow” and “Patent Power 2017″ from IEEE, which merely helps the large monopolies with patent glorification such as this. To quote:

Two household names—Amazon and eBay—are new additions to this year’s Patent Power Scorecards. It’s not that they hadn’t had valuable patent portfolios previously, but they had been omitted because their primary industry was retailing, which fell outside the tech-sector scope of the scorecards. However, as Amazon has branched out into Web services, its patent portfolio has become increasingly dominated by patents related to technologies such as networking infrastructure, Web transactions, and server hardware. The same is true for eBay, making both companies a natural fit for the Communication/Internet Services scorecard. Indeed, Amazon enters the scorecard straight into first place, knocking Google off the top spot. This makes Amazon the first company ever to rank ahead of Google in the Communication/Internet Services scorecard.

IEEE (Spectrum in this case) has long been problematic when it comes to patents. We wrote a great deal about that. It also promoted software patents.

The lack of objective coverage regarding patents (not attempting to sell services etc.) is a serious problem as it serves to reinforce profound misunderstandings.

12.17.17

Raw: Benoît Battistelli Has Long Been Obsessed With ‘Alternative Facts’ (Lying) Regarding Everything

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 9:00 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Even strike figures and so-called ‘production’ (the EPO also lies about the protests’ turnout, e.g. last week when Christoph Ernst “apparently preferred to rely on Mr Battistelli’s “alternative facts”,” as SUEPO pointed out)

Battistelli Alternative Facts

Summary: The chronic lying by Battistelli’s EPO goes way back and reveals a total lack of integrity, shedding doubt on just about any statement issued by the Office

Raw: At the EPO “Social Democracy” is Actually a Euphemism for Authoritarian Regime

Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:44 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

SNTV at EPO

Summary: An old document about the EPO‘s transition to so-called ‘social’ ‘democracy’ and what that means in practical terms

More on EPO “Social Democracy”:

Battistelli’s ‘UPC Buddy’ Michel Barnier Helped Squash EU Intervention in Dysfunctional (Subverted by Battistelli) Administrative Council

Posted in Europe, Patents at 8:17 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The three Frenchmen

The three Frenchmen

Summary: A look back at how Michel Barnier helped cover Battistelli’s back, insisting that the Commission cannot do anything to rectify matters at the EPO (Elżbieta Bieńkowska, another UPC proponent, said something similar later)

Question from Nikolaos Chountis:

Subject: Relations between the European Union and the European Patent Office

According to reports in the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung, the administration of the European Patent Office has adopted internal operating rules that, inter alia, call into question basic democratic and trade union rights, such as the right to strike and the right to union representation. More specifically, according to the newspaper, workers’ right to strike is subject to the approval of the head of the European Patent Office, an arrangement that essentially abolishes any union freedom.

Given that the European Patent Office has a special and unique legal status and also has specific institutional relations with the European Union, will the Commission say:
1. Can it confirm these reports?
2. What is the regime governing relations between the European Patent Office and the European Union? What opportunities does it have to ensure that this unacceptable anti-labour regime finally ceases?

This is about Battistelli’s regime.

Fellow Frenchman and UPC lobbyist Michel Barnier then weighed in:

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

1. The Commission is aware of the press reports concerning the changes in the internal rules of the European Patent Office (EPO) affecting inter alia the staff representation. The Commission, however, is not in a position to assess the content of these reports as the EPO is a body of the European Patent Organisation — an international organisation established by the European Patent Convention (EPC) and entirely separate from the European Union. The privileges and immunities of the employees of the EPO are defined in Article 8 of the EPC and the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities annexed to the EPC. Further internal rules establishing the conditions of employment within the EPO also apply.

2. The European Union is an observer at the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation but the relations between the two organisations are not governed by any formal agreement.

The Commission strongly believes in active social policy and of course expects full respect of all employment rights at all times.

6 suicides later and 3 years down the line there’s neither UPC (which Barnier and Battistelli lobbied hard for) nor employment rights (and possibly no future for the EPO, either). Battistelli is only in the EU when it suits him; the photo at the top is revealing, showing Barnier, Campinos and Battistelli with EU flags everywhere. Battistelli also uses the law only when it suits him, e.g. to bully/taunt a judge in several courts (at great personal cost to this judge).

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channels: Come and chat with us in real time

New to This Site? Here Are Some Introductory Resources

No

Mono

ODF

Samba logo






We support

End software patents

GPLv3

GNU project

BLAG

EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com



Recent Posts