post

UPC Puff Piece in the Scottish Media is Just an Advertisement by Marks & Clerk


When moneyed interests dominate the media

Marks & Clerk

Summary: Advertising in the form of an ‘article’ (complete with self-serving bias and falsehoods) in The Scotsman today, courtesy of Team UPC

Marks & Clerk is a large firm, apparently large enough to also occupy the media. Over the years we have shown how the EPO corrupted the media (paying it money) and noted that patent law firms totally dominated coverage about patents, either directly (as authors) or indirectly (quoted extensively by authors, usually to the exclusion of those actually impacted). It’s the same problem in the US media, where the patent office gradually improves.

“It’s hard not to get bitter when stuff like this is done so routinely, basically routing around the public.”Not much can be done about this except openly complain about it. This morning (or last night), filed under “opinion”, the Scottish media published pure spam, not journalism, attempting to sell services rather than inform the public. It’s marketing packaged up as “news” and the promotional final words of this ‘article’ say: “If the UK was to end up outside of the Unitary Patent regime, Marks & Clerk LLP would still be able to apply for Unitary Patents for its clients via its offices in Europe.”

Is this what major news [sic] papers have sunk to? Even national press, not just local media? Suffice to say, being an ‘article’ (informecial) from Marks & Clerk, it paints UPC as desirable in spite of opposition from British software firms. It’s hard not to get bitter when stuff like this is done so routinely, basically routing around the public.

‘David Moreland is a Chartered (UK) and European Patent Attorney for Marks & Clerk,” it says. They are proponents of software patents, which isn’t at all surprising (all of Team UPC is promoting these too and the UPC is a Trojan horse for this agenda).

Here are some excepts:

Will our relationship with the EPO change when we’re no longer part of the EU? Contrary to misconceptions, the EPO is not an EU institution. It has EU members amongst its signatory countries, but there are non-members too – Switzerland, for example.

Companies which have patents granted by the EPO then need to have those patents validated in each country in which they want protection.

[…]

But now there is a new spanner in the works. An anonymous party has recently filed a case with the German Constitutional Court which essentially suggests ratifying the agreement would be against the German constitution. The German Constitutional Court has determined that on the face of it, the challenge is not entirely without merit, and asked the German President to delay signing the implementing legislation for the Unified Patent Court and Unitary Patent court. This ensures that ratification does not take place before a full determination of the constitutionality of the legislation has been made. Whether the complaint is upheld remains to be seen; however any attempt to block the legislation will, at the very least, delay it.

They keep using the word “delay” as if, without even knowing the nature of the complaint and where it came from, they are already certain about the outcome. That’s what Team UPC just keeps doing to bias the outcome.

When will we finally see some real journalism about the UPC? We last wrote about utter lack of it in British media only about 24 hours ago.



Source link: http://techrights.org/2017/07/17/team-upc-in-scottish-media/

post

Lobbying Against the US Supreme Court’s Landmark Decision (Alice) by Bristows, IBM, David Kappos, IPO, ABA, AIPLA, Adam Mossoff and Kevin Madigan


They want software patents back and they work hard to mislead politicians on it, sometimes under the guise/pretense of “academia”

A stacked panel
Echo chamber-like panels (“stacked” by their own admission) designed to talk about how wonderful software patents are

Summary: Using paid-for lobbyists and influence that’s up for sale, companies such as IBM set up events and initiatives to compel politicians to change Section 101, gut patent progress, and basically give patent aggressors a free rein

THE one article we were extremely eager to publish (for over a month now) pertains to the efforts to overturn Alice or at least compel the US patent office to ignore it.

A lot has happened since we intended to publish this (pending some more fact-checking and research), including the pushing forth of a bill. Watchtroll, for example, has moved on to other matters and it’s almost as though the lobbying effort completely lost steam by now. Nevertheless, we want to keep documented what happened around the month of May (and to a lesser degree June). There are malicious forces at play and they desperately try to undo all the patent progress, having already chased away the Director of the USPTO. Will they be back at it? We certainly think so.

“There are malicious forces at play and they desperately try to undo all the patent progress, having already chased away the Director of the USPTO.”IP Kat used to be a good blog, but we hardly cite it anymore. It has become terrible. It’s used for marketing and agenda-pushing. It plays a role in some of the most regressive activities. A longtime proponent of software patents (not that she ever wrote any software), Annsley Merelle Ward from Bristows, attacked the US patent system over Section 101 — essentially the means for invalidating software patents these days. She piggybacked a bunch of people who lobby against Section 101 (or lobby to water it down). “His heightened sense of alarm stems from a concern that America’s patent system has been going in the wrong direction while other patent systems have been improving,” she wrote. Pure nonsense. If anything, the US patent system is improving! Quality is up, lawsuits are down.

IP Kat, now effectively run by Bristows’ liars as far as patent coverage is concerned, goes further by calling AIPLA (pressure group of the patent microcosm) something that it’s not, in order to give its ‘views’ (financial agenda) legitimacy. There were many examples of this back in June, e.g. [1, 2, 3]. Is this what IP Kat boils down to now? A mouthpiece for AIPPI/AIPLA? Thrice in June alone (so far, based on a quick ‘literature’ survey) Bristows exploited the blog for marketing or lobbying by patent maximalists. This may sound benign, but considering what AIPLA has been up to recently, it’s anything but benign. The US Supreme Court is under attacks from these think tanks and pressure groups (like AIPLA), primarily for stopping software patents with Alice (2014). See this article titled “AIPLA releases Section 101 legislative proposal” (one among several such reports). AIPLA, a pressure group, along with IBM and some other patent vultures, try to undermine the law itself. As United for Patent Reform put it at the time, “Steven Anderson of @culvers tells @HouseJudiciary that to lose #Alice “would be extremely disappointing and costly” to #smallbiz” (obviously).

IP Kat, now effectively run by Bristows’ liars as far as patent coverage is concerned, goes further by calling AIPLA (pressure group of the patent microcosm) something that it’s not, in order to give its ‘views’ (financial agenda) legitimacy.”People start to worry that the lobbying might actually work and Section 101 (in its current form) will be thwarted. Under Trump it will probably be easier to bribe politicians to ‘buy’ USPTO policies in defiance of SCOTUS. As The National Law Journal put it at the time (in its headline), “After SCOTUS Shake-Up, Lawmakers Plot Next Steps on Patent Reform” (we now know the resultant bill, which seeks to gut PTAB as well).

As is usual from IP Kat these days, comments are a lot better than the ‘articles’ (lobbying/advertising). Someone pointed out that Annsley Merelle Ward “lacks a grasp of what the subject matter in each STILL means.” Well, exactly the opposite of what she said (AIPPI/AIPLA propaganda) is true. To quote the comment:

I must take issue with the statement of:

“The incredible developments in technology – how information is created, by what technological process, how information is accessed and where it is used – means the subject matter once the purvey of the patent world has crossed into the copyright realm.”

It is not only incorrect, but troubling so, to think that that a person charted with writing on the subject does not understand that the subject matter of what patents protect and what copyright protects has “crossed into.”

The subject matter remains clearly different between the different areas of Intellectual Property protection.

What perhaps has “crossed into” (and certainly, this crossing has been going on now for many decades) is that a particular manufacture of the hand of man (as those terms are understood in the various Intellectual Property legal terrains), has multiple aspects, each of which may earn protections in the different IP areas.

This is most definitely NOT a matter of “subject matter” crossing from one IP terrain into another.

Patents still protect that which patents protect.
Copyrights still protects that which copyrights protect.

It is decidedly unhelpful to contribute to the view that somehow “subject matter” is “crossing into” one IP arena from another IP arena – and shows that the author lacks a grasp of what the subject matter in each STILL means.

Watch how Annsley Merelle Ward gets completely skewered in the comments in another one of her posts (again for distorting facts):

Terrible proposal. Assessing patent eligibilty without regard to sections 102, 103, and 112 is absurd. This allows completely ineligible subject-matter to become patentable simply by including a conventional and known piece of apparatus e.g. a computer doing something that can be performed solely in the human mind. It should be the new and non-obvious subject-matter that is assessed for patent eligibility.

And here is another:

Your post contains so many legal (and factual) errors that I scarcely know where to begin.

First, subject matter eligibility and patentability are separate concepts.

Second, the US law – as established by the Act of 1952 broke apart 101 and the other sections of law (102/103/112) for a reason. That reason is exactly the same reason that the current legislative suggestions are coming forth.

Third, eligibility remains something determined for a claim as a whole, so the notion that ineligible subject-matter now “becomes eligible” has nothing to do with the legislative changes – your “concern” already IS the law in the US. The easiest example of this is the Diehr case, where everything in that case was old, except for the use of a computerized math equation. The important aspect was that the math equation was there in the sense of applied math. Your over-stated concern of “a computer doing something” is exactly the type of thing that patent law was meant to protect. It was, is, and will remain a question (for eligiblity) as to WHAT the “doing” is, and whether that “doing” falls into the realm of patent protection of the Useful Arts.

Fourth, your position denigrates the factual situation that the known and conventional piece of apparatus is in fact improved. US patent law allows for improvement patents. In fact, a very large percentage of patents are of the improvement patent type. Your view exhibits the fallacy known in the US as the House/Morse fallacy. A television show called House has a protagonist that believed that only the first computer should have been patentable and that all improvements (via software) belonged to that first inventor. This though is the opposite of the US case of Morse which held that all future improvements were NOT captured by a first (grand) invention.

Fifth, your view ignores the actual factual state of what software is. Software is a manufacture (in the legal sense, as it is a fabrication by the hand of man intended to be a machine component). That is the nature of what software is, and always has been. It is a “ware” that is soft, or easily modified, changed, reconfigured, and the like. In the patent sense, this “ware” is every bit a patent-equivalent to other “wares” i.e., hard and firm “wares.” There is nothing that can be claimed as a software invention that also could not be set completely in hardware.

Sixth, you conflate 102/103 with 101, and this conflation evidences an attempt to apply 101 on some per element basis. This gets each and every section of US law wrong.

I could continue, but I hope that you see the error in your views by now.

This would probably be excusable as gullibility if the author hadn’t spent years gleefully promoting software patents. The matter of fact is, all the above is pure lobbying and it’s happening right here in the UK.

Over in the US, things are just as bad because the patent microcosm (Jeff Lindsay‏ in this case) resorts to alarmist tone: “Many patents being allowed in Europe &China are rejected as ineligible in US, a sign of trouble in USPTO & SCOTUS.…”

So?

That’s a good thing, no?

“This would probably be excusable as gullibility if the author hadn’t spent years gleefully promoting software patents.”Well, not for a “patent agent” like Mr. Lindsay‏. High patent quality is not “trouble” and Watchtroll promoting a right wing corporate think tank is hardly shocking (that’s what Mr. Lindsay links to). The latest among all those think tanks involves Adam Mossoff, a pro-trolls academic who spoke of “Dave Kappos @ IIPCC conf on patents & innovation: the 101 situation is not improving, it has at best only stabilized in a terrible space” (yes, he calls David Kappos “Dave” as if this lobbyist is a buddy of his).

As can be expected, the company that hires these lobbyists, IBM, was there too. Mossoff wrote that “@MannySchecter @ IIPCC conf on patents & innovation: legal uncertainty is enemy of R&D & #innovation, & massive legal uncertainty today” (Schecter is IBM’s patent chief). Nice lobbying platform you got there. IAM helped with this article:

US businesses deal with devastating effects of SCOTUS decisions; support grows for subject matter reform bill

[…]

In March, a paper by Adam Mossoff and Kevin Madigan from George Mason law school analysed a dataset of 1,400 patent applications, finding marked differences between patent eligibility in the US compared with Europe and China.

By their own admission, this is a “stacked” panel (lacking anyone from the other side of the argument). To quote, “@JackBarufka of @pillsburylaw moderating the stacked Section 101 panel #GWIP pic.twitter.com/kt1hAO65IM”

“Watchtroll and IP Kat are symptoms of a problem. They are figureheads in the fight against Section 101.”As a reminder, the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO), the American Bar Association’s (ABA) IP section and the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) play a big role in this, aided by Adam Mossoff and Kevin Madigan in “scholar” clothing. IPO and IBM even created a “task force” for this. They actively support sites like Watchtroll.

Watchtroll and IP Kat are symptoms of a problem. They are figureheads in the fight against Section 101. They are not only smearing SCOTUS (Watchtroll and his sidekicks) but are also insulting their own country. “America’s patent system favors low tech, not groundbreaking innovation,” said one recent headline from Watchtroll. So says a man who doesn’t invent anything and just attacks anyone (even judges) who applies patent law and issues a judgment based on the rules. Here is another example of Watchtroll posts. It says that “patent analytics software can be utilized to assess the corporate patent portfolio on an asset-by-asset basis, by technology or product focus, and within the context of a broader IP landscape.” Seriously? Letting some machine do an in-depth analysis of the underlying concepts? Pure science fiction. Like that stuff Battistelli tends to fall for…

“It’s not clear if all that lobbying will lead them anywhere, but unless their actions are properly scrutinised and the culprits get named and shamed, they might actually make headway for their own selfish interests (disguised as “innovation” or whatever).”Here is Watchtroll using terms like “piracy” and “patent owner” to further perturb the debate.

It’s not clear if all that lobbying will lead them anywhere, but unless their actions are properly scrutinised and the culprits get named and shamed, they might actually make headway for their own selfish interests (disguised as “innovation” or whatever).



Source link: http://techrights.org/2017/07/10/swpats-lobby-guise-of-academia/

post

EPO’s Elodie Bergot Calls Staff Suicide Just ‘Passing Away’, Pretends to Care


All that these Battistelli cronies care about is their bank accounts

EPO on suicide

Summary: How the EPO continues to mislead if not lie to staff, even when staff commits suicide — a growing problem for Team Battistelli, whom some insiders hold accountable for these deaths

THERE have been many suicides associated with the EPO (more than the management cares to admit) and a televised programme already linked at least some of them to the reign of terror.

The EPO’s official “news” section, Battistelli’s “blog” and so on are mum on the latest incident, resorting instead to mass distraction. The EPO has been saying almost nothing substantial in Twitter for almost two days now! At all! This is atypical. It’s often active even during weekends (at a lower capacity). So what is going on?

Blackout.

“The EPO has been saying almost nothing substantial in Twitter for almost two days now!”Not only have they said nothing about the UPC barriers in Germany, but they are saying absolutely nothing about an important incident. Remember when someone jumped out the window during working hours? Well, the EPO’s management denied the national/local authorities even access to the site for investigation. One might expect this in Russia or in China, not rich cities in Germany or the Netherlands. Well, the puff pieces continue to flow in, distracting from the real news. See Wednesday’s “news” about the EPO [1, 2]. Despicable distraction, sometimes paid for by the EPO. What about legal press? Well, published in the German media was this new piece about the Constitutional complaint against the UPC. Siegfried Broß, a retired judge who famously compared — on German television and elsewhere — the EPO under Battistelli to Guantánamo Bay (a torture camp) and occasionally combats the UPC on Constitutional grounds, once again emerges.

“At the EPO, the above message was circulated by Elodie Bergot, the wife of Battistelli’s friend.”But nowhere can one find information about an untimely death. At the EPO, the above message was circulated by Elodie Bergot, the wife of Battistelli’s friend. She leaves out one very important detail: it was a suicide, the latest one of many. Lie by omission? That wouldn’t be the first from Team Battistelli.

Either way, we did not want to publish any personal details or something substantial about the incident, but the details are already trickling out through social media, comments, etc. That’s just the nature of the Internet nowadays. IP Kat had a comment posted yesterday, after people had sent messages to us and gave us more details (we chose not to publish these because of the grieving family). “New suicide at EPO: male examiner in his 50s, one kid,” said the first comment, soon to be followed by: “It seems that it was a UK national this time. Maybe the UK delegation will finally start to wake up…”

We assume many people already speak about this, so our wishes to suppress personal information would not be successful anyway. Elodie Bergot tactlessly named the person, telling all staff about what they already knew (or will soon know) was suicide.

To be fair, Sean Dennehey (head of the UK delegation until recently), unlike his predecessor, did antagonise Battistelli’s proposals and we certainly hope that his successor, Tim Moss, will do the same next week and onwards. Battistelli has a lot of “blood on his hands” (so to speak) and he needs to go immediately. The man is acting like a gangster, not a charismatic boss, and his surname too is associated with the Mafia where he came from. Inside the Office he is treated like a leper to stay away from.

“Battistelli has a lot of “blood on his hands” (so to speak) and he needs to go immediately.”Take note of this latest that says, “as indicated earlier today, another of our colleagues committed suicide yesterday. This is the fifth colleague in a few years. How many of us will die or be ill for months or the rest of their life before this regime ends? When will the outside world firmly condemn what is happening? Merpel, that also means reporting on the situation to inform the public. Remaining silent when people die is not the best way to show support.”

Another one added: “IPKat fluff filter malfunction or is someone trying to suppress the fact that the most recent EPO suicide was a British national?”

As we pointed out several times so far this year (e.g. [1, 2]), post-Merpel IP Kat is actively helping Battistelli, not just with the UPC push.

“As experts have repeatedly pointed out, it can’t be excused as just routine or statistically normal; the number of suicides at the EPO is disproportionately high and it grew by about one order of magnitude under Battistelli.”For people who wish to know more details, we have blurred the above public message to protect identities. It shows how the EPO reported this to staff. What the EPO did not bother telling staff is that this examiner committed suicide (it happened in Munich, by jumping under a train).

Apparently that’s just the kind of effect the Battistelli regime may have on people. As experts have repeatedly pointed out, it can’t be excused as just routine or statistically normal; the number of suicides at the EPO is disproportionately high and it grew by about one order of magnitude under Battistelli. A tenfold increase is not ignorable. Given the mental torture which is prevalent under Battistelli and has been thoroughly documented over the years, culpability too may be provable (if there was no immunity).



Source link: http://techrights.org/2017/06/21/staff-suicides-and-distractions/

post

Appalling Press Coverage Regarding the Unitary Patent (UPC)


Dave Croston in Financial Director
One example of plenty more fake news about the UPC (e.g. [1, 2, 3]), courtesy of those who stand to profit from legal Armageddon

Summary: How the media has lied (and keeps lying) about the UPC, which the European public neither needs nor wants, putting aside serious constitutional issues that are associated with the UPC

PUTTING ASIDE the issue of UPC censorship/deletionism in the mediaa subject we explored here before — we continue to see a lot of EPO-leaning spin in the wake of Germany’s barrier to the UPC [1, 2, 3]. It’s more obnoxious than anything that the same people who conspired in secret to create this mess are now dominating the media, hijacking blogs, deleting comments, and telling off people who contradict or debunk their propaganda.

Watch this new piece titled “Germany delay probably not the end of the UPC — a piece which extensively quotes people with financial stake in the UPC. It quotes Team UPC’s Wouter Pors a lot, for example: “Wouter Pors, head of Bird & Bird’s IP practice in the Netherlands, explained that the Bundesverfassungsgericht has the authority to issue an order blocking the president from signing in a law.”

Where are the opponents of the UPC? They were not even approached for a comment. There is zero balance there. People who want to profit using the UPC (at the expense of everybody else) refuse to believe it’s dead; that’s hardly surprising. Where are the voice of reasons though? Totally omitted from this article, as usual…

Looking around for more coverage of this, we are finding little less than sites controlled if not owned by patent law firms. In fact, patent firms that actively wage a coup (to replace the current system with the UPC) are dominating all the blogs and some responded to the breakdown with potentially paid-for placements like these [1, 2] from William Fry and CMS Hasche Sigle.

One former Kat said that “it could be” the end of the UPC, but that’s just because he tends to be more honest than most and he occasionally links to us regarding the UPC (albeit he does not agree with the relatively abrasive tone).

Almost all UPC opponents prefer to remain anonymous and it’s easy to see why. They don’t want to receive abuse. A German complaint was filed anonymously, but we think we know who filed it. Character assassination would ensue of the identity of the complainant was known.

Now that Germany must decide whether the UPC is constitutional at all (it’s not, for reasons we covered here before), one person said he expects a “decision in perhaps 6 or 12 months.”

That’s a very long time. To quote in full: “A few people have asked about timing. From what I gather the Court proceedings have already been expedited, which means a decision in perhaps 6 or 12 months. Still before the date of Brexit but getting uncomfortably close.”

“Remember that Spain raised this very complaint (incompatibility of the UPCA with EU law),” said another comment. It’s part of an ongoing discussion (in uncensored comments) about the legality of the UPC (or absence thereof). Reproduced below are the relevant comments in case IP Kat (i.e. someone like Bristows) decides to ‘vanish’ them: [G&P refers to Gordon and Pascoe]

Firstly, the current UPC Agreement is the only one currently on the table. There is no amended Agreement, and there may never be.

Secondly, if the current Agreement does not comply with EU law (because, as argued by G&P, it is incapable of creating a court that forms “part of the national legal order” of EU Member States), then it would be irresponsible to bring it into force… as it would be unworkable from the off.

Also, just because the UPCA Member States are all currently EU Member States, it does not necessarily follow that the UPC (under the current UPCA) will form “part of the national legal order” of the EU Member States. Indeed, it would be absurd if the status of the Member States was the only relevant factor.

For example, why should the UK’s departure from the EU suddenly remove the UPC from the national legal order of other EU Member States? Conversely, why should the mere fact that all signatories are EU Member States mean that an international agreement is capable of creating a court forming part of the national legal order of those states? Does there not need to be something more than just a common status of the participants to properly “embed” the UPC in the national legal order?

Remember that Spain raised this very complaint (incompatibility of the UPCA with EU law) in one of their cases – and that complaint was only dismissed because it was inadmissible, not because it was wrong.

“Secondly, if the current Agreement does not comply with EU law (because, as argued by G&P, it is incapable of creating a court that forms “part of the national legal order” of EU Member States), then it would be irresponsible to bring it into force… as it would be unworkable from the off.”

Indeed it would, if that were correct. Except that this is not quite what G&P are saying. There is more than one way to provide the safeguards required in order to comply with EU law.

One is if the UPC itself were part of the national legal order of the contracting EU member states. Article 267 TFEU and the rest of EU law would then apply directly, with no need to say more. But it isn’t, as you point out. As stated by G&P it’s an international agreement, and the fact that it is common to the contracting EU member states doesn’t change that.

So the way in which the current UPCA provides the necessary safeguards is by stating explicitly that the UPC is common to a number of EU Member States (Article 1). And by imposing obligations on the UPC as a court common to those EU Member States (Articles 20-23). Including an obligation to make references to the CJEU in accordance with Article 267. (See G&P paragraph 15).

This is not a direct application of EU law (including Article 267 TFEU), but instead it hard-codes the same obligations into the UPC itself.

The other side of the coin (currently) is that the CJEU automatically has jurisdiction to receive references and decide questions of EU law, because the UPC is common to a number of EU Member States, and the CJEU has jurisdiction over all those Member States. No need to hard-code anything.

However, this current form of the UPCA needs amendment after Brexit. G&P’s proposed amendments keep the hard-coded obligations, but adapt them to the new situation that one of the contracting states is no longer an EU Member State. As previously, this is not a direct application of Article 267 etc.

Unfortunately the CJEU would no longer have jurisdiction automatically, as its jurisdiction is limited to EU Member States (G&P paragraphs 80, 84, 85). This is why G&P say that a separate agreement is needed, with the EU as a party. The CJEU’s jurisdiction also now needs hard-coding.

One minor point: is it not a little odd that there are references in Articles 21 and 22 UPCA that only seem to make sense if the UPC does form part of the national legal order of the EU MSs?

For example:
“as part of their judicial system” (Art. 21);
“as any national court”; and
“in accordance with Union law concerning non-contractual liability of Member States for damage caused by their national courts breaching Union law”.

It appears to me that the drafters of the UPCA tried hard to create a “Benelux-type” court that the CJEU’s Opinion 1/09 indicated was OK. But now it seems necessary to argue that the drafters were unsuccessful in their efforts, and that the UPC complies with EU law by way of a novel mechanism.

I can at least concede that the UPC is very obviously different from the Benelux Court. This is not least because the UPC is an alternative to the national courts, rather than a court that is “plugged in” to the national legal systems by way of appeal / remittance links.

However, I have my doubts over whether the proposed novel mechanism for complying with Article 267 TFEU would work. That is, given that the CJEU can only accept references from “any court or tribunal of a Member State”, is there not a risk that the CJEU – despite the safeguards that you mention – would find that the UPC is not a court “of a Member State”, and thereby refuse to accept preliminary references from that court?

Of course, I do not rule out the possibility that the CJEU will find a reason why the current UPC set-up is compliant with EU law. However, as the CJEU has not yet given the system the “thumbs up”, we cannot be certain that they will do. In this respect, do you not worry that the arguments in G&P’s opinion could perhaps undermine a crucial point for EU law compliance (namely the ability for the UPC, as a court “of a Member State” to make references to the CJEU)?

More importantly, do you not worry about the risks of “going live” with a system that is not guaranteed to be compliant with EU law and where there are no guarantees that the UK can remain in that system post-Brexit? I understand the temptation to press on given that we are now so close to realising a long-held wish amongst certain sections of the IP community in Europe. Nevertheless, given the lack of guarantees on important points (especially when there are lingering, and well-reasoned doubts on those points that cannot yet be dismissed), I cannot help thinking that pressing on regardless generates huge – and frankly unacceptable – uncertainty for rights holders (and interested 3rd parties).

What we advise readers is, ignore pieces written by firms with stake in the UPC, so-called ‘reports’ (puff pieces/PR) that extensively quote those firms, and stacked panels that include liars from the EPO. Sadly, nowadays comments about the UPC are being deleted from numerous prominent blogs, but those comments which miraculously remain almost unequivocally voice pessimism about the UPC. Professionals in the field evidently don’t believe what Team UPC is saying and there are surveys that show that.



Source link: http://techrights.org/2017/06/17/fake-news-regarding-the-unitary-patent/

post

Bristows/IP Kat Still Promoting UPC and Patent Trolls, Also Accused of Deleting Comments and “Brown-nosing” Judges to Help Patent Trolls


Sucking up to a judge who helps patent trolls’ entrance into Britain

Colin Birss

Summary: Bristows LLP spends far too much time infiltrating blogs and media in pursuit of patent trolls’ and UPC agenda, at the expense of integrity of the system and accuracy of information online (some of which it is deleting once it enters the editorial process)

FORGET anything you knew and saw about EPO scandals at IP Kat. As an EPO insider put it the other day: “Bear in mind that IPKat = Bristows mouthpiece as of recently. Both pro UPC !”

We actually wrote quite a few articles (such as this one) on this demise or ‘whoring’ (to the EPO) of IP Kat. It started when the blog’s founder left and accelerated further when “Merpel” (a pseudonym used by several people) simply vanished without a trace.

“It started when the blog’s founder left and accelerated further when “Merpel” (a pseudonym used by several people) simply vanished without a trace.”Bristows, sadly, has infected quite a few blogs other than IP Kat. One other example is Kluwer Patent Blog. Mind tweets such as this one, ignoring some of the latest UPC setbacks and going along with fake news from Bristows (regarding Bristows itself!)…

The following post does not state the name of the poster (maybe Cordery or a colleague from Bristows, in which case they reference themselves as a source with an even more misleading headline that constitutes pure lobbying). To quote a passage:

According to a Bristows report, Belgium, Denmark, France, Finland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Sweden meet these requirements. Also, ‘Germany and the UK have each consented to the Protocol. (…) it appears that other countries (such as Greece, Estonia, Lithuania and Slovenia) may be in a position to enable the Provisional Application Phase to start before the summer break.’

Estonia is mentioned above because Bristows is latching onto Estonia again, in a desperate effort to show signs of life (the UPC is otherwise in a limbo).

IP Kat is killing a decade’s reputation by letting Bristows exploit it like that.”It often seems like Bristows is everywhere when it comes to the UPC and it not only spreads lies but also deletes comments that are not convenient to Bristows, the private firm that betrays its own country. Here are Bristows’ Pat Treacy and Matthew Hunt promoting a case for patent trolls in the UK, found via IAM and via the Microsoft AstroTurfing group called ACT (pretending to represent small companies for about a decade now). Have they no shame?

IP Kat, having been ‘hijacked’ by Bristows (liars and censors), is also doing this. It’s now openly promoting patent trolls using this case. Remember that Bristows has high stakes in the UPC and it promotes patent trolls in the UK for self indulgence. Here it is being accused — in the comments — of “brown-nosing” the judge, Colin Birss. To quote: “You quote Mr Birss eleven times in your post, and he even made it into the title. Looks like brown-nosing to me. No wonder UK judges become big-headed. Really, it is the judgement that counts, not the one who wrote it.”

“Look who’s on the panels: Alan Johnson (Bristows) and Michael Froehlich (EPO).”IP Kat is killing a decade’s reputation by letting Bristows exploit it like that. Some IP Kat writers have apparently already left because of it. UPC proponents certainly love this brainwash from Bristows and Christopher Weber links to it. IP Kat, or whoever is in charge of it these days, has decided to become megaphone to EPO management and Team UPC. “Disgusting” is an understatement. Here, in this two-part series [1, 2] from Eibhlin Vardy (of Stephenson Harwood) we see stacked panels which proclaim to be a discussion of UPC. They are nothing but staged lobbying events and IP Kat should have ignore these. Look who’s on the panels: Alan Johnson (Bristows) and Michael Froehlich (EPO).

Could it get any more insidious?

“As expected, censorship by Bristows et al kicks in again…”Read the fourth comment in the first part (it miraculously manahed survive the culling/censorship). “It would be nice to obtain the views of other people than from Bristows and consorts,” it said. There are many more comments to that effect, e.g. the first one here (in part 2).

As expected, censorship by Bristows et al kicks in again (we have already given several examples of that, as recently as two weeks ago). IP Kat appears to be censoring comments that are hostile towards the UPC, based on the following comment:

Tim – I agree that the missing comments have likely been “lost” for technical reasons. I very much doubt that there is any “selective editing” going on.

The part of the G&P opinion that I am thinking of is at the end of para 59:
“Whilst Article 1 of the UPCA and Article 71a of the Brussels Regulation designate the UPC as a “court common to a number of Member States”, we do not consider that such secondary legislation is capable of converting the UPC’s fundamental status as an international court into that of a court which is part of the national legal order”.

That seems to pretty clearly set out the position that G&P view the UPC as not being a “court common to the (EU) Member States”. Or am I missing something?

This is a key point, as my understanding is that the UPC will only retain the ability to refer questions to the CJEU if it remains part of the (national) legal order of EU Member States… which it can only do by being a court common to EU Member States. The participation of a non-EU State would seem to rather throw a spanner in the works on that point.

This was said in response to the following comment (reproduced in case of retroactive deletion):

Gordon and Pascoe conclude that the UPC is not “a court common to the Contracting Member States”.

I’ve not gone back to check, but I don’t think that’s quite what they said. They did acknowledge that there would need to be some changes to the definitions and wording around “Member State” and “Contracting Member State”.

At the moment, the definitions in Article 2 UPCA say that a
“Contracting Member State” is a Member State party to the UPCA itself. The suggestion is that the UK could remain as a contracting state party to the UPCA, with those changes to the wording and given the necessary political will.

However, Article 2 also defines a “Member State” as an EU Member State. I think that’s why changes to the wording would be needed.

Proof, in the past I’ve also had posts that just disappeared. I’ve come to the conclusion that it happens when I make a long post that includes HTML tags. If I get the HTML syntax wrong, the error message is very small and tucked away at the top of the post. In a long post, you can’t see it unless you scroll up looking for it, and it is easy to assume that the post was successful.

And prior to this someone said: “Two days on and no one has rushed to counter the proposition that either the UK cannot stay in the UPC post-Brexit or the UPC Agreement is incompatible with EU law. Does this mean that either everyone agrees with that proposition or that no one who disagrees has noticed it?”

People are difficulties leaving comments. Here is another:

Hmmmn. Can’t think what was wrong with my comments that (twice) failed to reach this thread. Let me try again, with a bit of rephrasing.

The article states that “Now, the general consensus seems to be that the UK can participate even after it leaves the EU”. But what is meant here by “the general consensus”? Is it the consensus of all informed practitioners or instead the majority view amongst regular commentators on the UPC? I suspect the latter, not least because I have never heard of any survey seeking views on this point. If my suspicion is correct, then I would caution against using phrases such as “the general consensus”, particularly in view of the fact that regular commentators on the UPC are a pretty self-selecting (and likely unrepresentative) group.

There is another aspect of all this that puzzles me even more, though.

Before the Brexit vote and the Gordon and Pascoe opinion, the “general consensus” was quite the opposite of what it is now alleged to be. But how is it that the consensus amongst regular commentators on the UPC has performed such an astonishing volte face when there has (to my knowledge) been so little attention paid to the key arguments that underpin the rather surprising conclusion in the Gordon and Pascoe opinion?

It appears to me that there are two main possibilities here. The first is that Gordon and Pascoe’s opinion is so clear, persuasive and obviously correct that it has removed the scales from all of our eyes so that we can now see how wrong we were beforehand. On the other hand, the second possibility is that the desire of proponents of the UPC to believe in the conclusion has hindered detailed, critical analysis of the opinion.

Sadly, I suspect that the latter possibility is the best explanation of what has happened. This is primarily because Gordon and Pascoe’s opinion is heavily reliant upon what appears at face value to be a very counter-intuitive conclusion. That is, despite several statements to the contrary in the UPC Agreement itself (the recitals, Article 1 and Article 21), Gordon and Pascoe conclude that the UPC is not “a court common to the Contracting Member States”. Whilst I would not expect commentators to dismiss that argument out of hand, I am more than a little surprised that so little attention has been paid to the question of whether it can possibly be correct.

More worryingly, no one seems to have questioned whether, apart from the possibility of the UK remaining in the UPC post-Brexit, any further consequences might flow from Gordon and Pascoe’s conclusion. I find this particularly alarming as it seems to me that one inevitable conclusion is that the UPC Agreement would be incompatible with EU law.

The reason for my conclusion on this point is that it is only by being “a court common to the Contracting Member States” that the UPC becomes part of the EU legal order, which (amongst other things) affords it the ability to refer questions to the CJEU.

I cannot overstate the importance of this point. If Gordon and Pascoe are correct and the UPC is truly an “international” court (as opposed to part of the national legal system of various EU Member States), then it would have the same status as the Boards of Appeal of the EPO… which are of course unable to refer questions to the CJEU.

Does the “general consensus” take this consideration into account?

Another commenter said: “Is there a problem with the comments facility on this thread? My comments from 2 June and from this morning seem to have both gone astray…”

IP Kat isn’t what it used to be.”I too have had several comments of mine deleted by IP Kat, whereupon I stopped commenting altogether. This isn’t an open forum anymore and it’s clear that they omit (delete) comments based on somebody’s agenda; it doesn’t look like it’s random and it’s not due to technical issues (not all the time anyway).

IP Kat isn’t what it used to be. The sooner we recognise and accept it, the better.



Source link: http://techrights.org/2017/06/11/bristows-for-upc-and-patent-trolls/

post

‘European Media Intervention Award’ (EIA), EPO Censorship, Self-Censorship, and Paid ‘Media Partners’


Yesterday: Death of ‘IP’ Media: Front Groups of Microsoft Described as “Representing SME Developers” by Bristows

Concentration of media ownership
Reference: Concentration of media ownership (also a problem in Germany, where the largest media keeps deliberately silent about the EPO scandals)

Summary: How the multi-million Eurovision-esque lobbying event of Battistelli corrupts European media and when it does not legitimise frauds it contributes to an atmosphere of distrust in media

YESTERDAY, the EPO still tweeted plenty of links about ‘European Inventor Award’, as part of the latest expensive PR charade. This isn’t something that ordinary patent offices do; they don’t elevate one patent above another (violation of ‘patent neutrality’), they don’t waste millions of Euros of budget per year on silly, Eurovision-like ceremonies.

“This isn’t something that ordinary patent offices do; they don’t elevate one patent above another (violation of ‘patent neutrality’), they don’t waste millions of Euros of budget per year on silly, Eurovision-like ceremonies.”One thing we noticed yesterday is that Les Échos, Battistelli’s “media partner” in France, did this puff piece (and the EPO then linked to that). We already caught it censoring articles about the EPO and producing all sorts of puff pieces over the years (Battistelli later cites and quotes these puff pieces in letters that he sends). Well, such is the nature of today’s EPO. The media has been corrupted; a lot of the media that Battistelli and/or the EPO are greasing up is covering the UPC, for example, with misleading puff pieces. It has become almost as bad as IP Kat under Bristows, which exploits what’s left of this blog for marketing purposes.

Shouldn’t there be disclosures from Les Échos?

“The EPO now seeds over a million Euros in an endeavour to ‘plant’ favourable coverage.”Thankfully, we never accepted any corporate money (ever). We never will. Money corrupts coverage, even subconsciously. The other day we wrote about Brunel University London peddling snake oil that won’t work for patents and days ago we saw another puff piece about it*. This puff piece/PR is the type of corporate journalism we often condemn for being little more than marketing. It’s paid for, directly or indirectly. The EPO now seeds over a million Euros in an endeavour to ‘plant’ favourable coverage. To think otherwise is to pretend that the media has no owners and is never sponsored.
______
* In fact, the people behind it tried to contact me regarding my article (persuasion attempts), but I ignored them. I stand by my original assertions. At times, albeit not often, even EPO management sends me messages asking me to censor my articles, but these messages too I disregard as they ask for censorship and lack of accountability for what they do for Battistelli at the upper echelons (or higher floors) of EPO. The EPO is an enemy of the free press.



Source link: http://techrights.org/2017/05/09/eia17-and-media/

post

Kather Augenstein and Bristows Shift Attention to Germany in an Effort to Ram the Dying UPC Down Everyone’s Throats


Remember that Germany cannot (or won’t) ratify until/unless the UK does

Down the throat

Summary: Down the throat, hopes Team UPC, the Unitary Patent system will go, even though Britain cannot ratify, throwing the whole thing into grave uncertainty

THE UPC is all about litigation. It’s about demoting examination and rewarding the litigation ‘industry’. This is what the EPO’s scandalous management has been eager to achieve, leaving even legislation to the litigation ‘industry’ and its tentacles. It’s horrible. It’s truly horrid. How it has gotten as far it has probably merits multi-volume books.

“Is the EPO eager to leave every business in Europe vulnerable and exposed to litigation from all around the world, including troll-rich (i.e. ethically-poor) countries?”Yesterday, the EPO spoke about the “Patent Prosecution Highway” (PPH) again, which is related only indirectly to the UPC. The puff piece (caution: link to the EPO’s Web site, which means the EPO can harvest IP addresses) was titled “EPO and Eurasian Patent Office agree to launch Patent Prosecution Highway” and it’s more of that Battistelli-style self-aggrandising nonsense.

Is the EPO eager to leave every business in Europe vulnerable and exposed to litigation from all around the world, including troll-rich (i.e. ethically-poor) countries? Because that’s what the UPC would achieve.

“Why does Team UPC hate democracy, accountability, public participation and rational patent law so much?”We recently showed that Team UPC was actively lying about what had happened in Germany. It may be doing so again, starting with Kather Augenstein in its scarcely-known ‘blog’ and also Bristows. They promote this in Twitter right now. Yesterday, Mr. Weber from Kather Augenstein could be seen sucking up to Bristows in comments about patent trolls which operate in the UK — something which Bristows too likes (it’s mutual, as Bristows mentions him too) and he tweeted more of his usual stuff, pretending that the UPC is inevitable (it’s not at all), basically marketing for his employer, which uses the UPC as a marketing opportunity even if it’s a recipe for plenty of trolls in Germany (already a real and growing problem). “We hopefully we’ll [sic] all be much smarter (and working in front of the UPC) in one year,” he wrote.

Hopefully, eh? Not even hiding these antidemocratic desires anymore? Why does Team UPC hate democracy, accountability, public participation and rational patent law so much? They alienate themselves, all in the name of sheer greed.



Source link: http://techrights.org/2017/04/28/kather-augenstein-and-bristows-upc/

post

Bristows-Run IP Kat Continues to Spread Lies to Promote the Unitary Patent (UPC) and Advance the EPO Management’s Agenda


IP Kat truly seems to have been ‘taken over’ by patent maximalists who disregard balance and just try to attract business, even if that means helping Battistelli

Annsley Merelle Ward

Summary: An eclectic response to some of the misleading if not villainous responses to the UPC’s death knell in the UK, as well as other noteworthy observations about think tanks and misinformation whose purpose is to warp the patent system so that it serves law firms, for the most part at the expense of science and technology

AS EXPECTED and predicted by us (among others) yesterday, Team UPC is attempting to distract from the latest news (final nail in the UPC coffin) or spin it somehow. IAM, for example, has not yet said anything about it in its blog; instead, it is trying to discredit the analysis from IP2I about UPC and trolls, completely denying that the problem even exists (even though IAM itself mentioned it before!).

Watch Bristows’ distraction tactics this afternoon/evening, shifting attention elsewhere with “German parliament to vote on UPC privileges and immunities legislation,” having repeatedly lied about it before. No matter how much/often/many times Bristows gets caught lying (possibly even falsifying quotes), there are still fools who quote them as a source. Maybe they just “want to believe”, like alien enthusiasts…

A reader sent us a link to this new article titled “Is the UPC going to be ‘quietly dropped?’” (behind paywall). “Don’t know if you saw that,” our reader said, but it’s “quite a nice summary.”

It might help if we could actually get past the paywall, but the headline alone is quite revealing.

This post will focus on — but not be limited to — the sham that IP Kat has become more recently (past few months). A lot of our readers seem to agree with us about that. Watch how, for example, all of today’s articles (3 articles) came from Bristows. Their worker writes about her beloved patent maximalists’ event (we recently mentioned just what kind of extremist agenda it has and whose), complete with patent aggression from Microsoft, UPC propaganda from the EPO’s Margot Fröhlinger, and then some more in part 3. It’s about Fordham; it became somewhat of a pro-UPC think tank, as we showed here last year. It promotes software patents, trolls, UPC, and just about anything that the most ruthless elements out there are endorsing (and profiting from).

Not only Bristows helped amplify that toxic agenda (in Kat ‘clothing’). One can easily guess who else did this.

One person wrote from the event: “General Counsel Roundtable: IP is the lifeblood of any tech company…”

See the response from Benjamin Henrion. So a bunch of people whose business is just attacking and taxing companies compare this to a life-and-death situation (maybe to their own careers). Just look at this panel. Look who’s in it. It’s a classic example of stuffed panels (fake debates with stakeholders on one side totally absent). The poster of this is unable to recognise that, which says quite a lot about the poster. Henrion said, “an echo chamber it is called.”

The whole event is one giant echo chamber. And wait till it gets to the UPC… courtesy of… the EPO!

Here comes the drinker of Kool-Aid, stating: “Long shot or likely? Will Brexit mean that UPCA may be renegotiated so that non-EU states can join? (Per Justice Arnold again) #fordhamip”

And the above person said: “Diverse and distinguished panel to discuss #brexit effect on IP #fordhamip pic.twitter.com/I33C1T8lHB”

Diverse?

Seriously?!

These people must be on some truly strong Kool-Aid, maybe an overdose.

As Dr. Birgit Clark‏e (former Kat) put it: “The UK’s future relationship with the European Union Intellectual Property Office is a matter for negotiations with the EU” (something with which Luke McDonagh agreed, stating “Repeat ad infinitum”).

The matter of fact is, the UPC is on the rocks. It will never happen in the UK. It’s almost impossible for all sorts of reasons. Yet the UPC boosters from Managing IP say: “Inevitable that decisions of #CJEU will have persuasive value post-Brexit. Question is persuasive weight” – Mr Justice Arnold at #fordhamip”

Managing IP could argue that it’s just quoting people (in an echo chamber), but it’s actually going as far as becoming a megaphone of Battistelli’s liar (for UPC purposes), Margot Fröhlinger. She literally makes a living by lying about the UPC. That’s her job at the EPO. She recently got herself embedded in the Korean press, spreading lies in English and possibly Hangul too. To quote: “”Updates to #upca can easily be done if there is political will… We will find out in next 2 years” – Margot Fröhlinger @EPOorg #fordhamip”

So it sounds like the EPO is already scheming to change national laws. Battistelli has done even worse things.

Here is another person from the echo chamber stating: “UK election likely to cause 2 month delay to #UPC #unitarypatent – Nicholas Saunders @brickcourt #fordhamip”

No, it can definitely kill it (only a wishful thinker says “delay” at this stage).

Going back to IP Kat, this is where it gets even more disturbing.

“So it sounds like the EPO is already scheming to change national laws. Battistelli has done even worse things.”Today, we’ve finally taken stock of the latest rubbish from Bristows. There is no UPC lobbying opportunity, so yesterday there were three Bristows posts (in a single day, all of Monday’s posts) in IP Kat, as if Bristows now runs the site (it’s Annsley Merelle Ward, who used to do a lot of promotion of software patents, even though she never ever wrote any software herself). The first was relatively innocent but then came grooming of a patent troll that operates in London. Just like IAM (which did this almost every day and sometimes more than once per day), Annsley Merelle Ward from Bristows did a FRAND puff piece, neglecting to tell readers that what we have here is a troll, not FRAND. It’s about trolls coming to Europe. And later in the day this UPC propagandist proceeded to spreading the lie that the Unitary Patent would not be cause for trolls, in spite of many people in the field repeatedly acknowledging that it would. It’s like those old lies about SMEs benefiting from the UPC; the reality is exactly the opposite. Here is the opening part, alluding to some think tank called “UPC Industry Coalition”: “Two years ago, the AmeriKat reported on the UPC Industry Coalition’s website launch and the continued concern that the injunction gap in the UPC would be used as potential sword with which patent trolls would hold to a company’s throat to achieve early (and potentially unjust) settlement. However, irrespective of the ultimate fate of the UPC (especially after yesterday’s UK snap election announcement), patent trolls, NPEs, PAEs (or whatever it is we are calling them now) are already prowling around Europe, especially given that their original hunting grounds in the US have recently become less hospitable (see Kyle Bass’s recent losses, e.g.).”

She is already attracting pro-UPC and pro-trolls anonymous comments like this one, but they are quickly corrected as follows:

The UPC has an extremely important pro-troll feature: the court fee for a counterclaim for revocation of a patent is €20,000. This ridiculously high fee to defend yourself against infringement of a clearly invalid patent does nothing other than facilitate the classic troll behaviour of threatening (UPC) infringement action if a relatively small settlement (perhaps €10,000) isn’t paid.

This court fee alone will make the UPC a troll’s paradise for extorting money from SMEs. All they need to do is get hold of an overly broad patent. Helpfully, the EPO now seems to be issuing more and more of those:

http://tuftythecat.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/the-epo-issues-invalid-patents-too.html

The above link too is from a former Kat. Some of them seem to have left, having seen the blog decaying and becoming just self promotion (for law firms). Nothing academic.

“These people, like Bristows opportunists, try to build their whole career on UPC promotion and French favouritism.”Regarding trolls, the UPC would make thing even a lot worse and it’s no excuse for pushing for the UPC, which would further exacerbate the problem. It’s a reason for stopping the UPC. Merelle Ward does gymnastics in logic here. That’s like saying, this person has flu already, therefore giving that same person cancer wouldn’t be a big deal. Merelle Ward (“AmeriKat”) then cites the UPC booster Michel Barnier (a zealous proponent of it for a long time, since before it was known as “UPC”), noting that “we have seen these reasons before. Readers may recall this (pretty grumpy) AmeriKat post back in 2014 reporting on the response from then Commissioner Barnier (now European chief negotiator for Brexit) to a question from Marc Tarabella, a Belgian MEP, about the problem and the risk of further abuse in the UPC. Two months later Commissioner Barnier responded that they failed to see how the UPC’s Union legislation – and therefore not the UPC Agreement which creates the injunction gap problem – “could increase activity of so called ‘patent trolls’ in Europe.””

Barnier is your source? Seriously? Who next? Battistelli? These people, like Bristows opportunists, try to build their whole career on UPC promotion and French favouritism.

Thankfully, the UPC is collapsing, so Bristows and other players from Team UPC are grasping at straws. As someone pointed out in this new comment: “Odd decision by Mrs May. I mean, what changed between triggering Article 50 (on 29 March) and yesterday? Certainly nothing relating to any of the “excuses” that she provided yesterday. Perhaps she just hadn’t thought things through before now. If so, that hardly inspires confidence! On a more IP-related note, has the IPO revealed any details on when they now expect the UPC Agreement to be ratified? Seems that a delay of several months (at least) is inevitable.”

The UPC is deadlocked. It will altogether be called off. Unless they call off Brexit or something along those lines…

“The UPC is deadlocked.”An unnamed Partner at the seemingly UPC-sympathetic firm Kather Augenstein (where Christopher Weber is from) wrote about this some days ago. Weber revealed the author’s name as he promoted this by saying: “My Partner Dr. Christof Augenstein commenting on the future of the UPC in today`s FAZ.”

It’s German media (translation would be appreciated), so we don’t know for sure how to best interpret it (Birgit Clarke who is German spotted it first). Apparently they had researched this further to find major barriers to the UPC, even before the General Election barrier crept in. They cite Jo Johnson on Brexit-related barriers and as Benjamin Henrion put it, “FAZ cites Jo Johnson in its last line of UPC article that UPC will be part of Brexit talks…”

Separately he asked: “”Anyone could buy the paper version of Frankfurter Allgemeine of today? There is some article about UPC in Brexit talks…”

As LukeMcDonagh has just put it:

Jo Johnson: Unified Patent Court is an international court not an EU one
Everyone: But it is bound by CJEU
Jo Johnson: We will negotiate…

With who? Battistelli?

Max Walters‏, who is pretty honest on these matters (and recognises the problems with UPC), wrote in the Law Gazette (UK) about the UPC “delay” (it will be called off even) and McDonagh added that the “Unified Patent Court likely to be delayed further by #GE17 – indeed, will new govt continue ratification process?”

Probably not. It’s an assumption that’s made only by those who drank too much Kool-Aid and spoke to other people who drank Kool-Aid at echo chamber-like events.

“The British software industry does not want the UPC, which is — among many other things — a Trojan horse for software patents and trolls in the UK.”Team UPC’s optimism in Germany is impossible to ignore. “If UK ratification of the UPC Agreement is still on the agenda after UK general election,” one of the boosters wrote. “it is unlikely to take place before July or August…”

Or ever. the UPC has an inherent incompatibility with Brexit. Delaying the inevitable failure won’t help much; they’re misleading clients in the meantime and probably profiting from that. Bad advice too can be profitable!

The FFII wrote back in March (probably about the EPO) that we have “[p]atentability of software thanks to rogue action of patent offices of course,” taking into account the ban on software patents that Battistelli flagrantly disregards while UPC proponents use it as a Trojan horse to normalise the practice EU-wide.

We are not insulted but flattered to see ourselves mentioned in this new comment that says: “Maybe like Brexit for Cameron this is all about internal Tory politics? Re UPC, techrights made me chuckle with his happy cheer for Another Final Nail in the Coffin. How many final nails can there be?”

Sometimes a coffin needs more nails than initially estimated because Team UPC keeps trying hard to escape the coffin, even if by misquoting people, intentionally lying, and manipulating politicians. If we need to knock some more nails on this coffin, we will. The British software industry does not want the UPC, which is — among many other things — a Trojan horse for software patents and trolls in the UK.



Source link: http://techrights.org/2017/04/20/bristows-run-ip-kat/

post

“In a Vehicle” (or Car): Disguising Software Patents as Something Physical


Like Martin Goetz who patented a sorting system [sic] in 1968 and others who were painting software patents with the “brakes” brush

Car brakes

Summary: Another emergent loophole for asserting that patents on software somehow have merit (not abstract), merely because of the context in which they are used

PATENTS on driving/driver-related activities have become a plague that not only feeds several high-profile patent trolls but also Google. A lot of cars now come with computers and companies like Microsoft exploit this for patent blackmail (lately against Toyota).

The other day the Docker Report published this outline of a § 101 case:

The special master recommended denying defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that plaintiff’s vehicle camera system patent encompassed unpatentable subject matter because defendant failed to establish that the asserted claims were directed toward an abstract idea.

That’s a shame. A lot of software patents these days get disguised as “with a car”, “on a car”, “in a car” etc. (one among several similar patterns pertaining to “device”, “phone”, “Internet”, “cloud”, “AI” and so on). These are still software patents.

“A lot of software patents these days get disguised as “with a car”, “on a car”, “in a car” etc. (one among several similar patterns pertaining to “device”, “phone”, “Internet”, “cloud”, “AI” and so on).”Jake Grove says in his new article (titled “Key IP Challenge: Protecting Vehicle Software”) that “[p]atents can provide broad coverage for software,” much to our surprise. Do patents cover software in the US? No, not anymore. Or barely (the outcome is typically negative when judged by courts, so only legal bills encumber both sides). These patents can be pretty worthless in the US these days. Just look at these latest figures from boosters of software patents, Fenwick & West. “With the close of the first quarter of 2017,” they say, “there have been some interesting patterns developing in AliceStorm.”

“Do patents cover software in the US? No, not anymore. Or barely (the outcome is typically negative when judged by courts, so only legal bills encumber both sides).”This was promoted by software patents proponents, as they give some Alice figures/updates with the expected slant (their obvious goal is to bring software patents back). They have clients who rely on this outcome, as this other new post discloses by saying: “My client SHzoom filed a request to make the Trading Technologies decision precedential. CQG attempted to leverage that motion as a further reason for the case to be reheard, arguing in their respose that “SHzoom’s Motion requesting that the panel’s decision in this case be made precedential should be denied. Its arguments further illustrate why CQG’s Petition for rehearing en banc should be granted.””

Trading Technologies is basically reduced to trolling.

The bottom line is, software is not patentable and examiners need to watch out for the trick of ascribing these to vehicles.



Source link: http://techrights.org/2017/04/10/swpats-as-something-physical/

post

Is Bristows UPC Falsifying UK-IPO Quotes or Just Using Informal Words to Lobby for the Unitary Patent (UPC)?


Bristows LLP and EPO

Summary: The statement from the UK-IPO (the IPO) says nothing like what Bristows attributes to it, raising all sorts of questions about who is steering IPO policies nowadays

What Team UPC and Team Battistelli (EPO management) have in common is that they both lie. A lot! Bristows, for example, is perpetually lying about the stance/views of British people and it’s doing this to enrich itself.

“Bristows, for example, is perpetually lying about the stance/views of British people to enrich itself.”Why do they want the UPC so badly? Litigation. Lots and lots of it. Battistelli is like Trump with “See you in court!”

Battistelli is gradually demoting if not demolishing examination, meaning that more patents get granted (even bogus patents), and more litigation is to be expected (except against Battistelli, as he insists that he is immune from prosecution).

“Battistelli is gradually demoting if not demolishing examination, meaning that more patents get granted (even bogus patents), and more litigation is to be expected (except against Battistelli, as he insists that he is immune from prosecution).”The whole idea of patent examination (proper examination!) is, people can’t just baselessly drag other people into court/out-of-court settlements. It requires some sort stamp approving some merit to one’s claim/s; that’s what patents are for. The UPC lobbyists, truly dishonest people (Team UPC) along with Battistelli, have a lot in common except cluelessness on science; they want litigation and money. Money! It has gotten so bad that, as we pointed out this morning, Team UPC ‘took over’ IP Kat and is now using that blog to help Battistelli. Meanwhile, few British firm are trying to sell their stinkin’ services around the UPC, regardless of how much damage such a regime would cause to British businesses that actually produce something.

What really got on our nerves today is this Bristows “news” from Liz Cohen, which is promoted in Twitter as “UK confirms it is “fully on track” to meet UPC timetable” (with quote signs included).

“Are we seeing IPO entryism by Team UPC?”Where does that message come from? Where are those words from? The MIP spin? Those 4 words from unnamed “spokesperson”? Well, nobody said that in a site; there is no way to verify that it isn’t just made up, conjured from memory, or even fabricated. Here, last week, we wrote about that in great detail and someone pointed out something similar in IP Kat comments, demanding an actual link to a statement or a source.

Are we seeing IPO entryism by Team UPC? Where does the quote come from? Is MIP (or Bristows) now spokesperson of IPO?

Well, let’s inspect the original, as there is no source (not even a link) in the post from Bristows and the same goes for MIP, which also used a paywall. We need to be careful with anything that comes from Bristows as we already know their inclination to lie and distort. “Anyone can produce a diff to see what has been updated,” Benjamin Henrion asked this afternoon. So we decided to take a look at what UK-IPO actually says.

The page, as per the Internet Archive, used to say (about patents post-Brexit):

The referendum result has no impact on UK businesses’ ability to apply to the European Patent Office for patent protection.

It will remain possible to obtain patents from the EPO which apply in the UK. Existing European patents covering the UK are also unaffected. British exit from the EU will not affect the current European patent system as governed by the European Patent Convention (EPC).

The UK remains a Signatory State of the Unified Patent Court at present. We will continue to attend and participate in UPC meetings in that capacity. There will be no immediate changes.

After the inane remark from Lucy this became (mind last paragraph):

The referendum result has no impact on UK businesses’ ability to apply to the European Patent Office for patent protection.

It will remain possible to obtain patents from the EPO which apply in the UK. Existing European patents covering the UK are also unaffected. British exit from the EU will not affect the current European patent system as governed by the European Patent Convention (EPC).

The UK remains a Signatory State of the Unified Patent Court at present. On 28 November, the UK government confirmed its intention to proceed with arrangements to ratify the Unified Patent Court.

“The IPO is keen to hear your views about these issues,” it says. Well, it seems to be hearing only from lawyers, not those affected by their actions. And now this is their statement (updated yesterday):

The UK’s exit from the EU will not affect the current European patent system, which is governed by the (non-EU) European Patent Convention. UK businesses can continue to apply to the European Patent Office for patent protection which will include the UK. Existing European patents covering the UK are also unaffected.

While the UK remains a full member of the EU, businesses can continue to apply for and be granted Supplementary Protection Certificates (SPCs) for patented pharmaceutical and plant protection products using the current SPC system.

Existing UK SPCs granted under that system continue to be valid.

Once the UK leaves the EU, UK businesses will still be able to apply for SPCs in all remaining EU Member States under the existing system.

The government is exploring options for SPC protection in the UK after we leave the EU.

The UK remains a Signatory State of the Unified Patent Court at present. On 28 November, the UK government confirmed its intention to proceed with arrangements to ratify the Unified Patent Court Agreement.

Preparations for ratification are progressing and we expect to be ready to begin the period of provisional application in the spring.

The UK government has signed the Protocol on Provisional Application and is ready for that to commence to the timetable foreseen by the Preparatory Committee. It is planned that the UPC will open for business in December 2017.

The “Preparatory Committee” is just Team UPC, i.e. a bunch of greedy lobbyists like Bristows. Sounds like entryism and a legitimate cause for anger over scandal/mischief.

“Wittingly or not, Bristows has become an expert in lying, not an expert in UPC matters.”Where does the quote “fully on track” come from? Who said it and when? Will Bristows retract that nonsense? Well, it’s not as though Bristows has much of a reputation to guard. They’re so desperate for the UPC, almost as if the firm would go bankrupt if the UPC does not come to the UK. Wittingly or not, Bristows has become an expert in lying, not an expert in UPC matters. Maybe the employees should change their career to lobbying, as some already have.



Source link: http://techrights.org/2017/04/05/bristows-upc-and-ukipo/