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/

post

Insulting Reversal of Narratives at the EPO: Team Battistelli as the Victim


Girl on a tricycle

Summary: At times of great oppression against staff, in clear defiance of the law in fact, journalists are being asked (or expected) to view the oppressor as the victim, even when this oppressor drives people to suicide

THE most sickening things about the EPO, at least from my personal point of view as one who covers the scandals at a relatively high pace, are the insults being flung at EPO workers who are the victims. These endless lies are simply unacceptable. The latest insulting gesture from Battistelli was this video of his (similar to last year’s). We are gratified to learn that other people felt similarly about it. “The show must go on,” one reader told us, adding that “I have spent 5 mins today watching the (I mean “ze”) not so famous TV show starring Don Battistellini himself on YouTube. Well, who says that this guy lacks sense of humour? The only trouble is that he might be infringing the copyright of the “allo allo” TV series of the years 1985. What a great comedy!! I couldn’t stop laughing!! I might produce in the coming days a dubbed version with a German accent.”

“These endless lies are simply unacceptable.”Battistelli’s utter lack of a sense of humour was noted here before, e.g. in relation to jokes that he probably chose not to understand. The man is as dry as fascio, basically a bundle of rods (referencing the etymology of fascism). It has gotten so bad that there’s absolutely no room for entertainment at the Office. It’s just like North Korea. Jokes can be taken out of context to allege that people intend to become snipers/sharpshooter and physically “take down” people. As for Battistelli, this chronic paranoid (since before he even came to the EPO) would have people believe that there are assassination attempts against him. Some people are easily fooled by this (it’s widely considered a “pretext” or “false flag” for Battistelli’s reign of terror). To quote this new comment in The Register: “You would think that having someone try to kill this man (bike brakes) would send a clear signal to everyone involved that something is seriously wrong. Leaving him in there when everyone is trying to get him out is a recipe for disaster.”

That’s a loaded statement actually. We wrote a great deal (at the time of the fear-mongering hype) about the so-called bike incident. We don’t intend to repeat what we wrote as it’s hardly even worth entertaining anymore.

“A reason to look closely” does exist. As one person put it: “As far as I know the story of the Presidential bike brakes being tampered with is generally regarded as “fake news” inside the EPO (even before the term as “fake news” became so popular).

“This item of “news” was put into circulation by a Vice-President apparently in order to justify a budgetary request for the President’s personal security (bodyguards etc.).

“Battistelli’s utter lack of a sense of humour was noted here before, e.g. in relation to jokes that he probably chose not to understand.”“I don’t believe that anybody inside the EPO takes it seriously. It is considered to be PR trick to gain sympathy from the Administrative Council by portraying the President as a “victim”.

Yes, this happened at the time when Battistelli, the Liar in Chief, had to justify spending over a million Euros (in a few years) on stupid personal bodyguards which are neither useful nor required. He’s having a ‘party’ with EPO budget and rewards cronies around him. It’s rather despicable to watch.

Outsiders should not be fooled by Battistelli. The man is likely responsible for the death of quite a few people (suicides), yet he wants to be seen as a poor old man having to defend himself from “armed Nazis”, “Mafia”, and “snipers”.

“Yes, this happened at the time when Battistelli, the Liar in Chief, had to justify spending over a million Euros (in a few years) on stupid personal bodyguards which are neither useful nor required.”Battistelli and his cronies, moreover, can’t stop bullying staff. Not too long ago someone told us about the EPO’s head of the law department (as if they care about law at the EPO), who should still be Ms Theano Evangelou, “a Greek lady on her forties,” according to her victim. “She was the lawyer playing the “public accuser” against me on my disciplinary sessions. She was zealous and defiant. […] after that the ombudsman established the wrongdoings of the Office against me…

“She was (and probably still is) assisted by a younger pal, some Kostantinos Kortsaris, typical arrogant and vain and law-illiterate human byproduct office’s money can buy…”

What we have witnessed at the EPO is systematic legal bullying against people. We have literally a hundred or more stories that can come out at any time, shall the relevance or need arise. In a sense, the Office is now run like some kind of Mafia, yet some are led to believe that the Mafia Don, Battistelli, is the victim. Recall the following recent articles of ours:

  1. The Battistelli Mafia and Corsica
  2. The European Patent Office Looks More and More Like the Sicilian Mafia Every Day

In the next post we shall look into more of the diversionary tactics used by the Office to habitually portray sysmetically-abused staff as spoiled, over-demanding and aggressive. It seems to have become somewhat of a trend recently (damage control) tactics, so we have decided to respond proportionally.



Source link: http://techrights.org/2017/03/20/damage-controlling-narratives-at-the-epo/

post

IAM Remains Battistelli’s Propaganda Mill, Helping to Manufacture and Reinforce Lies About Quality


Dozens of lies stuffed into less than 5 minutes

Battistelli and IAM
Also see: Benoît Battistelli “Should Not Have Been in Charge of Anything More Involved Than a Hamster Cage Without the Hamster…”

Summary: The main accomplishment of the Liar in Chief, who read a script to the camera, is that he managed to lie so quickly and so frequently with a straight face

THIS year, just like last year [1, 2], IAM is trying to impress Battistelli, whose PR agency has already funneled money into IAM on at least one occasion (that we are aware of).

“In this video, Battistelli blatantly lies about the Boards of Appeals — in a way that no doubt would offend all those whom he attacked. He also lies about the “social conditions” — uttering words that are enough to make staff’s blood boil in well under 5 minutes.”IAM would have us believe that the EPO is doing great; they have a marriage of convenience between them and the above screenshot (frame from this new video, viewed only by 275 people) is just one among many infuriating things. The Liar in Chief, who cannot speak German and can barely speak English*, is so insecure that we are hardly surprised that he just attacks anyone who dares question his authority.

In this video, Battistelli blatantly lies about the Boards of Appeals — in a way that no doubt would offend all those whom he attacked. He also lies about the “social conditions” — uttering words that are enough to make staff’s blood boil in well under 5 minutes. Throughout his bizarre (unprofessional, he looks like a nervous wreck) reading session he keeps citing his paid-for ‘studies’ — the best propaganda money can buy!

“Those who wish to understand why Battistelli has 0% approval rating amongst EPO stakeholders only need to watch a fact-checked (annotated) version of this ridiculous video from Battistelli.”Unitary Patent fake news and lobbying takes up almost 20% of the entire video, claiming “renewed commitment from the UK” (i.e. ignoring the very reality of Brexit) and repeating the lies (e.g. “end of this year”) from Team UPC — lies that we continue to see floated in social media today, adding to a sea of fake news.

Those who wish to understand why Battistelli has 0% approval rating amongst EPO stakeholders only need to watch a fact-checked (annotated) version of this ridiculous video from Battistelli. If he auditioned for a clerk’s position or applied for a job guarding a hamster’s cage (to quote the above-mentioned joke), he’d be easily be beaten by any other candidate.
____
* It’s very embarrassing to watch him read the script like a fool. I’ve seen elementary school students doing a better job, without having to read someone else’s script and looking all awkward and robotic. Many EPO workers command numerous languages and can speak fluently in all of them, unlike Battistelli, who is supposed to be a perceptually superior boss.



Source link: http://techrights.org/2017/03/17/5-minutes-of-battistelli-lies/

post

New Examples of Fake News About the Unitary Patent (UPC), Courtesy of Patent Law Firms Looking to Prey on Gullible SMEs


“All warfare is based on deception” (many quotes to that effect, basically the idea that disseminating lies is acceptable when you gain power by it)

The vote on UPC
This is what Team UPC vainly calls “the unanimous UPC vote.” The vote on UPC isn’t what they tell us it was.

Summary: Tackling some of the latest fake news about UPC (too much to keep abreast of) and the misleading figures proclaiming to be EPO ‘results’

Steve Howe, writing on behalf of his employer (a law firm), has just supplied us with an excellent new example of fake news about the UPC, courtesy of greedy UPC hopefuls, which we collectively refer to as Team UPC because they not only lobby for the UPC but are also the same people who came up with it, wrote it, promoted it, and now hand it over for politicians to sign. It’s coup basically. It’s an insult to British and European (EU) democracy.

Howe’s headline is a loaded statement and a lie, wanting us to believe that UPC is inevitable here in the UK, and that it’s only a matter of “when”, not “if”. Howe’s closing words are these: “So the current signs are that the Unitary Patent Package may come into effect within the next year, long before the UK finally leaves the EU. However, as we have seen over the last year, predicting the future is a very inexact science, and the path towards Brexit and the path to the Unitary Patent Package probably have some mileage left.”

Well, that last sentence was deemed/considered particularly catchy by UPC antagonists. Putting aside the lies and lobbying in that paragraph (the “inevitability” tactics), there is no disclosure and it very much resembles other fake news which we have come across very recently in the UK (e.g. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]), even in blogs without disclosures (yes, we are looking at you, IP Kat).

In its official Twitter account Howe’s employer wrote: “After @theresa_may’s Art. 50 statement, our very own Steve Howe looks at what comes 1st, Brexit or unitary patent?”

How about neither? Or only one of them (as the two are inherently and patently incompatible)? Of course, Howe’s employer presents loaded statements, which make us assume that both are done and dusted, confirmed and destined to be true irrespective of some supposedly absent/non-existent opposition.

The above is not the exception but the norm. We have, by this point at least, become accustomed to such fake news. It happens every day and we’re failing to keep track of it all. There is certainly a lot more on the way.

Yesterday we saw Wolters Kluwer’s Christine Robben‏ (Team UPC) promoting the latest propaganda from her employer. Team UPC now amplifies all that fake news about UPC. Here is the latest pile of lies. Just notice what they DON’T say. It’s just an echo chamber. See the screenshot at the top, showing what kind of ‘vote’ there was in Germany, at 1:30 AM (yes, AM!). Is German democracy becoming as big a farce as Turkish democracy?

For information and background, see what we wrote about Germany only days ago:

EIP, which has been part of the UPC boosting (this was noted here repeatedly in the past), is meanwhile contributing to the latest propaganda by writing that “German Parliament paves the way for European patent reform,” without noting the full facts. “Last paragraph,” as Francisco Moreno‏ points out to them, says “[o]nly 35 of 360 Bundestag members voted (at 1:30AM!) 2/3 majority is required when dealing with delegation of sovereign rights…”

Out of 600+ actually, not 360. Francisco Moreno‏ later took the above screenshots and told me: “Right, 630 members! Here, the 35 members present at the unanimous #UPC vote.”

As Benjamin Henrion put it, “you mean this vote is not constitutional?” They just need to get politicians to operate based on false assumptions, like making voters vote based on fake news (and when they realise it was fake all along it’s already too late to change one’s vote).

“No idea,” Moreno told Henrion, “but last paragraph suggest that this vote could be vulnerable.” German readers and Dutch people have already told us so too. It’s like a classroom inside a massive school conspiring to vote in the small hours of the morning to help construct lobbying material for Team UPC. That’s what it looks like anyway…

Also revisit what we wrote about the UK on Sunday night:

Last but not least, this is the latest about Spain:

Moreno is keeping abreast of fake news in the Spanish media. He writes about it in Spanish, so our Spanish readers are encouraged to follow his writings.

The above are rebuttals to fake news from the past week alone. We also needed to post many rebuttals to the EPO‘s fake ‘results’, namely:

Yesterday, Barker Brettell LLP published this piece titled “Grants up, backlog down – EPO Annual report 2016,” in which it had constructed and spread misleading spin. it does not tell readers that patent quality is down, applications are down, and skillful people are leaving the Office, which is starting to resemble just a registration office (as insiders feared).

“Cool map!” Francisco Moreno‏ wrote about it (tongue in cheek). “If this tendency continues, the EPO will be granting in 2017 100% more patents than in 2010, with only a 10% increase in examiners…” (nothing like this has happened at the USPTO in the same period).

That’s the ‘Battistelli effect’….

Another Battistelli effect is the effect on integrity. The EPO lies so much these days that almost every single tweet (except event promotion) is a lie. Yesterday it said “Medical technology remains the field with most patent applications filed in 2016…”

Click on the link and see what they don’t say. It actually DECLINED in the past year (minus and red); Like patent applications at the EPO in general….

Another EPO tweet from yesterday said: “These virtual classroom events are ideal for SME staff new to IP management…”

The EPO cares not at all about SMEs, as it promotes the UPC that’s against them, and then there is systematic discrimination against their applications (left at the bottom of the pile).

The European Patent Office has lost all respect and even insiders are sick of it. Read the following new comment from George Brock-Nannestad of Denmark, who in his fourth paragraph onwards speaks of the UPC and SMEs that should be up in arms over it (“I am surprised that the SMEs are not up in arms,” but some noticed and spoke out). To quote:

Dear Merpel,

thank you for having undertaken the onerous and disheartening task of keeping tabs on what goes on at the European Patent Office. I can well understand that you are worn down. Your coverage as the main source and a few other sources have provided me with a total of 1.35 GB of material that only goes from bad to worse. I have kept this because it reflects a scandal of momentous dimensions, and one could fear that some of it will disappear simply due to public embarrassment. On the other hand, reading the material is not for the weak, and I cannot recommend it.

I think that the IPKat posts have been the only trustworthy ones in the field, but the comments only have very little trustworthiness. Collectively, though, the comments through their mere numbers, do draw ugly pictures.

I myself have been driven to saturation, I have become numb, there is very little that can shock me anymore, and I am only wondering ‘WHY’? Who benefits from this situation, except the perpetrators, of course. But where are the checks, where are those who ought to insist on adhering to the European Patent Convention? It is true that the subject matter is somewhat esoteric, and very few really understand what we had as a smooth-running machinery that is rapidly becoming a formalities-only examination and early certainty of acceptance. A whole collection of jurisprudence on the fundamental properties of a patent system that serves society will become an empty academic exercise that was good for a period of perhaps 25 years, but which will stand as a non-reachable Utopia because of the constant attrition.

I am surprised that the SMEs are not up in arms. Maybe they believe the hogwash that politicians have told them about the UPC. They are dependent on the state (delegated, though the power is) to weed out the patent applications that do not merit acceptance. To an SME faced with a patent that is purportedly infringed it does not matter whether the company prevails in a court case, if the result is 5 years into the future. It is just as bad as ILOAT providing justice to wronged employees of the European Patent Office so many years after the infraction.

SMEs do not have the stamina to survive an unreasonable court case. The only thing left for SMEs is to be pro-active, i.e. do the work of the European Patent Office. Search independently, file observations, but probably better: file good oppositions. Get the opposition count up! It is expensive, but it only takes one or two saved court cases to fully recoup the costs. But getting the count up also changes the statistics at the European Patent Office, and it is something that its present management may not like but can do very little about. Well, they can increase the opposition fee to the ridiculous, just as the fee for opposing a trademark in Denmark was increased by a colossal amount more than 20 years ago, because some big players leaning on the authorities thought that they had a right to bad trademarks and resented that they were being hampered by successful oppositions from the general public. Who is leaning on the EPO?

Again, many thanks, and please continue to moderate the comments that come in to the last posts. There are now at least two posts that have more than 200 comments, but it cannot be helped if there are so few posts.

Very disheartened,

George Brock-Nannestad

Brock-Nannestad was quoted in the Danish media after we had published a series of articles regarding Jesper Kongstad; he probably understands that the shenanigans at the EPO are harmful to the entire profession centered around patents — if not well beyond it — and moreover it’s incredibly damaging to Europe’s economy (much like the UPC promises to be, essentially giving corporate, globalist sovereignty over Europe to few large corporations, with a little ‘trickle down’ effect to their patent lawyers in Europe).



Source link: http://techrights.org/2017/03/15/unitary-patent-news-is-fake/

post

What Appears Like News Sites or Blogs About Patents and ‘IP’ Got Polluted by Lobbying That Peddles Corporate Agenda


Also see: Independent and Untainted Web Sites About Patents Are Still Few and Rare

“The major media-particularly, the elite media that set the agenda that others generally follow-are corporations “selling” privileged audiences to other businesses. It would hardly come as a surprise if the picture of the world they present were to reflect the perspectives and interests of the sellers, the buyers, and the product. Concentration of ownership of the media is high and increasing. Furthermore, those who occupy managerial positions in the media, or gain status within them as commentators, belong to the same privileged elites, and might be expected to share the perceptions, aspirations, and attitudes of their associates, reflecting their own class interests as well. Journalists entering the system are unlikely to make their way unless they conform to these ideological pressures, generally by internalizing the values; it is not easy to say one thing and believe another, and those who fail to conform will tend to be weeded out by familiar mechanisms.”

Noam Chomsky

Summary: Another timely walkthrough (journey through the past week’s supposed news) which demonstrates how several self-acclaimed/self-proclaimed “news” sites and even “blogs” operate (which helps explain why they don’t cover EPO scandals among other inconvenient — to them at least — realities)

WE NOW know that Michelle Lee is definitely the Director of the USPTO (it’s officially confirmed now), so sites like IAM and Watchtroll are obviously not happy (IAM is a special case, or a case apart, which we debunk regularly). They spent a lot of effort casting doubt, attacking Lee, and even promoting replacements to her (even though she had not been fired). We will never forget what they tried to accomplish; neither should Lee.

“Therein lies the power of lobbying.”Shedding of doubt and uncertainty where there was none to begin with is a classic lobbying tactic and even Joe Mullin fell for it. He asked “Who’s in charge?” even when we already knew it was Lee and those who cited Mullin said “a FOIA request which could have been fulfilled by answering the simple question “Who is the office’s acting director?” Instead, the patent office asked for a delay until March 10, citing a section of the law that allows for delay in “unusual circumstances.””

There was no legitimate basis for doubts about her place (secured by default) other than her face not yet showing up on the official site (after Trump’s inauguration, whereupon many other faces disappeared from the site too). She was still effective in her position and signed documents accordingly. There was nothing mysterious about it. There was no scandal.

“Watchtroll is a very malicious site.”Therein lies the power of lobbying. And lots of that lobbying, as even TechDirt pointed out at one point, could be traced back to Watchtroll — a site that attacked Lee so often that we’ve lost track of the number of times.

Watchtroll (a.k.a. “IP Watchdog”)

Watchtroll is a very malicious site. It not only promotes software patents; it promotes patent maximalism, litigation maximalism, and basically a whole lot of chaos. Watch this latest nonsense from Watchtroll. It’s just incredible! This headline and the entire premise of this Watchtroll ‘article’ is completely bunk (not just false), and this is the latest example of low-quality lobbying for software patents, composed by one whose qualification is just writing (not a technical person by any stretch of imagination). With all sorts of events and other peripheral activities, Watchtroll is more than just a blog now. It’s akin to a pressure/attack/front group. IBM seems eager to use these ‘services’, no matter how nefarious. It pays off to — or there’s plenty of money in — being malicious.

“IBM seems eager to use these ‘services’, no matter how nefarious.”To break down the latest software patents brainwash, it’s just some incoherent nonsense with absolutely no connection between one thing and another. The author was just picking something random from the news (with the buzzwords of the day, “AI”), then wrongly asserting that it shows a need for software patents, even if the UK-IPO does not grant software patents. Here is an except: “Of course, not every step the government can take is a positive one, especially if it’s a backwards step, and nowhere is this more painfully apparent than in the United States. At the same time that our own federal government is evincing a great deal of skepticism as to the patentability of subject matter important to the AI sector, namely software, other nations are moving ahead with plans to improve intellectual property protections for such innovations. For example, new patent examination guidelines set to go into effect in China during early April will increase patent eligibility for software and business method inventions.”

“It pays off to — or there’s plenty of money in — being malicious.”AI moves forward in spite of patents, not owing or thanks to them. But never mind all those pesky ‘facts’ and “so called judges”. What Watchtroll is after is just some “alternative facts” or gross misinterpretations. That’s just the usual from them (when they’re not busy attacking the Director of the USPTO, the Justices, various judges and also appeal boards whose work they don’t tolerate).

IP Watch

Watchtroll is actually a symptom of a much broader problem. A lot of so-called ‘news’ is not at all news but PR and lobbying. The other day at IP Watch, typically a good site, we saw this guest ‘article’ from “Content Manager at Morningside IP” (apparently that’s an actual job title). She wants us to think that the whole world is about patents (guess what “IP” stands for; not patents) and here is one portion of her “content”:

If you want to know where technology is headed, a great place to look is in a patent application database like the USPTO. One of the qualifications for getting a patent granted is “novelty,” which means new, similar innovations won’t appear anywhere else. Once enough data is collected from the database, it can be used to map out and predict unique advancements in specific areas of technology.

How many things are being developed outside or irrespective of patent offices? In the field of software almost everything! So this Content Manager would be better off looking at source code in sites such as Github, rather than take the risk of willful infringement (far higher damages if found guilty) that examination/surveying of granted patents would entail.

“Why do readers out there think there is barely any coverage of EPO scandals other than in Techrights?”We are very much saddened to see the state of so-called ‘IP’ blogs and several months ago we wrote a long rant about it. There are barely any sites at all countering that sort of nonsense; Groklaw no longer operates and few good sites like Against Monopoly seem to have gone defunct quite some time back.

Why do readers out there think there is barely any coverage of EPO scandals other than in Techrights? It just doesn’t suit their business model, it does not attract advertisers and they would rather reprint “guest” posts or “sponsored” articles. It’s a lot less risky, especially from a legal standpoint. There is no money in ideology, unlike PR/marketing/advertising.

Managing IP

Yesterday we showed how Managing IP had set up yet another — far from the first — lobbying opportunity for Team UPC (that’s big money right there, with visitors paying £995 + VAT to enter) and days ago the site wrote about designs cases (not just patents), taking a short break from supposed “endorsements” of law firms and people in “IP” (we have to wonder how they turn this “endorsement” system into money, and the same goes for IAM). There was plenty of that recently and we needn’t necessarily link (feed) to it!

“There is no money in ideology, unlike PR/marketing/advertising.”Managing IP also wrote about this Sprint verdict (gigantic $140m patent case), but the above author, Joe Mullin, did a far better job covering it. He is at least balanced. To quote: “Sprint has been filing patent lawsuits over VoIP for more than a decade now, and the company may have just scored its biggest payout yet. On Friday, a jury in Sprint’s home district of Kansas City said that Time Warner Cable, now part of Charter Communications, must pay $139.8 million (Verdict Form) for infringing several patents related to VoIP technology. The jury found that TWC’s infringement was willful, which means that the judge could increase the damage award up to three times its value.”

$139.8 million in one single case. Sites like IAM would likely hail/praise it as some sort of fantastic “success story” and proof of “innovation” or whatever, rather than what it really translates into (rich people getting a lot richer).

IP Kat

Even IP Kat, which we once respected, appears to have devolved into a part-time front group of Team UPC, Bristows in particular (even as recently as one week ago). It no longer covers EPO scandals and some people are not entirely tolerant of the explanations/excuses. To quote some comments, “This smacks Of a dishonourable Retreat,” the following poem said:

So.
Farewell then
Merpel.

You were
A great
Feline.

Though you
Did appreciate
An acrostic

This smacks
Of a dishonourable
Retreat

Strange
Frankly

EJ Bringbackalib.

Some people are so angry at IP Kat for letting EPO management (basically crooks) off the hook that the write a comment like this (not sufficiently grateful to Merpel for what she did do)

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”.

Shame on you, Merpel. It’s impossible not to lose all respect.

“I feel as well betrayed to see a major help leaving us,” another person wrote, “while Eponia goes deeper into its Orwellian [edit] world…”

As EPO employee, I have mixed feelings, which cannot be understood by someone from outside I guess.
I am very thankful to The Kat for sharing well documented, precise news with a british humor. We found necessary that the outside world, and in particular the IP-world understands what the situation.
I feel as well betrayed to see a major help leaving us, while Eponia goes deeper into its orwelian world: cameras everywhere, spy softwares on our computers, a kafkaian investigation unit, directors going mad if the world “quality” is whispered, heavy recruitement despite a files shortage preparing a future all in “flexibility”, examiners working on short term contracts and distress in every corners. We are not allowed to speak.
It is not an article in one generalist newspaper per semester, which will help broadcasting the situation.
Dear Kat, I understand that you want to take some rest but WE NEED YOU.

“I cannot understand you stop covering the EPO news,” another person wrote. Are you a IP and European blog?”

Well, that’s self-censorship after intimidation (on the face of it). To quote the entire comment:

one of the commenters consider the examiners to dig their own grave. It is easy to say when you rest comfortably on your couch not knowing what it means to work in a toxic environment everyday year in year out. Even a first class IP blog like IPkat is giving up commenting the terrible situation of Eponia (pressure? threats?), how is staff supposed to have sufficient means to say no to the sick, delirious demands we get from the management? Staff is suffering and every day adds a little more, up to the day where one gets a serious illness, depression, burn out or in the worst cases commits suicide.
IPkat, I cannot understand you stop covering the EPO news. Are you a IP and European blog ? If so, not mentioning the EPO anymore simply means we are not doing your duty of informing about IP news.
Renaming your blog IPkat “passionate about IP (except EPO – too dangerous) ” would be more appropriate.

There are more comments to that effect, but it ought to suffice for now.

Patently-O

We used to believe, however briefly and perhaps naively, that Professor Dennis Crouch was reasonably balanced, but that has changed recently, and the last straw was reached with his anti-PTAB diatribe (negative posts in the face of improved patent quality). Earlier this month his blog wrote about CAFC as follows:

In a non-precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit has affirmed the district court’s confirmation of the arbitration award with the minor exception of interest calculation. Here, the arbitrator awards are powerful becaues they can only be overturned based upon quite “demanding standards” involving “manifestly disregard the law.” A portion of the award included what appears to be post-expiration royalties. However, the Federal Circuit held that the manifest-disregard standard is so high that even those damages cannot be vacated (one of the five patents has not yet expired).

Another new post by Dennis Crouch spoke of the same court’s history overruling lower courts (in one particular aspect), as they rightly should (including Alice these days):

This decision by Judge Moore recalls the Federal Circuit’s long history of rejecting district court claim constructions and also highlights Judge Moore’s formalistic approach to claim construction.

Now watch the blog referring as “reasonable” (as in RAND/FRAND) to payments of a ‘mere’ $30,000,000… for just two patents. To quote:

The Nebraska jury found Sprint liable for infringing Prism’s patents and awarded $30 million in reasonable-royalty damages. U.S. Patent Nos. 8,127,345 and 8,387,155.

Patents at $15 million apiece? Against just one single company? It doesn’t take a genius to see that something is seriously wrong here. How about the patent troll whom we wrote about last week, after he had made about $50 million from just one invalid patent?

“As is often the case in life, those who survive in the long run are those well funded (or greased up) by people who look to gain something from interjected bias and agenda, either lobbying, shameless self-promotion, self-censorship, or a wider combination of several/all those things.”I truly miss Groklaw myself; this is the one site about so-called ‘IP’ which I knew was written by a legal professional (paralegal) who in no way had a stake in any corporation covered, nor in advertisers. As is often the case in life, those who survive in the long run are those well funded (or greased up) by people who look to gain something from interjected bias and agenda, either lobbying, shameless self-promotion, self-censorship, or a wider combination of several/all those things. It’s a sordid world with sordid, submissive corporate media.

“If the media were honest, they would say, Look, here are the interests we represent and this is the framework within which we look at things. This is our set of beliefs and commitments. That’s what they would say, very much as their critics say. For example, I don’t try to hide my commitments, and the Washington Post and New York Times shouldn’t do it either. However, they must do it, because this mask of balance and objectivity is a crucial part of the propaganda function. In fact, they actually go beyond that. They try to present themselves as adversarial to power, as subversive, digging away at powerful institutions and undermining them. The academic profession plays along with this game.”

Noam Chomsky



Source link: http://techrights.org/2017/03/13/deposit-pr-money-and-withdraw-influence/

post

Germany Cannot Ratify the UPC Because Britain is Leaving the EU and Unitary Patent Strongly/Strictly Depends on the UK


Unless they went back to the drawing board and restarted all the negotiations, with Britain ruled out and the UPC being something altogether different (maybe renamed, too)…

I want to believe
U.P.C. is the new U.F.O.

Summary: The chorus of the German patent microcosm and Team UPC, including several IP Kat writers, who collectively in their echo chamber want to believe — and also to convince all of us — that the UPC will be ratified in Germany “real soon now!” (but no, they cannot without the UK changing its mind on “hard Brexit”, amongst other tall barriers and legislative obstacles across Europe)

THE source of many deliberate lies, the EPO, continues to amaze us with its incredible lobbying push for the UPC. It’s not only expensive but it also corrupts European media and harms its reputation (e.g. fake news, which we have just learned is spreading to Spanish media). Previously in this evening’s series we summarised the past week’s developments as follows:

Now it’s Germany’s turn. That’s like the heart of this monster, not just the EPO’s but also the UPC’s. There are probably veiled reasons behind Maas refusing to enforce the law against Team Battistelli. With the UPC, unlike with the US patent system (which includes the notorious state of Texas, capital of litigation), there is federalism and fragmentation. Countries like the UK, Poland, and Spain (very large countries) still seem far from joining or being assimilated to the Borg, so to speak. Don’t believe the fake news and the hype from Team Battistelli and Team UPC. They have a long track record of lying and they have already shouted “Wolf!” more than thrice.

“It’s not only expensive but it also corrupts European media and harms its reputation (e.g. fake news, which we have just learned is spreading to Spanish media).”So, what’s the deal with Germany? Not much. Team UPC, Bristows for example, toes the party line. A day ago, on a Saturday, Richard Pinckney said that “German parliament passes two bills required for UPC ratification” and he hopes to give the impression that Germany’s ratification is now imminent and inevitable. But it’s not. Germany won’t ratify as long as the UK does not (and it cannot!).

Watch tweets from UPC proponents who repeatedly use terms like “green light”. This is all conditional, contingent upon lots of things. Citing the Bundestag’s site, this person says “German #Bundestag gives green light to #UPC. Actual #ratification to happen later.”

Look at the certainty. Here is another tweet to that effect: “Lower House of German Parliament #Bundestag has given green light to implement #unitary #patent in Europe”

What do they even mean by green light? Something like Chinese government officials giving the green light for Siemens to relocate to China. It doesn’t mean it will actually happen.

“Don’t believe the fake news and the hype from Team Battistelli and Team UPC. They have a long track record of lying and they have already shouted “Wolf!” more than thrice.”A pro-UPC account (“UPC tracker”) said “Bills providing basis for ratification of UPC passed unanimously by DE Bundestag. Speaker: “doesn’t happen often.””

Well, how often does one vote on UPC? Only once.

Talking about the FFII, Benjamin Henrion urged for action in Germany when he wrote: “You wonder if it is useful to have a German association if no German don’t do shit when UPC goes through Bundestag…”

Alexander Esslinger‏ (a.k.a. “patently German”) wrote: “This news will probably dampen rumors about Germany not ratifying #UPC due to some open questions in connection with Brexit” (not really, unless you are Esslinger‏, in which case the UPC is desirable to you).

Esslinger‏ alludes to discussion among people from IP Kat (former writers). Birgit, as I told her, should know about this as a German working in the UK. Tufty wrote to her: “I’m suspicious of everything about the #UPC. It would make sense for DE to delay ratification until effect of #brexit is clearer.”

She had said that “all these suspicions… you Germany will still play the Article 50 waiting game? They could have stalled it yesterday?”

She also wrote “Let’s just hope the Bundestag calls the #UPC by its correct name… (not “unified software patent” or similar,” linking to this tweet from a dubious pro-EPO site. It says that “UK has signed the UPC Protocol on Privileges and Immunities ahead of its ratification of the agreement, but whether the country does ratify in the fallout of its vote to leave the EU remains to be seen.”

“What do they even mean by green light? Something like Chinese government officials giving the green light for Siemens to relocate to China. It doesn’t mean it will actually happen.”It does recognise that Germany depends on what happens in the UK. Time is running out for Team UPC (EU-wide) because of Article 50. They know what it would mean to the whole scheme when invoked in as little as weeks from now, so they resort to dirty deeds (like those covered here earlier this evening).

Here comes another UPC proponent, this one also from IP Kat, which never criticises the UPC and only ever promotes it (as recently as a week ago). So much for a ‘balanced’ blog, only ever sobbing if there’s a setback or lack of progress for the UPC.

Mr. Smyth, an occasional booster of the UPC (he does a lot to promote it), wrote: “New #UPC rumour – Germany may not ratify until result of Art 50 negotiations known. Could that be true? If so catastrophic #patentforum2017″

“Catastrophic to your employer,” I told him. “What about people who actually make stuff?”

“I honestly don’t believe that Jo Johnson cares about what’s good/bad for the UK e.g. UPC,” I added later. “Just like his brother on Brexit…”

It increasingly seems like Johnson does not care about legal aspects, either, as he cannot ratify the UPC and pray that it will miraculously survive after Brexit (or that they can ‘patch’ the UPC ‘on the go’ so as to ‘retrofit’ it to an untenable ratification). Might Battistelli pull that famous trick that involves money/gifts?

“Here comes another UPC proponent, this one also from IP Kat, which never criticises the UPC and only ever promotes it (as recently as a week ago).”The whole thing is insane!

“Making rules of procedure of a court with an administrative committee like for the UPC is undemocratic,” Henrion noted, and “against German Constitution….”

A couple of days ago Bristows said in its blog that “PPI will give legal personality to the Unified Patent Court and provide the Court and its judges, Registrar and other staff with the various privileges and immunities.”

How does the post-Brexit UK feel about such ‘freedom’ and ‘independence’ from the EU? This just serves to remind everyone out there how crazy this whole thing is. This would not only bring software patents to the UK from the back door (including litigation and enforcement from courts that don’t speak English!). It would also invite patent trolls from other countries and continents to the UK. All those Chinese companies with sloppily-granted EPs can do a lot of damage here if the UPC passes (not that it’s expected to happen, not in the UK anyway).

The loudest proponent of software patents in Germany asked FFII, “do you really think the #UPC will change anything for the #patentability of #software?”

That’s obvious. One has to be seriously misinformed and deliberately in denial about it to say the above. We covered this subject many times before, citing various luminaries and experts to support that assertion.

As Henrion put it, “yes, it will rubberstamp the insane EPO practice.” (the EPO grants software patents, unlike UK-IPO)

“The whole thing is insane!”Imagine what would happen if, instead of national courts (tied to NPOs like UK-IPO), the above-the-law EPO with its taste/savour for software patents gained prominence here. Imagine what would happen if the UPC ever gained a political foothold. Disaster!

Henrion concluded with, “the unitary patent is an ugly mixture of EU law and international law, not even an EU court [and thus] undemocratic…”

If at any point this month Johnson does the unthinkable and slips in a ratification (without even a debate in Parliament), there will definitely be protests. And if the UK goes ahead with Brexit before ratifying (as should be the case, as per the law), then all the above gossip about Germany is just a crazy pipe dream.



Source link: http://techrights.org/2017/03/12/germany-cannot-ratify-the-upc/

post

Inverting Narratives: IAM ‘Magazine’ Paints Massive Patent Bully Microsoft (Preying on the Weak) as a Defender of the Powerless


If it looks like a patent troll, IAM will certainty love it and agonise over the bad reputation of trolls

IAM THE VOICE OF PATENT TROLLS

Summary: Selective coverage and deliberate misinterpretation of Microsoft’s tactics (patent settlement under threat, disguised as “pre-installation of some of the US company’s software products”) as seen in IAM almost every week these days

THERE IS A WAR against GNU/Linux. It’s a very big war. But a lot of it happens in the back room and it is being led by Microsoft, a notoriously corrupt company that still relies on bribes and blackmail for a lot of its deals (we have given many examples in the past).

Yesterday we saw a Microsoft-friendly site writing about the latest attack on Free software from Google. The site called it “Patently Ridiculous” (in the headline) that “Google [is] Ordered To Pay $20 Million Plus,” as we noted here the other day (it’s a notoriously trolls-friendly judge).

“Not all of this officially counts/qualifies as patent revenue (royalties) because Microsoft uses a clever trick now.”“Software patents are usually patents on the obvious wrapped up in as obscure, vague and technical a language as possible,” the site said. “In this case Google has been found guilty of infringing a “sandbox” patent in Chrome.”

That’s a software patent and it was found valid in one of those notorious courts in the Eastern District of Texas, so Google will hopefully appeal. But there is an even broader war going on, some of which involves Microsoft satellites that keep suing Android (or GNU/Linux) device makers. We provided plenty of examples in past years.

“This trick started about a year ago with Acer, not too long after it naturally followed from a lawsuit against Samsung that yielded a settlement 2 years ago (same effect, same consequences).”Microsoft itself is playing this aggressive game also directly, though it learned how to disguise it a little better. It is trying to make billions of dollars by shaking down Android OEMs and Chrome OS OEMs (often the same OEMs — more or less — as these two operating systems overlap one another more and more over time). Not all of this officially counts/qualifies as patent revenue (royalties) because Microsoft uses a clever trick now.

This trick started about a year ago with Acer, not too long after it naturally followed from a lawsuit against Samsung that yielded a settlement 2 years ago (same effect, same consequences). Then came Xiaomi (not only bundling of Microsoft malware but also payments to Microsoft, in the form of patent purchases). This was all along misportrayed by IAM, as we repeatedly showed. Either they are willfully ignorant or maliciously lying about it. Today IAM published another one of these puff pieces. It paints Microsoft as some kind of “good cop”, but what the author of this article conveniently neglects to say (or twists the facts of) is that Microsoft previously blackmailed HTC using software patents (around the same time Apple did so).

Here is how IAM put it:

The Microsoft petition – jointly filed with Taiwan’s HTC – argues that claims 14, 15 and 17 of the ‘695 patent should be invalidated on grounds of obviousness. The petition also notes that the ‘695 patent has been asserted by Philips along with several other patents in a series of infringement cases it filed in the District of Delaware back in December 2015. The seven of these lawsuits that remain active target Acer, Asus and HTC from Taiwan; Double Power Technology and Yifang from China; and US companies Visual Land and Southern Telecom. Microsoft has joined the Acer, Asus, Double Power, Visual Land and Yifang cases as a counter-defendant; it is also involved in the HTC case as an intervenor-plaintiff.

[…]

Of the defendants in the Philips lawsuits, we know that Microsoft signed HTC as a patent licensee back in 2010, and that it has revised and expanded existing IP licensing deals with Acer and Asus in recent years. With regards to both the latter, this involved the pre-installation of some of the US company’s software products on the Taiwanese manufacturers’ devices; this has also been a feature of headline patent deals signed with other major Asian companies, including Lenovo and Xiaomi. It may be the case that Microsoft has also offered some form of patent risk mitigation, similar to the aforementioned cloud customer programme, as part of these agreements – though that is just my speculation at this stage, and would be difficult to confirm since the details of such licensing arrangements are typically highly confidential.

Instead of ever acknowledging their mistakes/errors, Team IAM likes to pretend that I did not understand what they wrote. This Microsoft-powered site with many guests from Microsoft embedded in articles is fooling nobody. Microsoft is almost worshiped there and rarely is there even a single sentence critical of the company.

“Just using patents to coerce companies into doing what Microsoft tells them,” I told IAM. “It’s a form of blackmail.” But they keep repeating Microsoft’s talking points every month if not every week. That’s revisionism.

Watch how IAM framed a PTAB IPR petition (as if Microsoft cares for companies it blackmailed): “Microsoft IPR filed against Philips looks like another example of the company’s patent-plus value creation strategy.”

Blackmail with patent threats is not “Value creation”. It’s extortion, it’s blackmail. IAM needs to stop pretending that it’s a news site if trolls are painted as innocent victims and companies that terrify and bully the whole industry get treated like a banality to be ignored if not celebrated.

IAM, like the EPO which turned it into a propaganda mill, is a symptom of many of the things we stand against. The other day it celebrated European patent-based sanctions against Chinese companies (like the aforementioned OEMs from Taiwan or China) and only days ago it promoted patent tax through SEPs, which are inherently not compatible with Free/libre software. To quote:

Avanci was launched last September with Qualcomm, Ericsson, ZTE, KPN, InterDigital and Sony all agreeing to make their standard essential patents that read on 2G, 3G and 4G technology available for license across a range of IoT industry verticals. The first three sectors that Avanci has targeted are the auto industry, connected homes and smart meters. There’s no doubt that Avanci brings together some of the leading plays in wireless technology, but it also has some notable gaps such as Nokia and Huawei. Five months after it launched it is yet to conclude any licensing agreements, although Alfalahi insisted that feedback from the industry and from regulators has been positive and that his team continues to talk to a wide range of licensees and possible members. “We’re not saying that cross-licensing or one-on-one licensing doesn’t work, we just believe there’s a better way and over the last year it has become clear there is a need in the market,” he said.

By making up buzzwords like “IoT” or “4G” companies try to bundle together a bunch of patents that deny entry into the market (via standards) unless entrants pay a very large toll (sometimes more expensive than all the hardware combined). In reality, many of these patents are software patents, i.e. something which isn’t even patent-eligible in the vast majority of countries.

We read IAM not for information but mostly as an exercise in understanding the idealogical opposition; IAM stands for greed, protectionism, and litigation, in lieu with its funding sources (revenue sources are not limited to subscriptions).



Source link: http://techrights.org/2017/02/21/microsoft-shakedown-revisionism/

post

No, Doing Mathematical Operations on a Processor Does Not Make Algorithms Patent-Eligible


“[The EPO] can’t distinguish between hardware and software so the patents get issued anyway” —Marshall Phelps

Summary: Old and familiar tricks — a method for tricking examiners into the idea that algorithms are actual machines — are being peddled by Watchtroll again

I COME from a professional background of computer vision and I am also familiar with (and trained in) processor technology, so when I say that software is inherently mathematics I am not just merely repeating what other people are saying. In fact, having debated this in length with Watchtroll a couple of years ago, it became abundantly clear that he (Mr. Quinn) does not know that the heck he is talking about; he could not even name any computer program he wrote. It’s astounding that people who want to believe that software is patentable take him seriously*.

I therefore worry that Watchtroll is seen by many as some sort of ‘authority’ on the subject; it’s a site by and for law firms, or a propaganda mill for their pockets (software patents). They do a lot of lobbying and also shaming of officials like the Director of the USPTO (they never even mention the EPO).

“The latest Watchtroll piece wants people to think of computer programs as computers; as if putting something that is akin to prose through a processor magically makes it patentable.”The latest Watchtroll piece is titled “Operational Mathematics on a Processor is not an Abstract Idea”. They are mixing two things here; processors are not abstract but mathematics is a whole different thing. They cannot just magically link two things to make them look like the same thing. In our view, which was consistent over the years, the processor itself can have patents associated with it, and we don’t object to that. But algorithms are not processors and they are rarely if ever embedded in gate level. The computers are programmable. That’s what Manchester innovated after the (second) World War and what the Computer Science department here — the department which I studied in — became most renowned for.

The latest Watchtroll piece wants people to think of computer programs as computers; as if putting something that is akin to prose through a processor magically makes it patentable. Clueless or just lying to oneself?

We often wonder how many of the software patents proponents who write for Watchtroll actually come from Computer Science and can comprehend computer programs/code. We cannot recall even one. “Peter also works as a patent engineer in patent prosecution,” says the disclosure in the above article. What the heck is a “patent engineer”? That makes it sound like the act of patenting itself is an engineering task? Can they patent the process of patenting too? I once dated a girl who said she was a “nail engineer” (later it turned out she meant manicurist), so here again we have these artistic semantics.

“Sadly, based on what we heard, the above-mentioned pattern of deception (combining or blurring the gap between machine and code) is often used to trick EPO examiners into granting software patents; they can mislead themselves into thinking that they don’t grant software patents, but they do.”“Operational math on a processor is a switching device and not an abstract idea,” Peter writes. The processor just takes an instruction or a set of instructions (input) and produces some output, yielding something that can be processed for visualisation, sound etc. But the processor is not the program itself. The programs are stored in memory or in registers, which themselves resemble a book and are already covered by copyrights, not patents, just like a book. We could go on and deconstruct the whole piece from Peter, who is an Electronic Engineer, not a software engineer (far from the same thing).

Sadly, based on what we heard, the above-mentioned pattern of deception (combining or blurring the gap between machine and code) is often used to trick EPO examiners into granting software patents; they can mislead themselves into thinking that they don’t grant software patents, but they do.
____
* Well, here is Mr. Watchtroll being treated as some kind of guru on the subject [1, 2] just a few days ago.



Source link: http://techrights.org/2017/02/20/framing-algorithms-as-actual-machines/