post

Why Authorities in the Netherlands Need to Strip the EPO of Immunity and Investigate Fire Safety Violations


Factory alleged to have ignored warnings
Reference: Factory alleged to have ignored warnings

Summary: How intimidation and crackdown on the staff representatives at the EPO may have led to lack of awareness (and action) about lack of compliance with fire safety standards

IN THE last part about the fire hazard at the EPO we shed light on the continuation of this problem at the next building in the Netherlands. Why does this matter? Because the unwillingness of Dutch authorities to compel the EPO to obey the law causes the EPO to operate with impunity and potentially put a lot of lives in great danger, even consciously.

“Lately, it was the Dutch representatives taking a lot of heat or even coming under fire (pardon the pun).”Staff representatives are understandably afraid to bring this up. Each time they say the truth there is severe action of retribution from Battistelli and his goons. Lately, it was the Dutch representatives taking a lot of heat or even coming under fire (pardon the pun).

“Unfortunately,” one person explained to us, “the majority of the local staff committee as well as the local SUEPO committee have been very reluctant to take any further measures to protect our safety in case of a fire at our site. Until now they did not bother to inform […] though some members were aware of this issue since November 2010.”

“The immunity of the EPO must be ended, and not only after a major catastrophe (one that would belatedly put the EPO in the headlines, due to a tragedy other than Battistelli).”See the effect of union-busting actions and extreme attacks on staff representatives? Even life-threatening risks (mere facts) become suppressed. We too need to be careful in what we say because we are well aware of risk to our sources. Not too long ago we belatedly kick-started a series revolving around the inadequacy of these facilities by sharing, in redacted form, anything but the most sensitive details. We feel safe to assert that this helps highlight human rights aspects (disregard for staff’s safety) and is in the public interest.

We would like to urge readers, especially Dutch-speaking readers, to forward these bits of information to the suitable authorities in Holland and urge for immediate action. The immunity of the EPO must be ended, and not only after a major catastrophe (one that would belatedly put the EPO in the headlines, due to a tragedy other than Battistelli).



Source link: http://techrights.org/2017/04/23/fire-hazard-at-epo-holland/

post

Insensitivity at the EPO’s Management – Part IX: Testament to the Fear of an Autocratic Regime


When Exposing A Crime Is Treated As Committing A Crime, You Are Being Ruled By The Criminals Themselves.

Summary: A return to the crucial observation and a reminder of the fact that at the EPO it takes great courage to say the truth nowadays

THE lives ruined by the EPO‘s management extend well beyond EPO staff and stakeholders; spouses, children, friends and peers are impacted as well. The whole European economy is negatively affected. This is why we believe that everyone in Europe (if not well beyond Europe) should pay closer attention to scandals which the media seems unwilling to cover (like it covered FIFA scandals, for instance, if not Volkswagen too, especially amid Dieselgate).

“The EPO has become a sociopathic institution which takes orders from one single person as though he is a monarch in a palace.”In part VII and part VIII of this series we wrote about whistleblowing at the EPO and absolutely zero tolerance of criticism. The EPO has become a sociopathic institution which takes orders from one single person as though he is a monarch in a palace. Nothing like this ever happened at the USPTO or any other patent office (as far as we are aware). European autocracy up on display? Certainly a reputational issue for the EU, even if the EPO isn’t an EU entity (unlike the distant ‘fantasy’ — or contrariwise nightmare — which is UPC).

“In any healthy (or functional) institution, none of this would be required and there would be an ombudsman to turn to. But not the EPO under Battistelli…”The EPO’s whistleblowers are scared; they are not always confident and occasionally they feel the need to forge details not about the story but about themselves. “We were thinking also of changing some terms and details of the story,” one person once told us regarding “nationalities, countries, disease details, sex and ages etc. — [just] enough to make sure that if they [are] still going [to point] the finger on me, it would be an open admission that they did what we relate.”

In any healthy (or functional) institution, none of this would be required and there would be an ombudsman to turn to. But not the EPO under Battistelli…



Source link: http://techrights.org/2017/04/23/courage-to-speak-at-epo/

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

EPO Patent Quality and Quality of Service Have Become a Disaster, Say EPO Stakeholders


“The situation is unfortunately getting out of control at the EPO.”Anonymous

A fiery texture

Summary: Stakeholders of the EPO, in various sites that attract them, are complaining about the service of the EPO, the declining quality of patents (and the rushed processes), including the fact that Battistelli’s blind obsession with so-called ‘production’ dooms the already-up-in-flames EPO and makes it uncompetitive

Thorsten Bausch is a brave man who will likely be reviled by Team Battistelli for saying the truth about the EPO. Typically, EPO stakeholders only speak anonymously about the EPO (for instance revealing that 0% of them support Battistelli).

The USPTO is probably looking at this as an opportunity these days. What has happened to the EPO as world leader? The EPO grants patents on just about anything (even things that the USPTO rejects as a matter of principle/law), and it’s granting such patents fast. It’s madness. It’s like ‘SIPO Europe’. Except in SIPO there is an actual demand for patents (a million or more applications last year), whereas in the EPO the number of applications is declining. The other day we caught this new press release that brags about an EP by saying: “With the grant by the EPO the Company can now validate the patent in the 38 countries that are Member States of the European Patent Organisation. This is a procedural step, which includes filing some paperwork and paying a validation fee, but no further review is required. The Company will validate the patent in countries based on the size of the market opportunity that exists in each country.”

But how potent is this patent really? As we have shown here before, many EPs are now bunk. They’re worse than worthless because if one sues with such patents there will be nothing except legal bills. Is this a good thing for patent law firms? Potentially, but only up to a point. The thing is, they too recognise that people are walking away from this system, which would mean less business for them.

Looking at part two of the series from Bausch, here is a comment from “LC” which says: “I fully agree with the author [Bausch]. In addition, the dramatic and unexpected increase of grants puts a pressure on the budgets : more validation costs, more oppositions to file. Regrarding oppositions, not only the number of patents gets higher, but as their quality is lower, the proportion of patents to oppose will also increase.”

This is no good!

Magnus Stiebe wrote: “I totally agree with Dr. Bausch. We have internally discussed not only problems with early and unnecessary summons to oral proceedings, but especially the decreasing quality of search reports and search opinions: often no attention at all is paid to the dependent claims, which are sweepingly declared to refer to minor design issues, even when this is clearly not the case. Even the independent claims are sometimes dealt with in an apparently careless manner.

“I once had a boss who did not want to spend more resources on the patent department and who tried to solve backlog problems by declaring that priority should be given to certain tasks. At the end of the day all tasks had to be handled with priority. Not very surprisingly, this had an impact on quality.”

In relation to “a possible return to national filings,” Stiebe later added, “me and most of my colleagues (based in Spain) have traditionally preferred the EPO for first filings, at least in part due to the value of the search report and, to a substantial extent, the search opinion, including the examiners’ views on issues like clarity and inventive step. However, lately we have started considering using the Spanish PTO as an option for the first filing. We actually think that at present the Spanish PTO may provide equally good or even better search results.”

See what is happening? The “Spanish PTO may provide equally good or even better search results” than the EPO, at a far lower cost!

Benjamin Quest wrote: “I consent to that. None of my clients desire a force-closure of the examination proceedings within 12 months. Those who are interested in swift examination proceedings waive their right to receive a Communication under Rule 161 or 70 EPC, file PACE requests and provide quick instructions to Examination reports. None of the PACE proceedings that I’m in charge of leave anything in demand with respect to the speed of the proceedings.

“In my daily practice I also observe an erosion of the quality of examination as well as a rise in prematurely issued Summons to Attend Oral Proceedings. Sometimes this results in a hectic series of informal interviews in order to just settle the case (or the remnants of it) for now and the subsequent filing of a divisional application. In fact, divisional applications are about to become the only recourse for applicants to ease this situation. Filing (a series of) divisional applications, however, is a pretty expensive strategy. This leads to the situation that the “early certainty” strategy of the EPO in examination proceedings discriminates applicants that are SMEs, universities and private applicants.

“Hence, speeding up examination proceedings just for the sake of bragging with production figures fixes a problem that nobody has.”

The original author, Thorsten Bausch, responded with: “Thank you. And if you consider the most recent statistics of the EPO that just came out and show that 40% more patents were granted last year than in the year 2015, this will give us a feeling about the order of magnitude of the problem…”

As some then rightly pointed out, examiners are “caught in a system which has degraded them to chain workers.” It’s a very long comment and we have decided to reproduce it in full as it’s copyrighted by an anonymous author:

The idea of early certainty for search is, as such, not bad. It is important for an applicant to receive a good search report as soon as practicably possible, accompanied by an equally good opinion on patentability. But a thorough examination is as important and not just a useless play with words.

Reality shows that in lots of cases the search is done in a very slovenly way, and any reason to stop the search is a good reason. For instance finding an X document means in general that the search is stopped very early. When the independent claim is not patentable, then none of the dependent claims are. Why then bother with the latter and give a full view on all the claims?

Even if later it turns out to grant, the clarity of the dependent claims is simply forgotten, with all dire consequences in opposition. Why do you think that in G 3/14 the President has considered it necessary to have clarity examined for every patent opposed? Simply to try to weed out for opposed patents the blunders made during examination.

In one case, the search examiner has cited as an X document a publication of the inventors. The problem is simply that the document was published, for good reasons, after filing! Unbelievable, but true. This is certainly not what it should be. You can guess that the corresponding opinion was of the same quality. It might look prima facie as a single incident, but it is simply exemplary of what happens now on a large scale.

Just watch out if the documents cited on the search report are not family members of the documents having been found during other searches, the result of which has to be communicated to the EPO. It is an old trick, but it works.

I am not entirely blaming the examiners, as they are caught in a system which has degraded them to chain workers. The machine is simply getting mad, and if any examiner does not want to be left behind, meaning that he will get no bonus, or even will be considered incompetent, he has to follow the system. They have nevertheless for a vast majority accepted the system.

Summons to oral proceedings are merely used to twist the arm of the applicant or its representative. If you do not come to oral proceedings, then your application will be refused, and then you can only continue by filing an appeal. The costs are for you, and we do not care about this point.

If the Board of Appeal is of another opinion, he will in general remit the case back, either with the order to grant or to continue proceedings. If a case comes back from the Boards of Appeal, unless it is to merely adapt the description to the claims, the counter is reset and the examiner receives the full allocation of points for a final action (grant or refusal) when he has been ordered to continue the procedure. This is valid even if the examining division has committed a substantial procedural violation! Hence the production can be increased again, not only for the single examiner, but also for the directorate. The director will thus not complain at all.

The idea of early certainty of search and examination has sprung in the minds of the top management of DG1, and has been fully endorsed by the President. It is all benefit for him: the production looks good, and since grant has occurred, the validation states are happy as well, as money flows as early as possible to them and not to the EPO. May be an increase in the procedural fees will have to be decided if hardly any direct revenue from renewal fees comes to the EPO?

There is one question to be asked: who are the users who have stressed that it is a priority for them [to obtain a quick grant] and, as such, timeliness is a priority for the EPO? One could accept it, if the quality would be there, but alas, this is not any longer the case.

Beside the meaningless quality marker under ISO 9000 which is regularly trumpeted to be excellent, the EPO should publish the real quality statistics which are set up by the audit department. The figure will probably look quite different, hence a reason why they are well kept secret.

The tragedy is that SMEs are the direct victims of such a system. Either they get applications refused for flimsy reasons, and often cannot afford to appeal. They may also get patents which are hardly enforceable, as not correctly examined, or they are confronted with patents which are so broad that any attack can bring them on the brink of collapse. We are always told that the EP and UP (so far as it will materialise) systems are good for the SMEs, especially European ones. The contrary is true, as the examiner has no time to consider the application as he should do. I am not pleading that an examiner should give more time to an application coming from an SME, but what is happening now, is directly detrimental to SMEs.

PACEing every single application is against the needs of the users, but they are there to pay and shut up.

It is high time that the profession says something, and does not continue to look at the disaster without reacting. It is good that Mr Bausch has taken up the issue. It might be difficult in the long run to get applicants to pay for such a mediocre quality, and one might see in a long run a return to national filings, especially if the number of states in which a validation is envisaged is small. Then good by EPC and UPC.

The problem is that certainty of everything is ending in certainty of nothing, but the production figures are excellent. It just depends under which point of view one looks at them.

“The situation is unfortunately getting out of control at the EPO,” said the following comment, crediting Bausch for the courageous ‘coming out’ with this issue:

Thank you so much for your support.
The situation is unfortunately getting out of control at the EPO.
Management is coming up everyday with new ideas to speed up grant. For example, I hope you are fully aware that from 1.12.2016 also a phone call from us may be considered as first action in examinination (ppn12/2016). This means that we can summon oral proceedings after you get our minutes for the telephone conversation.
We cannot stop this alone. Please help us to put an end at it.
Thank you

The final comment said that the EPO isn’t as transparent as it likes to claim. This alluded mostly to technical parts of the procedure undertaken by law firms:

It was a long standing policy decision that the first action of an examining division could not be a phone conversation. it is only in case of possible grant that small formal amendments should be introduced at the R 71(3) stage, but they had to be discussed with the applicant before sending the R 71(3) communication. Another form of twisting the applicant’s arm…..

The problem with minutes of telephone conversations is that in the vast majority of the files they are not a true account of what was discussed, but give only the result of the discussion. This makes it difficult for third parties to understand why an examining division comes to grant. It does not seem that this slapdash way of minuting has improved, and looking at files, it has rather gone worse.

The reasons why a decision to grant has been taken are as such not public. It must however be clear from the evolution of the file what lead to grant. When there are only sweeping statements about dependent claims, it is easy for an applicant to say that they were not justified and then the applicant combines the original independent claim with a dependent, and then a grant follows. For what reason? God knows.

If the EPO claims to be transparent, a first action might be to publish the reasons why an examining division decides a grant, not only the page containing the signatures of the members of the examining division (page 4 of Form 2035) but also the reasons why the examining division considers that a patent can be granted (page 1 and 2 of Form 2035). Why is the public only informed of the reasons why an application has been refused? It should also be aware of the reasons having led to grant.

In spite of IP Kat‘s decision to no longer criticise the EPO, comments there too are mostly dissenting and dissatisfied. At the early days of this month someone wrote: “Ravi Srinivasan (J A Kemp) was up next, with a fascinating insight from a patent attorney perspective as to why a system has arisen which facilitates cascading divisionals – potentially for the duration of the patent. Ravi noted that the particular problems presented by the Fujifilm v AbbVie case are specific to the EPO, and do not apply to the UK IPO. Although the UK IPO allows patentees to file cascading divisionals, all applications are time limited (4 years and 6 months from priority date of parent patent to grant – see s20(1) of Patents Act 1977 and rule 30 of Patent Rules). In Ravi’s experience, the UK IPO works exceptionally hard to get its work done within these deadlines. Ravi noted that some other jurisdictions do not allow the filing of divisionals at all.”

If patents at the EPO (EPs) and service of the EPO cannot even compete with the Spanish, how can they even compete with the UK-IPO, which is pretty decent?

Here is a remark on associated costs:

“the sliding scale of EUR 210 (for a divisional filed within 2 years) to EUR850 (for a divisional filed at 5 years +) is hardly an effective sanction.”

This statement is not in line with the RRFE of the EPO. In fact, it is not the time the divisional application is filed but its generation (divisional of divisional) which determines the applicable official fee.

It has since been corrected:

Anonymous at 17.10 – thank you for this. I have checked the position and you are absolutely spot on (my misunderstanding as a solicitor, not being familiar with the detail of EPO practice). Corrected above, with a note to the source.

More about fees:

In my experience, mechanical engineering cases, what does deter those new to the notion of cascading divisionals at the EPO is the accumulated annuity fee payment on filing, especially if the new div is going to be filed relatively late on in the 20 year base term. They find it outrageous of the EPO. They are somewhat mollified when I point out how much annuities cost, after the EPO grants a patent. Wouldn’t you rather keep all your cases pending at the EPO, I ask them, at least until you sniff infringement on the horizon?

The EPO is often accused of keeping cases pending forever, in order to bump up its own annuity “take”. But isn’t it the Applicant community (its customer base) that the EPO is doing its best to serve, when it is routinely tardy in granting cases?

And the conversation about fees went on:

It is not just the filing fee, you also have to pay all the accumulated renewal fees that were paid on the original parent application. My understanding is that a divisional is a completely independent patent, and so you cannot rely on the date of publication of the parent when it comes to seeking damages for infringement: you can only rely on the date of publication of the divisional itself.

“I know of a case kept pending at the EPO for 25 years,” another person added, “just in case an SPC was needed.”

The bottom line is, how can the EPO expect to remain competitive and attract applications when it does the job in a rush and still charges so much money? The matter of fact is, Battistelli is killing the EPO and stakeholders very easily recognise that. It’s obvious. This will mean many layoffs.



Source link: http://techrights.org/2017/04/16/fiery-office-under-battistelli/

post

The Gradual Fall If Not Sudden Collapse of Patent Trolls Associated With Microsoft


The ‘Michelle Lee‘ effect? Or the Alice effect? Either way, Microsoft’s proxy strategy is at risk.

Microsoft SCO
See Lawrence R. Goldfarb (Wikipedia)

Summary: The weakening of software patents in the US means that a bunch of patents-wielding patent bullies/trolls have their business up in flames

IAM might soon lose some of its funding sources, namely patent trolls like Microsoft-armed, Nokia-fed bullies. They are simply not doing well. This might leave IAM growingly dependent on sucking Battistelli’s udder for EPO favours and money. Either way, IAM too is unable to deny the trend.

In the rare occasions when trolls get their way (even in London, right next to IAM, as covered here before), IAM celebrates disproportionately. Being the trolls’ voice, IAM is citing/quoting selectively all sorts of patent predators, then calls patent trolls in the UK the “decision of the decade” (right there in the jubilant headline). As we noted some days ago, IAM had been writing about this almost every day recently (sometimes more than once a day). IAM is cheering for the trolls! These are trolls working on behalf of a larger company, Ericsson in this case. This sets precedence in the UK — one that trolls would certainly be emboldened by.

“These are trolls working on behalf of a larger company, Ericsson in this case.”Like Ericsson, Microsoft increasingly turns to trolls for coercion against competitors. Microsoft has the world’s largest patent troll at its disposal, with literally thousands of satellites around it (to help mask the route back to Microsoft et al) and the original troll is finally dying, albeit it’s spreading its patents to smaller trolls, much like a cluster bomb wherein munitions are patents. Microsoft is already building a business model around that, as we explained earlier this year [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12]. It attacks legitimate companies that actually manage to sell things; these companies are attacked not just via trolls but also directly sometimes. As Patently-O points out, Intellectual Ventures may have gotten itself reputation so bad that it stops operating on its own and just spreads the weapons to other entities. Patently-O is linking to IAM as its source, for IAM is a longtime friend of Intellectual Ventures.

Patently-O is linking to IAM as its source, for IAM is a longtime friend of Intellectual Ventures.”IAM, in the meantime, is revealing that yet another Microsoft-connected proxy/troll (which already attacked GNU/Linux vendors on numerous occasions; details in our Wiki) is collapsing. It tries to soften the blow by framing it as something that affects only Asia but inevitably says:

Acacia Research appears to have significantly restructured its Asia-Pacific business, with the departure of its most senior executive in the region and the possible closure of its Tokyo office.

Where next?

Remember what happened to Creative in Singapore? (collapse of this trolling strategy and departure of the man behind it a few months ago)

Well, Tanya Moore, who worked for two patent aggressors that habitually blackmail their rivals using patents (Microsoft and IBM), has decided to join Sonos — another audio-centric company which wants to do the same as Creative, in spite of the failure of Creative’s strategy. As IAM put it:

Sonos has hired former senior IBM and Microsoft IP executive Tanya Moore to be its first chief licensing officer as the audio company looks to bolster its efforts in IP value creation. The business is a relative minnow in patent terms – according to Google patents the company has a little over 200 US patent applications and grants – but owns what Moore views as a critical portfolio for wireless home audio systems.

So expect it to at least attempt to troll all sorts of companies that merely connect audio devices over the Internet — not a novel concept at all, albeit enough for some examiners to allow a patent on (the “over the Internet” patenting pattern).

The bottom line is, we are seeing more and more patent trolls that struggle and completely collapse, including the very first (or original) patent troll. The few which still emerge are hardly successful.



Source link: http://techrights.org/2017/04/14/collapse-of-patent-trolls/

post

Voices of Patent Trolls Are Alive and Well (and Partly Paid by Battistelli’s EPO)


Related: Battistelli’s European Patent Office Broadens FTI Consulting Contract to Undermine the Media, Wastes Millions of Euros

Summary: Now that patent trolls are spreading to Europe and the EPO promotes the trolls-friendly UPC we cannot turn a blind eye to the role played by IAM, a de facto voice not just of patent trolls but also Benoît Battistelli [1, 2]

THE Director of the USPTO, who is under attack from the patent microcosm including IAM (they try to oust her by spreading false rumours and fake scandals), did a decent job curtailing patent trolls — so much so that the world’s largest patent troll (Intellectual Ventures, or IV for short) is collapsing and the firm of the original patent troll is now defunct.

One can be sure that sites like IAM will sob for the trolls and attack those who stop the trolls. IAM exists for this purpose (not just to lie for Battistelli, whose PR firm supplies IAM with money of EPO stakeholders). Here is yet another new puff piece from IAM — a puff piece that happens to reveal that IAM was speaking to the horrible troll Nathan Myhrvold (the world’s most notorious patent troll). That says a lot about IAM. Here are some key parts:

It was making a bet on the long-term importance of innovation and IP, a fair wager in an economy where companies derived more and more value from their intangible assets. In 2006 IV founder Nathan Myhrvold described IP to IAM as “the fate of the US economy”, pointing out that the two were inextricably linked. “In 10 years patents will be even more important than they are now,” he said.

[…]

IV is not about to disappear — as this blog pointed out on Tuesday, continuing to focus on its own innovation efforts through its labs and possible spin out companies makes a lot of sense; while from an assertion point of view, it is in many ways becoming a far more potent force, seeding its IP into a wide range of licensing vehicles as well as focusing on its own efforts. If the decision to pull out of the market was driven by investors, you have to wonder just how happy, in the long term, those backers are going to be with the prospect of more IV assets being litigated in court.

As we pointed out here before, IV has literally thousands of satellite firms (for litigation by proxy) and it is passing patents to them. Microsoft, one must remember, holds the strings to IV. Bill Gates is very close to Nathan Myhrvold, who came from Microsoft, and Microsoft supplies money to IV.

Not only Microsoft is operating via trolls like IV. Ericsson too is doing this and as we pointed out last week, Ericsson’s patent trolls officially became a ‘thing’ in Europe (earlier this month). Now it’s done in the US, Germany, and even in the UK, as the following new analysis points out:

This case began in 2014 when Unwired Planet, a U.S.-based patent assertion entity, sued Google, Samsung and Huawei for infringement under six UK patents (corresponding actions were filed in Germany). Unwired Planet claimed that five of the asserted patents, which it acquired from Ericsson in 2013 as part of a portfolio comprising approximately 2000 patents, were essential to the 2G, 3G and 4G wireless telecommunications standards developed under the auspices of the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). Because Ericsson participated in development of the standards at ETSI, any patents shown to be SEPs would necessarily be encumbered by Ericsson’s FRAND commitment to ETSI.

WiLAN, a Canadian troll whose function is similar to that of Unwired Planet, is now alleged/accused (by IAM) of having connections to Samsung.

According to court documents seen by IAM, Polaris Innovations – the WiLAN-controlled entity which holds the Qimonda patents – originally filed suit against Kingston Technology, a US manufacturer of data storage devices, in February 2016. Polaris alleged infringement of six of its patents relating to dynamic random-access memory (DRAM) technology by numerous Kingston products.

Polaris IP (not Polaris Innovations) was mentioned one decade ago by Patent Troll Tracker (who was unmasked by Ray Niro before he died). We don’t know if there is a connection, but the other firms actually produce something.

We are sad but not surprised to see IAM continuing its malicious agenda of promoting patent trolls. For the EPO’s President to brag about IAM, the de facto voice of patent aggression and trolls, says quite a lot about today’s leadership of the EPO with its UPC ambitions. As someone told us just over an hour ago, under the UPC “one kind of applicants who will continue to apply en masse are the patent trolls.” No wonder IAM spreads fake news to promote the UPC.



Source link: http://techrights.org/2017/04/11/iam-for-trolls/

post

Asian Companies Already Suffer From Patent Maximalism/Radicalism and UPC Would Make Things Even Worse


Watch what role IAM is playing here…

IAM THE VOICE OF PATENT TROLLS

Summary: Linux-powered operating systems are under attack from software patents in China and in Europe while sites like IAM do everything they can to promote patent trolls, the UPC, and other aggressive means of extracting money from one’s competition

CONTRARY to what Margot Fröhlinger claims on behalf of Battistelli, the UPC would not be desirable to Asian companies. Some of them already suffer from patent trolls in Europe as well as in Asia — a problem to be further exacerbated by UPC-like regimes.

“The operating systems are Tizen and Android.”Published a few days ago by the EPO’s eternal mouthpiece was this article which conflates software patenting with “pro-innovation line”; It says that “SIPO guidelines […] on business method and software claims […] looks to boost its burgeoning internet and e-commerce sector,” but in reality it just means more trolling and litigation. China’s patent maximalism, as is evidenced from the news a day or two ago [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], punishes Korean giants. These software patents from China are now being used against Samsung. ChannelNews said that “Huawei Wins $15.4m Patent Case Against Samsung” over “fourth-generation (4G) cellular communications technology, operating systems and user interface software…”

The operating systems are Tizen and Android. As CNET notes in its own coverage of this, it comes almost in conjunction with a “separate case [in which] Huawei has been warned by the UK High Court to pay a global license fee for patents from US software company Unwired Planet to avoid intellectual property infringement in the UK or risk being barred from selling its phones…”

“We urge readers to keep abreast of what IAM is cheering for here: trolls and UPC. Both are funding sources of IAM.”This case, as we noted here before the weekend, demonstrates that patent trolls are penetrating London and succeeding there. A ‘unitary’ effect would be even more devastating.

The spinners from IAM, however, see it differently (they are paid to see it differently). “Huawei case also shows that in addition to Germany NPEs can get injunctions in the UK in FRAND/SEP cases. That’s Europe’s big 2 venues sorted […] And this is without the UPC,” they noted. “If that does get up and running, there will be a number of British and German judges on the bench.”

We urge readers to keep abreast of what IAM is cheering for here: trolls and UPC. Both are funding sources of IAM.

“Bristows are some of the worst liars out there, so anyone pursuing a “piece” or “paper” from them is looking for nothing but propaganda.”Recently, IAM has been cheering for the trolls of Ericsson almost every day. They’re attacking. Their target (defendant) is Linux/Android. Two days ago, IAM promoted Ericsson’s patent troll (Unwired Planet) even twice in a single day, serving to reinforce IAM’s role as the trolls’ propaganda rag. They refer to the troll as “NPE Unwired Planet” and also say that “IAM commissioned a piece from UK law firm Bristows…” (so the EPO pays a PR firm, which in turn pays IAM, which then pays Bristows, which also happens to lobby for the trolls’ dream, the UPC).

Bristows are some of the worst liars out there, so anyone pursuing a “piece” or “paper” from them is looking for nothing but propaganda.

“We previously noted that Ericsson and Microsoft now use a similar strategy — the strategy of passing patents for trolls to attack rivals.”Well, such is the nature of IAM and its neighbourhood. They’re a propaganda mill disguised as ‘news’. In their latest issue, as usual, they are whitewashing Microsoft’s patent racketeering and stating: “Based on different continents and very different in size, Microsoft and Fractus are united by a sophisticated understanding of IP value which is delivering tangible results. Others would be well advised to heed their example…” (advocacy of patent trolling, courtesy of the trolls-loving friends at IAM).

We previously noted that Ericsson and Microsoft now use a similar strategy — the strategy of passing patents for trolls to attack rivals. This isn’t innovation; it’s just aberration.



Source link: http://techrights.org/2017/04/09/upc-radicalism-and-iam/

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

As a Bargaining Chip, UPC (Unitary Patent/Unified Patent Court) is a Curse, Not a Gift


The UK can be a safe haven from patent trolls, not taxation

Bargaining Chip

Summary: The United Kingdom does not want the UPC, albeit Team UPC will continue to claim the opposite, and British politicians need to act accordingly

“Bargaining chip” is a term that is most often used in the context of Brexit negotiations (to describe the cards held by the EU and the UK). We recently saw that term used in relation to the UPC, which the EPO‘s management wants to shove down everyone’s throats, even in defiance of British interests. What we explained 3 days ago is that, if anything, Brexit negotiators should treat UPC as an undesirable to the UK. A small bunch of law firms down in London do not represent the wishes and desires of British businesses or people. Businesses complain about the UPC and rightly so.

“…Brexit negotiators should treat UPC as an undesirable to the UK.”“It is rather amusing to believe the UK would consider the UPC a “card in the hand”,” one person said today, “and frankly ridiculous for anyone to believe the UPC will be given a moment’s thought by any EU member state.”

This came up amid discussion about Brexit in general (including Gibraltar, i.e. well beyond our scope of coverage). “Several issues raised, in those last comments,” the response to that said. “One of them relevant to patents namely UPC as negotiating card.”

“A small bunch of law firms down in London do not represent the wishes and desires of British businesses or people.”It carried on; “doing things ‘in an orderly fashion’,” then said the person who brought it all up, “would mean first discussing what is going to happen post-Brexit before starting up the UPC and UP.”

Finally, said the UPC sceptic, “the UPC is a non-issue on the political list of priorities. There was no urgency for the UK to sign and it would have been reasonable not to pending an idea on how things would work when the UK leaves. No point setting off on boat journey when you know the plug will be pulled when out in deep water.”

“We don’t expect any of it to make headway in the UK.”This is what we have been arguing for many months. The government has much higher priorities right now than some dubious, scarcely understood and barely coherent piece of text put together by predators (prepared for signing without public scrutiny).

We are encouraged to see that the British government was in no rush to ratify anything; they too must know by now that Brexit and UPC are inherently incompatible, the undesirability of the UPC aside. We don’t expect any of it to make headway in the UK. It will not even come up in negotiation phases; there are much more important things to discuss and it seems likely that UPC proponent Michel Barnier would have somewhat of a conflict to declare if he attempted to help Battistelli wheel that Trojan horse into Britain..



Source link: http://techrights.org/2017/04/03/uk-does-not-want-the-upc/

post

The Litigation Lobby is Causing Chaos in Patent Offices, Still in a Coordinated Effort to Convert Patents Into Nothing But Legal Chaos That Harms Science


Earlier tonight: Growing Suspicions of Planned Obsolescence at the European Patent Office (replacing examination with prosecution Armageddon)

The litigation lobby
In their newsletter they are even quite blatant about it

Watchtroll great againSummary: Aggressive efforts to cause war and instigate unnecessary conflict at the expense of sharing and collaboration in the world of science, for nothing but the enrichment of (taxing by) the serial litigators such as trolls

IT IS not news to us that the Chamber of Commerce (essentially an influence/pressure group) is with the litigation lobby, as a lot of litigation or threats thereof might come from large companies against their minuscule competitors. CoC — as it’s often referred to (almost derogatorily) — stands for large multinational corporations, so the “commerce” part isn’t exactly frank.

“So the litigation industry wants legal wars.”Now that IAM and Watchtroll are lobbying Trump and trying to overthrow USPTO Director Lee so as to install this crook we should pay careful attention to IAM’s latest issue that promotes discriminatory thickets. “In recent years,” it says, “patent pools have once again become a hot topic, as well as a source of considerable controversy.”

It’s not hard to see why. These pools are designed to exclude small players and support/enforce an oligopoly. Watchtroll, in the meantime, citing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce which attacks India for disallowing patents on software (IAM was a megaphone for the Chamber of Commerce just weeks ago, also in relation to this point), complains about improvements in patent quality in the US (and decreased litigation). Joining him are the usual people, for instance John Harris (of a patent law firm) who said “USA continues to take steps backwards due to variety of self-inflicted wounds in patent system. (Duh.)”

“Cui bono? Certainly not scientists.”So the litigation industry wants legal wars. No surprise there. “That’s actually forward,” Benjamin Henrion corrected him, “depending on which side you are.”

Here in Europe we have similar problem because Battistelli demolishes patent quality whilst EPO management and Team UPC are lobbying aggressively for UPC. Cui bono? Certainly not scientists. They would be the ones to lose money to a bunch of non-producing (or unproductive) parasites.

“There are powerful forces pressuring and sometimes even bribing politicians to turn their back on reason.”“The only interest group in Britain which has any interest in the UK acceding to the UP [Unitary Patent] are law firms,” this new comment says. “British law firms which are just the post office of American and some Asian applicants will be marginalised if they will no be eligible to present before the UPC. Due to the high cost of litigation in the UK and by consequence the low number of court cases they have basically no real court experience and they wont get it before the UPC. To a very small extent Irish firms will take over, and German lawyers take the win. The best thing the British lawyers can hope for is no UPC at all or requalify as plumbers with all the Polish plumbers leaving the Island, this seems a more rewarding career prospect.”

It is important to recognise that progress and innovation (in science and technology in particular) are not on the agenda of every occupation. There are powerful forces pressuring and sometimes even bribing politicians to turn their back on reason. That’s a slap across the face to patent examiners who practice and study science.



Source link: http://techrights.org/2017/04/02/litigation-lobby-for-chaos/