Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

Techrights

Syndicate content
Free Software Sentry – watching and reporting maneuvers of those threatened by software freedom
Updated: 1 hour 25 min ago

Links 28/6/2016: Red Hat Summit 2016, Hadoop Events

2 hours 1 min ago

Contents GNU/Linux Free Software/Open Source Leftovers
  • The gift and curse of CEO ego

    After a leader effectively keeps her or his ego in check, where does he or she begin delegating decisions and problem solving? To find the answer to that question, one must simply explore where value is created. The people involved in creating value are the people who should be most involved in the decision-making process. Having maturity, curiosity and determination, our newly-open CEO should be willing to open up that decision-making process and give decision making power and trust to those individuals, whether within the company or outside. The leader’s role should be to support those people and groups, and to create an environment in which they can come up with the solutions that best suit their immediate situations, and the company as a whole—not an environment that lets the CEOs ego spiral out of control.

  • Health/Nutrition
    • WHO Names New Head Of Health Emergencies

      The World Health Organization has named veteran health crisis expert Peter Salama of Australia the next head of the Health Emergencies Programme, a high-profile position for the UN agency’s leadership against outbreaks and disasters.

  • Security
    • Libarchive Security Flaw Discovered

      When it comes to security, everyone knows you shouldn’t run executable files from an untrustworthy source. Back in the late 1990s, when web users were a little more naive, it was quite common to receive infected email messages with fake attachments.

  • Defence/Aggression
    • The Glorious Dictatorship of Uzbekistan

      A very curious puff piece has turned up in the Guardian for holidays in Uzbekistan, which fails entirely to mention that it is one of the world’s least free countries and most repressive dictatorships. Nor is this irrelevant to tourism, as there could well be serious problems for visiting religious muslims or gays, and it very definitely impinges on everybody’s freedom to move around.

    • Trading Places: Neocons and Cockroaches

      Neocons want a new Cold War – all the better to pick the U.S. taxpayers’ pockets – but this reckless talk and war profiteering could spark a nuclear war and leave the world to the cockroaches, writes Robert Parry.

  • Finance/Brexit
    • EU referendum: MEPs discuss Brexit negotiations
    • Nigel Farage jeered and booed as he tells MEPs they are ‘in denial’ over Brexit

      Ukip leader Nigel Farage was jeered by the European Parliament after he told MEPs that they were “in denial” about Brexit and that they had “never had a proper job before”.

      His astonishing speech at a special meeting of the European Parliament today ended with boos echoing through the Brussels chamber.

    • The Calm Stroll to Independence

      Scottish nationals have two supra-national citizenships. One is UK citizenship, the second is EU citizenship. In democratic referenda over the past two years, Scots have voted clearly to retain both citizenships.

    • The EU may drop English as their official language

      English, the world’s second language and the main working tongue of EU institutions, may no longer be an official language of the European Union once Britain leaves the bloc, a senior EU lawmaker said on Monday.

    • Romanians for Remainians: an ‘adoption’ offer for bewildered Brits

      If the Brexit fallout has left you reeling and combing your family tree for alternative passport options, it might be time to consider adoption by a Romanian family.

      A daily newspaper in Bucharest has launched a “Romanians for Remanians” campaign, offering a new home to the 48% of Britons who voted to stay in the European Union.

      The Gandul website tells Brits who believe in a united Europe to “leave the Brexiters, the quarrelling and the weather behind” and “start brand new life” in Romania.

  • AstroTurf/Lobbying/Politics
    • Kuenssberg Goes Into Overdrive

      170,000 Labour members voted against Jeremy Corbyn in the last leadership election. Any of them can expect to be made briefly famous by Laura Kuenssberg as she deliriously seeks to promote her “Labour members turn against Corbyn” message.

      She broadcasts that Andy Slaughter’s resignation from an obscure shadow junior ministerial post is “different”, because he uses the word “comrade”, and is a sign that even Corbyn’s supporters are turning against him.

      Let’s consider that a moment. Slaughter’s voting record shows that he is a strong supporter of nuclear missiles and Trident replacement, and voted consistently against an inquiry into the Iraq war. So Kuenssberg’s characterisation of Slaughter is false.

      And did Slaughter support Corbyn for leader last time? No. Andy Slaughter actually nominated Yvette Cooper for leader.

      But worry not. Kuenssberg has another, killing example that Corbyn has lost it. The former leader of Dudley Council, councillor Dave Sparks, is going to vote against him! Kuenssberg evidently expects this bombshell to move financial markets. And did Bob Sparks vote for Corbyn the first time? Er, no. But, Kuenssberg announces, some other Labour councillors will vote against Corbyn too! Amazing!

  • Censorship/Free Speech
    • Web content blocking plan for EU’s draft anti-terrorism law hits stumbling block

      A controversial vote over planned Web blocking rules—recently squeezed into the EU’s draft anti-terrorism law—has been postponed by a week.

      It was due to take place on Tuesday in the European Parliament’s civil liberties committee, but the vote has now been pushed back to Monday June 27.

      The latest draft of the directive on combating terrorism contains proposals on blocking websites that promote or incite terror attacks. Member states “may take all necessary measures to remove or to block access to webpages publicly inciting to commit terrorist offences,” says text submitted by German MEP and rapporteur Monika Hohlmeier.

    • Vanuatu Daily Digest condemns ‘blanket state censorship’ of social media

      Vanuatu’s Public Service Commission is forbidding government workers from accessing social media, Radio Vanuatu News reports today.

    • Arab Atheists Decry Facebook Censorship on Posts Critical of Islam

      Atheist groups in the Middle East and North Africa region are demanding that Facebook, which has deleted numerous pages with more than 100,000 members for criticizing Islam, change the way it addresses violation claims so that members’ freedom of speech is preserved.

      In April, Facebook removed more than six Arabic-speaking atheist pages due to “violations” of Community Standards, after deactivating 10 of the largest Arabic-speaking atheist groups with a total of about 100,000 members, in February, according to The News Hub.

      The censorship is a result of organized efforts by “cyber jihadist” groups to get anti-Islamic groups or pages removed, atheist groups say.

    • Chaos escalates and CEO quits at SABC headquarters over censorship

      According to Tech Central, veteran journalist and SABC acting CEO Jimi Matthews has quit, saying in his resignation letter that what is happening at the state-owned broadcaster is “wrong” and that he can “no longer be a part of it.”

    • I don’t even know what censorship is – Hlaudi Motsoeneng

      SABC COO Hlaudi Motsoeneng has scoffed at suggestions that the public broadcaster is engaging in censorship, saying censorship is an English concept, so he “doesn’t know it”.

      Speaking at a media briefing at the SABC’s Johannesburg head office in Auckland Park, Motsoeneng took to the microphone to deliver a customary diatribe against his detractors.

      “I don’t even know what censorship is,” an exasperated Hlaudi Motsoeneng said.

      “What is this censorship thing? It is English so I don’t know it. There is no censorship here,” he declared.

    • Journalists take a stand against SABC censorship

      An online petition aimed at freeing the SABC from censorship and political interference has been started.

      It is calling for the public broadcaster to stop intimidating and purging staff with opposing views.

      The petition, initiated by worker union Bemawu, is asking for the independence of journalists to be guaranteed and for the SABC board to be replaced.

      It also wants the newscaster to comply with its own charter, the constitution and the Broadcasting Act.

      The petition calls for the withdrawal of the alleged financial reward of R100,000 to anyone who informs on staffers leaking information to the media.

    • Journalists under fire and under pressure: summer magazine 2016
  • Privacy/Surveillance
    • NSA advises White House, federal agencies on cybersecurity

      One of the National Security Agency’s most important roles in government cybersecurity is advising the White House and other federal agencies about potential risks and opportunities. Philip Quade, special assistant for cybersecurity to the NSA director, leads that effort.

    • German government proposes shorter leash for intelligence agency
    • Germany puts a (long) leash on its spooks
    • German cabinet agrees to tighten control over spy agency
    • German Cabinet agrees upon new controls for spy agency
    • Germany to further curb activities of spy agency in wake of NSA scandal
    • He Was a Hacker for the NSA and He Was Willing to Talk. I Was Willing to Listen.

      The message arrived at night and consisted of three words: “Good evening sir!”

      The sender was a hacker who had written a series of provocative memos at the National Security Agency. His secret memos had explained — with an earthy use of slang and emojis that was unusual for an operative of the largest eavesdropping organization in the world — how the NSA breaks into the digital accounts of people who manage computer networks, and how it tries to unmask people who use Tor to browse the web anonymously. Outlining some of the NSA’s most sensitive activities, the memos were leaked by Edward Snowden, and I had written about a few of them for The Intercept.

    • What Price Security Surveillance Now?

      A couple of weeks ago I attended a meeting of the Manchester branch of the Open Rights Group to discuss the proposed Investigatory Powers Bill known as the IPBill and currently about to be discussed and voted on by the House of Lords.

      [...]

      One important additional question is “how did we get here?” It seems likely that we have boxed our politicians into a corner: when there is a bad news story (such as a terrorist attack), we, or the Press supposedly on our behalves, demand to know why it wasn’t prevented. The politicians, therefore, go to the security services and police and ask what tools they want in order to ensure it doesn’t happen again. And, of course, this puts the spies and law enforcers in a tight spot because now they will be held responsible, so they obviously ask for strong powers. Pervasive bulk surveillance is just one of the arrows they demand for their quiver.

    • Russian ISPs will need to store content and metadata, open backdoors

      Russia’s lower house of parliament, the State Duma, has approved a series of new online surveillance measures as part of a wide-ranging anti-terrorism law. In a tweet, Edward Snowden, currently living in Russia, wrote: “Russia’s new Big Brother law is an unworkable, unjustifiable violation of rights that should never be signed.”

      As well as being able to demand access to encrypted services, the authorities will require Russia’s telecom companies to store not just metadata, but the actual content of messages too, for a period of six months. Metadata alone must then be held for a total of three years, according to a summary of the new law on the Meduza site. Authorities will be able to access the stored content and metadata information on demand.

  • Civil Rights/Policing
    • Appeals Court Rejects Revenge Pornster’s Appeal; Another Bad Section 230 Ruling

      We’ve noted in the last month or so a series of court rulings in California all seem to be chipping away at Section 230. And now we’ve got another one. As we noted last month, revenge porn extortion creep Kevin Bollaert had appealed his 18-year sentence and that appeal raised some key issues about Section 230. As we noted, it seemed clear that the State of California was misrepresenting a bunch of things in dangerous ways.

      Unfortunately, the appeals court has now sided with the state, and that means we’ve got more chipping away at Section 230. No one disagrees that Bollaert was a creep. He was getting naked pictures of people posted to his site, along with the person’s info, and then had set up a separate site (which pretended to be independent) where people could pay to take those pages down. But there are questions about whether or not Bollaert could be held liable for actions of his users in posting content. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA 230) is pretty damn clear that he should not be held liable — but the court has twisted itself in a knot to find otherwise, basically arguing that Bollaert is, in part, responsible for the creation of the content. This is going to set a bad precedent for internet platforms in California and elsewhere.

  • Internet Policy/Net Neutrality
    • Airbnb Goes To Court To Stop San Francisco’s New Anti-Airbnb Law

      Back in May, we noted that large cities around the country were rushing to put in place anti-Airbnb laws designed to protect large hotel companies. In that post, we noted that many of the bills almost certainly violated Section 230 of the CDA by making the platform provider, Airbnb, liable for users failing to “register” with the city. Section 230, again, says that a platform cannot be held liable for the actions (or inactions) of its users. San Francisco was the first city to get this kind of legislation pushed through. And while the city’s legislators insisted that Section 230 didn’t apply, they’re now going to have to test that theory in court. Airbnb has asked a court for a preliminary injunction blocking the law, based mainly on Section 230, but also mentioning the Stored Communications Act and tossing in a First Amendment argument just in case.

    • Senate Hearing Shows Cable Companies Routinely Overbill Customers, Do Little To Correct Errors

      If you’ve been distracted by something like a coma, you may have noticed that the cable industry has developed an atrocious reputation for poor customer service, built over a generation of regulatory capture, prioritizing growth over customer service, and just generally not giving much of a damn. By and large, a Congress slathered in telecom and cable campaign contributions has ensured that nothing much changes on that front, with most politicians taking every opportunity to in fact defend this dysfunctional status quo from innovation, competition, or change.

  • DRM
    • Xbox Fitness users will soon lose access to workout videos they bought

      Xbox users who purchased training videos through the Xbox Fitness app probably thought they were buying a workout program they’d be able to use regularly for the life of the Xbox One, at the very least. Instead, those videos will soon be completely unavailable to those who paid for them up front, according to a “sunset” plan announced by Microsoft yesterday evening.

  • Intellectual Monopolies
    • National Parliaments Not Needed For CETA Approval, European Commission President Juncker Says

      European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said today that the European Union would not include national parliaments of EU member states in the final decision on the Canada-EU Trade Agreement (CETA). Juncker’s CETA statement was made during the post-Brexit meeting of EU heads of state in Brussels today (28 June), several German newspapers reported quoting the German News Agency (DPA).

    • Trademarks
    • Copyrights
      • Another Dumb Idea Out Of The EU: Giving Robots & Computers Copyright

        It’s a good thing to think about the technology of the future. Especially if you’re politicians and the future may have a big impact. Considering how frequently we see politicians ignore future technological change, it might be encouraging that the EU Parliament is at least considering what happens when our new robot overlords enslave us. Except that the report that the EU Parliament has come out with… is ridiculous. Most of the headlines are focusing on the ideas raised around making robots “electronic persons” for the purposes of paying social security or taxes, but the part that gets me is the plan to give them access to copyright as well.

      • This Song Belongs To You And Me: Lawsuit Filed To Declare Woodie Guthrie’s Classic In The Public Domain

        And yet, his most famous song, “This Land,” keeps coming up in copyright disputes. Over a decade ago, we wrote about how the organizations claiming to hold the copyright on that song went after the company JibJab, which had made a clear parody of the song during the 2004 Presidential election. In that case, once the EFF got involved, the case was settled out of court.

      • US Courts Split On Legality Of Music Sampling
      • Stairway to Heaven copyright decision is music to Led Zeppelin’s ears

        The Central District of California’s June 23 verdict in Skidmore v Zeppelin will ease fears raised after last year’s Blurred Lines case that juries are more likely to find infringement in copyright cases involving songs

Today’s Media Coverage Says Microsoft Loves Linux, But Today Microsoft Extorted Linux Using Software Patents Again

2 hours 17 min ago

Relying on mass deception using the media while blackmailing companies behind closed doors

Summary: Luna Mobile has just been extorted by Microsoft (using dubious software patents, as usual) for using Android/Linux, but Microsoft-influenced media carries on spreading the lie that “Microsoft loves Linux”

RED HAT’S own event has just been hijacked by Microsoft again (see articles below along with the comments) and Microsoft used Red Hat’s platform to call its proprietary (Open Core) platform “Open Source”, to say it “loves Linux” (the infamous old lie), and so on. On the other hand, Microsoft’s own booster Mary Jo Foley says that “Microsoft signs Android patent-licensing deal with Luna Mobile”. She insists that “Microsoft has signed an Android patent deal with Luna Mobile, even though its announcement of the arrangement never mentions the word ‘Android’.”

Yes, so much for love. It must love all that ‘protection money’ it is silently amassing.

Related/contextual items from the news:

  1. Red Hat Delivers More Secure Containers with New Scanning Capability [Ed: helping Microsoft’s parasite]
  2. Microsoft unveils .NET Core 1.0, extends partnership with Red Hat [Ed: Red Hat is so focused on meeting short-term profit goals that it forgot Microsoft's past]
  3. Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ:MSFT) Unveils .NET Core 1.0 Availability
  4. Microsoft Releases Open Source .NET Core 1.0 For Linux, Windows, And macOS [Ed: Another reminder that’s needed here is that open core is not open source]
  5. Microsoft Announces Open .NET Core 1.0 at Red Hat Summit [Ed: stealing Red Hat's thunder at its own event]
  6. Microsoft releases cross-platform .NET Core 1.0 at Linux event [Ed: How Microsoft turns Linux events into its own. Microsoft love love love… if they keep saying it often enough, preferably with “Linux” in headlines, then maybe fools will believe it.]
  7. Microsoft starts proving its Linux love [Ed: As big a lie as it gets; when will it stop taunting Linux with patents then?]
  8. Microsoft announces open-source Language Server Protocol
  9. Microsoft’s Open Source .NET Core Project Hits v1.0, Gets General Availability
  10. Microsoft launches Net Core 1.0 for Linux, OS X and Windows
  11. Microsoft’s open sourcing of .NET hits a major milestone
  12. Microsoft Proves Its Love For Linux With Net Core Software, Open Source And Ready To Go [Ed: People don't want Microsoft love. They just want Microsoft to start obeying the law.]
  13. Codenvy, Microsoft and Red Hat Collaborate on a Protocol for Sharing Programming Language Guidance
  14. Microsoft further embraces open source with cross-platform version of .Net Framework
  15. MapR, Microsoft make announcements at Hadoop and Red Hat summits
  16. Microsoft brings .NET Core to MacOS and Linux
  17. Microsoft launches its cross-platform .Net Core
  18. Microsoft announces general availability of .NET Core and ASP.NET Core 1.0
  19. Latest Microsoft Mechanics video shows Red Hat Linux running on Azure [Ed: Does anyone really believe (literally) Microsoft loves Linux ? All I see is Microsoft boosters and ghostwriters claiming such people exist.]
  20. Microsoft announces .NET Core 1.0 for Linux, MacOS and Windows
  21. Announcing .NET Core 1.0
  22. Microsoft finally introduces ASP.NET Core 1.0, supported inherently by Red Hat
  23. .NET Core 1.0 Released

New Efforts to Work Around Barriers to UPC in Light of ‘Brexit’; Behind These Efforts Are Self-Serving Patent Profiteers

7 hours 25 min ago

The antidemocratic villains that attack Europe’s interests are not only politicians but private firms like patent lawyers’ firms (the patent microcosm)

Summary: A look at who’s trying to work around the latest barriers to the widely-unwanted (by the public) Unitary Patent regime and what is being planned behind the scenes, or behind closed doors (by and for those who stand to profit from the Unitary Patent regime)

THE EPO‘s management is on fire, albeit it remains to be seen if Battistelli gets fired, resigns, or just jumps out the window to avoid the embarrassment (too much personal pride).

The UPC, which Battistelli has promoted for many years (before it was even called “UPC” or anything “unitary”), might never become a reality, unless it’s renamed again or some truly dirty tricks are used in a desperate effort to salvage it. Over at Juve today, Battistelli’s dire situation is explained (translations welcome), again courtesy of Mathieu Klos with his good knowledge of the EPO scandals/situation (along with his colleague, Christina Schulze).

Earlier today an anonymous article was published by The Register (using a Kat-themed pseudonym). It says UPC “could be derailed”, but “could” is an understatement. To quote the article (comments mostly focus on the EU, not the UPC or EPC, so these are quite worthless):

Europe’s UK-backed Unified Patent Court ‘could be derailed’

Europe’s multi-million-pound Unified Patent Court could be derailed entirely following the UK’s decision to leave the EU.

The court was planned to open in 2017 and was intended to hear cases regarding infringements of European patents across EU member states.

Only full membership of the EU allows countries to participate in the system, designed to simplify the application of patents across the continent.

However, now the UK will no longer be part of the European Union, fears are growing that the entire programme will cease to be an attractive proposition to patentees.

One insider remarked: “The entire system is reliant on the UK being part of the project. All parties are currently working to rescue the UPC.”

France, Germany and UK were due to ratify the agreement, with those three states having covered all of the programme’s set-up costs. The overall cost to the UK alone is thought to have run into millions of pounds, with investment in technology, hiring policy folk, and a newly-opened dedicated UPC court in central London.

Some have already pointed out that the court will be in limbo and that the entire system will almost certainly be delayed as the UK is one of three key countries needed to ratify the project.

As one might expect, the UPC cabal won’t give up without a fight. One separate thread in IP Kat said: “Nice to see that the EPO president found time to post about Brexit, although it is an EU issue and concerns only the EU patent, but has not made a comment on the EBA matter concerning interference or not with the highest legal body of the EPO. Symbolic? Politics over legal?”

It’s no secret that patent lawyers are drooling over and longing for the UPC. They want more ‘damages’, lawsuits, injunctions/embargoes and so on. The other day Mari Korsten of NLO wrote about “patent rights enforcement in Europe through a single action” and said “Unitary patent opens up easier way to implement customs seizures” (to whose benefit?).

“…the other side will have rewritten the UPC deal in 6 days time.”
      –Benjamin HenrionThe UPC may never become a reality after 'Brexit' and UPC proponents seem to be upset at Battistelli at the moment. Bristows, the loudest UPC propagandists and conspirators (recall what "expert teams" are in the context of UPC) worry about Brexit because of their investment in the passage of this antidemocratic package. IBM’s Manny Schecter (software patents proponent) asked himself: “Is Brexit the historic beginning of the end of the EU? Will others follow? Is true Euro patent system unification dead or just delayed?”

A patent lawyer wrote: “Looks like: (1) delay of Unified Patent Court; and (2) reduced harmonization of IP. Not good for IP owners.”

Nonsense. It might not be good for patent lawyers, but science and technology need no such package. Will this package change its name and marketing again? Back to “EU” or “Community”? Maybe EPLA? Will EU membership no longer be a prerequisite all of a sudden? Will the whole dependence on the UK be suddenly hidden under a rug? As Bejnamin Henrion put it the other day, “the other side will have rewritten the UPC deal in 6 days time.”

Henrion works closely with some UPC experts, so maybe he knows something that most people do not. A politician from Iceland (and famous Wikileaks contributor) Jónsdóttir, whom we mentioned here before in relation to software patents or other topics, said “Brexit is a wake up call. Changes need to happen. This crisis is a chance for real change within the EU. Ppl want to be heard & empowered.”

“Patent hackers are already busy trying to fast-track UPC ratification by the UK…”
      –Benjamin HenrionUPC is one example of democracy being stomped on and Henrion said “rumours are already saying the ministries are already preparing amendments to the Unitary Patent Court.”

Team Battistelli and Team UPC might already be working around the rules to impose their will on everyone, undemocratically of course. “Philips Leo Steenbeck (EPLA proponent),” wrote Henrion, says that “UPC patch can be done at next Council meeting” (very soon). “The comment is very interesting and apparently comes from Philips,” Francisco Moreno added (he too knows quite a bit about the UPC). Well, apparently they decided what’s “better” for Europe (i.e. for multinational billionaires), so they’ll shape the law accordingly. As Henrion put it: “Patent hackers are already busy trying to fast-track UPC ratification by the UK” (it may take a while before Article 50 is invoked).

Here is one of the UPC pushers heralding this new article titled “scenario discussed to save the Unitary Patent system” (in light of ‘Brexit’):

How to save the Unitary Patent project? As soon as the outcome of the UK referendum on a Brexit was known, discussions started behind the scenes about ways to adapt the Unitary Patent system so the UK can stay in.

According to Wouter Pors of Bird & Bird, a new scenario has come up to enable the UK to participate in the Unified Patent Court and even in the Unitary Patent. If the UK ratifies the UPC Agreement, they can continue to be a participant even if they leave the EU. This only requires a small change of the Agreement by the Administrative Committee to open up accession for former EU Member States, being the UK.

The obligation to apply Union law, which is in the Agreement, needs to be met by the Court, but is not imposed on a non-EU Member State. The UK wants to participate in some kind of European Economic Area Agreement anyway, and in that case the CJEU would also have jurisdiction over legal issues relating to the internal market, so this is not much different. Besides, during the first 14 years the UK Courts would of course have jurisdiction over traditional European patents anyway, next to the UPC.

“The later the UK triggers Article 50,” Henrion wrote, “the better. At least the EU sausage machine of producing EU laws will slow down for a while.”

“At least the EU sausage machine of producing EU laws will slow down for a while.”
      –Benjamin HenrionRed Hat’s Jan Wildeboer, who has campaigned against software patents in Europe for a long time, said that “Brexit Task Force and Article 50 Task Force created in Brussels. Article in German.”

“Not triggering Article 50,” he added, “is the UK elite showing The Finger against their own people and the rest of the EU.”

“Brexit Task Force and Article 50 Task Force created in Brussels.”
      –Jan WildeboerThere is somewhat of a dilemma here actually. Article 50 being triggered would possibly help the UPC (a matter of un/certainty) and whether a package like UPC, which is inherently antidemocratic, becomes a reality is another matter worth pursuing in light of all these discussion about ‘democracy’ (whether British democracy or EU democracy).

“Italy to replace the UK as the third biggest UPC nation needed to enter into force,” Henrion wrote. “We will need to reform a coalition there.”

“Milan could get UPC Court,” one person wrote this week, “after Brexit” (Italy actually antagonised the UPC for a long time).

Watch what IAM wrote a short while ago, citing Bristows (the above-mentioned UPC conspirators). “Today,” it says, “the Eerste Kamer approved the bill to enable the Netherlands to ratify the UPC Agreement” (fast-tracking in a panic much?). Here is the cited paragraph. Bristows is hardly even trying to hide its villainous role in this whole terrible deal.

We might soon work towards an EU-wide campaign against the UPC. It needs to be buried once and for all (along with incarnations and predecessors). Not even EPO staff seems to want it (layoffs assured).

Injunction Against Battistelli’s Investigative Unit (Known Internally as ‘Gestapo’) Amid Serious Injustices and Bogus ‘Trials’

13 hours 38 min ago


Gestapomen following the white buses (a Swedish photograph in the public domain)

Summary: SUEPO, the EPO’s staff union, steps up its spiel in a case against the “European Patent Organization” as defendant and “SUEPO/VEOB” (Trade Union of the European Patent Office) as claimants

THE colossal EPO failures when it comes to judgment (or justice) won’t send out the right message to stakeholders. The EPO has become antithetical to justice and incompatible with the rule of law. Nothing demonstrates this better than the Investigative Unit, which we introduced to readers last year [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7].

SUEPO Central (inter-branch/site), which represents the interests of EPO employees (not top management), published today a provocative article titled “Is Battistelli staring into the abyss?” To quote the latter part, regarding the latest action:

Then second, SUEPO and SUEPO-TH once again summoned the EPO before the Dutch Court. With this lawsuit, the unions complain of both severe union harassment and non-compliance with the Council’s resolution CA/26/16, as reflected in their claims. On 21 June, a bailiff tried to serve the summons in person on the EPO in Rijswijk, but the EPO refused to accept the papers. Unfortunately for President Battistelli, this does not stop the law from taking due course: the summons is nonetheless considered as served and the package was in any case delivered to the Office by registered mail the following day. The court has set the date and venue for the hearing: 15 July at 9 am in the district court of The Hague. Apparently, despite being given fair notice, the President had not even bothered to alert the Council on this issue. We assume he must have been too busy, so our lawyer has done this service for him…

To summarise: nobbling of EBoA judges and attempts to pervert the course of justice; harassment of unions and of their leaders; contempt for the legal authorities of a host state. The picture that is emerging is of a deranged man who either has misunderstood the concept of “rule of law” or is willfully putting himself above it. Should an organization that delivers juridical products and services for the European public be seen to be led by such a figure?

The above was published just in time for this week’s Administrative Council’s meeting and this was also published as PDF, which can be here [PDF] along with an injunction petition (also as PDF). Here it is as simplified HTML:

PETITION FOR AN INJUNCTION | District Court of The Hague (NL)

Case C/09/512962 / KG ZA 16-741

Claimants: SUEPO & VEOB
Defendant: European Patent Organization

CLAIMS (free translation)

The Claimants request the judge in interlocutory (summary) proceedings to render a judgment:

i Ordering the EPO to engage an external, independent expert to test the ongoing and intended investigations by the Investigative Unit and ongoing and intended disciplinary procedures against Claimants’ board members, against the requirements of a fair and reasonable trial, and to ensure that they do not unnecessarily impede the Claimants’ union work, all this in conformity with the resolution CA/26/16 adopted by the Member States of the EPO in the Administrative Council of 16 March 2016;

ii Ordering the EPO to cooperate with mediation by a mediator appointed by the judge in interlocutory proceedings with regard to the conflict between the EPO and the Claimants, all this in conformity with the resolution CA/26/16 adopted by the Member States of the EPO in the Administrative Council of 16 March 2016;

iii Ordering the EPO, pending the process of external assessment of the investigations by the Investigative Unit and disciplinary procedures against Claimants’ board members as referred to in (i) or pending the mediation in respect of the conflict between the EPO and the Claimants as referred to in (ii), to cease the investigations and disciplinary procedures against Claimants’ board members, all this in conformity with the resolution CA/26/16 adopted by the Member States of the EPO in the Administrative Council of 16b March 2016;

iv Ordering the EPO to ask for the permission of the Administrative Council before initiating a new investigation by the Investigative Unit and/or disciplinary procedure against one or more of Claimaints’ board members, and before resuming one or more of the ongoing investigations and/or disciplinary procedures against Claimants’ board members;

v Ordering the EPO to relieve Claimants’ board members from their duty of confidentiality pursuant to Article 4 of Circular 342 (‘Guidelines for investigations at the EPO’) of 30 November 2012 in respect of the investigations and disciplinary procedures against them;

vi Ordering the EPO to bear the costs of the current proceedings;

vii Ordering that this judgment, insofar as possible, is provisionally enforceable.

As we noted some days ago, the Investigative Unit seems to have gone out of its way to do what Battistelli wants at the expense of truth. It is increasingly probable that evidence was made up or 'sexed up'. People are rightly upset and they still vent out over at IP Kat (in the relevant thread).

Additional remarks about the bogus ‘trial’ have carried on coming this weekend, starting with this ode:

B atters UPC in tatters as we speak
B enny has had a torrid week
E nlarged Board has laid him bare
X posed,ridiculed,but he’s still there!
I s he going to make monkeys of the AC again?
T hursday will show if they are primates or men(and women)

The people involved in this bogus process were then looked at more carefully (not good publicity for England):

Perhaps will we sometime discover the identity of the distinguished English QC who advised the President in relation to his extraordinary intervention, and the amount of his professional fees, though these are likely to represent a fraction only of the costs to the European patent applicants of the disciplinary procedure so far, adequate damages and compensations not even included.

Whatever about the identity of the QC, the latest rumour doing the rounds at Eponia is that VP5 the head of the directorate responsible for legal services and international relations has been buzzing around like a rather nervous “Kolibri” (hummingbird) trying to make it clear to anyone who will listen that he had nothing to do with it …

Since the EPO is not subject to national laws, it is difficult to understand what expertise the QC could bring in such matters other than being of a skilled student of legal texts. In such matters, I would have thought that the practitioner of EPC law, in other words the EBA, would be the experts. In any case, seeking external legal advice to oppose your own internal legal procedures does seem highly dubious.

I always thought a QC is a reputable member of the legal profession who deserves a lot of respect. Reading what was published in the decision, this person seems an exception, and I hope it will remain one.
May be the pay-check he received from the EPO was decisive in his way of dealing with the matter. It rather shows a total disregard to the independence of the judicial, which is quite surprising for such a flying legal counsel.
If the AC ever thought that the EPA would rubber stamp a decision from the AC’s DC it should get better advice.
The whole thing is disgusting and can only hope that BB reign ends as soon as possible, but the harm done to the EPO and its reputation is already irreversible.

That’s the EPO of today for you: a milk cow for any opportunist willing to give the President what he wants – QCs, External Consultants, Advisors, Communication specialists, IT specialists, members of the Administrative Council – you name it.

In response to an earlier remark that said “So does that mean we are now in the situation where it is unarguable that the EPO is being run by a person who, under national law, could fairly be described as a criminal?” we saw this:

Looks like the EPO is on the brink of becoming an international criminal organisation with its employees, pensioners and their respective families potentially being complicit or being held hostage. All this happens with the apparent consent (if not intent) the beloved home and host countries of the workforce … in the interest of the organisation, of course.

According to Article 31 of the Vienna Convention immunity is provided from criminal, civil and administraive jurisdiction of the receiving state. No exemption from jurisdiction of the sending state is given, Article 31(4). Also according to Article 32, immunity may be waived by the sending state.

And remember: “Our organisation believes in an open and inclusive society based on fundamental principles of freedom, equality and justice.” (EPO, Solidarity with the victims, Attacks in Brussels, 22.03.2016)

Mind the part which says “EPO is on the brink of becoming an international criminal organisation with its employees, pensioners and their respective families potentially being complicit or being held hostage.”

On it goes. More on the independence issues:

It was a serious error in fundamental law to issue any decision and at the same time admitting they were under pressure and not independent . Resignation would have been the only legal way out. Having admitted their intrinsic partiality, they have set a precedence not only for the EBA but for all TBAs and judicial boards. They have admitted they are not functional. All their future and probably even past decisions are void. Not only VP3 is not above suspicion of partiality, as they previously admitted, none of them is.

One person noted:

mind to point out the specific passage of the decision where they make such an admission?

The legality of this entire process has come under fire:

A decision to discontinue/not-continue is also a decision of the EBA which ends the proceedings and as such must be announced by the EBA. There is no legal obligation on the EBA or itt members to resign when the EBA is threatened.

The recent EBA decision is the very last step before the ultimate meltdown of the entire European patent system, which is already scheduled to take place this autumn, when the German constitutional court is due to settle two complaints filed in 2013 and based on an alleged – and now evident – lack of judicial review against decisions of the Boards of appeal (see the schedule of the cases to be dealt with in 2016 by the 2nd Senate of the court, rapporteur Prof. Dr. Huber, point 14 as published here: http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/DE/Verfahren/Jahresvorausschau/vs_2016/vorausschau_2016_node.html)
There is no way out, unfortunately.

Going back to the aforementioned QC, the likely identity gets revealed:

Perhaps will we sometime discover the identity of the distinguished English QC who advised the President in relation to his extraordinary intervention …

The identity of the QC is known in legal circles inside the EPO as (s)he is the co-author of a textbook on disciplinary proceedings. It is also rumoured that the QC and an associate participated in one or more of the recent “show trials” against EPO staff reps.

Brian Harris OBE QC?

rumors inside the EPO say that a representative from the German Bundesverfassungsgericht was present as public during the oral proceedings of the EBA in june

a representative from the German Bundesverfassungsgericht was present

I am sure the ghosts of the Founding Fathers of the EPO were also there …

I do not know Brian Harris. One reason for this is probably that he has retired (see http://www.39essex.com/8th-edition-of-disciplinary-and-regulatory-proceedings-published/).

I can understand why BB might have picked Brian for the hearings involving allegations of misconduct by staff. This is because Brian’s view appears to be that “misconduct” is a flexible concept that has a scope that can effectively be defined by the investigating body. To quote Henderson Chambers:

“Misconduct is, and remains, the basic concept for disciplinary proceedings being commenced against a member by his or her professional regulatory body. Misconduct is said to be the oldest and perhaps still the most widely used form of allegation. Misconduct leaves it to the disciplinary tribunal to decide its ambit in any particular case, as opposed to individual offences of narrow scope: Disciplinary and Regulatory Proceedings, Fifth Edition (2009) by Brian Harris OBE QC and Andrew Carnes at para 4.02. The earlier terms “infamous and disgraceful” conduct or “serious professional misconduct” have largely given way to the use of the word “misconduct” or the words “professional misconduct””.

Taking this kind of reasoning to the extreme would, of course, allow an unscrupulous investigating body to pick almost any kind of conduct and frame it as “misconduct”. I am not saying that is definitely what happened to the staff reps at the EPO, but it is hard to imagine that there are no other “experts” available who would have provided very different views on the matter. Thus, if Brian Harris was indeed involved in the disciplinary proceedings, then the observable evidence would certainly not be inconsistent with a “fit-up job” (in which the “expert” selected just so happened to espouse views that could be adapted to fit the management’s narrative).

Another reason that I do not know Brian is that he does not appear to have dealt with / specialised in IP during his career (it is difficult to find out any information on his expertise, but his main legal publication seems to be “Disciplinary and Regulatory Proceedings”, which suggests an area of practice far removed from patents).

I would therefore be very surprised if BB had relied upon Brian Harris to provide an “expert” view of the competence of the EBoA. Whilst not impossible (as I can see that BB may well have viewed the proceedings as being essentially “disciplinary” in nature), it beggars belief that BB would seek, from a (retired) QC with no experience in patents, an opinion upon what the EPC says that the EBoA can and cannot do. If this did indeed happen, then the case for firing BB on the grounds of incompetence might be further strengthened.

Some dispute involvement from Harris:

According to rumours at the EPO, Brian Harris had no involvement.
But the hint to the book which he originally authored points in the right direction. The Essex trail is the one to follow.

Your quote appears to relate to disciplinary proceedings by a professional regulatory body against a member of a regulated profession, such as a lawyer. That is professional misconduct, or malpractice. The title of Brian Harris’s book is consistent with that.

Disciplinary proceedings by an employer against an employee are not the same.

Are we sure that the previous anonymous poster has got the right QC?

Other names then come up:

If the rumours are to be believed, then the candidates are:

Greg Treverton-Jones QC, who “specialises in regulatory and disciplinary issues concerning solicitors”; and/or

Alison Foster QC, whose “practice consists of public and administrative law with particular involvement in regulation and indirect tax”.

I very much doubt that the experience of either of those QCs would qualify them to provide an “expert” opinion upon interpretation of Article 23 EPC.

I very much doubt that the experience of either of those QCs would qualify them to provide an “expert” opinion upon interpretation of Article 23 EPC.

That could however arguably make them a perfect “patsy” for BB …

Can I ask what you are trying to achieve by attempting to spin this episode as being some form of evidence that the BoAs of the EPO are not adequately “judicial” in nature?

Without wanting to prejudge the result of the constitutional case in Germany, I would point out that there is currently no viable alternative to the BoAs. With the future of the UPC looking uncertain (to say the least) for at least the next 2 years, what would the world of IP in Europe look like if decisions of the BoAs were found to be (incurably) unconstitutional?

I guess your choice of words (“meltdown of the entire European patent system”) provides a hint at your agenda. But whose interests would that serve? It can be the work of moments to destroy institutions that have taken years of hard work and dedication to build. You therefore really need to be very certain that those institutions are built upon completely the wrong foundations before you take the wrecking ball to them. You also need to have a clear idea of what you would replace them with: the recent history of popular uprisings (and the type of “change” that, if unplanned, they ultimately produce) should provide a stark reminder of the importance of this point.

I would be happy to hear more from you if you can provide us all with a fully reasoned explanation of how your views will ultimately lead to an improved, fully functioning patent system in Europe. However, if not, then my personal preference would be for you to stick to the old adage that “If you don’t have anything constructive to say, it’s better to say nothing”.

Some took note of CIPA’s input, which we mentioned here before:

CIPA has filed a response to proposals for reform of the EPO Boards of Appeal.

Then TRIPS came up:

Has anybody given consideration to the implications for Article 32 of TRIPS ?

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

The EPO is not a party to TRIPS. Those regulations therefore do not apply.

The EPO is not a party to TRIPS but surely its member states are ?

If they allow the “judicial instance” at the EPO to be neutered might it not place them (the states) in breach of their obligations under TRIPS ?

Not a problem for the EPO but potentially a problem for its member states ?

You make a fair point. However, TRIPS Article 32 merely requires that “An opportunity for judicial review of any decision to revoke or forfeit a patent shall be available”. Thus, the obvious response to your point is that the BoAs do provide the “judicial” review required under TRIPS. That is, they review decisions (of the OD or ED) to “revoke or forfeit” a patent.

Case closed… unless, of course, you are questioning the “judicial” nature of the BoAs. In that case, I refer you to my comments above in response to @Coroner.

There is a precedent for that: the European Convention on Human Rights. All EPC contracting states are members, yet this treaty does not apply to the EPOff, and the EPOrg…..

Where does the cited TRIPS article demand a judicial independent review?

TRIPS article 32

Article 32 – Revocation/Forfeiture

An opportunity for judicial review of any decision to revoke or forfeit a patent shall be available.

The following comment suggests the case might linger on:

I am afraid that the case is far from closed.
Of course the the BoAs do provide the “judicial” review required under TRIPS.
Or at least one could credibly uphold that position until the latest decision.

The question is whether or not the BoAs can still be regarded as an independent judicial instance after the most recent denouement.
That is not to question their status under the EPC.

The issue is more whether the current situation within the EPO means that they can still be regarded as truly “independent” if the President can issue “threats” with impunity.

I am merely posing a question with presuming to have the answer.

[...] as they say – is in the eating and I put it to you that this particular dessert has yet to be digested by all concerned.

Unless Battistelli is out, it’s likely that he will continue trying to shoot the messenger. Is a defamation lawsuit still on agenda? Either way, these battles are likely to enter courtrooms — real courtrooms, not the EPO’s (or Eponia’s) fake ones.

[ES] Con la UPC Muerta por el Resto del Termino de Battistelli, No Hay Razón para que la EPO o el Consejo Administrativo Sigan Manteniéndolo Más

14 hours 26 min ago

English/Original

Article as ODF

Publicadoen Europa, Patentesa las12:40 ampor el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

La SUEPO, el síndicato de empleados de la EPO, prevalecerá a diferencia de Battistelli

Sumario: Pensamientos acerca de lo que pasará al líderazgo de la EPO después de ‘Brexit’ (salida Británica de la EU), lo que sevéramente socava el proyecto más grande de Battistelli el que usaba habituálmente para justificar sus increíbles abusos

LOS descarádos abusos de la gerencia de la EPO sirviéron para desacreditar a la Unión Europea en su totalidad, como notamos muchas veces aqui. A pesar de noser una entidad de la UEU, al ser la segunda más larga entidad integubernamenta de Europa fué vista por muchos como una falla sistemática del respeto al gobierno de las leyes, honor, demócracia, etc. Este fué el legado de Battistelli. De muchas maneras, Battistelli causo más daño a la Unión Europea que cualquier otro en Europa los dos últimos años.

Este post es un bosquejo de las más reciéntes noticias acerca de la UPC y la EPO. Hay mucho por decirse y muchos sitios ya han hablado acerca de ello. Incluso personas dentro de la EPO estan hablándo acerca de ello. “Terremóto en la UE,” una persona lo llamó, en relación a la “decisión de los ciudadanos del Reino Unido de BR-EXIT!”

Para citar el arguménto central:

A medida de lo que sin duda ha oído, el referéndum Reino Unido ha resultado a favor de la BREXIT ayer. La decisión ha tenido el efecto de una bomba – Cameron ha anunciado su dimisión para octubre-y si puede ser una medida de ella, los mercados que están reaccionando en caída libre en todo el mundo.

En esta etapa nadie puede prever los efectos sobre la economía de la UE ni la política. Pero lo mismo puede decirse sobre el impacto en el sistema europeo de patentes. Claramente puesta en marcha de la patente unitaria – y el futuro de la UP-Corte que estaba destinado a estar en Londres – se agita en su raíz y se queda por ver si puede seguir adelante a pesar evento de ayer [o hace 2 días] .

En el tiempo medio, el Reino Unido sigue siendo un miembro de pleno derecho de la CPE: se trata simplemente uniendo al selecto club de los principales países de IP no pertenecientes a la UE, como Suiza … Sin embargo, en el contexto de un terremoto, de tal política, es dudoso que nuestro órgano de control – que no se caracteriza por la búsqueda de una solución sencilla a los problemas simples – será capaz de ir más allá del estado de confusión aturdida y se centran en los principales problemas a la mano en el EPO. mucho menos encontrar soluciones.

Para recapitular a nuestro lectores, como parte de la transición al sistema de la UPC, Battistelli ha estado aplástando a las salas de apelación. Jonathan Radcliffe, quién escribió acerca de las últimas movidas en el plan hace unos pocos días, tiene este artículo acerca de ello. Este repite los eufemismos de la gerencia de la EPO y el títular dice “La Oficina Europea de Patentes Hará los Procedimiéntos de Revocación Pan-Europeos Más Rápidos, Más Eficiéntes a partir del Primero de July″ (i.e. dentro de pocos días). Títular alternativo: La EPO destruye los procesos de apelación para bajar la cálidad de patentes y dar una ilusión de éxito.

La guerra de Battistelli en contra de las Salas de Recurso, incluyéndo amenazas en su contra (el texto filtrado cláramente muestra un amenaza emitida a todos los miémbros), dice mucho. En realidad, el juicio ha sido cubiérto por Kieren McCarthy en los medios británicos. Acaba de pasar hace unas 24 horas (1 AM). Para citar algunas porciónes de “Cacería de Brujas Nazi términa con feroz juicio”:

El juez en cuestión fue despedido por el presidente por presuntamente filtrar documentos que avergonzaron Battistelli y la gestión de la EPO y por hacer críticas anónimas de ellos.

Battistelli creó una unidad de investigación – apodado “la Stasi” internamente – para erradicar a los que hacían críticas. Se llegó a la conclusión de que el juez estaba detrás de la filtración y fue suspendido. A continuación, la decisión fue respaldada por un consejo de disciplina.

Cuando se trataba de eliminar el juez de las salas de recurso Sin embargo, el organismo independiente decidió buscar más en el tema, lo que provocó una inusual serie de eventos en el Consejo de Administración de la EPO presentó y luego se retiró dos quejas sucesivas antes de asentarse finalmente en una tercera demanda en la que sus alegaciones iniciales se redujeron de cinco a dos.

[...]

Esto es simplemente el último de una larga serie de quejas sobre el comportamiento del Sr. Battistelli. Esta misma semana, un grupo anónimo de personal escribió una carta abierta a los representantes de los países europeos pidiéndoles que lo despidan. Anteriormente había habido una votación cero por ciento de confianza en él.

La sentencia también se produce justo antes de una reunión del Consejo de Administración de la EPO, donde se tendrá en cuenta lo que el progreso se ha hecho en una anterior solicitud de él para mejorar las condiciones en la EPO.

Hasta el momento, Battistelli ha sido capaz de persuadir/convencer al Consejo de Administración para seguir él y sus reformas propuestas copias de seguridad, pero con aún más alto órgano judicial de la organización lo acusa de sobrepasar su papel y socavando funcionamiento mismo de la organización, es difícil imaginar cómo lo hará seguir manteniendo el apoyo.

Mirándo a algunos comentarios temprano, la gente lo compara con la FIFA de nuevo. Una persona escribió: “Bueno… esto continúa haciendo felices a los vendedores de popcorn. Siento que estámos viéndo una realmente, mala pelicula siéndo proyectada aquí y no va a terminar bien para alguién. De todas maneras… como mirar un choque de ten… no puedo dejar de mirar.”

Otra persona dijo: “No puedo imaginar cómo este individuo mantiene su puesto de trabajo. El Consejo de Administración sigue apoyándolo a pesar del hecho que la ha cagado tan mal que él necesita guardaespaldas. Esto es difícil de explicar, hubiera pensado “.

“Miren lo que está pasando en la FIFA”, escribió otra persona, “alguien consigue algo de poder ayudado por algunos otros, y promete dar ‘em algunas ventajas, siempre y cuando él o ella retiene el poder …

Battistelli — como Blatter — trabaja bajo presión de otra gente que son tán poderosos también (recuérden la torcida de Michel Platini y Sarkozy), o parece a veces. “la ratificación Bundestag de la UPC está siéndo acelerada,” Benjamin Henrion (FFII) noted the other day. “Mientras que debería haber sido manejado con cuidado” (o congelárla). No es sugerente de lealtad Bundestag para el equipo de Battistelli; tal vez la que trabajan los mismos (oligarcas, grandes corporaciones, etc.) “Jefes” y muchos de los abusos antes mencionados – como en la FIFA – son medios para un fin. Aparte de la opinión pública europea, una de las principales víctimas podría ser él mismo Battistelli. Como una persona dentro de la EPO lo puso:

Terremoto en la EPO: ¿Decisión de la Eboa … podría significar un SALIDA de BB?

En la más modesta escala de la Organización Europea de Patentes, una bomba también se activó ayer que la Cámara de Recursos publicó su decisión sobre el caso disciplinario DG 3. De alguna información previa obtenida durante el anterior juicio oral tumultuosa, se hizo evidente que el Presidente había considerado necesario enviar una carta larga que amenaza a la Eboa.

Mientras que la Oficina ha sido tan habitual en silencio acerca de que este tipo de noticias (nada en la Intranet a partir de ahora – una transparencia total, literalmente, …), esta información se ha extendido como la pólvora en los medios de comunicación y los blogs:

O IPKat: Alta Cámara publica decisión: Presidente de la EPO violó la independencia judicial;

O Techrights: Benoît Battistelli debería renunciar a la luz de Nueva fuga de la Decisión en su venganza contra el juez Decir la Verdad (Actualizado) (el sitio no puede ser visible desde el interior de la EPO, ya que está en la lista negra);

o Register: Nazi caza de brujas termina con el juicio feroz – Salas de Recurso excoriates presidente de la EPO sobre sus amenazas

En general, esta decisión tendrá un impacto importante en el futuro de la Organización Europea de Patentes: con la amenaza de la junta, el Sr. Batistelli ha “socavado el principio fundamental de la independencia judicial”, señaló la junta, y agregó: “Todos los miembros presentes de la Alta Cámara se encuentran amenazados con medidas disciplinarias si continúan con estas actuaciones en presencia del público, y tratar de determinar los hechos de este caso “.

El debate sobre la independencia de la Junta de Apelaciones es ahora más que nunca abierto: Nosotros, el personal de la EPO, ansiosos de leer cómo el Consejo de Administración tratará ese tema crítico en su discusión de la propuesta de Reforma (CA / 43/16 ) – y que tiene en abundancia ha sido criticada por AMBA, la Asociación de los Miembros de la boa.

Mucho más en juego que el simple expediente disciplinario. Uno puede esperar que los complementos de supervisión TU el y los medios de comunicación se tenga en cuenta cuán crítica es la situación. Idealmente, se podría esperar que el Consejo de Administración, incluso para actuar, por ejemplo, la toma en serio su propia resolución de marzo: el menor habría que decidir sobre las consecuencias concretas para el Presidente, Sr. Battistelli y su equipo, que, a través de todas sus decisiones recientes hizo una burla de las reivindicaciones públicas AC.

El meóllo del asunto es que, Battistelli necesita ser despedido con una patada en el trasero este mes, a menos que renuncie primero. A pesar de que todos estuviéron hablando acerca de la UPC y Brexit ayer, hubo una larga discusión acerca de ello en IP Kat. Una persona escribió:

BB de palabras [de Battistelli] por lo general insinuaba que la creación de la patente unitaria era justificación para sus acciones, y parecía ser una de las razones por las que el aire acondicionado/acondicionados por él, comenzando con su contrato secreto.

Ahora que el meteorito Brexit golpeó el planeta, y la UP se ve gravemente comprometida, al menos, ¿habrá un cambio de curso en el CA? ¿Y lo que va a hacer BB? Esconderse en una esquina y sentarse bajo la tormenta?

El comercio, y los ministros de Justicia extranjeros de la EU28/EPC38, sin duda, tener prioridades más urgentes que tratar de salvar este acuerdo comparativamente menor … (Si el texto del tratado debe ser ratificado, entonces el ciclo de ratificación tendrá que empezar de nuevo de nuevo).

Como una persona lo puso: “¿Quién es el primer Presidente de la EPO que violó la independencia judicial de la Sala Amplia?”

Acerca de Battistelli, dice otra persona, es él el que “comenzó su primer términ con un discurso en al Haya, donde se declaró a sí mismo un “convicto europeo”. – (Con sus bolsillos a ser llenados por las grandes corporáciones no-europeas) -Deberíamos haber sabido entonces! La noticia de esta mañana dejó Brexit me daba náuseas, pero realmente, ¿cómo podría culpar a los votantes por no querer ser parte de ese tipo de Europa … “(no estoy seguro si esta cita es real, tal vez debido al mal Inglés).

Otra persona dijo: “El Protocolo sobre los privilegios y las inmunidades no disponen que el Consejo de Administración suspensión de la inmunidad diplomática del Presidente, sino como la relación entre el Presidente y el aire acondicionado es similar a la de un perro que está siendo movidó por la cola, siendo las perspectivas a rechazar su de su inmunidad pocas”.

Battistelli “continúa repitiendo… la Unidad Investigadora es sólo un cuerpo para “encontrar realidades”, pero es la IU la que “decide”,” esta persona notó y los abusos de Battistelli están siéndo menciónados incluso por EPLAW, i.e. abogados de patentes. Battistelli, insistió una persona, “era del punto de vista de que el EBoa no tiene autoridad para conducir su propio ejercidio de encontra hechos/realidades.” Como una persona notó más tarde, “es increíble como están publicando posts en IPKat a favor de la gerencia de la EPO los están limpiándo de polvo y paja.” Miren el mérito (o falta de ello) en su reclamo.

No hay duda de que hay una necesidad urgente de debatir última abuso de Battistelli, pero muy poco después llegaron Brexit (la misma noche que el documento anterior consiguió escapado) y luego todos empezaron a hablar de la UPC.

Aquí esta Managing IP (MIP) regresándo a su guión de UPC y abogados de patentes británicos “levantando sus preocupaciónes por la salida de la UE” (pero no debemos preocuparnos por los abogados, debemos hacerlo en aras de la ciencia y tecnología). También vemos “Referendum del Reino Unido—sus implicaciónes al Systema Unitario de Patentes” (la UPC está efectivamente muerta or 2+ años). Otros nuevos artículos de interes: “el voto Brexit debe incentivar a los negocios/empresas a revisar sus aplicaciónes por patenes y estratégias de negocios dice experto”, “Brexit – ¿Qué significa para portafolios de marcas, contratos IP y la UPC?” y “El drama de la Decisión Brexit no traerá claridad a dueños deIP”. En relación a “Brexit: CIPA llama a la calma”, tengan en mente que CIPA ha sido un grupo de presión a favor de la UPC.

Mathieu Klos de la Juve: escribió “Oscuro o radiante.? Los siguientes 6 días decidir sobre el futuro del Euro. Sistema de patentes: la reforma estructural #Brexit + #UPC #EPOorg (29.6.) “Lo que podría traducirse en” O haz de Dire.? Los próximos 6 días deciden el futuro de la Unión Europea. Sistema de patentes: # referéndum propuesto en el Reino Unido de miembros de la reforma estructural de la Unión Europea + #UPC #EPOorg (. 29,6) “(Habrá algunas bombas más próxima semana, en base a lo que hemos aprendido de forma privada).

Los propagandistas de la UPC son, como se esperaba, muy tristes por Brexit (céntrense en el artículo original, no sólo en los muchos comentarios), pero no por razones que son importantes para la gente común. Para ellos es sólo una pérdida potencial de ingresos. “Tribunal Unificado de Patentes se convirtió en realidad”, dice un empleado de Bristows, que nos recuerda que los defensores de la UPC (no todos abogados de patentes) se preocupan por los más Brexit. Puedes ver el análisis de Appleyard Lees y de Bird & Bird (gran impulsor de la UPC). Dado que la Ley fuera puesto que, “Los titulares de derechos podrían necesitar IP volver a registrarse en el Reino Unido como resultado de Brexit, según experto” (que es el titular).

Las firmas de abogados explican (o auto-mercado) la situación en artículos como “Reino Unido” Brexit “Deja la comunidad del IP con muchas preguntas” “El mpacto de Brexit para los Derechos de Propiedad Intelectual” y “Brexit – Derecho recursos de la empresa” (en su mayoría un conjunto de enlaces de MIP, que persiste con su empuje de la UPC, a pesar de las últimas noticias).

No hay falta de cobertura sobre el impacto de Brexit, pero no queremos centrárnos en ello, porque muchas incógnitas permanecen y que prefieren centrarse en la posición de la EPO. Recuerde que las conexiones de la EPO a IAM y ver cómo su redactor jefe sigue mámandosela a Battistelli un poco más.”¿Qué va a cambiar”, escribió, “es el futuro inmediato del régimen de patente unitaria Tribunal de Patentes y unificado de la UE propuesto. la ratificación del Reino Unido es un requisito antes de que puedan entrar en vigor. Que estaba prevista para este verano, pero ahora no va a suceder. Eso significa que hasta que el Reino Unido ha salido oficialmente de la UE que no proceda. Así que estamos buscando en un mínimo de dos años de retraso, aunque yo apostaría por más tiempo “.

Por lo que incluso los círculos pro-Battistelli admiten que estamos “buscando en un mínimo de dos años de retraso, aunque yo apostaría por más tiempo.” Saben que puede sacarlo por completo, pero no quieren admitirlo. Como tal, no hay propósito para Battistelli en la EPO más. Lo hace mucho más daño que cualquier persona. Que debería renunciar la semana próxima. Para mantenerlo con el fin de “hacer el trabajo” (el “trabajo” es el proyecto de la UPC) no es racional más.

En cuanto a la propia EPO, que ahora promueve una mentira. Battistelli típicamente publica una mentira en el sitio web de la EPO (advertencia: epo.org link). que dice: “En cuanto a la patente unitaria y el Tribunal Unificado de Patentes, la Oficina espera que el Reino Unido y los Estados miembros participantes encontrarán una solución lo antes posible, lo que permitirá una implementación completa de estos logros tan ansiádos (por las grandes corporaciónes)

“El @EPOorg emite #Brexit comunicado,” escribió IAM. “Espera que los estados miembros de la UE y el Reino Unido para encontrar una solución #UPC aplicación. Humm “(suena como una expresión de duda). Incluso los chácales de Battistelli parecen bastante dudosos ya que suponemos que la UPC morirá igual que sus predecesores (tirados al cenicero de la historia).

“Las instituciones de la UE no se mencionan en el comunicado,” escribió Francisco Moreno. “¿Son irrelevantes para encontrar una solución o son el problema?”

La UPC es sólo más difícil creer en este momento. Ya que incluso MIP puso: “Temo que puede estar incluso más allá de las habilidades formidables de Margot F”.

Parece, basado en el tiempo que tardó la EPO para emitir la declaración anterior, que requería mucho tiempo para preparar un solo párrafo de blanqueo, o una mentira que esquiva la verdad (o semi verdad). “Nosotros hemos oído de la @EPOorg,” escribió WIPR de antemano “, que entendemos está preparando un comunicado. #Brexit Tiene implicaciones para la patente unitaria y la UPC. #EUref “(¿Por qué tomó tanto tiempo para preparar un solo párrafo único?).

La “EPO dice que espera que los estados miembros del Reino Unido y #EU se” encontrar una solución que permita la aplicación largamente esperada “de la UPC y la patente unitaria,” WIPR notó más tarde. Se publicó un artículo sobre el tema en un par de sus sitios [1, 2]. Queremos recordar a los lectores que la administración de EPO ha mentido históricamente a los periodistas, por lo que esta vez también hay que tener todo lo que dice con un grano de sal (del tamaño de Rusia).

Darren Smyth de IP Kat, escribiendo sobre el tema, dice: “Sir Robin Jacob piensa que la UPC es probable que no siga adelante en absoluto sin Reino Unido Reino Unido si sale de la UE”

“Sir Robin puede estar en lo correcto acerca de ello,” MIP respondió.

“Jacob y otros creyentes piensan que pueden parchear la UPC para manejar el caso del Reino Unido,” escribió Henrion. “Debemos estar mejor preparados para otra ronda.”

Jacob es en realidad parte del grupo que utilizó profecías que se auto-cumplen para la UPC, con el fin de inducir el derrotismo de oposición. “El TJUE señaló explícitamente que los países no comunitarios no pueden participar,” una persona (Steve Peers) señaló, y Henrion respondió con: “Froehlinger ya está ocupada probablemente volver a escribir.” Hace poco Peers dijo: “la UPC puede ir adelante sin el Reino Unido. Basta con mover una parte de la cancha”.

Cambiar las reglas de nuevo, para los millonarios y multimillonarios (y los trolls de patentes como un efecto secundario)?

En la “vía rápida patente unitaria”, Moreno escribió: “la UPCA nunca entra en vigor. cooperación reforzada nueva w / o Reino Unido. Las mismas regulaciones 2 + una tercera para un tribunal bajo el ECJ “.

Como Henrion señala, “art6 y 8 eran el arte de Jacob y Cameron.”

Seguro que se parece a Darren Smyth aceptó mi interpretación de la situación a lo largo (es verosímil que la UPC simplemente morirá) [1, 2] y una persona escribió: “Si esto rompe la EPO, valió la pena.”

En realidad, el ahorro de la EPO en lugar de romperla es la meta. Extracción de gente como Battistelli es el medio. Florian Müller escribió: “Los países no saldrán de la Organización Europea de Patentes la misma facilidad que la UE debido al menor debate público, sino que ayuda a por lo menos puesto de la UPC” (que puede eliminarlo también).

Los próximos días serán interesantes debido a la reunión de la próxima semana. En palabras de una fuente dentro de la EPO:

Seamos realistas: el personal de la EPO, no tiene a nadie:

Es evidente que las acciones concretas de la CA, como se sugirió anteriormente, resolverían muchos problemas. Pero fue “terremoto” de ayer suficiente? En el meanttime, es decir, hasta que se haga algo, el personal de la EPO tiene que enfrentarse a ella: estamos por nuestra cuenta. Y supongo que la EPO ver más de la demostración.

Como saben, la próxima reunión del Consejo de Administración se llevará a cabo los días 29 y 30 de junio. En el orden del día, más allá de la “independencia” de la DG 3, hay

cuatro documentos que proponen reformas más serios defectos:

o CA / 15/16 en la auto-seguro para los costos del cuidado de la salud

o CA / 29/16 sobre las restricciones de empleo posteriores al servicio

o CA / 52/16 “normas de conducta” y las investigaciones

o CA / 53/16 se refiere a una revisión de los procedimientos disciplinarios

Una protesta coincidirá con la reunión la próxima semana. Esperemos que haya gran atención. Necesita mandar el mensaje que Battistelli DEBE irse. LaUPC no es una excusa para seguirlo manteniéndo.

P.S Estoy en Nueva York este fin de semana. Continuarémos el Lunes.

[ES] El Caradura Benoît Battistelli Debería Renunciar a Luz de la Filtrada Nueva Decisión en Su Vendeta en Contra de un Juez que se Atrevió a Decir la Verdad (Actualizado)

14 hours 41 min ago

English/Original

Article as ODF

Publicado en Europa, Patentes a las 3:01 pm por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Sumario: Benoît Battistelli continúa quebrando las propias reglas de la EPO, no sólo las leyes naciónales, como una nueva decisión ayuda a revelar

ESTAtarde escribimos acerca del juicioen la EPO y la gente estuvo ansiósa de filtrárnoscomo iban las cosas, y sucedió como lo esperamoas. Urgimos a nuestros lectores a informar a sus delegadosy talvez incluso a Heiko Maas acerca de la materia. Ya basta!.

Battistelli, al juzgar por su propio blog hoy [advertencia: link de la epo.org (tu ip address sera grabada], acaba de viajar a Albania (campeón de patentes!), lo quehace preguntarnos que les dijó o prometióotroque dentistas gratis.

Aquií está el texto de la decisión, que podría usar algun adorno (lo haremos al ir con ello y resaltar en amarillo los importantes bits).

Código de distribución interna:

(A) [X] Publication in OJ

(B) [ ] To Chairmen and Members

(C) [ ] To Chairmen

(D) [ ] No distribution

Datasheet for the decision

of 14 June 2016

Case Number: Art. 23 1/16

Language of the proceedings: EN

Petitioner:

Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation

Respondent:

Headword:

Request for a proposal for removal from office

Relevant legal provisions:

EPC Art. 23(1), 23(3)

RPEBA Art. 12a(9), 12a(10), 18(3)

Palabra clave:

Decisión sobre la solicitud del Consejo de Administración en virtud de

Artículo 23 (1) EPC para hacer una propuesta para eliminar el demandado

de la oficina: La Alta Cámara decide hacer ninguna propuesta “

Peticionario parte en un procedimiento contradictorio (sí) “

Publicación (sí) “

Reembolso de los gastos de procedimiento de todos los que respondieron

propuesto”

Violación del artículo 23 (3) EPC, la independencia judicial, por

La carta del Presidente Oficina de 10 de junio del 2016 (sí) “

Lema:

Para la Alta Cámara de poder continuar con estos procedimiento, la posición del peticionario tendrían que ser que no estaba de acuerdo con el Presidente y la Oficina reconoció que, desde un punto de vista institucional, la la presión ejercida por el presidente de la Oficina en el presente caso

Forma EPA 3030

La hoja técnica no es parte de la Decisión.

- 2 -

Era incompatible con la independencia judicial de la Alta Cámara garantizada por el EPC. Al igual que el peticionario. No distanciarse claramente de la Oficina del Presidente posición, existe la amenaza de medidas disciplinarias contra los miembros de la Alta Cámara. Es entonces la ampliada la independencia judicial de la Junta en la decisión sobre este caso, que se niega fundamentalmente.

Forma EPA 3030 06.03

Número de caso: Art. 23 1/16

DECISIÓN

de 14 de junio el año 2016

Peticionario: Consejo de Administración de la

Organización Europea de Patentes

Bob-van-Benthem-Platz 1

D-80469 Múnich

representantes:

Demandado:

Representante: Senay Okyay

Rechtsanwältin

Sonnenstrasse 6

D-80331 Múnich

Composición del Consejo:

Presidente: M.-B. Tardo-Dino

Miembros: E. Liiv

A. Dimitrova

I. Beckedorf

D. Rogers

U. Oswald

H. Meinders

C 1 0 9 5 8. DA

Resumen de Datos y Presentaciones

I. El presente procedimiento se inició el 11 de febrero de 2016 y la preocupación la solicitud de 11 de enero de 2016, confirmado el 27 de enero 2016 (en adelante AC Solicitud 3), de la Administración Consejo de la Organización Europea de Patentes (en lo sucesivo el peticionario o AC) pidiendo a propuesta de la Cámara de Recursos de que el Sr. X (en adelante, el Demandado) ser removido de su cargo como miembro de la Salas de recurso, tal petición se realizan bajo Artículo 23 (1) del CPE y en el artículo 12 bis del Reglamento de Procedimiento de la Cámara de Recursos (RPEBA).

II. La solicitud en el presente procedimiento es el tercero de tales solicitud presentada por el peticionario. La primera solicitud fue encontrado que es inadmisible porque no cumplió los requisitos formales de fundamentación fáctica prescrito por el artículo 12 bis (5) RPEBA (decisión en el caso Art. 23 1/15 de 17 de septiembre de 2015). el peticionario sí renunció a su segunda petición en la vía oral procedimientos en caso de arte. 23 2/15 el 11 de febrero de 2016.

A raíz de dicha retirada, los procedimientos fueron terminado por la decisión en el caso del arte. 23 2/15 de 11 de febrero de de 2016.

III. Las órdenes de la Cámara de Recursos (en adelante la EBA o Alta Cámara) que tanto la anterior

decisiones mencionadas debían ser publicada todavía no han sido ejecutado por las autoridades competentes de la Oficina.

IV. La presentación de estas tres solicitudes por el peticionario en este asunto, y de esta manera, no sólo se llevó a retrasos en el tratamiento de este asunto, pero forzados

diversos cambios en la composición de la ampliada Junta debido a la no disponibilidad de algunos de sus miembros, lo que añade más demora.

V. Con el fin de entender el presente procedimiento una revisión de los antecedentes y la historia de estas solicitudes es necesario. Sólo los hechos más relevantes se exponen abajo.

VI. El 3 de diciembre de 2014, la Presidente de la OEP (en lo sucesivo Oficina del Presidente) ordena la prohibición de casa y el suspensión de la parte demandada.

VII. El 11 de diciembre del 2014 (CA / D 12/14) el aire acondicionado, a propuesta Presidente de la Oficina (CA / C 8/14), decidió confirmar la suspensión de la parte demandada, teniendo en cuenta que ésta era la medida más apropiada para tomar y estaba de acuerdo con la prohibición de la casa decidida por la Oficina del Presidente. También decidió que la Oficina unidad de investigación (en adelante UI) era el competente cuerpo para perseguir esta investigación y para entregar su informar a la CA y de la Oficina del Presidente.

VIII. El 5 de marzo de 2015, la UI entregó su informe (en lo sucesivo Informe UI).

IX. El 26 de marzo 2015, el AC inició disciplinarias procedimientos contra el demandado (CA / 28/15, Resumen de las decisiones artículo 10.1, página 5). También encomendó a su Presidente de adoptar todas las medidas necesarias de seguimiento.

X. El AC creó un Comité Disciplinario, (en adelante CC), lo que sobre la base del informe entregado una UI informe el 23 de junio de 2015, (en adelante, la opinión del CC), a

el Presidente de la AC. El DC encontró que la Demandado había llevado a cabo una serie de actos y que estos actúa mala conducta constituida, para las que el apropiado la sanción es el despido.

XI. En el presente procedimiento, basado en AC Solicitud 3, el Peticionario se basa en el Informe de IU y en el DC de opinión y ha vuelto a redactar su solicitud.

XII. Solicitud de CA 3 contiene dos alegaciones:

Alegación 1: La divulgación no autorizada de la no-pública información y opiniones críticas relacionadas con la Junta de actividades de apelación fuera de la EPO durante el uso seudónimos.

Alegación 2: Difusión de falsas acusaciones y ataques injustificados o amenazas contra la OEP y su miembros utilizando ya sea directa o indirectamente anónimas declaraciones y seudónimos.

XIII. Las partes fueron convocados a una primera vía oral no pública actuaciones en 10, 11 y 12 de mayo de 2016. El propósito de estos procedimientos orales fue discutir la competencia de la Alta Cámara, la admisibilidad de la solicitud de AC 3 y la petición del demandado para la terminación resumen de las actuaciones.

XIV. En una carta de fecha 2 de mayo el año 2016 El peticionario afirma que que no se consideraba una parte en el procedimiento, representaba sólo el interés institucional de la C.A. Se inició el procedimiento, de conformidad con el Artículo 23 (1) del CPE, en su calidad de competente se nombra a la autoridad.

XV. Las comunicaciones escritas y orales del encuestado puede resumirse como sigue:

1. Estado de Procedimiento de la AC en el procedimiento. La parte demandada solicita en el año 2016 el número de mayo por vía oral procedimiento que la posición del peticionario como una parte en el procedimiento se confirmará, o, si no, que puede excluir.

2. Competencia de la Alta Cámara, su independencia y su legitimidad para tratar con el caso en el siguientes motivos:

(A) El conflicto entre el artículo 12 bis y RPEBA el rango superior norma legal del artículo 23 (1) EPC.

(B) La perversión del procedimiento previsto en el Artículo 23 (1) del CPE: AC usurpa las disposiciones del CPE y su espíritu.

(C) El incumplimiento de la frecuencia fundamental principios de independencia judicial contemplado

en la “Carta Europea sobre el estatuto de las jueces “y la” Carta Magna de los jueces “en la composición de la Alta Cámara de el procedimiento previsto en el artículo 12 bis (RPEBA falta de miembros elegidos).

(D) El intento inadmisibles por parte de la AC para instruir a la Alta Cámara por medio de CA / D 14/15, lo que constituye una perversión de el procedimiento previsto en el artículo 23 (1) EPC.

(E) La consecuencia de la modificación de Artículo 95 (3) del Reglamento de la Administración

en lo sucesivo, ServRegs) (CA / D 18/15) en el independencia de la Alta Cámara.

3. Cuestiones de admisibilidad en los siguientes motivos:

a) La facultad delegada en el Presidente de la AC en CA / D 14/15 estaba agotada después de la terminación de las actuaciones en el caso del arte. 23 2/15, con la retirada de la solicitud.

b) Debe aplicarse el principio de cosa juzgada.

c) El principio de N6 bis idem debe aplicarse.

d) Solicitud de CA 3 falla para sanar las deficiencias en las solicitudes anteriores y no más es fundamentado que en el caso del arte. 23 1/15.

4. Solicitud de terminación resumen de éstos procedimientos por los siguientes motivos:

a) Los procedimientos deben conducir la ampliada Junta de interrumpir o quedarse la procedimiento hasta que el AC adopta apropiada medidas para garantizar que la independencia de los miembros de la Alta Cámara es garantizada.

b) La falta de base legal de las actuaciones.

c) Los intentos de socavar la presunción de inocencia.

d) la composición defectuosa de la DC.

e) Defectuoso procedimiento sancionador.

f) Deficiente opinión de la DC.

g) Flawed procedimiento de investigación iniciado por la administración de EPO.

h) CA / D 12/14 no pudo sanar los defectos de la procedimiento de investigación.

i) los abusos de procedimiento.

j) Informe cargado de la UI.

5. En relación con la materia objeto de fondo sobre la siguientes motivos:

a) No se consideran las circunstancias en que se produjo la supuesta mala conducta.

b) El incumplimiento por parte de la AC para hacer frente a la cuestión que el Informe de IU no es ni neutral ni objetiva en su presentación de los hechos; observaciones al informe de la DC.

c) Las inconsistencias en la opinión de la DC.

d) Supresión y / u omisión deliberada de evidencia.

e) Las cuestiones pendientes relativas a exposiciones B43 B45.

f) Los intentos de reintroducir previamente abandonada acusaciones.

g) La falta de respuesta a los problemas anteriormente planteada por el demandado.

h) Las observaciones sobre los acontecimientos del 3 de diciembre 2014.

XVI. Durante el procedimiento oral no públicas del 10 al 12 de mayo 2016 los temas antes mencionados con los números 1-4 eran discutido con las partes. Una discusión de los temas planteado con el número 5 anterior fue pospuesta para junio 2016 procedimientos orales sobre el fondo. La Alta Cámara llegó a la conclusión de que la solicitud de AC 3 era admisible. También decidió no dar por terminado el procedimiento sumario.

XVII. La Alta Cámara dio instrucciones de manejo de casos para los procedimientos orales previstas para junio de 2016 para discutir

los méritos del caso, en particular en lo que respecta a la noción de razones de peso y fuerza probatoria y formal aspectos de las pruebas.

XVIII. A petición de la parte demandada, y después de discutir con las partes, la Alta Cámara decidió que el procedimiento oral sobre el fondo, en junio el año 2016 serían públicas a menos que la Alta Cámara haría decidir la exclusión del público, lo que lo haría siempre que la naturaleza del debate hizo necesario.

XIX. El procedimiento oral sobre los méritos del caso eran organizado del 14 al 16 de junio de 2016. Las partes fueron invitado a preparar sus presentaciones para ese debate. El Presidente informó a las partes que la Alta Cámara había decidido que tres miembros de la UI serían llamados como testigos.

XX. Ambas partes presentaron sus escritos con letras de 6 de junio de 2016. Por lo tanto las partes y la Alta Cámara estaban en condiciones de discutir los méritos de cada caso los procedimientos públicos orales sobre 14 al 16 de 2016 junio, y la Alta Cámara consideró que sería entonces en condiciones de emitir una decisión definitiva sobre el fondo.

XXI. El vicepresidente de Apelación se le dio, y tomó, la oportunidad de presentar sus observaciones en el procedimientos de conformidad con el artículo 12 bis (2) RPEBA.

XXII. Además de las presentaciones de la peticionaria, el 6 junio de 2016, el Presidente de la AC envió una carta directamente al Presidente de la Alta Cámara expresando reservas generales respecto de la decisión de celebrar los procedimientos orales del mes de junio de 2016 en público.

Más aún solicita que se confirme que el archivo no sería puesto a disposición de cualquiera que no sea los miembros de la Alta Cámara en su composición actual.

XXIII. El Presidente de la Alta Cámara contestó al Presidente del CA el 7 de junio de 2016, confirmando que no tenían habido ninguna descripción del archivo por la Alta Cámara aparte de los miembros de la Alta Cámara en su composición actual. Además de esto, el Presidente utilizado los mismos términos de la decisión sobre la celebración de procedimientos orales públicas sobre el fondo, tomada en el procedimiento oral de mayo de 2016. Además de eso, la Presidente confirmó que la Alta Cámara era plenamente consciente que los procedimientos no deben poner en peligro la intereses o el honor de cualquier persona, en particular personas cuyos nombres podrían surgir durante el procedimiento.

XXIV. El 14 de junio el año 2016 El peticionario confirmó, durante el en la conferencia de la cámara, que esta carta del Presidente de la Alta Cámara se dirigió a las reservas generales planteada en la carta anterior del Presidente de la AC.

XXV. En una carta de 10 de junio el año 2016 El presidente de la Oficina, que no está prevista como parte en el presente procedimiento en virtud Artículo 23 (1) RPEBA EPC y el artículo 12 bis, escribió directamente

al Presidente de la Alta Cámara con copias a la otros miembros de la Alta Cámara en su presente composición.

La carta se titula “Oficina de representación en el caso Art. 23 1/16 “. Esta carta decía:

“Con el debido respeto al principio de independencia de la Junta de Apelaciones consagrado en el art. 23 EPC, por Virtud de las facultades con arreglo al art. 5 (3) y 10 (1) (2) (h) (i) EPC, me gustaría llamar su atención sobre cierta preocupaciones expresadas en la posición adjunto, preparado por mis asesores legales “.

XXVI. En el documento adjunto, la opinión de un control de calidad Inglés, es titulado: “En materia de un procedimiento en el frente de la Cámara de Apelaciones “,” Declaración de posición para el Presidente de la Oficina Europea de Patentes “. El seguimiento pasajes parecen ser relevantes para el procedimiento:

“19. Se recordará que el papel de la Eboa en virtud del artículo 23 del CPE es hacer una propuesta sobre la la separación del cargo, teniendo en cuenta el hecho de que esta sanción ha sido recomendado por el CC y avalado por la AC. Este artículo no confiere una el poder de apelación ni de estudio, y mucho menos un país libre de pie y más hecho de encontrar mandato. Los naturaleza y alcance de las pruebas ya disponibles a la Eboa significa que la presencia de estos testigos no es necesario que el (1) EPC artículo 23 los procedimientos que se llevan a cabo de manera justa y efectiva “.

“21. Es muy apropiado que un re- completa la audición de los hechos llevará a cabo los días 14-16 de junio; ahí hay Vires en este foro para llevar a cabo una apelación proceso ni tampoco volver a iniciar una investigación; en consecuencia, la presencia personal de los testigos de la Oficina no será requerido o autorizado por el Presidente “.

23. Con esto en mente, el Presidente no lo hará, nos también son instruidos, dudar en tomar cualquier medidas adecuadas a su alcance para garantizar la funcionamiento ordenado de la Oficina y la seguridad de su empleados.”

“27. En Vista, en particular, de la gravedad de la la reputación, la seguridad, el bienestar y el orden público riesgos identificados, hay un caso fuerte para decir que cualquier decisión para llevar a cabo esta audiencia en público sería ilegal, ya que no se podía defender ya sea proporcional o razonable “

“28. Por todas estas razones, el Presidente lo estime necesaria en interés de toda la organización

que no es una garantía de que este asunto se proceder a puerta cerrada y que no hay testigos serán llamada de la oficina “.

XXVII. A pesar de que estaba previsto par a abrir el oral y público procedimiento sobre el fondo de este caso, a las 9:00 horas en 14 de junio de 2016, la Alta Cámara decidió celebrar una preliminar en la conferencia de la cámara con las partes en ordenar que el peticionario podría aclarar su posición como que se refiere a la carta del Presidente Oficina de 10 de junio de 2016. Esta conferencia se dio por terminada a partir de 11:40 a 14:30 horas para permitir que los representantes del peticionario a tomar instrucciones en este sentido.

XXVIII. A las 14:30 horas, los representantes del peticionario eran por último, en condiciones de presentar una declaración de la Presidente de la AC con respecto a la Oficina del Presidente carta de 10 de junio de 2016.

XXIX. A las 17:15 horas, la conferencia en la cámara terminó y el juicio oral y público comenzaron. El Presidente de la Alta Cámara continuación, hizo la siguiente declaración:

“La Cámara de Recursos ha recibido una carta de una autoridad que no sea parte en el procedimiento, en el que se expresado la opinión de que la Junta Ampliada, con el la decisión de celebrar juicio oral y público, tomó una decisión ilegal. Se discutió con las partes, si esta carta se podría considerar, desde una punto de vista objetivo, como una amenaza para la independencia de la Alta Cámara en este caso. Los Se pidió peticionario para expresar claramente si se refrendado esta posición o no, ya que el peticionario es el nombramiento y la autoridad disciplinaria para todos los miembros de la Alta Cámara. El peticionario hizo una declaración que no la distancia desde esta opinión y que no eliminar la amenaza. Bajo estas condiciones, la Alta Cámara no pueden continuar legalmente con el presente procedimiento, y por lo tanto termina con la decisión de que no propone la la separación del cargo del demandado “

XXX. a continuación, se excluyó el público y los procedimientos orales continuado sin que el público con el fin de hacer frente a la restante peticiones de las partes.

XXXI. La última petición del peticionario era que la Cámara de Recursos hacer una propuesta que el demandado ser removido de su cargo como miembro de las Salas de Recurso.

XXXII. Las solicitudes finales del demandado fueron los siguientes:

1. desestimar la solicitud del peticionario,

subsidiariamente que se ponga término al proceso;

y

2. El reembolso de la totalidad de los gastos efectuados por se propuso el demandado en el presente procedimiento;

y

3. La decisión en el caso del arte. 23 1/16 publicarse;

y

4. La Alta Cámara incluye en el razonamiento de su obiter dictum decisión con respecto a la solicitudes de la Demandada exponen en su carta de 24 de de noviembre de de 2015.

XXXIII. Al final del procedimiento oral no públicas del presente decisión se anunció.

Las razones para la decisión

La naturaleza de estos procedimientos

1. El presente procedimiento tiene con respecto a la la solicitud del peticionario de una propuesta para la eliminación del cargo de la parte demandada. Se rigen por Artículo 23 (1), primera frase, EPC. Se llevan a cabo independientemente de cualquier procedimiento disciplinario (Artículo 12 bis (8) RPEBA).

2. Una propuesta en este sentido tiene que emanar de la Cámara de Recursos, y la Alta Cámara viene a una propuesta de este tipo exclusivamente por medio de una decisión, como evidenciado por el artículo 18 (3) RPEBA. Como se trata de una

miembro del cuerpo judicial de la EPO, que disfruta de la garantía de la independencia judicial en virtud de

Artículo 23 (3) EPC, esta decisión ha de ser también calculado de acuerdo con el principio de justicia

la independencia de conformidad con (3) EPC artículo 23.

3. Ni el Convenio sobre la Patente Europea ni el Reglamento de Procedimiento de la Cámara de Recursos prever estos procedimientos como una apelación de una decisión o una opinión en los procedimientos disciplinarios o las establecen procedimiento en su parte legal o de hecho de la procedimientos disciplinarios que se rigen por el artículo 11 (4) EPC y los ServRegs. Se trata más bien de la Alta Cámara para establecer, a su propia satisfacción, por una examen de los hechos, pruebas y argumentos, si está en una posición para hacer el pedido propuesta de separación del cargo.

IMPROCEDENCIA DE LA SOLICITUD Y RESUMEN DEL DEMANDANTE

CONCLUSIÓN DE LOS PROCEDIMIENTOS

estado procesal de la demandante en el procedimiento

4. El procedimiento que se adoptó en CA / D 3/15 constitutivo de la Reglamento de la Cámara de Recursos de A este respecto, es un procedimiento judicial contencioso (ver La decisión de la Alta Cámara en el caso del arte. 23 1/15, punto 5.7 de las razones). La presentación de la solicitud, que representa los intereses del peticionario y el apoyo alegaciones en contra del demandado, corresponde a la papel de una de las partes en dichos procedimientos. La Junta meramente subraya que el carácter contradictorio de la procedimiento tiene como objetivo, como es habitual en el marco del estado de derecho en los países democráticos, garantizando a la demandada un

juicio justo y no a socavar el poder de la la autoridad disciplinaria para tomar una decisión final.

Competencia de la Alta Cámara, su independencia y legitimidad para tratar con el caso

5. La parte demandada insistió en que el artículo 23 (1) del CPE se encontraba en el núcleo del caso, y la independencia de la miembros de las Salas de Recurso estaba en juego. De acuerdo a este artículo, los miembros de la Cámara de Apelación y de las salas de recurso será nombrado por un período de cinco años y no puede ser retirado de oficina durante este plazo, excepto si hay motivos graves motivos para ello y que si el aire acondicionado, en una propuesta de la Cámara de Recursos, tome una decisión a este efecto.

6. La demandada argumentó que el procedimiento previsto en virtud Artículo 23 (1) EPC debe llevarse a cabo en su totalidad por la Alta Cámara, en el sentido de que era incompatible con el tenor del artículo 23 (1) EPC para el aire acondicionado sea capaz de iniciar dicho procedimiento en sí mismo haciendo una solicitud de oferta.

7. En su decisión en el caso del arte. 23 1/15, el punto 5.7 de la Razones, la Alta Cámara ya determinados para que la procedimiento del artículo 23 (1) del CPE, se especifica por el artículo 12 bis RPEBA. El CA como fuente legislativa en virtud el EPC ha aprobado este reglamento particular por la aprobación de ellos.

8. Ni el artículo 23 (1) del CPE, ni el artículo 12 bis RPEBA requiere que la Alta Cámara y la Alta Cámara el único que tiene la facultad de iniciar un procedimiento de este tipo.

9. La demandada ha planteado la cuestión de que la enmienda del artículo 95 (3) ServRegs afecta la independencia de los miembros de la Alta Cámara, ya que permite cualquier miembro de la junta que se suspendió indefinidamente por una mera decisión de la AC. Esto equivale a una eliminación de facto de la oficina, ya que la suspensión puede extenderse hasta término de cinco años del miembro expira. Al expirar el de cinco años de plazo, re-nombramiento del miembro de cuestión puede entonces simplemente puede negar, sin adecuada Artículo 23 (1) EPC propuesta de la Alta Cámara. Los Demandado no obstante, ha planteado esta cuestión como parte de una oposición de conformidad con el artículo 24 (3) EPC que es que los miembros de la Alta Cámara podrían ser sospechosos de parcialidad por una parte.

10. A la luz de esto la Sala considera que tiene que abordar la cuestión en relación con (1) RPEBA artículo 4, es decir, si algún miembro de la Alta Cámara de su composición actual debe tener en cuenta que debido a la modificaciones introducidas en el artículo 95 (3) ServRegs, que deberían no tomar parte en este procedimiento ya que ya no consideran a sí mismos ser imparcial e independiente en su toma de decisiones.

11. La Alta Cámara señala que la modificación Artículo 95 (3) ServRegs fue dictada por la CA en su 2015 reunión de diciembre, durante el curso de este serie de procedimientos. Con esta modificación no puede ser excluido que la suspensión del encuestado continuar hasta el final de su actual término de cinco años. Los Alta Cámara señala, además, que esto es posible debido a que el período de suspensión se ha levantado de entre 4 a los 24 meses específicamente para miembros de la junta, y se puede

Ahora se ampliará con el aire acondicionado en “casos excepcionales”. UN no se da límite a esta extensión y ninguna orientación en cuanto a lo que puede constituir circunstancias excepcionales se

previsto.

12. Esta modificación del artículo 95 (3), por lo tanto ServRegs da la posibilidad, de hecho, a la AC para eliminar una miembro de las Salas de Recurso de la oficina sin siguiendo el procedimiento (1) El artículo 23 del CPE.

13. En el momento esta cuestión fue planteada en el presente procedimiento, durante el procedimiento oral de mayo de 2016, los miembros de la Alta Cámara, haciendo su propia persona evaluación de su situación, consideró que la amenaza a su independencia judicial era un general, amenaza abstracta que estaría presente en todos los casos Antes del embarque, no sólo el presente caso. De hecho, tomándolo como una razón para excluir a uno mismo sería implica necesariamente que uno podía ni sentarse en cualquier Junta normal de Apelación caso, ni en las referencias, incluyendo peticiones de revisión, a la sala ampliada.

14. Esta situación ha cambiado ahora, como consecuencia de la La carta del Presidente Oficina de 10 de junio de 2016, (véase el párrafo XXV anteriormente, y para 36 a 47 a continuación).

15. La demandada también se ha opuesto a la Alta Cámara de apelación que está compuesto por miembros de los cuales ninguno es elegido, (ver hechos y presentaciones, párrafo XV, 2 (c)). Ni el Convenio sobre la Patente Europea, ni el Reglamento de Procedimiento de la Alta Cámara de (1) del artículo 23 del CPE casos han constituido la Alta Cámara con el electo miembros. La Alta Cámara ya ha decidido este punto en su decisión en el caso del arte. 23 1/15,

el punto 5.6 de las razones. La Alta Cámara queda de la misma opinión en el presente procedimiento y adopta el razonamiento de esta decisión, sin ver necesidad de repetir aquí textualmente.

cuestiones de admisibilidad

16. La demandada ha argumentado que el poder delegado por la CA al Presidente de la AC para perseguir esta serie del procedimiento se agotó después de la terminación de la procedimientos en caso de arte. 23 2/15, cuando el peticionario retiró su segunda solicitud.

17. La Alta Cámara es de la opinión de que la presente litigio está comprendido dentro del ámbito del mandato de la Presidente del CA, que lo autoriza a actuar en nombre del CA hasta que la decisión final de la AC (ver CA / D 14/15, el punto 2).

cosa juzgada

18. La demandada planteó esta cuestión en vista de la decisión en el caso del arte. 23 1/15. La Alta Cámara considera que este caso se refiere a cuestiones de procedimiento en lugar de la “causa legal de acción” real. Por lo tanto la doctrina de cosa juzgada no puede aplicarse a el presente caso.

Ne bis idem

19. La demandada ha planteado esta cuestión bajo dos aspectos. El primer aspecto es que en el presente caso, la Demandado era el objeto de las mismas alegaciones, que ya se habían decidido en el caso anterior

C10958 .DA

Art. 23 1/15 y que fueron retiradas en caso Art. 23 2/15.

20. La Sala considera que la primera decisión es una decisión de procedimiento no en los méritos del caso. El segundo proceso ni siquiera llegar a la etapa de los méritos, como el peticionario retiró su petición. Estas circunstancias no pueden ser asimilados a una “Absolución” o “convicción”. A este respecto, la Alta Cámara concluye que el presente caso no es obstaculizado por la existencia de estos procedimientos anteriores.

21. El segundo aspecto planteado por el demandado se refiere a la cuestión de más sanciones disciplinarias basadas en los mismos hechos que fueron considerados suficientes por la Alta Cámara de separación del cargo, tales como el despido propuesto. Esto sólo es de interés cuando el Alta Cámara tuviera que hacer una solicitud de exclusión de oficina. Como este no es el caso, (véase la Orden, punto 1, a continuación), no hay necesidad de hacer frente a este segundo aspecto.

Artículo 12 bis (5) RPEBA

22. El artículo 12 bis (5) RPEBA establece que una solicitud a la Sala ampliada deberá contener todos los hechos, argumentos y las pruebas invocadas. Las objeciones de la demandada a la admisibilidad de la solicitud de CA 3 son que esta solicitud todavía no está suficientemente fundamentada de manera que la Demandado no está en condiciones de saber qué alegaciones, hechos y las pruebas que tiene que responder.

23. En AC Solicitud 3, los cinco alegaciones mantenidas por el Peticionario en la primera solicitud y por el peticionario de

declaración en el juicio oral en el caso Art. 23 1/15, se han reducido a dos.

24. En comparación con la primera solicitud, que se encontró no estar suficientemente fundamentada, el peticionario ha hecho Solicitud de AC 3 una distinción más clara entre los hechos, pruebas y argumentos / conclusiones, y ha tratado de estructurar su solicitud de una manera más lógica. Los Alta Cámara es de la opinión de que a partir de CA Solicitud 3 se puede discernir lo que caso de que el peticionario está tratando de que a los efectos del artículo 12 bis (5) RPEBA.

25. El peticionario manifestó en la vista oral celebrada el 10 de mayo de 2016 (punto 12 del Acta) que no hizo deseen realizar una solicitud sobre la base de las alegaciones 3, 4 y 5 que estaban presentes en sus anteriores solicitudes. Los Peticionaria ha adoptado la posición que está buscando para eliminar el demandado del cargo por el base de las dos alegaciones de que se ha tratado de sustanciar en el presente procedimiento.

Solicitud de terminación Resumen

26. Un resumen de terminación procedimiento sólo es posible a la luz de manifiesto y sustancial de procedimiento violaciónes de tal naturaleza que den lugar a una grave perjuicio de la posición legal y procedimental de una fiesta.

27. La demandada ha argumentado que tales violaciónes son presentar en este caso debido a la falta de una base legal para el procedimiento, la composición defectuosa de la DC, su dictamen deficiente, la disciplina defectuoso procedimiento y el procedimiento de investigación como defectuoso iniciado por el aire acondicionado.

28. La Alta Cámara es de la opinión de que estas cuestiones Prefiero ir a la calidad y fiabilidad de la

pruebas reunidas contra el demandado. Por lo tanto lo hacen No llevar la Alta Cámara a la conclusión de que debe estar terminada por el procedimiento sumario.

29. La demandada también ha argumentado que ningún procedimiento justo es posible, dado el debilitamiento de la presunción de inocencia en su favor debido a la difusión pública de lo que puede ser descrito como las acusaciones “nazis”, tanto en la declaración de la Presidencia de la República (CA / C 19/15) a la AC (en contradicción directa con las conclusiones de la opinión de la DC en el párrafo 131 y 142), y la prensa campaña de octubre de 2015. Esto se ve agravado por el supuesta influencia indebida ejercida sobre el ampliada Junta (reuniones de 5 y 8 de diciembre de 2014 con respectivamente, el director principal de la IU y la Presidente Office) y el claro respaldo previo de la CA de la opinión errónea de CC.

30. En lo que respecta a la resolución resumen de las actuaciones debido a la socavación de la presunción de inocencia, el Alta Cámara no se considera para ser prejuicios contra el demandado por estos eventos. Estas revelaciones públicas y declaraciones de alto rango funcionarios de EPO constituyen parte de los antecedentes de hecho para este caso. Para la Alta Cámara, lo que cuenta esla fiabilidad de las pruebas reunidas en contra de la Demandado y de la credibilidad de la investigación llevado a cabo por la UI. Estas cuestiones son a tratar con bajo el fondo de este caso y no son tales como para dirigir la Alta Cámara sumariamente a poner fin a estos actas.

El procedimiento oral abiertas al público

31. De acuerdo con el artículo 12 bis (9) RPEBA, a menos que y hasta el medida en que la Alta Cámara decida otra cosa, la procedimientos no serán públicas y estarán confidencial.

32. El propio demandado solicitó que la vía oral los procedimientos relativos a los méritos sustantivos de la caso sean públicos.

33. La razón por la cual las peticiones demandadas han oral procedimientos abiertos al público se debe a la confidencialidad de los procedimientos ya ha sido violado por la Oficina. juicio oral y público dan él la oportunidad de explicar su caso y defender su reputación.

34. La confidencialidad de los procedimientos tiende a proteger la el interés de las personas afectadas, así como el El interés de la oficina. Por lo tanto, la Alta Cámara también tiene que considerar si sería contrario a la el interés de la Oficina y de la Organización y de la empleados en cuestión tengan el procedimiento oral en esta cuestión abierta al público.

35. Teniendo en cuenta la historia del caso, en particular, el hecho de que la Oficina buscaba publicidad para su punto de vista al respecto, la Alta Cámara opina que también es en interés de la Oficina y el Organización de tener procedimientos transparentes. Debería evitarse que los procedimientos son percibidos por observadores objetivos como procedimiento abreviado basado en pruebas cuestionables o sospechosos, en particular en lo estos procedimientos implican la extracción de un miembro de las Salas de Recurso de la oficina judicial. En todo caso, la Alta Cámara se reservó la facultad de excluir al público de los procedimientos orales, siempre que sea la naturaleza del debate hizo necesario, que corresponde a la “medida en que la Alta Cámara decida otra cosa “disposición del artículo 12 bis (9) RPEBA.

LA INDEPENDENCIA DE LA JUNTA AMPLIADA Y LA OFICINA

CARTA DEL PRESIDENTE DE 10 JUNE 2016

36. En su carta de 10 de junio del 2016 (ver citas en punto XXVI. arriba), el Presidente expresó su Oficina Ver que la decisión de la Alta Cámara de celebrar público procedimiento oral era ilegal. Elaboró ​​más que la Alta Cámara no tiene la competencia para determinar los hechos en el presente procedimiento. Por último, indicó que no dudaría en tomar cualquier medidas adecuadas a su alcance para garantizar la funcionamiento ordenado de la Oficina y la seguridad de su los empleados en relación con el presente caso.

37. La toma de una decisión ilegal es claramente mala conducta. De ahí que el general, a la amenaza abstracta independencia de la Alta Cámara resultante de la modificación del artículo 95 (3) ServRegs (véase el párrafo 8 a 13 arriba) ahora ha cristalizado como resultado de la Oficina la intervención de procedimiento irregular del presidente de estos procedimientos.

38. A medida que el presente caso se ha demostrado, el Presidente Oficina asume el poder de investigar y suspender los miembros de las salas de recurso y les impediría la Oficina.

39. Además, también puede proponer cualquier otra disciplina medidas a la AC, de conformidad con el artículo lO (2) (h) de la EPC.

40. Así, en la presencia de estos hechos, determinable por cualquier observador objetivo, todos los miembros presentes de la Alta Cámara se encuentran en peligro de medidas disciplinarias si continúan con estas actuaciones en presencia del público, y se procurará determinar los hechos de este caso. Esto socava la principio fundamental de la independencia judicial como se en (3) EPC artículo 23. Así, las condiciones del Artículo 23 (3) EPC no se cumplen, a menos que el CA como El nombramiento y la autoridad disciplinaria para todos los miembros de la Alta Cámara, incluyendo a sus miembros externos, se distancia de esta posición de la Oficina Presidente.

41. Después de haber sido dado de tiempo durante la puerta cerrada conferencia celebrada el 14 de junio de 2016 para reflexionar sobre esta situación, el Presidente de la AC hizo la siguiente observaciones por escrito acerca de la Oficina del Presidente letra y el recinto de 10 de junio 2016:

tal comunicación no emana de una de las partes las actuaciones. En vista del hecho de que la Consejo de Administración solamente está representado en el el procedimiento contemplado en el artículo 12 bis (2) de las reglas del procedimiento de la EBA, no puede tomar posición sobre una comunicación del Jefe Ejecutivo de la Oficina.

En este sentido, y según el artículo 23 (3) EPC, la EBA miembros no están vinculados por ninguna instrucción, sino que debe acatar las disposiciones del CPE. Esto no puede ser perjuicios a los mismos, teniendo en cuenta que el Consejo es la única autoridad competente para la disciplina ellos…”

42. El peticionario en este caso es el aire acondicionado. El AC es la El nombramiento y la autoridad disciplinaria para la Oficina Presidente (a la persona designada de más alto rango de la AC), como así como para los miembros de la Alta Cámara, (la máxima autoridad judicial de la EPO). el peticionario

por lo tanto tiene la obligación institucional para aclarar si respalda o no la posición del Presidente Oficina como que figura en su carta de 10 de junio de 2016 y se refiere encima.

43. Para la Alta Cámara para poder continuar con que el procedimiento de la posición del peticionario tiene que ser que no estaba de acuerdo con la Oficina Presidente y reconoció que, desde una perspectiva institucional Punto de vista, la presión ejercida por la Oficina Presidente en el presente caso era incompatible con el la independencia judicial de la Alta Cámara garantizada por el EPC. A medida que el peticionario no se distanció claramente sí desde la posición del Presidente del Consejo, hay la amenaza de medidas disciplinarias contra los miembros de la Alta Cámara. Es entonces la Junta Ampliada de la independencia judicial en la decisión sobre este caso, que es fundamentalmente negado.

44. Como puede deducirse de la declaración del Presidente del el aire acondicionado, no había ninguna declaración clara e inequívoca que el aire acondicionado se distanció de (o no ha dado) posición de la Oficina del Presidente. En tal situación, la Alta Cámara no puede continuar legalmente con éstos actas. Como consecuencia de ello no se puede hacer una propuesta al peticionario para eliminar la demandada de su cargo.

45. Por lo tanto, para resumir, la Alta Cámara se redujo a las siguientes alternativas:

ya sea, para tomar una “decisión ilegal”;

o,

para tomar una “decisión conforme a derecho”, según el demandas de la Presidencia de la República, es decir, entorno a un lado su decisión en el procedimiento oral públicas y tomando como concedido los hechos establecidos en la Informe IU y / o la opinión de la DC.

46. ​​En cualquier caso, la decisión respectiva sería inherentemente viciada, ya que habría sido hecho bajo la presión de los poderes ejecutivo y sin el la serenidad y la independencia necesaria para un juicio justo.

47. La intervención del presidente de la Oficina, y esto la intervención por sí sola, impidió la Alta Cámara de continuar el procedimiento como se había planeado, (ver puntos por encima XVI a XXI), de instruir el expediente sus méritos sustantivos en este terreno presentadas por el peticionario, y de establecer si razones de peso para la la separación del cargo de la demandada existía en de acuerdo con (1) del artículo 23 del CPE.

la petición del demandado de que este acuerdo con la decisión cierta cuestiones a modo de obiter comentarios

48. En su carta de 24 de noviembre 2015, el conjunto demandado a nueve solicitudes que se ha repetido, mutatis mutatis en el presente procedimiento.

49. Estas solicitudes se pueden dividir en cuatro categorías. Categoría 1: Solicitudes que ahora están sin fin Solicitud II, que la solicitud que inició la actual ser retirados procedimiento.

Como la Alta Cámara no hará una propuesta al CA para la separación del cargo de la parte demandada, este solicitud es ahora sin fin.

Categoría 2: Solicitudes que caen fuera de la competencia de la Alta Cámara en el presente procedimiento

Solicitud IV, que se anuló la prohibición de la casa.

El presidente de la Oficina, que decidió sobre la prohibición de la casa, no es parte en el presente procedimiento. La Alta Cámara no tiene una jurisdicción respectiva sobre él, ni es la prohibición casa en sí un objeto del presente procedimiento. Solicitud VI, que el demandado ser reintegrado con efecto inmediato como miembro de las salas de recurso;

y

Solicitar VII, que la Alta Cámara haga una ley orden de enlace en el sentido de que la investigación y procedimientos disciplinarios, y los procedimientos ante la Sala ampliada con los números de referencia del arte. 23 1/15 y 2/15 deberán constituir ningún obstáculo para una nueva designación después del periodo de nombramiento actual, que expira el 31 de diciembre de 2017, además, que todos los documentos asociado con los procedimientos anteriores, será retirado del archivo personal del demandado. El peticionario es la autoridad nominadora para el miembros y presidentes de las salas de recurso. Sus el ejercicio de esta autoridad está fuera de la competencia la Junta y ampliada está más allá del alcance de éstos actas.

Solicitud IX, que un premio de moral y ejemplar o daños se harán, en la cantidad de al menos una salario bruto anual. La Alta Cámara no tiene la facultad de ordenar tal premio. Categoría 3: La independencia de los procedimientos de sala ampliada del procedimiento disciplinario La Alta Cámara no puede conceder las siguientes solicitudes de la parte demandada a causa de las presentes actuaciones ser independiente de cualquier procedimiento disciplinario (Artículo 12 bis (8) RPEBA):

Solicitud I, que el procedimiento disciplinario D 1/15 antes de la AC se ha de finalizar sin perjuicio de el demandado; y Solicitud III, el levantamiento de la suspensión; y

Solicitud V, que todos los componentes de la remuneración retenidos han de ser devuelto con intereses.

Categoría 4: Pide que la Alta Cámara puede tratar con

Solicitar VIII, que todas las costas del procedimiento, en especialmente los de representación legal será transmitidas por la OEP. Para esta solicitud, véase más adelante.

Solicitud de reembolso de los gastos

50. El peticionario refiere 12a (10) y el artículo RPEBA declaró que dejaría a la Alta Cámara de

decidir sobre este asunto.

51. De conformidad con el artículo 12 bis (10) RPEBA, la Alta Cámara puede proponer a petición del reembolso de parte o la totalidad de los gastos ocasionados por los procedimientos de la Encuestado si la petición para hacer una propuesta de la separación del cargo ha sido rechazada.

52. La Alta Cámara ha decidido no hacer una propuesta de separación del cargo de la parte demandada; por lo tanto Se propone el reembolso.

Solicitud de publicación

53. La parte demandada alegó que las declaraciones públicas tienen ha hecho en la prensa que son perjudiciales para él. En Para compensar eso, se pidió a la publicación de la presente decisión.

54. De acuerdo con el artículo 18 (3) RPEBA, la decisión final de la Alta Cámara en el procedimiento del artículo 23 (1), primera frase, EPC, puede ser publicado, teniendo en cuenta tomado de la confidencialidad de los procedimientos.

55. En el presente caso la Alta Cámara ha hecho una final decisión que no tiene una propuesta para la eliminación de la oficina del demandado.

56. La decisión se va a publicar.

Orden

Por estas razones se decide que:

1. La Cámara de Recursos no hace una propuesta de separación del cargo de la parte demandada.

2. El reembolso de los gastos efectuados por el demandado en el presente procedimiento ante la Alta Cámara de Se propone apelación.

3. La decisión en el caso del arte. 23 1/16 es para ser publicado.

El Secretario:

N. Crasborn

Director:

MEGABYTE. Tardo-Dino

Lo anterior fue el resultado de OCR rápido y sucio. Debemos subrayar fuertemente que la exactitud de los lectores deben mirar el PDF original y tener en cuenta que esta “obra maestra” podría obligar al cese o dimisión del Battistelli, a menos que tenga la piel de un elefante y lo suficientemente ‘traído’ delegados en el bolsillo ( como Clinton con sus superdelegados sesgadas / corruptibles).

Actualización: Mientras sigue trabajando en el texto algunas personas nos dijeron que IP Kat había publicado una parte del texto (no resaltado en amarillo arriba) y se añaden estas observaciones sobre el original: “Merpel ahora tiene sus patas en varias copias del ampliada Junta de Apelación de la decisión en la última ronda de la “Casa Ban” medidas disciplinarias (reportada aquí). Si te gustan las decisiones sobre propiedad intelectual para ser explosiva, entonces no se puede recomendar lo suficiente. La referencia del caso es arte. 23 1/16, dicho sea de paso.

“Los lectores pueden acceder al documento aquí. Se llegó a varias copias hoy en día gracias a una serie de corresponsales que, sin duda, prefieren no ser identificados, por razones de pudor y la seguridad de carrera. La decisión está marcada por “publicación en el DO”, pero la Junta observa con inexpresivo admirable que sus órdenes en los dos juegos anteriores de los procedimientos, para publicar esas decisiones anteriores “aún no han sido ejecutadas por las autoridades competentes de la Oficina.”

“Ya se sabía que este tercer proceso se derrumbó debido a lo que fue visto como una intervención indebida del Sr. Battistelli, el presidente de la OEP, en relación con una decisión de la EBA para celebrar juicio oral en público, y que esto se ve agravado por el hecho de que el Consejo de Administración se negó a distanciarse de las acciones del Sr. Battistelli. Tenga en cuenta, en lo que sigue, que el Sr. Battistelli no era parte en el presente procedimiento, que fueron instigados por el Consejo de Administración ( “Peticionario”) y el único otro partido era el miembro de la junta impugnada ( “demandado”) “.

Sus palabras finales son que “algunos delegados de CA no serán fans de esta decisión (siendo este su tercer rechazo de la Alta Cámara en relación con un único asunto disciplinario). Tenga en cuenta que el aire acondicionado ya se le dio la oportunidad de distanciarse vez de la actuación del Sr. Battistelli y no lo hizo, o al menos no de forma inequívoca. Uno debe asumir que el Sr. Battistelli todavía disfruta el amor y el apoyo de al menos una facción dentro de la CA (aunque Merpel se entera de que la facción se contrae en cada reunión …) “.

Bueno, ver lo anterior sobre Albania, que es uno entre muchos (nos dimos otros ejemplos posibles en el pasado). Instamos a los lectores a ponerse en contacto con sus representantes y los lectores alemanes ponerse en contacto con Heiko Maas.

Muchísimas gracias a todos los que hicieron posible esta información nosotros personalmente y el pueblo Europeo apreciámos sus esfuérzos.

[ES] Cada Vez Más Parece Que Battistelli está Escondiéndo ‘Evidencia’ Falsa y/o Ilegalmente Obtenda de la Unidad Investigativa de la EPO

15 hours 29 min ago

English/Original

Article as ODF

Publicado en Europa, Patentes a las 11:32 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Sumario: El porqué creemos que Benoît Battistelli está cada vez mas desesperado de esconder operaciónes ilícitas de reunir ´evidencia´ lo que eventuálment lo puso a él mismo — no al acusado en una situación catastrófica situacion que lo puede forzar (esperamos) a us renuncia

A PRINICIPIOS de mes hubo un ‘juicio’ de la EPO en contra de un juez, como cubrimos previamente [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. No un juicio real porque en Eponia no hay juicios o cortes reales. Sólo la camara de ejecución del rey, donde sólo grandes mentiras (o éxageradas o finamente escogidos) cargos son presentados y luego usados sin misericordia a pesar de ser lo que se supone es un jurado (está siéndo ignorado por el monarca, Battistelli, quién típicamente es un todopoderoso acusador, defensor, juez, jurardo y ejecutor).

En nuestros posts anterióres en la materia terminamos mencionando no sólo la ilegalidad de la vigilancia pero también la posibilidad del Construcción Paralelav (detalles en este reciénte post acerca de la censura de comentarios por parte de IP Kat).

Golpe en la EPO: Battistelli interviene en un procedimiento de despidos

La Cámara de Recursos de la Oficina Europea de Patentes (EPO) de ayer puso fin a un procedimiento para la remoción de un juez suspendido, al negarse a tomar una decisión. El despido había sido impulsada por el Consejo de Administración, pero un golpe de estado fue anotado en el primer día de la audiencia antes de los procedimientos disciplinarios independientes cuando el presidente EPO Benoît Battistelli al exigió que se excluya al público. Una gran cantidad de personas que ven la evolución de ver esto como un ataque a la independencia del poder judicial.

Benoît Battistelli

Incluso antes de que los procedimientos se pusieron en marcha, se había producido un conflicto importante entre las personas preocupadas por la celebración de una audiencia pública en el procedimiento de despido. La Cámara de Recursos había decidido en última instancia a actuar en público, de acuerdo con las peticiones del juez suspendido y su abogado Senay Okyay.

De acuerdo con Okyay, el pasado lunes el Presidente del Consejo de Administración Jesper Kongstad planteó la cuestión de los procedimientos que se celebra en público. El Consejo de Administración es el

órgano disciplinario para todos los jueces de EPO.

El viernes pasado la Cámara de Recursos recibió una carta del Presidente de EPO Battistelli. Se había dispuesto la suspensión del juez, pero no estaba tomando parte en el procedimiento de despido. “En la carta Battistelli exigió que la audiencia se llevó a cabo a puertas cerradas”, dice Okyay, el abogado. “El presidente es el mantenimiento de una audiencia pública es contraria a los estatutos de la Oficina.” Okyay se indica además que el interrogatorio de los testigos, ya que el tribunal de hecho había programado para tres días de las actuaciones, del 14 al 16 de junio está siendo considerado por Battistelli como “inapropiado”. El Presidente en consecuencia no autorizaría la presencia de testigos de la Oficina. El tribunal había planeado a la pregunta tres testigos de la unidad de investigación propia de la Oficina.

De acuerdo con un número de observadores, sin embargo, vista oral planificada de ayer no de hecho sucede. Unos minutos después del inicio el tribunal excluye los miembros del público, a fin de informar a las partes de la carta de Battistelli y las preocupaciones que había expresado.

La carta de Battistelli causó confusión entre los jueces

Siempre según Okyay, los jueces consideraron la carta como una interferencia con su independencia de acción. Exigieron que los representantes del Consejo de Administración en los procedimientos de obtener una respuesta por parte del órgano de control como si sus miembros compartían la interpretación del Presidente de la situación legal o no, pero la respuesta fue un tanto ambigua.

La Cámara de Recursos de ayer informó a los participantes que consideraba la carta como un esfuerzo masivo de influencia en su independencia, según los observadores. El hecho ambiguo de que el Consejo de Administración no se había distanciado de la letra provocó el corte de la terminación del procedimiento, sin la emisión de la propuesta necesaria para que el juez para ser despedido.

También queda claro si no hubiera habido un curso normal del procedimiento en absoluto. Okyay dice que “el Consejo de Administración en realidad no puede decidir ahora sobre el despido de mi cliente en su próxima reunión. De acuerdo con los estatutos, mi cliente debe ser reintegrado en el cargo con su reputación y la dignidad intacta. El Consejo de Administración ahora sólo se recurre a medidas disciplinarias como una amonestación o censura “.

Battistelli mismo no hizo ningún comentario sobre las acusaciones en respuesta a una pregunta de JUVE. La EPO señaló que el Consejo de Administración es el órgano responsable de los nombramientos y procedimientos disciplinarios. Y para proteger la integridad de las actuaciones y de todas las partes interesadas, los procedimientos disciplinarios son confidenciales – de acuerdo con las reglas de la EPO.

Procedimientos altamente explosivos

La disputa sobre el juez suspendió la EPO se ha estado consumiendo durante el último año y medio. En diciembre de 2014 Battistelli impuso una prohibición sobre el juez de entrar en los locales de EPO. Esta decisión fue objeto de muchas críticas entre la comunidad de patente europea, que lo veían como una amenaza para la independencia de la Sala de Recurso.

Un buen año más tarde, en octubre de 2015, el Consejo de Administración inició los procedimientos de destitución de la juez. Desde el establecimiento de la Oficina en la década de 1970, no hay un procedimiento como éste nunca se han intentado. De acuerdo con las regulaciones de EPO, sin embargo, la remoción de un juez sólo es posible sobre la recomendación de la Cámara de Recursos.

Al tomar esta medida, sin embargo, el Consejo de Administración no estaba siguiendo la propuesta de Battistelli, que había tratado de un despido directo. De acuerdo con fuentes cercanas a la Sala de Recurso, el presidente de la EPO estaba bajo la amenaza en la audiencia de ayer de preguntas que se planteó también sobre la investigación interna sobre los acontecimientos. Esto habría vomitado la cuestión de si había algo de verdad en los informes de que los ordenadores de acceso público en la EPO habían sido supervisados. El Consejo de Administración ya había estado insistiendo en que las investigaciones y procedimientos disciplinarios estaban siendo manejados correctamente.

La lucha por la independencia de la corte de EPO

Un buen número de los observadores ve la carta de Battistelli como una prueba más de su intromisión en asuntos que conciernen a la corte. En la próxima reunión del 29 y 30 de junio, el Consejo de Administración deberá decidir sobre un paquete de reformas encaminadas a una mayor independencia de las salas de recurso.

Por un buen par de años, la Oficina se ha enfrentado a un debate público vociferante, en el que se ha criticado cada vez más fuertemente frente demasiado cerca de una fusión entre la dirección de la oficina y la corte de EPO. El objetivo real de las salas de recurso es el de examinar las decisiones de la autoridad de patentes, como el tema de las patentes europeas. En mayo de 2014, sin embargo, el tribunal declaró que su propio presidente estaba demostrando una vergüenza con excesivamente estrechos vínculos con la administración de EPO, y estableció un laborioso proceso de reforma en marcha. Una serie de propuestas de soluciones han permanecido hasta ahora sin resultado. Lo único que está claro es que los 38 Estados miembros de la Organización Europea de Patentes realmente no quieren que la corte separarnos de la Oficina.

A la luz de los acontecimientos de ayer, sin embargo, si el Consejo de Administración será ahora, de hecho, como estaba previsto, decidir sobre las reformas a finales de junio, está totalmente en el regazo de los dioses.

(Mathieu Klos)

Por lo de arriba nos enteramos de muchas cosas, incluyendo las razones de la paranoia de Battistelli. De seguro parece que está escondiéndo algo por temor a de que el público se le venga encima. No tiene nada que ver con la debida integridad del proceso ya que el acusado y sus representantes buscaron la debida transparencia; así como la Sala quiso también transparencia. En este punto los nombres de la Unidad Investigativa de Empoeados ya son de conocimiénto público en su mayoríá [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. Battistelli y sus chácales probablemente están más preocupados que la difamación del acusado será más ampliamente dada a conocer, desafiándo la narrativa que el Equipo Battistelli ‘sembró’ en los medios Holandeses y Alemanes despues de firmar el contrato de ‘control de crisis’ (más tarde pagó específicamente por propaganda Holandesa y Alemana).

Battistelli estos días esta cavando su propia tumba. Esta haciéndo un buen trabajo.

Links 28/6/2016: Vista 10 Updategate, OpenMandriva 3.0 Beta 2

15 hours 52 min ago

Contents GNU/Linux
  • Desktop
    • Linux Practicality vs Activism

      One of the greatest things about running Linux is the freedom it provides. Where the division among the Linux community appears is in how we value this freedom.

      For some, the freedom enjoyed by using Linux is the freedom from vendor lock-in or high software costs. Most would call this a practical consideration. Others users would tell you the freedom they enjoy is software freedom. This means embracing Linux distributions that support the Free Software Movement, avoiding proprietary software completely and all things related.

      In this article, I’ll walk you through some of the differences between these two freedoms and how they affect Linux usage.

    • When A Computer Is Ready for the Junk Pile

      To that point, there was a report that a mail server failure in a large business office remained a mystery for two days until someone found an old Pentium II back in the corner of some obscure closet with a burned out power supply. It is reported that the Slackware/Debian/Red Hat machine had been plugging away as a mail server for a number of years, completely unattended. That’s feasible I suppose, but I further suppose that it’s a modern day parable about how open source can indeed, carry the day.

    • Microsoft draws flak for pushing Windows 10 on PC users

      With about a month left for many PC users to upgrade to Windows 10 at no charge, Microsoft is being criticized for its aggressive — some say too aggressive — campaign to get people to install the new operating system.

    • Microsoft forks out thousands over forced Windows 10 upgrade

      Microsoft has had to pay a Windows user in California US$10,000 over a forced upgrade to Windows 10, according to a report in the Seattle Times.

      The user, Teri Goldstein, runs a travel agency in Sausalito, a San Francisco Bay Area city in Marin County, California.

    • A lawsuit over an unwanted Windows 10 upgrade just cost Microsoft $10,000

      Microsoft recently paid a (very small) price for its Windows 10 upgrade tactics, and that was before they became increasingly aggressive.

    • Updategate: California woman awarded $10,000 for borked Windows 10 upgrade

      A CALIFORNIA woman has set a precedent after a court ruled that she was entitled to damages over the installation of Windows 10 on her machine.

      Teri Goldstein, a travel agent, testified that the new operating system had auto-downloaded, started to install, failed, and left her Windows 7 computer running painfully slowly and often unusable for days.

      “I had never heard of Windows 10,” Goldstein told reporters. “Nobody ever asked me if I wanted to update.”

    • Microsoft pays out $10,000 for automatic Windows 10 installation

      Company withdraws appeal leaving it liable for $10,000 compensation judgment after botched automatic upgrade of travel agent’s computer

    • Microsoft Pays Woman $10,000 Over Its Forced Windows 10 Upgrade

      As a result of a legal suit, Microsoft has paid a woman $10,000 over the forced Windows 10 upgrade.

    • ‘I urge everyone to fight back’ – woman wins $10k from Microsoft over Windows 10 misery

      A California woman has won $10,000 from Microsoft after a sneaky Windows 10 update wrecked the computer she used to run her business. Now she’s urging everyone to follow suit and “fight back.”

      Teri Goldstein – who manages a travel agency in Sausalito, just north of San Francisco – told The Register she landed the compensation by taking Microsoft to a small claims court.

      Rather than pursue a regular lawsuit, she chose the smaller court because it was better suited to sorting out consumer complaints. Crucially, it meant Microsoft couldn’t send one of its top-gun lawyers – or any lawyer in fact: small claims courts are informal and attorneys are generally not allowed. Instead, Redmond-based Microsoft had to send a consumer complaints rep to argue its case.

  • Server
    • Docker 1.12 Linux Container Engine Promises Built-in Orchestration Capabilities

      The Docker developers are working hard these days to bring us one of the biggest releases of the widely-used open-source and cross-platform container engine, Docker 1.12.

    • Docker Expands Container Networking Capabilities

      When Docker 1.0 debuted in June 2014, it was missing a key feature: fully integrated networking that works. In June 2016, networking in Docker containers is a very different story, with a host of new capabilities now present in the Docker 1.12 milestone, which was officially released last week.

      At the core of Docker’s networking capabilities is the libnetwork stack, which first debuted in the Docker 1.7 release in June 2015 and became fully integrated in the Docker 1.9 update. Libnetwork is based on technology built and since expanded by SocketPlane, a company that Docker acquired in March 2015.

    • Sony Settles in Linux Battle
  • Kernel Space
  • Applications
  • Desktop Environments/WMs
  • Distributions
    • New Releases
    • Screenshots/Screencasts
    • PCLinuxOS/Mageia/Mandriva Family
      • antiX 16 & OpenMandriva 3.0 Beta 2 Release, openSUSE Numbers

        It was a busy day in Linux with Slack, antiX, and OpenMandriva all working towards their next releases. Sam Varghese quoted Alberto Planas who said openSUSE sees about 1600 new installations each month and Gentoo’s Donnie Berkholz posted his retirement notice. Bruce Byfield posted two interesting articles today, one explaining the difference between an Open Source user and a Free Software Activist and the other describing the stringent Debian packaging policies. As a bonus, a lady in California won a $10,000 award in small claims court from Microsoft over its Windows 10 behavior.

      • OpenMandriva Lx 3.0 Beta2 is here!

        OpenMandriva is a cutting edge distribution compiled with LLVM/clang. Combined with the high level of optimisation used for both code and linking (by enabling LTO) used in its building, this gives the OpenMandriva desktop an unbelievably crisp response to operations on the KDE Plasma5 desktop which makes it a pleasure to use.

      • New Releases!
    • Gentoo Family
      • Time to retire

        I’m sad to say it’s the end of the road for me with Gentoo, after 13 years volunteering my time (my “anniversary” is tomorrow). My time and motivation to commit to Gentoo have steadily declined over the past couple of years and eventually stopped entirely. It was an enormous part of my life for more than a decade, and I’m very grateful to everyone I’ve worked with over the years.

        My last major involvement was running our participation in the Google Summer of Code, which is now fully handed off to others. Prior to that, I was involved in many things from migrating our X11 packages through the Big Modularization and maintaining nearly 400 packages to serving 6 terms on the council and as desktop manager in the pre-council days. I spent a long time trying to change and modernize our distro and culture. Some parts worked better than others, but the inertia I had to fight along the way was enormous.

    • OpenSUSE/SUSE
    • Red Hat Family
    • Debian Family
      • Why Debian Policy is important to package quality

        Unless you are a Debian maintainer, you probably haven’t read the Debian Policy Manual. However, when Ubuntu started promoting Snappy packages as a more secure solution to package management, the claim was challenged, not by reference to the technical structure of Debian packages, but to the Debian Policy Manual.

      • Derivatives
  • Devices/Embedded
    • Google “Project Bloks” education kit starts with RPi Zero

      Google’s “Project Bloks” education platform is built around a Raspberry Pi Zero that controls baseboards that talk to “Puck” inputs via a capacitive sensor.

      Google announced a Project Bloks hacker platform for kids, developed with IDEO and Paulo Blikstein of Stanford University. A prototype has been built based on the Linux-driven Raspberry Pi Zero SBC, and now Google is seeking researchers, developers, and designers who are interested in using the technology “to build physical coding experiences.” Later this year, Google will conduct a remote research study with the help of these partners.

    • 96Boards SBC showcases Mediatek’s deca-core Helio X20

      MediaTek launched the fastest open-spec SBC to date with a 96Boards development board that runs Android on its deca-core Cortex-A53 and -A72 Helio X20 SoC.

      The “Helio X20 Development Board” is MediaTek’s first 96Boards form-factor single-board computer, and the most powerful open-spec hacker SBC to date. Although we’ve seen some fast 64-bit SoCs among 96Boards SBCs, such as the HiKey, based on an octa-core, Cortex-A53 HiSilicon Kirin 6220, the Helio X20 Development Board offers an even more powerful Helio X20 system-on-chip processor.

    • RaspEX Linux Based on Ubuntu 16.04 LTS Supports the Raspberry Pi Touch Display

      After informing us the other day about the availability of a new release of his RaspAnd distro that brings the Android 6.0 Marshmallow operating system to Raspberry Pi 3 devices, Arne Exton is happy to announce that his RaspEX OS works with the official Raspberry Pi Touch Display.

    • Dual-core MCU Arduino compatible SBC has WiFi and audio

      T-Firefly’s open-spec, Arduino Uno compatible Fireduino SBC offers Rockchip’s dual-core, Cortex-M3 RKNanoD MCU, plus WiFi, RTC, and MP3 audio.

      Chinese embedded firm T-Firefly is apparently the new name for T-Chip Technology, which sponsors the Firefly open source hardware project. Its Arduino I/O- and IDE-compatible, dual-core Fireduino board is supported by the Firefly project along with Linux/Android hacker boards like the Rockchip RK3128 based Firefly-RK3288 Reload and Firefly FirePrime. Schematics and the like have already been posted.

    • Phones
Free Software/Open Source Leftovers
  • Hardware
    • Modern Hardware’s Role in a Software Driven Data Center

      Peterson also noted HPE has a variety of servers built around the Helion OpenStack world, which dovetails well with its contributions to the Open Compute Project. The teams at Helion and Cloudline have continued to join forces in order to provide a better experience for developers, end users, and IT teams working with these servers in their own architecture.

  • Health/Nutrition
    • Truck Full of Dead Bees Delivered to the EPA

      The Keep Hives Alive Tour, a traveling protest of farmers, agriculture scientists, and activists, has been traveling around the country bringing its message to the masses.

      Keep Hives Alive is a two-fold group: Their aim is both to educate about the desperate need for honeybees and to advocate for concrete legislation that could help protect them. As part of that effort, the tour includes an awfully stark reminder of just how bad things are out there in bee-world: a truck full of 2.6 million dead bees.

  • Security
    • Chrome vulnerability lets attackers steal movies from streaming services

      A significant security vulnerability in Google technology that is supposed to protect videos streamed via Google Chrome has been discovered by researchers from the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Cyber Security Research Center (CSRC) in collaboration with a security researcher from Telekom Innovation Laboratories in Berlin, Germany.

    • Large botnet of CCTV devices knock the snot out of jewelry website

      Researchers have encountered a denial-of-service botnet that’s made up of more than 25,000 Internet-connected closed circuit TV devices.

      The researchers with Security firm Sucuri came across the malicious network while defending a small brick-and-mortar jewelry shop against a distributed denial-of-service attack. The unnamed site was choking on an assault that delivered almost 35,000 HTTP requests per second, making it unreachable to legitimate users. When Sucuri used a network addressing and routing system known as Anycast to neutralize the attack, the assailants increased the number of HTTP requests to 50,000 per second.

    • Study finds Password Misuse in Hospitals a Steaming Hot Mess

      Hospitals are pretty hygienic places – except when it comes to passwords, it seems.

      That’s the conclusion of a recent study by researchers at Dartmouth College, the University of Pennsylvania and USC, which found that efforts to circumvent password protections are “endemic” in healthcare environments and mostly go unnoticed by hospital IT staff.

      The report describes what can only be described as wholesale abandonment of security best practices at hospitals and other clinical environments – with the bad behavior being driven by necessity rather than malice.

    • Why are hackers increasingly targeting the healthcare industry?

      Cyber-attacks in the healthcare environment are on the rise, with recent research suggesting that critical healthcare systems could be vulnerable to attack.

      In general, the healthcare industry is proving lucrative for cybercriminals because medical data can be used in multiple ways, for example fraud or identify theft. This personal data often contains information regarding a patient’s medical history, which could be used in targeted spear-phishing attacks.

    • Making the internet more secure
    • Beyond Monocultures
    • Dodging Raindrops Escaping the Public Cloud
  • Defence/Aggression
    • It’s Still the Iraq War, Stupid.

      No rational person could blame Jeremy Corbyn for Brexit. So why are the Blairites moving against Corbyn now, with such precipitate haste?

      The answer is the Chilcot Report. It is only a fortnight away, and though its form will be concealed by thick layers of establishment whitewash, the basic contours of Blair’s lies will still be visible beneath. Corbyn had deferred to Blairite pressure not to apologise on behalf of the Labour Party for the Iraq War until Chilcot is published.

    • Mufti confirms classifying DAP as ‘can be slain’ kafir harbi

      It is an Islamic belief that kafir harbi refers to non-believers who can be slain for waging war against Islam.

  • Environment/Energy/Wildlife/Nature
    • WSJ Fakes a Green Shift Toward Nuclear Power

      The Wall Street Journal (6/16/16) published an article headlined “Environmental Groups Change Tune on Nuclear Power: Focus on Climate Change Has Raised Profile of Reactors, Now Viewed as Reliable, Carbon-Free Source of Energy.” Written by Amy Harder, the approximately 600-word piece appeared on the front page of the Journal’s B section.

    • Iran cracks down on ‘vulgar Western’ dog owners by seizing pets for ‘vaccination’ then destroying them

      Iranian pet lovers are in uproar after dogs were confiscated in a crackdown on ‘vulgar Western culture’.

      One unnamed dog owner in the Isfahan province, central Iran, said officials had shown up suddenly at his house.

      Officers who claimed to be from a veterinary practice took the dog away because it needed to have ‘vaccinations’.

      The owner told Iran’s Shahrvand newspaper: ‘We were shown a piece of paper indicating they were from the municipal veterinary office.

      ‘They came in and took away our dogs under the pretext of vaccination. Ever since our dog was taken away, you only hear the sound of crying and sobbing in our house.’

  • Finance
    • People are really, really hoping this theory about David Cameron and Brexit is true

      As the dust settles on the EU referendum battleground, some 33 million voters await with bated breath to see what the victors will do now that the nation has spoken to leave.

      Political commentators forecast a dark future for the UK: Jeremy Corbyn has just sacked Hilary Benn to head off a coup, and Boris Johnson could be prime minister come November.

    • Why the British said no to Europe

      Immigration was exploited in the campaign with consummate cynicism, not only by populist politicians from the lunar right, but by Labour politicians drawing on their own venerable tradition of promoting and nurturing racism, a symptom of corruption not at the bottom but at the top. The reason millions of refugees have fled the Middle East – irst Iraq, now Syria – are the invasions and imperial mayhem of Britain, the United States, France, the European Union and Nato. Before that, there was the wilful destruction of Yugoslavia. Before that, there was the theft of Palestine and the imposition of Israel.

    • Brexit is Only the Latest Proof of the Insularity and Failure of Western Establishment Institutions

      The decision by UK voters to leave the EU is such a glaring repudiation of the wisdom and relevance of elite political and media institutions that – for once – their failures have become a prominent part of the storyline. Media reaction to the Brexit vote falls into two general categories: (1) earnest, candid attempts to understand what motivated voters to make this choice, even if that means indicting one’s own establishment circles, and (2) petulant, self-serving, simple-minded attacks on disobedient pro-leave voters for being primitive, xenophobic bigots (and stupid to boot), all to evade any reckoning with their own responsibility. Virtually every reaction that falls into the former category emphasizes the profound failures of western establishment factions; these institutions have spawned pervasive misery and inequality, only to spew condescending scorn at their victims when they object.

    • Political Elites’ Program of Austerity Set the Stage for Brexit

      At 4 am, following the UK referendum on EU membership, Nigel Farage, the leader of the Eurosceptic UK Independence Party, gave a tentative victory speech. Bullish and beaming, but couching his cheer in caveats that not all areas had declared results, flanked by young men in suits jeering and pogoing, Farage announced that if the Leave campaign had won, “We will have done so without a single bullet being fired.”

  • AstroTurf/Lobbying/Politics
    • Multiple Crises in Democracy

      There is a strong strand of belief among the political class that Boris Johnson has no intention of taking the UK out of the EU. His aim was to see off Cameron and install himself in No. 10, after which he will discover that leaving the EU is proving far too dangerous and call for a second referendum. I suspect that this credits Johnson with a Machiavellian genius he is far from possessing, though as a prediction of future events it is in with a chance. (Personally I am hoping for Theresa May, the reaction to whose elevation will speed up Scottish Independence).

    • On Brexit, Experts Leave Much to Be Desired

      Actually, the pound’s fall was a necessary and good development in the long run, even if it would have been better had it occurred over a longer period of time. The UK was running a trade deficit in the neighborhood of 5.0 percent of GDP (equivalent to about $900 billion in the US); this was unsustainable. And, contrary to what Legrain claims in this piece, the best way to get the trade deficit down is to lower the value of the pound.

      Legrain incorrectly asserts that the drop in the pound in 2008 did not lead to a reduction in the trade deficit. In fact, it led to a substantial reduction, although with a 1–2 year lag, as would be expected. (The pound fell from a peak of more than 1.5 euros in 2007 to just over 1.0 euro at its trough in 2008. It remained low until it began to rise sharply in 2013, reaching values of more than 1.4 euros last year, hence the large rise in the trade deficit.)

      An inflow of money from abroad was fueling a housing bubble in the UK. This has priced many people out of the real estate market. Bubbles do burst, often with very bad outcomes. The problem with bubbles is not the factor that causes them to burst; the problem is allowing them to grow in the first place.

    • Putin Conspiracies, Obama Nonintervention Blamed for Brexit

      The referendum results in favor of Britain leaving the European Union seemed to have caught most Western media off guard. Betting markets and the pundit class had heavily favored a vote to keep the UK in the EU, but at around midnight on the US East Coast, it became increasingly clear Britain would be supporting “Brexit” by a roughly 52–48 percent margin. Per usual, the more cynical writers and pundits—no matter how contrived the task would be — would take the opportunity to take a story about a nationalistic British response to a pro-austerity EU, and make it about Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin.

    • Private Prison CEO Unconcerned About Hillary Clinton’s Pledge to End His Industry

      After The Intercept revealed that the Clinton campaign had received campaign donations from private prison lobbyists, a number of activist groups confronted Clinton, leading her to announce that she would no longer accept the money and later declaring that “we should end private prisons and private detention centers.”

    • Thousands of Jeremy Corbyn supporters march on Parliament against Labour Party leadership challenge

      The Labour leader called on people to unite together to oppose racism but did not address the challenge to his leadership

    • The problem with the Corbyn strategy

      Corbyn’s uncompromising ‘anti-austerity’ stance has certainly tapped into some Labour members’ discomfort with the direction taken by their party in recent years. If these misgivings predated the 2008 fiscal crisis, the resulting austerity effectively brought to a head criticisms many had of New Labour.

    • Jeremy Hunt ‘highly likely’ to launch leadership bid – Spectator magazine

      Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt is “highly likely” to launch a bid to succeed David Cameron as prime minister, the political editor of the Spectator magazine tweeted on Monday, without citing sources.

  • Censorship/Free Speech
    • SABC implosion: Staff threaten ‘blackout’ over censorship
    • WATCH: Lukhanyo Calata on SABC censorship

      SABC journalist Lukhanyo Calata says he is saddened by what he’s calling the disturbing direction being taken by his employer, the SABC.

      His father, Fort Calata, was a member of the so-called Cradock Four, who were killed exactly 31 years ago.

      “Today is quite an important day for me and my family because 31 years ago on June 27, 1985, my father and his three colleagues went from Cradock to Port Elizabeth and they never returned,” he said.

      “When I woke up today and I checked Twitter and saw that my former boss Jimi Matthews had resigned I just thought this was not what my father died for,” said Calata.

    • Opinion: Orlando tragedy reveals troubling censorship

      There were many proposed reasons, but the prevailing theory appeared to be the mods began deleting posts after finding out the killer was Muslim. That, combined with the fact the victims were part of the LGBT community, appeared to have caused mods to delete posts out of some fear of offending or appearing to be racist, xenophobic or homophobic rather than a duty to present the conversation as it is happening.

    • China to regulate search results following man’s death

      China has issued new regulations demanding search engines clearly identify paid search results, months after a terminally-ill cancer patient complained that he was misled by the giant search engine Baidu

    • German politicians, activists file complaint against Turkey’s Erdogan

      German lawmakers, rights activists and celebrities said on Monday they had filed a civil suit against Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan and some of his aides for what they called “war crimes” in counter-terrorism operations against Kurdish militants.

      Turkish-German relations have been deteriorating lately over a resolution passed by the German parliament declaring the 1915 massacre of Armenians by Ottoman forces a genocide.

      Chancellor Angela Merkel now faces mounting domestic pressure to hold Erdogan accountable for human rights abuses after last year’s collapse of a ceasefire between Ankara and PKK militants seeking autonomy in Turkey’s main Kurdish southeast. Thousands have been killed in the renewed conflict.

    • Man who depicted Erdoğan as Gollum given suspended sentence

      A man who depicted Recep Tayyip Erdoğan as the Lord of the Rings character Gollum has been convicted of insulting the Turkish president and handed a suspended jail sentence.

      According to Turkish media reports, a court in the south-west province of Antalya on Thursday sentenced Rifat Çetin to a year in prison, suspended for five years. The court also stripped Cetin of his parental custody rights.

      Çetin posted an image on Facebook in 2014 in which he combined three pictures of Erdoğan with Gollum, the newspaper Hürriyet said.

      Çetin told another newspaper, the daily BirGün, that he planned to appeal against the verdict as Erdoğan had been prime minister, not president, when the image was posted.

    • Actor Fakhre Alam resigns as Sindh Censorship Board chief
    • Fakhr-e-Alam resigns as chairman Sindh censor board
    • Fakhr resigns as chairman Sindh Censor Board
    • Courts May Have Come to Udta Punjab’s Rescue, But Let’s Not Ignore Judicial Censorship of Cinema
  • Privacy/Surveillance
  • Civil Rights/Policing
    • Nirej Sekhon on Illegal Searches, Jamila Michener on Expanding Voting Rights

      This week on CounterSpin: In her forceful dissent from a ruling on the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the decision “implies that you are not a citizen of a democracy but the subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be catalogued.” The defendant in Utah v. Strief is white, but the suspicionless stops at the case’s heart disproportionately affect black and brown and poor people, marginalized in media as elsewhere. The press are quoting Sotomayor’s words, but do they really hear the message? Nirej Sekhon is associate professor at Georgia State University College of Law. He’ll join us to discuss the ruling.

    • ‘Minority Communities Bear the Brunt of Police Abuses’

      From the media accolades for Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent in a recent Supreme Court case involving the use of illegally obtained evidence, it’s almost unclear if media realized that the ruling represents a loss for her point of view. With a 5-3 decision in the case Utah v. Strief, the Court said that a police officer may detain someone without cause and run their identification, and, if they uncover a warrant, may arrest them and charge them with additional crimes, based on what they find in a search. Previously, the fact that the initial stop was illegal would mean evidence unearthed would be inadmissible. Sotomayor, Kagan and Ginsburg dissented, with Sotomayor especially powerfully noting the disproportionate impact the ruling will have on communities of color.

    • ‘It’s Amazing How Little These Issues of Unequal Access Come Up’
    • Congress: Protect Every American’s Right to Vote this November

      This year, we will hold the first presidential election in 50 years without the full protection of the Voting Rights Act. Not coincidentally, 17 states will have new restrictions on voting in effect that were not in place during the last presidential election. Collectively, these states contain over 114 million people and have 189 votes in the Electoral College – about 70 percent of the votes needed to be elected president. Congress can take action now to strengthen voter protections that have been weakened by the Supreme Court to ensure that every American vote counts this November.

    • Digital Dystopia: Egyptian Civil Society At Risk

      Digital rights defenders are amongst those who have been targeted. In March’s Digital Citizen, a monthly review published by EFF and five other organizations, we’ve covered the judicial harassment of and travel bans imposed on Gamal Eid and Hossam Baghat, two prominent advocates whose organizations—ANHRI and EIPR—have been instrumental in the fight for human rights in Egypt. More recently, OTF fellow Wafa Ben Hassine published a paper that demonstrates how four Arab countries—including Egypt—use legal means to silence freedom of expression and its advocates online.

    • As Austin Struggles To Understand Life Without Uber & Lyft, DUI Arrests On The Rise

      A month ago, folks in Austin Texas voted against a proposition that Uber and Lyft supported, concerning a number of new rules that would be put on ride hailing operations. Given that, both companies immediately shut down operations in Austin — a city with over a million residents and only 900 cabs. In response, people are so desperate for rides that they’re seriously trying to recreate the Lyft/Uber experience by using a Facebook group where people can post their location, negotiate a fee, and have someone pick them up (something that seems a lot more dangerous than typical Uber/Lyft).

    • Erdogan: EU doesn’t want Turkey because ‘majority is Muslim’

      Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan says Europe doesn’t want his country to join the EU because the majority of the nation’s population is Muslim. He said his government will ask the public whether negotiations with Brussels should continue.

      “Europe, you don’t want us because the majority of our population are Muslim…we knew it but we tried to show our sincerity,” Erdogan said at a graduation ceremony in Istanbul on Wednesday, as quoted by Reuters.

    • Afghanistan’s Dwindling Sikh, Hindu Communities Flee New Abuses

      On a bright day in downtown Kabul, Jagtar Singh Laghmani was in his traditional herb shop when a man turned up, drew a knife and told him to convert to Islam or he would cut his throat. Bystanders and other shopkeepers saved his life.

      The incident earlier this month was the latest attack on a dwindling community of Sikhs and Hindus in Afghanistan, a deeply conservative Muslim country struggling with growing insecurity caused by an Islamist insurgency and economic challenges.

    • Dear Chief Justice John Roberts, Search and Seizure: Does Innocence Matter?

      The United States Constitution’s 4th amendment supposedly protects us from illegal search and seizure. This constitutional right against illegal search and seizure has been tested time and again in the highest court in America. Chief Justice John Roberts, who was nominated by President George W. Bush and a nominee whom then-Senator President Barack Obama voted against, is one of many pushing for an update to Rule 41. Roberts has submitted a letter to Mr. Paul Ryan describing the proposed change that any US Government Judge may “issue a warrant to use remote access to search electronic storage media and to seize or copy electronically stored information located within or outside that district.”

    • Berlin imam files complaint against teacher who insisted on handshake

      A conflict between an imam and a female teacher at a Berlin private school over a handshake has escalated into a legal complaint against the woman, German media outlet RBB24 reports.

      The preacher, Kerim Ucar, was initially called in for a conversation over his sons’ involvement in brawls at the Platanus School in the Berlin district of Pankow. The female teacher tried to greet the father with a handshake, but Ucar rejected the gesture citing religious reasons.

    • AFDI Muhammad Ads Roll Out on London Taxis Tomorrow

      After the Muslim mayor banned advertisements on buses and subways of bikini-clad women, what could be more appropriate (or needed) then our new ad campaign?

  • Internet Policy/Net Neutrality
    • Net neutrality advocates to FCC: Put the kibosh on internet freebies [iophk: "nasty title. These schemes are just cost shifting, penalizing the open Internet"]

      Representatives from Fight the Future, the Center for Media Justice and Free Press on Friday hand-delivered a 6-foot tall package containing 100,000 letters of complaint to the Federal Communications Commission. They ask the agency to take action against AT&T, Comcast, T-Mobile and Verizon for violating the agency’s Open Internet order by offering so-called zero-rating service plans.

  • DRM
    • Researchers Crack ‘Social DRM’ EBook Watermarks

      Researchers have released a report dissecting the BooXtream ‘Social DRM’ eBook watermarking system. Inspired by publisher Verso who refused to remove the DRM from an Aaron Swartz book, the Institute for Biblio-Immunology responded by tearing down the privacy-busting system.

  • Intellectual Monopolies
    • The Secret to the Incredible Wealth of Bill Gates

      This point may be simple and obvious, but it seems to have been lost on most of the people arguing about inequality. In these discussions we hear continual expressions of concern over how technology is behind the massive upward redistribution of income we have seen in the last four decades. This upward redistribution is usually treated as an unfortunate fact of nature. Even if we don’t like to see the rich continually get richer at the expense of the rest of society, what can we do, stop technology? A little serious thinking could go a long way.

      The story of Bill Gates’ copyright protection, along with patent protection for prescription drugs and all sorts of other things, are a big part of the story of inequality. The key issue is that these protections are created by the government. They don’t come from the technology. It is the protections that make some people very rich, not the technology.

      We grant patent and copyright monopolies in order to provide an incentive for innovation and creative work. It is arguable whether these mechanisms are the best way to provide these incentives. For example, in addition to making drugs very expensive, even when they would be cheap in a free market, patent protection also provides an enormous incentive for drug companies to misrepresent the safety and effectiveness of their drugs. But the key point for the inequality issue is that the strength and length of these monopolies is set by government policy.

    • Russia Centralizes State Power In The Field Of IP Rights
    • Trademarks
      • CafePress Takes Down T-Shirt Calling Donald Trump A Cheeto-Faced Shitgibbon, Saying It Violates Frito-Lay’s Trademark

        As I write this, it has over 6,000 retweets and over 7,000 likes. Not bad. Based on all of this, Jay Lender, a writer/director for SpongeBob SquarePants, Phineas and Ferb… and also his own movie, They’re Watching, created an image in the style of Shepard Fairey’s famous (and legally disputed) Obama Hope poster.

        [...]

        It’s not at all clear if Frito-Lay made this request or if it’s just CafePress worrying about future Frito-Lay concerns. Lender asked CafePress for clarification, and all they sent back was a link to Frito Lay’s corporate contact page, telling him to contact Frito Lay to ask for authorization, implying that Cafe Press made this decision on its own. But, really, there appears to be a ton of other merchandise hosted at CafePress that mentions Cheetos in some form or another, so if the company is suddenly concerned about trademark threats from Frito-Lay, it seems to be targeting rather selectively.

      • Registration of a trademark license: the result of the CJEU is reasonable, but what about the Court’s reasoning?

        In the best of circumstances, the law of licensing is the murky side of trademark law.

      • 800-pound Comodo tries to trademark upstart rival’s “Let’s Encrypt” name

        Comodo, the world’s biggest issuer of browser-trusted digital certificates for websites, has come under fire for registering trademarks containing the words “let’s encrypt,” a phrase that just happens to be the name of a nonprofit project that provides certificates for free.

        In a blog post, a Let’s Encrypt senior official said Comodo has filed applications with the US Patent and Trademark Office for at least three such trademarks, including “Let’s Encrypt,” “Let’s Encrypt with Comodo,” and “Comodo Let’s Encrypt.” Over the past few months, the nonprofit has repeatedly asked Comodo to abandon the applications, and Comodo has declined. Let’s Encrypt, which is the public face of the Internet Security Research Group, said it has been using the name since November 2014.

    • Copyrights
      • Judge Dismisses Movie Piracy Case, IP-Address Doesn’t Prove Anything

        In what’s believed to be a first of its kind ruling, a federal court in Oregon has dismissed a direct infringement complaint against an alleged movie pirate from the outset. According to the judge, linking an IP-address to a pirated download is not enough to prove direct copyright infringement.

      • Rightscorp Pressures ISPs to Hijack Pirates Browsers

        Piracy monetization firm Rightscorp is promoting its browser hijacking system to ISPs. In a proposal revealed by Internet provider RCN, Rightscorp suggests a gradual approach where pirating subscribers eventually have to pay a fine to regain Internet access.

      • From file-sharing to prison: A Megaupload programmer tells his story

        Soon after the domain was registered in Hong Kong, the now-defunct Megaupload.com grew into one of the world’s most popular file-sharing sites. At its peak, the site engaged nearly 50 million users a day and took up around four percent of the world’s Internet traffic. Users uploaded nearly 12 billion files overall.

      • Judge Calls Out Malibu Media For Its Attempt To Cut And Run When Faced With Challenge To Its Infringement Claims

        IP trolls are about 90% cardboard facade. They puff themselves up with blustery legal threats written on serious-looking legal letterhead, but it’s really no different than the defensive mechanisms of many creatures found on the lower end of the food chain. For most, the slightest of pushes back results in the whole charade collapsing.

        There’s a great future in speculative invoicing, said no one ever in any seminal coming-of-age, post-college disillusionment film. Just look at Prenda Law, which resorted to fraudulent behavior when its aggressive, but incompetent, trolling failed to pay the bills. And yet, nothing stops the trolls from trolling. The occasional speed bump surfaces, but trolls dismiss these rather than meet the challenge head on. They’re in it for settlements, not wins… and certainly not precedent.

      • If Extradited, How Might Kim Dotcom Be Treated in the US?

        More than four years after the Megaupload raids, Kim Dotcom continues to fight extradition to the United States. However, if that battle fails, how might he be treated by authorities there? Revelations from a previously jailed Megaupload programmer show that things could get pretty miserable.

Links 27/6/2016: Linux 4.7 RC 5, OpenMandriva Lx 3.0 Beta 2

Monday 27th of June 2016 10:33:32 PM

Contents GNU/Linux Free Software/Open Source
  • The heartbeat of open source projects can be heard with GitHub data

    GitHub released charts last week that tell a story about the heartbeat of a few open source, giving insights into activity, productivity and collaboration of software development.

    Why are these important? Enterprises increasingly define software development as a top priority to gain competitive advantage or defend against disruption. They often turn to open source software because it is fast and agile. Enterprise IT decision makers should understand GitHub because it is the backbone of most open source projects.

  • 7 myths about open sourcing your company’s software

    Many companies benefit from open source, and countless companies have opted to open source components of their infrastructure (or even their bread and butter) in an effort to give back. However, there are a lot of misconceptions about what happens when you open up your business’ code and workflows to the public, and as companies delve into how to apply open principles within their organization, it’s easy to get lost in the weeds. Here are some common misconceptions about what happens when you open source your code.

  • Open source software has to sell user experience

    Open source software that is to succeed in this new world is going to have to be better than anything else. You can’t sell just openness anymore; it is added value, not a unique selling point. Open source software now has to sell user experience. In a way it is a simpler metric, and probably one that is going to change open source forever—for the better.

  • Top 7 open source business intelligence and reporting tools

    In this article, I review some of the top open source business intelligence (BI) and reporting tools. In economies where the role of big data and open data are ever-increasing, where do we turn in order to have our data analysed and presented in a precise and readable format? This list covers tools which help to solve this problem. Two years ago I wrote about the top three. In this article, I will expand that list with a few more tools that were suggested by our readers.

    Note that this list is not exhaustive, and it is a mix of both business intelligence and reporting tools.

  • Six free open source alternatives to Windows 10

    Windows 10 has generally be viewed as a welcome successor to Windows 8, both by businesses and individuals. However it has also come under scrutiny from users that are concerned about data privacy. So why not opt for a free Windows 10 alternative?

    We’ve listed open source Windows 10 alternatives based on features and user reviews. Here’s some of the best.

  • Obsidian Systems brings open source monitoring with Icinga
  • Obsidian offers Open Source monitoring with Icinga

    Obsidian Systems is now the exclusive African reseller partner for Icinga, a scalable and extensive monitoring system that checks the availability of resources, notifies of outages and provides business intelligence data.

  • Open source connects the dots in the digital transformation

    Developments in cloud, big data, analytics, and social and mobile technologies are all happening to a large extent because the underlying technology is evolving quickly, and Red Hat believes that this is happening because a lot of it is based on open source and is developed collaboratively between multiple communities and companies. Much of the cloud is based on Linux and open source based technologies, consequently open source is a key driving force in these changes and the rapid innovation cycles.

  • Lime hits crowdfunding target, a milestone in open source mobile hardware

    UK RF specialist Lime Microsystems has raised almost $624,000 in a crowdfunding campaign to bring its LimeSDR software defined radio to market, and will now begin production of the radios, which enable open source, programmable ‘network in a box’ devices for low cost coverage, especially in rural or temporary networks.

  • Nokia is traditional telecoms’ fifth column, embracing open source disruption

    One of the most important trends in the current reinvention of the mobile network is the introduction of open source to infrastructure hardware. Open source processes have been creeping into this formerly tightly closed world in software (from Android to carrier Linux) and in devices, but the network equipment itself remained the preserve of proprietary vendors and formal standards bodies. Now that is changing. From small innovators like Lime Microsystems (see separate item), to entrenched guardians of the old ways, like Nokia, suppliers are finding new ways to work with open source.

  • Web Browsers
    • Mozilla
      • Mozilla Pushes Online Privacy with New Open Source Funding Awards

        Mozilla is funneling yet more money into the open source ecosystem. This week, the organization best known for the Firefox Web browser announced an award of $385,000 to fund eight open source projects, including several important online privacy platforms.

      • Mozilla to Rebrand Itself, and You’re Invited to Help

        Mozilla has been involved in reinventing itself for some time now. Known for the venerable Firefox browser, it has made forays into several other open source arenas, and was even known for its dalliance with the smartphone business. The company is currently involved in a broad rebranding effort, and the way it is going about rebranding comes directly from the open source playbook.

      • “Branding without walls”: Mozilla’s open-source rebrand

        Internet advocacy and software group Mozilla is rebranding with help from johnson banks. In an unusual move, the company has decided to document the process online – from strategy and concept development to refinement – inviting its community to help shape its new positioning

  • SaaS/Back End
  • Oracle/Java/LibreOffice
    • LibreOffice 5.1.4 Released with Over 130 Fixes

      The first release candidate represented 123 fixes. Some include a fix for a crash in Impress when setting a background image. This occurred with several popular formats in Windows and Linux. Caolán McNamara submitted the patches to fix this in the 5.1 and 5.2 branches. David Tardon fixed a bug where certain presentations hung Impress for extended periods to indefinitely by checking for preconditions earlier. Laurent Balland-Poirier submitted the patches to fix a user-defined cell misinterpretation when using semicolon inside quotes.

  • Pseudo-Open Source (Openwashing)
  • Openness/Sharing/Collaboration
    • Open source. Open science. Open Ocean. Oceanography for Everyone and the OpenCTD

      Nearly four years ago, Kersey Sturdivant and I launched a bold, ambitious, and, frankly, naive crowdfunding initiative to build the first low-cost, open-source CTD, a core scientific instrument that measures salinity, temperature, and depth in a water column. It was a dream born from the frustration of declining science funding, the expense of scientific equipment, and the promise of the Maker movement. After thousands of hours spent learning the skills necessary to build these devices, hundreds of conversations with experts, collaborators, and potential users around the world, dozens of iterations (some transformed into full prototypes, others that exist solely as software), and one research cruise on Lake Superior to test the housing and depth and temperature probes, the OpenCTD has arrived.

    • Open Hardware/Modding
  • Programming/Development
    • PHP 7.1 Alpha 2 Released

      Succeeding the PHP 7.1 Alpha release that happened earlier this month is now the second alpha build of this significant update to the PHP programming language.

    • 4 languages poised to out-Python Python

      Nothing lasts forever — including programming languages. What seems like the future of computing today may be tomorrow’s footnote, whether deserved or undeserved.

      Python, currently riding high on the list of languages to know, seems like a candidate for near-immortality at this point. But other languages are showing that they share Python’s strengths: convenient to program in, decked out with powerful ways to perform math and science work, arrayed with a huge number of convenient third-party libraries.

    • ECMAScript 2016: The Latest Version Of JavaScript Language Has Arrived
Leftovers

From Alleged Organised Crime to Vice-President of the European Patent Office (EPO)

Monday 27th of June 2016 04:20:49 PM

Lawlessness is in Team Battistelli’s blood

Summary: Željko Topić’s situation in Croatia illuminated by means of recent documents from the authorities

OVER the weekend while we were away on holiday and the EPO struggled to digest the news about 'Brexit' (as did we, but for other reasons) someone sent us an update from Croatia. It’s not looking any better for Battistelli’s ‘bulldog’ (not to be confused with ‘lapdog’ or ‘his master’s voice’, Mr. Kongstad).

“The various criminal complaints filed against Željko Topić and others,” told us a source, “have been spread among a number of public prosecutor bodies in Zagreb and elsewhere (Municipal State Attorney’s Office, County State Attorney’s Office etc.).

“This seems to have led to a lack of coordination and delay in progress with processing of the complaints.

“According to what I have understood, the main public prosecutor is now trying to sort out the matter and has been sending letters to some of the other public prosecutors in an attempt to improve the coordination and deal with various issues that have been festering for many years now.

“I managed to get my hands on a redacted copy of one these letters which is dated June 10th.”

Here is the original letter.

A rough English translation is included below.

REPUBLIC OF CROATIA
Office of the County State Attorney in …

File No.: …
Zagreb, 10 June 2016

To the County State Attorney in …

Re the file no.: …

Referring to your letter of 11 May 2016 re the above case in which you have submitted an assessment and opinion of the criminal complaint of V.S. of 9 January 2013, filed against Z. T. and SM in connection with the criminal acts of illegal changes in the structure of state administration under Article 320 of the Criminal Code / 97, abuse of office under Article 337, paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code / 97, bribery under Article 348 para. 1 and 347 no. 1 of the Criminal law / 97 and negligent performance of duty under Article 339 of the Criminal code / 97, we draw your attention you, in this respect, to the criminal charges annexed to the file of the Office of the County State Attorney … number … given the fact that it concerns the same legal matter. Namely, in the indicated criminal case prior proceedings were conducted by this State Attorney’s Office concerning suspected irregularities in the actions of those responsible and officials of the State Intellectual Property Office, the Croatian Composers Society and the Ministry of Economy of the Republic of Croatian and the Croatian Government, whose acts directly or indirectly damaged the State budget of the Republic of Croatia.

On the other hand, concerning the criminal offence of racial or other discrimination under Art. 174 para. 1 of the Criminal Law / 97 and violation of the right to work and other labor rights referred to in Art. 114 of the Criminal Code / 97, which alleged offences were committed to the detriment of the applicant V.S., bearing in mind that it is a criminal offence falling within the jurisdiction of the Office of the Municipal State Attorney, in this part, we return this criminal complaint to the competent procedure for a prosecutorial decision on the merits. In this regard, because it has been reported to you by the Zagreb Police Department, Department Criminal Investigation, Department of Economic Crime, that they are also linked to the findings on crimes carried out which have been notified to the Office of the County State Attorney in … under the file reference number …, we note that the aforementioned criminal case does not apply to the criminal complaint that was submitted by V.S. and that it was a mistake that the result of the police investigation was delivered under that file number, and at the same time that the competent lawyer Office of the Municipal State Attorney wasn’t informed about the result of the police investigation. Concerning the above, we informed the Zagreb Police Department, Criminal Police Department, Department of Economic Crime, which then with the special report of 1 June 2016 file no … submitted the results of criminal investigations relating to the crimes within the jurisdiction of the Office of the Municipal State Attorney and which we also enclose for you to use.

In addition, we enclose for you the submission of the applicant V.S., sent to the Office of the Municipal State Attorney in … electronically on 6 June 2016, which shows that the stated criminal charges are dealt with in other criminal cases of the Office of the Municipal State Attorney in …, and how to perform the review of the specified files to establish a possible connection with your criminal case.

Deputy County State Attorney
[Signature and official stamp]

Attachments:
as in the text

For notification to:
Zagreb Police Department, Criminal Police Department,
Department of Economic Crime, reference number …
V.S., Zagreb, …

“What is interesting here,” explains our source, “is the statement at the end of the first paragraph indicating that officials of the State Intellectual Property Office and others are under suspicion of having caused direct or indirect damage to the state budget of Croatia by their actions as detailed in the criminal complaints. If this line of inquiry is followed up by the public prosecutor then it seems quite likely that prosecutions could be initiated fairly soon.”

In the mean time someone sent us a further document which is dated 22nd of June, 2016 (even more recent). To quote a source that understands this better than we do, this is a document “which indicates that the public prosecutor has sent the results of the investigation in one case to the USKOK – the Croatian State Prosecutor’s Office for the Suppression of Organized Crime and Corruption – a department of the State Prosecutor’s Office that specialises in cases of corruption and organised crime.

“As far as I understand the current state of affairs the investigation report is now with the USKOK for a decision as to whether or not to initiate a prosecution. These developments come at an interesting time because according to information from the EPO, the renewal of a number of Vice-President appointments including VP4 (i.e. Mr. Topić) is on the agenda for next week’s Administrative Council meeting.”

We actually wrote about this before. Here is the original document:

Here is an English translation:

REPUBLIC OF CROATIA
Office of the County State Attorney in …

File No.: …

Zagreb, 22 June 2016

Dear …

As the submitter of a criminal complaint against Z.T. etc. in relation to unlawful conduct of the then director of the State Intellectual Property Office as well as other persons who are associated therewith, and whose acts directly or indirectly damaged the state budget of the Republic of Croatia, we inform you that the preliminary investigation in the criminal case has been completed, after which, according to the General Instructions on the Work of the Public Prosecutor and the USKOK for cases in which there are indications of corruption and organized crime number O-3/11 of 11 May 2011, the file has been submitted to the Office for Combating Corruption and Organized Crime (USKOK) for a prosecutorial decision concerning which you will be notified in writing.

Yours respectfully,

Deputy County State Attorney

[Signature and stamp]

Expect to learn more soon. If the Administrative Council continues to ignore issues such as the above, then that makes the delegates somewhat complicit. A few days remain to inform national delegates regarding Topić’s legal status.

Battistelli May Still be on the Way Out as Pressure Grows in Germany, UPC in Shambles

Monday 27th of June 2016 03:31:08 PM

Even Tilman Müller-Stoy is growing impatient


Image source

Summary: Pressure on Battistelli is growing even from within circles that are traditionally protective of him and a long letter is sent to Dr. Christoph Ernst, who some believe will replace Battistelli

THERE are many articles about the EPO planned for today. A whole lot of stuff in happening and just a short whole ago MIP wrote that: “Pressure on EPO Admin Council which meets this week. Letter from Tilman Müller-Stoy of @bardehleIP calling for “transparency initiative”” (that’s quite an understatement).

Well, there is already some discussion around about this (see context in Twitter) and we are fortunate to have copies of the relevant text. First, as a little bit of background, consider what huge amount of pressure Battistelli will come under not just for 'Brexit' but also for his latest abuses against a truth-telling judge (again). As mentioned here before, EPLAW expresses concern about this and CIPA worries about the whole situation too. These are traditionally pro-EPO circles and they seem to be losing their patience. Not too long ago Alex Robinson bemoaned the latest among systematic attacks on the appeal boards. He wrote: “According to an unconfirmed report on the usually-reliable IPKat blog, European Patent Office (EPO) President Benoît Battistelli has submitted a further proposal for reform of the EPO’s Boards of Appeal. The alleged proposals are not yet publicly available, but if the report on IPKat is correct, Battistelli proposes a sharp increase in the EPO’s official Appeal fees, from a current level of €1880 to a projected level of €7350 by 2021.”

These aren’t just reports, it’s exactly what Battistelli plans to do and it would further erode patent quality for sure. Now, see 2016 AMBA Panel Discussion on Judicial Independence. AMBA is the Association of the Members of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office. It strives to protect those whom Battistelli cannot help attacking.

We publish in our web site the proceedings of the panel discussion on judicial independence held in Munich on 27th February, 2016.

AMBA is the Association of the Members of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office, having its seat in Munich.

The Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office as an Independent Judicial Body.

The attack on justice itself at the EPO was bound to invoke the wrath of legal professionals, who Battistelli needs to support him. They are, after all, some of the biggest stakeholders. But they are revolting now.

Shortly after Dr. Tilman Müller-Stoy sent a dissenting message someone ended up forwarding us the E-mail and related material. Dr. Tilman Müller-Stoy, according to our source, “is an attorney of the renowned Bardehle Pagenberg firm (he represented Microsoft in most their offensive cases in Germany against Motorola but he also does defense work for clients such as Amazon) to an undisclosed circle of recipients.

“His open letter to Dr. Ernst, one of Battistelli’s rumored potential successors [is] linguistically imperfect but the message is pretty good and strong.”

Tilman was mentioned here before, in the following articles among more:

In English we have the message raising awareness of this:

From: Tilman Müller-Stoy
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 1:55 PM
To: Tilman Müller-Stoy
Subject: WG: EPO Crisis – Call for Transparency Initiative

Dear „Interested Circles“,

In view of the latest events at the EPO, I sent today the attached further public letter (to which I refer for any details) to the Head of the German Delegation in the Administrative Council of the EPO (following up on my letter of 5 December 2014 that you all know). I strongly believe that it is time for the EPO to engage in a transparency initiative.

Notably, the next session of the Administrative Council of the EPO is scheduled for this week (29/30 June 2016) and I am very interested to see the respective results.

Best regards,

Dr. Tilman Müller-Stoy
Partner
Rechtsanwalt / Attorney-at-Law
Fachanwalt für Gewerblichen Rechtsschutz / Certified IP Lawyer
Wirtschaftsmediator / Commercial Mediator (MuCDR)

In German we have the message to Ernst:

Von: Tilman Müller-Stoy
Gesendet: Montag, 27. Juni 2016 13:38
An: ‘ernst-ch@bmj.bund.de’
Cc: ‘cornelia.rudloff-schaeffer@dpma.de’; Tilman Müller-Stoy
Betreff: EPO Crisis – Call for Transparency Initiative

Sehr geehrter Herr Dr. Ernst,

anbei übersende ich Ihnen im Nachgang zu meinem Schreiben vom 5. Dezember 2014 meinen offenen Brief vom heutigen Tag. Über eine gelegentliche Antwort würde ich mich freuen. Frau Rudloff-Schäffer ist in Kopie. Den Ergebnissen der Verwaltungsratssitzung am 29./30. Juni 2016 sehe ich erwartungsvoll entgegen.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Dr. Tilman Müller-Stoy
Partner
Rechtsanwalt / Attorney-at-Law
Fachanwalt für Gewerblichen Rechtsschutz / Certified IP Lawyer
Wirtschaftsmediator / Commercial Mediator (MuCDR)

Here is the full message from the accompanying PDF:

BARDEHLE PAGENBERG – Postfach 86 06 20 – 81633 München

Bundesministerium der Justiz
und Verbraucherschutz
Herrn Dr. Christoph Ernst
Head of the German Delegation in the
Administrative Council
Mohrenstr. 37
10117 Berlin

Per E-mail
ernst-ch@bmj.bund.de

CC:
Mrs. Rudloff-Schäffer:
cornelia.rudloff-
schaeffer@dpma.de

München, 27. Juni 2016

EPO Crisis – Call for Transparency Initiative

Dear Dr. Ernst,

In December 2014, following a house ban on a member of the Boards of Appeal, I took the liberty to address you in your capacity as Head of the German Delegation in the Administrative Council (hereinafter: AC) of the EPO in order to express concerns about the judicial independence at the EPO and a functioning EPO patent system, concerns which I shared with many users of the European patent system. Please allow me to reiterate these concerns, in the form or a public letter, in the light of the following two developments:

The Proceedings against the suspended member of the Boards of Appeal

Notably, not knowing the details of the facts and accusations, I have no word to say as to the substance of the matter. However, I do have some general observations:

Until now, the member concerned has been temporarily suspended for more than 1 1⁄2 years. The AC made three attempts to request pursuant to Article 12a (1) of the EBA’s Rules of Procedure that the EBA makes a proposal to remove the member concerned from office. The first one was rejected as unsubstantiated in the

EBA’s decision of September 17, 2015, the second one was presumably withdrawn and the third one turned out to be unsuccessful on June 14, 2016. As far as I understand the latter was the result of a conflict between the President of the EPO, the AC and the EBA about the question whether or not oral proceedings should be held in public and that the EBA felt threatened by a letter of the President alleging that the course of proceedings intended by the EBA was unlawful, insinuating consequences for the members of the EBA in case they would conduct public oral proceedings. Eventually, as a result, the proceedings appear to have come to a deadlock now as the EBA decided not to propose removal from office but to close the proceedings without a decision on the substance of the case.

Since the public has not been officially informed of what had actually happened, I have to abstain from commenting on these events in detail. However, the intended and codified system seems not to have worked properly in this case due to the President intervening in the procedure, the reaction of the president of the AC, and the EBA not providing a substantive decision in the case (contrary to its judicial function which is another concern in itself). These events increase my earlier concerns about the functioning of the EPO and the judicial independence at the EPO (see also the reasoning of the in the meantime published decision of the EBA: http://ipkitten.blogspot.de/2016/06/enlarged-board-publishes-decision-epo.html; http://eplaw.org/epo-eba-complains-undue-pressure-exercised-by-the-president-of-the-office-in-proceedings-on-the-request-to-remove-a-member-of-the-boards-of-appeal-from-office/).

Notably, the proceedings and their background rightfully gained prominence over the last 1.5 years which seems to be only natural as they concern a house ban / removal from office of an EPO judge, i.e. a question which relates to the core of the reliability of the EPO’s judiciary system. Therefore, I believe that the users of the system (who also finance it to a large extent) have a justified interest in obtaining respective official information from the AC. This issue should not be dealt with in camera. Further actions in the proceedings should be taken – at least partially – in public. At any rate, the case should be terminated quickly and, if not dealt with in a public oral hearing, the public should be informed about the cornerstones of the underlying fact finding and legal assessment process.

Thus, as my first request, I ask the AC to officially inform the public about the details of the reported events to the extent compatible with the justified interests of all participants.

Secondly, I request the AC to publish an unredacted version of the letter of the President and the AC’s view on the substance of this letter.

Thirdly, I request the AC to provide a plan as to how the issue shall be decided in substance, in due course.

Structural Reform of the Boards of Appeal

Following decision R 19/12 in which the EBA allowed an objection to the Vice-President DG3 as Chairman of the EBA based on concerns of partiality, the President presented a proposal for the structural reform of the Boards of Appeal to the Council (Doc. CA/16/15). In reactions from users’ organizations (e.g. epi in epi information 3/2015, 87, Union IP, epi information 4/2015, 120) and from the Board of Appeals (see website AMBA-EPO.org), objections were raised e.g. to the mixing of the questions of efficiency and independence and to the role of the Board of Appeals Committee (BOAC) to be created as a subcommittee to the AC.

In March 2016, the AC requested the President to submit proposals for immediate implementation of the structural reform of the Boards of Appeal. The President prepared a further paper which is still not publicly available but cited as CA/43/16. So far, there does not seem to be the intention to make it public, for consultation with the users of the European Patent System.

Again, an open communication seems to be key in the present situation. This is what the users can expect from a modern administration in a democratic society and this is the standard in the Contracting States to the Convention. A transpar-

ent procedure excludes that the still unpublished proposals could be accepted in the June meeting of the AC. Compared with national German legislation, the structural reform of the Boards of Appeal may be compared with a reform of the Law on the Constitution of Courts (GVG), the Law on the Judiciary (DRiG) and further laws affecting judges at the same time. It would be unthinkable that legislation of such importance implying basic questions of the rule of law, in particular the principle of separation of powers, could take place behind closed doors. The public at large, applicants, the patent profession and academia should have a proper opportunity to scrutinize and comment on the proposals. It should be kept in mind that a reform which does not achieve its aims would add further damage to the reputation of the Boards of Appeal and the European patent system as a whole.

Thus, my fourth request to the AC is to provide transparency in this context to the users, and to take comments of the members of the Boards of Appeal and other contributors with sufficient expertise into serious consideration before any reform is adapted (unless that has not been done already).

Concluding, I do only see one solution to reduce the risk that users like myself continue to lose confidence in the EPO system – namely sufficient transparency. Therefore, the AC is generally called upon to develop a transparency initiative. Following the above requests could be a first step towards the right direction.

Yours sincerely,
Dr. Tilman Müller-Stoy
Rechtsanwalt
- Fachanwalt für Gewerblichen Rechtsschutz -
- Wirtschaftsmediator (CVM) -

As readers may recall, Ernst isn’t just the German representative this week but also a rumoured possible successor to Battistelli.

We look forward to publishing some more new material about the EPO — material of which we already have plenty. It is a very busy week ahead.

Caricature: European Patent Office (EPO) Under Battistelli

Monday 27th of June 2016 02:40:03 PM

Summary: The latest caricature about the state of the European Patent Office (EPO)

Techrights (Almost) at 10: From Software Patents to Novell and to Present Focus on EPO

Monday 27th of June 2016 02:10:04 PM

A weak and/or incompetent EPO would harm everyone in the world

Summary: A short story about how and why we ended up writing so much about the European Patent Office (EPO) and the impact beyond Europe

THE EPO has become a subject of considerable debate and focus here. It started around 2014 after we had primarily focused on the US patent system, the USPTO.

For those who have not been reading the site since its inception, here is a short introduction.

I had been a GNU/Linux advocate well before this site existed and an opponent of software patents (not patents as a whole) for a little longer than that. People who have themselves developed software don’t find it difficult to understand why copyrights, not patents, are suitable protection for one’s work (protection from plagiarism, misuse, misattribution, and so on).

The earliest goal of the site, back almost 10 years ago, was to end the software patents assault by Microsoft against GNU/Linux and Free software in general — an assault which began if not publicly culminated with the Microsoft/Novell patent deal. Novell took several years to decline after this deal and ultimately, unsurprisingly, Microsoft grabbed Novell’s own software patents, in a joint takeover along with Apple, Oracle, etc. These companies do not want Linux and Android to succeed, not without them being heavily taxed by the proprietary software oligopoly (Microsoft, Apple and Oracle still have ongoing patent/copyright fights against Android).

Apple’s attack on Linux (through Android) officially began in 2010, whereupon we wrote a great deal about Apple and shortly afterwards Oracle joined this war. It had already shown some hostility towards Red Hat, just shortly before the Microsoft/Novell deal in 2006.

For those who are not yet seeing a pattern, let it be spelled out clearly; the rise of Free software and GNU/Linux gave power to new actors such as Google, which made proper use of Free software in order to build back- and front-end stacks (databases, operating systems, AI, Web servers and so on). This meant that gadgets-selling giants, database giants, operating systems giants/monopolies etc. that were and still are proprietary (e.g. iOS, Mac OS X, Oracle, Windows) needed to either crash/crush emergent forces or tax them, using either patents or copyrights (this goes back to 2003 with the Microsoft-backed SCO assault on Linux).

Right now, in 2016, the aforementioned issues are unresolved. Microsoft is still attacking Linux (but more cleverly, with shrewdly-worded announcements that brand/frame patent settlements as bundling deals), Apple still has several patent cases against Android OEMs, and Oracle refuses to give up even after 6 years in the courtroom (against Android through Google). The cause of utmost importance here deals not only with software patents anymore but also with some design patents (Apple v Samsung) and copyright on APIs (Oracle v Google).

About 8 years ago we expressed concerns about software patents in Europe due to FRAND lobbying (from companies like Microsoft) and Brimelow’s loophole “as such”. We thereafter didn’t keep a close eye on the EPO for quite some time. Not much seemed to happen, but new kinds of abuses started to emerge and these seemed to be related to the resurrection of the “EU patent” or “community patent”, this time under a new kind of name and marketing (equating maximalism with union, unity, universality etc.) accompanied by/with repression of staff and suppression of critics. Even the staff union of the EPO, which had existed for several decades, came under unprecedented (even outside the EPO) attacks.

The reason we now focus a great deal on the EPO is that we have reasonably good understanding of the matters involved. We also have many articles on the subject, which helps us create a cohesive story with a lot of cross-referencing. Our goal now is to help other people (EPO insiders as well as politicians who are outsiders) gain an equally good understanding of why the EPO’s management must be chopped laterally and replaced en masse. It is the only way to save the EPO right now. Delegates that make up the Administrative Council probably have a good grip on the current situation, but they are afraid (or tied up by Battistelli’s hand on the budget), so they are not likely to do anything. The EPO needs somewhat of a revolution and strikes/demonstrations are steps towards that.

In the coming days we shall have a lot to write about the EPO and we will devote plenty of time and resources to ensure this historic period in the EPO is properly documented. We welcome feedback from readers and we hope that new material will continue to flow in. Now that everyone in the UK (and increasingly beyond) talks about “Brexit” it looks like Battistelli will definitely fail to deliver on his promises. He will be remembered not as a pioneer manager who compromised the rule of law for some ‘necessary’ reform but as a ruthless tyrant that shattered the EPO’s reputation for many years if not decades to come.

The EPO will outlive Battistelli and it is everyone’s job, especially at the EPO, to fight for patent quality (i.e. defy Battistelli’s ‘productivity’ obsession or lunacy). Remember that patent offices live or die (or make or break if not perish) based on the value or perceived value of their granted patents, i.e. examination that increases certainty in a court of law. Being an ENA graduate, Battistelli perhaps hopes that his predecessor will be left to deal with the aftermath of his atrocious policies (brain drain, low patent quality, reputation problems). Then the blame might be misplaced. A retired Battistelli would have little or nothing to worry about, but what about patent examiners who are far from retirement? How about retired examiners whose pension will be at risk? Given some upcoming Battistelli ‘reforms’, many people’s pensions are already at risk. This is just bad for Europe’s competitiveness across many sectors (medicine, chemistry, physics, telecommunication and many more). As patents get granted and assigned not just to European applicants (only the employees of the EPO are European), this may also means innovation will happen in the courts (lawyers’ strategies with patent trolls) rather than in the laboratories. Patent monopolies that are granted for the sake of being granted (artificially elevating some measure of EPO ‘output’) rather than to promote innovation can retard human progress as a whole.

Patents Roundup: Bad Quality (USPTO), Bad Analysis (India), Bad Microsoft, Bad Actors (Trolls), Bad Scope (Software Patents), and the Ugly

Sunday 26th of June 2016 08:36:47 PM

Learning from bad aspects or what has gone awry in the patent world

Summary: A mishmash of news about patents, mostly regarding the United States, and what can be deduced from that at the moment

THIS coming week promises to be rather big and historic, at the very least in Europe. It’s not just because of Brexit and its impact on the UPC but also because of the Administrative Council’s meeting. Big news is definitely afoot. In order to get some less important news out of the way in preparation for tomorrow (I’m getting back home after 3 days’ holiday), below are bits and pieces of relevance. It’s all from outside Europe.

“With patent ‘quality’ like this, why even pretend that the USPTO does legitimate quality (or novelty) assessment?”

USPTO’s Neglect of Patent Quality a Bursting Bubble

IAM, which is preaching under the guise of 'journalism', actually bemoans not the quality of USPTO patents being terrible and truly worth of cleanup by PTAB. Instead, it keeps moaning about the ‘worth’ of patents, as if not quality control is the problem but lenience of courts etc. “Judge Newman alone again as she warns of devastating loss of public confidence in US patent system” is the latest headline. IAM being IAM, it’s amusing to see how shallow the agenda is to see.

“It sure looks like pride is harder to derive these days from USPTO employment.”For details about the low quality of today’s USPTO patents, see the new article titled “General Mills Granted A Design Patent On A Tortilla Bowl Because Why Even Pretend Anymore?”

To quote the opening part alone: “While we’ve talked in the past about how absurd design patents can get, it’s worth pointing out that, hey, shit’s not getting any less absurd, people. Design patents, as opposed to utility patents, function more like trademarks. The idea is that the “invention” in the case of design patents are supposed to be unique outputs of what might otherwise not be unique inventions that are then said to act as some sort of single-source invented thing. Honestly, the whole concept smells of a workaround on the actual purpose of patent law and it tends to function that way as well. How else do you explain the design patent granted on a toothpick with some lines carved into it, for instance? Or Apple’s design patent on the animation of turning a page within an ebook? Rewarding exclusivity to these types of “inventions” that barely work up the sweat of an “inventor” should seem absurd to you, as should the frequency with which the public is left wondering where exactly the “invention” is in any of this.”

“Patent lawyers everywhere have been trying to spread software patents to just about everywhere on the planet, irrespective of what software developers are saying.”With patent ‘quality’ like this, why even pretend that the USPTO does legitimate quality (or novelty) assessment? We were recently contracted in relation to someone who works for the USPTO and does not wish to be described as such. It sure looks like pride is harder to derive these days from USPTO employment. Today’s USPTO is not what it used to be; rubber-stamping millions of patent applications for large corporations whose managers become USPTO Directors isn’t so scientific anymore.

Trying to Push Software Patents Into India

Patent lawyers everywhere have been trying to spread software patents to just about everywhere on the planet, irrespective of what software developers are saying. Last week, for example, Germany’s Bastian Best asked: “Targeted advertising is patentable in India if a piece of hardware is claimed?” Software patents are not legal in India, but Kenneth Saldanha, one of those hoping to change that, wrote:

A Software Patent in India is a tricky issue. First of all, let us understand what a Patent is. A patent is essentially a set of rights granted to a person in respect of something new (an invention) created by him. This ‘something new’, under the Indian law i.e. the Patents Act, 1970 is called an ‘invention’ and includes a software as well.

No, not really. India’s Patents Act excludes that and those hoping to change that are the same people who say software patents are possible and legal in Europe (or Germany, which is consistently more lenient on the matter). Even Battistelli’s EPO cannot change that, not without the UPC or some other new loophole.

Microsoft Bought a Patents Dud and Engages in Trolling (Through “Microsoft Tech Licensing”)

“Put another way, Microsoft acts like a patent troll (Microsoft Tech Licensing is technically a patent troll).”“At a glance,” IP Watch wrote some days ago, “Microsoft’s portfolio of US patents currently stands at approximately 50,000, compared to LinkedIn’s US patent portfolio of 1,085. Microsoft is well known for asserting its patent rights and has even created a licensing entity Microsoft Tech Licensing Ltd.”

Put another way, Microsoft acts like a patent troll (Microsoft Tech Licensing is technically a patent troll). We wrote over a thousand posts on this subject alone.

Even Microsoft-connected sites have already explained why “Microsoft’s LinkedIn Acquisition Is a Bad Move”. Compare that to other failing companies (LinkedIn had gotten into serious issues before Microsoft placed a bid) that actually have a lot of patents. As IAM put it the other day: “In terms of IP value creation Blackberry is one operating company worth keeping a close eye on. The Canadian tech giant has a huge portfolio of assets – around 38,000 – and has a brand with global cachet; but it is slowly withering in its legacy handset market and is transitioning away from manufacturing devices.”

“Will software patents ever make a comeback in the US? We sure hope not.”We previously wrote explanatory posts on how BlackBerry (or RIM) was becoming a patent troll. Thankfully, many of their patents would no longer be valid or possible to uphold in a court of law. Not in the US and not even in Canada (home country). See the paper “Patents and the Wealth of Nations” by Stephen Haber from Stanford University, published almost 2 months ago.

The Fight Against Patent Trolls Continues

“There are even uglier aspects inside law firms which focus on/pertain to patents and their clients.”Writing about the pro-patent trolls Halo decision, a comment from someone called Mike at IP Kat says that “influential Senator Orrin Hatch has filed an amendment to a funding bill criticizing the Supreme Court’s decision in Halo. Basically, it states that Congress considered the Seagate test and did not act to change it, thus Congress’ intent is for the Seagate test to govern.”

Destruction of Software Patents Continues

Remember some old news about CAFC ruling against software patents, in this case a “patent infringement claim filed by software company Rosebud.” There have been so many such cases since, including a lot from the court that initially authorised software patents in the US. Will software patents ever make a comeback in the US? We sure hope not.

The Ugly Side of Patent Practice

A few days ago Patently-O wrote about “Sexism in Patent Practice”, taking note of what’s characterised as “stories of appalling sexism. Each had been taken as the assistant for the actual lawyer. Each had been called things like “missy” and the like. And each had experienced this at high levels of practice, in recent years, not at some point long ago.”

“That’s where particular patents (or patent holders) do not just have ethical issues but also criminal/forensic issues.”There are even uglier aspects inside law firms which focus on/pertain to patents and their clients. “Commission finally targets Patent Boxes as tools of fiscal evasion,” Benjamin Henrion wrote, “not sure they cover EU2EU transfers” (reference in europa.eu). Prior to it, Francisco Moreno wrote about this as well, but in Spanish (“Exit taxation en paquete anti-evasión de la Comisión:si sacas patentes fuera de la UE pagarás en función de su valor”), his native language.

This serious subject was covered here before [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. That’s where particular patents (or patent holders) do not just have ethical issues but also criminal/forensic issues.

Links 26/6/2016: IceCat 38.8.0, Wine 1.9.13

Sunday 26th of June 2016 07:00:37 PM

Contents GNU/Linux Free Software/Open Source
  • Q&A with Tracy Hinds: Improving Education and Diversity at Node.js

    To increase developer support and diversity in the Node.js open source community, the Node.js Foundation earlier this year brought in Tracy Hinds to be its Education Community Manager. She is charged with creating a certification program for Node.js, increasing diversity, and improving project documentation, among other things.

  • Startup Snyk Aims to Lockdown Open Source Code in Real Time

    Eight months ago, without a lot of fanfare, a startup company called Snyk, with roots in London and Israel, started talking about its unique focus on helping developers keep open source code secure. Specifically, Snyk monitors vulnerabilities and dependencies in open source code and integrates securing open source into common developer workflows. The bottom line is that code vulnerabilities get checked in real-time, rather than getting focused on during official audits.

    Now, Snyk is coming out of beta with its tools, and releasing some metrics on how successful it has been at finding probems and patching them.

  • Best Open Source Software for Windows 10
  • Open Source Replacements for Windows XP
  • Open Source Business Intelligence Software [Ed: rather old]
  • Open Source Software: Top Sites
  • A DevOps dashboard for all: Capital One’s Hygieia project offers powerful open source resource

    When do you know a technology or process has reached the peak of its hype cycle and crossed over to the mainstream? When there’s an executive dashboard to track key performance indicators.

    US-based financial services company Capital One birthed an open source project that provides a dashboard for DevOps projects. The project, called Hygieia, is notable for several reasons.

  • EU Researchers Are Making a Tool That Fact-Checks Tweets

    Back when people were still using the term “Web 2.0,” everyone was excited about Twitter‘s impact on journalism. After all, anyone could use it. Maybe it could crowd-source journalism starting from the exact moment a newsworthy event happened across the globe!

  • A team of researchers from 7 countries is building an open-source tool to help verify claims on Twitter

    Social media newsgathering and verification are no longer novel practices in the newsroom. But even if publishers now have a person or a team of reporters tasked with monitoring conversations on these platforms and verifying their accuracy, there have still been instances of fake rumours or misrepresented facts spreading online when news breaks.

    A team of researchers, developers and journalists is hoping to solve this through the EU-funded project Pheme, an open-source dashboard they are currently building to help newsrooms detect, track and verify facts and claims the moment they start spreading on Twitter.

  • SaaS/Back End
    • Open Source NFV Part Four: Open Source MANO

      Defined in ETSI ISG NFV architecture, MANO (Management and Network Orchestration) is a layer — a combination of multiple functional entities — that manages and orchestrates the cloud infrastructure, resources and services. It is comprised of, mainly, three different entities — NFV Orchestrator, VNF Manager and Virtual Infrastructure Manager (VIM). The figure below highlights the MANO part of the ETSI NFV architecture.

    • After the hype: Where containers make sense for IT organizations

      Container software and its related technologies are on fire, winning the hearts and minds of thousands of developers and catching the attention of hundreds of enterprises, as evidenced by the huge number of attendees at this week’s DockerCon 2016 event.

      The big tech companies are going all in. Google, IBM, Microsoft and many others were out in full force at DockerCon, scrambling to demonstrate how they’re investing in and supporting containers. Recent surveys indicate that container adoption is surging, with legions of users reporting they’re ready to take the next step and move from testing to production. Such is the popularity of containers that SiliconANGLE founder and theCUBE host John Furrier was prompted to proclaim that, thanks to containers, “DevOps is now mainstream.” That will change the game for those who invest in containers while causing “a world of hurt” for those who have yet to adapt, Furrier said.

    • Is Apstra SDN? Same idea, different angle

      The company’s product, called Apstra Operating System (AOS), takes policies based on the enterprise’s intent and automatically translates them into settings on network devices from multiple vendors. When the IT department wants to add a new component to the data center, AOS is designed to figure out what needed changes would flow from that addition and carry them out.

      The distributed OS is vendor-agnostic. It will work with devices from Cisco Systems, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Juniper Networks, Cumulus Networks, the Open Compute Project and others.

    • MapR Launches New Partner Program for Open Source Data Analytics

      Converged data vendor MapR has launched a new global partner program for resellers and distributors to leverage the company’s integrated data storage, processing and analytics platform.

    • A Seamless Monitoring System for Apache Mesos Clusters
    • All Marathons Need a Runner. Introducing Pheidippides

      Activision Publishing, a computer games publisher, uses a Mesos-based platform to manage vast quantities of data collected from players to automate much of the gameplay behavior. To address a critical configuration management problem, James Humphrey and John Dennison built a rather elegant solution that puts all configurations in a single place, and named it Pheidippides.

    • New Tools and Techniques for Managing and Monitoring Mesos

      The platform includes a large number of tools including Logstash, Elasticsearch, InfluxDB, and Kibana.

    • BlueData Can Run Hadoop on AWS, Leave Data on Premises

      We’ve been watching the Big Data space pick up momentum this year, and Big Data as a Service is one of the most interesting new branches of this trend to follow. In a new development in this space, BlueData, provider of a leading Big-Data-as-a-Service software platform, has announced that the enterprise edition of its BlueData EPIC software will run on Amazon Web Services (AWS) and other public clouds.

      Essentially, users can now run their cloud and computing applications and services in an Amazon Web Services (AWS) instance while keeping data on-premises, which is required for some companies in the European Union.

  • CMS
  • Pseudo-Open Source (Openwashing)
  • BSD
    • FreeBSD 11 Alpha 1 — New Features Coming To This Open Source OS

      For those unfamiliar with FreeBSD, it is considered one of the few operating systems left to be true UNIX. It is a direct descendant of the BELL/AT&T labs UNIX. Much of the software available for Linux is also available for FreeBSD as well, including Gnome and KDE desktop environments and much more user and server software. Despite the amount of software available, it is often thought of as an obscure system with a rather small software library. This is simply

    • FreeBSD 11.0 Alpha 5 Released, Schedule So Far Going On Track

      The fifth alpha release of the huge FreeBSD 11.0 operating system update is now available for testing.

      FreeBSD 11.0 is bringing updated KMS drivers, Linux binary compatibility layer improvements, UEFI improvements, Bhyve virtualization improvements, and a wide range of other enhancements outlined via the in-progress release notes.

    • DragonFly’s HAMMER2 File-System Sees Some Improvements

      The HAMMER2 file-system is going on four years in development by the DragonFlyBSD crew, namely by its founder Matthew Dillon. It’s still maturing and taking longer than anticipated, but this is yet another open-source file-system.

  • FSF/FSFE/GNU/SFLC
  • Public Services/Government
    • North American Cities Are Slow To Adopt Open Source Software

      Government IT departments are often one of the last places that politicians or the general public look to when trying to squeeze more out of the limited public purse. This is not likely intentional. Elected officials and their constituents understand when roads and bridges are in need of repair. But the IT department is often just seen as a bunch of people in a far off building who make desktops work so that employees at the municipality can get their work done.

  • Openness/Sharing/Collaboration
    • In-demand dev skills, understanding licensing, and more open source news
    • Open Access/Content
      • Higher ed systems expanding access to open-source materials

        Open-source learning technology is at the core of higher education for institutions that want to reach broader audiences with very strict ideas about how convenient learning should be. But developing these initiatives does not happen quickly or easily. It requires strong leadership in information technology, expertise to determine which solutions work best for a campus, and a financial commitment to making sure the technology is sustainable.

    • Open Hardware/Modding
      • Proxmark Pro Proxmark3 Standalone Open Source RFID Tester (video)

        Rysc Corp has unveiled a new open source board in the form of the Proxmark Pro which now offers a true standalone client and RFID test instrument, check out the video below to learn more.

        The Proxmark Pro will feature an FPGA with 5 times the logic cells of the Proxmark3 and will remove the need to switch between HF and LF bit streams during operation, to use developers.

  • Programming/Development
    • Python gains functional programming syntax via Coconut

      Many Python fans have longed for the language to adopt functional programming features. Now they can get those features without having to switch to a new Python implementation.

      Coconut, a newly developed open source dialect of Python, provides new syntax for using features found in functional languages like Haskell and Scala. Programs written in Coconut compile directly to vanilla Python, so they can be run on whatever Python interpreter is already in use.

    • ECMAScript 2016: New Version of the JavaScript Language Released

      Ecma International, the organization in charge of managing the ECMASCript standard, has published the most recent version of the JavaScript language.

      ECMAScript 2016, or JavaScript 2016, is the first release in the organization’s new release schedule that it announced in 2015, when it promised to provide yearly updates to the JS standard instead of updates years apart.

    • PowerNex: A Kernel Written In The D Programming Language
    • ErupteD Brings Vulkan To The D Programming Language

      The D programming language is just the latest to have support for Vulkan alongside C++, Rust (via Vulkano, if you missed that project), Go, and many other modern languages getting bindings for this Khronos Group high performance graphics API. Should you not be familiar with the D language, see Wikipedia.

Leftovers
  • Printing At Night

    I haven’t touched a Mac in over a decade but one came to my home yesterday in the hands of a visitor. A party was being planned and a document was produced on the Mac. It should have been simple to print over my LAN. I allow all comers. Somehow, it didn’t work. The printer was seen but no driver could be found and there was the “locked” icon beside it. The last time I was in a school that used Mac OS (Pre UNIXy version) printing kept failing to a bog standard HP Laserjet printer so the Macs e-mailed a Mac which had been liberated by me to GNU/Linux. A tech arrived eventually and made the Macs print again but within an hour of his departure printing failed again. Besides connectivity, the Macs butchered every file with a MacOS header of some kind which I had to strip off… MacOS/X is apparently much more sane.

  • Meanwhile, In An Alternate Universe, M$ Defines Reality

    The slaves of Microsoft accept that upgrading a motherboard is “essentially building a new PC”.

  • Health/Nutrition
  • Security
    • Linux Kernel 4.6.3 Has Multiple Networking Improvements, Better SPARC Support

      Today, June 24, 2016, renowned Linux kernel developer Greg Kroah-Hartman has announced the general availability of the third maintenance release for the Linux 4.6 kernel series.

      Linux kernel 4.6.3 is here two weeks after the release of the second maintenance update in the series, Linux kernel 4.6.2, to change a total of 88 files, with 1302 insertions and 967 deletions. Unfortunately, very few GNU/Linux distributions have adopted the Linux 4.6 series, despite the fact that Greg Kroah-Hartman urged everyone to move to this most advanced kernel branch as soon as possible from Linux 4.5, which reached end of life.

    • Teardrop Attack: What Is It And How Does It Work?

      In Teardrop Attack, fragmented packets that are sent in the to the target machine, are buggy in nature and the victim’s machine is unable to reassemble those packets due to the bug in the TCP/IP fragmentation.

    • Updating code can mean fewer security headaches

      Organizations with high rates of code deployments spend half as much time fixing security issues as organizations without such frequent code updates, according to a newly released study.

      In its latest annual state-of-the-developer report, Devops software provider Puppet found that by better integrating security objectives into daily work, teams in “high-performing organizations” build more secure systems. The report, which surveyed 4,600 technical professionals worldwide, defines high IT performers as offering on-demand, multiple code deploys per day, with lead times for changes of less than one hour. Puppet has been publishing its annual report for five years.

    • Over half of world’s top domains weak against email spoofing

      Over half of the world’s most popular online services have misconfigured servers which could place users at risk from spoof emails, researchers have warned.

      According to Swedish cybersecurity firm Detectify, poor authentication processes and configuration settings in servers belonging to hundreds of major online domains are could put users at risk of legitimate-looking phishing campaigns and fraudulent emails.

    • Friday’s security updates
    • A couple of unpleasant local kernel vulnerabilities

      As part of a kernel fuzzing project by myself and my colleague Tim Newsham, we are disclosing two vulnerabilities which have been assigned CVEs. Full details of the fuzzing project (with analysis of the vulnerabilities) will be released next week.

  • Transparency/Investigative Reporting
    • Emails Show Hillary Clinton’s Email Server Was A Massive Security Headache, Set Up To Route Around FOIA Requests

      While trial-and-error is generally useful when solving connection problems, the implication is undeniable: to make Clinton’s private, insecure email server connect with the State Department’s, it had to — at least temporarily — lower itself to Clinton’s security level. The other workaround — USE A DAMN STATE DEPARTMENT EMAIL ADDRESS — was seriously discussed.

      This latest stack of emails also exposed other interesting things… like the fact that Clinton’s private email server was attacked multiple times in one day, resulting in staffers taking it offline in an attempt to prevent a breach.

    • Post Gag Order, Lavabit Founder Reveals Non-Secret That Feds Were After Ed Snowden’s Emails

      Want some unsurprising news? Apparently a three year gag order has just lapsed, allowing Ladar Levison, the founder and former operator of Lavabit, the secure email service Ed Snowden famously used, to finally say that yes, the feds asked him to turn over his encryption key in order to access Ed Snowden’s emails.

  • Environment/Energy/Wildlife/Nature
    • Democrats Ignore Urgency Of Climate Crisis, Vote Against Adding Fracking Ban To Platform

      Democrats appointed to the Democratic Party’s Platform Committee by Hillary Clinton and the party’s chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, defeated a ban on fracking on June 24.

      Former U.S. Representative Howard Berman, American Federation of State, County, and Muncipal Employees executive assistant to the president, Paul Booth, former White House Energy and Climate Change Policy director Carol Browner, Ohio State Representative Alicia Reece, former State Department official Wendy Sherman, and Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden all raised their hands to prevent a moratorium from becoming a part of the platform.

      Those who voted against the ban were met with a cry of, “Shame on you! Shame on you!” from the audience.

  • Finance
    • European Parliament to Britain: Don’t let the door hit you as you Leave

      The leaders of three of the European Parliament’s largest groups have called for exit talks with Britain to begin immediately, and Members of Parliament are likely to vote on a resolution on the matter at a voting session on Tuesday, sources told POLITICO.

    • The British are frantically Googling what the E.U. is, hours after voting to leave it

      The whole world is reeling after a milestone referendum in Britain to leave the European Union. And although leaders of the campaign to exit Europe are crowing over their victory, it seems many Britons may not even know what they had actually voted for.

      Awakening to a stock market plunge and a precipitous decline in the value of the pound that Britain hasn’t seen in more than 30 years, voters now face a series of economic shocks that analysts say will only worsen before they improve. The consequences of the leave vote will be felt worldwide, even here in the United States, and some British voters say they now regret casting a ballot in favor of Brexit.

    • British Lose Right to Claim That Americans Are Dumber

      Across the United Kingdom on Friday, Britons mourned their long-cherished right to claim that Americans were significantly dumber than they are.

      Luxuriating in the superiority of their intellect over Americans’ has long been a favorite pastime in Britain, surpassing in popularity such games as cricket, darts, and snooker.

    • Brexit could be Scotland’s ticket into the EU as an independent state

      In times like these, political journalists like me tend to reach for the collected works of WB Yeats. “All changed, changed utterly,” he wrote after Ireland’s Easter rebellion, and those words could not be more appropriate as a description of Scottish politics in the wake of yesterday’s Brexit vote. The Yeats poem captured a decisive moment that altered everything in its wake; for Scotland that moment was the 2014 independence referendum.

    • Blimey, it is Brexit!

      A striking victory for what I dubbed ‘Maggyism’ has taken place. It seeks the “liberation” of Europe from a ‘super-state’, not isolation. It might even succeed, this being a time of surprise, as the EU is struggling with a dysfunctional currency and has other electorates already enflamed by its rigid policies and lack of democracy. In England for sure, under the banner of Maggyism’s alluring yet chilling command to ‘take back control’, a new form of populist Toryism will be tested. The challenge for the left across England will go deep and it will have to discard its attachment to the ruins of Labourism if it is to recover.

    • Oil prices plunge 5 percent as Britain votes to leave EU

      Oil prices settled 5 percent lower on Friday after Britain’s vote to leave the European Union spurred massive risk aversion and a rally in safe havens like the U.S. dollar that threatened to cut short a three-month-long recovery in global oil markets.

      Financial markets have been worried for months about what a British exit from the European Union, dubbed widely as ‘Brexit,’ would mean for Europe’s future, but were clearly not fully factoring in the risk of a ‘leave’ vote.

    • Five legal points about the Leave victory
    • Reality Check: ‘Do I need a new passport?’ and other Brexit questions

      A Reality Check reader gets in touch to ask about what happens to his Italian wife. “My wife has lived and worked in the UK for 15 years having come over from Sardinia, Italy. We got married in March of this year.”

      It seems unlikely that your wife will be forced to return to Italy – nobody has suggested there will be deportations of people already living and working in the UK.

      If there were to be problems, she may be eligible to apply for British citizenship as she is married to a British citizen and has been in the country for more than three years.

    • DisUnited Kingdom

      This is a man-made disaster. The EU is a mess but it is fixable. Breaking up the UK will be a bigger mess and it isn’t fixable.

    • Brexit won the vote, but for now we remain in the EU

      The most significant announcement David Cameron made this morning was not that he plans to resign in October. It was that he will not be triggering article 50 of the Lisbon treaty in the meantime. When to “start the formal and legal process of leaving the EU” would be a matter for the new prime minister, he said.

    • Petition for London independence signed by thousands after Brexit vote

      A petition calling for Sadiq Khan to declare London an independent state after the UK voted to quit the EU has been signed by thousands of people.

      The petition’s organiser James O’Malley, said the capital was “a world city” which should “remain at the heart of Europe”.

      Nearly 60% of people in the capital backed the Remain campaign, in stark contrast to most of the country.

    • Post-Brexit – The What Now?

      Out of 46,500,001 electorate 17,410,742 voted to leave, which is a mere 37.4% or just over a third.

    • To mitigate poverty, Y Combinator set to launch minimum income plan

      Earlier this month, Y Combinator, the famed Silicon Valley incubator dropped a bombshell: it had selected this city to be the home of its new “Basic Income” pilot project, to start later this year.

      The idea is pretty simple. Give some people a small amount of money per month, no strings attached, for a year, and see what happens. With any luck, people will use it to lift themselves out of poverty.

      In this case, as Matt Krisiloff of Y Combinator Research (YCR) told Ars, that means spending about $1.5 million over the course of a year to study the distribution of “$1,500 or $2,000″ per month to “30 to 50″ people. There will also be a similar-sized control group that gets nothing. The project is set to start before the end of 2016.

    • America’s national priorities: Police thuggery, broken schools, and the ‘wages of whiteness’

      A budget is a statement of priorities and values. In a political community, a budget also prioritizes the interests of some individuals and groups over those of others.

      For example, the city of Chicago has spent more than $ 500 million since 2014 in literal blood money for the victims of police brutality. Collectively, the 10 largest American cities have paid out hundreds of millions of dollars to settle police misconduct cases during the same time period.

      These sums of money are the macro-level reflections of individual tragedies and needless deaths that include names such as Tamir Rice, Freddie Gray, Laquan McDonald, and Rekia Boyd.

  • AstroTurf/Lobbying/Politics
    • Republican delegate sues to avoid voting for Donald Trump at convention

      One of Virginia’s delegates to the Republican National Convention has filed a federal lawsuit in an effort to avoid voting for presumptive nominee Donald Trump at the party convention next month.

      The delegate, Carroll Correll Jr of Winchester, Virginia, argued in the suit that being forced to vote against his conscience was a violation of his constitutional rights.

    • Osborne Told LBC Last Week He Had No Plan For Brexit

      The Chancellor told LBC earlier this week that he has no plan for the UK economy should the nation vote to leave the European Union.

      He said: “Britain does not have a plan for Brexit. It’s not for me to come up with [Leave's] plan.

      “It wouldn’t just be when we left in two years time that the economic hit would come,” said Osborne. “It would start to come this coming Friday.

      “That’s when the uncertainty would start.”

      Iain says that means he shouldn’t stay in his job.

      Speaking on Britain Decides, LBC’s results show, Iain said: “As far as I’m concerned – and I like the man and have a lot of respect for him – but his credibility has to be shot after this.

  • Censorship/Free Speech
  • Privacy/Surveillance
    • New Service Sends Summaries of Your Social Media to Landlords, Employers to ‘Assess’ You

      Here’s a shout out to all of you who said “If I’ve got nothing to hide I’ve got nothing to fear” after the Snowden revelations. And this little gem deals only with publicly available information about you. Imagine what it’s like when it gets into the good stuff you think is private.

      An Orwellian startup called Tenant Assured will to take a deep dive into your social media, including chats, check-ins, how many times you’ve posted words like pregnant, wasted, busted, no money, broke, moving back in with the parents, weed, or loan, and deliver to potential landlords and employers a “personality score.”

    • Judge Says FBI Can Hack Computers Without A Warrant Because Computer Users Get Hacked All The Time

      The FBI’s use of a Network Investigative Technique (NIT) to obtain info from the computers of visitors to a seized child porn site has run into all sorts of problems. The biggest problem in most of the cases is that the use of a single warrant issued in Virginia to perform searches of computers all over the nation violated the jurisdictional limits set down by Rule 41(b). Not coincidentally, the FBI is hoping the changes to Rule 41 the DOJ submitted last year will be codified by the end of 2016, in large part because it removes the stipulation that limits searches to the area overseen by the magistrate judge signing the warrant.

      For defendant Edward Matish, the limits of Rule 41 don’t apply. He resides in the jurisdiction where the warrant was signed. He had challenged the veracity of the data obtained by the NIT, pushing the theory that the FBI’s unexamined NIT was insecure (data obtained from targets was sent back to the FBI in unencrypted form) and info could have been altered in transit.

  • Civil Rights/Policing
  • Internet Policy/Net Neutrality
    • OECD Ministerial On Internet Wraps Up: Openness A Concern

      The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) should not wait 8 or 10 years before its next Internet Ministerial, said OECD Secretary General Angel Gurria at the closing session in Cancun Mexico yesterday. Gurria called for a faster pace for government and regulators to adapt to the digital markets. Better data on the data economy will help, as reflected in the new Cancun Declaration.

    • Tell Europe’s regulators: Net neutrality isn’t just for the US and India!

      Net neutrality exists when Internet service providers (ISPs) must allow equal access to everything on the Web, rather than favoring some sites over others. It’s a bedrock condition for Internet freedom, but ISPs generally oppose it because it prevents them from charging companies extra for privileged access to the network — making a video from one Web site load faster than video on other sites, for example.

  • DRM
    • Oculus reverses course, dumps its VR headset-checking DRM

      The Oculus team has reversed course on one of its most unpopular decisions since launching the Rift VR headset in April: headset-specific DRM. After weeks of playing cat-and-mouse to block the “Revive” workaround that translated the VR calls of Oculus games to work smoothly and seamlessly inside of the rival HTC Vive, Oculus quietly updated its hardware-specific runtime on Friday and removed all traces of that controversial DRM.

    • Oculus Reverses DRM Course After Public Backlash

      Weeks back, Karl Bode wrote about the curious position Oculus Rift had taken in updating its software to include system-checking DRM. VR headset technology and game development, experiencing the first serious attempt at maturity in years, needs an open ecosystem in which to develop. What this DRM essentially did was remove the ability for games designed to run on the Rift from running on any other VR headset, with a specific targeting of community-built workarounds like Revive, which allowed HTC Vive owners to get Rift games running on that headset. Oculus, it should be noted, didn’t announce the DRM aspect of the update; it just spit out the update and the public suddenly learned that programs like Revive no longer worked.

      The backlash, to put it mildly, was swift and severe. Oculus having been acquired by Facebook likely didn’t help what were already negative perceptions, supercharging the outcry with allegations of the kind of protectionism and the lack of care for the public that Facebook has enjoyed for roughly ever. Still, many saw the whole thing as peons screaming at a feudal lord: Oculus would simply ignore the whole thing. Just weeks ago, in fact, Oculus was working journalists at E3 in defense of the DRM.

    • Sony agrees to pay millions for removing Linux support from the PlayStation 3
    • Sony settles with PS3 owners over Linux lawsuit
  • Intellectual Monopolies
    • Sequencing the future of IP in genomics [Ed: Bristows cannot see the issue with patents on genomics yet?]

      Genomic technology has rapidly created a multi-billion dollar growth industry. With life sciences companies scrambling in US and European courts for a share of the lucrative market, in-house IP counsel should start preparing for the next wave of IP litigation, explain Dominic Adair and Annsley Merelle Ward

    • Key amendments to Russian patent legislation

      Federal Law No 35-FZ of March 12 2014 introduced several substantial amendments into Part IV of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation which regulates intellectual property. Some of the amendments came into force on October 1 2014, and others did so on January 1 2015. We provide a review of the key amendments that involve patents.

    • Trademarks
      • Dweezil Zappa Renames His Tour Again: Dweezil Zappa Plays Whatever The F@%k He Wants; The Cease & Desist Tour

        Oh boy. A few weeks back, we wrote about the absolutely ridiculous story in which the four children of Frank Zappa appear to be fighting over the Zappa name. The story is somewhat complex and involved and is actually somewhat more nuanced than the unfortunately-all-too-typical “heirs of famous artist fight over splitting up the proceeds of that artist’s legacy.” In that original article, we noted that the dispute seemed to focus on two specific claims: first that the Zappa Family Trust (run by Ahmet and Diva, but to which all four children are beneficiaries) had a trademark on the tour name “Zappa Plays Zappa,” under which Dweezil Zappa had toured for years. After some fairly public back and forth online, it became clear that there was an underlying dispute that had simmered for years here: Frank’s wife Gail, who had controlled the ZFT, had trademarked Zappa Plays Zappa and charged Dweezil to use it, but had (according to Dweezil) then reneged on an agreement to share the proceeds from
        merchandise sales. Ahmet insisted that he’d allow Dweezil to continue to use the name for just $1, but it didn’t seem that there was any interest in clearing up the older dispute about merch sales, or to allow Dweezil to get some of the proceeds from ongoing merch sales.

      • Is it safe to bring abandoned brands back to life?

        What trade mark issues arise with the resurrection of zombie brands? Carrie Bradley and Tony Dylan-Hyde examine the position in Europe and the United States

      • Super Slimey: Comodo Tries To Trademark ‘Let’s Encrypt’ [Updated]

        Almost two years ago, we excitedly wrote about the announcement behind Let’s Encrypt, a free certificate authority that was focused on dramatically lowering the hurdles towards protecting much more of the internet with HTTPS encrypted connections. It took a while to launch, but it finally did and people have been gobbling up those certificates at a rapid rate and getting more and more of the web encrypted. This is a good thing.

        [...]

        Update: And… of course, after this goes public, Comodo suddenly backs down. Of course that doesn’t explain why it refused to do so when asked months ago.

    • Copyrights
      • A Bug in Chrome Makes It Easy to Pirate Movies

        For years Hollywood has waged a war on piracy, using digital rights management technologies to fight bootleggers who illegally copy movies and distribute them. For just as long, hackers have found ways to bypass these protections. Now two security researchers have found a new way, using a vulnerability in the system Google uses to stream media through its Chrome browser. They say people could exploit the flaw to save illegal copies of movies they stream on Chrome using sites like Netflix or Amazon Prime.

      • As CBS/Paramount Continue Lawsuit Over Fan Film, It Releases Ridiculous & Impossible ‘Fan Film Guidelines’

        We’ve been covering the still going lawsuit by CBS and Paramount against Axanar Productions for making a crowdfunded fan film that they claim is infringing because it’s looking pretty good. Things got a little weird last month when the producer of the latest Star Trek film, JJ Abrams, and its director, Justin Lin, basically leaked a bit of news saying that after they had gone to Paramount, the studio was going to end the lawsuit. At the time, Paramount said that it was in “settlement discussions” and that it was “also working on a set of fan film guidelines.”

        We pointed out that we were concerned about what those guidelines might entail, and worried that they would undermine fair use. In the meantime, as settlement talks continued, the case moved forward. I’m still a little surprised that the two sides didn’t ask the court for more time to continue settlement talks, as that’s not that uncommon, and it’s something that a judge often is willing to grant if it looks like the two sides in a dispute can come to an agreement. But, without that, the case has continued to move forward with ongoing filings from each side.

With UPC Dead for Battistelli’s Entire Remaining Term, No Reason for the EPO or the Administrative Council to Keep Battistelli Around

Saturday 25th of June 2016 05:40:24 AM

SUEPO, the staff union of the EPO, will prevail, unlike Battistelli

Summary: Thoughts about what happens to the EPO’s leadership after ‘Brexit’ (British exit from the EU), which severely undermines Battistelli’s biggest project that he habitually used to justify his incredible abuses

THE EPO management’s sheer abuses served to discredit the European Union as a whole, as we noted here many times before. Despite not being an EU body, as Europe’s second-largest intergovernmental entity it was seen by many as symptomatic of a failure to respect the rule of law, honour democracy etc. This was the legacy of Battistelli. In many ways, Battistelli caused more damage to the European Union than anyone else in Europe so far this year and last year.

This post is an outline of recent news regarding the UPC and the EPO. There is a lot to be said and many sites already speak about it. Even insiders at the EPO speak about it. “Earthquake in EU,” one person labeled it, in relation to the “decision of the UK citizens to BR-EXIT!”

To quote the core argument:

As you have most certainly heard, the UK referendum has turned out in favour of the BREXIT yesterday. The decision has had the effect of a bombshell – Cameron has announced his resignation for October- and if it can be a measure of it, the markets which are reacting in freefall worldwide.

At this stage nobody can foresee the effects on EU economy nor politics. But the same can be said about the impact on the European Patent System. Clearly the Unitary Patent set-up – and the future of its UP-Court which was meant to be in London – is shaken at its root and it is remains to be seen if it can go forward despite yesterday’s [or 2 days ago] event.

In the mean-time, The UK remains a full member of the EPC: it is simply joining the select club of the major IP countries not belonging to the EU, such as Switzerland… However, in the context of such a political earthquake, it is doubtful that our supervisory body – not renowned for finding simple solution to simple problems – will be able to go beyond the state of stunned confusion and focus on the major problems at hand in the EPO. let alone find solutions.

As a recap for our readers, as part of the planned transition to the UPC system, Battistelli has been crushing appeal boards. Jonathan Radcliffe, who wrote about the latest twist in this plan a few days ago, has this article about it. This repeats the euphemisms of the EPO’s management and the headline says “European Patent Office to Make Pan-European Revocation Proceedings Faster, More Efficient as of July 1″ (i.e. a few days from now). Alternative headline: EPO crushes appeals process to lower quality of patents and give an illusion of success.

Battistelli’s war on the appeal boards, including threats against them (the leaked text clearly shows a threat issued to all of the members), is quite telling. In fact, the judgment has been covered by Kieren McCarthy in the British media. It happened just over 24 hours ago (1 AM). To quote some portions from “Nazi witch-hunt ends with fierce judgment”:

The judge in question was dismissed by the president for allegedly leaking documents that embarrassed Battistelli and EPO management and for making anonymous criticisms of them.

Battistelli set up an investigative unit – nicknamed “the Stasi” internally – to root out who was making the criticisms. It concluded that the judge was behind the leaking and he was suspended. The decision was then backed up by a disciplinary council.

When it came to removing the judge from the Boards of Appeal however, the independent body decided to look deeper into the issue, prompting an unusual series of events where the EPO’s Administrative Council lodged and then withdrew two successive complaints before finally settling on a third complaint in which its initial allegations were reduced from five to two.

[...]

This is simply the latest in a long series of complaints about Mr Battistelli’s behavior. Just this week, an anonymous group of staff wrote an open letter to the representatives of European countries asking them to fire him. Previously there had been a zero per cent vote of confidence in him.

The judgment also comes just before a meeting of the EPO’s Administrative Council, where it will consider what progress he has made on a previous request for him to improve conditions at the EPO.

So far, Battistelli has been able to persuade the Administrative Council to continue backing him and his proposed reforms, but with even the organization’s highest judicial body accusing him of overstepping his role and undermining the organization’s very functioning, it is hard to imagine how he will continue to retain support.

Looking at some early comments, people compare this to FIFA again. One person wrote: “Well… all this is making the popcorn sellers happy. I just feel like we’re watching a really, really bad movie being played out here and it’s not going to end well for someone. Anyway… like watching a train wreck… can’t not watch.”

Another person said: “I can’t figure out how this guy keeps his job. The Administrative Council continues to back him despite that fact he has borked things so badly that he needs bodyguards. Hard to explain I would have thought.”

“Just look at what’s going on at FIFA,” wrote another person, “someone gets some power helped by some others, and promises to give ‘em some advantages as long as he or she retains power…”

Battistelli — like Blatter — works under the pressure of other people who are powerful as well (recall the Michel Platini and Sarkozy twist), or so it sometimes seems. “Bundestag UPC ratification is fast-tracked,” Benjamin Henrion (FFII) noted the other day, “while it should have been handled with care” (or put on ice). It’s not suggestive of Bundestag loyalty for Team Battistelli; maybe they work for the same ‘bosses’ (oligarchs, large corporations, etc.) and a lot of the aforementioned abuses — like in FIFA — are means to an end. Other than the European public, a major casualty might be Battistelli himself. As one EPO insider put it:

Earthquake in the EPO: Decision of the EBoA… could it mean a BB-EXIT?

At the more modest scale of the European Patent Organisation, a bombshell also went off yesterday as the Enlarged board of Appeal published its decision on the DG3 disciplinary case. From some prior information gathered during the previous tumultuous Oral Proceeding, it became obvious that the President had found it necessary to send a long threatening letter to the EBoA.

While the Office has been as usual silent about that such news (nothing on Intranet as of now – total transparency, literally…), this information has spread like wildfire in the media and the blogs:

o IPKat: Enlarged Board publishes decision: EPO President violated judicial independence;
o Techrights: Benoît Battistelli Should Resign in Light of New Leak of Decision in His Vendetta Against Truth-Telling Judge (Updated) (the site may not be visible from within the EPO as it is blacklisted);
o Register: Nazi witch-hunt ends with fierce judgment – Boards of Appeal excoriates EPO president over threats

In general this decision will have a major impact on the future of the European Patent Organisation: by threatening the board, Mr Batistelli has “undermined the fundamental principle of judicial independence,” the board noted, adding: “All present members of the Enlarged Board find themselves threatened with disciplinary measures if they continue with these proceedings in the presence of the public, and seek to determine the facts of this case”.

The debate on the independence of Board of Appeals is now more than ever open: we, the Staff of the EPO, are looking forward reading how the Administrative Council will deal that critical topic in its discussion of the Reform proposal (CA/43/16) – and which has been abundantly been criticised by AMBA, the Association of the Members of the BoA.

Much more is at stake than the mere disciplinary case. One can hope that the supervisory ins tu on and the media will note how critical the situation is. Ideally, one could expect that Administrative Council even to act, for instance by taking seriously its own March resolution : the least would be to decide on concrete consequences for the President, Mr Battistelli and his team, who, through all its recent decisions made a mockery of the AC public claims.

The bottom line is, Battistelli needs to be sacked this month, unless he resigns first. In spite of everyone speaking about the UPC and Brexit yesterday, there was still a long discussion about this in IP Kat. One person wrote:

BB’s [Battistelli's] words usually implied that the creation of the Unitary Patent was justification for his actions, and seemed to be one of the reasons why the AC put up with him, beginning with his secret contract.

Now that the Brexit meteorite hit the planet, and the UP looks at least severely compromised, will the AC change course? And what will BB do? Hide in a corner and sit out the storm?

The trade, foreign, and justice ministers of the EU28/EPC38 will undoubtedly have more pressing priorities than to try to salvage this comparatively minor agreement… (If the text of treaty has to be ratified, then the ratification cycle will have to start all over again).

As one person put it: “Who is the first EPO President who violated the judicial independence of the Enlarged Board?”

On Battistelli, says another person, it’s him who “started his 1st term by a speech in the hague, where he declared himself to be a “convicted european”. We should have known back then! The brexit news this morning left me nauseous, but truly, how could I blame voters for not wanting to be part of that kind of Europe…” (not sure if this quote is real, maybe a result of poor English)

Regarding “he declared himself to be a “convicted european”” this one person said: “I do not really believe this. He enjoys diplomatic immunity. Securing a conviction would be next to impossible.”

Another person said: “The Protocol on Privileges and Immunities does provide for the Administrative Council waiving the President’s diplomatic immunity, but as the relationship between the President and the AC is akin to that of a dog who is being wagged by its tail, the prospects of his immunity being waived seem slim.”

Battistelli “continues to repeat… Investigation Unit is only a “Fact-finding” body, but is the IU that “decides”,” this one person noted and Battistelli’s abuses are now being mentioned even by EPLAW, i.e. patent lawyers. Battistelli, insisted one person, “was of the view that the EBoa had no authority to conduct their own fact-finding exercise.” As one person later noted, “it seems increasingly likely that some comments are being posted on IPKat on behalf of the EPO management.” Watch the merit (or lack thereof) of this claim.

No doubt there’s an urgent need to debate Battistelli’s latest abuse, but very soon thereafter came Brexit (the same night that the above document got leaked) and then everyone started speaking about the UPC.

Here is Managing IP (MIP) back to its UPC script and British patent lawyers “air[ing] concerns over departure from EU” (but it’s not lawyers we should worry for, it’s science and technology we should worry for). Also see “UK’s referendum—its implication on the Unitary Patent System” (the UPC is effectively dead for good or for 2+ years). Other new articles of interest are “Brexit vote should spur businesses to review their patent filing and commercialisation strategies, says expert”, “Brexit – What does it mean for trade mark portfolios, IP contracts and the UPC?” and “Drama of Brexit Decision Won’t Bring Clarity For IP Owners”. In relation to “Brexit: CIPA calls for calm”, bear in mind that CIPA has been somewhat of a think tank and propaganda mill for the UPC.

Mathieu Klos ‏from Juve: wrote “Düster o. strahlend? Die nächsten 6 Tage entscheiden über Zukunft des europä. Patentsystems: #Brexit + #UPC Strukturreform #EPOorg (29.6.)” which roughly translated into “Dire o. beam? The next 6 days decide the future of the European. Patent system: #Brexit+ #UPC structural reform #EPOorg(29.6.)” (there will be some more bombshells next week, based on what we privately learned).

The UPC propagandists are, as expected, very sad about Brexit (focus on the original article, not just the many comments), but not for reasons that matter for ordinary people. To them it’s just a potential loss of income. “Unified Patent Court came to fruition,” says the Bristows employee, reminding us that proponents of the UPC (not all patent lawyers) worry about Brexit the most. See this analysis from Appleyard Lees and from Bird & Bird (big pusher of the UPC). As Out Law put it, “Rights holders might need to re-register IP in the UK as a result of Brexit, says expert” (that’s the headline).

Lawyers’ firms explain (or self-market) the situation in articles such as “UK “Brexit” Leaves IP Community With Many Questions” “Impact of Brexit for Intellectual Property Rights” and “Brexit – law firm resources” (mostly a set of links from MIP, which persists with the UPC push in spite of the latest news).

There is no lack of coverage about the impact of Brexit, but we don’t want to focus on it because many unknowns remain and we prefer to focus on the EPO’s position. Remember the EPO’s connections to IAM and watch how its Editor in Chief sucks up to Battistelli some more. “What will change,” he wrote, “is the immediate future of the proposed Unified Patent Court and EU unitary patent regime. The UK’s ratification is a requirement before they can enter into force. That was scheduled for this summer, but is now not going to happen. That means until the UK has formally left the EU they will not proceed. So we are looking at a minimum two years delay, though I would bet on longer.”

So even pro-Battistelli circles admit that we are “looking at a minimum two years delay, though I would bet on longer.” It can be called off altogether, but they don’t wish to admit it. As such, there’s no purpose for Battistelli at the EPO anymore. He does far more harm than anyone. He should resign next week. To keep him in order to “get the job done” (the “job” being the UPC project) isn’t rational anymore.

As for the EPO itself, it now promotes a lie. Battistelli publishes a lie in the EPO’s Web site (warning: epo.org link). it says: “Concerning the Unitary Patent and the Unified Patent Court, the Office expects that the UK and the participating Member States will find a solution as soon as possible which will allow a full implementation of these so-long awaited achievements…”

“The @EPOorg issues #Brexit statement,” IAM wrote. “Expects the UK and EU member states to find #UPC implementation solution. Hmm” (sounds like an expression of doubt). Even the minions of Battistelli seem rather doubtful as we suppose that the UPC will die like its predecessors (thrown in the ashtray of history).

“EU institutions are not mentioned in the statement,” wrote Francisco Moreno. “Are they irrelevant to find a solution or are they the problem?”

The UPC is just harder to believe in right now. As even MIP put it: “Fear that may be beyond even Margot F’s formidable skills.”

It seems, based on the time it took the EPO to issue the above statement, that it required a long time to prepare a single whitewashing paragraph, or a truth-dodging lie (or semi truth). “We have heard from the @EPOorg,” WIPR wrote beforehand, “which we understand is preparing a statement. #Brexit has implications for unitary patent and UPC. #EUref” (why did it take so long to prepare just one single paragraph?).

The “EPO says it expects UK and #EU member states will “find solution to allow long-awaited implementation” of UPC and unitary patent,” WIPR later noted. It published an article about it in a couple of its sites [1, 2]. We wish to remind readers that EPO management has historically lied to journalists, so this time too we must take everything it says with a grain of salt (the size of Russia).

Darren Smyth of IP Kat, writing on the subject, says: “Sir Robin Jacob thinks that UPC will likely not go ahead at all without UK if UK is to leave the EU”

“Sir Robin may well be right about that,” MIP replied.

“Jacob and other believers think they can patch the UPC to handle the UK case,” Henrion wrote. “We should be better prepared for another round.”

Jacob is actually part of the group that used self-fulfilling prophecies for the UPC, in order to induce defeatism among opposition. “The CJEU said explicitly that non-EU countries can’t participate,” one person (Steve Peers) noted, and Henrion responded with: “Froehlinger is already probably busy rewriting it.” A short while ago Peers said: “UPC can go ahead without the UK. Simply move one part of the court.”

Changing the rules again, for millionaires and billionaires (and patent trolls as a side-effect)?

On “Unitary Patent fast track,” Moreno wrote, “UPCA never enters into force. New enhanced cooperation w/o UK. Same 2 regulations + a third one for a court under the ECJ.”

As Henrion points out, “art6 and 8 were the art of Jacob and Cameron.”

It sure looks like Darren Smyth accepted my interpretation of the situation all along (that it’s plausible the UPC will just die) [1, 2] and one person wrote: “If this breaks the EPO, that would have been worth it.”

Actually, saving the EPO rather than breaking it is the goal. Removing people like Battistelli is the means. Florian Müller wrote: “Countries won’t leave the European Patent Organisation as easily as the EU because of less public debate, but it helps to at least stall UPC” (it can eliminate it as well).

The next few days will be interesting because of the meeting next week. In the words of an EPO insider:

Let’s face it: the Staff of the EPO, is ON ITS OWN!

Clearly concrete actions of the AC, such as suggested above, would solve many problems. But was yesterday’s “earthquake” enough? In the meanttime, that IS until something is done, the staff of the EPO has to face it: we are on our own. And I suppose the EPO will see more of the demonstration.

As you know, the next meeting of the Administrative Council will take place on 29 and 30 June. On the agenda, beyond the “independence” of the DG3, there are
four documents proposing further seriously flawed reforms:

o CA/15/16 on self-insurance for health-care costs
o CA/29/16 on post-service employment restrictions
o CA/52/16 ”standards of conduct” and investigations
o CA/53/16 concerns a review of the disciplinary procedures

A protest will coincide with this meeting next week. We hope it will be well attended. It needs to send out the message that Battistelli must go. UPC is no longer an excuse for keeping him.

Postscript: I’m away in York for the entire weekend, but will resume on Monday.

Links 24/6/2016: Xen Project 4.7, Cinnamon 3.0.6

Friday 24th of June 2016 11:59:45 AM

Contents GNU/Linux Free Software/Open Source Leftovers
  • Health/Nutrition
    • Coach of world 1500m champion arrested as part of EPO probe released but forfeits passport as investigation continues

      Somalian coach Jama Aden and two other detainees has been instructed to report to court once a month and have had their passports forfeited after being released by police as an investigation into the alleged doping of athletes continues in Spain.

      A Moroccan physiotherapist, who was also arrested as part of the initial operation on Monday (June 20), and Qatari 800 metres runner Musaeb Balla were placed under the same conditions by a judge.

      The operation had been carried out by police, in collaboration with the Spanish Anti-Doping Agency (AEPSAD) and the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), at a hotel where the Somali coach was staying with his training group.

    • Nigel Farage: £350 million pledge to fund the NHS was ‘a mistake’

      Nigel Farage has admitted that it was a “mistake” to promise that £350million a week would be spent on the NHS if the UK backed a Brexit vote.

      Speaking just an hour after the Leave vote was confirmed the Ukip leader said the money could not be guaranteed and claimed he would never have made the promise in the first place.

    • EU referendum: Nigel Farage disowns Vote Leave ‘£350m for the NHS’ pledge hours after result

      Nigel Farage has disowned a pledge to spend £350 million of European Union cash on the NHS after Brexit.

      The Ukip leader was asked on ITV’s Good Morning Britain programme whether he would guarantee that the money pledged for the health service during the campaign would now be spent on it.

    • Waukesha gets permission to draw water from Lake Michigan

      The governors of the eight U.S. states surrounding the Great Lakes, including Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder, today in Chicago unanimously approved diverting Lake Michigan water to supply a Wisconsin community just outside the Great Lakes basin — but only with conditions, including that water withdrawn must be treated and returned to the basin.

      The controversial decision to allow Waukesha, Wis., access to Lake Michigan water marks the first test case of the Great Lakes Compact, an agreement ratified by the lake states in 2008 to protect the Great Lakes from large-scale water diversions out of the Great Lakes basin.

    • This US City’s Move to Divert Great Lakes Drinking Water Is Just the Beginning

      The drinking water of Waukesha, Wisconsin, is contaminated. On Tuesday, the suburban city won its 13-year-long-bid to divert water from the Great Lakes, by way of Lake Michigan, to appease its thirsty inhabitants. Environmentalists are worried the diversion will have a devastating impact on the lakes that so many people rely on—and critics say it could pave the way for similar requests.

      It’s just the beginning of what many worry will be growing fights over who has the right to clean drinking water from the Great Lakes.

  • Security
  • Defence/Aggression
    • Armed police at scene of Germany cinema shooting

      An armed man has reportedly been shot dead by police officers after storming a cinema complex in Viernheim, in Germany’s Hesse region. The man reportedly fired into the air as he entered the cinema and is said to have taken hostages, all of whom have escaped uninjured

    • Not the Chilcot Report

      It was an aggressive war on the basis of lies, for which people still die today, all over the world.

    • Colombia and Farc rebels sign historic ceasefire deal to end 50-year conflict

      Final peace deal will require approval in referendum but formal cessation of hostilities and Farc’s acceptance of disarmament are key steps toward resolution

    • Pakistan Mourns Sufi Singer Amjad Sabri After He Was Shot Dead in Karachi

      The Pakistani Taliban has claimed responsibility for the assassination

      Thousands of people in Pakistan mourned the death of one of the country’s most famous musicians, Amjad Sabri, on Thursday, a day after he was shot dead by armed assailants in broad daylight in the city of Karachi.

    • Amjad Sabri: Pakistanis mourn singer killed by Taliban

      Pakistan is mourning one of its most famous singers, Amjad Sabri, who was shot dead in Karachi by militants.

      Thousands paid their respects, throwing rose petals over an ambulance carrying his coffin. A faction of the Pakistan Taliban claimed Wednesday’s attack.

      Sabri performed Qawwali devotional music from the Sufi tradition, an Islamic practice opposed by extremists.

  • Transparency/Investigative Reporting
  • Environment/Energy/Wildlife/Nature
    • German government agrees to ban fracking indefinitely

      Germany’s coalition government agreed to ban fracking for shale gas indefinitely on Tuesday, after years of fractious talks over the issue, but environmental groups said the ban did not go far enough and vowed to fight the deal.

      Test drilling will be allowed but only with the permission of the respective state government, officials said.

  • Finance
    • ‘Britons, vote in our name’: UK referendum dominates continental front pages

      Germany’s Bild newspaper promised on Thursday that Germans would not hog hotel sunloungers and would make key concessions to the England football team if the UK voted to stay in the European Union.

      “Dear Brits, if you remain in the EU … then we ourselves will recognise the Wembley goal,” Bild declared above a picture of Geoff Hurst’s controversial extra-time goal in the 1966 World Cup final, when England beat West Germany. The paper said Germany would go without its goalkeeper in the next penalty shootout between England and Germany.

    • I Will Vote Remain Because I Love My Mum

      After voting tomorrow I shall fly down to take part in an alternative online referendum results programme from the Ecuadorian Embassy with Julian Assange, to give you a chance to hear a discussion of the results without having to listen to yet more neo-liberal spokesmen spouting establishment propaganda.

      It is no secret I am an enthusiast for the EU. However as an ardent Scottish nationalist it has of course crossed my mind that it might be a plan to vote tactically for Brexit, to provoke a new independence referendum.

      I have decided against this for two reasons. First, there is no way the Establishment is going to allow Brexit to happen. And second, I love my mum, who is English and moved back from Inverness to Norfolk following the death of my father a decade ago. I wish England and the English nothing but well. An independent Scotland inside the EU would be disadvantaged by having its only land border with an ailing England outside the EU.

    • Farage declares ‘remain will edge it’ as polls close in historic vote

      The polls have closed in Britain’s referendum on EU membership, with a survey suggesting a bitterly close fight and the Ukip leader, Nigel Farage, saying it “looks like remain will edge it”.

    • Intel Fighting EU’s $1.4B Fine Levied 7 Years Ago

      Today’s topics include Intel’s return to a European Union court to fight a $1.4 billion antitrust fine, the FAA’s finalized commercial drone rules, the addition of new business-oriented features to Drobox’s cloud storage service, and Docker’s launch of its containers-as-a-service management and orchestration software.

    • Pound rises – do markets believe Remain has won?

      Sterling hit a 2016 high today against the dollar and could be on track for one of its strongest weeks on the markets – in terms of increase in value – for 30 years.

    • FTSE 100 hits two-month high on Remain hopes

      The FTSE 100 hit a two-month high and the pound surged as investors bet on the UK voting to remain in the European Union.

      London’s blue-chip shares rose 1.2% to 6,338.1 points, with miners, banks and travel firms rising.

      Sterling almost hit $1.50 after Leave campaigner Nigel Farage said it looked as though Remain had “edged” the vote.

      Wall Street also jumped in late trading, with the Dow Jones and S&P 500 both closing 1.3% higher.

    • EU referendum: Pound hits lowest level since 1985

      The value of the pound has fallen dramatically as it emerged that the UK had voted to leave the EU.

      At one stage, it hit $1.3305, a fall of more than 10%, and a low not seen since 1985.

      The Bank of England said it was “monitoring developments closely” and would take “all necessary steps” to support monetary stability.

      Before the results started to come in, the pound had risen as high as $1.50, as traders bet on a Remain victory.

    • Going on holiday soon? You’re the first victim of the leave victory

      Many UK holidaymakers travelling abroad will pay more for foreign currency as the pound plunged to its lowest level since 1985 following the EU referendum.

      Sterling was down against every single major currency group.

    • Scotland’s Status Returns to the Center of Attention

      All 32 voting areas in Scotland voted to stay in the European Union, but they were outnumbered by an overwhelming “Leave” vote in England and Wales.

      That has created an immediate political dilemma for Scotland, which in a referendum in September 2014 voted against secession from the United Kingdom.

      Scotland, which has been legally in union with England and Wales since 1707, is considered the most pro-European part of the United Kingdom, and the decision by British voters to leave the 28-member European Union could prompt a second independence vote.

    • UK votes to leave the EU in historic referendum
    • Nicola Sturgeon: Second Scottish independence vote ‘highly likely’ after Brexit vote

      Nicola Sturgeon has said a second independence referendum is “highly likely” after Scotland’s voters overwhelmingly backed Remain.

      Scotland was out of step with England and Wales after all 32 of its local authorities voted to stay in the EU.

      Speaking this morning after the result was declared, the Scottish First Minister said it was “democratically unacceptable” that Scotland had been taken out of the union against its will.

    • Nicola Sturgeon says Scotland sees its future as part of the EU as Brexit confirmed

      Nicola Sturgeon has said the people of Scotland see their future as part of the European Union, after it became clear Britain had voted for Brexit in a historic referendum.

      Speaking after all 32 local authorities delivered a vote to Remain in Scotland, the First Minister welcomed her country’s “unequivocal” vote to stay in Europe. But despite the vote, the country still faces having to exit the European Union after the Leave campaign edged ahead across the UK.

    • LuxLeaks special committee’s first country visit: Belgium is breaching EU tax law

      This Tuesday a delegation of the European Parliament’s special committee on tax rulings and similar measures has completed its first country visit to a Member State with a problematic ruling practice. Visits to at least the UK, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Ireland and Switzerland will follow. The programme included discussions with tax experts, the Belgium parliament and the commission responsible for tax rulings. On the lessons from this visit Green committee members Sven Giegold and Philippe Lamberts conclude:

    • David Cameron says he will stand down as Prime Minister – new PM by October

      The Prime Minister said he had been honoured to serve as Prime Minister for the past six years. He held nothing back in his campaign. He always believed Britain would be safer, stronger and better off inside the EU. He said it was only right for someone else to lead the country in this new direction.

    • Rest in peace UK

      I am mourning for the UK. I feel so much pain and pity for all my good friends over there. Stupidity has won again. Good bye UK, your long reign has found its end.

    • FTSE 100 sees £120bn wiped off its value in worst day of losses since financial crisis

      The FTSE 100 has plunged more than 8 per cent in its biggest opening slump since the financial crisis, wiping £120 billion off the value of the 100 biggest UK companies.

      Banks were particularly badly hit, with shares in a number of banks losing at least 20 per cent of their value on opening, including Lloyds, the Royal Bank of Scotland and Deutschebank.

    • Shares and pound plunge on Leave vote

      The FTSE’s slump was its biggest one-day fall since the collapse of Lehman Brothers in October 2008.

    • UK now poorer than France as pound hits 30-year low and FTSE 100 drops 8.7pc following British vote to leave EU

      The FTSE 100 fell as much as 8.7pc when the London market opened after the UK voted to leave the European Union, an unexpected outcome that prompted the resignation of prime minister David Cameron this morning.

      The blue chip index recovered slightly to a loss of 4.9pc, but the FTSE 250 – which is considered a closer barometer of the UK economy – fell by 12.3pc before paring losses back to 7.1pc.

    • Spanish minister calls for Gibraltar to be returned to Spain on back of Brexit vote

      Spain’s Foreign Minister José García-Margallo y Marfil has proposed a shared British-Spanish sovereignty over Gibraltar followed by the “restitution” to Spain, after the British territory voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU while the U.K. overall voted to leave.

      “Our formula … is British-Spanish co-sovereignty for a determined period of time, which after that time has elapsed, will head towards the restitution of Gibraltar to Spanish sovereignty,” García-Margallo told Spanish radio on Friday, AFP reports.

      Gibraltar, a former Spanish territory which was ceded to Britain in 1713, heavily relies on Spain for its economy, with over 12,000 people commuting across the border every day.

  • AstroTurf/Lobbying/Politics
    • The Tories Will Knit Back Together Quicker than Joe Ledley’s Leg

      The purpose of the Conservative Party is simply to be in power. The object of power for them is to make sure that nobody else can use the power of the state to counteract the power of the wealthy and curb their excesses.

      You will therefore be amazed by how, whatever the result today, the Tory cabinet will next week be smiling together in a show of unity. Because unity is needed for power. That they were calling each other liars, abusers of government funds, racists, unpatriotic or inciters to murder will be heartily brushed off as the rough and tumble of politics. Cameron will sleep soundly in his bed in Number 10.

    • WaPo Cites FAIR on C-SPAN’s Record of Bias

      The Washington Post‘s Callum Borchers (6/23/16) cited FAIR research in a story about complaints that C-SPAN continued to cover the Democratic sit-in on the House floor even after House Speaker Paul Ryan had the network’s cameras turned off.

      “This isn’t the first time C-SPAN has been accused of taking sides, of course,” Borchers wrote, noting that usually, “the charge is that it has a conservative bias.”

    • CMD Urges U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Prosecutors’ Appeal in John Doe II Corruption Case

      On Wednesday, the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), the Brennan Center for Justice, and Common Cause filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court urging the justices to grant a hearing and overturn a Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling that shut down a criminal investigation into potentially illegal campaign coordination between Governor Scott Walker’s campaign and groups that spent millions during the 2011-2012 recall elections.

    • Clinton’s private e-mail was blocked by spam filters—so State IT turned them off

      Documents recently obtained by the conservative advocacy group Judicial Watch show that in December 2010, then-US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her staff were having difficulty communicating with State Department officials by e-mail because spam filters were blocking their messages. To fix the problem, State Department IT turned the filters off—potentially exposing State’s employees to phishing attacks and other malicious e-mails.

      The mail problems prompted Clinton Chief of Staff Huma Abedin to suggest to Clinton, “We should talk about putting you on State e-mail or releasing your e-mail address to the department so you are not going to spam.” Clinton replied, “Let’s get [a] separate address or device but I don’t want any risk of the personal [e-mail] being accessible.”

  • Censorship/Free Speech
    • 100 years ago in Spokane: Petition sought end of movie censorship ordinance

      The censorship ordinance was mainly about sexually suggestive movies and plays, but it also was intended to prohibit movies that incited racial hatred.

    • Information Warfare: China Demands Better Censorship

      In a rare move Chinese leaders recently criticized, in public, their own Propaganda Department for not doing its job. The Propaganda Department is the several hundred people who direct the vast censorship

    • Turkey blocks Google Cache to stop censorship circumvention, breaks its own internet

      It was first speculated that the Google domain might be simply overlooked among a long lists of URLs to be censored by the authority, just like the ‘accidental’ censorship of shortening service Bit.ly last year. But local sources reported that the ban was intended to block access to Google servers, which keep a cached copy of content previously banned in Turkey.

      Indeed, various Google services have been used in Turkey to circumvent political censorship. During the Gezi Protests of 2013, protesters tagged ‘8.8.8.8’ graffiti (Google’s Public DNS) on walls to broadcast ways to avoid DNS-filtering (a method for censoring internet content). Turkish authorities resorted to IP-blocking and even DNS-hijacking to prevent access to social media during the 2014 local elections. For Turkish citizens who cannot use VPN or the Tor anonymity network, which masks users’ locations and identities, both Google Cache and Google Translator were suggested options among lists of proxies since then.

    • Rather Than Launch A Massive DDoS Attack, This Time China Just Asks GitHub To Take Down Page It Doesn’t Like

      You may recall that a year ago, a massive DDoS attack was launched against GitHub from China. The attack itself was somewhat clever, in that it effectively turned the Great Firewall around, using Chinese search engine Baidu’s ad platform and analytics platform to basically load code that contributed to the attack. The target of the attack were two tools that helped people in China access material that was blocked in China by the Great Firewall. Of course, this attack was actually the second attempt by China to stop people from accessing such information on GitHub. The first attack involved just using the Great Firewall to block GitHub entirely (it needed to block the entire GitHub, rather than just specific pages, because GitHub is all HTTPS) — but that caused Chinese programmers who rely on GitHub to freak out and point out that they rely on GitHub to do their jobs.

    • Web content blocking squeezed into draft EU anti-terrorism law

      A vote in the European Parliament’s civil liberties committee early next week will set the stage for a debate over Web content blocking and terror attacks. It comes during a jittery period of concern around extremist activity online following the atrocity in Orlando and the murder of British politician Jo Cox.

    • West Allegheny student petition decries censorship of reading list

      In response to parents’ demands this year that some books be removed from the West Allegheny High School reading list, about 200 students have signed a petition asking the district not to use censorship in an attempt to shield teens from problems they may be encountering in their lives.

      “You’re trying to protect the children and I see that, but you’re really sheltering them and making them ignorant to issues that actually plague our society and are relevant right now,” student Renae Roscart,15, said of the parents who had sought the removal of some books.

    • Don’t Look! Erotic Khajuraho Drawings Show Hypocrisy of Censorship

      While Shiv Sena’s repeated attempts at beating, slapping and thrashing couples on Valentine’s Day started as a hot topic for outrage, it ended up as a Twitter joke.“It’s not part of Indian culture,” is what they often announce.

    • Twitter trolls are reporting Muslim girls to the police for posting ‘blasphemous’ messages online

      This weekend an account was spotted sending screenshots of ‘blasphemous’ tweets to the Dubai police and calling for action, after a 16-year-old girl rewrote a passage of the Quran to include a slang term for vaginas

    • SEX AND CENSORSHIP

      Although I believe censorship is a potential danger to the First Amendment’s protection of free speech, I find myself wistful for the bad old days of the Motion Picture Production Code of the 1930s and 1940s.

      [....]

      There’s the smarmy sexualization of “family” sitcoms and the suggestive advertising using sex to sell.

    • Icasa to hold public hearing on SABC censorship
    • Public hearing looms over SABC censorship
    • Activists Say the SABC’s New Editorial Policy Is Shutting Them Out
  • Privacy/Surveillance
    • Court Rules the FBI Does Not Need a Warrant to Hack a Computer

      In one of the many ongoing legal cases surrounding a dark web child pornography site, a judge has written that the FBI did not require a warrant to hack a suspect’s computer.

      According to activists, the ruling could have serious implications for how law enforcement is able to conduct remote searches.

      “The Court finds that no Fourth Amendment violation occurred here because the Government did not need a warrant to capture Defendant’s IP address,” Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., a senior United States District Judge, wrote in an opinion and order on Tuesday. He adds that the government did not require a warrant to extract other information from the suspect’s computer either.

    • VPN Providers Protest Plans to Expand Government Hacking Powers

      Proposed legislative changes that will increase law enforcement’s ability to hack into computers are under attack by a broad coalition. Google, EFF, Demand Progress and FightForTheFuture are joined by TOR, Private Internet Access and other VPN services seeking to block changes to Rule 41.

    • In Wisconsin, a Backlash Against Using Data to Foretell Defendants’ Futures

      When Eric L. Loomis was sentenced for eluding the police in La Crosse, Wis., the judge told him he presented a “high risk” to the community and handed down a six-year prison term.

      The judge said he had arrived at his sentencing decision in part because of Mr. Loomis’s rating on the Compas assessment, a secret algorithm used in the Wisconsin justice system to calculate the likelihood that someone will commit another crime.

      Mr. Loomis has challenged the judge’s reliance on the Compas score, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which heard arguments on his appeal in April, could rule in the coming days or weeks. Mr. Loomis’s appeal centers on the criteria used by the Compas algorithm, which is proprietary and as a result is protected, and on the differences in its application for men and women.

    • EU to adopt new US data rules in July

      The European Commission is set to present a new draft of its data-exchange pact with the US, the Privacy Shield, in early July.

      EU justice commissioner Vera Jourova told EUobserver in a recent interview that the most contentious issues had been agreed by Washington and Brussels.

      These concerned access to data by US security services, bulk collection of people’s personal information and independent oversight.

    • Snoopers’ Charter: Government explains why it needs the power to hack into everyone’s devices

      GCHQ WILL have the power to hack into the devices of entire towns under the forthcoming Investigatory Powers Bill, according to a recently released Home Office briefing document.

      The ‘Operational Case for Bulk Powers’ is intended to explain why the security services need such wide-ranging and intrusive powers of surveillance and hacking granted under the so-called Snoopers’ Charter.

      The document uses a series of examples to make its case, citing terrorism, serious crime, terrorism, paedophiles, terrorism, state-based threats and, of course, terrorism.

    • GCHQ explains why it may want to hack every computing device in your town

      The Home Office has made the case for GCHQ’s new powers of bulk collection and hacking under the Investigatory Powers Bill, which will become law once it passes its third reading in the House of Lords, in a new document released this week.

      “The draft Investigatory Powers Bill… seeks to update the law to reflect technological change, ensuring that these powers – including those relating to sensitive capabilities available to the security and intelligence agencies – are set out transparently and consistently, with robust safeguards and world leading oversight,” claims the document.

    • Russia’s Problem (According To Russian Politicians): Not Enough Mass Surveillance

      When you look back at Techdirt’s coverage of Russia’s attempts to control its people and shut down online dissent, it’s unlikely you will be thinking to yourself: “What Russia really needs is more mass surveillance.”

    • Privacy Shield: Experts in the dark on planned EU-US data sharing pact

      National representatives charged with assessing the European Union’s controversial Privacy Shield proposal still haven’t seen the final text of the would-be Safe Harbour replacement, Ars has learned.

      The so-called Article 31 working group—which includes officials from the bloc’s 28 member states and the European Commission—held its last meeting on Monday. But despite anticipation, the commission didn’t deliver a new draft of the data-sharing deal it is negotiating with the US, and some delegations are getting frustrated.

  • Civil Rights/Policing
    • FBI, police visit activists’ homes in advance of Republican National Convention

      Law enforcement investigators this week began visiting the homes of local activists in an attempt to gather intelligence for possible planned demonstrations surrounding the upcoming Republican National Convention.

      Activists said they view the “door-knock” visits as intimidating. A spokeswoman for the local branch of the FBI acknowledged that “community outreach” is taking place as law enforcement officials try to make sure next month’s GOP convention is a “safe and secure” event.

      Jocelyn Rosnick, a leader with the local chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, a left-leaning group planning legal support for RNC protesters, said over a dozen activists have reported visits by teams of federal and local law enforcement officials this week.

      Some of the activists are involved with groups planning RNC demonstrations, while some aren’t, she said. She also said that some of the people who were visited were among the 71 people who were arrested in May 2015 in the aftermath of protests that broke out following the acquittal of Michael Brelo, a then-Cleveland police officer who had been charged with voluntary manslaughter in connection with the 2013 shooting deaths of two Cleveland motorists following a police chase.

    • FBI and Police are Knocking on Activists’ Doors Ahead of Republican National Convention

      Law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, have been knocking on the doors of activists and community organizers in Cleveland, Ohio, asking about their plans for the Republican National Convention in July.

      As the city gears up to welcome an estimated 50,000 visitors, and an unknown number of protesters, some of the preparations and restrictions put in place by officials have angered civil rights activists. But the latest string of unannounced home visits by local and federal police mark a significant escalation in officials’ efforts to stifle protest, they say.

      “The purpose of these door knocks is simple: to intimidate the target and others in efforts to discourage people from engaging in lawful First Amendment activities,” Jocelyn Rosnick, a coordinator with the Ohio chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, wrote in a statement denouncing the home visits.

    • Teen Sues U.S. Over Cavity Drug Search for Which She was Billed $575

      Ashley Cervantes, a then 18-year-old American citizen, was stopped at the Mexico border and, for some unspecified reason, perhaps related to her being young and of Hispanic ethnicity, accused by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of smuggling drugs.

    • The Campaign To Dox Twitter Users In Islamic Countries For ‘Blasphemy’ And Supporting LGBT Rights

      Nearly half a decade ago, we wondered publicly what a company like Twitter, a self-proclaimed advocate of free and open speech, would do if confronted by a government that is anything but. In that post, Mike discussed how Twitter had been used to rant against the government in Saudi Arabia, and wondered what would happen if Saudi Arabia decided to make such speech illegal. But what if it’s not direct government action but that of other users that threatens such speech? While we have seen some governments routinely punish internet speech they don’t like, we’re now seeing signs of non-government individuals getting into the racket as well, as a way to silence the kind of barely-progressive speech a company like Twitter would likely say it wants to protect.

    • #LibbyLeaks: Oakland Mayor Launches Investigation Against City and Police Whistleblowers [iophk: "Multiple separate scandals and they try to distract with this instead"]

      This week, the national spotlight is on Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf and her embattled police department — and the headlines aren’t favorable.

      And now the Express has learned that Schaaf and City Administrator Sabrina Landreth have opened an investigation to identify internal whistleblowers and leaks, according to multiple city and police sources, who asked not to be identified because they fear retaliation.

      The investigation started after recent news reports exposed details regarding multiple police-misconduct cases, as well as efforts by city and police officials to keep the misconduct hidden from the public.

    • Interpol says it’s seeking public help to track down 123 suspected human traffickers

      Interpol said on Thursday (June 23) it is seeking public help to track down 123 suspected human traffickers wanted around the world.

      The largest international police organisation put out the public appeal from its base in Lyon, France, in a bid to bring the remaining fugitives to justice.

      “People smuggling is a global issue which is why international cooperation through operations such as Hydra are essential,” said Interpol’s director of Operational Support Michael O’Connell in a statement announcing the programme’s launch.

      The operation, known as Infra Hydra, involves 44 countries as well as the EU police agency Europol, and has already made 26 arrests and located 31 other suspects, Interpol said.

  • Internet Policy/Net Neutrality
    • North Carolina’s New Broadband Plan Forgets To Include ‘Don’t Let ISP Lobbyists Write Shitty State Telecom Law’

      For years we’ve noted how 19 states have effectively let companies like AT&T and Comcast write protectionist state broadband laws to protect the status quo. Such laws usually either block or hamstring frustrated communities looking to build their own broadband networks, or in some instances from striking public/private agreements with companies like Google Fiber. Last year the FCC finally started paying attention to such bans, stating it intends to use Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to preempt restrictions conflicting with its Congressional mandate to ensure even broadband deployment.

      The FCC’s action specifically targeted bans in both Tennessee and North Carolina, both states where incumbent telecom lobbyists quite literally control state legislatures. Both states’ dysfunction on this front is legendary, yet both chose to sue the FCC in court to, they claim, defend “states rights” from federal government “overreach” (defending state residents from shitty telecom law written by lobbyists isn’t much of a concern).

    • DTN: Vint Cerf And NASA Just Created An Internet For Whole Solar System

      Making the communication systems more reliable for its future missions, NASA and Google VP Vint Cerf has created a Solar System Internet service. Called DTN, or Delay/Disruption Tolerant Networking, this service is already incorporated in the software suite at the International Space Station.

    • Senate Report Cites Charter, Time Warner Cable Overcharges

      According to a copy of a staff report from the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Charter and Time Warner Cable (now a part of Charter) have failed to refund customers for overcharges, but both have taken steps to correct the issue.

      The report found that MVPDs vary greatly in how they handle billing overcharges, but that while “Time Warner Cable and Charter have procedures for identifying overcharges and removing them from customers’ bills prospectively, [n]either company, however, has automatically provided full retroactive refunds or credits for past overcharges.”

  • DRM/E-books
  • Intellectual Monopolies
    • South Centre Steps Up Activity On IP, Medicines Access, Trade, Investment And More

      The Geneva-based organisation represents the interests of its developing country members.

    • Trademarks
      • Defending Our Brand

        We’ve forged relationships with millions of websites and users under the name Let’s Encrypt, furthering our mission to make encryption free, easy, and accessible to everyone. We’ve also worked hard to build our unique identity within the community and to make that identity a reliable indicator of quality. We take it very seriously when we see the potential for our users to be confused, or worse, the potential for a third party to damage the trust our users have placed in us by intentionally creating such confusion. By attempting to register trademarks for our name, Comodo is actively attempting to do just that.

    • Copyrights
      • MPAA Boss: Europe’s Geo Unblocking Plans Threaten Movie Industry

        MPAA Chairman and CEO Chris Dodd fears that Europe’s plans to limit geo-blocking will “cause great harm” to the movie industry. In a keynote address at the CineEurope convention, Dodd warned that broad access to movies and TV-shows will result in fewer films and higher prices for consumers.

      • Court Orders Usenet Providers to Expose Prolific Pirates

        Dutch Usenet providers Eweka and Usenetter have been ordered to hand over the personal details of two uploaders who shared over 2,000 pirated e-books. The case was initiated by local anti-piracy group BREIN, which plans to offer a settlement to the accused uploaders.

      • Jury finds Led Zeppelin did not steal intro to ‘Stairway to Heaven’

        Led Zeppelin did not steal a riff from an obscure 1960s instrumental tune to use for the introduction of its classic rock anthem “Stairway to Heaven,” a federal court jury decided Thursday.

        The verdict in Los Angeles settles a point that music fans have debated for decades but didn’t find its way to court until two years ago, when the trustee for the late Randy Craig Wolfe filed a copyright lawsuit.

      • Led Zeppelin Wins Copyright Case Over Stairway To Heaven

        Back in April, we talked about the fact that the lawsuit against Led Zeppelin’s Robert Plant and Jimmy Page for copyright infringement over “Stairway to Heaven” was moving forward to a jury trail, and how ridiculous it was. As we noted, the song was written in 1970, and it’s a bit crazy to argue after all these decades that there’s infringement. But, more importantly, the similarities between Stairway and the Spirit song “Taurus” were just a few common notes that were predated by many artists, including Bach’s Bouree in E Minor. Still, as we’d seen with the Blurred Lines case, when copyright cases go to juries over song similarities, they often turn out wacky. The intricacies of copyright law are tossed out the window and often “hey, these sound similar” seems to win out.

      • Led Zeppelin Wins ‘Stairway to Heaven’ Jury Trial

        A jury rules in the band’s favor after hearing testimony and arguments that the iconic song was a copyright infringement of Spirit’s “Taurus.”

      • Good News: California Legislature Dumps Stupid Plan To Copyright All Government Works

        Back in April, we noted that California Assemblymember Mark Stone was pushing some legislation to basically push California governments to copyright and trademark everything they could. This was a bad kneejerk response to the admittedly ridiculous situation in Yosemite, where the concessions vendor had trademarked various park names and then tried to hold them ransom. Of course, the proper response is to make sure that kind of thing can’t be covered by trademark or copyright law, not push state government entities to lock up things under intellectual property laws.

      • Digitising public domain images creates a new copyright, rules German court

        A Berlin court has ruled that digitising paintings that are in the public domain creates new copyrights, even if the intent is to create a faithful image rather than produce an artistic interpretation.

        The case was brought by the Reiss Engelhorn Museum (REM) in Mannheim, Germany, against the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Deutschland—the local German chapter of the global Wikimedia movement—over 17 images of the museum’s public domain works of art, which have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons.

      • Terrible Ruling In Germany: Digitizing The Public Domain Creates New Copyright

        This is not a particularly new issue — it’s come up many times in the past. In the US, thankfully, we have a nice precedent in Bridgeman v. Corel that states clearly that exact photographic copies of public domain works are not protected by copyright, because they lack the originality necessary for a copyright. Of course, that hasn’t stopped some US Museums from looking to route around that ruling. Over in Europe, where there is no Bridgeman-like ruling, we tend to see a lot more of these kinds of attempts to relock down the public domain by museums. There have been similar attempts in the UK and in France, though as far as I can tell, neither case went to court.

Benoît Battistelli Should Resign in Light of New Leak of Decision in His Vendetta Against Truth-Telling Judge (Updated)

Thursday 23rd of June 2016 08:01:14 PM

Summary: Benoît Battistelli continues to break the EPO’s own rules, not just national laws, as a new decision helps reveal

THIS afternoon we wrote about the EPO ‘trial’ and people were eager to ‘leak’ to us the outcome, as we had hoped all along. We urge readers to inform their delegates and maybe even Heiko Maas regarding the matter. Enough is enough.

Battistelli, judging by his blog today [warning: epo.org link], has just gone to Albania (champion of patents!), which makes one wonder what he told or promised them other than free dentists.

Here is the decision’s text, which could use some brushing up (we shall do this as we go along and highlight bits in yellow).

Internal distribution code:
(A) [X] Publication in OJ
(B) [ ] To Chairmen and Members
(C) [ ] To Chairmen
(D) [ ] No distribution

Datasheet for the decision
of 14 June 2016

Case Number: Art. 23 1/16

Language of the proceedings: EN

Petitioner:
Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation

Respondent:

Headword:
Request for a proposal for removal from office

Relevant legal provisions:
EPC Art. 23(1), 23(3)
RPEBA Art. 12a(9), 12a(10), 18(3)

Keyword:
Decision on the request of the Administrative Council under
Article 23(1) EPC to make a proposal to remove the respondent
from office: The Enlarged Board decides to make no proposal”
Petitioner party to adversarial proceedings (yes)”
Publication (yes)”
Reimbursement of all the respondent’s procedural costs
proposed”
Violation of Article 23(3) EPC, judicial independence, by
Office President’s letter of 10 June 2016 (yes)”

Catchword:
For the Enlarged Board to be able to continue with these
proceedings the position of the Petitioner would have to be
that it did not agree with the Office President and
acknowledged that, from an institutional point of View, the
pressure exercised by the Office President in the present case

EPA Form 3030
This datasheet is not part of the Decision.

- 2 -

was incompatible with the judicial independence of the
Enlarged Board guaranteed by the EPC. As the Petitioner did
not clearly distance itself from the Office President’s
position, there is the threat of disciplinary measures against
the members of the Enlarged Board. It is then the Enlarged
Board’s judicial independence in deciding on this case which
is fundamentally denied.

EPA Form 3030 06.03

Case Number: Art. 23 1/16

D E C I S I O N
of 14 June 2016

Petitioner: Administrative Council of the
European Patent Organisation
Bob-van-Benthem-Platz 1
D-80469 Munich

Representatives:

Respondent:

Representative: Senay Okyay
Rechtsanwaltin
Sonnenstrasse 6
D-80331 Munich

Composition of the Board:
Chairman: M.-B. Tardo-Dino
Members: E. Liiv
A. Dimitrova
I. Beckedorf
D. Rogers
U. Oswald
H. Meinders

C 1 0 9 5 8 . DA

Summary of Facts and Submissions

I. These proceedings began on 11 February 2016 and concern
the request of 11 January 2016, confirmed on 27 January
2016 (hereafter AC Request 3), from the Administrative
Council of the European Patent Organisation (hereafter
the Petitioner or AC) asking for a proposal from the
Enlarged Board of Appeal that Mr X (hereafter the
Respondent) be removed from office as a member of the
Boards of Appeal, such a request being made under
Article 23(1) EPC and Article 12a of the Rules of
Procedure of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (RPEBA).

II. The request in these proceedings is the third such
request made by the Petitioner. The first request was
found to be inadmissible because it failed to fulfil
the formal requirements of factual substantiation
prescribed by Article 12a(5) RPEBA (decision in case
Art. 23 1/15 of 17 September 2015). The Petitioner
itself withdrew its second request at the oral
proceedings in case Art. 23 2/15 on 11 February 2016.
Following said withdrawal, the proceedings were
terminated by the decision in case Art. 23 2/15 of
11 February 2016.

III. The orders of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (hereafter
the EBA or Enlarged Board) that both the above
mentioned decisions were to be published have not yet
been executed by the competent authorities of the
Office.

IV. The filing of these three requests by the Petitioner in
this matter, and in this fashion, led not only to
delays in the treatment of this matter, but forced

various changes in the composition of the Enlarged
Board due to the non-availability of some of its
members, thus adding further delay.

V. In order to understand the current proceedings a review
of the background and history of these requests is
required. Only the most relevant facts will be set out
below.

VI. On 3 December 2014 the President of the EPO (hereafter
the Office President) ordered a house ban and the
suspension of the Respondent.

VII. On 11 December 2014 (CA/D 12/14) the AC, on a proposal
from the Office President (CA/C 8/14), decided to
confirm the suspension of the Respondent, considering
that this was the most appropriate measure to take and
was in line with the house ban decided on by the Office
President. It also decided that the Office
investigative unit (hereafter IU) was the competent
body to pursue this investigation and to deliver its
report to the AC and to the Office President.

VIII. On 5 March 2015, the IU delivered its report (hereafter
IU Report).

IX. On 26 March 2015 the AC initiated disciplinary
proceedings against the Respondent (CA/28/15, Summary
of decisions item 10.1, page 5). It also mandated its
Chairman to take all necessary follow-up actions.

X. The AC set up a Disciplinary Committee, (hereafter DC),
which upon the basis of the IU Report delivered a
report on 23 June 2015, (hereafter DC’s opinion), to

the Chairman of the AC. The DC found that the
Respondent had carried out several acts and that these
acts constituted misconduct, for which the appropriate
sanction was dismissal.

XI. In the present proceedings, based on AC Request 3, the
Petitioner relies on the IU Report and on the DC’s
opinion and has redrafted its request.

XII. AC Request 3 contains two allegations:

Allegation 1: Unauthorised disclosure of non-public
information and critical opinions related to Board of
Appeal activities outside the EPO while using
pseudonyms.

Allegation 2: Spreading of false accusations and
unjustified attacks or threats against the EPO and its
members either directly or indirectly using anonymous
statements and pseudonyms.

XIII. The parties were summoned to a first non-public oral
proceedings on 10, 11 and 12 May 2016. The purpose of
these oral proceedings was to discuss the competence of
the Enlarged Board, the admissibility of AC Request 3
and the Respondent’s request for summary termination of
the proceedings.

XIV. By a letter dated 2 May 2016 the Petitioner stated that
it did not consider itself a party to the proceedings,
it represented only the institutional interest of the
AC. It initiated the proceedings, pursuant to
Article 23(1) EPC, in its capacity as the competent
appointing authority.

XV. The written and oral submissions of the Respondent can

be summarised as follows:

1. Procedural status of the AC in the proceedings.
The Respondent requested in the May 2016 oral
proceedings that the position of the Petitioner as
a party to the proceedings be confirmed, or, if
not, that it be excluded.

2. Competence of the Enlarged Board, its independence
and its legitimacy to deal with the case on the
following grounds:

(a) The conflict between Article 12a RPEBA and
the higher ranking legal norm of Article 23(1)
EPC.

(b) Perversion of the procedure foreseen under
Article 23(1) EPC: AC usurps the provisions
of the EPC and their spirit.

(c) The failure to comply with the fundamental
principles of judicial independence set forth
in the “European Charter on the statute for
judges” and the “Magna Charta of Judges” in
the composition of the Enlarged Board in
proceedings under Article 12a RPEBA (lack of
elected members).

(d) The impermissible attempt on the part of the
AC to instruct the Enlarged Board by means of
CA/D 14/15, which constitutes a perversion of
the procedure foreseen under Article 23(1)
EPC.

(e) The consequence of the amendment of
Article 95(3) of the Service Regulations

(hereafter ServRegs) (CA/D 18/15) on the
independence of the Enlarged Board.

3. Admissibility issues on the following grounds:

a) The power delegated to the Chairman of the AC
in CA/D 14/15 was exhausted upon termination
of the proceedings in case Art. 23 2/15, with
the withdrawal of the request.

b) The principle of Res judicata should apply.

c) The principle of N6 bis idem should apply.

d) AC Request 3 fails to heal the deficiencies
in the preceding requests and is no more
substantiated than in case Art. 23 1/15.

4. Request for summary termination of these
proceedings on the following grounds:

a) The proceedings should lead the Enlarged
Board to immediately terminate or stay the
proceedings until the AC adopts appropriate
measures to ensure that the independence of
the members of the Enlarged Board is
guaranteed.

b) Lack of lawful basis of the proceedings.

c) Attempts to undermine the presumption of
innocence.

d) Flawed composition of the DC.

e) Flawed disciplinary procedure.

f) Deficient opinion of the DC.

g) Flawed investigative procedure initiated by
the EPO administration.

h) CA/D 12/14 failed to heal the flaws of the
investigative procedure.

i) Procedural abuses.

j) Flawed IU Report.

5. Relating to the substantive subject-matter on the
following grounds:

a) Failure to consider the circumstances in
which the alleged misconduct occurred.

b) Failure on the part of the AC to address the
issue that the IU Report is neither neutral
nor objective in its presentation of facts;
observations on the DC’s opinion.

c) Inconsistencies in the DC’s opinion.

d) Suppression and/or deliberate omission of
evidence.

e) Unresolved issues concerning exhibits B43 to
B45.

f) Attempts to reintroduce previously abandoned
allegations.

g) Failure to respond to issues previously
raised by the Respondent.

h) Observations about the events of 3 December
2014.

XVI. During the non-public oral proceedings of 10 to 12 May
2016 the aforementioned issues under numbers 1-4 were
discussed with the parties. A discussion of the issues
raised under number 5 above was postponed to the June
2016 oral proceedings on the merits. The Enlarged Board
concluded that the AC Request 3 was admissible. It also
decided not to summarily terminate the proceedings.

XVII. The Enlarged Board gave case management directions for
the oral proceedings foreseen for June 2016 to discuss

the merits of the case, in particular as regards the
notion of serious grounds and probative and formal
aspects of the evidence.

XVIII. Upon the request of the Respondent, and after
discussing with the parties, the Enlarged Board decided
that the oral proceedings on the merits in June 2016
would be held in public unless the Enlarged Board would
decide to exclude the public, which it would do
whenever the nature of the debate made this necessary.

XIX. The oral proceedings on the merits of the case were
arranged for 14 to 16 June 2016. The parties were
invited to prepare their submissions for that debate.
The Chair informed the parties that the Enlarged Board
had decided that three members of the IU would be
called as witnesses.

XX. Both parties filed their submissions with letters of
6 June 2016. Thus the parties and the Enlarged Board
were in a position to discuss the merits of the case at
the public oral proceedings on 14 to 16 June 2016, and
the Enlarged Board considered that it would then be in
a position to issue a final decision on the merits.

XXI. The Vice-President Appeals was given, and took, the
opportunity to submit his observations in the
proceedings in accordance with Article 12a(2) RPEBA.

XXII. In addition to the submissions of the Petitioner, on
6 June 2016, the Chairman of the AC sent a letter
directly to the Chair of the Enlarged Board expressing
general reservations in respect of the decision to hold
the oral proceedings of June 2016 in public. Further,

he asked for confirmation that the file would not be
made available to anyone other than the members of the
Enlarged Board in its present composition.

XXIII. The Chair of the Enlarged Board replied to the Chairman
of the AC on 7 June 2016, confirming that there had
been no disclosure of the file by the Enlarged Board
other than to the members of the Enlarged Board in its
present composition. In addition to this the Chair
repeated the wording of the decision on the holding of
public oral proceedings on the merits, as taken in the
oral proceedings of May 2016. In addition to that, the
Chair confirmed that the Enlarged Board was fully aware
that the proceedings should not jeopardise the
interests or honour of any person, in particular
persons whose names might arise during the proceedings.

XXIV. On 14 June 2016 the Petitioner confirmed, during the
in camera conference, that this letter by the Chair of
the Enlarged Board addressed the general reservations
raised in the earlier letter of the Chairman of the AC.

XXV. By a letter of 10 June 2016 the Office President, who
is not foreseen as a party to these proceedings under
Article 23(1) EPC and Article 12a RPEBA, wrote directly
to the Chair of the Enlarged Board with copies to the
other members of the Enlarged Board in its present
composition.

The letter is titled “Office representation in the case
Art. 23 1/16”. This letter stated:

“With due respect to the principle of independence of
the Board of Appeals enshrined in Art. 23 EPC, by
Virtue of the powers under Art. 5(3) and 10(1)(2)(h)(i)
EPC, I would like to bring to your attention certain
concerns expressed in the attached position prepared by
my legal counsels.”

XXVI. The attached document, an English QC’s opinion, is
entitled: “In the matter of a procedure in front of the
Enlarged Board of Appeals”, “Position Statement for the
President of the European Patent Office”. The following
passages appear to be relevant for the proceedings:

“19. It will be recalled that the role of the EBOA
under Article 23 EPC is to make a proposal on the
removal from office, having regard to the fact that
this sanction has been recommended by the DC and
endorsed by the AC. This article does not confer an
appellate or investigative power, let alone a free
standing and further fact finding mandate. The
nature and extent of the evidence already available
to the EBOA means that the attendance of these
witnesses is not necessary for the Article 23(1) EPC
proceedings to be conducted fairly and effectively.”
“21. It is quite inappropriate that a full re-
hearing of the facts take place on 14-16 June; there
are no Vires in this forum to conduct an appeal
process nor indeed to recommence an investigation;
accordingly, the personal presence of any witnesses
from the Office will not be required or authorised
by the President.”

“23. With that in mind, the President will not, we
are also instructed, hesitate to take any
appropriate steps available to him to ensure the
orderly running of the Office and the safety of its
employees.”
“27. In View, in particular, of the gravity of the
reputational, security, welfare and public order
risks identified, there is a strong case for saying
that any decision to conduct this hearing in public
would be unlawful because it could not be defended
as either proportionate or reasonable.”
“28. For all these reasons, the President deems it
necessary in the interests of the whole Organisation
that there is an assurance that this matter will
proceed in camera and that no witnesses will be
called from the Office.”

XXVII. Although it was foreseen to open the public oral
proceedings on the merits of this case at 9:00 hours on
14 June 2016, the Enlarged Board decided to hold a
preliminary in camera conference with the parties in
order that the Petitioner could clarify its position as
regards the Office President’s letter of 10 June 2016.
This conference was adjourned from 11:40 to 14:30 hours
to permit the Petitioner’s representatives to take
instructions on this matter.

XXVIII. At 14:30 hours, the Petitioner’s representatives were
finally in a position to submit a statement from the
Chairman of the AC relating to the Office President’s
letter of 10 June 2016.

XXIX. At 17:15 hours, the in camera conference ended and the
public oral proceedings began. The Chair of the
Enlarged Board then made the following statement:

“The Enlarged Board of Appeal has received a letter of
an authority not party to the proceedings, in which it
expressed the opinion that the Enlarged Board, in
deciding to hold public oral proceedings, took an
unlawful decision. It was discussed with the parties,
whether this letter could be considered, from an
objective point of View, as a threat to the
independence of the Enlarged Board in this case. The
petitioner was requested to express clearly whether it
endorsed this position or not, since the petitioner is
the appointing and the disciplinary authority for all
members of the Enlarged Board. The petitioner made a
declaration which did not distance it from this opinion
and which does not remove the threat. Under these
conditions, the Enlarged Board cannot legally continue
with the present proceedings, and therefore terminates
them with the decision that it does not propose the
removal from office of the respondent.”

XXX. The public was then excluded and the oral proceedings
continued without the public in order to deal with the
remaining requests of the parties.

XXXI. The final request of the Petitioner was

that the Enlarged Board of Appeal make a proposal
that the Respondent be removed from office as a
member of the Boards of Appeal.

XXXII. The final requests of the Respondent were that:

1. The Petitioner’s request be dismissed,

subsidiarily that the proceedings be terminated;

and

2. The reimbursement of all of the costs incurred by
the Respondent in these proceedings be proposed;

and

3. The decision in case Art. 23 1/16 be published;

and

4. The Enlarged Board includes in the reasoning of
its decision obiter dicta in respect of the
Respondent’s requests set out in its letter of
24 November 2015.

XXXIII. At the end of the non-public oral proceedings the
present decision was announced.

Reasons for the decision

Nature of these proceedings

1. The present proceedings are in respect of the
Petitioner’s request for a proposal for the removal
from office of the Respondent. They are governed by
Article 23(1), first sentence, EPC. They are conducted
independently of any disciplinary proceedings
(Article 12a(8) RPEBA).

2. A proposal to this effect has to emanate from the
Enlarged Board of Appeal, and the Enlarged Board comes
to such a proposal exclusively by way of a decision, as
evidenced by Article 18(3) RPEBA. As it concerns a

member of the judicial body of the EPO, who enjoys the
guarantee of judicial independence pursuant to

Article 23(3) EPC, this decision must itself also be
arrived at in accordance with the principle of judicial
independence pursuant to Article 23(3) EPC.

3. Neither the European Patent Convention nor the Rules of
Procedure of the Enlarged Board of Appeal foresee these
proceedings as an appeal from a decision or opinion in
the disciplinary proceedings or establish these
proceedings as a legal or factual part of the
disciplinary proceedings governed by Article 11(4) EPC
and the ServRegs. It is rather for the Enlarged Board
to establish, to its own satisfaction, by an
examination of the facts, evidence and arguments,
whether it is in a position to make the requested
proposal for removal from office.

INADMISSIBILITY OF THE PETITIONER’S REQUEST AND SUMMARY

TERMINATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS

Procedural status of the Petitioner in the proceedings

4. The procedure as adopted in CA/D 3/15 establishing the
Rules of Procedure of the Enlarged Board of Appeal in
this respect, is an adversarial judicial procedure (see
the Enlarged Board’s decision in case Art. 23 1/15,
point 5.7 of the Reasons). Filing the request,
representing the Petitioner’s interests and supporting
allegations against the Respondent, corresponds to the
role of a party in such proceedings. The Board merely
underlines that the adversarial nature of the
proceedings aims, as is usual under the rule of law in
democratic countries, at guaranteeing the Respondent a

fair trial and not at undermining the power of the
disciplinary authority to take a final decision.

Competence of the Enlarged Board, its independence and
legitimacy to deal with the case

5. The Respondent insisted that Article 23(1) EPC was at
the core of the case, and the independence of the
members of Boards of Appeal was at stake. According to
this article the members of the Enlarged Board of
Appeal and of the Boards of Appeal shall be appointed
for a term of five years and may not be removed from
office during this term, except if there are serious
grounds for such removal and if the AC, on a proposal
from the Enlarged Board of Appeal, takes a decision to
this effect.

6. The Respondent argued that the procedure foreseen under
Article 23(1) EPC must be carried out entirely by the
Enlarged Board, in the sense that it was incompatible
with the wording of Article 23(1) EPC for the AC to be
able to initiate such proceedings by itself making a
request for a proposal.

7. In its decision in case Art. 23 1/15, point 5.7 of the
Reasons, the Enlarged Board already determined that the
procedure under Article 23(1) EPC is further specified
by Article 12a RPEBA. The AC as legislative power under
the EPC has endorsed these supplementary regulations by
its approval of them.

8. Neither Article 23(1) EPC nor Article 12a RPEBA
requires that the Enlarged Board and the Enlarged Board
alone has the power to initiate such a procedure.

9. The Respondent has raised the issue that the amendment
of Article 95(3) ServRegs affects the independence of
the members of the Enlarged Board because it permits
any board member to be indefinitely suspended by a mere
decision of the AC. This amounts to a de facto removal
from office, since the suspension can be extended until
the member’s five year term expires. Upon expiry of the
five year term, re-appointment of the member in
question can then simply be denied, without a proper
Article 23(1) EPC proposal of the Enlarged Board. The
Respondent has not, however, raised this issue as part
of an objection under Article 24(3) EPC that is that
the members of the Enlarged Board might be suspected of
partiality by a party.

10. In the light of this the Enlarged Board considers that
it has to address the issue under Article 4(1) RPEBA,
that is whether any members of the Enlarged Board in
its current composition consider that because of the
amendments made to Article 95(3) ServRegs, they should
not take part in this procedure as they no longer
consider themselves to be impartial and independent in
their decision making.

11. The Enlarged Board notes that the amendment to
Article 95(3) ServRegs was decided upon by the AC in
its December 2015 meeting, during the course of this
series of proceedings. With this amendment it cannot be
excluded that the suspension of the Respondent will
continue to the end of his present five year term. The
Enlarged Board further notes that this is possible
because the period of suspension has been raised from 4
to 24 months specifically for board members, and it can

now be extended by the AC in “exceptional cases”. A
limit to this extension is not given, and no guidance
as to what may constitute exceptional circumstances is
provided.

12. This amendment of Article 95(3) ServRegs therefore
gives the possibility, de facto, to the AC to remove a
member of the Boards of Appeal from office without
following the procedure in Article 23(1) EPC.

13. At the time this issue was raised in these proceedings,
during the May 2016 oral proceedings, the members of
the Enlarged Board, making their own individual
assessment of their situation, considered that the
threat to their judicial independence was a general,
abstract threat that would be present in all cases
before the boards, not just the present case. In fact,
taking it as a reason to exclude oneself would
necessarily imply that one could neither sit on any
normal Board of Appeal case, nor on referrals,
including petitions for review, to the Enlarged Board.

14. This situation has now changed as a consequence of the
Office President’s letter of 10 June 2016, (see para
XXV above, and para 36 to 47 below).

15. The Respondent has also objected to the Enlarged Board
of Appeal being composed of members none of whom is
elected, (see facts and submissions, para XV, 2(c)).
Neither the European Patent Convention, nor the Rules
of Procedure of the Enlarged Board in Article 23(1) EPC
cases have constituted the Enlarged Board with elected
members. The Enlarged Board has already decided upon
this point in its decision in case Art. 23 1/15,

point 5.6 of the reasons. The Enlarged Board remains of
the same opinion in the present proceedings and adopts
the reasoning of that decision, without seeing any
necessity to repeat it here verbatim.

Admissibility issues

16. The Respondent has argued that the power delegated by
the AC to the Chairman of the AC to pursue this series
of proceedings was exhausted upon termination of the
proceedings in case Art. 23 2/15, when the Petitioner
withdrew its second request.

17. The Enlarged Board is of the view that the present
proceedings fall within the scope of the mandate of the
Chairman of the AC, which authorises him to act for the
AC until the AC’s final decision (see CA/D 14/15,
point 2).

Res judicata

18. The Respondent raised this issue in view of the
decision in case Art. 23 1/15. The Enlarged Board
considers that this case concerned procedural issues
rather than the actual “legal cause of action”. Hence
the doctrine of res judicata finds no application to
the present case.

Ne bis idem

19. The Respondent has raised this issue under two aspects.
The first aspect is that in the present case the
Respondent was the subject of the same allegations,
which were already decided upon in the earlier case

C10958 .DA

Art. 23 1/15 and which were withdrawn in case
Art. 23 2/15.

20. The Enlarged Board considers that the first decision is
a procedural decision not on the merits of the case.
The second proceedings did not even get to the stage of
the merits, as the Petitioner withdrew its request.
These circumstances cannot be assimilated to an
“acquittal” or “conviction”. In this respect, the
Enlarged Board concludes that the present case is not
hindered by the existence of these earlier proceedings.

21. The second aspect raised by the Respondent concerns the
question of further disciplinary sanctions based upon
the same facts as were considered sufficient by the
Enlarged Board for a removal from office, such as the
proposed dismissal. This is only of relevance if the
Enlarged Board were to make a request for removal from
office. As this is not the case, (see Order, point 1,
below), there is no need to deal with this second
aspect.

Article 12a(5) RPEBA

22. Article 12a(5) RPEBA provides that a request to the
Enlarged Board shall set out all the facts, arguments
and evidence relied on. The Respondent’s objections to
the admissibility of AC Request 3 are that this request
is still not sufficiently substantiated so that the
Respondent is not in a position to know which
allegations, facts and evidence it has to respond to.

23. In AC Request 3, the five allegations maintained by the
Petitioner in the first request and by the Petitioner’s

declaration at the oral proceedings in case
Art. 23 1/15, have been reduced to two.

24. In comparison to the first request, which was found
insufficiently substantiated, the Petitioner has made
in AC Request 3 a clearer distinction between facts,
evidence and arguments/conclusions, and has sought to
structure its request in a more logical manner. The
Enlarged Board is of the View that from AC Request 3 it
can discern what case the Petitioner is attempting to
make for the purposes of Article 12a(5) RPEBA.

25. The Petitioner stated in the oral proceedings held on
10 May 2016 (point 12 of the Minutes) that it did not
wish to pursue a request based on allegations 3, 4 and
5 that were present in its earlier requests. The
Petitioner has adopted the position that it is seeking
to remove the Respondent from office only upon the
basis of the two allegations that it has sought to
substantiate in these proceedings.

Request for summary termination

26. A summary termination of proceedings is only possible
in the light of manifest and substantial procedural
violations of such a nature as to lead to a serious
prejudice to the legal and procedural position of a
party.

27. The Respondent has argued that such violations are
present in this case due to the lack of a lawful basis
for the proceedings, the flawed composition of the DC,
its deficient opinion, the flawed disciplinary

procedure and the flawed investigative procedure as
initiated by the AC.

28. The Enlarged Board is of the View that these issues
rather go to the quality and reliability of the
evidence gathered against the Respondent. Hence they do
not lead the Enlarged Board to the conclusion that it
should summarily terminate the proceedings.

29. The Respondent has also argued that no fair procedure
is possible given the undermining of the presumption of
innocence in his favour due to the public airing of
what can be described as the “Nazi” allegations, both
in the statement of the Office President (CA/C 19/15)
to the AC (in direct contradiction with the findings of
the DC’s opinion at para 131 and 142), and the press
campaign of October 2015. This was aggravated by the
alleged influence improperly exerted on the Enlarged
Board (meetings of 5 and 8 December 2014 with
respectively the Principal Director of the IU and the
Office President) and the clear prior endorsement by
the AC of the flawed DC’s opinion.

30. As regards summary termination of the proceedings due
to the undermining of the presumption of innocence, the
Enlarged Board does not consider itself to be
prejudiced against the Respondent by these events.
These public disclosures and statements by high-ranking
EPO officials constitute part of the factual background
to this case. For the Enlarged Board, what counts is
the reliability of the evidence gathered against the
Respondent and of the credibility of the investigation
carried out by the IU. These issues fall to be dealt
with under the merits of this case and are not such as

to lead the Enlarged Board summarily to terminate these
proceedings.

Oral proceedings open to the public

31. According to Article 12a(9) RPEBA, unless and to the
extent that the Enlarged Board decides otherwise, the
proceedings shall not be public and shall be
confidential.

32. The Respondent himself requested that the oral
proceedings relating to the substantive merits of the
case be public.

33. The reason why the Respondent requests to have the oral
proceedings open to the public is because the
confidentiality of the proceedings has already been
breached by the Office. Public oral proceedings give
him the opportunity to explain his case and defend his
reputation.

34. The confidentiality of proceedings tends to protect the
interest of the persons concerned as well as the
Office’s interest. The Enlarged Board therefore also
has to consider whether it would be contrary to the
interest of the Office and the Organisation and the
employees in question to have the oral proceedings in
this matter open to the public.

35. Given the history of the case, in particular the fact
that the Office sought publicity for its point of view
on the matter, the Enlarged Board is of the opinion
that it is also in the interests of the Office and the
Organisation to have transparent proceedings. It should

be avoided that the proceedings are perceived by
objective observers as expedited proceedings based on
questionable or suspect evidence, in particular as
these proceedings involve the removal of a member of
the Boards of Appeal from judicial office. In any case,
the Enlarged Board reserved to itself the power to
exclude the public from the oral proceedings, whenever
the nature of the debate made it necessary, which
corresponds to the “extent that the Enlarged Board
decides otherwise” provision of Article 12a(9) RPEBA.

THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE ENLARGED BOARD AND THE OFFICE

PRESIDENT’S LETTER OF 10 JUNE 2016

36. In his letter of 10 June 2016 (see quotations in
point XXVI. above), the Office President expressed his
View that the Enlarged Board’s decision to hold public
oral proceedings was unlawful. He further elaborated
that the Enlarged Board does not have the competence to
determine the facts in these proceedings. Finally, he
indicated that he would not hesitate to take any
appropriate steps available to him to ensure the
orderly running of the Office and the safety of its
employees in respect of the present case.

37. The making of an unlawful decision is clearly
misconduct. Hence the general, abstract threat to the
independence of the Enlarged Board resulting from the
amendment of Article 95(3) ServRegs (see para 8 to 13
above) has now crystallised as a result of the Office
President’s procedurally irregular intervention in
these proceedings.

38. As the present case has shown, the Office President
assumes the power to investigate and to suspend members
of the Boards of Appeal and bar them from the Office.

39. In addition, he may also propose any other disciplinary
measures to the AC, pursuant to Article lO(2)(h)EPC.

40. Thus, in the presence of these facts, ascertainable by
any objective observer, all present members of the
Enlarged Board find themselves threatened with
disciplinary measures if they continue with these
proceedings in the presence of the public, and seek to
determine the facts of this case. This undermines the
fundamental principle of judicial independence as set
out in Article 23(3) EPC. Thus the conditions of
Article 23(3) EPC are not fulfilled, unless the AC as
appointing and disciplinary authority for all members
of the Enlarged Board, including its external members,
distances itself from this position of the Office
President.

41. After having been given time during the in camera
conference held on 14 June 2016 to reflect upon this
situation, the Chairman of the AC made the following
remarks in writing concerning the Office President’s
letter and enclosure of 10 June 2016:

Such a communication does not emanate from a party to
the proceedings. In View of the fact that the
Administrative Council is only represented in the
proceedings pursuant to Article 12a(2) of the rules
of procedure of the EBA, it cannot take position on a
communication from the Executive Head of the Office.

In this respect, and as per Article 23(3) EPC, the
EBA members are not bound by any instruction but must
abide by the provisions of the EPC. This cannot be
prejudicial to them, bearing in mind that the Council
is the sole competent disciplinary authority for
them…”

42. The Petitioner in this case is the AC. The AC is the
appointing and disciplinary authority for the Office
President (the highest ranking appointee of the AC), as
well as for the members of the Enlarged Board, (the
highest judicial authority of the EPO). The Petitioner
thus has an institutional obligation to clarify whether
it endorses or not the Office President’s position as
set out in his letter of 10 June 2016 and referred to
above.

43. For the Enlarged Board to be able to continue with
these proceedings the position of the Petitioner would
have to be that it did not agree with the Office
President and acknowledged that, from an institutional
point of View, the pressure exercised by the Office
President in the present case was incompatible with the
judicial independence of the Enlarged Board guaranteed
by the EPC. As the Petitioner did not clearly distance
itself from the Office President’s position, there is
the threat of disciplinary measures against the members
of the Enlarged Board. It is then the Enlarged Board’s
judicial independence in deciding on this case which is
fundamentally denied.

44. As can be derived from the statement of the Chairman of
the AC, there was no clear and unequivocal declaration

that the AC distanced itself from (or did not share)
the Office President’s position. In such a situation,
the Enlarged Board cannot legally continue with these
proceedings. As a consequence it cannot make a proposal
to the Petitioner to remove the Respondent from office.

45. Thus to summarise, the Enlarged Board was reduced to
the following alternatives:

either,
to take an “unlawful decision”;

or,
to take a “lawful decision” according to the
demands of the Office President, i.e. setting
aside its decision on the public oral proceedings
and taking as granted the facts established in the
IU Report and/or the DC’s opinion.

46. In either case, the respective decision would be
inherently vitiated because it would have been made
under pressure from the executive and without the
serenity and independence needed for a fair trial.

47. The intervention of the Office President, and this
intervention alone, prevented the Enlarged Board from
continuing the proceedings as had been planned, (see
above points XVI to XXI), from examining the case on
its substantive merits as put forward by the Petitioner,
and from establishing whether serious grounds for the
removal from office of the Respondent existed in
accordance with Article 23(1) EPC.

Respondent’s request that this decision deal with certain

issues by way of obiter comments

48. In its letter of 24 November 2015 the Respondent set
out nine requests which it has repeated mutatis
mutandis in the present proceedings.

49. These requests may be divided into four categories.
Category 1: Requests that are now without purpose
Request II, that the request that initiated the current
proceedings be withdrawn.

As the Enlarged Board will not make a proposal to the
AC for the removal from office of the Respondent, this
request is now without purpose.

Category 2: Requests that fall outside of the
competence of the Enlarged Board in these proceedings
Request IV, that the house ban be rescinded.

The Office President, who decided upon the house ban,
is not a party to these proceedings. The Enlarged Board
does not have a respective jurisdiction over him, nor
is the house ban itself a subject of these proceedings.
Request VI, that the Respondent be reinstated with
immediate effect as a member of the Boards of Appeal;
and

Request VII, that the Enlarged Board make a legally
binding order to the effect that the investigation and
disciplinary procedures, and the procedures before the

Enlarged Board with reference numbers Art. 23 1/15 and
2/15 shall constitute no obstacle for reappointment
following the current appointment period which expires
on 31 December 2017. Further that all documents
associated with the aforementioned procedures shall be
removed from the Respondent’s personnel file.
The Petitioner is the appointing authority for the
members and chairmen of the Boards of Appeal. Its
exercise of this authority is outside the competence of
the Enlarged Board and is beyond the scope of these
proceedings.
Request IX, that an award of moral and or exemplary
damages shall be made, in the amount of at least one
gross annual salary.
The Enlarged Board does not have the power to order
such an award.
Category 3: Independence of Enlarged Board proceedings
from disciplinary proceedings
The Enlarged Board cannot grant the following requests
of the Respondent because of the present proceedings
being independent from any disciplinary proceedings
(Article 12a(8) RPEBA):
Request I, that the disciplinary procedure D 1/15
before the AC is to be terminated without prejudice to
the Respondent; and
Request III, that the suspension be lifted; and

Request V, that all withheld components of remuneration
are to be repaid with interest.

Category 4: Requests that the Enlarged Board may deal
with

Request VIII, that all costs of the proceedings, in
particular the cost of legal representation shall be
borne by the EPO. For this request, see below.

Request for reimbursement of costs

50. The Petitioner referred to Article 12a(10) RPEBA and
stated that it would leave it to the Enlarged Board to
decide on this matter.

51. Pursuant to Article 12a(10) RPEBA, the Enlarged Board
may on request propose the reimbursement of some or all
of the costs incurred in the proceedings by the
Respondent if the request to make a proposal for
removal from office has been rejected.

52. The Enlarged Board has decided not to make a proposal
for removal from office of the Respondent; therefore
reimbursement is proposed.

Request for publication

53. The Respondent contended that public declarations have
been made in the press that are detrimental to him. In
order to offset that, he requested the publication of
the present decision.

54. According to Article 18(3) RPEBA, the final decision of
the Enlarged Board in proceedings under Article 23(1),
first sentence, EPC, may be published, due regard being
taken of the confidentiality of the proceedings.

55. In the present case the Enlarged Board has made a final
decision that it does not make a proposal for removal
from office of the respondent.

56. The decision is to be published.

Order
For these reasons it is decided that:

1. The Enlarged Board of Appeal does not make a proposal
for removal from office of the Respondent.

2. Reimbursement of all costs incurred by the Respondent
in the present proceedings before the Enlarged Board of
Appeal is proposed.

3. The decision in case Art. 23 1/16 is to be published.

The Registrar:

N. Crasborn

The Chairman:

M.-B. Tardo-Dino

The above was the result of quick and dirty OCR. We should stress strongly that for accuracy readers must look at the original PDF and bear in mind that this ‘masterpiece’ might force the dismissal or resignation of Battistelli, unless he has the skin of an elephant and enough ‘brought’ delegates in his pocket (like Clinton with her biased/corruptible superdelegates).

Update: While still working on the text some people told us that IP Kat had published a portion of the text (not highlighted in yellow above) and added these remarks about the original: “Merpel has now got her paws on several copies of the Enlarged Board of Appeal’s decision in the latest round of the “House Ban” disciplinary action (reported here). If you like your IP decisions to be explosive, then she can’t recommend it highly enough. The case reference is Art. 23 1/16, incidentally.

“Readers can access the document here. It arrived in several copies today thanks to a number of correspondents who would no doubt prefer not to be identified, for reasons of modesty and career security. The decision is marked for “Publication in OJ”, but the Board notes with admirable deadpan that its orders in the two earlier sets of proceedings, to publish those earlier decisions “have not yet been executed by the competent authorities of the Office.”

“It was already known that this third set of proceedings collapsed due to what was seen as an improper intervention by Mr Battistelli, the EPO President, regarding a decision by the EBA to hold oral proceedings in public, and that this was aggravated by the fact that the Administrative Council refused to distance itself from the actions of Mr Battistelli. Bear in mind, in what follows, that Mr Battistelli was not party to these proceedings, which were instigated by the Administrative Council (“Petitioner”) and the only other party was the impugned Board Member (“Respondent”).”

Her concluding words are that “some AC delegates will not be fans of this decision (this being their third rebuff from the Enlarged Board in relation to a single disciplinary matter). Bear in mind that the AC was already given the opportunity to distance itself once from Mr Battistelli’s actions and did not do so, or at least not unambiguously. One must assume that Mr Battistelli still enjoys the love and support of at least a faction within the AC (though Merpel hears that the faction shrinks at each meeting…).”

Well, see the above about Albania, which is one among many (we gave other possible examples in the past). We urge readers to contact their representatives and German readers to contact Heiko Maas.

Fake Patents on Software From Fake Australian ‘Inventor’ of Bitcoin and the Globally-Contagious Nature of EPO Patent Scope

Thursday 23rd of June 2016 06:26:43 PM

Laws can ‘hop’ from one continent to another

Summary: News from Australia regarding software patents that should not be granted and how patent lawyers from Australia rely on European patent law (EPO and UK-IPO) for guidance on patent scope

THE following remarkable article by Mike Masnick (of TechDirt) is titled “Fake Satoshi Nakamoto Trying To Patent All Sorts Of Bitcoin Related Ideas” and it speaks of one of many charlatans who claim to have invented Bitcoin. Masnick has already written a great deal about other fake inventors, notably regarding E-mail. “Earlier this week,” Masnick wrote, “I got knocked out by some pretty serious food poisoning. The few times I would try to do some work or pop in on Twitter, all I was seeing was people mocking the London Review of Books’ somewhat insane 35,000-word-long profile of Craig Wright, the guy who earlier this year claimed to be the real Satoshi Nakamoto. While he even convinced Gavin Andresen (the guy who really turned Nakamoto’s original work into actual Bitcoin), many others quickly pointed out that Wright’s “proof” appeared to be a giant scam. Why write a 35,000-word profile on a guy who isn’t Satoshi Nakamoto? I don’t know, but thankfully the food poisoning and the few snarky tweets I saw saved me from digging into the entire thing and wasting an afternoon. Fusion posted a much shorter summary of the piece, in case you’re wondering.”

Watch how corporate media repeats these lies about this Australian poser who claims to have invented Bitcoin and now wants a monopoly on it. To quote Reuters: “Craig Wright, the Australian who claimed to be the inventor of bitcoin, is attempting to build a large patent portfolio around the digital currency and technology underpinning it, according to associates of his and documents reviewed by Reuters.

“Watch how corporate media repeats these lies about this Australian poser who claims to have invented Bitcoin and now wants a monopoly on it.”“Since February, Wright has filed more than 50 patent applications in Britain through Antigua-registered EITC Holdings Ltd, which a source close to the company confirmed was connected to Wright, government records show.”

Well, these are basically software patents (like those which USPTO is still happy to accept, unlike courts) and they are assigned not to an original inventor but somewhat of a scammer, who ‘stole’ attribution. What has the world sunk to?

Sadly, Australia’s fascination with software patents is becoming a real problem and in the face of a Commission's report against software patents in Australia parasitic firms like Shelston IP and AJ Park started somewhat of a lobbying campaign. Yet another lawyers’ firm, Phillips Ormonde Fitzpatrick, has just published “Full Court looks into Best Method requirements” where it says “attacks against patents for lack of best method have been relatively rare.”

“Sadly, Australia’s fascination with software patents is becoming a real problem and in the face of a Commission’s report against software patents in Australia parasitic firms like Shelston IP and AJ Park started somewhat of a lobbying campaign.”Well, it’s patents that attack. They are still using misleading language where those who pursue sane patent policy (or patent quality) are “attacking”. Lawyers’ reversal of the narrative is rather typical. The article from Malcolm Bell says: “The trial Judge had held that Servier had failed to describe the best method known to it in performing the invention where it described only the general method of salification rather than any specific method. Such specific methods include the 1986 or 1991 methods which would have provided the reader with information as to a method that met the characteristics of the claimed invention. The Full Court held that Servier had not shown that the trial Judge was wrong.”

That last part frames the situation as one where the judge is right or wrong, almost as though the Full Court is an ultimate arbiter that can just discredit ‘unwanted’ decisions. Phillips Ormonde Fitzpatrick published this marketing piece and also — on the very same day in fact — published “Software patents in Australia: where to from here?”

“They are still using misleading language where those who pursue sane patent policy (or patent quality) are “attacking”.”So the mask comes off. They’re among the lobbyists for software patents, probably alongside Shelston IP and AJ Park. In principle, software patents are out of scope; moreover “[i]n May 2016,” to quote the above, “The High Court of Australia dismissed an application for special leave to appeal the RPL Central decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The Full Federal Court found that RPL Central’s invention was not patentable as it was simply a scheme or idea implemented on a generic computer, using standard software and hardware.”

So both the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia decided that software patents are invalid. Who would the lawyers thus lean on? The USPTO, where Alice crushes software patents on a daily or weekly basis? No, the EPO. Under the section “Moving closer to Europe” it says: “The Full Court looked to the UK Aerotel decision in determining that a claimed invention must make a ‘technical contribution’. Recently received Examination Reports appear to indicate that the Australian Patent Office is applying a European style ‘technical contribution’ approach to patentability, albeit in a less structured manner than is the case before the UK Patent Office or the EPO.”

“So both the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia decided that software patents are invalid.”Surely this helps remind us of the dangers posed by Battistelli's race to the bottom when it comes to patent quality. Software patents are being granted in Europe under pressure (if not collusion) from companies like Microsoft and this can have a knock-on effect far away from Europe, maybe even in New Zealand and in India where loopholes for software patenting are eerily similar to those which exist in Europe (Brimelow’s bad legacy).

Patent Lawyers Love (and Amplify) Halo and Enfish, Omit or Dismiss Cuozzo and Alice

Thursday 23rd of June 2016 05:32:43 PM

Lobbying or marketing dressed up as ‘analyses’


Reference: Selective perception

Summary: By misinterpreting the current situation with respect to software patents and misusing terms like “innovation” patent lawyers and others in the patent microcosm hope to convince the public (or potential clients) that nothing in effect has changed and software patents are all fine and dandy

THE USPTO gradually moves away from software patents, whereas the EPO moves closer to them. That’s quite a twist and an unexpected development, but that’s where we are today.

Two days ago we wrote about the Cuozzo decision. We are very pleased as it is another major blow to software patents. Patent lawyers’ sites are still talking about it, but not so much (interest has been lost exponentially). Patently-O, for example, says about another case that “Chief Judge Prost likely held the decision release to await the Cuozzo affirmance that implicitly supports the court’s ruling here.”

“In a nutshell, PTAB survives and all those cranky patent lawyers who compared it to a “death squad” will have to find another lobbying strategy.”Cuozzo coverage from MIP’s Natalie Rahhal said that the “Supreme Court’s decision in Cuozzo v Lee maintains the different standards for claim construction used in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and the district courts. The ruling indicates that the Court believes the USPTO is performing its inter partes reviews (IPR) in accordance with the America Invents Act (AIA).”

In a nutshell, PTAB survives and all those cranky patent lawyers who compared it to a “death squad” will have to find another lobbying strategy. TechDirt wrote about the decision as follows:

Supreme Court Says, Yes, The Patent Office Can Review Crappy Patents Using Broad Standards

Last week, the Supreme Court made life a little easier for patent trolls, and this week it made life a little harder. At issue was just how the Patent Office could review patents after they were granted. The last round of patent reform, the America Invents Act in 2010, included something called Inter Partes Review (IPR) that allows anyone to basically challenge a bad patent, presenting specific evidence that it shouldn’t have been granted due to prior art. A special board at the Patent Office, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), can then decide to review the patent if it decides that there’s a “reasonable likelihood” that it will invalidate some of the patent claims due to the submitted evidence.

In the case that went to the Supreme Court, Cuozzo Speed Technologies was upset that the PTAB knocked out some patent claims on a patent it held after Garmin filed an IPR effort with the Patent Office, claiming that one of the claims in a Cuozzo patent was invalid thanks to prior art. The PTAB knocked out three claims from the patent, saying that two other claims were equally impacted from the prior art. Cuozzo appealed to the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on two points: first it was upset that the PTAB reviewed three claims when Garmin really focused on just one. And, second, it was upset that the PTAB used “the broadest reasonable construction” of the claims rather than the “ordinary meaning as understood by a person of skill in the art.” CAFC sided with the PTAB, saying that the law says that you can’t appeal what PTAB chooses to review, and that the standard it used was perfectly reasonable.

There is not much coverage of this from pro-software patents people, as one might expect. It’s that propaganda by omission as we noted here before. More than a month after Enfish Arent Fox LLP publishes “Enfish Database Case Brings New Twist in Software Patentability Saga” (no, not really). Growing desperate there for good news, don’t they? Enfish is old news and it was quickly contradicted by the very same court only a few days later.

“There is not much coverage of this from pro-software patents people, as one might expect. It’s that propaganda by omission as we noted here before.”Here is IP Kat‘s very latest on SCOTUS. It mentions the Halo case (pro-patent trolls) and says: “Is the U.S. Supreme Court pro-patent or anti-patent? One of my favorite books on patent reform is by economists Adam B. Jaffe and Josh Lerner titled, “Innovation and its Discontents: How Our Broken Patent System is Endangering Innovation and Progress and What to do About It,” published in 2004 by Princeton University Press. One of the insights from the book is the recognition of how patent legal protection moves like a pendulum throughout history. Notably, we tend to swing either too far in favor of protection or too far away from protection. We have trouble finding the middle way. On June 13, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court in Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics and Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer (Halo) made it easier to obtain enhanced damages for willful infringement in patent infringement cases.”

It’s not a bad post actually and a comment on the above says: There is a clear common theme among most of the patent cases decided by the US Supreme Court in the last couple of years: the CAFC should stop laying down hard-and-fast rules for judging inventive step, patent-eligibility, damages, attorney fees, injunctions, etc. etc. etc. If there is a connection with fear for patent trolls, it is probably that inflexible rules create too many opportunities for abuse.”

“Funny how they mostly evade cases that are not — shall we say — so “convenient” to patent lawyers…”In this particular case not patent scope but the scope of damages was at stake. Those quite likely to benefit from this decision are patent trolls, which most often use patents on software (hence the relevance to patent scope too). IP Kat has also just published this
analysis from Taly Dvorkis (Allen & Overy LLP). It’s about the Halo case as well. Funny how they mostly evade cases that are not — shall we say — so “convenient” to patent lawyers… this particular analysis was posted by a Bristows employee and longtime proponent of software patents, the UPC, etc.

To be frank, my feelings towards IP Kat soured recently, especially in light of the censorship. It’s not about my particular comment but about input I receive about other people whose comments too are being censored, presumably for not concurring with the ‘party line’ (I have repeatedly asked IP Kat on what basis my comment was deleted and I am still waiting for a response, probably in vain). The worst situation is one where people like Merpel hardly write anymore and people from patent law firms write the lion’s share of the blog’s articles. “I’m fully aware of this,” told us someone from the EPO about IP Kat. “Unfortunately I have to agree with you and since Jeremy left the Kat their EPO reports leave a lot to be desired. Also the frequency of reporting (as you already mentioned in Techrights before) dropped remarkably. I suspect pressure from the Dark side…” (EPO management, which earlier this month banned IP Kat).

More in Tux Machines

More From Red Hat Summit

Android Leftovers

Ubuntu 16.10 Alpha 1 to Come Only in Ubuntu MATE, Ubuntu Kylin & Lubuntu Flavors

In only two days from the moment of writing this article, we will be able to get a very early taste of the upcoming Ubuntu 16.10 (Yakkety Yak) operating system, as the first Alpha build should be released, as planned, on June 30, 2016. Read more

Lenovo and Red Hat advance partnership with telco push

Two Triangle tech titans are teaming up to create cloud solutions for the changing telco space: Lenovo and Red Hat. It’s not their first collaboration, says Brian Connors, vice president of next generation IT and business development in Lenovo’s Research Triangle Park-based Data Center Group. Red Hat even invested in Lenovo’s RTP executive briefing center, where its technology is currently “displayed prominently as customers come in." Read more