-- Leo's gemini proxy
-- Connecting to gemini.techrights.org:1965...
-- Connected
-- Sending request
-- Meta line: 20 text/gemini;lang=en-GB
Gemini version available ♊︎
Posted in Courtroom, Deception, Europe, Law, Patents at 1:14 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Video download link | md5sum 1631eef05aeccd77eb568d24b2c3ffbdFixing the Patent Mess Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 4.0
http://techrights.org/videos/patent-js-and-upc.webm
Summary: The ‘sausage factory’ of Europe, which includes illegal and unconstitutional things like the Unified Patent Court (UPC, a Trojan horse for European software patents), needs more careful inspection and intervention; we urge readers to speak to their Members of European Parliament (MEPs) and national press/journalists
SOMEBODY has sent me this old patent on software, having noticed that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) continues to grant many ludicrous software patents in spite of 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the official site of the USPTO is impossible to use without JavaScript. The same is true for the EU’s (and the EC’s) site, where new policies are being discussed and have opened to input from the public (as of 2 days ago). The video above contains some personal comments on these issues, but it finally alludes to some discussions I was having lately (the past two months) with European politicians and journalists. They’re well aware of the UPC problems and they’re planning to do something about it. In today’s fourth video we’ll say some more things about the UPC, seeing that the EPO‘s official site says nonsense/lies about the situation, as usual.
> Image: Illegal. Not even ratified. Illegally 'ratified'; without majority required
As the publication deadline passed around a week ago it’s probably safe to share some correspondence related to that, subject to redaction:
>
>
> > Hi Roy,
>
> > Thanks so much for sharing your email address. I work for ██████████, Germany’s largest ████████ business magazine
>
> Yes, I am aware. ████████████ did good investigative work about the EPO (in the distant past).
>
> > In your posts you mention talking to politicians about the conflict of interest with technical judges at the UPC. Who is particularly outspoken about it? Would be great if it was someone from Germany…
>
> I suggest you speak to MEP █████: ██████ ██████
>
>
>
> > Also, you mention a lobby behind UPC. Who is behind that?
>
> The government of Germany, large multinational laws firms, and their biggest clients (international companies) that stand to benefit from litigation, monopoly, and insourcing the EU’s legal process to Germany. They not only crafted the UPC but also wish to make it the law. This, in turn, harms the EU’s reputation. I can provide links.
>
> > What do you make of Judge Grabinski’s announcement that they might come up with a set of rules around conflicts of interest? Can that be sufficient?
>
> He is himself part of the conflicts of interest. I’d not put much weight on what he says because the ministry he fronted for covered up EPO scandals. I can provide URLs.
>
> > Thanks so much, > My deadline is tomorrow.
>
> > Thank you so much, Roy. > > It would be great if you could send me links to both the lobby question, as well as Grabinski. > > Is there a politician in a more established party who is critical, too?
>
> Last year I spoke to Merkel’s coalition, but it’s “in bed” with the lobby and didn’t even want to ‘bother’ the EPO after it broke the law and also SLAPPed me (for publishing facts).
>
> Linking to one’s own writings is considered “self-promotion”, so I will instead refer you to: https://www.stjerna.de/restart/?lang=en
>
> I hope this is concise enough an explanation. Let me know if you need more.
>
> I wrote nearly 5000 posts/articles about the EPO and UPC: http://techrights.org/wiki/EPO
>
> Of relevance is this 20-part series: http://techrights.org/2021/04/16/bundestagate-part-20/
>
> Kind regards,
>
I’ve done my part and I hope European readers of Techrights will do the same. We need to work collectively, and mercilessly, to stop software patents. █
“The European Patent Office is an executive organisation, it deals especially with patent applicants, as such, its view of the world may be biased. As an executive organisation, its interpretative powers are very limited. The European Patent Convention excludes computer programs, it is outside the EPO’s power to change this. The exclusion of computer programs is a political question. [...] The core task of a computer is to process data. So at least the processing of data is not patentable.”
–Ante Wessels, FFII
Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Permalink > Image: Mail
Send this to a friend
----------
➮ Sharing is caring. Content is available under CC-BY-SA.
-- Response ended
-- Page fetched on Sat Jun 1 14:43:32 2024