-- 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 Europe, Patents at 2:45 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Video download link | md5sum 3064c77ff4e97b5be8190db0941126d5EU Replacing EPO? Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 4.0
http://techrights.org/videos/euipo-patent-policy.webm
Summary: The European Union Intellectual [sic] Property [sic] Office (EUIPO) is intervening in patent policy, despite it having no authority in this domain; Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and FRAND (misnomer; every letter’s expansion would be a lie!) policy is being shaped to basically exclude Free software and the same is being done in the area of cyber-security (both in the EU and the US); in other words, the lobbyists try to bypass the market and just legislate software freedom out of existence/potency/shortlisting potential
FOR a number of weeks we’ve been chatting internally (E-mail, SSH, IRC) about a baffling new development, based on a leak of some proposal that’s due today. Some Microsoft lobbyists (e.g. Florian Müller) and Nokia kept mentioning this. So what on Earth is going on and who pulls the strings here?
> “This is an attack on Free software and open standards, yet the FSF, EFF, OSI and others kept quiet about it (they’ve had a month to catch up).”
The short story is, the EUIPO (EU) seems to be getting involved in patent policy, having already infected the EPO (António Campinos and his friends from EUIPO). Will the corruption of Benoît Battistelli be surpassed by Campinos? Is the EU covertly taking over the EPO? It’s hard to tell what exactly goes on here because a lot of things don’t make sense at all and the Unitary Patent does not even make any legal sense. It’s geared towards European software patents, even if they disguise this as “SEP” or “fair” (FRAND). This is an attack on Free software and open standards, yet the FSF, EFF, OSI and others kept quiet about it (they’ve had a month to catch up). Either they don’t know, don’t understand, or simply do not care.
In recent weeks I learned that USPTO alumni were getting involved; the names David Kappos and Andrei Iancu came up.
> “One worrying thing is that for a number of weeks already it seems like lobbyists hijacked the narrative; they infest the Web with their agenda and paid-for propaganda/biases/dogma on this issue.”
To me, personally, the most confusing part isn’t the interference from the US but from EUIPO, so we will try to reach out for any ideas about why EUIPO is even mentioned (unless Reuters messed up the facts and said EUIPO instead of EPO). There has not been much press coverage about this.
One worrying thing is that for a number of weeks already it seems like lobbyists hijacked the narrative; they infest the Web with their agenda and paid-for propaganda/biases/dogma on this issue. “I am really disappointed that Florian [Müller] sold out (again),” an associate remarked today. “The FRAND is one part but the patents and the EUIPO are the vehicle for the anti-FOSS FRAND attack.”
It doesn’t seem to be covered by NGOs or news outlets. “As far as I can tell,” the associate said, “only one newspaper in the whole world even mentioned it, so far.” (In India)
> “It doesn’t seem to be covered by NGOs or news outlets.”
“The “FRAND” is not the key problem there,” the associate explained, “though it is a secondary problem. The Economic Times article does not have any links to the legislative process and that is what needs to be in the spotlight to have any hope of preserving FOSS in the face of what’s going on at EUIPO.”
“The final proposal is set to be announced on 26 April 2023,” according to this page. That would be today. “This whole thing has been allowed to fly under the radar,” the associate added.
> “If someone can illuminate for us or simply explain how the EUIPO gets involved in all this, we’d be able to produce a more substantiated article.”
Reuters seems to be referring to the EUIPO as “eu patent body”; well, there is no “EU patent body”; the EPO predates the EU. Someone at FFII meanwhile complained that the EU now refers to the UPC like it’s a real thing that already operates. Are EU officials aware of what the UPC isn’t even legal? It sometimes seems like the EU is operating in a vacuum, reckless and careless about its own rules, never mind member states’ rules and constitutions.
If someone can illuminate for us or simply explain how the EUIPO gets involved in all this, we’d be able to produce a more substantiated article. The general media is failing to do its job and when it does ‘cover’ the subject it’s one-sided in favour of patent litigators, not EU residents. █
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 09:27:56 2024