3g dating agency blog adam lazzara dating chauntelle dupree
Also recall the following four posts: Is the EPO trying to become the troll’s office? What’s truly incredible is that the EPO is going in this direction as well (eliminating backlog while disregarding quality), in effect becoming more like INPI and maybe to a lesser degree SIPO (China). Should it be renamed the European Registration Office?Where patents are granted provided the text is legible enough and there’s no technical error in the submission?Battistelli does not like to leave people in peace.” Certainly not. We truly worry that the EPO may never recover from this (and rediscover its senses). The latest Patent Information News magazine (published and advertised by the the EPO this morning) is indicative of very serious brain drain.He and his Croatian ‘bulldog’ continue to bully Corcoran not only in a court in Munich but also in Croatia. Battistelli’s successor, whom Battistelli promoted behind closed doors, is another Frenchman who is a longtime colleague/friend of Battistell. They feel the need to look out and reach out for job seekers.Where actual judges are treated like a nuisance and defamed out the door?And some “so called judges” (Trump’s famous mockery of judges whom he disagrees with) like Battistelli are put in charge of UPC to make arbitrary decisions that are far from impartial? Kevin Drum from (pseudo-progressive site) has just done the same.
Earlier today the Wall Street media said that the company’s CEO “Chen is also working to strike new licensing deals for the stable of patents Black Berry has from its heyday as a smartphone pioneer.” It’s trying to become a software company now.
This magazine also promotes the “SME” PR nonsense and more famous lies.
EPO is essential for Europe’s competitiveness in the world.
█ Permalink Leave Your Comment Send this to a friend Summary: By conflating inventors with patent holders, or perpetuating the myth that patents are all about innovation rather than protectionism, various sites maintain a status quo of monopoly or oligopoly THE other day we saw IAM distorting some new study for its own purposes (IAM promotes patent trolls and so-called ‘monetisation’). The underlying message (or take-home message) is that the patent system is a system for (and by) rich people. Many people frankly admit and accept that patents are a rich people’s game of protectionism and not about innovation at all. The same is true for Microsoft, which pursued patents on a dual-screen foldable tablet — something I saw many years ago [1, 2, 3, 4]. Are the examiners at the USPTO eager to please a “frequent customer”? “The blockchain,” explains the report from CNBC, “the digital ledger system that underlies the boom in cryptocurrencies like bitcoin, is an innovation born within the open-source software community, where software coders pride themselves on the sharing of information.
Sometimes it does just ‘happen’ to encourage some innovation (depending on the domain/discipline), but that’s not why patents exist these days, putting aside the genesis of this whole system. It doesn’t take more than a couple of Web searches to find prior art. But the blockchain’s open-source formative years may not stay that way.
Regarding the UPC, I was always against it not because of the word “unitary”, which is misleading anyway.