tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post8780143409967329491..comments2024-03-29T06:00:27.896+00:00Comments on The IPKat: BREAKING NEWS: UK Government issues statement on EPOVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger87125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-30776350607098231512015-03-04T22:56:26.200+00:002015-03-04T22:56:26.200+00:00Ideally am examiner would just have 2 stamps - oui...<i>Ideally am examiner would just have 2 stamps - oui and non.</i><br /><br />This is quite literally the way the INPI functions!<br /><br />In fact, for a long time, the INPI wouldn't even use a stamp or check a box on a form to suggest that the applicant should take a stand on the EPO-issued search report, as this would have been akin to examination, which isn't foreseen in the CPI. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-44572359401725634572015-03-04T09:33:12.111+00:002015-03-04T09:33:12.111+00:00Of course the idea of PRP must be seen against the...Of course the idea of PRP must be seen against the background of BB's view of the world vis-a-vis technicians. Examining is seen as akin to normal office paperwork where applications are processed and decisions are taken. The rest is just a waste of time. Ideally am examiner would just have 2 stamps - oui and non. Any ideas of intellectual input is illusory. The real work is done by the bureaucrats at the top - the enatecs! Thus examiners are just a production line to be cranked up. Over time look for outsourcing and 'simplified' procedures.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-37593568761355410942015-03-04T06:56:18.157+00:002015-03-04T06:56:18.157+00:00Great post by Anonymous @ 14:12
Insightful and pl...Great post by Anonymous @ 14:12<br /><br />Insightful and pleasant, yet strongly disputes a point being used by others to create an emotional argument.<br /><br />Well stated. Very professional. Very compelling.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-23081954043823153712015-03-03T14:12:21.500+00:002015-03-03T14:12:21.500+00:00It probably wouldn't be to hard to argue that ...<i>It probably wouldn't be to hard to argue that it is precisely because the bonus component on the rewardable task becomes greater and greater - to the detriment of the unrewarded task - that a bonus culture is created, independent of whether this is due to competition for top talent or otherwise; </i><br /><br />You mean like a performance based pay system that puts an ever increasing emphasis on the easily measured, rewarded tasks (eg, production) over harder to measure, unrewarded tasks (eg, patent search/grant quality)? Particularly, when the rewards for production are not just bonuses, but also, as I understand it, steps-in-grades, and promotions. Basically, all prospects for advancement. Combine this with having nowhere else to go as previous Anonymous pointed out, and wouldn't this create the same overheating?<br /><br />And so the quote serves equally well as an admonition to those that would put a performance based pay system in place: Beware not to place too much emphasis on the easily measured, rewardable task. Otherwise, the same distorted decision-making will result.<br /><br />But let's not forget that the paper is just an economic model.<br /><br />For how real people actually perform on cognitive tasks with a bonus component, the Daniel Pink TED talk (thanks above for the link!) describes the research of, among others, Sam Glucksberg at Princeton University, which demonstrated how, on the so-called candle problem, performance actually drops in response to a bonus component! <br /><br />Mr Pink also discusses another study performed by researchers from MIT, the Chicago School of Business, and Carnegie Mellon University and funded by the Federal Reserve Bank's Research Center for Behavioral Economics and Decision‐Making. Their results demonstrated that for cognitive tasks, higher incentives lead to worse performance.<br /><br />Link <a href="http://www.bostonfed.org/economic/wp/wp2005/wp0511.pdf" rel="nofollow"> here </a><br /><br />Finally, one more quote from the talk: <br />"Economists at the London School of Economics looked at 51 studies of pay-for-performance plans, inside of companies. Here's what they said: 'We find that financial incentives can result in a negative impact on overall performance.'"<br /><br />Link <a href="http://www.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/news/archives/2009/06/performancepay.aspx" rel="nofollow">here</a><br /><br /><b>Let's face it, the research is clear: PRP that focuses on increased production is an outdated 20th century management dogma that works for manufactured products for which quality is easily assessed. It is unsuitable for highly-skilled, self-motivated knowledge-workers in the 21st century whose quality is not as easily assessed . There are more effective ways to achieve the same objectives. One just needs to read the research. Cutting-edge high-tech companies are already coming to this realisation. It's a shame that the EPO now moves in the opposite direction.</b>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-70097873873143243192015-03-01T16:10:58.076+00:002015-03-01T16:10:58.076+00:00Anonymous @ 12:32,
Very good points.
I agree, t...Anonymous @ 12:32,<br /><br />Very good points. <br /><br />I agree, the paper does not seem to be arguing either against bonuses or for them, per se. <br /><br />The paper's states that it attempts is to to resolve the "puzzle" of ostensibly poorer actual performance despite a greater and greater bonus component to compensation, which is "typically said" to be required in order to attract top talent. <br /><br />The model uses agents that perform two different tasks: 1) an easily measured task (e.g., total sales, unit production) that is rewarded by a performance component (bonus); and 2) a not so easily measured one that is not rewarded and relies entirely on intrinsic motivation (e.g., cooperation among individuals). <br /><br />As the bonus component becomes greater and greater -as a result of competition for top talent- as you said, the system overheats and leads to a bonus culture, with all of its ensuing problems.<br /><br />It probably wouldn't be to hard to argue that it is precisely because the bonus component on the rewardable task becomes greater and greater - to the detriment of the unrewarded task - that a bonus culture is created, independent of whether this is due to competition for top talent or otherwise; but, that is not what is specifically modelled in the paper.<br /><br /><b>However, have a look at the short TED talk on the motivation puzzle, which describes a fair amount of much simpler and easier-to-understand research that clearly demonstrates that on tasks requiring any real cognitive ability, bonuses have a markedly detrimental effect on performance. </b><br /><br />A transcript of the talk is <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation/transcript?language=en" rel="nofollow"> here</a><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-82752311608027053292015-03-01T13:09:42.123+00:002015-03-01T13:09:42.123+00:00Thanks to Anon Sunday 10:11 for the TED link.
Quot...Thanks to Anon Sunday 10:11 for the TED link.<br />Quote:<br />If you want people to perform better, you reward them, right? Bonuses, commissions, their own reality show. Incentivize them. … But that’s not happening here. You’ve got an incentive designed to sharpen thinking and accelerate creativity, and it does just the opposite. It dulls thinking and blocks creativity.<br /><br />BB is doing exactly the contrary with the blessing of the AC.<br /><br />By the way, the ex French army intelligence officer hired by the Human Resources department is responsible of the conflict resolution unit :)<br />One of her last move has been to prohibit the staff rep. advisers to be present and assist the staff during any line manager meeting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-5174246567097725162015-03-01T13:03:40.951+00:002015-03-01T13:03:40.951+00:00Great post by Anonymous @ 12:32.
Insightful and p...Great post by Anonymous @ 12:32.<br /><br />Insightful and pleasant, yet strongly disputes a point being used by others to create an emotional argument.<br /><br />Well stated. Very professional. Very compelling.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-59421545249263975882015-03-01T12:32:18.314+00:002015-03-01T12:32:18.314+00:00Jean Tirole, whose latest research has found that ...<i>Jean Tirole, whose latest research has found that "a bonus culture takes over the workplace, generating distorted decisions and significant efficiency losses, particularly in the long run".</i><br /><br />Earlier there was a link to the Guardian newspaper about this. The Guardian provided a link to Tirole's published paper, from which this quote comes.<br /><br />It's a highly technical paper, and I'm not an economist. But my impression is that Tirole is not saying that <b>all</b> bonus systems lead to distorted decisions and significant efficiency losses.<br /><br />Rather, he is examining the case where there is intense competition between different employers, who then use bonus systems to attract and retain talented staff. The topical example would be bankers' bonuses.<br /><br />I may have misunderstood the technical argument, but I think Tirole is saying that in such a situation, the bonus systems may overheat. It is that overheating which leads to a "bonus culture", and to distorted decisions and significant efficiency losses. Not the basic concept of bonuses.<br /><br />I don't think the EPO is in the same competitive situation to attract and retain staff. Indeed, some of the examiners here explain their fear that if Battistelli fires them, then they have nowhere else to go.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-13546287059840353772015-03-01T11:59:12.189+00:002015-03-01T11:59:12.189+00:00This in reply to those who have kindly responded t...This in reply to those who have kindly responded to my earlier postings on the issue of how important early grant is, in a world where divisionals are kept pending throughout the 20 year term.<br /><br />As I see it, FTO is an ongoing process. I assess the WO publication, then monitor the progress of those divisionals. What do you do?<br /><br />In stent patents, for example, I see cases going to fourth and fifth generations of divisionals. This was the background to my comment about pharma, where the time frames are longer. Does my interlocutor monitor the progress of the divisionals, I wonder. If so, why?<br /><br />MaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-18045071711057315132015-03-01T10:11:48.371+00:002015-03-01T10:11:48.371+00:00Anonymous at 25 Feb 20:31 said:
This approach co...<i> Anonymous at 25 Feb 20:31 said: <br /><br />This approach completely ignores the work of the <b> Nobel prize winning french economist, Jean Tirole,</b> whose latest research has found that <b> "a bonus culture takes over the workplace, generating distorted decisions and significant efficiency losses, particularly in the long run". </b><br /></i><br /><br />It is indeed a terrible shame to see such a huge disconnect between what science knows and what the organisation does, particularly in a public service organisation whose purported purpose is to promote technical innovation.<br /><br />To anyone who still believes that bonuses improve performance should have a look at this TED talk:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation#t-160980" rel="nofollow"> TED talk: The Puzzle of Motivation</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-57269983956552773712015-02-27T14:31:33.188+00:002015-02-27T14:31:33.188+00:00Must have been a heavy session last for Professor ...Must have been a heavy session last for Professor Dry.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-42769962408071924922015-02-27T10:29:31.110+00:002015-02-27T10:29:31.110+00:00p.s. In pharma we have our own searches conducted ...p.s. In pharma we have our own searches conducted and make our own assessment of what may be granted on a pending case. We even come to our own position on the validity of a granted patent. A view of an examiner may be helpful because they have done some of the preliminary legwork, but it is not relied upon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-62084801334223031992015-02-27T10:26:56.055+00:002015-02-27T10:26:56.055+00:009:25, it is very good of you to stand in for Max w...9:25, it is very good of you to stand in for Max while we wait for him to wake/sober up. However, he needs a better attorney.<br /><br />Max stated that FTO work in pharma comes after clinical trials. This is simply incorrect. I work in pharma and know it to be incorrect. I stated so. Max chose to attack in such a vicious way that I felt insulted and wondered how I'd managed to waste 30 years of my life. I lie awake at night wondering if I should go on or admit to being a fraud. His use of "NOW" was so hurtful I am thinking the worst of thoughts. I have even been to my doctor and advised him that I'm thinking of applying to be an EPO examiner.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-36307660518584231682015-02-27T09:25:49.049+00:002015-02-27T09:25:49.049+00:00Anon 22:03,
While Max might be along later, I will...Anon 22:03,<br />While Max might be along later, I will comment in the meantime. His point was not really about obtaining rapid grant of his patents. In performing his FTO work (in the mechanical arts, mainly) he wishes to use the results of a good search report to assess what the likely patent might look like. The attached commentary from the examiner is largely useless. Accordingly, in order to provide a service to both the applicant and the public, a high quality search is of paramount interest. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-32398255275816115362015-02-26T22:03:23.648+00:002015-02-26T22:03:23.648+00:00Max,
a supercilious attitude can be embarrassing w...Max,<br />a supercilious attitude can be embarrassing when you are wrong.<br /><br />I referred to FTO, as you did. FTO means freedom to operate (did you know that), which involves assessing third party patents (did you know that?). It has nothing to do with obtaining rapid grant of one's own patents (I know you didn't know that). I would explain the the importance of performing an FTO assessment prior to spending many millions of dollars on clinical trials, but I'm afraid Im not so good at dumbing things down.<br /><br />To anon at 12:42, you are talking nonsense.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-55940635708817935032015-02-26T20:03:48.929+00:002015-02-26T20:03:48.929+00:00"1. What, for the UK, are the big issues at t...<i>"1. What, for the UK, are the big issues at the EPO that you see, especially in terms of the staff's working conditions, as being a risk for the long-term future of the Office?<br /><br />2. What aspects of the issues in your answer to the first question made it worth taking the risk of breaching international law (such as the European Convention on Human Rights) when you voted in the Council?" </i><br /><br />This is purely anecdotal and nothing more than hearsay but there was a rumour doing the rounds a while ago that the UK delegation had been listening to examiners' gripes back around 2011 or so and was lending an apparently not totally unsympathetic ear. <br /><br />Then one fine day - so it is rumoured - one of the delegates mentioned something about a nice little "cooperation project" and let it be understood that this meant that it was unlikely that they would be mounting any serious opposition to the President's "reform plans".<br /><br />As I say, nothing more than anecdote and hearsay. Perhaps someone else knows something more concrete ? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-29739074853175892142015-02-26T18:18:50.208+00:002015-02-26T18:18:50.208+00:00Excellent questions, Anonymous @ 17:09. I sincere...Excellent questions, Anonymous @ 17:09. I sincerely hope that an answer is forthcoming.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-62605985617943962122015-02-26T17:09:44.645+00:002015-02-26T17:09:44.645+00:00To go back to the core subject of this thread, I w...To go back to the core subject of this thread, I would have just two questions to Messrs Alty and Dennehey:<br /><br />1. What, for the UK, are the big issues at the EPO that you see, especially in terms of the staff's working conditions, as being a risk for the long-term future of the Office?<br /><br />2. What aspects of the issues in your answer to the first question made it worth taking the risk of breaching international law (such as the European Convention on Human Rights) when you voted in the Council?<br /><br />I apologise if these questions sound a bit loaded, that's not my intention. My hope is that we can have some openness on the Council delegations' thinking, so we can understand better the steps they have taken. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-12615520394412309752015-02-26T12:42:55.504+00:002015-02-26T12:42:55.504+00:00MaxDrei's pejorative is further ill-constructe...MaxDrei's pejorative is further ill-constructed.<br /><br />"Ivory Tower" is a term for academics - not examiners. An examiner's work has the fires of post-grant litigation while an academics work suffers no "correcting" influences. It is the lack of correcting influences that leads to the pejorative of the associated disconnect from reality that plagues the academic community.<br /><br />That being noted, at least the attention is on the right item: Doing the [examining] job right the first time through.<br /><br />However - he also flags a MAJOR issue (that Anonymous @ 11:10 is quick to pick up): these applications in chem/bio/pharma <b>should ALL be rejected</b> for failing to possess the invention <b>at the time of filing</b>. <br /><br />The patent system is not an invitation to investigate - and only after years of additional work ascertain that you actually have the utility as claimed. You MUST have that utility (as in ALL other art fields) at the time of filing.<br /><br />Quite in fact, this pernicious warping of the patent system is most deleterious in these particular art fields, as the delay and extended protection (end of life term) is especially preyed upon in these industries. Other art fields advance more quickly and thus are less likely to suffer the abuse entailed by such "time shifting."<br /><br />So much attention these days is focused on "bad patents" in other areas (i.e., software and computational areas), and yet, the largest elephant of abuse goes unattended.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-23470385372485891352015-02-26T12:02:58.162+00:002015-02-26T12:02:58.162+00:00"Frankly, the opinion on obviousness of a lit..."Frankly, the opinion on obviousness of a little man in an ivory tower is for me not definitive. Better that this little man concentrates on a thoroughly good search and that his manager publishes the results as early as possible. Then, with strict application of Art 123(2) and (3) EPC, I can tell my client whether she is free to operate or not."<br /><br />Ah MaxDrei,<br /><br />has the little man refused your application for lack of inventive step?<br /><br />Surely you can ignore that.<br /><br />In any case, as many EPOnians have posted here and elsewhere the undergoing (career-)reforms at the EPO might decrease the overall quality of the examiners´ work and this would include the "thoroughly good search" you want the "little man in the ivory tower" to concentrate on.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-54535022942427359012015-02-26T11:59:52.726+00:002015-02-26T11:59:52.726+00:00One more thought on "expedious" granting...One more thought on "expedious" granting, perhaps for the commentator from inside pharma to give a reaction?<br /><br />All the expedition in the world cannot prevent applicants keeping something pending at the EPO till the end of the 20 year term, if they are willing to keep filing divisionals. The event of grant of the Grand-Daddy in the patent family is just the first grant event in an effectively endless sequence of prosecutions at the EPO, the outcome of which is only as predictable as practice of Art 123(2) determines.MaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-86513159412555523902015-02-26T11:53:54.333+00:002015-02-26T11:53:54.333+00:00Thanks for the reactions to my posting. Not mysel...Thanks for the reactions to my posting. Not myself being in-house pharma, I particularly welcome being put straight on why in-house pharma must have grant and have it NOW. <br /><br />As to my mention of the thought Experiment of the less than human "Little Man in the Machine", beloved of discussions of patent eligibility" sorry if it really does offend anybody. I wonder, though, where I got hold of the idea of the "Little Man". I think it must have been the incessant comparisons between Napoleon and the individual at the very top of the Ivory TowerMaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-34082975047292271172015-02-26T11:10:37.358+00:002015-02-26T11:10:37.358+00:00Max says "And how about chem/bio/pharma? Well...Max says "And how about chem/bio/pharma? Well in those fields the FTO work comes much much later, after clinical trials."<br /><br />I wish you'd posted this earlier max, it would have saved me a lot of work, but then I would have been unemployed for many years.<br /><br />In spite of the self-interest in not doing so, I am going to advise my employer today that it is okay to spend another £100 million on the next phase of development and we a run that little FTO search once we've proven the stuff works.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-38147653732040815822015-02-26T10:21:20.794+00:002015-02-26T10:21:20.794+00:00MaxDrei, please no need for pejorative terms like,...MaxDrei, please no need for pejorative terms like, "little man". Judging by the general quality of your comments, including this one - aside from the aforementioned term - you're too intelligent for that. And it may cause some to recoil from your otherwise very insightful remark.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-76000771203090954622015-02-26T08:45:58.986+00:002015-02-26T08:45:58.986+00:00I feel it necessary at this point to shoot down a ...I feel it necessary at this point to shoot down a canard that my own Government keeps on running, (whether in ignorance or mischief I don't know), namely, that the Be All and End All of "quality" is "expedious" (or even expeditious) grant. That, my dear civil servants, is tosh, and irrelevant. Grant Quality IS important though.<br /><br />How so? Well, in fast-moving engineering, innovators need from me a Freedom to Operate opinion as soon as the patent applications of their competitors emerge 18 months after their priority filing dates ie long before grant, even an expedious one. Frankly, the opinion on obviousness of a little man in an ivory tower is for me not definitive. Better that this little man concentrates on a thoroughly good search and that his manager publishes the results as early as possible. Then, with strict application of Art 123(2) and (3) EPC, I can tell my client whether she is free to operate or not.<br /><br />And how about chem/bio/pharma? Well in those fields the FTO work comes much much later, after clinical trials. The grant process can take all the time it needs.<br /><br />Let's give priority to what's important shall we? Top quality searches and, from DG3, holding fast to a firm but fair line on Art 123(2) EPC (however much that firmness upsets individual EPO customers, or indeed, EPO management).MaxDreinoreply@blogger.com