Pseudoscience reigns supreme in Battistelli’s EPO
Summary: The EPO’s so-called ‘results’ get thoroughly debunked in an academic fashion (numerous independent analyses), leaving the EPO’s marketing department in a growing state of crisis and Battistelli incapable (or less capable) of convincing the Administrative Council (AC) that his iron-fisted, abuses-ridden regime ultimately paid off
A PATENT attorney, writing a blog post with some graphs he had produced, showed that the EPO was most likely "inventing" its so-called 'results' and figures. Soon thereafter, quite magically in fact, WIPO revisited its figures. How bizarre.
Well, based on some other research, from which figures have been produced, the EPO is lying to everyone about so-called ‘results’ in an effort to justify its many abuses. The thugs who (at least now) run the Office habitually like to paint it all as a compromise, or a toll taken due to a necessary ‘reform’.
“The EPO has been telling all who will listen in recent years that its processing of applications is getting ever more efficient,” wrote IP Kat‘s Merpel earlier today, “while quality is also improving. Given that quality is somewhat intangible and that the perception of different users on what constitutes quality can differ so much let’s leave that aside. Surely the efficiency claims can be verified beyond doubt?
“The thugs who (at least now) run the Office habitually like to paint it all as a compromise, or a toll taken due to a necessary ‘reform’.”“Alas, the hard data and analysis has been somewhat sparse, leaving Merpel and the world at large in the position of having to rely on the EPO’s figures and claims with little opportunity to put these to the test.
“A valued reader who goes by the nom de plume of Archibald Calculus has been doing some number crunching. He has taken raw data of various types from the EPO, tabulated it, graphed it, and tortured it mercilessly until it gave up its essential truths.
“Over the next few posts, Merpel will be passing on to her readers the results of Archibald’s invaluable analysis. Are pendency times improving measurably? Does an independent analysis back up the claims of efficiency made to the AC?”
This very long post, which contains many graphs, shows that the EPO’s claims are most likely false. We have been hearing this for quite some time from numerous sources inside the EPO, but now there are more data points to prove it.
“Does an independent analysis back up the claims of efficiency made to the AC?”
–MerpelTo quote just one bit, the EPO’s “practice of occasionally presenting median values for prosecution times, whether deliberate or not, hides this situation.”
On misleading statistics: “Information from the EPO on the duration of the procedure is rather piecemeal and seems confused as to what is being measured: mean, median, or proportion of files respecting some absolute criteria.”
Another bit says: “Despite the reassuring statements put out by almost all EPO Presidents in the last fifteen years including the present one, the delay to grant for European patents has worsened almost continually ever since the Office was founded.”
They are torturing statistics basically. Coming from PR people with massive outside help (lying to journalists and even to staff), this oughtn’t be so shocking. The only remaining question is, how long before yet another source shows (again) that the EPO’s ‘results’ are bunk, or simply propaganda?
Battistelli — like Lord Monckton (photographed above) — has no background in science, so it’s hardly surprising that he gleefully spits on science in an effort to advance his reckless agenda. How do the many scientists which the EPO employs feel about it? That’s like putting a person who denies human role in climate change in charge of NASA or CERN. █