How 'professional'... media repurposed as a shadow EPO platform

Summary: Another look at convergence between media and the EPO, which is spending virtually millions of Euros literally buying the media and ensuring that the EPO's abuses are scarcely covered (if ever mentioned at all)

THE previous post about the EPO bemoaned poor press coverage that merely propagated lies of the EPO. Stakeholders were not at all contacted as part of fact-checking. That's churnalism, not journalism.

"As rebutting/debunking the lies requires some basic knowledge of this system and also no professional loyalty to it, Techrights is often alone in responding to such misinformation."In this second part we plan to tackle some more of the same things and bring to light unexplored issues pertaining to the EPO under Benoît Battistelli.

AIPPI World Congress

James Nurton (aforementioned EPO 'stenographer' of sorts) attended the AIPPI World Congress and wrote a bunch of articles. As we don't think these relate directly to the UPC we won't dig into each one of these, but MIP (Managing IP, Nurton's employer) omitted disbelief that the UPC will become a reality from its reports, as we already noted the other day. Agenda by omission? Nokia, based on this new report from WIPR, shares this view on UPC disbelief. To quote:

The UK’s ratification of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Agreement is politically “very unlikely” at the moment, according to Nokia’s head of European litigation Clemens Heusch.

He was speaking in a session yesterday, September 20, at the 2016 AIPPI World Congress in Milan about the implications of Brexit on the UPC.

Heusch said that instead, negotiations were likely to play out over two years once article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty has been invoked.

Commenting on the negotiations, Heusch said it was essential for the UK to stay in the common market or some form of free trade agreement, so the talks will be a great chance to include the UPC.

Sadly though, on UPC among other topics, the IAM and MIP staff are just megaphones amplifying the EPO's liars like Margot Fröhlinger [1, 2, 3]. See IAM's "The UK risks losing current UPC goodwill if it dithers on ratification for much longer, warns Froehlinger". We already wrote about these appalling lies from Battistelli (alarmists for UPC), but it doesn't bother those who have an agenda to sell or drive. It would be rather saddening if people had actually read these sites and believed everything they say. As rebutting/debunking the lies requires some basic knowledge of this system and also no professional loyalty to it, Techrights is often alone in responding to such misinformation.

Puff Pieces Become the Norm

Going back to MIP, "Meet AIPPI’s first Chinese President" was published and an interesting discussion developed around this tweet. "Here's EPO and Managing IP in the same bed," I said. "Soon, another Battistelli puff piece (lies) [is going to come] from them (re "social")," I added, knowing what Nurton said in part 1 of a so-called Battistelli 'interview'. "I hope you'll consider fact-checking before publishing a piece which claims (outright lies) EPO staff is happy," I told them. "A lot of EPO staff are on the verge of suicide and deem it a nightmare to work there; many quit, life over money."

As one person put it, ""communications duets" are old-PR-style stuff - don't hv to declare ad interests on soc med."

One person (maybe an insider) said s/he was "waiting for the explosive amba interview."

"We are still waiting for a response from AMBA," MIP replied, so there has been no progress.

"Sadly though, on UPC among other topics, the IAM and MIP staff are just megaphones amplifying the EPO's liars like Margot Fröhlinger.""I would not be AT ALL surprised," I told them, "if they fear even replying (for fear or retribution); the contrary would shock me; You do a sterling job covering some issues, but please don't become another Battistelli ammo against EPO staff; you would not only be on the wrong side of history but also, to some degree, potential contributor to future suicides; in case you ever wonder why you made yourself 'the' story, it's because you picked a side, and it's the wrong side of history; Yes, journalism requires hearing the other side, even if not independent and still under fear from Battistelli."

So certainly it seems like MIP will continue to be Battistelli's platform, unless they change their mind after public criticism [1, 2, 3, 4]. Don't they know that AMBA is afraid? Therein lies the core of the story they should write.

Hardly Even Trying to Look Separable Anymore

"Thanks @ManagingIP," the EPO wrote, "for the highlights from the #AIPPI2016. See what the EPO President pointed out: http://www.managingip.com/Article/3586954/Read-the-highlights-from-the-AIPPI-World-Congress.html …"

It's like MIP is now cooperating with the EPO and watch the article the EPO cites, with an image of Battistelli (accompanied by his lies) on the right-hand side. We previously highlighted similar signs of cooperation/coordination between those two (part 1 of the interview).

"So certainly it seems like MIP will continue to be Battistelli's platform, unless they change their mind after public criticism."In the mean time, the EPO itself has just promoted (in Twitter) Battistelli's self-congratulatory puff piece (warning: this is a link to the EPO's site which they can use for tracking/harvesting IP addresses). The "EPO’s Early Certainty initiative" that Battistelli speaks of is basically a way of ensuring lowered patent quality, i.e. the very opposite of what the EPO needs.

Repeating anything Battistelli says, Annsley Merelle Ward from Bristows is still pushing/promoting the UPC for her employer, as usual [1, 2]. Here are the relevant parts of from what she published this morning: "The core theme running through EPO President Benoit Battistelli's address was the importance of quality and efficiency at the EPO in the face of an increasing quantity and complexity of applications. [...] Alongside these efforts, M. Battistelli described the "Early Certainty from Search (ECfS)" scheme which requires that all incoming searches are issued with written opinions within 6 months and for which the backlog of searches was cleared in mid 2016. Importantly, as of 1 July 2016, the Early Certainty scheme was expanded to cover examination and opposition as well. The aim is for timelines by 2020 of 6 months for a search and its opinion; 12 months on average for examination; and 15 months for a standard opposition."

Absolutely terrible. We shall say more about it some time soon (with accompanying documents). it's a rat race, or a race to the bottom.

"A lot of the IP-centric media -- rather than help expose the abuses of the EPO (Merpel is hardly active anymore) -- chose to play along with Team Battistelli.""Finally," she added, "M. Battistelli touched on the Unitary Patent (UP) and stressed his view that despite Brexit the UP will happen - it was just a question of when. If the UK ratifies (which he believes is legally and politically possible), the EPO expects to grant the first UP next year; otherwise it will be delayed several years as it will not be possible to launch the UP until after the UK has left the EU. In the Q&A session, in response to a question about his vision for 2025, he said (with only a touch of irony) that he hoped the UP would finally be a reality by then!"

Yes, that says 2025! Battistelli might be nearly 80 by then (and maybe deceased).

But anyway, never let a good opportunity to "build relationships" with the EPO, right? A lot of the IP-centric media -- rather than help expose the abuses of the EPO (Merpel is hardly active anymore) -- chose to play along with Team Battistelli. That's where the big money is. ⬆