EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

02.21.17

Insensitivity at the EPO’s Management – Part VII: EPO Hypocrisy on Cancer and Lack of Feedback to and From ECPC

Posted in Europe, Patents at 7:46 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

ECPCSummary: The European Cancer Patient Coalition (ECPC), which calls itself “the largest European cancer patients’ umbrella organisation,” fails to fulfill its duties, says a source of ours, and the EPO makes things even worse

THE merciless EPO is one those things that, once you go further and delve even deeper, reveals much broader abuse which implicates more institutions. Not only European institutions are implicated but international ones too. 2 years ago we mentioned the ECPC's letter, which is still available online [PDF]. One can also access it from the link in this introductory page. We have already published the whole letter as text (mentioned in part 2), but one of our readers called it “another piece of information about the EPO and its bla bla mission, so caring about us citizens.”

“Our experience is not only about fighting cancer, but also about the absurd state of things in this branch of healthcare, the cancer and the many powerful industries connected.”
      –Anonymous
The EPO does not even care about its own workers, let alone citizens. One day we intend to show just how poorly if not arrogantly (inflammatory and indignant psychosis) the EPO treats workers with disabilities, illnesses, etc. It always leaves our jaw on the floor because in any other working place the employer would get sued for improper treatment (or mistreatment) of workers. Psychopathology at the EPO is what inflicts and now wholly dominates the management, not ordinary workers such as examiners. For the most part, examiners are the victims.

One of our readers was eager to share an old story which demonstrates just how bad experiences with the EPO’s management can be.

“At the time,” a reader told us, “I was struggling with my mother’s cancer, pancreatic cancer. The fight we went through is a chapter on its own and one day (hopefully soon) [when] I will find time and guts to publish it as a case study, since even if that terrible disease finally claimed my mother’s life, we could obtain some good results. Our experience is not only about fighting cancer, but also about the absurd state of things in this branch of healthcare, the cancer and the many powerful industries connected. Surprisingly, but now not really, EPO management jumped into this tragedy of my family, by exploiting (and in fact provenly aggravating) my nervous breakdown, and exacerbating the difficulties of coping with a deadly disease in my family distant over a thousand km and a severely ill father, with dementia.

“The letter speaks out the concerns that the ECPC has about a recent decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal, how it is an obstacle and a further hurdle for scientific information sharing and consequently how it actually hampers progress in a field of medical research which is already burdened by questionable practices of keeping secret and hidden vital information. ”
      –Anonymous
“Well, in that horrible state of mind of those days, I bumped into this European Cancer Patient Coalition (ECPC) group (to me previously unknown) and into De Lorenzo’s open letter to the EPO. The letter speaks out the concerns that the ECPC has about a recent decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal, how it is an obstacle and a further hurdle for scientific information sharing and consequently how it actually hampers progress in a field of medical research which is already burdened by questionable practices of keeping secret and hidden vital information.

“I was already on a long-term sick leave, having been missing from the Office for about a year, so I mailed it to my colleagues at the EPO to ask about it and they told me that no information whatsoever had ever been disclosed internally about that letter or about its related issue, which was to me no surprise of course.

“But whatever: up until the day I found that ECPC open letter no answer or even the slightest consideration could be documented, from the side of the EPO, and this was already several months after it was issued.

“…up until the day I found that ECPC open letter no answer or even the slightest consideration could be documented, from the side of the EPO, and this was already several months after it was issued.”
      –Anonymous
“I phoned the Italian branch of that institution, where its president Mr. De Lorenzo mostly operated and following their very own directions I sent a mail to ECPC, precisely addressing the attention of its president, asking whether an answer from Battistelli and the EPO had ever been received. Well, I got no answer from them either. De Lorenzo had been hit by scandals in the nineties in Italy, then being Minister of Health, and had been condemned to a third degree sentence, hence fully confirmed. So, maybe after his own troubled experiences, on which I express no opinion, he saw no [point] either and not much of an interest in messing about the “nasty and powerful” as he might sense EPO and Battistelli are (and rightly so). By the way, I never got an answer from ECPC or from De Lorenzo ever since… Don’t know, maybe he’ll answer, one day. I don’t tolerate politics mess-abouts with a topic like this, especially after what I have been through with mum’s disease and death. The painful efforts of a desperate fight and after that cancer caused the loss of so many people I knew.

“Anyway, and this is the juicy bit for you, after a good while I found a post in the LinkedIn profile of EPO; they posted a stupid pink ribbon, to show their support for the fight against this deadly disease…Ugh! Seeing the nerdy servile comments and thumb-ups on the post, I could not take it. So I took a screenshot for safety and posted the link to the ECPC letter there as a provocative reminder, to point out the hypocritical attitude of the EPO, so disgusting on such an issue. In the image below, a .png file, people should [be able to] see it. It is dated February 2015, so well after the open letter from ECPC and three months after my mother left us.

EPO Cancer support in LinkedIn

“Same as when I recently posted, as an ironical pun with the recent infamous habits at the EPO, a link to an exhibition on The World of Spying held in Berlin. Some visits on my LinkedIn profile, often anonymous, started to buzz around. Yet, and as up to present, no answer at all. Not on my post in LinkedIn, nor to the ECPC letter, what would be more important.

“How should I not think for a while, that Big Pharma is also having a say on that and dictates EPO/Battistelli behaviour?”
      –Anonymous
“Now, the issue addressed by the letter is urgent. It deals with the struggle that research has in pursuing a cure and it points out an obstacle caused by decisions and policies of the EPO. If the EPO believes in what it says about promoting research on cancer, it should at least give an answer. Well, no answer; So the EPO simply and very openly does not care, yet is hypocritical enough to purport the opposite with a stupid LinkedIn post, with a pink ribbon they should better shove up their [expletive].

“This episode has implications: why is the EPO reticent on this issue? Why not have the EBA [Enlarged Board of Appeal] express their views openly, on their very own decisions, either reconsidering or not their position? How should I not think for a while, that Big Pharma is also having a say on that and dictates EPO/Battistelli behaviour?

“The people at the Alltrials.net initiative should be also made aware of this…”

Checking the link of the letter again, it’s still there. “To my knowledge,” our reader noted, “it had never been answered by EPO or Battistelli himself.

“…if ECPC itself fails to further pursue such an important issue they brought up themselves and tolerates a total lack of consideration by EPO, then we might ask whether this is another corporate European money machine…”
      –Anonymous
“For the record, my direct enquiry by ECPC also remained unanswered: At the time I asked whether they got an answer from the EPO they told me, on the phone, they’d surely answer on this, they would surely follow up the issue and also let me know. But they never did. Which might cast some doubt about the seriousness of this type of initiatives or even about the organisations promoting them: if ECPC itself fails to further pursue such an important issue they brought up themselves and tolerates a total lack of consideration by EPO, then we might ask whether this is another corporate European money machine…

“But this might be a side note… or another story…”

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

2 Comments

  1. Anton_P said,

    February 21, 2017 at 9:28 am

    Gravatar

    The decision the ECPC were taking issue with had nothing to do with clinical trials. The patent was held invalid because of added subject matter.

    Alastair Waugh Reply:

    The letter from ECPC has everything to do with clinical trials.

    In particular, the fifth paragraph of the letter should be enough to reconsider your statement, which appears rather out of pertinence. Whether the decision cited in the letter is motivated by added subject matter is immaterial to the scope of the letter, which raises a rather urgent point.

    Considering the notion of existing clinical trials as prejudicial disclosure is an incentive towards secrecy and concealment of vital scientific medical information. It is a hurdle that the state of cancer research really does not need. That is the core of the message of De Lorenzo’s letter.

    Even if T0598/12-3.3.02 had been misinterpreted at ECPC, EPO should have been felt rather urgently the obligation to answer and redress the issue, actually even more so in case of a wrong interpretation.

    The whistle still blows.

What Else is New


  1. Links 18/1/2018: MenuLibre 2.1.4, Git 2.16 Released

    Links for the day



  2. Microsoft, Masking/Hiding Itself Behind Patent Trolls, is Still Engaging in Patent Extortion

    A review of Microsoft's ugly tactics, which involve coercion and extortion (for businesses to move to Azure and/or for OEMs to preload Microsoft software) while Microsoft-connected patent trolls help hide the "enforcement" element in this whole racket



  3. Patent Prosecution Highway: Low-Quality Patents for High-Frequency Patent Aggressors

    The EPO's race to the bottom of patent quality, combined with a "need for speed", is a recipe for disaster (except for litigation firms, patent bullies, and patent trolls)



  4. Press Coverage About the EPO Board Revoking Broad's CRISPR Patent

    Even though there's some decent coverage about yesterday's decision (e.g. from The Scientist), the patent microcosm googlebombs the news with stuff that serves to distract from or distort the outcome



  5. Links 17/1/2018: HHVM 3.24, WordPress 4.9.2

    Links for the day



  6. No Patents on Life (CRISPR), Said EPO Boards of Appeal Just a Few Hours Ago

    Broad spectacularly loses its key case, which may soon mean that any other patents on CRISPR too will be considered invalid



  7. Only Two Weeks on the Job, Judge Patrick Corcoran is Already Being Threatened by EPO Management

    The attack on a technical judge who is accused of relaying information many people had already relayed anyway (it was gossip at the whole Organisation for years) carries on as he is again being pushed around, just as many people predicted



  8. EPO Board of Appeal Has an Opportunity to Stop Controversial Patents on Life

    Patent maximalism at the EPO can be pushed aback slightly if the European appeal board decides to curtail CRISPR patents in a matter of days



  9. Links 16/1/2018: More on Barcelona, OSI at 20

    Links for the day



  10. 2018 Will be an Even Worse Year for Software Patents Because the US Supreme Court Shields Alice

    The latest picks (reviewed cases) of the Supreme Court of the United States signal another year with little or no hope for the software patents lobby; PTAB too is expected to endure after a record-breaking year, in which it invalidated a lot of software patents that had been erroneously granted



  11. Patent Trolls (Euphemised as “Public IP Companies”) Are Dying in the United States, But the Trouble Isn't Over

    The demise of various types of patent trolls, including publicly-traded trolls, is good news; but we take stock of the latest developments in order to better assess the remaining threat



  12. EPO Management and Team UPC Carry on Lying About Unified Patent Court, Sinking to New Lows in the Process

    At a loss for words over the loss of the Unitary Patent, Team UPC and Team Battistelli now blatantly lie and even get together with professional liars such as Watchtroll



  13. China Tightens Its Knot of Restrictive Rules and Patents

    Overzealous patent aggressors and patent trolls in China, in addition to an explosion in low-quality patents, may simply discourage companies from doing production/manufacturing there



  14. Microsoft's Patent Racket Has Just Been Broadened to Threaten GNU/Linux Users Who Don't Pay Microsoft 'Rents'

    Microsoft revisits its aggressive patent strategy which it failed to properly implement 12 years ago with Novell; it wants to 'collect' a patent tax on GNU/Linux and it uses patent trolls to make that easier



  15. EPO Scandals Played a Considerable Role in Sinking the Unified Patent Court (UPC)

    Today's press coverage about the UPC reinforces the idea that the EPO saga, culminating in despicable attacks on Patrick Corcoran (a judge), may doom the UPC once and for all (unless one believes Team UPC)



  16. J Nicholas Gross Thinks Professors Stop Being Professors If They're Not Patent Extremists Like Him

    The below-the-belt tactics of patent trolls and their allies show no signs of abatement and their tone reveals growing irritation and frustration (inability to sue and extort companies as easily as they used to)



  17. The US Supreme Court Has Just Denied Another Chance to Deal With a Case Similar to Alice (Potentially Impacting § 101)

    There is no sign that software patents will be rendered worthwhile any time in the near future, but proponents of software patents don't give up



  18. Litigation Roundup: Nintendo, TiVo, Apple, Samsung, Huawei, Philips, UMC

    The latest high-profile legal battles, spanning a growing number of nations and increasingly representing a political shift as well



  19. Roundup of Patent News From Canada, South America and Australia

    A few bits and pieces of news from around the world, serving to highlight patent trends in parts of the world where the patent offices haven't much international clout/impact



  20. Links 15/1/2018: Linux 4.15 RC8, Wine 3.0 RC6

    Links for the day



  21. PTAB is Being Demeaned, But Only by the Very Entities One Ought to Expect (Because They Hate Patent Justice/Quality)

    The latest rants/scorn against PTAB -- leaning on cases such as Wi-Fi One v Broadcom or entities like Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, Apple etc. -- are all coming from firms and people who profit from low-quality patents



  22. If Ericsson and Its Patent Trolls (Like Avanci and Unwired Planet) Cannot Make It, the Patent Microcosm Will Perish

    The demise of patent-asserting/patent assertion business models (trolling or enforcement by proxy) may see front groups/media supportive of it diminishing as well; this appears to be happening already



  23. European Patent Office Causes Physical Harm to Employees, Then Fires Them

    Another one (among many) EPO documents about the alarming physical wellbeing of EPO employees and the management’s attitude towards the issue



  24. Battistelli Was Always (Right From the Start and Since Candidacy) All About Money

    “I have always admired creative people, inventors, those who, through their passion and their work, bring about scientific progress or artistic evolution. I was not blessed with such talent myself,” explained the EPO‘s President when pursuing his current job (for which he was barely qualified and probably not eligible because of his political work)



  25. “Under the Intergovernmental EPC System It is Difficult to Speak of a Functional Separation of Powers”

    An illustration of the glaring deficiency that now prevails and cannot be tolerated as long as the goal is to ensure democratic functionality; absence of the role of Separation of Powers (or Rule of Law) at the EPO is evident now that Battistelli not only controls the Council (using EPO budget) but also blatantly attacks the independence of the Boards of Appeal



  26. The Patent Microcosm Thinks It's Wonderful That IP3 is Selling Stupid Patents, Ignores Far More Important News

    IP3, which we've always considered to be nothing but a parasite, does what it does best and those who love stupid patents consider it to be some sort of victory



  27. Automotives, Artificial Intelligence, Internet of Things and Industry 4.0 Among the Buzz Terms Used to Bypass Alice and the EPC Nowadays

    In order to make prior art search a lot harder and in order to make software patents look legitimate (even in various courtrooms) the patent microcosm and greedy patent offices embrace buzzwords



  28. Blockchain Becomes the Target Not Only of Financial Institutions With Software Patents But Also Trolls

    Blockchain software, which is growing in importance and has become ubiquitous in various domains other than finance, is perceived as an opportunity for disruption and also patent litigation; CNBC continues to publish puff pieces for Erich Spangenberg (amid stockpiling of such patents)



  29. EPC Foresaw the Administrative Council Overseeing the Patent Office, Jesper Kongstad Made It “Working Together”

    An old open letter from the EPO shows the famous moment when Jesper Kongstad and Battistelli came up with a plan to empower both, rendering the Administrative Council almost subservient to the Office (complete inversion of the desired topology)



  30. 2010: Blaming the Messenger (SUEPO) for Staff Unhappiness at the European Patent Office (EPO)

    Tactics of SUEPO (EPO union) blaming go further back than Battistelli and can be found in the previous administration as well


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts