03.09.17
Gemini version available ♊︎‘Evil Tongues’ Inside and Outside the EPO Explain Why Battistelli’s 2016 ‘Results’ Are Bad While the Media Mindlessly Repeats EPO Management’s Talking Points
Demand for patents, or applications, is decreasing (from Europe and the US)
Summary: As potential applicants consult their attorneys more of them decide to skip the EPO altogether, but the EPO is trying to distract from that angle and instead flush the queue for faked (incredible if not for the incredulous observers) ‘gains’
Workload is running out at the EPO (numbers in German, here is an automated English translation). Not enough applications are coming in (supply is growing far faster than so-called 'demand') and we have already published 3 reasonably long articles about the so-called ‘results’. It doesn’t look good for Battistelli; not at all!
Readers are advised to revisit previous articles about the so-called ‘results’ in order to better understand what was shown in them:
- EPO Record Low on Quality of European Patents (EPs) in 2016
- The European Patent Office is Wasting Its Already Limited Budget on Misleading Press Releases/Paid-for Coverage That Overlook Sharp Decline in Patent Quality
- Latest EPO ‘Results’ Should be Grounds for Immediate Dismissal of Battistelli Rather Than Celebrations
Pure misdirection if not comedy was published again (earlier today) by the EPO. They wrote (with a symbol of a medal, as if it’s a contest): “Here are 🎖️the most active companies in Europe in 2016 in terms of patent applications”
“They are cherry-pick the pluses to hide the overall minus. Classic PR tactics!”So the EPO has finally mentioned applications, which are actually far slower than they ought to be. But don’t worry; the EPO has got that bad news covered (or covered up). Earlier today The Brussels Times published this nonsense about patent requests from Belgium alone — a country whose population is about 1% (or slightly more) of that of all EPO members. It shows us how one successfully constructs highly misleading propaganda, specifically where the EPO recently hired staff for lobbying purposes (it has a branch there, as we noted here several times in the past). They are cherry-pick the pluses to hide the overall minus. Classic PR tactics!
These types of headlines (the above reads “Record number of Belgian requests at European Patent Office”) are needed for lobbying purposes, or to distract delegates from what is really happening. There is a real possibility that Benoît Battistelli will be ousted or receive marching orders next week (although his supposed ‘superviser’ antagonises an ousting). Battistelli intends to use a lot of these press releases and puff pieces to support the false perception of ‘productivity’. But as one comment put it today:
Article 11(1) EPC, Article 11(4) EC, Article 53 EPC, Article 35 EPC …
What are you people talking about? Do you live in a cave? Didn’t you read the great news from the EPO? +40% granted patents in 2016!
Do you really expect the AC to kill the Goose with the Golden Eggs by firing Battistelli?
Dream on.
A respondent to this said: “Are we really talking about a Goose that lays Golden Eggs or is it more a case of a Lame Duck ?”
It is the greedy, clueless, self-serving man who kills the goose (or duck) for its eggs, e.g. pending applications/patents. There will soon be nothing left, perhaps some time towards the end of next year (when Battistelli will have already finished his term). What happens then? What will be left of the EPO except a pile of dubious patents (granted hastily)? Battistelli has destroyed decades’ worth of reputation not only of the Office but also EPs’.
“Battistelli has destroyed decades’ worth of reputation not only of the Office but also EPs’.”Where is the real media and why is it not covering any of this? Are the authors even able to grasp/understand what patents are and comprehend what the EPO is trying so hard to hide?
Here is a news site for British lawyers which negligently repeats a press release from the EPO and misses all the key points about EPO data (the buried information).
Patents were “approximately 37 percent more than 2015,” said this site from Sweden, but were applications down? Did the author bother checking? Do they even know what backlogs are?
“Artificial growth in numbers, where the numbers are ill-defined, does not tell the full story.”As a reminder of the fact that the EPO is not really for Europe and not subservient to European interests, see this article about top patenters, which are actually from Korea. Another reminder is this pile of articles from English-speaking Chinese media [1, 2, 3]. It was once explained to us that a lot of these are Mandarin patents, not European ones. Artificial growth in numbers, where the numbers are ill-defined, does not tell the full story. In China, for instance, they have just received more than a million patent applications in just one year (SIPO, which is the bottom low of patent quality). It doesn’t mean that China is getting more innovative (we covered this several times in the recent past), just that it is getting obsessed with overpatenting. Found via this tweet today was this misguided article whose author is obviously unable to distinguish between patents and innovation (the headline in the British press is, “New patent policy to create innovation powerhouse”). To qoute:
But other headlines state China is a “top innovator” because it receives the most patent applications of any country and that the Chinese government strongly supports this growth through strategic planning.
That’s just because they’re flooding the patent offices with low-quality applications. Why do EPO workers believe (if they discuss that at all) that Battistelli has been getting so close to China? Like an ENA stooge, he wants just quantity (cash cows), but not quality. He (mis)treats his staff accordingly. The decline in the number of patent applications is being masqueraded by adding a growth in low-quality patent applications from China (see our remarks above), estimated at 25% growth.
“Innovation isn’t a function of patents and one might argue that the number of patents is a function of wealth and pursuit of protectionism (guarding this wealth).”And speaking of misconceptions about patents, see this new article titled “Swiss score highest number of patents per capita. Again.”
Switzerland is a rich country. So it’s hardly surprising that it finds EPO services (fees) more affordable. Innovation isn’t a function of patents and one might argue that the number of patents is a function of wealth and pursuit of protectionism (guarding this wealth). But don’t let facts get in the way of misleading EPO stories and bogus narratives. Will delegates be shrewed enough to see past Battistelli’s façade next week? █
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA