Unscientific and Offensive: EPO Deletes From the Map Countries Where Number of Applications at the EPO Has Declined!
What’s wrong with this incomplete map of Europe? Read on.
Unscientific if not anti-scientific attitude from the EPO, which simply removes the ‘unwanted’ nations to construct a misleading narrative
Summary: For lobbying purposes, at the expense of truth itself, the European Patent Office is now cherry-picking data and spreading a message which is the very opposite of facts and thus antithetical to science itself
IT is regrettable that the EPO, once known for scientific leadership and integrity, so quickly devolved into an empire of lies. That’s just the ‘Battistelli effect’… this is why we call him the Liar in Chief.
“”Supply” growth (industrial term, like that which the EPO chooses under Battistelli) is currently attained by over-granting, or patenting of stuff that oughtn’t be granted a patent — to the point where the “stock” will run out pretty soon (not to be filled amid decreasing “demand”).”Patenting “demand” at the EPO is diminishing. “Supply” growth (industrial term, like that which the EPO chooses under Battistelli) is currently attained by over-granting, or patenting of stuff that oughtn’t be granted a patent — to the point where the "stock" will run out pretty soon (not to be filled amid decreasing “demand”).
Does the EPO state any of these simple facts? No. “These are the TOP technology fields with the fastest growth in patenting demand in 2016,” it stated yesterday (notice the use of the word “demand”, as if the EPO is a production/assembly line with “orders”). Last orders at the bar, anyone?
“Patenting “demand” at the EPO is diminishing.”Worse than that was this tweet that said “Belgian patent applications at the European Patent Office up by 7% in 2016″ (neglecting to state or point out that elsewhere it’s down). They apparently managed to ‘plant’ one sort of 'puff piece' in the English-speaking Belgian media and repeated the misdirection, again, the following day (earlier today). They have meanwhile deleted yesterday’s tweet (we have just checked to verify, it’s really deleted!), after it had been retweeted by some people (many of the "followers" of the EPO in Twitter appear to be fake and possibly paid for). Incredible, isn’t it? But watch the map that they added today (copied above, in case they attempt to hide the evidence later, just as they deleted yesterday’s tweet). What the EPO shows us here is its utter lack of integrity; this demonsrates yet another lie (by omission), with a chart that incredibly enough omits all the minuses. Did anyone out there know that Europe has just 7 countries now?
Holland? Down 3.6%.
France? Down 2.5%.
US? Down almost 6%.
The EPO pretends these countries don’t exist.
“According to the above map, France is no longer recognised as a European country by the EPO.”The main growth came from China, but overall the numbers are down. And if the pace of granting skyrockets, then the EPO is heading into a catastrophe, essentially driving into a wall. Who would want to apply for a European patent in this kind of atmosphere? The letter that we published this morning demonstrates that EPO insiders too realise the issue with that. To quote a portion: “Last but not least, the survey shows that a quality erosion has taken place. Low quality patents create legal uncertainty for patent applicants and their competitors. Legal uncertainty hinders investments and leads to increased litigation, which is a drag on the economy.”
According to the above map, France is no longer recognised as a European country by the EPO. Not because there is lack of French representation in the EPO’s management (the opposite is true) but because these ‘naughty’ French people are no longer interested in European patents. “Demand” for patents is down over there, so the EPO greys it out in the map! Absolutely extraordinary!
“Demand” for patents in France is down, but the EPO won’t say this publicly. To make matters worse, the EPO has just tweeted “France retains its position among leading countries of origin for patent applications” (notice what they do not say).
“Is the Office becoming just an instrument of China, or subservient to Chinese firms?”EPs dying in Europe in very, very troubling news. Is the Office becoming just an instrument of China, or subservient to Chinese firms? Watch the top 10 applicants. Half of them are from east Asia. Watch the lack of diversity among applicants.
The EPO has just said: “Small entities accounted 34% of all patent applicants at the EPO in 2016. See the numbers…”
Put another way, about 1% of companies apply for the majority of EPO patents. So much for public or European interests. Recall this jaw-dropping leak about pacing up grants for massive corporations from other countries. Today’s EPO no longer justifies the “E” in its acronym, unless the E stands for Enterprise or Egomaniac or something along those lines.
As a minor point, if not a pedantic point, the EPO currently promotes [1, 2] an old introductory page by stating: “While IP is essential to the successful exploitation of new ideas, innovation goes further.”
“But who cares about science and facts anyway? It’s the EPO after all; it works together with fracking lobbyists to “shape perceptions”.”What a shallow statement. Patents are not “IP”, patents are just patents and they are usually orthogonal to innovation (in some cases they actively harm or slow down innovation, especially if granted sparingly, instigating spurious lawsuits and frivolous attacks).
Last night the EPO also amplified this tweet which said: “As in 2015, #Switzerland made more European patent applications per capita than any other country in 2016 again…”
Switzerland, as we explained before, is a very rich country (tax evasion facilitation contributes to this) and patent are a rich people’s spiel. It’s hardly indicative of Swiss people being most innovative; it’s just that EPO fees — to them at least — are affordable compared to people from — say — Croatia. But who cares about science and facts anyway? It’s the EPO after all; it works together with fracking lobbyists to "shape perceptions". Maybe Battistelli’s EPO should slip in a patent application of its own — something about warping and distorting public understanding. Does that count as a business method? Worry not! Under Battistelli, anything goes. █