03.28.17
Gemini version available ♊︎Patents on Life and Patents on Software Serve to Show That EPO Patent Quality Fell Well Behind the US (PTO)
The Liar in Chief keeps lying about quality while it sinks to bottom low
Summary: Anything goes at the EPO, except dissent; any patent application seems to be grantable, provided one uses simple tricks and persists against overworked examiners who are pressured to increase so-called ‘production’
I USED TO be proud to say that we have the best patent office, which denies software patents among many other things. But today’s EPO is in shambles and it now grants patents on the same things which the USPTO no longer grants patents on. In simple terms, there has been a reversal of roles and right now the EPO looks like 'SIPO Europe'. It’s not only sad but also scary to humble companies whose entire operation is now at risk of falling prey to patent trolls.
Yesterday, a high-profile magazine published “Europe says University of California deserves broad patent for CRISPR” and for those who don’t know what CRISPR is about, start here. It’s one of those areas where the EPO’s patent scope has demonstrably gone bonkers. Even patents on life are now permitted (not just plants). To quote:
The European Patent Office (EPO) announced on 23 March its “intention to grant a patent” to the University of California (UC) for its broad-based claims about the genome-editing tool popularly known as CRISPR. UC, on behalf of several parties, has been in a pitched battle with the Broad Institute of Cambridge, Massachusetts, over CRISPR patents, and the new decision marks a sharp departure from the position of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
[...]
It’s unclear whether EPO’s actions will have any immediate impact. Companies already pay fees to these warring parties or their affiliates to license CRISPR patents. Some agreements cover international use of CRISPR to make products, and if the UC CRISPR patent stands up to challenges in Europe, companies that banked on the Broad may have to enter more licensing agreements. Companies technically do not need a license until they have a product on the market—that could take a decade for CRISPR-made medicines—but as Cook-Deegan notes, “Licensing is usually smoother and easier while there is still a veil of uncertainty so everyone has a stake in cutting the deal and gets a bit of what they want, even though they don’t know if the license is actually needed in the end.”
Remember that even the USPTO rejects it. Not the EPO…
And the same goes for software patents after Alice. In the US software patents have become rather toothless (more on that later today), but in the EPO they are actively advocated, as we last noted days ago. They even do this publicly. They have no shame about it, in spite of the ban on software patents in Europe. It’s like the EPO flagrantly ignores the law and spits on the EPC. Grant Philpott, for instance, promotes this whole “CII” nonsense, bypassing restrictions by semantics. Then there’s this long rant from yesterday, courtesy of Rui Seabra. Have a look:
I guess I'm now certified present in an #epo #swpat event and trained to protect software… from patents! LOL pic.twitter.com/dXbVuHW6oC
— Rui Seabra (@RuiSeabra) March 27, 2017
#epo abuses the Hitachi decision (even using pen and paper it's technical) to permit #swpat even examiners that disagree have to follow it.
— Rui Seabra (@RuiSeabra) March 27, 2017
#epo merely adding the words "computer" and "database" it clearly has a further technical effect. Perversion!
— Rui Seabra (@RuiSeabra) March 27, 2017
#epo the following are "further technical effects" deserving #swpat: brake control, faster communication, encryption, OS resource management
— Rui Seabra (@RuiSeabra) March 27, 2017
This clearly is a manual from #epo on how to write #swpat disgusting that #FCT #UNL is a collaborator in this perversion.
— Rui Seabra (@RuiSeabra) March 27, 2017
examiner present claims #epo rejects more software patents than those it grants. #swpat
— Rui Seabra (@RuiSeabra) March 27, 2017
#epo #swpat is not called software but "computer implemented invention" because it's not politically correct [and illegal ,I'd add]
— Rui Seabra (@RuiSeabra) March 27, 2017
Notifying user that he forgot to include an attachment in an email is shown as an example of cii from #epo, how is that not #swpat ?
— Rui Seabra (@RuiSeabra) March 27, 2017
For #epo what is a computer program is undefined. No it's not. #swpat bullshit.
— Rui Seabra (@RuiSeabra) March 27, 2017
«cii is an invention containing features realised *wholly* or partially by means of a computer program» #epo BS how is that not #swpat?
— Rui Seabra (@RuiSeabra) March 27, 2017
#epo #swpat bullshit is now starting, 50 minutes late, disgraceful. «CII is not software» *cof*cof* BULLSHIT!
— Rui Seabra (@RuiSeabra) March 27, 2017
Coming up next, «computer-implemented invetions: definition, requirements and pratical approach at the #epo» #swpat by disguise
— Rui Seabra (@RuiSeabra) March 27, 2017
In 2016, only 51% #epo patents are from european countries. Dangerous battleground for europeans.
— Rui Seabra (@RuiSeabra) March 27, 2017
«Three years can easily pass between first filing in #epo and having the patent granted» way longer than most software release cycles #swpat
— Rui Seabra (@RuiSeabra) March 27, 2017
«Like companies, public can contest patent applications» yeah, work for #epo for free, slaves! #swpat #nowayjose
— Rui Seabra (@RuiSeabra) March 27, 2017
No wonder #epo is self sufficient with the fees, they earn them on all accounts (filing, contesting, revocation, etc…) #swpat
— Rui Seabra (@RuiSeabra) March 27, 2017
#epo «patent applications are carefully watched by companies to find out attempts by competitors» can your #SME afford this waste? #swpat
— Rui Seabra (@RuiSeabra) March 27, 2017
This seems like an #epo seminar on how to do #swpat «hide, don't even talk about it in public, eg conferences, before getting patent»
— Rui Seabra (@RuiSeabra) March 27, 2017
First to file is what counts for #epo, not first inventor as in the USA. *VERY* DANGEROUS* in case of #swpat your work may be "stolen".
— Rui Seabra (@RuiSeabra) March 27, 2017
#epo #swpat effectively, what is protected by patents, is only the claims part, the rest of the text may help, but only claims count.
— Rui Seabra (@RuiSeabra) March 27, 2017
#swpat patents registered in self-financing #EPO (not an EU institution) are not automatically valid in the whole #EU (per country cost)
— Rui Seabra (@RuiSeabra) March 27, 2017
#epo smaller companies are in disadvantage against big companies due to huge patent portfolios. #noshitsherlock WHy SME are against #swpat!
— Rui Seabra (@RuiSeabra) March 27, 2017
#epo trying to frame inventions for #swpat, claiming most inventions are on little steps and seldom on real breakthroughs.
— Rui Seabra (@RuiSeabra) March 27, 2017
#epo #swpat Phones have beteeen 15k and 2k patents, including data processing methods (aka software)
— Rui Seabra (@RuiSeabra) March 27, 2017
She clearly says software is protected by patents (and copyrights and trade secrets) Clear lie in spite of law. Not even hiding. #epo #swpat
— Rui Seabra (@RuiSeabra) March 27, 2017
She has a background of computer programming and will talk about #swpat in the afternoon. Will be fun, I hope.
— Rui Seabra (@RuiSeabra) March 27, 2017
Had to miss 2/3 of one talk, up next Maria Fernández Ferreira, an #EPO examiner, on european patent system and procedure. #swpat
— Rui Seabra (@RuiSeabra) March 27, 2017
At an event of the #EPO that tries to justify software patents. I hope the disgust won't turn into vomit. #swpat
— Rui Seabra (@RuiSeabra) March 27, 2017
Maybe it’s time for European software developers to write a little less code and write more about what goes on inside the EPO, clearly a pariah organisation. Not even the law can stop it from granting patents that are in defiance of the EPC. █
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA