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

04.17.18

The EPO Continues to Lie About Patent Quality Whilst Openly Promoting Software Patents, Even Outside Europe

Posted in Europe, Patents at 1:23 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Gazette’s latest

EPO quality lies

Summary: EPO patent quality continues to sink while EPO management lies about it (the article above is new and not satirical) and software patents are openly being promoted/advocated

THERE’S NO room for humour when the EPO moves further to the right (patent extremists) while the USPTO, conversely, moves to the left. The EPO has become a rather radical organisation which not only treats workers in Medieval ways/standards but also grants monopolies similarly. It is almost as though a feudal system has reasserted control.

“The EPO has become a rather radical organisation which not only treats workers in Medieval ways/standards but also grants monopolies similarly.”Compare the EPO to India and to China. The Chinese government has moved so far to the right (censoring almost everything) and lowered patent quality to the point where — like the EPO — quality of patents is no longer recognised and dissent is not tolerated. India, contrariwise perhaps, has rejected many patents. This new article (from earlier today) speaks of “confusion regarding software patents in the global IT hub,” but there’s no “confusion”; they’ve banned software patents in the country a long time ago. To quote the opening paragraph:

While the world eagerly watches the development of India’s software industry, the confusion regarding software patents in the global IT hub remains considerable. This is despite – or perhaps because of – the three attempts by the Indian Patent Office (IPO) to establish guidelines on computer-related inventions (CRIs), each of which has provoked questions, criticism and controversy. The IPO released its latest CRI examination guidelines on June 30 2017; this chapter looks into the evolution of the guidelines, from the first set to the third, as well as the effects that they have had.

These also earned India praised, but the article (sister site of IAM) says the policy “provoked questions, criticism and controversy.” From who? Patent extremists, that’s the key point. IAM attacked India’s patent policy so many times last year; this year it’s toning things down a bit (perhaps fearing criticism for such selfish lobbying).

“The Chinese government has moved so far to the right (censoring almost everything) and lowered patent quality to the point where — like the EPO — quality of patents is no longer recognised and dissent is not tolerated.”This brings us to the EPO. Where does the EPO stand on all this? It used to favour high patent quality, but nowadays all it cares about are numbers of patents (or applications, albeit only when/if that number goes up). The EPO is, in effect, outsourcing the job of patent examination to judges/juries/courts. That would cost a fortune. The EPO passes all the burden to the European public/businesses. The UPC is effectively dead (nobody even talks about it anymore, except yesterday when EPO management together with Team UPC just kept lying about alleged value and prospects of it). The EPO has just passed along this promotion of its event that says: “The 2018 UP&UPC Conference will take place on 3rd July at @EPOorg, Munich” (that’s just 3 days after Campinos arrives).

One can therefore expect Campinos to be embedded in Team UPC — just like Battistelli — and thus promote patent maximalism.

Earlier today the EPO promoted software patents in Europe yet again. As we noted earlier this week, the EPO goes to the United States, Microsoft’s back yard in fact (Seattle), in order to promote such an agenda and hours ago it wrote: “How to obtain patents in computer-implemented inventions in biotechnology and healthcare at the EPO?”

It doesn’t get any more shallow than this. Check out the one reply they got. The FFII’s President wrote: “Alice or the EPC says the same, EPO should not grant them. But Europe does not have a Supreme Court, the EPO can do whatever it wants. Including going to watch World Cup football matches…”

“Where does the EPO stand on all this? It used to favour high patent quality, but nowadays all it cares about are numbers of patents (or applications, albeit only when/if that number goes up).”Again, zero accountability. Battistelli and Campinos will just get away with anything they want. No oversight has been added and nothing has been corrected. Nobody will enforce the rules and when a thousand examiners complain about deviation from the EPC nothing happens.

“What about the other fella,” asked us one reader, alluding to Christophe Geiger. He’ll soon work with Battistelli, having worked with Campinos. The “rumor has it,” our reader added, that there’s a “surprise post along with the Campinos classmate” (Geiger).

Here is his profile page and Wikipedia ‘stub’ that says “Christophe Geiger is a lecturer in intellectual property law, as well as current Director General of the Centre for International Intellectual Property Studies (CEIPI) at the University of Strasbourg.”

Remember that Battistelli is not retiring but merely hibernating in CEIPI, having attacked jurists for 4 years if not longer. Recall what we wrote some months ago:

One pillar of the organisation that can keep software patents away is the Boards of Appeal, but having suffered many attacks from Battistelli, who in the Boards would be brave enough to do something on this matter? Watch what happened to Patrick Corcoran (from the Boards of Appeal) whilst or after he had rejected a software patent of an EPO partner.

“One pillar of the organisation that can keep software patents away is the Boards of Appeal, but having suffered many attacks from Battistelli, who in the Boards would be brave enough to do something on this matter?”Some hours ago the EPO wrote: “The Boards of Appeal invite users to participate in this written online consultation on the proposed revised Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal.”

As if Battistelli and Campinos care or listen to what the public has to say. If they cared, we’d see some sort of assurances to the Boards, but there have been none. And they’re still effectively above the law.

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

What Else is New


  1. Links 15/8/2018: Akademy 2018 Wrapups and More Intel Defects

    Links for the day



  2. Antiquated Patenting Trick: Adding Words Like 'Apparatus' to Make Abstract Ideas Look/Sound Like They Pertain to or Contain a 'Device'

    35 U.S.C. § 101 (Section 101) still maintains that abstract ideas are not patent-eligible; so applicants and law firms go out of their way to make their ideas seem as though they're physical



  3. Open Invention Network (OIN) Member Companies Need to Become Unanimous in Opposition to Software Patents

    Opposition to abstract software patents, which even the SCOTUS and the Federal Circuit nowadays reject, would be strategically smart for OIN; but instead it issues a statement in support of a GPL compliance initiative



  4. President Battistelli 'Killed' the EPO; António Campinos Will 'Finish the Job'

    The EPO is shrinking, but this is being shrewdly disguised using terms like "efficiency" and a low-profile President who keeps himself in the dark



  5. Links 14/8/2018: Virtlyst 1.2.0, Blender 2.8 Planning Update, Zorin OS 12.4, FreeBSD 12.0 Alpha

    Links for the day



  6. Berkheimer Changed Nothing and Invalidation Rates of Abstract Software Patents Remain Very High

    Contrary to repetitive misinformation from firms that 'sell' services around patents, there is no turnaround or comeback for software patents; the latest numbers suggest a marginal difference at best — one that may be negligible considering the correlation between expected outcomes and actions (the nature of risk analysis)



  7. Lockton Insurance Brokers Exploiting Patent Trolls to Sell Insurance to the Gullible

    Demonstrating what some people have dubbed (and popularised) "disaster capitalism", Lockton now looks for opportunities to profit from patent trolls, in the form of "insurance" (the same thing Microsoft does)



  8. Patent Lawyers Writing Patent Law for Their Own Enrichment Rather Than for Innovation

    We have become detached from the original goals and come to the point where patent offices aren't necessarily run by people qualified for the job of advancing science and technology; they, unlike judges, only seem to care about how many patents get granted, irrespective of their quality/merit



  9. Links 13/8/2018: Linux 4.18 and GNU Linux-libre 4.18 Arrive

    Links for the day



  10. PTAB is Loathed by Patent Maximalists Because It Can Potentially Invalidate Thousands of Software Patents (More Than Courts Can Handle)

    The US patent system has become more resistant to software patents; courts, however, are still needed to invalidate such patents (a potentially expensive process) because the USPTO continues to grant these provided some fashionable buzzwords/hype waves are utilised (e.g. "facial recognition", "blockchain", "autonomous vehicles")



  11. Gene Quinn and 'Dallas Innovates' as Couriers of Agenda for Patent Trolls Like iPEL

    Failing to hide their real purpose and malicious agenda, sites whose real purpose is to promote a lot of patent litigation produce puff pieces, even for patently unethical trolls such as iPEL



  12. Software Patents, Secured by 'Smart' and 'Intelligent' Tricks, Help Microsoft and Others Bypass Alice/Section 101

    A look at the use of fashionable trends and buzzwords to acquire and pass around dubious software patents, then attempting to guard these from much-needed post-Alice scrutiny



  13. Keep Boston (and Massachusetts in General) From Becoming an Infestation Zone for Patent Litigation

    Boston, renowned for research and innovation, has become somewhat of a litigation hotbed; this jeopardises the state's attractiveness (except perhaps to lawyers)



  14. Links 12/8/2018: Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, Mesa 18.1.6 Release Notice, New Linux Imminent

    Links for the day



  15. Thomas Massie's “Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act of 2018” (RALIA) Would Put the US Patent System in the Lions' (or Trolls') Mouth Again

    An anti-§ 101 and anti-PTAB bill from Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) strives to remove quality control; but by handing the system back to patent trolls he and his proponents simply strive to create more business of litigation, at the expense of innovation



  16. EPO-Style Problem-Solution: Tackling Backlog by Granting Lots of Low-Quality (Bogus) European Patents, Causing a Surge in Troll/Frivolous Litigation

    The EPO's lack of interest in genuine patent quality (measuring "quality" in terms of speed, not actual quality) may mean nothing but a litigation epidemic; many of these lawsuits would be abusive, baseless; those harmed the most would be small businesses that cannot afford a legal defense and would rather settle with those who exploit questionable patents, notably patent trolls



  17. Links 11/8/2018: PGP Clean Room 1.0, Ring-KDE 3.0.0, Julia 1.0

    Links for the day



  18. Propaganda Sites of Patent Trolls and Litigators Have Quit Trying to Appear Impartial or Having Integrity

    The lobbying groups of patent trolls (which receive money from such trolls) carry on meddling in policy and altering perception that drives policy; we present some new examples



  19. Months After Oil States the Patent Maximalists Still Try to Undermine Inter Partes Reviews (“IPRs”), Refusing to Accept Patent Quality

    The patent maximalists in the United States, seeing that the USPTO is moving away from patent maximalism, is desperate for a turnaround; prominent patent maximalists take it all out on PTAB



  20. The Unified Patent Court (UPC) Agreement is Paralysed, So Team UPC is Twisting Old News

    Paralysis of the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA) means that people are completely forgetting about its very existence; those standing to benefit from it (patent litigation firms) are therefore recycling and distorting old news



  21. Patents as Profiteering Opportunities for Law Firms Rather Than Drivers of Innovation for Productive Companies

    A sample of news from yesterday; the patent microcosm is still arguing about who pays attorneys’ fees (not whether these fees are justified) and is constantly complaining about the decline in patent litigation, which means fewer and lower attorneys’ fees (less work for them)



  22. Links 9/8/2018: Mesa 18.2 RC2, Cockpit 175, WPA-2 Hash Cracking

    Links for the day



  23. Patent Maximalists -- Not Reformers -- Are the Biggest Threat to the Viability of the Patent System and Innovation

    Those who strive to infinitely expand patent scope are rendering the patent system obsolete and completely losing sight of the very purpose of the patent system, whose sanity US courts and lawmakers gradually restore (one ruling and one bill at a time)



  24. WeMove.EU Tackles Low Patent Quality at the European Patent Office (EPO)

    The breadth of European Patents, which now cover even nature itself, worries public interest groups; Team UPC, however, wants patent scope to expand further and António Campinos has expressed his intention to further increase the number of grants



  25. Links 8/8/2018: KDE Neon for Testing, New LibreOffice Release, Dart 2.0

    Links for the day



  26. Links 7/8/2018: TCP Vulnerability in Linux, Speck Crypto Code Candidate for Removal

    Links for the day



  27. PTAB Needs to Expand and Become More Accessible to More Challengers of Wrongly-Granted Patents

    Challenges to US patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) are helping to raise the bar for litigators; those who value the quality of patents should welcome rather than condemn PTAB and PTAB ought to be expanded to facilitate more scrutiny of granted patents



  28. Supreme Court and Federal Circuit Precedents Might Make District Courts (Outside Texas) More Sceptical of Patents

    As patent lawsuits scatter around the United States (not as concentrated around Texas anymore) there's a real chance of turnaround in terms of outcomes; we look at some recent cases



  29. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) is Cleaning Up the United States' Patent System

    The highest patent court (bar the US Supreme Court, SCOTUS) is rejecting a lot of patents, not only software patents; this is long overdue and is bad news to patent lawyers (not to companies that actually create and sell things)



  30. Racing to the Bottom, the António Campinos-Led EPO Continues to Promote Software Patents, Just Like China

    The EPO is being transformed into 'SIPO Europe', a dangerous gamble which would leave European firms more susceptible to frivolous litigation and generally reduce the value of previously-much-coveted European Patents


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