04.17.18
Gemini version available ♊︎The EPO Continues to Lie About Patent Quality Whilst Openly Promoting Software Patents, Even Outside Europe
Gazette’s latest
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:
- Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos Playing Musical Chairs at CEIPI
- How CEIPI in Strasbourg is Allegedly Facilitating Another Battistelli ‘Scam’ Surrounding the Unitary Patent (UPC)
- French Disgrace: Teachers at CEIPI Not Happy About Benoît Battistelli as Upcoming President of the CEIPI Administrative Board
- The EPO Relies on Media Cowardice and Complicity (to Not Report Obvious Issues With Battistelli at CEIPI)
- Another Day of EPO Injustices in Europe and Campinos/Battistelli Connections at CEIPI
- CEIPI and EPO: The Story So Far
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. █
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA