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

05.08.19

Corruption at the EPO is a Threat Not Only to Europe But to Every Continent in the World

Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:24 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

European Inventor Award 2019 is an expensive distraction from the highly corrosive effect of EPO corruption and utter disregard for the law

EPO on CII
“EPO objective for 2023 is to spread its harmful practice to grant software patents to other countries, through the IP5 (USPTO, EPO, JPO, KIPO, CIPO)”Benjamin Henrion, as cited yesterday

Summary: The EPO is advertising companies and their software patents using paid press releases while calling abstract patents “AI” and striving to spread this bad practice to the whole world

THE EPO‘s promotion of software patents in Europe is now a threat to the whole world. The document from António Campinos makes it even clearer (as shown above), potentially threatening even 35 U.S.C. § 101.

As we also noted yesterday, the EPO now glorifies illegal software patents that harm everyone in the world. It produces paid press releases to that effect and so do nasty companies like Qualcomm; this is EPO giving actual awards (or honours) for bogus software patents and these nasty companies use that for self-promotional press releases (same press release here). It’s like the EPO is now in the business of corporate marketing, not a neutral assessment of patents. Celebration of illegal patents at the EPO has been taken to Twitter where the nasty company writes things like this or like that. Their employee has done enormous harm to society with those dubious patents and now the EPO wants to reward this person, serving no purpose other than marketing.

“Their employee has done enormous harm to society with those dubious patents and now the EPO wants to reward this person, serving no purpose other than marketing.”The EPO’s agenda seems to be getting only more toxic over time. Yesterday, for instance, the EPO was calling illegal software patents “AI” yet again (to make it sound like they’re magically legal). Typical EPO. The tweet said: “It’s great to have @Sam_S_Davis of http://amplified.ai at #SearchMatters. He pointed out the opportunities and challenges #AI brings to #patent search and how it can be used effectively – and still increase employment.”

Once more, later in the same day, the buzzword “AI” was misused by the EPO to ruin examiners’ life and grant bogus European Patents (leaving the legal bills for the public to pay). “Today there’ll be very diverse and interesting lectures and workshops,” they said. “For the first time, we’re hosting a panel discussion on future developments in searching in the #artificialintelligence era.”

Oh yes! The “artificial intelligence era!”

From this same event the EPO then wrote: “This morning VP 1 @steverowan1 welcomed #SearchMatters attendees and emphasised the importance of knowledge-sharing. The EPO is striving to further increase the high quality of its patents.”

“As usual, the media isn’t covering anything but the EPO’s PR.”The very opposite is true. Ask SUEPO, the staff union of the EPO. The EPO's own figures show that quality is going downhill. They know it, they just don’t say it out loud in public.

As usual, the media isn’t covering anything but the EPO’s PR. And then it wonders why it’s stagnating and dying? Or why people distrust and reject it? We’re seeing all sorts of new puff pieces [1, 2], yet nobody has mentioned corruption associated with these events or the issues associated with quality.

Yesterday we saw the think tank IAM, on behalf of its patent-trolling clients, objecting again to possibility of patents on life and nature being thrown out. To quote:

EPO president makes controversial patentability intervention – EPO president Antonio Campinos triggered a strong response from the European patent community when he asked the Enlarged Board of Appeal to review a recent appellate decision on the patentability of plants produced by biological processes. This IAM article explains why the intervention – though unlikely to succeed – would be considered by many to be harmful to innovation in burgeoning sectors of the life sciences.

Corruption or abuse at the EPO is a threat to everyone in the world because monopolies are being granted against the law; some of these monopolies will cause deaths. We explained the reasons several times before and we gave examples. There are moral/ethical questions to be considered.

“There are moral/ethical questions to be considered.”We don’t suppose that the so-called “legal community” (i.e. lawyers) will speak out about it because it profits from this whole lunacy. MaxDrei, we presume an attorney, has just claimed that “EPO insiders contend that it is the EPO’s duty to police the issue with full rigor but that strikes me as misconceived…”

Here it is in context (the Boards that are unable to exercise independence and therefore perpetuate patent maximalism):

You write that the Boards are showing no sign of “leniency” on priority. Leniency is not the right word.

Let us distinguish between the Paris Convention notion of “same invention” and Paris’s “successor in title”. No leniency on “same invention” please. The Gold Standard is correct.

Now, as to the “successor in title” issue, EPO insiders contend that it is the EPO’s duty to police the issue with full rigor but that strikes me as misconceived and out of line with its attitude on ownership issues between Applicant and named inventor, in cases where there is no priority issue in play.

The EPC has provisions to adjudicate cases of ownership disputes between two rivals for the status of owner. I do not see why the EPO cannot treat the “successor in title” priority issue consistently with all other non-priority ownership issues that have arisen over the last 40 years. It’s a matter between the rival owners. Letting soup-stirring, mischief-making, cost-leveraging 3rd party Opponents make hay with the issue degrades the underlying principles of the EPC and, as the article suggests, imposes disproportionate penalties on deserving inventors and Applicants.

Normally, I’m in favour of standards that foster more professional work by patent attorneys. The law should favour those who invest in top class patent drafting skills. But insisting that when ownership rights are transferred, and there is no dispute about ownership, every i be dotted and every t be crossed before filing PCT strikes me as excessively pernickety, anti-patent, unworldly, disproportionate and unreasonable.

Who does today’s EPO actually represent? Whose interests? Certainly not the productive industry, that’s rather evident. The EPO keeps claiming that it listens to the public, but that’s certainly not happening. Campinos, for example, only ever visits patent trolls’ front groups and ‘collection societies’, not scientists. And check this one out:

EPO and open source
Henrion: “EPO form mentions “Open Source Ecology Germany e.V.” as example in their form [] EPO template in German “The patenting of software can be argued, but the open-source idea does not stop at software.””

What we showed yesterday (and what’s shown in the image at the top) is the EPO’s hostility not only towards Open Source (or Free/libre software) but all software development, proprietary software included. The harms of software patents are well understood in the profession.

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. Inside the Free Software Foundation (FSF) - Part III: Imagining an FSF Award Going to Anti-Stallman People

    The next FSF award may be given to Richard Stallman himself; but it might also be given to a person largely responsible for 'ousting' Stallman, which would be catastrophic



  2. How OSI Co-Founder Got Banned From the OSI's Mailing Lists (a Month After the Other Co-Founder Resigned in Protest in Those Mailing Lists, Bemoaning Attacks on Software Freedom)

    This post is not an endorsement of the message; its purpose is to show what was censored and let people decide for themselves if that merited a ban



  3. IRC Proceedings: Friday, February 28, 2020

    IRC logs for Friday, February 28, 2020



  4. Alexandre Oliva Against Bullying and Violence

    I was ready to come to a close of this series, but an urgent request I got takes priority over the last planned post in the series, now postponed



  5. Links 28/2/2020: Qt 5.15 Beta, UBports/Unity8 Now Lomiri, GCC 8.4 Release Candidate

    Links for the day



  6. Richard Stallman is Now Eligible for the FSF's Award

    To counter the impression that FSF leadership distances itself from the FSF's founder it can publicly display a healthy and cordial relationship with GNU's chief



  7. People Who Oppose Stallman Can be Rude and They Pick on People Who Merely Defend Stallman's Role at FSF

    Earlier this week I wrote about aggressive reactions I receive for my articles; here's one of them (minutes old)



  8. 3 Founders Out in 5 Months

    With OSI's co-founders both out (not long after the start of this year), as well as the founder of the FSF, one must ask who's left to lead the fight against proprietary software injustices



  9. Inside the Free Software Foundation (FSF) - Part II: The Majority of the Board Supports Richard Stallman

    It seems to have become somewhat fashionable separating high-profile projects and institutions from their founders; at the FSF, thankfully (at least for now), the founder still has a foothold



  10. IRC Proceedings: Thursday, February 27, 2020

    IRC logs for Thursday, February 27, 2020



  11. EUIPO and EPO Celebrate Corruption in Croatia

    The EPO returns to its corrupt roots of the Battistelli era even in the form of photo ops



  12. Death of the UPC (Unitary Patent) Confirmed by the British Government

    The lies about the UPC are repeatedly being called out as UPC disarray is confirmed by the spokesperson of Prime Minister Boris Johnson



  13. A Month After One OSI Co-Founder Resigns in the Mailing Lists Over OSI's Attacks on Software Freedom the Other OSI Co-Founder Gets Kicked Out for Speaking About It

    The 'cancel culture' seems to be canceling people who speak about software freedom, under the guise of the real motivation being manners (when one lashes out at those who attack Free software and free speech)



  14. Links 27/2/2020: LibreOffice 6.4.1, Collabora Office for Phones and Latte Dock 0.9.9

    Links for the day



  15. The Linux Foundation is Deeply Committed to Diversity and Inclusiveness (as Long as You Have Perfect Vision and Use 'Big Browsers' That Spy)

    The Linux Foundation's message of inclusiveness refers only to a particular kind of inclusiveness



  16. Inside the Free Software Foundation (FSF) - Part I: Year Zero

    People behind the ousting of Richard Stallman (or 'leaders of the coup' as some call them) want a fresh start; but they aren't starting what most FSF supporters have been led to believe



  17. Alexandre Oliva on Diversity Hypocrites

    "Some of them purport to be for inclusion and diversity, but won't hesitate to make fun of someone's poorly-disguised handicap."



  18. IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, February 26, 2020

    IRC logs for Wednesday, February 26, 2020



  19. Alexandre Oliva: Courage is Contagious

    Having a proposal rejected at a conference is nothing unusual, but the surrounding circumstances and the conflicting versions are.



  20. Links 26/2/2020: Cosmo Communicator 2-in-1, FSF Outlines Plans for Code Hosting

    Links for the day



  21. Reminder: At Linux Foundation in 2020 Three Board Members, Including the Vice Chair and Director at Large, Are Current or Past Microsoft Employees

    Sometimes the facts speak for themselves (or pictures speak louder than words)



  22. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, February 25, 2020

    IRC logs for Tuesday, February 25, 2020



  23. Links 25/2/2020: MakuluLinux LinDoz and Manjaro 19.0 Released

    Links for the day



  24. FSF's Interim Co-President Alexandre Oliva on FSF Communication Policies

    Surely I, being acting president and then half-acting president, must suck as a manager. I probably do indeed, but it's not so simple.



  25. The EU's EUIPO Will Later Today Help the EPO (Run by EUIPO's Former Chief) Promote Illegal Software Patents

    Propaganda terms such as "intellectual property rights" and meaningless concepts like "technical effect" are being used to promote so-called 'computer-implemented inventions' (software patents by another name)



  26. Growing Acceptance That There's No Future to the UPC System and the Unitary Patent

    There are growing pains and more signs that even key elements of Team UPC move on, accepting the demise of the UPC



  27. Emulating the Linux Foundation's Business Model (Selling Influence)

    LibrePlanet sponsors are presented with benefits of offering money to the event (or to the FSF)



  28. Guest Article: LibrePlanet Attendees Should Demand a Partial Refund

    What we do know is — that the FSF is no longer “Free as in Speech!”



  29. IRC Proceedings: Monday, February 24, 2020

    IRC logs for Monday, February 24, 2020



  30. An FSF That Rejects Its Founder Would Not Remain FSF As We Once Knew It

    It's important to keep the FSF focused on its goals; that won't be achieved by expelling those who insist on these goals


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

Recent Posts