06.13.19
EPO Spreading Patent Extremists’ Ideology to the Whole World, Now to South Korea
In the EPO’s very own words:
Summary: The EPO’s footprint around the world's patent systems is an exceptionally dangerous one; The EPO amplifies the most zealous voices of the patents and litigation ‘industry’ while totally ignoring the views and interests of the European public, rendering the EPO an ‘agent of corporate occupation’
THE European Patent Office (EPO) said it would change. It said that António Campinos would correct the negative legacy of corrupt Battistelli, who not only phased in software patents under the guise of “4IR” and similar nonsense (buzzwords like ‘Industry 4.0’) but also severely attacked the staff, causing major brain drain. The EPO may never recover from it as recruitment relies on reputation, which can take decades (or entire generations) to earn/recover.
“Henrion (the FFII’s President) is one of not so many who are actively engaging on behalf of the software community.”Benjamin Henrion (FFII), a concerned software developer like yours truly, wanted to submit feedback for the EPO’s vision. He had done so before and so did I (I wrote some letters more than a decade ago). Days ago he complained [1, 2, 3]: “EPO 2023: “and in line with our terms of use.” was added between the first and last round of consultations https://www.epo.org/about-us/office/consultation.html#tab3 […] They moved the link to here: https://www.epo.org/about-us/office/consultation.html#tab3 […] Seems the EPO removed the contributions to the EPO 2023 ‘public’ consultation from its website #epo @EPOorg cannot find back the link. They need to be “transmitted” to the administrative council for “adoption” somewhere in June https://www.epo.org/about-us/office/strategy.html#tab3 … http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2019/04/20/epo-publishes-draft-strategic-plan-2023-and-holds-a-new-consultation/ …”
Henrion (the FFII’s President) is one of not so many who are actively engaging on behalf of the software community. As we showed last month, the EPO made it difficult for non-lawyers/attorneys to even submit any feedback. As Henrion put it: “EPO “users” are patent applicants, fully captured institution “Membership should not be limited to stakeholders defined as “users” of the system stricto sensu, but reflect the broader impact and interest of society in the patent system as a whole” http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponot.nsf/0/8C1A0ABD4D38E2CEC12583D600407D56/$File/No_Patents_on_Seeds_10052019_en.pdf […] EPO a totally captured institution: “While the stakeholders participating at the AC meetings such as BUSINESS-EUROPE,EPI are heavily weighted in favour of vested interests in obtaining patents, other civil society organisations are not represented at all” http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponot.nsf/0/8C1A0ABD4D38E2CEC12583D600407D56/$File/No_Patents_on_Seeds_10052019_en.pdf …”
So they just basically don’t care what the European public has to say; they care about what some law firms and foreign corporations say. Whose institution is it and who is it actually accountable/answerable to?
See this other new tweet: “Considering that EPO is financed by fees for patents issued it is in their motivation to grant as many patents as possible.”
This has completely and entirely corrupted the EPO. It’s all about money; not science, not Europe, not innovation.
Ben Wodecki has also just published this article which relates to what’s quoted above. Anyone with high school education surely understands that humans did not ‘invent’ nature or ‘create’ seeds. This is robbery aided by corrupt EPO officials (‘pirating’ from nature or stealing from the Commons, privatising or monopolising what always existed). To quote Wodecki:
No Patents on Seeds has demanded that loopholes allowing companies to obtain European patents on conventionally bred plants and animals need to be closed.
The group warned that patents granted by the European Patent Office (EPO) that cover fish reared on specific plants could “become a precedent for many other patent applications”.Patents covering conventionally bred plants and animals are prohibited by rule 28(2) for the interpretation of the European Patent Convention (EPC). However, the European Patent Office has come under fire for granting patents on what some claim are conventionally bred patents on plants and animals.
The group has called on current prohibitions like rule 28(2) of the EPC to be implemented more effectively.
[...]
“If this strategy is successful, companies will in future claim more and more such food monopolies.”
The EPO’s management seems blind (perhaps intentionally) to common sense. It asked already-intimidated judges to weigh in; as if they can tell the emperor (to his face) that he’s naked…
Stupid buzzwords that this corrupt EPO has spread and paid to promote (we’ve already covered how it paid media companies for this) are still being picked by Korean media. The EPO even bragged about it some 12-13 months ago; after it had paid the media it spoke about how media in South Korea used those same terms — terms that are used to enable/legitimise bogus patents that courts would certainly reject, e.g. software patents. Here’s the latest from The Korea Herald (headline modified from “Top global IP offices discuss cooperation in ‘Industry 4.0’ era” to “Top IP offices forge patent cooperation system in ‘Industry 4.0’ era” some time around Thursday morning, based on timestamps).
Notice ‘Industry 4.0’ in the title/headline; we don’t want to repeat all the lies and nonsense here; reproducing it won’t help. “Under KIPO’s chairmanship,” says the summary, “top IP policymakers seek ways to strengthen partnerships, discuss impact of AI” (here they go again with “HEY HI!” — a subject we’ll touch later on in another article). There’s also a Campinos photo op in there (further down the article) and it says:
On Tuesday, he met with EPO President Campinos to sign a memorandum of understanding to test a sharing process of screening information.
Currently, KIPO and EPO have access to each other’s patent screening data but the range is limited to patents that are past 18 months from application and are thus subject to public disclosure. Should the MOU take effect, starting July 1, the two offices will be able to access to undisclosed patent data for screening reference.
Well, the good news is, Mr. Campinos managed to board the plane to Korea. Maybe they had to reroute him to the south; he thought he was flying to a dictatorship like his; we’ve already used the North Korea analogies (comparisons to the EPO) about a dozen times before. These are still apt analogies. █
Content is available under CC-BY-SA