They go after vulnerable companies/people outside actual courts (with likely bogus patents like patents on maths)

Summary: Patent maximalism remains a threat to everyone but patent lawyers (and patent office chiefs who measure their own performance only by the number of patents granted); best served are the patent trolls who extrajudicially attack already-impoverished parties behind closed doors

IT DOES not really matter how many software patents the European Patent Office (EPO) and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) grant if courts throw these out, as they do in Europe and in the US (citing 35 U.S.C. ۤ 101). It does, however, help trolls because they don't aim to actually file lawsuits and end up in court. This is why Campinos and Battistelli, by granting loads of fake patents, mostly help trolls.

UDL Intellectual Property's [sic] Clair Curran has just said:

A recent decision by the EPO Boards of Appeal(T1218/14)highlights the pitfalls of using undisclosed disclaimers in patent claims.

"Seeing that patent trolls are best served by this status quo, we don't suppose the FCC will allow UPC ratification."Well, as things stand at the moment the EPO Boards of Appeal do not enjoy any form of autonomy or independence. They habitually say so themselves, even publicly. As long as that's the case, which it still is, expect not much to improve at the EPO (e.g. in terms of patent scope/quality) and expect the UPC to never get off the ground. In a recent puff piece, published by EPO-bribed media, Bristows admitted they're just faking progress. “The [UPC] preparatory committee is trying to give the impression of continuing momentum,” they said. There's no momentum. None. Seeing that patent trolls are best served by this status quo, we don't suppose the FCC will allow UPC ratification. ⬆