Summary: Odd rants which misuse common law and ignore alleged Fair Use (and misinterpretation of copyright law, for censorship purposes) would have people believe that we're wrong; but it's more likely that the person in question is jealous, insecure, or offended by our stance on patent scope, which is very much rooted in the law itself (and the views widely held by software developers globally)
OUR in-depth coverage of European Patent Office (EPO) affairs is over 5 years old. We had covered the EPO prior to that, but not as frequently. We nowadays have pretty deep insights, valuable contacts and a good understanding of the issues. We're fine with attorneys/lawyers not liking us. Some of them accept what we're arguing, whereas others find it "offensive". We can't please everyone, but we can at least keep honest. We're sincere, sometimes brutally (for some).
"We don't try to discourage dissent against us; we're all for free speech. But free speech also means the right to defend oneself -- something IP Kat urgently needs teaching itself about."We don't typically write this kind of post, but SUEPO currently links to a Kluwer article from Team UPC, where the majority of comments mention Techrights in one form or another. There's one person there who always claims to sort of agree while at the same time, perpetually, always bashing us. We've noticed the same in IP Kat and another site. It's usually the same person and it often boils down to our view/s on patent scope.
In short, arguing that the EPC is OK with software patents is intellectually dishonest; that's simply untrue. And no, calling it "HEY HI" (AI) won't change that; I've done "AI" since my early 20s, I know how that works. I wrote code to that effect.
The law is pretty clear about software patents. So are the courts. So is the European Parliament. But we suppose those who make a living from such patents are in denial about it (for the same reason Team UPC is in denial about the collapse of UPC/A).
We don't try to discourage dissent against us; we're all for free speech. But free speech also means the right to defend oneself -- something IP Kat urgently needs teaching itself about. It's also deleting comments critical of the EPO and its management. Not cool...
Earlier today we saw a post about PPH (akin to PACE and other programmes that speed things up; another such programme was mentioned here yesterday). Speed isn't indicative of quality and it's usually detrimental to accuracy, especially when multiple people need to assess a case/application. PPH generally works in favour of software patents in Europe -- patents that are legal neither in Europe nor in Australia. They're looking "to fast-track patent applications," as Paul Whenman and Andrew Gregory have just put it. Their article is about sloppy patent examination designed to just help aggressive patent trolls and equip those looking for sanctions/embargoes (profit by harm and extortion), not innovation. Campinos and Battistelli don't know what innovation is; they're not scientists. In the words of Whenman and Gregory: [via Lexology]
IP Australia became an early participant in the PPH process. Following a successful pilot program with the USPTO, which commenced on 14 April 2008, Australia joined the Global PPH (GPPH). The GPPH initially covered Canada, US, Japan, South Korea, Denmark, Finland, Great Britain, Iceland, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Russia. Subsequently, the New Zealand jurisdiction was added, along with a raft of other particpants.
Although the European Patent Office (EPO) is notably absent from the list of GPPH participants, fortuitously, IP Australia entered into a bilateral agreement with the EPO on 1 July 2016 in order to fast-track patent applications. This agreement provided for a trial period of three years. Given the global significance of the EPO, this was a very welcome and positive development.
[...]
On 1 July 2019 it was announced that the PPH trial between IP Australia and the EPO would continue for a further three years. Additionally, the original GPPH program with the other participant IP offices continues with no indication of curtailment.
This is indeed very good news as applicants will continue to be able to access and gain the benefits of the generous PPH programs operated by IP Australia.
“On 1 July 2019 it was announced that the PPH trial between IP Australia and the EPO would continue for a further three years.”
--Paul Whenman and Andrew GregoryPPH is obviously biased or tilted in favour of plaintiffs, not defendants. Judging by who (or whose groups) today's EPO management likes to associate with and hang out with (in the media it has liaised with Watchtroll), it's crystal clear whose side they're on. How many of today's EPO managers even have a background in science? One is alleged to have faked his diploma, but that's another matter. If a few people have an issue with our EPO coverage not because they disagree about the EPO but about patent scope, maybe it's because they don't do actual coding and can't quite see things with developers' scopes/optics. ⬆