Reference: Technobabble

Summary: The EPO's nontechnical management speaks to nontechnical authorities about nonsensical rubbish, hoping to somehow justify patents on algorithms; examiners very well know they're being passed illegal orders (granting software patents which courts repeatedly reject)

THE European Patent Office (EPO) has not exactly sought to improve patent quality. It only ever talks about it while doing the exact opposite.

The lying duo, the Campinos/Battistelli pair, loves misusing the word "quality"; they typically mean speed, not quality, which would likely be exactly the opposite of speed. Both have promoted software patents in Europe, albeit usually through technobabble and buzzwords. Neither of them has background in science and technology, they're just lying politicians. They lack an understanding of the job. They speak for litigation firms, just like IAM does^*. Not for scientists. Not for technologists. Definitely not for examiners, who are themselves scientists and technologists.

"It's worth noting that applications without those buzzwords will likely be simpler to reject."IAM is of course pushing and promoting illegal European software patents under the guise of "hey hi" (AI) -- doing so persistently just as it does when covering USPTO affairs, suggesting ways to bypass 35 U.S.C. €§ 101. Here's a new example of it (boosted by Lexology). Maiwald Patentanwalts- und Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH (German) say: "Care must be taken when using digitalisation buzzwords such as ‘blockchain’ or ‘cloud’. The attention attracted by these buzzwords does not necessarily imply that they need to be included in the independent claim."

"AI" is also a buzzword (the headline says "Protection of inventions in AI and digitalisation"). If inserted into the patent application examiners would be pushed to grant; the new guidelines make that almost an imperative and the USPTO follows suit. Also boosted by Lexology is this article that starts by saying that "there has been increased interest in artificial intelligence (AI), both in the mainstream news and the IP world."

They mostly mean framing illegal software patents as "hey hi" (pure propaganda with buzzwords) and sometimes automatically-generating applications.

Call it "hey hi" (AI) something.

The EPO's examiners will be pressured (pressure from clueless, nontechnical managers) to stamp it.

It's worth noting that applications without those buzzwords will likely be simpler to reject. The loudest proponents of such patents have just given a new example, adding: "Authorisation of access terminal rather than user: technical EPO refused to grant a software patent on a method and system of authorisation of an access terminal rather than a user."

They even say it explicitly: "software patent" (which is excluded from patenting).

So IAM will keep pushing articles like this one (boosted in Lexology) about "IP [sic] enforcement in Germany" and hope that lawyers can maximise their income. After all, those are the people who subsidise IAM and Lexology. Even if these patents are invalid, it may not matter to them as long as there's a legal battle; the only way to prevent it is to restrict and avoid these grants in the first place. But the EPO's management goes out of its way with new excuses and new buzzwords with which to justify illegal behaviour. ⬆ _____ ^* IAM's parent company has freed some promotional articles lately, including "Prepare for litigation" (Lexology), this bit of propaganda (Lexology) whose headline contained two propaganda terms -- "IP" and "innovation" (misused to mean something else). It speaks of the litigation-centric PPH:

The PPH is an available option to expedite prosecution of Malaysian patent applications. With this latest addition, MyIPO now has PPH agreements with three foreign patent offices: the Japan Patent Office (JPO), the European Patent Office (EPO) and the CNIPA.

There's this thing about PCT (Lexology). The "C" should stand for collusion, not cooperation, as that helps robber barons impose their monopolies on everyone globally. Whose cooperation is it and what for? They're also calling (Lexology) things "emerging technologies" to get patents on them even though such patents are illegal (outside scope of patents' coverage).