11.05.19
Gemini version available ♊︎The European Patent Office (EPO) Carelessly Shows the Only ‘Small’ ‘Businesses’ It Serves Are Law Firms and Patent Trolls
Related: The EPO is Still Violating the EPC Every Day
Summary: The façade of EPO ‘caring’ for SMEs cannot stick if the EPO continues along this same trajectory, which merely reveals the nature of so-called ‘businesses’ EPO managers truly support (and profit from ‘on the side’)
THE LATEST bunch of daily links (or Daily Links — a tradition older than a decade here), with in-line editorial comments, speaks regarding anti-Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ‘scholars’ whose sole goal is scuttling quality oversight; they try to manipulate the Federal Circuit into discrediting PTAB judges. Does that sound familiar? Well, haven’t we got an eerily similar problem in Europe? To certain people the sole goal of any patent office should be to grant as many patents as possible and courts need to facilitate as many lawsuits as possible. We know who profits from that: law (litigation) firms.
“WIPO already self-nukes (or shoots its own foot) by celebrating millions of low-quality Chinese patents simply because these help perpetuate the ‘endless growth’ pipe dream. “Frankly, the firms that play along (in this agenda) dig their own grave; they damage their collective credibility and put at risk the world’s patent system/s. WIPO already self-nukes (or shoots its own foot) by celebrating millions of low-quality Chinese patents simply because these help perpetuate the ‘endless growth’ pipe dream.
Patents and innovation/inventions are not the same thing. Inherently, patents are temporary monopolies, granted in exchange for publication. Yesterday we saw this new press release boasting about the EPO “granting it a monopoly of exploitation…”
Yes, rarely does a company admit so openly, in a paid-for press release, what such patents are:
After the United States, the European Patent Office (EPO) has just awarded Spineway a patent for its Mont-Blanc MIS range, granting it a monopoly of exploitation and the protection of its innovation in nearly 40 countries for a period of 20 years. This recognition confirms the innovative nature of its MIS range, marking an important step for its redeployment.
We’re sure that EPO examiners (or examiners elsewhere as well) very well know what patents are, how they work, and why an overabundance of them is a negative — not a positive — thing. It’s common sense and it has been talked about for many decades if not several centuries.
Notice how, in the above press release at least, words like monopoly and exploitation are used. Did a law firm advise this company (paid or unpaid consultation) before emitting that statement?
“We’re sure that EPO examiners (or examiners elsewhere as well) very well know what patents are, how they work, and why an overabundance of them is a negative — not a positive — thing.”Law firms aren’t honest; they tend to lie a lot. Aside from words like “protection” or “property” they also resort to words like “assets” (referring to mere ideas) and call monopolies “rights” — as if one has some natural right to exclude others from competing. This morning we quoted one such law firm, Phillips & Leigh. It’s not merely a firm but a very large company that makes nothing; the company is expressing happiness about European Patent Office (EPO) management breaking its own law to allow software patents in Europe (even the US, post-35 U.S.C. § 101, barely allows any!). Read all about Phillips & Leigh's latest and the "SME" 'study' — the study of António Campinos — maintaining the same lies Battistelli had spread.
World Intellectual Property Review, or WIPR for short, is already spreading these EPO lies for the EPO’s management. It’s not a news site but a litigation propaganda platform, as its recent track record shows. No EPO scandals are covered there anymore; they haven’t doone so in years. They also lost (or fired) writers who covered these issues. Journalism isn’t their goal; the business model is propping up the illusions or lies law firms want the public to believe.
“Journalism isn’t their goal; the business model is propping up the illusions or lies law firms want the public to believe.”Journalism would be greatly harmed it if was reduced to mere 'tweets', especially ones from the EPO itself. Let’s examine what the EPO wrote yesterday alone. It’s as laughable as always. Almost every tweet contained the misleading term “IP”, but let’s look past that minor detail. “New study released by the EPO’s Chief Economist,” the EPO tweeted. It’s just another bundle of old lies ‘refreshed’/rehashed. He is still lying for Battistelli and lying to everyone in Europe. It’s an insult to everybody’s intelligence, including EPO employees. Another tweet then said: “SMEs commercially exploit two thirds of their inventions. For more findings on the impact of European patents on SMEs’ commercial success, have a look at our new study…”
So-called ‘study’. Also look who’s promoting it! A so-called EPO ‘economist’ (a Battistelli-appointed liar that uses veneer of “economist”/”economics” to promote bad policy), doing photo ops with front groups of patent trolls. “Fiona Lesi” (LESI) wrote: “Thomas Bereuter and Yann Meniere of @EPOorg at the start of the EPO/ @LESIntl high growth tech conference in Dublin today – great programme & speakers” (photo added). The EPO obviously retweeted this and then continued with this: “@EPOorg and #LESinternationalr High Growth Technology Business Conference in #dublin kicked off by Yann Méniére and Thomas Bereuter of the #EPO. Setting the scene for the day.”
“Now they lie to us, pretending that they cherish “SMEs”…”Another EPO retweet: “Full house at the @EPOorg @LESIntl @LESBandI Enterprise Ireland High growth tech conference in Dublin – speaking today on behalf of @Inngot on tools to help identify, manage and value your IP”
“Heartwarming to see EPO alongside front groups of patent trolls,” I responded, “because that helps reveal just whose interests EPO keeps pushing this past decade or so (at Europe’s expense)…”
Now they lie to us, pretending that they cherish “SMEs”…
Don’t ask them to actually define that term; as people pointed out, critiquing such past ‘studies’, they cherry-pick a very particular type of so-called ‘SMEs’… hardly a representative set. That’s because, to EPO management living in one particular nonscientific bubble, facts do not matter. Facts often turn out to be an inconvenience. █
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA