11.12.19
SUEPO Showed That the Media Won’t Cover EPO Corruption Until Half the Workers March in the Streets
And even then it’s treated as just a minor infraction
Summary: What ought to have been a central (if not ‘the’ central) issue of debate in Europe is still being treated as borderline irrelevant or marginal
THE affairs in The Hague concern me. They affect me. They affect billions of people. Many of these people don’t know about it. Many of them don’t know how patent law works. A very tiny fraction of them would even be aware/infromed — at any point — about the scandals. I mean, it’s not like it involves football or FIFA, does it?
“Why aren’t these affairs covered on a daily basis?”These affairs also affect me as a programmer. These affairs affect millions of Europeans capable of programming. They affect hundreds of millions of Europeans who use computer programs. Perhaps more importantly, these affairs impact every facet of life, including medicine, working conditions, family life, travel, food and so on.
Why aren’t these affairs covered on a daily basis? If not as ‘front page’ news, why not at least the centerfold or some side section (like the above)? If the goal of journalism is to keep the general public informed, what went on last week should be a segment in all major TV channels and all major newspapers. In Munich the protests were barely even mentioned (we’ve found no examples).
“In Munich the protests were barely even mentioned (we’ve found no examples).”Credit goes to Algemeen Dagblad; its article was archived here [PDF] by SUEPO, which added: “(Algemeen Dagblad – AD.nl published in paper version on 08/11/2019). “Personeel patentbureau is het zat”. Scan is available here.”
We’ve turned the relevant part into the image above. It’s important to keep this stuff documented. Over the past few years the media pretended — at least to itself — that everything was back in order owing to a meaningless presidential shuffle. Office affairs have barely been touched by Dutch media since a year and a half ago (new but unfinished building being ‘inaugurated’).
“Office affairs have barely been touched by Dutch media since a year and a half ago (new but unfinished building being ‘inaugurated’).”What ever happened to coverage of legal affairs? Do matters pertaining to the law of no interest? What 35 U.S.C. § 101 means to the USPTO‘s Director is what the EPC means to António Campinos and Battistelli at the European Patent Office (EPO). Both of them trash the EPC. In the US there have been lots of media articles about these controversial affairs of Iancu, so why not the same in Europe? Is the public too ‘dumb’ to understand legal affairs? Is this what so-called ‘journalists’ want us to believe?
Owing to media apathy and negligence, in my experience at least, European law was regularly violated. We’re supposed to think that any criticism of this kind is some sort of attack on the “EU” and thus an assault on European peace/coexistence. How convenient and simplistic a narrative…
There’s an upcoming case, G1/19, which proponents of software patents in the US mentioned as recently as yesterday (linking to this, from the US). We’ve also just learned about Microsoft (US) fighting for software patents where those are not legal; anything for “MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING” to keep blackmailing companies while pretending the company is a reformed angel…
“We’ve also just learned about Microsoft (US) fighting for software patents where those are not legal; anything for “MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING” to keep blackmailing companies while pretending the company is a reformed angel…”Bardehle Pagenberg’s Bastian Best had promoted his latest promotion of software patents in Europe, in which he brags that the EPO grants bogus patents that courts would reject, namely: “SQL language extensions for modifying columns in a single statement” (obviously software).
“The European Patent Office considered an SQL language extension for modifying collection-valued and scalar valued columns in a single statement to be technical,” he wrote. “Here are the practical takeaways of the decision T 0697/17 (SQL extensions/MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING) of 17.10.2019 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.07…”
Well, the Technical Board of Appeal does not have independence. It is controlled by the Office — the same problem that already disgraces G1/19 (because Campinos meddles in the case/outcome).
“Well, the Technical Board of Appeal does not have independence. It is controlled by the Office — the same problem that already disgraces G1/19 (because Campinos meddles in the case/outcome).”As one can expect, the logic of patent maximalists is that even bogus, invalid, illegal patents can be OK because they’re not litigated. Companies like Microsoft use these fake patents in bulk for blackmail and extortion (or cross-licensing with other monopolies). “In response to Quality,” one person wrote yesterday, “what do you expect, the fact that some Examiners never refuse a case, does not mean that quality has suffered. It is the best Examiners that offer claims of very narrow scope which satisfy everyone. Third parties are not unduly hindered, and the applicant has some protection. Such wise Examiners are now rare, who understood that since most EP patents are not opposed or litigated, no third parties are interested or really care. That means the applicant might not need a huge scope of protection, and protection granted will not inconvenience anyone. Granting patents of fairly narrow scope will satisfy everyone is most instances and the system keeps going without too much fuss…”
So it “keeps going” in whose favour? Law firms? Their biggest clients? Seems like those are the only entities which matter to today’s EPO management.
“Companies like Microsoft use these fake patents in bulk for blackmail and extortion (or cross-licensing with other monopolies).”We’re meanwhile seeing the “HEY HI” (AI) panic reappearing at VentureBeat. Yesterday they published: “In August, three agencies — the USPTO, European Patent Office (EPO), and United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) — received two patent dockets filed by Thaler’s DABUS…”
Oh, maybe the EPO will want to work for large companies’ algorithms now, by awarding them too monopolies?
From the article:
The system has motivated people like former aerospace engineer Dr. Stephen Thaler to turn to AI in pursuit of a better way. He, along with a team of legal experts and engineers, developed DABUS, a “creativity machine” that’s able to generate ideas without human intervention. A “critic” component within DABUS monitors the system’s idea-generating modules, enabling it to isolate and ripen those that evince the most utility. In August, three agencies — the USPTO, European Patent Office (EPO), and United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) — received two patent dockets filed by Thaler’s DABUS. One is for a beverage container, and the other is for a light that flashes in a rhythm that’s hard to ignore.
It’s not unreasonable to say that DABUS has paved the way for AI invention systems yet to come — and opened something of a Pandora’s box in the process. At issue is whether AI qualifies as an inventor under statutes like the America Invents Act, which defines a filer as “the individual or, if a joint invention, the individuals collectively who invented or discovered the subject matter of the invention.” Some scholars argue that “individual” might be interpreted broadly to mean machines as well people and that denying an AI the right of conception could hinder innovation. But others assert that allowing AI to be credited with an invention might deter human developers who find themselves unable to compete.
The EPO does not care about humans; it cares only about corporations. The EPO doesn’t even value humans who work for the EPO. It strives to help corporations and their “HEY HI” replace these humans, even if for vastly inferior outcomes. All that matters is that few massive monopolies (usually American companies) will net all the money, perhaps serving some ‘kickbacks’ to EPO managers.
It’s quite frankly absurd the European media doesn’t cover these issues. When it mentions the EPO it typically just repeats the EPO’s words or prints ‘prepared’ articles from the EPO’s own PR department. I heard inside stories to that effect.
“When it mentions the EPO it typically just repeats the EPO’s words or prints ‘prepared’ articles from the EPO’s own PR department.”It has been hard to look past the EPO’s latest headline (warning: epo.org link) with popular culture reference like “Back to the future” (while speaking about “youth”). Munich’s “TED” — like all “TEDs” — is corrupt anyway (promoting oligarchy), i.e. it’s just like EPO management. To quote the EPO itself: “TED is a non-profit organization that achieved global acclaim through its TED Talk conference. Since inception 30 years ago, the annual event has featured well-known presenters such as Bill Gates, Jane Goodall and Sir Richard Branson. The conference spawned TEDx: A series of events managed by local organisers in cities worldwide. TEDxMünchen forms part of this series.”
And guess whose views are impermissible? It’s like that infamous Davos ‘forum’, except it’s multinational in the location sense.
The EPO tweeted on Monday: “What an amazing day! Congratulations to the @TEDxMuenchen team for putting together an inspiring event & thank you to all of you who have shared your thoughts on innovation with us! From all of us at the EPO, THANK YOU!”
“The EPO bribed and/or intimidated some of them, using its humongous and misused (no oversight!) budget.”I responded sincerely: “No, sorry. The Twitter account of EPOorg does NOT speak for “all of us at the EPO”; it’s a voice of oppression against EPO staff, lying to the staff and to the world on behalf of few corrupt individuals…”
We certainly hope for more coverage about EPO affairs — with or without these staff protests (the protests ought not be a requirement for journalism). My personal view has become so negative, seeing how so-called ‘journalists’ whom I contact refuse to deal with the subject, with publishers (media owners) being largely to blame. They spike stories and discourage writers. The EPO bribed and/or intimidated some of them, using its humongous and misused (no oversight!) budget. █
Content is available under CC-BY-SA