Not yet ready to let machines overrun (flood) the whole system

Too many patents? No patents yet on musical notations and singing?

Summary: The clueless and illegal policies adopted at the EPO's higher floors (such as instructing examiners -- the EPO 'underclass' -- to grant software patents 'dressed up' as "HEY HI") are taking their toll on the Office, which is coming to grips with what software really is and why it doesn't belong in the patent system (copyrights cover code)

Like the Director of the USPTO (Trump appointee with business connections to him), Team Campinos/Battistelli promotes software patents in spite of 35 U.S.C. ۤ 101 and the EPC, respectively. What good are patent offices that grant patents in defiance of the law or caselaw? What are we supposed to think of such offices? When they dare lecture us all on "following the law" or "respecting the law..."

This conundrum isn't a new one. We've written a number of condemnations "as such" regarding Brimelow. For an office to "work around" the law like some lawyers do isn't good "civil service"; why do these people lack integrity? Well, maybe it's their integrity deficit that helps them climb so high the career ladder.

Be as it may, American and European patents both continue to perish in courts. We don't have the exact number (it also depends on what one quantifies), but it's easy to see that patent certainty has diminished in the US and in Europe. Justice isn't cheap (court battles, appeals included), so low-quality and Invalid Patents (IPs) can still be leveraged for out-of-court settlements. Patent trolls do this as a 'career'. The EPO welcomes this kind of behaviour and occasionally rewards the most notorious culprits. It would be unthinkable if the EPO actually had competition (it would be reputational suicide).

"Justice isn't cheap (court battles, appeals included), so low-quality and Invalid Patents (IPs) can still be leveraged for out-of-court settlements. Patent trolls do this as a 'career'."The European Patent Office (EPO) has just tweeted: "The EPO has refused two European patent applications on the grounds that the designated inventor is not a human being."

Wow. The EPO rejecting something? Let's check why.

The EPO rejects "HEY HI" except when it's illegal software patents being granted in Europe (then it's OK, then it's "innovation" the Office should not deprive).

"Here we go," wrote Janal Kalis, a loud proponent of patents on software. "The EPO refused the 2 EP patent applications that named software as inventors."

Gibus, a campaigner in this area (against software patents), wrote: "more than 15 years ago, we warned that EPO practice of granting software patents would lead to such issues...

"I remember Jean-Paul Smets questions about AI generated patents," Benjamin Henrion responded. "Maybe a secret weapon to flood the system?"

We wrote about this aspect about four times in the past. The whole thing is self-discrediting (to the patent system's maximalists, e.g. the presumption it's always about promoting innovation).

As Patrick Lowder put it: "That is an incredibly important decision. Are patents designed to protect human arts and sciences?"

The sole response to it? "Never were."

Alex Auerbach said: "Did the AI automatically file a complaint?"

Here's the explanation from yesterday: (warning: epo.org link)

The EPO has refused two European patent applications in which a machine was designated as inventor. Both patent applications indicate “DABUS” as inventor, which is described as “a type of connectionist artificial intelligence”. The applicant stated that they acquired the right to the European patent from the inventor by being its successor in title.

After hearing the arguments of the applicant in non-public oral proceedings on 25 November the EPO refused EP 18 275 163 and EP 18 275 174 on the grounds that they do not meet the requirement of the EPC that an inventor designated in the application has to be a human being, not a machine. A reasoned decision may be expected in January 2020.

So suddenly the EPO pretends to value "requirement of the EPC"? Having already violated the EPC countless time and whilst operating in violation of the EPC every day? The EPO breaks many other rules and regulations, including its own. It also engaged in illegal union-busting efforts and it has just advertised in Twitter this bit about strike action (which is expected soon at the EPO as well): "Notice from the European Patent Office dated 9 December 2019 concerning postal transmission problems in Finland owing to strike action..."

The EPO speaks about it in its Official Journal for December 2019 (warning: epo.org link). ⬆