01.08.20
An EPO Without EPC or With a Faked EPC
Summary: ‘Constitutional’ violations have become so routine at the EPO that rules are just made up on the spot without proper justification for anything
THE audacity of the European Patent Office (EPO)… alleging that it stands for the law or for lawfulness whilst in practice promoting lawlessness and bragging about it…
“They actively meddle in the legal process and craft new examiners’ guidelines that compel examiners to grant software patents in defiance of the EPC…”The EPO is one heck of a monstrous institution. Set up with diplomatic immunity, it was all along ripe for abuse and corruption. We’ve written thousands of posts highlighting many unique examples and Benjamin Henrion (FFII) has been repeatedly claiming — more so this past week — that the EPO had rewritten (distorted, overridden) the EPC before it used a fictional EPC to justify UPC, low-quality patents and so on. A couple of relevant 'tweets' (unverified):
Look how to EPO has edited the EPC article 142 to make the readers believe it is compatible with the UPC, which it is not https://t.co/BSPEfCpx9E Compared with the PDF https://t.co/tfRHmEmCR9
— zoobab "NO Software Patents" (@zoobab) January 6, 2020
This edit 172 is suspicious, since the EPC has not been touched since EPC2000. Or they use a borderline illegal way to edit the treaty like they plan to do with the UPC.
— zoobab "NO Software Patents" (@zoobab) January 6, 2020
Henrion has also responded to this ‘tweet’ which said: “Who decides what is “technical” at the EPO? Watch Bastian Best’s whole lecture on YouTube…”
So-called ‘lecture’; this German law firm, and Mr. Best in particular, worked closely with the EPO to push abstract patents. And who authorised this? Henrion said: “The EPO.”
“All they care about is fake ‘production’ — something which they measure as if the EPO is a monopolistic business whose sole goal is ‘producing’ as many patent monopolies as possible, as quickly as possible…”Not a court, not one that’s not controlled by António Campinos and Battistelli anyway, both of whom pressure the judges to approve illegal software patents in Europe. They actively meddle in the legal process and craft new examiners’ guidelines that compel examiners to grant software patents in defiance of the EPC (like today’s USPTO does in defiance of 35 U.S.C. § 101).
All they care about is fake ‘production’ — something which they measure as if the EPO is a monopolistic business whose sole goal is ‘producing’ as many patent monopolies as possible, as quickly as possible…
So why won’t they welcome computer-generated applications as well? They might be able to grant millions of patents per day! And besides, don’t they sing praises of the holy “hey hi” (AI) in the examiners’ guidelines? Do they suddenly hate “hey hi”?
“Isn’t it regretful that maniacal patent maximalists only put the curbs on fake ‘production’ when that so-called ‘production’ is being automated?”This week there’s an article in Watchtroll that says “EPO and UKIPO Refuse AI-Invented Patent Applications” (headline).
Not invented, generated. Words like invention or innovation have long been misnomers in this context, but then again the author of the article is James Nurton, former Managing IP writer (the UPC boosters and Battistelli enablers).
Isn’t it regretful that maniacal patent maximalists only put the curbs on fake ‘production’ when that so-called ‘production’ is being automated? Doesn’t that discredit their entire worldview regarding patents? █
Content is available under CC-BY-SA