03.27.20
Gemini version available ♊︎Faking Production With Fake Patents on Software
Summary: The EPO with its illegal guidelines (in violation of the EPC) can carry on churning out millions of fake patents that European courts would only waste time on and small companies be blackmailed with (they cannot afford legal battles)
ERLIER this month we wrote about the European Patent Office’s (EPO) 'results', confronting some media which merely parroted the EPO’s claims. Some of that media had been paid by the EPO, so no wonder…
Adding to preexisting strains on fact-checking processes was also Coronavirus, which had already been spreading across the German borders. So basically, as usual, no real reporting could be found about false claims from António Campinos and his ‘butlers’ from EUIPO. His predecessor too managed to control the media, if not by bribery then by threats (intimidation by lawsuits). Whatever they claimed was reprinted as “fact”; no further analysis needed, critical skills or scepticism suspended altogether.
It’s no secret that the EPO uses increasingly broad and vague terms to refer to illegal software patents that courts across Europe reject (and forget about UPC!), so imagine the EPO tweeting: “If you’re interested in patenting trends in different fields of technology, click here…”
Hmmm…
“Technology…”
That’s almost like saying “Science…”
The EPO also tweeted: “EPO President António Campinos: “The rapid rise of digital technologies is the most striking trend from our 2019 index … The digital transformation of the economy is now fully reflected in the #patent applications reaching the EPO.””
So now it’s “digital technologies…”
Could that mean… let us see?
Judging by the IAM interview from earlier this month, Campinos is eager to grant patents on software. He does not seem to care what the law says and he keeps lying about the EPC and the EPO’s bogus framework for bypassing it.
A “rapid rise” in illegal patents, Mr. Campinos? Or valid ones?
It seems increasingly clear that the EPO fakes ‘growth’ by undermining the EPC and granting patents that should never have been granted in the first place. Such patents should be revoked because those patents are illegal. Since the Oppositions and the Appeals are under the thumb of the Office, the only way to get them revoked independently is to take them to courts, which can be hugely expensive. This means that today’s EPO leaves a sordid mess of hundreds of thousands of IPs (Invalid Patents) instead of EPs. We already know who will pay the price for that and who benefits financially from this fakery.
Also retweeted by the EPO around the same day was this EU account, which tweeted: “Behind every video game, there is an intricate bundle of IP. The European Patent Office @EPOorg and the EUIPO – European Union Intellectual Property Office @EU_IPO have recorded a webinar on the technical and non-technical IP rights involved: http://ow.ly/ycOT50yT0AD”
Here is the EU openly promoting illegal software patents together with the EPO (this harms the EU and its perception of lawfulness, obviously) and with the EUIPO, which is where the EPO ‘hires’ from (are there any hiring processes or are any at all needed when Campinos just ‘hand-picks’ old friends?). Remember who runs the EUIPO and why.
The EPO was then also promoting such illegal patents under the guise of “CII”. It’s illegal, but they get away with it again and again. The EU is seemingly fine with it! Who cares what the law says, right?
The EPO wrote: “The recorded webinar on “Videogaming and IP: how to play the game” is now available here…”
We wrote about this at the time; it was very obviously about software patents.
Later in the week the EPO wrote: “#5G and #AI are drivers of growth: patent applications at the EPO in digital communication grew by nearly 20% in 2019. The second-fastest-growing field was computer technology (+10%).”
Oh, we see…
Technology becomes “digital” and now it’s “computer technology”…
Could that be…?
Here’s the term “computer technology” again: “European patent applications from Sweden up +8.0% in 2019, boosted by increases in patent filings related to digital communication & computer technology.”
What is this computer technology?
It’s an umbrella term that means or includes illegal patents that EPO examiners were not supposed to grant (but the EPO breaks the law with impunity to crush staff, fake ‘performance’, and loot the institution).
We remind readers that examiners who refuse to grant those patents (i.e. those upholding the law, not disgraceful guidelines) will be reprimanded and likely fired.
Does it say “AI”? Then grant! Novel!
Buzzwords in place of illegal patents on algorithms?
“HEY HI” (AI) is certainly a popular misnomer nowadays.
Of course EPO management will continue to deny that this is a violation of the law. In recent days it wrote: “Have you got suggestions on how to improve the EPC and PCT-EPO Guidelines? Submit your feedback here…”
It also wrote: “Give us your feedback on our EPC and PCT-EPO Guidelines in our public consultation…”
They give the impression that the policy is from and for the public, but watch who submits input.
Yes, litigation firms. Today’s EPO does not bother with anyone else. Once in 12 months it throws a piece of metal or glass at some scientists it invites on stage, but that’s about it. It’s a misleading charade called “Inventor Award”…
Anyway, the EPO breaks the EPC regardless of what people are saying because the litigation ‘industry’ just wants as many patents and lawsuits as possible, even if lawsuits that go nowhere (they get paid either way).
Every single day this month we can see the EPO promoting software patents without explicitly calling these what they are.
“Self-driving vehicle technologies are making strong progress,” the EPO tweeted, as “EPO study confirms: http://bit.ly/SDVstudy” (so EPO pays someone to say something for the EPO!)
“A lot of these are bogus software patents,” I responded, “and I should know having written and published code in this domain.
“EPO keeps breaking the law (which nobody holds it accountable for)…” █
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA