Summary: IAM "Foreword" composed by the EPO; is this journalism or just self-serving propaganda and agenda-steering operations with the veneer of reporting and/or expert advice?

THE administration of the EPO is corrupt; and that's a shame...

That this administration moreover corrupts media and academia is an aspect that has disturbed me for many years; I physically met journalists who, in turn, told me stories about what the EPO had done, sometimes through their bosses.

Heck, I used to exchange amicable E-mails with IP Kat ("Merpel" as their multi-person pseudonym) before a bunch of António Campinos apologists took over -- going as far as deleting entire comment threads for discussing Mr. Campinos.

"Ever wondered why German officials are so eager to let UPCA in through the door? Despite what constitutional judges (Justices) are saying?"To those who wonder why we're cynical about the media all we can suggest is, read our past articles! Blackmail, extortion, bribery... you name it! I've seen it all. I've seen letters, I've even been sent some (most of them also republished here at some point). It's really ugly, it's utterly disgusting, and it's patently corrupt. Ever wondered why there's media blackout about EPO scandals? Or why the Commission got stacked with 'cover-up agents' of EPO management? That's not a coincidence. It's all planned, and those people know each other and have phone books. A lot of this stuff/staff is pre-arranged, like the successor of Campinos at EUIPO (former EPO), the filling of his vacant position at CEIPI, even appointments of judges. These people always want to get what they need, including complete lack of oversight. Ever wondered why German officials are so eager to let UPCA in through the door? Despite what constitutional judges (Justices) are saying? Despite common sense? As Dimitris Xenos (British lecturer) told me yesterday: "The[re] should be a list of all German public officials, incl. academic propagandists involved in the policy/decision-making as ad hoc experts or otherwise under the title: '#unifiedpatentcourt - meet the Germans' Re: Margot Frohlinger's mini CV http://fordhamipinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/MF-biography.pdf [...] We need details from the source of this info giving details, when the Commission considered UK's request for new study, who Fraudlinger was with, when, etc. And, also how this has been followed up, as the Commission (2015) admitted problems for SMEs https://ffii.org/is-germany-competing-with-hungary-and-poland-on-the-worst-rule-of-law-award-with-its-rushed-ratification-of-the-unitary-patent/… ref 16"

Workers of the EPO are aware of the sort of abuses we've come to expect; they experience those firsthand, almost every day.

Now, to the 'meat' of this story, remember IAM with its so-called 'quality' benchmarks and Benoît Battistelli puff pieces disguised as 'interviews'? IAM is taking money to lobby for the UPC, sometimes with false reports and outright lies/fabrications. We covered many examples over the years.

And now?

Guess what...

Isn't it amazing that officials from the EPO now write for IAM as if the site is just a naked front group of their illegal agenda (or lawbreaking and theft)? Yes, that's correct, "iam-media.com/foreword" is an article from Campinos, complete with photo and bio. As if he's a journalist. The article is ridiculously shallow; Campinos totally exploits COVID-19 for marketing while he's obstructing research and has done illegal things to staff and stakeholders. Harming their health...

What does that say about IAM? Did it ever have any sense of integrity?

And speaking of UPC, here's another new example of so-called 'articles' written not by journalists but self-serving lobbies. This one is "By Andrew White, Partner and UK & European patent attorney at intellectual property firm, Mathys & Squire" (i.e. marketing).

"The implementation of the Unified Patent," it says, "is seen as a priority in the action plan, indicating that it will reduce fragmentation and complexity, and will reduce costs for participants, as well as bridging “the gap between the cost of patent protection in Europe when compared with the US, Japan and other countries”. The action plan also indicates that it will “foster investment in R&D and facilitate the transfer of knowledge across the Single Market”."

These are all lies. Blame Breton et al. There's a similar one from the 'Birds' (chronic liars from Team UPC) being promoted across several sites and hubs right now. It speaks of "support a rapid roll-out of the unitary patent system, to create a one-stop-shop for patent protection and enforcement across the EU (2021)..."

What we have here is an echo chamber of lies.

EPO staff may still remember the days when World Intellectual Property Review (WIPR) covered the EPO affairs. Before management started threatening those who did the coverage (I know because they told me so!); since then the site has quit pretending to be an objective news site. It has become mouthpiece of patent trolls' lobbyists and combatants (Bristows in this new case).

Notice how all three articles (above; that's all we've found) are in fact composed by Team UPC and litigation zealots. What happened to journalism? Oh, well... let's turn to the experts from IAM, whose editor is apparently the President of the EPO now. Writing their "Foreward", too...

Later they wonder why people have become so cynical about the media. Maybe if its goal was still to inform people (exposing previously-unknown facts), more people would still trust it. ⬆