EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

10.15.19

Raw: EPO Comes Under Fire for Lowering Patent Quality Under the Orwellian Guise of “Collaborative Quality Improvements” (CQI)

Posted in Europe, Patents at 11:10 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

CSC on Collaborative Quality Improvements

Summary: Stephen Rowan, the President’s (António Campinos) chosen VP who promotes the notorious “Collaborative Quality Improvements” (CQI) initiative/pilot, faces heat from the CSC, the Central Staff Committee of the EPO

When They Run Out of Things to Patent They’ll Patent Nature Itself…

Posted in Europe, Patents at 9:48 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

No patents on life and nature? You must have missed the news!

Some blooming trees

Summary: The absolutely ridiculous patent bar (ridiculously low) at today’s EPO means that legal certainty associated with European Patents is at an all-time low; patents get granted for the sake of granting more patents each year

HAVING just covered software patents in Europe and UPC issues, we now look at the broader picture in the European Patent Office (EPO).

It’s so sad that in less than a decade the EPO managed to earn a reputation worse than that of the USPTO not just because of the scandals but also decline in patent quality. Those two things are of course closely linked. Examiners that Battistelli has not managed to drive away António Campinos either drives to ‘retirement’ or replaces with private companies. It’s as if it’s an actual goal to get rid of experienced examiners and turn their job into a business venture with the likes of Serco, which already do business for the USPTO.

“It’s so sad that in less than a decade the EPO managed to earn a reputation worse than that of the USPTO not just because of the scandals but also decline in patent quality.”When EPO founding documents were crafted and refined half a century ago architects of the system envisioned a system that would serve scientists, be inclusive (not in the nepotism sense), and not be run like a greedy corporation. The EPC was routinely violated in recent years and nobody was held accountable. This is why we end up in such a sordid mess. It’s utterly grotesque.

Check out who’s hammering the news wires this week [1, 2] with stuff like this, in effect self-promotional words for an event that berates quality control:

Many patent applications and patents are lost before the EPO, either before Opposition Divisions or before Appeal due to incorrect original drafting, and added subject matter is a recurrent problem. Learn advanced drafting techniques for successful EPO patent applications.

Many patent applications and patents are lost before the EPO Boards of Appeal due to incorrect original drafting. Added subject matter is a recurrent problem: Amendments made during grant procedure, to take account or new prior art, amount to added subject-matter, often fatal in opposition procedure before the EPO, and national courts.

Giving tips for getting patents from the EPO — even if fake patent monopolies — by employing tricks to exploit deliberate loopholes. Is this what we’ve come to? Also published yesterday was this piece behind the Agrow paywall:

Submissions urge EPO not to patent conventional plants

The European Patent Office (EPO) has been urged not to patent conventionally bred plants in separate submissions from the European Commission and a group of farming and environmentalist organisations.

Such patents should never have been granted in the first place; patents on nature don’t make sense, neither morally nor legally. Anyone who’s granting them does a disservice to common sense and the planet. Similar patents literally cause the death of a lot of people. Back in February we wrote about patents on cancer treatment — the latest of many articles on the subject. Here’s a new press release about another such European Patent:

Onxeo S.A. (Euronext Paris, NASDAQ Copenhagen: ONXEO), (“Onxeo” or “the Company”), a clinical-stage biotechnology company specializing in the development of innovative drugs targeting tumor DNA Damage Response (DDR) in oncology, in particular against rare or resistant cancers, today announced having received a communication from the European Patent Office (EPO) informing the Company of its intent to grant a new patent strengthening the European protection of compounds sourced from its platON™ platform.

[...]

This patent will provide a term of protection valid until mid-2031, which could be further extended until 2036 via the supplementary protection certificate (SPC) system. It completes the already robust set of 9 patent families securing the protection of AsiDNA™ and its related compounds.

Instead of tackling cancer, as it should, the EPO grants monopoly through patents so as to limit who can treat cancer!

Here’s another new statement, coming from esoteric sites like “Golden Casino News”:

Scandion Oncology A/S (“Scandion Oncology”) today announces that the European Patent Office (“EPO”) has granted the company’s patent application for SCO-101 when combined with chemotherapy. Patent is valid until May 2037.

The headline says “Scandion Oncology A/S receives EU-patent for SCO-101,” but that’s just wrong. EPO is not EU. Notice what’s being granted here; the EPO now treats cancer as “business opportunity” rather than something to be cured; the same goes for global warming. If only more people grasped the seriousness of it…

Rose Hughes (working for companies like the above) has meanwhile covered T 1003/19) — a case concerning intention to grant European Patents:

Recent Board of Appeal decision T 1003/19 poses a riddle: when is it not the intention of the EPO to grant the “text-intended for grant? Before the Examining Division (ED) grants a patent application, they send the applicant a copy of the text-intended for grant (“Druckexemplar”) (Rule 71(3) EPC). The text-intended for grant is normally considered to be, as the name suggests, the text that the ED plans on granting. In response to the Rule 71(3) communication, the applicant approves the text-intended for grant by filing translations of the claims and paying the appropriate fees. If the applicant approves the text-intended for grant, the patent is granted.

T 1003/19 related to an appeal from a decision of the ED to grant an application based on a text-intended for grant in which all but one of the drawings pages were missing. The applicant had approved the text-intended to grant. In most circumstances, it is difficult for a patentee to correct mistakes in a granted patent based on a text-intended for grant that they have approved. As stated in the Guidelines for Examination: “Since the final responsibility for the text of the patent lies with the applicant or patentee, it is his duty to properly check all the documents making up the communication under Rule 71(3)” (H-VI-3.1). It is difficult to argue, for example, that it was not the intention of the ED to grant a patent containing a mistake introduced and approved by the applicant themselves (G 1/10, IPKat post here).

[...]

The BA concluded that the applicant had not approved a text-intended for grant. The BA therefore set aside the decision to grant the patent.

There are serious autonomy problems at the EPO as the appeals process is lacking independence and suffering massive backlogs as well.

“Trips to Cambodia and Ethiopia don’t exactly present the EPO as a world leader.”Alex Frost, writing the first reply to this post, said: “We have tried to escalate this problem with the EPO as it is causing huge problems with disgruntled applicants who are being told that they cannot rectify a problem that is in no way of their making.”

Here’s the full comment from Alex:

A welcome decision given the exponential rise we are seeing in the number of errors being introduced by Examining Division at the moment. So far in 2019, just of my own cases, I have come across 5 with significant errors (description pages missing or duplicated; drawings missing etc), all of which were the fault of the EPO (either the Primary Examiner or his/her Formalities officer, presumably). Goodness only knows how many such cases there have been across the whole firm/profession.

This is against a backdrop of, I guess, a similar number (5 or 6 ) such cases of mine with this sort of ED introduced error over the whole previous 25 years of practice. No doubt a part of the problem is the unseemly haste to examine and grant applications at the moment. We have tried to escalate this problem with the EPO as it is causing huge problems with disgruntled applicants who are being told that they cannot rectify a problem that is in no way of their making.

It’s nice to see so lucidly expressed (and publicly recognised) issues aired in IP Kat again, even if only in the comments. The decline in patent quality will accompany a collapse in legal certainty. And then what? Who would then be willing to apply for European Patents or at what cost? What does EPO even know of patent quality? The EPO, in external communications, brags about spreading its lowered patent quality and invalid patents to other continents! “In order to avoid duplication of efforts and provide services on time and at a high level of quality, IP offices need to work together,” the EPO wrote yesterday. Judging by which patent offices today's EPO takes photos with, the future doesn’t seem promising. Does the EPO try to adapt to the standards of countries with not a single European Patent? Trips to Cambodia and Ethiopia don’t exactly present the EPO as a world leader.

EPO Boards of Appeal Need Courage and Structural Disruption to Halt Software Patents in Europe

Posted in Courtroom, Europe, Patents at 8:56 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

It takes courage — not just intelligence — to oppose misnomers such as "artificial intelligence" patents

Software patents and artificial intelligence patents

Summary: Forces or lobbyists for software patents try to come up with tricks and lies by which to cheat the EPC and enshrine illegal software patents; sadly, moreover, EPO judges lack the necessary independence by which to shape caselaw against such practices

THE European Patent Office (EPO) has taken control of another EPO, the Organisation. Battistelli started it and António Campinos continues just that. He even rendered his 'boss' at the Council his 'butler'. Imagine that! How is that even legal/constitutional? Maybe it isn’t. But who’s to actually enforce the law/constitution (or EPC)? This is a circular issue.

Advocacy of software patents by the EPO isn’t news; we saw some forms of it way back in the Brimelow days, but it has been getting worse since and judges have since then totally lost any sense of autonomy and independence. They will probably ‘vote’ (decide) the “usual way” some time soon (patent on software simulation) because Campinos is already meddling towards that outcome! See what happened in G 2/19.

“They will probably ‘vote’ (decide) the “usual way” some time soon (patent on software simulation) because Campinos is already meddling towards that outcome!”Sometimes we still see examples of software patents being thrown out inside rather than outside the EPO. Sometimes even loud proponents of software patents (no, not software professionals) admit it. Such was the case the other day when Bardehle Pagenberg wrote: “Authenticating individuals based on liveness probability: non-technical EPO refused to grant a patent on a method of authenticating financial transactions based on biometric data.”

Bardehle Pagenberg is, in our experience, the most vocal and shameless proponent of these bogus patents. They focus on these. Bardehle Pagenberg’s Patrick Heckeler, having published this page, even promoted another case where:

The first instance examining division refused searching the claimed subject-matter because it allegedly lacks technical character…

Forget about all that “technical” (or “technical effect”) nonsense; it’s the wrong test or criterion/criteria. Same for “problem-solution”. The sole riddle ought to be, does this cover something physical (where that physical thing is strictly required)? If not, then it’s abstract. Throw out the application/patent.

Sadly, however, the EPO adopted clever little tricks and loopholes, such as misuse of words like “machines”; they associate the overused term “AI” with “machine learning” (what it means originally) as if there’s some machine or device somewhere. This week they also repeat the nonsense which is “machine translations” when they say: “What is the role of machine translations in proceedings before the EPO?”

“Sadly, however, the EPO adopted clever little tricks and loopholes, such as misuse of words like “machines”; they associate the overused term “AI” with “machine learning” (what it means originally) as if there’s some machine or device somewhere.”“Those are not “machine translations” but lousy algorithms that take something in and spew garbage out,” I told them, “an incoherent mess for most languages, with no legal validity whatsoever…”

It’s rather worrying to see how the EPO deals with obvious software patents that under 35 U.S.C. § 101 the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) would be pressured to throw out, either at first instance (examination) or Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) — or, failing that, district courts, the Federal Circuit and SCOTUS (no potent challenge to that in 5 years at that level).

Professor Dr. Maximilian Haedicke on Lack of Separation of Powers at the EPO (Which Dooms UPC)

Posted in Courtroom, Deception, Europe, Patents at 7:25 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.”

Or: Truth is sunshine to the vampires of lies.

Amazing sunlight

Summary: Team UPC (“empire of lies”) is catching up with reality; no matter how hard media has attempted to not cover EPO scandals (after the EPO paid and threatened many publishers that tried), it remains very much apparent that EPOnia is like a theocracy that cannot be trusted with anything

WE CAN quite safely assume that most examiners at the European Patent Office (EPO) aren’t happy with the direction the Office has taken. Staff surveys have repeatedly shown this (with large margins). António Campinos is just more of Battistelli and they carry on lowering patent quality, based on studies they attempt to suppress. They’re meanwhile creating new loopholes/routes to software patenting in Europe and striving to replace ‘naughty’ European courts (that ‘dare’ oppose such patents) with something more ‘obedient’ or complicit. EPO judges are casualties as they’re being terrorised to the point where it’s dangerous (to one’s career) to oppose patent maximalists. Only weeks ago we saw Campinos intervening in favour of software patents. He made remarks about an important upcoming case. Does he not have something better to do (than meddling in legal matters he lacks technical qualifications in)?

“Only weeks ago we saw Campinos intervening in favour of software patents. He made remarks about an important upcoming case.”Who’s in charge of the EPO? Certainly not the law or judges who enforce/review that law. A politician from France/Portugal calls all the shots. These aren’t scientists but politicians! Nontechnical autocrats, people who keep calling patents “property” yet again (they’re not property). “You mean patents,” I told them last night. They never respond. On they go with joint EUIPO lies (now 3 weeks of that disgraced “IP” ‘study’, tweeted and retweeted every single day). Pure pseudoscience and an insult to facts.

Should we be surprised that several nations — not just Germanyopenly oppose the handover of patent courts to EPOnia? Or that scholars issue strongly-worded criticisms when they’re not on the EPO’s payroll?

“Should we be surprised that several nations — not just Germany — openly oppose the handover of patent courts to EPOnia?”Team UPC hardcores (apparently a Brit in Munich) are tweeting (quoting) that “rule of law within the EPOrg are criticised. This question is further explosive against the background of the equally pending constitutional complaint against the Unified Patent System.”

Tweets aren't journalism, but this is a translation of a journal. This thread in full says: “Potential impact of G3/19 on DE constitutional complaints; UPC? Prof. Haedicke, GRURInt 2019, 885 on referral G3/19 (from orig German): “This conflict, however, is about much more than the question of the interpretation of A53(b) EPC. It makes it clear that the [EPO President] and the AC seem to have a different understanding of the relationship between the institutions of the EPOrg than the Boards of Appeal. The scope of the judicial control over legislative acts of the AC and the degree to which the AC is bound by the [...] interpretation of the EPC rules by the BoA are controversial. In question is the power of the judiciary to take binding decisions on the interpretation of the EPC which go beyond the individual case. Also affected is the role of the President of the EPO and the system of [...] checks and balances within the EPOrg resulting from the separation of powers.[…] The effects of this dispute thus extend far beyond the concrete question of fact. If the AC were able to change the case law of the Enlarged BoA in order to extend its binding force beyond the [...] individual case, this would enhance the position of the AC, significantly weaken the BoA & strengthen the position of the critics of the EPC to its detriment. The referral may also have consequences for several pending constitutional complaints in which shortcomings in the [...] rule of law within the EPOrg are criticised. This question is further explosive against the background of the equally pending constitutional complaint against the Unified Patent System. It is of great importance to ensure that the relationship between the AC and the BoA [...] complies with principles of the rule of law.”

“It doesn’t matter what some lawyers and politicians at the EPO (and around it) say; at the end of the day the issue is now in the hands of judges the EPO does not control (perhaps with the exception of Stephan Harbarth).”The litigation ‘industry’ refuses to let UPC/Unitary Patent die. Herbert Smith Freehills LLP still mentions it in relation to Brexit (and promoted its take on it earlier this week).

It doesn’t matter what some lawyers and politicians at the EPO (and around it) say; at the end of the day the issue is now in the hands of judges the EPO does not control (perhaps with the exception of Stephan Harbarth).

Widespread condemnation or popular uprise won’t be possible (as happened with the EU copyright directive) if media refuses to cover it.

10.14.19

“The Stupidest [Patent/Tax] Policy Ever”

Posted in Europe, Finance, Patents at 12:13 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Ask her what she thinks of the status quo

Mariana Mazzucato
By Alex Taffetani. Own work, CC BY 3.0.

Summary: It’s pretty clear that today’s European patent system has been tilted grossly in favour of super-rich monopolists and their facilitators (overzealous law firms and ‘creative’ accountants) as opposed to scientists

Economists sometimes speak negatively and critically about today’s patent systems, seeing how far patent scope has come and how much litigation this incurs. Only those with very deep pockets can endure and pursue real justice. The USPTO has been compelled to stop that, partly owing to 35 U.S.C. § 101. The European Patent Office (EPO), on the other hand, persists like there’s no tomorrow and the sky is the limit when it comes to patent grants. António Campinos and Battistelli measure nothing but “products”; “quality” has come to mean speed (or pendency).

“This is often being done in Europe by companies that aren’t even European!”Patents have moreover become an “asset” for legal departments and law firms, not scientists. Just check who’s best served by them, especially in Europe.

In a new article/interview an economist called Mariana Mazzucato spoke of loopholes for tax evasion — basically tricks that have made it “legal” for large companies with patent monopolies to not pay tax on large transactions. This is often being done in Europe by companies that aren’t even European! To quote some bits: [via]

But a narrative of innovation that omitted the role of the state was exactly what corporations had been deploying as they lobbied for lax regulation and low taxation. According to a study by Mazzucato and economist Bill Lazonick, between 2003 and 2013 publicly listed companies in the S&P 500 index used more than half of their earnings to buy back their shares to boost stock prices, rather than reinvesting it back into further research and development. Pharmaceutical company Pfizer, for example, spent $139bn (£112bn) on share buybacks. Apple, which had never engaged in this type of financial engineering under Jobs, started doing so in 2012. By 2018, it had spent nearly one trillion dollars on share buybacks. “Those profits could be used to fund research and training for workers,” Mazzucato says. “Instead they are often used on share buybacks and golfing.”

That posed an urgent, more fundamental problem. If it was the state, not the private sector, which had traditionally assumed the risks of uncertain technological enterprises that led to the development of aviation, nuclear energy, computers, nanotechnology, biotechnology and the internet, how were we going to find the next wave of technologies to tackle urgent challenges such as catastrophic climate change, the epidemic of antibiotic resistance, the rise of dementia? “History tells us that innovation is an outcome of a massive collective effort – not just from a narrow group of young white men in California,” Mazzucato says. “And if we want to solve the world’s biggest problems, we better understand that.”

[...]

Soon, she became a regular visitor at Whitehall, advising both Cable and Willetts on policies such as the Small Business Research Initiative, which funded small and medium enterprises, and the patent box, which reduced the rate of corporate tax on income derived from patents (which she calls “the stupidest policy ever”).

Mazzucato knew that to influence politicians she would need to do more than just criticise. “The reason progressives often lose the argument is that they focus too much on wealth redistribution and not enough on wealth creation,” she says. “We need a progressive narrative that’s not only about spending, but investing in smarter ways.”

Patent policy as it currently stands needs reforming, but the EPO goes in the opposite direction. What it means by “reform” is making it worse, or making it more favourable to lawyers at the expense of scientists. Or programmers… after all, software patents are being granted in Europe in defiance of the law and against the will of actual programmers!

Notice how law firms refuse to speak out against software patents. They’re complicit. Quiet this weekend at IP Kat, as usual, except the article “2019 updates to the EPO Guidelines for Examination” — one of the latest such articles which we’ve mentioned lately (this blog is not the first to break down these changes).

“The exclusion of computer programs from patentability,” a section further down the bottom, speaks of “the [guidelines'] section relating the patentability of artificial intelligence and machine learning.” Rose Hughes speaks of what comes into effect in just over a fortnight from now:

The updated version of the EPO Guidelines for Examination is now available (here). The new guidelines come into force on 1 November 2019. The guidelines, as the name suggests, are a guide to the current case law and practise of the EPO and are not legally binding (see IPKat herefor a full discussion of legal precedent at the EPO and the role of the guidelines). The 2019 update to the guidelines incorporates some of the significant developments in the established case law of the Boards of Appeal. One key change to the guidelines this year is an update to the assessment of novelty of selection inventions. Other updates include clarification of the definition of “substance or composition” and a new section on the criteria of reasonable expectation in an assessment of obviousness for biotechnology inventions.

[...]

The patentability of software is another hot topic at the moment, and subject to its own referral to the EBA (IPKat: The patentability of computer simulated methods – another referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal). The 2019 guidelines include some updates to the section relating the patentability of artificial intelligence and machine learning. In particular, the guidelines now clarify that “[t]erms such as ‘support vector machine’, ‘reasoning engine’ or ‘neural network’ may, depending on the context, merely refer to abstract models or algorithms and thus do not, on their own, necessarily imply the use of a technical means. This has to be taken into account when examining whether the claimed subject-matter has a technical character as a whole (Art. 52(1), (2) and (3))”.

But EPO created loopholes for these words and terms, e.g. buzzwords (“hey hi”) and hype (“blockchains”), not to mention vague nonsense like “technical effect”. So the EPO gets to pretend that it obeys the law while in practice breaking it with impunity. It’s being justified using pseudo-novelty and obfuscation.

Things ought to change. But will they? Who has more ‘lobbying’ power? Captured media of the litigation ‘industry’ keeps gaming the news and setting up events with stacked panels. People like Mariana Mazzucato would not be invited.

10.13.19

Meme: Software Patents at the EPO

Posted in Europe, Patents at 11:50 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Software patents; Computer-implemented inventions; Fourth industrial revolution; Smart Internet of Things AI on the blockchain

Summary: The evolution of “technical effect” nonsense at the EPO

Firm of Microsoft’s Former Litigation Chief Uses Microsoft-Connected Patent Lawsuit Against GNU/Linux (GNOME Foundation) for New Breed of FUD Campaigns

Posted in Bill Gates, Free/Libre Software, FUD, GNOME, Microsoft, Patents at 11:39 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

There’s also an apparent connection to Epstein’s notorious pedophile/child trafficking ring — perhaps a subject to explore another day

Birds of a feather...
Birds of a feather… Nathan Myhrvold with Epstein

Summary: The patent troll of Bill Gates and Nathan Myhrvold has fed a patent troll that’s attacking GNU/Linux and a firm owned by Microsoft’s former litigation chief says it proves “Open Source Software Remains a Target”

WHAT do the men at the top have in common? Both are close friends of Bill Gates, the famous criminal with his scam/sham ‘charity’. We keep gathering new and interesting facts about Gates. “Both of his “Science” advisors were Epsteinites,” told us an anonymous source close to Microsoft, “one of which is shacked up with Steve Sinofsky, the other was the backup executor of his will. Even Nathan Myhrvold got caught hanging out with him. Such a small world…”

“Firm of Microsoft people celebrating (or leveraging for FUD) a lawsuit against GNU/Linux by a patent troll armed by a Microsoft proxy? If Groklaw was still around, PJ would have something to say about it.”We were also sent the above photo. So even Intellectual Ventures (IV) — the world’s largest patent troll created by a close friend of Bill Gates — is possibly connected to this pedophile ring.

Last month GNU/Linux was sued by a troll that this bigger troll had armed and supported. This hasn’t been mentioned in a while, but here’s all the media/blog coverage. Notice how nobody except us [1, 2] took note of the connection. Are they blind? Are they unwilling to research a little? It’s not hard. It’s right there in the public domain.

Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, a firm headed/created by Microsoft’s former litigation bigwig (we wrote about this before, e.g. in [1, 2, 3]), has just weighed in by saying “Open Source Software Remains a Target as GNOME Foundation Hit with Patent Infringement Lawsuit” (the words between the lines are, “FOSS is dangerous!”).

“The GNOME Foundation is the non-profit organization that coordinates the development and operation of the popular open source desktop environment with which it shares a name,” they said. “The GNOME desktop environment supports many free and open source software applications.”

The USPTO granted a likely bogus patent and the likes of OIN plan to leverage against it prior art instead of 35 U.S.C. § 101 (typical IBM).

In a move that evidences an emerging pattern, Rothschild Patent Imaging LLC, a non-practicing entity (“NPE”), has filed a complaint asserting patent infringement against the open source software organization, the GNOME Foundation. The GNOME Foundation is the non-profit organization that coordinates the development and operation of the popular open source desktop environment with which it shares a name. The GNOME desktop environment supports many free and open source software applications. Rothschild alleges in the only count of the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, that the GNOME image management software “Shotwell” infringes their U.S. Patent 9,936,086, directed to “a wireless image distribution system and method.” Rothschild Patent Imaging did not just single out GNOME Foundation, but cast a nationwide net in asserting the ‘086 patent – since July 2019 it has filed five other cases against various defendants (Magix Computer, Cyberlink, Zoner, QNAP, and Monument Labs) in Nevada, Delaware, Illinois and California.

Firm of Microsoft people celebrating (or leveraging for FUD) a lawsuit against GNU/Linux by a patent troll armed by a Microsoft proxy? If Groklaw was still around, PJ would have something to say about it. But all we have left is so-called ‘media’ or ‘press’ better skilled at diverting all attention from a Gates scandal to a phony Stallman ‘scandal’.

10.12.19

Today’s EPO is Working for Patent Trolls and the ‘Aye Pee’ (IP) ‘Industry’ Instead of Science

Posted in Europe, Patents at 12:14 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Misusing words like “innovation” and “science” to promote predation and systemic taxation

Alison Orr

Summary: The EPO is making allegiances and alliances with groups that represent neither science nor businesses but instead push for monopolies, litigation and extortion; lawlessness appears to have become the EPO’s very objective instead of what it intends to tackle

THE European Patent Office (EPO) employs lots and lots of scientists. They join the Office assuming they’d be practicing science, not politics. They thought they’d be researching, but instead they’re being bullied by the likes of Battistelli and his sidekick António Campinos. They thought they’d reward innovation, but instead they’re compelled to grant patents (monopolies) on algorithms in defiance of the law which governs them. If examiners obey the law (EPC), they get bullied; if they break the law, they get to keep their job.

Welcome to Eponia, 2010-2019 edition!

“If examiners obey the law (EPC), they get bullied; if they break the law, they get to keep their job.”Please don’t speak about the people at the top floors. Doing so may constitute libel! Also, do not represent the interests of staff (as per underlying laws) or the people at the top floors will call you “nazi” and say you employ “snipers!”

The situation at the EPO is as toxic as ever, but it’s being kept underneath the surface, owing largely to complicit media, bribed by the EPO for its silence (there’s ample evidence of this, it’s not a secret). There are EPO-sponsored propaganda events from dedicated avenues that help control the flow of so-called ‘news’* .

We published some internal communications/letters several days ago [1, 2]. These help show what really goes on behind closed doors. “These two documents cover the most important topics and should help you not to lose sight of it,” our source noted,” and “[i]t may seem to the outside world that SUEPO is no longer active, but rest assured that they are alive and kicking! The SUEPO guys work very hard under the most difficult conditions, this should not be forgotten (even if this is not always obvious to the outside world, the reason for this is no secret and well known to everyone who has dealt with Eponia matters).”

“There are EPO-sponsored propaganda events from dedicated avenues that help control the flow of so-called ‘news’* .”The EPO likes to pretend that everything is rosy and constantly improving. The reality, however, is exactly the opposite as staff grows tired (now at breaking point, with “strike” being mentioned explicitly in official communications). Things are far from rosy and matters exacerbate rapidly.

Meanwhile, as predicted, Europe suffers from a spread or an epidemic of patent trolls. SMEs suffer the most. The EPO has posted more of these ridiculous “SME” tweets in recent days [1, 2] and then culminated in this tweet: “Be one of the first to find out how #SMEs successfully commercialise their most important inventions! Sign up now for this conference, where our latest study on European SMEs will be launched…”

“This is extremely misleading,” I responded. “You advertise an event of a patent trolls’ front group as “SME” something even though SMEs are those who suffer the most from the trolls you liaise with.”

“Things are far from rosy and matters exacerbate rapidly.”Have a look at the cited page as it speaks not about SMEs but a bunch of nonsensical agenda. “This conference,” it says, “jointly held by the EPO and the Licensing Executives Society International (LESI) with support of the government agency Enterprise Ireland, provides a platform for high-growth technology enterprises and others in their innovation ecosystem (see figure below) to learn about business strategy and IP management. An international team of highly experienced practitioners will share best practices on how to leverage patents for business success and help you to develop useful networks at regional and international levels.”

This event was also promoted here [1, 2] in the past couple of days and the EPO retweeted this tweet (from a prominent participant) who said: “Looking forward to participating in this @EPOorg and @LESIntl event for @inngot . Participate in this 2 Day event for only EUR150! Day 1 – conference for business decision makers and IP professionals; Day 2 – 1:1 coaching during IP clinics. Places still available.”

“These are the sorts of people whom the EPO deems representative of (of for) SMEs?”“No good reason to participate in an event of a patent trolls’ front group,” I responded, “and an agency that commits serious crimes every day…”

These are the sorts of people whom the EPO deems representative of (of for) SMEs? Have the EPO’s managers gone clinically insane?!?!

“Huawei and the likes of it are very wealthy; they can afford the legal battle, unlike SMEs.”Well, get used to it. This is today’s EPO. These are its allies. That’s the agenda.

We already know what it all leads to. Look no further than this new report about patent trolls in the UK, operating courtesy of the EPO in Germany:

For four days beginning Oct. 21, the U.K. Supreme Court will hear arguments in the joined cases of Unwired Planet International Ltd. v. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd., Huawei Technologies v. Conversant Wireless Licensing SARL, and ZTE Corp. v. Conversant Wireless Licensing.[1] Among the questions presented is whether an English court — specifically, the Patents Court for England and Wales — is a proper forum for determining the terms of a global license for the use of fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory-committed standard-essential patents.[2]

Huawei and the likes of it are very wealthy; they can afford the legal battle, unlike SMEs. We don’t really know how many of them perish and shell out ‘protection’ money outside the courts (the legal process).

Sadly, this is becoming the new ‘normal’; this, at least to EPO management, is the desirable outcome. They’re squashing actual inventors to serve international monopolies and patent trolls.
_____
* Managing IP (MIP) is now bragging about being a media partner for a patent maximalists’ event. MIP is not an impartial reporter but a think tank of the litigation industry disguised as “news” (it’s clear who’s funding it). Surely the organisers of such events know it; but this is what they want. These events are lobbying platforms.

« Previous Page« Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries »Next Page »

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channels: Come and chat with us in real time

New to This Site? Here Are Some Introductory Resources

No

Mono

ODF

Samba logo






We support

End software patents

GPLv3

GNU project

BLAG

EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com



Recent Posts