Photo credit: Nordic Patent
THE EPO makes the USPTO look very good because unlike the EPO, the USPTO does not buy the media and lobby the government, at least not until after service in Office (recall what David Kappos is doing nowadays).
"Journalistic misconduct for the sake of profit seems to have become acceptable."Last week we wrote more than half a dozen articles about the EPO's distortion of European media, and to some degree even US media, Indian media and so on. Journalistic misconduct for the sake of profit seems to have become acceptable. This morning the EPO was linking to puff pieces which cost millions of Euros to generate (total waste of budget), such as this article from Germany and shallow pieces, including from French government and French media, some of which was "media partner" of the EPO (it produced puff pieces this year, having self-censored last year). Perhaps when hiring PR agencies to lean on the media isn't enough one just attempts to almost literally buy the media. There's nothing in EPO ServRegs against that.
Based on the EPO's Twitter activity this morning, the EPO is still lobbying for the UPC. No separation between policy and examination? To quote NPI (Nordic Patent): "Michael Fröhlich from EPO discussing some of the practical details of the UPC at PatTech" (last year Grant Philpott was doing something similar).
"Based on the EPO's Twitter activity this morning, the EPO is still lobbying for the UPC."The EPO's mouthpiece, IAM, also joins the lobbying effort. Joff Wild has just said: "From an IP perspective, the immediate consequences of a Leave vote will be on the future of the Unified Patent Court and unitary patent project. Effectively, it kills this off until the UK formally departs from the EU. At IPBC Global last week there was some talk of the UK ratifying the agreement even after having voted to quit, on the basis that it is an inter-governmental treaty not an EU one; the thinking being that once the UK was in ways would be found to keep it there – a classic Euro-fudge, in other words. The more I think about that, though, the less likely a scenario it seems."
The article is another example of preaching from IAM. Titled "It's time for IP owners to start giving serious consideration to the possibility of Brexit," it sounds more like instructions than reporting. One new comment in IP Kat speaks of the misconception that the EPO is an EU body:
Most of European citizens take distance with European organisations/institutions.
Not long ago, we saw a negative vote in The Netherlands. The referendum about the “Act of the Association Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine” ended with 61% of voters voting against it and 38.2% of voters voting for it. The true goal of the Dutch referendum was to attack Europe's unity. We have to take in account that the press coverage about the EPO scandal was huge in The Netherlands. A few weeks before the referendum, all Dutch citizens watched on television the EPO vice-president not respecting fundamental rights and denigrating the Dutch justice. Of course, some experts will explain that the EPO is not a European Institution. But the reality is that 99,99% of the EU citizens believe that the European Patent Office is the second biggest European institution of the European Union.
Now in the UK, we see the EU referendum. Recent polls have indicated that the British public are in favour of a withdrawal.
In France, and in other European countries, the citizens perceive more and more the European organisations/institutions as corrupted, arrogant, above the laws. The European Patent Office is the perfect example of such bad behaviour.
I believe that if we want the EU survive, the European organisations/institutions have to do the first step, improve their own image and behave correctly.
No, no limits regarding the ServRegs, if the representatives vote in favour, even if against their national laws and obligations, and possibly against the intrest of their country. ATILO may decide it was illegal, but then the changes have already been implemented for about ten years, and in the meantime possibly even strengthened. And mostly ATILO only decides whether the rule adoption procedure has been followed.
And regarding Battistelli: sure he can be voted out of office. Article 11(4) EPC. Article 19(2) the PPI (Protocol on Provileges and Immunities) lays down the rules when the immunity of the President can be waived by the AC. But as we all know, the AC, most governments (including the host country Netherlands), and especially current top management do not desire to apply the provisions of the PPI, although the PPI is an integral part of the EPC (Articles 8 and 164(1) EPC). As such, the whole EPC should not be implemented without the PPI being implemented, and the PPI includes "the organisation shall co-operate at all times with the competent authorities of the Contradting States in order to [...] ensure the observance of police regulations and regulations concerning health, labour inspection, and to prevent any abuse of the priviledges, immunities and facilities provided for in this protocol" (Art. 20(1)PPI).
With all respect, the EPO does not lack legal brains - including externally recruited lawyers and BoA members. The law just doesn't exist in the EPO because of immunity and the member states concerns not to infringe it. Rightly or wrongly.
I'm surprised Julian Assange and Osama bin laden didn't camp out at the EPO with it being so untouchable. All that lovely cheap food, saunas, spas, gymnasiums, polo pitches and horses. Have we finally identified the home of Lord Lucan?