THE EPO spends (wastes) a lot of money on media companies. Right now, for instance, it's planting a lot of paid coverage about ‘European Inventor Award’ (we'll come to that later).
"Where were the techies? Not invited? Blocked? Conveniently excluded?"Among the recipients of support and money (from the EPO's PR agency) there is that incognito site called IAM, which Battistelli really, really loves citing. Last year they did a pro-UPC event in the United States (the screenshot at the top is from there) and last week they did something similar in Korea. Was it an event for inventors? Of course not. Where were the techies? Not invited? Blocked? Conveniently excluded? Under "Speakers", the site of IPBC Korea lists 20 individuals and they are all management or "IP" people. Let's face it, that's just a think tank or an echo chamber with MC Jacob Schindler from IAM as the "presenter" (staged, stacked panels). Technicolor, a patent troll which we wrote about earlier this year [1, 2], was in the panels. In IAM's own words:
Something else that’s particularly relevant to Korean corporates given their important status in the global supply chain is the thorny issue of what to do when enforcing IP rights comes into conflict with keeping customers happy. Panellists including Park, Technicolor’s Deirdre Leane and AT&T’s Scott Taylor agreed that one of the worst conversations a head of IP can have is when the CEO wants to a know why a major customer has been sued with current or former patents. As Korean companies continue to be more active in the sales market, including in NPE deals, that’s something they are going to have to increasingly keep in mind. It may also mean pointing out uncomfortable hard truths to CEOs who are pushing for those high returns Park cautioned about - potentially a big cultural challenge in the kind of corporate hierarchies prevalent in so many Korean businesses.
"Some legal experts in Korea say that Korea's patent office (KIPO) has bans on software patents, but not everyone agrees with them."Anyway, a "keynote presentation" there was given by a familiar person... Grant Philpott.
It takes us back to the days when EPO sent us legal threats. Back then IAM published something from him which we repeatedly said must not be published. IAM betrays sources. It's not a professional news site, just a lobbying apparatus and at times the megaphone of the EPO. IAM should not be taken seriously; it usually does PR, it doesn't speak anonymously to or for someone.
"IAM betrays sources. It's not a professional news site, just a lobbying apparatus and at times the megaphone of the EPO."Yesterday IAM wrote: "The EPO's principal director for information and communications technology Grant Philpott gave a keynote presentation which placed significant emphasis on software patents, an area of the law that is generating significant regional differences in approach."
Like his colleagues (earlier this year), Philpott likes to push for software patents in Europe even though it's verboten.
"So far, everything we have ever said about the UPC turned out to be true.""His colleague Reinoud Hesper," IAM continued, "followed up with a deep dive on what Korean companies can expect from the Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court."
Battistelli's right-hand henchwoman recently embedded herself in Korean media with lies about the UPC. Margot first, now Reinoud Hesper. What next?
A short while ago IAM wrote that the "UK gov has no coherent Brexit strategy, so it would be wrong to think it has a thought-through approach to the UPC."
"Helped by IAM, the EPO continues to embed itself in all sorts of conferences (usually attended by Margot, especially when Managing IP sets it all up) and even though Korea virtually banned software patents, this is no taboo subject there.""The UPC proponents like to make up, distort, [and] lie about the government's stance on Unitary Patent," I told them.
So far, everything we have ever said about the UPC turned out to be true. We challenge anyone out there to prove otherwise. We have studied and written about the UPC for nearly a decade and we're not paid to lie about it.
We've been asking around for additional input about the above IAM event. Helped by IAM, the EPO continues to embed itself in all sorts of conferences (usually attended by Margot, especially when Managing IP sets it all up) and even though Korea virtually banned software patents, this is no taboo subject there. "I guess that being member of the WTO," one person from the UK (Paolo) told me, "South Korea will have to enforce other countries sw [software] patents. Banning the possibility of patenting a SW doesn't means you can ignore other countries patents or you'll get some forms of retaliations."
"Is the EPO prepared to give awards (at the expense of EPO stakeholders) to those whose work fed patent trolls?"The EPO is trying to get Korea into the fold, though, rather than accept Korea's arguments against software patents. "That was my point," Paolo told me, and "in [the] future UPC are controlled by the usual lobbyists & corporations."
Like the ones that receive special treatment from the EPO...
Going back to the expensive lobbying charade which is ‘European Inventor Award’, the EPO is now listing as contenders people with software patents, e.g. part of the MPEG cartel. Is the EPO prepared to give awards (at the expense of EPO stakeholders) to those whose work fed patent trolls? People like Lars Liljeryd?
"Theranos is a "hall of famer" to the EPO. Says a lot about the EPO."As a reminder, 2 years ago the EPO under Battistelli promoted and rewarded in 'European Inventor Award' a fraud that now admits culpability (may have caused many deaths by defrauding clients). Based on this morning's news, "Theranos settles “series of lies” lawsuits from investor that chipped in $96M" and to quote:
On Monday, Theranos announced the settlement of two lawsuits that were in response to an alleged “series of lies.” Both suits had been brought by Partner Fund Management LP, a hedge fund that invested $96.1 million in the blood-testing company.
In the suits, both filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, PFM claimed that Theranos mislead investors about the abilities of its blood-testing technology, the Wall Street Journal reports. One suit sought to recoup PFM’s entire investment, plus damages. The other sought to prevent Theranos from making deals with late-stage investors. Those deals, which can now proceed, will provide additional stock to investors who agree not to sue Theranos.
"Theranos shows that lies and corruption can pay off, at least in the short term."Today, the FFII's President wrote, these patents have finally expired (that actually happened some days ago and there was a large discussion about this at Reddit yesterday). Fraunhofer and Technicolor (from IAM's panel) are also to blame. As he put it this morning: "You could not freely write an encoder for MP3 format, Fraunhofer and Technicolor has been an enemy of freedom..."
That's just software patents with their terrible impact demonstrated for all to see. And in an act of evergreening they're now pushing newer and supposedly better patent traps, under the guise of "HEVC" [1, 2]. Clearly, they wish to have us forever trapped, eternally shackled by a thicket of terrible software patents. The EPO is helping them rather than obeying the EPC, the directives, common sense, and public interests. Today's EPO is a tool of corporate occupation, not a service. ⬆