Money down the drain, draining everyone's reputation

Summary: EPO stakeholders (mostly users who apply for European Patents and their renewal) have inadvertently contributed to quite a disease which not only jeopardises the integrity of the Office but also the worth of patents, the integrity of media, and integrity of academia

THE EPO certainly knows how to control the media. The secret? Throw money at the media. Failing that, threaten the media.

The EPO has, for at least a decade, notoriously used IAM for all sorts of propaganda (UPC, patent 'quality' etc.) -- to the point where IAM now seems to shy away from even covering EPO matters. It's a sensitive relationship. Well, reposted from IAM earlier today was this article regarding "Deferral Of Examination" at the EPO -- a subject previously covered here (when it was posted in IAM's Web site and the firm's own). There's not much to see there because it was composed by UPC and software patents proponents. It's one big club and litigation is its currency. And speaking of UPC (litigation), recently the EPO had two universities (academia) paid in order to promote the UPC. This means that the EPO moved on from corrupting media to corrupting academia. Some allege that this was done very specifically in order help influence the German courts system regarding the UPC (i.e. against Europe's interests). "Read more about the impact of #patent protection on trade & FDI in innovative industries in this study," the EPO wrote today, not quite noting who was behind this so-called 'study'.

The EPO's corruption of the media/public outlets, including stacking of panels and manipulation of public debates, is truly troubling. It's like we're dealing here with Monsanto/Bayer (a big scandal in Germany about this today), not a public institution.

And speaking of media, watch today's terrible puff piece from World Intellectual Property Review (WIPR). It's about the interview we've mentioned 3 times already (Saturday, Sunday, and Monday). They found a way to spin it and this spin was poorly-received (by EPO staff [1, 2]). Regarding the spin on this, one insider said: "Let me guess who's next in-line publishing a preposterous article about the disturbed situation at the EPO? Perhaps IAM? It would add insult to injury..."

It's a lot of gross revisionism by those willing to put their name behind their words, i.e. those who suck up to the EPO rather than risk alienation. It's a salad of supportive words for Battistelli basically; "A spokesperson for the EPO said the office was pleased with the interview," said the author, "which reflected the “overall support of the Council to the reforms and the acknowledgement of their very positive results, in particular in terms of quality of products and services delivered by the EPO”."

Incredible! What a bunch of liars. Here is how it started:

Benoît Battistelli’s tenure at the European Patent Office (EPO) has been “undoubtedly positive” but there has been a “heavy-handed approach”, the chairman of the Administrative Council has said.

Christoph Ernst was interviewed in November by legal news website JUVE, which asked him the following question: “The EPO is constantly dogged by infighting between the Council’s management and its staff; the launch of the Unified Patent Court is clouded with uncertainty. The outlook is rather dismal, isn’t it?”

His response was that the situation was “certainly not as bad as that”.

Then starts a series of (almost) compliments to Battistelli. Shame on WIPR for quoting the firm the EPO sent to bully me several times. Here it is:

Joshua Marshall, associate at Fieldfisher, said: “Battistelli's tenure has not been without its challenges. Many of the issues have been internal in terms of the EPO's procedures and the staff which it employs.”

They are belittling the issues after Battistelli paid them to literally threaten me and try to silence Techrights (several times in fact, through several members of staff).

The EPO is a sick, sick place. Seeing it from the outside is enough to sicken. One can only imagine how dark and sickening (depressing if not leading to literal illness) it is from the inside. The sickness is infectious and now we have media and academia falling ill, too. The 'virus' propagates using stakeholders' (users') money and spreads in a fashion that severely undermines Europe's reputation and European democracy. ⬆