The European Patent Office (EPO) is so profoundly corrupt that it is corrupting the European media. It still gets its money's worth.

Summary: The EPO's grip on the media is worrying; it's like the largest publishers have become mere parrots of high EPO officials, not inquisitive journalists who check underlying facts and strive to inform the public

THIS morning we have a fantastic new example of how the EPO corrupts and manipulates the media, getting it to print the EPO's lies while never mentioning crimes of the EPO. We last complained about the media coverage about 12 hours ago. European public money is being wasted corrupting the media which would otherwise inform the European public just how badly it is being abused. European examiners too are the victims (and Battistelli probably belongs in prison, but António Campinos keeps shielding him).

When we use words like "crimes" (as above) we allude to things far worse than scandals such as software patents being granted in Europe and lesser issues that can be described as corruption more so than crimes. Where's the media? Why does it ignore all this? Why are EPO examiners feeling so lonely or 'orphaned' in the media?

"European public money is being wasted corrupting the media which would otherwise inform the European public just how badly it is being abused."At 5AM this morning (Google says 5:02AM) the large publisher from London started its latest bombardment with lies. Clive Cookson of the Financial Times (FT), bribed by the EPO (we've covered this before), spreads the lie of UPC being "cost-cutting" (massive lie!!) as early as the headline. Whose costs are being cut?

Benjamin Henrion (FFII) told me about an hour ago that ""cost-cutting" is propaganda. EU-wide damages means costs will increase."

Looking into the structure of it all and who's quoted, it's like this piece was done in collaboration with Team UPC, with preparation taking at least several days and the EPO involved in some form as well (see the final paragraphs). “The preparatory committee is trying to give the impression of continuing momentum,” says Bristows. But this is exactly what Bristows has been doing, to the point of making stuff up and lying for years.

Here are some portions of text:

“The preparatory committee is trying to give the impression of continuing momentum,” says Alan Johnson, IP partner at Bristows, the London-based international law firm.

[...]

“This is where political will remains vital,” says Mr Johnson. “With the possible exception of Italy . . . all UPC participating countries appear still to wish the UK to remain a part of the system. So, too, does European and British industry.”

[...]

The EPO expects inventors who want Europe-wide protection to opt for the new system because costs will be much lower. It estimates that renewal fees for a 20-year unitary patent will amount to €36,000, compared with €170,000 for 26 individual national patents.

Then, at the very same time (5:02AM apparently, based on Google) Jane Croft was pushing the "hey hi" nonsense (software patents by another name/gown) in another FT article, this one entitled "China plays catch-up with Europe and US in patents filing race". It's like parts of it could be ghostwritten by the EPO's PR department:

Chinese companies are rushing to obtain patents protecting advances in everything from artificial intelligence to blockchain. They accounted for 473 of the 608 AI patents filed with WIPO in 2017, compared with 65 from the US and two from the UK.

Chinese internet company Baidu, seen as China’s answer to Google, filed 183 AI patents at WIPO in 2017 — more than any other company according to a recent report by UHY, the accounting and consulting firm.

The striking jump in Chinese patent filings might make it appear that Europe and the US are starting to lag behind in innovation. But lawyers say the underlying picture is far more complex.

China remains behind its main trading competitors in numbers of foreign-country Patent Office filings — seen as an important indicator showing the technologies that companies want to protect across borders.

[...]

Nor is there any indication that Europe is being left behind. The European Patent Office says nearly half of the more than 174,000 European patent applications last year came from its 38 member states.

[...]

Mr Finnie agrees Europe is not lagging behind but makes the point that small businesses are often slow to take up patent protection. “It can be a low priority for some companies,” he says. “There is the potential for small businesses to make more of their IP and there is a drive by the EPO to explain to small businesses in each economy how to back up their innovation.”

They're drowning out negative articles about the EPO while pushing the agenda of EPO management.

Benjamin Henrion has just quoted 'Pirate' politicians as saying: "Small and medium IT companies throughout Europe prove that patents on software are no prerequisite to economic success."

"Patent industry will say EPO give them software patents," he noted. The EPO has just bragged about its patent data, but what if the data is not good/valid? Today's EPO has granted too many fake patents and plans yet more degradations (intended/geared towards faking 'production').

The only language the EPO now understands is 'production' and by that term, production, it means abolishing quality and just granting lots of junk.

"The media (big corporate publishers) doesn't really care about truth or justice. It's just busy pushing corporate interests; that's its business model."We've also just noticed the EPO's latest Argentinian PR stunt mentioned in Mondaq by José Santacroce (Moeller IP Advisors). Campinos does exactly what Battistelli did 2 years ago and Santacroce writes: "The European Patent Office and the National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) of Argentina are stepping up their cooperation. EPO President Antonio Campino and INPI President Damaso Pardo signed on 2 July 2019 a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to establish a Reinforced Partnership programme between both offices. This comprehensive cooperation agreement is the first of its kind to be set up by the EPO with an IP office in Latin America. The meeting of the Heads of Office took place on the margins of the IP Executive Week in Alicante."

The MoU actually goes back to May 2017. But Campinos is doing a photo ops tour and regenerating old puff pieces. The failures of today's media is so profound that I'm sometimes at a loss for words. EPO examiners hopefully are as cynical as they ought to be. The media (big corporate publishers) doesn't really care about truth or justice. It's just busy pushing corporate interests; that's its business model. ⬆