Last week: António Campinos is Almost 100% the Same as Benoît Battistelli

Summary: The Frenchmen in charge of the EPO may have a taste (and waste) for wine, but they have no clue how to run a patent office (except into the ground); patent application numbers are meanwhile falling (a reduction in demand)

WITH clueless, nonscientific, law-unabiding people like Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos in positions of power no wonder software patents are being granted in Europe. Even in direct violation of the EPC. Patents are also being granted on life and nature. Anything goes...

"We worry that today's EPO is already broken beyond repair.""EPO and EUIPO study finds link between IPR and SME growth" says a new headline, treating words from the past and present agencies of Campinos (EPO and EUIPO) like the fountain of truth. Just as expected, AWA's Christian Nielsen does not bother pointing out who funded this so-called 'study'...

Yesterday the EPO kept googlebombing "SMEs" (because it's against them and therefore needs to deflect urgently).

The first such tweet said: "How can IP protection support your business? We'll be discussing that at this event: https://bit.ly/2WuNry0 #startups #IPforSMEs pic.twitter.com/GmqAJBB3qo' (see those two hashtags)

This hashtag, #IPforSMEs, appeared in another EPO googlebomb (second mention of "SMEs" on the same day).

To quote: "Patents can be used to shape a company's technology competency profile. http://bit.ly/epoSMEstudies #IPforSMEs pic.twitter.com/l2xZl7Jmpy"

See? It's "SMEs" everywhere. Pages, tweets, studies...

So the EPO is great for SMEs, right? Just like it's great when it comes to quality (or so it wants us to believe). The EPO has just released a big report with "Transparency on quality of products and services" in the title. Transparency as in lies? They also say "products" as if applicants are "customers" as JUVE puts it (JUVE is comparing the EPO to a restaurant as if dining and monopolies are comparable).

The patent office mostly known across Europe for corruption (because of Željko Topić) has also just been mentioned in relation to the EPO. "On May 24, 2019, the Croatian Intellectual Property Office closed the public discussion on the new Patent Act draft," PETOÅ EVIĆ's Anamarija Stančić Petrović wrote. As if they respect the law there. Outlaws seem to be running the patent system in Croatia. They're thriving. They help foreign giants like Lufthansa crush small, local companies.

"Big drop in the meaning of the word "Innovation" in the past 50 years," said this one Twitter user, so "say no to Software Patents..."

It was said in relation to the Moon mission (50 years ago) on the same day IP Kat asked in its headline: "Why is there less innovation?"

Patent lawyers overuse and misuse that word. They intentionally conflate it with patents, i.e. with monopolies. IP Kat is citing this March article and says: "According to the article, it is not that older employees are less productive. A study shows that while there may be some drop-off in the physical abilities of senior citizens, it is compensated by enhanced skills in such things as experience and connections. So it is not the decline in productivity of older workers per se."

Having more and more patents does not mean more innovation and it may actually mean less of it. See how patents slowed down/curtailed by decades innovation in the UAV and 3-D printing space.

We worry that today's EPO is already broken beyond repair. SUEPO is relatively quiet and there has been no update in over a month from RIP-Kat, which was supposed to be a forum to replace the now-censored IP Kat. One new IP Kat comment from Kant says: "Why did the legislators bother with including [patent] added subject matter as a ground for revocation in the first place?"

This was said in relation to the latest of many eliminations of European Patents in top European courts. The full comment:

What is also amusing is the consideration of German practice regarding added subject matter to be logical. Before the Federal Patent Court, one of the grounds for revocation is the presence of added subject matter. Should such added subject matter however be identified, the patent is not revoked. Instead a conceptual bubble is drawn around the added subject matter and if the rest is novel and inventive, the patent can be maintained, bubble and all. Why did the legislators bother with including added subject matter as a ground for revocation in the first place?

Things sour at the EPO even further, based on RIP-Kat comments, with false promises reported by insiders. Anonymous commenter wrote: "The rewards exercise is already delayed. No announcement on the bonuses for the performance of 2018 has ever been made. Yes, you read it right. For 2018, and we are now in June 2019! The figures were obviously available in December 2018 and bonuses could have been paid in December 2018, like everywhere else, or in January 2019, but neither HR under the sublime Elodie Bergot, not the top management under Campinos have done anything about it."

"Anonymous Impunity" then said in response: "Nor do they care. Allegedly 2/3 will receive something, but rumours have it that the COOs have cut that down to less than half of "eligible" employees will receive something. They are noticing the breakdown of the current "rewards" system, and are giving it a big push over the cliff. Also, the delayed payout and the interest on that money awards to something already. It's prudent management..."

It is utterly terrible management and just as we predicted all along it's depressing participation in the EPO, both as staff and as applicants. The EPO management lies to everyone yet again (about "quality") as the number of patent applications falls -- something that even JUVE nowadays mentions (the aforementioned article about restaurants, comparing a patent/monopoly-granting authority to cuisine!).

Ben Wodecki (IPPro Magazine) wrote about it about a day ago, counterbalanced with contrary claims from the critics and sceptics (quite refreshing for a change, as he used to do just puff pieces). To quote a few sentences/paragraphs:

Much has also been made recently of EPO patents that covered conventional bred plants being granted, when under European law, it is illegal to do so.

Aside from the aforementioned findings, the EPO’s product audits show that there is, according to the office, “room for improvement”.

A decrease in compliance rate was measured in the auditing of grants by the office, which states “a number of improvement actions are being taken”.

A year after Campinos came to the EPO he lies so blatantly and routinely. We absolutely lost all hope that he will introduce necessary changes and based on what JUVE and IPPro Magazine have to say, having spoken to stakeholders, we aren't alone. They too have lost faith in Campinos. ⬆