Not everything one hears is true; there ought to be a verification process. It otherwise helps the EPO's censorship agenda.

BASELESS hearsay in the European Patent Office (EPO) isn't helpful. Take for instance this fourth anonymous comment about some rumour regarding Battistelli being Elodie Bergot's father. R.I.P. Kat is generally reliable, but the comment in "More scandals" lends credibility to claims of defamation being weaponised against Office management. Crime in the EPO is real and very much profound. The attack on the law itself is undeniable. We're not even talking about patent quality and scope (a decade ago we worried only about software patents in Europe) but literal crimes committed by the management. These people are truly above the law. There's no need to make up scandals about Bergot, who would exploit it to just abuse staff some more (as revenge). Battistelli already has two daughters; Bergot isn't one of them.

"There's no happiness, no justice, and no compliance with the most basic laws in today's EPO."Lies typically come from Office management and its corrupt media. Consider this new SPC framework 'survey'; imagine another round of hogwash like everything they did for EPO management, Team UPC etc. How many lies have these people spread and who benefited from these lies? This patent zealots’ think tank ('publisher'), Managing IP, will of course ask only lawyers and law (litigation) firms; nobody else will count or ‘matter’. It's like EPO management limiting who's being asked questions for its 'studies' (to give the false impression of happiness). Or constantly spreading a bunch of lies about independence of EPO judges. It's all hogwash; see G 2/19 from last month. There's no happiness, no justice, and no compliance with the most basic laws in today's EPO. It might even get worse this winter. AA Thornton's Stuart Greenwood refers to himself, the author, as a third person (in the headline!) right here, having just commented on Rules of Procedure of the Boards of Appeal in a site owned by IAM's owner. Of course it's a bunch of shallow dross because the site exists only to serve law firms. Check their business model. It's not pretty.

Let the EPO's management and the likes of IAM keep their monopoly on lying, otherwise they might give the illusion of parity when it comes to dishonesty (stigmatising their critics). ⬆