Bonum Certa Men Certa

Who Will Merpel be in 2020? (Now Defending Battistelli's Attacks on EPO Judges and Serious Violations of the EPC)

Maximalists (patent, copyright, trademark etc.) and litigation zealots have taken over IP Kat, which has sadly become merely an amplifier of EPO lies (deliberate falsehoods) and propaganda

The old IP Kat
The 'old' IP Kat (several more key people have left since)



Summary: The tone of IP Kat has changed to the point where it's very much part of Team Campinos/Battistelli -- i.e. the very opposite of what it was prior to key departures and sanctions from the European Patent Office (EPO)

THE EPO is not an ordinary institution. I probably ought to know this, having covered it very closely since 2014 (I had covered it before that, albeit not as closely and without inside informants). Today's EPO is bribing and threatening publishers (they tried this on us several times). Sheer corruption, sheer abuse, but these people enjoy immunity...



I've often read about practices such as these in Russia or sometimes China as well. Is Europe prone to tolerating the same? The corrupt people who have seized control of the Office are effectively killing every form of journalism (about patents) that dares criticise or even speak about EPO abuses. I spoke to some reporters and they told me stories. Giving the full details would likely reveal identities of publishers and therefore writers too.

"I've often read about practices such as these in Russia or sometimes China as well. Is Europe prone to tolerating the same?"The EPO may in fact be Europe's most corrupt institution. This very much matters because it's also Europe's second-largest one. Why don't more publications speak about it? Well, being Europe's second-largest institution means a lot of power, connections and even budget ('slush funds'). Therein lies a very big problem. Publications that used to speak of EPO issues refrain from saying anything at all. It's not necessarily the case that they all paint a rosy picture; but when there's a scandal they pretend not to see, they perpetuate the idea that it does not exist. I've witnessed similar things when Wikileaks published some bombshell reports/leaks, whereupon there were even (as recently as this month) reports about reporters who resign, having been denied -- by the publisher -- the permission to cover the story. 4 years ago I saw that at the BBC. They try to keep as 'marginal' as possible particular stories/developments, suppressing 'inconvenient' facts to guard an incomplete and misleading narrative. JUVE totally embraced that. Yes, JUVE... which used to provide splendid coverage back in the days.

Several years ago people reported to us that IP Kat had begun actively deleting comments -- even entire threads -- critical of EPO management. Moderators changed. They sought to police the tone, narrative, discussion etc. It was rather astounding given the low standards applied; totally polite comments were deleted as well (we made copies -- where possible -- before these deletions). Since then IP Kat has been pushing UPC lies every month or so. With AstraZeneca and Bristows in key positions it's hardly surprising (consider their corporate agenda), which means that IP Kat has become 'litigation industry' blog. Also remember Stephen Jones; previously in charge, not just at CIPA, an integral part of Team UPC, he did photo ops with Battistelli. It was as if he chose to make photographic evidence of a complete coup.

"Several years ago people reported to us that IP Kat had begun actively deleting comments -- even entire threads -- critical of EPO management."We could go on and on talking about the pro-software patents bias of IP Kat; it hardly deals with 35 U.S.C. €§ 101 at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and a lot of the time it uses misleading propaganda terms that are technically and legally unsound. So what is this blog even useful for? When it comes to patents, it's not scholarly at all (the scholars have mostly left), it's a litigation lobby. Ask around the EPO (examiners); they might say the same. The difference is felt. Speak to former 'Kats' (if they dare speak out); they too might say the same.

This morning I saw this latest tidbit, preceded by the following introductory paragraph: "It has been a busy year for the Enlarged Board of Appeal. 2019 has seen four referrals from the Boards of Appeal and one decision. The more controversial of this year's referrals (namely Pepper and Computer simulated inventions) have attracted a large number of third party comments. Other referrals (i.e. "Double-patenting") seem to have dropped off the radar of even the EBA. Readers may therefore be forgiven for losing track."

This is far from a balanced overview; we'll get to that in a moment. Rose Hughes with her typically dismissive remarks about software patents critics (we covered her stance on software patents in Europe in the past; she's no coder) isn't quite surprising to us. We've become accustomed to it by now. Her outline does not mention at all those who oppose software patents, instead giving the impression that software companies are in favour (citing monopolies and law firms); they try to 'vanish' actual coders, letting legal departments of multinationals claim to speak 'for' them. She also mentions Campinos with his violation of the European Patent Convention (EPC) -- the principle of separation of powers -- but seems to see nothing wrong with that!

"Remember that Merpel is not an actual person but a pseudonym for several (they told me so themselves)."For those who wish to hear from critics of software patents (people who actually do software) there's this talk tomorrow by Benjamin Henrion at CCC/36C3 in Hamburg (Germany). They've "Moved the Unitary Software Patents discussion to Sunday at 6PM", he noted. It was supposed to be today. "Unitary Software Patents discussion moved to 6PM on Sunday," he added later. We know that some of our readers will be there (but won't name them).

Going back to IP Kat, notice what Hughes added in: "[Merpel: Whilst relocation of the Boards of Appeal was undoubtedly an unpopular move, was it really necessary to expend EBA time on such a question?]"

Remember that Merpel is not an actual person but a pseudonym for several (they told me so themselves). It wasn't an "unpopular" move but an illegal one. But now they're changing history and retroactively justifying the abuse. Here's the full text about software patents and Haar:



Computer simulated inventions (G 1/19)

The patentability of software (which takes the form of computer "simulated" or "implemented" inventions under the EPO's problem and solution approach) is a controversial topic. In the first of a couple of referrals in February, a Board of Appeal (3.5.07) sought clarity from the EBA on the patentability of computer-implemented simulations (T 0489/14): The patentability of computer simulated methods - another referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal. The referral was followed by comments from the EPO president: Comments from the EPO President on the patentability of computer-implemented simulations (G 1/19). The President appears broadly in favour of the patentability of computer-simulated inventions. The referral particularly relates to claims having both a technical and non-technical character. The referral asks whether the non-technical features of such an invention and/or the technical purpose of the invention can be considered in the assessment of inventive step.

G 1/19 has received a large number of amicus curiae from third parties. A number of the amicus curiae are from large software companies, who are unsurprisingly in favour of the patentability of this kind of software invention (e.g. Siemens, Philips and IBM). CIPA and EPI have also all given their view, which are in favour of including the technical purpose of a claim in the assessment of inventive step.

Clarity in appeal and is Munich in Haar? (G 2/19)

The second referral in February related to appeals procedure. The referral sought an answer to whether a clarity objection can be discussed in appeal oral proceedings. Clarity can not be raised in opposition (accept in response to a Patentee's post-grant amendment). A clarity objection may be raised in examination by a third party (Article 115 EPC). In the case in question (T 831/17), in order to pursue a clarity objection after grant, a third party filed an appeal against the decision to grant the patent (EP2378735). The appeal was rejected as inadmissible. However, the Board of Appeal referred the question to the EBA of whether the appellant still has the right to oral proceedings even when an appeal is deemed inadmissible.

In response to the referral, the EBA decided that following an inadmissible appeal, a third party is not entitled to oral proceedings in order to discuss the third party's clarity objections. The EBA therefore closed the door on the possibility that clarity may be discussed as a ground of opposition in appeal proceedings: Enlarged Board of Appeal releases full reasoning in G2/19. The opposition period for the granted patent has now expired.

The final question in the referral raised a collective sigh from many in the patent community. The question related to whether Haar could really be said to be situated in Munich: Where is Haar and how did it get there? Observations on Geography while Waiting for G2/19. In particular, did the location of oral proceedings in Haar contravene a party's right to be heard? Rather unsurprisingly, the EBA decided that Haar was in Munich. [Merpel: Whilst relocation of the Boards of Appeal was undoubtedly an unpopular move, was it really necessary to expend EBA time on such a question?]



Wow, what a truly terrible remark, attributed to "Merpel". In past years Merpel held exactly the opposite position, but the whisperer handle which is "Merpel" is now used to justify what happened to G 2/19. Sorry, "Merpel", but now you're contradicting yourself, you're not even consistent!

Now that the blog's founder has left -- and later those whom he left in charge (entrusted so to speak) -- who's even in charge? We have a rough idea as it's at the top of all pages in the blog (names but not employers). They try to give the impression that the blog is run by a vast and diverse team.

"Now that the blog's founder has left -- and later those whom he left in charge (entrusted so to speak) -- who's even in charge? We have a rough idea as it's at the top of all pages in the blog (names but not employers)."Read again that last paragraph (above); to them, it's almost as if it's a waste of time to check whether the law is being broken (which isn't hard to see, but they make it a political question and thwart it altogether). Remember that this decision was released not in English (intentional). As we explained and showed at the time, they googlebombed in every way possible to distract from what was happening. Read the first (and as of now only) comment: "Regarding G4/19, the written decision was handed down on December 20, 10 months after the hearing."

By that stage will anyone care/notice/bother?

Days ago we also saw Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. wrongly assuming that the EPO respects the EPC (it does not, it's a rubber-stamping machine) when writing about bioinformatics patent claims. To quote:

This article discusses challenges in prosecuting bioinformatics patent applications before the European Patent Office (EPO). The EPO determines the subject-matter eligibility of bioinformatics patent applications under Articles 52 and 56 of the European Patent Convention. Article 52 governs what is considered patent eligible subject matter.[1] Article 56 governs whether a bioinformatics patent claim involves an inventive step.[2] While Article 56 is not directly related to eligible subject matter determinations, the EPO uses this Article to screen bioinformatics patent application for eligible subject matter issues. Four points of concern and consideration related to the subject-matter eligibility of bioinformatics patent applications in Europe are discussed below.

First, under Article 52, the EPO may incorrectly reject a bioinformatics patent claim as being directed to (1) discoveries, scientific theories, and mathematical methods, or (2) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers.[3] One way patent applicants can argue that a bioinformatics patent claim is not directed to either category is to explicitly recite a computer or physical step (e.g., tying bioinformatics method claim to specific technical equipment) to support technical character in the claim.

Second, under Article 56, the EPO may overlook a technical purpose of a bioinformatics patent claim. In response, patent applicants can argue that the technical purpose is the biological rationale for performing the bioinformatics analysis. For example, the biological rationale can be related to diagnosing a disease or assessing a particular physical property. Patent applicants should be cognizant that issues may arise when arguing that the features fundamental to solving the biological problem (e.g., aligning gene sequences) are the biological rationale. This is because such features may not be considered by the EPO to sufficiently provide the requisite biological rationale.


Articles 52 and 56 of the European Patent Convention won't matter to today's EPO management; because it routinely violates many other articles and it gloats about that mass violation having no consequences!

Last but not least, Kluwer Patent Blog is the latest of several to speak of "inventive step" (the EPO's bizarre terminology, which includes "technical problem") in the context of "hope" -- as pertaining to T/83. Arianna Bartolini, Charlotte Richards-Taylor and Thorsten Bausch (published by the last of the bunch) say this:



As was rightly noted on this blog, the skilled person’s “hope” of solving the objective technical problem using the means that led to the (later claimed) invention, has disappeared from the Guidelines for Examination. What we are left with is the (perhaps) more objective “expectation of some improvement or advantage (see T/83)”. Interestingly, this expectation of “some improvement or advantage” no longer appears to be so closely linked to the objective technical problem than the language previously used in the Guidelines. Whether this will in the future give rise to more problems for applicants or patentees remains to be seen. In any case, it may be a good point in time to remind ourselves that even recognizing a problem and its roots can (at least sometimes) be an invention of itself.

[...]

Conclusion

Decision T 2321/15 thus came to the interesting conclusion that the discovery of a yet unrecognized problem may give rise to patentable subject-matter in spite of the fact that the claimed solution may be, once the root of a problem has been identified, retrospectively trivial and in itself obvious. As such, T 2321/15 is not the first decision of its kind, but rather follows a long tradition starting with T 2/83 itself, which was confirmed in T 764/12. It may thus be prudent for parties applying the problem-solution-approach to include the recognizability of the objective problem and its cause into their considerations.


Nothing is said about the lack of independence of the Board; this has, apparently, become the new 'normal'; the EPO has managed to silence or 'tame' its critics and now everyone is supposed to accept that Haar is the permanent home of 'justice' -- where judges are actively lobbied/pressured by Campinos himself to allow illegal patents.

"Articles 52 and 56 of the European Patent Convention won't matter to today's EPO management; because it routinely violates many other articles and it gloats about that mass violation having no consequences!"We certainly hope that more blogs will appear that the EPO won't bribe or censor (or threaten). As it stands, however, even IPPro Magazine no longer covers EPO affairs (it did for a while and Barney did a decent job). Based on their site, they stopped publication about a month ago (prior to that they had significantly slowed down and only Becky Bellamy composed new articles, mostly PR and 'puff pieces' that resemble advertisements).

Recent Techrights' Posts

They Say That People Are Afraid of or Worried About "Hey Hi", But the Worriers Should be the Fools Who Invested in It
At the end of the day nobody should worry more than those who invested their money in this bubble
Throwing Away "Old" Computers (Mozilla and Other Climate Deniers)
Mozilla is not leftist
 
Xubuntu Site Compromised
Let's hope it is not a security breach
Links 10/09/2025: Retaliation at Facebook and Microsoft Reveals Almost 100 Security Holes
Links for the day
Gemini Links 10/09/2025: Annihilation of Self, The Future Eaters, and Leaving Academia
Links for the day
Harassment evidence: franceinfo's Clara Lainé report on Ubisoft prosecution
Reprinted with permission from Daniel Pocock
Links 10/09/2025: Microsoft Layoffs in "RTO" Clothing and Windows TCO, GitHub TCO
Links for the day
Blaming Everything on China
TikTok works for China. GAFAM works for fascists.
People Get Tired of "Hey Hi" (AI), Unlike the Subservient Money-Obsessed Media That Gets Paid to Pretend This Bubble Still Matters
"crash will be way bigger than dot.com burst in 90s. and that was Internet, actually transformative technology, not this expensive AI toy with direct dependency on the energy input which is not scalable"
Brett Wilson LLP Accepts That the Serial Strangler From Microsoft Filed a Case That Also Implicates My Wife (Everything is Connected)
They used to pretend that there were two separate cases
10 Reasons to Disable (or Enable) UEFI Secure Boot
Tomorrow the "trusted corporation" Microsoft will see a certificate expire
Gemini Links 10/09/2025: Hospital and Large Feeds
Links for the day
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, September 09, 2025
IRC logs for Tuesday, September 09, 2025
The Bluewashing of Red Hat is Being Completed, Many Staff Understand They'll be Made Redundant
Jim AllowHurst (Whitehurst) is meanwhile promoting Microsoft's agenda from within other companies
statCounter Sees GNU/Linux Exceeding 10% in Bulgaria This Month
What can Microsoft still do to stop GNU/Linux?
Dark Patterns
Microsoft saying "security" is like a Convicted Felon in the White House saying "law and order".
It's Almost Fall (Autumn)
To "Facebook prison" you are bound
Bruce Schneier About "Secure Boot"
Bruce Schneier isn't a fan of "Secure Boot"
Links 09/09/2025: Microsoft Mass Layoffs Again and "RTO" (Timed Like It Serves as a Distraction From the Mass Layoffs)
Links for the day
RMS Told Microsoft to Stop 'Secure Boot' (He Even Went There to Say That), But They Didn't Listen
Dr. Stallman (RMS) assumed that speaking to sociopaths would work
What Richard Stallman Told Me About 'Secure' Boot in 2012
"if the user doesn't control the keys, then it's a kind of shackle"
Those Who Helped Microsoft Weaponise "Secure Boot" Against GNU/Linux and BSDs Are Fleeing
Microsofters doing what they do best: they evade accountability
Simple is Better, Simplicity is Power
That is "the advantage of having commodity GNU/Linux systems," an associate notes
Much Ado About Nonsense
Microsoft Lunduke is still all dramatisation and sensationalism
Current Events in France
It needs to dump Microsoft and other GAFAM (US) giants, move to Free software
Further Media Cut-downs
media reporting about the media being cut
Links 09/09/2025: US-Korea Tensions and Meta Whistleblowers
Links for the day
Gemini Links 09/09/2025: Moon Eclipse and ROOPHLOCH Reports
Links for the day
Links 09/09/2025: “Torrents of Hate” and Political Crisis in France
Links for the day
Gemini Links 09/09/2025: "Dedigitizing" and Forgejo on FreeBSD
Links for the day
Google News (Not Just Google Search) Lets Itself by Gamed by One Slopfarm - to the Point Almost Half of "Linux" News is Bot-Produced Plagiarism (LLM Slop With Slop Images)
That says a lot about what Google thinks of quality, even in Google News
Bill Gates-Funded Media Inadvertently Refutes the Microsoft Lie That in 2025 Microsoft Had Just Two Waves of Layoffs
There were about 12 rounds of layoffs so far in 2025
Official SUSE Blog Still Uses LLM Slop (Bots) to Make Fake Articles (Marketing)
The company is all about sound bites
Companies Realise That Slop Doesn't Work as Advertised, Accordingly Dump It
"Hype dims as a country-wide survey of US corporations shows a sudden drop-off in AI use among firms with more than 250 employees."
Microsoft-Funded Lawsuits Against Critics of UEFI 'Secure Boot'
Remember that no company (or law firm) ever survives collaborations with Microsoft
From theregister.co.uk to theregister.com (US) to The Register MS (Run by Microsoft Operatives) and theregister.ai
The best way to break this racket (or cycle of hype and harm) is to break the chains of funding
Open Source Initiative (OSI) Culture of Censorship Necessitates More Speech
The OSI bans dissent or people who merely point out that the OSI is abusive
How to Reach Us Discreetly (Other Than Encrypted E-mail)
We're still managing to maintain a 100% source protection record. We soon turn 19.
LLMs Are Vastly Worse Than a Waste of Energy and the Externalities Are Huge
Worse than just higher power bills for everybody
LLMs Versus Search (Not Replacing Search But Engaging in DDoS Attacks Against Web Sites That Permit Searching)
The state of the Web isn't just bad; it's utterly terrible
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Monday, September 08, 2025
IRC logs for Monday, September 08, 2025
It's Only the Second Week of September and Already Two Waves of Layoffs at Microsoft, Slopfarms and Microsoft-Funded Sites Spin It as "AI Investments" Rather Than Commercial Failure
A very large third one expected next week
The UEFI 9/11 - Part IX - Shunning Old Computers (in 2023 the Certificate Was Updated/Overridden, Underlying Aim May Be Herding/Forcing People to Get TPM and Other 'Novel' Restrictions)
the "upgrade treadmill"
Rumour: Second Wave of Microsoft Mass Layoffs in September to Commence Third Week of September
That basically answers questions like, "Any specific date or time of the month?"
If Your Machine Still Has "Secure Boot" Enabled, Then Microsoft Has a de Facto Kill Switch (Even If Your Machine Doesn't Have Windows and Never Had Windows)
It is not incorrect to call UEFI 'secure boot' a "kill switch"
Gemini Links 08/09/2025: Reality, ROOPHLOCH 2025, and Writing Another Gemini Client
Links for the day
Updating Firmware is Not the Solution But Only Additional Risk, Disable "Secure Boot" Today
firmware blobs are buggy, secret, impossible to audit, and barely tested
Microsoft Tim's DevClass (Part of The Register MS/Situation Publishing) is Full of Slop
Looking at many sites that are full of slop images is becoming an eye sore and hallmark of text too likely generated by LLMs or 'assisted' (tainted) by them
Microsoft Trying to Fake Demand for Slop. At What Cost?
That's a giant demotion and broken promises
Reddit is Corporate Propaganda
To make matters worse, Reddit ousted many original moderators
Jeff Geerling Shocked to Discover Many Metrics in YouTube Are Fake (His Audience Turns Out to be Much Smaller)
Maybe self-host all videos, don't rely on Google's "FOMO" cheating (addiction based on false assumptions)
Sunlight is the Best Disinfectant and Kryptonite/Garlic to Vampires
Transparency (sometimes described by words like "Sunlight" or "Truth") is paramount
The Register MS Uses Slop in Articles About Slop
we are fairly certain it's slop or CG based on other people's work
Visiting a Web Page or a Public URL Should be Safe, Predictable, and Benign
It's probably too late to "fix" the Web
The Register MS (Situation Publishing) is Paid to Spread Mindless Hype for the "Hey Hi" Ponzi Scheme and That's a Serious Problem
"Sponsored by Zoom."
Links 08/09/2025: Burger King Cracked, Cox v. Sony Analysed
Links for the day
Gemini Links 08/09/2025: Socialist Computer Museum and GAFAM/ByteDance/TikTok-Dominated Net
Links for the day
Links 08/09/2025: Tim Crook Disappoints Apple Faithfuls and Zuckerberg Lies (Financial Fraud) for Cheeto King
Links for the day
EPO Workers Point Out that the EPO is Destroying the Planet Under the Guise of "Hey Hi" (It Also Grants Many Invalid Patents Illegally
On 12 March and 16 June 2025, staff representation met with the administration in the Local Occupational Health, Safety and Ergonomics Committee (LOHSEC) in Munich
Turn Off Microsoft's Restricted Boot ("Secure Boot")
We're still running a series on this issue
Social Control Media Sites Have Become Bot Farms (Not Limited to LLMs and Automation)
linkedin.com was nothing but trouble and losses for Microsoft
Deep in Debt With the Magnitude of Losses Quickly Growing, Microsoft "Open" "Hey Hi" Now Uses Broadcom for Vapourware, Pretending It'll Do OK Next Year
At some stage it'll collapse
You Can Tell Microsoft is in Trouble When Its Own Fans and Staff Blast it
"Microsoft sinks billions into chasing artificial intelligence fads to hype up its share price."
Multiple Undersea Cable Cuts and We're Still OK
Microsoft customers experience problems
Lawyers Who Think They Are Online Assassins Don't Deserve a Licence to Operate
they've become a laughing stock in their "sector"
Microsoft Windows Fell to 3.9% "Market Share" in Bahamas
Based on statCounter
How the European Union (EU) Fell Out of Love With Free/Libre Software
Lots of bribery
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Sunday, September 07, 2025
IRC logs for Sunday, September 07, 2025