Summary: The attitude of patent offices that measure their performance in terms like number of monopolies signed off leads to retardation of science, but they couldn't care any less, they just change their messaging or marketing (buzzwords can help, e.g. "intelligence" and "revolution")

European Patent Office (EPO) President António Campinos boasts 'growth'... (as Battistelli did)

The Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) likewise...

But a growth in what?

Talent pool?

"What exactly are they measuring?"Quality standards?

Satisfaction rates (staff and applicants)?

What exactly are they measuring?

If the EPO can flagrantly violate the EPC, then it can grant a million or a billion patents a day? If not enough applicants exist, write some computer programs to automatically generate applications.

Then... brag about 'growth'.

A growth in number of applications...

"If 99% of those granted patents are denied or dismissed by the courts, should the patent offices worry?"A growth in number of patents...

After all, handing over some piece of paper corresponding to a monopoly isn't too expensive, is it?

Unlike court costs.

If 99% of those granted patents are denied or dismissed by the courts, should the patent offices worry?

As the old saying goes, "not my department!"

Nowadays, the EPO is shameless about granting software patents in Europe. It even told examiners that if an applicant mentions "AI", then it's a very special thing. They formulated this nonsense in the examiners' guidelines two months ago. They actually have buzzwords and weasel words inside formal guidelines. Maybe later this year they'll issue new guidelines about patents with "smart" in them, with "app" in them, with "assistant" in them...

"It's very relevant because "4IR" is a buzzphrase that the EPO actually paid the media to promote (convenient way to bribe media which previously criticised the EPO's management)."If "4IR" is a 'thing', why not?

It's very relevant because "4IR" is a buzzphrase that the EPO actually paid the media to promote (convenient way to bribe media which previously criticised the EPO's management).

Nowadays WIPO constantly promotes the ridiculous "HEY HI" (AI) hype because they want machines to help generate loads of monopolies, creating further chaos that only lawyers will profit from. They also promote software patents under the guise of the same buzzword while law firms are promoting their nonsense from their own site ("Artificial Intelligence (AI) Patents РWill the Patent Office Change the Rules?"; found via Janal Kalis) as recently as days ago. Watch the "HEY HI" (AI) hype again being misused to promote bunk abstract patents that courts continue to throw out, citing 35 U.S.C. ۤ 101 a lot of the time (sometimes obviousness or prior art, instead or in conjunction). Here they go with a buzzwords and hype wave braindump:

The number of patents for inventions based on artificial intelligence, machine learning and deep learning continues to grow rapidly. Some of these inventions relate to AI technology per se, and some relate to the use of AI in specific applications, including many in healthcare, financial services and blockchain, among other industries. The USPTO has addressed various aspects of intellectual property issues with these technologies in various ways, including in an event it hosted entitled “Artificial Intelligence: Intellectual Property Policy Considerations (January 2019).” Due to some of the unique issues with these technologies, the USPTO is considering whether it should make any changes to how it handles examination of these applications. As part of this analysis, the USPTO issued a request for public comments on protection and examination of these inventions. Last fall, the USPTO issued a Federal Register Notice, 84 Fed. Reg. 166 (Aug. 27, 2019) entitled, “Request for Comments on Patenting Artificial Intelligence Inventions.” Soon after, the USPTO issued another Notice, 84 Fed. Reg. 210 (Oct. 30, 2019) entitled, “Request for Comments on Intellectual Property Protection for Artificial Intelligence Innovation,” which expanded the scope of its inquiry (from just AI patents) to further cover copyright, trademark, and other intellectual property rights impacted by AI. In a third notice, the PTO extended the comment period until January 10, 2020.

That's yesterday. How many of these granted patents would withstand a challenge in court? What proportion? And at what level? If only 10% of these stand a chance at the Federal Circuit or even at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), does that mean that real 'production' of the Office is an order of magnitude lower?

Going back to the EPO, yesterday it tweeted:

What can you patent in biotech?

It takes too much time/space to tackle -- here or elsewhere -- mere "tweets" or so-called 'tweets' (they're a dime a dozen and not journalism; the EPO does about 50 of them per week).

"It seems rather clear that here in Europe and also in the US the patent offices are given the freedom/liberty to just grant lots of legally-invalid patents, even if just to fake 'growth' at times of economic pressures if not depression. Those who benefit the most are companies valued at more than the total GDP of entire countries, at the expense of SMEs that cordially employ and respect their staff."When the value of a company depends on some monopoly from the EPO, as in this new case of Auris Medical (new press release and report [1, 2]), that does not necessarily mean such patents are desirable. There are ramifications for competitors. It seems rather clear that here in Europe and also in the US the patent offices are given the freedom/liberty to just grant lots of legally-invalid patents, even if just to fake 'growth' at times of economic pressures if not depression. Those who benefit the most are companies valued at more than the total GDP of entire countries, at the expense of SMEs that cordially employ and respect their staff. ⬆