THE latest greenwash from the European Patent Office (EPO) seeks to associate monopoly with the environment (warning: epo.org link) and it should raise a brow (as if granting monopolies will save the planet). This is the kind of ridiculous crap one ought to expect when politicians rather than scientists are in charge [1, 2]. Who next to lead the EPO? Another politician?
epo.org link). Yes, they are bribing scholars again. "Say what we want to hear," is their message, "and then get a bribe."
"The EPO long ago lost it, starting to behave more and more like a political cult; it has 'enemies' and it's not reluctant to threaten if not punish them."There have already been several "tweets" to that effect. As we explained many times before (past years), this is clearly misuse of EPO budget. It's like those bribes that are offered to media/publishers in exchange for puff pieces. Are patent offices supposed to (mis)use money like that? For these purposes?
It's a simple and rather trivial ethical query. How does the EPO deal with critics (other than threats)? Bribe the media so that those critics don't get a voice? Same in academia: Simply reject/deprive (financially; also tenures depend on grants) those who don't perpetuate illusions of the rich and powerful.
The EPO long ago lost it, starting to behave more and more like a political cult; it has 'enemies' and it's not reluctant to threaten if not punish them.
WIPO did some similar things, but never to the same extent.
Consider what happened to IP Kat after the EPO had santioned it. Many writers fled, leaving the blog in the hands of self-promoting law firms and litigation fanatics (not scholars such as lecturers). We should note that IP Kat has once again deleted an on-topic comment that I submitted about EQE, so it's very clear that they engage in censorship of views expressed politely (views that the patent zealots don't like to hear and don't want people to see). IP Kat wasn't always this rogue, especially when it was run by a scholar who had also established Managing IP.
"They're like a "Fox News" of patent news. Everyone loves Trump!"Look what happened to Managing IP after the sale; they're selling fake awards, they publish lies for a fee and they basically look for money in all the wrong (and very unethical) places. Here's Managing IP as a mouthpiece of patent trolls again (they can't help it, can they?). It's part of a long series composed by someone known for entrapping Justice Huber to come up with fake news about the UPC complaint being moot or whatever. To manufacture propaganda with fake surveys or polls (one of the Managing IP 'products' along with biased events, complete with stacked panels) he now asks only the patent fanatics for their response (but nobody else). Yes, in Patrick Wingrove's own words: "Managing IP invites its in-house counsel readers [only ... and] participation in this survey is confidential. Data collected will not be shared with third parties and will only be published in an AGGREGATED and ANONYMISED form."
But we know the nature of the self-selecting respondents. The thing about such surveys and surveyors is, they're only ever speaking to lawyers (and nobody else exists to them, as can be seen in this new article). So of course the outcomes are extremely biased and hardly support the headlines they come up with. These people very well know what they're doing (IAM does the same). They're like a "Fox News" of patent news. Everyone loves Trump!
"Look at the names of writers. Virtually all of the 'old' (only years ago) writers left."And when they're not publishing their biased 'article'...
"Sponsored by" as "news"...
Here's an example only days old.
We pointed this out a week ago and gave about 8 new examples. They've become like a spam machine of law firms...
Watchtroll was already bad enough (lots of sponsored 'articles' and ads as 'articles'). But I remember how once upon a time (even a few years ago) this site called Managing IP still occasionally did some decent work rather than propaganda for trolls, for law firms, for Team UPC and so on. Look at the names of writers. Virtually all of the 'old' (only years ago) writers left. ⬆