THE deeply dysfunctional EPO works well for the litigation fanatics. People like Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos have been put in charge thanks to lobbying from such fanatics, who don't understand science and scientists. All they know is legal bills, and they love it! We know at whose expense they receive their salaries.
"People like Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos have been put in charge thanks to lobbying from such fanatics, who don't understand science and scientists."Those fanatics have just composed a bunch of puff pieces about the UPC (yes, once again), as mentioned in Daily Links, and they're helped by mindless propaganda with António's quotes dropped in for good measure as in the case with this morning's puff piece (warning: epo.org link) that says:
The European Patent Office (EPO) and European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Technical University of Munich (TUM) on 4 February 2021 to offer TUM graduates the opportunity to gain valuable professional experience as trainees in both Offices. Signed by EPO President António Campinos, EUIPO Executive Director Christian Archambeau and TUM President Thomas Hofmann, the agreement adds the TUM to the Pan-European Seal Professional Traineeship Programme, a vibrant network of over 80 academic institutions across Europe with a pronounced interest in intellectual property (IP).
"That's only a day or two apart from another EUIPO+EPO press release (so-called 'study'), resulting in puff pieces we've added to Daily Links."But even old foes of corrupt EPO management have come around, or rather they've stepped down, giving room (and way) to AstraZenecaKat, who happily distorts what actually happened at the EPO. As mentioned yesterday, this blog post which misuses the name "Merpel" has "no mention of the fact [...] that the judges on this Board lack actual autonomy and would likely just do what the Office demands. AstraZenecaKat moreover says that "In G2/19 the EBA found that Haar was indeed in Munich," but this is a lie. They threw out the question as inadmissible. Not the same thing."
"The EPO misuses its monetary resources gaming the media, gaming academia, and manipulating public officials."Looking at the comments below (the comments are almost always better and more accurate than self-serving spin from Team UPC, CIPA et al), one finds comments which say: "The EPO has recently developed a cowboy mentality which runs the risk of destroying the respect it has earned over the decades."
Another comment then says: "Dear Anonymous, the hearings via Zoom at the EPO are public, so there cannot be any privacy issue here. On the other hand, non-public hearings at the EPO are held via Skype for Business." (Microsoft)
Here's why it's a GDPR violation, as well as many other issues, as put forth:
Dear Kitty, I think there is more to the question of lawfulness of ViCos than just delay. If the EPO, especially the first instances, had chosen to host a server on its own premises, one which does not have AI analyse the video and audio data (as Zoom openly admits to), our beloved GDPR and our fundamental rights (as laid out here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT&from=EN) might not have gotten in the way. Currently they do. So what are we to do, ignore it? The EPO has recently developed a cowboy mentality which runs the risk of destroying the respect it has earned over the decades. And since you mentioned G2/19, how about this little gem from the EBoA: "Die Nutzer des Angebots der Europäischen Patentorganisation werden zwar darauf vertrauen dürfen, dass die Organe des Europäischen Patentamts ihre Handlungen nicht an beliebigen dritten Orten vornehmen." Arbitrary "third locations" - difficult to think of a better description of the current mode, in which the three members of the EPO tribunals may sit anywhere, not to speak of the representatives and the parties, and the data is streamed via a server of unknown location...