Having worked for the regime of Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos, Heli Pihlajamaa (known inside EPO as "Ms Pyjamas") should know that the judges in Haar lack independence and should not even be in Haar. But in pursuit of money and power she carries water for the regime and we're still seeing evidence of presidential tampering in ongoing cases. They just can't leave the judges alone, can they?

"Does it strictly require being a liar (who is eager to violate the EPC) or is that a prerequisite in order to become an EPO official?"Less than a day ago we mentioned how "Ms Pyjamas" had been promoting 'Hey Hi' (AI) patents, in effect patents on algorithms. And based on this article from earlier this week, only weeks ago she also vainly promoted illegal software patents disguised as "CII" ("computer-implemented inventions"), another misleading name for software patents. It feels like a 'collusion' with the litigation giants, at the expense of science. To quote some passages: "On Tuesday 25 May 2021, Heli Pihlajamaa, director of patent law at the European Patent Office, gave a presentation to CIPA’s computer technology committee on the Patentability of computer-implemented inventions after the Enlarged Board of Appeal’s decision in G 1/19. G 1/19 relates to the assessment of inventive step in relation to computer-implemented simulations and considered whether to have a technical effect, a simulation must have a direct link to physical reality going beyond its implementation on a computer. In the presentation, Pihlajamaa discussed how the decision of G 1/19 emphasised that the approach in T 641/00 applies to all computer implemented inventions including simulations. In T 641/00 it was decided that while a claim can have a mix of technical and non-technical features, novelty and inventive step can only be based on the technical features. In T 641/00 it was also stated that when assessing inventive step, the claim should solve a technical problem which the skilled person in the particular technical field might be asked to solve."

These are the sorts of people who keep meddling in the online Zoom 'case'. Along with her Hungarian colleague, who lies about opponents of software patents, important decisions will be made. Does it strictly require being a liar (who is eager to violate the EPC) or is that a prerequisite in order to become an EPO official? It certainly seems so. More in the video above. ⬆