The original was posted in a Microsoft site that spies on millions (not that the EPO can ever understand that), hence it is reproduced here without sending traffic to Microsoft, along with our response in-line (fair use doctrine)

Summary: Techrights takes a moment to respond to Daniel X. Thomas, who worries that his criticism of the way António Campinos handled G 1/21 can get him in trouble

THE Benoît Battistelli regime totally obliterated the independence of the Boards of Appeal at the EPO, including that of the highest boards (TBA, EBA/EBoA etc. not exempted from the bollocking and stacking). While it is true that over a decade ago our main critique of the EPO was its practice of granting European software patents "as such", we've since then covered so many other aspects. Until the EPO's management started bribing and blackmailing the media (even blogs like IP Kat) there was an opportunity to see lots of abuses; but then, the EPO's PR budget and legal budget (for lawyers who intimidate bloggers/blogs like IP Kat, Techrights and maybe even Daniel X. Thomas) squashed a lot of that coverage, except here. So now the EPO's head honcho du jour can focus on just ad hominem attacks on one person (yours truly).

"They constantly defame journalists and staff representatives (sometimes even judges!) and then they accuse them of "defamation"..."It's worth taking a moment to respond to a public post from Daniel X. Thomas, "Former Director at European Patent Office" (in his own words; this is how he identifies himself, first and foremost). A lot of the ad hominem attacks happen in private, behind my back, and are then used to justify (secret decisions by EPO management) to go as far as blocking IP Kat and blocking all Internet (Web and beyond) access to Techrights -- basically an utterly desperate effort to prevent people finding out about crimes of EPO management (they don't refute articles/accusations, they just attack the messengers; yes, just like in China...) and then they have the audacity to accuse others of what they're guilty of (projection/hypocrisy). They constantly defame journalists and staff representatives (sometimes even judges!) and then they accuse them of "defamation"...

Chilling.

By the way, now that we use Gemini (gemini:// protocol) people can access all Techrights articles from work, using any of the many Web proxies (there are dozens). Unless the EPO blocks all Gemini Web proxies (i.e. EPO blocks access to literally thousands of different sites!), these dictators cannot block Techrights, except by direct access. They play a game of whack-a-mole. Over gemini:// protocol we serve over 20,000 pages a day.

Before we proceed to the response, which is well overdue, it would be worth pointing out how amusing it is to see EPO managers (even directors!) past and present referring to software patents as "HEY HI" (AI) or "4IR" (along with other buzzwords/nonsense). Well, they clearly never coded or hacked on code, they just push software patents to fill their dirty pockets... and maybe not too shockingly those managers (even directors!) use Microsoft's proprietary software as their 'blogging' platform. Yes, Microsoft -- a top proponent of software patents, including the motor behind many of the European front/lobby/pressure groups that influence the EPO on these matters. We wrote about that countless times in the past. We named the culprits and proxies.

To be clear, Daniel X. Thomas seems like a nice person, but he is deeply misguided. The fact that he so openly supports software patents does not surprise me. In fact, what's the likelihood of an opponent of software patents rising to a director/top-level position at the EPO? I'm not sure why he decided to write this post, but he's probably just worrying about his pension (he did not retire so long ago) because right now his own words are used against his colleagues, who can retaliate against him. They already attack other EPO pensioners as well. There's that old saying, “[i]t is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” (Upton Sinclair)

Since he comes from EPO management and he has made tons of money at the management tier there (without having to pay tax) maybe he prefers to think everything is rosy. Also, harm to the EPO's management puts his own pension at risk.

Thomas:

I have got the "honour" of being quoted in Techrights. http://techrights.org/2021/06/18/superficial-epo-coverage/ I have again had the “honour” of being quoted in Techrights. http://techrights.org/2021/06/20/the-epo-games/ Mr Schestowitz takes every opportunity to attack the EPO, and his methods are abject to say the least.

What do you mean by "methods"?

What do you mean by "attack"?

Let's roll back and clarify the intent of this false narrative.

My profession is under a constant attack from patents, granted by patent offices that ignore caselaw in order to cheat the system, usually for financial gain (and as a favour to "large clients", i.e. multinational monopolies).

Who is attacking whom?

And what does the word "methods" mean in this context? Reporting the facts? Yeah, some methods...

As we shall see in a moment, he relies on the utterly false premise that my sole criticism of the EPO is for software patents; initially it was the sole issue I was aware of, but about 3,500 articles later I've written about so many other issues. It seems like he's lying and oversimplifying the matter, wrongly implying that the sole problem I have with the EPO is patent scope; as if all is well at EPOnia and, as we shall see in a moment, he insists that it's OK to grant software patents. He ignores so many other things, such as the constant lying about the UPC after Brexit. We'll write more about that some time later in the week...

12 hours after we had published this communication a lot of useful comments (3 so far) started showing up here (response to face-saving spin). They cannot keep up with the lies. They try...

Thomas:

It is an “honour” I can do without as I do not agree to see my freedom of opinion repeatedly misused for a campaign against the EPO which I cannot support.

No, Sir. Your freedom to express yourself is protected by the law, but that does not extend to "freedom to have an audience" or "freedom not to be criticised". You might want to look up the very basics of free speech -- something that EPO management never managed to grasp. Heck, it has been blocking this Web site (without explanation/justification) for about 7 years already. It also blocked some other sites and it's constantly gagging its union, its staff representatives, judge, etc. Yes, even this year...

Thomas:

Lots of things might not be optimal at the EPO, but constant slanting it is not a way to help resolving the difficulties the EPO is going through.

"Lots of things might not be optimal" is an understatement -- probably one of the (full) decade if not (half) century in the context of the EPO. Why belittle this crisis? Even the EPO itself called it a crisis some years ago (behind closed doors, but somebody leaked it to us).

Thomas:

I have said certain things about the way the first OP in G 1/21 went along, as my concern is the respect of existing legal rules.

It is important to show that even EPO insiders of a very high level (albeit with lower risks of reprisal) admit these issues.

That's the whole point.

Thomas:

I am convinced that without respect of legal rules we go back to the jungle and the right of the strongest prevails. This is not what I wish for myself, my children and grandchildren.

He keeps bringing up his children (more on that in a moment), which is a bit strange (as if to make it seem like I'm attacking children or something).

Thomas:

What I have said has actually nothing to do with my former quality as EPO staff.

It is not something that just vanishes overnight. The former status is relevant. It's also what pays the pension (still).

Thomas:

It was the view of somebody interested in the topic as it concerns an institution is am still loyal to. Any objective observer could come to similar conclusions.

Good people concede their loyalty when they become witnesses to bad things.

Thomas:

In view of the constant misuse of my honest opinion, I will now refrain from any statement relating to G 1/21.

How was it misused? It was not. It was quoted (and not out of context). What he wants is selective audiences/mentions.

Thomas:

I do not want to help this person to constantly attack the EPO.

I do not attack the EPO; the reason so many EPO workers read Techrights is that we're trying to actually save the EPO from those who attack it from the inside.

Thomas:

It should also be kept in mind that beyond the personal attacks against some members of staff, the pet peeve of this person is the possibility of patenting programmes CII or even AI.

"CII" and "AI" is meaningless nonsense. The fact that he's repeating such meaningless nonsense reaffirms my belief that too many incompetent people make it into top roles at the EPO.

Thomas:

I said it many times, and repeat it once more, contrary to what Mr Schestowitz thinks, CII or even AI are not forbidden by the EPC.

The EPC says nothing about "CII" and "AI", so quit using buzzwords, which you likely don't even understand (nobody is meant to understand such lingo).

Thomas:

The simple considerations as to why CII are well patentable under the EPC is apparently too complicated for Mr Schestowitz to enter in his brain. The doctrinal blindness and hatred of this person against the EPO is indeed flabbergasting.

The typical accusation of "hatred" is an old tactic, suggestive of emotion and irrational feelings. We use simple logic and we observe facts, not financial interest (which is all that matters to EPO management -- that's why it breaks the law).

Thomas:

Last but not least, attacking persons for their supposed likeness with other ones or for their hair colour is absolutely abject.

This is false. I am guessing he alludes to the Willy Wonka thing. It's alluding to "FUDGE" (as in legal fudge), nothing to do with hair colours...

Thomas:

My son and my two grandchildren have red hair, and attacking a person for its hair colour is also attacking my family.

So now he's trying to make it seem like I personally attacked him and his children. I attacked neither.

Now we've entered "crybully" territories.

Thomas:

In view of this turn of events provoked by Mr Schestowitz I have to conclude that this person has managed to silence me due to my status of former staff of the EPO.

Someone from Red Hat once tried the same tactics, basically saying in public that I had "silenced" by merely quoting someone. They try to incite colleagues that way, shifting blame for their own choices/actions.

Did I silence him?

No, someone choosing to not talk anymore is silencing oneself. You know who silences people and sites? The EPO's management. To the point of blocking them and siccing lawyers at them. They did it to me countless times and I'm not alone.

Thomas:

This does not withhold myself to have my idea about the topic and the procedure used to come to a decision. Some of the amicus curiae are quite eloquent in this respect.

We've cited them a lot more than anything from Mr. Thomas. We didn't even say anything negative about him; quite the contrary!

Moreover, we already know (and proved) that the EPO hid some amicus curiae from the public. It only selectively showed what people had to say. That's known as censorship.

From the comment, Thomas:

I had to react. No opportunity to bash the EPO is missed by this person. And I do not want to contribute to this!

You did not contribute. You expressed an opinion in public. Now you want to control who can read it?

Thomas:

The more so since it appears that the only drive for this person is to bash the EPO because it grants patents on CII.

Again, totally false! Straw man argument.

Thomas:

I rarely came across such stubbornness and stupidity.

Now we see insults too. I never insulted him. But here he is using swear words.

Thomas:

I feel a deep loyalty to the organisation and I will not support such a behaviour against it.

It seems sad to me that he has "deep loyalty" to Battistelli's den of corruption. ⬆

Update: As it turns out, Mr. Thomas still works for Battistelli.