f931ca2049b8412eab44b12a7fc3534f
The EPO Deception
Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 4.0
THE EPO's regime, a corrupt collective led by Benoît Battistelli and his friends (including António Campinos, his friend who brought many of his own friends from Alicante), is little but a propaganda operation at this stage. As shown in the video above, perhaps most of the EPO's patents are nowadays European software patents. They're faking 'growth' by granting lots of invalid patents that don't comply with the EPC.
"They're faking 'growth' by granting lots of invalid patents that don't comply with the EPC."To make matters worse, if one looks at this year's 'news' section (lies section) (warning: epo.org link) of the EPO's Web site, it is based not on reality but on fiction. This latest post (warning: epo.org link), dated today, is entitled "[p]atent applications in Europe reach record level in 2021" and it comes shortly after EPO staff shared figures showing a massive collapse in the number of EPO grants, owing of course to industrial actions. The collapse in patent quality is driving fake 'demand' and the EPO has just openly admitted that about 80% of applications come from megacorporations, few of which are actually European. So who or what is the EPO actually for? Whose agenda is being advanced now that EPO management breaks laws, violates constitutions, and trashes the EPC? The whole point of the EPC was to prevent the agenda being warped so badly and granting authority being subjected to perverse distortion/misinterpretation. As noted in yesterday's comment (the last one on the sole coverage of EPO strikes this past month, except our coverage) :
Assessment of €« quality €« which relies on revocation or nullification decisions seems logical when taking a legal approach. But it can only be based on a very small percentage of granted patents and takes place years, sometimes many years after the grant. In addition, the context in terms of the resources devoted by the parties and thoroughness of the review by the BOA or the court is quite different from the context of examination proceedings. This is why I do not think such an assessment can yield meaningful conclusions. I agree with your concern regarding the difference between T 1989/18 and T 1024/18 over the requirement to adapt the description to the claim as granted. This is important practically speaking for applicants since it affects a great deal of applications. My personal view is that the adaptation is useless but entails additional costs and delays and opens up potential 123(2) issues. Another recent decision, T 0550/14 relating to a business method (Managing funding of catastrophe relief efforts), while it suggests an interesting approach to the assessment of what is €« non-technical €», does not seem to comply with the approach of the case law of the BOAs (2019, 1.4.1) which rejects the approach of the contribution to the prior art, and is at loggerheads with T 2101/12 (Vasco) over the definition of the skilled person and of the closest prior art. T 2101/12 was issued by BOA 3.5.06, not by BOA 3.5.01 which has issued T 0550/14.
"The media is bribed and blackmailed to pretend all is well in EPOnia"See the above for more information. There's a bunch of very decent comments in there and the latest one, shown in the video, says the above (it's the last comment that can be posted due to time-limited posting periods).
We probably won't be hearing about the EPO's strike anymore. The media is bribed and blackmailed to pretend all is well in EPOnia. The strike was never a secret. ⬆